If Oswald Was The Assassin, Did He Plan His Escape From The TSBD Very Well?

[Thomas Graves]

I don’t actually have a "conspiracy theory" as such. I simply try to analyse the assembled evidence in order to work out a plausible narrative of events and see where that leads.

I see.

Anything but Oswald, all by himself?

--  MWT 

[Colin Crow]

I see.

Anything but Oswald, all by himself?

--  MWT 

Why would I discount that possibility out of hand? I normally apply that possibility to the analysis. Then again is not the underlying assumption either.

[Colin Crow]

It went exactly as I expected. When I asked for evidence of the 12.22 time call by Brennan you supplied a "memory" that didn’t happen instead of analysis his testimony under oath. It went exactly they way I predicted.

Now let’s move to when you think Williams vacated the 6th floor prior to the shooting. If you are game.

Game or no?

Or have you thrown your hands up, pouted and quit?

[Charles Collins]

Game or no?

Or have you thrown your hands up, pouted and quit?

No game for me. You can find someone else to “discuss” this matter with. If you want to just decide what you think is fiction without a legitimate reason and completely ignore it, the discussion isn’t a discussion anymore. I have read numerous books and articles by witnesses, and all of them included details that didn’t come out in testimony. That is part of the reason that they write them and we purchase them. And I have already addressed why it doesn’t matter to me when BRW left the sixth floor.

[Colin Crow]

So we have established that the accumulated evidence means nothing and your opinion is based on "belief" of an unsupported narrative. Missing fingerprints that you don’t know of is part of your rebuttal. Not much else but acceptance of a proven liar by his own statements.

Williams was eating in the SN until about 12.25pm. There is ample evidence evidence in the assembled documentation that establishes that. You simply need to adjust your Oswald alone theory to accomodate for it. Or just continue to ignore the obvious inconvenient conclusions. I think we both know the route you will choose.

Disappointingly predictable wasn’t it.

[Charles Collins]

Disappointingly predictable wasn’t it.

What we have is the obvious contradiction of calling the sworn testimony of BRW a lie out of one side of your mouth and then the recollection of Howard Brennan a fabrication because it wasn’t in his testimony. And the just as obvious conclusion that you actually rejected both of them because they don’t fit your imagined scenario.

It’s easy to just make stuff up and believe it if you are only having a conversation with yourself. Isn’t it?

[Colin Crow]

What we have is the obvious contradiction of calling the sworn testimony of BRW a lie out of one side of your mouth and then the recollection of Howard Brennan a fabrication because it wasn’t in his testimony. And the just as obvious conclusion that you actually rejected both of them because they don’t fit your imagined scenario.

It’s easy to just make stuff up and believe it if you are only having a conversation with yourself. Isn’t it?

What we have is your use of a single uncorroborated "memory" long after the fact to support your "belief" of Brennan. No big deal, he was likely out by a minute or so. Why did you prefer his book anecdote over his WC testimony? Williams lies started way before his testimony to the WC and are documented for all to see if you take the time to analyse them. Was your scenario imagined or spoon fed?

[Charles Collins]

What we have is your use of a single uncorroborated "memory" long after the fact to support your "belief" of Brennan. No big deal, he was likely out by a minute or so. Why did you prefer his book anecdote over his WC testimony? Williams lies started way before his testimony to the WC and are documented for all to see if you take the time to analyse them. Was your scenario imagined or spoon fed?

Brennan was focused on answering questions during his testimony. He wasn't asked about whether or not he looked at his watch. In his book he included more detail. It is that simple. Here is his relevant testimony:

Mr. BELIN. I ask you to state, if you know, what this is.
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. That is the retaining wall
Representative Ford. Are those the positions where you were sitting on November 22?
Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir.
Representative FORD. At about 12
Mr. BRENNAN. From about 12:22 or 12:24 until the time of the assassination.

He has described a window of time. The details he includes in his book says he looked at his watch and it was about 12:22. The time of 12:22 is within the time frame he testified to. That is corroboration. Where else is corroboration supposed to come from in your mind for this detail? Was someone supposed to be watching Brennan closely enough to know when he looked at his watch, then make a note of it and later testify that he saw Brennan look at his watch at the correct time? You are so full of it that it is sad....