Then went inside with the curtain rods

[John Iacoletti]

But the mere fact that something could have happened doesn't mean or prove that it did!
>>> Exactly; and where did I say that it did?

Exactly.  So your speculation ain't worth sh*t.

[John Iacoletti]

What a bizarre and kooky response.

Speaking of bizarre and kooky responses...

Imagine making a case for innocence to a jury when the murder weapon is found at the scene of a crime,

How do you know that's the murder weapon?

it is linked via documents and serial number to an individual who works at that building,

No, it's "linked" via a copy of a frame from "missing" microfilm to an "A Hidell".

his wife confirms he owns a rifle,

So?

he has no alibi or explanation for the rifle's presence there,

How do you even know that?  And why would he have to have an explanation for that?

and even lies about owning a rifle even though there are recent pictures of him holding a rifle.

And by that you mean pictures taken 8 months earlier holding an unidentifiable rifle.

  HA HA HA.

Indeed.

  And he also flees the scene and is identified by multiple individuals as the person who murdered a police officer within an hour.

Nope.  "Multiple individuals" did not witness any murder.  Nor are biased and unfair lineups reliable.

Wow.  And it is only "circumstantial"!  HA HA HA.  Such a profound ignorance of what "circumstantial evidence" actually means.

Says the guy with profound ignorance of what constitutes evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

There is no evidence of the bag containing curtain rods which Oswald denies bringing to work.

There's no evidence that Oswald brought a rifle to work.

Next?

[Bill Chapman]

Why would I need to prove that Buell might be wrong about the size of the bag

Who said you needed to prove that?
>>> You did: Quote from: Martin Weidmann on February 01, 2021, 06:45:38 AM "I take it this also means that you can not prove that Frazier was wrong about the size of the package and the way he saw Oswald carry it"

What you actually need to prove is that the bag contained a broken down MC rifle. That's the main issue, regardless if Buell Frazier was paying attention or not.
>>> What I actually need to prove is nothing, especially not to those who want to treat this discussion platform as their personal court-of-law.

BS.. Frazier saw the bag on the back seat of the car and was able to show the FBI to where it reached, measured from the door. He also could describe that Oswald carried the package in the cup of his hand and under his armpit. The mere fact that Frazier was honest enough to say that it could have been protruding outward doesn't automatically mean that the bag was bigger than Frazier told us or that it did protrude.
>>> "automatically mean" Where did I claim that?

Buell saw the bag at a glance on the back seat of the car. Buell said the top and bottom of the bag was folded (another hint that an if-guilty Oswald was trying to, in effect, shrink the true size of the bag and thus its contents).

Buell was "honest enough" (or stupid enough) to reveal that he didn't want to be remembered forever as the guy who drove Oswald to work. Yeah, no pause for thought there, huh... no discussion between he and sis to maybe hedge their bets by giving scaled-down measurements.

Now, where's the evidence that the MC rifle was (1) ever in Ruth Paine's garage and (2) in the bag the Oswald carried?
>>> The MC that was in the garage and in the bag Oswald carried. 

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald "just" went to a movie. He "just" left his wedding ring. He "just" left the building shortly after the shooting. He "just" took a bus. He "just" took a cab when the bus was caught in traffic. He "just" showed no interest in the assassination. He "just" owned a rifle. He "just" was seen carrying a large package to work that day. He "just" surprised his wife by visiting her in the middle of a week. He "just" held radical anti-American views. He "just" he "just" he "just".

He "just" did all of these things.

See what they do? They strip every single act that he took - give it an innocent (and partial) explanation - and then remove it from any larger context at all. Each of these acts are judged in isolation from each other.

That's how a Mark Lane, a defense attorney operates. Imagine using this type of thinking in evaluating any other historic event? You'd be laughed out of the room. But in Oswald defender world it's all about defending him.

And the way prosecuting attorneys work is by trying to sell the idea that a bunch of things that don't constitute evidence of any kind when combined somehow become evidence of murder.

[Walt Cakebread]

Speaking of bizarre and kooky responses...

How do you know that's the murder weapon?

No, it's "linked" via a copy of a frame from "missing" microfilm to an "A Hidell".

So?

How do you even know that?  And why would he have to have an explanation for that?

And by that you mean pictures taken 8 months earlier holding an unidentifiable rifle.

Indeed.

Nope.  "Multiple individuals" did not witness any murder.  Nor are biased and unfair lineups reliable.

Says the guy with profound ignorance of what constitutes evidence.

How do you know that's the murder weapon?

This is the most important question that anybody could ask....    I'm absolutely sure that the carcano was NOT one of the guns that was used to murder JFK......  But I'm a mere pissant in LBJ's eyes. The Vaunted FBI and J. Edgar Hoover proclaimed the 6.5 Carcano to be the murder weapon so I might as well be proclaiming that to a doorknob. 

[Bill Chapman]

There's no evidence that Oswald brought a rifle to work.

Next?

There's no evidence of a lunch bag that needed to be palmed and shoved up into an armpit. Unless Oswald was having pancakes for lunch... that almost touched the ground as he apparently didn't need to palm the bag and shove it into an armpit in IrvinG earlier that morning.

[John Iacoletti]

Why would I need to prove that Buell might be wrong about the size of the bag, when he kept on repeating that he wasn't paying attention to the package; didn't look at the package very much. And that he couldn't see much of the bag with Oswald walking in front of him, and said Oswald could have had some of it sticking out in front of his hands because he (Buell) never saw the bag from the front.

If you're going to claim that Oswald brought a broken-down rifle with a 34.8-inch long stock in the bag that Frazier saw that morning, then it is contingent upon you to provide evidence for said claim.