Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Oswald's Light-Colored Jacket  (Read 73818 times)

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3362
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #480 on: February 09, 2018, 09:22:00 PM »

Martin has harped on this being only a "circumstantial" evidence case apparently misunderstanding that this term doesn't mean weak.  He now informs us that direct evidence can't be trusted either.  That really narrows things down!  We are finally getting to the center of the lollipop, though.  At its heart what John and Martin are contending is that nothing can ever be proven if they don't like the implications.  The case against Oswald is the collective product of lies, fakery, unfairness, coincidence, police incompetence, chance, being unlucky, but never Oswald's guilt.


This might come as a shock to you, Richie, but if you had paid attention you would have noticed that I have never written one post in which I advocated Oswald's innocence or guilt. I don't really care about Oswald one way or the other. I'm here for the case against him....

Martin has harped on this being only a "circumstantial" evidence case apparently misunderstanding that this term doesn't mean weak.

Apparently? Are you a mind reader now?

He now informs us that direct evidence can't be trusted either. 

No I didn't. Stop making up things.

At its heart what John and Martin are contending is that nothing can ever be proven if they don't like the implications.

Oh boy, now he's a serial mind reader ... where will it end?

The case against Oswald is the collective product of lies, fakery, unfairness, coincidence, police incompetence, chance, being unlucky, but never Oswald's guilt.


Stop whining and show us some evidence that will stand up under scrutiny
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 09:24:42 PM by Martin Weidmann »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8596
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #481 on: February 09, 2018, 09:40:22 PM »
Stop whining and show us some evidence that will stand up under scrutiny

Richard is a one trick pony.  Strawmen and insults.

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #482 on: February 09, 2018, 09:53:15 PM »
This might come as a shock to you, Richie, but if you had paid attention you would have noticed that I have never written one post in which I advocated Oswald's innocence or guilt. I don't really care about Oswald one way or the other. I'm here for the case against him....


I'm waiting for the lightning to strike.  Let me get this one straight.  You don't "really care about Oswald one way or the other."  And have never advocated his guilt or innocence?  LOL.  You are just here night and day taking exception to every post that suggests he is guilty.  When given the choice between an obvious, common sense interpretation of the evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt and a wildly improbable, baseless and often laughable one that might create doubt, you go with the latter in every instance.  You are self-delusional if you believe that.  What you are is a closet CTer.  The worst kind.  Too afraid to have the courage of your convictions because you understand the inherent weakness of your case.  Thus, the lazy contrarian mentality that you don't have to prove anything.

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8596
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #483 on: February 09, 2018, 09:59:47 PM »
And when Richard says "obvious, common sense interpretation", he means his unsupported opinion.

Offline Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1011
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #484 on: February 09, 2018, 10:00:27 PM »
Yes, because somebody sitting in a theater box a few feet away from a person who has just been shot is exactly the same as someone a block or two away a few minutes later who didn't see anything happen.

And you call me nutty...

So it is possible to witness a crime without seeing someone pull the trigger?  And this analysis depends somehow on how far away the witness is?  Who ID'd Oswald as the Tippit shooter by seeing him a few minutes later?

Offline Bill Chapman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3548
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #485 on: February 09, 2018, 10:00:45 PM »
Yes, because somebody sitting in a theater box a few feet away from a person who has just been shot is exactly the same as someone a block or two away a few minutes later who didn't see anything happen.

And you call me nutty...

A citizen hears gunshots in the neighbourhood and a few moments later a 'random guy' walks by carrying a handgun. The citizen later identifies this particular 'random guy' as Oswald. Tell us where that would not help in the case against Oswald.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 10:30:49 PM by Bill Chapman »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8596
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #486 on: February 09, 2018, 10:06:44 PM »
So it is possible to witness a crime without seeing someone pull the trigger?  And this analysis depends somehow on how far away the witness is?  Who ID'd Oswald as the Tippit shooter by seeing him a few minutes later?

Well, apparently Bill Brown thinks that Ted Callaway did.

Online Martin Weidmann

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3362
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #487 on: February 09, 2018, 10:20:50 PM »

I'm waiting for the lightning to strike.  Let me get this one straight.  You don't "really care about Oswald one way or the other."  And have never advocated his guilt or innocence?  LOL.  You are just here night and day taking exception to every post that suggests he is guilty.  When given the choice between an obvious, common sense interpretation of the evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt and a wildly improbable, baseless and often laughable one that might create doubt, you go with the latter in every instance.  You are self-delusional if you believe that.  What you are is a closet CTer.  The worst kind.  Too afraid to have the courage of your convictions because you understand the inherent weakness of your case.  Thus, the lazy contrarian mentality that you don't have to prove anything.


the inherent weakness of your case

I have no case, fool.... That only exists in your paranoid mind

And you call me delusional? Go figure...

Here's a deal for you; show me a solid piece of evidence that holds up under scrutiny and I will agree that it points to Oswald's guilt.

Would that make you happy?
« Last Edit: February 09, 2018, 11:47:13 PM by Martin Weidmann »

Offline Bill Brown

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1059
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #488 on: February 09, 2018, 11:11:31 PM »
So it is possible to witness a crime without seeing someone pull the trigger?  And this analysis depends somehow on how far away the witness is?  Who ID'd Oswald as the Tippit shooter by seeing him a few minutes later?

Well, apparently Bill Brown thinks that Ted Callaway did.

First of all, Callaway saw Oswald run by with a gun in his hands and wearing an Eisenhower-type jacket moments after the shooting, not minutes.

Anyway, Markham saw Oswald shoot Tippit.  Scoggins saw the same man that Markham saw.  Scoggins saw this man run from Tippit's patrol car towards Patton, cut across the Davis lawn and head down Patton towards Jefferson.  Both Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis saw the same man that Scoggins saw.  The Davis sisters saw this man cut across their lawn and turn the corner onto Patton.  Callaway saw the same man coming from Tenth, cutting through the Davis yard towards Scoggins hiding beside his cab, running down Patton with a gun in his hands.

When pieced together, Callaway saw Tippit's killer.

One does not have to see the killing to see the killer.

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8596
Re: Oswald's Jacket
« Reply #489 on: February 09, 2018, 11:48:45 PM »
First of all, Callaway saw Oswald run by with a gun in his hands and wearing an Eisenhower-type jacket moments after the shooting, not minutes.

Oh brother.  How many "moments" are in a minute?  When did Callaway ever say "moments" anyway?

Quote
Anyway, Markham saw Oswald shoot Tippit.  Scoggins saw the same man that Markham saw.  Scoggins saw this man run from Tippit's patrol car towards Patton, cut across the Davis lawn and head down Patton towards Jefferson.  Both Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis saw the same man that Scoggins saw.  The Davis sisters saw this man cut across their lawn and turn the corner onto Patton.  Callaway saw the same man coming from Tenth, cutting through the Davis yard towards Scoggins hiding beside his cab, running down Patton with a gun in his hands.

Correction:

Markham saw a man shoot Tippit who she identified as Oswald in an unfair lineup.
Scoggins saw a man going south on Patton who he identified as Oswald in an unfair lineup.
The Davis sisters-in-law saw a man going across their lawn who they identified as Oswald in an unfair lineup.
Callaway saw a man running south on Patton who he identified as Oswald in an unfair lineup.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they all saw Oswald or that they even saw the same man.

 

Mobile View