Youtube Interview I Did, Tippit Case

[Richard Smith]

Get back to me when you have finished playing silly games

Martin/Roger is running scared.  Randle not only didn't corroborate Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle she described him carrying it an entirely different way.  Yet, Martin cites Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle into the TSBD as an absolute fact without question or need for corroboration because it fits his desired narrative.  An entirely inconsistent standard than he applies to any evidence that might lend itself to doubt of Oswald's guilt.

Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.



Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.

[Martin Weidmann]

Sure I can.  Just listen to the interview at the very top of page one of this thread.  Then, once you've done that, read through some of my (and many of the other LNers') posts throughout this very forum.

Now, back to you.  Why haven't you listed just one single piece of physical evidence pointing to someone other than Lee Oswald in the deaths of either Kennedy or Tippit?  Why not just answer the question instead of deflection?  Answer the question already.

Sure I can.  Just listen to the interview at the very top of page one of this thread.  Then, once you've done that, read through some of my (and many of the other LNers') posts throughout this very forum.

I have already done that and all I have heard and seen are the usual speculations, misrepresentations, propaganda and half truths, with only some selective evidence being presented and other being ignored. There is nothing conclusive there. It's no more than a badly written prosecutor's brief.

Why haven't you listed just one single piece of physical evidence pointing to someone other than Lee Oswald in the deaths of either Kennedy or Tippit?

Stop asking loaded questions. It's like tying a boxer's hands behind his back and then asking him why he isn't throwing a punch. It's dishonest and doesn't help your case. All you and your ilk are constantly doing is claiming that Oswald is guilty unless proven innocent. There is nothing honest about it.

All we have to work with is the evidence selected by the WC and HSCA and that only serves the purpose it was selected for, which is to present Oswald as guilty. All I can do is examine that evidence to determine if it holds up under scrutiny. The lack of physical evidence pointing to someone other than Oswald does not mean it did/does not exist, nor does it automatically mean Oswald is guilty.

Asking such a silly question only shows that you do not have the confidence in your own case to enter into a normal honest discussion. In court only prosecutors who fear they might not get a conviction do things like wittholding evidence or misrepresenting facts.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin/Roger is running scared.  Randle not only didn't corroborate Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle she described him carrying it an entirely different way.  Yet, Martin cites Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle into the TSBD as an absolute fact without question or need for corroboration because it fits his desired narrative.  An entirely inconsistent standard than he applies to any evidence that might lend itself to doubt of Oswald's guilt.

Mr. BALL. Let me see. He carried it in his right hand, did he?
Mrs. RANDLE. That is right.
Mr. BALL. And where was his hand gripping the middle of the package?
Mrs. RANDLE. No, sir; the top with just a little bit sticking up. You know just like you grab something like that.
Mr. BALL. And he was grabbing it with his right hand at the top of the package and the package almost touched the ground?
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.



Mr. BALL - You say he had the package under his arm when you saw him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - You mean one end of it under the armpit?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir; he had it up just like you stick it right under your arm like that.
Mr. BALL - And he had the lower part--
Mr. FRAZIER - The other part with his right hand.
Mr. BALL - Right hand?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right.
Mr. BALL - He carried it then parallel to his body?
Mr. FRAZIER - Right, straight up and down.

Martin/Roger is running scared.

No, Martin is not playing your pathetic games. (Btw you desperately need to work on that "Roger" obsession of yours!)

Randle not only didn't corroborate Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle she described him carrying it an entirely different way.

Fool. I never said that Randle saw Oswald carry the package in the same way as Frazier did. What I did say is that she saw him carry the package in such a way that it justifies the conclusion that it couldn't have been any larger than Frazier described it and a package small enough to fit between a cupped hand and an armpit isn't big enough to stick out over Frazier's shoulder.

An entirely inconsistent standard than he applies to any evidence that might lend itself to doubt of Oswald's guilt.

Although not perfect, Randle's story is a hell of a lot better corroboration than there is for Earlene Roberts' story, yet you believe Roberts in an instant and dismiss Frazier's story. An inconsistent standard indeed.... Pot meet kettle.

[Bill Chapman]

Randle did not see the manner in which Oswald carried the package at the TSBD. Frazier did not see the manner in which Oswald carried the package in Irving. Therefore both remain uncooborated.

Carrying the gunbag down by one's side (as per Randle) while out in the open in a residential neighbourhood is the best way to minimize its profile.

Alternatively, carrying the package in the palm by one's side, and using the other hand to angle the top over in front of the one's head is the best way to minimize the package profile from a person walking directly behind. Another trick would be to pretend to wait for Buell then take off before he (Buell) caught up and maybe get a better view of the package.

[Martin Weidmann]

Randle did not see the manner in which Oswald carried the package at the TSBD. Frazier did not see the manner in which Oswald carried the package in Irving. Therefore both remain uncooborated.

Carrying the gunbag down by one's side (as per Randle) while out in the open in a residential neighbourhood is the best way to minimize its profile.

Alternatively, carrying the package in the palm by one's side, and using the other hand to angle the top over in front of the one's head is the best way to minimize the package profile from a person walking directly behind. Another trick would be to pretend to wait for Buell then take off before he (Buell) caught up and maybe get a better view of the package.

Amazing just how collectively braindead and bad faith actors you LN's are.

To get back to the topic at hand; what corroboration is there for Roberts' claim that Oswald left the roominghouse zipping up a jacket? Here's a hint; the honest answer would be "none"!

So, what is your answer?

[Bill Brown]

Amazing just how collectively braindead and bad faith actors you LN's are.

Why are you always the first to start with insults on this level?  I'm curious as to your answer.

[Gerry Down]

I thought Joe Biden was supposed to be bringing us all together.

[Martin Weidmann]

Why are you always the first to start with insults on this level?  I'm curious as to your answer.

The answer is; I am not the first to start

The biggest difference between you and Bill is that you are a nut. 

to which you replied with;