Ventura: Impossible That Oswald Shot Kennedy – Page 2
Alternative, independent calculations say that, if Oswald had really been a gunman, he could not have reached the lunchroom in time for the meeting with the policeman.
Numerous studies have substantiated that, by any realistic standard, Oswald could not have done it and even if he had, certainly would not have been so calm, cool, and collected when seen right after the assassination. It’s quite logical to assume that any person would exhibit some sense of anxiousness after just having killed the President of the United States and wounding the Governor. Especially after racing down the stairs afterwards, sweating would be expected, rapid breathing would be expected, and excitement would be expected. But none of the aforementioned were present in the calm and composed Lee Harvey Oswald…
Add to that the highly significant point that President Kennedy’s motorcade was late. Had it been on time – the published time that any assassin would have to plan for – then the motorcade actually would have passed Oswald’s building at 12:25p.m., raising a huge timing problem on the front side of the issue as well, because credible witness testimony placed Oswald in the lunch room at 12:15. So he’s calmly eating lunch at 12:15 on the second floor, raising the following huge red flag:
A killer who had planned the assassination would hardly have been sitting around downstairs after 12:15p.m., as the evidence about Oswald suggests, if he expected to open fire as early as 12:25.
It got even worse for the government. To prove that it was even possible time-wise for Oswald to have made it downstairs in two minutes after doing the shooting, they had to eliminate the purchase of Coca-Cola from the vending machine. In fact, if you look at the official statement of Dallas Police Officer Marion Baker, the words “drinking a coke” are crossed out with his initials above. He and Roy Truly, the building supervisor, also specifically noted in their Warren Commission testimony that Oswald did not have a Coca-Cola!
Well, nice try, fellahs! Now remember back if you will, fellow juror, to the two points I made at the beginning of this entry.
A witness with no reason to lie.
Two minutes after the assassination.
Two things she remembered about Oswald.
He was very calm; and he had a Coca-Cola in his hand.
If the case went to trial and you were Oswald’s attorney, you’d have a pretty tough time keeping a grin off your face at that exact point of evidence. Please excuse my language in advance, but don’t you love it when these bastards get caught by their own lies?
And as Anthony Summers and others have pointed out, if there wasn’t a Coca-Cola in his hands, then why on earth was everyone referring to it?
Baker himself initially wrote in his statement that he “saw a man standing in the lunchroom drinking a Coke.”
One of the details announced by Police Chief Curry was that Oswald was seen by Baker and the building superintendent Roy Truly, carrying a Coke.
If that were not so, it is hard to see how such a precise detail arose in the first place. Yet Baker and Truly ended up saying Oswald had nothing in his hand when they met him.
So the infamous Coca-Cola in Lee Harvey Oswald’s hand officially disappeared. It had to disappear, because if Oswald had taken all that time after the assassination – coming down all those stairs from the sixth floor to the second, going to the vending machine and buying a Coke – then he could not have been standing there calmly in the lunchroom as Office Baker officially discovered him.
The question is important to the issue of whether Oswald could have got down from the sixth floor to encounter Baker and Truly when he did.
Without obtaining a Coke, it would have been a close shave. If Oswald had purchased and started drinking a Coke by the time of the encounter with the policeman, the known time frame is stretched to the bursting point – some would say beyond.
Oswald himself, incidentally, told the Chief of Homicide he was “drinking a Coca-Cola when the officer came in.” In this author’s opinion, the balance of the evidence suggests he was. The matter can be put even more bluntly than the manner expressed above by Mr. Summers with his British politeness:
(Officer) Baker was asked by the FBI to give an affidavit regarding his encounter with Oswald in the lunchroom, Commission Exhibit 3076, Baker makes no mention of seeing someone moving through the glass in the doorway and states that he “saw a man standing in the lunchroom drinking a coke.”
The phrase “drinking a coke” is crossed out and initialed by Baker, but that deleted phrase, by its spontaneous mention, corroborates Oswald’s story that he had already purchased a Coke when stopped by Baker and makes a liar out of both Baker and Roy Truly.
So the facts are pretty clear and would play that way to a jury. Oswald bought a Coca-Cola, just like he said he did, and just like witnesses who had no reason to lie swore that they saw him standing there after the assassination with a bottle of Coke in his hand. That, in itself, proves he could not have had time to fire three shots from the “sniper’s nest” on the sixth floor, stash the rifle, come down to the second floor via the long stairway (which was also slow to traverse because the configuration had a gap between floors, meaning that you had to come down one flight of stairs and then had to walk over to the area where the stairs continued down again), go to the vending machine, purchase a drink, and then be in the lunchroom two minutes after the assassination of the President.
The fact that he was already in that lunchroom, and was even calm and unshaken – as several eyewitnesses confirmed – speaks loudly that he was not the shooter on the sixth floor a mere two minutes prior to that time.
Excerpted with permission of Skyhorse Publishing, Inc., New York, NY.
[ photo galleries ]
The opinions expressed in this blog are the personal opinions of our bloggers and in no way reflect the opinions of truTV, Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., Time Warner, Inc. and/or any of their respective employees, officers, subsidiaries or affiliates.
We may provide links to outside blogs or websites from this site, truTV is not affiliated with these websites and makes no representations, endorsements or warranties with regard to the content found on those sites.