The Bus Stop Farce

[Martin Weidmann]

On the 22nd when Roberts was trying to watch TV, were the curtains fully opened as this video shows 50 years later(cite?) and how would this extra light in any way stop Roberts seeing Oswald zipping up his jacket? Also an important consideration is that the camera in this video was in a completely different position to where Roberts was on the 22nd.

Roberts says the zipper jacket "seemed" to be darker and then she also clarified "Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know", yeah that's absolutely conclusive evidence. LMAO!

Mr. BALL. I'll show you this jacket which is Commission Exhibit 162---have you ever seen this jacket before?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have, but I don't remember it. It seems like the one he put on was darker than that. Now, I won't be sure, because I really don't know, but is that a zipper jacket?

Colour and shade will always be influenced by a number of different parameters, such as lighting and contrasting backgrounds and comparing a lit courtroom with the inside of the rooming house and then desperately trying to reach a solid conclusion is absurd. In the following comparison we see the same jacket which "seems" to appear darker and lighter precisely because of the above factors.



Here "A" seems to be darker but actually "A" and "B" are the EXACT same shade! Ouch!



JohnM

You're little color game is getting old and really is irrelevant, because Roberts saw Oswald only at one location, i.e. the rooming house and as the video of the guided tour shows, it's clearly visible from the back of the room that, for instance, the tall man standing near the door is wearing a light colored shirt. If Roberts was closer to Oswald that view would only have improved, yet she saw a dark color.

Beyond that nothing new in your post, John, except this...

On the 22nd when Roberts was trying to watch TV, were the curtains fully opened as this video shows 50 years later(cite?)

I have no idea, but as it was 1 pm what do you think? Just how likely is it that they were not open?

Also an important consideration is that the camera in this video was in a completely different position to where Roberts was on the 22nd.

So, where was Roberts exactly, John.... Do tell

[Charles Collins]

Who knows what Roberts really remembered. She was concerned with the news of the President being shot and trying to get more information about it. It is understandable to me that she got some details wrong and wouldn’t positively identify the jacket.

But it is inconceivable to you that she may not really have seen a jacket at all, right? Nice double standard.


Reasonable doubt when weighed against the other witness accounts that said they saw LHO wearing a jacket. And a jacket found along the escape route these witnesses said they saw LHO take???  I think not.

And there is the circular logic fallacy again;

"A witness saw a man wearing a jacket kill Tippit and we know this man was Oswald, so Oswald must have been wearing a jacket when he left the rooming house....

We know Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket because witnesses saw him wearing a jacket when he shot Tippit"

Not for a second do you consider it possible that Oswald did not leave the rooming house without a jacket and thus the witness must be wrong when she identified the man who killed Tippit as Oswald.

Your question was: If that isn’t reasonable doubt, what is it?


“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not involve proof to an absolute certainty. It is not proof beyond any doubt, nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt.”


Your idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket is in my opinion imaginary and frivolous. Therefore in my opinion, there is no reasonable doubt.

You can disagree with my opinion. But the Tippit murder witnesses did not use the jacket to identify LHO. They identified LHO and said he was wearing a jacket. Your argument for circular logic is false.

[Charles Collins]

The evidence I am pointing out is the silhouettes shown in the video. It doesn’t need any enhancing or require any additional persuasiveness. It is there for all to see with their own eyes.

Indeed, that's why I posted the video

The naysayers have already poo poo’d the statements I presented earlier by Hugh Aynesworth regarding Roberts sitting watching TV. So there was no need to repeat that when replying to your post.

Two comments; First of all I was not part of the conversation your refer to and secondly there is indeed no need to repeat it because we have Roberts on video showing us what she did and where she was.

We can all see the girl coming through the front door. And tell basically what she is wearing. Regardless of the fact that it is a poor quality video. It would be difficult to say what Roberts was able to see or not see, based only on that video and what we do believe happened. What is apparent to me is that the silhouette effect could have been a factor. And whether (in your opinion) that adds substance to the discussion or not, I couldn’t care less.

I must have struck a nerve. All this bla bla bla means there is more than reasonable doubt about what Roberts saw or not and that's a very weak position to argue that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket.

Two comments; First of all I was not part of the conversation your refer to and secondly there is indeed no need to repeat it because we have Roberts on video showing us what she did and where she was.

I need to repeat it to dispute your apparent interpretation of what Roberts said.


Again, Roberts doesn’t say where she was when LHO left (only when he came in).

This is from one of my earlier posts (that you say you were not a part of):


Here’s what is written in the 11/28/63 [Dallas Morning News] story about this aspect:

“Mrs. Roberts noticed Oswald stand, momentarily at a bus stop on North Beckley after he left the house. She could see him there, through the front window, as she watched TV from the oval couch in the front room.
But Oswald didn’t wait long. He bolted to his left and hurried south, on Beckley - the last time Mrs. Roberts saw him until his image appeared on the TV screen an hour later.”

[Martin Weidmann]

Your question was: If that isn’t reasonable doubt, what is it?

“Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not involve proof to an absolute certainty. It is not proof beyond any doubt, nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt.”

Your idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket is in my opinion imaginary and frivolous. Therefore in my opinion, there is no reasonable doubt.

You can disagree with my opinion. But the Tippit murder witnesses did not use the jacket to identify LHO. They identified LHO and said he was wearing a jacket. Your argument for circular logic is false.

Your idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket is in my opinion imaginary and frivolous. Therefore in my opinion, there is no reasonable doubt.

It's not my idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket, it's yours that he did wear one! You solely rely on an unreliable witness who very likely would have been destroyed on cross examination by a defense lawyer. Reasonable doubt exists when the witness herself says she wasn't paying attention and there is no third party corroboration for what she says.

In this case all you have is Roberts saying that Oswald left the building wearing, what she believed was a jacket (because of the zipper action she could not have seen from the couch), that she had never seen before and that was darker than CE 162.

Marina, however confirmed that Oswald only had two jackets; the grey one and the blue/grey one that was later found at the TSBD. Testimony from Buell Frazier confirms that he saw Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday night and we know he was wearing the blue/grey jacket to the TSBD on Friday morning. Which begs the question how the grey jacket CE 162 could have been at the rooming house on Friday morning and how Oswald could have left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all, as the blue/gray one was at the TSBD and the grey one in Irving.

That's enough to have reasonable doubt about what Roberts said.

You can disagree with my opinion. But the Tippit murder witnesses did not use the jacket to identify LHO. They identified LHO and said he was wearing a jacket. Your argument for circular logic is false.

It seems you don't understand what circular logic is. Your opinion is of no significance and neither is mine. The facts are what matters and in this case you have made my point for me.

Yes, the witnesses did identify LHO in a line up and said he was wearing a jacket, but that only means that the identifications were were probably wrong when it can be established that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket. In order to "prove" that he did, you are indeed using circular logic.

[Martin Weidmann]

Two comments; First of all I was not part of the conversation your refer to and secondly there is indeed no need to repeat it because we have Roberts on video showing us what she did and where she was.

I need to repeat it to dispute your apparent interpretation of what Roberts said.


Again, Roberts doesn’t say where she was when LHO left (only when he came in).

This is from one of my earlier posts (that you say you were not a part of):


Here’s what is written in the 11/28/63 [Dallas Morning News] story about this aspect:

“Mrs. Roberts noticed Oswald stand, momentarily at a bus stop on North Beckley after he left the house. She could see him there, through the front window, as she watched TV from the oval couch in the front room.
But Oswald didn’t wait long. He bolted to his left and hurried south, on Beckley - the last time Mrs. Roberts saw him until his image appeared on the TV screen an hour later.”

Are you sure that's a verbatim quote and not just something the reporter wrote. Having been inside the rooming house myself, I am convinced there is no way that Roberts could have seen Oswald standing at the bus stop, as that was near the traffic lights at the right side of the building.

But if you prefer that Roberts was sitting on the couch, I have no problem with that. Depending where exactly she sat on the couch she would either (1) have seen Oswald's back as he walked out and her view would have been such that she should have been able to see the color of whatever it was he was wearing or (2) Oswald would have walked behind her and she would only see a glance of him as he came out of his room and/or walked through the front door.

The bottom line is that there are way too many variables and unanswered questions to say with any kind of certainty what Roberts did or did not see.

[Charles Collins]

Your idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket is in my opinion imaginary and frivolous. Therefore in my opinion, there is no reasonable doubt.

It's not my idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket, it's yours that he did wear one! You solely rely on an unreliable witness who very likely would have been destroyed on cross examination by a defense lawyer. Reasonable doubt exists when the witness herself says she wasn't paying attention and there is no third party corroboration for what she says.

In this case all you have is Roberts saying that Oswald left the building wearing, what she believed was a jacket (because of the zipper action she could not have seen from the couch), that she had never seen before and that was darker than CE 162.

Marina, however confirmed that Oswald only had two jackets; the grey one and the blue/grey one that was later found at the TSBD. Testimony from Buell Frazier confirms that he saw Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday night and we know he was wearing the blue/grey jacket to the TSBD on Friday morning. Which begs the question how the grey jacket CE 162 could have been at the rooming house on Friday morning and how Oswald could have left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all, as the blue/gray one was at the TSBD and the grey one in Irving.

That's enough to have reasonable doubt about what Roberts said.

You can disagree with my opinion. But the Tippit murder witnesses did not use the jacket to identify LHO. They identified LHO and said he was wearing a jacket. Your argument for circular logic is false.

It seems you don't understand what circular logic is. Your opinion is of no significance and neither is mine. The facts are what matters and in this case you have made my point for me.

Yes, the witnesses did identify LHO in a line up and said he was wearing a jacket, but that only means that the identifications were were probably wrong when it can be established that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket. In order to "prove" that he did, you are indeed using circular logic.

It's not my idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket, it's yours that he did wear one! You solely rely on an unreliable witness who very likely would have been destroyed on cross examination by a defense lawyer. Reasonable doubt exists when the witness herself says she wasn't paying attention and there is no third party corroboration for what she says.

Totally wrong in all aspects. There are multiple witnesses who saw LHO during the Tippit murder and the flight from that scene who say that he was wearing a jacket. That was only minutes after he left the boarding house and in the same area. Therefore I am not relying solely on any one witness. And, for at least the third time, Roberts said that she wasn’t paying attention [to the color] when she was asked about the color of his shirt when he came in. She was clear in her testimony that he donned a jacket that zipped up. And hesitated only when asked if the jacket in evidence was the same jacket. With all that evidence indicating he had a jacket on, your trying to create doubt that he was even wearing a jacket at all (based on Roberts not being sure enough to positively identify the jacket in evidence) is not reasonable.


Marina, however confirmed that Oswald only had two jackets; the grey one and the blue/grey one that was later found at the TSBD. Testimony from Buell Frazier confirms that he saw Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday night and we know he was wearing the blue/grey jacket to the TSBD on Friday morning. Which begs the question how the grey jacket CE 162 could have been at the rooming house on Friday morning and how Oswald could have left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all, as the blue/gray one was at the TSBD and the grey one in Irving.

Lee didn’t live with Marina. Therefore Marina had no way of knowing what LHO had or didn’t have at the rooming house. Who knows where the jacket came from? He could have picked it up anywhere and kept it in his room without Marina knowing about it. This is a non-issue. There is no reasonable doubt.


It seems you don't understand what circular logic is. Your opinion is of no significance and neither is mine. The facts are what matters and in this case you have made my point for me.

Yes, the witnesses did identify LHO in a line up and said he was wearing a jacket, but that only means that the identifications were were probably wrong when it can be established that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket. In order to "prove" that he did, you are indeed using circular logic.


Please explain how it can be established that LHO did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket. You said that you were making no claims when I asked earlier. But it appears that now you are claiming this. You are being way more wishy washy that Roberts!

[Bill Chapman]

Your idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket is in my opinion imaginary and frivolous. Therefore in my opinion, there is no reasonable doubt.

It's not my idea that LHO left the rooming house without a jacket, it's yours that he did wear one! You solely rely on an unreliable witness who very likely would have been destroyed on cross examination by a defense lawyer. Reasonable doubt exists when the witness herself says she wasn't paying attention and there is no third party corroboration for what she says.

In this case all you have is Roberts saying that Oswald left the building wearing, what she believed was a jacket (because of the zipper action she could not have seen from the couch), that she had never seen before and that was darker than CE 162.

Marina, however confirmed that Oswald only had two jackets; the grey one and the blue/grey one that was later found at the TSBD. Testimony from Buell Frazier confirms that he saw Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday night and we know he was wearing the blue/grey jacket to the TSBD on Friday morning. Which begs the question how the grey jacket CE 162 could have been at the rooming house on Friday morning and how Oswald could have left the rooming house wearing a jacket at all, as the blue/gray one was at the TSBD and the grey one in Irving.

That's enough to have reasonable doubt about what Roberts said.

You can disagree with my opinion. But the Tippit murder witnesses did not use the jacket to identify LHO. They identified LHO and said he was wearing a jacket. Your argument for circular logic is false.

It seems you don't understand what circular logic is. Your opinion is of no significance and neither is mine. The facts are what matters and in this case you have made my point for me.

Yes, the witnesses did identify LHO in a line up and said he was wearing a jacket, but that only means that the identifications were were probably wrong when it can be established that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket. In order to "prove" that he did, you are indeed using circular logic.

Buell wasn't paying attention either