Was Lee Oswald the passenger in Whaley's Taxi?

[Bill Brown]

You mean like this?

No.

There's a difference between being of the opinion that Oswald gave the 500 N. Beckley destination because he wanted the cab to go past the rooming house so he could determine if anyone was there waiting for him... and ridiculing that opinion by saying that Oswald couldn't be sure what route Whaley would take, since once on the viaduct, the route to Beckley is VERY obvious.

That is why you're overly desperate.  You don't have to accept it, but you are indeed.

[John Mytton]

The Davises didn't see anybody kill anybody.

How to get away with Murder.
by John Iacoletti.

1. Kill a man on the street in broad daylight in front of Eyewitnesses.
2. Insinuate that the regular Employed Female Eyewitness who saw me Murder had taken "Crazy Sauce".
3. The Witnesses who saw me moving away from the crime scene while emptying my weapon and didn't see the murder needs to pointed out again and again.
4. The innocent People who saw me acting all suspicious and rang the Police just happened to be a part some imagined conspiracy.
5. My trying to kill the arresting Officers was just my weapon innocently going off.
6. My admission of actually carrying the Tippit Murder weapon as recollected by seemingly unconnected interrogators will be explained, ....eventually!

And yes Iacoletti is serious!



JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

No.

There's a difference between being of the opinion that Oswald gave the 500 N. Beckley destination because he wanted the cab to go past the rooming house so he could determine if anyone was there waiting for him... and ridiculing that opinion by saying that Oswald couldn't be sure what route Whaley would take, since once on the viaduct, the route to Beckley is VERY obvious.

That is why you're overly desperate.  You don't have to accept it, but you are indeed.

The only difference is that you think your own personal assumptions are "obvious".

[John Iacoletti]

How to convict someone of murder.
by "John Mytton".

1. Keep claiming over and over that he's a murderer and that there is a "mountain of evidence"
2. Make up a whole bunch of statements that somebody never actually said in order to make a fallacious appeal to ridicule, instead of discussing this alleged "mountain".
3. Make up a whole bunch of claims about the evidence that aren't actually true or demonstrated to be true (like "trying to kill the arresting Officers", and "admission of actually carrying the Tippit Murder weapon")
4. Go to step 1.

[Walt Cakebread]

The only difference is that you think your own personal assumptions are "obvious".

Although I don't know how "obvious" any given route would be to the rooming house.....But I do know that simply because a driver was on the viaduct the route to 500 N. Beckley would  be obvious.   Whaley could have taken the Marsalis exit and traveled any route he chose.

There was nothing that compelled him to take any given route.   It seems to be true that Whaley did travel the route he testified to.....But any passenger getting in his cab would not know what route the driver would take.

[Walt Cakebread]

Although I don't know how "obvious" any given route would be to the rooming house.....But I do know that simply because a driver was on the viaduct the route to 500 N. Beckley would  be obvious.   Whaley could have taken the Marsalis exit and traveled any route he chose.

There was nothing that compelled him to take any given route.   It seems to be true that Whaley did travel the route he testified to.....But any passenger getting in his cab would not know what route the driver would take.

any passenger getting in his cab would not know what route the driver would take.

This is the crux of the debate.....   And it should be obvious that any passenger getting into Whaley's taxi at the bus depot and telling the driver to take him to 500 N. Beckley would have no assurance about any route Whaley might take.

The passenger couldn't possibly know what route the driver would take

So the whole story is based on an assumption that the passenger would know that the taxi would pass by the rooming house.   You're bright enough to understand this aren't you Billy Bob?

[Walt Cakebread]

any passenger getting in his cab would not know what route the driver would take.

This is the crux of the debate.....   And it should be obvious that any passenger getting into Whaley's taxi at the bus depot and telling the driver to take him to 500 N. Beckley would have no assurance about any route Whaley might take.

The passenger couldn't possibly know what route the driver would take

So the whole story is based on an assumption that the passenger would know that the taxi would pass by the rooming house.   You're bright enough to understand this aren't you Billy Bob?

Bill, do you know if Whaley said anything about his "WINO" passenger changing his clothes in the cab?

I'm curious because, the cops never found any of the blue workman's clothing in Lee Oswald's room.....and since Whaley said that his Oswald who got in his cab at 12:30 was wearing blue workman's uniform clothing never left that clothing at the rooming house.  Maybe he changed clothes in Whaley's taxi.....   Whadda ya think?