You are correct that the process does not guarantee truth, no argument here. What is sui generis is that the Prosecutors, police, or just law enforcement in general have a fortuitous situation to orchestrate the investigative activities, pressure witnesses, manufacture or lose evidence, elicit confessions in order to convict people that they feel should be convicted and this was accomplished with LHO. You are 100% correct Bob. What I am advocating is that the adversarial system is better than a Commission, Bench decision, or hearing.
JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales
- Thread starter Robert Harris
- Start date
- Status
bknight
Master Poster
You may have been over this, but you keep missing the point. His head is looking slightly left allowing for the precise trajectory discussed in the autopsy. You may want to dismiss this but then you are a CT, that's why this thread is in the correct place. Face it you have no proof, just speculation and the reported evidence is stacked against your speculation.
That's reasonable, and we can agree to disagree. As a practical matter, a criminal trial in Dallas was impossible, given the removal of the accused by Jack Ruby's vigilante justice. Again, I feel if LHO had lived to stand trial, much of the WC's sworn fact and expert testimony would have been excluded. So that stuff would presumably have reached the public informally, randomly, in bits and pieces of unsworn, probably distorted information over time. I don't think it would have had any more credibility than in its WC incarnation--quite possibly less. Some of it would have been, as Hank says, stuff relating to alleged conspiracy, which would have been excluded at trial as irrelevant to the question of LHO's guilt.
The loss of Marina's testimony would have been significant. Many who lean towards CT believe that her WC testimony was skewed by fear of being deported or otherwise punished by the feds. I happen to think that she had an incentive to be truthful about LHO, because if she had been caught in lies and misrepresentations, she could have been severely punished on that ground. As for her revised views from the 1980s on, I attribute those to the influence, general and specific, of CT/ABO claims seeking to exonerate her husband. As a lawyer, I favor fresh, contemporary sworn testimony over dated, unsworn recollections, especially when they are inconsistent with the original testimony. Human memory changes over time and according to personal need.
But these are counterfactuals, not measurable alternatives.
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Earlier, I posted how one of Marina's first Secret Service interviews has her interpreter translating her words as saying that she had never seen a rifle with a scope, and didn't know that rifles with scopes existed until she saw it on television after the assassination.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Weren't dead men convicted in the Nuremberg trials?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Yes.
Yes. John Stringer didn't recognize that red spot as the wound he remembered. He insisted that it was lower, commenting "you would have seen the hole".
Okay, lets ask the only forensic pathologist who handled Kennedy's body. Oh, wait, he insists on the original EOP location too.
Your point?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Gosh, human memory sure can be unreliable.
That is probably why X-rays, photographs, and extensive notes are kept.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
So what if he was looking slightly left? Your other axis is still off. If you disagree, then prove the entry was in a different location than where the autopsy placed it.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
The poor woman was in stressful circumstances.
Thankfully we have objective photographic evidence of Pswald holding both murder weapons, which offer zero scope for interpretation error.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
The autopsy placed it in what you call the 'cowlick'. This fits the trajectory just fine.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Yes, Humes, Boswell, Finck, Stringer, Kellerman, Lipsey, O'Neil, Boyers, and Burkley all simultaneously made the same exact mistake, even with the body right in front of them as they were recording the measurements of the wounds.
Arguing the X-rays and the photographs all come to the same dead end for you. There is no consensus over what the head X-ray shows, and nobody from the autopsy thinks the red spot on the BOH photograph is an entry wound.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Incorrect. The autopsy placed it 4-5 inches below the "cowlick".
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
No. It did not. Your interpretation does, but you are wrong. The autopsy records and testimony to the WC shows you are wrong. And we have photographs of the wound you call a cowlick.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
And yet you have been shown this is wrong as and when you raised each point. You may believe it, but that seems largely through denying what contemporary records show, and favouring failiable human memory instead. Which ignored why records were kept to begin with.
The wound is where X-rays and photos show it to be. You have failed to show any other wound.
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Let's do a thought experiment.
Let's say there is a note in the autopsy that is a subjective term. "Slightly above the EOP" or "A short distance". Rather than applying our own meaning to the word, how might we discern what was meant?
First of all, we put our own assumption aside. You might not find our inches to be convincing, but somebody else might consider the limits of the occipital bone, or the back of the head to be reasonable.
We would look beyond the cherry picked statements, to see if other descriptions or more accurate measurements might reconcile with the points that are clearly the focus of the photographs.
Given the hair has been moved away from the "red splotch", and a measure is placed close by for scale, and given it is the focus of the image, we should ask if it might be a reasonable fit for the wound described.
We can extend our reach to the WC records, to see if evidence there can reasonably corroborate the placement.
We can look at the rest of the available records to see if other photographs expose and focus upon any other feature in the same way as they focus on the "cowlick".
Given there are none, we have no evidence of any other viable candidates for the wound.
You may not agree with the conclusion that the "splotch" is an entry wound, but one should be able to see why others reach the conclusion it is accurate, rather than accusing them of lying.
Let's say there is a note in the autopsy that is a subjective term. "Slightly above the EOP" or "A short distance". Rather than applying our own meaning to the word, how might we discern what was meant?
First of all, we put our own assumption aside. You might not find our inches to be convincing, but somebody else might consider the limits of the occipital bone, or the back of the head to be reasonable.
We would look beyond the cherry picked statements, to see if other descriptions or more accurate measurements might reconcile with the points that are clearly the focus of the photographs.
Given the hair has been moved away from the "red splotch", and a measure is placed close by for scale, and given it is the focus of the image, we should ask if it might be a reasonable fit for the wound described.
We can extend our reach to the WC records, to see if evidence there can reasonably corroborate the placement.
We can look at the rest of the available records to see if other photographs expose and focus upon any other feature in the same way as they focus on the "cowlick".
Given there are none, we have no evidence of any other viable candidates for the wound.
You may not agree with the conclusion that the "splotch" is an entry wound, but one should be able to see why others reach the conclusion it is accurate, rather than accusing them of lying.
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
What were the autopsy results?
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
Where did the shot come from then?
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
Or more to the point, what happens to the confusion over the exit wound and damage to the brain, if the entry wound were in the "cowlick" or whatever else he calls it.
The real entry and exit wound, as everybody else seems to understand it, matches the e it wound without complication.
HSienzant
Philosopher
How's that eliminate Oswald's weapon?
And even earlier than her first Secret Service interview, is her encounter with authorities showing up at the home of Ruth Paine unexpectedly on the afternoon of the assassination.
When Ruth was asked if Lee Oswald had a rifle there, she said no, then translated for Marina. Marina said yes, and led the officers to the Paine garage where she pointed out the blanket, saying it was in there. But when one of the officers picked it up, it was empty. Meanwhile of course, Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano, with the serial number of C2766, had been recovered at the Depository.
Mrs. Paine's testimony:
Mr. JENNER - The police arrived and what occurred.
Mrs. PAINE - I went to the door. They announced themselves as from both the sheriff's office and the Dallas Police Office, showed me at least one package [badge?] or two. I was very surprised.
Mr. JENNER - Did you say anything?
Mrs. PAINE - I said nothing. I think I just dropped my jaw. And the man in front said by way of explanation "We have Lee Oswald in custody. He is charged with shooting an officer." This is the first I had any idea that Lee might be in trouble with the police or in any way involved in the day's events. I asked them to come in. They said they wanted to search the house. I asked if they had a warrant. They said they didn't. They said they could get the sheriff out here right away with one if I insisted. And I said no, that was all right, they could be my guests.
They then did search the house. I directed them to the fact that most of the Oswald's things were in storage in my garage and showed where the garage was, and to the room where Marina and the baby had stayed where they would find the other things which belonged to the Oswalds. Marina and I went with two or three of these police officers to the garage.
Mr. JENNER - How many police officers were there?
Mrs. PAINE - There were six altogether, and they were busy in various parts of the house. The officer asked me in the garage did Lee Oswald have any weapons or guns. I said no, and translated the question to Marina, and she said yes; that she had seen a portion of it--had looked into--she indicated the blanket roll on the floor.
Mr. JENNER - Was the blanket roll on the floor at that time?
Mrs. PAINE - She indicated the blanket roll on the floor very close to where I was standing. As she told me about it I stepped onto the blanket roll.
Mr. JENNER - This might be helpful. You had shaped that up yesterday and I will just put it on the floor.
Mrs. PAINE - And she indicated to me that she had peered into this roll and saw a portion of what she took to be a gun she knew her husband to have, a rifle. And I then translated this to the officers that she knew that her husband had a gun that he had stored in here.
Mr. JENNER - Were you standing on the blanket when you advised--
Mrs. PAINE - When I translated. I then stepped off of it and the officer picked it up in the middle and it bent so.
Mr. JENNER - It hung limp just as it now hangs limp in your hand?
Mrs. PAINE - And at this moment I felt this man was in very deep trouble and may have done--
Marina's testimony:
Mrs. OSWALD. I was watching television, and Ruth by that time was already with me, and she said someone had shot at the President.
Mr. RANKIN. What did you say?
Mrs. OSWALD. It was hard for me to say anything. We both turned pale. I went to my room and cried.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you think immediately that your husband might have been involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. RANKIN. Did Mrs. Paine say anything about the possibility of your husband being involved?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, but she only said that "By the way, they fired from the building in which Lee is working."
My heart dropped. I then went to the garage to see whether the rifle was there, and I saw that the blanket was still there, and I said, "Thank God." I thought, "Can there really be such a stupid man in the world that could do something like that?" But I was already rather upset at that time--I don't know why. Perhaps my intuition. I didn't know what I was doing.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you look in the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't unroll the blanket. It was in its usual position, and it appeared to have something inside.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you at any time open the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, only once.
Mr. RANKIN. You have told us about that.
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. And what about Mrs. Paine? Did she look in the blanket to see if the rifle was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. She didn't know about the rifle. Perhaps she did know. But she never told me about it. I don't know.
Mr. RANKIN. When did you learn that the rifle was not in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. When the police arrived and asked whether my husband had a rifle, and I said "Yes."
Mr. RANKIN. Then what happened?
Mrs. OSWALD. They began to search the apartment. When they came to the garage and took the blanket, I thought, "Well, now, they will find it." They opened the blanket but there was no rifle there.
Then, of course, I already knew that it was Lee. Because, before that, while I thought that the rifle was at home, I did not think that Lee had done that. I thought the police had simply come because he was always under suspicion.
Guy Rose's testimony:
Mr. ROSE. Well, I was the senior detective that was there, and so I was sort of the spokesman for the group, I suppose, and Stovall wen into the bedroom of Marina Oswald--Marina Oswald's bedroom, and I don't remember where Adamcik went first, but I talked with Ruth Paine a few minutes and she told me that Marina was there and that she was Lee Oswald's wife and that she was a citizen of Russia, and so I called Captain Fritz on the phone and told him what I had found out there and asked him if there was any special instructions, and he said, "Well, ask her about her husband, ask her if her husband has a rifle." I turned and asked Marina, but she didn't seem to understand. She said she couldn't understand, so Ruth Paine spoke in Russian to her and Ruth Paine also interpreted for me, and she said that Marina said--first she said Marina said "No," and then a minute Marina said, "Yes, he does have." So, then I talked to Captain Fritz for a moment and hung up the phone and I asked Marina if she would show me where his rifle was and Ruth Paine interpreted and Marina pointed to the garage and she took me to the garage and she pointed to a blanket that was rolled up and laying on the floor near the wall of the garage and Ruth Paine said, "Says that that's where his rifle is." Well, at the time I couldn't tell whether there was one in there or not. It appeared to be--it was in sort of an outline of a rifle.
Mr. BALL. You mean the blanket had the outline of a rifle?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; it did.
Mr. BALL. Was it tied at one end?
Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir; it was sort of rolled up, but it was flattened out from laying down and tied near the middle, I would say, with a cord and so I went on and picked the blanket up, but it was empty--it didn't have the rifle in it.
Mr. BALL. You brought that in?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; I did.
Was she influenced by fear of deportation on the afternoon of 11/22/63 into admitting Oswald owned a rifle, and that he normally kept it stored within the blanket in the Paine garage?
And you might want to recall I pointed all this testimony out to you previously.
Like HERE: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11807088&postcount=3098
And you might want to recall there's other evidence Oswald owned a rifle, independent of Marina's ID. Like:
1. His order form for the rifle, specifying he was ordering a rifle with a scope.
2. His order form for the rifle, specifying a shipping address of Oswald's PO Box.
3. The Money Order in his handwriting for $21.45, the purchase price of his MC rifle with a scope.
4. The Klein's business records, showing they shipped a rifle with a scope to his PO Box.
5. The backyard photographs of Oswald holding a rifle with a scope.
6. His palmprint was found on the rifle (with a scope) recovered from the Depository.
7. His fingerprints were found on the triggerguard.
On the flip side, you have a woman who didn't know the difference between a rifle and a shotgun, saying she didn't realize the rifle had a scope.
Big deal.
Mr. RANKIN. When you saw the rifle assembled in the room, did it have the scope on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it did not have a scope on it.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any discussion with your husband about the rifle when you first saw it?
Mrs. OSWALD. Of course I asked him, "What do you need a rifle for? What do we need that for?"
He said that it would come in handy some time for hunting. And this was not too surprising because in Russia, too, we had a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. In Russia did you have a rifle or a shotgun?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know the difference. One and the other shoots. You men. That is your business.
The CHAIRMAN. My wife wouldn't know the difference, so it is all right.
Mrs. OSWALD. I have never served in the Army.
You honestly consider that failure of Marina's to recognize a scope a deal breaker that somehow overturns all the hard evidence?
Hank
Last edited:
bknight
Master Poster
Over the years I have view numerous images with trajectories posted on them, one I remember tried to make a case that the shot was from the building behind the TSBD. You need to understand that slight movements of JFK, will have much larger corrections to any postulated trajectory the further away from him. So your immediate posting images are from CT sites and they have an axe to grind, but the evidence is clear, LHO was the lone assassin with one head shot not any more the autopsy is definite on that point, anything else is speculation pure and simple.
- Status