Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

Anthony Marsh

Oct 26

On 10/25/2015 10:33 PM, Ralph Cinque wrote:
> Anthony Marsh, who in my opinion is just another dis-info Op, maintains
> that Oswald didn't kill Kennedy but did kill Tippit.
>
> His rationale for this ridiculous position is that Oswald feared Tippit
> was going to arrest him for the Walker shooting- like that was foremost on
> Tippit's mind 15 minutes after Kennedy died.
>

I didn't say that. Oswald feared anyone in law enforcement because he
was paranoid that they were all out to get him.

> But, nobody got hurt in the Walker shooting. And, it happened 8 months
> before. There were no witnesses to the shooting. A neighbor claimed to see
> two men rushing off in cars, separate cars, neither of whom he described
> as looking like Oswald. Plus, Oswald had no car nor did he drive. There
> was no proof whatsoever that Oswald did it or that he was even there at
> the time or that his rifle or his bullet were used. There was no way a
> conviction against Oswald as possible, and it's doubtful they had enough
> to even charge him.
>

I didn't say that. But imagine if they arrested Oswald after the
assassination, but couldn't charge him with killing President Kennedy. But
they had his rifle and tested it. Pretend that the DPD was suddenly smart
enough or the FBI stepped in to compare the test bullets to the Walker
bullet and by some miracle found a match. Oswald did not see the condition
of his bullet which missed Walker. They could at least HOLD him for
attempted murder. Or destruction of property.

> In fact, the whole case against Oswald was built on one thing and one
> thing only: Marina Oswald: her willingness to support the ridiculous story
> and tell the Warren Commission what they wanted to hear.
>

Support? No one made up the ridiculous story. It came from the note
which Oswald wrote and what he told Marina. No one was out to frame him
for the Walker shooting.

> But guess what? Marina would not have had to testify in criminal court.
> That's because there's a provision called "spousal privilege" in which a
> wife does not have to testify against her husband.
>

Would not have to, but she could choose to.

> You take Marina out of the equation, and the whole case against Oswald
> falls completely to nothing; it vanishes.
>

The note. The bullet.

> Then, there was the phony Walker note. Do you know who produced it? Ruth
> Paine. Need I say more? The note was undated, and did not mention General
> Walker or any reason why Oswald might find himself under arrest. There is
> absolutely nothing incriminating about it.
>

So now your theory is that Ruth Paine wrote the note while Oswald was out
the night of the Walker attack. How ridiculous will you go to exonerate
Oswald of ALL crimes How about his Marine discharge? Add that to you list
and claim that Snyder made up the whole thing. Be paranoid for Oswald
since he isn't here himself to be paranoid about everything. Have you ever
heard of a thing called handwriting analysis? Of course not, you don't do
evidence.

> I'm certain the principle of "reasonable doubt" was the rule of law in
> 1963. In this case, there was NO CHANCE that Oswald could be convicted for
> the shooting attempt of Walker.
>
> But, even if there were a chance- and there wasn't- one would have to be
> completely and totally insane to compound a pot-shot which hurt no one
> into the cold blooded murder of a police officer. Oswald was NOT insane.
> It's the idea that is insane, and, it's the person holding it.
>

Police often hold a suspect on lesser charges to give them time to
investigate the more serious charges.

> But, maybe not. Maybe the person holding the insane idea is really working
> for the other side, doing a little diversion, a little distraction, a
> little disorientation. And, it does make a mockery and a laughing stock of
> the whole idea of conspiracy, which is good for the other side.
>

You know, you don't have to believe every kooky conspiracy idea that
comes along to believe that there was a conspiracy to kill President
Kennedy. With or without Oswald.

> But, one thing for sure: this idea of Anthony Marsh that Oswald didn't
> kill Kennedy but did kill Tippit is THE zaniest, the wackiest, and the
> most downright comical idea in all of JFK assassination research. And,
> it's not surprising that not a single other person in the whole
> "community" has endorsed it.
>

Typical that you make personal attacks on me to try to make yourself
look like the hero. 

Ralph Cinque: 

I get it, Marsh. Now you're making it that Oswald was so paranoid that a cop only had to blink at him, and he would open fire. But, what is that based on? What is there in the record, and I mean the real record not the lore they created about him that justifies that view of him? What is the real evidence that he was paranoid? And what is the evidence that he disliked cops? 

Well, here is, apparently, an image of Oswald talking to a cop scant minutes after the assassination:

Marsh, I don't want to hear you make another glib, unsubstantiated claim about Oswald again. I am not interested in your opinions about him. I am not interested in your opinions about anything.  

And no, Marsh. You spin a stupid, pathetic scenario and expect others to respect it as a plausible what-if.  You pretend you have the ability to creep into Oswald's mind- as if you psychically knew him- and predict his behavior. You spew your mental vomit and think people consider it anything but vomit. 

For once in your life, Marsh, try to focus: There are facts in the case. There are also a mountain of lies. But, when you get to the facts, there's no need to "imagine" anything. I don't want to hear the word "imagine" coming out of you again. Capisce? Keep your imagination to yourself. 

I tell you; you are one strange duck, Marsh. For most people, it's cut and dry. It's also either black or white. Either Oswald was guilty, or he was innocent. If guilty, then he was deranged, psychotic, and homicidal; if innocent, then none of the above. But YOU are all for making him deranged, psychotic, and homicidal but still innocent of killing Kennedy. 

What is that, Marsh? A CIA trick? Is that who you're working for?

Here is the translation of the note supplied by Ruth Paine. The authenticity of the note is totally unconfirmed. The FBI said it's handwriting experts confirmed it was Oswald's handwriting? The FBI was framing Oswald, so you can't go by anything they or their experts said. Get this into your warped skull, Marsh: THE US GOVERNMENT KILLED KENNEDY. And then they framed him. And that involved a whole lot of lies. 

  

There is absolutely nothing incriminating about that note. I dispute that Oswald wrote it, but even if he did, it in no way incriminates him for shooting at Walker. In no way could that note get him convicted in a court of law.  

And in no way could the Walker bullet be connected to Oswald in any way, especially since he didn't even own a rifle. But, I'll put it another way: IT IS EXTREMELY UNLIKELY THAT THAT BULLET COULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH ANY PARTICULAR PERSON OR ANY PARTICULAR GUN. 

So, now you're suggesting that Marina was going to testify against Oswald in the Walker shooting? Then why didn't she go to the police immediately, if for no other reason than to protect herself and her daughter? 

And what about Oswald's Marine discharge? You're saying he was going to kill over that too? Marsh, in your depraved mind, if a waitress brought him eggs a little too runny, he'd have shot her full of lead as well. That's really how you look at him.

Well, the way I look at you, Marsh, is that you are the kookiest kook to ever call anyone a kook. 

But fortunately, you are an army of one.