or I would help.

Last edited Sun Mar 17, 2013, 11:35 PM - Edit history (1)

At this point in their relationship, Lee and Marina were living in separate places. Lee had a room in a boarding house on North Beckley in South Dallas, close to his job at the Texas School Book Depository. Marina was living with a Ruth Paine along with their children. Oswald would catch a ride back to Irving with a co-worker, Wesley Frazier.

He would always catch this ride on a Friday, stay the weekend, and then catch a ride back on Monday with Wesley again. This is something he never deviated from until Thursday, November 21, the day before JFK's visit to Dallas.

AND his wedding ring on her dresser.

Last edited Sun Mar 17, 2013, 11:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Frazier asked why Oswald was going back to Irving, and Oswald told him it was to pick up some curtain rods.

As you can see from this photograph taken from LIFE photographer Allen Grant on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, Oswald's room already had curtain rods and curtains.



That's Erlene Roberts, Oswald's landlady, in the picture. She testified that Oswald never discussed getting curtain rods with her.

Ruth Paine did have two sets of curtain rods in her Irving home garage. Both were there after Oswald left.

Marina testified that Lee never said anything about getting curtain rods to her.

No curtain rods were found at the depository. After the assassination, Oswald first boarded a bus. Witnesses on that bus say he was not carrying curtain rods or a package that could have been curtain rods. After this, Oswald took a cab to his house. The cab driver testified he was not carrying curtain rods or a package that could have been curtain rods. When Oswald entered the house, Earlene Roberts was there in the front room. She testified he was not carrying curtain rods or a package that could have been curtain rods.

Bugliosi finally points out the implausibility of Oswald's curtain rod story. What made these curtain rods so incredibly important that Oswald had to get them on a Thursday evening? He would be in Irving the next day, by his long-standing, unbroken custom. Why Thursday and not Friday?

Last edited Sun Mar 17, 2013, 11:35 PM - Edit history (1)

This was said on Thursday evening right after Frazier had asked Oswald why he was going back to Irving on a Thursday. Oswald told him the curtain rod story, and Frazier then asked if he'd be coming out to Irving again on Friday night. Oswald said no.

Again, this goes to changing a habitual pattern of activity, but it is also before any discussion with Marina about their relationship. Oswald knew something would prevent him from coming back on Friday night.

Last edited Sun Mar 17, 2013, 11:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Both Lee and Marina were interested in the President and his family and would talk of them often. Yet that Thursday night, when Marina brought up the subject of JFK's Dallas visit the next day, Lee avoided the subject.

Her testimony: "He just ignored a little bit, you know, to talk about [it]...maybe changed the subject about talking about...newborn baby or something like that...It was quite peculiar that he did not want to talk aobut President Kennedy being in Dallas that particular evening. That was quite peculiar."

Last edited Sun Mar 17, 2013, 11:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Before leaving Ruth Paine's house, Oswald emptied his pockets of most of his money, $170, and also left his wedding ring. He also told Marina to use the money for the kids, new shoes for the baby, whatever she felt was necessary.

This was an incredible breach of habit for Oswald. Many of the couple's arguments were over money, and Lee hardly let Marina spend any money at all. And yet he leaves almost a thousand dollars in today's money for her? Has anyone besides me been in a relationship with a skinflint? That just doesn't happen without a strong reason why.

Keep the posts comin'!

When Frazier asked Oswald what this was, Oswald told him it was curtain rods.

This fact is part of the circumstantial evidence of Oswald's possession of the murder weapon that morning, a different legal concept than ownership.

This is another break in Oswald's pattern of behavior on Friday. This also falsifies a later story by Oswald as to what he was doing during the assassination.

Another break with Oswald's pattern of behavior. Frazier and Oswald had always walked together for the 300 yards from where Frazier parked to the TSBD. That Friday morning, Oswald got his paper-wrapped package and walked ahead of Frazier, to the point that he was 50 feet ahead of Frazier when he reached the depository.

This also points to possession of the murder weapon, as later facts will show.

Another deviation from his normal pattern of behavior, and this one is rather striking for someone we would call a news junkie today. Every work day as he got to work, Oswald would go to the first floor domino room and read the previous morning's paper left by another employee the day before. Not this Friday.

....I hope nobody notices that I've changed everything in my daily routine. Don't want to call attention to myself the day I shoot the Prez 'cause I hope to get away.

As mentioned before, Oswald always read the morning paper from the day before. He also read the afternoon paper. As Marina testified, the two of them always discussed the President and his family, and Oswald's life was defined by his political actions and statements.

Yet despite the immense amount of coverage the President's visit had found in the Dallas press, the following conversation was reported by a co-worker of Oswald's, James Jarman.

http://www.jfk-online.com/jarman.html

....three eyewitnesses said the shooter had a beige shirt but Lee had on a dark shirt that day at lunchtime. Guess he went to the cleaners after he shot JFK.

Mind you, I agree that Oswald did the shooting and acted alone. That said, if the dude couldn't do the line-up ID, then it's not an ID. The post hoc nature of his certainty makes it dubious.

But he did testify under oath that it was Oswald later.

And we'd be right to.

Imagine, for instance, a witness in a robbery. The witness cannot ID a suspect in a line-up. Later, the witness testifies that, yes, it was that suspect after all, and he had all sorts of odd reasons for not IDing that suspect in the actual line-up.

Now imagine that was the only real "evidence." No way you'd convict on that. It would be wrong to do so. We have controlled line-ups for a reason, even though we now know that much eyewitness testimony is doubtful anyway.

Bugliosi lists this evidence:

a. The murder weapon was found on the sixth floor.

b. Other witnesses saw a rifle sticking out of the window in question during the assassination.

c. The "sniper's nest" was discovered at this window - an arrangement of boxes to help facilitate the firing of a rifle at a target.

d. "Three cartridge casings fired from the murder weapon were found on the floor beneath the window."

From the notes of Oswald's Sunday interrogation, made by H.D. Holmes:

This is Bugliosi's weakest point to me. People do weird things all the time. But it is a highly unusual choice to an innocent person to go get a Coke after having heard the commotion of the assassination outside, rather than investigate the cause of the noise while on a break.

However, this is one of Bugliosi's strongest points, since whatever you think happened that day, this is something we can all agree on. Whether you think Oswald did the deed and ran or you think Oswald thought he was being framed and ran, it's utter nonsense that Oswald nonchalantly wandered off to go catch a movie after the President was shot. Yet this was his own story for his actions after the assassination. Everyone can agree Oswald was lying to the police here.

And that, in turn, strengthens number 14. The idea that Oswald just ho-hummed up to the second floor to score a Coke after hearing the commotion of the assassination is just as nonsensical. By all accounts, he knew the President was passing by around this time. That something horrible had happened is beyond doubt. Within minutes, Oswald would be fleeing the TSBD for whatever reason you believe - escaping his crime or being framed for it. It beggars belief that he had so little interest in this event that he would just leave, and that same implausibility transfers to the idea Oswald just thought he'd go get a Coke.

Working on commission these days, MrMickeysMom?

Maybe you or Mr. DiEugenio should buy a DU ad?

If you are, you had better consider either apologizing for a wrongful accusation, or consider deleting your post.

You have been warned.

Bring it.

You and I have a long history over the years, and your insults and belligerence toward me is inescapable in every interaction you pursue with me. You certainly did post a link to a source that people would have to pay to listen to. That's advertising. Own what you did.

I occasionally posted in the same genre (happens to be called "creative speculation&quot over the years... Any "history" we happen to have between us is relevant to JFK threads whereby you and your brethren make fun of and pile on people who happen to have a difference of opinion. When those you pile on get to the point where you are called out for what you do, you act like the victim.

It matters not, and personally, I think people are sick to death of hearing this shit.

Anytime you want to stop stirring and merchandising and start discussing the topic is fine by me.

Stick to your day job... it's much better than what you do here.

Thank you for your concern.

Try reading with this playing in the background.
It might help you.

'Cause if you just want to read DiEugenio bashing Bugliosi with pointless point after pointless point, that's free here. But I'm sure it would be much more convincing with a spooky one-note soundtrack.

.....here at the National Oswald-Dun-It Convention but I'm wondering, with all of Oswald's preparation, what's Bugliosi's explanation as to why Oswald would be such an idiot as to leave his fingerprints?

The fingerprints that are left have a simple explanation: Oswald left them. Why did he leave them? He either missed them in a clean-up job or he figured they were innocuous enough.

Getting Oswald's fingerprints on the places they were left if Oswald didn't leave them there: that's the notion that requires a convoluted explanation.

.....Bugliosi has no explanation for this.

Buggsi paints a picture of a man with a plan, a man who is seriously trying to get away......but he neglects to erase his fingerprints?????

D.M.A.F.S., sorry.

If only he hadn't left his fingerprints, he would have gotten away with his dastardly plan!
The explanation is he left his fingerprints because he touched the items.
I guess you will now want an explanation as to why he was wearing pants that day?

The evidence shows a man in a "frenzied flight." That's Bugliosi's own words. People in a frenzied flight make mistakes.

.....address this? Hmmmm.

To me, Oswald's behavior is more clearly matching that of someone who knows something's going to go down and then realizes that instead he's about to take the fall and flees. Probably does shoot Tippett and awaits a rendevous with his contact at the theater when he's betrayed. Spooks 'R Us. ONI, White Russians and CIA. Unseemly company if you ask me.

You say it's "more clearly matching" fleeing from being framed. How do you figure that? What would he have necessarily done differently if he had killed the President as well?

ETA: I don't know if Bugliosi addresses your exact question or not. I don't know that it's important to anyone but yourself.

I do know that later in this list, he talks about brown fibers on the gun consistent with Oswald's shirt, which would support Oswald wiping down the gun with his shirt before stowing it. So the answer to your question about Oswald not trying to get rid of the fingerprints is moot. He did.

.....to come rescue you from the planet of Bizarro!

You mean to tell me that Buggsi, while going to all the trouble to identify 53 reasons he believes Oswald dun it, doesn't address Oswald's prints? Hah, hah, hah, hah...........

If Oswald did shoot JFK, and he intended on getting away, why would he have changed so many aspects of his public behavior/interaction with others? That would only draw attention to himself.

sorry, still doesn't make sense.

BTW, do you even know where Oswald's prints were?

You claimed the evidence fits Oswald running from a frame job more closely than it does Oswald running from having done the deed. I'm very interested in your reasoning on that.

Bugliosi does deal with the fingerprints. I'm only in the 30's right now. Patience, I'll get them all in here.

That Oswald did change so many of his established patterns of behavior before the assassination is not in question. He did. The answer as to why he did is that he only learned that week of the President's route in front of the TSBD and had to retrieve his rifle. The change of behavior couldn't be helped. I'd be interested also in hearing why you think Oswald changed his patterns of behavior the way he did.

Oswald's prints were found on the rifle, on the handmade paper bag found in the sniper's nest, and on two of the boxes of the sniper's nest.

"To me, Oswald's behavior is more clearly matching that of someone who knows something's going to go down and then realizes that instead he's about to take the fall and flees."

Yes, he clearly wouldn't be fleeing after killing the President of the United States.

There is more to wonder about Bugliosi's really, really lengthy book and why it would stand up to many others so better referenced.

Bugliosi should have just stopped after Helter Skelter fame.

And you even quoted me before you went off on that tangent.

There has been absolutely no evidence ever presented of a second shooter. No one can even decide where this second shooter was supposed to be.

This is the thread that talks about the evidence Oswald actually committed the crime. I'm glad you understand that he was involved. There are others that do not understand this. This thread is for them.

something that I don't think anyone proposed is my point. If you think that many have proposed it, well I guess that is your experience. Where was he supposed to have been?

And as for no evidence of a second shooter?

-witnesses who saw/smelled smoke from the grassy knoll/fence
-witnesses who claim they saw a possible shooter in the grassy knoll/fence area
-witnesses who heard shots coming from the grassy knoll
-Dallas PD tape in which you can hear 4 shots
-timing of the use of Oswald's rifle indicating that you could not aim and get three shots off in the time allotted
-autopsy evidence that JFK was hit from the front
-the "magic bullet"

Try reading a number of books /reports if you think there is "no evidence ever presented of a second shooter":
Rush to Judgment
On the Trail of Assassins
The Kennedy Conspiracy: 12 Startling Revelations About the JFK Assassination
Best Evidence
Crossfire
HSCA

etc.!

Again, I have no illusions that you will change your mind about a second shooter. And I have no intention of trying to change it. But saying there is "no evidence" of a second shooter is simply incorrect. YOU may not find the evidence credible, and that of course if your prerogative. But there is indeed EVIDENCE.

Which, as I said above, I don't expect you to read or be influenced by. Your mind is made up. As is mine. Your insults will get you nowhere, and I welcome you to stop.

What insults?
The poster tackled each of your points in an honest manner.

You're not here to discuss, are you?

That is just insipid. Also, I have laid out my evidence, you and your pal have laid out yours. You have not convinced me. I have not convinced you, nor have I tried. What more is there to "discuss"? It seems to have devolved into:


"It's not opinion about the Dictabelt. Or where Kennedy was shot from. Things like that are not negated by your opinion of them."

In other words, just saying that my evidence sucks and yours doesn't. If my evidence is "not credible" and only yours is, how in the world can you think there is anything to discuss? There isn't. That's not productive. Nor is it discussion. Nor is it even seemingly aware that there are many books and documentaries and first hand accounts and official government reports that do support these and other bits of evidence that indicate a second shooter.

for what I hope is the final time, I have done my own reading and thinking and disagree with you and your buddy.

So feel superior or whatever, but quit trying to convince me. You won't.

And you also apparently lack the capability to be able to agree to disagree, which I would think would be a necessary prerequisite for a forum entitled "creative speculation."

No one has insulted you.
No one is trying to make you feel inferior.

Sorry you can't discuss without taking it personally.

You simply can't abide that I read different books than you and find them credible. You have to keep saying that I don't know the facts. I do. I just draw different conclusions from them. The fact that you can't live with that must mean you have a chip on your shoulder.

I don't live in a world where everyone must succumb to my will. As I said in post # 131:

"Again, I am not trying to disabuse you of any notion. But nor should you me. As I said earlier, I have read, viewed, and listened to a number of sources, and I am not convinced of the lone gunman theory and do not think I ever will be.

But thank you for your input and opinion."

In case you missed it, this is an invitation to stop trying to get me to jump to your conclusions. And yet you have not. Fascinating.

I think there is no "chip".

In fact, why don't you make a histogram of the number of "posts" in this silly thread from the same predictable thread-posters and tell me who likes to see their names over and over and over and over and over

and over

and over

and over

and over

and over again...

So many chips in this silly thing, you need a good dip and a couple of napkins.

"Yes, your list in #128 is made up of non-credible evidence and false and misleading assumptions.

One and all. If those "facts" are the basis of your conclusions, then you've been led horribly astray."

This is most certainly an insult. Calling his evidence credible but mine not? On what basis? On that fact that he is a Vincent Bugliosi fan and I am not? Calling me "led horribly astray"? If that is not calling someone feeble minded, I don't know what is.

I listed several books that are well written and documented and have cogent evidence and reasonable conclusions. Neither you nor your buddy is interested in "discussing" them. you are only interested in repeating your opinions that any evidence that doesn't support your conclusions is wrong, or debunked, or non-credible. That's not "discussion," that's contradiciton. And I have no interest in it. I would prefer to agree to disagree and go post somewhere else a bit more hospitable.

Right, I get it.

You're here to agree to disagree.

Have at it.

They occasionally get urinated on, however.

The disinterested reader will see I've called your list of evidence non-credible, wrong, and/or misleading, not you. You've certainly been misled by it.

I can keep this up as long as you can. Or you can just face the fact that I am not put off by your implicaiton that I am feebleminded, and, as I said about 10 posts ago, you are wasting your breath. You will not convince me, and I am not naive enough to try to convince you. We draw different conclusions. That ought to be the end of it (however, I suspect that, as before, it won't be).

You're determined to see an insult to you in what I say. Why don't you get back to the actual discussion of facts instead of manufacturing this specious complaint to cut it off (a complaint and charge you don't see fit to submit to a jury of randomly selected DU members, I might add)?

You've already told me I know none. That you are the only one that knows any. I am "naive" (past 125) and been led horribly astray (post 144). If those are not insults, I do not know what is. But that is not my point. My point is there is nothing to discuss with you. Everything I raise, you mock, without even allowing for the fact that reasonable minds can differ or that other authors than Bugliosi draw different conclusions. If they can't there is nothing to discuss. What don't you understand about this?

And what is your obsession with juries? I don't need a jury to verify my opinion of you.

They are not insults. They are important terms for the discussion.

The facts remain.

The Dictabelt is not credible evidence for a fourth shot. The timing of the part of the tape claimed to have four shots on it has been demonstated to be a recording a minute after the actual assassination happened. That evidence is non-credible, and can be dismissed along with the conclusion of the HSCA that there was a fourth shot, since the Dictabelt was the sole basis for that conclusion.

The wounds on Kennedy's body did not come from the front. Both of them came from the back.

I agree that a discussion is not possible when the facts cannot be acknowledged. But your opinions don't change the reality of the evidence.

Obviously, many people in the country find the argument of a second shooter credible, that is why so many books are published on it. And a judge would find the argument regarding the wounds credible, given that they can be testified to by a Certified Senior Crime Scene Analyst and court certified expert in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida, totaling in over 30 Judicial Districts and Louisiana State Federal Court, whose areas of expertise included Crime Scene Investigation, Crime Scene Reconstruction and Blood Spatter Analysis. (The aforementioned but ignored Enemy of the Truth, Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination by Sherry Fiester). Not to mention other sources, also mentioned earlier and ignored by you.

There are too many problems with the autopsy:

-missing time when the body should have been at the autopsy but wasn't
-burned notes
-photos that have been kept classified
-testimony of witnesses from Parkland who dispute the autopsy report's description of the wounds

etc.

Besides, forensic experts not present at autopsies (they are called defense witnesses) testify in court all the time. They are considered credible because of their expertise, and they can apply their expertise to challenge the conclusions of others, based on their own analysis of the evidence and conclusions the prosecution draws therefrom.

So "being present" is not a requirement, and it's a straw man when your expert wasn't there either.

This tiresome. Good day, sir.

There's no way to shoot Kennedy from that area.

You tube. The awesome resource. Thank you.

when it's not and never will be on my part.

If you ever bother to watch that video, you will see with your own eyes that anyone taking aim in Fiester's designated area would have no shot. It is physically impossible. Since that's true, Fiester's assertion of backspatter is incorrect. The shot could only have come from behind, and that means the TSBD sixth floor.

You do, by continuing to insist on ignoring my personal requests to stop. I keep trying to tell you, arguing you with you is no fun, it is not a discussion, it is boring and pointless. You do not discuss. You denigrate. You do not have an open mind. You only care to be right and you do it by blindly insulting other's analysis and saying brilliant things like "oh, was your expert at the autopsy?"

Gee, that's high level discourse. Not.

The video clearly says "I would keep an open mind" about the south overpass position. So I do not find that consistent with your assertion that there would be "no shot." Not to mention that, even if it did say what you think it said, then one video + one book with an opposite conclusion does not equal you win. It equals different people coming to different conclusions, like us. There is no definitive answer.

Further, unless you are a forensics expert with training in blood spatter science, perhaps YOU should keep an open mind on her analysis of front spatter and back spatter, instead of substituting your judgment for hers. And even if you are, then what we have (again) is the differing conclusions of two experts. Game not over. Draw. Leave it be that there are different theories based on different conclusions based on all the evidence. There is not only one conclusion--yours. You won't win with me, no matter how many posts you make mocking my evidence and propping yours. On the other hand, I do not denigrate your conclusions and tell you that you are wrong. I say, let's agree to disagree. You cannot accept that.

Your A&E documentary (clearly the pinnacle of all science, by the way) is a perfect example. Who in that video was at the autopsy? Why do you hold others to a standard you don't hold yourself to? Because you have no interest in engaging in real discussion. All you seem to want to do is wear me down into accepting your position, and I have said I have no interest in that. That I won't change my mind on the basis of discussions with you, so I do not feel there is anything more to talk about. Why can't you take no for an answer? You can feel free to continue to believe in the superiority of what you believe but I would kindly ask you again to leave me out of it.

The sniper expert in the video clearly does NOT say "I would keep an open mind" about the south overpass position. He clearly says that about the NORTH overpass position. This is what he says about the south overpass position:

At some point, you are going to get as bored of this pointless conversation as I am and you will leave me alone (or so I can only hope).

Until then, you need to look in the mirror. Why did you not address the other books I posted about (see post #128)? Why do you believe A&E is valid and Feister not? You didn't answer that, did you? Why os popular TV your source for science? You didn't answer that.

You know what, though, I don't care--I am not trying to "wear you down." Unless that implies I am trying to get you to leave me alone, which I am most certainly trying to do.

You must have a problem understanding the phrase "we draw different conclusions so why don't we leave it at that." THERE IS NOTHING IN THAT PHRASE TRYING TO WEAR YOU DOWN, nor inviting you to continue to debate me for that matter. I have not asserted the superiority of my conclusions over yours, so there is nothing to debate.

You believe Oswald killed Kennedy alone. Awesome. Please continue to enjoy that belief. It doesn't offend or harm me or threaten me. I don't care if you have it or if you don't have it.

I don't know how I can make it clearer to you that I have drawn my own conclusions on this long ago and you have zero chance of changing my mind (see post 131 for example).

And I ask you AGAIN to stop and leave me alone. SERIOUSLY. What do you not understand about invitations to end the conversation and leave me alone? (See, e.g., posts 142, 145, 149, 155, 163, 177, and 178).

Good day, sir.

You did. You attributed the "keep an open mind" to the south overpass position. It's actually made about the north overpass position, well outside Feister's placement of the shooter.



See? This is straight from Feister's blog. The north overpass position, the one to "keep an open mind" about from my video, is completely outside Feister's trajectory cone. And the sniper expert completely dismisses the south overpass position because there is no shot. Anyone can see that there is no shot anywhere inside Feister's trajectory cone.

As long as you keep posting in a public discussion forum, I will keep responding.

Still not impressed. Still don't care what you think.

And then, when shown that he or she has made a clear mistake, will not admit to it.

And as long as you keep posting on a public discussion forum, I will respond as I see fit. Not to mention this being a thread I started!

You assume so because you think your opinions are facts. Keep it up.

For the life of me, I do not understand why people continue to deny things that are linked to and easily verifiable.

You are not open to any interpretations or experts other than your own. That is not a discussion. That's just contradiction. See prior posts.

So, why do you keep posting???