Conclusions or assumptions

[Jon Banks]

A jury is tasked with weighing the prosecution scenario against the defense counter-argument, including sometimes an alternative theory. In the OJ Simpson Criminal Trial, the jury chose to believe OJ cut his finger on a broken drinking glass, that Fuhrman was a racist who planted the glove at Rockingham, that the bloodstained socks at Rockingham and blood drops/smears in the Bronco and at Bundy were planted, and that the DNA evidence was contaminated from a blood sample taken from OJ.

There is an all-too-common practice in our justice system known as Framing the Guilty. A police officer (or crime lab supervisor or medical examiner or district attorney) is convinced of a suspect's guilt but fears the bastard will walk free. The police officer (or other administrator of justice) will therefore bury exculpatory evidence, manufacture or plant inculpatory evidence, coerce a false confession, or provide favorable treatment to a third party in exchange for false testimony.

Since the dirtbag being framed is guilty, no harm is done.

http://www.skepticaljuror.com/2014/04/framing-guilty-framing-innocent.html


"Framing the guilty" (framing people that the police presume to be guilty) is a real problem in Law Enforcement. I don't know how common it is but it does happen.

More video emerges of Baltimore police staging evidence: prosecutors
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-maryland-police/more-video-emerges-of-baltimore-police-staging-evidence-prosecutors-idUSKCN1B127W


What I mean is, while OJ may have been guilty as sin, the LAPD did in fact, cut corners and maybe staged some evidence in order to ensure that OJ wouldn't get away with it.

O.J. Simpson case taught police what not to do at a crime scene
https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2014/06/08/oj-simpson-case-taught-police-what-not-to-do-at-a-crime-scene/

Police Detective Philip Vannatter drew Simpson’s blood at the LAPD on June 13, the day after the killings. But instead of booking it into evidence, Vannatter put the blood vial in his pocket and went to Simpson’s home where criminalists were collecting evidence.

Jurors questioned why he would have carried it around for hours rather than booking it and the defense argued it may have been used to plant evidence such as blood drops on Simpson’s front walkway.


Black Americans know better than most other Americans how corrupt Law Enforcement can be. So that explains why the Black Jurors in the OJ trial were receptive to the Defense's arguments about evidence tampering and potential staging of evidence.


If Oswald lived to go to trial and got a good lawyer, the problems with the evidence against him would've been exposed and challenged in court. Of course, there might've been fewer problems with the evidence had he lived. Many of the typical things done to preserve evidence and chain of custody were tossed out the window once Ruby killed Oswald.

[Martin Weidmann]

There is an all-too-common practice in our justice system known as Framing the Guilty. A police officer (or crime lab supervisor or medical examiner or district attorney) is convinced of a suspect's guilt but fears the bastard will walk free. The police officer (or other administrator of justice) will therefore bury exculpatory evidence, manufacture or plant inculpatory evidence, coerce a false confession, or provide favorable treatment to a third party in exchange for false testimony.

Since the dirtbag being framed is guilty, no harm is done.

http://www.skepticaljuror.com/2014/04/framing-guilty-framing-innocent.html


"Framing the guilty" (framing people that the police presume to be guilty) is a real problem in Law Enforcement. I don't know how common it is but it does happen.

More video emerges of Baltimore police staging evidence: prosecutors
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-maryland-police/more-video-emerges-of-baltimore-police-staging-evidence-prosecutors-idUSKCN1B127W


What I mean is, while OJ may have been guilty as sin, the LAPD did in fact, cut corners and maybe staged some evidence in order to ensure that OJ wouldn't get away with it.

O.J. Simpson case taught police what not to do at a crime scene
https://www.pasadenastarnews.com/2014/06/08/oj-simpson-case-taught-police-what-not-to-do-at-a-crime-scene/

Police Detective Philip Vannatter drew Simpson’s blood at the LAPD on June 13, the day after the killings. But instead of booking it into evidence, Vannatter put the blood vial in his pocket and went to Simpson’s home where criminalists were collecting evidence.

Jurors questioned why he would have carried it around for hours rather than booking it and the defense argued it may have been used to plant evidence such as blood drops on Simpson’s front walkway.


Black Americans know better than most other Americans how corrupt Law Enforcement can be. So that explains why the Black Jurors in the OJ trial were receptive to the Defense's arguments about evidence tampering and potential staging of evidence.


If Oswald lived to go to trial and got a good lawyer, the problems with the evidence against him would've been exposed and challenged in court. Of course, there might've been fewer problems with the evidence had he lived. Many of the typical things done to preserve evidence and chain of custody were tossed out the window once Ruby killed Oswald.

This is exactly why I wonder what Jerry was thinking about when he refered to the OJ case as that case demonstrates extremely clearly why chain of custody is so important for authentication of evidence. The example you gave about Vannatter and the blood vial is highly similar to Hill handing in a revolver some two hours after he allegedly took it from Oswald at the Texas Theater and Westbrook handing in a grey jacket, previously described in radio traffic as white, and marked by officers who never handled the jacket. And there are more examples of this.

And it doesn't even have to be police or prosecutorial misconduct. Evidence could also have been manipulated prior to the investigators obtaining it. Not easy to prove perhaps, but nevertheless a possibility that needs to be considered.

Jerry just wants to ignore all the potential problems with the evidence as if none of it matters because he feels they got the right man. I wouldn't be surprised if he is one of those LNs who don't even want to consider the inconsistencies in the official narrative for fear of stumbling onto something that forces him to question his own opinion.

[Jon Banks]

This is exactly why I wonder what Jerry was thinking about when he refered to the OJ case as that case demonstrates extremely clearly why chain of custody is so important for authentication of evidence. The example you gave about Vannatter and the blood vial is highly similar to Hill handing in a revolver some two hours after he allegedly took it from Oswald at the Texas Theater and Westbrook handing in a grey jacket, previously described in radio traffic as white, and marked by officers who never handled the jacket. And there are more examples of this.

And it doesn't even have to be police or prosecutorial misconduct. Evidence could also have been manipulated prior to the investigators obtaining it. Not easy to prove perhaps, but nevertheless a possibility that needs to be considered.

Jerry just wants to ignore all the potential problems with the evidence as if none of it matters because he feels they got the right man. I wouldn't be surprised if he is one of those LNs who don't even want to consider the inconsistencies in the official narrative for fear of stumbling onto something that forces him to question his own opinion.

Yeah, the OJ case is a terrible example of police behavior with regards to the integrity of the evidence.

The police and prosecutors often get away with improper handling of evidence or staging crime scenes because most suspects can’t afford the kind of legal defense team that OJ had.

In the Kennedy assassination, it almost certainly seems that the 6th floor crime scene was tampered with and staged before photos were taken. But there are similar problems throughout for the Dallas police evidence and crime scenes. It’s not clear if it was due to malice or negligence. Most likely, both things were at play.

Even FBI agents have criticized the handling of evidence by the DPD.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yeah, the OJ case is a terrible example of police behavior with regards to the integrity of the evidence.

The police and prosecutors often get away with improper handling of evidence or staging crime scenes because most suspects can’t afford the kind of legal defense team that OJ had.

In the Kennedy assassination, it almost certainly seems that the 6th floor crime scene was tampered with and staged before photos were taken. But there are similar problems throughout for the Dallas police evidence and crime scenes. It’s not clear if it was due to malice or negligence. Most likely, both things were at play.

Even FBI agents have criticized the handling of evidence by the DPD.

In the Kennedy assassination, it almost certainly seems that the 6th floor crime scene was tampered with and staged before photos were taken.

Well, the absence of an in situ photograph of the location of the paper bag and the conflicting testimony about who found it and where, as well as Capt. Fritz picking up the shells and throwing them back down again and the moving of some boxes between photo shoots certainly isn't in the manual of how to perserve and project the integrity of a crime scene, that's for sure.

And Detective Hill handing in a revolver which he claimed was taken of Oswald at the Texas Theater, some two hours earlier, and Captain Westbrook handing in a grey jacket, which previously was described several times in radio traffic as being white, and with initials of cops on it that never were in the chain of custody while the officers who actually handled the jacket remain unidentified doesn't do much for the credibility of the case against Oswald either.

[Richard Smith]

Part of establishing a case against a suspect involves presenting a theory of how the suspect might've did it.

Obviously, no one except Oswald knows for sure how he transported his rifle to Walker scene.  By asking that question, therefore, you are calling for some speculation.  And not having a film documenting how he carried the rifle in no way precludes him from having done so.  What we do know with absolute certainty is that Oswald was the person who pulled the trigger.  His own wife confirms that he came home on the night of the Walker attempt and confessed to her.  There would have been no way for Oswald to know that an attempt had been made on Walker at that point in time except for his personal knowledge of the event.  There were no newspapers, Internet, or TV reports available to Oswald in the middle of the night in 1963.  Marina also confirms that he left her a note on what to do if he was killed or arrested that night.  He had recon photos of Walker's home etc.  It's a slam dunk.

[Richard Smith]

I said no LNer ever claimed Oswald would think the rifle was untraceable, and that he left the Walker shooting with the rifle, rather than abandon it there.

So, what was his reason for using the Hidell alias when he ordered the rifle?

Maybe that is something a closet CTer should answer instead of a LNer.   Using an alias is not something that a law-abiding citizen needs to do when buying a rifle.  It is the act of someone attempting to obscure the trail.  It doesn't make it "untraceable" per se, but an alias is more difficult to track.  It borders on the absurd that you are implying here that Oswald's use of an alias in the purchase of the murder weapon lends itself to his innocence instead of guilt.   Talk about the rabbit hole.  Oswald likely has no idea what information is retrievable when he orders his rifle.  He is simply making it as difficult as possible to trace it back to him by using an alias.  He has nothing to lose by doing so and, as explained by Jerry, his plan at the time did not entail leaving his rifle at any crime scene to be traced.  The alias is just an obvious layer of additional obfuscation to protect someone with bad intentions.

[Vincent Baxter]

So here are two questions for the LNs.

1. Let's suppose that Oswald did in fact write the orderform, envelope and money order, how does that justify the conclusion that he ordered the rifle for himself and actually received it?

2. Let's assume that the BY photos are indeed authentic, how do they justify the conclusion that Oswald is holding a rifle that is his property?

These are not trick questions. I really want to find out if any LN can provide a reasonable and plausible justification for the conclusions that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself, actually received it and that he owned it when the BY photos were taken.

To be honest, I expect not much more than diversions, logical fallacies and ad homs, but I am hoping at least one LN is genuinely willing and able to provide an honest answer to my questions.

The thing is they are kind of trick questions because you've worded and presented them in a way that a genuine honest answer to each is somehow meant to weaken the case of the LN theory.

Obviously there is no conclusive proof that Oswald purchased the rifle solely for himself, it's mere circumstantial evidence and a general assumption. Even if Oswald had said during interrogation that he 100% definitely purchased the rifle for himself and his sole use only, CTs would then ask the question "How do we know for sure that he wasn't lying or covering for someone else".

To sum it up an honest answer in simple and obvious terms; Assuming, as you said, that Oswald had indeed written the order form, envelope and money order we can conclude he definitely did order the rifle. We are told that the rifle was dispatched to a PO Box which Oswald had access to and addressed to an AJ Hiddell which we know Oswald had a fake ID for in his possession (If he was simply purchasing it for someone else, why bother trying to hide his identity?). And then he was later photographed holding the same rifle.
Now to me, they are fairly justifiable reasons to conclude that he bought the rifle for himself. Granted there is no definitive proof that this is the case  but if people took that attitude with everything they ever saw or heard, practically every murderer in history would have walked free.

The honest answer doesn't make any difference to the LN theory.

More to the point, with no conclusive evidence to suggest he purchased the rifle for someone else or was indeed photographed holding a gun that wasn't' his property, can you, as a CTer, genuinely and honestly answer your questions if they were flipped the other way?

1. How can you justify the conclusion that Oswald DIDN'T order the rifle for himself or actually receive it?

2. Let's assume that the BY photos are indeed authentic, how can you justify the conclusion that Oswald is holding a rifle that is NOT his property?

[Martin Weidmann]

Maybe that is something a closet CTer should answer instead of a LNer.   Using an alias is not something that a law-abiding citizen needs to do when buying a rifle.  It is the act of someone attempting to obscure the trail.  It doesn't make it "untraceable" per se, but an alias is more difficult to track.  It borders on the absurd that you are implying here that Oswald's use of an alias in the purchase of the murder weapon lends itself to his innocence instead of guilt.   Talk about the rabbit hole.  Oswald likely has no idea what information is retrievable when he orders his rifle.  He is simply making it as difficult as possible to trace it back to him by using an alias.  He has nothing to lose by doing so and, as explained by Jerry, his plan at the time did not entail leaving his rifle at any crime scene to be traced.  The alias is just an obvious layer of additional obfuscation to protect someone with bad intentions.

Maybe that is something a closet CTer should answer instead of a LNer. 

BS, as per usual

Using an alias is not something that a law-abiding citizen needs to do when buying a rifle.

True, but what makes you think he used an alias to order the rifle for himself?

It borders on the absurd that you are implying here that Oswald's use of an alias in the purchase of the murder weapon lends itself to his innocence instead of guilt.   

First of all, where did I imply that (other than in your paranoid mind) and secondly, it's absolutely absurd to claim that Oswald used an alias to purchase a rifle, while there are other possibilities as well that he never been explored.