The Bus Stop Farce

[Martin Weidmann]

Where did I say that?

Your description of Earlene being 'half blind' paints a different picture than her being blind in one eye.
And tell us how her employer would know she was lying.

Don't Talk to the Police Under Any Circumstances
Innocent people are often all-too-eager to blab about how innocent they are.

Your description of Earlene being 'half blind' paints a different picture than her being blind in one eye.

Yeah, right.....

Mr. BALL. Now, Mrs. Roberts, this deposition will be written up and you can read it if you want to and you can sign it. or you can waive the signature.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.

And tell us how her employer would know she was lying.

She knew and told the WC. How she knew, you will have to ask her. Stop asking silly questions.

Don't Talk to the Police Under Any Circumstances
Innocent people are often all-too-eager to blab about how innocent they are.

Yeah sure... And Oswald talked to the police for hours....

Your contrived argument sounds a lot like what the folks at Salem said about witches; "throw her in the water and if she floats, she's a witch". Who cares that innocent people often protest their innocence? It is a meaningless and irrelevant comment as you can not argue that everybody who doesn't talk to police is guilty.

Btw an honest man would at least try to answer the question I asked in reply # 184 and not ignore it and run away from it as you do.

[Richard Smith]

Knowing you, I figured there was a good chance that you misrepresented what John actually said by taking it out of context.

John responded to a claim by Joe Elliott;
A little bit further in the same post, there's this exchance;

Joe said;
And John replied;
So, there is no denial on John's part that Oswald had a revolver. He merely feels there is very little evidentiary basis for that claim.

But I'm sure this difference goes right over your head

Huh?  That is completely nuts. This is exactly what Dishonest John said.   It is a quote from the link that I provided that anyone can read. You are the one who has misrepresented it.  "Except he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested.  And how do you know those shells were even found at the crime scene?"

[Bill Chapman]

Your description of Earlene being 'half blind' paints a different picture than her being blind in one eye.

Yeah, right.....

Mr. BALL. Now, Mrs. Roberts, this deposition will be written up and you can read it if you want to and you can sign it. or you can waive the signature.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.

And tell us how her employer would know she was lying.

She knew and told the WC. How she knew, you will have to ask her. Stop asking silly questions.

Don't Talk to the Police Under Any Circumstances
Innocent people are often all-too-eager to blab about how innocent they are.

Yeah sure... And Oswald talked to the police for hours....

Your contrived argument sounds a lot like what the folks at Salem said about witches; "throw her in the water and if she floats, she's a witch". Who cares that innocent people often protest their innocence? It is a meaningless and irrelevant comment as you can not argue that everybody who doesn't talk to police is guilty.

Btw an honest man would at least try to answer the question I asked in reply # 184 and not ignore it and run away from it as you do.

So Roberts was so hard of seeing that she imagined what see saw? She said she 'can't see too good how to  read'. You wouldn't be trying to apply that to her ability to see if a man was wearing a jacket or not, now would you Mr. Honesty..

‘She (the employer) knew she (Roberts) was lying’.
>>> So her employer was in the room with her when Oswald came and left?
Tell us again how she knew Roberts was lying. Tell us how that’s a silly question.

‘Oswald talked to police for hours’
>>> Except when he was asked anything about the shootings
And would then stop talking. Not the comportment of an innocent man

>>> What contrived argument? Watch the video and learn something. And you’re the one contriving arguments by babbling nonsense about Salem witches and the like. And are you sure I even saw #184 before you mentioned it? I don’t have email alerts enabled, btw.

‘Btw an honest man would at least try to answer the question I asked in reply # 184 and not ignore it and run away from it as you do’
>>> You lot are so full of yourselves & desperate for respect here that you rationalize being ignored by pointing at us as being unable to answer.

[Martin Weidmann]

So Roberts was so hard of seeing that she imagined what see saw? She said she 'can't see too good how to  read'. You wouldn't be trying to apply that to her ability to see if a man was wearing a jacket or not, now would you Mr. Honesty..

Fool, she only concluded that he was wearing a jacket because she thought she saw him zipping up a zipper.
The desperation of nuts like you to keep Roberts in play as a "reliable" witness is truly pathetic. Had this case gone to trial, she would have been destroyed in a minute by the defense.

‘She (the employer) knew she (Roberts) was lying’.
>>> So her employer was in the room with her when Oswald came and left?
Tell us again how she knew Roberts was lying. Tell us how that’s a silly question.

Check her testimony and you will find out what she had to say about Roberts

‘Oswald talked to police for hours’
>>> Except when he was asked anything about the shootings
And would then stop talking. Not the comportment of an innocent man

Were you there when he talked to the police? No, so stop pretending you know.

>>> What contrived argument? Watch the video and learn something. And you’re the one contriving arguments by babbling nonsense about Salem witches and the like. And are you sure I even saw #184 before you mentioned it? I don’t have email alerts enabled, btw.

Your entire argument is contrived. You've got a witness who, by her own admission is blind in one eye, who wasn't paying attention because she was concentrating on the TV (which means she had her back to the living room), who couldn't tell what kind of shirt Oswald was wearing when he came in and who the LNs consider unreliable when she claims to have seen a police car in front of the house and to have seen Oswald standing at the bus stop.

That same witness claims to have seen a dark colored jacket and failed to identify the grey jacket CE 162 when it was shown to her during her testimony. Yet, somehow, for you she is an ironclad witness, despite the fact that she only could have seen Oswald for one or two seconds as he passed by her going out the door. Pathetic.

‘Btw an honest man would at least try to answer the question I asked in reply # 184 and not ignore it and run away from it as you do’
>>> You lot are so full of yourselves & desperate for respect here that you rationalize being ignored by pointing at us as being unable to answer.

Which only tells me that you did see reply # 184 and ignored it, just like you are ignoring it now and are doing a silly song and dance to avoid honestly answering the question.

And that you are unable, or perhaps rather unwilling, the answer the question honestly doesn't need any more proof than that you didn't answer it in your post.

[Martin Weidmann]

Huh?  That is completely nuts. This is exactly what Dishonest John said.   It is a quote from the link that I provided that anyone can read. You are the one who has misrepresented it.  "Except he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested.  And how do you know those shells were even found at the crime scene?"

I can't help it when something goes right over your head or you simply don't (want to) understand.

[Richard Smith]

I can't help it when something goes right over your head or you simply don't (want to) understand.

There is nothing to understand.  The quote is clear and unambiguous: "Except he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested."  HE WASN"T CARRYING A GUN WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED!  Good grief.  It can't get any clearer than that. The not unsurprising fact that Dishonest John has also made other claims about the pistol that are inconsistent with this statement does not negate the fact that he has claimed that Oswald "wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested."  It is not my problem that you can't keep his inconsistent claims straight.  Take it up with him.  A contrarian doesn't have to be consistent.  They can claim both that Oswald had no gun when arrested, and that he did have a gun but that it was switched for another gun later.   It doesn't have to make any coherent narrative sense.  That is the whole advantage of playing the contrarian.  The sum of all the pieces never has to add up to a coherent narrative or be supported by any evidence.  The entire purpose is to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt like a defense attorney.

[Martin Weidmann]

There is nothing to understand.  The quote is clear and unambiguous: "Except he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested."  HE WASN"T CARRYING A GUN WHEN HE WAS ARRESTED!  Good grief.  It can't get any clearer than that. The not unsurprising fact that Dishonest John has also made other claims about the pistol that are inconsistent with this statement does not negate the fact that he as claimed that Oswald "wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested."  It is not my problem that you can't keep his inconsistent claims straight.  Take it up with him.  A contrarian doesn't have to be consistent.  They can claim both that Oswald had no gun when arrested, and that he did have a gun but that it was switched for another gun later.   It doesn't have to make any coherent narrative sense.  That is whole advantage of playing the contrarian.  The sum of all the pieces never has to add up to a coherent narrative or be supported by any evidence.  The entire purpose is to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt like a defense attorney.

Again, the crux of my argument has gone completely over your head. Just like you cherry pick other pieces of evidence and jump to highly speculative and often incorrect conclusions, instead of looking at the entire evidence, you are concentrating on one comment which could have two meanings.

When John returns you can take up this sideshow with him. I am still waiting on the evidence that shows that the revolver (now in evidence as CE 143) that was brought into the police station some two hours after Oswald was brought in is in fact the revolver Oswald carried when he was arrested at the Texas Theater.