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

[Martin Weidmann]

The fewer of your species left on the planet the better

Of course, who cares about actual evidence when you have Bill Chapman's opinion.....

[Bill Chapman]

Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

Do you have any evidence that Oswald carried a package into the TSBD building?

[Bill Chapman]

Of course, who cares about actual evidence when you have Bill Chapman's opinion.....

My opinion is that Oswald did his best to conceal the full size of the package that day, all the way down the line.

[Thomas Graves]

Bill,

I'm sorry but that's not nearly good enough.

What you need, bare minimum, in addition to that, is:

1) notarized statements from 15 other witnesses, with accompanying fingerprints, birth certificates and certified DNA tests -- in triplicate, of course,

2) five color films (with sound), and

3) at least ten (10) still photographs, only two (2) of which may be in blob-like black and white.

Addendum:

4) With highly documented proof of the (probably spurious, you dirty rat, you) chain of possession of said spurious and obviously bogus "evidence," you dirty rat, you, ... by the way.

-- MWT 

[Peter Kleinschmidt]

No one saw anyone bring a rifle into the TSBD.  Yet it was there.  So we know that someone did.  Oswald was in the process of committing a crime.  He took measures to avoid being seen carrying a rifle into the building.  Like wrapping it up in a paper bag and then hiding it.  You appear to be suggesting that unless a witness had x-ray vision then it can't be proven that Oswald carried the rifle.  Absurd. How do we know it was him?  He carried a long package into work that morning then lied about it.  A long bag was found next to the SN with his prints. The rifle found in the building had the same serial number as the one ordered under an alias that Oswald used.  It was sent to his PO Box.  His prints were on that rifle.  It can't be linked to any other person.  He is pictured holding it.  His wife confirms he owned a rifle and that it was stored in the Paine's garage.  There is no accounting for that rifle except as the one found in the TSBD.  It is a slam dunk.  Difficult to understand how there could possibly be anymore evidence than exists to link Oswald to the rifle.

Difficult to understand how there could possibly be anymore evidence than exists to link Oswald to the rifle

If you did not have everything backward you wouldn't confuse yourself.  Don't bring up things you can't prove and then whine about people not having x-ray vision.

Because he didn't do it, it is hard for any reasonable person to understand what it is you are looking at that makes you think he did do it.

[John Iacoletti]

Not only Fritz, Holmes corroborates Fritz's testimony.

That’s not a corroboration. Fritz and Holmes had two different accounts.

[John Iacoletti]

No worries on the 22nd, Frazier's affidavit said Oswald still had the package under his arm as he entered the back door at the Loading dock.

And since he later said that he couldn’t actually see it, then he just assumed it was there.

Btw the scenario that after they arrived at the TSBD, Oswald took the package and hid it as soon as he could,

That’s a nice scenario. Too bad there’s no evidence for it.

which ironically is exactly what he did at Frazier's house, indicates that Oswald had something to hide therefore this new narrative just makes your client look even more guilty! Congrats!

He hid a package at Frazier’s house? News to me!

Admit it, as far as you’re concerned, anything Oswald did would indicate guilt in your eyes.

[John Iacoletti]

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm
 A 24 inch bag that contained a 40 inch rifle. That is 10 pounds of stuff in a 5 pound bag and Oswald must have hid it in a 2 pound cubbyhole. Speculate away there----

Whatever it takes...