Non problematic evidence?

[Walt Cakebread]

Oswald's Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD is evidence against Oswald that isn't problematic. However, would it be enough on it's own to convince a jury of Oswald's guilt? Probably, but there is the slight chance that it would not.  Now, include the shell casings found in the Sniper's nest and the evidence against Oswald becomes conclusive.  Replace the shell casings with the fragments found in the limo or  CE-399 and the case against Oswald is similarly conclusive.

Oswald's Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD is evidence against Oswald that isn't problematic.

Would you oblige me and take a couple of minutes and explain to me how Lee could have hid that rifle under a wooden pallet of books that was FIVE  (5) FEET  from the aisle at the top of the stairs.   ....  And I'm not requesting that you explain the BS about the rifle being jammed between boxes of books that were only a couple of feet from that aisle....   Detective Robert Studebaker recorded the rifle as being on the floor 15 feet four inches from the north wall..... that distance places the rifle over five feet fom the aisle....  How could Lee Oswald have hid that rifle that was nearly his full height away from the aisle??  Explanation please...         

[Jerry Organ]

Oswald's Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD is evidence against Oswald that isn't problematic.

Would you oblige me and take a couple of minutes and explain to me how Lee could have hid that rifle under a wooden pallet of books that was FIVE  (5) FEET  from the aisle at the top of the stairs.   .... 

Under a wooden pallet? A few wooden pallets with book cartons on them surround the area of the floor where the rifle lay.

I've been following a show called "The Curse of Oak Island" for awhile now. When they find something, the announcer goes off on a tangent, exaggerating the significance and linkage. That's like you; you can't just have the rifle on the floor -- it's got to be under a pallet.

And I'm not requesting that you explain the BS about the rifle being jammed between boxes of books that were only a couple of feet from that aisle....   Detective Robert Studebaker recorded the rifle as being on the floor 15 feet four inches from the north wall..... that distance places the rifle over five feet fom the aisle.... 

They didn't have laser measuring pointers then??

How could Lee Oswald have hid that rifle that was nearly his full height away from the aisle??  Explanation please...       

Geeze. That's quite a long rifle. It wasn't an M91 Carcano with bayonet found there.

[Walt Cakebread]

The shell casings and fragments (if genuine) might implicate a particular rifle, but not a shooter.

Fragments cannot be traced to a particular rifle....PERIOD!!!

[Charles Collins]

Can anybody name one piece of physical evidence conclusively tied to Oswald which is of such significance that it beyond reasonable doubt clearly points to his guilt?

Can anybody name one piece of credible evidence conclusively tied to the assassination which is of such significance that it beyond reasonable doubt clearly points to a conspiracy?

[John Iacoletti]

Can anybody name one piece of credible evidence conclusively tied to the assassination which is of such significance that it beyond reasonable doubt clearly points to a conspiracy?

I can't.

Now can you answer Martin's question?

[Charles Collins]

I can't.

Now can you answer Martin's question?

I answered it with a question. I agree with Tim Nickerson regarding the combination of evidence. The preponderance of the evidence points to LHO. That is what convinced me.

[Martin Weidmann]

I answered it with a question. I agree with Tim Nickerson regarding the combination of evidence. The preponderance of the evidence points to LHO. That is what convinced me.

In other words; just pile up as much as you like, don't question it or examine it closely, call it evidence and conclude that the preponderance of evidence points to LHO.....

It doesn't matter if a conspiracy can be proven or not. Even if it can't be proven, it still does not allow the conclusion that Oswald did it (alone), so your question has very little to do with my question. Care to try again?

[John Iacoletti]

Charles is just another in a long line of True Believers who pops up, insists that Oswald did it, claims overwhelming evidence, refuses to specify what that evidence is or examine any evidence at all, and then insists that if you can't prove a conspiracy then Oswald did it.