Oswald's Guilt — Point By Point

[David Von Pein]

Tweaked / Spruced....

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

[bigdog]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:07:33 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> Tweaked / Spruced....
>
> http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

There are 20 items on your list and Chris will have an excuse to dismiss
every one of them. And for each excuse he comes up with, he will attack
the evidence piecemeal without regard to the whole.

Your list and the quote from Larry Sturdivan make essentially the same
point I tried to make with the thread "A lesson in probabilities".

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been
faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of
super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in
complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry Sturdivan

[Anthony Marsh]

So you think it should be determined by majority vote.
If 51% of the evidence points to the suspect, you will convict and hang
him and ignore the 49%.
That's not OUR system.

[Amy Joyce]

Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Oswald never had a trial
so he is therefore innocent. The evidence was only presented from one
point of view - against Oswald. It would look a lot different if his
defense had the same luxury as the Warren Commission (what was supposed to
be an investigation turned into a compilation the "state's" evidence
against one man).

In contrast, a focus on opposing evidence which only supports LHO's
innocence would paint a damning picture of a set-up and cover-up.
Likewise, lessons in probability would also include the unlikelihood that
a suspect would leave a treasure map of evidence for the cops. Despite
the given impression of rock solid evidence against Oswald, a close look
causes it to crumble. Fingerprints become a questionable hand print,
eyewitnesses accounts get contradicted by other eyewitnesses, and the
facts behind evidence getting obtained illegally get discovered. That
which damns a suspect but also conflicts with the statements of dozens of
honorable witnesses loses credibility.

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:07:33 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:

> Tweaked / Spruced....
>
> http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

I'm not going to be lured to DVP's website to help increase his hit
count again. It's not possible that he has any better a list than before.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/4/2017 3:40 PM, Amy Joyce wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:22:16 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:07:33 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> Tweaked / Spruced....
>>>
>>> http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
>>
>> There are 20 items on your list and Chris will have an excuse to dismiss
>> every one of them. And for each excuse he comes up with, he will attack
>> the evidence piecemeal without regard to the whole.
>>
>> Your list and the quote from Larry Sturdivan make essentially the same
>> point I tried to make with the thread "A lesson in probabilities".
>>
>> "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been
>> faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of
>> super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
>> whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in
>> complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry Sturdivan
>
> Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Oswald never had a trial
> so he is therefore innocent. The evidence was only presented from one
> point of view - against Oswald. It would look a lot different if his
> defense had the same luxury as the Warren Commission (what was supposed to
> be an investigation turned into a compilation the "state's" evidence
> against one man).
>

Legally, just like OJ.

> In contrast, a focus on opposing evidence which only supports LHO's
> innocence would paint a damning picture of a set-up and cover-up.
> Likewise, lessons in probability would also include the unlikelihood that
> a suspect would leave a treasure map of evidence for the cops. Despite

OK. what about evidence that was concealed or destroyed? Maybe if they
knew about the bullet hole in the forehead they would not have focused
only on Oswald. But I bet that one of our WC defender kooks could
IMAGINE a scenario where Oswald did shoot the President in the head from
in front of the limo.

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Langley29.gif

How can they explain the hole in the throat if they don't know about the
back wound?

http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/LIFE12-6-63.jpg

> the given impression of rock solid evidence against Oswald, a close look
> causes it to crumble. Fingerprints become a questionable hand print,
> eyewitnesses accounts get contradicted by other eyewitnesses, and the
> facts behind evidence getting obtained illegally get discovered. That
> which damns a suspect but also conflicts with the statements of dozens of
> honorable witnesses loses credibility.
>

Never rely on witnesses.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 3:40:06 PM UTC-4, Amy Joyce wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:22:16 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:07:33 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > Tweaked / Spruced....
> > >
> > > http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
> >
> > There are 20 items on your list and Chris will have an excuse to dismiss
> > every one of them. And for each excuse he comes up with, he will attack
> > the evidence piecemeal without regard to the whole.
> >
> > Your list and the quote from Larry Sturdivan make essentially the same
> > point I tried to make with the thread "A lesson in probabilities".
> >
> > "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been
> > faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of
> > super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
> > whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in
> > complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry Sturdivan
>
> Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

So you must think John Wilkes Booth is innocent.
And Adolf Hitler.
And Joe Stalin.
And Pol Pot.
And.....well you get the idea.

> Oswald never had a trial so he is therefore innocent.

See above.

> The evidence was only presented from one
> point of view - against Oswald. It would look a lot different if his
> defense had the same luxury as the Warren Commission (what was supposed to
> be an investigation turned into a compilation the "state's" evidence
> against one man).
>

That's where the investigation led them. To one man.

> In contrast, a focus on opposing evidence which only supports LHO's
> innocence would paint a damning picture of a set-up and cover-up.

If only there was real evidence of that.

> Likewise, lessons in probability would also include the unlikelihood that
> a suspect would leave a treasure map of evidence for the cops.

There you go again. Acting as if a psychopath would think as rationally as
a normal person.

> Despite
> the given impression of rock solid evidence against Oswald, a close look
> causes it to crumble. Fingerprints become a questionable hand print,
> eyewitnesses accounts get contradicted by other eyewitnesses, and the
> facts behind evidence getting obtained illegally get discovered.

You can call anything you like into question. If you expect to be taken
seriously, you need some real evidence.

> That
> which damns a suspect but also conflicts with the statements of dozens of
> honorable witnesses loses credibility.

You've got that reversed. It causes those "honorable witnesses" to lose
credibility. You have this strange idea that eyewitness testimony is more
reliable than forensic evidence. It's not. It's less reliable. People make
mistakes. Lots of them. Rarely do witnesses get every detail correct. Most
of them get some things wrong and some things right.

[Jason Burke]

On 10/4/2017 12:40 PM, Amy Joyce wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:22:16 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:07:33 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> Tweaked / Spruced....
>>>
>>> http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
>>
>> There are 20 items on your list and Chris will have an excuse to dismiss
>> every one of them. And for each excuse he comes up with, he will attack
>> the evidence piecemeal without regard to the whole.
>>
>> Your list and the quote from Larry Sturdivan make essentially the same
>> point I tried to make with the thread "A lesson in probabilities".
>>
>> "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been
>> faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of
>> super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
>> whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in
>> complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry Sturdivan
>
> Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Oswald never had a trial
> so he is therefore innocent. The evidence was only presented from one

So is frickin' Hitler and the dude who moved down 60 people some ten
miles away from me last weekend.
Geez.

> point of view - against Oswald. It would look a lot different if his
> defense had the same luxury as the Warren Commission (what was supposed to
> be an investigation turned into a compilation the "state's" evidence
> against one man).

Oh, so the WC was a trial. I thought it was a fact-finding body. Silly me.

>
> In contrast, a focus on opposing evidence which only supports LHO's
> innocence would paint a damning picture of a set-up and cover-up.

There ain't none, Ralph^h^h^h^h^h Amy.

> Likewise, lessons in probability would also include the unlikelihood that
> a suspect would leave a treasure map of evidence for the cops. Despite
> the given impression of rock solid evidence against Oswald, a close look
> causes it to crumble. Fingerprints become a questionable hand print,
> eyewitnesses accounts get contradicted by other eyewitnesses, and the
> facts behind evidence getting obtained illegally get discovered. That
> which damns a suspect but also conflicts with the statements of dozens of
> honorable witnesses loses credibility.
>

Gee! What CT book did you copy *that* from?

[Jason Burke]

Too bad it's damn near 100% in this case, eh, Anthony Anthony?

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 3:40:06 PM UTC-4, Amy Joyce wrote:
>

> Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

I probably should have added Stephen Paddock to the previous list. Should
we presume him to be innocent. He hasn't been proven guilty in a court of
law and never will be.

[David Von Pein]

Why, then, did you bother to post anything in this thread at all? Sounds
like Tony Marsh's habitual routine -- i.e., posting nothing just for the
sake of posting.

[Amy Joyce]

On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 8:36:23 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/4/2017 3:40 PM, Amy Joyce wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:22:16 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:07:33 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> Tweaked / Spruced....
> >>>
> >>> http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
> >>
> >> There are 20 items on your list and Chris will have an excuse to dismiss
> >> every one of them. And for each excuse he comes up with, he will attack
> >> the evidence piecemeal without regard to the whole.
> >>
> >> Your list and the quote from Larry Sturdivan make essentially the same
> >> point I tried to make with the thread "A lesson in probabilities".
> >>
> >> "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been
> >> faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of
> >> super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
> >> whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in
> >> complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry Sturdivan
> >
> > Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Oswald never had a trial
> > so he is therefore innocent. The evidence was only presented from one
> > point of view - against Oswald. It would look a lot different if his
> > defense had the same luxury as the Warren Commission (what was supposed to
> > be an investigation turned into a compilation the "state's" evidence
> > against one man).
> >
>
> Legally, just like OJ.

And thousands of others. At least OJ had a defense that got to present
their side.

I wonder what would have happened if a few OJ's buddies took the victims
out of state for private autopsy. Would that autopsy report and evidence
been allowed?

>
> > In contrast, a focus on opposing evidence which only supports LHO's
> > innocence would paint a damning picture of a set-up and cover-up.
> > Likewise, lessons in probability would also include the unlikelihood that
> > a suspect would leave a treasure map of evidence for the cops. Despite
>
> OK. what about evidence that was concealed or destroyed? Maybe if they
> knew about the bullet hole in the forehead they would not have focused
> only on Oswald. But I bet that one of our WC defender kooks could
> IMAGINE a scenario where Oswald did shoot the President in the head from
> in front of the limo.

>
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Langley29.gif
>
> How can they explain the hole in the throat if they don't know about the
> back wound?

Who "they"?

Perhaps a legal autopsy gets performed by an impartial, non military
doctor, and pictures don't get squirreled away/hidden from other
investigators and medicinal witnesses. Nobody that wasn't under the orders
of the government or military (in other words, no Oswald sympathizers) got
a chance to review that evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

Great, so you admit that you can't prove your case, but still you would
convict him.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/5/2017 10:13 AM, Jason Burke wrote:

> On 10/4/2017 12:40 PM, Amy Joyce wrote:
>> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:22:16 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:07:33 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> Tweaked / Spruced....
>>>>
>>>> http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
>>>
>>> There are 20 items on your list and Chris will have an excuse to dismiss
>>> every one of them. And for each excuse he comes up with, he will attack
>>> the evidence piecemeal without regard to the whole.
>>>
>>> Your list and the quote from Larry Sturdivan make essentially the same
>>> point I tried to make with the thread "A lesson in probabilities".
>>>
>>> "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
>>> been
>>> faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of
>>> super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
>>> whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in
>>> complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry
>>> Sturdivan
>>
>> Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Oswald never had a trial
>> so he is therefore innocent. The evidence was only presented from one
>
> So is frickin' Hitler and the dude who moved down 60 people some ten
> miles away from me last weekend.
> Geez.
>

WTF? Where did that happen? Since this newsgroup is so censored we would
never know about it if you didn't tell us the news. Tell us more. Where
did he MOVE them to? Seattle? I'd call that cruel and unusual punishment.

>> point of view - against Oswald.?? It would look a lot different if his

>> defense had the same luxury as the Warren Commission (what was
>> supposed to
>> be an investigation turned into a compilation the "state's" evidence
>> against one man).
>
> Oh, so the WC was a trial. I thought it was a fact-finding body. Silly me.
>

Yes, you are very silly. It was not a fact-finding body. It was a
cover-up.

>>
>> In contrast, a focus on opposing evidence which only supports LHO's
>> innocence would paint a damning picture of a set-up and cover-up.
>
> There ain't none, Ralph^h^h^h^h^h Amy.
>
>> Likewise, lessons in probability would also include the unlikelihood that

>> a suspect would leave a treasure map of evidence for the cops.?? Despite

[Anthony Marsh]

Not sure, but I expect political pressure would be used to admit the
evidence as if the coroner had done the autopsies.

>>
>>> In contrast, a focus on opposing evidence which only supports LHO's
>>> innocence would paint a damning picture of a set-up and cover-up.
>>> Likewise, lessons in probability would also include the unlikelihood that
>>> a suspect would leave a treasure map of evidence for the cops. Despite
>>
>> OK. what about evidence that was concealed or destroyed? Maybe if they
>> knew about the bullet hole in the forehead they would not have focused
>> only on Oswald. But I bet that one of our WC defender kooks could
>> IMAGINE a scenario where Oswald did shoot the President in the head from
>> in front of the limo.
>
>>
>> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Langley29.gif
>>
>> How can they explain the hole in the throat if they don't know about the
>> back wound?
>
> Who "they"?
>

They the cover-up.

> Perhaps a legal autopsy gets performed by an impartial, non military
> doctor, and pictures don't get squirreled away/hidden from other

Earl Rose was supposed to do the autopsy, but the SS stole the body. I
don't expect that Rose would have released the autopsy photos, but MAYBE
he would have told the truth.

[Anthony Marsh]

Somebody has to challenge the liars here.

[Anthony Marsh]

That's so big of you.
Don't you miss the good old days of the Inquisition where they would dig
up dead people and put then on trial?

[Jason Burke]

Ha I get it! I done made me a typo! s/moved/mowed/ and see if it makes
more sense. Though in your case, Anthony Anthony, you'll probably get
confused and think of one of those thingies you use to cut the grass when
it gets too tall.

>
>>> point of view - against Oswald.?? It would look a lot different if his
>>> defense had the same luxury as the Warren Commission (what was
>>> supposed to
>>> be an investigation turned into a compilation the "state's" evidence
>>> against one man).
>>
>> Oh, so the WC was a trial. I thought it was a fact-finding body. Silly
>> me.
>>
>
> Yes, you are very silly. It was not a fact-finding body. It was a cover-up.

53 years and you still have no clue, eh, Anthony Anthony?

[Jason Burke]

Do you have *any* idea of the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt",
Anthony Anthony?

Why don't you google it? Ya might learn something.

>>
>
>

[OHLeeRedux]

But when the challengers are liars themselves . . .

[Amy Joyce]

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 9:11:24 AM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 3:40:06 PM UTC-4, Amy Joyce wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:22:16 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:07:33 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > Tweaked / Spruced....
> > > >
> > > > http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > There are 20 items on your list and Chris will have an excuse to dismiss
> > > every one of them. And for each excuse he comes up with, he will attack
> > > the evidence piecemeal without regard to the whole.
> > >
> > > Your list and the quote from Larry Sturdivan make essentially the same
> > > point I tried to make with the thread "A lesson in probabilities".
> > >
> > > "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been
> > > faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of
> > > super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
> > > whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in
> > > complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry Sturdivan
> >
> > Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
>
> So you must think John Wilkes Booth is innocent.
> And Adolf Hitler.
> And Joe Stalin.
> And Pol Pot.
> And.....well you get the idea.

The only comparable party is Booth and despite what I think he was is
still Lincoln's "alleged" assassin. Properly using the word alleged
doesn't mean innocent; no reason to be scared of it.

>
> > Oswald never had a trial so he is therefore innocent.
>
> See above.
>
> > The evidence was only presented from one
> > point of view - against Oswald. It would look a lot different if his
> > defense had the same luxury as the Warren Commission (what was supposed to
> > be an investigation turned into a compilation the "state's" evidence
> > against one man).
> >
>
> That's where the investigation led them. To one man.
>
> > In contrast, a focus on opposing evidence which only supports LHO's
> > innocence would paint a damning picture of a set-up and cover-up.
>
> If only there was real evidence of that.

A predetermination of someone's guilt, like you had with this case, often
leads people to deny anything that counters it. As it turns out there is
more evidence of a cover-up and set-up then there is actual evidence
against Oswald! And, since some of that evidence of a cover-up is what
disqualifies much of that circumstantial evidence against him, there's
little doubt of Oswald innocence. Take Johnny Powell as an example. He's a
corroborating witness to sightings of two men in the 6th floor "sniper's
nest" at the time of the shooting. The FBI and WC were made aware that
there were witnesses with a perfect view in the jail but they ignored it.
You choose to ignore it as well.

>
> > Likewise, lessons in probability would also include the unlikelihood that
> > a suspect would leave a treasure map of evidence for the cops.
>
> There you go again. Acting as if a psychopath would think as rationally as
> a normal person.

Haha, nice fallacy argument. First you inappropriately determined Oswald's
mental status on the presumption of his guilt. Then you backtracked and
used his mental status to determine that guilt. Even if did assassinate
JFK that doesn't mean he was psychopathic. You need to base that
(unqualified) diagnosis on previous behavior of which Oswald showed no
symptoms. Sorry, you can't use that against him.

>
> > Despite
> > the given impression of rock solid evidence against Oswald, a close look
> > causes it to crumble. Fingerprints become a questionable hand print,
> > eyewitnesses accounts get contradicted by other eyewitnesses, and the
> > facts behind evidence getting obtained illegally get discovered.
>
> You can call anything you like into question. If you expect to be taken
> seriously, you need some real evidence.
>
> > That
> > which damns a suspect but also conflicts with the statements of dozens of
> > honorable witnesses loses credibility.
>
> You've got that reversed. It causes those "honorable witnesses" to lose
> credibility. You have this strange idea that eyewitness testimony is more
> reliable than forensic evidence. It's not. It's less reliable. People make
> mistakes. Lots of them. Rarely do witnesses get every detail correct. Most
> of them get some things wrong and some things right.

Forensic evidence that was illegally obtained (along with it getting
denied examination by anyone except people chosen by the thieves) LOSES
ALL CREDIBILITY, especially when countered by dozens of witnesses. It
might as well not even exist! Incidentally, it's also evidence of a
cover-up.

[Amy Joyce]

On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 4:37:33 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 10/5/2017 4:04 PM, bigdog wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 3:40:06 PM UTC-4, Amy Joyce wrote:
> >>
> >> Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
> >
> > I probably should have added Stephen Paddock to the previous list. Should
> > we presume him to be innocent. He hasn't been proven guilty in a court of
> > law and never will be.

We can think and believe what we want but shouldn't presume guilt. Dying
before trial doesn't make a suspect guilty - and neither does a bias, one
sided mock trial.

[Jason Burke]

Good times!

[Anthony Marsh]

Except for one little thing you may have overlooked. Booth confessed.
But he was an actor so maybe he was onlyu acting guilty.

>
>>
>>> Oswald never had a trial so he is therefore innocent.
>>
>> See above.
>>
>>> The evidence was only presented from one
>>> point of view - against Oswald. It would look a lot different if his
>>> defense had the same luxury as the Warren Commission (what was supposed to
>>> be an investigation turned into a compilation the "state's" evidence
>>> against one man).
>>>
>>
>> That's where the investigation led them. To one man.
>>
>>> In contrast, a focus on opposing evidence which only supports LHO's
>>> innocence would paint a damning picture of a set-up and cover-up.
>>
>> If only there was real evidence of that.
>
> A predetermination of someone's guilt, like you had with this case, often
> leads people to deny anything that counters it. As it turns out there is
> more evidence of a cover-up and set-up then there is actual evidence

I hate to rain on your parade, but there was a cover-up because they
were sure Oswald was guilty. And they feared that it was a conspiracy.

> against Oswald! And, since some of that evidence of a cover-up is what
> disqualifies much of that circumstantial evidence against him, there's
> little doubt of Oswald innocence. Take Johnny Powell as an example. He's a
> corroborating witness to sightings of two men in the 6th floor "sniper's
> nest" at the time of the shooting. The FBI and WC were made aware that
> there were witnesses with a perfect view in the jail but they ignored it.
> You choose to ignore it as well.
>
>>
>>> Likewise, lessons in probability would also include the unlikelihood that
>>> a suspect would leave a treasure map of evidence for the cops.
>>
>> There you go again. Acting as if a psychopath would think as rationally as
>> a normal person.
>
> Haha, nice fallacy argument. First you inappropriately determined Oswald's
> mental status on the presumption of his guilt. Then you backtracked and
> used his mental status to determine that guilt. Even if did assassinate
> JFK that doesn't mean he was psychopathic. You need to base that
> (unqualified) diagnosis on previous behavior of which Oswald showed no
> symptoms. Sorry, you can't use that against him.
>

WC defenders are born with circular reasoning. It's a birth defect.

>
>>
>>> Despite
>>> the given impression of rock solid evidence against Oswald, a close look
>>> causes it to crumble. Fingerprints become a questionable hand print,
>>> eyewitnesses accounts get contradicted by other eyewitnesses, and the
>>> facts behind evidence getting obtained illegally get discovered.
>>
>> You can call anything you like into question. If you expect to be taken
>> seriously, you need some real evidence.
>>
>>> That
>>> which damns a suspect but also conflicts with the statements of dozens of
>>> honorable witnesses loses credibility.
>>
>> You've got that reversed. It causes those "honorable witnesses" to lose
>> credibility. You have this strange idea that eyewitness testimony is more
>> reliable than forensic evidence. It's not. It's less reliable. People make
>> mistakes. Lots of them. Rarely do witnesses get every detail correct. Most
>> of them get some things wrong and some things right.
>
> Forensic evidence that was illegally obtained (along with it getting
> denied examination by anyone except people chosen by the thieves) LOSES

Again, how about stepping up to the plate to answer my questions so that
don't just dismiss you as a hair-brained kook?
Which evidence? Give me the numbers. Show me.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, I happened to be a US citizen so maybe I know more about it than you.

[mainframetech]

Which is what you just did!

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 10:11:24 AM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 3:40:06 PM UTC-4, Amy Joyce wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:22:16 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:07:33 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > Tweaked / Spruced....
> > > >
> > > > http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > There are 20 items on your list and Chris will have an excuse to dismiss
> > > every one of them. And for each excuse he comes up with, he will attack
> > > the evidence piecemeal without regard to the whole.
> > >

WRONG! As you well know, and keep trying to forget, I have taken an
overview, which obviously you haven't. That will tell any intelligent
person that there was a coup that resulted in the death of JFK. Your
continued attempt to forget that bit of information is like Trump not
facing the fact that Obama's inauguration crowd was bigger than his.
Your little list of evidence against Oswald did not put a gun in his
hands, and didn't put him in the window firing into Dealey Plaza.

> > > Your list and the quote from Larry Sturdivan make essentially the same
> > > point I tried to make with the thread "A lesson in probabilities".
> > >
> > > "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been
> > > faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of
> > > super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
> > > whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in
> > > complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry Sturdivan
> >
> > Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
>
> So you must think John Wilkes Booth is innocent.
> And Adolf Hitler.
> And Joe Stalin.
> And Pol Pot.
> And.....well you get the idea.
>
> > Oswald never had a trial so he is therefore innocent.
>
> See above.
>
> > The evidence was only presented from one
> > point of view - against Oswald. It would look a lot different if his
> > defense had the same luxury as the Warren Commission (what was supposed to
> > be an investigation turned into a compilation the "state's" evidence
> > against one man).
> >
>
> That's where the investigation led them. To one man.
>

WRONG! And many scenarios pointed out that many could have done the
murder. And it was doubtful that Oswald was even there on the 6th
floor.

> > In contrast, a focus on opposing evidence which only supports LHO's
> > innocence would paint a damning picture of a set-up and cover-up.
>
> If only there was real evidence of that.
>
> > Likewise, lessons in probability would also include the unlikelihood that
> > a suspect would leave a treasure map of evidence for the cops.
>
> There you go again. Acting as if a psychopath would think as rationally as
> a normal person.
>

There is no proof that anyone involved was a psychopath. That
statement is yet another opinion of an LN. Meaningless without evidence.

> > Despite
> > the given impression of rock solid evidence against Oswald, a close look
> > causes it to crumble. Fingerprints become a questionable hand print,
> > eyewitnesses accounts get contradicted by other eyewitnesses, and the
> > facts behind evidence getting obtained illegally get discovered.
>
> You can call anything you like into question. If you expect to be taken
> seriously, you need some real evidence.
>

Said the pot to the kettle.

> > That
> > which damns a suspect but also conflicts with the statements of dozens of
> > honorable witnesses loses credibility.
>
> You've got that reversed. It causes those "honorable witnesses" to lose
> credibility. You have this strange idea that eyewitness testimony is more
> reliable than forensic evidence. It's not. It's less reliable. People make
> mistakes. Lots of them. Rarely do witnesses get every detail correct. Most
> of them get some things wrong and some things right.

Except when the forensic evidence has been manipulated, then the
situation is reversed. The manipulated evidence has less strength.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

On 10/7/2017 12:39 PM, Amy Joyce wrote:
> On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 4:37:33 PM UTC-5, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> On 10/5/2017 4:04 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 3:40:06 PM UTC-4, Amy Joyce wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
>>>
>>> I probably should have added Stephen Paddock to the previous list. Should
>>> we presume him to be innocent. He hasn't been proven guilty in a court of
>>> law and never will be.
>
> We can think and believe what we want but shouldn't presume guilt. Dying
> before trial doesn't make a suspect guilty - and neither does a bias, one
> sided mock trial.
>

I have no problem with presuming guilt if I can't find any exculpatory
evidence. I think Hitler was guilty. You can't say he just made some bad
decisions.

I know Booth was guilty. Again, no trial. But the US government convicted
8 people for conspiracy. The silliest was Mary Surrat. That's why Ralph
started the Mary Surrat Innocence Proejec, or MSIP.

[David Von Pein]

WRONG! I posted a question for you (which went unanswered, naturally).

[bigdog]

On Friday, October 6, 2017 at 7:33:56 PM UTC-4, Amy Joyce wrote:
> On Thursday, October 5, 2017 at 9:11:24 AM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 4, 2017 at 3:40:06 PM UTC-4, Amy Joyce wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 6:22:16 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 2:07:33 PM UTC-4, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > Tweaked / Spruced....
> > > > >
> > > > > http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > There are 20 items on your list and Chris will have an excuse to dismiss
> > > > every one of them. And for each excuse he comes up with, he will attack
> > > > the evidence piecemeal without regard to the whole.
> > > >
> > > > Your list and the quote from Larry Sturdivan make essentially the same
> > > > point I tried to make with the thread "A lesson in probabilities".
> > > >
> > > > "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been
> > > > faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of
> > > > super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
> > > > whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in
> > > > complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry Sturdivan
> > >
> > > Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

You posted this just after I left for vacation so I am catching up now.

> >
> > So you must think John Wilkes Booth is innocent.
> > And Adolf Hitler.
> > And Joe Stalin.
> > And Pol Pot.
> > And.....well you get the idea.
>
> The only comparable party is Booth and despite what I think he was is
> still Lincoln's "alleged" assassin. Properly using the word alleged
> doesn't mean innocent; no reason to be scared of it.
>

I am simply applying your logic to these men. Your exact words were
"Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.". None of these men were
ever proven guilty in a court of law. That would make them innocent
according to your statement which I just quoted.

>
> >
> > > Oswald never had a trial so he is therefore innocent.
> >
> > See above.
> >
> > > The evidence was only presented from one
> > > point of view - against Oswald. It would look a lot different if his
> > > defense had the same luxury as the Warren Commission (what was supposed to
> > > be an investigation turned into a compilation the "state's" evidence
> > > against one man).
> > >
> >
> > That's where the investigation led them. To one man.
> >
> > > In contrast, a focus on opposing evidence which only supports LHO's
> > > innocence would paint a damning picture of a set-up and cover-up.
> >
> > If only there was real evidence of that.
>
> A predetermination of someone's guilt, like you had with this case, often
> leads people to deny anything that counters it.

There was no predetermination. The evidence was followed and it led
directly to Oswald in both the JFK and JDT murders. He was arrested as a
suspect in the JDT killing. They figured out after he was in custody that
he was the same guy suspected in the assassination. As the evidence
continued to pile up, that became clearer and clearer.

> As it turns out there is
> more evidence of a cover-up and set-up then there is actual evidence
> against Oswald!

Complete nonsense.

> And, since some of that evidence of a cover-up is what
> disqualifies much of that circumstantial evidence against him, there's
> little doubt of Oswald innocence.

Conspiracy hobbyist excuses don't disqualify hard evidence.

> Take Johnny Powell as an example. He's a
> corroborating witness to sightings of two men in the 6th floor "sniper's
> nest" at the time of the shooting. The FBI and WC were made aware that
> there were witnesses with a perfect view in the jail but they ignored it.
> You choose to ignore it as well.
>

Seriously. Johnny Powell is the best you could come up with. A guy who
nobody even heard of until 15 years after the assassination and claimed he
saw things none of the other prisoners saw. Just who or what corroborates
Johnny Powell. I suppose you think the FBI and WC should have used a
crystal ball to tell them that 15 years later Johnny Powell was going to
claim to have seen things from his jail cell.

> >
> > > Likewise, lessons in probability would also include the unlikelihood that
> > > a suspect would leave a treasure map of evidence for the cops.
> >
> > There you go again. Acting as if a psychopath would think as rationally as
> > a normal person.
>
> Haha, nice fallacy argument. First you inappropriately determined Oswald's
> mental status on the presumption of his guilt.

I haven't determined anything about Oswald's mental status. I have
repeatedly said there is no way to know what was going on inside his head.
I know he decided to assassinate the POTUS and that any reasonably
intelligent person would realize there was almost no chance of getting
away with that. That means he would have been deciding to trade his life
of that of JFK. That seems to me as a rational person to be a senseless
decision. But apparently it made sense to Oswald. I will never know why
that made sense to him.

> Then you backtracked and
> used his mental status to determine that guilt.

I used the evidence to determine his guilt and there is lots of that. I
don't even care what his mental status was. I don't need to know why he
did it. I know that he did do it.

> Even if did assassinate
> JFK that doesn't mean he was psychopathic.

Does assassinating the POTUS seem like a rational act to you? I don't
believe he was insane by the legal definition. I'm sure he knew right from
wrong. That doesn't mean he wasn't unbalanced.

> You need to base that
> (unqualified) diagnosis on previous behavior of which Oswald showed no
> symptoms. Sorry, you can't use that against him.

I don't make any diagnosis of Oswald's mental condition nor do I need to.
I am not even qualified to do that. I don't know what the clinical
diagnosis of his condition would be nor do I care. The best I could do
would be to use layman's terms such as "He wasn't playing with a full
deck". "He had bats in his belfry". "He had toys in his attic".

>
>
> >
> > > Despite
> > > the given impression of rock solid evidence against Oswald, a close look
> > > causes it to crumble. Fingerprints become a questionable hand print,
> > > eyewitnesses accounts get contradicted by other eyewitnesses, and the
> > > facts behind evidence getting obtained illegally get discovered.
> >
> > You can call anything you like into question. If you expect to be taken
> > seriously, you need some real evidence.
> >
> > > That
> > > which damns a suspect but also conflicts with the statements of dozens of
> > > honorable witnesses loses credibility.
> >
> > You've got that reversed. It causes those "honorable witnesses" to lose
> > credibility. You have this strange idea that eyewitness testimony is more
> > reliable than forensic evidence. It's not. It's less reliable. People make
> > mistakes. Lots of them. Rarely do witnesses get every detail correct. Most
> > of them get some things wrong and some things right.
>
> Forensic evidence that was illegally obtained (along with it getting
> denied examination by anyone except people chosen by the thieves) LOSES
> ALL CREDIBILITY, especially when countered by dozens of witnesses. It
> might as well not even exist! Incidentally, it's also evidence of a
> cover-up.

So is your purpose to get Oswald off on a technicality? That's a trick
lawyers use when they are defending a client they know committed the crime
of which they are accused.

There is no evidence of a cover up. It is entirely imaginary.

[Amy Joyce]

The FBI WAS aware of possible witnesses in the jail. They were informed
and it was their responsibility to interview THEM. Maybe they didn't
bother to document the interviews and/or simply disregarded it. Perhaps
the reason was because the FBI didn't like what Johnny Powell and the
others had to say, just like you don't. It's either that or incompetence
by the FBI. So arguing that Powell must have been lying because he didn't
come forward, like it was his fault, is just an excuse to not consider
what he saw.

Powell wasn't the only witness ignored, forgotten, or dismissed. There
were and are nothing but excuses for not considering other eye witness
accounts, while the real reason is conveniently overlooked. Anyone that
saw more than one person or that saw someone that didn't fit LHO's
description was disregarded because it conflicted with a case against
Oswald alone. It's obvious that the WC was building a case against one
suspect and not investigating or looking for facts.

[Anthony Marsh]

Hosty said there was. Various people on the WC said there was. You need
to think of the cover-up as just doing your patriotic duty.

[bigdog]

You are blaming the FBI and WC for not interviewing Johnny Powell when there is no record of Johnny Powell having anything to say until 1978.

> Powell wasn't the only witness ignored, forgotten, or dismissed. There
> were and are nothing but excuses for not considering other eye witness
> accounts, while the real reason is conveniently overlooked. Anyone that
> saw more than one person or that saw someone that didn't fit LHO's
> description was disregarded because it conflicted with a case against
> Oswald alone. It's obvious that the WC was building a case against one
> suspect and not investigating or looking for facts.

Just because the WC didn't accept what some witnesses had to say doesn't
mean those witnesses were ignored. They weighed what these witnesses had
to say against the body of evidence to determine which witnesses were
credible and which were not. That is part of the fact finding processed.
It is what is sometimes referred to as "separating the wheat from the
chaff". If two witnesses gave accounts which are mutually exclusive,
should the WC have accepted both versions as being accurate? Or course
they wouldn't do that. They would weigh what each of those witnesses had
to say to see if it fit the body of evidence. If it didn't, it was likely
inaccurate.

[Amy Joyce]

You are backtracking bdog and making excuses for the WC by pretending to
know that eye witness accounts of persons not even called to testify, were
even considered by the WC at all.

If the WC was actually a fact finding commission they would have
questioned and listened to witnesses before deciding to reject their
version of events. Instead, preemptive decisions not to listen and
consider certain accounts were made based upon the knowledge that it would
conflict with the predetermined, desired outcome. It proves that calling
people to testify and having exhibits was just a face - to give the
appearance of an investigation. They might as well have not questioned
anyone at all, since they only interviewed people they knew would back up
the lone assassin conclusion - precisely what a DA does when presenting a
case against a defendant during a trial. They only call witnesses that
support their case.

Ignoring witnesses was a regular occurrence in this mission. Again, there
were dozens of people they should have heard before dismissing; witnesses
that would have corroborated one another - witnesses that would have been
heard under oath and for the record, had the WC not had the luxury of
doing as they pleased, without oversight or recourse. So for starters and
in all fairness, please back up your claim that the WC specifically
considered the eye witness accounts of Ruby Henderson and Carolyn
Walthers, but decided not to accept them. I'm also interested to know why
it was decided that potential witnesses from the 6th floor county jail
weren't worthy of questioning.

[Jason Burke]

So, "Amy"....
You've still got nothing contradicting - or even poking itty bitty holes
in - the WR, eh?

Pretty much like every other CT in the past 54 years.

[bigdog]

The WC had the written statements of numerous witnesses. They made
judgement calls as to which witnesses were worth calling to testify before
the commission. Just because they chose not to call every witness is not
an indication they ignored those people. Their statements were considered
and then judgements were made as to which witnesses gave credible accounts
based on how those accounts fit with the body of evidence. It would have
been irresponsible to simple accept everything every witness said at face
value. When the WC expressed doubts about statements witnesses made, they
gave sound reasons for doing so.

> Ignoring witnesses was a regular occurrence in this mission. Again, there
> were dozens of people they should have heard before dismissing;

You are free to make your own judgement as to which witnesses should have
been called to testify. The WC made their judgements. Sorry if theirs
doesn't agree with yours.

> witnesses
> that would have corroborated one another - witnesses that would have been
> heard under oath and for the record, had the WC not had the luxury of
> doing as they pleased, without oversight or recourse.

The WC had one mission. Find the truth. To do so required them to weigh
evidence, including the credibility of witnesses. Just because they reject
things some witnesses said doesn't mean they didn't consider them.

> So for starters and
> in all fairness, please back up your claim that the WC specifically
> considered the eye witness accounts of Ruby Henderson and Carolyn
> Walthers, but decided not to accept them.

The statements of the witnesses are part of the record which comprise the
26 volumes of supporting data. It is there for all to see. Do you think
they just threw all those statements into the record without anyone on
their staff bothering to read them?

> I'm also interested to know why
> it was decided that potential witnesses from the 6th floor county jail
> weren't worthy of questioning.

Quote the statements of those potential witnesses.

[Anthony Marsh]

There were many witnesses who were never interrogated at the time. But
later watching TV they realized that their stories had been overlooked.

> If the WC was actually a fact finding commission they would have
> questioned and listened to witnesses before deciding to reject their
> version of events. Instead, preemptive decisions not to listen and

No, they could not possible find them all.

> consider certain accounts were made based upon the knowledge that it would
> conflict with the predetermined, desired outcome. It proves that calling
> people to testify and having exhibits was just a face - to give the
> appearance of an investigation. They might as well have not questioned
> anyone at all, since they only interviewed people they knew would back up
> the lone assassin conclusion - precisely what a DA does when presenting a
> case against a defendant during a trial. They only call witnesses that
> support their case.
>
> Ignoring witnesses was a regular occurrence in this mission. Again, there

Ok, but part of it knowing what to avoid and why.

[Amy Joyce]

I was referring to Henderson and Walther that had given statements to the
FBI but were not asked to give testimony before the WC. Like dozens of
others they were ignored.

[Amy Joyce]

Lets start by you showing me that the WC considered those statements, and
that they explained why they chose not to question those witnesses
themselves. You are the one that said they did. If you can't show me then
you are obviously just making it up and offering excuses.

Walther saw two men in a TSBD window and said both of them had a gun. One
had a rifle and the other had a "smaller" gun. That's big, and the WC
should have been all over it. Henderson corroborated that there were two
men on upper floor and she insinuated that one was lighter skinned, which
would eliminate the three "negros" on the 5th floor. Had she been
properly questioned, more information would been obtained regarding where
those men were exactly, how long they were there, what they were doing,
and also given more details about their description. Same goes for
Henderson.

That wasn't a respectable investigation. There are dozens more witnesses
that also weren't questioned. Either they were stupid and lazy, or they
didn't want anything interfering with a case against LHO being the lone
assassin.

>
> > I'm also interested to know why
> > it was decided that potential witnesses from the 6th floor county jail
> > weren't worthy of questioning.
>
> Quote the statements of those potential witnesses.

I didn't say that there were statements. The WC was informed that there
were witnesses of the assassination, that they were on the 6th floor of
the county jail at the time, and that they had a good view of the alleged
snipers nest. One was even identified for the WC but they chose to ignore
it.

[bigdog]

I didn't state that the explained why they chose not to question those witnesses. I stated that in cases where they doubted what various witnesses said, they explained the reasons for their doubts.

> Walther saw two men in a TSBD window and said both of them had a gun. One
> had a rifle and the other had a "smaller" gun. That's big, and the WC
> should have been all over it.

When you look at what she told the FBI, there are so many reasons not to
give it any credibility at all.

"Shortly after the ambulance left, she looked back towards the TSBD
Building and saw a man standing on either the fourth of fifth floors, of
the window on the south side of the building, which faces toward Elm
Street. This man had the window open and was standing up leaning out the
window with both his hands extended outside the window ledge. In his
hands, this man was holding a rifle with the barrel pointed downward, and
the man was looking south on Houston Street. The man was wearing a white
shirt and had hand blond or light brown hair. She recalled at the time
that she had not noticed the man there a few moments previously when she
looked toward the building and thought that apparently there were guards
everywhere. The rifle had a short barrel and seemed large around the stock
or end of the rifle. Her impression was that the gun was a machine gun.
She noticed nothing like a telescope sight on the rifle or a leather strap
or sling on the rifle. She said she knows nothing about rifles or guns of
any type, but thought that the rifle was different from any she had ever
seen. This man was standing in about the middle of the window. In this
same window, to the left of this man, she could see a portion of another
man standing by the side of the man with a rifle. This other man was
standing erect, and his head was above the opened portion of the window.
As the window was very dirty, she could not see the head of this second
man. She is positive this window was not as high as the sixth floor. This
second man was apparently wearing a brown suit coat, and the only thing
she could see was the right side of the man, from about the waist to the
shoulders."

The description of a man with blonde or light brown hair eliminates the 3
black employees on the fifth floor so that would mean they would have to
be on the fourth floor. There is no corroborating witness nor physical
evidence of a shooter on the fourth floor. It seems preposterous that a
shooter would hold his weapon outside the window ledge prior to JFK
arriving. I think it likely Walther saw someone, sometime earlier and
later convinced herself she saw the assassin or on multiple looks at the
TSBD she saw Oswald on one look and men on a lower floor on the next and
conflated the two. Add to this the fact that she never told her companion
what she had seen immediately following the shooting.

> Henderson corroborated that there were two
> men on upper floor and she insinuated that one was lighter skinned, which
> would eliminate the three "negros" on the 5th floor.

Nonsense. There are light skinned blacks and dark skinned blacks. Her
account eliminates no one.

> Had she been
> properly questioned, more information would been obtained regarding where
> those men were exactly,

Her statement was she didn't know which floor they were on so how could
she tell anyone exactly where they were.

> how long they were there, what they were doing,
> and also given more details about their description. Same goes for
> Henderson.
>
> That wasn't a respectable investigation. There are dozens more witnesses
> that also weren't questioned. Either they were stupid and lazy, or they
> didn't want anything interfering with a case against LHO being the lone
> assassin.
>

You have given us two fine examples of witnesses who gave statements which
gave either very vague or dubious accounts. Based on their recorded
statements, I see nothing that indicates either would have anything of
value to add. That was the judgement of the WC and one I would agree with.
You are free to disagree of course, but it was their call to make.

>
> >
> > > I'm also interested to know why
> > > it was decided that potential witnesses from the 6th floor county jail
> > > weren't worthy of questioning.
> >
> > Quote the statements of those potential witnesses.
>
> I didn't say that there were statements. The WC was informed that there
> were witnesses of the assassination, that they were on the 6th floor of
> the county jail at the time, and that they had a good view of the alleged
> snipers nest. One was even identified for the WC but they chose to ignore
> it.

OK, quote the person who said the WC was informed of these witnesses in
the county jail. Without that, this sounds more like factoid/rumor.

[Anthony Marsh]

Why? They were under orders from LBJ to NOT look for any conspiracy.

[Anthony Marsh]

A good lawyer knows not to ask a question when he won't like the answer.

[Amy Joyce]

That's what you said. In other words, you pretend to know that these
witnesses were specifically considered by the WC and that they had reason
to dismiss what they said. You pretend to know that "they weighed what
these witnesses had to say against the body of evidence". Where's the
proof? What are THEIR reasons for dismal? All you offer is what you think
they did. All you offer is an excuse. Based on what you think and your
excuse, you also think it should be dismissed by everyone else too.

This isn't an either/or situation. Just a witness that the WC chose to
believe only saw one person with a rifle doesn't mean that there wasn't
two or more perps. Most murderer's don't leave a bread trail of evidence,
like you and they believe LHO did. Most "investigators" would realize that
murder weapons normally don't get left behind

If there was a conflict regarding witness reports that was recognized,
evaluated, and dismissed - this should have been in the synopsis. Similar
to their explanation of the number of shots heard and their theory
regarding echoes. At the least, if you are going to say that is what
happened it should very well be there. So again, you are just making it up
and offering excuses for their inadequacy. It was supposed to be an
investigation, and there was plenty of time and room to do that. The
president didn't ask for the life history of their one suspect (which made
up of 1/2 of their report). The president asked for an investigation into
the assassination.

> > Walther saw two men in a TSBD window and said both of them had a gun. One
> > had a rifle and the other had a "smaller" gun. That's big, and the WC
> > should have been all over it.
>
> When you look at what she told the FBI, there are so many reasons not to
> give it any credibility at all.

Credibility was given to witnesses that changed their story between
initial reports/affidavits and their testimony. Jack Dougherty's
statement was that he was on the 5th floor when he heard one shot and that
just one minute prior he had been on the 6th floor. He didn't see Oswald
on the 6th or three black men on the 5th, and the WC called him to
testify. They certainty cleared up what he saw and didn't see!

I think differently but what should have happened is that she was brought
forward and asked, specifically. What happened instead is that it was
ignored completely or members of the commission did the same thing: "I
think" or "she probably". OR they thought, "Hoover needs us to convince
the fine citizens of the U.S. that there was only one assassin and only
one - LHO. If we call witnesses that saw more perps and they are adamant,
that will indicate otherwise and we'll have more to explain. We already
have enough problems".

>
> > Henderson corroborated that there were two
> > men on upper floor and she insinuated that one was lighter skinned, which
> > would eliminate the three "negros" on the 5th floor.
>
> Nonsense. There are light skinned blacks and dark skinned blacks. Her
> account eliminates no one.
>
> > Had she been
> > properly questioned, more information would been obtained regarding where
> > those men were exactly,
>
> Her statement was she didn't know which floor they were on so how could
> she tell anyone exactly where they were.
>
> > how long they were there, what they were doing,
> > and also given more details about their description. Same goes for
> > Henderson.
> >
> > That wasn't a respectable investigation. There are dozens more witnesses
> > that also weren't questioned. Either they were stupid and lazy, or they
> > didn't want anything interfering with a case against LHO being the lone
> > assassin.
> >
>
> You have given us two fine examples of witnesses who gave statements which
> gave either very vague or dubious accounts. Based on their recorded
> statements, I see nothing that indicates either would have anything of
> value to add. That was the judgement of the WC and one I would agree with.
> You are free to disagree of course, but it was their call to make.

Vague or dubious accounts is what every witness that was called to testify
had given prior. There isn't much more than that in affidavits that are
1-2 paragraphs long. The specifics are discovered by investigators when
questioning the witnesses, otherwise their testimony is just show. The
people that don't get called should be the ones that didn't see anything
or the ones that saw something, but was the same thing that dozens of
others saw as well. It's the conflicting accounts that needed to be heard
or it's all cherry picking.

There are more indications that the WC only called witnesses that they
absolutely had to, would support their theory, or others they felt could
be easily controlled. Again, not an investigation but a mock trial
without a defense or any oversight.

>
> >
> > >
> > > > I'm also interested to know why
> > > > it was decided that potential witnesses from the 6th floor county jail
> > > > weren't worthy of questioning.
> > >
> > > Quote the statements of those potential witnesses.
> >
> > I didn't say that there were statements. The WC was informed that there
> > were witnesses of the assassination, that they were on the 6th floor of
> > the county jail at the time, and that they had a good view of the alleged
> > snipers nest. One was even identified for the WC but they chose to ignore
> > it.
>
> OK, quote the person who said the WC was informed of these witnesses in
> the county jail. Without that, this sounds more like factoid/rumor.

The WC was directly informed during the testimony of Stanley Kaufman.
This is fact, not factoid. It's also not a guess, which is what you
offered regarding the WC considering Henderson and Walther (not to mention
officer's and other witnesses closest to the limo that they failed to have
give testimony). There isn't even proof that some or all commission
members were aware they had given statements!

"I thought it might be helpful to the Commission to know that there were
people in jail who saw the actual killing."

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/pdf/WH15_Kaufman.pdf

There are also multiple paragraphs in which Kaufman describes what a
client of his, Willie Mitchell, saw from his position in the the jail. It
includes the WC request that Kaufman ask Mitchell come forward. They left
the responsibility up TO A CITIZEN regarding one inmate instead of having
it done by a professional, and they completely blew off the "more people"
(Johnny Powell, etc.) that would have had an excellent view of the upper
floors of the TSBD from their position.

[bigdog]

So what is the alternative explanation. Do you think the WC put the
statements of these various witnesses into the 26 volumes of supporting
evidence without anyone bothering to read them? Do you think that makes
sense?

> This isn't an either/or situation. Just a witness that the WC chose to
> believe only saw one person with a rifle doesn't mean that there wasn't
> two or more perps. Most murderer's don't leave a bread trail of evidence,
> like you and they believe LHO did. Most "investigators" would realize that
> murder weapons normally don't get left behind
>

There is forensic evidence for one and only one shooter. Only one location
where spent shells were found. Only one rifle found. The rifle matched the
spent shells. The rifle matched the only recovered bullets. The medical
evidence establishes the wounds to both victims were caused by shot fire
from behind them. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously inaccurate as it was
in this case. The shooting happened only one way but it was described in
many ways. All those people cannot be right. The forensic evidence tells
us who and what to believe.

> If there was a conflict regarding witness reports that was recognized,
> evaluated, and dismissed - this should have been in the synopsis. Similar
> to their explanation of the number of shots heard and their theory
> regarding echoes. At the least, if you are going to say that is what
> happened it should very well be there. So again, you are just making it up
> and offering excuses for their inadequacy.

You think they were inadequate because they reached a conclusion you don't
want to believe. You want to believe there was something more to the
assassination than one screwball with a cheap imported war surplus rifle.
Sorry if reality got in the way.

>
> It was supposed to be an
> investigation, and there was plenty of time and room to do that. The
> president didn't ask for the life history of their one suspect (which made
> up of 1/2 of their report). The president asked for an investigation into
> the assassination.
>

He got what he asked for. The narrative offered by the WC was the only one
which the evidence supported.

> > > Walther saw two men in a TSBD window and said both of them had a gun. One
> > > had a rifle and the other had a "smaller" gun. That's big, and the WC
> > > should have been all over it.
> >
> > When you look at what she told the FBI, there are so many reasons not to
> > give it any credibility at all.
>
> Credibility was given to witnesses that changed their story between
> initial reports/affidavits and their testimony. Jack Dougherty's
> statement was that he was on the 5th floor when he heard one shot and that
> just one minute prior he had been on the 6th floor. He didn't see Oswald
> on the 6th or three black men on the 5th, and the WC called him to
> testify. They certainty cleared up what he saw and didn't see!
>

A cite for that might be nice.

There is nothing is Walthers' account which is supported by any evidence,
either forensic or eyewitness. She was an outlier. Conspiracy hobbyists
find her interesting because she tells a tale they would rather believe.

Using forensic evidence to decide which witnesses were credible is not

cherry picking.

> There are more indications that the WC only called witnesses that they
> absolutely had to, would support their theory, or others they felt could
> be easily controlled. Again, not an investigation but a mock trial
> without a defense or any oversight.
>

The WC was a fact finding body. It was never intended to be a trial. It
had no power to render a verdict that would result in anyone being
deprived of life, liberty, or property. Had they found evidence that
others were involved, it would have been necessary to turn their findings
over to a prosecutor to bring charges against those suspects. That didn't
happen because all the credible evidence pointed at only one man. They
followed the evidence to a logical conclusion, one you and your fellow
conspiracy hobbyists simply refuse to believe.

As is typical of conspiracy hobbyists, you lifted one sentence out of
context to create the impression that the prisoners in the jail cell were
a wealth of information. When you read the entire passage, it paints a
very different picture.

Most of Mr. Kaufman's testimony was about his professional relationship
with Jack Ruby. Here is the testimony of Mr. Kaufman regarding a single
prisoner named Willie Mitchell taken by WC assistant counsel Leon D.
Hubert, Jr., in the Dallas Post OFfice on June 27, 1964:

{quote on}

Mr. KAUFMAN. Yes, sir; when I received the notice from the Committee. I
had a case styled Lowe versus Mitchell that was .in the 44th Judicial
District Court and I was representing this, as I say, on behalf of an
insurance company, and this boy, Willie Mitchell, a colored boy who we
incidentally had a great deal of trouble getting into a defendant's case.
He felt that he had already served his term in jail and that he didn't owe
any debt to society moneywise or otherwise, and there was a serious
question of whether we were going to continue to defend him or whether or
not he had any coverage, but notwithstanding that, we did settle his case,
and I did get him to come by the office one day for an interview, and in
the course of my conversation he let me know that he was in the jail
serving a DWI offense at the time the President was killed, and I sat back
and forgot about the automobile accident and just let him talk, and he
related how all of these prisoners up in jail had been advised by the
jailers and that they had read in the newspapers that the President was
coming to town, and they looked in the papers and they saw the route, how
the President was coming to town, and the jailers told them where and that
they were coming and they congregated at this window--I mean--this side of
the jail. Apparently they had a good view

what took place, and he described to me exactly, and when I say "exactly,"
he didn't see anyone in that window, but I did tell Mrs. Stroud that I

thought it might be helpful to the Commission to know that there were
people in jail who saw the actual killing.

He described the President as having been hit from the rear and he said
there was no question in his mind that the bullet came from the window. He
said when the President's head was hit, it was just like throwing a bucket
of water at him--that's the way it burst. He said it made him sick and
everybody else sick up there.

I felt that Mrs. Stroud should know this and would want the Commission to
know it for the reason that there seems to have been some question as to
what I've read in the newspaper as to whether or not there was more than
one bullet and whether or not the bullet came from the back or came from
the front.

I was a small-arms instructor myself over in China, having been trained in
the infantry school in Fort Benning, and I certainly feel I would love to,
if I could, volunteer anything that would be helpful to the Commission,
and if that information were helpful, I will be glad to get Willie
Mitchell's address and furnish it to you.

Actually, I don't know who else was in jail. I do know that Willie
Mitchell was, and I had even suggested that he get in touch with the
Warren mission, but he just has as many people have this "I don't want to
get involved" attitude. I mean, he felt that he had already been too much
involved with that DWI and didn't want to get involved with anything
else.

[quote off]

Mitchell said he didn't see anybody in the window. From his vantage point
he could see JFK had been hit from behind by the way his head exploded. So
tell me what you see in Mr. Kaufman's testimony that Willie Mitchell or
any other prisoner had anything of value to add to the body of knowledge.