Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Most Damning Evidence Against Oswald


Tim Gratz

Recommended Posts

In his excellent book "Breach of Promise" Prof McKnight identifies one exhibit to the WC as the most damning evidence against Oswald as Kennedy's assassin. I can see why he says that.

For people who have not read the book, what do you think would be the most damning evidence against Oswald? It's not the backyard photos. Merely because Oswald had his photo taken holding the M-C (assuming arguendo the photos are legitimate) does not mean he used it to shoot at anyone.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/commonality

commonality

2 a: possession of common features or attributes : commonness b: a common feature or attribute

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonality

Commonality may refer to:

Common attributes or characteristics

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Marina has always told the truth?

No wonder if he believes that Mr. Carroll is forced to argue there was no nexus between the Walker shooting and the JFK shooting since per Marina LHO told her he shot at LHO.

It is true that I am forced to argue that that the (presumed) fact that Lee Oswald shot Walker has no probative value when it comes to the accusation that he shot JFK.

The reason I am forced to argue that way, as I have explained ad nauseam on this thread, is because I am constrained by the dictates of deductive logic. If Mr. Gratz does not approve of logic, he should complain to Aristotle, who wrote the book on the subject.

Marina says her husband told her that he fired at Walker, and her testimony, given in late 1963- early 1964) remains uncontroveted down to the present day. I know of no reason to doubt it. Leaving aside spousal immunity, Lee's statement would be admissable evidence, despite the fact that it is hearsay, IF LEE OSWALD WAS ON TRIAL FOR THE WALKER SHOOTING. It would be admissable under the well-recognized exception for ADMISSIONS, but it is still hearsay, and still suffers from all the problems inherent in second-hand statements, one of them being that the we the fact-finders cannot hear the actual words that Lee said, we cannot judge whether he was serious or playing a hoax, and he is not here to explain. The problem with any hearsay statement is that even if we are completely satisfied that the witness is truthful, that tells us nothing about the truth of the statement she reports hearing. If we believe Vincent Bugliosi, for example, nothing said by Lee Oswald should be given any weight.

For the purpose of argument in this thread, I have assumed that Lee Oswald told the truth when he said he fired at Walker.

My interest lies in identifying the killers of JFK. The Warren Commission claimed that the "fact" that Lee OSwald shot at Walker has "probative value" in determining who shot JFK. But logic and the rules of evidence tell us is that the Warren Commission had absolutely no basis, in Law or Logic, for making that assertion.

To repeat: Even if Lee Oswald had been convicted of shooting Walker, that conviction would not be admissable as evidence that he shot JFK, because it logically irrelevant under the Federal Rules of Evidence and under the Common Law rules that existed long befor the FRE came into being.

If Mr. Gratz wants to Prove that Lee Oswald shot JFK (so that he can then prove that Castro was behind it), he will have to learn what relevant evidence is, and then go out and find some.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim Gratz has no real interest in the truth about the JFK assassination. Marina has told the truth all along and Tim is simply not interested in hearing it.

From Breach of Trust, p 48:

Katzenbach was aware that Marina had lied to the Secret Service and the FBI, denying that Lee had recently made a trip to Mexico.

You have indeed done some work, Professor and we all appreciate it....

....I wonder if you would care to add some comment on the probative value of the Walker shooting evidence.

Professor McKnight does exactly that in great detail in his book. (pp. 48-58) He concludes by writing:

And the Walker case, as used in this instance, was just a microcosm of what was to follow in the government's investigation into the Kennedy assassination. In trying to connect Oswald with the attempt on Walker's life the FBI had dug a dry hole. Had Oswald lived to face a trial with competent defense it would have been risky, at best, for the authorities to try to make the claim that the physical evidence conclusively linked Oswald to the Walker shooting. The Warren Commission, not having to contend with any forceful review of the forensic evidence or cross-examination of witnesses, was free to conclude that Oswald's attempt to kill Walker demonstrated "his disposition to take human life." What is not in the Warren Report is any allusion to the strange career and timely appearance of Oswald's alleged "Walker Note" to Marina, a possible forgery, or the progress of the presumption that Oswald was the sniper in the Walker shooting from planted FBI stories in the press to a White House press release and finally into the government's officially sanctioned historical record of the assassination of America's thirty-fifth president.

Does Carroll expect Professor McKnight to reproduce his research for those that have not bothered to read Breach of Trust?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, right on. I think any one seriously interested in the case should be required to read "Breach of Trust".

One must admit that if the note was forged then LHO was framed and Marina lied.

I do not think that document examination is of such certitude that possible forgery can be excluded from consideration. Query whether the best document examiner in the US could now evaluate the hand-writing on the note and render an opinion on same?

One can argue whether the discovery of the note was suspicious.

The absence of fingerprints on the note of EITHER LHO or Marina is "interesting" to say the least, although insufficient to prove a forgery.

If the Walker shooting was part of a secret operation in which Oswald was knowingly involved, it is possible he wrote the note and confessed to Marina as part of a "legend" he was creating.

But Michael makes a good point that Marina lied about Oswald's trip to Mexico City. Given the possible connection of activities in Mexico City to the assassination her apparent lies about that trip also raise disturbing implications.

But when all is said and done, all that remains right now are (unfortunately) suspicions and speculation.

Where does Mr. Carroll get the impression that I want to prove Oswald did it? And shouldn't all possibilities be considered and weighed?

(Mr. Carroll apparently belongs to the body of assassination researchers that contend that anyone not subscribing to their POV or thesis re the assassination is not seriously interested in its resolution.)

But there is cleary abundant evidence to argue Oswald was one of the shooters (of course I think the evidence excludes the possibilty that LHO acted alone). Linking CE399 to the MC which was found in the TSBD and linking its ownership to LHO is by itself evidence of his involvement (need to say I am familiar with the arguments the evidence wes "created" to frame Oswald and itis my opinion that Oswald was made a patsy but may have owned the M-C and even brought it in to the TSBD).

The Walker shooting bears close examination IMO because if LHO shot at Walker it IS inculpatory evidence, despite Mr. Carroll's repeated protests to the contrary) but if he did not that is evidence he was being framed for the assassination. I do not exclude the possibility that Oswald shot at Walker (whether intending to miss or really intending to kill him) but was an innocent patsy in the JFK assassination.

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Breach of Trust, p 48:

Katzenbach was aware that Marina had lied to the Secret Service and the FBI, denying that Lee had recently made a trip to Mexico.

Michael Hogan raised this same red herring on the thread entitled Marina Oswald.

It is remarkable that, whenever Hogan raises this (non) issue, he always leaves out an important detail:

Before she left New Orleans, Marina promised her husband that she would tell no one about his trip to Mexico, and she kept that promise until the day she made a higher promise, before God, that she would tell the truth to the Warren Commission.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ic=7039&hl=

Does Carroll expect Professor McKnight to reproduce his research for those that have not bothered to read Breach of Trust?
Michael, right on. I think any one seriously interested in the case should be required to read "Breach of Trust".

It seems that these two geniuses have figured out that I possess psychic powers. They imply that I have not read Breach of Trust, yet they both know that I quoted verbatim from McKnight’s text earlier on this thread. Here’s a clue, guys: When I quoted from BREACH OF TRUST, citing the exact page number, I was not relying on my psychic powers.

From BREACH OF TRUST

. Had Oswald lived to face a trial with competent defense it would have been risky, at best, for the authorities to try to make the claim that the physical evidence conclusively linked Oswald to the Walker shooting. .

There is no ballistics evidence linking any particular weapon to the shooting and there is no eyewitness evidence linking Lee Oswald to the crime (The HSCA tried to pawn off the “scientific” opinion of Vincent Guinn as a substitute for ballistics evidence in the Walker shooting, but state and federal courts have determined that Guinn’s "methodology" is Junk Science).

In the scenario envisioned by McKnight, where Lee Oswald is alive, the authorities could not have compelled either Lee or Marina to testify. Even if they could have somehow justified a search warrant and found the famous note, there is nothing in the note itself to connect it to the Walker shooting, as Courtney Redd and Greg Parker pointed out earlier on this thread. So their search warrant would have yielded only the photograph of Walker’s house, an unexplained phenomenon to be sure, but hardly sufficient to send a man to trial in a country where the law requires that accusations be supported by proof.

To say that, in those circumstances, a prosecution would have been “risky” is a major understatement.

From BREACH OF TRUST

The Warren Commission, not having to contend with any forceful review of the forensic evidence or cross-examination of witnesses, was free to conclude that Oswald's attempt to kill Walker demonstrated "his disposition to take human life."

The Warren Commission was accountable only to Lyndon Johnson, who probably never even read the report. The Commission was free to reach the most arbitrary conclusions, because Earl Warren decided that his “hearings” would be held in secret and that he would not be constrained by rules of law or rules of logic, or indeed any of the rules of a civilized society, if that was what it took to pin the assassination on Lee Oswald.

As Allen Dulles astutely noted, the Commission did not even have to worry that anyone who mattered would wade through the mountain of irrelevancy generated by the Commission, apart from “a few professors”

Well a few professors and other citizens did take the time and effort to navigate

The Commission record, and we are all grateful to Dr. McKnight, who has written a damning indictment of the Commission.

My criticism of BREACH OF TRUST is that it is much too lenient on these malefactors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An argument that Oswald fired at Walker is an argument that he did not fire at Kennedy. The idea that Oswald believed Kennedy=Walker and both needed killing is embarrassingly stupid, and is indicative of the contempt the WC felt for the American people. If Oswald was a true anarchist, and hated all authority figures, then he would have followed his fellow anarchists and proudly admitted his guilt.

In short, Tim, there is no historical basis for your belief that Oswald's shooting at Walker increases the possibility he shot at Kennedy. Would an NRA activist who took a shot at Michael Moore be a likely suspect in the murder of Rush Limbaugh? Not hardly. Just the opposite. One would have to suspect he'd been set up, particularly if he insisted just that when given the chance to brag about his crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his excellent book "Breach of Promise" Prof McKnight identifies one exhibit to the WC as the most damning evidence against Oswald as Kennedy's assassin. I can see why he says that.

For people who have not read the book, what do you think would be the most damning evidence against Oswald? It's not the backyard photos. Merely because Oswald had his photo taken holding the M-C (assuming arguendo the photos are legitimate) does not mean he used it to shoot at anyone.

The most "damning" evidence that Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy was his stupidity. Didn't he think it odd that Kennedy was going to pass by the TSBD? And his "friends," Ruth Paine and husband, and DeMohrenshildt were CIA and he wasn't suspicious of them?

Harvey was so set up it was comical. The appearances in Mexico at the Cuban and Russian embassies. The pictures, supposedly of Oswald in the backyard, holding an edition of The Daily Worker and a rifle -- to prove he was a communist and was going to kill somebody with the rifle. Then his wife said she took those pictures of him at his insistence -- his own wife is incriminating him. Plus, the story always went that he left his wedding ring on the dresser for Marina to find. Only there's a photo of a wedding ring on his left hand when he was taken into custody. Even his lookalike, Lee Oswald, was framing him by shooting out the 6th floor window. How dumb is this guy? I think Harvey was a Russian citizen of Hungarian descent. The voice on the tape from Russia in 1960 is the same voice heard on 2 radio shows and the same voice of the man arrested as Lee Harvey Oswald here in America. I think his name is Alek Hidell and the real Harvey Oswald went over to Russia.

Of course, this doesn't damn him at all. There is nothing that damns Harvey Oswald as the killer of President Kennedy.

Kathy

Hi Kathy;

Nice, informative, and compact post there. Good thought about the TSBD, maybe that's why Oswald went out on the porch to have a look and be seen, not as dumb as he's been portrayed. Anyone who can learn Russian as fast as he did can't be completely stupid.

Ruth Paine is so fishy, One can picture her and Oswald, watching TV or whatever, and both wondering who is manuvering them and why. Two green wanna- be spies; sharing a house. Just a coincidence I'm sure.

The backyard photos? Isn't the guy in those shots a little too, well, robust to be Oswald. The guy looks much more physically imposing, his forearms look bigger and he looks overall stronger than the slump shouldered Oswald (does) in custody. Talk about espionage 101 - so the wife takes the photos and then they are substituted later, unless she developed them and studied them, how would she know exactly what they looked like? Any reports she ever saw the photos before being shown them by the FBI. (or was it SS?)

I have never seen the photo with the wedding ring, can you direct me or post it?

Most damning? How about pulling a gun at the time of his arrest?

Oswald voice is quite intriguing; I agree. It would be interesting to hear those Russian recordings. Ever notice this - In custody, and at his "press conference" he talks with a light southern drawl, a soft, New Orleans kind of accent. A bit peculiar, (or maybe not!) for a guy who did fluent Russian, some Japanese, and at least had heard a lot of Spanish, with the New Orleans childhood, I would hazard a guess that he knew a bit of Spanish.

Oh yeah the press conference - in his soft southern accent (when asked if he killed the president) "No, nobody, has told me that, I've not been charged with that." And Capt. Fritz "Yes you have!" It's like Oswald knows he hasn't been charged but Fritz thinks he has!

All the best

Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...