Who Did it?

[Ron Ecker]

I'm an agnostic on that one.

Almost anything Holmes was in on that weekend was as fishy as a large can of tuna.

Hmm. But that sounds like you want to have your tuna and eat it too. If you allow that Fritz might have been "in" on Holmes delaying the transfer till Ruby arrived, in that scenario Fritz must have been aware of the reason, i.e. to have Ruby in place to kill Oswald. From which it follows that Fritz would want to get out of the way in the basement.

[James DiEugenio]

Ron:

Although the other side--like for example DVP and McAdams--likes to label me as a congenital conspiracy believer, just short of an illuminati buff, I do not think like that.

When I think the state of the evidence merits saying that something was up, then yes, I will do so e.g. CE 399, Oswald at 544 Camp Street etc.

In this case, I am not willing to go that far. I will only say that there is certainly a suggestion there. So although I think that Fritz was negligent in what he did, I will not go as far as to say it was planned to get Oswald killed.

Edited September 5, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Ecker]

James, I certainly agree with your approach. I believe in going only as far as the evidence takes us. I don't know if Fritz was "in" on the killing of Oswald or not. But I will say that the delay in the transfer by Fritz letting Holmes question Oswald till Ruby arrived, then Fritz breaking formation in the basement, are two back-to-back coincidences in the many significant coincidences that seem to litter the official stories of events like Dallas and 9/11. I hate coincidences. And I certainly agree that the general subject of Holmes opens a big can of tuna.

[Kenneth Drew]

I'm down-sizing. I went today to a resale store in Canton, Connecticut. And dropped off most of my books on the JFK assassination. I still need to drop off "Hit List" and Doug Horne's volumes and some others. I'm down-sizing.

The guy who owns the resale store asked me, who did it? I said, "No one knows."

No one knows.

If you know, please post here.

I'll buy some of those books Jon... the Horne volumes for sure (I have #4)

You want an address and SS# of the killers?

The Angleton/Dulles Memo counter signed by Helms stating "we did it"?

Ron is right, kind of. IMO, The MICC is not really the government. The government is a facade like so many others for the MICC at this point.

Jon - just ask yourself one question -

Who could tell 2 Rear admirals and a 4 star AF general what to do with the body of the POTUS so it appears the kill shot was fired from behind even though it was not while - under threat of court martial - made sure nothing was said to anyone for as long as possible?

You honestly believe that LeMay would listen to Dulles or Helms? to Hoover or Johnson?

This was a Military Industrial Congressional Complex backed assassination to retain the status quo... the "I" makes the stuff, the "M" buys the stuff and the "C" pays for the stuff.

Send me a list of the books you want to sell in a PM - I'm completely serious

David, you didn't answer the 'who did it', you only answered the 'what did it' part of the question, or maybe 'why it was done' part. The 'who' would need to include the name of the person that gave the order and the persons on the ground doing the shooting. The coverup part was additional also.

I believe that I could write a list of 10 names and the person that gave the 'go ahead' would be on the list. That's about as close as I could get.

[Kenneth Drew]

Who Did it? .... If you know, please post here.

Here's how that opens: "When one piece of evidence that favors Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt is piled atop another, and another, and another....I'm just curious to know how many pieces of evidence that show Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy in 1963 it takes to sway a person away from the notion of conspiracy? Or, if nothing else, to sway that person away from the "Oswald is completely innocent" claims?

From everything I can see, it's a veritable mountain of "Oswald Is Guilty" evidence (both circumstantial and physical). And not a single speck of it has been shown to be refutable with 100% absolute certainty."

Does anyone 'well, other than DVP see the problem with that? Take this little bitty detail: "And not a single speck of it has been shown to be refutable with 100% absolute certainty." To be correct, lt should read: And not a single speck of it has been shown to be true with 100% absolute certainty." And that is what is required. So LHO can't be 'backed into' a conviction. No one is convicted because the evidence can't be refuted, they can only be convicted if the evidence is proven.

[Kenneth Drew]

DVP: I'm on your side. I want to believe what you do. You don't persuade me.

And just how many "things" (which is a word I'll use since you don't like for me to call the evidence "evidence", seeing as how it never crossed a courtroom's threshold) would it take for you to be "persuaded"? 250 things? 1,000? How many? Because apparently the few dozen or so "things" that currently all point toward Lee Oswald aren't nearly enough.

Are they, Jon?

So....how many things does it take?

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops," with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "evil geniuses," with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths"

And just how many "things" (which is a word I'll use since you don't like for me to call the evidence "evidence", seeing as how it never crossed a courtroom's threshold) would it take for you to be "persuaded"?

Actually DVP, only 1. So far you have not shown one single piece of evidence that proves LHO is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not one piece. Piling sh*t higher doesn't make it stink less.

[Kenneth Drew]

If Oswald did it pretty much as the W.C. said, I'd say the U.S. Government has done an incredibly weak job of pinning the murder(s) on him, and many questions remain unanswered. Such as why did Oswald bring only four bullets, at least one of which was a re-load, to the shooting perch? Or why was Oswald so nonchalant when (supposedly) confronted by Marion Baker, pistol drawn? I admit that if Oswald did it, these questions are interesting; but the only book worth reading is the unwritten book about Oswald's psyche.

If Oswald didn't do it, all bets are off. Nothing is beyond the pale. Fabrication of the Z-film: can't be ruled out. Fabrication of autopsy photos and x-rays: can't be ruled out. Harvey and Lee: can't be ruled out. And so on.

I can go either way, in principle. Truth is, no matter which way it goes down, I'm troubled. If Oswald did do it, how the hell did he make two good shots, miss so badly with a third shot, and leave behind a rickety rifle having a barrel that rusted-up by the next morning? If Oswald didn't do it, why isn't there clear and convincing medical stuff consistent with his having done it?

If Oswald didn't do it, why have no other perps been identified? I know, Mac Wallace. Mossad. Corsican snipers. Richard Kane. James Files. The list goes on.

For argumentative purposes, I'll side with DVP. Not because of the way he presents his argument. But because, if I don't care about the truth, I just don't care.

But because, if I don't care about the truth, I just don't care. If the best you can do is 'LHO did it' then you just don't care.

[David Von Pein]

You shouldn't have stopped at the second paragraph of my "Oswald Is Guilty" page, Kenny.....

"Does the average researcher just simply ignore all of the evidence that supports Oswald's lone guilt (and every bit of hard evidence supports it), or is the idea of a conspiracy in JFK's assassination so ingrained into subsequent generations of people since the event took place that they feel they have no choice BUT to go with the flow and believe the conspiracy theorists?

For I ask --- How could ALL of the following evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald have been either fabricated, planted, distorted, or in some manner faked? There's just TOO MUCH stuff here on the "Oswald Did It" table to ignore.

Granted, I'd agree that perhaps one or two of these things could have been manufactured to set up a patsy. But ALL of these items?! And complete silence be maintained by the many, many operatives who must certainly have been involved in the acts themselves and ensuing 40-year cover-up?!

Common sense (to me) dictates otherwise. And the "otherwise" leads anybody who isn't prone to cry "Conspiracy!" at every turn in the road to finally envision the fact that 24-year-old Lee Oswald was a lone nut who DID indeed pull off what the majority of people say couldn't happen in a million years." -- DVP

Edited September 5, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Kenneth Drew]

You shouldn't have stopped at the second paragraph of my "Oswald Is Guilty" page, Kenny.....

"Does the average researcher just simply ignore all of the evidence that supports Oswald's lone guilt (and every bit of hard evidence supports it), or is the idea of a conspiracy in JFK's assassination so ingrained into subsequent generations of people since the event took place that they feel they have no choice BUT to go with the flow and believe the conspiracy theorists?

For I ask --- How could ALL of the following evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald have been either fabricated, planted, distorted, or in some manner faked? There's just TOO MUCH stuff here on the "Oswald Did It" table to ignore.

Granted, I'd agree that perhaps one or two of these things could have been manufactured to set up a patsy. But ALL of these items?! And complete silence be maintained by the many, many operatives who must certainly have been involved in the acts themselves and ensuing 40-year cover-up?!

Common sense (to me) dictates otherwise. And the "otherwise" leads anybody who isn't prone to cry "Conspiracy!" at every turn in the road to finally envision the fact that 24-year-old Lee Oswald was a lone nut who DID indeed pull off what the majority of people say couldn't happen in a million years." -- DVP

"Common sense (to me) dictates otherwise." Common sense? Does common sense tell you that guilt is not judged on 'common sense'? It's judged on evidence and facts.

Edited September 6, 2015 by Kenneth Drew

[Kathleen Collins]

I'm down-sizing. I went today to a resale store in Canton, Connecticut. And dropped off most of my books on the JFK assassination. I still need to drop off "Hit List" and Doug Horne's volumes and some others. I'm down-sizing.

Jon, don't get rid of Hit List. I'm mentioned in Chap.6 re Karyn Kupcinet. As for who did it, the butler, as usual.

Kathy C

Edited September 6, 2015 by Kathleen Collins

[Jon G. Tidd]

Here's how it came down.

There were lots of powerful individuals who [a] wanted JFK dead, and wanted LBJ as president.

Why LBJ? Because he would reverse JFK's foreign policies. Foreign policies. At the time, the U.S. dominated the world politically. It had the most money and was the greatest military power. Foreign policy was important. JFK leaned one way; LBJ leaned the other.

JFK was a problem. To many individuals. And some countries.

JFK had to be killed. The killing had to be covered up. In order to avoid examining the foreign policies JFK favored.

[David Von Pein]

And a lot of JFK's enemies sure got lucky that Lee Oswald chose (on his own) to do their dirty work for them, thereby keeping the hands of all of Kennedy's "enemies" clean.

Didn't they, Jon?

[James DiEugenio]

"Keeping the hands of all of Kennedy's enemies clean."

Ok.

In the summer of 1963, Oswald was at Guy Bannister's office doing leafleting on his phony Fair Play for Cuba Committee, of which he was the only member in all of New Orleans. When Banister, who hated Kennedy, found out about Oswald printing his address on this leafleting material, he was aghast. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 111)

That summer, James Arthus, the custodian at the Camp Street address who covered up for Bannister, suggested to Guy that they send a dead rat to the White House. (ibid, p. 116)

David Ferrie, who Oswald was also seen with that summer, made speeches against Kennedy for his alleged mishandling of the Bay of Pigs. Bannister tried to cover this up for his pal Dave. (ibid, p. 115)

Clay Shaw, also seen with Oswald that summer, offered to pay a gubernatorial candidate to harangue JFK in order for him to visit New Orleans. (ibid, p. 217)

The anti-FPCC campaign run out of the CIA was co helmed by David Phillips, a man who made several anti-Kennedy remarks, and then was seen with Oswald in Dallas. (ibid, p. 158) Phillips then told numerous lies about Oswald being in Mexico City before confessing later that there would be no evidence linking Oswald with the Soviet Embassy. Before he died, Phillips weepingly admitted to his brother he had been in Dallas the day Kennedy was killed. (ibid, pgs. 354, 363, 364)

Allen Dulles used to joke about how his good friend Mary Bancroft was the best friend of Michael Paine's mother, where Oswald stayed in Dallas when he returned from New Orleans. (ibid, pgs. 197-98) Dulles, while on the WC, then conspired with the FBI on how to keep secret any Oswald ties to the intelligence community.

This was fairly easy to do. Why? Because the man who ended up the main liaison to the WC for the CIA was James Angleton, who actually carried Dulles' cremated ashes at his funeral. But beyond that, it was Angleton who had control of the Oswald files at the CIA. When news of Oswald's defection came in from Russia, it was filed properly at FBI and ONI but not at CIA. At CIA it did not go to Soviet Russia division, it went to CI SIG, Angleton's mole hunting group. (ibid, pgs. 141-42) Further, no 201 file was opened by Angleton until a year after the defection, a fact that no on in the CIA, including Helms could explain.

But yet Angleton did have Oswald on the very small HT LINGUAL mail intercept program. Let's see, tens of thousands of people had 201 files opened up on them, but yet only 300 were in the mail intercept program. (ibid, pgs. 142-44) Kind of weird status for Oswald with Angleton, eh?

Now, you will not see one word about any of this in the WR. Not a word about Guy Bannister, Ferrie, or Shaw. Not a word about the associations of Ruth and Michael Paine with anyone at all. Incredibly, in 19,000 pages the name of David Phillips does not appear. Even though the indications are Phillips was tracking Oswald from New Orleans, to MC to Dallas that summer and fall. Not a word about the CIA's anti FPCC program is in the WR. And finally there is not a word about the CIA directing George DeMohrenschildt to befriend Oswald when he returned from Russia. (ibid, p. 194)

As the late Sen. Richard Schweiker once said, Oswald had the fingerprints of intelligence all over him. And these prints should have set an iinvestigatory trail to a conspiracy.

It was the function of the WC to erase that trail. And with Allen Dulles on board, they did.

See what happens to you when you take Jean Davison seriously? http://www.ctka.net/2014_reviews/Davison%20review.html

Today, the life and character of Oswald are an absolute loser for the other side. They should not touch it at all.

Edited September 7, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Kenneth Drew]

Good job, David G. Healy. Just pretend that nobody has ever "built a case" to prove Oswald guilty, even though you know damn well that many people have done so.

That sand is nearly covering the top of your head, Dave. How can you breathe?

Wonder why nobody has ever taken Barry Krusch's money on his bet?

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, here is more on Jean Davison

http://www.ctka.net/2014/Davison%20update.html

For the record, in addition to the Russian test, and also Quinn saying Oswald spoke fluent Russian while in the USA, I talked to Ernest Titovets in Washington last year. Titovets was one of Oswald's best friends in Minsk. He told me that when he met Oswald, he spoke Russian quite well. I asked him about how long this was after LHO arrived there, he said about 11 months.

So in addition to the positive evidence of Quinn, and the Russian test, and the WC report about Monterrey, there is now Titovets.

The idea that somehow Oswald could have learned Russian while in the USSR, without any formal instruction is what I call a Davisonism. For what that means, see my review.

Edited September 7, 2015 by James DiEugenio