>
>James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>>> "Bud"
fast.net> wrote in message>>>>>
>>>>> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>>>>> "Bud"
fast.net> wrote in message>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Bud"
fast.net> wrote in message>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Bud"
fast.net> wrote in message>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No I don't eagerly devour anything relating to this case and I examine
>>the
>>>>>>>> presented evidence from both sides. My major Oswald did it alone work
>>is
>>>>>>>> called "The 780 Motive", which goes from Oswald's childhood (age 2) to
>>>>>>>> his death. I've studied the major LN positions on motive and intent
>>for Oswald's
>>>>>>>> actions and developed my own view, that covers most of the actions
>>related
>>>>>>>> to Oswald....however even in this work I can't ignore the conflicts of
>>how
>>>>>>>> the case was handled and presented. Spending equal time on both sides
>>>>>>>> of the debate defines being "open minded" in my opinion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>.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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What did Oswald say?
>>>>>>>> What did he in fact state? What statement on his
>>>>>>>> actions did he sign or refuse to sign? Regardless of what you want to
>>believe
>>>>>>>> or what I want to accept, the accounts by others mean squat since
>>Oswald
>>>>>>>> is dead and can't respond.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet you accept Bookout relating Oz saying he saw those two guys walk
>>>>>>> through a room, and consider this a viable alibi. Why is this
>>>>>>> information from Bookout deemed reliable?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bud: You ignore the questions presented above....and try to switch the
>>>>>> context to indicate that I accept Bookout's account as the last word when
>>>>>> it is clear, also above, that I don't accept any of the accounts presented
>>>>>> on the issue of alibi on the basis of my questions and arguement.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, let me take this slow, so that you can understand the nature
>>>>> of my complaints.
>>>>
>>>> Take it anyway you want.......I'm not going to worry about anyones
>>>> "complaints", I got a ton of my own.
>>>>
>>>>> You said "Bud, it`s a verifiable alibi, regardless of whther you like
>>>>> it or not". You also said "As to a verififiable alibi, Oswald`s
>>>>> presented alibi is verifiable by the actions of others, that Oswald
>>>>> would have to witness in order to mention, even if those he saw did not
>>>>> see him/" This seems to me that you are championing the theory put
>>>>> forth by Don Willis,
>>>>
>>>> Read it again.....there are several keywords you overlook in your
>>>> "complaint". The issue has the same problems of being "verified" by both
>>>> sides. It is a "presented" alibi.
>>>
>>> Thats better. It is an unsupported claim that it is an actual alibi.
>>
>> No it's supported by the actions of the two men,
>
> No, it`s not. That passage from Bookout says they walked through the
>lunchroom, but those men don`t say that they did.
>
>> the trouble lies in the
>> fact that there is no signed/refused to sign statement by Oswald in the
>> record. That problem makes either sides positon on alibi difficult to prove.
>
> I`m not trying to prove anything. Just trying to figure out what
>happened. Your use of irrelevant criteria prevents you from doing so.
>
>> Which is why the defense would use a "no alibi" tactic and rely on the
>> actions of the two men to place Oswald in another part of the TSBD,
>> where he was not actually seen, but had to be there to mention these
>> two men.
>
> It fails as an alibi for a variety of reasons, not the least of
>which is that the President wasn`t shot when these men entered the
>building.
>
>>>> One which follows the actions of
>>>> others, without those others seeing Oswald......or saying that they saw
>>>> him.
>>>
>>> No, it really does none of that, unless you are willing to read a
>>> lot of things into that one sentence in Bookout`s report. The time,
>>> place and even the people involved are not clearly identified, and the
>>> event itself is only presented as a possibility of having had occurred.
>>>
>>
>> Again you only take Bookout's report into account, and ignore the statements
>> of the two men. Why would these two men "lie" about their actions?
>
> I never said they did. You use the enterance of these men to set
>the time for Oz seeing them, when you need the person who supposedly
>saw them to specify the time he observed them (for one of many
>problems).
>
>> There
>>is no grounds to suspect that they are not telling the truth. Nobody else,
>>claimed
>> to have been in the same area at the same time, except Oswald.
>
> Not true. Doughtery said he ate his lunch in the domino room, and
>then went back to work.
>
>> Who had
>>no contact with these men, after the break for lunch and after the
>>assassination.
>>
>>>> I'm "championing" only the "conflict" presented by Don Willis...Don can't
>>>> "prove" his position any more than you can "prove" yours.
>>>
>>> What the hell does "prove" mean without a trial? Don can`t support
>>> the claims he makes by his selective reading of the evidence. I only
>>> point this out.
>>>
>>
>> So, now one does not have to "prove" anything? Just present opinion?
>
> Where have you been for the last forty-plus years? The WC was
>charged with looking into this event, and giving thier best explaination
>for it. Many people are unsatisfied with these conclusions (opinions),
>they have differing opinion. The impossibility of trying the dead leave
>the culprit outside the jurisdiction of the authorities, so nothing can be
>proved, everything can be disputed.
>
>>>> There is no
>>>> "direct evidence" that can be put on the table for all to see.
>>>
>>> Sure there is. There is a witness who claims he saw Oz in the sixth
>>> floor shooting. Surely that trumps nobody seeing Oz in the first floor
>>> lunchroom.
>>
>> No, it does not trump any outside eye witness......the discription was so
>> general and the line ups handled so poorly that these accounts are going
>> to be contested forever.
>
> But there is a witness who said under oath that he saw Oz on the 6th
>floor at the time of the shooting. And there isn`t a witness on the 1st
>floor saying they saw Oz, only an ambiguous sentence in a report that some
>people have chosen to read a certain way.
>
Yes, there was--Marrion Baker:
Shortly after I entered the building I confronted Oswald. The superintendent
said that Oswald was all right. We left Oswald there, & the supervisor showed
me the way upstairs. We couldn't get anyone to send the freight elevator down.
(Officer E, "JFK First Day Evidence" p365.)
An officer who could only be Baker--who reached the building in less than 20
seconds (WR p152)--ran into Oswald on the 1st floor *before* the problem of
stairs/elevator came up. And no one could have gotten to the 1st floor from
the 6th in less than 20 seconds....
dw
. He
>>>> could only make that statement if he saw them.
>>>
>>> Thats not true. He could have guessed that those two men would be
>>> down in the lunchroom area together by prior experience.
>>
>> WRONG.......THERE'S NO GUESSING ALLOWED HERE.
>
> I assure you that murderers will tell lies to the authorities. Oz
>saying he possibly saw Norman and Jarman walk through the lunchroom while
>he ate is a guess he might felt had a good possibility of being correct,
>and since he used the word "possibly", he always had an escape if his
>guess didn`t turn out to be true.
>
>> Again, the
>>> sentence from Bookout is ambiguous,
>>
>> Which adds to the prosecutions problems.
>
> A prosecutor would likely get a clarification of ambiguous
>information if necesssary, whereas Don can just opt to assign any
>meaning he wants to it.
>
>> it says they walked through "the
>>> room", a room previously identified in the same sentence as the :the
>>> lunchroom. Did Norman and Jarman say they walked through the lunchroom
>>> on thier way to the fifth floor?
>>
>> According to Bookout and Fritz they did
>
> No, they don`t. Norman and Jarman did not go to the fifth floor by
>way of the domino room.
>
>>>>> The fragment from Fritz`s notes is "two negroes [sic} came in".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> None of the above are from "direct evidence" of a signed statement,
>>>> or a statement Oswald refused to sign. They are seperate accounts
>>>> that ignore (no recording/oral or written) what Oswald is saying.
>>>
>>> Then it can`t even be considered a "presented alibi", since we can`t
>>> be sure this is what Oz presented.
>>
>
