After the awful Documentary aired on UK TV (The one with the nifty CGI). I started reading as much as I could find on this case, and can't seem to come to a conclusion...so, who do you think did it?
Personally, I don't think Oswald did do it, mainly due to the lack of any real evidence, consider this...
1) Oswald was a piss poor shot. He ended up with a score of 151 at the end of his training, the lowest possible is 150.
2) After allegedly killing Kennedy, Oswald stopped for a Coke in the canteen of the Texas Book Depositry. Furthermore, he stopped to talk with a co-worker as well as show a reporter to a phone. Hardly the act of a man who was in a hurry.
3) The original photos of the 'Snipers Nest', which where taken pretty soon after the asassanation, showed a bottle of Dr Pepper as well as a pack of cigarettes. Oswald didn't smoke. For the later photo's these items were removed by Police and never recorded in their books. What the 'Snipers Nest' actually was was a place where the workers on the 6th floor could hide in and have a smoke.
4) The original crime scene photographer revealed to the Warren Comission that, when taken photo's of the boxes at the snipers' nest, a corner was ripped off and 'sent to confirm Oswalds fingerprints', when the corner was returned there was a nice big Oswald hand print on there.
5) The same photographer testified that the detective at the crime scene actually picked up the shells with his bare hands to pose with them. It isn't known if this was before or after fingerprinting was done (It is believed that it was well before - and that is also what the Warren Commison seemed to be getting at).
6) Why didn't Oswald take the far easier shot on Houston? There was no awkward angle (and no big bloody Oak Tree in the way either) and he would've had plenty of time to get the Prez with his first shot.
7) Tests proved that while Oswald had fired a gun that day, it wasn't a Rifle - It was a pistol, which ties him to the murder of Officer Tippet. These results were not going to be known until the Warren Comission were nearly sued over it (The results were not known at the time of Oswalds death).
8) Oswalds denial. Since his death, Oswald has been made out to be a fanatic. A man who was a nobody yet always wanted to be a somebody. So why does he deny the murder of the President? He has all those camera's on him, he knows the whole world is going to see it and he just denies it. A lot of people I have spoken to have said "Well obviously he was waiting until he made it to trial because it's a bigger stage, more people will see". Maybe so, but then why does he say he was a Patsy? He was an intelligent man, if he wanted to make a grand cliam over JFK's death then wouldn't it be better he keep quiet and then make his claim in Court? Escpecially as he was a little prone to dramatics. Instead he basically outright says he's been set-up.
I dunno. What do you folks think? I know the subject has been done to death but I really only know have started to look into the case a little more. My only real previous knowledge is Oliver Stone's film, and yes I am aware of all the innacuracies in that film as well.
Personally, I don't think Oswald did do it, mainly due to the lack of any real evidence, consider this...
1) Oswald was a piss poor shot. He ended up with a score of 151 at the end of his training, the lowest possible is 150.
2) After allegedly killing Kennedy, Oswald stopped for a Coke in the canteen of the Texas Book Depositry. Furthermore, he stopped to talk with a co-worker as well as show a reporter to a phone. Hardly the act of a man who was in a hurry.
3) The original photos of the 'Snipers Nest', which where taken pretty soon after the asassanation, showed a bottle of Dr Pepper as well as a pack of cigarettes. Oswald didn't smoke. For the later photo's these items were removed by Police and never recorded in their books. What the 'Snipers Nest' actually was was a place where the workers on the 6th floor could hide in and have a smoke.
4) The original crime scene photographer revealed to the Warren Comission that, when taken photo's of the boxes at the snipers' nest, a corner was ripped off and 'sent to confirm Oswalds fingerprints', when the corner was returned there was a nice big Oswald hand print on there.
5) The same photographer testified that the detective at the crime scene actually picked up the shells with his bare hands to pose with them. It isn't known if this was before or after fingerprinting was done (It is believed that it was well before - and that is also what the Warren Commison seemed to be getting at).
6) Why didn't Oswald take the far easier shot on Houston? There was no awkward angle (and no big bloody Oak Tree in the way either) and he would've had plenty of time to get the Prez with his first shot.
7) Tests proved that while Oswald had fired a gun that day, it wasn't a Rifle - It was a pistol, which ties him to the murder of Officer Tippet. These results were not going to be known until the Warren Comission were nearly sued over it (The results were not known at the time of Oswalds death).
8) Oswalds denial. Since his death, Oswald has been made out to be a fanatic. A man who was a nobody yet always wanted to be a somebody. So why does he deny the murder of the President? He has all those camera's on him, he knows the whole world is going to see it and he just denies it. A lot of people I have spoken to have said "Well obviously he was waiting until he made it to trial because it's a bigger stage, more people will see". Maybe so, but then why does he say he was a Patsy? He was an intelligent man, if he wanted to make a grand cliam over JFK's death then wouldn't it be better he keep quiet and then make his claim in Court? Escpecially as he was a little prone to dramatics. Instead he basically outright says he's been set-up.
I dunno. What do you folks think? I know the subject has been done to death but I really only know have started to look into the case a little more. My only real previous knowledge is Oliver Stone's film, and yes I am aware of all the innacuracies in that film as well.
.
.
