Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Dan O'meara]

Mrs. RANDLE. Similar to that. I didn't pay an awful lot of attention to it.

That's some identification! Not convincing for any reasonable person but enough for the average LN.

At least I'd read it, unlike yourself.

So now you know what I have read? Really... stop drinking the cool aid! I not only have read it, I have discussed it, and much more, with Frazier in person. You clearly haven't got a clue who you are talking to, because otherwise you wouldn't make such a stupid comment.

What I am thinking?

The mask has fallen.... the lie is exposed

That's what I am thinking.   

You are very conspiracy minded, aren't you.

[Bill Brown]

No, extremely pathetic.

A negative can not be proven. You claim he left the rooming house wearing a jacket, you prove it. Stop playing games, they only make you look weak.

Regarding Oswald entering and leaving the rooming house, we have only one person who's account we can go by.  That one person says Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.

Does this really have to be explained to you any further?

Now, prove that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket.

[Bill Brown]

You didn't say it, I did.

No.  You said that I stated it.  Just look below.

You've stated that it took Callaway less than 3 minutes after the shots to reach the scene.

First, where did I state that it took Callaway less than three minutes after the shots to reach the scene?

I ask, for the third time (at least)... When did I say that Callaway reached the scene less than three minutes after hearing the shots?

[Martin Weidmann]

You are very conspiracy minded, aren't you.

No. Show me where I have ever claimed there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy murder. You can't, because it never happened! All there is are narrowminded shallow LNs accusing me of being conspiracy minded, but those are hollow claims.

But after nearly 40 years of experience in all sorts of areas, I have learned that reality is often stranger than fiction.
The one thing that makes me different from a guy like you is that I don't make up stories to defend a narrative.

I just look at the facts and in this particular case the facts are that;

1. Frazier has Oswald wearing the gray jacket (which can only be CE 162) to Irving on Thursday evening
2. Frazier and Randle can not say with any kind of certainty which jacket Oswald was wearing on Friday morning
3. The blue/gray jacket (CE 163) is later found at the TSBD and there is no other explanation for it to be there than that Oswald was wearing it on Friday morning
4. Bledsoe couldn't have seen a hole in Oswald's sleeve on the bus if he was wearing a jacket

This alone creates sufficient reasonable doubt (to a reasonable person) that you can not assume that Roberts saw Oswald leaving wearing a jacket, whilst at the same time advocating the absurd notion that she wasn't paying enough attention to notice only a shirt and not a jacket when Oswald came into to the rooming house.

I know LNs don't like facts but even for LN standards this is absurd.

[Martin Weidmann]

Regarding Oswald entering and leaving the rooming house, we have only one person who's account we can go by.  That one person says Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he went out the door.

Does this really have to be explained to you any further?

Now, prove that Oswald did not leave the rooming house wearing a jacket.

Does this really have to be explained to you any further?

No, but it seems it needs to be explained to you.

Roberts didn't have a clue what Oswald was wearing when he came into the rooming house and when he left. Frazier's testimony places the light gray jacket (CE 162) in Irving on Thursday evening.

I don't need to prove you wrong. You need to prove that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket and all you have is a half blind woman who was paying more attention to the television and who is described by her employer as being somebody who makes up stuff.....

Are you really so gullible to believe that in any other criminal investigation something as pathetic as this would be sufficient?

Now, what about the Nash couple? Any progress there?

[Martin Weidmann]

No.  You said that I stated it.  Just look below.

I ask, for the third time (at least)... When did I say that Callaway reached the scene less than three minutes after hearing the shots?

So, you didn't agree with me but nevertheless said we have nothing to talk about? Is that your current position?

As I said; cue for the word games

I have you saying it in our conversation in December 2020 as well. I'll look that up when I feel like it

But why don't you simply say how long you think it took Callaway to get to the scene after the shots? This should be good...

Wait, I'm talking to Bill Brown. Whatever made me think I would get a straight forward honest answer?

[Bill Brown]

Because you don't know the case means I'm lying?

Yes.

See how easy it is?

[Bill Brown]

Does this really have to be explained to you any further?

No, but it seems it needs to be explained to you.

Roberts didn't have a clue what Oswald was wearing when he came into the rooming house and when he left. Frazier's testimony places the light gray jacket (CE 162) in Irving on Thursday evening.

I don't need to prove you wrong. You need to prove that Oswald left the rooming house wearing a jacket and all you have is a half blind woman who was paying more attention to the television and who is described by her employer as being somebody who makes up stuff.....

Are you really so gullible to believe that in any other criminal investigation something as pathetic as this would be sufficient?

Now, what about the Nash couple? Any progress there?

Roberts didn't have a clue what Oswald was wearing when he came into the rooming house and when he left.

Why didn't she have a clue?  Because you don't like what she said?