The case against Lee H. Oswald

[Moriarty]

@slicedalone

at least one memo appears on screen with the time written after “Evidence received from Special Agent Elmer L. Todd, Washington Field Office of the FBI, 11/22/1963: 7:30 PM”

(This memo is the one headed “FBI laboratory work sheet”)

By the way, I think I found this. The time is hand written after the typed entry.

I’m curious why you deem this document to be reliable but the others are “sloppy”? It looks to me like after the fact note taking, in preparation for testifying to the Commission (that is actually referenced in one note). So, it wasn’t contemporaneous with the typing, and would have derived from consulting with another document.

We’ve already mentioned that document - the memo that SA Johnson wrote, where he indicated a time of 7:30.

[Tibby]

[snip]

@slicedalone

A rookie Secret Service agent in the car behind JFK whipped out an AR-15 (which was immediately and very conveniently destroyed) the second he heard a shot fired, and in picking it up, inadvertently blew the fatal shot into JFK’s head, not even realizing himself that he’d set off the gun’s hair-trigger. The Secret Service, realizing their fuckup, destroyed the evidence and the secret remained closely held by those few officials whose careers would have been wrecked if it were known what had happened.

I took a still shot from the Zapruder film and slightly enhanced it in order to get a clearer view of the secret service agent climbing into the Kennedy car to rescue Jackie immediately after the fatal shot. As you can see, there is no sign of an AR-15 and nothing suspicious looking about the agent, or anything else. Oswald was the lone gunman.

[Kropotkin]

If I recall correctly, the OP has noted in this thread that they regularly made errors over years while transcribing interviews. “Screwed the pooch,” in their words. This is a frank and presumably honest admission that is not, presumably, meant to imply all of their work was shoddy, should therefore be rejected, and any fees or salaries repaid. That they then insist small and alleged errors render the WC fatally flawed seems, ah, uncharitable.

[slicedalone]

Kropotkin: Well said, sir!

[slicedalone]

@Kropotkin

If I recall correctly, and I’m not re-reading this thread to check, the

I applaud the vision that went into this post.

[Kropotkin]

Talk about a Rush to Judgement!

[slicedalone]

@Kropotkin

That they then insist small and alleged errors render the WC fatally flawed seems, ah, uncharitable.

The crucial difference being that I have very few worshipers declaring my writing to be reliable, and certainly none in this thread, while the WC Report seems to have a surfeit of admirers, worshipers, and fanboys attesting to its truthfulness and reliability.

Also they had a much bigger budget and staff than I do, so I’ll overlook the odd error in my own work.

[Moriarty]

@slicedalone

while the WC Report seems to have a surfeit of admirers, worshipers, and fanboys attesting to its truthfulness and reliability.

And now we get to the ad hominems.

But, please, tell us more about Oliver Stone’s fascinating revelations.

[Dropo]

@Moriarty

The Valachi hearings , also known as the McClellan hearings , investigated organized crime activities across the United States.

The Valachi Hearings began in Oct., 1963, a little more than a year before RFK resigned as AG. They focused on different aspects of organized crime than RFK had. I can find no reference they concerned themselves with specific mob operations in New Orleans or Florida - not surprising since Valachi was NY-based – or with the Teamsters, all areas RFK had focused intensely on (RFK had previously had run-ins with Carlos Marcello and Jimmy Hoffa as part of earlier hearings). It was Fed interference in those operations that is supposed to have prompted the assassination plot.

More generally:

“Although Valachi’s disclosures never led directly to the prosecution of any Mafia leaders, he provided many details of history of the Mafia, operations and rituals; aided in the solution of several unsolved murders; and named many members and the major crime families. The trial exposed American organized crime to the world through Valachi’s televised testimony.” - Joseph Valachi - Wikipedia

Contrast that with RFK’s record as AG:

“Convictions against organized crime figures rose by 800 percent during his term.” - Robert F. Kennedy - Wikipedia

While lacking actual numbers and the identities of those convicted makes such comparisons potentially specious, my impression is that RFK put considerably more pressure on the mob - and in more sensitive places - than the McClellan hearings. Perhaps it would have been better to say the pressure “lessened significantly” rather than “ceased” after RFK and his personal animosities left the office of AG.

@Moriarty

You were asserting that the mob independently orchestrated the hit.

Yes, as they had done before and would do again, each time using lone nuts as patsies (as documented in the SCR).

@Dissonance

So… you decided to use not-scare quotes to quote a single word I used which was quoting you? The other source, written or spoken, was yourself?

Words that do not originate with the writer in a specific piece (or post) should get quotation marks to show they came from another source. It doesn’t matter who that source is. Whether I quote myself or someone else quoting my words, quotation marks should be used in both instances.

I use such quotation marks to make sure I am using the same language as another poster, thereby reducing the risk I will misrepresent or otherwise distort that other poster’s position by substituting my own words.

@Dissonance

No, you seem to have neglected that you have yet to established that there was a plan.

I don’t have to establish the existence of a plan. Like the SCR, I am arguing that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility of mob involvement in the assassination and that some evidence (mostly circumstantial) exists that they were involved.

@Dissonance

I can prove that JFK was assassinated by Cthulhu worshipers.

In contrast with the case of organized crime, there is no evidence of involvement by followers of Cthulhu, nor that they had the motive or means to carry out the hit. If you have evidence to the contrary, please share. Otherwise, the point of your analogy is seriously flawed.

[slicedalone]

@Moriarty

tell us more about Oliver Stone’s fascinating revelations.

Only if you ask nicely.

I don’t know why you seem to think I hold Stone in high regard. In the thread about his film about Putin, I state clearly that I think he’s a dangerous nut on that subject. And I don’t subscribe to all his ideas about JFK, and certainly not in the highly fictionalized Costner movie. But I do think he makes some good points in the 2021 documentary, mostly when he allows others to talk, and to point out the many serious errors in the WC Report, some of which I’ve tried to summarize here, though I’m far from an expert in ballistics, law, and the writing of government reports.

[Moriarty]

@Dropo

my impression is that RFK put considerably more pressure on the mob - and in more sensitive places - than the McClellan hearings.

Right, right…and that’s why the mob decided to kill Bobb - wait, what’s this theory of yours again?

@Dropo

@Moriarty

You were asserting that the mob independently orchestrated the hit.

Yes

@Dropo

I am arguing that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility of mob involvement in the assassination and that some evidence (mostly circumstantial) exists that they were involved.

You can’t have it both ways. Are you saying that the mob did it, or are you saying we can’t rule it out?

And just so we’re clear, the mostly circumstantial evidence is that Oswald had an uncle who was a bookie, and therefore was connected to the underworld. Oh, and I think some witnesses said they saw Oswald with a guy who flew planes for the mob. Or was it the CIA?

But no evidence of meetings between Oswald and mobsters, no evidence of letters or phone calls between Oswald and mobsters, no evidence of material support like weapons, money or a getaway car.

Is that correct?

[Dissonance]

@Dropo

@Dissonance

So… you decided to use not-scare quotes to quote a single word I used which was quoting you? The other source, written or spoken, was yourself?

Words that do not originate with the writer in a specific piece (or post) should get quotation marks to show they came from another source. It doesn’t matter who that source is. Whether I quote myself or someone else quoting my words, quotation marks should be used in both instances.

I use such quotation marks to make sure I am using the same language as another poster, thereby reducing the risk I will misrepresent or otherwise distort that other poster’s position by substituting my own words.

This passed into the absurd several exits ago. See, when you quote another poster’s word using [quote ] [/quote ], the fact that you are quoting them is pretty well established, no? There’s no point to further using actual quotation marks (“”) around a single word to establish who said it. There’s even less of a point to doing so when the word in question that you are both [quote ] [/quote ] and “”, that word being “ideal” isn’t even actually establishing who said it, since I was using your word choice which you then scare-quoted, and attempted to claim was my verbiage, not your own. That’s the exact opposite of what you just claimed you use quotation marks for.

@Dropo

I don’t have to establish the existence of a plan.

Yeah, you kind of do. That’s how debates work. Otherwise, you end up with absurdities such as my having the exact same level of proof that JFK being killed was a plan of Cthulhu as you have of the existence of a plan by the mafia to kill him. The difference is, I’m not seriously advancing the Cthulhu Theory as having actually occurred. The same applies regarding evidence, or the complete absence thereof. You have the exact same amount of evidence that Oswald killed JFK knowingly or unknowingly at the behest of the mob that I have that he did it for Cthulhu.

[Moriarty]

By the way, the part of this mob connection that runs through David Ferrie is either hilarious or sad, when you think about it.

Ferrie was brought into this ambit by Jim Garrison, the insane Louisiana prosecutor who believed that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy of gay men for the thrill of it all.

Ferrie was a weird looking guy. He had alopecia, and made up for it by wearing a wig and fake eyebrows.

He was also gay and therefore ripe for Garrison’s abuse.

At the time of the assassination, Ferrie was working in New Orleans as a private investigator for an attorney named G. Wray Gill, who had just won a court case for Carlos Marcello (a mobster). With the case settled, Ferrie had received a nice payday.

Flush with cash, he had a business idea!

Ice Skating!

He wanted to open an ice skating rink. There were no rinks in New Orleans, but his friend (an excellent roller skater) wanted to go to Houston to try it out.

So, on November 22, 1963, Ferrie and two friends drove to Houston, arriving in the early hours of the 23rd and got a hotel. They went ice skating and returned home. Ferrie was said to have hung out by the pay phone, but he was apparently trying to get in touch with his boss (the attorney) about another client.

From that, he has been accused of being the getaway pilot for the assassins.

And when I say that Garrison was nuts, he really was. He brought a case against Clay Shaw, a prominent (and gay) New Orleans philanthropist.

Why?

Because of a lawyer named Dean Anderson, who was another crazy character. Dean always wore sunglasses, and actually said things like “he was a hep cat” and “you know, daddy-o”. He represented a lot of gay clients, and was known as a big talker who never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

On November 23, 1963 (the day after the assassination) Anderson was in the hospital suffering from pneumonia when he unexpectedly called his secretary at home (something he had never done before) and told her that he had been hired to represent Lee Harvey Oswald.

The secretary flat refused, but when she asked who had hired him, Anderson said “Bertrand.”

His flight of fancy ended when Ruby killed Oswald the next day, but he called the FBI insisted that he had previously represented Oswald, who had been accompanied by Clay Bertrand.

His secretary could find no record of a file regarding Oswald, had no idea who Clay Bertrand was, and affirmed that she had never seen Oswald or this Bertrand person at the office.

The FBI and local authorities could find no record of anybody named Clay Betrand, either.

Eventually, Dean Anderson reported to the FBI that he must have made it up and the call he received was a dream.

Now, it is true that he went back to his pontificating about Clay Bertrand before the Warren Commission, but Anderson was a goofball (And he kept changing his physical description of Bertrand).

Jim Garrison ate it up. And he used this nonsense as his impetus for bringing criminal charges against Clay Shaw.

What’s that you say? Clay Shaw isn’t the same name as Clay Bertrand? No worry. According to Garrison, all gay people use fake names.

[Kent_Clark]

After 233 posts, I have to admit I’ve lost my way in this thread. What are we arguing about at this point?

That Oswald didn’t shoot JFK?
That Oswald acted alone?
That there was a second shooter, ergo, a conspiracy?
That it wasn’t just a conspiracy, but a big, earth-shaking attempt to overthrow the government by a big powerful group of people?
That it may or may not have been a conspiracy, and it may or may not have been a huge conspiracy, but we’ll never know because the Warren Commission report was sloppy?

Either I’m drifting, or this entire thread is. Help me, someone!

[Czarcasm]

@Kent_Clark

Either I’m drifting, or this entire thread is. Help me, someone!

If you refuse to make your conclusions clear, you can’t be found wrong.
Does that help?

[scabpicker]

I’m pretty sure we’re arguing about whether the reverse vampires are trying to abolish dinner.

[Galactus]

“It’s a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma…” or something.

[SuntanLotion]

I have learned from this thread that

1. Anything could’ve happened.
2. It probably didn’t.

[Czarcasm]

I am still can’t wrap my head around a grand conspiracy involving evil government agents and/or murderous mobsters that can figure out how to kill The President Of The United States in broad daylight in front of ghod knows how many people…but can’t arrange a few lethal accidents for those revealing this magnificent scheme.

[Cheesesteak]

@slicedalone

I have very few worshipers declaring my writing to be reliable

Very few people who paid you to transcribe something think those transcriptions are reliable? I imagine that is a VERY uncharitable view of your work.

I doubt any of them think your work is utterly flawless, but people who accept that Oswald acted alone don’t think the WC was flawless either. It’s simply that the flaws that do exist are unsurprising flaws that would exist in any huge investigation, and are not proof of anything but the fact that humans are flawed.