The Bus Stop Farce

[Martin Weidmann]

'Problems' with the evidence... as interpreted by The Cult of Oswald

A man who turns a blind eye to what's staring him in the face will never see what is beyond evident to others.

It's probably in vain, but let's give this a try;

Heaven forbid you would actually ever be one, but let's assume for a second that you are a detective or prosecutor and you have a suspect who admits to owing a revolver which he says he bought in Fort Worth. But then a revolver shows up which the detective who brought it into the police station claims was taken from the suspect. The only problem with that is that this revolver turns out to be bought by mail order.

Well, detective or prosecutor, doesn't that make you wonder if perhaps you could have the wrong revolver? Shouldn't you feel a need to investigate a little bit further in order to make sure you actually do have the correct revolver?

Or do you simply say, I don't care where the revolver was bought, this is the weapon that was used to kill the officer, so it has to belong to the suspect, because if it doesn't he might not be the right suspect?

Well... Sherlock, what would you say? Would you risk that a defense investigator, in the discovery fase, finds proof that Oswald did indeed buy his revolver in Fort Worth?

[Bill Chapman]

Are you ok? You seem confused.... Do I need to worry about you?

Oh, btw I don't claim that Oswald got the gun in Fort Worth. I only reported that he claimed that he did—and didn't say where in Fort Worth he got it. And aren't you going against form by agreeing that the gun was bought by mail-order? I haven't seen one CT agree to that.

What are you rambling on about? The revolver Oswald told Fritz he bought in Fort Worth is one issue. The revolver bought by mail order is a completely different issue. 

On the one hand you have Oswald admitting to Fritz (if his notes are to be believed) that he bought his revolver in Fort Worth, which is never investigated.

On the other hand you have a revolver brought into the police station some two hours after the arrest, by a detective who allegedly was in the car with Oswald (so why the delay of handing the revolver into the evidence locker?), who claims this (now known as CE 143) was the revolver taken from Oswald and has it initialed by officers who were not involved in the arrest.

Despite the clear discrepancy that CE 143, according to the paperwork allegedly was bought by mail order, and thus not in Fort Worth nobody investigates in Fort Worth and they instantly go off looking for a mail order purchase.... Nothing strange about that, right? Yeah right... Consider the trouble the FBI went through trying to find the dry cleaner of the jacket, it's not the least bit strange that nobody bothers to look into the Fort Worth purchase as alleged by Oswald? Why not.... What did they already know?

You claim that witness evidence is weak. You claim that Earlene was 'half blind' and had her back to Oswald. So all of a sudden her eyesight is perfect and her memory infallible. Wow.

Of course witness evidence is unreliable. Even more so if the witness is half blind, concentrating on the television and with her back to Oswald. This is why you guys can not claim with any kind of certainty that she did indeed see Oswald leave wearing a jacket of any discription. Even less so, when there is evidence that Oswald was wearing to grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening, which means it couldn't have been at the rooming house on Friday morning.

The LN position on Earlene Roberts is utterly pathetic. On the one hand, you guys claim she did not see a police car in front of the house, nor did she see Oswald standing at the bus stop, yet, although she can not describe the color of the jacket (of for that matter what kind of shirt Oswald was wearing when he came in, according to you guys she's spot on about the jacket.

No need to jump to conclusions given that witnesses saw Oswald in a jacket @Tippit and have their individual memories of the colour of the jacket, whether in harsh sunlight or in the shadows.

First of all, it is in no way certain that the witnesses actually saw Oswald at the Tippit scene and not somebody who resembled him. I say again; when the timeline proves that Oswald couldn't have been on 10th street the moment Tippit was killed, the witnesses were wrong. It is as simple as that.

You do realize that ambient light can influence the colour objects.... right?

You do realize that most people are not very good at observation and/or recollection? Just like Baker, who thought Oswald was wearing a jacket in the TSBD lunchroom, or the taxi driver who thought he was wearing two jackets, when he was wearing none.

Stop cherry picking the evidence

I was addressing Oswald-Fort Worth-pistol
You brought up the mail order thing

Oswald wouldn’t say where he got the gun in Fort Worth = An innocent man would tell the cops exactly where he got the gun = Oswald was playing games.

The Jacket: To be or not to be.
Are you accusing Earlene of lying?

Are you claiming that generally inattentive people can’t be prompted into high-alert mode by shots fired and an individual brandishing a firearm?

[Martin Weidmann]

I was addressing Oswald-Fort Worth-pistol
You brought up the mail order thing

Oswald wouldn’t say where he got the gun in Fort Worth = An innocent man would tell the cops exactly where he got the gun = Oswald was playing games.

The Jacket: To be or not to be.
Are you accusing Earlene of lying?

Are you claiming that generally inattentive people can’t be prompted into high-alert mode by shots fired and an individual brandishing a firearm?

Oswald wouldn’t say where he got the gun in Fort Worth = An innocent man would tell the cops exactly where he got the gun = Oswald was playing games.

Jumping to conclusions again? An innocent man who is accused of a murder would keep his mouth shut to the police and wait for his council.

The Jacket: To be or not to be.
Are you accusing Earlene of lying?

No, are you? Her employer did, btw....

She said she saw a police car in front of the house. LNs call her a liar.
She said she saw Oswald standing at the bus stop near the rooming house a couple of minutes after 1 pm. LNs call her a liar.

She said the "jacket" Oswald left with was dark colored and she couldn't positively identify CE162 during her testimony, yet LNs implicitely call her a liar as they claim she did in fact see a grey jacket.

All I am saying is that a half blind woman, with her back turned to Oswald because she was paying attention to the tv, isn't the most reliable witness.

Are you claiming that generally inattentive people can’t be prompted into high-alert mode by shots fired and an individual brandishing a firearm?

I'm not sure who you are talking about, now. But to counter that, are you claiming that all witnesses remain calm under stress to such an extend that all their observations are 100% correct?

[Bill Brown]

Dishonest John I. has denied that Oswald had a gun when arrested.  "Except he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested.  And how do you know those shells were even found at the crime scene?"

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,202.msg4394.html#msg4394

 

[Bill Chapman]

Oswald wouldn’t say where he got the gun in Fort Worth = An innocent man would tell the cops exactly where he got the gun = Oswald was playing games.

Jumping to conclusions again? An innocent man who is accused of a murder would keep his mouth shut to the police and wait for his council.

The Jacket: To be or not to be.
Are you accusing Earlene of lying?

No, are you? Her employer did, btw....

She said she saw a police car in front of the house. LNs call her a liar.
She said she saw Oswald standing at the bus stop near the rooming house a couple of minutes after 1 pm. LNs call her a liar.

She said the "jacket" Oswald left with was dark colored and she couldn't positively identify CE162 during her testimony, yet LNs implicitely call her a liar as they claim she did in fact see a grey jacket.

All I am saying is that a half blind woman, with her back turned to Oswald because she was paying attention to the tv, isn't the most reliable witness.

Are you claiming that generally inattentive people can’t be prompted into high-alert mode by shots fired and an individual brandishing a firearm?

I'm not sure who you are talking about, now. But to counter that, are you claiming that all witnesses remain calm under stress to such an extend that all their observations are 100% correct?

Where did I say that?

Your description of Earlene being 'half blind' paints a different picture than her being blind in one eye.
And tell us how her employer would know she was lying.

Don't Talk to the Police Under Any Circumstances
Innocent people are often all-too-eager to blab about how innocent they are.

[Martin Weidmann]

Where did I say that?

Your description of Earlene being 'half blind' paints a different picture than her being blind in one eye.
And tell us how her employer would know she was lying.

Don't Talk to the Police Under Any Circumstances
Innocent people are often all-too-eager to blab about how innocent they are.

Your description of Earlene being 'half blind' paints a different picture than her being blind in one eye.

Yeah, right.....

Mr. BALL. Now, Mrs. Roberts, this deposition will be written up and you can read it if you want to and you can sign it. or you can waive the signature.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.

And tell us how her employer would know she was lying.

She knew and told the WC. How she knew, you will have to ask her. Stop asking silly questions.

Don't Talk to the Police Under Any Circumstances
Innocent people are often all-too-eager to blab about how innocent they are.

Yeah sure... And Oswald talked to the police for hours....

Your contrived argument sounds a lot like what the folks at Salem said about witches; "throw her in the water and if she floats, she's a witch". Who cares that innocent people often protest their innocence? It is a meaningless and irrelevant comment as you can not argue that everybody who doesn't talk to police is guilty.

Btw an honest man would at least try to answer the question I asked in reply # 184 and not ignore it and run away from it as you do.

[Richard Smith]

Knowing you, I figured there was a good chance that you misrepresented what John actually said by taking it out of context.

John responded to a claim by Joe Elliott;
A little bit further in the same post, there's this exchance;

Joe said;
And John replied;
So, there is no denial on John's part that Oswald had a revolver. He merely feels there is very little evidentiary basis for that claim.

But I'm sure this difference goes right over your head

Huh?  That is completely nuts. This is exactly what Dishonest John said.   It is a quote from the link that I provided that anyone can read. You are the one who has misrepresented it.  "Except he wasn't carrying a gun when he was arrested.  And how do you know those shells were even found at the crime scene?"

[Bill Chapman]

Your description of Earlene being 'half blind' paints a different picture than her being blind in one eye.

Yeah, right.....

Mr. BALL. Now, Mrs. Roberts, this deposition will be written up and you can read it if you want to and you can sign it. or you can waive the signature.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, you know, I can't see too good how to read. I'm completely blind in my right eye.

And tell us how her employer would know she was lying.

She knew and told the WC. How she knew, you will have to ask her. Stop asking silly questions.

Don't Talk to the Police Under Any Circumstances
Innocent people are often all-too-eager to blab about how innocent they are.

Yeah sure... And Oswald talked to the police for hours....

Your contrived argument sounds a lot like what the folks at Salem said about witches; "throw her in the water and if she floats, she's a witch". Who cares that innocent people often protest their innocence? It is a meaningless and irrelevant comment as you can not argue that everybody who doesn't talk to police is guilty.

Btw an honest man would at least try to answer the question I asked in reply # 184 and not ignore it and run away from it as you do.

So Roberts was so hard of seeing that she imagined what see saw? She said she 'can't see too good how to  read'. You wouldn't be trying to apply that to her ability to see if a man was wearing a jacket or not, now would you Mr. Honesty..

‘She (the employer) knew she (Roberts) was lying’.
>>> So her employer was in the room with her when Oswald came and left?
Tell us again how she knew Roberts was lying. Tell us how that’s a silly question.

‘Oswald talked to police for hours’
>>> Except when he was asked anything about the shootings
And would then stop talking. Not the comportment of an innocent man

>>> What contrived argument? Watch the video and learn something. And you’re the one contriving arguments by babbling nonsense about Salem witches and the like. And are you sure I even saw #184 before you mentioned it? I don’t have email alerts enabled, btw.

‘Btw an honest man would at least try to answer the question I asked in reply # 184 and not ignore it and run away from it as you do’
>>> You lot are so full of yourselves & desperate for respect here that you rationalize being ignored by pointing at us as being unable to answer.