Time for Truth

[Bill Brown]

No, I merely quoted what Earlene Roberts said in her testimony. I, personally, have serious doubts about what she did and could see in the few seconds she saw Oswald going out of the front door.
I seem to remember that you have actually been inside the roominghouse, as I have. So, you know how short the distance is between Oswald's room and the front door. You also know, as Roberts told the WC, she was concentrating on the television, which means she had her back turned towards the part of the room where Oswald must have walked. I wouldn't be surpised if she only saw him briefly and in a glance as he opened the front door and walked out. No more than two or three seconds at best.

But Roberts said she saw Oswald zipping up the jacket.

[Martin Weidmann]

But Roberts said she saw Oswald zipping up the jacket.

Do you take everything she said at face value or just the parts you like?

The bottom line is that Roberts is an unreliable witness.

[John Iacoletti]

Let’s assume for the sake of argument, even though it can’t be proven, that it was Oswald who Roberts saw.

Let’s further assume for the sake of argument, even though it can’t be proven, that Roberts saw Oswald wearing and zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.

Let’s further assume for the sake of argument, even though it can’t be proven, that it was Oswald who Brewer saw in front of his shop.

Let’s further assume for the sake of argument, even though it can’t be proven, that Oswald was not wearing or holding a jacket when Brewer saw him.

How does this demonstrate that Oswald deliberately “got rid of” the jacket?

[Bill Brown]

Do you take everything she said at face value or just the parts you like?

The bottom line is that Roberts is an unreliable witness.

Point being, you attacked her vision.  Fair enough.  She was admittedly blind in one eye.  But, she had two eyes.

She said Oswald was zipping up the jacket as he went out the door.  That begs the question of why did he get rid of this jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store.

It's obvious why you stay a million miles away from answering this simple question.

[Martin Weidmann]

Point being, you attacked her vision.  Fair enough.  She was admittedly blind in one eye.  But, she had two eyes.

She said Oswald was zipping up the jacket as he went out the door.  That begs the question of why did he get rid of this jacket between the rooming house and the shoe store.

It's obvious why you stay a million miles away from answering this simple question.

Well, first of all, it begs the question if Roberts did in fact see what she believed she saw.

Yes, Roberts had one good eye, but that's not all. She was concentrating on the television, which means she had her back turned to the living room, which in turn means she wasn't concentrating on Oswald. She only would have seen him for a second or two. Add to this that her employer described her as a person who made up things.

Why are you so sure she did see what she believed she saw?

It's obvious why you stay a million miles away from answering this simple question.

It's not only a simple question but it is also a moot and hypothetical one when you can not show, other than with the questionable testimony of Roberts, that Oswald did in fact leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket. Show that first and then I'll deal with your question.

[Bill Brown]

Well, first of all, it begs the question if Roberts did in fact see what she believed she saw.

Yes, Roberts had one good eye, but that's not all. She was concentrating on the television, which means she had her back turned to the living room, which means she wasn't concentrating on Oswald. She only would have seen him for a second or two. Add to this that her employer described her as a person who made up things.

Why are you so sure she did see what she believed she saw?

It's obvious why you stay a million miles away from answering this simple question.

It's not only a simple question but it is also a moot and hypothetical one when you can not show, other than with the questionable testimony of Roberts, that Oswald did in fact leave the roominghouse wearing a jacket. Show that first and then I'll deal with your question.

Nonsense.

Roberts was the only human being present when Oswald left the rooming house and she said he left in a jacket.  Show that Oswald did not leave the rooming house in as jacket, zipping it up as he went out the door.  Then I'll deal with your (jnvalid) point.

[Alan Ford]

Nonsense.

Roberts was the only human being present when Oswald left the rooming house and she said he left in a jacket.  Show that Oswald did not leave the rooming house in as jacket, zipping it up as he went out the door.  Then I'll deal with your (jnvalid) point.

You might just as logically have written:

'Roberts was the only human being present when Oswald left the rooming house and she said he left in a dark jacket.  Show that Oswald did not leave the rooming house in a dark jacket.'

[Martin Weidmann]

Nonsense.

Roberts was the only human being present when Oswald left the rooming house and she said he left in a jacket.  Show that Oswald did not leave the rooming house in as jacket, zipping it up as he went out the door.  Then I'll deal with your (jnvalid) point.

Nonsense.

Why is it nonsense? Just because you don't like it?

Roberts was the only human being present when Oswald left the rooming house and she said he left in a jacket.

Just because she was the only person who saw Oswald leaving the rooming house doesn't automatically make her right.

In her WC testimony she was asked to describe the shirt Oswald was wearing when he entered the house and she failed miserably. She couldn't provide any conclusive details, which doesn't bode well for her  observation powers. So, what happened in the brief time that Oswald was at the rooming house that improved her power of observation? And why are you sure she actually saw Oswald zipping up a jacket when, at the same time, she failed completely to notice the color of that "jacket"?

Show that Oswald did not leave the rooming house in as jacket, zipping it up as he went out the door.

Asking me to prove a negative, is not only disingenuous but also exposes the weakness of your own argument. You claimed Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket, so it's up to you to prove it and an unreliable witness like Roberts isn't going to do it for you. To rely on her is a pure sign of utter desperation.