Lincoln Assassination Status: a Still Open or Reopenable FBI Investigation?

[John Iacoletti]

I assume that you accept that Booth assassinated Lincoln?  Apply your standard of proof used in the JFK case to the Lincoln assassination so that we can understand the difference with Oswald.  Link Booth to the weapon for example.  Where are the prints, pictures, documents, serial numbers, and witness testimony that link Booth to this specific pistol?  Where did he obtain it from?  Where did he buy his ammo?  Prove to us that Booth even carried that pistol or any pistol into Ford's Theatre.

Why do you have to link a weapon to Booth?  The only reason you try to link a weapon to Oswald is that you have nothing else.

An entire theater box full of people saw him standing there with a derringer immediately after Lincoln was shot and they knew him.  Rathbone fought with him and was stabbed by Booth.  An entire theater full of people who knew who he was saw him leap from the box shouting "Sic Semper Tyrannus".  He had accomplices who ratted him out.  He had a diary in which he said he did it.

The only way this would be the slightest bit analogous is if Lincoln keeled over and nobody saw anybody or anything, but a derringer was found elsewhere in the theater an hour later and a photo turned up of Booth holding a little gun that may or may not have been the same gun.

It doesn't freakin' matter whether anybody can prove if Booth bought the weapon, because that's not evidence that would prove who killed Lincoln.

"I walked with a firm step through a thousand of his friends, was stopped, but pushed on. A colonel was at his side. I shouted Sic semper before I fired. In jumping broke my leg. I passed all his pickets, rode sixty miles that night with the bone of my leg tearing the flesh at every jump. I can never repent it, though we hated to kill. Our country owed all her troubles to him, and God simply made me the instrument of his punishment." -- John Wilkes Booth

"I didn't shoot anybody, no sir. I'm just a patsy". —Lee Harvey Oswald

[Richard Smith]

Wow.  The guy who repeatedly questions handwriting analysis as unscientific in the case of "Hidell" cites Booth's handwritten diary as evidence of his guilt!  LOL.  You can't make that up.  And we learn it suddenly doesn't matter whether you can link Booth and by implication Oswald to the murder weapons?  I'm speechless at the profound ignorance of that statement.  And who are these "entire theatre" full of witnesses who saw Booth with a Derringer?  You made that up.  They must have had great eyesight to ID the weapon in his hand in a darkened theatre while their attention was focused on the play and match it to the one found later.  But the witnesses who saw Oswald with a gun at the Tippit scene are discounted.  Did any of these witnesses see Booth shoot Lincoln per the pedantic standard you apply to the JFK and Tippit murder?  So what you confirm is that you believe Booth is guilty even though you can't link him to the alleged murder weapon found at the scene, link that weapon to the murder, or have any witness that saw him carry it into Ford's Theatre.  In addition, no witness saw him "shoot" Lincoln as you interpret that term in the JFK case.  He was just there at his work place like a bunch of other actors.  But he is obviously guilty while there is somehow doubt concerning Oswald.

btw:  Rathbone later murdered his wife and was committed to an insane asylum.  Maybe he assassinated Lincoln that is why Booth fought him.  It's possible and that is all that counts when trying to raise false doubt.

[Bill Chapman]

Wow.  The guy who repeatedly questions handwriting analysis as unscientific in the case of "Hidell" cites Booth's handwritten diary as evidence of his guilt!  LOL.  You can't make that up.  And we learn it suddenly doesn't matter whether you can link Booth and by implication Oswald to the murder weapons?  I'm speechless at the profound ignorance of that statement.  And who are these "entire theatre" full of witnesses who saw Booth with a Derringer?  You made that up.  They must have had great eyesight to ID the weapon in his hand in a darkened theatre while their attention was focused on the play and match it to the one found later.  But the witnesses who saw Oswald with a gun at the Tippit scene are discounted.  Did any of these witnesses see Booth shoot Lincoln per the pedantic standard you apply to the JFK and Tippit murder?  So what you confirm is that you believe Booth is guilty even though you can't link him to the alleged murder weapon found at the scene, link that weapon to the murder, or have any witness that saw him carry it into Ford's Theatre.  In addition, no witness saw him "shoot" Lincoln as you interpret that term in the JFK case.  He was just there at his work place like a bunch of other actors.  But he is obviously guilty while there is somehow doubt concerning Oswald.

 

Good one "Richard" Richard...

In tennis, they say play the other guy's game, but better. Seems you've trapped a rat.

[Thomas Graves]

Shouldn't this thread be in the "Off Topic" section?

-- MWT 

[John Mytton]

Wow.  The guy who repeatedly questions handwriting analysis as unscientific in the case of "Hidell" cites Booth's handwritten diary as evidence of his guilt!  LOL.  You can't make that up.  And we learn it suddenly doesn't matter whether you can link Booth and by implication Oswald to the murder weapons?  I'm speechless at the profound ignorance of that statement.  And who are these "entire theatre" full of witnesses who saw Booth with a Derringer?  You made that up.  They must have had great eyesight to ID the weapon in his hand in a darkened theatre while their attention was focused on the play and match it to the one found later.  But the witnesses who saw Oswald with a gun at the Tippit scene are discounted.  Did any of these witnesses see Booth shoot Lincoln per the pedantic standard you apply to the JFK and Tippit murder?  So what you confirm is that you believe Booth is guilty even though you can't link him to the alleged murder weapon found at the scene, link that weapon to the murder, or have any witness that saw him carry it into Ford's Theatre.  In addition, no witness saw him "shoot" Lincoln as you interpret that term in the JFK case.  He was just there at his work place like a bunch of other actors.  But he is obviously guilty while there is somehow doubt concerning Oswald.

btw:  Rathbone later murdered his wife and was committed to an insane asylum.  Maybe he assassinated Lincoln that is why Booth fought him.  It's possible and that is all that counts when trying to raise false doubt.

Thanks for baiting him and exposing the outrageous double standards. Hilarious!

JohnM

[Steve Howsley]

That was as complete a destruction of an Anyone But Oswald fraud as I've seen Richard Smith. Kudos. 

[Bill Chapman]

That was as complete a destruction of an Anyone But Oswald fraud as I've seen Richard Smith. Kudos. 

Richard has made CTer bubbleheads explode everywhere, and without even yodelling.

[John Iacoletti]

Wow.  The guy who repeatedly questions handwriting analysis as unscientific in the case of "Hidell" cites Booth's handwritten diary as evidence of his guilt!  LOL.  You can't make that up.

Again with the false equivalacies, but not at all surprising coming from Strawman "Richard".

Booth's diary was found on his person, not identified as his handwriting via 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order blank.

  And we learn it suddenly doesn't matter whether you can link Booth and by implication Oswald to the murder weapons?

Because you don't have any actual evidence that Oswald shot anybody, so you have to resort to gymnastics over the purchase of the weapon.

  I'm speechless at the profound ignorance of that statement.  And who are these "entire theatre" full of witnesses who saw Booth with a Derringer?  You made that up.

I'm speechless at your inability to read.  I said that the theatre full of people saw him leap from the balcony.

  They must have had great eyesight to ID the weapon in his hand in a darkened theatre while their attention was focused on the play and match it to the one found later.  But the witnesses who saw Oswald with a gun at the Tippit scene are discounted.

False equivalence.  Booth was a famous actor who theater patrons knew well.  Oswald was identified in unfair rigged lineups by people who didn't know him and described him differently.

  Did any of these witnesses see Booth shoot Lincoln per the pedantic standard you apply to the JFK and Tippit murder?

Booth was seen in the theater box with a gun in his hand immediately after Lincoln was shot.  Oswald was seen in a different location a couple minutes after JFK was shot with no gun in his hand.  See how that works?

    In addition, no witness saw him "shoot" Lincoln as you interpret that term in the JFK case.  He was just there at his work place like a bunch of other actors.  But he is obviously guilty while there is somehow doubt concerning Oswald.

Nobody saw Oswald do anything.  It's not surprising that you don't see the difference, because to you speculation is considered evidence.

btw:  Rathbone later murdered his wife and was committed to an insane asylum.  Maybe he assassinated Lincoln that is why Booth fought him.  It's possible and that is all that counts when trying to raise false doubt.

Cool.  Any evidence of this mental instability in 1865?  Clara Harris and Mary Todd were in the presidential box too.

Witnesses who saw Oswald shoot JFK:  ZERO

The only reason you have to pretend you know that it was "Oswald's rifle" is because you don't have anything else.  In Booth's case they had eyewitnesses. They had accomplices.  They had a diary.  They didn't have to resort to nonsense like "he left his ring in a cup" as "evidence".

Booth:  Sic Semper Tyrannis
Oswald: I really don't know what the situation is about. Nobody has told me anything.

But if you want to make a case for reasonable doubt in Lincoln's murder, then knock yourself out.  It does nothing to advance your case against Oswald.