The Bus Stop Farce

[Martin Weidmann]

What you believe - often based on false information or questionable assumptions - that Oswald could have or should have done is completely meaningless to rebut the evidence of his guilt.  Even if we were to accept your false premise that you believe Oswald's escape not as well executed as possible, so what?  Criminals are caught all the time for doing stupid things.  Oswald was approached by Tippit just a short time after leaving his boardinghouse.  We have no idea what he would have done had this encounter not taken place.  All your speculation about what he should have done doesn't rebut multiple witnesses identify him as the Tippit shooter or the fact that he has the same two different brands of ammo in his possession when arrested that the shooter used to kill Tippit or that he resisted arrest and tried to kill another cop without even asking what the cop wanted.   It is a drumbeat of guilt.  Hard to imagine what more evidence there could even be absent a time machine.

What are you rambling on about? You seem impervious to any kind of reason as long as it doesn't involve your pet scenario, which is no more than an opinion as well.

Even if we were to accept your false premise that you believe Oswald's escape not as well executed as possible, so what?  Criminals are caught all the time for doing stupid things.

There's only one thing wrong with this comment; I don't have a premise that Oswald's escape was not well executed.

All your speculation about what he should have done doesn't rebut multiple witnesses identify him as the Tippit shooter

Not this again... You really are unable to follow along in a normal conversation, aren't you. Witnesses are unreliable. They are wrong all the time. God knows how many innocent people are now in jail due to false or incorrect witness testimony. In an investigation witnesses are frequently deemed to be wrong when other evidence shows a particular suspect couldn't have been at a particular location at a particular time. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to question if Oswald had the ability to be at 10th Street when Tippit was shot. But you don't want to know any of that, do you now? It would shatter your world and believe system and you can't have that, right?

or the fact that he has the same two different brands of ammo in his possession when arrested that the shooter used to kill Tippit

The ammo that was "found" on his person hours after his arrest, despite him being searched earlier? That ammo?

or that he resisted arrest and tried to kill another cop without even asking what the cop wanted.

There is no evidence that he tried to kill another cop. He was never charged with attempted murder.

Hard to imagine what more evidence there could even be absent a time machine.

At best all you've got is what the WC gave you; a highly dubious and questionable circumstantial case with all sorts of unanswered questions and lots of loose ends

[Richard Smith]

What are you rambling on about? You seem impervious to any kind of reason as long as it doesn't involve your pet scenario, which is no more than an opinion as well.

Even if we were to accept your false premise that you believe Oswald's escape not as well executed as possible, so what?  Criminals are caught all the time for doing stupid things.

There's only one thing wrong with this comment; I don't have a premise that Oswald's escape was not well executed.

All your speculation about what he should have done doesn't rebut multiple witnesses identify him as the Tippit shooter

Not this again... You really are unable to follow along in a normal conversation, aren't you. Witnesses are unreliable. They are wrong all the time. God knows how many innocent people are now in jail due to false or incorrect witness testimony. In an investigation witnesses are frequently deemed to be wrong when other evidence shows a particular suspect couldn't have been at a particular location at a particular time. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to question if Oswald had the ability to be at 10th Street when Tippit was shot. But you don't want to know any of that, do you now? It would shatter your world and believe system and you can't have that, right?

or the fact that he has the same two different brands of ammo in his possession when arrested that the shooter used to kill Tippit

The ammo that was "found" on his person hours after his arrest, despite him being searched earlier? That ammo?

or that he resisted arrest and tried to kill another cop without even asking what the cop wanted.

There is no evidence that he tried to kill another cop. He was never charged with attempted murder.

Hard to imagine what more evidence there could even be absent a time machine.

At best all you've got is what the WC gave you; a highly dubious and questionable circumstantial case with all sorts of unanswered questions and lots of loose ends

You are playing the same tired endless game of contrarian.  You question Oswald's action in not taking a bus from a certain location then respond that you are not suggesting that his escape was not well planned.  You imply that guns and ammo were planted on Oswald after the fact but then deny you are suggesting a conspiracy.   How and why these things happen are left unexplained.   You question multiple witness identifications of Oswald as the shooter but then fixate on any minor observation from one of these same witnesses that lends any straw of doubt to Oswald's guilt (like how they described the color of his jacket or the exact minute they claimed to do something).  It is laughable. 

[Charles Collins]

You are playing the same tired endless game of contrarian.  You question Oswald's action in not taking a bus from a certain location then respond that you are not suggesting that his escape was not well planned.  You imply that guns and ammo were planted on Oswald after the fact but then deny you are suggesting a conspiracy.   How and why these things happen are left unexplained.   You question multiple witness identifications of Oswald as the shooter but then fixate on any minor observation from one of these same witnesses that lends any straw of doubt to Oswald's guilt (like how they described the color of his jacket or the exact minute they claimed to do something).  It is laughable.

 

[Martin Weidmann]

You are playing the same tired endless game of contrarian.  You question Oswald's action in not taking a bus from a certain location then respond that you are not suggesting that his escape was not well planned.  You imply that guns and ammo were planted on Oswald after the fact but then deny you are suggesting a conspiracy.   How and why these things happen are left unexplained.   You question multiple witness identifications of Oswald as the shooter but then fixate on any minor observation from one of these same witnesses that lends any straw of doubt to Oswald's guilt (like how they described the color of his jacket or the exact minute they claimed to do something).  It is laughable.

You are playing the same tired endless game of contrarian.

The classic come back of a LN who has no substantive facts to argue.

You question Oswald's action in not taking a bus from a certain location then respond that you are not suggesting that his escape was not well planned.

Just how much of a fool can you be? I was having a hypothetical conversation. I am not suggesting that his escape was not well planned. Instead I question if he was actually trying to escape.

You imply that guns and ammo were planted on Oswald after the fact but then deny you are suggesting a conspiracy.

I imply no such thing. I am merely stating facts that are in the record. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

You question multiple witness identifications of Oswald as the shooter but then fixate on any minor observation from one of these same witnesses that lends any straw of doubt to Oswald's guilt (like how they described the color of his jacket or the exact minute they claimed to do something).  It is laughable.

Are you new at this game? I hardly ever see such level of ignorance.

You question multiple witness identifications of Oswald as the shooter

Witness identifications are the least reliable type of evidence there is. Just ask any detective or prosecutor.

but then fixate on any minor observation from one of these same witnesses that lends any straw of doubt to Oswald's guilt

You may consider it to be minor, but every observation by a witness is important. Even more so when there is no corroboration for what the witness said and circumstantial evidence to show that what the witness claims simply could not have happened. You may want to cherry pick what you like and disregard the rest, but I don't.

Btw your hypocrisy is pathetically amazing. When Buell Frazier said he wasn't paying much attention you claim that his description of the bag he saw Oswald was carrying was wrong, but when Earlene Roberts said she wasn't paying much attention you claim her observation was spot on, never mind the fact that she was blind in one eye.

Now, I could expose your ignorance and dishonesty, re Earlene Roberts' testimony, by simply asking you a few questions, but I already know that you won't answer them anyway, so I won't bother as it would be a waste of time.

[Bill Brown]

or the fact that he has the same two different brands of ammo in his possession when arrested that the shooter used to kill Tippit

The ammo that was "found" on his person hours after his arrest, despite him being searched earlier? That ammo?

No.  Your point above is entirely invalid.

The five bullets in Oswald's pants pocket (removed hours after his arrest) were all Winchester-Westerns.

Richard Smith is correctly referring to the six live rounds removed from the revolver that was taken from Oswald.  Three of these live bullets were Winchester-Westerns and three were Remington-Peters.

As Richard correctly points out, Tippit was gunned down by both Winchester-Western and Remington-Peters bullets, which happened to be the same two manufacturers of bullets found inside his revolver when he was arrested.

[Bill Brown]

From the living room window, where the television was, you can indeed see the bus stop. But Charles Collins argued that Earlene Roberts was sitting on the couch as Oswald left the house. He, in fact, quoted a newspaper article;

That's what I responded to, because from where the couch is, you can not see the bus stop.

Yes, definitely not from the couch.

[Bill Brown]

A dark coat.

Means nothing.

Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis both saw the exact same man cut across their front yard seconds after hearing the shots.  Barbara said the jacket/coat was dark.  Virginia said it was light tan.

So what?

[Martin Weidmann]

No.  Your point above is entirely invalid.

The five bullets in Oswald's pants pocket (removed hours after his arrest) were all Winchester-Westerns.

Richard Smith is correctly referring to the six live rounds removed from the revolver that was taken from Oswald.  Three of these live bullets were Winchester-Westerns and three were Remington-Peters.

As Richard correctly points out, Tippit was gunned down by both Winchester-Western and Remington-Peters bullets, which happened to be the same two manufacturers of bullets found inside his revolver when he was arrested.

Richard Smith is correctly referring to the six live rounds removed from the revolver that was taken from Oswald.

And what revolver would that be? I know you refer to the revolver now in evidence as CE 143, but what evidence do you have that this is the same revolver taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater?