How Would You Defend Lee Harvey Oswald In A Court Of Law?

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Robert Morrow said:

Did it ever occur to you that JFK was thrust a tad forward when Greer hit the brakes after the first shots because he knew/suspected that the limo was being hit in an ambush and he did not know exactly what to do.

Whenever I drive a car and have to slam on the brakes, items in my car are tossed forward.

But the major and blatantly obvious move is JFK's head being tossed hard "back and to the left" which implies a head kill shot from the front right, i.e. behind the stockade fence on the Grassy Knoll.

 

 

Nothing else in the car is thrusted a tad forward except for the President's head.

A bullet striking the head from the right front will NOT toss the body hard back and to the left.

You're acting like Kennedy was struck with a baseball bat.

 

[Greg Doudna]

Steve Roe, nothing you cite has relevance to my interpretation of Vaganov, who was not at the Tippit crime scene, was not a gunman, did not shoot Tippit, and had not the least thing to do with the killer’s abandoned jacket. I am quite familiar with the Esquire article. Salandria’s involvement and views have no relevance. The facts of Vaganov are what are relevant, and something that was not raised in that Esquire article or in earlier discussions of Vaganov: the identification of the red car seen by mechanic White as Vaganov’s car, bearing the license plate number of a contact of Tippit.

The fact that Fonzi, Thompson, Salandria et al found nothing on Vaganov to confirm their suspicions does not really explain the facts of the location, timeline, and movements of Vaganov adequately. And that is apart from the startling license plate number on his car that day. That Mather license plate number seen on the red car by mechanic White ties Vaganov to the Tippit case, the only issue being in what way. I suppose it was Vaganov was an intended driver for Craford, and the license plate covert switching and then switching back business was preemptive of plates that would be traceable to Vaganov if reported. Are you aware of a satisfactory alternative explanation for Mather’s plate number on a red non-Mather car in Oak Cliff in the hours of the Tippit killing? 

Do you conclusively exclude that red car seen by mechanic White was Vaganov’s? It fits the time frame Vaganov was away from his Oak Cliff apartment that day, it occurred only several blocks from his apartment, it is a car seen acting suspiciously by White at the time… what better explanation of the startling license plate number on that car than to connect it to Vaganov’s strange behavior with his red car?

Edited 13 hours ago by Greg Doudna

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Bill Brown said:

Nothing else in the car is thrusted a tad forward except for the President's head.

Not according to Itek Corp. They concluded from their film study that Jackie moved forward between Z312 and 313 essentially the same amount as JFK. Their explanation was that the bullet transferred momentum through JFK’s chest into her hand, or something like that. 

I don’t know how credible it is, since it’s not really visible in the film, but it’s worth mentioning at least. I haven’t seen anyone try to refute it. 
 

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

A bullet striking the head from the right front will NOT toss the body hard back and to the left.

You know that how, exactly? Do you believe the same would apply to a tangential strike?

[Benjamin Cole]

7 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Fact:  A bullet fired from the right front and striking the head will NOT cause the body to be pushed violently back and to the left.

 

Bill Brown:

Thanks for your comment. 

You may be right. 

But whenever I see the Z film, regular or slo-mo, what I see is JFK being pushed violently back to his left.

And then all the witnesses, earnest and honest, including the sheriff and chief of police, who thought shots came from the GK area. Sam Holland saw gunsmoke. 

You might well get a hung jury. Maybe for the wrong reasons, or maybe for the right reasons. 

Reasonable doubt. 

[David Von Pein]

15 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

...that license plate number seen on Vaganov’s car in Oak Cliff that belongs to Tippit’s friend Carl Mather of Collins Radio who doesn’t live anywhere near Oak Cliff. Nobody on the Oswald LN side has explained that. Myers doesn’t. I doubt you have (willing to be corrected if you have). Vaganov looks like he was sent down by some mob boss in Philadelphia, Bruno probably, to just be helpful. Vaganov by his own account spent time in the building Craford lived, of all places in Dallas, the day or two before the Tippit killing. A car matching Vaganov’s red car description was sighted in front of Ruby’s apartment a few blocks away from the Tippit crime scene, at approximately the time Tippit was killed by his killer seen arriving walking from the east as if coming from Ruby’s apartment which agrees with that is where the car-less Craford could have been the night before since he was last seen with Ruby the previous night.

I'm confused about something here....

There are conspiracy theorists who seem to want to believe that the "red Ford" [6 H 453] that was in front of witness Domingo Benavides at the time of Officer Tippit's murder was, in fact, the red Ford Thunderbird owned by Igor Vaganov.

And there are apparently some conspiracists who also want to believe that Igor Vaganov was the person who actually killed J.D. Tippit.

So my question is: How could Vaganov have shot Tippit at the exact same time he was driving down Tenth Street in his red Thunderbird?

All of the witnesses said that Tippit's killer was walking on the sidewalk just before the shooting. Nobody ever said the killer was shooting from a moving car.

Please, Greg D. (or anyone else), help me understand this strange set of beliefs that some CTers seem to possess.

Are there some CTers who think Vaganov shot Tippit from the sidewalk and that somebody else was driving the Thunderbird? And was the Thunderbird supposedly the "getaway car" that Vaganov then jumped into after the shooting?

P.S. / BTW / FYI / FWIW....

For a look at the two-page endnote concerning the topic of Igor "Turk" Vaganov in Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", CLICK HERE.

 

Edited 6 hours ago by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

I'm confused about something here....

There are conspiracy theorists who seem to want to believe that the "red Ford" [6 H 453] that was in front of witness Domingo Benavides at the time of Officer Tippit's murder was, in fact, the red Ford Thunderbird owned by Igor Vaganov.

And there are apparently some conspiracists who also want to believe that Igor Vaganov was the person who actually killed J.D. Tippit.

So my question is: How could Vaganov have shot Tippit at the exact same time he was driving down Tenth Street in his red Thunderbird?

All of the witnesses said that Tippit's killer was walking on the sidewalk just before the shooting. Nobody ever said the killer was shooting from a moving car.

Please, Greg D. (or anyone else), help me understand this strange set of beliefs that some CTers seem to possess.

Are there some CTers who think Vaganov shot Tippit from the sidewalk and that somebody else was driving the Thunderbird? And was the Thunderbird supposedly the "getaway car" that Vaganov then jumped into after the shooting?

P.S. / BTW / FYI / FWIW....

For a look at the two-page endnote concerning the topic of Igor "Turk" Vaganov in Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", CLICK HERE.

David since this has nothing to do with what I said about Vaganov I have no idea why you are addressing your question to me as to why someone else might think something else. 

In fact I wonder why you are making this comment at all after quoting me. It is completely nonresponsive.

It has the effect of making a careless reader lump me in with the objects of your ridicule. 

You quote me, and then first words "I'm confused about something here" and go off on your tangent as if that has anything to do with what I wrote.  

This isn't going anywhere. I think I've lost interest in further engagement here.  

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

This isn't going anywhere. I think I've lost interest in further engagement here.  

OK. Whatever.

[Benjamin Cole]

Question to LN'ers:

Thank you for your views and contributions, even if I disagree. 

But...if LHO was just and only an LN'er...

What explains the Biden Administration Snuff Job  on the JFK Records Act?

It is clear is that as soon as Biden became President, AG Merrick Garland began working on the expansive, detailed, epic, and utterly cynical legal chicanery to perp a permanent snuff job on the JFK Records. 

The Biden-Garland Justice Department must have spent thousands of lawyer-hours devising this disreputable scheme and legal fiction, including the Orwellian "Transparency Board"---an entirely new creation and agency from whole cloth---all to thwart law and Congressional intent, and to keep the public from seeing the JFK Records. 

And not only that! Now the Biden-Garland Justice Department is spending more thousands of lawyer-hours (and, copiously, your tax dollars) to try to defeat earnest public-interest lawyers in court, including the Mary Ferrell Foundation legal team, who want the JFK Records Act laws to be complied with. 

Really...LHO just a LN, not connected to the CIA in any way? Does that hold water? 

You never wonder, "Why is the Biden Administration going to extreme, sustained, carefully planned, anti-democratic and illegal lengths to suppress the JFK Records?"

[Johnny Cairns]

@David Von Pein “I’m your Huckleberry… that just my game”. 
 

Although the premise under which the thread has been started, is to me, very misleading. Instead of asking people how would “you” defend Lee Oswald in court of law, I would propose that the central question be changed to reflect the reality of the situation; “How would Henry Wade have proven Lee Oswald's guilt, in the murder of Jack Kennedy, Beyond a reasonable doubt in a Court of Law”. 
 

In criminal cases in the United States, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is the highest standard of proof in the U.S. legal system and requires the prosecution to present evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt in the mind of a rational person that the defendant committed the crime. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution must overcome this presumption with sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

Now that has been established, I have a simple question to kick off proceedings. Are you claiming that the back of President Kennedys was not violently damaged in anyway shape or form during the assassination but remained; in your words, “completely intact”? Yes or No?

Edited 1 hour ago by Johnny Cairns

[Benjamin Cole]

33 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

@David Von Pein “I’m your Huckleberry… that just my game”. 
 

Although the premise under which the thread has been started, is to me, very misleading. Instead of asking people how would “you” defend Lee Oswald in court of law, I would propose that the central question be changed to reflect the reality of the situation; “How would Henry Wade have proven Lee Oswald's guilt, in the murder of Jack Kennedy, Beyond a reasonable doubt in a Court of Law”. 
 

In criminal cases in the United States, the burden of proof rests on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This is the highest standard of proof in the U.S. legal system and requires the prosecution to present evidence that leaves no reasonable doubt in the mind of a rational person that the defendant committed the crime. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, and the prosecution must overcome this presumption with sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

Now that has been established, I have a simple question to kick off proceedings. Are you claiming that the back of President Kennedys was not violently damaged in anyway shape or form during the assassination but remained; in your words, “completely intact”? Yes or No?

Right. 12 jurors, all convinced "beyond reasonable doubt" that LHO was the lone assassin? Tough call. 

But...maybe Wade would have conceded multiple gunshots and directions, and gone after LHO as a co-conspirator who refuses to turn state evidence and so deserves the chair. 

[David Von Pein]

46 minutes ago, Johnny Cairns said:

Are you claiming that the back of President Kennedy's [head] was not violently damaged in any way, shape, or form during the assassination but remained, in your words, “completely intact”? Yes or No?

I am claiming that there was no large "blowout" type of wound in the back of JFK's head. And the autopsy photos (authenticated by the HSCA as unaltered in any way) bear out such a "no blowout" conclusion, without a doubt. And the Zapruder Film supports that same conclusion as well.

There are certainly fractures and cracks in the back of the head, that's for sure. But the kind of massive damage (including MISSING SKULL & SCALP) described by the Parkland witnesses simply does not exist, and the photos and X-rays prove it....

 

Edited 29 minutes ago by David Von Pein