How Could LHO Walk Seven Blocks Shortly After The Assassination & Not Be Seen?

[Martin Weidmann]

  Chapman and Mytton must be joined at the hip. They seem to spontaneously respond to each others questions
 I reviewed that testimony also. Stombough mentions the word 'match' some 67 times relating to Oswald's body hairs found on the blanket [like it was never cleaned?]
  There you have it...absolute proof! Of what really? Ehhh not so sure there.
 
 

I found the use of the word "matched" without a proper explanation somewhat controversial.

Stombaugh's testimony clearly shows that with the word "matched" he merely means (and I paraphrase) "common fibers that are similar to those used in the blanket" and not a match to the exclusion of all other possible sources. Set in that context I have no problem with the word "matched" although I am sure in my mind that Mytton and Chapman did not want to convey that message by using the word.

[John Iacoletti]

June 2002

No Bill, he doesn't say he saw Oswald "head up Elm".  Not in 2002 and not in 2013.

[John Iacoletti]

Thanks for stating the bleeding obvious.

So?

The interrogation testimony evidence and it is evidence, was corroborated by a number of interrogators, so sure you can say they all got together and lied or whatever but you won't because that would class you as certifiable.
So we're left with Frazier and his sister who both testified that the package was on the back seat and we have several eyewitnesses who say that Oswald told a completely different story, so Hmmm this has gotta go somewhere and I'm guessing a Jury would go with Frazier and his sister being truthful and Oswald lied because his rifle was found on the 6th floor with his palm print and fibers that matched his shirt fibers.

Have you lost what little remains of your faculties?  How do you get from "package on the back seat" (which Linnie Mae allegedly saw through a carport wall) to "rifle inside bag"?

[John Iacoletti]

I love these intellectual debates, keep it up.

I love the way you seriously think that you have proven something merely by claiming that it has been proven.

[John Mytton]

I found the use of the word "matched" without a proper explanation somewhat controversial.

Stombaugh's testimony clearly shows that with the word "matched" he merely means (and I paraphrase) "common fibers that are similar to those used in the blanket" and not a match to the exclusion of all other possible sources. Set in that context I have no problem with the word "matched" although I am sure in my mind that Mytton and Chapman did not want to convey that message by using the word.

although I am sure in my mind...

 

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Have you lost what little remains of your faculties?  How do you get from "package on the back seat" (which Linnie Mae allegedly saw through a carport wall) to "rifle inside bag"?

Have you lost what little remains of your faculties?

No.

How do you get from "package on the back seat" (which Linnie Mae allegedly saw through a carport wall) to "rifle inside bag"?

Seriously, this is typical Kook logic where you set some unattainable unknown standard and whenever this perceived level of proof isn't delivered then you seem to claim some sort of hollow victory. Very strange.

1. Nobody had X-Ray vision and could see through the bag.
2. Linnie describes the bag and contents as appearing heavy and bulky towards one end.
3. The bag was crumpled and while a hard unknown object perhaps a rifle caused scratches the origin couldn't be determined.
4. Either Oswald or Frazier and his sister lied about where Oswald put the package.
5. Either Oswald or Frazier lied about the contents of the package.
6. Either Frazier or Oswald lied about where Oswald was getting his lunch.
7. Oswald's prints were on the bag.
8. The bag was found in the same window that multiple eyewitnesses saw a man with a rifle, Brennan testified that the man was Oswald.

Btw Frazier had no reason to lie.

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Have you lost what little remains of your faculties? 

No.

So, you agree only a little remains of your faculties and you just disagree you've lost those?

Seriously, this is typical Kook logic where you set some unattainable unknown standard and whenever this perceived level of proof isn't delivered then you seem to claim some sort of hollow victory. Very strange.

1. Nobody had X-Ray vision and could see through the bag.
2. Linnie describes the bag and contents as appearing heavy and bulky towards one end.
3. The bag was crumpled and while a hard unknown object perhaps a rifle caused scratches the origin couldn't be determined.
4. Either Oswald or Frazier and his sister lied about where Oswald put the package.
5. Either Oswald or Frazier lied about the contents of the package.
6. Either Frazier or Oswald lied about where Oswald was getting his lunch.
7. Oswald's prints were on the bag.
8. The bag was found in the same window that multiple eyewitnesses saw a man with a rifle, Brennan testified that the man was Oswald.

Btw Frazier had no reason to lie.

JohnM

1. Nobody had X-Ray vision and could see through the bag.

True, so why are you claiming the bag contained a rifle?

2. Linnie describes the bag and contents as appearing heavy and bulky towards one end.

So what?

3. The bag was crumpled and while a hard unknown object perhaps a rifle caused scratches the origin couldn't be determined.


Is this you trying in vain to explain away why no scratchmarks caused by metal objects were not found in the bag?

4. Either Oswald or Frazier and his sister lied about where Oswald put the package.

Really, so there is no way they could have simply misrembered or be confused?

5. Either Oswald or Frazier lied about the contents of the package.

Frazier did not know what was in the package, so he could not have lied about that. All he knew is what (he said) Oswald told him.

6. Either Frazier or Oswald lied about where Oswald was getting his lunch.

Or somebody just made a wrong assumption.

7. Oswald's prints were on the bag.

Other prints, that could not be identified, were also on the bag. They could have belonged to other persons than Oswald which means it can't be ruled out other people also touched the bag.

8. The bag was found in the same window that multiple eyewitnesses saw a man with a rifle,

Too bad there is just no conclusive evidence to support that claim

Brennan testified that the man was Oswald.

After failing completely to identify him at a line up