50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

[The Rube]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

But what evidence is offered to support the notion that the mob had anything to do with the killing? I recall years ago some idiot came forward with a totally unbelievable story about how Carlos Marcello talked in front of him about "removing this stone from my shoe." And he lived to tell the tale?

And if it was the mob. Then that must mean it wasn't Castro, CIA, rogue elements in the pentagon, Secret Service agents, Corsican drug dealers, George de Mohrenschildt, etc. Right? And they hired a noodnik like Oswald to do their dirty work? Seriously? I know that Blakey of the House Assassinations Committee believes it was the mob. IMO, the evidence is thin. Inference. Supposition. Speculation. But no more. Nothing you could take to a grand jury.

No, there's nothing to take to any jury. I'm just going with what I read in an acclaimed, accurate book that is an extensive history of the NY mob. And let's face it, sometimes the mob screws up, too (like maybe hiring a "noodnik" like Oswald).

Frankly, I don't care who killed JFK. Either way, he's dead.

[SJHovey]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

1. the police were all handling the rifle with bare hands including right there in the depository before prints would have been lifted presumably. after seeing that footage I would never believe they could get a print from LHO or anyone on that rifle as it was handled by numerous cops w/out gloves.

I remember a passage from Vincent Bugliosi's tome on the assassination. He said that when he was prosecuting in California one of the favorite arguments he heard from the defense was that there were no finger prints on the murder weapon or at the scene that tied the defendant to the case. To counter this, in most of his cases he brought in experts from the crime lab who offered some very interesting statistical analysis. Their testimony was something to the effect that when you factor in things like prints getting obliterated or contaminated by others handling the evidence, a relatively short period of time in which a usable print is available, inconsistency in the quality of prints from different surfaces, the fact that most prints are just partial at best, etc..., the police get a usable finger print in just a miniscule portion of crimes. It might be something like 1% or less. I don't recall the number.

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

gotta run to work soon but I have to ask you some questions here

if you're confident Oswald did it, why do you care the rest of the country isn't with you? What's the difference?

up above you say PBS shows the magic bullet could work and the bullet wouldn't be damaged yet in a prior post you say you saw or read where the bullet was badly damaged. Which is it?

The reference to Tippit's killer comes from Warren Commission testimony that was in the volumes (not the finished book you can find at barnes and noble). Suddenly, 50 years later we've found more witnesses to Tippitt's killing?

As far as only two guys being serious or official writers, who decided that? You? Of the thousands of writers who've tackled this Summers isn't serious? Just the 2 guys you mention and those 2 only who've said Oswald did it?

I recall Posner's interviews in 1993 or 94 and he came across as someone that was extremely angry about the movie JFK, and villified Jim Garrison mercilessly. Well, it's tough to tell now if Garrison's conclusions were close because his witnesses either died during his investigation or within 4-5 years of it, and he's been so alinsky'd by the press (see Mafia/Marcello, well if he didn't prosecute the mafia then he couldn't be right about his JFK investigation...what does one have to do w/the other?) and others that even bringing his name up now sparks ridicule. But regardless, I remember thinking Posner was on a mission to offset (just like say, the guy who wrote High Treason).

Anyway I don't believe LHO just thought this up and acted on his own.

I believe he was part of a group of 3 or 4, or possibly 5 or 6 people who discussed this murder, possibly planned it even. And when he did it he was silenced immediately.

The difference it makes, sir, is putting the blame for murdering a president of the United States on the person who actually committed the crime. Not some perfervid "conspiracy" for which there is zero proof and even less accountability.

I see we're going to go down Oliver Stone's talking points one by one. The so-called "magic bullet" has also been referred to as "pristine." It is neither. The bullet is significantly flattened on one side (where it struck the governor) and a small amount of lead has been extruded from the end. I did not say it was "badly" damaged. But neither was it "pristine." It is conspiracists who assert the bullet is "pristine" and therefore couldn't have caused the damage it did.

Not every witness to the Tippet shooting was called to testify before the Commission. More than one witness didn't actually see Oswald pull the trigger but did see him running from the scene, dumping empty cartridge cases as he ran. It was Dallas PD that called witnesses in to identify Oswald on Friday night.

Posner has written several well received books, including one on the assassination of MLK. Bugliosi wrote Helter Skelter which recounted his successful prosecution of the Manson "family." My point in mentioning this is that these two guys are known and successful for matters having nothing to do with the JFK assassination. They are not, in other words, professional conspiracy mongers, as the overwhelming majority of conspiracists are. They have lives and accomplishments beyond JFK.

As to Garrison, he was professionally and personally a person of significant disrepute. He was totally in the pocket of Carlos Marcello. And though that well known fact doesn't bear directly on his JFK investigation it does tend to cut against the image Costner portrayed in the film. His prosecution of Clay Shaw is taught in law schools as one of the great miscarriages of justice in our history. Just one example (among many) the DA of Orleans parish accepted donations to help fund his "investigation" of Shaw. Surely anyone can see what a bad idea that is. I can well imagine that Posner "vilified" both the movie and Garrison personally. They deserved it. "I could give you a phony name, but I won't. Just call me Mr. X."

And if you're going to argue post hoc ergo propter hoc regarding the deaths of the scumbags who were Garrison's witnesses, it's impossible to have a rational discussion with you. Conspiracists (and possibly you) argue that the absence of evidence is evidence. Is that what you're claiming? Besides, Garrison's "star" witness (never referred to in the movie) is a guy by the name of Perry Russo (he actually had a small part in the film). He didn't "die mysteriously." He just made unverified and unverifiable claims about the "conspiracy" while under the influence of drugs. His testimony was thoroughly unbelievable. Which is why, I suppose, the jury acquitted Shaw in just a few minutes.

As I've said, belief in a "conspiracy" to kill JFK is now a secular religion for millions of Americans. You evidently are one of them. No harm in that of course. But is it asking too much to enquire who these people were with whom Oswald "conspired?" And what evidence you have of their "conspiring?" And what their motives for doing so were? And how have they escaped justice for half a century?

American presidential assassins (with only one exception) are loners. Little people trying to make themselves important. Nursing grudges. Or delusional. Look at Hinckley. He came this close to killing Reagan, to impress Jody Foster. Does that make any sense? Squeaky Fromme and Sara Jane Moore likewise came this close to killing Ford. And each of them was a couple of tacos short of a combo plate.

You're obviously free to believe every jot and tittle of Garrison's "theory." But it would be nice if he had settled on just one. Through articles, interviews and public appearances he offered countless lurid, frequently contradictory "explanations" for what happened in Dallas. And several of his associates abandoned him because of it. And it would be nice if he offered any credible evidence to support his theory. And it would be nice if you would do likewise.

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

I'm suggesting one thing and one thing only. With the man-handling of that rifle I wouldn't believe it possible to lift prints. I saw the cops in the video grab the (whatever you call the part you put in your shoulder)...with bare hands. they held the stock with bare hands. I mean 3 or 4 cops in this video so I think about this and I say, no way in hell you get legit prints from that. No way.

How do you know this handling of the rifle didn't occur after it was dusted for prints? And even if you're right, does it make any difference? It was Oswald's rifle. He brought it to work with him that morning wrapped in brown paper. All of the bullets recovered in Dealey Plaza matched that rifle to the exclusion of every rifle in the world. Oswald was there, firing. Ear and eye witnesses have so testified. Oswald was the one who bolted from the SBD (the only employee to do so). Oswald is the one who ran home and picked up his pistol. Oswald is the one who murdered Officer Tippet. Oswald is the one who attempted to shoot the coos who were arresting him. So I ask again of what particular significance is this conclusion you've drawn that DPD mishandled the rifle, removing potential "other" fingerprints? What would it mean if they had?

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

No, there's nothing to take to any jury. I'm just going with what I read in an acclaimed, accurate book that is an extensive history of the NY mob. And let's face it, sometimes the mob screws up, too (like maybe hiring a "noodnik" like Oswald).

Frankly, I don't care who killed JFK. Either way, he's dead.

The nice thing about conspiracy theories is they aren't tethered to evidence. Conspiracists just make them up as they go along. And if any pesky evidence emerges, they just change their theories accordingly. For instance, in the early days of conspiracies much was made of a photo showing a man standing in the doorway of the SBD as the motorcade went past. A very poor resolution photo showed a man who kinda resembled LHO. Well, if that's LHO standing in the doorway, then he couldn't have been on the sixth floor shooting, blah, blah, blah. Except it was SBD employee Billy Lovelady. And like Emily Litella, after making a BFD about the photo, the conspiracists said "nevermind," and moved on to some other "irrefutable fact" that "proved" Oswald didn't do it. This has been going on for half a century. Time to give it up fellows.

50 years later. And people (the overwhelming majority of whom haven't spent 5 minutes reading about the case) have a "hunch" or "suspicion" that there was a conspiracy. It's been 20 years since JFK was released. I'd guess the only reading the vast majority of Americans have done on the case are the few paragraphs in their high school American history texts. Maybe a day or two of discussion. Possibly seeing JFK on cable. Yet, because the notion of a conspiracy is part of our culture, they believe it. Without proof.
Amen.

So maybe Momo Giancana (a proud resident of my hometown) or other members of The Outfit were involved. These guys weren't masterminds. They were ruthless. And psychotic in some instances. And why would they kill a president when they had studiously avoided attacking police officers, prosecutors and other public officials? One of the things that minimized public outrage at their activities was the fact that they "only kill each other." So in a massive change in tactics, they decide they're going to take out POTUS and assume they'll get away with it? And they hire LHO to do the job? And then order a loose screw like Ruby to kill Oswald? Why didn't they hire somebody to kill Ruby?

Our difference here is the difference between possible and plausible. Half a century. Where's the evidence?

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

I remember a passage from Vincent Bugliosi's tome on the assassination. He said that when he was prosecuting in California one of the favorite arguments he heard from the defense was that there were no finger prints on the murder weapon or at the scene that tied the defendant to the case. To counter this, in most of his cases he brought in experts from the crime lab who offered some very interesting statistical analysis. Their testimony was something to the effect that when you factor in things like prints getting obliterated or contaminated by others handling the evidence, a relatively short period of time in which a usable print is available, inconsistency in the quality of prints from different surfaces, the fact that most prints are just partial at best, etc..., the police get a usable finger print in just a miniscule portion of crimes. It might be something like 1% or less. I don't recall the number.

A couple of decades ago there was a made for TV production called "On Trial--Lee Harvey Oswald." It's on Youtube. Although it was taped in UK it involved testimony of actual witnesses, real Dallas residents as jurors and a real Texas judge. Gerry Spence defended Oswald. And Bugliosi prosecuted. It's useful to watch because it gives you some idea of what opposing Bugliosi in court was like (generally not pretty). And you get a chance to see the people who were really there that day. Like SBD employee Harold Norman, who testified to hearing a rifle fire, then cycle, a shell hit the floor then fire again, etc. And this was right over his head!

In Helter Skelter Bugliosi described the two different groups of detectives. The first group, more traditional, crew cut was assigned the Tate killings. The second group, younger, hipper got the LaBianca killings. The younger cops almost immediately suspected a connection (the writing on the walls in blood at both crime scenes was the principal reason). The older cops rejected that conclusion and shined the younger cops on. That delayed the investigation.

Bugliosi also writes that at some point he asked detectives if they had done something regarding the evidence. They responded with "not my yob," and he went through the roof, telling them in no uncertain terms it was their yob, and they better get off their a*ses and get him the evidence he wanted. That investigation wasn't exactly a triumph for LAPD. Remember, the Buntline Special .22 pistol that was used to batter Jay Sebring's head and shoot him, had been turned in and was in police custody all along. TV crews (and not the cops) were able to find the bloody clothing discarded by the killers by following the timeline offered by Linda Kasabian. Bugliosi is a bull dog.

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

After 50 years I find it difficult to comprehend how any person capable of even the tiniest amount of critical thinking can think anything other than LHO was the only person shooting at the car that day, that he fired three shots, that the first missed, the second injured JFK and the governor, and the third hit JFK in the head and killed him instantly (for all intents and purposes. His body held on for a few minutes, sure). We have learned quite a bit about LHO in the 50 years since 11/22/63 and everything I've learned about him tells me he could surely have thought this out and committed the act. Was there something else going on? I don't know for sure. But I do know that after 50 years there is no credible evidence that points in that direction. C'mon folks. It was Oswald's gun. He bought it. He fired the shots.

[joecct]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

I want to know who really murdered Teddy Kennedy.

Chivas

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

Chivas

LOL. I started to respond "John Daniels" but held off.

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

After 50 years I find it difficult to comprehend how any person capable of even the tiniest amount of critical thinking can think anything other than LHO was the only person shooting at the car that day, that he fired three shots, that the first missed, the second injured JFK and the governor, and the third hit JFK in the head and killed him instantly (for all intents and purposes. His body held on for a few minutes, sure). We have learned quite a bit about LHO in the 50 years since 11/22/63 and everything I've learned about him tells me he could surely have thought this out and committed the act. Was there something else going on? I don't know for sure. But I do know that after 50 years there is no credible evidence that points in that direction. C'mon folks. It was Oswald's gun. He bought it. He fired the shots.

Don't forget. He also took a shot at General Walker (who was a very big deal in those days). He visited on Marina on Thursday night instead of the customary Friday. Marina was staying at Ruth Paine's house and their possessions, including Lee's rifle, were stored in her garage. The next morning when she woke, Marina found just about all the money Lee had in the world and his wedding ring on the dresser. And he had that package wrapped in brown paper with him when Buell Frazier took him to work. He said the package contained curtain rods. And since conspiracists take every utterance of Oswald's as gospel ("I am just a patsy") it's fair to ask: where were the curtain rods? On the sixth floor, detectives found the rifle, the cartridge cases and the brown paper. But no curtain rods. What happened to them? Later that day when the FBI arrived at the Paine home, Marina took the agents out to the garage, and Oswald's rifle was gone.

[solovsfett]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

How do you know this handling of the rifle didn't occur after it was dusted for prints? And even if you're right, does it make any difference? It was Oswald's rifle. He brought it to work with him that morning wrapped in brown paper. All of the bullets recovered in Dealey Plaza matched that rifle to the exclusion of every rifle in the world. Oswald was there, firing. Ear and eye witnesses have so testified. Oswald was the one who bolted from the SBD (the only employee to do so). Oswald is the one who ran home and picked up his pistol. Oswald is the one who murdered Officer Tippet. Oswald is the one who attempted to shoot the coos who were arresting him. So I ask again of what particular significance is this conclusion you've drawn that DPD mishandled the rifle, removing potential "other" fingerprints? What would it mean if they had?

I don't know that, I wasn't there. The video shows officers handling the rifle with bare hands in the SBD by the snipers nest. The difference it makes to me is that it implies the investigation was very sloppy. We already know that witnesses were ignored in favor of the one guy missing from the SBD. And yes, of course LHO was up there shooting, I mean, who the hell else could it have been given the evidence. But the sloppy investigation, the haste with which the verdict was rendered...Something never felt right to me about it when reading about it. And it still doesn't sit well.

beyond the sniper's nest is where you and I differ... I find the evidence regarding Tippitt thin at best. I also find the evidence of motive for JR being some spur of the moment angry "I'll get even with you" stuff laughable. The guy was in the building casing LHO from day two on the video but from what I've read he was there Friday night. He was there to silence Oswald.

Silence him about whom or what? I guess we'll never know unless by chance someone recorded his (LHO's) conversations w/the FBI in the police station.That is if he'd have actually said anything at all. But silencing him...that's why I feel there was a discussion or plan between LHO and X parties that may have been speculated upon already or people who's names we do not know. No other reason to shut him up but to cover someone's ***. At least that's my .02

EDITOR'S NOTE: The shots in Dallas went like this. 1st shot struck JFK and Connelly in the back. 2nd shot missed. 3rd shot, head shot.

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

[QUOTE=solovsfett;5811819]I don't know that, I wasn't there. The video shows officers handling the rifle with bare hands in the SBD by the snipers nest. The difference it makes to me is that it implies the investigation was very sloppy. We already know that witnesses were ignored in favor of the one guy missing from the SBD. And yes, of course LHO was up there shooting, I mean, who the hell else could it have been given the evidence. But the sloppy investigation, the haste with which the verdict was rendered...Something never felt right to me about it when reading about it. And it still doesn't sit well.

beyond the sniper's nest is where you and I differ... I find the evidence regarding Tippitt thin at best. I also find the evidence of motive for JR being some spur of the moment angry "I'll get even with you" stuff laughable. The guy was in the building casing LHO from day two on the video but from what I've read he was there Friday night. He was there to silence Oswald.

Silence him about whom or what? I guess we'll never know unless by chance someone recorded his (LHO's) conversations w/the FBI in the police station.That is if he'd have actually said anything at all. But silencing him...that's why I feel there was a discussion or plan between LHO and X parties that may have been speculated upon already or people who's names we do not know. No other reason to shut him up but to cover someone's ***. At least that's my .02

EDITOR'S NOTE: The shots in Dallas went like this. 1st shot struck JFK and Connelly in the back. 2nd shot missed. 3rd shot, head shot.[/QUOTE



At least you're honest enough to admit your conclusions are based on "feelings" and things not "sitting right" with you. As opposed to evidence. You are essentially confirmed my central point. Reclaiming History is, as I've said, massive (and expensive) but it's a useful tool. I'm keeping my copy on the coffee table to use as a reference work whenever tired old conspiracy theories are recycled on the tube. Maybe someone will let you borrow their copy. Or you can check the book out from the library. Who knows, you might gain a new perspective.

In his book Death of a President, William Manchester offered the best explanation I've found for the willingness of so many to see a conspiracy in Dallas. (Paraphrasing) "If you put the Holocaust on one side of the scales and the Nazi regime on the other, you've got a rough balance. Greatest crime. Greatest criminals. But if you put the life of the young, dynamic POTUS on one side of the scale and that "wretched waif Oswald" on the other, it doesn't seem to balance. More weight is needed on Oswald's side. A conspiracy "would do nicely." Exactly.

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

Fred Kaplan at Slate, a former believer, says he no longer is. In part because of the intellectual dishonesty of conspiracists who fudged and dishonestly reproduced quotes and ignored evidence to buttress their "findings."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...sy.single.html

[Dude Love]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

Anyone remember that episode of Quantum Leap where Sam thinks he got sent back to stop the Kennedy assassination...but he was really there to make sure Jackie didn't die?

[Old Pio]

Re: 50 years later. And the only consensus is: ABO--anybody but Oswald

Anyone remember that episode of Quantum Leap where Sam thinks he got sent back to stop the Kennedy assassination...but he was really there to make sure Jackie didn't die?

From Old Pio's "Pardon My Digression" file. I don't recall that episode. But I do recall that Walter Lord (author of Night to Remember and the father of modern Titanic scholarship) once said if he could go back to April 14, 1912, he wouldn't go to the bridge of the Titanic. Instead, he said he'd go back to the bridge of the Californian to determine why its captain ignored 8 white rockets fired by the stricken liner (and reported to him). That failure to respond resulted in hundreds of deaths.