Who Did it?

[Jon G. Tidd]

Duncan,

Ridicule is not reasoned argument.

DVP,

I didn't want unsupported assertions. I wanted an argument. The kind any reasonable person can buy. You point toward assertions, claim they are facts, and by circular reasoning reach conclusions.

Clue, DVP: I'm on your side. I want to believe what you do. You don't persuade me.

[David Von Pein]

DVP: I'm on your side. I want to believe what you do. You don't persuade me.

And just how many "things" (which is a word I'll use since you don't like for me to call the evidence "evidence", seeing as how it never crossed a courtroom's threshold) would it take for you to be "persuaded"? 250 things? 1,000? How many? Because apparently the few dozen or so "things" that currently all point toward Lee Oswald aren't nearly enough.

Are they, Jon?

So....how many things does it take?

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops," with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "evil geniuses," with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths"

Edited August 30, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Jon G. Tidd]

If Oswald did it pretty much as the W.C. said, I'd say the U.S. Government has done an incredibly weak job of pinning the murder(s) on him, and many questions remain unanswered. Such as why did Oswald bring only four bullets, at least one of which was a re-load, to the shooting perch? Or why was Oswald so nonchalant when (supposedly) confronted by Marion Baker, pistol drawn? I admit that if Oswald did it, these questions are interesting; but the only book worth reading is the unwritten book about Oswald's psyche.

If Oswald didn't do it, all bets are off. Nothing is beyond the pale. Fabrication of the Z-film: can't be ruled out. Fabrication of autopsy photos and x-rays: can't be ruled out. Harvey and Lee: can't be ruled out. And so on.

I can go either way, in principle. Truth is, no matter which way it goes down, I'm troubled. If Oswald did do it, how the hell did he make two good shots, miss so badly with a third shot, and leave behind a rickety rifle having a barrel that rusted-up by the next morning? If Oswald didn't do it, why isn't there clear and convincing medical stuff consistent with his having done it?

If Oswald didn't do it, why have no other perps been identified? I know, Mac Wallace. Mossad. Corsican snipers. Richard Kane. James Files. The list goes on.

For argumentative purposes, I'll side with DVP. Not because of the way he presents his argument. But because, if I don't care about the truth, I just don't care.

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

If Oswald didn't do it, why isn't there clear and convincing medical stuff consistent with his having done it?

Not sure what you mean here. Is that the way you wanted to write that sentence? Shouldn't it be 1 ) "If Oswald didn't do it, why isn't there clear and convincing medical evidence consistent with his not having done it?"

If Oswald didn't do it, why have no other perps been identified? I know, Mac Wallace. Mossad. Corsican snipers. Richard Kane. James Files. The list goes on.

Because whoever the perps were, they were professionals, and they got away. Perhaps with help from the authorities.

[...]

--Tommy

Edited August 30, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[David Von Pein]

A recent Facebook discussion which fits in here pretty nicely.....

================================

GARY REVEL SAID:

"Lone Nut Theorists" have one thing in common. They all abuse the US Constitution. The guaranteed right it gives us of a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

The presumption of innocence is essential to the criminal process. The mere mention of the phrase presumed innocent keeps judges and juries focused on the ultimate issue at hand in a criminal case: whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged acts.

The people of the United States have rejected the alternative to a presumption of innocence—a presumption of guilt—as being inquisitorial and contrary to the principles of a free society.

Lee Harvey Oswald was never even properly criminally charged with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Those who continue to label him as an assassin and/or the killer of JFK are demeaning the very Constitutional rights that they exploit in the process. The requirement that the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of a crime in order to convict a defendant is no exception.

The burden of proof imposed on the prosecution and the presumption of innocence granted every defendant are based on the "Due Process" Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.


DAN PAUL SAID:

That's a pretty big generalization, Gary. When the evidence points squarely at Oswald, who should be blamed? He will obviously never be tried and convicted, but I for one can't dismiss his guilt because he was killed before being brought to trial.

For me, the infamous "them", or the equally blatant smearing of other men's reputations (LBJ, Bush Sr. etc.) that is offered up by the conspiracy theorists is no better. For me, it's what does the evidence show? It points directly at Lee Harvey Oswald. That cannot be ignored.


PATRICK SKOMSKI SAID:

Oswald was arraigned for JFK's murder. And was killed so he could not go to trial. The presumption of innocence is a creature of law where the rules apply in the courtroom and do not apply in the Court of Public Opinion.


SHERRY FIESTER SAID:

Gary states "Lone Nut Theorists" have one thing in common. They all abuse the US Constitution.

My response: If someone makes an assumption of guilt without any merit, they have violated the presumption of innocence. But, if someone examines the available information and believes it is irrefutable evidence of guilt, they are not -- especially since we have never seen a trial and one is not likely. I don't think it intentional to be unlawful. However, that said, using "alleged shooter" is much more correct.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I just don't see how a reasonable person who has examined even HALF of the evidence in this case can hold the belief that Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt (in TWO murders) has NOT been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.


GARY REVEL SAID:

As I have said to many over the last 38 years: I find no fault in those who believe Oswald killed JFK because of the consistent and mind-blowing propaganda and dis-information campaign operated by the authorities of that time.

That operation has continued, to some degree, however, people like myself, who actually investigated the assassination, found its bizarre and obvious mis-handling by those who were responsible to see justice done to be nothing less than outrageous. Those are the devils in the details.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But those "details" that you devilish CTers love so much can easily be manipulated and RE-interpreted to mean things that the CTer WANT them to mean. Take the Katzenbach memo as one such example. And certain witness testimony as another---Lee Bowers, for example. And Bill Newman.

Conspiracy theorists have been propping up those two witnesses for decades in an effort to "prove" that a gunman was on the Grassy Knoll. But when we examine the testimony and public statements of Bowers and Newman further, we can really see that neither witness "proves" that a shooter was on the Knoll. Far from it.

In fact, William Newman is actually a pretty good "LN" type of witness when we decide to actually LISTEN to Mr. Newman's explanation of what he saw and heard in Dealey Plaza (versus just merely accepting the garbage printed in conspiracy books written by people like Mark Lane and others).

So, yes, I agree that the "details" are important. But conspiracy theorists, in my opinion, are much more inclined to misinterpret and/or deliberately mangle those "details" than are lone-assassin believers. And Bill Newman is a perfect example, as we can see right here.


PAUL MATTHEWS SAID:

My research has led me to discover that in terms of manipulation, misquoting, lying, it's not the government, it's been the CT authors. Your example, David, of the Katzenbach letter is a prime example.

But for me the biggest lie is the manipulation of the seating positions regarding the single bullet. That is outrageous.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Precisely right, Paul. I think it was Bob Groden on a radio show not that many years ago who was still insisting that John Connally was sitting DIRECTLY in front of JFK when the shooting occurred. Even though Groden had undoubtedly seen the Hess & Eisenhardt limo diagram published by the HSCA, which shows that Connally's jump seat was located somewhat INBOARD in relation to Kennedy's back seat. (Not to mention the many photos and films taken on November 22 which verify that Connally was definitely sitting INBOARD and LOWER than President Kennedy in the car.)

Plus, we know from the photos that JFK was pretty much jammed as far as humanly possible to the RIGHT in his seat (so that he could comfortably rest his right arm on the top of the door frame and easily wave to the large crowds in Dallas).

So that fact (JFK being as FAR RIGHT in his seat as he possibly could be) makes for an even more pronounced "Kennedy Was Sitting To The RIGHT Of Connally" seating arrangement on 11/22/63. But many CTers still like to drag out the old myth about how the bullet couldn't have gone through both victims because Connally wasn't sitting to JFK's left at all.

The devil's in the details alright. And just look at what some CTers have done to that "seating arrangement" detail. They've mangled it to fit their needs. (Just ask Oliver Stone.)

Full discussion here:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1016450378385613/permalink/1017323051631679

Edited August 31, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62268#relPageId=29

This is the memo.

Prior to this, Hoover penned its father which said about the same thing. That was on the 24th, right after Ruby shot Oswald.

Question: How on earth could Hoover or Katzenbach have known all the facts at that time about the murder of Oswald by Ruby? Did either man do an inquiry into the security precautions by the DPD? Did either man check out all of Ruby's phone calls for the previous months? Did either man check his banking records?

No. No. No.

So how could the facts about the case have been known at this time, since the main question was this: Did Ruby shoot Oswald to silence him?

The next question would be: Did Ruby have help getting into the basement?

The next question would be: Did Ruby stalk Oswald that weekend?

Answer to number one: Considering Oswald's attempted call to John Hurt on Saturday, yes.

Answer to number two: Undoubtedly, as the HSCA found out and as Burt Griffin suspected.

Answer to number three: Pretty much a given as the HSCA depicted the visits over the weekend by Ruby.

So these documents are clearly cover up sheets since there is no way in the world anyone could have figured out the facts about Oswald's murder within 24 hours.

[David Von Pein]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This memorandum written by Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach on Monday, November 25, 1963, says that "ALL THE FACTS" concerning Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of President Kennedy should be MADE KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC.

Some "cover-up" memo that was, huh?

Another interesting non-conspiratorial portion of the Katzenbach memo is this part:

"I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination."

Do conspiracy theorists think that Katzenbach was really talking in some kind of secret code or something when he said that a "complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination" should be made public "as soon as possible"?

I.E., was Katzenbach REALLY saying that only a "phony" or a "fake" FBI report about Oswald and the assassination should be made public? Because if Katzenbach really knew about Oswald's rumored involvement with the FBI (and CIA), and Katzenbach was "in" on some cover-up operation from the get-go, he certainly wouldn't REALLY want the FBI to release a "complete and thorough" report concerning Oswald, now would he?

Vincent Bugliosi puts it this way in his book, "Reclaiming History":

"The conspiracy theorists have converted Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to squelch RUMORS that had no basis in fact into Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to suppress the FACTS of the assassination.

But how could Katzenbach and Warren have known way back then that they had to spell out that ONLY false rumors, rumors without a stitch of evidence to support them, had to be squelched for the benefit of the American public?

How could they have known back then that there would actually be people like Mark Lane who would accuse men like Warren, Gerald Ford, John Cooper, and so on...of getting in a room and all deciding to deliberately suppress, or not even look for, evidence of a conspiracy to murder the president...or that there would be intelligent, rational, and sensible people of the considerable stature of Michael Beschloss and Evan Thomas who would decide to give their good minds a rest and actually buy into this nonsense?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 367-368 of "Reclaiming History"

The Katzenbach memo:

Footnote -- Full credit needs to go to Bud here for emphasizing in his previous posts [in early May 2007, HERE and HERE] the "All the facts" language in the Katzenbach memorandum. An excellent observation, as are all of Bud's conspiracy-smashing observations.

Of course, I suppose the conspiracy theorists will shrug off Katzenbach's words as just another ruse of some sort by the people covering up the facts surrounding the assassination.

But if Katzenbach's November 25th memo to Bill Moyers had, indeed, truly been "conspiratorial" in some fashion, then the CTers have an even bigger (logical) question to answer:

Why on Earth would Nicholas Katzenbach write such a crazy memo in the first place if he was part of some kind of a cover-up operation that was in place right after President Kennedy's assassination?


DEX OLSEN SAID:

With a following of dimwits, dullards, disturbed and the dishonest, David Von Pein replied [in this post]:

"Why would [J. Lee] Rankin admit to something stupid and wholly incorrect like that, Dexter?"

See Katzenbach's memo, written while Oswald was still above ground, then kindly point out the differences between it and the WC's conclusions.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here is a higher-quality version of the complete Katzenbach memo from the
Mary Ferrell website:

PAGE 1 --- PAGE 2


And here is Nicholas Katzenbach himself explaining the meaning of that memo:

Katzenbach was nothing but a rotten [L-word], right Dexter?

Also:

The following paragraph from page 2 of the memo certainly doesn't sound like Katzenbach is part of any kind of cover-up or conspiracy to me:

"I think...that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort."

And I completely agree with Vincent Bugliosi's assessment on this topic. That is, when Katzenbach said he wanted to "head off public speculation...of the wrong sort", he was talking only about "heading off" UNWARRANTED speculation and FALSE RUMORS concerning the assassination. That's the "wrong sort" of stuff that Nicholas Katzenbach was talking about there, IMO.

In addition, there are the following comments that appear in this 11/25/63 cover letter that was sent to Assistant FBI Director Alan Belmont concerning the Katzenbach memorandum:

"It is Katzenbach's feeling that this matter can best be handled by making public the results of the FBI's investigation. He thought time was of the essence, but that the report, of course, had to be accurate."

Allow me to stress these words from that cover letter that was sent to the FBI's Alan Belmont:

"...the report, of course, had to be accurate."

David Von Pein
October 27, 2007
July 4-5, 2015 Edited August 31, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Its always nice to get evidence unfiltered by bias.

So, again , here it is.

Deputy Attorney General

November 25, 1963

MEMORANDUM FOR MR. MOYERS

It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy's
Assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the
United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a
statement to this effect be made now.

1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he
did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence
was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we
should have some basis for rebutting the thought that this was a
Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a
right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists. Unfortunately the
facts on Oswald seem about too pat-- too obvious (Marxist, Cuba, Russian
wife, etc.). The Dallas police have put out statements on the Communist
conspiracy theory, and it was they who were in charge when he was shot
and thus silenced.

3. The matter has been handled thus far with neither dignity nor
conviction. Facts have been mixed with rumour and speculation. We can
scarcely let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police
when our President is murdered.

I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as
possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the
assassination.

This may run into the difficulty of pointing to in- consistencies
between this report and statements by Dallas police officials. But the
reputation of the Bureau is such that it may do the whole job.

The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential
Commission of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence
and announce its conclusions. This has both advantages and
disadvantages.

It think it can await publication of the FBI report and public reaction
to it here and abroad.

I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made
public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We
need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings
of the wrong sort.

Nicholas deB. Katzenbach

Deputy Attorney General

[David Von Pein]

Reprise........

Allow me to stress these words from that cover letter that was sent to the FBI's Alan Belmont:

"...the report, of course, had to be accurate."

[James DiEugenio]

1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he

did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence
was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we
should have some basis for rebutting the thought that this was a
Communist conspiracy or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a
right-wing conspiracy to blame it on the Communists.

Again, this was written on the evening of the 24th after a call with Hoover.

How, right after the murder of Oswald, could anyone say that Ruby got into the basement without help, and that he acted without anyone's urging? Or that he did not know Oswald.

No one could come to that conclusion that fast. Certainly not someone in Washington DC.

But the point is this: not only is Katzenbach assuming that, he is also saying that all thinking about Oswald's motivation or any kind of conspiracy should be "cut off".

Bugliosi started all this stuff about the critics somehow misrepresenting this memo. But what he does is really bad. He quotes the opening sentence.

Vince,RIP, there are eight more paragraphs.

Talk about cherry picking.

Edited August 31, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Jon G. Tidd]

The best possible interpretation of the 11-24 Katzenbach memo is that he assumed Marina's husband did it and cared nothing for the facts, whatever they might be.

It was clear at the time and is clear today that the official position of the Executive Branch was, from the beginning, that Marina's husband did it, alone. The only person capable of emanating such a position was LBJ. And of course in those days, everyone in the Executive Branch said, "Yes, sir." to the president. Even Bobby Kennedy.

I don't subscribe to the LBJ-did-it theory. I do subscribe to the idea LBJ was handed a tremendous gift; he knew he was handed such a gift; and he wasn't about to raise questions about why he was handed the gift.

FWIW, I think the Katzenbach memo is a distraction. It's reflective of the Executive Branch, but beyond that I think it has no value in terms of identifying JFK's killers or why JFK was killed. I chalk it up to LBJ is the new boss.

[James DiEugenio]

The only other step would be the appointment of a Presidential

Commission of unimpeachable personnel to review and examine the evidence
and announce its conclusions. This has both advantages and
disadvantages.

This is the other reason the memo is important.

It contains the kernel of the WC idea.

Eugene Rostow had tried to get through to the White House after Ruby killed Oswald on TV. And he said he talked to Katzenbach but he thought that Katzenbach was overwhelmed by what happened and so therefore he called Moyers. (The Assassinations, p. 8)

​This above excerpt is clearly the genesis of the whole blue ribbon panel idea, since to the EE (represented by Rostow) the whole Dallas scene is looking like a Wild West show. And Katzenbach refers to that in his memo when he says that the matter has been handled without dignity or conviction. Which is a monumental understatement. I mean, when the defendant gets gunned down on live TV in the arms of the police, while the head homicide detective had broken formation, thereby creating a direct channel to the accused, yep that sure sounds like a lack of dignity and conviction to me Nick. And further, in the original recording, one can hear the two horns going off at the crucial times that 1.) Oswald enters the foyer and 2.) just before Ruby lunges forward to kill him--I mean pulease. But they took care of that later when the horns got edited out--or at least one of them did.

​In a larger sense, the DPD had done its job. Oswald would never talk now.

So it was time for the big guns to take over. And boy, did they ever.

Edited September 2, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Ecker]

I mean, when the defendant gets gunned down on live TV in the arms of the police, while the head homicide detective had broken formation, thereby creating a direct channel to the accused

Did Fritz ever explain why he broke formation? Or what was he ostensibly doing that caused him to break formation?

[James DiEugenio]

I am not sure, but to my knowledge, no he did not.

But Specter and Belin knew this was a serious problem.

So they said he did this because the car was a little too far ahead.

And BTW, they also worked that into how Ruby was able to get to Oswald. Leaving out all the stuff about him being let into the basement, and the DPD lying about it.

BTW, the section in Evidence of Revision is really good on this subject. It exposes so many lies by the WC with exceptional visual coverage that the WC probably did not even know existed.

I love the shot of Ruby hiding behind a cop, I think its Harrison.

[Greg Parker]

I mean, when the defendant gets gunned down on live TV in the arms of the police, while the head homicide detective had broken formation, thereby creating a direct channel to the accused

Did Fritz ever explain why he broke formation? Or what was he ostensibly doing that caused him to break formation?