Youtube Interview I Did, Tippit Case

[Martin Weidmann]

'Why should I, when you are the one who posted a blurred picture? Typical LN BS, posting something and wanting to be proven wrong'
> Hogwash. You're the one pouncing on Earlene's eyesight as if it disqualifies her as a credible witness. Therefore, the onus is on you to provide evidence that she would be unable to confirm whether or not Mr Lee was wearing a jacket as he left the safe-house.

More stupidity based on the LN mantra "I am right unless you can prove me wrong". You are the one who wants to rely on Roberts' testimony about the jacket. Given the fact of her poor eyesight, the fact that she was concentrating on the television and the fact that she was known for making up stories, it would be up to you to establish her credibility.

'Who said that Earlene Roberts paused and turned around? And, you've clearly never been at the rooming house, because if you had you would have known that the distance between Oswald's room and the front door is minimal'
> Are you now claiming Earlene was a cyclops-like character, complete with a third eye on the back of her head, eliminating the need for her to turn around in order to see Mr Lee hustling out of his safe-house while zipping up his jacket?

Can't you figure out anything? The television was in the right hand corner of the living room and the front door was near the left hand corner. Oswald's room was in the back, on the right hand side of the building. Roberts would be facing the front windows, with her back turned to the living room. Oswald walked diagonally through the living room from his room to the front door. Roberts would have seen him as he came to her left and opened the door. That only took seconds.

Now quantify 'minimal'.

Why? Is the a court of law?

And suggesting that I travel to Dallas to visit that house so I will 'know' indicates a begrudging attitude on your part, quite frankly. Either you cannot or will not produce photographs of that front room that will reveal the actual dimensions of that room.

I am not suggesting that you travel to Dallas. I have concluded that you have not been there and thus are talking about something you are actually unfamiliar with. And as for photos of the living room, they are already posted on this forum. Do some work for once and look for them.

[Bill Brown]

The answer is; I am not the first to start

to which you replied with;

No.

Below is what I was giving the thumbs up to:

You have no agenda?  LOL.  You are delusional.  Never once I have seen you question any possible evidence that lends itself to Oswald's innocence, but in every single instance you question the evidence of his guilt.  No matter how well documented.   How about you apply your standard of proof to Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his package?  Something you appear to accept as a fact.  Who "corroborated" Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his bag?

[Martin Weidmann]

No.

Below is what I was giving the thumbs up to:

Stop trying to weasel out of it. You gave thumbs up to the entire post which included the part I quoted.

The biggest difference between you and Bill is that you are a nut. You have no agenda?  LOL.  You are delusional.  Never once I have seen you question any possible evidence that lends itself to Oswald's innocence, but in every single instance you question the evidence of his guilt.  No matter how well documented.   How about you apply your standard of proof to Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his package?  Something you appear to accept as a fact.  Who "corroborated" Frazier's description of how Oswald carried his bag?

And besides, in the part you yourself quoted I am being called delusional, which justifies the conclusion that you agreed with Richard Smith's insults.

[Bill Brown]

Stop trying to weasel out of it. You gave thumbs up to the entire post which included the part I quoted.

And besides, in the part you yourself quoted I am being called delusional, which justifies the conclusion that you agreed with Richard Smith's insults.

You're being childish.  You posted only the portion where Richard Smith called you a nut and you stated that I gave the thumbs up to that.

Besides that, you are delusional.  You think that's the same as calling LNers, a few of which have not insulted you, braindead?

Grow up.

[Martin Weidmann]

You're being childish.  You posted only the portion where Richard Smith called you a nut and you stated that I gave the thumbs up to that.

Besides that, you are delusional.  You think that's the same as calling LNers, a few of which have not insulted you, braindead?

Grow up.

Aha, so now there are degrees of insults? One more serious than another? And then you say I am the one that needs to grow up? Patronise much?

But it is exactly what I thought. You simply do not have the ability to simply say you were wrong.

You posted only the portion where Richard Smith called you a nut and you stated that I gave the thumbs up to that.

As that part of Richard Smith's remarks was in the post you gave the thumbs up to and you failed to specify that you didn't agree with some part of the post, you did indeed give the thumbs up to him calling me a nut.

[Bill Brown]

So anyway.....

Still no evidence pointing to someone other than Oswald?

[Richard Smith]

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.

You have cited Frazier's account of how Oswald carried the rifle on hundreds of occasions as a fact without any of the "corroboration" that you suggest is necessary in any instance in which a witness provided evidence that lends itself to Oswald's guilt.  That is the obvious point.  And you did stupidly suggest that Randle's account somehow corroborated Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the package into the TSBD.  A falsehood since she described Oswald carrying his package in an entirely different way than Frazier when she saw him that morning.  You are a lazy contrarian playing defense attorney.  In contrast, Bill is an intelligent and honest researcher who deals in the facts and evidence.  If you need a hanky to deal with this, then have a good cry.   

[Martin Weidmann]

So anyway.....

Still no evidence pointing to someone other than Oswald?

WC strategy;

Write a extremely prejudicial prosecutorial brief, based on assumptions and speculations, using only evidence - no matter how questional in nature - that points to Oswald, ignore all other evidence pointing in other directions, deny scrutiny by a capable defense lawyer, declare Oswald guilty and lock away all the evidence for 75 years.