Jump to content


Spartacus

The Most Damning Evidence Against Oswald


  • Please log in to reply
111 replies to this topic

#16 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts

Posted 06 December 2007 - 05:31 AM

To Raymond:

Had there been a trial, I am confident that Oswald's attempt to kill Walker (I am assuming for purposes here that the prosecution would have been able to prove he did without the testimony of his wife) could have been admitted, at the discretion of the judge:

Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, provided that upon request by the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial, or during trial if the court excuses pretrial notice on good cause shown, of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial.

The "fact" shown by the photographs of Walkers house, of his plan, as well as a plan to shoot using a scoped rifle, and his "motive" (killing political representatives of the system he claimed to hate) could very well be evidence of motive.

And there is nothing IMO illogical about that conclusion. If in fact Oswald tried to kill Walker, I think that makes it more of a possibilty that he shot at JFK. I think you understand that character evidence is generally not allowed not because it is irrelevant but because of a concern that its relevance is outweighed by its prejudicial nature.

#17 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts

Posted 06 December 2007 - 09:31 AM

Let us reason this out.

If Oswald did shoot at Wallker, I believe it does indeed increase the possibility that he shot JFK.

But what if he did not?

That then means, does it not--tell me if I am wrong--at least the following two points:

1. That Marina lied.

2. That the note is a fraud and that Ruth Paine is participating in the frame of Oswald.

#18 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts

Posted 06 December 2007 - 09:31 AM

Let us reason this out.

If Oswald did shoot at Wallker, I believe it does indeed increase the possibility that he shot JFK.

But what if he did not?

That then means, does it not--tell me if I am wrong--at least the following two points:

1. That Marina lied.

2. That the note is a fraud and that Ruth Paine is participating in the frame of Oswald.

#19 J. Raymond Carroll

J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 06 December 2007 - 02:33 PM

[quote name='Tim Gratz' date='Dec 6 2007, 06:31 AM' post='129852']
[i]Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts .. may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident,
[quote]


There is zero evidence that LHO had a MOTIVE to shoot JFK and it is simply dishonest to pretend that evidence in the Walker case somehow, by some very twisted and convoluted logic, provides evidence that LHO had a MOTIVE to shoot JFK. The Warren Commission was dishonest, which is why very few people believe the Warren Report.

Claiming that he fired at Walker has no logical tendency to tell us anything about what happened in Dealey Plaza. For prosecutors to say (as the Warren Commission in effect said) "we can't prove that he shot B, but we have evidence that he shot A" is a logical non-sequitor.

Claiming that he fired at Walker has no logical tendency to show that he had the OPPORTUNITY to shoot JFK, nor does it show any INTENT to shoot JFK, nor does it show PREPARATION or PLAN to shoot JFK, nor any KNOWLEDGE of a plan to shoot JFK, nor does it help us re IDENTITY, or ABSENCE OF MISTAKE in shooting JFK.

You can prove that ANYONE has a bad character. Christopher Hitchens wrote a book claiming that Mother THERESA was a demon from Hell, but even if his claims were true they would have no logical tendency to prove that Mother Theresa shot JFK, and would be inadmissable at her trial.

Character evidence is LOGICALLY irrelevant to prove guilt on a particular occasion, but it has a powerful PSYCHOLOGICAL effect upon the unsophisticated human mind, which is why dishonest prosecutors always try to slip it to the jury.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll, 06 December 2007 - 02:35 PM.


#20 Stephen Roy

Stephen Roy

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 681 posts

Posted 06 December 2007 - 04:33 PM

For people who have not read the book, what do you think would be the most damning evidence against Oswald?


While not unassailable, I think the evidence that a rifle owned by Oswald was used in the assassination is formidible.

I realize that every aspect of that subgroup of rifle evidence has been challenged, and while it falls short of certainty, it is still possible that a rifle owned by Oswald was used in the assassination.

Assuming arguendo that this is a true and valid evidenciary claim, there are not many options. Either Oswald used it himself, or somebody went to an awful lot of trouble before the fact to insure that a rifle incriminating Oswald was used in the assassination.

Whether or not it was the only weapon, or whether or not he fired it are two separate issues. I am not presenting this as an absolute fact: I am responding to your question that, FOR ME, this is the most damning evidence.



I understand your overall point, but doesn't the study by researchers at Texas A & M strip away any real evidence tying the bullet fragments to the supposed-Oswald Mannlicher Carcano? The Neutron Activation Analysis, which the HSCA relied upon to "tie" the fragments to Oswald's ammunition was found to be in error. Since that study, the FBI has stopped using such a methadology in proving cases in court.

http://www.science.t...u/articles/550/

Is there actually any solid evidence, now that the NAA has been debunked, that proves the alleged Oswald rifle (SPECIFICALLY that rifle) was even used that day? Did the FBI even perform a cotton swab test on the barrel?


Again, as I noted, every aspect of this is open to question (including the NAA). I know the NAA is still under debate, but I don't know if it's been resolved.

But let's throw out the NAA for purposes of this discussion: The fragments allegedly found in the car are of the same type used by the rifle allegedly found in the TSBD, allegedly belonging to Oswald. What options are there? That this rifle WAS used, that a similar rifle was used, or that something was planted. (It would be quite a coincidence if the ammo used by the real assassin just happened to be of the same type used in the rifle allegedly owned by Oswald. And how did "his" rifle get to the TSBD?)

It takes me back to my original point. Despite the uncertainty of many of the links in the chain, there is a possibility that THAT rifle was used in the assassination. Again, the question of how it got there and who used it.

But I'm not trying to argue against others who see it differently. I just think that this is the strongest piece of evidence, circumstantial though it may be. It is the equivalent of the blood in the OJ case.

#21 J. Raymond Carroll

J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 06 December 2007 - 06:52 PM

Again, as I noted, every aspect of this is open to question (including the NAA). I know the NAA is still under debate, but I don't know if it's been resolved.


There is some residual debate about the metallurgy involved in bullet comparisons, but as to whether NAA can link CEs 399, 567 & 569 with fragments found in JFK's brain or Connally's body, that debate is already over. The Courts, both State and federal have emphatically ruled that "expert" opinions of the type that Guinn presented to the HSCA have no scientific basis and are inadmissable in evidence.

No one should be fooled by the ongoing voodoo musings of Ken Rahn and his ilk.

The fragments allegedly found in the car are of the same type used by the rifle allegedly found in the TSBD,
.... I just think that this is the strongest piece of evidence, circumstantial though it may be.


Indeed, the limo fragments AND CE399 can all be ballistically linked to the MC rifle, but the question remains: were they fired during the assassination? Remember they were not found at the crime scene, and in fact 567 & 569 were eventually found more than 1000 miles away from the crime scene.

It is the equivalent of the blood in the OJ case.


Aye, there's the rub. There was no blood or human tissue on CEs 399, 567 or 569, therefore they could have been fired days or weeks before the crime and then planted.

This was brought out by the first generation of Warren Commission critics, and Josiah Thompson reached a very influential audience when he raised this issue in 1966 in the NEW YORK ReVIEW OF BOOKS (Thompson only dealt with CE399, but the same arguments apply to 567 & 569) http://www.nybooks.com/articles/12339

Because these Commission Exhibits showed no trace of blood or human tissue, G. Robert Blakey brought Dr. Vincent Guinn into the case and Guinn effectively said "you don't need blood to make the link. I can do it with my magic theory."

Even Blakey now admits that Guinn's theory is JUNK SCIENCE, so this aspect of the case is now back exactly where it was
when Josiah Thompson wrote to the NYReview of Books.

The evidence is consistent with bullets fired from the TSBD Mannlicher during the assassination, but this same evidence is equally consistent with evidence planted by someone in the Secret Service.

So depending on what side you are on, you can use the undisputed ballistics evidence to corroborate the other evidence against Lee Oswald OR you can use the ballistics evidence to corroborate the other evidence against the Secret Service.

In deciding which of these two lines of inquiry to follow, it might be instructive to note that, since 1966, there has been no improvement in the case against Lee Oswald, while the evidence implicating the Secret Service has increased and multiplied.

As Bill Kelly recently pointed out, after the JFK act was signed into law, someone in the Secret Service decided to destroy the records relating to the SS planning of JFK's motorcade route, so we can add this to the scale and see how it balances.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll, 07 December 2007 - 01:54 AM.


#22 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts

Posted 06 December 2007 - 09:17 PM

To Raymond re your Post #19.

Obviously I do not agree with the Bug but he does make an interesting argument in his book that LHO may have wanted to kill JFK because he was representative of a system that he hated. American capitalism (apparently many members of this Forum have that hatred). Assuming the politics of LHO were as they APPEARED to be, then he could have decided to shoot JFK as the representative of American capitalism.

It is definitely admissibkle evidence to show that the pattern of a crime in dispute matched the pattern of a crime previously committed by the defendant. You know that.

If someone has tried to kill a politician (I understand WAlker was then running or was going to run for governor of Texas) by using a rifle with a scope and shooting from afar, and then a politician is in fact killed by a scoped rifle, that is certainly a consistent pattern.

And if I was convinced that it was LHO that tried to kill Walker, then I would be a lot more inclined to believe he shot JFK, Apparently every member of the WC, some of whom were of course lawyers, felt the same way.

Now Bugliosi argues in his book that LHO was a bad guy and beat his wife. I would agree with your point that an attempt in court to show that LHO had a violent disposition and beat his wife, evidence of a bad character no doubt, would be inadmissible.

But the Walker shooting is far different and IMO it clearly would be admissible had LHO lived to be tried for the assassination of JFK. But if the Bug was the prosecutor and tried to introduce evidence that LHO was a bad character, the Bug would lose on that point.

#23 William O'Neil

William O'Neil

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 292 posts

Posted 06 December 2007 - 10:26 PM

To Raymond re your Post #19.

Obviously I do not agree with the Bug but he does make an interesting argument in his book that LHO may have wanted to kill JFK because he was representative of a system that he hated. American capitalism (apparently many members of this Forum have that hatred). Assuming the politics of LHO were as they APPEARED to be, then he could have decided to shoot JFK as the representative of American capitalism.

It is definitely admissibkle evidence to show that the pattern of a crime in dispute matched the pattern of a crime previously committed by the defendant. You know that.

If someone has tried to kill a politician (I understand WAlker was then running or was going to run for governor of Texas) by using a rifle with a scope and shooting from afar, and then a politician is in fact killed by a scoped rifle, that is certainly a consistent pattern.

And if I was convinced that it was LHO that tried to kill Walker, then I would be a lot more inclined to believe he shot JFK, Apparently every member of the WC, some of whom were of course lawyers, felt the same way.

Now Bugliosi argues in his book that LHO was a bad guy and beat his wife. I would agree with your point that an attempt in court to show that LHO had a violent disposition and beat his wife, evidence of a bad character no doubt, would be inadmissible.

But the Walker shooting is far different and IMO it clearly would be admissible had LHO lived to be tried for the assassination of JFK. But if the Bug was the prosecutor and tried to introduce evidence that LHO was a bad character, the Bug would lose on that point.




Tim, Walker was not running for office in 63'. He ran an unsuccessful campaign for Gov. in 62'

#24 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts

Posted 06 December 2007 - 10:42 PM

William, I think you are probaby correct.

I was sure I read in "Breach of Trust" that Walker was running for Gov when the allegation first arose that LHO had shot at him nd he thought he might benefit politically. I will have to recheck the reference.

Thanks!

Edited by Tim Gratz, 06 December 2007 - 10:45 PM.


#25 Jim Root

Jim Root

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 937 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 06 December 2007 - 11:56 PM

William, I think you are probaby correct.

I was sure I read in "Breach of Trust" that Walker was running for Gov when the allegation first arose that LHO had shot at him nd he thought he might benefit politically. I will have to recheck the reference.

Thanks!


Tim

About a year ago I had the opportunity to correspond with Gerald McKnight about exactly the topic of the Walker incident. He himself said, "I don't believe that Oswald ever took a shot at Walker." although he has the accademic honesty to realize that the note written by Oswald, if written by Oswald, is damning!

McKnight was also clear that he is swayed by the Cuban angle in the assassination but was intrigued and helpful at directing me towards some additional researchers that would support my "nuclear" angle. "It certanly was true that the single most important geostrategic card in the government's hand in dealing with the international communist threat (USSR and China) was he overwhelming asymmetric advantage the US held in terms of its nuclear arsenal." Mcknight said. He then pointed me to some information that as he said, "You'll immediately see how it reinforce your Taylor/McCloy thesis."

His last quote continues to haunt me, "My deepest view of this whole thing is that if we ever get near the truth surrounding the assassination it will exceed any fictional rendering."

Overall I feel that Gerald McKnight was a wonderful and honest resource that took the time to read and critique some of my work. He is particularly interested in the Walker event and believe, as I do, that this event could be a major key in the whole assassination play.

By the way he was also intrigued with the Oswald - Walker travel times in Paris and felt that this was an interesting avenue of research that had been grossly overlooked, "I have gone over your piece on Oswald/Walker. You have some detail stuff here that is most intersting."

Jim Root

#26 Courtney Redd

Courtney Redd

    Experienced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 50 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:United States
  • Interests:reading, writing, music, traveling

Posted 07 December 2007 - 12:09 AM

I feel as though maybe I'm missing something here. People keep mentioning the note Oswald supposedly wrote after he shot Walker. A couple of things about this give me pause:

1--was it ever actually proven Oswald, to the exclusion of anyone else, wrote the note?

2--Gen. Walker and his shooting aren't even mentioned in the note, right? So how can anyone be sure that the note was even written in reference to this act? If Oswald even a) wrote the note and b ) shot at Walker?

3--wasn't the note supposedly found in a cookbook given to Marina by Ruth Paine? (or was that the Mexico City bus ticket?) How coincidental! And why on earth, if Oswald really had shot at Walker, would he keep the note?

Thought I had this issue cleared up for myself (am of the belief that Oswald didn't shoot at Walker) but if any of you can give me some references of where I might look to refresh my memory on this subject, I'd be much obliged. B)

Edited by Courtney Redd, 07 December 2007 - 12:10 AM.


#27 J. Raymond Carroll

J. Raymond Carroll

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Long Island, New York
  • Interests:https://www.facebook.com/search/me/friends/photos-of

Posted 07 December 2007 - 02:50 AM

the Bug ..makes an interesting argument in his book that LHO may have wanted to kill JFK because he was representative of a system that he hated. American capitalism.


Not much of an argument, IMO. No wonder people are laughing at BUG's BIG FAT BOOK (BBFB). Anyway, it does nothing to help your argument that the Walker shooting is logically relevant in the JFK case.

If someone has tried to kill a politician ... by using a rifle with a scope and shooting from afar, and then a politician is in fact killed by a scoped rifle, that is certainly a consistent pattern.


Very poor logic, TIm. Now IF you could prove that LHO sniped at JFK AND IF you could ALSO prove that he sniped at Walker then you might be able to claim a consistent pattern. But you are trying to put the cart before the horse, or more precisely you are asking us to ASSUME what you are trying to PROVE.

But the Walker shooting is far different and IMO it CLEARLY would be admissible had LHO lived to be tried for the assassination of JFK.


Au contraire: It would CLEARLY be INadmissable under the Federal Rules you quoted, because it is logically irrelevant.

But if the Bug was the prosecutor and tried to introduce evidence that LHO was a bad character, the Bug would lose on that point.


The Ad Hominem fallacy is a central feature of the sophistry practiced by Warren Commission propagandists. Attempts to introduce the Walker shooting into the case against Lee Oswald amount to nothing more than attempts to pawn off the ad hominem fallacy on unsuspecting people.

P.S. By any standard the Walker shooting remains unsolved. When you see a prosecutor trying to introduce an unsolved crime as "evidence" that a particular defendant committed some other crime, you can be quite certain that the prosecutor in question is corrupt, or incompetent, or both.

#28 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts

Posted 07 December 2007 - 07:29 AM

To William:

http://www.odessa.ed...306C/UNIT6A.doc

Until the 1970s the gubernatorial term was only two years so there was a gubernatorial election in 1964 as well as 1962.

Professor McKnight clearly states (on page 51) that Walker was a candidate in the 1964 election. His book seems so carefully researched that I suspect he is correct. So Walker could have run both in 1962 and again in 1964.

#29 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts

Posted 07 December 2007 - 07:32 AM

To Courtney:

Simply read the WC testimony of Marina Oswald where she says she confronted her husband about the note and he then told her that he had just tried to kill Gen. Walker. I assume you know that all of the Warren Commission testimony is available on-line.

So either he did try to kill Walker or Marina lied about it. Very interesting implications either way.

Edited by Tim Gratz, 07 December 2007 - 07:33 AM.


#30 Tim Gratz

Tim Gratz

    Super Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6,939 posts

Posted 07 December 2007 - 07:41 AM

To Raymond:

How can you state that "by any standard the Walker shooting remains unsolved."

Unless the note is a forgery and Marina a perjurer, it was Oswald (as I am sure you must know).

Of course, for the benefit of lay readers, if LHO had gone to trial, and if Marina had wanted to testify against him, LHO could have blocked her testimony under the spousal immunity clause (assuming there was spousal privilege under Texas law in 1963 of course). This would be true even if they had been divorced before the trial. So had there been a trial the prosecutors would have had to use other evidence (of which there was little) to show that LHP tried to kill Walker.

Now if Oswald did not in fact attempt to shoot Walker, the necessary implications are rather staggerong. It means the note must be forged and Ruth Paine was participating in the frame. And Marina as well. Both of course are still alive. As you know, the Paines did not testify before the HSCA. I am not sure if Marina testified or not.

Edited by Tim Gratz, 07 December 2007 - 08:06 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users