The Bus Stop Farce

[Bill Chapman]

Why did all these people have it in for Oswald?  A nobody.  It is completely nutty to suggest that so many people "after the fact" (i.e. as in within minutes or hours) including random citizens just decided to pin all the blame on him.  And presumably let the guilty person go free.  That is laughable.  I can understand why you refuse to acknowledge that you are a CTer because the facts and evidence all point to Oswald and that would require taking a position instead of being a lazy contrarian who can simply claim all the evidence is suspect without offering any explanation or support.  You are a CTer even if you are too cowardly to admit it when you make these baseless claims about a massive frame up of Oswald.

Bottom line: To conspiracy buffs, every tiny bit of minutia in this assassination is sinister and larded with nothing but evil intent.

The little nobody shot Tippit and probably shot the somebody.
Result: Oswald apologists have wasted their lives love'n on a nobody.

[Martin Weidmann]

Bottom line: To conspiracy buffs, every tiny bit of minutia in this assassination is sinister and larded with nothing but evil intent.

The little nobody shot Tippit and probably shot the somebody.
Result: Oswald apologists have wasted their lives love'n on a nobody.

I take it this means you can't answer my question. Got it!

[Bill Chapman]

'Irrelevant'
>>> No it isn't when my point—which I've made several times in this thread— is that affidavits are not meant to be full testimonies given that they are not Q&A. And how was she to know—at the time of her affidavit—that the shirt would eventually become so important?

'You are not making sense. If you mean by "shorthand version" her affidavit, she had indeed not mentioned it. So, what reason did they have to assume that the shirt, and nothing else, could refresh her recollection?'
>>> I cannot vouch for any of that, since I wasn't in on The Plot.

And yes, materials used to refresh recollection are admissible at trial, in some cases, but witness manipulation or influencing prior to testimony is a criminal offence.
>>> I'll take being influenced & manipulated over being fitted for a cement overcoat (in a swimming-with-the-fishes sense) any day 

'So, let's try it again, but in a perhaps easier way for you to understand; if I don't tell you about seeing a shirt, what reason would you have to come to my house to show me a shirt and ask me if I recognize it?'
>>> There was a shirt on the loose? If I were you, I wouldn't talk to some stranger who comes to the door with a shirt that has a hole in it

[Bill Chapman]

I take it this means you can't answer my question. Got it!

You lot seem far more invested in what witnesses didn't say
 

[Martin Weidmann]

'Irrelevant'
>>> No it isn't when my point—which I've made several times in this thread— is that affidavits are not meant to be full testimonies given that they are not Q&A. And how was she to know—at the time of her affidavit—that the shirt would eventually become so important?

I have understood your point fully. And she couldn't know that the shirt would become important. And that's exactly my point. She did not mention the shirt in her affidavit, which is the only document that remained after she told her story to the notary public. In other words, there is no record available to the investigators that would alert them to matter of the shirt. All they knew was that Bledsoe claimed to have seen Oswald on a bus.

So, what motivated the investigators to take Oswald's arrest shirt to Bledsoe's home (which is highly irregular by itself) prior to her WC testimony? Why make the extra effort, when they could have shown her the shirt during her testimony, which is what they actually did.... So, what was the need and which purpose was served by bringing to shirt to her home?

'You are not making sense. If you mean by "shorthand version" her affidavit, she had indeed not mentioned it. So, what reason did they have to assume that the shirt, and nothing else, could refresh her recollection?'
>>> I cannot vouch for any of that, since I wasn't in on The Plot.

So, you agree there was a plot? 

And yes, materials used to refresh recollection are admissible at trial, in some cases, but witness manipulation or influencing prior to testimony is a criminal offence.
>>> I'll take being influenced & manipulated over being fitted for a cement overcoat (in a swimming-with-the fishes sense) any day 

Nonsensical answers are a sign of weakness.

'So, let's try it again, but in a perhaps easier way for you to understand; if I don't tell you about seeing a shirt, what reason would you have to come to my house to show me a shirt and ask me if I recognize it?'
>>> There was a shirt on the loose? If I were you, I wouldn't talk to some stranger who comes to the door with a shirt that has a hole in it

Which only proves the point I made earlier. You make a lot of silly comments but when it comes right down to it you can't (or don't want to) answer a simple question.

[Martin Weidmann]

You lot seem far more invested in what witnesses didn't say

So you can't even get the basics of my question right?

[Walt Cakebread]

Bottom line: To conspiracy buffs, every tiny bit of minutia in this assassination is sinister and larded with nothing but evil intent.

The little nobody shot Tippit and probably shot the somebody.
Result: Oswald apologists have wasted their lives love'n on a nobody.

It's not about Lee Oswald....  It's about truth and justice...