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

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

Also, I can point to hundreds of shootings where the killer didn't wear gloves and left shell casings. Nothing special about that. Also nothing special about denying the crime. Most criminals are stupid, and no one ever nominated LHO to Mensa.

But in this particular case, Oswald supposedly left the cartridge shells and the rifle at his work location...thereby solidifying any future case against him. Why didn't he at least scoop up the cartridge shells which were basically lying at his feet? Are you saying he wanted to be caught?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Fingerprints can be planted in any number of ways. Why the need to re-fingerprint Oswald? Did the first set of fingerprints not come out correctly?

Name one. Just one way to plant the prints of a live man. Then explain why, if they had this kind of expertise, the planted prints were so crappy, they required 30 years and modern technology to find. You keep skipping that part. The rest is answered above. It was routine to do it, and it was assigned by the crime lab.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

 But in this particular case, Oswald supposedly left the cartridge shells and the rifle at his work location...thereby solidifying any future case against him. Why didn't he at least scoop up the cartridge shells which were basically lying at his feet? Are you saying he wanted to be caught?

No I'm saying he acted like a normal criminal and left some evidence behind. He wasn't the first to self-incriminate by doing so, and he won't be the last. What exactly about Oswald makes you think he was an expert criminal? Let's face it, this guy was not a professional assassin. He could shoot, but Carlos the Jackal he was not. You guys really have to stop claiming that the preponderance of evidence that shows it was Oswald is evidence that it was not Oswald because he wouldn't have left evidence. It's really getting silly.

 

[phil*]

During the midnight press conference of November 22,1963, Oswald was asked.."Did you kill the President"? He denied this, saying nobody had mentioned that to him as yet..that he had only heard about this from a reporter in the hall and that all he (Oswald) knew was that he was accused of murdering a policeman. When the reporter at the press conference told Oswald that, in fact, he HAD been charged with killing JFK..the reporter who asked this question immediately was shouted down by somebody in authority who TWICE said loudly: "NOBODY SAID WHAT! WE DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING!" Why the need to keep this information from Oswald...the accused..at this time when it was apparent that reporters already knew about the JFK murder charge? Who was the person who yelled: "NOBODY SAID WHAT! NOBODY SAID WHAT!" ...and what were his real reasons for saying this?


Also..study Oswald's reaction VERY CLOSELY when he has just been informed that, he has, in fact, been charged with killing the President. Any student of psychology will tell you that it is a look of GENUINE surprise and astonishment..which cannot be emulated very easily unless you are quite a gifted actor. Very telling...especially from a man who just supposedly left 3 cartridge shells at his feet at the place he worked and a rifle which he HAD to have known would be discovered with his fingerprints on it since he didn't use any gloves.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Why don't you answer the questions posed to you? Once again you hop from point to point, never answering the glaring errors in the points made previously. Again, if the prints were planted in order to frame Oswald, why plant prints that won't be found for 30 years using technology that didn't exist yet? How effective is a frame up that requires 30 years and future technology that could not even be predicted? It's absurd! The only answer possible is that those are Oswald's actual prints. Nothing else makes any sense.

 

[Neil Brock]

So, as Columbo would say, let me go over a few things that are troubling me. He brings the gun into work that day and says they are curtain rods. Except only one person claims to have seen him bring the package into the building. No other witness saw him with the brown package. He is seen in the lunchroom no more than 10 minutes prior to the shooting, not upstairs preparing for his deed. He is an expert marksman, which his fellow marines do not attest to, stating he was okay at best. But he's such a good shot that the first shot he takes, which is the easiest one, misses his target by a country mile, striking the curb. So which is he, the crack shot, who's hits with the gun he had could only be replicated by marksmen recreating the shots but under ideal conditions or the not so good shooter whose first shot is not even a near miss. He then leaves the gun, doesn't wipe it or pick up the shell castings and high tails it down to the second floor to drink a soda, completely calm, as anyone would be after just killing the president and racing down the stairs two minutes before. He then leaves the building and goes back to his place and gets a pistol. While walking, he is stopped by a police car. Why is he stopped? He isn't suspected on anything at this point, there is no APB out on him and no law enforcement would have any reason to stop him. And of course, since he was so calm two minutes after the shooting, he's obviously someone who is cool as a cucumber. Except, what, now a half hour later he's not cool, he only was immediately after the shooting, not after he had a half hour to calm down. So he shoots the policeman and now he is on the run. And he does what anyone would when they are on the run and looking to hide somewhere that they wouldn't be noticed, he sneaks into a movie theater without paying, thus breaking the law and arousing suspicion and making it certain that the police would be called. But I love the "sociopath" explanation that the collective nuts use. It can explain away any behavior, even behavior that defies explanation.

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

Why don't you answer the questions posed to you? Once again you hop from point to point, never answering the glaring errors in the points made previously. Again, if the prints were planted in order to frame Oswald, why plant prints that won't be found for 30 years using technology that didn't exist yet? How effective is a frame up that requires 30 years and future technology that could not even be predicted? It's absurd! The only answer possible is that those are Oswald's actual prints. Nothing else makes any sense.

Why on earth wouldn't Oswald wipe the rifle clean of his fingerprints?? Why on earth wouldn't he scoop up the 3 cartridge shells lying at his feet?..these two things would have taken mere seconds and would have probably prevented his being accused of JFK's murder..worth the time invested I would have to say. There are only 2 possible explanations..1)The man was a complete idiot..which we all know wasn't true given his ability to master a cyrillic language (Russian) which is a very difficult language to learn; in addition, Oswald's ability to emigrate to and from the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War obviously displayed a knack for knowing how to get things done. 2) He was set up...a patsy.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

You keep repeating yourself, Neil. You've posted the same stuff a couple times before, and it was torn to shreds. Are you stuck in a loop? Do you need a reboot?

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Answer the question Phil. Why would they plant evidence that wouldn't show up for 30 years using technology that didn't exist yet. Nothing in history precludes a criminal leaving evidence behind. Everything, including common sense, precludes a conspiracy team framing a "patsy" by planting fingerprints that take 30 years to reveal themselves via unimagined new technology. And by the way, you still haven't told me how they planted the prints. You said there are any number of ways, I asked for one and . . . Got nothing.

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

Answer the question Phil. Why would they plant evidence that wouldn't show up for 30 years using technology that didn't exist yet. Nothing in history precludes a criminal leaving evidence behind. Everything, including common sense, precludes a conspiracy team framing a "patsy" by planting fingerprints that take 30 years to reveal themselves via unimagined new technology.

And by the way, you still haven't told me how they planted the prints. You said there are any number of ways, I asked for one and . . . Got nothing.

I'll answer your question Jeff..just as soon as you answer mine about certain acrid odors which are quite easy to detect in a room because they linger there for quite awhile and are VERY distinctive..including gunshot odors and human flatulence..but I'm sure you'll evade answering it claiming it's an affront to you personally...which is a tactic you use whenever you can't answer something.

 

[Jack P]

Originally Posted by Neil Brock

So, as Columbo would say, let me go over a few things that are troubling me. He brings the gun into work that day and says they are curtain rods. Except only one person claims to have seen him bring the package into the building. No other witness saw him with the brown package. He is seen in the lunchroom no more than 10 minutes prior to the shooting, not upstairs preparing for his deed. He is an expert marksman, which his fellow marines do not attest to, stating he was okay at best. But he's such a good shot that the first shot he takes, which is the easiest one, misses his target by a country mile, striking the curb. So which is he, the crack shot, who's hits with the gun he had could only be replicated by marksmen recreating the shots but under ideal conditions or the not so good shooter whose first shot is not even a near miss. He then leaves the gun, doesn't wipe it or pick up the shell castings and high tails it down to the second floor to drink a soda, completely calm, as anyone would be after just killing the president and racing down the stairs two minutes before. While waHe then leaves the building and goes back to his place and gets a pistol. lking, he is stopped by a police car. Why is he stopped? He isn't suspected on anything at this point, there is no APB out on him and no law enforcement would have any reason to stop him. And of course, since he was so calm two minutes after the shooting, he's obviously someone who is cool as a cucumber. Except, what, now a half hour later he's not cool, he only was immediately after the shooting, not after he had a half hour to calm down. So he shoots the policeman and now he is on the run. And he does what anyone would when they are on the run and looking to hide somewhere that they wouldn't be noticed, he sneaks into a movie theater without paying, thus breaking the law and arousing suspicion and making it certain that the police would be called. But I love the "sociopath" explanation that the collective nuts use. It can explain away any behavior, even behavior that defies explanation.

"He brings the gun into work that day and says they are curtain rods. Except only one person claims to have seen him bring the package into the building."

Gee Neil, why did you leave out the fact that this one person was the guy who drove Oswald to work that morning and also saw the package in the back of the car during the whole drive? Not to mention the one who had driven him out to the Paines the night before *deviating* from the usual pattern of only being driven out on Fridays, specifically because Oswald *told* him that he needed to get curtain rods from the Paine home and this was why he needed a lift on Thursday instead of the usual Friday? I really get the feeling you didn't even know this "one person" was the guy that did all that, it sounds to me like you just read a pat summary in a buff book that purposefully left that info out.


"He is seen in the lunchroom no more than 10 minutes prior to the shooting,"


No he wasn't. The only person who said this was Carolyn Arnold, who didn't reveal this until 1978. What makes her story even more untenable is that Oswald himself when trying to explain his wherabouts at the time of the shooting said he was on the *first* floor having lunch (and incidentally, Depository employees as a general rule did eat their lunch on the first floor which was also why they never as a general rule would use a Coke machine on the second floor which only sold Coke, when there was already a Dr. Pepper machine on the first floor with more choices which Oswald invariably used according to those who knew him). And go back to Arnold's 1963 interview with the FBI when she says that she only thought she caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald at 12:15 on the *first* floor.


****He is an expert marksman, which his fellow marines do not attest to,****


His own Marine record said he was a Sharpshooter which is better than average. Why this myth about him being a "bad shot" persists in the face of the evidence is another peculiar bit of buff thinking in action.


******He then leaves the gun, doesn't wipe it or pick up the shell castings and high tails it down to the second floor to drink a soda, completely calm, as anyone would be after just killing the president and racing down the stairs two minutes before.*****


Leaving aside the matter that you failed to explain why Oswald would go up to the second floor to use a machine the employees never used, and when he didn't even drink Coke as a general rule, and would be there instead of watching the motorcade go by like everyone else was doing, I would point out to you that at this point, Oswald already had experience with using this rifle to try and kill someone, as his attempt on General Edwin Walker some months earlier revealed. Oswald had experience in training himself mentally to be prepared to kill. But then again, it's amusing how you now insist that if he is to be guilty he should have wiped the prints you now have to concede he left behind off. I guess under this standard, no criminal who ever leaves his fingerprints behind at the scene of the crime could ever be guilty because we're supposed to expect them to have wiped them off!


******While walking he is stopped by a police car. Why?******


Because contrary to what you say, Neil, there *had* been an APB put out in regard to the general description of the assassin, as provided by eyewitness Howard Brennan and Oswald did fit that description. But why I ask are you trying to smear Officer Tippit for having done his duty as he saw it, and for which he paid the price when he was then gunned down in cold blood?


*******And he does what anyone would when they are on the run and looking to hide somewhere that they wouldn't be noticed, he sneaks into a movie theater without paying, thus breaking the law and arousing suspicion and making it certain that the police would be called.And he does what anyone would when they are on the run and looking to hide somewhere that they wouldn't be noticed, he sneaks into a movie theater without paying, thus breaking the law and arousing suspicion and making it certain that the police would be called.******


Neil, this proves once again the dangers of reading buff literature and figuring they're telling the truth about what happened. From Mark Lane on, there has been this strange penchant for zapping out of existence one Johnny Calvin Brewer, owner of a shoestore who first heard the report of Tippit's murder broadcast over the radio, and then saw Oswald in a clear attempt to evade the sound of approaching police sirens, duck into the recessed entrance of his shoestore. Brewer, believing Oswald's actions suspicious then followed him to the Texas Theatre and saw him slip in and it was this that caused the police to be notified, *not* the fact that he'd gone in without paying for a ticket, but because an alert citizen saw him *before* that and thought he might be involved with the Tippit shooting. Yet for some reason, buffs like to gamble on the fact that their gullible readers will not know about Johnny Brewer and so they zap him out of existence to create this phony scenario of the police convering on Oswald for an innocuous matter that thus proves this was all a conspiratorial set-up. Sorry, Neil that's not gonna wash and invoking Columbo won't work either because at least the good Lieutenant always had the common sense to ultimately tell us how things *really* happened which is what buffdom so obviously fails to do all the time.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

I answered it Phil, many times, and I didn't have to resort to childish fart jokes. The truth is Phil, you can't answer the question without telling the truth: Those are Oswald's prints, and they weren't planted. Even Neil concedes that.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Jack, do you think it's a bit strange they are now arguing that Oswald is innocent because he didn't wipe off prints that they spent post upon post trying to prove weren't there? Using their logic, if Oswald was so sophisticated as to know to wipe away all prints, wouldn't the conspirators be better off NOT planting prints?

 

[Jack P]

Jeff this gets back to what's so otherworldly about buffdom. They never bother to figure out just how silly the idea is to envision conspirators plotting things the way they say it did if all this stuff is fake, bogus etc. For them, it's just a religion to believe in there is a conspiracy but never mind how it could have happened that way.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Yes, if you follow the logic on this page, if the prints were not on the rifle, LHO would have to be guilty because it would be proof he was a smart guy who wore gloves or wiped them off. But you and I both know they would never use that logic if the prints were not on the gun.

No prints? Points to conspiracy because there's no proof LHO touched the gun.

Prints on the gun? Points to conspiracy because LHO was smart enough to wipe them off.

Prints on the gun, but couldn't possibly be faked because they were found 30 years later? Insult, make childish comebacks, and deflect from the facts by rattling off a dozen points that have already been debunked.


Rinse lather repeat.

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie





But in this particular case, Oswald supposedly left the cartridge shells and the rifle at his work location...thereby solidifying any future case against him. Why didn't he at least scoop up the cartridge shells which were basically lying at his feet? Are you saying he wanted to be caught?

No I'm saying he acted like a normal criminal and left some evidence behind. He wasn't the first to self-incriminate by doing so, and he won't be the last. What exactly about Oswald makes you think he was an expert criminal? Let's face it, this guy was not a professional assassin. He could shoot, but Carlos the Jackal he was not. You guys really have to stop claiming that the preponderance of evidence that shows it was Oswald is evidence that it was not Oswald because he wouldn't have left evidence. It's really getting silly.[/QUOTE]

Well,Jeff,no Oswald wasn't a professional assassin (or an assassin of any type IMHO), but it doesn't take a CRIMINAL MASTERMIND to understand the importance of wearing gloves if you're about to murder someone using a rifle. However, if not a single pair of gloves was available in Dallas,Texas that day, it wouldn't have taken a CRIMINAL MASTERMIND to understand the importance of wiping the rifle clean of your prints..or to scoop up the 3 cartridge shells lying at your feet. Apparently, the collective nuts fail to grasp this,or they DO understand its implications which is why they can't acknowledge it....and as far as planting prints on the rifle waiting for some future based technology to reveal them..that is patently absurd..whoever planted them was hoping they'd be discovered as quickly as possible..how was this done..well when Oswald was arrested and fingerprinted..not a big leap to understand how they could be transferred to the rifle if he was being set up.

 

[Jack P]

Uh, gee, Phil would you tell me how many other Presidential assassins or would-be assassins are known to have worn gloves when they perpetrated their acts?


******and as far as planting prints on the rifle waiting for some future based technology to reveal them..that is patently absurd..whoever planted them was hoping they'd be discovered as quickly as possible.*****


Oh I see, these supposed geniuses who you want us to believe really are CRIMINAL MASTERMINDS then end up being so stupid they forget to make the prints on the rifle clear enough so they can be discerned by the technology of the day! This is another part of buffdom I find so funny, they assume such powers of super-intelligence in the plotters to pull of these daring feats necessary to bring about a conspiracy, but then they end up having to at the same time done some very DUMB things in order to fit the picture of the evidence as it actually is.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Phil, how exactly can you "transfer" prints when you print someone? Latent fingerprints are due to residual oils on your fingers being transferred to a surface. "Fingerprinting" someone consists of applying ink or chemicals to a finger and transferring the ink or chemicals to paper that displays the fingerprint. It has nothing to do with the transfer of residual oils and everything to do with the transfer of an ink or chemical. It is basically impossible to transfer bodily oils without using the actual body, phil. The conspirators would have had to use LHO's hand to put latent prints on the rifle, and unless they sprayed him with the afore mentioned amnesia gas, LHO never mentioned anything about them placing his hand on the rifle. Once more phil, you speak with authority on something you have no knowledge of.

 

[phil*]

Originally Posted by Jeff Gatie

It is basically impossible to transfer bodily oils without using the actual body, phil. The conspirators would have had to use LHO's hand to put latent prints on the rifle, and unless they sprayed him with the afore mentioned amnesia gas, LHO never mentioned anything about them placing his hand on the rifle.

Since Oswald was held in custody for 2 nights prior to being killed..it's not impossible to conceive that his hand could have been placed on the rifle without his knowledge..he could have been given a sleeping aid which put him into a deep slumber..no amnesia gas required in this scenario. The point is moot however, since Oswald owned the rifle, it's only natural that his prints would be on it. Does that prove that he fired the rifle at JFK on November 22,1963? Another thing, it's interesting that the brown paper bag allegedly used to bring in the disassembled rifle into the Depository showed little or no traces of oil which one would expect would have been transferred from the rifle.

 

[Jack P]

Originally Posted by phil*

Since Oswald was held in custody for 2 nights prior to being killed..it's not impossible to conceive that his hand could have been placed on the rifle without his knowledge..he could have been given a sleeping aid which put him into a deep slumber..no amnesia gas required in this scenario.

*This* is somehow supposed to be more plausible to believe than the single bullet theory?


At the very least, this is a nice example of why buffdom in general has to avoid coming up with scenarios of their own because on the few occasions when they try, the end result is something as absurd as this.