The Brown Paper Bag

[Martin Weidmann]

You poor thing, you.

First you call me a jerk and now you are sorry for me?

Make up your mind will ya!

[Tom Graves]

First you call me a jerk and now you are sorry for me?

Make up your mind will ya!

I'm very sorry that you're so gullible (and such a jerk) that you disbelieve all of the evidence against Oswald.

[John Mytton]

I'm only asking because the way the two of you behave is identical.

Do you really want to go there, and make me unleash a can of Whoop-ass on you like the Lance Payette "Sock Puppet" thread??

For everyone who wants to see how a Sock Puppet is created and destroyed, have fun with the Following Thread with a stack of incriminating evidence which exposes Weidmann's many acts of deception, sorry Martin but you made me post it! Muhahaha!

A sock puppet among us?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4306.0.html

Ever since Bill Brown, Lance Payette, Vincent Baxter, Myself and countless others have busted you using "Sock Puppets" which made you disappear with great shame  for almost a year to save face, you've been waiting to make your desperate attempt of revenge, Pathetic!

But dealing with this bizarre comparison, in comparison to me, JohnC has the patience of a Saint to put up with your constant mean spirited insults whereas I have no time for your Buffoonery and will make you regret the day you were born!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

I'm very sorry that you're so gullible (and such a jerk) that that you disbelieve all of the evidence against Oswald.

Oh boy... I don't disbelieve "all the evidence" against Oswald. Evidence is evidence. It either exists or it doesn't. But not every single piece of evidence is also proof.

Evidence can be manipulated and misrepresented. Completely wrong and unjust conclusions can be attached to a piece of evidence and that's what frequently happens in a circumstantial case like this one.

I can't believe I need to explain this to you.

Let me give you an example;

Captain Westbrook testified that a unknown police officer showed him a jacket under a car. In radio traffic the jacket was described as being white. According to Westbrook, the jacket was removed from under the car and given to another unidentified patrol officer, who I presume was to take it to DPD HQ. In any case, the jacket disappeared for several hours. As no attempt was ever made to identify both patrol officers, there clearly was no solid chain of custody for that jacket.

Then, several hours later a grey jacket shows up and is presented to the evidence room. It has the markings of no less than seven officers on it, but none of those officers were ever called to testify about their part in the chain of custody.

Now, you explain to me how you can claim that the white jacket found under the car is the same as the grey jacket presented to the evidence room. Can you do that?

I sure as hell have a possible explanation, which you probably are not going to like, but let's see how you can get this mess sorted out. Tell me what reason does gullible old me have to accept the jacket story at face value?

[Martin Weidmann]

Do you really want to go there, and make me unleash a can of Whoop-ass on you like the Lance Payette "Sock Puppet" thread??

For everyone who wants to see how a Sock Puppet is created and destroyed, have fun with the Following Thread with a stack of incriminating evidence which exposes Weidmann's many acts of deception, sorry Martin but you made me post it! Muhahaha!

A sock puppet among us?
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,4306.0.html

Ever since Bill Brown, Lance Payette, Vincent Baxter, Myself and countless others have busted you using "Sock Puppets" which made you disappear with great shame  for almost a year to save face, you've been waiting to make your desperate attempt of revenge, Pathetic!

But dealing with this bizarre comparison, in comparison to me, JohnC has the patience of a Saint to put up with your constant mean spirited insults whereas I have no time for your Buffoonery and will make you regret the day you were born!

JohnM

The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.

Did I hit a nerve, Johnny? Hilarious!

Ah yes, Vincent Baxter... that was the name I couldn't remember. He stepped in whenever you left for some time and disappeared as soon as you returned. Probably a coincidence, though.

I'll have to ask it again; what's it like to have someone like me living rent free in your head for years?

Just how obsessed do you have to be with someone to actually keep files of postings of or about him on a public forum?

When I log out, John Mytton is gone, a nobody and a nothing, until I return, because I know (just like this time, after I returned from not posting for months because I have a life) he will be waiting for me. And he was!

[Tom Graves]

Oh boy... I don't disbelieve "all the evidence" against Oswald. Evidence is evidence. It either exists or it doesn't. But not every single piece of evidence is also proof.

Evidence can be manipulated and misrepresented. Completely wrong and unjust conclusions can be attached to a piece of evidence and that's what frequently happens in a circumstantial case like this one.

I can't believe I need to explain this to you.

Let me give you an example;

Captain Westbrook testified that an unknown police officer showed him a jacket under a car. In radio traffic the jacket was described as being white. According to Westbrook, the jacket was removed from under the car and given to another unidentified patrol officer, who I presume was to take it to DPD HQ. In any case, the jacket disappeared for several hours. As no attempt was ever made to identify both patrol officers, there clearly was no solid chain of custody for that jacket.

Then, several hours later a grey jacket shows up and is presented to the evidence room. It has the markings of no less than seven officers on it, but none of those officers were ever called to testify about their part in the chain of custody.

Now, you explain to me how you can claim that the white jacket found under the car is the same as the grey jacket presented to the evidence room. Can you do that?

I sure as hell have a possible explanation, which you probably are not going to like, but let's see how you can get this mess sorted out. Tell me what reason does gullible old me have to accept the jacket story at face value?

Thanks for confirming my statement.

You disbelieve all of the evidence against Oswald because you think (sic) some of it was just weird coincidence and the rest of it was fabricated and planted.

Or do you think (sic) it was all just weird coincidence?

[Martin Weidmann]

Thanks for confirming my statement.

You disbelieve all of the evidence against Oswald because you think (sic) some of it was just weird coincidence, and the rest of it was fabricated and planted.

Or do you think (sic) it was all just weird coincidence?

So, you can't answer my simple question about just a single piece of evidence?

Instead of telling me (incorrectly) what I think, perhaps you should try to be a little less superficial and do some critical thinking of your own. You clearly haven't understood a word that I have told you. And I'm the "poor soul"? 

Anybody who deals with a white jacket without a chain of custody morphing into a grey jacket with seven markings of officers that were never in the chain of custody and concludes that the two jackets are one and the same needs his head examined!