Oswald's lies proves his guilt.

[Richard Smith]

First of all, LHO didn't have to say anything as that was his right. All these years later not one LNer has provided evidence showing that he waived his right.

Secondly, we can't take anything that the authorities CLAIMED LHO said at face value since there are NO recordings. The authorities could tell us he said anything since there is no way of knowing.

Finally, there is NO supporting evidence for any of the things that you claimed LHO lied about, thus, none of them are facts so the term  "lie" is not appropriate.

Whether Oswald had legal rights to remain silent or have counsel is not relevant to whether he lied.  In a trial, it would be relevant but here on planet earth it's not.  You have severe difficulty understanding that point.   If there had been "recordings" you would just claim those were faked as well.  How about asking yourself why the authorities would allow Oswald to speak to the press is they were so concerned with controlling what he said?  There is no supporting evidence of his lies?  You mean other than the confirmation of those present?  And a mountain of evidence like the testimony Marina that she took the BY pictures, that Oswald owned a rifle, and Frazier's testimony that Oswald carried a long package that morning that he claimed contained curtain rods.  And you are the guy who finds Oswald "suspicious" and believe he was "involved" but never utter a single word against him.  Everyone else must be lying but never your hero Oswald.

[Matt Grantham]

 Yes I suppose those points are worthy for those not willing to consider a conspiracy I too would question such people on why they believe Oswald's fingerprints were lifted at the morgue onto the rifle

[Martin Weidmann]

The same lazy nonsense over and over.  And from the guy who forever claims he is not suggesting a conspiracy or frame up.  Why is there any reason whatsoever to suggest there is doubt about what was said other than your unwillingness to take the word of those present - the only people who could know what was said?  What you are suggesting is that everything that points to Oswald guilt must be suspect for that reason alone but without explaining why.  It's laughable.  The old CTer catch-22.

Why is there any reason whatsoever to suggest there is doubt about what was said other than your unwillingness to take the word of those present - the only people who could know what was said?

Because those are the people who contradicted eachother on key points in their obviously incomplete non-verbatim reports.

What you are suggesting is that everything that points to Oswald guilt must be suspect for that reason alone

I am not suggesting that at all. Stop making up crap!

If and when a solid piece of evidence points to Oswald's guilt, I'll gladly accept it as such, but that's a far cry from taking some guy's word for it in after the fact reports written from memory and in the knowledge that Oswald was already dead!

[Richard Smith]

Why is there any reason whatsoever to suggest there is doubt about what was said other than your unwillingness to take the word of those present - the only people who could know what was said?

Because those are the people who contradicted eachother on key points in their obviously incomplete non-verbatim reports.

What you are suggesting is that everything that points to Oswald guilt must be suspect for that reason alone

I am not suggesting that at all. Stop making up crap!

If and when a solid piece of evidence points to Oswald's guilt, I'll gladly accept it as such, but that's a far cry from taking some guy's word for it in after the fact reports written from memory and in the knowledge that Oswald was already dead!

How about citing some of these "contradictions" from those actually present relating the statements attributed to Oswald in the OP?  Did anyone indicate, for example, that Oswald admitted ownership of the rifle or that he was in the BY pictures?  Is there any contradiction among those present on Oswald's responses to those basic points?  Why would anyone think that the police would make up statements in which Oswald is basically denying guilt?   If they were going to falsify statements, then why not say he confessed after he is dead.  What you always circle back to is trying to create an impossible standard of proof to imply false doubt about the facts.   No one could prove anything from history to your subjective satisfaction if the response to any evidence was just that there is implicit doubt because someone recounted what they heard or saw from "memory."  It's always "possible" they all got it wrong.  LOL.  What is being suggested is not just that those present characterized what Oswald said in slightly different ways (which might be expected) but those present lied about it for some unknown reason. 

[Tim Nickerson]

Before you start claiming that Oswald lied, why don't you first prove that this is indeed what he said?

What is your standard for what constitutes as proof? James Bookhout, Will Fritz, James Hosty, Thomas Kelley, and Harry Holmes all said that Oswald denied owning a rifle.

[Matt Grantham]

What is your standard for what constitutes as proof? James Bookhout, Will Fritz, James Hosty, Thomas Kelley, and Harry Holmes all said that Oswald denied owning a rifle.

And just to be clear the evidence he did is that Marina said she saw it. The picture and the curtain rods? Not trying to be smarmy just wanting to make sure I am not missing anything?

[John Iacoletti]

Why is there any reason whatsoever to suggest there is doubt about what was said other than your unwillingness to take the word of those present - the only people who could know what was said?

The people who were present don't even agree on what was said.