Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Martin Weidmann]

"Roberts wanted to watch the 1 PM news."

Where are you getting this information from?

In the video you posted Roberts said she was watching a program called "As The World Turns" which ran from 12:30 to 1:00 PM
She said that after a few minutes into her program a news bulletin came on announcing the shooting. The bulletin was at 12:40 PM.
I assume after the bulletin it returned to the program but Roberts wanted to find out more which, I assume, is when she started trying to find a channel with the news on.
It seems from around 12:41 PM (or after the bulletin ended) Roberts is trying to find a channel with the news about the shooting on.

Where are you getting this information from?

From Roberts herself.

I assume after the bulletin it returned to the program

Indeed.

but Roberts wanted to find out more which, I assume, is when she started trying to find a channel with the news on.
It seems from around 12:41 PM (or after the bulletin ended) Roberts is trying to find a channel with the news about the shooting on.

It's highly likely that Roberts was curious but just how many channels were there in 1963? Instant reporting as we know it today didn't happen back then. Reporters were phoning in their reports and film material needed to be developed and edited. 

As the regular news came on at 1 PM she probably just waited for that.

Bumped for Martin.

You've made this claim a couple of times (#2241) as the basis for your insistence that it was "impossible" for Oswald to have left the rooming house before one o'clock:

"Indeed, but it needs to be placed in context. She said that she was trying to get the television to work so she could watch the 1 PM news to find out more about Kennedy."

Can you tell me where you're getting this information from?

Were you so desperate for my reply that you bumped your post? Wow

Can you tell me where you're getting this information from?

Well, Roberts said that "As the world turns" ran from 12:30 to 1:00 PM. Back in those days there were not many stations and there was no such thing as instant news.
So, she most likely just waited for the news to come on at 1 PM. But then she had some problems with the picture;

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.


This is crucial because in the video I posted, at around 5.39, she says; "when he went out, he went out walking fast the same way, I was still listening to them broadcasting about President Kennedy"

Now, unless you can show me a channel that had news about Kennedy on (except the flash message at 12:40) prior to 1 PM it is fair to conclude that Roberts was listening to the 1 PM news as Oswald left the house.

[Martin Weidmann]

Huh? wake up Marty the evidence is that Oswald was arrested with the same revolver with the same serial number that was sent to him, and it's up to you to provide contrary evidence and so far you are failing miserably.





JohnM

Huh? wake up Marty the evidence is that Oswald was arrested with the same revolver

Was he?

Carroll got in the car and gave a revolver to Hill and told him it was the suspect's. However in his testimony he said he could not see who was actually holding the revolver
Then - instead of putting it in the evidence locker straight away, as one would expect - Hill walks around with that revolver until he went into the personnel office at around 4 PM, where he marks the revolver and tells the officers there that this is the revolver that was taken from Oswald. Then somehow the revolver ends up in the hands of Traffic cop Davenport, who presents it to the Identification Bureau.

Hardly standard operating procedure, don't you think? So, who knows which revolver was really taken from Oswald and which revolver was presented to the Identification Bureau.
You can only assume it's the same revolver, but apart from two Detectives (who did not see the revolver being taken from Oswald) saying that it is, you really haven't any persuasive evidence to justify that assumption.

Go back to sleep John....   

[Richard Smith]

Facts do not count as insults.

You blindly did a WC copy-paste job and was immediately destroyed, then ran for the hills -- FACT

Just let me know if you want your a$$ kicked one more time.

Another valuable Otto contribution.

Personal insults - check
No substance - big check on that one.


You kept asking for "my" evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  When I explained it wasn't my evidence (as I did not conduct the investigation) but the well documented evidence compiled by the WC, you for some bizarre reason argued the WC did not provide such evidence in its report.  So I pasted the entire lengthy section of the WC which sets forth a mountain of evidence linking Oswald to the rifle in a section ironically titled: "OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF ASSASSINATION WEAPON."  HA HA HA.  Rather than apologize and beg forgiveness for your ignorance, you moved on to screeching about a "control book" and asking me to verify something to your subjective satisfaction, declared victory, and then went into a litany of personal insults which continue.  Bizarre.  No basis for a rational discussion.  If you have a substantive point to make that challenges the WC's evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle, why not make that case instead of asking others to verify something to your satisfaction?  Don't just screech "control book."  Maybe explain what you are talking about for once.

[Richard Smith]

If you say so   

I am sure you can provide the evidence that Oswald actually received the revolver and that he paid the balance due, right?

This is the Alamo position of the contrarian.  When all else fails and the evidence proves some point they don't want to accept, we learn it "might" be planted.  The old impossible standard of proof argument.  There is no valid basis to discuss the case or evidence if at the end of the day it can be dismissed upon no basis whatsoever by contending the evidence "might" or "possibly" be planted. That is not even allowed in a criminal trial context.  There must be at least some basis to argue the evidence is planted.  Not just that it could have happened.  This is called the point of impasse with the likes of Martin/Roger who tells us over and over he is no CTer and has no agenda.  He just ignores all evidence of Oswald's guilt and makes arguments like this one.   

[Dan O'meara]

Where are you getting this information from?

From Roberts herself.

I assume after the bulletin it returned to the program

Indeed.

but Roberts wanted to find out more which, I assume, is when she started trying to find a channel with the news on.
It seems from around 12:41 PM (or after the bulletin ended) Roberts is trying to find a channel with the news about the shooting on.

It's highly likely that Roberts was curious but just how many channels were there in 1963? Instant reporting as we know it today didn't happen back then. Reporters were phoning in their reports and film material needed to be developed and edited. 

As the regular news came on at 1 PM she probably just waited for that.

Were you so desperate for my reply that you bumped your post? Wow

Can you tell me where you're getting this information from?

Well, Roberts said that "As the world turns" ran from 12:30 to 1:00 PM. Back in those days there were not many stations and there was no such thing as instant news.
So, she most likely just waited for the news to come on at 1 PM. But then she had some problems with the picture;

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in and I just looked up and I said, "Oh, you are in a hurry." He never said a thing, not nothing. He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes.


This is crucial because in the video I posted, at around 5.39, she says; "when he went out, he went out walking fast the same way, I was still listening to them broadcasting about President Kennedy"

Now, unless you can show me a channel that had news about Kennedy on (except the flash message at 12:40) prior to 1 PM it is fair to conclude that Roberts was listening to the 1 PM news as Oswald left the house.

When you stated the following...

"She [Mrs Roberts] said that she was trying to get the television to work so she could watch the 1 PM news to find out more about Kennedy."

...I was concerned you were inventing witness testimony to support your entrenched position and this, indeed, appears to be the case.
When I asked you where you were getting this information from you replied "From Roberts herself", but this is not true. Nowhere, except in your imagination, does Roberts say she was trying to watch the 1 PM news.
Rather than admit to this blatant fabrication you come up with some bizarre assumptionfest concluding with the assumption that there was no TV channel showing in the Dallas area that was covering the assassination between 12:41 and 1 PM

I was alerted by your incredible refusal to reject Roberts' emphatic testimony that Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he left the rooming house but your willingness to accept her vague and confused guess at the timing of Oswald's hurried entrance - because it was after JFK was shot!!
This is only outdone by your refusal of Frazier's equally emphatic identification of the light grey jacket Oswald wore to work that morning. The same jacket he was wearing when Frazier dropped him off!

However, refusing to accept such emphatic witness testimony is one thing - creating new witness testimony is quite another.

[Martin Weidmann]

This is the Alamo position of the contrarian.  When all else fails and the evidence proves some point they don't want to accept, we learn it "might" be planted.  The old impossible standard of proof argument.  There is no valid basis to discuss the case or evidence if at the end of the day it can be dismissed upon no basis whatsoever by contending the evidence "might" or "possibly" be planted. That is not even allowed in a criminal trial context.  There must be at least some basis to argue the evidence is planted.  Not just that it could have happened.  This is called the point of impasse with the likes of Martin/Roger who tells us over and over he is no CTer and has no agenda.  He just ignores all evidence of Oswald's guilt and makes arguments like this one.

This is the Alamo position of the contrarian.

No it's asking for evidence. I can't help it if that's a foreign concept to you.

When all else fails and the evidence proves some point they don't want to accept, we learn it "might" be planted.

What "all the evidence" might that be?

There is no valid basis to discuss the case or evidence if at the end of the day it can be dismissed upon no basis whatsoever by contending the evidence "might" or "possibly" be planted.

Asking for evidence that shows the revolver now in the National Archives is the one taken from Oswald is completely different than contending the evidence "might" or "possibly" be planted.
The way to avoid having to deal with such a possible claim is simply by providing the evidence.

That is not even allowed in a criminal trial context.  There must be at least some basis to argue the evidence is planted.  Not just that it could have happened.

Who is saying that? You are the one who is turning a straightforward request for evidence being presented into a silly "it could be planted" claim.

He just ignores all evidence of Oswald's guilt and makes arguments like this one.

Huh.. asking for evidence to be presented is "ignoring all the evidence" in your book? Oh boy.... 

[Martin Weidmann]

When you stated the following...

"She [Mrs Roberts] said that she was trying to get the television to work so she could watch the 1 PM news to find out more about Kennedy."

...I was concerned you were inventing witness testimony to support your entrenched position and this, indeed, appears to be the case.
When I asked you where you were getting this information from you replied "From Roberts herself", but this is not true. Nowhere, except in your imagination, does Roberts say she was trying to watch the 1 PM news.
Rather than admit to this blatant fabrication you come up with some bizarre assumptionfest concluding with the assumption that there was no TV channel showing in the Dallas area that was covering the assassination between 12:41 and 1 PM

I was alerted by your incredible refusal to reject Roberts' emphatic testimony that Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he left the rooming house but your willingness to accept her vague and confused guess at the timing of Oswald's hurried entrance - because it was after JFK was shot!!
This is only outdone by your refusal of Frazier's equally emphatic identification of the light grey jacket Oswald wore to work that morning. The same jacket he was wearing when Frazier dropped him off!

However, refusing to accept such emphatic witness testimony is one thing - creating new witness testimony is quite another.

"She [Mrs Roberts] said that she was trying to get the television to work so she could watch the 1 PM news to find out more about Kennedy."

Did she use those exact words? No, but what she said is not misrepresented by what I wrote, as there was news about Kennedy at 1 PM. Perhaps it was not "the 1 PM news", but news was being broadcast nevertheless. Only somebody looking for an argument for argument's sake would make a big issue out of this.

...I was concerned you were inventing witness testimony to support your entrenched position and this, indeed, appears to be the case.
When I asked you where you were getting this information from you replied "From Roberts herself", but this is not true. Nowhere, except in your imagination, does Roberts say she was trying to watch the 1 PM news.

Oh goody, we're playing word games again....

Rather than admit to this blatant fabrication you come up with some bizarre assumptionfest concluding with the assumption that there was no TV channel showing in the Dallas area that was covering the assassination between 12:41 and 1 PM

It's a far better assumption than to assume that Roberts was searching for a channel with news about Kennedy after 12:41. You seem to conveniently forget that she got a telephone call from a friend who told her Kennedy had been killed and to put the TV on. Kennedy wasn't declared dead until 1 PM!

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was after President Kennedy had been shot and I had a friend that said, "Roberts, President Kennedy has been shot," and I said, "Oh, no." She said, "Turn on your television," and I said "What are you trying to do, pull my leg?" And she said, "Well, go turn it on." I went and turned it on and I was trying to clear it up---I could hear them talking but I couldn't get the picture and he come in

Now, why would a friend have to tell her that if she was already searching for a station with news about Kennedy? It seems that you are the one making up your own reality.

But let me guess, you could not find a single station that was broadcasting news about Kennedy before 1 PM, right? So, instead you decide to attack me? Great stuff.....

In a previous post you wrote;

It seems from around 12:41 PM (or after the bulletin ended) Roberts is trying to find a channel with the news about the shooting on.

How does this "seem" to be? Did Roberts say anything that indicated that or is it just a figment of your imagination?

I was alerted by your incredible refusal to reject Roberts' emphatic testimony that Oswald was zipping up a jacket as he left the rooming house

Now, who is making stuff up? I never refused to reject (or accept for that matter) Robert's testimony about the jacket. I merely stated that the evidence about the grey jacket CE 162 was ambivalent. It was you who then started to concoct a extremely dubious story about Oswald leaving the TSBD wearing a jacket, which completely ignored that Bledsoe couldn't have seen the hole in the sleeve of his shirt, if he was wearing a jacket, as well as Roberts herself saying he entered the house wearing a shirt and not a jacket. Go figure!

This is only outdone by your refusal of Frazier's equally emphatic identification of the light grey jacket Oswald wore to work that morning.

Pray tell... where can I find Frazier's "emphatic identification of the light grey jacket Oswald wore to work that morning"

The same jacket he was wearing when Frazier dropped him off!

Did Frazier actually say that or are you just making it up?

Your truth seeking didn't take very long, did it now?

[Bill Chapman]

No it's asking for evidence. I can't help it if that's a foreign concept to you.

1) Not to Markham


BILL CHAPMAN


2) Nor to a few good men at and around the Tippit scene that day


BILL CHAPMAN