Oswald's Motive

[John Iacoletti]

He had a real struggle with veracity even in his ordinary life.

So do you, but nobody accuses you of murder.

[John Iacoletti]

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report

What is your evidence that Christianity is true?

The bible says it is.

LOL

[John Iacoletti]

LOL.  This is a keeper.  No one here has ever claimed that people like family members like Oswald's own wife Marina Oswald were involved in framing Oswald?

Utterly dishonest.  You stated "in which we learn that Oswald's own family was in on his frame up to 'sell a book.'".  Nobody said that -- you made it up.  Now you're moving the goalpost.

I can't remember how many times I've read CTers like yourself claim that Marina's testimony couldn't be accepted because she was a liar under coercion or actively involved in an effort to frame Oswald.  In this thread, we have also been told that Robert Oswald's account should be disimissed because he was trying to sell a book.

No, "we" were told nothing of the kind.  Robert Oswald's opinion shouldn't be given any more weight than anybody else's.

You are just a neutral arbiter of the truth who just happens to believe Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" from the 6th floor after the assassination.  Thereby eliminating him as the 6th floor assassin, but you deny being a CTer.

Still waiting for you to explain how a conclusion that Oswald didn't come down the stairs establishes a conspiracy theory.  But it'll never happen.  You never explain your delirious rantings.

[John Iacoletti]

He actually wrote that nobody claimed that Marina was coerced/coached into framing Oswald? This is his claim?

Nobody here wrote that.  "Richard" made it up.

[Richard Smith]

Thank you.

The "the WC said so and I have nothing to add" cop out is the best evidence of the fact that you can not substantiate your claims.

Nothing in the WC report, supports the claim that Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and/or that he came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot.

This means of course that there is no evidence whatsoever to support your claims. Well done for confirming that your claims are absolutely bogus and meritless. 

I don't believe Oswald was guilty because the "WC said so."  I agree with the WC's conclusion because it is supported by the evidence provided by the state and federal law enforcement agencies charged with investigating the case.  It's that evidence, as compiled and cited by the WC, that convinces me.   The great irony is that you, however, appear to disagree with the WC"s conclusion BECAUSE the WC said so.  You have provided absolutely no credible evidence or reason to call into question the actual evidence in this case that confirms Oswald's guilt.  You have no such evidence.  If you believe, however, that you have legitimate grounds to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt, then please inform us why you have not taken this evidence to the NY Times or other media outlet to share in the Pulitzer Prize instead of spending day and night on an Internet forum making this false claim.

[Richard Smith]

In which we learn that Oswald's own family was in on his frame up to "sell a book." 

Such utter nonsense. Nobody ever claimed that Oswald's relatives were "in on his frame up". Stop making up stuff!

Here is Martin denying that anyone has "ever claimed that Oswald's relatives were 'in on his frame up."   I guess I dreamed all those endless posts about Marina lying to implicate Oswald for the authorities.  We can now all agree that her testimony confirms that Oswald posed for the BY photos, owned a rifle, stored it in the Paine's garage, confessed to trying to assassinate Walker etc.  I'm glad we are making progress!

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't believe Oswald was guilty because the "WC said so."  I agree with the WC's conclusion because it is supported by the evidence provided by the state and federal law enforcement agencies charged with investigating the case.  It's that evidence, as compiled and cited by the WC, that convinces me.   The great irony is that you, however, appear to disagree with the WC"s conclusion BECAUSE the WC said so.  You have provided absolutely no credible evidence or reason to call into question the actual evidence in this case that confirms Oswald's guilt.  You have no such evidence.  If you believe, however, that you have legitimate grounds to cast doubt on Oswald's guilt, then please inform us why you have not taken this evidence to the NY Times or other media outlet to share in the Pulitzer Prize instead of spending day and night on an Internet forum making this false claim.

I don't believe Oswald was guilty because the "WC said so."

Of course you do....

I agree with the WC's conclusion because it is supported by the evidence provided by the state and federal law enforcement agencies charged with investigating the case. 

Would that be the evidence you are never able to produce or cite?

It's that evidence, as compiled and cited by the WC, that convinces me.   

Yeah, sure it does.... you just can't tell us what that evidence is and where it can be found, right?

The great irony is that you, however, appear to disagree with the WC"s conclusion BECAUSE the WC said so.

HA HA HA...

You have provided absolutely no credible evidence or reason to call into question the actual evidence in this case that confirms Oswald's guilt.

Don't have to. I'm not claiming Oswald is guilty or innocent, but since you mention it, why don't you provide that "actual evidence" and I will gladly tell you if I question it or not and why.