Poll claims Oswald seen as ......

[Walt Cakebread]

OK. So I can likewise subtract a minute from the 12:25 part of Jarman's statement and have them walk through the back door at 12:24. That seems to work better with some of Jarman's and Norman's estimates of 12:20 to 12:25 for when they decided to go up to the fifth floor.

Kelly says he was at the 10:30 interview on Saturday, Nov. 23rd. Those he states present were Bookhout, Fritz, US Marshall Robert Nash, Secret Service agents Grant and Sorrels, and Boyd and Hall.

    "He said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him.
     He described one of them as ‘Junior’, a colored boy, and the other was
     a little short negro boy. He said his lunch consisted of cheese, bread,
     fruit, and apples, and was the only package he had with him when he
     went to work."

Bookhout, at the same interview, wrote:

    "OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in
     the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but
     recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room
     during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was
     called ‘Junior’ and the other was a short individual whose name he
     could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize."

The part of Capt. Fritz's report dealing with the Saturday morning interview stated Oswald:

    "said he ate lunch with some of the colored boys who worked with him.
     One of them was called ‘Junior’ and the other one was a little short
     man whose name he did not know. He said he had a cheese sandwich
     and some fruit and that was the only package he had brough with him
     to work and denied he had brought the long package described by
     Mr. Frazier and his sister."

So I can likewise subtract a minute from the 12:25 part of Jarman's statement and have them walk through the back door at 12:24.

Do you believe that 12:24 falls between 12:25 and 12:28? If you actually believe that....then you need to seek mental help.

I was wrong about Kelley's first attendance at an interrogation session.... He first attended an interrogation session on Saturday .   He attended the session in which James Bookhout reported that Lee told them he had eaten lunch ALONE   (page 622 WR) but he'd seen the two colored employees walk by the lunchroom while he was eating his lunch.

Bookhout, at the same interview, wrote:

    "OSWALD stated that on November 22, 1963, he had eaten lunch in
     the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but
     recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room
     during this period. He stated possibly one of these employees was
     called ‘Junior’ and the other was a short individual whose name he
     could not recall but whom he would be able to recognize."

 

[Jerry Freeman]

   This was a simple point that was being made.

My point was simpler.
 

If Oswald did not commit this crime, then there must have been a conspiracy to frame him to explain the evidence against him.

So you say and I agree. However, just stating this is NOT a theory it merely makes one skeptical of the official theory.

 In addition, Martin refuses to even admit that he is a CTer.

There you go again. Why must somebody just have to admit something?

He is apparently ashamed to be linked to folks such as yourself despite agreeing with you. 

Now what are YOU babbling about?

Apparently ashamed?

You are incorrigible.
Without stating "his rifle"...with what evidence do you place Oswald as the 6th floor shooter?

[Martin Weidmann]

12:24 falls between the 12:20-to-12:25 that were given as estimates. The men entering at 12:25 would give Lunchroom Os nearly five minutes to get upstairs and in place.

That's nice, but Bookhout says Oswald wasn't alone for long. Both Kelley and Fritz say Oswald claimed to have eaten lunch with the two men. Oswald heard Jarman and Norman arrive beneath the open window on the sixth floor. He guessed wrongly that the two men had just finished eating lunch together. He tried to make it seem like he was also there.

Oswald heard Jarman and Norman arrive beneath the open window on the sixth floor. He guessed wrongly that the two men had just finished eating lunch together. He tried to make it seem like he was also there.

Repeating a made up story, for which there is not a shred of evidence, doesn't make it true. Also, it would be pretty stupid to claim that you ate lunch which people who can and will deny it the first time they are asked. I don't believe Oswald was that stupid.

You seem to be ignoring that there are contradictions in the various reports, which can only be attributed to sloppy work by those who wrote the reports. What is usually correct is what all the reports agree on, which is that Oswald placed Jarman and Norman at the exact location where they actually were.

[Walt Cakebread]

12:24 falls between the 12:20-to-12:25 that were given as estimates. The men entering at 12:25 would give Lunchroom Os nearly five minutes to get upstairs and in place.

That's nice, but Bookhout says Oswald wasn't alone for long. Both Kelley and Fritz say Oswald claimed to have eaten lunch with the two men. Oswald heard Jarman and Norman arrive beneath the open window on the sixth floor. He guessed wrongly that the two men had just finished eating lunch together. He tried to make it seem like he was also there.

OMG!.... Why do you persist in making a fool of yourself ?.... And why is it so important to you that Lee Oswald has to be guilty?

Page 23 of Hosty's book, Assignment: Oswald

Fritz:    Where were you when the president went by the book depository?

Lee Oswald:    I was eating my lunch in the first floor lunchroom.

[Richard Smith]

My point was simpler.
  So you say and I agree. However, just stating this is NOT a theory it merely makes one skeptical of the official theory.There you go again. Why must somebody just have to admit something?  Now what are YOU babbling about?  You are incorrigible.
Without stating "his rifle"...with what evidence do you place Oswald as the 6th floor shooter?

Pretty simple again.  If someone claims that Oswald couldn't have been on the 6th floor because he couldn't have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom (where we know he was after the assassination), then that means they have concluded that Oswald couldn't have been assassin.  That's the only implication that can be drawn.  Yet Martin refuses to acknowledge this by having the courage of his own convictions.  It is an intellectually dishonest position to suggest something is a fact but then refuse to confirm that the direct implication of that fact is your position.  Rather it is a lazy defense attorney tactic to suggest doubt without ever having a position to defend.  Perhaps you can explain how or why someone who believes Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor is not a conspiracy theorist?

[Martin Weidmann]

Pretty simple again.  If someone claims that Oswald couldn't have been on the 6th floor because he couldn't have reached the 2nd floor lunchroom (where we know he was after the assassination), then that means they have concluded that Oswald couldn't have been assassin.  That's the only implication that can be drawn.  Yet Martin refuses to acknowledge this by having the courage of his own convictions.  It is an intellectually dishonest position to suggest something is a fact but then refuse to confirm that the direct implication of that fact is your position.  Rather it is a lazy defense attorney tactic to suggest doubt without ever having a position to defend.  Perhaps you can explain how or why someone who believes Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor is not a conspiracy theorist?

Perhaps you can explain how or why someone who believes Oswald wasn't on the 6th floor is not a conspiracy theorist?

You really can't figure this out by yourself? Really?

Let me try to enlighten you. There are two possibilities and both could be true. I don't care which one is true as long as it can be proven to be true with actual evidence. Some people are interested in trying to find out who was in which conspiracy to kill Kennedy and how they did it, if Oswald turns out not to be the lone gunman. I couldn't care less. If there was a conspiracy, there is no point for me to waste my time on trying to figure out what really happened and who was involved, because that ship sailed a long time ago.

My only interest is finding out whether Oswald was indeed the lone gunman as the WC claimed and for that I scrutinize the evidence and the narrative. If, at the end if the day, it turns out that the evidence is conclusive enough to justify the conclusion that Oswald did it and did it alone, then so be it. If it doesn't, then there likely was a conspiracy but that's far beyond the scope of my interest, so you insisting in calling me a Conspiracy Theorist is just about the most stupid thing you have done so far.

[John Iacoletti]

I can't decipher what you are babbling about here.  This was a simple point that was being made.  If Oswald did not commit this crime, then there must have been a conspiracy to frame him to explain the evidence against him. 

False dichotomy. Next?

[John Iacoletti]

It’s pretty obvious that the reason “Richard” is trying so hard to turn it around on Martin is because he can’t explain how Oswald could have gotten from the sixth floor to the second floor unnoticed. All he can do is keep insisting that the “evidence he left there” proves he was on the sixth floor at 12:30 (which is false).