Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Richard Smith]

Why would any conspirator be in a rush to have Oswald's boardinghouse searched when he was already in custody and there was nothing incriminating to be found there?

And you know this how?

Like the bus to nowhere and alleged phone/power outage, this seems to advance no objective from a conspiracy perspective.

ROFL -- you bailed the bus to nowhere, literary, when your argument fell apart.

And if there is no allegation of this occurring as a result of a conspiracy (or proof of such) to frame Oswald but just a because someone "wants to know," then why does it really matter?

Any timeline that breaks down matters. Your question underlines the fact that you don't understand how a timeline works.

Down the rabbit hole we go again!  Martin is awfully quiet.  Three's a crowd.  Again, what would be the rush for anyone to have the DPD to search Oswald's boardinghouse if there was nothing incriminatory to be found there?  Do you believe something incriminating was found at Oswald's boardinghouse and the DPD was protecting Oswald by rushing there to cover it up?  That seems to cut against framing him.  In your fantasy scenario, what are you suggesting is the motivation for the DPD to search Oswald's boardinghouse in such a rush instead of just waiting until they uncovered his address?  He was already in custody.  4-3=0 again.

[Richard Smith]

Down the rabbit hole we go again!

Classic, translation: I somehow can't make my strawman work.

Martin is awfully quiet. Three's a crowd.

ROFL -- Gone CT on the alleged account scam?

Again, what would be the rush for anyone to have the DPD to search Oswald's boardinghouse if there was nothing incriminatory to be found there?

Again, you know this how?

Do you believe something incriminating was found at Oswald's boardinghouse and the DPD was protecting Oswald by rushing there to cover it up? That seems to cut against framing him.

Odd question, how would this protection of Oswald work?

In your fantasy scenario, what are you suggesting is the motivation for the DPD to search Oswald's boardinghouse in such a rush instead of just waiting until they uncovered his address?

I don't deal in fantasy scenarios, but how could they rush anywhere until they had uncovered his address?

He was already in custody.

Your point being?

4-3=0 again.

Irrelevant.

I know now what it is like to play whack-a-mole with someone who has ADD.  I'll try one question that accepts the extremely dubious premise that has been suggested (i.e. that the DPD somehow knew Oswald's address before he gave it to them). 

Why not wait until Oswald had given his address instead of rushing off to his boardinghouse and risking exposure of having some type of foreknowledge of where he lived?

[Dan O'meara]

Okay Otto, I'll deal with it (whatever that means)

Pro-tip: If in doubt, ask.

(which may seem to be in conflict with my previous tip)

Keep the pro-tips coming, it's like some kind of wisdom is being slowly revealed:

If in doubt, ask...but never ask a question you don't already know the answer to.

You seem to be going down the route of Richard Smith's infallible conspirators but you should know by now how that is guarantied to end.

I've thought about this sentence for a while, and I literally don't know what you're trying to say. What route? What "infallible conspirators"? What "end"?
But most of all - how is this a response to what I posted?

Potts, in his report, increased your 11 tenants to 16 which brings us back to your easily checkable evidence...

My 11 tenants? My house isn't big enough.
"Easily checkable" by who?

[Dan O'meara]

I incorrectly assumed you would understand the difference between being in 'game mode' and engaging in some elaborate explanation before understanding what is being asked.

I can see that it's written in English.
And that it's put together into a coherent sentence.
But, once again, the meaning of what you're actually saying seems elusive.

Disappointing, read back:
Secondly, if the Johnsons are part of some elaborate hoax, why are they saying the DP arrived so early, thereby ruining the elaborate hoax?

A perfectly valid point that does need to be dealt with at some stage.
Once the notion of a "Hoax" has been created, then this entity - the Hoax - has to withstand scrutiny as if it were a real thing.
Who created this hoax?
Who participated in it?
What are the "mechanics" of it?

In my mind, these things have to be dealt with instead of crying "Hoax" and then just moving on, as if it's been dealt with.
Another example of a solid question that needs answering - what is the purpose of the Hoax?
This question must be answered satisfactorily, it is a fundamental issue.
In LeDoux's piece the only reason I can find for this unbelievably complex hoax is to place Oswald close to the Tippit murder.
I find this really baffling. Oswald was arrested not far from the scene of the shooting so he's already there. It doesn't matter where he came from, he is discovered close to the scene of the crime. I don't understand why the need to have him living close by.

Was the Hoax pre-planned or was it something created on the spur of the moment?
I don't think it's good enough to get lost in the uncertainty of the detail without being aware that these details must throw light on these more fundamental issues.

Equally disappointing:
The lame excuse thread, reply #329.

I came across the names of eleven male occupants of 1026 on the Mary Ferrell website. I'd literally just started looking into this aspect of the case about which I knew very little and was trying to answer your questions about the occupants.
They're Mary's eleven, not mine.

I've got to go through LeDoux's excellent piece about this in a lot more detail as I can't discern, at the moment, if the occupants were really there or not. If they were, were some of them coaxed into joining in with the hoax? Was it all some kind of massive set-up from scratch? Or just some giant misunderstanding.
The incompetence of the investigation into this aspect of the case is up to it's usual, mind-blowing proportions. There is a definite sense that something is being covered-up/manipulated.

Further disappointment:
The lame excuse thread, reply #323.

You've misunderstood my original point.
When Mrs Johnson is supposed to be spinning her elaborate yarn to the WC (something I'm finding very difficult to buy), she introduces the detail that Oswald sometimes sat with the other male renters watching TV. By introducing this detail she was dragging into her complex lie all the male renters in her rooming house. I was imagining that it would be desirable to keep things simple when telling such a huge lie but Johnson does exactly the opposite.
Why introduce this detail?
It can be easily checked by the authorities, the media or any private individual investigating this aspect of the case. It's in a residential area, ask a neighbour about it or at the garage across the road or any of the friends/family of the Johnsons or Earlene Roberts.
It seems to me to be an incredibly simple thing to check.
That it wasn't investigated properly is a whole other matter.

[Dan O'meara]

Whether you understood my advise or not doesn't matter since, per your own admission, you tried to deal with something you didn't understand. I'm glad we have that covered.

I'm glad we've got that covered as well.
It's a real load off.
As you point out, I'm trying to deal with an aspect of the case I know very little about so maybe you can help me out on some of the fundamentals I'm having a hard time with, like - what is the purpose of creating the illusion that Oswald lived at 1026?

Your argument continues to rely on the nutty and irrational premise that everyone getting involved with a conspiracy will have their IQ doubled instantly.

It seems like a very complex and audacious Hoax is being perpetrated.
The Johnsons and Earlene Roberts have got to be singing from the same page and keeping the details of the story the same.
I'm assuming someone else has come in and briefed them on what they're supposed to be saying. I'm assuming someone has outlined the basic "narrative".
So, when the Johnsons have the DP arriving before Oswald is even arrested, I can't help but think that whoever was prepping them with the story-line has really failed. Nobody's IQ needs to double to keep in mind such a basic part of the Hoax, in fact, it needs to have halved.
How could the Johnsons have made such a monumental blunder with such a basic detail?

So tell us what Gladys Johnson would have said if she was part of a conspiracy and what prevented it from being easily checked?

Firstly, I wouldn't have set the Hoax up in a rooming house. That makes zero sense.
But, as that's what they decided to do...Mrs Johnson should have answered "yes" or "no" rather than run off at the mouth about Oswald and his time there. She should have said Oswald went to work early, never came out of his room, never spoke to anyone.
I don't think she should have appeared on TV, like Roberts and her frequent TV appearances. Seems a bit risky.

And do tell us what "matter" caused the easy checks not to be performed.

The "Oswald-Did-It" mentality was in from the get go.
As soon as he was arrested in the Texas Theater there seems to have been an automatic assumption that he was the sole assassin.
It appears that, as far as the investigating authorities were concerned, they had their man behind bars and they weren't really motivated to uncover anything that altered that perception.
A cursory questioning of the tenants revealed there was nothing of interest to be added to the preferred narrative - that Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK and a cop-killer.

[Richard Smith]

How about Oswald possibly possessing evidence implicating the DPD?

Putting aside that there is not a scintilla of evidence to support that explanation, it still doesn't account for why the DPD would need to rush to search the boardinghouse.  If they were controlling the investigation and evidence as you suggest here, they just wait until they have cause.  And then conduct the search. Or they just make up a clearer explanation when asked about when they obtained the address.  How would anyone disprove that Oswald gave it to them earlier?  This is classic CTer 101.  Point out a real or more often imagined anomaly.  Claim that somehow proves a conspiracy even if it doesn't advance any conspiratorial objective.  Suggest the motivation doesn't matter or that no one is suggesting a conspiracy (but never explain how or why this happens in the absence of a conspiracy or why it matters.  Repeat endlessly.

[Vincent Baxter]

Yeah, as the saying goes, I think you're up the creek without a paddle on this one, Otto.

I've been sitting here quietly enjoying myself as you've been asked several times to explain what the point of your alleged 'hoax' would be, and each time you've side stepped and avoided answering. (No surprise there, of course)
Once again, your determination to just disagree with everything in an attempt to make yourself look like Billy Big Balls has taken you so far down the road of ridiculousness-ville that you can't even justify your pointless ramblings anymore.

Maybe it's time to log into the Martin Wiedmann account to try and give you some back up in an attempt to make yourself look less pathetic ?

[Dan O'meara]

As I've already pointed out, I can't help someone with this irrational backward way of problem solving.

But I'm not problem solving.
The problem has, apparently, been "solved".
I am examining this solution and my point is simple - if it is indeed a Hoax, then that Hoax must be able to withstand at least mild scrutiny. I don't have to get lost in the details as this has already been done by researchers like LeDoux, who has gathered all the anomalous material together and presented his solution explaining that anomalous material.
This solution must answer this most basic question - if the Hoax is real, why was it done?
There has to be a convincing, coherent answer to this question.
LeDoux's answer to this question is - to have Oswald living close to the scene of the Tippit shooting.
I find this answer highly problematic and very unsatisfactory.

But this is not to say that there's not a better answer to this question or that the anomalous material has somehow been dealt with just because I don't like the answer.
As I understand it, Oswald's house keys are never found, not on him or at the house. That's weird.
Why does the fake-looking slip of paper Gladys Johnson wants back only have one "signature" on it if it is a record of Oswald's payments?
Why is the guest register never produced? [or sold to the highest bidder]

There's something fishy going on at Ma Johnson's rooming house, that's for sure.

Why would you hope to understand how a "very complex and audacious Hoax is being perpetrated" based on a flawed investigation

??

and why would you assume these people were adequately prepped?

Are the Johnsons and Earlene being told what to say or not?
Are they making it up as they go along?
How is this Hoax working?
Having the Johnsons basically testify that the DP were round at the house before Oswald was arrested is a colossal blunder as far as the Hoax is concerned. It's absolutely monumental. Surely a basic detail such as this would have been covered in the preparation for the story the Johnsons and Earlene were going to tell.
Once we start considering the Hoax as a reality it must make sense and the Johnsons effectively testifying that the DP arrived before Oswald was arrested makes zero sense. [Or is this another argument from ignorance and that there are people far more intelligent than I am who understand how this is not a catastrophic mistake]

Argument from ignorance, making zero sense to you doesn't mean there's no one out there smarter than you. People take stupid risks all the time like running red lights getting themselves and others killed.

Setting the Hoax up in a rooming house makes zero sense.
Unless it's being made up on the fly.
If that's the case then a whole other can of worms is opened up.
The Johnsons testifying that the DP arrive before Oswald is arrested isn't a "stupid risk", it's a massive mistake in the context of the Hoax being a reality

But the WC turned every stone?

IMO the WC is a sick joke.
A perverted pantomime. A cover-up of a cover-up.
If there is a single reason this debate rages on it is the utter farce that is the Warren Commission.