Walk me through this, curtain rod fans

[John Iacoletti]

If your point is simply "We don't know for sure what was in the package, and what it actually was can never be proven" - I'll stipulate to that without reservation, but the fact remains that (to me) by far the most plausible explanation is "the disassembled rifle." Your posts read as though "can't be known or proven with certainty" equates to "is completely meaningless to talk about," as though we aren't allowed to reason our way to what seems the most plausible explanation.

The only thing that makes a disassembled rifle "the most plausible explanation" is your wishful thinking.

[John Iacoletti]

too funny.

So he merely "had" the package in his right hand.  That's not the same as "carrying" it, even though he was walking with it at the time.

This is Nessan pretzel logic.

[John Iacoletti]

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."

Exactly.  Truth is not the goal in a lawyer or a trial context.  The goal there is to successfully manipulate an ignorant jury through rhetoric and/or procedural tricks.

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.

Only in the "real world" context of sleazy lawyer tricks.

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.

Inquiries aren't required to "go somewhere".  If the evidence leads to "I don't know", then that's where it leads.  You don't just get to declare your narrative to be "rational, coherent, plausible, and evidence-based" (especially when it's not), and then shift the burden.

[John Iacoletti]

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."

Here we go again.  It's not your burden to prove it wasn't planted.  It's your burden to prove that it was there where it was allegedly found.  And that it ever contained a rifle.  That is where the raw, ad hoc speculation is.

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?

All that's necessary to counter all that is to point out that unsubstantiated claims are not evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

I didn't say no officer saw the bag.
  That's another pile of excuses

 

And isn't it also relevant when they saw the "bag" and where they saw the "bag", and how they each described the "bag"?

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald's rifle bag was indeed inadvertently photographed in the Sniper's Nest, here it is lying on the top of the boxes that made up Oswald's hiding place.

Cool.  Let's pretend that you actually know for a fact that this is CE142.  Which one of the six policeman you quoted above said anything about seeing this "bag" lying on top of the boxes like this?  And how many hours later was this photo taken?

PS.  "Oswald's rifle bag".  LOL.  "Oswald's hiding place".  LOL.

[John Iacoletti]

Odd that the evil, evil FBI left Mooneyham's statements in the affidavit and that the affidavit is included as an exhibit in the evil, evil Warren Report, isn't it?

Typical LN rhetorical trick.  If the evidence is consistent then my "plausible narrative" is what happened.  If the evidence is not consistent, then it "doesn't make sense" that the "vast conspiracy" I just made up in my head would allow there to be inconsistent evidence, therefore my "plausible narrative" is still what happened.

[John Iacoletti]

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

Why even mention it and why would I even care about that? I think your completely wrong. For an attorney to not see it, I think is odd. The WC investigators were attorneys. 

 

You know how far Nessan is in the weeds when even Lance falls onto the same side as Michael and me!