CT's, in court how would you defend Oswald?

[Mike Orr]

The first problem would be for the jury to believe that any of the so-called witnesses would be able to tell the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth . The only thing that was for sure was the fact that JFK had been murdered . As Carlos Hathcock said , we tried to duplicate the feat that LHO was supposed to have pulled off and we could not do it ! Of course it was the classic case of killing the so-called assassin of JFK before he could talk . How many more witnesses would have been murdered if LHO would have made it to trial . To defend Oswald would have taken a lawyer who was willing to take the heat all the way until the end of the trial and of course for the jury to be able to not give in to the threats . I would defend LHO with the facts in the case that would prove that Oswald could not shoot JFK from the break room and could not have shot Tippit from the Texas Theater. A person can't be in two different places at the same time . Two magic shots in one day ! I don't think so ! And how about that blasted out hole in the back of JFK's head !

[John Iacoletti]

It's the logic part that seems to be your issue.  Did they find Dougherty's rifle on the 6th floor?  Did they find fired bullet casings from his rifle by the window?  Did they find his prints on the SN boxes and bag?  Did he flee the building, get his pistol, shoot a police officer, and resist arrest?  Can you see how he is distinguishable from Oswald when you look to the totality of the facts.

The problem is that those are not facts about Oswald either.

[Denis Pointing]

The first problem would be for the jury to believe that any of the so-called witnesses would be able to tell the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth . The only thing that was for sure was the fact that JFK had been murdered . As Carlos Hathcock said , we tried to duplicate the feat that LHO was supposed to have pulled off and we could not do it ! Of course it was the classic case of killing the so-called assassin of JFK before he could talk . How many more witnesses would have been murdered if LHO would have made it to trial . To defend Oswald would have taken a lawyer who was willing to take the heat all the way until the end of the trial and of course for the jury to be able to not give in to the threats . I would defend LHO with the facts in the case that would prove that Oswald could not shoot JFK from the break room and could not have shot Tippit from the Texas Theater. A person can't be in two different places at the same time . Two magic shots in one day ! I don't think so ! And how about that blasted out hole in the back of JFK's head !

Craig Roberts alleges Hathcock said this. There's absolutely no proof he actually did so. Craig Roberts was (surprise surprise) touting his conspiracy book 'Kill Zone' at the time.
Were these guys better shots than Hathcock...I seriously doubt it. 

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

It's the logic part that seems to be your issue.  Did they find Dougherty's rifle on the 6th floor?  Did they find fired bullet casings from his rifle by the window?  Did they find his prints on the SN boxes and bag?  Did he flee the building, get his pistol, shoot a police officer, and resist arrest?  Can you see how he is distinguishable from Oswald when you look to the totality of the facts.

 

 Big Mac logic:

Oswald worked on the 6th floor ------you got that right
His prints were on a box where he works-----that is normal but you are surprised
BRW was thereafter Oswald but before the assassination and did not see anyone.  Richard where was Oswald when BRW is eating when BRW is leaving? Is Oswald in a box or on the roof?


The Big Mac logic allows a person to make crazy assumptions, therefore, it is not a guide for proving something.

Richard, here's an example of how your Big Mac logic can give people like yourself a way to use fantasy to justify what you can not prove.

 "Hey guys, maybe Oswald was invisible when BRW was eating his lunch because when you are invisible no one can see you and that would be a good explanation for why BRW was unable to see Oswald"

[Bill Chapman]

Trying to move the goalposts again?

You objected to me saying that Norman thought what he had heard.

By now it is established, by Norman's own testimony, that I was correct.

You can now try to argue a circumstantial case to show that what Norman thought he had heard was indeed what had happened, but that still doesn't alter the basic fact that Norman never saw any of it and thus could only have thought what it was he had heard.

You can call John and I arrogant as much as you like, but in this instance I was right and you were wrong! Live with it!

I don't have to see somebody shooting a gun on the floor above me to know that somebody is shooting a gun on the floor above me. Add in click>>click and what I, with high confidence, would hear as spent shells hitting the floor after each 'boom'.

Tell us what else might have caused that particular series of sounds in the particular circumstance, Sherlock.

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

I don't have to see somebody shooting a gun on the floor above me to know that somebody is shooting a gun on the floor above me. Add in click>>click and what I, with high confidence, would hear as spent shells hitting the floor after each 'boom'.

Tell us what else might have caused that particular series of sounds in the particular circumstance, Sherlock.

Bill your right and you just showed no one needs to see the second shooter because we have that evidence on the dictabelt recording. Good work Bill 

Of course, you wouldn't need to see somebody shooting a gun, but to say it as if you have experienced a situation comparable is disingenuous. When were you in a building where you heard click and boom? If you were, did you think "hey, that sounds like someone just shot a gun from one story above, there must be a motorcade outside"

[Bill Chapman]

Bill your right and you just showed no one needs to see the second shooter because we have that evidence on the dictabelt recording. Good work Bill 

Of course, you wouldn't need to see somebody shooting a gun, but to say it as if you have experienced a situation comparable is disingenuous. When were you in a building where you heard click and boom? If you were, did you think "hey, that sounds like someone just shot a gun from one story above, there must be a motorcade outside"

What I've experienced is common sense: Norman heard what was going on above him; ergo anyone with hearing ability the equal of Norman's would hear the booms/clicks/'pings'. (And probably dismiss, for instance firecrackers and backfires as the source).

Feel free to comment on what other sequence of movements/actions would produce the sounds Norman heard.

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't have to see somebody shooting a gun on the floor above me to know that somebody is shooting a gun on the floor above me. Add in click>>click and what I, with high confidence, would hear as spent shells hitting the floor after each 'boom'.

Tell us what else might have caused that particular series of sounds in the particular circumstance, Sherlock.

Well Watson, you are wrong again, as usual....

I don't give a damn about what you call "high confidence"... the bottom line is that Norman only heard sounds (of shots being fired and possibly shells dropping) but he did not see where the shots came from. He merely THOUGHT they came from above him....

I'm not going to let you go to the usual "give us an alternative" crap, when it is painfully obvious that Norman only heard some sounds and thought they were shots coming from above. It's beyond silly for you to keep fighting my use of the word "thought", even if - as you claim - Norman was right in what the thought, the fact still remains that Norman did not see anything and from what he heard he reached a conclusion.....

My use of the word "thought" was and is correct and you are making a complete fool of yourself trying to fight it.

Btw, if there had been a trial do you think Norman would be a witness for the prosecution?