Strongest piece of evidence

[Dean Hagerman]

Double post

Edited December 12, 2010 by Dean Hagerman

[Dean Hagerman]

If I had to name the strongest and most revealing evidence in the 1963 Coup d'Etat, I would say it was what the usurper, traitor, murderer president Lyndon Johnson told his most beloved mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown

You think that the strongest piece of evidence is what LBJ told his mistress?

[Mark Henceroth]

No one has mentioned any evidence yet in this thread,I thought for sure that I was going to read all about it in this thread but apparently a definition of the word evidence is in order.

The most compelling circumstance for a conspiracy is that there seems to be too much evidence against Oswald, so I could see where one may start to doubt that all that evidence could be pointing that clearly to one person but on the other hand I suppose it could if he did it and knew that he was going to be caught. He was really sloppy about this whole thing and left a ton of evidence, this is not a tough case to crack if you are willing to accept the truth about it but I suppose that dreaming up sinister assassiantion plots and theories with nothing to support them can be quite a nice hobby if you like that kind of stuff.

[Mark Henceroth]

The dictabelt is not known to be an accurate recording of the crime, the Z film shows definitively that the two men reacted at the same time. If the holes in the shirt and jacket don't line up with the wounds then where are the other wounds located? No I'm not trying to argue evidence, there is way too much of it, if you could merely discount half the evidence against Oswald there would still be an overwhelming case for his guilt. If you guys want to live in la la land, havatit,

Edited December 12, 2010 by Mark Henceroth

[Guest Robert Morrow]

If I had to name the strongest and most revealing evidence in the 1963 Coup d'Etat, I would say it was what the usurper, traitor, murderer president Lyndon Johnson told his most beloved mistress Madeleine Duncan Brown

You think that the strongest piece of evidence is what LBJ told his mistress?

Yes, absolutely. Madeleine Duncan Brown is that powerful because she was so close to Lyndon Johnson for 21 years. The other massive piece of evidence is that a US president was murdered and absolutely no investigation into his death was done. Just cover up from Day One and that speaks volumes. #3 would be the JFK "back and to the left" head snap that pretty much proves a head kill shot from the Zapruder film... which proves the authorities knew about and were protecting a Coup d'Etat... and that pretty much proves the LBJ/CIA/Hoover "authorities" WERE the perpetrators in the 1963 Coup d'Etat.

Edited December 12, 2010 by Robert Morrow

[William Kelly]

The dictabelt is not known to be an accurate recording of the crime

Mark, they recorded the sounds of high powered rifles being fired from the Sixth Floor window and the Grassy Knoll and matched the echo patterns of those sounds with exactly similar echo patterns on the Dallas PD Tape, so they concluded that there was a shot from a high powered rifle fired from the Grassy Knoll - and that in order for them to be wrong, you would have to come up with a sound that exactly duplicates that of a high powered rifle being fired from that exact location. Plus they recently confirmed the same tests with the recordings at Kent State with similar results. How can that be "not known to be an accurate recording of he crime"?

, the Z film shows definitively that the two men reacted at the same time. If the holes in the shirt and jacket don't line up with the wounds then where are the other wounds located? No I'm not trying to argue evidence, there is way too much of it, if you could merely discount half the evidence against Oswald there would still be an overwhelming case for his guilt.

Well, that is how you frame someone for a crime they didn't commit, isn't it?

If you guys want to live in la la land, havatit,

Whose living in la la land?

If you believe Oswald did it alone, then how come you can't get around the fact that he was seen through the closed door window of the second floor lunchroom by Baker, but Truley ahead of Baker didn't see him? That tells me Oswald didn't go through the door ahead of Baker and instead came through the south door, indicating he was where he said he was, and where he was last seen, on the first floor.

And if you believe Oswald did it alone, how come you can't tell me when he decided - made the decision - the intent to kill? A day before? Hours before? Weeks before?

And if he do it alone, how come you can't tell me when and how he picked up the weapons from the Post Office without anyone seeing him do it or any record of it, and where he got the ammo?

And if even if Oswald did it alone, and you figure out a way to answer all the outstanding questions - it is quite apparent that he wasn't a psycho-crazy spee killer, but a Covert-Operator, in the same suspect personality profile as Frank Sturgis, G. P. Hemming, Thomas A. Valle, etc. and that his covert background, associates and related network has yet to be fully understood, and should be determined in order to prevent such assassinations in the future.

No, it is those who believe Oswald did it alone who are in La La Land.

BK

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

[William Kelly]

No one has mentioned any evidence yet in this thread,I thought for sure that I was going to read all about it in this thread but apparently a definition of the word evidence is in order.

The most compelling circumstance for a conspiracy is that there seems to be too much evidence against Oswald, so I could see where one may start to doubt that all that evidence could be pointing that clearly to one person but on the other hand I suppose it could if he did it and knew that he was going to be caught. He was really sloppy about this whole thing and left a ton of evidence, this is not a tough case to crack if you are willing to accept the truth about it but I suppose that dreaming up sinister assassiantion plots and theories with nothing to support them can be quite a nice hobby if you like that kind of stuff.

If it is not such a tough case to crack, then why can't you tell us when the accused assassin LHO decided to kill the president, and how and when he obtained the weapons from the Post Office when he was busy working at Jaggers/Chiles/Stoval, and where he got the ammo from, and when he practiced, and what he was doing at the Odio's apartment and at the embassies in Mexico City, and who was imperonating him at six different locations at different time?

No theories here, just questions that can and need to be answered, and not a hobby if you are an historian, journalsit, cop or security officer who is interested in determinng how the President of the United States was assassinated.

And if Oswald is your guy, then why is he a no-good, sloppy, wife beating loner, when you claim that he succeed in his intent to kill the President and in fact, was a truely great assassin, at least in your eyes?

These are simple questions that can and should be anwered, especially by someone who has already figured it all out.

BK

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/

[Mark Henceroth]

Those questions don't need to be answered though I am sure they can be. There was bullets, shells, a rifle and an eyewitness, why would you need to know the things that you ask about,they don't really matter, that is where the CT have a problem they don't know what matters and what doesn't, oh well, good luck,

[William Kelly]

Those questions don't need to be answered though I am sure they can be. There was bullets, shells, a rifle and an eyewitness, why would you need to know the things that you ask about,they don't really matter, that is where the CT have a problem they don't know what matters and what doesn't, oh well, good luck,

I'm not a conspiracy theorist.

I don't have a conspiracy or theory to promote.

I can even accept the idea that LHO did it alone, but if he did, I know he wasn't the idiot loner you say he is because he did something that you nor the US goverment can expain.

And that is how and why he did it.

If Oswald did it, he was a really good assassin, and it must be determined how and why he did it so it can't be duplicated and happen again.

If it doesn't matter to you why are you here?

BK

[Mark Henceroth]

I just kind of got interested by accident really, it doesn't really matter to me if he did it or not , I have no stake in it, but it's pretty clear that he did, I think it's as simple as a goofball like Oswald had by chance to have the president of the US drive by his window and he shot him, it's really no more complicated than that from what I see.

[William Kelly]

I just kind of got interested by accident really, it doesn't really matter to me if he did it or not , I have no stake in it, but it's pretty clear that he did, I think it's as simple as a goofball like Oswald had by chance to have the president of the US drive by his window and he shot him, it's really no more complicated than that from what I see.

You might be interested by accident and it might not matter, but those involved in security of presidents today certainly have a stake in what happened, how it happened and why.

And so do those they are supposed to protect.

It might be pretty clear to you, and to Bugliosi, and to Tom Hanks, but those who ask a few significant questions - like how'd he get the weapons, where did he get the ammo and when did he decide to kill the President can't seem to get any answers.

Why do you simultaniously say that Oswald was a goofball and the successful assassin, and hid the fact that he was going to do it from everyone, and keep the entire investigative forces of the US government as well as people like you from figuring out how he got the weapons and ammo?

Sounds like a pretty slick goofball if he really did it.

Why is Oswald a goofball?

BK

[Cliff Varnell]

No one has mentioned any evidence yet in this thread,I thought for sure that I was going to read all about it in this thread but apparently a definition of the word evidence is in order.

The most compelling circumstance for a conspiracy is that there seems to be too much evidence against Oswald, so I could see where one may start to doubt that all that evidence could be pointing that clearly to one person but on the other hand I suppose it could if he did it and knew that he was going to be caught. He was really sloppy about this whole thing and left a ton of evidence, this is not a tough case to crack if you are willing to accept the truth about it but I suppose that dreaming up sinister assassiantion plots and theories with nothing to support them can be quite a nice hobby if you like that kind of stuff.

Mark, would you care to explain how there's a hole in JFK's shirt four inches below his collar

when your SBT inshoot has it several inches higher?

[Cliff Varnell]

If the holes in the shirt and jacket don't line up with the wounds then where are the other wounds located?

The wound in the back entered at T3 and did not exit; wound in the throat between the third and

fourth trach rings was an entrance with no exit.

We can only speculate about the head wound(s) because according to the FBI autopsy

report there was an observation of pre-autopsy surgery to the head area. Whether or not

this surgery actually occurred is moot, all head wound evidence is tainted by the FBI

men's observation.

We don't know if JFK was hit in the head one, two, three times, the evidence is

so conflicting.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Cliff Varnell

[Duke Lane]

There was [sic] bullets, shells, a rifle and an eyewitness, why would you need to know the things that you ask about,they don't really matter, that is where the CT have a problem they don't know what matters and what doesn't, oh well, good luck,

Mark sort of makes a good point, but misses others.

In point of fact, if you've got the things he lists (and a few more to boot), there's a prosecutable and potentially winnable case, one which can fulfill the legal tests of sufficiency to convict and uphold a charge up to and including murder. There is enough there, in other words, to ensure a "true bill" against a suspect and turn him into a defendant, and possibly enough to turn him into a convict, maybe even enough to deny an appeal.

One of the points he fails to consider (or lend any credence to?) is that in any criminal matter, there is also a defense which is entitled not only to challenge/raise questions about the prosecution's evidence, but to offer other evidence in mitigation or rebuttal. I don't believe anyone here will have any trouble conceding that the evidence amassed against Oswald was sufficient to bring him to trial.

Whether that evidence was enough to convict him, none of us can say since we don't know what an active, effective defense might have presented. Walt Brown did a good job of portraying how a decent - not to say even very good - defense counsel may have conducted the case, and Walt's not even a lawyer. (John Grisham or David Baldacci might've done a better job, and given us a better-prepared prosecutor, but no guarantees how it would've turned out, if any differently.)

Independent researchers over the years have amassed enough direct and indirect evidence to effectively call the WC's "verdict" into question. Others, unfortunately, have raised some truly zany and ludicrous theories, and the fact that they can be disproved leads to the unsupportable conclusion that all theories other than the government's must be equally zany and ludicrous.

The WC, of course, wasn't an open-ended judicial proceeding where facts from both perspectives compete, but a "fact-finding panel" that was not wholly unlike a grand jury except that the "true bill" found by it was not subject to further contest. In effect, Mark (and others of similar mind) are saying that an indictment is the same as a finding of guilt, and that it is ridiculous to bring it to trial: anyone who doesn't accept what the prosecutor convinced the grand jury with is clearly a fool, and the adversarial process is a stupid farce.

They are the same people who were convinced by the evidence that the OJ jury was not, and who consider Simpson guilty as sin, no matter that the jury found otherwise. That LAPD hasn't found an alternative suspect against whom there is sufficient evidence to convict means not that LAPD didn't look for one, but only that there could be none. The OJ jury was made up of stupid idiots who were swayed by the "tricks" of the defense, the proof of that being that, if they hadn't been, the jurors would have agreed them and convicted him.

This kind of thinking holds that a jury is right when they convict someone based upon the evidence that was presented to them, and to that extent I can't disagree. However, it would also seemingly hold that, once convicted, a person (or any of his posthumous advocates) should not be able to develop or bring forth new evidence that might reverse that conviction. It holds that The Innocence Project should just let us hang those convicted killers: there'd be a greater respect for the law if the 164 convicts who actually were innocent were executed on schedule. Enough already of these ridiculous appeals!

And if they don't advocate that position, then why on earth do they have a problem with anyone disagreeing with the "obvious" evidence and attempting to unearth more? Do they feel that the entire appeals process is irresponsible and should not be pursued by any other than paid professionals (whose motivations, at least, can be readily discerned)?

Give them enough facts to support a point of view and they will be convinced. In Copernicus' time, they would have been among those supported the Church that branded him a heretic for thinking that the earth revolved around the sun: there was and is plenty of apparent evidence to support the geo-centric perspective; you can't see the earth move, but the sun does "travel" across the sky! And the Church knows of what it speaks.

Those who continued to explore Copernicus' theory would have been fools, just as would have been those who persisted in the notion that you could actually sail around an obviously flat earth.

As we now know, those who thought they could all fell off the edge. It can't possibly be any different with Oswald. The conventional wisdom is always right. Right?

[John Dolva]

The 'convential wisdom' found Byron DeLaBckwith innocent or acquitted when there was clear evidence of his guilt, as his old age convivtion showed, and was clear at the time. Lawyers managed to massage sufficient doubt into stuff re gun/ballistics/alibi etc for example> I think that this case serves as a contemporarry example. And that was definitely a conspiracy. Ditto the Mississippi Three. Emmett Till. Many walked free. I guess in a sense this makes Oswalds persona what is / could have been / , tried, and was declared guilty without a trial at all..