Oswald's lies proves his guilt.

[Martin Weidmann]

The same lazy nonsense over and over.  And from the guy who forever claims he is not suggesting a conspiracy or frame up.  Why is there any reason whatsoever to suggest there is doubt about what was said other than your unwillingness to take the word of those present - the only people who could know what was said?  What you are suggesting is that everything that points to Oswald guilt must be suspect for that reason alone but without explaining why.  It's laughable.  The old CTer catch-22.

Why is there any reason whatsoever to suggest there is doubt about what was said other than your unwillingness to take the word of those present - the only people who could know what was said?

Because those are the people who contradicted eachother on key points in their obviously incomplete non-verbatim reports.

What you are suggesting is that everything that points to Oswald guilt must be suspect for that reason alone

I am not suggesting that at all. Stop making up crap!

If and when a solid piece of evidence points to Oswald's guilt, I'll gladly accept it as such, but that's a far cry from taking some guy's word for it in after the fact reports written from memory and in the knowledge that Oswald was already dead!

[Richard Smith]

Why is there any reason whatsoever to suggest there is doubt about what was said other than your unwillingness to take the word of those present - the only people who could know what was said?

Because those are the people who contradicted eachother on key points in their obviously incomplete non-verbatim reports.

What you are suggesting is that everything that points to Oswald guilt must be suspect for that reason alone

I am not suggesting that at all. Stop making up crap!

If and when a solid piece of evidence points to Oswald's guilt, I'll gladly accept it as such, but that's a far cry from taking some guy's word for it in after the fact reports written from memory and in the knowledge that Oswald was already dead!

How about citing some of these "contradictions" from those actually present relating the statements attributed to Oswald in the OP?  Did anyone indicate, for example, that Oswald admitted ownership of the rifle or that he was in the BY pictures?  Is there any contradiction among those present on Oswald's responses to those basic points?  Why would anyone think that the police would make up statements in which Oswald is basically denying guilt?   If they were going to falsify statements, then why not say he confessed after he is dead.  What you always circle back to is trying to create an impossible standard of proof to imply false doubt about the facts.   No one could prove anything from history to your subjective satisfaction if the response to any evidence was just that there is implicit doubt because someone recounted what they heard or saw from "memory."  It's always "possible" they all got it wrong.  LOL.  What is being suggested is not just that those present characterized what Oswald said in slightly different ways (which might be expected) but those present lied about it for some unknown reason. 

[Tim Nickerson]

Before you start claiming that Oswald lied, why don't you first prove that this is indeed what he said?

What is your standard for what constitutes as proof? James Bookhout, Will Fritz, James Hosty, Thomas Kelley, and Harry Holmes all said that Oswald denied owning a rifle.

[Matt Grantham]

What is your standard for what constitutes as proof? James Bookhout, Will Fritz, James Hosty, Thomas Kelley, and Harry Holmes all said that Oswald denied owning a rifle.

And just to be clear the evidence he did is that Marina said she saw it. The picture and the curtain rods? Not trying to be smarmy just wanting to make sure I am not missing anything?

[John Iacoletti]

Why is there any reason whatsoever to suggest there is doubt about what was said other than your unwillingness to take the word of those present - the only people who could know what was said?

The people who were present don't even agree on what was said.

[Tim Nickerson]

And just to be clear the evidence he did is that Marina said she saw it. The picture and the curtain rods? Not trying to be smarmy just wanting to make sure I am not missing anything?

The evidence that he did is that Marina said she saw it, George De Mohrenschildt said he saw it, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt said she saw it, the backyard photos, the Waldman exhibits, the Klein's money order, the WC testimony of Klein's Vice President William Waldman, and Oswald's palm print being on the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

[John Iacoletti]

And a mountain of evidence like the testimony Marina that she took the BY pictures,

You mean the Marina who originally said that she took one photo with a black camera that is held up to the face?

[John Iacoletti]

While in custody Oswald LIED whenever the rifle was discussed.

1. Oswald lied about owning the rifle.
2. Oswald lied that the backyard photos weren't authentic.
3. Oswald said he never saw the BY photos before but his handwriting was discovered on one.
3. Oswald lied about putting the long package on the back seat of Frazier's car.
4. Oswald told Frazier the long package contained curtain rods but told the Dallas Police that it contained his lunch.
5. Oswald lied about living at Neeley Street, (the location of the incriminating backyard photos)
6. Oswald told Fritz at the time of the assassination he had lunch with Jarman, another lie.
7. Oswald denied that he told Frazier that the reason for his unexpected visit was for curtain rods.

Something doesn't become a lie just because John Mytton doesn't believe it's true