Motive

[John Mytton]

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.

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

Nice, but I still don't understand what any of that had to do with Oswald's bag in the sniper's nest?

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

So my post about what I believe your comments on CE142 in the sniper's nest leads to, is an attempt to discredit your posts on the forum in general, seriously? Get a grip, this sort of gross exaggeration is of the same type of nonsense that Fratini used to pull and led to him leaving.

Are you unable to comprehend the information and summarise accurately or simply intentionally malicious?

Yeah, can you.
Here's a quick summary of the evidence.

Frazier saw a long bag that he didn't particularly pay attention to.
Frazier said that Oswald told him that the bag contained curtain rods.
Oswald said the bag contained his lunch.
Frazier said the bag was put on the back seat.
Oswald said that his package was on his lap because even Oswald realizes that putting his lunch on the back seat is not that believable.
The folded, crumpled and stained bag that is discovered neatly fits Oswald's broken down rifle.
The bag has multiple prints from Oswald.
The bag was seen in the sniper's nest by multiple police officers.

Only you know of your true motivation.

You just have to look at my history of posting and see that I exclusively use the evidence or make logical inferences based on the evidence whereas others here seem to have an agenda.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

It is possible that someone placed it there, in some folded fashion.

If it wasn't Oswald, then who and why?
And if their purpose was to deceive then taking a photo was a no brainer, why no photo?

JohnM

[Colin Crow]

If it wasn't Oswald, then who and why?
And if their purpose was to deceive then taking a photo was a no brainer, why no photo?

JohnM

You seem to have missed my question. When was that photo taken by Studebaker?

[John Iacoletti]

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!

Denis, I didn't call anybody an idiot -- least of all you.

You simply cannot ascribe a motive to Oswald without pre-assuming that he committed the crime.  Assumptions based on research and interpretation are still assumptions.  It's not an insult to call them that.

[Bill Chapman]

Denis, I didn't call anybody an idiot -- least of all you.

You simply cannot ascribe a motive to Oswald without pre-assuming that he committed the crime.  Assumptions based on research and interpretation are still assumptions.  It's not an insult to call them that.

Denis, I didn't call anybody an idiot -- least of all you.
>>> Yeah, you prefer 'lemmings'

You simply cannot ascribe a motive to Oswald without pre-assuming that he committed the crime.
>>> Since when are suspects in a criminal investigation exempt from the 'Motive' check box?

[John Iacoletti]

Denis, I didn't call anybody an idiot -- least of all you.
>>> Yeah, you prefer 'lemmings'

Denis is no lemming.  That's reserved for people like you who only parrot the WC and Bugliosi like they are some kind of gospel.

Probably.

[Bill Chapman]

Denis, I didn't call anybody an idiot -- least of all you.

>>> Yeah, you prefer 'lemmings'

Denis is no lemming.  That's reserved for people like you who only parrot the WC and Bugliosi like they are some kind of gospel.

Probably.

OMG. Now I'm a parrot, alongside a lemming and a sheep. No biggee, though.. I can play my now-continuing role of a lemming by dint of simply flying off any given cliff with my brand-spanking new parrot's wings.

Can't remember the last time I mentioned Bug... catch me up.