The Lone Assassin Question

[Paul Baker]

"simple" truth seems to be your forte. You have to be brain dead to believe that LHO killed anyone on 11/22/63.

Of course Terry. LHO didn't kill anyone. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that he did.

You're up to 1,668 posts now Terry, well done. Anything constructive, useful or interesting amongst those?

Paul.

Edited July 2, 2010 by Paul Baker

[Terry Mauro]

"simple" truth seems to be your forte. You have to be brain dead to believe that LHO killed anyone on 11/22/63.

Of course Terry. LHO didn't kill anyone. There's absolutely no evidence to suggest that he did.

You're up to 1,668 posts now Terry, well done. Anything constructive, useful or interesting amongst those?

Paul.

The stage is yours. I am ready to read any evidence you have that LHO killed JFK or Tippet or..... on 11/22/63.

I am 100% certain you will fail in this endeavor.

PS- Thanks for counting the number of posts I've made. That's your kind of "simple" truth.

[Paul Baker]

The stage is yours. I am ready to read any evidence you have that LHO killed JFK or Tippet or..... on 11/22/63.

I am 100% certain you will fail in this endeavor.

Terry, do you know anything about this case? Do you believe that there is not a single piece of evidence that Oswald killed JFK, or Tippet, in Dallas on 22 November 1963?

[Terry Mauro]

I don't understand why this question is so important. From a 'Lone Nutter' perspective, what difference does it make, when the physical and circumstantial evidence points to Oswald's guilt. We know he did it, therefore we know he decided to do it at some point. When, who cares, and how does it help? Knowing when anyone decides to kill someone else is useful, for sure, but usually the prospective killer doesn't talk about it beforehand.

But ...

Oswald visited his wife on a Thursday, which he'd apparently never done before. His reason for going there on that day was to pick up his rifle, so he could shoot the president the next day. This implies that his intentions were real before Marina rejected him. I agree with McAdams, that in all probability he decided to shoot JFK when he learnt of the motorcade route.

As for planning, there wasn't much to do. The president was coming to the assassin's lair. All the assassin had to do was get a gun and sit and wait.

Paul.

Oswald visited his wife on a Thursday, which he'd apparently never done before. His reason for going there on that day was to pick up his rifle, so he could shoot the president the next day. This implies that his intentions were real before Marina rejected him. I agree with McAdams, that in all probability he decided to shoot JFK when he learnt of the motorcade route.

As for planning, there wasn't much to do. The president was coming to the assassin's lair. All the assassin had to do was get a gun and sit and wait.

Paul.

Oswald visited his wife on Thursday (meaningless)

He went to pick up a gun ( there is no proof of this. But even if he did pick up a rifle/gun there is no proof it was the rifle used to kill President Kennedy)

Back to square one Paul

[Terry Mauro]

The stage is yours. I am ready to read any evidence you have that LHO killed JFK or Tippet or..... on 11/22/63.

I am 100% certain you will fail in this endeavor.

Terry, do you know anything about this case? Do you believe that there is not a single piece of evidence that Oswald killed JFK, or Tippet, in Dallas on 22 November 1963?

There is no proof that LHO killed anyone on Friday November 22, 1963. You understand me clearly.

I invite you to present evidence to the contrary. I must say it's unusual to see Brit playing the "Lone Nut" role. Usually the Brits love to push their fake "conspiracy" theories on to us dumb Yanks. Count the number of JFK assassination TV specials, books, articles that originate with the Brits. It's mind boggling

[Paul Baker]

Oswald visited his wife on Thursday (meaningless)

He went to pick up a gun ( there is no proof of this. But even if he did pick up a rifle/gun there is no proof it was the rifle used to kill President Kennedy)

You've been a JFK Assassination Research student since 1964, you say? I hope it isn't too late to tell you, Terry, that you're wasting your time.

[Terry Mauro]

Oswald visited his wife on Thursday (meaningless)

He went to pick up a gun ( there is no proof of this. But even if he did pick up a rifle/gun there is no proof it was the rifle used to kill President Kennedy)

You've been a JFK Assassination Research student since 1964, you say? I hope it isn't too late to tell you, Terry, that you're wasting your time.

This is your argument of Oswalds guilt?

[Duke Lane]

Paul were is your proof that Lee entered the garage that night?

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."

[Terry Mauro]

There is no proof that shots were fired from the 6th floor window of the TSBD. There was no proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting.

There is no proof that Oswald brought a rifle into the TBSD on Friday 11/22/63. There is no proof that Oswald ordered or owned or had in his possession the alleged murder weapon. There is no proof that the alleged murder weapon was used to murder JFK.

The government never investigated the case.

[Terry Mauro]

It appears Paul has vanished

[William Kelly]

I would prefer that instead of arguing over whether Oswald did it, that those who believe he did it just answer the question - when did Oswald decide to kill the President?

Paul, if you believe that, when did Oswald decide to do it?

I'd also like to hear from Mike Williams and others who hold similar beliefs.

Thanks,

BK

[Pat Speer]

Tip-toeing nimbly through the usual bullxxxx ...

Mr Speer, thank you for your measured and polite response, a rare thing around here. If that bag was folded up, wouldn't it have been easy to conceal? I wouldn't say that was too difficult. The evidence regarding the size of the bag. Isn't the fact that he was *carrying* that bag at all (as seen by witnesses) more important, and that he claimed it contained curtain rods, which he didn't need and were never found?

Paul.

Welcome to the Buell Wesley Frazier conundrum (a pretty good name for a band, IMO). Only one person claimed Oswald said anything about curtain rods, and this same person passed a lie detector test on the night of the assassination while insisting that the paper bag he saw in Oswald's possession bore little resemblance to the paper bag purportedly found in the sniper's nest. His memory was either reliable or not. Which is it? If he was wrong about the bag it follows that he could very well have been mistaken about the curtain rods.

(CTs wishing to claim Frazier was right about the bag, but lied about the curtain rods, of course, find themselves in this same conundrum.)

[Duke Lane]

Paul were is your proof that Lee entered the garage that night?

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? ....

[David G. Healy]

...

great commentary, way to go DUKE!

[Duke Lane]

... Captain: Well, detective, what have we got?

Detective: Not much, sir. There's a rifle ....

Capt: Well, that about does it, Detective. I want to commend you and your men on a job well done. ...

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!