JFK Assassination 40th Anniversary Thread - Page 9

So Jack, when are you coming up here to shoot my Carcano m38? We can hire "Leon Zapruder" to film the event....

I'll come too ... and I'll make sure Mary Nix and Orville Moorman bring their cameras along.

Bull.
Every MAJOR point in the Warren Report HAS stood up to scrutiny for 40 years.

The basic final conclusions that there was no evidence of any conspiracy and that Oswald and Ruby acted alone with regard to their respective crimes still hold up today, despite 40 years of cock-eyed theories of other gunmen.

I'd say it's as simple as this:

Easily-explained and innocently-explained mistakes and inconsistencies (which prevail in EVERY murder case no doubt) and just plain STUPID SCREW-UPS by law enforcement (such as the absolutely idotic blunder of cleaning up the limo at Parkland immediately after the shooting) are ALL seen by many people in the cottage conspiracy industry as "sinister" and "conspiratorial" in nature .... when these things are just, in truth, part of any criminal investigation. Why? Because human beings are doing the investigating and not faultless machines or robots.

Was cleaning up the CRIME SCENE minutes after JFK was removed from the automobile a stupid thing to do? Yes. But WHY does it necessarily HAVE to mean the Secret Service (& others) were doing it to "eradicate evidence" or "cover up" anything at all? (Plus, WHY would any plotters allow themselves to be filmed by multiple bystanders with cameras while "covering up" the crime just committed?)

Why can't it simply mean -- "We'd better get this cleaned up before some newshound sticks his fat nose in here and takes a bunch of gory pics to spread all over the globe"?

This, of course, also brings up the major differences between 1963 and today, with regard to how much access the press (and even the public) had to areas around a "crime scene". It seems that just any old Joe Schmoe could walk right up to the limo (or very, very near) right after the shooting. Can you imagine that occurring at a crime scene involving the shooting of the President in 2004? Nobody would be allowed within a country mile of the limo or the hospital parking lot, for that matter. But things were much less stringent (obviously) in 1963.

Plus -- All those people running around Dealey Plaza just after the shooting (even HOURS afterward). In today's world, I imagine that ENTIRE PLAZA AREA would have been "yellow taped off", and no one would have been allowed in (to potentially destroy any evidence that might have been on the grounds). But, in '63, people were milling all over the Plaza. Plus -- Traffic was opened up almost immediately on Elm Street! Another thing that certainly wouldn't have occurred in today's world. Elm would have been shut down for days afterward.

The Dallas Police Dept. and related authorities DID perform like Barney Fife-like boobs with regards to some aspects of the JFK case. E.g.: Henry Wade and other police officers going on national TV to say "we've got the case wrapped up" just hours after Oswald was picked up. That's stupid to do, IMO, when obviously any investigation has just BEGUN! But it doesn't have to mean their strings were being pulled by LBJ or from Washington. It COULD just possibly mean these Texas officers were stupid and didn't think very much before shooting off their mouths.

Of course, Wade was right as it turned out (based on ALL evidence in the case) -- Oswald was guilty as hell. But it wasn't wise to comment on the case just hours after the event.

Another example of "Conspiracy" being totally fabricated from start to finish (although not re. the JFK case) would be the O.J. Simpson murder case; and the ludicrous accusations made by the Simpson defense team in 1995 of "conspiracy!", "cover-up!", and "frame-up!" at every single turn in the road (which unfortunately the jury bought without batting an eyelid) -- when EACH & EVERY allegation of wrong-doing on the part of the LAPD was pure bullcrap (or just out-&-out speculation without any supporting facts to back them up).

Much of the same idiocy re. conspiracy and "patsy frame-ups" has occurred during the 40 years since JFK's sad demise.

I've yet to figure out WHY every single little question mark regarding the JFK case HAS to automatically signal "conspiracy" in many people's minds?

It's silly to think that EVERY "unknown" about ANY complicated murder case can be answered. But it certainly doesn't have to mean underhanded shananigans either.

And in the JFK case, despite all the CTers efforts to "prove" multiple participants, there has not been ONE SINGLE valid hunk of solid evidence to support a claim that more people were involved than just Lee H. Oswald.

Even if every major point had not stood up to such challenges, the alternate theories with which I am familiar, would have far more serious problems when subjected to the same scrutiny.

What Warren Report have YOU been reading?

You're darn tootin' !

Such a vast conspiracy (as most conspiracy people believe) would have to involve God knows how many people, ALL of whom would have to remain silent the rest of their lives. Plus the idiotic notion that ALL of these people would have even the slightest desire to WANT to bump off the President Of The United States (and run the risk of going to the gas chamber to boot). Silliness of the first order, if you ask me. Always has been; always will be.

You can't tell me that Oswald acting alone is a sillier idea than the majority of complex, and impossible-to-conceal-for-more-than-40-minutes plots that many CTers believe -- complete with assassins dressed as DPD Officers, sewer killers, and dart-firing umbrellas.

Oswald's acting alone has never once been disproven, no matter how high a soapbox the CTers shout their claims from.

[some hick off the street stepping in to field this response]

Uh, that's like, pretty cool and all, how you like, sircomevent the hole due prosess thingy 'cept uh, well... We live in a country where a man is like, innosent until proven guilty, and stuff. So first you have to PROVE he did it in the first place then PROVE he acted alone before you can unprove that he acted alone. Since you and dem Warren fellas have yet to like, PROVE that he did it, and like, then PROVE that he acted alone you're kinda like, jumpin' the gun, and stuff, saying that him acting alone has like, never been disproven, and stuff.

Just sayin'...

[/some hick off the street stepping in to field this response]

Sounded more like a Valley Girl.

He's been proven guilty a million times over -- and anyone with an ounce of sense knows this full well.

The difficulty in this case is, of course, that LHO is dead, and could never stand trial.

OK, is this supposed to mean (despite all the wealth of evidence to the contrary) that we're to just assume (by law) that Oswald didn't do it?

Bull.

If you fall back on the "innocent till proven guilty" motto, then obviously Oswald walks into the gates of Hell stamped "Innocent".

But it's a silly claim in this instance quite obviously, because Oswald's death = no trial.

Does this mean Oswald is Not Guilty in people's eyes, just because he was killed before the trial? If so, these people better speed to the nearest optometrist, post-haste!

Because Oswald couldn't be MORE GUILTY if he'd hung an "I did it!" sign on his backside.

*awaiting next piece of idle sarcasm*

Yeah, I guess I frigged that up. So she's a hick valley girl.


Not beyond a reasonable doubt he hasn't. I suppose that makes me about about a pound stupid.


I never said that. But I also do not see the wealth of evidence in which you describe. There might have been a wealth of evidence found in that Presidential Limo that the secret service agent was washing out (with bucket and sponge as the picture clearly shows) as it sat parked in the ambulance ramp at Parkland while the president was still dying inside. That was a crime scene on wheels, by the way, and it was a hell of a time for someone to get it in their head that it needed scrubbing out. There might have been a wealth of evidence in the examination of Kennedy's brain, you know, the one that disappeared? Hell, there was evidence potential pouring out of our ass that we'll never see, but I suspect your satisfied with what you got, so we'll just leave the rest to the wind, okay? And you wonder why so many people cry foul?

You want to stick to the facts? Here's a few:

1. The terrible footing the Warren Commission started out with. Doomed to a preconceived outcome. It appears from some of the various candid remarks we have from some of the commission members that they had some interest to pursue the truth, however these efforts were easily overcome by the ever-present "mandated outcome".

2. The Hoover FBI has such a poor reputation for performance of duty it gave the WC staffers fits. Obstruction of justice is what its called fellas.

3. The many times WC staff/members changed, omitted, and invented evidence. Gerald Ford's infamous changing of the autopsy to "reflect accuracy" from an entrance wound to JFK's back, moving it to the neck area.

4. Dallas police. Lots of issues here with their performance. Chain of custody issues abound. The whole Ruby thing stinks to high heaven, and it is precisely why we may never know the truth because the whole trial was stopped dead in its tracks by, at the very least, pure incompitence.

[Dennis Miller]
"Hey boss, the guy from the local titty bar is here, he has a handgun and wants to come in, is that okay?"

"Yeah, sure, let him in."

What I want to know is, who the fuck were they turning away?
[/Dennis Miller]

5. From what was available to the commission on the backgrounds of both Ruby and Oswald, what little they decided to include in the public record. CIA contact Dulles acted more like a person trying to protect his former agency from almost any level of exposure than a member of a fact finding body on the subject of a presidential assassination.

6. Finding the job of writing the commission's report of findings extremely difficult without a large measure of contradictory content, Dulles exposed his capacity for underestimating the public. He stated that no-one would read the report and certainly would not read any of the other volumes. Underestimating the public's interest in the details seems to have fed the WC's huge capacity for incompetence.

Oh man, we could go on forever. And you know what? We have. Pages and pages of it for the archives and none of it serves to sway either of the members from one side to the other. I've outlined SEVERAL strong questions in this thread that have yet to be addressed adequately. This is because you cannot address these questions adequately, or you would have. What's the point in continuing? Why do you keep bumping this thread? Since you don't bring anything new to the table other than "How can anyone believe in anything different than the Warren Report?" over and over ad nauseum, why not just let it die the natural death it wants? You will believe what you will believe, and I'll go my own way. And, until you can ADEQUATELY answer the questions that I asked so many moons ago, your retorts to me seem empty and knee jerk, devoid of the desire to actually get to the bottom of what actually happened and aimed solely at attempting to castigate those that pitch their tents on the opposite side of the campground from you. It's tired. I'm tired. And your parroting the same bullshit over and over again without a simple pause to actually consider that there may be something to what other people are saying about the event is VERY, VERY TIRED.

The thread has earned its rest, give it some peace. I will do the same. I will respectfully bow out and no longer participate in beating this pulpy mass that was once a dead horse.

respectfully,

Just a final point before laying a tombstone over the dead horse. ..........

Keep in mind that the HSCA also found Oswald to be the lone killer (that is from a standpoint of ONLY his bullets struck any of the limo's occupants).

They put the silly addendum on the end of: "With 95% certainty, or greater, there was probably a conspiracy...." (this based solely on the very dubious and fuzzy "acoustical" evidence of "a 4th shot", which is FAR from a certainty based on the incredibly poor-sounding dictabelt recording).

Funny, IMO, that this "4th shot" missed not only ALL the car's occupants, but missed the car completely, and is a bullet that apparently struck NOTHING and was never found. That's quite convenient, huh? To base a possible conspiracy, with a "95% certainty" tag, on just this ultra-flimsy evidence of a "shot" that missed everything on the planet (even though this shooter was evidently in a much-closer location to the limo) is, IMO, a silly conclusion.

But the HSCA felt "obligated" (for lack of a better term) to say there "probably" was a conspiracy.

However, what the HSCA did, for all intents & purposes, was to totally back up the WC's findings and conclusions -- in that Oswald and nobody else hit the President with rifle bullets.

Now this of course MUST mean, in the CTer's eyeballs, that BOTH the WC and the HSCA (which was formed 14 years after the crime and involved a completely different batch of people from the WC) were BOTH in on some kind of cover up.

It must mean this to the Conspiracy-crazed crowd -- because, in the CT camp, the Single Bullet Theory is simply an impossibility. But we nonetheless have TWO separate govt. panels that say the SBT is the way things occurred on Elm Street.

Now -- are all these various HSCA politicians and investigators and lawyers ALL lying and covering up the "real" way things went down?

Are we REALLY to believe the balderdash that the CT crowd forces upon us? -- That being: BOTH the WC and the HSCA have on board nothing but corrupt members, whose goal it was to conceal the real facts of the case?

Pffftttt. To think that both of these investigations, which arrived at the VERY SAME conclusions with regard to how the victims were struck and from where, were BOTH subverting the truth (14 years apart) is completely ludicrous and without basis.

I, for one, choose to believe that not ALL politicians and people in "power" are crooks, and covering something up continuously.

And I, for one, rely more heavily on reports like that of the Warren Commission or the HSCA (with regard to whose bullets hit the car's occupants) than I do the dozens of self-appointed "experts" running around Dealey Plaza with tape measures and stopwatches.

Happy shadow-chasing to you.

Oswald fired from the book depostory. The bullets were mostly in the bodies, the fragments were recovered. What "evidence" other than blood and tissue was cleaned up from the limo? What would any of it have "proved"? It isn't like there was physical evidence of any of the shooters there, since even the looniest theories don't suggest that a shot was fired from inside. (Although I personally always thought that the only conceivable alternative to Oswald was Jackie, myself. )

RE: O.J. - Yean I was listening to the tin-foil hat brigade gas around about that "conspiracy", too. What they mostly did was demonstrate their ignorance of the facts of the case, the geography and the timeline. Here's the problem with a frame-up: You generally frame someone for a crime that you commit, to take the heat off yourself. I haven't seen any suggestions that Mark Furman or any of the other hundred or so people who would have had to be involved killed Nicole and Ron, so not only would they lack a motive to frame O.J., they'd be taking a hell of a risk in trying to do so:

Here's what Furman, et. al., did not know while they were at O.J.'s house, allegedly planting evidence and somehow coming up with O.J.'s blood:

1. What time of death estimate the ME was going to come up with for Nicole and Ron.

2. Where exactly O.J. was, how long he had been there, when he'd left for Chicago, how many witnesses he had for every step of his journey. (What if he were already in the air or in Chicago when the M.E. said the pair died? What if he were giving a speech covered by Chicago television? Would you plant evidence against a guy who might have an air-tight alibi? Why?)

3. Who had really killed Nicole and Ron, why and where that person or person was. For all Furman and company new the guy who had killed the pair was in a police station in Santa Monica, covered in their blood, with Nicole's necklace in his pocket, ready to confess to the crime.

BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to explain why Oswald arranged to delay his transfer from the Dallas jail just long enough for Ruby to get there and kill him by deciding to change his sweater. If he'd stayed with the clothes he'd had on, he'd have left long before Ruby (whose movements can be traced almost to the minute thanks to things like the Western Union receipt) and lived to stand trial. Was Oswald suicidal? How did he and Ruby communicate to coordinate his death?

Last conspiracy: Princess Diana. Given that car wrecks are notoriouly bad ways to commit undetectable murders (you can't be sure of how much damage the occupants will sustain, or how the car will behave) why would "pros" even try it. Far better to fake a drowning or fall. As it is this is another case of "conspiracy must include the victim" because if she and Dodi had been wearing their damned seatbelts they almost certainly would have survived the accident, just as their security escort - who was closer to the point of impact but was also the only one in the car wearing a seatbelt - did. In fact, there is a fair chance that she would have survived the accident if the French EMTs were not still following the outmoded practice of trying to stabilize serious trauma cases on-scene instead of transporting them to a trauma center as quickly has possible (which has been the American practice for a number of years nd which has been found to save many more lives.) So I guess the entire French medical establishment was also in on the plot - which evidently started about 10 years before the acccident, since that's how long the debate about EMT trauma response had been going on in French medical circles.



Regards,

Joe

Indeed.
Not to mention the tiny little fact that the police LIKED O.J.! Very much! He would entertain some police officers at his home. They liked him. He was their friend. If they felt they HAD to frame an innocent black man, O.J. Simpson would have certainly been one of the LAST black men on the planet the L.A.P.D. would try to throw a noose around.

Interesting, too, that they were going to allow Simpson to turn HIMSELF in to the police on a DOUBLE MURDER charge (ten years ago this month, BTW) -- instead of the police actually going to get the MURDERER THEMSELVES! Amazingly cordial toward the man they are supposedly framing, huh?

If you or I (as "average Joe Schmoes") were being charged with 2 murders, and were in the process of being framed for said killings, do you think there would be a chance in Hades that we'd be told: "OK, be a good boy and turn yourself in by 11 AM"?

Then there's also the fact that the LAPD didn't NEED to frame Simpson at all -- because Simpson did a good enough job of painting himself as the guilty party every step of the way (even though the inept prosecutors decided not to use many pieces of evidence that revealed his guilty state of mind).

There was certainly no need to "plant" any additional blood. There was already tons of it all over Simpson's property and vehicle in the first place, that he admitted dripping from his own body!

With the type of evidence the police had against Simpson, "framing" him would have been truly redundant. And at the time, there was no reason for the LAPD to think that the prosecution team would be so horrid during the trial. He was obviously guilty even without the need for a frame-up plan.

Everything about the "O.J. Frame-Up" nonsense is hysterically absurd. With the most absurd thing being: the abominable jury bought it!

Mark Fuhrman would have had to have gotten FOURTEEN (14!) different LAPD officers to lie for him in order for part of the "frame-up" to go according to "plan". I.E.: There were 14 officers (who were at the scene BEFORE Fuhrman) who KNEW there were NOT two gloves at the murder scene! Can you just imagine ALL these officers (who didn't know Fuhrman from Adam) willing to just go along with such a plan?

I digressed from the topic....so sorry.....but many OJ / JFK connections can be made.

These same type of silly "frame-up"/"conspiracy" claims can be made re. the JFK assassination, as I eluded to previously.

You'll NEVER be able to convince me that massive numbers of people who would have been involved in any conspiracy of this nature could possibly have ALL had sufficient-enough reasons to want Mr. Kennedy graveyard dead (AND be willing to gamble their own skins on such a high-profile "hit").

I always thought O.J.'s two biggest "tells" came early in the investigation when the LAPD called him in Chicago and told him, "Your ex-wife has been killed".

1) He never asked how. (The first thing most normal, innocent people would think on hearing those words would be "car accident" or "fire", not "murder". And even comparative strangers would at least have a bit of morbid curiosity about how someone they knew died when the cops question them.)

2) He never asked about his kids. (If you start with the innnocent assumption that some kind of accident killed your ex-wife you'd have to be worried that your kids might have been in the car, or the house or whatever.)

That's not the kind of phone call that cops expect to have with a man who has been in Chicago totally out of the loop without any knowledge of what happened.

Regards,

Joe

Unless you go into shock. Using the word 'killed' would imply that it wasn't an accident at all, so a car or the house buring down is not in the picture.

I don't want to dwell on O.J., but if the jury said that he didn't do it, it either shows that he didn't do it or that the prosecution really screwed up. But with a trial that popular, I'd have to ask myself how they could screw it up that much.

As for JFK and the conspiracy, a lot of people are forgetting that with any good conspiracy, the evidence is destroyed as soon as possible. What if a bullet was found in the grass behind the limo? It gets found and checked in, but with the feds on this, they take it away, and it is decided that the bullet is much too old, even though it really wasn't. You can argue this point upside down and backwards, but we'll never really know now, will we?

I don't think that anyone has ever said that Oswald didn't fire any shots that way, there is just the question of if he had any help. I did see Jackie climbing onto the truck to retreive part of his head, and will never figure out how it got there if all of the shots were fired from the rear.

The cleanup at Parkland on the trunk should have just required a paper towel at most, because again, an entrance wound won't provide that much of a backsplash. Most of the blood goes in the same direction as the bullet. Isn't using a hose a little overkill? (Sorry for the pun!)

Glenn

I disagree with this analysis.
WHY would the word "Kill" have to mean NOT a car crash or house fire? If you die in a car wreck, it's certainly not out of the realm of Merriam-Webster's to say "Nicole has been killed in a car accident". Sounds perfectly accurate to me. And it IS accurate.

Webster's first definition for the verb "kill" is -- "To deprive of life".

But I agree totally with the assessment re. O.J.'s obviously-guilty state-of-mind with his non-response after being told by the police that his ex-wife had been killed.

When attempting to place myself in that awful position, I can't think of any way I'd get around asking this question first: "How?"


Where did this "using a hose" info come from? I don't believe a "hose" was used while at Parkland. Just a bucket and a sponge.

While looking at some on-line documents connected with the JFK assassination, I noticed this rather interesting item -- Lee Harvey Oswald's application for employment at the Texas School Book Depository (filled out 38 days before he killed the President from that very workplace). .........



Note the several lies that Oswald gives on the application ......

1.) He lists his address incorrectly. He was really living at the time at 1026 Beckley in Oak Cliff. But, instead, lists his address as Ruth Paine's home in Irving (where Marina was residing, but not Lee himself).

2.) Lists the Marine Corps as his "place last worked", which is a lie. Oswald had several jobs (in Dallas and New Orleans) after leaving the Marines.

3.) Under "Do You Room And Board?", Oswald answered "No" .... which is also a lie. He was "boarding" at the Beckley St. boardinghouse. But evidently didn't want Depository supervisor Roy Truly to know he was living at a roominghouse.

4.) He also falsely claims that he's lived in Dallas "continuously". This is inaccurate. Within just the previous year or two, he had also lived in Fort Worth and New Orleans.

We could, of course, add a fifth falsehood here, re. the question about "defects". He should have said this to that inquiry .......

"Yes -- I'm a fruitcake to the Nth degree, and an assassin, having attempted to take a human life (Ret. Gen. Edwin Walker), in April of this year (1963). I sincerely hope that my tendencies toward political assassinations do not persuade you to not consider employing me with your company. Everybody, after all, has some little black marks about their persona. Mine, unfortunately, is that I'm prone to killing top political figures. But I can push a mean two-wheeled cart filled with books! Yours truly, Lee H. Oswald"



(Sorry. I had to have a little fun with that, didn't I? )

By the way, Oswald was hired at the Depository that very day (October 15, 1963). He started to work, as an "order filler" [for the then-minimum wage of $1.25 per hour], the next morning, Wednesday, October 16, 1963, which was the beginning of a new pay period at the Depository.

Hindsight is 20/20 (obviously) -- But I look at this application form and think: If only Mr. Truly had passed on hiring Lee Oswald. Just think of how 1960's history would have been altered by just that one fairly-minor (at the time) decision made by Roy Truly of the TSBD.

Oswald, of course (who knows), might still have found some way to kill President Kennedy on 11/22 as the motorcade snaked its way through the Dallas, Texas, streets. But that is doubtful, since he would not have had the golden opportunity that he was presented him by being employed in a building right along the parade route.

I often wonder, though, if Oswald just might have tried to find a way to use his Carcano rifle that November day, even if he hadn't been employed at the Depository. Of little significance now, but something to ponder.

While looking at some on-line documents connected with the JFK assassination, I noticed this rather interesting item -- Lee Harvey Oswald's application for employment at the Texas School Book Depository (filled out 38 days before he killed the President from that very workplace). .........



Note the several lies that Oswald gives on the application ......

1.) He lists his address incorrectly. He was really living at the time at 1026 Beckley in Oak Cliff. But, instead, lists his address as Ruth Paine's home in Irving (where Marina was residing, but not Lee himself).

2.) Lists the Marine Corps as his "place last worked", which is a lie. Oswald had several jobs (in Dallas and New Orleans) after leaving the Marines.

3.) Under "Do You Room And Board?", Oswald answered "No" .... which is also a lie. He was "boarding" at the Beckley St. boardinghouse. But evidently didn't want Depository supervisor Roy Truly to know he was living at a roominghouse.

4.) He also falsely claims that he's lived in Dallas "continuously". This is inaccurate. Within just the previous year or two, he had also lived in Fort Worth and New Orleans.

We could, of course, add a fifth falsehood here, re. the question about "defects". He should have said this to that inquiry .......

"Yes -- I'm a fruitcake to the Nth degree, and an assassin, having attempted to take a human life (Ret. Gen. Edwin Walker), in April of this year (1963). I sincerely hope that my tendencies toward political assassinations do not persuade you to not consider employing me with your company. Everybody, after all, has some little black marks about their persona. Mine, unfortunately, is that I'm prone to killing top political figures. But I can push a mean two-wheeled cart filled with books! Yours truly, Lee H. Oswald"



(Sorry. I had to have a little fun with that, didn't I? )

By the way, Oswald was hired at the Depository that very day (October 15, 1963). He started to work, as an "order filler" [for the then-minimum wage of $1.25 per hour], the next morning, Wednesday, October 16, 1963, which was the beginning of a new pay period at the Depository.

Hindsight is 20/20 (obviously) -- But I look at this application form and think: If only Mr. Truly had passed on hiring Lee Oswald. Just think of how 1960's history would have been altered by just that one fairly-minor (at the time) decision made by Roy Truly of the TSBD.

Oswald, of course (who knows), might still have found some way to kill President Kennedy on 11/22 as the motorcade snaked its way through the Dallas, Texas, streets. But that is doubtful, since he would not have had the golden opportunity that he was presented him by being employed in a building right along the parade route.

I often wonder, though, if Oswald just might have tried to find a way to use his Carcano rifle that November day, even if he hadn't been employed at the Depository. Of little significance now, but something to ponder.

No, the jury didn't say "he didn't do it." The most a jury ever says is that the prosecution did or did not prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt". A verdict of "not (proven) guilty" is not the same as a verdict of "innocent of the crime".

A second jury, in the civil case, found that Simpson did do it and declared him responsible for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.


What does being "popular" have do with anything? And if you have to ask yourself how the prosecution could screw it up that much, you obviously didn't watch any of the trial. Moe, Larry and Curly could not have done a worse job. They left all sorts of openings for the defense to raise a million and one unreasonable, spurious doubts, and then failed to answer them adequately in either their case in cheif, their cross or their closing arguments. Add in the manufactured Mark Furman "racism" sideshow and the dishonesty of some of the jurors (who a) were determined not to let the prosecutors imprison a prominent black man no matter what the evidence, b) had probably discussed their views despite the standard jury instructions and c) had their bags pack to go home before deliberations started) and the verdict became a foregone conclusion. That doesn't change the facts on the ground - in Brentwood, or in Dallas.

O.J. Simpson committed a brutal double murder. Lee Harvey Oswald murdered President Kennedy and Officer Tippett. Everything else is just sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The credulousness betrayed in your questions about the Simpson case make it easy to understand why you continue to take seriously the fuzzy-thinking of the Grassy Knoll tinfoil hat brigade.



Regards,

Joe

No, the jury didn't say "he didn't do it." The most a jury ever says is that the prosecution did or did not prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt". A verdict of "not (proven) guilty" is not the same as a verdict of "innocent of the crime".

A second jury, in the civil case, found that Simpson did do it and declared him responsible for the wrongful deaths of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman.


What does being "popular" have do with anything? And if you have to ask yourself how the prosecution could screw it up that much, you obviously didn't watch any of the trial. Moe, Larry and Curly could not have done a worse job. They left all sorts of openings for the defense to raise a million and one unreasonable, spurious doubts, and then failed to answer them adequately in either their case in cheif, their cross or their closing arguments. Add in the manufactured Mark Furman "racism" sideshow and the dishonesty of some of the jurors (who a) were determined not to let the prosecutors imprison a prominent black man no matter what the evidence, b) had probably discussed their views despite the standard jury instructions and c) had their bags pack to go home before deliberations started) and the verdict became a foregone conclusion. That doesn't change the facts on the ground - in Brentwood, or in Dallas.

O.J. Simpson committed a brutal double murder. Lee Harvey Oswald murdered President Kennedy and Officer Tippett. Everything else is just sound and fury, signifying nothing.

The credulousness betrayed in your questions about the Simpson case make it easy to understand why you continue to take seriously the fuzzy-thinking of the Grassy Knoll tinfoil hat brigade.



Regards,

Joe

Dang straight.

I'd ask any person believing in conspiracy in the JFK killing to read through the Warren Report and look at the detailed, practically minute-by-minute account of Lee Oswald's and Jack Ruby's movements for the weekend of the assassination.

Assuming you don't believe the additional preposterous notion that all of the Warren Commissioners were dishonest to the bone (and put knowingly false information regarding Oswald and Ruby into the 888-page Report), when you look over those many pages re. the movements of both Oswald & Ruby, it becomes clear that those two murderers didn't know each other and that Ruby killed Oswald on an impulse.

To believe that Ruby was a hit man for ... [place conspirator of choice HERE] ... is to literally believe that Oswald set himself up to be murdered. I say this because it was Oswald himself who delayed his transfer from the city jail by wanting to change clothes just moments before he was led out to the DPD basement. Without this slight delay, caused by Oswald (the murder victim himself), the police would have already had Oswald in a car and away from the jail before Ruby ever came into the basement. (Ruby had been in the basement for approx. 30 seconds before plugging Oswald.)

I'm sure the people who see conspiracy at every turn in the road will disagree with the above however. They probably would retort with the totally-unsubstantiated (aka: wild guess) theory: The police/plotters would have come up with some other way to delay Oswald's departure, so that Ruby could get "in position".

Another interesting part of the Warren Report, that to any reasonable individual examining the case, blows away many of the crackpot "Ruby knew Oswald" theories is the story of "Larry Craford".

Craford worked for Jack Ruby at Jack's sleazy Carousel Club in Dallas. Larry, who served as a handyman for Ruby at the nightclub, actually lived in a back room at the Carousel, and could often be seen having dinner and/or socializing around town with Ruby.

There's nothing TOO significant in this activity UNTIL you realize that Mr. Craford physically resembles Lee Harvey Oswald. Same basic build and height.

After the assassination, some people came out of the woodwork to say they saw Ruby and Oswald together. Likely, they saw Ruby with Craford.

Conspiracy theories are like weeds .... they grow and grow until they're out of control.

Dang straight.

I'd ask any person believing in conspiracy in the JFK killing to read through the Warren Report and look at the detailed, practically minute-by-minute account of Lee Oswald's and Jack Ruby's movements for the weekend of the assassination.

Assuming you don't believe the additional preposterous notion that all of the Warren Commissioners were dishonest to the bone (and put knowingly false information regarding Oswald and Ruby into the 888-page Report), when you look over those many pages re. the movements of both Oswald & Ruby, it becomes clear that those two murderers didn't know each other and that Ruby killed Oswald on an impulse.

To believe that Ruby was a hit man for ... [place conspirator of choice HERE] ... is to literally believe that Oswald set himself up to be murdered. I say this because it was Oswald himself who delayed his transfer from the city jail by wanting to change clothes just moments before he was led out to the DPD basement. Without this slight delay, caused by Oswald (the murder victim himself), the police would have already had Oswald in a car and away from the jail before Ruby ever came into the basement. (Ruby had been in the basement for approx. 30 seconds before plugging Oswald.)

I'm sure the people who see conspiracy at every turn in the road will disagree with the above however. They probably would retort with the totally-unsubstantiated (aka: wild guess) theory: The police/plotters would have come up with some other way to delay Oswald's departure, so that Ruby could get "in position".

Another interesting part of the Warren Report, that to any reasonable individual examining the case, blows away many of the crackpot "Ruby knew Oswald" theories is the story of "Larry Craford".

Craford worked for Jack Ruby at Jack's sleazy Carousel Club in Dallas. Larry, who served as a handyman for Ruby at the nightclub, actually lived in a back room at the Carousel, and could often be seen having dinner and/or socializing around town with Ruby.

There's nothing TOO significant in this activity UNTIL you realize that Mr. Craford physically resembles Lee Harvey Oswald. Same basic build and height.

After the assassination, some people came out of the woodwork to say they saw Ruby and Oswald together. Likely, they saw Ruby with Craford.

Conspiracy theories are like weeds .... they grow and grow until they're out of control.

FYI re. Dale Myers' JFK Animation Digital Disc .........

I'm not sure if the following "FAQ" section at www.jfkfiles.com (the Dale Myers' website) has been there all these months since the November 2003 airing of the ABC Peter Jennings' JFK documentary -- but I just noticed it today.

Take notice of the first item on the FAQ -- re. "When will the
DVD be available?". ......

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq.htm

..... It indicates a release date (tentatively) of: 4th Quarter 2004.

There's a show about the assassination on The Discovery Channel right now. I think it's going to focus on some more high tech forensic recreations that will again show that Oswald is the only one that could have done it. Pretty sure this is new too because they were talking about some stuff done in Australia just last month.

It's 2 hours long.

Brian

One of the investigators looking into the badge man photo calculated that if the shadow in the photo was indeed a person (which they couldn't conclude), he was either under 3 feet tall, or was standing 40 feet behind the wall and 20 feet up.

Brian

Ok, I'll bite. Does this have a name? I couldn't find it on my local schedule. Closest is 'Mythbusters' but that is in a 1 hour shows.

Glenn

Unsolved History: "Kennedy III: Magic Bullet"

That show pretty much convinced me toward a single gunman, and THANK GOD! Now I can go about concentrating my efforts toward figuring out the truth about Area 51 and Bigfoot!

I've only read this final page but I'm interested enough to go back to the start.

The first time I heard any of these conspiracy theories is when I was 11 and walked into JFK. That 3 hour ride was something I'll never forget but it made perfect sense to myself and the two friends I watched it with. I'm sure Stone pulled a lot of strings but I'm curious to know why so many records of the killing aren't available for public viewing. Or is this made up? I know the Director's Cut of the film said that a few were released after the movie but many more are still unseen.

Sorry if this was covered in the thread earlier but was the film (and Stone) all B.S or was it Jim Garrison that made a bunch of this stuff up? Did Garrison have no reason to take this to court? Was his just trying to make a name for himself or was this evidence really there?

Most of the information about Garrison that doesn't come from the man himself or Oliver Stone seems to indicate that he was:

a) A publicity hound.
b) Corrupt.
c) Probably crazy, too.