The Bus Stop Farce

[Bill Chapman]

Irrelevant

You are not making sense. If you mean by "shorthand version" her affidavit, she had indeed not mentioned it. So, what reason did they have to assume that the shirt, and nothing else, could refresh her recollection?

And yes, materials used to refresh recollection are admissible at trial, in some cases, but witness manipulation of influencing prior to testimony is a criminal offence.

So, let's try it again, but in a perhaps easier way for you to understand; if I don't tell you about seeing a shirt, what reason would you have to come to my house to show me a shirt and ask me if I recognize it?

Show us where I said the 'shorthand version affidavit'
An affidavit is the shorthand version of a full testimony

And are you sure you're fully aware of the nature of the WC mandate?

[Martin Weidmann]

Show us where I said the 'shorthand version affidavit'
An affidavit is the shorthand version of a full testimony

And are you sure you're fully aware of the nature of the WC mandate?

Show us where I said the 'shorthand version affidavit'

Do you understand what is written? I asked; If you mean by "shorthand version" her affidavit

An affidavit is the shorthand version of a full testimony

No it isn't. An affidavit is a statement under oath to a notary public. It may or may not be expanded upon during testimony, but it most certainly isn't the "shorthand version of a full testimony". What law school did you go to?

Perhaps you should do so research before making a stupid comment like that.

And are you sure you're fully aware of the nature of the WC mandate?

Why don't you tell us what the WC mandate was? This should be good.....

In the meantime, I repeat my question;

So, let's try it again, but in a perhaps easier way for you to understand; if I don't tell you about seeing a shirt, what reason would you have to come to my house to show me a shirt and ask me if I recognize it?

Wanna go for three in avoiding answering it?

[Bill Chapman]

-----------------------------------
CONSPIRACY BUFF STANDARDS
FOR MARY BLEDSOE AFFIDAVIT
------------------------------------

"Last Friday, November 22, 1963, I went downtown to see the President. I stood on Main Street just across the street from Titche's until the parade passed by. I was looking for men who had holes in their shirts. Then I walked over to Elm Street and caught a bus to go home. The bus traveled West on Elm Street to about Murphy Street and made a stop and that is when I saw Lee Oswald get on the bus. He had a hole his shirt. I didn’t recognize him ay first because his face was contorted and he wasn’t quite as creepy-looking back then.(Well not unless you tried to talk to him). The traffic was heavy and it took quite sometime [sic] to travel two or three blocks. Oswald still had the hole in his shirt. During that time someone made the statement that the President had been shot and while the bus was stopped due to the heavy traffic, Oswald (who still had the hole in his shirt) got off the bus and I didn't see him again. I know this man was Lee Oswald because he lived in my home from October 7, 1963 to October 14, 1963."

[Martin Weidmann]

-----------------------------------
CONSPIRACY BUFF STANDARDS
FOR MARY BLEDSOE AFFIDAVIT
------------------------------------

"Last Friday, November 22, 1963, I went downtown to see the President. I stood on Main Street just across the street from Titche's until the parade passed by. I was looking for men who had holes in their shirts. Then I walked over to Elm Street and caught a bus to go home. The bus traveled West on Elm Street to about Murphy Street and made a stop and that is when I saw Lee Oswald get on the bus. He had a hole his shirt. I didn’t recognize him ay first because his face was contorted and he wasn’t quite as creepy-looking back then.(Well not unless you tried to talk to him). The traffic was heavy and it took quite sometime [sic] to travel two or three blocks. Oswald still had the hole in his shirt. During that time someone made the statement that the President had been shot and while the bus was stopped due to the heavy traffic, Oswald (who still had the hole in his shirt) got off the bus and I didn't see him again. I know this man was Lee Oswald because he lived in my home from October 7, 1963 to October 14, 1963."

Hey, drama queen, stop playing around and answer the question;

So, let's try it again, but in a perhaps easier way for you to understand; if I don't tell you about seeing a shirt, what reason would you have to come to my house to show me a shirt and ask me if I recognize it?

[Bill Chapman]

Show us where I said the 'shorthand version affidavit'

Do you understand what is written? I asked; If you mean by "shorthand version" her affidavit

An affidavit is the shorthand version of a full testimony

No it isn't. An affidavit is a statement under oath to a notary public. It may or may not be expanded upon during testimony, but it most certainly isn't the "shorthand version of a full testimony". What law school did you go to?

Perhaps you should do so research before making a stupid comment like that.

And are you sure you're fully aware of the nature of the WC mandate?

Why don't you tell us what the WC mandate was? This should be good.....

In the meantime, I repeat my question;

Wanna go for three in avoiding answering it?

The answer is obvious. The WC was an investigative body tasked with gathering evidence.
Pretty sure investigators would have a keen interest in visiting someone who saw Oswald on the bus.

[Bill Chapman]

Hey, drama queen, stop playing around and answer the question;

Don't get your panties in a knot, big fella
Take a breath once in a while

[Martin Weidmann]

The answer is obvious. The WC was an investigative body tasked with gathering evidence.
Pretty sure investigators would have a keen interest in visiting someone who saw Oswald on the bus.

Don't get your panties in a knot, big fella
Take a breath once in a while

And still no answer to my question. One can only wonder why.....

So, let's try it again; if I don't tell you about seeing a shirt, what reason would you have to come to my house to show me a shirt and ask me if I recognize it?

Pretty sure investigators would have a keen interest in visiting someone who saw Oswald on the bus.

And they did have an interest in Bledsoe. That's why she testified. But they could have shown her the shirt during the testimony, so why did they feel the need to bring the shirt to her home prior to her testimony?

[Richard Smith]

And still no answer to my question. One can only wonder why.....

So, let's try it again; if I don't tell you about seeing a shirt, what reason would you have to come to my house to show me a shirt and ask me if I recognize it?

Pretty sure investigators would have a keen interest in visiting someone who saw Oswald on the bus.

And they did have an interest in Bledsoe. That's why she testified. But they could have shown her the shirt during the testimony, so why did they feel the need to bring the shirt to her home prior to her testimony?

Keep in mind that Martin/Roger is not a conspiracy theorist.  Or so he keeps telling us.  All this skullduggery that he claims happened in every instance when it points to Oswald's guilt is apparently just the product of sugar plum fairies.  There is no explanation for who or why this is all being done to frame Oswald if there is not a conspiracy.  It is just so.