Did Oswald run (rather than walk) to 10th and Patton?

[Martin Weidmann]

And what physical evidence would that be?


The distance between the two points. (Taking into account the reported times of day that LHO was at the two places.)

For a start, that's not physical evidence at all.  It is speculation at best, because it assumes that Oswald did in fact walk that distance in a certain time and thus that he was at 10th/Patton to shoot Tippit, at around 1.14 / 1.15 when there isn't even any solid evidence to support that time as the correct one. It also assumes that he must have taken a certain route, when in fact there isn't a shred of evidence for that either.

So, there is nothing that supports Roberts' statement except for your own imagination and wishful thinking.

Roberts saw Oswald standing at the bus stop, she did not see him running anywhere!

And pray tell, just how would you “know” what she saw?

I know what she saw because that's what she told the WC. She testified she saw Oswald enter the roominghouse and thought he was in a hurry;

Mrs. ROBERTS. I had better back up a minute---he came home that Friday in an unusual hurry.
Mr. BALL. And about what time was this?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.
Mr. BALL. As he came in, did you say anything else except, "You are in a hurry"?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No.

and in her affidavit of December 5th 1963 she said;

"Oswald went out the front door. A moment later I looked out the window. I saw Lee Oswald standing on the curb at the bus stop just to the right, and on the same side of the street as our house."

This is what Aynesworth says that she told him on 11/22/63 (edit: from “No More Silence” by Larry Sneed):

She told me that day that Oswald came running in while she was watching television and that she tried to talk to him about the President being killed. He didn’t want to talk, so he went in, changed his jacket and ran out. She then saw him run off the porch to the left and that was the last time that she saw him.

And she testified under oath;

Mr. BALL. You recall he went out zipping it-was he running or walking?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He was walking fast-he was making tracks pretty fast.

There is a difference between walking fast and running

Now if YOU would look at ALL the evidence honestly, you would have to consider that Aynesworth’s report agrees with the physical evidence better than Roberts’ later testimony.

Since there is only your speculation and no physical evidence there is nothing that Aynesworth's report agrees with. It doesn't even agree with what Roberts told the WC under oath.

[Charles Collins]

He told Larry Sneed this about 35 years after the fact, right?  Didn't you say that "accounts given immediately after an event are often the more accurate accounts"?

Martin's right.  You are cherry-picking the accounts that support your assumption that Oswald was the one who shot Tippit.

The point is that Earlene Roberts reportedly told Aynesworth this immediately after the event. If you want to discount Aynesworth's account in Larry Sneed's book because the interview took place later, then that is your prerogative. And that wouldn't be cherry-picking any more than my view.

[Charles Collins]

For a start, that's not physical evidence at all.  It is speculation at best, because it assumes that Oswald did in fact walk that distance in a certain time and thus that he was at 10th/Patton to shoot Tippit, at around 1.14 / 1.15 when there isn't even any solid evidence to support that time as the correct one. It also assumes that he must have taken a certain route, when in fact there isn't a shred of evidence for that either.

So, there is nothing that supports Roberts' statement except for your own imagination and wishful thinking.

I know what she saw because that's what she told the WC. She testified she saw Oswald enter the roominghouse and thought he was in a hurry;

Mrs. ROBERTS. I had better back up a minute---he came home that Friday in an unusual hurry.
Mr. BALL. And about what time was this?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.
Mr. BALL. As he came in, did you say anything else except, "You are in a hurry"?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No.

and in her affidavit of December 5th 1963 she said;

"Oswald went out the front door. A moment later I looked out the window. I saw Lee Oswald standing on the curb at the bus stop just to the right, and on the same side of the street as our house."

And she testified under oath;

Mr. BALL. You recall he went out zipping it-was he running or walking?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He was walking fast-he was making tracks pretty fast.

There is a difference between walking fast and running

Since there is only your speculation and no physical evidence there is nothing that Aynesworth's report agrees with. It doesn't even agree with what Roberts told the WC under oath.

I know what she saw because that's what she told the WC. She testified she saw Oswald enter the roominghouse and thought he was in a hurry;

No, it means, at best, that she was an unreliable witness

It appears that you "know" what she saw because of her unreliable testimony. Alrighty then.... 


Since there is only your speculation and no physical evidence there is nothing that Aynesworth's report agrees with. It doesn't even agree with what Roberts told the WC under oath.

You can ignore the evidence if you wish. But that doesn't make it go away. Unless you are Walt...

[Bill Chapman]

When eyewitness accounts conflict with each other, the accounts that agree with the physical evidence should have greater weight. And accounts given immediately after an event are often the more accurate accounts.

Ah, memorie$

[Charles Collins]

Ah, memorie$

And fame....

[Bill Chapman]

And fame....

... which beget$ shame

[Bill Chapman]

@The OP

Smith, Wesson... and Lee

[John Iacoletti]

It appears that you "know" what she saw because of her unreliable testimony. Alrighty then.... 

What's he's pointing out is that you are preferring Aynesworth's 35-year-old recollection of what Roberts allegedly told him to what Roberts herself directly testified to 4 months after the fact.  Apparently because it better fits your desired result.