JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends II

[I Ratant]

Well, the above takes my personal award for biggest non-sequitur of the year.

Hank

.
You missed the sarcasm sign...

 

[Henri McPhee]

There was another JFK TV documentary a week or two ago on British TV which I found less than clear and convincing. For one thing it portrayed a scene with the Dallas police visiting the Ruth Paine garage and then the police knowingly assuming that a rifle was missing. This is in contravention to the first statements of Ruth Paine and Mrs Oswald in the initial investigation that they didn't even know Oswald had a rifle or a pistol. Then there was another scene of Oswald supposedly holding a map of the Presidential route through Dallas. That map magically appeared days later, probably after being provided to the Dallas police by the FBI lab forgery department.

It all reminds me so much of the Joe McGinniss fabrications in his 1984 Fatal Vision TV movie which so corruptly biased the American public and judges against Dr. MacDonald.

It is not overwhelming evidence against Oswald. As I have mentioned before I don't think Oswald was completely innocent. I think he was mixed up with a bunch of Nazi CIA and Mafia. I think Oswald was the patsy to divert attention from the real culprits.

As ladmo has mentioned on this forum there are indications that the evidence against Oswald was manufactured. The FBI had a bad reputation for forensic fraud dating back to the Jeffrey MacDonald case gross miscarriage of justice.

The way these police detectives operate is not by some kind of brilliant detection in the Sherlock Holmes sense but on information received. The police then decide who did it and then they 'find' the evidence for any future court case. I think the Dallas police were probably provided with false information by persons unknown.

There are even doubts that Oswald killed Officer Tippit, which is supposed to be the conclusive evidence of his guilt. It has never been established beyond reasonable doubt that the bullets used on Tippit actually came from Oswald's pistol. There were a lot of people in Dallas then who had pistols, including the Mafia. The eyewitness testimony was most unreliable.

This Tippit matter is discussed at this website:

http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/jfk_19rosetta.html

 

[Garrison]

There was another JFK TV documentary a week or two ago on British TV which I found less than clear and convincing. For one thing it portrayed a scene with the Dallas police visiting the Ruth Paine garage and then the police knowingly assuming that a rifle was missing. This is in contravention to the first statements of Ruth Paine and Mrs Oswald in the initial investigation that they didn't even know Oswald had a rifle or a pistol. Then there was another scene of Oswald supposedly holding a map of the Presidential route through Dallas.

Yeah maybe you should spend less time analysing 'dramatic reconstructions' and more on reading the actual evidence of what the investigation did.

That map magically appeared days later, probably after being provided to the Dallas police by the FBI lab forgery department.

And of course your going to provide evidence that backs up that claim in your next post right?

 

[abaddon]

There was another JFK TV documentary a week or two ago on British TV which I found less than clear and convincing. For one thing it portrayed a scene with the Dallas police visiting the Ruth Paine garage and then the police knowingly assuming that a rifle was missing. This is in contravention to the first statements of Ruth Paine and Mrs Oswald in the initial investigation that they didn't even know Oswald had a rifle or a pistol. Then there was another scene of Oswald supposedly holding a map of the Presidential route through Dallas. That map magically appeared days later, probably after being provided to the Dallas police by the FBI lab forgery department.

Yay, BBC reconstruction must be accurate in every detail, right?

It all reminds me so much of the Joe McGinniss fabrications in his 1984 Fatal Vision TV movie which so corruptly biased the American public and judges against Dr. MacDonald.

You keep plugging this. It is still off topic.

It is not overwhelming evidence against Oswald. As I have mentioned before I don't think Oswald was completely innocent. I think he was mixed up with a bunch of Nazi CIA and Mafia. I think Oswald was the patsy to divert attention from the real culprits.

For which claims you can provide no evidence.

As ladmo has mentioned on this forum there are indications that the evidence against Oswald was manufactured.

All addressed, all failed claims.

The FBI had a bad reputation for forensic fraud dating back to the Jeffrey MacDonald case gross miscarriage of justice.

Sorry. Your off topic stuff is still off topic. Stop spamming your hobby horse.

The way these police detectives operate is not by some kind of brilliant detection in the Sherlock Holmes sense but on information received. The police then decide who did it and then they 'find' the evidence for any future court case. I think the Dallas police were probably provided with false information by persons unknown.

And your vast knowledge of police investigative procedure comes from where? NYPD Blue?

There are even doubts that Oswald killed Officer Tippit, which is supposed to be the conclusive evidence of his guilt.

Nope

It has never been established beyond reasonable doubt that the bullets used on Tippit actually came from Oswald's pistol.

Yes, it has.

There were a lot of people in Dallas then who had pistols, including the Mafia.

Quite a lot of people today have pistols. Are they all suspects?

The eyewitness testimony was most unreliable.

This is a keeper. You say this, yet then proceed to quote eyewitness testimony as gospel. How many times must you be told that everyone here knows this?

This Tippit matter is discussed at this website:

http://www.law.uga.edu/dwilkes_more/jfk_19rosetta.html

See what I mean? All of a sudden, eyewitness testimony is unimpeachable according to you.

 

[Mudcat]

FBI lab forgery department.

This made me laugh out loud. Well, at least you're good for the comedy if not for your questionable investigoogle skills.

 

[kookbreaker]

What map is Henri talking about? I have never heard of any map produced by anyone that was supposed to be in Oswald's possession? I haven't read about this in conspiracy literature or otherwise. The closest I have heard of this was Oswald learning about the motorcade route by reading the previous day's newspaper at lunch.

 

[thedopefishlives]

Well, the above takes my personal award for biggest non-sequitur of the year.

Hank

Yeah, I was totally snarking on that one. It does, however, appear to have some relevance to ladmo's contentions in this thread; it appears that if an eyewitness didn't see something happen (like, for example, Oswald extracting the rifle from the bag), then it didn't happen. Now I know that he will probably label this a strawman argument, and perhaps it is; but taking his position on eyewitness vs. physical evidence to its logical end, that would be a valid statement of his position.

 

[HSienzant]

What map is Henri talking about? I have never heard of any map produced by anyone that was supposed to be in Oswald's possession? I haven't read about this in conspiracy literature or otherwise. The closest I have heard of this was Oswald learning about the motorcade route by reading the previous day's newspaper at lunch.

Among his possessions, the police found a map marked with x's at various locations. It was initially reported in the news that Oswald had scouted out various locations from which to assassinate the President, including one at the corner of Elm and Houston streets (the Texas School Book Depository building), from which the shots were determined to have been fired.

Oswald had a far-more innocent, and more reasonable explanation.

As he pointed out, he didn't own a car and relied on public transportation to get around. He was searching for jobs in October and marked the locations on the map of the locations he applied for jobs. As he pointed out in an interrogation session, there's an x at the TSBD location because he applied for a job there, and in fact, did get that job.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0327b.htm

Here's a link to a story claiming the map was used to plot the assassination (far-left column)
http://www.downhold.org/lowry/pres68.jpg

His explanation is reasonable and believable; especially since the route was only determined by the weekend prior to the assassination, and Oswald already had the TSBD job.

Hank

 

[Robrob]

As ladmo has mentioned on this forum there are indications that the evidence against Oswald was manufactured. The FBI had a bad reputation for forensic fraud dating back to the Jeffrey MacDonald case gross miscarriage of justice.

Um, you do realize JFK was assassinated twenty years before your cited 1984 case?

What's with the constant attempts at redirecting the subject anyway?

 

[LSSBB]

What's with the constant attempts at redirecting the subject anyway?

It's called "dragging things out", the CT way of stretching out the last bit of grass in the baggie.

 

[kookbreaker]

I in no way speak for ladmo, but I would have to hope on some level that his thoughts would be along the lines of "Oh for the love of....please do not compare the JFK case with that child-stabbing wife-murderer!"

 

[Willy Ekerslike]

There was another JFK TV documentary a week or two ago on British TV which I found less than clear and convincing..

That wasn't a documentary, that was a dramatic reconstruction. The fact that you don't seem to be able to distinguish the difference shouldn't really surprise me, I suppose.

 

[ladmo]

Buried in your wall o' text is the little nugget above. I know this is probably futile to ask, but maybe today's the day someone surprises me: do you have proof of what you suggest is a planted prop?

The only picture taken of the bag is outside the TSBD building. What is your proof that this bag was on the 6th floor? Where is the photo that Dallas Police Procedures say is required to be taken of all evidence at a crime scene?

 

[ladmo]

Deletia... ( you quote the testimony of Montgomery, Day, Studebaker, and Sims, attempting to show... well, exactly what is unclear. Much of this was handled by another poster already, so I won't respond in detail).

All you've shown by the cited testimony is that these men are human (they don't have perfect recall, no) and that they are not in collusion (if they were, their stories would match up better).

You yourself, given the benefit of 50 years of hindsight, make a few errors of recollection in the same post.

You quote Montgomery as saying "Let's see--the paper sack--I don't recall for sure if it was on the floor or on the box, but I know it was just there----one of those pictures might show exactly where it was." [emphasis added]

But then you sum up this as "I am sure someone took the picture because Det. Montgomery said so..."

No, Montgomery only said one of those pictures "might show" it.

He himself was unsure. You are apparently much more certain of what Montgomery said than he himself expressed.




No, he didn't. Read it again. "Might show". Not "Does show".




No, I think that, because of the ten times by my count (you never did provide your count) Frazier said he wasn't paying attention.
You think his estimate is spot-on for the length of the bag despite his disclaimer that he wasn't paying attention to it.




I at one time questioned them as you are doing. Then I read all the testimony. At least twice. I'll urge you to read it to, because it's pretty apparent that you're just recycling old claims gleaned from some conspiracy and already proven to be bogus based on research to my own satisfaction decades ago. You aren't raising new points of your own. You're just recycling old ones that aren't true, and can be shown easily to be not true. I wouldn't be so smug if all this nonsense wasn't already dealt with decades ago.




Yep. Proving they are human and not in collusion. Thanks for quoting all that. It saved me the trouble.




This is another absolute falsehood by you, gleaned not from books on proper investigative work but merely regurgitating something you read from a conspiracy source. Your claim is nonsense. All you would need to make it admissible is Studebaker's admission that this was the bag he picked up before it was photographed in place, and then testimony from Day and Latona that this is bag that went from Studebaker to Day to Latona. Chain of possession established and the bag is admissible.




I think you meant to write "many on this forum don't swallow and regurgitate as much nonsense from conspiracy sources as I do."




FALSE.




FALSE.




Except for Studebaker picking the bag up prematurely and inadvertently, FALSE.




FALSE. Prints appeared after being emersed in a silver nitrate solution and exposed to bright light. There is nothing surprising about this.




Nothing out of the ordinary. People are human, by definition. The four people quoted by you are therefore human. You are expecting perfection, and claiming because it wasn't present, that is suspicious. That's another absurdity by you.




Asked and answered. Studebaker picking the bag up prematurely and inadvertently meant the bag should not be placed BACK into the crime scene and photographed there. Once the initial mistake was made, the bag was handled perfectly correctly. But the bag exists, it was photographed (although not in the crime scene), fingerprints were developed, the prints are Oswald's, confirming he handled the bag, the photos of the prints still exist, the prints on the bag were attested to by Latona and (independently) J.C.Day, and the prints are Oswald's. And the bag is big enough to hold the disassembled rifle and it was found right near the sniper's nest window where three shells traceable to Oswald's rifle were found.

Thanks for helping me to delineate just some of the evidence against Oswald. You've done great, and I thank you and commend you for your hard work in this regard. I couldn't have done it without you.




Except all the evidence you dismiss for one bogus reason or another.

If that bag was a fake, why didn't they put it into the crime scene and photograph it there? They they could claim that is where they found it and you would have no argument. But they didn't do that. Any idea why the conspirators didn't do that?

Here's one for consideration: Because there were no conspirators.

All the Best,
Hank

Bottom line is that you are clueless when chain of possession Your rhetoric is so incomprehensible that it is a waste of time. Your claims are just that... claims. You just use the word "FALSE" without any support documentation but that is understandable because there is none. I love your assertion "Except for Studebaker picking the bag up prematurely and inadvertently, FALSE." and exactly where did you determine "inadvertently"? Please provide testimony to this action. You may need to read the testimonies a third time as the previous two times are not working for you.

Like a typical Lone-Nutter you resort to "recycling old claims gleaned from some conspiracy and already proven to be bogus based on research to my own satisfaction decades ago."... well, I guess this is case closed because of your research decades ago. This just shows that you have no idea what you are discussing. You dismiss additional releases under the FOIA as they don't fit your model? You are the only person I have read that says these findings are no use, let's not let facts get in the way of making an informed decision. This statement alone diminishes your ability to assimilate facts into your "conclusions". Relying on decades old information is like using a typewriter to bang out your correspondence today but then again, that would be on the same level of your complete lack of fact based arguments.

 

[JayUtah]

Bottom line is that you are clueless...
Your rhetoric is so incomprehensible that it is a waste of time.
Like a typical Lone-Nutter...
This just shows that you have no idea what you are discussing.
This statement alone diminishes your ability to assimilate facts into your "conclusions".

Do you have a relevant point?

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The only picture taken of the bag is outside the TSBD building. What is your proof that this bag was on the 6th floor? Where is the photo that Dallas Police Procedures say is required to be taken of all evidence at a crime scene?

Do not shift the burden of proof.

 

[HSienzant]

The only picture taken of the bag is outside the TSBD building. What is your proof that this bag was on the 6th floor?

Duh. The eyewitness testimony you quoted, as well as the photos taken of the bag as it was removed from the building.

Where is the photo that Dallas Police Procedures say is required to be taken of all evidence at a crime scene?

Asked and answered. Studebaker picked it up before it could be photographed in place, therefore the appropriate way to handle it is it should NOT be placed back into the crime scene. Keep asking this; the answer will remain the same no matter how often you ask.

I answered your questions. I'm still awaiting answers for mine:

Now, if the DPD was trying to frame Oswald with a phony bag, why didn't they put this into the crime scene and photograph it there?

If Oswald brought a different size bag into the TSBD, where's that bag?

How'd this bag get Oswald's fingerprint and palmprint it on?

Where's those curtain rods?

Why'd Oswald lie in custody and deny bringing a long sack to the TSBD that morning? As you know, Oswald claimed Frazier must have been mistaken or thinking of some other day. If Oswald brought a 24-27 inch sack to the TSBD, why did he deny it? Why didn't he lead the cops to that 24-27 inch sack and say, "See, this is the one I brought in."

Why would the police bother to create a sack if none existed? If none was found near the sixth floor window or in the TSBD, the presumption would be that Oswald simply discarded the sack someplace, and it was never found.

All the best,
Hank

 

[JayUtah]

Do not shift the burden of proof.

In this case he really isn't. If the claim is that the bag photographed outside the building was found at a place inside the building that has probative value in the case against Oswald, then some kind of evidence has to be presented for that hypothesis.

But of course what's happening here is the typical tap-dance and the arbitrary shifting of standards of evidence. Here ladmo demands that only a single kind of evidence (namely the crime scene photograph) will suffice as proof. That's a straw man. Taking a photograph of evidence in situ is a sensible policy. But the hidden premise in this argument, as it has been elsewhere, is that officers should have strictly followed procedure, and if they didn't, the default explanation for that is framing Oswald.

The standards shift is arbitrary because the conspiracy theory elsewhere relies on isolated eyewitness testimony to trump all other evidence, even physical. If that's not a double standard, then eyewitness testimony should elsewhere be held pre-eminent, especially when the disputation is based on nothing more than the speculative explanation for a small procedural misstep. So if witnesses say the bag was recovered in the Depository, they should be believed. Here, of course, ladmo just picks and chooses which eyewitnesses he wants to believe based on whether they fit a predetermined conclusion.

Since a lot of this thread has dealt with photographs introduced as evidence, and the almost rabid attempt to declare such photographic evidence fraudulent or forged, I don't typically pay much attention to conspiracist requests that insinuate photographs are the sine qua non of evidence. They're just trying to score rhetorical points based on what they think is the appearance of impropriety.

 

[JayUtah]

Asked and answered. Studebaker picked it up before it could be photographed in place, therefore the appropriate way to handle it is it should NOT be placed back into the crime scene. Keep asking this; the answer will remain the same no matter how often you ask.

That's the difference between armchair investigation and real investigation. The police investigating the O.J. Simpson crime scene actually botched the case on this point. Simpson's attorneys were able to demonstrate painstakingly that the crime-scene photographs showed that officers had moved evidence, because it appeared inconsistently in the photographs the prosecution said were of the pristine crime scene. While this may not have affected the actual question of Simpson's guilt, it showed that the prosecution misrepresented evidence.

Having Studebaker replace the bag and then photographing it in a way that suggested it was a pristine, as-discovered photograph would have been fundamentally dishonest no matter how innocent the officers' motives would have been -- only because a competent defense attorney could undermine the case on what amounts largely to a technicality.

"There should have been a photograph taken," is a naive understanding of the actual forensic procedures.

Why'd Oswald lie in custody and deny bringing a long sack to the TSBD that morning?

That's the part that strikes me as suspicious. Suspects in custody generally have no idea the extent to which officers have developed other evidence. Officers will ask suspects questions designed to get them to lie and then have to change their story later, because that can be argued to a jury is strong evidence of guilt. This is done by asking them to confirm or deny facts they already know from other sources, telling them only part of the truth. Suspects generally first try to bluff their way around the questions.

 

[Jetblast]

After the meeting Veciana told Schweiker that Phillips was not the man known to him as Bishop.[/I][/B]

Veciana had a bullet put into his head after he told HSCA Phillips was Bishop. If he denied it later on it's understandable considering the murderous pressure Veciana experienced in Cuban exile-populated Miami, which included that bullet.

Deeper research in DiEugenio's 'Destiny Betrayed' shows Phillips was identified in New Orleans by many others as being the CIA handler for the Cuban exiles and their anti-Castro operations, of which Veciana was a documented member.

In any case, Veciana signed an affidavit on his death bed confirming the story. I'll take his word on it over an obviously excuse-seeking denier.

' Wonder how Veciana would fare on a lie detector test?