Did the CIA kill Bobby Kennedy?

[BT]

Thanks for agreeing, XO

[sirs]

When ( and it WILL happen) we get health care in this country, it will not be because Brassmask or I or any loiberals, socialists or logical setient beings call for it, it will be precisely because the corporations cannot pay for it and compete with the Europeans, Mexicans, Japanese and even Koreans who have it.....Even Sirs would live longer, enabling him to bitch even more.

It's not the quantity of the bitching, it's the quality     

[Brassmask]

I just find it odd that you aren't giving BT any grief about his believing that there was a conspiracy and you seem to put a lot of onus on me to prove every little thing that happened.  The facts are that Kennedy was hit in the head twice nearly simoultaneously.  His head was thrown back and that proves that he was hit from the front.  The Book Depository was behind him.  Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom when it all went down.  That's where eyewitnesses put him.

Here's precisely why I don't give near the grief to BT as I rightly apply to you.  It's your OPINION that he was shot simulataneously, hardly a fact.  It's your OPINION that Oswald was in the lunchroom at PRECISELY the instance Kennedy was shot, hardly a fact.  It's that kind of ridiculous opinionated crap trying to be applied as some scientific fact, that folks like you keep throwing out like a "gorilla throwing dust in the air".  And no, it doesn't concern me about yourself, as I do acknowledge the Elvis factor, is likely in play

You think I just made it up that witnesses placed Oswald in the lunchroom?  These are not just my idle musings here, jackass.  Thousands of people have gone over and over this. I've only just begun and even I know that Oswald couldn't have done the shooting and couldn't have made his rendezvous with the police officer in the time frames.  You're just some asshole who doesn't like me.

 Numerous FACTS point out that Oswald didn't do it.  And more than likely he was a hero who was trying to STOP any assassination but wound up a patsy.  The guy was STUNNED when he a reporter informed him he had been charged with the murders of Tippitt and KENNEDY.  Here's another guy's idle ramblings, moron.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/the_critics/griffith/Problems_with_case_against_Oswald.html

Oswald's Whereabouts at the Time of the Shooting

It goes without saying that a key component in any case against Oswald would be to place him at the scene of the crime when the crime was committed, i.e., to place him at the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the TSBD at the time of the shooting. But here, too, a prosecutor would be in for some very rough going.

The WC said Oswald was at the sniper's nest on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting. If so, then how is it he was seen by the building manager, Roy Truly, and a pistol-waving police officer, Patrolman Marrion Baker, well under ninety seconds afterwards on the SECOND floor, standing in the lunchroom with a Coke in his hand, giving every appearance of being perfectly calm and relaxed?

Moore and other lone-gunman theorists assume that Oswald bought the Coke after the encounter with the manager and the policeman (53). However, the available evidence indicates Oswald purchased the Coke before the second-floor encounter (Marrs 50-52). Furthermore, Oswald had no reason to lie about when he bought the Coke. When he mentioned the Coke-buying during his questioning, he did so in passing, and he could not have known the important role the timing of this detail would subsequently play in the investigation. I agree with what David Lifton has said on this subject:

    The original news accounts said that when [Officer Marrion] Baker first saw Oswald, the latter was drinking a Coke. This seemingly minor fact was crucial, because if Oswald had time to operate the machine, open the bottle, and drink some soda, that would mean he was on the second floor even earlier than the Commission's reconstructions allowed. In a signed statement Officer Baker was asked to make in September 1964, at the tail-end of the investigation, he wrote: "I saw a man standing in the lunchroom drinking a coke." A line was drawn through "drinking a coke," and Baker initialed the corrected version. [Dallas] Police Captain Will Fritz, in his report on his interrogation of Oswald, wrote: "I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a Coca Cola when the officer came in."

    If I were a juror, I would have believed Oswald already had the Coke in hand, and indeed, had drunk some of it, by the time the officer entered the lunchroom. (Lifton 351)

Oswald could not have made it to the second floor in well under ninety seconds, in time to be seen by Baker, and without being seen by Roy Truly. The evidence indicates that he was seen on the second floor about sixty to seventy-five seconds after the shots were fired. The Dallas police indicated that the alleged murder weapon was carefully hidden under and between a stack of book boxes at the OPPOSITE end of the sixth floor from where the shots were supposedly fired. It is reasonable to assume Oswald would have attempted to wipe his fingerprints off the rifle (at least those parts that he would have just handled while firing it). Someone wiped off the Carcano before it was "discovered" because the FBI found no identifiable prints on it when it examined the weapon on November 23. This would mean that in well under ninety seconds Oswald chambered another round, wiped off the rifle, squeezed out of the sniper's nest, ran all the way to the opposite end of the sixth floor, took the time to carefully hide the weapon under some boxes, ran down four flights of stairs to the second floor (actually eight small flights), made his way to the lunchroom, and then bought a Coke, and yet did not appear the least bit winded or nervous when seen by the manager and the policeman.

In most of his statements, Baker said that Oswald was walking away from him when he spotted him through the small window on the foyer door. Baker indicated that Oswald was about twenty feet from him when he saw him. The WC placed Oswald just past the foyer door, about eighteen feet from Baker when Baker allegedly spotted him. Yet, in Baker's final statement to the FBI, Baker said that when he spotted Oswald, Oswald was STANDING in the lunchroom.

The WC staged a reenactment to prove Oswald could have reached the second-floor lunchroom in about ninety seconds after supposedly shooting Kennedy. However, the person playing Oswald was only able to meet the ninety-second time limit when he skipped wiping off the rifle, simply leaned over as if to drop the weapon on the floor (instead of carefully hiding it, although there is a conflicting report on this point), and delayed buying the Coke until after encountering the manager and the police officer (Weberman and Canfield 143-144; see also Brown 200-201, and Weisberg 110-122). And these are not the only alleged Oswald actions that the reenactment failed to simulate.

Furthermore, after wiping off the rifle and stashing it at the opposite end of the sixth floor, Oswald would have had to use the back stairway to reach the second floor as soon as possible. However, none of the people who were on or near that stairway heard footsteps or saw Oswald racing down the stairs for his encounter with the manager and the policeman (Marrs 53). What's more, if Oswald had come down the stairs to get to the lunchroom, he would have been seen by Roy Truly, who was running ahead of Baker.

Another clear indication that Oswald could not have made it to the second-floor lunchroom in time to be seen by Baker is the fact that the door to the lunchroom had an automatic closer, and the building manager, who was running up the stairs leading to the second floor ahead of the policeman, did NOT see the door close (and Baker probably didn't see it closing either, even though he later tentatively suggested he did to the WC). Notes Harold Weisberg,

    With all the deliberateness of all the so-called reconstructions it still was not possible to get Oswald to and into that second-floor lunchroom before he would have been seen outside of it by the building manager, Roy Truly, who was rushing up those stairs ahead of police officer Marrion Baker.

    Oswald was inside that lunchroom--the door to which had an automatic closer and with a Coke in his hand when Baker saw him through the small window in the door, he said, and when Truly, ahead of Baker and farther up the stairs, did not see him or the door close. (Weisberg 88)

According to the WC, Oswald went through the foyer door just a second or two before Baker spotted him. If so, Truly would have seen Oswald going through or approaching the door, and if the former had been the case then the door would have been virtually wide open when Truly passed it. Yet, Truly said nothing in any of his statements about seeing the door open or in motion, and he did not see Oswald on the stairs or near the door. Baker only mentioned this (that the door might have been in motion as it was about to close) as a faint possibility when he appeared before the Warren Commission. Even then, Baker said that if the door was moving, it was almost shut. It would have had to be nearly closed, or else Baker would have had an even harder time spotting Oswald through its window; as it was, with the door shut the window would have been at a 45-degree angle to Baker. Moreover, how could the automatic door have closed or nearly closed behind Oswald (1) if Oswald was supposedly only a foot or two past the door when Baker spotted him, and (2) when Truly did not see Oswald coming down the stairs, even though Truly was running ahead of Baker? In fact, to judge from Truly's WC testimony, the door was CLOSED when Truly saw it.

There are indications that Baker and Truly arrived to the second-floor landing in right around a minute, not ninety seconds. Oswald could not have done everything the Commission and its witnesses said he did and still made it past the foyer door without being seen by Truly.

Photographs taken of the TSBD before and after the shooting show that someone was rearranging boxes in the sixth-floor window shortly after Kennedy was shot. This fact was corroborated by photographic expert Dr. Robert R. Hunt for the House Select Committee (4 HSCA 422-423). In fact, the Select Committee's photographic panel concluded: "There is an apparent rearranging of boxes within two minutes after the last shot was fired at President Kennedy" (6 HSCA 109). Obviously, Oswald could not have been in the second-floor lunchroom meeting the building manager and the policeman while moving boxes around on the sixth floor at the same time. So who was moving the boxes less than two minutes after the shooting? Whoever it was, it wasn't Oswald.

Several people reported seeing TWO men, one with a rifle, on the sixth floor of the Book Depository shortly before the shooting (Summers 40-46; Hurt 91-94). WC defenders have pointed out some inconsistencies in their accounts, but I believe the evidence supports the essential components of their stories. One of those witnesses saw the two men on the sixth floor at around 12:15 P.M., which is when Oswald was reportedly seen by another Book Depository employee eating lunch in the lunchroom on the SECOND floor. Who were the two men? None of the descriptions of them matches Oswald. So, whoever they were, evidently Oswald wasn't one of them.

Cohen asserts that two people identified Oswald in a police lineup as the person they had seen in the sixth-floor window (33). There was only one such witness, Howard Brennan, and he gave implausible, contradictory testimony (Marrs 25-27; Lane 83-99; Brown 119-130). In fact, Brennan failed to make a positive identification of Oswald in a police lineup on November 22, even though he had seen Oswald's picture on TV beforehand (Summers 78). Only after weeks of "questioning" by federal agents did Brennan positively identify Oswald as the sixth-floor shooter. Moreover, a number of points in Brennan's account actually cast doubt on the official version of the shooting (Brown 119-130). The House Select Committee found Brennan's testimony so problematic that it ignored his story entirely.

I am inclined to believe that Brennan DID see SOMEONE firing from the sixth-floor window, but that the gunman he saw was not Oswald. I believe Brennan later identified Oswald only because he was pressured into doing so. Brennan's description of the gunman's clothing matches that given by four other witnesses who reported seeing a man in the window. Brennan and the other witnesses described the man's shirt as a regular "light-colored" shirt. However, as mentioned, Oswald did not wear a light-colored shirt to work that day.

[Brassmask]

It's not the quantity of the bitching, it's the quality     

You're being such a suckup to capitalism, it is in your nature to try to make it into a volume product, though.  Hence your incessant need to assault everyone with your willful ignorance of reality.

[sirs]

You think I just made it up that witnesses placed Oswald in the lunchroom?  These are not just my idle musings here, jackass. .... You're just some asshole who doesn't like me.

Well, obviously Brass, no longer having any substance to stand on, is degrading his responses to the point that no longer merit serious consideration or civil response.  Don't let that tinfoil get too tight around the head, their Brass, and try to get some rest

[Brassmask]

You think I just made it up that witnesses placed Oswald in the lunchroom?  These are not just my idle musings here, jackass. .... You're just some asshole who doesn't like me.

Well, obviously Brass, no longer having any substance to stand on, is degrading his responses to the point that no longer merit serious consideration or civil response.  Don't let that tinfoil get too tight around the head, their Brass, and try to get some rest

Ok I went too far.  I admit it.  I still believe this is just that you don't like it when I'm right.  But the FACTS are still that Oswald was seen in that lunchroom before the shooting and directly afterwards with no way in hell for him to get back up to where you think he was when you think he shot Kennedy and then get back down there to that lunchroom.  Unless you want to call the three witnesses (including a Dallas Police officer) liars.

You know thisis fact but you can't admit it because you know I posted it and until you can, you will never be right about anything.

[sirs]

Ok I went too far.  I admit it.  I still believe this is just that you don't like it when I'm right.

I'll let you know when you're actually right some time

[BT]

I admit it.  I still believe this is just that you don't like it when I'm right.

You are gettiung down right evangelical about this Brass. What next, condemning them to everlasting hell if they don't believe.

Who knows what really happened.

The bottom line is JFK, RFK and MLK were shot.

[Brassmask]

The bottom line is JFK, RFK and MLK were shot.

No, that is NOT the bottom line.  The bottom line is who, when, how, where, and most importantly WHY?  We, as a nation, MUST know the answers.  This cannot be just one of those things.

The guilty must hang.

American Experience tonight was the one about RFK.  They just talked about him as a person, not the deep politics of his death.  But someone on there said that when we think of RFK's death, we are actually thinking about what could have been.  This is true.  It could have been that he and JFK and MLK could have gone on to become dope fiends and disgraced, but they never got that chance.  They were deemed dangerous by someone and were snuffed out and that is wrong.  It is god damned wrong.

And in this country where everyone gets their nose in a twist when some guy jokes about killing a president, we can't allow someone to actually kill a president (and other high dignitaries in our history) and get away with it.  In the cases of RFK and JFK, there is plain evidence that there were conspiracies; therefore, so far, someone has "gotten away with it".

Reading what I've been reading of late, it is clear to me that neither Sirhan nor Oswald were anything but patsies.  Extended victims of the very crimes there were accused of committing.  And when people who don't know what they're talking about come along and say that there's no proof of so and so, it irks the shit out of me.  Those people are accessories after the fact, in my opinion.

When we get to the bottom line, I'll let YOU know.

[BT]

No, that is NOT the bottom line.  The bottom line is who, when, how, where, and most importantly WHY?  We, as a nation, MUST know the answers.  This cannot be just one of those things.

Sorry. I don't see anything good coming from it. And until you have a case good enough to try in court all it is is some people talking. I don't think Oswald acted alone, he might have been a patsy, but i can't prove it. And so it goes.

I liked Bobby much more than Jack. Bobby had a bigger set, to use the vernacular. He,  I believe was smarter and a better strategist. I think life as we know it would have been different if he had been elected.

But he wasn't. So you deal with what is. And sometimes it rains and sometimes it doesn't.

[Brassmask]

No, that is NOT the bottom line.  The bottom line is who, when, how, where, and most importantly WHY?  We, as a nation, MUST know the answers.  This cannot be just one of those things.

Sorry. I don't see anything good coming from it. And until you have a case good enough to try in court all it is is some people talking. I don't think Oswald acted alone, he might have been a patsy, but i can't prove it. And so it goes.

I liked Bobby much more than Jack. Bobby had a bigger set, to use the vernacular. He,  I believe was smarter and a better strategist. I think life as we know it would have been different if he had been elected.

But he wasn't. So you deal with what is. And sometimes it rains and sometimes it doesn't.

I doubt your attitude would be so cavelier/blase' if Reagan (or Bush 43) were riding in a car in Vermont and an alleged "terrorist sympathizer" "shot" him from a window but scads of people who saw someone shooting from a maple-shaded hillock were ignored.  I suspect that would not be described as a rainy period by many in this forum.

Having been only 3 when RFK was murdered by assassinS, I have no recollections of the men personally but my  idea of them agrees with your impressions.  Bobby was the fiery scrapper, JFK the contemplative statesman.

[Plane]

Remember that Yassir Arafat killed an American hostage that had been taken in hopes of getting Sirhan loose.


Was Sirhan on a mission from him?

[yellow_crane]

I am sure that Kennedy was assassinated by other than LHO.

I am equally sure that the matter will never be resolved.  

You cannot indict anybody who has great grease with the judge.

I salute your efforts to bring it to the light, which sustains the meaningfulness of truth to a truth starved nation regarding its greatest wound ever.   With each good fight,  new, until now duped, people realize just how corrupt it all is.  You understand, rightfully,  that this country, to be saved, must realize how corrupt it is.   All your opposition has to do is toss one stick in the gears and claim victory.

My own personal belief is that, while people are trying to pin it on the mafia, or members of the federal government, it is really not coming from there at all.   Several members of the federal government could be indicted, but only for cover-up.   Kennedy was a threat to big business in several ways, and the pentagon side of the military industrial complex as well as the war machines corporations were liking him less and less, but the oil mandarins went into steam mode when Kennedy toyed with the idea of divestiture of the big oil companies (which would have saved the country from the current metastasis of corporate tumor bloat that we have now, imho.)  

There were way too many situations in the assassination that required a lot of Dallas PD compliance to poof off as coincidence, and while the FBI or the CIA might exert some pressure on Texas lawmen, oil companies can make them dance like monkeys on a chain down there.   If they needed almost complete compliance, they would get it.   Believe it, or you have never lived in Texas.  

If everybody were indicted, the list would be long, and tentacles reached everywhere (thus, many theories), but it was them, I opine, who sold the contract.

[BT]

I doubt your attitude would be so cavelier/blase' if Reagan (or Bush 43) were riding in a car in Vermont and an alleged "terrorist sympathizer" "shot" him from a window but scads of people who saw someone shooting from a maple-shaded hillock were ignored.  I suspect that would not be described as a rainy period by many in this forum.

Actually it would be.

I'm not big on AA meetings but i did pick a couple of things from back in the day.

This is one of them:

grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
courage to change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

I can't change Dallas.

 

[Amianthus]

[snip]

So, when did these observers sync up their watches?

Or is it not possible that some people were just a few minutes out of sync with each other?