If you cannot be wrong then you are wrong.

[Walt Cakebread]

Exactly.  So now refer back to your original observation:  "If you cannot be wrong then you are wrong".

There are a lot of hypothetical things that would "make sense".  Make up with Marina. Convince her to move in with him.  Hell, even getting curtain rods makes sense.  If you think the only possible reason for coming there on a non-Friday (not the first time he did so, BTW) was to get a rifle to kill the president with, then you are engaging in post-hoc rationalization.

Apparently not that narrow.  Again, you can make a case for many other things besides a hypothetical rifle in a bag for which there is no evidence.

Several possibilities.  Maybe the room didn't really already have curtain rods. Mrs Johnson was photographed with another person hammering up curtain rods after the assassination.  Maybe he wanted different curtain rods.  Maybe the curtain rods were for the apartment Lee wanted to rent for Marina to come live with him.  Maybe he lied to Frazier because he was embarrassed to air his martial strife to Frazier.  Maybe Frazier made up the story to distance himself because Fritz was threatening to charge him as an accomplice.  This notion that the only possible reason is getting a rifle to shoot the president with is fundamentally flawed.

Maybe Frazier really was thinking of a different day.  How would you know?  Maybe the interrogation report wasn't accurate.  By the way, the report doesn't say he denied bring in a long narrow package, it says that he "denied that he had brought the long package described by Mr. Frazier and his sister."  But I'm sure Frazier and Randle didn't come into the interrogation room.  How did they characterize what Frazier and Randle described?  We don't know.

You should assume nothing -- including that there was a rifle in the bag that Frazier saw.

Why was Dougherty by himself during the shooting when almost everyone else was with others?
Why was Piper by himself during the shooting when almost everyone else was with others?
Why was Wilson by himself during the shooting when almost everyone else was with others?
Why was West by himself during the shooting when almost everyone else was with others?
Why was Hine by herself during the shooting when almost everyone else was with others?

The only reason that's where you "expect him to be" is because you think he did it and then rushed down the stairs in 75-90 seconds.

You don't know that he left the building in the few minutes after the shooting.  All you can say is when he boarded the bus, and that isn't even certain.  McWatters thought he was identifying the grinning teenager (Roy Milton Jones)

This is evidence? Why did the frugal Oswald buy a rifle for $19.95?  Why didn't the Oswald who had $13.87 in his pocket just buy a damn movie ticket and evade suspicion (if in fact he didn't)?

You can fit all kinds of speculation into a predetermined conclusion and claim it makes sense.

Nobody saw him "sneak into the theater".

How is it that John Gibson was in a movie theater a mile from where a police officer just happened to be murdered?

That's what boys do.  On the other hand, why would somebody who had just shot a cop ditch a jacket, but not the gun?  Here's the thing?  Hypothetical questions aren't evidence of anything.

Why would you think he "tried to pull a handgun"?

But is there anything that could possibly sell you, even in theory?  Refer back to your premise.

Incorrect.  I never stated that I thought that there probably was a conspiracy.  There isn't sufficient evidence to make that conclusion either.

There are a lot of hypothetical things that would "make sense".

What if Lee knew that he would be fleeing to Cuba after an ATTEMPT to shoot JFK and would not see his wife or kids for a long time?   

That's what had been planned for the Walker hoax......  And I strongly suspect that Walker was the schemer in both events.....

[Joe Elliott]

Correct. Not until you explain how everything you posted is not consistent with Oswald being a patsy.

You seem to think that Oswald was a lone nut by default and it is up to CTs to prove he wasn't. The reality is that the LN hypothesis is weaker than the patsy hypothesis. You LNers are all in with Oswald acting alone, which has a crapload of evidence suggesting otherwise. However, you deny a conspiracy because it's 1 strike and you are out if even 1 other person was involved. That's why the HSCA concluded that Oswald likely did not act alone. The LN hypothesis can be disproven with more evidence, but you can never prove it like you can't prove bigfoot didn't do it.

I don't see many CTs claiming Oswald was innocent or not involved is some fashion, only that he was a patsy and not a LN. Otherwise, all the points you made above are consistent with Oswald being a patsy. There is pretty strong circumstantial evidence that Oswald did not even touch the MC rifle that was planted on the 6th floor. No prints on both murder weapons, a useless scope on the rifle, and an impossible trajectory from the 6th floor entering JFK's back at the T1 vertebrae and exiting at C7, then into Connally at the 5th rib then smashing thru his wrist bone and into his thigh, then falling out onto the wrong stretcher in pristine condition with no DNA on it. And all that is just fine with you LNers because you assume Oswald took all the shots and was definitely NOT a patsy. There is a plethora of similar circumstantial evidence pointing to a conspiracy that needs to be explained before CTs can buy into the LN hypothesis.

For CTs, that ship has sailed because you LNers have failed to defend your LNer position with any facts or evidence that refute a conspiracy. Oswald may have even taken ALL the shots, (which I don't believe) but he was no LN. He was a patsy, which all your anecdotal evidence supports. You can't cherry pick your evidence that you think supports your position and ignore the evidence that doesn't. That's not how logic and critical thinking works. Not very scientific.

Palmprints were found on the rifle. No prints were found on the handgun but since it was wrestled out of his hands while he tried to shoot a second police officer, I think that is good enough. Oh, except you assume the officers in the theater were all lying. So, I guess we should assume that the officer who lifted the palmprint off the rifle that night was lying as well. If we assume that any officer who lifts fingerprints form a gun, or even wrestles the gun from the suspects grip is lying, that does make it pretty hard to build a case against that suspect. Or any other suspect.

You conclude there is no evidence against Oswald. That no prints were ever found on either weapon. Any facts against Oswald disappear in a memory hole in your brain. In the future you will probably again claim that no prints of Oswald were ever found on either weapon.


If I make the assumption, that everyone was lying, Wesley Frazier, the police who were at the theater that Oswald was arrested at, the ballistic experts who tested the rifle or rifles of the same model, the Dallas policeman who lifted the palmprint from the rifle, etc., the yes, the case against Oswald falls apart. But these same assumptions cause the case against every criminal who was guilty and was found guilty, to fall apart.

It is beyond belief that Oswald was involved in a plot to assassinate the president but did not know he was involved in a plot to assassinate the President. “Here, go home and bring back to work a long narrow package. Make certain you are by yourself and out of sight as the President drives by.” If I make these kinds of assumptions, I can acquit every criminal who has ever been charged with a crime.

I can imagine that there was a conspiracy that Oswald knew about and knew what it was going to do, or very likely was going to do. I cannot imagine that there was a conspiracy which Oswald had no idea was about killing the President.


In any case you give no answer to what could happen in the future that would cause you to conclude that Oswald killed the president and acted alone. So, it appears that you cannot even imagine such a train of events. Perhaps you know yourself well enough to realize that you would immediately forgot any new facts that are discovered that show Oswald’s guilt.

[Joe Elliott]

At this point, it would have to be conclusive physical evidence, like DNA.  Or conclusive photographic evidence.  New documents of known provenance showing that this particular rifle was picked up by Oswald.  Conclusive physical evidence that he fired a rifle that day, handled that rifle, and that CE139 was the gun that killed Kennedy.  Something like that.

DNA evidence would convince you? Like DNA evidence showing the Oswald was at the sixth-floor window? How could that convince you when Oswald worked in that building.

Conclusive photographic evidence? Like a clear photograph showing Oswald firing the rifle? Wouldn’t you question why this photo or film laid undiscovered so long? Wouldn’t you conclude that this must be a fake? Actually, I think I would conclude it must be a fake.

Documents were found showing that the rifle was ordered by someone who Oswald was found with a fake ID with the same name. But you find reasons to reject it.

Conclusive evidence that Oswald handled that rifle? His palmprints were found on the rifle. Conclusive evidence that he handled the rifle that day? Fingerprints and palmprints can never be dated.


QUESTION: What new fingerprint evidence would convince you and was not bogus like the palmprint.


Conclusive evidence that CE139 was the murder weapon? The marks left on the bullet found on the stretcher and the fragments in the limousine have been ballistically matched to the rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world. Of course, the bullets can be planted. As they can be in any murder case.

QUESTION: What new evidence would convince you that the bullet and bullet fragments were not planted. You claim good new ballistic evidence would convince you. Is that really true?

[Walt Cakebread]

Palmprints were found on the rifle. No prints were found on the handgun but since it was wrestled out of his hands while he tried to shoot a second police officer, I think that is good enough. Oh, except you assume the officers in the theater were all lying. So, I guess we should assume that the officer who lifted the palmprint off the rifle that night was lying as well. If we assume that any officer who lifts fingerprints form a gun, or even wrestles the gun from the suspects grip is lying, that does make it pretty hard to build a case against that suspect. Or any other suspect.

You conclude there is no evidence against Oswald. That no prints were ever found on either weapon. Any facts against Oswald disappear in a memory hole in your brain. In the future you will probably again claim that no prints of Oswald were ever found on either weapon.


If I make the assumption, that everyone was lying, Wesley Frazier, the police who were at the theater that Oswald was arrested at, the ballistic experts who tested the rifle or rifles of the same model, the Dallas policeman who lifted the palmprint from the rifle, etc., the yes, the case against Oswald falls apart. But these same assumptions cause the case against every criminal who was guilty and was found guilty, to fall apart.

It is beyond belief that Oswald was involved in a plot to assassinate the president but did not know he was involved in a plot to assassinate the President. “Here, go home and bring back to work a long narrow package. Make certain you are by yourself and out of sight as the President drives by.” If I make these kinds of assumptions, I can acquit every criminal who has ever been charged with a crime.

I can imagine that there was a conspiracy that Oswald knew about and knew what it was going to do, or very likely was going to do. I cannot imagine that there was a conspiracy which Oswald had no idea was about killing the President.


In any case you give no answer to what could happen in the future that would cause you to conclude that Oswald killed the president and acted alone. So, it appears that you cannot even imagine such a train of events. Perhaps you know yourself well enough to realize that you would immediately forgot any new facts that are discovered that show Oswald’s guilt.

So, I guess we should assume that the officer who lifted the palmprint off the rifle that night was lying

If you'll open your eyes to the evidence, you will not need to assume..... You will know that Lt Day was lying.

[Joe Elliott]

So, I guess we should assume that the officer who lifted the palmprint off the rifle that night was lying

If you'll open your eyes to the evidence, you will not need to assume..... You will know that Lt Day was lying.

What evidence is there that Lt Day is lying?

[John Iacoletti]

Palmprints were found on the rifle.

No, a single partial palmprint showed up a week later on an index card.

No prints were found on the handgun but since it was wrestled out of his hands while he tried to shoot a second police officer, I think that is good enough.

How do you know that the revolver that Gerald Hill pulled out of his own pocket 1.5-2 hours after Oswald's arrest was "wrestled out" of Oswald's hands?

Oh, except you assume the officers in the theater were all lying.

I never said that.  Nick McDonald was a serial embellisher though.

So, I guess we should assume that the officer who lifted the palmprint off the rifle that night was lying as well.

His story is dodgy as hell.  He claimed he "didn't have time" to photograph or cover the print like he did the others, but he had hours.  He said there were traces left on the rifle, but Latona found no trace or an evidence that the area had even been processed.  He was told to turn over all the evidence, but for some inexplicable reason, held this back and didn't even mention it to Drain.  Even the Warren Commission thought it was dodgy.

If we assume that any officer who lifts fingerprints form a gun, or even wrestles the gun from the suspects grip is lying, that does make it pretty hard to build a case against that suspect. Or any other suspect.

Whether it's malice or ineptness, the result is the same.  The evidence is of unreliable provenance.

You conclude there is no evidence against Oswald.

Nope.  Never said that either.

If I make the assumption, that everyone was lying, Wesley Frazier, the police who were at the theater that Oswald was arrested at, the ballistic experts who tested the rifle or rifles of the same model, the Dallas policeman who lifted the palmprint from the rifle, etc., the yes, the case against Oswald falls apart. But these same assumptions cause the case against every criminal who was guilty and was found guilty, to fall apart.

Nope.  I never said that Frazier was lying.  Or ballistics experts.

It is beyond belief that Oswald was involved in a plot to assassinate the president but did not know he was involved in a plot to assassinate the President. “Here, go home and bring back to work a long narrow package. Make certain you are by yourself and out of sight as the President drives by.”

You'll have to take that up with somebody who believes that.

In any case you give no answer to what could happen in the future that would cause you to conclude that Oswald killed the president and acted alone.

I did give an answer.  Did you just not like the answer?  On the other hand, you didn't even try to answer what (even in theory) would convince you that Oswald had nothing to do with it.  Double standard?

[John Iacoletti]

Documents were found showing that the rifle was ordered by someone who Oswald was found with a fake ID with the same name. But you find reasons to reject it.

That's because every bit of physical evidence in this case (of which there is little) has some problem associated with it.  Was the Hidell ID mentioned in any interview or report written prior to the FBI seizing the Klein's microfilm?  Why is the microfilm "missing"?  Why is there no USPS record of shipment or a signature card for anybody picking it up?  If there was some corroboration to the alleged shipment, it would be a better case.

QUESTION: What new fingerprint evidence would convince you and was not bogus like the palmprint.

If Day had followed the same procedure for the magic partial palmprint and photographed it and covered it, and turned it over with the others, it would be a lot more convincing.

Conclusive evidence that CE139 was the murder weapon? The marks left on the bullet found on the stretcher

Unfortunately there is no evidence that the bullet found on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland Hospital was involved in the assassination at all.  And there's no good reason to even think that CE399 was the bullet that Tomlinson found.  Wright said the bullet he handled was pointed.  And CE 399 doesn't have a solid chain of custody.  If these discrepancies didn't exist, it would be a stronger case.  But even if you could prove that CE399 went through Kennedy or Connally (DNA might do that), it wasn't the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head, so it doesn't tell you what the murder weapon was.

and the fragments in the limousine have been ballistically matched to the rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world.

Also with no solid chain of custody.  And these multilated fragments were matched by Robert Frazier lining up the marks "in his mind" when they didn't line up under the microscope.  And there's no way to connect these fragments with the bullet fragments in Kennedy's head, so it's just an assumption that they came from the same bullet.  And there's no way to connect the fragments in Kennedy's head with any specific weapon.

If proper evidence handling procedures had been followed, it would be a much stronger case.

QUESTION: What new evidence would convince you that the bullet and bullet fragments were not planted. You claim good new ballistic evidence would convince you. Is that really true?

I didn't say that.  In fact, I said just the opposite.  No ballistics test in the world will tell you who fired a rifle.

At this point, we can't go back and make the investigators do things better or make the dodgy claims any less dodgy.  So it would have to be something new and unassailable.