Question about the hit men

Been a believer in conspiracy in the Kennedy case for many years now and after the ARRB I am no longer a believer. I know there was a conspiracy.

One thing I've always wondered about. Wouldn't highly experienced hit men strongly suspect they would not live long after they did the job which would make them reluctant to get involved. Or do you think they had "insurance" in some lawyers safe in case they ended up dead.

Welcome MovingMan!
 
You raise an interesting question. For me, it's hard to imagine what experienced hit men might or might not do because I really can't put myself in their shoes. I can't imagine myself taking on a job where I'd have to whack somebody.
 
I would think a professional hit man would coldly calculate the pros and cons of the job and the payoff would have to be worth it in his eyes. And a big part of making it worth the risk would be the high probability that he would be able to do his work and escape, undetected. If he had assurances from his employer that they "had his back," so to speak, then he might take on the gig.
 
I'm just speculating here and I'm just transferring my psychology to this situation, which means nothing. But I would think a smart hit man would expect to be successful or he wouldn't take the job (unless he was over a barrel for other reasons and the job was an offer he "couldn't refuse"). Perhaps some anti-blackmail "insurance" stashed in some safe place might be a part of that.

MovingMan wrote:Been a believer in conspiracy in the Kennedy case for many years now and after the ARRB  I am no longer a believer. I know there was a conspiracy.

One thing I've always wondered about. Wouldn't highly experienced hit men strongly suspect they would not live long after they did the job which would make them reluctant to get involved. Or do you think they had "insurance" in some lawyers safe in case they ended up dead.

The Mafia is like the Army, you have to trust your team. And, they pay you a heckuva lot of money to take the risk. Usually there's people willing to take it, although there are many allegations of JFK contracts being turned down (like GP Hemming for instance, and those Corsican guys).

I can't see any good reason for the shooters surviving the weekend, despite pre assassination promises they may have received. Why take a chance?

They may have volunteered. Especially if they hated Kennedy enough and all that he stood for.
I've always considered this an aided and abetted domestic plot that was sanctioned. Lets not forget Dallas is up to its neck in all this. The shooters could have been locals.

Fair point Paul. I'm looking at this as if i was a plotter and with the benefit of foresight, i would be less than pleased if a guy who has fell on hard times turns up on ebay with a rifle to sell.

Agree with the "aided and abetted domestic plot."

steely dan wrote:Fair point Paul. I'm looking at this as if i was a plotter and with the benefit of foresight, i would be less than pleased if a guy who has fell on hard times turns up on ebay with a rifle to sell.

You needn't worry about that, steely. They wouldn't be allowed to sell a rifle on ebay. They've got a policy against that.
I think you're more likely to find the guy at the pub with a package that is far too small to carry a rifle going for a good price.

Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:

steely dan wrote:Fair point Paul. I'm looking at this as if i was a plotter and with the benefit of foresight, i would be less than pleased if a guy who has fell on hard times turns up on ebay with a rifle to sell.

You needn't worry about that, steely. They wouldn't be allowed to sell a rifle on ebay. They've got a policy against that.
I think you're more likely to find the guy at the pub with a package that is far too small to carry a rifle going for a good price.

Oh bugger! I've just bid on a genuine Italian Mauser. I suppose the "Oswald Mexican Sombrero" a Miz Paine is selling is also too good to be true.

Stan - Yes I believe having somebody over a barrel is a logical possibility . Anybody with a kid can be manipulated. For many years I thought maybe the shooters were so compartmentalized that they didn't know who the target was until it was too late to back out. Then I saw "Executive Action". The scene where Lancaster tells Lauter how much he's getting paid and Lauter says "You just told me who were gonna hit " was important. It showed that there were problems with trying to compartmentalize a job this big.

Paul - I never even thought of that but when one realizes the hate for Kennedy at that time it's not unreasonable to think you might be right.

MovingMan wrote:Been a believer in conspiracy in the Kennedy case for many years now and after the ARRB  I am no longer a believer. I know there was a conspiracy.

One thing I've always wondered about. Wouldn't highly experienced hit men strongly suspect they would not live long after they did the job which would make them reluctant to get involved. Or do you think they had "insurance" in some lawyers safe in case they ended up dead.

Good question. Maybe they did end up dead. Or maybe they had insurance.

These shooters were pro's. This was a precision urban sniper ambush - difficult head shots were made from long distances against a moving target.

The precision with which it was carried out seems to rule out certain suspects as shooters - including LHO.

Mafia guys normally don't whack people with sniper rifles. Lone nuts usually fire from short distances with a pistol. Police snipers are trained to shoot for the head. But not at these distances.

These snipers were shooting for the head too. US Army snipers are trained to take body shots - at long range - (400+ meters). At under 200 meters, they might take head shots. Police snipers OTOH, take head shots. But their range is normally less than 100 meters.

There is a lot of risk with head shots. It's small target that is moving. Some of the anti-Castro vets no doubt were trained military snipers. They can't be ruled out. But were they really that good? Could they be counted on to make that head shot? Even if Mafia guys don't normally kill via sniper operations, someone like Marcello or Giancana could hire someone qualified. Marcello was connected to the Marseilles Mafia.

French Algerian War veterans? CIA sniper teams from SE Asia? Whoever they were - they were beyond good. They were precise.

M.Ellis wrote:

MovingMan wrote:Been a believer in conspiracy in the Kennedy case for many years now and after the ARRB  I am no longer a believer. I know there was a conspiracy.

One thing I've always wondered about. Wouldn't highly experienced hit men strongly suspect they would not live long after they did the job which would make them reluctant to get involved. Or do you think they had "insurance" in some lawyers safe in case they ended up dead.

Good question. Maybe they did end up dead. Or maybe they had insurance.

These shooters were pro's. This was a precision urban sniper ambush - difficult head shots were made from long distances against a moving target.

The precision with which it was carried out seems to rule out certain suspects as shooters - including LHO.

Mafia guys normally don't whack people with sniper rifles. Lone nuts usually fire from short distances with a pistol. Police snipers are trained to shoot for the head. But not at these distances.

These snipers were shooting for the head too. US Army snipers are trained to take body shots - at long range - (400+ meters). At under 200 meters, they might take head shots. Police snipers OTOH, take head shots. But their range is normally less than 100 meters.

There is a lot of risk with head shots. It's small target that is moving. Some of the anti-Castro vets no doubt were trained military snipers. They can't be ruled out. But were they really that good? Could they be counted on to make that head shot? Even if Mafia guys don't normally kill via sniper operations, someone like Marcello or Giancana could hire someone qualified. Marcello was connected to the Marseilles Mafia.

French Algerian War veterans? CIA sniper teams from SE Asia? Whoever they were - they were beyond good. They were precise.

M.Ellis, how many shooters do you believe there were and where do you reckon they were shooting from?
I find I keep changing my mind about this aspect of the case more than any other aspect. I think I've had 5 different opinions on it alone in the last 2 years. I guess that is the point when it comes to sniper/s.

M.Ellis wrote:

 Whoever they were - they were beyond good. They were precise.

Agreed. The kill shot barely avoided Jackie. Grazed the opposite side of JFK's head, as if someone was aiming "left of center".

Medically, it's not really possible that the kill shot came from behind. It must have come from the front, and exited out the back, because the literature clearly describes the cerebellum as being pushed out of the skull and oozing out behind. Such a thing would not happen with a rear shot, and that's one of the things Dr. Robert Livingston was trying to bring to the other doctors' attention.

It seems to me the kill shot must have come from the HSCA acoustic location, because the picket fence area wouldn't be at quite the right angle. To get a grazing shot like that you'd have to be well in front, and the HSCA location is at just about the right place.

And Curry said into the radio microphone: "Get a couple of men up there and find out what happened up on that overpass". And moments earlier, Winston Lawson was trying to "frantically wave away" some people off the overpass (one wonders how he did this, being seated inside a non-convertible car, but anyway...)

Good hit men are valuable. Anyone who could make that shot wouldn't just be "discarded because they knew too much". They'd make sure up front they "didn't" know too much so they could be used again at some future point.

M.Ellis wrote: Sorry. For some reason, I can't figure out the multi-quote function. --------Paul McGurkenfarklein wrote:

M.Ellis wrote:

MovingMan wrote:Been a believer in conspiracy in the Kennedy case for many years now and after the ARRB  I am no longer a believer. I know there was a conspiracy.

One thing I've always wondered about. Wouldn't highly experienced hit men strongly suspect they would not live long after they did the job which would make them reluctant to get involved. Or do you think they had "insurance" in some lawyers safe in case they ended up dead.

Ellis: Good question. Maybe they did end up dead. Or maybe they had insurance.

These shooters were pro's. This was a precision urban sniper ambush - difficult head shots were made from long distances against a moving target.

The precision with which it was carried out seems to rule out certain suspects as shooters - including LHO.

Mafia guys normally don't whack people with sniper rifles. Lone nuts usually fire from short distances with a pistol. Police snipers are trained to shoot for the head. But not at these distances.

These snipers were shooting for the head too. US Army snipers are trained to take body shots - at long range - (400+ meters). At under 200 meters, they might take head shots. Police snipers OTOH, take head shots. But their range is normally less than 100 meters.

There is a lot of risk with head shots. It's small target that is moving. Some of the anti-Castro vets no doubt were trained military snipers. They can't be ruled out. But were they really that good?

Could they be counted on to make that head shot? Even if Mafia guys don't normally kill via sniper operations, someone like Marcello or Giancana could hire someone qualified. Marcello was connected to the Marseilles Mafia.

French Algerian War veterans? CIA sniper teams from SE Asia? Whoever they were - they were beyond good. They were precise.

(Paul McGurkenfarklein)"....how many shooters do you believe there were and where do you reckon they were shooting from?
I find I keep changing my mind about this aspect of the case more than any other aspect. I think I've had 5 different opinions on it alone in the last 2 years. I guess that is the point when it comes to sniper/s.

Ellis: I have no evidence. I speculate at least two teams. One from the side/front. One from the rear. I don't know where. They were all aiming for head-shots though. Even the back entrance wound indicates a head shot attempt. 

This is not my area of expertise. I'm stll back at 544 Camp Street. And I intend to hang out there awhile longer.  That is the address where we can learn who LHO really was. That's what interests me a lot. We know who LHO was NOT. He was NOT the shooter.  

But in Dallas, as nonsqtr points out, the side/front team managed a head shot that didn't also kill the First Lady. These guys were precise. That's what always impresses me. This was a very difficult operation to get EXACTLY right. It was an easy enough kill. But to get it exactly right must have been damned difficult and lucky. 


nonsqtr wrote: 

M.Ellis wrote:

 "Whoever they were - they were beyond good. They were precise." 

Quote by Nonsqtr: 


"Agreed. The kill shot barely avoided Jackie. Grazed the opposite side of JFK's head, as if someone was aiming "left of center".

Medically, it's not really possible that the kill shot came from behind. It must have come from the front, and exited out the back, because the literature clearly describes the cerebellum as being pushed out of the skull and oozing out behind. Such a thing would not happen with a rear shot, and that's one of the things Dr. Robert Livingston was trying to bring to the other doctors' attention.

It seems to me the kill shot must have come from the HSCA acoustic location, because the picket fence area wouldn't be at quite the right angle. To get a grazing shot like that you'd have to be well in front, and the HSCA location is at just about the right place.

And Curry said into the radio microphone: "Get a couple of men up there and find out what happened up on that overpass". And moments earlier, Winston Lawson was trying to "frantically wave away" some people off the overpass (one wonders how he did this, being seated inside a non-convertible car, but anyway...)

Good hit men are valuable. Anyone who could make that shot wouldn't just be "discarded because they knew too much". They'd make sure up front they "didn't" know too much so they could be used again at some future point."
----END QUOTE


M.Ellis: I don't know who the shooters were or if they lived. I suspect they were not Americans and I suspect they survived. But I have no evidence. I could be wrong. 

It was important to kill the patsy, the Judas Goat, right away though. No way he could be allowed to go to trial. The real screw-up in this operation was allowing LHO to be captured. He should have been shouting to the press and writing them letters every passing minute of his soon-to-be ended life. He should have been smart enough to know he was a walking dead man. Both the mob and the government could reach him behind bars. 

Thanks M.Ellis. I am not sure how difficult it is to hit those shots on target not being a shooter myself but I could safely assume it would be easier if more than one shooter was involved as I suspect was the case.
I've never been to Dealey Plaza but by speaking to those who have they all invariably remark how close the target is from the 6th floor of the TSBD. That is of course if you believe some of the shots originated from there. Good hunters (where is Bumfuck Bob when you need him) also aim for the head. There are obvious risks with employing military tactics in this type of hit. Especially if the plan is to frame a lone gunman.

my hypothesis is shooters where army Fort Sill and Fort Brag  The TSBD shots didn't kill so umbrella man signaled 2nd team to fire from picket fence inline with Zapruder filming and B J Martin on his bike to left rear of JFK

As others have noted the shooting was in a class by itself. How many people can shoot that well. Not many i would suspect. If that is the case then a list of top snipers from that time might provide useful info.

Note - my posts might contain info im not a firm believer in but have included for the sake of discussion.
At times its neccessary to include such  matters so that the truth content of a  given incident or claim can be ascertained. I still have much that i question but i do not queztion the fact of conspiracy. Too many screw ups at Bethesda to doubt conspiracy any longer.

gerrrycam wrote:my hypothesis is shooters where army Fort Sill and Fort Brag  The TSBD shots didn't kill so umbrella man signaled 2nd team to fire from picket fence inline with Zapruder filming and B J Martin on his bike to left rear of JFK

Dan Marvins book and the event he relates of being in sniper school and overhearing incriminating conversation is fascinating. 

Im wondering if it checks out.

This is not my area of expertise. I'm still back at 544 Camp Street. And I intend to hang out there awhile longer. That is the address where we can learn who LHO really was.
I'm sorry I don't have a cite (can't remember where i read it) but wasn't there a report by two Customs Agents who followed Oswald to 544 Camp Street and saw him with Bannister?

There are obvious risks with employing military tactics in this type of hit. Especially if the plan is to frame a lone gunman.
Two conspiracies going on here, 1. conspiracy to murder Kennedy, 2. conspiracy to make it look like a lone gunman. The guys in C1 (the CIA team?) wanted Oswald to look like part of a vast communist plot. His gun on the scene was enough, if he was seen out front then he was just the lookout for accomplices (hell, maybe Oswald WAS the lookout, who knows). The guys in C2 (the FBI team?) wanted Oswald to look like a lone nut and was kept busy erasing the radioactive bread crumb trail back to Cuba left by C1.

beowulf wrote:

There are obvious risks with employing military tactics in this type of hit. Especially if the plan is to frame a lone gunman.
Two conspiracies going on here, 1. conspiracy to murder Kennedy, 2. conspiracy to make it look like a lone gunman.  The guys in C1 (the CIA team?) wanted Oswald to look like part of a vast communist plot. His gun on the scene was enough, if he was seen out front then he was just the lookout for accomplices (hell, maybe Oswald WAS the lookout, who knows). The guys in C2 (the FBI team?) wanted Oswald to look like a lone nut and was kept busy erasing the radioactive bread crumb trail back to Cuba left by C1.

Are you suggesting C2 was borne of C1, beowulf? If so, it almost excuses the WC investigation. The consequences of discovering a "vast communist plot" could lead to WWIII.

Some in C2 like Earl Warren believed it was a real bread crumb trail to Cuba and thought they were preventing WWIII. Others in C2 realized it was a fake crumb trail left by the real killers but figured they should let sleeping dogs lie. Oddly enough, Robert Kennedy appeared to fall in this category. Others in C2 were also part of C1 and were perfectly happy covering up their own crime. David Phillips and James J. Angleton (both of the CIA) were in this cohort. The big question I'm left with is whether Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover fell in the second category or the third.

beowulf wrote:Some in C2 like Earl Warren believed it was a real bread crumb trail to Cuba and thought they were preventing WWIII.  Others in C2 realized it was a fake crumb trail left by the real killers but figured they should let sleeping dogs lie. Oddly enough, Robert Kennedy appeared to fall in this category. Others in C2 were also part of C1 and were perfectly happy covering up their own crime. David Phillips and James J. Angleton (both of the CIA) were in this cohort. The big question I'm left with is whether Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover fell in the second category or the third.

Interesting beowulf. I've always figured the murder of JFK, given the consequences, to be "too big to solve". Too much to deal with in 1963.
I am just pissed off that they took us for fucking idiots and continue to do so 51 years later.

I am just pissed off that they took us for fucking idiots and continue to do so 51 years later.

You can take the boy out of Oz, but ya can't take the Ozziness out of the boy...

Don't know about you, Paul... but I'm not mellowing at all - if anything, getting more pissed off and cantankerous.

Oswald was "convicted" with a dodgy circumstantial case. There is a much more honest and solid circumstantial case to be made pointing to others.

greg parker wrote:

I am just pissed off that they took us for fucking idiots and continue to do so 51 years later.

You can take the boy out of Oz, but ya can't take the Ozziness out of the boy...

Don't know about you, Paul... but I'm not mellowing at all - if anything, getting more pissed off and cantankerous.

Oswald was "convicted" with a dodgy circumstantial case. There is a much more honest and solid circumstantial case to be made pointing to others.

I am still pretty bad, Greg. The 50th anniversary was hard to take.
I use to deal with it by going on Duncan's forum to fight lone nutters. But I am getting too old for that shit now.

P.S Sorry to MovingMan for getting off topic.