"ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- A Personal Review (1 Viewer)

[Jack P]

Phil, this is not "prosecution" of LHO, this is using the methodological tools of *Historiography* which in establishing the viability of *what* happened at a given moment in time, is not the same as how one "prosecutes" a case in court. This is the fallacy I have repeatedly pointed to over and over again as to why buffdom is so incredibly absurd, because it spends so much time on minutiae that they think will generate their concept of a "reasonable doubt" verdict and thus let them off the hook on the matter of their responsibility to come up with a plausible scenario of how events actually did unfold at that one moment in time which is what you MUST do in order to be taken seriously. As I've said, do not stop with asking questions that as Jeff and I have demonstrated can be answered without batting an eye, start providing YOUR version of how this unfolded that factors in all the evidence that would present tough questions and challenges from our side. But this is something I note that you hesitate to do in the tradition of buffdom, because to do so would force conspiracy thought out into the open in regards to how ludicrous their ideas are in regards to how it could have happened that day. Better to avoid that and use the phony standard of how to look at this, because this is the only way that keeps buffdom in business.


As for who would erupt in laughter in a courtroom though, I think buff logic which has to construct this scenario of planted bullets, switched rifles, phantom gunmen who disappear without being seen by anyone etc. being discussed in advance of the crime would get first dibs on that!

 

[phil*]

"Why did the conspirators . . .
Plant it in a location where it could easily have been lost?"


The conspirators had to plant it in a location close to where Governor Connally was being treated. Whoever planted it either thought it was the stretcher that Connally was brought into Parkland or that it was so close to where Connally was being treated in Trauma Room 2 that people wouldn't have noticed the difference...and apparently they didn't as this fact wasn't disclosed until much later on.

"Plant a bullet that was only "slightly" damaged if its role was to have passed through at least the President? Why not shoot up some livestock and get a bullet a bit more mangled?"


Because if they would have tried this dim witted tactic, the aforementioned electron microscope would have revealed the presence of blood, alright. Unfortunately, the blood would have been proven NOT to have come from a human being. And if someone came up with a bright idea of shooting somebody else and then planting the bullet, the blood types would not have matched.


"Plant it before it could have been known how many other bullets would be recovered? How could they have known that CE 399 would not be the "one bullet too many" that would blow the whole plot?"


How long were the conspirators supposed to wait? An hour? Two hours? Time was of the essence, and not everything,OBVIOUSLY, that the conspirators did fit their original intentions.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Explain the fragments in Connaly's wrist Phil. Until you do that, your buff point about a bullet that was never tested for blood until years later is moot. As far as the killer using gloves, gloves would have wiped out LHOs's prints Phil. The prints were on metal, not a very good surface for latent prints to survived, and any contact with gloves would wipe them out entirely.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

You missed one Phil.

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jack P

Phil, this is not "prosecution" of LHO

I'm SURE you feel this way, because if LHO WAS prosecuted in a court of law,he would be acquitted. Why? Something about "reasonable doubt". There are numerous facts which have been brought up in this forum which the collective nuts have no (reasonable) answer for other that attributing it to either irrelevance,the guy was a forgetful nut who forgot to wear gloves,or postulating utter fantasies that acrid odors such as gunsmoke disappear at the snap of one's fingers. Not to mention,he had no motive..but of course such an unimportant thing as motive can be easily dismissed by the collective nuts since according to them LHO was a raving lunatic.

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie /forum/thread/278047/on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-a-personal-review/330#post_3786386

 

[Regulus]

I SOLVED IT! It's the one undeniable fact IN THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE!

 

[Jack P]

Originally Posted by phil*

I'm SURE you feel this way, because if LHO WAS prosecuted in a court of law,he would be acquitted. Why? Something about "reasonable doubt".

No Phil, I do happen to believe he would have been convicted unless we ended up with jurors with the same collective IQ as the OJ jury. The only point I note is that as a *historian* the standard is different, which is the elementary fact you've been avoiding to justify your cowardice on the matter of putting forth a credible scenario of how this event really unfolded if Oswald is not guilty. We have put forth our version of how this event took place. Now you tell us how it really happened if we're wrong. The silence from you on this point is anything but golden.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

What is reasonably doubtful is a jury would consider the absurd argument that because someone left a fingerprint it's proof he didn't do it because assassins always wear gloves, if you don't count John Wilkes Booth, Charles J. Guiteau, Leon Czolgosz, John Flammang Schrank, Giuseppe Zangara, Oscar Collazo and Griselio Torresola, Squeaky Fromme, Sarah Jane Moore, John Hinckley, Jr., Francisco Martin Duran, Robert Pickett, and Vladimir Arutyunian. And that's just Presidential assassins.

 

[Neil Brock]

So, the fact that he didn't have a motive and that he had always expressed that he LIKED Kennedy, that doesn't factor in at all?


Okay, you want an alternate scenario, here you go. Two shooters, one on the grassy knoll, where the fatal headshot is fired, one in either the TSBD or the DalTex building. Oswald's gun is planted on the sixth floor along with the shell casings. He hears what happened and realizes he's been set up. After that, I don't know if he shoots Tippitt or not, although the timeline for him to leave his house to get to the murder scene is problematic.


By the way, HSCA did not conclude Oswald acted alone, they concluded that it was likely two shooters and likely a conspiracy.

 

[Jack P]

"No motive?" Neil, guys who defect from the United States to the Soviet Union and who then express undying devotion to Fidel Castro even after they come back are not guys who are going to have great regard for the Commander In Chief of the country they now consider to be their enemy. This "no motive" argument is a crock (even though it's not necessary to prove Oswald's guilt).


And you are not correct in regards to the HSCA. Their original draft said no conspiracy (this after they had revalidated the Single Bullet Theory) but their chief counsel, Robert Blakey, a man who had a vested interest in trying to push a Mafia connection with a forthcoming book of his, managed to get the HSCA at the last minute to change this to a second shooter from the Knoll based on a flimsy piece of evidence, a dictabelt recording that supposedly came from the motorcycle of one of the motorcade escorts picking up the "acousting impulse patterns" of four shots (it does not have the sound of four shots, and this in fact doesn't jibe with the overwhelming number of earwitnesses that said three). Even though the officer whose motorcycle this was supposed to be insisted it could not have been his, they ignored this and shoved this conclusion down to justify a second shooter conclusion even though NOTHING else in their report pointed to it.


Alas, this one piece of evidence used by the HSCA to rule a second shooter came crashing down in 1982 when the Ramsay Panel commissioned by the Justice Department revealed the dictabelt (1) did not come from a motorcade motorcycle (2) did not contain the sound of gunshots or patterns that could be gunshots because at the PRECISE instance those impulse patterns are taking place you can also hear the voice of Dallas Sherriff Decker in crosstalk from the other channel saying "hold everything secure" which is what he ordered a minute AFTER the shooting. Thus, with the dictabelt ruled as invalid evidence the rest of the HSCA which was what they spent more than a year and a half doing as opposed to this rushed last minute item, ends up upholding the entire WC conclusions.


So alas Neil, you have just revealed that you know very little about what you're talking about when it comes to these things.

 

[Jack P]

"Two shooters, one on the grassy knoll, where the fatal headshot is fired,"

Except the trajectory doesn't match, no one saw a gunman there, the bullet fragments in Kennedy's head are traced to Oswald's rifle and an assassin placed in that location would have risked exposure to more spectators in the plaza.

*****one in either the TSBD or the DalTex building. Oswald's gun is planted on the sixth floor along with the shell casings.****

Why? If the intent is to frame Oswald, then simplicity from this conspiracy would dictate simply using his rifle only. Just try to picture these plotters getting together and saying "We're going to make it look like it all came from the TSBD, but we're not going to fire any bullets from the TSBD, because we're so confident we can fake the trajectories after the fact to obscure how it really was and we can anticipate what these staff members are going to say....." Now *that's* funny!


*****After that, I don't know if he shoots Tippitt or not,****


Oh really? His pistol, and 11 eyewitnesses who see him pull the trigger or immediately flee the scene and from that you can't tell?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Not to mention that fragments and lead from no other bullets were found in Kennedy's head. Connally's wrist, or the limo. Plus all of the CT popular shooting places from the front; the overpass, the grassy knoll, the "badgeman fence," are ballistically impossible. They either require a shot through the windshield, or any shot that hit JFK in the head would also kill Jackie. The "badgeman" shot is completely ruled out because perspective analysis requires him to be over 10 feet tall. Plus we have the little fact that the entrance wound was in the back, with his skull exploding out the front right, which is totally incompatible with a front shot!! (something the buffs have no answer for except the devastating "How do you know that?", as if ballistic forensic science is not possible on head wounds)

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Besides, even the incorrect version of the HSCA findings had the alleged fourth shooter (later to be found bogus) missing his shot, whereas they blamed LHO and only LHO for both the first Kennedy/Connally SBT hit and the fatal headshot. Therefore Neil, listing the HSCA as evidence for Oswald's innocence is not a very smart move. I'm starting to agree with Jack that you really haven't read much more than buff websites when it comes to this stuff.

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jack P





The silence from you on this point is anything but golden.

Again..what happened to the blood on the "Magic Bullet"? Jack..Jeff..still waiting to hear your "magical" explanation to this one.

And what about the lack of oil in the bag that Oswald allegedly used to bring the rifle into the Depository?

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jack P


The difference is that I have an answer to all of your "doubts and questions" where as conspiracy buffs seem to never have a good way of coping with those answers because belief in a conspiracy is more an article of religious faith to them. Not a single question raised against the lone gunman explanation has gone unanswered.

Come on,Jack! We're all waiting! In your own words, you "have an answer to all of your "doubts and questions". But to tell you the truth, Jack,the only answer I'm expecting from you is some additional personal insults which is your usual way of dealing with a question that you don't have an answer to.


So, once again,Jack..Why was there no blood found on the "Magic Bullet" even when it was examined under a microscope? If you don't have a logical answer to this question,or,if more likely, you choose to ignore it and hurl your insults as a way of dealing with it..then we will all come to the conclusion that you have NO ANSWER to it..that the ONLY POSSIBLE way for blood not to have been detected on CE 399 even with the aid of an electron microscope is that this bullet could not have possibly passed through a human being. THERE IS NO OTHER RATIONAL,LOGICAL EXPLANATION.


Over to you, Jack...

 

[Jeff Gatie]

phil, there was blood or some other substance on the bullet and the bullet fragments. As testified by FBI agent Robert Frazier, they were wiped clean before examining. As far as I know, the bullet was never tested for any microscopic blood or tissue residue, if you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.


The lack of oil on the bag means nothing. Depending on the amount of gun oil and the rate of absorbtion of the paper, it is very possible that there would be no transfer from the rifle to the paper. If it was wrapped in brown butcher's paper, which has wax on one side, there would be no absorbtion. Neither you, nor I know the exact composition of the paper or the amount of oil on the gun, so we have to examine the evidence we do know - LHO's fingerprints were on the gun, the bullet matches fragments in Connally's wrist. LHO owned the rifle, the guy who drove him to work also drove him to the residence where the rifle was, he stated that LHO retrieved a paper package and brought it with him to work, etc., etc.

Now given all this, which is more plausible - LHO, who had means, motive and opportunity, shot JFK? or upwards of thousands of people, none of whom ever came forward in the 40+ years hence, conspired to frame LHO NOT by using his rifle, but instead they shot JFK from the front (where the ballistics do not match the wounds or the possible bullet tracks), then planted bullets, killed a police officer, had Secret Service men clean the limo (after evidence was removed, except they say it was not removed), bribed/threatened doctors at two hospitals, faked autopsy photos, planted fingerprints from a drugged Oswald, but then didnt replant them when they couldn't be linked to him, got a Supreme Court judge and numerous members of Congress to fake a report, again got officials to fake another report (and another, and another), etc., etc., etc?


And you actually think LHO wouldn't be convicted? Please, phil.

 

[Jack P]

Like I said Phil, not a single one unanswered. Now shall we keep a running tally of all the ones you and Neil have *not* answered in regards to the absurdity of buff logic, let alone the absurd concept of supposedly intelligent conspirators plotting things in this overly complicated fashion?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

More on the "no blood on the bullet" nonsense: From: http://www.kenrahn.com/jfk/scientific_topics/naa/NAA_and_assassination_II/The_fragments.html

The lack of debris on CE 399 . . .     In three separate shooting incidents involving multiple gunshots, two FMJ bullets and one bullet fragment found at the scene (one from each case) were investigated for the presence of biological material from the victim after perforation. The surface of the missiles, which did not show obvious tissue traces when examined under a microscope, was swabbed. PCR typing of up to five STR loci was performed on the small amounts of DNA extracted, which were even below the detection limit of the slot blot quantification in one case. Nevertheless, individualisation of cellular material from the perforating projectiles was successful in each of the three cases presented. Consequently, identification of the victim wounded by a perforating bullet can reliably be achieved if contamination or removal of evidentiary material by improper handling is prevented. [International Journal of Legal Medicine 110: (2) 101-103, April 1997]     DNA typing of cellular debris from perforating bullets was investigated following shooting experiments. A total of 14 perforating gunshots were fired into 9 calves. PCR typing of tissue fragments was done using bovine-specific primers flanking a 247 bp segment within the bovine lactoglobulin gene. Positive amplification results were obtained for all 9 hollow point (HP) and all 5 full metal jacket (FMJ) bullets. In contrast to HP bullets the smooth surfaces of the FMJ bullets did not have visible biological material, which resulted in weaker bands in the DNA analysis compared to HP bullets. Tissue seemed to accumulate at the base of the projectiles... By individualizing tissue on perforating bullets, the bullet and the victim it passed through can be linked. This can assist the investigation of gunshot deaths, especially when several persons are involved in a gun fight. [International Journal of Legal Medicine 108: (4) 177-179, February 1996]     Perry summarized the quotes as follows:     So FMJ bullets that go through targets don't have visible tissue on them, and may not have tissue that can be seen using a microscope. Modern techniques can still isolate enough material to do DNA tests that can identify the victim, but this sort of test was clearly unavailable to crime labs in 1963. I don't see where there is any grounds for saying CE399 should have had obvious signs of tissue on it, nor is there any reason to accuse the investigators in 1963 of not using tests to match whatever microscopic material was on the bullet to JFK and JBC. At worst they may have made a mistake in not handling the bullet like it was a moon rock in the hopes that decades later, tests might be developed that could indeed get genetic material from the bullet to compare to JFK and JBC's DNA.     The shortest possible summary of the above is, "No debris, no problem."

 

[Jeff Gatie]

More on the oil:


From: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm

Many conspiracy theorists contend that because Cadigan did not find any oil stains on the bag, the bag could not have carried the rifle, which was in a "well-oiled condition." This, however, is false. Only the firing pin and spring were described as "well-oiled." Further, a well-oiled rifle does not drip oil but has a thin layer of oil in working parts.

So we can determine the amount of oil on the rifle. Sorry phil, it's just not your day.