Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Most Damning Evidence Against Oswald


Tim Gratz

Recommended Posts

John I would agree with you that the attempt on Walker's life may have been feigned.

And perhaps that was the plan for Dallas as well. So Oswald flees but is tied to Castro. So what if he didn't hit JFK? He couldn't hit Walker either!

either

Oswald shot in Walkers direction, and shot perfectly at Kennedy. IOW Oswald and Walker/Inttimates were connected. - Patsy - he was tricked. - Conspiracy

Oswald shot in Walkers direction with intention to kill (fascist hunter) demonstrating his shooting capabilities - ipso facto - did not shoot at Kennedy - Patsy - Conspiracy

Oswald did not shoot in Walkers directon but shot Kennedy. Walker and co IMMEDIATELY blackens Oswald re the Walker shooting. - Conspiracy. (or as Nixon intimate wrote following Kent Sate - "There is an opportunity in everything.")

Oswald did not shoot in Walkers directon and did not shoot Kennedy - Conspiracy.

No-one shot in Walkers direction (staged). Someone shot Kennedy. Who?

More?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If Oswald did indeed shoot and hit JFK, he is hardly a patsy even if others talked him in to the deed.

Patsy has a few definitions. If Oswald was the shooter in a conspiracy where he was abandoned by the other conspirators (and silenced) then he was 'the tricked or cheated one'. One Patsy def.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A valid and excellent point, John. So who knows what he really meant? I guess it depends on whether he was part of a conspiracy and knew he had become the designated "fall guy" or if he was totally innocent and knew he was being framed.

A shame he did not get a lawyer before he was shot. He might very well have told the lawyer exactly what he knew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A valid and excellent point, John. So who knows what he really meant? I guess it depends on whether he was part of a conspiracy and knew he had become the designated "fall guy" or if he was totally innocent and knew he was being framed.

A shame he did not get a lawyer before he was shot. He might very well have told the lawyer exactly what he knew.

Exactly, and therein one again smells CONSPIRACY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why wouldn't a confession be sufficient to prove guilt?

When the "confession" is made in jest, as I clearly indicated in the example.

evidence of past crimes is often admitted in criminal cases and usually such admission is upheld on appeal.

Below is just once case I found on the first page of a Google search:

United States v Hill (an Eighth Circuit case):

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/001699p.pdf

Either Tim did not bother to read the case, or else he read it and did not understand it, or else he is simply being insincere.

In American law evidence of prior convictions is very rarely admitted, and only for the very narrow purposes defined in the Federal rules (quoted by Tim earlier in this thread). In the Hill case, evidence of prior convictions was allowed to overcome defendants denial of INTENT, i.e. to show that the defendants admitted actions did not have an innocent explanation, as he claimed.

If Lee Oswald had been caught red-handed with a smoking rifle on the sixth floor, and if he claimed that he was merely firing

in the air to welcome JFK and had no INTENT to kill anyone, THEN the rationale of the Hill case might apply.

But the Warren Report claims no such rationale. It merely uses the Walker evidence to distract attention from the flimsiness of the case against Lee Oswald in the JFK assassination, just as Tim is doing here.

Logic compels that if Oswald tried to kill Walker such an act suggests he may have been Kennedy's assassin. Prof McKnight certainly thinks so.

McKnight writes on page 53 that "if Oswald had written the note, then it was the most damaging evidence the government ever came up with connecting him to the assassination.."

This statement is really just a reflection on how pathetic the governments case against Lee Oswald really was.

The "logic" of character evidence goes like this:

MAJOR PREMISE: Whoever shot JFK had a bad character

MINOR PREMISE: Lee Oswald was one person who had a bad character (he supposedly fired at Walker)

CONCLUSION: Therefore Lee Oswald shot JFK

Experiments show that most people are easily fooled by sophistry (bad logic). I suspect that is the most important single reason why the JFK assassination remains unsolved.

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

Mr. Carroll's syllogism is sophistry. Here is the correct syllogism:

MAJOR PREMISE: A person who attempts to kill an American politician is either mentally sick or commits his act to gain fame or prove a political point, and is capable of repeating such act for similar motives.

MINOR PREMISE: LHO attempted to kill Gen. Walker,

CONCLUSION: Oswald is the type of person capable of shooting the President.

So in this case the alleged previous act goes to prove motive not intent.

I submit evidence of prior crimes or conduct is admitted in American criminal trials far more often than Mr. Carroll contends. But his argument here is an example of the bad logic he condemns. It matters not how often evidence of prior acts is used in American criminal trials. It may not be used in many trials simply because the prosecution has no such available evidence to try to get in. What matters is whether the evidence of the WAlker shooting would be admissiblle had a trial of the Kennedy case occured. I submit it would have been.

Mr. Carroll argues that I am offering this to "distract attention from the flimsiness of the case against Oswald." How can he say this? Surely he knows that not only am I a vocal advocate that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, I also believe, though somewhat less strongly, that Oswald was indeed as he proclaimed just a patsy, and have so argued here repeatedly. I think both the paraffin test results and Oswald's "alibi" are quite exculpatory. Nevertheless if he in fact shot at Kennedy I think that does tend to support a claim that he was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. But I also believe that absent the note and Marina's testimony that he told her what he had just done, the evidence against him in the Walker shooting is very weak. So I think it all comes down to Marina's testimony (is it true?) and the note (was it forged?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Carroll's syllogism is sophistry. Here is the correct syllogism:

MAJOR PREMISE: A person who attempts to kill an American politician is either mentally sick or commits his act to gain fame or prove a political point, and is capable of repeating such act for similar motives.

MINOR PREMISE: LHO attempted to kill Gen. Walker,

CONCLUSION: Oswald is the type of person capable of shooting the President.

So in this case the alleged previous act goes to prove motive not intent.

I submit evidence of prior crimes or conduct is admitted in American criminal trials far more often than Mr. Carroll contends. But his argument here is an example of the bad logic he condemns. It matters not how often evidence of prior acts is used in American criminal trials. It may not be used in many trials simply because the prosecution has no such available evidence to try to get in. What matters is whether the evidence of the WAlker shooting would be admissiblle had a trial of the Kennedy case occured. I submit it would have been.

Mr. Carroll argues that I am offering this to "distract attention from the flimsiness of the case against Oswald." How can he say this? Surely he knows that not only am I a vocal advocate that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, I also believe, though somewhat less strongly, that Oswald was indeed as he proclaimed just a patsy, and have so argued here repeatedly. I think both the paraffin test results and Oswald's "alibi" are quite exculpatory. Nevertheless if he in fact shot at Kennedy I think that does tend to support a claim that he was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. But I also believe that absent the note and Marina's testimony that he told her what he had just done, the evidence against him in the Walker shooting is very weak. So I think it all comes down to Marina's testimony (is it true?) and the note (was it forged?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Gratz's MAJOR PREMISE is fallacious:

MAJOR PREMISE: A person who attempts to kill an American politician is either mentally sick or commits his act to gain fame or prove a political point, and is capable of repeating such act for similar motives.

It should read:

MAJOR PREMISE: A person who attempts to kill an American politician is either mentally sick or commits his act to gain fame or prove a political point, OR IS ENGAGED IN A CONSPIRACY WITH OTHER PERSONS.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack, I would accept your amendment as correct, hypothetically.

But my syllogism is what a prosecutor in the Oswald case would have argued to the judge to get the evidence in.

However, who knows what would haver happened had Oswald survived to stand trial. Aware of problems in the case against him, the prosecutors might have argued that he was part of a conspiravy the other membes if which had not been identified or apprehended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Carroll's syllogism is sophistry. Here is the correct syllogism:

MAJOR PREMISE: A person who attempts to kill an American politician is either mentally sick or commits his act to gain fame or prove a political point, and is capable of repeating such act for similar motives.

MINOR PREMISE: LHO attempted to kill Gen. Walker,

CONCLUSION: Oswald is the type of person capable of shooting the President.

So in this case the alleged previous act goes to prove motive not intent.

I submit evidence of prior crimes or conduct is admitted in American criminal trials far more often than Mr. Carroll contends. But his argument here is an example of the bad logic he condemns. It matters not how often evidence of prior acts is used in American criminal trials. It may not be used in many trials simply because the prosecution has no such available evidence to try to get in. What matters is whether the evidence of the WAlker shooting would be admissiblle had a trial of the Kennedy case occured. I submit it would have been.

Tim, as with hearsay evidence, evidence of prior crimes/conduct can be admissible under certain circumstances.

But I think it would have been foolish of the prosecution to try and introduce the Walker evidence into a trial relating to JFK. If it was allowed, it would actually work in favor of the defense. Why? Because on face value, the evidence against Oswald in the Walker incident shows careful planning (eg the photos). It shows the possibility of co-conspirators per witness account. It shows concern over welfare of wife/children (note of instructions on where to seek help). Additionally, Marina's evidence regarding both Walker & JFK would be inadmissible. What you have just presented to the jury is the direct opposite of how the prosecution wants to project Oswald. Walker = careful planner JFK = lone nut opportunist - and therefore mutually exclusive portraits. What you would end up with is, if Oswald shot at Walker, he did not shoot at Kennedy.

The only way to use the Walker evidence against Oswald re JFK was exactly the way described by Ray. Present the case using sophistry and without all the safeguards and rules covering the legal system.

Mr. Carroll argues that I am offering this to "distract attention from the flimsiness of the case against Oswald." How can he say this? Surely he knows that not only am I a vocal advocate that JFK was killed by a conspiracy, I also believe, though somewhat less strongly, that Oswald was indeed as he proclaimed just a patsy, and have so argued here repeatedly. I think both the paraffin test results and Oswald's "alibi" are quite exculpatory. Nevertheless if he in fact shot at Kennedy I think that does tend to support a claim that he was involved in the conspiracy to kill JFK. But I also believe that absent the note and Marina's testimony that he told her what he had just done, the evidence against him in the Walker shooting is very weak. So I think it all comes down to Marina's testimony (is it true?) and the note (was it forged?).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg, as is often the case, you are correct. In a trial neither Marina's testimony would be admissible nor would the note (because Marina would not be allowed to testify to authenticate the note even if she wanted to.

The distinctions you make between the Walker shooting and the Kennedy assassination are most interesting.

But since we are not bound by the rules of evidence, we do need to consider both Marina's testimony and the note. If her testimony is true not only did Oswald shoot at Walker, he also wrote the note. So I think that given where we are now it comes down to whether Marina's WC testimony was true.

Query whether a new examination of the note by an independent document examiner might be able to determine if the note was indeed a forgery. If it was, then clearly: (1) Oswald was being framed; and (2) Marina was offering false testimony against him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Carroll's syllogism is sophistry. Here is the correct syllogism:

MAJOR PREMISE: A person who attempts to kill an American politician is either mentally sick or commits his act to gain fame or prove a political point, and is capable of repeating such act for similar motives.

MINOR PREMISE: LHO attempted to kill Gen. Walker,

CONCLUSION: Oswald is the type of person capable of shooting the President.

So in this case the alleged previous act goes to prove motive not intent.

Sherlock Holmes said that “CRIME IS COMMON. LOGIC IS RARE.”

Let us examine Tim’s syllogism to find whether it has any meaning or value in determining the MOTIVE behind JFK’s assassination.

MAJOR PREMISE: JFK was killed by someone who was either mentally sick, or sought fame, or to prove a political point.

In order to make a truth-seeking logical argument, the MAJOR PREMISE must be TRUE. A syllogism based on a falsehood, or based on speculation and guesswork, cannot deductively lead us to the truth.

The Warren Commission asked the public to believe that the assassination was a motiveless crime, although they did SPECULATE as to some possible motives much like Tim is doing in his MAJOR PREMISE. But the Warren Commission, in all fairness, did not pretend that its various speculations about MOTIVE were the TRUTH, and did not argue that such speculation could be used as a basis to DEDUCTIVELY prove that Lee Oswald had a motive, as Tim is trying to do.

Now if Tim could prove that Lee Oswald was a fanatical admirer of Lyndon Baines Johnson, then he WOULD have a basis for a valid syllogism that could be used to establish MOTIVE.

Tim’s syllogism is useless because there is no proof that its MAJOR PREMISE is TRUE, while his MINOR PREMISE also remains unproven.

I have in the past expressed serious doubts that Tim is really interested in finding out the truth about the JFK assassination, and his “arguments” on this thread have done nothing to assuage those doubts.

So how can anyone be sure that the note was even written in reference to this act?

Though the note was undated, references in it help establish it was written somewhere around the time of the "attempt" on Walker. I think it may have a margin of error of one or two weeks. There was another incident around this time for which he may have feared arrest. A New Orleans FPCC style stunt.

Greg: Do you have any further info on this story? The late Larry Ray Harris seemed fairly certain that Lee Oswald had in fact

paraded in downtown Dallas with a "Hands Off Cuba" sign somewhere around the time of the Walker shooting.

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

Double trouble

"MAJOR PREMISE: JFK was killed by someone who was either mentally sick, or sought fame, or to prove a political point" - Or didn't give SFA and thought $XX,XXX.XX was OK.

If that also is Mentally ill then a whole societ or SIGNIFICANT sectors of it are mentally ill.

If so, the USofA has essentially become a 'nut house', where the inmates have the keys.

Sorry bro's and sis's. It IS your call. Many of us will help.

Edited by John Dolva
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...