Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?

[Richard Smith]

So, Oswald, before leaving for Mexico City, and then, supposedly, Cuba and, eventually, the USSSR, perhaps permanently, takes the time to arrange for someone to return his library books, on time, because..he is worried about library fines, and/or charges for book replacement?
 
Ok.

I don't think anyone ever suggested that.  His landlady may have found them after it was clear Oswald had vacated and returned them.  Or Oswald returned them and there was some delay in processing them.  There is no way over five decades later to retrace the process of returning a couple of library books but the default position is not proof of some massive conspiracy or evidence that casts doubts on Oswald's Mexico City visit.  You can't be in two places at once.  Overwhelming evidence places Oswald in Mexico City.  So the library books were returned by someone else or some unknownable factor was at play in delaying their processing.  Big deal.  CTers seize on these minor unknowable situations like a drowning monkey to a peanut in an attempt to suggest false doubt.  Oswald's movements are clear.  Those of his library books less so.  But the latter doesn't change the former.  That's a shell game.

[Charles Collins]

I don't think anyone ever suggested that.  His landlady may have found them after it was clear Oswald had vacated and returned them.  Or Oswald returned them and there was some delay in processing them.  There is no way over five decades later to retrace the process of returning a couple of library books but the default position is not proof of some massive conspiracy or evidence that casts doubts on Oswald's Mexico City visit.  You can't be in two places at once.  Overwhelming evidence places Oswald in Mexico City.  So the library books were returned by someone else or some unknownable factor was at play in delaying their processing.  Big deal.  CTers seize on these minor unknowable situations like a drowning monkey to a peanut in an attempt to suggest false doubt.  Oswald's movements are clear.  Those of his library books less so.  But the latter doesn't change the former.  That's a shell game.

I don't think anyone ever suggested that.

The original post does. That is what I responded to and then got deluged with questions, etc.

[John Iacoletti]

It’s called common sense, not bias.

That's what everyone calls his own unsubstantiated, biased conjecture.

Since, after extensive investigations over the past 56 plus years, no credible evidence indicates LHO had an assistant helping him with his trip to Mexico City

And "credible" is used to disregard data that doesn't fit into one's unsubstantiated, biased conjecture.  Like the surveillance photos of other men, and the imposter phone calls that the CIA recorded.

and there are several common everyday scenarios that would also explain this, it is extremely unlikely that the books’ return date on the cards is proof that he did (have an assistant).

There's nothing we actually know that makes this "extremely unlikely".  The info from the library just says "return date".

And based on experiences in the past here in this forum, it is very unlikely that anyone will ever convince you of anything.

Perhaps if they came up with better evidence than "common sense"...

[John Iacoletti]

CTers seize on these minor unknowable situations like a drowning monkey to a peanut in an attempt to suggest false doubt.  Oswald's movements are clear.

Only clear to people who seize on rhetoric to suggest false certainty.

[Bill Chapman]

It’s called common sense, not bias.

Since, after extensive investigations over the past 56 plus years, no credible evidence indicates LHO had an assistant helping him with his trip to Mexico City and there are several common everyday scenarios that would also explain this, it is extremely unlikely that the books’ return date on the cards is proof that he did (have an assistant). Because the scenarios that I have presented are common, everyday occurrences, the likelihood that one of these scenarios is what happened is much higher.

And based on experiences in the past here in this forum, it is very unlikely that anyone will ever convince you of anything.

Common sense...

It’s called common sense, not bias

It's biased common sense
There's no universal 'common' sense

Crack open a dictionary, people

[John Tonkovich]

I don't think anyone ever suggested that.  His landlady may have found them after it was clear Oswald had vacated and returned them.  Or Oswald returned them and there was some delay in processing them.  There is no way over five decades later to retrace the process of returning a couple of library books but the default position is not proof of some massive conspiracy or evidence that casts doubts on Oswald's Mexico City visit.  You can't be in two places at once.  Overwhelming evidence places Oswald in Mexico City.  So the library books were returned by someone else or some unknownable factor was at play in delaying their processing.  Big deal.  CTers seize on these minor unknowable situations like a drowning monkey to a peanut in an attempt to suggest false doubt.  Oswald's movements are clear.  Those of his library books less so.  But the latter doesn't change the former.  That's a shell game.

Who returned the books?
Who was this person - in relation to Oswald?

[Richard Smith]

Who returned the books?
Who was this person - in relation to Oswald?

Who knows?  What difference does it make that no one can verify five decades after the fact who took some library books back?  Plausible possibilities have been noted several times that do not involve Oswald.  The evidence confirms Oswald was in Mexico City regardless of how his books got back to the library.  And that is where things will stand until doomsday.