On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald and Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence

[David Von Pein]

Pray tell, how does Oswald leaving his wedding ring in a cup, after Marina basically left him with the impression that his marriage was over, become direct evidence with a causality to a murder?

Or even worse, how can getting [off] a bus or not being chatty with a taxi driver reasonably be connected to a murder that has already happened[?]

You'll never be able to figure out that the things you just highlighted in your post above are indeed relevant because you continue to ISOLATE every single thing Oswald did instead of ADDING THOSE THINGS TOGETHER.

Martin must be related to an ultra-rabid conspiracy clown named Ben Holmes, because in dozens of past Internet exchanges, I was constantly having to remind Holmes to "add things up" as well. [See the link below.]



For some reason, JFKA CTers just refuse to add together all of the various out-of-the-ordinary things that Lee Harvey Oswald did on November 21 and 22, 1963.

When added together (as a unit!), Oswald's unusual movements and actions on those two days in November most certainly paint an incriminating picture when examined through a post-assassination lens. Most conspiracy theorists know this already, of course. They just don't want to admit what such a simple act of "addition" actually reveals.

[Martin Weidmann]

Good Lord! Can your Thick-Headedness Disease get any worse?

You'll never be able to figure out that the things you just highlighted in your post above are indeed relevant because you continue to ISOLATE every single thing Oswald did instead of ADDING THOSE THINGS TOGETHER.

Martin must be related to an ultra-rabid conspiracy clown named Ben Holmes, because in dozens of past Internet exchanges, I was constantly having to remind Holmes to "add things up" as well. [See the link below.]

For some reason, JFKA CTers just refuse to add together all of the various out-of-the-ordinary things that Lee Harvey Oswald did on November 21 and 22, 1963.

When added together (as a unit!), Oswald's unusual movements and actions on those two days in November most certainly paint an incriminating picture when examined through a post-assassination lens.

When added together (as a unit!), Oswald's unusual movements and actions on those two days in November most certainly paint an incriminating picture when examined through a post-assassination lens.

What unusual movements and actions are you talking about?

Oswald only drove to Irving with Buell Frazier on a couple of times. A week earlier he did not go at all.... why isn't that an unusual movement but going on a thursday is?

Since when is it unusual not to talk with a taxi driver or leave a wedding ring behind when you believe your marriage is over?

I could of course be wrong, but isn't it simply that you consider some movenments and actions unusual just because you want them to be just that?

A circumstantial case that's based on weak individual pieces of evidence, doesn't get any stronger by adding on more weak pieces of evidence!

[Lance Payette]

Leaving the wallet, cash and wedding ring could suggest planning. Especially with the curious Thursday trip to the Paine house, the curious curtain rod excuse and the disappearance of the rifle from the garage.

The non-responsiveness to Whaley could suggest consciousness of guilt (the evidentiary legal term). It might or might not be admissible and would carry no great weight if it were admitted. Leaving the TSBD, getting the gun, shooting Tippit, fleeing to the theater, resisting arrest, yada yada, all make the non-responsiveness to Whaley pale in comparison.

As DVP suggests, it's the context that's important.

[Martin Weidmann]

Leaving the wallet, cash and wedding ring could suggest planning. Especially with the curious Thursday trip to the Paine house, the curious curtain rod excuse and the disappearance of the rifle from the garage.

The non-responsiveness to Whaley could suggest consciousness of guilt (the evidentiary legal term). It might or might not be admissible and would carry no great weight if it were admitted. Leaving the TSBD, getting the gun, shooting Tippit, fleeing to the theater, resisting arrest, yada yada, all make the non-responsiveness to Whaley pale in comparison.

As DVP suggests, it's the context that's important.

Leaving the wallet, cash and wedding ring could suggest planning. Especially with the curious Thursday trip to the Paine house, the curious curtain rod excuse and the disappearance of the rifle from the garage.

There was nothing curious about the Thursday trip. Both Marina and Ruth Paine testified that they believed he had come to make up and get back together with Marina.

Nothing curious about the curtain rod excuse. Would you discuss marital problems with a 19 year old kid?

And as far as the rifle goes; what evidence do you have that there actually was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63? Or are you simply assuming that there was one?

The non-responsiveness to Whaley could suggest consciousness of guilt (the evidentiary legal term).

Wow, I must have been guilty many times when I count the number of times I did not talk to a taxi driver.   

Leaving the TSBD, getting the gun, shooting Tippit, fleeing to the theater, resisting arrest, yada yada, all make the non-responsiveness to Whaley pale in comparison.

Which assumes all sorts of things for which there is only circumstantial evidence or no evidence at all.

With enough assumptions you can find anybody guilty of anything.

[Lance Payette]

Leaving the wallet, cash and wedding ring could suggest planning. Especially with the curious Thursday trip to the Paine house, the curious curtain rod excuse and the disappearance of the rifle from the garage.

There was nothing curious about the Thursday trip. Both Marina and Ruth Paine testified that they believed had come to make up and get back together with Marina.

Nothing curious about the curtain rod excuse. Would you discuss marital problems with a 19 year old kid?

And as far as the rifle goes; what evidence do you have that there actually was a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63? Or are you simply assuming that there was one?

The non-responsiveness to Whaley could suggest consciousness of guilt (the evidentiary legal term).

Wow, I must have been guilty of many times when I count the number of times I did not talk to a taxi driver.   

Leaving the TSBD, getting the gun, shooting Tippit, fleeing to the theater, resisting arrest, yada yada, all make the non-responsiveness to Whaley pale in comparison.

Which assumes all sorts of things for which there is only circumstantial evidence or no evidence at all.

With enough assumptions you can find anybody guilty of anything.

Sorry, I've humored you past the breaking point. You are Exhibit A for why I have repeatedly sworn off forums such as this. Declare victory if you like, but you're simply a nutcase and not worth any more of my time.

[John Mytton]

Oswald only drove to Irving with Buell Frazier on a couple of times. A week earlier he did not go at all.... why isn't that an unusual movement but going on a thursday is?

Why do you insist on being so dishonest, Oswald went home with Frazier each and every weekend but one, so much more than a mere "couple of times" and when Oswald's baby was born, he went to Irving on Monday afternoon and stayed till Tuesday morning.
And the whole idea of going home on a weekend was so that Oswald could spend time with his family, like Friday night, all day Satu-rday and all day Sunday, so just spending a few hours with his children on Thursday night was hardly satisfactory. And especially just turning up without informing and clearing his visit with the owner of the house was just rude.
Btw, it's odd that you find the most inane things to be highly suspicious but this glaring anomaly you lie about and try to make excuses, that says a lot!

Mr. BALL - Did he ride home with you in your car on weekends?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. BALL - On Friday nights.
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - From that time until November 22, did he ride home with you every weekend?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he did every weekend but one.

Edit, for some reason the Forum won't let me post the word Sat-urday, maybe because of the tu-rd in the middle?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Sorry, I've humored you past the breaking point. You are Exhibit A for why I have repeatedly sworn off forums such as this. Declare victory if you like, but you're simply a nutcase and not worth any more of my time.

Thank you for showing that you have nothing but hot air to offer.