Fool, she only concluded that he was wearing a jacket because she thought she saw him zipping up a zipper.
The desperation of nuts like you to keep Roberts in play as a "reliable" witness is truly pathetic. Had this case gone to trial, she would have been destroyed in a minute by the defense.
Check her testimony and you will find out what she had to say about Roberts
Were you there when he talked to the police? No, so stop pretending you know.
Your entire argument is contrived. You've got a witness who, by her own admission is blind in one eye, who wasn't paying attention because she was concentrating on the TV (which means she had her back to the living room), who couldn't tell what kind of shirt Oswald was wearing when he came in and who the LNs consider unreliable when she claims to have seen a police car in front of the house and to have seen Oswald standing at the bus stop.
That same witness claims to have seen a dark colored jacket and failed to identify the grey jacket CE 162 when it was shown to her during her testimony. Yet, somehow, for you she is an ironclad witness, despite the fact that she only could have seen Oswald for one or two seconds as he passed by her going out the door. Pathetic.
Which only tells me that you did see reply # 184 and ignored it, just like you are ignoring it now and are doing a silly song and dance to avoid honestly answering the question.
And that you are unable, or perhaps rather unwilling, the answer the question honestly doesn't need any more proof than that you didn't answer it in your post.
‘Fool, she only concluded that he was wearing a jacket because she thought she saw him zipping up a zipper’
>>> HAHAHAHA! Look at this mockup, blurred to mimic somewhat bad eyesight, and tell us one could not see a jacket. Go ahead.. squint, close one eye & blur the image as much as you as you want.
Earlene's approximate eyesight capability‘The desperation of nuts like you to keep Roberts in play as a "reliable" witness is truly pathetic. Had this case gone to trial, she would have been destroyed in a minute by the defense’
>>> Johnson is sounding more & more like a busybody every time you open your mouth. Again, how would Johnson know what went on in that room if she wasn’t there?
‘Were you there when he talked to the police? No, so stop pretending you know’
>>> There were witnesses present. Was Earlene’s employer in the room with Earlene and Oswald? I think not.
‘Your entire argument is contrived. You've got a witness who, by her own admission is blind in one eye, who wasn't paying attention because she was concentrating on the TV (which means she had her back to the living room), who couldn't tell what kind of shirt Oswald was wearing when he came in and who the LNs consider unreliable when she claims to have seen a police car in front of the house and to have seen Oswald standing at the bus stop.’
‘That same witness claims to have seen a dark colored jacket and failed to identify the grey jacket CE 162 when it was shown to her during her testimony. Yet, somehow, for you she is an ironclad witness, despite the fact that she only could have seen Oswald for one or two seconds as he passed by her going out the door. Pathetic’
>>> Where did I say she was an iron-clad witness? Where did I say Earlene was lying?
‘Which only tells me that you did see reply # 184 and ignored it, just like you are ignoring it now and are doing a silly song and dance to avoid honestly answering the question. And that you are unable, or perhaps rather unwilling, the answer the question honestly doesn't need any more proof than that you didn't answer it in your post.
>>> Again: I do not have email alerts enabled and was not aware of post #184 until you mentioned it. And are you sure that LNers feel that all CT posts are worth taking the time to answer?
