JFK's assassination: your thoughts

[JayUtah]

It's not an argument from incredulity, it's an argument based on attacking the faulty facts of the WC defenders.

I'm not a "WC defender." I'm a regular person who would be interested in a better explanation, were one offered. You are uninterested in offering one, so your arguments are basically just noise. If someone other than Oswald killed Kennedy, I would be interested in knowing who that was. You can't help me though.

 

[JayUtah]

Its still a negative defense, attacking and undermining the prosecutions facts. They weren't released because they explained what did happen or who was responsible.


Again, the defendants were released because the prosecutions evidence was fatally undermined - a negative defense.

And you have yet to show how "attacking and undermining" failed to offer an alternative theory for the presented facts in each case. You're just repeating those words as a mantra.

 

[JayUtah]

None of the examples cited were released because they offered alternative theories...

Except, of course, for the alternative theories I explicitly mentioned in each case and expounded upon later in a post to another person.

I even went into some detail about how "undermining" expert testimony involves creating a new theory for the story he tells the jury. The prosecutor offers the theory that the expert has offered a certain judgment because he is skilled in the relevant art, experienced, and has made a sound expert judgment that anyone else so qualified would likely repeat. The defense offers an opposing theory: that the witness is not really an expert and that his testimony is not based on facts, repeatable examinations or sound judgment, but is instead simply an uninformed opinion that should be given essentially no weight.

I've had my own foundation challenged in court too. It didn't work, and the inept counsel who tried it got so twisted around and confused that in order to extricate himself and rehabilitate his case he had to flagrantly violate a ruling in limine and thereby caused a mistrial.

Please continue your gymnastics trying to explain why this is not an alternative theory. You might also try to explain why you seem to have such better insight and judgment in the Kennedy case while at the same time you seem absolved of any and all responsibility to explain the evidence in the case.

 

[BStrong]

Contrary to Soily, LHO was the named shooter in the WC and the later HSCA, and no matter how many CT's are floated involving a cast of thousands, LHO was and is the murderer of JFK.

 

[Dcdrac]

In the absence of any plausible and believeable, evidence based alternative the Warren Commission Report is the best explanation open to us.

 

[JayUtah]

You have to provide alternative explanations for all the things that would have been damning to Oswald.

That's the reason for the increasingly distractive foray into the theory of western jurisprudence: Soily argues he's not on the hook to explain evidence that doesn't fit his theory. He sees his job as only detracting the Warren Commission, and that if he can "undermine" it here and there, he will have made the case that someone else helped Oswald kill Kennedy, without further ado.

He has styled his critics as "WC defenders." What he doesn't realize while making his case is that his audience is quite willing to accept the proposition that the Warren Commission didn't get the right answer, but in order to do that he has to show that the evidence better points to someone else (or in addition). Not that it points vaguely in all directions away from Oswald -- that's the landscape of evidence in any investigation. So far no conspiracy theorist has managed to do that. Some say the mob did it, others say the CIA did it, still others finger L.B. Johnson. No consensus builds around any one author's theory. Hence most JFK conspiracy theorists are content to simply say it was "Someone other than / besides Oswald" who killed Kennedy.

Abbadon has also pointed out the distractionary tactic here: we're delving into pub bombings because it's a point Soily thinks he can win. And winning (often irrelevant) brownie points against critics, is about eighty percent of any JFK conspiracy argument. Look how many times I've been told I don't know anything about Common Law court trials. It's not because court trials matter here, but because every single JFK conspiracy argument starts out by accusing individual critics of some form of insufficiency.

The subtle thing here is that the decades-old inability of the conspiracy theorists to get any closer to answering the question of Kennedy's murder leads them to justify the position they find themselves in. Hence they abandon the practice of historical inquiry and comparative investigation and try to style it as some sort of court, where negative arguments suffice.

Soily is right in that a court does not concern itself in each case with who actually may have committed the crime. A criminal court is interested only in the narrow point at hand, namely the guilt of the person on trial. If the defendant is acquitted the crime remains unresolved. You don't convene a court to solve a crime; you convene a court to see if one particular named party committed it. The focus is on that person, not on the general historical question of what happened. Soily has been arguing this point fairly consistently.

Ironically the side-track isn't helping him. He's trying to argue that in court a negative case is sufficient to acquit. By "negative case" he means that the prosecution's inductive theory of guilt is refuted, but the defense has not been constrained to offer an affirmative refutation naming another party whose guilt better explains the totality of evidence. (That did occur in one of his cited cases, but I take it to be an oversight on his part, so I don't necessary hold him to it.) That's a straw man; it's not my argument. Even a negative argument in court must still account for the evidence presented. And it cannot fail to do so except by offering an alternative theory in each instance to better explain how that evidence exists.

I gave several examples of how different types of evidence are undermined by means of alternative theories known to convince judges and juries: including the one he also mentioned, which is to undermine expert testimony by offering the theory instead that the "expert" isn't really an expert and has made uninformed judgment. That's still an alternative theory to explain what the expert has concluded. And it may be part of a strictly negative case that acquits the defendant without naming another guilty party. But it still requires the litigant to offer up explanations for the evidence. Soily has abrogated that responsibility and indeed has suggested that it is improper for us to ask him to do so.

But of course this focus on a defendant is the artificial restriction of courts. It doesn't apply to historical inquiries, and hence doesn't serve as a model to answer interesting historical questions. And those of us interested in the historical question of who really shot Kennedy are not impressed by conspiracy theories that merely pretend to have offered a "criminal defense" of Oswald and spend the rest of the time congratulating each other on their cleverness.

Nor was it a limit on the various commissions that tried to answer the question. Their task was not "See if this particular person is guilty," but rather "Determine who of all people did it." And both the major bodies cited in this discussion reached the same conclusion: Kennedy was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald who shot him twice. These bodies were not limited to simply determining whether Oswald was guilty or innocent; they were free to name any person or persons their investigation uncovered.

This is why the self-styled "criminal defense" of Oswald is pointless. The conspiracy theorists all follow the pattern of attacking the methods and conclusions of the Warren Commission and/or the HSCA. They say these bodies erred, and that they (the conspiracy theorists) are so much better situated to study the evidence. However while the bar was set high for the investigative bodies they attack, the conspiracy theorists -- knowingly unable to answer the question any better -- set the bar much lower for themselves. They wrongly style the commissions and committee retrospectively as courts of law solving the kinds of questions a court would solve, and then pretend to offer a "courtroom" defense that fails to rise to the same standards.

So we return to the point I made yesterday: because of the double standard, bait-and-switch tactics of the JFK conspiracy crowd, the conclusions they reach are pointless. Wrongly adopting court-of-law methods, they believe they have "acquitted" Oswald by detracting sufficiently from the WC or HSCA and made a case they self-adjudicate to be a sufficient and convincing negative case.

The double standard is what makes it pointless. We are not interested in self-styled efforts merely to "acquit" Oswald. We are not interested in meaningless victories that merely lower the bar until even minimal effort appears fruitful. We are interested in who killed Kennedy. If you think you have a better answer, tell us. If you don't, then your arguments are historically pointless and little more than decades-old noise.

 

[abaddon]

Its still a negative defense, attacking and undermining the prosecutions facts. They weren't released because they explained what did happen or who was responsible.

No, you are still wrong. The defence provided an alternative narrative, and backed it up with compelling and damning evidence. The narrative and it's associated evidence was so solid that the Crown elected not to contest it.

Again, the defendants were released because the prosecutions evidence was fatally undermined - a negative defense.

Wrong again in both cases, for the very same reasons.An alternative narrative was presented, along with compelling evidence, a large part of which was delivered by a police member who uncovered the truth.

I'm correct in stating that the defendents walked because the prosecutions facts were undermined with the use of negative arguments.

Nope. The prosecution was borked by the alternative narrative presented along with the compelling affirmative evidence that that narrative was indeed the case.

Quite a lot, since Oswald could have walked simply by undermining the prosecutions case against him, for example by pointing out fabrication or tampering with evidence, suborning perjury etc. Oswald isnt required to provide an alterntaive explanation, just cast doubt on the prosecutions facts or their propertiety and thus by proxy their facts.

He did not have to demonstrate who did kill Kennedy or even necessarily provide an alternative scenario for the individual components of evidence, although he could have effectively done this aswell.

For example, Oswald's lawyers could have argued that the police lineups were unfairly conducted and so the identifications of him at the Tippit scene were invalid. Does that involve affirmitive evidence? Yes, he would have to provide some evidence that the lineups were badly conducted, but it's essentially a negative defense. He's not coming up with an alternative scenario as to what happened at the Tippit murder scene or who did kill Tippit, just casting doubts on the prosecution claim that he was seen there.

Oswalds lawyers could have attacked the entire prosecution case in this manner.

Sorry, no. You are extrapolating this from your erroneous conclusions about the above cases. All you offer is a house of cards built on shifting sands in an earthquake prone, tsunami beset atoll built of rubber ducks. Your contention simply holds no water.

 

[JayUtah]

Sorry, no. You are extrapolating this from your erroneous conclusions about the above cases.

Or in a broader sense, he is starting from the erroneous presumption that discovering who killed Kennedy, if not Oswald, is like a criminal court case. And having written that play and cast himself in the role as defense counsel, he is playing a rather predictable and often-seen game of shifting the burden of proof.

 

[abaddon]

Or in a broader sense, he is starting from the erroneous presumption that discovering who killed Kennedy, if not Oswald, is like a criminal court case. And having written that play and cast himself in the role as defense counsel, he is playing a rather predictable and often-seen game of shifting the burden of proof.

I consider it to be even weaker than the shifting of the burden of proof.

Soily's claim amounts to "It was a conspiracy, prove me wrong".

Even were one foolish enough to take up the fools errand of attempting to prove a negative, what is it that must be proven or disproven? Soily simply refuses to say.

This is not shifting the burden of proof, this is dodging the burden of proof.

The same tactic is deployed by 911 no-claimers, who refuse point blank to make any claim whatsoever. AFAICS, this is simply an attempt to evade any rebuttal by stating "I made no claims".

 

[JayUtah]

Soily's claim amounts to "It was a conspiracy, prove me wrong".

I'm not reading it that way. When asked for his alternative explanation for the evidence, Soily responded here arguing that he had no obligation to present any, offering up the paradigm of the court case, and concluding that his obligation was satisfied simply by "undermining" the Warren Commission's practice in the mode of a defense attorney simply eroding faith in the case a prosecutor builds against the defendant, whereupon the artificial presumption of innocence regains hold.

It doesn't look to me like he's explicitly asking us to prove a negative, or demanding that we have to prove some conclusion of his false. It seems that all he's doing is asserting that the rules of criminal procedure and western criminal law theory should be the standard for evaluating the various theories for who killed Kennedy, and that according to those rules he has "won."

So there is one aspect of failure in his argument in that this is not the standard of proof he may foist on his critics, who are interested in a larger historical question. And there is a further aspect of failure in that even within the context of criminal law, he has abrogated the requirement even in a negative argument to account for all the pertinent evidence.

This is not shifting the burden of proof, this is dodging the burden of proof.

I agree. The prevailing theory is specific and testable. Deliberately offering an abstract (and therefore untestable) class of theories (i.e., "Some other dude must have done it") in opposition, and proposing that one has done an effective job of analysis, is pointless noise. It avoids having any of one's lines of reasoning tested, which does not in the least approach the rigor of even a flawed investigation that considers specific, testable hypotheses.

...evade any rebuttal by stating "I made no claims".

I quite agree. Do you recall Ladmo? That's his stock-in-trade. It's intellectually lazy and entirely fruitless as a method of studying history. And it's especially frustrating when it is deployed in a cloud of smug self-assurance. One may not change the rules of the game to set the bar absurdly low for oneself, and then credibly crow one's prowess.

 

[Brown]

You have to provide alternative explanations for all the things that would have been damning to Oswald. His rifle with his fingerprints in the sixth floor where he worked, Oswald's attempted escape, his murdering Officer Tippit and attempted murder of the other officers who cornered him in the theater, Oswald's attempted assassination of General Walker. Oswald bringing the very long package, which was found, to work with him containing "curtain rods" that were never found.

Right now, Oswald is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. Burden of proof met, slam dunk.

In another thread (to which I will not link, as I do not want that thread to get polluted with nonsense), it was shown that the legal case against Oswald was very good. Chances are that he would be first tried for murdering the police officer, and the evidence against him was very strong. Oswald could have made some points, but very likely he would have been convicted.

And then, when placed on trial for murdering the president, Oswald would come into the courtroom with big three strikes against him already: he would be a defector, a Communist AND a convicted cop-killer. Further, the evidence against him for the crime of assassination would be very strong. Trying to blame someone else, or trying to sell the jury on a frame-up, or saying that there was some sort of nebulous conspiracy would be a very poor strategy and would accomplish nothing for Oswald.

 

[Slowvehicle]

<respectful snip for focus>
Sorry, no. You are extrapolating this from your erroneous conclusions about the above cases. All you offer is a house of cards built on shifting sands in an earthquake prone, tsunami beset atoll built of rubber ducks. Your contention simply holds no water.

Yahbbut--how do you really feel?

 

[dreitzes]

Well first of all I am going to stop giggling over what you consider evidence. What is that? A 6th generation xerox? It even looks like someone penned in the '62' part. Looks like a rather sad fake.

I wrote a detailed article about Richard Case Nagell some years back. He was quite a sad case, a mentally ill veteran who would occasionally try to get psychiatric help, but ultimately refuse to cooperate every time. When New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's JFK conspiracy probe was getting a lot of publicity in 1967, Nagell contacted his office, seeking to inject himself into some of Garrison's theories.

As a new member I can't post URLs yet, but if you Google "nagell jfk reitzes," the article will come right up.

Dave

 

[LSSBB]

I wrote a detailed article about Richard Case Nagell some years back. He was quite a sad case, a mentally ill veteran who would occasionally try to get psychiatric help, but ultimately refuse to cooperate every time. When New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison's JFK conspiracy probe was getting a lot of publicity in 1967, Nagell contacted his office, seeking to inject himself into some of Garrison's theories.

As a new member I can't post URLs yet, but if you Google "nagell jfk reitzes," the article will come right up.

Dave

Linky: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nagell1.htm

 

[BStrong]

NY Post:

http://nypost.com/2013/10/20/jfks-brain-went-missing-and-rfk-may-have-swiped-it/

RFK may have swiped JFK's brain.

 

[Brown]

NY Post:

http://nypost.com/2013/10/20/jfks-brain-went-missing-and-rfk-may-have-swiped-it/

RFK may have swiped JFK's brain.

That RFK had these things and had disposed of them was reported by Time Magazine in the mid-1970s.

 

[BStrong]

That RFK had these things and had disposed of them was reported by Time Magazine in the mid-1970s.

That's the truth, but truth doesn't much figure in most CT's wrt the JFK assassination.

 

[skepticidal]

The results of this poll are disgusting and, despite being only a reflection of the modern American condition and will have little impact on our path forward, it still enrages me.

I don't consider it an excuse to have been educated under the Prussian system and to have daily pledged allegiance to a mythological state with no equal. Adult Americans should value knowledge and increase time spent seeking it by orders of magnitude. They should understand the perilousness of their present condition by observing it objectively. If more did, I have little doubt it would cause change the likes of the sun exploding.

Most of you (not all, thankfully) will have already developed a narrow range of images with which to judge the value of what you're reading. It may be partly a fundamental trait, but I wish you would FIGHT IT rather than develop it as a skill!

Here's an example of what you're likely thinking on some level...

This guy either...

1. Thinks the Oswald that shot JFK was an imposter to conveniently frame Oswald..or...
2. Oswald was an MKULTRA programmed assassin..or...
3. George HW Bush organized the hit..or...
4. Will argue the impossibility of doing all that shooting "because the rifle was blah, blah”..or...
5. The mob did the killing aided by informants within the police and CIA.

I could go on to list hundreds of scenarios in various combinations that would still fall within your narrow range of possibilities. Why is this? Well, frankly it's largely ignorance of the persons and events and misinformation driven by its popularity. I can forgive the ignorance, as we can't all be expected to see clearly the importance of unraveling the lies. But to start believing fallacies without bothering to confirm information; to be led down trails based on your own false assumptions should embarrass you. If not now, it certainly will soon as history is repaired.

But, this is "my" problem and not theirs or yours. The fact that I suspect the foolish masses of cock-blocking humanity from a world beyond our imaginations is of no concern to them. Why? Because they don't see it that way, and might only rarely see things multidimensionaly.

So, prepare to be shocked!

Even that warning isn't likely to prepare you for information on a different frequency, one so much clearer as to blast through the waves of thin speculation that has your expectation so low. The sooner you center your skepticism between unpopular or irrational theories and official accounts the better. It is pointless to be skeptical only of unofficial theories, if you ever hope to witness the truth even once.

You didn't know that...

Oswald was, in fact a very important intelligence asset and black project operative. He became Herbert Hoover's most treasured non-official cover operative. If you don't see it's obvious he was part of the spy-defector program, then you'll have a blind spot without further research.

You didn't know that...

Oswald was the most aware of the agents and operatives he was tied to. Yes, he knew that Ruth and Michael Paine were assets on a convergent course with him. More critically, he knew Marina was directed to make the connection with and eventually marry and travel with him to America. He may not have known the ultimate purpose, but did know of her reports to the Soviet Union and communication with US agencies.

Let's rewind and say we have no back-story on LHO...

Are you in the group that suspect LHO was the lone shooter? If so, I'll bet you arrived at that suspicion largely because Oswald got a job at the Book Depository. Having a place of work that was also an ideal location from which to assassinate the president is no coincidence, right? Are you sure about that? He had only worked there just over a month. Only through an acquaintance of Ruth Paine mentioning her husband working at the Book Depository and Ruth calling to learn if they were hiring did Oswald get an interview.

The motorcade date, time and route were not announced until the 8th of November and the turn down Houston to Elm was never certain until the day prior. Oswald’s manager hired him as a temp, along with a few others around the same time. He reported that Oswald was not sent to work at their second facility only by chance. He wasn't laid off that week when another temp was, again only by chance. Multiple witnesses reported his continued search for more permanent work the whole month of November. One job interview was confirmed. Not exactly the behavior of an assassin carefully planning for everything to be in place before a job.

You didn't know that...

Modern cancers are the result of US agencies attempting to weaponize cancer. Their inside ruse was to claim it was only for assassinating Castro in response to the Communist threat. But, the big brass and their elite masters had big plans for cancer.

You didn't know that...

The bastards didn't seem to care that, just a few months earlier they failed massively at their attempt to scam millions from the public through a program of infecting groups with Polio along with widespread vaccination. In only a week, reports that hundreds had died and many more had contracted Polio were coming in. They suspended the national program to deliberate. After realizing the vaccine didn't cure or immunize against Polio, they were stuck.

The hype over the vaccine at that point included a television endorsement from Eisenhower himself and propaganda reels before movies. Many batches of the vaccine had been and were currently tainted to add to the problem. They decided like always that America is too great to fail and resumed the poisoning. They later claimed to have eradicated Polio. But this was only done after realizing how successful their AMA program of instructing doctors that Polio symptoms were to be diagnosed as other paralytic conditions. Later, even more twisted medical bureaucrats invented "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" to further obfuscate their Polio failure. Pretty clever, eh?

I mention this in relation to Oswald because, you didn't know that...

In the middle 20th century, people as young as high-school freshman were encouraged to pursue chemistry, biology, biochemistry and medicine. When a 16 year old girl, Judyth Vary Baker achieved so many cancer research breakthroughs, it led to an invitation from a New Orleans doctor who was a leader in the field to join him at his state-of-the-art facility in New Orleans. There, she could pursue her research with his guidance.

Now, before you go calling this whole story a conspiracy theory be aware that much evidence exists this high-school girl was receiving her school deliveries of controlled chemicals directly from the Army.

When this, now 17 year old arrived in New Orleans and was in need of someone to look out for her who do you think was assigned the task? You got it; Oswald. He pretended a chance meeting with her and arranged an apartment from her just around the corner from his own. Oschner, the doctor who sent for this young girl was the Chairman of the American Cancer Foundation and literally owned the entire hospital where he practiced. Once, when she went to visit him in his office he stepped out to great her but asked that Oswald come in to speak with him first. She had no idea that they knew each other, yet could overhear a pretty heated discussion.

Before long, Oschner revealed to her that she was wanted for a secret program to weaponize cancer. She agreed and was introduced to another prominent doctor, Mary Sherman who would become a mentor and direct her research. The crazy thing was that the work would require nothing less than a Linear Particle Accelerator. Seriously? Give me a break. In a 3 story brick building amongst the grounds of an Army medical facility, the interior was gutted and fitted with massive circuitry. The machine was installed, which included an open floor design to allow for its size. The basement level was where the beam would strike a prism, splitting the beam in 5 directions. The hexagonal layout of the rooms was designed for these beams to target 5 objects simultaneously.

The objects most often targeted were rats and sometimes rabbits. Our teenage whiz kid would receive cages of rats with tumors formed after their very cells were mutated after exposure to the particle beam. She would extract the worst and fastest-growing tumors, blend them and separate the material to be injected into other rats. As the process continued, the best cancers were identified. Oswald assisted in her work, transporting the animals and other materials. It was Oswald who would often deliver the distilled tumor mixture to the group running the accelerator. Judyth was told never to make direct contact with Oschner again and had never even seen the accelerator facility.

You think this has been weird so far? You didn't know that...

Remember the tweaky guy played by Joe Pesci in the film, JFK? That was David Ferrie. When he died at the hands of JFK assassination conspirators, in his apartment was found a cancer research paper written by him. Ferrie was also involved in the cancer weaponization project. In fact, the apartments where as many as 400 rat cages were housed and where Judyth and Oswald would process these tumors in the kitchen laboratory was rented by David Ferrie. Only 2 blocks away he had another apartment rented where more rat cages were housed. Both Judyth and Mary Sherman expressed high regard for Ferrie's cancer knowledge.

You didn't know that...

Oswald had a job for a whole while living in New Orleans at a Coffee distributor. Upstairs housed the business offices and downstairs the coffee packaging and distribution. Judyth was hired the very same day as Oswald and can produce her original employment paperwork along with Oswald’s. The job was not a real job type job. It was arranged as cover for the 2 during their covert work. Oswald was rarely there and Judyth would be required to punch his time card in the morning and sometimes evening as well. Other times, she would punch both cards before the 2 would leave for the day and return in the late afternoon. When not working on the project, the 2 would perform their normal work duties despite an irritable manager no doubt a bit uncomfortable being stuck with two lame employees.

You didn't know that...

The reason why Oswald was witnessed with both David Ferrie and Clay Shaw when they pulled up and Oswald got in line to vote for some reason, was they were working together at finding access to the nearby hospital and criminal asylum. There, they would conduct their first human trial of the cancer weapon on a criminally insane inmate. It was Judyth that was able to secure work there as a nurse. She did inject the inmate chosen and was able to observe that the trial was a success when he died a short month later.

You didn't know that...

Fast forward to the Book Depository. Local news footage of the actual search of the floor where the sniper's nest was claimed to be was broadcast and is still available. In that footage, you can see police and detectives first holding up the purported shooter's rifle after it was found and then examining it closely. Dallas police officer, Roger Craig is seen in the group getting as close a look as any. He reported that the group all saw and spoke out loud what was etched on the rifle's barrel; 7.65 Mauser.

What's funny is that, in the footage of the group looking over the gun can be seen another rifle lying against some boxed nearby. This was likely the weapon intended to be found but a mix-up occurred. Roger Craig held to his account while the other officers and detectives each recanted their report with no explanation and the consensus became that they found the Carcano rifle. But, none of that matters anyway since Oswald never owned that rifle and didn't possess one anytime while living in the Dallas area. He owned only a revolver during the period. It was Ruth Paine that purchased the money order and filled out the order form for the gun with the name, A. Hidell.

You didn't know that...

Roger Craig had also witnessed a green station wagon pull up to the Book Depository after the shooting and Oswald get inside before it drove away. Although some argue that it wasn't Oswald, but rather someone who intentionally looked much like him. I think it was Oswald. But, why would he be leaving the scene if he had nothing to do with the killing?

You didn't know that...

Oswald was involved in the assassination. But, if anything he would have preferred to prevent it. He surely knew that Ruth Paine helping him to get the job might have been nefarious in some way, but probably didn't ultimately know. He wasn't aware that she would begin claiming to not like him after the assassination. They both likely knew of each other's operative status, but not the specifics. It was because of this that Oswald readily jumped in with Ruth when he recognized her car and asked for a ride to the theater, knowing that she probably understood he would need to meet his supervisor. But first, he asked if she would swing by his boarding room where he would grab his revolver.

You didn't know that...

Ruth Paine had on that day and pretty much every day since the singular job of getting Oswald to the theater where she knew he might be set up or even killed. So, when afterward she drove to her husband's workplace to find he was not there and used his phone to call him at home where he did answer, it was no surprise when he said to her "We know who killed him." The FBI had already tapped the line, claiming it not unusual under the circumstances. Ruth and Michael both spoke of Oswald's guilt before he was reported to be the suspect.

But, they were just your average couple experiencing a trial separation and she was just your average Quaker housewife who spoke fluently and even taught Russian.

BREAKING IT DOWN

If I'm as much as even 50% wrong about what I've just written, Oswald is still not a lone assassin. The law enforcement and intelligence world goes way, way back. It is a cold and dark place that doesn't usually reveal that to a new recruit until the frog is nearly boiled dry.

When I hear people claiming nobody is blowing the whistle on the JFK affair and no agency is finding any conspirators to prosecute, I sometimes laugh. I want to tell them that the whole ****in' world is nothing but whistle blowers and criminals who think it's best to cover up other's crimes, lest their crimes be uncovered. People have been dropping like flies since JFK. And, the higher you go the easier it is to get away with murder, and more likely that you'll think you have to. Bill Clinton easily got a free sub sandwich many times over, as prolific as he was. Even Hillary has turned out to be a challenger.

Hell, what do you think Watergate was about?..."That Damn, Bay of Pigs affair?!

 

[Robrob]

(much rubbish asserted as fact)

 

[skepticidal]

You had little time to read my post and reply so quickly. It's good to know people are devouring my information, unable to soak it up fast enough!

My criticism and anger certainly wasn't directed at you. Clearly you welcome new ideas and want to grow. And, your argument is convincing. Your refutations solid.

I concede that Oswald was the lone assassin and will in advance of any evidence to emerge to the contrary, declare it to be purely, entirely coincidental.