If I had planned the conspiracy ...

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't know or have ever claimed to know every piece of the thousands pieces of evidence because I have a life and aren't as obsessed as you, but this basic minor irrelevant time discrepancy is as I said a waste of my time and proves nothing.

Months later Hill recalled an "approximate" time and from his guess you claim conspiracy? This is why you fail!

I simply relied on your times because as I said I have a life outside of this Forum and as proved ironically by you, the only foolish claims were yours! Hahahaha!
But keep dreaming because some day you may be able to prove something, anything??

JohnM

I don't know or have ever claimed to know every piece of the thousands pieces of evidence because I have a life and aren't as obsessed as you,

Yeah right, that's why I've just returned to the forum after not posting for 7 months, while you can't stop posting on a nearly daily basis/

If you don't know the evidence, you shouldn't be making idiotic claims time after time.

but this basic minor irrelevant time discrepancy is as I said a waste of my time and proves nothing.

The only one who keeps talking about a time discrepancy is you. The real question to be answered is how Davenport could have submitted the revolver to the evidence room, when Hill said under oath that the revolver was on his person all the time.

Just another LN who knows just about enough about the case to think he's right, but knows not enough he know he is wrong..... That's you, John!

Btw the best way to see that you are stuck is when you go from arguing the merits of the case to being an argumentative jerk who will talk about anything but the case..... You're there, yet again. Some things never change!

[John Mytton]

I don't know or have ever claimed to know every piece of the thousands pieces of evidence because I have a life and aren't as obsessed as you,

Yeah right, that's why I've just returned to the forum after not posting for 7 months, while you can't stop posting on a nearly daily basis/

If you don't know the evidence, you shouldn't be making idiotic claims time after time.

but this basic minor irrelevant time discrepancy is as I said a waste of my time and proves nothing.

The only one who keeps talking about a time discrepancy is you. The real question to be answered is how Davenport could have submitted the revolver to the evidence room, when Hill said under oath that the revolver was on his person all the time.

Just another LN who knows just about enough about the case to think he's right, but knows not enough he know he is wrong..... That's you, John!

Btw the best way to see that you are stuck is when you go from arguing the merits of the case to being an argumentative jerk who will talk about anything but the case..... You're there, yet again. Some things never change!

Yeah right, that's why I've just returned to the forum after not posting for 7 months, while you can't stop posting on a nearly daily basis/

Hilarious, we've both been posting the exact same amount of time since the Forum was hacked and in the same time you have posted more than three thousand posts more than me and since you had a long break that only means that your posts per day average is outrageously higher than mine, again logic was never your forte!

If you don't know the evidence, you shouldn't be making idiotic claims time after time.

The evidence was eventually stated by you, which after much prompting was a tiny half hour discrepancy between a recorded time and a months later guess, a fact that you clearly omitted to bolster your delusion.

The only one who keeps talking about a time discrepancy is you. The real question to be answered is how Davenport could have submitted the revolver to the evidence room, when Hill said under oath that the revolver was on his person all the time.

Give it up already, Hill months later just made a guess and let's not forget that was the same day when a President was murdered by Oswald and a fellow Police Officer was also murdered by Oswald, so in other words Hill had a lot on his mind, so simply recalling a time months later which was close enough to be reasonable, is a basic concept that your desperate mind is failing to comprehend.
But let's get real, at the end of the day all your suspicions about this minor time dispute goes nowhere because the same revolver was taken from Oswald and Oswald admitted to carrying the revolver and the revolver in custody was sent to Oswald! Nuff said, now go play in the traffic like a good little boy.

Just another LN who knows just about enough about the case to think he's right, but knows not enough he know he is wrong..... That's you, John!

This time discrepancy "problem" was all engineered by you and as I said I relied on you telling the truth but as usual you left out little details in an attempt to support your case, naughty naughty!

Btw the best way to see that you are stuck is when you go from arguing the merits of the case to being an argumentative jerk who will talk about anything but the case..... You're there, yet again. Some things never change!

I just used the information that you presented and low and behold, your initial premise was deeply flawed, so yeah some things never change! Anyway as said this topic is now closed because a guessed time is hardly reliable evidence and the fact that Oswald owned, was caught with and admitted to carrying the same revolver in evidence is where this debate ends. So stop trying to insult me and try a something new, k?

BTW where does your bizarre argument go, are you trying to say that Hill switched the revolver from a revolver which is extremely difficult to trace the bullets to another revolver that is extremely difficult to trace the bullets, do you realize how absurd that is??

JohnM

[John Mytton]

Similarly, Gerald Hill testified to the WC that he put his mark on the S & W revolver at around 4 PM and that he had the weapon on his person ever since Bob Carroll gave it to him at the Texas Theater, after Oswald was arrested. So, what does it matter that Officer Davenport submitted that same S & W revolver and 8 or 9 bullets (my eyes are letting me down when I try to read the receipt) to the evidence room at 3.30 PM, right? I'm sure you can provide a perfectly plausible explanation to show just how silly my psychotic paranoia is!

(my eyes are letting me down when I try to read the receipt)

OMG Martin, you can barely read the receipt and when asked politely to post this same receipt, you won't, how can anyone have a fair debate with someone who so blatantly continues to hide his evidence and then demands others to do his research?
For instance if it was me, a man of integrity, I would have posted the receipt, which probably does say 3:30 and I also would present Hill's testimony, so we could all see Hill months later clearly using the word "approximately" 4PM, which effectively neutralizes this entire interaction.

JohnM

[Lance Payette]

You claim to be a former lawyer, but when I tried to pick your brain you instantly became highly defensive and refused to enter into any kind of debate. I can only wonder why.....

I don't know what the rules are here, but rather prominent Ed Forum member, Jon Tidd, a fellow Arizona lawyer, was summarily banned by James Gordon for playing the "you claim to be" game with me. It takes about 20 seconds on Google to establish the fact that I graduated magna cum laude from Arizona State Law School in 1982 (Member of the Coif, Law Review, etc., etc.), was admitted to the Arizona and federal bars that year, was a regional antitrust counsel for a Fortune 100 corporation, was a partner in one of the oldest Arizona law firms, served as Chief Deputy County Attorney for an Arizona county, published four law review articles and two humor pieces in Arizona Attorney Magazine, have numerous reported decisions, retired in 2018, and so on and so forth.

Here's a reported Arizona Supreme Court decision to whet your appetite: https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1991/cv-90-0490-pr-2.html.

Do you actually claim to be a foaming-at-the-mouth CT nutcase or just let the evidence speak for itself?

[Lance Payette]

In any attempt to devise a plausible conspiracy theory, it seems to me that the difficulty increases exponentially if one insists on making Oswald any sort of patsy.

He merely said he was a patsy of the DPD, picked up only because he'd been to Russia. He said nothing to suggest he'd been a patsy in the assassination unless you want to view his statement to Robert ("Don't believe the so-called evidence against me") in that context. If he'd loudly announced "Things aren't what they appear. I've been framed. The truth will come out in due course." - well, OK, the CT patsy crowd would have a leg to stand on. Since he didn't, I simply don't understand the patsy-obsession.

The Actual Oswald was perfectly capable of strange and violent actions. A great deal of evidence suggests he was an active shooter on 11-22. A conspiracy that deals with the Actual Oswald and the Actual Evidence pointing to him has, it seems to me, vastly more plausibility than any patsy theory and looks far more like a real-world conspiracy. The patsy theories inevitably become absurdly complex and top-heavy, almost a textbook case of How Not to Apply Occam's Razor (or Ockham, as the case may be).

Yes, a non-patsy theory is not as sexy or fun. Since the CT crowd seems obsessed with making Oswald a patsy and all that flows from that, I've concluded that this isn't a serious historical quest but more in the nature of a hobby, game or religion. Sexy and fun seems to be exactly what the CT crowd wants.

[Martin Weidmann]

Hilarious, we've both been posting the exact same amount of time since the Forum was hacked and in the same time you have posted more than three thousand posts more than me and since you had a long break that only means that your posts per day average is outrageously higher than mine, again logic was never your forte!

The evidence was eventually stated by you, which after much prompting was a tiny half hour discrepancy between a recorded time and a months later guess, a fact that you clearly omitted to bolster your delusion.

Give it up already, Hill months later just made a guess and let's not forget that was the same day when a President was murdered by Oswald and a fellow Police Officer was also murdered by Oswald, so in other words Hill had a lot on his mind, so simply recalling a time months later which was close enough to be reasonable, is a basic concept that your desperate mind is failing to comprehend.

But let's get real, at the end of the day all your suspicions about this minor time dispute goes nowhere because the same revolver was taken from Oswald and Oswald admitted to carrying the revolver and the revolver in custody was sent to Oswald! Nuff said, now go play in the traffic like a good little boy.

This time discrepancy "problem" was all engineered by you and as I said I relied on you telling the truth but as usual you left out little details in an attempt to support your case, naughty naughty!

I just used the information that you presented and low and behold, your initial premise was deeply flawed, so yeah some things never change! Anyway as said this topic is now closed because a guessed time is hardly reliable evidence and the fact that Oswald owned, was caught with and admitted to carrying the same revolver in evidence is where this debate ends. So stop trying to insult me and try a something new, k?

BTW where does your bizarre argument go, are you trying to say that Hill switched the revolver from a revolver which is extremely difficult to trace the bullets to another revolver that is extremely difficult to trace the bullets, do you realize how absurd that is??

JohnM

How predictable!

your suspicions about this minor time dispute goes nowhere

First ignoring the actual details and the obvious problem; If Hill told the WC the truth when he said he had the revolver on him all the time, then how did Davenport get it and submit it to the evidence room?

because the same revolver was taken from Oswald and Oswald admitted to carrying the revolver and the revolver in custody was sent to Oswald!

And then lying about the evidence; Oswald never admitted to carrying the revolver (meaning the S & W), he admitted to carrying a revolver

and everything else is just your imagination and a misrepresentation of the actual evidence.

BTW where does your bizarre argument go, are you trying to say that Hill switched the revolver from a revolver which is extremely difficult to trace the bullets to another revolver that is extremely difficult to trace the bullets, do you realize how absurd that is??

I never said that Hill switched the revolver. That's just a strawman, although it does demonstrate nicely just how limited your thinking capacity is.

Hill was given a revolver and was told that it belonged to Oswald, just like Frazier was given bullet fragments and was told that they came from the limousine and just like Todd was given C399 in Washington and was told it was the bullet that was found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. Can you see a pattern emerging? But, let me guess, they are all insignificant coincidenes, right?

do you realize how absurd that is??

To a dishonest LN. like you, anything that questions or challenges the official narrative is absurd. It's par to the course. Some things will never change.

Hilarious, we've both been posting the exact same amount of time since the Forum was hacked and in the same time you have posted more than three thousand posts more than me and since you had a long break that only means that your posts per day average is outrageously higher than mine, again logic was never your forte!

Suggesting that somebody is obsessed when that person has just returned after seven months of not posting is logical to you? Wow!

So, my posts per day is higher than yours. So what? I wasn't aware there was a competition going on. Perhaps your lower daily average means that you only reply to posts you think you can counter and cowardly stay away from all the posts you know you can not counter. Oh well, at least we know now what motivates you to be active on this forum 

[Martin Weidmann]

OMG Martin, you can barely read the receipt and when asked politely to post this same receipt, you won't, how can anyone have a fair debate with someone who so blatantly continues to hide his evidence and then demands others to do his research?
For instance if it was me, a man of integrity, I would have posted the receipt, which probably does say 3:30 and I also would present Hill's testimony, so we could all see Hill months later clearly using the word "approximately" 4PM, which effectively neutralizes this entire interaction.

JohnM

OMG Martin, you can barely read the receipt and when asked politely to post this same receipt, you won't,

I can read the receipt just fine. The only thing I can't make out is whether it says that 8 bullets or 9 were submitted. The handwriting simply isn't very clear.
As I already told you, I don't know how to post the receipt on this forum, but if somebody else can post it for me, I'll gladly sent a copy to that person by email.

how can anyone have a fair debate with someone who so blatantly continues to hide his evidence and then demands others to do his research   

You don't even know what a fair debate is. No evidence is hiden as the receipt can be easily found in the DPD files. That's where I found it also.

For instance if it was me, a man of integrity,

I didn't know you are a comedian. I am actually amazed that you can even spell the word "integrity"

I would have posted the receipt, which probably does say 3:30 and I also would present Hill's testimony, so we could all see Hill months later clearly using the word "approximately" 4PM, which effectively neutralizes this entire interaction.

Yes the receipt says 3.30 and Hill does say approvimately 4PM in his testimony, which is available on line, but none of that is the point. But I can fully understand why you would want to focus on that rather than deal with the real issue.

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't know what the rules are here, but rather prominent Ed Forum member, Jon Tidd, a fellow Arizona lawyer, was summarily banned by James Gordon for playing the "you claim to be" game with me. It takes about 20 seconds on Google to establish the fact that I graduated magna cum laude from Arizona State Law School in 1982 (Member of the Coif, Law Review, etc., etc.), was admitted to the Arizona and federal bars that year, was a regional antitrust counsel for a Fortune 100 corporation, was a partner in one of the oldest Arizona law firms, served as Chief Deputy County Attorney for an Arizona county, published four law review articles and two humor pieces in Arizona Attorney Magazine, have numerous reported decisions, retired in 2018, and so on and so forth.

Here's a reported Arizona Supreme Court decision to whet your appetite: https://law.justia.com/cases/arizona/supreme-court/1991/cv-90-0490-pr-2.html.

Do you actually claim to be a foaming-at-the-mouth CT nutcase or just let the evidence speak for itself?

Jon Tidd, a fellow Arizona lawyer, was summarily banned by James Gordon for playing the "you claim to be" game with me

As a fellow Arizona lawyer, Tidd probably knew better. I on the other hand have only seen you claiming to be a lawyer. I did not say I did not believe you nor did I claim that you weren't.

Are you always this touchy?

It takes about 20 seconds on Google to establish the fact that I graduated magna cum laude from Arizona State Law School in 1982

Good for you, but why should I research the background of some guy who writes on a public forum?

Do you actually claim to be a foaming-at-the-mouth CT nutcase or just let the evidence speak for itself?

Wasn't it me who asked you a question about the evidence which you refused to answer, saying you were not playing that game.

And is throwing around insults typical for a Arizona lawyer?