Questions That Keep Me Up Nights

First topic message reminder :

Why would anyone arrange the crime scene as they did? Arranging the three shells side-by-side in the SN? And what about that one crimped shell that stands out in bright neon proclaiming "I was not fired". It was obviously saying "planted". Not only was this not the sign of a rushed cover-up, this was something deliberately done and it took far more time to do than simply tossing the shells to the floor.
 
And then there is this rifle that was not really up to the task it was assigned? A faulty rifle with a busted scope? Really? I think finding a good rifle with a proper scope would be far easier to find than that Marcano. Any sporting goods store has simply dozens of them available and I am sure the agencies involved in the cover-up would have had a few better specimens on hand to use for planting rather than taking a relic out of someone's garbage can... no offense to the Marcano. The Mauser would have been a better choice!
 
A pistol with a busted firing pin? Same as above. Good pistols can be found even in the lowliest pawn shop, fer chrissakes! Why plant one that isn't any good?
 
A "magic bullet" that could not have possibly done all that it was claimed? What does this tell us if not "planted evidence"?
 
But why would anyone go to the trouble of planting the evidence in a way to make it obvious the evidence was indeed planted? Most people act like this stuff was planted just to point the finger to Oswald but on closer inspection it simply screams the opposite. It screams "planted".
 
But why?
 
What was the purpose of this charade? It is almost like there is a hidden message being sent...
 
This stuff is crazy.

terlin wrote:Thanks, Redfern.

"Incrimination overload" - I like that. What seems hilarious is that the framing of the assassination of a President seems to have been carried out by the three stooges without cross-checking what each of them was going to plant.

Probably they threw everything (and the kitchen sink) into the mix and worked on sorting it all out later. It worked in 1863 but there was not a bunch of nosy-parkers around trying to keep everyone honest.

With a multitude of evidence - and much of it going all over the place - those putting the case together could pick only the "good stuff" that sealed the case.

I have to agree that the amateur nature of it points to members of DPD. It is my belief that they were sloppy because in the past there had been no need to be careful - the whole system was rigged in their favor in Dallas under Wade.

greg parker wrote:I have to agree that the amateur nature of it points to members of DPD. It is my belief that they were sloppy because in the past there had been no need to be careful - the whole system was rigged in their favor in Dallas under Wade.

You're right, of course.

Wade had been running the county for so long that his boys didn't have to be too bright about planting evidence. With Wade running the prosecution a conviction was a sure bet. 

Greg, Terlin, there's a good bit of truth in what you say.  This is why I originally offered the idea that control over information flow in the end was probably judged more important than actually controlling all the details. As I said, the "Big Lie" has the power to cover over all the flaws. You all see the holes in the cover-up.  But what has been the media line?  If there was a conspiracy, certainly there would be evidence of it.  No crime is perfect.  (indeed!)  So where's the evidence?  (staring you all in the face!)  It doesn't matter if three quarters of the population see it.  Just as long as the official info machine says they can't.

The observation about the consequences of outsourcing (or in intel lingo, using "cutouts") also makes sense. And redfern's "incrimination overload" is great.

I also, btw, think that Johnson was absolutely terrified by what happened; it is one thing to be a small-town fixer, another to see this level of murderous planning. And as John Galbraith's son has said, he was essentially told by LBJ as he resigned (Galbraith, I mean) that LBJ believed Curtis Lemay and the Joint Chief's were involved in JFK's assassination.

terlin wrote:Why would anyone arrange the crime scene as they did? Arranging the three shells side-by-side in the SN? And what about that one crimped shell that stands out in bright neon proclaiming "I was not fired". It was obviously saying "planted". Not only was this not the sign of a rushed cover-up, this was something deliberately done and it took far more time to do than simply tossing the shells to the floor.
 
And then there is this rifle that was not really up to the task it was assigned? A faulty rifle with a busted scope? Really? I think finding a good rifle with a proper scope would be far easier to find than that Marcano. Any sporting goods store has simply dozens of them available and I am sure the agencies involved in the cover-up would have had a few better specimens on hand to use for planting rather than taking a relic out of someone's garbage can... no offense to the Marcano. The Mauser would have been a better choice!
 
A pistol with a busted firing pin? Same as above. Good pistols can be found even in the lowliest pawn shop, fer chrissakes! Why plant one that isn't any good?
 
A "magic bullet" that could not have possibly done all that it was claimed? What does this tell us if not "planted evidence"?
 
But why would anyone go to the trouble of planting the evidence in a way to make it obvious the evidence was indeed planted? Most people act like this stuff was planted just to point the finger to Oswald but on closer inspection it simply screams the opposite. It screams "planted".
 
But why?
 
What was the purpose of this charade? It is almost like there is a hidden message being sent...
 
This stuff is crazy.

Maybe the conspirators were playing to those who think like the David Josephs and David Von Peins of the world: don't fret over "false minutia," inconsistencies, and troubling little details. Keep your eyes fixed on the totality of the garbage evidence.
 
Knowing this, the conspirators didn't have to worry about everything meshing perfectly. Just overwhelm everyone with garbage information. Because garbage information can be stacked up in countless ways, different denominations, cults and sects rise up, all pushing their particular doctrine onto the world, e.g., Case Closed, Reclaiming History, Harvey and Lee, etc.
 
In the process, the truth is obscured by the "totality" of the "facts." 

And as far as the mainstream press goes, they're an organ of the government, the little bird perched up on the shoulder saying "Polly want a patsy?" The only "free press" is the underground press.

EDIT
 
I read this latest post in Fez's thread over at Deep:

Great points Jim. DJ I don't think you can sum up in a single post. It is the totality of the evidence that makes the case.
I wonder if those in disagreement realize they Judy Baker is one of them. And what they make of that.
But I am keeping out of the arguments. I'm a believer, and John is now a good friend so I am also biased. But said bias
was way before we became friends from reading most of the book. (Which I am re-reading, time permitted when not dealing with problem people here.)
 
Dawn 

(Did you know she's a lawyer who is very busy too?)
 
Totality of evidence…I'm a believer…dealing with problem people. With gullible people like this, the conspirators knew they had it dicked.
 

On the issue of the local constabulary:

When I was in the midst of presenting a critique of the tendency to blame Robert Kennedy for many things (at the Simkin Forum in Gary Loughran's "Blame It On The Bobby" thread), Robert Howard was kind enough to dump on me the DPD's file on the shooting at General Walker incident. (Joan Mellen had claimed that this file had "disappeared" from the DPD archives, insinuating that this was more evidence of RFK's machinations; actually, it had been transferred to the Texas State Attorney General's office by the DPD.)

Several hundred pages as I recall, the vast majority of which were documents of various records of Lee Harvey Oswald. One thing stood out more than anything else: nobody in the DPD so much as bothered to write an SOR (Supplementary Offense Report) indicating that this Oswald fellow must've been the culprit in the case. No, just a final SOR about where the case was sometime in the Summer of 1963 (as I recall), followed by a huge dump of paper referencing most of what was then known about one Lee Harvey Oswald. No piece of paper whatsoever indicating why anyone thought Oswald had taken a shot at Walker.

Now that's justice.

PS: I should clarify: once Oswald was dead, all of his info was dumped in the file, then the whole Walker file transferred to the Texas Attorney General's office. Seems like that's something someone might be able to take to court, if only for the sake of clarification.

The whole Walker thing is bizarre.

All of the accusations that Oswald had been arrested back in April for the Walker shooting only for RFK to order his release were lifted entirely from the case of John Stanford.  

Stanford was a member of the CPUSA who had been stitched up by super-snitch William Lowery. RFK had indeed requested that State authorities (who had arrested Stanford IIRC) leave Stanford alone until the Feds were through with him.

The whole thing leads back into the bigger story of the JFK assassination, just as Lee Farley has indicated in the past, through Lowery's association with the GI forum and Joe Molina. There is also the detail that he worked in a shoe store not far from the Texas Theater...