Oswald in the TSBD just after the shooting

[Richard Smith]

You are doubling down on the idea that what is discussed on a telephone call is somehow dependent on who initiated the call?

It seems there is indeed no fixing stupid. You either truly don't understand what I said or you are purposely misrepresenting it, in which case you already have lost the argument.

Once she knows that Oswald was on her floor, her encounter with a person (real or imagined) lends itself in her mind to it being Oswald although she barely knows him and describes him being in a white t-shirt even though we know that is not how he was dressed moments before.  Again, though, you seemingly agree with me on the only point being made in this context.  That there is doubt about whether it was Oswald she saw or not. 

You keep on implying that she either made it up or that she saw somebody else and made a mistake. So, I'll ask again, if you doubt it was Oswald, then who was it?

So, just to play devil's advocate here, let's examine what we have; Oswald was seen in the lunchroom with a bottle of coke (yeah I know, Baker later changed his story) and shortly thereafter he is allegedly seen leaving the building through the front door, after showing a reporter where the telephone was. It's a minimal distance between the lunchroom and the front door and Reid said she entered the building directly after the shooting. Add it all up and one must conclude that there couldn't have been anybody else in that office area, carrying a coke and walking away from the lunchroom to the front door, than Oswald. So, if you want to doubt Reid's statement, you are going to have to explain not only who else it could have been that she saw but also where Oswald was and what he did at that exact time. You can't do neither!

You only want to doubt Reid's statement because you can't explain the white T shirt and you're using something that Sanders may have said to an FBI agent to make your flawed argument. Even if somebody told Reid about the lunchroom encounter between Oswald, Baker and Truly, that still doesn't mean Reid imagined her encounter with Oswald!

Why you so strenuously object to the application of reasonable doubt in this context while embracing outlandish impossible standards of proof in other contexts is particularly ironic and humorous.

This coming from the guy who only selectively wants to see doubt, when the entire case is cause for nothing but doubt is particularly ironic and humorous.

Do you believe there is reasonable doubt that the person Reid encountered was Oswald or not?  Yes or no.  It's a simple question that I thought you had already answered in the affirmative.  I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.  That after 50 plus years I would need to conclusively identify to your satisfaction the person Reid spoke with (if anyone) to cast doubt on her identification of Oswald?  Is that the standard you apply to witnesses who ID'd Oswald at the Tippit scene?  Are you going to identify to my satisfaction the name of the person that those witnesses saw to create doubt that it was Oswald?  Of course not.  Again, it is remarkable that you are quibbling over there being doubt in this instance in which there are grounds for doubt while applying an impossible standard of witness identification in the Tippit situation to create false doubt.  It's mind blowing in its misapplication of logic and inability to recognize the fallacies of that approach.  It would be like criticizing someone for characterizing a hundred degree day as being hot after repeatedly arguing that a 10 degree day was a sizzler. 

[John Iacoletti]

Hosty wrote:..." (11/20 ) day before yesterday, Mr Truly had rifle and two others , first floor outside offices "
Fritz wrote:....".Doesn't own rifle, saw at building"

What part do you believe I made up?

The "two other rifles" part.

[Walt Cakebread]

The "two other rifles" part.

Nope...What does  "Rifle, and two others "......mean?..... Or "Mr Truly had rifle and two others".....

[Martin Weidmann]

Do you believe there is reasonable doubt that the person Reid encountered was Oswald or not?  Yes or no.  It's a simple question that I thought you had already answered in the affirmative.  I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.  That after 50 plus years I would need to conclusively identify to your satisfaction the person Reid spoke with (if anyone) to cast doubt on her identification of Oswald?  Is that the standard you apply to witnesses who ID'd Oswald at the Tippit scene?  Are you going to identify to my satisfaction the name of the person that those witnesses saw to create doubt that it was Oswald?  Of course not.  Again, it is remarkable that you are quibbling over there being doubt in this instance in which there are grounds for doubt while applying an impossible standard of witness identification in the Tippit situation to create false doubt.  It's mind blowing in its misapplication of logic and inability to recognize the fallacies of that approach.  It would be like criticizing someone for characterizing a hundred degree day as being hot after repeatedly arguing that a 10 degree day was a sizzler.

So many words and nothing of any real value?..

Do you believe there is reasonable doubt that the person Reid encountered was Oswald or not?  Yes or no.  It's a simple question that I thought you had already answered in the affirmative.

Which only shows just how little you understand. There is no reasonable doubt to conclude that Reid did not see Oswald as he was leaving the building. The possibility that somebody may have told Reid about the lunchroom encounter, only seconds earlier, does not create reasonable doubt by itself. It would merely have explained to Reid where Oswald was coming from and how he came to be where she met him. There is in fact nothing reasonable about assuming that Reid may have lied about who she saw simply because somebody told her about what happened in the lunchroom. The mere fact that Oswald was in the lunchroom and was later seen by a reporter walking out the frontdoor after showing the man where the telephone was makes it nearly impossible to conclude anything else than that Oswald must have passed by the location where Reid said she was when she saw him. Even more so since you are unable to name anybody else who could have been there and also can not explain where Oswald went after the lunchroom encounter.

But, by all means, argue that Reid did not see Oswald pass by, as the consequence of that would automatically be that he didn't leave the building through the front door, withing three minutes after the shooting, which in turn may mean that Buell Frazier was correct when he said that he saw Oswald walking down Houston, coming from the loading dock area, towards Elm street some time after the shooting. That, of course, in turn destroys the entire bus/taxi saga.....

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.  That after 50 plus years I would need to conclusively identify to your satisfaction the person Reid spoke with (if anyone) to cast doubt on her identification of Oswald?  Is that the standard you apply to witnesses who ID'd Oswald at the Tippit scene?   

Oh boy, you don't even understand that there is a difference between a public street and a closed office building, do you now? Where anybody could have been at 10th/Patton when Tippit was shot, only a few people could have had access to the office space where Reid worked. So, where it is nearly impossible to name an individual on the street, it should be possible to determine who else could have been in that office space if it wasn't Oswald.

Again, it is remarkable that you are quibbling over there being doubt in this instance in which there are grounds for doubt while applying an impossible standard of witness identification in the Tippit situation to create false doubt.

Let's turn this nonsense around, shall we... In this particular instance, you use a non verbatim FBI report about an alleged conversation as sufficient grounds for reasonable doubt, but you completely ignore and dismiss all those other instances where far more compelling evidence than just an internal FBI report would more than justify reasonable doubt. Why is that?

[John Iacoletti]

Nope...What does  "Rifle, and two others "......mean?..... Or "Mr Truly had rifle and two others".....

Alan already showed you.

"Oswald stated that he did not own any rifle. He advised that he saw a rifle day before yesterday at the Texas School Book Depository which Mr. truly and two other gentlemen had in their possession and were looking at."

[Alan Ford]

So many words and nothing of any real value?..

Do you believe there is reasonable doubt that the person Reid encountered was Oswald or not?  Yes or no.  It's a simple question that I thought you had already answered in the affirmative.

Which only shows just how little you understand. There is no reasonable doubt to conclude that Reid did not encounter Oswald as he was leaving the building. The possibility that somebody may have told Reid about the lunchroom encounter does, by itself, not create reasonable doubt. There is in fact nothing reasonable about assuming that Reid may have lied about who she saw simply because somebody told her about what happened in the lunchroom. There mere fact that Oswald was in the lunchroom and was later seen by a reporter walking out the frontdoor after showing the man where the telephone was makes it nearly impossible to conclude anything else than that Oswald must have passed by the location where Reid said she was when she saw him.

But, be all means, argue that Reid did not see Oswald pass by, as the consequence of that would automatically be that he didn't leave the building through the front door, withing three minutes after the shooting, which in turn may mean that Buell Frazier was correct when he said that he saw Oswald walking down Houston, coming from the loading dock area, towards Elm street some time after the shooting. That, of course, in turn destroys the entire bus/taxi saga.....

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.  That after 50 plus years I would need to conclusively identify to your satisfaction the person Reid spoke with (if anyone) to cast doubt on her identification of Oswald?  Is that the standard you apply to witnesses who ID'd Oswald at the Tippit scene?   

Oh boy, you don't even understand that there is a difference between a public street and a closed office building, do you now? Where anybody could have been at 10th/Patton when Tippit was shot, only a few people could have had access to the office space where Reid worked. So, where it is nearly impossible to name an individual on the street, it should be possible to determine who else could have been in that office space if it wasn't Oswald.

Once again! Mrs Geneva L. Hine's testimony makes a nonsense of Mrs R. A. Reid's story! 

[Tim Nickerson]

Once again! Mrs Geneva L. Hine's testimony makes a nonsense of Mrs R. A. Reid's story! 

Does not.