JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Tom Graves on April 05, 2025, 01:41:40 PM
-
What could the law authorities and investigators have done better to prevent the proliferation of tinfoil-hat JFKA conspiracy theorists?
Tape-record the interrogations of LHO?
Have witnesses initial every scrap of evidence?
Not make mistakes in reports and witnesses' statements like placing Jacob, Holt and Simmons on the South side of Elm Street?
Prevent Jack Ruby from sneaking down the ramp?
Handcuff LHO to something on the second floor while continuing their search of the TSBD?
Greer should have speeded up and started zig-zagging or something when he heard the first "firecracker"?
Tippit should have drawn his revolver before getting out of the patrol car and watched LHO like a hawk after doing so?
Left the long bag where they found it in the Sniper's Nest?
Sealed all of the windows on the motorcade route?
Should have had tape recorders running during the whole motorcade to record the number and timing of shots?
Told the evil, evil, evil CIA not to do it?
What else?
-
The circumstances, including who JFK was and the number of people and organizations who detested him (as well as who Oswald was, as well as the chaos of Dealey Plaza), made this an almost perfect storm for conspiracy theories.
That's why it's the ultimate murder mystery - Agatha Christie on steroids.
The single most obvious thing they could have done was keep Oswald alive to stand trial. That should not have been difficult.
(I never see this discussed, but for a few years I was into handguns and discussions of "stopping power" and whatnot. The odds of one shot from a .38 with 1963-era ammunition killing someone would be extremely iffy. It can happen and in Oswald's case obviously did, but if Ruby's effort was some kind of planned hit it was an exceedingly chancy one. The odds of surviving one shot from a .38, especially in the circumstances in which Ruby fired it, would be pretty good.)
-
The odds of one shot from a .38 with 1963-era ammunition killing someone would be extremely iffy. It can happen and in Oswald's case obviously did, but if Ruby's effort was some kind of planned hit it was an exceedingly chancy one. The odds of surviving one shot from a .38, especially in the circumstances in which Ruby fired it, would be pretty good.)
Maybe he knew what he was doing.
-
They should NOT have:
1: allowed Abraham Zapruder's video to be aired in public
2: allowed Jack Ruby, a mob-connected FBI informant, to kill LHO
3: mis-identified CE399 as the "Magic Bullet"
4: allowed JFK's autopsy to be conducted by amateurs who didn't follow proper procedures
5: stopped investigating potential accomplices within 48 hours of the assassination
6: allowed witnesses to give testimony to the Warren Commission which contradicted their initial statements given to the police or FBI in November 1963
I could make a longer list but this is a start ;)
-
Prevent Jack Ruby from sneaking down the ramp?
His impulsive actions are overblown in the grand scheme of things. Had he lived, Oswald strikes me as someone who would have denied the crime right up to the electric chair.
-
His impulsive actions are overblown in the grand scheme of things. Had he lived, Oswald strikes me as someone who would have denied the crime right up to the electric chair.
Which is not typical of people who engage in political assassinations.
You LN's act as if Oswald somehow knew in advance of his murder that we'd still be debating this case 60+ years later.
-
There are some people who believe that every major event in history has some nefarious conspiracy behind it. The identity of the victim (i.e. a charismatic president) followed by the killing of Oswald are the most notable factors in fueling the JFK conspiracy crowd. If Oswald had lived, we would likely know a lot more about him and his motive. My guess is that he would have taken the James Earl Ray path. Pleading guilty to avoid the death penalty then teasing a conspiracy for the rest of his life for attention and sympathy. Oswald's death was like throwing gasoline on the conspiracy spark.
-
His impulsive actions are overblown in the grand scheme of things. Had he lived, Oswald strikes me as someone who would have denied the crime right up to the electric chair.
Yes, the Ruby killing of Oswald is bizarre and fascinating by any standard, but attempting to make it an organized conspiratorial event is perhaps the ultimate in ad hoc theorizing.
The choice of an erratic, red-flag character like Ruby in the first place ... the way Ruby spent his morning, even though Oswald was supposed to be moved much earlier ... Sheba in the car ... Ruby at Western Union minutes before the shooting ... some prearranged "signal" to alert Ruby the time was now ... a DPD participant to let him in the alley door ... the car horn "signal" ... all the things that could have gone wrong as Ruby approached Oswald ... relying on a single shot from a .38 ... Ruby lives to tell his tale, represented by flamboyant civil attorney Mel Belli.
Yep, sounds like a DPD/Mafia operation to me. Yep, no one could think of a tidier way to eliminate Oswald than THAT scenario. I love Santo Trafficante's answer at some hearing when asked "What if I told you Jack Ruby had Mafia connectiions?" Trafficante: "I'd say the Mafia needs a new personnel director." Me, too, Santo.
(By "ad hoc theorizing" I mean: You are stuck with the events as they actually occurred and thus must force-fit them into a conspiracy scenario even though no real-world conspiracy would have looked anything like that unless the conspirators were absolute idiots.)
-
His impulsive actions are overblown in the grand scheme of things. Had he lived, Oswald strikes me as someone who would have denied the crime right up to the electric chair.
If he truly wanted to become a historic figure then I don't think so. In any case, I think he'd have to give answers to the questions about, among other things, where he was at the time of the assassination and what he did afterwards. Or in terms of physical evidence: could he publicly deny owning that rifle? And all of this nonsense (to me) about him being a CIA agent or asset would be exposed for the folly it is. Then we have the lesser items: Mexico City, et cetera.
At some point his alibi, his attempts to answer these and other questions, would collapse on its own inconsistencies and contradictions. Other than the hard core types - the two Oswalds believers, he was a victim of MK-Ultra, the Sirhan types - none of us would be here.
-
Well, if we're all going to hypothesize what Oswald would have done, I think (1) no plea deal for him to avoid execution would ever have been offered; (2) he would've remained completely uncooperative to the end; and (3) represented by Abt or an attorney of similar ilk, he would have testified at length and done his best to vindicate his Marxist philosophy. I think he knew there was no way out of the pickle he was in and would have seen a trial as a way to cement his place in history as a genuine Marxist and deep political thinker.
-
There are some people who believe that every major event in history has some nefarious conspiracy behind it.
I'm not one of those people. I'm skeptical about everything.
But there are strange coincidences and inconsistencies in the evidence in all three of the major assassinations of the 1960s (JFK, MLK, and RFK).
Impossible to rule out conspiracies involving the US intelligence community in either of those examples.
-
If he truly wanted to become a historic figure then I don't think so. In any case, I think he'd have to give answers to the questions about, among other things, where he was at the time of the assassination and what he did afterwards. Or in terms of physical evidence, could he publicly deny owning that rifle? And all of this nonsense (to me) about him being a CIA agent or asset would be exposed for the folly it is. Then we have the lesser items: Mexico City, et cetera.
At some point his alibi, his attempt to answer these questions, would collapse on its own inconsistencies. Other than the hard core types - the two Oswalds believers, he was a victim of MK-Ultra, the Sirhan types - none of us would be here.
LN's can never address the fact that Oswald's alibi had indirect corroboration.
Oswald told the Dallas PD that James Jarman and Harold Norman passed by the lunchroom shortly before the motorcade passed by. Which confirms that he was downstairs in the Book Depository minutes before the shots were fired.
As I said earlier, either Oswald was psychic and predicted that we'd be debating his story decades later, or maybe he really was "just a Patsy".
There's no plausible explanation for how Oswald could've came up with an alibi that had some indirect corroboration.