Did the CIA assassinate JFK?

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald's ring is probative of Oswald's guilt when viewed in context with the totality of evidence and circumstances.  That has been explained multiple times now.

Repeating a fallacious argument over and over again doesn't make it sound.  The ring is probative of nothing.  It's padding your case with non-evidence.

  The problem is not with the explanation (accepted by historians) but your dishonest approach to this case.  Attempting to set the ring apart from the totality of evidence against Oswald, as though it is a completely independent event of his other actions, is just an Internet kooks attempt to play defense attorney.  That is beyond my power to correct.

No, it's an Internet kook's attempt to play prosecuting attorney:  assuming a causal effect between two events merely because you want there to be one, and attempting to use it as rhetoric to prop up a weak argument.

[John Iacoletti]

A ludicrous comparison but it highlights the lack of CTer logic.  You should be embarrassed.  What you and your dishonest sidekick are suggesting is that leaving a wedding ring with Marina was just a common, ordinary event.

You're the one who should be embarrassed.  Something doesn't automatically become relevant just because you think he killed somebody later.  Even if it's unusual behavior.  If Oswald had made decaf instant coffee that morning instead of regular would you also consider that "probative of guilt"?  Actually you probably would.

Your life insurance comparison is the ludicrous one.  A person directly benefits from a spouse's death if they take out a life insurance policy.  What does leaving a ring behind have to do with killing a president?  There's no connection whatsoever.  You're completely ignoring much more pertinent information that they had a fight and Marina refused to move back in with him.  And all because you want there to be more "evidence" than there actually is.

[Bill Brown]

Or any good reason to believe that Oswald killed Kennedy or Tippit either.

You're not any better at mindreading me than you are at mindreading Oswald.  But I'm not surprised that this is your MO, because your whole case relies on assumptions and speculation.

So, not a single piece of evidence showing where anyone other than Oswald killed Kennedy and/or Tippit.

[Jack Trojan]

So, not a single piece of evidence showing where anyone other than Oswald killed Kennedy and/or Tippit.

There's also no evidence that Santa Claus didn't wack JFK or Tippit. I guess Oswald must have done it then.

[Richard Smith]

You're the one who should be embarrassed.  Something doesn't automatically become relevant just because you think he killed somebody later.  Even if it's unusual behavior.  If Oswald had made decaf instant coffee that morning instead of regular would you also consider that "probative of guilt"?  Actually you probably would.

Your life insurance comparison is the ludicrous one.  A person directly benefits from a spouse's death if they take out a life insurance policy.  What does leaving a ring behind have to do with killing a president?  There's no connection whatsoever.  You're completely ignoring much more pertinent information that they had a fight and Marina refused to move back in with him.  And all because you want there to be more "evidence" than there actually is.

Hopeless.  The obvious point is that an otherwise legal, not uncommon action can - when examined within the totality of circumstances in a case - become probative of guilt.  Even if standing alone it would not.  Buying a life insurance policy just prior to a mysterious death is the classic example.  Oswald's decision to leave his wedding ring at home for the first and only time of his marriage according to Marina along with an unusually large amount of money (during an unexpected visit to the location where he stored the rifle) on the day when other evidence links him to the assassination demonstrates foreknowledge of his potential arrest or death that day.  He wants to ensure that his wife has his wedding ring and as much money as he can provide his family before he is separated from them.  Now what was so dangerous that day that might lead Oswald to believe he might never be coming home?  Find someone in your community with a functioning brain to help at this point if you need further assistance.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Hopeless.  The obvious point is that an otherwise legal, not uncommon action can - when examined within the totality of circumstances in a case - become probative of guilt.  Even if standing alone it would not.  Buying a life insurance policy just prior to a mysterious death is the classic example.  Oswald's decision to leave his wedding ring at home for the first and only time of his marriage according to Marina along with an unusually large amount of money (during an unexpected visit to the location where he stored the rifle) on the day when other evidence links him to the assassination demonstrates foreknowledge of his potential arrest or death that day.  He wants to ensure that his wife has his wedding ring and as much money as he can provide his family before he is separated from them.  Now what was so dangerous that day that might lead Oswald to believe he might never be coming home?  Find someone in your community with a functioning brain to help at this point if you need further assistance.

Marina said that she was shocked to find the $170 that he left her. It must have been, she said, all of his money.

She said his usual routine would be to leave her a few dollars - repeat a few dollars - on Monday, when he would return to his rooming house, to buy things for the children. He told her, he said, he would see her again Saturday and Sunday but because he stayed on Thursday would not stay overnight on Friday.

So he could, as was the usual routine, leave her a few dollars on Monday. But he didn't; he left her money on Friday. And far more than, Marina said, he usually left her.

The "lots of other men do things like this" response is given either because the person is quite illogical in his thinking (hint: Oswald was not like "lots of other men", e.g., "lots of other men" who left their wedding rings and nearly all of their move that morning didn't work in the building where someone shot at the president as he rode by, et cetera, et cetera) or because he is trying desperately to absolve Lee Oswald in the act of shooting the president.

Or perhaps both.

[Brian Walker]

The CIA did assassinate JFK.

T. He threatened to smash the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the wind.

Who did he say this to? Can we get a name?

[Brian Walker]

The architect of the coup, Dulles, coincidentally became a member of the WC who determined that LHO acted alone. Imagine that.

This alone tells me the WC was a hoax. The CIA would immediately know anything the commission had in the pipeline that could pose a threat to them. Amazing LBJ got away with it.

Sounds like you were just looking for a reason to believe that the WC was a hoax. I mean it's almost like you came to a conclusion and then look at everything through that lense.