JFK - Why Oswald is guilty.

First topic message reminder :

As I have just spent the last three months reading the most detailed book imaginable on the JFK assassination I thought I would put that reading to some use and outline why it is pretty clear Oswald was guilty and acted alone in the act. As I know we have some subscribers to various conspiracy theories on here would be nice to hear some of the counter views.
 
1 – The ballistics tests carried out on the bullet fragments found in JFK and Governor Connally were found to have been fired from the rifle owned by Oswald, to the exclusion of all other rifles in the world. I should clarify that this is not the model of gun, but the specific rifle found on the sixth floor, which it was proven was owned by Oswald, beyond any reasonable doubt.
 
2 – Oswald had previously made an unsuccessful attempt to assassinate another local politician, General Walker. Obviously not absolute proof he murdered Kennedy but a pretty strong indication that he was more than capable of attempting such a murder.
 
3 – No evidence has ever been found that a bullet was fired from anywhere other than the sixth floor of the Book Depository. No bullet fragments or shells were ever found in or around Dealey Plaza other than those fired by Oswald.
 
4 – The entry and exit wounds found in Kennedy and Connally were consistent with a shot being made from the upper floors of the Book Depository and no other location, as confirmed by the team of pathologists who examined the body.
 
5 - Oswald stayed with his wife the night before the assassination (they lived apart) on a Thursday night. He never stayed with her during the week. The gun used to kill Kennedy was stored at his wife’s address. What possible motivation did he have to break with a long established routine other than to collect the murder weapon.
 
6 – Of all the employees of the Book Depository Oswald was the only employee to leave the building and area after the murder. Would an innocent person act in such a manner.
 
7 – There was no magic bullet. In a presidential limousine the front seat occupied by Governor Connally was what is known as a jump seat and is lowered and set off to the left, thus meaning the bullet that struck both of them acted in a totally consistent manner from the perspective of trajectory.
 
8 – In a related point the idea that the shot was difficult or could not be made with Oswald’s rifle are a myth. Tests were carried out post the assassination where Oswald’s results were not only equalled but even bettered. Should also be remembered during his time in the marines Oswald was at one point classified as a sharpshooter, the second highest grade below expert, and at the risk of stating the obvious the US marine tests are pretty difficult.
 
9 – The only fingerprints found in the snipers nest on the sixth floor in the immediate aftermath of the murder belonged to Oswald, no credible physical evidence has ever emerged that anybody other than him or as well has him has ever emerged.
 
10 – The most popular conspiracy theory, that a shot was made from the grassy knoll does not really stand up to analysis. The grassy knoll is directly across the plaza from the main street where most people had gathered to watch the motorcade, any assassin or shot from there would have been in direct view of up to 80 witnesses, yet no credible witness or physical evidence has ever emerged to support such a proposition.
 
This is a brief run through some of the myriad factors that point to Oswald’s guilt but am always happy to hear the counter views.

I mean, what if he was led to believe he was doing something else? You said yourself, he was a loner, a fantasist. All it takes is for the FBI to manipulate this 'Hey son, how do you wanna protect the President?'.

Takes his gun, goes to the book depository, is present as the President is shot, leaves completely baffled by what's happening, it hits home, he's accosted by Tippit, realises the gravity of the situation, kills him, and hides out in the cinema.

Oswald might have been there, but doesn't mean he took the shot. I assume back in those days there would be no gunpowder residue etc?

None of that explains though why the bullet fragments found in Kennedy were fired from Oswald's gun. That Oswald's gun was fired at the president has been proven beyond the doubt of even the most committed consipracy theorists. So we are left in the position that either Oswald gave his gun to someone else or it was stolen. Also as he was seen carrying the case found on the sixth floor into work in the morning it raises the question as to when exactly during his working day he passed it to this mystery gunman, a mystery gun man who was able to enter and leave the Book depository completely undetected, despite not working there.

I'm not questioning that. Whose to say someone else wasn't present in the room? Just because it's his gun, doesn't mean he had to be the one to fire it.

You said yourself, there was a heavy presence of FBI and Police on that day; would it really be beyond the powers of belief that someone could've accessed that room at the same time as Oswald without arousing suspicion?

Is it really beyond reason to think that someone as insecure as Oswald couldn't be manipulated into doing this? We have people from this country going out to Syria and fighting for ISIS, is it impossible to believe that this couldn't have happened back them?

It is possible, possible is not the issue, plausible is. None of the credible witnesses who claimed to have seen Oswald in the window have ever mentioned there being two people there. None of the book depository employees report seeing another unidentified person entering or leaving the building. Similarly none of the exhaustive work that has gone into tracking Oswald's movements in the days and weeks leading up to the assassination suggest he had huge amounts of times where he was unaccounted for or where he was meeting with unidentified fellow conspirators, which surely he would have in the planning of such an act.

The truth is just because something cannot be ruled out it should be given credence. We can't rule out the theory that Jackie was in on it, but the evidence and our own sense of common sense surely allows us to preclude it.

The Nayirah testimony was a testimony given before the non-governmental Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a woman who provided only her first name, Nayirah. The testimony was widely publicized, and was cited numerous times by United States senators and the American president in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيره الصباح‎) and that she was the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern atrocity propaganda.[1][2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

Ever since I read that, plausible probably encompasses more than I would have believed before.

Rowley wrote:Similarly none of the exhaustive work that has gone into tracking Oswald's movements in the days and weeks leading up to the assassination suggest he had huge amounts of times where he was unaccounted for or where he was meeting with unidentified fellow conspirators, which surely he would have in the planning of such an act.

Mexico City was.

In the 1960's Mexico City was the spy capital of the Western Hemisphere...

Marcus Rosenbaum - NPR wrote:Naturally, the CIA had operations watching all the embassies in Mexico, tapping their phones and photographing comings and goings.

While he was there, Oswald attempted to obtain visas from the Cuban consulate and the Soviet embassy. In one taped conversation, Oswald — or someone saying he was Oswald — called the Soviet embassy.

Then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover listened to the tape and told President Lyndon Johnson that it wasn't Oswald's voice.

Whose voice was it? No one knows. The tape has disappeared.

Nor are there any photos of the Soviet embassy the day Oswald supposedly went there. The CIA told the Warren Commission that its camera wasn't working that day.

Why did Oswald ask to meet with the FBI in New Orleans? Why did he go to Mexico City? What happened to the evidence of his visit? More mysteries.

That makes it seem more plausible that he COULD have had contact with the FBI or that he could've been a fall guy.

Is Hoover really qualified to make such a judgement? Given he never met Oswald in his life I am not sure how he can make such a statement. His time in Mexico City has largely been accounted for, down to where he ate and what he had. He visited the Cuban embassy to seek a visa, when he was told he could only get a transit visa as a stopping off point on his way to Russia. He made two unsuccesful attempts to obtain a Russian visa. Given their experiences with him last time round Russia had zero interest in issuing him once. Thus his plans to go to Cuba were thwarted.

The camera thing is just the kind of thing the conspiracy writers leap on and blow out of proportion. Those that worked in the Embassy have confirmed it was broken as frequently as it worked and so it being broken on the day Oswald attended is indicative of very little.

But if it was it is yet more people who are apparently involved in the conspiracy. Not only are the CIA/FBI in the US involved but they are involving their counterparts in the embassy overseas. In a pre internet communication days can't help but feel conscripting their help would leave one heck of a paper trail.

CIA/FBI had no issues contacting foreign counterparts in South Africa during the 60s/70s Geoff. Hardly a case of the blind contacting the deaf, Mexico City.

Nevertheless, for me him making the shot seems unlikely. He's got a crappy gun. It's under enormous pressure (Only an idiot wouldn't feel any pressure in attempting to be the first man kill the head of state). Moving target. He's at the corner of the window, so I assume he isn't set up as ideally as he'd like. He was once a sharp shooter. Dropped down to marksman. Means he's shot had gotten worse by 20-odd points while in the forces. Probably didn't get better, then, while at home/Russia.

Admittedly an accomplice is possibly a stretch, and not one I'm sure I'm willing to take. But a school book depository in 1963 is hardly going to be fort knox. Moreso on the day the president is visiting. I'd imagine that quite a few people would have come in and out etc to see if it had a good view to see the motorcade.

Truth is though Raf, somebody made the shot with Oswald's rifle. The ballistic evidence supports no other theory. As such if it wasn't Oswald it was someone else. Now lets think about this if Oswald's gun was so crappy to the point of rendering the shot virtually impossible to make (not a view I agree with I should add) are we really to believe someone who was not familiar with the gun, who had probably never used it before could pick it up and make this shot?

My view is the shot is not that difficult for a reasonably competent marksman, which is the least Oswald was. The target is moving, but slowly and right into his line of sight and at a favourable angle for the view he had and the rifle, whilst by no means state of the art, was reasonably serviceable. Add all that together and believing Oswald made the shot really does not demand the greatest leap of faith, and sure has hell requires less of a leap than any of the myriad other theories posited in opposition to it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLp2rFMJf2s

This is a very good forensic analysis of the assassination, and it provides strong evidence in support of the single bullet theory, and also pretty conclusive evidence against a grassy knoll shooter.

Something I'm confused about is the first shot, which should have been the easiest but which somehow missed the car entirely.

The shooter didn't take weather/Speed of the vehicle/crappiness of equipment into account is my best guess

Inter, the first is the nearest but not particularly the easiest. The angle is not consistent with the position from the sixth floor and the car is moving down the sightline rather than across it. The second and third shot are far more favourable to the position Oswald had set up in the book depository.

1,4,9 are credible evidence rest is corborative or circumstantial.

He shot him, not sure whether Colt Sebers put him up to it though.

I'd argue it still puts my argument 3-0 up rick!

I agree with you Jeff, some evidence beats no evidence hands down...

When is the official release date for all the evidence to go into public circulation? I remember it was put back a few years ago, it's around 2050 iirc.

Very enjoyable discussion, Rowley.

Genuinely no idea Alistair.

Agree mate, onto our second page without any personal insults. We're on track for the record!

Rowley wrote:Genuinely no idea Alistair.

Agree mate, onto our second page without any personal insults. We're on track for the record!

You massive c*ck.

Rowley wrote:Genuinely no idea Alistair.

Agree mate, onto our second page without any personal insults. We're on track for the record!

I was way out, sooner than we thought...

Federal law mandates that all known records relating to the assassination will be released by 2017, unless any agency objects, in which case the Assassination Records and Review Board would consider the appeal; but the spokesman said the CIA as of now has no plans to pose any such objections.22 Nov 2013

Im disappointed that Tina beat me to debasing the thread

Hi Jeff - very good thread. I have no more knowledge on this than the next guy but always found it a fascinating subject.

I've never bought into the idea of Oswald being a patsy or, at least, framed. Too many roads lead to his door. That's not to say though that others weren't involved to some extent. Unfortunately, Ruby put an end to any hope of Oswald explaining his own starring role and that of any supporting players.

I had forgotten about the attempted assassination of Walker - can you remind me about that? Seems bl**dy odd - particularly in the current age - that he could still go on from that to assassinate the highest person in the political pecking order.

If you haven't, I feel you might savour a read of the English A6 / James Hanratty murder case from around the time of Kennedy's killing. Again imo the right man was convicted (although it's still disputed despite subsequent DNA findings) but so much is open to question. No apparent motive, no obvious way of the murderer arriving at the original crime scene, police under huge pressure for a conviction, absence of forensics, questionable identifications, several dodgy witnesses and contradictory statements.

Cheers Guildford. Walker was an ex army General who was kicked out of the military for alegedly indoctoring his troops with far right ideas from what I recall. As a consequence he became something of a cuase celebre and local rabble rouser for the anti communist movement, which inevitably meant he was politically at the other end of the spectrum to Oswald. As he lived in Dallas Oswald found out where he lived and attempted to shoot him, he would have been successful but for the fact the shot ricocheted off the window frame in Walker's house.

Oswald was never suspected of the crime, but his wife Marina revealed his guilt in the wake of the Kennedy assassination, which the police could corroborate based on the bullet fragments from Walker's house once they had possession of Oswald's rifle. What is interesting is there is no evidence Oswald spoke to, or conspired with anyone about his planned shooting of Walker prior to the event. Again circumstantial but another factor that points to him being able to plan and carry out these plans without the assistance of third parties or co-conspiritors.

Great thread but some questions just remain a puzzle....................

1. Ruby is pivotal....If you believe that mafia owned Ruby seen with Oswald more than once and other people central to the story killed Oswald because he was devastated for Jackie Kennedy being left a widow then by all means believe there isn't a conspiracy...maybe there isn't !!!

2. If Ruby killed Oswald in hot blood as it were............Why did he spend most of the morning according to waitresses and others sitting by the phone and tie-ing up loose ends..

3. If a police force is so corrupt they'd chuck a bullet case on the dead President's stretcher after he's been moved on two occasions.......Then would inform Ruby of Oswald's moving time and let him in through the locked car park door (Have to remember Oswald's moving time was put back so Ruby knew he wouldn't be moved at the official time).....Then is it hard to believe that they could nip to the morgue and put Oswald's finger prints on the rifle at say 3am in the morning when no one is around..

Or that the CIA who dreamed up plans of poisoning Castro so his beard would fall off....Could fix a picture..

4. If I'm a well known pro cuba activist or behaving as one....and have ties to the CIA, Russia and tenuous ties to the mob.....If the President gets shot in the vicinity of the book depository then I'd be stupid not to believe I'd be a prime suspect....Hence the "Why would he leave If he was innocent theory" doesn't walk..

5. Why change the autopsy findings and wash the President's car before it's been examined ??

6. How did the police know Oswald was their man straightaway....He could have been on his dinner hour or anything...Just bollox. They knew they were looking for Oswald..

7. Oswald fled the scene because he shot Kennedy or because he knew he was the patsy ....If he knew the game was up why not pick the deserted grassy knoll where the President was in front and metres away.....A position Garrison described in his book as a "Chicken shoot"...

8. There is compelling evidence that Oswald wasn't pro Cuba at all and was working for the CIA and infiltrating the PRO-CUBA movement...Which would make him pro-Kennedy...We know in conversations with friends he said how much he liked him....Why kill someone you like..

8. The senate committee that reviewed the Warren commissions findings in the 70s and had access to evidence no one but them has seen...Garrison couldn't get half of it came to the conclusion that..

JFK was killed as a result of a conspiracy and overturned Warren......

Warren commission never said Oswald killed Kennedy anyway....they said it was a lone nut...Whether it was Oswald we can't be sure..

9. The use of the word "Patsy" by Oswald is interesting....Patsy is a guy who is taken advantage of and left to take a fall.......

Great assessment there, Trussman.

Rowley wrote: he would have been successful but for the fact the shot ricocheted off the window frame in Walker's house.

So what you're saying....
Is he missed?

Yes he did Raf, as he did with two of the shots at Kennedy. What's your point?

Cheers, Jeff. The attempted shooting of Walker - as you acknowledged earlier - doesn't prove Oswald's guilt of Kennedy's assassination but does appear to be another road leading very much in his direction.

The Hanratty case mean anything or of any interest to you?

Rowley wrote:Yes he did Raf, as he did with two of the shots at Kennedy. What's your point?

There were only 3 shots fired and Kennedy was hit twice....

Alistair wrote:Great assessment there, Trussman.

.....Be a good defence lawyer wouldn't I ??

He was aiming for the head Alistair, so technically he hit his target one.

Guildford, means nothing to me, I will look it up though. I find stuff like this fascinating.

Rowley wrote:He was aiming for the head Alistair, so technically he hit his target one.

Guildford, means nothing to me, I will look it up though. I find stuff like this fascinating.

Thanks for the clarification, that could've opened up a whole new argument.

I'd certainly recommend the Hanratty case, Rowley. The last man to be hung on these isles, and later cleared of the crime.

The Ruby situation is too long winded to go through in the detail it deserves, but to summarise the main points are as follows. Ruby was a guy who loved to be in the thick of things, he knew most of the police in Dallas on first name terms and frequently spent time around the police station, so whilst him being around whilst the police were processing the most important murder in history is obviously procedurally pretty poor it is not completely out of left field. What is interesting with regard to whether he was part of some conspiracy is if he was paid to murder Oswald he had an opportunity two days before he actually did it. The first time Oswald was taken from the interview room to the holding cell he was taken through the throng of press and passed little more than two or three feet from Ruby, who did nothing. This raises a question, if he was paid or forced to kill Oswald why did he not take this perfectly good opportunity to do just that when it arose? Are we really going to believe he eschewed such a good opportunity on the vague hope another opportunity may arise, something he had absolutely no way of knowing. Even if he thought there was a chance of this happening could he really believe such an opportunity would be better than his proposed victim being two foot in front of him? Seems unlikely to me.
 
Secondly, as I mentioned earlier, if Ruby was paid to kill Oswald why, when he got this second opportunity why did he aim for the stomach? He had a pretty much clear shot at Oswald, if the aim was for the shot to be fatal, which it would be, was he an assassin, why would he not aim for the head or chest, where the fatality rate is quite obviously much higher, as you’re more likely to hit major organs, such as the brain or heart. As with those who believe Oswald was in the pay of the mob or CIA these organisations who are planning one of the riskiest assassinations in the history of the world do seem to be trusting fairly key elements of their whole plan on pretty incompetent people.

The first time Oswald was taken from the interview room to the holding cell he was taken through the throng of press and passed little more than two or three feet from Ruby, who did nothing.

Rowley, question for your memory, as I don't recall, but was this incident being recorded?

Honestly could not answer that Ali, could well have been as there were countless press there, but would be a complete guess on my part.

Ask yourself this Jeff If he was so upset about Kennedy and in a terrible state...why didn't he kill Oswald when he had a shot the first time.......Obviously he had the presence of mind to wait for a better opportunity...

Ruby did love attention but it doesn't discount from the fact he spent the morning by the phone and getting his affairs in order.........Makes it look like it was pre-meditated...

He shot him in the stomach that means nothing (It's a bigger area)...Maybe he was worried a head shot may have missed and one of his copper mates would be injured...Any number of reasons why he did it..

Love the way you fight your corner but nothing in that post can't be rebutted..

Evidence was planted..killers let in through back doors...Laughably incompetent policing.....Witnesses before the senate committee dying scant weeks before.....

A further point to add, if the mob did indeed want to silence Oswald why wait two days after the assassination? Within those two days Oswald was interviewed extensively and had myriad opportunities to reveal anything and everything he may have known about the murder or conspirators involved. Is this the kind of gamble you would take was you planning to kill the president of the US? Surely you would kill him at the first available opportunity, such as when he left the book depository, rather than allow him to spend two days in police custody and hope he did not blab.

Wait for a better opportunity than Oswald passing within two feet of him Truss? How good an opportunity was he waiting for? Oswald to stand on the ledge of a very tall building and ask Ruby to give him a shove?

My answer would be perhaps the lack of attention on the matter. Whilst the opportunity to kill him may have presented itself early, with the lack of the cameras to record the incident. If you're going to avenge the President's death, you want it to be forever etched in history, not the tales of hearsay.

As for the stomach shooting, the photo that shows Ruby stepping out shows Oswald flanked by two officers. Going for a head shot would've been risky, especially had someone attempted to foil him. Shooting down and at the midriff of Oswald would at least wound him sufficiently; and without opening up more conspiracy theories, there is the fact that just because they say he died from the gunshot wound, doesn't mean he did!

The motives around Ruby don't make sense, nor do his actions on the day (leaving his dogs in the car), but this could be the actions of a troubled man, rather than someone acting on impulse.

Rowley wrote:Wait for a better opportunity than Oswald passing within two feet of him Truss? How good an opportunity was he waiting for? Oswald to stand on the ledge of a very tall building and ask Ruby to give him a shove?

Who knows why he let it pass......But he did which lends one to assume he was in control....The whole case around him was that he was in such a state that Jr was left without a Father and Jackie was made a widow he shot Oswald......We also know he denied knowing Oswald...Yet they were seen at the same table in his club with Clay Shaw...and at a party Shaw organised.

But I get your point.............Said before I think you could be right......But somethings just don't wash !!

Alistair wrote:

Rowley wrote:He was aiming for the head Alistair, so technically he hit his target one.

Guildford, means nothing to me, I will look it up though. I find stuff like this fascinating.

Thanks for the clarification, that could've opened up a whole new argument.

I'd certainly recommend the Hanratty case, Rowley. The last man to be hung on these isles, and later cleared of the crime.

Alistair - I agree with the recommendation to Jeff about the Hanratty case. However, he was amongst the last (not the last) to be hanged in this country. Furthermore, despite several legal referrals, he has never been cleared of the crime.

guildfordbat wrote:

Alistair wrote:

Rowley wrote:He was aiming for the head Alistair, so technically he hit his target one.

Guildford, means nothing to me, I will look it up though. I find stuff like this fascinating.

Thanks for the clarification, that could've opened up a whole new argument.

I'd certainly recommend the Hanratty case, Rowley. The last man to be hung on these isles, and later cleared of the crime.

Alistair - I agree with the recommendation to Jeff about the Hanratty case. However, he was amongst the last (not the last) to be hanged in this country. Furthermore, despite several legal referrals, he has never been cleared of the crime.

He's guilty mate..............They did DNA analysis.....and they have linked him to the crime..

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Alistair wrote:

Rowley wrote:He was aiming for the head Alistair, so technically he hit his target one.

Guildford, means nothing to me, I will look it up though. I find stuff like this fascinating.

Thanks for the clarification, that could've opened up a whole new argument.

I'd certainly recommend the Hanratty case, Rowley. The last man to be hung on these isles, and later cleared of the crime.

Alistair - I agree with the recommendation to Jeff about the Hanratty case. However, he was amongst the last (not the last) to be hanged in this country. Furthermore, despite several legal referrals, he has never been cleared of the crime.

He's guilty mate..............They did DNA analysis.....and they have linked him to the crime..

My error, i was under the impression he was cleared a few years back.

Alistair wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Alistair wrote:

Rowley wrote:He was aiming for the head Alistair, so technically he hit his target one.

Guildford, means nothing to me, I will look it up though. I find stuff like this fascinating.

Thanks for the clarification, that could've opened up a whole new argument.

I'd certainly recommend the Hanratty case, Rowley. The last man to be hung on these isles, and later cleared of the crime.

Alistair - I agree with the recommendation to Jeff about the Hanratty case. However, he was amongst the last (not the last) to be hanged in this country. Furthermore, despite several legal referrals, he has never been cleared of the crime.

He's guilty mate..............They did DNA analysis.....and they have linked him to the crime..

My error, i was under the impression he was cleared a few years back.

Name recognition...........I'm a big John Lennon fan and I know he got into this case and tried to clear the guy's name...

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Alistair wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Alistair wrote:

Rowley wrote:He was aiming for the head Alistair, so technically he hit his target one.

Guildford, means nothing to me, I will look it up though. I find stuff like this fascinating.

Thanks for the clarification, that could've opened up a whole new argument.

I'd certainly recommend the Hanratty case, Rowley. The last man to be hung on these isles, and later cleared of the crime.

Alistair - I agree with the recommendation to Jeff about the Hanratty case. However, he was amongst the last (not the last) to be hanged in this country. Furthermore, despite several legal referrals, he has never been cleared of the crime.

He's guilty mate..............They did DNA analysis.....and they have linked him to the crime..

My error, i was under the impression he was cleared a few years back.

Name recognition...........I'm a big John Lennon fan and I know he got into this case and tried to clear the guy's name...

TV Interview wasn't it?

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Alistair wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:

Alistair wrote:

Rowley wrote:He was aiming for the head Alistair, so technically he hit his target one.

Guildford, means nothing to me, I will look it up though. I find stuff like this fascinating.

Thanks for the clarification, that could've opened up a whole new argument.

I'd certainly recommend the Hanratty case, Rowley. The last man to be hung on these isles, and later cleared of the crime.

Alistair - I agree with the recommendation to Jeff about the Hanratty case. However, he was amongst the last (not the last) to be hanged in this country. Furthermore, despite several legal referrals, he has never been cleared of the crime.

He's guilty mate..............They did DNA analysis.....and they have linked him to the crime..

My error, i was under the impression he was cleared a few years back.

Name recognition...........I'm a big John Lennon fan and I know he got into this case and tried to clear the guy's name...

Truss - I agree with you that Hanratty was guilty although some still question the DNA analysis. Furthermore, guilty or not, there are strong suspicions that some of the evidence against him was faulty or fabricated . Similar in a way to Oswald in that we (probably) know for certain who did it but so much of the surrounding detail is unknown or open to question. [Jeff - from what you've said about this sort of true crime, you'll lap this case up and come back for more!]

You're right about Lennon, Truss. There was a self-appointed group called the A6 Defence Committee which set out to clear Hanratty's name after his execution. Lennon certainly had an interest for a while in its work and met Hanratty's parents.

Apologies for steering away from the main topic.

Why would they need to fabricate a result in a case people have forgotten about ??

Truss - I actually meant fabricated evidence at Hanratty's trial in '62.

DNA is not my bag but some claim that certain of the surviving exhibits from the original trial which were tested in circa 2000 were contaminated and so the findings were unreliable. The Court of Appeal took a different view and confirmed Hanratty's guilt ''beyond doubt''. Up until then his family and the (now late) journalist and author Paul Foot had ensured the case maintained a fairly high profile.

Alistair wrote:
The motives around Ruby don't make sense, nor do his actions on the day (leaving his dogs in the car), but this could be the actions of a troubled man, rather than someone acting on impulse.

Suspect it is the former Ali. One other thing I should have mentioned when it comes to Ruby is most who knew him well when asked to describe him, the description that comes out most often is he was a complete blabbermouth, an unashamed gossip and talker. Again this points to him being the last man who you’d involve in such a conspiracy. Looking at the events of the day of Oswald’s murder the initial plan to move him was at 10am. At this time Ruby was not at the police station or in the basement. His transfer was delayed whilst somebody external to the Dallas police questioned him and suitably secure vehicles were secured for the transfer. Truth is had these tasks been completed five minutes earlier Oswald would have been gone by the time Ruby arrived.
 
Now by their very nature these two events could have taken any amount of time, as such the time of Ruby’s transfer was completely arbitrary and unknown. What this means is communicating the time of the transfer to Ruby was nigh on impossible, a, because nobody knew when it was, and b, because Ruby was out and about in the pre mobile phone days. What appears to have happened is he went past the police station, saw the hullaballoo and being one who did not like to miss anything pulled up and tried to get down to the basement. Had the guard on the door done his job he should not have achieved this, but the guard was distracted with the cars and he sneaked through.
 
I can appreciate why people find this a stretch, but for me one guard doing a fairly incompetent job takes far less believing that the police were able to communicate a completely unknown transfer time to a guy who was flitting about town. Inevitably every call that went out of the police building in the days in and around the murders has been analysed and tracked, no record was found of anyone in the police communicating with Ruby.
 
For me it is all just too much of a stretch that a mob hit would be left so completely to chance and pure dumb luck as Ruby’s murder of Oswald relied on. The same applies whether you believe the official version of how he got to be in the basement or the conspiracy theories.

Rowley wrote:

Alistair wrote:
The motives around Ruby don't make sense, nor do his actions on the day (leaving his dogs in the car), but this could be the actions of a troubled man, rather than someone acting on impulse.

Suspect it is the former Ali. One other thing I should have mentioned when it comes to Ruby is most who knew him well when asked to describe him, the description that comes out most often is he was a complete blabbermouth, an unashamed gossip and talker.

That makes him the perfect guy to do it.....Because who is going to believe a fantasist idiot...He's the perfect patsy too....(Barry George and Jill dando..)

No record of a phone call to Ruby is irrelevant.............The Dallas police were owned by the mob.............I imagine they phoned up the go between who then phoned Ruby.........Ruby spent most of the morning waiting by the phone according to his waitresses.....

A guy that gets his affairs in order doesn't seem irrational to me.

He did not get his affairs in order, he did admin for his business, completely consistent with what he did most days. The issue with the police communicating with him is what would they communicate to him? Oswald will be moved when the right vehicles have arrived and when the interview is finished? When will that be? No idea. Great, I'll see you then!

If Ruby was really hired to kill Oswald and the police were in on it, it would have made a lot more sense to stick to the original time of 10am, when it would have been easy to ensure Ruby was in the basement. Introducing uncertainty and an element of arbitrariness into the process hardly seems the most efficient planning.