Duke Lane

I'm in the midst of looking through Hear No Evil's chapter on Tippit, and despite Myers' clear bias toward a particular solution (rather than exploring any other, as Conan Doyle posited, if only to provide against them), I'm not yet certain how you feel that With Malice has been "exposed for what it is," nor - more importantly - why the case should not be reviewed even if Myers' book isn't "what it is." I mean, it's not as if With Malice is by any means any kind of legal investigation that "closes" the case. And it is one of the most thorough examinations of that incident, even if it is incomplete, potentially misleading, and biased.

"Need?" Why would someone who killed a popular American president not need a patsy? Can we presume or even imagine that the case would be - or could be - left unsolved in the public mind? That it would or could in any way be left without a satisfactory conclusion? That the public - or any public institution,, especially J. Edgar Hoover's vaunted FBI - would not continue the search for the killer(s) if someone hadn't been found (and duly executed) until he or they were finally brought to justice? Imagine if you can what the FBI would have had to do with the various and sundry leads that were developed if they couldn't have determined them to be "unimportant" because they had nothing to do with Oswald. They could ill afford not to have followed them up, to sniff out every nook and cranny until they'd at last determined who was really at fault ... if they didn't already have someone to lay the blame at the feet of? Perhaps a blind eye could still have been turned toward these leads, but it would have been infinitely harder to do. If they didn't actually need a patsy, having one was certainly preferable. And that being the case, why would they have not chosen to have one? Pride goeth before the fall, you know.

Hmmm ... I've been toying with selling the incomplete set that I've got - 22 of the 26, picked up at a garage sale in Virginia (apparently an old library set, still in good condition but for the covers) - but wonder at what the value of such an animal is, especially in light of the electronic versions being available. Anyone have any good guesses?

I can't argue for even a New York nanosecond with any of what is written here. It makes perfect sense. Indeed, I suspect Bill Kelly could have written the very same words in reference to François. The missing word - indeed, the missing concept - here is "all," as in "why is it that he has not reached the same conclusions as ALL other people ...?" It's missing because such a concensus doesn't exist, any more than "most" does ... and in fact, were one to consider the polls that are conducted periodically (where 80%-plus people "believe there was a conspiracy"), it can at best be summed up as the "same conclusions SOME other people" people have reached, or even "the conslusions A FEW other people have reached." It is interesting that one whose own conclusions - beliefs, if you prefer - are NOT by any means unanimous or even in the majority would deride the conclusions/beliefs of someone else simply because the latter doesn't agree with the former, or because there's even any solid reason that he should. Elsewhere we've read about the American jurisprudent tenet of being "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." It is, of course, different than guilt beyond ANY doubt, and what is "reasonable" to one person is sometimes ridiculous to another. We've also read - and most of us probably believe - that a finding of "not guilty" is not necessarily the same thing as being "innocent." An additional facet to all of that is that it is not necessary for a jury to find someone "not guilty" for them to either ALSO justify their doubts or to suggest who, if not the accused, might be the actual perpetrator. Interestingly, Arlen Specter sought the use of a finding from English law - which might apply to Oswald, but has no meaning in American law - known as "guilty but not proven" when he was called upon to cast his ballot whether President Bill Clinton was guilty of the crimes that brought about his impeachment. Isn't it odd that an American lawmaker and former prosecutor - and that one in particular - could not utilize a concept in American jurisprudence or perhaps in his personal lexicon to vote the way his "guilty but not proven" was recorded: "not guilty." Whether or not Oswald was guilty, the case against him was not proven. It may have been proven in a contemporaneous court of law, without the benefit of some 45+ years of research and analysis, and having only the testimony the parties brought and the judge allowed before the jury, but that's far from certain inasmuch as there would've been a defense to raise both objections and questions that might've made it difficult to win a guilty verdict. What was presented against him is neat as a pin and wrapped up just so, convincingly and conclusively, but the problem is that there are so many doubts raised by the "prosecution's" evidence itself that it is doubtful Oswald could have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There are just too damned many of them. So why is it that François has not reached the same conclusions as MOST other people who have the same amount of knowledge and have also worked hard on the evidence? Some would say that "any reasonable person" would have enough "reasonable doubts" to have no choice but to return a verdict of "not guilty." What's a more interesting question is, "if Oswald had lived and stood trial - a la The People v. Lee Harvey Oswald - and had been acquitted, would there have been another trial of another suspect, would we still be wondering who did it, or would the prosecution still be bemoaning the fact that a guilty man had been set free?"

The Dallas cop was Jim Leavelle, as memory serves.

I'll get back to you on the latter, but some comments first: I agree that it is best to restrict the venue to the invited participants only: looking at what's happened to a thread about having such debates, one can only speculate how far afield an actual debate would go in the course of just one page! I presume that the forum has the capability to do this? If not, I think the idea is a complete waste of time. I mean, isn't it what's already supposedly happening throughout this forum? If more than two debaters can participate, I see no real purpose in limiting such a debate to two people only, provided that it's not a free-for-all, i.e., it is "by invitation only." That invitation should be able to be rescinded or "turned back in" at any point in time (except possibly for the "original" debaters?). Sometimes additional expertise can be useful to round out a topic. This isn't, after all, a university debate where the teams only became familiar with the topic of choice a few weeks beforehand and have merely to "bone up" and form a position to champion. To that end, I think all but the broadest "debate rules" cannot be applied unless the debate is to be of a limited duration after which no other points may be made, just like a college debate. I don't think anyone could agree on either what a "standard" position on anything is, much less who the appropriate spokesperson for that supposed standard might be. Who among many would be most appropriate to debate Dale Myers about the Tippit murder? If Dale isn't interested in any such debate, who's the "next-best" to invite? I use the Tippit murder as an example simply because the field is more limited than, say, experts on the medical evidence or the Z-film. More broadly, do you want to get into "endorsing" any kind of "standard" view as espoused by, say, Gerald Posner vs. Vincent Bugliosi for any LN side of the argument? If one, why not the other, or someone else? Must they have published books to be a "standard," and is their perspective allowed to change a la Posner, or vaccillate a la Palamara? My thinking is that you'd want to avoid arrogating a "standard" of any sort, even if only to keep its "endorsement" - by dint of selection and publishing - from becoming "your" position. The value to researchers is dubious, but it can certainly be useful to students of the the topic who want to get quick immersion into a topic they're exploring. There may be few takers since you're not offering a favorable circumstance to either side, a level playing field seldom being desired: someone HAS to have an advantage!

Well, see? There's my point: the ubiquitous word "if." We have two prints, both apparently from the same person. This has no significance whatsoever if, for example, one was obtained from an arrest card and the other from, say, the entry to his home or car, or a bar glass he drank from. You could get two of my fingerprints from such sources, and claim that one was among evidence collected at a crime scene. That does not mean that it was collected there, so what's the proof that the Wallace print NOT in question was "among evidence?" I'm talking "chain of possession" here: who found it, among what evidence, where and when? (Recall that there is - or was - a bogus "arrest record" among Marguerite Oswald's papers that detailed an altercation between Oswald and Ruby; one cannot argue that it is or must be a "unique" occurrence!) Then, presuming that it was found, say, among documents at College Park, and upon request for a copy, NARA was able to reproduce another one just like it from the originals (i.e., that someone didn't stick it into a folder to be "discovered" by some unsuspecting other person, but a demonstrably false document of which there is no other copy), what was its context? Is it discernible? Was it from an "open" investigation on claims by or on behalf of Wallace - i.e., as a "known subject" - or from one in which he was an "unsub," that is, a print left unbehind that remained unidentified? If the latter, can that print then be tied back to those lifted from the TSBD boxes? If there were 18 prints found, 18 samples of those 18 prints, and 17 of them identified as "one of the above," is the Wallace "comparison" print - the original that was unidentified, not the one that was certainly made by him - among those 18? Is there a "paper trail" of all of the prints found by DPD, given to the FBI lab, and eventually deposited at NARA, and can it be proven? Is the sure Wallace print similar to - even to the untrained eye - the 18th unidentified print? If we are still, at this point, speculating that "if" it was planted, then apparently its bona fides have not been fully established. If they have been, who can document this?

I've had "issues" with the Mac Wallace scenario for a long time, not so much based on the facts - which are somewhat obscure - but on the lack of them. When Alan Kent noted that a second expert had identified the/a print with one purporting to be Wallace's, it seems that we start to move into realms of possibility. Note: merely "possibility," and the "realm" of it, not necessarily an actual possibility. Being a skeptic is a lot like being a juror, don't you think? Well, that would certainly seem to be the thing that needs to be established first and foremost, doesn't it? If it's not actual evidence, then the question of whether one copy of Wallace's fingerprint is the same as another copy of Wallace's fingerprint is entirely moot. According to "actual evidence," a number of prints were lifted from boxes in the TSBD. The boxes are identified, and the prints and assessments of each were published, tho' I can't recall exactly where nor specifically what they said. Of them, a small number belonged to Oswald, and a much larger number were only later identified as belonging to DPD and/or FBI investigators, by name. What seems to be lacking - or at least something I've never heard of existing - is any kind of a basis point, such as a print card with those of each of the identified persons. Ultimately, we have to take that evidence, and even the assessment of it, as bona fide since there is no way to know that someone didn't "drop" (say) my third-finger print onto your print card in order to show that "your" print was one in evidence (it's not like any of us could say "that's not Duke's fingerprint, I know what they look like!" - yeah, right! - or even that we're qualified to tell the difference between my actual print and your actual print). So here what we would need is something used by the FBI labs to test the various fingerprints that were found, such as, for example, the actual prints that were lifted from the boxes, and transmiitted to the lab(s) for identification. If the print that Darby and Hoffmeister examined is not among those, this thread is moot because one cannot and should not simply "accept" things as "evidence" if they are not provably so. If the print was not obtained from the fingerprint evidence from the "sniper's nest," then before one can go "supposing" anything else, its actual origin needs to be determined. What is the supposed life story of this artifact, start to finish?

Ah, but at least one witness testified to this effect. Do you know who it was? I am more intrigued by why it was asked than who volunteered it! It wasn't asked; it was volunteered, but only subtly, i.e., in terms of using the men's room to "wash up" as opposed to "taking care of business." The telling information is when he went in to "wash up" and how much later - based upon his observations of where people were, and their separate testimonies about what they'd done prior to being in the positions that were described - he actually emerged, something like ten minutes. Must've had very clean hands.

Those who are or carry any kind of real or perceived "authority" should avoid such baseless speculation. We don't need another "fact" about Baker - who never demonstrably even saw the bag - doing something that can't be construed on him beyond his being a Dallas cop. It seemed to me Jim was referring to a Forum member named Baker - not Marion Baker. Maybe I'm wrong. You're probably right. My bad.

It is not the improbabilities that matter. They cannot prove a negative. The question is, must be, and always has been what probably happened, based on known facts. Unfortunately for the bag, the only facts that exist do not suggest ways by which it came into Oswald's possession and how it was used. No supporting facts? Then why even consider the evidence? It's a pity we can't have a judge in this case who can be petitioned to exclude evidence. Once excluded, it can never legitimately be referred to by the litigants; it's "outta there" for good. (Of course, when the party petitioning for its exclusion repeatedly brings it up, the item or issue may well find itself back in evidence. Sort of like when we hear someone intone that "Oswald couldn't have gotten to 10th & Patton in time," and then carries on by asking why Oswald "took so long to get to the theater" from a place he'd "never" been!) Those who are or carry any kind of real or perceived "authority" should avoid such baseless speculation. We don't need another "fact" about Baker - who never demonstrably even saw the bag - doing something that can't be construed on him beyond his being a Dallas cop.

Ah, but at least one witness testified to this effect. Do you know who it was?

Of course not. I don't think anyone suggested in seriousness that there was. Here's a better question: if Oswald didn't hijack the paper - didn't have the means or the opportunity - who did?

If Oswald did kill the President, then there is an answer because at some point in time he had to make the decision to try to kill him, so there is an answer. The real answer is that he made no such decision. If Oswald did kill the President, then there is NO answer. Only Oswald could give the answer, and as he's dead, there can never be an answer. Duncan, While Oswald was still alive and being interrogated, Dallas DA Will Fritz said that he had planned to kill the President for months and planned on what he was going to say after he did it. Now those who claim Oswald did it alone, such as McAdams et al., say that he had to decide after the motorcade route was announced, which narrows the time line down considerably. Since we know more about Oswald than any other single person in the history of the world, who he was with, what he was doing, what he said and wrote, for practically every day of his life - it should be possible to pinpoint exactly when he decided to kill the President, if he did make such a decision. If there is no answer, then that's probably because he never made such a decision. And I find it very peculiar that those who believe Oswald is the lone assassin don't bother to determine what motivated him, why he did it, or even try to determine when he decided to kill the President, something that the Secret Service and others concerned with protection of the President should be concerned about. Those least interested in even trying to answer the question are those who believe Oswald alone was resonsible for what happened at Dealey Plaza. If he alone was resonsible, then that should be the most important question, but it is the one that has thus far been avoided. Those who say it can not be determined or we will never know therefore help exonerate him. Duncan is, I fear, quite correct: even if – IF – Oswald did the deed, alone or with help, it's virtually impossible to determine when he'd made the decision to kill the President. Presuming that he'd ever made the decision to kill POTUS, it's a fair proposition that he did not make a decision to kill JFK until he knew he had the opportunity; until then, it was an empty threat at worst, a pipe dream at best. "I'll kill him when he rides by my building" is a far cry from "I'll kill the S.O.B. if I ever get the chance." Of course, we'd have to establish that he actually did kill JFK (and Tippit) before we can move on to the point of trying to figure out when he decided to. The first hasn't been done, so the second is moot. Not having an answer to the question is not the same as proving that there is no answer. Timothy McVeigh clearly made a decision to kill people (albeit nameless and faceless) in Oklahoma City; whether he decided to do so immediately after Waco or Ruby Ridge is relatively unimportant since, at best, all it does is establish "motive," which he's already said what that was. Motive, however, is not a necessary part of establishing guilt. It's less important than the LHO/JFK question since the opportunity to destroy the Murrah Building was a constant; the only variable was who, specifically, would be inside of it (which didn't apparently enter into the equation in that case). So if we don't know if he made the actual decision to bomb the building, whether it was April or September, on a Saturday or a Wednesday, does that mean that he didn't make the decision? I think not. One should take prosecutors' pronouncements with a grain of salt, always.

Got yer casket picked out yet, slim? Thanks!

Your history is wrong. "The heart of the confederacy" was Georgia, particularly Atlanta; "The Heart of Dixie" is Alabama. Neither Texas nor Dallas were in any way symbolic of or significant to the Confederate States other than that Texas was one of them, and a reluctant one to boot.

It's a shame that, as a believer in conspiracy, you have no real evidence whatsoever! What has a consipracy theorist ever proven? Absolutely bugger all. Zilch. You have no idea what happened, for some reason you just can't bring yourself to believe the simple truth.Ah, but Paul, what is "the simple truth?" The WC's version of the truth doesn't hold up under scrutiny; that's not it. If it didn't happen the way they'd determined, then there is no other option than that it happened a different way. If one is unable to fully articulate that "different" way does not mean that the first proposal must be the actual event. Creationists believe that God created the heavens and earth in seven days, with Adam and Eve his first humans. Scientists argue over the Big Bang Theory of the beginning of the universe, and the "dawn of man" as being a gradual process arising from some primordial soup; they cannot state with absolute certainty how any of that may have occurred. Lacking that full explanation does not mean that creationism is exactly how the Earth and mankind came to be. It is, however, a time-tested (but still unproven and unprovable) argument of the faithful that, if scientists don't have a "better" explanation - one that explains everything - then their explanation "must" be the truth. It is the same among the Warrenati. In criminal defense law, it is not necessary to prove who did do something, only that the accused did not. If it is shown that the accused did not perpetrate the crime, then it is up to investigators - i.e., law enforcement and the prosecution - to figure out who did, not the defense (despite Perry Mason's always cornering the actual perp!). The prosecution's case, however faulty and effectively disproven, does not become the "solution" for lack of an alternative device brought forth by the defense. For a real-life example of this, read the book The Innocent Man by John Grisham. It is not a novel. It is the chronicle of how a police department, once settled upon how things "must" have happened, and the inability of the defendant to articulate a sufficient defense, were unwilling to consider any other possibility once they'd "got their man" even despite others' actions having fit the scenario of their perpetration of the crime better than the defendant's. Some people just don't want to know that the truth is anything other than what they believe. Witness the failure of the ARRB, for example, to explore what the JFK autopsists knew, saw and experienced in any full detail: they simply didn't ask the right questions, and therefore all remains "theory." We might've found the truth to be even stranger than we'd imagined, but now we may never know.

I forgot the mandatory recap: Capt: So let me see if I've got this straight. We have a rifle that was once owned by someone who works in the building, that nobody's seen or seen him with for several months, never seen it actually fired, and can't identify it as being the weapon the perp had in his possession at the time, right? Det: Yessir. Capt: And he went out of town, didn't take it with him, might've left it with his wife, but she didn't see it and nobody else did, but it was in this other lady's garage, and she didn't see it either, but we figure that's because it was hidden in a blanket that was folded up in the garage. We know this is true because we put the rifle on the blanket and took a picture of the two together before we shipped it off to the lab, and the lab boys found blanket fibers on the rifle, proving where it was hidden. Doin' good so far? Det: You got it, Cap, right on the money. Capt: So after nobody saw the rifle, this boy goes to visit his wife at this other lady's place, sneaks off to the garage to check on his rifle, gives it a good cleaning – it was cleaned and oiled, wasn't it? Det: Yessir. Oiled good, too. Capt: OK, so he puts this three-foot rifle into a two-foot bag and schleps it over to his buddy's house in the morning disguised as curtain rods — Det: You got it. Capt: — and the buddy rides him to work, gets a good look at the package — Det: Well, it was in the back seat, sir, might not a-seen it so good. Capt: OK, but he sees the package on the seat, sees our guy take it out and carry it into his work with it cupped in his hand, completely hidden – damn! That boy's got some long arms! – but the only guy who sees him come into the building doesn't see the package or the gun? But you say he's retarded, mighta missed it? Det: Right. Capt: Fair enough. And we've got a couple of guys who saw him upstairs before the lunch break — Det: Well, these guys were on their lunch break, but they broke early sir. Capt: And our guy didn't? Hmm. That's suspicious. But his being upstairs before he took lunch break puts him upstairs after lunch, right? Det: Absolutely, sir. That's the way we see it too. Capt: Why else would he be there, right? And he was seen there, too? Det: Right. Some people got the clothing wrong, but yeah, he was seen. Capt: Well, write it up, Detective Commission. The DA's gonna hafta hand it to you, way you've got this boy all wrapped up tight. God bless America, son, just God bless America! Ain't no place better! We ain't a-stood a chance in no backwater like France or England, where they ain't got no legal system hardly! Det: Yessir. Thank you, sir. Just doin' my job, sir. Oh, and sir ...? Capt: Yes, Detective Commission? Det: You just call me Warren, sir. Now, I got me some damn report to write ...! Capt: You sure do, son. You sure do!

Mrs Paine believed he'd been in there, as the light had been left on. Coupled with the bag evidence, and the fact that the rifle went missing from that location, I'd say that proves beyond reasonable doubt that he'd collected his gun from the Paines' garage that evening. What do you think? I think this demonstrates fairly well the logic of the "lone nut" proposition .... I have to laugh at the screenplay all of the above conjures up in my mind. Can we imagine an episode of a successful detective series - Law and Order, CSI, or anything of that ilk - running along these lines? Captain: Well, detective, what have we got? Detective: Not much, sir. There's a rifle we've traced to a suspect and we've verified that he had it not too long ago. Capt: Verified? Det: Yessir. Seems his wife remembers him 'plinking' with it. Actually, dry-firing, but sorta the same thing if ya know what I mean. Capt: She's identified the weapon? Det: Not exactly, sir. She says she wouldn't know one rifle from another, but we figure this must be the same one. Capt: Okay. What else? Det: Well, sir, he was out at his wife's place - they're separated, and she's living with another lady - he was out there the other night and the next day the rifle was missing. Capt: Missing? From where? Det: From the wife's garage, sir. We think it was out there, and he took it to work with him. Capt: The wife saw it in the garage one day and it was gone the next? Det: No sir. She never actually saw the rifle, but she did see a blanket that was folded about the same length as a rifle. Capt: We know the rifle was in the blanket the day before? Det: We're pretty sure. Nobody saw it anywhere else, so we figure it must've been there. Capt: But it was definitely there before that? Det: No sir. Nobody saw it exactly, but we know it was with his things. Capt: So someone saw him bring it into the garage, and then it was gone? Det: Nobody saw him bring it in, Captain, but the husband had moved to New Orleans and didn't bring it with him, so it must've been there in the garage with the rest of his junk. Capt: So the wife can't identify the rifle you've got, isn't sure she ever saw it - she saw a rifle, but can't say it was this one - and hadn't seen it since her husband was dry-firing it some months ago, didn't see him put it anywhere, but it isn't where you think it must've been? Det: Yessir, that about sums it up. Capt: Good work, Detective. What else do you have against him? Det: Well, he brought a package to work, sir, we think it was the rifle. Fella he works with saw the package, says it was about two feet long. Capt: I see. How long is the rifle? Det: Oh, about 41 inches, give or take a little. Capt: A 41-inch rifle fit into a two-foot sack? Det: Well, sir, it could've been disassembled. Capt: True. How long is it disassembled? Det: Around 30, 31 inches. Capt: So you've got a 30, 31-inch rifle in a 24-inch sack? Det: Yessir, that's right. Fit just so. Fella says he saw it on the back seat, showed us how long it was. Sister verified it, two feet. Capt: So two people saw this 30- or 40-inch rifle in a two-foot sack? Det: Right. Except they didn't actually see the rifle, but we know it was in there. Forensics, sir. Capt: Forensics? Det: Yes, sir. Y'know, gun oil, paper fibers, things like that. Capt: Oh, okay. The sack had gun oil from the rifle on it? Det: No, sir, there was no oil on the sack. Capt: Paper fibers on the gun? Det: No sir. Capt: So how do you know the rifle was in the sack? Det: Well, where else could it have been, sir? Capt: Good point. This ride of his, he and his sister the only one that saw him with the package? Det: Well, there's this fellow, Jack Dougherty or something, works in the building, saw our guy when he came into work this morning. Capt: Ah, so he saw him with the sack and the rifle. Det: No, sir. Says our guy wasn't carrying anything at all. Capt: Nothing? So what about this Jack fellow then? How's he fit into it all? Det: Well, sir, he's not too bright, apparently didn't realize the guy was carrying. Capt: But he was? Other folks saw him? Det: No, sir, nobody else saw him, but the rifle was in the building and we know our guy had it, so he must've brought it in. Capt: Okay, I'm following. Had a rifle, moved away, came back, rifle's missing, wife can't describe it, ride and ride's sister didn't see it, but it was in a sack that was too small for it, and the guy brought it into work but nobody saw him with it, that it so far? Det: Yes sir. That and we didn't find any nitrites on his cheek when we did the GSR test. Capt: Yeah, but that doesn't mean he didn't fire a pistol now, does it? Det: No, sir. Mighta fired the rifle too, it was an old one and the nitrites might not've been any good, y'know, fell off his cheek or something. Capt: He's a sneaky devil, this one! Det: Sure is, Cap'n. Lies, too. Says he didn't shoot nobody. Can ya believe it? Capt: Well, they all say that, don't they? Det: Sure do, sir. Even when they're caught red-handed, and this guy's hands sure were Red, get it? Capt: His hands were red? Det: Yessir. Like the rest of him. He'd been to Russia, y'know. Capt: Oh, yes, I get it now! Ha! What's the DA got to say? Det: Says the case is 'cinched,' sir. Capt: Yup, eyewitness testimony will do it every time! Det: Well, nobody saw him, exactly. But we think they did. Capt: Huh? Det: Well, people saw somebody. Might-a had a rifle, not sure. Some say he was in a tee-shirt, others said he was in a tan suit. He was actually wearing a brown shirt, sir. Capt: But saw him in that window up there, right? Det: Well, some said so. Some in the east window, some in the west, buncha people put him on the 4th and 5th floors — Capt: He was in the 6th? That right? Det: Yessir. Capt: Well, that about does it, Detective. I want to commend you and your men on a job well done. Det: Thank you sir, I'm sure they'll be glad to hear it. Now what'll we do with the rest of the 50 minutes for the show, sir? Capt: Well, it'll mostly be commercials to lull the audience to sleep, so by the time we get to the end, they'll forget all of these little details and realize that this fella was the killer, and he didn't have anyone working with him, and if he lives, he'll get convicted. Is he gonna live? Det: We're not sure, sir. It's possible. Capt: But you said he was a Russki, right? Det: Yessir. Capt: Well, we don't want nothin' happenin' to him. I'll put a call in to some JBS guys, tell 'em to be on the lookout for trouble along the transfer route to county lockup. Might want to tell 'em what time the parade (heh-heh) is gonna be! And get Jack on the phone, willya? ....

Mrs Paine believed he'd been in there, as the light had been left on. Coupled with the bag evidence, and the fact that the rifle went missing from that location, I'd say that proves beyond reasonable doubt that he'd collected his gun from the Paines' garage that evening. What do you think? I think this demonstrates fairly well the logic of the "lone nut" proposition, which is dependent upon isolating individual facts and conclusions to synthesize a cohesive and incriminating whole. Paul's is a brilliant example of how that works: Oswald ordered a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle through the mail and had it in his possession prior to Marina's move to Ruth Paine's house. There is no evidence that he sold or otherwise disposed of it, therefore he did not. If he did not dispose of it and did not take it to New Orleans - for which there is no evidence to the contrary - then it must have been with the rest of his and Marina's stuff in Irving. There was a blanket folded in the garage that could have contained the rifle, and there is no evidence of the rifle being elsewhere, ergo it was in the blanket. The blanket had something in it prior to November 22, and nothing in it after November 22, therefore the rifle was removed from it at the only time that anyone would have demonstrably wanted to remove it, i.e., immediately before the shooting. If the rifle was removed from the blanket and was used in the killing, it must have been transported downtown. Buell Frazier and his sister Linnie Mae Randle saw Oswald with a long paper-wrapped parcel, which he placed in the back seat of Frazier's car. Nothing else is known to have been removed from the Paine residence that fit a similar description, therefore the parcel must have contained the rifle. Frazier saw Oswald remove the parcel from the car and carry it into the TSBD. A rifle was found inside the TSBD, no other rifle is known to have been inside the building at the time, therefore it was Oswald's rifle, which he brought to the TSBD in the parcel seen by Frazier and Randle. A long and thin paper sack was also found in the TSBD not far from the rifle (and the shells), no other sack is known to have been brought into the building, ergo it was the same packaging seen by Frazier and Randle that earlier contained the rifle. All of these things lead to the inescapable conclusion, without reasonable doubt, that Oswald brought the gun to work and fired it at Kennedy, killing the President and wounding the Governor. This is especially so since no evidence implicating another person was discovered. Doubt about any particular aspect of the scenario above does not attach to the overall theory, however. Having established a fact and no other positive, provable explanation otherwise, the next portion of the theory must therefore also be correct. For example: There being no proof that Oswald disposed of the rifle, he therefore could not have and did not. Not being able to place it elsewhere "proves" it was where we think it was. There are no other possibilities. Only a provable alternative can raise doubts, so we have positive proof that it was there because nobody has positive proof that it was elsewhere. That nobody actually witnessed the transfer of the rifle to the Paine garage means that Oswald did it, and did it surreptitiously and successfully; it does not raise any question or doubt about whether the rifle Oswald once had was actually in a package that was actually brought into the residence. That nobody saw the actual rifle in the actual blanket does not prove it wasn't there. There are all sort of possibilities - none provable, and none actually even offered - why nobody noticed it. The absence of absolute proof - no coulda-woulda-shoulda's permitted - to show that "the" rifle was elsewhere is absolute proof that it wasn't anywhere else and could only have been in one place: Ruth Paine's garage, where we think it was. That neither of the two people who saw the parcel carried by Oswald on Friday morning from any distance - one through a window and several yards away, the other less than five feet away and unobstructed in the back seat of his automobile - identified what they saw as being the same parcel "found" in the TSBD - that both adamantly thought that what they'd seen was shorter - proves that they were mistaken. These observations raise more questions about the witnesses than about the evidence, leaving us yet with no doubts of the lone nut theory. Frazier saw Oswald bring the package in the back seat of his car into the TSBD, ergo he did. The package he described was cupped in Oswald's hand and the top hidden in his armpt. This could not have described a package containing the rifle, so rather than raising any doubt that the parcel contained the rifle, it raises "significant questions" about Frazier's powers of observation: Frazier was wrong about the size of the parcel and/or its being tucked in Oswald's armpit, it must have stuck above Oswald's shoulder, and Frazier must have simply not seen it. This conjecture also proves that the parcel contained the rifle, and leaves our certainty intact. Just as Frazier was the only person who saw Oswald before he'd entered the TSBD (carrying a package), Jack Dougherty was the only person who saw him after he entered the building, but Jack did not see a package in Oswald's hands. Rather than raising any doubt about Oswald actually bringing the aforesaid package into the TSBD, his observation of seeing no parcel further proves that Oswald was carrying said parcel. The same holds true about the fact that nobody else in the building saw a package of any construction, similar or dissimilar to either that described by Frazier or that presented as evidence by DPD and the Warren Commission, proving not only that it was there, but also proving that Oswald was able to conceal it exceedingly well. This further establishes fact and does not raise doubts. The lack of photographic or corroborating testimonial evidence regarding "the" parcel's being found at the SE 6th floor window establishes beyond cavil that it was there, as obvious as the nose upon one's face. Nitrates being present on Oswald's hands, despite the possibility of it being derived from printers ink or other sources, proves it could only have been from a pistol, therefore proving that Oswald fired a pistol. The fact thus established of his firing a pistol further proves that he fired a rifle, despite the complete lack of nitrates on his face, since he had "no reason" to fire a pistol if he hadn't fired a rifle. All of these things (and conceivably others) are by no means "reasonable doubt," in fact neither reasonable nor doubts, but merely unanswered questions that prove the point to a certainty: being unable to be proven incorrect, I am clearly right. (While we are on the topic, I might also suggest that those of you with any other thoughts on another matter come stand beside me this evening to observe whether or not I am moving, that I am in fact standing still, and the stars above are instead the bodies that are moving, proving once again for all time that the earth is the center of the universe. Tickets are available through TicketMaster.) If we did not begin with a conclusion, we might arrive at a different (albeit obviously incorrect) conclusion, again for example: We don't know if Oswald kept the gun he'd ordered through the mail. His wife couldn't identify the one we've got as the one he had in his actual possession, nor could anyone else. Nobody either saw him bring the rifle into Mrs Paine's garage, nor did anyone see (or feel) the rifle wrapped in the blanket in the garage. Neither Marina nor Ruth Paine saw him near the blanket in the garage, so we don't know if he actually was near the blanket (or if the blanket contained a gun). The package seen by both Buell Frazier and his sister was too short to contain a rifle. While Frazier saw him carry a package into the TSBD, the first and only person who saw him upon entering did not see the package, so we don't know if it was ever actually in the building. Its presence in the building is not established by any person's observation, nor by a photograph taken of where it was said to have been by someone. Lacking nitrates on the man's face, we cannot conclude that he'd fired a rifle and therefore must conclude that he did not. Given these factors, it is unlikely that police would have effected an arrest much less have obtained a conviction at trial. Then, there would have been no concerns about "reasonable doubt."

If Oswald was the lone assassin, there's nothing "more" for Marina to know other than why he did it.

I don't have either Lee, but if I happen to come accross them, I'll swap them both for your copies of. "How to stop myself from being a complete moron every time I open my mouth" by Lee Farley with a foreward by Noddy and PC Plod. and "How to stop myself from being a complete moron every time I open my mouth, Volume 2" ( The first Volume didn't work ) by Lee Farley with yet another foreward by Noddy and PC Plod" Deal. Although volume 2 is a bit samey you'll certainly learn a lot from reading them. And in return I'll get to find out how you consistently manage to turn BS into "facts." Well, all of this is certainly adding to our collective knowledge and advancing the discussion!

Just because people claim to have been there doesn't mean that they were there. If they were, I agree with you; if they weren't, I vehemently disagree and think they should be treated as the frauds they are. IF they WEREN'T THERE. In general, they either provably were ... or they weren't. For the very same reason (among others) that James Files' claimed rifle couldn't have fired on JFK: it wasn't on the market yet, that's why. As a prototype, it wouldn't have been available to employees to lend to their girlfriends. Liz Taylor doesn't hand out samples of scents under development to department store clerks either. (The word "secret" is yours, not mine. It may only have been as "secret" as what Ford hopes to bring out in 2020, but people don't get to drive their experimental vehicles either.) I don't presume "we" means YOU, does it? If it does, quit waiting for someone else to do the work, pick up the phone and let us know what happened. I'm not right 100% of the time, but I recall something of that nature from his testimony. It may have been Thursday, it could have been somewhere else. Where the Report says so, what does it cite as a reference? Nine times out of ten, it's an accurate reference even if it's not necessarily in proper context (e.g., the words are there, but the meaning is different, etc.). I don't agree with the first sentence, at least not about being witnesses. As I've heard before, however, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs," and I subscribe to that notion. In terms of murder - ultimately, the very subject of our many discussions here - merely wanting to believe something is not sufficient. The final two sentences I agree with, and suggest for the final one that you begin just above the feet. (Frankly, I don't think it'll cast a doubt in "some" people's minds.)

It's called "separating the wheat from the chaff."A funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Some years ago - I think it was around 1992 - a "debate" was held at a barbecue restaurant in Irving, Texas, to determine or decide "once and for all" if Beverly Oliver was indeed the Babushka Lady. It was not an event to air facts and discuss their merits, but a staged event with more of an air of a revival and witch hunt, the "witch" being one Larry Dunkel (spelling?), "a.k.a. Gary Mack," as a homemade cardboard placard - it might easily be called a "protest sign" as its owner pumped it over his head for all to call their attention to whenever Gary spoke, which was seldom enough - proclaimed. The event was sponsored and dominated by the JFK Assassination Information Center, best known for its colorful ownership and their backing and promotion of Ricky White's abortive commercial venture to assassinate his father's memory (which, despite its fiscal failure, remains fixed in some less discerning imaginations). "Debating" Mack were Oliver, her own sponsor Gary Shaw, and for good measure, the grand dame of assassination research, Mary Ferrell. Without going into a blow-by-blow that I barely remember beyond impressions (it largely consisted of opening commentary by Gary Mack on why he thought Beverly was not TBL, interrupted by the sign-carrying crowd and followed by a heartfelt collaborative sob by Shaw and Oliver carrying the dual themes of "we're great researchers, we can't be fooled" and "why would this nice lady lie?"), I remember clearly the "denouement" brought forth by Mary. Mary related how she had gotten a call from Shaw to tell her of his exciting discovery of TBL and his desire to validate that discovery with her. The call was followed by a visit from Shaw with Beverly in tow to tell her story to her. Then she got to the nub of what she'd been called upon to say. I thought it was interesting the way she'd put it. Mary related how she hadn't believed Beverly was the Babushka Lady at first because, she said, TBL had thick ankles, which Beverly did (in '92) and does not. "Women's ankles don't change," Mary said, pointing out something that I, for one, had never noticed before, the shape of a woman's ankles. Yet, she said, after Shaw and Oliver's visit, she'd "been convinced" - which differs in meaning grammatically from "was convinced" - that Beverly was "telling the truth." This seemingly clinched the deal, and the "picketers" seemed quite happy. If Mack said anything in rebuttal, I don't recall it and seem to remember his acquiescence to Mary's pronouncement. To my knowledge, he's never said anything about it since then, publicly or privately in my hearing. Yet it's always stuck in my mind how Mary Ferrell had both endorsed and refuted Beverly's claim in one fell swoop, saying from one side of her mouth that she'd "been convinced by" Shaw, while from the other telling those with ears to hear that the physical characteristics of TBL - her ankles - did not match Beverly's, and that the particular characteristic does not change with age, at least not from thick to thin (perhaps the other way around? I don't know). Since that time almost 20 years ago, I've noticed women's ankles - particularly the thicker ones - and have even tried to decide for myself whether TBL has thick or thin ankles. I'm undecided on this point, but lean toward them being thick. Beverly's are unquestionably not thick, and if Mary's point was accurate, they never could have been. I've been told that Larry Ronco did, in fact, "work for" Kodak, selling film to tourists at the state fair (or was it Six Flags, or both?). In such a position - a seasonal, part-time, retail sales clerk - his being given or otherwise having access to an "experimental" camera before its public release seems far-fetched at best. That's like Liz Taylor giving a bottle of her maybe-never-to-be-released new fragrance to the girl at the Macy's counter: who here really thinks that's very likely?Did Beverly date Larry? Certainly possible, if not probable or certain. Did Larry work for Kodak? Probably so, either directly or indirectly. Did Kodak give him a top-secret camera, he in turn lend it to his girlfriend (whom he could be absolutely certain would never show or tell anyone about it ... unless they were in Dealey Plaza), what would have happened if the camera had been confiscated as others supposedly - and conveniently - were, did Kodak ever find out, and did Larry keep his job afterward? These are imponderables we'll probably never know the real answer to. They do all, however, seem unlikely. The problem with accepting the various statements of all "witnesses" is that we tend to follow a "lead" that they give us when that lead is nothing but hogwash, a pipe dream, less than a wisp of smoke: not just gone but never there. An example of this is Richard Carr's belated "Rambler station wagon" on Houston Street, chasing a phantom that couldn't have been seen to even know if it existed. It's unfortunate for us - and a boon to whoever else may have shot Kennedy and Tippit - that some people will believe anything simply because it differs from what someone or something they don't want to believe has said was the case, to wit: Here we get the impression that it was the Warren Report alone that said Jack had dinner with his sometimes partner Paul, when in fact Ralph Paul himself said that he had dinner with Ruby. Yet Beverly introduces another twist, suggesting that she had dinner with the typically asexual Ruby as some sort of "special guest" (really? why was she such an apple in his eye that he'd single her out to accompany him?) along with one Larry Meyers, thus "proving" that Ruby did not have dinner with Paul, but with Meyers and her, the big bad Report - and Ralph Paul - lying once again. If that was so, then Beverly can presumably tell us whether there where two or three other people also part of that party, and who they were, right?What proof is there of any of these assertions? Things aren't so just because one wants them to be.