Poll claims Oswald seen as ......

[Peter Goth]

I have been watching this over the past several weeks and it is comical. Richard, you've got to be putting us on.
You've got to be--nobody can be that dim. You claim Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shots and
he ran down those stairs roughly 75 sec after the last shot and nobody heard him. Nobody heard him. That part's right.

Then, when Martin questions you to show proof of your claim, you dance. Why can't you answer that question. It should be very simple.
But every part of this case is completely f'-d up, that is not demonstrated by Conspiracy Theorists but by disputing "facts" throughout this case
It is the murder of a President, yet, there is not one single piece of solid absolute proof that Lee Oswald shot JFK.
And it is incredible that so many things could be so wrong with a case of such magnitude that had to be perfect in every way.
It is completely far from it. It is a disgrace. And the HSCA Investigation made it no better, in some ways made it worse.

Nutters always say there's no one single piece of evidence, it is the totality of evidence that finds him guilty without a doubt.
You might think that if all you read was the 900 page Summary Report, But you would be fooled by the many contradictions when compared to the 26 volumes.
That is incredible after almost 60 years. Why is this not easy? - It's not a cobbled CT industry, critics could care less about conspiracy theories.

Besides, these matters of discrepancy have been around since 1964. You might say the Mauser has been resolved years ago. It wasn't even that. It was a 7.65 issue.
Can two different officers, from different locations, knew the shells were 6.5mm, go back and swear to 7.65 five times over three days. Why is that not easily resolved?
Weitzman says on the stand, "I must have been mistaken", and that's all you need to hear. When did he realize this? When did they ever show him CE 139?
It's not in the record. It's not that much to ask, but when considering all the other things that are wrong with the case, it becomes essential.

Do you think CTs make up stories?  - well maybe they do, but the critic doesn't. He doesn't have to. I don't understand why you don't get that.
But then, you must know already that you can't defend the Report, and so you play the "straw man" and attempt to project Martin as doing the same thing you do every day.
Dodge ball. Just answer the question. What is the proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots? Brennan? - perhaps, if you cherry pick while he embellishes.

I find it fascinating that so many people from so many walks of life are mistaken about the same thing. Doctors, medical professionals, trained police, and detectives.
All wrong about the same thing. Statements made to the FBI that directly contradict the narrative. Are these people lying? - Can you lie to the FBI?
Or the witness that made some statement against the official conclusion and is suddenly hounded by the FBI, and not to bring new questions or gather new information.
Arnold Roland is a prime example - they went after his school grades and hear-say to discredit him, and hounded him repeatedly. What did he see in the window?

Then, what about when a couple of people saw the same thing from different parts of the plaza. Dark skin, light brown clothing, or even several men.
Why wouldn't they call the prisoners that saw it all from across the street at the 6th floor level. In June '64, one of Jack Ruby's attorneys, Stanly Kaufman, made a suggestion
to Commission Assistant Counsel, Leon Herbert, that the prisoners, "...had a good view of what took place..." "it might be helpful to the Commission to know that there were people
in jail who saw the actual killing." June 1964, how could they not call them? This is not conspiracy theory, yet it exists throughout this case.

And so Richard, you are smarter then that, and we know it. You should be able to bowl Martin over with facts and proof. Why can't you? - Does he have any reason not to believe you?
Then you turn criticism of your claim into Martin's conspiracy theory, that nobody heard him on the stairs and therefore Lee could not be the assassin. I think I read that right.
But that's an obvious act, because all you have to do is show the proof of your claim and it's game over for Martin - That should have been done weeks ago.

Have you ever considered that failure to be the actual proof of a conspiracy in this case?

[Martin Weidmann]

I have been watching this over the past several weeks and it is comical. Richard, you've got to be putting us on.
You've got to be--nobody can be that dim. You claim Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shots and
he ran down those stairs roughly 75 sec after the last shot and nobody heard him. Nobody heard him. That part's right.

Then, when Martin questions you to show proof of your claim, you dance. Why can't you answer that question. It should be very simple.
But every part of this case is completely f'-d up, that is not demonstrated by Conspiracy Theorists but by disputing "facts" throughout this case
It is the murder of a President, yet, there is not one single piece of solid absolute proof that Lee Oswald shot JFK.
And it is incredible that so many things could be so wrong with a case of such magnitude that had to be perfect in every way.
It is completely far from it. It is a disgrace. And the HSCA Investigation made it no better, in some ways made it worse.

Nutters always say there's no one single piece of evidence, it is the totality of evidence that finds him guilty without a doubt.
You might think that if all you read was the 900 page Summary Report, But you would be fooled by the many contradictions when compared to the 26 volumes.
That is incredible after almost 60 years. Why is this not easy? - It's not a cobbled CT industry, critics could care less about conspiracy theories.

Besides, these matters of discrepancy have been around since 1964. You might say the Mauser has been resolved years ago. It wasn't even that. It was a 7.65 issue.
Can two different officers, from different locations, knew the shells were 6.5mm, go back and swear to 7.65 five times over three days. Why is that not easily resolved?
Weitzman says on the stand, "I must have been mistaken", and that's all you need to hear. When did he realize this? When did they ever show him CE 139?
It's not in the record. It's not that much to ask, but when considering all the other things that are wrong with the case, it becomes essential.

Do you think CTs make up stories?  - well maybe they do, but the critic doesn't. He doesn't have to. I don't understand why you don't get that.
But then, you must know already that you can't defend the Report, and so you play the "straw man" and attempt to project Martin as doing the same thing you do every day.
Dodge ball. Just answer the question. What is the proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots? Brennan? - perhaps, if you cherry pick while he embellishes.

I find it fascinating that so many people from so many walks of life are mistaken about the same thing. Doctors, medical professionals, trained police, and detectives.
All wrong about the same thing. Statements made to the FBI that directly contradict the narrative. Are these people lying? - Can you lie to the FBI?
Or the witness that made some statement against the official conclusion and is suddenly hounded by the FBI, and not to bring new questions or gather new information.
Arnold Roland is a prime example - they went after his school grades and hear-say to discredit him, and hounded him repeatedly. What did he see in the window?

Then, what about when a couple of people saw the same thing from different parts of the plaza. Dark skin, light brown clothing, or even several men.
Why wouldn't they call the prisoners that saw it all from across the street at the 6th floor level. In June '64, one of Jack Ruby's attorneys, Stanly Kaufman, made a suggestion
to Commission Assistant Counsel, Leon Herbert, that the prisoners, "...had a good view of what took place..." "it might be helpful to the Commission to know that there were people
in jail who saw the actual killing." June 1964, how could they not call them? This is not conspiracy theory, yet it exists throughout this case.

And so Richard, you are smarter then that, and we know it. You should be able to bowl Martin over with facts and proof. Why can't you? - Does he have any reason not to believe you?
Then you turn criticism of your claim into Martin's conspiracy theory, that nobody heard him on the stairs and therefore Lee could not be the assassin. I think I read that right.
But that's an obvious act, because all you have to do is show the proof of your claim and it's game over for Martin - That should have been done weeks ago.

Have you ever considered that failure to be the actual proof of a conspiracy in this case?

I have been watching this over the past several weeks and it is comical. Richard, you've got to be putting us on.
You've got to be--nobody can be that dim. You claim Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shots and
he ran down those stairs roughly 75 sec after the last shot and nobody heard him. Nobody heard him. That part's right.

Then, when Martin questions you to show proof of your claim, you dance. Why can't you answer that question. It should be very simple.

Indeed

But then, you must know already that you can't defend the Report, and so you play the "straw man" and attempt to project Martin as doing the same thing you do every day.
Dodge ball. Just answer the question. What is the proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots?

Don't expect an answer

And so Richard, you are smarter then that, and we know it. You should be able to bowl Martin over with facts and proof. Why can't you? - Does he have any reason not to believe you?
Then you turn criticism of your claim into Martin's conspiracy theory, that nobody heard him on the stairs and therefore Lee could not be the assassin. I think I read that right.
But that's an obvious act, because all you have to do is show the proof of your claim and it's game over for Martin - That should have been done weeks ago.

You keep asking good questions, that Richard will never answer.

Have you ever considered that failure to be the actual proof of a conspiracy in this case?

 

This will go way over Richard's head, though.

[Richard Smith]

I have been watching this over the past several weeks and it is comical. Richard, you've got to be putting us on.
You've got to be--nobody can be that dim. You claim Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shots and
he ran down those stairs roughly 75 sec after the last shot and nobody heard him. Nobody heard him. That part's right.

Then, when Martin questions you to show proof of your claim, you dance. Why can't you answer that question. It should be very simple.
But every part of this case is completely f'-d up, that is not demonstrated by Conspiracy Theorists but by disputing "facts" throughout this case
It is the murder of a President, yet, there is not one single piece of solid absolute proof that Lee Oswald shot JFK.
And it is incredible that so many things could be so wrong with a case of such magnitude that had to be perfect in every way.
It is completely far from it. It is a disgrace. And the HSCA Investigation made it no better, in some ways made it worse.

Nutters always say there's no one single piece of evidence, it is the totality of evidence that finds him guilty without a doubt.
You might think that if all you read was the 900 page Summary Report, But you would be fooled by the many contradictions when compared to the 26 volumes.
That is incredible after almost 60 years. Why is this not easy? - It's not a cobbled CT industry, critics could care less about conspiracy theories.

Besides, these matters of discrepancy have been around since 1964. You might say the Mauser has been resolved years ago. It wasn't even that. It was a 7.65 issue.
Can two different officers, from different locations, knew the shells were 6.5mm, go back and swear to 7.65 five times over three days. Why is that not easily resolved?
Weitzman says on the stand, "I must have been mistaken", and that's all you need to hear. When did he realize this? When did they ever show him CE 139?
It's not in the record. It's not that much to ask, but when considering all the other things that are wrong with the case, it becomes essential.

Do you think CTs make up stories?  - well maybe they do, but the critic doesn't. He doesn't have to. I don't understand why you don't get that.
But then, you must know already that you can't defend the Report, and so you play the "straw man" and attempt to project Martin as doing the same thing you do every day.
Dodge ball. Just answer the question. What is the proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots? Brennan? - perhaps, if you cherry pick while he embellishes.

I find it fascinating that so many people from so many walks of life are mistaken about the same thing. Doctors, medical professionals, trained police, and detectives.
All wrong about the same thing. Statements made to the FBI that directly contradict the narrative. Are these people lying? - Can you lie to the FBI?
Or the witness that made some statement against the official conclusion and is suddenly hounded by the FBI, and not to bring new questions or gather new information.
Arnold Roland is a prime example - they went after his school grades and hear-say to discredit him, and hounded him repeatedly. What did he see in the window?

Then, what about when a couple of people saw the same thing from different parts of the plaza. Dark skin, light brown clothing, or even several men.
Why wouldn't they call the prisoners that saw it all from across the street at the 6th floor level. In June '64, one of Jack Ruby's attorneys, Stanly Kaufman, made a suggestion
to Commission Assistant Counsel, Leon Herbert, that the prisoners, "...had a good view of what took place..." "it might be helpful to the Commission to know that there were people
in jail who saw the actual killing." June 1964, how could they not call them? This is not conspiracy theory, yet it exists throughout this case.

And so Richard, you are smarter then that, and we know it. You should be able to bowl Martin over with facts and proof. Why can't you? - Does he have any reason not to believe you?
Then you turn criticism of your claim into Martin's conspiracy theory, that nobody heard him on the stairs and therefore Lee could not be the assassin. I think I read that right.
But that's an obvious act, because all you have to do is show the proof of your claim and it's game over for Martin - That should have been done weeks ago.

Have you ever considered that failure to be the actual proof of a conspiracy in this case?

You share Martin's talent to be long winded but make no meaningful point.  Again, my discussion with Martin on this topic has nothing to do with proving whether Oswald was the assassin.  The evidence linking Oswald to the crime was compiled by the WC and is widely available.  Martin knows that evidence.  He doesn't accept it.  It is pointless to go round and round about that when there is nothing to be added.  Pay attention here.  My discussion with Martin has attempted to clarify HIS position on the case.  He made an affirmative statement concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  I think you would agree that if Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination, then Oswald wasn't the assassin.  Martin, however, refuses to confirm if that is his position.  I would think you would encourage Martin to come out of the closet and make clear that he is a CTer since he appears to be ashamed to do so. 

btw:  where have Otto and Roger Collins gone?

[John Iacoletti]

The evidence linking Oswald to the crime was compiled by the WC and is widely available. 

He didn’t ask you what the WC concluded about who was “linked to” the crime. He asked you for your evidence for your claim that Oswald was on the sixth floor at 12:30 and came down the stairs within 75 seconds without being seen or heard by any of the 12 people along the way. If you have none, then just say so instead of desperately trying to pin a “position” on Martin to deflect with. What Martin does or does not believe is completely irrelevant to your claims and the evidence (or lack thereof) for them.

[Walt Cakebread]

I have been watching this over the past several weeks and it is comical. Richard, you've got to be putting us on.
You've got to be--nobody can be that dim. You claim Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shots and
he ran down those stairs roughly 75 sec after the last shot and nobody heard him. Nobody heard him. That part's right.

Then, when Martin questions you to show proof of your claim, you dance. Why can't you answer that question. It should be very simple.
But every part of this case is completely f'-d up, that is not demonstrated by Conspiracy Theorists but by disputing "facts" throughout this case
It is the murder of a President, yet, there is not one single piece of solid absolute proof that Lee Oswald shot JFK.
And it is incredible that so many things could be so wrong with a case of such magnitude that had to be perfect in every way.
It is completely far from it. It is a disgrace. And the HSCA Investigation made it no better, in some ways made it worse.

Nutters always say there's no one single piece of evidence, it is the totality of evidence that finds him guilty without a doubt.
You might think that if all you read was the 900 page Summary Report, But you would be fooled by the many contradictions when compared to the 26 volumes.
That is incredible after almost 60 years. Why is this not easy? - It's not a cobbled CT industry, critics could care less about conspiracy theories.

Besides, these matters of discrepancy have been around since 1964. You might say the Mauser has been resolved years ago. It wasn't even that. It was a 7.65 issue.
Can two different officers, from different locations, knew the shells were 6.5mm, go back and swear to 7.65 five times over three days. Why is that not easily resolved?
Weitzman says on the stand, "I must have been mistaken", and that's all you need to hear. When did he realize this? When did they ever show him CE 139?
It's not in the record. It's not that much to ask, but when considering all the other things that are wrong with the case, it becomes essential.

Do you think CTs make up stories?  - well maybe they do, but the critic doesn't. He doesn't have to. I don't understand why you don't get that.
But then, you must know already that you can't defend the Report, and so you play the "straw man" and attempt to project Martin as doing the same thing you do every day.
Dodge ball. Just answer the question. What is the proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor at the time of the shots? Brennan? - perhaps, if you cherry pick while he embellishes.

I find it fascinating that so many people from so many walks of life are mistaken about the same thing. Doctors, medical professionals, trained police, and detectives.
All wrong about the same thing. Statements made to the FBI that directly contradict the narrative. Are these people lying? - Can you lie to the FBI?
Or the witness that made some statement against the official conclusion and is suddenly hounded by the FBI, and not to bring new questions or gather new information.
Arnold Roland is a prime example - they went after his school grades and hear-say to discredit him, and hounded him repeatedly. What did he see in the window?

Then, what about when a couple of people saw the same thing from different parts of the plaza. Dark skin, light brown clothing, or even several men.
Why wouldn't they call the prisoners that saw it all from across the street at the 6th floor level. In June '64, one of Jack Ruby's attorneys, Stanly Kaufman, made a suggestion
to Commission Assistant Counsel, Leon Herbert, that the prisoners, "...had a good view of what took place..." "it might be helpful to the Commission to know that there were people
in jail who saw the actual killing." June 1964, how could they not call them? This is not conspiracy theory, yet it exists throughout this case.

And so Richard, you are smarter then that, and we know it. You should be able to bowl Martin over with facts and proof. Why can't you? - Does he have any reason not to believe you?
Then you turn criticism of your claim into Martin's conspiracy theory, that nobody heard him on the stairs and therefore Lee could not be the assassin. I think I read that right.
But that's an obvious act, because all you have to do is show the proof of your claim and it's game over for Martin - That should have been done weeks ago.

Have you ever considered that failure to be the actual proof of a conspiracy in this case?

Can you lie to the FBI?

The biggest liar in this case is the head of the FBI.... J. Edgar Hoover.

Most students of this case accept the information that Hoover dumped on us as the truth, and  factual information, and therefore the case is a mountain of lies.   

Probably the primary piece of evidence is the mannlicher carcano rifle.....and it was the carcano that Boone and Weitzman discovered where it had been well hidden beneath the pallet of books.  But there isn't one iota of evidence that the carcano was tested to accertain that it had been fired that day.    The vast majority of students accept Hoover's proclamation that the carcano was fired and it is the murder weapon.   That is the lie on which the entire case rests....

[Martin Weidmann]

You share Martin's talent to be long winded but make no meaningful point.  Again, my discussion with Martin on this topic has nothing to do with proving whether Oswald was the assassin.  The evidence linking Oswald to the crime was compiled by the WC and is widely available.  Martin knows that evidence.  He doesn't accept it.  It is pointless to go round and round about that when there is nothing to be added.  Pay attention here.  My discussion with Martin has attempted to clarify HIS position on the case.  He made an affirmative statement concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  I think you would agree that if Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination, then Oswald wasn't the assassin.  Martin, however, refuses to confirm if that is his position.  I would think you would encourage Martin to come out of the closet and make clear that he is a CTer since he appears to be ashamed to do so. 

btw:  where have Otto and Roger Collins gone?

Again, my discussion with Martin on this topic has nothing to do with proving whether Oswald was the assassin.

 

You claimed Oswald was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and that he came down the stairs unnoticed within 75 seconds after the last shot. I asked you to provide the evidence for those claims and that's exactly what the discussion was all about. You just ran away from it and started a song and dance routine that now has lasted more than two months.

The evidence linking Oswald to the crime was compiled by the WC and is widely available.  Martin knows that evidence.  He doesn't accept it.

There is nothing to accept. There never was. The only thing the WC did was assume that the rifle found on the 6th floor belonged to - and was in the possesion - of Oswald and for them that was enough to conclude that Oswald must have been on the 6th floor. I've asked you to explain how the rifle being on the 6th floor, even if it belonged to Oswald, is evidence of Oswald himself being on the 6th floor when the shots were fired and you failed to answer.

Pay attention here.

Arrogant prick!

My discussion with Martin has attempted to clarify HIS position on the case.

My position was clarified a long time ago. It just goes way over your head.

He made an affirmative statement concluding that Oswald "didn't come down the stairs."  I think you would agree that if Oswald "didn't come down the stairs" after the assassination, then Oswald wasn't the assassin.  Martin, however, refuses to confirm if that is his position.

That is an utter lie

I would think you would encourage Martin to come out of the closet and make clear that he is a CTer since he appears to be ashamed to do so.

btw:  where have Otto and Roger Collins gone? 

Back to this pathetic crap again? Boy, you really must be desperate.

[Jerry Organ]

I have been watching this over the past several weeks and it is comical. Richard, you've got to be putting us on.
You've got to be--nobody can be that dim. You claim Lee Oswald was on the sixth floor at the time of the shots and
he ran down those stairs roughly 75 sec after the last shot and nobody heard him. Nobody heard him. That part's right.

Then, when Martin questions you to show proof of your claim, you dance. Why can't you answer that question. It should be very simple.

You ought to ask why Martin dismisses Sandra Styles recollection that Adams and her first went to the passenger elevator before using the back stairs. Adams confirmed thru testimony that she saw Lovelady on the first floor. She later claimed otherwise decades later to the manipulative CT Ernest who, unlike the WC, never published complete transcripts. The Stroud Letter is so ambiguous and hearsay, it's open to multiple interpretations.

But every part of this case is completely f'-d up, that is not demonstrated by Conspiracy Theorists but by disputing "facts" throughout this case

Yet no different from the majority of serious crime cases where most of the evidence is circumstantial (as opposed to the "direct evidence" of the Tippit Murder). Circumstantial evidence is never rejected by the court and the totality of evidence is argued by the prosecution through reasonable inference. Law schools and the courts have no issue with any of this; both sides have a chance to introduce circumstantial evidence and draw their own reasonable inference.

[Martin Weidmann]

You ought to ask why Martin dismisses Sandra Styles recollection that Adams and her first went to the passenger elevator before using the back stairs. Adams confirmed thru testimony that she saw Lovelady on the first floor. She later claimed otherwise decades later to the manipulative CT Ernest who, unlike the WC, never published complete transcripts. The Stroud Letter is so ambiguous and hearsay, it's open to multiple interpretations.

Yet no different from the majority of serious crime cases where most of the evidence is circumstantial (as opposed to the "direct evidence" of the Tippit Murder). Circumstantial evidence is never rejected by the court and the totality of evidence is argued by the prosecution through reasonable inference. Law schools and the courts have no issue with any of this; both sides have a chance to introduce circumstantial evidence and draw their own reasonable inference.

You ought to ask why Martin dismisses Sandra Styles recollection that Adams and her first went to the passenger elevator before using the back stairs.

If he did that, the answer would be that I don't dismiss anything, but unlike Jerry I don't cherry pick only the statements I like. Instead I look at the overall picture. Styles made all sorts of contradictory statements and in one of them even admitted that Adams' version could well be correct. Adams, on the other hand, has been consistent in her story from day 1 and it's backed up by what Dorothy Garner has said.

Adams confirmed thru testimony that she saw Lovelady on the first floor. She later claimed otherwise decades later to the manipulative CT Ernest who, unlike the WC, never published complete transcripts.

First of all, the WC reserved the right to alter testimony. It's on the record. All you need to do is look it up. Secondly, on 11/24/63 Victoria Adams told FBI agents Hardin and Scott that "she and her friend ran immediately to the back of the building to where the stairs were located and ran down the stairs". That's first day witness testimony! In the same FD 302 report she also tells the agents that she didn't see anybody and explained how she and Styles went from the back of the building to the front and what happened along the way.

Thirdly, when Barry Ernest approached Adams, after searching for her for years, she wasn't even aware that the Lovelady/Shelley reference was in her testimony and she couldn't explain how it got there. You can call Barry Ernest manipulative, but you have no evidence whatsoever that he manipulated anything. There is however a clear indication that the WC tried to manipulate the entire girls on the stairs matter, by (1) ignoring the Stroud letter completely, by (2) not calling Adams and/or Styles to the reconstruction and (3) by clearly trying to influence Lovelady's testimony prior to it being given. Why else would Lovelady bring up Vickie Adams without being asked?

Mr. LOVELADY - Through that double door that we in the morning when we get there we raised. There's a fire door and they have two wooden doors between it.
Mr. BALL - You came in through the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - Right.
Mr. BALL - Who did you see in the first floor?
Mr. LOVELADY - I saw a girl but I wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie.
Mr. BALL - Who is Vickie?
Mr. LOVELADY - The girl that works for Scott, Foresman.
Mr. BALL - What is her full name?
Mr. LOVELADY - I wouldn't know.
Mr. BALL - Vickie Adams?
Mr. LOVELADY - I believe so.
Mr. BALL - Would you say it was Vickie you saw?
Mr. LOVELADY - I couldn't swear.

Shelley denied seeing Adams and Styles and Lovelady "wouldn't swear to it it's Vickie", so all we have is Adams' testimony of which there are several versions.

The Stroud Letter is so ambiguous and hearsay, it's open to multiple interpretations.

Here's Jerry, who just complained about the ambivalent statements of Styles being dismissed out of hand (which did not happen) and who now dismisses the evidence provided by the Stroud letter (a communication of a United States Attorney to the Chief Counsel of the Warren Commission) out of hand. Wow!

Dorothy Garner is on record saying that she followed the girls out of the office and although she did not see them go down the stairs, she could hear them on the stairs, before Truly and the police man came up. There is no ambiguity there. What destroys Jerry's wishful thinking scenario is the fact that Styles was photographed in front of the main entrance of the TSBD at 12:36 and re-entered the building before it was locked down by police. In order to get to that location, within less than 6 minutes after the shots, Styles and Adams must have left the 4th floor no later than about a minute after the shots. The mere fact that Truly and Baker did not run into them when they got on the stairs at the first floor means that the girls must have cleared the stairs in the time it took Truly and Baker to get to the entrance of the stairs, which is less than a minute after the shots.

Shelley and Lovelady both confirmed in their testimony that they were at the front of the building when the shots were fired. From there they ran to the railway yard (where Adams most likely saw them) and did not return to the building until about five minutes later. That's at best a minute earlier than Styles was photographed at the front entrance. There is no physical way that Adams and Styles could have encountered Shelley and Lovelady inside the building!

Jerry can twist and turn all he wants, but those are the facts and he can not offer an alternative scenario that fits all those facts. Past experience has shown that he won't even try, as it is far easier to just make some bogus claims then to defend and explain them!

Yet no different from the majority of serious crime cases where most of the evidence is circumstantial (as opposed to the "direct evidence" of the Tippit Murder). Circumstantial evidence is never rejected by the court and the totality of evidence is argued by the prosecution through reasonable inference. Law schools and the courts have no issue with any of this; both sides have a chance to introduce circumstantial evidence and draw their own reasonable inference.

A pretty meaningless observation that tries to kick in an already open door. As case based on circumstantial is the weakest case there is. It leaves open the possibility of misinterpretation of evidence, speculation and assumptions. Nobody is rejecting circumstantial evidence but the Court understands that both sides will provide their own interpretation of the evidence that they are hardly ever the same.

In this case, there is no physical evidence or otherwise whatsoever to base a circumstantial case on re Oswald being on the 6th floor and coming down the stairs within 75 seconds after the last shot. All the WC did, rather cowardly, is "conclude" that the rifle found on the 6th floor belonged to Oswald and was in his possession (already two assumptions) and because of that Oswald must have been on the 6th floor and must have come down the stairs unnoticed (two more assumptions). The presence of the rifle - even if it did belong to Oswald - does not even begin to prove that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor when the shots were fired.