Where is the CHECK/MO for Oswald's $10

[David Von Pein]

But yet, they [the always-evil FBI] could not find any proof like that about the ten bucks sent for the handgun.

How would you suggest the FBI "trace" a particular ten-dollar bill that was mailed IN CASH by a particular person?

Was the FBI supposed to collect every $10 bill in existence in 1963 and check each bill for Oswald's fingerprints or something?

You're again asking WAY too much of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Yet, they could not interview a person from REA who recalled him picking up the handgun. And that is not odd to DVP.

Why would that be considered odd, Jimbo? Nobody at the Dallas Post Office could remember Oswald picking up the rifle either. But he certainly DID pick it up. Marina took multiple pictures of LHO holding the gun just a few days later in the Neely backyard. (Oh, yes, those are fake too, aren't they Jimmy?)

Plus, as noted a dozen times already, the FBI had already established the critical things that needed to be established --

1.) Oswald having the Tippit murder weapon in his hands when he was arrested (which you will deny until the cows come home).

2.) Oswald ordered a revolver from Seaport, and Seaport shipped him what turned out to be the Tippit murder weapon.

The obvious point is that the chain of possession for the handgun getting to Oswald is simply not there.

Can you get any goofier, Jimbo? Is it possible?

WHY do you want to believe in the silly idea that the cops planted Revolver V510210 on Oswald?

Plus:

If the gun Oswald had in his pants on November 22 wasn't Revolver V510210, then what gun do you think that was that LHO had on him in the theater?

There's no evidence that indicates Lee Oswald owned or possessed more than just one single revolver in 1963. And that one revolver that he owned was positively Smith & Wesson revolver #V510210.

An unborn child still in the womb could figure this stuff out. But, miraculously, school teacher Jim DiEugenio can't. Bizarre.

Edited December 14, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Uh Davy, do you not think that cash deposits on things are eventually deposited into accounts?

Sure. And Seaport undoubtedly deposited the $10 that Oswald mailed them into their bank account. But please tell the world HOW the FBI is going to track or trace a specific $10 bill IN CASH that was deposited by Seaport? How is that done, Jimmy?

And, more to the point, WHY would the FBI need to do that? They already knew LHO ordered the gun (the mail-order coupon and the Seaport order form prove that fact for all time)....and the FBI knew that Seaport had received the $10 cash deposit (the fact that Seaport mailed the merchandise to PO Box 2915 is proof of that).

So why is there any need whatsoever to track down a particular $10 bill, which the FBI knew was paid IN CASH by Oswald (vs. a traceable check or money order)?

Your goofiness is reaching a new zenith, Jimmy.

Now, you say that this is expecting too much of the FBI, that is to trace the money for a transaction for an alleged murder weapon. Then why did they do it for Klein's?

I can think of two good reasons:

#1.) Because the Klein's rifle order was paid for via a money order (which was traceable through the U.S. Post Office).

#2.) Because Oswald was not caught red-handed with the Mannlicher-Carcano in his hands on 11/22/63. Therefore, additional means of linking the murder weapon to its owner (Oswald) were needed. And that was accomplished without a shred of a doubt.

But the #2 item above did not apply to the revolver, because Oswald was nice enough to keep that murder weapon on his person at the time he was fighting with the police in the theater.

Instead of focusing almost solely on Oswald's $10 cash deposit for Revolver V510210, you should be much more concerned about the $19.95 + $1.27 S&H that Oswald had to pay on the COD payment after the revolver was shipped.

Yes, it's true that apparently there is no official "tracing" of that COD payment made by Oswald. (But LHO probably paid cash for that part of the payment, too. In fact, the Seaport invoice does have the "Cash" box checked for a payment; whether that refers to the $10 deposit or the COD payment, or possibly both, I am not certain.)

But even without tracing the $19.95+, the FBI knew the revolver was Oswald's, and since he was caught with the gun on him on 11/22, the FBI actually was able to figure something out that Jimbo DiEugenio hasn't figured out to this day --- Lee Oswald, in March of 1963, picked up the gun that he himself ordered. (Gee, imagine somebody actually doing something like that, huh?)

This is very simple stuff to figure out, Jim. Why over-complicate it with your silly "REA" requirements?

Edited December 14, 2011 by David Von Pein

[William Kelly]

Greg,

All of that stuff you just mentioned is merely the normal (and expected) smoke and mirrors that a defense lawyer would naturally try to use at a trial in which they absolutely have to know the defendant is guilty. (Just like at the O.J. Simpson trial.)

http://OJ--Simpson.blogspot.com

The defense team would have to convince a jury that this portion of your above scenario actually happened:

"The only pistol at the TT was one that the police were trying to force upon him."

Tell me, Greg, just exactly WHY would a reasonable jury even BEGIN to believe such a thing occurred?

Also:

Would a reasonable jury truly believe that the Dallas Police (within MINUTES of Tippit's murder) would have had a desire to "force" a pistol into the hands of a man who was in no way involved in J.D. Tippit's murder?

Which would mean, of course, if the jury did buy into the above preposterous notion, that the jury would also have to believe that the DPD would have deliberately allowed the killer of their fellow officer to just get off scot-free, while they framed the innocent man who was arrested in the Texas Theater.

Hogwash. All of it.

We don't need to imagine a hypothetical trial, we can judge for ourselves, and if we conclude that Oswald was on the first floor fifteen minutes before the assassination, when a man with a rifle was seen on the Sixth Floor, and Oswald was on in the first floor lunchroom five minutes before the assassination and identified others who were there with him - and Oswald says he was in the first floor lunchoom at the time of the assassination, and his jacket is later found there, and Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom a minute and a half after the last shot, and he wasn't seen coming down the steps by any of the three witnesses who should have seen him - and the Sixth Floor Sniper was still in the window four to five minutes after Oswald was seen on the second floor - then we should rationally conclude that Oswald was not the Sixth Floor Sniper.

And since he was framed for that crime, why not consider the possibility he was framed for the Tippit murder too? As other persons who resembled Oswald were clearly seen near the scene of the crime - one of them in a car belonging to the victim's good friend Carl Mather - so those who aren't trying to pin the tail on the donkey, as David and the Bug and McAdams try to do, should rationally conclude that Oswald was what he said he was - a Patsy.

As for the integrity of the Dallas Police Department, as the son of a policeman I can assure you that there are good cops and there are bad cops - and if you read the story of Mike Robertson, who overheard some Dallas cops talking in the first floor bathroom, Tippit was killed by another policeman - possibly unintentionally, and Oswald was not a cop.

So what is hogwash is the official story, just as the official story on the identity of the Sixth Floor Sniper is hogwash.

The bottom line, whether Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK and Tippit or was the designated Patsy, whatever you believe happened at Dealey Plaza was covert Intelligence operation because the alleged assassin was not a crazy lone nut case but a covert operator, and the identity of those who controlled him can be determined, and those responsible for the Dealey Plaza operation identified, but not if you are going to argue over whether it was possible for Oswald to have done anything.

Oswald was just a pawn, a Patsy and a rabbit sent out to lead anyone who follows astray.

Does anyone know who placed the red roses on Oswald's grave and took this photo?

JFKcountercoup

Can anyone read the inscription on the card?

BK

Thanks,

[David Von Pein]

So you are saying that there was never any written record of the deposit made with the money. In fact, do we even know if it was deposited?

Because if we do not know that, how do we know it was sent?

James,

Seaport shipped Revolver V510210 to Oswald's PO Box.

I assume we can both agree on the above fact, can't we Jim? You surely don't think that Seaport lied about having the "Hidell" invoice in its records on Nov. 30th, do you Jim? You surely aren't silly enough to think that the whole paper trail from Seaport, through REA, to PO Box 2915 was "faked", are you?

So, if we can agree that Seaport shipped #V510210 to "Hidell"/(Oswald), then if you have ANY ability to think logically at all, you MUST therefore admit that Seaport received the $10 deposit in the mail from SOMEBODY.

Correct or not, Jim?

And if you still have doubts about whether Seaport received the $10 deposit, then answer this question for me:

Why did Seaport send the revolver to PO Box 2915 if they were never paid that $10?

Did they just feel generous that day in March '63--and they said to themselves:

Well, guys, we didn't receive a cent of money as a deposit from this dude Hidell in Dallas. But, what the xxxx, we'll just mail him this gun anyway.

Edited December 14, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Oh, for Pete sake, Jim -- you know what I meant. Either the gun itself or a notification card went to the PO Box.

Point being: Seaport (via REA) shipped the gun to Oswald/Hidell.

Care to answer this question now?:

Why did Seaport send the revolver to PO Box 2915 Oswald/Hidell if they were never paid that $10?

Edited December 14, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

IF the gun went to the post office, then why was there no trail at the post office of Oswald picking it up?

What makes you think there would necessarily have to be a "trail" of a person who merely picks up his mail at the post office?

Now, since Oswald owed $19.95 + $1.27 COD on the revolver, then obviously (if the gun went to the P.O.) the post office would have then forwarded the money to REA. But whether THAT type of routine transaction would have left a paper trail behind at the post office, I really don't know.

But since Oswald didn't owe any money on the rifle when it was delivered by Klein's, then no such "COD" transaction was required at any location.

So when Oswald went to get his Carcano rifle, all he was really doing was picking up his mail. It just so happens that in the "rifle" instance, he had to get the package at the front desk, because the bulky object couldn't fit inside his small P.O. Box.

I've picked up packages at the post office before. You take the little yellow slip of paper to the post office and the clerk gives you the package. End of transaction. You actually think the post office retains those yellow slips (or whatever color they are in other cities) that people bring to the front desk?

I kinda doubt those are saved, Jimmy? I'm guessing those slips end up in File 13 by the end of the day.

Yes, I know I wandered away from the "revolver" transaction and went over to the rifle -- but I wanted to add that part about Oswald getting his rifle too, because you (of course) think there should have also been some kind of a "trail" left behind when Oswald picked up the Carcano too. But you (of course) are wrong.

Edited December 15, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Duke Lane]

All of that stuff you just mentioned is merely the normal (and expected) smoke and mirrors that a defense lawyer would naturally try to use at a trial in which they absolutely have to know the defendant is guilty. (Just like at the O.J. Simpson trial.)

The defense team would have to convince a jury that this portion of your above scenario actually happened ...

... Would a reasonable jury truly believe that the Dallas Police (within MINUTES of Tippit's murder) would have had a desire to "force" a pistol into the hands of a man who was in no way involved in J.D. Tippit's murder?

Which would mean, of course, if the jury did buy into the above preposterous notion, that the jury would also have to believe that the DPD would have deliberately allowed the killer of their fellow officer to just get off scot-free, while they framed the innocent man who was arrested in the Texas Theater.

I'm shocked. What country do you live in, David? Seriously.

Here in America, "innocent until proven guilty" is not just a silly notion that makes for good Perry Mason reruns. The defense is under no obligation to convince a jury of anything; it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt - essentially "conclusively" - that the accused is guilty.

Apparently, where you live, only guilty people go to trial or even get arrested. Do they actually hold trials there? In your world, why bother? Perhaps it would be wise to send your cops over here because they apparently never get the wrong guy, rendering the notion of "defense attorneys" (those charlatans!) completely superfluous.

In your world, as long as you've decided what the "truth" is, juries can skip over "irrelevant" details because the end result is "obvious," and the lack of proofs leading to a conclusion are "unnecessary" as long as the prosecution can present an otherwise compelling argument that the defense only attempts to obfuscate.

Remind me not to apply for a visa to wherever you are.

[David Von Pein]

Step down off your high horse, Duke. You know full well that the evidence convicts Oswald of Tippit's murder (and JFK's murder too, but the body of evidence especially convicts him of Tippit's murder).

Why pretend that it doesn't?

Edited December 15, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Common-Sense Reprise---

"The evidence convicts Oswald of Tippit's murder (and JFK's murder too, but the body of evidence especially convicts him of Tippit's murder). Why pretend that it doesn't?" -- DVP; 12/15/11; 4:11 PM EST

Edited December 16, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Duke Lane]

So you are saying that there was never any written record of the deposit made with the money. In fact, do we even know if it was deposited?

Because if we do not know that, how do we know it was sent?

I mean all we have is the dog and pony show of Michaelis with a notebook furnished him by the FBI.

I don't have any difficulties myself with Michaelis' testimony, at least as far as it went. As testimony, I do have issues with the fact that he didn't - and said he didn't, multiple times - have first-hand knowledge of anything to do with the Seaport order-filling/shipping department of March 1963. I wouldn't expect him or anyone else to have any reason to remember anything about that particular order or shipment.

It's not that that is bad in and of itself, but someone who did have first-hand knowledge was sitting right there with him, and not a single question was posed to him, even though he saw fit to contribute interjections and corrections to what Michaelis said, without objection from WC counsel. It's a performance even stranger than Melody Jane Douthit's.

Further, another first-hand source was identified to the FBI by Michaelis - the woman who ran the department in March - and no apparent effort was made to contact her.

That aside, I think it's fair to say that Seaport did, indeed, ship the pistol to Hidell in Dallas; the only other option is to posit that they, too, were "part of the conspiracy," which I would think is not only difficult to prove, but ludicrous on its face. The greater difficulty with the Seaport info lies in the fact that, once the pistol had left their warehouse, it essentially disappeared into the uncharted and unexplored depths of Railroad Express.

We can only presume that REA had it because Seaport's documents show that they gave it to REA. From that point forward, other than a (presumed, not evidentiary) notice in the PO box, there is no verifiable evidence what happened to it at all until Captain Westbrook saw it in his offices and went to Captain Fritz's offices to have a homicide detective come up to his (Westbrook's) offices to retrieve it.

(Westbrook himself testified that the gun "was brought into my office when it shouldn't have been." Westbrook wouldn't even take it down to Homicide himself, but waited for Fritz to send someone up to retrieve it. "Pinky" Westbrook might not have been the sharpest knife in the draw, but he at least seems to have understood how to handle evidence.)

The other issue I've got is that, absent any verifiable proof other than Oswald's purported possession of that weapon in the theater, people - apologists, I guess you'd call them - assert that that "evidence" is adequate proof of anything.

In truth, if the WC had been a legal, adversarial proceeding, the weapon would probably have been excluded from evidence. No weapon, no murder done using it, case dismissed.

That won't sit well with some people, and they'll tell me I'm crazy, but the FACT is that they WON'T be able to produce any hard evidence that Oswald did in fact possess that weapon, not even a single fingerprint, and damned sure no chain of custody.

So, they can believe what they want to, but the FACT is that the EVIDENCE needed to prove the allegation does not exist. No matter what anyone ELSE thinks happened is immaterial: the allegation cannot be supported by verifiable facts.

If they could be, at the "Seaport end" (or "ordering end") of its history, we'd at least have heard from someone at REA that the package had been received and it had been properly disposed of according to its standard procedures. They might or might not have been able to find the person who gave the package to Oswald (or whomever), a ledger with his receipt signature or something that puts the gun a priori in Oswald's hand.

It simply doesn't exist.

And no matter what anybody believes about the gun that was put into evidence, it cannot even be proven beyond a doubt that it was even the gun that was in the Texas Theater, or that Oswald even held it in his hands, ever.

[Duke Lane]

So you are saying that there was never any written record of the deposit made with the money. In fact, do we even know if it was deposited?

Because if we do not know that, how do we know it was sent?

Seaport shipped Revolver V510210 to Oswald's PO Box.

I assume we can both agree on the above fact, can't we Jim? You surely don't think that Seaport lied about having the "Hidell" invoice in its records on Nov. 30th, do you Jim? You surely aren't silly enough to think that the whole paper trail from Seaport, through REA, to PO Box 2915 was "faked", are you?

How could something that doesn't exist be "faked?"

All that exists in evidence are Seaport's internal documents that they shipped the pistol - no question about the contents of the parcel - via REA to a final destination of PO Box 2915.

There is no evidence that REA gave it to the Dallas Post Office to deposit into the PO box, or that the Post Office collected a COD amount on behalf of REA, on behalf of Seaport. Nor is there evidence that a "notice card" was put into the PO box that the parcel could be picked up at REA.

Yes, there is Seaport documentation that they were eventually paid, by REA, the amount due them.

So, no: I don't think that we can agree that the revolver was "shipped to Oswald's PO Box;" there is no proof of where it ended up, or who claimed it wherever it was claimed, either the Post Office or at REA.

The "paper trail" was wholly internal to Seaport Trading; there was no documentation whatsoever - no "paper trail" at all - outside of Seaport.

And that's the point that remains unanswered - cannot be answered - but is instead obfuscated by inference, logic and reasonableness.

It's like trying to prove the Virgin Birth to a non-Catholic, or attempting to convince a devout Catholic that is physiologically impossible: folks, it ain't gonna happen.

Lacking the evidence, all you can do is take it on faith. We're being treated to a very fine display of that principle right here. I for one am impressed by it.

[Duke Lane]

IF the gun went to the post office, then why was there no trail at the post office of Oswald picking it up?

What makes you think there would necessarily have to be a "trail" of a person who merely picks up his mail at the post office?

Now, since Oswald owed $19.95 + $1.27 COD on the revolver, then obviously (if the gun went to the P.O.) the post office would have then forwarded the money to REA. But whether THAT type of routine transaction would have left a paper trail behind at the post office, I really don't know.

But since Oswald didn't owe any money on the rifle when it was delivered by Klein's, then no such "COD" transaction was required at any location.

So when Oswald went to get his Carcano rifle, all he was really doing was picking up his mail. It just so happens that in the "rifle" instance, he had to get the package at the front desk, because the bulky object couldn't fit inside his small P.O. Box.

I've picked up packages at the post office before. You take the little yellow slip of paper to the post office and the clerk gives you the package. End of transaction. You actually think the post office retains those yellow slips (or whatever color they are in other cities) that people bring to the front desk?

I kinda doubt those are saved, Jimmy? I'm guessing those slips end up in File 13 by the end of the day.

Yes, I know I wandered away from the "revolver" transaction and went over to the rifle -- but I wanted to add that part about Oswald getting his rifle too, because you (of course) think there should have also been some kind of a "trail" left behind when Oswald picked up the Carcano too. But you (of course) are wrong.

Oh, good lord. Apples are fruit and oranges are fruit, so apples are oranges?

Using the lack of necessity for paperwork for one transaction is not proof of no paperwork being necessary in another.

Right: a package on which no money is owing would be or could be picked up by the cursory showing of some form of ID sufficient to establish a right to obtain it (I could not, for example, pick up a package for either of you even if I had a card from the box showing there was a parcel waiting).

But in the case of the pistol, money was due; somebody collected it. It is probably fair to say that REA didn't mail it to the post office after it arrived in Dallas, at some additional cost that nobody paid REA for doing, such that USPS would be obligated or authorized to collect the COD amount. It is also fair to say that REA did not act as a carrier for USPS, which had its own transportation means as established by tracking the unemployment check. USPS also had a reasonably sophisticated tracking system, also established the same way. USPS had no record whatsoever of any transaction involving this parcel.

If USPS collected the money in any form, it would have been forwarded to the shipper (or "mailer" in USPS jargon), which would be REA. REA would receive it and deposit it before sending it, along with any other sums due, to Seaport, which they did. We know that Seaport received money from REA because their internal documents showed that to be the case. We can accept that at face value unless Seaport was merely trying to fool itself into believing it had been paid via normal channels, i.e., the same one through which they had shipped out.

Finding no documentation at USPS and knowing that shipment had been made via REA, why do we not explore what happened while the parcel was in REA's possession? Let us count the ways:

1) The FBI never thought of that!

2) REA did not utilize paperwork of any kind in its shipments and transactions.

3) REA routinely destroyed all documentation after 30 days (the IRS be damned!).

4) It was tracked and found to show the gun was received by someone other than Oswald.

5) Knowing that Seaport shipped it COD to Dallas and eventually got paid for it, nothing further was needed.

6) (Someone help me out here!)

Effectively the argument here is that you were seen drinking at a bar, you're home now, so you must've driven drunk, you're under arrest. The proofs should be self-evident, and any reasonable jury would convict you if they "knew" you did it no matter what evidence did or didn't show, or did or didn't exist.

I mean, c'mon: the police only arrest guilty people. We could save a lot of money in courts and their upkeep if everyone just realized this, don't you think?

[David Von Pein]

7) The FBI, being able to utilize something that many JFK conspiracy theorists are apparently inherently incapable of utilizing--COMMON SENSE, realized that Oswald had obviously ordered, paid for, and took possession of Smith & Wesson revolver #V510210 in March of 1963, mainly due to the fact that the SAME person who ordered that weapon had that weapon in his hands on Friday afternoon, November the 22nd, 1963 AD @ 1:50 PM Central Standard Time.

8) (Does this "Oswald Is Innocent" madness ever end?)

Edited December 16, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Duke Lane]

Step down off your high horse, Duke. You know full well that the evidence convicts Oswald of Tippit's murder (and JFK's murder too, but the body of evidence especially convicts him of Tippit's murder).

Why pretend that it doesn't?

Simply because it doesn't. The evidence is at best circumstantial, and those who attempt to build a case upon it refuse to acknowledge other evidence that doesn't sit with their theory, dismissing it in the same way CTers dismiss other evidence that doesn't suit theirs, while complaining that CTers dismiss inconvenient evidence in the same way that they do.

Duke:

That is a really good point that gets lost in all this back and forth nuttiness that DVP throws out.

In a court of law, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and in those days, to a moral certainty.

What that means, if you talk to criminal lawyers, is this: the DA has proven his case so soundly against the defendant, that there is no other way the crime could have happened.

Now, in the Tippit case, you have a wheelbarrow full of doubt you can sow. ...

It's not a question of "sowing doubt," it's a question of the evidence being strong enough to withstand questions and arguments against it, and its ability to prevail over conflicting data. The assertion must convict; it is not up to a defendant to prove himself not guilty.

When incriminating evidence is brought forth by the prosecution, the jury (i.e., us?) must be convinced by it of the defendant's guilt. In this case, all one needs do is ask clarifying questions and find that there is a paucity of answers that validate the assertions, and a plethora of points that seem to contradict them. For example:

• Ask the question of the witnesses what time JDT was shot and you'll get a wide range of answers from them, but the only two people who asserted a particular time based upon their own actions are ignored because they're inconveniently early even though they corroborate each other.
• Ask how we can be certain that the weapon in evidence is even the weapon siezed at the theater and you'll get a lot of incredulous exclamations from LNers ("oh, come on! Are you seriously trying to suggest ...?!?"), but you'll never get a shred of proof from them.
• Ask the question of why JDT was in central Oak Cliff in the first place and you'll get a convenient response about the "draining of police resources" that actually disproves itself, but that WC apologists don't have a clue about, much less an answer to.

There is a certain set of data that they have chosen to believe - which, incidentally, is one of their chief complaints against CTers - and nothing that contradicts it in any way is either valid or worthy of consideration, it's all "imaginary" in the same way that CTers claim everything is "faked."

Ultimately, the "jury" is hung, and those on either side of the question refuse to acknowledge that those on the other are even "reasonable" people ... even though, oddly enough, if they didn't have any idea what a person's "politics" on this particular issue might be, they'd otherwise consider them quite reasonable people indeed, and maybe even colleagues, peers and friends.

Incidentally, relative to the post immediately above, "common sense" has no standing in a courtroom, as in "you must believe it, it must be true because it makes sense!" The standards are "what do the facts tell us?" and "what [among the assertions] are facts?"

I myself am alternately praised and reviled by either side when I question either of their facts and either prove them to be false or show that they can't hold them up to be. LNers love it when I shoot down a Richard Carr or Ed Hoffman while CTers despise me for it and call me a "plant" or something, and CTers cheer me on when I hold the LNer foot to the fire to prove their points while LNers attempt to paint me as just another "unreasonable" CTer.

Go figure.

[David Von Pein]

It's a question of the evidence being strong enough to withstand questions and arguments against it...

But, as everybody knows, the evidence in the JFK, Tippit, and Walker cases against Oswald could never be strong enough or withstand the scrutiny of Internet conspiracy theorists. Never. No way. Regardless of its strength.

And that's because Internet conspiracy theorists have set the bar so high for "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt", that no amount of evidence could ever hurdle it.

And a great example of this "infinitely high bar" is the Tippit murder. Here's a case with a dozen witnesses who positively IDed Oswald as either the one and only killer of Officer Tippit or the one man fleeing the scene of the murder with a gun in his hands (many of those witnesses saw the gun at any rate), plus the ballistics evidence (the shells) dumped at the murder scene by the killer himself (Oswald), plus the fact that Oswald is arrested nearby with the Tippit murder weapon in his own hands -- and yet that aggregation of evidence is still not even NEARLY enough to convince many CTers that Oswald could have been guilty.

And I'd still like to know how the CTers deal with Ted Callaway's IDing of Oswald (plus other after-the-shooting witnesses too)?

If Oswald couldn't have gotten to 10th & Patton in time to kill Tippit, how then DID he manage to be on Patton Avenue (with a gun) just SECONDS after Tippit was shot?

Did Callaway see an "imposter" Oswald? Is that what CTers truly believe? It was an imposter who was such a dead ringer for Lee Harvey Oswald that Ted Callaway said he could have identified Oswald even if all the men in the lineup had been "nekkid" (when asked a question about the clothing of the men in the police lineup).

And Sam Guinyard was fooled by the Oswald impersonator too, eh? And Markham? And Scoggins? And B. Davis? And V. Davis? And Patterson? And Russell? And Lewis? And Brock? Et al.

Yeah, right.

Edited December 16, 2011 by David Von Pein