Why Would LHO Choose His Workplace As The Location For Shooting JFK?

[Thomas Graves]

Yes, they're the masters of the circular argument.  Here's another one.

Oswald must have shot Kennedy because he lied in his interrogations.

What did he lie about?

He said he didn't shoot Kennedy.

Iacoletti,

You just made that up.

Fabrication number 5,328.

--  MWT   

[Bill Chapman]

But Mr Chapman...if this were true, then why [after he supposedly shot the president] didn't Oswald lean out from his supposed sniper's window, shake his supposed rifle and yell at the street--Did everybody see that? Did I get him? If he's dead, I did it!! That is if he really wanted to 'be remembered' for sure.

He would be remembered in any case

But better to duck, wrangle a plea bargain (ie: avoid frying), live to see his kids grow up, and get a yearly Nov 22 reminder on every media outlet on the planet.

[Bill Chapman]

He said he didn't shoot Kennedy

Okay, he can go

[Thomas Graves]

He said he didn't shoot Kennedy.

And Scott Peterson said he didn't murder Laci Peterson and their unborn child.

Too bad Mark Lane couldn't have defended him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson

--  MWT   

[Matthew Finch]

Spin away, but it won't work. It is infinitely more difficult for a single person to kill with a rifle than up close with a pistol. That is why NO LNer ever attempted their task with a rifle.

The use of a rifle confirms that it was a carefully orchestrated conspiracy utilizing multiple shooters.

I have only read the thread up to the quoted post above, but with reference to the bolded... ...

[John Iacoletti]

Okay, he can go

Only a guilty person would deny his guilt.

[Richard Smith]

Stop right there. Cite the actual reply number where I state exactly that an individual must have a prior history as a homicidal maniac to be an assassin); You can't because it doesn't exist. Post what you want but do not fabricate mine.

LOL. Run Freeman run.  You noted (erroneously) that Charles Whitman had a prior history as a "homicidal maniac" prior to his rampage and compared him to Oswald who you claimed had no such history (again erroneous).  Explain to us what you meant by making that comparison.  It is pretty clear you are suggesting that because Oswald had no prior such history of murder that lent itself to his innocence.  And that Whitman's prior violent history lent itself to his guilt.  But explain what point you were trying to make if this interpretation is a "fabrication."

[John Iacoletti]

LOL. Run Freeman run.  You noted (erroneously) that Charles Whitman had a prior history as a "homicidal maniac" prior to his rampage

Wrong again, Strawman "Smith".  What Freeman actually said was, "Chas Whitman stabbed his mother and his wife to death...demonstrating that he was a homicidal maniac".

and compared him to Oswald who you claimed had no such history (again erroneous).

No, what he actually said was, "That Oswald was homicidal... theory...speculation....conjecture....guesswork.....supposition ...etc".

Which is true.  The fact that you think he tried to kill Walker isn't a history of being homicidal.