Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Nichols Juror Slams FBI

8 views

Skip to first unread message

Jim Hargrove

unread,

Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98

"It's deja vu all over again," as Yogi Berra supposedly said.

Niki Deutchman, forewoman of the jury in the Terry Nichols Oklahoma City
bombing trial, yesterday held a news conference in which she commented on
widespread distrust of the FBI among members of the Nichols jury. Although
it didn't include all her criticisms, a copyrighted story in this morning's
_Chicago Tribune_ concluded with these three paragraphs:

She [Deutchman] took the FBI to task for failing to tape a nine-hour
interview with Nichols when he was arrested. She said a tape would have
explained some inconsistencies in agents' written reports.

At one point, she stopped just short of endorsing the type of anger
Nichols and McVeigh demonstrated against the government.

"I think the government's attitude is part of where all this comes from,"
she said. "People are suspicious. It's time for the government to be
more respectful and aware of us people with unalienable [sic] rights.
Maybe that's part of the message from this incident in the first place."

Other reports of the press conference also indicated that forewoman
Deutchman was critical of the FBI for stopping its investigation after it
had fingered McVeigh and Nichols. She, and other jurors apparently, felt
that credible evidence of involvement of others was not pursued by the FBI.

Old habits die hard, eh?
--Jim Hargrove
The letters "KILLSPAM" were added to my address as an anti-spam measure.
If you wish to send me email, remove "KILLSPAM" from my address before sending.

Pearl Gladstone

unread,

Jan 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/8/98

I noted some of the intelligent, thoughtful comments made by this jury
foreperson.

Later, one of the "Entity's" errand boys at CNBC, equated her comments
with those who say that the CIA has implanted radios in the metal of
their mouths. I refer to the disgusting Geraldo Rivero at CNBC.

Thank goodness for the jury system, implanted in our precious Bill of
Rights. Occasionally they do wake up, and take careful measurement of
the evidence, which is what it's all about.

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98

Funny you aren't posting the "intelligent, thoughtful comments" made by
some of the other jurors who disagree with this foreperson.

Selectively excerpting commentary that only supports your own
anti-government bias and P-O-V is what, supposed to show how utterly
even handed and open minded you guys are?

<snip>

> Thank goodness for the jury system, implanted in our precious Bill of
> Rights. Occasionally they do wake up, and take careful measurement of
> the evidence, which is what it's all about.

Perchance, did you miss the fact that Nichols was found guilty?

Unbelievable.

STEVE

Jim Hargrove

unread,

Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98

Steve Bochan wrote:

>Funny you aren't posting the "intelligent, thoughtful comments" made by
>some of the other jurors who disagree with this foreperson.

They were not quoted in the Tribune article I took the forewoman's quote
from.

>Selectively excerpting commentary that only supports your own
>anti-government bias and P-O-V is what, supposed to show how utterly
>even handed and open minded you guys are?

Oh, brother. How 'bout this anti-FBI stand from the floor of the U.S.
Senate?

[Congressional Record: March 20, 1997 (Senate)]
[Page S2607-S2610]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr20mr97-112]

UPSIDE-DOWN MANAGEMENT IN THE CRIME LAB

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this is the fifth time I have taken the
floor to make observations about the FBI's upside-down management of
its crime lab.
In my view, the FBI's Director, Louis Freeh, continues to mislead the
public about the lab. He would have us think that the FBI lab has met
the highest standards. He has maintained that the allegations of the
lab's whistleblower, Dr. Frederic Whitehurst, are all wrong. He has
said that no other scientist in the lab has come forward with similar
accusations. His testimony before Congress recently was totally
consistent with that image.
But documents belie the Director's rosy portrayal of the lab., and of
his dark portrayal of Dr. Whitehurst.
Thus far, I have released documents showing there is credibility to
some of Dr. Whitehurst's allegations. I have pointed to press accounts
in which the public has learned the IG's still-secret report uncovers
problems in three specific cases. thus backing up Dr. Whitehurst with
specifics. I released documents showing that Director Freeh was aware
of the exact same allegations, investigated them, yet covered them up.
I revealed that there was a second scientist who came forward with
serious allegations that paralleled those of Dr. Whitehurst.
I do not know what it will take for Mr. Freeh to admit these things,
Mr. President. Perhaps the public needs to see more of the FBI`s
documents that underscore my points. That's fine by me. Because
documents don't mislead. They do not have a motive to. But, people do.
And when leaders of the people mislead, there's a breakdown in
confidence and trust.
And so, I am here today, Mr. President, to test the boundaries of Mr.
Freeh's denials. Today, I am releasing yet more FBI documents, obtained
through the Freedom of Information Act. These documents contradict Mr.
Freeh's own assertions. The American people have a right to know this.
Today, I will reveal a third scientist in the FBI lab, who
substantiated some of Dr. Whitehurst's more serious allegations. He
substantiated them just months after the FBI Director and his team of
lawyers whitewashed them. This third scientist, in fact, was
Whitehurst's unit chief in the lab.
Here are the facts. In December 1992, Dr. Whitehurst made the serious
allegations that his lab reports were being altered by other agents who
lacked authority to do so. Altered reports could constitute tampering
with evidence and obstruction of justice, and could therefore be
criminal.
The universe of cases being looked at was 48 cases. Not all of them
were altered. But all had to be checked. Some appeared to contain
substantial changes. The Whitehurst memo of allegations went to the
Assistant Director of the FBI for the Laboratory Division.
In May 1994, a review of the Whitehurst allegations--much more
extensive than just the altered reports issue, but including them--was
done by Mr. Freeh's lawyers, rather than by an independent body with
some scientific background. Ironically, it was the IG's investigation
that supplied the needed independence and a scientific approach, and
only then did these problems get aired.
But, the FBI's review was headed by Mr. Freeh's general counsel,
Howard Shapiro. He's the Director's top lawyer, himself a controversial
figure with Congress. Mr. Shapiro felt there was no need to have an
independent review because, as he said, the FBI has a long, proud
history of doing its own reviews. Upon completion, the review was
eventually read and signed-off-on by Director Freeh.
So, here is what the FBI's own review found. First, there were no
major problems in the lab. Everything was hunky dory. On the specific
issue of altered lab reports, here is what Mr. Shapiro found.

[Laboratory Division] management made it clear that this
will not be tolerated and has instructed the Unit Chief's
(sic) to reiterate this policy.

How about that for a finding for this crack review team, Mr.
President. They're investigating serious, possibly criminal activities.
Instead of finding out whether it happened, Mr. Shapiro merely said
it's not supposed to happen. His recommendation? If there were
alterations, just correct the written report.
You see, Mr. President, under the long-standing Brady decision, the
government is required to provide the accused with any information that
might point to their innocence. Material alterations of lab analysis
might fit into that category. If changes had been discovered in some
reports, the proper thing to do was to judge the impact of any
alterations on each court case. Instead, Mr. Shapiro thought justice
would be served by simply correcting the paperwork. Cases closed.
By October 1994--about 5 months after Mr. Shapiro's review was
issued--the IG got hold of the same allegations. The IG began its own
review of the 48 cases.
Meanwhile, in September 1994, the FBI lab managers discovered another
agent making the same allegations of altered reports as Dr. Whitehurst
was making. The allegations by then were being investigated thoroughly
by lab personnel.
By January 1995, the lab's investigation was completed. An FBI unit
chief, whose name I will not divulge, wrote a memo of investigation to
his section chief. In it, he stated that 13 of Whitehurst's 48 cases
had significant alterations. He recommended the following:

That [Supervisory Special Agent] (blank) be held
accountable for the unauthorized changes he made in the
[Auxilliary Examiner] dictation of SSA Whitehurst by
administrative action to include both oral reprimand and a
letter of censure.

The unit chief concluded his memo this way: ``(Blank) committed
errors which were clearly intentional. He acted irresponsibly; he
should be held accountable; he should be disciplined accordingly.''
The scientist-unit chief writing the memo, and who backed up Dr.
Whitehurst's allegations, identified the culprit. I won't reveal who
either one is. But the memo is significant. It reveals yet another
scientist--a unit chief, no less--who substantiated Whitehurst's
allegations. It is another apparent example of an FBI lab agent shaving
the evidence to get a conviction.
What was covered over by Mr. Shapiro's team of crack lawyers less
than 1 year before, was now popping up. The lab's management was
finding the opposite of what Shapiro and his lawyers found. That meant
there were conflicting findings. And that is serious. The lab unit
chief's report was at odds with Director Freeh's. What was senior
management--those above the lab managers--to do?
The answer was not long in coming. During this time frame, FBI
management indeed found a suitable discipline for this rogue agent. Mr.
President, they promoted him. They made him a unit chief. The agent
found to have intentionally altered evidence was promoted. That tells
us how senior management resolved the dilemma. They

[[Page S2608]]

promoted the rogue, and shot the messenger.
That set the stage for the coverup. Because just 10 months later,
when the Whitehurst allegations became public, Mr. Freeh issued the
following statement in response. This was on November 8, 1995. He said:

The FBI has vigorously investigated his (Whitehurst's)
concerns and is continuing to do so. The FBI alone has
reviewed more than 250 cases involving work previously done
by the Laboratory. To date, the FBI has found no evidence
tampering, evidence fabrication, or failure to report
exculpatory evidence. Any finding of such misconduct will
result in tough and swift action by the FBI.

Is that what happened to the rogue agent, Mr. President? Yes. The FBI
took swift action to get him promoted.
The fact is, the statement by Mr. Freeh on November 8, 1995, was
utterly false. Lab reports are evidence. If altered substantially--and
13 reports were--that is evidence of possible evidence tampering, and
more.
Ultimately, the IG caught up with the rogue agent. The FBI did not.
But the IG did. When the IG report finally reached the Bureau, this
rogue agent became one of the three who were transferred from the lab.
Yet no other action has been taken against him by the FBI. I aim to
find out why not.
Mr. President, what is clear about all this is, the FBI is buried
under a mountain of evidence showing it cannot police itself. It took
the inspector general's investigation to finally root out what the FBI
had covered up. Some good people in the FBI tried to do the right
thing. But senior management got in the way. Senior management
apparently places a higher value on maintaining image, rather than
rooting out wrong.
Therefore, the time may have come for independent review of the FBI.
Someone needs to police the police. They cannot police themselves. That
is for sure. Perhaps the way to go is to beef up the independent IG,
instead of the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility, as the
Director has proposed.
Growing up on the family farm in Iowa, my father taught us to revere
and respect the FBI. They were the champions of right versus wrong in
our society. We looked up to them, whether justified or not.
I still have that same respect for the FBI. There are literally
thousands of good, decent men and women serving their country as FBI
employees.
But those honest, hardworking agents need and deserve leadership that
has integrity and credibility. They need leaders who will go after bad
guys, and protect good guys. Not the other way around. They need
leaders who reward honesty and punish wrongdoing--not the other way
around, as we see in this case.
The issue of bad management in the crime lab is serious. Bad
scientific analysis used in court means good guys can go to prison, and
bad guys can walk. That's not what we want. That is un-American. That's
what they have in dictatorships. There is no room for that in a
democracy.
Mr. President, I have talked to my colleagues about the culture at
the FBI under the present management. It seems to reward those who rush
to a conviction. It seems to punish those who, in the FBI's eyes,
``commit truth.''
There is no better image to show this than how they treated the rogue
agent--they promoted him--and how they treated Dr. Whitehurst--they
went after him.
Mr. President, I do not have to say anything else. That says it all.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have relevant documents to
which I referred, plus others that will help provide additional
context, printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

From SSA Frederic Whitehurst
To Asst Director John Hicks

Re alteration of laboratory report of SSA Whitehurst.

Purpose: to document the alterations of auxiliary examiner
* * * laboratory reports of SSA Whitehurst * * *
Recommendation: That any alteration of AE dictation of SSA
Whitehurst be done with the full concurrence of SSA
Whitehurst and the Unit Chief of the Materials Analysis Unit.
Details: On 11/27/92 * * * of the Materials Analysis Unit
advised SSA Whitehurst, * * * that * * * had been told by * *
* that he was changing the auxiliary examiner dictation of
SSA Whitehurst before publishing reports from the Laboratory.
This information was the first that SSA Whitehurst has had
concerning the changing of his dictation in the five and one
half years that SSA Whitehurst has been a examiner in the
Laboratory. At no time has SSA * * * consulted SSA Whitehurst
concerning these changes.
As a result of receiving this information, SSA Whitehurst
reviewed his files to determine the cases that SSA Whitehurst
as worked as an auxiliary examiner since 1987 * * * which
these alterations have been taking place and the possible
effect of the alterations on the reported expert opinion of
SSA Whitehurst.
During the period from 1987 to present SSA Whitehurst has
written forty eight auxiliary examiner reports * * *. Of
those reports SSA Whitehurst was able to retrieve sixteen
files from records. The other files were listed as checked
out and their location was not pursued. Review of the files
indicates that * * * has often paraphrased or totally altered
the reports. Of the sixteen files reviewed, the Laboratory
reports were placed into four groups: 1.) Those where no
change was made to the auxiliary examiner report. 2.) Those
where paraphrasing of the report was such that the meaning
was the same but the words different. 3.) Those where
paraphrasing could cause possible problems in court. 4.)
Those where paraphrasing changed the meaning or significantly
altered the content of the report. In group one there were
three reports (70921005, 91121007, and 90615067). In group
two there were five reports (71116047, 71221007, 70921006,
91121008, and 71116048). In group three there were three
reports (80217150, 71125046 and 91207016). In group four
there were five reports (71124001, 90823043, 70920045,
90623042, and 91130017). Copies of the AE report and the
final Laboratory report from each matter are included in the
attached package.
This communication has been submitted to bring attention to
possible problems during testimony if AE dictation is
arbitrarily changed in the manner described. For example, in
Laboratory matter 90823043 the AE dictation is as follows:
``Chemical and physical analyses of specimen Q4 have
identified the presence of Pyrodex low explosive.
The results of chemical analyses of specimen Q6 are
consistent with the presence of residues of Pyrodex low
explosive.
It is the opinion of this examiner that the residues in Q6
originated from a low explosive mixture which contained
Pyrodex.
Pyrodex is a commercial low explosive produced by Hodgdon
Powder Co.''
On the other hand the final report dictation reads,
``Present in specimen Q6 are explosive residues which
chemical analysis show to have originated from a low
explosive mixture which contained Pyrodex. Pyrodex is a
commercial low explosive produced by Hodgdon Powder Co. . . .
Present in specimen Q4 is a quantity of black-colored
powder which has been identified as Pyrodex low explosive.''
Though the wording in the first paragraph is a paraphrase
of the contents of the AE dictation, the contents of the
second paragraph do not say at all what was said in the AE
dictation. There is a big difference between determining that
Pyrodex is present and saying that the powder is Pyrodex. In
this particular matter there happened to be other materials
present in the powder. If faced on the stand with that
argument the examiner would have to admit that the dictation
was wrong. Opinions presented in the AE reports from the
Materials Analysis Unit have been thought out very carefully
and reviewed by the Unit Chief very carefully.
In FBI Laboratory matter 70920045 the AE dictation reads:
``Specimen Q4 has the chemical and physical characteristics
of C-4 explosive. Semi-quantitative analysis determined that
Q4 is composed of 2.5% polyisobutylene, 7.0% Di-(2-
ethylhexyl) adipate plasticizer and oil and 91.5% high
explosive RDX containing a small amount of HMX high
explosive. C-4 is a military plastic explosive.
White powder found in specimen Q6 has the physical and
chemical characteristics of pentaerythritol tetranitrate
(PETN), a high explosive commonly found in detonating cord.''
The final Laboratory report reads:
`` . . . Present in specimen Q4 is a white putty-type
material which has been identified as United States Military
explosive type M112 commonly referred to as `C-4.' . . .
Present in specimen Q6 are two (2) lengths of detonating
cord which are yellow in color with three black tracer
threads that contain the high explosive PETN.''
In this particular matter no mention is made of the
analysis conducted on specimens Q4 or Q6 nor could the
Laboratory notes or AE report be found in the file.
In order to determine if the practice of altering the AE
dictation of SSA Whitehurst's explosives analysis results is
endemic to the Explosives Unit the reports of three other
examiners who are now or have been in the Explosives Unit
were reviewed. That review included reports from SSA * * *,
SSA * * * and SSA * * *. In not one of their reports were the
AE dictation reports of SSA Whitehurst changed even to
paraphrase the reports. SSA * * * practice of altering AE
reports appears to be an isolated situation.

[[Page S2609]]

____
October 7, 1994.
Re allegations regarding changes in FBI laboratory reports by
Frederick Whitehurst.

David R. Glendinning,
Office of Inspector General, Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Glendinning: As you will recall, several months
ago you contacted me regarding numerous allegations your
office had received against the FBI Laboratory Division (LD)
from Supervisory Special Agent Frederick Whitehurst who is an
explosive residue examiner in the LD. You explained that
Whitehurst had made numerous allegations regarding problems
in the FBI LD, but that only one, involving the changing of
auxiliary examination dictation, warranted further
investigation by your office. I told you that the FBI's
Office of the General Counsel (OGC) had also received the
same allegations from Whitehurst and was already conducting
an investigation. As you know, our preliminary investigation
is complete, and the report dated May 24, 1994, was made
available to your office.
As you will recall, the allegation you were interested in
investigating involved Whitehurst's claim that in some cases,
Principal Examiners (PE) from the Explosives Unit had changed
his Auxiliary Examiner (AE) dictation without his approval or
knowledge. OGC contacted the LD management regarding this
allegation who advised that the LD had a longstanding policy
prohibiting any changes in AE dictation by the PE without the
express permission of the AE. The LD immediately reaffirmed
this policy with all its examiners. The May report made the
following recommendation regarding Whitehurst's allegations
on this matter:
Recommendation: We feel that LD management has
appropriately addressed this issue. However, we are making
the following recommendations to correct any past unapproved
AE dictation changes and ensure that the AE has a chance to
review final reports:
1. Examine all past reports where SSA Whitehurst and * * *
(the other explosive residues examiner) were the AE's, and
compare with the language of the final reports to ensure
there were no changes. If changes were made, appropriate
action should be taken to correct any substantive errors that
were contained in the final report(s).
2. Require a copy of the final report be distributed to the
AE examiners at the same time the final report is mailed to
the contributor.
The FBI adopted the recommendations from the report which
are currently being implemented by the LD. The deadline for
the review conducted pursuant to recommendation number one is
October 15, 1994, and I will forward a copy of the report to
your office as soon as it becomes available.
The LD examiner who is reviewing the Whitehurst and * * *
PE/AE reports advised that he believes there are still one or
two reports that have not yet been retrieved. Once a final
accounting of every report is completed, I will send you a
copy of any remaining reports not enclosed with this letter.
The only redactions in the enclosed reports are the case
names and other personal identifying data.
The following is a list of the enclosed reports which are
identified by the FBI LD number:
1. 00530046
2. 70724075
3. 70921005
4. 70921006
5. 70928045
6. 71019029
7. 71116047
8. 71116048
9. 71125046
10. 71224001
11. 71228078
12. 80121007
13. 80217150
14. 80803018
15. 80803019
16. 81108029
17. 81223004
18. 90403032
19. 90509063
20. 90615067
21. 90623042
22. 90626055
23. 90808074
24. 90823043
25. 91121007
26. 91121008
27. 91130017
28. 91204079
29. 91207016
30. 20124011
31. 20207023
32. 20416043
33. 20618039
34. 20624009
35. 20729026
36. 20812032
37. 21118013
38. 21123024
39. 21214070
40. 21221093
41. 21221094
42. 30422012
43. 30611054
44. 30708031
45. 30802045
46. 30812043
47. 30816032
48. 31001027
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need any
further information or additional assistance. I can be
reached at * * *.
Sincerely yours,
------ ------,
Associate General Counsel.
____

To: Mr. Ahlerich
From: J. J. Kearney

Re alternations and changes in AE reports by PE examiners
without approval of AE examiner scientific analysis
section [SAS] Laboratory Division [LD].

Reference Mr. H. M. Shapiro memorandum to Mr. Hicks, dated
6/8/94 and Messrs * * * and * * * memorandum to Mr. Shapiro,
dated 5/25/94.
Purpose: To Advise you of the actions being taken to
resolve the captioned issue.
Recommendation: None, for information only.
Details: As described in the * * * and * * * memorandum to
Mr. Shapiro, SSA Frederic Whitehurst, Materials Analysis
Unit, SAS, has alleged that in some instances Principal
Examiners (PE) from the Explosives Unit have changed his
Auxiliary Examiner (AE) dictation without his approval.
Following some review it appears that the practice is
isolated to one * * * .
In addition, prior to issuance of the referenced memoranda.
I was approached by * * * a second * * * who rendered a
similar complaint concerning the work of * * * I met with * *
*. Explosives Unit in an attempt to resolve the issue. During
the meetings, it was apparent there was a deeper unresolved
issue which existed between the examiners of the two units.
The issue centered around what each unit believed their
individual roles were when reporting the examinations of
evidence in bombing matters. It was the position of the
Explosives Unit that examiners in the Materials Analysis Unit
should limit their reporting to the chemical analysis of the
explosive residues and not discuss the nature of explosive
materials. On the Other hand, the Materials Analysis Unit's
position was that the Explosives Unit periodically went too
far in their interpretation of the residue data when they
formulated their conclusions and summary statements in their
reports.
In these meetings, the practice that a PE not change an
AE's dictation without first discussing the matter with, and
getting the AE's approval was reemphasized with each of the
Unit Chiefs and the Examiners. It was agreed that the two
units would follow the practice. In addition, in order to
ensure that the AE examiner is kept informed as to what is
being reported on regarding his work, it was reemphasized
that a tickler copy of the final report would be provided to
the AE examiner for his review and records.
Further, I recommended that when bombing cases go to trial,
we send both the explosive expert and explosive residue
expert to testify to their results. This policy is in keeping
with how testimony is handled in other cases in the
Laboratory having both AE and PE testimony and would prevent
any further confusion or possible misrepresentation of the AE
dictation in bombing cases.
In order to resolve the issue * * * I have asked * * * to
review * * *. Some of the cases have already been reviewed by
* * *. The remainder of the cases will be reviewed by * * *
and all cases will be placed into two categories:
Category One will include all those cases where no
alteration occurred or if an alteration occurred, it did not
change the meaning of the dictation.
Category Two will include all those cases where an
alteration of the dictation occurred which caused a change in
the meaning of the dictation and may have resulted in a
misrepresentation of the data.
It is anticipated that the remainder of the review will be
completed by October 15, 1994. A summary report of * * *
findings will be prepared. At that time, it will be
determined * * *.
I have enclosed * * * copy of this memorandum * * * so that
the review of this matter will be comprehensive and
efficient.
____

January 13, 1995.
To: Mr. Kearney
From: * * *

Re alterations and Changes in auxiliary examiner (AE) reports
by principal examiner (PE) without approval of AE
examiner; Scientific Analysis Section (SAS) Laboratory
Division (LD).

Reference J.J. Kearney's directive on 1/4/95, to document
recommendations resulting from a review of captioned matter.
Purpose: To make recommendations regarding the documented
alterations of auxiliary examiner dictation from the
Materials Analysis Unit (MAU) by SSA Explosives Unit (EU).
Recommendations: 1. That SSA * * * be held accountable for
the unauthorized changes he made in the AE dictation of SSA
WHITEHURST by administrative action to include both oral
reprimand and a letter of censure.
2. That the Assistant Director in Charge of the Laboratory
Division mandate that all PEs provide a copy of all outgoing
reports that include AE dictation to the respective AEs to
avoid the possibility of mistakes/errors being furnished to a
contributor as a result of misuse or misinterpretation of the
AE dictation by the PE.
3. That the issue as to whether or not revised reports
should be prepared and furnished to the contributors in the
thirteen (13) cases where I have concluded significant
alterations were done SSA * * * be referred to General
Counsel for resolution.
4. That Laboratory policy be re-emphasized to insure that
PEs never be allowed to testify to the results/meaning of AE
dictation furnished to them that clearly falls outside their
expertise.
Details: Based upon a memorandum to each Laboratory Unit
Chief from J.W. HICKS dated 5/24/91, the approved, current
Laboratory policy for errors made by a person in the
Laboratory is clearly documented. This memorandum lists four
types of errors. The alteration of another examiner's
dictation without consultation with that examiner or his/her
Unit Chief would fit, in my opinion, the criteria of the most
serious type of error defined by the ``willful or grossly
negligent error.''
It has always been understood practice (perhaps not written
policy) that PEs do not change/alter/reword/revise AE
dictation without consulting with and receiving permission
from the AE, or their respective Unit chief in combination
with the AE.
The problems that could arise during testimony when AE
dictation is arbitrarily

[[Page S2610]]

changed cannot be over-emphasized. The wording in all MAU
dictation is carefully thought out, discussed, peer reviewed
often times, and results from correct interpretations of the
data. Any dictation signed out by the MAU Unit Chief or his
designee should not be changed in any manner without the
proper notification and consent of the AE.
In my opinion, SSA * * * chose to ignore this longstanding
practice, a practice that everyone else adheres to.
It is clear that SSA * * * does not understand the
scientific issues involved with the interpretation and
significance of explosives and explosives residue
composition. He therefore should realize this deficiency and
differentiate between his personal opinions and scientific
fact. An expert's opinion should be based upon objective,
scientific findings and be separated from personal
predilections and biases.
In order to identify a given material, it is necessary for
the examiner to acquire sufficient data using acceptable
scientific techniques/protocols and instrumentation to
specifically identify it. If that level of data is not
acquired or does not exist, then complete identification is
not possible and words such as ``consistent with'' or
``similar to'' are used. This is nothing new. It is taught in
our colleges and universities. It is a standard set by MAU
based on experience/background, education, discussions,
research and peer review of the analytical procedures in
place. By rewording AE dictation, SSA * * * places an
examiner in the position where he/she would be required to
advise the court that the report overstates the findings and
therefore is incorrect.
A FBI Laboratory report is evidence. Often times the report
itself is entered into evidence during the trial proceedings.
The fact that SSA * * * did make unauthorized changes in
these reports could have resulted in serious consequences
during legal proceedings and embarrassment to the Laboratory
as well as the entire FBI.
In conclusion, SSA * * * committed errors which were
clearly intentional. He acted irresponsibly; he should be
held accountable; he should be disciplined accordingly. The
problems regarding AE alterations by SSA * * * are verified.
All of the AE dictation furnished to SSA * * * by SSA
WHITEHURST has been reviewed. The causes, reasons and events
which led to the occurrence of the errors has been discussed.
The appropriate administrative action, in my opinion, should
be that SSA * * * be given a letter of censure.
____

Department of Justice,

Federal Bureau of Investigation,

Washington, DC, November 8, 1995.
FBI Director Louis J. Freeh today released the following
statement:
The FBI looks forward to working with the Blue Ribbon Panel
named today. The FBI will assist the panel in every manner
possible to ensure an objective review of our examinations
and policies.
Over the past several years, Special Agent Frederic J.
Whitehurst has raised a variety of concerns about forensic
protocols and procedures employed in the FBI Laboratory. The
FBI has vigorously investigated his concerns and is
continuing to do so. The FBI alone has reviewed more than 250
cases involving work previously done by the Laboratory. To
date, the FBI has found no evidence tampering, evidence
fabrication or failure to report exculpatory evidence. Any
finding of such misconduct will result in tough and swift
action by the FBI.
The FBI Laboratory conducts over one million examinations
per year and our experts testify hundreds of times annually
in state and federal courts of law. At trials, FBI Laboratory
examinations are constantly subject to extraordinarily
vigorous challenge through cross-examination and the
presentation of expert testimony by defense witnesses.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brownback). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBB. Thank you, Mr. President.

Perhaps Mr. Bochan will recall that his hero Arlen Specter ended the second
and final Senate hearing into CIA-Contra-Cocaine connections by citing the
need to look into "serious problems" at the FBI lab.

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 9, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/9/98

Jim Hargrove wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote:
>
> >Funny you aren't posting the "intelligent, thoughtful comments" made by
> >some of the other jurors who disagree with this foreperson.
>
> They were not quoted in the Tribune article I took the forewoman's quote
> from.

So using the misguided reasoning you have used against The Washington
Post of allegedly not telling its readers the full, complete story on
matters of personal importance to you, I could now say the same about
the Tribune.

You better check the Tribune again. Those remarks were covered widely,
including CNN.

>
> >Selectively excerpting commentary that only supports your own
> >anti-government bias and P-O-V is what, supposed to show how utterly
> >even handed and open minded you guys are?
>
> Oh, brother. How 'bout this anti-FBI stand from the floor of the U.S.
> Senate?

Oh puh-leeze.

Do you *ever* stay on topic? The focus was (or should have been)
NICHOLS - the guy in this case who was found GUILTY, Mr. Hargrove, not
the FBI. They weren't deliberating punishment for the FBI, they were
deliberating punishment for NICHOLS.

> Perhaps Mr. Bochan will recall that his hero Arlen Specter ended the
> second and final Senate hearing into CIA-Contra-Cocaine connections by
> citing the need to look into "serious problems" at the FBI lab.

My "hero" Arlen Specter? Why stoop to lying, Mr. Hargrove? Why not ask
me who my heros are before deliberately making such a stupidly false
statement?

I expected better from you. It is no wonder why you and your cohorts on
the liberal left have lost support.

STEVE

Jim Hargrove

unread,

Jan 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/10/98

Steve Bochan wrote:
>Jim Hargrove wrote:

>So using the misguided reasoning you have used against The Washington
>Post of allegedly not telling its readers the full, complete story on
>matters of personal importance to you, I could now say the same about
>the Tribune.

Absolutely.

The Tribune failed to tell its readers about the jury forewoman's most
serious accusations, that she and some other jurors felt the FBI had not
sufficiently investigated all its leads in so serious a crime. The Tribune
did not tell its readers that the forewoman in the Nichols case believed in
at least a partial coverup by the FBI.

And now that you mention it. . . .

Let's get back to that debate we had just before Christmas about the
Washington Post and CIA cocaine activities. My original statement was that
the Post did--and continues to--bury the truth about the Agency's shocking
relationship to the international cocaine trade. I am prepared to defend
that statement. We can move it over to the CIA group if you prefer.

>You better check the Tribune again. Those remarks were covered widely,
>including CNN.

So, post some for crying out loud! Do you expect me to do your job, too?
Why do I have to do all the work here? Let's do a statistical analysis. To
get the ball rolling, I'll guess that of the public statements made so far,
half or more of the jurors found serious problems with the FBI's handling of
the case.

>> >Selectively excerpting commentary that only supports your own
>> >anti-government bias and P-O-V is what, supposed to show how utterly
>> >even handed and open minded you guys are?
>>
>> Oh, brother. How 'bout this anti-FBI stand from the floor of the U.S.
>> Senate?
>

(Note that Mr. Bochan deletes and then responds to well-documented charges
of widespread FBI corruption by a sitting U.S. Senator by saying "Oh
puh-leeze. Do you *ever* stay on topic.")

The subject line of this thread is "Nichols Juror Slams FBI."

>Oh puh-leeze.
>
>Do you *ever* stay on topic? The focus was (or should have been)
>NICHOLS - the guy in this case who was found GUILTY, Mr. Hargrove, not
>the FBI. They weren't deliberating punishment for the FBI, they were
>deliberating punishment for NICHOLS.

Yeah, guilty of conspiracy and manslaughter. MANSLAUGHTER!!?? All the more
shocking that in a case determining the guilt of a single defendant, the FBI
should find itself so criticized.

><snippage>

>
>
>> Perhaps Mr. Bochan will recall that his hero Arlen Specter ended the
>> second and final Senate hearing into CIA-Contra-Cocaine connections by
>> citing the need to look into "serious problems" at the FBI lab.
>
>

>My "hero" Arlen Specter? Why stoop to lying, Mr. Hargrove? Why not ask
>me who my heros are before deliberately making such a stupidly false
>statement?

Well, perhaps that was a little unfair, but for someone who calls himself a
conspiracy believer, you sure leap to bureaucrats defense at the drop of
every hat around.

>I expected better from you. It is no wonder why you and your cohorts on
>the liberal left have lost support.

You don't think that the murder of America's three most charismatic liberal
leaders from the 1960s, all by "lone nuts" under conspicuously suspicious
conditions, had anything to do with that, do you Steve?

Nah, I didn't think so.

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/10/98

Jim Hargrove wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote:
> >Jim Hargrove wrote:
>
> >So using the misguided reasoning you have used against The Washington
> >Post of allegedly not telling its readers the full, complete story on
> >matters of personal importance to you, I could now say the same about
> >the Tribune.
>
> Absolutely.

I thought so. :-(

>
> The Tribune failed to tell its readers about the jury forewoman's most
> serious accusations, that she and some other jurors felt the FBI had not
> sufficiently investigated all its leads in so serious a crime. The Tribune
> did not tell its readers that the forewoman in the Nichols case believed in
> at least a partial coverup by the FBI.

She also told the news media that she thought there was *more* to
this and that there may be *more* conspirators out there still at
large. No discussion of evidence, naturally, just her suspicions. Who
does *that* sound like?

Talk about deja vu!

>
> And now that you mention it. . . .
>
> Let's get back to that debate we had just before Christmas about the
> Washington Post and CIA cocaine activities. My original statement was that
> the Post did--and continues to--bury the truth about the Agency's shocking
> relationship to the international cocaine trade. I am prepared to defend
> that statement. We can move it over to the CIA group if you prefer.

Whatever. The Post did not, and does not, bury coverage of any scandal
surrounding CIA or *any* other government agency. I still can't believe
you are prattling on about such an absurdity, or still pushing a story
that the Mercury News itself backed away from.

The news business is a competitive one. This *is* still a Capitalist
society, last time I checked, which means that if The Post doesn't scoop
the other newspaper competitors on a regular basis, they begin to lose
readership to those that will get the story *first*.

To suggest that they would deliberately bury embarrassing or otherwise
unflattering FACTS about any agency, requires suspending belief in the
marketplace and turning common sense on its head. Not to mention that
this sweeping generalization (against The Post) does not hold water to
begin with.

>
> >You better check the Tribune again. Those remarks were covered widely,
> >including CNN.
>
> So, post some for crying out loud! Do you expect me to do your job, too?

Ha! This is not my job. You seem to take this Internet posting very
seriously, though. Is it *your* job to post here? ;-)

> Why do I have to do all the work here? Let's do a statistical analysis. To
> get the ball rolling, I'll guess that of the public statements made so far,
> half or more of the jurors found serious problems with the FBI's handling of
> the case.

Right. So ... what?

They were deliberating punishment for NICHOLS who was found guilty - not
punishment for the FBI.

>
> >> >Selectively excerpting commentary that only supports your own
> >> >anti-government bias and P-O-V is what, supposed to show how utterly
> >> >even handed and open minded you guys are?
> >>
> >> Oh, brother. How 'bout this anti-FBI stand from the floor of the U.S.
> >> Senate?
> >

> (Note that Mr. Bochan deletes and then responds to well-documented charges
> of widespread FBI corruption by a sitting U.S. Senator by saying "Oh
> puh-leeze. Do you *ever* stay on topic.")

For the record, your lengthy off-topic excerpts were too long for my
server to repost, and, they were snipped because they were another
ridiculous example of you veering off topic to selectively post whatever
you can grab to support your hatred of government agencies like the FBI.

You have also snipped responses from me, so you are in no position to
get on a high horse about this now.

> The subject line of this thread is "Nichols Juror Slams FBI."
>

So stick to *that* -not- a grab bag of syllogistic support for your
anti-FBI nonsense.

> >Oh puh-leeze.
> >
> >Do you *ever* stay on topic? The focus was (or should have been)
> >NICHOLS - the guy in this case who was found GUILTY, Mr. Hargrove, not
> >the FBI. They weren't deliberating punishment for the FBI, they were
> >deliberating punishment for NICHOLS.
>
> Yeah, guilty of conspiracy and manslaughter. MANSLAUGHTER!!?? All the more
> shocking that in a case determining the guilt of a single defendant, the FBI
> should find itself so criticized.

Especially during a deliberation *about* the GUILTY DEFENDANT. But
after watching the OJ debacle, nothing surprises me anymore about the
paranoia and suspicion affecting some.

>
> ><snippage>

> >
> >
> >> Perhaps Mr. Bochan will recall that his hero Arlen Specter ended the
> >> second and final Senate hearing into CIA-Contra-Cocaine connections by
> >> citing the need to look into "serious problems" at the FBI lab.
> >
> >

> >My "hero" Arlen Specter? Why stoop to lying, Mr. Hargrove? Why not ask
> >me who my heros are before deliberately making such a stupidly false
> >statement?
>
> Well, perhaps that was a little unfair, but for someone who calls himself a
> conspiracy believer, you sure leap to bureaucrats defense at the drop of
> every hat around.

It was more than unfair. It was a typical personal attack by a typical
liberal who cannot win an argument without resorting to personal
insult.
We've seen it over and over again by those you want to defend and
support here in the JFK case.

As far as 'leaping to bureaucrats defense at the drop of every hat
around,' I challenge that, too. It is the sophomoric reasoning that I
see in this case that usually elicits a response from me. For example,
you bring up the three most famous leaders who were slain during the
'60s (below) and seem to imply, by doing so, that the FBI -then- is the
same FBI -now- in the context of this thread about NICHOLS.

Obviously this is absurd: Hoover is dead and today's FBI is not the same
FBI of the '60s. You are mixing apples and oranges and using a very
broad brush approach in your criticism of that agency. If you had
specific charges in this case against the way, say, Louis Freeh is
running the agency, let's hear them.

>
> >I expected better from you. It is no wonder why you and your cohorts on
> >the liberal left have lost support.
>
> You don't think that the murder of America's three most charismatic liberal
> leaders from the 1960s, all by "lone nuts" under conspicuously suspicious
> conditions, had anything to do with that, do you Steve?

It doesn't matter. A personal attack is still a personal attack, and
none of the "charismatic liberal leaders" you admire above ever needed
to resort to the tactic that you just did, in order to win their
audience over. Matter of fact, one who was the target of RFK-approved
harassment by JEH and Co. would not countenance such a tactic.

>
> Nah, I didn't think so.

Yeah, any excuse for attacking someone personally will do, right?
Especially if you can do it while invoking the memories JFK, RFK and
MLK. Liberals don't have exclusive moral rights to their memories, Jim.

STEVE

"What gets lost in all this controversy is that there is a middle
ground. I confess loneliness in my occupancy of it. It is the ground
that finds the commission failed us and proves this with fact and
official documentation. It also finds that the proliferating conspiracy
theories mislead and confuse as much as or more than the faulted
official conclusions."

— Harold Weisberg

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/10/98

Steve Bochan wrote:
>

> STEVE
>
> "What gets lost in all this controversy is that there is a middle
> ground. I confess loneliness in my occupancy of it. It is the ground
> that finds the commission failed us and proves this with fact and
> official documentation. It also finds that the proliferating conspiracy
> theories mislead and confuse as much as or more than the faulted
> official conclusions."
>
> — Harold Weisberg

Steve, I notice that you like to quote Weisberg at the end of your
posts; you do realize, of course, that Weisberg thinks Oswald was
framed. And you do believe that Oswald was the gunman, am I correct? You
are aware that he frequently has accused the FBI of being involved in a
coverup of the truth about the assassination? He's also accused FBI
agents of lying under oath during his FOIA suits.

Tracy

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/10/98

Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote:
> >
>
> <snipping for bandwidth>
>

> > STEVE
> >
> > "What gets lost in all this controversy is that there is a middle
> > ground. I confess loneliness in my occupancy of it. It is the ground
> > that finds the commission failed us and proves this with fact and
> > official documentation. It also finds that the proliferating conspiracy
> > theories mislead and confuse as much as or more than the faulted
> > official conclusions."
> >
> > — Harold Weisberg
>

> Steve, I notice that you like to quote Weisberg at the end of your
> posts; you do realize, of course, that Weisberg thinks Oswald was
> framed. And you do believe that Oswald was the gunman, am I correct? You
> are aware that he frequently has accused the FBI of being involved in a
> coverup of the truth about the assassination? He's also accused FBI
> agents of lying under oath during his FOIA suits.
>
> Tracy

Absolutely - I was hoping my previous correspondent would make the
observation that you did, but that having been said, yes you are quite
correct.

Tracy, I believe Oswald was guilty. That does not mean I believe he was
the ONLY one that was guilty, nevertheless, guilty he was. IOW, in a
way, I have some of the same reservations that the jury foreperson (and
some of the other jurors) had in the NICHOLS sentencing deliberations,
yet I would not have hesitated on voting my conscience in the matter and
pushed for the death penalty.

Do you see what I am saying, here?

STEVE

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/10/98

Steve Bochan wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle wrote:
> >
> > Steve Bochan wrote:
> > >
> >
> > <snipping for bandwidth>
> >

> > > STEVE
> > >
> > > "What gets lost in all this controversy is that there is a middle
> > > ground. I confess loneliness in my occupancy of it. It is the ground
> > > that finds the commission failed us and proves this with fact and
> > > official documentation. It also finds that the proliferating conspiracy
> > > theories mislead and confuse as much as or more than the faulted
> > > official conclusions."
> > >
> > > — Harold Weisberg
> >

> > Steve, I notice that you like to quote Weisberg at the end of your
> > posts; you do realize, of course, that Weisberg thinks Oswald was
> > framed. And you do believe that Oswald was the gunman, am I correct? You
> > are aware that he frequently has accused the FBI of being involved in a
> > coverup of the truth about the assassination? He's also accused FBI
> > agents of lying under oath during his FOIA suits.
> >
> > Tracy
>
> Absolutely - I was hoping my previous correspondent would make the
> observation that you did, but that having been said, yes you are quite
> correct.
>
> Tracy, I believe Oswald was guilty. That does not mean I believe he was
> the ONLY one that was guilty, nevertheless, guilty he was. IOW, in a
> way, I have some of the same reservations that the jury foreperson (and
> some of the other jurors) had in the NICHOLS sentencing deliberations,
> yet I would not have hesitated on voting my conscience in the matter and
> pushed for the death penalty.
>
> Do you see what I am saying, here?
>
> STEVE

I understand. Nichols was definitely involved in making the bomb, so the
jury should have had no difficulty in sentencing him.
Could I hear your assassination scenario, Steve? Do you think Oswald was
the only gunman? What group or individuals were involved?

Tracy

CRT

unread,

Jan 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/10/98

On Thu, 08 Jan 1998 14:24:55 -0500, Pearl Gladstone <tr...@erols.com> wrote:

>Jim Hargrove wrote:
>>
>> "It's deja vu all over again," as Yogi Berra supposedly said.
>>
>> Niki Deutchman, forewoman of the jury in the Terry Nichols Oklahoma City
>> bombing trial, yesterday held a news conference in which she commented on
>> widespread distrust of the FBI among members of the Nichols jury. Although
>> it didn't include all her criticisms, a copyrighted story in this morning's
>> _Chicago Tribune_ concluded with these three paragraphs:
>>

Yes if you liked he rambling speech it was ok. The only reason you like it was that she didn't like the FBI.
He should have gotten the death penality. There were too many bleeding heart liberals on the jury.

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/10/98

Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote:
> >
> > Tracy Riddle wrote:
> > >
> > > Steve Bochan wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > <snipping for bandwidth>
> > >

> > > > STEVE
> > > >
> > > > "What gets lost in all this controversy is that there is a middle
> > > > ground. I confess loneliness in my occupancy of it. It is the ground
> > > > that finds the commission failed us and proves this with fact and
> > > > official documentation. It also finds that the proliferating conspiracy
> > > > theories mislead and confuse as much as or more than the faulted
> > > > official conclusions."
> > > >
> > > > — Harold Weisberg
> > >

> > > Steve, I notice that you like to quote Weisberg at the end of your
> > > posts; you do realize, of course, that Weisberg thinks Oswald was
> > > framed. And you do believe that Oswald was the gunman, am I correct? You
> > > are aware that he frequently has accused the FBI of being involved in a
> > > coverup of the truth about the assassination? He's also accused FBI
> > > agents of lying under oath during his FOIA suits.
> > >
> > > Tracy
> >
> > Absolutely - I was hoping my previous correspondent would make the
> > observation that you did, but that having been said, yes you are quite
> > correct.
> >
> > Tracy, I believe Oswald was guilty. That does not mean I believe he was
> > the ONLY one that was guilty, nevertheless, guilty he was. IOW, in a
> > way, I have some of the same reservations that the jury foreperson (and
> > some of the other jurors) had in the NICHOLS sentencing deliberations,
> > yet I would not have hesitated on voting my conscience in the matter and
> > pushed for the death penalty.
> >
> > Do you see what I am saying, here?
> >
> > STEVE
>
> I understand. Nichols was definitely involved in making the bomb, so the
> jury should have had no difficulty in sentencing him.
> Could I hear your assassination scenario, Steve? Do you think Oswald was
> the only gunman? What group or individuals were involved?
>
> Tracy

Tracy,

Thank you for asking the question, instead of accusing me of being a
lone nutter with Arlen Specter as my hero. :-)

I think the strongest evidence, as we know it, tends to support the
notion that the shots fired came from LHO's rifle. Do I think Oswald
was psychologically capable of doing such a thing? Yes. Do I think he
shot at Gen. Walker and tried to kill him? Yes. Do I think he killed
Tippit? Yes. Do I think he drew his gun and tried to fire on another
Dallas police officer inside the Texas Theatre? Yes.

Do I think he shot at JFK alone? Much of the evidence certainly
suggests that he did, and as Marina told the HSCA, he wouldn't have
trusted any confederates in a plot, period. But I am still not
thoroughly convinced that there were not others involved, eg. that
mysterious waiting plane at Redbird Airport. Nevertheless, I do think
he is guilty of participating in the shooting and therefore, he is
guilty.

Here's where I have reservations with the Lone Deranger scenario (sorry
Barb, I love that expression of yours): even Hoover and LBJ, while
desirous of a quick (some say foregone) conclusion of this terrible
crime, were at the same time, suspicious of Castro's possible
foreknowledge and/or involvement. Further, there was a reason that the
Castro assassination plots were not discussed during the Warren
Commission investigation. Dulles knew of them. RFK certainly knew of
them. Hoover knew of them. Why weren't they part of the official
investigation?

Much of the Castro assassination plotting unearthed in later years
suggests that such information would have changed the course of the JFK
investigation:

[QUOTE]

* CIA officials knowledgeable of the AMLASH operation did not
disclose it to the Warren Commission, the FBI, or to CIA's own personnel
charged with the responsibility of investigating the assassination.

* CIA's own investigators, as well as Warren Commission staffers and
FBI investigators, have stated that knowledge of the assassination plots
in general, and the AMLASH plot in particular, would have made
significant difference in the way their investigations were conducted.

* Because of CIA investigative procedures, its own investigators
should have become aware of the AMLASH operation through records
checks. Since these investigators have denied knowledge of the
operation, we must assume that others at CIA made conscious decisions to
withhold information.

* In attempting to trace what appear to be key leads received by CIA
and FBI, there seems to be a pattern of failure to follow adequately the
leads relating to possible involvement in the assassination by the Cuban
government or by Cuban exile groups. Moreover, the Warren Commission
did not receive pertinent information in the possession of the agencies
which might be of assistance in understanding the significance of
Oswald's contacts with these groups.

* There is no documentary record of an intense, aggressive
investigation -- by CIA or FBI -- of the possibility that Oswald's
contacts with pro-Castro and anti-Castro groups were evidence of a
conspiracy involving those groups. Witnesses from both CIA and FBI have
testified that they received no orders to conduct such an investigation.

[END QUOTE]

This information is in a memorandum from "Staff" to the "Senate Select
Committee" investigating the assassination during the mid-late '70s and
can be obtained from the National Archives as record no.
157-10005-10080.

Why, 34 years after the fact, aren't we doing business with Cuba?

The important thing for me, Tracy, is that even if we discover that
others were indeed involved, (even if they were connected to Castro), I
am at a loss as to how that fact will exonerate Oswald. He was guilty
and he has attained a notoriety and fame that he never could've attained
while he was alive. I think he is fooling many of those who think he is
"innocent," from his grave.

STEVE

Fathom

unread,

Jan 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/10/98

In article <34B7D1...@erols.com>, sbo...@erols.com wrote:

> Tracy, I believe Oswald was guilty. That does not mean I believe he was
> the ONLY one that was guilty, nevertheless, guilty he was. IOW, in a
> way, I have some of the same reservations that the jury foreperson (and
> some of the other jurors) had in the NICHOLS sentencing deliberations,
> yet I would not have hesitated on voting my conscience in the matter and

> pushed for the death penalty. =

>
> Do you see what I am saying, here?

Thanks for that clarification, Steve. This is a question about which
honorable people can disagree, even if they are more or less in agreement
about the facts of the case.

Even if I were certain that Oswald was part of the conspiracy (as the
jurors of Nichols were), I wouldn't condemn him to death unless I knew
more about the scope of the conspiracy and what his role was. And I'd be
particularly disinclined to go along with a prosecution based on lies and
omissions by the FBI, which is certainly an issue in Oswald's case.

I think that's probably the same reasoning used by the Nichols jurors.
--

To reply by e-mail, please address to fat...@sonic.net
8 8 8 8 8 8 8
These opinions are not my own--I am channeling them from the Higher Realms.
Disagree at your peril.

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/10/98

Steve Bochan wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle wrote:

> > I understand. Nichols was definitely involved in making the bomb, so the
> > jury should have had no difficulty in sentencing him.
> > Could I hear your assassination scenario, Steve? Do you think Oswald was
> > the only gunman? What group or individuals were involved?
> >
>

If I thought the evidence against Oswald added up and I was convinced
that he was the gunman (or one of the gunmen), I would probably have
little interest in this case (conspiracy or not). In fact, if Oswald was
the gunman, I would probably lean towards a no-conspiracy conclusion
because no one in his right mind would use LHO as a shooter.

But Oswald was so physically uncoordinated and awkward that he hadn't
even learned to drive a car yet; Ruth Paine was trying to teach him and
she said he had difficulty negotiating turns! As I'm sure you'll agree,
it requires a great deal more hand-eye coordination to shoot a rifle
accurately at a moving target than it does to drive a car.

Other problems: Oswald somehow assembled this enormous rifle bag at the
TSBD without anyone seeing him do it; he then took it home to Irving
without anyone seeing it; he woke up late the morning of the
assassination, his date with destiny; though he had this great interest
in rifles, he owned no cleaning equipment or spare ammo; there was never
even one confirmed date or time when Oswald was known to have practiced
with the rifle; he didn't bring his revolver with him to the TSBD, and
instead wasted a great deal of time going back to get it. And there are
numerous other problems with the case against Oswald.

Not only was Oswald never heard to utter anti-Kennedy statements, a
number of people who knew him said LHO actually *liked* JFK. His
repeated insistence that he didn't kill Kennedy (though this was his
moment of "fame and glory") is also unheard of among lone assassins.
Only James Earl Ray can compare, and note the similarity between the two
crimes: both are committed by unseen riflemen who then conveniently
leave the rifle and other incriminating evidence behind; later, men who
have no motive and proclaim their innocence are picked up and proclaimed
"lone nuts." In both cases, the FBI proclaims "no conspiracy" almost
immediately. Oswald is silenced because he knows too much, but Ray knows
very little and is allowed to remain alive.

Once Oswald was dead, it became very easy for everyone to circle the
wagons and declare him the lone gunman, despite his claim that he was a
"patsy." The Dallas police suddenly announced that they had found his
prints on the rifle on Friday night, but had forgot to tell anyone! The
media outdid itself trying to see how demented they could make Oswald
look.

I personally believe that Kennedy was killed by the same people who were
trying to kill Castro: elements of US intelligence, Cuban exiles,
mobsters and a few friends in Dallas. They were furious with the
president because of his "softness" on Cuba. Oswald was set up to look
like the gunman because of his pro-Castro public image. They hoped that
this would cause the public to think that Castro had killed JFK, and a
US invasion of Cuba would follow. Two birds with one stone.

But LBJ didn't want to start WWIII; Earl Warren and other liberals
didn't want to find a Communist conspiracy and start a new Red Scare;
Hoover didn't want to have to explain Oswald's ties to the FBI; the CIA
didn't want to reveal the plots to kill Castro (or explain how some of
its people might have gotten out of control); the media went along with
the coverup out of a desire to protect America's image in the world.

Tracy

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/10/98

Fathom wrote:
>
> In article <34B7D1...@erols.com>, sbo...@erols.com wrote:
>
> > Tracy, I believe Oswald was guilty. That does not mean I believe he was
> > the ONLY one that was guilty, nevertheless, guilty he was. IOW, in a
> > way, I have some of the same reservations that the jury foreperson (and
> > some of the other jurors) had in the NICHOLS sentencing deliberations,
> > yet I would not have hesitated on voting my conscience in the matter and
> > pushed for the death penalty. =
> >
> > Do you see what I am saying, here?
>
> Thanks for that clarification, Steve. This is a question about which
> honorable people can disagree, even if they are more or less in agreement
> about the facts of the case.

You're welcome. I agree with you about honorable people disagreeing.
:-)

>
> Even if I were certain that Oswald was part of the conspiracy (as the
> jurors of Nichols were), I wouldn't condemn him to death unless I knew
> more about the scope of the conspiracy and what his role was. And I'd be
> particularly disinclined to go along with a prosecution based on lies and
> omissions by the FBI, which is certainly an issue in Oswald's case.
>
> I think that's probably the same reasoning used by the Nichols jurors.

I think you are correct about the way the Nichols' jury foreperson
reasoned, anyway. For me, I just don't know how anyone could
acknowledge that they've found someone guilty of conspiracy in the
Oklahoma City bombing case and *not* sentence them to death. There are
certain crimes that are so barbaric, so brutal and so unforgivable, that
if this wasn't one of those that deserved the death penalty, what case
does?

How can anyone be sentenced to death now, if someone found guilty of
conspiracy in the Oklahoma City bombing case is *not*?

Oh well. Maybe they just didn't feel that his role in the death of 8
federal agents was bad enough to warrant the death penalty. Hopefully,
the good people of Oklahoma will see things a bit differently since
they'll be considering the other 160 innocent victims in the next trial.

STEVE

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/10/98

Thanks for your comments. It's interesting to me that you bring this up
because this is exactly what I used to think. :-)

The way I reconciled my doubts about this was to throw out all official
findings about the "SBT" and Oswald's shooting ability, and listen to
people here and over on CompuServe who had done their homework on this.

For example, when I see that staunch conspiracy believers come out and
actually argue *for* the SBT, that it *is* possible, etc., then I feel a
big hurdle for Oswald doing the shooting has been eliminated.

Also, for what its worth, Todd Vaughan, whom I have never met but have
corresponded with on CompuServe in the past, has established a
reputation as a real pain in the ass as far as precision goes:-) -- he
wants to get things right, right down to the correct spelling of witness
names, their statements, etc. (I mean that as a compliment, Todd, if
you're reading this.)

He actually went out and got himself an MC rifle like Oswald's and did
some experimental shooting on targets in an area of Michigan where he
hunts. I hope he chimes in and posts the results because they are
rather eye opening. Bottom line: the rifle was not that difficult to
handle, and the tracking of the target (for Todd anyway) was fairly
easy, as I recall.

I trust Todd. I trust his research because he tries so very hard to be
precise all the time. And it was his posting on the MC rifle - not the
official conclusions - that convinced me that Oswald could have done the
shooting without too much difficulty as well.

But, to each his own. We each come to our own conclusions in our own
way and in our own time - I just wanted you to know that I did not come
to mine by trusting the "official" reports on the MC rifle or on
Oswald's shooting abilities.

> Other problems: Oswald somehow assembled this enormous rifle bag at the
> TSBD without anyone seeing him do it; he then took it home to Irving
> without anyone seeing it; he woke up late the morning of the
> assassination, his date with destiny; though he had this great interest
> in rifles, he owned no cleaning equipment or spare ammo; there was never
> even one confirmed date or time when Oswald was known to have practiced
> with the rifle; he didn't bring his revolver with him to the TSBD, and
> instead wasted a great deal of time going back to get it. And there are
> numerous other problems with the case against Oswald.

These are all interesting and well gone over items, Tracy. But weigh
all of them against the preponderance of the evidence that shows he did
indeed do some shooting that day, and that he lied about owning a rifle.
Also, while I agree with you that the case is screwed up in a number of
ways, I must tell you that I compare this with how screwed up the OJ
evidence was -- and I have no problem with my belief that the evidence
still showed that OJ was guilty as sin.

Does his older brother Robert's conviction that Lee did this, have
impact for you?

> Not only was Oswald never heard to utter anti-Kennedy statements, a
> number of people who knew him said LHO actually *liked* JFK. His
> repeated insistence that he didn't kill Kennedy (though this was his
> moment of "fame and glory") is also unheard of among lone assassins.
> Only James Earl Ray can compare, and note the similarity between the two
> crimes: both are committed by unseen riflemen who then conveniently
> leave the rifle and other incriminating evidence behind; later, men who
> have no motive and proclaim their innocence are picked up and proclaimed
> "lone nuts." In both cases, the FBI proclaims "no conspiracy" almost
> immediately. Oswald is silenced because he knows too much, but Ray knows
> very little and is allowed to remain alive.

IMO, Oswald was a misanthrope: he didn't trust (or like) people. He may
have admired JFK, as you say, but I doubt this was *about* JFK in
Oswald's mind, anymore than any of Kaczinski's victims were about
*them*. This was about Oswald (or Kaczinski) making a statement to the
world.

> Once Oswald was dead, it became very easy for everyone to circle the
> wagons and declare him the lone gunman, despite his claim that he was a
> "patsy." The Dallas police suddenly announced that they had found his
> prints on the rifle on Friday night, but had forgot to tell anyone! The
> media outdid itself trying to see how demented they could make Oswald
> look.

I think a man who is capable of repeated violence against his wife is
capable of murder --- thanks to OJ.

> I personally believe that Kennedy was killed by the same people who were
> trying to kill Castro: elements of US intelligence, Cuban exiles,
> mobsters and a few friends in Dallas. They were furious with the
> president because of his "softness" on Cuba. Oswald was set up to look
> like the gunman because of his pro-Castro public image. They hoped that
> this would cause the public to think that Castro had killed JFK, and a
> US invasion of Cuba would follow. Two birds with one stone.
>
> But LBJ didn't want to start WWIII; Earl Warren and other liberals
> didn't want to find a Communist conspiracy and start a new Red Scare;
> Hoover didn't want to have to explain Oswald's ties to the FBI; the CIA
> didn't want to reveal the plots to kill Castro (or explain how some of
> its people might have gotten out of control); the media went along with
> the coverup out of a desire to protect America's image in the world.
>
> Tracy

I appreciate your thoughtful response. As I've said before, I don't
really have an agenda, I come here to read, learn and laugh (sometimes).

Hope we can talk again ...

STEVE

George Lamm, Jr.

unread,

Jan 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/11/98

Tracy...

I think a pretty good overview of what probably went down in Dallas and
the aftermath everying scurring to CYA... but i do think LHO was very
much involved though he probably did not realize it until his encounter
with Officer Baker... later... george

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/11/98

My problem with the SBT is not that one bullet could cause all those
wounds in two men; that can happen (ignoring for the moment the
trajectory problems). My real gripe is over the condition of the bullet.
For example, supporters claim that the side of the bullet hit Connally's
back and smashed his rib, but the bullet shows no deformation in the
lands and grooves. Also, there should be microscopic traces of blood and
tissue left in the grooves.

> For example, when I see that staunch conspiracy believers come out and
> actually argue *for* the SBT, that it *is* possible, etc., then I feel a
> big hurdle for Oswald doing the shooting has been eliminated.
>
> Also, for what its worth, Todd Vaughan, whom I have never met but have
> corresponded with on CompuServe in the past, has established a
> reputation as a real pain in the ass as far as precision goes:-) -- he
> wants to get things right, right down to the correct spelling of witness
> names, their statements, etc. (I mean that as a compliment, Todd, if
> you're reading this.)
>
> He actually went out and got himself an MC rifle like Oswald's and did
> some experimental shooting on targets in an area of Michigan where he
> hunts. I hope he chimes in and posts the results because they are
> rather eye opening. Bottom line: the rifle was not that difficult to
> handle, and the tracking of the target (for Todd anyway) was fairly
> easy, as I recall.
>
> I trust Todd. I trust his research because he tries so very hard to be
> precise all the time. And it was his posting on the MC rifle - not the
> official conclusions - that convinced me that Oswald could have done the
> shooting without too much difficulty as well.

It's not really the aiming and pulling the trigger that would have been
difficult; it's accomplishing this feat with a stiff bolt-action rifle
in a matter of seconds. LHO also gave up some easy shots on Houston and
the corner of Elm when the car was practically crawling, and instead
waited for harder shots on Elm.

> But, to each his own. We each come to our own conclusions in our own
> way and in our own time - I just wanted you to know that I did not come
> to mine by trusting the "official" reports on the MC rifle or on
> Oswald's shooting abilities.
>
>
> > Other problems: Oswald somehow assembled this enormous rifle bag at the
> > TSBD without anyone seeing him do it; he then took it home to Irving
> > without anyone seeing it; he woke up late the morning of the
> > assassination, his date with destiny; though he had this great interest
> > in rifles, he owned no cleaning equipment or spare ammo; there was never
> > even one confirmed date or time when Oswald was known to have practiced
> > with the rifle; he didn't bring his revolver with him to the TSBD, and
> > instead wasted a great deal of time going back to get it. And there are
> > numerous other problems with the case against Oswald.
>
> These are all interesting and well gone over items, Tracy.

Can I hear your explanation of these points, since you no longer believe
they matter?

> But weigh
> all of them against the preponderance of the evidence that shows he did
> indeed do some shooting that day, and that he lied about owning a rifle.

But the physical evidence linking Oswald to the scene also has enormous
problems with it; every bit of it seems to have been tampered with, or
is of suspicious origin, etc. This is of course what you would expect
with an attempt to frame someone.

> Also, while I agree with you that the case is screwed up in a number of
> ways, I must tell you that I compare this with how screwed up the OJ
> evidence was -- and I have no problem with my belief that the evidence
> still showed that OJ was guilty as sin.

Well, I believe OJ was guilty and the evidence against him has far fewer
basic problems than the evidence against LHO. OJ also had motive and no
one else did.

> Does his older brother Robert's conviction that Lee did this, have
> impact for you?

Robert has never given a convincing reason why his Lee would have done
this; if Robert could give us one example of LHO saying, "I can't stand
JFK," then that would make more sense. Robert was a young man at the
time, with a family and a career to protect, and the last thing he
wanted to do was screw up the rest of his life by disagreeing with the
official scenario. I understand that.

> > Not only was Oswald never heard to utter anti-Kennedy statements, a
> > number of people who knew him said LHO actually *liked* JFK. His
> > repeated insistence that he didn't kill Kennedy (though this was his
> > moment of "fame and glory") is also unheard of among lone assassins.
> > Only James Earl Ray can compare, and note the similarity between the two
> > crimes: both are committed by unseen riflemen who then conveniently
> > leave the rifle and other incriminating evidence behind; later, men who
> > have no motive and proclaim their innocence are picked up and proclaimed
> > "lone nuts." In both cases, the FBI proclaims "no conspiracy" almost
> > immediately. Oswald is silenced because he knows too much, but Ray knows
> > very little and is allowed to remain alive.
>
> IMO, Oswald was a misanthrope: he didn't trust (or like) people. He may
> have admired JFK, as you say, but I doubt this was *about* JFK in
> Oswald's mind, anymore than any of Kaczinski's victims were about
> *them*. This was about Oswald (or Kaczinski) making a statement to the
> world.

For someone who didn't like people, he sure had plenty of acquaintances.
He didn't wall himself up writing tracts like Kaczinski; he was quite
active in the outside world.

> > Once Oswald was dead, it became very easy for everyone to circle the
> > wagons and declare him the lone gunman, despite his claim that he was a
> > "patsy." The Dallas police suddenly announced that they had found his
> > prints on the rifle on Friday night, but had forgot to tell anyone! The
> > media outdid itself trying to see how demented they could make Oswald
> > look.
>
> I think a man who is capable of repeated violence against his wife is
> capable of murder --- thanks to OJ.

Oswald may very well have been capable of murder; he was no angel, and I
believe he was a low-level intelligence operative who was familiar with
deception and ruthlessness. But that doesn't therefore prove he killed
JFK.

> > I personally believe that Kennedy was killed by the same people who were
> > trying to kill Castro: elements of US intelligence, Cuban exiles,
> > mobsters and a few friends in Dallas. They were furious with the
> > president because of his "softness" on Cuba. Oswald was set up to look
> > like the gunman because of his pro-Castro public image. They hoped that
> > this would cause the public to think that Castro had killed JFK, and a
> > US invasion of Cuba would follow. Two birds with one stone.
> >
> > But LBJ didn't want to start WWIII; Earl Warren and other liberals
> > didn't want to find a Communist conspiracy and start a new Red Scare;
> > Hoover didn't want to have to explain Oswald's ties to the FBI; the CIA
> > didn't want to reveal the plots to kill Castro (or explain how some of
> > its people might have gotten out of control); the media went along with
> > the coverup out of a desire to protect America's image in the world.
> >
> > Tracy
>
> I appreciate your thoughtful response. As I've said before, I don't
> really have an agenda, I come here to read, learn and laugh (sometimes).
>
> Hope we can talk again ...
>
> STEVE

Same here, Steve.

Tracy

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/11/98

George Lamm, Jr. wrote:
>
> Tracy...
>
> I think a pretty good overview of what probably went down in Dallas and
> the aftermath everying scurring to CYA... but i do think LHO was very
> much involved though he probably did not realize it until his encounter
> with Officer Baker... later... george
>

I really don't know what Oswald's role in the assassination was (if he
had any role); that's a complete mystery to me. I am convinced he wasn't
the shooter, though.

Tracy

Fathom

unread,

Jan 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/11/98

In article <34B84C...@erols.com>, sbo...@erols.com wrote:

> These are all interesting and well gone over items, Tracy. But weigh
> all of them against the preponderance of the evidence that shows he did
> indeed do some shooting that day, and that he lied about owning a rifle.

There isn't a shred of evidence that LHO shot at JFK.
There isn't a shred of evidence that he was on the sixth floor anytime
near the shooting.
*Someone* lied about the rifle. There is no reliable evidence that it was
LHO who lied.

Ho-hum, same old sh-t.....

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/11/98

Fathom wrote:
>
> In article <34B84C...@erols.com>, sbo...@erols.com wrote:
>

> > These are all interesting and well gone over items, Tracy. But weigh
> > all of them against the preponderance of the evidence that shows he did
> > indeed do some shooting that day, and that he lied about owning a rifle.
>

> There isn't a shred of evidence that LHO shot at JFK.

Except his rifle, found at the TSBD, matched ballistically to the
bullets found. Except his fingerprints on the rifle and on the trigger
housing.

BTW, there isn't a shred of evidence that ANYONE ELSE shot at JFK,
either.

> There isn't a shred of evidence that he was on the sixth floor anytime
> near the shooting.

There isn't a shred of evidence that ANYONE ELSE was on the sixth floor
near the shooting, either. Did LHO's rifle shoot itself?

> *Someone* lied about the rifle. There is no reliable evidence that it was
> LHO who lied.

Except the DPD who were there and heard him lie. Are they part of the
plot, too? Just how many conspirators do you think there were in on
this thing?

>
> Ho-hum, same old sh-t.....

Yep, same old-same old ....

STEVE

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 11, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/11/98

Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote:

> My problem with the SBT is not that one bullet could cause all those
> wounds in two men; that can happen (ignoring for the moment the
> trajectory problems). My real gripe is over the condition of the bullet.
> For example, supporters claim that the side of the bullet hit Connally's
> back and smashed his rib, but the bullet shows no deformation in the
> lands and grooves. Also, there should be microscopic traces of blood and
> tissue left in the grooves.

Not having any expertise in ballistics or arms, I don't feel qualified
to even attempt a response that would or could satisfy your concerns.

You may however, consider asking yourself what kind of a conspiracy
would do such a stupid thing, if in fact, the circumstances you describe
are not *ever* possible.

> > For example, when I see that staunch conspiracy believers come out and
> > actually argue *for* the SBT, that it *is* possible, etc., then I feel a
> > big hurdle for Oswald doing the shooting has been eliminated.
> >
> > Also, for what its worth, Todd Vaughan, whom I have never met but have
> > corresponded with on CompuServe in the past, has established a
> > reputation as a real pain in the ass as far as precision goes:-) -- he
> > wants to get things right, right down to the correct spelling of witness
> > names, their statements, etc. (I mean that as a compliment, Todd, if
> > you're reading this.)
> >
> > He actually went out and got himself an MC rifle like Oswald's and did
> > some experimental shooting on targets in an area of Michigan where he
> > hunts. I hope he chimes in and posts the results because they are
> > rather eye opening. Bottom line: the rifle was not that difficult to
> > handle, and the tracking of the target (for Todd anyway) was fairly
> > easy, as I recall.
> >
> > I trust Todd. I trust his research because he tries so very hard to be
> > precise all the time. And it was his posting on the MC rifle - not the
> > official conclusions - that convinced me that Oswald could have done the
> > shooting without too much difficulty as well.
>
> It's not really the aiming and pulling the trigger that would have been
> difficult; it's accomplishing this feat with a stiff bolt-action rifle
> in a matter of seconds. LHO also gave up some easy shots on Houston and
> the corner of Elm when the car was practically crawling, and instead
> waited for harder shots on Elm.

Have you been up to that location in what is now known as The Sixth
Floor Museum, Tracy? They have the actual window walled-off in glass,
however, standing at the window next to it gets you pretty close to the
same perspective that LHO allegedly had.

I used to say the exact same thing you did above until I started hearing
from those who have fired rifles extensively, and they tell me that
there are two problems a shooter would have in firing straight down
Houston. One; the SS would probably return fire and have a good chance
at hitting the shooter since they also had an easy shot to that window
and, two; tracking a target in a downward track (as the car gets closer
to you while you are up in that window) is apparently more difficult
than in tracking a target moving horizontally (as the car moves away
from you down Elm St.) Again, I do not know from personal experience if
this is true, but this is what I have been told by those who have fired
the MC rifle.

Perhaps you have experience in firing an MC and can add to this?

>
> > But, to each his own. We each come to our own conclusions in our own
> > way and in our own time - I just wanted you to know that I did not come
> > to mine by trusting the "official" reports on the MC rifle or on
> > Oswald's shooting abilities.
> >
> >
> > > Other problems: Oswald somehow assembled this enormous rifle bag at the
> > > TSBD without anyone seeing him do it; he then took it home to Irving
> > > without anyone seeing it;

I believe I've read somewhere that he could have used the paper and tape
at the TSBD (which would certainly have required some premeditation),
and simply folded the empty bag up into his jacket on his way *to* Ruth
Paine's home that Thursday night, 11/21.

he woke up late the morning of the
> > > assassination, his date with destiny;

Yes, he was reportedly up most of the night in an angry mood according
to Marina, if memory serves.

though he had this great interest
> > > in rifles, he owned no cleaning equipment or spare ammo;

Are you certain about this, Tracy?

there was never
> > > even one confirmed date or time when Oswald was known to have practiced
> > > with the rifle;

Well, maybe not. But didn't he tell Marina that he was going out to
target practice, even at odd hours? Where have I heard this? Anyone?

he didn't bring his revolver with him to the TSBD, and
> > > instead wasted a great deal of time going back to get it.

Maybe he didn't expect to get out of the TSBD alive. He may have
expected to get killed, who knows?

And there are
> > > numerous other problems with the case against Oswald.

But none that I know of that can overcome the enormous evidence,
circumstantial as it is, against him.

> >
> > These are all interesting and well gone over items, Tracy.
>
> Can I hear your explanation of these points, since you no longer believe
> they matter?
>

See above.

> > But weigh
> > all of them against the preponderance of the evidence that shows he did
> > indeed do some shooting that day, and that he lied about owning a rifle.
>
> But the physical evidence linking Oswald to the scene also has enormous
> problems with it; every bit of it seems to have been tampered with, or
> is of suspicious origin, etc. This is of course what you would expect
> with an attempt to frame someone.

But how many people would have to be involved in such a frame up? Have
you ever tried counting how many conspirators there would have to be to
frame him, if he were totally innocent, and then keep quiet about it all
these years?

>
> > Also, while I agree with you that the case is screwed up in a number of
> > ways, I must tell you that I compare this with how screwed up the OJ
> > evidence was -- and I have no problem with my belief that the evidence
> > still showed that OJ was guilty as sin.
>
> Well, I believe OJ was guilty and the evidence against him has far fewer
> basic problems than the evidence against LHO. OJ also had motive and no
> one else did.

Oj just gave an interview wherein he made some comment that *if* he did
kill Nicole, it was because he loved her. :-) Can you figure that? So
apparently, it is possible to murder someone you love or admire ...

>
> > Does his older brother Robert's conviction that Lee did this, have
> > impact for you?
>
> Robert has never given a convincing reason why his Lee would have done
> this; if Robert could give us one example of LHO saying, "I can't stand
> JFK," then that would make more sense. Robert was a young man at the
> time, with a family and a career to protect, and the last thing he
> wanted to do was screw up the rest of his life by disagreeing with the
> official scenario. I understand that.

But Tracy, you are applying a motive to Robert's actions, without
knowing for sure. Try taking him at his word - what reason do you have
to doubt him? Have you read his book? Some people have said that
'someone got to him' but never tell us *who* that "someone" was.

>
> > > Not only was Oswald never heard to utter anti-Kennedy statements, a
> > > number of people who knew him said LHO actually *liked* JFK. His
> > > repeated insistence that he didn't kill Kennedy (though this was his
> > > moment of "fame and glory") is also unheard of among lone assassins.
> > > Only James Earl Ray can compare, and note the similarity between the two
> > > crimes: both are committed by unseen riflemen who then conveniently
> > > leave the rifle and other incriminating evidence behind; later, men who
> > > have no motive and proclaim their innocence are picked up and proclaimed
> > > "lone nuts." In both cases, the FBI proclaims "no conspiracy" almost
> > > immediately. Oswald is silenced because he knows too much, but Ray knows
> > > very little and is allowed to remain alive.

Yep, been there. :-)

If there were other shooters, I'd sure like to see the evidence and know
who they were. It's been 34 years and counting, and still nothing.

> >
> > IMO, Oswald was a misanthrope: he didn't trust (or like) people. He may
> > have admired JFK, as you say, but I doubt this was *about* JFK in
> > Oswald's mind, anymore than any of Kaczinski's victims were about
> > *them*. This was about Oswald (or Kaczinski) making a statement to the
> > world.
>
> For someone who didn't like people, he sure had plenty of acquaintances.

He did? Who?

> He didn't wall himself up writing tracts like Kaczinski; he was quite
> active in the outside world.

Please elaborate. Kaczinski was also aloof and a loner through life,
although he did have some social experience. Then, when he was
rejected, he basically told the world to f*ck off.

Oswald was also eventually rejected from everyone, Tracy. The Marines,
The Soviets, The Cubans, Marina. He had nothing left to live for after
11/21/63, and imo, he could've also been telling the world to f*ck off
by what he did.

>
> > > Once Oswald was dead, it became very easy for everyone to circle the
> > > wagons and declare him the lone gunman, despite his claim that he was a
> > > "patsy." The Dallas police suddenly announced that they had found his
> > > prints on the rifle on Friday night, but had forgot to tell anyone! The
> > > media outdid itself trying to see how demented they could make Oswald
> > > look.

There's more to it than that. The FBI basically took the case away from
the DPD after 11/22/63. Have you read FIRST DAY EVIDENCE ? If you
think the DPD had something to do with this, then you've got to start
adding their names to the list of conspirators.

> >
> > I think a man who is capable of repeated violence against his wife is
> > capable of murder --- thanks to OJ.
>
> Oswald may very well have been capable of murder; he was no angel, and I
> believe he was a low-level intelligence operative who was familiar with
> deception and ruthlessness. But that doesn't therefore prove he killed
> JFK.

No, you're right, it probably doesn't "prove" it. But to suppose that
he was some low-level intelligence operative would be to suppose that
our government hired 9th grade high school drop-outs to entrust our
intelligence work with, at the height of the Cold War. :-)

STEVE

Jean Davison

unread,

Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98

Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote in article <34B804...@tfb.com>...

> Steve Bochan wrote:
> >
> > Tracy Riddle wrote:
>

> But Oswald was so physically uncoordinated and awkward that he hadn't
> even learned to drive a car yet; Ruth Paine was trying to teach him and
> she said he had difficulty negotiating turns! As I'm sure you'll agree,
> it requires a great deal more hand-eye coordination to shoot a rifle
> accurately at a moving target than it does to drive a car.

Hi Tracy,

I couldn't help noticing this, since I think someone must've taken
Ruth Paine's statement out of context. Here is part of her testimony:

----------------------------------
RP: .... I offered to give him -- give Lee lessons on Sunday
afternoons and we managed to do it a few Sunday afternoons, I think three
altogether.

[....]

DULLES: What progress did he make over that period?

RP: Considerable.

D: Reasonable progress?

RP: Very reasonable progress. I thought he learned well, as I
have said, both backing and to make a right-angle turn, and really
began to understand the feeling of parking.
---------------------------------------------------
[WC, II, 514]

It was probably unusual for a person his age to be a non-driver, but I
don't think it was because he was uncoordinated. I wonder who your
source was for this? Jean

Jim Hargrove

unread,

Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98

Steve Bochan wrote:
>Jim Hargrove wrote:

[numerous deletions for brevity....]

>She also told the news media that she thought there was *more* to
>this and that there may be *more* conspirators out there still at
>large. No discussion of evidence, naturally, just her suspicions. Who
>does *that* sound like?

It sounds like the jury forewoman in the Nichol's Oklahoma City bombing
case. Who does it sound like to you? Perhaps I'm missing your point. Is
it your contention that her comments were not based on the evidence
presented during the case? Do you know more than the forewoman of the
Nichol's jury about the evidence presented in the Nichol's case?

>Talk about deja vu!

Indeed!

>> Let's get back to that debate we had just before Christmas about the
>> Washington Post and CIA cocaine activities. My original statement was that
>> the Post did--and continues to--bury the truth about the Agency's shocking
>> relationship to the international cocaine trade. I am prepared to defend
>> that statement. We can move it over to the CIA group if you prefer.

>Whatever. The Post did not, and does not, bury coverage of any scandal
>surrounding CIA or *any* other government agency. I still can't believe
>you are prattling on about such an absurdity, or still pushing a story
>that the Mercury News itself backed away from.

Oh sure, that's why you, hitched to the Wash Post, were unaware that there
ever had been Congressional public hearings on CIA-Contra-cocaine scandals
in the first place. The Post knows what it is doing, and buries the truth
skillfully.

Merc managing editor Jerry Ceppos wrote to the Washington Post (and the Post
chose not to publish it) a letter on Oct. 18, 1996 that started with these
paragraphs:

The Post's 5,000-word Oct. 4. critique of our series about drug dealers
who were linked to the CIA obscures the key issue:

The year-long investigation by the San Jose Mercury News established
that cocaine dealers working with the CIA-sponsored contras sold large
amounts of cocaine powder that was turned into crack in predominantly
black neighborhoods of Los Angeles at the time that the crack epidemic
was beginning there, and some of the drug profits were sent to the
contras to buy war supplies.

The Post did not disagree with that key finding but did raise other
questions.

For example, did a reading of our series lead to the conclusion -- a
conclusion the Post apparently reached -- that the CIA is directly
responsible for the outbreak of the crack epidemic in Los Angeles?

While there is considerable circumstantial evidence of CIA involvement
with the leaders of the drug ring, we never reached or reported any
definitive conclusion on CIA involvement. Do we bear responsibility for
making the limits of our reporting as clear as possible? Of course --
and we think we did so quite carefully. We reported that men selling
cocaine in Los Angeles met with people paid by the CIA. We reported that
they received fund-raising orders from people paid by the CIA. We
reported that the money raised was sent to a CIA-run operation. But we
did not go further -- and took pains to say that clearly.

>The news business is a competitive one. This *is* still a Capitalist
>society, last time I checked, which means that if The Post doesn't scoop
>the other newspaper competitors on a regular basis, they begin to lose
>readership to those that will get the story *first*.

U.S. newspapers have been losing readers, as a percentage of the U.S.
population, for decades. Polls have consistently indicated that the public
holds professional journalists in lower esteem than even politicians,
sometimes lower than used car salesmen, who are always at or near the bottom
of the list, along with politicians. I'm sure we can agree on one thing:
whatever the reasons, this is unhealthy.

>To suggest that they would deliberately bury embarrassing or otherwise
>unflattering FACTS about any agency, requires suspending belief in the
>marketplace and turning common sense on its head. Not to mention that
>this sweeping generalization (against The Post) does not hold water to
>begin with.

Uh-huh. That's why, in defending the Wash Post against my criticisms of
coverup on the issue of CIA-cocaine, you excerpted one of the Post's baldest
pieces of propaganda since it last beat the CIA drum on Gulf War diseases.
Pravda editors would have been proud of the piece you referenced. You
presented it here--now defend it!

>> >You better check the Tribune again. Those remarks were covered widely,
>> >including CNN.

>> So, post some for crying out loud! Do you expect me to do your job, too?

>Ha! This is not my job. You seem to take this Internet posting very
>seriously, though. Is it *your* job to post here? ;-)

I see. You say the Nichols jurors contradict their forewoman, but you post
no evidence. You ask me to post the evidence for you. I'd probably be
willing to do it, but I don't have it. Why don't you do *something* to back
up your claim?

>> Why do I have to do all the work here? Let's do a statistical analysis. To
>> get the ball rolling, I'll guess that of the public statements made so far,
>> half or more of the jurors found serious problems with the FBI's handling of
>> the case.

>Right. So ... what?

You don't care that there may well be unnamed people who conspired to blow
up Oklahoma City federal building--but were not adequately investigated by
the FBI? Are you serious???

How do you know that these very same people are not planning another
bombing? You just say, "Right. So ... what?"

>They were deliberating punishment for NICHOLS who was found guilty - not
>punishment for the FBI.

Nichols was found NOT GUILTY of murder--multiple murders--a verdict that
astounds both of us. This has little to do, I hope, with the fact that
members of the jury are criticizing the FBI. Why do you think Ms. Deutchman
and others criticized the FBI? Hallucinating, eh?

>For the record, your lengthy off-topic excerpts were too long for my
>server to repost, and, they were snipped because they were another
>ridiculous example of you veering off topic to selectively post whatever
>you can grab to support your hatred of government agencies like the FBI.

I don't hate any part of our government, though I am disappointed by it at
times. Our government's rather consistent protection of free speech--even
on such a contentious topic as this news group embodies--is an obvious model
to the world. That is not to say ours is a perfect nation, or even close to
it. For example, I think dozens of people were murdered to protect the
Official Story of the Kennedy assassination, and workers in our federal
government failed to do anything about it.

>You have also snipped responses from me, so you are in no position to
>get on a high horse about this now.

Thanks for sharing your opinion about what I can do.

>> The subject line of this thread is "Nichols Juror Slams FBI."

>So stick to *that* -not- a grab bag of syllogistic support for your
>anti-FBI nonsense.

You are calling the Congressional Record "syllogistic support" for my
"anti-FBI nonsense?"

>Especially during a deliberation *about* the GUILTY DEFENDANT. But
>after watching the OJ debacle, nothing surprises me anymore about the
>paranoia and suspicion affecting some.

We're getting more and more off-topic, but I think OJ is free today because
the LAPD framed a guilty man. (Which is to say, I think they "improved" the
evidence against him, and were caught.)

>> >> Perhaps Mr. Bochan will recall that his hero Arlen Specter ended the
>> >> second and final Senate hearing into CIA-Contra-Cocaine connections by
>> >> citing the need to look into "serious problems" at the FBI lab.
>> >
>> >
>> >My "hero" Arlen Specter? Why stoop to lying, Mr. Hargrove? Why not ask
>> >me who my heros are before deliberately making such a stupidly false
>> >statement?

>> Well, perhaps that was a little unfair, but for someone who calls himself a
>> conspiracy believer, you sure leap to bureaucrats defense at the drop of
>> every hat around.

Gee, you accept apologies so graciously!

>It was more than unfair. It was a typical personal attack by a typical
>liberal who cannot win an argument without resorting to personal
>insult.

Aw, hell, are you going to hang me forever with my sarcasm?

But I'll return your graciousness by reminding you of the fact that,
although you gallantly defend the bureaucrats at the FBI, you seem to
despise the American people as a whole--the American electorate in
particular. Why do I say that?

Because you publicly agreed with Michael Beck, who said that our nation has
a "'mind numb' electorate; who can't get their butts up to learn
anything...."

Lovely. Are Americans only worth defending if they are FBI agents? Or CIA
agents? Which Americans would you defend against Mr. Beck's slam?

I'll say it again and again. I have a higher opinion of Americans than you
do. What has the American electorate done to make you think they are "mind
numb?"

>We've seen it over and over again by those you want to defend and
>support here in the JFK case.

Right, and you continue to attack Pearl Gladstone, which is what started our
little debate.

>As far as 'leaping to bureaucrats defense at the drop of every hat
>around,' I challenge that, too. It is the sophomoric reasoning that I
>see in this case that usually elicits a response from me. For example,
>you bring up the three most famous leaders who were slain during the
>'60s (below) and seem to imply, by doing so, that the FBI -then- is the
>same FBI -now- in the context of this thread about NICHOLS.

That's an interesting observation. Frankly, I was surprised by the
similarities in the Nichols case with the non-investigation of the murders
of America's most popular liberal leaders from the 1960s.

>Obviously this is absurd: Hoover is dead and today's FBI is not the same
>FBI of the '60s. You are mixing apples and oranges and using a very
>broad brush approach in your criticism of that agency. If you had
>specific charges in this case against the way, say, Louis Freeh is
>running the agency, let's hear them.

A few days ago, I posted some 600 lines from the Congressional Record
criticizing Freeh and the FBI. I thought it was a well chosen selection,
but you called it irrelevant. What am I supposed to do?

>> You don't think that the murder of America's three most charismatic liberal
>> leaders from the 1960s, all by "lone nuts" under conspicuously suspicious
>> conditions, had anything to do with that, do you Steve?

>It doesn't matter. A personal attack is still a personal attack, and
>none of the "charismatic liberal leaders" you admire above ever needed
>to resort to the tactic that you just did, in order to win their
>audience over. Matter of fact, one who was the target of RFK-approved
>harassment by JEH and Co. would not countenance such a tactic.

Are you referring to the Mafia leaders that RFK attacked?

>> Nah, I didn't think so.

>Yeah, any excuse for attacking someone personally will do, right?
>Especially if you can do it while invoking the memories JFK, RFK and
>MLK. Liberals don't have exclusive moral rights to their memories, Jim.

Right. Liberal leaders of the 1960s had a right to have their brains blown
out in full view of the world. JFK, RFK, Dr. King. You don't need a
weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

And the next time I notice you verbally attacking Pearl Gladstone, I will
verbally attack you again. It is a promise, not a threat.

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98

Steve Bochan wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle wrote:
> >
> > Steve Bochan wrote:
>
> <snipped for space>
>
> > My problem with the SBT is not that one bullet could cause all those
> > wounds in two men; that can happen (ignoring for the moment the
> > trajectory problems). My real gripe is over the condition of the bullet.
> > For example, supporters claim that the side of the bullet hit Connally's
> > back and smashed his rib, but the bullet shows no deformation in the
> > lands and grooves. Also, there should be microscopic traces of blood and
> > tissue left in the grooves.
>
> Not having any expertise in ballistics or arms, I don't feel qualified
> to even attempt a response that would or could satisfy your concerns.
>
> You may however, consider asking yourself what kind of a conspiracy
> would do such a stupid thing, if in fact, the circumstances you describe
> are not *ever* possible.
>

I think CE399 was planted simply so that it could be traced to the
rifle. The plotters never had any idea that it would be required to
cause all those wounds in both men. Remember that the bullet was
originally thought to have fallen out of the back wound or to have only
caused Connally's wounds. The SBT wasn't developed until the spring of
'64.

> > It's not really the aiming and pulling the trigger that would have been
> > difficult; it's accomplishing this feat with a stiff bolt-action rifle
> > in a matter of seconds. LHO also gave up some easy shots on Houston and
> > the corner of Elm when the car was practically crawling, and instead
> > waited for harder shots on Elm.
>
> Have you been up to that location in what is now known as The Sixth
> Floor Museum, Tracy? They have the actual window walled-off in glass,
> however, standing at the window next to it gets you pretty close to the
> same perspective that LHO allegedly had.
>
> I used to say the exact same thing you did above until I started hearing
> from those who have fired rifles extensively, and they tell me that
> there are two problems a shooter would have in firing straight down
> Houston. One; the SS would probably return fire and have a good chance
> at hitting the shooter since they also had an easy shot to that window
> and, two; tracking a target in a downward track (as the car gets closer
> to you while you are up in that window) is apparently more difficult
> than in tracking a target moving horizontally (as the car moves away
> from you down Elm St.) Again, I do not know from personal experience if
> this is true, but this is what I have been told by those who have fired
> the MC rifle.

As the car was moving down Elm St, it wasn't really a horizontal track
from that window; it was more of a vertical track. A grassy knoll gunman
would have been tracking the car horizontally. Actually, I've heard just
the opposite; that it's harder to track a target horizontally than
vertically.

> Perhaps you have experience in firing an MC and can add to this?

No, I haven't. But I've read accounts from people who have fired that
particular rifle; the bolt-action is stiff, and you actually have to
lower the rifle away from your face to work the bolt or else it will put
your eye out. This increases the amount of time between shots.

> > > > Other problems: Oswald somehow assembled this enormous rifle bag at the
> > > > TSBD without anyone seeing him do it; he then took it home to Irving
> > > > without anyone seeing it;
>
> I believe I've read somewhere that he could have used the paper and tape
> at the TSBD (which would certainly have required some premeditation),
> and simply folded the empty bag up into his jacket on his way *to* Ruth
> Paine's home that Thursday night, 11/21.

It was a pretty big bag; it would have made for a noticeable bulge in
his jacket. Assembling it at the TSBD would also have taken time, and it
would need to be done on the spot since the tape was dampened and had to
be used immediately. But the employee who worked at that station was one
of those types who never leaves his desk, and he never saw Oswald there.

> he woke up late the morning of the
> > > > assassination, his date with destiny;
>
> Yes, he was reportedly up most of the night in an angry mood according
> to Marina, if memory serves.

> though he had this great interest
> > > > in rifles, he owned no cleaning equipment or spare ammo;
>
> Are you certain about this, Tracy?

No cleaning equipment or spare ammo was found among his belongings. Some
say he got rid of them to cover his tracks. But why? His mail-order
rifle could be traced directly to him, so getting rid of that stuff was
pointless.

> there was never
> > > > even one confirmed date or time when Oswald was known to have practiced
> > > > with the rifle;
>
> Well, maybe not. But didn't he tell Marina that he was going out to
> target practice, even at odd hours? Where have I heard this? Anyone?

That was *one* of Marina's often-changing stories. Did he just carry it
around with him outside or bring it on the bus?

> he didn't bring his revolver with him to the TSBD, and
> > > > instead wasted a great deal of time going back to get it.
>
> Maybe he didn't expect to get out of the TSBD alive. He may have
> expected to get killed, who knows?

All the more reason to have the revolver already with him for
protection. His erratic movements after he left the TSBD are also not
consistent with someone who has any kind of plan for escape.

> >
> > But the physical evidence linking Oswald to the scene also has enormous
> > problems with it; every bit of it seems to have been tampered with, or
> > is of suspicious origin, etc. This is of course what you would expect
> > with an attempt to frame someone.
>
> But how many people would have to be involved in such a frame up? Have
> you ever tried counting how many conspirators there would have to be to
> frame him, if he were totally innocent, and then keep quiet about it all
> these years?

It would require fewer people than you think to plant a few
incriminating pieces of evidence. And once the process gets started,
more and more people get drawn into the coverup because of a desire to
close the case quickly, to protect people and reputations, etc.

> >
> > > Also, while I agree with you that the case is screwed up in a number of
> > > ways, I must tell you that I compare this with how screwed up the OJ
> > > evidence was -- and I have no problem with my belief that the evidence
> > > still showed that OJ was guilty as sin.
> >
> > Well, I believe OJ was guilty and the evidence against him has far fewer
> > basic problems than the evidence against LHO. OJ also had motive and no
> > one else did.
>
> Oj just gave an interview wherein he made some comment that *if* he did
> kill Nicole, it was because he loved her. :-) Can you figure that? So
> apparently, it is possible to murder someone you love or admire ...

So Oswald was a deranged, obssessive fan? There's no evidence of that,
either.

> >
> > > Does his older brother Robert's conviction that Lee did this, have
> > > impact for you?
> >
> > Robert has never given a convincing reason why his Lee would have done
> > this; if Robert could give us one example of LHO saying, "I can't stand
> > JFK," then that would make more sense. Robert was a young man at the
> > time, with a family and a career to protect, and the last thing he
> > wanted to do was screw up the rest of his life by disagreeing with the
> > official scenario. I understand that.
>
> But Tracy, you are applying a motive to Robert's actions, without
> knowing for sure. Try taking him at his word - what reason do you have
> to doubt him? Have you read his book? Some people have said that
> 'someone got to him' but never tell us *who* that "someone" was.

You're also applying a motive to LHO's actions without knowing for sure.
Robert had spent very little time with his brother after Lee joined the
Marines. He certainly couldn't have known what his brother was really up
to in those years; even Marina admits today that her husband may have
been involved in intelligence work and she wouldn't have known it. I
sympathize with Robert's position; he could either defend his brother
and share his guilt for the rest of his life, or be the "good brother"
and repudiate him. He took the route most people would take.

> >
> > > > Not only was Oswald never heard to utter anti-Kennedy statements, a
> > > > number of people who knew him said LHO actually *liked* JFK. His
> > > > repeated insistence that he didn't kill Kennedy (though this was his
> > > > moment of "fame and glory") is also unheard of among lone assassins.
> > > > Only James Earl Ray can compare, and note the similarity between the two
> > > > crimes: both are committed by unseen riflemen who then conveniently
> > > > leave the rifle and other incriminating evidence behind; later, men who
> > > > have no motive and proclaim their innocence are picked up and proclaimed
> > > > "lone nuts." In both cases, the FBI proclaims "no conspiracy" almost
> > > > immediately. Oswald is silenced because he knows too much, but Ray knows
> > > > very little and is allowed to remain alive.
>
> Yep, been there. :-)

Please elaborate.

> If there were other shooters, I'd sure like to see the evidence and know
> who they were. It's been 34 years and counting, and still nothing.

In all likelihood, they're dead (either from natural or unnatural
causes).

> > >
> > > IMO, Oswald was a misanthrope: he didn't trust (or like) people. He may
> > > have admired JFK, as you say, but I doubt this was *about* JFK in
> > > Oswald's mind, anymore than any of Kaczinski's victims were about
> > > *them*. This was about Oswald (or Kaczinski) making a statement to the
> > > world.
> >
> > For someone who didn't like people, he sure had plenty of acquaintances.
>
> He did? Who?

Like George deMohrenschildt, Michael Paine, Adrian Alba, Edward Voebel,
Dennis Offstein, Sylvia Duran, fellow Marines and employees at different
jobs, various Cubans, Russians, etc. He wasn't a hermit like Kaczinski.

> > He didn't wall himself up writing tracts like Kaczinski; he was quite
> > active in the outside world.
>
> Please elaborate. Kaczinski was also aloof and a loner through life,
> although he did have some social experience. Then, when he was
> rejected, he basically told the world to f*ck off.

LHO didn't spend his life in some old house in the woods. Oswald lived
in many locations, worked at many jobs, traveled to different countries,
got involved with various political organizations, etc. We have an
incredible amount of photographic footage of Oswald in action: passing
out leaflets, getting into a brawl, being interviewed, appearing on a
radio debate.

> Oswald was also eventually rejected from everyone, Tracy. The Marines,
> The Soviets, The Cubans, Marina. He had nothing left to live for after
> 11/21/63, and imo, he could've also been telling the world to f*ck off
> by what he did.

The Marines rejected him? The Marines let him leave early because of a
hardship case, and he was honorably discharged. If he was such a total
loser in the Corps, then how did he get to be a radar operator at a top
secret airbase? Do you really believe that he taught himself Russian in
his spare time? Do you find it credible that a normal Marine would get
his hardship discharge so quickly? Or that he would be allowed to walk
around acting and talking like a Communist? Ask anyone who was in the
Marines at that time if any of this was normal procedure.

The Soviets? I guess you have to assume that his defection was for real.
And then he waltzes back to the US and is left entirely alone by the
authorities. Except for a brief talk with the FBI, he isn't interrogated
or debriefed or court martialed or anything. He was still in the
reserves when he defected, and could have been brought up on charges. At
the very least, *someone* in US intelligence would want to ask him,
"What did you see in Minsk? Any spy schools there?"

The Cubans? Oswald never made any *real* attempt to link up with
pro-Castro Cubans. He never tried to find any like-minded people at
Tulane University, which was loaded with Castro sympathizers. Instead,
he seems to have spent all his time with anti-Castro Cubans.

And Marina? They had had plenty of fights in the past, and the idea that
their most recent spat caused him to kill JFK is beyond belief.

> >
> > > > Once Oswald was dead, it became very easy for everyone to circle the
> > > > wagons and declare him the lone gunman, despite his claim that he was a
> > > > "patsy." The Dallas police suddenly announced that they had found his
> > > > prints on the rifle on Friday night, but had forgot to tell anyone! The
> > > > media outdid itself trying to see how demented they could make Oswald
> > > > look.
>
> There's more to it than that. The FBI basically took the case away from
> the DPD after 11/22/63. Have you read FIRST DAY EVIDENCE ? If you
> think the DPD had something to do with this, then you've got to start
> adding their names to the list of conspirators.

I think that several members of the DPD were involved in the plot; they
helped plant evidence in the crime scene which they controlled, and they
brought Oswald out into the basement with no frontal protection so that
Ruby would have a clear shot at him.

> > >
> > > I think a man who is capable of repeated violence against his wife is
> > > capable of murder --- thanks to OJ.
> >
> > Oswald may very well have been capable of murder; he was no angel, and I
> > believe he was a low-level intelligence operative who was familiar with
> > deception and ruthlessness. But that doesn't therefore prove he killed
> > JFK.
>
> No, you're right, it probably doesn't "prove" it. But to suppose that
> he was some low-level intelligence operative would be to suppose that
> our government hired 9th grade high school drop-outs to entrust our
> intelligence work with, at the height of the Cold War. :-)
>
> STEVE

Oswald was not a high-level agent; he was an informer and/or
infiltrator. It's well-established that these kinds of jobs usually go
to people on the bottom rungs of society (read Tackwood's 'Glass House
Tapes' for example). Jack Ruby was an FBI informant, after all. So was
Sara Jane Moore.

Tracy

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98

Jean Davison wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote in article <34B804...@tfb.com>...

> > Steve Bochan wrote:
> > >
> > > Tracy Riddle wrote:
> >

> <snipping all but this:>

>
> > But Oswald was so physically uncoordinated and awkward that he hadn't
> > even learned to drive a car yet; Ruth Paine was trying to teach him and
> > she said he had difficulty negotiating turns! As I'm sure you'll agree,
> > it requires a great deal more hand-eye coordination to shoot a rifle
> > accurately at a moving target than it does to drive a car.
>

> Hi Tracy,
>
> I couldn't help noticing this, since I think someone must've taken
> Ruth Paine's statement out of context. Here is part of her testimony:
>
> ----------------------------------
> RP: .... I offered to give him -- give Lee lessons on Sunday
> afternoons and we managed to do it a few Sunday afternoons, I think three
> altogether.
>
> [....]
>
> DULLES: What progress did he make over that period?
>
> RP: Considerable.
>
> D: Reasonable progress?
>
> RP: Very reasonable progress. I thought he learned well, as I
> have said, both backing and to make a right-angle turn, and really
> began to understand the feeling of parking.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> [WC, II, 514]
>
> It was probably unusual for a person his age to be a non-driver, but I
> don't think it was because he was uncoordinated. I wonder who your
> source was for this? Jean
>

Somewhere I have an early press interview with Ruth Paine where she
talks about how difficult it was to teach him to drive; I can't find it
at the moment. But a number of people who knew him at various stages of
his life described him as awkward. And Ruth Paine's testimony above
indicates how hard it was for him to get the hang of driving; a person
with good hand-eye coordination will take to driving almost immediately.
They won't have trouble negotiating turns.

Tracy

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/12/98

Jim Hargrove wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote:
> >Jim Hargrove wrote:
> [numerous deletions for brevity....]
>
> >She also told the news media that she thought there was *more* to
> >this and that there may be *more* conspirators out there still at
> >large. No discussion of evidence, naturally, just her suspicions. Who
> >does *that* sound like?
>
> It sounds like the jury forewoman in the Nichol's Oklahoma City bombing
> case. Who does it sound like to you? Perhaps I'm missing your point. Is
> it your contention that her comments were not based on the evidence
> presented during the case? Do you know more than the forewoman of the
> Nichol's jury about the evidence presented in the Nichol's case?

My contention is that she voiced her suspicionS about there being a
POSSIBILITY of a larger conspiracy involved. She voiced NO EVIDENCE to
support her SUSPICIONS, just her SUSPICIONS.

>
> >Talk about deja vu!
>
> Indeed!

We agree. Gee.

>
> >> Let's get back to that debate we had just before Christmas about the
> >> Washington Post and CIA cocaine activities. My original statement was that
> >> the Post did--and continues to--bury the truth about the Agency's shocking
> >> relationship to the international cocaine trade. I am prepared to defend
> >> that statement. We can move it over to the CIA group if you prefer.
>
> >Whatever. The Post did not, and does not, bury coverage of any scandal
> >surrounding CIA or *any* other government agency. I still can't believe
> >you are prattling on about such an absurdity, or still pushing a story
> >that the Mercury News itself backed away from.
>
> Oh sure, that's why you, hitched to the Wash Post, were unaware that there
> ever had been Congressional public hearings on CIA-Contra-cocaine scandals
> in the first place. The Post knows what it is doing, and buries the truth
> skillfully.

Those hearings happened long ago. They are not uppermost in my mind.

The JFK assassination is not uppermost in the minds of most people
today, however I would not conclude that the reason why is because they
are "hitched to the ....[fill in the blank of whatever newspaper you
despise at the moment]..."

Your reasoning is silly.

Your point is ..... ?

> >The news business is a competitive one. This *is* still a Capitalist
> >society, last time I checked, which means that if The Post doesn't scoop
> >the other newspaper competitors on a regular basis, they begin to lose
> >readership to those that will get the story *first*.
>
> U.S. newspapers have been losing readers, as a percentage of the U.S.
> population, for decades. Polls have consistently indicated that the public
> holds professional journalists in lower esteem than even politicians,
> sometimes lower than used car salesmen, who are always at or near the bottom
> of the list, along with politicians. I'm sure we can agree on one thing:
> whatever the reasons, this is unhealthy.

I agree that it is unhealthy, however I must point out to you that The
Washington Post has been a very profitable newspaper for years. They
publish their P & L and financial standings every year. But they are
concerned about the decline of interest in newspaper reading, in
general, yet have not thrown in the towel. In fact, they are
aggressively trying to increase their circulation by offering readers a
number of subscription discounts.

As far as the public viewing journalists with little esteem, I think
even journalists refer to themselves as "ink stained wretches." The Post
has devoted an entire page each week titled "FREE FOR ALL" so that those
who are so moved can write in and spout off about whatever some
journalist wrote, or whatever they want to spout off about. This is in
addition to the daily opinions that are published by readers.

> >To suggest that they would deliberately bury embarrassing or otherwise
> >unflattering FACTS about any agency, requires suspending belief in the
> >marketplace and turning common sense on its head. Not to mention that
> >this sweeping generalization (against The Post) does not hold water to
> >begin with.
>
> Uh-huh. That's why, in defending the Wash Post against my criticisms of
> coverup on the issue of CIA-cocaine, you excerpted one of the Post's baldest
> pieces of propaganda since it last beat the CIA drum on Gulf War diseases.
> Pravda editors would have been proud of the piece you referenced. You
> presented it here--now defend it!

You are so open minded and reasonable on the subject of The Washington
Post. <eyes rolled upward>

I don't have to defend a great paper like The Post - it is a success
today despite a few malcontents and cry babies who don't find Maxine
Waters' self promotion on the front pages. Its success over the years
speaks for itself and your belly aching about it is getting sillier by
the day.

> >> >You better check the Tribune again. Those remarks were covered widely,
> >> >including CNN.
>
> >> So, post some for crying out loud! Do you expect me to do your job, too?
>
> >Ha! This is not my job. You seem to take this Internet posting very
> >seriously, though. Is it *your* job to post here? ;-)
>
> I see. You say the Nichols jurors contradict their forewoman, but you post
> no evidence. You ask me to post the evidence for you. I'd probably be
> willing to do it, but I don't have it. Why don't you do *something* to back
> up your claim?

My point was that YOU didn't post anything at all in the way of
balancing your reporting - something you criticize in other newspapers
and publications. You accuse The Post of "burying" details and all
kinds of other things true journalists deplore, but then you, yourself
do worse - you don't even present any comments at all from the other
jurors that paint a different picture altogether of the case. MOF, the
title of this thread, combined with your very selective commentary on
ONLY what ONE of the jurors said, is very misleading to what really
happened. This is what tabloids do.

Where's the balance in your post?

Why didn't you post that she was in the minority? That the vote was 7-5
for the death penalty?

> >> Why do I have to do all the work here? Let's do a statistical analysis. To
> >> get the ball rolling, I'll guess that of the public statements made so far,
> >> half or more of the jurors found serious problems with the FBI's handling of
> >> the case.
>
> >Right. So ... what?
>
> You don't care that there may well be unnamed people who conspired to blow
> up Oklahoma City federal building--but were not adequately investigated by
> the FBI? Are you serious???

First of all, your so-called "statistical analysis" has not mentioned
that the MAJORITY of the jurors voted for the death penalty. Deal with
that.

Second, the *suspicion* that unnamed persons may be running around free,
who may or may not have had something to do with the murderS of more
than 160 innocent lives, does not concern me as much as what to do with
the two who were indeed found GUILTY of this atrocious crime.

> How do you know that these very same people are not planning another
> bombing? You just say, "Right. So ... what?"

What very same people? Name names. We don't even know that there ARE
any more people!

> >They were deliberating punishment for NICHOLS who was found guilty - not
> >punishment for the FBI.
>
> Nichols was found NOT GUILTY of murder--multiple murders--a verdict that
> astounds both of us. This has little to do, I hope, with the fact that
> members of the jury are criticizing the FBI. Why do you think Ms. Deutchman
> and others criticized the FBI? Hallucinating, eh?

Because the FBI, like the CIA, like any other big government agency, is
an easy target for blame. None of us has ever been happy all the time
with the way we've been handled by some federal bureaucrat. But does
that mean we write off all federal bureaucrats?

> >For the record, your lengthy off-topic excerpts were too long for my
> >server to repost, and, they were snipped because they were another
> >ridiculous example of you veering off topic to selectively post whatever
> >you can grab to support your hatred of government agencies like the FBI.
>
> I don't hate any part of our government, though I am disappointed by it at
> times. Our government's rather consistent protection of free speech--even
> on such a contentious topic as this news group embodies--is an obvious model
> to the world. That is not to say ours is a perfect nation, or even close to
> it. For example, I think dozens of people were murdered to protect the
> Official Story of the Kennedy assassination, and workers in our federal
> government failed to do anything about it.

Here we go.

Who was murdered to "protect the Official Story of the Kennedy
assassination" Jim?

> >You have also snipped responses from me, so you are in no position to
> >get on a high horse about this now.
>
> Thanks for sharing your opinion about what I can do.

You're welcome.

> >> The subject line of this thread is "Nichols Juror Slams FBI."
>
> >So stick to *that* -not- a grab bag of syllogistic support for your
> >anti-FBI nonsense.
>
> You are calling the Congressional Record "syllogistic support" for my
> "anti-FBI nonsense?"

Yup.

> >Especially during a deliberation *about* the GUILTY DEFENDANT. But
> >after watching the OJ debacle, nothing surprises me anymore about the
> >paranoia and suspicion affecting some.
>
> We're getting more and more off-topic, but I think OJ is free today because
> the LAPD framed a guilty man. (Which is to say, I think they "improved" the
> evidence against him, and were caught.)

Maybe. Maybe not. But he was still guilty. I think the reporting of
police "improving" evidence last year on a 60 Minutes segment was
deplorable. It stinks that this happens. It also stinks that some
police officers feel they have to "improve" evidence for their charge(s)
to "stick" because of the way our justice system has imploded. Lawyers
like Dershowitz, Bailey and Cockran, who specialize in looking for
loopholes and errors to excuse guilty defendants, disgust many law
enforcement officers, let alone many law abiding citizens.

Until you have put your life on the line DAILY to protect the citizens
of some city, you have no idea what watching guilty criminals go scot
free does to your sense of fairness and right and wrong. Pretty soon we
won't have anyone who thinks it is honorable and worthy to be a member
of law enforcement.

> >> >> Perhaps Mr. Bochan will recall that his hero Arlen Specter ended the
> >> >> second and final Senate hearing into CIA-Contra-Cocaine connections by
> >> >> citing the need to look into "serious problems" at the FBI lab.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >My "hero" Arlen Specter? Why stoop to lying, Mr. Hargrove? Why not ask
> >> >me who my heros are before deliberately making such a stupidly false
> >> >statement?
>
> >> Well, perhaps that was a little unfair, but for someone who calls himself a
> >> conspiracy believer, you sure leap to bureaucrats defense at the drop of
> >> every hat around.
>
> Gee, you accept apologies so graciously!

What apology? Please point out where you apologized. I see smart
alecky nonsense, not an "I'm sorry, you didn't deserve that cheap shot."

> >It was more than unfair. It was a typical personal attack by a typical
> >liberal who cannot win an argument without resorting to personal
> >insult.
>
> Aw, hell, are you going to hang me forever with my sarcasm?

Sarcasm is fine, I draw the line at unwarranted personal attack,
especially since it is increasingly clear that my current status of
"conspiracy believer" seems to be the underlying motivation in your
efforts.

> But I'll return your graciousness by reminding you of the fact that,
> although you gallantly defend the bureaucrats at the FBI, you seem to
> despise the American people as a whole--the American electorate in
> particular. Why do I say that?

I despise no one, certainly not "the American electorate." The one
thing Dulles said that was certainly true, was when he suggested that no
one will actually read the Warren Report because people in this country
don't read.

It is much easier to sow confusion and suspicion than it is to prove
someone else was involved with LHO in the murder of JFK. If someone
else helped him do the shooting, I sure want to know who they were --
but until that happens, I am satisfied that LHO was guilty as sin. He
may not have been the ONLY one that was guilty, but he was guilty.

> Because you publicly agreed with Michael Beck, who said that our nation has
> a "'mind numb' electorate; who can't get their butts up to learn
> anything...."

But Dulles said virtually the same thing back in '64! What's changed?
Earlier you discussed how newspaper readership is declining. This would
seem to suggest that you are also aware of the lamentable fact that many
do not read in this country. Is it hateful to say that? Does that mean
you despise the electorate for saying that? I don't think so.

> Lovely. Are Americans only worth defending if they are FBI agents? Or CIA
> agents? Which Americans would you defend against Mr. Beck's slam?
>
> I'll say it again and again. I have a higher opinion of Americans than you
> do.

No you don't. You belly ache and complain because most people outside
of California don't give a rat's @ss about Maxine Waters, or the silly
story peddled initially by the San Jose Mercury News. You seem angry
that YOUR personal issues are not the hot topic of most in this country.
Could it be really YOU that despises the "American electorate"?

What has the American electorate done to make you think they are "mind
> numb?"

Oh please. They didn't read in '64, they don't read today. You,
yourself acknowledged as much earlier in this lengthy diatribe of yours.

> >We've seen it over and over again by those you want to defend and
> >support here in the JFK case.
>
> Right, and you continue to attack Pearl Gladstone, which is what started our
> little debate.

Pointing out that her post about the "X-FILES" being a true friend, was
ridiculous? Pointing out that while she prattles on and on about "the
entity" she seems oblivious to the real entity behind her favorite show?

Am I the only one who saw humor in that post, Jim? Or did you simply
use my commentary as an opening to attack ME because I am no longer
towing the conspiracy line the way you feel I should be?

> >As far as 'leaping to bureaucrats defense at the drop of every hat
> >around,' I challenge that, too. It is the sophomoric reasoning that I
> >see in this case that usually elicits a response from me. For example,
> >you bring up the three most famous leaders who were slain during the
> >'60s (below) and seem to imply, by doing so, that the FBI -then- is the
> >same FBI -now- in the context of this thread about NICHOLS.
>
> That's an interesting observation. Frankly, I was surprised by the
> similarities in the Nichols case with the non-investigation of the murders
> of America's most popular liberal leaders from the 1960s.

Because you are focusing on the FBI -- not on the fact that Nichols was
found GUILTY!

> >Obviously this is absurd: Hoover is dead and today's FBI is not the same
> >FBI of the '60s. You are mixing apples and oranges and using a very
> >broad brush approach in your criticism of that agency. If you had
> >specific charges in this case against the way, say, Louis Freeh is
> >running the agency, let's hear them.
>
> A few days ago, I posted some 600 lines from the Congressional Record
> criticizing Freeh and the FBI. I thought it was a well chosen selection,
> but you called it irrelevant. What am I supposed to do?

Show that you are NOT like the others in the journalism business you
criticize by posting balanced and even handed commentary. Use FACTS and
then let the audience make up its own mind about things. Spend less
time ADVOCATING and more time getting the FACTS out there.

<snip>

> And the next time I notice you verbally attacking Pearl Gladstone, I will
> verbally attack you again. It is a promise, not a threat.

Good, I look forward to it. It's been a very underwhelming intellectual
experience so far. I had heard and expected so much more from you.

STEVE

Jean Davison

unread,

Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98

Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote in article <34BAA2...@tfb.com>...

> Jean Davison wrote:
> >
> > Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote in article <34B804...@tfb.com>...

> > > Steve Bochan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tracy Riddle wrote:
> > >

> > <snipping all but this:>

> >
> > > But Oswald was so physically uncoordinated and awkward that he hadn't
> > > even learned to drive a car yet; Ruth Paine was trying to teach him and
> > > she said he had difficulty negotiating turns! As I'm sure you'll agree,
> > > it requires a great deal more hand-eye coordination to shoot a rifle
> > > accurately at a moving target than it does to drive a car.
> >

Tracy, I hope you don't mind if I disagree again. If you find that
interview, please post it, but I don't see anything in Ruth's testimony
that suggests it was difficult to teach him to drive. She said she
"thought he learned well."

Her reference to a "right-angle turn" goes back to an earlier part of her
testimony, when she was describing how Oswald took it upon himself
to start her car and drive himself and her to the parking lot where she
planned to give him his -first- lesson. She said:

"... I noticed that when we got to the parking lot when he attempted
to turn in a right angle he made the usual mistake of a beginner of
turning too much and then having to correct it. He was not familiar
with the delay of the steering wheel in relation to the wheels..."

She thought he was "very unskilled" at that point, i.e., he didn't know
how to drive yet. This first lesson lasted about 20 minutes, then two
more, and she said he made "considerable" progress.

I've heard it said before that Oswald was too uncoordinated to learn to
drive or to shoot, but I just don't think that's well-founded. His brother
went hunting with him before and after he went to Russia and thought
he shot reasonably well (I don't remember his exact words). I don't think
he'd want to go hunting with a klutz.<g> Jean

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98

Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote:
> >

Tracy,

I've snipped a lot of the older dialogue, which people can read from our
previous posts. I hope you don't mind.

Maybe we should change the title of this thread too ...

<snip>

> >
> > You may however, consider asking yourself what kind of a conspiracy
> > would do such a stupid thing, if in fact, the circumstances you describe
> > are not *ever* possible.
> >
>
> I think CE399 was planted simply so that it could be traced to the
> rifle. The plotters never had any idea that it would be required to
> cause all those wounds in both men. Remember that the bullet was
> originally thought to have fallen out of the back wound or to have only
> caused Connally's wounds. The SBT wasn't developed until the spring of
> '64.

But how could "the plotters" have been *sure* that CE399 would not have
been one bullet too many? How did "the plotters" know that bullets that
were otherwise fired into the limo would not also be recovered, making
CE399 superfluous? And who at the hospital planted CE399? And how many
people does *that* make now, in this plot?

OTOH, let's go with your notion of "planting" CE399, for a moment.

Suppose it was just a simple case of the police trying to "improve" the
evidence against Oswald (as my previous correspondent discusses in
another case), and it was planted. Does this make Oswald innocent,
or does this look like the police wanted to be sure the charge would
"stick"?

Wouldn't this be similar to the charge that the police planted the glove
in the OJ case? Whether they did or not, and forgetting about the
ethical problems attendant to such behavior for a moment (if such
behavior occurred at all), it doesn't make OJ any less guilty, does it?

And if the police didn't plant this, then who did?

> >
> > Have you been up to that location in what is now known as The Sixth
> > Floor Museum, Tracy? They have the actual window walled-off in glass,
> > however, standing at the window next to it gets you pretty close to the
> > same perspective that LHO allegedly had.
> >
> > I used to say the exact same thing you did above until I started hearing
> > from those who have fired rifles extensively, and they tell me that
> > there are two problems a shooter would have in firing straight down
> > Houston. One; the SS would probably return fire and have a good chance
> > at hitting the shooter since they also had an easy shot to that window
> > and, two; tracking a target in a downward track (as the car gets closer
> > to you while you are up in that window) is apparently more difficult
> > than in tracking a target moving horizontally (as the car moves away
> > from you down Elm St.) Again, I do not know from personal experience if
> > this is true, but this is what I have been told by those who have fired
> > the MC rifle.
>
> As the car was moving down Elm St, it wasn't really a horizontal track
> from that window; it was more of a vertical track. A grassy knoll gunman
> would have been tracking the car horizontally. Actually, I've heard just
> the opposite; that it's harder to track a target horizontally than
> vertically.

Well then we've heard opposite points of view. The tracking on Elm as
the limo was driving away from the windows on the sixth floor is one of
a ‘side-to-side' type or ‘left to right' if you will, while the tracking
of the limo down Houston, as it came closer to the sixth floor window,
would have been ‘north to south' vertical tracking. The stack of boxes
at the window suggests that the rifleman desired a side-to-side tracking
and used the boxes to prop and steady the rifle - they would've been in
the way of trying to track a target vertically.

But you did not answer my question: have you been to The Sixth Floor
Museum and seen this perspective for yourself?

> > Perhaps you have experience in firing an MC and can add to this?
>
> No, I haven't. But I've read accounts from people who have fired that
> particular rifle; the bolt-action is stiff, and you actually have to
> lower the rifle away from your face to work the bolt or else it will put
> your eye out. This increases the amount of time between shots.

It didn't seem to hinder the shooter who used it on 11/22/63.

> >
> > I believe I've read somewhere that he could have used the paper and tape
> > at the TSBD (which would certainly have required some premeditation),
> > and simply folded the empty bag up into his jacket on his way *to* Ruth
> > Paine's home that Thursday night, 11/21.
>
> It was a pretty big bag; it would have made for a noticeable bulge in
> his jacket. Assembling it at the TSBD would also have taken time, and it
> would need to be done on the spot since the tape was dampened and had to
> be used immediately. But the employee who worked at that station was one
> of those types who never leaves his desk, and he never saw Oswald there.

But Oswald seemed to have run of the TSBD, no? He was allowed
everywhere, wasn't he? How do we *know* that Oswald *couldn't* have
taken the paper at a time when no one saw him?

<snip>

> No cleaning equipment or spare ammo was found among his belongings. Some
> say he got rid of them to cover his tracks. But why? His mail-order
> rifle could be traced directly to him, so getting rid of that stuff was
> pointless.

He was very frugal - not the type to spend money on extras. Not having
cleaning equipment or spare ammo does not preclude him from having an
interest in rifles.

> > there was never
> > > > > even one confirmed date or time when Oswald was known to have practiced
> > > > > with the rifle;
> >
> > Well, maybe not. But didn't he tell Marina that he was going out to
> > target practice, even at odd hours? Where have I heard this? Anyone?
>
> That was *one* of Marina's often-changing stories. Did he just carry it
> around with him outside or bring it on the bus?

I wouldn't know. Under a raincoat? Carrying it under his arm like one
would presume, if one was carrying curtain rods?

> > he didn't bring his revolver with him to the TSBD, and
> > > > > instead wasted a great deal of time going back to get it.
> >
> > Maybe he didn't expect to get out of the TSBD alive. He may have
> > expected to get killed, who knows?
>
> All the more reason to have the revolver already with him for
> protection. His erratic movements after he left the TSBD are also not
> consistent with someone who has any kind of plan for escape.

Protection? Would he care if he expected to be killed? Why do you
think he left all his money and his ring with Marina that morning? Do
you think he expected to be coming back for them? I'm not sure that he
had a "plan for escape."

>
> > >
> > > But the physical evidence linking Oswald to the scene also has enormous
> > > problems with it; every bit of it seems to have been tampered with, or
> > > is of suspicious origin, etc. This is of course what you would expect
> > > with an attempt to frame someone.
> >
> > But how many people would have to be involved in such a frame up? Have
> > you ever tried counting how many conspirators there would have to be to
> > frame him, if he were totally innocent, and then keep quiet about it all
> > these years?
>
> It would require fewer people than you think to plant a few
> incriminating pieces of evidence. And once the process gets started,
> more and more people get drawn into the coverup because of a desire to
> close the case quickly, to protect people and reputations, etc.

OK, please start naming names then. Who and how many were involved?
Why talk in generalities when we can talk in specifics? :-)

>
> > >
> > > > Also, while I agree with you that the case is screwed up in a number of
> > > > ways, I must tell you that I compare this with how screwed up the OJ
> > > > evidence was -- and I have no problem with my belief that the evidence
> > > > still showed that OJ was guilty as sin.
> > >
> > > Well, I believe OJ was guilty and the evidence against him has far fewer
> > > basic problems than the evidence against LHO. OJ also had motive and no
> > > one else did.
> >
> > Oj just gave an interview wherein he made some comment that *if* he did
> > kill Nicole, it was because he loved her. :-) Can you figure that? So
> > apparently, it is possible to murder someone you love or admire ...
>
> So Oswald was a deranged, obssessive fan? There's no evidence of that,
> either.

I didn't say he had to be a deranged and obsessive fan - you did. I was
making the observation that people can kill folks they like/admire/love,
countering your earlier suggestion that LHO liked and admired JFK, ergo
he had no motive to want to kill him.

>
> > >
> > > > Does his older brother Robert's conviction that Lee did this, have
> > > > impact for you?
> > >
> > > Robert has never given a convincing reason why his Lee would have done
> > > this; if Robert could give us one example of LHO saying, "I can't stand
> > > JFK," then that would make more sense. Robert was a young man at the
> > > time, with a family and a career to protect, and the last thing he
> > > wanted to do was screw up the rest of his life by disagreeing with the
> > > official scenario. I understand that.
> >
> > But Tracy, you are applying a motive to Robert's actions, without
> > knowing for sure. Try taking him at his word - what reason do you have
> > to doubt him? Have you read his book? Some people have said that
> > 'someone got to him' but never tell us *who* that "someone" was.
>
> You're also applying a motive to LHO's actions without knowing for sure.

No, I am speculating about *possible* motives, Tracy. Sorry if I wasn't
clear enough about that. I have never rested on one, be-all-and-end-all
explanation for his act. How could I? How could anyone, and be 100%
sure?

He lied repeatedly and that is why I do not believe him when he claims
he's just a patsy.

OTOH, you have concluded that because Robert Oswald never mentioned LHO
speaking negatively about JFK, you don't believe his sincerity over his
belief in his brother's guilt? When did Robert ever lie? You state
that he had a career to protect - who doesn't? - as if protecting his
career in the brick business had anything to do with whether or not he
thought his brother was guilty.

I don't understand why you've reasoned this way unless you have caught
Robert in a lie, like LHO lied.

> Robert had spent very little time with his brother after Lee joined the
> Marines. He certainly couldn't have known what his brother was really up
> to in those years; even Marina admits today that her husband may have
> been involved in intelligence work and she wouldn't have known it. I
> sympathize with Robert's position; he could either defend his brother
> and share his guilt for the rest of his life, or be the "good brother"
> and repudiate him. He took the route most people would take.

Could it be that he is just telling it like he sees it, Tracy, without
all of the motivations you want attached? How is repudiating Lee being
a good brother?

BTW, Marina, as you know, also said that she thought that LHO was
capable of doing this ALONE and that he would never have trusted any
confederates.

>
> > >
> > > > > Not only was Oswald never heard to utter anti-Kennedy statements, a
> > > > > number of people who knew him said LHO actually *liked* JFK. His
> > > > > repeated insistence that he didn't kill Kennedy (though this was his
> > > > > moment of "fame and glory") is also unheard of among lone assassins.
> > > > > Only James Earl Ray can compare, and note the similarity between the two
> > > > > crimes: both are committed by unseen riflemen who then conveniently
> > > > > leave the rifle and other incriminating evidence behind; later, men who
> > > > > have no motive and proclaim their innocence are picked up and proclaimed
> > > > > "lone nuts." In both cases, the FBI proclaims "no conspiracy" almost
> > > > > immediately. Oswald is silenced because he knows too much, but Ray knows
> > > > > very little and is allowed to remain alive.
> >
> > Yep, been there. :-)
>
> Please elaborate.

I also once tried to understand the act as if it had some rationale to
it; as if it could be justified in someone's mind - even someone who had
a political motive. But doing that then presumes that there *was* a
motive *to* understand which is something we don't know for sure.

Do you see what I mean? We're looking at this through the eyes of
rational people. How can we be sure that LHO (or whoever) was rational?

>
> > If there were other shooters, I'd sure like to see the evidence and know
> > who they were. It's been 34 years and counting, and still nothing.
>
> In all likelihood, they're dead (either from natural or unnatural
> causes).

And so, what do we do then? What is the most sensible thing to do?

>
> > > >
> > > > IMO, Oswald was a misanthrope: he didn't trust (or like) people. He may
> > > > have admired JFK, as you say, but I doubt this was *about* JFK in
> > > > Oswald's mind, anymore than any of Kaczinski's victims were about
> > > > *them*. This was about Oswald (or Kaczinski) making a statement to the
> > > > world.
> > >
> > > For someone who didn't like people, he sure had plenty of acquaintances.
> >
> > He did? Who?
>
> Like George deMohrenschildt, Michael Paine, Adrian Alba, Edward Voebel,
> Dennis Offstein, Sylvia Duran, fellow Marines and employees at different
> jobs, various Cubans, Russians, etc. He wasn't a hermit like Kaczinski.

He certainly seemed to have more social contacts than Kaczinski, I'll
grant you that, but who among the people you mention above felt like
they were "friends" with him?

> > > He didn't wall himself up writing tracts like Kaczinski; he was quite
> > > active in the outside world.

He wrote a lot, though he lacked the education and training Kaczinski
had for lengthy and elaborate script. He wanted to be heard, though,
just like Kaczinski. His views and opinions were important to him, and
he desired to be heard by the world, just like Kaczinski. Do you
have a tape of his WDSU radio debate?

> >
> > Please elaborate. Kaczinski was also aloof and a loner through life,
> > although he did have some social experience. Then, when he was
> > rejected, he basically told the world to f*ck off.
>
> LHO didn't spend his life in some old house in the woods. Oswald lived
> in many locations, worked at many jobs, traveled to different countries,
> got involved with various political organizations, etc. We have an
> incredible amount of photographic footage of Oswald in action: passing
> out leaflets, getting into a brawl, being interviewed, appearing on a
> radio debate.

Tracy, what political organizations? Being the *only* member of a
chapter of the FPCC in N.O. after being discouraged against opening a
chapter in N.O., is really not getting "involved" is it?

> > Oswald was also eventually rejected from everyone, Tracy. The Marines,
> > The Soviets, The Cubans, Marina. He had nothing left to live for after
> > 11/21/63, and imo, he could've also been telling the world to f*ck off
> > by what he did.
>
> The Marines rejected him?

They made fun of him constantly, calling him names, throwing him fully
clothed into the showers, etc. He was an outcast and was taunted
relentlessly by his fellow Marines.

The Marines let him leave early because of a
> hardship case, and he was honorably discharged. If he was such a total
> loser in the Corps, then how did he get to be a radar operator at a top
> secret airbase?

How many others had the same clearance he did? He showed no interest
in the U-2 and in fact dreamed about joining Castro's forces with fellow
Marine Nelson Delgado while at Atsugi.

> Do you really believe that he taught himself Russian in his spare time?

Yes, I believe he *could* have since he apparently had no other
interests (other than in joining up with Castro) and did not fit in with
the rest of the Marines.

> Do you find it credible that a normal Marine would get his hardship discharge so quickly?

What's normal? I never said Oswald was normal. He was a pain in the
@ss, at the very least, and they were probably glad to be rid of him.

Or that he would be allowed to walk
> around acting and talking like a Communist? Ask anyone who was in the
> Marines at that time if any of this was normal procedure.

No one took him seriously. They called him names, and relentlessly
harassed him for his odd behavior.

What intelligence operative shoots himself, gets into fights, and gets
court marshaled while at a "top secret" air base?

Is this how an operative conducts himself - by drawing so much attention
to himself?

> The Soviets? I guess you have to assume that his defection was for real.

Can you prove that it was not for "real"? Are you suggesting that it
was a "fake" defection?

> And then he waltzes back to the US and is left entirely alone by the
> authorities. Except for a brief talk with the FBI, he isn't interrogated
> or debriefed or court martialed or anything. He was still in the
> reserves when he defected, and could have been brought up on charges. At
> the very least, *someone* in US intelligence would want to ask him,
> "What did you see in Minsk? Any spy schools there?"

Have you compared his history to the others that defected also at the
time?

I have never believed that our government would *not* have an interest
in at least talking to him either, once he returned. So on this, we may
agree.

> The Cubans? Oswald never made any *real* attempt to link up with
> pro-Castro Cubans.

I think you are wrong. There is evidence that he most certainly did,
while in Mexico City, not to mention his "dream" of joining Castro
while in the Marines.

... He never tried to find any like-minded people at

> Tulane University, which was loaded with Castro sympathizers. Instead,
> he seems to have spent all his time with anti-Castro Cubans.

"All his time with anti-Castro Cubans" ? I disagree. Please support
this assertion with evidence.

> And Marina? They had had plenty of fights in the past, and the idea that
> their most recent spat caused him to kill JFK is beyond belief.

Not "caused" but perhaps the last hope for a family life was removed.
You don't doubt that he really loved Marina and his children, do you?

There was discussion by psychiatrists during the WC hearings, I
believe, that dealt with this issue, but was left out of the final
report.

However, in Marina's appearance on OPRAH last year, she lamented that
she might have been able to prevent him from doing what he did, 'if she
hadn't been so mean to him that night; if she had been a little nicer to
him,' etc., then maybe the assassination wouldn't have happened at all.

I think it's sad that she would carry such a burden around all these
years, but she did suggest that she might've been able to prevent it.

>
> > >
> > > > > Once Oswald was dead, it became very easy for everyone to circle the
> > > > > wagons and declare him the lone gunman, despite his claim that he was a
> > > > > "patsy." The Dallas police suddenly announced that they had found his
> > > > > prints on the rifle on Friday night, but had forgot to tell anyone! The
> > > > > media outdid itself trying to see how demented they could make Oswald
> > > > > look.
> >
> > There's more to it than that. The FBI basically took the case away from
> > the DPD after 11/22/63. Have you read FIRST DAY EVIDENCE ? If you
> > think the DPD had something to do with this, then you've got to start
> > adding their names to the list of conspirators.
>
> I think that several members of the DPD were involved in the plot;

Who? Please name them and let the investigation begin! :-)

they
> helped plant evidence in the crime scene which they controlled, and they
> brought Oswald out into the basement with no frontal protection so that Ruby would have a clear shot at him.

Who? You must have some idea of who these plotters were.

>
> > > >
> > > > I think a man who is capable of repeated violence against his wife is
> > > > capable of murder --- thanks to OJ.
> > >
> > > Oswald may very well have been capable of murder; he was no angel, and I
> > > believe he was a low-level intelligence operative who was familiar with
> > > deception and ruthlessness. But that doesn't therefore prove he killed
> > > JFK.
> >
> > No, you're right, it probably doesn't "prove" it. But to suppose that
> > he was some low-level intelligence operative would be to suppose that
> > our government hired 9th grade high school drop-outs to entrust our
> > intelligence work with, at the height of the Cold War. :-)
> >
>

> Oswald was not a high-level agent; he was an informer and/or
> infiltrator. It's well-established that these kinds of jobs usually go
> to people on the bottom rungs of society (read Tackwood's 'Glass House
> Tapes' for example). Jack Ruby was an FBI informant, after all. So was
> Sara Jane Moore.

But how does *that* exonerate him? I keep coming back to this question
and no one has an answer. CIA informant, FBI informant, who knows what
kind of informant --- how does any of this wipe away the enormous
evidence against this man? How does it prove that he is innocent?

Another thing: you alluded to his "defection" above as if it were a fake
one, and hinted that he might have had help in learning Russian, as if
he were some thing *more* than just a Marine, and you even wrote that
you believe he was a "low-level intelligence operative."

But now you seem to be suggesting he was just an informant -- ??

Is it credible that our government would send "an informer and/or
infiltrator" or someone who was "on the bottom rungs of society" who
hadn't even finished high school, over to the U.S.S.R. at the height of
the Cold War for an assignment to fool the Soviets?

STEVE

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98

> > Steve Bochan wrote:
> > >
>
> Tracy,
>
> I've snipped a lot of the older dialogue, which people can read from our
> previous posts. I hope you don't mind.

No problem.

> Maybe we should change the title of this thread too ...

> > > You may however, consider asking yourself what kind of a conspiracy

> > > would do such a stupid thing, if in fact, the circumstances you describe
> > > are not *ever* possible.
> > >
> >
> > I think CE399 was planted simply so that it could be traced to the
> > rifle. The plotters never had any idea that it would be required to
> > cause all those wounds in both men. Remember that the bullet was
> > originally thought to have fallen out of the back wound or to have only
> > caused Connally's wounds. The SBT wasn't developed until the spring of
> > '64.
>
> But how could "the plotters" have been *sure* that CE399 would not have
> been one bullet too many? How did "the plotters" know that bullets that
> were otherwise fired into the limo would not also be recovered, making
> CE399 superfluous? And who at the hospital planted CE399? And how many
> people does *that* make now, in this plot?

If the plotters controlled the crime scene, they would also confiscate
any excess bullets; early news accounts talk of bullets being retrieved
in Dealey Plaza and then we never heard of them again.

> OTOH, let's go with your notion of "planting" CE399, for a moment.
>
> Suppose it was just a simple case of the police trying to "improve" the
> evidence against Oswald (as my previous correspondent discusses in
> another case), and it was planted. Does this make Oswald innocent,
> or does this look like the police wanted to be sure the charge would
> "stick"?

> Wouldn't this be similar to the charge that the police planted the glove
> in the OJ case? Whether they did or not, and forgetting about the
> ethical problems attendant to such behavior for a moment (if such
> behavior occurred at all), it doesn't make OJ any less guilty, does it?

It would cause the whole case to get thrown out of court, since you've
just demonstrated that the police can't be trusted with *any* of the
evidence.

> And if the police didn't plant this, then who did?

I don't know; I never said I had all the answers, Steve. But I keep
coming back to the condition of that bullet. There's no way on earth
that 399 could have shattered bones and gone through two human bodies
and come out in that condition. I don't care how many experts the
government can line up in a row to tell us differently. It violates my
common sense (so do a ton of other things in this case).

> >
> > As the car was moving down Elm St, it wasn't really a horizontal track
> > from that window; it was more of a vertical track. A grassy knoll gunman
> > would have been tracking the car horizontally. Actually, I've heard just
> > the opposite; that it's harder to track a target horizontally than
> > vertically.
>
> Well then we've heard opposite points of view. The tracking on Elm as
> the limo was driving away from the windows on the sixth floor is one of

> a 壮ide-to-side' type or 鼠eft to right' if you will, while the tracking

> of the limo down Houston, as it came closer to the sixth floor window,

> would have been 創orth to south' vertical tracking. The stack of boxes

> at the window suggests that the rifleman desired a side-to-side tracking
> and used the boxes to prop and steady the rifle - they would've been in
> the way of trying to track a target vertically.

Actually, the view down Elm would be a diagonal bottom-left to top-right
tracking movement. But anyway, why would a gunman use a rickety
cardboard box to prop his gun on? I would have sat down on the floor and
used the brick window sill, which would be perfectly steady.

> But you did not answer my question: have you been to The Sixth Floor
> Museum and seen this perspective for yourself?

No, I've never been to Dallas but I've seen enough films and photos
taken from that window to get a good idea of what it looks like.

> > > Perhaps you have experience in firing an MC and can add to this?
> >
> > No, I haven't. But I've read accounts from people who have fired that
> > particular rifle; the bolt-action is stiff, and you actually have to
> > lower the rifle away from your face to work the bolt or else it will put
> > your eye out. This increases the amount of time between shots.
>
> It didn't seem to hinder the shooter who used it on 11/22/63.

Steve, I have to criticize your logic there. We don't even know for
certain that the rifle was fired that day; neither the FBI or DPD
checked for signs of recent firing. No one smelled any gunpowder on the
sixth floor after the shooting. I find it impossible to believe that it
could fire three accurate shots in that time span; remember that the
2.3-second interval between shots is *without aiming*.

Remember what Police chief Jesse Curry wrote in his 'Assassination
File': "The physical evidence and eyewitness accounts do not clearly
indicate what took place on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book
Depository at the time John F. Kennedy was assassinated...We don't have
any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been
able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."

> > >
> > > I believe I've read somewhere that he could have used the paper and tape
> > > at the TSBD (which would certainly have required some premeditation),
> > > and simply folded the empty bag up into his jacket on his way *to* Ruth
> > > Paine's home that Thursday night, 11/21.
> >
> > It was a pretty big bag; it would have made for a noticeable bulge in
> > his jacket. Assembling it at the TSBD would also have taken time, and it
> > would need to be done on the spot since the tape was dampened and had to
> > be used immediately. But the employee who worked at that station was one
> > of those types who never leaves his desk, and he never saw Oswald there.
>
> But Oswald seemed to have run of the TSBD, no? He was allowed
> everywhere, wasn't he? How do we *know* that Oswald *couldn't* have
> taken the paper at a time when no one saw him?

It's not that he wasn't allowed there; it's that it would have taken him
considerable time to make that bag, and he would have had to make it at
the dispensing machine. And then he would have had to stuff that
enormous bag (made of thick wrapping paper) into his jacket and go to
Irving without anyone noticing it.

> > No cleaning equipment or spare ammo was found among his belongings. Some
> > say he got rid of them to cover his tracks. But why? His mail-order
> > rifle could be traced directly to him, so getting rid of that stuff was
> > pointless.
>
> He was very frugal - not the type to spend money on extras. Not having
> cleaning equipment or spare ammo does not preclude him from having an
> interest in rifles.

But the rifle was well-oiled and cleaned, I believe. You can't buy
bullets in ones or twos, anyway. There weren't even any empty ammo boxes
found in the trash. Do you really believe he saved his last four bullets
for 11/22?

> > > there was never
> > > > > > even one confirmed date or time when Oswald was known to have practiced
> > > > > > with the rifle;
> > >
> > > Well, maybe not. But didn't he tell Marina that he was going out to
> > > target practice, even at odd hours? Where have I heard this? Anyone?
> >
> > That was *one* of Marina's often-changing stories. Did he just carry it
> > around with him outside or bring it on the bus?
>
> I wouldn't know. Under a raincoat? Carrying it under his arm like one
> would presume, if one was carrying curtain rods?

That means he would have to keep disassembling it every time he took it
out. Which brings up an interesting point; once a disassembled rifle is
re-assembled, it has to be test-fired several times to make sure that
everything is adjusted properly before doing any serious target
shooting. LHO obviously wouldn't have had that opportunity on 11/22.

> > All the more reason to have the revolver already with him for
> > protection. His erratic movements after he left the TSBD are also not
> > consistent with someone who has any kind of plan for escape.
>
> Protection? Would he care if he expected to be killed?

Then why did he waste time going back to his room to get the revolver?

> Why do you
> think he left all his money and his ring with Marina that morning? Do
> you think he expected to be coming back for them? I'm not sure that he
> had a "plan for escape."

Maybe you can clear something up for me. The WC said he left his wallet
on the dresser in Irving, but then he had a wallet on him when he was
arrested. Did he have two of them?

> > > But how many people would have to be involved in such a frame up? Have
> > > you ever tried counting how many conspirators there would have to be to
> > > frame him, if he were totally innocent, and then keep quiet about it all
> > > these years?
> >
> > It would require fewer people than you think to plant a few
> > incriminating pieces of evidence. And once the process gets started,
> > more and more people get drawn into the coverup because of a desire to
> > close the case quickly, to protect people and reputations, etc.
>
> OK, please start naming names then. Who and how many were involved?
> Why talk in generalities when we can talk in specifics? :-)

Steve, just because I can't give you their names doesn't mean a plot
didn't occur; I don't know the names of the people who killed Jimmy
Hoffa, either, but we can be pretty sure he was murdered by some rival
mobsters.

> I didn't say he had to be a deranged and obsessive fan - you did. I was
> making the observation that people can kill folks they like/admire/love,
> countering your earlier suggestion that LHO liked and admired JFK, ergo
> he had no motive to want to kill him.

Yes, but only an obsessive/possessive kind of person who would kill
someone they love/admire - "if I can't have you, no one can." Or the guy
who shot John Lennon; Chapman wanted to acquire Lennon's fame. But then
he admitted that, didn't he? And he was obviously an obsessive fan.
Oswald liked JFK, but doesn't seem to have been a serious follower of
him.

> He lied repeatedly and that is why I do not believe him when he claims
> he's just a patsy.

He "lied repeatedly" if you believe the WC case against him (that he was
in the sniper's nest rather than the lunchroom, etc.)

> OTOH, you have concluded that because Robert Oswald never mentioned LHO
> speaking negatively about JFK, you don't believe his sincerity over his
> belief in his brother's guilt? When did Robert ever lie? You state
> that he had a career to protect - who doesn't? - as if protecting his
> career in the brick business had anything to do with whether or not he
> thought his brother was guilty.
>
> I don't understand why you've reasoned this way unless you have caught
> Robert in a lie, like LHO lied.

Robert's opinion really has little value because he knew little of his
brother's actions in the last few years of his life. Robert had left
home as soon as he could and joined the Marines; as kids they were
separated often (Robert was sent to a military school). How well did he
really know his brother?
In any case, Robert realized that he had a choice: he could act like his
mother (defend Lee's innocence) and be considered a fruitcake, or he
could agree with the Warren Commission and go on with a semi-normal
life.

> > Robert had spent very little time with his brother after Lee joined the
> > Marines. He certainly couldn't have known what his brother was really up
> > to in those years; even Marina admits today that her husband may have
> > been involved in intelligence work and she wouldn't have known it. I
> > sympathize with Robert's position; he could either defend his brother
> > and share his guilt for the rest of his life, or be the "good brother"
> > and repudiate him. He took the route most people would take.
>
> Could it be that he is just telling it like he sees it, Tracy, without
> all of the motivations you want attached? How is repudiating Lee being
> a good brother?

I meant he was the "good" brother compared to Oswald, who was the "bad"
brother. Like John Wilkes Booth's brother, who everyone felt sorry for
as he had to try to go on with his life.

> BTW, Marina, as you know, also said that she thought that LHO was
> capable of doing this ALONE and that he would never have trusted any
> confederates.

That's what she told the HSCA; she told the WC that she thought Lee was
shooting at Connally because he had no reason to shoot JFK. Today she
believes Oswald really was a patsy. She also didn't know LHO very well,
it sounds like.

> I also once tried to understand the act as if it had some rationale to
> it; as if it could be justified in someone's mind - even someone who had
> a political motive. But doing that then presumes that there *was* a
> motive *to* understand which is something we don't know for sure.
>
> Do you see what I mean? We're looking at this through the eyes of
> rational people. How can we be sure that LHO (or whoever) was rational?

Well, when I see the film footage of Oswald talking to reporters after
his arrest, he looks and sounds very rational. In fact, most
lone-nutters today actually believe that he was motivated by his
political beliefs. To believe that he had no motive is to say that he
was utterly insane; and there is just no evidence for this.

> >
> > > If there were other shooters, I'd sure like to see the evidence and know
> > > who they were. It's been 34 years and counting, and still nothing.
> >
> > In all likelihood, they're dead (either from natural or unnatural
> > causes).
>
> And so, what do we do then? What is the most sensible thing to do?

We have to confront our history honestly. Those people who helped cover
up the truth and who are still alive (like Arlen Specter) have to be
held accountable. At the very least they have a lot of explaining to do.

> He certainly seemed to have more social contacts than Kaczinski, I'll
> grant you that, but who among the people you mention above felt like
> they were "friends" with him?

Does counting a person's friends have anything to do with determing if
they are capable of violence? John Wilkes Booth was a very popular man
who dated beautiful women, went to lavish parties and knew many powerful
and influential people.

> > > > He didn't wall himself up writing tracts like Kaczinski; he was quite
> > > > active in the outside world.
>
> He wrote a lot, though he lacked the education and training Kaczinski
> had for lengthy and elaborate script. He wanted to be heard, though,
> just like Kaczinski. His views and opinions were important to him, and
> he desired to be heard by the world, just like Kaczinski. Do you
> have a tape of his WDSU radio debate?

I've read about it; how about that part where Oswald slips and says that
he *was* under the protection of the US government when he was in
Russia? Then he quickly corrects himself and says he was *not* under US
protection.

> > >
> > > Please elaborate. Kaczinski was also aloof and a loner through life,
> > > although he did have some social experience. Then, when he was
> > > rejected, he basically told the world to f*ck off.
> >
> > LHO didn't spend his life in some old house in the woods. Oswald lived
> > in many locations, worked at many jobs, traveled to different countries,
> > got involved with various political organizations, etc. We have an
> > incredible amount of photographic footage of Oswald in action: passing
> > out leaflets, getting into a brawl, being interviewed, appearing on a
> > radio debate.
>
> Tracy, what political organizations? Being the *only* member of a
> chapter of the FPCC in N.O. after being discouraged against opening a
> chapter in N.O., is really not getting "involved" is it?

I agree. But he did contact FPCC in New York, and he got involved with
the ACLU, he sent letters to the Socialists, he tried to infiltrate an
anti-Castro group, etc.

> > > Oswald was also eventually rejected from everyone, Tracy. The Marines,
> > > The Soviets, The Cubans, Marina. He had nothing left to live for after
> > > 11/21/63, and imo, he could've also been telling the world to f*ck off
> > > by what he did.
> >
> > The Marines rejected him?
>
> They made fun of him constantly, calling him names, throwing him fully
> clothed into the showers, etc. He was an outcast and was taunted
> relentlessly by his fellow Marines.
>
> The Marines let him leave early because of a
> > hardship case, and he was honorably discharged. If he was such a total
> > loser in the Corps, then how did he get to be a radar operator at a top
> > secret airbase?
>
> How many others had the same clearance he did? He showed no interest
> in the U-2 and in fact dreamed about joining Castro's forces with fellow
> Marine Nelson Delgado while at Atsugi.

You didn't address my question. Being a radar operator is not a flunky
job for just any jarhead. It requires a bit more intelligence than
average.

> > Do you really believe that he taught himself Russian in his spare time?
>
> Yes, I believe he *could* have since he apparently had no other
> interests (other than in joining up with Castro) and did not fit in with
> the rest of the Marines.

Russian is an *extremely* difficult language to learn; it's not like
learning Spanish. I work with a few Russian immigrants and I can tell
you that even if they were to teach me, it would take a very long time
to even be able to carry on a simple conversation. The idea that he
picked the language up from listening to records is unbelieveable.

> > Do you find it credible that a normal Marine would get his hardship discharge so quickly?
>
> What's normal? I never said Oswald was normal. He was a pain in the
> @ss, at the very least, and they were probably glad to be rid of him.

When you're a pain in the ass in the Marines, they punish you; they
don't reward you with an early (honorable) hardship discharge.

> Or that he would be allowed to walk
> > around acting and talking like a Communist? Ask anyone who was in the
> > Marines at that time if any of this was normal procedure.
>
> No one took him seriously. They called him names, and relentlessly
> harassed him for his odd behavior.

Ask someone who served in the Marines back then if that would have been
tolerated, even coming from an oddball?

> What intelligence operative shoots himself, gets into fights, and gets
> court marshaled while at a "top secret" air base?
> Is this how an operative conducts himself - by drawing so much attention
> to himself?

You're interpreting those events at face value. Who knows what he was
really up to? If he was an operative, he would sometimes have to find
excuses to get himself away from his normal duties.

> > The Soviets? I guess you have to assume that his defection was for
real.
>
> Can you prove that it was not for "real"? Are you suggesting that it
> was a "fake" defection?

That's right.

> > And then he waltzes back to the US and is left entirely alone by the
> > authorities. Except for a brief talk with the FBI, he isn't interrogated
> > or debriefed or court martialed or anything. He was still in the
> > reserves when he defected, and could have been brought up on charges. At
> > the very least, *someone* in US intelligence would want to ask him,
> > "What did you see in Minsk? Any spy schools there?"
>
> Have you compared his history to the others that defected also at the
> time?

Yeah, there several defectors around the same time, "discontented" young
men from similar backgrounds. In all likelihood, it was part of a phony
defector program.

> I have never believed that our government would *not* have an interest
> in at least talking to him either, once he returned. So on this, we may
> agree.

So what do you think the explanation is? Just incompetence? It's funny
how Oswald had one official mistake after another occur - always in his
favor. Usually when the government screws up, it's not in your favor.

> > The Cubans? Oswald never made any *real* attempt to link up with
> > pro-Castro Cubans.
>
> I think you are wrong. There is evidence that he most certainly did,
> while in Mexico City, not to mention his "dream" of joining Castro
> while in the Marines.
>
> ... He never tried to find any like-minded people at
> > Tulane University, which was loaded with Castro sympathizers. Instead,
> > he seems to have spent all his time with anti-Castro Cubans.
>
> "All his time with anti-Castro Cubans" ? I disagree. Please support
> this assertion with evidence.

I should have said that all of the time he spent with Cubans was always
with the anti-Castro variety. Carlos Bringuier and his group, for
example.

>
> > And Marina? They had had plenty of fights in the past, and the idea that
> > their most recent spat caused him to kill JFK is beyond belief.
>
> Not "caused" but perhaps the last hope for a family life was removed.
> You don't doubt that he really loved Marina and his children, do you?

There's no doubt he loved his children; I don't know about Marina. But
she never told him, "Get out and never come back!"

> There was discussion by psychiatrists during the WC hearings, I
> believe, that dealt with this issue, but was left out of the final
> report.
>
> However, in Marina's appearance on OPRAH last year, she lamented that
> she might have been able to prevent him from doing what he did, 'if she
> hadn't been so mean to him that night; if she had been a little nicer to
> him,' etc., then maybe the assassination wouldn't have happened at all.
>
> I think it's sad that she would carry such a burden around all these
> years, but she did suggest that she might've been able to prevent it.

I can see she's changed her story again. I thought she also told Oprah
that Oswald "loved" JFK. Maybe it was some other show.

> > > There's more to it than that. The FBI basically took the case away from
> > > the DPD after 11/22/63. Have you read FIRST DAY EVIDENCE ? If you
> > > think the DPD had something to do with this, then you've got to start
> > > adding their names to the list of conspirators.
> >
> > I think that several members of the DPD were involved in the plot;
>
> Who? Please name them and let the investigation begin! :-)

Well, I strongly suspect Fritz, but he's dead. I'm also suspicious of
Paul Bentley, Harry N. Olsen, and Jack Revill.
Those who may have helped Ruby get into the basement include: Patrick
Dean, William J. Harrison, Richard Swain and Louis D. Miller. I don't
have a complete list of DPD members c1963, let alone know all their
backgrounds.

Keep in mind what a retired Dallas police captain told Ovid Demaris and
Ed Reid: that the DPD "was rotten from top to bottom. Oh, there were
some good cops. But, man, it was a dangerous place to work in. You never
knew which side your boss or partner was on. There was plenty of money
floating around. All you had to do was raise your hand."

> they
> > helped plant evidence in the crime scene which they controlled, and they
> > brought Oswald out into the basement with no frontal protection so that Ruby would have a clear shot at him.
>
> Who? You must have some idea of who these plotters were.

See above.

> > > > Oswald may very well have been capable of murder; he was no angel, and I
> > > > believe he was a low-level intelligence operative who was familiar with
> > > > deception and ruthlessness. But that doesn't therefore prove he killed
> > > > JFK.
> > >
> > > No, you're right, it probably doesn't "prove" it. But to suppose that
> > > he was some low-level intelligence operative would be to suppose that
> > > our government hired 9th grade high school drop-outs to entrust our
> > > intelligence work with, at the height of the Cold War. :-)
> >
> > Oswald was not a high-level agent; he was an informer and/or
> > infiltrator. It's well-established that these kinds of jobs usually go
> > to people on the bottom rungs of society (read Tackwood's 'Glass House
> > Tapes' for example). Jack Ruby was an FBI informant, after all. So was
> > Sara Jane Moore.
>
> But how does *that* exonerate him? I keep coming back to this question
> and no one has an answer. CIA informant, FBI informant, who knows what
> kind of informant --- how does any of this wipe away the enormous
> evidence against this man? How does it prove that he is innocent?

Well, for one thing, if he was working with US intelligence, then he
certainly wasn't a "deranged loner," was he? It also goes a long ways
toward explaining how he could be framed (by creating a pro-Castro cover
for himself, which was then used against him).

> Another thing: you alluded to his "defection" above as if it were a fake
> one, and hinted that he might have had help in learning Russian, as if
> he were some thing *more* than just a Marine, and you even wrote that
> you believe he was a "low-level intelligence operative."
>
> But now you seem to be suggesting he was just an informant -- ??

I don't know exactly what he was. He was at *least* an informant, and
probably more. But he was never up to the level of an E. Howard Hunt or
David Atlee Philips.

> Is it credible that our government would send "an informer and/or
> infiltrator" or someone who was "on the bottom rungs of society" who
> hadn't even finished high school, over to the U.S.S.R. at the height of
> the Cold War for an assignment to fool the Soviets?

In intelligence work, they don't care what school you went to, only that
you can do the job and be believable. Oswald apparently wasn't very
believable to the Soviets; if they felt he had genuinely been interested
in Communism, they would have showcased him to the world as an example
of an American who had seen the light and rejected "imperialism."

Tracy

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/13/98

Jean Davison wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote in article <34BAA2...@tfb.com>...
> > Jean Davison wrote:
> > >
> > > Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com> wrote in article <34B804...@tfb.com>...

> > > > Steve Bochan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Tracy Riddle wrote:
> > > >

> > > <snipping all but this:>

> > >
> > > > But Oswald was so physically uncoordinated and awkward that he hadn't
> > > > even learned to drive a car yet; Ruth Paine was trying to teach him and
> > > > she said he had difficulty negotiating turns! As I'm sure you'll agree,
> > > > it requires a great deal more hand-eye coordination to shoot a rifle
> > > > accurately at a moving target than it does to drive a car.
> > >

If I can find that article, I'll post it. I remember she said something
about him hitting the gas or brake too hard. Anyway, I may be making too
big a deal about his driving ability. Still, I remember several
acquaintances who told the WC that he was awkward and physically frail.

Tracy

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> > > Steve Bochan wrote:

<snip>

> > > I think CE399 was planted simply so that it could be traced to the
> > > rifle. The plotters never had any idea that it would be required to
> > > cause all those wounds in both men. Remember that the bullet was
> > > originally thought to have fallen out of the back wound or to have only
> > > caused Connally's wounds. The SBT wasn't developed until the spring of
> > > '64.
> >
> > But how could "the plotters" have been *sure* that CE399 would not have
> > been one bullet too many? How did "the plotters" know that bullets that
> > were otherwise fired into the limo would not also be recovered, making
> > CE399 superfluous? And who at the hospital planted CE399? And how many
> > people does *that* make now, in this plot?
>
> If the plotters controlled the crime scene, they would also confiscate
> any excess bullets; early news accounts talk of bullets being retrieved
> in Dealey Plaza and then we never heard of them again.

You qualify by saying *if* "the plotters controlled the crime scene."
Well, did they or didn't they? That means "they" controlled the limo,
too. How many "plotters" do we have now?

> > OTOH, let's go with your notion of "planting" CE399, for a moment.
> >
> > Suppose it was just a simple case of the police trying to "improve" the
> > evidence against Oswald (as my previous correspondent discusses in
> > another case), and it was planted. Does this make Oswald innocent,
> > or does this look like the police wanted to be sure the charge would
> > "stick"?
>
> > Wouldn't this be similar to the charge that the police planted the glove
> > in the OJ case? Whether they did or not, and forgetting about the
> > ethical problems attendant to such behavior for a moment (if such
> > behavior occurred at all), it doesn't make OJ any less guilty, does it?
>
> It would cause the whole case to get thrown out of court, since you've
> just demonstrated that the police can't be trusted with *any* of the
> evidence.

No, I haven't ... I am trying to go along with your idea of a planted
CE399. If police can't be trusted with *any* evidence, we are all in
very serious trouble as a country, yes?

You didn't answer the question: would planting CE399 make Oswald
*innocent* of the crime?

> > And if the police didn't plant this, then who did?
>
> I don't know; I never said I had all the answers, Steve. But I keep
> coming back to the condition of that bullet. There's no way on earth
> that 399 could have shattered bones and gone through two human bodies
> and come out in that condition. I don't care how many experts the
> government can line up in a row to tell us differently. It violates my
> common sense (so do a ton of other things in this case).

Please don't take this the wrong way. If you don't have the answers to
some of the questions you have raised, and it has been 34 + years after
the fact, how much longer will it take? When you say things like "I
don't care" about what experts have to say, then why bother with the
evidence at all? You've already determined the outcome, no matter what
*anyone* has to say - even those who may know more than you. How can
anyone hope to reason with you when your mind is already made up,
regardless of the expertise of those who do understand the evidence?

> > >
> > > As the car was moving down Elm St, it wasn't really a horizontal track
> > > from that window; it was more of a vertical track. A grassy knoll gunman
> > > would have been tracking the car horizontally. Actually, I've heard just
> > > the opposite; that it's harder to track a target horizontally than
> > > vertically.
> >
> > Well then we've heard opposite points of view. The tracking on Elm as
> > the limo was driving away from the windows on the sixth floor is one of

> > a ‘side-to-side' type or ‘left to right' if you will, while the tracking

> > of the limo down Houston, as it came closer to the sixth floor window,

> > would have been ‘north to south' vertical tracking. The stack of boxes

> > at the window suggests that the rifleman desired a side-to-side tracking
> > and used the boxes to prop and steady the rifle - they would've been in
> > the way of trying to track a target vertically.
>
> Actually, the view down Elm would be a diagonal bottom-left to top-right
> tracking movement. But anyway, why would a gunman use a rickety
> cardboard box to prop his gun on? I would have sat down on the floor and
> used the brick window sill, which would be perfectly steady.
>
> > But you did not answer my question: have you been to The Sixth Floor
> > Museum and seen this perspective for yourself?
>
> No, I've never been to Dallas but I've seen enough films and photos
> taken from that window to get a good idea of what it looks like.

I thought not. This explains a lot to me. You need to get yourself
there sometime and see the angles and the perspectives for yourself
before making up your mind. You also need to stand behind the picket
fence on the grassy knoll and see for yourself what that is like.

Trust me - the films and photos are nothing compared to actually being
there. Most are amazed at how much smaller Dealey Plaza really is than
they thought.

>
> > > > Perhaps you have experience in firing an MC and can add to this?
> > >
> > > No, I haven't. But I've read accounts from people who have fired that
> > > particular rifle; the bolt-action is stiff, and you actually have to
> > > lower the rifle away from your face to work the bolt or else it will put
> > > your eye out. This increases the amount of time between shots.
> >
> > It didn't seem to hinder the shooter who used it on 11/22/63.
>
> Steve, I have to criticize your logic there. We don't even know for
> certain that the rifle was fired that day; neither the FBI or DPD
> checked for signs of recent firing. No one smelled any gunpowder on the
> sixth floor after the shooting. I find it impossible to believe that it
> could fire three accurate shots in that time span; remember that the
> 2.3-second interval between shots is *without aiming*.

What rifle was fired that day Tracy, if not Oswald's MC?

From the WR:

[QUOTE]

After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been
fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to
the exclusion of all other weapons.

[END QUOTE]

"[T]o the exclusion of all other weapons" sounds pretty definitive, even
coming from government experts.

> Remember what Police chief Jesse Curry wrote in his 'Assassination
> File': "The physical evidence and eyewitness accounts do not clearly
> indicate what took place on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book
> Depository at the time John F. Kennedy was assassinated...We don't have
> any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been
> able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."

Yes that is true, but the majority of the investigators who actually did
the legwork that day were firmly convinced that Oswald was indeed the
shooter. And look at his language very carefully. He doesn't say that
he thinks Oswald didn't do it. He also doesn't say that 'nobody's yet
been able to put ANYONE ELSE in that building with a gun in his hand'
either, but we know *someone* had to be in there doing the shooting.

Or do you want to posit another shooting location, having never visited
the site yourself?

<snip>

> > But Oswald seemed to have run of the TSBD, no? He was allowed
> > everywhere, wasn't he? How do we *know* that Oswald *couldn't* have
> > taken the paper at a time when no one saw him?
>
> It's not that he wasn't allowed there; it's that it would have taken him
> considerable time to make that bag, and he would have had to make it at
> the dispensing machine. And then he would have had to stuff that
> enormous bag (made of thick wrapping paper) into his jacket and go to
> Irving without anyone noticing it.

Sounds like a piece of cake for someone who managed to get in and out of
the Soviet Union the way he did, eh? You suggested he was a low-level
operative, after all, so he must have been capable of *some* deception,
no? :-)

<snip>

> > He was very frugal - not the type to spend money on extras. Not having
> > cleaning equipment or spare ammo does not preclude him from having an
> > interest in rifles.
>
> But the rifle was well-oiled and cleaned, I believe. You can't buy
> bullets in ones or twos, anyway. There weren't even any empty ammo boxes
> found in the trash. Do you really believe he saved his last four bullets
> for 11/22?

I don't know. They may or may not have been his last four bullets, as
you have acknowledged that this is not a certainty.

<snip>

> > I wouldn't know. Under a raincoat? Carrying it under his arm like one
> > would presume, if one was carrying curtain rods?
>
> That means he would have to keep disassembling it every time he took it
> out. Which brings up an interesting point; once a disassembled rifle is
> re-assembled, it has to be test-fired several times to make sure that
> everything is adjusted properly before doing any serious target
> shooting. LHO obviously wouldn't have had that opportunity on 11/22.

That is interesting. But 140 - 190 feet is not that great a challenge
for someone familiar with a rifle, is it?

> > > All the more reason to have the revolver already with him for
> > > protection. His erratic movements after he left the TSBD are also not
> > > consistent with someone who has any kind of plan for escape.
> >
> > Protection? Would he care if he expected to be killed?
>
> Then why did he waste time going back to his room to get the revolver?
>
> > Why do you
> > think he left all his money and his ring with Marina that morning? Do
> > you think he expected to be coming back for them? I'm not sure that he
> > had a "plan for escape."
>
> Maybe you can clear something up for me. The WC said he left his wallet
> on the dresser in Irving, but then he had a wallet on him when he was
> arrested. Did he have two of them?

There is even more of a mystery than that. In Hosty's book,
_ASSIGNMENT: OSWALD_, he writes of a wallet found at the site of the
Tippit murder with Oswald's identification, and that of Hidell, inside.

And then there is the version of Oswald's wallet being removed from him
in the police car after his arrest at the Texas Theatre.

That wallet sure seemed to get around. :-)

<snip>

> > OK, please start naming names then. Who and how many were involved?
> > Why talk in generalities when we can talk in specifics? :-)
>
> Steve, just because I can't give you their names doesn't mean a plot
> didn't occur; I don't know the names of the people who killed Jimmy
> Hoffa, either, but we can be pretty sure he was murdered by some rival
> mobsters.

But that sounds like you are prepared to simply go round and round on
this merry-go-round of suspicion forever, without any hope of getting
answers to your questions.

> > I didn't say he had to be a deranged and obsessive fan - you did. I was
> > making the observation that people can kill folks they like/admire/love,
> > countering your earlier suggestion that LHO liked and admired JFK, ergo
> > he had no motive to want to kill him.
>
> Yes, but only an obsessive/possessive kind of person who would kill
> someone they love/admire - "if I can't have you, no one can." Or the guy
> who shot John Lennon; Chapman wanted to acquire Lennon's fame. But then
> he admitted that, didn't he? And he was obviously an obsessive fan.
> Oswald liked JFK, but doesn't seem to have been a serious follower of
> him.

According to the Mailer book, he spoke - even bragged - about the new
young President JFK, to his acquaintances in the Soviet Union.

> > He lied repeatedly and that is why I do not believe him when he claims
> > he's just a patsy.
>
> He "lied repeatedly" if you believe the WC case against him (that he was
> in the sniper's nest rather than the lunchroom, etc.)

Nope, he lied repeatedly WITHOUT the WC case against him. Get yourself
a copy of the recording of his WDSU debate and count how many lies you
can catch him in. He lied almost effortlessly.

> > OTOH, you have concluded that because Robert Oswald never mentioned LHO
> > speaking negatively about JFK, you don't believe his sincerity over his
> > belief in his brother's guilt? When did Robert ever lie? You state
> > that he had a career to protect - who doesn't? - as if protecting his
> > career in the brick business had anything to do with whether or not he
> > thought his brother was guilty.
> >
> > I don't understand why you've reasoned this way unless you have caught
> > Robert in a lie, like LHO lied.
>
> Robert's opinion really has little value because he knew little of his
> brother's actions in the last few years of his life. Robert had left
> home as soon as he could and joined the Marines; as kids they were
> separated often (Robert was sent to a military school). How well did he
> really know his brother?

What? How well does anyone know their brother?? Even twins who are
separated at birth and reunited years later feel they've always known
each other, blood being thicker than water and all that. Robert helped
defend his younger brother when other kids would pick on Lee; in other
words, like most older brothers, his instinct was to protect his little
brother. It hurts Robert to this day to discuss Lee.

> In any case, Robert realized that he had a choice: he could act like his
> mother (defend Lee's innocence) and be considered a fruitcake, or he
> could agree with the Warren Commission and go on with a semi-normal
> life.

No one connected to Lee could have a normal life, after 11/22/63.

<snip>

> > Do you see what I mean? We're looking at this through the eyes of
> > rational people. How can we be sure that LHO (or whoever) was rational?
>
> Well, when I see the film footage of Oswald talking to reporters after
> his arrest, he looks and sounds very rational. In fact, most
> lone-nutters today actually believe that he was motivated by his
> political beliefs. To believe that he had no motive is to say that he
> was utterly insane; and there is just no evidence for this.

Seriously Tracy, get a copy of that WDSU debate. Hear him lie smoothly.

Question for you: do you think people who attempt suicide are sane?

> > >
> > > > If there were other shooters, I'd sure like to see the evidence and know
> > > > who they were. It's been 34 years and counting, and still nothing.
> > >
> > > In all likelihood, they're dead (either from natural or unnatural
> > > causes).
> >
> > And so, what do we do then? What is the most sensible thing to do?
>
> We have to confront our history honestly. Those people who helped cover
> up the truth and who are still alive (like Arlen Specter) have to be
> held accountable. At the very least they have a lot of explaining to do.

I would agree. That they covered up *something* suggests there was
something *to* cover up. The Soviet Union has collapsed and Castro is
an anachronism, so let's get all the files released and see what was
what back in '63. But I still think LHO is guilty. :-)

<snip>

> > Tracy, what political organizations? Being the *only* member of a
> > chapter of the FPCC in N.O. after being discouraged against opening a
> > chapter in N.O., is really not getting "involved" is it?
>
> I agree. But he did contact FPCC in New York, and he got involved with
> the ACLU, he sent letters to the Socialists, he tried to infiltrate an
> anti-Castro group, etc.

Ah ... but why would he try to "infiltrate" an anti-Castro group if he
was already spending his time *with* anti-Castro Cubans (according to
your last post)?

<snip>

> > What intelligence operative shoots himself, gets into fights, and gets
> > court marshaled while at a "top secret" air base?
> > Is this how an operative conducts himself - by drawing so much attention
> > to himself?
>
> You're interpreting those events at face value. Who knows what he was
> really up to? If he was an operative, he would sometimes have to find
> excuses to get himself away from his normal duties.

How else should we interpret these events? I believe you may be
interpreting these events through a conspiracy filter. Forget that.
Examine the evidence on its own merit. I don't know of any "operative"
who would deliberately draw attention to himself in such unforgettable
ways.

>
> > > The Soviets? I guess you have to assume that his defection was for
> real.
> >
> > Can you prove that it was not for "real"? Are you suggesting that it
> > was a "fake" defection?
>
> That's right.

I don't suppose you have any evidence for that?

>
> > > And then he waltzes back to the US and is left entirely alone by the
> > > authorities. Except for a brief talk with the FBI, he isn't interrogated
> > > or debriefed or court martialed or anything. He was still in the
> > > reserves when he defected, and could have been brought up on charges. At
> > > the very least, *someone* in US intelligence would want to ask him,
> > > "What did you see in Minsk? Any spy schools there?"
> >
> > Have you compared his history to the others that defected also at the
> > time?
>
> Yeah, there several defectors around the same time, "discontented" young
> men from similar backgrounds. In all likelihood, it was part of a phony
> defector program.

"In all likelihood" is not proof, though. Again, are you interested in
putting some of these doubts and suspicions to bed, or do you want to be
guessing about this forever?

> > I have never believed that our government would *not* have an interest
> > in at least talking to him either, once he returned. So on this, we may
> > agree.
>
> So what do you think the explanation is? Just incompetence? It's funny
> how Oswald had one official mistake after another occur - always in his
> favor. Usually when the government screws up, it's not in your favor.

A sweeping generalization that can be disproved by recalling those who
receive millions in IRS tax refund checks by mistake.

There was an HSCA witness from the CIA who actually said just that, that
they 'blew it' - absolutely, wrt Oswald.

> > > The Cubans? Oswald never made any *real* attempt to link up with
> > > pro-Castro Cubans.
> >
> > I think you are wrong. There is evidence that he most certainly did,
> > while in Mexico City, not to mention his "dream" of joining Castro
> > while in the Marines.
> >
> > ... He never tried to find any like-minded people at
> > > Tulane University, which was loaded with Castro sympathizers. Instead,
> > > he seems to have spent all his time with anti-Castro Cubans.
> >
> > "All his time with anti-Castro Cubans" ? I disagree. Please support
> > this assertion with evidence.
>
> I should have said that all of the time he spent with Cubans was always
> with the anti-Castro variety. Carlos Bringuier and his group, for
> example.

But you said earlier (above) that he tried to "infiltrate" anti-Castro
groups. This doesn't make sense if "all of the time he spent" was with
the "anti-Castro variety" does it?

> >
> > > And Marina? They had had plenty of fights in the past, and the idea that
> > > their most recent spat caused him to kill JFK is beyond belief.
> >
> > Not "caused" but perhaps the last hope for a family life was removed.
> > You don't doubt that he really loved Marina and his children, do you?
>
> There's no doubt he loved his children; I don't know about Marina. But
> she never told him, "Get out and never come back!"

She was cruel and rebuked him, repeatedly. She made it clear that she
was better off with Ruth Paine than with him.

> > There was discussion by psychiatrists during the WC hearings, I
> > believe, that dealt with this issue, but was left out of the final
> > report.
> >
> > However, in Marina's appearance on OPRAH last year, she lamented that
> > she might have been able to prevent him from doing what he did, 'if she
> > hadn't been so mean to him that night; if she had been a little nicer to
> > him,' etc., then maybe the assassination wouldn't have happened at all.
> >
> > I think it's sad that she would carry such a burden around all these
> > years, but she did suggest that she might've been able to prevent it.
>
> I can see she's changed her story again. I thought she also told Oprah
> that Oswald "loved" JFK. Maybe it was some other show.

There you go again, trying to understand a motive. :-)

>
> > > > There's more to it than that. The FBI basically took the case away from
> > > > the DPD after 11/22/63. Have you read FIRST DAY EVIDENCE ? If you
> > > > think the DPD had something to do with this, then you've got to start
> > > > adding their names to the list of conspirators.
> > >
> > > I think that several members of the DPD were involved in the plot;
> >
> > Who? Please name them and let the investigation begin! :-)
>
> Well, I strongly suspect Fritz, but he's dead. I'm also suspicious of
> Paul Bentley, Harry N. Olsen, and Jack Revill.
> Those who may have helped Ruby get into the basement include: Patrick
> Dean, William J. Harrison, Richard Swain and Louis D. Miller. I don't
> have a complete list of DPD members c1963, let alone know all their
> backgrounds.
>
> Keep in mind what a retired Dallas police captain told Ovid Demaris and
> Ed Reid: that the DPD "was rotten from top to bottom. Oh, there were
> some good cops. But, man, it was a dangerous place to work in. You never
> knew which side your boss or partner was on. There was plenty of money
> floating around. All you had to do was raise your hand."

Let's table this for now. I'll want to know why you suspect these
people but so far, let's see, there's 8 that you've named. Are there
any more in on this plot?

> > they
> > > helped plant evidence in the crime scene which they controlled, and they
> > > brought Oswald out into the basement with no frontal protection so that Ruby would have a clear shot at him.
> >
> > Who? You must have some idea of who these plotters were.
>
> See above.
>
> > > > > Oswald may very well have been capable of murder; he was no angel, and I
> > > > > believe he was a low-level intelligence operative who was familiar with
> > > > > deception and ruthlessness. But that doesn't therefore prove he killed
> > > > > JFK.
> > > >
> > > > No, you're right, it probably doesn't "prove" it. But to suppose that
> > > > he was some low-level intelligence operative would be to suppose that
> > > > our government hired 9th grade high school drop-outs to entrust our
> > > > intelligence work with, at the height of the Cold War. :-)
> > >
> > > Oswald was not a high-level agent; he was an informer and/or
> > > infiltrator. It's well-established that these kinds of jobs usually go
> > > to people on the bottom rungs of society (read Tackwood's 'Glass House
> > > Tapes' for example). Jack Ruby was an FBI informant, after all. So was
> > > Sara Jane Moore.
> >
> > But how does *that* exonerate him? I keep coming back to this question
> > and no one has an answer. CIA informant, FBI informant, who knows what
> > kind of informant --- how does any of this wipe away the enormous
> > evidence against this man? How does it prove that he is innocent?
>
> Well, for one thing, if he was working with US intelligence, then he
> certainly wasn't a "deranged loner," was he?

But Tracy, how does that exonerate HIM? Do you understand what I am
asking? I haven't said that he was the *only* one who was guilty, I
have just said that he was guilty.

It also goes a long ways
> toward explaining how he could be framed (by creating a pro-Castro cover
> for himself, which was then used against him).

But it doesn't exonerate HIM from the deed, Tracy.

> > Another thing: you alluded to his "defection" above as if it were a fake
> > one, and hinted that he might have had help in learning Russian, as if
> > he were some thing *more* than just a Marine, and you even wrote that
> > you believe he was a "low-level intelligence operative."
> >
> > But now you seem to be suggesting he was just an informant -- ??
>
> I don't know exactly what he was. He was at *least* an informant, and
> probably more. But he was never up to the level of an E. Howard Hunt or
> David Atlee Philips.

I think he wanted to be something other than what he was: a high school
drop out who couldn't provide for his family. That's what the evidence
shows. I have seen no evidence that he was "at *least* an informant" -
have you?

>
> > Is it credible that our government would send "an informer and/or
> > infiltrator" or someone who was "on the bottom rungs of society" who
> > hadn't even finished high school, over to the U.S.S.R. at the height of
> > the Cold War for an assignment to fool the Soviets?
>
> In intelligence work, they don't care what school you went to, only that
> you can do the job and be believable. Oswald apparently wasn't very
> believable to the Soviets; if they felt he had genuinely been interested
> in Communism, they would have showcased him to the world as an example
> of an American who had seen the light and rejected "imperialism."

IOW, he couldn't do the job.

STEVE

Martin Shackelford

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

Jean:

So I gather you're arguing that Oswald was more coordinated
than Gerry Ford? Could drive and chew gum at the same time? Or are you
aiming for Shoot and chew gum? Not too much Marine Corps training
without a helmet? Let's see: Chevy Chase playing Oswald. Hmmm. I can see
him now, moving gracefully across the Sixth Floor.

Martin

Martin Shackelford

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

Steve wrote:
They made fun of him constantly, calling him names, throwing him fully
clothed into the showers, etc. He was an outcast and was taunted
relentlessly by his fellow Marines.

Read Kerry Thornley's book, The Idle Warriors, based on Oswald--you'll
get a much different impression; also read John Newman on that period,
including Nelson Delgado's statements.

Martin

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

In <34BC60A8...@concentric.net> Martin Shackelford

Good one, Martin.<g> I couldn't help but conjure up an image of Ford
doing the boom-click thing, striding ever so swiftly and quietly across
the floor, sliding the Carcano into place in one graceful swoop and
pitty-patting down the stair quickly and quietly, and leaning casually
on the wall enjoying a bottle of the "real thing"...only it would be
more like Barney Fife in a china closet of course.<g>

Barb :-)

Jean Davison

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

Barb Junkkarinen <bar...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<69hr2e$d...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>...

I think we can clear Barney, since he had only one bullet.<g> Not
so sure about Ford.
Jean

Jean Davison

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

Martin Shackelford <msh...@concentric.net> wrote in article
<34BC60A8...@concentric.net>...

> Jean:
>
> So I gather you're arguing that Oswald was more coordinated
> than Gerry Ford? Could drive and chew gum at the same time? Or are you
> aiming for Shoot and chew gum? Not too much Marine Corps training
> without a helmet? Let's see: Chevy Chase playing Oswald. Hmmm. I can see
> him now, moving gracefully across the Sixth Floor.
>

You conjure up quite a picture, Martin. That's right, he couldn't
shoot and chew gum at the same time. This explains why he missed
the first shot before he wised up and spit it out.

Unknown to many, a Fleers bubble gum wrapper was found in
the southeast corner, but it wasn't photographed because they
"forgot." (Some claim it was a Dentyne wrapper, but I of course
accept the official version.) Jean

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

Martin Shackelford wrote:

>
> Steve wrote:
> They made fun of him constantly, calling him names, throwing him fully
> clothed into the showers, etc. He was an outcast and was taunted
> relentlessly by his fellow Marines.
>

> Read Kerry Thornley's book, The Idle Warriors, based on Oswald--you'll
> get a much different impression; also read John Newman on that period,
> including Nelson Delgado's statements.
>
> Martin

Thanks Martin -- I did use John Newman's book to refresh my memory on
this before I wrote that, as well as others.

STEVE

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

Steve Bochan wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle wrote:
> >
> > > > Steve Bochan wrote:
>
> > > > I think CE399 was planted simply so that it could be traced to the
> > > > rifle. The plotters never had any idea that it would be required to
> > > > cause all those wounds in both men. Remember that the bullet was
> > > > originally thought to have fallen out of the back wound or to have only
> > > > caused Connally's wounds. The SBT wasn't developed until the spring of
> > > > '64.
> > >
> > > But how could "the plotters" have been *sure* that CE399 would not have
> > > been one bullet too many? How did "the plotters" know that bullets that
> > > were otherwise fired into the limo would not also be recovered, making
> > > CE399 superfluous? And who at the hospital planted CE399? And how many
> > > people does *that* make now, in this plot?
> >
> > If the plotters controlled the crime scene, they would also confiscate
> > any excess bullets; early news accounts talk of bullets being retrieved
> > in Dealey Plaza and then we never heard of them again.
>
> You qualify by saying *if* "the plotters controlled the crime scene."
> Well, did they or didn't they? That means "they" controlled the limo,
> too. How many "plotters" do we have now?

They *did* control the crime scene; including the limo.

>
> > > OTOH, let's go with your notion of "planting" CE399, for a moment.
> > >
> > > Suppose it was just a simple case of the police trying to "improve" the
> > > evidence against Oswald (as my previous correspondent discusses in
> > > another case), and it was planted. Does this make Oswald innocent,
> > > or does this look like the police wanted to be sure the charge would
> > > "stick"?
> >
> > > Wouldn't this be similar to the charge that the police planted the glove
> > > in the OJ case? Whether they did or not, and forgetting about the
> > > ethical problems attendant to such behavior for a moment (if such
> > > behavior occurred at all), it doesn't make OJ any less guilty, does it?
> >
> > It would cause the whole case to get thrown out of court, since you've
> > just demonstrated that the police can't be trusted with *any* of the
> > evidence.
>
> No, I haven't ... I am trying to go along with your idea of a planted
> CE399. If police can't be trusted with *any* evidence, we are all in
> very serious trouble as a country, yes?

Well, look at the RFK assassination; the LAPD later admitted to
destroying a great deal of evidence it had in that case (ceiling panels
with bullet holes in them, etc.) It is a serious problem.

> You didn't answer the question: would planting CE399 make Oswald
> *innocent* of the crime?

Since Oswald's guilt is based on the physical evidence, if the police
planted even one piece of that evidence, then it immediately calls the
rest of it into question. How do we know the rest of it wasn't planted?
Especially given the serious problems with it (the rifle bag not being
photographed in place, the mysterious appearance of the palm print on
the rifle, etc.)

> > > And if the police didn't plant this, then who did?
> >
> > I don't know; I never said I had all the answers, Steve. But I keep
> > coming back to the condition of that bullet. There's no way on earth
> > that 399 could have shattered bones and gone through two human bodies
> > and come out in that condition. I don't care how many experts the
> > government can line up in a row to tell us differently. It violates my
> > common sense (so do a ton of other things in this case).
>
> Please don't take this the wrong way. If you don't have the answers to
> some of the questions you have raised, and it has been 34 + years after
> the fact, how much longer will it take? When you say things like "I
> don't care" about what experts have to say, then why bother with the
> evidence at all? You've already determined the outcome, no matter what
> *anyone* has to say - even those who may know more than you. How can
> anyone hope to reason with you when your mind is already made up,
> regardless of the expertise of those who do understand the evidence?

Steve, do you believe that experts always tell the truth? If they were
to tell you that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, would
you believe them or trust your own eyes? Take the backyard photos for
example; the government has assembled experts to assure us that they
aren't composites, but I've never been able to recreate those shadow
discrepancies in the real world. Shadows behave the same in California
as they do in Texas.
It all comes down to thinking for yourself; if the experts tell you
something that is obviously bullshit, then it's time to start trusting
your own common sense.

> > Actually, the view down Elm would be a diagonal bottom-left to top-right
> > tracking movement. But anyway, why would a gunman use a rickety
> > cardboard box to prop his gun on? I would have sat down on the floor and
> > used the brick window sill, which would be perfectly steady.
> >
> > > But you did not answer my question: have you been to The Sixth Floor
> > > Museum and seen this perspective for yourself?
> >
> > No, I've never been to Dallas but I've seen enough films and photos
> > taken from that window to get a good idea of what it looks like.
>
> I thought not. This explains a lot to me. You need to get yourself
> there sometime and see the angles and the perspectives for yourself
> before making up your mind. You also need to stand behind the picket
> fence on the grassy knoll and see for yourself what that is like.
>
> Trust me - the films and photos are nothing compared to actually being
> there. Most are amazed at how much smaller Dealey Plaza really is than
> they thought.

I've heard that. But I'm also aware of how tall a sixth-floor window is,
and how far 50 or 100 yards is.

> >
> > > > > Perhaps you have experience in firing an MC and can add to this?
> > > >
> > > > No, I haven't. But I've read accounts from people who have fired that
> > > > particular rifle; the bolt-action is stiff, and you actually have to
> > > > lower the rifle away from your face to work the bolt or else it will put
> > > > your eye out. This increases the amount of time between shots.
> > >
> > > It didn't seem to hinder the shooter who used it on 11/22/63.
> >
> > Steve, I have to criticize your logic there. We don't even know for
> > certain that the rifle was fired that day; neither the FBI or DPD
> > checked for signs of recent firing. No one smelled any gunpowder on the
> > sixth floor after the shooting. I find it impossible to believe that it
> > could fire three accurate shots in that time span; remember that the
> > 2.3-second interval between shots is *without aiming*.
>
> What rifle was fired that day Tracy, if not Oswald's MC?
>
> From the WR:
>
> [QUOTE]
>
> After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
> identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
> bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been
> fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to
> the exclusion of all other weapons.
>
> [END QUOTE]
>
> "[T]o the exclusion of all other weapons" sounds pretty definitive, even
> coming from government experts.

Did they find cranial debris, blood and/or tissue in the limo fragments?

> > Remember what Police chief Jesse Curry wrote in his 'Assassination
> > File': "The physical evidence and eyewitness accounts do not clearly
> > indicate what took place on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book
> > Depository at the time John F. Kennedy was assassinated...We don't have
> > any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been
> > able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."
>
> Yes that is true, but the majority of the investigators who actually did
> the legwork that day were firmly convinced that Oswald was indeed the
> shooter. And look at his language very carefully. He doesn't say that
> he thinks Oswald didn't do it. He also doesn't say that 'nobody's yet
> been able to put ANYONE ELSE in that building with a gun in his hand'
> either, but we know *someone* had to be in there doing the shooting.

C'mon Steve; he said nobody has been able to put *Oswald* in that
window. Since he was the only one arrested (not true actually), I guess
that means he must have done it, right?

> Or do you want to posit another shooting location, having never visited
> the site yourself?

I think the head shot at least came from the front. That's another
instance of our being asked to accept the unbelievable in this case -
somehow a bullet slamming into the back of his head at 2000fps is going
to cause his head to go violently backwards. And I've heard the jet
effect/neurospasm nonsense, so you don't need to repeat them.

> > > But Oswald seemed to have run of the TSBD, no? He was allowed
> > > everywhere, wasn't he? How do we *know* that Oswald *couldn't* have
> > > taken the paper at a time when no one saw him?
> >
> > It's not that he wasn't allowed there; it's that it would have taken him
> > considerable time to make that bag, and he would have had to make it at
> > the dispensing machine. And then he would have had to stuff that
> > enormous bag (made of thick wrapping paper) into his jacket and go to
> > Irving without anyone noticing it.
>
> Sounds like a piece of cake for someone who managed to get in and out of
> the Soviet Union the way he did, eh? You suggested he was a low-level
> operative, after all, so he must have been capable of *some* deception,
> no? :-)
>

Again, you're assuming that Oswald really did carry the rifle bag into
the TSBD. The bag he carried to work that morning was far too small;
perhaps you can explain how he could have carried it in the manner
described by Frazier and his sister if it was the real rifle bag?

> > > He was very frugal - not the type to spend money on extras. Not having
> > > cleaning equipment or spare ammo does not preclude him from having an
> > > interest in rifles.
> >
> > But the rifle was well-oiled and cleaned, I believe. You can't buy
> > bullets in ones or twos, anyway. There weren't even any empty ammo boxes
> > found in the trash. Do you really believe he saved his last four bullets
> > for 11/22?
>
> I don't know. They may or may not have been his last four bullets, as
> you have acknowledged that this is not a certainty.

To me, it's further evidence that he wasn't a rifle enthusiast.

>
> > > I wouldn't know. Under a raincoat? Carrying it under his arm like one
> > > would presume, if one was carrying curtain rods?
> >
> > That means he would have to keep disassembling it every time he took it
> > out. Which brings up an interesting point; once a disassembled rifle is
> > re-assembled, it has to be test-fired several times to make sure that
> > everything is adjusted properly before doing any serious target
> > shooting. LHO obviously wouldn't have had that opportunity on 11/22.
>
> That is interesting. But 140 - 190 feet is not that great a challenge
> for someone familiar with a rifle, is it?

Still, you can miss your target if everything isn't adjusted and aligned
properly. I see you snipped the part about the timing. You realize that
the FBI's 2.3 seconds between shots was *without aiming*?

> > > > All the more reason to have the revolver already with him for
> > > > protection. His erratic movements after he left the TSBD are also not
> > > > consistent with someone who has any kind of plan for escape.
> > >
> > > Protection? Would he care if he expected to be killed?
> >
> > Then why did he waste time going back to his room to get the revolver?
> >
> > > Why do you
> > > think he left all his money and his ring with Marina that morning? Do
> > > you think he expected to be coming back for them? I'm not sure that he
> > > had a "plan for escape."
> >
> > Maybe you can clear something up for me. The WC said he left his wallet
> > on the dresser in Irving, but then he had a wallet on him when he was
> > arrested. Did he have two of them?
>
> There is even more of a mystery than that. In Hosty's book,
> _ASSIGNMENT: OSWALD_, he writes of a wallet found at the site of the
> Tippit murder with Oswald's identification, and that of Hidell, inside.
>
> And then there is the version of Oswald's wallet being removed from him
> in the police car after his arrest at the Texas Theatre.
>
> That wallet sure seemed to get around. :-)
>

Doesn't make you the least bit suspicious?

> > > OK, please start naming names then. Who and how many were involved?
> > > Why talk in generalities when we can talk in specifics? :-)
> >
> > Steve, just because I can't give you their names doesn't mean a plot
> > didn't occur; I don't know the names of the people who killed Jimmy
> > Hoffa, either, but we can be pretty sure he was murdered by some rival
> > mobsters.
>
> But that sounds like you are prepared to simply go round and round on
> this merry-go-round of suspicion forever, without any hope of getting
> answers to your questions.

I would love to get answers to my questions, but sometimes life doesn't
work that way.

>
> > > I didn't say he had to be a deranged and obsessive fan - you did. I was
> > > making the observation that people can kill folks they like/admire/love,
> > > countering your earlier suggestion that LHO liked and admired JFK, ergo
> > > he had no motive to want to kill him.
> >
> > Yes, but only an obsessive/possessive kind of person who would kill
> > someone they love/admire - "if I can't have you, no one can." Or the guy
> > who shot John Lennon; Chapman wanted to acquire Lennon's fame. But then
> > he admitted that, didn't he? And he was obviously an obsessive fan.
> > Oswald liked JFK, but doesn't seem to have been a serious follower of
> > him.
>
> According to the Mailer book, he spoke - even bragged - about the new
> young President JFK, to his acquaintances in the Soviet Union.

So? There still isn't any evidence that he was obsessed enough about JFK
to want to kill him for some love/hate reason.

> > > He lied repeatedly and that is why I do not believe him when he claims
> > > he's just a patsy.
> >
> > He "lied repeatedly" if you believe the WC case against him (that he was
> > in the sniper's nest rather than the lunchroom, etc.)
>
> Nope, he lied repeatedly WITHOUT the WC case against him. Get yourself
> a copy of the recording of his WDSU debate and count how many lies you
> can catch him in. He lied almost effortlessly.

He was in his fake "I'm a Commie" mode, so of course he's going to be
telling lies about himself. Steve, you snipped the part about him being
under US goverment protection while in the USSR.

> > Robert's opinion really has little value because he knew little of his
> > brother's actions in the last few years of his life. Robert had left
> > home as soon as he could and joined the Marines; as kids they were
> > separated often (Robert was sent to a military school). How well did he
> > really know his brother?
>
> What? How well does anyone know their brother?? Even twins who are
> separated at birth and reunited years later feel they've always known
> each other, blood being thicker than water and all that. Robert helped
> defend his younger brother when other kids would pick on Lee; in other
> words, like most older brothers, his instinct was to protect his little
> brother. It hurts Robert to this day to discuss Lee.
>
> > In any case, Robert realized that he had a choice: he could act like his
> > mother (defend Lee's innocence) and be considered a fruitcake, or he
> > could agree with the Warren Commission and go on with a semi-normal
> > life.
>
> No one connected to Lee could have a normal life, after 11/22/63.
>

Robert's had a pretty semi-normal life since then.

>
> > > Do you see what I mean? We're looking at this through the eyes of
> > > rational people. How can we be sure that LHO (or whoever) was rational?
> >
> > Well, when I see the film footage of Oswald talking to reporters after
> > his arrest, he looks and sounds very rational. In fact, most
> > lone-nutters today actually believe that he was motivated by his
> > political beliefs. To believe that he had no motive is to say that he
> > was utterly insane; and there is just no evidence for this.
>
> Seriously Tracy, get a copy of that WDSU debate. Hear him lie smoothly.

Again, he was promoting his pro-Castro cover image.

> Question for you: do you think people who attempt suicide are sane?

What does that have to do with this case?

> > We have to confront our history honestly. Those people who helped cover
> > up the truth and who are still alive (like Arlen Specter) have to be
> > held accountable. At the very least they have a lot of explaining to do.
>
> I would agree. That they covered up *something* suggests there was
> something *to* cover up. The Soviet Union has collapsed and Castro is
> an anachronism, so let's get all the files released and see what was
> what back in '63. But I still think LHO is guilty. :-)
>

I don't think Castro or the Soviets had anything to do with the
assassination.

> > > Tracy, what political organizations? Being the *only* member of a
> > > chapter of the FPCC in N.O. after being discouraged against opening a
> > > chapter in N.O., is really not getting "involved" is it?
> >
> > I agree. But he did contact FPCC in New York, and he got involved with
> > the ACLU, he sent letters to the Socialists, he tried to infiltrate an
> > anti-Castro group, etc.
>
> Ah ... but why would he try to "infiltrate" an anti-Castro group if he
> was already spending his time *with* anti-Castro Cubans (according to
> your last post)?

According to the WC, he tried to infiltrate an anti-Castro group. I
personally think his real infiltration efforts were against leftist
groups.

>
> > > What intelligence operative shoots himself, gets into fights, and gets
> > > court marshaled while at a "top secret" air base?
> > > Is this how an operative conducts himself - by drawing so much attention
> > > to himself?
> >
> > You're interpreting those events at face value. Who knows what he was
> > really up to? If he was an operative, he would sometimes have to find
> > excuses to get himself away from his normal duties.
>
> How else should we interpret these events? I believe you may be
> interpreting these events through a conspiracy filter. Forget that.
> Examine the evidence on its own merit. I don't know of any "operative"
> who would deliberately draw attention to himself in such unforgettable
> ways.

You still haven't explained the problems I mentioned previously with
regard to Oswald's remarkable behavior in the Marines. How does someone
like that get an honorable early discharge? While he was still in the
Marines, he applied for a passport listing the USSR and Cuba as possible
destinations. This passport required an accompanying Marine Corps
certification, but still they believed him when he said he was going to
care for his sick mother. It doesn't wash, Steve.

> >
> > > > The Soviets? I guess you have to assume that his defection was for
> > real.
> > >
> > > Can you prove that it was not for "real"? Are you suggesting that it
> > > was a "fake" defection?
> >
> > That's right.
>
> I don't suppose you have any evidence for that?

I've posted a ton of circumstantial evidence for it on this NG in the
past.

> >
> > > > And then he waltzes back to the US and is left entirely alone by the
> > > > authorities. Except for a brief talk with the FBI, he isn't interrogated
> > > > or debriefed or court martialed or anything. He was still in the
> > > > reserves when he defected, and could have been brought up on charges. At
> > > > the very least, *someone* in US intelligence would want to ask him,
> > > > "What did you see in Minsk? Any spy schools there?"
> > >
> > > Have you compared his history to the others that defected also at the
> > > time?
> >
> > Yeah, there several defectors around the same time, "discontented" young
> > men from similar backgrounds. In all likelihood, it was part of a phony
> > defector program.
>
> "In all likelihood" is not proof, though. Again, are you interested in
> putting some of these doubts and suspicions to bed, or do you want to be
> guessing about this forever?

How am I supposed to do that, Steve? Raid the files at Langley,
Virginia?

>
> > > I have never believed that our government would *not* have an interest
> > > in at least talking to him either, once he returned. So on this, we may
> > > agree.
> >
> > So what do you think the explanation is? Just incompetence? It's funny
> > how Oswald had one official mistake after another occur - always in his
> > favor. Usually when the government screws up, it's not in your favor.
>
> A sweeping generalization that can be disproved by recalling those who
> receive millions in IRS tax refund checks by mistake.

This is hardly even in the same league.

> There was an HSCA witness from the CIA who actually said just that, that
> they 'blew it' - absolutely, wrt Oswald.

"We're incompetent, not conspiratorial," is the favorite phrase used in
Washington.

> > > > The Cubans? Oswald never made any *real* attempt to link up with
> > > > pro-Castro Cubans.
> > >
> > > I think you are wrong. There is evidence that he most certainly did,
> > > while in Mexico City, not to mention his "dream" of joining Castro
> > > while in the Marines.
> > >
> > > ... He never tried to find any like-minded people at
> > > > Tulane University, which was loaded with Castro sympathizers. Instead,
> > > > he seems to have spent all his time with anti-Castro Cubans.
> > >
> > > "All his time with anti-Castro Cubans" ? I disagree. Please support
> > > this assertion with evidence.
> >
> > I should have said that all of the time he spent with Cubans was always
> > with the anti-Castro variety. Carlos Bringuier and his group, for
> > example.
>
> But you said earlier (above) that he tried to "infiltrate" anti-Castro
> groups. This doesn't make sense if "all of the time he spent" was with
> the "anti-Castro variety" does it?
>

As I explained above, the WC said he tried to infiltrate an anti-Castro
group.

> > >
> > > > And Marina? They had had plenty of fights in the past, and the idea that
> > > > their most recent spat caused him to kill JFK is beyond belief.
> > >
> > > Not "caused" but perhaps the last hope for a family life was removed.
> > > You don't doubt that he really loved Marina and his children, do you?
> >
> > There's no doubt he loved his children; I don't know about Marina. But
> > she never told him, "Get out and never come back!"
>
> She was cruel and rebuked him, repeatedly. She made it clear that she
> was better off with Ruth Paine than with him.

And he supposedly wanted to send her back to Russia without him; doesn't
sound like he cared about her very much.

> > > There was discussion by psychiatrists during the WC hearings, I
> > > believe, that dealt with this issue, but was left out of the final
> > > report.
> > >
> > > However, in Marina's appearance on OPRAH last year, she lamented that
> > > she might have been able to prevent him from doing what he did, 'if she
> > > hadn't been so mean to him that night; if she had been a little nicer to
> > > him,' etc., then maybe the assassination wouldn't have happened at all.
> > >
> > > I think it's sad that she would carry such a burden around all these
> > > years, but she did suggest that she might've been able to prevent it.
> >
> > I can see she's changed her story again. I thought she also told Oprah
> > that Oswald "loved" JFK. Maybe it was some other show.
>
> There you go again, trying to understand a motive. :-)

What do you mean by that?

> >
> > > > > There's more to it than that. The FBI basically took the case away from
> > > > > the DPD after 11/22/63. Have you read FIRST DAY EVIDENCE ? If you
> > > > > think the DPD had something to do with this, then you've got to start
> > > > > adding their names to the list of conspirators.
> > > >
> > > > I think that several members of the DPD were involved in the plot;
> > >
> > > Who? Please name them and let the investigation begin! :-)
> >
> > Well, I strongly suspect Fritz, but he's dead. I'm also suspicious of
> > Paul Bentley, Harry N. Olsen, and Jack Revill.
> > Those who may have helped Ruby get into the basement include: Patrick
> > Dean, William J. Harrison, Richard Swain and Louis D. Miller. I don't
> > have a complete list of DPD members c1963, let alone know all their
> > backgrounds.
> >
> > Keep in mind what a retired Dallas police captain told Ovid Demaris and
> > Ed Reid: that the DPD "was rotten from top to bottom. Oh, there were
> > some good cops. But, man, it was a dangerous place to work in. You never
> > knew which side your boss or partner was on. There was plenty of money
> > floating around. All you had to do was raise your hand."
>
> Let's table this for now. I'll want to know why you suspect these
> people but so far, let's see, there's 8 that you've named. Are there
> any more in on this plot?

As I said, I don't even know the names of all the Dallas police officers
and their backgrounds; how can I know possibly answer that question?

> > > they
> > > > helped plant evidence in the crime scene which they controlled, and they
> > > > brought Oswald out into the basement with no frontal protection so that Ruby would have a clear shot at him.
> > >
> > > Who? You must have some idea of who these plotters were.
> >
> > See above.
> >

> > > But how does *that* exonerate him? I keep coming back to this question
> > > and no one has an answer. CIA informant, FBI informant, who knows what
> > > kind of informant --- how does any of this wipe away the enormous
> > > evidence against this man? How does it prove that he is innocent?
> >
> > Well, for one thing, if he was working with US intelligence, then he
> > certainly wasn't a "deranged loner," was he?
>
> But Tracy, how does that exonerate HIM? Do you understand what I am
> asking? I haven't said that he was the *only* one who was guilty, I
> have just said that he was guilty.

If the physical evidence against Oswald was really solid and seamless,
then I could accept his guilt; but there are so many problems with the
evidence that it took me several posts a while back to list them all.

> It also goes a long ways
> > toward explaining how he could be framed (by creating a pro-Castro cover
> > for himself, which was then used against him).
>
> But it doesn't exonerate HIM from the deed, Tracy.
>
> > > Another thing: you alluded to his "defection" above as if it were a fake
> > > one, and hinted that he might have had help in learning Russian, as if
> > > he were some thing *more* than just a Marine, and you even wrote that
> > > you believe he was a "low-level intelligence operative."
> > >
> > > But now you seem to be suggesting he was just an informant -- ??
> >
> > I don't know exactly what he was. He was at *least* an informant, and
> > probably more. But he was never up to the level of an E. Howard Hunt or
> > David Atlee Philips.
>
> I think he wanted to be something other than what he was: a high school
> drop out who couldn't provide for his family. That's what the evidence
> shows. I have seen no evidence that he was "at *least* an informant" -
> have you?

Remember after he was arrested in New Orleans (after that phony street
fight), he asked for an FBI agent to come talk with him in his jail
cell? How many genuine Communists would want to talk with the FBI?

Tracy

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

In <01bd20b5$ce53a6c0$Loca...@NS1.together.net> "Jean Davison"

<BG>!

Barb :-)
>
>
>
>

Steve Keating

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

Tracy Riddle wrote:

a bunch snipped

> I've heard that. But I'm also aware of how tall a sixth-floor window is,
> and how far 50 or 100 yards is.

Yes, Tracy, but from a shooter's perspective 58 or 89 yards is very
short yardage, with or without a scope. Just ask some if you don't
believe me. But don't cloud the issue by adding umproved statements such
as 5.6 second timeframes, inoperable weapon, poor shooter, etc. Just ask
a person that shoots high powered rifles if they think that a shot at a
slow moving straight away target with or without a scope propped up on a
box and shooting at a target of 58/89 yds is difficult. What Steve was
saying is that those of us who shoot and have stood next to the SN in
the old TSBD can see clearly just how small the plaza is and just how
easy the shots were for an average to good shooter. And remember, once
you learn shooting basics, you don't need much practice to execute what
you have learned. Practice makes you sharper, but once you learn to
shoot properly, you don't forget the basics. It is simply a matter of
execution (no pun intended).

Steve K.
>
a bunch snipped

> Tracy

Bruce J Schuck

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

In article <34BCF0...@lucent.com>, jkea...@lucent.com wrote:
>Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
>a bunch snipped
>

>> I've heard that. But I'm also aware of how tall a sixth-floor window is,
>> and how far 50 or 100 yards is.
>

>Yes, Tracy, but from a shooter's perspective 58 or 89 yards is very
>short yardage, with or without a scope.

If it was so easy, why did the shooter miss the easiest, closest shot
(according to your theory)?

Steve Keating

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

Tracy Riddle wrote:

> If I can find that article, I'll post it. I remember she said something
> about him hitting the gas or brake too hard. Anyway, I may be making too
> big a deal about his driving ability. Still, I remember several
> acquaintances who told the WC that he was awkward and physically frail.

Perhaps you need to ask Officer McDonald and the other three or four
officers that it took to subdue LHO at the TT. McDonald is only alive
today (I assume he is) because the fleshy part of his left hand got in
between the hammer and firing pin of LHO's revolver as LHO pulled it to
kill him. And this waif LHO has the audacity to claim police brutality
and "a policeman hit me." LHO was lucky that the officers did not kill
him on the spot due to the gravity of the situation. Cop killers are not
ever well recieved by other arresting officers. They should be commended
for the fine job they did in the arrest. Your continued defense of a
double murderer with assertions of him being frail and a bad shot
continue to amaze me.

Steve K.
>
> Tracy

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote:
> >

Tracy - there is no way I can repost all of the previous dialogue
without my server chopping off my responses. Sorry. People can always
scroll back to read what's already been said, anyway.

<snip>

> > You qualify by saying *if* "the plotters controlled the crime scene."
> > Well, did they or didn't they? That means "they" controlled the limo,
> > too. How many "plotters" do we have now?
>
> They *did* control the crime scene; including the limo.
>

So now we're including the Secret Service? How many does that make
*now* Tracy?

<snip>

> > No, I haven't ... I am trying to go along with your idea of a planted
> > CE399. If police can't be trusted with *any* evidence, we are all in
> > very serious trouble as a country, yes?
>
> Well, look at the RFK assassination; the LAPD later admitted to
> destroying a great deal of evidence it had in that case (ceiling panels
> with bullet holes in them, etc.) It is a serious problem.

Let's stick to the JFK assassination for now. Are you suggesting that
we are not to trust law enforcement in this country?

> > You didn't answer the question: would planting CE399 make Oswald
> > *innocent* of the crime?
>
> Since Oswald's guilt is based on the physical evidence, if the police
> planted even one piece of that evidence, then it immediately calls the
> rest of it into question. How do we know the rest of it wasn't planted?

But what about the other bullets that were matched to Oswald's rifle?
You ask, "how do we know ..." but never come up with a way to resolve
the question. If you want to assert that the rest of the evidence was
planted, be my guest -- you will have a spellbound audience watch you
try to describe how it was done and by WHOM.

> Especially given the serious problems with it (the rifle bag not being
> photographed in place, the mysterious appearance of the palm print on
> the rifle, etc.)

The palm print was not so mysterious. Have you read anything *not* of
conspiracy-oriented literature?

<snip>

> > Please don't take this the wrong way. If you don't have the answers to
> > some of the questions you have raised, and it has been 34 + years after
> > the fact, how much longer will it take? When you say things like "I
> > don't care" about what experts have to say, then why bother with the
> > evidence at all? You've already determined the outcome, no matter what
> > *anyone* has to say - even those who may know more than you. How can
> > anyone hope to reason with you when your mind is already made up,
> > regardless of the expertise of those who do understand the evidence?
>
> Steve, do you believe that experts always tell the truth? If they were
> to tell you that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, would
> you believe them or trust your own eyes?

I trust people who place their lives at risk daily for the greater good,
yes. I give them the benefit of the doubt because they are the experts
in solving and preventing crime. That is not to say experts don't make
mistakes - they do. But your tone throughout this discussion is one of
total MIStrust of ANYTHING official, which in my view is terribly
misguided.

No expert I know has ever suggested the sun rises in the west, btw.

Take the backyard photos for
> example; the government has assembled experts to assure us that they
> aren't composites, but I've never been able to recreate those shadow
> discrepancies in the real world. Shadows behave the same in California
> as they do in Texas.

So .... how many does that make now in your suspected "plot"? Are we up
to 20 yet in this ever-growing conspiracy?

> It all comes down to thinking for yourself; if the experts tell you
> something that is obviously bullshit, then it's time to start trusting
> your own common sense.

Exactly. So when do you start trusting your own common sense about how
utterly ridiculous the "plotters" have been in trusting so many people
not to ever talk. Have you added up how many would be involved, yet?
There's the DPD, SS, some photo composite expert, Marina (for testifying
that she took the photo in question) .... who else, oh yes, the 8 you
named yesterday, and then there are the masterminds who hatched the plot
in the first place but let others do the dirty work. Tell me, does LHO
fit in anywhere, in this plot of yours?

> > > Actually, the view down Elm would be a diagonal bottom-left to top-right
> > > tracking movement. But anyway, why would a gunman use a rickety
> > > cardboard box to prop his gun on? I would have sat down on the floor and
> > > used the brick window sill, which would be perfectly steady.
> > >
> > > > But you did not answer my question: have you been to The Sixth Floor
> > > > Museum and seen this perspective for yourself?
> > >
> > > No, I've never been to Dallas but I've seen enough films and photos
> > > taken from that window to get a good idea of what it looks like.
> >
> > I thought not. This explains a lot to me. You need to get yourself
> > there sometime and see the angles and the perspectives for yourself
> > before making up your mind. You also need to stand behind the picket
> > fence on the grassy knoll and see for yourself what that is like.
> >
> > Trust me - the films and photos are nothing compared to actually being
> > there. Most are amazed at how much smaller Dealey Plaza really is than
> > they thought.
>
> I've heard that. But I'm also aware of how tall a sixth-floor window is,
> and how far 50 or 100 yards is.

If you are in the Dallas area, and it sounds like you do not live that
far away, I would recommend you visit Dealey Plaza soon. Your
perceptions will change once you are there. I was also aware of how
tall a sixth floor window was before going to Dallas, yet standing up
there and seeing for myself the view the alleged assassin saw was
instructive.

<snip>

> > > Steve, I have to criticize your logic there. We don't even know for
> > > certain that the rifle was fired that day; neither the FBI or DPD
> > > checked for signs of recent firing. No one smelled any gunpowder on the
> > > sixth floor after the shooting. I find it impossible to believe that it
> > > could fire three accurate shots in that time span; remember that the
> > > 2.3-second interval between shots is *without aiming*.
> >
> > What rifle was fired that day Tracy, if not Oswald's MC?
> >
> > From the WR:
> >
> > [QUOTE]
> >
> > After making independent examinations, both Frazier and Nicol positively
> > identified the nearly whole bullet from the stretcher and the two larger
> > bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine as having been
> > fired in the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the Depository to
> > the exclusion of all other weapons.
> >
> > [END QUOTE]
> >
> > "[T]o the exclusion of all other weapons" sounds pretty definitive, even
> > coming from government experts.
>
> Did they find cranial debris, blood and/or tissue in the limo fragments?

Once again, you question the expert findings while dodging the impact of
what those findings mean. Do you ever question any of LHO's statements
with the same intensity you question the official statements?

Or do you simply TRUST whatever he said without question, while
automatically mistrusting those whose job it was to find the
murderer(s?) of Tippit and JFK?

Do you think LHO shot Tippit, btw, or do you doubt *that* too?

>
> > > Remember what Police chief Jesse Curry wrote in his 'Assassination
> > > File': "The physical evidence and eyewitness accounts do not clearly
> > > indicate what took place on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book
> > > Depository at the time John F. Kennedy was assassinated...We don't have
> > > any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been
> > > able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."
> >
> > Yes that is true, but the majority of the investigators who actually did
> > the legwork that day were firmly convinced that Oswald was indeed the
> > shooter. And look at his language very carefully. He doesn't say that
> > he thinks Oswald didn't do it. He also doesn't say that 'nobody's yet
> > been able to put ANYONE ELSE in that building with a gun in his hand'
> > either, but we know *someone* had to be in there doing the shooting.
>
> C'mon Steve; he said nobody has been able to put *Oswald* in that
> window. Since he was the only one arrested (not true actually), I guess
> that means he must have done it, right?

No you missed my point. If Oswald didn't do the shooting, then who did?
They weren't able to place anyone else up in that window either, so are
we supposed to conclude no one shot at JFK from the window that day?

> > Or do you want to posit another shooting location, having never visited
> > the site yourself?
>
> I think the head shot at least came from the front. That's another
> instance of our being asked to accept the unbelievable in this case -
> somehow a bullet slamming into the back of his head at 2000fps is going
> to cause his head to go violently backwards. And I've heard the jet
> effect/neurospasm nonsense, so you don't need to repeat them.

Please visit Dealey Plaza and get back to me *then* about where in the
front the shooter was.

<snip>

> Again, you're assuming that Oswald really did carry the rifle bag into
> the TSBD. The bag he carried to work that morning was far too small;
> perhaps you can explain how he could have carried it in the manner
> described by Frazier and his sister if it was the real rifle bag?

I think your description of "far too small" is an overstatement. Have
you seen THE TRIAL OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD ? Frazier testified at that
trial. Also, are you now forgetting that LHO's rifle was indeed found
inside the TSBD on the day of the assassination? Isn't *that* the
important issue here, not Frazier's perception of how large or small a
bag was?

>
> > > > He was very frugal - not the type to spend money on extras. Not having
> > > > cleaning equipment or spare ammo does not preclude him from having an
> > > > interest in rifles.
> > >
> > > But the rifle was well-oiled and cleaned, I believe. You can't buy
> > > bullets in ones or twos, anyway. There weren't even any empty ammo boxes
> > > found in the trash. Do you really believe he saved his last four bullets
> > > for 11/22?
> >
> > I don't know. They may or may not have been his last four bullets, as
> > you have acknowledged that this is not a certainty.
>
> To me, it's further evidence that he wasn't a rifle enthusiast.

He apparently didn't want to spend money on extras, and you conclude
he's not an enthusiast?

> >
> > > > I wouldn't know. Under a raincoat? Carrying it under his arm like one
> > > > would presume, if one was carrying curtain rods?
> > >
> > > That means he would have to keep disassembling it every time he took it
> > > out. Which brings up an interesting point; once a disassembled rifle is
> > > re-assembled, it has to be test-fired several times to make sure that
> > > everything is adjusted properly before doing any serious target
> > > shooting. LHO obviously wouldn't have had that opportunity on 11/22.
> >
> > That is interesting. But 140 - 190 feet is not that great a challenge
> > for someone familiar with a rifle, is it?
>
> Still, you can miss your target if everything isn't adjusted and aligned
> properly. I see you snipped the part about the timing. You realize that
> the FBI's 2.3 seconds between shots was *without aiming*?

I see the snipping is bothering you. I was hoping that wouldn't happen
because it can shift the focus of the discussion to sniping about
snipping pretty quickly.

I already told you that I came to my own conclusions about this by
listening to people right here about their own experiences firing the MC
rifle. You seem to want to imply that I only believe the "official"
conclusions. Independent verification of what you read in this case is
important, no matter what you believe.

<snip>

> > There is even more of a mystery than that. In Hosty's book,
> > _ASSIGNMENT: OSWALD_, he writes of a wallet found at the site of the
> > Tippit murder with Oswald's identification, and that of Hidell, inside.
> >
> > And then there is the version of Oswald's wallet being removed from him
> > in the police car after his arrest at the Texas Theatre.
> >
> > That wallet sure seemed to get around. :-)
> >
>
> Doesn't make you the least bit suspicious?

About where they found his wallet? Yes.

> > > > OK, please start naming names then. Who and how many were involved?
> > > > Why talk in generalities when we can talk in specifics? :-)
> > >
> > > Steve, just because I can't give you their names doesn't mean a plot
> > > didn't occur; I don't know the names of the people who killed Jimmy
> > > Hoffa, either, but we can be pretty sure he was murdered by some rival
> > > mobsters.
> >
> > But that sounds like you are prepared to simply go round and round on
> > this merry-go-round of suspicion forever, without any hope of getting
> > answers to your questions.
>
> I would love to get answers to my questions, but sometimes life doesn't
> work that way.

But many of the points you've raised here can be answered with a little
independent research on your own. Don't take my word or anyone else's,
use the brain God gave you and investigate for yourself. You will not
regret it. Just be prepared to put much of the myth surrounding this
case to rest. There are some legitimate open questions remaining about
this case, but whether someone was shooting from the 6th floor window is
not one of them.

> >
> > > > I didn't say he had to be a deranged and obsessive fan - you did. I was
> > > > making the observation that people can kill folks they like/admire/love,
> > > > countering your earlier suggestion that LHO liked and admired JFK, ergo
> > > > he had no motive to want to kill him.
> > >
> > > Yes, but only an obsessive/possessive kind of person who would kill
> > > someone they love/admire - "if I can't have you, no one can." Or the guy
> > > who shot John Lennon; Chapman wanted to acquire Lennon's fame. But then
> > > he admitted that, didn't he? And he was obviously an obsessive fan.
> > > Oswald liked JFK, but doesn't seem to have been a serious follower of
> > > him.
> >
> > According to the Mailer book, he spoke - even bragged - about the new
> > young President JFK, to his acquaintances in the Soviet Union.
>
> So? There still isn't any evidence that he was obsessed enough about JFK
> to want to kill him for some love/hate reason.

But you are again basing your conclusion on the premise that he *had* to
be some kind of serious follower of JFK ... why?

>
> > > > He lied repeatedly and that is why I do not believe him when he claims
> > > > he's just a patsy.
> > >
> > > He "lied repeatedly" if you believe the WC case against him (that he was
> > > in the sniper's nest rather than the lunchroom, etc.)
> >
> > Nope, he lied repeatedly WITHOUT the WC case against him. Get yourself
> > a copy of the recording of his WDSU debate and count how many lies you
> > can catch him in. He lied almost effortlessly.
>
> He was in his fake "I'm a Commie" mode, so of course he's going to be
> telling lies about himself. Steve, you snipped the part about him being
> under US goverment protection while in the USSR.

Why are you so willing to EXCUSE everything LHO did, while at the same
time ACCUSE everything law enforcement did in this case? It's one thing
to be a cynic by nature, but at least be consistent in your cynicism and
be skeptical of LHO as well.

A fake "I'm a Commie" mode? Please prove that he was a fake Commie.

Another comment about snipping too, I see. His comment was ambiguous,
Tracy. Get a copy of that debate and listen to the man lie. You are
not facing facts, here.

<snip>

> > Seriously Tracy, get a copy of that WDSU debate. Hear him lie smoothly.
>
> Again, he was promoting his pro-Castro cover image.

Prove that it was only an "image" and not for real.

>
> > Question for you: do you think people who attempt suicide are sane?
>
> What does that have to do with this case?

Please humor me and answer the question.

>
> > > We have to confront our history honestly. Those people who helped cover
> > > up the truth and who are still alive (like Arlen Specter) have to be
> > > held accountable. At the very least they have a lot of explaining to do.
> >
> > I would agree. That they covered up *something* suggests there was
> > something *to* cover up. The Soviet Union has collapsed and Castro is
> > an anachronism, so let's get all the files released and see what was
> > what back in '63. But I still think LHO is guilty. :-)
> >
>
> I don't think Castro or the Soviets had anything to do with the
> assassination.

That's allowed. :-) But I am not willing to conclude as much until I've
seen more evidence in the case.

> > > > Tracy, what political organizations? Being the *only* member of a
> > > > chapter of the FPCC in N.O. after being discouraged against opening a
> > > > chapter in N.O., is really not getting "involved" is it?
> > >
> > > I agree. But he did contact FPCC in New York, and he got involved with
> > > the ACLU, he sent letters to the Socialists, he tried to infiltrate an
> > > anti-Castro group, etc.
> >
> > Ah ... but why would he try to "infiltrate" an anti-Castro group if he
> > was already spending his time *with* anti-Castro Cubans (according to
> > your last post)?
>
> According to the WC, he tried to infiltrate an anti-Castro group. I
> personally think his real infiltration efforts were against leftist
> groups.

But to what end? Why would someone hanging out with other anti-Castro
groups try to infiltrate more anti-Castro groups?

>
> >
> > > > What intelligence operative shoots himself, gets into fights, and gets
> > > > court marshaled while at a "top secret" air base?
> > > > Is this how an operative conducts himself - by drawing so much attention
> > > > to himself?
> > >
> > > You're interpreting those events at face value. Who knows what he was
> > > really up to? If he was an operative, he would sometimes have to find
> > > excuses to get himself away from his normal duties.
> >
> > How else should we interpret these events? I believe you may be
> > interpreting these events through a conspiracy filter. Forget that.
> > Examine the evidence on its own merit. I don't know of any "operative"
> > who would deliberately draw attention to himself in such unforgettable
> > ways.
>
> You still haven't explained the problems I mentioned previously with
> regard to Oswald's remarkable behavior in the Marines. How does someone
> like that get an honorable early discharge? While he was still in the
> Marines, he applied for a passport listing the USSR and Cuba as possible
> destinations. This passport required an accompanying Marine Corps
> certification, but still they believed him when he said he was going to
> care for his sick mother. It doesn't wash, Steve.

It doesn't? It happened. Why doesn't it wash?

>
> > >
> > > > > The Soviets? I guess you have to assume that his defection was for
> > > real.
> > > >
> > > > Can you prove that it was not for "real"? Are you suggesting that it
> > > > was a "fake" defection?
> > >
> > > That's right.
> >
> > I don't suppose you have any evidence for that?
>
> I've posted a ton of circumstantial evidence for it on this NG in the
> past.

Sorry, I haven't seen it. Can you give me a brief and concise synopsis
of your ton of evidence? Only the strongest evidence, please.

> > >
> > > > > And then he waltzes back to the US and is left entirely alone by the
> > > > > authorities. Except for a brief talk with the FBI, he isn't interrogated
> > > > > or debriefed or court martialed or anything. He was still in the
> > > > > reserves when he defected, and could have been brought up on charges. At
> > > > > the very least, *someone* in US intelligence would want to ask him,
> > > > > "What did you see in Minsk? Any spy schools there?"
> > > >
> > > > Have you compared his history to the others that defected also at the
> > > > time?
> > >
> > > Yeah, there several defectors around the same time, "discontented" young
> > > men from similar backgrounds. In all likelihood, it was part of a phony
> > > defector program.
> >
> > "In all likelihood" is not proof, though. Again, are you interested in
> > putting some of these doubts and suspicions to bed, or do you want to be
> > guessing about this forever?
>
> How am I supposed to do that, Steve? Raid the files at Langley,
> Virginia?

There are files on the other defectors available at The National
Archives. Do some research on your own. You won't regret it.

>
> >
> > > > I have never believed that our government would *not* have an interest
> > > > in at least talking to him either, once he returned. So on this, we may
> > > > agree.
> > >
> > > So what do you think the explanation is? Just incompetence? It's funny
> > > how Oswald had one official mistake after another occur - always in his
> > > favor. Usually when the government screws up, it's not in your favor.
> >
> > A sweeping generalization that can be disproved by recalling those who
> > receive millions in IRS tax refund checks by mistake.
>
> This is hardly even in the same league.

I would say it definitely contradicts your point about the government's
screw ups -not- being in "your" favor.

> > There was an HSCA witness from the CIA who actually said just that, that
> > they 'blew it' - absolutely, wrt Oswald.
>
> "We're incompetent, not conspiratorial," is the favorite phrase used in
> Washington.

Ergo, it is never true, right? Once again, I don't see this same
mistrust of *anything* the arrested Oswald said, by you. MOF, you seem
to fully accept EVERYTHING he said at face value. You do realize most
people in prison will tell you they are innocent, don't you?

> > > > > The Cubans? Oswald never made any *real* attempt to link up with
> > > > > pro-Castro Cubans.
> > > >
> > > > I think you are wrong. There is evidence that he most certainly did,
> > > > while in Mexico City, not to mention his "dream" of joining Castro
> > > > while in the Marines.
> > > >
> > > > ... He never tried to find any like-minded people at
> > > > > Tulane University, which was loaded with Castro sympathizers. Instead,
> > > > > he seems to have spent all his time with anti-Castro Cubans.
> > > >
> > > > "All his time with anti-Castro Cubans" ? I disagree. Please support
> > > > this assertion with evidence.
> > >
> > > I should have said that all of the time he spent with Cubans was always
> > > with the anti-Castro variety. Carlos Bringuier and his group, for
> > > example.
> >
> > But you said earlier (above) that he tried to "infiltrate" anti-Castro
> > groups. This doesn't make sense if "all of the time he spent" was with
> > the "anti-Castro variety" does it?
> >
>
> As I explained above, the WC said he tried to infiltrate an anti-Castro
> group.

So now you believe the WC? I asked you if this made sense, if he hung
out with anti-Castro types (an assertion you made but have not proven)
and you dodge the question.

>
> > > >
> > > > > And Marina? They had had plenty of fights in the past, and the idea that
> > > > > their most recent spat caused him to kill JFK is beyond belief.
> > > >
> > > > Not "caused" but perhaps the last hope for a family life was removed.
> > > > You don't doubt that he really loved Marina and his children, do you?
> > >
> > > There's no doubt he loved his children; I don't know about Marina. But
> > > she never told him, "Get out and never come back!"
> >
> > She was cruel and rebuked him, repeatedly. She made it clear that she
> > was better off with Ruth Paine than with him.
>
> And he supposedly wanted to send her back to Russia without him; doesn't
> sound like he cared about her very much.

Is that what he said to her on 11/21/63? We aren't talking about
EVERYTHING LHO ever said to Marina, we were speaking of the night prior
to the assassination when he desired a reconciliation.

>
> > > > There was discussion by psychiatrists during the WC hearings, I
> > > > believe, that dealt with this issue, but was left out of the final
> > > > report.
> > > >
> > > > However, in Marina's appearance on OPRAH last year, she lamented that
> > > > she might have been able to prevent him from doing what he did, 'if she
> > > > hadn't been so mean to him that night; if she had been a little nicer to
> > > > him,' etc., then maybe the assassination wouldn't have happened at all.
> > > >
> > > > I think it's sad that she would carry such a burden around all these
> > > > years, but she did suggest that she might've been able to prevent it.
> > >
> > > I can see she's changed her story again. I thought she also told Oprah
> > > that Oswald "loved" JFK. Maybe it was some other show.
> >
> > There you go again, trying to understand a motive. :-)
>
> What do you mean by that?

You are presuming that there had to have been a motive.

No evidence in a case is "solid and seamless." Have you ever been
involved in a legal proceeding? There is usually conflicting
testimonies heard, conflicting evidence presented. It is the STRONGEST
evidence, known as the preponderance of the evidence, that is supposed
to decide a case. The strongest evidence in this case suggests that LHO
killed Tippit and probably killed JFK.

> Remember after he was arrested in New Orleans (after that phony street
> fight), he asked for an FBI agent to come talk with him in his jail
> cell? How many genuine Communists would want to talk with the FBI?
>

Another factoid, but irrelevant to the question of Oswald's guilt in the
case. Could it be that LHO felt entitled to speak with someone more
important than a mere local police representative?

STEVE

Steve Keating

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

Bruce J Schuck wrote:

> If it was so easy, why did the shooter miss the easiest, closest shot
> (according to your theory)?

My response to Tracy was an opinion based upon my experience as having
shot high powered rifles at moving targets, and from having stood in the
old TSBD next to the SN and seeing for myself. It was not a theory. But
as to your question, I can only speculate, the same as you. But first, I
need to know if you believe that there indeed was an early missed shot
say circa 155-165. If you don't, then I need not waste my time on any
such speculation.

Steve K.

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

Steve Keating wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> a bunch snipped
>

> > I've heard that. But I'm also aware of how tall a sixth-floor window is,
> > and how far 50 or 100 yards is.
>

> Yes, Tracy, but from a shooter's perspective 58 or 89 yards is very

> short yardage, with or without a scope. Just ask some if you don't
> believe me. But don't cloud the issue by adding umproved statements such
> as 5.6 second timeframes, inoperable weapon, poor shooter, etc.

The 5.6 second timeframe, the problems with the weapon and the testimony
about Oswald's poor shooting ability all come from the WC's own
evidence. Is it no longer OK to quote from the Warren Commission?

> Just ask
> a person that shoots high powered rifles if they think that a shot at a
> slow moving straight away target with or without a scope propped up on a
> box and shooting at a target of 58/89 yds is difficult. What Steve was
> saying is that those of us who shoot and have stood next to the SN in
> the old TSBD can see clearly just how small the plaza is and just how
> easy the shots were for an average to good shooter. And remember, once
> you learn shooting basics, you don't need much practice to execute what
> you have learned. Practice makes you sharper, but once you learn to
> shoot properly, you don't forget the basics.

I'm sure you don't forget the basics (how to pull the trigger, how to
work the bolt, how to load the ammo), but speed and accuracy are a
different matter altogether. Your claim that you could do the shooting
easily doesn't really amount to much more than bragging, Steve. I would
have to see ya prove it, pardner.

Tracy

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

Steve Keating wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle wrote:
>

> > If I can find that article, I'll post it. I remember she said something
> > about him hitting the gas or brake too hard. Anyway, I may be making too
> > big a deal about his driving ability. Still, I remember several
> > acquaintances who told the WC that he was awkward and physically frail.
>
> Perhaps you need to ask Officer McDonald and the other three or four
> officers that it took to subdue LHO at the TT. McDonald is only alive
> today (I assume he is) because the fleshy part of his left hand got in
> between the hammer and firing pin of LHO's revolver as LHO pulled it to
> kill him.

Of course, the other version of that story (still told by some
lone-nutters) is that the gun misfired. So which version is correct?

Tracy

jerrymac

unread,

Jan 14, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/14/98

Tracy Riddle wrote in message <34BD40...@tfb.com>...

Tracy,

I don't know if you've seen it, but there's a discussion about that very
matter in the thread called "Misfire at the Texas Theater".

jerrymac

Howard Rogers

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

Bruce J Schuck wrote in message <69j6dj$gl2$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...

>In article <34BCF0...@lucent.com>, jkea...@lucent.com wrote:
>>Tracy Riddle wrote:
>>
>>a bunch snipped
>>

>>> I've heard that. But I'm also aware of how tall a sixth-floor window is,
>>> and how far 50 or 100 yards is.
>>

>>Yes, Tracy, but from a shooter's perspective 58 or 89 yards is very
>>short yardage, with or without a scope.
>

>If it was so easy, why did the shooter miss the easiest, closest shot
>(according to your theory)?
>

Nerves.

Regards
HJR

Bruce J Schuck

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

In article <69jpai$60g$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>, "Howard Rogers" <Howa...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>Bruce J Schuck wrote in message <69j6dj$gl2$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
>>In article <34BCF0...@lucent.com>, jkea...@lucent.com wrote:
>>>Tracy Riddle wrote:
>>>
>>>a bunch snipped
>>>

>>>> I've heard that. But I'm also aware of how tall a sixth-floor window is,
>>>> and how far 50 or 100 yards is.
>>>

>>>Yes, Tracy, but from a shooter's perspective 58 or 89 yards is very
>>>short yardage, with or without a scope.
>>
>>If it was so easy, why did the shooter miss the easiest, closest shot
>>(according to your theory)?
>>
>
>
>Nerves.

Sure...........

Remove the nospamatall from my e-mail address

Bruce J Schuck

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

In article <34BD68...@lucent.com>, jkea...@lucent.com wrote:

>Bruce J Schuck wrote:
>
>> If it was so easy, why did the shooter miss the easiest, closest shot
>> (according to your theory)?
>

>My response to Tracy was an opinion based upon my experience as having
>shot high powered rifles at moving targets, and from having stood in the
>old TSBD next to the SN and seeing for myself.

The capability of making one shot I will allow.

However, missing the first shot and then hitting the next two harder shots
with the MC that required the reacquisition of the target after cycling
thru the bolt is not belivable.

>It was not a theory. But
>as to your question, I can only speculate, the same as you. But first, I
>need to know if you believe that there indeed was an early missed shot
>say circa 155-165. If you don't, then I need not waste my time on any
>such speculation.

There is no evidence for a 155-165 shot.

As I've posted before, the Secret Service agents had to be dead to have not
reacted to such an early shot ... and none of them reacted until
after Z200.

Who reacts to this mythical Posner-inspired early shot?

Name them and the frames it occurs and we can debate it.

Howard Rogers

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

Bruce J Schuck wrote in message <69k08q$rhs$4...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...

>In article <69jpai$60g$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>, "Howard Rogers"
<Howa...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>Bruce J Schuck wrote in message <69j6dj$gl2$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
>>>In article <34BCF0...@lucent.com>, jkea...@lucent.com wrote:
>>>>Tracy Riddle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>a bunch snipped
>>>>

>>>>> I've heard that. But I'm also aware of how tall a sixth-floor window
is,
>>>>> and how far 50 or 100 yards is.
>>>>

>>>>Yes, Tracy, but from a shooter's perspective 58 or 89 yards is very
>>>>short yardage, with or without a scope.
>>>

>>>If it was so easy, why did the shooter miss the easiest, closest shot
>>>(according to your theory)?
>>>
>>
>>

>>Nerves.
>
>Sure...........
>

Bear with me.... *if* Oswald did it, he appears to have done it very much as
a spur-of-the-moment thing, no? His first shot is therefore a major point
of no return for someone who apparently has *not* spent months planning and
rehearsing his actions. He is about to shoot the President of the United
States. He is about to take his place on the world stage for all time. A
life-turning point.

I sure as hell would be nervous! And exhilerated. And scared. And...
well, 'nervous' sums it up, I think.

Wouldn't you?

And having fluffed the first shot, which represents some kind of commitment
to doing the job properly (you can't just pretend you didn't attempt to
shoot the President), he pulled himself together to make sure he finished
what he'd started.

It makes sense to me. He wasn't a robot: he *would* have been feeling a
swell of emotions at that first shot.

Of course, whether he *actually* did any of this is, I guess, the moot
point.

Regards
HJR

Bruce J Schuck

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

In article <69k6jl$b4s$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>, "Howard Rogers" <Howa...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>Bruce J Schuck wrote in message <69k08q$rhs$4...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
>>In article <69jpai$60g$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>, "Howard Rogers"
><Howa...@ozemail.com> wrote:
>>>Bruce J Schuck wrote in message <69j6dj$gl2$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
>>>>In article <34BCF0...@lucent.com>, jkea...@lucent.com wrote:
>>>>>Tracy Riddle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>a bunch snipped
>>>>>

>>>>>> I've heard that. But I'm also aware of how tall a sixth-floor window
>is,
>>>>>> and how far 50 or 100 yards is.
>>>>>

>>>>>Yes, Tracy, but from a shooter's perspective 58 or 89 yards is very
>>>>>short yardage, with or without a scope.
>>>>
>>>>If it was so easy, why did the shooter miss the easiest, closest shot
>>>>(according to your theory)?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Nerves.
>>
>>Sure...........
>>
>
>
>Bear with me.... *if* Oswald did it, he appears to have done it very much as
>a spur-of-the-moment thing, no?

No. Since if he did it, he had to plan to return to the Paines to get the
rifle, smuggle into into the TSBD, construct the snipers nest, sneak
back to the 6th floor after lunch etc etc.

>His first shot is therefore a major point
>of no return for someone who apparently has *not* spent months planning and
>rehearsing his actions. He is about to shoot the President of the United
>States. He is about to take his place on the world stage for all time. A
>life-turning point.
>
>I sure as hell would be nervous! And exhilerated. And scared. And...
>well, 'nervous' sums it up, I think.
>
>Wouldn't you?
>
>And having fluffed the first shot, which represents some kind of commitment
>to doing the job properly (you can't just pretend you didn't attempt to
>shoot the President), he pulled himself together to make sure he finished
>what he'd started.

Yeah ...and how many 10's of seconds did it take to pull himself together?

You know what happens to golfers when they flub an easy putt...they
smash the putter into the ground and then take time to pull themselves
together after missing an easy one.

And these are pros!

Oswald wasn't a pro sniper.

>It makes sense to me. He wasn't a robot: he *would* have been feeling a
>swell of emotions at that first shot.

Yeah, and never recovered after missing the first easy shot!

>
>Of course, whether he *actually* did any of this is, I guess, the moot
>point.

Very unlikely.

Jim Hargrove

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

Tracy Riddle wrote:

>Of course, the other version of that story (still told by some
>lone-nutters) is that the gun misfired. So which version is correct?

More than this needs to be corrected. The DPD Homicide Report for Tippitt,
written by Officer C.E. Talbert, indicates that Oswald "was later arrested
in the balcony of the Texas Theatre at 231 W. Jefferson. Suspect's gun was
recovered [no mention of Oswald's attempt to fire it??] and turned over to
the Homicide Bureau."

So, did the alleged Oswald's alleged gun alledgedly misfire or allegedly get
the hammer caught up in his hand when the alleged assassin was allegedly on
the balcony AND allegedly on the main floor?

Warren loyalists will chalk this up to yet another error, but John Armstrong
has a far more interesting thesis. (And thanks again to Michael Parks for
kindly sharing some of Mr. Armstrong's documentation.)

--Jim Hargrove
The letters "KILLSPAM" were added to my address as an anti-spam measure.
If you wish to send me email, remove "KILLSPAM" from my address before sending.

Steve Keating

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

Howard Rogers wrote:

> Bear with me.... *if* Oswald did it, he appears to have done it very much as
> a spur-of-the-moment thing, no?

Not entirely, Howard. The evidence shows that he premeditated the murder
at least by two or three days. He took positive actions to secure the
rifle, disguise the rifle on 11/22 as he carried it in, to set up the SN
and hide it from view, and to make sure as much as possible that he
alone would be on the 6th floor. His clipboard which was found later
proves that he did no work on the morining of 11/22. This somewhat
qualifies for spur-of-the-moment, but there is certainly premeditation.
We can also infer from this that he chose to shoot down elm because the
SN was set up for that. Whether it was shooting preference (actually
smarter) or protection, it is speculation and does not really matter.
But he did think about it.

His first shot is therefore a major point
> of no return for someone who apparently has *not* spent months planning and
> rehearsing his actions. He is about to shoot the President of the United
> States. He is about to take his place on the world stage for all time. A
> life-turning point.

You are right he had a once in a lifetime chance for this and he went
for it.

>
> I sure as hell would be nervous! And exhilerated. And scared. And...
> well, 'nervous' sums it up, I think.
>
> Wouldn't you?

Sure, and you sum it up very well. But you and I have not predisposed
ourselves to murder of the president as LHO did. He was cold and
calculating. He had no real reason to live or go on in his own mind. By
leaving his money and ring on the dresser he was saying that he was done
with his family. He was pretty much committed in his own mind to action
if the opportunity arose.

>
> And having fluffed the first shot, which represents some kind of commitment
> to doing the job properly (you can't just pretend you didn't attempt to
> shoot the President), he pulled himself together to make sure he finished
> what he'd started.

Exactly. We are speculating, but it is a logical inference based upon
the evidence.

>
> It makes sense to me. He wasn't a robot: he *would* have been feeling a
> swell of emotions at that first shot.

Yes, but he also knew that he had enough time to continue shooting when
he had a good sight picture. And he knew that he was in no danger of
return fire (if he even cared at that point).

>
> Of course, whether he *actually* did any of this is, I guess, the moot
> point.

Maybe, but the logic of his actions still holds up. When doing any
investigation, you must make logical inferences about what the evidence
shows. Good post.

Steve K.
>
> Regards
> HJR

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/15/98

> > Steve Bochan wrote:
> > >
>
> Tracy - there is no way I can repost all of the previous dialogue
> without my server chopping off my responses. Sorry. People can always
> scroll back to read what's already been said, anyway.

That's OK; my browser sometimes crashes if my posts get too enormous.

> > > You qualify by saying *if* "the plotters controlled the crime scene."
> > > Well, did they or didn't they? That means "they" controlled the limo,
> > > too. How many "plotters" do we have now?
> >
> > They *did* control the crime scene; including the limo.
> >
>
> So now we're including the Secret Service? How many does that make
> *now* Tracy?
>

I believe that some of the SS were involved after the fact to help wrap
up the case against Oswald. A lot of people who weren't involved in the
plot to kill JFK helped "improve" the case against the lone gunman.

> > > No, I haven't ... I am trying to go along with your idea of a planted
> > > CE399. If police can't be trusted with *any* evidence, we are all in
> > > very serious trouble as a country, yes?
> >
> > Well, look at the RFK assassination; the LAPD later admitted to
> > destroying a great deal of evidence it had in that case (ceiling panels
> > with bullet holes in them, etc.) It is a serious problem.
>
> Let's stick to the JFK assassination for now. Are you suggesting that
> we are not to trust law enforcement in this country?

There are good cops and there are bad cops. Unfortunately, most police
departments around the country have long, sorry track records of
corruption and dishonesty. Ever heard of Frank Serpico? Are you aware of
the well-documented ties between various police departments and local
mobsters throughout this century? I think things are better today than
30 or 50 or 100 years ago, but not much better.

> > > You didn't answer the question: would planting CE399 make Oswald
> > > *innocent* of the crime?
> >
> > Since Oswald's guilt is based on the physical evidence, if the police
> > planted even one piece of that evidence, then it immediately calls the
> > rest of it into question. How do we know the rest of it wasn't planted?
>
> But what about the other bullets that were matched to Oswald's rifle?
> You ask, "how do we know ..." but never come up with a way to resolve
> the question. If you want to assert that the rest of the evidence was
> planted, be my guest -- you will have a spellbound audience watch you
> try to describe how it was done and by WHOM.

> The palm print was not so mysterious. Have you read anything *not* of
> conspiracy-oriented literature?

Yes, I've read Case Closed, David Belin's books, Jim Moore's 'Conspiracy
of One,' Bishop, Manchester, Charles Roberts, Trask and a number of
others. We're supposed to believe that the DPD found the palm print the
night of the assassination, but didn't tell the press about it (though
they were telling the press *everything* they had, including phony stuff
like the chicken lunch). They supposedly lifted the print so completely
that the FBI couldn't find it. Then, after Oswald is killed, the police
come out and said, "Oh, by the way, did we forget to tell you we found
his prints on the rifle?"

Are you aware that the Fort Worth Press reported 11/25/1963 that when
Oswald's body was taken to Miller's Funeral Home in Fort Worth, police
with dogs stood guard, but the only visitors were a team of FBI agents
who spent more than an hour with Oswald's body. The paper said the
agents brought a crime lab kit with them. Undertaker Paul Groody later
said that they fingerprinted the corpse again. The FBI also brought the
rifle with them. FBI Agent Richard Harrison told Gary Mack 1978 that it
was his understanding that his fellow agent was to put Oswald's palm
print on the rifle for 'comparison purposes.'
The funeral home director told Jim Marrs "I had a heck of a time getting
the black fingerprint ink off of [Oswald's] hands."

Doesn't any of this make you a bit suspicious?

> > > Please don't take this the wrong way. If you don't have the answers to
> > > some of the questions you have raised, and it has been 34 + years after
> > > the fact, how much longer will it take? When you say things like "I
> > > don't care" about what experts have to say, then why bother with the
> > > evidence at all? You've already determined the outcome, no matter what
> > > *anyone* has to say - even those who may know more than you. How can
> > > anyone hope to reason with you when your mind is already made up,
> > > regardless of the expertise of those who do understand the evidence?
> >
> > Steve, do you believe that experts always tell the truth? If they were
> > to tell you that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, would
> > you believe them or trust your own eyes?
>
> I trust people who place their lives at risk daily for the greater good,
> yes. I give them the benefit of the doubt because they are the experts
> in solving and preventing crime. That is not to say experts don't make
> mistakes - they do. But your tone throughout this discussion is one of
> total MIStrust of ANYTHING official, which in my view is terribly
> misguided.

Frankly, Steve, your view that authorities can automatically be trusted
is, well, I'm sure you've been called naive a lot on this NG. I would
love to be able to trust the authorities, but they have to earn my trust
- not expect blind faith. They have to have a track record of telling
the truth for reasonable people to trust them. Forget the JFK case for a
moment; can you possibly be unaware of the countless instances of
official deception (federal, state and local) in numerous instances
throughout our country's history?
A good example of local police plotting murder with extremists is the
death of the three civil rights workers in Mississippi in '64.

> No expert I know has ever suggested the sun rises in the west, btw.

No, but we have been asked to believe a lot of absurd things over the
years. Remember the official assurances that Agent Orange wouldn't hurt
our GIs? How about recent attempts by the Pentagon to ridicule the Gulf
War Syndrome? What about the decades of secret radiation experiments on
unwitting people? Look at the scientists who were hired by the tobacco
industry to spread the word that smoking isn't harmful. Doesn't any of
that cause you to be skeptical of experts?

> Take the backyard photos for
> > example; the government has assembled experts to assure us that they
> > aren't composites, but I've never been able to recreate those shadow
> > discrepancies in the real world. Shadows behave the same in California
> > as they do in Texas.
>
> So .... how many does that make now in your suspected "plot"? Are we up
> to 20 yet in this ever-growing conspiracy?

You keep wanting me to provide you with a running count of plotters.
You're also assuming that each piece of manufactured evidence must have
been produced by a separate person, rather than a small number of people
being responsible for most of it.

> > It all comes down to thinking for yourself; if the experts tell you
> > something that is obviously bullshit, then it's time to start trusting
> > your own common sense.
>
> Exactly. So when do you start trusting your own common sense about how
> utterly ridiculous the "plotters" have been in trusting so many people
> not to ever talk. Have you added up how many would be involved, yet?
> There's the DPD, SS, some photo composite expert, Marina (for testifying
> that she took the photo in question) .... who else, oh yes, the 8 you
> named yesterday,

Please don't misrepresent what I say, Steve. You said, "There's the
DPD...[and] the 8 you named yesterday..." I never said the entire DPD
was involved in the plot; only a small number of them. Most of the cops
ran to the grassy knoll after the shooting; they were just doing their
job.

> and then there are the masterminds who hatched the plot
> in the first place but let others do the dirty work. Tell me, does LHO
> fit in anywhere, in this plot of yours?

He may or may not, I'm not sure. But I'm convinced he wasn't a shooter.

> >
> > Did they find cranial debris, blood and/or tissue in the limo fragments?
>
> Once again, you question the expert findings while dodging the impact of
> what those findings mean. Do you ever question any of LHO's statements
> with the same intensity you question the official statements?

Yes, I have. I don't trust anybody in this case, Steve. My critical
thinking abilities are about all I can rely on.

> Or do you simply TRUST whatever he said without question, while
> automatically mistrusting those whose job it was to find the
> murderer(s?) of Tippit and JFK?
>
> Do you think LHO shot Tippit, btw, or do you doubt *that* too?

I'm not as certain about the Tippit shooting, though there are a
multitude of problems with the official story there as well. I'm sure
you're aware of them all by now, though they apparently don't bother
you. The biggest problem I have is that his landlady last saw him
standing at the bus stop waiting for a bus that would take him *away*
from the Tippit murder scene.

> >
> > > > Remember what Police chief Jesse Curry wrote in his 'Assassination
> > > > File': "The physical evidence and eyewitness accounts do not clearly
> > > > indicate what took place on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book
> > > > Depository at the time John F. Kennedy was assassinated...We don't have
> > > > any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been
> > > > able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand."
> > >
> > > Yes that is true, but the majority of the investigators who actually did
> > > the legwork that day were firmly convinced that Oswald was indeed the
> > > shooter. And look at his language very carefully. He doesn't say that
> > > he thinks Oswald didn't do it. He also doesn't say that 'nobody's yet
> > > been able to put ANYONE ELSE in that building with a gun in his hand'
> > > either, but we know *someone* had to be in there doing the shooting.
> >
> > C'mon Steve; he said nobody has been able to put *Oswald* in that
> > window. Since he was the only one arrested (not true actually), I guess
> > that means he must have done it, right?
>
> No you missed my point. If Oswald didn't do the shooting, then who did?
> They weren't able to place anyone else up in that window either, so are
> we supposed to conclude no one shot at JFK from the window that day?

The real gunmen didn't hang around waiting to get caught; they didn't
stop to buy a Coke and give directions to a phone like Oswald did.

> > > Or do you want to posit another shooting location, having never visited
> > > the site yourself?
> >
> > I think the head shot at least came from the front. That's another
> > instance of our being asked to accept the unbelievable in this case -
> > somehow a bullet slamming into the back of his head at 2000fps is going
> > to cause his head to go violently backwards. And I've heard the jet
> > effect/neurospasm nonsense, so you don't need to repeat them.
>
> Please visit Dealey Plaza and get back to me *then* about where in the
> front the shooter was.

So, we can't discuss this until I visit DP? My boss isn't likely to let
me take the time off.

>
> > Again, you're assuming that Oswald really did carry the rifle bag into
> > the TSBD. The bag he carried to work that morning was far too small;
> > perhaps you can explain how he could have carried it in the manner
> > described by Frazier and his sister if it was the real rifle bag?
>
> I think your description of "far too small" is an overstatement. Have
> you seen THE TRIAL OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD ? Frazier testified at that
> trial. Also, are you now forgetting that LHO's rifle was indeed found
> inside the TSBD on the day of the assassination? Isn't *that* the
> important issue here, not Frazier's perception of how large or small a
> bag was?

You lone-nutters love to quote Frazier as saying that he only estimated
the length of the bag. I'm not talking about that; I'm referring to the
way he and his sister described Oswald *carrying* the bag. In both
cases, it would be physically impossible to carry the bag in the manner
they described if it was over two feet long. This problem is a
show-stopper for you guys, though you don't seem willing to recognize
that.

> >
> > > > > He was very frugal - not the type to spend money on extras. Not having
> > > > > cleaning equipment or spare ammo does not preclude him from having an
> > > > > interest in rifles.
> > > >
> > > > But the rifle was well-oiled and cleaned, I believe. You can't buy
> > > > bullets in ones or twos, anyway. There weren't even any empty ammo boxes
> > > > found in the trash. Do you really believe he saved his last four bullets
> > > > for 11/22?
> > >
> > > I don't know. They may or may not have been his last four bullets, as
> > > you have acknowledged that this is not a certainty.
> >
> > To me, it's further evidence that he wasn't a rifle enthusiast.
>
> He apparently didn't want to spend money on extras, and you conclude
> he's not an enthusiast?

Extras? Cleaning equipment and a couple of boxes of ammo are extras?

> > >
> > > > > I wouldn't know. Under a raincoat? Carrying it under his arm like one
> > > > > would presume, if one was carrying curtain rods?
> > > >
> > > > That means he would have to keep disassembling it every time he took it
> > > > out. Which brings up an interesting point; once a disassembled rifle is
> > > > re-assembled, it has to be test-fired several times to make sure that
> > > > everything is adjusted properly before doing any serious target
> > > > shooting. LHO obviously wouldn't have had that opportunity on 11/22.
> > >
> > > That is interesting. But 140 - 190 feet is not that great a challenge
> > > for someone familiar with a rifle, is it?
> >
> > Still, you can miss your target if everything isn't adjusted and aligned
> > properly. I see you snipped the part about the timing. You realize that
> > the FBI's 2.3 seconds between shots was *without aiming*?
>
> I see the snipping is bothering you. I was hoping that wouldn't happen
> because it can shift the focus of the discussion to sniping about
> snipping pretty quickly.

I don't mind snipping things we've already gone over, but I've tried to
address every one of your points.

> I already told you that I came to my own conclusions about this by
> listening to people right here about their own experiences firing the MC
> rifle. You seem to want to imply that I only believe the "official"
> conclusions. Independent verification of what you read in this case is
> important, no matter what you believe.
>

I agree. But there are just as many rifle enthusiasts out there who
don't agree with the official solution.

>
> > > There is even more of a mystery than that. In Hosty's book,
> > > _ASSIGNMENT: OSWALD_, he writes of a wallet found at the site of the
> > > Tippit murder with Oswald's identification, and that of Hidell, inside.
> > >
> > > And then there is the version of Oswald's wallet being removed from him
> > > in the police car after his arrest at the Texas Theatre.
> > >
> > > That wallet sure seemed to get around. :-)
> > >
> >
> > Doesn't make you the least bit suspicious?
>
> About where they found his wallet? Yes.

So, what do you think is the explanation for this wallet controversy?
Assuming that Oswald was really guilty.

> >
> > I would love to get answers to my questions, but sometimes life doesn't
> > work that way.
>
> But many of the points you've raised here can be answered with a little
> independent research on your own. Don't take my word or anyone else's,
> use the brain God gave you and investigate for yourself.

The trails in this case are 34 years cold. If this was 1964, I would
definitely travel to Dallas and start talking to people.

> You will not
> regret it. Just be prepared to put much of the myth surrounding this
> case to rest. There are some legitimate open questions remaining about
> this case, but whether someone was shooting from the 6th floor window is
> not one of them.

I don't know whether any shooting came from the sixth floor or not; it's
quite possible that it did. But the evidence that it was Oswald up there
just doesn't hang together.
What do you believe are the legitimate, open questions?

Also, I believe you said in a previous post that Oswald probably didn't
expect to get out alive, so he didn't bring his revolver with him. One
thing I've wondered is: if Oswald was a lone nut who wanted to kill JFK,
why didn't he just take his revolver out to Elm St., wait until the car
drove by, and then leap out and shoot Kennedy in the head at close
range? It would have been very easy, much easier than using a rifle. No
one would have been able to stop him in time.

> > >
> > > According to the Mailer book, he spoke - even bragged - about the new
> > > young President JFK, to his acquaintances in the Soviet Union.
> >
> > So? There still isn't any evidence that he was obsessed enough about JFK
> > to want to kill him for some love/hate reason.
>
> But you are again basing your conclusion on the premise that he *had* to
> be some kind of serious follower of JFK ... why?

You were the one who compared him to people who kill the ones they
love/admire. It would have made more sense if he'd shot Marina.

> > > Nope, he lied repeatedly WITHOUT the WC case against him. Get yourself
> > > a copy of the recording of his WDSU debate and count how many lies you
> > > can catch him in. He lied almost effortlessly.
> >
> > He was in his fake "I'm a Commie" mode, so of course he's going to be
> > telling lies about himself. Steve, you snipped the part about him being
> > under US goverment protection while in the USSR.
>
> Why are you so willing to EXCUSE everything LHO did, while at the same
> time ACCUSE everything law enforcement did in this case? It's one thing
> to be a cynic by nature, but at least be consistent in your cynicism and
> be skeptical of LHO as well.

I am. Oswald wasn't a good guy; he was working for US intelligence.

> A fake "I'm a Commie" mode? Please prove that he was a fake Commie.
>
> Another comment about snipping too, I see. His comment was ambiguous,
> Tracy. Get a copy of that debate and listen to the man lie. You are
> not facing facts, here.

Intelligence operatives don't lie, do they, Steve?

> Prove that it was only an "image" and not for real.

How many communists and former defectors get a new passport in 24 hours?
How does he escape being on Hoover's Security Index? Why does the State
Dept not prepare a lookout card for him? I've heard the lone-nutter
explanations for these "coincidences," by the way, so you needn't
bother.

> >
> > > Question for you: do you think people who attempt suicide are sane?
> >
> > What does that have to do with this case?
>
> Please humor me and answer the question.

Sanity is a very difficult thing to define. Most people are capable of
suicide if circumstances in their life grow bad enough.

> > I don't think Castro or the Soviets had anything to do with the
> > assassination.
>
> That's allowed. :-) But I am not willing to conclude as much until I've
> seen more evidence in the case.

Steve, are you aware that Castro and JFK were just beginning
back-channel talks in late 1963? What could he possibly have to gain by
killing JFK? And the Soviets - what would they gain from putting LBJ in
power? Do you think either country would have used Oswald as an
assassin? His fellow Marines all said he was a terrible shot. I think
they had *real* assassins at their disposal, anyway.

> > > Ah ... but why would he try to "infiltrate" an anti-Castro group if he
> > > was already spending his time *with* anti-Castro Cubans (according to
> > > your last post)?
> >
> > According to the WC, he tried to infiltrate an anti-Castro group. I
> > personally think his real infiltration efforts were against leftist
> > groups.
>
> But to what end? Why would someone hanging out with other anti-Castro
> groups try to infiltrate more anti-Castro groups?

The WC said that he tried to infiltrate Bringuier's group (presumably to
build up his resume or something). *I* didn't say that. I think his
phony FPCC chapter was meant to discredit the real group.

> > > How else should we interpret these events? I believe you may be
> > > interpreting these events through a conspiracy filter. Forget that.
> > > Examine the evidence on its own merit. I don't know of any "operative"
> > > who would deliberately draw attention to himself in such unforgettable
> > > ways.
> >
> > You still haven't explained the problems I mentioned previously with
> > regard to Oswald's remarkable behavior in the Marines. How does someone
> > like that get an honorable early discharge? While he was still in the
> > Marines, he applied for a passport listing the USSR and Cuba as possible
> > destinations. This passport required an accompanying Marine Corps
> > certification, but still they believed him when he said he was going to
> > care for his sick mother. It doesn't wash, Steve.
>
> It doesn't? It happened. Why doesn't it wash?
>

Steve, the logic you just used goes something like this: Why did Oswald
kill Kennedy? Because he was a nut. How do we know he was a nut? Because
he killed Kennedy!

> > > >
> > > > > > The Soviets? I guess you have to assume that his defection was for
> > > > real.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you prove that it was not for "real"? Are you suggesting that it
> > > > > was a "fake" defection?
> > > >
> > > > That's right.
> > >
> > > I don't suppose you have any evidence for that?
> >
> > I've posted a ton of circumstantial evidence for it on this NG in the
> > past.
>
> Sorry, I haven't seen it. Can you give me a brief and concise synopsis
> of your ton of evidence? Only the strongest evidence, please.

I'll post it separately this weekend. I don't have time to dig it up
right now.

> > > > Yeah, there several defectors around the same time, "discontented" young
> > > > men from similar backgrounds. In all likelihood, it was part of a phony
> > > > defector program.
> > >
> > > "In all likelihood" is not proof, though. Again, are you interested in
> > > putting some of these doubts and suspicions to bed, or do you want to be
> > > guessing about this forever?
> >
> > How am I supposed to do that, Steve? Raid the files at Langley,
> > Virginia?
>
> There are files on the other defectors available at The National
> Archives. Do some research on your own. You won't regret it.

Have you read them? Could you share what you've learned with us (since I
don't have time to fly to Washington)? I don't expect to ever find a
document saying, "Yeah, those defectors were really US agents."

> >
> > >
> > > > > I have never believed that our government would *not* have an interest
> > > > > in at least talking to him either, once he returned. So on this, we may
> > > > > agree.
> > > >
> > > > So what do you think the explanation is? Just incompetence? It's funny
> > > > how Oswald had one official mistake after another occur - always in his
> > > > favor. Usually when the government screws up, it's not in your favor.
> > >
> > > A sweeping generalization that can be disproved by recalling those who
> > > receive millions in IRS tax refund checks by mistake.
> >
> > This is hardly even in the same league.
>
> I would say it definitely contradicts your point about the government's
> screw ups -not- being in "your" favor.

I said *usually.* Please don't start an argument over semantics. The
lone-nutters usually do that with me in these threads, and we get
completely off-topic.

> > > There was an HSCA witness from the CIA who actually said just that, that
> > > they 'blew it' - absolutely, wrt Oswald.
> >
> > "We're incompetent, not conspiratorial," is the favorite phrase used in
> > Washington.
>
> Ergo, it is never true, right? Once again, I don't see this same
> mistrust of *anything* the arrested Oswald said, by you. MOF, you seem
> to fully accept EVERYTHING he said at face value. You do realize most
> people in prison will tell you they are innocent, don't you?

Assassins don't. Real lone-nut assassins proudly proclaim to the world
their deed and their motive; or at the very least they don't deny it.

> > > > >
> > > > > > And Marina? They had had plenty of fights in the past, and the idea that
> > > > > > their most recent spat caused him to kill JFK is beyond belief.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not "caused" but perhaps the last hope for a family life was removed.
> > > > > You don't doubt that he really loved Marina and his children, do you?
> > > >
> > > > There's no doubt he loved his children; I don't know about Marina. But
> > > > she never told him, "Get out and never come back!"
> > >
> > > She was cruel and rebuked him, repeatedly. She made it clear that she
> > > was better off with Ruth Paine than with him.

But did she ever tell him not to come around the Paine house again?

> > And he supposedly wanted to send her back to Russia without him; doesn't
> > sound like he cared about her very much.
>
> Is that what he said to her on 11/21/63? We aren't talking about
> EVERYTHING LHO ever said to Marina, we were speaking of the night prior
> to the assassination when he desired a reconciliation.

Well, she didn't kick him out of the bed that night and tell him to
sleep on the sofa.

> You are presuming that there had to have been a motive.

So, you're saying that Oswald had no motive? Killers generally have a
motive, Steve. Are you saying he was completely out of his head? There's
no evidence for that, either.

> > > > > But how does *that* exonerate him? I keep coming back to this question
> > > > > and no one has an answer. CIA informant, FBI informant, who knows what
> > > > > kind of informant --- how does any of this wipe away the enormous
> > > > > evidence against this man? How does it prove that he is innocent?
> > > >
> > > > Well, for one thing, if he was working with US intelligence, then he
> > > > certainly wasn't a "deranged loner," was he?
> > >
> > > But Tracy, how does that exonerate HIM? Do you understand what I am
> > > asking? I haven't said that he was the *only* one who was guilty, I
> > > have just said that he was guilty.
> >
> > If the physical evidence against Oswald was really solid and seamless,
> > then I could accept his guilt; but there are so many problems with the
> > evidence that it took me several posts a while back to list them all.
>
> No evidence in a case is "solid and seamless." Have you ever been
> involved in a legal proceeding? There is usually conflicting
> testimonies heard, conflicting evidence presented. It is the STRONGEST
> evidence, known as the preponderance of the evidence, that is supposed
> to decide a case. The strongest evidence in this case suggests that LHO
> killed Tippit and probably killed JFK.

Mere assertions. The evidence against Oswald is only strong if you don't
examine it too closely.

> > Remember after he was arrested in New Orleans (after that phony street
> > fight), he asked for an FBI agent to come talk with him in his jail
> > cell? How many genuine Communists would want to talk with the FBI?
> >
>
> Another factoid, but irrelevant to the question of Oswald's guilt in the
> case. Could it be that LHO felt entitled to speak with someone more
> important than a mere local police representative?
>

Speak to him about what? A street brawl (which he pleaded guilty to
starting, though he didn't)? A local offense like that is hardly in the
jurisdiction of the FBI.

Steve, earlier you said that Oswald *might* have been an
informer/infiltrator, but that had nothing to do with his guilt. But
have you thought about where your idea would lead? It means that
Oswald's whole Communist image was a put-on, that his pro-Castro
activities were not genuine, that his defection was likely a fake as
well.

Tracy

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98

Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> > Steve Bochan wrote:

<snip>

> > So now we're including the Secret Service? How many does that make
> > *now* Tracy?
> >
>
> I believe that some of the SS were involved after the fact to help wrap
> up the case against Oswald. A lot of people who weren't involved in the
> plot to kill JFK helped "improve" the case against the lone gunman.

So far during this discussion I've remained silent about how many people
you feel free to accuse of murder. To level such a serious charge at so
many people without any evidence or proof would boggle the mind of most
rational people, but it seems to be the norm with some around here. Is
it so easy for you to accuse so many of murder, Tracy, without proof?

<snip>

> > The palm print was not so mysterious. Have you read anything *not* of
> > conspiracy-oriented literature?
>
> Yes, I've read Case Closed, David Belin's books, Jim Moore's 'Conspiracy
> of One,' Bishop, Manchester, Charles Roberts, Trask and a number of
> others. We're supposed to believe that the DPD found the palm print the
> night of the assassination, but didn't tell the press about it (though
> they were telling the press *everything* they had, including phony stuff
> like the chicken lunch). They supposedly lifted the print so completely
> that the FBI couldn't find it. Then, after Oswald is killed, the police
> come out and said, "Oh, by the way, did we forget to tell you we found
> his prints on the rifle?"

Please read FIRST DAY EVIDENCE.

> Are you aware that the Fort Worth Press reported 11/25/1963 that when
> Oswald's body was taken to Miller's Funeral Home in Fort Worth, police
> with dogs stood guard, but the only visitors were a team of FBI agents
> who spent more than an hour with Oswald's body. The paper said the
> agents brought a crime lab kit with them. Undertaker Paul Groody later
> said that they fingerprinted the corpse again. The FBI also brought the
> rifle with them. FBI Agent Richard Harrison told Gary Mack 1978 that it
> was his understanding that his fellow agent was to put Oswald's palm
> print on the rifle for 'comparison purposes.'
> The funeral home director told Jim Marrs "I had a heck of a time getting
> the black fingerprint ink off of [Oswald's] hands."
>
> Doesn't any of this make you a bit suspicious?

It does until you discover that taking prints of a body to match the
prints in a criminal file is standard procedure in closing that file on
someone. The FBI had taken over the case from the DPD. Read FIRST DAY
EVIDENCE and learn about Dallas Police procedures, please, before
jumping to anymore unfounded conclusions.

<snip>

> > I trust people who place their lives at risk daily for the greater good,
> > yes. I give them the benefit of the doubt because they are the experts
> > in solving and preventing crime. That is not to say experts don't make
> > mistakes - they do. But your tone throughout this discussion is one of
> > total MIStrust of ANYTHING official, which in my view is terribly
> > misguided.
>
> Frankly, Steve, your view that authorities can automatically be trusted
> is, well, I'm sure you've been called naive a lot on this NG.

Please do not misstate what my views are. Did you read what I wrote
above ... carefully?

I would
> love to be able to trust the authorities, but they have to earn my trust
> - not expect blind faith.

Fine Tracy, some day when you or someone you care about is the victim of
a crime, call a conspiracy buff instead of the police to help you, since
you cannot trust the authorities until they earn it.

They have to have a track record of telling
> the truth for reasonable people to trust them. Forget the JFK case for a
> moment; can you possibly be unaware of the countless instances of
> official deception (federal, state and local) in numerous instances
> throughout our country's history?
> A good example of local police plotting murder with extremists is the
> death of the three civil rights workers in Mississippi in '64.

Stay focused on the JFK case and tell me where the DP lied.

There was a lot about the '60s that helped divide this nation. I lived
through it as a kid but still remember episodes like Kent State as if it
were yesterday; the race riots in major cities across the country; the
anti-War rallies and peace demonstrations, etc. Anti-authority and
"anti-establishment" sentiment was "in," in the '60s ('don't trust
anyone over 30' was one slogan many lived by) among young people and
probably well deserved.

> > No expert I know has ever suggested the sun rises in the west, btw.
>
> No, but we have been asked to believe a lot of absurd things over the
> years. Remember the official assurances that Agent Orange wouldn't hurt
> our GIs? How about recent attempts by the Pentagon to ridicule the Gulf
> War Syndrome? What about the decades of secret radiation experiments on
> unwitting people? Look at the scientists who were hired by the tobacco
> industry to spread the word that smoking isn't harmful. Doesn't any of
> that cause you to be skeptical of experts?

Has it occurred to you that in all of the examples you list above, the
truth emerged, eventually? Why do you think that is?

> > Take the backyard photos for
> > > example; the government has assembled experts to assure us that they
> > > aren't composites, but I've never been able to recreate those shadow
> > > discrepancies in the real world. Shadows behave the same in California
> > > as they do in Texas.
> >
> > So .... how many does that make now in your suspected "plot"? Are we up
> > to 20 yet in this ever-growing conspiracy?
>
> You keep wanting me to provide you with a running count of plotters.
> You're also assuming that each piece of manufactured evidence must have
> been produced by a separate person, rather than a small number of people
> being responsible for most of it.

Yes Tracy, I am going to demand that you have the courage of your
convictions and begin to name names in your accusations of murder.
Unless you feel it is now proper to go around accusing people of murder
without proof?

<snip>

> Please don't misrepresent what I say, Steve. You said, "There's the
> DPD...[and] the 8 you named yesterday..." I never said the entire DPD
> was involved in the plot; only a small number of them. Most of the cops
> ran to the grassy knoll after the shooting; they were just doing their
> job.

So you've accused 8 DPD of complicity in murder, congratulations.

> > and then there are the masterminds who hatched the plot
> > in the first place but let others do the dirty work. Tell me, does LHO
> > fit in anywhere, in this plot of yours?
>
> He may or may not, I'm not sure. But I'm convinced he wasn't a shooter.

Why? You've accused people of murder with no proof, you've made several
assertions that Oswald was some kind of intelligence operative with no
proof and now, after presumably examining the evidence in the case
against Oswald, you declare he was not a shooter. When does Tracy
Riddle present his proof for his assertions here? I presume your proof
is stronger than all the evidence known and documented to date, and will
easily render the evidence against Oswald invalid.

<snip>

> > Once again, you question the expert findings while dodging the impact of
> > what those findings mean. Do you ever question any of LHO's statements
> > with the same intensity you question the official statements?
>
> Yes, I have. I don't trust anybody in this case, Steve. My critical
> thinking abilities are about all I can rely on.

Please list all of the statements made by LHO that you do not believe,
and then tell us how you can tell when he is or isn't lying. What do
you use as a reference for the truth as far as his public declarations
are concerned?

>
> > Or do you simply TRUST whatever he said without question, while
> > automatically mistrusting those whose job it was to find the
> > murderer(s?) of Tippit and JFK?
> >
> > Do you think LHO shot Tippit, btw, or do you doubt *that* too?
>
> I'm not as certain about the Tippit shooting, though there are a
> multitude of problems with the official story there as well. I'm sure
> you're aware of them all by now, though they apparently don't bother
> you. The biggest problem I have is that his landlady last saw him
> standing at the bus stop waiting for a bus that would take him *away*
> from the Tippit murder scene.

And you would weigh his landlady's recollection as stronger evidence
than those who witnessed the shooting?

<snip>

> > No you missed my point. If Oswald didn't do the shooting, then who did?
> > They weren't able to place anyone else up in that window either, so are
> > we supposed to conclude no one shot at JFK from the window that day?
>
> The real gunmen didn't hang around waiting to get caught; they didn't
> stop to buy a Coke and give directions to a phone like Oswald did.

I'll try again. WHO DID THE SHOOTING, if not Oswald? You have no
qualms about accusing police, the SS and others in complicity of murder,
so what is so difficult about answering this question, especially since
you declare that you are certain that LHO did not do any shooting? You
must have *some* idea of who did ... don't you?

> > > > Or do you want to posit another shooting location, having never visited
> > > > the site yourself?
> > >
> > > I think the head shot at least came from the front. That's another
> > > instance of our being asked to accept the unbelievable in this case -
> > > somehow a bullet slamming into the back of his head at 2000fps is going
> > > to cause his head to go violently backwards. And I've heard the jet
> > > effect/neurospasm nonsense, so you don't need to repeat them.
> >
> > Please visit Dealey Plaza and get back to me *then* about where in the
> > front the shooter was.
>
> So, we can't discuss this until I visit DP? My boss isn't likely to let
> me take the time off.

I think it is the height of irresponsibility, frankly, to accuse people
of murder without any evidence. To do so, and be so resolute in your
conclusions, without ever having visited the scene of the crime itself,
is simply inexcusable. (And you don't trust real police work?)

We are speaking at different levels of understanding about the crime,
and will continue to do so, unless you make the effort to discover for
yourself many of the answers that can be found by visiting Dealey Plaza.
That's the way it is, Tracy. I've been where you are, which is what I
have been trying to tell you all along.

>
> >
> > > Again, you're assuming that Oswald really did carry the rifle bag into
> > > the TSBD. The bag he carried to work that morning was far too small;
> > > perhaps you can explain how he could have carried it in the manner
> > > described by Frazier and his sister if it was the real rifle bag?
> >
> > I think your description of "far too small" is an overstatement. Have
> > you seen THE TRIAL OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD ? Frazier testified at that
> > trial. Also, are you now forgetting that LHO's rifle was indeed found
> > inside the TSBD on the day of the assassination? Isn't *that* the
> > important issue here, not Frazier's perception of how large or small a
> > bag was?
>
> You lone-nutters love to quote Frazier as saying that he only estimated
> the length of the bag.

So you *are* calling me a lone-nutter, Tracy? Have you been paying
attention to anything I've taken the time to convey to you?

I'm not talking about that; I'm referring to the
> way he and his sister described Oswald *carrying* the bag. In both
> cases, it would be physically impossible to carry the bag in the manner
> they described if it was over two feet long. This problem is a
> show-stopper for you guys, though you don't seem willing to recognize
> that.

I don't know who the "you guys" is - but this is no show stopper for me.

Witness recollection about the way Oswald carried a bag is not as
significant as the fact that OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS IN THE TSBD ON 11/22/63,
which should be a show-stopper for any rational person looking
objectively at the evidence.

Deal with *that* fact, and stop getting distracted by the weaker
evidence. BTW, where were the "curtain rods" he brought to work that
day?

<snip>

> > I see the snipping is bothering you. I was hoping that wouldn't happen
> > because it can shift the focus of the discussion to sniping about
> > snipping pretty quickly.
>
> I don't mind snipping things we've already gone over, but I've tried to
> address every one of your points.

OK, I'm going to stop here because this discussion is getting nowhere.

Tracy, you've made a lot of assertions that you have not, nor cannot,
back up with stronger evidence that would supplant the evidence already
well known in this case. I had hoped you would be able to shed some
light on some of this, but to discover that you've reached the
conclusions you've reached without ever having visited Dealey Plaza
yourself, tells me everything I need to know about how far we can hope
to get ... and we're there.

You believe steadfastly in a conspiracy, but can name no conspirators;
you believe LHO was an intelligence operative but can present no
evidence to back that up other than your suspicions; you are convinced
LHO did not do any shooting despite all the evidence, yet cannot lay out
the case for exonerating him. Been there ....

Visit Dealey Plaza and some day we'll talk again. And keep an open
mind, Tracy. You don't know enough about the case yet, and that is no
insult. I said earlier in the discussion that we all learn and come to
our own understanding about this case at our own individual pace, and
you are at a destination that I've already visited in my journey.

STEVE

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98

Steve Bochan wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle wrote:
> >
> > > Steve Bochan wrote:

> > > So now we're including the Secret Service? How many does that make
> > > *now* Tracy?
> > >
> > I believe that some of the SS were involved after the fact to help wrap
> > up the case against Oswald. A lot of people who weren't involved in the
> > plot to kill JFK helped "improve" the case against the lone gunman.
>
> So far during this discussion I've remained silent about how many people
> you feel free to accuse of murder. To level such a serious charge at so
> many people without any evidence or proof would boggle the mind of most
> rational people, but it seems to be the norm with some around here. Is
> it so easy for you to accuse so many of murder, Tracy, without proof?
>

Without proof? You can ignore the overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy
if you like, Steve, but you can't wish it away with your assertions. Are
you aware that David Atlee Philips, before his death, expressed his
belief that the assassination was the work of rogue US intelligence
people?

>
> > > The palm print was not so mysterious. Have you read anything *not* of
> > > conspiracy-oriented literature?
> >
> > Yes, I've read Case Closed, David Belin's books, Jim Moore's 'Conspiracy
> > of One,' Bishop, Manchester, Charles Roberts, Trask and a number of
> > others. We're supposed to believe that the DPD found the palm print the
> > night of the assassination, but didn't tell the press about it (though
> > they were telling the press *everything* they had, including phony stuff
> > like the chicken lunch). They supposedly lifted the print so completely
> > that the FBI couldn't find it. Then, after Oswald is killed, the police
> > come out and said, "Oh, by the way, did we forget to tell you we found
> > his prints on the rifle?"
>
> Please read FIRST DAY EVIDENCE.

And that will somehow make all the problems with the evidence just
disappear like magic? Has the author of First Day Evidence uncovered
anything *new*, or is it just a re-hash of the same things we've heard
before?

> > Are you aware that the Fort Worth Press reported 11/25/1963 that when
> > Oswald's body was taken to Miller's Funeral Home in Fort Worth, police
> > with dogs stood guard, but the only visitors were a team of FBI agents
> > who spent more than an hour with Oswald's body. The paper said the
> > agents brought a crime lab kit with them. Undertaker Paul Groody later
> > said that they fingerprinted the corpse again. The FBI also brought the
> > rifle with them. FBI Agent Richard Harrison told Gary Mack 1978 that it
> > was his understanding that his fellow agent was to put Oswald's palm
> > print on the rifle for 'comparison purposes.'
> > The funeral home director told Jim Marrs "I had a heck of a time getting
> > the black fingerprint ink off of [Oswald's] hands."
> >
> > Doesn't any of this make you a bit suspicious?
>
> It does until you discover that taking prints of a body to match the
> prints in a criminal file is standard procedure in closing that file on
> someone.

They had already fingerprinted him a number of times while he was alive;
did they expect his prints to change after he died? And do you really
believe they brought the rifle in for "comparison purposes?"

> The FBI had taken over the case from the DPD. Read FIRST DAY
> EVIDENCE and learn about Dallas Police procedures, please, before
> jumping to anymore unfounded conclusions.
>

I will read it. And there had better be some new information in it, not
just the same old crap I've read before.

> > > I trust people who place their lives at risk daily for the greater good,
> > > yes. I give them the benefit of the doubt because they are the experts
> > > in solving and preventing crime. That is not to say experts don't make
> > > mistakes - they do. But your tone throughout this discussion is one of
> > > total MIStrust of ANYTHING official, which in my view is terribly
> > > misguided.
> >
> > Frankly, Steve, your view that authorities can automatically be trusted
> > is, well, I'm sure you've been called naive a lot on this NG.
>
> Please do not misstate what my views are. Did you read what I wrote
> above ... carefully?

Yes, I read it: "mistakes were made!" This is what the authorities
always say, Steve. They're never dishonest or corrupt; everything can
always be explained as a mistake!

> I would
> > love to be able to trust the authorities, but they have to earn my trust
> > - not expect blind faith.
>
> Fine Tracy, some day when you or someone you care about is the victim of
> a crime, call a conspiracy buff instead of the police to help you, since
> you cannot trust the authorities until they earn it.

When I'm the victim of a crime, I have to take care of myself. The cops
are too busy arresting prostitutes and handing out traffic tickets to
get there on time.

> They have to have a track record of telling
> > the truth for reasonable people to trust them. Forget the JFK case for a
> > moment; can you possibly be unaware of the countless instances of
> > official deception (federal, state and local) in numerous instances
> > throughout our country's history?
> > A good example of local police plotting murder with extremists is the
> > death of the three civil rights workers in Mississippi in '64.
>
> Stay focused on the JFK case and tell me where the DP lied.

I'm giving you proven, historical examples of where police have been
involved in wrongdoing, because you don't seem to believe this is
possible.

> There was a lot about the '60s that helped divide this nation. I lived
> through it as a kid but still remember episodes like Kent State as if it
> were yesterday; the race riots in major cities across the country; the
> anti-War rallies and peace demonstrations, etc. Anti-authority and
> "anti-establishment" sentiment was "in," in the '60s ('don't trust
> anyone over 30' was one slogan many lived by) among young people and
> probably well deserved.

Well-deserved? These are the same authorities who were behind the
investigation of the Kennedy assassination. Are you saying we shouldn't
trust them?

>
> > > No expert I know has ever suggested the sun rises in the west, btw.
> >
> > No, but we have been asked to believe a lot of absurd things over the
> > years. Remember the official assurances that Agent Orange wouldn't hurt
> > our GIs? How about recent attempts by the Pentagon to ridicule the Gulf
> > War Syndrome? What about the decades of secret radiation experiments on
> > unwitting people? Look at the scientists who were hired by the tobacco
> > industry to spread the word that smoking isn't harmful. Doesn't any of
> > that cause you to be skeptical of experts?
>
> Has it occurred to you that in all of the examples you list above, the
> truth emerged, eventually? Why do you think that is?

The truth eventually emerged because there were people (within the
government, the military, industry or wherever) who had something to
gain from revealing it. Watergate, for example, was not uncovered by
fearless Washington Post reporters (have you read Silent Coup, by the
way?) The coverup fell apart because James McCord and others who had
something to gain opened their mouths.
This isn't true in the JFK assassination. Nobody within the government
has anything to gain from trying to get to the truth about it; instead,
they are in danger of losing what little credibility they still have.

> > > Take the backyard photos for
> > > > example; the government has assembled experts to assure us that they
> > > > aren't composites, but I've never been able to recreate those shadow
> > > > discrepancies in the real world. Shadows behave the same in California
> > > > as they do in Texas.
> > >
> > > So .... how many does that make now in your suspected "plot"? Are we up
> > > to 20 yet in this ever-growing conspiracy?
> >
> > You keep wanting me to provide you with a running count of plotters.
> > You're also assuming that each piece of manufactured evidence must have
> > been produced by a separate person, rather than a small number of people
> > being responsible for most of it.
>
> Yes Tracy, I am going to demand that you have the courage of your
> convictions and begin to name names in your accusations of murder.
> Unless you feel it is now proper to go around accusing people of murder
> without proof?

As I said before, Steve, I have very few names to name. Just as we don't
know who killed Jimmy Hoffa, but we can be pretty sure it was a mob hit.
Do we need to know the names of the hitmen or the man who gave them
their orders in order to accept this?

>
> > Please don't misrepresent what I say, Steve. You said, "There's the
> > DPD...[and] the 8 you named yesterday..." I never said the entire DPD
> > was involved in the plot; only a small number of them. Most of the cops
> > ran to the grassy knoll after the shooting; they were just doing their
> > job.
>
> So you've accused 8 DPD of complicity in murder, congratulations.

Does that shock you, Steve? Again, I point to the local Mississippi cops
who were involved in the killing of the civil rights workers; that's a
proven, historical fact. It *does* happen in the real world.

> > > and then there are the masterminds who hatched the plot
> > > in the first place but let others do the dirty work. Tell me, does LHO
> > > fit in anywhere, in this plot of yours?
> >
> > He may or may not, I'm not sure. But I'm convinced he wasn't a shooter.
>
> Why? You've accused people of murder with no proof, you've made several
> assertions that Oswald was some kind of intelligence operative with no
> proof and now, after presumably examining the evidence in the case
> against Oswald, you declare he was not a shooter. When does Tracy
> Riddle present his proof for his assertions here? I presume your proof
> is stronger than all the evidence known and documented to date, and will
> easily render the evidence against Oswald invalid.

This is one of the reasons I grow very tired of arguing with the
lone-nutters. I've spent months on this NG posting reams of evidence for
a conspiracy (most of which is ignored by the WC defenders), only to
have them say that there is "no evidence...no evidence...no evidence..."

> > > Once again, you question the expert findings while dodging the impact of
> > > what those findings mean. Do you ever question any of LHO's statements
> > > with the same intensity you question the official statements?
> >
> > Yes, I have. I don't trust anybody in this case, Steve. My critical
> > thinking abilities are about all I can rely on.
>
> Please list all of the statements made by LHO that you do not believe,
> and then tell us how you can tell when he is or isn't lying. What do
> you use as a reference for the truth as far as his public declarations
> are concerned?

Primarily, I go by the government's own evidence, memos and documents.
Are they internally consistent on the basic points? No. Are they
externally consistent with the official story we've all been told? No.
Does the story we've been told of Oswald's life make any logical sense?
No. Are his relations with the authorities consistent with him having
been a genuine communist, given what we know about the Marines, FBI,
CIA, etc? No.

> >
> > > Or do you simply TRUST whatever he said without question, while
> > > automatically mistrusting those whose job it was to find the
> > > murderer(s?) of Tippit and JFK?
> > >
> > > Do you think LHO shot Tippit, btw, or do you doubt *that* too?
> >
> > I'm not as certain about the Tippit shooting, though there are a
> > multitude of problems with the official story there as well. I'm sure
> > you're aware of them all by now, though they apparently don't bother
> > you. The biggest problem I have is that his landlady last saw him
> > standing at the bus stop waiting for a bus that would take him *away*
> > from the Tippit murder scene.
>
> And you would weigh his landlady's recollection as stronger evidence
> than those who witnessed the shooting?

Those who witnessed the shooting include Domingo Benevides, who refused
to ID Oswald as the man he saw; Helen Markham, who said the murder
happened at 1:06pm, long before Oswald could have reached the scene;
William Scoggins, who did not see the actual shooting but who did ID
Oswald the next day after seeing his face on the news; and Acquilla
Clemons, who saw two men flee the scene. And there was Warren Reynolds,
who refused to ID Oswald as the man he saw running from the scene, but
after being shot in the head by a mysterious assailant, changed his mind
about that.

>
> > > No you missed my point. If Oswald didn't do the shooting, then who did?
> > > They weren't able to place anyone else up in that window either, so are
> > > we supposed to conclude no one shot at JFK from the window that day?
> >
> > The real gunmen didn't hang around waiting to get caught; they didn't
> > stop to buy a Coke and give directions to a phone like Oswald did.
>
> I'll try again. WHO DID THE SHOOTING, if not Oswald? You have no
> qualms about accusing police, the SS and others in complicity of murder,
> so what is so difficult about answering this question, especially since
> you declare that you are certain that LHO did not do any shooting? You
> must have *some* idea of who did ... don't you?

I don't have their names, addresses and social security numbers, Steve;
but if Oswald didn't do the shooting, THEN SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE. This
is basic logic.

> > > > > Or do you want to posit another shooting location, having never visited
> > > > > the site yourself?
> > > >
> > > > I think the head shot at least came from the front. That's another
> > > > instance of our being asked to accept the unbelievable in this case -
> > > > somehow a bullet slamming into the back of his head at 2000fps is going
> > > > to cause his head to go violently backwards. And I've heard the jet
> > > > effect/neurospasm nonsense, so you don't need to repeat them.
> > >
> > > Please visit Dealey Plaza and get back to me *then* about where in the
> > > front the shooter was.
> >
> > So, we can't discuss this until I visit DP? My boss isn't likely to let
> > me take the time off.
>
> I think it is the height of irresponsibility, frankly, to accuse people
> of murder without any evidence.

Here we go again: "no evidence...no evidence...no evidence."

> To do so, and be so resolute in your
> conclusions, without ever having visited the scene of the crime itself,
> is simply inexcusable. (And you don't trust real police work?)

I have "visited" the scene of the crime in numerous films and photos,
computer models and diagrams.

> We are speaking at different levels of understanding about the crime,
> and will continue to do so, unless you make the effort to discover for
> yourself many of the answers that can be found by visiting Dealey Plaza.
> That's the way it is, Tracy. I've been where you are, which is what I
> have been trying to tell you all along.

Sure you have, Steve. Did you used to believe that Oswald was framed?
And visiting Dealey Plaza suddenly made all the problems with the WC
scenario disappear? Are you aware that four of the seven WC members (who
did visit DP) did not accept the single-bullet theory?

> >
> > You lone-nutters love to quote Frazier as saying that he only estimated
> > the length of the bag.
>
> So you *are* calling me a lone-nutter, Tracy? Have you been paying
> attention to anything I've taken the time to convey to you?

Yes, you believe Oswald was the lone gunman, though you'd like to see
more evidence of a Soviet or Cuban conspiracy. You're not going to find
any evidence of that kind of conspiracy.

> I'm not talking about that; I'm referring to the
> > way he and his sister described Oswald *carrying* the bag. In both
> > cases, it would be physically impossible to carry the bag in the manner
> > they described if it was over two feet long. This problem is a
> > show-stopper for you guys, though you don't seem willing to recognize
> > that.
>
> I don't know who the "you guys" is - but this is no show stopper for me.

> Witness recollection about the way Oswald carried a bag is not as
> significant as the fact that OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS IN THE TSBD ON 11/22/63,
> which should be a show-stopper for any rational person looking
> objectively at the evidence.

And if Oswald was framed, then it would stand to reason that a rifle
linked to him by mail-order would be planted on the scene. It wouldn't
do to plant a rifle that had been bought at a store because there would
be no paper trail leading to LHO.
And if Oswald's bag was clearly not long enough to contain the
disassembled rifle, then it must have arrived at the TSBD in some other
fashion. Obviously, Oswald couldn't have done it.

> Deal with *that* fact, and stop getting distracted by the weaker
> evidence. BTW, where were the "curtain rods" he brought to work that
> day?

Weaker evidence? That's all we have in this case is weak evidence. The
one employee who saw Oswald enter the building (Jack Dougherty) said he
didn't notice anything in Oswald's hands.

>
> > > I see the snipping is bothering you. I was hoping that wouldn't happen
> > > because it can shift the focus of the discussion to sniping about
> > > snipping pretty quickly.
> >
> > I don't mind snipping things we've already gone over, but I've tried to
> > address every one of your points.
>
> OK, I'm going to stop here because this discussion is getting nowhere.

What's the problem, Steve? You've snipped a lot of difficult points that
you don't want to talk about, but I've tried to address all of your
questions. If you're right, and I'm wrong, then you should be able to
obliterate my arguments. But you haven't done that; when you don't snip
my posts, most of your replies are rhetorical.

> Tracy, you've made a lot of assertions that you have not, nor cannot,
> back up with stronger evidence that would supplant the evidence already
> well known in this case. I had hoped you would be able to shed some
> light on some of this, but to discover that you've reached the
> conclusions you've reached without ever having visited Dealey Plaza
> yourself, tells me everything I need to know about how far we can hope
> to get ... and we're there.

I fail to see what is so revelatory about visiting DP. I'm already aware
of how small it is. I know how high a sixth-floor window is. I know how
to estimate distances.

> You believe steadfastly in a conspiracy, but can name no conspirators;
> you believe LHO was an intelligence operative but can present no
> evidence to back that up other than your suspicions; you are convinced
> LHO did not do any shooting despite all the evidence, yet cannot lay out
> the case for exonerating him. Been there ....
>
> Visit Dealey Plaza and some day we'll talk again. And keep an open
> mind, Tracy. You don't know enough about the case yet, and that is no
> insult.

So, please let us in on this hidden wisdom you possess.

> I said earlier in the discussion that we all learn and come to
> our own understanding about this case at our own individual pace, and
> you are at a destination that I've already visited in my journey.
>

And this debate has been just like all the others I've had with WC
supporters. When they run out of the standard arguments (trust the
authorities, trust the experts, how many people would you need in this
conspiracy, etc.), they declare victory and give up.

Tracy

George Lamm, Jr.

unread,

Jan 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/16/98

Tracy...

Just ask Steve to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt... any
evidence that does not have a documented chain of custody is
inadmissible in any court of law in the US... the burden of proof is on
the LN supporters... they are the ones who claim to have the answers...
let them make the case the WC and HSCA couldn't make... in fact the HSCA
concluded that even though they felt that LHO was the only one who hit
JFK there was at least one other (lone nut) shooter and directed the
Justice Department to investigate further... guess the JD felt Bill
Gates was that shooter... later... george

Michael Beck

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 16:19:12 -0800, Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com>
wrote:

snip

>This is one of the reasons I grow very tired of arguing with the
>lone-nutters. I've spent months on this NG posting reams of evidence for
>a conspiracy (most of which is ignored by the WC defenders), only to
>have them say that there is "no evidence...no evidence...no evidence..."

Because there's no evidence.
You've posted reams of magazine and newspaper articles (not evidence),
questionable recollections (not evidence) and bogus forensics (the
bullet went in JFK's back 2") which is also not legitimate evidence.

Everything that you've posted as *evidence* of a conspiracy falls flat
on it's face when examined closely. Everything! Without exception!

You get tired of arguing because you *can't* win. You have to take a
large leap of faith, ignore physical realities, and assume that a
countless number of competing individuals and agencies can conspire in
a seamless and undiscovered way.

So, there's no evidence... no evidence... no evidence!!!

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

Michael Beck wrote:
>
> On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 16:19:12 -0800, Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com>
> wrote:
>
> snip

> >This is one of the reasons I grow very tired of arguing with the
> >lone-nutters. I've spent months on this NG posting reams of evidence for
> >a conspiracy (most of which is ignored by the WC defenders), only to
> >have them say that there is "no evidence...no evidence...no evidence..."
>

> Because there's no evidence.
> You've posted reams of magazine and newspaper articles (not evidence),
> questionable recollections (not evidence) and bogus forensics (the
> bullet went in JFK's back 2") which is also not legitimate evidence.
>
> Everything that you've posted as *evidence* of a conspiracy falls flat
> on it's face when examined closely. Everything! Without exception!
>
> You get tired of arguing because you *can't* win. You have to take a
> large leap of faith, ignore physical realities, and assume that a
> countless number of competing individuals and agencies can conspire in
> a seamless and undiscovered way.
>
> So, there's no evidence... no evidence... no evidence!!!

Lone-nutter robot. I'm not the one who ended the debate, Steve did. And
the debates I've gotten into with you have always ended the same way.
You declare victory and run away. When are we going to hear the rest of
your born-again nutter story? Haven't finished making it up yet?

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

George Lamm, Jr. wrote:
>
> Tracy...
>
> Just ask Steve to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt... any
> evidence that does not have a documented chain of custody is
> inadmissible in any court of law in the US... the burden of proof is on
> the LN supporters... they are the ones who claim to have the answers...
> let them make the case the WC and HSCA couldn't make... in fact the HSCA
> concluded that even though they felt that LHO was the only one who hit
> JFK there was at least one other (lone nut) shooter and directed the
> Justice Department to investigate further... guess the JD felt Bill
> Gates was that shooter... later... george
>

Steve just says, look at the official evidence. It's all there. You and
I know it isn't, but the lone-nutters rely on rhetoric and assertions
("overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt") to make their case.

Tracy

Michael Beck

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 03:31:22 -0800, Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com>
wrote:

>Michael Beck wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 16:19:12 -0800, Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> snip

>> >This is one of the reasons I grow very tired of arguing with the
>> >lone-nutters. I've spent months on this NG posting reams of evidence for
>> >a conspiracy (most of which is ignored by the WC defenders), only to
>> >have them say that there is "no evidence...no evidence...no evidence..."
>>

>> Because there's no evidence.
>> You've posted reams of magazine and newspaper articles (not evidence),
>> questionable recollections (not evidence) and bogus forensics (the
>> bullet went in JFK's back 2") which is also not legitimate evidence.
>>
>> Everything that you've posted as *evidence* of a conspiracy falls flat
>> on it's face when examined closely. Everything! Without exception!
>>
>> You get tired of arguing because you *can't* win. You have to take a
>> large leap of faith, ignore physical realities, and assume that a
>> countless number of competing individuals and agencies can conspire in
>> a seamless and undiscovered way.
>>
>> So, there's no evidence... no evidence... no evidence!!!
>
>Lone-nutter robot. I'm not the one who ended the debate, Steve did. And
>the debates I've gotten into with you have always ended the same way.
>You declare victory and run away. When are we going to hear the rest of
>your born-again nutter story? Haven't finished making it up yet?

I think I'm going to bite the bullet and get it done today.
Then I'll cast off from this group.
Anyway, you *still* haven't posted any legitimate evidence of a
conspiracy.

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

Michael Beck wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 03:31:22 -0800, Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Michael Beck wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 16:19:12 -0800, Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> snip

> >> >This is one of the reasons I grow very tired of arguing with the
> >> >lone-nutters. I've spent months on this NG posting reams of evidence for
> >> >a conspiracy (most of which is ignored by the WC defenders), only to
> >> >have them say that there is "no evidence...no evidence...no evidence..."
> >>

> >> Because there's no evidence.
> >> You've posted reams of magazine and newspaper articles (not evidence),
> >> questionable recollections (not evidence) and bogus forensics (the
> >> bullet went in JFK's back 2") which is also not legitimate evidence.
> >>
> >> Everything that you've posted as *evidence* of a conspiracy falls flat
> >> on it's face when examined closely. Everything! Without exception!
> >>
> >> You get tired of arguing because you *can't* win. You have to take a
> >> large leap of faith, ignore physical realities, and assume that a
> >> countless number of competing individuals and agencies can conspire in
> >> a seamless and undiscovered way.
> >>
> >> So, there's no evidence... no evidence... no evidence!!!
> >
> >Lone-nutter robot. I'm not the one who ended the debate, Steve did. And
> >the debates I've gotten into with you have always ended the same way.
> >You declare victory and run away. When are we going to hear the rest of
> >your born-again nutter story? Haven't finished making it up yet?
>
> I think I'm going to bite the bullet and get it done today.
> Then I'll cast off from this group.
> Anyway, you *still* haven't posted any legitimate evidence of a
> conspiracy.

"Have to!"
"Have not!"
"Have to!"
"Have not!"
"What about my recent Fake Defection post?"
"Doesn't mean anything. It's all a coincidence. Experts said so!!
Experts said so!! Nyah, nyah!"

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote:
> >
> > Tracy Riddle wrote:
> > >
> > > > Steve Bochan wrote:
>
> > > > So now we're including the Secret Service? How many does that make
> > > > *now* Tracy?
> > > >
> > > I believe that some of the SS were involved after the fact to help wrap
> > > up the case against Oswald. A lot of people who weren't involved in the
> > > plot to kill JFK helped "improve" the case against the lone gunman.
> >
> > So far during this discussion I've remained silent about how many people
> > you feel free to accuse of murder. To level such a serious charge at so
> > many people without any evidence or proof would boggle the mind of most
> > rational people, but it seems to be the norm with some around here. Is
> > it so easy for you to accuse so many of murder, Tracy, without proof?
> >
>
> Without proof? You can ignore the overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy
> if you like, Steve, but you can't wish it away with your assertions.

And you can't make it so with YOURS. Why don't you write a conspiracy
book, Tracy? You've done about as much solid research as many of the
others who have authored tomes that prove nothing.

Are
> you aware that David Atlee Philips, before his death, expressed his
> belief that the assassination was the work of rogue US intelligence
> people?

So?

>
> >
> > > > The palm print was not so mysterious. Have you read anything *not* of
> > > > conspiracy-oriented literature?
> > >
> > > Yes, I've read Case Closed, David Belin's books, Jim Moore's 'Conspiracy
> > > of One,' Bishop, Manchester, Charles Roberts, Trask and a number of
> > > others. We're supposed to believe that the DPD found the palm print the
> > > night of the assassination, but didn't tell the press about it (though
> > > they were telling the press *everything* they had, including phony stuff
> > > like the chicken lunch). They supposedly lifted the print so completely
> > > that the FBI couldn't find it. Then, after Oswald is killed, the police
> > > come out and said, "Oh, by the way, did we forget to tell you we found
> > > his prints on the rifle?"
> >
> > Please read FIRST DAY EVIDENCE.
>
> And that will somehow make all the problems with the evidence just
> disappear like magic? Has the author of First Day Evidence uncovered
> anything *new*, or is it just a re-hash of the same things we've heard
> before?

No, that may help OPEN that closed mind of yours.

>
> > > Are you aware that the Fort Worth Press reported 11/25/1963 that when
> > > Oswald's body was taken to Miller's Funeral Home in Fort Worth, police
> > > with dogs stood guard, but the only visitors were a team of FBI agents
> > > who spent more than an hour with Oswald's body. The paper said the
> > > agents brought a crime lab kit with them. Undertaker Paul Groody later
> > > said that they fingerprinted the corpse again. The FBI also brought the
> > > rifle with them. FBI Agent Richard Harrison told Gary Mack 1978 that it
> > > was his understanding that his fellow agent was to put Oswald's palm
> > > print on the rifle for 'comparison purposes.'
> > > The funeral home director told Jim Marrs "I had a heck of a time getting
> > > the black fingerprint ink off of [Oswald's] hands."
> > >
> > > Doesn't any of this make you a bit suspicious?
> >
> > It does until you discover that taking prints of a body to match the
> > prints in a criminal file is standard procedure in closing that file on
> > someone.
>
> They had already fingerprinted him a number of times while he was alive;
> did they expect his prints to change after he died? And do you really
> believe they brought the rifle in for "comparison purposes?"

You are allowing your emotions to cloud your reading comprehension.
Please re-read what I wrote. Oh hell: they wanted to be sure that the
man who was dead was indeed the same man they had arrested 2 days
earlier to close his file. There.

> > The FBI had taken over the case from the DPD. Read FIRST DAY
> > EVIDENCE and learn about Dallas Police procedures, please, before
> > jumping to anymore unfounded conclusions.
> >
>
> I will read it. And there had better be some new information in it, not
> just the same old crap I've read before.

That's it, approach this with an open mind.

>
> > > > I trust people who place their lives at risk daily for the greater good,
> > > > yes. I give them the benefit of the doubt because they are the experts
> > > > in solving and preventing crime. That is not to say experts don't make
> > > > mistakes - they do. But your tone throughout this discussion is one of
> > > > total MIStrust of ANYTHING official, which in my view is terribly
> > > > misguided.
> > >
> > > Frankly, Steve, your view that authorities can automatically be trusted
> > > is, well, I'm sure you've been called naive a lot on this NG.
> >
> > Please do not misstate what my views are. Did you read what I wrote
> > above ... carefully?
>
> Yes, I read it: "mistakes were made!" This is what the authorities
> always say, Steve. They're never dishonest or corrupt; everything can
> always be explained as a mistake!

Your sophomoric responses have gotten weaker. I said that I willingly
give people who place their lives on the line for the rest of us, the
benefit of the doubt. You apparently missed this.

> > I would
> > > love to be able to trust the authorities, but they have to earn my trust
> > > - not expect blind faith.
> >
> > Fine Tracy, some day when you or someone you care about is the victim of
> > a crime, call a conspiracy buff instead of the police to help you, since
> > you cannot trust the authorities until they earn it.
>
> When I'm the victim of a crime, I have to take care of myself. The cops
> are too busy arresting prostitutes and handing out traffic tickets to
> get there on time.

Whatever you say - though I'd hate to live where you live by the way you
describe it. It almost sounds like you don't want the cops arresting
... oh, never mind. Let's not go there.

> > They have to have a track record of telling
> > > the truth for reasonable people to trust them. Forget the JFK case for a
> > > moment; can you possibly be unaware of the countless instances of
> > > official deception (federal, state and local) in numerous instances
> > > throughout our country's history?
> > > A good example of local police plotting murder with extremists is the
> > > death of the three civil rights workers in Mississippi in '64.
> >
> > Stay focused on the JFK case and tell me where the DP lied.
>
> I'm giving you proven, historical examples of where police have been
> involved in wrongdoing, because you don't seem to believe this is
> possible.

You are giving me total bullsh*t. Historical examples have nothing to
do with the specific questions ABOUT THIS CASE that I have asked you to
answer.

>
> > There was a lot about the '60s that helped divide this nation. I lived
> > through it as a kid but still remember episodes like Kent State as if it
> > were yesterday; the race riots in major cities across the country; the
> > anti-War rallies and peace demonstrations, etc. Anti-authority and
> > "anti-establishment" sentiment was "in," in the '60s ('don't trust
> > anyone over 30' was one slogan many lived by) among young people and
> > probably well deserved.
>
> Well-deserved? These are the same authorities who were behind the
> investigation of the Kennedy assassination. Are you saying we shouldn't
> trust them?

Oh Tracy .... earth to Tracy ....

JFK and RFK were part of the establishment.

> >
> > > > No expert I know has ever suggested the sun rises in the west, btw.
> > >
> > > No, but we have been asked to believe a lot of absurd things over the
> > > years. Remember the official assurances that Agent Orange wouldn't hurt
> > > our GIs? How about recent attempts by the Pentagon to ridicule the Gulf
> > > War Syndrome? What about the decades of secret radiation experiments on
> > > unwitting people? Look at the scientists who were hired by the tobacco
> > > industry to spread the word that smoking isn't harmful. Doesn't any of
> > > that cause you to be skeptical of experts?
> >
> > Has it occurred to you that in all of the examples you list above, the
> > truth emerged, eventually? Why do you think that is?
>
> The truth eventually emerged because there were people (within the
> government, the military, industry or wherever) who had something to
> gain from revealing it.

And you think someone wouldn't have something to gain by revealing who
was behind the conspiracy to kill JFK ??!! Are you completely off your
rocker?

Pretty sure, but not 100% sure about Hoffa. Is that good enough for
you? Is it okay to be pretty sure about the JFK case too? We know more
about the JFK case than about the Hoffa case, don't we?

>
> >
> > > Please don't misrepresent what I say, Steve. You said, "There's the
> > > DPD...[and] the 8 you named yesterday..." I never said the entire DPD
> > > was involved in the plot; only a small number of them. Most of the cops
> > > ran to the grassy knoll after the shooting; they were just doing their
> > > job.
> >
> > So you've accused 8 DPD of complicity in murder, congratulations.
>
> Does that shock you, Steve? Again, I point to the local Mississippi cops
> who were involved in the killing of the civil rights workers; that's a
> proven, historical fact. It *does* happen in the real world.

No, I'm afraid your intellectual pratfalls are all too common in this
area. It does not surprise me that you have no qualms to accuse people
of murder without proof. You should be very proud of yourself.

>
> > > > and then there are the masterminds who hatched the plot
> > > > in the first place but let others do the dirty work. Tell me, does LHO
> > > > fit in anywhere, in this plot of yours?
> > >
> > > He may or may not, I'm not sure. But I'm convinced he wasn't a shooter.
> >
> > Why? You've accused people of murder with no proof, you've made several
> > assertions that Oswald was some kind of intelligence operative with no
> > proof and now, after presumably examining the evidence in the case
> > against Oswald, you declare he was not a shooter. When does Tracy
> > Riddle present his proof for his assertions here? I presume your proof
> > is stronger than all the evidence known and documented to date, and will
> > easily render the evidence against Oswald invalid.
>
> This is one of the reasons I grow very tired of arguing with the
> lone-nutters. I've spent months on this NG posting reams of evidence for
> a conspiracy (most of which is ignored by the WC defenders), only to
> have them say that there is "no evidence...no evidence...no evidence..."

Please explain something to me. Why is it that many of the same people
who agree with the 'Crossfire' scenario so aptly described by Joe Pesci
playing David Ferrie in the movie JFK, are loathe to accept the fact
that Oswald was one of the shooters? You do recall how it was
described, don't you? Three men, three locations, but one of them are
sacrificed while the others are flown out of the country.

If you believe in a conspiracy, and that Oswald was in on it, why is it
so difficult to believe that he did some of the shooting as described in
the 'crossfire' scenario?

>
> > > > Once again, you question the expert findings while dodging the impact of
> > > > what those findings mean. Do you ever question any of LHO's statements
> > > > with the same intensity you question the official statements?
> > >
> > > Yes, I have. I don't trust anybody in this case, Steve. My critical
> > > thinking abilities are about all I can rely on.
> >
> > Please list all of the statements made by LHO that you do not believe,
> > and then tell us how you can tell when he is or isn't lying. What do
> > you use as a reference for the truth as far as his public declarations
> > are concerned?
>
> Primarily, I go by the government's own evidence, memos and documents.
> Are they internally consistent on the basic points? No. Are they
> externally consistent with the official story we've all been told? No.
> Does the story we've been told of Oswald's life make any logical sense?
> No. Are his relations with the authorities consistent with him having
> been a genuine communist, given what we know about the Marines, FBI,
> CIA, etc? No.

You once again FAILED to answer the question. You have listed NO
statement *by* Oswald that you disagree with, which does not surprise me
in the least. You trust HIM and MIStrust everyone else.

I did not ask for addresses and social security numbers. I asked what
should be a basic question in the minds of those who promote the
conspiracy scenarioS rampant over the years.

> This is basic logic.

You tempt me when you leave me an opening like that. But I won't. I
see your comments as getting more desperate which is sadly typical and
one of the reasons I tried to end this. I am wasting time with you.

>
> > > > > > Or do you want to posit another shooting location, having never visited
> > > > > > the site yourself?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the head shot at least came from the front. That's another
> > > > > instance of our being asked to accept the unbelievable in this case -
> > > > > somehow a bullet slamming into the back of his head at 2000fps is going
> > > > > to cause his head to go violently backwards. And I've heard the jet
> > > > > effect/neurospasm nonsense, so you don't need to repeat them.
> > > >
> > > > Please visit Dealey Plaza and get back to me *then* about where in the
> > > > front the shooter was.
> > >
> > > So, we can't discuss this until I visit DP? My boss isn't likely to let
> > > me take the time off.
> >
> > I think it is the height of irresponsibility, frankly, to accuse people
> > of murder without any evidence.
>
> Here we go again: "no evidence...no evidence...no evidence."

What was it you said? 'I've posted a ton of garbage that proves there
was a conspiracy - didn't you see it?' Please. You've proven nothing
with your nonsense. Show the courage of your convictions and present
your "evidence" to the ARRB and get them to subpoena those whom you
accuse of murder, for questioning.

Better yet, take your "evidence" to law enforcement and .... oh wait a
minute, that's right, you don't trust law enforcement. Gee, what do you
do with all that evidence then Tracy? Spend time here trying to
convince others of the probity of your arguments?

>
> > To do so, and be so resolute in your
> > conclusions, without ever having visited the scene of the crime itself,
> > is simply inexcusable. (And you don't trust real police work?)
>
> I have "visited" the scene of the crime in numerous films and photos,
> computer models and diagrams.

You have done NOTHING. You have merely regurgitated many of the
conspiracy myths you've read in books and trotted them out here instead
of doing any independent thinking and investigating on your own.

> > We are speaking at different levels of understanding about the crime,
> > and will continue to do so, unless you make the effort to discover for
> > yourself many of the answers that can be found by visiting Dealey Plaza.
> > That's the way it is, Tracy. I've been where you are, which is what I
> > have been trying to tell you all along.
>
> Sure you have, Steve. Did you used to believe that Oswald was framed?
> And visiting Dealey Plaza suddenly made all the problems with the WC
> scenario disappear? Are you aware that four of the seven WC members (who
> did visit DP) did not accept the single-bullet theory?

Yes, of course, Tracy. No sense visiting the scene of the crime to
solve a case. You feel free to criticize the police for their
sloppiness in investigating the case, but then do the same thing
yourself. Outstanding way to go, and *so* convincing.

>
> > >
> > > You lone-nutters love to quote Frazier as saying that he only estimated
> > > the length of the bag.
> >
> > So you *are* calling me a lone-nutter, Tracy? Have you been paying
> > attention to anything I've taken the time to convey to you?
>
> Yes, you believe Oswald was the lone gunman, though you'd like to see
> more evidence of a Soviet or Cuban conspiracy. You're not going to find
> any evidence of that kind of conspiracy.

You are wrong so stop telling me what I believe, okay?

>
> > I'm not talking about that; I'm referring to the
> > > way he and his sister described Oswald *carrying* the bag. In both
> > > cases, it would be physically impossible to carry the bag in the manner
> > > they described if it was over two feet long. This problem is a
> > > show-stopper for you guys, though you don't seem willing to recognize
> > > that.
> >
> > I don't know who the "you guys" is - but this is no show stopper for me.
>
> > Witness recollection about the way Oswald carried a bag is not as
> > significant as the fact that OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS IN THE TSBD ON 11/22/63,
> > which should be a show-stopper for any rational person looking
> > objectively at the evidence.
>
> And if Oswald was framed, then it would stand to reason that a rifle
> linked to him by mail-order would be planted on the scene. It wouldn't
> do to plant a rifle that had been bought at a store because there would
> be no paper trail leading to LHO.
> And if Oswald's bag was clearly not long enough to contain the
> disassembled rifle, then it must have arrived at the TSBD in some other
> fashion. Obviously, Oswald couldn't have done it.

Yes, "obviously" -- you've solved the mystery ... and done it all at
your keyboard.

>
> > Deal with *that* fact, and stop getting distracted by the weaker
> > evidence. BTW, where were the "curtain rods" he brought to work that
> > day?
>
> Weaker evidence? That's all we have in this case is weak evidence.

WeakER evidence. You weigh ALL evidence and go with the strongest
evidence in a case, not only the evidence that supports your point of
view.

The
> one employee who saw Oswald enter the building (Jack Dougherty) said he
> didn't notice anything in Oswald's hands.

So, what, Frazier was lying about Oswald bringing a package to work?

Where were the curtain rods, btw?

>
> >
> > > > I see the snipping is bothering you. I was hoping that wouldn't happen
> > > > because it can shift the focus of the discussion to sniping about
> > > > snipping pretty quickly.
> > >
> > > I don't mind snipping things we've already gone over, but I've tried to
> > > address every one of your points.
> >
> > OK, I'm going to stop here because this discussion is getting nowhere.
>
> What's the problem, Steve? You've snipped a lot of difficult points that
> you don't want to talk about, but I've tried to address all of your
> questions. If you're right, and I'm wrong, then you should be able to
> obliterate my arguments. But you haven't done that; when you don't snip
> my posts, most of your replies are rhetorical.

Don't flatter yourself. I've snipped a lot because I'm not wasting any
more time with someone who thinks he knows more than those who actually
investigated the case, yet can't be bothered to visit the scene of the
crime.

>
> > Tracy, you've made a lot of assertions that you have not, nor cannot,
> > back up with stronger evidence that would supplant the evidence already
> > well known in this case. I had hoped you would be able to shed some
> > light on some of this, but to discover that you've reached the
> > conclusions you've reached without ever having visited Dealey Plaza
> > yourself, tells me everything I need to know about how far we can hope
> > to get ... and we're there.
>
> I fail to see what is so revelatory about visiting DP. I'm already aware
> of how small it is. I know how high a sixth-floor window is. I know how
> to estimate distances.

You FAIL to see a LOT. It will pass though, as you mature.

>
> > You believe steadfastly in a conspiracy, but can name no conspirators;
> > you believe LHO was an intelligence operative but can present no
> > evidence to back that up other than your suspicions; you are convinced
> > LHO did not do any shooting despite all the evidence, yet cannot lay out
> > the case for exonerating him. Been there ....
> >
> > Visit Dealey Plaza and some day we'll talk again. And keep an open
> > mind, Tracy. You don't know enough about the case yet, and that is no
> > insult.
>
> So, please let us in on this hidden wisdom you possess.

I wouldn't want to waste any more time with one who thinks he is smarter
than those who actually investigated the scene of the crime.

>
> > I said earlier in the discussion that we all learn and come to
> > our own understanding about this case at our own individual pace, and
> > you are at a destination that I've already visited in my journey.
> >
>
> And this debate has been just like all the others I've had with WC
> supporters. When they run out of the standard arguments (trust the
> authorities, trust the experts, how many people would you need in this
> conspiracy, etc.), they declare victory and give up.

I haven't run out of arguments. We can argue until doomsday, but if you
are not willing to visit the scene of the crime, not willing to send
away to the National Archives for the files of the other defectors and
other PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL, or do any independent research on your
own, then, why bother?

You're just like any other gullible true believer .... been there.

STEVE

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> Michael Beck wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 03:31:22 -0800, Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Michael Beck wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, 16 Jan 1998 16:19:12 -0800, Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> snip

> > >> >This is one of the reasons I grow very tired of arguing with the
> > >> >lone-nutters. I've spent months on this NG posting reams of evidence for
> > >> >a conspiracy (most of which is ignored by the WC defenders), only to
> > >> >have them say that there is "no evidence...no evidence...no evidence..."
> > >>

Another convincing example of sparkling wit and intelligence coming from
one who "knows" the truth about Dealey Plaza, even though he's never
been to Dealey Plaza.

STEVE

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

> > > > > Steve Bochan wrote:
> >
> > > So far during this discussion I've remained silent about how many people
> > > you feel free to accuse of murder. To level such a serious charge at so
> > > many people without any evidence or proof would boggle the mind of most
> > > rational people, but it seems to be the norm with some around here. Is
> > > it so easy for you to accuse so many of murder, Tracy, without proof?
> > >
> >
> > Without proof? You can ignore the overwhelming evidence of a conspiracy
> > if you like, Steve, but you can't wish it away with your assertions.
>
> And you can't make it so with YOURS. Why don't you write a conspiracy
> book, Tracy? You've done about as much solid research as many of the
> others who have authored tomes that prove nothing.

Or I could be a lone-nutter like Jim Moore and write a really excellent
book, and claim that Kennedy was reacting in fright to the sound of
gunfire when he held his hands up to his neck.

> Are
> > you aware that David Atlee Philips, before his death, expressed his
> > belief that the assassination was the work of rogue US intelligence
> > people?
>
> So?

Do you take lessons from McAdams? He gives me the same replies.

> >
> > >
> > > > > The palm print was not so mysterious. Have you read anything *not* of
> > > > > conspiracy-oriented literature?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I've read Case Closed, David Belin's books, Jim Moore's 'Conspiracy
> > > > of One,' Bishop, Manchester, Charles Roberts, Trask and a number of
> > > > others. We're supposed to believe that the DPD found the palm print the
> > > > night of the assassination, but didn't tell the press about it (though
> > > > they were telling the press *everything* they had, including phony stuff
> > > > like the chicken lunch). They supposedly lifted the print so completely
> > > > that the FBI couldn't find it. Then, after Oswald is killed, the police
> > > > come out and said, "Oh, by the way, did we forget to tell you we found
> > > > his prints on the rifle?"
> > >
> > > Please read FIRST DAY EVIDENCE.
> >
> > And that will somehow make all the problems with the evidence just
> > disappear like magic? Has the author of First Day Evidence uncovered
> > anything *new*, or is it just a re-hash of the same things we've heard
> > before?
>
> No, that may help OPEN that closed mind of yours.

So it has nothing new in it. Not even new interviews? Now *that* sounds
like a re-hash. How could there be anything new in it, after all? Steve,
I've approached *all* of the WC's evidence with an open mind. You can
choose not to believe that if you like; I really couldn't care less.

> >
> > > > Are you aware that the Fort Worth Press reported 11/25/1963 that when
> > > > Oswald's body was taken to Miller's Funeral Home in Fort Worth, police
> > > > with dogs stood guard, but the only visitors were a team of FBI agents
> > > > who spent more than an hour with Oswald's body. The paper said the
> > > > agents brought a crime lab kit with them. Undertaker Paul Groody later
> > > > said that they fingerprinted the corpse again. The FBI also brought the
> > > > rifle with them. FBI Agent Richard Harrison told Gary Mack 1978 that it
> > > > was his understanding that his fellow agent was to put Oswald's palm
> > > > print on the rifle for 'comparison purposes.'
> > > > The funeral home director told Jim Marrs "I had a heck of a time getting
> > > > the black fingerprint ink off of [Oswald's] hands."
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't any of this make you a bit suspicious?
> > >
> > > It does until you discover that taking prints of a body to match the
> > > prints in a criminal file is standard procedure in closing that file on
> > > someone.
> >
> > They had already fingerprinted him a number of times while he was alive;
> > did they expect his prints to change after he died? And do you really
> > believe they brought the rifle in for "comparison purposes?"
>
> You are allowing your emotions to cloud your reading comprehension.
> Please re-read what I wrote. Oh hell: they wanted to be sure that the
> man who was dead was indeed the same man they had arrested 2 days
> earlier to close his file. There.

Right, that's credible. I guess the real Oswald might have escaped or
something during the confusion in the police basement? They had to make
*sure*.

> > > > > I trust people who place their lives at risk daily for the greater good,
> > > > > yes. I give them the benefit of the doubt because they are the experts
> > > > > in solving and preventing crime. That is not to say experts don't make
> > > > > mistakes - they do. But your tone throughout this discussion is one of
> > > > > total MIStrust of ANYTHING official, which in my view is terribly
> > > > > misguided.
> > > >
> > > > Frankly, Steve, your view that authorities can automatically be trusted
> > > > is, well, I'm sure you've been called naive a lot on this NG.
> > >
> > > Please do not misstate what my views are. Did you read what I wrote
> > > above ... carefully?
> >
> > Yes, I read it: "mistakes were made!" This is what the authorities
> > always say, Steve. They're never dishonest or corrupt; everything can
> > always be explained as a mistake!
>
> Your sophomoric responses have gotten weaker. I said that I willingly
> give people who place their lives on the line for the rest of us, the
> benefit of the doubt. You apparently missed this.

Yes, but you also said that any apparent problems with the evidence are
just because the honest cops made some errors. Though you did admit at
one point that the DPD might have planted 399 to "improve" the case, but
it doesn't seem to have bothered you at all.

> > > I would
> > > > love to be able to trust the authorities, but they have to earn my trust
> > > > - not expect blind faith.
> > >
> > > Fine Tracy, some day when you or someone you care about is the victim of
> > > a crime, call a conspiracy buff instead of the police to help you, since
> > > you cannot trust the authorities until they earn it.
> >
> > When I'm the victim of a crime, I have to take care of myself. The cops
> > are too busy arresting prostitutes and handing out traffic tickets to
> > get there on time.
>
> Whatever you say - though I'd hate to live where you live by the way you
> describe it. It almost sounds like you don't want the cops arresting
> ... oh, never mind. Let's not go there.

Yeah, I don't want the cops arresting prostitutes and somebody who's got
one joint in their pocket, when they should be arresting murderers, car
thieves, rapists, kidnappers, etc. You have a problem with that?

>
> > > They have to have a track record of telling
> > > > the truth for reasonable people to trust them. Forget the JFK case for a
> > > > moment; can you possibly be unaware of the countless instances of
> > > > official deception (federal, state and local) in numerous instances
> > > > throughout our country's history?
> > > > A good example of local police plotting murder with extremists is the
> > > > death of the three civil rights workers in Mississippi in '64.
> > >
> > > Stay focused on the JFK case and tell me where the DP lied.
> >
> > I'm giving you proven, historical examples of where police have been
> > involved in wrongdoing, because you don't seem to believe this is
> > possible.
>
> You are giving me total bullsh*t.

Now *there's* a sophomoric reply. The real Steve Bochan comes out when
faced with disagreement.

> Historical examples have nothing to
> do with the specific questions ABOUT THIS CASE that I have asked you to
> answer.

You asked me earlier, "Are you saying that law enforcement in this
country can't be trusted?" So I gave you some historical examples of
police wrongdoing (not mistakes, deliberate wrongdoing), and then you
got upset because I was no longer talking about the JFK case. I don't
know what you want, Steve.

> >
> > > There was a lot about the '60s that helped divide this nation. I lived
> > > through it as a kid but still remember episodes like Kent State as if it
> > > were yesterday; the race riots in major cities across the country; the
> > > anti-War rallies and peace demonstrations, etc. Anti-authority and
> > > "anti-establishment" sentiment was "in," in the '60s ('don't trust
> > > anyone over 30' was one slogan many lived by) among young people and
> > > probably well deserved.
> >
> > Well-deserved? These are the same authorities who were behind the
> > investigation of the Kennedy assassination. Are you saying we shouldn't
> > trust them?
>
> Oh Tracy .... earth to Tracy ....
>
> JFK and RFK were part of the establishment.

Hardly. A couple of young Irish Catholics, whose father who was a
bootlegger and isolationist, were scarcely welcome in the real
Establishment in the '60s.

> > >
> > > > > No expert I know has ever suggested the sun rises in the west, btw.
> > > >
> > > > No, but we have been asked to believe a lot of absurd things over the
> > > > years. Remember the official assurances that Agent Orange wouldn't hurt
> > > > our GIs? How about recent attempts by the Pentagon to ridicule the Gulf
> > > > War Syndrome? What about the decades of secret radiation experiments on
> > > > unwitting people? Look at the scientists who were hired by the tobacco
> > > > industry to spread the word that smoking isn't harmful. Doesn't any of
> > > > that cause you to be skeptical of experts?
> > >
> > > Has it occurred to you that in all of the examples you list above, the
> > > truth emerged, eventually? Why do you think that is?
> >
> > The truth eventually emerged because there were people (within the
> > government, the military, industry or wherever) who had something to
> > gain from revealing it.
>
> And you think someone wouldn't have something to gain by revealing who
> was behind the conspiracy to kill JFK ??!! Are you completely off your
> rocker?

You're getting more insulting, Steve. Who in the government would gain
from revealing a domestic conspiracy involving rogue elements of US
intelligence? The government would only hurt itself further by doing
this.

> Watergate, for example, was not uncovered by
> > fearless Washington Post reporters (have you read Silent Coup, by the
> > way?) The coverup fell apart because James McCord and others who had
> > something to gain opened their mouths.
> > This isn't true in the JFK assassination. Nobody within the government
> > has anything to gain from trying to get to the truth about it; instead,
> > they are in danger of losing what little credibility they still have.
> >

> > As I said before, Steve, I have very few names to name. Just as we don't
> > know who killed Jimmy Hoffa, but we can be pretty sure it was a mob hit.
> > Do we need to know the names of the hitmen or the man who gave them
> > their orders in order to accept this?
>
> Pretty sure, but not 100% sure about Hoffa. Is that good enough for
> you? Is it okay to be pretty sure about the JFK case too? We know more
> about the JFK case than about the Hoffa case, don't we?

Yes, and I'm pretty sure that JFK was killed by rogue elements of US
intelligence, Cuban exiles and some of their assorted allies who hated
JFK.

> > > So you've accused 8 DPD of complicity in murder, congratulations.
> >
> > Does that shock you, Steve? Again, I point to the local Mississippi cops
> > who were involved in the killing of the civil rights workers; that's a
> > proven, historical fact. It *does* happen in the real world.
>
> No, I'm afraid your intellectual pratfalls are all too common in this
> area. It does not surprise me that you have no qualms to accuse people
> of murder without proof. You should be very proud of yourself.

And what exactly does that mean?

> >
> > > > > and then there are the masterminds who hatched the plot
> > > > > in the first place but let others do the dirty work. Tell me, does LHO
> > > > > fit in anywhere, in this plot of yours?
> > > >
> > > > He may or may not, I'm not sure. But I'm convinced he wasn't a shooter.
> > >
> > > Why? You've accused people of murder with no proof, you've made several
> > > assertions that Oswald was some kind of intelligence operative with no
> > > proof and now, after presumably examining the evidence in the case
> > > against Oswald, you declare he was not a shooter. When does Tracy
> > > Riddle present his proof for his assertions here? I presume your proof
> > > is stronger than all the evidence known and documented to date, and will
> > > easily render the evidence against Oswald invalid.
> >
> > This is one of the reasons I grow very tired of arguing with the
> > lone-nutters. I've spent months on this NG posting reams of evidence for
> > a conspiracy (most of which is ignored by the WC defenders), only to
> > have them say that there is "no evidence...no evidence...no evidence..."
>
> Please explain something to me. Why is it that many of the same people
> who agree with the 'Crossfire' scenario so aptly described by Joe Pesci
> playing David Ferrie in the movie JFK, are loathe to accept the fact
> that Oswald was one of the shooters? You do recall how it was
> described, don't you? Three men, three locations, but one of them are
> sacrificed while the others are flown out of the country.

I don't consider that film a great source (do you?), but actually Ferrie
never says that Oswald was one of the shooters. In the film, Oswald was
in the room when "triangulation" was talked about. But that's just a
movie, Steve!
A professional hitman is not going to allow himself to be set up; an
unwitting patsy, who can be killed before he talks, makes a much better
fall guy.

> If you believe in a conspiracy, and that Oswald was in on it, why is it
> so difficult to believe that he did some of the shooting as described in
> the 'crossfire' scenario?

As Curry said, none of the evidence puts HIM in that window. Why would
anyone want to use Oswald as a gunman? He was a lousy shot. And if he
was part of a plot, why would he leave his rifle behind? Did he want to
implicate himself?

> >
> > > > > Once again, you question the expert findings while dodging the impact of
> > > > > what those findings mean. Do you ever question any of LHO's statements
> > > > > with the same intensity you question the official statements?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I have. I don't trust anybody in this case, Steve. My critical
> > > > thinking abilities are about all I can rely on.
> > >
> > > Please list all of the statements made by LHO that you do not believe,
> > > and then tell us how you can tell when he is or isn't lying. What do
> > > you use as a reference for the truth as far as his public declarations
> > > are concerned?
> >
> > Primarily, I go by the government's own evidence, memos and documents.
> > Are they internally consistent on the basic points? No. Are they
> > externally consistent with the official story we've all been told? No.
> > Does the story we've been told of Oswald's life make any logical sense?
> > No. Are his relations with the authorities consistent with him having
> > been a genuine communist, given what we know about the Marines, FBI,
> > CIA, etc? No.
>
> You once again FAILED to answer the question. You have listed NO
> statement *by* Oswald that you disagree with, which does not surprise me
> in the least. You trust HIM and MIStrust everyone else.

You asked me what I use as a reference for the truth. I told you. Now, I
don't believe everything Oswald said. I don't believe he went back to
get his revolver just for the hell of it, or went to the Texas Theatre
because he had nothing better to do. What he was really up to we can
only speculate about; it certainly doesn't help that the official story
of his actions doesn't add up.

> > > I'll try again. WHO DID THE SHOOTING, if not Oswald? You have no
> > > qualms about accusing police, the SS and others in complicity of murder,
> > > so what is so difficult about answering this question, especially since
> > > you declare that you are certain that LHO did not do any shooting? You
> > > must have *some* idea of who did ... don't you?
> >
> > I don't have their names, addresses and social security numbers, Steve;
> > but if Oswald didn't do the shooting, THEN SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE.
>
> I did not ask for addresses and social security numbers. I asked what
> should be a basic question in the minds of those who promote the
> conspiracy scenarioS rampant over the years.
>
> > This is basic logic.
>
> You tempt me when you leave me an opening like that. But I won't. I
> see your comments as getting more desperate which is sadly typical and
> one of the reasons I tried to end this. I am wasting time with you.

Well, then by all means feel free to end the debate at any time. But
you've utterly failed to make the case that Oswald was the gunman, so
you're basically wasting your time on this entire NG.

> > >
> > > I think it is the height of irresponsibility, frankly, to accuse people
> > > of murder without any evidence.
> >
> > Here we go again: "no evidence...no evidence...no evidence."
>
> What was it you said? 'I've posted a ton of garbage that proves there
> was a conspiracy - didn't you see it?' Please.

Why don't you respond to my 'Fake Defection' post, then? I posted it
just for *you* Steve.

> You've proven nothing
> with your nonsense. Show the courage of your convictions and present
> your "evidence" to the ARRB and get them to subpoena those whom you
> accuse of murder, for questioning.

As I said before, the people involved are probably dead by now.

> Better yet, take your "evidence" to law enforcement and .... oh wait a
> minute, that's right, you don't trust law enforcement. Gee, what do you
> do with all that evidence then Tracy? Spend time here trying to
> convince others of the probity of your arguments?

What are *you* doing here, Steve? Trying to prove to us how righteously
indignant you can become when someone dares to upset your view of how
the world works?

> >
> > > To do so, and be so resolute in your
> > > conclusions, without ever having visited the scene of the crime itself,
> > > is simply inexcusable. (And you don't trust real police work?)
> >
> > I have "visited" the scene of the crime in numerous films and photos,
> > computer models and diagrams.
>
> You have done NOTHING. You have merely regurgitated many of the
> conspiracy myths you've read in books and trotted them out here instead
> of doing any independent thinking and investigating on your own.

Because I don't agree with your scenario, that means I haven't done "any
independent thinking"? Only when I learn to conform to the lone-gunman
myth will I then be praised by Steve Bochan for "independent thinking."
How Orwellian.

> > > We are speaking at different levels of understanding about the crime,
> > > and will continue to do so, unless you make the effort to discover for
> > > yourself many of the answers that can be found by visiting Dealey Plaza.
> > > That's the way it is, Tracy. I've been where you are, which is what I
> > > have been trying to tell you all along.
> >
> > Sure you have, Steve. Did you used to believe that Oswald was framed?
> > And visiting Dealey Plaza suddenly made all the problems with the WC
> > scenario disappear? Are you aware that four of the seven WC members (who
> > did visit DP) did not accept the single-bullet theory?
>
> Yes, of course, Tracy. No sense visiting the scene of the crime to
> solve a case. You feel free to criticize the police for their
> sloppiness in investigating the case, but then do the same thing
> yourself. Outstanding way to go, and *so* convincing.

You didn't answer the above questions. All you've done is get in a huff
because I haven't visited a 34-year-old crime scene.

> >
> > > >
> > > > You lone-nutters love to quote Frazier as saying that he only estimated
> > > > the length of the bag.
> > >
> > > So you *are* calling me a lone-nutter, Tracy? Have you been paying
> > > attention to anything I've taken the time to convey to you?
> >
> > Yes, you believe Oswald was the lone gunman, though you'd like to see
> > more evidence of a Soviet or Cuban conspiracy. You're not going to find
> > any evidence of that kind of conspiracy.
>
> You are wrong so stop telling me what I believe, okay?

So post some evidence of a Communist conspiracy, Steve. You're accusing
people of murder; start naming names and giving us details. Who exactly
ordered the assassination? I'm waiting. Have you visited Moscow or
Havana, by the way? It's irresponsible not to visit the headquarters of
the plotters!

> >
> > And if Oswald was framed, then it would stand to reason that a rifle
> > linked to him by mail-order would be planted on the scene. It wouldn't
> > do to plant a rifle that had been bought at a store because there would
> > be no paper trail leading to LHO.
> > And if Oswald's bag was clearly not long enough to contain the
> > disassembled rifle, then it must have arrived at the TSBD in some other
> > fashion. Obviously, Oswald couldn't have done it.
>
> Yes, "obviously" -- you've solved the mystery ... and done it all at
> your keyboard.

Rather than responding with an insult, why don't you share some of your
great wisdom with us poor deluded buffs?

> > >
> > > > > I see the snipping is bothering you. I was hoping that wouldn't happen
> > > > > because it can shift the focus of the discussion to sniping about
> > > > > snipping pretty quickly.
> > > >
> > > > I don't mind snipping things we've already gone over, but I've tried to
> > > > address every one of your points.
> > >
> > > OK, I'm going to stop here because this discussion is getting nowhere.
> >
> > What's the problem, Steve? You've snipped a lot of difficult points that
> > you don't want to talk about, but I've tried to address all of your
> > questions. If you're right, and I'm wrong, then you should be able to
> > obliterate my arguments. But you haven't done that; when you don't snip
> > my posts, most of your replies are rhetorical.
>
> Don't flatter yourself. I've snipped a lot because I'm not wasting any
> more time with someone who thinks he knows more than those who actually
> investigated the case, yet can't be bothered to visit the scene of the
> crime.

But you *still* are wasting time with me, Steve. Why is that?

Weisberg, whom you like to quote, didn't visit the scene of the crime
when he wrote his first Whitewash book. He may never have visited DP for
all I know.

What did you do when you visited DP? Did you just stand around on Elm
and look out the 6th floor window? Is that it? Is that the investigative
work you've done, Steve?

> > > Tracy, you've made a lot of assertions that you have not, nor cannot,
> > > back up with stronger evidence that would supplant the evidence already
> > > well known in this case. I had hoped you would be able to shed some
> > > light on some of this, but to discover that you've reached the
> > > conclusions you've reached without ever having visited Dealey Plaza
> > > yourself, tells me everything I need to know about how far we can hope
> > > to get ... and we're there.
> >
> > I fail to see what is so revelatory about visiting DP. I'm already aware
> > of how small it is. I know how high a sixth-floor window is. I know how
> > to estimate distances.
>
> You FAIL to see a LOT. It will pass though, as you mature.

Oh, thank you. I can't tell you how little that means coming from you.

> >
> > > You believe steadfastly in a conspiracy, but can name no conspirators;
> > > you believe LHO was an intelligence operative but can present no
> > > evidence to back that up other than your suspicions; you are convinced
> > > LHO did not do any shooting despite all the evidence, yet cannot lay out
> > > the case for exonerating him. Been there ....
> > >
> > > Visit Dealey Plaza and some day we'll talk again. And keep an open
> > > mind, Tracy. You don't know enough about the case yet, and that is no
> > > insult.
> >
> > So, please let us in on this hidden wisdom you possess.
>
> I wouldn't want to waste any more time with one who thinks he is smarter
> than those who actually investigated the scene of the crime.

Yeah, you've said that about five times now. Only after I've visited DP
and read First Day Evidence will I be allowed to talk with the Great
Steve Bochan again. Somehow I'll go on living, though. Any other
requirements? Do I have to visit the National Archives, too? Do I have
to travel to Minsk, or study the Russian documents on Oswald in Moscow?

> >
> > > I said earlier in the discussion that we all learn and come to
> > > our own understanding about this case at our own individual pace, and
> > > you are at a destination that I've already visited in my journey.
> > >
> >
> > And this debate has been just like all the others I've had with WC
> > supporters. When they run out of the standard arguments (trust the
> > authorities, trust the experts, how many people would you need in this
> > conspiracy, etc.), they declare victory and give up.
>
> I haven't run out of arguments. We can argue until doomsday, but if you
> are not willing to visit the scene of the crime, not willing to send
> away to the National Archives for the files of the other defectors and
> other PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL, or do any independent research on your
> own, then, why bother?

Since you've seen this primary source material, why don't you post it on
the NG? Or at least summarize it. Some of us can't tear ourselves away
from our jobs and other real-life matters to visit DP and the Archives.
Do you realize what a ridiculous argument you're making, Steve? You
claim to have learned something that makes you a "born-again
lone-nutter," but you won't share it with us. We have to go find it
ourselves. That's intellectual snobbery.

> You're just like any other gullible true believer .... been there.

More name-calling. Nice lone-nutter. Have a good weekend, Steve.

Tracy

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 17, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/17/98

Tracy Riddle wrote:

<snip>

> Yeah, I don't want the cops arresting prostitutes and somebody who's got
> one joint in their pocket, when they should be arresting murderers, car
> thieves, rapists, kidnappers, etc. You have a problem with that?

Why? You'd only declare the arrested murderers innocent and accuse the
police instead, as you've done here before. But it is getting more
interesting to see the kind of folks you like to align yourself with.

<snip>

> Yes, and I'm pretty sure that JFK was killed by rogue elements of US
> intelligence, Cuban exiles and some of their assorted allies who hated
> JFK.

You are, eh? And you base this "pretty sureness" on what evidence? Any
that is *stronger* than the evidence that points to Oswald?

BTW, where were his "curtain rods" that he brought to work that day?

<snip>

> As Curry said, none of the evidence puts HIM in that window. Why would
> anyone want to use Oswald as a gunman? He was a lousy shot. And if he
> was part of a plot, why would he leave his rifle behind? Did he want to
> implicate himself?

1). If Oswald wasn't in the window, who was?

2). How do you know anyone did *use* Oswald?

3). He almost hit Walker with only one shot, so he wasn't
that lousy.

4). He left his rifle behind because he would look suspicious
carrying it out of the TSBD after the shooting, don't you think?

5). Who knows what he wanted ... *someone* to take him seriously?

> > JFK and RFK were part of the establishment.
>
> Hardly. A couple of young Irish Catholics, whose father who was a
> bootlegger and isolationist, were scarcely welcome in the real
> Establishment in the '60s.

May I be so bold as to ask you how old you are? Were you even alive in
the early '60s?

Your comments above suggest that you don't know what you're talking
about. The Kennedy family is certainly part of the establishment - and
JFK and RFK were elected to and held top government (read:
establishment) positions all their lives.

<snip>

> > And you think someone wouldn't have something to gain by revealing who
> > was behind the conspiracy to kill JFK ??!! Are you completely off your
> > rocker?
>
> You're getting more insulting, Steve. Who in the government would gain
> from revealing a domestic conspiracy involving rogue elements of US
> intelligence? The government would only hurt itself further by doing
> this.

Aren't you jumping the gun here? How do you know that it would be
someone "in the government"? Oh, that's right - I keep forgetting:
you've already concluded someone "in the government" is guilty.

<snip>

> You asked me what I use as a reference for the truth. I told you. Now, I
> don't believe everything Oswald said. I don't believe he went back to
> get his revolver just for the hell of it, or went to the Texas Theatre
> because he had nothing better to do. What he was really up to we can
> only speculate about; it certainly doesn't help that the official story
> of his actions doesn't add up.

Fine. Where were the curtain rods he brought with him to work that day?

> > > > I'll try again. WHO DID THE SHOOTING, if not Oswald? You have no
> > > > qualms about accusing police, the SS and others in complicity of murder,
> > > > so what is so difficult about answering this question, especially since
> > > > you declare that you are certain that LHO did not do any shooting? You
> > > > must have *some* idea of who did ... don't you?
> > >
> > > I don't have their names, addresses and social security numbers, Steve;
> > > but if Oswald didn't do the shooting, THEN SOMEONE ELSE MUST HAVE.
> >
> > I did not ask for addresses and social security numbers. I asked what
> > should be a basic question in the minds of those who promote the
> > conspiracy scenarioS rampant over the years.
> >
> > > This is basic logic.
> >
> > You tempt me when you leave me an opening like that. But I won't. I
> > see your comments as getting more desperate which is sadly typical and
> > one of the reasons I tried to end this. I am wasting time with you.
>
> Well, then by all means feel free to end the debate at any time. But
> you've utterly failed to make the case that Oswald was the gunman, so
> you're basically wasting your time on this entire NG.

Excuse me? I don't have a case to make, Tracy -- it's be done -twice-
now. It is up to YOU to prove a conspiracy which you have utterly
FAILED to do. Sorry if that bothers you, but them's the facts.

It was predictable that you'd want to chase someone off the NG who
didn't agree with your point of view. How sad, but illustrative of the
fallback position some have taken here.

Do you have any friends who are allowed to disagree with your position
on the JFK case?

<snip>

> What are *you* doing here, Steve?

Laughing at the moment.

Trying to prove to us how righteously
> indignant you can become when someone dares to upset your view of how
> the world works?

Nope. I'm amused by your pusillanimity: accusing people of murder but
naming no one, and all the time oblivious of the absurdity of your
comments. You engaged me in this, not the other way around. I've never
read anything you've written that interested me before, so I doubt that
I would've sought you out for any rational discussion.

>
> > >
> > > > To do so, and be so resolute in your
> > > > conclusions, without ever having visited the scene of the crime itself,
> > > > is simply inexcusable. (And you don't trust real police work?)
> > >
> > > I have "visited" the scene of the crime in numerous films and photos,
> > > computer models and diagrams.
> >
> > You have done NOTHING. You have merely regurgitated many of the
> > conspiracy myths you've read in books and trotted them out here instead
> > of doing any independent thinking and investigating on your own.
>
> Because I don't agree with your scenario, that means I haven't done "any
> independent thinking"? Only when I learn to conform to the lone-gunman
> myth will I then be praised by Steve Bochan for "independent thinking."
> How Orwellian.

And how absurd. It does not matter to me what position you take in
this, as long as what you write makes sense when expecting me to
respond. You are swinging in the wind, like a punch drunk boxer hoping
to connect - at least once. You won't at the rate you are going.

>
> > > > We are speaking at different levels of understanding about the crime,
> > > > and will continue to do so, unless you make the effort to discover for
> > > > yourself many of the answers that can be found by visiting Dealey Plaza.
> > > > That's the way it is, Tracy. I've been where you are, which is what I
> > > > have been trying to tell you all along.
> > >
> > > Sure you have, Steve. Did you used to believe that Oswald was framed?
> > > And visiting Dealey Plaza suddenly made all the problems with the WC
> > > scenario disappear? Are you aware that four of the seven WC members (who
> > > did visit DP) did not accept the single-bullet theory?
> >
> > Yes, of course, Tracy. No sense visiting the scene of the crime to
> > solve a case. You feel free to criticize the police for their
> > sloppiness in investigating the case, but then do the same thing
> > yourself. Outstanding way to go, and *so* convincing.
>
> You didn't answer the above questions. All you've done is get in a huff
> because I haven't visited a 34-year-old crime scene.

I'm not in a huff - you are. You try to speak authoritatively about
what the perspective from the sniper's nest was without ever having been
up in the building yourself; you posit a shooter from the front but have
never personally examined the perspective from the grassy knoll area; in
fact you allege all kinds of things based on .... a total lack of
personal observation -- something the real investigators have over you.
But asserting and accusing, relying on such ignorance, is something that
apparently makes you content in your beliefs.

>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You lone-nutters love to quote Frazier as saying that he only estimated
> > > > > the length of the bag.
> > > >
> > > > So you *are* calling me a lone-nutter, Tracy? Have you been paying
> > > > attention to anything I've taken the time to convey to you?
> > >
> > > Yes, you believe Oswald was the lone gunman, though you'd like to see
> > > more evidence of a Soviet or Cuban conspiracy. You're not going to find
> > > any evidence of that kind of conspiracy.
> >
> > You are wrong so stop telling me what I believe, okay?
>
> So post some evidence of a Communist conspiracy, Steve.

Why should I? I never asserted such a thing the way you did about our
government. You put your @ss out on that limb, not me.

> You're accusing people of murder;

A lie. I have accused no one but Oswald.

> start naming names and giving us details.

Oswald. He used his rifle in the TSBD to shoot JFK. About 45 minutes
later, he murdered a cop named Tippit. In the Texas Theatre, he tried
to shoot another cop.

> Who exactly ordered the assassination? I'm waiting.

How do we know that it was ordered? We know there was some
premeditation on Oswald's part, but that's all.

> Have you visited Moscow or Havana, by the way? It's irresponsible not to visit the headquarters of the plotters!

There, there now, calm yourself. Spitting on your monitor is not a good
thing. :-)

>
> > >
> > > And if Oswald was framed, then it would stand to reason that a rifle
> > > linked to him by mail-order would be planted on the scene. It wouldn't
> > > do to plant a rifle that had been bought at a store because there would
> > > be no paper trail leading to LHO.
> > > And if Oswald's bag was clearly not long enough to contain the
> > > disassembled rifle, then it must have arrived at the TSBD in some other
> > > fashion. Obviously, Oswald couldn't have done it.
> >
> > Yes, "obviously" -- you've solved the mystery ... and done it all at
> > your keyboard.
>
> Rather than responding with an insult, why don't you share some of your
> great wisdom with us poor deluded buffs?

It's more fun watching you lose it. :-)

>
> > > >
> > > > > > I see the snipping is bothering you. I was hoping that wouldn't happen
> > > > > > because it can shift the focus of the discussion to sniping about
> > > > > > snipping pretty quickly.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't mind snipping things we've already gone over, but I've tried to
> > > > > address every one of your points.
> > > >
> > > > OK, I'm going to stop here because this discussion is getting nowhere.
> > >
> > > What's the problem, Steve? You've snipped a lot of difficult points that
> > > you don't want to talk about, but I've tried to address all of your
> > > questions. If you're right, and I'm wrong, then you should be able to
> > > obliterate my arguments. But you haven't done that; when you don't snip
> > > my posts, most of your replies are rhetorical.
> >
> > Don't flatter yourself. I've snipped a lot because I'm not wasting any
> > more time with someone who thinks he knows more than those who actually
> > investigated the case, yet can't be bothered to visit the scene of the
> > crime.
>
> But you *still* are wasting time with me, Steve. Why is that?

You started it. I was sincerely trying to convey some information to
you, but you've turned this into a mud fight, changing the thread
titles, implying I am afraid of debating you in the case, etc.

So, I'm game, mud fights can be fun. And you've given me a couple of
knee slappers already, so keep it up.

>
> Weisberg, whom you like to quote, didn't visit the scene of the crime
> when he wrote his first Whitewash book. He may never have visited DP for
> all I know.

For all *you* know, is right.

>
> What did you do when you visited DP? Did you just stand around on Elm
> and look out the 6th floor window? Is that it? Is that the investigative
> work you've done, Steve?

Yeah, that's it. And then I went to Ft. Worth and peed on LHO's grave.

>
> > > > Tracy, you've made a lot of assertions that you have not, nor cannot,
> > > > back up with stronger evidence that would supplant the evidence already
> > > > well known in this case. I had hoped you would be able to shed some
> > > > light on some of this, but to discover that you've reached the
> > > > conclusions you've reached without ever having visited Dealey Plaza
> > > > yourself, tells me everything I need to know about how far we can hope
> > > > to get ... and we're there.
> > >
> > > I fail to see what is so revelatory about visiting DP. I'm already aware
> > > of how small it is. I know how high a sixth-floor window is. I know how
> > > to estimate distances.
> >
> > You FAIL to see a LOT. It will pass though, as you mature.
>
> Oh, thank you. I can't tell you how little that means coming from you.

Why thank YOU.

>
> > >
> > > > You believe steadfastly in a conspiracy, but can name no conspirators;
> > > > you believe LHO was an intelligence operative but can present no
> > > > evidence to back that up other than your suspicions; you are convinced
> > > > LHO did not do any shooting despite all the evidence, yet cannot lay out
> > > > the case for exonerating him. Been there ....
> > > >
> > > > Visit Dealey Plaza and some day we'll talk again. And keep an open
> > > > mind, Tracy. You don't know enough about the case yet, and that is no
> > > > insult.
> > >
> > > So, please let us in on this hidden wisdom you possess.
> >
> > I wouldn't want to waste any more time with one who thinks he is smarter
> > than those who actually investigated the scene of the crime.
>
> Yeah, you've said that about five times now. Only after I've visited DP
> and read First Day Evidence will I be allowed to talk with the Great
> Steve Bochan again. Somehow I'll go on living, though. Any other
> requirements? Do I have to visit the National Archives, too? Do I have
> to travel to Minsk, or study the Russian documents on Oswald in Moscow?

Nah, stick to the conspiracy books, Tracy. You're a great spokesperson
for the truly misguided.

>
> > >
> > > > I said earlier in the discussion that we all learn and come to
> > > > our own understanding about this case at our own individual pace, and
> > > > you are at a destination that I've already visited in my journey.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And this debate has been just like all the others I've had with WC
> > > supporters. When they run out of the standard arguments (trust the
> > > authorities, trust the experts, how many people would you need in this
> > > conspiracy, etc.), they declare victory and give up.
> >
> > I haven't run out of arguments. We can argue until doomsday, but if you
> > are not willing to visit the scene of the crime, not willing to send
> > away to the National Archives for the files of the other defectors and
> > other PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL, or do any independent research on your
> > own, then, why bother?
>
> Since you've seen this primary source material, why don't you post it on
> the NG? Or at least summarize it. Some of us can't tear ourselves away
> from our jobs and other real-life matters to visit DP and the Archives.
> Do you realize what a ridiculous argument you're making, Steve? You
> claim to have learned something that makes you a "born-again
> lone-nutter," but you won't share it with us. We have to go find it
> ourselves. That's intellectual snobbery.

No, I don't think so. You've shown a complete lack of interest in
research and a lazy intellect. But you are amusing, railing at the
police and the government, while standing up for criminals.

>
> > You're just like any other gullible true believer .... been there.
>
> More name-calling. Nice lone-nutter. Have a good weekend, Steve.
>

"Nice lone-nutter" is -not- name-calling? OK. Have a nice weekend too,
Tracy.

Come on back now, 'hear?

STEVE

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/18/98

Steve Bochan wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Yeah, I don't want the cops arresting prostitutes and somebody who's got
> > one joint in their pocket, when they should be arresting murderers, car
> > thieves, rapists, kidnappers, etc. You have a problem with that?
>
> Why? You'd only declare the arrested murderers innocent and accuse the
> police instead, as you've done here before. But it is getting more
> interesting to see the kind of folks you like to align yourself with.
>

My point, since you seem to have missed it, is that the cops have
limited resources and should only go after dangerous criminals. And no,
I don't think that all criminals are innocent. I think OJ and Timothy
McVeigh are guilty; the evidence against them is pretty conclusive
(though I think it's possible OJ may have had someone help him in the
aftermath of the crime, and I'm sure there are more people involved in
OKC than McVeigh and Nichols.)

> > Yes, and I'm pretty sure that JFK was killed by rogue elements of US
> > intelligence, Cuban exiles and some of their assorted allies who hated
> > JFK.
>
> You are, eh? And you base this "pretty sureness" on what evidence? Any
> that is *stronger* than the evidence that points to Oswald?

I've already posted a great deal of that evidence on this NG in the
previous months. I'm not going to drag it all out again just for you.

> > As Curry said, none of the evidence puts HIM in that window. Why would
> > anyone want to use Oswald as a gunman? He was a lousy shot. And if he
> > was part of a plot, why would he leave his rifle behind? Did he want to
> > implicate himself?
>
> 1). If Oswald wasn't in the window, who was?

Answered that already.

> 2). How do you know anyone did *use* Oswald?

Answered that already.

> 3). He almost hit Walker with only one shot, so he wasn't
> that lousy.

Walker himself didn't think Oswald shot at him. Read his testimony.

> 4). He left his rifle behind because he would look suspicious
> carrying it out of the TSBD after the shooting, don't you think?

If he hadn't bought the damn thing by mail order, he could have left it
behind and no one would have been able to trace it to him.

> 5). Who knows what he wanted ... *someone* to take him seriously?

So why didn't he proclaim his guilt? It would be hard for the world to
take him seriously if he denies even committing the crime.

> > > JFK and RFK were part of the establishment.
> >
> > Hardly. A couple of young Irish Catholics, whose father who was a
> > bootlegger and isolationist, were scarcely welcome in the real
> > Establishment in the '60s.
>
> May I be so bold as to ask you how old you are? Were you even alive in
> the early '60s?

I'm 30. How old are you, Steve? Are you unaware of how unpopular and
resented the Kennedys were in many segments of the Establishment during
that time?

> Your comments above suggest that you don't know what you're talking
> about. The Kennedy family is certainly part of the establishment - and
> JFK and RFK were elected to and held top government (read:
> establishment) positions all their lives.

Again, because I don't agree with you, I don't know what I'm talking
about.

>
> > > And you think someone wouldn't have something to gain by revealing who
> > > was behind the conspiracy to kill JFK ??!! Are you completely off your
> > > rocker?
> >
> > You're getting more insulting, Steve. Who in the government would gain
> > from revealing a domestic conspiracy involving rogue elements of US
> > intelligence? The government would only hurt itself further by doing
> > this.
>
> Aren't you jumping the gun here? How do you know that it would be
> someone "in the government"? Oh, that's right - I keep forgetting:
> you've already concluded someone "in the government" is guilty.
>

And you think the Commies did it. Please explain why the Communists
would want to kill JFK, who was being called a Communist by his
opponents up to the day of his death.

>
> > You asked me what I use as a reference for the truth. I told you. Now, I
> > don't believe everything Oswald said. I don't believe he went back to
> > get his revolver just for the hell of it, or went to the Texas Theatre
> > because he had nothing better to do. What he was really up to we can
> > only speculate about; it certainly doesn't help that the official story
> > of his actions doesn't add up.
>
> Fine. Where were the curtain rods he brought with him to work that day?

Honesty, I don't think he brought curtain rods to work that day. I also
don't think the bag contained a dissasembled rifle. Notice that Frazier
never heard any clanking metal parts when Oswald picked the bag up out
of the back seat and left the car with it. And before you ask, I don't
know what was in the bag.

> > >
> > > You tempt me when you leave me an opening like that. But I won't. I
> > > see your comments as getting more desperate which is sadly typical and
> > > one of the reasons I tried to end this. I am wasting time with you.
> >
> > Well, then by all means feel free to end the debate at any time. But
> > you've utterly failed to make the case that Oswald was the gunman, so
> > you're basically wasting your time on this entire NG.
>
> Excuse me? I don't have a case to make, Tracy -- it's be done -twice-
> now. It is up to YOU to prove a conspiracy which you have utterly
> FAILED to do. Sorry if that bothers you, but them's the facts.

You can assert all you want that the case for the lone gunman has been
made twice, but it hasn't. If the WC's case against Oswald held
together, I would gladly defend it. I don't enjoy the position I have to
take, Steve; I'm not one of these government-haters. I'm like a lot of
Americans who have become disillusioned with the reality of our
government and its history of deception and cover-ups.

> It was predictable that you'd want to chase someone off the NG who
> didn't agree with your point of view. How sad, but illustrative of the
> fallback position some have taken here.

I'm sorry, when did I say I want to chase someone off the NG who didn't
agree with me? Can you provide me with an exact quote? Or are you one of
these people who likes to misrepresent what we critics say? *You* were
the one who wanted to end the debate; not me.

> Do you have any friends who are allowed to disagree with your position
> on the JFK case?
>

You're not trying to provoke me into a flame war, are you? I didn't
think so.

>
> > What are *you* doing here, Steve?
>
> Laughing at the moment.

Mentally disturbed people often laugh at nothing.

> Trying to prove to us how righteously
> > indignant you can become when someone dares to upset your view of how
> > the world works?
>
> Nope. I'm amused by your pusillanimity: accusing people of murder but
> naming no one, and all the time oblivious of the absurdity of your
> comments. You engaged me in this, not the other way around. I've never
> read anything you've written that interested me before, so I doubt that
> I would've sought you out for any rational discussion.

Well, you sure put me in my place.

> > Because I don't agree with your scenario, that means I haven't done "any
> > independent thinking"? Only when I learn to conform to the lone-gunman
> > myth will I then be praised by Steve Bochan for "independent thinking."
> > How Orwellian.
>
> And how absurd. It does not matter to me what position you take in
> this, as long as what you write makes sense when expecting me to
> respond. You are swinging in the wind, like a punch drunk boxer hoping
> to connect - at least once. You won't at the rate you are going.

Sure, Steve. *I'm* the one taking wild shots. I've been trying to have a
rational debate with you, and all you can do is make insulting comments.

> I'm not in a huff - you are. You try to speak authoritatively about
> what the perspective from the sniper's nest was without ever having been
> up in the building yourself; you posit a shooter from the front but have
> never personally examined the perspective from the grassy knoll area; in
> fact you allege all kinds of things based on .... a total lack of
> personal observation -- something the real investigators have over you.
> But asserting and accusing, relying on such ignorance, is something that
> apparently makes you content in your beliefs.
>

So, standing in DP suddenly made all of your doubts about the WC
disappear? J. Edgar Hoover's instant no-conspiracy conclusion no longer
bothered you once you looked out that sixth-floor window? Your problems
with the single-bullet theory vanished once you stood on Elm Street?

> > > > Yes, you believe Oswald was the lone gunman, though you'd like to see
> > > > more evidence of a Soviet or Cuban conspiracy. You're not going to find
> > > > any evidence of that kind of conspiracy.
> > >
> > > You are wrong so stop telling me what I believe, okay?
> >
> > So post some evidence of a Communist conspiracy, Steve.
>
> Why should I? I never asserted such a thing the way you did about our
> government. You put your @ss out on that limb, not me.
>
> > You're accusing people of murder;
>
> A lie. I have accused no one but Oswald.

You just said I was "wrong" about there not being a Soviet or Cuban
conspiracy. Just because others didn't pull the trigger doesn't mean
they aren't guilty. So start naming names.

> > start naming names and giving us details.
>
> Oswald. He used his rifle in the TSBD to shoot JFK. About 45 minutes
> later, he murdered a cop named Tippit. In the Texas Theatre, he tried
> to shoot another cop.

Yeah, I've heard that story a few times. It's not one of the better
fairy tales, but it's pretty good.

> > Who exactly ordered the assassination? I'm waiting.
>
> How do we know that it was ordered? We know there was some
> premeditation on Oswald's part, but that's all.

When I said there was no evidence of a Communist conspiracy, you
replied, "You are wrong so stop telling me what I believe, okay?" So
which is it? Did Oswald act alone or not?

> > Have you visited Moscow or Havana, by the way? It's irresponsible not to visit the headquarters of the plotters!
>
> There, there now, calm yourself. Spitting on your monitor is not a good
> thing. :-)

Another snide remark instead of a real answer to my question.

> >
> > > >
> > > > And if Oswald was framed, then it would stand to reason that a rifle
> > > > linked to him by mail-order would be planted on the scene. It wouldn't
> > > > do to plant a rifle that had been bought at a store because there would
> > > > be no paper trail leading to LHO.
> > > > And if Oswald's bag was clearly not long enough to contain the
> > > > disassembled rifle, then it must have arrived at the TSBD in some other
> > > > fashion. Obviously, Oswald couldn't have done it.
> > >
> > > Yes, "obviously" -- you've solved the mystery ... and done it all at
> > > your keyboard.
> >
> > Rather than responding with an insult, why don't you share some of your
> > great wisdom with us poor deluded buffs?
>
> It's more fun watching you lose it. :-)

Well, you've just demonstrated to the entire NG that you're not
interested in getting to the truth about the assassination. You're only
interested in provoking people and disrupting the discussion. Are you
going to be filling in for Michael Beck?

> > > > >
> > > > > > > I see the snipping is bothering you. I was hoping that wouldn't happen
> > > > > > > because it can shift the focus of the discussion to sniping about
> > > > > > > snipping pretty quickly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't mind snipping things we've already gone over, but I've tried to
> > > > > > address every one of your points.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, I'm going to stop here because this discussion is getting nowhere.
> > > >
> > > > What's the problem, Steve? You've snipped a lot of difficult points that
> > > > you don't want to talk about, but I've tried to address all of your
> > > > questions. If you're right, and I'm wrong, then you should be able to
> > > > obliterate my arguments. But you haven't done that; when you don't snip
> > > > my posts, most of your replies are rhetorical.
> > >
> > > Don't flatter yourself. I've snipped a lot because I'm not wasting any
> > > more time with someone who thinks he knows more than those who actually
> > > investigated the case, yet can't be bothered to visit the scene of the
> > > crime.
> >
> > But you *still* are wasting time with me, Steve. Why is that?
>
> You started it. I was sincerely trying to convey some information to
> you, but you've turned this into a mud fight, changing the thread
> titles, implying I am afraid of debating you in the case, etc.

You ended the debate *before* I changed the thread titles. Have you
forgotten, already? And *you* are the one who started throwing mud. Just
like your friend, Beck. Just like the other dishonest lone-nutters.

> So, I'm game, mud fights can be fun. And you've given me a couple of
> knee slappers already, so keep it up.

That's why I'm here, Steve, to amuse you.

> >
> > Weisberg, whom you like to quote, didn't visit the scene of the crime
> > when he wrote his first Whitewash book. He may never have visited DP for
> > all I know.
>
> For all *you* know, is right.

So has he ever visited DP, Mr. Know-It-All?

> >
> > What did you do when you visited DP? Did you just stand around on Elm
> > and look out the 6th floor window? Is that it? Is that the investigative
> > work you've done, Steve?
>
> Yeah, that's it. And then I went to Ft. Worth and peed on LHO's grave.

How old are you? 15? 10? Like Beck, you seem to have a fixation on
bodily fluids.

> >
> > > > > Tracy, you've made a lot of assertions that you have not, nor cannot,
> > > > > back up with stronger evidence that would supplant the evidence already
> > > > > well known in this case. I had hoped you would be able to shed some
> > > > > light on some of this, but to discover that you've reached the
> > > > > conclusions you've reached without ever having visited Dealey Plaza
> > > > > yourself, tells me everything I need to know about how far we can hope
> > > > > to get ... and we're there.
> > > >
> > > > I fail to see what is so revelatory about visiting DP. I'm already aware
> > > > of how small it is. I know how high a sixth-floor window is. I know how
> > > > to estimate distances.
> > >
> > > You FAIL to see a LOT. It will pass though, as you mature.
> >
> > Oh, thank you. I can't tell you how little that means coming from you.
>
> Why thank YOU.

You're not even any good at comebacks and insults. Maybe you'd better
find someone who will actually be impressed by your "wit."

> >
> > > >
> > > > > You believe steadfastly in a conspiracy, but can name no conspirators;
> > > > > you believe LHO was an intelligence operative but can present no
> > > > > evidence to back that up other than your suspicions; you are convinced
> > > > > LHO did not do any shooting despite all the evidence, yet cannot lay out
> > > > > the case for exonerating him. Been there ....
> > > > >
> > > > > Visit Dealey Plaza and some day we'll talk again. And keep an open
> > > > > mind, Tracy. You don't know enough about the case yet, and that is no
> > > > > insult.
> > > >
> > > > So, please let us in on this hidden wisdom you possess.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't want to waste any more time with one who thinks he is smarter
> > > than those who actually investigated the scene of the crime.
> >
> > Yeah, you've said that about five times now. Only after I've visited DP
> > and read First Day Evidence will I be allowed to talk with the Great
> > Steve Bochan again. Somehow I'll go on living, though. Any other
> > requirements? Do I have to visit the National Archives, too? Do I have
> > to travel to Minsk, or study the Russian documents on Oswald in Moscow?
>
> Nah, stick to the conspiracy books, Tracy. You're a great spokesperson
> for the truly misguided.

I'm afraid that position is already taken by Dr. McAdams.

> >
> > > >
> > > > > I said earlier in the discussion that we all learn and come to
> > > > > our own understanding about this case at our own individual pace, and
> > > > > you are at a destination that I've already visited in my journey.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > And this debate has been just like all the others I've had with WC
> > > > supporters. When they run out of the standard arguments (trust the
> > > > authorities, trust the experts, how many people would you need in this
> > > > conspiracy, etc.), they declare victory and give up.
> > >
> > > I haven't run out of arguments. We can argue until doomsday, but if you
> > > are not willing to visit the scene of the crime, not willing to send
> > > away to the National Archives for the files of the other defectors and
> > > other PRIMARY SOURCE MATERIAL, or do any independent research on your
> > > own, then, why bother?
> >
> > Since you've seen this primary source material, why don't you post it on
> > the NG? Or at least summarize it. Some of us can't tear ourselves away
> > from our jobs and other real-life matters to visit DP and the Archives.
> > Do you realize what a ridiculous argument you're making, Steve? You
> > claim to have learned something that makes you a "born-again
> > lone-nutter," but you won't share it with us. We have to go find it
> > ourselves. That's intellectual snobbery.
>
> No, I don't think so. You've shown a complete lack of interest in
> research and a lazy intellect. But you are amusing, railing at the
> police and the government, while standing up for criminals.

So, could you please respond to my Fake Defection post and demonstrate
to everyone my "lazy intellect"?

> >
> > > You're just like any other gullible true believer .... been there.
> >
> > More name-calling. Nice lone-nutter. Have a good weekend, Steve.
> >
>
> "Nice lone-nutter" is -not- name-calling? OK. Have a nice weekend too,
> Tracy.

Are you ashamed to be called a lone-nutter? Is that an insult to you?
The other WC defenders don't consider it an insult. Then what *are* you,
Steve? You want to believe that LHO was a lone gunman, and you have no
evidence that anyone hired him to kill JFK. And you insult me when I ask
for evidence. Your thinking is so confused, it's no wonder you accept
the official mythology.

Tracy

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/18/98

They say a leopard doesn't change its spots and in this case it is true.

On 9/5/97, Tracy Riddle e-mailed me, whining that his discussion with
Michael Beck was not going well. He then invited me to "bounce ideas"
off of him and he wrote: "I promise to be civil."

Subsequent to his promise to be civil, he has:

1). Called me a "lone nutter" because I believe Oswald was guilty;

2). Implied I was running away from a debate with him when I plainly
invited him to continue the discussion again at a later date once he had
visited Dealey Plaza, and done some more research on his assertions;

3). Asked me why I was participating on this newsgroup, as if I
needed to justify a reason to him;

4). Implied I was mentally disturbed for laughing at his
posts.
5). He has now called me the "new" Michael Beck.

All this, after promising to be civil.

Is it any wonder that I wanted to end the debate when it became obvious
where the discussion was heading?

Tracy, you are not an honorable person. Honorable people keep their
word when they promise to be civil. Sarcasm begets sarcasm and when I
saw you getting defensive about all of the assertions you couldn't
support with evidence, I knew this would turn nasty and tried to end it.

Bottom line: you've accused an unGodly number of people of murder and
cannot support your charges. You are no different than hundreds of
folks who have tried and failed to convince me of the same thing by
waving one suspicious sounding question after another, instead of laying
down a serious and logical argument for the exoneration of Oswald. If
you cannot exonerate him, you lose. If you believe he was involved,
then our positions are not as far apart as you seem to think.

Visit Dealey Plaza. Read FIRST DAY EVIDENCE. And contact the National
Archives (301) 713-6620 about setting up a researcher account. The
first $25 worth of copying documents is still free, I believe. Then do
some serious work and get back to me. They also have a website and a
great database with which you can search for documents about any subject
relative to the JFK case.

One last thing: keep an open mind. You are much too young and too
UNfamiliar with this case to be accusing people of murder and making the
unsupportable assertions you've made here. That's not smart - that's
irresponsible.

You ended that e-mail to me by assuring me that you were simply trying
to get to the truth like I was. So start doing some serious research
using primary source material and *then* we'll talk. Otherwise, this is
just ANOTHER futile dispute like so many others.

STEVE

Eric Salmassy

unread,

Jan 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/18/98

In article <34C239...@erols.com>, sbo...@erols.com wrote:
>They say a leopard doesn't change its spots and in this case it is true.
>
>On 9/5/97, Tracy Riddle e-mailed me, whining that his discussion with
>Michael Beck was not going well. He then invited me to "bounce ideas"
>off of him and he wrote: "I promise to be civil."
>
>Subsequent to his promise to be civil, he has:
>
>1). Called me a "lone nutter" because I believe Oswald was guilty;

Well, lone nutter and buff seem to be the accepted terms to identify the side
one takes in the debate here. I find them both to be slightly derisive. What
would you suggest calling the "Oswald did it wothout any help or complicity by
others" folks? I'd like to see buffs replaced by "conspiricists" or something
similar, but I know .John would find it harder to goad people without using
terms like "buff factoids" and "buff books".

>
>2). Implied I was running away from a debate with him when I plainly
>invited him to continue the discussion again at a later date once he had
>visited Dealey Plaza, and done some more research on his assertions;

Perhaps he misunderstood?

>
>3). Asked me why I was participating on this newsgroup, as if I
>needed to justify a reason to him;

Maybe he's just curious. I sometimes wonder why *anyone*, myself included,
hangs around here!

>
>4). Implied I was mentally disturbed for laughing at his
>posts.

Implied how?

>5). He has now called me the "new" Michael Beck.

Ouch, now there's a term of derision! ;-)

>
>
>All this, after promising to be civil.
>
>Is it any wonder that I wanted to end the debate when it became obvious
>where the discussion was heading?
>
>Tracy, you are not an honorable person. Honorable people keep their
>word when they promise to be civil. Sarcasm begets sarcasm and when I
>saw you getting defensive about all of the assertions you couldn't
>support with evidence, I knew this would turn nasty and tried to end it.
>
>Bottom line: you've accused an unGodly number of people of murder and
>cannot support your charges. You are no different than hundreds of
>folks who have tried and failed to convince me of the same thing by
>waving one suspicious sounding question after another, instead of laying
>down a serious and logical argument for the exoneration of Oswald. If
>you cannot exonerate him, you lose. If you believe he was involved,
>then our positions are not as far apart as you seem to think.

Actually, if you can't convict Oswald beyond a reasonable doubt, *you* lose.
And the majority of Americans remain unconvinced.

>
>Visit Dealey Plaza. Read FIRST DAY EVIDENCE.

Read Oswald and the CIA.

> And contact the National
>Archives (301) 713-6620 about setting up a researcher account. The
>first $25 worth of copying documents is still free, I believe. Then do
>some serious work and get back to me. They also have a website and a
>great database with which you can search for documents about any subject
>relative to the JFK case.
>
>One last thing: keep an open mind. You are much too young and too
>UNfamiliar with this case to be accusing people of murder and making the
>unsupportable assertions you've made here. That's not smart - that's
>irresponsible.

Everybody needs to keep an open mind, WC supporters included. Perfect
example, Mike Beck and the "there is no evidence of conspiracy, there is no
evidence of conspiracy" as if he repeated it often enough it would make it
true. There is PLENTY of evidence of conspiracy, just as there is evidence of
Oswald being guilty.

>
>You ended that e-mail to me by assuring me that you were simply trying
>to get to the truth like I was. So start doing some serious research
>using primary source material and *then* we'll talk. Otherwise, this is
>just ANOTHER futile dispute like so many others.

Agreed, a lot of futile disputes here.

>STEVE
>

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/18/98

Steve Bochan wrote:
>
> They say a leopard doesn't change its spots and in this case it is true.
>
> On 9/5/97, Tracy Riddle e-mailed me, whining that his discussion with
> Michael Beck was not going well. He then invited me to "bounce ideas"
> off of him and he wrote: "I promise to be civil."

Do you actually keep every piece of e-mail you get, Steve?

> Subsequent to his promise to be civil, he has:
>
> 1). Called me a "lone nutter" because I believe Oswald was guilty;

Is "lone-nutter" a negative term for those who believe Oswald was the
lone gunman? I haven't encountered anyone else who is offended by it.

> 2). Implied I was running away from a debate with him when I plainly
> invited him to continue the discussion again at a later date once he had
> visited Dealey Plaza, and done some more research on his assertions;

You snipped many of my points without replying to them, and began making
demands before we could continue the debate. I've made no such demands
of you. I kept the debate on a civil level until you became increasingly
condescending. Your smart-ass replies give me no choice but to reply in
the same manner. As long as you kept your tone civil, I did too. But
when you start insulting me, you're just begging to get them thrown
right back at you.

> 3). Asked me why I was participating on this newsgroup, as if I
> needed to justify a reason to him;

> 4). Implied I was mentally disturbed for laughing at his
> posts.

> 5). He has now called me the "new" Michael Beck.
>

> All this, after promising to be civil.

> Is it any wonder that I wanted to end the debate when it became obvious
> where the discussion was heading?
>
> Tracy, you are not an honorable person. Honorable people keep their
> word when they promise to be civil. Sarcasm begets sarcasm and when I
> saw you getting defensive about all of the assertions you couldn't
> support with evidence, I knew this would turn nasty and tried to end it.

You're really an incredible liar, Steve, just like your fellow WC
apologists. Here's the point at which our debate turned sour:

-----

> > > > > > I see the snipping is bothering you. I was hoping that wouldn't happen
> > > > > > because it can shift the focus of the discussion to sniping about
> > > > > > snipping pretty quickly.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't mind snipping things we've already gone over, but I've tried to
> > > > > address every one of your points.
> > > >
> > > > OK, I'm going to stop here because this discussion is getting nowhere.

-----

At this point, you began telling me that I was an uninformed,
irrational, ignorant buff who just didn't have the knowledge or mental
ability to investigate the assassination. I asked you politely to tell
me what wisdom you possess on this subject that I'm missing. You told me
to go visit DP. From there, our debate was all downhill.

You're not conning anyone into believing that I'm the one who started
the insults in this thread. The posts are in Dejanews for everyone to
see.

You also accused me of wanting to chase people off the newsgroup, but
you can't produce a quote where I actually said that.

You also don't have the balls to respond to my Fake Defection post. Oh,
I forgot, I have to visit Dealey Plaza first.

I'm frankly not surprised that the debate ended this way. You
lone-nutters really have no defensible position to assume, so you have
to antagonize people and hope you can wiggle out of the debate that way.
You probably don't realize what a small-minded little man you look like
to most of the people on this NG.

Tracy

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/18/98

Tracy Riddle wrote:
>
> Steve Bochan wrote:
> >

> > > > > > > I see the snipping is bothering you. I was hoping that wouldn't happen
> > > > > > > because it can shift the focus of the discussion to sniping about
> > > > > > > snipping pretty quickly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I don't mind snipping things we've already gone over, but I've tried to
> > > > > > address every one of your points.
> > > > >
> > > > > OK, I'm going to stop here because this discussion is getting nowhere.

> -----
>
> At this point, you began telling me that I was an uninformed,
> irrational, ignorant buff who just didn't have the knowledge or mental
> ability to investigate the assassination. I asked you politely to tell
> me what wisdom you possess on this subject that I'm missing. You told me
> to go visit DP. From there, our debate was all downhill.
>
> You're not conning anyone into believing that I'm the one who started
> the insults in this thread. The posts are in Dejanews for everyone to
> see.
>
> You also accused me of wanting to chase people off the newsgroup, but
> you can't produce a quote where I actually said that.
>
> You also don't have the balls to respond to my Fake Defection post. Oh,
> I forgot, I have to visit Dealey Plaza first.
>
> I'm frankly not surprised that the debate ended this way. You
> lone-nutters really have no defensible position to assume, so you have
> to antagonize people and hope you can wiggle out of the debate that way.
> You probably don't realize what a small-minded little man you look like
> to most of the people on this NG.
>
> Tracy

You are showing your true colors. Name calling becomes you, Tracy,
despite your promise to be "civil." I see you did not deny making that
promise. But you've broken that promise, haven't you?

Your problem is that you are trying to impress people on a NG instead of
doing any real work on your own. Is your self-esteem so low that you
need approval from a NG? Poor Tracy.

Believe what you want and be happy in your own self-inflicted confusion.

Rational people need to see how loony the fringes in this area can be,
and your constant name calling is a perfect example of the lunacy
involved in the case when amateurs think they're smarter than the
investigators.

Grow up, son. You got caught.

STEVE

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/18/98

Eric Salmassy wrote:

>
> In article <34C239...@erols.com>, sbo...@erols.com wrote:
> >They say a leopard doesn't change its spots and in this case it is true.
> >
> >On 9/5/97, Tracy Riddle e-mailed me, whining that his discussion with
> >Michael Beck was not going well. He then invited me to "bounce ideas"
> >off of him and he wrote: "I promise to be civil."
> >

> >Subsequent to his promise to be civil, he has:
> >
> >1). Called me a "lone nutter" because I believe Oswald was guilty;
>

> Well, lone nutter and buff seem to be the accepted terms to identify the side
> one takes in the debate here. I find them both to be slightly derisive. What
> would you suggest calling the "Oswald did it wothout any help or complicity by
> others" folks? I'd like to see buffs replaced by "conspiricists" or something
> similar, but I know .John would find it harder to goad people without using
> terms like "buff factoids" and "buff books".

I think we are all "buffs" here, no matter which side of the grassy
knoll we argue from. People who have any interest in this case are
"buffs," imo, and I have said so to John as well.

My own interests have led me to folks on both sides of the debate and I
am not afraid to converse with -anyone- regardless of what they believe,
especially if they have substantive points to make.

I have read ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT by Sylvia Meagher, and have
debated for years on the topic, so none of what Tracy has said do far is
profound or new to me. In fact much of it is 'same-old, same-old.'

> >
> >2). Implied I was running away from a debate with him when I plainly
> >invited him to continue the discussion again at a later date once he had
> >visited Dealey Plaza, and done some more research on his assertions;
>

> Perhaps he misunderstood?

No he didn't. It is his habit to accuse anyone of running away from his
questions and debates (check out some of the other threads here) as
though his theories and questions are worth spending any time on. For
instance, have you seen how many people he has accused of being in on
this plot? Have you seen him declare that he doesn't care how many
experts the government trots out, blah, blah, blah. How do you reason
with someone like that? You don't. You dismiss him as another
conspiracy minded person who thinks he knows more than everyone else.

> >
> >3). Asked me why I was participating on this newsgroup, as if I
> >needed to justify a reason to him;
>

> Maybe he's just curious. I sometimes wonder why *anyone*, myself included,
> hangs around here!

Good one. :-)

> >
> >4). Implied I was mentally disturbed for laughing at his
> >posts.
>

> Implied how?

I replied to one of his inanities (he asked me what I was doing here) by
saying that I was laughing at the moment. He responded by saying
mentally disturbed people usually laugh at nothing.

>
> >5). He has now called me the "new" Michael Beck.
>

> Ouch, now there's a term of derision! ;-)

Actually I enjoyed reading some of Mike's posts. I didn't necessarily
agree with some of them, but the exchanges between he and Barb were
pretty good. And, admittedly, I loved his cuckoo clock responses to
some of Pearl's more, uh, winsome posts. :-)

The irony for me, of course, was having Tracy write to me almost 6
months ago about his situation with Mike Beck and then asking me to
bounce ideas off him, that he promised to be "civil." Well, I've seen
what happens when you do that.

> >
> >
> >All this, after promising to be civil.
> >
> >Is it any wonder that I wanted to end the debate when it became obvious
> >where the discussion was heading?
> >
> >Tracy, you are not an honorable person. Honorable people keep their
> >word when they promise to be civil. Sarcasm begets sarcasm and when I
> >saw you getting defensive about all of the assertions you couldn't
> >support with evidence, I knew this would turn nasty and tried to end it.
> >

> >Bottom line: you've accused an unGodly number of people of murder and
> >cannot support your charges. You are no different than hundreds of
> >folks who have tried and failed to convince me of the same thing by
> >waving one suspicious sounding question after another, instead of laying
> >down a serious and logical argument for the exoneration of Oswald. If
> >you cannot exonerate him, you lose. If you believe he was involved,
> >then our positions are not as far apart as you seem to think.
>
> Actually, if you can't convict Oswald beyond a reasonable doubt, *you* lose.
> And the majority of Americans remain unconvinced.

I know. But admittedly, most Americans do not study the evidence,
either. The folks here seem to have a real interest in the matter and I
was suggesting that Tracy begin using some of the resources available to
him through the National Archives. I did this for his edification and
now he's calling me a liar. Nice guy, he is.

> >
> >Visit Dealey Plaza. Read FIRST DAY EVIDENCE.
>
> Read Oswald and the CIA.

That too. And if you can attend any lecture by John Newman, do so.
He's a riveting speaker. BTW, does Newman think Oswald is innocent? :-)

>
> > And contact the National
> >Archives (301) 713-6620 about setting up a researcher account. The
> >first $25 worth of copying documents is still free, I believe. Then do
> >some serious work and get back to me. They also have a website and a
> >great database with which you can search for documents about any subject
> >relative to the JFK case.
> >
> >One last thing: keep an open mind. You are much too young and too
> >UNfamiliar with this case to be accusing people of murder and making the
> >unsupportable assertions you've made here. That's not smart - that's
> >irresponsible.
>
> Everybody needs to keep an open mind, WC supporters included. Perfect
> example, Mike Beck and the "there is no evidence of conspiracy, there is no
> evidence of conspiracy" as if he repeated it often enough it would make it
> true. There is PLENTY of evidence of conspiracy, just as there is evidence of
> Oswald being guilty.

But the strongest evidence points the finger at you-know-who. His rifle
was in the TSBD (Tracy hasn't figured out yet how it got there, only
that *someone* must have planted the evidence --- even though now he's
also admitted that he doesn't believe Oswald was telling the truth about
bringing curtain rods to work that day). I have no problem with all the
distractive noise concerning LHO being an informant of some type, etc.,
but I do not see how that would exonerate him at all.

> >
> >You ended that e-mail to me by assuring me that you were simply trying
> >to get to the truth like I was. So start doing some serious research
> >using primary source material and *then* we'll talk. Otherwise, this is
> >just ANOTHER futile dispute like so many others.
>
> Agreed, a lot of futile disputes here.

Yeah, but some of them can be fun. :-) Sometimes.

STEVE

Ben Holmes

unread,

Jan 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/19/98

Steve Bochan (sbo...@erols.com) wrote:
> Another convincing example of sparkling wit and intelligence coming from
> one who "knows" the truth about Dealey Plaza, even though he's never
> been to Dealey Plaza.
>
> STEVE

I'm fascinated by this common idea... Steve is not the only one I've seen
stating it... that you 'must visit Dealey Plaza' to know the truth. I'll
bare my soul, and admit it... I've never been to Dealey Plaza... but from
what I've read... it's filled with buffs selling their books, and
trinkets... they don't seem to understand that if they are familiar with
Dealey Plaza, their supposed to be WC supporters...

Eric Chomko

unread,

Jan 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/19/98

Michael Beck <Michae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: On Sat, 17 Jan 1998 03:31:22 -0800, Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com>
: wrote:

: >
: >Lone-nutter robot. I'm not the one who ended the debate, Steve did. And

: >the debates I've gotten into with you have always ended the same way.
: >You declare victory and run away. When are we going to hear the rest of
: >your born-again nutter story? Haven't finished making it up yet?

: I think I'm going to bite the bullet and get it done today.
: Then I'll cast off from this group.

Beck, yet again, threatens to leave. (Violin music, please......)

: Anyway, you *still* haven't posted any legitimate evidence of a
: conspiracy.

Just a bunch of illegatimate evidence, ay?

Eric

Eric Salmassy

unread,

Jan 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/19/98

In article <34C27E...@erols.com>, sbo...@erols.com wrote:
>Eric Salmassy wrote:
*snippage to save bandwidth*

>I think we are all "buffs" here, no matter which side of the grassy
>knoll we argue from. People who have any interest in this case are
>"buffs," imo, and I have said so to John as well.

True enough. The dictionary definition of buff is mostly a positive thing.
But no one can deny that it gets flung around here as a put down of those of
us who believe there was a conspiracy.

>> >4). Implied I was mentally disturbed for laughing at his
>> >posts.
>>
>> Implied how?
>
>
>I replied to one of his inanities (he asked me what I was doing here) by
>saying that I was laughing at the moment. He responded by saying
>mentally disturbed people usually laugh at nothing.

I think he was trying to be humorous with that one. It's a fine line between
some needling comments and actually offending some one. Ask anybody *I've*
ever worked with.

>> >Visit Dealey Plaza. Read FIRST DAY EVIDENCE.
>>
>> Read Oswald and the CIA.
>
>
>That too. And if you can attend any lecture by John Newman, do so.
>He's a riveting speaker. BTW, does Newman think Oswald is innocent? :-)

If he ever makes it out here to Oregon I'll be in line. As I recall he
specifically avoided discussing the events in Dealy Plaza in his book, wanting
to instead paint a background of Oswald activities. To quote Robert Hunter,
"See here how everything leads up to this day".

>> Everybody needs to keep an open mind, WC supporters included. Perfect
>> example, Mike Beck and the "there is no evidence of conspiracy, there is no
>> evidence of conspiracy" as if he repeated it often enough it would make it
>> true. There is PLENTY of evidence of conspiracy, just as there is evidence
> of
>> Oswald being guilty.
>
>
>But the strongest evidence points the finger at you-know-who. His rifle
>was in the TSBD (Tracy hasn't figured out yet how it got there, only
>that *someone* must have planted the evidence --- even though now he's
>also admitted that he doesn't believe Oswald was telling the truth about
>bringing curtain rods to work that day).

Did you see the X Files rerun last night with Cancer Man actually shooting JFK
and helping to set up Oswald? There's a lot of ways for the gun to get there,
even in LHOs hands, that don't involve him pulling the trigger. Please note
that I consider X Files to be purely fiction, so no comments on my connection
with reality please:-)

> I have no problem with all the
>distractive noise concerning LHO being an informant of some type, etc.,
>but I do not see how that would exonerate him at all.

And I don't find it impossible to believe that Oswald was somehow involved, I
just don't think he was alone.

>> Agreed, a lot of futile disputes here.
>
>
>Yeah, but some of them can be fun. :-) Sometimes.

Usually, even.
>
>STEVE
>

John McAdams

unread,

Jan 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/19/98

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 17:11:19 -0500, Steve Bochan <sbo...@erols.com>
wrote:

>Eric Salmassy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Well, lone nutter and buff seem to be the accepted terms to identify the side
>> one takes in the debate here. I find them both to be slightly derisive. What
>> would you suggest calling the "Oswald did it wothout any help or complicity by
>> others" folks? I'd like to see buffs replaced by "conspiricists" or something
>> similar, but I know .John would find it harder to goad people without using
>> terms like "buff factoids" and "buff books".

I use "buff book" and "buff factoid" for a pretty well-defined class
of stuff. If I said "conspiracy book" or "conspiracy factoid" it
would come out the same way. I'm referring to bogus stuff. That's
just the way it is.

>
>
>I think we are all "buffs" here, no matter which side of the grassy
>knoll we argue from. People who have any interest in this case are
>"buffs," imo, and I have said so to John as well.
>

And I haven't disagreed for an instant. I'm happy to be called a
"buff."

.John

John McAdams

unread,

Jan 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/19/98

On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 08:24:58 -0800, Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com>
wrote:

>You're really an incredible liar, Steve, just like your fellow WC

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>apologists. Here's the point at which our debate turned sour:

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, folks, yet another buff "liar, liar" post.

There are *so* many of those here.

That's why it's called The Nuthouse.

.John

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/19/98

Steve Bochan wrote:
>
> Tracy Riddle wrote:
> >

> > Steve Bochan wrote:
> > >
> > > They say a leopard doesn't change its spots and in this case it is true.
> > >
> > > On 9/5/97, Tracy Riddle e-mailed me, whining that his discussion with
> > > Michael Beck was not going well. He then invited me to "bounce ideas"
> > > off of him and he wrote: "I promise to be civil."
> >

> > Do you actually keep every piece of e-mail you get, Steve?
> >

> > > Subsequent to his promise to be civil, he has:
> > >
> > > 1). Called me a "lone nutter" because I believe Oswald was guilty;
> >

> > Is "lone-nutter" a negative term for those who believe Oswald was the
> > lone gunman? I haven't encountered anyone else who is offended by it.
> >

> > > 2). Implied I was running away from a debate with him when I plainly
> > > invited him to continue the discussion again at a later date once he had
> > > visited Dealey Plaza, and done some more research on his assertions;
> >

> > You snipped many of my points without replying to them, and began making
> > demands before we could continue the debate. I've made no such demands
> > of you. I kept the debate on a civil level until you became increasingly
> > condescending. Your smart-ass replies give me no choice but to reply in
> > the same manner. As long as you kept your tone civil, I did too. But
> > when you start insulting me, you're just begging to get them thrown
> > right back at you.
> >

> > > 3). Asked me why I was participating on this newsgroup, as if I
> > > needed to justify a reason to him;
> >

> > > 4). Implied I was mentally disturbed for laughing at his
> > > posts.

> > > 5). He has now called me the "new" Michael Beck.
> > >

> > > All this, after promising to be civil.
> >
> > > Is it any wonder that I wanted to end the debate when it became obvious
> > > where the discussion was heading?
> > >
> > > Tracy, you are not an honorable person. Honorable people keep their
> > > word when they promise to be civil. Sarcasm begets sarcasm and when I
> > > saw you getting defensive about all of the assertions you couldn't
> > > support with evidence, I knew this would turn nasty and tried to end it.
> >

> > You're really an incredible liar, Steve, just like your fellow WC

> > apologists. Here's the point at which our debate turned sour:
> >

> > -----

> > > > > > > > I see the snipping is bothering you. I was hoping that wouldn't happen
> > > > > > > > because it can shift the focus of the discussion to sniping about
> > > > > > > > snipping pretty quickly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't mind snipping things we've already gone over, but I've tried to
> > > > > > > address every one of your points.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK, I'm going to stop here because this discussion is getting nowhere.

> > -----
> >
> > At this point, you began telling me that I was an uninformed,
> > irrational, ignorant buff who just didn't have the knowledge or mental
> > ability to investigate the assassination. I asked you politely to tell
> > me what wisdom you possess on this subject that I'm missing. You told me
> > to go visit DP. From there, our debate was all downhill.
> >
> > You're not conning anyone into believing that I'm the one who started
> > the insults in this thread. The posts are in Dejanews for everyone to
> > see.
> >
> > You also accused me of wanting to chase people off the newsgroup, but
> > you can't produce a quote where I actually said that.
> >
> > You also don't have the balls to respond to my Fake Defection post. Oh,
> > I forgot, I have to visit Dealey Plaza first.
> >
> > I'm frankly not surprised that the debate ended this way. You
> > lone-nutters really have no defensible position to assume, so you have
> > to antagonize people and hope you can wiggle out of the debate that way.
> > You probably don't realize what a small-minded little man you look like
> > to most of the people on this NG.
> >
> > Tracy
>
> You are showing your true colors. Name calling becomes you, Tracy,
> despite your promise to be "civil." I see you did not deny making that
> promise. But you've broken that promise, haven't you?

I was civil as long as *you* remained civil. As soon as your started
acting condescending and sarcastic, I responded in kind. Did you think
I'd continue to be polite when you started talking to me like I'm an
idiot? If you want to treat someone like that, get yourself a dog.

> Your problem is that you are trying to impress people on a NG instead of
> doing any real work on your own. Is your self-esteem so low that you
> need approval from a NG? Poor Tracy.

> Believe what you want and be happy in your own self-inflicted confusion.
>
> Rational people need to see how loony the fringes in this area can be,
> and your constant name calling is a perfect example of the lunacy
> involved in the case when amateurs think they're smarter than the
> investigators.

And your unwillingness to continue the debate (our respond to my Fake
Defection post) shows how poor your understanding of this case is. If
you're right, and I'm wrong, then you should have no problem demolishing
every argument I make. But all you do is run away after making lame
excuses.

> Grow up, son. You got caught.

"Grow up" so I can become like you? Learn to be polite to people while I
stab them in the back? Never. You know, Steve, there is such a thing as
Karma. You treat other people like crap and it will all come back to
you. Count on it.

Tracy

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/19/98

WCAKE wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: same old Tracy Riddle
> >From: er...@teleport.com (Eric Salmassy)
> >Date: Mon, Jan 19, 1998 11:46 EST
> >Message-id: <2sLw.1$mi5.1...@news2.teleport.com>

> >
> >
>
> >
>
> > There is PLENTY of evidence of conspiracy, just as there is evidence of
> Oswald being guilty.
>

> The evidence of Oswald's guilt is mostly fabricated or circumstantial..... If
> Oswald shot JFK he DEFINITELY did not do it from the sixth floor window.
> PERIOD !! Since he did NOT shoot from the sixth floor window, the Warren
> Commission's decree is just plain garbage......
>
> Walt Cakebread

Walt:

Question -- you seem to be conceding that Oswald *may* have shot JFK.
Do you believe he was involved, then? If so, where do you think he shot
him from?

STEVE

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/19/98

You are much too thin skinned. Pomposity deserves ridicule.

That you would lecture me about the perspective from the sixth floor of
the TSBD, without ever having been there, shows arrogance and a
completely unhinged logic. Yet you expect me to take you seriously?

>
> > Your problem is that you are trying to impress people on a NG instead of
> > doing any real work on your own. Is your self-esteem so low that you
> > need approval from a NG? Poor Tracy.
>
> > Believe what you want and be happy in your own self-inflicted confusion.
> >
> > Rational people need to see how loony the fringes in this area can be,
> > and your constant name calling is a perfect example of the lunacy
> > involved in the case when amateurs think they're smarter than the
> > investigators.
>
> And your unwillingness to continue the debate (our respond to my Fake
> Defection post) shows how poor your understanding of this case is. If
> you're right, and I'm wrong, then you should have no problem demolishing
> every argument I make. But all you do is run away after making lame
> excuses.

No one is running away. I'm right here enjoying the show.

You seem to accuse a lot of people of running away from you. There was
Beck, Emerling, me, and probably others. Wonder why this keeps
happening to you, Tracy?

> > Grow up, son. You got caught.
>
> "Grow up" so I can become like you?

No, grow up so your little ego does not get hurt every time someone
points out that you could do some real research.

> Learn to be polite to people while I stab them in the back?

You've got the back stabbing down pat. You promised to be civil and
broke that promise.

> Never. You know, Steve, there is such a thing as
> Karma. You treat other people like crap and it will all come back to
> you. Count on it.
>

Sounds like a cult thing. Do you believe in L. Ron Hubbard, too?

You sure have come a long way, Tracy. First you accused me of believing
in a communist conspiracy and then you accused me of being a lying lone
nutter - all within about 24 hours.

Shows superb logic and "Karma" ....

STEVE

Tracy Riddle

unread,

Jan 19, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/19/98

Steve Bochan wrote:
>
> You've got the back stabbing down pat. You promised to be civil and
> broke that promise.
>

The implication in that promise is that *you* have to be civil too. It
works both ways. You know very well that you were the one who provoked
this fight. That's all you lone-nutters can do; Michael Beck does it all
the time. And I can see you're taking over for him.

By the way, are you going to demonstrate your breathtaking knowledge of
this subject by responding to my Fake Defection post? You asked for
evidence and you've got it. Now, if you don't want to look like a fraud,
respond to it.

Tracy

WCAKE

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

Bruce J Schuck

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

In article <34c3d383...@news.primenet.com>, jmca...@primenet.com (John McAdams) wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 08:24:58 -0800, Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com>
>wrote:
>
>>

>>You're really an incredible liar, Steve, just like your fellow WC

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>apologists. Here's the point at which our debate turned sour:

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Yes, folks, yet another buff "liar, liar" post.

Aren't you ashamed that you prefer to avoid issues
and just make silly comments on parts of posts that are
taken out of context?

Remove the nospamatall from my e-mail address

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

Tracy Riddle wrote:

"I promise to be civil"

Tracy Riddle wrote:

"Lone-nutters are all liars. There's a real news-flash."

WCAKE

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

>Subject: Re: same old Tracy Riddle

>From: Steve Bochan <sbo...@erols.com>
>Date: Mon, Jan 19, 1998 22:04 EST
>Message-id: <34C414...@erols.com>

>Walt:
>
>Question -- you seem to be conceding that Oswald *may* have shot JFK.
>Do you believe he was involved, then? If so, where do you think he shot
>him from?
>
>STEVE
>
>

No Steve I'm not conceding ........I'm simply saying that there is no way I
know of, to positively prove that Oswald did not shoot JFK. I'm 99% sure he did
not, BUT ....... I'm 100% sure he didn't fire from the sixth floor window.
Since I know ....KNOW......that he did NOT fire from the sixth floor window, I
know the W.C. decree is garbage.

Walt Cakebread

WCAKE

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

>Subject: Re: Bochan is another lying lone-nutter
>From: jmca...@primenet.com (John McAdams)
>Date: Mon, Jan 19, 1998 18:38 EST
>Message-id: <34c3d383...@news.primenet.com>
>
>

>>You're really an incredible liar, Steve, just like your fellow WC
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>apologists. Here's the point at which our debate turned sour:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Yes, folks, yet another buff "liar, liar" post.
>

>There are *so* many of those here.
>
>That's why it's called The Nuthouse.
>
>.John
>
>

Hey perfesser who appointed you to be the arbiter for this N.G.?

Under what, or whose authority do you derive your arrogant, pompous,
contemptuous, judgmental, attitude ??

If this N.G. needed an arbiter..... We sure as hell wouldn't appoint a lying,
dishonest, arrogant, contemptuous, bastard like you, as arbiter........so knock
off your crap.....better yet why don't you just stay in alt. assassination .
jfk, where you've wormed your way into a position where you can censor......

But before you leave .....Remember to repost the post, where you said I wrote
......"LNer's should be lynched"

Walt Cakebread

Eric Salmassy

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

In article <34c3d383...@news.primenet.com>, jmca...@primenet.com (John McAdams) wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 08:24:58 -0800, Tracy Riddle <tri...@tfb.com>
>wrote:
>
>>

>..John
>
>

Actually, .John, there aren't that many. Of course, it seems like there are
twice as many as there actually are because you repost them all.

Eric Salmassy

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

In article <34c3d967...@news.primenet.com>, jmca...@primenet.com (John McAdams) wrote:
>On Sun, 18 Jan 1998 17:11:19 -0500, Steve Bochan <sbo...@erols.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Eric Salmassy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, lone nutter and buff seem to be the accepted terms to identify the
> side
>>> one takes in the debate here. I find them both to be slightly derisive.
> What
>>> would you suggest calling the "Oswald did it wothout any help or complicity
> by
>>> others" folks? I'd like to see buffs replaced by "conspiricists" or
> something
>>> similar, but I know .John would find it harder to goad people without using
>>> terms like "buff factoids" and "buff books".
>
>I use "buff book" and "buff factoid" for a pretty well-defined class
>of stuff. If I said "conspiracy book" or "conspiracy factoid" it
>would come out the same way. I'm referring to bogus stuff. That's
>just the way it is.

So you prove my point, buff=bogus, thus "buff" is an insulting term. So I
could use Lone Nut Factoid for the notion that anyone who a)connected Oswald
to Ferrie or Bannister or Ruby is insane? (Actually I kind of like Barb's
"Nutter Butter").

>>I think we are all "buffs" here, no matter which side of the grassy
>>knoll we argue from. People who have any interest in this case are
>>"buffs," imo, and I have said so to John as well.
>>
>
>And I haven't disagreed for an instant. I'm happy to be called a
>"buff."

Ha ha, that's a good one!
>
>..John
>
>
Eric

Eric Salmassy

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

In article <19980120014...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, wc...@aol.com (WCAKE) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: same old Tracy Riddle
>>From: er...@teleport.com (Eric Salmassy)
>>Date: Mon, Jan 19, 1998 11:46 EST
>>Message-id: <2sLw.1$mi5.1...@news2.teleport.com>
>>
>>
>
>
>>
>
>> There is PLENTY of evidence of conspiracy, just as there is evidence of
>Oswald being guilty.
>
>The evidence of Oswald's guilt is mostly fabricated or circumstantial..... If
>Oswald shot JFK he DEFINITELY did not do it from the sixth floor window.
>PERIOD !! Since he did NOT shoot from the sixth floor window, the Warren
>Commission's decree is just plain garbage......
>
>Walt Cakebread

I agree, almost entirely circumstantial. I'm about 95% convinced that Oswald
was nothing but a patsy, but that little 5% nags at me. But I'm 100%
convinced that others were involved.

Barb Junkkarinen

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

In <Zk4x.2$sz6.1...@news2.teleport.com> er...@teleport.com (Eric

Thank you, Eric...I have my moments and like it too.<g> Looks to me
like John best decide the connotation he's going to apply to "buff" and
stick to it. Either "buff" and "lone nutter" are merely shortcut terms
of definition....in a nondemeaning or nonderogatory way, or "buff" =
"bogus". He can't mix the two and expect people not to be offended when
he uses it if he means it one way some times and another way at other
times. Which is it going to be, John?

>
>>>I think we are all "buffs" here, no matter which side of the grassy
>>>knoll we argue from. People who have any interest in this case are
>>>"buffs," imo, and I have said so to John as well.
>>>
>>
>>And I haven't disagreed for an instant. I'm happy to be called a
>>"buff."
>
>Ha ha, that's a good one!

By definition, we are all buffs...and it *shouldn't* carry a derogatory
definition.

Barb :-)

WCAKE

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

>Subject: Re: same old Tracy Riddle

>From: bar...@ix.netcom.com(Barb Junkkarinen)
>Date: Tue, Jan 20, 1998 13:51 EST
>Message-id: <6a2rnu$l...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>

>By definition, we are all buffs...and it *shouldn't* carry a derogatory
definition.
>
>Barb :-)
>
>

Perhaps you're right Barb, the term "Buff" shouldn't carry a derogatory
meaning....but the language being what it is...."Buff" implies some one who
merely dabbles in a hobby..... not an expert and not to be taken too seriously.
The why the perfesser uses it he definitely intends it derisivley.

It's true that the word "buff" isn't necessarily a bad word, for example if
someone said Hillary Clinton was in the buff in Playboy, I would find that
hillarious.........

The media has coined the word as a way of discrediting those who refuse to
accept the absurd single bullet THEORY of the Warren Commission. They intend
to make "Conspiracy buffs" appear irrational and nutty......when the fact of
the matter is : anyone who would believe the SBT is true, is a couple cards
short of playing with a full deck.

Walt Cakebread

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

Eric Salmassy wrote:
>
> In article <19980120014...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, wc...@aol.com (WCAKE) wrote:

> >>Subject: Re: same old Tracy Riddle

> >>From: er...@teleport.com (Eric Salmassy)
> >>Date: Mon, Jan 19, 1998 11:46 EST
> >>Message-id: <2sLw.1$mi5.1...@news2.teleport.com>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >>
> >
> >> There is PLENTY of evidence of conspiracy, just as there is evidence of
> >Oswald being guilty.
> >
> >The evidence of Oswald's guilt is mostly fabricated or circumstantial..... If
> >Oswald shot JFK he DEFINITELY did not do it from the sixth floor window.
> >PERIOD !! Since he did NOT shoot from the sixth floor window, the Warren
> >Commission's decree is just plain garbage......
> >
> >Walt Cakebread
>
> I agree, almost entirely circumstantial. I'm about 95% convinced that Oswald
> was nothing but a patsy, but that little 5% nags at me. But I'm 100%
> convinced that others were involved.

Pay attention to that 5% nagging at you. :-)

STEVE

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

WCAKE wrote:
>
> >Subject: Re: same old Tracy Riddle

> >From: Steve Bochan <sbo...@erols.com>
> >Date: Mon, Jan 19, 1998 22:04 EST
> >Message-id: <34C414...@erols.com>
> >

> >WCAKE wrote:
> >>
> >> >Subject: Re: same old Tracy Riddle
> >> >From: er...@teleport.com (Eric Salmassy)
> >> >Date: Mon, Jan 19, 1998 11:46 EST
> >> >Message-id: <2sLw.1$mi5.1...@news2.teleport.com>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > There is PLENTY of evidence of conspiracy, just as there is evidence of
> >> Oswald being guilty.
> >>
> >> The evidence of Oswald's guilt is mostly fabricated or circumstantial.....
> >If
> >> Oswald shot JFK he DEFINITELY did not do it from the sixth floor window.
> >> PERIOD !! Since he did NOT shoot from the sixth floor window, the Warren
> >> Commission's decree is just plain garbage......
> >>
> >> Walt Cakebread
> >

> >Walt:
> >
> >Question -- you seem to be conceding that Oswald *may* have shot JFK.
> >Do you believe he was involved, then? If so, where do you think he shot
> >him from?
> >
> >STEVE
> >
> >
> No Steve I'm not conceding ........I'm simply saying that there is no way I
> know of, to positively prove that Oswald did not shoot JFK.

Why not, Walt? Seriously.

> I'm 99% sure he did not, BUT ....... I'm 100% sure he didn't fire from the sixth floor window.

I think I'm with ya on the 1%, then. :-)

> Since I know ....KNOW......that he did NOT fire from the sixth floor window, I
> know the W.C. decree is garbage.

Forget the WC decree and let's talk about *how* his rifle got there.
Got any ideas - any *specific* ideas?

STEVE

Steve Bochan

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

Bruce J Schuck wrote:

>
> In article <34C414...@erols.com>, sbo...@erols.com wrote:
> >WCAKE wrote:
> >>
> >> >Subject: Re: same old Tracy Riddle
> >> >From: er...@teleport.com (Eric Salmassy)
> >> >Date: Mon, Jan 19, 1998 11:46 EST
> >> >Message-id: <2sLw.1$mi5.1...@news2.teleport.com>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >> > There is PLENTY of evidence of conspiracy, just as there is evidence of
> >> Oswald being guilty.
> >>
> >> The evidence of Oswald's guilt is mostly fabricated or circumstantial..... If
> >> Oswald shot JFK he DEFINITELY did not do it from the sixth floor window.
> >> PERIOD !! Since he did NOT shoot from the sixth floor window, the Warren
> >> Commission's decree is just plain garbage......
> >>
> >> Walt Cakebread
> >
> >Walt:
> >
> >Question -- you seem to be conceding that Oswald *may* have shot JFK.
> >Do you believe he was involved, then? If so, where do you think he shot
> >him from?
>

> Somone shot him from the right front, most likely the storm drain
> near the overpass.
>
> I doubt it was Oswald though.

I doubt he shot JFK from the front, too. ;-)

How do you reconcile the bullets found in the limo ballistically
matching his rifle, to the exclusion of all others?

> He came down for lunch at noon and ate his lunch and had his usual coke.
>
> From 6WCH394, the testimony of Geneva L Hine.
>
> Ball: Did you ever know a fellow named Lee harvey Oswald?
>
> Hine: Yes, sir.
>
> Ball: When did you first meet him?
>
> Hine: I never met him to know his name but I saw him every day.
>
> Ball: Where did you see him?
>
> Hine: Downstairs in the warehouse or stockroom whichever you want to
> call it.
>
> Ball: The first floor.
>
> Hine; Yes.
>
> Ball: Did you see him on any other floors?
>
> Hine: Yes sir; I saw him on the second floor about noontime almost
> every day. He would come in and ask for change, for a dime or
> quarter.
>
> Ball: Did you see him use any part of the second floor?
>
> Hine: No.
>
> Ball: Did you ever see him spend the dime to buy anything with it?
>
> Hine: No sir; the coke machine machine isn't in out room and I
> wouldn't have seen it.
>
> It appears that Oswald being on the second floor getting a coke
> was not unusual.
>
> In fact, he did it every day.

Thanks for posting that. What do you think about his rifle being in the
TSBD? Do you believe he was bringing curtain rods to work that day?

STEVE

George Lamm, Jr.

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

Steve...

1) Is there any evidence that either of the two witnesses estimated the
length of the package to be long enough to carry a disassemble MC?

2) Is the WC testimony of the two witnesses consistant with one another
and their estimates of the package length?

3) Is the manner in which LHO carried the package consistant with their
estimated lengths and with each other?

4) Assumming that there were more people in DP that Friday when LHO and
Fraizer arrived for work (correct me if i am wrong); why could the WC
not come up with one witness that said the package was long enough to
carry the disassembled MC?

5) Did the WC come up with any witnesses that saw LHO in the TSBD with
the package?

6) What did LHO do with the package once he arrived at the TSBD?

Thanks for answering my questions... george

George Lamm, Jr.

unread,

Jan 20, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/20/98

Jean Davison wrote:
>
> Bruce J Schuck <sch...@sfu.ca> wrote in article <6a3ik3$bar$6...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
> <snip>
>
> Not that you asked me, but....

>
> > Somone shot him from the right front, most likely the storm drain
> > near the overpass.
> >
> > I doubt it was Oswald though.
> >

> > He came down for lunch at noon and ate his lunch and had his usual coke.
> >
> > From 6WCH394, the testimony of Geneva L Hine.
> >
> > Ball: Did you ever know a fellow named Lee harvey Oswald?
> >
> > Hine: Yes, sir.
> >
> > Ball: When did you first meet him?
> >
> > Hine: I never met him to know his name but I saw him every day.
> >
> > Ball: Where did you see him?
> >
> > Hine: Downstairs in the warehouse or stockroom whichever you want to
> > call it.
> >
> > Ball: The first floor.
> >
> > Hine; Yes.
> >
> > Ball: Did you see him on any other floors?
> >
> > Hine: Yes sir; I saw him on the second floor about noontime almost
> > every day. He would come in and ask for change, for a dime or
> > quarter.
> >
> > Ball: Did you see him use any part of the second floor?
> >
> > Hine: No.
> >
> > Ball: Did you ever see him spend the dime to buy anything with it?
> >
> > Hine: No sir; the coke machine machine isn't in out room and I
> > wouldn't have seen it.
> >
> >
> > It appears that Oswald being on the second floor getting a coke
> > was not unusual.
> >
> > In fact, he did it every day.
>

> But this day was different. He didn't come into her office
> about noon and ask for change. According to Baker's initial statement
> and testimony, Oswald was seen walking away from the back stairway
> heading into the lunchroom about 31.5 minutes after noon. A few seconds
> later Mrs. Reid saw him walking toward the front of the building with
> a -full- bottle in his hand. For some reason he seemed to be running
> a little late on 11/22/63. Jean
>
>

Jean...

Correct me if i'm wrong but as i recall Officer Baker is the one who
testified that LHO had a coke in his hand... george

Bruce J Schuck

unread,

Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98

In article <34C414...@erols.com>, sbo...@erols.com wrote:
>WCAKE wrote:
>>
>> >Subject: Re: same old Tracy Riddle
>> >From: er...@teleport.com (Eric Salmassy)
>> >Date: Mon, Jan 19, 1998 11:46 EST
>> >Message-id: <2sLw.1$mi5.1...@news2.teleport.com>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> >
>>
>> > There is PLENTY of evidence of conspiracy, just as there is evidence of
>> Oswald being guilty.
>>
>> The evidence of Oswald's guilt is mostly fabricated or circumstantial..... If
>> Oswald shot JFK he DEFINITELY did not do it from the sixth floor window.
>> PERIOD !! Since he did NOT shoot from the sixth floor window, the Warren
>> Commission's decree is just plain garbage......
>>
>> Walt Cakebread
>
>Walt:
>
>Question -- you seem to be conceding that Oswald *may* have shot JFK.
>Do you believe he was involved, then? If so, where do you think he shot
>him from?

Jean Davison

unread,

Jan 21, 1998, 3:00:00 AM1/21/98

Bruce J Schuck <sch...@sfu.ca> wrote in article <6a3ik3$bar$6...@morgoth.sfu.ca>...
<snip>

Not that you asked me, but....

> Somone shot him from the right front, most likely the storm drain

It is loading more messages.

0 new messages