Consciousness-of-guilt

[David Emerling]

This phrase often comes up in discussing Oswald's activities and
statements. This is actually considered EVIDENCE in a court-of-law. Even
outside the courtroom, in a fact-finding investigation like the Warren
Commission - these are important considerations.

Besides Oswald's consciousness-of-guilt activities, not the least of which
is his mad dash out of the depository and his killing of Officer Tippit,
I'd like to limit this discussion to the incriminating things he told the
authorities. When a suspect tells PROVABLE lies about matters of substance
related to a crime, that is considered consciousness-of-guilt. After all,
that's what guilty people do - try to distance themselves from the
evidence linking them to the crime.

Here are three provable lies on very substantive matters that Oswald told
the authorities.

1. He denied knowing anything about the name "Alek James Hidell" even
though he had a fake ID in his wallet with his (Oswald's) photo on it. A
very silly lie, if you think about it. I mean, c'mon! Apparently, he was
very arrogant about this, saying "You're the cops, you figure it out."

2. He denied ever owning a rifle even though there were photos of him with
a rifle. They confronted Oswald with this photo. In addition, the
authorities traced the order form. It was in Oswald's handwriting using
his unique alias. The murder weapon had the same serial number as the one
on the order form.

3. He denied taking a long package to work. Basically, he denied Wesley
Frazier's and Linnie Randle's story about seeing him with a long package.
He said he only took his bag lunch. [Note: Spare me the discussion about
how Frazier and Randle estimated the length of the bag to be too short to
conceal a disassembled Carcano. The point is that Oswald denied carrying
ANY elongated bag at all, whether it was 18", 28", or 38". If he did carry
a bag that was too short to conceal a Carcano, and that the bag carried
something innocent like curtain rods, he would certainly tell the police
that.]

If you want to debate any of the above statements as having innocent
explanations - that's fine - knock yourself out. You won't be saying
anything I haven't heard a million times before.

What I would like to address is how many conspiracists don't even try to
find innocent explanations. Instead, they say, "How do we know Oswald said
any of these things? Are we going to take the DPD's word for it? There is
no recording and there is no transcript." Of course, this is their
unwitting acknowledgement that these ARE very incriminating statements.
So, instead of trying to find an explanation they take the lazy (and
preposterous) route of stubbornly proclaiming that there is no proof that
Oswald said any of these things.

OK - fair enough.

Let's say that there WAS a stenographer present whenever Oswald made any
statements. We've all seen stenographers feverishly typing away on those
strange looking stenotype machines in courtrooms. It usually comes out on
paper in a highly cryptic manner that is difficult for anybody to read
other than the stenographer. The transcript is then transcribed into a
more readable format. That takes time - especially back in 1963.

Now we have a transcript of Oswald making these statements. Would that
satisfy the conspiracists? The way the Kennedy assassination debate has
evolved over the years, I would say it would NOT satisfy them. Invariably,
they would claim something like, "How do we know the stenographer was not
part of the cover-up and didn't change what Oswald had said? How do we
know that the transcript is an accurate reflection of what Oswald said?"

OK - then let's say everything Oswald said was recorded.

I don't think many conspiracy theorists would accept that either. Look at
the vast amount of evidence they already reject as being tampered with.
They insist that the conspirators (or cover-up artists) were capable of
planting evidence, altering photographs, altering x-rays, altering film
and even altering the president's wounds. It seems there are no limits to
what these conspirators were capable of. That being the case, I'm
convinced that a good number of conspiracy theorists would reject an audio
tape, claiming it was altered in some sophisticated way, and that it
shouldn't be trusted. I mean, if the Zapruder film can be altered, how
hard would it be to alter a simple audio tape? I can hear it now, "How do
we know that's Oswald's voice and not somebody who SOUNDS like Oswald?"

It's really an impossible task to penetrate the level of irrationality
with some of these kooks.

Now, before you all start complaining about how I am raising strawman
arguments, I readily admit this is my opinion about how this would go down
IF a transcript or recording actually did exist. Consequently, I consider
the CT objection to the fact that there are no transcripts or recordings
to be largely disingenuous in the context of all the other pieces of
evidence they reject. They would reject this, as well - I predict.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[OHLeeRedux]

David Emerling

Well done.

Yes, Oswald couldn't have displayed more consciousness of guilt if he had
tried. Maybe he was trying, or just toying with the cops.

As to the DPD not recording Ozzie's interrogation: I read somewhere that a
source at the DPD said that they never recorded suspect statements. The
explanation was that, although this was pre-Miranda, Texas had even
stricter rules governing suspect statements. No self-incriminating
statement could be used in court against a defendant. The Texas rules
actually loosened up as a result of Miranda.

[bigdog]

Another extremely well reasoned post, David. You have also pointed out how
no matter what incriminating evidence of Oswald's guilt is presented,
conspiracy hobbyists will invent whatever excuse is necessary to reject
such evidence. They aren't even embarassed at how cockamamie some of these
excuses have to be. They would be much better off if they would just
accept the obvious fact that Oswald was the shooter and try to build their
conspiracy theories based on Oswald having acted on behalf of a
conspiracy. Of course since there is no credible evidence Oswald had any
accomplices in his crimes, that is too much heavy lifting for them so
instead they resort to inventing excuses to dismiss any and all evidence
of his guilt. This too is the lazy way out.

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 10:24:44 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:

So you're attempting to defray the burden in advance with that comment.
You've acted as a junior detective when a senior would look to eliminate
certain possibilities befor tagging a suspect with
"Consciousness-of-guilt". In the JFK case, Oswald was not your completly
innocent victim, since he had some knowledge of things at the TSBD. He
knew he had brought in the MC rifle, and hid it in a pallet of books.
When he learned that the TSBD was being searched for a shoorter and his
weapon, he knew that there was such a weapon and he might be attached to
it, and thus be blasmed for the murder. So he was NOT a complete
innocent, and had some idea of hat was going on.

When questioned, Oswald did what most people that felt they had
something to hide, ho lied. That does NOT man that he was guilty of
murderr, only that he felt guilty of th ebringing in of the rifle and
hiding it. His choice wa to lie, but it didn't make him a killer. Only
LNs witha deep need to have Oswald guilty of the murder would so easily
blame him for "Consciousness-of-guilt".

> What I would like to address is how many conspiracists don't even try to
> find innocent explanations. Instead, they say, "How do we know Oswald said
> any of these things? Are we going to take the DPD's word for it? There is
> no recording and there is no transcript." Of course, this is their
> unwitting acknowledgement that these ARE very incriminating statements.
> So, instead of trying to find an explanation they take the lazy (and
> preposterous) route of stubbornly proclaiming that there is no proof that
> Oswald said any of these things.
>

Nope, won't do. As a proud CT, I agree that Oswald lied to detectives
when questioned. He was trying to protect his private doings with various
criminal elements in town, and wanted that info to stay under cover.
Thus his later frustrated comment about 'now everyone will know who I am'.

> OK - fair enough.
>
> Let's say that there WAS a stenographer present whenever Oswald made any
> statements. We've all seen stenographers feverishly typing away on those
> strange looking stenotype machines in courtrooms. It usually comes out on
> paper in a highly cryptic manner that is difficult for anybody to read
> other than the stenographer. The transcript is then transcribed into a
> more readable format. That takes time - especially back in 1963.
>
> Now we have a transcript of Oswald making these statements. Would that
> satisfy the conspiracists? The way the Kennedy assassination debate has
> evolved over the years, I would say it would NOT satisfy them. Invariably,
> they would claim something like, "How do we know the stenographer was not
> part of the cover-up and didn't change what Oswald had said? How do we
> know that the transcript is an accurate reflection of what Oswald said?"
>
> OK - then let's say everything Oswald said was recorded.
>

As a proud CT, let me help you out. Fritz made notes of Oswald's
answers.

> I don't think many conspiracy theorists would accept that either. Look at
> the vast amount of evidence they already reject as being tampered with.
> They insist that the conspirators (or cover-up artists) were capable of
> planting evidence, altering photographs, altering x-rays, altering film
> and even altering the president's wounds. It seems there are no limits to
> what these conspirators were capable of. That being the case, I'm
> convinced that a good number of conspiracy theorists would reject an audio
> tape, claiming it was altered in some sophisticated way, and that it
> shouldn't be trusted. I mean, if the Zapruder film can be altered, how
> hard would it be to alter a simple audio tape? I can hear it now, "How do
> we know that's Oswald's voice and not somebody who SOUNDS like Oswald?"
>
> It's really an impossible task to penetrate the level of irrationality
> with some of these kooks.
>

As a proud CT, I again say that I agree that Oswald lied to police
when questioned. I'm sure he thought it would all get straightened out
when he had a good lawyer. He rejected the lawyer they offerd him,
possibly because he distrusted them to give him an honest lawyer.

> Now, before you all start complaining about how I am raising strawman
> arguments, I readily admit this is my opinion about how this would go down
> IF a transcript or recording actually did exist. Consequently, I consider
> the CT objection to the fact that there are no transcripts or recordings
> to be largely disingenuous in the context of all the other pieces of
> evidence they reject. They would reject this, as well - I predict.
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN

I'm quite sure that only a small contingent would complain that there
was no record of what Oswald said and that 'they lied' which is usually
the cry of the LN kooks out there. But a good number of us CTs will have
no problem saying that Oswald lied during questioning.

Chris

[bigdog]

Of course reading Oswald's mind is a bit of a guessing game but my take on
it was the final weekend of his life was just one big act of defiance,
from killing JFK, Tippit, his attempt to kill the arresting officers and
his complete stonewalling of his interrogators. I'm sure he knew they had
him dead to right and that he would be convicted and sentenced to die but
he wasn't going to make it easy for anybody. It was his way of giving the
finger to the whole world. Of course Jack Ruby was the wild card he hadn't
figured on.

> As to the DPD not recording Ozzie's interrogation: I read somewhere that a
> source at the DPD said that they never recorded suspect statements. The
> explanation was that, although this was pre-Miranda, Texas had even
> stricter rules governing suspect statements. No self-incriminating
> statement could be used in court against a defendant. The Texas rules
> actually loosened up as a result of Miranda.

When a suspect knows he is being recorded he is less likely to open up.
Normally they will try to get the suspect to crack off the record and once
he admits guilt, get him to sign a prepared confession. Doesn't always
work and it didn't in Oswald's case.

[mainframetech]

WRONG as usual! Oswald has already been proven to have been in the
lunchroom at 12:15pm and at about the same time the 2 men with a gun were
seen in the 6th floor window. You can't cover up the facts. They had to
have done the shooting. Oswald knew that he had been set up and decided
not to talk until he had a lawyer he trusted. He told whatever lies came
to him on the spur of the moment.

Chris

[mainframetech]

WRONG! As usual! I yhave no problem with saying that Oswald may have
felt "Consciousness-of-guilt". But that does NOT mean that he murderd
JFK. He probably hid the rifle that he brought it to the TSBD and
probably guessed who had used that rifle to set him up. So he had an
indirect involvement. Since he figured out that he had been set up, he
would lie to police about anything related, as he indeed did. But he was
proven to be away from the 6th floor window when the 2 men who were seen
with a gun were there and fired the shots.

Chrisa

[Anthony Marsh]

As they Fritz tried to do to Frazier. Type up a confess and make him
sign it. Beat him until he signs it. That's the Dallas way.

>

[Anthony Marsh]

WTF? You don't even know what a pallet is. You put the rifle UNDER the
pallet, barely. But that would't hide it very well and might even draw
attention to it. There was on spy on TV who always hid his extra back-up
gun in the pallet outside his apartment, but his boss knew that trick and
stole it.

[jfk...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 9:24:44 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
> This phrase often comes up in discussing Oswald's activities and
> statements. This is actually considered EVIDENCE in a court-of-law. Even
> outside the courtroom, in a fact-finding investigation like the Warren
> Commission - these are important considerations.
>
> Besides Oswald's consciousness-of-guilt activities, not the least of which
> is his mad dash out of the depository and his killing of Officer Tippit,
> I'd like to limit this discussion to the incriminating things he told the
> authorities.

Unfortunately, that statement falls prey to the fallacy of false
alternatives. LHO said he knew he was a suspect because he had been to
the Soviet Union. His leaving the TSBD, whether or not he was the one who
killed Tippit, could have been a result of that realization.

[Anthony Marsh]

Oswald was too much of a loner and paranoid to join any conspiracy.

[Anthony Marsh]

No, that is not true. The explanation given was that the DPD was too
poor to own a tape recorder. That may be true. They were too poor to own
a magnet to test the Walker bullet.

>
>
SPAM
Don't be a Harris.

[bigdog]

It's your bullshit story. Make it as interesting as you want. You aren't
bound by the limits of evidence.

[bigdog]

He knew who had used the rifle.

> So he had an
> indirect involvement.

No shit.

> Since he figured out that he had been set up, he
> would lie to police about anything related, as he indeed did. But he was
> proven to be away from the 6th floor window when the 2 men who were seen
> with a gun were there and fired the shots.
>

This is where you get creative.

[Sandy McCroskey]

On 8/31/15 11:34 PM, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 9:24:44 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
>> This phrase often comes up in discussing Oswald's activities and
>> statements. This is actually considered EVIDENCE in a court-of-law. Even
>> outside the courtroom, in a fact-finding investigation like the Warren
>> Commission - these are important considerations.
>>
>> Besides Oswald's consciousness-of-guilt activities, not the least of which
>> is his mad dash out of the depository and his killing of Officer Tippit,
>> I'd like to limit this discussion to the incriminating things he told the
>> authorities.
>
> Unfortunately, that statement falls prey to the fallacy of false
> alternatives.

I'm sure that sounded good to you, but you don't seem to know what it means.

> LHO said he knew he was a suspect because he had been to
> the Soviet Union.

...whereas we know he was brought in as a suspect in the murder of
Tippit, and for refusing arrest and attempting to fire on a cop. LHO
said, "I didn't shoot anyone." His word's enough for you on that?

> His leaving the TSBD, whether or not he was the one who
> killed Tippit,

So you really haven't figured that out yet.

> could have been a result of that realization.

How would Oswald even know what had happened at that point (when he
left), if he hadn't done it himself?

[David Emerling]

On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 11:34:27 PM UTC-4, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:

> Unfortunately, that statement falls prey to the fallacy of false
> alternatives. LHO said he knew he was a suspect because he had been to
> the Soviet Union. His leaving the TSBD, whether or not he was the one who
> killed Tippit, could have been a result of that realization.

Are you seriously claiming that the reason Oswald behaved in the manner he
did was because he had lived in the Soviet Union and, for that reason, he
thought he would be an instant suspect? Is that the way it works? Shots
ring out in Dealey Plaza and Oswald hightails it out ofg there for no
other reason that he once lived in the Soviet Union? He thought he was a
suspect that instantly? Wow! That's some quick thinking on Oswald's part.

You're suggesting that Oswald decided that his best course of action was
to ACT very guilty even though he was completely innocent? If Oswald
didn't bring a gun to work that day - what did he have to fear? They could
hardly claim a guy who didn't have access to gun was the gunman.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 11:34:27 PM UTC-4, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Saturday, August 29, 2015 at 9:24:44 PM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
> > This phrase often comes up in discussing Oswald's activities and
> > statements. This is actually considered EVIDENCE in a court-of-law. Even
> > outside the courtroom, in a fact-finding investigation like the Warren
> > Commission - these are important considerations.
> >
> > Besides Oswald's consciousness-of-guilt activities, not the least of which
> > is his mad dash out of the depository and his killing of Officer Tippit,
> > I'd like to limit this discussion to the incriminating things he told the
> > authorities.
>
> Unfortunately, that statement falls prey to the fallacy of false
> alternatives. LHO said he knew he was a suspect because he had been to
> the Soviet Union. His leaving the TSBD, whether or not he was the one who
> killed Tippit, could have been a result of that realization.
>

So you think that when Ms. Reid told him the President had been shot he
realized instantly that he would be the primary suspect. Why would he
think that? She didn't know the shots had come from the TSBD and so Oswald
wouldn't have known that based on what she told him. Oswald knew the shots
had come from the TSBD because he fired them.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

A realization of what? A suspect for what? What did he "realize" took
place?

If he's in the Domino Room having lunch at the time then how does he know
what happened to the president? If he just heard "commotion" outside and
then went up to see what happened, then how did he "realize" anything?
It's all rumor and chaos around the building as to what occurred. Nobody
knows what happened to any certainty, whether the president was shot or
not, whether the shooters were caught.

The people _watching_ the motorcade around the building didn't know what
happened. People heard shots, there was screaming and yelling. Some ran up
to the GK. Others stood their in shock. Oswald wasn't, according to his
defenders, even watching the motorcade. He passes a co-worker who says,
"The president was shot; but maybe they missed."

So your theory is that Oswald - unlike everyone else - "realized" that the
president was shot and that he would be blamed. Even though at that time -
and certainly within 3-5 minutes - no one knew exactly what had happened.
Or even approximately what happened.

[mainframetech]

The evidence fits everything I've said. I think you're getting
irritated with the evidence...:)

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 2:59:36 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 5:00:19 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 9:22:14 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > >
> > > Another extremely well reasoned post, David. You have also pointed out how
> > > no matter what incriminating evidence of Oswald's guilt is presented,
> > > conspiracy hobbyists will invent whatever excuse is necessary to reject
> > > such evidence. They aren't even embarassed at how cockamamie some of these
> > > excuses have to be. They would be much better off if they would just
> > > accept the obvious fact that Oswald was the shooter and try to build their
> > > conspiracy theories based on Oswald having acted on behalf of a
> > > conspiracy. Of course since there is no credible evidence Oswald had any
> > > accomplices in his crimes, that is too much heavy lifting for them so
> > > instead they resort to inventing excuses to dismiss any and all evidence
> > > of his guilt. This too is the lazy way out.
> >
> >
> >

> > WRONG! As usual! I have no problem with saying that Oswald may have
> > felt "Consciousness-of-guilt". But that does NOT mean that he murdered
> > JFK. He probably hid the rifle that he brought in to the TSBD and

> > probably guessed who had used that rifle to set him up.
>
> He knew who had used the rifle.
>

More than likely. It's good to see you understanding every now and
then...:)

> > So he had an
> > indirect involvement.
>
> No shit.
>
> > Since he figured out that he had been set up, he
> > would lie to police about anything related, as he indeed did. But he was
> > proven to be away from the 6th floor window when the 2 men who were seen
> > with a gun were there and fired the shots.
> >
>
> This is where you get creative.

WRONG! I've given you all the information on that in simple terms and
you're reached your limit on complaints with your repeating, so you're all
out of excuses on that particular score.

Chris

[David Emerling]

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 9:55:09 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> No, that is not true. The explanation given was that the DPD was too
> poor to own a tape recorder. That may be true. They were too poor to own
> a magnet to test the Walker bullet.

What's your point, Tony?

Are you saying the DPD was actually NOT too poor to own a tape recorder
and, instead, they made a conscious decision NOT to have a tape recorder
in anticipation of their complicity in misrepresenting the Oswald
interrogations?

Because, if the reason for their NOT owning a tape recorder is unrelated
to the interrogation of Oswald - why even mention it? Your making a point
that has no point. Are we going to discuss the budgetary constraints of
the Dallas Police Department. Is that relevant?

Just out of curiosity, what is your source that they were "too poor"? When
questioned on this matter, Captain Fritz didn't mention their budget as a
problem.

Mr. BALL - "Did you have any tape recorder?"

Mr. FRITZ - "No, sir; I don't have a tape recorder. We need one, if we had
one at this time we could have handled these conversations far better."

Mr. BALL - "The Dallas Police Department doesn't have one?"

Mr. FRITZ - "No, sir; I have requested one several times but so far they
haven't gotten me one."

* * *

In any case, back in the early 60's, tape recording interrogations was not
very common. In our modern era, that's difficult for us to comprehend.
Many of the events surrounding the Kennedy assassination require one to
understand what was normal for that era. If you don't look at it that way
- then many things are going to look strange that were actually quite
normal.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Bud]

One blank.

>and at about the same time the 2 men with a gun were
> seen in the 6th floor window.

Two blanks.

> You can't cover up the facts. They had to
> have done the shooting. Oswald knew that he had been set up and decided
> not to talk until he had a lawyer he trusted.

Three blanks.

> He told whatever lies came
> to him on the spur of the moment.

Hey, you got one!

> Chris

[bigdog]

Of course if Oswald had been in any of the various places the conspiracy
hobbyists have placed him, the lunchroom, the domino room, out front, he
wouldn't have known where the shots originated from and would have no
reason to believe he would be a suspect. If we reject Ralph's premise that
he was out front, and we should, that would mean Oswald found out about
the assassination from Mrs. Reid. She didn't tell him the shots had come
from the TSBD so why would he instantly think he would be the primary
suspect. There is only only plausible reason for him to believe that and
that is because he was the one who fired the shots. He didn't need to be
told the shots came from his building or that he would be the primary
suspect. He already knew that.

[Mark Florio]

True. Then would you agree he would never have turned his rifle over to
anyone to facilitate (or "join") a conspiracy? Mark

[mainframetech]

When Officer Baker and Roy Truly came to the lunchroom Baker put his gun
up at Oswald, but Truly vouched for him. Any time after that someone
probably mentioned that the president had been shot, and obviously Oswald
would figure it came from the TSBD which brought in the police. He had
hidden the rifle and knew they might trace it to him, and so he got out
while he could.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Or he brought in the rifle, and thought that the person that had him
do that was setting him up, which gave him a reason to get out of there
before they found the rifle and traced it to him.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Corect, the Soviet Union wasn't the reason that he ran. He knew the
rifle was his and was hidden but about to be found, and if it were traced
to him, then they would blame him as the shooter. And though he wasn't,
he probably had a good idea who set him up, and got out of there so he
wouldn't be locked up as a suspect, and also probably was going to talk
with whoever set him up, and so he took his revolver after going home to
get it. If he thought he was going to shoot at the president, then he
would have taken his revolver with him in the morning.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

He realized that he was being framed when Tippit stopped him.

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 3:25:52 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 2:59:36 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 5:00:19 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 30, 2015 at 9:22:14 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Another extremely well reasoned post, David. You have also pointed out how
> > > > no matter what incriminating evidence of Oswald's guilt is presented,
> > > > conspiracy hobbyists will invent whatever excuse is necessary to reject
> > > > such evidence. They aren't even embarassed at how cockamamie some of these
> > > > excuses have to be. They would be much better off if they would just
> > > > accept the obvious fact that Oswald was the shooter and try to build their
> > > > conspiracy theories based on Oswald having acted on behalf of a
> > > > conspiracy. Of course since there is no credible evidence Oswald had any
> > > > accomplices in his crimes, that is too much heavy lifting for them so
> > > > instead they resort to inventing excuses to dismiss any and all evidence
> > > > of his guilt. This too is the lazy way out.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > WRONG! As usual! I have no problem with saying that Oswald may have
> > > felt "Consciousness-of-guilt". But that does NOT mean that he murdered
> > > JFK. He probably hid the rifle that he brought in to the TSBD and
> > > probably guessed who had used that rifle to set him up.
> >
> > He knew who had used the rifle.
> >
>
>
> More than likely. It's good to see you understanding every now and
> then...:)
>

It's good to see you pretend you understand.

>
>
> > > So he had an
> > > indirect involvement.
> >
> > No shit.
> >
> > > Since he figured out that he had been set up, he
> > > would lie to police about anything related, as he indeed did. But he was
> > > proven to be away from the 6th floor window when the 2 men who were seen
> > > with a gun were there and fired the shots.
> > >
> >
> > This is where you get creative.
>
>
> WRONG! I've given you all the information on that in simple terms and
> you're reached your limit on complaints with your repeating, so you're all
> out of excuses on that particular score.
>

Here's a clue for you since you desperately need one. The things you tell
me isn't information.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/1/2015 8:31 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 11:34:27 PM UTC-4, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, that statement falls prey to the fallacy of false
>> alternatives. LHO said he knew he was a suspect because he had been to
>> the Soviet Union. His leaving the TSBD, whether or not he was the one who
>> killed Tippit, could have been a result of that realization.
>
> Are you seriously claiming that the reason Oswald behaved in the manner he
> did was because he had lived in the Soviet Union and, for that reason, he
> thought he would be an instant suspect? Is that the way it works? Shots

No, that they would frame him in order to implicate the Soviet Union.

> ring out in Dealey Plaza and Oswald hightails it out ofg there for no
> other reason that he once lived in the Soviet Union? He thought he was a
> suspect that instantly? Wow! That's some quick thinking on Oswald's part.
>

I don't think he realized it until Tippit stopped him.

> You're suggesting that Oswald decided that his best course of action was
> to ACT very guilty even though he was completely innocent? If Oswald
> didn't bring a gun to work that day - what did he have to fear? They could
> hardly claim a guy who didn't have access to gun was the gunman.
>

You act guilty every day, but we don't frame YOU for murder.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[Anthony Marsh]

A secretary told him. Word of mouth.

[mainframetech]

I would certainly agree to that, but I wouldn't agree that he did the
shooting. Since he was seen eating in the lunchroom at about 12:15pm and
2 men with a gun were seen at about the same time at the 6th floor window.
They were waiting for the motorcade which (if oswald was guilty) he should
also have been doing at that time. Since he wasn't, it's another fact that
shows him not to guilty of shooting out the window at 12:30pm.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 5:54:59 PM UTC-4, bigdog wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 8:31:39 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> > On Monday, August 31, 2015 at 11:34:27 PM UTC-4, jfk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Unfortunately, that statement falls prey to the fallacy of false
> > > alternatives. LHO said he knew he was a suspect because he had been to
> > > the Soviet Union. His leaving the TSBD, whether or not he was the one who
> > > killed Tippit, could have been a result of that realization.
> >
> > Are you seriously claiming that the reason Oswald behaved in the manner he
> > did was because he had lived in the Soviet Union and, for that reason, he
> > thought he would be an instant suspect? Is that the way it works? Shots
> > ring out in Dealey Plaza and Oswald hightails it out ofg there for no
> > other reason that he once lived in the Soviet Union? He thought he was a
> > suspect that instantly? Wow! That's some quick thinking on Oswald's part.
> >
> > You're suggesting that Oswald decided that his best course of action was
> > to ACT very guilty even though he was completely innocent? If Oswald
> > didn't bring a gun to work that day - what did he have to fear? They could
> > hardly claim a guy who didn't have access to gun was the gunman.
> >
> > David Emerling
> > Memphis, TN
>
> Of course if Oswald had been in any of the various places the conspiracy
> hobbyists have placed him, the lunchroom, the domino room, out front, he
> wouldn't have known where the shots originated from and would have no

As a proud CT, I didn't place Oswald in the lunchroom, Carolyn Armnold
did. At about 12:15pm. A bit late to be in the lunchroom if he was
supposed to wait for the motorcade to shoot at it. But no worries, the 2
men with a gun that were sen in the 6th fdloor window would be glad to
take the shots at the motorcade.

> reason to believe he would be a suspect. If we reject Ralph's premise that
> he was out front, and we should, that would mean Oswald found out about
> the assassination from Mrs. Reid. She didn't tell him the shots had come
> from the TSBD so why would he instantly think he would be the primary
> suspect. There is only only plausible reason for him to believe that and

Where did you get the idea that Oswald would think he was the "primary
suspect"? He knew about the rifle, since he put it away himself, but he
laso knew that they wer searching the building for the shooter, and they
would find the rifle, and if they traced it to him, he would get the
blame. A cop putting a gun on him was enough to tell him it was serious.
And anoyone could tell him that someone shot at JFK.

> that is because he was the one who fired the shots. He didn't need to be
> told the shots came from his building or that he would be the primary
> suspect. He already knew that.

How would you know what he knew? No way. Meaning that you don't know
what your talking about again! And knowing where the shots came from was
clear when they were coming in with guns drawn looking for someone. Any
other employee that came in or was looking out the window could tell him
what had happened.

Chris

[David Emerling]

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 7:37:17 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

> So you think that when Ms. Reid told him the President had been shot he
> realized instantly that he would be the primary suspect. Why would he
> think that?

Apparently, what Oswald thought was, "Hey, this would be a great time to
catch a movie! I've always wanted to see the movie Cry of Battle starring
Van Heflin. But I really don't want to see the WHOLE movie, just part of
it. Maybe I'll sneak in - because I'm a cheapskate - yet, I'll take an
expensive cab ride home. I think I'll need my pistol at the theater
because, after all, that's what boys do - carry guns."

Pfft!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

Oswald knew the president had been shot before Mrs. Reid told him and
before Baker confronted him.

[mainframetech]

Fortunately, it's not for you to decide for everyone. They can make
their own decisions.

Chris

[David Emerling]

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 8:04:17 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:

> When Officer Baker and Roy Truly came to the lunchroom Baker put his gun
> up at Oswald, but Truly vouched for him. Any time after that someone
> probably mentioned that the president had been shot, and obviously Oswald
> would figure it came from the TSBD which brought in the police. He had
> hidden the rifle and knew they might trace it to him, and so he got out
> while he could.

It seems you accept that Oswald did, in fact, bring his rifle to work.
When many conspiracy theorists make the all-too-common argument that
Oswald did NOT bring a rifle to work (usually citing how the package was
too small, or that Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle were liars, or that he
never owned a rifle in the first place) - what do you respond to them? Do
you contradict them?

Why, do you imagine, Oswald brought a rifle to work if not for the purpose
of shooting the president? Do you accept that rifle as the murder weapon -
because the only bullet and fragments recovered in this crime were
determined to have been fired from that rifle to the exclusion of all
other rifles.

You sure know a lot about what was going on in the mind of Lee Oswald.
That's truly amazing. I can't say I'm as sure as you are about what was
swirling inside his head. What I do know is that there is solid evidence
and corroborated testimony that says: Lee Oswald assassinated President
Kennedy.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/2/2015 5:49 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 9:55:09 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
>> No, that is not true. The explanation given was that the DPD was too
>> poor to own a tape recorder. That may be true. They were too poor to own
>> a magnet to test the Walker bullet.
>
> What's your point, Tony?
>

The point is to show the pattern of lies by the DPD.

> Are you saying the DPD was actually NOT too poor to own a tape recorder
> and, instead, they made a conscious decision NOT to have a tape recorder
> in anticipation of their complicity in misrepresenting the Oswald
> interrogations?

No. The DPD had enough money to buy recorders. They were using them to
record the radio traffic. And to make secret recordings in the
Intelligence division. They were lying about not having a tape recorder.
They COULD have recorded the interviews, but they did not want to. What if
Oswald accidentally blurted out the code word to start WWIII, as Penkovsky
did? What if Oswald said something that revealed the DPD incompetence,
like the FBI's?

>
> Because, if the reason for their NOT owning a tape recorder is unrelated
> to the interrogation of Oswald - why even mention it? Your making a point
> that has no point. Are we going to discuss the budgetary constraints of
> the Dallas Police Department. Is that relevant?
>

Well, maybe for the sake of argument some stupid reporter or pesky
conspiracy kook asked if they had made any recordings of the Oswald
interviews.

> Just out of curiosity, what is your source that they were "too poor"? When
> questioned on this matter, Captain Fritz didn't mention their budget as a
> problem.

Yes, the DPD said they didn't have the money.

>
> Mr. BALL - "Did you have any tape recorder?"
>
> Mr. FRITZ - "No, sir; I don't have a tape recorder. We need one, if we had
> one at this time we could have handled these conversations far better."
>
> Mr. BALL - "The Dallas Police Department doesn't have one?"
>
> Mr. FRITZ - "No, sir; I have requested one several times but so far they
> haven't gotten me one."
>
> * * *
>
> In any case, back in the early 60's, tape recording interrogations was not
> very common. In our modern era, that's difficult for us to comprehend.

Very true. And no one wanted the press in there recording the
interviews. How else could they beat a confession out of a suspect.

> Many of the events surrounding the Kennedy assassination require one to
> understand what was normal for that era. If you don't look at it that way
> - then many things are going to look strange that were actually quite
> normal.
>

It's called anachronism.
They didn't have Podcasts back then.

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
>

[bigdog]

He must not have been in too big a hurry to get to the theater since he
went the long way via 10th and Patton.

[Bud]

On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 9:04:17 PM UTC-4, mainframetech wrote:

Hey Look, hobbyist figuring. Useless, worthless hobbyist figuring.

[tom...@cox.net]

===========================================================================
=====tell us exactly how Oswald knew ? ? ?
==========================================================================

--
-------------------- http://NewsReader.Com/ --------------------
Usenet Newsgroup Service $9.95/Month 30GB

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, September 3, 2015 at 10:24:38 PM UTC-4, David Emerling wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 8:04:17 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
> > When Officer Baker and Roy Truly came to the lunchroom Baker put his gun
> > up at Oswald, but Truly vouched for him. Any time after that someone
> > probably mentioned that the president had been shot, and obviously Oswald
> > would figure it came from the TSBD which brought in the police. He had
> > hidden the rifle and knew they might trace it to him, and so he got out
> > while he could.
>
> It seems you accept that Oswald did, in fact, bring his rifle to work.
> When many conspiracy theorists make the all-too-common argument that
> Oswald did NOT bring a rifle to work (usually citing how the package was
> too small, or that Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle were liars, or that he
> never owned a rifle in the first place) - what do you respond to them? Do
> you contradict them?
>

I sometimes correct them, but give them more of the story than just
that. Oswald had a number of facts that say he did NOT intend to shoot
anyone with the MC rifle, and that he was NOT the one who fired it out the
window. At about 12:15pm Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald in the lunchroom
eating, and at about that same time, 2 men were seen with a gun in the 6th
floor window. If Oswald had attempted to go up to that window, I'm sure
the 2 shooters would find a way to get rid of him.

> Why, do you imagine, Oswald brought a rifle to work if not for the purpose
> of shooting the president? Do you accept that rifle as the murder weapon -
> because the only bullet and fragments recovered in this crime were
> determined to have been fired from that rifle to the exclusion of all
> other rifles.
>

I do NOT accept the MC rifle as a murder weapon, since no on can show
that ANY MC bullet hit or hurt anyone. Oswald might have brought the
rifle to work at the request of a co-worker who pretended interest in an
odd Italian rifle, or someone that was interesteed in buying it, or
trading it or just looking at it, since it was not common at that time
(1963). There are many excuses that someone might have used to get him to
bring it in to work, but he would use the paper cover so that his boss
wouldn't think he was doing other things with his time.

I'm sure that the 2 bullets that were recovered were from the MC rifle,
but that does NOT prove that they hit or hurt anyone. There were many
bullet strikes in Dealey Plazza that day, suggesting multiple shooters
spotted around the plaza. One of the bullets found on the WRONG gurney at
Parklnad hospital was the almost pristine bullet, the other was the 2
fragments from a bullet strike on the chrome overhead bar over the
windshield on the limo. When the strike occurred, the bullet was damaged
badly because of the underlying steel roll bar there. The fragments fell
to the front seat of the limo and were found there later.

> You sure know a lot about what was going on in the mind of Lee Oswald.
> That's truly amazing. I can't say I'm as sure as you are about what was
> swirling inside his head. What I do know is that there is solid evidence
> and corroborated testimony that says: Lee Oswald assassinated President
> Kennedy.
>
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN

There is no such evidence, but the LNs would like to believe it. If
they say it to each other enough times, they will come to believe it, but
evidence should be the guide, and not opinion. Since Oswald was shown to
be elsewhere when the shooting started, he wasn't the '2 men' in the
window with a gun sen by witnesses.

I know nothing specific of Oswald's thoughts, but have some knowledge
of people after a full life dealing with them. Oswald did certain things
that made his thoughts somewhat open to educaterd guesses. An example is
that they never could find anyoplace that he practiced with his rifle.
If he had practiced, he would have found the faults in the rifle and had
them fixed. They weren't fixed, and so he didn't practice. You don't
need to know his particular thoughts to assume certain things from his
actions (or lack of them).

Another area of interest is that the FBI looked all over the area for a
place where Oswald would buy the oddball ammunition for the MC rifle.
They found only 2 gun shops that handled that kind of ammo, and one of
them reloaded all their ammo with lead bullets, removing the FMJ bullets,
so they were out as the suppliers. The last shop was checked, but they
didn't sell the oddball ammunition to Oswald. While that does not
absolutely prove that Oswald didn't buy any ammunition, it is strongly
suggestive, because the FBI wanted to prove whatever they could on Oswald
as the 'lone gunman' and would do a good job of looking.

What we have is Oswlad that didn't buy ammunition for his rifle, and
never practiced and never fixed the faults with the rifle, including the
scope, and who immediately had Marina take hos photo with his rifle and
revolver and communist literature. Once he had the photo, he rolled the
rifle up in a blanket and stowed it in the garage.

The above actions are those of someone that was using the rifle to
impress someone with the photos that were taken, but not to shoot anyone.
A shooter would practice with the rifle, and would see to it that any
faults were repaired so that shooting at a powerful figure like a
president would go as smoothly as possible.

There is NO mind reading going on. Just human reactions and
circumstances.

Chris

[mainframetech]

Doubtful, knowing what we now know. There seems like a small chance
that someone looking out a window would run into the lunchroom and tell
what they saw, but doubtful. Since the 6th floor window was taken up with
the 2 men with a gun, Oswald couldn't have gone there from the lunchroom.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

He only went to the theater to try to hide after being spotted at the
shoe store.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 9/3/2015 10:24 PM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 8:04:17 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>
>> When Officer Baker and Roy Truly came to the lunchroom Baker put his gun
>> up at Oswald, but Truly vouched for him. Any time after that someone
>> probably mentioned that the president had been shot, and obviously Oswald
>> would figure it came from the TSBD which brought in the police. He had
>> hidden the rifle and knew they might trace it to him, and so he got out
>> while he could.
>
> It seems you accept that Oswald did, in fact, bring his rifle to work.
> When many conspiracy theorists make the all-too-common argument that
> Oswald did NOT bring a rifle to work (usually citing how the package was
> too small, or that Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle were liars, or that he
> never owned a rifle in the first place) - what do you respond to them? Do
> you contradict them?
>
> Why, do you imagine, Oswald brought a rifle to work if not for the purpose
> of shooting the president? Do you accept that rifle as the murder weapon -
> because the only bullet and fragments recovered in this crime were
> determined to have been fired from that rifle to the exclusion of all
> other rifles.

He's only told you about 100 times. But since you don't believe his
theory you claim that he's never said it. What is that trick called in
logic?

56. Sour grapes. In an old fable by Aesop, a fox noticed a bunch of grapes
hanging on a vine. After several failed attempts to reach the grapes, he
gave up and insisted that he didn't want them anyway because they were
probably sour. It means putting down something and spinning it as less of
a failure when the real source of the negative spin is because the speaker
can't have it or tried to get it and failed.

[Jason Burke]

You serious, Rossley?

[David Emerling]

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 10:07:26 AM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:

> What if Oswald accidentally blurted out the code word to start WWIII, as
> Penkovsky did?

I won't even comment and allow your above comment to stand for itself. It
speaks VOLUMES about how your brain works. Typical wacky, paranoid
thinking that typifies the conspiratorial mindset. Their conspiracy
beliefs are more a reflection of their worldview than anything related to
the issue at hand.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Anthony Marsh]

Oswald did not intend to go to the movie theater.
Oswald needed the revolver to protect himself from the FBI, as he
explained to the 3 KGB agents down in Mexico City.

[Jason Burke]

Gots ta love Tony's mind-reading abilities!

[Mark Florio]

I thought you previously said he ducked into the theatre to lose the
person who was tailing him? Mark

[bigdog]

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 5:59:47 PM UTC-4, tom...@cox.net wrote:
> bigdog <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Oswald knew the president had been shot before Mrs. Reid told him and
> > before Baker confronted him.
> ===========================================================================
> =====tell us exactly how Oswald knew ? ? ?
> ==========================================================================
>

Come on, Tom. Can't you come up with harder questions than that? Oswald
knew the president had been shot because he shot him.

[Mark Florio]

Amen. Mark

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

You think he went back to his room to get his revolver because he was
afraid of Hosty? The same Hosty who never once interviewed him?

So, why did he use it to shoot Tippit? He wasn't FBI.

[Mark Florio]

I tell you what. He ought to be a rich man. Mark

[Anthony Marsh]

Same thing.

[mainframetech]

What a shame. One LN avoids facts and deals only with an oddball case
to discredit, and avoids any factual information suggesting conspiracy,
and the other LN congratulates the effort.

Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Oswald should have flagged down one of those police cars screaming through
the area and had them arrest Brewer for following him.

Or maybe it was the police he was trying to duck?

Let me think.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

Why was he worried about a shoe clerk/civilian following him?

What could this person do to him? What did the person know?

[Anthony Marsh]

You think the goal in life is to be rich? I could have been a rich man
by being dishonest.

[Anthony Marsh]

All FBI, all law enforcement.
Did you meet the guy who will kill you? Did he interview you?

> So, why did he use it to shoot Tippit? He wasn't FBI.

Wrong place, wrong time. Happens all the time with traffic stops.

>

[Jason Burke]

Speaking from experience, getting hit in the head with a high heel
hurts. A lot.

[Anthony Marsh]

Because he could tell the police where he was.

> What could this person do to him? What did the person know?
>
>

Follow him and point him out to the cops. The shoe clerk knew that Oswald
was acting suspiciously and scared by all the police sirens.

[bigdog]

Too bad for you it takes a little more than that.