|
Post by macapple on Nov 22, 2009 12:22:32 GMT -4
Ive been doing a bit of reading up on the assassination of president Kennedy and im interested in a few parts of the debate regarding Oswalds involvement as a trigger man on this.
Whilst i know many will debate the grassy Knoll and the possibility of a second gunman my brief understanding of this is that that has now been discounted. The ballistic trajectory of a bullet from the alleged area using any type of rifle would simply have gone straight through his head and injured Jacky or at least made some significant damage to the car (exit damage).
Whilst a lot of what i have read and watched recently discounts many of the conspiracy issues and i am almost sure there was one Gunman the question for me is who was it?
The issue that does draw some questions for me , is whether Oswald was the Gunman. Whilst he was complicit in certain actions in the assassination, ie.e buying the gun etc etc, did he actually pull the trigger?
What evidence is there that categorically, without a shadow of doubt, puts him at the window, with the gun pulling the trigger?
Any one help with anything that categorically puts him at the ledge with the Gun..?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 22, 2009 17:15:10 GMT -4
Well, someone saw him. Also, it wasn't a ledge; he was just leaning out the window. And, of course, if it wasn't Oswald (though I do maintain it's as close to a sensible explanation as CTs get), you have to explain who it was, where Oswald was, and how the person got the evidence to plant, such as fingerprints.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Nov 22, 2009 23:07:46 GMT -4
I'm with gillianren on this one. The evidence seems to point toward Oswald, so if one wishes it to point elsewhere better come up with a pretty solid theory to explain the killing and explain away Oswald as the trigger man.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 22, 2009 23:33:00 GMT -4
1) He was seen in the window firing 2) He was seen with what he called curtain rods earlier in the day, but none were subsequently found 3) The gun was his. 4) The gun had his finger and palm prints inside it, a place on the assember of the gun could have gotten them 5) He was missing during the Presidential motorcade passing by 6) He fled the scene 7) He shot a cop who stopped him to question him 8) He tried to shoot a second cop when he was being arrested.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 23, 2009 0:42:44 GMT -4
Now, again, if you must come up with a conspiracy, "it was someone else in the window" is not a bad way to go. It is, however, still terribly shy on evidence. You also, incidentally, have to explain why he was across town afterward and why he shot Tippit, a shooting for which there were several witnesses. I have found this site to be interesting. mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Nov 23, 2009 12:01:06 GMT -4
It was an alternate timeline version of JFK himself, after a time-traveling Red Dwarf crew knocked Oswald out of the window by accident, before he could fire the fatal shot.
|
|
|
Post by randombloke on Nov 23, 2009 12:13:36 GMT -4
Of course, he used Oswald's gun (thus explaining the prints) and was erased from history by the paradox he just created shortly after firing the fatal shot, explaining why no-one ever saw him leave the scene.
Basically, JFK's assassination was the most elaborate suicide since the inventor of the Clockwork Guillotine tested it on his alternate-universe duplicate before the duplicate could invent it himself, thereby securing the multiversal patent in all realities and simultaneously forfeiting it as part of his estate.
|
|
|
Post by macapple on Nov 23, 2009 15:36:12 GMT -4
Phantom thanks for the list, that really helps. Id like to ask a few questions on the points if i may. 1) He was seen in the window firing, My understanding from the info ive found to date is that there was no positive identification of Oswald at the 6th floor window. There were witness statements saying that there was " someone" at the window but due to the nature of the firing position it would have been difficult to see a face. Do you have any sources or witness statements that could help out here? There is really no way anyone could have seen him from the firing position as it was away and to the rear mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce504.jpg2. The gun had his finger and palm prints on it. The issue for me is there a sufficient chain of evidence to link him and the gun to the window and the shots. So this is very important. In reading the warren commission last week, it clearly states that the FBI and the police could only link the palm print to Oswald and not the finger prints. Sebastian F. Latona of the FBI testified " the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value." (Source warren commission). The palm print would have only been possible either in the construction of the gun on site or a previous time when he handled it as the barrel would have been removed to make it. So what it does prove is that Oswald definitely handled the gun but there is insufficient finger print evidence to prove he had his fingers on the trigger or gun during the firing. The standard paraffin tests for gunpowder residue were to say the least unreliable giving both false negative and false positive results so it really cant be used as an argument for or against any involvement of Oswald as the process was discredited by the FBI. There were prints found on some of the boxes in the snipers nest but of the 50 odd finger and palm prints found Oswalds were on only two to three boxes in that area. Bearing in mind he had worked on the 6th floor for some weeks it could be argued that those prints were there due to his work in the area moving boxes. There is however loads of evidence that links him to the gun and the way in which he transported the rifle to the Book Depository. His palm and finger prints were found on the paper wrapping for the rifle so he did smuggle it in and did unwrap it. 3. The fact that he was "missing" during the motorcade passing isn't sufficient evidence to prove his guilt, its all very circumstantial. There are alternative witness statements about him being on the ground floor and even helping a TV man. Im not saying that he was on the ground floor but there have been alternative alleged sightings of him which have never truly been discounted. If there is evidence of these sighting which have been debunked can you point me to them so i can have a read. I know the doorway sighting was well and truly debunked as not being Oswald . 4. He fled the scene, i agree his actions after the fact indicate the need to get away. 5. The tippet shooting does have some grey areas and to be honest i haven't got that far in reading up on this part of the story. 6. He tried to shoot another police man. Interestingly with this the actions of the Police Officer who confiscated the gun in the Theatre may have made the weapon inadmissible due processing issues. He didn't book it until 5-6 hours after the arrest which may have made it inadmissible.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 23, 2009 18:49:34 GMT -4
Okay, first off, you're wrong about the chain of custody--it would have been completely admissible.
Second, what "grey areas"? There were a half-dozen witnesses! One might be suspicious, but essentially the lot of them positively identified him, and there is no evidence of collusion.
Third, do you know how rare it is for fingerprints to be found at crime scenes at all? Oh, woe, there were only usable prints on a couple of boxes. The sheer number of usable prints is so much greater than investigators' usual expectations that it is frankly stunning to me that people use their lack as evidence.
Fourth, no witness who claimed to have seen him on the ground can be corroborated and many of them have been actively shown to be wrong. Interestingly, Robert MacNeill is believed to have seen Oswald leave the building, and two witnesses positively identify him as having been in the lunch room within five minutes of the shooting. At absolute best, it's a wash.
Fifth, circumstantial evidence is not necessarily bad; most conspiracy theorists show with certainty that they need to spend a few minutes studying police and judicial standards.
Sixth, if you haven't done the research, how can you argue the point?
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Nov 23, 2009 20:05:46 GMT -4
It was an alternate timeline version of JFK himself, after a time-traveling Red Dwarf crew knocked Oswald out of the window by accident, before he could fire the fatal shot. No, the real killer was Dr. Sam Beckett. He "quantum leaped" into Oswald's body and killed JFK. However, in the original timeline Jackie was also killed so it's an improvement.
|
|
|
Post by macapple on Nov 23, 2009 22:27:51 GMT -4
Okay, first off, you're wrong about the chain of custody--it would have been completely admissible. Apologies i'm not talking about a chain of custody, which is about sufficient evidence to arrest and hold. I am talking about sufficient chain of evidence to gain a successful prosecution the two are very different. Whilst there were many witnesses on the Tippet shooting and subsequent arrest, there are not "half a dozen witnesses" that place him at the snipers nest with his hands on the gun. The witnesses all agree that the person arrested is Oswald and that he did carry a package into the building. There is not one statement from a witness that puts him where the shooter is at the time of the assassination. Ive read the statements from one such witness, Howard Brennan, who whilst 120 ft away manages to identify Oswald in a "Khaki shirt" in the window. The fact that it is well proven the shirt he was wearing was dark blue, grey-black and orange-yellow cotton due to it being used as a key link to the rifle (fibre traces). So if he says he saw Oswald in a Khaki shirt as the shooter in the window and yet the shirt that connects him to the rifle is dark then there is a slight inconsistency in his testimony. ill explain. The fibres found on the rifle butt probably match the shirt he was wearing at the time of his arrest (see below). Connecting the rifle to the shirt. Yet the only witness to identify Oswald with a gun in the window says he was wearing Khaki. Now if this is the case then he could have been wearing the light jacket he was arrested in. All quite plausible but that then contradicts other testimony that the shooter was in dark clothes. So do we discount it or just use the bit that says Oswald is is the shooter. This would be cross examined in a court of law but yet it hasn't and is now taken as proof that he is the gunman. This is sufficient for reasonable doubt. Was this really Oswald? My gut feeling is yes it was him however much of the material I have read to date , including the evidence and testimony, does not seem as water tight as people think and may not have stood up under cross examination. He later said to the FBI that he couldn't identify the individual then changed his statement to say it was Oswald. Interestingly he managed to judge his height, facial expressions and the position of him firing in the window. The FBI proved the shooters position was to the right of the window and slightly back on the boxes. Therefore someone underneath the window and ground level and some distance away identified Oswald from 120ft ? He states in his line up statements that " I identified looking more like a closest resemblance to the man in the window than anyone in the lineup" that isn't a positive ID. He then changes his statement saying he felt his life was in danger due to it maybe being a communist plot and his family was in danger!. So retracts and says its Oswald also after admitting he identified him after seeing him in the news as the guy that shot Kennedy. The only statement that does put him on the 6th floor is 35 min before the shooting and he was moving to the lift. I think the problem with the whole finger print issue is that people use the the palm print and associated finger prints as solid evidence that he was the shooter. It proves he handled the weapon and that he moved some boxes in an area he worked in. That is all. Therefore there are inconsistencies with this approach in law. Whilst you could get a prosecution that he was an accessory to the fact there is little, if any, evidence that would stand up in court to prove he was the trigger man. I agree however the way the evidence from these statements has been reviewed and interpreted they have been used to support and underpin both sides of the argument. If you discount one part of the statement as being incorrect (i.e. Oswald identification) then you must discount the rest as inadmissible due to any potential inconstancies or mis-perceptions. Therefore some of the critical statements of evidence for both side of the argument are then discarded. I agree that many of the arguments are compelling, however as this case has only been reviewed by the public and not a court of law it hasn't had to stand the test of the judicial system with a defense and prosecuting balance. I'm not clear on what the legal status of the US House Select Committees are given in the US, but in most countries they are used as political review system to validate certain systems and issues. Whilst Warren himself was a Judge does not mean that this was a judicial review. I stand to be corrected on this. The Warren commission report is just that a commission study and report not a judicial review. The fact that the pistol in the theatre was not processed correctly and could have been tampered with in the 6 hours, from arrest to booking, would make it inadmissible as evidence. That in itself would have omitted any associated evidence in a court of law, without which any conviction would probably not be sound. Even if he was guilty as sin he probably would have got off of first degree murder on a technicality of failure of process. If there can be any reasonable doubt cast on the evidence or suspicion on how evidence is handled then it invalidates it. ( I guess the OJ trial is an example of how effectively this was done by a defense team) I agree, and I'm reading up like a demon on this. The real issue for me is the rule of law and how this would be approached if it were a criminal trial. As such the concept of the rule of law in the US has been eroded recently with explicit ignorance by the Bush administration. However that still does not mean that people either dead or alive shouldn't have a fair trial.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Nov 23, 2009 22:41:45 GMT -4
You're wrong about the pistol.
You're wrong that it was the only piece of evidence, which is the only way he would have gotten off on a technicality if the pistol were improperly handled.
You're wrong that he'd actually have to have pulled the trigger to have been convicted of the crime could it be proved--which fingerprints on the gun would do a fine job of--that he'd had something to do with it.
So yeah.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 23, 2009 23:18:46 GMT -4
So if he says he saw Oswald in a Khaki shirt as the shooter in the window and yet the shirt that connects him to the rifle is dark then there is a slight inconsistency in his testimony. ill explain. The fibres found on the rifle butt probably match the shirt he was wearing at the time of his arrest (see below). Connecting the rifle to the shirt. Yet the only witness to identify Oswald with a gun in the window says he was wearing Khaki. Now if this is the case then he could have been wearing the light jacket he was arrested in. All quite plausible but that then contradicts other testimony that the shooter was in dark clothes. So do we discount it or just use the bit that says Oswald is is the shooter. This would be cross examined in a court of law but yet it hasn't and is now taken as proof that he is the gunman. This is something that CTs do a lot of, they claim that witnesses are always exactly right. Reality tells us otherwise, that they can be easily mistaken. Honestly, that shirt in a darken area seen from a distance, I'd be willing to call it khaki too, in fact I had to look twice at the image to make sure it wasn't. When it comes to colours and the like, witnesses can often get it wrong, the human body operates that way. In the end we have a lot of evidence that says that Oswald was there at the time, that the gun was his, and that he was more then capable of doing it, and that he then reacted in a way that would indicate that he was trying not to be caught (fleeing the scene, shooting one cop, and attempting to shoot a second). We have zero evidence of any other person being there. Unless evidence can be provided that Oswald wasn't the shooter, the evidence says he was.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Nov 23, 2009 23:28:04 GMT -4
I thought I'd just add one more thing. You seem to be wanting definative proof, eg. so and so saw him and got a perfect ID of him in the window. Unfortunately life isn't that nice and neat. Very, very, very few murders have an eyewitness to them or are caught on camera for review later, but the police are able to look at the evidence and determine who did it, even without those things. Can we say with 100% cetainty that it was Oswald, no, because an assassin might have teleported into the room, taken Oswald's gun, fired the shots and then teleported out again, but the weight of evidence says that it was Owald, and there is no evidence that it was anyone else. That surpasses the requirement of a Court of Law in that there is no reasonable doubt, only irrational doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Tanalia on Nov 23, 2009 23:32:28 GMT -4
It was an alternate timeline version of JFK himself, after a time-traveling Red Dwarf crew knocked Oswald out of the window by accident, before he could fire the fatal shot. No, the real killer was Dr. Sam Beckett. He "quantum leaped" into Oswald's body and killed JFK. However, in the original timeline Jackie was also killed so it's an improvement. Minor correction: Sam leaped out of Oswald and into one of the Secret Service escort just before the shot.
|
|