JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

I refer you to my # 2495, # 2506, and # 2511.

Taken together, Roberts' and Benavides' testimonies leave Oswald insufficient time to get to the scene of Tippit's shooting .

The same goes for Markham's.

Roberts' and Benavides' testimonies, if the times given are accurate, make it unlikely, but not impossible, for Oswald to get to the Tippit murder scene in time.

Roberts' and Burroughs' testimonies contradict each other, with Burroughs claiming Oswald arrived at the Texas Theater several minutes before Roberts said that Oswald left the rooming house.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Roberts' and Benavides' testimonies, if the times given are accurate, make it unlikely, but not impossible, for Oswald to get to the Tippit murder scene in time.

Roberts' and Burroughs' testimonies contradict each other, with Burroughs claiming Oswald arrived at the Texas Theater several minutes before Roberts said that Oswald left the rooming house.

I take your point about Burroughs, but I didn't mention him - and what he said was not said in testimony.

I was referring to Benavides, not Burroughs!

Markham gives Oswald even less time than does Benavides.

Even if it was humanly possible for Oswald to have got there in time to shoot Tippit, why would he have done so, unless to keep an appointment with him?

[Fiver]

I don't know what you mean by hitching a ride in a police box.

How about a silver DeLorean traveling 88mph?

The Wayback Machine?

The Guardian of Forever?

You appear to be unable to explain how Oswald could have arrived at the scene of Tippit's shooting in time to shoot him.

You ignoring what I said does not change the fact that I said it.

While the timing is tight, Oswald could have gotten to the location and shoot Tippet.

As opposed to the supposed alibi which Burroughs gave a couple decades later - that Oswald arrived at the Texas Theater before he left his rooming house.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

While the timing is tight, Oswald could have gotten to the location and shoot Tippet.

But why?

Why would Oswald have made a superhuman effort to get to the scene of the Tippit shooting except to satisfy his accusers?

What would have been the point of the alleged assassin's rushing to the spot where Tippit was shot, unless he had a rendezvous with him?

[Fiver]

According to the Warren Commission's star witness, Helen Markham, the man leaned on the open near window of Tippit's car and he and Tippit seemed to have a friendly conversation.

She said Tippit did not seem angry but seemed calm.

Does that seem like the behaviour of two people who did not know each other?

I see you selectively quote Markham.

Mr. BALL. Then what happened?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Well, I didn't think nothing about it; you know, the police are nice and friendly, and I thought friendly conversation. Well, I looked, and there were cars coming, so I had to wait. Well, in a few minutes this man made--

So Markham thought that "the police are nice and friendly", not that Tippit was friends with the man who shot him.

Would Tippit have looked calm if he thought that the assassin of President Kennedy had just rested his arms on the open window of his police car?

Benavides disagreed with Markham. Markham said "The policeman calmly opened the car door, very slowly, wasn't angry or nothing." Benavides said that Tippet "had his hand on the door and kind of in a hurry to get out, it seemed like."

Would the assassin of President Kennedy have deliberately got that close to a policeman if he sensed that he suspected him of having committed the assassination?

I'm pretty sure Oswald didn't think he could outrun a police car.

And by the way, immediately after giving that evidence, Markham stated that Oswald did not resemble Tippit's killer, and that she had never seen him before he appeared in the line-up.

Everything you say there is wrong - this is obvious to anyone who reads Markham's testimony. She mentions Tippit appearing calm on page 307.

Then, on page 310, Markham discusses the lineup.

Mr. BALL. Later that day they had a showup you went to?
Mrs. MARKHAM. A lineup?
Mr. BALL. A lineup.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes.
Mr. BALL. How many men were in the lineup?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe there were, now I am not positive, I believe there were three besides this man.
Mr. BALL. That would be four people altogether?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I believe that is correct.
Mr. BALL. Were they of anywhere near similar build or size or coloring?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, they were all about the same height.

Page 311.
Mrs. MARKHAM. Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.
Mr. BALL. You recognized him from his appearance?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I asked--I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.
Mr. BALL. When you saw him?
Mrs. MARKHAM. When I saw the man. But I wasn't sure, so, you see, I told them I wanted to be sure, and looked, at his face is what I was looking at, mostly is what I looked at, on account of his eyes, the way he looked at me. So I asked them if they would turn him sideways. They did, and then they turned him back around, and I said the second, and they said, which one, and I said number two. So when I said that, well, I just kind of fell over. Everybody in there, you know, was beginning to talk, and I don't know, just--

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize the man from his clothing or from his face?
Mrs. MARKHAM. Mostly from his face.
Mr. BALL. Were you sure it was the same man you had seen before?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I am sure.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Everything you say there is wrong - this is obvious to anyone who reads Markham's testimony.

Here is what I actually said:

Markham stated that Oswald did not resemble Tippit's killer, and that she had never seen him before he appeared in the line-up.

(# 2533)

Here is what Markham testified:


Mr. BALL. Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?

Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. Did you recognize anyone in the line-up?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.

Mr. BALL. You did not? Did you see anybody--I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?

Mrs. MARKHAM. From their face, no.

Mr. BALL. Did you identify anybody in these four people?

Mrs. MARKHAM. I didn't know nobody.

Mr. BALL. I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that line-up look like anybody you had seen before?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.

Mr. BALL. No one of the four?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No one of them.

Mr. BALL. No one of all four?

Mrs. MARKHAM. No, sir.


Everything I wrote is not wrong.

Everything I wrote is correct.

[Fiver]

ou're correct, the WC made no mention of the wallet, and later the DPD denied its existence. However, Capt Westbrook of the DPD examined the contents of the wallet, and found two IDs, and asked FBI Special Agent Bob Barrett if he had heard of Lee Harvey Oswald or Alex Hidell. Barrett replied no. If the wallet was found on Tippit, as you claim, this makes it even more interesting.

I did not claim that the wallet was found on Tippit, I stated that it was found at the scene of Tippit's murder and initially believed to belong to Tippet.

The first time Barrett is recorded as saying the wallet was Oswald's was in 1983, two decades after the murder. It's not mentioned in any of Barrett's written reports. Barrett also claimed to have been the one who took the gun away from Oswald, so clearly Barrett's memory was far from perfect.

[Fiver]

I think we have to assess the likelihood of the wallet captured on TV actually belonging to Officer Tippit.

I would place the likelihood of that as extremely low indeed. Since the patrol car's number and an ID badge identified Tippit as the driver, the wallet was of limited evidential value.

Therefore the wallet, which was clearly of interest to the first officers on the scene, belonged to someone else.

That is supposition plied of supposition, not evidence. According to a reporter who filmed it, the wallet belonged to Tippit. According to Robert M Barrett, speaking two decades later, the wallet belonged to LHO. No other account supports Barrett's much later claim.

[Fiver]

My opinion is that the Secret Service men, and many of the crowd of onlookers on both the left and right side of the photo, are looking for the source of a gunshot. It is interesting that none are looking up, but more towards the Dal-Tex second floor level where it is conjectured was placed a gunman.

I'm afraid the Altgens photo disagrees with you. Some of the crowd might be looking towards the Daltex building. The Secret Service agents are looking towards the Book Depository. The photo also shows the windows of the second floor of the Daltex building, which are either empty or full off a large number of non-gunman people.

[GBinOz]

I'm afraid the Altgens photo disagrees with you. Some of the crowd might be looking towards the Daltex building. The Secret Service agents are looking towards the Book Depository. The photo also shows the windows of the second floor of the Daltex building, which are either empty or full off a large number of non-gunman people.

I think you are being mislead by the compression effect of Altgens telephoto lens. Altgens was about 60' from the limo when he took the #6 shot, but the limo was about 170' from the entrance of the TSBD. I was referring more to the height of the people's gaze, rather than the direction. The agents are turning toward the sound, but the source is far further than appears in the photo due to the compression, and they are not looking up. You might note the open window just below the African American guy sitting on the stairs. There is conjecture that a shooter was firing from this broom cupboard through that window.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have not misrepresented evidence.

It was I who uploaded a colour photograph of Oswald's shirt, the black-and-white photograph of it together with the Warren Commission's description of it, contrasting it with a description and photograph of the next exhibit, and the FBI's report about the colours of the fibres of the shirt.

I did not ignore Brennan's description of the man.

I pointed out that he described a man about eight years older than Oswald and wearing light-coloured clothes.

I have stated facts.

My critics say that Oswald could have looked eight years older than Brennan and a brown shirt containing black fibres could have looked light-coloured to him.

That looks like taking eyewitness evidence and fitting it to the suspect.

The first thing that should be recognised about Brennan is that he reported what he’d seen to a police officer immediately…he didn’t wait until he was asked for an interview (or until Mark Lane tried to get at him to change his story years later) and because of that he couldn’t have been influenced by any information that emerged after that point. How ‘lucky’ was he then to have immediately selected the correct building, the correct floor and the exact window where the snipers nest was located (as did 8 other people!)? He had no way of knowing that there was no one else on that floor who could have proved him to have been mistaken or even lying. So we have the highest level of certainty that he did indeed see what he said that he’d seen. He also had no way of knowing (if he’d lied) that the police wouldn’t immediately apprehend the man and compare his actual appearance with Brennan’s description.There is no more important witness in the case in my opinion and this explains the effort to discredit him. Again, 8 people saw a combination of men or rifles or both from the 6th floor window. Were they all ‘in on it’ too?’


Not only did he pinpoint the exact location with no prior knowledge but he gives a general description of the man that he saw which was: ”White male, approximately 30, slender build, height five feet ten inches, 165 pounds.” Obviously this description would have fit any number of men but it was a reasonable general description of Oswald given by a man looking up into a darkened window over a fairly brief time period. And let’s not forget that Brennan wasn’t making a detailed list of the man’s clothing as he was perhaps ‘distracted’ by the fact that the man that he saw was in the act of firing a rifle in the direction of the President of the United States. He described what stood out to him in the short time that he’d viewed the scene. So reasonable allowances should be made if we are claiming to take a reasoned view of Brennan’s evidence. It’s very easy to denigrate a witness if we apply ludicrously high observational standards which is what gets done on this thread in an attempt to dismiss this most inconvenient of witnesses.


His estimation of Oswald’s age is simply a non-point to any reasonable enquirer. If a witness suggested that a person was around 42 but he was actually found to have been 35 or 49 no one would bat an eyelid or dismiss his evidence; the police certainly wouldn’t have. People guess other people’s ages incorrectly all the time and by bigger margins than Brennan did; we all know this from experience and so it’s a point that really shouldn’t need to be made. Brennan’s ID cannot be considered a troubling margin. There’s no set allowance which is considered an acceptable margin for error in estimating age. If Brennan had said that the man that he’d seen was 65 then we would have an issue. Likewise if he’d said that the guy was 14…but he didn’t, he gave a very reasonable estimation especially considering the circumstances. Oswald was 24, which surprised OneRound who felt that he looked ‘a fair bit older.’ Aethelwulf said that he would have guessed late 20’s early 30’s (I agree). I showed a photograph of Oswald to my sister-in-law (who genuinely didn’t know who he was) and asked her to pick an age…she said 30. I even showed a photograph of him to my 85 year old aunt (who also didn’t know who he was) she said ‘late twenties.’ The age estimation would include Oswald in any police assessment and is certainly not an issue worthy of any attempt to discredit Brennan. The fact that an issue is made of the estimation exhibits a desperation to denigrate this witness. We see this phenomena regularly in ripper discussions and it’s always from someone with a theory or an agenda to follow.


It also has to be pointed out that Brennan didn’t say that Oswald wasn’t wearing anything over his white t-shirt but he clearly didn’t notice anything at the time. He simply mentioned the white shirt itself and why? Clearly because it was what stood out against the dark background of the window (look at all photographs of those windows and the dark background is obvious) His brown open shirt wouldn’t have stood out. Any sunlight would have picked out the white shirt…..this is obvious. To demand that Brennan should have noticed every item of clothing is frankly bizarre and another very clear attempt to dismiss him.


Another question that hasn’t been asked, as far as I’m aware, is how do we know that Oswald hadn’t taken off his brown over-shirt before he fired the rifle and then put it back on before he fled? Surely no one could call this an outrageous suggestion? Oswald would probably have been very nervous given the momentous act he was about to commit and nervous people tend to sweat. We can’t claim or disclaim this as a fact but it’s certainly a reasonable possibility. He might have taken it off 2 hours earlier for all that we know. I’ll be interested to see if anyone tries to claim that it was ‘impossible’ or even ‘unlikely’ that a man might do something as everyday as take off a shirt that he was wearing over a t-shirt? Surely even conspiracy theorists wouldn’t make that claim? Little would surprise me though.


It’s also well worth pointing out that Marion Baker, who had Oswald standing right in front of him, described him like this:


"The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." And during his WC deposition he added that he also wore "maybe some kind of white-looking shirt."

So, using your thinking, Baker clearly saw someone that wasn’t Oswald and Roy Truly was ‘in on it’ too?


There is simply no real issue with Brennan’s description. Witnesses are rarely perfect but they are usually honest. Without prior information he got the building right, the floor right, the window right, he gave a reasonable age estimate, he got the skin colour right, he didn’t mention anything like facial hair, glasses or headwear, he gave a decent estimate of his build and he got the colour of Oswald t-shirt correct. Whilst accepting the known and accepted possibility of witness error Brennan simply wouldn’t be dismissed out of hand by a modern day police force especially given the circumstances and the fact that he picked out the exact window added to the fact that 7 other witnesses backed him up (all ‘in on it’ no doubt). So why is there a repeated attempt to do exactly that? It’s because the description is clearly highly inconvenient and, at the very least, shows that someone was in that window firing a rifle and that person clearly at least resembled Lee Harvey Oswald. Any suggestion that no shots were fired from the 6th floor simply can’t be taken seriously. We have someone seen in that window by several people including Brennan…..these people had no prior knowledge and hadn’t been influenced by anyone…..inside the window was a rifle and shell casings….and no one can be placed on that floor of the building anywhere near that time apart from Lee Harvey Oswald.

On a side note, it’s certainly interesting how you persistently try and dismiss and denigrate witnesses who make minor errors and yet you have a much more tolerant view of other crime suspects. In the Madeleine McCann thread you said:

“…..there may be inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the statements made by an accused person does not necessarily point to that person's guilt.”


Perhaps you should try employing this approach when assessing witnesses too, no matter how inconvenient?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wade never said "Darryl Click". A reporter asked "Where?" and Wade replied "In Oak Cliff."

(Fiver)


He then — the bus, he asked the bus driver to stop, got off at a stop, caught a taxicab driver, Darryl Click — I don’t have his exact place — and went to his home in Oak Cliff, changed his clothes hurriedly, and left

(District Attorney Henry Wade)

For months after the assassination Mark Lane (who else?) and others were attempting to make a big issue about the ‘disappearance’ of a Darryl Click who had supposedly been identified as the cab driver who drove Oswald back to his rooming house. The name actually came from Henry Wade in a transcript of a news conference that he gave on November 24th. Lane and his cronies could find no record of this mystery man though and so naturally they sensed yet another ‘imposter.’ Some co-conspirator helping Oswald to escape (although why a co-conspirator would have taken Oswald to North Beckley and then left him there is anyone’s guess?). Alfred Goldberg however, the Warren Commission Air-force historian, did what proper investigators do when genuinely trying to get to the bottom of a story (unlike Lane and co) He found the actual recording of the interview and listened to it several times whilst comparing it to the written transcript. The transcript had Wade saying that Oswald:” caught a taxicab driver, a Darryl Click.” He immediately noticed that Wade had a deep Texan drawl which the transcriber had clearly misheard. What Wade actually said was that Oswald:” caught a taxi to Oak Cliff.” Darryl Click never existed but the actual taxi driver that Oswald used, William Wayne Whaley, did. He appeared before the Warren Commission and was also interviewed on tv (the interview is still available along with him being filmed whilst driving the route that he and the assassin took in his cab.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Q. What's the make of the rifle, sir?


Wade. It's a Mauser, I believe.


(Warren Commission Volume 14, Exhibit 2169, page 4)

On the rifle….which was a Mannlicher Carcano.


In front of the Warren Commission:

Seymour Weitzman: That is correct, Boone and I, and as he was looking over the rear section of the building, I would say the northwest corner, I was on the floor looking under the flat at the same time he was looking on the top side and we saw the gun, I would say, simultaneously and I said, "There it is" and he started hollering, "We got it." It was covered with boxes. It was well protected as far as the naked eye because I would venture to say eight or nine of us stumbled over that gun a couple times before we thoroughly searched the building.

Joe Ball: Did you touch it?

Seymour Weitzman: No, sir; we made a man-tight barricade until the crime lab came up and removed the gun itself.

Joe Ball: The crime lab from the Dallas Police Department?

Seymour Weitzman: Yes, sir...

Ball: In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police Department that afternoon, you referred to the rifle as a 7.56 Mauser bolt action?

Weitzman: In a glance, that’s what it looked like.


Then further on:


Weitzman: I said it was a Mauser-type action, didn’t I?

Ball: Mauser bolt action.

Weitzman: And at the time I looked at it, I believe I said it was a 2.5 scope on it and I believe I said it was a Weaver but it wasn’t; it turned out to be anything but a Weaver, but that was at a glance.

Weitzman couldn’t have been clearer about his error. So our ‘gun expert’ not only misidentified the rifle he misidentified the scope too. And he did this as he glanced at a rifle by leaning over and seeing it wedged between boxes.


In front of the Warren Commission Eugene Boone was quite clear that he alone found the rifle and then called other officers over, including Weitzman. Boone was shown a photograph of the Mannlicher-Carcano by Ball who said:

Ball: I show you a rifle which is Commission Exhibit 139. Can you tell us whether or not that looks like the rifle you saw on the floor that day?

Boone: It looks like the same rifle.

Ball: You never handled it?

Boone: I did not touch the weapon at all.


Then:


Ball: There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that day?

Boone: Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I thought it was a 7.65 Mauser.

Ball: Who thought it was a Mauser that day?

Boone: I believe it was Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name is, the ID man, was getting ready to photograph it. We were just discussing it back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65 Mauser.

So Fritz knelt down and gave a tentative identification without knowing what it was. Weitzman and Boone clearly simply agreed that it looked like a 7.65 Mauser, this was repeated by DA Wade. Every gun expert agrees that the Mannlicher-Carcano was known as ‘the Italian Mauser.’ And why? Because they were so similar in appearance. This is straightforward stuff when relieved of conspiracist thinking.


Now Roger Craig. All that he said about the rifle was after Boone had announced that he’d found it :

Craig: There was a row going East to west on the north side of the weapon, and a box going east to west on the south side of the weapon, and- uh -if I remember, uh- as you’d look down, you had to look kinda back under the north stack of boxes to see the rifle. It was pushed kinda under- uh - or up tight against ‘em- you know, where it would be hard to see. And, of course, both ends of the rows were closed off where you couldn’t see through ‘em. You had to get up and look in ‘em.

So Craig clearly didn’t get a good view of the gun and simply went along with what he’d heard others say. Notice that there was no mention whatsoever of seeing any ‘Mauser’ stamp. Later, after he’d been dismissed from the Police and had become a true conspiracy theorist he suddenly ‘remembered’ seeing a Mauser stamp (11 years later). No mention of this revelation at the time though of course.

Remember, this is the man who said that he saw Oswald 5 minutes after the murder getting into a Nash Rambler on Elm Street. This is the man who said that he was in the office when Oswald was being interviewed contrary to what everyone else said. This was the man who said that a Mauser was found on the roof. This is the man that even Harold Weisberg and Mary Ferrell called a liar. Few people in this case are less trustworthy than Roger Craig and he is the only one that maintained this Mauser fantasy. Why isn’t this an end of it? Weitzman and Boone were simply mistaken. And it was an error that was repeated by others who all had the honesty to admit it.

Question - why is it unbelievable (according to you) that Weitzman and Boone realised their error and admitted it when questioned less that a year after the event, but it’s apparently totally acceptable for Craig to ‘remember’ seeing a Mauser stamp a full 11 years later and with no one corroborating this ‘revelation’? It’s a regularly applied double-standard when assessing witnesses. We also can’t fail to notice how many pro-conspiracy witnesses suddenly ‘remember’ vitally important evidence long after the actual events. Often after running into Mark Lane.

Furthermore, can anyone possibly believe that plotters, who could control/influence the police, the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, the military and numerous experts in wide ranging field and who could allegedly (at very short notice) have set up an entirely corrupt autopsy, would have achieved such a Laurel and Hardy level of incompetence as to mistakenly leave a second rifle lying around? Why would our Mr X assassin have needed this ‘Mauser’ when he had a perfectly serviceable Mannlicher-Carcano there which had very clearly been fired three times? How could a stranger had got into the building and up to the 6th floor carrying a rifle without ever being seen?

Conspiracy theorists would do themselves a huge favour if they abandoned this silly Mauser nonsense. There was never a Mauser in the TSBD. And that’s a fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So when they were doing the roll call of employees (the time of which has never been established) they were also checking alibis? I don't think so.

If Oswald 'fled the scene' it's odd nobody saw him running; in fact the taxi evidence suggests the opposite. Fritz's cryptic notes are little help but the 'out front with Bill Shelley' has been taken by some as Oswald speaking to him at the front door and assuming that work for the day was over.

Oswald did however seem to have left his jacket at the TSBD which suggests he was keen to get somewhere. It was found in the domino room of all places- but it was not recognised as being his until a few days later. I'm not sure if it was ever established that it actually was his but surely there must have been some stuff inside the pockets which would have helped identification. It's amazing that this jacket- the one he was wearing prior to committing the crime of the century- has been airbrushed out of the narrative whereas the jacket dumped after the Tippit shooting was seen as crucial. Or maybe not. Would there not have been forensic evidence on the jacket after the wearer had fired four shots at Tippit from a revolver?

I can’t see how Oswald’s fleeing the scene can be described as anything other than ‘odd’ at the very least. He not only fled but he walked straight past the bus stop which would have dropped him outside his rooming house. He then caught a bus at another stop which would have dropped him a distance away from it - and if he’d let that bus pass and caught the very next one due to arrive then that one would also have dropped him pretty much outside his rooming house. Then he was in so much of a hurry to get away he got a transfer ticket from the driver (McWatters) and set off to look for another bus (we know this because he was seen on the bus by his former landlady Mary Bledsoe and the transfer ticket, with McWatters personal mark on it was found in his pocket when he was arrested) But our ‘innocent’ man was in so much of a hurry to get away (even though he said that he’d left the building because only he’d ‘assumed’ that employees would be given the rest of the day off) that he jumped into a taxi driven by William Whaley. His strange behaviour even continued in the taxi because when Whaley asked him about what was going on in Dealey Plaza he remained totally silent and didn’t even reply. He then got the driver to drop him off a distance from his rooming house but actually walked in the opposite direction before Whaley saw him turn around and walk towards it. Then on arriving, he ignores Earlene Roberts completely when she speaks to him. Then our ‘innocent’ man changes his clothing and picks up his gun and decides to go and check out a movie which he does without bothering to buy a ticket (despite the fact that he had $13.87 on him when he was arrested) All from a rooming house where he registered himself as O.H. Lee (all innocent men use assumed names of course.)

Now add all of this to the fact that he’d changed his routine by visiting the Paine’s house for the first time ever on a Thursday and the fact he wouldn’t engage with Marina on the subject of Kennedy’s visit and that the miser Lee Harvey Oswald left Marina $170 and his wedding ring. Then consider that he lied to Frazier about the reason for his change of plan then he lied again the next morning about the curtain rods. Then he carries a package far too large and bulky to be carrying his lunch (which we know for an absolute fact was a lie) and he, for the only time ever, speeds off into the TSBD so that he was 50 yards ahead of Frazier when he got inside. How is this behaviour anything other than ‘odd.’ It’s not just odd…..it’s ODD!!!

And this is without even mentioning the Tippit murder. Oswald couldn’t have acted more guiltily if he’d tried.

The blue jacket that he wore to work hasn’t been airbrushed out. It was identified as belonging to Oswald by Marina. Why would they need to check the coat for residue? Firstly it wasn’t discovered until days later and secondly it was on the first floor so it was correctly assumed that he wasn’t wearing it when he shot Kennedy….as he undoubtedly did.

[Herlock Sholmes]

In response to Fiver's # 2329.

We have a different approach to the evidence.

Saying that there is film of a Carcano being held aloft and that Weitzman changed his mind does not alter the fact that the best evidence is that the rifle actually found on the sixth floor was a 7.65 Mauser.

Weitzman's affidavit is far too detailed for his testimony - that he had merely glanced at the rifle - to be credible.

Brennan's evidence could have been used to convict someone about eight years older than Oswald, weighing nearly three stone more than than Oswald, and wearing different coloured clothes than Oswald.

Givens' testimony puts Oswald on the sixth floor shortly after 12.45 p.m. and he was seen later by another witness or witnesses on much lower floors prior to the assassination.

His evidence is about as damning as Brennan's.

Mark Lane was not lying about what Helen Markham said.

I quoted from the Warren Commission's own transcript.

It was not something made up.

As for Roy W. Walker's forwarded description of Tippit's murderer, it agrees with William Smith's description of the killer having dark hair.

Benavides said he had curly hair.

Lane had heard that Markham had described the killer's hair as bushy and, during their recorded conversation, she agreed that it was slightly bushy.

Aquila Clemons said during an interview that his hair was bushy.

These descriptions of the murderer's hair do not match Oswald's hair.

Few people in this case have sunk so low as Mark Lane but conspiracy theorists love him and believe any of his blatant lies. I’m glad that you mentioned Acquila Clemons though, a typical poor CT favoured witness, because I can post this excellent article by Dale Myers about Clemons illustrating what a despicable liar Mark Lane was.

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-october-jfk-assassination-file.html