|
|
 Up |
  |
Author: Anthony MarshAnthony Marsh Date: Nov 21, 2006 01:57
David Von Pein wrote:
>>>> "What about the other guys who brought their rifles to work?" <<<
>
> And just how many of those other boys brought their rifles to work ON
> THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION, broken down into pieces, and wrapped in
> brown paper?
>
First, you have no proof that Oswald took his rifle that day. Nor that
it was broken down into pieces. Nor that it was wrapped in brown paper.
Only conjecture. And maybe just by luck those boys could have brought
their rifles into work on Friday instead.
> And how many of those warehouse boys claimed their rifles were "curtain
> rods"?
>
Who claimed a rifle was curtain rods?
> Any reason for Oswald to lie if he's merely bringing his to work gun
> for "show-and-tell" purposes?
>
|
| Show full article (1.95Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BudBud Date: Nov 21, 2006 05:24
James K. Olmstead wrote:
> "Donald Willis" newsguy.com> wrote in message news:ejrkak05c1@drn.newsguy.com...>>>>>>> "You still have a problem......if you meant "alibi"." <<<
>>>>
>>>> No I don't....because Oswald lacked a useable, believable, verifiable
>>>> alibi...period.
>>>
>>>Perhaps you should ask VB about the common defense position of a
>>>"no alibi defense". The aspects of Oswald's presented alibi have
>>>just about the same amount of value as the presented "lack of alibi"
>>>position. As to being believable, one can stand on "inocent until proven
>>>guilty". As to verifiable, Oswald's presented alibi is verifiable by the
>>>actions of others, that Oswald would have had to witness in order to
>>>mention, even if those he saw did not see him.
>>> ...
|
| Show full article (3.23Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BudBud Date: Nov 21, 2006 14:51
Donald Willis wrote:
>>
>>
>>James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>>"Donald Willis" newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ejrkak05c1@drn.newsguy.com...>>>>>>>>> "You still have a problem......if you meant "alibi"." <<<
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No I don't....because Oswald lacked a useable, believable, verifiable
>>>>>> alibi...period.
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps you should ask VB about the common defense position of a
>>>>>"no alibi defense". The aspects of Oswald's presented alibi have
>>>>>just about the same amount of value as the presented "lack of alibi" ...
|
| Show full article (3.25Kb) |
| 1 Comment |
|
|
Author: John BlubaughJohn Blubaugh Date: Nov 21, 2006 18:05
>
> Oz saying he saw those people at a certain time at a certain place
> doesn`t exist in the evidence. What does exist is Oz telling
> interrogators that he ate lunch with people who said they didn`t eat
> lunch with him.
>
>>
Didn't Oswald say that he saw them while he was eating lunch? I don't
recall he claimed to have dined with them.
JB
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: David Von PeinDavid Von Pein Date: Nov 22, 2006 04:30
>>> "It's still a verifible alibi, regardless if you like it or not. It
does not totally remove Oswald from being involved but it establishes
doubt that he actually pulled the trigger. That doubt coupled with
considerations of the actual evidence is exculpatory. The general rule is
that if the conflict favors the defendant the jury must go in that
direction." <<<
Then we'd probably never have anyone convicted of any crime. And in
Oswald's case, there is so much stuff pointing to GUILT, and so little
stuff pointing AWAY from guilt (times two murders, too!) that any juror
who would vote "Not Guilty via a Reasonable Doubt" based on the half-assed
and obviously-extremely-weak "alibi" junk you're purporting re. Oswald
should go join the O.J. jury at the nearest pub....and then toast each
other silly for having let two murderers go free.
|
| Show full article (3.09Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BudBud Date: Nov 22, 2006 04:59
James K. Olmstead wrote:
> Bud: It's still a verifible alibi, regardless if you like it or not.
No, it is a desperate attempt to exonerate Oz, is all.
> It does not
> totally remove Oswald from being involved but it establishes doubt
> that he actually pulled the trigger.
It`s meaningless drivel. Oz never said he saw those people on the
first floor prior to the shooting. He told Bookout they may have
entered the lunchroom when he ate, which occurred after his encounter
with Baker.
> That doubt coupled with considerations
> of the actual evidence is exculpatory.
It`s nothing, but you have to go with what you have.
> The general rule is that if the
> conflict favors the defendant the jury must go in that direction. See
> the Juan Corrona case....in that case that rule did not favor Corrona,
> and chances are a jury in any Oswald case would have gone the same
> way, however....this case never went to court.
|
| Show full article (1.09Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Anthony MarshAnthony Marsh Date: Nov 22, 2006 05:59
Bud wrote:
> Donald Willis wrote:
>>>
>>> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>>> "Donald Willis" newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ejrkak05c1@drn.newsguy.com...>>>>>>>>>> "You still have a problem......if you meant "alibi"." <<<
>>>>>>> No I don't....because Oswald lacked a useable, believable, verifiable
>>>>>>> alibi...period.
>>>>>> Perhaps you should ask VB about the common defense position of a
>>>>>> "no alibi defense". The aspects of Oswald's presented alibi have
>>>>>> just about the same amount of value as the presented "lack of alibi"
>>>>>> position. As to being believable, one can stand on "inocent until proven
>>>>>> guilty". As to verifiable, Oswald's presented alibi is verifiable by the
>>>>>> actions of others, that Oswald would have had to witness in order to ...
|
| Show full article (3.27Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BudBud Date: Nov 22, 2006 16:13
> No, that is not even what Oswald was alleged to have said.
Fritz wrote in his report that Oz "Said he ate lunch with some of
the colored boys who worked with him". SS Inspector Kelley had it that
Oswald "Said he ate lunch with the colored boys who worked with him. He
described one of them as "Junior", a colored boy, and the other as a
short negro boy". James "Junior" Jarman denied he ate with Oz. Hence,
my statement that "...Oz telling interrogators [Fritz, Kelley} that he
ate lunch with people who said they didn`t eat with him [James Jarman,
and possibly Harold Norman]" is accurate, and you are merely wrong once
more, Tony.
>
>>> dw
>>
>>
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BudBud Date: Nov 22, 2006 16:13
Donald Willis wrote:
>>
>>
>>James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>>"Donald Willis" newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ejrkak05c1@drn.newsguy.com...>>>>>>>>> "You still have a problem......if you meant "alibi"." <<<
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No I don't....because Oswald lacked a useable, believable, verifiable
>>>>>> alibi...period.
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps you should ask VB about the common defense position of a
>>>>>"no alibi defense". The aspects of Oswald's presented alibi have
>>>>>just about the same amount of value as the presented "lack of alibi" ...
|
| Show full article (3.33Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: BudBud Date: Nov 23, 2006 05:20
James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>
>> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>> Bud: It's still a verifible alibi, regardless if you like it or not.
>>
>> No, it is a desperate attempt to exonerate Oz, is all.
>
> No effort to exonerate at all...
Really? You eagerly devour a premise with no support. Is this your
definition of "open minded"?
>.just evaluation of the facts with an open
> mind. Try it some time.
There is nothing in this "alibi" nonsense to examine. There is just
nothing there. There are two mentions of where Oz ate in the record. Fritz
indicates that Oz was eating on the second floor lunchroom when confronted
by Baker. Bookout has it that Oz said he ate in the first floor lunchroom
after his encounter with Baker.
|
| Show full article (3.96Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
