Yeah, your "answer" was that the examination was "Johnson said so".
Nope. I'm saying you're quibbling over the language in the report. The evidence cited is Johnson's testimony, which wasn't an examination. I freely admitted that. I did point out the evidence before us is Johnson's testimony and the document itself, which is the business record of the Johnson's boarding house. Both those items would be admissible in a court case. Your opinions would not.
I'm claiming no such thing.
You wrote the above in response to my post that "Here, you're claiming the Commission should have ignored the evidence and reached a conclusion contrary to the evidence they had before them, as you ignore the evidence and reach a contrary conclusion below."
And you absolutely did claim that, because you claimed: " I'm surmising that this is not a "register" and Oswald didn't write O.H. Lee on it.... I'm also surmising that the the Warren Commission falsely claimed that "further examination" was done."
So if you're NOT claiming the Warren Commission should have ignored the evidence before it and concluded otherwise, are you saying the Commission reached the correct conclusion?
Or is there some middle ground? Or are you arguing that the Commission should have investigated this further?
Isn't it a given that the current state of the evidence is never enough to satisfy a conspiracy theorist? So the Warren Commission didn't investigate sufficiently, the HSCA didn't investigate sufficiently, the Justice Department didn't investigate sufficiently, NARA didn't investigate sufficiently... no matter what, CTs always need more evidence to reach a reasonable conclusion.
You are basing a conclusion (namely that Oswald intentionally used a fake name at the Beckley house) based solely on Johnson's claim that he filled out this "register" in that name.
Because that's the evidence before us. And the document. And the fact that she had no known reason to lie about this. And the fact we know Oswald was living there, but he was NOT living there under his own name. We know all this from the available evidence. Like the testimony of the housekeeper, who recognized Oswald as a boarder she knew as O.H.Lee when he showed up on 11/22/63 at the rooming house, from the testimony of Mrs. Johnson, who testified Oswald signed the ledger O.H.Lee, and from the testimony of Mrs. Paine and Mrs. Oswald who testified when they tried to reach Oswald at the rooming house by the number he left in Ruth's phone book, he couldn't be reach and was told there was no Mr. Oswald at that location.
Oswald's interrogators claim that Oswald said she misunderstood him when he gave he his name. That's evidence too.
No, that's hearsay. And don't some CTs - perhaps yourself included - allege the interrogators who wrote those reports were part of the cover-up or conspiracy? For example, Harry Holmes is alleged to have forged the money order by some, so we can disregard anything Holmes wrote. So either the interrogators had no reason to lie and we accept the documents they wrote after the fact as accurate as possible, or we disregard everything they wrote because they are part of of the conspiracy. But you can't have it both ways, and too often CTs want to have it both ways -- draw conclusions from the evidence as it exists but then discard the evidence as a falsification. So we have some CTs arguing the Z-film shows the Governor and the President were hit too close together to be separate shots (hence two shooters) but some CTs also arguing the Z-film has been altered.
No, that won't fly. There is no evidence -- even "Johnson said so" evidence -- that each renter had a separate page like this.
Again, it's my conjecture -- a conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information -- based on the available evidence. Nothing more, nothing less. The one page submitted into evidence does NOT show any other boarder's room number or name. It shows only the O.H.Lee name and room 0. Therefore, the other boarders must have had other pages, and perhaps a separate page for each. That's the easiest way to organize it, I would think. If you can think of a better way, I'd love to hear it. By keeping each lodger's payments separated as I suggest, you also maintain the privacy of each lodger, and prevent one lodger from seeing that one renter is in arrears or is paying less for his room. But again, there is no need for a business to document its entire set of business records when they provide the testimony and the document(s) in question concerning the one person under investigation.
Why don't you tell us why my reasonable conjecture based on the available evidence is an issue for you? Or even worth discussing? Why is how the Johnson's maintained their business records something you need to determine or even discuss? Better yet, why don't you tell us how you reached the conclusion it was "..a list of payments thrown together after the fact in one sitting." That's your stated conclusion - based on what evidence?
Remember we got here because of this exchange:
You: "
To me it doesn't look like a "register" at all, but a list of payments thrown together after the fact in one sitting."
Me: "Nobody cares what it looks like to you. It might be one page from a notebook - it looks like each boarder had a page. Oswald certainly had his own. Business records are acceptable as evidence. And this was the rooming house's business record. It wasn't a big business, it was one home with multiple rooms being rented by the week. That home was in the Johnson for over 50 years since the assassination. You don't get to tell the Johnsons how they should maintain their business records."
You: "Really? Let's see the other ones."
Me: "I am surmising [should be 'conjecturing'] there is one page per lodger from the evidence on that "O.H.Lee" page - it has Oswald's payments listed by week and "Room 0" at the top. Since there are no other entries for other lodgers on that sheet, it stands to reason that the Johnsons tracked the lodgers by room and by lodger and most likely one room/lodger per page. Oswald was in room 0 and had a page to himself. I trust I didn't lose you along the way with that reasoning (but while I can explain it to you, I can't understand it for you. You have to do that on your own (and while not doing an imitation of a drowning man, either)."
Besides, is this supposed "alias" supposed to have any bearing on who killed Kennedy?
It does not establish Oswald's guilt nor his innocence. I already said that.
Hank
