Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Dan O'meara]

"She [Mrs Roberts] said that she was trying to get the television to work so she could watch the 1 PM news to find out more about Kennedy."

Did she use those exact words? No, but what she said is not misrepresented by what I wrote.

She never said anything like this.
You haven't misrepresented what she said, you've invented it!
That you can defend such an action speaks volumes about your "truth-seeking" credentials.
It appears you will do literally anything to bolster your intensely flawed outlook on the Tippit murder.
Where does this leave rational, reasoned debate?

...I was concerned you were inventing witness testimony to support your entrenched position and this, indeed, appears to be the case.
When I asked you where you were getting this information from you replied "From Roberts herself", but this is not true. Nowhere, except in your imagination, does Roberts say she was trying to watch the 1 PM news.

Oh goody, we're playing word games again....

   You invent testimony, put it in the mouth of a witness then complain about "word games". Priceless.

Rather than admit to this blatant fabrication you come up with some bizarre assumptionfest concluding with the assumption that there was no TV channel showing in the Dallas area that was covering the assassination between 12:41 and 1 PM

It's a far better assumption than to assume that Roberts was searching for a channel with news about Kennedy after 12:41. You seem to conveniently forget that a friend told her to put the TV on.

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in

Now, why would a friend have to tell her that if she was already searching for a station with news about Kennedy. It seems that you are the one making up your own reality.

But let me guess, you could not find a single station that was broadcasting news about Kennedy before 1 PM, right? So, instead you decide to attack me? Great stuff.....

This speaks of the amount of work you've put into this.
WFAA, Dallas local news, was broadcasting about the assassination long before 1PM.
Here, I've done the work for you (it took 10 seconds):

In a previous post you wrote;

It seems from around 12:41 PM (or after the bulletin ended) Roberts is trying to find a channel with the news about the shooting on.

How does this "seem" to be? Did Roberts say anything that indicated that or is it just a figment of your imagination?

The word "seems" indicates speculation or assumption on my behalf. It's an honest thing to do rather than present assumption as fact.
The speculation is based on the video you posted in which Roberts reports seeing the bulletin and her testimony regarding trying to find out more information on another channel. It "seemed" unlikely she would just settle back into her program after the bulletin.

I was alerted by your incredible refusal to reject Roberts' emphatic testimony that Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he left the rooming house

Now, who is making stuff up? I never refused to reject (or accept for that matter) Robert's testimony about the jacket. I merely stated that the evidence about the grey jacket CE 162 was ambivalent. It was you who then started to concoct a extremely dubious story about Oswald leaving the TSBD wearing a jacket, which completely ignored that Bledsoe couldn't have seen the hole in the sleeve of his shirt, if he was wearing a jacket, as well as Roberts herself saying he entered the house wearing a shirt and not a jacket. Go figure!

"Now, who is making stuff up?"

Is this a tacit admission of your own behaviour? 

Roberts testimony about Oswald leaving the house zipping up a jacket is emphatic and unequivocal, there is nothing ambivalent about it.
Speculation - as the dark blue jacket is in the TSBD and Oswald only has two jackets it is safe to assume which jacket he was zipping up as he left the rooming house.

This is only outdone by your refusal of Frazier's equally emphatic identification of the light grey jacket Oswald wore to work that morning.

Pray tell... where can I find Frazier's "emphatic identification of the light grey jacket Oswald wore to work that morning"

The same jacket he was wearing when Frazier dropped him off!

Did Frazier actually say that or are you just making it up?

I thought you were familiar with Frazier's testimony?

Your truth seeking didn't take very long, did it now?

My "truth-seeking" credentials are established.
What about yours?

[Martin Weidmann]

She never said anything like this.
You haven't misrepresented what she said, you've invented it!
That you can defend such an action speaks volumes about your "truth-seeking" credentials.
It appears you will do literally anything to bolster your intensely flawed outlook on the Tippit murder.
Where does this leave rational, reasoned debate?

   You invent testimony, put it in the mouth of a witness then complain about "word games". Priceless.

This speaks of the amount of work you've put into this.
WFAA, Dallas local news, was broadcasting about the assassination long before 1PM.
Here, I've done the work for you (it took 10 seconds):

The word "seems" indicates speculation or assumption on my behalf. It's an honest thing to do rather than present assumption as fact.
The speculation is based on the video you posted in which Roberts reports seeing the bulletin and her testimony regarding trying to find out more information on another channel. It "seemed" unlikely she would just settle back into her program after the bulletin.

"Now, who is making stuff up?"

Is this a tacit admission of your own behaviour? 

Roberts testimony about Oswald leaving the house zipping up a jacket is emphatic and unequivocal, there is nothing ambivalent about it.
Speculation - as the dark blue jacket is in the TSBD and Oswald only has two jackets it is safe to assume which jacket he was zipping up as he left the rooming house.

I thought you were familiar with Frazier's testimony?

My "truth-seeking" credentials are established.
What about yours?

An entire post attacking me in a pathetic way and ignoring just about every point I have raised. Oh yes, you are really trying to have a "rational, reasoned debate".

The word "seems" indicates speculation or assumption on my behalf. It's an honest thing to do rather than present assumption as fact. The speculation is based on the video you posted in which Roberts reports seeing the bulletin and her testimony regarding trying to find out more information on another channel. It "seemed" unlikely she would just settle back into her program after the bulletin.

Why would you even speculate, when she told you when Oswald came in. Anyway you were wrong and the video I just posted in my previous post proves it. Just in case you missed it or just ignored it, here it is again.

It's a far better assumption than to assume that Roberts was searching for a channel with news about Kennedy after 12:41. You seem to conveniently forget that she got a telephone call from a friend who told her Kennedy had been killed and to put the TV on. Kennedy wasn't declared dead until 1 PM!

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in

Now, why would a friend have to tell her that, and why would she have to turn on the television, if she was already searching for a station with news about Kennedy? It seems that you are the one making up your own reality. But don't get me wrong. I think I understand where the confusion comes from. On the one hand you have Roberts talking about a special bulletin that came on during "As the world turns" which suggests that she was already watching TV, but then on the other hand you have her saying that she turned the TV on after a friend called her on the telephone and told her to put the television on. This seems to be classic Roberts as described by her employer, Mrs. Johnson, making up stories as she goes along.

Roberts testimony about Oswald leaving the house zipping up a jacket is emphatic and unequivocal, there is nothing ambivalent about it.
Speculation - as the dark blue jacket is in the TSBD and Oswald only has two jackets it is safe to assume which jacket he was zipping up as he left the rooming house.

I never said that Roberts testimony about the jacket was ambivalent. I said the evidence was ambivalent. If you don't understand the difference, than I can't help you.

You claimed as fact that Oswald left the TSBD wearing a jacket and that Roberts was wrong ("mistaken" is the correct LN term, I believe) when she said he entered the house wearing only a shirt. As this concocted story only matched (in a contrived way) some of the known evidence it most certainly did not match all the known evidence. It was a pathetic story to "explain" how the grey jacket could have been in the rooming house on Friday afternoon and it doesn't pass the smell test.

So, you can make assumptions about which jacket Oswald was zipping up as he left the rooming house, but it is meaningless as long as the discrepancy between Frazier's and Robert's statements on the subject hasn't been resolved.

I thought you were familiar with Frazier's testimony?

You claim that Frazier's emphatically identified the light grey jacket Oswald wore to work that morning. The same jacket he was wearing when Frazier dropped him off! That's not an assumption, it's an invented claim. So, I ask you where I can find Frazier making that identification and all you can come up with is this? Really?

All that tells me is that you can't show me where Frazier made that emphatic identification, because it doesn't exist!

My "truth-seeking" credentials are established.
What about yours?

I refer back to my comments about when Roberts switched the TV on, your made up story about Oswald leaving the TSBD wearing a jacket and Frazier alleged emphatic identification of the jacket. That tells us all we need to know about your "truth-seeking credentials".

I've been long resigned to the fact that on this forum difference of opinions goes hand in hand with insults and petty games being played. The only reason for me to hang around is that once in a while something is said in a discussion that I did not know. Our discussion about the Tippit time line was constructive and interesting, and then you fall back to this.... It's a shame, really!

Btw. you said;

It appears you will do literally anything to bolster your intensely flawed outlook on the Tippit murder.

That sounds like you have your mind made up about the Tippit murder (which would explain a few things) but please tell me what is my "intensely flawed outlook on the Tippit murder" because I haven't got a clue what you are on about.

What do you think (assume, perhaps) that my outlook on the Tippit murder is?

[Dan O'meara]

An entire post attacking me in a pathetic way and ignoring just about every point I have raised. Oh yes, you are really trying to have a "rational, reasoned debate".

My post was criticising you for falsifying eye-witness testimony to support your argument and I was making the point that it is impossible to have a rational and reasoned debate with someone who is falsifying eye-witness testimony.
Rather than acknowledge your error you tried to defend it.
Now you would like to make yourself out to be the victim of an "attack".

Why would you even speculate, when she told you when Oswald came in. Anyway you were wrong and the video I just posted in my previous post proves it. Just in case you missed it or just ignored it, here it is again.

It's a far better assumption than to assume that Roberts was searching for a channel with news about Kennedy after 12:41. You seem to conveniently forget that she got a telephone call from a friend who told her Kennedy had been killed and to put the TV on. Kennedy wasn't declared dead until 1 PM!

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in

Now, why would a friend have to tell her that, and why would she have to turn on the television, if she was already searching for a station with news about Kennedy? It seems that you are the one making up your own reality.

In the above video you posted Roberts says she was watching "As The World Turns" when a bulletin about the shooting came on.
It can be assumed, if her testimony is correct, that this was the program that was on when she switched the TV on after her friend called. After the bulletin ended and went back to the original program it is not beyond the realms of possibility that this was the time Roberts started messing with the TV to get another channel with the news on.
No need for a call while she already had the TV on.
No need to invent anything.

You claimed as fact that Oswald left the TSBD wearing a jacket and that Roberts was wrong ("mistaken" is the correct LN term, I believe) when she said he entered the house wearing only a shirt. As this concocted story only matched (in a contrived way) some of the known evidence it most certainly did not match all the known evidence. It was a pathetic story to "explain" how the grey jacket could have been in the rooming house on Friday afternoon and it doesn't pass the smell test.

"You claimed as fact that Oswald left the TSBD wearing a jacket"

This is a falsehood. Nowhere have I claimed that as a fact. I've put that forward as a theory that best fits the majority of eye-witness testimony.

I thought you were familiar with Frazier's testimony?

You claim that Frazier's emphatically identified the light grey jacket Oswald wore to work that morning. The same jacket he was wearing when Frazier dropped him off! That's not an assumption, it's an invented claim. So, I ask you where I can find Frazier making that identification and all you can come up with is this? Really?

All that tells me is that you can't show me where Frazier made that emphatic identification, because it doesn't exist!

"...it's an invented claim"

I'm not the one who invents things around here:

Mr. BALL - On Thursday afternoon when you went home, drove on home, did he carry any package with him?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't
Mr. BALL - Did he have a jacket or coat on him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What kind of a jacket or coat did he have?
Mr. FRAZIER - That, you know, like I say gray jacket.
Mr. BALL - That same gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Now, I can be frank with you, I had seen him wear that jacket several times, because it is cool type like when you keep a jacket on all day, if you are working on outside or something like that, you wouldn't go outside with just a plain shirt on.

Frazier is the key witness regarding what Oswald wore that morning.
Your ignorance of his testimony and your contempt for those who are familiar with it, is another reason why rational debate is almost impossible.

My "truth-seeking" credentials are established.
What about yours?

I refer back to my comments about when Roberts switched the TV on, your made up story about Oswald leaving the TSBD wearing a jacket and Frazier alleged emphatic identification of the jacket. That tells us all we need to know about your "truth-seeking credentials".

I've been long resigned to the fact that on this forum difference of opinions goes hand in hand with insults and petty games being played. The only reason for me to hang around is that once in a while something is said in a discussion that I did not know. Our discussion about the Tippit time line was constructive and interesting, and then you fall back to this.... It's a shame, really!

The only shame is on you.

[Dan O'meara]

Btw. you said;

It appears you will do literally anything to bolster your intensely flawed outlook on the Tippit murder.

That sounds like you have your mind made up about the Tippit murder (which would explain a few things) but please tell me what is my "intensely flawed outlook on the Tippit murder" because I haven't got a clue what you are on about.

What do you think (assume, perhaps) that my outlook on the Tippit murder is?

That Oswald didn't do it.

[Martin Weidmann]

My post was criticising you for falsifying eye-witness testimony to support your argument and I was making the point that it is impossible to have a rational and reasoned debate with someone who is falsifying eye-witness testimony.
Rather than acknowledge your error you tried to defend it.
Now you would like to make yourself out to be the victim of an "attack".

In the above video you posted Roberts says she was watching "As The World Turns" when a bulletin about the shooting came on.
It can be assumed, if her testimony is correct, that this was the program that was on when she switched the TV on after her friend called. After the bulletin ended and went back to the original program it is not beyond the realms of possibility that this was the time Roberts started messing with the TV to get another channel with the news on.
No need for a call while she already had the TV on.
No need to invent anything.

"You claimed as fact that Oswald left the TSBD wearing a jacket"

This is a falsehood. Nowhere have I claimed that as a fact. I've put that forward as a theory that best fits the majority of eye-witness testimony.

"...it's an invented claim"

I'm not the one who invents things around here:

Mr. BALL - On Thursday afternoon when you went home, drove on home, did he carry any package with him?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't
Mr. BALL - Did he have a jacket or coat on him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What kind of a jacket or coat did he have?
Mr. FRAZIER - That, you know, like I say gray jacket.
Mr. BALL - That same gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Now, I can be frank with you, I had seen him wear that jacket several times, because it is cool type like when you keep a jacket on all day, if you are working on outside or something like that, you wouldn't go outside with just a plain shirt on.

Frazier is the key witness regarding what Oswald wore that morning.
Your ignorance of his testimony and your contempt for those who are familiar with it, is another reason why rational debate is almost impossible.

The only shame is on you.

You have just lost all credibility.

[Dan O'meara]

You have just lost all credibility.

 

[Martin Weidmann]

That Oswald didn't do it.

Keep on assuming....

IMO it's far more likely that Oswald did kill Tippit than it is that he killed Kennedy.

But your assumption exposes you agenda. Very telling indeed   

[Dan O'meara]

A closer analysis of Frazier's testimony regarding what Oswald was wearing that morning.

Frazier is shown the dark blue jacket (CE 163) that was found in the TSBD and is asked if he recognises it. For some reason Ball describes it as a "gray blue" jacket.



Mr. BALL - I have here Commission's 163, a gray blue jacket. Do you recognize this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. BALL - Did you ever see Lee Oswald wear this jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; I don't believe I have.

It doesn't get much more straight-forward than that. Not only isn't it the jacket Oswald wore to work that morning, it's a jacket Frazier is completely unfamiliar with. It must be remembered, Frazier is in the company of Oswald quite a number of times taking him to and from Irving. He is sat right next to him at a time Oswald would most likely be wearing his jacket - before and after work.
Frazier has never seen the jacket before (to the best of his knowledge)

So what was Oswald wearing to work that day?

Mr. BALL - On that day you did notice one article of clothing, that is, he had a jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What color was the jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was a gray, more or less flannel, wool-looking type of jacket that I had seen him wear and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning.
Mr. BALL - Did it have a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; it was one of the zipper types.

The one item of clothing Frazier specifically remembers is Oswald's gray jacket. A zipper jacket. In this part of his testimony we see the first of three times Frazier makes the point he had seen Oswald wearing this jacket before. He is unequivocal that this was the jacket Oswald had on that morning - "and that is the type of jacket he had on that morning."

A curious thing happens at this point in the questioning. Ball asks - "It isn't one of these two zipper jackets we have shown?" - to which Frazier replies - "No, sir"
There are two jackets in evidence that are thought to be Oswald's - the dark blue one (CE 163) and a light grey one (CE 162)
As we have seen, CE 163 was introduced into the hearing and given to Frazier to look at. However, at no point in proceedings is CE 162 introduced. It is never mentioned and Frazier is never asked to give an opinion about it so I find Ball's mention of two zipper jackets quite baffling.
Frazier is then asked about Oswald's pants but he makes the point he can't really remember what else he had on:

Mr. BALL - You are not able to tell us then anything or are you able to tell us, describe any of the clothing he had on that day, except this gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - That is the only thing you can remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.

Frazier reiterates that he is only sure about the gray jacket. The testimony is about to move on to the bag Oswald was carrying that day but Ball wants more details about the gray jacket:

Mr. BALL - I have here a paper sack which is Commission's Exhibit 364. That gray jacket you mentioned, did it have any design in it?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir.
Mr. BALL - Was it light or dark gray?
Mr. FRAZIER - It was light gray.
Mr. BALL - You mentioned it was woolen.
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Long sleeves?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Here we find out it was a long-sleeved, light gray jacket. It is a zippered, long-sleeved, light gray jacket that Oswald was wearing to work that morning. Ball wants even more detail but Frazier isn't sure:

Mr. BALL - Buttoned sleeves at the wrist, or do you remember?
Mr. FRAZIER - To be frank with you, I didn't notice that much about the jacket, but I had seen him wear that gray woolen jacket before.
Mr. BALL - You say it had a zipper on it?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.

Although Frazier can't confirm whether or not there were buttons on the wrist he states for the second time that he had seen Oswald wearing the jacket before.  There can be little doubt what jacket Oswald wore to work that morning and it most certainly was not the dark blue jacket subsequently found at the TSBD.

Towards the end of his questioning Frazier is asked about the Thursday he dropped Oswald off:

Mr. BALL - On Thursday afternoon when you went home, drove on home, did he carry any package with him?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't
Mr. BALL - Did he have a jacket or coat on him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What kind of a jacket or coat did he have?
Mr. FRAZIER - That, you know, like I say gray jacket.
Mr. BALL - That same gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Now, I can be frank with you, I had seen him wear that jacket several times, because it is cool type like when you keep a jacket on all day, if you are working on outside or something like that, you wouldn't go outside with just a plain shirt on.

For the third time Frazier states he had seen Oswald wearing this jacket before and that he was wearing it when he dropped him off on Thursday. The same jacket he was wearing Friday morning which is why an extensive search of the Paine house never turned up this light gray, long-sleeved, zippered jacket.
It should also be remembered that nobody saw Oswald leave the TSBD.
Nobody saw what he was wearing.
And this jacket was never found in the TSBD so it is safe to assume that when Oswald left the TSBD that day he was wearing his light gray jacket.