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.
As per usual, Richard can not answer any of the questions I asked. How typical!
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. So now, suddenly, it's somehow a fact that she was made aware of his presence on that floor by somebody else, which caused he to make up a story, and that she misidentified the man or at least the way he was dressed? So much BS from the same guy who sees no reasonable doubt when Earlene Roberts, not only also only one witness, but one who was known for making up stories, claims Oswald put on a jacket as he left the roominghouse, when she said she was paying more attention to the television (and thus must have had her back turned to him as he walked through the room) and only saw Oswald for a second or so.
The double standard is mindboggling!
Do you believe Oswald yanked off his work shirt after leaving the lunchroom but before encountering Reid and then put it back on? That's what this is really about, isn't it? You can't explain Reid seeing a white T shirt and so she must be wrong or lying. It's merely a way for you to dismiss inconvenient evidence. Never mind that you can not identify anybody else who could have been there and you also can't explain how Oswald could have left the building, within 3 minutes after the shooting, through the front door, as the WC claimed, if he had not walked through the office space where Reid said she was.
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. I agree, he could have misidentified Oswald. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the WC claimed that Oswald left the building through the front door within 3 minutes. If Reid and the reporter did in fact see somebody else, then where did Oswald go after the lunchroom encounter? Or was there even a lunchroom encounter at all? Didn't Baker first claim he had seen somebody on the 3rd floor?
Richard seems to be on a quest to singlehandedly destroy the WC narrative.... Brilliant!
Not a story you would accept in a million years if it lended itself to Oswald's guilt. I am not interested in Oswald's guilt or innocence. The man is dead. My only interest is to find out what really happened. But it seems there is just no pleasing you. I see no reason not to believe Reid's account and get attacked for it by a die hard LN who in truth needs that encounter to make a quick departure by Oswald from the building through the front door (which you always claim demonstrates consciousness of guilt) plausible, unless of course you can give me another route he could have taken to walk out of the frontdoor within roughly one minute after the lunchroom encounter.
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. The first thing you fail to understand is that it is highly unusual that so many witnesses make the same identification. If a line up only produces positive identifications there is either something strange going on with either the witnesses or the line up itself. Having been a witness to a crime myself I know from first hand experience how difficult it is to positively identify an individual who you have only seen a few seconds running by! Despite the fact that they all gave different descriptions of the man they saw (which is what one expects from witnesses) they all nevertheless identify the same man..... Yeah right.
Very silly but highlights the bias and hypocrisy of your bizarre analysis. The only bias I have is against the kind of dishonesty you display here on a daily basis.
