The Magic Bullet

[John Iacoletti]

The point is that he carried a longish package and lied about its contents.

You don?t actually know that, because
a) you don?t know exactly what he said during interrogation
and
b) you don?t know what the contents were

Oswald later dnied he told Frazier he carried anything other than his lunch. That is evidence tending to show that he was hiding something. It is a piece of evidence that contributes to the overall body of evidence that would lead 12 normal people to conclude that Oswald assassinatdd JFK.

?Hiding something? tells you that he killed someone?

CE142 was altered by the fingerprint process. They made a replica CE364 and that was shown to Frazier.

They showed CE142 to Frazier the night of 11/22.

Can you explain to me the difference between your use of "speculation and assumptions" and inferences?

I don?t see any distinction in the way you?re ?inferring? things.

[Tim Nickerson]

Croft said he took his z161 photo long enough before the first shot that he had time to roll his film and snap another (that did not turn out) before the first shot.

You are misusing Croft.

[Andrew Mason]

You are misusing Croft.

If so, please explain how you would use the interview he gave to Robert Trask.

[Jack Trojan]

The point is that he carried a longish package and lied about its contents. Oswald later dnied he told Frazier he carried anything other than his lunch. That is evidence tending to show that he was hiding something. It is a piece of evidence that contributes to the overall body of evidence that would lead 12 normal people to conclude that Oswald assassinatdd JFK.

Pretty flimsy evidence to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt that they assassinated the POTUS.

You fail to distinguish the difference between Oswald the patsy and Oswald the lone nut. Oswald was fully aware that he was being sheep-dipped to be the patsy, but he assumed (hoped) he was granted an escape route out of the country and portrayed as a lone nut who got lucky then got away. It is obvious to any critical thinker that Oswald was the patsy that got double-crossed, which is why he needed to be silenced.

Otherwise, why did Oswald leave a useless scope on the disassembled rifle that was supposedly smuggled into the TSBD in the curtain rod bag? Fact is, an unpracticed military marksman would know that disassembling/reassembling a rifle would require sighting in the scope, which was not an option for him. So if Oswald knew he would be using the iron sights why did he keep the scope on the rifle? Ans: so the rifle would match the BYPs as part his sheep-dipping that linked him to the assassination.

The bottom line is that the MC was just a plant and never used, while the scopeless Mauser was probably used to take any token shots from the TSBD. And if this was a conspiracy, which it likely was, then there is no way in hell the conspirators would rely on Oswald alone to take any shots. Like Thomas Vallee was for Plan A, Oswald was the patsy for Plan B.

CE142 was altered by the fingerprint process. They made a replica CE364 and that was shown to Frazier.

Speaking of fingerprints, how come there weren't any on the MC? Didn't Oswald handle it extensively when he disassembled it and placed it into CE142, then extracted it from CE142 and reassembled it in the TSBD?

No conclusions need to be drawn from this evidence. It is the entire body of evidence against Oswald that tells the story.

But what evidence suggests that he was not a patsy and acted alone?

[Andrew Mason]

You don?t actually know that, because
a) you don?t know exactly what he said during interrogation
and
b) you don?t know what the contents were

The point is that he lied about their contents. We can infer from the evidence that there were never any curtain rods in the package.  First of all, he didn't need curtain rods.  His room already had curtains and it was a furnished room in a private house so he had no need for curtain rods and certainly no permission from Mary Bledsoe to install them.  Second, since he already had window coverings in his room there was no urgency to getting curtain rods. He did not need to go home on a Thursday night to get curtain rods. He could have waited until the weekend. Third, if after the assassination he was going back to his room on North Beckley and had done nothing wrong and if he had brought curtain rods for his room that morning, he would have taken them when he left. He didn't. Fourth, he denied that he told Frazier that he had taken curtain rods to work.  He knew he had to do this because the next question would have been: then where are they? There was no answer to that question.  Sixth, somehow his gun was taken to the TSBD from the Paine's garage. Nov. 22/63 was the only time he carried to work a package even remotely long. The route for the motorcade past the TSBD was not decided until Nov. 18 and was not published until Nov. 19. Oswald, therefore, had no reason to bring his gun to the TSBD until he went home on Nov 21.  So the morning of Nov 22 was the ONLY time he could have brought the gun to work.

This leads to a reasonable conclusion that there were no curtain rods in the package and that Oswald lied about it.

?Hiding something? tells you that he killed someone?

No. It tells us that did not wish to reveal the contents of the package.  I am unable to conceive of any innocent reason why an innocent Oswald would lie about the contents of this package.  But he did.  The only reason for lying about its contents was a non-innocent one. His gun then turns out to be a murder weapon. Hmmm. Let me see. Why did he not tell Frazier what was in the package.  hmmm.  Tough one.....

I don?t see any distinction in the way you?re ?inferring? things.

The difference between speculation and assumption on the one hand and inference, is that speculation and assumptions are made without any evidence.  Inferences are made by applying reason and common sense to evidence to reach a rational conclusion as to what occurred.  Such a conclusion may be reached because the conclusion is consistent with the evidence and all other conclusions would be inconsistent with the evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

The point is that he lied about their contents. We can infer from the evidence that there were never any curtain rods in the package.  First of all, he didn't need curtain rods.

How do you know that?

  His room already had curtains and it was a furnished room in a private house so he had no need for curtain rods

and certainly no permission from Mary Bledsoe to install them.

Mary Bledsoe had nothing to do with the Beckley St house.

  Second, since he already had window coverings in his room there was no urgency to getting curtain rods. He did not need to go home on a Thursday night to get curtain rods.

What makes you think his visit was urgent, or that curtain rods were his primary motivation to go to Irving that night?

He could have waited until the weekend. Third, if after the assassination he was going back to his room on North Beckley and had done nothing wrong and if he had brought curtain rods for his room that morning, he would have taken them when he left. He didn't.

How do you know what he took with him when he left?

Fourth, he denied that he told Frazier that he had taken curtain rods to work.

That doesn't necessarily mean he was lying.  But even if he was, that doesn't somehow prove there was a rifle in the bag.  Particularly when the bag wasn't long enough to hold the alleged murder weapon.

Sixth, somehow his gun was taken to the TSBD from the Paine's garage.

I think you skipped "fifth".  In any case, there's no evidence that the C2766 rifle was ever in the Paine garage.  And very little evidence to suggest that C2766 was even his gun.

Nov. 22/63 was the only time he carried to work a package even remotely long.

How could you possibly know that?

The route for the motorcade past the TSBD was not decided until Nov. 18 and was not published until Nov. 19. Oswald, therefore, had no reason to bring his gun to the TSBD until he went home on Nov 21.  So the morning of Nov 22 was the ONLY time he could have brought the gun to work.

That's begging the question.  You don't know he ever brought a gun to work.  You're just assuming he did.

This leads to a reasonable conclusion that there were no curtain rods in the package and that Oswald lied about it.

False premises lead to false conclusions.

The difference between speculation and assumption on the one hand and inference, is that speculation and assumptions are made without any evidence.  Inferences are made by applying reason and common sense to evidence to reach a rational conclusion as to what occurred.

Everybody thinks his own conclusions are rational.  The problem is that your inferences are made based upon conclusions about the evidence that aren't proven or even well supported by the actual evidence.

  Such a conclusion may be reached because the conclusion is consistent with the evidence and all other conclusions would be inconsistent with the evidence.

You haven't even come close to showing that all other conclusions would be inconsistent with the evidence.

A guy may have lied to a coworker about the contents of a package, therefore he murdered the president?

[Bill Chapman]

A guy may have lied to a coworker about the contents of a package, therefore he murdered the president?

Translation for newbies:

'We declare that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered the President based solely on his lying about the contents of the bag. The prosecution rests"

Are you sure any LNer is claiming that?

[Ray Mitcham]

Randall first impression was that the bag was approx 3 x 6
Randle called police and said the bag she saw Oswald carrying was big enough to hold a rifle, didn't she?

Buell said he saw a 'big bag' approx 2' x 5" when he glanced into the back seat. How such a bag qualifies as 'big' is beyond me.

Police like to get first impressions from each separate witness before said witnesses have a chance to compare notes. Boy meets girl and all-of-a-sudden the bag shape-shifts to a size potentially keeping Buell's arse out of the electric chair.

And you characters call us naive.

"Randall's reported first impression was that the bag was approx 3 x 6.

There fixed it for you Chappers.