Walk me through this, curtain rod fans

[Michael Capasse]

"... And it remains Lone Nutters' obligation to "prove" Oswald killed JFK..."

That's all there ever was.
  If you are a lawyer, you should know that.

[Lance Payette]

Still, no mention of left hand. 
  That's the part you make up.

I have to agree with Michael here, and it seems that John does as well. It would never even have occurred to me that Randle was describing the package in any way other than one end being in Oswald's right hand and the other extending toward the ground. "Carried this way" is a perfectly natural way for someone to describe this scenario, meaning "dangling down toward the ground." "Carried" in this context does not inevitably (or even reasonably) mean "in his left hand." That would have him lurching along like the Hunchback of Notre Dame.

[Lance Payette]

That's all there ever was.
  If you are a lawyer, you should know that.

I have no idea what you're talking about. WHAT is "all there ever was"?

As a retired lawyer with nearly 40 years of practice in my rearview mirror, I do know that the law does not require anything like "ontological proof" in any context, civil or criminal. A civil case may be won with huge doubts, even in the mind of the plaintiff's attorney, about the correctness of the decision. Little old me has won cases where I thought, "Thank God the rules of evidence kept THAT out because it would've killed us."

A criminal case likewise may be won by either the prosecution or defense with huge doubts in the mind of the successful attorney about the correctness of the verdict. Because the criminal justice system is heavily oriented toward protecting the rights of defendants, and the rules of evidence have the effect of excluding much evidence that all of us regard as reliable in our everyday lives, it's at least a possibility that Oswald would have been found not guilty.

Out here in the real world, the LN narrative has been examined, challenged, debated ad nauseam, and I believe it stands as "proven" by any reasonable standard of proof.

As I stated previously, your approach just goes nowhere. You need either (1) an ironclad, no-question-about-it defeater for the LN narrative or (2) a more rational, coherent, plausible, evidence-based narrative. So far, there has been neither. "Frazier and Randle were correct and everything else surrounding the curtain rod story must be ignored" just goes nowhere.

[Michael Capasse]

I have no idea what you're talking about. WHAT is "all there ever was"?

You're kidding right? It's called burden of proof.

Out here in the real world, the LN narrative has been examined, challenged, debated ad nauseam, and I believe it stands as "proven" by any reasonable standard of proof.

As I stated previously, your approach just goes nowhere. You need either (1) an ironclad, no-question-about-it defeater for the LN narrative or (2) a more rational, coherent, plausible, evidence-based narrative. So far, there has been neither. "Frazier and Randle were correct and everything else surrounding the curtain rod story must be ignored" just goes nowhere.

 ...and once again, there is the preset.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You have already decided the LN narrative is correct. Though you say you are open to other interpretations,
you mock and ridicule critical response to what is broken at every turn.
As these are pointed out to you by Martin, John I, or myself, excuses are made to back into the preset narrative.
If all that was Frazier & his sister, it might be accepted within a reasonable margin of error

But it goes on:

The first 4 officers stepped on the 6th floor - 20 minutes after the shooting 
Each testified specifically to a bag in the center of the SN  - None saw this 36" container.

Sgt. Gerald Hill, the first DPD officer to arrive:
"The only specifics we discussed were this. You were asking Officer Hicks if either one recalled seeing a sack,
supposedly one that had been made by the suspect, in which he could have possibly carried the weapon into the Depository,
and I at that time told you about the small sack that appeared to be a lunch sack, and that that was the only sack that I saw,
and that I left the Book Depository prior to the finding of the gun."

Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney
Mr. BALL. Did you see a paper bag at any other window?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. BALL. .....Now, was there anything you saw over in the corner?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner.

Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig:
Mr. BELIN. Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing, or not?
Mr. CRAIG. No; I don't remember seeing any.

Detective Boyd, who arrived with Captain Fritz before Day and Studebaker:
Mr. BALL. Did you see any brown wrapping paper near the window where the hulls were found,
near the windows alongside which the hulls were found?

Mr. BOYD. I don't believe I did.



We are left with a picture of dotted lines. Something else. Another thing.
Another nutter excuse - most times not even from the WCR.
I'll point out the breaks as we go. You keep pitching the excuses.

[Lance Payette]

You're kidding right? It's called burden of proof.

 ...and once again, there is the preset

I hate to play the "wasting my time" card, but your repetitive one-liners do become tedious.

My response to you was directly on point. Carrying the burden of proof in the legal context, civil or criminal, does not require ANYTHING LIKE ontological or doubt-free proof. Do you not grasp this?

Outside the legal context, "proof" likewise never requires ontological or doubt-free proof. Good Lord, philosophers have seriously debated for centuries whether we can really (ontologically) "know" anything at all, and this was why Descartes decided all he could really know was "I think, therefore I am."

You declare you have "proof" Oswald was framed, but Lone Nutters have no "proof" Oswald was carrying a rifle or that the LN narrative is correct.

You, it appears to me, are either very confused or simply playing word games. And that's all I have to say about that.

[Lance Payette]

As these are pointed out to you by Martin, John I, or myself ...

Uh-oh, you're getting dangerously close to confirming some of my suspicions.

Well, at least you didn't mention Tom Sorenson.

Or maybe you did?

[Michael Capasse]

Uh-oh, you're getting dangerously close to confirming some of my suspicions.

Well, at least you didn't mention Tom Sorenson.

Or maybe you did?

Oh yea?
  Well, you talk like David Von Pein !!!

[Lance Payette]

You're kidding right? It's called burden of proof.

 ...and once again, there is the preset.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You have already decided the LN narrative is correct. Though you say you are open to other interpretations,
you mock and ridicule critical response to what is broken at every turn.
As these are pointed out to you by Martin, John I, or myself, excuses are made to back into the preset narrative.
If all that was Frazier & his sister, it might be accepted within a reasonable margin of error

But it goes on:

The first 4 officers stepped on the 6th floor - 20 minutes after the shooting 
Each testified specifically to a bag in the center of the SN  - None saw this 36" bag.

Sgt. Gerald Hill, the first DPD officer to arrive:
"The only specifics we discussed were this. You were asking Officer Hicks if either one recalled seeing a sack,
supposedly one that had been made by the suspect, in which he could have possibly carried the weapon into the Depository,
and I at that time told you about the small sack that appeared to be a lunch sack, and that that was the only sack that I saw,
and that I left the Book Depository prior to the finding of the gun."

Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney
Mr. BALL. Did you see a paper bag at any other window?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't.

Mr. BALL. .....Now, was there anything you saw over in the corner?
Mr. MOONEY. No, sir; I didn't see anything over in the corner.

Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig:
Mr. BELIN. Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing, or not?
Mr. CRAIG. No; I don't remember seeing any.

Detective Boyd, who arrived with Captain Fritz before Day and Studebaker:
Mr. BALL. Did you see any brown wrapping paper near the window where the hulls were found,
near the windows alongside which the hulls were found?

Mr. BOYD. I don't believe I did.



We are left with a picture of dotted lines. Something else. Another thing.
Another nutter excuse - most times not even from the WCR.
I'll point out the breaks as we go. You keep pitching the excuses.

Let's consider the "bag mystery" for a moment, and then I really must resume my neglected UFO studies.

The bag mystery has been hashed and rehashed to the point that someone like me has nothing to add to the debate. This piece addresses it nicely: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/bag.htm. You may post a CT-oriented link if you like.

OK, there are discrepancies in the observations and recollections of the officers. This is entirely normal and to be expected in an event of this sort. Eyewitness testimony is often conflicting and is generally regarded as less reliable than other types of evidence.

For the bag mystery to have any weight CT-wise, the suggestion has to be "The bag wasn't there until someone planted it."

For this suggestion to have any weight CT-wise, it has to be at least as plausible as "This is simply another example of eyewitnesses seeing and recalling different things."

For plausibility, you need some epistemological foundation other than the bare fact that six officers said they didn't see the bag (but six did). You need to address questions such as:

• What were the circumstances of the officers' observations - would we have expected all of them to see and recall the bag if it had been there?
• Is there any actual evidence - documents, testimony - suggesting the bag was planted?
• Why would a bag have been planted - what would it have added to the case against Oswald?
• When and by whom would the bag have been constructed and planted?
• When the bag was found, did the DPD have any reason to think Oswald had brought the rifle into the TSBD in a brown paper bag? Had the DPD already interviewed Frazier or Randle?
• Were Oswald's fingerprints planted on the bag as well? How did that work?
• Why didn't those who constructed and planted the bag do a more convincing job, making sure the bag had clear impressions of the rifle and perhaps more oil?
• With the rifle as evidence, why would anyone have taken the extreme risk of planting the bag to gain whatever minimal force this would add to the case against Oswald? Couldn't this have blown the case wide-open?
• Why were the six officers who didn't recall the bag not coached/intimidated/murdered before they testified to the WC? How could those who planted the bag allow this red flag to be raised?

Well, you get the idea. You can't just say, "Six officers didn't recall the bag. It's your burden to prove it wasn't planted."

At least, you can't say that and expect anyone to take you seriously.

It would be nice if at least some of the foregoing questions could be answered with something other than raw, ad hoc speculation.

Oswald's rifle was in the Paine garage. Oswald mysteriously went to the Paine house on Thursday. The rifle mysteriously disappeared. The rifle was found on the sixth floor after the assassination on Friday. Oswald was not observed elsewhere in the TSBD or its environs at the time of the assassination. Oswald ran like a rabbit, shot an officer and resisted arrest. To counter THAT, you need a hell of a lot more than "Oh, yeah, what about this? What about this over here, huh? What about that, huh, huh?" You need coherence and plausibility the CT community has been unable to offer.