And when exactly did I say that? From what I remember there were several contradictory statements to Tippit murder too so the same rule applies to that.
How about the fact that Oswald's jacket (verified by Marina that it was his) was found dumped nearby? The fact that Johnny Brewer saw Oswald duck into his shop when a police car went by, thought he looked suspicious so followed him to the Texas Theatre and the fact that Oswald then pulled out a revolver and fired at a cop when they came into the theatre to question him?
For a completely innocent man who had definitely not shot the President or Tippit, do you not find that peculiar behaviour?.
Well, yeah that and the fact that OSWALD'S RIFLE was found hidden on the 6th floor too. Not to mention that out of the entire staff of TSBD Oswald was the only one who legged it from the building and was missing from a later head count. That he had broken his usual visiting routine by going to visit Marina the night before to allegedly pick up some "curtain rods" which he took to work with him. Also, do you not find it a bit of a coincidence that he took off his wedding ring for the first time and left it on Marina's dresser that morning?
I'd say those 6 points alone (which are the first few that comes to mind) are a fair indication of Oswald's guilt and certainly more viable than a handful of 200+ different eyewitness statements claiming otherwise.
Incidentally, whatever happened to the curtain rods in the paper bag that Oswald took into work with him that morning?
I can kind of understand how people might believe there was a second shooter or that he was part of a larger group, but with such a ridiculous amount of both hard and circumstantial evidence against Oswald, I really don't get how some people can believe he was totally innocent and had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination.
I think I read that there has been something like 80+ assassins, 40+ groups or organisations and two to three hundred people accused of being responsible or involved in the assassination over the the years and yet not one of those have produced real credible or reliable evidence. Where as Oswald, this poor innocent man, has so many points against him.
And when exactly did I say that? From what I remember there were several contradictory statements to Tippit murder too so the same rule applies to that.So we agree on that.
How about the fact that Oswald's jacket (verified by Marina that it was his) was found dumped nearby?Let's examine that claim a little bit closer, shall we? Yes, Marina identified the gray jacket now in evidence as belonging to Oswald, but is that really the jacket that was found under a parked car? A few things to consider there; first of all, nobody knows who actually found the jacket under the car. Captain Westbrook was directed to the jacket by the officer who allegedly found it, but in his testimony he could not say who that officer was. Secondly, when the discovery of the jacket was called in, it was described as a white jacket. One can argue that there may have been shade which made the jacket look different in color, but there is a photograph of an officer holding the jacket in plain sunlight at the carpark, which makes it bit difficult to believe that they couldn't see the difference between gray and white. Thirdly, Westbrook testified that he went on to the Texas Theater and gave the jacket to an uniformed officer, but again he could not say who that officer was. And then of course, there is no record at all of how the jacket from the carpark got to the police station and how Westbrook got it back to place it in the evidence room some two hours later. What we do know is that the initials seen on the jacket now in evidence were put on that jacket at the police station, which of course calls into question the chain of custody.
And there is more. Marina said that Oswald had two jackets. One dark and another gray. The dark jacket was later found at the TSBD. However, Frazier, testified that when he drove Oswald to Irving on Thursday he was wearing a gray jacket. Granted, his description of the jacket was not perfect, but as we know from Marina that Oswald only had one gray jacket, one has to wonder how it can be that Oswald left the roominghouse in Oak Cliff on Friday afternoon wearing his gray jacket, when he wore that same gray jacket to Irving on Thursday and was wearing his dark jacket to the TSBD on Friday morning.
So, how can you be sure that the jacket now in evidence is in fact the one they found at the carpark?
Oswald then pulled out a revolver and fired at a cop when they came into the theatre to question him? Oswald did not fire at anybody inside the Texas Theater.
For a completely innocent man who had definitely not shot the President or Tippit, do you not find that peculiar behaviour?. Since when makes "peculiar behaviour" somebody a killer? I've met quite a few people in my life who acted peculiar but none of them (as far as I know) killed anybody.
Well, yeah that and the fact that OSWALD'S RIFLE was found hidden on the 6th floor too.What makes you say it was Oswald's rifle?
Not to mention that out of the entire staff of TSBD Oswald was the only one who legged it from the building and was missing from a later head count. That's not true. Others were missing also.
That he had broken his usual visiting routine by going to visit Marina the night before to allegedly pick up some "curtain rods" which he took to work with him.And what routine was that exactly? If I recall correctly he only went to Irving with Frazier a couple of times and had in fact not gone the previous weekend, because Marina was upset with him. Both Marina and Ruth Paine testified that they believed that Oswald had come to Irving on Thursday to make up with Marina. If that was the case, do you really think he's going to tell a 19 year old Frazier that? Far easier to tell a little white lie... if that is what happened.
Also, do you not find it a bit of a coincidence that he took off his wedding ring for the first time and left it on Marina's dresser that morning? Nope, first of all, you do not know if it was the first time he took his wedding ring off. And secondly, if he went to Irving to make up with Marina and to persuade her to start living together again, which she did not want, he may well have thought that his marriage was over.
I'd say those 6 points alone (which are the first few that comes to mind) are a fair indication of Oswald's guiltNo. There is way too much conjecture and speculation in those points to be a fair indication of anything. It is however telling that some of these arguments are actually needed to make a highly circumstantial case against Oswald. It only shows just how weak the case actually is.
Incidentally, whatever happened to the curtain rods in the paper bag that Oswald took into work with him that morning?I don't know and neither does anybody else. There is no record of the TSBD having been searched for curtain rods, and even if Oswald did in fact bring curtain rods, he would have had the entire morning to dispose of them. Fact is that we do not know for sure what was in the paper bag, nor do we know what happened to the content or the bag itself for that matter. On Friday evening, Frazier was given a polygraph test. He was shown the paper bag the DPD had found on the 6th floor and he denied it was the bag he had seen Oswald carry. This is day 1 information which is often simply ignored!
I can kind of understand how people might believe there was a second shooter or that he was part of a larger group, but with such a ridiculous amount of both hard and circumstantial evidence against Oswald, I really don't get how some people can believe he was totally innocent and had nothing whatsoever to do with the assassination. I find it highly unlikely that a completely innocent and not somehow involved man could be framed in such an elaborate way, making it likely that Oswald was involved in some way.
I think I read that there has been something like 80+ assassins, 40+ groups or organisations and two to three hundred people accused of being responsible or involved in the assassination over the the years and yet not one of those have produced real credible or reliable evidence. I do think that it is likely there was indeed a plot against Kennedy, but there is way too much speculation about who would have been involved and how it was done. Too many people have too many pet theories and it seems to me that's possibly exactly what the plotters wanted. Create so much contradictory evidence to keep everybody guessing for decades to come. The simple truth of the matter is that, if there was indeed a plot, most, if not all, of those involved have likely died by now and the chance that somebody has left a written record behind is IMO remote. And so, we keep on discussing and guessing.
