The Bus Stop Farce

[Martin Weidmann]

In CT Wonderland, nothing can be known, nothing can be proven, and nothing is believable.

In LN fantasy land everything can be assumed and with enough assumptions you can find anybody guilty of anything.

[Bill Chapman]

In LN fantasy land everything can be assumed and with enough assumptions you can find anybody guilty of anything.

Not a fantasy that several witnesses ID'd Oswald @Tippit. Not a fantasy that Oswald was the only person on the planet placed at both scenes during the firing sequences.

[Martin Weidmann]

Not a fantasy that several witnesses ID'd Oswald @Tippit. Not a fantasy that Oswald was the only person on the planet placed at both scenes during the firing sequences.

Not a fantasy that Oswald was the only person on the planet placed at both scenes during the firing sequences.

Was he?

In Tippit's case, only if the witnesses were right. The problem is that he probably couldn't have been there when the shooting happened, which, if true, means the witnesses were wrong.

[Charles Collins]

Your desperation is showing.

Totally wrong in all aspects. There are multiple witnesses who saw LHO during the Tippit murder and the flight from that scene who say that he was wearing a jacket. That was only minutes after he left the boarding house and in the same area. Therefore I am not relying solely on any one witness.

Yes, you are relying on one witness, because nobody, except Roberts saw Oswald leave the rooming house. Using the witnesses who allegedly saw Oswald wearing a jacket at the Tippit scene is 50% of the circular logic trap you seem stuck in and don't understand.

And, for at least the third time, Roberts said that she wasn’t paying attention [to the color] when she was asked about the color of his shirt when he came in. She was clear in her testimony that he donned a jacket that zipped up.

No she wasn't. It was only because she had seen him "zipping up" something that she concluded he was wearing a jacket.

Mr. BALL. It was a zippered jacket, was it?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Yes; it was a zipper jacket. How come me to remember it, he was zipping it up as he went out the door.

And hesitated only when asked if the jacket in evidence was the same jacket.

There was no hestitation. She clearly did not identifiy CE 162 as the jacket she had seen. According to her the jacket Oswald was wearing was darker.

With all that evidence indicating he had a jacket on, your trying to create doubt that he was even wearing a jacket at all (based on Roberts not being sure enough to positively identify the jacket in evidence) is not reasonable.

Yeah, just like anybody who is not convinced by the WC narrative isn't reasonable either. It's like a prosecutor who can not present a convincing case complaining about the jury he can't convince. What's really unreasonable is a failure to look at all the evidence and try to make sense of it. By simply jumping to conclusions and dismissing/ignoring evidence you do not like, it is you who is not reasonable. But that's par for the course for LNs, so no surprise there.

There is no "all that evidence indicating he had a jacket on". There is one woman, blind in one eye, not paying much attention, not sure of the color of the jacket and unable to identify CE 162, who says Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket. That's it!

Lee didn’t live with Marina. Therefore Marina had no way of knowing what LHO had or didn’t have at the rooming house.

Really? She did his washing and, more importantly, only two jackets were found in Oswald's possession. The dark/grey one found at the TSBD and CE 162, which Marina confirmed as belonging to Oswald.

Who knows where the jacket came from?

The problem for you is that Marina identified CE 162 as one of those two jackets. Strangely enough CE 162 showed up at the police station some two hours after Oswald's arrest. Captain Westbrook said in his testimony that he gave the white jacket found at the car park to an unidentified officer and from there it disappeared until it surfaced again at the police station, with initials on it from officers that never were at the parking lot where the jacket was found. Obviously it's merely a coincidence that roundabout the same time the officers arrived back from the first search of Ruth Paine's house with varios pieces of evidence that were never listed, right?

I notice you ignored Buell Frazier's testimony about Oswald wearing a grey jacket to Irving on Thursday evening. Now, why did you do that? Too inconvenient, perhaps?


You seem to to a novice in legal matters, so I'll let it slide that you don't understand any of this. I'll try to explain again if you try to keep up.

First of all, I am not claiming anything. If the available evidence shows that Oswald left the rooming house, than so be it. But that's not what the evidence shows. You've got one unreliable witness with a shaky story and no corroboration when there is other albeit circumstantial evidence to show that the jacket CE 162 (the one you claim Oswald was wearing) simply could not have been at the rooming house on Friday morning. This is where your problem lies; you can not conclusively show that Oswald did in fact leave the rooming house wearing CE 162. All you can do is assume it and use circular logic to try and substantiate it.

Circular logic is based on an assumption that something is true. Therefore something else must be true. I am not assuming anything. Roberts said that she saw LHO leave with a jacket (no assumption needed). Multiple witnesses minutes later said they saw LHO wearing a jacket (no assumption needed). The multiple witnesses’ accounts strengthen Roberts’ testimony regarding LHO wearing a jacket. Your idea that LHO was not wearing a jacket (which I am still waiting for you to “establish”) can only be based on your assumptions, because Roberts said otherwise.

[Bill Chapman]

Not a fantasy that Oswald was the only person on the planet placed at both scenes during the firing sequences.

Was he?

In Tippit's case, only if the witnesses were right. The problem is that he probably couldn't have been there when the shooting happened, which, if true, means the witnesses were wrong.

So you pound on Earlene as being practically useless, yet she's bang-on with her timing. Same thing with Markham. No cherrypicking there.

[Martin Weidmann]

Circular logic is based on an assumption that something is true. Therefore something else must be true. I am not assuming anything. Roberts said that she saw LHO leave with a jacket (no assumption needed). Multiple witnesses minutes later said they saw LHO wearing a jacket (no assumption needed). The multiple witnesses’ accounts strengthen Roberts’ testimony regarding LHO wearing a jacket. Your idea that LHO was not wearing a jacket (which I am still waiting for you to “establish”) can only be based on your assumptions, because Roberts said otherwise.

This would be so funny if it wasn't so tragically ignorant.

Circular logic is based on an assumption that something is true. Therefore something else must be true. I am not assuming anything

You assume that what Roberts said is in fact true, despite circumstantial evidence that indicates it couldn't have been.
You assume that the Tippit witnesses did in fact see Oswald and could not possibly be mistaken

Roberts said that she saw LHO leave with a jacket (no assumption needed). Multiple witnesses minutes later said they saw LHO wearing a jacket (no assumption needed).

And there it is... the assumption that witnesses, who are known to be the least reliable sort of evidence, could not possibly be wrong, except of course at Dealey Plaza where most witnesses were deemed to be wrong about just about everything. It's the LN way.

The multiple witnesses’ accounts strengthen Roberts’ testimony regarding LHO wearing a jacket.

And there is, once again, 50% of the circular logic you apply all the time. The mere fact that the Tippit witnesses saw a man wearing a jacket does not, in any way, shape or form, support Roberts' claim that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket. Unless of course, you first assume that the Tippit witnesses did in fact see Oswald, which brings us back to the assumptions you don't even understand you are making.

Your idea that LHO was not wearing a jacket (which I am still waiting for you to “establish”) can only be based on your assumptions, because Roberts said otherwise.

It's not my idea. There is evidence that the grey jacket (CE 162) could not possibly have been at the rooming house on Friday morning and that both of the jackets Marina said Oswald had have been accounted for. Ergo, if that evidence is correct, Roberts could not possibly have seen Oswald wearing CE 162 at the rooming house on Friday morning.

Mr. BALL - On Thursday afternoon when you went home, drove on home, did he carry any package with him?
Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; he didn't
Mr. BALL - Did he have a jacket or coat on him?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What kind of a jacket or coat did he have?
Mr. FRAZIER - That, you know, like I say gray jacket.
Mr. BALL - That same gray jacket?
Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. Now, I can be frank with you, I had seen him wear that jacket several times, because it is cool type like when you keep a jacket on all day, if you are working on outside or something like that, you wouldn't go outside with just a plain shirt on.

It's not difficult to understand, yet you seem to be struggling to comprehend this.... Why is that

[Martin Weidmann]

So you pound on Earlene as being practically useless, yet she's bang-on with her timing. Same thing with Markham. No cherrypicking there.

No, I never said that Earlene Roberts was bang on with her timing. The fact of the matter is that the WC narrative has Oswald arriving just before 1 pm and that Roberts said she wanted to switch the television on for the 1 pm news when Oswald came in. I think it's safe to assume that none of this happened at, let's say 3 pm, right? I'm not sure about you, but when I am watching the 1 pm news it's probably just after one, right?

As for Markham, her estimate of 1.06 for her arrival at 10th street is probably not bang-on either. However, the fact that she was walking towards the bus stop to catch her regular bus at 1.15, combined with Bowley's statement that he arrived just after the shooting and he looked at his watch which said 1.10 corroborates Markham's estimate to the extend that it is reasonable to assume that she was indeed at the crossing of 10th and Patton somewhere between 1.05 and 1.10. Even more so, as subsequent events support and corroborate the time line which starts with Markham's estimate.

[Charles Collins]

Not a fantasy that Oswald was the only person on the planet placed at both scenes during the firing sequences.

Was he?

In Tippit's case, only if the witnesses were right. The problem is that he probably couldn't have been there when the shooting happened, which, if true, means the witnesses were wrong.

Prime example of circular logic!