JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Discussion & Debate => Topic started by: Bill Brown on April 23, 2021, 10:01:32 PM
-
Here's a Youtube interview I did with Chris Peeks, on the murder of J.D. Tippit.
-
Here's a Youtube interview I did with Chris Peeks, on the murder of J.D. Tippit.
Hi Bill,
I'm still fairly new to the JFK assassination case and am still in Dealey Plaza trying to get a handle on certain things and this is the first time I've delved into anything regarding the Tippit murder. I want to start off by saying you make a compelling case for Oswald as the killer of Tippit and any counter-argument would have to be very powerful indeed.
One question I would like to ask that I don't think was covered in your interview was if there was any consensus on where Oswald was going when he left his boarding house. I assumed he was heading for the Texas Theater. As I didn't know the route he took I had a quick search and came up with this map:
(https://i.postimg.cc/NjzkV7FJ/jfklhoroutemap.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
It seems clear from this map of the route that Oswald is not heading for the Texas Theater at first but, I'm assuming, changes direction after the shooting and ends up ducking into the Theater to avoid the increased police presence in the area.
-
Hi Bill,
I'm still fairly new to the JFK assassination case and am still in Dealey Plaza trying to get a handle on certain things and this is the first time I've delved into anything regarding the Tippit murder. I want to start off by saying you make a compelling case for Oswald as the killer of Tippit and any counter-argument would have to be very powerful indeed.
One question I would like to ask that I don't think was covered in your interview was if there was any consensus on where Oswald was going when he left his boarding house. I assumed he was heading for the Texas Theater. As I didn't know the route he took I had a quick search and came up with this map:
It seems clear from this map of the route that Oswald is not heading for the Texas Theater at first but, I'm assuming, changes direction after the shooting and ends up ducking into the Theater to avoid the increased police presence in the area.
You've nailed it perfectly, Dan. Oswald only headed for the theater once the shooting of Tippit occurred and he needed a place to lay low for a while, probably to gather his thoughts.
Obviously, there is no way to know where Oswald was headed BEFORE his encounter with Tippit.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/3hP4Fm3/B5174-A6-D-1317-4956-A2-FA-317-CF3101586.jpg)
-
(https://i.ibb.co/3hP4Fm3/B5174-A6-D-1317-4956-A2-FA-317-CF3101586.jpg)
If Oswald was walking west on Tenth, then he was walking in the opposite direction as was Ruby's apartment.
-
If Oswald was walking west on Tenth, then he was walking in the opposite direction as was Ruby's apartment.
And in the general direction of the Theatre.....
-
And in the general direction of the Theatre.....
Am I to assume that you're hinting at Oswald heading to the theater BEFORE his encounter with Tippit?
-
Am I to assume that you're hinting at Oswald heading to the theater BEFORE his encounter with Tippit?
I have no idea. Just making observation. You think Oswald walked east then west after leaving 1026? A sort of random path. Perhaps you could provide a map with your best guess.
-
I have no idea. Just making observation. You think Oswald walked east then west after leaving 1026? A sort of random path. Perhaps you could provide a map with your best guess.
No map or guessing (let alone 'best' guessing) needed: Dirty Harvey took the nearest rabbit hole to 213 West Jefferson to pretend to look at tennis shoes.
-
No map or guessing (let alone 'best' guessing) needed: Dirty Harvey took the nearest rabbit hole to 213 West Jefferson to pretend to look at tennis shoes.
Obviously you did not get the intent of my question. Perhaps you could provide the path you think Oswald took to get to Tippit? Walking west on 10th or east?
-
Obviously you did not get the intent of my question. Perhaps you could provide the path you think Oswald took to get to Tippit? Walking west on 10th or east?
Both
-
Why did Oswald have the taxi driver drive past his rooming house? Then once past it he told him to stop. Why not tell the driver to drive up directly in front of it? The rooming house was located at 1026 North Beckley Street. Whaley, the cab driver, testified that Oswald told him to take him to 500 North Beckley Street. That is, I assume, five blocks past his rooming house?
Here is Whaley's account (WC testimony):
WHALEY: "....I asked him where he wanted to go. And he said, '500 North Beckley.'.... But when I got pretty close to 500 block at Neches and North Beckley which is the 500 block, he said, "This will do fine," and I pulled over to the curb right there. He gave me a dollar bill, the trip was 95 cents. He gave me a dollar bill and didn't say anything, just got out and closed the door and walked around the front of the cab over to the other side of the street. Of course, traffic was moving through there and I put it in gear and moved on, that is the last I saw of him.
Mr. BALL. When you parked your car you parked on what street?
Mr. WHALEY. I wasn't parked, I was pulled to the curb on Neches and North Beckley.
Mr. BALL. Neches, corner of Neches and North Beckley?
Mr. WHALEY. Which is the 500 block.
Mr. BALL. What direction was your car?
Mr. WHALEY. South.
Mr. BALL. The cab was headed?
Mr. WHALEY. South.
Mr. BALL. And it would be on the west side of the street?
Mr. WHALEY. Parked, stopped on the west side of the intersection, yes, sir.
Testimony is here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/whaley1.htm
-
Both
Did he go south on Denver? One more try and then I’ll wait for the other Bill. I’ve always found him to be respectful.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/3hP4Fm3/B5174-A6-D-1317-4956-A2-FA-317-CF3101586.jpg)
It is important to note there are several places that could have been in the general direction of Oswald’s path up until the Officer Tippit shooting site.
• Ruby’s apartment.
• One of the two nightclubs Ruby ran.
• Michael Paine’s workplace.
• Michael Paine’s apartment.
• FBI headquarters where FBI Agent Hosty worked.
• Agent Hosty’s home.
• The home or workplace of many other’s who could be tried to an alleged assassination conspiracy.
Also, if it was more convenient, if the path from Oswald’s room to the Officer Tippit murder site was not useful, but the path from the Officer Tippit murder site to the Texas Theater was useful, CTers could draw attention to that path instead and claim that maybe Oswald was heading to what he thought was the nearest “safe place” (possibly mistakenly) immediately after someone shot Officer Tippit.
The odds of Oswald’s path heading in the general direction of Jack Ruby’s apartment? Fairly small, but not super small. The odds of Oswald’s path (either to the Officer Tippit murder site or the Texas Theater) heading in the general direction of some place that sounds suspicious and can be used by CTers? Pretty large.
-
I have no idea. Just making observation. You think Oswald walked east then west after leaving 1026? A sort of random path. Perhaps you could provide a map with your best guess.
Well, since you asked...
(And remember, this is only my best guess. who really knows?)
I believe Oswald walked down Beckley, took a left onto Davis and then a right onto Patton. Then I believe he took a left onto Tenth and walked a couple blocks towards Marsalis. Dale Myers told me that there was a Dallas County Sherriff's car parked near Marsalis and Tenth. I think perhaps Oswald got spooked by that and reversed direction on Tenth and is now walking west on Tenth.
I know, this has him heading somewhat towards Ruby's apartment.
Honestly, I don't like to speculate about Oswald's path and/or where he was intending to go. But one thing seems certain, he was not heading to the theater until AFTER he shot Tippit.
-
Did he go south on Denver? One more try and then I’ll wait for the other Bill. I’ve always found him to be respectful.
Not south on Denver.
Jimmy Burt and Bill Smith were in the front yard of the house at the corner of Tenth and Denver (one block east of Tenth and Patton). Burt said that he noticed the man walking along Tenth across the street from the yard he was in, walking east to west (crossed Denver and continue west toward Patton). This would mean that the man did not come down Denver.
-
Why did Oswald have the taxi driver drive past his rooming house? Then once past it he told him to stop. Why not tell the driver to drive up directly in front of it? The rooming house was located at 1026 North Beckley Street. Whaley, the cab driver, testified that Oswald told him to take him to 500 North Beckley Street. That is, I assume, five blocks past his rooming house?
Here is Whaley's account (WC testimony):
WHALEY: "....I asked him where he wanted to go. And he said, '500 North Beckley.'.... But when I got pretty close to 500 block at Neches and North Beckley which is the 500 block, he said, "This will do fine," and I pulled over to the curb right there. He gave me a dollar bill, the trip was 95 cents. He gave me a dollar bill and didn't say anything, just got out and closed the door and walked around the front of the cab over to the other side of the street. Of course, traffic was moving through there and I put it in gear and moved on, that is the last I saw of him.
Mr. BALL. When you parked your car you parked on what street?
Mr. WHALEY. I wasn't parked, I was pulled to the curb on Neches and North Beckley.
Mr. BALL. Neches, corner of Neches and North Beckley?
Mr. WHALEY. Which is the 500 block.
Mr. BALL. What direction was your car?
Mr. WHALEY. South.
Mr. BALL. The cab was headed?
Mr. WHALEY. South.
Mr. BALL. And it would be on the west side of the street?
Mr. WHALEY. Parked, stopped on the west side of the intersection, yes, sir.
Testimony is here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/whaley1.htm
Hi Steve. Was your question rhetorical?
I believe Oswald gave Whaley the destination five blocks south of the rooming house because he wanted the cab to pass by the house so that he could determine if the authorities would be there looking for him. After seeing the coast was clear, and still two blocks short of the original destination, Oswald tells Whaley that 'this will do just fine" and exits the cab three blocks past the rooming house (instead of five; shorter walk back to the house).
-
Hi Steve. Was your question rhetorical?
I believe Oswald gave Whaley the destination five blocks south of the rooming house because he wanted the cab to pass by the house so that he could determine if the authorities would be there looking for him. After seeing the coast was clear, and still two blocks short of the original destination, Oswald tells Whaley that 'this will do just fine" and exits the cab three blocks past the rooming house (instead of five; shorter walk back to the house).
Hi Bill, What makes you think Oswald would suspect the authorities would be looking for him a non-descript loser like him?
-
Did he go south on Denver? One more try and then I’ll wait for the other Bill. I’ve always found him to be respectful.
Who said anything about Denver?
-
Here's a Youtube interview I did with Chris Peeks, on the murder of J.D. Tippit.
Three questions about the first three minutes of the interview.
1. You claim Oswald left the TSBD through the front door within 2 to 2,5 minutes after the shots. Where did you get this information from?
2. You claim "McWatters testified that Oswald got on the bus". Where exactly can this testimony be found?
3. You claim Earlene Roberts said that Oswald was "back there long enough to grab a jacket". Where did she make this statement?
-
Well, since you asked...
(And remember, this is only my best guess. who really knows?)
I believe Oswald walked down Beckley, took a left onto Davis and then a right onto Patton. Then I believe he took a left onto Tenth and walked a couple blocks towards Marsalis. Dale Myers told me that there was a Dallas County Sherriff's car parked near Marsalis and Tenth. I think perhaps Oswald got spooked by that and reversed direction on Tenth and is now walking west on Tenth.
I know, this has him heading somewhat towards Ruby's apartment.
Honestly, I don't like to speculate about Oswald's path and/or where he was intending to go. But one thing seems certain, he was not heading to the theater until AFTER he shot Tippit.
Thanks Bill, was this the route you used for the timeline?
-
Thanks Bill, was this the route you used for the timeline?
Yes Sir.
-
Hi Bill, What makes you think Oswald would suspect the authorities would be looking for him a non-descript loser like him?
So why did Oswald have the cab driver drive him several blocks past the rooming house and then let him off there and not in front of it? That's the question on the table. Or my question.
What's a logical explanation for that odd behavior?
Oswald defected to the USSR, was publicly agitating for Castro in the US, visited the Cuban and Soviet embassy/consulates in Mexico City. There's nothing "non-descript" about someone who does those things.
-
Hi Steve. Was your question rhetorical?
I believe Oswald gave Whaley the destination five blocks south of the rooming house because he wanted the cab to pass by the house so that he could determine if the authorities would be there looking for him. After seeing the coast was clear, and still two blocks short of the original destination, Oswald tells Whaley that 'this will do just fine" and exits the cab three blocks past the rooming house (instead of five; shorter walk back to the house).
Well, a bit rhetorical and a bit serious with the serious purpose directed at the Oswald defenders.
It seems obvious - doesn't it? - that he was worried about someone waiting for him at the house. Otherwise why go through those measures? What's an alternate explanation?
And what is the explanation anyway for him taking a cab to get to his rooming house? What's the rush to get there? There's a long series of acts by Oswald after the assassination that indicate to me that he was in flight from the TSBD. Any other explanation that considers all of those acts simply don't make sense. To me.
As Robert Blakey said, any explanation as to what happened in Dallas begins with the Oswald. The question is does it end with him or is there more? E.g., did he have help? was he manipulated?
-
Well, since you asked...
(And remember, this is only my best guess. who really knows?)
I believe Oswald walked down Beckley, took a left onto Davis and then a right onto Patton. Then I believe he took a left onto Tenth and walked a couple blocks towards Marsalis. Dale Myers told me that there was a Dallas County Sherriff's car parked near Marsalis and Tenth. I think perhaps Oswald got spooked by that and reversed direction on Tenth and is now walking west on Tenth.
I know, this has him heading somewhat towards Ruby's apartment.
Honestly, I don't like to speculate about Oswald's path and/or where he was intending to go. But one thing seems certain, he was not heading to the theater until AFTER he shot Tippit.
Below is a screen-grab showing where Patton and Denver meet Jefferson Boulevard.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9F1YNzS1/Screenshot-153.png) (https://postimages.org/)
In it we can see three bus companies - Turimex, Omnibus Express and Tornado Bus Company.
All three offer services to Mexico.
Will try to find out whether any of them were around in '63, as it would make sense Oswald was going to try to head for the border.
-
Below is a screen-grab showing where Patton and Denver meet Jefferson Boulevard.
(https://i.postimg.cc/9F1YNzS1/Screenshot-153.png) (https://postimages.org/)
In it we can see three bus companies - Turimex, Omnibus Express and Tornado Bus Company.
All three offer services to Mexico.
Will try to find out whether any of them were around in '63, as it would make sense Oswald was going to try to head for the border.
Okay, but why not have the cab drive him to the bus station? Or Ruby's place. Or Walker's house, et cetera? Why walk to wherever he was going?
He goes to his room, retrieves his loaded revolver (apparently), he takes 10 or so extra bullets, he had left nearly all of his money that morning for Marina. Why not keep $50 for his flight? Fifty dollars in 1963 is about $350 today.
FWIW, I think he didn't believe he'd survive the attempt. So once he did he was winging it.
-
So why did Oswald have the cab driver drive him several blocks past the rooming house and then let him off there and not in front of it? That's the question on the table. Or my question.
What's a logical explanation for that odd behavior?
Oswald defected to the USSR, was publicly agitating for Castro in the US, visited the Cuban and Soviet embassy/consulates in Mexico City. There's nothing "non-descript" about someone who does those things.
Well said.
-
Okay, but why not have the cab drive him to the bus station? Or Ruby's place. Or Walker's house, et cetera? Why walk to wherever he was going?
He goes to his room, retrieves his loaded revolver (apparently), he takes 10 or so extra bullets, he had left nearly all of his money that morning for Marina. Why not keep $50 for his flight? Fifty dollars in 1963 is about $350 today.
FWIW, I think he didn't believe he'd survive the attempt. So once he did he was winging it.
I don't know that much about this aspect of the case so I can only give general impressions.
Oswald returns to his room to collect his gun and change his clothes ( apparently).
Bill's suggestion that he takes the cab past his room so he can check if the authorities are waiting for him makes sense in terms of a narrative in which Oswald is on the run. His change of clothes also feeds into this narrative.
I agree he is "winging it". His lack of money hints at a lack of preparation.
I get the strong impression that when he leaves his room he is heading for a specific destination but changes direction after the shooting of Tippit.
I'm just trying to get a handle on where he is heading once he leaves his room and a bus station that will get him out of Dallas is a good bet in terms of the Oswald-on-run narrative.
-
Well, a bit rhetorical and a bit serious with the serious purpose directed at the Oswald defenders.
It seems obvious - doesn't it? - that he was worried about someone waiting for him at the house. Otherwise why go through those measures? What's an alternate explanation?
And what is the explanation anyway for him taking a cab to get to his rooming house? What's the rush to get there? There's a long series of acts by Oswald after the assassination that indicate to me that he was in flight from the TSBD. Any other explanation that considers all of those acts simply don't make sense. To me.
As Robert Blakey said, any explanation as to what happened in Dallas begins with the Oswald. The question is does it end with him or is there more? E.g., did he have help? was he manipulated?
Yeah, he had help ;)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Dy0Bb22G/jfk-murder-row.png)
BILL CHAPMAN
-
Yeah, he had help ;)
(https://i.postimg.cc/QCxLnyM2/JFK-MURDERERS-ROW.png)
BILL CHAPMAN
Blakey thought he did. Or that he was manipulated by Marcello and Trafficante and elements of the mob. That he thought he would get help. Or something <g>. Thus the "hit" by Ruby, a hit he did on orders from Trafficante.
I don't see it anywhere but I guess it's a plausible explanation for his post-assassination behavior. That is he was expecting help, was hung out to dry, and then had to wing it afterwards. Thus the frantic escape and actions that seemed to have no purpose.
-
Blakey thought he did. Or that he was manipulated by Marcello and Trafficante and elements of the mob. That he thought he would get help. Or something <g>. Thus the "hit" by Ruby, a hit he did on orders from Trafficante.
I don't see it anywhere but I guess it's a plausible explanation for his post-assassination behavior. That is he was expecting help, was hung out to dry, and then had to wing it afterwards. Thus the frantic escape and actions that seemed to have no purpose.
No mob element would let Oswald just get out on the town like that. Besides, why 'take the chance' (Goodfellas/Sopranos) on these guys later squealing. I'll go with Bugliosi's 'driven to his death' thing.
-
Well, a bit rhetorical and a bit serious with the serious purpose directed at the Oswald defenders.
It seems obvious - doesn't it? - that he was worried about someone waiting for him at the house. Otherwise why go through those measures? What's an alternate explanation?
And what is the explanation anyway for him taking a cab to get to his rooming house? What's the rush to get there? There's a long series of acts by Oswald after the assassination that indicate to me that he was in flight from the TSBD. Any other explanation that considers all of those acts simply don't make sense. To me.
As Robert Blakey said, any explanation as to what happened in Dallas begins with the Oswald. The question is does it end with him or is there more? E.g., did he have help? was he manipulated?
When you say …"someone" waiting at 1026 I assume you mean law enforcement? Do you think they would park outside or be waiting at the gate? However we know Earlene told of a police car outside while Oswald was getting his jacket. If it was the real reason why not just stop a block down the road when the coast was clear. Every minute counted it seems.
As for lack of preparation I wonder why he spent Wednesday night until midnight at the washerteria across the road from the roominghouse and had to be asked to leave. If he was going to "do the deed" on Friday, why take $13 or so? Not enough for an escape and too much if caught/killed in the act.
Another one of those what if’s as an aside for the LN crew. Lovelady and Frazier were friendly. They quite often helped each other when their cars needed assistance, charging etc. Lovelady lived in Irving and his car was not operational that Friday he had to take the bus. Can you imagine Frazier saying to Oswald that they were giving him a lift too? Lovelady getting in the back seat with a package?
-
When you say …"someone" waiting at 1026 I assume you mean law enforcement? Do you think they would park outside or be waiting at the gate? However we know Earlene told of a police car outside while Oswald was getting his jacket. If it was the real reason why not just stop a block down the road when the coast was clear. Every minute counted it seems.
But Earlene wasn’t saying that on the day of the assassination, nor the next day, nor the next day. Only about a week later, after a week of having police cars parked by the house from time to time, did she suddenly remember seeing a police car parked near the house on November 22.
As for lack of preparation I wonder why he spent Wednesday night until midnight at the washerteria across the road from the roominghouse and had to be asked to leave. If he was going to "do the deed" on Friday, why take $13 or so? Not enough for an escape and too much if caught/killed in the act.
What preparation could he do with the rifle at Ruth Paine’s house? Any preparation can’t start until Thursday night. Might as well get his clothes clean for Friday.
Another one of those what if’s as an aside for the LN crew. Lovelady and Frazier were friendly. They quite often helped each other when their cars needed assistance, charging etc. Lovelady lived in Irving and his car was not operational that Friday he had to take the bus. Can you imagine Frazier saying to Oswald that they were giving him a lift too? Lovelady getting in the back seat with a package?
I imagine Oswald would insist on getting in the back so Lovelady, who had known Fraizer longer, could sit up front with his friend.
-
But Earlene wasn’t saying that on the day of the assassination, nor the next day, nor the next day. Only about a week later, after a week of having police cars parked by the house from time to time, did she suddenly remember seeing a police car parked near the house on November 22.
What preparation could he do with the rifle at Ruth Paine’s house? Any preparation can’t start until Thursday night. Might as well get his clothes clean for Friday.
I imagine Oswald would insist on getting in the back so Lovelady, who had known Fraizer longer, could sit up front with his friend.
So, only initial statements are of value. I’m sure Chappy will provide his thoughts on that notion.
As for the clothes.....what a great excuse for a package on Thursday's trip to Irving with Buell. Seems preparation neglected the essentials requiring a risky return to 1026. All that money left at Irving could have been used for a new revolver, jacket and ticket to anywhere by the time Tippit was dead.
-
So, only initial statements are of value. I’m sure Chappy will provide his thoughts on that notion.
As for the clothes.....what a great excuse for a package on Thursday's trip to Irving with Buell. Seems preparation neglected the essentials requiring a risky return to 1026. All that money left at Irving could have been used for a new revolver, jacket and ticket to anywhere by the time Tippit was dead.
Chappy recalls Buell describing Lovelady as a 'runt' (in relation to his height).
Yep... fast friends, those two.
-
Anyone wondering about the reasons for LHO”s actions after the assassination should keep in mind that LHO knew the FBI was on his trail and wanted to talk with him. Asking the cab driver to go to 500 N. Beckley instead of his rooming house address could have been an attempt to make it more difficult to track him to his rooming house. After all, he must have realized that he would soon become a person of interest to the authorities investigating the assassination. And the changing of clothes, etc. would be in line with the strategies of the TV espionage personalities that he reportedly watched regularly when he was younger. Also with the behavior of another of his reportedly favorite TV personalities: “The Fugitive” (as he searched for the one-armed man). Change appearances (and modes of transportation) in an attempt to make it more difficult to track you. In my opinion, this line of thinking explains some of his actions.
-
How do those who believe the Texas Theater was a just a random, dark hiding place sought only after the Tippit shooting reconcile with the numerous witness reports of odd activities leading up to Oswald's arrest? It must mean that there was nothing to the multiple Oswald sightings (one out the front and one out the back alley) or the reports of Oswald moving seats apparently looking for someone. The theater as a meeting place has also been used to explain the purpose of the torn dollar bills supposedly found in Oswald's possession.
It also makes it harder to imagine the ease to which they found Oswald at the theater. If the theater was a predetermined meeting place, his quick arrest can explained as yet another double cross. Otherwise, that shoe salesman really deserves a heck of a lot more accolades.
-
How do those who believe the Texas Theater was a just a random, dark hiding place sought only after the Tippit shooting reconcile with the numerous witness reports of odd activities leading up to Oswald's arrest? It must mean that there was nothing to the multiple Oswald sightings (one out the front and one out the back alley) or the reports of Oswald moving seats apparently looking for someone. The theater as a meeting place has also been used to explain the purpose of the torn dollar bills supposedly found in Oswald's possession.
It also makes it harder to imagine the ease to which they found Oswald at the theater. If the theater was a predetermined meeting place, his quick arrest can explained as yet another double cross. Otherwise, that shoe salesman really deserves a heck of a lot more accolades.
First... It is a myth that Oswald was arrested with torn dollar bills in his possession. There is no evidence of it. Even the clown who started this, John Armstrong, no longer believes it.
-
First... It is a myth that Oswald was arrested with torn dollar bills in his possession. There is no evidence of it. Even the clown who started this, John Armstrong, no longer believes it.
What about this though complete with serial numbers?:
(https://i.ibb.co/M2j2ycR/Half-Dollar-Bill.png)
-
What about this though complete with serial numbers?:
(https://i.ibb.co/M2j2ycR/Half-Dollar-Bill.png)
Oswald had eight $1 bills in his wallet when he was arrested. None of the eight were torn in half. These eight bills were inventoried (according to serial number, see CE-1149). Armstrong himself has even backed off from that and now believes that the two halves were found at the rooming house on Saturday the 23rd.
============
J. Edgar Hoover, "Masters of Deceit",1958: To join the Communist Party does not automatically mean life tenure. Memberships must be renewed every year or, in communist language, members are "reregistered. This represents another means of control. If a member is delinquent in dues or donations, he'll have to pay a penalty, perhaps contribute ten dollars, or be disciplined. These annual registration drives are important events in Party life. Each member is personally contacted. Clubs and sections compete for speed and percentage of successful registration. The drives usually start in October and often extend well past the December 31 deadline.
A member moves. His district organization will send details concerning him to his new area: name, Party history, whether dues are paid, along with any other remarks. A member may be given half of a dollar bill and the other half forwarded to the new district. When the member arrives, the halves are matched. Identity is thus established.
============
There's a document in the Dallas Police records which mentions two torn halves of dollar bills. This document lists the serial numbers of both bills. However, it says nothing about Oswald and there's really no proof whatsoever that it is assassination related. But, that didn't stop Armstrong from taking it and running with it.
-
Three questions about the first three minutes of the interview.
1. You claim Oswald left the TSBD through the front door within 2 to 2,5 minutes after the shots. Where did you get this information from?
2. You claim "McWatters testified that Oswald got on the bus". Where exactly can this testimony be found?
3. You claim Earlene Roberts said that Oswald was "back there long enough to grab a jacket". Where did she make this statement?
Amazingly, some four months ago, Bill Brown decided to jump into a discussion about the Tippit timeline, in his typically patronizing way, to point out that, according to him, I had placed Callaway fifty feet away from where he actually was when he encountered Tippit's killer, running down Patton towards Jefferson.
You're also wrong when you claim that Callaway was already up to and near the alley (located at the halfway point in the block) when he encountered the killer. Callaway went from the porch out to Patton and was a good fifty feet south of the alley when the killer passed.
For the purpose of the timeline it was a meaningless comment as the difference in time would only be a second or so. But, as per usual, Bill Brown was making his point because he always claims that to him accuracy matters.
That would be fair enough, if it wasn't so hypocritical. In the first three minutes of the interview he gave, he made three claims for one of which there is no evidence (Oswald leaving the building through the frontdoor at between 2 and 2,5 minutes after the shots) and two of which are blatant misrepresentations of the known facts.
McWatters never testified that "Oswald got on the bus" and Earlene Roberts never said that Oswald was "back there long enough to grab a jacket".
It seems the same accuracy Bill Brown expects of others does not apply to himself. No wonder he did not reply to my questions.
-
There's a document in the Dallas Police records which mentions two torn halves of dollar bills. This document lists the serial numbers of both bills. However, it says nothing about Oswald and there's really no proof whatsoever that it is assassination related. But, that didn't stop Armstrong from taking it and running with it.
Ok. That pretty much makes the half dollar bill document worthless. It could be from any other number of cases.
-
Chappy recalls Buell describing Lovelady as a 'runt' (in relation to his height).
Yep... fast friends, those two.
You need to read more.....they regularly assisted each other with their cars.....both living at Irving and all.
-
You need to read more.....they regularly assisted each other with their cars.....both living at Irving and all.
You already said that.
-
Chappy recalls Buell describing Lovelady as a 'runt' (in relation to his height).
Yep... fast friends, those two.
You disagree? Not sure what your point is.
-
So, only initial statements are of value. I’m sure Chappy will provide his thoughts on that notion.
The initial statements are always the best, but should still be seen as suspect, even in the best of circumstances. This is not the best of circumstances, and not just because it was a delayed memory.
It wouldn’t be so bad if Mrs. Earlene Roberts never had any police cars park outside the house she worked in, where Oswald lived. If that was so, even a delayed memory recall of a police car parked outside the house would be of interest. How could she confuse a memory of a police car parked outside the house on November 22 with a memory from a different date, if there should have never been any police cars parked outside on any day? But that is not the case. There were police cars parked outside the house, on that day, after Oswald was arrested and in the following days. So, it Is quite possible a sudden memory of a police car parked outside around 1:00 pm on Friday was really a memory from a different time, or even from a different day.
A parallel example would be, what if Henry Fonda lived in the area? And he was really keen to investigated himself, as an amateur investigator. So later that day and on other days, he stopped by, sometimes checking out the inside of the house, at other times walking around outside. Then, a week later, Mr. Earlene Roberts, for the first time, claims that Henry Fonda was waiting outside when Oswald stopped by at 1:00 pm. Now, one interpretation would be that Henry Fonda was not acting as a sort of crazy buff but was even more unbelievably part of a conspiracy. But a more reasonable interpretation is that Mrs. Roberts confused one of her memories of Henry Fonda with the events of 1:00 pm on Friday.
As for the clothes.....what a great excuse for a package on Thursday's trip to Irving with Buell. Seems preparation neglected the essentials requiring a risky return to 1026. All that money left at Irving could have been used for a new revolver, jacket and ticket to anywhere by the time Tippit was dead.
But as others have pointed out, Oswald probably never expected to escape Dealey Plaza. He thought people could tell where the shots came form easily. Had he fired from the same level as most witnesses, that would have been the case. But people are not good at telling the directions of an elevated sound. I have noticed that with myself, when people call down to me from a balcony. Where the heck are they?
So, even if successful, there is no need to keep all the money for himself. And maybe he’ll keep a little for himself, in case the motorcade is cancelled or something, so he can buy food and pay his weekly rent until his next paycheck. There is no need for a new revolver because he will be caught within a few minutes of the shooting.
And, yes, he could wash the clothes on Thursday. But he might want to use the time on Thursday evening checking out his rifle, putting it in the bag and hiding it.
I think any plans about buying a bus ticket wouldn’t start to be made until something like ten minutes after the assassination. And that would explain why he didn’t keep enough money to buy a bus ticket, or buy one in advance.
-
Ok. That pretty much makes the half dollar bill document worthless. It could be from any other number of cases.
Right. People tear bills in half all the time.
-
The initial statements are always the best, but should still be seen as suspect, even in the best of circumstances. This is not the best of circumstances, and not just because it was a delayed memory.
It wouldn’t be so bad if Mrs. Earlene Roberts never had any police cars park outside the house she worked in, where Oswald lived. If that was so, even a delayed memory recall of a police car parked outside the house would be of interest. How could she confuse a memory of a police car parked outside the house on November 22 with a memory from a different date, if there should have never been any police cars parked outside on any day? But that is not the case. There were police cars parked outside the house, on that day, after Oswald was arrested and in the following days. So, it Is quite possible a sudden memory of a police car parked outside around 1:00 pm on Friday was really a memory from a different time, or even from a different day.
A parallel example would be, what if Henry Fonda lived in the area? And he was really keen to investigated himself, as an amateur investigator. So later that day and on other days, he stopped by, sometimes checking out the inside of the house, at other times walking around outside. Then, a week later, Mr. Earlene Roberts, for the first time, claims that Henry Fonda was waiting outside when Oswald stopped by at 1:00 pm. Now, one interpretation would be that Henry Fonda was not acting as a sort of crazy buff but was even more unbelievably part of a conspiracy. But a more reasonable interpretation is that Mrs. Roberts confused one of her memories of Henry Fonda with the events of 1:00 pm on Friday.
But as others have pointed out, Oswald probably never expected to escape Dealey Plaza. He thought people could tell where the shots came form easily. Had he fired from the same level as most witnesses, that would have been the case. But people are not good at telling the directions of an elevated sound. I have noticed that with myself, when people call down to me from a balcony. Where the heck are they?
So, even if successful, there is no need to keep all the money for himself. And maybe he’ll keep a little for himself, in case the motorcade is cancelled or something, so he can buy food and pay his weekly rent until his next paycheck. There is no need for a new revolver because he will be caught within a few minutes of the shooting.
And, yes, he could wash the clothes on Thursday. But he might want to use the time on Thursday evening checking out his rifle, putting it in the bag and hiding it.
I think any plans about buying a bus ticket wouldn’t start to be made until something like ten minutes after the assassination. And that would explain why he didn’t keep enough money to buy a bus ticket, or buy one in advance.
You missed the relevance to Bill Chapman and his views on early statements entirely. He didn’t take the bait, not surprising. I thought you had seen his comments previously.
As for plans to get away......$13 is a weird amount. Not enough for escape but more than enough if nothing happened. He could even have gone back to Irving with Frazier if needed.
-
You disagree? Not sure what your point is.
Look up 'runt'
-
You missed the relevance to Bill Chapman and his views on early statements entirely. He didn’t take the bait, not surprising. I thought you had seen his comments previously.
As for plans to get away......$13 is a weird amount. Not enough for escape but more than enough if nothing happened. He could even have gone back to Irving with Frazier if needed.
I also missed any relevance to myself. Or bait. Or surprise.
Far out, dude.
-
Right. People tear bills in half all the time.
If you can't tie the bills to Oswald or even the assassination, then you can't use them as evidence.
-
If you can't tie the bills to Oswald or even the assassination, then you can't use them as evidence.
Here's a list of the possessions taken from Oswald after his arrest. Nothing about any torn bills.
There is another claim that the torn bills were found in his room at the rooming house. But I've never seen that documented anywhere. Doesn't mean, of course, there weren't any just that I've never seen it sourced.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/QDBrMFYoZP74qNMZenBjyyulLsAmydpi5q7NAkq0f7m3n1OTkCaLAh92fZ4CDIPIVC-efOkdO8L3T7eQc6269Fb5SleQss1lTrWUL-_J0QcBSZEkSR0phZGX-xnqL0SBUqfBJpMVzYRUsODE12dYHqS9cLFIl4D6mw9sUd6yr6rgqMqP_pk9IlYHHFPn7iPLsk9Hec-euPYkQ31WuQQaqL6dlv0F6P17MGyIR7_C87AADxyifBQwlIes-dPVaPcICHmp-uN6EIQKXy0qo4aWwA7LvSFu0xqZtzhx6x1iCIlY_CVkHaXL8WTNJrI6xNA5P65CKgfFfYeAzOHwll-534rzVGy-t7D3tFqFQ-Rj5yJwhqmL5AZSr6Ycf5vMIJbKd3vDbXxtdxXemfNMpO_QB_Stzz6IeUoOg5mgXsJ-qr6Ede0r82MSUKHKj49OaY7fyrzgVJGUMFaMBOrBc7Qc3RRoY_BagxOgGsQkh-W9zjWZ-OmapcbVTPJu2N-oZBUv5bkNtXE7hnXd-kxj4ntOY08fis4pb_OivmxLdrBxsKt2bxZB_Czig2jEgC1iMn4FmpCEgLjeehes7-bRPdXRM3h3axitwPzzB6GIRI4V5Ee8nVQJiFsttOxmCuhKIZh3SCCJNoqNsbHSc9rjpQNtOO8jw_6kyJlW6bCq9NYjkgWLn9l_D6p3NyOlo_jpuhi2PFXZnMWcrZJABSK50PCPtE-R=w727-h717-no?authuser=0)
-
Here's a list of the possessions taken from Oswald after his arrest. Nothing about any torn bills.
There is another claim that the torn bills were found in his room at the rooming house. But I've never seen that documented anywhere. Doesn't mean, of course, there weren't any just that I've never seen it sourced.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/QDBrMFYoZP74qNMZenBjyyulLsAmydpi5q7NAkq0f7m3n1OTkCaLAh92fZ4CDIPIVC-efOkdO8L3T7eQc6269Fb5SleQss1lTrWUL-_J0QcBSZEkSR0phZGX-xnqL0SBUqfBJpMVzYRUsODE12dYHqS9cLFIl4D6mw9sUd6yr6rgqMqP_pk9IlYHHFPn7iPLsk9Hec-euPYkQ31WuQQaqL6dlv0F6P17MGyIR7_C87AADxyifBQwlIes-dPVaPcICHmp-uN6EIQKXy0qo4aWwA7LvSFu0xqZtzhx6x1iCIlY_CVkHaXL8WTNJrI6xNA5P65CKgfFfYeAzOHwll-534rzVGy-t7D3tFqFQ-Rj5yJwhqmL5AZSr6Ycf5vMIJbKd3vDbXxtdxXemfNMpO_QB_Stzz6IeUoOg5mgXsJ-qr6Ede0r82MSUKHKj49OaY7fyrzgVJGUMFaMBOrBc7Qc3RRoY_BagxOgGsQkh-W9zjWZ-OmapcbVTPJu2N-oZBUv5bkNtXE7hnXd-kxj4ntOY08fis4pb_OivmxLdrBxsKt2bxZB_Czig2jEgC1iMn4FmpCEgLjeehes7-bRPdXRM3h3axitwPzzB6GIRI4V5Ee8nVQJiFsttOxmCuhKIZh3SCCJNoqNsbHSc9rjpQNtOO8jw_6kyJlW6bCq9NYjkgWLn9l_D6p3NyOlo_jpuhi2PFXZnMWcrZJABSK50PCPtE-R=w727-h717-no?authuser=0)
If they went to the trouble of mentioning the box lid, then they would have mentioned the two torn dollar bills. Safe to say they were not on him. They could have been at the rooming house, but that's wild speculation without an eyewitness account or documentation.
-
Amazingly, some four months ago, Bill Brown decided to jump into a discussion about the Tippit timeline, in his typically patronizing way, to point out that, according to him, I had placed Callaway fifty feet away from where he actually was when he encountered Tippit's killer, running down Patton towards Jefferson.
For the purpose of the timeline it was a meaningless comment as the difference in time would only be a second or so. But, as per usual, Bill Brown was making his point because he always claims that to him accuracy matters.
That would be fair enough, if it wasn't so hypocritical. In the first three minutes of the interview he gave, he made three claims for one of which there is no evidence (Oswald leaving the building through the frontdoor at between 2 and 2,5 minutes after the shots) and two of which are blatant misrepresentations of the known facts.
McWatters never testified that "Oswald got on the bus" and Earlene Roberts never said that Oswald was "back there long enough to grab a jacket".
It seems the same accuracy Bill Brown expects of others does not apply to himself. No wonder he did not reply to my questions.
'It seems the same accuracy Bill Brown expects of others does not apply to himself.'
Pretty sure he was accurate about Oswald being back there long enough to grab a jacket, given Earlene's time frame.
-
If they went to the trouble of mentioning the box lid, then they would have mentioned the two torn dollar bills. Safe to say they were not on him. They could have been at the rooming house, but that's wild speculation without an eyewitness account or documentation.
I agree.
Also, the contents of his wallet - where he presumably would keep these torn bills? - are listed here:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=220
And here: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0018a.htm
Nothing in either list includes anything about torn bills. Also, the above mentions material taken from the Paine house, things like copies of the pro-Castro bills he was handing out in New Orleans, et cetera.
If there were torn bills they apparently weren't on him when he was arrested.
-
'It seems the same accuracy Bill Brown expects of others does not apply to himself.'
Pretty sure he was accurate about Oswald being back there long enough to grab a jacket, given Earlene's time frame.
Pretty sure he was accurate about Oswald being back there long enough to grab a jacket, given Earlene's time frame.
As per usual you are clueless. It's not about how long Oswald actually was in his room. Bill Brown claimed Earlene Roberts said that he [Oswald] was "back there long enough to grab a jacket". She never said those words.
-
Pretty sure he was accurate about Oswald being back there long enough to grab a jacket, given Earlene's time frame.
As per usual you are clueless. It's not about how long Oswald actually was in his room. Bill Brown claimed Earlene Roberts said that he [Oswald] was "back there long enough to grab a jacket". She never said those words.
Get a clue that this is not a court of law, Sluggo. And 'what this is all about' is you Oswald arse-kissers attempting to dump on Earlene's competency as an eyewitness.
-
Get a clue that this is not a court of law, Sluggo. And 'what this is all about' is you Oswald arse-kissers attempting to dump on Earlene's competency as an eyewitness.
Roberts testified to this:
Mr. BALL.. How long did he [i.e., Oswald] stay in the room?
Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it.
Again: "... just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it."
Testimony here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/robertse.htm
-
Pretty sure he was accurate about Oswald being back there long enough to grab a jacket, given Earlene's time frame.
As per usual you are clueless. It's not about how long Oswald actually was in his room. Bill Brown claimed Earlene Roberts said that he [Oswald] was "back there long enough to grab a jacket". She never said those words.
Mr. BALL.. How long did he stay in the room ?
Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it.
JohnM
-
Roberts testified to this:
Mr. BALL.. How long did he [i.e., Oswald] stay in the room?
Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it.
Again: "... just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it."
Testimony here: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/robertse.htm
Mr. BALL.. How long did he stay in the room ?
Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes -just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it.
JohnM
Not even close to being accurate;
Bill Brown claimed Earlene Roberts said that he [Oswald] was "back there long enough to grab a jacket".
She never said those words.
In fact she actually said "maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes" and was guessing that it was "just long enough" "to "get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it."
For somebody who demands accuracy from others, Bill Brown should be more accurate himself.
-
Get a clue that this is not a court of law, Sluggo. And 'what this is all about' is you Oswald arse-kissers attempting to dump on Earlene's competency as an eyewitness.
Get a clue that this is not a court of law, Sluggo.
Tell it to Bill Brown, the next time he gets on my case, because - according to him - I located Callaway 50 feet away from where he was.
And 'what this is all about' is you Oswald arse-kissers attempting to dump on Earlene's competency as an eyewitness.
Like you and other LNs are constantly doing with Buell Frazier?
But, actually, that's not at all what this is about. It's about Brown putting words in Earlene Roberts mouth she never actually said, but, clueless as you are, you of course did not understand that. My bad. I'll try to dumb it down further for you, next time.
And btw what competency did Earlene Roberts have?
-
You missed the relevance to Bill Chapman and his views on early statements entirely. He didn’t take the bait, not surprising. I thought you had seen his comments previously.
I don’t know what Bill views are on witness statements. I suspect that his views are probably pretty reasonable. I have not read through all his posts on all the threads nor all his posts on this thread.
My views on witnesses:
• Witnesses are unreliable.
• Even honest, intelligent, witnesses are unreliable.
• Witnesses who don’t remember important details right away, but later on “remember” these details, are extra unreliable.
• Witnesses who belated come up with a “memory”, which matches events known to occur after the event they think they are remembering, are extra, extra unreliable.
Like not remember a police car parked outside while Oswald was there, then seeing many police cars parked outside during the next week, then belatedly remembering a police car parked outside while Oswald was there.
A classic example of an unreliable memory, which may be true, but likely is not.
As for plans to get away......$13 is a weird amount. Not enough for escape but more than enough if nothing happened. He could even have gone back to Irving with Frazier if needed.
$13 is no good for getting away to Mexico. But a perfectly good amount if Oswald has to call off the assassination because:
• JFK or Jackie come down with a minor illness.
• It rains, and the bubble top is put on and Oswald mistakenly thinks it is bulletproof.
• Friends of his co-workers show up on the sixth floor to watch the motorcade from a good position and Oswald has to keep the rifle hidden.
• His rifle jams and he can’t get off any shots.
• Or some other unforeseen event.
If the unexpected happens, he can still keep the rifle hidden and pay for his room and buy some food until his next paycheck. A perfectly reasonable amount to keep, if he does not expect to escape capture if he fires any shots.
-
Interesting coincidence. I see adds on this thread that say:
3 Foods That Fight Memory Loss
Eat these foods daily and watch what happens
Boston Brain Science
Actually, I tried these 3 foods but they didn’t work for me. I kept forgetting what 3 foods I was supposed to eat each day.
In any case, I don’t think Earlene Roberts needs these 3 foods. She probably needed the 3 foods that prevent Memory Additions.
-
Not even close to being accurate;
Bill Chapman claimed Earlene Roberts said that he [Oswald] was "back there long enough to grab a jacket".
She never said those words.
In fact she actually said "maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes" and was guessing that it was "just long enough" "to "get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it."
For somebody who demands accuracy from others, Bill Chapman should be more accurate himself.
Bill Chapman paraphrased what Earlene Roberts said. He never claimed he was quoting her exactly. But his paraphrasing is totally accurate. Earlene Roberts remembered Oswald was in his room long enough to get and put on a jacket.
How else can one interpret her statement?
Mr. BALL.. How long did he stay in the room ?
Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it.
That she was saying he was not in there long enough to put on a jacket?
If all this is not "Straining at Gnats" then I don’t know what is.
P. S.
Excuse me. I previous said “Bill Brown”. I meant to say “Bill Chapman”.
I don’t know why I do that. I have often cross connect the wrong name. On occasion I have found myself talking about “Mel Brooks” but saying “Mel Gibson”. Like those two are so easy to confuse. 😊 In any case, my apologies to Bill Chapman.
-
Get a clue that this is not a court of law, Sluggo.
Tell it to Bill Brown, the next time he gets on my case, because - according to him - I located Callaway 50 feet away from where he was.
And 'what this is all about' is you Oswald arse-kissers attempting to dump on Earlene's competency as an eyewitness.
Like you and other LNs are constantly doing with Buell Frazier?
But, actually, that's not at all what this is about. It's about Brown putting words in Earlene Roberts mouth she never actually said, but, clueless as you are, you of course did not understand that. My bad. I'll try to dumb it down further for you, next time.
And btw what competency did Earlene Roberts have?
But, actually, that's not at all what this is about. It's about Brown putting words in Earlene Roberts mouth she never actually said
RE "back there long enough to grab a jacket"
Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it.
Same difference.
-
I don’t know what Bill views are on witness statements. I suspect that his views are probably pretty reasonable. I have not read through all his posts on all the threads nor all his posts on this thread.
'Irrelevant'
>>> No it isn't when my point—which I've made several times in this thread— is that affidavits are not meant to be full testimonies given that they are not Q&A. And how was she to know—at the time of her affidavit—that the shirt would eventually become so important?
'You are not making sense. If you mean by "shorthand version" her affidavit, she had indeed not mentioned it. So, what reason did they have to assume that the shirt, and nothing else, could refresh her recollection?'
>>> I cannot vouch for any of that, since I wasn't in on The Plot.
And yes, materials used to refresh recollection are admissible at trial, in some cases, but witness manipulation or influencing prior to testimony is a criminal offence.
>>> I'll take being influenced & manipulated over being fitted for a cement overcoat (in a swimming-with-the-fishes sense) any day
'So, let's try it again, but in a perhaps easier way for you to understand; if I don't tell you about seeing a shirt, what reason would you have to come to my house to show me a shirt and ask me if I recognize it?'
>>> There was a shirt on the loose? If I were you, I wouldn't talk to some stranger who comes to the door with a shirt that has a hole in it
Never mind that Marina testified that she doesn't know one rifle from another in the first place. Never mind that an affidavit is not a Q&A. Never mind that Marina confirmed that the rifle in the blanket she knew to be theirs was missing on 11.22.63
Was that statement Q&A
Affidavits are not Q&A and thefefore cannot be totally relied upon to tweak one's full recollection, as can a full testimony.
Re seemingly conflicting affidavits involving the 3 amigos, don't forget that affidavits are not Q&A and each person will spout off about whatever comes to mind in those moments when giving said affidavit.
I assume that just because it didn’t appear in an early affidavit or statements her recollection can not be simply dismissed.
-
Get a clue that this is not a court of law, Sluggo. And 'what this is all about' is you Oswald arse-kissers attempting to dump on Earlene's competency as an eyewitness.
Cry me a river!
Taxi driver, William Wayne Whaley, born June 19, 1908... or, 1905 !... WHATEVER...
http://jfkforum.com/images/WhaleyDOB1940DraftCard.jpg
http://jfkforum.com/images/WhaleyBook1908.jpg
...or, William Weldon Whaley, born 1908,
http://jfkforum.com/images/WhaleySon1931.jpg
....or, William Wayne Whaley, born 1905,
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/13730776/william-wayne-whaley
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/whaley1.htm
...Mr. BALL. Did you notice how he was dressed?
Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir. I didn't pay much attention to it right then. But it all came back when I really found out who I had. He was dressed in just ordinary work clothes. It wasn't khaki pants but they were khaki material, blue faded blue color, like a blue uniform made in khaki. Then he had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it and he had on some kind of jacket, I didn't notice very close but I think it was a work jacket that almost matched the pants.
He, his shirt was open three buttons down here. He had on a T-shirt. You know, the shirt was open three buttons down there....
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/robertse.htm
.....
Mr. BALL. When he came in he was in a shirt?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He was in his shirt sleeves.
Mr. BALL. What color was his shirt? Do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember. I didn't pay that much attention for I was interested in the television trying to get it fixed.
Mr. BALL. Had you ever seen that shirt before or seen him wear it---the shirt, or do you know?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I don't remember---I don't know.
Mr. BALL. You say he put on a separate jacket?
Mrs. ROBERTS. A jacket....
Roberts affidavit :
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Roberts_aff.pdf
"About thirty minutes later, three Dallas policemen came to the house looking for Lee Harvey Oswald..."
Detective Potts testified he and other officers arrived about 3:00 pm, two hours after Ms. Roberts claimed she
encountered, "O.H. Lee".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/potts.htm
...Mr. BALL. Did you check their registration books?
Mr. POTTS. Yes, sir; we looked at the registration book--Senkel, I think, or Cunningham--well, we all looked through the registration book and there wasn't anyone by that name, and the television was on in the living room. There's an area there where the roomers sit, I guess it's the living quarters--it flashed Oswald's picture on there and one of the women, either Mrs. Roberts or Mrs. Johnson said, "That's the man that lives here. That's Mr. Lee---O.H. Lee." She said, "His room is right here right off of the living room."
Senkel or Cunningham, one of them, called the office and they said that Turner was en route with a search warrant and we waited there until 4:30 or 5 that afternoon. We got out there about 3...
Earline Roberts' employer, landlady of O.H. Lee, Gladys Johnson:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/johnso_g.htm
...Mr. BALL. Miss Earlene Roberts was your housekeeper at this time?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, she was.
Mr. BALL. How long have you known her?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I have known Mrs. Roberts, oh, I guess it was 6 years, something like that, 6 years.
Mr. BALL. Where did you first meet her?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I hired her as a housekeeper.
Mr. BALL. At 1026 North Beckley?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Has she been working for you for that period of time?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir; I let Mrs. Roberts go a time or two, then I would hire her back.
Mr. BALL. there some reason why you let her go?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, she would just get to being disagreeable with renters and I don't know, she has a lot of handicaps. She has an overweight problem and she has some habits that some people have to understand to tolerate.
298
Mr. BALL. What are they?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Talking just sitting down and making up tales, you know, have you ever seen people like that? Just have a creative mind, there's nothing to it, and just make up and keep talking until she just makes a lie out of it. Listen, I'm telling you the truth and this isn't to go any further, understand that? You have to know these things because you are going to question this lady. I will tell you, she's just as intelligent--I think she is a person that doesn't mean to do that but she just does it automatically. It seems as though that she, oh, I don't know, wants to be attractive or something at times. I just don't know; I don't understand it myself. I only wish I did.
Mr. BALL. She was working for you in October and November while Oswald was a renter with you?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, she was. This Saturday night will be 3 weeks she left.
...
Mr. BALL. On the day of the 22d of November, were you home around 1 o'clock?
Mrs. JOHNSON. It must have been 1:30 or 2, something like that.
Mr. BALL. When you came home?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes; after serving lunch.
Mr. BALL. Did Earlene Roberts say anything to you whether or not this man had returned?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No; after these officers came in, well, then she began to tell them that he did come rushing in and she had gotten a phone call or had made one, anyway, she was on the phone--no, there was someone called her, that's what she said, said someone called her and she says, "Did you know that the President had been assassinated" and she says, "Why, no" and she says, "Well, it's on the television now" and she says, "I will run and turn it on" and she run in and turned this television on to get this information and this Oswald walked in hurriedly and she said, she said to him, "You seem to be in a hurry." She was the only one in that place. She said he didn't say a word but went on in his room and she said he changed his little zip-up coat, way I understand it, and just went right back out. He evidently got the gun; now, we don't know.
Mr. BALL. Did she tell the officers that?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yeah, she told the officers that....
-
Pretty sure he was accurate about Oswald being back there long enough to grab a jacket, given Earlene's time frame.
As per usual you are clueless. It's not about how long Oswald actually was in his room. Bill Brown claimed Earlene Roberts said that he [Oswald] was "back there long enough to grab a jacket". She never said those words.
"Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it." -- Earlene Roberts, Warren Commission testimony
-
"Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it." -- Earlene Roberts, Warren Commission testimony
Bill, if Oswald had lived to be tried in criminal court, what do you suppose would have happened, "on cross" by a competent defense attorney, to witnesses Barbara "I saw nothing" Davis, her sister-in-law Virginia who lied about her age to DPD on 11/22 and again in April, 1964 in her WC testimony, or to witness Whaley who corrected Earl Warren about the number of years he drove a taxi but didn't seem to know his own age or what had happened to his son, William, Jr., or even what Oswald was wearing (Whaley described a jacket, over a shirt and tee, right down to a "silverlike stripe" in the shirt fabric) during the key-to-the-timeline, taxi ride, or provide an uncontradictory account of his passenger log timing documentation/precision, or to Earline Roberts who was off by 90 minutes in her affidavit about the time of arrival of Dallas police and who was fired, "a time or two" in reaction to her compulsive lying?
Where is "Chief" Whaley's Navy Cross award, Bill? BTW, a "TDI" was a Tradevman (repair tech) Instructor. Census record/city directory indicates Whaley repaired taxis before he drove them.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51142917577_21448f0976_b.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51144696935_edbbca1333_b.jpg)
-
Bill Chapman paraphrased what Earlene Roberts said. He never claimed he was quoting her exactly. But his paraphrasing is totally accurate. Earlene Roberts remembered Oswald was in his room long enough to get and put on a jacket.
How else can one interpret her statement?
That she was saying he was not in there long enough to put on a jacket?
If all this is not "Straining at Gnats" then I don’t know what is.
P. S.
Excuse me. I previous said “Bill Brown”. I meant to say “Bill Chapman”.
I don’t know why I do that. I have often cross connect the wrong name. On occasion I have found myself talking about “Mel Brooks” but saying “Mel Gibson”. Like those two are so easy to confuse. 😊 In any case, my apologies to Bill Chapman.
Bill Chapman paraphrased what Earlene Roberts said. He never claimed he was quoting her exactly. But his paraphrasing is totally accurate.
I know what Bill Chapman (and Steve Galbraith, for that matter) did, but that wasn't the point I was making.
How else can one interpret her statement?
I agree, but I am not taking issue with that. Obviously they were paraphrasing, but in the interview (and that's what this is all about) Bill Brown claimed that Earlene Roberts said that he [Oswald] was "back there long enough to grab a jacket", when she never actually said that. Her testimony clearly shows she was guessing!
Bill Brown also claimed in the interview that "McWatters testified that Oswald got on the bus" which was not true either.
I would have said nothing if it was clear to the uninformed listener from what Bill Brown said in the interview that he was paraphrasing, but it wasn't. He, being called an "expert", said it as if it was factual, which is a misrepresentation of the facts. If Bill Brown can get on my case about a lack of accuracy, as he has done time after time in a rather petty and trivial manner, I can do the same when he displays a lack of accuracy by misrepresenting the facts twice and additionally making a claim for which there is no evidence in the first three minutes of the interview.
That's the point I was making.
-
I assume that just because it didn’t appear in an early affidavit or statements her recollection can not be simply dismissed.
I don't know exactly what your point is, but in my view you lot are the ones bellyaching about affidavits that often don't contain points that appear later in full testimony.
-
"Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it." -- Earlene Roberts, Warren Commission testimony
Roberts saying that Oswald was in his room "not over 3 or 4 minutes" and guessing that was long enough to get a jacket, put it on and he went out zipping it is not the same as claiming (as you did) that;
Earlene Roberts said that he [Oswald] was "back there long enough to grab a jacket".
It seems that accuracy only matters to you when you feel somebody else is not accurate enough.
Btw where exactly did McWatters testify that "Oswald got on the bus", as you claimed he did?
-
But, actually, that's not at all what this is about. It's about Brown putting words in Earlene Roberts mouth she never actually said
RE "back there long enough to grab a jacket"
Mrs. ROBERTS. Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it.
Same difference.
Same difference.
Nope. There is a massive difference between actually stating something as fact and guessing about it.
-
Same difference.
Nope. There is a massive difference between actually stating something as fact and guessing about it.
'Same difference' re the outcome.
-
There is no critical or important difference between this statement:
Roberts: "Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it."
And Bill Brown saying: Roberts said Oswald was "back there long enough to grab a jacket".
Clearly Bill was paraphrasing her statement. We all do this all of the time.
Anyone trying to score a point out of the slight word differences is engaged in bad faith arguments.
-
There is no critical or important difference between this statement:
Roberts: "Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it."
And Bill Brown saying: Roberts said Oswald was "back there long enough to grab a jacket".
Clearly Bill was paraphrasing her statement. We all do this all of the time.
Anyone trying to score a point out of the slight word differences is engaged in bad faith arguments.
There is no critical or important difference between this statement:
Roberts: "Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it."
And Bill Brown saying: Roberts said Oswald was "back there long enough to grab a jacket".
Of course there is a difference between guessing (what Roberts did in her testimony) and a factual statement like Brown made with his claim. People who are not familiar with this case will believe that Roberts actually said that, when she didn't, even more so as Bill was introduced in the video as "expert"
Anyone trying to score a point out of the slight word differences is engaged in bad faith arguments.
Good, I will call on you for support the next time Bill Brown complains about a lack of accuracy in his usual petty and trivial manner.
Clearly Bill was paraphrasing her statement. We all do this all of the time.
So when I say this;
There is a third one and that's the ambulance. The authorisation for autopsy gave Tippit's DOA time at Methodist Hospital as 1:15 pm. DPD officer Davenport, who was there, confirms that time, not only is his report, but also on the document he signed for the Identification Bureau when he handed in the bullet, taken from Tippit's body at 1.30, and a button. There is more witness testimony that actually corroborates this version but I'll leave that for later.
Is Bill Brown trying to score a point, out of the slight word differences, engaged in bad faith arguments when he says ?;
As I thought (which is why I asked you to post it), you were incorrect when you said that the document says Tippit was pronounced DOA at 1:15.
The document states that Tippit was pronounced DOA.
The document also states that the time of death was 1:15.
Nothing about him being pronounced DOA at 1:15.
This matters.
I'm sure you can find a reason why this example isn't a valid one, right?
Btw when Bill Brown claims in the interview that McWatters testified that "Oswald got on the bus" (which he never said) is that also paraphrasing to you?
-
There is no critical or important difference between this statement:
Roberts: "Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it."
And Bill Brown saying: Roberts said Oswald was "back there long enough to grab a jacket".
Clearly Bill was paraphrasing her statement. We all do this all of the time.
Anyone trying to score a point out of the slight word differences is engaged in bad faith arguments.
Completely ignoring this (in quote box, below) and Earline's sister's (Bertha Bogle's) testimony, indicating both sisters are mentally disturbed, compulsive liars is kinda creepy, Steve. Just because almost everyone acts as if this mendacious dysfunction isn't there, for the sake of maintaining their personal belief systems, doesn't make it any less creepy!
....
Roberts affidavit :
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/pdf/WH7_Roberts_aff.pdf
"About thirty minutes later, three Dallas policemen came to the house looking for Lee Harvey Oswald..."
Detective Potts testified he and other officers arrived about 3:00 pm, two hours after Ms. Roberts claimed she
encountered, "O.H. Lee".
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/potts.htm
...Mr. BALL. Did you check their registration books?
Mr. POTTS. Yes, sir; we looked at the registration book--Senkel, I think, or Cunningham--well, we all looked through the registration book and there wasn't anyone by that name, and the television was on in the living room. There's an area there where the roomers sit, I guess it's the living quarters--it flashed Oswald's picture on there and one of the women, either Mrs. Roberts or Mrs. Johnson said, "That's the man that lives here. That's Mr. Lee---O.H. Lee." She said, "His room is right here right off of the living room."
Senkel or Cunningham, one of them, called the office and they said that Turner was en route with a search warrant and we waited there until 4:30 or 5 that afternoon. We got out there about 3...
Earline Roberts' employer, landlady of O.H. Lee, Gladys Johnson:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/johnso_g.htm
...Mr. BALL. Miss Earlene Roberts was your housekeeper at this time?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, she was.
Mr. BALL. How long have you known her?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I have known Mrs. Roberts, oh, I guess it was 6 years, something like that, 6 years.
Mr. BALL. Where did you first meet her?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I hired her as a housekeeper.
Mr. BALL. At 1026 North Beckley?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. Has she been working for you for that period of time?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No, sir; I let Mrs. Roberts go a time or two, then I would hire her back.
Mr. BALL. there some reason why you let her go?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Well, she would just get to being disagreeable with renters and I don't know, she has a lot of handicaps. She has an overweight problem and she has some habits that some people have to understand to tolerate.
298
Mr. BALL. What are they?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Talking just sitting down and making up tales, you know, have you ever seen people like that? Just have a creative mind, there's nothing to it, and just make up and keep talking until she just makes a lie out of it. Listen, I'm telling you the truth and this isn't to go any further, understand that? You have to know these things because you are going to question this lady. I will tell you, she's just as intelligent--I think she is a person that doesn't mean to do that but she just does it automatically. It seems as though that she, oh, I don't know, wants to be attractive or something at times. I just don't know; I don't understand it myself. I only wish I did.
Mr. BALL. She was working for you in October and November while Oswald was a renter with you?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, she was. This Saturday night will be 3 weeks she left.
...
Mr. BALL. On the day of the 22d of November, were you home around 1 o'clock?
Mrs. JOHNSON. It must have been 1:30 or 2, something like that.
Mr. BALL. When you came home?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes; after serving lunch.
Mr. BALL. Did Earlene Roberts say anything to you whether or not this man had returned?
Mrs. JOHNSON. No; after these officers came in, well, then she began to tell them that he did come rushing in and she had gotten a phone call or had made one, anyway, she was on the phone--no, there was someone called her, that's what she said, said someone called her and she says, "Did you know that the President had been assassinated" and she says, "Why, no" and she says, "Well, it's on the television now" and she says, "I will run and turn it on" and she run in and turned this television on to get this information and this Oswald walked in hurriedly and she said, she said to him, "You seem to be in a hurry." She was the only one in that place. She said he didn't say a word but went on in his room and she said he changed his little zip-up coat, way I understand it, and just went right back out. He evidently got the gun; now, we don't know.
Mr. BALL. Did she tell the officers that?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yeah, she told the officers that....
-
'Same difference' re the outcome.
Too bad all of this is going over your head, but it's not really a surprise
-
Too bad all of this is going over your head, but it's not really a surprise
Too bad for you that Earlene was only half-blind.
-
Too bad for you that Earlene was only half-blind.
Why? She needed that one eye to watch the televison as she was trying to get it to work
-
Why? She needed that one eye to watch the televison as she was trying to get it to work
Too bad for you that Earlene was not paralyzed.
-
Too bad for you that Earlene was not paralyzed.
Too bad that you are incapable to have a normal, rational, conversation about any topic.
-
Too bad that you are incapable to have a normal, rational, conversation about any topic.
Not my bad that you treat Earlene as being abnormal & irrational in your 'conversation'. Not my bad that Oswald was seen by Markham (who had two good eyeballs) to be wearing a jacket while killing Tippit. Not my bad that Oswald was seen to be wearing a jacket by a number of witnesses (with two good eyeballs apiece, apparently), either on scene or nearby.
-
Not my bad that you treat Earlene as being abnormal & irrational in your 'conversation'. Not my bad that Oswald was seen by Markham (who had two good eyeballs) to be wearing a jacket while killing Tippit. Not my bad that Oswald was seen to be wearing a jacket by a number of witnesses (with two good eyeballs apiece, apparently), either on scene or nearby.
But it is your bad that you assume that those witness identifications are 100% perfect despite the fact that (1) witness testimony is actually the most unreliable evidence there is, (2) Roberts and Markham both said the jacket Tippit's killer was wearing was darker than CE 162 and (3) the police called in finding a white jacket under a car.
And too bad for you that, according to Buell Frazier, Oswald was wearing his only grey jacket (CE 162) to Irving on Thursday evening, which means it couldn't have been at the roominghouse on Friday afternoon.
But none of this has anything to do with Bill Brown misrepresenting the facts three times in the first three minutes of his interview.
Perhaps you can tell me where exactly did McWatters testify that "Oswald got on the bus", as Bill Brown claimed he did?
-
But it is your bad that you assume that those witness identifications are 100% perfect despite the fact that (1) witness testimony is actually the most unreliable evidence there is, (2) Roberts and Markham both said the jacket Tippit's killer was wearing was darker than CE 162 and (3) the police called in finding a white jacket under a car.
And too bad for you that, according to Buell Frazier, Oswald was wearing his only grey jacket (CE 162) to Irving on Thursday evening, which means it couldn't have been at the roominghouse on Friday afternoon.
But none of this has anything to do with Bill Brown misrepresenting the facts three times in the first three minutes of his interview.
Perhaps you can tell me where exactly did McWatters testify that "Oswald got on the bus", as Bill Brown claimed he did?
'But it is your bad that you assume that those witness identifications are 100% perfect'
Not my bad that you assume that I think witness IDs perfect.
'Roberts and Markham both said the jacket Tippit's killer was wearing was darker than CE 162'
Witness testimony is actually the most unreliable evidence there is
'the police called in finding a white jacket under a car'
I know.
(https://i.postimg.cc/BQ7hS9nz/white-jacket-found-under-car.png)
Jacket found near crime scene
-
'But it is your bad that you assume that those witness identifications are 100% perfect'
Not my bad that you assume that I think witness IDs perfect.
'Roberts and Markham both said the jacket Tippit's killer was wearing was darker than CE 162'
Witness testimony is actually the most unreliable evidence there is
'the police called in finding a white jacket under a car'
I know.
(https://i.postimg.cc/BQ7hS9nz/white-jacket-found-under-car.png)
Jacket found near crime scene
Great, so you agree you've got nothing
As you seem to be honest for once, perhaps you can tell me where exactly did McWatters testify that "Oswald got on the bus", as Bill Brown claimed he did?
-
(2) Roberts and Markham both said the jacket Tippit's killer was wearing was darker than CE 162
Is the bar in the center of this image the same shade throughout or is the shade lighter on one side and darker on the other?
(https://i.postimg.cc/PfMWxrz6/optics-5-1.jpg)
JohnM
-
Is the bar in the center of this image the same shade throughout or is the shade lighter on one side and darker on the other?
(https://i.postimg.cc/PfMWxrz6/optics-5-1.jpg)
JohnM
I don't care. The cop who called it in described the jacket as white and when the jacket was found there was bright sunlight. It was white, no matter how many games you want to play.
-
I don't care. The cop who called it in described the jacket as white and when the jacket was found there was bright sunlight. It was white, no matter how many games you want to play.
Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.
JohnM
-
Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.
JohnM
Just one problem with that, Johnny..... Westbrook found nothing and he wasn't the cop that called it in.
-
Great, so you agree you've got nothing
As you seem to be honest for once, perhaps you can tell me where exactly did McWatters testify that "Oswald got on the bus", as Bill Brown claimed he did?
I didn't claim that McWatters testified to that.
Great, so you agree you've got nothing
You wish.
And not my bad that your reading comprehension is atrocious.
Stop twisting what I write, Sluggo.
Here, get a clue:
But it is your bad that you assume that those witness identifications are 100% perfect'
Not my bad that you assume that I think witness IDs perfect.
TRANSLATION FOR SLUGGO:
I do not think witness IDs perfect
'Roberts and Markham both said the jacket Tippit's killer was wearing was darker than CE 162'
Witness testimony is actually the most unreliable evidence there is
TRANSLATION FOR SLUGGO:
The jacket found under the car shows the witnesses to be in error
'the police called in finding a white jacket under a car'
I know.
TRANSLATION FOR SLUGGO:
The jacket found under the car shows the witnesses to be in error
-
I didn't claim that McWatters testified to that.
Great, so you agree you've got nothing
You wish.
And not my bad that your reading comprehension is atrocious.
Stop twisting what I write, Sluggo.
Here, get a clue:
But it is your bad that you assume that those witness identifications are 100% perfect'
Not my bad that you assume that I think witness IDs perfect.
TRANSLATION FOR SLUGGO:
> I do not think witness IDs perfect
'Roberts and Markham both said the jacket Tippit's killer was wearing was darker than CE 162'
Witness testimony is actually the most unreliable evidence there is
TRANSLATION FOR SLUGGO:
The jacket found under the car shows the witnesses to be in error
'the police called in finding a white jacket under a car'
I know.
TRANSLATION FOR SLUGGO:
The jacket found under the car shows the witnesses to be in error
I do not think witness IDs perfect
The jacket found under the car shows the witnesses to be in error
Like I said, we're in agreement and you've got nothing
-
Just one problem with that, Johnny..... Westbrook found nothing and he wasn't the cop that called it in.
So what?
JohnM
-
So what?
JohnM
His testimony, or at least the part you quoted, is a lie and worthless... But not that you care, right?
-
Mr. WESTBROOK. Actually, I didn't find it--it was pointed out to me by either some officer that--that was while we were going over the scene in the close area where the shooting was concerned, someone pointed. out a jacket to me that was laying under a car and I got the jacket and told the officer to take the license number.
-
I do not think witness IDs perfect
The jacket found under the car shows the witnesses to be in error
Like I said, we're in agreement and you've got nothing
I've got the information that the jacket found under the car proves Markham and Roberts to be in error about the jacket being darker.
-
Is the bar in the center of this image the same shade throughout or is the shade lighter on one side and darker on the other?
(https://i.postimg.cc/PfMWxrz6/optics-5-1.jpg)
JohnM
Same.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SKgpLQLG/gray-bar.png)
Okay, I cheated.
-
Mr. WESTBROOK. Actually, I didn't find it--it was pointed out to me by either some officer that--that was while we were going over the scene in the close area where the shooting was concerned, someone pointed. out a jacket to me that was laying under a car and I got the jacket and told the officer to take the license number.
Exactly, Westbrook was completely honest, in the Westbrook quote I provided, Westbrook never took sole credit for finding the Jacket, he specifically says "we" found the jacket. As usual Weidmann is just trying to inject doubt where none exists, Westbrook says the jacket from the car park is the same jacket as in evidence and it doesn't matter how angry and aggressive these CT's get, they can't change reality.
Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.
(https://i.postimg.cc/BQ7hS9nz/white-jacket-found-under-car.png)
Westbrook testified that the jacket found in the car park was exactly the jacket he was shown in court.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJ4rrC9P/Oswald-s-jacket.jpg)
It's just one more piece of evidence in the mountain that incriminates Oswald. Oswald was seen zipping up his jacket as he left his rooming house then a stack of eyewitnesses identify Oswald wearing a jacket holding a gun either at or fleeing the Tippit crime scene, and finally he's arrested not far away without his jacket.
(https://miro.medium.com/max/552/0*bTVuW2QcUcyy9HDi.jpg)
Mr. BREWER - And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out.
Mr. BELIN - Any jacket?
Mr. BREWER - No.
JohnM
-
Same.
(https://i.postimg.cc/SKgpLQLG/gray-bar.png)
Okay, I cheated.
In the following GIF concentrate on the bar against white, then when the background swaps you get instant conflict, bizarre.
(https://i.postimg.cc/zXRYz24p/optical-illusion-shad-bar-gif.gif)
JohnM
-
Exactly, Westbrook was completely honest, in the Westbrook quote I provided, Westbrook never took sole credit for finding the Jacket, he specifically says "we" found the jacket. As usual Weidmann is just trying to inject doubt where none exists, Westbrook says the jacket from the car park is the same jacket as in evidence and it doesn't matter how angry and aggressive these CT's get, they can't change reality.
Mr. BALL. I show you Commission Exhibit 162, do you recognize that?
Mr. WESTBROOK. That is exactly the jacket we found.
Mr. BALL. That is the jacket you found?
Mr. WESTBROOK. Yes, sir.
(https://i.postimg.cc/BQ7hS9nz/white-jacket-found-under-car.png)
Westbrook testified that the jacket found in the car park was exactly the jacket he was shown in court.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJ4rrC9P/Oswald-s-jacket.jpg)
It's just one more piece of evidence in the mountain that incriminates Oswald. Oswald was seen zipping up his jacket as he left his rooming house then a stack of eyewitnesses identify Oswald wearing a jacket holding a gun either at or fleeing the Tippit crime scene, and finally he's arrested not far away without his jacket.
(https://miro.medium.com/max/552/0*bTVuW2QcUcyy9HDi.jpg)
Mr. BREWER - And had brown hair. He had a brown sports shirt on. His shirt tail was out.
Mr. BELIN - Any jacket?
Mr. BREWER - No.
JohnM
Westbrook says the jacket from the car park is the same jacket as in evidence
Aha, so it must be true then. No cop would ever lie or be mistaken, right?
Just too bad that there is no chain of custody for the jacket, that the officer who actually found the jacket was never identified, that the jacket was called in as being white, that it is marked with initials of officers who were not even there when the jacket was found, that the officer who took the jacket to DPD HQ has also never been identified, and that we don't know why Westbrook needed several hours to submit the jacket to the Identification Bureau and how he got the jacket in the first place.
Oswald was seen zipping up his jacket as he left his rooming house
Isn't it strange that Oswald was seen wearing the only gray jacket he had (CE 162) to Irving on Thursday evening. Any idea how it managed to get to the roominghouse on Friday afternoon?
-
Westbrook says the jacket from the car park is the same jacket as in evidence
Aha, so it must be true then. No cop would ever lie or be mistaken, right?
Just too bad that there is no chain of custody for the jacket, that the officer who actually found the jacket was never identified, that the jacket was called in as being white, that it is marked with initials of officers who were not even there when the jacket was found, that the officer who took the jacket to DPD HQ has also never been identified, and that we don't know why Westbrook needed several hours to submit the jacket to the Identification Bureau and how he got the jacket in the first place.
Oswald was seen zipping up his jacket as he left his rooming house
Isn't it strange that Oswald was seen wearing the only gray jacket he had (CE 162) to Irving on Thursday evening. Any idea how it managed to get to the roominghouse on Friday afternoon?
Dale Myers posted this, last November. In addition to the following excerpt, the chain of custody or at least the discovery of the light colored jacket, is thoroughly described with support from WC Exhibits.
https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2020/11/warren-reynolds-and-oswalds-jacket.html
....
On November 23, 1963, Robert Brock, the mechanic at Ballew’s Texaco Service Station, told NBC WBAP-TV reporter Robert MacNeil during a brief filmed interview: “I was working on a car when the Reynolds – the boys from Reynolds Motor Company came by and asked if we’d seen a man go through here and my wife said she’d seen a man walk between the car and the service station here [pointing at the area between the east side of the service station and Dean’s Dairy Way] and go out across the parking lot. Later, I was out on the parking lot with the police when they found a coat.” (emphasis added) [49]
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51147250067_1815a97e47.jpg)
Fig.5 - Mechanic Robert Brock (left) points at Oswald's escape route along a narrow pathway between the Texaco Service station and Dean's Dairy Way. ...
The filmed sequence shows Brock pointing into the parking lot behind the Texaco service station – a tire rack clearly visible along Oswald’s escape path on the east side of the service station...
Disclaimer: Dale Myers' carefully worded attempt to copyright a screenshot of news footage in the public domain is beyond anything I would imagine DVP would even imagine. However, anyone can sue anyone over anything. I claim fair use, the same basis Mr. Myers began with when he took the screen shot of the news footage!
https://www.redlasso.com/are-news-clips-public-domain/
-
"Now, she (Earlene Roberts) gives different time variants; two minutes, three minutes, four minutes, five minutes, whatever. She qualifies it all by basically saying he was back there long enough to grab a jacket."- Bill Brown
-
McWatters said he picked up a man mid-block, not a bus stop. He said the bus went a bit further and was again stopped in traffic. A lady decided that she wanted to get off the bus. As McWatters was letting her off the bus, the man who boarded the bus mid-block just minutes earlier decided to get off at that point, as well. McWatters said that he issued them both a transfer and that these two transfers were the only two he issued as he went through town. Oswald had the bus transfer in his possession when he was arrested.
Let's work it backwards...
Oswald possessed the McWatters transfer when arrested.
McWatters issued the transfer to the man as he got off the bus.
The man who received the transfer entered the bus minutes earlier mid-block, i.e. not at a designated bus stop.
Therefore....
Oswald entered the bus mid-bock.
-
McWatters said he picked up a man mid-block, not a bus stop. He said the bus went a bit further and was again stopped in traffic. A lady decided that she wanted to get off the bus. As McWatters was letting her off the bus, the man who boarded the bus mid-block just minutes earlier decided to get off at that point, as well. McWatters said that he issued them both a transfer and that these two transfers were the only two he issued as he went through town. Oswald had the bus transfer in his possession when he was arrested.
Let's work it backwards...
Oswald possessed the McWatters transfer when arrested.
McWatters issued the transfer to the man as he got off the bus.
The man who received the transfer entered the bus minutes earlier mid-block, i.e. not at a designated bus stop.
Therefore....
Oswald entered the bus mid-bock.
But you claimed in the interview that "McWatters testified that Oswald got on the bus mid-block".
He never actually said that in his testimony. Instead you have presented your conclusion as if McWatters had said it, which in turn would imply that McWatters actually identified Oswald as the man, which he never did either.
That's a misrepresentation of the facts.
-
"Now, she (Earlene Roberts) gives different time variants; two minutes, three minutes, four minutes, five minutes, whatever. She qualifies it all by basically saying he was back there long enough to grab a jacket."- Bill Brown
In her testimony she did not give different time variants. She said twice that Oswald was in his room for about 3 to 4 minutes and on both occassions she connected it with her previous testimony that he left the house zipping up a jacket, by saying that he was there long enough to grab a jacket.
So, there is no qualification. It's a remark that implies that Oswald did in fact go into his room to grab a jacket. She could have said "he was there long enough to change clothes", or something similar, but she didn't. By presenting her remarks in the way you did. you placed the emphasis on your (and her) conclusion that he did indeed go to the room to pick up a jacket, but except for Roberts saying it, there is no corrobarative evidence for that.
In other words, you presented Roberts' guess, about why Oswald was back there, as if it was a fact that he grabbed a jacket.
-
In her testimony she did not give different time variants. She said twice that Oswald was in his room for about 3 to 4 minutes and on both occassions she connected it with her previous testimony that he left the house zipping up a jacket, by saying that he was there long enough to grab a jacket.
So, there is no qualification. It's a remark that implies that Oswald did in fact go into his room to grab a jacket. She could have said "he was there long enough to change clothes", or something similar, but she didn't. By presenting her remarks in the way you did. you placed the emphasis on your (and her) conclusion that he did indeed go to the room to pick up a jacket, but except for Roberts saying it, there is no corrobarative evidence for that.
In other words, you presented Roberts' guess, about why Oswald was back there, as if it was a fact that he grabbed a jacket.
In her testimony she did not give different time variants.
I did not say that she gave different time variants in her testimony.
but except for Roberts saying it, there is no corrobarative evidence for that.
Roberts was the only human being present when Oswald entered the rooming house. How in Sam Hell is there supposed to be any corroborating evidence?
Regardless of what color Roberts believed the Oswald jacket to be versus the color of CE-162, what happened to the jacket Oswald was zipping up as he went out the door? Forget Tenth and Patton. Forget CE-162. Why did Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store?
-
Mrs. ROBERTS. "He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket."
-
I did not say that she gave different time variants in her testimony.
Roberts was the only human being present when Oswald entered the rooming house. How in Sam Hell is there supposed to be any corroborating evidence?
Regardless of what color Roberts believed the Oswald jacket to be versus the color of CE-162, what happened to the jacket Oswald was zipping up as he went out the door? Forget Tenth and Patton. Forget CE-162. Why did Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store?
I did not say that she gave different time variants in her testimony.
True, but we were talking about what she said in her testimony. You emphasized in the interview that Roberts testified that "he was back there long enough to grab a jacket" and then you said "she gives different times" which to anybody hearing it means that she gave different times in her testimony, which she didn't. Also, she wouldn't have to "qualify" in her testimony anything she didn't say in that testimony.
Roberts was the only human being present when Oswald entered the rooming house. How in Sam Hell is there supposed to be any corroborating evidence?
Good question. It's one that every prosecutor struggles with from time to time.
The problem is that corroboration is needed as Marina testified that Oswald had only two jackets. CE 163 was later found at the TSBD and Buell Frazier testified that Oswald was wearing a gray jacket to Irving on Thursday evening. Oswald only had one gray jacket and that is now in evidence as CE 162. In other words; according to Roberts Oswald put on that jacket at the roominghouse on Friday, but Buell Frazier says Oswald took that jacket to Irving the day before.
Roberts and Frazier can't both be right, as there is no way that CE 162 could have gotten from Irving to the roominghouse on Friday morning.
Regardless of what color Roberts believed the Oswald jacket to be versus the color of CE-162, what happened to the jacket Oswald was zipping up as he went out the door? Forget Tenth and Patton. Forget CE-162. Why did Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store?
This assumes that Oswald did in fact leave the roominghouse zipping up a jacket, for which there is is only Roberts' word and no corroboration. I seriously doubt that he did leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket and I believe that a (still unidentified) DPD officer found a white jacket under a car and called it in and that is possible that the gray jacket now in evidence as CE 162 was actually recovered from Ruth Paine's house and brought to Westbrook, at the police station.
If Oswald did not leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket, it follows that he also did not ditch it anywhere.
-
Mrs. ROBERTS. "He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket."
So, half blind Earlene first tells us that her powers to observe details are, to say the least, poor, as she couldn't say a damned thing about the shirt she saw Oswald wearing as he came in, and then she tells us he got and put on a zipper jacket.
What happened? Did her powers of observation suddenly improve, despite the fact that she was concentrating on getting the television to work and couldn't have seen Oswald for any longer than a couple of seconds as he walked behind her back from his room to the front door?
-
I did not say that she gave different time variants in her testimony.
True, but we were talking about what she said in her testimony. You emphasized in the interview that Roberts testified that "he was back there long enough to grab a jacket" and then you said "she gives different times" which to anybody hearing it means that she gave different times in her testimony, which she didn't. Also, she wouldn't have to "qualify" in her testimony anything she didn't say in that testimony.
Roberts was the only human being present when Oswald entered the rooming house. How in Sam Hell is there supposed to be any corroborating evidence?
Good question. It's one that every prosecutor struggles with from time to time.
The problem is that corroboration is needed as Marina testified that Oswald had only two jackets. CE 163 was later found at the TSBD and Buell Frazier testified that Oswald was wearing a gray jacket to Irving on Thursday evening. Oswald only had one gray jacket and that is now in evidence as CE 162. In other words; according to Roberts Oswald put on that jacket at the roominghouse on Friday, but Buell Frazier says Oswald took that jacket to Irving the day before.
Roberts and Frazier can't both be right, as there is no way that CE 162 could have gotten from Irving to the roominghouse on Friday morning.
Regardless of what color Roberts believed the Oswald jacket to be versus the color of CE-162, what happened to the jacket Oswald was zipping up as he went out the door? Forget Tenth and Patton. Forget CE-162. Why did Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store?
This assumes that Oswald did in fact leave the roominghouse zipping up a jacket, for which there is is only Roberts' word and no corroboration. I seriously doubt that he did leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket and I believe that a (still unidentified) DPD officer found a white jacket under a car and called it in and that is possible that the gray jacket now in evidence as CE 162 was actually recovered from Ruth Paine's house and brought to Westbrook, at the police station.
If Oswald did not leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket, it follows that he also did not ditch it anywhere.
"I seriously doubt that he did leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket"
What is the basis for this serious doubt?
-
Regardless of what color Roberts believed the Oswald jacket to be versus the color of CE-162, what happened to the jacket Oswald was zipping up as he went out the door? Forget Tenth and Patton. Forget CE-162. Why did Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store?
This assumes that Oswald did in fact leave the roominghouse zipping up a jacket, for which there is is only Roberts' word and no corroboration. I seriously doubt that he did leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket and I believe that a (still unidentified) DPD officer found a white jacket under a car and called it in and that is possible that the gray jacket now in evidence as CE 162 was actually recovered from Ruth Paine's house and brought to Westbrook, at the police station.
I seriously doubt that he did leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket
Of course you do. You don't want to have to explain why Oswald ditched his jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store.
More than anything else, this is what I use as my litmus test to find out exactly how determined one is at finding the truth versus just playing defense attorney games. It is okay to believe there was some sort of conspiracy. It is kay to believe that Oswald was framed and evidence was planted. I mean, it's ludicrous, but it's okay. But to deny that Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket proves to me that one is not interested in getting at the truth.
-
"I seriously doubt that he did leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket"
What is the basis for this serious doubt?
That's a great question, Dan. One that you will never get a REASONABLE answer to.
Earlene Roberts was very specific when she said Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he went out the door. On 11/22/63, she also told a reporter that Oswald left the house wearing a short grey coat.
-
So, half blind Earlene first tells us that her powers to observe details are, to say the least, poor, as she couldn't say a damned thing about the shirt she saw Oswald wearing as he came in, and then she tells us he got and put on a zipper jacket.
What happened? Did her powers of observation suddenly improve, despite the fact that she was concentrating on getting the television to work and couldn't have seen Oswald for any longer than a couple of seconds as he walked behind her back from his room to the front door?
'half blind Earlene'
LOL. Good thing she was only half-blind.
-
"I seriously doubt that he did leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket"
What is the basis for this serious doubt?
The fact that Frazier testified that Oswald was wearing a gray jacket to Irving on Thursday evening. According to Marina, Oswald only had one gray jacket. If Oswald took that jacket to Irving on Thursday, there is no way for it to get to the roominghouse the next day for Oswald to put on.
A second reason is the obvious unreliability of Earlene Roberts as a witness. She claims to have seen a police car that apparently didn't exist, her employer called her an inventor of stories, she had poor eye sight and was concentrating on getting the television to work, with he back turned to the living room, leaving her unable to provide any detail of the shirt Oswald was wearing as he came into the house.
-
That's a great question, Dan. One that you will never get a REASONABLE answer to.
Earlene Roberts was very specific when she said Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he went out the door. On 11/22/63, she also told a reporter that Oswald left the house wearing a short grey coat.
I was interested because of the testimony of Mrs Johnson:
Mrs. JOHNSON. No; after these officers came in, well, then she began to tell them that he did come rushing in and she had gotten a phone call or had made one, anyway, she was on the phone--no, there was someone called her, that's what she said, said someone called her and she says, "Did you know that the President had been assassinated" and she says, "Why, no" and she says, "Well, it's on the television now" and she says, "I will run and turn it on" and she run in and turned this television on to get this information and this Oswald walked in hurriedly and she said, she said to him, "You seem to be in a hurry." She was the only one in that place. She said he didn't say a word but went on in his room and she said he changed his little zip-up coat, way I understand it, and just went right back out. He evidently got the gun; now, we don't know.
Mr. BALL. Did she tell the officers that?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yeah, she told the officers that.
She confirms that Roberts told the police Oswald had changed into his "little zip-up coat". It's not a detail she brought up months later, it's something she told officers on the day.
I can't think why Roberts would mention this if it didn't happen.
-
Of course you do. You don't want to have to explain why Oswald ditched his jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store.
More than anything else, this is what I use as my litmus test to find out exactly how determined one is at finding the truth versus just playing defense attorney games. It is okay to believe there was some sort of conspiracy. It is kay to believe that Oswald was framed and evidence was planted. I mean, it's ludicrous, but it's okay. But to deny that Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket proves to me that one is not interested in getting at the truth.
Of course you do. You don't want to have to explain why Oswald ditched his jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store.
You mean, just like you don't want to explain how it can be that Frazier saw Oswald wear a gray jacket to Irving?
Why in the world should I have to explain why Oswald ditched a jacket when it is only your assumption that he did?
More than anything else, this is what I use as my litmus test to find out exactly how determined one is at finding the truth versus just playing defense attorney games. It is okay to believe there was some sort of conspiracy. It is kay to believe that Oswald was framed and evidence was planted. I mean, it's ludicrous, but it's okay. But to deny that Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket proves to me that one is not interested in getting at the truth.
BS. I did not deny that Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket. I said I seriously doubt it and I do so based on the conflicting evidence. Your actual litmus test is a very simple one; anyone who agrees with you passes the test and anyone who doesn't, does not.
What you call "playing defense attorney games" is actually testing the veracity and validity of the evidence. I don't claim Oswald is innocent or guilty, nor have I ever claimed that he was framed and/or part of a conspiracy. All I am doing is trying to figure out what actually happened by examining the all evidence. And when LNs, like you, feel the need to misrepresent the evidence red flags go up.
If you were really convinced about the strength of your case, you should be able to defend it, even under what you may consider to be unreasonable scrutiny. Complaining instead about people like me not being interested in the truth is a massive sign of weakness.
But to deny that Oswald left the rooming house in a jacket proves to me that one is not interested in getting at the truth.
What truth? You mean your truth, right? You are the one who ignores the obvious discrepancy between what Roberts says about the jacket and what Frazier said. You are the one who ignores the obvious unreliability of Roberts. It's a hell of a way to get to the truth when you simply ignore evidence you don't like.
-
That's a great question, Dan. One that you will never get a REASONABLE answer to.
Earlene Roberts was very specific when she said Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he went out the door. On 11/22/63, she also told a reporter that Oswald left the house wearing a short grey coat.
She was also very specific about a police car in front of the house.
-
I was interested because of the testimony of Mrs Johnson:
Mrs. JOHNSON. No; after these officers came in, well, then she began to tell them that he did come rushing in and she had gotten a phone call or had made one, anyway, she was on the phone--no, there was someone called her, that's what she said, said someone called her and she says, "Did you know that the President had been assassinated" and she says, "Why, no" and she says, "Well, it's on the television now" and she says, "I will run and turn it on" and she run in and turned this television on to get this information and this Oswald walked in hurriedly and she said, she said to him, "You seem to be in a hurry." She was the only one in that place. She said he didn't say a word but went on in his room and she said he changed his little zip-up coat, way I understand it, and just went right back out. He evidently got the gun; now, we don't know.
Mr. BALL. Did she tell the officers that?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yeah, she told the officers that.
She confirms that Roberts told the police Oswald had changed into his "little zip-up coat". It's not a detail she brought up months later, it's something she told officers on the day.
I can't think why Roberts would mention this if it didn't happen.
Dan,
It may well be that Roberts did indeed believe that Oswald walked out wearing a jacket, but that doesn't automatically mean that she was correct. Officer Baker thought that Oswald was wearing a jacket during the lunchroom encounter and taxi driver Whaley thought that the man he drove to Beckley street was wearing two jackets.
The irony of the LN hypocrisy is that when it comes to Buell Frazier, they will question anything he said about the paper bag Oswald was wearing. They call him mistaken and come up with all sorts of "reasons" why Frazier couldn't have seen the bag clear enough. The reason for this is that Frazier is saying something they don't like. But when it comes to Roberts, who says what they want to hear, her words as somehow written in stone, regardless of the serious problems there are with her credibility.
-
So, half blind Earlene first tells us that her powers to observe details are, to say the least, poor, as she couldn't say a damned thing about the shirt she saw Oswald wearing as he came in, and then she tells us he got and put on a zipper jacket.
What happened? Did her powers of observation suddenly improve, despite the fact that she was concentrating on getting the television to work and couldn't have seen Oswald for any longer than a couple of seconds as he walked behind her back from his room to the front door?
'She couldn't say a damn thing about about the shirt'
But saw it was a shirt, not a jacket
'couldn't have seen Oswald for any longer than a couple of seconds'
Does it take you even a 'couple of seconds' to realize that this figure is wearing jacket?
Okay, I'll wait..
(https://i.postimg.cc/SRzjh8GZ/blurred-oswald.png)
Blurred to mimic Earlene's possible eyesight
-
And for what it's worth, I have never called myself an expert and I did not ask the interviewer to call me one.
Now that I have that out of the way, I kind of am an expert on the Tippit murder.
You can be, too:
(https://i.imgur.com/ltNj8Pc.jpg)
-
She was also very specific about a police car in front of the house.
Not on the afternoon of the murder, she wasn't. There's the difference.
-
Dan,
It may well be that Roberts did indeed believe that Oswald walked out wearing a jacket, but that doesn't automatically mean that she was correct. Officer Baker thought that Oswald was wearing a jacket during the lunchroom encounter and taxi driver Whaley thought that the man he drove to Beckley street was wearing two jackets.
The irony of the LN hypocrisy is that when it comes to Buell Frazier, they will question anything he said about the paper bag Oswald was wearing. They call him mistaken and come up with all sorts of "reasons" why Frazier couldn't have seen the bag clear enough. The reason for this is that Frazier is saying something they don't like. But when it comes to Roberts, who says what they want to hear, her words as somehow written in stone, regardless of the serious problems there are with her credibility.
You keep skipping over the part where Roberts said Oswald was zipping it up as he went out the door.
-
'couldn't have seen Oswald for any longer than a couple of seconds'
Does it take you even a 'couple of seconds' to realize that this figure is wearing jacket?
Okay, I'll wait..
(https://i.postimg.cc/SRzjh8GZ/blurred-oswald.png)
Blurred to mimic Earlene's possible eyesight
:D Thumb1:
-
And for what it's worth, I have never called myself an expert and I did not ask the interviewer to call me one.
Now that I have that out of the way, I kind of am an expert in the Tippit murder.
You can be, too:
(https://i.imgur.com/ltNj8Pc.jpg)
Read a book full of speculation and bias and "become an expert" Thumb1:
Great stuff.... Does Myers explain the discrepancy between Roberts' and Buell Frazier's testimony about the gray jacket?
Does Myers provide any evidence for Oswald leaving the TSBD through the front door within 2 to 2,5 minutes after the shots, like you claimed he did?
Does Myers give an explanation about how the white jacket (as it was called in) became a gray jacket, how Westbrook ended up with it at the police station and needed several hours to submit it to the identification bureau with initials on it from people who were not even at the location what the jacket was found?
-
Dan,
It may well be that Roberts did indeed believe that Oswald walked out wearing a jacket, but that doesn't automatically mean that she was correct. Officer Baker thought that Oswald was wearing a jacket during the lunchroom encounter and taxi driver Whaley thought that the man he drove to Beckley street was wearing two jackets.
Totally agree with what you're saying here.
The irony of the LN hypocrisy is that when it comes to Buell Frazier, they will question anything he said about the paper bag Oswald was wearing. They call him mistaken and come up with all sorts of "reasons" why Frazier couldn't have seen the bag clear enough. The reason for this is that Frazier is saying something they don't like. But when it comes to Roberts, who says what they want to hear, her words as somehow written in stone, regardless of the serious problems there are with her credibility.
Mrs Johnson's testimony regarding Roberts' credibility is devastating.
Roberts' story about the police car outside seems suspect for a number of reasons.
But a detail like Oswald wearing a jacket on his way out....what does that gain Roberts?
It seems like a totally plausible, almost irrelevant detail. It only takes on importance because we all have it under the microscope for various reasons.
The way I look at it at the moment, the only reason Oswald returned to his room was to collect a gun.
It makes sense (to me) for him to wear a jacket to carry it in to make it as inconspicuous as possible.
I get the impression you're involved in a bitter LN vs CT situation that I'm not particularly interested in. It descends into a lot of nit-picking that often masks the valid points you have to make (IMO)
The LN narrative is an entrenched position that can only be really challenged by a strong counter-narrative that accounts for aspects of the assassination LNers struggle with. Endless arguments over little details have got nowhere, and never will (IMO)
-
You keep skipping over the part where Roberts said Oswald was zipping it up as he went out the door.
Just like you keep skipping over the part where Roberts testified that the jacket she saw was darker than CE 162.
Btw I am not skipping over anything. I have already stated that Roberts may well have believed that she saw Oswald putting on a jacket and zipping it up, but that, by itself does not mean that actually happened. When you have somebody else saying that Oswald was wearing a gray jacket (according to Marina, he only had one) to Irving on Thursday, you can not automatically assume that Roberts was correct in what she believed she saw.
-
Not on the afternoon of the murder, she wasn't. There's the difference.
It doesn't matter when she said it. It shows that her employer was likely correct about her making up stories.
If you make up stories afterwards, you can also do so on the day itself.
Unreliable is unreliable. Period.
Btw, Frazier, was being polygraphed on Friday evening when he was shown the bag they found at the TSBD and he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that same day. By your "logic" he needs to be believed, right? Even more so, because he never was accused of making up stories.....
-
Totally agree with what you're saying here.
Mrs Johnson's testimony regarding Roberts' credibility is devastating.
Roberts' story about the police car outside seems suspect for a number of reasons.
But a detail like Oswald wearing a jacket on his way out....what does that gain Roberts?
It seems like a totally plausible, almost irrelevant detail. It only takes on importance because we all have it under the microscope for various reasons.
The way I look at it at the moment, the only reason Oswald returned to his room was to collect a gun.
It makes sense (to me) for him to wear a jacket to carry it in to make it as inconspicuous as possible.
I get the impression you're involved in a bitter LN vs CT situation that I'm not particularly interested in. It descends into a lot of nit-picking that often masks the valid points you have to make (IMO)
The LN narrative is an entrenched position that can only be really challenged by a strong counter-narrative that accounts for aspects of the assassination LNers struggle with. Endless arguments over little details have got nowhere, and never will (IMO)
But a detail like Oswald wearing a jacket on his way out....what does that gain Roberts?
That's the wrong question to ask, as I do not believe that most witnesses testify hoping to gain something.
It seems like a totally plausible, almost irrelevant detail. It only takes on importance because we all have it under the microscope for various reasons.
I disagree about it being an "almost irrelevant detail". It most certainly isn't. If Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket, then the Tippit witnesses who saw a man wearing a jacket possibly did not see Oswald and the jacket found under a parked car likely didn't belong to Oswald either, which in turn leaves the door wide open for the possibility that Oswald's gray jacket was in fact in Irving and found by the officers during the first search of Ruth Paine's house. They arrived back at the police station before Westbrook submitted the jacket (with no chain of custody) to the identification bureau.
I get the impression you're involved in a bitter LN vs CT situation that I'm not particularly interested in.
Not really. I just don't like the hypocrisy. I have tried many times to have a normal conversation with LNs but whenever it gets to a point where they can not explain something, they start playing games and the conversation is over.
The LN narrative is an entrenched position that can only be really challenged by a strong counter-narrative that accounts for aspects of the assassination LNers struggle with.
I disagree. You can never present a strong counter-narrative because as soon as you do the conversation is over.
Also, the LN narrative is the one claiming to be correct. The LNs should be able to defend it with convincing arguments. The LNs are the ones who are acting as prosecutors. They need to prove their case.
Endless arguments over little details have got nowhere, and never will (IMO)
It depends what one considers to be a little detail. Sometimes evidence that seems insignificant at first provide the conclusive proof at a later stage. I don't think it's a good idea to predetermine what evidence is relevant and what not!
-
I get the impression you're involved in a bitter LN vs CT situation that I'm not particularly interested in.
Not really. I just don't like the hypocrisy. I have tried many times to have a normal conversation with LNs but whenever it gets to a point where they can not explain something, they start playing games and the conversation is over.
The LN narrative is an entrenched position that can only be really challenged by a strong counter-narrative that accounts for aspects of the assassination LNers struggle with.
I disagree. You can never present a strong counter-narrative because as soon as you do the conversation is over.
Also, the LN narrative is the one claiming to be correct. The LNs should be able to defend it with convincing arguments. The LNs are the ones who are acting as prosecutors. They need to prove their case.
Endless arguments over little details have got nowhere, and never will (IMO)
It depends what one considers to be a little detail.
'They need to prove their case'
The witnesses @Tippit did that and cracked the code in the process.
'You can never present a strong counter-narrative because as soon as you do the conversation is over.'
Still waiting for a strong counter-narrative from you or any other CT 'conversationalist', Bubba.
-
'They need to prove their case'
The witnesses @Tippit did that and cracked the code in the process.
'You can never present a strong counter-narrative because as soon as you do the conversation is over.'
Still waiting for a strong counter-narrative from you or any other CT 'conversationalist', Bubba.
Thanks for once again proving the point I was making.
You want a counter narrative? Since pictures seem to be the easiest way to communicate with you, watch the movie "Executive action" and the assassination scene in the movie "the International". ;)
-
Thanks for once again proving the point I was making.
You want some fries with that nothing-burger?
And does your 'counter-narrative' include the comment about Earlene having only a couple of seconds to see what Oswald was wearing? It must be, since I've schooled you on this very point before, using a similar blurred, mocking image... and yet here you are repeating yourself.
And did you finally work out if the figure in my mocking-mockup (so-to-speak) is wearing a jacket or not?
(https://i.postimg.cc/SRzjh8GZ/blurred-oswald.png)
-
Just like you keep skipping over the part where Roberts testified that the jacket she saw was darker than CE 162.
Again, for the four millionth time...
Forget 162. Got that now?
Forget Tenth and Patton.
Oswald left the rooming house zipping up a jacket as he went out the door. Oswald is seen by Johnny Brewer on Jefferson with no jacket. Why did Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?
-
It doesn't matter when she said it. It shows that her employer was likely correct about her making up stories.
If you make up stories afterwards, you can also do so on the day itself.
Unreliable is unreliable. Period.
Btw, Frazier, was being polygraphed on Friday evening when he was shown the bag they found at the TSBD and he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that same day. By your "logic" he needs to be believed, right? Even more so, because he never was accused of making up stories.....
It doesn't matter when she said it.
Except, it does. She told a reporter almost immediately that Oswald left in a jacket. She didn't tell anyone about the supposed horn-honking incident until a week later and by that time, the alleged assassin was himself gunned down, sparking rumors of a plot.
Unreliable is unreliable. Period.
No. Like it or not, there are grey areas.
Btw, Frazier, was being polygraphed on Friday evening when he was shown the bag they found at the TSBD and he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that same day. By your "logic" he needs to be believed, right? Even more so, because he never was accused of making up stories.....
Frazier is an obvious liar. These days, I don't trust a single thing he said.
-
:D Thumb1:
Weidmann should feel free to squint to his heart's content before he says 'how would you know how bad her eyesight was'
-
You want some fries with that nothing-burger?
And does your 'counter-narrative' include the comment about Earlene having only a couple of seconds to see if Oswald was wearing a jacket or not? It must be, since I've schooled you on this very point before, using a similar blurred, mocking image... and yet here you are repeating yourself.
And did you finally work out if the figure in my mocking-mockup (so-to-speak) is wearing a jacket or not?
(https://i.postimg.cc/SRzjh8GZ/blurred-oswald.png)
Pathetic.
As you haven't got a clue on how blurred Roberts' vision really was, your blurred picture is meaningless.
There is a major difference between briefly seeing somebody walking behind you, needing only seconds to get from his room to the front door, while you try to get the television to work and a picture frame from a Gary Mack video which you can watch as long as you like.
But I'll play, just for fun. The video shows the man wearing a jacket, so there is no mystery there, but if this guy would walk passed you in a matter of two or three seconds, under the same circumstances as Roberts saw him, you could easily confuse the jacket for a vest, cardigan or sweater.
-
Again, for the four millionth time...
Forget 162. Got that now?
Forget Tenth and Patton.
Oswald left the rooming house zipping up a jacket as he went out the door. Oswald is seen by Johnny Brewer on Jefferson with no jacket. Why did Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?
There you go again, ignoring the evidence you don't like and assuming (1) that Oswald left the rooming house with a jacket and (2) that it was Oswald who ditched a jacket.
Only a fool asks the same question over and over again, expecting a different result.
-
Except, it does. She told a reporter almost immediately that Oswald left in a jacket. She didn't tell anyone about the supposed horn-honking incident until a week later and by that time, the alleged assassin was himself gunned down, sparking rumors of a plot.
No. Like it or not, there are grey areas.
Frazier is an obvious liar. These days, I don't trust a single thing he said.
Except, it does. She told a reporter almost immediately that Oswald left in a jacket. She didn't tell anyone about the supposed horn-honking incident until a week later and by that time, the alleged assassin was himself gunned down, sparking rumors of a plot.
Wow! As I said before, she may well have believed that Oswald left in a jacket, but that doesn't automatically mean he did.
But it's very enlightening that you find a person credible despite the fact that you accuse her of making up a story after Oswald's death!
No. Like it or not, there are grey areas.
Only when it is convenient for you
Frazier is an obvious liar. These days, I don't trust a single thing he said.
And Roberts is exposed as a compulsive liar by her own employer. I don't believe a single thing she said. At least not without corroboration.
Frazier denied the TSBD bag as the one Oswald carried on day 1 and he hasn't changed his story one bit ever since.
-
There you go again, ignoring the evidence you don't like and assuming (1) that Oswald left the rooming house with a jacket and (2) that it was Oswald who ditched a jacket.
Only a fool asks the same question over and over again, expecting a different result.
I'm hoping for a REASONABLE answer, eventually. You're right, probably is foolish of me to expect one.
-
I'm hoping for a REASONABLE answer, eventually. You're right, probably is foolish of me to expect one.
"Reasonable" as in "one I like"?
Prove to me conclusively that Oswald left the roominghouse wearing a jacket and that he ditched it somewhere, and I'll give you a different answer. But don't ask me to play along with your assumptions!
-
"Reasonable" as in "one I like"?
Prove to me conclusively that Oswald left the roominghouse wearing a jacket and that he ditched it somewhere, and I'll give you a different answer. But don't ask me to play along with your assumptions!
So Oswald left the rooming house zipping up "a vest, cardigan or sweater" Got it.
Sorry, but you fail my litmus test. You aren't really interested in the truth; you just wanna play games.
-
So Oswald left the rooming house zipping up "a vest, cardigan or sweater" Got it.
Sorry, but you fail my litmus test. You aren't really interested in the truth; you just wanna play games.
So you can't prove that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket and/or that he ditched it somewhere? It's duly noted!
So Oswald left the rooming house zipping up "a vest, cardigan or sweater" Got it.
Not what I said.... Why do you need to misrepresent what I said? Again; Roberts may well have believed that Oswald left the house wearing or zipping up a jacket, but that doesn't automatically mean that is what happened.
Sorry, but you fail my litmus test. You aren't really interested in the truth; you just wanna play games.
I've said this before; Your litmus test is a very simple one; anyone who agrees with you passes the test and anyone who doesn't, does not.
I'm not the one who is playing games, nor am I the one who is ignoring evidence.
The biggest difference between you and me is that you believe that you know what the truth actually is and I don't. I'm merely trying to find out for myself what the truth is. Unlike you, I have no agenda. Unlike you, I couldn't care less if Oswald was guilty or innocent and/or part of a conspiracy or not. You are the fanatical zealot who thinks that whatever he believes is the truth. There is nothing reasonable about your opinions. You argue from behind a solidly closed door that will never be opened. The irony is that all I am asking from you and your ilk is to provide the conclusive evidence of Oswald's guilt and it turns out you can't.
-
So you can't prove that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket and/or that he ditched it somewhere? It's duly noted!
So Oswald left the rooming house zipping up "a vest, cardigan or sweater" Got it.
Not what I said.... Why do you need to misrepresent what I said? Again; Roberts may well have believed that Oswald left the house wearing or zipping up a jacket, but that doesn't automatically mean that is what happened.
Sorry, but you fail my litmus test. You aren't really interested in the truth; you just wanna play games.
I've said this before; Your litmus test is a very simple one; anyone who agrees with you passes the test and anyone who doesn't, does not.
I'm not the one who is playing games, nor am I the one who is ignoring evidence.
The biggest difference between you and me is that you believe that you know what the truth actually is and I don't. I'm merely trying to find out for myself what the truth is. Unlike you, I have no agenda. Unlike you, I couldn't care less if Oswald was guilty or innocent and/or part of a conspiracy or not. You are the fanatical zealot who thinks that whatever he believes is the truth. There is nothing reasonable about your opinions. You argue from behind a solidly closed door that will never be opened. The irony is that all I am asking from you and your ilk is to provide the conclusive evidence of Oswald's guilt and it turns out you can't.
The biggest difference between you and Bill is that you are a nut. You have no agenda? LOL. You are delusional. Never once I have seen you question any possible evidence that lends itself to Oswald's innocence, but in every single instance you question the evidence of his guilt. No matter how well documented. How about you apply your standard of proof to Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his package? Something you appear to accept as a fact. Who "corroborated" Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his bag?
-
The biggest difference between you and Bill is that you are a nut. You have no agenda? LOL. You are delusional. Never once I have seen you question any possible evidence that lends itself to Oswald's innocence, but in every single instance you question the evidence of his guilt. No matter how well documented. How about you apply your standard of proof to Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his package? Something you appear to accept as a fact. Who "corroborated" Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his bag?
And there is the other zealot jumping in like a monkey doing tricks.... :D
Never once I have seen you question any possible evidence that lends itself to Oswald's innocence, but in every single instance you question the evidence of his guilt.
Which only tells me that you haven't been paying attention.
How about you apply your standard of proof to Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his package? Something you appear to accept as a fact. Who "corroborated" Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his bag?
There it is again, another loaded question. Nobody mentioned "how Oswald carried his bag". Frazier, on day 1, denied, while being polygraphed, that the bag found at the TSBD wasn't the one he had seen Oswald carry and his sister backed him up.
-
Frazier, on day 1, denied, while being polygraphed, that the bag found at the TSBD wasn't the one he had seen Oswald carry and his sister backed him up.
Didn't Linnie Mae Randle say in her first FBI interview that the package was 3 feet long. And only later magically changed her testimony to it being 27 inches to match Fraziers testimony exactly. The fact that Frazier and Linnie were living together might have influenced her later account of shortening the package to 27 inches.
-
And there is the other zealot jumping in like a monkey doing tricks.... :D
Never once I have seen you question any possible evidence that lends itself to Oswald's innocence, but in every single instance you question the evidence of his guilt.
Which only tells me that you haven't been paying attention.
How about you apply your standard of proof to Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his package? Something you appear to accept as a fact. Who "corroborated" Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his bag?
There it is again, another loaded question. Nobody mentioned "how Oswald carried his bag". Frazier, on day 1, denied, while being polygraphed, that the bag found at the TSBD wasn't the one he had seen Oswald carry and his sister backed him up.
You have gone on and on and on about how Oswald carried the bag to prove that it could not be long enough to have contained the rifle. Did anyone "corroborate" Frazier's description that you have cited hundreds of times as an absolute fact?
-
You have gone on and on and on about how Oswald carried the bag to prove that it could not be long enough to have contained the rifle. Did anyone "corroborate" Frazier's description that you have cited hundreds of times as an absolute fact?
Did anyone "corroborate" Frazier's description that you have cited hundreds of times as an absolute fact?
Did anyone "corroborate" the way Dan Rather carried the package, as you have claimed as an absolute fact?
Corroboration for Frazier's description comes from his sister who saw Oswald carry the package, holding the top in his hand and not touching the ground at the other end. The dimensions are similar and if the package had been longer, as in the Dan Rather video, Randle would have seen it touch the ground, which of course she didn't.
-
Did anyone "corroborate" Frazier's description that you have cited hundreds of times as an absolute fact?
Did anyone "corroborate" the way Dan Rather carried the package, as you have claimed as an absolute fact?
Corroboration for Frazier's description comes from his sister who saw Oswald carry the package, holding the top in his hand and not touching the ground at the other end. The dimensions are similar and if the package had been longer, as in the Dan Rather video, Randle would have seen it touch the ground, which of course she didn't.
Frazier's sister saw Oswald carry the package into the TSBD as Frazier described?
-
Didn't Linnie Mae Randle say in her first FBI interview that the package was 3 feet long. And only later magically changed her testimony to it being 27 inches to match Fraziers testimony exactly. The fact that Frazier and Linnie were living together might have influenced her later account of shortening the package to 27 inches.
Didn't Linnie Mae Randle say in her first FBI interview that the package was 3 feet long.
That's what the FBI agent wrote in his 302 report. Randle never saw or signed that report and there is no way of knowing for sure that's what she said. 302 reports are internal documents in which agents can write whatever they please. There is no evidentary value to them.
To illustrate; there are two 302 reports about the paper bag that was allegedly used to bring the rifle to the TSBD. One said there was a match with TSBD paper and the other said there wasn't!
The fact that Frazier and Linnie were living together might have influenced her later account of shortening the package to 27 inches.
But why would they lie about the size of the bag? Do you believe that they knew straight away that the police thought Oswald brought in the gun in a paper bag which was found at the TSBD? How would they have such knowledge within hours after the assassination?
-
Frazier's sister saw Oswald carry the package into the TSBD as Frazier described?
Get back to me when you have finished playing silly games
-
That's what the FBI agent wrote in his 302 report. Randle never saw or signed that report and there is no way of knowing for sure that's what she said. 302 reports are internal documents in which agents can write whatever they please. There is no evidentary value to them.
To illustrate; there are two 302 reports about the paper bag that was allegedly used to bring the rifle to the TSBD. One said there was a match with TSBD paper and the other said there wasn't!
Well i don't know. Any mention at all of the bag being 3 feet long seems to weakens the case. It would have been nice to get John McAdams take on this. He was always very good at straightening things out.
-
'Pathetic'
Is that from your 'conversational' counter-narrative file?
'As you haven't got a clue on how blurred Roberts' vision really was, your blurred picture is meaningless'
Feel free to squint. Say, why not show us a graphic demonstrating just how blurred her vision 'really was'.
(https://i.postimg.cc/5yd6PqHS/earlene-in-glasses.png)
Earlene Roberts: Blind as a bat, except for the glasses
'There is a major difference between briefly seeing somebody walking behind you, needing only seconds to get from his room to the front door, while you try to get the television to work and a picture frame from a Gary Mack video which you can watch as long as you like'
There is a major difference between Earlene trying to adjust her TV set, and then pausing and turning around as she hears (or was she deaf as well?) hot-footing it for the exit. Seems whatever time was available was all it took for Earlene to observe that Oswald was zipping up a jacket.
'But I'll play, just for fun. The video shows the man wearing a jacket, so there is no mystery there, but if this guy would walk passed you in a matter of two or three seconds, under the same circumstances as Roberts saw him, you could easily confuse the jacket for a vest, cardigan or sweater.'
> Tell us how he would get out the door in just 2-3 seconds. Plus she saw him at the bus stop for another few seconds. The viewing opportunities afforded Earlene re man-in-hurry Oswald (he in a cardigan, vest, or sweater; anything but a jacket) seem to be adding up.
-
'Pathetic'
Is that from your 'conversational' counter-narrative file?
'As you haven't got a clue on how blurred Roberts' vision really was, your blurred picture is meaningless'
Feel free to squint. Say, why not show us a graphic demonstrating just how blurred her vision 'really was'.
(https://i.postimg.cc/5yd6PqHS/earlene-in-glasses.png)
Earlene Roberts: Blind as a bat, except for the glasses
'There is a major difference between briefly seeing somebody walking behind you, needing only seconds to get from his room to the front door, while you try to get the television to work and a picture frame from a Gary Mack video which you can watch as long as you like'
There is a major difference between Earlene trying to adjust her TV set, and then pausing and turning around as she hears (or was she deaf as well?) hot-footing it for the exit. Seems whatever time was available was all it took for Earlene to observe that Oswald was zipping up a jacket.
'But I'll play, just for fun. The video shows the man wearing a jacket, so there is no mystery there, but if this guy would walk passed you in a matter of two or three seconds, under the same circumstances as Roberts saw him, you could easily confuse the jacket for a vest, cardigan or sweater.'
Tell us how he would get out the door in just 2-3 seconds. Plus she saw him at the bus stop for another few seconds. The viewing opportunities afforded Earlene re man-in-hurry Oswald (he in a cardigan, vest, or sweater; anything but a jacket) seem to be adding up.
Say, why not show us a graphic demonstrating just how blurred her vision 'really was'.
Why should I, when you are the one who posted a blurred picture? Typical LN BS, posting something and wanting to be proven wrong.
There is a major difference between Earlene trying to adjust her TV set, and then pausing and turning around as she hears (or was she deaf as well?) hot-footing it for the exit.
Who said that Earlene Roberts paused and turned around? And, you've clearly never been at the rooming house, because if you had you would have known that the distance between Oswald's room and the front door is minimal.
Tell us how he would get out the door in just 2-3 seconds. Plus she saw him at the bus stop for another few seconds. The viewing opportunities afforded Earlene re man-in-hurry Oswald (he in a cardigan, vest, or sweater; anything but a jacket) seem to be adding up.
Visit the rooming house and you will know.
-
The irony is that all I am asking from you and your ilk is to provide the conclusive evidence of Oswald's guilt and it turns out you can't.
In regards to the Tippit murder, you and your ilk have been beat over the head, time and time again, with conclusive evidence proving Oswald's guilt.
Answer me one question. Why haven't you listed just one single piece of physical evidence pointing to someone other than Lee Oswald in the deaths of either Kennedy or Tippit?
-
The biggest difference between you and Bill is that you are a nut. You have no agenda? LOL. You are delusional. Never once I have seen you question any possible evidence that lends itself to Oswald's innocence, but in every single instance you question the evidence of his guilt. No matter how well documented. How about you apply your standard of proof to Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his package? Something you appear to accept as a fact. Who "corroborated" Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his bag?
(https://i.imgur.com/XJMwbsT.png)
-
In regards to the Tippit murder, you and your ilk have been beat over the head, time and time again, with conclusive evidence proving Oswald's guilt.
Answer me one question. Why haven't you listed just one single piece of physical evidence pointing to someone other than Lee Oswald in the deaths of either Kennedy or Tippit?
In regards to the Tippit murder, you and your ilk have been beat over the head, time and time again, with conclusive evidence proving Oswald's guilt.
And what conclusive evidence would that be? Why are you claiming something this stupid and can not back it up with actual conclusive evidence?
Answer me one question. Why haven't you listed just one single piece of physical evidence pointing to someone other than Lee Oswald in the deaths of either Kennedy or Tippit?
Ah, so we're back to Oswald did it unless you can prove me wrong? Why don't you try to prove him guilty with anything more as assumptions and speculation? Oh wait... silly question, because the answer is you can't.
-
In regards to the Tippit murder, you and your ilk have been beat over the head, time and time again, with conclusive evidence proving Oswald's guilt.
And what conclusive evidence would that be? Why are you claiming something this stupid and can not back it up with actual conclusive evidence?
Answer me one question. Why haven't you listed just one single piece of physical evidence pointing to someone other than Lee Oswald in the deaths of either Kennedy or Tippit?
Ah, so were back to Oswald did it unless you can prove me wrong? Why don't you try to prove him guilty with anything more as assumptions and speculation? Oh wait... silly question, because the answer is you can't.
Sure I can. Just listen to the interview at the very top of page one of this thread. Then, once you've done that, read through some of my (and many of the other LNers') posts throughout this very forum.
Now, back to you. Why haven't you listed just one single piece of physical evidence pointing to someone other than Lee Oswald in the deaths of either Kennedy or Tippit? Why not just answer the question instead of deflection? Answer the question already.
-
"I seriously doubt that he did leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket"
What is the basis for this serious doubt?
Reasonable doubt?
Earline Roberts was a compulsive liar, a teller of tall tales per the testimony of Gladys Johnson, her employer.
William W. Whaley was a liar and his "log" makes his claims inconclusive at best.
McWatters thought Roy Milton Jones was Oswald and the bus transfer was not discovered,
"missed" along with several live revolver rounds, during the booking and intake of a prisoner very strongly suspected of shooting a policeman to death and also suspected of shooting the POTUS.
Mary Bledsoe's first cousin, Jewell Rawlston Germany, Jr. was the son of RD Matthew's aunt and Bledsoe's uncle,
Jewell, Sr. Supporting evidence:
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,2890.msg109946.html#msg109946
(LOL you can't make this "stuff", up!)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51149771791_3d56282aea_z.jpg)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/mcwatters.htm
....
Mr. BALL - You went on over to Houston Viaduct into the Oak Cliff section, didn't you?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir; to the Oak Cliff section.
Mr. BALL - And there was some conversation occurred on that bus that you told the FBI officers about?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - Tell us what that was?
Mr. McWATTERS - Well, there was a teenage boy, I would say 17 or 18 years of age who was sitting to my right on the first cross seat and me and him had, we had conversationed a little while we was tied up in the traffic, you know, of the fact of we wondered where all, what all the excitement was due to the fact of the sirens and others, and after I turned on Houston Street I said to him and I made the remark, I wonder where the President was shot, and I believe he made the remark that it was probably in the head if he was in a convertible or something to that effect. I don't remember just exactly the way we worded it or what it was, but it was a conversation about the President, in other words, to where he was shot. In other words, and he made the remark or something, he was probably shot in the head, if he was sitting in a convertible or to that effect. I really don't know just exactly at that time. Just like I say I never thought anything about it.
Mr. BALL - Didn't some lady say something?
Mr. McWATTERS - Well, yes, sir.
Now, as we got on out on Marsalis, along about it was either Edgemont or Vermont, I believe it was Vermont Street, there was a lady who was fixing to cross the intersection and I stopped and asked her if she was going to catch the bus into town from the opposite direction, and she said that she was and I told her that we was off schedule, that the other bus had done went into town, and I asked her did she care to just ride on to the end of the line and come back and she wouldn't have to stand there and wait, and she was getting on, and I asked her had she heard the news of the President being shot, at the time that was all I knew about it, and she said, "No, what are you--you are just kidding me."
I said, "No, I really am not kidding you." I said, "It is the truth from all the reliable sources that we have come in contact with," and this teenage boy sitting on the side, I said "Well, now, if you think I am kidding you," I said, "Ask this gentleman sitting over here," and he kind of, I don't know whether it was a grinning or smile or whatever expression it was, and she said, "I know you are kidding now, because he laughed or grinned or made some remark to that effect."
And I just told her no it wasn't no kidding matter, but that was part of the conversation that was said at that time.
Mr. BALL - Was this teenage boy--do you know where this teenage boy got on the bus?
Mr. McWATTERS - Yes, sir; he got on at between, he got on at the stop, in other words, I stopped in front of the Majestic theater which is a block before I get to St. Paul; in other words, it is a middle of the stop, block stop, in other words. We pull in and stop in the center of the block, and my next stop would be St. Paul; in other words, that is where the teenage boy got on.
Mr. BALL - He was on the bus when this man knocked on the door of your bus and got on? ...
-
Except, it does. She told a reporter almost immediately that Oswald left in a jacket. She didn't tell anyone about the supposed horn-honking incident until a week later and by that time, the alleged assassin was himself gunned down, sparking rumors of a plot.
No. Like it or not, there are grey areas.
Frazier is an obvious liar. These days, I don't trust a single thing he said.
Bill, reasonable doubt, and you certainly are selective... a little of this, a little of that. Roberts, Markham, the Davis girls, Whaley, and especially Bledsoe, unreliable.
But don't take my word for this, ask Dale K. Myers.
https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2020/11/westbrook-croy-and-tippit-murder.html
....The Roberts story was covered extensively in With Malice but you won’t find a whiff of that coverage in Mr. Thomas’ mythical tale.
For instance, you won’t learn that Mrs. Roberts didn’t even tell this story until a week after the assassination, and mind you, police investigators and reporters had been crawling in and out of the boarding house all during that period. [65]
Nor will you learn that Mrs. Roberts offered three different squad car numbers – 207, 106, and 107 – in an effort to identify the policemen riding in the mysterious automobile. None of the squad car numbers checked out. [66]
Nor will you learn that the two policemen she thought it might be honking the horn either denied knowing her or hadn’t worked for the Dallas police since 1957 – six years before the shooting. [67]
Nor will you learn that those who met her described her as having a penchant for being talkative and making stories up. [68] That included the woman she worked for, Mrs. Gladys J. Johnson, who testified to the Warren Commission, “Have you ever seen people like that? Just have a creative mind, there’s nothing to it, and just make up and keep talking until she just makes a lie out of it. Listen, I’m telling you the truth, and this isn’t to go any further, understand that? You have to know these things because you are going to question this lady. I will tell you, she’s just as intelligent – I think she is a person that doesn’t mean to do that but she just does it automatically. It seems as though she, oh, I don’t know, wants to be attractive or something at times. I just don’t know; I don’t understand it myself. I only wish I did.” [69]...
You embrace Mrs. Roberts, you have no use for Wesley Frazier.... how 'bout the Dobbs House restaurant manager?
And Bill, how thorough is an investigation, resulting in a voluminous report of a Presidential Commission, that presents this to the American people struggling for answers, for accountability, that includes the following,
https://jfkassassinationindex.blogspot.com/2011/09/
ROGERS, SAM
Manager of Dobbs House at 1221 N. Beckley. Believed LHO had frequented the Dobbs House. His daughter-in-law is Brenda Simmons.
CE 3001; CD 1364, pp. 1-11
When the 1963 Dallas City Directory was sent to the printer, these two shared the same address.
Late that year, Lillian appeared in the opening frames of the Zapruder film. Husband Sammie did not die,
Lillian was not a widow. Sammie in the 1963 city directory became Sam in 1964, residing at a different address as reported in FBI documents. In the 1964 & in the 1965 directory, despite Lillian being a "wid", "Sam" Rogers was listed as Dobbs House manager.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51150228708_24b25bccbb_c.jpg)
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51150229428_d820bebb49_c.jpg)
-
Say, why not show us a graphic demonstrating just how blurred her vision 'really was'.
Why should I, when you are the one who posted a blurred picture? Typical LN BS, posting something and wanting to be proven wrong.
There is a major difference between Earlene trying to adjust her TV set, and then pausing and turning around as she hears (or was she deaf as well?) hot-footing it for the exit.
Who said that Earlene Roberts paused and turned around? And, you've clearly never been at the rooming house, because if you had you would have known that the distance between Oswald's room and the front door is minimal.
Tell us how he would get out the door in just 2-3 seconds. Plus she saw him at the bus stop for another few seconds. The viewing opportunities afforded Earlene re man-in-hurry Oswald (he in a cardigan, vest, or sweater; anything but a jacket) seem to be adding up.
Visit the rooming house and you will know.
'Why should I, when you are the one who posted a blurred picture? Typical LN BS, posting something and wanting to be proven wrong'
> Hogwash. You're the one pouncing on Earlene's eyesight as if it disqualifies her as a credible witness. Therefore, the onus is on you to provide evidence that she would be unable to confirm whether or not Mr Lee was wearing a jacket as he left the safe-house.
'Who said that Earlene Roberts paused and turned around? And, you've clearly never been at the rooming house, because if you had you would have known that the distance between Oswald's room and the front door is minimal'
> Are you now claiming Earlene was a cyclops-like character, complete with a third eye on the back of her head, eliminating the need for her to turn around in order to see Mr Lee hustling out of his safe-house while zipping up his jacket?
Now quantify 'minimal'. And suggesting that I travel to Dallas to visit that house so I will 'know' indicates a begrudging attitude on your part, quite frankly. Either you cannot or will not produce photographs of that front room that will reveal the actual dimensions of that room.
-
In regards to the Tippit murder, you and your ilk have been beat over the head, time and time again, with conclusive evidence proving Oswald's guilt.
And what conclusive evidence would that be? Why are you claiming something this stupid and can not back it up with actual conclusive evidence?
Answer me one question. Why haven't you listed just one single piece of physical evidence pointing to someone other than Lee Oswald in the deaths of either Kennedy or Tippit?
Ah, so were back to Oswald did it unless you can prove me wrong? Why don't you try to prove him guilty with anything more as assumptions and speculation? Oh wait... silly question, because the answer is you can't.
Oswald was observed killing Tippit. Booyah.
-
Get back to me when you have finished playing silly games
Martin/Roger is running scared. Randle not only didn't corroborate Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle she described him carrying it an entirely different way. Yet, Martin cites Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle into the TSBD as an absolute fact without question or need for corroboration because it fits his desired narrative. An entirely inconsistent standard than he applies to any evidence that might lend itself to doubt of Oswald's guilt.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
-
Sure I can. Just listen to the interview at the very top of page one of this thread. Then, once you've done that, read through some of my (and many of the other LNers') posts throughout this very forum.
Now, back to you. Why haven't you listed just one single piece of physical evidence pointing to someone other than Lee Oswald in the deaths of either Kennedy or Tippit? Why not just answer the question instead of deflection? Answer the question already.
Sure I can. Just listen to the interview at the very top of page one of this thread. Then, once you've done that, read through some of my (and many of the other LNers') posts throughout this very forum.
I have already done that and all I have heard and seen are the usual speculations, misrepresentations, propaganda and half truths, with only some selective evidence being presented and other being ignored. There is nothing conclusive there. It's no more than a badly written prosecutor's brief.
Why haven't you listed just one single piece of physical evidence pointing to someone other than Lee Oswald in the deaths of either Kennedy or Tippit?
Stop asking loaded questions. It's like tying a boxer's hands behind his back and then asking him why he isn't throwing a punch. It's dishonest and doesn't help your case. All you and your ilk are constantly doing is claiming that Oswald is guilty unless proven innocent. There is nothing honest about it.
All we have to work with is the evidence selected by the WC and HSCA and that only serves the purpose it was selected for, which is to present Oswald as guilty. All I can do is examine that evidence to determine if it holds up under scrutiny. The lack of physical evidence pointing to someone other than Oswald does not mean it did/does not exist, nor does it automatically mean Oswald is guilty.
Asking such a silly question only shows that you do not have the confidence in your own case to enter into a normal honest discussion. In court only prosecutors who fear they might not get a conviction do things like wittholding evidence or misrepresenting facts.
-
Martin/Roger is running scared. Randle not only didn't corroborate Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle she described him carrying it an entirely different way. Yet, Martin cites Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle into the TSBD as an absolute fact without question or need for corroboration because it fits his desired narrative. An entirely inconsistent standard than he applies to any evidence that might lend itself to doubt of Oswald's guilt.
Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.
Martin/Roger is running scared.
No, Martin is not playing your pathetic games. (Btw you desperately need to work on that "Roger" obsession of yours!)
Randle not only didn't corroborate Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle she described him carrying it an entirely different way.
Fool. I never said that Randle saw Oswald carry the package in the same way as Frazier did. What I did say is that she saw him carry the package in such a way that it justifies the conclusion that it couldn't have been any larger than Frazier described it and a package small enough to fit between a cupped hand and an armpit isn't big enough to stick out over Frazier's shoulder.
An entirely inconsistent standard than he applies to any evidence that might lend itself to doubt of Oswald's guilt.
Although not perfect, Randle's story is a hell of a lot better corroboration than there is for Earlene Roberts' story, yet you believe Roberts in an instant and dismiss Frazier's story. An inconsistent standard indeed.... Pot meet kettle.
-
Randle did not see the manner in which Oswald carried the package at the TSBD. Frazier did not see the manner in which Oswald carried the package in Irving. Therefore both remain uncooborated.
Carrying the gunbag down by one's side (as per Randle) while out in the open in a residential neighbourhood is the best way to minimize its profile.
Alternatively, carrying the package in the palm by one's side, and using the other hand to angle the top over in front of the one's head is the best way to minimize the package profile from a person walking directly behind. Another trick would be to pretend to wait for Buell then take off before he (Buell) caught up and maybe get a better view of the package.
-
Randle did not see the manner in which Oswald carried the package at the TSBD. Frazier did not see the manner in which Oswald carried the package in Irving. Therefore both remain uncooborated.
Carrying the gunbag down by one's side (as per Randle) while out in the open in a residential neighbourhood is the best way to minimize its profile.
Alternatively, carrying the package in the palm by one's side, and using the other hand to angle the top over in front of the one's head is the best way to minimize the package profile from a person walking directly behind. Another trick would be to pretend to wait for Buell then take off before he (Buell) caught up and maybe get a better view of the package.
Amazing just how collectively braindead and bad faith actors you LN's are.
To get back to the topic at hand; what corroboration is there for Roberts' claim that Oswald left the roominghouse zipping up a jacket? Here's a hint; the honest answer would be "none"!
So, what is your answer?
-
Amazing just how collectively braindead and bad faith actors you LN's are.
Why are you always the first to start with insults on this level? I'm curious as to your answer.
-
I thought Joe Biden was supposed to be bringing us all together.
-
Why are you always the first to start with insults on this level? I'm curious as to your answer.
The answer is; I am not the first to start
The biggest difference between you and Bill is that you are a nut.
to which you replied with;
(https://i.imgur.com/XJMwbsT.png)
-
'Why should I, when you are the one who posted a blurred picture? Typical LN BS, posting something and wanting to be proven wrong'
> Hogwash. You're the one pouncing on Earlene's eyesight as if it disqualifies her as a credible witness. Therefore, the onus is on you to provide evidence that she would be unable to confirm whether or not Mr Lee was wearing a jacket as he left the safe-house.
More stupidity based on the LN mantra "I am right unless you can prove me wrong". You are the one who wants to rely on Roberts' testimony about the jacket. Given the fact of her poor eyesight, the fact that she was concentrating on the television and the fact that she was known for making up stories, it would be up to you to establish her credibility.
'Who said that Earlene Roberts paused and turned around? And, you've clearly never been at the rooming house, because if you had you would have known that the distance between Oswald's room and the front door is minimal'
> Are you now claiming Earlene was a cyclops-like character, complete with a third eye on the back of her head, eliminating the need for her to turn around in order to see Mr Lee hustling out of his safe-house while zipping up his jacket?
Can't you figure out anything? The television was in the right hand corner of the living room and the front door was near the left hand corner. Oswald's room was in the back, on the right hand side of the building. Roberts would be facing the front windows, with her back turned to the living room. Oswald walked diagonally through the living room from his room to the front door. Roberts would have seen him as he came to her left and opened the door. That only took seconds.
Now quantify 'minimal'.
Why? Is the a court of law?
And suggesting that I travel to Dallas to visit that house so I will 'know' indicates a begrudging attitude on your part, quite frankly. Either you cannot or will not produce photographs of that front room that will reveal the actual dimensions of that room.
I am not suggesting that you travel to Dallas. I have concluded that you have not been there and thus are talking about something you are actually unfamiliar with. And as for photos of the living room, they are already posted on this forum. Do some work for once and look for them.
-
The answer is; I am not the first to start
to which you replied with;
No.
Below is what I was giving the thumbs up to:
You have no agenda? LOL. You are delusional. Never once I have seen you question any possible evidence that lends itself to Oswald's innocence, but in every single instance you question the evidence of his guilt. No matter how well documented. How about you apply your standard of proof to Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his package? Something you appear to accept as a fact. Who "corroborated" Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his bag?
-
No.
Below is what I was giving the thumbs up to:
Stop trying to weasel out of it. You gave thumbs up to the entire post which included the part I quoted.
The biggest difference between you and Bill is that you are a nut. You have no agenda? LOL. You are delusional. Never once I have seen you question any possible evidence that lends itself to Oswald's innocence, but in every single instance you question the evidence of his guilt. No matter how well documented. How about you apply your standard of proof to Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his package? Something you appear to accept as a fact. Who "corroborated" Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his bag?
And besides, in the part you yourself quoted I am being called delusional, which justifies the conclusion that you agreed with Richard Smith's insults.
-
Stop trying to weasel out of it. You gave thumbs up to the entire post which included the part I quoted.
And besides, in the part you yourself quoted I am being called delusional, which justifies the conclusion that you agreed with Richard Smith's insults.
You're being childish. You posted only the portion where Richard Smith called you a nut and you stated that I gave the thumbs up to that.
Besides that, you are delusional. You think that's the same as calling LNers, a few of which have not insulted you, braindead?
Grow up.
-
You're being childish. You posted only the portion where Richard Smith called you a nut and you stated that I gave the thumbs up to that.
Besides that, you are delusional. You think that's the same as calling LNers, a few of which have not insulted you, braindead?
Grow up.
Aha, so now there are degrees of insults? One more serious than another? And then you say I am the one that needs to grow up? Patronise much?
But it is exactly what I thought. You simply do not have the ability to simply say you were wrong.
You posted only the portion where Richard Smith called you a nut and you stated that I gave the thumbs up to that.
As that part of Richard Smith's remarks was in the post you gave the thumbs up to and you failed to specify that you didn't agree with some part of the post, you did indeed give the thumbs up to him calling me a nut.
-
So anyway.....
Still no evidence pointing to someone other than Oswald?
-
Sure I can. Just listen to the interview at the very top of page one of this thread. Then, once you've done that, read through some of my (and many of the other LNers') posts throughout this very forum.
I have already done that and all I have heard and seen are the usual speculations, misrepresentations, propaganda and half truths, with only some selective evidence being presented and other being ignored. There is nothing conclusive there. It's no more than a badly written prosecutor's brief.
Why haven't you listed just one single piece of physical evidence pointing to someone other than Lee Oswald in the deaths of either Kennedy or Tippit?
Stop asking loaded questions. It's like tying a boxer's hands behind his back and then asking him why he isn't throwing a punch. It's dishonest and doesn't help your case. All you and your ilk are constantly doing is claiming that Oswald is guilty unless proven innocent. There is nothing honest about it.
All we have to work with is the evidence selected by the WC and HSCA and that only serves the purpose it was selected for, which is to present Oswald as guilty. All I can do is examine that evidence to determine if it holds up under scrutiny. The lack of physical evidence pointing to someone other than Oswald does not mean it did/does not exist, nor does it automatically mean Oswald is guilty.
Asking such a silly question only shows that you do not have the confidence in your own case to enter into a normal honest discussion. In court only prosecutors who fear they might not get a conviction do things like wittholding evidence or misrepresenting facts.
You have cited Frazier's account of how Oswald carried the rifle on hundreds of occasions as a fact without any of the "corroboration" that you suggest is necessary in any instance in which a witness provided evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt. That is the obvious point. And you did stupidly suggest that Randle's account somehow corroborated Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the package into the TSBD. A falsehood since she described Oswald carrying his package in an entirely different way than Frazier when she saw him that morning. You are a lazy contrarian playing defense attorney. In contrast, Bill is an intelligent and honest researcher who deals in the facts and evidence. If you need a hanky to deal with this, then have a good cry.
-
So anyway.....
Still no evidence pointing to someone other than Oswald?
WC strategy;
Write a extremely prejudicial prosecutorial brief, based on assumptions and speculations, using only evidence - no matter how questional in nature - that points to Oswald, ignore all other evidence pointing in other directions, deny scrutiny by a capable defense lawyer, declare Oswald guilty and lock away all the evidence for 75 years.
BS:
-
You have cited Frazier's account of how Oswald carried the rifle on hundreds of occasions as a fact without any of the "corroboration" that you suggest is necessary in any instance in which a witness provided evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt. That is the obvious point. And you did stupidly suggest that Randle's account somehow corroborated Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the package into the TSBD. A falsehood since she described Oswald carrying his package in an entirely different way than Frazier when she saw him that morning. You are a lazy contrarian playing defense attorney. In contrast, Bill is an intelligent and honest researcher who deals in the facts and evidence. If you need a hanky to deal with this, then have a good cry.
You have cited Frazier's account of how Oswald carried the rifle on hundreds of occasions as a fact without any of the "corroboration" that you suggest is necessary in any instance in which a witness provided evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt. That is the obvious point.
No it isn't the obvious point. Corroboration is always useful, but it is necessary when the credibility of the witness is in question. And the obvious difference between Frazier and Roberts is that Roberts was accused by her employer as being somebody who makes up things and accused by the LN crowd for telling lies about a police car which justifies the conclusion that she is an unreliable witness.
Oswald had only one gray jacket and that's (CE 162). When Roberts says she saw Oswald leaving the house zipping up a jacket (which could only have been CE 162) and Frazier says that Oswald was wearing a gray jacket (which could only have been CE 162), to Irving on the evening of the day before, there is a major discrepancy between the two witness statements and only one can be correct. Hence the need for corroboration. Even more so as Roberts testified that the jacket she had seen was darker that CE 162, which is impossible as Oswald's only other jacket (CE 163) was found at the TSBD. In other words; there is plenty of doubt about what Roberts has actually seen!
In Frazier's case, there is no other witness who claims that Oswald was wearing the package differently and nobody has said anything about Frazier that would make you question his credibility. With Randle backing Frazier up about the size of the package (Frazier: between armpit and cupped hand and Randle; no longer than his leg) there is no reason for to question Frazier's testimony except of course by those who do not like what he is saying.
But hey, if you want to go down that path, I'll play along. Let's start with; where is the corrobortion for Bledsoe's claim that Oswald was on the bus?
And you did stupidly suggest that Randle's account somehow corroborated Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the package into the TSBD.
No, you rather stupidly keep on lying about this, but I never said that Randle's account corroborated Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the package. You really need to stop making stuff up.
You are a lazy contrarian playing defense attorney. In contrast, Bill is an intelligent and honest researcher who deals in the facts and evidence.
:D Thanks for the laugh.....
Oh btw where did McWatters testify that "Oswald got on the bus mid-block" as this "intelligent and honest researcher" claimed at the beginning of the interview?
-
Btw, Frazier, was being polygraphed on Friday evening when he was shown the bag they found at the TSBD and he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry that same day. By your "logic" he needs to be believed, right? Even more so, because he never was accused of making up stories.....
Exactly. Maybe that's another "litmus test" to see if someone is interesting in the truth or just playing prosecuting attorney.
-
Never once I have seen you question any possible evidence that lends itself to Oswald's innocence, but in every single instance you question the evidence of his guilt. No matter how well documented.
What evidence would that be?
-
Again....
McWatters said he picked up a man mid-block, not a bus stop. He said the bus went a bit further and was again stopped in traffic. A lady decided that she wanted to get off the bus. As McWatters was letting her off the bus, the man who boarded the bus mid-block just minutes earlier decided to get off at that point, as well. McWatters said that he issued them both a transfer and that these two transfers were the only two he issued as he went through town. Oswald had the bus transfer in his possession when he was arrested.
Let's work it backwards...
Oswald possessed the McWatters transfer when arrested.
McWatters issued the transfer to the man as he got off the bus.
The man who received the transfer entered the bus minutes earlier mid-block, i.e. not at a designated bus stop.
Therefore....
Oswald entered the bus mid-bock.
-
Didn't Linnie Mae Randle say in her first FBI interview that the package was 3 feet long. And only later magically changed her testimony to it being 27 inches to match Fraziers testimony exactly. The fact that Frazier and Linnie were living together might have influenced her later account of shortening the package to 27 inches.
Sure, and Bookhout MIGHT HAVE misheard her. You can make any argument you like with "might haves".
-
Sure, and Bookhout MIGHT HAVE misheard her. You can make any argument you like with "might haves".
Its difficult to see how an FBI agent would mix up 2 feet vs 3 feet especially in regard to something as critical as the length of the bag that contained the rifle.
-
Again....
McWatters said he picked up a man mid-block, not a bus stop. He said the bus went a bit further and was again stopped in traffic. A lady decided that she wanted to get off the bus. As McWatters was letting her off the bus, the man who boarded the bus mid-block just minutes earlier decided to get off at that point, as well. McWatters said that he issued them both a transfer and that these two transfers were the only two he issued as he went through town. Oswald had the bus transfer in his possession when he was arrested.
Let's work it backwards...
Oswald possessed the McWatters transfer when arrested.
McWatters issued the transfer to the man as he got off the bus.
The man who received the transfer entered the bus minutes earlier mid-block, i.e. not at a designated bus stop.
Therefore....
Oswald entered the bus mid-bock.
That's your conclusion and most certainly not a fact. Oswald was searched after his arrest and no transfer (or spare bullets) were found. Then suddenly, hours later, they search him again and, like magic, the transfer and spare bullets are found. Go figure!
Simple question; did you say in the interview that "McWatters testified that Oswald got on the bus mid-block" or not?
And if you agree you said it, where in his testimony did he say those words?
Or were you merely trying to pass off your conclusion as actual witness testimony?
-
Now, back to you. Why haven't you listed just one single piece of physical evidence pointing to someone other than Lee Oswald in the deaths of either Kennedy or Tippit? Why not just answer the question instead of deflection?
Because shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy.
Why haven't you listed just one single piece of physical evidence pointing to someone other than Bozo the Clown in the deaths of either Kennedy or Tippit?
-
Again....
McWatters said he picked up a man mid-block, not a bus stop. He said the bus went a bit further and was again stopped in traffic. A lady decided that she wanted to get off the bus. As McWatters was letting her off the bus, the man who boarded the bus mid-block just minutes earlier decided to get off at that point, as well. McWatters said that he issued them both a transfer and that these two transfers were the only two he issued as he went through town. Oswald had the bus transfer in his possession when he was arrested.
That's fine but what Martin is challenging is your claim that "McWatters testified that Oswald got on the bus". Where does this appear in his testimony?
-
Its difficult to see how an FBI agent would mix up 2 feet vs 3 feet especially in regard to something as critical as the length of the bag that contained the rifle.
Not when you consider that they wrote their reports from memory after the interview concluded. Linnie Mae never wavered in her estimate of the bag when speaking directly.
-
It seems I only scratched the surface about Bill Brown dishonesty in the interview.
Here are some comments on YouTube'
LIST OF 2 DOZEN ERRORS
1. Bill said Burt “saw Oswald”, but Burt said he couldn’t identify Oswald.
2. Bill incorrectly says Benavides “was coming up Denver and he turned left onto 10th Street”—he’s confusing this with Jack Tatum’s alleged account.
3. Benavides never said he “noticed the conversation between the two men.”
4. Bill says 4 people saw Tippit “stop to talk to the man”, but actually only 3 did.
5. He falsely claims Markham “left her apartment about 1:06-1:07”—she said she left at 1:00. (3 H 306)
6. Bill says Markham identified Oswald—but she only picked him and didn’t ID him.
7. Bill shockingly claimed Scoggins said the man was walking east, but this is ABOMINABLY INCORRECT!!! Scoggins, of course, said the man was walking WEST! (CD 87, p. 553)
8. He says Scoggins “felt like” he saw Tippit fall, “wasn’t 100% sure, was a little hazy”, but this is ABSOLUTELY FALSE, Scoggins said he DID see him fall! (CD 87, p. 553)
9. Bill incorrectly claims dispatcher Murray Jackson didn’t receive the conveyor belt note until after Bowley’s call.
10. He incorrectly claims the Warren Report put the shooting at 1:14, but they put it at 1:16 (R 158).
11. He said Oswald “pretended to look at shoes”, but Brewer said no such thing.
12. He says the 4 Johnnie Reynolds Motor Company employees witnessed the fleeting gunman from “the balcony”, but it was actually through a window.
13. Incredibly, he says Reynolds identified Oswald to the FBI (!!!), but of course he did NOT. This is a basic fact.
14. He says Burt “failed to make a positive identification of Oswald” to the FBI—but the FBI never asked him such a question!
15. Bill incorrectly says first generation researcher Shirley Martin was from Wisconsin—she was from Oklahoma.
16. He says that some (i.e. Clemmons, Wright, Higgins) “are not real witnesses”, but they SAW THE KILLER!
17. ASTONISHINGLY, he claims Wright didn’t see the killer: ”When Frank Wright gets out there, Oswald’s gone!” This is OUTRAGEOUS. I quote Wright verbatim: “I was sitting watching television with my wife. I was sitting in a chair next to the door. I wasn’t but two steps from the door. I heard shots. I knew it wasn’t backfire. I knew it was shots. As soon as I heard them, I went out the door. I could see a police car in the next block...I saw a person right by the car. He had fallen down. It seems as if he had just fallen down. Maybe I saw him as he had just finished falling. He was on the ground, and then he turned over face down...It seems to me that I saw him just as he hit the ground. I saw him turn over and he didn’t move any more. I looked around to see what had happened. I knew there had been a shooting. I saw a man standing right in front of the car. He was looking toward the man on the ground. He stood there for a while and looked at the man.” (“The Other Witnesses”, The New Leader, 10/12/64) He was out there IMMEDIATELY and SAW THE KILLER. Period.
18. Bill again incorrectly says Benavides “saw the two men talking.”
19. He again incorrectly says Scoggins saw the killer walking east.
20. Bill says Marina ID’d the jacket in evidence, but no, she said it was “Lee’s OLD SHIRT.”
21. Bill avows Dale Myers “evaluates the evidence fairly”—but I’ve made a list of OVER 30 MAJOR KEY POINTS Myers omitted from his book.
22. Bill says Myers “interviewed the [Tippit] witnesses”—but Myers only interviewed 4 of the 21 witnesses.
23. Bill then says Joseph McBride “stole a lot from With Malice and just put it in his book”, but this is absolutely not true, for McBride mentioned Myers every time he cited him. Bill doesn’t know this because, as he admits, he hasn’t read McBride’s book.
24. Bill said a few times that “no one said it wasn’t Oswald”, but this is a lie—5 people said it was NOT Oswald.
Enough said...
Note: I do not agree with some of the points raised. Some of them are petty in my view, but there is enough left to show that Bill Brown did in fact misrepresent the case against Oswald often enough to conclude he was not being honest in the interview.
-
Not when you consider that they wrote their reports from memory after the interview concluded. Linnie Mae never wavered in her estimate of the bag when speaking directly.
How do you know it was written from memory after the interview was concluded? Usually FBI agents are making notes while the person is being interviewed and those notes then form the basis of the report.
-
'More stupidity based on the LN mantra "I am right unless you can prove me wrong'
Point out where I said that.
'You are the one who wants to rely on Roberts' testimony about the jacket]
You are the one who so desperately wants to rip the jacket off Oswald's back
Given the fact of her poor eyesight, the fact that she was concentrating on the television and the fact that she was known for making up stories, it would be up to you to establish her credibility.
The jacket-reporting witnesses @Tippit did that.
Can't you figure out anything?
I wasn't even in Texas at that moment, let alone that room. And neither was anyone else.
The television was in the right hand corner of the living room and the front door was near the left hand corner. Oswald's room was in the back, on the right hand side of the building. Roberts would be facing the front windows, with her back turned to the living room. Oswald walked diagonally through the living room from his room to the front door. Roberts would have seen him as he came to her left and opened the door. That only took seconds.
Then she hardly had to turn her head. Got it.
I am not suggesting that you travel to Dallas. I have concluded that you have not been there and thus are talking about something you are actually unfamiliar with. And as for photos of the living room, they are already posted on this forum. Do some work for once and look for them.
I'm familiar with her testifying to seeing him zipping up his jacket as he went out the door. And confirm that there is at least one of these forum pictures that shows a panorama of the living room that shows his room and the front door in the same image. I have 9 images in full colour and not one of them includes his door ad the front door in the same image.
-
'More stupidity based on the LN mantra "I am right unless you can prove me wrong'
Point out where I said that.
'You are the one who wants to rely on Roberts' testimony about the jacket]
You are the one who so desperately wants to rip the jacket off Oswald's back
Given the fact of her poor eyesight, the fact that she was concentrating on the television and the fact that she was known for making up stories, it would be up to you to establish her credibility.
The jacket-reporting witnesses @Tippit did that.
Can't you figure out anything?
I wasn't even in Texas at that moment, let alone that room. And neither was anyone else.
The television was in the right hand corner of the living room and the front door was near the left hand corner. Oswald's room was in the back, on the right hand side of the building. Roberts would be facing the front windows, with her back turned to the living room. Oswald walked diagonally through the living room from his room to the front door. Roberts would have seen him as he came to her left and opened the door. That only took seconds.
Then she hardly had to turn her head. Got it.
I am not suggesting that you travel to Dallas. I have concluded that you have not been there and thus are talking about something you are actually unfamiliar with. And as for photos of the living room, they are already posted on this forum. Do some work for once and look for them.
I'm familiar with her testifying to seeing him zipping up his jacket as he went out the door. And confirm that there is at least one of these forum pictures that shows a panorama of the living room that shows his room and the front door in the same image. I have 9 images in full colour and not one of them includes his door ad the front door in the same image.
The television was in the right hand corner of the living room and the front door was near the left hand corner. Oswald's room was in the back, on the right hand side of the building. Roberts would be facing the front windows, with her back turned to the living room. Oswald walked diagonally through the living room from his room to the front door. Roberts would have seen him as he came to her left and opened the door. That only took seconds.
Then she hardly had to turn her head. Got it.
Indeed. I'm glad you finally learned something.
I'm familiar with her testifying to seeing him zipping up his jacket as he went out the door. And confirm that there is at least one of these forum pictures that shows a panorama of the living room that shows his room and the front door in the same image. I have 9 images in full colour and not one of them includes his door ad the front door in the same image.
You never asked for a picture that includes the front door and the door to Oswald's room.
Here's a video that was shot from roughly near the front door. It shows Oswald's room in the back
-
Its difficult to see how an FBI agent would mix up 2 feet vs 3 feet especially in regard to something as critical as the length of the bag that contained the rifle.
But Randle never repeated the same claim again and that includes under oath during her testimony. If Bookhout didn't get it wrong in his one off 302 report, than Randle must have been lying all the other times she made statements about the bag. Is that what you are getting at?
-
If Bookhout didn't get it wrong in his one off 302 report, than Randle must have been lying all the other times she made statements about the bag. Is that what you are getting at?
All the other times? I thought the only other time was her WC testimony?
Police departments have a policy of separating out witnesses in case they contaminate one anothers testimony. There seems to be a real possibility here that after her Nov 23rd 1963 FBI report Randle began trying to match her testimony to that of Fraziers.
-
It seems I only scratched the surface about Bill Brown dishonesty in the interview.
Here are some comments on YouTube'
LIST OF 2 DOZEN ERRORS
1. Bill said Burt “saw Oswald”, but Burt said he couldn’t identify Oswald.
2. Bill incorrectly says Benavides “was coming up Denver and he turned left onto 10th Street”—he’s confusing this with Jack Tatum’s alleged account.
3. Benavides never said he “noticed the conversation between the two men.”
4. Bill says 4 people saw Tippit “stop to talk to the man”, but actually only 3 did.
5. He falsely claims Markham “left her apartment about 1:06-1:07”—she said she left at 1:00. (3 H 306)
6. Bill says Markham identified Oswald—but she only picked him and didn’t ID him.
7. Bill shockingly claimed Scoggins said the man was walking east, but this is ABOMINABLY INCORRECT!!! Scoggins, of course, said the man was walking WEST! (CD 87, p. 553)
8. He says Scoggins “felt like” he saw Tippit fall, “wasn’t 100% sure, was a little hazy”, but this is ABSOLUTELY FALSE, Scoggins said he DID see him fall! (CD 87, p. 553)
9. Bill incorrectly claims dispatcher Murray Jackson didn’t receive the conveyor belt note until after Bowley’s call.
10. He incorrectly claims the Warren Report put the shooting at 1:14, but they put it at 1:16 (R 158).
11. He said Oswald “pretended to look at shoes”, but Brewer said no such thing.
12. He says the 4 Johnnie Reynolds Motor Company employees witnessed the fleeting gunman from “the balcony”, but it was actually through a window.
13. Incredibly, he says Reynolds identified Oswald to the FBI (!!!), but of course he did NOT. This is a basic fact.
14. He says Burt “failed to make a positive identification of Oswald” to the FBI—but the FBI never asked him such a question!
15. Bill incorrectly says first generation researcher Shirley Martin was from Wisconsin—she was from Oklahoma.
16. He says that some (i.e. Clemmons, Wright, Higgins) “are not real witnesses”, but they SAW THE KILLER!
17. ASTONISHINGLY, he claims Wright didn’t see the killer: ”When Frank Wright gets out there, Oswald’s gone!” This is OUTRAGEOUS. I quote Wright verbatim: “I was sitting watching television with my wife. I was sitting in a chair next to the door. I wasn’t but two steps from the door. I heard shots. I knew it wasn’t backfire. I knew it was shots. As soon as I heard them, I went out the door. I could see a police car in the next block...I saw a person right by the car. He had fallen down. It seems as if he had just fallen down. Maybe I saw him as he had just finished falling. He was on the ground, and then he turned over face down...It seems to me that I saw him just as he hit the ground. I saw him turn over and he didn’t move any more. I looked around to see what had happened. I knew there had been a shooting. I saw a man standing right in front of the car. He was looking toward the man on the ground. He stood there for a while and looked at the man.” (“The Other Witnesses”, The New Leader, 10/12/64) He was out there IMMEDIATELY and SAW THE KILLER. Period.
18. Bill again incorrectly says Benavides “saw the two men talking.”
19. He again incorrectly says Scoggins saw the killer walking east.
20. Bill says Marina ID’d the jacket in evidence, but no, she said it was “Lee’s OLD SHIRT.”
21. Bill avows Dale Myers “evaluates the evidence fairly”—but I’ve made a list of OVER 30 MAJOR KEY POINTS Myers omitted from his book.
22. Bill says Myers “interviewed the [Tippit] witnesses”—but Myers only interviewed 4 of the 21 witnesses.
23. Bill then says Joseph McBride “stole a lot from With Malice and just put it in his book”, but this is absolutely not true, for McBride mentioned Myers every time he cited him. Bill doesn’t know this because, as he admits, he hasn’t read McBride’s book.
24. Bill said a few times that “no one said it wasn’t Oswald”, but this is a lie—5 people said it was NOT Oswald.
Enough said...
Note: I do not agree with some of the points raised. Some of them are petty in my view, but there is enough left to show that Bill Brown did in fact misrepresent the case against Oswald often enough to conclude he was not being honest in the interview.
Most of those aren't errors at all; not even in the slightest.
That's just the work of some lame-ass on facebook who believes he's a "researcher".
-
Most of those aren't errors at all; not even in the slightest.
That's just the work of some lame-ass on facebook who believes he's a "researcher".
Most of those aren't errors at all; not even in the slightest.
So you admit some were?
That's just the work of some lame-ass on facebook who believes he's a "researcher".
I don't know the guy but it's rather telling that you dismiss what he says without actually addressing his complaints.
It seems that anybody who disagrees with you is either considered to be a nut by you or a lame-ass. Go figure.....
You are no researcher, nor an "expert". You are a propagandist who can not stand opinions that differ from yours.
-
That's just the work of some lame-ass on facebook who believes he's a "researcher".
I don't know the guy but it's rather telling that you dismiss what he says without actually addressing his complaints.
It seems that anybody who disagrees with you is either considered to be a nut by you or a lame-ass. Go figure.....
Hey Dumb Ass, I did address most of these in the Facebook group which this guy posted the list in.
-
That list did contain a couple (maybe 3?) of errors that I made (errors which have no bearing on the case at all). The others on the list weren't errors at all. This was addressed in the proper Facebook group.
-
Hey Dumb Ass, I did address most of these in the Facebook group which this guy posted the list in.
Is Dumb Ass an insult that is worse than braindead or not? :D
And he posted it on YouTube....
-
Facebook group.
What Facebook group was that?
-
That list did contain two errors that I made (errors which have no bearing on the case at all). The other 22 weren't errors at all. This was addressed in the proper Facebook group.
So you addressed it all in the comfort of your own little Facebook group, where most of us are not members.
None of the complaints were addressed on YouTube where the video was posted.
-
All the other times? I thought the only other time was her WC testimony?
Police departments have a policy of separating out witnesses in case they contaminate one anothers testimony. There seems to be a real possibility here that after her Nov 23rd 1963 FBI report Randle began trying to match her testimony to that of Fraziers.
But that doesn't match with the LN claim that Randle and Frazier (I'm paraphrasing) concocted a story about the bag and the curtain rods within hours after the shooting.
The fact is a simple one; Randle has never repeated what Bookhout wrote in his report. Now, if you want to give more credibility to a single 302 report, which Randle never saw or signed, over her under oath testimony, you might want to question your motive for desperately clinging to one single internal FBI report.
-
But that doesn't match with the LN claim that Randle and Frazier (I'm paraphrasing) concocted a story about the bag and the curtain rods within hours after the shooting.
I don't understand this statement. I think what might have happened is that Randle told the FBI what she honestly thought - it was a 3 foot bag. Then in the months that followed from talking to Frazier she began to think she was mistaken. She forgot about the FBI report and just told the WC what she now thought about the bag having talked to Frazier so long about it. Its a possibility. Its also a possibility that the FBI accidentally put down 3 feet instead of 2. But that seems like a big mistake for the FBI to make. That detail was the most important thing in her statement to the FBI.
-
Is Dumb Ass an insult that is worse than braindead or not? :D
And he posted it on YouTube....
It doesn't matter where else he posted it. He originally posted it in a Facebook group that he and I are both members of. He and I went back and forth for a good week over this list. What kind of Dumb Ass (Martin Weidmann) chastises me supposedly for not addressing these without knowing the full story?
That's okay. You don't have to answer.
Anyway, the list is pure foolishness. Most of the points on the list really aren't errors at all.
For example... #20 claims that I was wrong for saying that Marina identified the jacket in evidence. I am not wrong about that at all. During her testimony, Marina was shown CE-162 (the jacket in evidence) and asked if it belonged to Lee and she said that it did. All you really have to do is go read her testimony.
-
What Facebook group was that?
JFK Truth Be Told
-
JFK Truth Be Told
Thanks.
-
So you addressed it all in the comfort of your own little Facebook group, where most of us are not members.
None of the complaints were addressed on YouTube where the video was posted.
So you addressed it all in the comfort of your own little Facebook group, where most of us are not members.
I addressed the list where it was originally posted, yes. What would you have had me do?
None of the complaints were addressed on YouTube where the video was posted.
Until ten minutes ago, I was unaware that any of it was posted in the comments section on Youtube.
-
Thanks.
You're very welcome to become a member there.
-
It doesn't matter where else he posted it. He originally posted it in a Facebook group that he and I are both members of. He and I went back and forth for a good week over this list. What kind of Dumb Ass (Martin Weidmann) chastises me supposedly for not addressing these without knowing the full story?
That's okay. You don't have to answer.
Anyway, the list is pure foolishness. Most of the points on the list really aren't errors at all.
For example... #20 claims that I was wrong for saying that Marina identified the jacket in evidence. I am not wrong about that at all. During her testimony, Marina was shown CE-162 (the jacket in evidence) and asked if it belonged to Lee and she said that it did. All you really have to do is go read her testimony.
He originally posted it in a Facebook group that he and I are both members of. He and I went back and forth for a good week over this list.
And I am supposed to know this, how exactly?
What kind of Dumb Ass (Martin Weidmann) chastises me supposedly for not addressing these without knowing the full story?
What was your question again about insults? That holier than thou attitude didn't last long, did it now? Anybody just watching YouTube will see no answers from you.
-
You're very welcome to become a member there.
Thanks. You're videos are great but I think Oswald was coming from the opposite side as Helen Markham said. It seems like an awful long way around coming in from the other side especially as the time is tight to get him coming in from that side.
-
Most of those aren't errors at all; not even in the slightest.
So you admit some were?
Sure. I made a couple errors. No biggie. None of which were relevant to anything important (such as Benavides' route BEFORE he was driving west on Tenth Street towards Tippit's parked patrol car).
I challenge your Dumb Ass to talk about the case non-stop for almost three hours without notes and not make two or three harmless errors. You won't, though, because you can't.
-
Sure. I made a couple errors. No biggie. None of which were relevant to anything important (such as Benavides' route BEFORE he was driving west on Tenth Street towards Tippit's parked patrol car).
I challenge your Dumb Ass to talk about the case non-stop for almost three hours without notes and not make two or three harmless errors. You won't, though, because you can't.
I challenge your Dumb Ass to talk about the case non-stop for almost three hours without notes and not make two or three harmless errors. You won't, though, because you can't.
Sure, no problem. I'll even debate the issue with you live on line. Just tell me where and when we'll meet and we'll arrange something. You can even bring your notes.
-
He originally posted it in a Facebook group that he and I are both members of. He and I went back and forth for a good week over this list.
And I am supposed to know this, how exactly?
What kind of Dumb Ass (Martin Weidmann) chastises me supposedly for not addressing these without knowing the full story?
What was your question again about insults? That holier than thou attitude didn't last long, did it now? Anybody just watching YouTube will see no answers from you.
He originally posted it in a Facebook group that he and I are both members of. He and I went back and forth for a good week over this list.
And I am supposed to know this, how exactly?
No. You aren't supposed to know this. But, that wasn't what I said, was it? Here is what I said:
"What kind of Dumb Ass (Martin Weidmann) chastises me supposedly for not addressing these without knowing the full story?"
Let me be clear. I addressed these in the Facebook group that he originally posted them in. Then it seems he also went and posted the list in the comments section on Youtube. Since you didn't know what you were talking about, you shouldn't have criticized.
Anybody just watching YouTube will see no answers from you.
(Tapping mic) Is this thing on?
Until about twenty minutes ago, I was unaware the list was posted on Youtube. Understand now?
-
No. You aren't supposed to know this. But, that wasn't what I said, was it? Here is what I said:
"What kind of Dumb Ass (Martin Weidmann) chastises me supposedly for not addressing these without knowing the full story?"
Let me be clear. I addressed these in the Facebook group that he originally posted them in. Then it seems he also went and posted the list in the comments section on Youtube. Since you didn't know what you were talking about, you shouldn't have criticized.
(Tapping mic) Is this thing on?
Until about twenty minutes ago, I was unaware the list was posted on Youtube. Understand now?
Let me be clear. I addressed these in the Facebook group that he originally posted them in. Then it seems he also went and posted the list in the comments section on Youtube. Since you didn't know what you were talking about, you shouldn't have criticized.
BS... you did not mention anything about replies on Facebook, so all I had to go on was YouTube. I might not have been aware of the Facebook group, but you most certainly were aware of the YouTube posting. The difference between the two is that the Facebook group is unkown by most people and the YouTube posting is not only in the public domain, for everybody to see, but it is also the one you promoted when you were vain enough to post it on this forum.
-
Thanks. You're videos are great but I think Oswald was coming from the opposite side as Helen Markham said. It seems like an awful long way around coming in from the other side especially as the time is tight to get him coming in from that side.
...but I think Oswald was coming from the opposite side as Helen Markham said.
It's possible. But, there are a good number of witnesses though who have Oswald walking west on Tenth a good block east of Tenth and Patton; walking towards Tenth and Patton.
Also, and this is most important for you to consider....
William Scoggins was sitting in his cab at the intersection of Tenth and Patton. He was parked on Patton just south of the intersection facing north looking directly ahead of the corner of Tenth and Patton. He noticed Tippit's patrol car cruise slowly through the intersection, heading from west to east. He insisted that Oswald did not walk in front of his cab across that intersection.
It seems that if Oswald had been walking east on Tenth, he would have been noticed by Scoggins who was sitting right there.
-
Let me be clear. I addressed these in the Facebook group that he originally posted them in. Then it seems he also went and posted the list in the comments section on Youtube. Since you didn't know what you were talking about, you shouldn't have criticized.
BS... you did not mention anything about replies on Facebook, so all I had to go on was YouTube. I might not have been aware of the Facebook group, but you most certainly were aware of the YouTube posting. The difference between the two is that the Facebook group is unkown by most people and the YouTube posting is not only in the public domain, for everybody to see, but it is also the one you promoted when you were vain enough to post it on this forum.
Why is it BS? I did not know that he posted the list in the comments section of the Youtube video until you pointed it out to me. You sure are bitter about life in general. I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.
-
'Indeed. I'm glad you finally learned something'.
::) Don't break you arm as you (prematurely) pat yourself on the back: Earlene not having to turn her head very much simply means she had a greater chance of viewing Oswald zipping up the jacket as he exited at speed.
You never asked for a picture that includes the front door and the door to Oswald's room.
I shouldn't have to ask: The issue is about how far Oswald's room was from the front room.
And you telling me there's a view from near Oswald's room is unacceptable to me.
-
Why is it BS? I did not know that he posted the list in the comments section of the Youtube video until you pointed it out to me. You sure are bitter about life in general. I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.
I have explained why it is BS.
You sure are bitter about life in general. I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.
More ad hominem from the guy who was complaining about insults. Hypocrite!
-
I have explained why it is BS.
You sure are bitter about life in general. I bet you're a lot of fun at parties.
More ad hominem from the guy who was complaining about insults. Hypocrite!
I have explained why it is BS.
Yes and your explanation was wrong.
More ad hominem from the guy who was complaining about insults. Hypocrite!
I did not insult you until you insulted me first. Now, do you want to discuss the case or do you wish to keep acting like an eight year old?
-
'Indeed. I'm glad you finally learned something'.
::) Don't break you arm as you (prematurely) pat yourself on the back: Earlene not having to turn her head very much simply means she had a greater chance of viewing Oswald zipping up the jacket as he exited at speed.
Sure, she saw him as he opened the door and exited the house... Must have taken him at least five minutes, right? :D
You never asked for a picture that includes the front door and the door to Oswald's room.
I shouldn't have to ask: The issue is about how far Oswald's room was from the front room.
And you telling me there's a view from near Oswald's room is unacceptable to me.
Of course you should have asked. And I didn't tell you there was a view "near to Oswald's room" But even if I did, I don't give a f*ck what is acceptable to you.
Stop being so ignorant and actually try to do some research yourself.
-
I challenge your Dumb Ass to talk about the case non-stop for almost three hours without notes and not make two or three harmless errors. You won't, though, because you can't.
Sure, no problem. I'll even debate the issue with you live on line. Just tell me where and when we'll meet and we'll arrange something. You can even bring your notes.
A live debate; such as a podcast? That can VERY easily be arranged. We can do this and make sure the Host knows to post links to it only in this forum so as to not post it in other places where only one of us is a member. Once finished, we can post it in it's own thread right here at Duncan's forum (only).
None of this online message board stuff where one can disappear for twenty minutes at a time to run off and use Google.
-
Yes and your explanation was wrong.
I did not insult you until you insulted me first. Now, do you want to discuss the case or do you wish to keep acting like an eight year old?
Yes and your explanation was wrong.
According to the most arrogant and consumed with self-importance man in the room.
I did not insult you until you insulted me first.
More BS ... you agreed with Richard Smith calling me a nut before I ever insulted you.
Now, do you want to discuss the case or do you wish to keep acting like an eight year old?
More insults, despite the fact that I have already agreed to debate the case live on line with you. Now who is the pathetic one?
-
A live debate; such as a podcast? That can VERY easily be arranged. We can do this and make sure the Host knows to post links to it only in this forum so as to not post it in other places where only one of us is a member. Once finished, we can post it in it's own thread right here at Duncan's forum (only).
None of this online message board stuff where one can disappear for twenty minutes at a time to run off and use Google.
I'm not a member in any other place and I have not intention to run off anywhere to consult. I'll bring my notes and you bring yours. I'm talking about a face to face debate which can be recorded and posted anywhere you and I like once it has been broadcast. All we need to agree on is the time, location and the place where it is broadcast live.
-
I'm not a member in any other place and I have not intention to run off anywhere to consult. I'll bring my notes and you bring yours. I'm talking about a face to face debate which can be recorded and posted anywhere you and I like once it has been broadcast. All we need to agree on is the time, location and the place where it is broadcast live.
This sounds like a complete cop out; a hollow challenge.
Yeah okay LOL Let me know the next time you get over to the states.
Gimme a break.
-
This sounds like a complete cop out; a hollow challenge.
Yeah okay LOL Let me know the next time you get over to the states.
Gimme a break.
Run Bill, run...
I will meet you anywhere at any time (possible) to have this live on line debate... there is nothing hollow about it!
-
Run Bill, run...
You've wasted everyone's time for almost ten pages now. This seems to be your thing, though.
How about we move on and discuss the case and/or the video interview posted at the top of the thread?
-
You've wasted everyone's time for almost ten pages now. This seems to be your thing, though.
How about we move on and discuss the case and/or the video interview posted at the top of the thread?
You've wasted everyone's time for almost ten pages now. This seems to be your thing, though.
No, I have exposed your dishonesty in the past ten pages.
How about we move on and discuss the case and/or the video interview posted at the top of the thread?
Why are you afraid of a face to face discussion?
-
How about we move on and discuss the case and/or the video interview posted at the top of the thread?
Why are you afraid of a face to face discussion?
Why do you continually make me repeat myself? I clearly said to let me know the next time you're in the states.
-
Why do you continually make me repeat myself? I clearly said to let me know the next time you're in the states.
followed by "give me a break"!
It is true that because of covid I have been staying in my house in the mediterranean since the covid break out in March 2020, but the way things are going at the moment (I get my second covid vaccination on June 30th) I hope to be able to return to the States within the next couple of months.
The easiest way to set up a meeting is by you sending me a PM and we'll take it from there.
-
'Sure, she saw him as he opened the door and exited the house... Must have taken him at least five minutes, right?' :D
Point out where I said that. And it depends just how far away his room was from the exit, something you have failed to establish.
"Of course you should have asked
Point out where I said that. I clearly said 'I shouldn't have to ask'
'And I didn't tell you there was a view "near to Oswald's room".But even if I did, I don't give a f*ck what is acceptable to you'
And yet here you are, demonstrating once again your obsession with me. Moth to the flame.
'Stop being so ignorant and actually try to do some research yourself'.
Stop passing the buck
-
'Sure, she saw him as he opened the door and exited the house... Must have taken him at least five minutes, right?' :D
Point out where I said that. And it depends just how far away his room was from the exit, something you have failed to establish.
"Of course you should have asked
Point out where I said that. I clearly said 'I shouldn't have to ask'
'And I didn't tell you there was a view "near to Oswald's room".But even if I did, I don't give a f*ck what is acceptable to you'
And yet here you are, demonstrating once again your obsession with me. Moth to the flame.
'Stop being so ignorant and actually try to do some research yourself'.
Stop passing the buck
And yet here you are, demonstrating once again your obsession with me. Moth to the flame.
Said the infidel fanatic....
-
followed by "give me a break"!
It is true that because of covid I have been staying in my house in the mediterranean since the covid break out in March 2020, but the way things are going at the moment (I get my second covid vaccination on June 30th) I hope to be able to return to the States within the next couple of months.
The easiest way to set up a meeting is by you sending me a PM and we'll take it from there.
I'm hardly interested in PMing with you. No thanks. Again, let me know the next time you're in the states. I live in Cincinnati, OH. However, if you were serious (which you're obviously not), you'd be willing to do it one evening this week on a podcast, which I can easily secure.
-
Moving on...
Regarding the list of "errors", I'll address a few of them here, one at a time....
1. Bill said Burt “saw Oswald”, but Burt said he couldn’t identify Oswald.
I did not say that Burt identified Oswald. In fact, I specifically said (more than once) that Burt did not identify Oswald. I did say that Burt saw Oswald, because he did see Oswald. Burt saw the same man seen by Markham, Scoggins and each of the Davis girls. All four of them said the man was Oswald, i.e. Burt saw Oswald, exactly as I said.
This does not belong on any list of "errors".
-
I'm hardly interested in PMing with you. No thanks. Again, let me know the next time you're in the states. I live in Cincinnati, OH. However, if you were serious (which you're obviously not), you'd be willing to do it one evening this week on a podcast, which I can easily secure.
Talk about a cop out! I want to discuss this with you face to face and you seem to be running away from it. Why?
-
2. Bill incorrectly says Benavides “was coming up Denver and he turned left onto 10th Street”—he’s confusing this with Jack Tatum’s alleged account.
First, I was not confusing anything with Tatum's account.
Second, I have read Domingo Benavides' testimony what seems like thirty times over the years. At one point, I was fully aware that Benavides went through the alley that runs parallel to Tenth and Jefferson. He took the alley east to Denver, then turned left onto Denver and a right onto Tenth. This has him heading east towards Marsalis which is where the auto parts store was. Forgetting the part number, he turns around in a driveway and is now heading west on Tenth back towards the broken down vehicle located on Patton between Tenth and Jefferson. Heading west, he crosses over Denver and is now driving straight towards Tippit's stopped patrol car.
However, during this interview, forgetting what I once knew, I stated that Benavides took the alley to Denver, left onto Denver and then after realizing he forgot the part number, took a left onto Tenth and he's now driving straight towards Tippit's stopped patrol car.
None if that changes the important part; that Benavides was driving west on Tenth straight for Tippit's stopped patrol car, as I stated in the interview.
Score one point for the list of "errors".
-
3. Benavides never said he “noticed the conversation between the two men.”
Correct.
Relevance? None.
Anyway, score a point for the list of "errors".
-
4. Bill says 4 people saw Tippit “stop to talk to the man”, but actually only 3 did.
This is wrong.
Four people saw the patrol car stop to talk to the man walking, exactly as I stated.
Helen Markham, William Scoggins, Jimmy Burt and Bill Smith all four saw the patrol car stop to talk to the man walking.
-
5. He falsely claims Markham “left her apartment about 1:06-1:07”—she said she left at 1:00. (3 H 306)
I corrected myself literally ten seconds later. This doesn't belong on the list.
-
6. Bill says Markham identified Oswald—but she only picked him and didn’t ID him.
Markham positively identified Oswald during the lineup. I'm not even referring to her testimony months later. At the lineup, she picked Oswald as the man she saw shoot Tippit. Everyone knows this.
The only list this belongs on is a list determining just how desperate this guy is.
-
9. Bill incorrectly claims dispatcher Murray Jackson didn’t receive the conveyor belt note until after Bowley’s call.
My statement was not incorrect. When Bowley reported the shooting on Tippit's police radio, Jackson (the dispatcher) had yet to receive the note. He later stated that the note was coming to him at the same time he was receiving the report from Bowley. Point being, Jackson had yet to read the note (which was notifying him that a citizen had phoned the operator to report the shooting of a police officer in the street) at the time he received the report from Bowley.
This does not belong on any list of "errors".
-
11. He (Bill) said Oswald “pretended to look at shoes”, but Brewer said no such thing.
I didn't say that Brewer said that Oswald pretended to look at shoes. I simply said that Oswald pretended to look at shoes.
What difference does it make, anyway?
Anyone else see just how lame this whole thing is?
This does not belong on any list of "errors".
-
14. He (Bill) says Burt “failed to make a positive identification of Oswald” to the FBI—but the FBI never asked him such a question!
How does the fact the FBI didn't ask Burt "such a question" somehow prove my statement that Burt failed to make a positive identification of Oswald to be an "error"?
Burt never positively identified Oswald as the killer. I said the same. Where is my "error"?
-
15. Bill incorrectly says first generation researcher Shirley Martin was from Wisconsin—she was from Oklahoma.
Really? LOL
Below is what I actually said:
"Basically I think she was a housewife that came down from Wisconsin or something like that."
In the interview, I am being very clear that I have no idea where she was from. This guy's desperation to list what he believes are mistakes and errors has caused him to be much less than honest about the things I said in the interview. Not to mention, it has nothing to do with anything.
This does not belong on any list of "errors".
This whole thing is kinda ridiculous. I'm done with it.
-
Its difficult to see how an FBI agent would mix up 2 feet vs 3 feet especially in regard to something as critical as the length of the bag that contained the rifle.
These are the same contrarian nuts who believe that a date on a meaningless form could not be incorrect but suggest here that the FBI "misheard" a witness on an important issue.
-
15. Bill incorrectly says first generation researcher Shirley Martin was from Wisconsin—she was from Oklahoma.
Really? LOL
Below is what I actually said:
"Basically I think she was a housewife that came down from Wisconsin or something like that."
In the interview, I am being very clear that I have no idea where she was from. This guy's desperation to list what he believes are mistakes and errors has caused him to be much less than honest about the things I said in the interview. Not to mention, it has nothing to do with anything.
This does not belong on any list of "errors".
This whole thing is kinda ridiculous. I'm done with it.
The entire JFK case could hang on this point! LOL. This list is a great example of CTer nuts ignoring the evidence and taking the discussion down the rabbit hole. It is sad and pathetic to see posters like Martin/Roger trying to be relevant.
-
JFK Truth Be Told
I didn't realize Truth Be Told was such a well-established group. I had seen the below video some time back but didn't realize it was the Truth Be Told group. Who are the people in the video? Are they significant in the JFK research community? One is Bill Brown a Tippit expert and Fred Litwin who has written two books on the case. Who are the other people, have they done anything significant in the JFK case?
-
The entire JFK case could hang on this point! LOL. This list is a great example of CTer nuts ignoring the evidence and taking the discussion down the rabbit hole. It is sad and pathetic to see posters like Martin/Roger trying to be relevant.
How do you picture a "debate" going between myself and Martin/Roger?
I can see it now...
Bill: "The shells found at the Tippit scene were linked, through ballistics, to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world."
Then, as I begin to explain how ballistic testing works, Martin/Roger chimes in with this gem....
Martin/Roger: "Oswald's revolver LOL"
-
I didn't realize Truth Be Told was such a well-established group. I had seen the below video some time back but didn't realize it was the Truth Be Told group. Who are the people in the video? Are they significant in the JFK research community? One is Bill Brown a Tippit expert and Fred Litwin who has written two books on the case. Who are the other people, have they done anything significant in the JFK case?
Hi Gerry. All of those in the video are members of the JFK Truth Be Told Facebook group. We all met up in Dallas in March of 2020, just before the country shut down. The fellow giving the tour is Steve Roe, a real researcher who is very knowledgeable. In fact, Steve Roe and Chris Simondet recently found, through really great research and diligence, the magazine and issue which contained the order form that Oswald used to order the revolver. This information was unknown until last year.
Here is Dale Myers' blog spot post on the discovery:
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2020/06/solving-mystery-of-oswalds-seaport.html
And here is a walking tour we did in Oak Cliff discussing the Tippit case (I believe I posted this video in this forum last year). Steve Roe and Fred Litwin are seen in this Tippit tour as well. Another guy, Frank Badalson (wearing the burgundy jacket) currently owns the Ruth Paine station wagon which she gave driving lessons to Lee Oswald in...
-
How do you picture a "debate" going between myself and Martin/Roger?
I can see it now...
Bill: "The shells found at the Tippit scene were linked, through ballistics, to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world."
Then, as I begin to explain how ballistic testing works, Martin/Roger chimes in with this gem....
Martin/Roger: "Oswald's revolver LOL"
Already laying the groundwork for an excuse to not debate me? :D
Now, why doesn't that come as a surprise to me.....
Btw, I fully understand why you would prefer to just be able to simply claim it was Oswald's revolver rather than prove it.
-
5. He falsely claims Markham “left her apartment about 1:06-1:07”—she said she left at 1:00. (3 H 306)
I corrected myself literally ten seconds later. This doesn't belong on the list.
Mrs. MARKHAM. At one.
Mr. BALL. One o'clock?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe it was a little after 1.
1:06-1:07 qualifies as 'a little after 1' in my books
-
Mrs. MARKHAM. At one.
Mr. BALL. One o'clock?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe it was a little after 1.
1:06-1:07 qualifies as 'a little after 1' in my books
A 2 minute walk down one block would get her at 10th/Patton at 1:09 at the latest.
Do you think she stood and waited there for 5 minutes or more to watch Tippit being killed?
-
How do you picture a "debate" going between myself and Martin/Roger?
I can see it now...
Bill: "The shells found at the Tippit scene were linked, through ballistics, to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world."
Then, as I begin to explain how ballistic testing works, Martin/Roger chimes in with this gem....
Martin/Roger: "Oswald's revolver LOL"
LOL doesn't mean what you think it means. In CTWonderland, it's a code/mantra/self-hug for 'Love Only Lee'.
-
Let's hear from Earlene Roberts herself.
At 5.03 minutes in this timeline special Roberts tells us Oswald entered the rooming house after 1 PM
She testified he was in his room for about 3 to 4 minutes, or as Bill Brown misrepresents it "just long enough to grab a jacket".
If true, this means Oswald did not leave the rooming house until 1:04 or 1:05 PM, after which Roberts saw him standing at the busstop.
The fastest walk, short of actually running, from the rooming house to 10th/Patton takes roughly 12 minutes.
If Oswald waited at the busstop for just 1 minute, he would get to 10th/Patton no earlier than 1:16 at which time Tippit was already declared DOA (at 1:15) at the hospital.
Even if Helen Markham left her home at 1:06, it would have taken her no more than 2 minutes to walk one block from 9th street to the intersection of 10th/Patton. If Tippit was killed at 1:14, as Dale Myers suggests, or at 1:16 as the WC believed, are we to believe that Markham arrived at 10th/Patton at 1:09 or 1:10 and waited for at least 5 minutes to watch Tippit being killed?
How in the world, would Oswald be able to kill Tippit any time later as 1:10 (when Markham arrived at the intersection) if he was still at the rooming house at 1:04?
Let me guess;
Roberts was wrong in her time estimate, Oswald really came in before the 1 PM news started
Markham was wrong in her time estimate, she actually left her house to catch her regular bus much later than she said
Bowley's watch was wrong (which means he failed to pick up his daughter from school at the right time)
All the hospital clocks were wrong
DPD officer Davenport watch must also have been wrong as he confirmed the DOA at 1:15 twice in official documents.
Being declared DOA at the hospital is not the same as time of death
And Oswald could have been transported to 10th/Patton in a car for no known reason and by a person who never came forward.
Now what are the chances of all this coincidences happening in one case at the same time?
-
How do you picture a "debate" going between myself and Martin/Roger?
I can see it now...
Bill: "The shells found at the Tippit scene were linked, through ballistics, to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world."
Then, as I begin to explain how ballistic testing works, Martin/Roger chimes in with this gem....
Martin/Roger: "Oswald's revolver LOL"
Martin/Roger will never debate you. These jokers have some dim realization that their nonsense doesn't cut it outside the fringe elements. That is why they never take their "evidence" of a conspiracy to the NY Times or other media outlet but spend every waking hour on Internet forums proclaiming they have proven Oswald was framed for the assassination of the US President. It is both sad and amusing. Particularly the loons that take themselves so seriously.
-
Martin/Roger will never debate you. These jokers have some dim realization that their nonsense doesn't cut it outside the fringe elements. That is why they never take their "evidence" of a conspiracy to the NY Times or other media outlet but spend every waking hour on Internet forums proclaiming they have proven Oswald was framed for the assassination of the US President. It is both sad and amusing. Particularly the loons that take themselves so seriously.
Is the bubble you live in nice?
I will not only debate Bill Brown but I would even take on a good for nothing loser like you. Just tell me where and when. Let's put it to the test. Come on then, mr big mouth or are you going to try to weasel out of it as Bill Brown has already begun doing?
Particularly the loons that take themselves so seriously.
Like you, you mean?
-
Is the bubble you live in nice?
I will not only debate Bill Brown but I would even take on a good for nothing loser like you. Just tell me where and when. Let's put it to the test. Come on then, mr big mouth or are you going to try to weasel out of it as Bill Brown has already begun doing?
Particularly the loons that take themselves so seriously.
Like you, you mean?
Bill made a reasonable proposal to you for a podcast debate and you are the one who ran away. Why not take him up on that offer instead of going down some type of alternative reality rabbit hole for once.
-
If Oswald waited at the busstop for just 1 minute, he would get to 10th/Patton no earlier than 1:16 at which time Tippit was already declared DOA (at 1:15) at the hospital.
Even if Helen Markham left her home at 1:06, it would have taken her no more than 2 minutes to walk one block from 9th street to the intersection of 10th/Patton. If Tippit was killed at 1:14, as Dale Myers suggests, or at 1:16 as the WC believed, are we to believe that Markham arrived at 10th/Patton at 1:09 or 1:10 and waited for at least 5 minutes to watch Tippit being killed?
How in the world, would Oswald be able to kill Tippit any time later as 1:10 (when Markham arrived at the intersection) if he was still at the rooming house at 1:04?
It's too bad that your Star Time Eyewitness also positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald Oswald as the man who killed Officer Tippit and it's not as if this murder occurred in the middle of the night but it was the exact opposite, in daylight where everyone is clearly visible. And if it was only Markham then that would be enough to put Oswald away forever, but in addition either at the crime scene or fleeing the crime scene we have many more eyewitnesses who all identified Oswald wearing a jacket while holding a gun. Then we have the evidence of Oswald being arrested with the revolver which EXCLUSIVELY matches the shells that multiple eyewitnesses testified that Oswald dropped. And to top it off Oswald tries to kill more cops when he was arrested, it's hilarious that you guys still try to prove Oswald's innocence with tiny insignificant time discrepancies and especially when your Star Time Eyewitness's testimony absolutely smashes your client, you can't have it both ways!
The Eyewitnesses who said the guy was Oswald
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. V DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. B DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. I was looking--trying to see and after I heard the third shot, then Oswald came through on Patton running---came right through the yard in front of the big white house---there's a big two-story white house---there's two of them there and he come through the one right on the corner of Patton.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.
RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
The Jacket eyewitnesses
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.
Mr. BELIN. Was the jacket open or closed up?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was open.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.
Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.
Mrs. ROBERTS. He wasn't running, but he was walking pretty fast---he was all but running.
Mr. BALL. Then, what happened after that?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket.
The eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald and confirmed he was carrying a gun
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
Mr. B.M. PATTERSON, 4635 Hartford Street, Dallas, Texas, currently employed by Wyatt's Cafeteria, 2647 South Lancaster, Dallas, Texas, advised he was present at the used car lot of JOHNNY REYNOLDS' on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A minute or so later they observed a white male approximately 30 years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying what appeared to be a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload same while running.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.
Jack Tatum
Next. this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street.
The Police Officers who were confronted with the murdering Oswald.
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?
Mr. WALKER. He had ahold of the handle of it.
Mr. BELIN. Handle of what?
Mr. WALKER. The revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a revolver there?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; there was.
Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.
Oswald even admitted carrying his revolver which exclusively matched the shells Oswald dropped at the scene.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
JohnM
-
Bill made a reasonable proposal to you for a podcast debate and you are the one who ran away. Why not take him up on that offer instead of going down some type of alternative reality rabbit hole for once.
I didn't run away. I am not going to agree to a podcast from different locations. That's not an offer and Brown said it himself. He didn't want a debate where the other party could easily google information. A live face to face debate makes that impossible, yet he ran away from that.
But to a biased idiot like you (who supported a guy who claimed he could shoot somebody in the street and get away with it) Bill Brown will always be the "reasonable" one, no matter what I say or do.
-
It's too bad that your Star Time Eyewitness also positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald Oswald as the man who killed Officer Tippit and it's not as if this murder occurred in the middle of the night but it was the exact opposite, in daylight where everyone is clearly visible. And if it was only Markham then that would be enough to put Oswald away forever, but in addition either at the crime scene or fleeing the crime scene we have many more eyewitnesses who all identified Oswald wearing a jacket while holding a gun. Then we have the evidence of Oswald being arrested with the revolver which EXCLUSIVELY matches the shells that multiple eyewitnesses testified that Oswald dropped. And to top it off Oswald tries to kill more cops when he was arrested, it's hilarious that you guys still try to prove Oswald's innocence with tiny insignificant time discrepancies and especially when your Star Time Eyewitness's testimony absolutely smashes your client, you can't have it both ways!
The Eyewitnesses who said the guy was Oswald
Mr. BELIN - You used the name Oswald. How did you know this man was Oswald?
Mr. BENAVIDES - From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. V DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in that room?
Mrs. B DAVIS. Yes, sir. I recognized number 2.
Mr. CALLAWAY. No. And he said, "We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." So they brought four men in.
I stepped to the back of the room, so I could kind of see him from the same distance which I had seen him before. And when he came out, I knew him.
Mr. BALL. You mean he looked like the same man?
Mr. CALLAWAY. Yes.
Mr. BALL. Then what did you do?
Mr. GUINYARD. I was looking--trying to see and after I heard the third shot, then Oswald came through on Patton running---came right through the yard in front of the big white house---there's a big two-story white house---there's two of them there and he come through the one right on the corner of Patton.
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me show you some pictures that we have here. I show you a picture that has been marked Garner Exhibit No. 1 and ask you if that is the man that you saw going down the street on the 22d of November as you have already told us.
Mr.REYNOLDS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Four? Did any one of the people look anything like strike that. Did you identify anyone in the lineup?
Mr. SCOGGINS. I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I identified him.
RUSSELL positively identified a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, New Orleans Police Department # 112723, taken August 9, 1963, as being identical with the individual he had observed at the scene of the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. TIPPIT on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, at Dallas, Texas.
Mr. BALL. What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
The Jacket eyewitnesses
Mr. BENAVIDES - I would say he was about your size, and he had a light-beige jacket, and was lightweight.
Mr. BELIN - Did it have buttons or a zipper, or do you remember?
Mr. BENAVIDES - It seemed like it was a zipper-type jacket.
Mr. BALL. What did you tell them you saw?
Mr. CALLAWAY. I told them he had some dark trousers and a light tannish gray windbreaker jacket, and I told him that he was fair complexion, dark hair.
Mr. BALL. What kind of a jacket, what general color of jacket?
Mrs. MARKHAM. It was a short jacket open in the front, kind of a grayish tan.
Mr. BELIN. Was the jacket open or closed up?
Mrs. DAVIS. It was open.
Mrs. MARY BROCK, 4310 Utah, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, she was at the Ballew Texaco Service Station located in the 600 block of Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas. She advised that at approximately 1:30 PM a white male described as approximately 30 years of age; 5 feet, 10 inches; light—colored complexion, wearing light clothing, came past her walking at a fast pace, wearing a light—colored jacket and with his hands in his pockets.
Mr. BELIN. Let me ask you this now. When you first saw this man, had the police car stopped or not?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Yes; he stopped. When I saw he stopped, then I looked to see why he was stopping, you see, and I saw this man with a light-colored jacket on.
Mr. BALL. How was this man dressed that had the pistol in his hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. He had on a pair of black britches and a brown shirt and a lithe sort of light-gray-looking jacket.
Mr. BALL. A gray jacket.
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; a light gray jacket and a white T-shirt.
Mrs. ROBERTS. He wasn't running, but he was walking pretty fast---he was all but running.
Mr. BALL. Then, what happened after that?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He went to his room and he was in his shirt sleeves but I couldn't tell you whether it was a long-sleeved shirt or what color it was or nothing, and he got a jacket and put it on---it was kind of a zipper jacket.
The eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald and confirmed he was carrying a gun
Mr. BALL. Which way?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Towards Jefferson, right across that way.
Mr. DULLES. Did he have the pistol in his hand at this time?
Mrs. MARKHAM. He had the gun when I saw him.
Mr. BELIN - All right. Now, you said you saw the man with the gun throw the shells?
Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN - Well, did you see the man empty his gun?
Mr. BENAVIDES - That is what he was doing. He took one out and threw it
Mr. BALL. And what did you see the man doing?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, first off she went to screaming before I had paid too much attention to him, and pointing at him, and he was, what I thought, was emptying the gun.
Mr. BALL. He had a gun in his hand?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see anything else as you heard her screaming?
Mrs. DAVIS. Well, we saw Oswald. We didn't know it was Oswald at the time. We saw that boy cut across the lawn emptying the shells out of the gun.
Mr. BALL. And how was he holding the gun?
Mr. CALLAWAY. We used to say in the Marine Corps in a raised pistol position.
Mr. BALL. What did you see him doing?
Mr. GUINYARD. He came through there running and knocking empty shells out of his pistol and he had it up just like this with his hand.
Mr. BALL. With which hand?
Mr. GUINYARD. With his right hand; just kicking them out.
Mr. BALL. He had it up?
Mr. B.M. PATTERSON, 4635 Hartford Street, Dallas, Texas, currently employed by Wyatt's Cafeteria, 2647 South Lancaster, Dallas, Texas, advised he was present at the used car lot of JOHNNY REYNOLDS' on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.
PATTERSON advised that at approximately 1:30 PM, he was standing on JONNY REYNOLDS' used car lot together with L.J. LEWIS and HAROLD RUSSELL when they heard shots coming from the vicinity of 10th and Patton Avenue, Dallas, Texas. A minute or so later they observed a white male approximately 30 years of age, running south on Patton Avenue, carrying what appeared to be a revolver in his hand and was obviously trying to reload same while running.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man's face that had the gun in his hand?
Mr.REYNOLDS. Very good.
HAROLD RUSSELL, employee, Johnny Reynolds Used Car Lot, 500 Jefferson Street, Dallas, Texas, advised that on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, he was standing on the lot of Reynolds Used Cars together with L.J. LEWIS and PAT PATTERSON, at which time they heard shots come from the vicinity of Patton and Tenth Street, and a few seconds later they observed a young white man running south on Patton Avenue carrying a pistol or revolver which the individual was attempting to either reload or place in his belt line.
Mr. BELIN. Did he have anything in his hand?
Mr. SCOGGINS. He had a pistol in his left hand.
Jack Tatum
Next. this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street.
The Police Officers who were confronted with the murdering Oswald.
Mr. McDONALD - My left hand, at this point.
Mr. BALL - And had he withdrawn the pistol
Mr. McDONALD - He was drawing it as I put my hand.
Mr. BALL - From his waist?
Mr. McDONALD - Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. When you saw Oswald's hand by his belt, which hand did you see then?
Mr. WALKER. He had ahold of the handle of it.
Mr. BELIN. Handle of what?
Mr. WALKER. The revolver.
Mr. BELIN. Was there a revolver there?
Mr. WALKER. Yes; there was.
Mr. HUTSON. McDonald was at this time simultaneously trying to hold this person's right hand. Somehow this person moved his right hand to his waist, and I saw a revolver come out, and McDonald was holding on to it with his right hand, and this gun was waving up toward the back of the seat like this.
Oswald even admitted carrying his revolver which exclusively matched the shells Oswald dropped at the scene.
Mr. STERN - Was he asked whether he was carrying a pistol at the time he was in the Texas Theatre?
Mr. BOOKHOUT - Yes; that was brought up. He admitted that he was carrying a pistol at the time he was arrested.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it a sharpshooter's or a marksman's? There are two different types, you know.
Mr. HOSTY. I believe it was a sharpshooter, sir. He then told Captain Fritz that he had been living at 1026 North Beckley, that is in Dallas, Tex., at 1026 North Beckley under the name O. H. Lee and not under his true name.
Oswald admitted that he was present in the Texas School Book Depository Building on the 22d of November 1963, where he had been employed since the 15th of October. Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was a laborer in this building and had access to the entire building. It had offices on the first and second floors with storage on third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors.
Oswald told Captain Fritz that he went to lunch at approximately noon on the 22d of November, ate his lunch in the lunchroom, and had gone and gotten a Coca Cola from the Coca Cola machine to have with his lunch. He claimed that he was in the lunchroom at the time President Kennedy passed the building.
He was asked why he left the School Book Depository that day, and he stated that in all the confusion he was certain that there would be no more work for the rest of the day, that everybody was too upset, there was too much confusion, so he just decided that there would be no work for the rest of the day and so he went home. He got on a bus and went home. He went to his residence on North Beckley, changed his clothes, and then went to a movie.
Captain Fritz asked him if he always carried a pistol when he went to the movie, and he said he carried it because he felt like it. He admitted that he did have a pistol on him at the time of his arrest, in this theatre, in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. He further admitted that he had resisted arrest and had received a bump and a cut as a result of his resisting of arrest. He then denied that he had killed Officer Tippit or President Kennedy.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he went over and caught a bus and rode the bus to North Beckley near where he lived and went by home and changed clothes and got his pistol and went to the show. I asked him why he took his pistol and he said, "Well, you know about a pistol; I just carried it." Let's see if I asked him anything else right that minute. That is just about it.
JohnM
If a suspect can not physically be at a crime scene at the time of the crime the eyewitness testimony (which is the worst kind of evidence) can not be correct. End of story.
-
Is the bubble you live in nice?
I will not only debate Bill Brown but I would even take on a good for nothing loser like you. Just tell me where and when. Let's put it to the test. Come on then, mr big mouth or are you going to try to weasel out of it as Bill Brown has already begun doing?
Particularly the loons that take themselves so seriously.
Like you, you mean?
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GiddyLoneDanishswedishfarmdog-size_restricted.gif)
Yeah sure Roger/Martin just like the time you said you were coming to Australia and I went out to meet you but you never showed and when I confronted you, you just disappeared for a few months, in every facet of your life you are truly delusional. You are one very sad individual.
JohnM
-
Bill made a reasonable proposal to you for a podcast debate and you are the one who ran away. Why not take him up on that offer instead of going down some type of alternative reality rabbit hole for once.
Yep.
Martin is just putting up a false front.
If he were sincere and truly wanted to discuss the Tippit case with me, he'd knock it out this week; no need to travel to the states for that.
-
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GiddyLoneDanishswedishfarmdog-size_restricted.gif)
Yeah sure Roger/Martin just like the time you said you were coming to Australia and I went out to meet you but you never showed and when I confronted you, you just disappeared for a few months, in every facet of your life, you are truly delusional. You are one very sad individual.
JohnM
You went out to meet him and he didn't show? Do tell.
-
Yep.
Martin is just putting up a false front.
If he were sincere and truly wanted to discuss the Tippit case with me, he'd knock it out this week; no need to travel to the states for that.
Hi Bill, why won't Weidmann debate you online, why risk covid by having a face to face meeting that's just absurd, Weidmann is just doing his typical song and dance routine but it only makes him look more deceptive than usual.
Btw I enjoyed the video in the OP.
JohnM
-
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/GiddyLoneDanishswedishfarmdog-size_restricted.gif)
Yeah sure Roger/Martin just like the time you said you were coming to Australia and I went out to meet you but you never showed and when I confronted you, you just disappeared for a few months, in every facet of your life you are truly delusional. You are one very sad individual.
JohnM
Yeah sure Roger/Martin just like the time you said you were coming to Australia and I went out to meet you but you never showed
You've got it the other way around. I was at Lady Elliot island on a diving trip and spend a couple of days in Sidney. I did sent you a pm asking for a meet and you never showed up, claiming you never received the pm.
All we need to do to clear this up is go back in the history of this forum to find out what really happened, and it will show you are a liar.
Btw, where did you go to meet me?
-
You went out to meet him and he didn't show? Do tell.
No he didn't.... he ran and now wants to rewrite history.
-
Hi Bill, why won't Weidmann debate you online, why risk covid by having a face to face meeting that's just absurd, Weidmann is just doing his typical song and dance routine but it only makes him look more deceptive than usual.
Btw I enjoyed the video in the OP.
JohnM
Thanks John; it's greatly appreciated coming from you.
By the way, I use the "A second or two" Benavides video that you made for me all the time in the Facebook groups. It shuts 'em up.
-
Hi Bill, why won't Weidmann debate you online, why risk covid by having a face to face meeting that's just absurd, Weidmann is just doing his typical song and dance routine but it only makes him look more deceptive than usual.
Btw I enjoyed the video in the OP.
JohnM
Hi Bill, why won't Weidmann debate you online, why risk covid by having a face to face meeting that's just absurd,
I can arrange a studio where Bill and I can be in different rooms and still see each other. No covid risk whatsoever...
but I fully understand the circle the wagons mentality now Brown is running away from such a debate.
-
You went out to meet him and he didn't show? Do tell.
You know how you can tell Weidmann is lying? His mouth is moving! Ha ha!
But seriously the guy is completely deluded and it was especially funny when Craig Lamson called out Martin/Roger's "Manager of managers who doesn't need to go to work, but blah blah blah" it was absolutely hilarious.
JohnM
-
I didn't run away. I am not going to agree to a podcast from different locations. That's not an offer and Brown said it himself. He didn't want a debate where the other party could easily google information. A live face to face debate makes that impossible, yet he ran away from that.
But to a biased idiot like you (who supported a guy who claimed he could shoot somebody in the street and get away with it) Bill Brown will always be the "reasonable" one, no matter what I say or do.
To suggest that you only way you and Bill can debate this case is "live face to face" (while you claim to be in Europe and he lives in Ohio) is to simply weak sauce. You should be embarrassed.
-
Hi Bill, why won't Weidmann debate you online, why risk covid by having a face to face meeting that's just absurd,
I can arrange a studio where Bill and I can be in different rooms and still see each other. No covid risk whatsoever...
If you're in different rooms across the hall or across the world what's the fcuken difference?? It's only you who is running and as usual you aren't convincing anyone.
JohnM
-
To suggest that you only way you and Bill can debate this case is "live face to face" (while you claim to be in Europe and he lives in Ohio) is to simply weak sauce. You should be embarrassed.
You're an idiot. I'll be returning to the States shortly and you would have known that to follow the discussion.
-
You're an idiot. I'll be returning to the States shortly and you would have known that to follow the discussion.
Sure. Keep them coming.
-
If you're in different rooms across the hall or across the world what's the fcuken difference?? It's only you who is running and as usual you aren't convincing anyone.
JohnM
What said anything about "across the hall"?
You lot are really pathetic and the end result is predictable; there won't be a debate despite the fact that my challenge remains. Clowns like you and Brown will always find a way to weasel out of either a meeting (in your case) or a debate (in Brown's case).
-
Sure. Keep them coming.
And you consider yourself to be a reasonable person?
What an idiot!
-
..... there won't be a debate .....
Well, as if that wasn't totally predictable. Yawn!
JohnM
-
Well, as if that wasn't totally predictable. Yawn!
JohnM
Exactly... Challenge a LN and he will run.... It happened with you and now it is happening with Bill Brown.
If Brown really had any intention to debate me he would have contacted me by pm as I requested to make arrangements.
He never did....
-
Exactly... Challenge a LN and he will run.... It happened with you and now it is happening with Bill Brown.
If Brown really had any intention to debate me he would have contacted me by pm as I requested to make arrangements.
He never did....
I have already stated that you are welcome to go ahead and contact me the next time you're in the states. I live in Ohio. Let me know. But, you won't. This whole thing is just silly.
Thankfully, those who's opinions matter (Richard Smith, John Mytton) can see the false front you're putting up for the farce that it is. I have told you about four times now to go ahead and contact me when you're in the states and all you do about it is claim, over and over, that I am running.
For some unknown reason, you want to have a pissing contest.
-
I have already stated that you are welcome to go ahead and contact me the next time you're in the states. I live in Ohio. Let me know. But, you won't. This whole thing is just silly.
Thankfully, those who's opinions matter (Richard Smith, John Mytton) can see the false front you're putting up for the farce that it is. I have told you about four times now to go ahead and cpontact me when you're in the states and all you do about it is claim, over and over, that I am running.
For some unknown reason, you want to have a pissing contest.
Thankfully, those who's opinions matter (Richard Smith, John Mytton)
Are you a stand up comedian now? Those idiots are liars.
For some unknown reason, you want to have a pissing contest.
No, that's you!
I can pm you all I want, but you will never reply or agree to a debate. The only way for me to know that you are serious about a debate is when you contact me, because I will reply.
And, yes... you are running. The only way to show me wrong is to have the debate.... Your choice!
-
Those idiots are liars.
It should be possible to talk about things without calling people names.
-
It should be possible to talk about things without calling people names.
Where's the fun in that, haha
-
Exactly... Challenge a LN and he will run.... It happened with you and now it is happening with Bill Brown.
If Brown really had any intention to debate me he would have contacted me by pm as I requested to make arrangements.
He never did....
Challenge a LN and he will run
Say, how about a cage fight with BillB to settle this.
Then we'll see who does the running, Mary.
-
Mystery #2: why would anyone request a meeting with a dude known to worship human garbage like Ruth Paine?
Lunch with Ruth (I'm at far left):
(https://i.imgur.com/NdE4BBl.jpg)
-
It should be possible to talk about things without calling people names.
In theory it should be possible, yes, just like in theory it should be possible that at some point a LN will concede the smallest point or admit there are serious problems with the evidence, but in our lifetime we will never see that happen.
A while ago a guy (can't remember his name) challenged all LNs to a debate and he even offered them a substantial sum of money. Not one LN accepted the challenge. They all ran away, yet here they are day after day preaching from their bible as if they alone know the truths and anybody who doesn't agree with them is treated like dirt by those pricks.
It is completely impossible to have any kind of respect for these zealots, who constantly lie, misrepresent facts and start playing stupid games whenever they understand they are losing the argument.
Edit; I have now remembered the name of the man challenged the LNs. It's Barry Krusch
No LN ever came forward to claim the reward by proving him wrong. That should tell you something!
-
Posted again as the LNs seem to have previously ignored it
Let's hear from Earlene Roberts herself.
At 5.03 minutes in this timeline special Roberts tells us Oswald entered the rooming house after 1 PM
She testified he was in his room for about 3 to 4 minutes, or as Bill Brown misrepresents it "just long enough to grab a jacket".
If true, this means Oswald did not leave the rooming house until 1:04 or 1:05 PM, after which Roberts saw him standing at the busstop.
The fastest walk, short of actually running, from the rooming house to 10th/Patton takes roughly 12 minutes.
If Oswald waited at the busstop for just 1 minute, he would get to 10th/Patton no earlier than 1:16 at which time Tippit was already declared DOA (at 1:15) at the hospital.
Even if Helen Markham left her home at 1:06, it would have taken her no more than 2 minutes to walk one block from 9th street to the intersection of 10th/Patton. If Tippit was killed at 1:14, as Dale Myers suggests, or at 1:16 as the WC believed, are we to believe that Markham arrived at 10th/Patton at 1:09 or 1:10 and waited for at least 5 minutes to watch Tippit being killed?
How in the world, would Oswald be able to kill Tippit any time later as 1:10 (when Markham arrived at the intersection) if he was still at the rooming house at 1:04?
Let me guess;
Roberts was wrong in her time estimate, Oswald really came in before the 1 PM news started
Markham was wrong in her time estimate, she actually left her house to catch her regular bus much later than she said
Bowley's watch was wrong (which means he failed to pick up his daughter from school at the right time)
All the hospital clocks were wrong
DPD officer Davenport watch must also have been wrong as he confirmed the DOA at 1:15 twice in official documents.
Being declared DOA at the hospital is not the same as time of death
And Oswald could have been transported to 10th/Patton in a car for no known reason and by a person who never came forward.
Now what are the chances of all these coincidences happening in one case at the same time?
-
Let's hear from Earlene Roberts herself.
She testified he was in his room for about 3 to 4 minutes...
If true, this means Oswald did not leave the rooming house until 1:04 or 1:05 PM, after which Roberts saw him standing at the busstop.
Roberts ALSO testified that Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he went out the front door of the rooming house. Not a sweater or a cardigan, as you mentioned being a possibility earlier. Are we accepting what she says or not?
Hypocrite.
-
Roberts ALSO testified that Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he went out the front door of the rooming house. Not a sweater or a cardigan, as you mentioned being a possibility earlier. Are we accepting what she says or not?
Hypocrite.
Great, so now we agree that Roberts can't be relied upon. Thumb1:
Why do you think I said: "If true, this means Oswald did not leave the rooming house until 1:04 or 1:05 PM"
Isn't it a pain in the neck when your "credible zipper" witness turns into an "uncredible entry time" witness... Hypocrite!
-
Great, so now we agree that Roberts can't be relied upon. Thumb1:
Why do you think I said: "If true, this means Oswald did not leave the rooming house until 1:04 or 1:05 PM"
Isn't it a pain in the neck when your "credible zipper" witness turns into an "uncredible entry time" witness... Hypocrite!
You're predictable.
So anyway, Oswald indeed left with a jacket. Right?
-
You're predictable.
So anyway, Oswald indeed left with a jacket. Right?
You're predictable.
No more than you. Never a straight answer to a question you don't like. And cherry picking the evidence, of course, but that's LN SOP.
So anyway, Oswald indeed left with a jacket. Right?
No, the gray jacket was in Irving, as per Frazier who saw Oswald wear it on Thursday evening.
But anyway, we agree that Roberts can't be relied upon, right? Thumb1:
-
You're predictable.
No more than you. Never a straight answer to a question you don't like. And cherry picking the evidence, of course, but that's LN SOP.
So anyway, Oswald indeed left with a jacket. Right?
No, the gray jacket was in Irving, as per Frazier who saw Oswald wear it on Thursday evening.
But anyway, we agree that Roberts can't be relied upon, right? Thumb1:
Incorrect.
I rely on her.
Oswald showed up around 1 pm. A police car out on Beckley, near Zang, honked it's horn. Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.
Forget Tenth and Patton. Forget the jacket found under the car behind the Texaco lot. Why did Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?
-
Incorrect.
I rely on her.
Oswald showed up around 1 pm. A police car out on Beckley, near Zang, honked it's horn. Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.
Forget Tenth and Patton. Forget the jacket found under the car behind the Texaco lot. Why did Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?
I rely on her.
Of course you do. You don't care if it's true or accurate. You have no choice. You have to rely on her because without her your entire narrative re the Tippit shooting falls apart. It's a hell of a way of scrutinizing evidence; you decide to believe a story and then start looking for only the information you need to support that story. And of course you ignore the credibility problems of the witness as well as everything else you don't like. That's desperation if ever I saw it.
And no. Let's not forget 10th and Patton. If you believe Roberts you also accept that Oswald did not leave the rooming house until 1:04 or 1:05 and then waited at the bus stop on Beckley, right?
Why did Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?
Did he? Says who?
Marina testified Oswald only had two jackets; CE 162 and CE 163. The darker jacket (CE 163) was later found at the TSBD and Frazier saw Oswald wear a gray jacket to Irving which could only have been CE 162. So what jacket was there for Oswald to ditch? Or alternatively, if Oswald did wear a gray jacket on Friday, what happened to the one he wore to Irving on Thursday?
-
I rely on her.
Of course you do. You don't care if it's true or accurate. You have no choice. You have to rely on her because without her your entire narrative re the Tippit shooting falls apart. It's a hell of a way of scrutinizing evidence; you decide to believe a story and then start looking for only the information you need to support that story. And of course you ignore the credibility problems of the witness as well as everything else you don't like. That's desperation if ever I saw it.
And no. Let's not forget 10th and Patton. If you believe Roberts you also accept that Oswald did not leave the rooming house until 1:04 or 1:05 and then waited at the bus stop on Beckley, right?
Why did Oswald ditch his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson?
Did he? Says who?
Marina testified Oswald only had two jackets; CE 162 and CE 163. The darker jacket (CE 163) was later found at the TSBD and Frazier saw Oswald wear a gray jacket to Irving which could only have been CE 162. So what jacket was there for Oswald to ditch? Or alternatively, if Oswald did wear a gray jacket on Friday, what happened to the one he wore to Irving on Thursday?
And yet another post goes by without a reasonable explanation for why Oswald ditched his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson.
By the way, Sam Guinyard positively identified the man running with a gun as Lee Oswald. He also positively identified the jacket in evidence (CE-162) as the jacket worn by Oswald as Oswald fled down Patton with a gun.
You see, for every jacket discrepancy witness you have, I have three more that identified Oswald and stated he was wearing a jacket. See my Youtube interview.
Give it up already.
-
And yet another post goes by without a reasonable explanation for why Oswald ditched his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson.
By the way, Sam Guinyard positively identified the man running with a gun as Lee Oswald. He also positively identified the jacket in evidence (CE-162) as the jacket worn by Oswald as Oswald fled down Patton with a gun.
You see, for every jacket discrepancy witness you have, I have three more that identified Oswald and stated he was wearing a jacket. See my Youtube interview.
Give it up already.
And yet another post goes by without a reasonable explanation for why Oswald ditched his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson.
You want me to speculate about something you assume happened? No thank you!
By the way, Sam Guinyard positively identified the man running with a gun as Lee Oswald.
And every witness is always 100% correct in everything he or she says? Is that what you are saying?
He also positively identified the jacket in evidence (CE-162) as the jacket worn by Oswald as Oswald fled down Patton with a gun.
Now that's really impressive, seeing a jacket from the other side of the street and being able to identify it months later to the exclusion of all other jackets. Or is that what really happened? Let's have a look;
Mr. BALL. Now, the next exhibit here is Commission Exhibit No. 162; have you ever seen this before?
Mr. GUINYARD. That's the jacket.
Mr. BALL. This is a gray jacket?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; that's the gray jacket.
Mr. BALL. It has a zipper on it?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes.
Mr. BALL. You say that's the jacket?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes; that he had on in Oak Cliff when he passed the lot.
Mr. BALL. That the man with the pistol had on?
Mr. GUINYARD. Yes, sir.
Well that's a "rock solid" identification of a particular jacket alright. :D Get real, will ya! At best it's a recoginition of the type of jacket. And even if Guinyard was right about CE 162 being the jacket he saw, Roberts contradicts him by testifying that the jacket she saw was darker than CE 162.
When you cherry pick witness evidence it might be useful if that same evidence isn't contradicted by another witness. And, of course, if Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket, Guinyard's identification has to be erroneous as well!
You see, for every jacket discrepancy witness you have, I have three more that identified Oswald and stated he was wearing a jacket.
Except that if the gray jacket was in Irving, and Oswald didn't have enough time to get to 10th/Patton, those witnesses of yours were wrong in their identification of Oswald. It does happen that witnesses are wrong. You know that, don't you?
The Innocence Project states that "Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing."[2] This non-profit organization uses DNA evidence to reopen criminal convictions that were made before DNA testing was available as a tool in criminal investigations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification
And you consider yourself to be a serious researcher? Yeah right!
See my Youtube interview.[/b]
Your Youtube interview is pure propaganda, filled with assumptions, misrepresentations and half truths.
Btw... what happened to the gray jacket that Frazier saw Oswald wearing to Irving on Thursday evening?
-
By the way, Sam Guinyard positively identified the man running with a gun as Lee Oswald.
And every witness is always 100% correct in everything he or she says? Is that what you are saying?
No. What I very clearly said is that for every jacket discrepancy witness you have, I have three more that identified Oswald and stated he was wearing a jacket. See my Youtube interview.
-
And yet another post goes by without a reasonable explanation for why Oswald ditched his jacket between the rooming house on Beckley and the shoe store on Jefferson.
You want me to speculate about something you assume happened? No thank you!
No. I am just asking for a reasonable explanation, which you've yet to give. Why is that?
-
No. What I very clearly said is that for every jacket discrepancy witness you have, I have three more that identified Oswald and stated he was wearing a jacket. See my Youtube interview.
It doesn't matter. It's not a numbers game. You may have 100 people saying one thing and 1 person saying something else. It is still possible that the one person is the one who is correct.
Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy which incorrectly assumes that the majority is always right!
When I asked you if you believed that every witness is always 100% correct in everything he or she says, you answered; NO.
Does that mean you accept that Guinyard could have been wrong?
-
No. I am just asking for a reasonable explanation, which you've yet to give. Why is that?
Because you want me to speculate about something that you assume happened. There is nothing reasonable about that.
In order to give you any kind of answer, I would first have to agree that it happened and I, for lack of sufficient evidence, don't. Get it now?
-
Because you want me to speculate about something that you assume happened. There is nothing reasonable about that.
In order to give you any kind of answer, I would first have to agree that it happened and I, for lack of sufficient evidence, don't. Get it now?
What evidence would be sufficient?
-
Because you want me to speculate about something that you assume happened. There is nothing reasonable about that.
In order to give you any kind of answer, I would first have to agree that it happened and I, for lack of sufficient evidence, don't. Get it now?
Of course you don't agree. Is that supposed to be some sort of surprise?
You cannot change the facts. The facts are that multiple witnesses said that they saw Oswald at Tenth and Patton (or fleeing down Patton) with a gun in his hand and wearing a jacket.
-
Of course you don't agree. Is that supposed to be some sort of surprise?
You cannot change the facts. The facts are that multiple witnesses said that they saw Oswald at Tenth and Patton (or fleeing down Patton) with a gun in his hand and wearing a jacket.
Nobody wants to chance facts. One fact is that multiple witnesses can be wrong. Denial of that obvious possibility is a logical fallacy and simply exposes your bias agenda. You can repeat the same thing over and over again as much as you like, but that does not change a damned thing.
If Oswald left the rooming house without a jacket or did not have enough time to get to 10th/Patton, the witnesses must be wrong. It really is a simple as that. Now, before you go off on another tantrum, I am not claiming that the witnesses were in fact wrong, because that would make me just as dishonest as you are. I'm merely saying that the evidence simply isn't conclusive enough to reach a conclusion either way.
-
Nobody wants to chance facts. One fact is that multiple witnesses can be wrong. Denial of that obvious possibility is a logical fallacy and simply exposes your bias agenda. You can repeat the same thing over and over again as much as you like, but that does not change a damned thing.
If Oswald left the rooming house without a jacket or did not have enough time to get to 10th/Patton, the witnesses must be wrong. It really is a simple as that. Now, before you go off on another tantrum, I am not claiming that the witnesses were in fact wrong, because that would make me just as dishonest as you are. I'm merely saying that the evidence simply isn't conclusive enough to reach a conclusion either way.
Why not just answer Dan O'meara's question?
-
It doesn't matter. It's not a numbers game. You may have 100 people saying one thing and 1 person saying something else. It is still possible that the one person is the one who is correct.
Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy which incorrectly assumes that the majority is always right!
When I asked you if you believed that every witness is always 100% correct in everything he or she says, you answered; NO.
Does that mean you accept that Guinyard could have been wrong?
So, if 100 people identified Oswald running down the road with a jacket on after the Tippit shooting, that still wouldn't be conclusive?
Really?
You wouldn't be able to draw a conclusion from that?
-
What evidence would be sufficient?
Martin/Roger recently suggested that if Tippit's blood were found on Oswald's pants or shoes that would mean only that Oswald was "close" to Tippit at the moment he was murdered. Not that Oswald was the murderer but only somehow standing "close" to the event. That's the kind of mindset that he has. No evidence would ever be conclusive of Oswald's guilt in the contrarian mind. It doesn't fit the desired narrative.
-
What evidence would be sufficient?
Anything conclusive rather than a mere assumption
-
Why not just answer Dan O'meara's question?
I did.
Why don't you just answer my question about Sam Guinyard?
-
So, if 100 people identified Oswald running down the road with a jacket on after the Tippit shooting, that still wouldn't be conclusive?
Really?
You wouldn't be able to draw a conclusion from that?
No, at least not a definitive one, because eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence.
This part of the case hinges on the answer to one single question alone; Did Oswald leave the rooming house wearing a jacket?
If he didn't, the Tippit witnesses, who saw a man wearing a jacket, couldn't have seen Oswald, regardless of their subsequent indentification at the line up. As a consequence, it needs to be determined if Oswald did in fact leave the rooming house wearing a jacket or not. If he didn't, he also couldn't have ditched it, right?
So, let's consider the circumstances; the only witness who claims Oswald left the rooming house is Earlene Roberts, a woman who was described by her employer as a person who makes up stories, which goes towards her credibility or lack thereof. In addition, we know that Roberts was blind at one eye and thus had limited eyesight. She also testified that she was trying to get the television to work when Oswald came in. For anybody who knows the lay out of the living room of the rooming house, this means that he was looking towards the front windows of the house and thus had her back turned to the living room. She saw Oswald come in, but did not notice anything about him other than that he seemed to be in a hurry. When asked she couldn't describe one details of the shirt Oswald was wearing when he came in. To get from his room to the front door Oswald only had to walk diagonally through the living room, which is a minor distance and easy to do without Roberts (with her back towards the room) noticing him until the very last moment, when he got parallel to her as he reached the front door. I believe she only saw Oswald for a second or two as he went through the doorway. Add to this the fact that Roberts in her testimony was shown CE 162, the only gray jacket Oswald owned, and she could not conclusively identify it because she believed the jacket had was wearing was actually darker.
Secondly, there is the story of Wesley Buell Frazier, who testified that Oswald was wearing a gray jacket during the trip to Irving on Thursday evening. It is true that Frazier couldn't identify CE 162 (and CE 163 for that matter) during his testimony, but we know that Marina testified that Oswald only owned two jackets. CE 163 was later found at the TSBD, which implies this was the jacket worn by Oswald on Friday morning. And that only leaves CE 162 as the jacket he could have worn on Thursday night, which of course begs the question how that same jacket could have made it's way from Irving to the rooming house between Thursday evening and Friday 1PM?
And then there is the matter of the jacket itself. There is no chain of custody for the jacket found at the parking lot. It is allegedly found by an officer who has remained unidentified until now. On the DPD radio recordings an (also unidentified) officer called in that a white jacket was found. Captain Westbrook claims that he was shown the jacket before he went on to the Texas Theater (what's a personnel officer doing there?) and that it was given to another unidentified officer. Then the jacket disappears out of sight, until a couple of hours later when it shows up at the DPD HQ in the hands of Captain Westbrook, who submits it to the DPD Identification Bureau. It is still a mystery how that jacket got to the DPD HQ and/or how Westbrook ended up having it. At the time Westbrook submitted it the jacket has initials on it from several DPD officers who, as it turns out, were never at the parking lot where the jacket was found and who most certainly were never part of the chain of custody, which is probably why the WC only had Westbrook on the stand to "identify" the jacket. And finally there is one more observation to make; the jacket was submitted to the Identification Bureau after the officers who conducted the first search of Ruth Paine's house had returned to the DPD HQ. Is that a mere coincidence?
To argue that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket because witnesses at the Tippit scene said he was wearing a jacket is a circular logic fallacy.
1. Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket, so the witnesses who saw Tippit's killer wearing a jacket were correct in their identification of Oswald.
2. Witnesses saw a man, they believed to be Oswald, wearing a jacket, therefore we know Oswald must have left the rooming house wearing a jacket.
Most witnesses at the Tippit scene only saw the man very briefly and I know from personal experience (because I had to do it once) that it is very difficult to identify a person with 100% certainty. The figures of the Innocence Project don't lie;
The Innocence Project states that "Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing."[2] This non-profit organization uses DNA evidence to reopen criminal convictions that were made before DNA testing was available as a tool in criminal investigations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification
I recently read a story about a man who was wrongly convicted because multiple witnesses identified him as the perpetrator of a crime. There was only one problem, the man was in another State when the crime took place. During the court case the jury did not believe him, but the Innocence Project was able to conclusively prove that he was telling the truth and got him a new trial and a subsuquent acquittal and release.
Also, the likelihood of all witnesses identifiying the same man in a proper and fair line up is a mathematical impossibility.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98761&page=1
Normally, if 10 people watch a particular event, like a car accident, you get 10 different accounts of what happened. Yet, here we are to believe that without exception all witnesses identify the same man? Really? So the mere fact that all the witnesses said the same thing actually speaks against the information being correct and/or the line up being fair.
With all this in mind, there is no way to conclude with any kind of certainty that Oswald did leave the rooming house wearing a jacket, and if he did which jacket it was and/or if it is the same one that Bill Brown claims (without evidence) that he ditched.
Feel free to disagree, but if you do please go beyond a simple dismissal in Bill Brown style or a pathetic "so many words" reply by Richard Smith and tell me where I am wrong.
-
No, at least not a definitive one, because eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence.
This part of the case hinges on the answer to one single question alone; Did Oswald leave the rooming house wearing a jacket?
If he didn't, the Tippit witnesses, who saw a man wearing a jacket, couldn't have seen Oswald, regardless of their subsequent indentification at the line up. As a consequence, it needs to be determined if Oswald did in fact leave the rooming house wearing a jacket or not. If he didn't, he also couldn't have ditched it, right?
So, let's consider the circumstances; the only witness who claims Oswald left the rooming house is Earlene Roberts, a woman who was described by her employer as a person who makes up stories, which goes towards her credibility or lack thereof. In addition, we know that Roberts was blind at one eye and thus had limited eyesight. She also testified that she was trying to get the television to work when Oswald came in. For anybody who knows the lay out of the living room of the rooming house, this means that he was looking towards the front windows of the house and thus had her back turned to the living room. She saw Oswald come in, but did not notice anything about him other than that he seemed to be in a hurry. When asked she couldn't describe one details of the shirt Oswald was wearing when he came in. To get from his room to the front door Oswald only had to walk diagonally through the living room, which is a minor distance and easy to do without Roberts (with her back towards the room) noticing him until the very last moment, when he got parallel to her as he reached the front door. I believe she only saw Oswald for a second or two as he went through the doorway. Add to this the fact that Roberts in her testimony was shown CE 162, the only gray jacket Oswald owned, and she could not conclusively identify it because she believed the jacket had was wearing was actually darker.
Secondly, there is the story of Wesley Buell Frazier, who testified that Oswald was wearing a gray jacket during the trip to Irving on Thursday evening. It is true that Frazier couldn't identify CE 162 (and CE 163 for that matter) during his testimony, but we know that Marina testified that Oswald only owned two jackets. CE 163 was later found at the TSBD, which implies this was the jacket worn by Oswald on Friday morning. And that only leaves CE 162 as the jacket he could have worn on Thursday night, which of course begs the question how that same jacket could have made it's way from Irving to the rooming house between Thursday evening and Friday 1PM?
And then there is the matter of the jacket itself. There is no chain of custody for the jacket found at the parking lot. It is allegedly found by an officer who has remained unidentified until now. On the DPD radio recordings an (also unidentified) officer called in that a white jacket was found. Captain Westbrook claims that he was shown the jacket before he went on to the Texas Theater (what's a personnel officer doing there?) and that it was given to another unidentified officer. Then the jacket disappears out of sight, until a couple of hours later when it shows up at the DPD HQ in the hands of Captain Westbrook, who submits it to the DPD Identification Bureau. It is still a mystery how that jacket got to the DPD HQ and/or how Westbrook ended up having it. At the time Westbrook submitted it the jacket has initials on it from several DPD officers who, as it turns out, were never at the parking lot where the jacket was found and who most certainly were never part of the chain of custody, which is probably why the WC only had Westbrook on the stand to "identify" the jacket. And finally there is one more observation to make; the jacket was submitted to the Identification Bureau after the officers who conducted the first search of Ruth Paine's house had returned to the DPD HQ. Is that a mere coincidence?
To argue that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket because witnesses at the Tippit scene said he was wearing a jacket is a circular logic fallacy.
1. Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket, so the witnesses who saw Tippit's killer wearing a jacket were correct in their identification of Oswald.
2. Witnesses saw a man, they believed to be Oswald, wearing a jacket, therefore we know Oswald must have left the rooming house wearing a jacket.
Most witnesses at the Tippit scene only saw the man very briefly and I know from personal experience (because I had to do it once) that it is very difficult to identify a person with 100% certainty. The figures of the Innocence Project don't lie;
The Innocence Project states that "Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing."[2] This non-profit organization uses DNA evidence to reopen criminal convictions that were made before DNA testing was available as a tool in criminal investigations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_identification
I recently read a story about a man who was wrongly convicted because multiple witnesses identified him as the perpetrator of a crime. There was only one problem, the man was in another State when the crime took place. During the court case the jury did not believe him, but the Innocence Project was able to conclusively prove that he was telling the truth and got him a new trial and a subsuquent acquittal and release.
Also, the likelihood of all witnesses identifiying the same man in a proper and fair line up is a mathematical impossibility.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98761&page=1
Normally, if 10 people watch a particular event, like a car accident, you get 10 different accounts of what happened. Yet, here we are to believe that without exception all witnesses identify the same man? Really? So the mere fact that all the witnesses said the same thing actually speaks against the information being correct and/of the line up being fair.
With all this in mind, there is no way to conclude with any kind of certainty that Oswald did leave the rooming house wearing a jacket, and if he did which jacket it was and/or if it is the same one that Bill Brown claims (without evidence) that he ditched.
Feel free to disagree, but if you do please go beyond a simple dismissal in Bill Brown style or a pathetic "so many words" reply by Richard Smith and tell me where I am wrong.
In which we learn that even if 100 witnesses identified Oswald as the shooter and Oswald had Tippit's blood on his pants or shoes there would still be doubt of his guilt. This is known as the impossible contrarian standard of proof. No person in history could ever be convicted of a crime if it were simply enough to suggest that because some witnesses in history ID'd the wrong person that no witness testimony could ever be used. And this from the guy who constantly mocks the evidence against Oswald as being "circumstantial" while here arguing that direct evidence is useless. And, of course, there is not just eyewitness ID of Oswald as the shooter. Oswald has the same two brands of ammo on him when arrested that were used to kill Tippit. What are the odds? What are the odds Oswald is even carrying a pistol on him when arrested at the TT if he had nothing to do with this? It is laughable.
-
In which we learn that even if 100 witnesses identified Oswald as the shooter and Oswald had Tippit's blood on his pants or shoes there would still be doubt of his guilt. This is known as the impossible contrarian standard of proof. No person in history could ever be convicted of a crime if it were simply enough to suggest that because some witnesses in history ID'd the wrong person that no witness testimony could ever be used. And this from the guy who constantly mocks the evidence against Oswald as being "circumstantial" while here arguing that direct evidence is useless. And, of course, there is not just eyewitness ID of Oswald as the shooter. Oswald has the same two brands of ammo on him when arrested that were used to kill Tippit. What are the odds? What are the odds Oswald is even carrying a pistol on him when arrested at the TT if he had nothing to do with this? It is laughable.
The only thing laughable is your pathetic reply.
In which we learn that even if 100 witnesses identified Oswald as the shooter and Oswald had Tippit's blood on his pants or shoes there would still be doubt of his guilt.
Yet another strawman. Nobody said anything of the kind. Are you really this shallow?
Perhaps you should try to address all the points I have raised for once, so that we can all see beyond doubt that you only have a basic comprehension level and haven't got a clue what you are only talking about. All you can do is parrot the WC narrative over and over again without questioning even the slightest detail.
-
The only thing laughable is your pathetic reply.
In which we learn that even if 100 witnesses identified Oswald as the shooter and Oswald had Tippit's blood on his pants or shoes there would still be doubt of his guilt.
Yet another strawman. Nobody said anything of the kind. Are you really this shallow?
Perhaps you should try to address all the points I have raised for once, so that we can all see beyond doubt that you only have a basic comprehension level and haven't got a clue what you are only talking about. All you can do is parrot the WC narrative over and over again without questioning even the slightest detail.
So dishonest. Dan asked if 100 people identified Oswald running down the road with a jacket on after the Tippit shooting would that be conclusive. And your response: "No, at least not a definitive one, because eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence." So 100 witnesses confirming that it was Oswald doesn't do it for you.
btw: eyewitness testimony is considered "direct" evidence. You are constantly belittling the case against Oswald as "circumstantial" but here in your long, rambling post you basically conclude that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Thereby leaving no evidence - direct or circumstantial - that could ever satisfy you of Oswald's guilt. The old impossible standard of proof trick as Maxwell Smart would say.
-
So dishonest. Dan asked if 100 people identified Oswald running down the road with a jacket on after the Tippit shooting would that be conclusive. And your response: "No, at least not a definitive one, because eyewitness testimony is the least reliable evidence." So 100 witnesses confirming that it was Oswald doesn't do it for you.
btw: eyewitness testimony is considered "direct" evidence. You are constantly belittling the case against Oswald as "circumstantial" but here in your long, rambling post you basically conclude that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. Thereby leaving no evidence - direct or circumstantial - that could ever satisfy you of Oswald's guilt. The old impossible standard of proof trick as Maxwell Smart would say.
And again he ignores everything I have written and just makes up his own story. What a joke!
you basically conclude that eyewitness testimony is unreliable
Because it is, fool.... Which is why it needs corrobaration.
Have a talk with the people of the Innocence Project;
The Innocence Project states that "Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing."[2] This non-profit organization uses DNA evidence to reopen criminal convictions that were made before DNA testing was available as a tool in criminal investigations.
And, before you say something else that's stupid, try to use your brian for once (if you have one) to figure out and understand why all witnesses identifiying the same man in a proper and fair line up is a mathematical impossibility.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98761&page=1
But I bet you are not interested in any of that, are you now, Parrot?
-
And again he ignores everything I have written and just makes up his own story. What a joke!
you basically conclude that eyewitness testimony is unreliable
Because it is, fool.... Which is why it needs corrobaration.
Have a talk with the people of the Innocence Project;
The Innocence Project states that "Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing."[2] This non-profit organization uses DNA evidence to reopen criminal convictions that were made before DNA testing was available as a tool in criminal investigations.
And, before you say something else that's stupid, try to use your brian for once (if you have one) to figure out and understand why all witnesses identifiying the same man in a proper and fair line up is a mathematical impossibility.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98761&page=1
But I bet you are not interested in any of that, are you now, Parrot?
One hundred people would not constitute "corroboration"? That was the question you were asked. I just quoted your own response to that question. And if they all did identify Oswald, you contend there is something inherently wrong with all witnesses identifying the same person. Round and round it goes. You attack the evidence as circumstantial, dismiss direct evidence as unreliable, and then suggest that there is something sinister if everyone identified the same suspect (but of course if one witness didn't ID Oswald you would cling to that as creating doubt and express no doubts about that witness). This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic.
-
One hundred people would not constitute "corroboration"? That was the question you were asked. I just quoted your own response to that question. And if they all did identify Oswald, you contend there is something inherently wrong with all witnesses identifying the same person. Round and round it goes. You attack the evidence as circumstantial, dismiss direct evidence as unreliable, and then suggest that there is something sinister if everyone identified the same suspect (but of course if one witness didn't ID Oswald you would cling to that as creating doubt and express no doubts about that witness). This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic.
One hundred people would not constitute "corroboration"? That was the question you were asked. I just quoted your own response to that question.
Which was that studies have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that, regardless of the number, it is a mathematical impossibility that all the witnesses identify the same man.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98761&page=1
And if they all did identify Oswald, you contend there is something inherently wrong with all witnesses identifying the same person
I do not contend anything of the kind. I merely stated that studies have shown that. But you wouldn't be interested in science and studies, right? After all, you're not a Trump lover for nothing!
This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic.
Well, yes.. I can well imagine it would look that way to a guy (like you) who believes in fairytales.
I'm getting tired of your BS. I'm going to wait for a response by Dan. He seems far more reasonable than you will ever be.
-
One hundred people would not constitute "corroboration"? That was the question you were asked. I just quoted your own response to that question.
Which was that studies have shown beyond a reasonable dout that, regardless of the number, it is a mathematical impossibility that all the witnesses identify the same man.
https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=98761&page=1
And if they all did identify Oswald, you contend there is something inherently wrong with all witnesses identifying the same person
I do not contend anything of the kind. I merely stated that studies have shown that. But you wouldn't be interested in science and studies, right?
This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic.
Well, yes.. I can well imagine it would look that way to a guy (like you) who believes in fairytales.
I'm getting tired of your BS. I'm going to wait for a response by Dan. He seems far more reasonable than you will ever be.
Dan is the person who asked you the question. We have learned that your position is that both circumstantial and direct evidence are unreliable and insufficient to prove Oswald's guilt. Thereby rendering it impossible to use any evidence to ever prove Oswald's guilt. Why is it so difficult for you to be honest? Just say that your position is that there is no evidence that can prove Oswald's guilt to your satisfaction. Why argue that position over and over but then refuse to acknowledge it? Very bizarre.
-
Dan is the person who asked you the question. We have learned that your position is that both circumstantial and direct evidence are unreliable and insufficient to prove Oswald's guilt. Thereby rendering it impossible to use any evidence to ever prove Oswald's guilt. Why is it so difficult for you to be honest? Just say that your position is that there is no evidence that can prove Oswald's guilt to your satisfaction. Why argue that position over and over but then refuse to acknowledge it? Very bizarre.
Dan is the person who asked you the question.
Exactly, and I gave him my answer. I now wait for his reply, so why are you still butting in with your stupid "conclusions", pathetic propaganda and misrepresentations. Let the adults talk for once, clown!
-
Anything conclusive rather than a mere assumption
And, as far as this case is concerned, what specific evidence would you consider to be "conclusive"?
-
And, as far as this case is concerned, what specific evidence would you consider to be "conclusive"?
Ignoring all together my extensive answer to your question and simply repeating your first question?
That's the game you want to play?
Ok, the evidence is conclusive when it is presented, free from assumptions and speculations, in such a way that no reasonable other alternative conclusion can be reached on the basis of that evidence.
Or, as the Oxford Dictionary of Law Enforcement states;
Evidence that must, as a matter of law, be taken to establish some fact in issue and that cannot be disputed.
Now let me ask you a question... Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?
-
Ignoring all together my extensive answer to your question and simply repeating your first question?
That's the game you want to play?
Ok, the evidence is conclusive when it is presented, free from assumptions and speculations, in such a way that no reasonable other alternative conclusion can be reached on the basis of that evidence.
Or, as the Oxford Dictionary of Law Enforcement states;
Evidence that must, as a matter of law, be taken to establish some fact in issue and that cannot be disputed.
Now let me ask you a question... Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?
You've not answered the question Martin - what specific evidence in this case would you, personally, consider "conclusive"?
-
You've not answered the question Martin - what specific evidence in this case would you, personally, consider "conclusive"?
I'm sorry if you did not understand or did not like my answer, but I have no other way of answering your question.
I notice you still keep ignoring my extensive reply to you and also did not answer my straight forward question. Why is that?
Here is the question again; Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?
-
I'm sorry if you did not understand or did not like my answer, but I have no other way of answering your question.
I notice you still keep ignoring my extensive reply to you and also did not answer my straight forward question. Why is that?
Here is the question again; Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?
You've still not answered the question Martin.
It's not a question of me not liking the answer or not understanding the answer.
You have not answered the question.
How can I dislike or not understand it if you haven't answered the question - what specifically would you consider as conclusive evidence in this case?
It's not a trick question.
Just one example of evidence that applies to this case that you would accept as being conclusive.
-
You've still not answered the question Martin.
It's not a question of me not liking the answer or not understanding the answer.
You have not answered the question.
How can I dislike or not understand it if you haven't answered the question - what specifically would you consider as conclusive evidence in this case?
It's not a trick question.
Just one example of evidence that applies to this case that you would accept as being conclusive.
Sorry, I'm not playing that game.
You asking questions yet not answering mine isn't a conversation or a discussion. It's classic LN MO
"Conclusive evidence" is not a subjective standard. Evidence either allows for only one reasonable conclusion. Or it allows for more than one reasonable conclusion, in which case it's not conclusive. Apply that to any piece of evidence or combination of evidence and you'll have your answer.
-
Sorry, I'm not playing that game.
You asking questions yet not answering mine isn't a conversation or a discussion. It's classic LN MO
"Conclusive evidence" is not a subjective standard. Evidence either allows for only one reasonable conclusion. Or it allows for more than one reasonable conclusion, in which case it's not conclusive. Apply that to any piece of evidence or combination of evidence and you'll have your answer.
I asked you a question and rather than answer it you asked me a question and now hide behind that as the reason not to reveal your position as far as this case is concerned.
Let's have a look at the question you asked that you consider so important:
"Now let me ask you a question... Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?"
Would I like it?
Why would I like it?
This is the all-important question you feel needs answering before you can answer the question I have repeatedly asked you?
Let me make it clear - my answer to your question is "No, I wouldn't like it."
Now we've managed to roll that massive stone away...
Are you going to avoid, for the fourth time, this really straight-forward, non-threatening question - In this case, what specific evidence would you find conclusive?
Just imagine if your answer is "There is no specific evidence, no matter how powerful, that I would consider conclusive."
Just imagine what that would say about you and your presence on this forum.
-
I asked you a question and rather than answer it you asked me a question and now hide behind that as the reason not to reveal your position as far as this case is concerned.
Let's have a look at the question you asked that you consider so important:
"Now let me ask you a question... Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?"
Would I like it?
Why would I like it?
This is the all-important question you feel needs answering before you can answer the question I have repeatedly asked you?
Let me make it clear - my answer to your question is "No, I wouldn't like it."
Now we've managed to roll that massive stone away...
Are you going to avoid, for the fourth time, this really straight-forward, non-threatening question - In this case, what specific evidence would you find conclusive?
Just imagine if your answer is "There is no specific evidence, no matter how powerful, that I would consider conclusive."
Just imagine what that would say about you and your presence on this forum.
as the reason not to reveal your position as far as this case is concerned.
Exactly what I thought. Your non trick question was intended to get me to reveal to you a "position as far as this case is concerned" which you can then focus on and attack. It is a classic LN strategy!
You now even go so far as to preempt what I might say, just in case I do not reveal my position. The only problem with all this is that it is a game that doesn't work, because, contrary what LNs claim, I have no fixed position about this case. I have no agenda and no horse in this race. I just find it an interesting case. I'm not nearly in as deep as some of the others, who spend all or most their time on several boards. I am only active here and nowhere else. If the evidence conclusively showed that Oswald was guilty and acted alone that would be fine by me. But IMO it doesn't, so I remain unconvinced, which is - if you like - my position in this case.
I still consider it possible that Oswald did it alone, that he did it with others and/or that he was set up as part of a conspiracy, but I am pretty sure by now that the events didn't happen the way the WC believed they did. All I have been doing during my presence on this forum is scrutinize evidence and bogus claims, mainly from LNs, because they defend the official narrative or, in some cases, just troll and play childish games. I have not scrutinized many CT claims because I simply have discarded most of them from the outset as outrageous because they make little sense and frequently lack any real evidentiary basis. For the really dishonest LNs here this alone is reason to claim I am a CT despite the fact that I do not have a conspiracy theory, nor do I promote one. Those "if you are not with us, then you are against us" clowns only muddy the water.
Let's see if you understand where I am coming from, by giving you an example; my personal view is that O.J. Simpson most probably killed his ex-wife and her friend, but I nevertheless consider the jury's verdict in the criminal trial a correct one because the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The reason for not giving you a specific piece of evidence I would consider conclusive is that there hardly is any in this case. That's why the case is so weak and falls apart as soon as one digs a bit deeper than the surface. Everywhere you look there is evidence contradicated by other evidence. None of the discrepancies are suffiently addressed or explained, except pehaps by assumptions and speculation. Instead they are ignored and brushed aside as insignificant, when there is nothing insignificant about evidence regardless which way it points.
The WC narrative is IMO a badly written prosecutorial brief, in which claims are made that are not supported by the evidence in the 26 volumes. It would not survive scrutiny by a qualified defense lawyer in a proper court setting. Having said that, as there will never be a trial, all I can do is try to figure out what actually happened. And this is where I get to the point of conclusive evidence. Let me give you this example, which involves a chain of pieces of evidence which all link together and thus corroborate eachother;
Within the official narrative there is a preponderance of evidence which, when considered honestly, shows conclusively that J.D. Tippit was in fact shot before 1:10 PM and declared dead at Methodist Hospital at 1:15 PM. I have no intention, however, to lay out that case for you simply because it would be a waste of my time. I've tried it before and, instead of serious discussion and a willingness to even understand what I was saying, the only instant reaction of the LN crowd was ridicule, false statements and attempts to pivot away from the larger issue to a minor detail and thus derail the entire conversation. Which brings me back to my original observation that it would be counter productive to explain "my position as far as this case is concerned" - even if I had one - beyond what I have just explained to you.
So, I repeat; evidence is conclusive when it is presented, free from assumptions and speculations, in such a way that no reasonable other alternative conclusion can be reached on the basis of that evidence.
"Now let me ask you a question... Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?"
Would I like it?
Why would I like it?
This is the all-important question you feel needs answering before you can answer the question I have repeatedly asked you?
Let me make it clear - my answer to your question is "No, I wouldn't like it."
Now that we have established that you wouldn't like it if non-conclusicve evidence, for which there is more than one reasonable explanation, would be used against you if you were ever a defendant in a criminal case, let me ask you this;
If you were a juror at a criminal case would you feel comfortable to vote guilty based on similar non-conclusive evidence?
-
as the reason not to reveal your position as far as this case is concerned.
Exactly what I thought. Your non trick question was intended to get me to reveal to you a "position as far as this case is concerned" which you can then focus on and attack. It is a classic LN strategy!
You now even go so far as to preempt what I might say, just in case I do not reveal my position. The only problem with all this is that it is a game that doesn't work, because, contrary what LNs claim, I have no fixed position about this case. I have no agenda and no horse in this race. I just find it an interesting case. I'm not nearly in as deep as some of the others, who spend all or most their time on several boards. I am only active here and nowhere else. If the evidence conclusively showed that Oswald was guilty and acted alone that would be fine by me. But IMO it doesn't, so I remain unconvinced, which is - if you like - my position in this case.
I still consider it possible that Oswald did it alone, that he did it with others and/or that he was set up as part of a conspiracy, but I am pretty sure by now that the events didn't happen the way the WC believed they did. All I have been doing during my presence on this forum is scrutinize evidence and bogus claims, mainly from LNs, because they defend the official narrative or, in some cases, just troll and play childish games. I have not scrutinized many CT claims because I simply have discarded most of them from the outset as outrageous because they make little sense and frequently lack any real evidentiary basis. For the really dishonest LNs here this alone is reason to claim I am a CT despite the fact that I do not have a conspiracy theory, nor do I promote one. Those "if you are not with us, then you are against us" clowns only muddy the water.
Let's see if you understand where I am coming from, by giving you an example; my personal view is that O.J. Simpson most probably killed his ex-wife and her friend, but I nevertheless consider the jury's verdict in the criminal trial a correct one because the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
The reason for not giving you a specific piece of evidence I would consider conclusive is that there hardly is any in this case. That's why the case is so weak and falls apart as soon as one digs a bit deeper than the surface. Everywhere you look there is evidence contradicated by other evidence. None of the discrepancies are suffiently addressed or explained, except pehaps by assumptions and speculation. Instead they are ignored and brushed aside as insignificant, when there is nothing insignificant about evidence regardless which way it points.
The WC narrative is IMO a badly written prosecutorial brief, in which claims are made that are not supported by the evidence in the 26 volumes. It would not survive scrutiny by a qualified defense lawyer in a proper court setting. Having said that, as there will never be a trial, all I can do is try to figure out what actually happened. And this is where I get to the point of conclusive evidence. Let me give you this example, which involves a chain of pieces of evidence which all link together and thus corroborate eachother;
Within the official narrative there is a preponderance of evidence which, when considered honestly, shows conclusively that J.D. Tippit was in fact shot before 1:10 PM and declared dead at Methodist Hospital at 1:15 PM. I have no intention, however, to lay out that case for you simply because it would be a waste of my time. I've tried it before and, instead of serious discussion and a willingness to even understand what I was saying, the only instant reaction of the LN crowd was ridicule, false statements and attempts to pivot away from the larger issue to a minor detail and thus derail the entire conversation. Which brings me back to my original observation that it would be counter productive to explain "my position as far as this case is concerned" - even if I had one - beyond what I have just explained to you.
So, I repeat; evidence is conclusive when it is presented, free from assumptions and speculations, in such a way that no reasonable other alternative conclusion can be reached on the basis of that evidence.
Now that we have established that you wouldn't like it if non-conclusicve evidence, for which there is more than one reasonable explanation, would be used against you if you were ever a defendant in a criminal case, let me ask you this;
If you were a juror at a criminal case would you feel comfortable to vote guilty based on similar non-conclusive evidence?
"Exactly what I thought. Your non trick question was intended to get me to reveal to you a "position as far as this case is concerned" which you can then focus on and attack. It is a classic LN strategy!"
It wasn't a trick question.
You're unwillingness to answer such a straight-forward question (which you have still failed to do) is interesting (IMO), as it suggests to me there is something you want to hide about the way you view this case.
You are clearly anti-LNer.
By the way - I'm a CTer, not an LNer.
"If you were a juror at a criminal case would you feel comfortable to vote guilty based on similar non-conclusive evidence?"
If a case hinged on a single piece of evidence that could be interpreted in various ways I would not vote guilty.
I think I recognise a difference in the way we approach things here.
You look at each single piece of evidence and judge it in isolation - is it conclusive or not. Can it be interpreted in a number of ways. So, if there are 10 pieces of evidence you will look at each one individually and cast aside any and all that don't fit your criteria.
I am more inclined to look at the narrative into which all 10 pieces of information fit. Just because a piece of evidence can be interpreted in a number of ways doesn't necessarily negate it - one of the interpretations may well be correct.
For me it's about the narrative into which all 10 pieces must fit. Each piece may not be conclusive in and of itself but if there is only one sensible narrative into which all 10 pieces can fit, and each piece can be interpreted in a way that fits said narrative, I am more comfortable making a judgement about it.
If there are multiple narratives that can be constructed from the same 10 pieces of evidence then I must discern the likelihood of each narrative.
-
Martin/Roger is effectively trapped by his own bizarre approach to this case. He suggests there is doubt only by applying an impossible standard of proof to any evidence of Oswald's guilt. He knows, however, that every manner of evidence in the record links Oswald to the murders of JFK and Tippit. So there is no evidence that he can cite as "conclusive" of Oswald's guilt and maintain his charade. All he can do is go round and round down the rabbit hole playing the victim, insulting others, and desperately trying to deflect the discussion to avoid answering a very simple question.
-
I asked you a question and rather than answer it you asked me a question and now hide behind that as the reason not to reveal your position as far as this case is concerned.
Let's have a look at the question you asked that you consider so important:
"Now let me ask you a question... Would you like to be a defendant in a criminal case where evidence, that can be explained in more ways than one, is used against you on the basis of assumptions and speculations?"
Would I like it?
Why would I like it?
This is the all-important question you feel needs answering before you can answer the question I have repeatedly asked you?
Let me make it clear - my answer to your question is "No, I wouldn't like it."
Now we've managed to roll that massive stone away...
Are you going to avoid, for the fourth time, this really straight-forward, non-threatening question - In this case, what specific evidence would you find conclusive?
Just imagine if your answer is "There is no specific evidence, no matter how powerful, that I would consider conclusive."
Just imagine what that would say about you and your presence on this forum.
The above is one of the best posts of the year; perhaps even THE best post.
Why is it one of the best? Because it is 100% spot on; the point is entirely valid... and it asks a GREAT question.
-
"Exactly what I thought. Your non trick question was intended to get me to reveal to you a "position as far as this case is concerned" which you can then focus on and attack. It is a classic LN strategy!"
It wasn't a trick question.
You're unwillingness to answer such a straight-forward question (which you have still failed to do) is interesting (IMO), as it suggests to me there is something you want to hide about the way you view this case.
You are clearly anti-LNer.
By the way - I'm a CTer, not an LNer.
You may be a CTer but I am not. I do not subscribe to any particular conspiracy theory. I have never made any statement on this board or elsewhere about Oswald's guilt or innocence nor have I ever claimed that there was conspiracy. There is nothing for me to hide and the insinuation alone that there is, along with the repeated incorrect claim that I haven't answered your question, when I have done so extensively, tells me you have some sort of an agenda. I really don't know what your game is.
Maybe you are under the misguided impression that in order to be interested in this case one needs to have a position in advance or perhaps you simply do not understand what I have written. Or alternatively I may have misunderstood what you mean exactly with "position as far as this case is concerned". Why don't you clear it up for me by telling me what your position is?
"If you were a juror at a criminal case would you feel comfortable to vote guilty based on similar non-conclusive evidence?"
If a case hinged on a single piece of evidence that could be interpreted in various ways I would not vote guilty.
I think I recognise a difference in the way we approach things here.
You look at each single piece of evidence and judge it in isolation - is it conclusive or not. Can it be interpreted in a number of ways. So, if there are 10 pieces of evidence you will look at each one individually and cast aside any and all that don't fit your criteria.
I am more inclined to look at the narrative into which all 10 pieces of information fit. Just because a piece of evidence can be interpreted in a number of ways doesn't necessarily negate it - one of the interpretations may well be correct.
For me it's about the narrative into which all 10 pieces must fit. Each piece may not be conclusive in and of itself but if there is only one sensible narrative into which all 10 pieces can fit, and each piece can be interpreted in a way that fits said narrative, I am more comfortable making a judgement about it.
If there are multiple narratives that can be constructed from the same 10 pieces of evidence then I must discern the likelihood of each narrative.
I think I recognise a difference in the way we approach things here.
I'm not convinced you do
You look at each single piece of evidence and judge it in isolation - is it conclusive or not. Can it be interpreted in a number of ways. So, if there are 10 pieces of evidence you will look at each one individually and cast aside any and all that don't fit your criteria.
No. Although I do consider it necessary that single pieces of evidence have a certain level of credibility, I think it is near impossible for one single piece of evidence to be conclusive. I see it as building a house. You want the individual parts to be of a certain quality because if they are inferior the building will collapse, right?
And, no, I do not agree with casting aside any evidence that does not fit my criteria at all. That's what the WC did. If a piece of evidence doesn't fit, there must be reason for it and that needs to be examined. The events only happened in one way, so if a piece of evidence doesn't fit a narrative it might be an indication that the narrative is not (completely) correct.
I am more inclined to look at the narrative into which all 10 pieces of information fit.
That sounds a lot like what the WC did. Starting with a narrative and looking for pieces of evidence that will fit, regardless of how questionable they may be.
Just because a piece of evidence can be interpreted in a number of ways doesn't necessarily negate it - one of the interpretations may well be correct.
I agree. In fact one of the interpretations is likely to be correct. The main issue when looking at multiple pieces of evidence is if they fit together and form a conclusive narrative. It isn't called "following the evidence" for nothing!
For me it's about the narrative into which all 10 pieces must fit.
I consider that the wrong approach. Investigation is a proces of elimination not accumulation
Each piece may not be conclusive in and of itself but if there is only one sensible narrative into which all 10 pieces can fit, and each piece can be interpreted in a way that fits said narrative, I am more comfortable making a judgement about it.
Fair enough. That's close to what I said.
If there are multiple narratives that can be constructed from the same 10 pieces of evidence then I must discern the likelihood of each narrative.
This is where you and I part ways. If there are still two or more reasonable explanations for the same combined 10 pieces of evidence than you not only have no conclusive evidence but by descerning likelihoods you also enter into the realm of speculation and assumption, which is exactly where all the dishonest LNs can be found.
-
Martin/Roger is effectively trapped by his own bizarre approach to this case. He suggests there is doubt only by applying an impossible standard of proof to any evidence of Oswald's guilt. He knows, however, that every manner of evidence in the record links Oswald to the murders of JFK and Tippit. So there is no evidence that he can cite as "conclusive" of Oswald's guilt and maintain his charade. All he can do is go round and round down the rabbit hole playing the victim, insulting others, and desperately trying to deflect the discussion to avoid answering a very simple question.
Now why am I not surprised that there would be a stupid and pathetic post like this coming from you?
-
You may be a CTer but I am not. I do not subscribe to any particular conspiracy theory. I have never made any statement on this board or elsewhere about Oswald's guilt or innocence nor have I ever claimed that there was conspiracy. There is nothing for me to hide and the insinuation alone that there is, along with the repeated incorrect claim that I haven't answered your question, when I have done so extensively, tells me you have some sort of an agenda. I really don't know what your game is.
What my game is?
I asked a very simple question:
"...as far as this case is concerned, what specific evidence would you consider to be "conclusive"?"
You've still not answered this question because you believe it's some kind of trap. It's not.
Point me to where you've answered this question because I can't find it.
Maybe you are under the misguided impression that in order to be interested in this case one needs to have a position in advance or perhaps you simply do not understand what I have written. Or alternatively I may have misunderstood what you mean exactly with "position as far as this case is concerned". Why don't you clear it up for me by telling me what your position is?
I've listened to Bill's interview a couple of times and find it compelling and authoritative. I have to qualify that by saying I've not really looked into the Tippit shooting in any great detail and am totally open to hearing a counter-narrative that encompasses the available witness statements and evidence.
At the moment Oswald looks guilty as far as I'm concerned but that can change as I dig deeper.
I think I recognise a difference in the way we approach things here.
I'm not convinced you do
I am
You look at each single piece of evidence and judge it in isolation - is it conclusive or not. Can it be interpreted in a number of ways. So, if there are 10 pieces of evidence you will look at each one individually and cast aside any and all that don't fit your criteria.
No. Although I do consider it necessary that single pieces of evidence have a certain level of credibility, I think it is near impossible for one single piece of evidence to be conclusive. I see it as building a house. You want the individual parts to be of a certain quality because if they are inferior the building will collapse, right?
When you say "building a house", are you referring to the narrative. If so, what narrative do you believe is dictated by the available evidence?
And, no, I do not agree with casting aside any evidence that does not fit my criteria at all. That's what the WC did. If a piece of evidence doesn't fit, there must be reason for it and that needs to be examined. The events only happened in one way, so if a piece of evidence doesn't fit a narrative it might be an indication that the narrative is not (completely) correct.
What evidence in the Tippit case have you kept?
I am more inclined to look at the narrative into which all 10 pieces of information fit.
That sounds a lot like what the WC did. Starting with a narrative and looking for pieces of evidence that will fit, regardless of how questionable they may be.
The evidence must fit the narrative or the narrative doesn't work.
For me it's about the narrative into which all 10 pieces must fit.
I consider that the wrong approach. Investigation is a proces of elimination not accumulation
Investigation is a process of eliminating evidence?
If there are multiple narratives that can be constructed from the same 10 pieces of evidence then I must discern the likelihood of each narrative.
This is where you and I part ways. If there are still two or more reasonable explanations for the same combined 10 pieces of evidence than you not only have no conclusive evidence but by discerning likelihoods you also enter into the realm of speculation and assumption, which is exactly where all the dishonest LNs can be found.
If multiple "reasonable" explanations arise from the same evidence no real conclusions can be drawn.
But if one explanation is reasonable and one isn't, it's fair to "assume" the reasonable explanation is closer the truth.
-
The above is one of the best posts of the year; perhaps even THE best post.
Why is it one of the best? Because it is 100% spot on; the point is entirely valid... and it asks a GREAT question.
Hi Bill,
A random question for you.
Is it feasible for Oswald to have reached his rooming house as early as 12:50 PM?
-
What my game is?
I asked a very simple question:
"...as far as this case is concerned, what specific evidence would you consider to be "conclusive"?"
You've still not answered this question because you believe it's some kind of trap. It's not.
Point me to where you've answered this question because I can't find it.
I've listened to Bill's interview a couple of times and find it compelling and authoritative. I have to qualify that by saying I've not really looked into the Tippit shooting in any great detail and am totally open to hearing a counter-narrative that encompasses the available witness statements and evidence.
At the moment Oswald looks guilty as far as I'm concerned but that can change as I dig deeper.
I am
When you say "building a house", are you referring to the narrative. If so, what narrative do you believe is dictated by the available evidence?
What evidence in the Tippit case have you kept?
The evidence must fit the narrative or the narrative doesn't work.
Investigation is a process of eliminating evidence?
If multiple "reasonable" explanations arise from the same evidence no real conclusions can be drawn.
But if one explanation is reasonable and one isn't, it's fair to "assume" the reasonable explanation is closer the truth.
When you say "building a house", are you referring to the narrative. If so, what narrative do you believe is dictated by the available evidence?
Ask me again when I have examined all the available evidence. I don't jump to conclusions.
What evidence in the Tippit case have you kept?
Who said anything about the Tippit case?
I've listened to Bill's interview a couple of times and find it compelling and authoritative. I have to qualify that by saying I've not really looked into the Tippit shooting in any great detail and am totally open to hearing a counter-narrative that encompasses the available witness statements and evidence. At the moment Oswald looks guilty as far as I'm concerned but that can change as I dig deeper.
You've just told me that you have already begun making up your mind after hearing a "compelling and authoritative" propaganda piece filled with misrepresentations. The fact that you then proceed to say that you have not really looked into the Tippit, tells me that you have determined Bill Brown's video as "compelling and authoritative" without actually knowing much about the case. In my book that's jumping to conclusions.
You haven't even told me what your position of the case is, in order to establish if I perhaps misunderstood what you were asking. It seems I have known what you were asking after all. As for the rest, you're asking way too many questions and are not answering enough or discussing the information I have provided for me to wonder what use it is to continue this conversation.
If multiple "reasonable" explanations arise from the same evidence no real conclusions can be drawn.
But if one explanation is reasonable and one isn't, it's fair to "assume" the reasonable explanation is closer the truth.
Great, so we are at least in agreement on that point. Now let me ask you this; if there is a narrative, based on some but not all the witness statements, that combines a sequence of events in such a way that a time line can be derived from it in a corroborated way without having to claim that witnesses were wrong, late to catch their regular bus to work, late to pick up a daughter from school, and watches and hospital clocks were all slow, and not be vague about for instance how long it would take to walk one block.
And there is a narrative, again based on some but not all the witness statements as well as on a time line which totally depends on time stamps called out by DPD dispatchers, using clocks which the man in charge of the dispatchers told the HSCA were not synchronized, could be off by several minutes (esspecially in busy times when they were not checked regulary) and did not provide real time. For this narrative to work, a woman needs to be wrong about the time she left home and would be late for her regular bus to work, another man would have to be late by as much as five minutes to pick up his daughter from school, because his watch was late, and the clocks of a hospital need to be wrong so that a doctor can write down (and pass on to a justice of the peace) a time of death that allegedly was wrong, despite the fact that a police officer present confirmed the same time twice in his reports....
Which of these two narratives do you think, at first glance, is reasonably the most likely to be conclusive and correct?
I should point out that if you avoid answering this question this conversation is over.
-
You've just told me that you have already begun making up your mind after hearing a "compelling and authoritative" propaganda piece filled with misrepresentations. The fact that you then proceed to say that you have not really looked into the Tippit, tells me that you have determined Bill Brown's video as "compelling and authoritative" without actually knowing much about the case. In my book that's jumping to conclusions.
"Propaganda piece"?
Listening to his two and a half hour interview on the subject I was impressed by his command of the details, the arguments he brought together using the evidence available, and his interaction with the interviewer. He came across as knowledgeable and authoritative on this subject. However, I then wrote:
"I have to qualify that by saying I've not really looked into the Tippit shooting in any great detail and am totally open to hearing a counter-narrative that encompasses the available witness statements and evidence."
I qualified the impressions I had of the interview by openly stating my own lack of knowledge on the subject and my willingness to be swayed by an opposing opinion.
You didn't recognise the honesty of this statement which says something about you, not me.
You haven't even told me what your position of the case is, in order to establish if I perhaps misunderstood what you were asking. As for the rest, you're asking way too many questions and are not answering enough or discussing the information I have provided for me to wonder what use it is to continue this conversation.
You can't even answer one simple question.
I've answered every question you've asked of me.
If multiple "reasonable" explanations arise from the same evidence no real conclusions can be drawn.
But if one explanation is reasonable and one isn't, it's fair to "assume" the reasonable explanation is closer the truth.
Great, so we are at least in agreement on that point. Now let me ask you this; if there is a narrative, based on some but not all the witness statements, that combines a sequence of events in such a way that a time line can be derived from it in a corroborated way without having to claim that witnesses were wrong, late to catch their regular bus to work, late to pick up a daughter from school, and watches and hospital clocks were all slow, and not be vague about for instance how long it would take to walk one block.
And there is a narrative, again based on some but not all the witness statements as well as on a time line which totally depends on time stamps called out by DPD dispatchers, using clocks which the man in charge of the dispatchers told the HSCA were not synchronized, could be off by several minutes (esspecially in busy times when they were not checked regulary) and did not provide real time. For this narrative to work, a woman needs to be wrong about the time she left home and would be late for her regular bus to work, another man would have to be late by as much as five minutes to pick up his daughter from school, because his watch was late, and the clocks of a hospital need to be wrong so that a doctor can write down (and pass on to a justice of the peace) a time of death that allegedly was wrong, despite the fact that a police officer present confirmed the same time twice in his reports....
Which of these two narratives do you think, at first glance, is reasonably the most likely to be conclusive and correct?
In this scenario it is clearly the first narrative that holds sway.
I should point out that if you avoid answering this question this conversation is over.
If you don't answer my question this conversation is over.
-
"Propaganda piece"?
Listening to his two and a half hour interview on the subject I was impressed by his command of the details, the arguments he brought together using the evidence available, and his interaction with the interviewer. He came across as knowledgeable and authoritative on this subject. However, I then wrote:
"I have to qualify that by saying I've not really looked into the Tippit shooting in any great detail and am totally open to hearing a counter-narrative that encompasses the available witness statements and evidence."
I qualified the impressions I had of the interview by openly stating my own lack of knowledge on the subject and my willingness to be swayed by an opposing opinion.
You didn't recognise the honesty of this statement which says something about you, not me.
You can't even answer one simple question.
I've answered every question you've asked of me.
In this scenario it is clearly the first narrative that holds sway.
If you don't answer my question this conversation is over.
In this scenario it is clearly the first narrative that holds sway.
These scenarios were about the Tippit shooting.
The second narrative is the one Bill Brown is advocating. Go figure!
Thanks for the conversation.
-
Moving on...
Regarding the list of "errors", I'll address a few of them here, one at a time....
1. Bill said Burt “saw Oswald”, but Burt said he couldn’t identify Oswald.
I did not say that Burt identified Oswald. In fact, I specifically said (more than once) that Burt did not identify Oswald. I did say that Burt saw Oswald, because he did see Oswald. Burt saw the same man seen by Markham, Scoggins and each of the Davis girls. All four of them said the man was Oswald, i.e. Burt saw Oswald, exactly as I said.
This does not belong on any list of "errors".
Yes it does. That's begging the question.
-
These are the same contrarian nuts who believe that a date on a meaningless form could not be incorrect but suggest here that the FBI "misheard" a witness on an important issue.
Says the contrarian nut who prefers a second-hand account when it suits his conclusion.
-
And, of course, there is not just eyewitness ID of Oswald as the shooter.
Only one witness saw a shooting. And unfair biased lineups and photo showups are unreliable.
Oswald has the same two brands of ammo on him when arrested that were used to kill Tippit.
Can you name another brand of .38 special ammo in 1963 other than Winchester-Western and Remington-Peters? What are the odds?
P.S. The ammo "found" 3 hours later in his pockets were all Winchesters
P.P.S. What are the odds that the brands of the shells would not match the brands of the slugs if the shells were actually related to the crime?
What are the odds Oswald is even carrying a pistol on him when arrested at the TT if he had nothing to do with this?
Says the guy who can't actually demonstrate what if any "pistol" was "on him" when arrested.
It is laughable.
Your arguments usually are.
-
You attack the evidence as circumstantial,
That's not an "attack", it's just a fact.
dismiss direct evidence as unreliable,
What direct evidence are you speaking of?
-
JFK Truth Be Told
It's a playground for an arrogant mutual admiration society of LN-ers who think they have it all figured out, refuse to discuss any of the evidence in detail, mock people who dare to disagree without actually addressing the substance of the argument, and use trumped-up and inconsistent rules to punish people they don't like. I'm not talking about Bill Brown. He was the most impartial and knowledgeable moderators they had.
A much more balanced and fairly run group for all sides is JFK: Nothing But The Truth
-
Too bad for Oswald that he was seen looking like himself while killing Tippit.
And carrying 'on him' is what boys do.
-
Hi Bill,
A random question for you.
Is it feasible for Oswald to have reached his rooming house as early as 12:50 PM?
Dan,
I don't think so. They reconstructed Oswald's steps (with the help of Cecil McWatters and William Whaley) in an attempt the determine the absolute earliest that Oswald could have reached the rooming house.
Based on McWatters' statement of where it was that Oswald boarded the bus (we know Oswald boarded that bus because he had McWatters' specific bus transfer and McWatters said he issued that transfer to only one woman and only one man), Oswald walked about seven blocks east (into the downtown area) after he left the Depository within three minutes of the shooting.
"So I gave her a transfer and opened the door and she was going out the gentleman I had picked up about two blocks (back) asked for a transfer and got off at the same place in the middle of the block where the lady did. It was the intersection near Lamar Street, it was near Poydras and Lamar Street." -- Cecil McWatters
They concluded, based on what McWatters told them (along with the Secret Service agents and FBI agents walking the route in an average time of six and a half minutes), that Oswald boarded the bus around 12:40 near the intersection of Field St. and Elm St. and then, after being on the bus for no more than four minutes, Oswald got off the bus near Lamar St. and Elm St. (asking for the transfer as he got off the bus).
So now we have Oswald leaving the bus around 12:44.
Oswald then walked three to four short blocks to the Greyhound station where he boarded Whaley's cab. This has Oswald entering the cab around 12:48.
They then, with Whaley, reconstructed the cab ride from the Greyhound to the intersection of Beckley and Neely (Oswald got out of the cab on Beckley just north of the intersection with Neely). they concluded (using a stopwatch) that the cab ride took five minutes and thirty seconds.
So now we have Oswald exiting Whaley's cab on Beckley at 12:53-12:54.
Still using the stopwatch, they concluded that it was a five minute and forty-five second walk from the point Oswald exited the cab back to the rooming house.
I think Oswald got to the rooming house between 12:58 and 1:00 and was back in his room just long enough to grab a jacket before hurrying out the door, zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.
-
P.S. The ammo "found" 3 hours later in his pockets were all Winchesters
Irrelevant to Richard Smith's valid point.
When arrested, Oswald had both Remingtons and Winchesters loaded into the revolver taken from him; three of each.
-
Oswald --- LOL
The revolver came out of G. Hill's pocket hours later.
Nobody (today) knows when it was loaded.
That's weak sauce. You are implying that the evidence was planted after the fact with no basis at all to reach that conclusion. If the standard is simply that any evidence of Oswald's guilt can be rebutted by merely suggesting that the evidence is planted, then there is no basis for a reasoned discussion. That would be an impossible and unreasonable standard of proof to ever overcome. The fact remains that Oswald had in his possession the exact same two brands of ammo that were used to murder Tippit. The fact that he even had a pistol in his possession when arrested is odd. What are the odds if he is innocent? Why does he leave work and get a pistol before going to the movies? You would have to be a complete imbecile to think all this is some type of bad luck. Multiple witnesses ID him as the Tippit murderer. He has a pistol in his possession when arrested. He has the exact same two brands of ammo. It's a slam dunk.
-
That's weak sauce. You are implying that the evidence was planted after the fact with no basis at all to reach that conclusion. If the standard is simply that any evidence of Oswald's guilt can be rebutted by merely suggesting that the evidence is planted, then there is no basis for a reasoned discussion. That would be an impossible and unreasonable standard of proof to ever overcome. The fact remains that Oswald had in his possession the exact same two brands of ammo that were used to murder Tippit. The fact that he even had a pistol in his possession when arrested is odd. What are the odds if he is innocent? Why does he leave work and get a pistol before going to the movies? You would have to be a complete imbecile to think all this is some type of bad luck. Multiple witnesses ID him as the Tippit murderer. He has a pistol in his possession when arrested. He has the exact same two brands of ammo. It's a slam dunk.
You are implying that the evidence was planted after the fact with no basis at all to reach that conclusion.
Wrong. The fact that Hill carried a piece of crucial evidence around leaves the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation. Evidence is to be submitted to the Identification Bureau as soon as possible. In this case several pieces of evidence, including the jacket, the revolver and the wallet were not submitted until hours after Oswald's arrest.
The fact remains that Oswald had in his possession the exact same two brands of ammo that were used to murder Tippit.
That's not a fact. That's what we were told after Oswald's death and the same goes for the bus tranfer.
The fact that he even had a pistol in his possession when arrested is odd. What are the odds if he is innocent?
In Texas? Where just about everybody has a weapon? Really?
It's a slam dunk.
Only for a gullible fool who looks no further than the surface.
-
You are implying that the evidence was planted after the fact with no basis at all to reach that conclusion.
Wrong. The fact that Hill carried a piece of crucial evidence around leaves the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation. Evidence is to be submitted to the Identification Bureau as soon as possible. In this case several pieces of evidence, including the jacket, the revolver and the wallet were not submitted until hours after Oswald's arrest.
Wrong. How does a DPD officer possessing the evidence leave "the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation"? That is baseless and stupid even coming from you. The mere baseless opinion that something is "possible" does not rebut the evidence. Show us your support that on Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas that evidence could not be used if it was submitted "hours" after an arrest. There was obviously a lot going on during the day in which both the President of the United States and a DPD officer had been murdered. Pedantic claims like evidence should be submitted "as soon as possible" does absolutely nothing to rebut or cast any doubt on the fact that Oswald possessed a pistol when he was arrested. And that he had the same two brands of ammo that were used to kill Tippit. The mere "possibility" that the evidence was manipulated is an impossible standard of proof. If a criminal could avoid culpability for a crime by just claiming that it was "possible" that the overwhelming evidence of his guilt was planted, then no one would ever go to jail. You should be embarrassed to peddle this nonsense.
-
Wrong. How does a DPD officer possessing the evidence leave "the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation"? That is baseless and stupid even coming from you. The mere baseless opinion that something is "possible" does not rebut the evidence. Show us your support that on Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas that evidence could not be used if it was submitted "hours" after an arrest. There was obviously a lot going on during the day in which both the President of the United States and a DPD officer had been murdered. Pedantic claims like evidence should be submitted "as soon as possible" does absolutely nothing to rebut or cast any doubt on the fact that Oswald possessed a pistol when he was arrested. And that he had the same two brands of ammo that were used to kill Tippit. The mere "possibility" that the evidence was manipulated is an impossible standard of proof. If a criminal could avoid culpability for a crime by just claiming that it was "possible" that the overwhelming evidence of his guilt was planted, then no one would ever go to jail. You should be embarrassed to peddle this nonsense.
How does a DPD officer possessing the evidence leave "the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation"? That is baseless and stupid even coming from you.
Which only tells me just how clueless you truly are about evidence gathering and processing.
Show us your support that on Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas that evidence could not be used if it was submitted "hours" after an arrest.
Why? who said that?
There was obviously a lot going on during the day in which both the President of the United States and a DPD officer had been murdered. Pedantic claims like evidence should be submitted "as soon as possible" does absolutely nothing to rebut or cast any doubt on the fact that Oswald possessed a pistol when he was arrested.
You are so forgiving when it comes to your precious DPD, it's beyond pathetic.
If a criminal could avoid culpability for a crime by just claiming that it was "possible" that the overwhelming evidence of his guilt was planted, then no one would ever go to jail.
O.J. Simpson proved it was possible.
You should be embarrassed to peddle this nonsense.
Nope. You should be embarrased that you believe all the nonsense that you present on this board.
-
How does a DPD officer possessing the evidence leave "the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation"? That is baseless and stupid even coming from you.
Which only tells me just how clueless you truly are about evidence gathering and processing.
Show us your support that on Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas that evidence could not be used if it was submitted "hours" after an arrest.
Why? who said that?
There was obviously a lot going on during the day in which both the President of the United States and a DPD officer had been murdered. Pedantic claims like evidence should be submitted "as soon as possible" does absolutely nothing to rebut or cast any doubt on the fact that Oswald possessed a pistol when he was arrested.
You are so forgiving when it comes to your precious DPD, it's beyond pathetic.
If a criminal could avoid culpability for a crime by just claiming that it was "possible" that the overwhelming evidence of his guilt was planted, then no one would ever go to jail.
O.J. Simpson proved it was possible.
You should be embarrassed to peddle this nonsense.
Nope. You should be embarrased that you believe all the nonsense that you present on this board.
Do you really think the OJ trial/defense is the way that evidence should be reviewed in the JFK case? Laughable. The question is not whether some rube juror can be fooled by a dim witted defense attorney making a baseless claim like evidence was planted but whether Oswald committed the crime. And the evidence confirms that he did. Just like OJ. At best (even though you cannot support it), you are making a procedural argument to exclude evidence. Not a real rebuttal of the evidence itself.
-
Richard needs to slow down, made my day... Thumb1:
LOL. You see no evidentiary value in Oswald having a pistol in his possession when arrested? The guy who is identified by multiple witnesses as the person who shot Tippit with - wait for it - a pistol. It seems pretty important. But maybe someone didn't validate a "control" number to your subjective satisfaction rendering it meaningless.
-
Do you really think the OJ trial/defense is the way that evidence should be reviewed in the JFK case? Laughable. The question is not whether some rube juror can be fooled by a dim witted defense attorney making a baseless claim like evidence was planted but whether Oswald committed the crime. And the evidence confirms that he did. Just like OJ. At best (even though you cannot support it), you are making a procedural argument to exclude evidence. Not a real rebuttal of the evidence itself.
Do you really think the OJ trial/defense is the way that evidence should be reviewed in the JFK case? Laughable.
How else would a defense lawyer review evidence? What's the difference between the OJ trial and the JFK case?
You, like the idiot that you are, claimed that manipulation of evidence was not a possibility because; "If a criminal could avoid culpability for a crime by just claiming that it was "possible" that the overwhelming evidence of his guilt was planted, then no one would ever go to jail"
And I confronted you with the truth that is that OJ did exactly that and got off. Remember Mark Fuhrman and the "planted glove" and what about the missing blood sample? And yet, you stupidly claim it couldn't happen!
At best (even though you cannot support it), you are making a procedural argument to exclude evidence.
A procedural argument that can only be made if procedures were not followed, like a lack of chain of custody or a Detective "walking around" for hours with a revolver and then handing it in with initials on it of cops that were not even present at the arrest.
You're making a fool of yourself..... but hey, what else is new?
-
It wasn't Marcia Clark's fault. Christopher Darden is the person who screwed the pooch.
-
It wasn't Marcia Clark's fault. Christopher Darden is the person who screwed the pooch.
Agreed
-
Irrelevant to Richard Smith's valid point.
When arrested, Oswald had both Remingtons and Winchesters loaded into the revolver taken from him; three of each.
"the revolver taken from him". LOL.
-
Wrong. How does a DPD officer possessing the evidence leave "the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation"? That is baseless and stupid even coming from you. The mere baseless opinion that something is "possible" does not rebut the evidence.
The mere baseless opinion that a revolver was "taken from Oswald" doesn't make it so.
-
Do you really think the OJ trial/defense is the way that evidence should be reviewed in the JFK case? Laughable. The question is not whether some rube juror can be fooled by a dim witted defense attorney making a baseless claim like evidence was planted but whether Oswald committed the crime.
What we've learned is that some rube guy who goes by "Richard" can be fooled into thinking that WC "conclusions" are evidence.
-
LOL. You see no evidentiary value in Oswald having a pistol in his possession when arrested?
Except he didn't. Or a revolver for that matter. At the time Oswald was arrested, the alleged revolver was in the alleged possession of the alleged Bob Carroll.
-
"the revolver taken from him". LOL.
Yes. Correct. Now what?
-
If a criminal could avoid culpability for a crime by just claiming that it was "possible" that the overwhelming evidence of his guilt was planted, then no one would ever go to jail.
If all that police could come up with in criminal cases is this level of weak, circumstantial, and tainted evidence, then no one should go to jail.
-
Yes. Correct. Now what?
"Correct". LOL.
-
"the revolver taken from him". LOL.
"Correct". LOL.
(https://i.imgur.com/wH2i6SP.png)
The entire JFK case could hang on this point! LOL. This list is a great example of CTer nuts ignoring the evidence and taking the discussion down the rabbit hole. It is sad and pathetic to see posters like Martin/Roger trying to be relevant.
How do you picture a "debate" going between myself and Martin/Roger?
I can see it now...
Bill: "The shells found at the Tippit scene were linked, through ballistics, to Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of every other weapon in the world."
Then, as I begin to explain how ballistic testing works, Martin/Roger chimes in with this gem....
Martin/Roger: "Oswald's revolver LOL"
-
Question for Bill B. Why was Tippit cruising slowly down 10th that day? It is a "back street" after all I gather.
-
Question for Bill B. Why was Tippit cruising slowly down 10th that day? It is a "back street" after all I gather.
LOL Are you being serious with that question?
-
LOL Are you being serious with that question?
Don't you sometimes often feel you're talking to 5 year-olds here?
-
Don't you sometimes often feel you're talking to 5 year-olds here?
I don't feel that way at all about Colin Crow. Some others? Most definitely. But not Colin.
-
Question for Bill B. Why was Tippit cruising slowly down 10th that day? It is a "back street" after all I gather.
One automatically becomes a back-street boy and/or a back-alley boy when attempting to avoid capture, one would think.
---------
EDIT ;D
BONUS
---------
> 'one would
think'
> ;D
-
Do you really think the OJ trial/defense is the way that evidence should be reviewed in the JFK case? Laughable.
How else would a defense lawyer review evidence? What's the difference between the OJ trial and the JFK case?
You, like the idiot that you are, claimed that manipulation of evidence was not a possibility because; "If a criminal could avoid culpability for a crime by just claiming that it was "possible" that the overwhelming evidence of his guilt was planted, then no one would ever go to jail"
And I confronted you with the truth that is that OJ did exactly that and got off. Remember Mark Fuhrman and the "planted glove" and what about the missing blood sample? And yet, you stupidly claim it couldn't happen!
At best (even though you cannot support it), you are making a procedural argument to exclude evidence.
A procedural argument that can only be made if procedures were not followed, like a lack of chain of custody or a Detective "walking around" for hours with a revolver and then handing it in with initials on it of cops that were not even present at the arrest.
You're making a fool of yourself..... but hey, what else is new?
Incredible. You still don't follow the point. Again, it is not whether some rube jury might deliver a not guilty verdict in a hypothetical criminal trial based on some procedural point of law (which you haven't demonstrated). No one cares in 2021 whether Oswald might have got off on some technicality or defense attorney tactic per OJ (who was guilty). The issue is whether the evidence confirms that Oswald murdered JFK and Tippit. And there is nothing about Hill allegedly maintaining control over the pistol for a couple of hours that leads to the conclusion that it was "manipulated" as you stupidly and without any basis whatsoever suggested. Just because it is always "possible" for evidence to be planted is not a sufficient basis to rebut the evidence. The evidence is still the evidence. There is absolutely nothing in the record to suggest that the pistol or ammo was planted on Oswald. In fact, Oswald himself admitted ownership of the pistol. Even Oswald was not as dishonest as you.
-
Question for Bill B. Why was Tippit cruising slowly down 10th that day? It is a "back street" after all I gather.
You appear to be implying that it is sinister for a DPD officer to be patrolling the streets. That seems like an ordinary part of the job. Words like "cruising slowly" are a dog whistle that Tippit was behaving abnormally but there is no evidence of that at all. It is difficult to follow what point you are trying to make. It seems clear that Tippit was driving around pursuant to his ordinary duties as a police officer and saw Oswald do something that attracted his attention. What exactly is known only to Tippit. So he paused to check it out. Again, something that police officers do in the ordinary course of their job. Nothing mysterious about it.
-
I don't feel that way at all about Colin Crow. Some others? Most definitely. But not Colin.
Completely agree with Bill Brown --- Not Colin.
-
Completely agree with Bill Brown --- Not Colin.
With the exception of the chicken sandwich discussions, I agree. Colin is a cut above the average CTer. Even when I disagree with his conclusions, I acknowledge that he has made the effort to provide the supporting evidence. Something that few others bother to do while playing defense attorney for Oswald.
-
Q: What was the difference between the OJ and Oswald situations?
A: OJ was black trash.
Oswald was white trash.
-
Incredible. You still don't follow the point. Again, it is not whether some rube jury might deliver a not guilty verdict in a hypothetical criminal trial based on some procedural point of law (which you haven't demonstrated). No one cares in 2021 whether Oswald might have got off on some technicality or defense attorney tactic per OJ (who was guilty). The issue is whether the evidence confirms that Oswald murdered JFK and Tippit. And there is nothing about Hill allegedly maintaining control over the pistol for a couple of hours that leads to the conclusion that it was "manipulated" as you stupidly and without any basis whatsoever suggested. Just because it is always "possible" for evidence to be planted is not a sufficient basis to rebut the evidence. The evidence is still the evidence. There is absolutely nothing in the record to suggest that the pistol or ammo was planted on Oswald. In fact, Oswald himself admitted ownership of the pistol. Even Oswald was not as dishonest as you.
Oh I understood what you were saying alright. It's BS as per usual.
And there is nothing about Hill allegedly maintaining control over the pistol for a couple of hours that leads to the conclusion that it was "manipulated" as you stupidly and without any basis whatsoever suggested.
Are you always this dumb or do you only act that way on this forum? Nobody has claimed that Hill walking around with a revolver would justify the conclusion that it was manipulated. That's just another one of your long list of strawman. What needs to be proven is that the revolver Hill walked around with is the one they took of Oswald. What doesn't help (and what you conveniently forget) is that Hill took that revolver to the DPD lunchroom (if I remember correctly), told some of the guys there that it was Oswald's revolver and had them (some were not even present at the arrest) initial the weapon for a fictitious chain of custody, in much the same way it was done with the jacket. And that does suggest manipulation of evidence whether you like it or not.
Just because it is always "possible" for evidence to be planted is not a sufficient basis to rebut the evidence.
Says who? Evidence and proof are two very different things. Evidence needs to be authenticated and scrutinized for it's veracity. Evidence isn't automatically valid to the extent that it's invalidity needs to be proven.
There is absolutely nothing in the record to suggest that the pistol or ammo was planted on Oswald.
Nobody said a word about a revolver being planted on Oswald.
In fact, Oswald himself admitted ownership of the pistol.
No he didn't. If the reports are to believed he merely admitted having a revolver, which he said he had bought in Fort Worth. They never showed him the Smith & Wesson for identifcation.
Your making up stuff again, as per usual
-
Completely agree with Bill Brown --- Not Colin.
Thank you to Jack and Bill B.
My not knowing the area and given the circumstances I would have thought he might have stayed on say, Beckley or Jefferson.
-
OJ had a trial.
Oswald didn't.
Fixed it for you... Thumb1:
OJ was a somebody
Oswald was a nobody
----------
EDIT ;D
BONUS
----------
> Oswald was seen killing Tippit while looking exactly like himself.
Oswald would fry.
There: Fixed your wagon.
-
With the exception of the chicken sandwich discussions, I agree. Colin is a cut above the average CTer. Even when I disagree with his conclusions, I acknowledge that he has made the effort to provide the supporting evidence. Something that few others bother to do while playing defense attorney for Oswald.
Thank you Richard.
-
Thank you to Jack and Bill B.
My not knowing the area and given the circumstances I would have thought he might have stayed on say, Beckley or Jefferson.
The (presumably) heavier traffic on those routes (well, at least as compared to the, apparently, 'go-nowhere street' claimed here recently) would potentially lead to more 'eyes on' from motorists listening to a description of events. Not to mention potentially more pedestrians as well. Especially those who want to go somewhere ;D
And as far as Oswald knew, the cops might already have his address, and in that case one would be more than a little foolhardy to remain on streets that would lead them directly to the Lee safe-house. In fact, weren't the cop cars that the alert citizen Brewer noticed (while seeing the nobody duck out of sight to look at tennis shoes) heading up Jefferson at some point?
-
No he didn't. If the reports are to believed he merely admitted having a revolver, which he said he had bought in Fort With
You missed the part where Oswald wouldn't tell the cops where he bought the firearm in Fort Worth. So that claim remains, well, worthless..
-
The (presumably) heavier traffic on those routes (well, at least as compared to the, apparently, 'go-nowhere street' claimed here recently) would potentially lead to more 'eyes on' from motorists listening to a description of events. Not to mention potentially more pedestrians as well. Especially those who want to go somewhere ;D
I was referring to Tippit, why not stick to main streets? I assume you did not see my original post questioning Tippit cruising east on 10th.
-
I was referring to Tippit, why not stick to main streets? I assume you did not see my original post questioning Tippit cruising east on 10th.
No problem... police would be (or at least should be) savvy to the fact that fugitives would most likely go off the beaten track; play hide 'n seek. Therefore placing 'sentinels' (if you will) in relatively off-the-grid areas seems a no-brainer to me.
----------
EDIT ;D
BONUS
----------
> 'play hide
'n seek'
-
No problem... police would be (or at least should be) savvy to the fact that fugitives would most likely go off the beaten track; play hide 'n seek. Therefore placing 'sentinels' (if you will) in relatively off-the-grid areas seems a no-brainer to me.
----------
EDIT ;D
BONUS
----------
> 'play hide
'n seek'
But he was there to prevent crime and be of assistance for armed robbery or clear traffic jams. His predominant purpose in Oak Cliff was not seeking fugitives.
-
You missed the part where Oswald wouldn't tell the cops where he bought the firearm in Fort Worth. So that claim remains, well, worthless..
Who says that Oswald wouldn't tell the cops where he bought the revolver?
And, if he did, what's wrong with a suspect saying "you are the cop, you figure it out"?
You don't conduct an investigation or interrogation without verifying if what the suspect said is true or not.
The FBI spend weeks checking some 400 dry cleaners to find out where Oswald's gray jacket came from
Nobody made any effort to check out the origin of the revolver. Go figure
-
You are implying that the evidence was planted after the fact with no basis at all to reach that conclusion.
Wrong. The fact that Hill carried a piece of crucial evidence around leaves the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation. Evidence is to be submitted to the Identification Bureau as soon as possible. In this case several pieces of evidence, including the jacket, the revolver and the wallet were not submitted until hours after Oswald's arrest.
So again, here is Martin/Roger arguing that because Hill "carried a piece of crucial evidence around" that it "leaves the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation." Something he now claims that no one has argued. Martin/Roger has a very ambiguous relationship with the truth. My point - once again - is that even if Hill carried the pistol around that is not evidence of "manipulation" of the evidence. The evidence remains the evidence even if Hill did not follow the proper procedure (again something Martin/Roger has claimed but not demonstrated).
-
Oh I understood what you were saying alright. It's BS as per usual.
And there is nothing about Hill allegedly maintaining control over the pistol for a couple of hours that leads to the conclusion that it was "manipulated" as you stupidly and without any basis whatsoever suggested.
Are you always this dumb or do you only act that way on this forum? Nobody has claimed that Hill walking around with a revolver would justify the conclusion that it was manipulated. That's just another one of your long list of strawman.
Your making up stuff again, as per usual
Who is making up stuff Roger?
"The fact that Hill carried a piece of crucial evidence around leaves the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation."
-
So again, here is Martin/Roger arguing that because Hill "carried a piece of crucial evidence around" that it "leaves the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation." Something he now claims that no one has argued. Martin/Roger has a very ambiguous relationship with the truth. My point - once again - is that even if Hill carried the pistol around that is not evidence of "manipulation" of the evidence. The evidence remains the evidence even if Hill did not follow the proper procedure (again something Martin/Roger has claimed but not demonstrated).
Just how much more stupid can you get?
When I say; "because Hill carried a piece of crucial evidence around that it leaves the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation." I am not saying that it is evidence of manipulation.
All it means is that if Hill had handed in the revolver straight away, the possibility of a claim of manipulation would be a lot less.
I am amazed that I even have to explain something so simple and obvious to you.
Who is making up stuff Roger?
"The fact that Hill carried a piece of crucial evidence around leaves the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation."
You are, by linking a statement I made to a guy named Roger! Pathetic!
-
Was he?
Mr. BELIN. All right. Will you please state then what happened, what you saw, what you did, what you heard?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Well, I first seen the police car cruising east.
Mr. BELIN. About how fast was it cruising?
Mr. SCOGGINS. Not more than 10 or 12 miles a hour, I would say.
Mr. BELIN. It was going east on what street?
Mr. SCOGGINS. On Tenth.
-
Just how much more stupid can you get?
When I say; "because Hill carried a piece of crucial evidence around that it leaves the door wide open for the possibility of manipulation." I am not saying that it is evidence of manipulation.
All it means is that if Hill had handed in the revolver straight away, the possibility of a claim of manipulation would be a lot less.
I am amazed that I even have to explain something so simple and obvious to you.
You are, by linking a statement I made to a guy named Roger! Pathetic!
Good grief. This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic. You claimed that there is doubt that the ammo found on Oswald when arrested is the same ammo placed in evidence. You make this claim repeatedly. And cite the fact that Hill didn't log the pistol into evidence for "hours" to support this claim. Now you suggest that you never claimed the evidence was manipulated! If you are not claiming the evidence was "manipulated" then why bicker over how long it took to log the pistol into evidence? Amazing. Let us know then that you agree that the ammo found on Oswald was the same that was logged into evidence. As I originally noted, you appear to be suggesting that it is merely "possible" that the evidence was manipulated with no basis whatsoever that it was. An empty the jails argument that could be made in every criminal case. You have never even demonstrated that a brief delay in logging in evidence was any sort of violation of procedure much less the basis for providing any doubt as to the validity of the evidence. Show us some comparison. At most what you are suggesting is that it was not ideal. That is OJ defense attorney material for a guilty client.
-
Good grief. This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic. You claimed that there is doubt that the ammo found on Oswald when arrested is the same ammo placed in evidence. You make this claim repeatedly. And cite the fact that Hill didn't log the pistol into evidence for "hours" to support this claim. Now you suggest that you never claimed the evidence was manipulated! If you are not claiming the evidence was "manipulated" then why bicker over how long it took to log the pistol into evidence? Amazing. Let us know then that you agree that the ammo found on Oswald was the same that was logged into evidence. As I originally noted, you appear to be suggesting that it is merely "possible" that the evidence was manipulated with no basis whatsoever that it was. An empty the jails argument that could be made in every criminal case. You have never even demonstrated that a brief delay in logging in evidence was any sort of violation of procedure much less the basis for providing any doubt as to the validity of the evidence. Show us some comparison. At most what you are suggesting is that it was not ideal. That is OJ defense attorney material for a guilty client.
This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic.
For a guy like you, who believes in fairytales, I am sure it must appear that way. Maybe one day, when you grow up, you will understand the difference because at the moment you clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
You claimed that there is doubt that the ammo found on Oswald when arrested is the same ammo placed in evidence.
No, I never made that claim. See how far removed you are from reality?
And cite the fact that Hill didn't log the pistol into evidence for "hours" to support this claim.
Haven't done that either.
Now you suggest that you never claimed the evidence was manipulated!
Show me where I claimed that the evidence was manipulated?
You have never even demonstrated that a brief delay in logging in evidence was any sort of violation of procedure much less the basis for providing any doubt as to the validity of the evidence. Show us some comparison. At most what you are suggesting is that it was not ideal. That is OJ defense attorney material for a guilty client.
Finally you've got something right. It was indeed O.J. Simpson's defense team that made the argument that some evidence could not be trusted because the proper procedures were not followed.
-
Can't have shells from an automatic found on the scene, as reported by Hill(!), when Oswald owns a revolver, can we?
Benavides saw the killer throw some of the shells to the ground. Shells (Benavides and the Davis girls) were found nowhere near the patrol car, where the shooter was standing as he fired the shots at Tippit from across the hood.
You do understand that if the shells were fired from an automatic weapon, then they would have been ejected automatically and therefore the killer would have no need to manually eject them and throw them to the ground. Right?
You do understand that if the shells were fired from an automatic weapon, they would have been found very near the patrol car where the killer was standing instead of where they were in fact found (a couple of them over one hundred feet away along the killer's path as he fled). Right?
-
Did he really state that in his affidavit?
Go look it up for yourself. No?
-
This is truly Alice-in-Wonderland logic.
For a guy like you, who believes in fairytales, I am sure it must appear that way. Maybe one day, when you grow up, you will understand the difference because at the moment you clearly have no clue what you are talking about.
You claimed that there is doubt that the ammo found on Oswald when arrested is the same ammo placed in evidence.
No, I never made that claim. See how far removed you are from reality?
And cite the fact that Hill didn't log the pistol into evidence for "hours" to support this claim.
Haven't done that either.
Now you suggest that you never claimed the evidence was manipulated!
Show me where I claimed that the evidence was manipulated?
You have never even demonstrated that a brief delay in logging in evidence was any sort of violation of procedure much less the basis for providing any doubt as to the validity of the evidence. Show us some comparison. At most what you are suggesting is that it was not ideal. That is OJ defense attorney material for a guilty client.
Finally you've got something right. It was indeed O.J. Simpson's defense team that made the argument that some evidence could not be trusted because the proper procedures were not followed.
Let's try one last time. Do you accept that Oswald had the same two types of ammo when he was arrested that were used to kill Tippit or not? These are mutually exclusive options. You can't argue that you do not accept this as a fact but that you are not suggesting that the evidence was manipulated. The DPD indicates that they recovered a pistol and ammo from Oswald after his arrest. You cannot suggest that a different pistol or ammo was entered into evidence and deny that you are suggesting the evidence was manipulated. Both cannot be true.
And imagine the narrative behind this fantasy where the DPD switch the pistol and plant the ammo. The DPD decide, for some unspecified reason, to frame Oswald for the Tippit murder right from the beginning. Why they do this is left completely unaddressed. They not only frame Oswald for the crime, but they must decide to let the guilty person go free. They must know who this guilty person is since they somehow acquire his pistol and switch it for the one that Oswald (bad luck again) has decided to carry to the movie. Again, why the DPD decide to frame Oswald and allow the known guilty party to walk away is left unaddressed in this fantasy. It is just so because there was a brief delay in logging the evidence. But Martin/Roger denies he is a CTer. He is just suggesting the evidence has been planted of manipulated for some inexplicable reason never is addressed because it is "possible."
-
Let's try one last time. Do you accept that Oswald had the same two types of ammo when he was arrested that were used to kill Tippit or not? These are mutually exclusive options. You can't argue that you do not accept this as a fact but that you are not suggesting that the evidence was manipulated. The DPD indicates that they recovered a pistol and ammo from Oswald after his arrest. You cannot suggest that a different pistol or ammo was entered into evidence and deny that you are suggesting the evidence was manipulated. Both cannot be true.
And imagine the narrative behind this fantasy where the DPD switch the pistol and plant the ammo. The DPD decide, for some unspecified reason, to frame Oswald for the Tippit murder right from the beginning. Why they do this is left completely unaddressed. They not only frame Oswald for the crime, but they must decide to let the guilty person go free. They must know who this guilty person is since they somehow acquire his pistol and switch it for the one that Oswald (bad luck again) has decided to carry to the movie. Again, why the DPD decide to frame Oswald and allow the known guilty party to walk away is left unaddressed in this fantasy. It is just so because there was a brief delay in logging the evidence. But Martin/Roger denies he is a CTer. He is just suggesting the evidence has been planted of manipulated for some inexplicable reason never is addressed because it is "possible."
Do you accept that Oswald had the same two types of ammo when he was arrested that were used to kill Tippit or not?
Did he? I know they claimed he had bullets on him, but they only "found" them after searching him several times, which seems a bit odd to me.
These are mutually exclusive options. You can't argue that you do not accept this as a fact but that you are not suggesting that the evidence was manipulated.
I have not argued either. I don't know.
The DPD indicates that they recovered a pistol and ammo from Oswald after his arrest.
Yes, they also indicated that Oswald had not passed the paraffin test and that they had found a credit card and a driver's license in Oswald's wallet, so what's your point.
You cannot suggest that a different pistol or ammo was entered into evidence and deny that you are suggesting the evidence was manipulated. Both cannot be true.
Oh there is no doubt in my mind at all that (some) evidence was manipulated. It is actually a documented fact that it happened. I just can not say for sure which evidence was manipulated and which isn't. Hill having some officers in the DPD lunchroom initial the revolver, he said belonged to Oswald, when they were not even present at the arrest, doesn't inspire a great deal of confidence. The FBI showing a BY photo to Michael Paine on Friday evening when they were not officially found until the second search (with warrent this time) of Saturday afternoon. And what of the fact that Fritz picked up the shells in the snipers nest before they were photographed in situ and then threw them back and then there was the moving boxes fiasco and let's not forget Lt Day who allegedly found a palmprint of Oswald on the MC rifle and somehow "forgot" to tell anybody about it for a week!
And imagine the narrative behind this fantasy where the DPD switch the pistol and plant the ammo. The DPD decide, for some unspecified reason, to frame Oswald for the Tippit murder right from the beginning. Why they do this is left completely unaddressed.
Ever heard of a drop gun? Please don't tell me these things don't happen in law enforcement, because that would only show how far removed you are from reaility. And you can't figure out why they would do it (if they did it)? Really? Just use your imagination (you're normally pretty good at that) and I am sure you'll think of something. And btw who said that the entire DPD would decide to frame Oswald? You don't think a few well placed individuals could do it?
Like Westbrook, a personnel officer for crying out loud, who shows up at the, for him, strangest places and does the strangest things. For instance, at the Tippit crime scene where he is seen on video handling a wallet and where he asks FBI Barrett if he knows either Oswald or Hidell. And then he shows up at the parking lot where an undentified officer shows him a jacket, which he claims he gave to another unidentified officer, only to end up having a gray jacket a couple of hours later, which has initials marked on it from men who never were in the chain of custody. I don't know what is going on with this guy, but it has nothing to do with normal police procedure or routine.
They not only frame Oswald for the crime, but they must decide to let the guilty person go free.
Isn't that exactly what Hoover did, when he declared Oswald the only guilty person and focussed only on "proving" that?
They must know who this guilty person is since they somehow acquire his pistol and switch it for the one that Oswald (bad luck again) has decided to carry to the movie. Again, why the DPD decide to frame Oswald and allow the known guilty party to walk away is left unaddressed in this fantasy.
I have no I idea if they did it, who inside the DPD did it and why they did and I guess I will never know. All anyone can do is scrutinize the actions of all the law enforcement officers.
It is just so because there was a brief delay in logging the evidence.
This stupidity has already been debunked. I'm not going to explain it to you again.
He is just suggesting the evidence has been planted of manipulated for some inexplicable reason never is addressed because it is "possible."
Finally you've got something right. Well nearly... because I am not suggesting evidence was in fact planted or manipulated, I am merely saying it is possible. That you don't understand this, because you for some idiotic reason seem to think it's impossible, is your problem. There is no doubt in my mind that you are desperate to get something from me that you can attack, but I am not going to do you that favor. You stick by making up strawman arguments. You're good at that!
-
Wasn't Markham supposed to be on the NE corner across from him screaming her head off?
No.
NW corner.
-
What's with the attitude?
I'm asking because...
Mr. BELIN - Where was he when you saw him throwing shells? Had he already started across the yard?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No, sir. He had just got back to the sidewalk when he threw the first one and when he threw the second one, he had already cut back into the yard. He just sort of cut across.
Your point? You're quoting the portion of his testimony which agrees with what I said. How about making your point?
-
Mr. BELIN - Where was he when you saw him throwing shells? Had he already started across the yard?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No, sir. He had just got back to the sidewalk when he threw the first one and when he threw the second one, he had already cut back into the yard. He just sort of cut across.
Benavides states the shooter had not "already started across the yard" when throwing shells.
His one-two sequence does not work unless his "just got back to the sidewalk" is on 10th at the patrol car.
That's my point.
Right.
Now how does that prove my statement wrong?
-
Mr. BELIN - Where was he when you saw him throwing shells? Had he already started across the yard?
Mr. BENAVIDES - No, sir. He had just got back to the sidewalk when he threw the first one and when he threw the second one, he had already cut back into the yard. He just sort of cut across.
Benavides states the shooter had not "already started across the yard" when throwing shells.
His one-two sequence does not work unless his "just got back to the sidewalk" is on 10th at the patrol car.
That's my point.
Go read his testimony. It's all in there.
-
Not necessarily.
Deflection duly noted.
Thumb1:
Brown seems to be in extreme defensive mode lately. Why would that be? Any idea?
-
Not necessarily.
Deflection duly noted.
Thumb1:
What would I possibly be deflecting? I'm not deflecting anything. You haven't even made a point, really.
-
What would I possibly be deflecting? I'm not deflecting anything. You haven't even made a point, really.
Bill & Otto. Give it up, Otto, uh..........
-
Well, since you asked...
(And remember, this is only my best guess. who really knows?)
I believe Oswald walked down Beckley, took a left onto Davis and then a right onto Patton. Then I believe he took a left onto Tenth and walked a couple blocks towards Marsalis. Dale Myers told me that there was a Dallas County Sherriff's car parked near Marsalis and Tenth. I think perhaps Oswald got spooked by that and reversed direction on Tenth and is now walking west on Tenth.
I know, this has him heading somewhat towards Ruby's apartment.
Honestly, I don't like to speculate about Oswald's path and/or where he was intending to go. But one thing seems certain, he was not heading to the theater until AFTER he shot Tippit.
No question. Thank you for sharing+
-
Well, since you asked...
(And remember, this is only my best guess. who really knows?)
I believe Oswald walked down Beckley, took a left onto Davis and then a right onto Patton. Then I believe he took a left onto Tenth and walked a couple blocks towards Marsalis. Dale Myers told me that there was a Dallas County Sherriff's car parked near Marsalis and Tenth. I think perhaps Oswald got spooked by that and reversed direction on Tenth and is now walking west on Tenth.
I know, this has him heading somewhat towards Ruby's apartment.
Honestly, I don't like to speculate about Oswald's path and/or where he was intending to go. But one thing seems certain, he was not heading to the theater until AFTER he shot Tippit.
David Belin's analysis of Oswald's movements speculated that he was staying off the main routes. And noted that there was a bus transfer point at Marsalis and Jefferson where Oswald could have used his bus transfer. Only about three blocks from the Tippit scene. There is still a bus stop there. That would lend itself to Oswald walking east on Tenth. After the Tippit shooting, he is in panic flight moving in the direction of least resistance. Just playing out his hand in response to what is happening in front of him. Ducking into the theatre was actually not a bad decision if he had only paid for a ticket.
-
David Belin's analysis of Oswald's movements speculated that he was staying off the main routes. And noted that there was a bus transfer point at Marsalis and Jefferson where Oswald could have used his bus transfer. Only about three blocks from the Tippit scene. There is still a bus stop there. That would lend itself to Oswald walking east on Tenth. After the Tippit shooting, he is in panic flight moving in the direction of least resistance. Just playing out his hand in response to what is happening in front of him. Ducking into the theatre was actually not a bad decision if he had only paid for a ticket.
David Belin's analysis of Oswald's movements speculated that he was staying off the main routes.
That's the beauty of speculation and assumptions. With enough of it, without any actual evidence, you can get anybody to do anything you like, regardless if it is reality or not.
-
David Belin's analysis of Oswald's movements speculated that he was staying off the main routes.
That's the beauty of speculation and assumptions. With enough of it, without any actual evidence, you can get anybody to do anything you like, regardless if it is reality or not.
It's a given that a person taking flight from law enforcement would be ducking out of sight by, for instance, pretending to look at tennis shoes from the lobby of a shoe store at the same time as speeding cop cars are roaring by; ducking into theatres; taking off-the-beaten-track side streets, along with back alleys (as witnessed by at least one alert citizen who ID'd the little prick near the car lot).
Oh, yeah.. and, if need be, ambushing a poor dumb cop and murdering him in cold blood. And trying to shoot more cops at the movies while 'not resisting' arrest.
Now that is reality.
-
It's a given that a person taking flight from law enforcement would be ducking out of sight by, for instance, pretending to look at tennis shoes from the lobby of a shoe store at the same time as speeding cop cars are roaring by; ducking into theatres; taking off-the-beaten-track side streets, along with back alleys (as witnessed by at least one alert citizen who ID'd the little prick near the parking lot).
Oh, yeah.. and, if need be, ambushing a poor dumb cop and murdering him in cold blood. And trying to shoot more cops at the movies while 'not resisting' arrest.
Now that is reality.
Now that is reality.
No. It's BS
-
David Belin's analysis of Oswald's movements speculated that he was staying off the main routes. And noted that there was a bus transfer point at Marsalis and Jefferson where Oswald could have used his bus transfer. Only about three blocks from the Tippit scene. There is still a bus stop there. That would lend itself to Oswald walking east on Tenth. After the Tippit shooting, he is in panic flight moving in the direction of least resistance. Just playing out his hand in response to what is happening in front of him. Ducking into the theatre was actually not a bad decision if he had only paid for a ticket.
Oswald couldn't take the risk of showing himself to Postal. Why expose himself to another potential witness. The 'path of least resistance' would be the order of the day for anybody running for his life.
-
David Belin's analysis of Oswald's movements speculated that he was staying off the main routes.
That's the beauty of speculation and assumptions. With enough of it, without any actual evidence, you can get anybody to do anything you like, regardless if it is reality or not.
Says the contrarian who "speculates" and "assumes" every item of evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fakery. Of course Oswald's destination would have to be the source of some "speculation" because only he would know for sure and Tippit disrupted whatever he had planned. There is a basis for reasoned speculation, though. Oswald was in flight. He had no access to a car and limited resources. He is familiar with the bus lines in Dallas as his primary means of transport. He has a bus transfer in his pocket. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to "speculate" that he was looking for a bus. And the main bus transfer points where he could use the transfer were on Jefferson. If he had any fantasy of escape, then it would involve getting to Mexico and then seeking asylum from the Cubans. Of course that is wildly unrealistic but Oswald is a loon who had no good options under the circumstance. Obviously, he couldn't stay in Dallas or the US. He has just returned for Mexico and knows the drill. If he has any plan, then it involved moving in that direction until someone catches him. Just like James Earl Ray did after assassinating Martin Luther King. Ray made it to Canada and then Europe.
-
Says the contrarian who "speculates" and "assumes" every item of evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fakery. Of course Oswald's destination would have to be the source of some "speculation" because only he would know for sure and Tippit disrupted whatever he had planned. There is a basis for reasoned speculation, though. Oswald was in flight. He had no access to a car and limited resources. He is familiar with the bus lines in Dallas as his primary means of transport. He has a bus transfer in his pocket. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to "speculate" that he was looking for a bus. And the main bus transfer points where he could use the transfer were on Jefferson. If he had any fantasy of escape, then it would involve getting to Mexico and then seeking asylum from the Cubans. Of course that is wildly unrealistic but Oswald is a loon who had no good options under the circumstance. Obviously, he couldn't stay in Dallas or the US. He has just returned for Mexico and knows the drill. If he has any plan, then it involved moving in that direction until someone catches him. Just like James Earl Ray did after assassinating Martin Luther King. Ray made it to Canada and then Europe.
Says the contrarian who "speculates" and "assumes" every item of evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fakery.
Stop whining. I am right and you know it
Of course Oswald's destination would have to be the source of some "speculation" because only he would know for sure
Indeed... so you understand that I am right!
There is a basis for reasoned speculation, though.
"reasoned speculation" LOL
Oswald was in flight. He had no access to a car and limited resources. He is familiar with the bus lines in Dallas as his primary means of transport.
Three speculations in three sentences.....
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to "speculate" that he was looking for a bus. And the main bus transfer points where he could use the transfer were on Jefferson.
Hey Watson, if he was looking for a bus, why did he not simply get on to one. There were plenty about on Jefferson!
If he had any fantasy of escape, then it would involve getting to Mexico and then seeking asylum from the Cubans. Of course that is wildly unrealistic but Oswald is a loon who had no good options under the circumstance. Obviously, he couldn't stay in Dallas or the US. He has just returned for Mexico and knows the drill. If he has any plan, then it involved moving in that direction until someone catches him.
More "reasoned speculation"? :D
You really don't get that your entire post is filled with one speculation after another, right?
-
Now that is reality.
No. It's BS
Now there's a path of least resistance if I ever saw one.
What are you running from, Martin?
-
Says the contrarian who "speculates" and "assumes" every item of evidence of Oswald's guilt is the product of fakery.
Stop whining. I am right and you know it
Of course Oswald's destination would have to be the source of some "speculation" because only he would know for sure
Indeed... so you understand that I am right!
There is a basis for reasoned speculation, though.
"reasoned speculation" LOL
Oswald was in flight. He had no access to a car and limited resources. He is familiar with the bus lines in Dallas as his primary means of transport.
Three speculations in three sentences.....
It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to "speculate" that he was looking for a bus. And the main bus transfer points where he could use the transfer were on Jefferson.
Hey Watson, if he was looking for a bus, why did he not simply get on to one. There were plenty about on Jefferson!
If he had any fantasy of escape, then it would involve getting to Mexico and then seeking asylum from the Cubans. Of course that is wildly unrealistic but Oswald is a loon who had no good options under the circumstance. Obviously, he couldn't stay in Dallas or the US. He has just returned for Mexico and knows the drill. If he has any plan, then it involved moving in that direction until someone catches him.
More "reasoned speculation"? :D
You really don't get that your entire post is filled with one speculation after another, right?
No speculation needed
(https://i.postimg.cc/wMktfFBT/A-VIEW-TO-A-KILL-SMALL.png)
BILL CHAPMAN
BOOYAH
-
Now there's a path of least resistance if I ever saw one.
What are you running from, Martin?
Are you under the misguided impression that you said anything of significance in the post I responded to?
Calling it "reality" was the funniest part.
No speculation needed
BOOYAH
If no speculation is needed, then why are you and your ilk constantly speculating and making wild assumptions?
-
Are you under the misguided impression that you said anything of significance in the post I responded to?
Calling it "reality" was the funniest part.
If no speculation is needed, then why are you and your ilk constantly speculating and making wild assumptions?
Pretty sure a number of witnesses @Tippit and nearby weren't speculating or making wild assumptions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/446gPWYH/A-BRIEF-MOMENT-002.png)
BILL CHAPMAN
-
Pretty sure a number of witnesses @Tippit and nearby weren't speculating or making wild assumptions.
(https://i.postimg.cc/446gPWYH/A-BRIEF-MOMENT-002.png)
BILL CHAPMAN
And I'm pretty sure that you are not completely sure. No what?
-
And I'm pretty sure that you are not completely sure. No what?
I'm completely sure that you've missed the sarcasm in my use of 'pretty sure'. And I'm completely sure that #2 in the lineup (aka Lee Harvey Oswald ) was fingered by Helen Markham as the one she saw killing the officer. And I'm completely sure a few good men in and around the Tippit scene also fingered Oswald as the #2 man in the lineup.
-
I'm completely sure that you've missed the sarcasm in my use of 'pretty sure'. And I'm completely sure that #2 in the lineup (aka Lee Harvey Oswald ) was fingered by Helen Markham as the one she saw killing the officer. And I'm completely sure a few good men in and around the Tippit scene also fingered Oswald as the #2 man in the lineup.
Good for you that you are completely sure. So now you can drop the "I'm pretty sure" crap.
Just consider this; I'm beyond sure that, even if I did not witness the actual crime, if I were placed in front of a 4 man line up like that I would pick Oswald as the most likely one as well.
Too bad that none of the line up witnesses were ever questioned by a defense lawyer because it is beyond a shadow of a doubt (IMO) that their identifications would have been destroyed on the stand.
-
Good for you that you are completely sure. So now you can drop the "I'm pretty sure" crap.
Just consider this; I'm beyond sure that, even if I did not witness the actual crime, if I were placed in front of a 4 man line up like that I would pick Oswald as the most likely one as well.
Too bad that none of the line up witnesses were ever questioned by a defense lawyer because it is beyond a shadow of a doubt (IMO) that their identifications would have been destroyed on the stand.
'So now you can drop the "I'm pretty sure" crap.'
Who are you to tell me to drop anything? And just who testified that Oswald was the 'most likely one' btw?
(https://i.postimg.cc/Qd3CyJfJ/SEND-IN-THE-CLONES-FINAL.png)
BILL CHAPMAN
-
'So now you can drop the "I'm pretty sure" crap.'
WhoTF are you to tell me to drop anything? And just who testified that Oswald was the 'most likely one' btw?
BILL CHAPMAN
WhoTF are you to tell me to drop anything?
Did you say something, hypocrite?
Now feel free to bugger off if you must.
-
WhoTF are you to tell me to drop anything?
Did you say something, hypocrite?
More of an invitation, actually:
To wit: I'm pretty sure that you're one who initially asked, condescendingly, if I really thought you were going to get into what you call my 'silly games'. So that's why I attached 'feel free to bugger off if you have to' (or words to that effect).
And I'm dead certain that my invitation for you to bugger off remains permanently open-ended.
-
More of an invitation, actually:
To wit: I'm pretty sure that you're one who initially asked, condescendingly, if I really thought you were going to get into what you call my 'silly games'. So that's why I attached 'feel free to bugger off if you have to' (or words to that effect).
And I'm dead certain that my invitation for you to bugger off remains permanently open-ended.
Your desperate need to "explain" everything is duly noted.
-
Your desperate need to "explain" everything is duly noted.
No desperation required to put you in your place over your attempt to 'deep-six' the fact that you initially — and somewhat haughtily, I might add — tried to give the impression that you would never deign to get into an exchange with me over what you refer to as 'silly games'. And yet you dove right in pronto.
Unfortunately for you, all you've done is belly-flop and become yet another contrarian overboard.
-
No desperation required to put you in your place over your attempt to 'deep-six' the fact that you initially — and somewhat haughtily, I might add — tried to give the impression that you would never deign to get into an exchange with me over what you refer to as 'silly games'. And yet you dove right in pronto.
Unfortunately for you, all you've done is belly-flop and become yet another contrarian overboard.
Even misrepresenting just about everything you can about what actually was being said (in another thread) you are still not making any sense.
'I wasn't trying. If you feel the fool, it has nothing to do with me.'
Where did I say I felt like a fool? I said you tried to make me seem the fool.
It is on you.
Let's see. Now you really hope that I am going to debate you on this pathetic topic, right?
No way... but nice try Thumb1:
What part of "this pathetic topic" did you not understand?
You seem to be very good at creating your own little alternate reality here, but hey, as a LN, so that's par for the course for you, right?
-
Even misrepresenting just about everything you can about what actually was being said (in another thread) you are still not making any sense.
What part of "this pathetic topic" did you not understand?
You seem to be very good at creating your own little alternate reality here, but hey, as a LN, so that's par for the course for you, right?
What part of your 'no way' response to debating this 'silly game/pathetic topic' — then doing just that (debating) anyway — do you not understand?
-
"Richard's" usual litany of unsupported claims.
Let's try one last time. Do you accept that Oswald had the same two types of ammo when he was arrested that were used to kill Tippit or not?
No. All we know is that some Winchester bullets were "found" in Oswald's pocket hours after he was arrested.
The DPD indicates that they recovered a pistol and ammo from Oswald after his arrest.
No they don't. At the time of Oswald's arrest, the alleged revolver (not pistol) was allegedly in the alleged possession of the alleged Bob Carroll.
You cannot suggest that a different pistol or ammo was entered into evidence and deny that you are suggesting the evidence was manipulated. Both cannot be true.
I see you need yet another lesson on the concept of burden of proof. Why do you think chain of custody and evidence handling procedures are even a thing? Because police have the burden of demonstrating the authenticity of the evidence they present. If "cop said so" was good enough, then there would be no need for such procedures.
And imagine the narrative behind this fantasy where the DPD switch the pistol and plant the ammo. The DPD decide, for some unspecified reason, to frame Oswald for the Tippit murder right from the beginning. Why they do this is left completely unaddressed. They not only frame Oswald for the crime, but they must decide to let the guilty person go free. They must know who this guilty person is since they somehow acquire his pistol and switch it for the one that Oswald (bad luck again) has decided to carry to the movie.
No, Strawman "Smith". Since there's actually no conclusive way to connect any particular weapon to Tippit's death, all anybody has to do is present a weapon and some matching shells, and claim with no substantiation that the weapon was taken away from the suspect and that the shells were found at the scene.
"Brief delay in logging the evidence". LOL.
-
I imagine that Bill Brown suffers from serious bouts of cognitive dissonance whenever he regurgitates this nonsense. But, "the show must go on", eh Bill?
-
Gun 'n shells @Tippit
Markham ID's Oswald as shooter
Others ID Oswald brandishing the pistol & dumping shells
Alternately, lets say Oswald keeps the shells, hides the gun on his person as he leaves the area.
He's captured but has no weapon or shells.
He can still be convicted for the shooting. I read that a witness can testify that a defendant shot someone, and if that witness is believed, then a defendant can be convicted even if no gun is ever found. I also read that juries are instructed that the testimony of only one witness is enough if that witness is believed.
-
I imagine that Bill Brown suffers from serious bouts of cognitive dissonance whenever he regurgitates this nonsense. But, "the show must go on", eh Bill?
No imagination needed
(https://i.postimg.cc/wMktfFBT/A-VIEW-TO-A-KILL-SMALL.png)
BILL CHAPMAN
-
I imagine that Bill Brown suffers from serious bouts of cognitive dissonance whenever he regurgitates this nonsense. But, "the show must go on", eh Bill?
I must have missed the part where you refute anything I said in that interview.
-
I must have messed the part where you refute anything I said in that interview.
What purpose would it serve? My statement stands and you know it.
-
What purpose would it serve? My statement stands and you know it.
Well how about you go ahead and give it a shot and then we'll see?
-
Bumping what I feel, in many ways, was a pretty interesting thread.
-
Bumping what I feel, in many ways, was a pretty interesting thread.
Thanks Bill, I've started watching/listening to your video and it's really really good.
I seem to remember you had another video of an explanation of the Tippit murder and walkthrough of the area, if I'm right could you repost it?
JohnM
-
Thanks Bill, I've started watching/listening to your video and it's really really good.
I seem to remember you had another video of an explanation of the Tippit murder and walkthrough of the area, if I'm right could you repost it?
JohnM
Thanks John.
Here you go...
-
No disrespect to Bill Brown, but I’ve got to side with Martin because of the time line problem which is caused by Whaley’s taxi manifest of having picked up the person he thinks was Oswald in the 12:30-12:45 time block.
If Bill is suggesting that it was about 12:44 for Oswald leaving the Mcwatters bus, then it’s highly doubtful that Oswald could ever reach Whaleys taxi by 12:45, even if Oswald double timed jogged the 4 blocks distance from bus to taxi.
This is why it would be advantageous for the LN side if the Mcwatters bus trip narrative could be found to be suspect, and that it could be proved Oswald went straight from the TSBD to Whaleys taxi which would allow Oswald to board the taxi as early as 12:40 ( 7 minutes after exiting TSBD at 12:33) thus preserving Whaleys manifest as accurate.
This in turn allows a fast cabby trip of 7 minutes to drop Oswald 5 blocks from boarding house at approx 12:47.
From there, Oswald could have double timed jogged the 5 blocks in approx 2.5 minutes and thus enter his boarding house by 12:50.
Then leaving 4 minutes later at 12:54, Oswald has the 11-12 minutes to walk (briskly) to 10th& Patton and arrive at 1:06.
Then the shooting at 1:07, and 2 minutes to leave the scene and Benevides trying to radio at 1:09, followed by Bowley making a call at 1:10
Then the ambulance is dispatched at 1:10 takes 2 minutes to arrive at Tippets car, picks up Tippets body (30 sec), returns to hospital
(2 minutes ) unloads body to the emergency room ( 30 sec) where the doctor notes the DOA time as 1:15 pm.
If LNs are insistent that Mcwatters bus pickup of Oswald was a fact , then I see no way to reconcile the timeline as Oswald cannot get to Whaleys taxi by 12:45 per Whaleys manifest, nor would Oswald have entered his boarding house until about 1:00pm and he would exit at 1:04.
Unless there is some unknown element like a bicycle or a skateboard, or Oswald jumped on the back of a pickup truck going by, then he can’t get to 10th and Patton by 1:06 nor even by 1:14.
Also, it’s unlikely that Oswald could have exited TSBD by the front door as early as 12:33 because of the Mrs Reid timeline established by the Belin stopwatch of 2 minutes post shots for Mrs Reid entering the 2nd floor office front door.
Mrs Reid claims to have seen Oswald at that moment as she was entering the office, Oswald coming in the back door( from vestibule connected to the lunchroom), and that Oswald “walked slowly” across the room. If “slow” pace is 3 ft per sec then it would have taken Oswald 30 secs to travel approx 90ft of distance and thus he would not have exited the 2nd floor office front door until 2 min 30 secs post shots.
To compound the problem, Reid did not see any long sleeve shirt or jacket on Oswald, he appeared to her only in a T-shirt, which means Oswald took off his shirt after the meeting with Baker and left the shirt in the lunchroom.
Thus, for Oswald to have to return to the lunchroom to retrieve his brown shirt ( and or jacket) would have Oswald in the lunchroom at 12:33.
Then for Oswald to have met Peirce Allman (reporter) in the front lobby would be approx 12:34 and then it’s unlikely that Oswald went out the front door of TSBD at all, because DPD officer Barnett supposedly locked the front doors not later than 12:33.
So this would require Oswald to exit at probably a theoretically unguarded west side door of the TSBD rear loading dock annex building thus taking another minute to traverse from front lobby which would have Oswald exiting TSBD at about 12:35 pm.