Oswald's Trial

[John Fiorentino]

Some things to remember about Oswald's guilt or innocence in a trial
setting.

There have been some discussions in other threads here recently touching
on the evidence that Oswald murdered Tippit.

I have been playing devil's advocate and in a sense acting as a defense
attorney.

My purpose is simply to initiate some critical thinking, to raise some
legitimate questions and generally throw out some thought provoking ideas.

Many here seem to have been disturbed by this. I assume they wonder why
this confirmed "lone nutter" is mumbling these things. Has he lost his
mind?

Well, my state of mind is probably open to debate. But to get back on
track.

Some here who have engaged me have used various quotes of testimony from
the Warren Report, referred to FBI witness interviews and the like.

However, if Oswald had lived and gone to trial, there would have been no
Warren Commission, or FBI reports to refer to.

Most don't even realize that at the time JFK was killed the assassination
of the President of the United States wasn't even a Federal offense.

So, any trial would have revolved primarily around evidence produced by
the Dallas Police Department and the State of Texas. You may have had a
smattering of FBI reports, like finger-print evidence, perhaps ballistics,
etc., but not a whole heck of a lot more. Certainly not the hundreds and
hundreds of FBI interviews.

Based on that alone, I believe a clever defense attorney may have
prevailed in the case.

John F.

[David Von Pein]

JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:

There have been some discussions in other threads here recently
touching on the evidence that Oswald murdered Tippit. I have been
playing devil's advocate and in a sense acting as a defense
attorney. My purpose is simply to initiate some critical thinking, to
raise some legitimate questions and generally throw out some thought

provoking ideas. .... I believe a clever defense attorney may have
prevailed in the case.


DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:

But why do you want to play the part of "clever defense attorney" for
Oswald--particularly in the Tippit murder case, which is a murder that
all sensible people know was committed by Lee Harvey Oswald?

And you, yourself, think Oswald killed both Kennedy and Tippit. So
what's the point of pretending that the overall weight of the evidence
indicates anything OTHER than Oswald's guilt? Even YOU believe that
that "overall weight" hangs Oswald. And as I mentioned in another
thread, it's obviously the combination of the witness testimony and
those four bullet shells littering Tenth Street in Oak Cliff that are
the things that led you to your "Oswald's Guilty" belief. If not those
things, then what? Tea leaves?

Do you have a desire to be compared to "clever" defense attorneys like
Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck, who would do anything and isolate
every piece of evidence separately in order to convince a jury of
something that's obviously not true?

If you were one of the Internet's many silly "Anybody But Oswald"
conspiracy theorists, then I could easily understand why you, John,
would want to actively engage in such "clever" defense lawyer antics.
But you're not. You think, as do I, that Oswald killed Tippit (and
Kennedy).

And in the long run, WHO CARES whether a slick lawyer could have
gotten Oswald off the hook in front of a jury? The fact remains that
that same basic "totality" of evidence (which has obviously also
convinced John E. Fiorentino of Oswald's guilt) will still always be
there for reasonable people to examine as a SUM TOTAL, and not by
isolating just the Poe shells or Acquilla Clemmons' statements, etc.

The parlor games that some CTers like to play in their efforts to cast
doubt on Oswald's guilt are games that, IMO, are only played by
desperate conspiracy believers, who (like Cochran in the O.J. Simpson
case) would do and say almost anything (no matter how silly,
improbable, or impossible) in their efforts to exonerate a guilty
murderer.

People can participate in those "defense lawyer" parlor games if they
so desire. But I, for one, prefer the game called "Sum Total Of
Evidence", which is a game that has only one outcome: OSWALD DID IT.

David Von Pein
June 7, 2013

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

[mainframetech]

On Friday, June 7, 2013 8:33:19 PM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Some things to remember about Oswald's guilt or innocence in a trial
>
> setting.
>
>
>
> There have been some discussions in other threads here recently touching
>
> on the evidence that Oswald murdered Tippit.
>
>
>
> I have been playing devil's advocate and in a sense acting as a defense
>
> attorney.
>
>
>
> My purpose is simply to initiate some critical thinking, to raise some
>
> legitimate questions and generally throw out some thought provoking ideas.
>
>
>
> Many here seem to have been disturbed by this. I assume they wonder why
>
> this confirmed "lone nutter" is mumbling these things. Has he lost his
>
> mind?
>
>
>
> Well, my state of mind is probably open to debate. But to get back on
>
> track.
>
>
>
> Some here who have engaged me have used various quotes of testimony from
>
> the Warren Report, referred to FBI witness interviews and the like.
>
>
>
> However, if Oswald had lived and gone to trial, there would have been no
>
> Warren Commission, or FBI reports to refer to.
>
>
>
> Most don't even realize that at the time JFK was killed the assassination
>
> of the President of the United States wasn't even a Federal offense.
>

So MURDER wasn't a federal offense? I kind of thought it was...maybe not assassination, but MURDER? And if murder is a federal offense, then an investigation may ensue, and all the other trappings of a murder case.

>
>
> So, any trial would have revolved primarily around evidence produced by
>
> the Dallas Police Department and the State of Texas. You may have had a
>
> smattering of FBI reports, like finger-print evidence, perhaps ballistics,
>
> etc., but not a whole heck of a lot more. Certainly not the hundreds and
>
> hundreds of FBI interviews.
>

If the FBI chooses, they can devote as much manpower to a case as they feel is necessary. Of course, when they have a preconceived notion of who the guilty party is, the result is a foregone conclusion, as in the JFK case.

>
>
> Based on that alone, I believe a clever defense attorney may have
>
> prevailed in the case.
>

Now in this case, I agree.
>
>
> John F.

Chris

[John Fiorentino]

Obviously, you don't get it, and that's ok.


John F.


"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:29c32053-bcd3-4253...@g3g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

[mainframetech]

On Friday, June 7, 2013 11:42:32 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> JOHN FIORENTINO SAID:
>
>
>
> There have been some discussions in other threads here recently
>
> touching on the evidence that Oswald murdered Tippit. I have been
>
> playing devil's advocate and in a sense acting as a defense
>
> attorney. My purpose is simply to initiate some critical thinking, to
>
> raise some legitimate questions and generally throw out some thought
>
> provoking ideas. .... I believe a clever defense attorney may have
>
> prevailed in the case.
>
>
>
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAYS:
>
>
>
> But why do you want to play the part of "clever defense attorney" for
>
> Oswald--particularly in the Tippit murder case, which is a murder that
>
> all sensible people know was committed by Lee Harvey Oswald?
>
>

Hmm. One sensible person thinks someone else pulled the trigger than Oswald. Check her statement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCCd0hzLsY

>
> And you, yourself, think Oswald killed both Kennedy and Tippit. So
>
> what's the point of pretending that the overall weight of the evidence
>
> indicates anything OTHER than Oswald's guilt? Even YOU believe that
>
> that "overall weight" hangs Oswald. And as I mentioned in another
>
> thread, it's obviously the combination of the witness testimony and
>
> those four bullet shells littering Tenth Street in Oak Cliff that are
>
> the things that led you to your "Oswald's Guilty" belief. If not those
>
> things, then what? Tea leaves?
>
>
>
> Do you have a desire to be compared to "clever" defense attorneys like
>
> Johnnie Cochran and Barry Scheck, who would do anything and isolate
>
> every piece of evidence separately in order to convince a jury of
>
> something that's obviously not true?
>
>
>
> If you were one of the Internet's many silly "Anybody But Oswald"
>
> conspiracy theorists, then I could easily understand why you, John,
>
> would want to actively engage in such "clever" defense lawyer antics.
>
> But you're not. You think, as do I, that Oswald killed Tippit (and
>
> Kennedy).
>
>
>
> And in the long run, WHO CARES whether a slick lawyer could have
>
> gotten Oswald off the hook in front of a jury? The fact remains that
>
> that same basic "totality" of evidence (which has obviously also
>
> convinced John E. Fiorentino of Oswald's guilt) will still always be
>
> there for reasonable people to examine as a SUM TOTAL, and not by
>
> isolating just the Poe shells or Acquilla Clemmons' statements, etc.
>

By taking the 'totality' of evidence, one finds in both murders that the bits of evidence get divided up into different categories. Some get put into the could be Oswald pile, some get into the definitely NOT Oswald pile, and some just make folks wonder. Given the efforts on the part of the FBI to shut up witnesses that would say anything that suggested that someone else was the guilty party or that a conspiracy was extant, we would have a hard time getting the truth out of the witnesses that were listed for the WC. The ones that were NOT scheduled for the WC would be a better place to start.

>
>
> The parlor games that some CTers like to play in their efforts to cast
>
> doubt on Oswald's guilt are games that, IMO, are only played by
>
> desperate conspiracy believers, who (like Cochran in the O.J. Simpson
>
> case) would do and say almost anything (no matter how silly,
>
> improbable, or impossible) in their efforts to exonerate a guilty
>
> murderer.
>

Or rather who YOU have decided was a guilty murderer.

>
>
> People can participate in those "defense lawyer" parlor games if they
>
> so desire. But I, for one, prefer the game called "Sum Total Of
>
> Evidence", which is a game that has only one outcome: OSWALD DID IT.
>

A shame the evidence divides itself up into those categories. Experienced police saying things like it was done with an automatic, or I saw a short, swarthy, chunky guy reloading his revolver right after the shots rang out, or Oswald never pulled the trigger on his revolver in the theater, or we have a mix and match with the cartridges from his pockets, or a .38 special can't be matched to a bullet that killed someone, or the FBI said I'd get hurt if I talked, and on and on. Difficult to make a case with all that hanging out and having to be dealt with. If one witness was intimidated into silence, were others?

Chris

[curtjester1]

If there were two or a doppleganger Oswald, wouldn't that put a crimp
in any trial?

CJ

[Chad Anthony]

John, I get where you're coming from.Gerald Posner believed had Oswald had
Mark Lane as his attorney he would have gotten off. Oswald too seemed to
hold out hope as well, probably why he denied everything. Every watched
the Bugiolsi/Spence mock trial?

[Anthony Marsh]

Another phony argument by authority. Stupid Dallas cops guessing and you
call them experts. Like Weitzman. Kooks like to claim that he was an
expert on WWII rifles. Then we he denies it they claim the cover-up forced
him to say that. The Kooks will never allow facts to exist.

[John Fiorentino]

Yes, I sure have seen the Spence/Bugliosi masterpiece really.

Some of it was actually *riveting.*

The grilling Ruth Paine received was a classic.

As for Posner and Lane though. I think they're BOTH bums.

I vote for Gerry Spence, even though he lost the mock trial.

John F.





"Chad Anthony" <timetravel...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a9be004-e44a-47e4...@googlegroups.com...

[John Fiorentino]

Murder is a "capital offense."

At the time JFK was killed murdering the President WAS NOT a Federal
offense.

The law was changed after JFK was killed and was signed by LBJ.

John F.




"mainframetech" <mainfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e108ed1f-309f-48fc...@googlegroups.com...

[John Fiorentino]

There was only 1 Oswald.

The idea of a "doppelganger" is a fantasy.

John F.


"curtjester1" <curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:123cf9f3-3844-4a2a...@e13g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe that's why Posner hired Mark Lane as his lawyer to get him off.

[Anthony Marsh]

Interesting question. What do they do in the case of identical twins?
Can they rely on fingerprints? What if one twin says the other twin
actually did it?
How about clones? Are their fingerprints identical?

[curtj...@hotmail.com]

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 12:38:19 PM UTC-4, John Fiorentino wrote:
> There was only 1 Oswald.
>
>

That's even more inept and lacking any knowledge than the ridiculous body
called the WC, who was not a real investigative body, but a one-sided
Grand Jury body. Of course being a trial consists of real attorneys, and
real investigators and this trial would not have gone on right away, as
there was SO much to investigate, and even the WC gave the airs that it
was 'interested' in the Oswald-*sightings*.

>
> The idea of a "doppelganger" is a fantasy.
>

Your not very up on the JFK case. There are hundreds of Oswald
events/sightings which included very detailed converstions to business
transactions which included the escape vehicles...Rambler Station wagon
(who Oswald spoke of in interrogation), the cab, and the bus. I am sure
an good defense attorney would rip any prosecution case wide open just
with that. Even in the TSBD there were differeing clothing descriptions
of Oswald just wearing a tee shirt by Mrs. Reid to who was in the doorway,
to the lady on the fourth floor staying in the stairwell area so nobody
could descend to the lunchroom from the sixth floor. Then you have the
case of two Oswalds seen in the Texas theater, one on the balcony stairs
by officer Courson where a report was written for an arrest in the
balcony, while the main floor Oswald was arrested! Poor prosecution.
They don't know what is going on since that Oswald was seen in the theater
when the Tippit murder was going on. And poor prosecution when we have
four people who have times of 1:06 for the Tippit murder, very verifiable
by clocks and their actions whereas the man you're trying to convict has
been spotted at his roominghouse after 1:00 P.M. Bring in your star
witness..CurtJester. "Yes, I did walk the distance from the roominghouse
to 10th and Patton, sir." "What pace did I go?...well about the pace I
would walk on the golf course....expeditously but not speed walking or
trotting." "And you say it took you 13 and a half minutes?" "yes, sir!"


Judge to the court room. "We're going to have a recess, while I
contemplate Case Dismissal at this point"

CJ

[curtjester1]

Don't know. In this case, they should have gotten prints in Mrs. Paines
station wagon from what was known in the interrogation, the DNA of
Oswald's childen and relatives (when that was viable), all the fingerprint
and dental records of Oswald in all his military stops (it's been
investigated that there was a double project going on with bases and
schools overlapping). Probably a huge number of things an astute
investigator could have thought of.

CJ

[John Fiorentino]

I'm truly sorry I'm "not very up" on the JFK case.

You're a hoot, sunny.

John F.




<curtj...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:16580383-89ba-43f8...@googlegroups.com...

[BT George]

On Monday, June 10, 2013 10:04:24 AM UTC-5, John Fiorentino wrote:
> I'm truly sorry I'm "not very up" on the JFK case.
>
>
>
> You're a hoot, sunny.
>
>
>
> John F.
>
>
>

No. CJ's theory of a virtual army of Oswald's explains everthing! Those
conspirators---crafty bunch that they were---KNEW that the best way to
frame their Patsy was not only to frame him with one double, but MANY
doubles. What better way to keep your "set up" a secret than to have
numerous accomplices marching around, doing this, that, or the other at
the same time? What could go wrong? SURE any of these "fake" Oswald's
could have been arrested, shot, or clearly caught on film, thus exposing
the scheme, but REALLY...what are the odds?

...Now, I still haven't gotten my mind around how they got the REAL Oswald
to act very guilty and take back the revolver he was arrested with that
was traceable to the shells witness saw the "fake" Oswald dump out, but I
am sure a very LOGICAL explanation exists!

[Anthony Marsh]

It's called anachronism. They didn't know from DNA back in 1963.

[Bud]

On Jun 7, 8:33 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net> wrote:

What many people offer as viable defenses for Oswald would have been
rejected by any competent defense as suicide. They`d have one shot at it,
and any lawyer would have to work with the reality of a jury that wouldn`t
be as desperate to believe that everyone was out to get Oswald as the
conspiracy hobbyists who try to float these ideas are.

I`m curious what you think the defense could have offered as a defense.
You are going to have a lot of people saying they saw Oswald either kill
Tippit, or running from the scene with a gun. You are going to have the
arresting police say how Oswald attacked them. You are going to have
Oswald quickly leaving another murder scene he is a suspect in. He is
caught with a gun that has the same unusual characteristics of not leaving
clear striations as the bullets in Tippits body. Oswald had on his person
the two brands of bullets found in Tippit`s body. How are you planning on
getting a jury to reject all these things? Reasonable doubt? Is it
reasonable to think that all these things and more could exist and him be
innocent?

[Bud]

In other words you don`t have the necessary support for your silly
ideas and it`s someone else`s fault.

> CJ

[John Fiorentino]

Bud:

I know I have to say this again, unfortunately.

I believe LHO killed JFK and Tippit.

That out of the way, as to the defense, it's impossible to explain in
detail here on a N/G how one would attempt that.

I've written quite a bit about this here on the group.

Obviously, the short answer is that evidence you mentioned would be
attacked and impeached.

John F.



"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:b850ef6b-4a12-4bff...@5g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

How about the fact that he was framed, like Dreyfus?

[Bud]

Good luck selling that idea to a jury.

[Bud]

On Jun 10, 8:35 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
wrote:

> Bud:
>
> I know I have to say this again, unfortunately.
>
> I believe LHO killed JFK and Tippit.

I understand the concept of "devil`s advocate", so you really didn`t
need to say it again.

> That out of the way, as to the defense, it's impossible to explain in
> detail here on a N/G how one would attempt that.

Yet you started this post.

And claimed a clever defense lawyer could get Oswald off.

> I've written quite a bit about this here on the group.
>
> Obviously, the short answer is that evidence you mentioned would be
> attacked and impeached.

So there would be two contending ideas put before the jury, that he
was guilty or that many, many people were out to make him look guilty.
You see this as a difficult choice for a jury?

> John F.
>
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message

[curtjester1]

On Jun 10, 6:10 pm, BT George <brockgeorg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, June 10, 2013 10:04:24 AM UTC-5, John Fiorentino wrote:
> > I'm truly sorry I'm "not very up" on the JFK case.
>
> > You're a hoot, sunny.
>
> > John F.
>
> No.  CJ's theory of a virtual army of Oswald's explains everthing!  Those
> conspirators---crafty bunch that they were---KNEW that the best way to
> frame their Patsy was not only to frame him with one double, but MANY
> doubles.  What better way to keep your "set up" a secret than to have
> numerous accomplices marching around, doing this, that, or the other at
> the same time?  What could go wrong?  SURE any of these "fake" Oswald's
> could have been arrested, shot, or clearly caught on film, thus exposing
> the scheme, but REALLY...what are the odds?
>

Don't misrepresent me. I didn't say there were many doubles.
Actually the amount of doubles is not a huge issue, if the events were
striclty applied to an Oswald. In other lone nut cases, like Hinckley
and Fromme there weren't ANY doubles at all. Are you saying that in
Presidential shootings that there SHOULD BE double sightings?

And not only were there double sightings, there were sightings of
Oswald with people of high political intrigue. Not your usual 24 year
old loner, that the WC and LNT's want to pawn off on everyone.

> ...Now, I still haven't gotten my mind around how they got the REAL Oswald
> to act very guilty and take back the revolver he was arrested with that
> was traceable to the shells witness saw the "fake" Oswald dump out, but I
> am sure a very LOGICAL explanation exists!
>
>

There is, The gun and shells are unmatchable to those who have studied
it. And who is YOUR REAL Oswald? The one who was at the theater
early around or before the time of Tippit's murder or the lookalike
(or real Oswald) that killed Tippit and arrived at the theater at
1:40?

There is a logical explanation: The lookalike Oswald worked for the
TSBD and was in the theater between 1:07 to 1:15 and sat next to
people and was verified timewise and even ordered popcorn, and then
there's the REAL Oswald who came down Jefferson acting guilty, didn't
pay, and went up into the balcony without going through the main
doors, and was interviewed by officer Courson, and where there is a
arrest report by Officer Stringfellow, while the arrest of the
lookalike was taking place downstairs.

So put that in your defense attorney's attache and stew on that for
awhile...:)

CJ

>
>
>
> > <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

[curtjester1]

They know it now, and they could test them if *they* wanted to now.

CJ

[curtjester1]

You've never met a defense attorney like the likes of me.

CJ

[John Fiorentino]

Firstly, most of this has been revolving around Oswald and Tppit.

But, yes, I stand by my statement that I believe a clever defense attorney
probably could have got him acquitted.

BTW, I can make a statement without writing a book about why I feel one way
or the other.

John F.




"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message

news:1b04ecef-e20f-4009...@10g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

Test what? Something they never bothered to collect?
The DOJ has closed the case and won't do anything.

[Sandy McCroskey]

You got that right.
You wouldn't last a day in law school.

/sm

[Bud]

True, that.

[Bud]

On Jun 11, 11:28 am, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
wrote:

> Firstly, most of this has been revolving around Oswald and Tppit.
>
> But, yes, I stand by my statement that I believe a clever defense attorney
> probably could have got him acquitted.
>
> BTW, I can make a statement without writing a book about why I feel one way
> or the other.

Thats fine. Personally I think Oswald would have plead guilty to
both murders.

[BT George]

Don't be so sure. CJ doesn't seem to be troubled by the improbable or
absurd and will subscribe to just about ANY theory that might get his
client (Oswald)off. I think Mark Lane and Johnny Cochran would be proud.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/11/2013 10:49 AM, Bud wrote:
> On Jun 10, 8:35 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
> wrote:
>> Bud:
>>
>> I know I have to say this again, unfortunately.
>>
>> I believe LHO killed JFK and Tippit.
>
> I understand the concept of "devil`s advocate", so you really didn`t
> need to say it again.
>
>> That out of the way, as to the defense, it's impossible to explain in
>> detail here on a N/G how one would attempt that.
>
> Yet you started this post.
>
> And claimed a clever defense lawyer could get Oswald off.
>
>> I've written quite a bit about this here on the group.
>>
>> Obviously, the short answer is that evidence you mentioned would be
>> attacked and impeached.
>
> So there would be two contending ideas put before the jury, that he
> was guilty or that many, many people were out to make him look guilty.
> You see this as a difficult choice for a jury?
>

That's your theory. Prove by examples that innocent people are usually
framed by massive conspiracies.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/11/2013 10:49 AM, Bud wrote:

Dreyfus was tried and found guilty.

[Sandy McCroskey]

I was thinking more of his reading and writing skills.
/sm

[BT George]

Afraid I can't argue with you there!

[John Fiorentino]

Well, I would just say, perhaps you should read more (accurate
information) about Oswald.

I can't see him pleading guilty to anything.

That boy would have went all the way.

John F.



"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message

news:6c4c387c-4261-435f...@m8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

[BT George]

On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 10:26:26 AM UTC-5, curtjester1 wrote:
> On Jun 10, 6:10 pm, BT George <brockgeorg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, June 10, 2013 10:04:24 AM UTC-5, John Fiorentino wrote:
>
> > > I'm truly sorry I'm "not very up" on the JFK case.
>
> >
>
> > > You're a hoot, sunny.
>
> >
>
> > > John F.
>
> >
>
> > No.  CJ's theory of a virtual army of Oswald's explains everthing!  Those
>
> > conspirators---crafty bunch that they were---KNEW that the best way to
>
> > frame their Patsy was not only to frame him with one double, but MANY
>
> > doubles.  What better way to keep your "set up" a secret than to have
>
> > numerous accomplices marching around, doing this, that, or the other at
>
> > the same time?  What could go wrong?  SURE any of these "fake" Oswald's
>
> > could have been arrested, shot, or clearly caught on film, thus exposing
>
> > the scheme, but REALLY...what are the odds?
>
> >
>
> Don't misrepresent me. I didn't say there were many doubles.
>
> Actually the amount of doubles is not a huge issue, if the events were
>
> striclty applied to an Oswald. In other lone nut cases, like Hinckley
>
> and Fromme there weren't ANY doubles at all. Are you saying that in
>
> Presidential shootings that there SHOULD BE double sightings?
>
>

First you need to go back and read what you have said here and elsewhere,
because I am pretty sure you have argued for many Oswalds. Next I never
said or suggested anything about how many double sightings SHOULD be seen
in the case of a Presidential shooting. I only know that no case in
history has ever generated such fake hype, silliness, and frankly,
insanity as this one.

Your argument is a perfect example of all 3 IMHO. There is no CREDIBLE
evidence of two Oswalds running around anywhere, much less being in the
Texas Theater at the same time. This "multiple" Oswald business is a
combination of honestly mistaken indenties which do happen in some high
profile cases (Ever heard of Elvis sightings?), combined with persons
coming forward sometimes much later "claiming" to have seen him somewhere
else for their 15 minutes of fame, and layer-upon-layer of conspiracy
mythology. The latter, unfortunately, now permeates this entire case.

>
> And not only were there double sightings, there were sightings of
>
> Oswald with people of high political intrigue. Not your usual 24 year
>
> old loner, that the WC and LNT's want to pawn off on everyone.
>
>
>
> > ...Now, I still haven't gotten my mind around how they got the REAL Oswald
>
> > to act very guilty and take back the revolver he was arrested with that
>
> > was traceable to the shells witness saw the "fake" Oswald dump out, but I
>
> > am sure a very LOGICAL explanation exists!
>
> >
>
> >
>
> There is, The gun and shells are unmatchable to those who have studied
>
> it. And who is YOUR REAL Oswald? The one who was at the theater
>
> early around or before the time of Tippit's murder or the lookalike
>
> (or real Oswald) that killed Tippit and arrived at the theater at
>
> 1:40?
>
>

Hmmm. It will take a lot more than you telling me the gun and shells were
determined to be unmatchable by "those who have studied it". Who are the
"those" and what are their credentials? In what scientific way did they
controvert the shell match done by the FBI & HSCA experts?

>
> There is a logical explanation: The lookalike Oswald worked for the
>
> TSBD and was in the theater between 1:07 to 1:15 and sat next to
>
> people and was verified timewise and even ordered popcorn, and then
>
> there's the REAL Oswald who came down Jefferson acting guilty, didn't
>
> pay, and went up into the balcony without going through the main
>
> doors, and was interviewed by officer Courson, and where there is a
>
> arrest report by Officer Stringfellow, while the arrest of the
>
> lookalike was taking place downstairs.
>
>

Prove it. What "CREDIBLE" evidence do you have that two "Lee Harvey
Oswalds" were ever arrested on 11-22-63?

Also, you claim that the look-alike Oswald worked for the TSBD? So you
are saying the man who Buel Wesley Frazier took to Irving, and who spent
the night at Ruth Paine's house and slept in bed with Marina Oswald, and
then was taken back by Frazier to the TSBD was an imposter? If so, he was
really good to fool even Lee's wife. Or is it your contention that
somehow they BOTH showed up for work that day?

[lickd...@yahoo.com]

I find it incredible that anybody with two brain cells to rub together
would believe Oswald actually killed JFK. The evidence we have available
today proves he didn't do it. The government still is hiding 50,000 pages
concerning the JFK murder from us to protect those behind this conspiracy.
It is time to release the evidence and see who did it.

I started a petition at the White House website to release all
documents/evidence concerning the JFK murder. This is still hidden only
to protect the guilty.

How long will they hide the truth? Lets find out? Make them explain why
they continue to hide the truth after 50 years. Obama could actually do it
in an attempt to distract the masses away from his own crime spree.

Please sign the petition at: wh.gov/liyxT

Fifty years is enough. Evidence leads to the fact Israel was at the
center of the conspiracy. I believe this is the reason for a continued
coverup. No matter who did it, the truth is being hidden from us.

[curtjester1]

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. They obviously got something going
to get an exhumation. It would take a similar effort to get something
like that going again, for sure.

CJ

[curtjester1]

Yer right, I would hold them for ransom and demand they allow
Polygraphs and Cattle Proding devices before they could enter a
courtroom!

CJ

[curtjester1]

I happen to think Oswald is guilty, just not in the direct murdering of
Tippit or JFK. I know, it's really hard to figure out where the mighty CJ
is coming from. <pat pat>..:). Oh did I mention, the TSBD Oswald?..:)


CJ

[curtjester1]

Sandy always has a higher-learniing superiority complex phobia or
selective amnesia. I wouldn't just cheerlead for him just yet!

CJ

[curtjester1]

On Jun 11, 11:33 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
wrote:

> Well, I would just say, perhaps you should read more (accurate
> information) about Oswald.
>
> I can't see him pleading guilty to anything.
>
> That boy would have went all the way.
>

Nobody tries to get a hold of a lawyer like Alt if he doesn't think he's
going to at least call somebody's bluff. Personally, I think he was
figuring he was double-crossed and would need the US of A's judicial
system to get him off at that point.

CJ

[curtjester1]

You need to re-read. I have always said Oswald sightings, or even an
Oswald Project ala a Harvey and Lee, but really have not gone ever into
multi-Oswalds.

> Your argument is a perfect example of all 3 IMHO.  There is no CREDIBLE
> evidence of two Oswalds running around anywhere, much less being in the
> Texas Theater at the same time.  This "multiple" Oswald business is a
> combination of honestly mistaken indenties which do happen in some high
> profile cases (Ever heard of Elvis sightings?), combined with persons
> coming forward sometimes much later "claiming" to have seen him somewhere
> else for their 15 minutes of fame, and layer-upon-layer of conspiracy
> mythology.  The latter, unfortunately, now permeates this entire case.
>
>

Sure there is, and it's up to you to take the topic seriously and
investigate it. Oswalds at different schools in New Orleasn. Oswald's two
different military careers. Oswald in Russia while Oswald is
stateside...would just be a few to whet one's appetite.

>
>
>
>
>
> > And not only were there double sightings, there were sightings of
>
> > Oswald with people of high political intrigue.  Not your usual 24 year
>
> > old loner, that the WC and LNT's want to pawn off on everyone.
>
> > > ...Now, I still haven't gotten my mind around how they got the REAL Oswald
>
> > > to act very guilty and take back the revolver he was arrested with that
>
> > > was traceable to the shells witness saw the "fake" Oswald dump out, but I
>
> > > am sure a very LOGICAL explanation exists!
>
> > There is, The gun and shells are unmatchable to those who have studied
>
> > it.  And who is YOUR REAL Oswald?  The one who was at the theater
>
> > early around or before the time of Tippit's murder or the lookalike
>
> > (or real Oswald) that killed Tippit and arrived at the theater at
>
> > 1:40?
>
> Hmmm.  It will take a lot more than you telling me the gun and shells were
> determined to be unmatchable by "those who have studied it".  Who are the
> "those" and what are their credentials?  In what scientific way did they
> controvert the shell match done by the FBI & HSCA experts?
>
>

Just use google and you'll find plenty of people into the shells and
all that. You can do it.

>
>
>
>
>
> > There is a logical explanation:  The lookalike Oswald worked for the
>
> > TSBD and was in the theater between 1:07 to 1:15 and sat next to
>
> > people and was verified timewise and even ordered popcorn, and then
>
> > there's the REAL Oswald who came down Jefferson acting guilty, didn't
>
> > pay, and went up into the balcony without going through the main
>
> > doors, and was interviewed by officer Courson, and where there is a
>
> > arrest report by Officer Stringfellow, while the arrest of the
>
> > lookalike was taking place downstairs.
>
> Prove it.  What "CREDIBLE" evidence do you have that two "Lee Harvey
> Oswalds" were ever arrested on 11-22-63?
>

Go down a lil more than halfway. You'll see the Stringfellow Report.
Just click onto that.

http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/books/Armstrong/November/November_22.htm

> Also, you claim that the look-alike Oswald worked for the TSBD?  So you
> are saying the man who Buel Wesley Frazier took to Irving, and who spent
> the night at Ruth Paine's house and slept in bed with Marina Oswald, and
> then was taken back by Frazier to the TSBD was an imposter?  If so, he was

Not exactly an impostor. I would say a CIA doppleganger, who was very
comfortable with his role as Marina's husband, the Paines, and being
at the TSBD on assignment.

> really good to fool even Lee's wife.  Or is it your contention that
> somehow they BOTH showed up for work that day?
>
>

No, just surf the link I posted up there and you'll see where the
other Oswald (the real one born in N.O. was doing all that day.

http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/books/Armstrong/November/November_22.htm


CJ

[BT George]

On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:03:03 PM UTC-5, lickd...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I find it incredible that anybody with two brain cells to rub together
>

Fortunately, anyone with at least 3 brain cells & a lick of common sense
can easily ascertain that LHO did kill JFK. All it takes is little
open-mindedness to actually examine the hard evidence in this case &
realize just how many liars it would take to frame Oswald & keep it under
wraps & those 3 brain cells will prove more than adequate to the task.

So now the Jews killed JFK & you supposedly have evidence for this. Can
you produce anything credible to support such an allegation or is this
just so much anti-Jewish propaganda?

[Bud]

On Jun 11, 5:36 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6/11/2013 10:49 AM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 10, 8:35 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Bud:
>
> >> I know I have to say this again, unfortunately.
>
> >> I believe LHO killed JFK and Tippit.
>
> >    I understand the concept of "devil`s advocate", so you really didn`t
> > need to say it again.
>
> >> That out of the way, as to the defense, it's impossible to explain in
> >> detail here on a N/G how one would attempt that.
>
> >    Yet you started this post.
>
> >    And claimed a clever defense lawyer could get Oswald off.
>
> >> I've written quite a bit about this here on the group.
>
> >> Obviously, the short answer is that evidence you mentioned would be
> >> attacked and impeached.
>
> >    So there would be two contending ideas put before the jury, that he
> > was guilty or that many, many people were out to make him look guilty.
> > You see this as a difficult choice for a jury?
>
> That's your theory.

Yes, it is my theory that this would not be a difficult choice for a
jury. But somehow I don`t think you are going to address that idea.

> Prove by examples that innocent people are usually
> framed by massive conspiracies.

See?

[Bud]

Now put a detailed account of what you contend happened in the
Kennedy assassination on the table so we can compare the two cases.

[Bud]

On Jun 11, 11:33 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
wrote:

> Well, I would just say, perhaps you should read more (accurate
> information) about Oswald.

Do you know what made him tick?

> I can't see him pleading guilty to anything.

I can`t see a clever lawyer getting him off.

> That boy would have went all the way.

To the chair.

[Bud]

On Jun 12, 12:03 am, lickdaca...@yahoo.com wrote:
> I find it incredible that anybody with two brain cells to rub together
> would believe Oswald actually killed JFK.

All the people with only two brain cells think Oswald was innocent.

> The evidence we have available
> today proves he didn't do it.

At least to the satisfaction of the people who were desperate to
believe he was innocent.

> The government still is hiding 50,000 pages
> concerning the JFK murder from us to protect those behind this conspiracy.

Yes, either there was a massive conspiracy involving thousands of
people or Oswald was guilty.

> It is time to release the evidence and see who did it.

That was done. I`ll give you a hint, it was a leftist. Thats gotta
hurt, right?

> I started a petition at the White House website to release all
> documents/evidence concerning the JFK murder.  This is still hidden only
> to protect the guilty.
>
> How long will they hide the truth?  Lets find out?  Make them explain why
> they continue to hide the truth after 50 years. Obama could actually do it
> in an attempt to distract the masses away from his own crime spree.
>
> Please sign the petition at:  wh.gov/liyxT
>
> Fifty years is enough.  Evidence leads to the fact Israel was at the
> center of the conspiracy.  I believe this is the reason for a continued
> coverup.  No matter who did it, the truth is being hidden from us.

What a silly game this conspiracy hobby is. Pick the group you
despise and blame them for killing Kennedy.

[Anthony Marsh]

Michael Eddowes. Sometimes a kook theory coincides with the fears of the
intelligence community. Hoover feared that someone would use Oswald's ID
to come to the US in his place.
How many exhumations of Oswald do you need? Every week?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/12/2013 6:24 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Jun 11, 5:36 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 6/11/2013 10:49 AM, Bud wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 10, 8:35 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Bud:
>>
>>>> I know I have to say this again, unfortunately.
>>
>>>> I believe LHO killed JFK and Tippit.
>>
>>> I understand the concept of "devil`s advocate", so you really didn`t
>>> need to say it again.
>>
>>>> That out of the way, as to the defense, it's impossible to explain in
>>>> detail here on a N/G how one would attempt that.
>>
>>> Yet you started this post.
>>
>>> And claimed a clever defense lawyer could get Oswald off.
>>
>>>> I've written quite a bit about this here on the group.
>>
>>>> Obviously, the short answer is that evidence you mentioned would be
>>>> attacked and impeached.
>>
>>> So there would be two contending ideas put before the jury, that he
>>> was guilty or that many, many people were out to make him look guilty.
>>> You see this as a difficult choice for a jury?
>>
>> That's your theory.
>
> Yes, it is my theory that this would not be a difficult choice for a
> jury. But somehow I don`t think you are going to address that idea.
>

Maybe if you're from a different country without rights you don't
understand how things work legally in the US. The jury must vote 100%
for a guilty verdict in a murder case. Within a week about 50% of the
public did not think that Oswald acted alone.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/12/2013 6:18 PM, BT George wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:03:03 PM UTC-5, lickd...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I find it incredible that anybody with two brain cells to rub together
>>
>
> Fortunately, anyone with at least 3 brain cells & a lick of common sense
> can easily ascertain that LHO did kill JFK. All it takes is little

Begging the Question and Poison the Well. Can't you argue without tricks?

> open-mindedness to actually examine the hard evidence in this case &
> realize just how many liars it would take to frame Oswald & keep it under
> wraps & those 3 brain cells will prove more than adequate to the task.
>

So you also think that Watergate was not a conspiracy.

>> would believe Oswald actually killed JFK. The evidence we have available
>>
>> today proves he didn't do it. The government still is hiding 50,000 pages
>>
>> concerning the JFK murder from us to protect those behind this conspiracy.
>>
>> It is time to release the evidence and see who did it.
>>
>>
>>
>> I started a petition at the White House website to release all
>>
>> documents/evidence concerning the JFK murder. This is still hidden only
>>
>> to protect the guilty.
>>
>>
>>
>> How long will they hide the truth? Lets find out? Make them explain why
>>
>> they continue to hide the truth after 50 years. Obama could actually do it
>>
>> in an attempt to distract the masses away from his own crime spree.
>>
>>
>>
>> Please sign the petition at: wh.gov/liyxT
>>
>>
>>
>> Fifty years is enough. Evidence leads to the fact Israel was at the
>>
>> center of the conspiracy. I believe this is the reason for a continued
>>
>> coverup. No matter who did it, the truth is being hidden from us.
>
> So now the Jews killed JFK & you supposedly have evidence for this. Can
> you produce anything credible to support such an allegation or is this
> just so much anti-Jewish propaganda?
>

It's just so much anti-Semitism. Started by Michael Collins Piper.

[Anthony Marsh]

Typical kook website.

[BT George]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:37:45 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/12/2013 6:18 PM, BT George wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:03:03 PM UTC-5, lickd...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> I find it incredible that anybody with two brain cells to rub together
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Fortunately, anyone with at least 3 brain cells & a lick of common sense
>
> > can easily ascertain that LHO did kill JFK. All it takes is little
>
>
>
> Begging the Question and Poison the Well. Can't you argue without tricks?
>
>

No. I consistently attempt the use of tricks like logic, reason, hard
evidence and the like when the are available. Inference and theory come
in second in my bag of "tricks". Wild flights of fancy only occur when I
am under the influence. Far too many CT's seem to prefer the reverse
order.

>
> > open-mindedness to actually examine the hard evidence in this case &
>
> > realize just how many liars it would take to frame Oswald & keep it under
>
> > wraps & those 3 brain cells will prove more than adequate to the task.
>
> >
>
>
>
> So you also think that Watergate was not a conspiracy.
>
>

Sure it was. Did that one get kept under wraps for even 50 weeks? Last
time I checked the JFK "conspiracy" (at least per CT's) is still going
strong nearly 50years later.

>
> >> would believe Oswald actually killed JFK. The evidence we have available
>
> >>
>
> >> today proves he didn't do it. The government still is hiding 50,000 pages
>
> >>
>
> >> concerning the JFK murder from us to protect those behind this conspiracy.
>
> >>
>
> >> It is time to release the evidence and see who did it.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> I started a petition at the White House website to release all
>
> >>
>
> >> documents/evidence concerning the JFK murder. This is still hidden only
>
> >>
>
> >> to protect the guilty.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> How long will they hide the truth? Lets find out? Make them explain why
>
> >>
>
> >> they continue to hide the truth after 50 years. Obama could actually do it
>
> >>
>
> >> in an attempt to distract the masses away from his own crime spree.
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Please sign the petition at: wh.gov/liyxT
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Fifty years is enough. Evidence leads to the fact Israel was at the
>
> >>
>
> >> center of the conspiracy. I believe this is the reason for a continued
>
> >>
>
> >> coverup. No matter who did it, the truth is being hidden from us.
>
> >
>
> > So now the Jews killed JFK & you supposedly have evidence for this. Can
>
> > you produce anything credible to support such an allegation or is this
>
> > just so much anti-Jewish propaganda?
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> It's just so much anti-Semitism. Started by Michael Collins Piper.

Agree on that score.

[BT George]

No. It is YOU who are making the extraordinary and unusual claims.
Imposter situations are relatively rare, and the sort of scenarios you
suggest are certainly unusual and would make an interesting movie even if
a Presidential assassination weren't connected with it. Could such things
have happened as you suggest? Sure. Likely, not really.

I have looked at some of the "evidence" for claims like you are making and
so far have generally found it lacking. However, the responsibility to
investigate continual speculative claims of unusual events does not fall
on the person who questions such speculations. Rather, it falls on the
person making such claims. You bring your *evidence* to the forum and it
can be examined and debated, but it's not my responsibility to have to
investigate every unusual claim someone throws.

>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > And not only were there double sightings, there were sightings of
>
> >
>
> > > Oswald with people of high political intrigue.  Not your usual 24 year
>
> >
>
> > > old loner, that the WC and LNT's want to pawn off on everyone.
>
> >
>
> > > > ...Now, I still haven't gotten my mind around how they got the REAL Oswald
>
> >
>
> > > > to act very guilty and take back the revolver he was arrested with that
>
> >
>
> > > > was traceable to the shells witness saw the "fake" Oswald dump out, but I
>
> >
>
> > > > am sure a very LOGICAL explanation exists!
>
> >
>
> > > There is, The gun and shells are unmatchable to those who have studied
>
> >
>
> > > it.  And who is YOUR REAL Oswald?  The one who was at the theater
>
> >
>
> > > early around or before the time of Tippit's murder or the lookalike
>
> >
>
> > > (or real Oswald) that killed Tippit and arrived at the theater at
>
> >
>
> > > 1:40?
>
> >
>
> > Hmmm.  It will take a lot more than you telling me the gun and shells were
>
> > determined to be unmatchable by "those who have studied it".  Who are the
>
> > "those" and what are their credentials?  In what scientific way did they
>
> > controvert the shell match done by the FBI & HSCA experts?
>
> >
>
> >
>
>
>
> Just use google and you'll find plenty of people into the shells and
>
> all that. You can do it.
>
>
>

See above response.

>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > There is a logical explanation:  The lookalike Oswald worked for the
>
> >
>
> > > TSBD and was in the theater between 1:07 to 1:15 and sat next to
>
> >
>
> > > people and was verified timewise and even ordered popcorn, and then
>
> >
>
> > > there's the REAL Oswald who came down Jefferson acting guilty, didn't
>
> >
>
> > > pay, and went up into the balcony without going through the main
>
> >
>
> > > doors, and was interviewed by officer Courson, and where there is a
>
> >
>
> > > arrest report by Officer Stringfellow, while the arrest of the
>
> >
>
> > > lookalike was taking place downstairs.
>
> >
>
> > Prove it.  What "CREDIBLE" evidence do you have that two "Lee Harvey
>
> > Oswalds" were ever arrested on 11-22-63?
>
> >
>
>
>
> Go down a lil more than halfway. You'll see the Stringfellow Report.
>
> Just click onto that.
>
>
>
> http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/books/Armstrong/November/November_22.htm
>
>

A couple of DPD reports, one of which may well have relied upon the other
(or both upon a common verbal source) that mistakenly say Oswald was
arrested in the balcony is the "hard evidence" for this claim? I've seen
this Harvey & Lee stuff addressed here and elsewhere. I've seen nothing
so far to indicate that we should believe there were two dead ringers in
the TT that day and that the INNOCENT one got away.

>
>
> > Also, you claim that the look-alike Oswald worked for the TSBD?  So you
>
> > are saying the man who Buel Wesley Frazier took to Irving, and who spent
>
> > the night at Ruth Paine's house and slept in bed with Marina Oswald, and
>
> > then was taken back by Frazier to the TSBD was an imposter?  If so, he was
>
>
>
> Not exactly an impostor. I would say a CIA doppleganger, who was very
>
> comfortable with his role as Marina's husband, the Paines, and being
>
> at the TSBD on assignment.
>
>
>
>
>
> > really good to fool even Lee's wife.  Or is it your contention that
>
> > somehow they BOTH showed up for work that day?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> No, just surf the link I posted up there and you'll see where the
>
> other Oswald (the real one born in N.O. was doing all that day.
>
>
>
> http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/books/Armstrong/November/November_22.htm
>
>
>

Oh brother. And LHO (who didn't shoot JFK, but did shoot Tippet) just
went "poof"? Was he taken out by the plotters too or did he manage to
live an quiet life with few noticing how much he looked like what was now
one of the most infamous faces in America? And his family (who had to
carry the infamy of his name) just went along with this the rest of their
lives? Occam's Razor----please!

>
>
> CJ

[Bud]

Maybe you are from a different country that doesn`t speak English,
and this is what prevents you from addressing what people actually
say.

> The jury must vote 100%
> for a guilty verdict in a murder case. Within a week about 50% of the
> public did not think that Oswald acted alone.

It was his actions that would get him convicted, not whether he

[curtjester1]

Huh? You would just need ONE, to get DNA and test it with relatives.
I don't know if it could have been at the Eddowes one. If it could
have, it wasn't done.

Of course there are still issues of the grave and casket being broken
into....

CJ

[curtjester1]

> >http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/books/Armstrong/November/...

>
> >> Also, you claim that the look-alike Oswald worked for the TSBD?  So you
> >> are saying the man who Buel Wesley Frazier took to Irving, and who spent
> >> the night at Ruth Paine's house and slept in bed with Marina Oswald, and
> >> then was taken back by Frazier to the TSBD was an imposter?  If so, he was
>
> > Not exactly an impostor.  I would say a CIA doppleganger, who was very
> > comfortable with his role as Marina's husband, the Paines, and being
> > at the TSBD on assignment.
>
> >> really good to fool even Lee's wife.  Or is it your contention that
> >> somehow they BOTH showed up for work that day?
>
> > No, just surf the link I posted up there and you'll see where the
> > other Oswald (the real one born in N.O. was doing all that day.
>

> >http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/books/Armstrong/November/...
>
> > CJ
>
> Typical kook website.

Your answer when evidence stares you in the face. BTW, this is a real
researcher, not someone like an armchair QB like you. He spent eons of
times going where people never researched before and researched Mexico
City, FBI evidence, the minutae of all the rifle evidence, that never had
been done before. And he took off on the Oswald double that had been
purported in it's basic theory in the 60's and gave an extended account
and history like no other, that tied it quite eloquently into the CIA's
involvment of offing JFK. This researcher spent well over ten years of
his own money giving symposiums to getting materials from the archives
that were never uncovered before to detailed school and military records.
What have you done?

CJ

[BT George]

> CORRECTION: That should say the "GUILTY" one got away. (Guilty apparently of clipping off Tippet, but NOT Kennedy. ...Go figure. Even the "doppleganger" Oswald must be innocent of killing JKF.)

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/13/2013 10:34 AM, BT George wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 9:37:45 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 6/12/2013 6:18 PM, BT George wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:03:03 PM UTC-5, lickd...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>> I find it incredible that anybody with two brain cells to rub together
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>
>>
>>> Fortunately, anyone with at least 3 brain cells & a lick of common sense
>>
>>> can easily ascertain that LHO did kill JFK. All it takes is little
>>
>>
>>
>> Begging the Question and Poison the Well. Can't you argue without tricks?
>>
>>
>
> No. I consistently attempt the use of tricks like logic, reason, hard
> evidence and the like when the are available. Inference and theory come
> in second in my bag of "tricks". Wild flights of fancy only occur when I
> am under the influence. Far too many CT's seem to prefer the reverse
> order.
>
>>
>>> open-mindedness to actually examine the hard evidence in this case &
>>
>>> realize just how many liars it would take to frame Oswald & keep it under
>>
>>> wraps & those 3 brain cells will prove more than adequate to the task.
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So you also think that Watergate was not a conspiracy.
>>
>>
>
> Sure it was. Did that one get kept under wraps for even 50 weeks? Last
> time I checked the JFK "conspiracy" (at least per CT's) is still going
> strong nearly 50years later.
>

The Watergate case was solved and everyone was waiting for them to be
setenced for a third-rate burglary. Then someone with insider
information blew the whistle.
But your theory is intriguing. Can you cite any other conspiracy which
has lasted for 50 years which the public never knew about?
How about Operation Northwoods? Did you know about that in 1963? Do you
even know about it today?
How about the CIA feeding radioactive cereal to retard children?

[claviger]

John,

> However, if Oswald had lived and gone to trial, there would have been no
> Warren Commission, or FBI reports to refer to.

Not true. The FBI would be called in to assist local police because LHO
had Russian connections and was a supporter of Fidel Castro. National
security implications would require Federal assistance. The DPD would not
have the budget to conduct an interstate investigation, much less one with
serious international possibilities. If during the investigation mob ties
were uncovered leading to Chicago or NO then the FBI would step in because
of interstate connections.

> Most don't even realize that at the time JFK was killed the assassination
> of the President of the United States wasn't even a Federal offense.

Assault on a Federal employee or property was a Federal offense in
1963.

> So, any trial would have revolved primarily around evidence produced by
> the Dallas Police Department and the State of Texas. You may have had a
> smattering of FBI reports, like finger-print evidence, perhaps ballistics,
> etc., but not a whole heck of a lot more. Certainly not the hundreds and
> hundreds of FBI interviews.
>
> Based on that alone, I believe a clever defense attorney may have
> prevailed in the case.

That might be true today, but not 1964 in Dallas, Texas. Keep in mind
that a majority of Texans voted for JFK in 1960, so a jury pool would be a
subset of that population. The motorcade had been warmly received by the
crowds in downtown Dallas and was a major political success. The City of
Dallas fell in love with Jack and Jackie and would have been in a rage at
his assassin, who also murdered a Dallas cop. No way LHO would have
walked free.

Today, who knows? Juries have come out with some inexplicable decisions.
They put too much reliance on CSI and not enough on common sense. One of
the most famous criminal defense attorneys in Texas during the 1960s was a
guy named Percy Foreman. When asked how he had such an amazing record of
acquittals he said, "Once you finish the process of selecting a jury,
you've either won or lost the case at that point." However, even Percy
Foreman could not have won this case in 1964.

[claviger]

John,

> That might be true today, but not 1964 in Dallas, Texas.  Keep in mind
> that a majority of Texans voted for JFK in 1960, so a jury pool would be a
> subset of that population.  The motorcade had been warmly received by the
> crowds in downtown Dallas and was a major political success.  The City of
> Dallas fell in love with Jack and Jackie and would have been in a rage at
> his assassin, who also murdered a Dallas cop.  No way LHO would have
> walked free.

correction:

Keep in mind that a majority of Texans voted for JFK in 1960, so a jury

pool would be a subset of that population skew.

[cmikes]

On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:37:45 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/12/2013 6:18 PM, BT George wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, June 11, 2013 11:03:03 PM UTC-5, lickd...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >> I find it incredible that anybody with two brain cells to rub together
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > Fortunately, anyone with at least 3 brain cells & a lick of common sense
>
> > can easily ascertain that LHO did kill JFK. All it takes is little
>
>
>
> Begging the Question and Poison the Well. Can't you argue without tricks?
>
>
>
> > open-mindedness to actually examine the hard evidence in this case &
>
> > realize just how many liars it would take to frame Oswald & keep it under
>
> > wraps & those 3 brain cells will prove more than adequate to the task.
>
> >
>
>
>
> So you also think that Watergate was not a conspiracy.
>
>

Do you know the difference between Watergate and the JFK "Conspiracy"?
In the case of Watergate there was actually evidence. We had testimony
before Congress, investigations that actually found something, confessions
and convictions in a court of law. When you have any of this in the JFK
case, please let someone know.

This has always been the biggest disconnect between the "Conspiracy" and
reality to me. The buffs actually believe the same government that
couldn't keep Watergate secret, that couldn't keep Iran-Contra secret,
that couldn't keep File-gate, the travel office firings, the illegal
fundraising scandals, or Monica Lewinsky secret, had no problem concealing
the fact that "they" put together a cast of thousands to kill JFK. And
that's just the illegal stuff. Even in this century the government
couldn't keep the fact that they were listening in to terrorists satellite
phone conversations and tracking the terrorists financial dealings off the
front page of the New York Times. Or the most recent scandals involving
Benghazi, the IRS targeting Tea Party groups, or massive NSA spying.

But keeping secret a conspiracy that dwarfs all of these scandals put
together, that was easy.

[John Fiorentino]

Sorry, murdering the President in 1963 WAS NOT a Federal offense. LBJ
signed the law that made it so.

Also, JFK's body should have stayed in Texas for autopsy.


John F.



"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9ab5f14a-3251-4588...@5g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/13/2013 8:00 PM, claviger wrote:
> John,
>
>> However, if Oswald had lived and gone to trial, there would have been no
>> Warren Commission, or FBI reports to refer to.
>
> Not true. The FBI would be called in to assist local police because LHO
> had Russian connections and was a supporter of Fidel Castro. National
> security implications would require Federal assistance. The DPD would not
> have the budget to conduct an interstate investigation, much less one with
> serious international possibilities. If during the investigation mob ties
> were uncovered leading to Chicago or NO then the FBI would step in because
> of interstate connections.
>

There was only a Warren Commission because LBJ ordered a cover-up to
prevent WWIII.

>> Most don't even realize that at the time JFK was killed the assassination
>> of the President of the United States wasn't even a Federal offense.
>
> Assault on a Federal employee or property was a Federal offense in
> 1963.
>

Great, so all you would charge Oswald with was simple assault and let
him walk away on $1,000 bail. Great plan.

>> So, any trial would have revolved primarily around evidence produced by
>> the Dallas Police Department and the State of Texas. You may have had a
>> smattering of FBI reports, like finger-print evidence, perhaps ballistics,
>> etc., but not a whole heck of a lot more. Certainly not the hundreds and
>> hundreds of FBI interviews.
>>
>> Based on that alone, I believe a clever defense attorney may have
>> prevailed in the case.
>
> That might be true today, but not 1964 in Dallas, Texas. Keep in mind
> that a majority of Texans voted for JFK in 1960, so a jury pool would be a
> subset of that population. The motorcade had been warmly received by the
> crowds in downtown Dallas and was a major political success. The City of
> Dallas fell in love with Jack and Jackie and would have been in a rage at
> his assassin, who also murdered a Dallas cop. No way LHO would have
> walked free.
>

You are forgetting that Wade won almost all his death penalty cases?

> Today, who knows? Juries have come out with some inexplicable decisions.

Ever hear of OJ Simpson?

> They put too much reliance on CSI and not enough on common sense. One of
> the most famous criminal defense attorneys in Texas during the 1960s was a
> guy named Percy Foreman. When asked how he had such an amazing record of
> acquittals he said, "Once you finish the process of selecting a jury,
> you've either won or lost the case at that point." However, even Percy
> Foreman could not have won this case in 1964.
>

He would take the dive.

[Anthony Marsh]

Jack Armstrong is still a kook.

>

[claviger]

On Jun 13, 11:27 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
wrote:

> Sorry, murdering the President in 1963 WAS NOT a Federal offense. LBJ
> signed the law that made it so.
>
> Also, JFK's body should have stayed in Texas for autopsy.
>
> John F.

You are confusing prosecution with investigation. With no specific law
pertaining to the murder of a Federal government employee, a county
District Attorney could prosecute the case with assistance from the FBI.
However, murder is aggravated assault in extremis. Surely you are not
suggesting assault is prohibited by law but aggravated assault is not.
That would be quite a loophole. Are you suggesting LHO could be
investigated and prosecuted for wounding the President, but not if the
President dies, at which point the FBI no longer has jurisdiction? I
don't believe the Supreme Court would buy into that paper thin
technicality, given that murder is the ultimate assault.

It is strange Federal Law in 1963 had no provision for prosecution in
Federal Court for the specific crime of murder of a Federal employee,
especially a high profile government official. Justice Brennan might
interpret that absence as intentional, as if assassination is considered
symbolic political speech like flag burning, therefore protected under the
1st Amendment. However, I would hope a majority of the Supreme Court
would disagree.

There was never a time in the history of the FBI when they could not
investigate any murder or apprehend murderers. The US Attorney General
can order the FBI and Federal Marshals to assist in any investigation by
local authorities and the Secretary of the Treasury can authorize the
Secret Service to investigate circumstances surrounding the assassination
or attempted assassination (aggravated assault) of Federal employees under
their protection.

Both the FBI and SS were involved in the investigation of President
Kennedy's murder at the direction of President Johnson. This was both
legal and appropriate. Can you imagine the outrage by the public, and
hysterical hue and cry by CTs today had the Federal Government refused to
conduct any investigation of President Kennedy's death?! Let Dallas
County do all the work with their own limited resources, would not be
acceptable to the American people.

As for the autopsy, by state law it should have been done immediately by
Dr Rose, but the SS had no idea if foreign enemies were involved and an
attack may be imminent, so the priority was get back to Washington DC at
once. The big mistake was not having the pathological examination take
place at WRAMC instead of Bethesda N H. That was not the fault of the SS
but a mistake in judgment by the President's physician.


Assault
__________________________________________________

An aggravated assault, punishable in all states as a felony, is committed
when a defendant intends to do more than merely frighten the victim.
Common types of aggravated assaults are those accompanied by an intent to
kill, rob, or rape. An assault with a dangerous weapon is aggravated if
there is an intent to cause serious harm. Pointing an unloaded gun at a
victim to frighten the individual is not considered an aggravated assault.
___________________________________________________

The punishment for criminal assault is a fine, imprisonment, or both.
Penalties are more severe when the assault is aggravated. Many states have
statutes dividing criminal assault into various degrees. As in aggravated
assault, the severity of the crime, the extent of violence and harm, and
the criminal intent of the defendant are all factors considered in
determining the sentence imposed.

___________________________________________________
Assault - Legal Dictionary - The Free Dictionary
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/14/2013 11:26 AM, claviger wrote:
> On Jun 13, 11:27 pm, "John Fiorentino" <jefiorent...@optimum.net>
> wrote:
>> Sorry, murdering the President in 1963 WAS NOT a Federal offense. LBJ
>> signed the law that made it so.
>>
>> Also, JFK's body should have stayed in Texas for autopsy.
>>
>> John F.
>
> You are confusing prosecution with investigation. With no specific law
> pertaining to the murder of a Federal government employee, a county
> District Attorney could prosecute the case with assistance from the FBI.
> However, murder is aggravated assault in extremis. Surely you are not
> suggesting assault is prohibited by law but aggravated assault is not.
> That would be quite a loophole. Are you suggesting LHO could be
> investigated and prosecuted for wounding the President, but not if the
> President dies, at which point the FBI no longer has jurisdiction? I
> don't believe the Supreme Court would buy into that paper thin
> technicality, given that murder is the ultimate assault.
>

At that time it was only a state crime and state law said that the
autopsy must be done in Dallas. The SS ignored the law and stole the
body For Reasons of National Security.
The only way to invoke Federal law then would be to allege Treason.

> It is strange Federal Law in 1963 had no provision for prosecution in
> Federal Court for the specific crime of murder of a Federal employee,
> especially a high profile government official. Justice Brennan might
> interpret that absence as intentional, as if assassination is considered
> symbolic political speech like flag burning, therefore protected under the
> 1st Amendment. However, I would hope a majority of the Supreme Court
> would disagree.
>
> There was never a time in the history of the FBI when they could not
> investigate any murder or apprehend murderers. The US Attorney General
> can order the FBI and Federal Marshals to assist in any investigation by
> local authorities and the Secretary of the Treasury can authorize the
> Secret Service to investigate circumstances surrounding the assassination
> or attempted assassination (aggravated assault) of Federal employees under
> their protection.
>

The President ordered the FBI to assist the local officials.
The FBI lab has always assisted local law enforcement, especially with
scientific tests.
Dallas did not have an atomic reactor then to do NAA.

> Both the FBI and SS were involved in the investigation of President
> Kennedy's murder at the direction of President Johnson. This was both
> legal and appropriate. Can you imagine the outrage by the public, and
> hysterical hue and cry by CTs today had the Federal Government refused to
> conduct any investigation of President Kennedy's death?! Let Dallas
> County do all the work with their own limited resources, would not be
> acceptable to the American people.
>

Can you imagine the outrage by the public and the hysterical hue and cry
by CTers had the Federal government stolen the body?

> As for the autopsy, by state law it should have been done immediately by
> Dr Rose, but the SS had no idea if foreign enemies were involved and an
> attack may be imminent, so the priority was get back to Washington DC at
> once. The big mistake was not having the pathological examination take
> place at WRAMC instead of Bethesda N H. That was not the fault of the SS
> but a mistake in judgment by the President's physician.
>

Almost correct. It was Jackie's choice, not Burkley's. They originally
planned to take the body to Walter Reed. Either way it was going to be
controlled by the military to cover up the obvious conspiracy.

[John Fiorentino]

Sorry, but it you who is confused.

I'm not going to waste time bickering with you.

What I said was....... The assassination of JFK WAS NOT a FEDERAL offense.

It was a federal crime to conspire to injure a federal officer while he
was acting in the line of duty - WCR Chapter 8, pp 454-456 - also see 18
USC ? 372 - Conspiracy to impede or injure officer.

Murder is not a federal crime, and therefore, a death suspected to be a
murder would not ordinarily be investigated by any federal agent, absent
some special jurisdiction to do so.

Now, I am sure the FBI would have been called on to assist in the
investigation. My point was the activity level would not have been the
same if Oswald had lived.

As for the SS and JFK's body, you can make any excuse you want. They broke
the law at the time, and frankly their actions have helped to fuel the
conspiracy myths.

Comprende?

John F.





"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:70d19a25-fae1-425d...@5g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

[John Fiorentino]

1545

Suspension of State and Local Jurisdiction-18 U.S.C. § 1751(h)

This section provides that Federal investigative or prosecutive
jurisdiction asserted for a violation of § 1751 suspends the exercise of
jurisdiction by a State or local authority, under any applicable State or
local law, until Federal action is terminated.

The suspension of State jurisdiction is not a final preclusion of State
jurisdiction and does not prevent the states from cooperating with Federal
authorities in an investigation of violations of the act. S. Rep. No. 498,
89th Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1965), reprinted in U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News
2866, 2867.

NOTICE THE DATE

John F.


"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:70d19a25-fae1-425d...@5g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

[curtjester1]

That's what the Official Storyists want everyone to think.

CJ

[John Fiorentino]

Federal law prohibiting homicide has grown in response to particular
events or circumstances. The process has been piecemeal. On November 22,
1963, there was no general Federal statute that prohibited the
assassination of the President. One recommendation of the Warren
Commission was that such a statute be enacted. Public Law 89-141, signed
on August 28, 1965, enacted 18 U.S.C. 1751, prohibited the killing,
kidnapping, conspiracy, assaults or attempt to kill or kidnap the
President or Vice President.

John F.



"claviger" <histori...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:70d19a25-fae1-425d...@5g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

[John Fiorentino]

It wasn't Jackie who made the decision to go to Bethesda.

The Air Force One transcripts from 11/22/63 show this to be the case.

Burkley was in charge and wanted Walter Reed, however arrangements had
already been made to go to Bethesda while AF One was still airborne.

John F.




"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:51bb3d9a$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/14/2013 4:00 PM, John Fiorentino wrote:
> Sorry, but it you who is confused.
>
> I'm not going to waste time bickering with you.
>
> What I said was....... The assassination of JFK WAS NOT a FEDERAL offense.
>

It could have been if they had alleged Treason.
None Dare Call it Treason.