ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags assassinations , JFK assassination , John F. Kennedy , Kennedy conspiracies

Reply
Old 8th July 2018, 10:09 PM   #1321
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,167
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
Yes, but if the arrest had been deemed illegal, Oswald's statements resulting from the arrest might have been held inadmissible. Mind you, I don't think that the arrest was illegal. I agree with you that it was handled well, in light of Oswald's giving the police an excuse to become really violent with him.
January 15, 1964, Oswald's mother retained Mark Lane to represent Oswald before the Warren Commission. It's possible that had he lived that Lane would have been his council. CT stuff aside, Lane was no slouch, in fact Gerald Posner hired him as his lawyer to defend him in his plagiarism case with the Miami Herald in 2010. The question would have become weather or not he could control Oswald, I think he would have wanted to go down as an avenger for the Marxist revolution. It's hard to say how the case would have proceeded in court, and if Lane's defense strategy of Oswald would have been to put the United States on trial, which he made a career out of doing for the next 40 years.

The trial would have taken up a big chunk of 1964 if Oswald had claimed innocence. I'm not familiar with high-profile cases from the 1960-1965 time-frame, but Miranda v. Arizona didn't occur until 1966. I wonder if Lane would have made a stand in court to have any statements made in those hours after his arrest stricken from the record, and had he fought to the SCOTUS, and won today police would read suspects their "Oswald Rights"...sorry, that just warped my brain just a bit.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2018, 09:13 AM   #1322
manifesto
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,906
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
They showed incredible restraint capturing the guy who had just murdered one of their fellow officers
How did they know that at the time?

Quote:
and had the same murder weapon pointed at them.
1. IF so, how did they know that at the time?

2. Iím amazed how you can trust the changing stories from members of one of the most corrupted police departments in the history of the USA.

Truly amazed
manifesto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2018, 08:36 PM   #1323
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,713
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Ok, I might not be understanding this correctly, but AIUI, the rationale of "fruit of the poisonous tree" is that without a search warrant, the seized items would never have been found because the police had no right to search, so the situation must be restored to the state of affairs that existed where no search was carried out.

However, the Oswald theatre arrest was a situation where they had a murder suspect whom they had every reason to believe was armed, in a theatre with the public. IIRC in US law this is called "exigent circumstances", they did not need an arrest warrant, and even if the arrest was later deemed illegal because excess force was used, it still does not rise to the level of fruit of the poisonous tree because the Police still had the right to arrest him and seize the revolver in first place.

Well, sort of.

Theoretically, an arrest can be so brutal, so inhumane, and so excessive that the accused just gets to go free. It's about the only leverage the courts have to force the police to do anything: if they don't play by the rules, their arrests won't count.

An arrest warrant is never needed to arrest a suspect in public when the police have probable cause (or an articulable reason) to believe a crime has been committed. All an arrest warrant does is allow the police to enter a suspect's private property to arrest him.

But there's another concept at play when considering excluding evidence. In general, the courts will allow evidence, no matter how it was obtained, if the police would have eventually found it anyway. This is called inevitable discovery. Seeing as how the police weren't going to just give up searching for the President's assassin (or the killer of the police officer), the government probably would have had a good argument that they were going to find Oswald and his stuff inevitably.

A confession may also be admissible if it is sufficiently attenuated from an illegal arrest. If enough time or events have unfolded between the illegal arrest and the voluntary confession, it won't be excluded.

What does this all mean for the JFK conspiracies? The answer is: not much. Legal theories exist in sufficient abundance in favor of Oswald and in favor of the police. There's no way to know what would have happened or how any court would have ruled. There's no refuge for either the conspiracist or the historian in the 4th Amendment.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2018, 08:47 PM   #1324
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,167
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
How did they know that at the time?

1. IF so, how did they know that at the time?
It's called an All Points Bulletin (APB), also a BOLO(be on the lookout). They had a man matching the description of Tippit's murder who ducked inside a theater without paying. They didn't "Know" it was Tippit's murderer, just that he was a potential suspect...who then pulled his gun on them.


Quote:
2. Iím amazed how you can trust the changing stories from members of one of the most corrupted police departments in the history of the USA.

Truly amazed
You have yet to provide any evidence of corruption inside the DPD in 1963. Not a single civil rights case, not a single link to a court record where judgement against the DPD was rendered.

Not one.

You must also show how this corruption had anything to do with their performance during the JFK/Tippit investigation.

You should also demonstrate a pattern of DPD conduct wherein the murderer(s) were willfully overlooked by any DPD officer or detective.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th July 2018, 09:15 PM   #1325
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,591
To the board what is the basis for this claim ? I've seen the claim several times. Is this based on anything reliable or is this just a CT meme?

Was this a 'at the time' idea or when did it come into existence?

Quote:
how you can trust the changing stories from members of one of the most corrupted police departments in the history of the USA
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 01:49 AM   #1326
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,163
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
- Jack Ruby
Suspicious death?
Jack Ruby died of a pulmonary embolism brought on by lung cancer.

Just how far in advance did the Evil They plan this?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 05:27 AM   #1327
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,244
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
How did they know that at the time?

1. IF so, how did they know that at the time?
The police in Dallas used radio at the time. Witnesses saw Oswald murder Officer Tippit and one of them used the officer's car radio to alert the police. They also knew that the President had been shot.

The ticket lady at the theater heard the sirens and saw a man duck into the theater without buying a ticket so she called the police. The police radio at 1:45 sent out the call. The police entered and Oswald was pointed out to them.

This is all in the Warren Commission Report, which I hope everyone participating in this discussion has read and familiarized themselves with. Here's a direct link to Chapter 4: https://www.archives.gov/research/jf...html#movements

Scroll down to page 157 to about page 174. When you've become familiar with it, we can discuss.

Quote:
2. Iím amazed how you can trust the changing stories from members of one of the most corrupted police departments in the history of the USA.
I'm don't recall that being shown to be the case. Can you provide a link?

Quote:
Truly amazed
That they captured Oswald alive? I think everyone agrees that the DPD showed incredible restraint in his capture considering the fact that he was trying to gun them down with the same revolver used to murder one of their own.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 12:04 PM   #1328
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post
How did they know that at the time?
The DPD were responding to a report of an individual who had entered the theater without a ticket. Johnny Brewer told police that this man had been acting suspiciously. The theater was not far from where Tippit had been murdered. It doesn't matter whether or not the police knew that Oswald was holding the pistol that had killed Tippit. He drew a pistol and slugged a policeman who had asked him to stand up. This is an example of suspect brutality.
OKBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 10th July 2018, 12:19 PM   #1329
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 339
Just a general response to the various interesting comments regarding Oswald's arrest and the possible exclusion of his pistol and/or any statements by him as a result of an illegal arrest resulting from excessive force. First, let me be very clear that I think that Oswald was, and should have been found, guilty of 1st degree (premeditated) murder in the case of JFK and at least voluntary manslaughter or 2nd degree murder in the case of Tippit. I think he would have been so found by a Texas jury.

If Oswald was subjected to excessive force, it's possible that a court would have found the arrest to be tainted with illegality. Would that have caused his pistol or early statements to be excluded? I don't know. The doctrines of plain view and exigent circumstances typically apply in the context of searches (as distinct from arrests), where something has been discovered in the course of a warrantless search or a search that has exceeded the limits set out in the warrant. Would such concepts have been applied if Oswald had been found to be illegally arrested? Possibly, or similar concepts that would allow that evidence to be admitted. After all, Oswald produced his pistol voluntarily, as it were.

As to inevitable discovery. that's a federal exception to the exclusionary rule that was formulated by the US Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams (1984). It would not have been available to a Texas court in 1963, and even today Texas state criminal courts sometimes don't apply the exception because it was articulated in the federal context.

I believe that Oswald would quite likely have succeeded in arguing another evidentiary exclusion--the privilege for spousal communications, which Texas observed at the time. This rule might have allowed Oswald to exclude all incriminating communications that he had made to Marina, though Marina would still have had to testify to Oswald's actions and conduct observed by her. It would be interesting to think through the kinds spousal-communication evidence identified in the WCR that might have been excluded at a trial of Oswald.
OKBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 05:54 AM   #1330
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 891
manifesto, you simply can not link a CT source to prove your CT claims/beliefs. You need something more substantial and less biased.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 02:24 PM   #1331
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,713
Mod InfoThread removed from Moderation. Please remember that this is not a license for incivility. Breaches of the Membership Agreement will be actioned.
Posted By:Loss Leader
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader

Last edited by Loss Leader; 11th July 2018 at 03:42 PM.
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 03:12 PM   #1332
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,244
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
Just a general response to the various interesting comments regarding Oswald's arrest and the possible exclusion of his pistol and/or any statements by him as a result of an illegal arrest resulting from excessive force. First, let me be very clear that I think that Oswald was, and should have been found, guilty of 1st degree (premeditated) murder in the case of JFK and at least voluntary manslaughter or 2nd degree murder in the case of Tippit. I think he would have been so found by a Texas jury.

If Oswald was subjected to excessive force, it's possible that a court would have found the arrest to be tainted with illegality. Would that have caused his pistol or early statements to be excluded? I don't know. The doctrines of plain view and exigent circumstances typically apply in the context of searches (as distinct from arrests), where something has been discovered in the course of a warrantless search or a search that has exceeded the limits set out in the warrant. Would such concepts have been applied if Oswald had been found to be illegally arrested? Possibly, or similar concepts that would allow that evidence to be admitted. After all, Oswald produced his pistol voluntarily, as it were.

As to inevitable discovery. that's a federal exception to the exclusionary rule that was formulated by the US Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams (1984). It would not have been available to a Texas court in 1963, and even today Texas state criminal courts sometimes don't apply the exception because it was articulated in the federal context.

I believe that Oswald would quite likely have succeeded in arguing another evidentiary exclusion--the privilege for spousal communications, which Texas observed at the time. This rule might have allowed Oswald to exclude all incriminating communications that he had made to Marina, though Marina would still have had to testify to Oswald's actions and conduct observed by her. It would be interesting to think through the kinds spousal-communication evidence identified in the WCR that might have been excluded at a trial of Oswald.
I think this would be a fascinating subject, a mock trial as it really would have gone down, not as it would be in the fevered imagination of a CTist.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 03:15 PM   #1333
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,167
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
Just a general response to the various interesting comments regarding Oswald's arrest and the possible exclusion of his pistol and/or any statements by him as a result of an illegal arrest resulting from excessive force. First, let me be very clear that I think that Oswald was, and should have been found, guilty of 1st degree (premeditated) murder in the case of JFK and at least voluntary manslaughter or 2nd degree murder in the case of Tippit. I think he would have been so found by a Texas jury.

If Oswald was subjected to excessive force, it's possible that a court would have found the arrest to be tainted with illegality. Would that have caused his pistol or early statements to be excluded? I don't know. The doctrines of plain view and exigent circumstances typically apply in the context of searches (as distinct from arrests), where something has been discovered in the course of a warrantless search or a search that has exceeded the limits set out in the warrant. Would such concepts have been applied if Oswald had been found to be illegally arrested? Possibly, or similar concepts that would allow that evidence to be admitted. After all, Oswald produced his pistol voluntarily, as it were.

As to inevitable discovery. that's a federal exception to the exclusionary rule that was formulated by the US Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams (1984). It would not have been available to a Texas court in 1963, and even today Texas state criminal courts sometimes don't apply the exception because it was articulated in the federal context.

I believe that Oswald would quite likely have succeeded in arguing another evidentiary exclusion--the privilege for spousal communications, which Texas observed at the time. This rule might have allowed Oswald to exclude all incriminating communications that he had made to Marina, though Marina would still have had to testify to Oswald's actions and conduct observed by her. It would be interesting to think through the kinds spousal-communication evidence identified in the WCR that might have been excluded at a trial of Oswald.
I think they had enough physical evidence to put Oswald away without Marina's testimony. They had both weapons, one found at his place of employment/scene of the crime, and the other taken directly from his hand.
The bullets are matched to their respective weapons. Bot weapons belong to Oswald.

Oswald is the only TSBD employee not to return to work after the assassination, meaning he fled the scene of the crime. None of the other employees left until they received permission from their managers.

Oswald shoots Tippit, and attempts to kill a second DPD officer.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think this would be enough to convict without a confession. From what I know about Oswald, I think he would have confessed.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 06:39 PM   #1334
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 25,713
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
As to inevitable discovery. that's a federal exception to the exclusionary rule that was formulated by the US Supreme Court in Nix v. Williams (1984). It would not have been available to a Texas court in 1963, and even today Texas state criminal courts sometimes don't apply the exception because it was articulated in the federal context.

You're right about the inevitable discovery doctrine. I don't think it would change the balance of any motion made by Oswald. He was going to trial.


Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
I think this would be a fascinating subject, a mock trial as it really would have gone down, not as it would be in the fevered imagination of a CTist.

All of the interesting bits would have been determined in appellate courts. It's impossible to know what would have been allowed and what wouldn't have.

Even if you were to get the world's best lawyers, they'd still have a 2018 mindset. As I've amply shown, a lawyer with a working knowledge of constitutional law today would probably be lost when asked to use concepts as they existed in 1964.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader

Last edited by Loss Leader; 11th July 2018 at 07:07 PM.
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 08:22 PM   #1335
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
He was going to trial.
Undoubtedly. And possibly to Old Sparky as well, after conviction by a jury--unless he somehow survived on death row into the early 1970s when the sentences of numbers of prisoners awaiting execution in Texas were commuted to life in prison.
OKBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 10:21 PM   #1336
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,591
Originally Posted by RoboTimbo View Post
I think this would be a fascinating subject, a mock trial as it really would have gone down, not as it would be in the fevered imagination of a CTist.
Wasn't a mock trail held with a famous trial lawyer taking Oswald's defense?
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2018, 10:30 PM   #1337
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Wasn't a mock trail held with a famous trial lawyer taking Oswald's defense?

Are you thinking of this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojkf48Tmi1g

Beware that this is just part 1 of 4, and its 1h 35m long

Parts 2 and 3 and also slightly over 1Ĺ hours, and part 4 is 36 min.

Total running time for the whole thing is around 5h 20m
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 02:06 AM   #1338
Cosmic Yak
Master Poster
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 2,163
Originally Posted by manifesto View Post

- David Ferrie
I'm not going to do this with everyone on the list, but, as I have a little time, here's number two.
David Ferrie was accused of conspiring with LHO to kill Kennedy. He died of a "massive cerebral hemorrhage due to a congenital intracranial berry aneurysm that had ruptured at the base of his brain"- ie, of natural causes.
Moreover, I don't understand why Manifesto used this name. Even if the accusations were true (they appeared to have known each other, but there is no evdience to suggest he was involved in the assassination), this would just add more evidence of Oswald's guilt. Manifesto might want to reflect on this during his temporary exile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ferrie
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 09:12 AM   #1339
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Wasn't a mock trail held with a famous trial lawyer taking Oswald's defense?
Yes, as smartcooky points out. It was in the 1980s. Vince Bugliosi was the prosecuting attorney; Gerry Spence defended the empty chair (aka Oswald). An actual Texas judge was brought in, and a Texas jury was empaneled. Many of the original witnesses (Johnny Brewer, Ruth Paine, and so on) were sworn in and examined. The jury verdict of guilty was unanimous. But, as I recall, some of the jurors later said that they thought there might have been a conspiracy. This was not in issue, but Spence had trotted out some of the CT chestnuts in his examinations and summaries. Conspiracy or not, though, none of the jurors had reasonable doubt about Oswald's role in shooting JFK.
OKBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 09:28 AM   #1340
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,591
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Are you thinking of this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ojkf48Tmi1g

Beware that this is just part 1 of 4, and its 1h 35m long

Parts 2 and 3 and also slightly over 1Ĺ hours, and part 4 is 36 min.

Total running time for the whole thing is around 5h 20m

Yes that is the one, thanks for finding that. I remember that the jury found him guilty but the call in was vastly in favor of his being innocent - the CTs had flooded the phone lines!
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 09:31 AM   #1341
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,591
Let me re-ask a question that might have missed or is it to difficult to answer?

The claim has been made that 'Dallas had the most corrupt police in the USA'. That seems rather an odd claim. Does anyone know which CT made that claim or does it have a basis in fact?
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 10:10 AM   #1342
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,167
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Let me re-ask a question that might have missed or is it to difficult to answer?

The claim has been made that 'Dallas had the most corrupt police in the USA'. That seems rather an odd claim. Does anyone know which CT made that claim or does it have a basis in fact?
There has been no specific accusation of corruption in the CT's that I know. The DPD does get slimed pretty good in Oliver Stone's "JFK" with accusations that "you had to be a member of the KKK to join". Dallas was like any other big city in the early 1960's as law enforcement problems, but it didn't standout.

A search of the Southern Poverty Law Center doesn't turn up cases until the late 1990's. And like with most law enforcement agencies the cases involve a handful of officers.

The accusation made here is baseless, and exists only to ignore the evidence collected from the crime scenes. The claim is made from someone who does not see policemen as people, just uniforms. We see this with the 9/11 CT's, where the rank & file are robots who blindly follow orders, and have no interest in true justice. The mistake with this concept is that it does not apply in the murder of a fellow police officer in the line of duty. When a cop is murdered it's all hands on deck until the suspect is caught. Every law enforcement agency in the state or region offers assistance as do the Federal agencies. Nobody rests until they have the killer in custody.

This applies to the dirtiest cops on the force too. They will bust their tails right along side everyone else to get justice for their fallen brother.

The idea that the DPD would sign off on Tippit's murder without running down every lead is laughable. There was no way they'd let a cop killer walk away.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 10:16 AM   #1343
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,142
Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak View Post
Suspicious death?
Jack Ruby died of a pulmonary embolism brought on by lung cancer.

Just how far in advance did the Evil They plan this?
As near as I can tell, any death is suspicious to a conspiracy theorist. They seem to think that people would be immortal, were it not for the powers that be murdering everyone and making it look like natural causes, a car accident, a plane crash, or old age.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 10:24 AM   #1344
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
As near as I can tell, any death is suspicious to a conspiracy theorist. They seem to think that people would be immortal, were it not for the powers that be murdering everyone and making it look like natural causes, a car accident, a plane crash, or old age.
Yes. But they don't seem to have a corollary explanation for when a witness who purports to have extremely damaging testimony--such as Jean Hill--lives to a ripe old age and writes books and gives interviews spilling the beans. Why are some dangerous witnesses allowed to live?
OKBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 10:47 AM   #1345
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Perfection, NV
Posts: 29,244
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
The accusation made here is baseless, and exists only to ignore the evidence collected from the crime scenes.
Right, it could be used as the textbook example of the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 12:03 PM   #1346
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
As near as I can tell, any death is suspicious to a conspiracy theorist. They seem to think that people would be immortal, were it not for the powers that be murdering everyone and making it look like natural causes, a car accident, a plane crash, or old age.
In the case of Jack Ruby, if he was "killed" to stop him talking, then the conspirators had a very strange way of tying up loose ends. Why did they wait over three years to silence him? Why wasn't he shivved in the county lockup before the end of November 1963?
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 12:50 PM   #1347
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,591
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
Yes. But they don't seem to have a corollary explanation for when a witness who purports to have extremely damaging testimony--such as Jean Hill--lives to a ripe old age and writes books and gives interviews spilling the beans. Why are some dangerous witnesses allowed to live?
Years ago on Usenet somebody made a big stink about the death of all the US WWI veterans - proof he said that evil people were killing them because he thought US involvement in the Great War was a hoax..... the fact they were in the 90's and a 100 or more didn't faze him.
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 01:39 PM   #1348
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,167
Seat belts weren't even mandatory in cars until 1968, seat belt laws can along much later. People smoked everywhere. Lead pipes were common, as was lead paint.

I'm not saying you can't find some honestly suspicious deaths in relation to the JFK witnesses considering that there were a lot of fringe underworld types on that list, but even then those deaths usually have a signature, and were usually the result of a direct transgression against the mob.

Even today when critics of Vladimir Putin turn up dead the automatic assumption is that the FSB is behind it, but you still need proof.

And the deaths in the JFK case are just a CT side-show because in the end it comes down to the ballistic evidence against Oswald, and that remains more than enough.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 03:24 PM   #1349
smartcooky
Philosopher
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 8,928
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Years ago on Usenet somebody made a big stink about the death of all the US WWI veterans - proof he said that evil people were killing them because he thought US involvement in the Great War was a hoax..... the fact they were in the 90's and a 100 or more didn't faze him.
There is simply no way to account for outright stupid!
__________________
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- Henry Louis Mencken - Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
smartcooky is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 03:55 PM   #1350
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,591
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
There is simply no way to account for outright stupid!
I saw the same thing in UFO believers thinking the 'gub'mint' was killing off 'researchers'. I believe that was caused by 2 or more guys dying of the same type of cancer.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird...-mystery-death
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2018, 04:49 PM   #1351
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 11,467
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Seat belts weren't even mandatory in cars until 1968, seat belt laws can along much later. People smoked everywhere. Lead pipes were common, as was lead paint.

I'm not saying you can't find some honestly suspicious deaths in relation to the JFK witnesses considering that there were a lot of fringe underworld types on that list, but even then those deaths usually have a signature, and were usually the result of a direct transgression against the mob.

Even today when critics of Vladimir Putin turn up dead the automatic assumption is that the FSB is behind it, but you still need proof.

And the deaths in the JFK case are just a CT side-show because in the end it comes down to the ballistic evidence against Oswald, and that remains more than enough.
The two names I think of first that relate to the "killed because they knew too much" list are Sam Giancana Johnny Roselli.

The theory is that they got subpoenaed to testify - Roselli already had testified - so first Giancana got the retirement dinner treatment and Roselli went the year after.

It's compelling for folks that don't know anything more than what they read from CTist sources.

Giancana was (at the time of his murder) the most hated LCN leader of modern times. First he got himself in the news way too often running around making a spectacle of himself in public with Phyllis Maguire. Had he limited himself to that he might have been OK, but during his exile from the U.S. he managed to build gambling interests in Mexico and elsewhere that he kept for himself and refused to share - a taboo violation of Commission rules dating back to day one with Charles Luciano - you kick money in with the other franchise owners and everybody shared in the proceeds.

With Giancana gone, it was time to show Roselli the door. he was already in bad favor due to not keeping his mouth shut in the early seventies during the federal investigation into the operation of the Frontier in Vegas. Roselli talked, some made guys went to prison, but at that time Giancana was still very much n control in Chicago and Roselli was Giancana's boy and couldn't be touched - with Sam gone, bye-bye Johnny.

That little part of history isn't covered in JFK assassination fantasy camp, so the popular fiction version is preferred by many uninformed and misinformed CT followers.

Bonus point: Odds on mafiosi favorite for the shooter in the Giancana murder? Tony Spilotro, Giancana favorite underling and (somewhat fictionally) depicted by Joe Pesci in the film Casino.
__________________
"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

"Dulce bellum inexpertīs." - Erasmus
BStrong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2018, 08:29 AM   #1352
bknight
Muse
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 891
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
I saw the same thing in UFO believers thinking the 'gub'mint' was killing off 'researchers'. I believe that was caused by 2 or more guys dying of the same type of cancer.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/weird...-mystery-death
The same belief occurred a few years ago considering NASA killing off scientists "mysteriously"

One particular dying in a "perfectly" good private airplane crashing somewhere near Los Angeles.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2018, 08:47 AM   #1353
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,011
Originally Posted by Hans View Post
Wasn't a mock trail held with a famous trial lawyer taking Oswald's defense?
Originally Posted by OKBob View Post
Yes, as smartcooky points out.
I haven't seen the mock trial in question, so I apologize if it seems dismissive to say I don't find mock trials of actual crimes to be especially demonstrative of how an actual trial would unfold. But I think the exercise there would be a better illustration than the fanciful trials held by self-appointed defense attorneys (often lay authors with little if any experience in law) who wrongly consider the Warren Commission proceedings and findings to be what a criminal prosecution would have entailed.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2018, 08:49 AM   #1354
Hans
Philosopher
 
Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 7,591
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
The same belief occurred a few years ago considering NASA killing off scientists "mysteriously"

One particular dying in a "perfectly" good private airplane crashing somewhere near Los Angeles.
Yep the evil gub'ment/secret deep state is truly evil in it lets its greatest enemies get killed off by nature - those cleverly plotting swine!

Of course the leaders of the evil groups also die off too. So I guess it works out in the end. If some rogue section of the CIA had done the assassination that would mean all the guys (gals?) who did it are also dead or dreadfully elderly.

WHICH means we were all hired to be shills by someone who was an intern in 1963 and would now be in his mid seventies!

How imponderable is that!
Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2018, 08:59 AM   #1355
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,011
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
The same belief occurred a few years ago considering NASA killing off scientists "mysteriously"
Or even more infamously, allegedly in the Apollo 1 fire. Yeah, that's a great way to bump off supposedly bothersome people without attracting a lot of attention -- on high-profile government property, in a government spacecraft, during an official test, in the company of dozens of witnesses. I'm sure the FBI and Congressional oversight committees won't focus very bright spotlights on something like that...

And that goes back to the Kennedy assassination itself. Imagine all the worst prerequisites and that someone decided, hypothetically for some greater-yet-darker good, that President Kennedy needed to be eliminated. I can't imagine what would rise to that level of necessity, but let's grant all of that for the sake of argument. The question then becomes how, logistically speaking, to carry it out. Is the most sensible proposal to frame some putz who's taking pot-shots from a building at the President in a moving vehicle in front of a sizable crowd, with the "real" shooters scattered throughout a crowded plaza (or even allegedly driving the car)? Who thought up such an error-prone plan? All the alleged witnesses to the assassination were supposedly taken out in ways that "made it look like an accident," as the trite line from the political thrillers go. Why can't the President himself have been taken out in some way that "made it look like an accident" and avoided all the scrutiny? It's not as if other presidents haven't died in office.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2018, 11:38 AM   #1356
Major Major
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 279
One of the constant comments made is that the CT don't provide a coherent story of how the grand conspiracy went down, choosing instead to focus on various alleged actions and inconsistencies.

Well, at least one guy has tried to present a coherent story. (For some values of "coherent".) Ron Unz knows who did it and why.

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pr...what-happened/

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pr...ii-who-did-it/

You will notice (if you have the stomach to read it) that he gives lots of speculation about who was responsible and why. He dismisses the evidence for the "null hypothesis" without even commenting, saying only that he decided it was a fairy tale, but not how or what he finds unbelievable about it.

In short, he tries to tell a coherent story but fails in the basics.

Major Major is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2018, 11:59 AM   #1357
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,167
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
And that goes back to the Kennedy assassination itself. Imagine all the worst prerequisites and that someone decided, hypothetically for some greater-yet-darker good, that President Kennedy needed to be eliminated. I can't imagine what would rise to that level of necessity, but let's grant all of that for the sake of argument. The question then becomes how, logistically speaking, to carry it out. Is the most sensible proposal to frame some putz who's taking pot-shots from a building at the President in a moving vehicle in front of a sizable crowd, with the "real" shooters scattered throughout a crowded plaza (or even allegedly driving the car)? Who thought up such an error-prone plan? All the alleged witnesses to the assassination were supposedly taken out in ways that "made it look like an accident," as the trite line from the political thrillers go. Why can't the President himself have been taken out in some way that "made it look like an accident" and avoided all the scrutiny? It's not as if other presidents haven't died in office.
Right here is the central problem: No understanding of real-world assassinations or professional hitmen.

Assassination conducted by governments is a huge deal no matter the target. The process is hard to stomach for both the tactical operators as well as their civilian leadership. This is evidenced in the Mongoose files where the word "assassinate" was forbidden in official discussion, and in official documentation because nobody wants to be associated with this act. In the files relating to Diem's demise the debates were many, and took place over a span of a year before the green-light was given for the coup. JFK was not happy with the ultimate outcome but that was his failure of imagination.

Even with the bin Laden raid there were many meetings before those helicopters took off.

The problem with a top-down assassination plot for the JFK murder is too many moving parts to make it successful, and to keep the truth secret at least in the case of every JFK-CT. The bin Laden raid is a prime example of a large covert operation that didn't stay covert longer than 11 days. Had powerful people at CIA wanted JFK dead for some reason they would have likely poisoned his back pain injections, or any of the other medications he was taking at the time.

The risk would be discovery of the poison, and the plot. The CIA was already in the dog house, and revelation of their part in the murder of a sitting US President would have ended their existence. Say what you want about the CIA, their people in 1963 were loyal to the agency, and nobody was going to hand Congress a reason to terminate the enterprise by doing something so colossally stupid.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2018, 12:06 PM   #1358
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 3,167
Originally Posted by Major Major View Post
One of the constant comments made is that the CT don't provide a coherent story of how the grand conspiracy went down, choosing instead to focus on various alleged actions and inconsistencies.

Well, at least one guy has tried to present a coherent story. (For some values of "coherent".) Ron Unz knows who did it and why.

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pr...what-happened/

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pr...ii-who-did-it/

You will notice (if you have the stomach to read it) that he gives lots of speculation about who was responsible and why. He dismisses the evidence for the "null hypothesis" without even commenting, saying only that he decided it was a fairy tale, but not how or what he finds unbelievable about it.

In short, he tries to tell a coherent story but fails in the basics.

In the end he still has multiple gunmen in Dealey Plaza, so yeah, he fails in the basics.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2018, 02:01 PM   #1359
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 16,011
Originally Posted by Major Major View Post
One of the constant comments made is that the CT don't provide a coherent story of how the grand conspiracy went down, choosing instead to focus on various alleged actions and inconsistencies.
This happens in most if not all fringe argumentation that implies a conspiracy or coverup. The argument is almost always that the conventional narrative is too anomalous to be true. The anomalies may be dubiously sustained by fact and based on imaginative presumption, but the case for conspiracy almost always starts as an argument that the prevailing narrative is insufficient or wrong.

But in the JFK assassination conspiracy theory, you get to do that if you structure your argument as a criminal defense of Oswald. In court, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. The defense can get a verdict in its favor simply by casting enough reasonable doubt on the plaintiff's affirmative case. He doesn't have to present an affirmative case, or any case in chief. Hence all those anomalies and inconsistencies would be one means of eroding faith in a prosecutor's case in court.

Quote:
You will notice (if you have the stomach to read it) that he gives lots of speculation about who was responsible and why. He dismisses the evidence for the "null hypothesis" without even commenting, saying only that he decided it was a fairy tale, but not how or what he finds unbelievable about it.
And that too is a familiar pattern. Rather than run two hypotheses head to head to see which one explains the most observation with the least speculation, a conspiracy argument generally dispels the prevailing narrative by one standard of proof. Then having done that, a different (and substantially lower) standard of proof is applied to the theorist's own offering. More importantly, the conspiracy theorist relies on the proposition that the mainstream narrative is now invalid as a matter of previously established fact and can have no rebuttal power.

In the case you present, the pattern is even more profound. Usually there is considerable effort made to discredit the conventional view. It's uncommon to see such a bald denial.

Quote:
In short, he tries to tell a coherent story but fails in the basics.
Indeed we should emphasize that the alternative hypothesis has to be complete and coherent, but should also explain all the available observations with as little speculation as possible.
JayUtah is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th July 2018, 03:00 PM   #1360
OKBob
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 339
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I haven't seen the mock trial in question, so I apologize if it seems dismissive to say I don't find mock trials of actual crimes to be especially demonstrative of how an actual trial would unfold. But I think the exercise there would be a better illustration than the fanciful trials held by self-appointed defense attorneys (often lay authors with little if any experience in law) who wrongly consider the Warren Commission proceedings and findings to be what a criminal prosecution would have entailed.
You can view most of the witness examinations and cross-examinations in separate clips on YouTube. The one to watch is Gerry Spence's cross-examination of Ruth Paige, where he tries to break her down and suggest that she was biased against Oswald. That interesting Quaker and cold-war progressive held her own pretty well. Bugliosi also does a good job, as I recall, of demolishing the empty-casket or mysterious-body-bag (or whatever) defense witness.

Last edited by OKBob; 13th July 2018 at 03:07 PM.
OKBob is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:05 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.