Warren Commission was correct........Oswald acted alone

[Soupnazi630]

WHAT THE MOB KNEW ABOUT JFK'S MURDER

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...3e35867/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4fe73bdfce55

The hit man and the mobster: Jack Ruby and Santos Trafficante

NO evidence in that article

You keep striking out

The article establishes NO link between Ruby And Trafficante

It merely talks about how certain mob bosses were happy at JFKs death as were a lot a of republicans

Did you catch the part at the end about CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence which would never make it to trial?


You still have nothing

 

[MacTheKnife]

The Cuban assassin with a deadly secret: 'I shot JFK


Sam Giancana
Salvatore Giangana was born on June 15, 1908 and known as both Mooney and Momo, referencing the lunar (lunatic) nature of his personality. Diagnosed as a psychopath with antisocial trends by a military psychologist, he escaped service in the Second World War.

He grew up on the streets of West Chicago, with childhood friends such as Charlie Nicoletti, who would end up with him, as part of the Chicago Mob.
Giancana worked his way through the ranks of Al Capone's crew, from driver to hitman, proving himself a worthy leader through fearlessness and brutality. He married Angeline DeTolve in 1933, producing three daughters.
After Capone's imprisonment for tax evasion, Paul Ricca assumed control with Tony Accardo at his side and their hold over the Outfit lasted for several decades. Due to threats from the IRS they stepped back from front-line control allowing the likes of Sam Giancana to step in as boss, but no murders or important deals could take place without Ricca and Accardo's approval.
Giancana expanded the Outfit's business interests in Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Mexico and Cuba. He enjoyed the limelight and had a long standing friendship with Frank Sinatra and Marilyn Monroe. He owned the Cal Neva casino in Lake Tahoe, with Sinatra as a front, where the Kennedy brothers could meet with Monroe.

Was JFK assassinated by Sam Giancana and the Mob

 

[candycorn]

The huge problem with the multiple gunman theory is that Kennedy was hit twice…. How many assassins does it take to hit one guy twice?

 

[MacTheKnife]

Bobby Baker Scandal and the Assassination of JFK

Bobby Baker Scandal and the Assassination of JFK

 

[airplanemechanic]

I find it funny people are saying Oswalt would have been nervous. Why? He had practiced, nobody was shooting back at him and he was ready.

He was calm as a cumumber.

 

[hunarcy]

News Flash: While there is a lot written, there's been NOTHING proven except the official version. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide proof of what you post. Since you can't provide proof, you can't be taken seriously.

Insults and name calling cannot and will not be substituted for a substantial argument supported by facts. Everyone can look back and see how poorly you've done.

anyone who would believe the Warren Commision report is so gullible they should never call for proof.

Still nothing of substance. Just blather. It ought to be SO easy to persuade me since I'm "gullible", but you can't because you have no proof of anything you believe.

The burden of proof was and is on the state. What proof do you have that Oswald shot anyone?

You have no motive, you have no one that saw him shoot anyone.

You have the intelligence community in essence investigating itself and controlling the Warren Commission....whose mission was to convince the public that a lone nut killed the President....whilst also claiming that Jack Ruby was another nut case who killed oswald ...can anyone really be blamed for refusing to believe this less than b movie material?

again.................https://www.amazon.com/Breach-Trust-Warren-Commission-Failed/dp/0700619399&tag=ff0d01-20

The state supplied massive evidence and met that burden.

You have the burden of using evidence to dispute them and you have yet to do so.

Yes we do have motive and a pattern of attempted murder.

The intelligence community was in no way investigating itself and in no way controlled the commission.

The WC was never attempting to prove Oswald guilty they simply ended up doing so
Their documented written mandate was to find the truth and nothing more.

Hey....boyo.....I got a bridge I would like to talk to you about.....ya know the one over in brooklyn. hehheh

You should have admitted you had no response, rather than post that stupid waste of time post.

 

[hunarcy]

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Can a federal commission legally convict someone of murder who is dead and thus unable to defend himself?

Only a court can CONVICT someone of murder. A federal commission can investigate a murder and show that the evidence points to one conclusion, but that is not a conviction under the law.

 

[hunarcy]

Problems with The Warren Commission report discussed.....

"...no one can look and not see this evidence. And yet it was not seen. It was not considered. I have to think that this failure to see and this failure to consider was deliberate."

Vincent Salandria and Gaeton Fonzi Discuss Problems with the Warren Commission Report, Philadelphia (1966)

"I think..." "I believe..." "My suggestion..." Just more conspiracy theory bunk.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Can a federal commission legally convict someone of murder who is dead and thus unable to defend himself?

Only a court can CONVICT someone of murder. A federal commission can investigate a murder and show that the evidence points to one conclusion, but that is not a conviction under the law.

Would the fact that the Warren Commision labeled Oswald the killer of JFK not entitled his mother to sue for libel, slander or whatever?

 

[MacTheKnife]

I find it funny people are saying Oswalt would have been nervous. Why? He had practiced, nobody was shooting back at him and he was ready.

He was calm as a cumumber.

Well of course, you are entitled to your opinion but the reality of the situation is simply this:

There is no proof that Oswald fired the rifle, there is no credible motive for Oswald to shoot JFK....it would be logical for Oswald to be the one that fired a shot a General Walker since Oswald was an avowed marxist....but there is no proof he even did that....eyewitness testimony says there were 2 guys and neither one looked like oswald.

From all the information available....it appears Oswald's claim of just being a patsy is very probable.

He may have been an un-witting accessory as in he may have let someone use the rifle...if he still had it at that time. No proof he actually was in possesion of the rifle at that time...he could have sold it, given it to some of his compadres or whatever.

The Warren commission in a failed effort to convice the American People that Oswald was just a lone nut who shot the President for no real reason made a lot of guesses.....it was their theory that oswald was just a lone nut...that is all--just a theory.

 

[MacTheKnife]

The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes



False Mystery: The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes, 1998

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Would the fact that the Warren Commision labeled Oswald the killer of JFK not entitled his mother to sue for libel, slander or whatever?

I'd love to see the matter go to an open courtroom. Think of the discovery the defense could ask for.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Would the fact that the Warren Commision labeled Oswald the killer of JFK not entitled his mother to sue for libel, slander or whatever?

I'd love to see the matter go to an open courtroom. Think of the discovery the defense could ask for.

Exactly............and that is why Oswald had to be gotten rid of.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

it would be logical for Oswald to be the one that fired a shot a General Walker since Oswald was an avowed marxist

Oswald publicly claimed he was a Marxist! He claimed that. His espionage required that he play a dissident in order to be an effective agent (such as playing the devoted member of the Fair Play for Cuba organization).
Remember his security clearance at Atsugi Naval base which would be impossible for a Marxist Communist and his defection to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War that brought no adverse after effects to Oswald at all.
http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/B Disk/Brussell Mae/Item 25.pdf

 

[MacTheKnife]

The Testimony vs. the Warren Commission's Report


The Warren Commission ignored the testimony of its own witnesses, some of them experts, in order to conclude that Oswald was guilty as charged. Tests conducted at the Commission's request were often inconclusive, irrelevant or proved the opposite of the Commission's position. In addition, the Commission flat out lied in its Report about what the witnesses said.

In addition, there were numerous examples of conflicts in the description of evidence as found. Descriptions of evidence that did not point to Oswald as the perpetrator were changed after the fact. To believe that the early descriptions were simply errors by police, one must be convinced that police could not tell a .38 caliber automatic shell from a .38 special shell, even though both were clearly marked. That police could not tell a white jacket from a grey jacket and that police could not tell a 7.65mm Argentine Mauser from a 6.5mm carbine clearly marked "6.5mm Made In Italy". These are just a few examples. Not only was the description of evidence changed after the fact, other evidence had no chain of possession and at least in one case, the one of the "paper gunsack", crime scene photos showed that the evidence was not where police said it was.

The Commission took no interest in settling the questions about the conflicts in evidence. If these were honest mistakes, they could have easily been dealt with once and for all by questioning the people who handled the evidence.


Either much of the evidence in this case was substituted to make Oswald look guilty, or these were the stupidest cops in history.


I will leave such judgments to the reader.

A network television camera, there to cover the transfer, was broadcasting live at the time, and millions thereby witnessed the shooting as it happened. Ruby later said he had been distraught over Kennedy's death and that his motive for killing Oswald was "...saving Mrs. Kennedy the discomfort of coming back to trial."

Ruby's murder of Oswald in front of 75 armed police officers caused an outcry of conspiracy, both from the left and the right.


Enter the Warren Commission


The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, known unofficially as the Warren Commission, was established on November 29, 1963,by Lyndon B. Johnson to investigate the assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Its 888-page final report was presented to President Johnson on September 24, 1964,[2] and made public three days later. It concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the killing of Kennedy and the wounding of Texas Governor John Connally, and that Jack Ruby also acted alone when he killed Oswald. The Commission's findings have since proven controversial and been challenged by later studies.


https://www.giljesus.com/

 

[hunarcy]

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Can a federal commission legally convict someone of murder who is dead and thus unable to defend himself?

Only a court can CONVICT someone of murder. A federal commission can investigate a murder and show that the evidence points to one conclusion, but that is not a conviction under the law.

Would the fact that the Warren Commision labeled Oswald the killer of JFK not entitled his mother to sue for libel, slander or whatever?

Sure, but if there was enough evidence to show the statement was not false, she would fail in her effort to prove slander.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Can a federal commission legally convict someone of murder who is dead and thus unable to defend himself?

Only a court can CONVICT someone of murder. A federal commission can investigate a murder and show that the evidence points to one conclusion, but that is not a conviction under the law.

Would the fact that the Warren Commision labeled Oswald the killer of JFK not entitled his mother to sue for libel, slander or whatever?

Maybe but she never bothered.

Much like the family of all Capone never sued for him being labeled a criminal.

He was never convicted of a violent crime wither but the evidence is clear he was guilty of several violent crimes.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The Testimony vs. the Warren Commission's Report


The Warren Commission ignored the testimony of its own witnesses, some of them experts, in order to conclude that Oswald was guilty as charged. Tests conducted at the Commission's request were often inconclusive, irrelevant or proved the opposite of the Commission's position. In addition, the Commission flat out lied in its Report about what the witnesses said.

In addition, there were numerous examples of conflicts in the description of evidence as found. Descriptions of evidence that did not point to Oswald as the perpetrator were changed after the fact. To believe that the early descriptions were simply errors by police, one must be convinced that police could not tell a .38 caliber automatic shell from a .38 special shell, even though both were clearly marked. That police could not tell a white jacket from a grey jacket and that police could not tell a 7.65mm Argentine Mauser from a 6.5mm carbine clearly marked "6.5mm Made In Italy". These are just a few examples. Not only was the description of evidence changed after the fact, other evidence had no chain of possession and at least in one case, the one of the "paper gunsack", crime scene photos showed that the evidence was not where police said it was.

The Commission took no interest in settling the questions about the conflicts in evidence. If these were honest mistakes, they could have easily been dealt with once and for all by questioning the people who handled the evidence.


Either much of the evidence in this case was substituted to make Oswald look guilty, or these were the stupidest cops in history.


I will leave such judgments to the reader.

A network television camera, there to cover the transfer, was broadcasting live at the time, and millions thereby witnessed the shooting as it happened. Ruby later said he had been distraught over Kennedy's death and that his motive for killing Oswald was "...saving Mrs. Kennedy the discomfort of coming back to trial."

Ruby's murder of Oswald in front of 75 armed police officers caused an outcry of conspiracy, both from the left and the right.


Enter the Warren Commission


The President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, known unofficially as the Warren Commission, was established on November 29, 1963,by Lyndon B. Johnson to investigate the assassination of United States President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Its 888-page final report was presented to President Johnson on September 24, 1964,[2] and made public three days later. It concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the killing of Kennedy and the wounding of Texas Governor John Connally, and that Jack Ruby also acted alone when he killed Oswald. The Commission's findings have since proven controversial and been challenged by later studies.


Was Lee Harvey Oswald Really Guilty ?

Once again you have agreement but no evidence.

The link does not even name these supposed witnesses who were ignored.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I find it funny people are saying Oswalt would have been nervous. Why? He had practiced, nobody was shooting back at him and he was ready.

He was calm as a cumumber.

Well of course, you are entitled to your opinion but the reality of the situation is simply this:

There is no proof that Oswald fired the rifle, there is no credible motive for Oswald to shoot JFK....it would be logical for Oswald to be the one that fired a shot a General Walker since Oswald was an avowed marxist....but there is no proof he even did that....eyewitness testimony says there were 2 guys and neither one looked like oswald.

From all the information available....it appears Oswald's claim of just being a patsy is very probable.

He may have been an un-witting accessory as in he may have let someone use the rifle...if he still had it at that time. No proof he actually was in possesion of the rifle at that time...he could have sold it, given it to some of his compadres or whatever.

The Warren commission in a failed effort to convice the American People that Oswald was just a lone nut who shot the President for no real reason made a lot of guesses.....it was their theory that oswald was just a lone nut...that is all--just a theory.

Wrong.

There is overwhelming evidence he shot Kennedy and none challenging that fact.

You are will fully denying that fact

 

[MacTheKnife]

Is there a lawyer in the house?

Can a federal commission legally convict someone of murder who is dead and thus unable to defend himself?

Only a court can CONVICT someone of murder. A federal commission can investigate a murder and show that the evidence points to one conclusion, but that is not a conviction under the law.

Would the fact that the Warren Commision labeled Oswald the killer of JFK not entitled his mother to sue for libel, slander or whatever?

Sure, but if there was enough evidence to show the statement was not false, she would fail in her effort to prove slander.

He was accused of murder....no evidence whatsoever that he actually comitted murder....that was just their opinion or more specifically....their mission to convince the public oswald was just a lone nut case who just suddenly for no reason decided to shoot the President.