Spot The Difference

[Richard Smith]

Truly confirmed those boxes were in place due to the floor laying project on the 6th floor.  The only boxes out of place were those Rolling Reader boxes that Oswald moved as a gun rest.  The very ones that had his prints on them. 

None of this is in the testimony you quoted.

Yes, it does.  Truly confirms that the only cartons that didn't belong there were the Rolling Reader boxes.   If they are out of place, then the other boxes were, as he explained, properly in that location.  No one - Oswald or anyfantasy conspirator - could have moved all the boxes around that window unnoticed in an effort to construct the SN.  There were dozens on large boxes. It was already largely in place.  And Oswald just moved a few smaller boxes to construct the gun rest.

Representative FORD. The Rolling Reader boxes were not ordinarily in that southeast corner?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir. That was not the place for them. They were 40 feet or so away.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yes, it does.  Truly confirms that the only cartons that didn't belong there were the Rolling Reader boxes.   If they are out of place, then the other boxes were, as he explained, properly in that location.  No one - Oswald or anyfantasy conspirator - could have moved all the boxes around that window unnoticed in an effort to construct the SN.  There were dozens on large boxes. It was already largely in place.  And Oswald just moved a few smaller boxes to construct the gun rest.

Representative FORD. The Rolling Reader boxes were not ordinarily in that southeast corner?
Mr. TRULY. No, sir. That was not the place for them. They were 40 feet or so away.

Amazing. You still don't understand that your conclusions about what Truly is saying is not evidence.

[Dan O'meara]

Whatever the 'correct setup', Ozzie still shot Jack.  End of story.  It was his lucky day....... sigh+  but not for us.

So having two completely different set-ups in evidence is ok with you?
You're satisfied with that?
It doesn't tell you something about the incompetent/corrupt nature of the investigation?

[Bill Chapman]

Whatever the 'correct setup', Ozzie still shot Jack.  End of story.  It was his lucky day....... sigh+  but not for us.

It was a lucky day for conspiracy-authors everywhere. They got to line their pockets thanks to the Oswald-loving crowd, who in turn found something to live for, which in turn gives Oswald a real shot at being remembered for the next 10,000 9,942 years. Which in turn, down in Hell, keeps a permanent smirk on the little prick's face.

[Richard Smith]

So having two completely different set-ups in evidence is ok with you?
You're satisfied with that?
It doesn't tell you something about the incompetent/corrupt nature of the investigation?

Obviously, the crime scene analysis in Nov. '63 would be vastly different than today.  Is that ideal? No.  But that doesn't negate for a second, however, the basic evidence that links Oswald to this crime beyond doubt.  His rifle, his prints, his bullet casings, no alibi, flight from the crime scene, involvement in another murder less than an hour later.  It's a slam dunk.  If we never know exactly how Oswald arranged the boxes because the cops moved them around while searching for evidence, then so be it.  It means nothing in terms of Oswald's guilt. 

[Dan O'meara]

Obviously, the crime scene analysis in Nov. '63 would be vastly different than today.  Is that ideal? No.  But that doesn't negate for a second, however, the basic evidence that links Oswald to this crime beyond doubt.  His rifle, his prints, his bullet casings, no alibi, flight from the crime scene, involvement in another murder less than an hour later.  It's a slam dunk.  If we never know exactly how Oswald arranged the boxes because the cops moved them around while searching for evidence, then so be it.  It means nothing in terms of Oswald's guilt.

My point isn't about how the boxes were originally arranged.
It's about having two completely different set ups in evidence. If this was the only example of the profound incompetence/corruption of the investigation, it would still be bad enough. This is the crime scene.
The doubts about the investigation allow all sorts of  to proliferate - there can be little doubt about that - but to describe an investigation that is as shoddy as these pictures demonstrate as a "slam dunk" is way off.
It doesn't mean Oswald didn't do it but the confidence you exhibit about it is unwarranted.

[Richard Smith]

My point isn't about how the boxes were originally arranged.
It's about having two completely different set ups in evidence. If this was the only example of the profound incompetence/corruption of the investigation, it would still be bad enough. This is the crime scene.
The doubts about the investigation allow all sorts of  to proliferate - there can be little doubt about that - but to describe an investigation that is as shoddy as these pictures demonstrate as a "slam dunk" is way off.
It doesn't mean Oswald didn't do it but the confidence you exhibit about it is unwarranted.

The evidence is the evidence.  There is no doubt that Oswald's rifle was found on the floor from which witnesses saw a rifle in the SN window.  Fired bullet casings from that same rifle were found by that window.  Oswald's prints on are the boxes by that window.  He has no alibi for the moment of the shooting.  Instead he flees the scene and becomes involved in another murder.  He lies to the police about his ownership of the rifle.  It is actually difficult to imagine how we could have much more evidence of his guilt.  The pedantic analysis of chicken bones and arrangement of the boxes has some historical interest but does absolutely nothing to rebut the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt.  That is mostly just rabbit hole nitpicking that many CTer like to go down instead of dealing with the basic evidence of the case.   I agree, however, that the investigators provided fodder to CTers by making many premature statements about the investigation that were erroneous.   The issue, however, is not whether the investigation was ideal by modern standards but whether LHO assassinated JFK.  And there is no doubt as to the latter.

[Dan O'meara]

The evidence is the evidence.  There is no doubt that Oswald's rifle was found on the floor from which witnesses saw a rifle in the SN window.  Fired bullet casings from that same rifle were found by that window.  Oswald's prints on are the boxes by that window.  He has no alibi for the moment of the shooting.  Instead he flees the scene and becomes involved in another murder.  He lies to the police about his ownership of the rifle.  It is actually difficult to imagine how we could have much more evidence of his guilt.  The pedantic analysis of chicken bones and arrangement of the boxes has some historical interest but does absolutely nothing to rebut the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt.  That is mostly just rabbit hole nitpicking that many CTer like to go down instead of dealing with the basic evidence of the case.   I agree, however, that the investigators provided fodder to CTers by making many premature statements about the investigation that were erroneous.   The issue, however, is not whether the investigation was ideal by modern standards but whether LHO assassinated JFK.  And there is no doubt as to the latter.

"The issue, however, is not whether the investigation was ideal by modern standards"

To imagine having two different set ups for the crime scene was ideal by the standards of the 1960's is dubious, to say the least.
To imagine this is "nit-picking" is plain wrong.
As for the "pedantic" examination of the lunch remains...if Oswald's prints would've been on the soda pop bottle it would have been one of the most important pieces of physical evidence in the case, placing Oswald in the SN. But his prints weren't found on it so it was lost/discarded/ignored. Questions of a potential accomplice weren't entertained for a second. When the evidence was sent off to the FBI that evening the lunch remains were not even considered evidence. The Oswald-Did-It-Alone mentality was in full force on day one. Again, this doesn't mean Oswald didn't do it, it just means the investigation was so incompetent and so blinkered that it can come as no surprise it is still being questioned today.
Just to remind you:




How crazy is this?