If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[Dan O'meara]

The "evidentiary standards" (to use the term loosely) in Conspiracy Logic are as upside-down as everything else. The question of whether Oswald took the shots is not analyzed in a vacuum. What you refer to as "just a theory" is in fact an inference based upon a veritable mountain of evidence, including Oswald's ownership of the rifle as one of the primary items. Your "theory" starts with a presumption that Oswald was framed, for which there is no mountain of evidence; this theory is simply not (IMO and the opinion of most experts on the evidence) a reasonable inference from what is known.

I'm glad you still agree that Oswald taking the shots is just a theory.
My own theory didn't "start" with the presumption that Oswald was framed. My initial thoughts on the assassination were based around Oswald taking the shots from the Sniper's Nest and a shooter on the grassy knoll. This was primarily based on the perceived "back and to the left" movement of JFK. As I became more familiar with the evidence my "theory" has altered based on my best interpretation of that evidence.
Rather than have someone else do my thinking for me I've done it for myself.
And, if you really are familiar with this case you would be aware that any piece of credible evidence relating to who was on the 6th floor before, during and after the assassination points away from Oswald. I laid this list of evidence out for you in Reply#82 of this thread but you disappeared.

As to your LBJ-Byrd-Cason-Shelley-sniper-patsy theory, I thought I had addressed pretty specifically why I believe it is neither simple nor plausible. It is not plausible to me that the Vice President of the United States and one of the wealthiest men in Texas would put their very lives in the hands of Cason and a cluck like Shelley (and then allow them to live). There is no evidence of which I am aware that Cason or Shelley benefitted materially from their participation in this Crime of the Century. Shelley continued to work at the TSBD for 40 years, dying at age 70 in 1996 - what was his big reward? Moreover, your scenario just conveniently ignores all the issues raised in my original post in this thread in terms of what the control of Oswald and the actual assassination would have looked like. Presumably the wild-and-crazy post-assassination activities of Oswald were not part of the plan. If LBJ really wanted JFK dead, I give him credit for being far more clever and savvy than what the JFKA actually looked like.

As I said, you made a couple of really weak points which were comprehensively dealt with then you disappeared.

[Mitch Todd]

"Authentic" and "authenticated" are two parallel concepts that are not necessarily the same thing. An authentic item is always authentic whether or not it has been authenticated.

Agreed, but for something to be used as evidence of guilt, I will have to be authenticated.

A related issue is the inevitable appearance That Guy who invariably demands to apply a highly personal standard for authentication.

There is no such thing as demanding a "highly personal standard". A piece of evidence can either be authenticated or it can not.

Said highly personal standard is almost always specifically designed to set the bar impractically high, and rarely resembles what is actually done in practice.

And who decides what is actually done in practice? The person who sets the bar low?

The purpose of all this is to allow That Guy to simply ignore hostile evidence by trying to use a bogus authentication standard to unilaterally declare that the hostile evidence is "unauthenticated," then equating "unauthenticated" with "invalid"

and then there is a guy who uses his low standard to declare evidence valid..... So, where does that leave us?

MW: Agreed, but for something to be used as evidence of guilt, I will have to be authenticated.

It's always about you, isn't it?  . OK, just kidding. Mostly. You will have it authenticated. And, you will of course apply your own personal standard as to what constitutes properly authenticated. And this standard will be designed from the outset to prevent it from being, in your mind, authenticated. But it's all simply nothing more than a ruse to avoid dealing with evidence that you find inconvenient.


MW: There is no such thing as demanding a "highly personal standard"

This is exactly what you've been doing. 
 

MW: A piece of evidence can either be authenticated or it can not.

Authentication is a proxy for authenticity. It does not in and of itself actually prove or disprove authenticity, especially the latter. Doubly especially when the authentication method is designed from the outset to prevent an item from being authenticated in the first place.

 
MW: And who decides what is actually done in practice? The person who sets the bar low

The people who actually do it in practice. In 1963, it was done the way that WC did it: by asking the official who first took possession of the item if he could positively identify it as the thing he took possession of. This process is actually dialectic: what is the evidence that the item is authentic, vs what is the evidence that the item is invalid. There is already evidence that the pistol is authentic, and none that shows that it is invalid.


MW: and then there is a guy who uses his low standard to declare evidence valid..... So, where does that leave us?

If I use the unreasonably high standard, I have an item that is not authenticated, but has not been shown to be invalid. If I use the low standard, I have an item that has been authenticated, but has not been shown to be invalid. Either way, it has not been shown to be invalid.

[John Mytton]

We're definitely going to have to disagree over what's obvious and what's not.
The fleeing assassin hears his boss shouting up the elevator shaft and feels the need to find a "neutral explainable territory"??
Why does it need to be "explainable" if it's Truly?
Let's say he hears footsteps thundering up the wooden staircase as he gets on the 2nd floor and decides to duck in through the vestibule door just in case. To his left is the lunchroom, to his right is a door leading to a corridor that can take him to the stairs down to the front lobby (or he can go through the office space).
One way is freedom and the other is a dead end. So he chooses the dead end? Not convinced. Surely he's either a fleeing assassin or he's not.

Any reasonable person would automatically assume that a fleeing assassin would opt to make his way to the entrance of the building. I think it's obvious that, because you view Oswald as the assassin, you have to come up with some kind of explanation for his presence in the 2nd floor lunchroom when, in fact, the unlikeliness of the incident points to an explanation other than Oswald coming down from the 6th.
The best thing that can be said is that it's not impossible that Oswald decided to duck into the lunchroom to get away from approaching footsteps then decided to get a Coke as some kind of cover. It's just really unlikely.

Let's say he hears footsteps thundering up the wooden staircase as he gets on the 2nd floor and decides to duck in through the vestibule door just in case. To his left is the lunchroom, to his right is a door leading to a corridor that can take him to the stairs down to the front lobby (or he can go through the office space).

Oswald had two choices be somewhere that he has allowable access to, or go through the Office Space which was as Mrs Reid states  "a little strange" and the warehouse boys didn't just "wander around" because obviously they didn't belong there and especially when no one else was around, therefore Oswald only went that way because he now had reason to suspect that more Police could have followed Baker.

Mrs. REID.....I guess the reason it impressed me seeing him in there I thought it was a little strange that one of -the warehouse boys would be up in the office at the time

Mr. BELIN. Apart from getting change or getting paid?
Mrs. REID. No; very seldom unless they are sent up there to get something. I mean they just don't come in there and wander around.

Why does it need to be "explainable" if it's Truly?

From Reid's testimony, it's clear that the Warehouse staff simply didn't go to the office's and being there and on the move would be highly suspicious so Oswald who just wanted to get out of there and took the safer alternative.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

MW: Agreed, but for something to be used as evidence of guilt, I will have to be authenticated.

It's always about you, isn't it?  . OK, just kidding. Mostly. You will have it authenticated. And, you will of course apply your own personal standard as to what constitutes properly authenticated. And this standard will be designed from the outset to prevent it from being, in your mind, authenticated. But it's all simply nothing more than a ruse to avoid dealing with evidence that you find inconvenient.


MW: There is no such thing as demanding a "highly personal standard"

This is exactly what you've been doing. 
 

MW: A piece of evidence can either be authenticated or it can not.

Authentication is a proxy for authenticity. It does not in and of itself actually prove or disprove authenticity, especially the latter. Doubly especially when the authentication method is designed from the outset to prevent an item from being authenticated in the first place.

 
MW: And who decides what is actually done in practice? The person who sets the bar low

The people who actually do it in practice. In 1963, it was done the way that WC did it: by asking the official who first took possession of the item if he could positively identify it as the thing he took possession of. This process is actually dialectic: what is the evidence that the item is authentic, vs what is the evidence that the item is invalid. There is already evidence that the pistol is authentic, and none that shows that it is invalid.


MW: and then there is a guy who uses his low standard to declare evidence valid..... So, where does that leave us?

If I use the unreasonably high standard, I have an item that is not authenticated, but has not been shown to be invalid. If I use the low standard, I have an item that has been authenticated, but has not been shown to be invalid. Either way, it has not been shown to be invalid.

It's always about you, isn't it?  . OK, just kidding. Mostly. You will have it authenticated. And, you will of course apply your own personal standard as to what constitutes properly authenticated. And this standard will be designed from the outset to prevent it from being, in your mind, authenticated. But it's all simply nothing more than a ruse to avoid dealing with evidence that you find inconvenient.

How sad, just after I accepted your evidence about the Hill/Davenport matter.

MW: There is no such thing as demanding a "highly personal standard"

This is exactly what you've been doing. 

Really? And yet, you still managed to convince me that there was no discrepancy in the Hill/Davenport matter

MW: And who decides what is actually done in practice? The person who sets the bar low

The people who actually do it in practice. In 1963, it was done the way that WC did it: by asking the official who first took possession of the item if he could positively identify it as the thing he took possession of. This process is actually dialectic: what is the evidence that the item is authentic, vs what is the evidence that the item is invalid. There is already evidence that the pistol is authentic, and none that shows that it is invalid.

Back in 1963 people still considered what people like notaries, lawyers and priests said to be beyond question. Now we know better.

In 1963, it was done the way that WC did it: by asking the official who first took possession of the item if he could positively identify it as the thing he took possession of.

Ok, so Secret Service agent Richard E. Johnson would be the first offical who took possession of the "magic" bullet and he failed to identify it later. Where does that leave us?

This process is actually dialectic: what is the evidence that the item is authentic, vs what is the evidence that the item is invalid.

There is no problem. If evidence is authentic it's valid. So, use the chain of custody to show the evidence is authentic and your problem is solved.

If I use the unreasonably high standard, I have an item that is not authenticated, but has not been shown to be invalid.

If a piece of evidence is not autheticated, it's automatically invalid. But what exactly do you consider an "unreasonable high standard". Could it simply be a standard your evidence can't meet?

If I use the low standard, I have an item that has been authenticated, but has not been shown to be invalid. Either way, it has not been shown to be invalid.

So why not use a reasonable standard? Or do you believe no such thing exists?

[John Mytton]

Or are you just going by what his interrogators claimed he said?

Not this again. Yawn!

For a start, Oswald had every reason to admit to every action on my list because there were eyewitnesses or solid evidence at every stage.
 
1. Oswald had to have left because he was caught a little over an hour later across town in a theater.
2. Oswald was on the bus because he had the appropriate Bus transfer and he may have seen Bledsoe.
3. Whaley identified Oswald in his cab.
4. Oswald got to the rooming house around one, meaning he couldn't have ran.
5. Oswald was arrested with his revolver.
6. Oswald was seen by many eyewitnesses punching a cop.

There were many varying law enforcement agencies who participated and you can't possibly be suggesting that they all got together to get their stories straight? Besides CT's use the interrogations much more than LNers.

Oswald said that he didn't own the rifle.
Oswald said that he bought the revolver in Fort Worth.
Oswald said that he wasn't in the backyard photos.
Oswald said he didn't kill Kennedy.
Oswald said he didn't kill Tippit.
Oswald left out Neely street.
Oswald said he spoke with Shelley about leaving.
Oswald said that his rifle bag contained his lunch.
Need I go on??

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Not this again. Yawn!

For a start, Oswald had every reason to admit to every action on my list because there were eyewitnesses or solid evidence at every stage.
 
1. Oswald had to have left because he was caught a little over an hour later across town in a theater.
2. Oswald was on the bus because he had the appropriate Bus transfer and he may have seen Bledsoe.
3. Whaley identified Oswald in his cab.
4. Oswald got to the rooming house around one, meaning he couldn't have ran.
5. Oswald was arrested with his revolver.
6. Oswald was seen by many eyewitnesses punching a cop.

There were many varying law enforcement agencies who participated and you can't possibly be suggesting that they all got together to get their stories straight? Besides CT's use the interrogations much more than LNers.

Oswald said that he didn't own the rifle.
Oswald said that he bought the revolver in Fort Worth.
Oswald said that he wasn't in the backyard photos.
Oswald said he didn't kill Kennedy.
Oswald said he didn't kill Tippit.
Oswald left out Neely street.
Oswald said he spoke with Shelley about leaving.
Oswald said that his rifle bag contained his lunch.
Need I go on??

JohnM

So, the answer is: yes, you are merely going by what the interrogators claimed he said.   

[John Mytton]

It's always about you, isn't it?  . OK, just kidding. Mostly.

How sad, just after I accepted your evidence about the Hill/Davenport matter.

Lighten up, it looks like Mitch just made a joke because you said "I will have to be authenticated."

BTW, If you accepted Mitch's evidence then why did you post this little gem AFTER?

Does anybody really think this mess is a chain of custody?

Of course not. But it did explain the discrepancy between Hill's WC testimony and the receipt Davenport obtained from the evidence room.
You know, the discrepancy John Mytton wanted to ignore.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Lighten up, it looks like Mitch just made a joke because you said "I will have to be authenticated."

BTW, If you accepted Mitch's evidence then why did you post this little gem AFTER?

JohnM

If you don't understand why, you are more ignorant than I actually thought you are.