If Oswald Was "Prayer Man" ...

[Thomas Graves]

10 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Tommy, 

Do you think that, under the circumstances, LHO would have wanted to be out on Elm St.?

 

Michael,

 

Lots of people who worked in the TSBD were down on Elm Street, or lining Elm Street Extension or Houston Street, so if he'd wanted to, he could have been in one of those places, too.

How could the bad guys know he wouldn't want to be in one of those places when the motorcade passed by?

Situation?  What situation?

A )  "Well, I've got this reputation of having defected to the USSR and of being pro-Castro, so maybe I should just barely go outside the front door with my coke-cola and be as inconspicuous as possible in the shadows so the Secret Service won't recognize me and take be away."

B )  "Well, my CIA handler knows I only pretended to defect to the USSR and to be pro-Castro, so maybe I should just barely go outside the front door with my coke-cola and be as inconspicuous as possible so they won't suspect that I was 'on' to them all along if I just stay right here (where I hope and pray that by some miracle I WILL be 'caught' on film)."

C )  .....

 

--  TG

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

If, before the assassination, the bad guys knew that after the assassination they might be faced with *Oswald's having* been photographically captured outside the building during the shooting, how then could they proceed with confidence that they wouldn't be eventually "found out," if you'll forgive the British English and the unintentional pun?

 

Tommy,

I don't think the plotters cared one way or another whether Oswald would be caught on film. After all, the plotters wanted the world to know that Oswald was involved with Russia and Cuba in a conspiracy to kill the president. So what if he is spotted in some films or photographs?

 

[Dan Rice]

58 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tommy,

I don't think the plotters cared one way or another whether Oswald would be caught on film. After all, the plotters wanted the world to know that Oswald was involved with Russia and Cuba in a conspiracy to kill the president. So what if he is spotted in some films or photographs?

 

In my opinion, Oswald was already framed for FPCC and the rifle, so if he was caught on camera, the story would be changed to: the shooter got away but Oswald helped him with the rifle and Cuba would still be blamed.  Oswald would still have to be silenced quickly, though.

[Thomas Graves]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tommy,

I don't think the plotters cared one way or another whether Oswald would be caught on film. After all, the plotters wanted the world to know that Oswald was involved with Russia and Cuba in a conspiracy to kill the president. So what if he is spotted in some films or photographs?

 

 

Sandy,

 

Was Oswald charged with helping to kill the president, or was he charged with killing the president?

How could he be convicted of the latter if a photo or a film surfaced in which he could be spotted, kneeling down and eating his sammich down on Elm Street, only partially hidden behind Gloria "Big Girl" Calvery's ... uhh ... "behind"?

(For example.)

 

--  TG

 

Was Bill "Boss Man" Shelley supposed to physically restrain Oswald on the TSBD's landing if Oswald tried to leave it?

Or something maybe a little more subtle, like offering "Lee" another coke-cola (sic) if he stayed right there in the harder-to-photograph-somebody-in shadows?

 

 

Edited April 7, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Mark Knight]

Oswald's whereabouts during the shooting are immaterial. If they tie him to the rifle, he's an accessory to murder, and a "Commie plot" is "revealed" because of his connections to FPCC and his defection-but-not-really-a-defection.

It ain't rocket surgery or brain science to figure THAT out. If Brennan's ID sticks, Ozzie fries for murder. If it doesn't (and didn't), either he's at least an accessory, or he's marked to die before any trial is convened.

And we all know which one played out. Not only do dead men tell no tales but they apparently also don't get legal representation that can cross-examine the witnesses against them.

[Thomas Graves]

25 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Oswald's whereabouts during the shooting are immaterial. If they tie him to the rifle, he's an accessory to murder, and a "Commie plot" is "revealed" because of his connections to FPCC and his defection-but-not-really-a-defection.

It ain't rocket surgery or brain science to figure THAT out. If Brennan's ID sticks, Ozzie fries for murder. If it doesn't (and didn't), either he's at least an accessory, or he's marked to die before any trial is convened.

And we all know which one played out. Not only do dead men tell no tales but they apparently also don't get legal representation that can cross-examine the witnesses against them.

 

Mark,

 

At that Midnight Magistrate's Meeting (or whatever it was), should they have charged him with being "an accessory," instead?

Or gone ahead and charged him with murder, as they did, but with the proviso of being able to change it down the road to "Just A Dad-Gum Accessory," if necessary?

 

And if they eventually had to do that (make that change), what would your average rocket scientist have thought of ... THAT?

 

--  TG

 

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Mark Knight]

You overlook one important detail: even charging LHO as an accessory to murder-- a murder which was only a STATE crime, not a FEDERAL offense in 1963-- Ozzie might have also faced a FEDERAL charge of TREASON. 

Being charged as an accessory, of course, would have required that some confederates of Oswald also be charged. Assuming there was a case for conspiracy, there were people in high places, in my opinion, who simply didn't want to "go there." So if "lone nut" couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and there was a reluctance to charge any co-conspirators, there was one option left:

In the words of the Dixie Chicks, "Earl had to die." [Earl in this case being Ozzie.]

[Thomas Graves]

20 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

You overlook one important detail: even charging LHO as an accessory to murder-- a murder which was only a STATE crime, not a FEDERAL offense in 1963-- Ozzie might have also faced a FEDERAL charge of TREASON. 

Being charged as an accessory, of course, would have required that some confederates of Oswald also be charged. Assuming there was a case for conspiracy, there were people in high places, in my opinion, who simply didn't want to "go there." So if "lone nut" couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and there was a reluctance to charge any co-conspirators, there was one option left:

In the words of the Dixie Chicks, "Earl had to die." [Earl in this case being Ozzie.]

 

Mark,

 

Even if the bad guys and gals had closely monitored free-to-wander Oswald during the assassination, and therefore knew that he had "only" gone out and stood in the landing's shadows, how could they be sure that he hadn't still been "caught" there in some films and/or photographs, and therefore know with certainty whether to charge him with murder, or only as having been an accomplice to murder?

 

--  TG

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Mark Knight]

Charges can be upgraded or downgraded at almost any time. Sometimes it occurs DURING a trial, if someone decides to take a plea bargain. You already know that. The point is, no matter WHAT charge was filed against Oswald, since the President was involved, it's more than a 99% certainty that bond would be set so high, if a bond was set, to prevent Oswald from getting out of jail prior to a trial.

So whether Oswald was seen in ONE or A THOUSAND photos, as long as the rifle tied him to the murder, where he was when the shots were fired is of minute importance. 

As I said, this isn't rocket surgery. Once Ozzie was in police custody, as long as they had the rifle he's not going anywhere. You're now trying to separate the gnat feces from the Pepper here. It's not productive, and does nothing to unravel what happened on November 22, 1963....

...y'know...the reason most of us are here.

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, Mark Knight said:

Charges can be upgraded or downgraded at almost any time. Sometimes it occurs DURING a trial, if someone decides to take a plea bargain. You already know that. The point is, no matter WHAT charge was filed against Oswald, since the President was involved, it's more than a 99% certainty that bond would be set so high, if a bond was set, to prevent Oswald from getting out of jail prior to a trial.

So whether Oswald was seen in ONE or A THOUSAND photos, as long as the rifle tied him to the murder, where he was when the shots were fired is of minute importance. 

As I said, this isn't rocket surgery. Once Ozzie was in police custody, as long as they had the rifle he's not going anywhere. You're now trying to separate the gnat feces from the Pepper here. It's not productive, and does nothing to unravel what happened on November 22, 1963....

...y'know...the reason most of us are here.

 

Mark,

 

What would "lying" Baker and Truly have done, after they'd given statements to the FBI, the Secret Service, and/or the Dallas Police Department (or even worse, if Oswald had lived and had gone to trial on a charge of Murder One), that they'd encountered Oswald in the second floor lunch room about a minute after the assassination, but then a photo or film surfaced showing Oswald on Houston Street, eating his "sammie" while the shots were being fired?

 

--  TG

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Mark Knight]

8 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Mark,

 

What would "lying" Baker and Truly have done, after they'd given statements to the FBI, the Secret Service, and/or the Dallas Police Department (or even worse, if Oswald had lived and had gone to trial on a charge of Murder One), that they'd encountered Oswald in the second floor lunch room about a minute after the assassination, but then a photo or film surfaced showing Oswald on Houston Street, eating his "sammie" while the shots were being fired?

 

--  TG

 

Calls for speculation.

Does it really matter?

[Thomas Graves]

5 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

Calls for speculation.

Does it really matter?

 

Mark,

 

"Does it really matter?"

 

(Laughing out loud.)

 

Would the bad guys have taken the risk of letting Oswald be outside during the shooting, being captured on film, and having said film or photo surface later, after Baker and Truly had l-i-e-d their "you-know-whats" off?

 

--  TG

 

 

 

 

Edited April 8, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

On 4/7/2018 at 5:00 PM, Thomas Graves said:

On 4/7/2018 at 1:44 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Tommy,

I don't think the plotters cared one way or another whether Oswald would be caught on film. After all, the plotters wanted the world to know that Oswald was involved with Russia and Cuba in a conspiracy to kill the president. So what if he is spotted in some films or photographs?

 

Sandy,

Was Oswald charged with helping to kill the president, or was he charged with killing the president?

How could he be convicted of the latter if a photo or a film surfaced in which he could be spotted, kneeling down and eating his sammich down on Elm Street, only partially hidden behind Gloria "Big Girl" Calvery's ... uhh ... "behind"?

 

Tommy,

It wasn't the plotters' intent that Oswald be found guilty of shooting the president. It was their intent that he be found guilty of conspiracy to kill the president.

I mean, why would the plotters care one way or another that Oswald be personally held responsible for firing the gun? Oswald was needed only to draw a (fabricated) connection between the assassination and Russia/Cuba.

It was the fledgling Johnson Administration who decided that Oswald himself shot the gun -- with nobody else's involvement. Which it did to avoid war. Johnson's coverup was not part of the plotters' plan.

 

[Thomas Graves]

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tommy,

It wasn't the plotters' intent that Oswald be found guilty of shooting the president. It was their intent that he be found guilty of conspiracy to kill the president.

I mean, why would the plotters care one way or another that Oswald be personally held responsible for firing the gun? Oswald was needed only to draw a (fabricated) connection between the assassination and Russia/Cuba.

It was the fledgling Johnson Administration who decided that Oswald himself shot the gun -- with nobody else's involvement. Which it did to avoid war. Johnson's coverup was not part of the plotters' plan.

 

 

Sandy,

 

Aren't you kinda suggesting the plotters actually wanted Oswald to be captured on film, maybe eating his [ EDIT: sammie ] or drinking his coke-cola during the shooting?

You know, in order to kinda prove he was ... gasp ... a (dirty rotten Commie) conspirator? 

After all, if he happened to be inside the building and unseen or unnoticed by anybody for, say, one minute before and one minute after the shooting, how could anyone later prove he was a WW III-precipitating conspirator rather than just a ... gasp ... lone nut?

 

--  TG

 

Edited April 9, 2018 by Thomas Graves

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:

 

Sandy,

 

Did the plotters actually *want* Oswald to be captured on film, eating his Sammie during the shooting, in order to *prove* he was ... gasp ... a (dirty rotten Commie) conspirator? 

After all, if he happened to be inside the building and, unfortunately, unseen / unnoticed by anybody for, say, one minute before and one minute after the shooting, how could anyone later prove he was a WW II- precipitating conspirator rather than just a ... gasp ... lone nut?

 

--  TG

 

 

Tommy,

I just don't think the plotters cared much what Oswald was doing. I believe they had a plan for releasing information that would get Oswald caught.

On the other hand, I just have to believe that the plotters wanted him dead. He must have been given instructions to follow after the assassination. The result of which would be his death. But something went wrong.

 

Edited April 9, 2018 by Sandy Larsen