 |
This phrase often comes up in discussing Oswald's activities and
statements. This is actually considered EVIDENCE in a court-of-law. Even
outside the courtroom, in a fact-finding investigation like the Warren
Commission - these are important considerations.
Besides Oswald's consciousness-of-guilt activities, not the least of which
is his mad dash out of the depository and his killing of Officer Tippit,
I'd like to limit this discussion to the incriminating things he told the
authorities. When a suspect tells PROVABLE lies about matters of substance
related to a crime, that is considered consciousness-of-guilt. After all,
that's what guilty people do - try to distance themselves from the
evidence linking them to the crime.
Here are three provable lies on very substantive matters that Oswald told
the authorities.
1. He denied knowing anything about the name "Alek James Hidell" even
though he had a fake ID in his wallet with his (Oswald's) photo on it. A
very silly lie, if you think about it. I mean, c'mon! Apparently, he was
very arrogant about this, saying "You're the cops, you figure it out."
2. He denied ever owning a rifle even though there were photos of him with
a rifle. They confronted Oswald with this photo. In addition, the
authorities traced the order form. It was in Oswald's handwriting using
his unique alias. The murder weapon had the same serial number as the one
on the order form.
3. He denied taking a long package to work. Basically, he denied Wesley
Frazier's and Linnie Randle's story about seeing him with a long package.
He said he only took his bag lunch. [Note: Spare me the discussion about
how Frazier and Randle estimated the length of the bag to be too short to
conceal a disassembled Carcano. The point is that Oswald denied carrying
ANY elongated bag at all, whether it was 18", 28", or 38". If he did carry
a bag that was too short to conceal a Carcano, and that the bag carried
something innocent like curtain rods, he would certainly tell the police
that.]
If you want to debate any of the above statements as having innocent
explanations - that's fine - knock yourself out. You won't be saying
anything I haven't heard a million times before.
What I would like to address is how many conspiracists don't even try to
find innocent explanations. Instead, they say, "How do we know Oswald said
any of these things? Are we going to take the DPD's word for it? There is
no recording and there is no transcript." Of course, this is their
unwitting acknowledgement that these ARE very incriminating statements.
So, instead of trying to find an explanation they take the lazy (and
preposterous) route of stubbornly proclaiming that there is no proof that
Oswald said any of these things.
OK - fair enough.
Let's say that there WAS a stenographer present whenever Oswald made any
statements. We've all seen stenographers feverishly typing away on those
strange looking stenotype machines in courtrooms. It usually comes out on
paper in a highly cryptic manner that is difficult for anybody to read
other than the stenographer. The transcript is then transcribed into a
more readable format. That takes time - especially back in 1963.
Now we have a transcript of Oswald making these statements. Would that
satisfy the conspiracists? The way the Kennedy assassination debate has
evolved over the years, I would say it would NOT satisfy them. Invariably,
they would claim something like, "How do we know the stenographer was not
part of the cover-up and didn't change what Oswald had said? How do we
know that the transcript is an accurate reflection of what Oswald said?"
OK - then let's say everything Oswald said was recorded.
I don't think many conspiracy theorists would accept that either. Look at
the vast amount of evidence they already reject as being tampered with.
They insist that the conspirators (or cover-up artists) were capable of
planting evidence, altering photographs, altering x-rays, altering film
and even altering the president's wounds. It seems there are no limits to
what these conspirators were capable of. That being the case, I'm
convinced that a good number of conspiracy theorists would reject an audio
tape, claiming it was altered in some sophisticated way, and that it
shouldn't be trusted. I mean, if the Zapruder film can be altered, how
hard would it be to alter a simple audio tape? I can hear it now, "How do
we know that's Oswald's voice and not somebody who SOUNDS like Oswald?"
It's really an impossible task to penetrate the level of irrationality
with some of these kooks.
Now, before you all start complaining about how I am raising strawman
arguments, I readily admit this is my opinion about how this would go down
IF a transcript or recording actually did exist. Consequently, I consider
the CT objection to the fact that there are no transcripts or recordings
to be largely disingenuous in the context of all the other pieces of
evidence they reject. They would reject this, as well - I predict.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
statements. This is actually considered EVIDENCE in a court-of-law. Even
outside the courtroom, in a fact-finding investigation like the Warren
Commission - these are important considerations.
Besides Oswald's consciousness-of-guilt activities, not the least of which
is his mad dash out of the depository and his killing of Officer Tippit,
I'd like to limit this discussion to the incriminating things he told the
authorities. When a suspect tells PROVABLE lies about matters of substance
related to a crime, that is considered consciousness-of-guilt. After all,
that's what guilty people do - try to distance themselves from the
evidence linking them to the crime.
Here are three provable lies on very substantive matters that Oswald told
the authorities.
1. He denied knowing anything about the name "Alek James Hidell" even
though he had a fake ID in his wallet with his (Oswald's) photo on it. A
very silly lie, if you think about it. I mean, c'mon! Apparently, he was
very arrogant about this, saying "You're the cops, you figure it out."
2. He denied ever owning a rifle even though there were photos of him with
a rifle. They confronted Oswald with this photo. In addition, the
authorities traced the order form. It was in Oswald's handwriting using
his unique alias. The murder weapon had the same serial number as the one
on the order form.
3. He denied taking a long package to work. Basically, he denied Wesley
Frazier's and Linnie Randle's story about seeing him with a long package.
He said he only took his bag lunch. [Note: Spare me the discussion about
how Frazier and Randle estimated the length of the bag to be too short to
conceal a disassembled Carcano. The point is that Oswald denied carrying
ANY elongated bag at all, whether it was 18", 28", or 38". If he did carry
a bag that was too short to conceal a Carcano, and that the bag carried
something innocent like curtain rods, he would certainly tell the police
that.]
If you want to debate any of the above statements as having innocent
explanations - that's fine - knock yourself out. You won't be saying
anything I haven't heard a million times before.
What I would like to address is how many conspiracists don't even try to
find innocent explanations. Instead, they say, "How do we know Oswald said
any of these things? Are we going to take the DPD's word for it? There is
no recording and there is no transcript." Of course, this is their
unwitting acknowledgement that these ARE very incriminating statements.
So, instead of trying to find an explanation they take the lazy (and
preposterous) route of stubbornly proclaiming that there is no proof that
Oswald said any of these things.
OK - fair enough.
Let's say that there WAS a stenographer present whenever Oswald made any
statements. We've all seen stenographers feverishly typing away on those
strange looking stenotype machines in courtrooms. It usually comes out on
paper in a highly cryptic manner that is difficult for anybody to read
other than the stenographer. The transcript is then transcribed into a
more readable format. That takes time - especially back in 1963.
Now we have a transcript of Oswald making these statements. Would that
satisfy the conspiracists? The way the Kennedy assassination debate has
evolved over the years, I would say it would NOT satisfy them. Invariably,
they would claim something like, "How do we know the stenographer was not
part of the cover-up and didn't change what Oswald had said? How do we
know that the transcript is an accurate reflection of what Oswald said?"
OK - then let's say everything Oswald said was recorded.
I don't think many conspiracy theorists would accept that either. Look at
the vast amount of evidence they already reject as being tampered with.
They insist that the conspirators (or cover-up artists) were capable of
planting evidence, altering photographs, altering x-rays, altering film
and even altering the president's wounds. It seems there are no limits to
what these conspirators were capable of. That being the case, I'm
convinced that a good number of conspiracy theorists would reject an audio
tape, claiming it was altered in some sophisticated way, and that it
shouldn't be trusted. I mean, if the Zapruder film can be altered, how
hard would it be to alter a simple audio tape? I can hear it now, "How do
we know that's Oswald's voice and not somebody who SOUNDS like Oswald?"
It's really an impossible task to penetrate the level of irrationality
with some of these kooks.
Now, before you all start complaining about how I am raising strawman
arguments, I readily admit this is my opinion about how this would go down
IF a transcript or recording actually did exist. Consequently, I consider
the CT objection to the fact that there are no transcripts or recordings
to be largely disingenuous in the context of all the other pieces of
evidence they reject. They would reject this, as well - I predict.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Ralph Cinque:
I am reminded of how the Innocence Project has, over the last 20 years, exonerated dozens of men who were sentenced to life in prison or to death for crimes (murders) they didn't commit. But, we should remember that in every case, there were juries of good and decent people who convicted these poor innocent souls. How did it happen? It happened because people fall prey to fallacious reasoning, like that of David Emerling.
Did Oswald make a mad dash out of the Depository? He gave two people directions to the pay phone, and neither one of them said he acted stressed or hurried. And it appears that he even stopped to have a conversation with a police officer.
Now, if that's not Oswald, then who is it? Because in that situation at that time, it had to be somebody connected with that place of business, and therefore, we should know.
Then when he was taking a cab, he offered it to another traveler, who presumably was in a bigger hurry than he was.
A mad dash, you say? No, that's just you coloring it that way, Emerling.
And now you're using Oswald's murder of Tippit as evidence that he murdered Kennedy? But, Oswald was in the Texas Theater by 1:07 according to Butch Burroughs the popcorn man, and Tippit wasn't killed until 1:15. So, how could Oswald have killed Tippit? No one reported any stink of from Oswald's pistol, and I am referring to both police and theater patrons, and even though it was opened and examined in front of news cameras, no one reported finding any burnt residue in the chambers.
1. Regarding the Hidell identity, the official story has it that he ordered the rifle under that name but had it delivered to a PO Box under the name Lee Harvey Oswald. So, what was the point of using the alias?
For a thorough refutation of the Alex Hidell claims, go here:
The fact is that there is nothing of substance, nothing bankable, about that whole issue.
2. Regarding his denial of owning a rifle, it's because he didn't. The Backyard photos were faked. Jack White proved that the man in the photo was shorter than Oswald, about 5'6" as opposed to 5'9". Oswald's face was superimposed over the body of the other man, and Oswald said so himself. Now listen up, Emerling: when something is as controversial as the Backyard photos, when their authenticity is in doubt, it means that you can't use them as currency. It's not for you to spend. It means that you can't use them to convict Oswald.
Here is Jack White on the Backyard photos:
And here is Gil Jesus refuting all the so-called evidence that Oswald ordered that rifle:
3. Regarding the "long package" that Oswald supposedly brought to work, Emerling is apparently unaware that Buell Frazier in 2013 went to the Dallas Police and told them he wanted to make clear, officially for the record, that he never said that the bag he saw was long enough or big enough to contain a rifle and that he denied it then and now. And since Frazier denies it, and since no one inside the TSBD ever saw Oswald with any such bag, what evidence is there that he had one?
The whole idea of Oswald keeping a rifle at Ruth Paine's house is preposterous. Where was it the whole time he was in New Orleans? In her garage but she didn't notice it? Is that the story? Who would hide a rifle in someone's garage without telling her and then move to another state? Another state? Isn't possession 99% of the law? And no one can claim that Oswald took the rifle to New Orleans, which is preposterous.
And then in the weeks before the Presidential visit, Oswald supposedly did a lot of practicing at the Sport Drome Rifle Range, but how did he acquire his rifle with which to practice? How did he get it from Ruth Paine's house? How did he return it there? Was he keeping it in his room at the time? If so, why return it to Ruth Paine's house at all? And wouldn't someone at the boarding house which had 17 residents have seen it, particularly his landlady who cleaned his tiny room?
Oswald supposedly last practiced on November 17, so how did the rifle wind up back at Ruth Paine's house when he didn't go there between November 17 and November 22? And if you think he practiced with another rifle, whose? And he didn't borrow one from a friend because, as I've said a thousand times, Oswald had no friends in Dallas. He had handlers but no friends. No friends, no friends, no friends, no friends, no friends.
The whole idea of Oswald keeping a rifle at Ruth Paine's house is preposterous. Where was it the whole time he was in New Orleans? In her garage but she didn't notice it? Is that the story? Who would hide a rifle in someone's garage without telling her and then move to another state? Another state? Isn't possession 99% of the law? And no one can claim that Oswald took the rifle to New Orleans, which is preposterous.
And then in the weeks before the Presidential visit, Oswald supposedly did a lot of practicing at the Sport Drome Rifle Range, but how did he acquire his rifle with which to practice? How did he get it from Ruth Paine's house? How did he return it there? Was he keeping it in his room at the time? If so, why return it to Ruth Paine's house at all? And wouldn't someone at the boarding house which had 17 residents have seen it, particularly his landlady who cleaned his tiny room?
Oswald supposedly last practiced on November 17, so how did the rifle wind up back at Ruth Paine's house when he didn't go there between November 17 and November 22? And if you think he practiced with another rifle, whose? And he didn't borrow one from a friend because, as I've said a thousand times, Oswald had no friends in Dallas. He had handlers but no friends. No friends, no friends, no friends, no friends, no friends.
And Oswald denied ever saying anything about curtain rods. Oswald said he brought his lunch to work, and that's something that could have been confirmed. He ate his lunch in the domino room, which means that the bag for it could have been found- or not found- in the trash. But, at least you look for it, right? But, did they look for it? No. Whose fault was that? His? No. It was theirs. And it was tantamount to destroying evidence.
Frazier described Oswald's bag as a grocery bag. Several times he referred to it that way: "You know those bags you get at the grocery store?" Does this look like a grocery bag?
Here it is again. A grocery bag?
The unreliability of Buell Frazier as a witness was addressed in a speech by Larry Rivera, who has since become the Chairman of the Oswald Innocence Campaign:
Remember all those numerous innocent men who were sent to Death Row? They were all convicted on the basis of witness testimonies- witnesses like Buell Frazier.
And it is not preposterous at all to doubt and question statements that Oswald supposedly made. And let's not say there was a stenographer present when Oswald made any statements because there wasn't. There should have been, but there wasn't. Whose fault as that? And why weren't his statements recorded? Tape recorders existed back then, and they were in common use by police departments.
Furthermore, we know for an absolute fact that authorities lied about the statements Oswald made. For instance, Will Fritz told the Warren Commission that Oswald said he was "eating lunch with other employees" at the time of the shooting, but that was a lie. The "other employees" were James Jarman and Harold Norman, and first, Oswald never said he ate with them at all. Second, he only said that they were around when he was eating lunch alone in the domino room. And third, it was well before the shooting because Jarman and Norman went outside after that, and then they went upstairs to the 5th floor window to watch the motorcade from up there, which is where they were at the time of the shooting, for which we have a photograph.
James Jarman was standing farther back next to Harold Norman. Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor until close to the time of the shooting.
Oswald told Fritz that he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" and Fritz wrote it down.
It must have been a reference to DURING and not after the shooting because Shelley left the front immediately after the assassination with Lovelady to join the throng of people that descended on the railway area, and then they went around to the back to reenter the building there, never to return to the front. There was NO CHANCE that Shelley was milling around in front at the time Oswald left for home. "Out with Bill Shelley in front" was Oswald's alibi, and Fritz knew it. But, months later, Fritz knew the Warren Commission didn't want to hear anything about that. He knew what their purpose was, and he also knew what they, and others, expected of him. And he delivered.
Emerling, you are a Neanderthal when it comes to analyzing the facts in this case, and I say that with all due apologies to Neanderthals. Oswald no more killed Kennedy than I did. Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Book Depository at the time of the shooting.
That is the same man, and it is also the same clothes. Do you have any idea how vast the range of clothing is, including men's clothing? Apparently, you don't. But, the above collage is proof-positive that Oswald did not kill Kennedy and could not have killed Kennedy.
Not a single point you made was valid, Emerling. You swung and missed on everything. You struck out. That happens a lot in baseball, but at least in baseball, the batters know it when they strike out. But, you are not smart enough to know it, and that's the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.