02-12-2018, 08:04 PM
Posted by JL:
"12. All of the witness testimony, whether from Dealey Plaza or on Oswald's escape route, all of it was grossly fabricated and coerced. None of the witness' stories had any agreement or consistency. That's why all these witnesses or other police officers could not have been all gathered in a room and told to memorize their part in a sort of play with a script and props, etc. before the JFK hit. It was done (1) on the fly or (2) drilled into the witnesses after the fact with threat of murder (implicity murder at the hands of the Dallas Police) which would intimidate anybody and any witness, beyond doubt. Because it is all phony, it doesn't do much good to try and straighten it out or to learn much of anything from it."
Posted by Mr. Reech:
"If this is so what is the basis for items 1-11?"
I certainly don't want to diminish in any way the totally brilliant and professional analysis of the Oswald flight and the murder of Tippit found on this forum. Mr. Reech should probably be working on the Skripal poisoning case or the Kashoggi murder case, because his analytics far surpass any others in clarity and connecting dots that I can think of.
Indeed, such research could ultimately prove which particular individual really murdered Tippit.
But let me add as follows as an example of evidence that is not eyewitness, physical or forensic:
If there were 1,000,000 workers in Dallas and if there were 100 of them working right on the flight path of Oswald, then the odds of encountering any one such worker would be 1 in 10,000. If Ruby had 100 close friends, then the odds of one of Ruby's friends being among the 100 workers on the flight path is reduced to 1 in 100. So if Oswald called on ALL 100 SUCH WORKERS, the odds of LHO encountering one of Ruby's friends would be 1 in 100.
BUT LHO ONLY LOOKED INTO ONE WORKPLACE. That boosts the odds back up to 1 in 10,000 for encountering Ruby's friend in the store.
I guess that the fact that Rowe was working at the store and the fact that LHO stopped at the store was eyewitness testimony. But it really was a proven fact, presumably discovered by researchers and not subject to obfuscation. Probability is key here.
Similarly, the fact that Sgt. Westbrook had handled all the key evidence was eyewitness testimony of a sort, but it was also likely something discovered and put together by investigative researchers and not dependent on the credibility of a particular witness. Ditto the fact he was transferred to Saigon.
And Judyth Vary Baker's account of her bus rides with LHO was eyewitness testimony. But there again, JVB was an investigator and researcher.
In my 11 points which were mentioned by Mr. Reech, I pretty much only used the following:
It seems to me that almost all of (1) singular eyewitness statements, (2) physical evidence and (3) forensic evidence has been so grossly tampered with, falsely discredited etc. that it can't really be used to prove anything more THAN THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH.
Another way of saying this is that if there were any kind of "smoking gun" proof anywhere in the 26 volumes of the WC report or elsewhere in the media, then it would quickly be rendered useless by the likes of J. Edgar Hoover and his associates and successors. Just look at the infamous dictabelt cited by the HSCA to prove the four shots and the "conspiracy." There was a hireling who quickly discredited this dictabelt analysis.
Another example is the existence of the "two wallets of LHO". The police officer who "found the wallet of the scene" could have merely taken out his own wallet and have it photographed. Then he could put his wallet back into his pocket. At a trial, he could have used the picture of the wallet (his own) being "discovered" at the scene and matching the picture to Oswald's real wallet taken from Oswald after his apprehension.
Imagine how many criminal convictions could have been done by "having the defendant's wallet discovered at the scene" when it was only a picture of a policeman's wallet in a photo.
So this is why I believe that circumstantial evidence is 100 times more useful in solving the JFK case than anything else. And a lot of this is based on deciding on what is probable and what is improbable.
Finally, I believe that I definitely know who plotted the JFK murder and their reasons for doing it. That's why I put together my JFK organizational chart with about 70 persons on it and published it.
I think it's more efficient to identify the general plan and members of the plot and work downward to the details, rather than vice versa.
James Lateer
"12. All of the witness testimony, whether from Dealey Plaza or on Oswald's escape route, all of it was grossly fabricated and coerced. None of the witness' stories had any agreement or consistency. That's why all these witnesses or other police officers could not have been all gathered in a room and told to memorize their part in a sort of play with a script and props, etc. before the JFK hit. It was done (1) on the fly or (2) drilled into the witnesses after the fact with threat of murder (implicity murder at the hands of the Dallas Police) which would intimidate anybody and any witness, beyond doubt. Because it is all phony, it doesn't do much good to try and straighten it out or to learn much of anything from it."
Posted by Mr. Reech:
"If this is so what is the basis for items 1-11?"
I certainly don't want to diminish in any way the totally brilliant and professional analysis of the Oswald flight and the murder of Tippit found on this forum. Mr. Reech should probably be working on the Skripal poisoning case or the Kashoggi murder case, because his analytics far surpass any others in clarity and connecting dots that I can think of.
Indeed, such research could ultimately prove which particular individual really murdered Tippit.
But let me add as follows as an example of evidence that is not eyewitness, physical or forensic:
If there were 1,000,000 workers in Dallas and if there were 100 of them working right on the flight path of Oswald, then the odds of encountering any one such worker would be 1 in 10,000. If Ruby had 100 close friends, then the odds of one of Ruby's friends being among the 100 workers on the flight path is reduced to 1 in 100. So if Oswald called on ALL 100 SUCH WORKERS, the odds of LHO encountering one of Ruby's friends would be 1 in 100.
BUT LHO ONLY LOOKED INTO ONE WORKPLACE. That boosts the odds back up to 1 in 10,000 for encountering Ruby's friend in the store.
I guess that the fact that Rowe was working at the store and the fact that LHO stopped at the store was eyewitness testimony. But it really was a proven fact, presumably discovered by researchers and not subject to obfuscation. Probability is key here.
Similarly, the fact that Sgt. Westbrook had handled all the key evidence was eyewitness testimony of a sort, but it was also likely something discovered and put together by investigative researchers and not dependent on the credibility of a particular witness. Ditto the fact he was transferred to Saigon.
And Judyth Vary Baker's account of her bus rides with LHO was eyewitness testimony. But there again, JVB was an investigator and researcher.
In my 11 points which were mentioned by Mr. Reech, I pretty much only used the following:
- The situation and employment of Ruby's friend Tommy Rowe.
- The situation of Captain Williarm R, Westbrook and Sgt. Kenneth Croy.
- Mayor Earl Cabell being a CIA asset.
- Judyth Vary Baker and Oswald's habits on the bus rides.
- The map of the flight path of Oswald and the geography of Oak Cliff.
It seems to me that almost all of (1) singular eyewitness statements, (2) physical evidence and (3) forensic evidence has been so grossly tampered with, falsely discredited etc. that it can't really be used to prove anything more THAN THE FACT THAT IT HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH.
Another way of saying this is that if there were any kind of "smoking gun" proof anywhere in the 26 volumes of the WC report or elsewhere in the media, then it would quickly be rendered useless by the likes of J. Edgar Hoover and his associates and successors. Just look at the infamous dictabelt cited by the HSCA to prove the four shots and the "conspiracy." There was a hireling who quickly discredited this dictabelt analysis.
Another example is the existence of the "two wallets of LHO". The police officer who "found the wallet of the scene" could have merely taken out his own wallet and have it photographed. Then he could put his wallet back into his pocket. At a trial, he could have used the picture of the wallet (his own) being "discovered" at the scene and matching the picture to Oswald's real wallet taken from Oswald after his apprehension.
Imagine how many criminal convictions could have been done by "having the defendant's wallet discovered at the scene" when it was only a picture of a policeman's wallet in a photo.
So this is why I believe that circumstantial evidence is 100 times more useful in solving the JFK case than anything else. And a lot of this is based on deciding on what is probable and what is improbable.
Finally, I believe that I definitely know who plotted the JFK murder and their reasons for doing it. That's why I put together my JFK organizational chart with about 70 persons on it and published it.
I think it's more efficient to identify the general plan and members of the plot and work downward to the details, rather than vice versa.
James Lateer