JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[I Ratant]

Boring!

 

[Dave Rogers]

What is a "minor accessory" to the Crime of the Century?

I didn't use those words together, so please stop deliberately misquoting me.

Was this a conspiracy under the law? Depends if there was an agreement or not. But it is reasonable to suppose that there may have been given that the crime was comitted.

No, it is reasonable to raise the question of whether there was an agreement. It is not reasonable to suppose that there must have been any agreement between any set of parties to carry out any actions when the only actions we know of related to the assassination are Oswald's.

And since the crime was committed by an alleged suspect named Oswald it is reasonable to assert that the Odio incident qualifies as a reasonable Suspicion of Conspiracy. In Gaeton Fonzi's words it "cries out Conspiracy."

It is reasonable to raise the Odio incident as something worthy of further investigation. Without the results of that further investigation, it's nothing more than an oddity.

Dave

 

[I Ratant]

This doofus can't come up with anything all the other dorkburgers haven't mined from the literature in the past 40 years that will last any longer than his Odio "revelation".

 

[Tomtomkent]

Seriously though, if the Odio thing is meant to prove a conspiracy, should it not at the very least meet the requirements of a conspiracy he himself took the time to copy from his legal textbook?

 

[Robert Prey]

I didn't use those words together, so please stop deliberately misquoting me.



No, it is reasonable to raise the question of whether there was an agreement. It is not reasonable to suppose that there must have been any agreement between any set of parties to carry out any actions when the only actions we know of related to the assassination are Oswald's.



It is reasonable to raise the Odio incident as something worthy of further investigation. Without the results of that further investigation, it's nothing more than an oddity.

Dave

The fact that the assassination event did in fact occur, makes that Odio incident more than just an "oddity" but reason to investigate and prosecute potential accomplices.

 

[Robert Prey]

The Warren Commission was formed to examine the evidence, not to investigate the crime. A common mistake, but one conspiracy theorists like to perpetuate. The police and the FBI carry out investigations; political commissions scrutinise the conclusions of those investigations.

And let me reiterate the point you've carefully ignored: you cited a statement made by someone who was not a member of the Warren Commission before the Warren Commission existed as evidence that the Warren Commission was a whitewash. Your argument violates causality.

Dave

I cited a statement of a man who worked for the man who formed the Warren Commission and was/is a prime suspect and even named by some of the perps including E. Howard Hunt and by inference, Jack Ruby.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The fact that the assassination event did in fact occur, makes that Odio incident more than just an "oddity" but reason to investigate and prosecute potential accomplices.

No it doesn't. As you haven't connected what Odio claims to LHO pulling the trigger. We have no reason to believe that the men in question were accomplices at all.

 

[Robert Prey]

The Warren Commission was formed to examine the evidence, not to investigate the crime. A common mistake, but one conspiracy theorists like to perpetuate. The police and the FBI carry out investigations; political commissions scrutinise the conclusions of those investigations.

And let me reiterate the point you've carefully ignored: you cited a statement made by someone who was not a member of the Warren Commission before the Warren Commission existed as evidence that the Warren Commission was a whitewash. Your argument violates causality.

Dave

The Warren Commission was formed to convict a single dead man for the crime and convince the public that no real independent investigation was warranted.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I cited a statement of a man who worked for the man who formed the Warren Commission and was/is a prime suspect and even named by some of the perps including E. Howard Hunt and by inference, Jack Ruby.

Which does not prove anything about the report being a whitewash. Inference isn't evidence either. How about connecting what you quoted to what you claim with evidence?

 

[Tomtomkent]

The Warren Commission was formed to convict a single dead man for the crime and convince the public that no real independent investigation was warranted.

No it wasn't.

It was formed to evaluate the findings of the investigation.

If you want to prove another motive, supply actual evidence. Not your opinion.

It baffles me how this concept of evidence can seem so hard to grasp.

 

[Noztradamus]

The Warren Commission was formed to convict a single dead man for the crime and convince the public that no real independent investigation was warranted.

Oswald was married.

 

[Robert Prey]

Yes, it does depend if there was an agreement. So hadn't you better prove one or drop the argument? Or are you seriously suggesting that knowing a local whacko thinks he can and will one day shoot the president makes you a party to that beyond "minor accessory"? So. They should be charged with treason for knowing a guys groundless fantasy?

I want to slap prince Charles. One the arse. You are now a full accessory and conspiritor in my future assualt. Enjoy your jail time..

If the local wacko (or his impersonator) goes ahead and does shoot the president, and you had conversations about it, and he told you he was going to do it but you did nothing about it, that seems fairly conspiratorial to me.

 

[Robert Prey]

No, Robert, it was Katzenbach's opinion that the facts did not support a conspiracy. Other people, then and now, obviously had a different opinion.

Do you know the difference between facts and opinions? It is your opinion that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. To support this opinion you must produce some facts (i.e., evidence) in favor of a conspiracy. So far you have not done so.

And it was Katzenbach's suggestion that no one even consider a wider conspiracy.

 

[Tomtomkent]

If the local wacko (or his impersonator) goes ahead and does shoot the president, and you had conversations about it, and he told you he was going to do it but you did nothing about it, that seems fairly conspiratorial to me.

Not unless you were part of his plan. Not anless you agreed to take action. Those are the key parts of the description of a conspiracy YOU posted. Unless you have evidence those were met, it doesn't matter a jot what it "sounds like" to you does it?

So when I slap Prince Charles in the arse you will confess your part to the police? You will expect to be imprisoned?

 

[Tomtomkent]

And it was Katzenbach's suggestion that no one even consider a wider conspiracy.

And other people suggested otherwise. Doesn't change a thing. Unless you have evidence otherwise? (Man it gets dull asking that over and over knowing you wont produce any- after all, if you could you would have supplied it in the message I quoted rather than just giving an opinion).

 

[Robert Prey]

No it wasn't.

It was formed to evaluate the findings of the investigation.

If you want to prove another motive, supply actual evidence. Not your opinion.

It baffles me how this concept of evidence can seem so hard to grasp.

I refer you back to Wesley Liebler's assertion that Chief Justice Warren wanted a coverup if the investigation led to suspicions of conspiracy. I don't know what one could possibly conceive of as more proof of bad will than that!

 

[Robert Prey]

Not unless you were part of his plan. Not anless you agreed to take action. Those are the key parts of the description of a conspiracy YOU posted. Unless you have evidence those were met, it doesn't matter a jot what it "sounds like" to you does it?

So when I slap Prince Charles in the arse you will confess your part to the police? You will expect to be imprisoned?

The Cubans took enough action to make certain that Ms. Odio knew the name of the crazy man who wanted the Pres. assassinated, by repeating it over and over which suggests the possible setting up of a Patsy. If so, that would make them accomplices to a conspiracy.

 

[Tomtomkent]

I refer you back to Wesley Liebler's assertion that Chief Justice Warren wanted a coverup if the investigation led to suspicions of conspiracy. I don't know what one could possibly conceive of as more proof of bad will than that!

Nope you offered an assertion not evidence. What I want is evidence, you can reference and show us that Liebler was right. That there WAS a cover up. I want the paper trail. The tangible evidence.

How can you not understand that? EVIDENCE.

 

[Robert Prey]

Nope you offered an assertion not evidence. What I want is evidence, you can reference and show us that Liebler was right. That there WAS a cover up. I want the paper trail. The tangible evidence.

How can you not understand that? EVIDENCE.

A confessed state of mind of the Chief Justice and his underlings IS evidence.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The Cubans took enough action to make certain that Ms. Odio knew the name of the crazy man who wanted the Pres. assassinated, by repeating it over and over which suggests the possible setting up of a Patsy. If so, that would make them accomplices to a conspiracy.

Suggests. Not proves. And hardly enough to suggest anything more than they thought the guy was crazy and dreamt of hurting the president. They were not party to, or part of his plan. So how about you actually supply some evidence this in any way falls into the definition of conspiracy you gave?

You have to admit, when you make a big show and dance about the definition, then fail to meet it, it is not in any way helpful to your case.