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.
