Hello There, Guest!
View New Posts   View Today's Posts
Basic Facts Of The Case

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average


06-22-2016, 04:05 PM #1
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 950 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

Basic Facts Of The Case
R. Anderson Wrote:His rifle was tied to the assassination (to the exclusion of all others). His wife to this day has *never* denied he owned that rifle. Was picked out of a line up by Howard Brennan for shooting JFK. (Although tried to sound unsure because he was worried for his (and his family's) safety.) He was picked out of a line up by multiple people for shooting Tippit. His pistol (as best as possible with that barrel) was shown to be the one that shot him. He fought (and tried to kill) the police officers who arrested him. He spent the whole weekend lying to the police. He wasn't a patsy for anyone because he *never* named any confederates that assisted him. (And before anyone starts up that nonsense about the interrogations: he spoke directly to his brother, mother, wife, the media.....and named *nobody*.)

This is such an amazing piece of disinformation that it's worthwhile to pick it apart sentence by sentence.

"His rifle was tied to the assassination (to the exclusion of all others)." - How can it be "Oswald's" rifle? He never paid for it, he never received it from the Post Office Box, he was never seen with a rifle (and no, Marina's testimony doesn't count) It's previously been pointed out, and unrefuted, that the money order alleged to have been used was never processed by any bank. Indeed, virtually every single piece of paperwork involved in the purchase by "Oswald" of the Mannlicher Carcano has problems with it... starting with the fact that we simply don't have the originals of much of this paperwork. (The FBI collected it, and then that paperwork simply disappeared.)

"His wife to this day has *never* denied he owned that rifle." - Simply untrue. Her original assertions were that Oswald didn't own a rifle.
Quote:Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see him clean the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I said before I had never seen it before. But I think you understand. I want to help you, and that is why there is no reason for concealing anything. I will not be charged with anything.

"Was picked out of a line up by Howard Brennan for shooting JFK." - Yet another lie. It's true that he later changed his assertions to support this - but his original claim was that the person he saw was not in any lineup. Since both statements contradict each other - one of them was a lie.

The only issue would be to determine what is more likely to be the lie. Quite clearly, the SECOND statement is more likely to be the lie. Quite a bit of testimony has come down to us describing the fear & intimidation in 1963-64 ... The government needed Brennan to testify that he'd seen Oswald. They got it.

"(Although tried to sound unsure because he was worried for his (and his family's) safety.)" Yet he immediately ran to a police officer to describe what he saw. This is a contradiction that believers cannot explain. Clearly Brennan needed to come up with some sort of explanation for his earlier refusal to identify Oswald... Brennan's description of the assassin's clothing matches what others testified to... but we know Oswald wasn't wearing.

"He was picked out of a line up by multiple people for shooting Tippit."- it's also true that despite the rather abysmal setting of the lineups - practically forcing people to the "correct" conclusion - other witnesses, indeed the closest witnesses, refused to identify him.

Tippit was truly a gift for the Warren Commission - since the evidence of a Lone Assassin shooting the President was so weak - being able to point to murderous ability was a godsend to the commission.

"His pistol (as best as possible with that barrel) was shown to be the one that shot him." - Actually, the FBI testified that they couldn't match the bullets to that pistol... so the Warren Commission went 'expert hunting' - and found an expert who would so testify. Then the Warren Commission quite desperately moved the time of the shooting to a point where it might have been possible for Oswald to have made it to that point. And they had to get him off the bus (which provided him with an alibi) and get him into a taxi in order to get there on time. Nor is there any real chain of custody on the pistol:

Quote:Mr. BALL. Were they struggling?
Mr. CARROLL. Everyone was struggling with him - yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. I mean, were Oswald and McDonald struggling together?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; and then when I got up close enough, I saw a pistol pointing at me so I reached and grabbed the pistol and jerked the pistol away and stuck it In my belt, and then I grabbed Oswald.
Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.

Carroll grabbed a pistol from a mob of men - all of whom carried at least one pistol... no chain of custody...

"He fought (and tried to kill) the police officers who arrested him." - Yet the press reported Oswald's shouted: "I protest this police brutality and I am not resisting arrest!"... that Oswald attempted to kill Officer McDonald's is a fabrication of the Warren Commission that isn't demonstrated by the underlying evidence.

"He spent the whole weekend lying to the police." - This assertion is based on the presumption that the Warren Commission's theory is correct. For example, when Oswald said he didn't own a rifle, this was merely the truth... it contradicted the frameup, of course - but the Warren Commission could never show that Oswald actually owned a rifle with credible evidence.

"He wasn't a patsy for anyone because he *never* named any confederates that assisted him."- How would anyone know? We have days worth of questioning ... and a page or two of 'notes'. I daresay if I questioned you for only a single hour on a topic, I could produce 10 pages of notes quite easily.

So we see once again that a believer's assertion is simply begging the question. One presumes the facts first... But this doesn't get us to the truth... (I'm getting a sense of deja vu... I know I've been forced to say this before!)

"(And before anyone starts up that nonsense about the interrogations: he spoke directly to his brother, mother, wife, the media.....and named *nobody*.)" - the length of time he was allowed to speak to family or media was a fraction of the time he spent in questioning.

Oswald was almost certainly destined for killing for one very simple reason - he could unravel the plot. With Oswald alive, the Warren Commission would have been totally unable to produce their fiction... Oswald would have been able to name names and explain events. He would have been able to point to his CIA handler. He would have been able to explain why he asked for a particular FBI agent, and spent several hours with him when he'd been jailed. Oswald knew many things that are to this day unexplained.

06-22-2016, 09:56 PM #2
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 950 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

Re: Basic Facts Of The Case
"His wife to this day has *never* denied he owned that rifle." - Simply untrue. Her original assertions were that Oswald didn't own a rifle.
Quote:Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see him clean the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I said before I had never seen it before. But I think you understand. I want to help you, and that is why there is no reason for concealing anything. I will not be charged with anything.

R. Anderson Wrote:The part Ben Holmes *doesn't* provide (*before* what he quotes above):

Quote:Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the first time that you observed the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. That was on Neely Street. I think that was in February.
Mr. RANKIN. How did you learn about it? Did you see it some place in the apartment?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, Lee had a small room where he spent a great deal of time, where he read---where he kept his things, and that is where the rifle was.
Mr. RANKIN. Was it out in the room at that time, as distinguished from in a closet in the room?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, it was open, out in the open. At first I think---I saw some package up on the top shelf, and I think that that was the rifle. But I didn't know. And apparently later he assembled it and had it in the room.
Mr. RANKIN. When you saw the rifle assembled in the room, did it have the scope on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, it did not have a scope on it.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any discussion with your husband about the rifle when you first saw it?
Mrs. OSWALD. Of course I asked him, "What do you need a rifle for? What do we need that for?"
He said that it would come in handy some time for hunting. And this was not too surprising because in Russia, too, we had a rifle.

Whoops.

This is the sort of problem that believers have - they simply cannot read. The claim was made that Marina never denied that Oswald owned a rifle, yet in her testimony she refers to a past time when she was doing exactly this.

So a believer comes along, and references her later statements as if it refutes the fact that she had originally denied Oswald owned a rifle.

Amazing!

06-22-2016, 10:02 PM #3
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 950 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

Re: Basic Facts Of The Case
R. Anderson Wrote:
Quote:Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see him clean the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I said before I had never seen it before. But I think you understand. I want to help you, and that is why there is no reason for concealing anything. I will not be charged with anything.

Wow. That's pretty bad. How can she say she saw him clean a rifle he *never* had. Just because she hadn't seen it *prior* to this point (and we can't rule out a translation issue here) doesn't mean she never saw it.

Once again, a believer who cannot follow a logical progression.

Did Marina originally say that Oswald didn't own a rifle?

Believers cannot cite anything to the contrary... her testimony clearly states that she did.

But this believer cannot follow this simple argument.

It's a LIE to state that Marina never said Oswald didn't own a rifle - SHE TESTIFIED THAT SHE HAD IN THE PAST DONE EXACTLY THAT.

How difficult is this to follow?

Any believers in this forum want to defend Anderson?

06-23-2016, 01:15 AM #4
Lee Abbott
Member
***
Posts: 83 Threads:6 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 0 Stance Critic

Re: Basic Facts Of The Case
R, when Marina saw her husband with the rifle in the small room in February, although it didn't arrive until Ruth picked it up in late March, was this before or after she said she locked him in the bathroom (from the outside) preventing him from shooting Nixon?

06-23-2016, 01:52 PM #5
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 950 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

Re: Basic Facts Of The Case
R. Anderson Wrote:
Ben Holmes Wrote:
R. Anderson Wrote:His rifle was tied to the assassination (to the exclusion of all others). His wife to this day has *never* denied he owned that rifle. Was picked out of a line up by Howard Brennan for shooting JFK. (Although tried to sound unsure because he was worried for his (and his family's) safety.) He was picked out of a line up by multiple people for shooting Tippit. His pistol (as best as possible with that barrel) was shown to be the one that shot him. He fought (and tried to kill) the police officers who arrested him. He spent the whole weekend lying to the police. He wasn't a patsy for anyone because he *never* named any confederates that assisted him. (And before anyone starts up that nonsense about the interrogations: he spoke directly to his brother, mother, wife, the media.....and named *nobody*.)

This is such an amazing piece of disinformation that it's worthwhile to pick it apart sentence by sentence.

"His rifle was tied to the assassination (to the exclusion of all others)." - How can it be "Oswald's" rifle? He never paid for it, he never received it from the Post Office Box, he was never seen with a rifle (and no, Marina's testimony doesn't count) It's previously been pointed out, and unrefuted, that the money order alleged to have been used was never processed by any bank. Indeed, virtually every single piece of paperwork involved in the purchase by "Oswald" of the Mannlicher Carcano has problems with it... starting with the fact that we simply don't have the originals of much of this paperwork. (The FBI collected it, and then that paperwork simply disappeared.)

"His wife to this day has *never* denied he owned that rifle." - Simply untrue. Her original assertions were that Oswald didn't own a rifle.
Quote:Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see him clean the rifle?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I said before I had never seen it before. But I think you understand. I want to help you, and that is why there is no reason for concealing anything. I will not be charged with anything.

"Was picked out of a line up by Howard Brennan for shooting JFK." - Yet another lie. It's true that he later changed his assertions to support this - but his original claim was that the person he saw was not in any lineup. Since both statements contradict each other - one of them was a lie.

The only issue would be to determine what is more likely to be the lie. Quite clearly, the SECOND statement is more likely to be the lie. Quite a bit of testimony has come down to us describing the fear & intimidation in 1963-64 ... The government needed Brennan to testify that he'd seen Oswald. They got it.

"(Although tried to sound unsure because he was worried for his (and his family's) safety.)" Yet he immediately ran to a police officer to describe what he saw. This is a contradiction that believers cannot explain. Clearly Brennan needed to come up with some sort of explanation for his earlier refusal to identify Oswald... Brennan's description of the assassin's clothing matches what others testified to... but we know Oswald wasn't wearing.

"He was picked out of a line up by multiple people for shooting Tippit."- it's also true that despite the rather abysmal setting of the lineups - practically forcing people to the "correct" conclusion - other witnesses, indeed the closest witnesses, refused to identify him.

Tippit was truly a gift for the Warren Commission - since the evidence of a Lone Assassin shooting the President was so weak - being able to point to murderous ability was a godsend to the commission.

"His pistol (as best as possible with that barrel) was shown to be the one that shot him." - Actually, the FBI testified that they couldn't match the bullets to that pistol... so the Warren Commission went 'expert hunting' - and found an expert who would so testify. Then the Warren Commission quite desperately moved the time of the shooting to a point where it might have been possible for Oswald to have made it to that point. And they had to get him off the bus (which provided him with an alibi) and get him into a taxi in order to get there on time. Nor is there any real chain of custody on the pistol:

Quote:Mr. BALL. Were they struggling?
Mr. CARROLL. Everyone was struggling with him - yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. I mean, were Oswald and McDonald struggling together?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; and then when I got up close enough, I saw a pistol pointing at me so I reached and grabbed the pistol and jerked the pistol away and stuck it In my belt, and then I grabbed Oswald.
Mr. BALL. Who had hold of that pistol at that time?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't know, sir. I just saw the pistol pointing at me and I grabbed it and jerked it away from whoever had it and that's all, and by that time then the handcuffs were put on Oswald.

Carroll grabbed a pistol from a mob of men - all of whom carried at least one pistol... no chain of custody...

"He fought (and tried to kill) the police officers who arrested him." - Yet the press reported Oswald's shouted: "I protest this police brutality and I am not resisting arrest!"... that Oswald attempted to kill Officer McDonald's is a fabrication of the Warren Commission that isn't demonstrated by the underlying evidence.

"He spent the whole weekend lying to the police." - This assertion is based on the presumption that the Warren Commission's theory is correct. For example, when Oswald said he didn't own a rifle, this was merely the truth... it contradicted the frameup, of course - but the Warren Commission could never show that Oswald actually owned a rifle with credible evidence.

"He wasn't a patsy for anyone because he *never* named any confederates that assisted him."- How would anyone know? We have days worth of questioning ... and a page or two of 'notes'. I daresay if I questioned you for only a single hour on a topic, I could produce 10 pages of notes quite easily.

So we see once again that a believer's assertion is simply begging the question. One presumes the facts first... But this doesn't get us to the truth... (I'm getting a sense of deja vu... I know I've been forced to say this before!)

"(And before anyone starts up that nonsense about the interrogations: he spoke directly to his brother, mother, wife, the media.....and named *nobody*.)" - the length of time he was allowed to speak to family or media was a fraction of the time he spent in questioning.

Oswald was almost certainly destined for killing for one very simple reason - he could unravel the plot. With Oswald alive, the Warren Commission would have been totally unable to produce their fiction... Oswald would have been able to name names and explain events. He would have been able to point to his CIA handler. He would have been able to explain why he asked for a particular FBI agent, and spent several hours with him when he'd been jailed. Oswald knew many things that are to this day unexplained.

Already answered that one. (See above.)

Unfortunately no.

This is a frequent tactic of believers, who consistently refer (without citation) to some past mythical answer... and if, by a process of elimination you can find the "answer" they refer to - it turns out never to be a complete answer.

I invite anyone, critic or believer, to QUOTE Anderson's answer to the above post.

06-23-2016, 08:04 PM #6
Patrick C
Senior Member
****
Posts: 450 Threads:11 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 0 Stance WCR Supporter

Re: Basic Facts Of The Case
Ben quotes.....

"He fought (and tried to kill) the police officers who arrested him." -

And states.....

"Yet the press reported Oswald's shouted: "I protest this police brutality and I am not resisting arrest!"... that Oswald attempted to kill Officer McDonald's is a fabrication of the Warren Commission that isn't demonstrated by the underlying evidence."

Yes AFTER he wast wrestled out of the TT.....

As for a fabrication ref the wrestle...complete...TRIPE...the cops who were there stated Oswald resisted arrest as did people in the TT.....if you want to make stuff up Ben fine, but you DELUDE yourself.

06-23-2016, 10:02 PM #7
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 950 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

Re: Basic Facts Of The Case
Patrick C Wrote:Ben quotes.....

"He fought (and tried to kill) the police officers who arrested him." -

And states.....

"Yet the press reported Oswald's shouted: "I protest this police brutality and I am not resisting arrest!"... that Oswald attempted to kill Officer McDonald's is a fabrication of the Warren Commission that isn't demonstrated by the underlying evidence."

Yes AFTER he wast wrestled out of the TT.....

As for a fabrication ref the wrestle...complete...TRIPE...the cops who were there stated Oswald resisted arrest as did people in the TT.....if you want to make stuff up Ben fine, but you DELUDE yourself.

No-one has claimed that Oswald didn't resist arrest, Patrick. It's a well established fact that he punched one of the Officers (McDonald I think) which in anyone's book is resisting arrest.

Making up what people have said, then arguing that, is the true delusion, Patrick.

Now, if you want to actually argue the topic, produce the evidence that Oswald tried to kill anyone.

(I note for the record that Patrick was unable to reply to any of the other statements in that rather long post...)

06-23-2016, 11:31 PM #8
Lee Abbott
Member
***
Posts: 83 Threads:6 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 0 Stance Critic

Re: Basic Facts Of The Case
Patrickinocchio said:

**As for a fabrication ref the wrestle...complete...TRIPE...the cops who were there stated Oswald resisted arrest as did people in the TT.....if you want to make stuff up Ben fine, but you DELUDE yourself.**

Tell me again, Patrickinocco, why Kilduff pointed to his forehead.

06-24-2016, 09:19 AM #9
Patrick C
Senior Member
****
Posts: 450 Threads:11 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 0 Stance WCR Supporter

Re: Basic Facts Of The Case
"Patrick was unable to reply to any of the other statements in that rather long post..."

Maybe Patrick had other things to do Ben......

Nick McDonald sated the trigger struck the webbing between his finger and thumb. I posted a link on the white board to a 2013 doc in which one of the cops describes this.....he was there....

06-24-2016, 09:24 AM #10
Patrick C
Senior Member
****
Posts: 450 Threads:11 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 0 Stance WCR Supporter

Re: Basic Facts Of The Case
R. A states...
"His wife to this day has *never* denied he owned that rifle"

Ben states "Simply untrue. Her original assertions were that Oswald didn't own a rifle."

Yeah, you know when she was trying to defend her husband as the whole crime unfolded before the world.....

But she later said he did own a rifle and she said he used to practice in the back yard dry firing it.......


"Was picked out of a line up by Howard Brennan for shooting JFK." - Yet another lie. It's true that he later changed his assertions to support this - but his original claim was that the person he saw was not in any lineup. Since both statements contradict each other - one of them was a lie.

The only issue would be to determine what is more likely to be the lie. Quite clearly, the SECOND statement is more likely to be the lie. Quite a bit of testimony has come down to us describing the fear & intimidation in 1963-64 ... The government needed Brennan to testify that he'd seen Oswald. They got it.

"(Although tried to sound unsure because he was worried for his (and his family's) safety.)" Yet he immediately ran to a police officer to describe what he saw. This is a contradiction that believers cannot explain. Clearly Brennan needed to come up with some sort of explanation for his earlier refusal to identify Oswald... Brennan's description of the assassin's clothing matches what others testified to... but we know Oswald wasn't wearing.

"He was picked out of a line up by multiple people for shooting Tippit."- it's also true that despite the rather abysmal setting of the lineups - practically forcing people to the "correct" conclusion - other witnesses, indeed the closest witnesses, refused to identify him.

Tippit was truly a gift for the Warren Commission - since the evidence of a Lone Assassin shooting the President was so weak - being able to point to murderous ability was a godsend to the commission.

"His pistol (as best as possible with that barrel) was shown to be the one that shot him." - Actually, the FBI testified that they couldn't match the bullets to that pistol... so the Warren Commission went 'expert hunting' - and found an expert who would so testify. Then the Warren Commission quite desperately moved the time of the shooting to a point where it might have been possible for Oswald to have made it to that point. And they had to get him off the bus (which provided him with an alibi) and get him into a taxi in order to get there on time. Nor is there any real chain of custody on the pistol:



Carroll grabbed a pistol from a mob of men - all of whom carried at least one pistol... no chain of custody...

"He fought (and tried to kill) the police officers who arrested him." - Yet the press reported Oswald's shouted: "I protest this police brutality and I am not resisting arrest!"... that Oswald attempted to kill Officer McDonald's is a fabrication of the Warren Commission that isn't demonstrated by the underlying evidence.

"He spent the whole weekend lying to the police." - This assertion is based on the presumption that the Warren Commission's theory is correct. For example, when Oswald said he didn't own a rifle, this was merely the truth... it contradicted the frameup, of course - but the Warren Commission could never show that Oswald actually owned a rifle with credible evidence.

"He wasn't a patsy for anyone because he *never* named any confederates that assisted him."- How would anyone know? We have days worth of questioning ... and a page or two of 'notes'. I daresay if I questioned you for only a single hour on a topic, I could produce 10 pages of notes quite easily.

So we see once again that a believer's assertion is simply begging the question. One presumes the facts first... But this doesn't get us to the truth... (I'm getting a sense of deja vu... I know I've been forced to say this before!)

"(And before anyone starts up that nonsense about the interrogations: he spoke directly to his brother, mother, wife, the media.....and named *nobody*.)" - the length of time he was allowed to speak to family or media was a fraction of the time he spent in questioning.

Oswald was almost certainly destined for killing for one very simple reason - he could unravel the plot. With Oswald alive, the Warren Commission would have been totally unable to produce their fiction... Oswald would have been able to name names and explain events. He would have been able to point to his CIA handler. He would have been able to explain why he asked for a particular FBI agent, and spent several hours with him when he'd been jailed. Oswald knew many things that are to this day unexplained.[/quote]

Already answered that one. (See above.)[/quote]

Unfortunately no.

This is a frequent tactic of believers, who consistently refer (without citation) to some past mythical answer... and if, by a process of elimination you can find the "answer" they refer to - it turns out never to be a complete answer.

I invite anyone, critic or believer, to QUOTE Anderson's answer to the above post.[/quote]







Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)