The Assassination and Mrs. Paine

[Richard Smith]

Would Oswald have admitted his guilt?

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-lho.html

Some CTers harp on why Oswald didn't confess to the crime right from the start if the entire purpose of the assassination was to garner attention for himself.  They ask why he would deny his guilt etc.  Conflating historical credit with legal responsibility for the crime.  Oswald knew he had pulled the trigger and changed history but had no desire to help the police prosecute him for the crime.   Of course, Oswald was also getting plenty of attention from the entire world as the suspected assassin with the press clamoring for his every comment.  He also had no idea that he only had less than 48 hours to live.  For all Oswald knew, he had years to play cat and mouse on the topic.  And the only chip he had left to play were the details of the crime including his own motivation.  A source of historical curiosity that the authorities would want to know.  He could trade that for saving his skin from the electric chair.  Then, like James Earl Ray, spend the remainder of his life exploiting the gullible conspiracy types for attention and favors while in prison.  Forever suggesting he was playing the role of some master spy or being framed.

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald knew he had pulled the trigger and changed history but had no desire to help the police prosecute him for the crime.

"Richard's" mindreading skills underwhelm.

[Martin Weidmann]

When was I ever “adamant that people use their real names”?
_ It follows that your endless quotation marks enclosing Richard's name and words such as 'expert' etc pretty much signals your intent to cast doubt on practically everything under the sun, including those who manage to leave thorns in your side.

And why should it matter to you if someone like Richard is using their real name or not? Many discussion forums like google groups etc allow fake names because of the dangers (ID theft, for instance) inherent in going online in the first place. Why begrudge an individual his right to enhanced security?

And why should it matter to you if someone like Richard is using their real name or not?

It shouldn't, but you should really ask "Richard" as he is constantly claiming I am using a fake name, that I am really Roger Collins who doesn't even post or is a member here and recently that I am Otto Beck. On top of all that he's also extremely preoccupied with me living in Europe. So, if anybody could tell you why it should matter or not, it would be "Richard". Ask him!

[Richard Smith]

And why should it matter to you if someone like Richard is using their real name or not?

It shouldn't, but you should really ask "Richard" as he is constantly claiming I am using a fake name, that I am really Roger Collins who doesn't even post or is a member here and recently that I am Otto Beck. On top of all that he's also extremely preoccupied with me living in Europe. So, if anybody could tell you why it should matter or not, it would be "Richard". Ask him!

So needy for my attention.  I've never asked nor cared about your "real" identity.  There is no legitimate reason to know that.  Only a creepy stalker would care.  I've been greatly amused by your possible use of multiple identities and your hysterics when asked to confirm or deny whether you post here under multiple names.  But how about you put the subject to rest and just tell us if you posted as Roger Collins or others on this forum?  That is a straightforward and legitimate question.  The answer allows other forum members to give weight to the opinions expressed on this forum to understand if one individual is making his arguments appear more credible by attributing them to multiple forum members.  It's not a trick question and you don't have to reveal any private information about yourself in terms of your actual identity (which no one cares about).  Any honest person could answer that question as yes or no and be forever done with it.  You can even authorize Duncan to confirm if anyone doubts you.  I would take his word for it.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Of course, Oswald was also getting plenty of attention from the entire world as the suspected assassin with the press clamoring for his every comment. 

Thank you Richard, I forgot to make that point. I updated the article to include it.

[Martin Weidmann]

So needy for my attention.  I've never asked nor cared about your "real" identity.  There is no legitimate reason to know that.  Only a creepy stalker would care.  I've been greatly amused by your possible use of multiple identities and your hysterics when asked to confirm or deny whether you post here under multiple names.  But how about you put the subject to rest and just tell us if you posted as Roger Collins or others on this forum?  That is a straightforward and legitimate question.  The answer allows other forum members to give weight to the opinions expressed on this forum to understand if one individual is making his arguments appear more credible by attributing them to multiple forum members.  It's not a trick question and you don't have to reveal any private information about yourself in terms of your actual identity (which no one cares about).  Any honest person could answer that question as yes or no and be forever done with it.  You can even authorize Duncan to confirm if anyone doubts you.  I would take his word for it.

There you go. Right on cue. 

I've never asked nor cared about your "real" identity.

I never said you did, but what is a "real" identity anyway?

I've been greatly amused by your possible use of multiple identities and your hysterics when asked to confirm or deny whether you post here under multiple names.
 
Possible use? Really? The only ones claiming that I use multiple identities is you and some others of your ilk. And why would you even ask, if, as you clearly falsely claim, you do not care about it.

But how about you put the subject to rest and just tell us if you posted as Roger Collins or others on this forum?  That is a straightforward and legitimate question.

This is a "subject" only because you and a few others created it. Beyond that it doesn't exist. And since you claim not to care, why are you asking again? 

Any honest person could answer that question as yes or no and be forever done with it.

So, first you ask me to confirm yes or no and in the next sentence you ask for verification by Duncan. How pathetic. But the answer is; no, I do not post here under multiple names and if you want to ask Duncan to confirm that then go right ahead.

You've got your answer, so now I will never hear you about this BS again, right?

Btw... Isn't it remarkable just how quickly Chapman went quiet on the subject?

[Richard Smith]

There you go. Right on cue. 

I've never asked nor cared about your "real" identity.

I never said you did.

I've been greatly amused by your possible use of multiple identities and your hysterics when asked to confirm or deny whether you post here under multiple names.
 
The only ones claiming that I use possible identities is you and some others of your ilk. And why would you even ask, if, as you falsely claim, you do not care about it.

But how about you put the subject to rest and just tell us if you posted as Roger Collins or others on this forum?  That is a straightforward and legitimate question.

This is a "subject" only because you and a few others created it. Beyond that it doesn't exist. And since you claim not to care, why are you asking again? 

Any honest person could answer that question as yes or no and be forever done with it.

So, first you ask me to confirm yes or no and in the next sentence you ask for verification by Duncan. How pathetic. But the answer is; no, I do not post here under multiple names and if you want to ask Duncan to confirm that then go right ahead.

You've got your answer, so now I will never hear you about this BS again, right?

Btw... Isn't it remarkable just how quickly Chapman went quiet on the subject?

Excellent.  I'll take your word for it.  You did include one whopper here.  In your previous post you indicated that the question about real identities should be directed to me because I am "constantly claiming" that you are "using a fake name."  But you acknowledge here that I have never asked nor cared about your identity.  Wow.  In fact, it is you who constantly put my name in quotation marks.  Hilarious.

[Martin Weidmann]

Excellent.  I'll take your word for it.  You did include one whopper here.  In your previous post you indicated that the question about real identities should be directed to me because I am "constantly claiming" that you are "using a fake name."  But you acknowledge here that I have never asked nor cared about your identity.  Wow.  In fact, it is you who constantly put my name in quotation marks.  Hilarious.

Not asking me for my real name is not the same as constantly, and falsely, claiming that I use a fake name.