JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: John Mytton on February 14, 2025, 06:07:20 AM
-
As we all know Oswald never had a trial but presented here from 1986 is the closest Oswald ever had to a fair trial in front of an impartial jury, actual witnesses are grilled by Bugliosi and Spence who each spent a lot of time researching their respective cases.
And as an added bonus here is Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence.
JohnM
-
Deconstructing Bugliosi's "53 pieces of evidence"
The members of the cult of the WC often like to point to their prophet Bugliosi and his "53 pieces of evidence" supposedly pointing to Lee Oswald's guilt in the assassination of John Kennedy. If you examine the list, you'll find that 46 of them are not evidence at all, they are lawyer rhetoric and speculative confirmation bias. 4 items point to a particular weapon, not a person. 8 items are questionable or tainted in some way. Some items fall into more than one category.
Key:
NE - not evidence with regard to JFK's murder
PW - points to a weapon, not a shooter
TQ - tainted or questionable
1. Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on a Thursday - NE
2. Oswald told Frazier he was going to Irving to pick up some curtain rods - NE
3. Oswald told Frazier he wouldn't be going home with him on Friday - NE
4. Oswald was not chatty about Kennedy's upcoming Dallas visit on Thursday evening - NE
5. Oswald left behind his wedding ring and $170 - NE
6. Oswald placed a long, bulky package on the rear seat of Frazier's car - NE
7. Frazier said it was the first time Oswald did not bring his lunch - NE
8. Oswald walked ahead of Frazier to the building from the parking area - NE
9. Oswald did not read the newspaper in the domino room that morning - NE
10. Oswald asked Jarman why people were gathering outside and then which way the president was coming - NE
11. Howard Brennan told the FBI on December 18 that he was "sure" that Oswald was the man he had seen in the window, after initially failing to make a positive identification - TQ
12. We know that Kennedy’s assassin was at the subject sixth-floor window - NE (not even true)
13. Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination - (this isn't even true)
Givens (over 4 months later) placed Oswald on the 6th floor at 11:55 - NE
Oswald (supposedly) preferred Dr Pepper to Coke - NE
14. Why would Oswald go up to get a Coke after hearing all the commotion? - NE
15. Oswald was apparently uninterested in watching the motorcade outside - NE
16. Oswald left work within minutes of the shooting - NE
17. Oswald walked east and got on a bus heading back toward the TSBD - NE
18. Oswald got off the bus after a few blocks - NE
19. Oswald wasn't chatty with the cab driver - NE
20. Oswald had the cab driver drop him off a few blocks past his rooming house - NE
21. Roberts said Oswald seemed to be in a hurry - NE
22. Oswald allegedly picked up his revolver at the rooming house - NE
23. Oswald allegedly changed some of his clothing at the rooming house - NE
24. Oswald was allegedly chosen by Markham (in the unfair lineup) as the one who killed Tippit - NE as far as JFK goes, TQ
25. Oswald looked funny to Brewer - NE
26. Oswald allegedly “ducked in” to the theater without buying a ticket - NE
27. According to McDonald, Oswald said "it's all over now" - NE
28. Oswald allegedly punched McDonald and reached for a gun in his waistband - NE
29. Oswald didn't sufficiently cooperate with police after arrest - NE
30. Oswald showed reporters his handcuffed hands and his fist was clenched - NE
31. Oswald supposedly refused to take a lie detector test - NE
32. Marina thought his eyes looked guilty - NE
33. Oswald's handwriting was supposedly found on a Klein's order coupon - TQ
34. The 2 large fragments supposedly found in the limo and CE399 were fired by C2766 - PW, TQ
35. The shells supposedly found by the window were fired by C2766 - PW
36. Two of Oswald's prints were found on a wrapper that was supposedly found by the window - NE
37. Oswald's prints were found on boxes near the window - NE
38. Oswald's handwriting was supposedly found on a Seaport Traders coupon for the CE143 revolver - NE as far as JFK goes, TQ
39. 1 of 8 firearms experts thought one Tippit bullet was fired from CE143 - TQ, PW, NE for JFK
40. Cartridge cases supposedly found near 10th and Patton were matched to CE143 - TQ, PW, NE for JFK
41. Paraffin test on Oswald’s hands indicated the presence of nitrates - TQ
42. Oswald supposedly left his blue jacket in the TSBD - NE
43. Police supposedly found a light-colored jacket in a Texaco parking lot - NE
44. A clipboard attributed to Oswald with unfilled orders was supposedly found on the 6th floor a week later - NE
45. Oswald allegedly denied purchasing the Carcano rifle - NE
46. Oswald allegedly questioned the authenticity of a backyard photograph - NE
47. Oswald allegedly said he had never seen the photograph before, but handwriting analysts said it was his writing on the DeMohrenschildt print that turned up 4 years later - NE
48. Oswald allegedly denied ever living at the Neely apartment - NE
49. Oswald allegedly denied telling Frazier he was getting curtain rods - NE
50. Oswald allegedly denied putting a long package on the backseat of Frazier's car - NE
51. Oswald allegedly told Fritz that the only package he brought to work contained his lunch - NE
52. Oswald (by Fritz's account) allegedly said he had lunch with Jarman and another employee, but Jarman said he did not have lunch with Oswald - NE
53. Oswald allegedly said he bought his handgun in Fort Worth - NE
-
Deconstructing Bugliosi's "53 pieces of evidence"
The members of the cult of the WC often like to point to their prophet Bugliosi and his "53 pieces of evidence" supposedly pointing to Lee Oswald's guilt in the assassination of John Kennedy. If you examine the list, you'll find that 46 of them are not evidence at all, they are lawyer rhetoric and speculative confirmation bias. 4 items point to a particular weapon, not a person. 8 items are questionable or tainted in some way. Some items fall into more than one category.
Key:
NE - not evidence with regard to JFK's murder
PW - points to a weapon, not a shooter
TQ - tainted or questionable
1. Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on a Thursday - NE
2. Oswald told Frazier he was going to Irving to pick up some curtain rods - NE
3. Oswald told Frazier he wouldn't be going home with him on Friday - NE
4. Oswald was not chatty about Kennedy's upcoming Dallas visit on Thursday evening - NE
5. Oswald left behind his wedding ring and $170 - NE
6. Oswald placed a long, bulky package on the rear seat of Frazier's car - NE
7. Frazier said it was the first time Oswald did not bring his lunch - NE
8. Oswald walked ahead of Frazier to the building from the parking area - NE
9. Oswald did not read the newspaper in the domino room that morning - NE
10. Oswald asked Jarman why people were gathering outside and then which way the president was coming - NE
11. Howard Brennan told the FBI on December 18 that he was "sure" that Oswald was the man he had seen in the window, after initially failing to make a positive identification - TQ
12. We know that Kennedy’s assassin was at the subject sixth-floor window - NE (not even true)
13. Oswald slipped up and placed himself on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination - (this isn't even true)
Givens (over 4 months later) placed Oswald on the 6th floor at 11:55 - NE
Oswald (supposedly) preferred Dr Pepper to Coke - NE
14. Why would Oswald go up to get a Coke after hearing all the commotion? - NE
15. Oswald was apparently uninterested in watching the motorcade outside - NE
16. Oswald left work within minutes of the shooting - NE
17. Oswald walked east and got on a bus heading back toward the TSBD - NE
18. Oswald got off the bus after a few blocks - NE
19. Oswald wasn't chatty with the cab driver - NE
20. Oswald had the cab driver drop him off a few blocks past his rooming house - NE
21. Roberts said Oswald seemed to be in a hurry - NE
22. Oswald allegedly picked up his revolver at the rooming house - NE
23. Oswald allegedly changed some of his clothing at the rooming house - NE
24. Oswald was allegedly chosen by Markham (in the unfair lineup) as the one who killed Tippit - NE as far as JFK goes, TQ
25. Oswald looked funny to Brewer - NE
26. Oswald allegedly “ducked in” to the theater without buying a ticket - NE
27. According to McDonald, Oswald said "it's all over now" - NE
28. Oswald allegedly punched McDonald and reached for a gun in his waistband - NE
29. Oswald didn't sufficiently cooperate with police after arrest - NE
30. Oswald showed reporters his handcuffed hands and his fist was clenched - NE
31. Oswald supposedly refused to take a lie detector test - NE
32. Marina thought his eyes looked guilty - NE
33. Oswald's handwriting was supposedly found on a Klein's order coupon - TQ
34. The 2 large fragments supposedly found in the limo and CE399 were fired by C2766 - PW, TQ
35. The shells supposedly found by the window were fired by C2766 - PW
36. Two of Oswald's prints were found on a wrapper that was supposedly found by the window - NE
37. Oswald's prints were found on boxes near the window - NE
38. Oswald's handwriting was supposedly found on a Seaport Traders coupon for the CE143 revolver - NE as far as JFK goes, TQ
39. 1 of 8 firearms experts thought one Tippit bullet was fired from CE143 - TQ, PW, NE for JFK
40. Cartridge cases supposedly found near 10th and Patton were matched to CE143 - TQ, PW, NE for JFK
41. Paraffin test on Oswald’s hands indicated the presence of nitrates - TQ
42. Oswald supposedly left his blue jacket in the TSBD - NE
43. Police supposedly found a light-colored jacket in a Texaco parking lot - NE
44. A clipboard attributed to Oswald with unfilled orders was supposedly found on the 6th floor a week later - NE
45. Oswald allegedly denied purchasing the Carcano rifle - NE
46. Oswald allegedly questioned the authenticity of a backyard photograph - NE
47. Oswald allegedly said he had never seen the photograph before, but handwriting analysts said it was his writing on the DeMohrenschildt print that turned up 4 years later - NE
48. Oswald allegedly denied ever living at the Neely apartment - NE
49. Oswald allegedly denied telling Frazier he was getting curtain rods - NE
50. Oswald allegedly denied putting a long package on the backseat of Frazier's car - NE
51. Oswald allegedly told Fritz that the only package he brought to work contained his lunch - NE
52. Oswald (by Fritz's account) allegedly said he had lunch with Jarman and another employee, but Jarman said he did not have lunch with Oswald - NE
53. Oswald allegedly said he bought his handgun in Fort Worth - NE
Yawn, here we go again.
Vincent Bugliosi successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials which included 21 murder convictions, just remind the Forum how many trials you've been successful at and then tell us where you received your Law Degree?
JohnM
-
Deconstructing Bugliosi's "53 pieces of evidence"
The members of the cult of the WC often like to point to their prophet Bugliosi and his "53 pieces of evidence" supposedly pointing to Lee Oswald's guilt in the assassination of John Kennedy. If you examine the list, you'll find that 46 of them are not evidence at all, they are lawyer rhetoric and speculative confirmation bias. 4 items point to a particular weapon, not a person. 8 items are questionable or tainted in some way. Some items fall into more than one category.
Key:
NE - not evidence with regard to JFK's murder
PW - points to a weapon, not a shooter
TQ - tainted or questionable
1. Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on a Thursday - NE
Your concept of evidence is flawed. The threshold question is relevancy. Under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, for example, "Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action."
Every item you label as NE, PW and TQ would be deemed relevant evidence.
-
Your concept of evidence is flawed. The threshold question is relevancy. Under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, for example, "Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action."
Every item you label as NE, PW and TQ would be deemed relevant evidence.
Every item you label as NE, PW and TQ would be deemed relevant evidence.
Evidence of what, exactly?
A circumstantial case is a made up story where anything is used that might be detrimental for the defendant and create bias in the jury.
It's nothing more than throwing mud against the wall and hoping some of it will stick.
-
Yawn, here we go again.
Vincent Bugliosi successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials which included 21 murder convictions,
Completely irrelevant as to whether these things are evidence or not. Nice false appeal to authority though.
-
Your concept of evidence is flawed. The threshold question is relevancy. Under Rule 401 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, for example, "Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action."
Please explain how not being chatty with a cab driver make it "more probable" that Oswald shot Kennedy.
Maybe in somebody's colorful imagination...
-
A circumstantial case is a made up story where anything is used that might be detrimental for the defendant and create bias in the jury.
It's nothing more than throwing mud against the wall and hoping some of it will stick.
Exactly. It's rhetoric and theater. Nothing more.
-
Completely irrelevant as to whether these things are evidence or not. Nice false appeal to authority though.
You can child play being a Defence Lawyer all you like but Lance along with Bugliosi were real life lawyers and Lance told you what actual real evidence is, whereas your biased concept of what constitutes evidence is sadly misguided and frankly laughable.
BTW if it was me I would probably have removed one or two pieces Bugliosi's pieces of evidence, but the rest stays!
JohnM
-
Evidence of what, exactly?
A circumstantial case is a made up story where anything is used that might be detrimental for the defendant and create bias in the jury.
It's nothing more than throwing mud against the wall and hoping some of it will stick.
Exactly. It's rhetoric and theater. Nothing more.
It would appear that Martin's and John's real objection is to the very nature of our justice system.
Not only does the defendant not have to testify, not only must guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not only does the hearsay rule block vast amounts of highly relevant testimony, but Martin and John would insist upon direct evidence even though the large majority of criminal cases are circumstantial. I need to stop calling CTers Oswald's defense counsel, because Martin and John go beyond that - Oswald's pom-pom waving cheerleaders, perhaps?
-
You can child play being a Defence Lawyer all you like but Lance along with Bugliosi were real life lawyers and Lance told you what actual real evidence is, whereas your biased concept of what constitutes evidence is sadly misguided and frankly laughable.
BTW if it was me I would probably have removed one or two pieces Bugliosi's pieces of evidence, but the rest stays!
JohnM
I should make clear that I was primarily a civil lawyer, although I did prosecute some criminal zoning and code violation cases. Suffice it to say, I was not even a minor-league Bugliosi. These concepts are pretty basic, however. I'm not saying all 53 of B's items would have been admitted - merely that they are evidence and would at least survive the threshold standard of relevancy.
-
It would appear that Martin's and John's real objection is to the very nature of our justice system.
Not only does the defendant not have to testify, not only must guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not only does the hearsay rule block vast amounts of highly relevant testimony, but Martin and John would insist upon direct evidence even though the large majority of criminal cases are circumstantial. I need to stop calling CTers Oswald's defense counsel, because Martin and John go beyond that - Oswald's pom-pom waving cheerleaders, perhaps?
Martin and John would insist upon direct evidence even though the large majority of criminal cases are circumstantial.
So you agree that Oswald leaving his wedding ring in a cup after Marina basically left him with the impression that his marriage was over is circumstantial evidence that has no causality to a murder?
Or even worse, how can circumstantia evidence like getting of a bus or not being chatty with a taxi driver be reasonably be connected to a murder that has already happened?
I need to stop calling CTers Oswald's defense counsel, because Martin and John go beyond that - Oswald's pom-pom waving cheerleaders, perhaps?
Can I, in turn call you a fanatical closed minded LN zealot? Or will you grow up and present arguments without attacking people you don't know who don't share your opinions?
-
I should make clear that I was primarily a civil lawyer, although I did prosecute some criminal zoning and code violation cases. Suffice it to say, I was not even a minor-league Bugliosi. These concepts are pretty basic, however. I'm not saying all 53 of B's items would have been admitted - merely that they are evidence and would at least survive the threshold standard of relevancy.
merely that they are evidence and would at least survive the threshold standard of relevancy.
Anything that's presented to a court is evidence, but not all of it is actual proof of anything.
It's up to the judge to determine what is relevant or not and in some cases it actually serves the defense not to object to a particular piece of evidence being introduced by the prosecutor.
A trial isn't about the truth. It's a battle between two parties who each fight for a desired outcome, often regardless of the truth.
-
I should make clear that I was primarily a civil lawyer, although I did prosecute some criminal zoning and code violation cases. Suffice it to say, I was not even a minor-league Bugliosi. These concepts are pretty basic, however. I'm not saying all 53 of B's items would have been admitted - merely that they are evidence and would at least survive the threshold standard of relevancy.
Thanks for being humble but it's nice to have someone here who understands the basic concepts of Law and and can teach us all. Members like the "pom pom waving cheerleaders" above have been doing this for years and try to separate each and every piece of evidence without regard for the entire picture, for instance for just the rifle alone;
1) The rifle order was faked.
2) The money order was faked.
3) Kleins internal order was faked
4) Kleins didn't send the rifle.
5) Oswald didn't receive the rifle
6) The rifle in the backyard photos which is the same make and model as the sent rifle, was a different rifle.
7) Marina lied about taking the backyard photos of Oswald holding the rifle.
8] de Mohrenschildt saw a different rifle or lied
9) The rifle butt that Marina saw could be a block of wood.
10) The rifle was never in the blanket.
11) The rifle could have been planted
12) The prints on Oswald rifles were faked.
13) The 3 matching shirt fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt which matched the rifle fibers could have come from anywhere.
And that's only a brief summary because each of those points gets divided into numerous strands like the rifle carry bag.
But in the real World all that evidence is undeniable proof, so our Oswald apologists have no choice but to dismantle this evidence piece by piece and try to convince anyone listening that behind each piece of evidence was a massive conspiracy conducted by many unconnected sources, for example Kleins was involved by faking their microfilm and the rifle record, the money order was inserted into the system, Police officer lied about taking the rifle lift ETC. ETC.
When on the other hand using Occam's razor it was just Oswald and masses of evidence didn't need manufacturing, and nobody needed to lie, Case Solved!
JohnM
-
Pray tell, how does Oswald leaving his wedding ring in a cup, after Marina basically left him with the impression that his marriage was over, become direct evidence with a causality to a murder?
Or even worse, how can getting [off] a bus or not being chatty with a taxi driver reasonably be connected to a murder that has already happened[?]
You'll never be able to figure out that the things you just highlighted in your post above are indeed relevant because you continue to ISOLATE every single thing Oswald did instead of ADDING THOSE THINGS TOGETHER.
Martin must be related to an ultra-rabid conspiracy clown named Ben Holmes, because in dozens of past Internet exchanges, I was constantly having to remind Holmes to "add things up" as well. [See the link below.]
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qXnBu3Ctvtw/Wtz4-Oi3VnI/AAAAAAABOr8/omfgi6-pIR8DFZDFt83_K5u0qdc2B84VQCLcBGAs/s444/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Sole-Guilt-Part-Two-Logo.png) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/12/lee-harvey-oswalds-guilt-part-2.html)
For some reason, JFKA CTers just refuse to add together all of the various out-of-the-ordinary things that Lee Harvey Oswald did on November 21 and 22, 1963.
When added together (as a unit!), Oswald's unusual movements and actions on those two days in November most certainly paint an incriminating picture when examined through a post-assassination lens. Most conspiracy theorists know this already, of course. They just don't want to admit what such a simple act of "addition" actually reveals.
-
Good Lord! Can your Thick-Headedness Disease get any worse?
You'll never be able to figure out that the things you just highlighted in your post above are indeed relevant because you continue to ISOLATE every single thing Oswald did instead of ADDING THOSE THINGS TOGETHER.
Martin must be related to an ultra-rabid conspiracy clown named Ben Holmes, because in dozens of past Internet exchanges, I was constantly having to remind Holmes to "add things up" as well. [See the link below.]
For some reason, JFKA CTers just refuse to add together all of the various out-of-the-ordinary things that Lee Harvey Oswald did on November 21 and 22, 1963.
When added together (as a unit!), Oswald's unusual movements and actions on those two days in November most certainly paint an incriminating picture when examined through a post-assassination lens.
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-qXnBu3Ctvtw/Wtz4-Oi3VnI/AAAAAAABOr8/omfgi6-pIR8DFZDFt83_K5u0qdc2B84VQCLcBGAs/s415/Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Sole-Guilt-Part-Two-Logo.png) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/12/lee-harvey-oswalds-guilt-part-2.html)
When added together (as a unit!), Oswald's unusual movements and actions on those two days in November most certainly paint an incriminating picture when examined through a post-assassination lens.
What unusual movements and actions are you talking about?
Oswald only drove to Irving with Buell Frazier on a couple of times. A week earlier he did not go at all.... why isn't that an unusual movement but going on a thursday is?
Since when is it unusual not to talk with a taxi driver or leave a wedding ring behind when you believe your marriage is over?
I could of course be wrong, but isn't it simply that you consider some movenments and actions unusual just because you want them to be just that?
A circumstantial case that's based on weak individual pieces of evidence, doesn't get any stronger by adding on more weak pieces of evidence!
-
Leaving the wallet, cash and wedding ring could suggest planning. Especially with the curious Thursday trip to the Paine house, the curious curtain rod excuse and the disappearance of the rifle from the garage.
The non-responsiveness to Whaley could suggest consciousness of guilt (the evidentiary legal term). It might or might not be admissible and would carry no great weight if it were admitted. Leaving the TSBD, getting the gun, shooting Tippit, fleeing to the theater, resisting arrest, yada yada, all make the non-responsiveness to Whaley pale in comparison.
As DVP suggests, it's the context that's important.
-
Leaving the wallet, cash and wedding ring could suggest planning. Especially with the curious Thursday trip to the Paine house, the curious curtain rod excuse and the disappearance of the rifle from the garage.
The non-responsiveness to Whaley could suggest consciousness of guilt (the evidentiary legal term). It might or might not be admissible and would carry no great weight if it were admitted. Leaving the TSBD, getting the gun, shooting Tippit, fleeing to the theater, resisting arrest, yada yada, all make the non-responsiveness to Whaley pale in comparison.
As DVP suggests, it's the context that's important.
Leaving the wallet, cash and wedding ring could suggest planning. Especially with the curious Thursday trip to the Paine house, the curious curtain rod excuse and the disappearance of the rifle from the garage.
There was nothing curious about the Thursday trip. Both Marina and Ruth Paine testified that they believed he had come to make up and get back together with Marina.
Nothing curious about the curtain rod excuse. Would you discuss marital problems with a 19 year old kid?
And as far as the rifle goes; what evidence do you have that there actually was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63? Or are you simply assuming that there was one?
The non-responsiveness to Whaley could suggest consciousness of guilt (the evidentiary legal term).
Wow, I must have been guilty many times when I count the number of times I did not talk to a taxi driver. :D
Leaving the TSBD, getting the gun, shooting Tippit, fleeing to the theater, resisting arrest, yada yada, all make the non-responsiveness to Whaley pale in comparison.
Which assumes all sorts of things for which there is only circumstantial evidence or no evidence at all.
With enough assumptions you can find anybody guilty of anything.
-
Leaving the wallet, cash and wedding ring could suggest planning. Especially with the curious Thursday trip to the Paine house, the curious curtain rod excuse and the disappearance of the rifle from the garage.
There was nothing curious about the Thursday trip. Both Marina and Ruth Paine testified that they believed had come to make up and get back together with Marina.
Nothing curious about the curtain rod excuse. Would you discuss marital problems with a 19 year old kid?
And as far as the rifle goes; what evidence do you have that there actually was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63? Or are you simply assuming that there was one?
The non-responsiveness to Whaley could suggest consciousness of guilt (the evidentiary legal term).
Wow, I must have been guilty of many times when I count the number of times I did not talk to a taxi driver. :D
Leaving the TSBD, getting the gun, shooting Tippit, fleeing to the theater, resisting arrest, yada yada, all make the non-responsiveness to Whaley pale in comparison.
Which assumes all sorts of things for which there is only circumstantial evidence or no evidence at all.
With enough assumptions you can find anybody guilty of anything.
Sorry, I've humored you past the breaking point. You are Exhibit A for why I have repeatedly sworn off forums such as this. Declare victory if you like, but you're simply a nutcase and not worth any more of my time.
-
Oswald only drove to Irving with Buell Frazier on a couple of times. A week earlier he did not go at all.... why isn't that an unusual movement but going on a thursday is?
Why do you insist on being so dishonest, Oswald went home with Frazier each and every weekend but one, so much more than a mere "couple of times" and when Oswald's baby was born, he went to Irving on Monday afternoon and stayed till Tuesday morning.
And the whole idea of going home on a weekend was so that Oswald could spend time with his family, like Friday night, all day Satu-rday and all day Sunday, so just spending a few hours with his children on Thursday night was hardly satisfactory. And especially just turning up without informing and clearing his visit with the owner of the house was just rude.
Btw, it's odd that you find the most inane things to be highly suspicious but this glaring anomaly you lie about and try to make excuses, that says a lot!
Mr. BALL - Did he ride home with you in your car on weekends?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. BALL - On Friday nights.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - From that time until November 22, did he ride home with you every weekend?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he did every weekend but one.
Edit, for some reason the Forum won't let me post the word Sat-urday, maybe because of the tu-rd in the middle?
JohnM
-
Sorry, I've humored you past the breaking point. You are Exhibit A for why I have repeatedly sworn off forums such as this. Declare victory if you like, but you're simply a nutcase and not worth any more of my time.
Thank you for showing that you have nothing but hot air to offer.
-
Oswald drove to Irving with Frazier only a couple of times;
Oswald was hired by the TSBD on 10/16/63
He drove to Irving with Frazier on;
Friday 10/18/63
Monday 10/20/63 after the birth of his daughter
Friday 10/25/63
Friday 11/01/63
Friday 11/08/63
He didn't go with Frazier on Friday 11/15/63 because Marina was angry with him
And then he went with Frazier to Irving on Thursday 11/21/63
Conclusion; Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on Friday for "each and every weekend" for four weeks in a row..... :D
-
Wow, I must have been guilty of many times when I count the number of times I did not talk to a taxi driver.
Did you always remain silent whenever the taxi driver said something to you about something unusual and very noticeable that was going on around you (plural), like "police cars with sirens going, crisscrossing everywhere, an uproar," or were you always too drunk and therefore don't remember?
-
You are Exhibit A for why I have repeatedly sworn off forums such as this. Declare victory if you like, but you're simply a nutcase and not worth any more of my time.
It seems as though tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorists are genetically predisposed to be paranoiac, vulnerable to KGB* disinformation, and full of hate towards the evil, evil, evil, evil government.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
There was nothing curious about the Thursday trip.
[...]
Nothing curious about the curtain rod excuse.
[...]
Wow, I must have been guilty many times when I count the number of times I did not talk to a taxi driver.
LANCE PAYETTE PREVIOUSLY SAID: "Leaving the TSBD, getting the gun, shooting Tippit, fleeing to the theater, resisting arrest, yada yada, all make the non-responsiveness to Whaley pale in comparison."
Which assumes all sorts of things for which there is only circumstantial evidence or no evidence at all.
With enough assumptions you can find anybody guilty of anything.
~~ big sigh ~~
If only JFK conspiracists could learn to put ALL of Lee Harvey Oswald's 11/21/63 & 11/22/63 actions and movements TOGETHER .... and then have those conspiracy theorists properly and fairly evaluate those actions in light of THE TWO MURDER CHARGES that confronted Oswald on the night of November 22nd.
If only.
~~ another frustrated sigh ~~
Link.....
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUN-e8nvg0pMlgt162yMfoO9fILUeDqQzMtBT5rfX4m9ICLcILoKfK6_cbm_aoziUtY1To2aal7zlMw5Cu7lgtkCNqUOvNYvfuMk0H9OXN49FvienXdGUtD8rm4WjvwuLjmZtHgDFr7xfbfc90BapWaLRIEWDzha53HYjHgj3pQgcC8ZmlMDVgfGVRzFI/s552/Everything-Oswald-Did-Indicates-His-Guilt-Logo.png) (http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/everything-oswald-did-says-guilt.html)
-
Oswald drove to Irving with Frazier only a couple of times;
Oswald was hired by the TSBD on 10/16/63
He drove to Irving with Frazier on;
Friday 10/18/63
Monday 10/20/63 after the birth of his daughter
Friday 10/25/63
Friday 11/01/63
Friday 11/08/63
He didn't go with Frazier on Friday 11/15/63 because Marina was angry with him
And then he went with Frazier to Irving on Thursday 11/21/63
Conclusion; Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on Friday for "each and every weekend" for four weeks in a row..... :D
Yes, exactly Martin, Oswald had a set routine where as I explained coming on the weekends was far more beneficial because of the extra two full days that he could interact with his daughters instead of the few hours on Thursday.
But this is important so listen closely, Oswald coming unannounced mid week is also a huge problem for CT's because Ruth was doing Oswald's family a massive favour by allowing his family to stay with her, so Oswald reluctant to rock the boat ALWAYS asked permission first, except for this one day where he wanted to get his rifle, now obviously he came unannounced for the first time because if she refused, Oswald realized that he was up crap creek without a paddle, or in this case, up on the 6th floor with no rifle!
Mr. JENNER - Let's proceed with the 21st. Did anything occur on the 21st with respect to Lee Harvey Oswald, that is a Thursday?
Mrs. PAINE - I arrived home from grocery shopping around 5:30, and he was on the front lawn. I was surprised to see him.
Mr. JENNER - You had no advance notice?
Mrs. PAINE - I had no advance notice and he had never before come without asking whether he could.
Mr. JENNER - Never before had he come to your home in that form without asking your permission to come?
Mrs. PAINE - Without asking permission; that is right.
Btw thanks for responding to my post and quoting my words!, because just yesterday you seemed pretty sure that you wouldn't?? Hahahaha, I told you, you couldn't resist, you're so weak!
JohnM
-
One musn't forget that interpretations of Oswald's actions/behaviour could suggest involvement (either wittingly or unwittingly) but not necessarily a lone mission.
-
You can child play being a Defence Lawyer all you like but Lance along with Bugliosi were real life lawyers and Lance told you what actual real evidence is, whereas your biased concept of what constitutes evidence is sadly misguided and frankly laughable.
BTW if it was me I would probably have removed one or two pieces Bugliosi's pieces of evidence, but the rest stays!
What's laughable is that anybody could call these things evidence of murder with a straight face:
- Leaving his wedding ring behind at the Paine house
- Not reading the newspaper in the domino room that morning.
- Going to the second floor to get a Coke when he supposedly preferred Dr. Pepper.
- Not being chatty with the cab driver.
- Showing reporters his handcuffed hands.
- Marina thinking his eyes looked guilty.
- Leaving his blue jacket in the domino room.
- Allegedly leaving a clipboard on the sixth floor.
This is the kind of thing that charlatan lawyers like Bugliosi appeal to when they don't have real evidence.
-
It would appear that Martin's and John's real objection is to the very nature of our justice system.
It's designed to determine legal guilt, not to determine what is actually true. We hope they sometimes intersect.
And this isn't a trial.
Not only does the defendant not have to testify, not only must guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not only does the hearsay rule block vast amounts of highly relevant testimony, but Martin and John would insist upon direct evidence even though the large majority of criminal cases are circumstantial.
Even circumstantial evidence has to be actual evidence.
-
Thanks for being humble but it's nice to have someone here who understands the basic concepts of Law and and can teach us all. Members like the "pom pom waving cheerleaders" above have been doing this for years and try to separate each and every piece of evidence without regard for the entire picture, for instance for just the rifle alone;
1) The rifle order was faked.
2) The money order was faked.
3) Kleins internal order was faked
4) Kleins didn't send the rifle.
5) Oswald didn't receive the rifle
6) The rifle in the backyard photos which is the same make and model as the sent rifle, was a different rifle.
7) Marina lied about taking the backyard photos of Oswald holding the rifle.
8] de Mohrenschildt saw a different rifle or lied
9) The rifle butt that Marina saw could be a block of wood.
10) The rifle was never in the blanket.
11) The rifle could have been planted
12) The prints on Oswald rifles were faked.
13) The 3 matching shirt fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt which matched the rifle fibers could have come from anywhere.
Cool strawman, bro.
But nobody has to posit or prove that anything was faked.
You have to prove that Oswald did it. Your fantasy about who owned the rifle does no accomplish that.
-
You'll never be able to figure out that the things you just highlighted in your post above are indeed relevant because you continue to ISOLATE every single thing Oswald did instead of ADDING THOSE THINGS TOGETHER.
You are operating under a delusion that says that several items on non-evidence, unsubstantiated claims about the evidence, and conjecture when combined somehow magically turn into evidence.
0 times 53 still equals 0.
When added together (as a unit!), Oswald's unusual movements and actions on those two days in November most certainly paint an incriminating picture when examined through a post-assassination lens.
Only because you are looking at those "movements" through an Oswald-did-it lens.
-
Leaving the wallet, cash and wedding ring could suggest planning. Especially with the curious Thursday trip to the Paine house, the curious curtain rod excuse and the disappearance of the rifle from the garage.
What it suggests is your confirmation bias.
The non-responsiveness to Whaley could suggest consciousness of guilt (the evidentiary legal term). It might or might not be admissible and would carry no great weight if it were admitted.
Everybody who knew Oswald said that he kept to himself and didn't initiate conversations. This was not unusual behavior by any stretch of the imagination, unless you are desperate for "evidence" of guilt.
Leaving the TSBD, getting the gun, shooting Tippit, fleeing to the theater, resisting arrest, yada yada, all make the non-responsiveness to Whaley pale in comparison.
You can't prove one made-up story with another made-up story.
-
Sorry, I've humored you past the breaking point. You are Exhibit A for why I have repeatedly sworn off forums such as this. Declare victory if you like, but you're simply a nutcase and not worth any more of my time.
Translation: I can't respond to any of the points you made, so I am going to engage in posturing instead.
If you don't have the facts on your side, then pound the table.
-
Why do you insist on being so dishonest, Oswald went home with Frazier each and every weekend but one, so much more than a mere "couple of times" and when Oswald's baby was born, he went to Irving on Monday afternoon and stayed till Tuesday morning.
So it was 4 times on a Friday. Yawn.
And the whole idea of going home on a weekend was so that Oswald could spend time with his family, like Friday night, all day Satu-rday and all day Sunday, so just spending a few hours with his children on Thursday night was hardly satisfactory.
Hardly satisfactory as decreed by "Mytton". Therefore, Oswald killed Kennnedy.
And especially just turning up without informing and clearing his visit with the owner of the house was just rude.
He was "rude", therefore he killed Kennedy.
Btw, it's odd that you find the most inane things to be highly suspicious but this glaring anomaly you lie about and try to make excuses, that says a lot!
What's inane is what you consider to be evidence of murder.
-
So it was 4 times on a Friday. Yawn.
Hardly satisfactory as decreed by "Mytton". Therefore, Oswald killed Kennnedy.
He was "rude", therefore he killed Kennedy.
What's inane is what you consider to be evidence of murder.
So it was 4 times on a Friday.
Exactly, a set routine that was broken on the day Oswald retrieved his rifle.
Hardly satisfactory as decreed by "Mytton". Therefore, Oswald killed Kennnedy.
He was "rude", therefore he killed Kennedy.
What's inane is what you consider to be evidence of murder.
As proven by Lance and confirmed by Bugliosi, is that you haven't the faintest clue of what court accepted evidence actually is, but keep dreaming and spewing your layman paranoia and making a complete fool of yourself.
JohnM
-
"on the day Oswald retrieved his rifle". LOL.
"Proven". LOL. People who don't have actual evidence of murder hope and fantasize that things like "being rude" are evidence of murder.
-
"on the day Oswald retrieved his rifle". LOL.
I know, don't you just HATE it when Nutters speculate like that? Here in Conspiracy World, it's ENTIRELY POSSIBLE he went to Ruth's for curtain rods no one ever saw again and made a 28" bologna sub he carried into the TSBD with one end cupped in his palm and the other under his armpit. It's ENTIRELY POSSIBLE the bag observed by Frazier and Randle contained both the curtain rods and the sub. It's ENTIRELY POSSIBLE these events were completely unconnected with the appearance of his rifle on the 6th floor. It's ENTIRELY POSSIBLE it was just bad luck on his part to do the curtain-rod-bologna-sub thing the very night before The Conspirators would plant his rifle. To suggest otherwise is to engage in the sort of unfounded speculation that is the very foundation of the LN narrative.
-
I know, don't you just HATE it when Nutters speculate like that?
Speculate away, but don't pretend that speculation is fact.
Here in Conspiracy World, it's ENTIRELY POSSIBLE he went to Ruth's for curtain rods no one ever saw again and made a 28" bologna sub he carried into the TSBD with one end cupped in his palm and the other under his armpit. It's ENTIRELY POSSIBLE the bag observed by Frazier and Randle contained both the curtain rods and the sub. It's ENTIRELY POSSIBLE these events were completely unconnected with the appearance of his rifle on the 6th floor. It's ENTIRELY POSSIBLE it was just bad luck on his part to do the curtain-rod-bologna-sub thing the very night before The Conspirators would plant his rifle. To suggest otherwise is to engage in the sort of unfounded speculation that is the very foundation of the LN narrative.
Nice strawman, but there is ZERO evidence that the package seen by Frazier contained a Carcano rifle with serial number C2766. Or any rifle whatsoever.
ZERO.
-
Speculate away, but don't pretend that speculation is fact.
Nice strawman, but there is ZERO evidence that the package seen by Frazier contained a Carcano rifle with serial number C2766. Or any rifle whatsoever.
ZERO.
The testimonial evidence is that, at a minimum, Oswald carried a package that he said contained curtain rods and that was sufficiently long and rigid to cup in his palm and under his armpit. Based on their cursory observations, Frazier and Randle estimated the length at 27-28". Randle also said he was holding it in a way that it almost touched the ground. The negative evidence is that no package of curtain rods was found in the TSBD. Oswald, if we can believe the record, denied having spoken of curtain rods, placing a package in Frazier's car or taking a package into the TSBD (other than his lunch). 27 or 28 inches would indeed be too long (by some 8 inches) for the disassembled Carcano, and the rifle would be too long to cup in a palm and under an armpit. But, of course, the rifle was in fact found in the TSBD. (We could add that David Lifton once insisted he had a witness and her supervisor who heard Oswald say on a TSBD elevator that he was carrying a fishing pole, but we'll let it go.)
So, yes, there is a huge conflict in the testimony and evidence. Obviously, Oswald's otherwise puzzling trip to Ruth Paine's and the fact the rifle was found the next day are highly suggestive. Unless Frazier and Randle were flat-out lying for no apparent reason, Oswald was carrying a long, rigid package. The most plausible explanation, it seems to me, is that Frazier and Randle, despite their strong claims to the contrary, were simply wrong in their estimations of length and that Frazier was incorrect in his observation that the package was tucked under Oswald's armpit.
Yes, we don't know the package contained a rifle - or curtain rods, for that matter. But the scenario is not a complete blank slate, and reasonable inferences can be drawn. Sure, researchers of the quality of Pat Speer believe Oswald was actually carrying curtain rods. Given the totality of what is known, this is not as plausible to me as that he was carrying the disassembled rifle. How likely would it be that he concocted the curtain rod story, and then denied it (presumably because he knew there were no curtain rods), while conspirators were placing his rifle on the 6th floor to frame him? If there were curtain rods, why would he not have told the police where they were in the TSBD? This to me is another area where it's difficult to see how any conspiracy scenario makes any real-world sense.
-
Sorry, I've humored you past the breaking point. You are Exhibit A for why I have repeatedly sworn off forums such as this. Declare victory if you like, but you're simply a nutcase and not worth any more of my time.
when you decide to be insulting and obnoxious that renders you not worthy of other peoples time . you have options to agree , to disagree , to refute , to offer rebuttal , as a lawyer you will understand that . you also have the option the right to not reply , to ignore . but you have no right to be nasty and insulting to anyone .
-
when you decide to be insulting and obnoxious that renders you not worthy of other peoples time . you have options to agree , to disagree , to refute , to offer rebuttal , as a lawyer you will understand that . you also have the option the right to not reply , to ignore . but you have no right to be nasty and insulting to anyone .
Can we see your Politeness Police badge please, Fergo? This forum, and particularly the goof I characterized as a nutcase, is a veritable swamp of ad hominem nastiness. How odd and telling that you decided that me calling said goof a nutcase was beyond the pale. Said goof has derailed virtually every thread I have attempted to read with non-substantive and ad hominem silliness - and he is hardly alone. I at least try to inject a bit of wit into my ad hominems, "nutcase" admittedly being an exception. Sorry, there is a species of JFKA fanatic - on both sides of the debate, I will admit - for whom nutcase is a fairly charitable description. Perhaps "useless clown" would have been more polite?
-
The most plausible explanation, it seems to me, is that Frazier and Randle, despite their strong claims to the contrary, were simply wrong in their estimations of length and that Frazier was incorrect in his observation that the package was tucked under Oswald's armpit.
Of course it seems that way to you, as you already believe it was a rifle. Despite there being no evidence for it.