Oswald's lies proves his guilt.

[Matt Grantham]

 Roscoe White who worked for DPD in Nov 63 as a photography expert, had copies and a cut out of the Oswald picture in his possession when he died. White's son, upon his Fathers death, announced old Roscoe had worked for the CIA

[Matt Grantham]

He is the one John Armstrong called "Lee".

 Indeed Rob I want to thank John for providing it

[John Mytton]

Over the years? Are we referring to some middle aged Oswald?

He's not Al Bundy!? Hahaha!
While in the Marines he lost some puppy fat, big deal!



JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

JohnM

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

[Ray Mitcham]

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

This could be interesting.

[Richard Smith]

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

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.

[Richard Smith]

First of all, LHO didn't have to say anything as that was his right. All these years later not one LNer has provided evidence showing that he waived his right.

Secondly, we can't take anything that the authorities CLAIMED LHO said at face value since there are NO recordings. The authorities could tell us he said anything since there is no way of knowing.

Finally, there is NO supporting evidence for any of the things that you claimed LHO lied about, thus, none of them are facts so the term  "lie" is not appropriate.

Whether Oswald had legal rights to remain silent or have counsel is not relevant to whether he lied.  In a trial, it would be relevant but here on planet earth it's not.  You have severe difficulty understanding that point.   If there had been "recordings" you would just claim those were faked as well.  How about asking yourself why the authorities would allow Oswald to speak to the press is they were so concerned with controlling what he said?  There is no supporting evidence of his lies?  You mean other than the confirmation of those present?  And a mountain of evidence like the testimony Marina that she took the BY pictures, that Oswald owned a rifle, and Frazier's testimony that Oswald carried a long package that morning that he claimed contained curtain rods.  And you are the guy who finds Oswald "suspicious" and believe he was "involved" but never utter a single word against him.  Everyone else must be lying but never your hero Oswald.

[Matt Grantham]

 Yes I suppose those points are worthy for those not willing to consider a conspiracy I too would question such people on why they believe Oswald's fingerprints were lifted at the morgue onto the rifle