Buell Wesley Frazier

[Martin Weidmann]

Only in the mind of a conspiracy theorist could Oswald ever have lived long enough to see 1965 had he not been killed by Ruby. Of course, that's assuming that he was killed by Ruby. 

Everything OK with you, Tim?

I'm really starting to worry about you.

[Martin Weidmann]

Oswald's alibi is that he was in the second floor lunch room, the first floor lunchroom, and out on the front entrance steps at the time of the shooting.

Do you have any credible record that shows he actually said any of these things?

[Tim Nickerson]

The OJ case? LOL!

What a dumb comparison, I haven't looked into the OJ case for a while but how about this for starters;

DNA evidence was a new concept barely understood by this Jury and the prosecution did an awful job in their presentation.
The glove and the subsequent try on, leading to the catchy "If it don't fit you must acquit"
Eight black members on this jury in the immediate wake of Rodney King!
Fuhrman and the "N" word.
The peculiar removal of key pieces of evidence from the prosecutions case?
Judge Ito's decisions, like the visit to OJ's house and the substituted photos and paintings.

All very good observations. The mishandling of fungible evidence by the LAPD was also a major factor in OJ's acquittal.

[Martin Weidmann]

All very good observations. The mishandling of fungible evidence by the LAPD was also a major factor in OJ's acquittal.

Just like the mishandling of evidence by the DPD could have been a major factor in Oswald's acquittal? Or is there a difference?

Btw, you never answered my question, which is disappointing as I am eager to learn. So, here is my question again;

Logically, the rifle being his proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30.

How exactly is it "logical"to say that Oswald's rifle (if that's what it was) being found on the 6th floor is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor at 12:30?

In my opinion it isn't logical at all to confuse an assumption with actual evidence, but I'm more than happy to learn from you why my opinion is wrong!

[Tim Nickerson]

Do you have any credible record that shows he actually said any of these things?

I haven't taken them from what he said. Although, he did actually say that he was eating his lunch in the first floor lunchroom. On Nov 22, 1997, Carolyn Arnold told John Young  that she was 100% positive that Lee Oswald was in the first floor lunchroom at 12.25 that day. He was sitting there calmly eating his lunch.

[John Mytton]

See Dan, in the past I've asked some of the best CT's, what evidence they need to place Oswald on the 6th floor and invariably I get the usual answers, like "evidence that convinces me" or "evidence that proves he was there"

What's wrong with asking for "evidence that proves he was there"?

You've isolated my question without context but never the less, beyond the evidence we have, like the relatively fresh prints on the rifle rest moved halfway across the 6th floor, the murder weapon, no alibi, Brennan's first day extremely close description, Oswald's immediate fleeing from the crime scene and Oswald's lies in custody, what more evidence in your opinion is required for proof?

In any other case, a suspects fresh prints at the specific place where the crime took place, the ownership and the suspects prints on the murder weapon, no alibi, fleeing the crime scene which is a clear consciousness of guilt and along with lying to the authorities about your connection to the murder weapon would be alone enough evidence to prove to a jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And in this case the evidence goes so much deeper!

JohnM

[Tim Nickerson]

Just like the mishandling of evidence by the DPD could have been a major factor in Oswald's acquittal? Or is there a difference?

I'm not aware of any mishandling of fungible evidence by the DPD.

Btw, you never answered my question, which is disappointing as I am eager to learn. So, here is my question again;

How exactly is it "logical"to say that Oswald's rifle (if that's what it was) being found on the 6th floor is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald himself was on the 6th floor at 12:30?

In my opinion it isn't logical at all to confuse an assumption with actual evidence, but I'm more than happy to learn from you why my opinion is wrong!

I can't make you understand it. If you can't see it for yourself, nothing that I can say will help.

[Tim Nickerson]

You've isolated my question without context but never the less, beyond the evidence we have, like the relatively fresh prints on the rifle rest moved halfway across the 6th floor, the murder weapon, no alibi, Brennan's first day extremely close description, Oswald's immediate fleeing from the crime scene and Oswald's lies in custody, what more evidence in your opinion is required for proof?

In any other case, a suspects fresh prints at the specific place where the crime took place, the ownership and the suspects prints on the murder weapon, no alibi, fleeing the crime scene which is a clear consciousness of guilt and along with lying to the authorities about your connection to the murder weapon would be alone enough evidence to prove to a jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And in this case the evidence goes so much deeper!

JohnM

No other employees of the TSBD left their fingerprints or palm prints on the boxes in the sniper's nest. Oswald was the only one.