Taking seriously Oswald's front steps alibi claim

[Greg Doudna]

 

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

In Summary....

The sum total of all the evidence in both the JFK and Tippit murder cases most certainly indicates that Lee Oswald was (beyond reasonable doubt, IMO) guilty of shooting both of those men with his own guns.

An issue of evidence

Just to get this straight, you cite three reasons which "certainly", "beyond reasonable doubt" establish the sixth floor shooter was Oswald:

• more likely Oswald would shoot a rifle that belonged to him than someone else.
• Brennan.
• no positive evidence it was someone else.

Brennan, who was about the only positive identification claim of a witness that the sixth floor shooter was Oswald, saw the sixth floor shooter from Elm Street at street level. Brennan's distance from the shooter's face I am going to guess at maybe 80-90 feet or ca. 25-30 meters, based upon six-story buildings are roughly 60 feet from the ground.

According to this 2019 study (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311908.2019.1632047#abstract), eyewitness accuracy at 20 meters was found to be:

• in bright lighting witnesses get the right person out of an 8-person lineup 53% of the time;
• in medium lighting witnesses get the right person out of an 8-person lineup 41% of the time;
• and in poor lighting witnesses get the right person out of an 8-person lineup 11% of the time which is not better than chance.

Which lighting description and percentage of accuracy confidence would best describe the shooter's face Brennan saw at the sixth floor?

On the rifle, Oswald took that rifle out of Ruth Paine's garage on Nov 11, 1963 and there is no evidence it was returned to Ruth Paine's garage that day or after, and no evidence of its possession or whereabouts for the next 11 days until the day of the assassination, Nov 22, 1963 (https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Irving-Sport-Shop-109-pdf.pdf).

That's an 11-day black hole gap in information of where that rifle was before the assassination. That is so serious evidentially that nothing should be assumed that is not clearly established about the rifle's movements and custody in those eleven days leading up to Nov 22.

There have always been issues with confidence that it was Oswald shooting from the 6th floor. None of this is new:

• no target practice
• lack of rifle cleaning supplies or rifle ammo found among his stuff
• history of being a bad shot
• paraffin tests came up clean for gunshot residue on his cheek
• no credible witness identification

To which may be added one more now which is new:

• He said he was on the front steps at the entrance of the Book Depository at the time of the shooting. A photo shows he was.  

[David Von Pein]

26 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Just to get this straight, you cite three reasons which "certainly", "beyond reasonable doubt" establish the sixth floor shooter was Oswald...

You have not stated this correctly. When I utilized the words you placed in quotes ("certainly" and "beyond reasonable doubt"), I wasn't only referring to Brennan's testimony and Oswald's rifle. I was referring to "all the evidence in both the JFK and Tippit murder cases" (which certainly includes a lot more than just Brennan and the rifle). Here's the full quote:

"The sum total of all the evidence in both the JFK and Tippit murder cases most certainly indicates that Lee Oswald was (beyond reasonable doubt, IMO) guilty of shooting both of those men with his own guns." -- DVP

 

Edited Wednesday at 08:12 AM by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

15 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

You have not stated this correctly. When I utilized the words you placed in quotes ("certainly" and "beyond reasonable doubt"), I was referring not just to Brennan's testimony and the fact that Oswald would probably be the murderer while using his own rifle. I was referring to "all the evidence in both the JFK and Tippit murder cases" (which certainly includes a lot more than just Brennan and the rifle). Here's the full quote:

"The sum total of all the evidence in both the JFK and Tippit murder cases most certainly indicates that Lee Oswald was (beyond reasonable doubt, IMO) guilty of shooting both of those men with his own guns." -- DVP

But what among that evidence makes him the shooter, specifically, as opposed to your arguments making him involved in a JFKA conspiracy not necessarily requiring him at the 6th floor?

That’s the issue here—how do you know his role in the assassination was 6th floor shooter, and not some other role?

Don’t pass this off with a hand wave. How do you know what you think you know?

Do you feel certain PM was not Oswald, and if so why do you think you know that? 

Edited Wednesday at 08:24 AM by Greg Doudna

[David Von Pein]

43 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

But what among that evidence makes him the shooter, specifically, as opposed to your arguments making him involved in a JFKA conspiracy not necessarily requiring him at the 6th floor?

As I stated earlier, it's ALL of the evidence in its entirety that convicts Oswald, IMO.

And there's the fact that no strangers were seen in the building by anyone on 11/22 (except for the old man using the bathroom on the 1st floor).

Do you really believe that Oswald gave some stranger his rifle, and the stranger then shot JFK with it? Plus, the stranger/assassin somehow managed to GET INTO and OUT OF the building totally unnoticed by anyone who worked in the TSBD? (Not an impossible task, I suppose, but does it sound very probable?)

Or, as an alternative to the "stranger" theory, do you perhaps think that Oswald handed off his Carcano to a fellow TSBD employee?

 

Edited Wednesday at 09:08 AM by David Von Pein

[Joseph McBride]

Oswald did not own the rifle or the handgun

entered into what he called "all this so-called

evidence." There is no actual proof

that he owned those weapons.

So your premise makes no sense.

"Don't believe all this so-called evidence,"

he told his brother Robert on November 23.

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Joseph McBride said:

Oswald did not own the rifle or the handgun

entered into what he called "all this so-called

evidence." There is no actual proof

that he owned those weapons.

So your premise makes no sense.

"Don't believe all this so-called evidence,"

he told his brother Robert on November 23.

No actual proof besides the photos taken of him holding both weapons, the testimony of his wife that she saw him dry fire the rifle in the months before the assassination, the extant order forms for both weapons…

[Ron Ege]

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

An issue of evidence

Just to get this straight, you cite three reasons which "certainly", "beyond reasonable doubt" establish the sixth floor shooter was Oswald:

• more likely Oswald would shoot a rifle that belonged to him than someone else.
• Brennan.
• no positive evidence it was someone else.

Brennan, who was about the only positive identification claim of a witness that the sixth floor shooter was Oswald, saw the sixth floor shooter from Elm Street at street level. Brennan's distance from the shooter's face I am going to guess at maybe 80-90 feet or ca. 25-30 meters, based upon six-story buildings are roughly 60 feet from the ground.

According to this 2019 study (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311908.2019.1632047#abstract), eyewitness accuracy at 20 meters was found to be:

• in bright lighting witnesses get the right person out of an 8-person lineup 53% of the time;
• in medium lighting witnesses get the right person out of an 8-person lineup 41% of the time;
• and in poor lighting witnesses get the right person out of an 8-person lineup 11% of the time which is not better than chance.

Which lighting description and percentage of accuracy confidence would best describe the shooter's face Brennan saw at the sixth floor?

On the rifle, Oswald took that rifle out of Ruth Paine's garage on Nov 11, 1963 and there is no evidence it was returned to Ruth Paine's garage that day or after, and no evidence of its possession or whereabouts for the next 11 days until the day of the assassination, Nov 22, 1963 (https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Irving-Sport-Shop-109-pdf.pdf).

That's an 11-day black hole gap in information of where that rifle was before the assassination. That is so serious evidentially that nothing should be assumed that is not clearly established about the rifle's movements and custody in those eleven days leading up to Nov 22.

There have always been issues with confidence that it was Oswald shooting from the 6th floor. None of this is new:

• no target practice
• lack of rifle cleaning supplies or rifle ammo found among his stuff
• history of being a bad shot
• paraffin tests came up clean for gunshot residue on his cheek
• no credible witness identification

To which may be added one more now which is new:

• He said he was on the front steps at the entrance of the Book Depository at the time of the shooting. A photo shows he was.  

Greg, as always - thank you. 

Just wondering, did Jessy Curry ever retract this?

". . . We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand."

Source:

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcurryJ.htm#:~:text=He told interviewer Tom Johnson that he was,Book Depository) with a gun i

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

30 minutes ago, Ron Ege said:

Greg, as always - thank you. 

Just wondering, did Jessy Curry ever retract this?

". . . We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in the building (Texas School Book Depository) with a gun in his hand."

Source:

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcurryJ.htm#:~:text=He told interviewer Tom Johnson that he was,Book Depository) with a gun i

Exactly Ron, thanks for finding the quote.

You have that statement from Curry, which is accurate description, against a photo evidence argument putting Oswald somewhere else in the exact position he told interrogators he was with information he could hardly have known if it wasn’t true (standing close to Shelley) … that is not excluded as identifiable as Oswald on photographic grounds by any known credible expert testimony, and has not been shown otherwise identified.

Where’s the basis then for some people’s certainty that wasn’t him on the front steps in that film clip right where he claimed he was—the “that CAN’T be true” reaction— if there’s no direct evidence argument it isn’t true? 

As I tried to show in the exchange with David, even if Oswald was guilty in the assassination, if so, for the reasons named by David, that does not answer the front steps location issue for David because how does David know the assassination was not carried out by a conspiracy in which Oswald played a non-shooting role? David hasn’t as yet given much of an explanation on how he thinks he is certain he knows that. 

Just to be clear, I do not believe it is known nor do I embrace that Oswald was a witting part of a conspiracy with intent on Oswald’s part to see Kennedy killed, in for Oswald a non-shooting role. But what I believe is irrelevant to the question asked of David, which is how does HE know that isn’t true, and cannot be the figure in the photograph on the front steps. 

[Greg Doudna]

I don’t think it is sufficiently appreciated that the claim by Oswald to his interrogators that he was on the first floor at the time, which is a matter of record, if true, itself and alone puts him out on the front steps.

Because that is where Oswald on the first floor would be expected to go.

It’s basic, simple, and obvious, if he were telling the truth that he was on the first floor. 

That is why it is or ought to be taken seriously that somebody who looks like him and is not identified as anyone else, is in film footage of the front steps.

Edited Wednesday at 05:59 PM by Greg Doudna

[Joseph McBride]

Armstrong's HARVEY & LEE has extensive, highly detailed

and documented chapters demonstrating that the so-called

evidence linking Oswald to the weapons placed into evidence

is false and does not link him to the weapons. He studies

and deconstructs the paper trails on both at great length.

The handgun was planted at the theater. And

the original rifle found (planted) at the TSBD was a Mauser, not

a Mannlicher-Carcano.

 

Jonathan will offer one of his perfunctory denials to

satisfy his position here, so I will just note that so

we can move on to more productive topics. He and David et al just want to keep

denying more than sixty years of independent research by scholars deconstructing

the officlal lying version that framed Oswald.

Edited Wednesday at 08:11 PM by Joseph McBride

[Jonathan Cohen]

43 minutes ago, Joseph McBride said:

Armstrong's HARVEY & LEE has extensive, highly detailed

and documented chapters demonstrating that the so-called

evidence linking Oswald to the weapons placed into evidence

is false and does not link him to the weapons. He studies

and deconstructs the paper trails on both at great length.

The handgun was planted at the theater. And

the original rifle found (planted) at the TSBD was a Mauser, not

a Mannlicher-Carcano.

 

Jonathan will offer one of his perfunctory denials to

satisfy his position here, so I will just note that so

we can move on to more productive topics. He and David et al just want to keep

denying more than sixty years of independent research by scholars deconstructing

the officlal lying version that framed Oswald.

Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" isn't worth the paper it was printed on, which is why it is the laughingstock of the JFK assassination research community. He, and you, apparently, are the ones "denying" a mountain of evidence that Oswald owned the rifle and the pistol - not me.

[Joseph McBride]

I could have written Jonathan's response as

a spoof.

[David Von Pein]

13 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

There is no actual proof that he [LHO] owned those weapons.

I've never understood why so many CTers have decided to totally ignore all the evidence (paperwork) that proves Oswald ordered and owned Rifle C2766. It's absurd.

A much better conspiracy theory regarding the rifle (and the revolver LHO positively owned too) would be for CTers to just admit the obvious truth---that being: Oswald did order, own, and possess the Carcano rifle (and the Smith & Wesson revolver)---and then the CTers can theorize that some unknown conspirators framed Oswald with his own rifle.

That theory makes so much more sense than to pretend that all of the evidence connected with the rifle has been faked, such as all of the Klein's paperwork and the backyard photos and LHO's palmprint on the rifle.

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

 

Edited Wednesday at 11:26 PM by David Von Pein

[Joseph McBride]

You keep obstinately missing the point,

that the "so-called evidence" was fabricated.

I know you will never admit that, because

your mission is to mislead, distract, waste

time, and obfuscate, so I won't engage

with you anymore or your confederates on this.

Edited Wednesday at 10:51 PM by Joseph McBride

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

With your sleuthing and good identification of Gloria behind you, any chance you could identify that man in front of Gloria

 

Didn't you read my prior posts (in this thread) Greg? I've said a number of times that I identify the man facing Gloria Calvary as Billy Lovelady. I base that identification on the following:

1. The the man's hairline in Darnell is consistent with Lovelady's.
2. The man is standing in the location where Lovelady was standing earlier

In addition, Lovelady is nowhere else to be seen in Darnell. The guys walking down Elm St. Extension are not Shelley and Lovelady, as has been demonstrated. And I argue that the one guy in plaid shirt walking down the street isn't Lovelady.

I believe that Lovelady wore a red and white striped shirt that day, not a plaid shirt. I believe that the guy with a plaid shirt in the films is a different guy.

I believe that the coverup artists used Darnell as a basis for fabricating their fake narrative -- that S and L walked down Elm Ext. and into the west entrance of the TSBD... the purpose of that narrative being to discredit Vickie Adam's testimony.

I believe that, when Lovelady's shirt came under question, someone in the government got the big idea of giving a duplicate shirt to Lovelady, which had to be custom made.

I didn't just pull this idea out of thin air. There is evidence to support it all. For example, the shirt seen in the films has a pocket, in contrast to Lovelady's plaid shirt, which doesn't.