On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald and Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence

[David Von Pein]

There was nothing curious about the Thursday trip.

[...]

Nothing curious about the curtain rod excuse.

[...]

Wow, I must have been guilty many times when I count the number of times I did not talk to a taxi driver.

LANCE PAYETTE PREVIOUSLY SAID: "Leaving the TSBD, getting the gun, shooting Tippit, fleeing to the theater, resisting arrest, yada yada, all make the non-responsiveness to Whaley pale in comparison."

Which assumes all sorts of things for which there is only circumstantial evidence or no evidence at all.

With enough assumptions you can find anybody guilty of anything.

~~ big sigh ~~

If only JFK conspiracists could learn to put ALL of Lee Harvey Oswald's 11/21/63 & 11/22/63 actions and movements TOGETHER .... and then have those conspiracy theorists properly and fairly evaluate those actions in light of THE TWO MURDER CHARGES that confronted Oswald on the night of November 22nd.

If only.

~~ another frustrated sigh ~~

Link.....

[John Mytton]

Oswald drove to Irving with Frazier only a couple of times;

Oswald was hired by the TSBD on 10/16/63

He drove to Irving with Frazier on;

Friday 10/18/63
Monday 10/20/63 after the birth of his daughter
Friday 10/25/63
Friday 11/01/63
Friday 11/08/63

He didn't go with Frazier on Friday 11/15/63 because Marina was angry with him

And then he went with Frazier to Irving on Thursday 11/21/63

Conclusion; Oswald went to Irving with Frazier on Friday for "each and every weekend" for four weeks in a row.....   

Yes, exactly Martin, Oswald had a set routine where as I explained coming on the weekends was far more beneficial because of the extra two full days that he could interact with his daughters instead of the few hours on Thursday.

But this is important so listen closely, Oswald coming unannounced mid week is also a huge problem for CT's because Ruth was doing Oswald's family a massive favour by allowing his family to stay with her, so Oswald reluctant to rock the boat ALWAYS asked permission first, except for this one day where he wanted to get his rifle, now obviously he came unannounced for the first time because if she refused, Oswald realized that he was up crap creek without a paddle, or in this case, up on the 6th floor with no rifle!

Mr. JENNER - Let's proceed with the 21st. Did anything occur on the 21st with respect to Lee Harvey Oswald, that is a Thursday?
Mrs. PAINE - I arrived home from grocery shopping around 5:30, and he was on the front lawn. I was surprised to see him.
Mr. JENNER - You had no advance notice?
Mrs. PAINE - I had no advance notice and he had never before come without asking whether he could.
Mr. JENNER - Never before had he come to your home in that form without asking your permission to come?
Mrs. PAINE - Without asking permission; that is right.

Btw thanks for responding to my post and quoting my words!, because just yesterday you seemed pretty sure that you wouldn't?? Hahahaha, I told you, you couldn't resist, you're so weak!

JohnM

[Jim Hawthorn]

One musn't forget that interpretations of Oswald's actions/behaviour could suggest involvement (either wittingly or unwittingly) but not necessarily a lone mission.

[John Iacoletti]

You can child play being a Defence Lawyer all you like but Lance along with Bugliosi were real life lawyers and Lance told you what actual real evidence is, whereas your biased concept of what constitutes evidence is sadly misguided and frankly laughable.
BTW if it was me I would probably have removed one or two pieces Bugliosi's pieces of evidence, but the rest stays!

What's laughable is that anybody could call these things evidence of murder with a straight face:

- Leaving his wedding ring behind at the Paine house
- Not reading the newspaper in the domino room that morning.
- Going to the second floor to get a Coke when he supposedly preferred Dr. Pepper.
- Not being chatty with the cab driver.
- Showing reporters his handcuffed hands.
- Marina thinking his eyes looked guilty.
- Leaving his blue jacket in the domino room.
- Allegedly leaving a clipboard on the sixth floor.

This is the kind of thing that charlatan lawyers like Bugliosi appeal to when they don't have real evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

It would appear that Martin's and John's real objection is to the very nature of our justice system.

It's designed to determine legal guilt, not to determine what is actually true.  We hope they sometimes intersect. 

And this isn't a trial.

Not only does the defendant not have to testify, not only must guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt, not only does the hearsay rule block vast amounts of highly relevant testimony, but Martin and John would insist upon direct evidence even though the large majority of criminal cases are circumstantial.

Even circumstantial evidence has to be actual evidence.

[John Iacoletti]

Thanks for being humble but it's nice to have someone here who understands the basic concepts of Law and and can teach us all. Members like the "pom pom waving cheerleaders" above have been doing this for years and try to separate each and every piece of evidence without regard for the entire picture, for instance for just the rifle alone;

1) The rifle order was faked.
2) The money order was faked.
3) Kleins internal order was faked
4) Kleins didn't send the rifle.
5) Oswald didn't receive the rifle
6) The rifle in the backyard photos which is the same make and model as the sent rifle, was a different rifle.
7) Marina lied about taking the backyard photos of Oswald holding the rifle.
8] de Mohrenschildt saw a different rifle or lied
9) The rifle butt that Marina saw could be a block of wood.
10) The rifle was never in the blanket.
11) The rifle could have been planted
12) The prints on Oswald rifles were faked.
13) The 3 matching shirt fibers from Oswald's arrest shirt which matched the rifle fibers could have come from anywhere.

Cool strawman, bro.

But nobody has to posit or prove that anything was faked.

You have to prove that Oswald did it.  Your fantasy about who owned the rifle does no accomplish that.

[John Iacoletti]

You'll never be able to figure out that the things you just highlighted in your post above are indeed relevant because you continue to ISOLATE every single thing Oswald did instead of ADDING THOSE THINGS TOGETHER.

You are operating under a delusion that says that several items on non-evidence, unsubstantiated claims about the evidence, and conjecture when combined somehow magically turn into evidence.

0 times 53 still equals 0.

When added together (as a unit!), Oswald's unusual movements and actions on those two days in November most certainly paint an incriminating picture when examined through a post-assassination lens.

Only because you are looking at those "movements" through an Oswald-did-it lens.

[John Iacoletti]

Leaving the wallet, cash and wedding ring could suggest planning. Especially with the curious Thursday trip to the Paine house, the curious curtain rod excuse and the disappearance of the rifle from the garage.

What it suggests is your confirmation bias.

The non-responsiveness to Whaley could suggest consciousness of guilt (the evidentiary legal term). It might or might not be admissible and would carry no great weight if it were admitted.

Everybody who knew Oswald said that he kept to himself and didn't initiate conversations.  This was not unusual behavior by any stretch of the imagination, unless you are desperate for "evidence" of guilt.

Leaving the TSBD, getting the gun, shooting Tippit, fleeing to the theater, resisting arrest, yada yada, all make the non-responsiveness to Whaley pale in comparison.

You can't prove one made-up story with another made-up story.