Buell Wesley Frazier

[Tim Nickerson]

Hi Tim, it's been a long time...

Ok, let's play this game.

Let's say, for argument's sake, the rifle found at the 6th floor did in fact belong to Oswald and the shells matched the rifle, how exactly does that prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor at 12:30, when the shots were fired?

How would the jury view it when presented with additional evidence and facts?  Where was Oswald when the shooting was taking place? His prints were on the long paper sack found in the sniper's nest. A defense counsel could try to raise doubt about it to the jury but it would still be there for their consideration. They would have the FBI conclusion about the fibres found in the sack presented to them as well. Why did Oswald flee the building so soon after the assassination? Could the Tippit murder be used against him in any way when being tried for the Kennedy murder?

Beyond reasonable doubt in the standard, not beyond any doubt.

[Dan O'meara]

Name a single piece of credible evidence that puts Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm. Except for the rifle. That one doesn't count. Neither do the shells. 

CT logic, triple distilled.

Really Tim??
How does the rifle put Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm?
How do the shells put Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm?
You should really engage your brain before just wading in.
Nutter "logic" in a nutshell.

[Martin Weidmann]

How would the jury view it when presented with additional evidence and facts?  Where was Oswald when the shooting was taking place? His prints were on the long paper sack found in the sniper's nest. A defense counsel could try to raise doubt about it to the jury but it would still be there for their consideration. They would have the FBI conclusion about the fibres found in the sack presented to them as well. Why did Oswald flee the building so soon after the assassination? Could the Tippit murder be used against him in any way when being tried for the Kennedy murder?

Beyond reasonable doubt in the standard, not beyond any doubt.

I'm not really interested in what a jury would think about a circumstantial case like this one. It would be up to the defense to discredit the circumstantial arguments by the prosecution, and here we don't have the case of the defense!

But that's not the question I asked. How does the presence of a rifle belonging to Oswald prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30?

[Tim Nickerson]

I'm not really interested in what a jury would think about a circumstantial case like this one. It would be up to the defense to discredit the circumstantial arguments by the prosecution, and here we don't have the case of the defense!

But that's not the question I asked. How does the presence of a rifle belonging to Oswald prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30?

Logically, the rifle being his proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30.

[Dan O'meara]

As a follow up to my last post as I know how obtuse Nutters can be.

The Mannlicher-Carcano, even if demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever to belong to Oswald, does not put Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
The 3 shells discovered in the southeast corner do not put Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
It is impossible for either of these pieces of evidence to put Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.

What these pieces of evidence do is STRENGTHEN THE ASSUMPTION that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
But Tim, like the good little Nutter he is, can't differentiate between an assumption and a fact when it comes to Oswald's guilt.
it is a trait shared by nearly all Nutters and it demonstrates an extreme mentality usually associated with the Tinfoil Brigade.
It is one of many traits that Nutters share with Tinfoilers.

Tim doesn't realise his conviction that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm is a THEORY.
He fully believes that it is a proven FACT.

It is the cornerstone of all Nutter "Logic" around this issue - Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor therefore Oswald took the shots!

[Dan O'meara]

Logically, the rifle being his proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30.

 
And there it is folks, right on cue!!

[John Mytton]

How would the jury view it when presented with additional evidence and facts?  Where was Oswald when the shooting was taking place? His prints were on the long paper sack found in the sniper's nest. A defense counsel could try to raise doubt about it to the jury but it would still be there for their consideration. They would have the FBI conclusion about the fibres found in the sack presented to them as well. Why did Oswald flee the building so soon after the assassination? Could the Tippit murder be used against him in any way when being tried for the Kennedy murder?

Beyond reasonable doubt in the standard, not beyond any doubt.

Exactly Tim, these CK's keep asking for proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor @12:30 but it seems that the only evidence that will be accepted is if they had seen Oswald with their very own eyes, because even at the Tippit crime scene almost a dozen people saw Oswald in the immediate vicinity or moving away fiddling with his revolver, yet this indisputable evidence is waved away.
It's just a game to these deeply paranoid CK's who have an irrational hatred of authority and this "Anybody but Oswald" mantra is just a manifestation of this psychosis.

I can't imagine every murder being committed in front of eyewitnesses but the Police do a good job of solving a fair percentage of these heinous crimes.

•In this case specifically the murder weapon is the most important piece of evidence, hence the search for who owns the weapon is a logical starting point for investigation, to suggest otherwise is absolutely bonkers.

•Then after establishing ownership of the murder weapon you investigate the owner and a possible alibi, Oswald has none.

•And again in this case you search the weapon for prints and other forms of contact and here we have Oswald's palmprint and shirt fibers which aren't 100% conclusive but the prohibitive possibility that they are someone else's shirt is extremely remote.

• Next you analyse Oswald's actions before and after the assassination;
A) Oswald makes an unexpected trip to Irving the night before then assassination
B) Either Oswald or Frazier is lying about a package containing "curtain rods", who is more likely to lie?
C) Either Oswald or Frazier/ Linnie Mae is lying about where in Frazier's car that Oswald placed the "curtain rods", who is more likely to lie.
D) No curtain rods are found.
E) The package wrapping found in the sniper's nest has Oswald's prints.
F) The prints in the sniper's nest are relatively fresh, the FBI determined the prints are no older than a few days, and yes Oswald worked there but it wasn't his responsibility to touch every one of the hundreds/thousands of boxes every few days.
G) Oswald doesn't leave at 12PM or at the end of lunch but he leaves in the time it takes a person to travel from the 6th floor, be confronted, buy a coke then get to the ground floor and leave the building, about three minutes after the assassination, this fleeing the scene of the crime alone is highly incriminating.
H) Oswald boards a bus then gets off a bus, why the hurry?
I) Oswald gets a cab and gets out way past his Rooming house, why?
J) Tippit was the first Police Officer to be shot on the job for years, why would Oswald feel compelled to kill a cop?
K) Oswald while hiding in a dark theatre punches an approaching Policeman the tries to use the same revolver that killed Tippit and attempts to kill more.

• Oswald lies while being interrogated, especially when the rifle comes up;
1) Oswald lies about the backyard photos, saying they pasted his head on someone else's body. The backyard photos have been authenticated and besides a negative exists.
2) Oswald conveniently leaves out Neely street as a previous house he rented, funnily enough Neely street is where the backyard photos were taken! Oops!
3) Oswald lies about the "curtain rods" and says he only had his lunch
4) Oswald lies about where he placed the "curtain rods"
5) Oswald lies about owning the rifle.
6) Oswald lies about purchasing the revolver in Fort Worth, likely distancing himself from his preferred method of buying through mail-order the way he bought the rifle.

Now this is a quick summation off the top of my head but does any one in the real World really truly believe that Oswald was innocent?

What could the defence possibly present to refute this evidence, because saying that it was ALL faked and/or a product of lies from multiple unconnected sources would be laughed out of court.

JohnM