Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
03-06-2011, 15:06   #61
fergus o brien
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 153
this is from jfk lancer regarding jackie kennedys testimony and jfks head wound .

Warren Commission Suppressed Jackie's
Testimony On JFK's Head Wound

Court Reporter's Tape Shows
Additional Description Withheld


Dallas, TX -- August 5, 2001 -- JFK Lancer, an historical research firm reports that the Court Reporter's tape shows Jacqueline Kennedy's testimony before the Warren Commission had additional descriptions which were withheld.
Mrs. Kennedy testified in a short private session held at her home in Washington, D.C., with Chief Justice Earl Warren, Commission General Council J. Lee Rankin, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and a court reporter in attendance. Testimony of witnesses before the Warren Commission was made public in the fall of 1964. Jacqueline Kennedy's testimony was also released containing her description of her husbands wounds which read :

"And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh colored. I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything."
But a second section in which she described the wounds she saw carried only the notation: (Reference to Wounds Deleted).
Although very few Americans actually read those transcripts, historians and researchers who did read them were outraged, and waged a legal battle to have the omitted testimony released. In the early 1970s, a court decision required the United States Government to disclose to the public the contents of the still classified section of Mrs. Kennedy's 1964 Warren Commission testimony. Her previously withheld statement read:

" I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on."
Releasing this previously withheld section gave researchers what was assumed to be Mrs. Kennedy's complete description of the President's head wounds. Researchers took for granted that the hand-typed transcript page released by the National Archives from the official records of the Warren Commission ended the matter.
However, new analysis reveals that the original court tape actually reads:

"... I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top."
Filmmaker Mark Sobel found the discrepancy while doing research for a forthcoming documentary on JFK. Sobel explained, "I was quite surprised to find that Mrs. Kennedy was not asked for more detail --- she had an opportunity to view the wounds longer and closer than any other person as they originally existed. Given the seemingly contradictory testimony by the doctors who treated the President at Parkland Hospital in Dallas just after the shooting and the Doctors who performed the autopsy at Bethesda many hours later, Mrs. Kennedy's testimony would appear critical."
Sobel filed under the Freedom of Information Act to have the court reporter's original tape of Mrs. Kennedy's testimony unsealed, citing that the content had already been fully declassified by the courts and that it was in the best interest of the public for the accuracy of the existing transcript to be verified. Sobel explained, "As I compared the 1964 transcript to the original court reporter's paper tape, I reached a sentence officially transcribed by the Warren Commission as: "I could see a piece of his skull, and I remember that it was flesh colored"words on the original paper taped no longer matched up."
Court Reporter Kathy Bradford of Bradford Court Reporting of Dallas, Texas, agreed. Bradford reviewed the transcript from the archives and certified Mrs. Kennedy's complete statement was not found in the Warren Commission's version..
This extra description was almost certainly witheld from the Commissioners and Legal Staff as well, since these descriptions are missing in the typed transcript that is contained in the actual Warren Commission Records --- before it was finally released publicly in its entirety.
Apprised of these new details, David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. stated, "Given the lack of follow-up in Mrs. Kennedy's description to exactly what she saw, these details could have been valuable to the House Select Committee on Assassinations that reviewed the medical evidence." Mantik is one of the few doctors allowed to view President Kennedy's original autopsy materials in the National Archives.
Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, seen in films and photos in Dealey Plaza climbing onto the rear of the limousine, stated in his Warren Commission testimony,
"Between the time I originally grabbed the handhold and until I was up on the car, Mrs. Kennedy--the second noise that I heard had removed a portion of the President's head, and he had slumped noticeably to his left. Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to me, reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car, the right rear tail, when she noticed that I was trying to climb on the car."
Debra Conway of JFK Lancer, says that the court reporter's tape is now on their web site. Conway stated, "Mrs. Kennedy also describes this piece of skull to historian Theodore White in her famous 'Camelot' interview where she told him, 'I could see a piece of his skull coming off; it was flesh colored not white--' This is very similar to what she said to the Warren Commission."
Conway went on to explain, "There were pieces of skull found in the street and in the limousine. The piece of skull described by Mrs. Kennedy could have been one of those later found in the street, the limousine, or an avulsed piece still attached to his head."
Researcher Barb Junkkarinen, who specializes in the medical evidence of the Kennedy assassination and is the Director of the JFK Alliance for Open Archives organization, told JFK Lancer, "The real 'find' here is that two specific descriptions of the head wound by Mrs. Kennedy (that the skull piece was wedge shaped, and that it had little ridges at the top) are not included in what is supposed to be the full and complete transcript of her testimony."
In his memoirs, Senator Arlen Specter, a Junior Council for the Warren Commission in 1964, suggests that the minimal testimony taken from Mrs. Kennedy was due to Earl Warren wishing to be protective of her, and that the handling of her testimony created some distress among other Commissioners and Legal Staff. However, in formerly Top Secret transcripts of the meetings of the seven Commissioners, Commissioner John J. McCloy repeatedly emphasized the importance of obtaining such testimony as quickly as possible "She's the best witness," he said "as to how those bullets struck her husband."
Junkkarinen adds, "Why they would withhold an accurate description is open to debate, but the fact that they put out an altered transcript is telling. How many other transcripts may have fallen victim to the same shenanigans? This is a find that proves alteration of original evidence, and that is important.
fergus o brien is offline  
Advertisement
08-06-2011, 02:03   #62
Talk E
Registered User
 
Talk E's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 458
Silent witness of JFK assassination comes forward.

Interesting thread on ATS

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread713461/pg1
Talk E is offline  
08-06-2011, 02:22   #63
fergus o brien
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 153
sadly miss mooremon was taking a picture ( a very famous picture ) so in that respect she didnt really see what jean saw in those vital seconds and then (as many did she dove on the floor telling jean to get down ) . there were pictures taken before jfk ever arrived on elm street and so i can only assume these are the pictures that jean was reffering to .someone may have other info on that .
fergus o brien is offline  
08-06-2011, 02:40   #64
33
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: here for now
Posts: 187
Fergus I've never put as much effort into anything as you have with JFK, I know and have known (but not as much detail as you) that JFK was taken out by his underlings, I enjoy your post's, but for me JFK is dead, but I must admit this is the very subject that took me to the whole CT thing to begin with and it grew and faded like the season's, you are alway's in full bloom, keep it up!, good reading, but try format it a little, easier on the eyes and brain, all I'm saying is space your paragraphs, nice1 mate.

33
33 is offline  
08-06-2011, 02:55   #65
fergus o brien
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 153
thank you 33 for taking the time to reply and i try and will try to make a post easy to read and better visualy if i can . some times one talks of a subject that one has no pictures to post (such as the grassy knoll ,there are no pictures of behind the fence at the time of the shots ) and like wise with the killing of officer tippit no cameras were there ,and some times one posts an article from the internet and this is text and contains no pictures .

thanks again for your comment 33 i really appreciate your taking time to comment on my posts ,i would be interested in your thoughts on the case whatever they may be .talk soon .
fergus o brien is offline  
Advertisement
08-06-2011, 03:27   #66
33
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: here for now
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by fergus o brien View Post
thank you 33 for taking the time to reply and i try and will try to make a post easy to read and better visualy if i can . some times one talks of a subject that one has no pictures to post (such as the grassy knoll ,there are no pictures of behind the fence at the time of the shots ) and like wise with the killing of officer tippit no cameras were there ,and some times one posts an article from the internet and this is text and contains no pictures .

thanks again for your comment 33 i really appreciate your taking time to comment on my posts ,i would be interested in your thoughts on the case whatever they may be .talk soon .
Well Fergus if the truth must be known about my thoughts, I will say that the CIA took him out, but he wasn't a hero, he was genuine, but with elite faults, money and power brings that!

Now going into detail as you do, I dont bother anymore like you do, but you are the brown bomber of the jfk scene, you root it out and display it, and proudly so, and best of luck to you, but I've learned over the year's that only some will see the light, while others never will.

But be sure that lurkers will be reading your posts and taking it in, they may not reply but you will show them things that they never knew, including me.

I 100% believe he was taken out by an up and coming CIA head, that a few years later actually got his job as did his son, I'm not saying he was a gunman, but a big cog in the scheme of things, young as he may have been, but daddy got him where he and his crew where heading to, prescott, thats the daddy's name!,

I focus more on the why and not the who and what, all roads that lead away from the CIA are false roads left to confuse the subject.

Fergus I'll hope to join you soon in the intricate details of this fairly open and shut case in my eyes, but we can never really prove anything, sure if we could we'de end up in the history forum, if it exists?
33 is offline  
Thanks from:
08-06-2011, 04:23   #67
fergus o brien
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 153
i agree we will never really know the truth the 100% truth ,we already know a great deal (even from just reading the warren commison testimony ) but i cant see us ever knowing the whole truth . its been 47 years and im now 42 and i dont believe for a second that i will live to see the truth come out ,in 1964 the files were locked away for 75 years 47 years later most files are still locked away .

now we know from expert warren commison testimony that ce399 the magic bullet could not have caused all of john connallys wounds (namely his wrist wound ) this makes the single bullet theory a lie and thus a fourth shot had to be fired . so if oswald was guilty he had help and a second person was not only helping him but shooting also which makes it a conspiricy .

jfk was no angel and if im honest i dont like him as a person (he was a womaniser ) he used his power and his name to womanise even before he was president but he did it also while president , in all truth fullness bobby was the same as was teddy . that said i believe jfk and bobby as politicians could have (and would have ) ended wars and changed this world and made it so much better (like wise with dr king ) but there is no money in peace .

the people who killed jfk knew full well that america loved the kennedys (the black people probably more than most ) jfk would have gotten a second term untill 1968 ,bobby would have won in 1968 and been president for 2 terms untill 1976 and then teddy could have done like wise untill 1984 (thats 24 years of kennedys and no wars and no more federal reserve ) that couldnt be allowed . jfk was assassinated ,bobby seemed to go along with the official story (in public ) behind closed doors was different and we all know what happened with teddy .

i think your focus is best not the who and the how but the why , there is a line in the movie jfk (i know its not 1005 accurate ) but x played by donald sutherland says the who and the how (oswald /ruby /the cubans ) is just scenery for the public and keeps them from asking the real question "why" who covered it up and who benifited from it ?. a few names spring to mind automaticly one such name was gerald ford who sat on the warren commision and later became president .
fergus o brien is offline  
Thanks from:
08-06-2011, 11:01   #68
symboybot
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 23
Who covered it up and who benefited from it?

Obviously the names Lyndon Baines Johnson, J. Edgar Hoover, and Richard Nixon need to be amongst those names "who spring to mind automatically" when the question, "who covered it up and who benefited from it" is asked. In addition to those names there are also the organizations such as the FBI, the CIA, and the military-industrial-mafia complex, to say nothing of Texas "Big Oil" millionaires such as H. L. Hunt and Clint Murchison.

In Ford's case, his direct benefit didn't come until he was needed to replace the indicted (for taking bribes in the White House) Vice President Spiro T. Agnew. After that it was a simple matter to exchange Richard Nixon's resignation (in order to avoid impeachment) for Gerald's Ford inheritance of the presidency (Ford was never elected president or vice president). In exchange for becoming president, all Ford had to do was pardon Richard Nixon for all crimes he may have committed during the entire term(s) of his presidency. Something Ford was only too happy to do. Johnson, Nixon, and Ford became president precisely because JFK was murdered, thereby immensely changing American history, for the worse. None of them would have achieved the oval office if not for JFK's assassination, and all of them were involved, had foreknowledge, or participated in the cover up.
symboybot is offline  
Thanks from:
08-06-2011, 23:43   #69
fergus o brien
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 153
here is an interesting photograph comparing the rifle in the national archives with the rifle in the backyard photographs .


so is it the same rifle ? .
fergus o brien is offline  
Advertisement
09-06-2011, 01:15   #70
Brown Bomber
Registered User
 
Brown Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,875
Fergus have you read the testimony of Jack D. White ?

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/hscawhte.htm
Brown Bomber is offline  
(2) thanks from:
09-06-2011, 02:14   #71
fergus o brien
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 153
yes ive seen his testimony its an interesting read ,thanks for posting it .
fergus o brien is offline  
Thanks from:
09-06-2011, 10:08   #72
Brown Bomber
Registered User
 
Brown Bomber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by fergus o brien View Post
yes ive seen his testimony its an interesting read ,thanks for posting it .
Yeah it's an interesting case overall. I'd love to get stuck into it but it's fairly daunting tbh. There is mountains of information that has been analysed in minute detail already. You seem to know your stuff though. You should edit Wikipedia articles, I'd imagine there is a war going on there over every detail on JFK.

Incidentally Fergus, have you read Final Judgement?

This is taken from a review

Quote:
When New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison charged businessman Clay Shaw with participation in the JFK assassination conspiracy Garrison stumbled upon the Israeli Mossad connection to the murder of President Kennedy. Shaw served on the board of a shadowy corporation known as Permindex. A primary shareholder in Permindex was the Banque De Credit International of Geneva, founded by Tibor Rosenbaum, an arms procurer and financier for the Mossad.
What's more, the Mossad-sponsored Swiss bank was the chief "money laundry" for Meyer Lansky, the head of the international crime syndicate and an Israeli loyalist whose operations meshed closely on many fronts with the American CIA.
The chairman of Permindex was Louis M. Bloomfield of Montreal, a key figure in the Israeli lobby and an operative of the Bronfman family of Canada, long-time Lansky associates and among Israel's primary international patrons.
In the pages of "Final Judgment" the Israeli connection to the JFK assassination is explored in frightening--and fully documented--detail. For example, did you know:
* That JFK was engaged in a bitter secret conflict with Israel over U.S. East policy and that Israel's prime minister resigned in disgust, saying JFK's stance threatened Israel's very survival?
* That JFK's successor, Lyndon Johnson, immediately reversed America's policy toward Israel?

* That the top Mafia figures often alleged to be behind the JFK assassination were only front men for Meyer Lansky?
* That the CIA's liaison to the Mossad, James Angleton, was a prime mover behind the cover-up of the JFK assassination?
http://www.amazon.com/Final-Judgment.../dp/0974548405
Brown Bomber is offline  
Thanks from:
09-06-2011, 16:07   #73
fergus o brien
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 153
yes there is quite a bit to get your head around with this case ,but i find i dont mind going online researching reading testimony etc you would start reading and before you know it about 3 hours have gone by . but one thing i never ever do is to read some thing and take it as 100% accurate (likewise if someone posted or told me something ) i would go and research it and double and treble check it .

people trying to learn about this case can very easily be misled by certain online sites and so called authors (gerald posner being one such author ) he states in case closed that when oswalds co workers and supervisor went down to the 1st floor for lunch around 11.40 to 11.45 oswald stayed there on the 6th floor and went about assembling his rifle and snipers nest , when in fact testimony shows posner to be inaccurate and that oswald was seen on the 1st floor atleast 2 times about 11.50 and midday (surely posner would be well aware of those testimonies ) that can only indicate to me that he is deliberately trying to mislead and one must ask them selves why .

i havent read that book but it looks very interesting ,i certainly intend to get a few books to stick my head into as i havent bought a book in a bit now .
fergus o brien is offline  
Thanks from:
13-06-2011, 16:07   #74
jamesie_boy
Registered User
 
jamesie_boy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 160



For some reason I always associate this song with JFK'S assassination on the zapruder film. I think it'd be the perfect background music, even on a history documentary.

Last edited by jamesie_boy; 13-06-2011 at 16:09.
jamesie_boy is offline  
15-06-2011, 11:43   #75
Tipsy McSwagger
Registered User
 
Tipsy McSwagger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Gilead
Posts: 3,948
http://www.usmessageboard.com/conspi...-his-part.html

If Oswald was innocent, how does one explain these actions on his part?

In any crime there are individuals that do certain things that make them LOOK guilty but occasionally there is an innocent explanation behind their behavior. Of course the police (or historians) have to weight the supporting evidence to see if the alternate explanation holds water. For instance, if a car is seen fleeing the scene of a crime and the following day the car is tracked down. The driver says that he was racing to the hospital to visit his dying mother. Obviously, the police will check up on his story. If his mother in fact WAS at a hospital that WAS in the same direction he was seen driving, and IF credible eyewitnesses can place him at her side when he claimed to be there then he is no longer a prime suspect in the unsolved crime involving the getaway car. If, however his mother died years ago and it is clear that the evidence doesn't support his story he is STILL a prime suspect in the unsolved crime.

The same is true with Oswald. Virtually EVERYTHING Oswald did on the day before and the day of the assassination drips with guilt. To the casual researcher it appears obvious that Oswald was guilty, but are there alternate explanations that could acquit Oswald of guilt? And an important secondary question: Is there supporting evidence to lend credence to the alternate explanation? For instance, it is often claimed that Oswald's rifle was planted in the TSBD to make Oswald appear guilty, but this claim doesn't really hold water does it since all bullets were matched to that very rifle and secondly, there is no evidence that Oswald's rifle was stolen from Ruth Paine's garage prior to the assassination. And an important third point, there is no evidence of any strangers carrying mysterious packages in the TSBD in the days prior to the assassination. It is EASY to CLAIM the rifle was planted but then there is a list adjoining questions that must be answered, and this is where it gets tough for Oswald defenders.

Let's give the conspiracy advocates the chance to really shine. Listed below are twelve things involving Oswald's behavior that make him appear VERY guilty. IS THERE an alternate explanation that could lend credence to the belief that Oswald was an innocent person framed for the assassination of President Kennedy?

1. Oswald broke tradition and traveled to Irving on THURSDAY afternoon after work when he had NEVER done this in the past (with the exception of one time in October when he visited Irving for June's birthday party.) Oswald's story of picking up curtain rods doesn't really hold water does it since his bedroom already had curtain rods, and since there was no pressing need to pick up curtain rods when he was scheduled to visit Irving the following day anyway. Why DID Oswald decide to make an unexpected visit to Irving the very night before the President was assassinated with a rifle linked to Oswald and no one else? And an important follow-up question is, why would Oswald bring his "curtain rods" into work with him on the morning of the assassination? Was Oswald really that nervous that there was a roaming gang of curtain rod thieves that may possible break into Frazier's vehicle in the TSBD parking lot and steal his curtain rods? Was it really that pressing that Oswald carry simple curtain rods into the TSBD with him, thus running the risk he would forget them, or they would get damages, broken, stolen, or lost? Why not simply leave them in Frazier's vehicle until after work when he could drop them off at his boarding house?

2. Why did Oswald leave his wedding ring and virtually all of the money he had in the world with Marina the morning of the assassination? If Oswald was simply going to work that day and expected to return to Irving later that evening why leave money and his wedding ring in a tea cup for Marina to find later? Any sensible ideas?

3. What WAS in that long brown package Oswald brought to work with him on the morning of the assassination? Remember he told Wesley Frazier that he didn't bring his lunch that day and said the package contained curtain rods, but strangely no curtain rods were found in the TSBD after the assassination and Oswald is not witnessed by anyone eating any lunch that day. And even though there was some discrepancy in the length of the package it still does not resolve what WAS in it, does it? Any possible explanations?

4. Where WAS Oswald at the time of the assassination? He claimed to be in the first floor lunchroom, yet other employees KNOWN to have been there (James Jarman for one) said they didn't recall seeing Oswald in there after 12:00 noon. And also remember that during his interrogation Oswald slipped up and told DPD interrogators that after the assassination he "came downstairs." In James Douglass's flawed work, "JFK and the Unspeakable" he resurrects the old theory that Oswald is seen in the doorway of the TSBD at the time of the assassination (in the Altgens photograph). But this theory reveals the historical weakness of Douglass's book since it seems highly unlikely that Oswald would have been in the doorway to the TSBD at the time of the assassination yet when questioned by police Oswald was too dumb to tell police this little tidbit. So where WAS Oswald at the time of the assassination?

5. Why was Oswald's rifle found on the same floor that eyewitnesses placed a gunman at the time of the assassination? If Oswald really was innocent of any involvement how did his rifle get there?

6. Why didn't Oswald stick around after the assassination to watch the story unfold in Dealey Plaza. Oswald was arguably THE most politically literate employee of the TSBD. Oswald defenders even point out that Oswald was fond of Kennedy and his family, yet at the same time these Oswald defenders fail to see anything unusual about Oswald refusing to remain on the scene of the most important event he would ever witness in his lifetime, but instead takes off on foot running, jogging, walking seven blocks away from Dealey Plaza. Any alternate explanation for this strange behavior?

7. Why wouldn't Oswald patiently await the arrival of the Marsailles Street bus at the bus stop across the street from the TSBD? Remember that there was a bus stop at the intersection of Houston and Elm where Oswald could have calmly sat and awaited for the arrival of his bus, but he chooses instead to race seven full blocks and then hail the bus in mid-intersection before climbing aboard. Does this scenerio makes sense if Oswald is innocent of murdering Kennedy? Of course it makes PERFECT sense if he is guilty and fleeing the scene of his crime. Any good explanation for this odd behavior?

8. Can anyone explain why Oswald would have asked the cab driver to drive him four blocks PAST his residence on North Beckley street instead of simply dropping him off in front of his house? Is there a logical explanation for Oswald to pay the extra money to the cab driver and then walk nearly a half-mile BACK to the same address the cab driver just drove past?

9. Why would Oswald change all of his clothes and pick up his loaded revolver in between arriving home and leaving for the movie theater? The clothing he changed into were not nicer nor more shabby than what he wore to work, and there is no reason to believe they were dirty or unkempt and the reason for him changing clothing and picking up his revolver seems to only make sense when one realizes that he was guilty of committing a crime and obviously wanted to change his appearance and have his revolver on him in the event police stopped him. Is there a logical alternate explanation supported by either common sense or logic? On the day President Reagan was shot (March 30, 1981) I left work early to watch the event unfold on television, but I didn't race home change my clothes, pick up my revolver, and take off on foot roaming the streets of Livonia, Michigan. Why did an innocent Oswald do exactly this?

10. Why would Oswald sneak into the Texas Theater without paying the 75-cent admission cost--especially when one realizes that Oswald had over $12 on him at the time? If Oswald was innocently entering the theater to watch a movie, why not buy a ticket like everyone else? Of course if Oswald is fleeing police and panicking then his behavior is perfectly understandable. Is there a logical alternate explanation for this blatantly illegal act?

11. Why would Oswald stand up in the theater, produce his revolver, and attempt to murder Dallas police officer Nick McDonald during some routine questioning. Wouldn't an innocent Oswald naturally assume that the police were there to question him about sneaking into the theater without paying? Is it logical to conclude that Oswald would risk the death penalty in Texas over a 75 cent movie ticket? And while we are on the topic, what did Oswald mean when he stood and yelled out, "Well it's all over now!" WHAT was "all over now"? Was Oswald referring to the movie? Was he referring to his weekend? Was he referring to his movie-filled afternoon break? Or was he referring to his flight from police?
Any innocent explanations for this behavior?

12. Why wouldn't Oswald admit to owning a rifle? If Oswald was innocent of any involvement AND if no bullets had been matched to Oswald's rifle yet AND if Oswald hadn't brought his rifle to work that morning wouldn't an innocent Oswald have no good reason to deny owning a rifle? They were perfectly legal to own in Dallas and Oswald would naturally assume that his rifle was still in the garage at Ruth Paine's home, wouldn't he? Why would Oswald repeatedly lie about owning a rifle if it wasn't used in the assassination? How would his rifle, safely wrapped up in a blanket in Ruth Paine's garage possibly link him to a crime he didn't commit? His repeated denials of ownership only make sense when one realizes that Oswald was guilty and he knew that admitting his ownership of the murder weapon would point guilt in HIS direction.

Or IS there an innocent explanation for his repeated denials of rifle ownership?

Good luck. I think everyone will enjoy reading the alternate explanations for Oswald's seemingly guilty behavior. Of course IF Oswald IS innocent there should be logical explanations for ALL of these events.

Right?
Tipsy McSwagger is online now  
Thanks from:
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet