Buell Wesley Frazier

[Tom Sorensen]

We would likely hear the 5th quoted endlessly! Didn't work well for the prosecution in the OJ case. All the defense needs to do is create doubt, lots of doubt, and they would have a field day in this case. As Martin mentions, they would bring in witnesses not previously questioned along with their own expert witnesses to challenge the technical and medical aspects of the case.

[Martin Weidmann]

We would likely hear the 5th quoted endlessly! Didn't work well for the prosecution in the OJ case. All the defense needs to do is create doubt, lots of doubt, and they would have a field day in this case. As Martin mentions, they would bring in witnesses not previously questioned along with their own expert witnesses to challenge the technical and medical aspects of the case.

What the LNs do not (want to) understand is that the WC report was written for the court of public opinion and not for a court of law!

[John Mytton]

these CK's keep asking for proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor @12:30

Nutters keep insisting that the evidence proves Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
This is a falsehood that must be challenged so you are asked to provide evidence to support this falsehood.
Obviously you can't...because it's a falsehood.
So, instead of admitting you can't provide the evidence you start crying about being asked to provide it!!

The problem is that Nutters don't know the difference between an assumption and a fact when it comes to Oswald's guilt.
When Nutters perpetuate the falsehood that the evidence proves Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm, that falsehood must be challenged.
It is a lie that can't be allowed to stand.

Nutters keep insisting that the evidence proves Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm.
This is a falsehood that must be challenged so you are asked to provide evidence to support this falsehood.
Obviously you can't...because it's a falsehood.
So, instead of admitting you can't provide the evidence you start crying about being asked to provide it!!

I phrased my question so honest CT's, if they exist, will question themselves and and actually think about exactly what evidence beyond the Mountain already provided, that they require to place Oswald on the 6th floor and as I clearly said, the keen yet deluded CT needs to see Oswald with his/her own two eyes otherwise this crime is essentially unsolvable, in their opinion that is!
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" or we get answers like Tom's above, and I'm paraphrasing here "we can throw out all the evidence if we can create doubt", so Tom wants to rely on some human error and/or a technicality to clear his client, very sad!

The problem is that Nutters don't know the difference between an assumption and a fact when it comes to Oswald's guilt.
When Nutters perpetuate the falsehood that the evidence proves Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm, that falsehood must be challenged.
It is a lie that can't be allowed to stand.

What assumptions? This case is surrounded by facts from physical evidence, forensic confirmation, the actions of a man clearly fleeing from the scene of the crime and through to a man who lies in custody whenever anything surrounding the rifle is questioned! As Bugliosi says, he could throw away half of this evidence and he'd still have enough to convict!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

I phrased my question so honest CT's, if they exist, will question themselves and and actually think about exactly what evidence beyond the Mountain already provided, that they require to place Oswald on the 6th floor and as I clearly said, the keen yet deluded CT needs to see Oswald with his/her own two eyes otherwise this crime is essentially unsolvable, in their opinion that is!
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" or we get answers like Tom's above, and I'm paraphrasing here "we can throw out all the evidence if we can create doubt", so Tom wants to rely on some human error and/or a technicality to clear his client, very sad!

What assumptions? This case is surrounded by facts from physical evidence, forensic confirmation, the actions of a man clearly fleeing from the scene of the crime and through to a man who lies in custody whenever anything surrounding the rifle is questioned! As Bugliosi says, he could throw away half of this evidence and he'd still have enough to convict!

JohnM

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"?

As Bugliosi says, he could throw away half of this evidence and he'd still have enough to convict!

Hilarious! Mytton's pathetic appeal to the opinion of an anything but neutral lawyer/prosecutor who has a vested commercial interest in proclaiming that Oswald was the lone gunman.

Show me a prosecutor and I'll show you a man who will be convinced that he can convict a suspect with "evidence", no matter how questionable it is.   

[Dan O'meara]

I phrased my question so honest CT's, if they exist, will question themselves and and actually think about exactly what evidence beyond the Mountain already provided, that they require to place Oswald on the 6th floor and as I clearly said, the keen yet deluded CT needs to see Oswald with his/her own two eyes otherwise this crime is essentially unsolvable, in their opinion that is!
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" or we get answers like Tom's above, and I'm paraphrasing here "we can throw out all the evidence if we can create doubt", so Tom wants to rely on some human error and/or a technicality to clear his client, very sad!

What assumptions? This case is surrounded by facts from physical evidence, forensic confirmation, the actions of a man clearly fleeing from the scene of the crime and through to a man who lies in custody whenever anything surrounding the rifle is questioned! As Bugliosi says, he could throw away half of this evidence and he'd still have enough to convict!

JohnM

What assumptions?

It is getting really tedious, making this same point over and over again, but there really does seem to be a genuine mental blockage regarding this aspect of the case for LNers.

There is NO CREDIBLE, DIRECT EVIDENCE placing Oswald on the 6th floor at any time after he is seen/heard by the floor-laying crew racing the elevators down to start their lunch break. And even then he is on the 5th floor.
Your belief that Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 pm is an ASSUMPTION.
You don't seem to be able to comprehend this truth.
IT IS NOT A FACT.

That is all that is being said, John.
Your belief that Oswald took the shots is an ASSUMPTION.
Why can you not get your head around this simple truth?

[Tim Nickerson]

Exactly Tim, these CK's keep asking for proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor @12:30 but it seems that the only evidence that will be accepted is if they had seen Oswald with their very own eyes, because even at the Tippit crime scene almost a dozen people saw Oswald in the immediate vicinity or moving away fiddling with his revolver, yet this indisputable evidence is waved away.
It's just a game to these deeply paranoid CK's who have an irrational hatred of authority and this "Anybody but Oswald" mantra is just a manifestation of this psychosis.

I can't imagine every murder being committed in front of eyewitnesses but the Police do a good job of solving a fair percentage of these heinous crimes.

•In this case specifically the murder weapon is the most important piece of evidence, hence the search for who owns the weapon is a logical starting point for investigation, to suggest otherwise is absolutely bonkers.

•Then after establishing ownership of the murder weapon you investigate the owner and a possible alibi, Oswald has none.

•And again in this case you search the weapon for prints and other forms of contact and here we have Oswald's palmprint and shirt fibers which aren't 100% conclusive but the prohibitive possibility that they are someone else's shirt is extremely remote.

• Next you analyse Oswald's actions before and after the assassination;
A) Oswald makes an unexpected trip to Irving the night before then assassination
B) Either Oswald or Frazier is lying about a package containing "curtain rods", who is more likely to lie?
C) Either Oswald or Frazier/ Linnie Mae is lying about where in Frazier's car that Oswald placed the "curtain rods", who is more likely to lie.
D) No curtain rods are found.
E) The package wrapping found in the sniper's nest has Oswald's prints.
F) The prints in the sniper's nest are relatively fresh, the FBI determined the prints are no older than a few days, and yes Oswald worked there but it wasn't his responsibility to touch every one of the hundreds/thousands of boxes every few days.
G) Oswald doesn't leave at 12PM or at the end of lunch but he leaves in the time it takes a person to travel from the 6th floor, be confronted, buy a coke then get to the ground floor and leave the building, about three minutes after the assassination, this fleeing the scene of the crime alone is highly incriminating.
H) Oswald boards a bus then gets off a bus, why the hurry?
I) Oswald gets a cab and gets out way past his Rooming house, why?
J) Tippit was the first Police Officer to be shot on the job for years, why would Oswald feel compelled to kill a cop?
K) Oswald while hiding in a dark theatre punches an approaching Policeman the tries to use the same revolver that killed Tippit and attempts to kill more.

• Oswald lies while being interrogated, especially when the rifle comes up;
1) Oswald lies about the backyard photos, saying they pasted his head on someone else's body. The backyard photos have been authenticated and besides a negative exists.
2) Oswald conveniently leaves out Neely street as a previous house he rented, funnily enough Neely street is where the backyard photos were taken! Oops!
3) Oswald lies about the "curtain rods" and says he only had his lunch
4) Oswald lies about where he placed the "curtain rods"
5) Oswald lies about owning the rifle.
6) Oswald lies about purchasing the revolver in Fort Worth, likely distancing himself from his preferred method of buying through mail-order the way he bought the rifle.

Now this is a quick summation off the top of my head but does any one in the real World really truly believe that Oswald was innocent?

What could the defence possibly present to refute this evidence, because saying that it was ALL faked and/or a product of lies from multiple unconnected sources would be laughed out of court.

JohnM

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. 

[John Mytton]

We would likely hear the 5th quoted endlessly! Didn't work well for the prosecution in the OJ case. All the defense needs to do is create doubt, lots of doubt, and they would have a field day in this case. As Martin mentions, they would bring in witnesses not previously questioned along with their own expert witnesses to challenge the technical and medical aspects of the case.

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.

But at least at the civil trial they got it right like the Bruno Magli shoes and OJ's comment about not wearing "ugly ass shoes".

As Martin mentions, they would bring in witnesses not previously questioned along with their own expert witnesses to challenge the technical and medical aspects of the case.

What witnesses? Like the ever flexible Hoffman or Beverly Oliver or Gordon Arnold or Acquilla Clemons who according to Anthony Summers was inside a block away and saw something no other eyewitness saw? Good luck with that!
The same technical evidence, the majority of which was verified by the FBI experts, again good luck with that.
And as for the medical evidence authenticated by numerous studies and panels, really?

Your chances of getting Oswald off, by reasons of "doubt" or a technically is extremely slim and is actually downright immoral, is it that important to you to be so underhanded?

JohnM

[Tim Nickerson]

You cannot help but laugh at them. The conspiracy crowd have yet to come up with LHO’s alibi or even something close and put it all to bed. Why keep everyone in suspense?  Is there anyone else who can’t verify their whereabouts at 12:30 and subsequently have a pistol stuck in their stomach by a cop on the 2nd floor?

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.