If Oswald Was Innocent....?

[David Von Pein]

If Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of shooting BOTH John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit, as so many Internet conspiracy theorists seem to believe he was, then why did Oswald act like a guilty person in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63?

Do completely innocent people normally do the things we know Oswald did while he was being apprehended in the theater that day? -- E.G., pulling a gun on police officers and saying things like "It's all over now" and/or "This is it".

Those two verbal statements -- all by themselves -- are extremely incriminating circumstantial evidence against Lee Oswald.

How can conspiracy theorists who believe in Oswald's complete innocence (CTers such as J. Raymond Carroll, for instance) possibly explain those words that Oswald was said to have uttered within a theory that has Oswald shooting nobody at all on November 22, 1963?

And the Cops All Lied About What Oswald Said dodge is hardly a convincing argument in light of what arresting officers M.N. McDonald and Paul Bentley had to say the following day (11/23/63)....

And then there are also the statements that Oswald allegedly made in the police car on the way to City Hall....

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "What is this all about? I know my rights. .... Police officer been killed? I hear they burn for murder."

POLICE OFFICER C.T. WALKER -- "You might find out."

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Well, they say it just takes a second to die."

[Via Warren Commission testimony of C.T. Walker; at 7 H 40 and 7 H 41.]

Now, what would a reasonable, objective person make out of Oswald's comment -- "Well, they say it just takes a second to die"? Would a truly innocent person have uttered the words "it just takes a second to die"? That statement reeks with guilt and Oswald's guilty state-of-mind just after he was taken into custody.

David Von Pein

July 26, 2015

Edited July 26, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Jon G. Tidd]

DVP,

Apart from the fact that the DPD merely made allegations as to Oswald's behavior in the Texas Theater and never had to present those allegations to a jury at trial, I ask you to consider the behavior of Sandra Bland who was stopped by a Texas cop for not signaling a lane change. Bland was indignant and let the cop know in no uncertain terms. What offense did Bland commit? Her main offense, it's clear, was standing up to the cop.

When I get stopped for speeding, I'm all "Yes, sir. No, sir." That's because I know how the game is played and don't have any chip on my shoulder. Lots of individuals do have chips on their shoulders, however. That doesn't make them bad people. It indicates they're ordinary Americans who don't want to be hassled.

[David Von Pein]

Jon,

Did Ms. Bland whip out a .38 revolver and start fighting wildly with the police officer who stopped her for a lane change violation?

Was Ms. Bland apprehended just a few blocks from where a policeman had been shot and killed with a .38 revolver just 35 minutes previously?

Did Ms. Bland make any statements like "This is it" or "It's all over now"?

And, to extrapolate a little bit more here, was Ms. Bland's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the building from where the President of the United States was assassinated just 80 minutes before she was stopped by the police?

So, Jon, while you are no doubt correct when you say that "ordinary Americans don't want to be hassled", the circumstances that existed when comparing Lee Harvey Oswald's statements and actions to those of Sandra Bland are not even close to being similar.

In other words, Jon, the argument you just made is a desperate argument that a person might make when he knows he really doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the question I asked in my thread-starting post, which was this question----

If Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of shooting BOTH John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit, then why did Oswald act like a guilty person in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63?

Edited July 26, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Jon G. Tidd]

DVP,

We're talking here about two things: [1] police behavior, and [2] the behavior of ordinary citizens confronted by police.

We know from the Bland arrest and many other arrests about the overreaction of police. We also know about the reaction of citizens to being arrested. Some who were major perps caved at arrest (e.g., Ted Bundy). Some who were minor or not perps resisted.

You make lots of assumptions. I wish to keep assumptions to a minimum.

Question: What drives your thinking about the JFK assassination? Your conclusions? Or provable facts?

[David Josephs]

If Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of shooting BOTH John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit, as so many Internet conspiracy theorists seem to believe he was, then why did Oswald act like a guilty person in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63?

If Oswald was GUILTY would he not have had to assemble the rifle after retrieving from wherever he put it earlier that day?

Would he not have had to be at the window at the right time ready to fire?

Would he not have had to leave the gun as he walked across the 6th floor unheard... walk down the steps, unseen, get to the mechanical door ahead of Truly who was ahead of Baker and have the door close behind him?

Would we have found were this lone nut bought his ammo and clip and when and where he made the bag he brought the rifle to the TSBD in the back of Wesley's car?

Would we find out that Ruth and Michael remember this rifle being transported to their home in Sept 1963 in the back of Ruth's wagon - since it was an innocent rifle at that point... for target shooting like boys do....

But the Paine's do NOT see this innocent rifle in a blanket in their garage or have any idea how it got there...

So Dave... while his behavior when surrounded by and grabbed by police may not meet your standards for "innocent until proven guilty"... for him to actually be GUILTY of something, there needs to be proof he did it, not the supposition of an armchair QB 50 years after the fact about how he looked or acted or the compilation of FBI junk evidence which cannot be traced beyond the FBI itself.

Asking your own "If..then." question is a set-up... St Thomas Aquinas can prove the existence of God if allowed to assert his own conditions and understandings...

In each of the 5 we find at some point a needed assumption in fact... yours is that if you act guilty you must be guilty, regardless of the actual evidence. with that assumption (much like Specter asking if an exit wound is an exit wound of Dr Perry) there is not arguing your argument.. but only to get you to understand that your argument is tainted from its inception.

Maybe instead of disproving his innocence, prove his guilt.

St. Thomas Aquinas:

The Existence of God can be proved in five ways.

Argument Analysis of the Five Ways © 2004 Theodore Gracyk

The First Way: Argument from Motion

1. Our senses prove that some things are in motion.

2. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion.

3. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.

4. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another).

5. Therefore nothing can move itself.

6. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else.

7. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum.

8. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.

The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes

1. We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world.

2. Nothing exists prior to itself.

3. Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself.

4. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results.

5. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists.

6. The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now.

7. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.

The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument)

1. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings.

2. Assume that every being is a contingent being.

3. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist.

4. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist.

5. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed.

6. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence.

7. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now.

8. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being.

9. Therefore not every being is a contingent being.

10. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God.

The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being

1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others.

2. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest).

3. The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus.

4. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.

The Fifth Way: Argument from Design

1. We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance.

2. Most natural things lack knowledge.

3. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence.

4. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.

[James DiEugenio]

Davey, in all honesty, Hoosier Pride and all, let me ask you this:

Do you ever trace the history of an evidentiary point in this case, or see if there are any differing views in the official story by someone else who was there on the scene?

Because if you had in this case, you would have seen that if there is one cop who may be as bad as Gerry Hill as a witness, its McDonald. Either one of these guys would have been humiliated on the stand by a competent attorney.

http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-filthy-lies-of-nick-mcdonald.html

But further, that BS about the police blocking a shot by LHO in the theater, please. Please Davey. The FBI lab technician exposed that for a hoax many years ago. Gil Jesus once had that on his site. And we are supposed to believe you do not know that? Its ancient history, and you know it.

What's wrong, slow day at KFC today?

Edited July 26, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

DVP,

Apart from the fact that the DPD merely made allegations as to Oswald's behavior in the Texas Theater and never had to present those allegations to a jury at trial, I ask you to consider the behavior of Sandra Bland who was stopped by a Texas cop for not signaling a lane change. Bland was indignant and let the cop know in no uncertain terms. What offense did Bland commit? Her main offense, it's clear, was standing up to the cop.

When I get stopped for speeding, I'm all "Yes, sir. No, sir." That's because I know how the game is played and don't have any chip on my shoulder. Lots of individuals do have chips on their shoulders, however. That doesn't make them bad people. It indicates they're ordinary Americans who don't want to be hassled.

Jon,

Did Sandra Bland whip out a .38 revolver and start fighting wildly with the police officer who stopped her for a lane change violation?

Was Ms. Bland apprehended just a few blocks from where a policeman had been shot and killed with a .38 revolver just 35 minutes previously?

Did Ms. Bland make any statements like "This is it" or "It's all over now"?

And, to extrapolate a little bit more here, was Ms. Bland's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the building from where the President of the United States was assassinated just 80 minutes before she was stopped by the police?

So, Jon, while you are no doubt correct when you say that "ordinary Americans don't want to be hassled", the circumstances that existed when comparing Lee Harvey Oswald's statements and actions to those of Sandra Bland are not even close to being similar.

In other words, Jon, the argument you just made is a desperate argument that a person might make when he knows he really doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the question I asked in my thread-starting post, which was this question----

If Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of shooting BOTH John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit, then why did Oswald act like a guilty person in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63?

DVP,

We're talking here about two things: [1] police behavior, and [2] the behavior of ordinary citizens confronted by police.

We know from the Bland arrest and many other arrests about the overreaction of police. We also know about the reaction of citizens to being arrested. Some who were major perps caved at arrest (e.g., Ted Bundy). Some who were minor or not perps resisted.

You make lots of assumptions. I wish to keep assumptions to a minimum.

Jon,

In the case of Oswald's arrest in the Texas Theater, we know that Oswald pulled out a gun and was fighting with the policemen who were trying to get that gun away from him.

Did Sandra Bland pull out a gun?

And do you really think that I'm just dealing with "assumptions" when it comes to Oswald pulling a revolver out of his pants and fighting with the cops in the theater? You think those things are merely unproven "assumptions" on my part? Do you really believe that? If so, you've got to bring "ordinary American" Johnny Brewer into the alleged conspiracy and/or cover-up too, because Mr. Brewer was an eyewitness to Oswald's arrest in the movie theater and Brewer said that Lee Harvey Oswald had a gun in his hand during the scuffle with the police officers....

JOHHNY BREWER -- "McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air."

DAVID BELIN -- "Did you see from where the gun came?"

MR. BREWER -- "No."

MR. BELIN -- "You saw the gun up in the air?"

MR. BREWER -- "And somebody hollered "He's got a gun". And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I heard some of the police holler, I don't know who it was, "Kill the President, will you." And I saw fists flying and they were hitting him."

MR. BELIN -- "Was he fighting back at that time?"

MR. BREWER -- "Yes; he was fighting back."

[WC testimony of Johnny C. Brewer, at 7 H 6.]

Now, it's true that in Johnny Brewer's 12/6/63 affidavit, Brewer did not mention Oswald pulling out a gun in the theater. In his affidavit, however, Brewer did mention "the fight" that went on between Oswald and the police, plus the additional observation about how Oswald had "hit the officer and knocked him back".

But in subsequent statements, Brewer has maintained that Oswald had also pulled a gun on the arresting officers, such as in the 1986 video below....

And the 1964 CBS video linked below features separate interviews with Johnny Brewer and Police Officer M.N. McDonald. In McDonald's segment, he re-enacts the fight he had with Oswald (with Eddie Barker of KRLD-TV playing the part of Oswald). Do conspiracy theorists think Brewer and McDonald are telling a bunch of lies in that '64 CBS program?

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/warren-report-1964-cbs-tv.html

Question: What drives your thinking about the JFK assassination? Your conclusions? Or provable facts?

I think my conclusions are BASED on the "provable facts" in the JFK and Tippit murder cases. Such as....

...Oswald took a large-ish bag into the Book Depository Building on 11/22/63.

...Oswald lied about the contents of that bag.

...Oswald owned the rifle that killed President Kennedy.

...Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon in his hand 35 minutes after J.D. Tippit was killed with that same gun.

...Oswald did several unusual and out-of-the-ordinary things on Nov. 21 and Nov. 22, 1963.

The above things are, indeed, all "provable facts" as far as I am concerned. I know that many conspiracy promoters don't think ANY of the items listed above are "facts" at all. But the overall weight of the evidence and the testimony surrounding the above five facts would indicate that those conspiracy theorists are 100% wrong.

Edited October 7, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Davey, in all honesty, Hoosier Pride and all, let me ask you this:

Do you ever trace the history of an evidentiary point in this case, or see if there are any differing views in the official story by someone else who was there on the scene?

Because if you had in this case, you would have seen that if there is one cop who may be as bad as Gerry Hill as a witness, it's McDonald. Either one of these guys would have been humiliated on the stand by a competent attorney.

But further, that BS about the police blocking a shot by LHO in the theater, please. Please Davey. The FBI lab technician exposed that for a hoax many years ago. Gil Jesus once had that on his site. And we are supposed to believe you do not know that? It's ancient history, and you know it.

What's wrong, slow day at KFC today?

Good job, Jimmy. Just keep piling on those liars. Gerald Hill, Nick McDonald, Johnny Brewer. (In addition to Buell Frazier, Linnie Randle, Ruth Paine, Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, and Will Fritz, among dozens of others.)

Who's next on your Liars List, Jim? Julia Postal? Or is she already part of your "Let's Frame Oswald At All Costs" fantasy plot?

Good gravy, even Oswald himself admitted that he had a gun on him when he was arrested [WR, p.601].

But maybe Lee was trying to frame himself as the patsy, eh Jim? Or you can always pretend that Captain Fritz was lying again on page 601 of the Warren Report. But if you go down the "Fritz lied" road, you're going to have to deal with the report written on 11/22/63 by FBI agents Hosty and Bookhout, which says....

"Oswald admitted to carrying a pistol with him to this movie, stating he did this because he felt like it, giving no other reason. Oswald further admitted attempting to fight the Dallas police officers who arrested him in this movie theater when he received a cut and a bump." -- 11/22/63 FBI Report by James Bookhout and James Hosty; WR, p.613

More liars, right Jimmy?

It's never a slow day at the "Let's Pretend Everybody Was Lying In Order To Frame Lee Harvey Oswald" factory, is it Jimbo?

Edited July 27, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Related article....

EVERYTHING LEE HARVEY OSWALD DID INDICATES HIS GUILT

Edited July 27, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

[James DiEugenio]

Ok, Davey, see its not enough just to say, "Oh you say everyone is lying." And then post stuff from On Trial or CBS.

So just to show you what bad research you do, let us quote the actual article. First the whole "Well its all over now."

In this article, I discuss the various demonstrable lies told by DPD Officer Nick McDonald. As most researchers are aware, McDonald was the first DPD Officer to approach Oswald inside the Texas Theatre. McDonald had ordered Oswald to stand-up, after which Oswald allegedly yelled out “Well, it’s all over now” and then punched McDonald in the nose. After punching McDonald, Oswald allegedly reached for a revolver inside his belt and then tried to shoot McDonald (for a discussion of this issue, please refer to this article).

In this article, I explained that during an interview with WFAA-TV on the day following the assassination, McDonald claimed that just prior to being punched in the nose by Oswald, Oswald had allegedly shouted out “This is it”. However, in his arrest report to DPD chief Jesse Curry, McDonald now claimed that Oswald had shouted out “Well, it’s all over now” – and not “This is it”! During his Warren Commission testimony, and during subsequent interviews, McDonald maintained that Oswald had shouted out “Well, it’s all over now”.

As I have explained previously, no other DPD Officer or witness to Oswald’s arrest claimed they heard Oswald shout out the words “This is it”, or “Well, it’s all over now”. However, I had neglected to mention that DPD Officer Ray Hawkins claimed during his Warren Commission testimony that he heard McDonald shout out “This is it” – and not Oswald! The following is from Hawkins’s testimony.

[James DiEugenio]

Continuing in the deconstruction of Davey's favorite cop:

The following is from Hawkins’s testimony.

Mr. Ball

He was--he [McDonald] walked over to the right aisle, did he?

Mr. Hawkins

He walked from the right aisle and came in from the person's right. I was about three rows from--still in the same aisle, on the left aisle and about three rows from McDonald and Oswald when I heard him say, "I've got him," or "This is it," or some words to that effect.

Mr. Ball

Did you hear Oswald say anything?

Mr. Hawkins

Not at that time; no, sir; I did not

[James DiEugenio]

Continuing:

Given the fact that no other DPD Officer or witness to Oswald’s arrest recalled hearing him shout out what McDonald claimed, and given the fact that McDonald initially claimed Oswald shouted out “This is it” and then claimed Oswald shouted out “Well, it’s all over now”, common sense tells us that beyond a shadow of a doubt McDonald was lying. However, do dishonest lone gunman kooks mention any of this? Absolutely not.

(Please note: During an interview with researcher Ian Griggs in 1996, Johnny Brewer, who allegedly spotted Oswald outside his shoe store looking “funny/scared” claimed he heard Oswald say words to the effect “It’s over now”. However, he made no mention of this during his affidavit to the DPD in December 1963 (here), or in his interview with the FBI in March 1964 (here, page 14) or during his Warren Commission testimony.

As mentioned previously, none of the other arresting Officers ever claimed to have heard Oswald say anything prior to punching McDonald. Therefore, Brewer’s claim to Ian Griggs was a lie.)

[James DiEugenio]

Continuing with the evidence :

Let’s also keep in mind that McDonald claimed during his Warren Commission testimony that he was responsible for resolving the false alarm at the Jefferson Branch Library - following the broadcast by Officer Charles Walker on the DPD radio that he had seen the Tippit murderer run into the Library. The man Walker observed turned out to be Adrian Hamby, who worked at the Library as a Page.

The following is from McDonald’s testimony.

Mr. Ball

And did you get a call over your radio to go to a certain place?

Mr. McDonald

Well, there was a report from the dispatcher that a suspect was seen running into the public library at Marsalis and Jefferson.

Mr. Ball

You went down there?

Mr. McDonald

Yes, sir. I went directly to Denver Street, which is an alley at that point. It is still designated as Denver Street. I parked the squad car, took my shotgun, and went to the west basement entrance to the public library, and ordered the people in the basement, in the library outside. They came out with their hands up. The boy immediately said that he had just run into the library to tell the people that the President had been shot. He was a much younger person than what was broadcast on description on the radio.

[James DiEugenio]

Continuing with the evidence:

Unfortunately for McDonald’s claim, there is no support from any of McDonald’s fellow DPD Officers in their reports or in their Warren Commission testimonies, that McDonald was responsible for resolving the situation. In fact, the following is from Charles Walker’s Warren Commission testimony concerning the Library incident.

Mr. Belin

Then what did you do? Did you go into the library?

Mr. Walker

As soon as the squads got there, I walked around with the other squads to the west entrance of the building, and we ordered everyone out of the building. They all came out with their hands up.

Mr. Belin

Was this the upstairs?

Mr. Walker

No; it is the downstairs. You had to go downstairs to get to it.

Mr. Belin

Something like a basement?

Mr. Walker

Yes. It is a semi basement, I would call it. And everyone came out, and I saw the person that had run in there, and he said that he had ran there to tell the other people about the shooting. And let's see, that he worked there, he told me he worked there and everything. I soon determined he wasn't the one