The Walker Case

Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: The Walker Case  (Read 126166 times)

Online John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5120
Re: The Walker Case
« Reply #70 on: July 04, 2023, 11:59:53 PM »
Just too bad that you can't show that C2766 was ever sent to Oswald's P.O. box. But thank you for confirming that you can't!  Thumb1:

Why all the endless diversions?

I asked a simple question and I would like a simple answer.

JohnM


Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8178
Re: The Walker Case
« Reply #71 on: July 05, 2023, 12:04:27 AM »
Why all the endless diversions?

I asked a simple question and I would like a simple answer.

JohnM

No, you asked a stupid question based on something the can't prove.

Of course you want a simple answer, because that's the only kind of answer you can process. Next time ask a 5 years old.

Online John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5120
Re: The Walker Case
« Reply #72 on: July 05, 2023, 12:13:21 AM »
No, you asked a stupid question based on something the can't prove.

Of course you want a simple answer, because that's the only kind of answer you can process. Next time ask a 5 years old.

Why the hostility?

I asked a reasonable question which you don't want to answer, why not!

JohnM

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8178
Re: The Walker Case
« Reply #73 on: July 05, 2023, 12:19:58 AM »
Why the hostility?

I asked a reasonable question which you don't want to answer, why not!

JohnM

What hostility? Do you consider anything that you don't agree with or understand hostile?

A "reasonable" question which includes a part you can not prove and thus is not factual, is not a question that needs to be answered.

Online John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5120
Re: The Walker Case
« Reply #74 on: July 05, 2023, 12:27:22 AM »
What hostility? Do you consider anything that you don't agree with or understand hostile?

A "reasonable" question which includes a part you can not prove and thus is not factual, is not a question that needs to be answered.

I said from the very start I was perfectly ok with your lack of a response and that still stands. Thumb1:

JohnM

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8178
Re: The Walker Case
« Reply #75 on: July 05, 2023, 12:28:57 AM »
I said from the very start I was perfectly ok with your lack of a response and that still stands. Thumb1:

JohnM

LOL

Online Andrew Mason

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1650
    • SPMLaw
Re: The Walker Case
« Reply #76 on: July 05, 2023, 12:54:59 AM »
Not without a massive amount of assumptions that a reasonable person would never make.

There is plenty of evidence.

What evidence would that be?

Can you show that;

- the MC rifle found at the TSBD was ever stored in Ruth Paine's garage?
- Oswald made the paper bag found at the TSBD and took it with him to Irving on Thursday evening?
- the paper bag Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carry on Friday morning contained the MC rifle?
- Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD at 12.30 PM when the shots were fired?
- Oswald came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 to 90 seconds after the last shot?

The answer to all these questions is a simple one; No you can't.
Your statement was that there was no evidence. You obviously don't find the evidence persuasive. But that is not the test of whether such evidence exists.

There is abundant evidence from which one could conclude that c2766 was Oswald's gun, that he brought it to work that day, that his conduct after the assassination shows consciousness of guilt and an attempt to avoid capture and that the Walker attempt using the same gun has elements of similar fact to the JFK assassination. From this, and all the other circumstances one can easily infer that Oswald was the assassin. You are not convinced by the evidence and that's fine. But that does not make the evidence go away. It is all still there.