More Unanswered Lone Assassin Questions

[Dean Hagerman]

For instance, it is a fact that O.J. Simpson killed his wife, in June 1994, and everybody agrees.

Everybody except 12 jurors

[William Kelly]

Here we go again.

Mister Kelly, your questions do not make sense.

You seem to suggest that if we can't prove that Lee Oswald did a few precise actions that you list, then you can somehow turn him into an innocent man.

FRANCOIS, MY QUESTIONS GET TO THE HEART OF THE HOMICIDE AND MOST CERTAINLY DO MAKE SENSE.

AND NO WHERE DO I SUGGEST THAT IF YOU CAN'T PROVE OSWALD DID THESE ACTIONS THEN I CAN SOMEHOW TURN HIM INTO AN INNOCENT MAN.

I AM MERELY SAYING THERE IS NO EVIDENCE - RECORDS OR WITNESSES OF HIM DOING THESE THINGS HE IS ACCUSSED OF DOING.

What a poor method of getting at the truth !

IT IS THE METHOD OF THE OPEN MINDED CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATOR WHO EVALUATES THE SCENE AND ATTEMPTS TO EXTRACT EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE HOW A CRIME WAS COMMITTED AND WHO COMMITTED IT.

You're bound to fail.

THAT'S OKAY, I'VE FAILED BEFORE.

Actually, when you say (I quote) : "Things Oswald Must Have Done If He Was The Assassin For Which There Is No Evidence, Record or Witness. ... 6) Build the wall of book boxes that set up the Sniper's Lair in the Sixth Floor window." do you realize that your question only shows that you would be a very very bad investigator in any murder case ?

HOW IS THAT BEING A BAD INVESTIGATOR. IN FACT, THE SO-CALLED "SNIPER'S NEST" WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED BY THE PURPOTED SIXTH FLOOR SNIPER, AS INITIALLY SUSPECTED BY THE DALLAS POLICE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATORS BECAUSE IT WAS LATER DISCOVERED THAT THE "SNIPER'S NEST" WAS CONSTRUCTED BY THE CREW LAYING THE NEW FLOOR, WHO WERE OUT TO LUNCH FOR THE ONE HOUR WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY THAT THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED.

I mean, who cares if nobody saw him arrange the boxes ? Precisely, if he was the assassin, you can bet he made sure he was not seen.

EXCEPT THE ASSASSIN DIDN'T ARRANGE THE BOXES INTO THE SNIPER'S NEST, ONLY THOSE AROUND THE WINDOW, BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE SHOOTING, AND HE DIDN'T CARE IF HE WAS SEEN OR NOT - AS BRENNAN AND AMOS EUNIS SAW HIM QUITE CLEARLY, THOUGH FROM A DISTANCE.

But we do not need to find a picture of him arranging the boxes to conclude he is guilty of the assassination.

BUT WE'VE ALREADY DETERMINED THE SNIPER DIDN'T ARRANGE THE BOXES, THE FLOOR CREW DID, AND THEREFORE WE SHOULD CONCLUDE THAT THEY ARE THE ONES GUILTY OF THE ASSASSINATION? I DONT THINK THAT LOGIC HOLDS WATER EITHER.

But you don't get it, do you ?

NO I DON'T GET IT. I WANT TO KNOW WHY THERE ARE NO WITNESSES, RECORDS OR EVIDENCE OF ANY KIND FOR THOSE ACTIONS THAT OSWALD IS SAID TO HAVE ACOMPLISHED THAT HE HAD TO DO IN ORDER FOR HIM TO BE THE SIXTH FLOOR ASSASSIN.

For instance, it is a fact that O.J. Simpson killed his wife, in June 1994, and everybody agrees. Even Jim Fetzer said on Black Op radio that the evidence against O.J. Simpson is very strong.

EXCEPT THE CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATORS, LIKE THE DALLAS POLICE, BUNGLED THAT ONE TOO, AND I WASN'T ON THE JURY SO MY VOTE DOESN'T COUNT.

But I suppose you need a set of color pictures of Simpson stabbing Nicole Brown to believe he is guilty. Better yet, you probably wish you had a high-quality movie.

And since you don't have that movie of Simpson killing his wife, you could ask something like this in a forum : "Things Simpson Must Have Done If He Was The Assassin For Which There Is No Evidence, Record or Witness. ... 6) stab his wife."

Well, that's true, we do not have any record or witness. So he must be innocent, right ?

NO, YOU JUST NEED A QUALIFIED CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATOR(S) TO EVALUATE THE CRIME SCENE AND EXTRACT THE EVIDENCE NEEDED TO CONVICT THE QUILTY, WHICH WASN'T DONE IN EITHER CRIME.

Well, I guess you will always live in your dreams. In your own error-laden world. Well, at least you're not alone, you have bad-faith guys such as Laverick to accompany you.

NO, IN MY DREAMS I LIVE WITH 80% OF THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE THE ASSASSINATION OF THE PRESIDENT INVOLVED MORE THAN JUST OSWALD.

Poor men !

/F.C./

SO FAR, AFTER THIS WAS CROSS-POSTED AT MCADAMS FORUM, THEY FOCUSED ON JUST THE ONE ITEM - THE USE OF THE POST OFFICE BOX - AND THAT BACKFIRED ON THEM WHEN IN FACT THEY HAD TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IN THE END, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, WITNESSES OR DOCUMENTARY RECORD OF OSWALD EVER ACTUALLY PICKING UP THE WEAPONS AT THE POST OFFICE.

NOW YOU LOOKED BRIEFLY AT THE SNIPER'S NEST BOXES, AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.

WHY CAN'T YOU GO OVER EACH AND EVERY ITEM AND SHOW ME HOW I AM LIVING IN AN ERROR-LADEN WORLD?

THANKS FOR YOUR INTEREST,

BILL KELLY

[François Carlier]

That's it, keep asking your questions (instead of answering my message)

I can understand : dodging the issues is certainly easier than acknowledging publicly that you had been wrong all along !

/F.C./

[William Kelly]

That's it, keep asking your questions (instead of answering my message)

I can understand : dodging the issues is certainly easier than acknowledging publicly that you had been wrong all along !

/F.C./

What's your message again?

I'd be glad to answer it.

BK

[Greg Burnham]

Here we go again.

Mister Kelly, your questions do not make sense.

You seem to suggest that if we can't prove that Lee Oswald did a few precise actions that you list, then you can somehow turn him into an innocent man.

What a poor method of getting at the truth !

You're bound to fail.

Francois, Oswald IS an innocent man in terms of American jurisprudence because he was never found guilty by a jury. There was no trial. Here, a suspect IS considered innocent until proven guilty beyond ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. We do not live in a Napoleonic Court System (guilty until proven innocent) in the United States. That is a French invention. So, Bill isn't "turning him into an innocent man" at all! Bill is merely alluding to the only accurate label by which he can be described.

This is one of the tell tale signs of intellectual dishonesty on the part of people who should know better. People like McAdams nearly flat out deny that Oswald is legally still presumed innocent because his guilt was never proved. If, as Bill points out, the evidence in support of his guilt is inadequate to persuade beyond ALL REASONABLE DOUBT then a jury would not have convicted him.

Unlike the inculptory evidence in the OJ Simpson case, the evidence in support of Oswald's guilt is very weak, and even the so-called "strongest" evidence against him is rife with gaping holes.

[François Carlier]

Well, guess what ? I already knew that there had been no trial, no jury, no conviction. I did know that Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby, you see.

I also knew that OJ Simpson was found NOT guilty.

But I am not speaking "in terms of legality", in this forum. I though we were here to share our views on the evidence. And in the Kennedy case, as well as the Simpson case, I do claim that the evidence laid before us is enough to reach a sane conclusion.

I state here that to my mind it is safe to say that Oswald was guilty, and that Simpson was guilty, also.

If I criticize somebody for saying that Oswald is innocent, I mean that that person refuses to acknowledge the evidence at hand, that's all.

/F.C./

P.S. : I didn't copy your message. Please do not erase it again...

Edited August 15, 2010 by François Carlier

[Michael Hogan]

I also knew that OJ Simpson was found NOT guilty.

Didn't stop you from making a statement that was illogical and untrue.

[François Carlier]

That's it, keep asking your questions (instead of answering my message)

I can understand : dodging the issues is certainly easier than acknowledging publicly that you had been wrong all along !

/F.C./

What's your message again?

I'd be glad to answer it.

BK

You're funny, really.

You copied my message in its entire length, without even reading it, it seems.

And now you're asking what it is ?

Are you here just to play around with people ?

Don't do that to me !

/F.C./

[Dean Hagerman]

edit delete double post

Edited August 15, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Dean Hagerman]

For instance, it is a fact that O.J. Simpson killed his wife

Then you say

"I also knew that OJ Simpson was found NOT guilty."

What twisted logic

[Greg Burnham]

Well, guess what ? I already knew that there had been no trial, no jury, no conviction. I did know that Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby, you see.

I also knew that OJ Simpson was found NOT guilty.

But I am not speaking "in terms of legality", in this forum. I though we were here to share our views on the evidence. And in the Kennedy case, as well as the Simpson case, I do claim that the evidence laid before us is enough to reach a sane conclusion.

I state here that to my mind it is safe to say that Oswald was guilty, and that Simpson was guilty, also.

If I criticize somebody for saying that Oswald is innocent, I mean that that person refuses to acknowledge the evidence at hand, that's all.

/F.C./

P.S. : I didn't copy your message. Please do not erase it again...

Thank you for being civil in your reply. However, I don't agree with you at all. Your mis-characterization of those who are thoroughly scrutinizing the evidence as "refusing to acknowledge the evidence at hand" is not accurate. Bill is demonstrating (as usual) an exceptional knowledge of the "evidence" that was advanced by the government. So, there is no "refusal to acknowledge" the evidence. However, he is scrutinizing that evidence in order to determine if it is valid. He has asked to be "persuaded" by those who support the official version. So far, the arguments in support of conviction have fallen far short of the mark.

[François Carlier]

OK,

As for being civil, yes, that's better for everybody.

It is a sad fact that some members come here only to try to play around with those whose opinions they don't like. Some members have been very disrespectful to me (one of them saying recently something about "my book coming off my a..", or something to that effect, which is a personal attack). I am a man, and always respond with force to any attack. Still, I'm here to debate in a serious way, and am fed up with those attacks, so I have decided that from now on I shall stick to the topics and discussions in a civil and constructive way, and IGNORE ALTOGETHER the few members who do not deserve my reading any word (let alone sentence) they write.

You and I certainly disagree on most things regarding the Kennedy assassination but you have shown to be a man with whom it is possible to talk seriously. Thank you for that.

Well, I don't doubt for a minute that Mister Bill Kelly's knowledge of the Kennedy assassination case is tremendous. And I'm sure he has scrutinized the evidence very thoroughly.

But why is it that he has not reached the same conclusions as other people who have the same amount of knowledge and have also worked hard on the evidence ?

It must be a question of method, don't you think ?

We all know the same basic facts, but we do not reach the same conclusions. Why ? Some of us must fail, somewhere. It should be interesting to wonder where, and how, and who ?

/F.C./

[Greg Burnham]

OK,

As for being civil, yes, that's better for everybody.

It is a sad fact that some members come here only to try to play around with those whose opinions they don't like. Some members have been very disrespectful to me (one of them saying recently something about "my book coming off my a..", or something to that effect, which is a personal attack). I am a man, and always respond with force to any attack. Still, I'm here to debate in a serious way, and am fed up with those attacks, so I have decided that from now on I shall stick to the topics and discussions in a civil and constructive way, and IGNORE ALTOGETHER the few members who do not deserve my reading any word (let alone sentence) they write.

You and I certainly disagree on most things regarding the Kennedy assassination but you have shown to be a man with whom it is possible to talk seriously. Thank you for that.

Well, I don't doubt for a minute that Mister Bill Kelly's knowledge of the Kennedy assassination case is tremendous. And I'm sure he has scrutinized the evidence very thoroughly.

But why is it that he has not reached the same conclusions as other people who have the same amount of knowledge and have also worked hard on the evidence ?

It must be a question of method, don't you think ?

We all know the same basic facts, but we do not reach the same conclusions. Why ? Some of us must fail, somewhere. It should be interesting to wonder where, and how, and who ?

/F.C./

Francois,

I would say that this is perhaps a "cultural" distinction, except that many of those who support the official story are Americans, too--so that's not it. Rather than me speculate on why those who support the official version choose to do so, or speculate as to their "motives" which I have no way of knowing, let me instead point out one reason why many of us find the official version so suspect.

Initially, the main problem is that the officials "rushed to judgment" in their haste to claim: "Case Closed" for all the world to believe. To most Americans, such behavior--by their government--is inherently suspect because it defies our own rule of law. That isn't how we do things here. There need not have been any rush to close the case at all if there was, in fact, nothing to hide. Indeed, such governmental behavior backfired and kept this case open for nearly 50 years so far!

In America, our Declaration of Independence advises us to be ever vigilant over government. Our Constitution similarly acknowledged the rights of the individual; rights that are inherent to being human--not "granted" by any government, and therefore, may not be infringed upon by any government. It is within this environment that Americans must view the assassination of our 35th President. It is within this environment that we must evaluate all of the surrounding events (the investigation and handling of witnesses and evidence) before laying the case to rest. And, the problem is, too many things just don't add up.

Edited August 15, 2010 by Greg Burnham

[François Carlier]

Hello,

What ?

Not once have you offered anyting of value to any discussion

Please tell me you're joking !

/F.C./

[François Carlier]

I sincerely hope you stick to your pledge and start discussing the evidence from now on

I swear !

You'll see.

/F.C./