I don’t have a theory about the JFK assassination, but one huge red flag was Ruby killing Oswald. The “night club owner distressed over JFK’s assassination” story never held water. It sounds like complete bullshit. Based on that alone, I think we don’t have the full story.
e.g. maybe Oswald did act alone, and Ruby mistakenly thought that Oswald did it as part of an in-the-works Mafia plan, so he went to silence him. Whatever the real reason, the “distressed nightclub owner” story is a complete fabrication.
When Arlen Spector moved from the Warren Commission to being Philly DA, he tried cases rather than plea bargaining, eliminating the typical terrifying punishment severity penalty for exercising your right to a trial. The acquittal rate was about 40 percent, which means, to me, that his policy kept a lot of innocents out of prison.
Of course, the character of Earl Warren and Arlen Spector is not a good reason to reject the CT’s. The reason is the evidence found in mainstream histories of the assasination. But if Lyndon Johnson did want to pick people who would be easy to strong arm into participating in a coverup, he made some strange choices.
First, I must confess to having little knowledge of gunshots, so I don’t know how they are supposed to look.
But, let’s suppose that a gaping rear head wound negates the other evidence that Kennedy was shot from behind. Conspiracy theorists are going to want such evidence, then, since it helps them sell their theory.
So, how might they get there?
As you’ve explained, we have some nurses who might provide compelling testimony
Yet, when I read Nurse Diana Bowron’s testimony, I learn that
she was 22, had just finished her schooling the previous February, and had only been in the US (from England) since August.
She was not involved in any sort of diagnostic role, but instead helped cut off Kennedy’s pants leg to start an IV, open up a chest tray for the doctors, and then run to the blood bank. She also helped get his body onto the stretcher from the car.
Although she did help clean up the body, it was after the doctors had worked on him
in referring to her removal of his trachea, she said “we were really in too much shock to take notice” of any other wounds.
in referring to the head, all she said was “we wrapped some extra sheets around his head so it wouldn’t look so bad”, which is a far cry from claiming that she had to stuff the cranium with absorbent material.
I think it’s easy for theorists to distort innocent descriptions, some of which were mistaken, into some grand scheme.
Me? Respectfully, I’m not taking as gospel the observations of the first year nurse who’s helping clean up the blood after the practitioners are finished.
(I couldn’t find similar Warren Commission testimony from Nurse Phyllis Hall, but I did see how she tried to market herself with newfound revelations of a second bullet 50 years after the events in question)
Actually, that’s the easiest part of the whole series of events to accept at face value.
Oswald had a marksman rating when he was a Marine, so he was no amateur when it came to handling a rifle.
The three shots were fired in 5.6 seconds, which allows 2.8 seconds between the first and second shots, and 2.8 between the second and third shots.
If you’re ever in Dallas, be sure to visit the museum at Dealey Plaza. The 6th floor is sealed off, but they’ve recreated the site of the shooting on the 5th floor exactly as it was laid out on 11/22/63. Look out the window to the mark on Elm Street where Kennedy was struck. It’s actually a very short distance (265’), particularly for someone using a rifle with a telescopic sight. Oswald was able to use the boxes as a shooting stand. I won’t say it was an “easy” shot, but neither was it entirely dependent on luck.
Where did you hear this, who alleged it, and what “certain undesirables” are you referring to? If you want specific answers, you must first ask specific questions.
If you’ve ever been there and you have any experience with firing a rifle at all, any doubts you might have about how “difficult” it might have been will dissipate.
If there were any misses, I’d chalk it up to nerves instead.
And I’m not asking any specific questions. I’m only going by what I’ve read, watched on TV or on the net. I was 11 years old when this happened and have been interested in it from the beginning. Like anyone else I don’t have concrete “proof” on my speculations or else I’d be as famous as Paul Holes. Just my theory that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy before the fact but Oswald was the only one that showed up. Put another gunman and get-away car behind the fence above the grassy knoll and with Oswald on the 6th floor of the book depository building and you have a way to kill Kennedy in a cross fire situation. Otherwise, just before the motorcade makes the turn in front of Oswald’s building he had a clear shot to shoot Kennedy from the front which may have been easier than the shots he made.
Yes, pure speculation on my part, just like everyone else’s here. IMHO, Oswald was the lone gunman but only because that’s the way it worked out.
I keep hearing people saying “I don’t have proof (or concrete proof’)” when all that is being asked for is a bit of solid evidence to base suppositions on.
You’re easier than me. What I’d ask for is the preponderance of the evidence pointing to a specific theory different from Lee Harvey Oswald assassinating the President, at his own initiative, because he didn’t like JFK’s foreign policy…
The resources of the CT community over the past 59 years have been collectively far more than the Warren Commission, or the dozen or so authors of what I would call mainstream books on the assassination, or a normal FBI cold case investigation. Dozens of CT’s have spent ten of thousands of hours searching out and re-interviewing witnesses. The standard should be – whose story best fits the facts, not who is best at throwing half-truths to question little pieces of an overall coherent picture.
This always troubled me. It could have been a con, but it’s intriguing.
Ruby told Earl Warren that he would “come clean” if he was moved from Dallas and allowed to testify in Washington. He told Warren “my life is in danger here”. He added: “I want to tell the truth, and I can’t tell it here.” Warren refused to have Ruby moved and so he refused to tell what he knew about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
I suspect Ruby silenced Oswald so LHO couldn’t spill the beans on whomever else played a part in the assassination. Being set up to take the fall, I’m sure he’d sing like a bird if it possibly meant getting the death penalty off the table. Again, just IMHO.
The major problem with the Warren Commission and it’s report was that it was a case of: First we shoot the arrow, then we paint the target. They began with their conclusion and dismissed evidence that pointed elsewhere.
It’s 60 years later. It’s arguably the most famous crime in American history. The assassination of the President of the United States.
The conspiracy theories involve hundreds of actors if not thousands. The CIA, FBI, DPD, the Mafia, Russians, Cubans, the Johnson Administration, and God knows who I’ve forgotten, are some of the litany of folks that one would have to keep the lid on. And yet in 60 years, you’d think at least ONE person with solid proof would come forward. A photo of a meeting, a tape of one, etc. This person would make millions and be the toast of the town. And yet . . . crickets.
60 years later there is no evidence because there was no conspiracy.
