Then went outside to watch P. parade ( Parts 1 & 2 )

[Martin Weidmann]

I agree that people aren't always 100% correct in what they say but I disagree that i'm reaching too far interpreting Oswald's words as referring to the time of the assassination. The exchange in the video clip goes like this:

Reporter - Did you kill the President?
Oswald - No sir, I didn't. People keep asking me about that.
Reporter - Did you shoot the President?
Oswald - I work in that building
Reporter - Were you in the building at the time?
Oswald - Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir.

The key phrase is 'at the time'. At what time? You really think it's reaching too far to conclude the reporter is referring to the time the President was shot and killed. His previous questions make it abundantly clear he is asking whether Oswald was in the building at the time the President was shot and killed (assassinated). Oswald understands the question and what is meant by it and he answers in the affirmative twice ('Naturally' and yes sir')
I'd say that any other interpretation of this exchange was reaching too far.
Oswald is confirming he was in the building at the time the President was shot and killed.
Do you have an alternative interpretation?

You really think it's reaching too far to conclude the reporter is referring to the time the President was shot and killed.

Yes, I do. "At the time" can just as easily be interpeted as "where you there when the President was shot". Oswald had already said he worked in the building so his subsequent reply relates to that. If you say you work in a building and I ask you if you were there when the President was shot, you would also say something like "Of course, as I work there, I was there" or as Oswald answered; "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir"

To narrow it down to only one explanation when others are also possible is reaching too far.... even more so when this matter can not be resolved beyond speculation and opinion.

I have spent a great deal of my profesional life obtaining information from people and you wouldn't believe just how difficult it sometimes is for people to say exactly what they mean or to keep their story straight or to recall all the details at once.

This was a very short conversation and Oswald had hardly any time to consider the possible ramifications of his answer or even provide a more detailed answer.

[John Tonkovich]

I agree that people aren't always 100% correct in what they say but I disagree that i'm reaching too far interpreting Oswald's words as referring to the time of the assassination. The exchange in the video clip goes like this:

Reporter - Did you kill the President?
Oswald - No sir, I didn't. People keep asking me about that.
Reporter - Did you shoot the President?
Oswald - I work in that building
Reporter - Were you in the building at the time?
Oswald - Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir.

The key phrase is 'at the time'. At what time? You really think it's reaching too far to conclude the reporter is referring to the time the President was shot and killed. His previous questions make it abundantly clear he is asking whether Oswald was in the building at the time the President was shot and killed (assassinated). Oswald understands the question and what is meant by it and he answers in the affirmative twice ('Naturally' and yes sir')
I'd say that any other interpretation of this exchange was reaching too far.
Oswald is confirming he was in the building at the time the President was shot and killed.
Do you have an alternative interpretation?

Mr O'meara:
Oswald is being peppered with questions simultaneously by the large crowd of reporters, which may explain the odd responses.

[Dan O'meara]

You really think it's reaching too far to conclude the reporter is referring to the time the President was shot and killed.

Yes, I do. "At the time" can just as easily be interpeted as "where you there when the President was shot". Oswald had already said he worked in the building so his subsequent reply relates to that. If you say you work in a building and I ask you if you were there when the President was shot, you would also say something like "Of course, as I work there, I was there" or as Oswald answered; "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir"

To narrow it down to only one explanation when others are also possible is reaching too far.... even more so when this matter can not be resolved beyond speculation and opinion.

I have spent a great deal of my profesional life obtaining information from people and you wouldn't believe just how difficult it sometimes is for people to say exactly what they mean or to keep their story straight or to recall all the details at once.

This was a very short conversation and Oswald had hardly any time to consider the possible ramifications of his answer or even provide a more detailed answer.

So this is your alternative explanation!
"At the time" can easily be interpreted as "Around the time"
"Specific" can easily be interpreted as "vague"
Brilliant stuff.
You agree at least that 'the time' being referred to is the assassination, you just think that "At the time of the assassination" is open to interpretation.
I agree. Any phrase can be interpreted any way you want , from common sense to utter nonsense. I think you will agree though, that on the balance of probabilities, the chance the reporter is asking specifically about the time of the assassination to get an idea of where Oswald was when the event itself actually happened, is greater than any other interpretation.

[Dan O'meara]

Mr O'meara:
Oswald is being peppered with questions simultaneously by the large crowd of reporters, which may explain the odd responses.

"Were you in the building at the time?"

"Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir."

What's odd about this?

[Martin Weidmann]

So this is your alternative explanation!
"At the time" can easily be interpreted as "Around the time"
"Specific" can easily be interpreted as "vague"
Brilliant stuff.
You agree at least that 'the time' being referred to is the assassination, you just think that "At the time of the assassination" is open to interpretation.
I agree. Any phrase can be interpreted any way you want , from common sense to utter nonsense. I think you will agree though, that on the balance of probabilities, the chance the reporter is asking specifically about the time of the assassination to get an idea of where Oswald was when the event itself actually happened, is greater than any other interpretation.

So this is your alternative explanation!

No... I gave you no alternative explanation. I merely pointed out that your explanation was flawed.

I think you will agree though, that on the balance of probabilities, the chance the reporter is asking specifically about the time of the assassination to get an idea of where Oswald was when the event itself actually happened, is greater than any other interpretation.

I agree that that's what the reporter likely intended, but that isn't the issue... It's how Oswald understood the question.

As Oswald had already denied killing Kennedy, one can argue that he doesn't even know when exactly the President was killed and where exactly he was, so he goes with; "Yes I work in the building, so I was there"....

It's easy enough to understand. One of the biggest problems is that people place way too much value on the word choice of a witness, be it in testimony, in affidavit or in interviews.

There is a reason why lawyers always tell their clients (even the innocent ones) not to say anything to the police. The reason is, that once a statement is taken down it starts a life of it's own and very often what is said will be used against you later simply because you didn't say it completely or 100% accurate. In many case, when the police take a statement, you tell an officer what happened, that officer takes from that what he thinks he needs for a statement of possibly one or two A4 sheets, which he then puts in front of you to sign. Once you've signed it, you're stuck with it.

[Dan O'meara]

So this is your alternative explanation!

No... I gave you no alternative explanation. I merely pointed out that your explanation was flawed.

I think you will agree though, that on the balance of probabilities, the chance the reporter is asking specifically about the time of the assassination to get an idea of where Oswald was when the event itself actually happened, is greater than any other interpretation.

I agree that that's what the reporter likely intended, but that isn't the issue... It's how Oswald understood the question.

As Oswald had already denied killing Kennedy, one can argue that he doesn't even know when exactly the President was killed and where exactly he was, so he goes with; "Yes I work in the building, so I was there"....

It's easy enough to understand. One of the biggest problems is that people place way too much value on the word choice of a witness, be it in testimony, in affidavit or in interviews.

There is a reason why lawyers always tell their clients (even the innocent ones) not to say anything to the police. The reason is, that once a statement is taken down it starts a life on it's own and very often what is said will be used against you later simply because you didn't say it completely or 100% accurate. In many case, when the police take a statement, you tell an officer what happened, that officer takes from that what he thinks he needs for a statement of possibly one or two A4 sheets, which he then puts in front of you to sign. Once you've signed it, you're stuck with it.

But isn't it reasonable to assume that by confirming he was in the building when the assassination occurred he knew exactly when it had occurred! And knew he was in the building when it happened.

[Alan Ford]

The problem with lying is remembering the other lies. Surprising he would place himself above the 2nd floor.

Never even heard the shooting. The rifle would have been right by his ear, you would think he would have heard it.


https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

9:30 - 11:15 A.M., SUNDAY MORNING, NOV. 24,1963   Interrogation in Capt. Will Fritz's Office

          "After the assassination, a policeman or some man came rushing into the School Book Depository Building and said, `Where is your telephone?' He showed me some kind of credential and identified himself, so he might not have been a police officer. . . . `Right there,' I answered, pointing to the phone. . . . `Yes, I can eat lunch with you,' I told my co-worker, `but I can't go right now. You go and take the elevator, but send the elevator back up.' [The elevator in the building was broken.] . . . After all this commotion started, I just went downstairs and started to see what it was all about. A police officer and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told officers that I am one of the employees in the building. . . . If you ask me about the shooting of Tippit, I don't know what you are talking about. . . . The only thing I am here for is because I popped a policeman in the nose in the theater on Jefferson Avenue, which I readily admit I did, because I was protecting myself. . . . I learned about the job vacancy at the Texas School Book Depository from people in Mrs. Paine's neighborhood. . . . I visited my wife Thursday night, Nov. 21, whereas I normally visited her over the weekend, because Mrs. Paine was giving a party for the children on the weekend. They were having a houseful of neighborhood children. I didn't want to be around at such a time. . . . Therefore, my weekly visit was on Thursday night instead of on the weekend. . . . It didn't cost much to go to Mexico. It cost me some $26, a small, ridiculous amount to eat, and another ridiculous small amount to stay all night. . . . I went to the Mexican Embassy to try to get this permission to go to Russia by way of Cuba. . . . I went to the Mexican Consulate in Mexico City. I went to the Russian Embassy to go to Russia by way of Cuba. They told me to come back in `thirty days.' . . . I don't recall the shape, it may have been a small sack, or a large sack; you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches. . . . The sack was in the car, beside me, on my lap, as it always is. . . . I didn't get it crushed. It was not on the back seat. Mr. Frazier must have been mistaken or else thinking about the other time when he picked me up. . . . The Fair Play for Cuba Committee was a loosely organized thing and we had no officers. Probably you can call me the secretary of it because I did collect money. [Oswald was the only member in New Orleans.] . . . In New York City they have a well-organized, or a better, organization. . . . No, not at all: I didn't intend to organize here in Dallas; I was too busy trying to get a job. . . . If anyone else was entitled to get mail in P.O. Box 6525 at the Terminal Annex in New Orleans, the answer is no. . . . The rental application said Fair Play for Cuba Committee and the American Civil Liberties Union. Maybe I put them on there. . . . It is possible that on rare occasions I may have handed one of the keys to my wife to get my mail, but certainly nobody else. . . . I never ordered a rifle under the name of Hidell, Oswald, or any other name. . . . I never permitted anyone else to order a rifle to be received in this box. . . . I never ordered any rifle by mail order or bought any money order for the purpose of paying for such a rifle. . . . I didn't own any rifle. I have not practiced or shot with a rifle. . . . I subscribe to two publications from Russia, one being a hometown paper published in Minsk, where I met and married my wife. . . . We moved around so much that it was more practical to simply rent post office boxes and have mail forwarded from one box to the next rather than going through the process of furnishing changes of address to the publishers. . . . Marina Oswald and A. J. Hidell were listed under the caption of persons entitled to receive mail through my box in New Orleans. . . . I don't recall anything about the A. J. Hidell being on the post office card. . . . I presume you have reference to a map I had in my room with some X's on it. I have no automobile. I have no means of conveyance. I have to walk from where I am going most of the time. I had my applications with the Texas Employment Commission. They furnished me names and addresses of places that had openings like I might fill, and neighborhood people had furnished me information on jobs I might get. . . . I was seeking a job, and I would put these markings on this map so I could plan my itinerary around with less walking. Each one of these X's represented a place where I went and interviewed for a job. . . . You can check each one of them out if you want to. . . . The X on the intersection of Elm and Houston is the location of the Texas School Book Depository. I did go there and interview for a job. In fact, I got the job there. That is all the map amounts to. [Ruth Paine later stated she had marked Lee's map.] . . . What religion am I? I have no faith, I suppose you mean, in the Bible. I have read the Bible. It is fair reading, but not very interesting. As a matter of fact, I am a student of philosophy and I don't consider the Bible as even a reasonable or intelligent philosophy. I don't think of it. . . . I told you I haven't shot a rifle since the Marines, possibly a small bore, maybe a .22, but not anything larger since I have left the Marine Corps. . . . I never received a package sent to me through the mailbox in Dallas, Box No. 2915, under the name of Alek Hidell, absolutely not. . . . Maybe my wife, but I couldn't say for sure whether my wife ever got this mail, but it is possible she could have." Oswald was told that an attorney offered to assist him, and he answered, "I don't particularly want him, but I will take him if I can't do any better, and will contact him at a later date. . . . I have been a student of Marxism since the age of 14. . . . American people will soon forget the President was shot, but I didn't shoot him. . . . Since the President was killed, someone else would take his place, perhaps Vice-President Johnson. His views about Cuba would probably be largely the same as those of President Kennedy. . . . I never lived on Neely Street. These people are mistaken about visiting there, because I never lived there. . . . It might not be proper to answer further questions, because what I say might be construed in a different light than what I actually meant it to be. . . . When the head of any government dies, or is killed, there is always a second in command who would take over. . . . I did not kill President Kennedy or Officer Tippit. If you want me to cop out to hitting or pleading guilty to hitting a cop in the mouth when I was arrested, yeah, I plead guilty to that. But I do deny shooting both the President and Tippit."

 

That's not an actual source, Mr Nessan---------do your homework before spouting nonsense claims!

[Alan Ford]

Nope. Oswald told Fritz he went outside to watch the parade.

Yes, and Captain Fritz pretended he hadn't said anything of the sort.

You're not very good at this, are you, Mr Chapman?