If I Had Planned The Conspiracy ...

[Martin Weidmann]

From Martin Weidmann, which was added after I started my reply.
"Similarly, Gerald Hill testified to the WC that he put his mark on the S & W revolver at around 4 PM and that he had the weapon on his person ever since Bob Carroll gave it to him at the Texas Theater, after Oswald was arrested. So, what does it matter that Officer Davenport submitted that same S & W revolver and 8 or 9 bullets (my eyes are letting me down when I try to read the receipt) to the evidence room at 3.30 PM, right? I'm sure you can provide a perfectly plausible explanation to show just how silly my psychotic paranoia is!"

So this is the reason you're getting your knickers in a knot?? WOW!
Hill recalled many months later that he initialled the revolver at approximately 4PM(which isn't very specific) and Davenport wrote a time of 3:30PM and this is your reason for this inane argument, all I can say is WOW. And this act of desperation by any measure is really weak sauce and a complete waste of my time. Try again!

Mr. BELIN. Officer, you have just pointed out a place which I will identify as a metal portion running along the butt of the gun. Can you describe it any more fully?
Mr. HILL. It would be to the inside of the pistol grip holding the gun in the air. It would begin under the trigger guard to where the last name H-i-l-1 is scratched in the metal.
Mr. BELIN. Who put that name in there?
Mr. HILL. I did.
Mr. BELIN. When did you do that?
Mr. HILL. This was done at approximately 4 p.m., the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963, in the personnel office of the police department.
Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?
Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.

BTW can you post a copy of the DP receipt. Thanks in advance.

JohnM

So this is the reason you're getting your knickers in a knot?? WOW!
Hill recalled many months later that he initialled the revolver at approximately 4PM(which isn't very specific) and Davenport wrote a time of 3:30PM and this is your reason for this inane argument, all I can say is WOW. And this act of desperation by any measure is really weak sauce and a complete waste of my time. Try again!

Oh John, so desperate and clueless at the same time. Davenport didn't write anything. He was given a receipt from the evidence room for the revolver at 3.30 PM. Don't you even know the evidence?

The most important question is of course; how can Davenport submit the revolver to the evidence room, when Hill claims he had it on his person all the time. But I can understand why you ignored that.....

BTW can you post a copy of the DP receipt. Thanks in advance.

I have a copy of the document on my pc, but I haven't got a clue how to post it here, so, no I can't. Perhaps you should do your own research before you start making foolish claims.

[John Mytton]

So this is the reason you're getting your knickers in a knot?? WOW!
Hill recalled many months later that he initialled the revolver at approximately 4PM(which isn't very specific) and Davenport wrote a time of 3:30PM and this is your reason for this inane argument, all I can say is WOW. And this act of desperation by any measure is really weak sauce and a complete waste of my time. Try again!

Oh John, so desperate and clueless at the same time. Davenport didn't write anything. He was given a receipt from the evidence room for the revolver at 3.30 PM. Don't you even know the evidence?

The most important question is of course; how can Davenport submit the revolver to the evidence room, when Hill claims he had it on his person all the time. But I can understand why you ignored that.....

BTW can you post a copy of the DP receipt. Thanks in advance.

I have a copy of the document on my pc, but I haven't got a clue how to post it here, so, no I can't. Perhaps you should do your own research before you start making foolish claims.

Oh John, so desperate and clueless at the same time. Davenport didn't write anything. He was given a receipt from the evidence room for the revolver at 3.30 PM. Don't you even know the evidence?

I don't know or have ever claimed to know every piece of the thousands pieces of evidence because I have a life and aren't as obsessed as you, but this basic minor irrelevant time discrepancy is as I said a waste of my time and proves nothing.

The most important question is of course; how can Davenport submit the revolver to the evidence room, when Hill claims he had it on his person all the time. But I can understand why you ignored that.....

Months later Hill recalled an "approximate" time and from his guess you claim conspiracy? This is why you fail!

I have a copy of the document on my pc, but I haven't got a clue how to post it here, so, no I can't. Perhaps you should do your own research before you start making foolish claims.

I simply relied on your times because as I said I have a life outside of this Forum and as proved ironically by you, the only foolish claims were yours! Hahahaha!
But keep dreaming because some day you may be able to prove something, anything??

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't know or have ever claimed to know every piece of the thousands pieces of evidence because I have a life and aren't as obsessed as you, but this basic minor irrelevant time discrepancy is as I said a waste of my time and proves nothing.

Months later Hill recalled an "approximate" time and from his guess you claim conspiracy? This is why you fail!

I simply relied on your times because as I said I have a life outside of this Forum and as proved ironically by you, the only foolish claims were yours! Hahahaha!
But keep dreaming because some day you may be able to prove something, anything??

JohnM

I don't know or have ever claimed to know every piece of the thousands pieces of evidence because I have a life and aren't as obsessed as you,

Yeah right, that's why I've just returned to the forum after not posting for 7 months, while you can't stop posting on a nearly daily basis/

If you don't know the evidence, you shouldn't be making idiotic claims time after time.

but this basic minor irrelevant time discrepancy is as I said a waste of my time and proves nothing.

The only one who keeps talking about a time discrepancy is you. The real question to be answered is how Davenport could have submitted the revolver to the evidence room, when Hill said under oath that the revolver was on his person all the time.

Just another LN who knows just about enough about the case to think he's right, but knows not enough he know he is wrong..... That's you, John!

Btw the best way to see that you are stuck is when you go from arguing the merits of the case to being an argumentative jerk who will talk about anything but the case..... You're there, yet again. Some things never change!

[John Mytton]

I don't know or have ever claimed to know every piece of the thousands pieces of evidence because I have a life and aren't as obsessed as you,

Yeah right, that's why I've just returned to the forum after not posting for 7 months, while you can't stop posting on a nearly daily basis/

If you don't know the evidence, you shouldn't be making idiotic claims time after time.

but this basic minor irrelevant time discrepancy is as I said a waste of my time and proves nothing.

The only one who keeps talking about a time discrepancy is you. The real question to be answered is how Davenport could have submitted the revolver to the evidence room, when Hill said under oath that the revolver was on his person all the time.

Just another LN who knows just about enough about the case to think he's right, but knows not enough he know he is wrong..... That's you, John!

Btw the best way to see that you are stuck is when you go from arguing the merits of the case to being an argumentative jerk who will talk about anything but the case..... You're there, yet again. Some things never change!

Yeah right, that's why I've just returned to the forum after not posting for 7 months, while you can't stop posting on a nearly daily basis/

Hilarious, we've both been posting the exact same amount of time since the Forum was hacked and in the same time you have posted more than three thousand posts more than me and since you had a long break that only means that your posts per day average is outrageously higher than mine, again logic was never your forte!

If you don't know the evidence, you shouldn't be making idiotic claims time after time.

The evidence was eventually stated by you, which after much prompting was a tiny half hour discrepancy between a recorded time and a months later guess, a fact that you clearly omitted to bolster your delusion.

The only one who keeps talking about a time discrepancy is you. The real question to be answered is how Davenport could have submitted the revolver to the evidence room, when Hill said under oath that the revolver was on his person all the time.

Give it up already, Hill months later just made a guess and let's not forget that was the same day when a President was murdered by Oswald and a fellow Police Officer was also murdered by Oswald, so in other words Hill had a lot on his mind, so simply recalling a time months later which was close enough to be reasonable, is a basic concept that your desperate mind is failing to comprehend.
But let's get real, at the end of the day all your suspicions about this minor time dispute goes nowhere because the same revolver was taken from Oswald and Oswald admitted to carrying the revolver and the revolver in custody was sent to Oswald! Nuff said, now go play in the traffic like a good little boy.

Just another LN who knows just about enough about the case to think he's right, but knows not enough he know he is wrong..... That's you, John!

This time discrepancy "problem" was all engineered by you and as I said I relied on you telling the truth but as usual you left out little details in an attempt to support your case, naughty naughty!

Btw the best way to see that you are stuck is when you go from arguing the merits of the case to being an argumentative jerk who will talk about anything but the case..... You're there, yet again. Some things never change!

I just used the information that you presented and low and behold, your initial premise was deeply flawed, so yeah some things never change! Anyway as said this topic is now closed because a guessed time is hardly reliable evidence and the fact that Oswald owned, was caught with and admitted to carrying the same revolver in evidence is where this debate ends. So stop trying to insult me and try a something new, k?

BTW where does your bizarre argument go, are you trying to say that Hill switched the revolver from a revolver which is extremely difficult to trace the bullets to another revolver that is extremely difficult to trace the bullets, do you realize how absurd that is??

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Similarly, Gerald Hill testified to the WC that he put his mark on the S & W revolver at around 4 PM and that he had the weapon on his person ever since Bob Carroll gave it to him at the Texas Theater, after Oswald was arrested. So, what does it matter that Officer Davenport submitted that same S & W revolver and 8 or 9 bullets (my eyes are letting me down when I try to read the receipt) to the evidence room at 3.30 PM, right? I'm sure you can provide a perfectly plausible explanation to show just how silly my psychotic paranoia is!

(my eyes are letting me down when I try to read the receipt)

OMG Martin, you can barely read the receipt and when asked politely to post this same receipt, you won't, how can anyone have a fair debate with someone who so blatantly continues to hide his evidence and then demands others to do his research?
For instance if it was me, a man of integrity, I would have posted the receipt, which probably does say 3:30 and I also would present Hill's testimony, so we could all see Hill months later clearly using the word "approximately" 4PM, which effectively neutralizes this entire interaction.

JohnM

[Lance Payette]

You claim to be a former lawyer, but when I tried to pick your brain you instantly became highly defensive and refused to enter into any kind of debate. I can only wonder why.....

I don't know what the rules are here, but rather prominent Ed Forum member, Jon Tidd, a fellow Arizona lawyer, was summarily banned by James Gordon for playing the "you claim to be" game with me. It takes about 20 seconds on Google to establish the fact that I graduated magna cum laude from Arizona State Law School in 1982 (Member of the Coif, Law Review, etc., etc.), was admitted to the Arizona and federal bars that year, was a regional antitrust counsel for a Fortune 100 corporation, was a partner in one of the oldest Arizona law firms, served as Chief Deputy County Attorney for an Arizona county, published four law review articles and two humor pieces in Arizona Attorney Magazine, have numerous reported decisions, retired in 2018, and so on and so forth.

Here's a reported Arizona Supreme Court decision to whet your appetite: https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1991/cv-90-0490-pr-2.html.

Do you actually claim to be a foaming-at-the-mouth CT nutcase or just let the evidence speak for itself?

[Lance Payette]

In any attempt to devise a plausible conspiracy theory, it seems to me that the difficulty increases exponentially if one insists on making Oswald any sort of patsy.

He merely said he was a patsy of the DPD, picked up only because he'd been to Russia. He said nothing to suggest he'd been a patsy in the assassination unless you want to view his statement to Robert ("Don't believe the so-called evidence against me") in that context. If he'd loudly announced "Things aren't what they appear. I've been framed. The truth will come out in due course." - well, OK, the CT patsy crowd would have a leg to stand on. Since he didn't, I simply don't understand the patsy-obsession.

The Actual Oswald was perfectly capable of strange and violent actions. A great deal of evidence suggests he was an active shooter on 11-22. A conspiracy that deals with the Actual Oswald and the Actual Evidence pointing to him has, it seems to me, vastly more plausibility than any patsy theory and looks far more like a real-world conspiracy. The patsy theories inevitably become absurdly complex and top-heavy, almost a textbook case of How Not to Apply Occam's Razor (or Ockham, as the case may be).

Yes, a non-patsy theory is not as sexy or fun. Since the CT crowd seems obsessed with making Oswald a patsy and all that flows from that, I've concluded that this isn't a serious historical quest but more in the nature of a hobby, game or religion. Sexy and fun seems to be exactly what the CT crowd wants.