Reasonable doubts about Lee Harvey Oswald

[C. Savastano]

Hello, everyone, this is my first post, hope you find it interesting.

(A rebuttal of David Van Pein's website article "Lee Harvey Oswald's Sole Guilt...Point by Point")

How can Lone Gunman theorists accept Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt so easily without regarding all the original facts and evidence? Some do not consider the many official mistakes and breaches of legal procedure. Some critical writers appear selective in their criticism. Yet we agree at least that Oswald was involved in a murderous plot. The true issue is whether he alone killed President Kennedy.

1. "Lee Harvey Oswald owned the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository..." (David Van Pein)

However, a Mannlicher Carcano was not the initially located rifle in the Texas Schoolbook Depository. All responding officers first agreed a Mauser 7.65 rifle and scope with three Mannlicher Carcano 6.65 shells were present. The Mauser appeared in original reports and later appeared in interviews with Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade. The weapon the Single Bullet theory relies upon is suspect. The Mauser days later became a Carcano.
The Mannlicher Carcano in question was less than standard; authorities noted it was a little rusty. The Carcano was manufactured in 1940, the bullets in 1948. The older weapon and ammunition could further hamper firing precision. How could Lee Harvey Oswald use a World War II rifle and over decade old ammunition, yet perform so well? If Oswald was the sniper critical writers attest, why can he not select a modern and maintained weapon?

Oswald visits a gun range a single time officially. A sniper requires extensive practice, especially to make shots at moving targets with multiple obstructions. Lee Harvey Oswald never had the necessary practice. "Let me tell you what we did at Quantico (FBI Headquarters). We reconstructed the whole thing: the angle, the range, the moving target, the time limit, the obstacles, everything. I don't know how many times we tried it, but we couldn't duplicate what the President's Commission said Oswald did. Again, we are talking about professionals; men who completely outclass Oswald in raw shooting ability. Further, these professional assassins practice their skills almost daily. There is no credible evidence from the time Oswald returned to the USA from Russia that he practiced at all". [i] Now consider the Federal Bureau of Investigation lab supervisor that tested the Carcano found, "...the formations, the ridge formations and characteristics, were insufficient for purposes of either effecting identification or a determination that the print was not identical with the prints of people. Accordingly, my opinion simply was that the latent prints which were there were of no value".[ii] What explains this? If Oswald used the gun, the official timeline does not offer extra minutes to disassemble and wipe down the gun. Where are the fingerprints?

In a second round of tests, after Oswald's death, Dallas Police and the Bureau find a single print and partial hand-print So which test is valid? How can one of the best labs in the nation fail to locate fingerprints that onsite agents later find? Is it possible authorities used Oswald's corpse to create fingerprints?

2. "Oswald was positively identified by witness Howard L. Brennan as the person firing a rifle..." (David Van Pein)

Incorrect, Howard L. Brennan ultimately did not identify Lee Harvey Oswald as the assassin. Brennan could not even be sure if seeing Oswald on television, or hearing the radio affected his memory. Oswald did not resemble the closest line up suspect Brennan indicated as the sniper to Dallas Police. Finally, after hours of repeated questioning Brennan relents to officials that Oswald was in the window. He subsequently reverses his statement and blathers about a Communist Conspiracy. A conspiracy the Warren Commission found not to exist.[iii]

Despite all Van Pein's claims, Brennan did not identify Lee Harvey Oswald. His further conspiracy statements without verification should further discredit Brennan's testimony. Brennan's words seem included almost to fill space given their actual use in supporting the guilt of Oswald. Brennan's testimony proves nothing beyond his inability to identify anyone positively.

3."Plus: This massive task of removing all non-Oswald wounds and bullets..." (David Van Pein)

Actually, not until the president's body flew to Bethesda Naval hospital could alteration occur. Not only medical professionals but also officials confirmed the original remaining evidence from Parkland hospital. All Parkland hospital medical original reports and photography recorded wounds inconsistent with the President's (Warren) Commission findings. Dr. Paul Peters stated observing "the wound of entry in the throat".[iv]

Dr. Robert McClelland confirmed a frontal throat wound "The incision had obliterated it, essentially the skin portion, that is".[v] Resident surgeon at Parkland hospital Malcolm Perry described the original wound as "roughly spherical to oval in shape, not a punched out wound".[vi] After more than twenty witness confirmations, it was not removing non-Oswald bullets, but explaining why no Parkland doctor originally supported the Single Bullet theory. However, before Parkland doctors could complete further medical investigation the Secret Service forcibly took the president's body from Dallas.

The newly born Johnson administration ignored the jurisdiction of the City of Dallas and the State of Texas. "Legally, the assassination of President Kennedy and the subsequent murder of Lee Harvey Oswald were within the jurisdiction of the of Texas State Authorities".[vii] In any other case, illegally taking a body or evidence would contaminate the evidence. By this action were later alterations and possible deceptions allowed to occur. Why do executive branch subordinates ignore the legal authorities repeatedly? How can critical writers not consider these basic facts?

4. "Another key fact surrounding Oswald and his killing of JFK is the Walker murder attempt, as I think any reasonable person looking at the case objectively would concur." (David Van Pein)

Objectively there are multiple problems with Van Pein's assumptions. Oswald officially possessed a single rifle, the Mannlicher Carcano. Yet this once sharpshooter failed to kill his previous target. Walker, a man Oswald decried and despised was unharmed because Oswald waited and missed an easy shot. The man who officially performed such amazing shots in Dealey Plaza could not kill Edwin Walker.

Walker is not in a moving vehicle; he is at home. This provided a far longer duration for Oswald to aim then fire. Based on American government accounts Oswald could not successfully undertake this simple plot. How more unlikely are the chances Oswald could successfully construct the entire "Assassination Conspiracy" ? Yet some believe in Dealey Plaza, Oswald missed, and then made two perfect kill shots. Each struck a moving target, with obstructions, at a greater distance.

The House Select Committee staff confirmed, attributing the shot to Oswald was "a terribly misleading assumption." The only rifle associated with Lee Harvey is the Carcano. The bullet attributed to the Walker attack was not compatible, similar to earlier problems with the Mauser rifle and Carcano shells. "Oswald's alleged rifle used 6.5-mm ammunition, copper jacketed, while the Walker bullet was a steel jacketed 30.06". This information was unavailable for years to investigators.[viii]

According to the Select Committee the Carcano did not fire the shot at Edwin Walker. If Oswald owned a more accurate gun, why did he not use it in Dealey Plaza? The question becomes who shot at Edwin Walker, and who gained by the action? Conceivably, it would support Oswald's subversive credentials.

If Lee Harvey Oswald was the true Communist assassin some claimed, he was a poor shot. This poor shot does not support him subsequently firing precision shots to assassinate the President Kennedy. These later shots required a well-practiced and skilled assassin, not Lee Harvey Oswald. Yet this is unconsidered by most critical writers. If Oswald shot at Walker as Van Pein suggests, he used a second gun and missed. If he did not someone again is trying to implicate Oswald using incompatible bullets. Official reports do not always support what many critics attest.

5. "Try as the conspiracy books might, the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) has still not been proven to be an impossibility..." (David Van Pein)

Even some religious ideas while utterly impossible by scientific laws are never fully disproved. If someone will not accept gravity because they believe angels hold us down, they have larger problems than comprehending gravitational theory. If a person will not objectively view the situation, reason will not usually persuade him or her. The Single Bullet theory exists without considering all the available evidence. As critical writers suggest of many research authors, they have chosen a side and most defend it without objectivity. Some authors have not made this mistake; some consider all the evidence.

This "theory" is set aside by the previously mentioned frontal wound in the president's throat. Kennedy's head wound also based on evidence and medical reports, struck him from the front. Despite the later claims of Bethesda military doctors who received President Kennedy and evidence illegally taken from Dallas, original Parkland reports are the primary evidence. So how can alteration later occur without official sanction?

6. "Also-if JFK had been shot from the infamous "Grassy Knoll" (which was located to the right-front of Kennedy's car at the time he was shot) why wasn't there any damage to the LEFT side of President Kennedy's head?" (David Van Pein)

First, let me address Van Pein's strange claim of the Grassy Knoll location allowing only damage to the president's left side. Since John F. Kennedy was facing toward the Knoll his right side is also exposed to gunfire not just his left. If a shot hit the president from the Grassy Knoll in front, it may create massive rear damage on the right side of his head, not the left. The line of fire is easily observable in many pictures and photographs of the area.
A bullet wound of entrance appears small; it expands becoming a larger exit wound. As the bullet expands, it does greater damage piercing all obstructing tissue. Fragmentation of the bullet additionally can damage the victim. The back of President Kennedy's head on the right side received extensive damage. This supports the statements of Parkland doctors and staff.

Parkland hospital nurse Diana Bowron had seen the condition of the president's head upon arrival. She explained the "back of his head...Well, it was very bad...I just saw one large hole". Nurse Pat Hutton stated, "Pressure bandage was no use...because of the massive opening on the back of the head".[ix] Both nurses upon first viewing Kennedy noted a large hole on the back right side.
Dr. Marion Thomas Jenkins reported "There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital), causing a great defect in the skull plate so that there was a herniation and laceration of the great areas of the brain, even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound. There were also fragmented sections of the brain on the drapes of the emergency room cart. With the institution of adequate cardiac compression, there was a great flow of blood from the cranial cavity, indicating that there was much vascular damage as well as brain tissue damage".[x]

The temporal and occipital regions of the human skull are located in the rear base and sides. The original description submitted to authorities was the president's wound is located in the back and right side of his skull. This would indicate a large wound of exit, thus a wound of entrance from the front. A shot fired by someone located on the Grassy Knoll to the right front.
Dr. William Clark testified to the President's Commission "I then examined the wound in the back of the president's head. There was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed". [xi] Dr. Malcolm Perry concurred, "A large wound of the right posterior cranium".[xii] Describing the area Dr. Paul Peters stated, "It seemed to me that in the right occipital parietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area".[xiii]

Dr. Charles Crenshaw referred to the wound as "An exit wound the size of my fist in the rear of the head".[xiv] Dr. Gene Akin observed "The back of the right occipital parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance extruding".[xv] The testimony of Dr. Charles Baxter referred to the damage by stating "...in a word the - literally the right side of his head had been blown off".[xvi] Dr. Ronald Jones testified of the head wound, "...and what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull."[xvii] These medical experts affirm the lack of an exit wound in the front of the throat or head.

In later autopsy photographs, a ragged incision within the president's throat officially becomes a rear exit wound. Parkland hospital doctors reported medical procedure not exiting bullet damage was responsible. Based on repeated testimony, an exit wound is located in the rear of the President Kennedy's skull. Therefore, it was possibly an entrance wound from a frontal shot.
At Bethesda hospital, removal of the president's brain occurs. The brain could define the exact bullet trajectory paths. The president's brain was officially misplaced. Perhaps the most important piece of forensic evidence was later lost or taken. This was just one suspicious error in a series of changing statements and vanishing evidence.[xviii]

Medical professionals agreed President Kennedy had a massive head wound of exit located in the rear right side. They also noted a throat wound of entrance. These facts and statements clearly would indicate shots from the front. Lee Harvey Oswald could not have fired these shots. Remember, no immediate consequences occurred from stating the truth.
Did every doctor and medical staff witness at Parkland hospital lie? They gained no benefit and did not have time to invent testimony. If they are trusted in all other cases, why doubt them now? Unlike some critical writers, I refrain from stating utterly that Parkland was more accurate than Bethesda; instead consider Parkland viewed the original evidence. This happened before any possible alterations to evidence could occur.

7. "It was also proven that Oswald could have indeed traveled in 90 seconds or less, the distance across the sixth floor of the TSBD and descended the floor flights of stairs in time to have been seen by policeman Marion L. Baker on the building's second floor." (David Van Pein)

Perhaps Mr. Van Pein should have read the entire page he cited from the President's (Warren) Commission. The following statements affirm Oswald had more time for his actions than some believe. "The time actually required by Baker and Truly to reach the second floor on November 22 was probably longer than in the test runs..."." No allowance was made for the special conditions which existed on the day of the assassination-possible delayed reaction...to the shot, jostling with the crowd of people". Officer Baker said "We simulated the shots and by the time we got there, we did everything that I did that day, and this would be the minimum, because I am sure that I, you know, it took me longer."[xix] If Baker had more time, so did Oswald, thus more than 90 seconds. So Van Pein's claim is only proven speculation.

8. "From everything I can see, it's a veritable mountain of "Oswald is Guilty" evidence (both circumstantial and physical) And not a single speck of it has been shown to be refutable with 100% actual certainty." (David Van Pein)

Here again is the pseudo religious claim that no one can ever disprove critical beliefs without utter certainty. This is ridiculous, if this was a standard for knowledge, no one could ever know anything for an utter certainty. A minority of fringe people dispute everything we know for a scientific certainty, such as the Earth is billions of years old. Some facts change over time; the past truth is not the full truth. Without re-inspection countless facts would be lost or suppressed. Van Pein's opinions and highly selective use of official records do not prove his ideas. The facts reasonably suggest critical writers should do more research before they make grand claims. This case remains mired in the speculations of both research authors and critical writers. It remains foolish to make any definite claims without allowing for review of the original evidence. Opinions do not carry the day against unpleasant realities.

Sincerely,

C. A. A. Savastano

[i] Kill Zone: A Sniper Looks at Dealey Plaza" by Craig Roberts, Consolidated Press International, January 1994, pg.7, pg.89-90
[ii] Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Chapter 4, pg.123, the National Archives, archives.gov
[iii] Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Chapter 4, pg.143-147, archives.gov
[iv] Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Chapter 6, pg.69-71, archives.gov
[v] President's Commission Hearings on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Volume VI, pg.33, Assassination Archives and Research Center, aarclibrary.com
[vi] President's Commission Hearings on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Volume VI, pg.9, aarclibrary.com
[vii] United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect To Intelligence Activities Report, Book 5: Intelligence Agencies, Part IV, Summary and Findings pg.45
[viii] Hearings of the Select Committee on Assassinations of the United States House of Representatives, Appendix Volume VI, Part V, Comments on the Panel's Report by Robert Groden Consultant to the Committee", Section III, the Walker Bullet pg.294, the Mary Ferrell Foundation, maryferrell.org
[ix] Hearings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Part VII, Report on Issues to the Authenticity of the Autopsy X-rays and Photographs of President John F. Kennedy pg.302-305, Assassination Archive and Research Center, aarclibrary.org
[x] President's Commission Report on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Appendix 8, Statement of Administrator Mr. C.J. Price pg.530, archives.gov
[xi] President's Commission Hearings on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Volume VI, Testimony of Dr. William Clark pg.20, aarclibrary.org
[xii] "The Warren Commission Report" Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Official Complete and Unabridged), pg.521, Washington, D.C, Barnes and Noble Books, 2003
[xiii] President's Commission Hearings on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Volume VI, Testimony of Dr. Paul Peters pg.71, aarclibrary.org
[xiv] "Doctor who saw JFK Wound Disputes Report", by Dallas Morning News, the Chicago Tribune, April 2, 1992, chicagotribune.com
[xv] President's Commission Hearings on the Assassination of President's Kennedy, Volume VI, Testimony of Dr. Gene Akin pg.65, aarclibrary.org
[xvi] President's Commission Hearings on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Volume VI, Testimony of Dr. Charles Baxter pg.41, aarclibrary.org
[xvii] President's Commission Hearings on the Assassination of President Kennedy, Volume VI, Testimony of Dr. Ronald Jones pg.56, aarclibrary.org
[xviii] Hearings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Volume VII, pg.33
[xix] Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of John F. Kennedy, Chapter IV, part 3, pg.152, aarclibrary.org

[Tracy Riddle]

"From everything I can see, it's a veritable mountain of "Oswald is Guilty" evidence (both circumstantial and physical) And not a single speck of it has been shown to be refutable with 100% actual certainty."

Von Pein makes constant assertions like this, as if repeating something over and over can make it true. If that fails, then call someone a "kook" or "nut."

He appears to be quite the JFK fan (with all the blogs and videos on YouTube), but I wonder what his views on Kennedy really are. Does he think JFK was a cold war hawk or a tax-cutting neo-con?

[Magda Hassan]

A rebuttal of David Van Pein's website article "Lee Harvey Oswald's Sole Guilt...Point by Point"

David Von Pein soul guilt point by point. DVP so guilty.

[Charles Drago]

DVP will never be allowed to befoul this forum.

[Phil Dragoo]

Mr. Savastano (Mister?), you posit a general agreement where such does not exist; to wit:

Yet we agree at least that Oswald was involved in a murderous plot. The true issue is whether he alone killed President Kennedy.

No, Lee Oswald's "involvement" was as patsy; there is no indication he was aware of any "murderous plot"--until he was the accused.

And, no, the "true issue" is not "whether he alone killed President Kennedy"--for he killed no one, not the president, not the policeman.

We examine the eight assertions:

1) No, he most certainly did not own the rifle. Proved conclusively by George Michael Evica and Gil Jesus and others.

2) Brennan? It is to laugh. He had to be led by the hand. Having claimed to possess x-ray vision and see the figure's height and build through a narrow opening.

3) Wounds? There are no "Oswald wounds"--a wound in the front of the throat described by Malcolm Perry (before he became "afraid they were going to kill me") and the wound in the right temple at the hairline seen by several including mortician Tom Robinson, and Dr. Crenshaw (who won his suit against JAMA at the cost of Lundgren's job as editor), resulting in the large wound at the rear seen by eighty-one.

4) Walker? Oswald wasn't a suspect until dead; then Marina was told what to say. Walker said they'd switched the bullet in evidence from the 30.06 to a 6.5. Two men were seen, then left in two cars--Oswald was one man, and did not drive.

5) SBT? Oh, disproven by many, the most recent and most thorough (over sixty pages) is in Sherry Fiester, Enemy of the Truth. Dale "Cartoonist" Myers to the contrary not withstanding (see Pat Speer, "Animania: looking for truth in Dale Myers' hall of mirrors"), there was no single bullet causing seven wounds--the broken chain of custody of CE 399 alone disproves it, as does its intact form unlike any sample bullet produced by the Commission in similar circumstance.

6) Damage? He asks why no damage to the "left" side? Because eighty-one persons saw the baseball-sized blowout of the right occipitoparietal--from the entry at the right temple hairline--from the front, not from the rear.

7) Timing of a trip downstairs? Oswald was not upstairs--he was seen elsewhere--and Vickie Adams and her friend (corroborated by their boss) were on that stairs--and Oswald was not on that stair. (Barry Ernest.)

8) "Veritable mountain"? This author has built another "veritable mountain" of bull excreta.

[C. Savastano]

Mr. Savastano (Mister?) CAS: Yes, Mister.

P.Dragoo :No, Lee Oswald's "involvement" was as patsy; there is no indication he was aware of any "murderous plot"--until he was the accused.

And, no, the "true issue" is not "whether he alone killed President Kennedy"--for he killed no one, not the president, not the policeman.

CAS: I appreciate the clarification, however the reason I constructed it as it is was because of the following reasons.

Until repeated verified evidence from both the official record and independent sources confirm that Oswald did not have anything to do with the plot it seem premature to rule him out utterly in my opinion. I would be willing to review whatever evidence you have, being new I have not seen everything here. I think he is a patsy as you do, however a patsy is part of a plot.

I appreciate the feedback, however I believe their is much to be considered before any full judgement can be rendered.

[Gordon Gray]

Mr. Savastano (Mister?) CAS: Yes, Mister.

P.Dragoo :No, Lee Oswald's "involvement" was as patsy; there is no indication he was aware of any "murderous plot"--until he was the accused.

And, no, the "true issue" is not "whether he alone killed President Kennedy"--for he killed no one, not the president, not the policeman.

CAS: I appreciate the clarification, however the reason I constructed it as it is was because of the following reasons.

Until repeated verified evidence from both the official record and independent sources confirm that Oswald did not have anything to do with the plot it seem premature to rule him out utterly in my opinion. I would be willing to review whatever evidence you have, being new I have not seen everything here. I think he is a patsy as you do, however a patsy is part of a plot.

I appreciate the feedback, however I believe their is much to be considered before any full judgement can be rendered.

There's no way of knowing whether Oswald had any awareness of the plot. On the one hand if you want to set someone up, it's probably best they know little or nothing. On the other, as Oswald was working for both the CIA and the FBI, and there is evidence he was trying to infiltrate ant-Castro organizations in Dallas, he may have picked up some indication of a plot. The one question I have about the extent of his involvement if any, would be his apparent attempt to meet a contact at the movie theatre. Unless he received a phone call at the TSBD just prior to the shooting, this would have had to have been prearranged.

[David Josephs]

Mr. Savastano (Mister?) CAS: Yes, Mister.

P.Dragoo :No, Lee Oswald's "involvement" was as patsy; there is no indication he was aware of any "murderous plot"--until he was the accused.

And, no, the "true issue" is not "whether he alone killed President Kennedy"--for he killed no one, not the president, not the policeman.

CAS: I appreciate the clarification, however the reason I constructed it as it is was because of the following reasons.

Until repeated verified evidence from both the official record and independent sources confirm that Oswald did not have anything to do with the plot it seem premature to rule him out utterly in my opinion. I would be willing to review whatever evidence you have, being new I have not seen everything here. I think he is a patsy as you do, however a patsy is part of a plot.

I appreciate the feedback, however I believe their is much to be considered before any full judgement can be rendered.

"evidence.... that Oswald did not have anything to do with the plot" sounds eerily like GUILTY until you prove your innocence... which is not how it's done.

Except of course in the process of the FBI, the media and the Warren Commission...

On 4/27/64 there was a question as to whether the shooting could have happened as agreed upon... no one had yet visited the site of the murder - 5 months later - but they did see the Zfilm, Nix and Moorman Redlich writes Rankin a memo... which in my mind explains both your and their POV in regards to solving the case:

Our intention is not to establish the
point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the
hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole
assassin.

The HYPOTHESIS which UNDERLIES the CONCLUSIONS.... {sigh}

the accusers, you?, must offer any evidence of Oswald's guilt or involvement... Repeated, verified, AUTHENTICATED evidence of the guilt of one Lee HARVEY Oswald of any crime, involvement, conspiracy, whatever you want to throw at him... from whatever source you wish to offer....

INNOCENT until proven guilty Mr. S. - Not condemned to be guilty DESPITE of the evidence.

Mr. S... we've been down these roads and they all end with HARVEY dead, JFK dead, and a massive conspiracy/cover-up/deniability that continues to this day.... With people like DVP clinging to the ARGUMENT to give the discussion validity...

Discussing Oswald's involvement in a deep politics context, the possibilities are numerous... was he a patriotic hero, falling on his sword at the command of his country... "acting" the patsy all along as his role dictated... a stooge with illusions of helping his country as they positioned the pawn... Tosh's abort team member.... LEE and HARVEY....

each a layer of the same onion... each leading back to a small handful who had the resources and influence...

requiring to prove someone DIDN'T do something remains a tactic by those who cannot prove "someone" DID in the first place.
and wont be used with effectiveness here

DJ

[C. Savastano]

I am not trying to force guilt before innocence, actually I am attempting the opposite. I am using reasonable doubt as my basis for proving Oswald likely did not commit the crime he accused of. I understand some here may disagree with my ideas or presented evidence, yet that does not invalidate it, opinions and unverified evidence is just speculation. I appreciate the support and constructive criticism, I respect everyone's right to conduct research and use what they consider reasonable standards, but they must offer proof from both sides if they hope to use legal standards. I have also used a majority of official evidence to prove Oswald's likely innocence, evidence which critics cannot refute with facts because its the very documents they use to craft their unreasoned arguments. If one of my sources is incorrect or my claims can be invalidated with evidence I invite its presentation, otherwise its just speculation.

In regard to the Movie theater, I agree, it makes no sense for him to remain in Dallas at all after JFK's or Tippit's murder. He had plenty of opportunities to flee and should have done so. A meeting seems the likely reason to remain.

One of my favorite facts that critics cannot refute is the Warren Commission had no authority or jurisdiction, it was forced via Executive order, local authorities or the State Congress should have rightfully investigated the matter, so why did the Commission?

"Legally, the assassination of President Kennedy and the subsequent murder of Lee Harvey Oswald were within the jurisdiction of Texas State Authorities" - Senate Select "Church" Committee on Intelligence Activities Report, Book 5, Part IV, Intelligence Agencies, Summary and Findings, p.45

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church..._0026a.htm

[Phil Dragoo]

C. Savastano, you state:

I am using reasonable doubt as my basis for proving Oswald likely did not commit the crime he accused of.

We are not under Napoleonic law; we enjoy the presumption of innocence.

You may cease "proving Oswald likely did not commit the crime he [is] accused of"--that is not what America represents in the struggle to be free of monarchic rule.

Oswald did not shoot anyone that day.

The man wasn't in the window alleged.

The man didn't possess the weapon alleged.

The wounds were not caused from the rear.

Do you think you'll change the mind of lone-nut propagandists with your "careful reasoning"?

There's nothing careful or reasonable about them--they're either simpletons or complicit.