Bill Kelly's Odd Logic

4 views
Skip to first unread message

John McAdams

unread,
Jul 6, 2010, 11:32:11 PM7/6/10
to

This, from the Education Forum, is the very odd argument Bill Kelly is
making:

<Quote On>

Duncan, While Oswald was still alive and being interrogated, Dallas DA
Will Fritz said that he had planned to kill the President for months
and planned on what he was going to say after he did it.

<Quote off>

Does Kelly not somehow understand that early on officials were
confused about a lot of things?

<Quote on>

Now those who claim Oswald did it alone, such as McAdams et al., say
that he had to decide after the motorcade route was announced, which
narrows the time line down considerably.

Since we know more about Oswald than any other single person in the
history of the world, who he was with, what he was doing, what he said
and wrote, for practically every day of his life - it should be
possible to pinpoint exactly when he decided to kill the President, if
he did make such a decision.

If there is no answer, then that's probably because he never made such
a decision.

<Quote off>

In the first place, I've given the answer.

In the second place, this is wacky logic.

There are a lot of things that happen, and we don't know exactly when
they happened.

If Bill Kelly should come home and find trash in his yard, I might ask
him exactly when the trash was put in his yard.

He would say he didn't know.

I would triumphantly announce that there was never any trash in his
yard!

<Quote On>

And I find it very peculiar that those who believe Oswald is the lone
assassin don't bother to determine what motivated him, why he did it,
or even try to determine when he decided to kill the President,
something that the Secret Service and others concerned with protection
of the President should be concerned about.

<Quote off>

Kelly is saying something that is flatly untrue. He didn't *ask* why
Oswald did it, but if he had, we could have given him at least a
couple of plausible theories.

OK, Bill. Somebody threw trash on your yard. Why did they do it?

Don't know?

Well, it never happened!

<Quote on>


Those least interested in even trying to answer the question are those
who believe Oswald alone was responsible for what happened at Dealey
Plaza. If he alone was responsible, then that should be the most
important question, but it is the one that has thus far been avoided.

Those who say it can not be determined or we will never know therefore
help exonerate him.

<Quote off>

Kelly should quit saying things that are flatly untrue.

Nobody has "avoided" the question of why Oswald did it. Kelly didn't
ask that.

Nobody has "avoided" the question of when Oswald decided to shoot
Kennedy -- although the answer is more complicated that a simple
"11:35 p.m. on November 21."

He clearly thought he might want to on Thursday morning when he told
Frazier he needed a ride to Irving. He certainly had that in mind
when he fabricated the bag.

He tried to get Marina to move to Dallas and live with him, and if she
had said "yes" the plan would doubtless have been scratched.

And if somebody had been on the 6th floor at the time JFK passed by in
the motorcade, the plan would probably have been scratched.

Kelly should stop making silly assertions.

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Bill Kelly

unread,
Jul 7, 2010, 10:28:15 AM7/7/10
to

Hi John,

Thanks for taking my questions seriously.

What's the silly assertion?

I agree, that if the motorcade was an hour earlier or later the floor
crew would have been working and the Sniper's Lair inappropriate for
an assassin, so it is a mighty coincidence that Oswald got the
opportunity to kill the President during lunch hour, when noboby would
be around to stop him.

But the preperation of the Sniper's Lair itself is evidence of
preperation, as was taking the paper that would be used to conceal and
carry the rifle, so that means that he had to decide to do it before
he went to Irving on Thursday, unannounced.

I would think that the decision to kill the President is not a
decision that anyone makes every day, though it seems like it is
getting to be a popular past time. But I would think that the decision
to kill someone would be intrinsically tied to the motive for doing
so.

You want to keep them separate and I think that's okay so we keep
things clear.

I understand that the officials were a bit confused early on and
didn't know which cover story was going to be officially adopted, so
some of them went with the Commie Conspiracy that was also laid out
before the switched to the Lone Nut layer of the cover story, which
was pretty early on in the proceedings.

In response to the assertion that we will never know because Oswald is
dead, I mentioned that while Oswald was still alive DA Henry Wade said
that his interrogation indicated that he had planned the murder out
long in advance and also planned what he would say when captured.

So you have your suspect alive in front of you for hours and can ask
him anything you want, and sometimes they got answers and sometimes
they didn't, but since his murder, we have got so much information on
Oswald that we know every little detail about him, yet we don't know
when he decided to kill the President or why?

The Dallas Intelligence unit under Capt. Gannaway and Lt. Revill, who
operated out of the Texas Fairgrounds, ostensibly so their infornmants
wouldn't have to go to City Hall, originally called in another missing
employee as a suspect before learning that Oswald was also missing,
but only learning that after Oswald was in custody.

Later that night these same police officers raided the home of another
TSBD employee because he belonged to a subversive leftist
organization, so they were still looking for a political conspiracy
early the next morning.

Now that the chief suspect is dead, and the Commie Conspiracy Cover
Story has been replaced with the Lone Nut Sniper, the assassination is
being blamed on a nut case, but a very well known nut case.

If Oswald was really nuts, the signs of his psychosis would be evident
to the people he was around - his wife, family, Paines, but only
Volkmar Schmidt says he noticed the signs of mentally disturbed
person, and only declared this after the assassination.

On October 30, Ruth Paine wrote to her father telling him that Oswald
"was a fine family man after all," indicating that she had her
suspicions but it was okay that he came and stayed overnight at her
house on weekends.

After the assassination she wrote that Oswald was the type of person
who could keep his psychosis from other people, and expressed regret
for setting off the string of coincidences that led to the
assassination. She also considered the possiblity that Oswald decided
to kill the President when Marina rejected his offer to move to an
apartment together.

So if Oswald was crazy and acting on his own demented demons, then he
could be diagnosed as a paranoid, psycho, homicidal maniac, or
something like that, but he isn't. Other Spree Killers were, such as
the Virginia Tech killer and Howard Unruh, and even mass murders like
Bundy and JWGacy, whose psychosis was hidden but easily diagnosed when
discovered, along with what set them off, or snap, as Gary Mack puts
it.

If Oswald killed JFK for personal psychological reasons, the point at
which he made the decision to commit the crime should be pin pointed.

So I ask again, if Oswald killed JFK, when did he decide to do it?

And John, just because a lot of things happen and we don't know when
or why, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to figure out when it was
decided that the President would be killed and why, things we can and
should know.

As for the trash in my yard, I wouldn't rest until I learned who did
it and I would find out because of the security cameras, and their
pants in my dog's mouth.

Also please indicate where I make the silly assertions and where the
logic is odd and wacky.

Bill Kelly


Greg Jaynes

unread,
Jul 7, 2010, 10:30:03 AM7/7/10
to
On Jul 6, 10:32 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> This, from the Education Forum, is the very odd argument Bill Kelly is
> making:
>
> <Quote On>
>
> Duncan, While Oswald was still alive and being interrogated, Dallas DA
> Will Fritz said that he had planned to kill the President for months
> and planned on what he was going to say after he did it.


He's mixing two things here and mixing up
the players.

The DA was Henry Wade not Will Fritz.
DPD Capt. Will Fritz did the only interrogation of Oswald.

But it was Henry Wade at a press conference who said
Oswald planned the assassination and planned
what he was going to tell the police at that time.

Respectfully,
Greg Jaynes


Grizzlie Antagonist

unread,
Jul 7, 2010, 1:44:59 PM7/7/10
to


Bill Kelly would not know the difference if someone threw trash in his
yard.

It might even be an improvement.

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Jul 7, 2010, 1:46:13 PM7/7/10
to

This is utterly nonsensical, as has been pointed out.
/sm

claviger

unread,
Jul 7, 2010, 1:51:23 PM7/7/10
to
Bill,

> If Oswald killed JFK for personal psychological reasons, the point at
> which he made the decision to commit the crime should be pin pointed.
>
> So I ask again, if Oswald killed JFK, when did he decide to do it?

Obviously right after the Limousine turned the corner.


John McAdams

unread,
Jul 7, 2010, 2:07:15 PM7/7/10
to
On 7 Jul 2010 10:28:15 -0400, Bill Kelly <billk...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Kelly is saying something that is flatly untrue. =A0He didn't *ask* why


>> Oswald did it, but if he had, we could have given him at least a
>> couple of plausible theories.
>>

>> OK, Bill. =A0Somebody threw trash on your yard. =A0Why did they do it?


>>
>> Don't know?
>>
>> Well, it never happened!
>>
>> <Quote on>
>>
>> Those least interested in even trying to answer the question are those
>> who believe Oswald alone was responsible for what happened at Dealey
>> Plaza. If he alone was responsible, then that should be the most
>> important question, but it is the one that has thus far been avoided.
>>
>> Those who say it can not be determined or we will never know therefore
>> help exonerate him.
>>
>> <Quote off>
>>
>> Kelly should quit saying things that are flatly untrue.
>>

>> Nobody has "avoided" the question of why Oswald did it. =A0Kelly didn't


>> ask that.
>>
>> Nobody has "avoided" the question of when Oswald decided to shoot
>> Kennedy -- although the answer is more complicated that a simple
>> "11:35 p.m. on November 21."
>>
>> He clearly thought he might want to on Thursday morning when he told

>> Frazier he needed a ride to Irving. =A0He certainly had that in mind


>> when he fabricated the bag.
>>
>> He tried to get Marina to move to Dallas and live with him, and if she
>> had said "yes" the plan would doubtless have been scratched.
>>
>> And if somebody had been on the 6th floor at the time JFK passed by in
>> the motorcade, the plan would probably have been scratched.
>>
>> Kelly should stop making silly assertions.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>Hi John,
>
>Thanks for taking my questions seriously.
>
>What's the silly assertion?
>
>I agree, that if the motorcade was an hour earlier or later the floor
>crew would have been working and the Sniper's Lair inappropriate for
>an assassin, so it is a mighty coincidence that Oswald got the
>opportunity to kill the President during lunch hour, when noboby would
>be around to stop him.
>
>But the preperation of the Sniper's Lair itself is evidence of
>preperation,

But not necessarily a lot, if the boxes were mostly already piled
there because of the flooring being put in.

>as was taking the paper that would be used to conceal and
>carry the rifle, so that means that he had to decide to do it before
>he went to Irving on Thursday, unannounced.
>

That's what I've been telling you.

>I would think that the decision to kill the President is not a
>decision that anyone makes every day, though it seems like it is
>getting to be a popular past time. But I would think that the decision
>to kill someone would be intrinsically tied to the motive for doing
>so.
>

No.


>You want to keep them separate and I think that's okay so we keep
>things clear.
>
>I understand that the officials were a bit confused early on and
>didn't know which cover story was going to be officially adopted, so
>some of them went with the Commie Conspiracy that was also laid out
>before the switched to the Lone Nut layer of the cover story, which
>was pretty early on in the proceedings.
>

You have no evidence there ever *was* a cover story.

Alexander was going to charge Oswald with being part of a Communist
conspiracy, but IN THE VERY PRESS CONFERENCE YOU QUOTED Wade said
"there was no one else."


>In response to the assertion that we will never know because Oswald is
>dead, I mentioned that while Oswald was still alive DA Henry Wade said
>that his interrogation indicated that he had planned the murder out
>long in advance and also planned what he would say when captured.
>

Did he say "his interrogation?" I think you have added this.

I think you will find that a map in Oswald's possessions, which some
cops showed marks showing Oswald hunting for a job near the motorcade
route was responsible for this factoid.


>So you have your suspect alive in front of you for hours and can ask
>him anything you want, and sometimes they got answers and sometimes
>they didn't, but since his murder, we have got so much information on
>Oswald that we know every little detail about him, yet we don't know
>when he decided to kill the President or why?
>

I've told you what we know. We know he was planning it when he asked
Frazier for a ride home on Thursday night. We know that he was
planning it when he fabricated the bag.

We also know that he would have scratched the idea if Marina had
agreed to come live with him in Dallas.

You are beginning to sound like Harris, who is always claiming that
nobody has refuted him, in spite of the fact that he has been refuted
liberally hundreds of times.

So quit claiming something that isn't true.


>The Dallas Intelligence unit under Capt. Gannaway and Lt. Revill, who
>operated out of the Texas Fairgrounds, ostensibly so their infornmants
>wouldn't have to go to City Hall, originally called in another missing
>employee as a suspect before learning that Oswald was also missing,
>but only learning that after Oswald was in custody.
>

Wasn't this Givens?

>Later that night these same police officers raided the home of another
>TSBD employee because he belonged to a subversive leftist
>organization, so they were still looking for a political conspiracy
>early the next morning.
>

Yea, the bookeeper, whose name I am blanking on right now.

But so what?

What is your point?

>Now that the chief suspect is dead, and the Commie Conspiracy Cover
>Story has been replaced with the Lone Nut Sniper, the assassination is
>being blamed on a nut case, but a very well known nut case.
>
>If Oswald was really nuts, the signs of his psychosis would be evident
>to the people he was around - his wife, family, Paines, but only
>Volkmar Schmidt says he noticed the signs of mentally disturbed
>person, and only declared this after the assassination.
>

I'm not aware of anybody claiming that he was psychotic.

I don't think the 9/11 hijackers were psychotic either. People can do
evil things without being psychotic.


>On October 30, Ruth Paine wrote to her father telling him that Oswald
>"was a fine family man after all," indicating that she had her
>suspicions but it was okay that he came and stayed overnight at her
>house on weekends.
>
>After the assassination she wrote that Oswald was the type of person
>who could keep his psychosis from other people, and expressed regret
>for setting off the string of coincidences that led to the
>assassination. She also considered the possiblity that Oswald decided
>to kill the President when Marina rejected his offer to move to an
>apartment together.
>
>So if Oswald was crazy and acting on his own demented demons, then he
>could be diagnosed as a paranoid, psycho, homicidal maniac, or
>something like that, but he isn't.

This is wrong in about 15 ways.

Nobody said he was psychotic. I wouldn't say he was a "homicidal
manic." He was a political extremist willing to kill to promote his
agenda.

Further. . . a lot of people are very mentally ill without it being
diagnosed.


>Other Spree Killers were, such as
>the Virginia Tech killer and Howard Unruh, and even mass murders like
>Bundy and JWGacy, whose psychosis was hidden but easily diagnosed when
>discovered, along with what set them off, or snap, as Gary Mack puts
>it.
>
>If Oswald killed JFK for personal psychological reasons, the point at
>which he made the decision to commit the crime should be pin pointed.
>

Nonsense.


>So I ask again, if Oswald killed JFK, when did he decide to do it?
>


You *are* being Bob Harris! I told you. You don't want to accept it,
OK.

But don't pretend that your quesiton hasn't been answered.

>And John, just because a lot of things happen and we don't know when
>or why, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to figure out when it was
>decided that the President would be killed and why, things we can and
>should know.
>

I've tried to explain to you what we know.

It's not my fault if you don't accept it.


>As for the trash in my yard, I wouldn't rest until I learned who did
>it and I would find out because of the security cameras, and their
>pants in my dog's mouth.
>

I'm afraid there were no security cameras on Oswald, and no dog on the
6th floor.


>Also please indicate where I make the silly assertions and where the
>logic is odd and wacky.
>

See above.

.John

--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

Bud

unread,
Jul 7, 2010, 3:45:49 PM7/7/10
to
On Jul 7, 10:28 am, Bill Kelly <billkel...@gmail.com> wrote:

You`ve been impervious to objections raised about the problems inherent
in the questions themselves from the very start. You make a few claims
that are obviously false, and then you want to proceed from them as if
they are a given. We don`t more about Oswald than anyone, and we shouldn`t
know when he made decisions about his course of action. He was an
introvert who didn`t confide in anyone. His wife said he like to be
secretive about matters that didn`t matter. Yet you claim there should be
a large blinking sign, and think it is curious for there not to be one.
The problem, of course, is the assumptions made by you in the phasing of
the question.

You look at people who acted out violently, is it alway apparent exactly
when there was no turning back? Is it always apparent even to the
offender? When did Charles Whitman reach the point of no return, two
minutes before he killed his wife, a week before? The only thing that can
be determined is that he had a troubled history leading up to his rampage.

And for that matter, when did Kennedy decide to be President?. He may
have offered some poignant moment, but that doesn`t mean it didn`t come to
him on the crapper.


tomnln

unread,
Jul 7, 2010, 10:54:39 PM7/7/10
to

"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4c34bf17....@news.supernews.com...

JOE MOLINA

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 7, 2010, 10:55:20 PM7/7/10
to

Ah, excuse me sir. Do you really think that if the motorcade were
planned for 10:00 that there would be no spectators because they would
all be at work and the TSBD employees would be told they had to work
through the visit?

Bill Kelly

unread,
Jul 7, 2010, 11:00:00 PM7/7/10
to

Thanks Greg,

The original film clip that I have that quotes Wade saying this does not
identify him - the DVD of Frame 313.

I was told that it is DA Henry Wade and I was wrong for misidentifying him
as Will Fritz, the Dallas Homicide Captain who was at the scene of the
crime within a few minutes of it happening, was on the Sixth Floor when
the rifle was discovered, and then visited Sheriff Bill Decker before
returning to his office and finding Oswald sitting there in a chair
waiting to be interrogated.

I understand that it is DA Henry Wade who is responsible for the wrongfull
convictions of dozens of innocent citizens who have since been released
from prison, but I still think what he has to say is significant. And that
is his interpretation of what happened is that the accussed assian planned
the event long in advance and also planned what he was to say after the
fact.

So which is it, did the accussed assassin plan the attack on the President
months earlier, or did he do it spontaniously to take advantage of the
opportunty that presented itself?

Thanks,

Bill Kelly

John McAdams

unread,
Jul 7, 2010, 11:15:28 PM7/7/10
to
On 7 Jul 2010 23:00:00 -0400, Bill Kelly <billk...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 7, 7:30=A0am, Greg Jaynes <jay...@mail.com> wrote:

IOW, he's scum, but what he says must be gospel.

In that exact same interview (this part was probably edited out of the
DVD you saw) he was asked whether Oswald had any accomplices, and he
replied "there was no one else."

I'll bet you are going to blow off *that,* since it's contrary to what
you want to believe.


> And that
>is his interpretation of what happened is that the accussed assian planned
>the event long in advance and also planned what he was to say after the
>fact.
>
>So which is it, did the accussed assassin plan the attack on the President
>months earlier, or did he do it spontaniously to take advantage of the
>opportunty that presented itself?
>

I've answered you about three times now.

But go ahead and keep pulling a Harris, and pretending that you have
not been answered.

.John

tomnln

unread,
Jul 8, 2010, 5:40:16 PM7/8/10
to
SEE... http://whokilledjfk.net/DA%20Wade.htm


"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message

news:4c35420f...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...

Bill Kelly

unread,
Jul 11, 2010, 8:56:36 AM7/11/10
to

BK: BUD, WHAT CLAIMS HAVE I MADE THAT ARE OBVIOUSLY FALSE?
PLEASE LIST THEM SO I CAN BE CORRECTED.


We don`t more about Oswald than anyone, and we shouldn`t
> know when he made decisions about his course of action. He was an
> introvert who didn`t confide in anyone. His wife said he like to be
> secretive about matters that didn`t matter.

BK: OKAY, THAT'S PART OF HIS CRIMINAL PERSONALITY PROFILE - HE'S
SECRETAIVE ABOUT THINGS THAT DON'T APPEAR TO MATTER TO YOU. BUT
EVERYTHING HE EVER DID HE DID FOR A REASON, AND YOU CAN'T POINT TO ONE
THING HE DID THAT MADE HIM EVEN APPER TO BE PSYCHO. OR CAN YOU?


Yet you claim there should be
> a large blinking sign, and think it is curious for there not to be one.
> The problem, of course, is the assumptions made by you in the phasing of
> the question.

BK: WAIT A MINUTE, YOU MEAN THAT A MAN CAN DECIDE TO KILL THE
PRESIDENT OF THE USA AND THEN GO AHEAD AND DO IT AND THERE SHOULDN'T
BE ANY INDICATIONS OF WHY OR HOW HE DID IT?

>
>   You look at people who acted out violently, is it alway apparent exactly
> when there was no turning back? Is it always apparent even to the
> offender?

BK: YEA, LET'S LOOK AT OTHER PEOPLE WHO ACT OUT VIOLENTLY, WHEN IT IS
ALWAYS APPARENT EXACTLY WHEN THERE IS NO TURNING BACK. OSWALD WAS
TECHNICALLY, NOT ONLY AN ASSASSIN, BUT A SPREE KILLER, WHO ATTACKED
MORE THAN ONE PERSON AT MORE THAN ONE CRIME SCENE. LOOK AT OTHER SPREE
KILLERS (UNRUH, VIRGINIA TECH) AND EVERY ONE FREAKS OUT AND KILLS
WITHOUT COMPULSION, BUT DOESN'T ACT COOL AND CALM AS OSWALD WAS,
BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER SHOOTING THREE PEOPLE AT TWO CRIME SCENES.


When did Charles Whitman reach the point of no return, two
> minutes before he killed his wife, a week before? The only thing that can
> be determined is that he had a troubled history leading up to his rampage.

BK: YEA, LET'S LOOK AT WHITMAN. WASN'T HE, LIKE UNRUH, A VET? IF
OSWALD FITS HIS PROFILE, WHY DIDN'T OSWALD KILL HIS WIFE RATHER THAN
JFK?

>
>   And for that matter, when did Kennedy decide to be President?. He may
> have offered some poignant moment, but that doesn`t mean it didn`t come to

> him on the crapper.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

BK; I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THE MOMENT JFK DECIDED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT
IS DOCUMENTED, THOUGH I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS.

AND I'M PRETTY SURE THAT IF OSWALD DECIDED TO KILL THE PRESIDENT, A
LOOK AT HIS HISTORY AND TIMELINE CHRONOLOGY SHOULD INDICATE WHEN THAT
WAS, AND WHY HE DECIDED TO DO IT, AND IF YOU CAN'T PINPOINT IT, THAT
WAS PROBABLY A DECISION HE DIDN'T MAKE.

BILL KELLY


Bud

unread,
Jul 11, 2010, 8:56:34 PM7/11/10
to

That we know more about Oswald than anyone. That we should know when
Oswald decided to kill Kennedy. You made these claims, they are
obviously untrue, yet you wanted to proceed as if they were a given.

> We don`t more about Oswald than anyone, and we shouldn`t
>
> > know when he made decisions about his course of action. He was an
> > introvert who didn`t confide in anyone. His wife said he like to be
> > secretive about matters that didn`t matter.
>
> BK: OKAY, THAT'S PART OF HIS CRIMINAL PERSONALITY PROFILE - HE'S
> SECRETAIVE ABOUT THINGS THAT DON'T APPEAR TO MATTER TO YOU. BUT
> EVERYTHING HE EVER DID HE DID FOR A REASON, AND YOU CAN'T POINT TO ONE
> THING HE DID THAT MADE HIM EVEN APPER TO BE PSYCHO. OR CAN YOU?

"psycho" is your construct, not my position or any other LN I know
of. You quoted Gary Mack saying something in this regard, but he is a
CTer.

I suppose I could compile a list of things Oswald did that were
abnormal or unusual but you are already aware of them so what is the
point?

> Yet you claim there should be
>
> > a large blinking sign, and think it is curious for there not to be one.
> > The problem, of course, is the assumptions made by you in the phasing of
> > the question.
>
> BK: WAIT A MINUTE, YOU MEAN THAT A MAN CAN DECIDE TO KILL THE
> PRESIDENT OF THE USA AND THEN GO AHEAD AND DO IT AND THERE SHOULDN'T
> BE ANY INDICATIONS OF WHY OR HOW HE DID IT?

I mean that there is no reason to believe that his thinking must be
knowable, and this is what your idea requires. So, show that it must
be knowable.

> > You look at people who acted out violently, is it alway apparent exactly
> > when there was no turning back? Is it always apparent even to the
> > offender?
>
> BK: YEA, LET'S LOOK AT OTHER PEOPLE WHO ACT OUT VIOLENTLY, WHEN IT IS
> ALWAYS APPARENT EXACTLY WHEN THERE IS NO TURNING BACK.

No, it isn`t. When did the idea to turn his groupies loose on society
first occur to Manson? You could never determine this for sure, even with
Manson giving many interviews and the people around who he confided in
giving many interviews. Who did Oswald confide in?

> OSWALD WAS
> TECHNICALLY, NOT ONLY AN ASSASSIN, BUT A SPREE KILLER, WHO ATTACKED
> MORE THAN ONE PERSON AT MORE THAN ONE CRIME SCENE.

He wasn`t a spree killer because he killed Tippit, he just got in
Oswald`s way. I believe his intention was to be a spree killer by going
and taking another crack a Walker. Probably planned to ring his bell and
shoot him when he appeared (although Walker wouldn`t have, being out of
town).

> LOOK AT OTHER SPREE
> KILLERS (UNRUH, VIRGINIA TECH) AND EVERY ONE FREAKS OUT AND KILLS
> WITHOUT COMPULSION, BUT DOESN'T ACT COOL AND CALM AS OSWALD WAS,
> BEFORE, DURING AND AFTER SHOOTING THREE PEOPLE AT TWO CRIME SCENES.
>
> When did Charles Whitman reach the point of no return, two
>
> > minutes before he killed his wife, a week before? The only thing that can
> > be determined is that he had a troubled history leading up to his rampage.
>
> BK: YEA, LET'S LOOK AT WHITMAN. WASN'T HE, LIKE UNRUH, A VET? IF
> OSWALD FITS HIS PROFILE, WHY DIDN'T OSWALD KILL HIS WIFE RATHER THAN
> JFK?

What strange thinking. Because they both were in the military they
should both act out violently the same? They had different problems,
delusions, obsessions. If Whitman had the same political obsession as
Oswald, he might have opted for political targets. Had Oswald slaughtered
Marina and Ruth Paine, they might be discovered and the assassination
thwarted. Oswald wasn`t bloodthirsty, wasn`t looking for a body count, he
likely would have preferred not to kill Tippit. But he held Tippit`s life
(and his own) of less import than his (ego driven) political goals.
Whitman was a lot less ego driven than Oswald as far as I can tell, I
don`t think he was trying for a high body count to satisfy his ego, his
rampage seems more of a compulsion to me.

> >   And for that matter, when did Kennedy decide to be President?. He may
> > have offered some poignant moment, but that doesn`t mean it didn`t come to
> > him on the crapper.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> BK; I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THE MOMENT JFK DECIDED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT
> IS DOCUMENTED, THOUGH I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS.

How could you be sure that the one Kennedy offered would be the
actual one?

> AND I'M PRETTY SURE THAT IF OSWALD DECIDED TO KILL THE PRESIDENT, A
> LOOK AT HIS HISTORY AND TIMELINE CHRONOLOGY SHOULD INDICATE WHEN THAT
> WAS, AND WHY HE DECIDED TO DO IT, AND IF YOU CAN'T PINPOINT IT, THAT
> WAS PROBABLY A DECISION HE DIDN'T MAKE.

Well, that is one terrible argument.

> BILL KELLY


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 11, 2010, 8:59:06 PM7/11/10
to

Defecting to Russia.
Slitting his wrists.

r2bz...@sbcglobal.net

unread,
Jul 11, 2010, 9:00:22 PM7/11/10
to

***The only way that the moment JFK decided to run for President, is
documented, is if JFK told someone.

If Oswald told anyone that he was going to shoot JFK, they probably would
have told the authorities.

Relatively, the chronology indicated that Oswald created a plan, after he
learned that a motorcade would pass the Schoolbook Depository.

That would also indicate that his plan was spur of the moment, and thus
his motive was that of opportunity, more than anything else.

***Ron Judge

Bill Kelly

unread,
Jul 12, 2010, 9:24:47 AM7/12/10
to
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -


Hi Bud,

So the false claims that I have made are 1) We know more about Oswald
than anyone? and 2) That we should know when Oswald decided to kill
the President - if he in fact did so.

Well let's see, the government had quite a file on Oswald before the
assassination, and the CIA itself built up a twenty some volume 201
file on Oswald alone after the assassination, and the WC, Ford,
Posner, Bugliosi and others have profiled him as a psycho killer,
without any real diagnosis, and dozens of others have written
extensive bios that portray him as either a mob hit man or covert
agent, so I can't imagine another single individual in history getting
more ink, other than possibly Jesus Christ or John Lennon.

So, yes, I think we know more about Oswald than any other single
person in history.

As for whether it can be determined when he decided to kill the
President, if in fact he did so, I think it would be prudent to study
other assassins and spree killers to see if there are case studies
that show when such a decision is made to kill.

I think it can be determined in practically every other case, so why
not this one too?

So I stand by my claims that we know more about LHO than any other
person in history, and that if he did kill JFK it can and should be
determined when he decided to do it.

BK


Bill Kelly

unread,
Jul 12, 2010, 12:43:10 PM7/12/10
to


Hi Ron,

BK: Thanks for seriously considering my questions.

The only way that the moment JFK decided to run for President, is
documented, is if JFK told someone.

BK: Maybe they had a meeting and decided during the meeting, or maybe he
did tell someone, like his brother, who would have been at such a meeting.
Even if it's not on record, I think it would be an easy thing to narrow
down and figure out.

If Oswald told anyone that he was going to shoot JFK, they probably would
have told the authorities.

BK: Oh yea? DeMohrenschidt saw the rifle in the closit and made a joke
about it and suspected Oswald had something to do with the Walker
shooting, but didn't go to the authorities. His wife knew Oswald had
something to do with the Walker shooting and she didn't go to authorities.
Mrs. Paine found a suspicious letter before the assassination and didn't
go to authorities. Granted, informants and alert citizens are two of the
most frequent ways that violent people are caught before they commit an
act. There were two witnesses to the Tippit shooting who didn't tell the
authorities what they saw because there were warrents out for their
arrest. So there are all kinds of reasons why people don't go to the
authorities when they know someone is going to do something illegal, or
has done so.

Relatively, the chronology indicated that Oswald created a plan, after he
learned that a motorcade would pass the Schoolbook Depository.

BK: Agreed. The answer is in the chronology. There was a plan, though I
don't know about Oswald being its creator. Building the Sniper's Nest took
a plan. Was getting the job at TSBD part of the plan? If not, was trying
to get a job at Allright Parking / Southland Hotel on Commerce Street (on
Nov. 10th/16th) part of a plan?

That would also indicate that his plan was spur of the moment, and thus
his motive was that of opportunity, more than anything else.

BK: Okay, there was a plan but it was spur of the moment, and opportunity
was the motive. Indeed, the window of opportunity was small - one hour -
but it's still an opportunity. It's just that every guy who's jilted by
his wife and has the opportunity, doesn't kill the president.

Thanks for thinking about it Ron.


***Ron Judge

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Jul 12, 2010, 6:35:27 PM7/12/10
to

It's unfathomable why you think that.
Give an example or two.
/sm

Bud

unread,
Jul 12, 2010, 6:41:22 PM7/12/10
to

No, they really didn`t. And since you reject these sources why would
you use them to make the case that we should be enlightened about
Oswald?

> without any real diagnosis, and dozens of others have written
> extensive bios that portray him as either a mob hit man or covert
> agent, so I can't imagine another single individual in history getting
> more ink, other than possibly Jesus Christ or John Lennon.

So you think the generation of masses of misinformation sheds light
on Oswald?

> So, yes, I think we know more about Oswald than any other single
> person in history.

No, I don`t see where you did anything to make that case at all. In
fact, you highlighted the problem with trying to know about him, which
information about him to accept and which to reject.

One of the enigmatic figures of the 20th century to me is Adolf Hitler,
and I`ve read a fair amount about him. It isn`t the quantity, it`s the
quality, knowing what he did is one thing, insight into why he did what he
did is another.

> As for whether it can be determined when he decided to kill the
> President, if in fact he did so, I think it would be prudent to study
> other assassins and spree killers to see if there are case studies
> that show when such a decision is made to kill.

After declaring that we should be able to tell, you now realize
that you have no real historical basis to make such a claim.

> I think it can be determined in practically every other case, so why
> not this one too?

Name a case of premeditated murder where it can be determined
positively when the murderer decided to kill. You only have a pool of a
few hundred thousand to choose from, lets see if you can produce one.

> So I stand by my claims that we know more about LHO than any other
> person in history, and that if he did kill JFK it can and should be
> determined when he decided to do it.

A trait I`ve often noted with CTers, they start their premises on
shaky ground and proceed from there.

> BK


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 12, 2010, 9:30:21 PM7/12/10
to
>>> read more ?- Hide quoted text -

http://us-civil-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/president-lincoln-assassinated-by-john-wilkes-booth


Booth attended Lincoln's second inauguration on March 4, 1865, and said
afterward: "What an excellent chance I had, if I wished, to kill the
president on inauguration day!?


On April 11, Booth attended a speech outside the White House in which
Lincoln supported the idea of suffrage for former black slaves. Booth, a
staunch supporter of slavery, grew furious and declared: "That is the last
speech he will ever make."


Enough of these phony challenges from non-researchers. Go do your
homework.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 12, 2010, 9:32:26 PM7/12/10
to
>> read more ?- Hide quoted text -

>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> Hi Bud,
>
> So the false claims that I have made are 1) We know more about Oswald
> than anyone? and 2) That we should know when Oswald decided to kill
> the President - if he in fact did so.
>
> Well let's see, the government had quite a file on Oswald before the
> assassination, and the CIA itself built up a twenty some volume 201
> file on Oswald alone after the assassination, and the WC, Ford,
> Posner, Bugliosi and others have profiled him as a psycho killer,
> without any real diagnosis, and dozens of others have written
> extensive bios that portray him as either a mob hit man or covert
> agent, so I can't imagine another single individual in history getting
> more ink, other than possibly Jesus Christ or John Lennon.
>

For the sake of the argument assume that Oswald was the assassin and that
during his visit to the Soviet embassy or Cuban embassy the CIA had a room
bug which recorded him threatening President Kennedy. Would that satisfy
your requirements?

Bud

unread,
Jul 12, 2010, 11:19:30 PM7/12/10
to
> http://us-civil-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/president-lincoln-assass...

>
> Booth attended Lincoln's second inauguration on March 4, 1865, and said
> afterward: "What an excellent chance I had, if I wished, to kill the
> president on inauguration day!?
>
> On April 11, Booth attended a speech outside the White House in which
> Lincoln supported the idea of suffrage for former black slaves. Booth, a
> staunch supporter of slavery, grew furious and declared: "That is the last
> speech he will ever make."
>
> Enough of these phony challenges from non-researchers. Go do your
> homework.

<snicker> Do you think that you`ve established when it first
occurred to Booth to kill Lincoln by provided two different times for
it?

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Jul 12, 2010, 11:26:34 PM7/12/10
to
On Jul 12, 9:30 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> http://us-civil-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/president-lincoln-assass...

>
> Booth attended Lincoln's second inauguration on March 4, 1865, and said
> afterward: "What an excellent chance I had, if I wished, to kill the
> president on inauguration day!?
>
> On April 11, Booth attended a speech outside the White House in which
> Lincoln supported the idea of suffrage for former black slaves. Booth, a
> staunch supporter of slavery, grew furious and declared: "That is the last
> speech he will ever make."
>
> Enough of these phony challenges from non-researchers. Go do your
> homework.


So you have two occasions, a month and a week apart, on which Booth talked
about killing President Lincoln. On the first, he says he missed a good
chance, if he had wished to take it, and on the second, he makes a
outright threat.

We can't narrow down the time frame for Booth's decision to actually try
to assassinate Lincoln even so far as "some time within that five- week
period" because the sentiment expressed on the first occasion indicates
that he may have already decided to try to kill the president but that for
some reason he did not take that particular opportunity.

/sm

Bud

unread,
Jul 13, 2010, 9:50:57 AM7/13/10
to
On Jul 12, 11:26 pm, Sandy McCroskey <gwmccros...@earthlink.net>

Right, Marsh would have been smart to only cite one, he destroyed
the argument by supplying multiple instances of Booth thinking about
killing Lincoln. With what he supplied, you can argue against one date
by using the other, which brings you back to it being unknown when
Booth decided to kill Lincoln.

A lot of these events occur because the eventual murderer is
predisposed towards a certain course of action. Oswald was going to
try something big at some point in his life, if not kill a President,
than hijack a plane to Cuba, or some other high profile act (like
killing any one of a dozen prominent right-wingers). As can be seen in
the quotes Marsh supplied, Booth was predisposed to kill Lincoln, the
two main components were in place (Booth had the balls to do it and he
took the issues seriously enough to do it -- same as Oswald). I don`t
think it can be said that had Lincoln gotten sick, and not delivered
the speech that pissed Booth off, Lincoln would have been safe from
Booth. It`s like the really angry guy that kills his wife because she
burned dinner. His personality is what led to the action, if it wasn`t
the dinner being burned it would be something else later.


> /sm


Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Jul 13, 2010, 12:59:29 PM7/13/10
to

Of course, even if it had stood alone, neither quotation would really
prove anything of the sort either. It could be only the public expression
of a decision that had been made privately at some unknown time, or even
mere braggadocio when the speaker had not yet fully committed himself to
such a decision.

Though I'm sure there's someone out there (I won't name names) whom Tony's
"research" (he found a link!) totally convinces.

/sandy

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 13, 2010, 3:13:22 PM7/13/10
to

Except that I included the earlier quote which indicates that by the time
of the inauguration Booth had not yet decided to kill Lincoln. The second
speech is the one which drove him over the edge when he learned about
Lincoln's plans to give voting rights to slaves. THAT is when Booth became
enraged and vowed to kill Lincoln.

Someone asked for just one example and I provided a clear-cut example so
naturally you use any excuse to attack me. Pathetic.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 13, 2010, 3:13:52 PM7/13/10
to
On 7/13/2010 12:59 PM, Sandy McCroskey wrote:

You mean like Kodak film expert Roland Zavada who said my research on the
Zapruder film was 100% accurate and went beyond even what he had done? Or
are you one of those who always disagrees with anything I say so you claim
the Zapruder film is fake?


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 13, 2010, 4:14:04 PM7/13/10
to

More inanity. I was not talking about Booth THINKING about killing
Lincoln. The stupid challenge was to provide even one example of when a
murderer DECIDED to kill his victim. That moment was when Booth heard
Lincoln say he would give the slaves the right to vote. At that exact
moment Booth decided to kill Lincoln.

As usual you go to any ridiculous length to deny simple facts simply to
try to attack me.

> A lot of these events occur because the eventual murderer is
> predisposed towards a certain course of action. Oswald was going to
> try something big at some point in his life, if not kill a President,
> than hijack a plane to Cuba, or some other high profile act (like
> killing any one of a dozen prominent right-wingers). As can be seen in

Oswald saw himself as the "Hunter of Fascists" and tried to kill General
Edwin Walker.

> the quotes Marsh supplied, Booth was predisposed to kill Lincoln, the
> two main components were in place (Booth had the balls to do it and he

No, the original plan was to only KIDNAP Lincoln, not kill him.
Pay attention.

> took the issues seriously enough to do it -- same as Oswald). I don`t
> think it can be said that had Lincoln gotten sick, and not delivered
> the speech that pissed Booth off, Lincoln would have been safe from
> Booth. It`s like the really angry guy that kills his wife because she
> burned dinner. His personality is what led to the action, if it wasn`t
> the dinner being burned it would be something else later.
>

Maybe it was self-defense because the wife tried to poison the husband.

>
>> /sm
>
>


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 13, 2010, 4:16:23 PM7/13/10
to

He only made that outright threat the moment he heard Lincoln say that he
would give slaves the right to vote.

> We can't narrow down the time frame for Booth's decision to actually try
> to assassinate Lincoln even so far as "some time within that five- week
> period" because the sentiment expressed on the first occasion indicates
> that he may have already decided to try to kill the president but that for
> some reason he did not take that particular opportunity.
>

He didn't make that comment BEFORE the speech or AFTER the speech. He made
that comment immediately after he heard Lincoln say that he would give
slaves the right to vote. I met the challenge. I provided one example. I
won, you lost.

> /sm


Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 13, 2010, 4:17:35 PM7/13/10
to

The earlier time was not a decision to kill Lincoln. The second time was
the decision to kill Lincoln. The precise moment. Immediately after
Lincoln said that he would give slaves the right to vote.

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Jul 13, 2010, 4:21:36 PM7/13/10
to

Total nonsense.

The first time, Booth indicated that he would like to kill Lincoln, but
neglected to indicate why he didn't take one opportunity to do so. This
could mean that his mind was already made up to try to do it sometime, or
that he had only begun to think about it OR that he was at that point just
a blowhard.

The second time, he makes an outright threat. So? It comes to the same
thing. Why do you assume his words can be taken at face value? This I find
very odd.

If he had written in a private diary that he made the fateful decision at
a particular time on a certain day, that would carry more weight. But the
only way to know for absolutely certain when any person made a decision is
to *be* that person. Anybody else can only speculate and adduce
circumstantial evidence.

You assume the April 11 speech, just three days before the assassination,
was the "last straw," but the conspiracy involved more than just killing
Lincoln and organizing it would have begun somewhat earlier.

/sm

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Jul 13, 2010, 4:22:26 PM7/13/10
to

That was a long, long time ago.

My pejorative quotemarks referred to the example of your "research" at
hand.

I've always found it remarkable that you were able to prove that the Z-
film hadn't been altered (for those who needed such proof, and I didn't)
and yet you still swear by the bogus "acoustic evidence."

/sm


Bud

unread,
Jul 13, 2010, 7:20:08 PM7/13/10
to

Ok, a second reading of the cites you provided I see that you did
satisfy the terms of my request to Kelly. In the first cite, I think I
missed "if I wished". So, Booth didn`t wish to kill Lincoln, and then he
did. Good job, Tony, although I wouldn`t say this positively determines it
to be fact that this is the moment that Booth decided to kill Lincoln, it
is supported both by Booth`s assertions and the knowledge that this type
speech would be something to set the firebrand Booth off.

> As usual you go to any ridiculous length to deny simple facts simply to
> try to attack me.

I don`t know that I went to any lengths to attack you, I kind of just
sat here and typed.

> >     A lot of these events occur because the eventual murderer is
> > predisposed towards a certain course of action. Oswald was going to
> > try something big at some point in his life, if not kill a President,
> > than hijack a plane to Cuba, or some other high profile act (like
> > killing any one of a dozen prominent right-wingers). As can be seen in
>
> Oswald saw himself as the "Hunter of Fascists" and tried to kill General
> Edwin Walker.

Yah, he was predisposed for this type of violent action against
political figures.

> > the quotes Marsh supplied, Booth was predisposed to kill Lincoln, the
> > two main components were in place (Booth had the balls to do it and he
>
> No, the original plan was to only KIDNAP Lincoln, not kill him.
> Pay attention.

It would have been hard for Booth to make that jump from the balcony
with Lincoln on his back.

> > took the issues seriously enough to do it -- same as Oswald). I don`t
> > think it can be said that had Lincoln gotten sick, and not delivered
> > the speech that pissed Booth off, Lincoln would have been safe from
> > Booth. It`s like the really angry guy that kills his wife because she
> > burned dinner. His personality is what led to the action, if it wasn`t
> > the dinner being burned it would be something else later.
>
> Maybe it was self-defense because the wife tried to poison the husband.

Could be. Or maybe it was a paranoid delusion, and them was just
bacon bits.
.
> >> /sm


Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Jul 14, 2010, 12:28:36 AM7/14/10
to


You didn't miss much, really. He could have been saying he just didn't
wish to *at that time*.
/sm

Bill Kelly

unread,
Jul 14, 2010, 12:47:59 AM7/14/10
to

Hey,

I don't reject the WC, Posner, Bugliosi, Epstine or anybody. I read them
all, and learn something new from them all. In fact, the most serious case
of conspiracy is based on the same information, documents and witnesses
that were available to the WC, who just declined to accept or follow up on
them.

When I say case studies to cite as examples, I don't just mean other
political assassinations, since Oswald is considered to be not only a
political assassin, but a spree killer - someone who violently attacks
more than one person at more than one location. In which case he fits into
the same category as Howard Unruh, a WWII vet who flipped out and shot up
his Camden NJ neighborhood in 1949, the assassin of Rabbi Meir Kahane and
the Virginia Tech killer.

As with Booth, it isn't when he decided to kill or kidnap Lincoln, it is
when it was decided he would kill him at Fords Theater. If the JFK
assassination investigation was conducted like Lincoln's assassination,
the military would have hanged Ruth and Michael Paine for harboring the
assassin even if they weren't involved in the conspiracy, as they hung the
lady who ran the rooming house where Booth stayed.

The Lincoln assassination is not a good case study if you want to prove
that JFK was killed by a lone nut assassin all by himself.

If Oswald considered himself a "Hunter of Fascists" as he wrote on the
photo DeMohrenschildts found among his effects in a garage years after the
assassination, then how come he didn't shoot and kill a fascist, but
instead, someone he claimed to have admired?

And unlike any other assassin or plane hijacker to Cuba, Oswald denied
committing the deed, which runs totally against the grain of any motive
you profess for him that includes fame or political gain. One historical
case study of the political assassin denying committing the deed would be
appreciated.

Thanks for your interest in this,

BK

Bud

unread,
Jul 14, 2010, 10:36:29 AM7/14/10
to

Hey.

> I don't reject the WC, Posner, Bugliosi, Epstine or anybody. I read them
> all, and learn something new from them all. In fact, the most serious case
> of conspiracy is based on the same information, documents and witnesses
> that were available to the WC, who just declined to accept or follow up on
> them.
>
> When I say case studies to cite as examples, I don't just mean other
> political assassinations, since Oswald is considered to be not only a
> political assassin, but a spree killer - someone who violently attacks
> more than one person at more than one location.

I don`t know where you get this idea from, but it`s wrong. Oswald
killed specific people for specific reasons, he wasn`t a spree killer.

> In which case he fits into
> the same category as Howard Unruh, a WWII vet who flipped out and shot up
> his Camden NJ neighborhood in 1949, the assassin of Rabbi Meir Kahane and
> the Virginia Tech killer.

Spree killers kill indiscriminately, like those Columbine kids did.
Oswald isn`t a spree killer, he killed Kennedy for his own specific
reasons, and he killed Tippit for his own specific reasons. The
murders were not random.

> As with Booth, it isn't when he decided to kill or kidnap Lincoln, it is
> when it was decided he would kill him at Fords Theater. If the JFK
> assassination investigation was conducted like Lincoln's assassination,
> the military would have hanged Ruth and Michael Paine for harboring the
> assassin even if they weren't involved in the conspiracy, as they hung the
> lady who ran the rooming house where Booth stayed.

Maybe. And Frazier for giving him a ride to work. They seemed to
hang everyone involved just in case they were involved. Seems to me
many CTers would apply the same methods to the Kennedy assassination,
damn and convict everyone around the murderer.

> The Lincoln assassination is not a good case study if you want to prove
> that JFK was killed by a lone nut assassin all by himself.

No, it was a conspiracy, that is why the conspiracy can be shown.
When conspiracies don`t exist they are harder to show, but that
doesn`t stop some people from trying.

> If Oswald considered himself a "Hunter of Fascists" as he wrote on the
> photo DeMohrenschildts found among his effects in a garage years after the
> assassination, then how come he didn't shoot and kill a fascist, but
> instead, someone he claimed to have admired?

He did try to shoot a fascist.

Fritz asked him about his feeling for Kennedy during the
assassination, and Oswald demurred. Oswald may have liked him when he
was running against more conservative opponents, but lost taste for
him after his treatment of Cuba (and publicized U.S. attempts on
Castro`s life).

And in the course of political violence, admiration can take a
backseat to ideals. Some of the senators that plunged knives into
Julius Caesar may have admired him. It doesn`t have to be hatred that
drives men to kill, they can kill people they admire.

> And unlike any other assassin or plane hijacker to Cuba, Oswald denied
> committing the deed,

How would a person who hijacked a plane to Cuba explain how he got
there if he denied he hijacked a plane to get there?

>which runs totally against the grain of any motive
> you profess for him that includes fame or political gain.

Grizzly Antagonist recently gave an excellent explanation for this.
Oswald gets more political gain by using the murder as a soapbox to
focus attention to his ideas. If he confesses his ideas don`t get
attention, they are dismissed and forgotten. He was disappointed that
no reporters were there to greet him when he arrived back in America
after his defection. He even had questions and answers written up. He
wasn`t going to ignored this time.

>One historical
> case study of the political assassin denying committing the deed would be
> appreciated.

I might look into it. It isn`t a huge pool to work with, and most
assassins seem to be zealots that do proudly proclaim their
intentions.

The Rosenbergs went to the chair never admitting their guilt, I`m
not sure about Sacco and Vanzetti.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 14, 2010, 2:34:25 PM7/14/10
to

A lot of the new information which has come out was intentionally
withheld from the Warren Commission.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 14, 2010, 11:56:40 PM7/14/10
to

The original plan before Booth decided to kill Lincoln was to kidnap him.
Most students of the Lincoln assassination already knew that.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 14, 2010, 11:59:00 PM7/14/10
to

Will you be the last to leave a sinking ship?
Bud already admitted that I had met the challenge.
He admitted that the first incident did not indicate a desire to kill
Lincoln.

> The second time, he makes an outright threat. So? It comes to the same


> thing. Why do you assume his words can be taken at face value? This I find
> very odd.
>

The first thing was not an outright threat. The second thing was.
It was the moment he decided to kill Lincoln. That is what someone asked
for so I delivered.

> If he had written in a private diary that he made the fateful decision at
> a particular time on a certain day, that would carry more weight. But the

No, the diary can not tell you the exact second he made the decision.
Lincoln's speech does. And why do you think a little peon like you would
be allowed to read Booth's diary. Would you have to pretend to be a
researcher? Then you'd just be known as one of those conspiracy buffs.


> only way to know for absolutely certain when any person made a decision is
> to *be* that person. Anybody else can only speculate and adduce
> circumstantial evidence.
>
> You assume the April 11 speech, just three days before the assassination,
> was the "last straw," but the conspiracy involved more than just killing
> Lincoln and organizing it would have begun somewhat earlier.
>

So, you're such an expert on assassinations that you think it takes
years to plan an assassination?

mucher1

unread,
Jul 15, 2010, 2:33:06 PM7/15/10
to

The caption says "Hunter of fascists---ha-ha-ha!!!" This doesn't sound
like something Oswald would've written about himself--and the
handwriting isn't even his.

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Jul 15, 2010, 7:27:03 PM7/15/10
to


It is obvious that Booth had a "desire" to kill Lincoln at that point,
anyway, when he ~fantasized~ about it and remarked that he didn't take a
good chance to do it.

I thought you were arguing that you could pinpoint the time at which Booth
decided to actually try to do it.

It is indeed *plausible* that hearing that speech finally pushed Booth
over the edge to homicide. But all we have on record is that he said
something to that effect. We don't have a record of what went on in his
head.

> > The second time, he makes an outright threat. So? It comes to the same
> > thing. Why do you assume his words can be taken at face value? This I find
> > very odd.
>
> The first thing was not an outright threat. The second thing was.
> It was the moment he decided to kill Lincoln. That is what someone asked
> for so I delivered.
>

The first recorded time he made an outright threat in public, yes.


> > If he had written in a private diary that he made the fateful decision at
> > a particular time on a certain day, that would carry more weight. But the
>
> No, the diary can not tell you the exact second he made the decision.
> Lincoln's speech does.


Oh, now it's "the exact second"!
You're truly amazing.

> And why do you think a little peon like you would
> be allowed to read Booth's diary. Would you have to pretend to be a
> researcher? Then you'd just be known as one of those conspiracy buffs.
>


Somebody's getting a little worked up.

> > only way to know for absolutely certain when any person made a decision is
> > to *be* that person. Anybody else can only speculate and adduce
> > circumstantial evidence.
>
> > You assume the April 11 speech, just three days before the assassination,
> > was the "last straw," but the conspiracy involved more than just killing
> > Lincoln and organizing it would have begun somewhat earlier.
>
> So, you're such an expert on assassinations that you think it takes
> years to plan an assassination?

Gross exaggeration.
/sm

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Jul 15, 2010, 8:40:08 PM7/15/10
to

Read what I wrote again. I expressly didn't say "an assassination," and I
didn't generalize. I said specifically "the conspiracy [that] involved
more than just killing Lincoln." Yes, I don't think it all started just
three days before the assassination. Do you?

But an assassination "plan" like Oswald's wouldn't even require three
days!

/sm

Bud

unread,
Jul 15, 2010, 8:44:25 PM7/15/10
to

<snicker> Now you trust my reading of evidence?

You provided about as good an example as possible, it satisfied me, but
I did put an asterisks on it, that it was impossible to positively
determine it as indisputable fact. When a thought first occurs to someone
might be unknown even to the person having the thought.

Every so often, I`ll think " I haven`t had pizza in a while". In a way,
this is me deciding to have pizza soon, but when is left up in the air.
Likely every day after this I will consider pizza, and reject it until all
the stars line up and I`ll get pizza. So, when did I decide to have pizza,
the day I realized it was about time to get pizza (which made getting
pizza inevitable), or the day I actually went through with it and got
pizza? And all this talk about pizza makes me realize I haven`t had pizza
in a while.

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 15, 2010, 8:52:58 PM7/15/10
to

The Ha-ha-ha was added later, not in the same handwriting.
The Ha-ha-ha is making fun of the boast Hunter of Fascists.

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Jul 15, 2010, 8:54:09 PM7/15/10
to

That is the first time we know of that Booth said such a thing, yes.


> > Total nonsense.
>
> > The first time, Booth indicated that he would like to kill Lincoln, but
> > neglected to indicate why he didn't take one opportunity to do so. This
> > could mean that his mind was already made up to try to do it sometime, or
> > that he had only begun to think about it OR that he was at that point just
> > a blowhard.
>
> Will you be the last to leave a sinking ship?
> Bud already admitted that I had met the challenge.
> He admitted that the first incident did not indicate a desire to kill
> Lincoln.
>


The first incident does indeed indicate that Booth had a "desire" to
kill Lincoln, as he was **fantasized** about it and remarked that he
had passed up a good chance to do so.
But I thought we were arguing about whether the time could be
determined that Booth made the decision to actually attempt to do it.

You have found what seems to be the earliest known expression of an
outright threat by Booth to kill the president.
It is indeed plausible that Booth's hearing that speech pushed him


over the edge to homicide.

But there is no way to be certain that he hadn't come to this decision
earlier--or, for that matter, whether he didn't have second thoughts
about his threat at any time in the three days between the reported
statement and the assassination--because we're not privy to his
innermost thoughts.


> > The second time, he makes an outright threat. So? It comes to the same
> > thing. Why do you assume his words can be taken at face value? This I find
> > very odd.
>
> The first thing was not an outright threat. The second thing was.
> It was the moment he decided to kill Lincoln. That is what someone asked
> for so I delivered.
>

You found what may indeed be the earliest public record of an outright
threat.


> > If he had written in a private diary that he made the fateful decision at
> > a particular time on a certain day, that would carry more weight. But the
>
> No, the diary can not tell you the exact second he made the decision.
> Lincoln's speech does.

Oh, so now it's "the exact second"!

> And why do you think a little peon like you would
> be allowed to read Booth's diary. Would you have to pretend to be a
> researcher? Then you'd just be known as one of those conspiracy buffs.
>

Sounds like somebody's getting a bit worked up here.


> > only way to know for absolutely certain when any person made a decision is
> > to *be* that person. Anybody else can only speculate and adduce
> > circumstantial evidence.
>
> > You assume the April 11 speech, just three days before the assassination,
> > was the "last straw," but the conspiracy involved more than just killing
> > Lincoln and organizing it would have begun somewhat earlier.
>
> So, you're such an expert on assassinations that you think it takes
> years to plan an assassination?> /sm
>

I expressly didn't say an "assassination," and I didn't generalize. I
very specifically referred to "the conspiracy [that] involved more
than just killing Lincoln."
And yes, I don't believe that conspiracy was gotten together in just
three days. Do you?

But a "plan" like Oswald's wouldn't even have required three days!
/sm

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 17, 2010, 12:37:14 AM7/17/10
to

That's what someone asked for. The exact moment.

>> And why do you think a little peon like you would
>> be allowed to read Booth's diary. Would you have to pretend to be a
>> researcher? Then you'd just be known as one of those conspiracy buffs.
>>
>
> Sounds like somebody's getting a bit worked up here.
>
>
>>> only way to know for absolutely certain when any person made a decision is
>>> to *be* that person. Anybody else can only speculate and adduce
>>> circumstantial evidence.
>>
>>> You assume the April 11 speech, just three days before the assassination,
>>> was the "last straw," but the conspiracy involved more than just killing
>>> Lincoln and organizing it would have begun somewhat earlier.
>>
>> So, you're such an expert on assassinations that you think it takes
>> years to plan an assassination?> /sm
>>
>
> I expressly didn't say an "assassination," and I didn't generalize. I
> very specifically referred to "the conspiracy [that] involved more
> than just killing Lincoln."
> And yes, I don't believe that conspiracy was gotten together in just
> three days. Do you?
>

Which conspiracy? The kidnap conspiracy took longer than three days.

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Jul 17, 2010, 10:32:13 AM7/17/10
to

Your source says only that the statement was heard sometime during the
speech.

Bill Kelly

unread,
Jul 17, 2010, 12:42:25 PM7/17/10
to
> > > read more »- Hide quoted text -

>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Hi Bud,
>
> > So the false claims that I have made are 1) We know more about Oswald
> > than anyone? and 2) That we should know when Oswald decided to kill
> > the President - if he in fact did so.
>
> > Well let's see, the government had quite a file on Oswald before the
> > assassination, and the CIA itself built up a twenty some volume 201
> > file on Oswald alone after the assassination, and the WC, Ford,
> > Posner, Bugliosi and others have profiled him as a psycho killer,
> > without any real diagnosis, and dozens of others have written
> > extensive bios that portray him as either a mob hit man or covert
> > agent, so I can't imagine another single individual in history getting
> > more ink, other than possibly Jesus Christ or John Lennon.
>
> > So, yes, I think we know more about Oswald than any other single
> > person in history.
>
> > As for whether it can be determined when he decided to kill the
> > President, if in fact he did so, I think it would be prudent to study
> > other assassins and spree killers to see if there are case studies
> > that show when such a decision is made to kill.
>
> > I think it can be determined in practically every other case, so why
> > not this one too?
>
> It's unfathomable why you think that.
> Give an example or two.
> /sm

Okay, Howard Unruh, the first Post WWII spree killer in 49', an army
vet who was told by his Camden NJ barber that the pharmacist was in
and said he had bought some rubbers, and they joked he didn't have a
girlfriend. Unruh snapped, went home and got his guns and went on a
neighborhood killing spree, people in a car stopped at a red light,
little boy in the barber's chair, went looking for pharmacist.
Eventually caught at home when he came out and surrendered. Recently
died and the subject of upcoming book.

Second case study: Virginia Tech murder, killed a man and a women in
one location and then went and locked himself in a classroom and
killed dozens more.

I don't know motive and a time in which he decided to kill in VT case,
but I'm sure they studied it thoroughly and at least looked for and
possibly determined both motive and time of decision.

Of course in these cases these things should be determined in order to
learn whether they are just nut cases or terrorists.

Third case study, Rabbi Kahane, in NYC, shot in hotel ballroom by an
assassin who escaped on foot, shooting a policeman while exiting the
hotel, takes a cab and is caught. Local NYC cops say he is a lone nut,
no conspiracy (sound familiar?). But eventually it is determined that
he got in wrong cab and the cab driver who was supposed to pick him up
was a co-conspirator. When they search the cab driver's apartment in
New Jersey they find TOP SECRET US Army Special Ops documents traced
to Ali Mohamad, and link this terror cell to the first bombing of
WTC.

So, my question still stands. If Oswald was alone responsible for
killing the President of the USA, when did he decide to do that?

BK

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 17, 2010, 12:59:00 PM7/17/10
to

No, it indicates that he said it immediately after Lincoln announced his
plan to give voting rights to the slaves.

Message has been deleted

mucher1

unread,
Jul 17, 2010, 2:57:54 PM7/17/10
to

First time I've heard the claim that the "ha-ha-ha" wasn't written in the
same hand as the "Hunter of fascists". May I ask what your claim is based
on? To me, the entire remark seems to be in the same handwriting:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/...

> The Ha-ha-ha is making fun of the boast Hunter of Fascists.

It's called sarcasm.

Sandy McCroskey

unread,
Jul 17, 2010, 11:49:34 PM7/17/10
to

Ha ha. No, actually, it says this:

<quote on>On April 11, Booth attended a speech outside the White House in

which Lincoln supported the idea of suffrage for former black slaves.
Booth, a staunch supporter of slavery, grew furious and declared: "That is

the last speech he will ever make."</quote on>


At what time was the statement about suffrage made (down to the
second)?
How long did it take him to "gr[o]w furious"?
Three seconds? Five seconds? A minute? Five minutes?
Ha ha.

Seriously, it doesn't say exactly when Booth made the reported
statement.
It might have been after the speech!
/sandy

Bill Kelly

unread,
Jul 18, 2010, 10:25:50 AM7/18/10
to
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -


The difference between the Lincoln and Kennedy assassinations is one
is history while the other is an unsolved homicide that can still be
prosecuted since there are still living witnesses and suspects.

If the JFK assassination happeed as then or as today, Mrs. Paine would
have been hung after being waterboarded, for harboring the terrorist
assassin, as would Frazer for transporting him to the scene of the
crime and probably Michael Paine too.

That's what they did to Booth's pals and would do to associates of
terrorist assassins caught today.

BK

Anthony Marsh

unread,
Jul 18, 2010, 3:46:30 PM7/18/10