More Unanswered Lone Assassin Questions

[Dean Hagerman]

What a crock!

You began hurling insults the minute you started posting on this forum, Francois. You never get into the facts of the case you simply spend your time disrupting threads with rude, patronizing, condescending remarks about how anyone who doesn't accept the evidence you've blindingly embraced is living in a fantasy world. Not once have you offered anyting of value to any discussion you've arrogantly barged into. And now you have the gall to complain about the way members have treated you in return?

I sincerely hope you stick to your pledge and start discussing the evidence from now on, Francois. But I sure as hell ain't holding my breath.

Amen Martin

Why do you think you get so much flack Francis?

Treat others how you would like to be treated, like Martin said you came on this forum and in your first post said "I know as much as anybody here"

How did you think we would respond?

Then you send Lee and I 1,234,654 of the same emails

Come on if you want to be taken seriously then you need to respect other members

[Duke Lane]

... 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 ?

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?"

[William Kelly]

... 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 ?

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?"

Good question Francois,

Why do such men as John McAdams, DVP, Dave Reitzes, et al. reach the conclusion that Oswald killed JFK alone because he was a psycho loner, when it appears to me that he was set up as a Patsy?

For starters, when I ask Lone Nutters why they think Oswald was crazy, they say because he killed the President and a policeman.

But that's a suposition, and if he didn't in fact kill the President or police officer, then was he crazy?

When Vincent Bugliosi finally got around to calling John Judge on the phone, just as he was finishing up his book, apparently trying to touch all the bases if he was indeed going to debunk all conspiracy theories, he told Judge, "I know you don't think Oswald acted alone."

Judge replied, "I think Oswald acted alone all right, I just don't think he killed anyone."

And if you go over all of the things I list, that Oswald had to do if he killed the President alone, for which there is no evidence, witnessess or records of him actually doing, then you see how the Lone Nutters automatically fill in the blanks with Oswald's name, just to complete the picture.

Like DVP saying the scope was misaligned because "Oswald" threw it behind the boxes while exiting the Sixth Floor, when in fact there is no evidence of Oswald actualy being on the sixth floor at the time, and if he in fact did shoot the president, throw the rifle down between the boxes and descend the steps in time for Baker and Truly to find him in the second floor lunchroom a minute and a half after the last shot, then who was that guy in the sixth floor sniper's window moving boxes around.

Of all the items listed, Oswald picking up the weapons at the Post Office is the only one that DVP and others have tried to debunk, if not here at McAdam's forum.

But all they could come up with is the evidence that Oswald picked up the weapons from the PO is that he has them in his possession in the backyard photo.

Butt that is only evidence that he had them at that time, not that he picked them up at the PO. When in fact, a close look at his work sheet records for that month indicate that he worked every day from 8am to 5pm and overtime on Saturdays, so Sundays were the only day he could have picked them up, but the PO was closed that day. And the foreman of the J/C/S company he worked testified under oath that the time sheets were correct and that Oswald worked there every day at those times.

In additon, the work sheets indicate that Oswald worked on an order for Sam Bloom, one of those responsible for the determination of the lunch site and the route of the motorcade.

As for Francois' question, I think that it is not so much a matter of difference of opinions over whether Oswald a shooter or a Patsy as it is a determination of whether Oswald was truely a psychologicaly motivated homicidal maniac who kept his mental disease hidden (as Ted Bundy did), or was he an idelogically motivated person who was not crazy?

And as for the idea of Oswald being found not guilty at trial, that would not be allowed to happen in any circumstance.

Rather than speculate on Oswald at an imaginary trial, why not assemble all of the evidence of other suspects and present that to a grand jury today?

That's something that can and should be done.

BKelly

[William Kelly]

Oswald - Lone Nut Case or Covert Jackal?

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2010/10/jackal.html

[David Josephs]

1.5) Order one rifle and be photographed holding a different one

6.5) After building the Sniper's Lair, removing his fingerprints from each and every box he touched to build it

7.5) Know at the time that the limo was late (plane landing 20 minutes late and the stops in the motorcade enroute) and would not be passing the TSBD until 12:30, instead of the scheduled 11:55 so he did not have to be in position by 11:50 but 12:25.

Just a few additions.

Amazing to me how ferocious the LNer gets when confronted with REASONABLE DOUBT, as if their Church of Oswald's Guilt is being attacked, blasphemy!! kooks... paranoids....

There is no room for rational thought, constructuve discussion or debate... only insults and misdirection...

I don't know Mr. Carlier, all I see is his posts here on this thread... not a single quote, reference, link to evidence or factually supported statement is uttered either for or against Bill's list of questions. How does one have a discussion regarding whether facts are indeed facts comprised soley of opinion statements?

I have no problem with a knowledgeable LNer making their point(s) yet they never seem to employ the "does this make any logical sense" or "what other ways can this info be interpreted" thought processes.

There are witnesses that place Oswald anywhere but the 6th floor right up until as late as 12:25. Rather than argue, show us any evidence that places Oswald where he was supposed to be, when he was supposed to be there.

DJ