Rolling Readers & Murdered Leaders

[Martin Weidmann]

@ Newbies: The sniper's nest boxes were photographed in the position they were found before removing them for fingerprinting.
According to my information, Box 'A' the smaller of the stack of two, had a palm print and a fingerprint identified as Oswald's.



The boxes were then examined for prints and returned to the sniper's nest, placed
randomly near the window. That random placement caused certain CT brainiacs to
wet their panties and claim these random placements as the actual placement positions
during the shooting.

The sniper's nest boxes were photographed in the position they were found before removing them for fingerprinting.

So, you are basically saying that nobody messed with the crime scene before that photo was taken... Yeah right, so why is the infamous paper bag not in the picture?

[Bill Chapman]

The sniper's nest boxes were photographed in the position they were found before removing them for fingerprinting.

So, you are basically saying that nobody messed with the crime scene before that photo was taken... Yeah right, so why is the infamous paper bag not in the picture?

So, you're changing the subject rather than explaining your 'silly and irrelevant' charge about Oswald's fingerprints found on boxes in the sniper's nest. Typical CT 'whataboutism'.

One more time: Are you still claiming that my point about Oswald's fingerprints found on the box in a placement that would position the box in a specific direction (thus suggesting a rifle support built for a downrange firing position) somehow silly and irrelevant?
 

[Charles Collins]

Exactly. Which makes Bill Chapman's claim;

kind of silly and irrelevant

Are you just trying to ignore the officers? verbal description of the scene, and Alyea?s film of the area prior to its being disrupted by the police looking for fingerprints?

[Martin Weidmann]

So, you're changing the subject rather than explaining your 'silly and irrelevant' charge about Oswald's fingerprints found on boxes in the sniper's nest. Typical CT 'whataboutism'.

One more time: Are you still claiming that my point about Oswald's fingerprints found on the box in a placement that would position the box in a specific direction (thus suggesting a rifle support built for a downrange firing position) somehow silly and irrelevant?

So, you're changing the subject rather than explaining your 'silly and irrelevant' charge about Oswald's fingerprints found on boxes in the sniper's nest. Typical CT 'whataboutism'.

Evasive! You brought up the photograph and basically claimed or at least implied it was taken before anybody had messed with the sniper's nest. If that was true then the paper bag should be in the photo and it isn't. My question is a valid one and you seem to lack an answer

One more time: Are you still claiming that my point about Oswald's fingerprints found on the box in a placement that would position the box in a specific direction (thus suggesting a rifle support built for a downrange firing position) somehow silly and irrelevant?


Yes, because you have no way of knowing how the boxes were really placed. Instead you rely on a photograph with questionable validity.

[Martin Weidmann]

Are you just trying to ignore the officers? verbal description of the scene, and Alyea?s film of the area prior to its being disrupted by the police looking for fingerprints?

Are you just trying to ignore the officers? verbal description of the scene,

No need, the officers' descriptions of the scene differ sufficiently to be uncertain about what the scene really was.


and Alyea?s film of the area prior to its being disrupted by the police looking for fingerprints?

If I recall correctly, Alyea's film of the area also does not show the paper bag in situ, nor it's removal from the sniper's nest, which either indicates that the bag wasn't there to begin with or it was already removed by somebody.

[Charles Collins]

Are you just trying to ignore the officers? verbal description of the scene,

No need, the officers' descriptions of the scene differ sufficiently to be uncertain about what the scene really was.


and Alyea?s film of the area prior to its being disrupted by the police looking for fingerprints?

If I recall correctly, Alyea's film of the area also does not show the paper bag in situ, nor it's removal from the sniper's nest, which either indicates that the bag wasn't there to begin with or it was already removed by somebody.

Or perhaps, just maybe, the film was taken from such an angle that the area where the bag was found was blocked by other boxes or even out the frame of view.

[Richard Smith]

If the ONLY evidence found was Oswald's prints on the boxes, then it might alone not be sufficient to prove his guilt.  But taken within the totality of evidence, it is highly probative.  To suggest that his prints being found on the SN boxes is "silly and irrelevant" tells us we are dealing with someone who is just playing defense attorney/devil's advocate and can't be taken seriously.  Not that there was any prior doubt.  When all is said and done, the evidence always points back to one person.   All the more humorous is the notion espoused by these same parties that it is a "strawman" argument to suggest they are implying a conspiracy.  Oswald was apparently just the unluckiest guy in history.  Of all the TSBD employees, he is the only one to touch these particular boxes and the bag.  He decides not to watch the motorcade like nearly every other employee and thus has no credible alibi.  Somehow his rifle magically appears with his prints on it.  He decides to knock off early for a movie and is the only person on planet Earth to be in the TSBD at the time of the assassination to pass the scene of the Tippit murder.  The only Dallas PD officer murdered in a several year period.  What are the odds that Oswald is at the scene of a presidential assassination and police murder within a one hour period?  And he looks so much like the Tippit shooter that several witnesses identify him as the murderer.   And he has a pistol with the same two brands of ammo used by the murderer.  When he goes window shopping for some shoes, he attracts the suspicion a random salesman.  Terrible luck.  Then he decides to duck into the movie without buying a ticket.  More bad luck.  This results in the police being called on him while just wondering about in Mr. Magoo-like bliss.  And instead of just answering their questions he decides to put up a fight.  And on and on.   But this is all "silly and irrelevant."  Nothing to see here.  Just an incredible series of bad luck and random citizens all lying for no apparent reason to implicate him.

[Gary Craig]