From: twarner@hardy.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner)
Subject: Re: LHO MYSTERY ID
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 02:32:39 GMT

6489mcadamsj@vms.csd.mu.edu (John McAdams) writes:
>In article <92351.053256U54778@uicvm.uic.edu>, <U54778@uicvm.uic.edu> writes:

>>Different scenarios can be entertained
>>without going outside the bounds of reasonable conjecture.

>Of course they can.  But I'd like to hear one.  Consider, for example, the
>problems with the notion of "patsy."  OK, The Conspiracy had to have a patsy to
>distract attention from itself and serve as "fall guy."

>But suppose Oswald had called in sick that day?  Suppose Oswald had been
>standing in clear sight of a half-dozen fellow employees when the shots rang
>out?  Would any rational conspiracy bet the whole store on Oswald *not* having
>an airtight alibi?

Good point. That's why it would be better to use a patsy that was part of
the operation, at least in some small way.

>Or suppose Oswald was part of the conspiracy.  Why have *lots* of people
>shooting at JFK, when having lots of gunmen vastly increases the probability
>that one of the "wrong" gunmen (not Oswald) will be seen, identified, and
>probably captured.

I don't know that there were more than two gunmen firing, but I expect there
were more than two gunmen ready to fire. True, it adds to the risk of
being seen, but not by much. I think the Grassy Knoll shooter was purely
backup, in case the rear shooter didn't get the job done.

>And if Oswald is part of the conspiracy, why *not* have him
>shooting at JFK?

Because he couldn't shoot worth beans. Duh.

>After all, his sniper's perch in the School Book Depository is
>by far the best shooting position in Dealy Plaza, if you're shooting at someone
>driving Kennedy's route.

Wrong. It's a very bad position, unless you mean for shooting as the car
approaches on Houston, which didn't happen. There are many better places
for shooting at a car on Elm, such as Bruce's favorite, the Dal-Tex building,
and the fence along the grassy knoll.

>I simply can't imagine how any
>rational conspiracy would have wanted Oswald in custody.

Yes, evidently someone was a bit perturbed about that situation.

>It's true that if you set up an assassination in any
>particular large American city you'll eventually get a shot at the president. 
>But after how many months or years?

I expect there were plans for several cities, including Chicago and Miami.
Oswald could have been sent to the TSBD if the conspiracy was very well
organized well in advance of the assassination, or he could have been seized
upon later.

>I have no problem picturing multiple people involved in a conspiracy.  I have a
>problem picturing multiple people involved (particularly the rather unstable 
>people who make the appropriate "patsies") and still keeping things
>secret.  I direct your attention to the Lincoln conspiracy.

Even if Oswald was working for someone in the conspiracy, I doubt he knew much
about the overall operation. If you had been working for a CIA agent, for
instance, do you think you could convince anyone of it? If the operation was
so well organized that it had multiple patsies set up in multiple cities, it
would have to have been a very well organized operation. The patsies would not
have known much. The others would very likely not know who or what they were
working fo, and since the operation never happened in their town, they never
found out either.

Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk