Curtis Berkley

I am somewhat familiar with criminal prosecution, and yes, I can tell you that LHO would have been found guilty, and easily. You can look at it anecdotally when compared to other successful murder convictions, or specifically as to this particular instance, and the result is the same. Marcia Clark could convict LHO in San Francisco, and if juror instructions were given in the AM, they'd likely be home by supper. There are hundreds (thousands?) of murderers who are sitting in prison right now, and who had a fraction of the evidence stacked against them, as Oswald would have. You don't have to like it, or even agree with it, and I'm not even saying that it's "right" - but it's the truth. A second year law student could achieve a conviction. As to your other comments: 1. I'm not sure how name-calling and ad hominem attacks advance the issue, or specifically, your argument. 2. Who jettisoned Dr. Shaw? I merely asked the question which the posted comments begged - should he too be added to the list of conspirators? That you seemingly dislike the fact that those who do not believe in a conspiracy often ask it is immaterial, save this: Why do you think it is that we feel compelled to continually ask it - and who's fault is that? Just something to think about, and to ask yourself. 3. I believe the accounts which I find to be most credible, and which can be supported and/or corroborated by other evidence and fact, wherever possible. Do I think that Dr. Shaw's initial comments, in the excruciating glare of that first day, must be true - simply because it was his first utterance? No. Do I think that later, after some reflection, that Dr. Shaw could have remembered it more clearly, or had been made aware of better information that he did not possess at the time of his initial comments, and this is the simple and understandable reason for his later recanting his story? Yes. Do I believe that his opinion was changed later, as the certain result of a conspiracy and "once the story was straight" - as you claimed in an earlier post? Absolutely not, and in fact, that is not only a preposterous claim which lacks any fact, or even a basis in reality, and which you have simply contrived from your own personal opinion, alone. If I am wrong - please cite the source which supports your claim that Dr. Shaw was later compelled, urged, required, ordered or otherwise made to later change his story. Once provided, and if credible, I will gladly look at it, and admit if I am in error. But if you cannot, and it merely is simply your own opinion, and nothing else, then admit that, and withdraw it. 4. I am not trying to "convert" anyone. We all have different opinions, and I respect them all. Some are just more correct than others, but then, I cannot save anyone from that.

Curtis, I'm astonished by the lack of critical acumen you've shown here. But I sure do admire your writing skills. Don't mistake articulated verbosity for intelligence.

I'm digesting the other and recent posts in this thread - all great stuff - and will try to respond in detail when I have a free moment to do so. But the genuine sentimentality of Kathy's posting "my President" struck me as being particularly poignant, and I wanted to quickly comment on it.It's far too easy to forget the tragedy of that day, and to become lost amidst the wash of agendas, debates, facts, and all manners of secondary minutiae, and with myself being notably - perhaps, chiefly - included. I believe that a part of our national psyche died that day, and that we've suffered with it, since. No, JFK's death did not cause the many and real problems that we have faced since then, nor those we wrestle with today. But, as with most tragedies, it forever changed us as a people, and we see its rippling effect continue, today. I don't desire that the person(s) responsible for forcing that change upon us to go unknown, unaccounted for and unpunished. They should be zealously pursued, if not for justice in a court of law, then to be damned certain that their names are known - and cursed - throughout the annals of our national and ever-growing history. JFK deserves that, for sure, but even more importantly, we deserve it, as a People. Despite whatever disagreements we may have, however sincere, heated, and on any number of things of secondary or tertiary importance, I think that we all must share a desire for justice, as best it can be found and known, regardless of who it implicates, direction it takes, or where it concludes - or else, what's the point of it all? I neither possess the knowledge nor time to explain every anamolous sliver of every fragmented piece of this story. I wish I did - I love reading, thinking and discussing it - but I don't. That's why I appreciate this forum, and frankly, why I took the time to register and desire to participate. But I truly and personally believe, after years of reading, debate, layman research and objectively contemplative thought (as best I am capable to produce, paltry as it may be) that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence before us says that LHO assassinated JFK, and acted alone. My disbelief in a conspiracy does not result from some personal desire - I want the truth, whatever it may be - but because I have never seen any credible, disprovable, empirical or otherwise valid proof that such has ever existed. And frankly, I don't think I've ever seen it, for the simple fact that it doesn't exist. But, using tens of thousands of past experiences as proof (many painful and/or expensive), I can be wrong, and where I am, I will admit it. And so, I am willing - wanting, even - to see what evidence that other, (likely) smarter and more dedicated people than I, have come up, instead, and to give it every consideration, both carefully and critically. But I don't think I'm wrong, here. At all. I understand that this is an unpopular position here, and one that is easily attacked and mocked. As long as it doesn't turn personal, or becomes needlessly annoying or is simply intended to bait me into violating the forum rules or proper decorum, it is to be expected, and causes me no harm. If I wasn't willing to consider an alterative view, however starkly oppositional to my own, I wouldn't be here. But I am here, and do. Take that for whatever it's worth, I guess. However, I'd ask you to consider this: When you guys see my championing the sincerely held belief that LHO acted alone, as allowing the "conspirators" to escape - I see and feel the exact same of your position, believing that any assertion of an unproven conspiracy, however well-intended, merely serves to exonerate, diminish, subdue or restrain the full and complete guilt, from being squarely and rightfully upon Oswald, alone. You see my allowing the "conspirators" to escape. I see you allowing Oswald to escape, or at best, lessening the acknowledgment of his full, complete and total guilt. Simply - JFK was "my President", too. I'm on mobile, and apologize for rambling a bit. methinks the latter-day lone nuts are getting really desperate. Even Craigster is trolling this thread. I don't know what lead you to believe this, but I respect that you do.

I'm digesting the other and recent posts in this thread - all great stuff - and will try to respond in detail when I have a free moment to do so. But the genuine sentimentality of Kathy's posting "my President" struck me as being particularly poignant, and I wanted to quickly comment on it. It's far too easy to forget the tragedy of that day, and to become lost amidst the wash of agendas, debates, facts, and all manners of secondary minutiae, and with myself being notably - perhaps, chiefly - included. I believe that a part of our national psyche died that day, and that we've suffered with it, since. No, JFK's death did not cause the many and real problems that we have faced since then, nor those we wrestle with today. But, as with most tragedies, it forever changed us as a people, and we see its rippling effect continue, today. I don't desire that the person(s) responsible for forcing that change upon us to go unknown, unaccounted for and unpunished. They should be zealously pursued, if not for justice in a court of law, then to be damned certain that their names are known - and cursed - throughout the annals of our national and ever-growing history. JFK deserves that, for sure, but even more importantly, we deserve it, as a People. Despite whatever disagreements we may have, however sincere, heated, and on any number of things of secondary or tertiary importance, I think that we all must share a desire for justice, as best it can be found and known, regardless of who it implicates, direction it takes, or where it concludes - or else, what's the point of it all? I neither possess the knowledge nor time to explain every anamolous sliver of every fragmented piece of this story. I wish I did - I love reading, thinking and discussing it - but I don't. That's why I appreciate this forum, and frankly, why I took the time to register and desire to participate. But I truly and personally believe, after years of reading, debate, layman research and objectively contemplative thought (as best I am capable to produce, paltry as it may be) that the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence before us says that LHO assassinated JFK, and acted alone. My disbelief in a conspiracy does not result from some personal desire - I want the truth, whatever it may be - but because I have never seen any credible, disprovable, empirical or otherwise valid proof that such has ever existed. And frankly, I don't think I've ever seen it, for the simple fact that it doesn't exist. But, using tens of thousands of past experiences as proof (many painful and/or expensive), I can be wrong, and where I am, I will admit it. And so, I am willing - wanting, even - to see what evidence that other, (likely) smarter and more dedicated people than I, have come up, instead, and to give it every consideration, both carefully and critically. But I don't think I'm wrong, here. At all. I understand that this is an unpopular position here, and one that is easily attacked and mocked. As long as it doesn't turn personal, or becomes needlessly annoying or is simply intended to bait me into violating the forum rules or proper decorum, it is to be expected, and causes me no harm. If I wasn't willing to consider an alterative view, however starkly oppositional to my own, I wouldn't be here. But I am here, and do. Take that for whatever it's worth, I guess. However, I'd ask you to consider this: When you guys see my championing the sincerely held belief that LHO acted alone, as allowing the "conspirators" to escape - I see and feel the exact same of your position, believing that any assertion of an unproven conspiracy, however well-intended, merely serves to exonerate, diminish, subdue or restrain the full and complete guilt, from being squarely and rightfully upon Oswald, alone. You see my allowing the "conspirators" to escape. I see you allowing Oswald to escape, or at best, lessening the acknowledgment of his full, complete and total guilt. Simply - JFK was "my President", too. I'm on mobile, and apologize for rambling a bit.

Should I also add Dr. Shaw to the list of conspirators? If so, please cite the requisite proof that supports your claim that he only later changed his story, and once "agendas had been established". Absent some compelling evidence, it's a baseless claim, and you appear to simply be unwilling to abandon it.

James - didn't the same doctor also admit that he had not closely examined the wound when he made that statement, and later recanted it? If so, doesn't that put it to rest?

LHO would be convicted in any court in America, and neither Daniel Webster nor Alan Dershowitz could save him. It would make the Clay Shaw deliberations look near epic, in comparison. I understand that many may disagree with this, but that's my opinion.

Lusty Bickerer sounds like the lead character in an adult-themed re-do of Stone's JFK.I'll take it. regardless, Stone's JFK-the movie set back WCR supporters and the report 25 years.... they've never recovered, and never will. I couldn't agree more. If there was a worse face for the CTers than Jim Garrison, which is difficult to even imagine, it was topped when Oliver Stone took the mantle.

But the hole in the shirt does not match up with the "wound" depicted in the autopsy photo. There is a 2+ inch discrepancy. The clothing evidence, for which there is a chain of possession, trumps the autopsy photo -- for which there is no chain of possession. Admittedly, it's been awhile since I saw the NOVA documentary, but do I correctly recall that they explained the disparity between the wounds location and the clothing, by how JFK's arm was raised, resting on the ledge of the window? Is that explanation somehow insufficient, and if so, on what grounds? No, you missed it. Some SBT defenders--taking their cue from Specter and Humes--have made the claim the clothing was lifted when JFK's arm was raised, but the NOVA program side-stepped the issue by claiming the SBT is all about what happens after the bullet leaves Kennedy's throat. This was a convenient lie. This site (just Googled it) seems to show several photos of JFK in the limousine, with his arm on the side of the door, and a clearly definitive bunching of his coat at the base of his neck. Just using the non-scientific eye-balling, it seems to be about 2" of bunched fabric, if not more. Am I missing something as to the validity of these photos, or otherwise? Link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm Yes, you are missing the fact that JFK's shirt collar is visible in all the Elm St photos. The only way we could see his shirt collar in the back is because the jacket collar rested in a normal position at the upper margin of the base of the neck. How could multiple inches of shirt and jacket fabric bunch up above the base of the neck without pushing up on the jacket collar at the base of the neck? David Von Pein acknowledges that this fact -- the visible shirt collar in the Elm St. photos -- means the jacket was only bunched up "a little bit." This picture clearly shows an easily visible bunching of fabric at the base of the neck, as does the drawing which someone else linked in the last few posts. As to the visible collar, the collar of a suit jacket is often pulled straight and lies flag with the tension of the lapel, and especially if buttoned. So, it's entirely possible (highly likely, IMO) that the collar of his jacket stayed put, and the back section of the jacket is what bunched. Simply, a visible collar is no evidence that any bunching occurred, and in fact, just the opposite is more often true than not. And just as your picture shows.

But the hole in the shirt does not match up with the "wound" depicted in the autopsy photo. There is a 2+ inch discrepancy. The clothing evidence, for which there is a chain of possession, trumps the autopsy photo -- for which there is no chain of possession. Admittedly, it's been awhile since I saw the NOVA documentary, but do I correctly recall that they explained the disparity between the wounds location and the clothing, by how JFK's arm was raised, resting on the ledge of the window?Is that explanation somehow insufficient, and if so, on what grounds? Curtis, glance down upon your right shoulder. Now, while keeping your eye on your shirt atop your right shoulder, casually raise your right arm and wave ala JFK in the motorcade. You will observe the shirt fabric indent along your shoulder-line. Every time you imitate this movement, your shirt indents. This occurs hundreds of billions of times a day on this planet. The claim that the opposite occurs -- indeed, that multiple inches of clothing will elevate-- is readily falsifiable. Raised right arm. indentation in the shoulder... Completely fair point, but the experiment fails to account for my sitting in car, with a high(er) back seat, while wearing a suit jacket, as JFK was. And that's not to mention how exacerbated the bunching could have become with his waving, raising and lowering his arm, resting it in an elevated position, and the normal jostling of a moving car. I routinely pull the back of my suit jacket (or otherwise) down in the back, so as to prevent the common bunching around my neck. I believe that quite a few news anchors actually sit on the bottom hem of their suit jacket, so as to practically pin it down, and for the same reason. When I look at the pics I linked earlier, it seems to be clear evidence of a bunching of his jacket at the base of his neck, and it not only explains any disparity between the hole in his jacket and back wound, but rather easily. If I'm missing something, tell me, but this seems obvious.

Lusty Bickerer sounds like the lead character in an adult-themed re-do of Stone's JFK. I'll take it.

Asked and answered on my time in the Navy. Nothing coy about it, gave a relatively thorough description. You were a CryptoTech? If so, then so much has come snapping into focus, and I now have a much better prism by which to read your posts, Greg. Thanks for that.

But the hole in the shirt does not match up with the "wound" depicted in the autopsy photo. There is a 2+ inch discrepancy. The clothing evidence, for which there is a chain of possession, trumps the autopsy photo -- for which there is no chain of possession. Admittedly, it's been awhile since I saw the NOVA documentary, but do I correctly recall that they explained the disparity between the wounds location and the clothing, by how JFK's arm was raised, resting on the ledge of the window? Is that explanation somehow insufficient, and if so, on what grounds? No, you missed it. Some SBT defenders--taking their cue from Specter and Humes--have made the claim the clothing was lifted when JFK's arm was raised, but the NOVA program side-stepped the issue by claiming the SBT is all about what happens after the bullet leaves Kennedy's throat. This was a convenient lie. This site (just Googled it) seems to show several photos of JFK in the limousine, with his arm on the side of the door, and a clearly definitive bunching of his coat at the base of his neck. Just using the non-scientific eye-balling, it seems to be about 2" of bunched fabric, if not more. Am I missing something as to the validity of these photos, or otherwise? Link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bunched3.htm

Or, if anyone may perhaps most prefer: "When you resort to attacking the messenger and not the message, you have lost the debate. - Addison Whithecomb

"It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it." -Joseph Joubert