(PART 919)


To All LN'ers: What is the Most Incriminating Piece of Evidence Against Oswald?

It seems to matter not where you turn in this case, all the evidence indicates that there was more than one gunman involved and that there was a greater motive behind the assassination. It seems to be that LN'ers make sweeping, ill-informed claims about the evidence linking Oswald to the crime, so I ask ALL LN'ERS ON THIS FORUM:



Hi Dillon,

It's not just ONE single piece of evidence that establishes Oswald's guilt. It's the MANY pieces of evidence---when added together---that establishes LHO's guilt (in both murders--JFK's and Tippit's).

You can't just pick one single thing and say "This proves his guilt beyond all possible doubt". It's the large and powerful SUM TOTAL that accomplishes that task. Like all this stuff here.

But if, for some reason, I was forced to strip away a lot of the evidence that hangs Lee Oswald and rely on just TWO things, I'd say these two things (when combined) do a nice job of showing Oswald to be guilty of murdering JFK....

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John Connally. (With said weapon being found inside the building where Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when both of these men were wounded by rifle fire.)

2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents of this package to a co-worker.



So, let's say you have a rifle. And that rifle is found at a crime scene. And you were seen carrying a bulky package on [that] day. But no one saw you shoot the gun. Would you be prepared to be executed and think, "it is an open and shut case against me"?


Did I tell a co-worker a big fat lie about the contents of that package I carried into the building?

IOW, if Oswald's package didn't have something in it that he wanted to hide and keep secret, then why does he need to lie about its contents to Buell Wesley Frazier?

No CTer has ever come close to answering the above question in a reasonable fashion. And that's because there is no "reasonable" answer to it. And trying to deflect the suspicion away from Oswald and onto Buell Frazier only makes the conspiracy theorists look desperate in their desire to exonerate Lee Oswald.


Maybe Frazier is the liar, not Oswald. Maybe there was no package brought into work that day. .... For all we know, it could have been a fabrication by Frazier.



"And trying to deflect the suspicion away from Oswald and onto Buell Frazier only makes the conspiracy theorists look desperate in their desire to exonerate Lee Oswald." -- DVP

I rest my case.


You may rest your case, but you rest it by ignoring all the points below. That is the problem with having a fixed view, you are not interested in considering evidence that doesn't fit into your predetermined outcome, of Oswald as the lone shooter, which is why you feel so comfortable with the Warren Commission whitewash, as just like them you turn a blind eye to any evidence suggesting Oswald did not own the rifle, and did not fire it. That is why you ignore all the following points:

I don't know, and nor do you (if Oswald lied about bringing curtain rods to work).

Did he even say what Frazier says he said?

Maybe Frazier is the liar, not Oswald.

Maybe there was no package brought into work that day.

Workers at the depository didn't see Oswald walk in with a package, so for all we know it could have been a fabrication by Frazier.

Frazier was heavily pressurised by the police, as they suspected him of involvement and had the confession ready for him to sign, and he therefore may well have said things to take the heat off himself and onto Oswald, just like Marina did, and he feared for his safety, just as she did, and said things to protect himself, just like she did, like Benevides [sic] did, like so many witnesses did.


Just brilliant, Johnny.

So that means Linnie Mae is a liar too (if some of the above garbage you just wrote is to be accepted as true).

CTers are the last people in the world who should be evaluating the JFK evidence. They can't do it properly---as Johnny Hartley amply demonstrates above.


That is quite the arrogant statement and it displays the magnitude of your bias. Apparently only LN speculation is done properly. Can you define your standard of "doing it properly"? Was Bugs [Vincent Bugliosi] "doing it properly" when he concludes speculatively the intent behind Oswald leaving his wedding ring and cash? If so, how is Johnny's speculation any different?

And yes, Johnny's speculation implies that Linnie Mae might have lied about the bag to protect little brother.


I guess CTers need a picture drawn for them to explain the "Sum Total".....

Empty bag found in Sniper's Nest with LHO's prints on it. (Found BEFORE the police ever got the bag and curtain rod story out of Frazier.)

Frazier sees Oswald with bag on 11/22.

Randle sees Oswald with bag on 11/22.

Frazier says LHO said that the bag contained curtain rods.

No curtain rods are found anywhere.

LHO's rifle is found on the other side of 6th floor (opposite corner from where the EMPTY bag with LHO's prints is found).

LHO's rifle is the assassination weapon.

What's the logical conclusion based on these known facts? Should we think that the accused assassin was a liar? Or should we think Frazier and Randle were both liars?

(Why does easy stuff like this even need to be uttered?)


Oswald claimed to know nothing about the rifle in the PO box, and I believe him. Collection from the PO box was allowed to Marina and Hidell. But others used that alias too, so could have collected material from the PO box without Oswald ever knowing. In a 1976 sworn affidavit to the CIA, Richard Case Nagell listed all aliases he had used in connection with his intelligence activities. Listed among the names is Alek Hidell and Aleksei Hidell.

This sort of information goes way over the head of David though, and as he has staked his colours firmly to the lone nut mast, he hasn't the flexibility to consider evidence that challenges that - even though his grounds for thinking Oswald was the lone shooter are so weak. An unconfirmed use of a bag to carry something to work. And a gun used for the Kennedy shooting that had no direct connections with Oswald.


Once more, Johnny fails to put the pieces together properly and logically. He must be putting on this little performance on purpose, just to prove my point. He bends over backwards to avoid the obvious---just as all CTers do.

In Johnny's world, it makes more sense (and is perfectly acceptable) to call both Frazier and Randle liars, instead of labelling the actual liar (Oswald) the liar.


David, when you take a step back, and think over things rationally...

Could she [Linnie Mae Randle] really have seen what she claimed to have seen re the bag from where she was standing that morning?

Then, once one realises she can't have seen it and so was lying, one has to ask why would she lie? And then realise she was lying to protect her brother. As she again did when obstructing the police from talking to him after the shooting by misleading [them] about his whereabouts.

It is fine, I know you want the simple solution that Oswald was a lone nut who did it all on his own. So these inconvenient facts I am presenting don't fit into your version that you therefore ignore, just as the Warren Commission did.

So say I can't evaluate evidence if you want, as that is total crap, as the difference between us is I acknowledge and consider evidence on all sides, and am not like you in automatically dismissing anything that doesn't fit into your predetermined outcome.


You don't evaluate the evidence --- you change it to suit your Anybody But Oswald requirements.

The testimony shows that Oswald had a large-ish bag with him on 11/22. And that testimony is corroborated by the physical evidence of a bag with LHO's prints on it.

Yes, there's a discrepancy as to the length of the bag found vs. what Frazier/Randle estimated. But that's part of the evaluation process. Is it really more reasonable to think Oswald had NO BAG, given the testimony of both Frazier and Randle PLUS the existence of CE142 in the Sniper's Nest with Oswald's prints on it?

How could any REASONABLE evaluation of the bag evidence lead anyone in the direction of "No Bag" and in the direction of both Frazier and Randle being liars instead of LHO being the liar?


David, that comment of yours -- "Anybody But Oswald" -- is just an inaccurate cheap shot. I don't care if he did it or not. I care in the truth. There are people out there (and you are one of these) who HATE Oswald and the very idea of him for shooting the precious President Kennedy. And that hatred of Oswald makes you think and act irrationally.

So I am addressing your points directly, you are avoiding mine. So you duck Randle's dishonesty. Though it is unmistakable that she lied to protect her brother.

The testimony shows that workers didn't see Oswald going to work with a bag, you are just inventing stuff about testimony to try to support your incredibly weak case against Oswald. In any case, the bag he [Buell Frazier] described was too small to carry a disassembled rifle.

On the question of likelihoods, is it possible that the police created a story of a bag being taken into work? Where was the bag in the sniper's nest photos? Why didn't people see it at the time?

Nobody independent saw Oswald carry a bag into work that morning.

It wasn't seen in the sniper's nest.

Yet, like so much evidence, it suddenly appears out of the blue later on, with no chain of evidence.

David, you should stop blindly hating Oswald for killing President Kennedy, and actually consider the facts, to see if he actually DID kill Kennedy. And then, if you are honestly looking neutrally at the evidence, you woud see it doesn't conclude what you currently think it concludes.

Just to add in a quick additional point that is relevant, I remember you saying online somewhere that you hadn't read all of the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission report. I was impressed with the refreshing honesty, as I haven't either. So I know you can be straightforward and not boxed in your thinking.


I doubt if any human being on Earth has ever read every single word in all 26 WC volumes. I know of nobody who has done that. I certainly haven't.

But I've read a substantial amount of the material in the volumes to come to what I think is the correct conclusion---Oswald alone killed Kennedy.

And, btw, the brown paper bag WAS seen in the Sniper's Nest by at least four police officers---Day, Studebaker, Johnson, and Montgomery. Am I to think they're all liars? And, no, I don't think officers like Mooney and others who said they DIDN'T see the bag on the floor are liars. They just didn't notice that paper on the floor, for some reason. But there are multiple officers who said they DID see the bag in the Nest, and therefore those officers HAVE to be called outright LIARS by any and all conspiracy theorists who want to believe the police faked the paper bag known as CE142.

I, on the other hand, don't require ANY liars at all (except Lee Oswald, of course). But CTers need liars everywhere you look---Buell Frazier, Linnie Randle, Robert Studebaker, J.C. Day, J. Edgar Hoover, Robert Frazier, Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald, the Warren Commission, the HSCA. It's Liar-gate to the point of absurdity.



Here's a quote regarding Edward Benavides from Vincent Bugliosi's book:

"The [conspiracy] buffs are so silly that in addition to President Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit, they even have people like Abraham Zapruder (heart attack, 1970), J. Edgar Hoover (heart attack, 1972), Lyndon Baines Johnson (heart attack, 1973), and Earl Warren (heart attack, 1974) on their mysterious-death lists. .... So silly that when Edward Benavides, who the buffs say resembled his brother, Warren Commission witness Domingo Benavides, was shot to death in a Dallas bar in February 1964, they allege that it was a case of mistaken identity, Domingo probably being "the intended victim," and list Edward's homicide as "mysterious" and, by implication, unsolved. Actually, he was shot by a drinking companion, who confessed to the killing and served twenty months for manslaughter. It should be recalled that Domingo Benavides, who saw Officer Tippit being murdered, never identified Oswald as the killer. He only said Oswald "resembled" the man and refused to make a positive identification [DVP INTERJECTION: until 1967 on CBS-TV, that is]." -- Page 1018 of "Reclaiming History"

Bugliosi has one source note for the above excerpt regarding Edward Benavides' death. The source is this one:

"Roberts, Truth about the Assassination, p.96."


DVP made a mistake and got the wrong footnote. .... Bugliosi's source for the 2/64 date was actually "Crossfire".


Yes, you are correct, John. That was an error on my part indeed. The actual source Bugliosi uses is this one:

Marrs, Crossfire, p.558.

BTW, the reason I made that error is because the PDF version of Bugliosi's book has some mistakes when it comes to the source note numbers attached to that "Mysterious Deaths" chapter, with Source Note #28 being one such error. It should say 27 instead of 28 there. It does say 27 in the physical hardcover volume, but the PDF version is taken from the book's "Advance Uncorrected Proofs" and a few errors do occur.

I should have cross-checked the PDF file with the finished hardcover book, which I almost always remember to do, but I failed to do that in this instance in 2010. Sorry about that.

David Von Pein
April 1, 2010
April 2-3, 2015
April 3, 2015