Motive

[Denis Pointing]

What we see here in this thread is people assuming that the Warren Commission conclusions about what happened are true and then interpreting Oswald's history and behavior in hindsight in order to fit that narrative.

What I see here is you, assuming that I'm assuming the Warren Commission conclusions about what happened are true. John, I've studied and researched this case for almost 30 years now. Over that time I gradually came to the same final conclusion as the WC, certainly not all of it, the reports far from perfect but yes, I do agree with the final conclusion. It's been hard work, it's cost me money and many a sleepless night. Please don't patronise me by "assuming" I've ever 'assumed' anything about this case. I'll admit my assessment of the facts regarding this case may well be wrong. But if they are it's because I've misinterpreted those facts NOT because I ever assumed anything incorrectly. I've said this before John, you're far too arrogant for your own good. Stop assuming that anyone who's reached a different conclusion than yourself is a total bloody idiot!

[Colin Crow]

He was a nut...a loan nut

I doubt if Oswald could get a loan.
 

But he did, and paid back. 

[Colin Crow]

The following interaction occurred between Dennis and myself in this thread. Dennis, is a member whom I highly respect and have had numerous discussions on this forum over many years. I do remember responding to him once or twice something that I immediately regretted and apologised. Certainly the dime comment is sarcastic in nature but was not directed at specifically at Dennis but more of a friendly jibe throwaway to the forum as a whole. When he was offended I apologised. Ironically, the prime focus of the post was to confirm that we were in agreement regarding a lack of evidence for any preconceived escape plan.

As for the dime comment.......was meant more of a wink joke......apologies if you took offence.

Apologies Colin, I'm a bit of a grouch this morning. Seriously, there are very few members left whom I debate with these days. I've never seen such a high level of nastiness on the forum, from both 'sides'. You, on the other hand, have always been an absolute pleasure to debate with....so when I saw what I mistakenly took for sarcasm from you...I guess I flipped for a second. I'm sorry mate, it shouldn't have happened, I was wrong. Just having a row with the wife over "playing on the computer instead of decorating" probably didn't help. lol

No worries Dennis......remember, happy wife, happy life. No apologies needed mate.

As a follow up to this……..we got…..

Why the sarcasm!? Does every post have to get nasty these days?
Conspiracy-mongers everywhere poison everything they touch

And….then the following commentary…..

Of course, Colin's comment was dripping with sarcasm, if you don't reply to one of Colin's questions with his answer then you just get another question and on and on it goes, question after question till he funnels you down into his unique version of events which usually boils down to cherry picking the evidence. For instance, it doesn't matter how many cops saw and testified under oath that there was a long bag in the sniper's nest, because there isn't a photo it seems that the long bag was never there, Colin logic!
JohnM

As for my general modus operandi, one that involves cherry picking evidence, that was an interesting analysis. John then provides his interpretation of my understanding of the discovery of CE142. I have never claimed that the bag was “never there”. The bag was most certainly on the 6th floor. It was just not discovered when and where the official story claimed. I would argue that my interpretation does not reply on cherry picking but the totality of the evidence. The evidence suggests the bag was not “discovered” until after Studebaker returned to dust the pop bottle and lunch sack. It was also not originally discovered where Studebaker indicated with his outline.

If I wanted to cherry pick testimony to debate this fact I might try and use Sims’ testimony.

[John Mytton]

1. The following interaction occurred between Dennis and myself in this thread.

2. And….then the following commentary…..

Besides you desperately seeking some sort of positive reinforcement from Denis in 1, can you possibly explain how that is even remotely connected to the long bag in the 6th floor sniper's nest, you know the long bag as seen by six police officers?

JohnM

[John Mytton]

It was also not originally discovered where Studebaker indicated with his outline.

Anyway getting back on topic, do you think at any point on that afternoon did Studebaker see the bag where he drew it on the sniper's nest photograph?



Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the building folded.
Mr. BALL. In the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was a paper - I don't know what it was.
Mr. BALL. And it was folded, you say?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the top two were Rolling Readers?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Directly east.
Mr. BALL. There is a corner there, isn't it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; in the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL. It was in the southeast corner?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew that box in for somebody over at the FBI that said you wanted it. It is in one of those pictures - one of the shots after the duplicate shot.
Mr. BALL. Let's mark this picture "Exhibit F."
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit F," for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down - I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found.
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
....
Mr. BALL. Now, how big was this paper.that you saw - you saw the wrapper - tell me about how big that paper bag was - how long was it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was about, I would say, 3 1/2 to 4 feet long.
Mr. BALL. The paper bag?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And how wide was it? Approximately 8 inches.

JohnM

[Colin Crow]

Besides you desperately seeking some sort of positive reinforcement from Denis in 1, can you possibly explain how that is even remotely connected to the long bag in the 6th floor sniper's nest, you know the long bag as seen by six police officers?

JohnM

I need no positive reinforcement from Denis. He accepted my apology as genuine as I did his.

I am about wondering your need to attempt to discredit my posting on the forum in general by misrepresenting my explanation of the discovery of CE142 so inaccurately. Are you unable to comprehend the information and summarise accurately or simply intentionally malicious? Only you know of your true motivation.

[Colin Crow]

Anyway getting back on topic, do you think at any point on that afternoon did Studebaker see the bag where he drew it on the sniper's nest photograph?



Mr. BALL. Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes sir.
Mr. BALL. Where?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Storage room there - in, the southeast corner of the building folded.
Mr. BALL. In the southeast corner of the building?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was a paper - I don't know what it was.
Mr. BALL. And it was folded, you say?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the top two were Rolling Readers?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Directly east.
Mr. BALL. There is a corner there, isn't it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir; in the southeast corner.
Mr. BALL. It was in the southeast corner?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew that box in for somebody over at the FBI that said you wanted it. It is in one of those pictures - one of the shots after the duplicate shot.
Mr. BALL. Let's mark this picture "Exhibit F."
(Instrument marked by the reporter as "Studebaker Exhibit F," for identification.)
Mr. BALL. Do you know who took that picture?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. No; I don't.
Mr. BALL. Do you recognize the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Did you draw the diagram?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. I drew a diagram in there for the FBI, somebody from the FBI called me down - I can't think of his name, and he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found.
Mr. BALL. Does that show the approximate location?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Where you have the dotted lines?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
....
Mr. BALL. Now, how big was this paper.that you saw - you saw the wrapper - tell me about how big that paper bag was - how long was it?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. It was about, I would say, 3 1/2 to 4 feet long.
Mr. BALL. The paper bag?
Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.
Mr. BALL. And how wide was it? Approximately 8 inches.

JohnM

It is possible that someone placed it there, in some folded fashion. When was that photo taken?