If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[Dan O'meara]

How did this thread get so serious?
Lance was only proposing a simple thought experiment - make a simple conspiracy theory involving as few people as possible.
It's just an exercise in imagination and speculation. It doesn't require anyone to compromise their belief system. Even the most rabid Nutter can have a little fun.
I don't mind having a go first, let's see who can come up with a more simple scenario.

Let's start with a couple of old friends indulging in Cuban cigars and the finest Cognac in the privacy of an oak-paneled room.
One is the man who benefited the most from from JFK's death. A man who truly loathed Kennedy and was ruthless enough to have him killed - Lyndon Baines Johnson.
The other is one of his oldest and dearest friends - David Harold Byrd - the man who owns the Texas School Book Depository. Let's imagine they agree that JFK has to go. All LBJ has to do is make JFK's trip to Dallas happen and pick a venue that would require the motorcade route to pass by the TSBD building. Byrd would take care of the rest. In return, when Johnson is President he is to award Byrd's company, Ling-Temco-Vought, a massive military defense contract to build fighter planes worth hundreds of millions and to prevent the removal of the oil depletion allowance. Which he does.

The number one consideration is that there can be no trail leading back to Byrd and Johnson. That is the very top priority. The fewer people involved the better. The more simple the better - one man firing a rifle from the TSBD building.
Byrd involves Jack Cason, President and Treasurer of the TSBD. Jack has just the man for the job, ex-CIA man Bill Shelley (is it possible to be "ex" with the CIA?).
A plan is formed involving a shooter and a patsy
This conspiracy involves 5 people, a few private conversations and a patsy.

As for the cover-up?
There isn't one.
The Dallas Police investigation is just profoundly incompetent, to an almost comical degree. All Dallas officers believe the Commie cop-killer is as guilty as can be. It's strange how universal this feeling is as soon as Oswald is arrested, that he is the shooter and that he acted alone and their investigation is going to show that.
Before the FBI investigation has really started the word comes from Hoover himself that Oswald is the lone assassin and that is what the investigation is going to show. The result of the investigation is decided at the outset and the loyalty of FBI agents is not to truth or justice or any of that...it's to the Bureau. And Hoover IS the Bureau.
The Warren Commission is nothing more than an FBI investigation wearing a tutu.

5 people
1 patsy
and no cover-up.

Beat that 

[John Mytton]

Here we go again, so not only did the secret service agents lie and plant evidence, but the Dallas Police also lied about different pieces evidence,

Now who is being paranoid? I never said that. All I did in my previous post is provide information from the official record, but it's telling that you seem to believe that no law enforcement agent could or would ever lie.

For crying out loud, Hoover, who ran the FBI back then, was the biggest criminal of them all. Using his office to spy on politicians etc and even black mailing Presidents. To you he must be a quireboy!
And just how many of verdicts obtained by Henry Wade, with false and/or manipulated evidence have been overturned by now? Another quireboy, in your mind, I'm sure.

There were several officers who claimed that they found the paper bag at the sniper's nest, but none of them lied, right?

DPD claimed that the backyard photos (and negatives) were found during the second search (the one with the warrant) on SaPersonay afternoon, yet Fritz showed Oswald a blow up of one of the photos on SaPersonay morning and Micheal Paine confirmed in a tv interview many years later that a FBI officer had shown him a photo showing Oswald holding a rifle on Friday evening, because he wanted to know if Paine knew where the photo was taken.

And how is it possible that Oswald's grey jacket had the initials of seven officers on it, when all we know is that only two unidentified officers and Capt. Westbrook ever handled the jacket?

And Hill didn't lie when he testified under oath that he kept the S & W revolver on his person all the time, when the receipt of the evidence room tells a different story. What's that like; to believe that Hill and Davenport didn't lie when they actually contradict what the other said?

As for the Secret Service agents; they followed orders when they returned the President's limousine, which was a crime scene, illegally to Washington and then had one of their own search tamper with that crime scene without documenting anything. But I'm sure, for you, that's all totally insignificant, right? All that matters is that Frazier was given fragments of bullets they said were found in the limousine. 

It's like I said earlier; you've got it figured out. Just ignore all the details and just declare Oswald guilty simply because he is, right John?

Hold on Cowboy as I previously stated, this case and the magnitude of the investigation wasn't like a solitary act of planting weed but involved hundreds of law enforcement members investigating a stack of varied evidence and all of these investigators would realize that each and every one of their actions was under intense scrutiny and could be easily tracked through cross referencing.
But alas what you fail to comprehend is that people are not identical machines and we all have our own interpretations of colour, time, procedures, memories, etc, so when you jump up and down in elated joy when you discover a minor discrepancy that you immediately jump to your suspicious conclusion, is in fact nothing of the kind and you really need to step back and look at the big picture and then you will discover like most rational people that there can be only one path!

JohnM

[Lance Payette]

Terms like conclusive and absolute, which Martin loves, are simply not part of the lexicon of either courtroom trials or historical research. This is just semantic game-playing, and I decline to play.

Evidence is either relevant and credible or it isn't. Inferences from relevant and credible evidence are either reasonable or they aren't. Conclusions either follow logically from the evidence and inferences or they don't.

Conclusive and absolute are subjective terms. Juries are required to find liability in a civil trial by a preponderance of the evidence - not "absolute" liability by "conclusive" evidence. Ditto for criminal trials - guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but not free-of-all-doubt conclusive or absolute guilt by conclusive or absolute evidence.

I continue to say Martin tips his hand by relying on such terms. What is the "conclusive" evidence of Oswald's "absolute" innocence? What is the "conclusive" evidence there "absolutely" was a conspiracy?

I believe credible evidence and reasonable inferences support a logical and reasonable conclusion that Oswald was a lone gunman. Beyond that, I'm not going to get sucked into Yet Another Pointless, Wheel-Spinning Debate about specific items of evidence. The Monty Python argument video captures the problem nicely.

[Lance Payette]

How did this thread get so serious?
Lance was only proposing a simple thought experiment - make a simple conspiracy theory involving as few people as possible.
It's just an exercise in imagination and speculation. It doesn't require anyone to compromise their belief system. Even the most rabid Nutter can have a little fun.

Dan, you are my new favorite poster!

I don't mind having a go first, let's see who can come up with a more simple scenario.

Let's start with a couple of old friends indulging in Cuban cigars and the finest Cognac in the privacy of an oak-paneled room.
One is the man who benefited the most from from JFK's death. A man who truly loathed Kennedy and was ruthless enough to have him killed - Lyndon Baines Johnson.
The other is one of his oldest and dearest friends - David Harold Byrd - the man who owns the Texas School Book Depository. Let's imagine they agree that JFK has to go. All LBJ has to do is make JFK's trip to Dallas happen and pick a venue that would require the motorcade route to pass by the TSBD building. Byrd would take care of the rest. In return, when Johnson is President he is to award Byrd's company, Ling-Temco-Vought, a massive military defense contract to build fighter planes worth hundreds of millions and to prevent the removal of the oil depletion allowance. Which he does.

The number one consideration is that there can be no trail leading back to Byrd and Johnson. That is the very top priority. The fewer people involved the better. The more simple the better - one man firing a rifle from the TSBD building.
Byrd involves Jack Cason, President and Treasurer of the TSBD. Jack has just the man for the job, ex-CIA man Bill Shelley (is it possible to be "ex" with the CIA?).
A plan is formed involving a shooter and a patsy
This conspiracy involves 5 people, a few private conversations and a patsy.

As for the cover-up?
There isn't one.
The Dallas Police investigation is just profoundly incompetent, to an almost comical degree. All Dallas officers believe the Commie cop-killer is as guilty as can be. It's strange how universal this feeling is as soon as Oswald is arrested, that he is the shooter and that he acted alone and their investigation is going to show that.
Before the FBI investigation has really started the word comes from Hoover himself that Oswald is the lone assassin and that is what the investigation is going to show. The result of the investigation is decided at the outset and the loyalty of FBI agents is not to truth or justice or any of that...it's to the Bureau. And Hoover IS the Bureau.
The Warren Commission is nothing more than an FBI investigation wearing a tutu.

5 people
1 patsy
and no cover-up.

Beat that 

Fine, but I do think my thread about "Is this a plausible conspiracy theory?" - which received little attention - is simpler. Some person or persons in Mexico City suggest to Oswald that the assassination of JFK will make him a hero to Castro and ensure his entry into Cuba. Perhaps they even suggest they will be waiting, either near Dallas or in Mexico, to ferry him to Cuba when the deed is done. Perhaps it's all BS or perhaps they are sincere. It's a conspiracy, albeit not a very sexy one. Oswald remains the lone gunman whom LNers know and love.

To me, it's just inconceivable to explain the events of 11-22 in terms of Oswald as a patsy. Even in your scenario, I can't imagine how he would have been allowed to live. Shelley claims to have seen him doing the deed, wrestles the rifle from him as he attempts to escape, and nails him at the elevator - much cleaner, it seems to me.

[Martin Weidmann]

Hold on Cowboy as I previously stated, this case and the magnitude of the investigation wasn't like a solitary act of planting weed but involved hundreds of law enforcement members investigating a stack of varied evidence and all of these investigators would realize that each and every one of their actions was under intense scrutiny and could be easily tracked through cross referencing.
But alas what you fail to comprehend is that people are not identical machines and we all have our own interpretations of colour, time, procedures, memories, etc, so when you jump up and down in elated joy when you discover a minor discrepancy that you immediately jump to your suspicious conclusion, is in fact nothing of the kind and you really need to step back and look at the big picture and then you will discover like most rational people that there can be only one path!

JohnM

A minor discrepancy?

Just how many of those do you need before you start to wonder that perhaps something else might be going on?

Remembering incorrectly at what time you did something might be a minor discrepancy, but when you claim, like Hill did, that you kept the suspects alleged revolver on your person all the time, and the receipt shows that another officer actually submitted the revolver to the evidence room you are way beyond a minor discrepancy. And that's not jumping to a suspicious conclusion! It's a matter of documented fact! But I fully understand that you don't want to deal with evidentiary problems when you can just as easily dismiss or ignore it.

[John Mytton]

A minor discrepancy?

Just how many of those do you need before you start to wonder that perhaps something else might be going on?

Remembering incorrectly at what time you did something might be a minor discrepancy, but when you claim, like Hill did, that you kept the suspects alleged revolver on your person all the time, and the receipt shows that another officer actually submitted the revolver to the evidence room you are way beyond a minor discrepancy. And that's not jumping to a suspicious conclusion! It's a matter of documented fact! But I fully understand that you don't want to deal with evidentiary problems when you can just as easily dismiss or ignore it.

As I just told you, some people have a slightly different interpretation of time, big deal!
Hill didn't keep the revolver and submitted it at some point, so exactly what are you trying to say?

Besides Oswald not only was apprehended with a revolver but Oswald admitted to many Dallas Policemen that he was carrying a revolver and the revolver in evidence is the same revolver that he was sent!

Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.

Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.



JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Terms like conclusive and absolute, which Martin loves, are simply not part of the lexicon of either courtroom trials or historical research. This is just semantic game-playing, and I decline to play.

Evidence is either relevant and credible or it isn't. Inferences from relevant and credible evidence are either reasonable or they aren't. Conclusions either follow logically from the evidence and inferences or they don't.

Conclusive and absolute are subjective terms. Juries are required to find liability in a civil trial by a preponderance of the evidence - not "absolute" liability by "conclusive" evidence. Ditto for criminal trials - guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but not free-of-all-doubt conclusive or absolute guilt by conclusive or absolute evidence.

I continue to say Martin tips his hand by relying on such terms. What is the "conclusive" evidence of Oswald's "absolute" innocence? What is the "conclusive" evidence there "absolutely" was a conspiracy?

I believe credible evidence and reasonable inferences support a logical and reasonable conclusion that Oswald was a lone gunman. Beyond that, I'm not going to get sucked into Yet Another Pointless, Wheel-Spinning Debate about specific items of evidence. The Monty Python argument video captures the problem nicely.

Terms like conclusive and absolute, which Martin loves, are simply not part of the lexicon of either courtroom trials or historical research.

So when the LNs claim that Oswald is guilty it's not an absolute claim?

I believe credible evidence and reasonable inferences support a logical and reasonable conclusion that Oswald was a lone gunman.

Wow! You believe that evidence is credible and inferences are reasonable and that the conclusion that Oswald was a lone gunman is a logical and reasonable conclusion.

As we are dealing with the subject of belief, do you also believe that whatever you believe could possibly be wrong?

[Dan O'meara]

Dan, you are my new favorite poster!Fine, but I do think my thread about "Is this a plausible conspiracy theory?" - which received little attention - is simpler. Some person or persons in Mexico City suggest to Oswald that the assassination of JFK will make him a hero to Castro and ensure his entry into Cuba. Perhaps they even suggest they will be waiting, either near Dallas or in Mexico, to ferry him to Cuba when the deed is done. Perhaps it's all BS or perhaps they are sincere. It's a conspiracy, albeit not a very sexy one. Oswald remains the lone gunman whom LNers know and love.

Good effort but in order to maintain the crown I'm going to have to call "foul".
Technically your scenario isn't actually a conspiracy.
It's more like coming up with a motive for Oswald's actions than it is a genuine conspiracy.
Oswald is still a Lone Nutter.
You had me on the ropes for a second there

To me, it's just inconceivable to explain the events of 11-22 in terms of Oswald as a patsy. Even in your scenario, I can't imagine how he would have been allowed to live. Shelley claims to have seen him doing the deed, wrestles the rifle from him as he attempts to escape, and nails him at the elevator - much cleaner, it seems to me.

I would have to argue that the first thing that cements Oswald's guilt in the eyes of everyone is him leaving the scene of the crime. He is confronted on the 2nd floor 90 seconds after the shooting, which is almost as good as an alibi as no one is going to believe that a fleeing assassin stopped off to get a Coke. If he held his nerve he could bluff his way to freedom but he runs and it is this that seals his fate.
Having him on the run is crucial to establishing his guilt.

As for Shelley, he would need a cast iron alibi, so he would have to be visible to everyone on the front steps at the time of the shots. Within seconds a motorcycle cop was on the scene scuppering any chance of dealing with Oswald if that's what he wanted to do but, according to Oswald, it seems it was Shelley who told him to run along. Something Shelley obviously denied.