Oswald in the TSBD just after the shooting

[John Iacoletti]

Yes this was AFTER they realized they had a BIG F--ing  problem.....

... but Bookhout's report was written first.

[Walt Cakebread]

... but Bookhout's report was written first.

Really?, .... Bookhout wrote his report before they scribbled the notes?......  Really?

[John Iacoletti]

Really?, .... Bookhout wrote his report before they scribbled the notes?......  Really?

Mr. FRITZ. I can remember the thing that I said to him and what he said to me, but I will have trouble telling you which period of questioning those questions were in because I kept no notes at the time, and these notes and things that I have made I would have to make several days later, and the questions may be in the wrong place.

[Walt Cakebread]

Mr. FRITZ. I can remember the thing that I said to him and what he said to me, but I will have trouble telling you which period of questioning those questions were in because I kept no notes at the time, and these notes and things that I have made I would have to make several days later, and the questions may be in the wrong place.

This is from the Gospel truth Warren Commission....Right?

[John Iacoletti]

This is from the Gospel truth Warren Commission....Right?

...and your fabrication is more credible because...?

[Walt Cakebread]

...and your fabrication is more credible because...?

I can READ the scribbled notes....

[Richard Smith]

So many words and nothing of any real value?..

Do you believe there is reasonable doubt that the person Reid encountered was Oswald or not?  Yes or no.  It's a simple question that I thought you had already answered in the affirmative.

Which only shows just how little you understand. There is no reasonable doubt to conclude that Reid did not see Oswald as he was leaving the building. The possibility that somebody may have told Reid about the lunchroom encounter, only seconds earlier, does not create reasonable doubt by itself. It would merely have explained to Reid where Oswald was coming from and how he came to be where she met him. There is in fact nothing reasonable about assuming that Reid may have lied about who she saw simply because somebody told her about what happened in the lunchroom. The mere fact that Oswald was in the lunchroom and was later seen by a reporter walking out the frontdoor after showing the man where the telephone was makes it nearly impossible to conclude anything else than that Oswald must have passed by the location where Reid said she was when she saw him. Even more so since you are unable to name anybody else who could have been there and also can not explain where Oswald went after the lunchroom encounter.

But, by all means, argue that Reid did not see Oswald pass by, as the consequence of that would automatically be that he didn't leave the building through the front door, withing three minutes after the shooting, which in turn may mean that Buell Frazier was correct when he said that he saw Oswald walking down Houston, coming from the loading dock area, towards Elm street some time after the shooting. That, of course, in turn destroys the entire bus/taxi saga.....

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here.  That after 50 plus years I would need to conclusively identify to your satisfaction the person Reid spoke with (if anyone) to cast doubt on her identification of Oswald?  Is that the standard you apply to witnesses who ID'd Oswald at the Tippit scene?   

Oh boy, you don't even understand that there is a difference between a public street and a closed office building, do you now? Where anybody could have been at 10th/Patton when Tippit was shot, only a few people could have had access to the office space where Reid worked. So, where it is nearly impossible to name an individual on the street, it should be possible to determine who else could have been in that office space if it wasn't Oswald.

Again, it is remarkable that you are quibbling over there being doubt in this instance in which there are grounds for doubt while applying an impossible standard of witness identification in the Tippit situation to create false doubt.

Let's turn this nonsense around, shall we... In this particular instance, you use a non verbatim FBI report about an alleged conversation as sufficient grounds for reasonable doubt, but you completely ignore and dismiss all those other instances where far more compelling evidence than just an internal FBI report would more than justify reasonable doubt. Why is that?

Capt. Contrarian of all people suddenly disputing that there is no reasonable doubt of a witness identification in this case is truly mind blowing!  In this instance there is one witness.  She indicates that she barely knew Oswald, was made aware of his presence on her floor from another source, and then misidentifies the way he was seen dressed by others moments before her encounter.  Do you believe Oswald yanked off his work shirt after leaving the lunchroom but before encountering Reid and then put it back on?  And this reporter who allegedly ID'd Oswald is no more persuasive.  He encountered someone he didn't know and later thought it might have been Oswald.  Big deal.  Not a story you would accept in a million years if it lended itself to Oswald's guilt.  Makes a good story for a reporter.  But in the Tippit situation, there are multiple witnesses who place Oswald at the scene and you nitpick their every word to avoid accepting the obvious conclusion.  Very silly but highlights the bias and hypocrisy of your bizarre analysis.