Name a witness that supports Arnold or Oswald's statements of where Oswald had lunch. I've read the statements by Captain Will Fritz and he stated that when asked "Oswald said he had lunch on the first floor".
"What if they were asked instead if it was possible that Oswald saw them "walking through the room" on the first floor just prior to the shooting?"
Seriously? What if they were asked "could Oswald have been in the toilet when they came through?" what if they were asked "could Carolyn Arnold have been on the first floor when they walked through?" what if they were asked "Could Micky Mantle have been in the room when they walked through?" You can attempt to twist and spin it however you like Martin, I stand by my question "name any witness that can support Oswald's and Arnold's statements concerning where Oswald was during lunch." Have you read the documents concerning Oswald's interrogation and studied the films of the man while in custody? If he was being framed and a "patsy" as he claimed, he sure didn't act like it. I would have been screaming my head off every chance I got for a lawyer and telling Captain Fritz I was innocent. Oswald did not do that Martin. On the contrary he was confrontational the whole time. He told lie after lie.
Name a witness that supports Arnold or Oswald's statements of where Oswald had lunch.Asking for information which you know does not exist, or at least is not included in the official narative, does not make your case any stronger. In fact, trying to shift the burden of proof only weakens your own arguments.
I've read the statements by Captain Will Fritz and he stated that when asked "Oswald said he had lunch on the first floor". The problem is, that what Fritz says isn't always supported by what others who were present said in their reports. But in this case, if Oswald said he had his lunch on the first floor (in the Domino room) what do you think that proves?
On the one hand it only makes it more possible that he did indeed see Norman and Jarman enter the building, minutes before the shots being fired and on the other hand it does not rule out at all that, after he finished his lunch, Oswald went up to the 2nd floor lunchroom to get a drink. So, what is your point?
Remember, the man in the 6th floor window was first seen some 15 minutes prior to the shooting. The problem for you is that we know for a fact that Norman and Jarman entered the shipping room of the building anywhere between 12.20 and 12.25. If Oswald did in fact see them and/or if Carolyn Arnold did see Oswald some time between 12.20 (when Sanders said she was in the 2nd floor lunchroom) and 12.25 (when Arnold said she left the building to watch to motorcade) you've got Oswald on either the first or second floor at a time when the man seen in the 6th floor window was already in position!
Seriously? What if they were asked "could Oswald have been in the toilet when they came through?" what if they were asked "could Carolyn Arnold have been on the first floor when they walked through?"Trying to ridicule a serious point is a weak strategy. The point I was making, which apparently went over your head, is that the quality of the answer by a witness is determined by the quality of the question asked. Ask the wrong question and you get a wrong answer. Failure to question Norman and Jarman more closely on this subject tells me that Fritz et all were not really interested in finding out anything that might support Oswald's claim.
You can attempt to twist and spin it however you like Martin, I stand by my question "name any witness that can support Oswald's and Arnold's statements concerning where Oswald was during lunch." Name one person who can support Brennan's claim that it was Oswald who was shooting from the 6th floor window?
Name one person who can support Bledsoe's claim that Oswald was wearing the same shirt on the bus as he was arrested in?
Name one person who can support Roberts' claim that Oswald left the roominghouse zipping up a jacket?
See, how easy it is to ask such questions?
You seem to think (as many LNs do) that your position is correct unless you can be proven wrong. It doesn't work that way. There is no "winning by default". You need to prove your case... try and concentrate on that!
Have you read the documents concerning Oswald's interrogation and studied the films of the man while in custody? Yes, I have read the reports and they contradict eachother too often to be considered accurate or sufficiently reliable. As for the fims of Oswald in custody, I don't really see what's there to study...
If he was being framed and a "patsy" as he claimed, he sure didn't act like it. Really? How was he supposed to act?
I would have been screaming my head off every chance I got for a lawyer and telling Captain Fritz I was innocent.
You are not Oswald. Not everybody reacts and acts in the same way. Just because you would do something one way, doesn't mean that everybody else has to do it that way. Your argument is bogus. Besides, Oswald protested his innocence and he did ask for a lawyer several times.
Oswald did not do that Martin. On the contrary he was confrontational the whole time.How in the world would you even know this for a fact? And what does that mean to you? Oswald did something different than you would do and thus he must be guilty, is that it? That's right out of the Salem playbook.
He told lie after lie. We have already established that there is no verbatim account of what Oswald really said while in custody, yet you continue to claim he lied.... based on what, exactly?
