JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Lance Payette on April 03, 2025, 07:39:55 PM
-
A longtime researcher recently posted on the Ed Forum that “Oswald’s patsy statement speaks volumes.”
Does it?
Oswald said, “They’ve taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I’m just a patsy.”
He was saying, clearly, that he was a patsy of the Dallas Police Department.
I will grant, this could suggest Oswald was absolutely clueless as to why he’d been arrested. He didn’t know his rifle was on the 6th floor of the TSBD, didn’t know Tippit had been shot, perhaps didn’t even know JFK was dead. He really thought he'd been arrested only because the DPD knew he'd been in Russia.
But then we have to explain why he left the TSBD, hopped a bus, got impatient and hailed a taxi, had the taxi drop him off past his rooming house, hurried in and got his pistol, Ded Something (perhaps shot Tippit?), lingered suspiciously at the entrance to the shoe store, slipped into the theater, changed seats, resisted arrest, and told whoppers to his interrogators. Hmmm ...
What his statement didn’t suggest is that he was a patsy in any conspiracy. He didn’t say “I’m just a patsy – there’s more to this than you think” or “I’m just a patsy – the truth will come out” or “Others are the criminals – I’m just a patsy" or "I didn't shoot anyone - I was duped - I'm just a patsy."
Yet this “patsy” statement is one of absolute linchpins of conspiracy gospel. CTers get more mileage out of it than fundamentalists get out of any Bible verse.
Yes, this is old hat, JFKA 101 sort of stuff, but how many members of the public think there was a conspiracy largely because CTers constantly beat the patsy drum as though it had dark conspiratorial implications?
-
A longtime researcher recently posted on the Ed Forum that “Oswald’s patsy statement speaks volumes.”
Does it?
Oswald said, “They’ve taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I’m just a patsy.”
He was saying, clearly, that he was a patsy of the Dallas Police Department.
I will grant, this could suggest Oswald was absolutely clueless as to why he’d been arrested. He didn’t know his rifle was on the 6th floor of the TSBD, didn’t know Tippit had been shot, perhaps didn’t even know JFK was dead. He really thought he'd been arrested only because the DPD knew he'd been in Russia.
But then we have to explain why he left the TSBD, hopped a bus, got impatient and hailed a taxi, had the taxi drop him off past his rooming house, hurried in and got his pistol, Ded Something (perhaps shot Tippit?), lingered suspiciously at the entrance to the shoe store, slipped into the theater, changed seats, resisted arrest, and told whoppers to his interrogators. Hmmm ...
What his statement didn’t suggest is that he was a patsy in any conspiracy. He didn’t say “I’m just a patsy – there’s more to this than you think” or “I’m just a patsy – the truth will come out” or “Others are the criminals – I’m just a patsy" or "I didn't shoot anyone - I was duped - I'm just a patsy."
Yet this “patsy” statement is one of absolute linchpins of conspiracy gospel. CTers get more mileage out of it than fundamentalists get out of any Bible verse.
Yes, this is old hat, JFKA 101 sort of stuff, but how many members of the public think there was a conspiracy largely because CTers constantly beat the patsy drum as though it had dark conspiratorial implications?
Honestly, the patsy statement to me is very much about what LHO's brother Robert describes about their mother and those traits being passed on to LHO:
ROBERT OSWALD : She had certain characteristics that were so much like Lee. The time and circumstances always seemed to be against her. The world owed her a living. She wanted to be somebody. I think this was passed on to Lee.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/etc/script.html (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/oswald/etc/script.html)
-
There's no proof that he shot a gun that day
-
I will grant, this could suggest Oswald was absolutely clueless as to why he’d been arrested. He didn’t know his rifle was on the 6th floor of the TSBD, didn’t know Tippit had been shot, perhaps didn’t even know JFK was dead. He really thought he'd been arrested only because the DPD knew he'd been in Russia.
But then we have to explain why he left the TSBD, hopped a bus, got impatient and hailed a taxi, had the taxi drop him off past his rooming house, hurried in and got his pistol, Ded Something (perhaps shot Tippit?), lingered suspiciously at the entrance to the shoe store, slipped into the theater, changed seats, resisted arrest, and told whoppers to his interrogators. Hmmm ...
Why do "we" need to "explain" those accusations? Are they supposed to be evidence of murder?
-
Why do "we" need to "explain" those accusations? Are they supposed to be evidence of murder?
Consciousness of guilt.
-
Consciousness of guilt.
Confirmation bias.
-
Confirmation bias.
KGB*-approved trolling by John Iacoletti.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
Why do "we" need to "explain" those accusations? Are they supposed to be evidence of murder?
Well, Duh!
In the law of evidence, consciousness of guilt is a type of circumstantial evidence that judges, prosecutors, and juries may consider when determining whether a defendant is guilty of a criminal offense. It is often admissible evidence,[1] and judges are required to instruct juries on this form of evidence.[2] Deceptive statements or evasive actions made by a defendant after the commission of a crime or other wrongdoing are seen as evidence of a guilty conscience. These are not the typical behaviors of an innocent person, and a "defendant's actions are compared unfavorably to what a normal, innocent person would have done, with the implication that the discrepancy indicates guilt".[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_of_guilt
Consciousness of Guilt is both a concept and a type of circumstantial evidence used in criminal trials by prosecutors. It refers to a powerful and highly incriminating inference that a judge or jury may draw from the statements or conduct of a defendant (accused) after a crime has been committed suggesting that the defendant knows he or she is guilty of the charged crime. In other words, the defendant's conduct after the crime is circumstantial (indirect) evidence that the defendant intended to commit the crime, or, in fact, committed the crime.
Criminal defense attorney Stephen G. Rodriguez
Oswald's actions was the very definition of flight from the scene of the crime, and thus would be "admissible evidence", and it would be up to Oswald and/or his Defence team to fabricate a narrative that could convince a Jury that this is just typical behaviour of an innocent man simply going about his day! Good luck with that!
JohnM
-
Consciousness of guilt.
Oswald wasn’t the only employee to leave the Book Depository after Kennedy was shot. Were they all guilty?
No one has been able to prove that he was on the sixth floor when the shots were fired.
-
Oswald wasn’t the only employee to leave the Book Depository after Kennedy was shot. Were they all guilty?
How many employees left with 3 minutes of the assassination?
How many employees owned the rifle on the 6th floor which was directly linked to the bullet fragments found in the Limo?
How many employees got on and off a slow moving bus, caught a cab and got out way past where the lived?
How many employees went to their residence and got a revolver?
How many employees killed a cop?
How many employees snuck into a theatre, resisted arrest and tried to kill more cops?
How many employees were arrested and told one provable lie after another?
Can you name one other employee that satisfied even one of those criteria?
JohnM
-
Well, Duh!
In the law of evidence, consciousness of guilt is a type of circumstantial evidence that judges, prosecutors, and juries may consider when determining whether a defendant is guilty of a criminal offense. It is often admissible evidence,[1] and judges are required to instruct juries on this form of evidence.[2] Deceptive statements or evasive actions made by a defendant after the commission of a crime or other wrongdoing are seen as evidence of a guilty conscience. These are not the typical behaviors of an innocent person, and a "defendant's actions are compared unfavorably to what a normal, innocent person would have done, with the implication that the discrepancy indicates guilt".[3][/b]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_of_guilt
At some point you have to have some actual evidence.
-
How many employees left with 3 minutes of the assassination?
How many employees owned the rifle on the 6th floor which was directly linked to the bullet fragments found in the Limo?
How many employees got on and off a slow moving bus, caught a cab and got out way past where the lived?
How many employees went to their residence and got a revolver?
How many employees killed a cop?
How many employees snuck into a theatre, resisted arrest and tried to kill more cops?
How many employees were arrested and told one provable lie after another?
Can you name one other employee that satisfied even one of those criteria?
You forgot to even prove that Oswald satisfied those criteria.
-
At some point you have to have some actual evidence.
Another mindless one liner. Yawn!
Not even you can deny there is a literal mountain of evidence in this case, the fact that you keep saying/implying the incriminating evidence was fabricated, planted and lied about, is for you to prove and so far after 60+ years not one of your fellow CK's have proven even one piece of evidence is fraudulent!
JohnM
-
Not even you can deny there is a literal mountain of evidence in this case,
I absolutely can deny it. Your “mountain” is silly crap like a ring in a cup and calling it “Oswald’s rifle” (LOL).
the fact that you keep saying/implying the incriminating evidence was fabricated, planted and lied about, is for you to prove
I said nothing of the kind. Your problem is that your “evidence”, even if genuine, does not prove who killed Kennedy.
-
Your problem is that your “evidence,” even if genuine, does not prove who killed Kennedy.
If three people had photographed Oswald as he was shooting at JFK from his Sniper's Nest, you would probably claim that their photos, lacking a digital time stamp (or a clock in the background) and a notarized statement in triplicate, were fake.
-
If three people had photographed Oswald as he was shooting at JFK from his Sniper's Nest, you would probably claim that their photos, lacking a digital time stamp (or a clock in the background) and a notarized statement in triplicate, were fake.
Cool fantasy, bro. Almost as creative as your fantasy about Gloria Calvery.
-
At some point you have to have some actual evidence.
Oh, the irony of that sentence is too thick to measure!
Imagine the gall of a JFKA CTer writing the above comment. Just incredible.
Pot meets Kettle (yet again).
-
If three people had photographed Oswald as he was shooting at JFK from his Sniper's Nest, you would probably claim that their photos, lacking a digital time stamp (or a clock in the background) and a notarized statement in triplicate, were fake.
I would be sceptical if their cameras came out of Ruth Paine's garage.
-
I would be sceptical if their cameras came out of Ruth Paine's garage.
Yeah, you're probably right . . . or if they'd belonged to probable long-term KGB "illegal," George DeMohrenschildt.
-
Who brought Oswald's rifle from New Orleans to Dallas? (if it wasn't Ruth Paine)
-
How many employees left with 3 minutes of the assassination?
That doesn't prove that he fired the shots. He could have been fleeing because he realised that things were looking bad for him because of how much he was involved in... something.
How many employees owned the rifle on the 6th floor which was directly linked to the bullet fragments found in the Limo?
Again, this doesn't prove that he fired it that day.
How many employees got on and off a slow moving bus, caught a cab and got out way past where the lived?
How many employees went to their residence and got a revolver?
Again, this could have been his panic, his fear that things were looking bad or weird, in relation to what he'd been involved in.
How many employees killed a cop?
Much debated here.
How many employees snuck into a theatre, resisted arrest and tried to kill more cops?
Again, could relate to his fear of the situation.
How many employees were arrested and told one provable lie after another?
Ditto.
-
There is NO EVIDENCE putting Oswald inside that sniper's nest when the shots were fired. I believe Oswald probably moved the boxes around and set the sniper's nest up. That was the level of his involvement in the JFK Assassination. If he had been the shooter, I believe he would have also brought his hand gun with him.
-
There is NO EVIDENCE putting Oswald inside that sniper's nest when the shots were fired. I believe Oswald probably moved the boxes around and set the sniper's nest up. That was the level of his involvement in the JFK Assassination. If he had been the shooter, I believe he would have also brought his hand gun with him.
I have had that same thought. If LHO knew he would be involved with the assassination of a President in advance, why did he leave his pistol at home?
I also have never gotten an explanation for Oswald's conversation with James Jarman on the morning of 11/22/63. Jarman said LHO asked why crowds were lining up outside the Book Depository. Which implies that he wasn't aware that JFK's motorcade was going to pass the Book Depository prior to that conversation.
The best explanation I've heard is that Oswald was plotting his alibi in advance. That's possible but if that were true, wouldn't he have had the same conversation with other people at work that morning? How could he have known that Jarman would mention it later in his statements to the police?
-
I have had that same thought. If LHO knew he would be involved with the assassination of a President in advance, why did he leave his pistol at home?
I also have never gotten an explanation for Oswald's conversation with James Jarman on the morning of 11/22/63. Jarman said LHO asked why crowds were lining up outside the Book Depository. Which implies that he wasn't aware that JFK's motorcade was going to pass the Book Depository prior to that conversation.
The best explanation I've heard is that Oswald was plotting his alibi in advance. That's possible but if that were true, wouldn't he have had the same conversation with other people at work that morning? How could he have known that Jarman would mention it later in his statements to the police?
If he wanted an alibi, all he had to do was go to the front step and engage in conversation with multiple people.
-
I believe Oswald was told to establish his alibi by staying inside that 2nd Floor Lunchroom. The plan was to "pop" him inside the Lunchroom and make it look like a suicide. DPD Officer Baker beat the assassin to that lunchroom. After being confronted by Baker, Oswald got to thinking he was a sitting duck, possibly being setup, and he then left the TSBD and got his gun. At that point, Oswald was in scramble mode. No Plan.
-
I believe Oswald was told to establish his alibi by staying inside that 2nd Floor Lunchroom. The plan was to "pop" him inside the Lunchroom and make it look like a suicide. DPD Officer Baker beat the assassin to that lunchroom. After being confronted by Baker, Oswald got to thinking he was a sitting duck, possibly being setup, and he then left the TSBD and got his gun. At that point, Oswald was in scramble mode. No Plan.
Yes, I think something like that was going on - Oswald following some sort of instruction without knowing that the hit was taking place at that moment... with his rifle in the scenario. Hence, as you say, his panic run.
Not so sure about a lunchroom execution though.
-
I believe Oswald was told to establish his alibi by staying inside that 2nd Floor Lunchroom. The plan was to "pop" him inside the Lunchroom and make it look like a suicide. DPD Officer Baker beat the assassin to that lunchroom. After being confronted by Baker, Oswald got to thinking he was a sitting duck, possibly being setup, and he then left the TSBD and got his gun. At that point, Oswald was in scramble mode. No Plan.
What gun would he have "popped" himself with in the lunchroom? As an admitted amateur at assassination planning, I would have placed the Carcano under his chin and blown his head off right there in the sniper's nest. Now there is a plausible "suicide."
The problem with the "panic" explanation for Oswald's post-assassination actions is that it's completely ad hoc. You posit "panic" because you're stuck with his actions. You have a very difficult time explaining why he would've panicked unless he'd known his rifle was in the TSBD. You have a very difficult time explaining why, with his rifle in the TSBD and the Presidential motorcade going by, he would have failed to put 2+2 together and would have agreed to placidly wait in the lunchroom. If he didn't know his rifle was in the TSBD, of course, panic makes no sense. If he did know but was completely innocent, heading for the nearest policeman and cooperating fully seems more plausible to me than what he actually did. On top of all that, why would the Oswald who was cool as a cucumber in the lunchroom encounter and mystifyingly cool under interrogation have "panicked" when you say he did?
-
Oh, the irony of that sentence is too thick to measure!
Imagine the gall of a JFKA CTer writing the above comment. Just incredible.
Pot meets Kettle (yet again).
Only because you think that disbelieving the official fantasy (and for good reason) is the same thing as a "conspiracy theory".
Don't make claims you can't prove. Seems simple enough.
-
You think that disbelieving the official fantasy (and for good reason) is the same thing as a "conspiracy theory".
You don't think the Carcano that was found on the sixth floor -- with Oswald's prints on it and which the bullet fragments found in the limo and CE-399 were ballistically matched to -- belonged to Oswald.
Therefore, you believe that someone other than Oswald must have fired it and put it there so that he (Oswald) would be incriminated for the assassination.
It seems to me that you, like Dylan's "Thin Man," know there was a conspiracy, but you don't know what it was . . . because you haven't been able to think of one that makes more sense that the one proclaimed by the Warren Commission Report, especially one that wouldn't necessitate the witting involvement of oodles a gobs of bad guys and bad gals.
Yet you continue to snipe away like mad because the official story is . . . gasp . . . too implausible for your contrarian mind to believe.
"You should be made to wear earphones."
-
You don't think the Carcano that was found on the sixth floor -- with Oswald's prints on it and which the bullet fragments found in the limo and CE-399 were ballistically matched to -- belonged to Oswald.
You forgot to prove it had "Oswald's prints on it", or that those bullet fragments were "found in the limo", or that CE-399 had anything to do with the assassination.
Therefore, you believe that someone other than Oswald must have fired it and put it there so that he (Oswald) would be incriminated for the assassination.
False dichotomy. Next?