Thank you for your substantive reply to my post.
The Beckley housekeeper was totally reliable when it came to confirming LHO's visit to the boardinghouse, when it occurred, what he did, how long he stayed, and what he was wearing when he arrived and what he was wearing when he left. She was totally loony bonkers as to the DPD car stopping in front of her house and honking and totally unreliable as to seeing LHO standng at the bus stop north of the house after he left.
Some eyewitness evidence is reliable because it is accurate even in the absence of corroborative evidence. But, I think too much such evidence was rejected simply because it didn't fit the narrative.
I assume your talking about my reply to your post.
Some of Beckley housekeeper statements were quite reliable.
Her identification of Oswald is reliable because she already knew Oswald before that day. Witness identifications are much more reliable when they already knew the subject than if they were a stranger up to that point. Her timing of when this occurred is unusually reliable, because she had heard of the Dealey Plaza shooting, was setting up the TV to see what had happened, and remember what was on TV while Oswald was there. Much better than a witness checking a watch, might be a watch that runs a little fast or slow, or might not have checked the watch as close to the time in question as they remembered. Only the Ruby Western Union receipt provides a superior timestamp.
These housekeeper statements match up well with other known facts. A taxi driver dropping off a man he believed was Oswald near the house within a few minutes. Oswald being identified as present very near the Officer Tippit shooting site, just about 15 minutes later just under a mile away. Oswald being seized at a theater 45 minutes within two miles of the house. It all fits.
Also, her “Pro-LN” statements were given that very day. Minimizing the chance, she was remembering something from the day before, or maybe several days before.
In contrast, her “Pro-CT” statements didn’t come out until 6 days later. Oswald waiting for a bus. A police car showing up and waiting there. If these memories are valid, and are from November 22, why didn’t she state them to the police or the press that day? Later statements have to be considered less reliable. Oswald had often waited for a bus on other days. Maybe she was remembering Oswald from one of those days. The police were often parked outside the house in the days following November 22. Maybe she was remembering this from one of those days.
An additional point, the Oswald waiting for a bus. A police car stopping and honking its horn, does not fit the LN narrative. But it doesn’t really the CT narrative either.
Oswald’s on the run. He likely is beginning to suspect he is being set up. And he decides to wait for a bus outside the house he lives in?!? He doesn’t decide to getting away from there immediately and catch a bus somewhere else?
Or rouge policemen want to quietly pickup Oswald. Make him disappear. And don’t want anyone to know about it. And they decide to show up in a police car?!?!? And honk its horn?!?!? Wouldn’t they use a private car, one that won’t tell a casual witness that Oswald was picked up by the police?
By any reasonable measure, the most believable statements were given on November 22. And the most unbelievable six days later.
The shoe clerk Brewer identification of Oswald entering this store would be unreliable, except he saw the subject just after he left the shoe store, enter a theater and Brewer pointed out Oswald in the theater a few minutes later. If none of this happened, if Brewer pointed out Oswald in a police lineup a few hours later, that would be not as reliable.
Are the witnesses who saw a subject emptying a gun and identified Oswald in a lineup as reliable? No. They did not know Oswald beforehand. Nor help seize the subject within the next few minutes. However, we do have much more reliable evidence. The police seizing Oswald within a half hour, within a mile of the Officer murder site, pulling a gun on the officers in the theater, and the gun being matched to the shells found at the sight. Yes, any case, even this case can unravel, if one looks for reasons, any reason at all, to throw out the ballistic evidence, fingerprint evidence, DNA evidence. Still, physical evidence is the most reliable evidence and is what a skeptic relies on.
