Taking seriously Oswald's front steps alibi claim

[Jonathan Cohen]

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Obviously Baker lied later on, just like Shelley and Lovelady lied later on. Obviously the coverup artists had enlisted their help to support their (fake) narrative.

Every theory Sandy Larsen espouses about the Kennedy assassination requires a litany of witnesses to be li*rs and for nearly every piece of evidence to be faked or altered. Now, step back for a second. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

[Roger Odisio]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I have read Bart Kamp's study on the second floor lunchroom encounter several times, but just to make sure I'm not overlooking anything I have printed it out and will reread it again. It may be a couple of days to get back to you on it but I will. Briefly from my point of view he is right that Oswald went up to get a coke for his lunch, then returned to the first floor, before the parade went by, and it is also obvious that the reporting of the interrogators (Fritz, Hosty, Bookhout) is confusing. From that starting point of agreement there is then departure, for I interpret that as Oswald did go to the second floor a second time, and get a coke a second time even though that was not his purpose in going there the second time. The Bookhout-Hosty reporting etc. garble the two, mix up relative sequencing and timeline. Kamp interprets that garbling in different terms, as reflections of only one original was true and then that was disappeared in the narrative. Its a different interpretation or way of accounting for the same witness testimonies and reports. I don't think Baker was being told from above to lie to frame Oswald. I think most cops would get their hackles up if told to do that. I am not aware of any indication that Baker was corrupt or crooked, or that he was told from above to lie about anything.

 

While you're reading and pondering.  It's useless to try to reach a conclusion about, or evidence for, Bakers' honesty or dishonesty *as an individual*. He was part of a team whose purpose was to frame Oswald.  Sometimes you slip into analyses that forgets this point.  The WC was not doing a legit investigation.  They set out to frame Oswald, knowing of course that he didn't do it.  Just read Salandria for details.  For context, have you ever read anything by Greg Parker about the extent of the corruption at the time in the Dallas PD?

As part of the team, Baker's job depended on him going along.  That's what I meant when I said he didn't really have a choice.  I don't want to get melodramatic, but perhaps his life depended on it as well.  He was a cop seen running toward the TSBD immediately after the murder.  He was a logical choice to file the fabricated lunch room encounter for the team. 

Perhaps you could also address my question.  What other choices did they have to fill in the rest of the story of what Oswald did immediately after the murder than fabricate the lunch room encounter with a cop? They couldn't just assert he was on the 6th floor without any witnesses who could put him there, or who could verify he came down the steps afterward.

[Sandy Larsen]

8 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

 

 

This simple clip from Darnell tells a lot.

Zoom in and look, at the left part of the steps, for the woman in all white. Tommy Graves and I positively identified her as one of Gloria Calvary's coworkers who was standing next to her watching the motorcade, as can be seen in Zapruder.

To the coworker's left is a woman in all black. This is Gloria Calvary. (Her skirt is hidden here, but in some frames it can be seen that her skirt is a lighter color... same as can be seen in Zapruder.

It can be seen in the above clip that the coworker is climbing the steps. (This is more clear if you observe more frames.) In contrast, Calvary is 100% standing still, standing face-to-face just below a man I identify as Billy Lovelady. She is obviously talking to the man.

You can see the man raising his head a bit. If you watch more frames, you can see him raising his heads several inches. He apparently bent over momentarily to better hear Calvary.

If you were to watch later frames, you would see that the coworker has Calvary's arm and pulls it in attempt to get her to climb the stairs with her. But Calvary stays put.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Recognition of the dark-clothed woman is significant in revealing that it has been an optical illusion that any part of a left leg of PM/CO is visible, and in revealing as an optical illusion the main cause of claims that the person of the figure is overweight, as of course Oswald was not

 

Gloria Calvary is not blocking the view of Prayer Man's legs. Though it appears there might be another woman in all black who is.

Calvary is the one standing next to the woman in all white.

 

[Greg Doudna]

14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

This simple clip from Darnell tells a lot.

Zoom in and look, at the left part of the steps, for the woman in all white. Tommy Graves and I positively identified her as one of Gloria Calvary's coworkers who was standing next to her watching the motorcade, as can be seen in Zapruder.

To the coworker's left is a woman in all black. This is Gloria Calvary. (Her skirt is hidden here, but in some frames it can be seen that her skirt is a lighter color... same as can be seen in Zapruder.

It can be seen in the above clip that the coworker is climbing the steps. (This is more clear if you observe more frames.) In contrast, Calvary is 100% standing still, standing face-to-face just below a man I identify as Billy Lovelady. She is obviously talking to the man.

You can see the man raising his head a bit. If you watch more frames, you can see him raising his heads several inches. He apparently bent over momentarily to better hear Calvary.

If you were to watch later frames, you would see that the coworker has Calvary's arm and pulls it in attempt to get her to climb the stairs with her. But Calvary stays put.

Sandy, you might be right that Gloria could be talking and paused on the steps. But is that a man in front of her facing her? Or is that the back of a head instead of a face toward Gloria do you think?

Could it be Gloria is started on her way up the steps, but pauses to talk to or answer a question from that person (a man?) immediately in front of and facing her, and if the other man (Molina in my opinion) is cocking his head in her direction to listen, is that because he’s just listening trying to overhear what she’s telling someone else, not carrying on a conversation across one intervening person with her himself? 

Edited 12 hours ago by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

6 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Gloria Calvary is not blocking the view of Prayer Man's legs. Though it appears there might be another woman in all black who is.

Calvary is the one standing next to the woman in all white.

Agree. The dark-clothed woman is a different woman than Gloria Calvery. Unlike the figure who is identified as Gloria Calvery, the dark-clothed woman to Gloria’s upper right has not previously been recognized to exist as a figure. As it stands, she is a figure in between the viewer and the lower part of Prayer Person (CO), and she is unidentified.

Edited 12 hours ago by Greg Doudna

[David Von Pein]

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

No one knew Oswald had claimed to go out on the front steps. It wasn’t because Oswald hadn’t told investigators questioning him. He DID. But the investigators he told never disclosed the existence of his claim, and the Warren Commission never were told, and Bugliosi in his prosecution and book… ignored considering the man’s alibi because nobody was aware it existed, that he gave it.

Hi again Greg,

Can you explain once again the reason for why Lee Oswald LIED to the press (and to the world via the live television cameras which were focused on him) when he said he was INSIDE the Depository building at the time of JFK's murder? [See video below.]

So, assuming LHO was really "out with Bill Shelley in front" at exactly 12:30 when JFK was being shot, not only does Oswald NOT tell the world that key and critical fact about being OUTSIDE the building at 12:30 (when he had a perfect chance to do so in the video below), but he actually decides to tell a LIE and say that he was IN the building instead.

I would think that those statements by Oswald would be very difficult to reconcile and to explain in a logical manner if you're a believer in the "Prayer Man Is Oswald" theory.

And I realize that there are some conspiracy believers who seem to think that Oswald's "in the building" statement to the press on 11/22/63 is not at all inconsistent with Oswald also being the Prayer Man figure on the TSBD steps. But as I discussed with various CTers several years ago [HERE], such a notion regarding the location of the Depository's front steps is just not a reasonable one.

 

Edited 11 hours ago by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

David I don’t have an answer to your question. Did Oswald think he was answering a different question in the confusion? I don’t know.

But I have a question for you. If Oswald claimed he was out front with Shelley watching the presidential parade and at trial produced the Darnell film stills and claimed he was Prayer Man there, how would you go about convincing a jury his claim was not to be believed?

Now if you will stay with me on the question: after having given your answer to the previous question, put on a different hat and now you are a thinking sincere person on that jury who just heard your own argument.

Would you consider your argument to establish beyond reasonable doubt that his alibi claim of photo corroboration was untrue and unbelievable? And vote to have him receive a sentence for murder?

Inside the jury room a couple of your fellow jurors are troubled, and say, “I just am not sure… he says that’s him… I know the photo is fuzzy and I can’t make out who it is… but I’m troubled… he says that’s him… how do we know for sure it isn’t him? How do we know he was really on the sixth floor and that isn’t him in the photo, beyond reasonable doubt? I’ve got some reasonable doubt here…”

What would you say to such fellow jurors to alleviate their concerns over the potential risk of wrongfully convicting a man who actually was where he claimed he was? 

Edited 10 hours ago by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sandy, you might be right that Gloria could be talking and paused on the steps. But is that a man in front of her facing her? Or is that the back of a head instead of a face toward Gloria do you think?

 

Greg,

I made an animated gif from Darnell frames that shows the man momentarily turning his head to the west. In it, it is pretty easy to make out his receding hairline and ears, and barely see his eyes and mouth. The turning of his head shows that the back of his hair is toward the TSBD, thus proving he is facing Calvary.

I posted this clip years ago and I have a bookmark to the post. Unfortunately I can't access my bookmarks because I am away from home.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

The dark-clothed woman is a different woman than Gloria Calvery. 

 

Right.

Earlier I couldn't figure out how that dark thing could possibly be a human being because it is far too wide. But today I figured that the dark thing could be a combination of a woman in all black AND her shadow.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Every theory Sandy Larsen espouses about the Kennedy assassination requires a litany of witnesses to be li*rs and for nearly every piece of evidence to be faked or altered. Now, step back for a second. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

 

The evidence proves they lied in every case. I don't just pull my allegations out of thin air.

 

[Greg Doudna]

45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Greg,

I made an animated gif from Darnell frames that shows the man momentarily turning his head to the west. In it, it is pretty easy to make out his receding hairline and ears, and barely see his eyes and mouth. The turning of his head shows that the back of his hair is toward the TSBD, thus proving he is facing Calvary.

I posted this clip years ago and I have a bookmark to the post. Unfortunately I can't access my bookmarks because I am away from home.

Interesting Sandy. Makes sense. From what you’re saying maybe the man in front hears Gloria behind him saying something, still talking about what she saw of JFK being hit, and he turns around to her. This could be in agreement with the man I think is Molina also looking wanting to hear too.

If it’s the case that the man in front of Gloria turned around to face her to hear or ask her something, I would assume that happened as both of them are climbing steps headed for inside the building, meaning that man would not be expected to have been on the steps himself at the time of the motorcade. But, since he is going into the building, he is a TSBD employee. With your sleuthing and good identification of Gloria behind you, any chance you could identify that man in front of Gloria?

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

If Oswald claimed he was out front with Shelley watching the presidential parade and at trial produced the Darnell film stills and claimed he was Prayer Man there, how would you go about convincing a jury his claim was not to be believed?

Now if you will stay with me on the question: after having given your answer to the previous question, put on a different hat and now you are a thinking sincere person on that jury who just heard your own argument.

Would you consider your argument to establish beyond reasonable doubt that his alibi claim of photo corroboration was untrue and unbelievable? And vote to have him receive a sentence for murder?

Inside the jury room a couple of your fellow jurors are troubled, and say, “I just am not sure… he says that’s him… I know the photo is fuzzy and I can’t make out who it is… but I’m troubled… he says that’s him… how do we know for sure it isn’t him? How do we know he was really on the sixth floor and that isn’t him in the photo, beyond reasonable doubt? I’ve got some reasonable doubt here…”

What would you say to such fellow jurors to alleviate their concerns over the potential risk of wrongfully convicting a man who actually was where he claimed he was? 

If I was the prosecutor of Lee Harvey Oswald at his murder trial, and if I was trying to convince the jury that Oswald could not possibly be the so-called "Prayer Man" figure seen in the film recorded in Dealey Plaza by WBAP-TV cameraman James Darnell on 11/22/63, I would hammer away at the following key points to make my case:

1. Lee Harvey Oswald himself, when given ample opportunity on Nov. 22 and Nov. 23, never bothered to tell the world (via live TV) that he was standing outside on the front steps of the Book Depository Building at the precise time when President Kennedy was being shot and killed. (This #1 fact would be a huge hurdle for Oswald and his defense team to overcome in the courtroom.)

2. Oswald took a long(-ish) paper package into the TSBD on the morning of 11/22/63, and he LIED about the contents of that package to fellow worker Buell Wesley Frazier by telling Frazier the package contained curtain rods. (And I think I could easily prove to the jury's satisfaction that Oswald's "curtain rods" story was indeed a lie, by introducing these facts at the trial.)

3. It was established beyond all reasonable doubt by firearms tests that Oswald's very own rifle was fired at JFK's motorcade on November 22, 1963. And it was also established that there was no conclusive evidence to indicate that any gun other than Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was fired at the motorcade in Dealey Plaza.

4. As far as this writer (and temporary prosecutor) is aware, Lee Oswald was the only Depository employee who was known to have been inside the TSBD Building at the time JFK was shot and then left the building very shortly after the shooting took place. (Any "Prayer Man" alibi attempt by Oswald or his defense counsel notwithstanding, of course.)

Most of the other employees did just the opposite---they were outside during the time of the assassination, but then went back inside the building after the shooting had occurred. I would argue to the jury that such an "inside then outside" action by Oswald most certainly indicates an attempt to flee the scene of a crime that Oswald himself was very much involved in committing.

5. Oswald then took a bus and cab to his roominghouse in Oak Cliff, and then armed himself with a revolver. He then walked to Tenth Street and murdered Police Officer J.D. Tippit by shooting him four times. (If the Tippit murder is declared out of bounds and is severed from a JFK murder trial, then I'll be forced to introduce all this evidence which conclusively proves that Oswald murdered Officer Tippit at a second jury trial.)

6. I would then proceed to introduce all of the remaining pieces of evidence which, in their totality, prove beyond all reasonable doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy and that Oswald was most certainly not the person in this picture known as "Prayer Man". Most of that additional evidence is discussed at my website below:



Wrapping Up....

Yes, I believe my arguments would (and should) be more than strong enough to secure a Guilty verdict from a reasonable and sensible jury.

And regarding your last question....

In my closing arguments to the jury, I would hammer away--again and again--at my #1 item listed above: the fact that Lee Oswald himself didn't even mention his alleged ironclad "I Was Outside On The Steps" alibi when he had the perfect opportunity to do so in the hallways at Dallas City Hall on the very night of JFK's murder.

Plus, I would also forcefully remind the jury that Oswald had more than just one chance to tell the world (via the TV cameras) about his "out front with Shelley" alibi during his two days in police custody. But he failed to say a single word about it on those other occasions as well.

In addition, I would also stress to the jury that Oswald told Police Homicide Captain J. Will Fritz that he (Oswald) was "on the first floor", not outside the building, when JFK was shot [see WCR Page 600 and WCR Page 613].

 

Edited 9 hours ago by David Von Pein

[Greg Doudna]

David, even if every one of your points were true, how exactly do they establish an answer concerning the question at issue, whether Oswald was on the sixth floor or out front on the front steps?

~ ~ ~

The two jurors in the jury room: "I agree he looks guilty as hell to me, Mr. von Pein. But--but Mr. von Pein-- that isn't the issue the judge asked us to find and judge. According to the papers the state says they're gonna try him for conspiracy in a trial after this one if we don't find he was the shooter. As the judge has instructed us, the state wants to find on this charge whether he was the shooter, to avoid the further trial of conspiracy if he wasn't. The judge has instructed us to only judge the facts in this case concerning whether he was the shooter. Your points all just say he's guilty in the assassination, but Mr. von Pein, how does anything you have just said make him the shooter himself, which is the issue we have been asked to decide. How do you know he wasn't helping someone else do the shooting?

"How do we know there wasn't a conspiracy, Mr. von Pein. Maybe he was an inside man, brought the rifle in, gave maps of the building, got himself the job there to begin with on purpose so he could do that. But none of that proves he was the shooter himself does it. He coulda been. But how are we supposed to know that from any of the points you just named, Mr. von Pein? How do any of your points prove he was on the sixth floor and not on the front steps? Which of your points show that that photo isn't him on the front steps? Your points all seem to be arguing other things than the issue we're charged with deciding here."

~ ~ ~

Dateline Dallas... reporting on the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, tried on the charge of being the lone assassin-shooter of President Kennedy ... the judge has instructed the jury to judge the issue narrowly on whether he was the shooter in this trial. The district attorney's office has vowed if the jury fails to convict on this charge they will immediately file charges on him for conspiracy to kill the President and spare no end to find his accomplices and bring the killers to justice. "The electric chair is too good for any and all involved in this heinous deed", said D.A. Wade. 

Earlier this week Oswald took the stand and in calm, clear answers, insisted he was innocent, had never been other than a supporter of President Kennedy and would never have been party to killing him. He claimed his communist connections were spying done on behalf of the Kennedy administration. At one point Oswald started to claim he had been "set up" and seemed about to elaborate but the judged sustained objection and instructed the jury to disregard. Oswald strenuously denied he was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting or that he was the shooter and identified himself in photographs entered by the defense which Oswald claimed showed him on the front steps at the time he had told his interrogators. But following his testimony, Oswald came under withering cross-examination from the prosecution. 

Oswald was pressed repeatedly to explain a comment he made in a hallway to reporters who asked where he was when the president was shot, and he had answered he was in the building because he worked there. Why had he not claimed he was out front when he had that chance, he was asked.

In reply Oswald insisted he had gone out front but by mistake had gotten there moments too late and just missed seeing the President go by the front steps as he had hoped to see. Oswald said he believed he missed seeing the President and First Lady by only a few seconds. He said just as he left a lunchroom to walk toward the front doors he heard a shot, which he thought was a firecracker at the time, and then as he was going out the glass door of the vestibule he heard a second shot. He said he slipped in to the top landing and first step off to the side and heard a third shot. 

He said in the hallway reporters were asking him if he shot the president and was he in the building when the president was shot, and he had said, yes I was because I work there. 

Oswald said almost immediately people were running in front of the front steps screaming the president had been shot. Oswald said he had never at any time actually seen the President's limousine from his position on the front steps.

Oswald repeatedly insisted he had told his interrogators he was on the front steps and had given them names of the persons he saw near him on the steps. Oswald said he was never told and did not know whether the names he gave had been investigated or asked whether they could verify his claim. Oswald was asked why none of the interrogators' submitted reports said he had told them he had gone out to watch the parade. Oswald said he had no explanation other than repeating that he had told them that, that it was the truth, and that that was him in the photos.

In separate testimony Mr. Buell Frazier, coworker who gave Oswald rides to work, testified he never saw Oswald on the front steps, which seemed visibly damaging to Mr. Oswald's case from looks on jurors' faces. Under cross-examination from defense counsel however, Frazier admitted he had not noticed anyone in the position Oswald said he was. Frazier testified the first he knew anyone had been in that position to his right was when he saw the photo stills in court. Frazier said he was unable to tell the court who that might have been.

The jury was instructed and went into deliberation earlier today. Stay tuned to this station for developments as they happen... 

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

David, even if every one of your points were true, how exactly do they establish an answer concerning the question at issue, whether Oswald was on the sixth floor or out front on the front steps?

~ ~ ~

The two jurors in the jury room: "I agree he looks guilty as hell to me, Mr. von Pein. But--but Mr. von Pein-- that isn't the issue the judge asked us to find and judge. According to the papers the state says they're gonna try him for conspiracy in a trial after this one if we don't find he was the shooter. As the judge has instructed us, the state wants to find on this charge whether he was the shooter, to avoid the further trial of conspiracy if he wasn't. The judge has instructed us to only judge the facts in this case concerning whether he was the shooter. Your points all just say he's guilty in the assassination, but Mr. von Pein, how does anything you have just said make him the shooter himself, which is the issue we have been asked to decide. How do you know he wasn't helping someone else do the shooting?

"How do we know there wasn't a conspiracy, Mr. von Pein. Maybe he was an inside man, brought the rifle in, gave maps of the building, got himself the job there to begin with on purpose so he could do that. But none of that proves he was the shooter himself does it. He coulda been. But how are we supposed to know that from any of the points you just named, Mr. von Pein? How do any of your points prove he was on the sixth floor and not on the front steps? Which of your points show that that photo isn't him on the front steps? Your points all seem to be arguing other things than the issue we're charged with deciding here."

~ ~ ~

Dateline Dallas... reporting on the trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, tried on the charge of being the lone assassin-shooter of President Kennedy ... the judge has instructed the jury to judge the issue narrowly on whether he was the shooter in this trial. The district attorney's office has vowed if the jury fails to convict on this charge they will immediately file charges on him for conspiracy to kill the President and spare no end to find his accomplices and bring the killers to justice. "The electric chair is too good for any and all involved in this heinous deed", said D.A. Wade. 

Earlier this week Oswald took the stand and in calm, clear answers, insisted he was innocent, had never been other than a supporter of President Kennedy and would never have been party to killing him. He claimed his communist connections were spying done on behalf of the Kennedy administration. At one point Oswald started to claim he had been "set up" and seemed about to elaborate but the judged sustained objection and instructed the jury to disregard. Oswald strenuously denied he was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting or that he was the shooter and identified himself in photographs entered by the defense which Oswald claimed showed him on the front steps at the time he had told his interrogators. But following his testimony, Oswald came under withering cross-examination from the prosecution. 

Oswald was pressed repeatedly to explain a comment he made in a hallway to reporters who asked where he was when the president was shot, and he had answered he was in the building because he worked there. Why had he not claimed he was out front when he had that chance, he was asked.

In reply Oswald insisted he had gone out front but by mistake had gotten there moments too late and just missed seeing the President go by the front steps as he had hoped to see. Oswald said he believed he missed seeing the President and First Lady by only a few seconds. He said just as he left a lunchroom to walk toward the front doors he heard a shot, which he thought was a firecracker at the time, and then as he was going out the glass door of the vestibule he heard a second shot. He said he slipped in to the top landing and first step off to the side and heard a third shot. 

He said in the hallway reporters were asking him if he shot the president and was he in the building when the president was shot, and he had said, yes I was because I work there. 

Oswald said almost immediately people were running in front of the front steps screaming the president had been shot. Oswald said he had never at any time actually seen the President's limousine from his position on the front steps.

Oswald repeatedly insisted he had told his interrogators he was on the front steps and had given them names of the persons he saw near him on the steps. Oswald said he was never told and did not know whether the names he gave had been investigated or asked whether they could verify his claim. Oswald was asked why none of the interrogators' submitted reports said he had told them he had gone out to watch the parade. Oswald said he had no explanation other than repeating that he had told them that, that it was the truth, and that that was him in the photos.

In separate testimony Mr. Buell Frazier, coworker who gave Oswald rides to work, testified he never saw Oswald on the front steps, which seemed visibly damaging to Mr. Oswald's case from looks on jurors' faces. Under cross-examination from defense counsel however, Frazier admitted he had not noticed anyone in the position Oswald said he was. Frazier testified the first he knew anyone had been in that position to his right was when he saw the photo stills in court. Frazier said he was unable to tell the court who that might have been.

The jury was instructed and went into deliberation earlier today. Stay tuned to this station for developments as they happen... 

Since Lee Harvey Oswald's minute-by-minute and step-by-step movements within the Texas School Book Depository during the key moments just before and just after President Kennedy was shot are not known (and can never be known) with 100% certainty, then I suppose anyone could come up with some kind of a scenario in which Oswald ends up not being a gunman in JFK's murder on 11/22/63. (And, of course, many people have invented such scenarios over the years.)

The question I'm about to ask below doesn't really prove anything, but I think it's a good question to ask once in a while anyway)....

Who do you think is MORE LIKELY (on ANY given day, including 11/22/63) to use a rifle that was proven to have been owned and possessed by Lee Harvey Oswald?

Is the answer to that last question "Lee Harvey Oswald"? Or is the answer "somebody other  than Lee Harvey Oswald"?

Food for thought anyway.

And then there's Howard Brennan's Warren Commission testimony, in which he positively identified Oswald as JFK's assassin.

Almost all conspiracists totally ignore Brennan's testimony, of course. But his positive I.D. of Oswald is still going to exist in Warren Commission Volume 3 whether anyone wants to believe it or not:

DAVID W. BELIN -- "Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man that you saw in the police station?"

HOWARD L. BRENNAN -- "I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him as being the same man."

In Summary....

The sum total of all the evidence in both the JFK and Tippit murder cases most certainly indicates that Lee Oswald was (beyond reasonable doubt, IMO) guilty of shooting both of those men with his own guns.

An attempt to place Oswald's Carcano rifle into the hands of some unknown shooter who fired that gun from the sixth floor of the Depository is a scenario that conspiracy believers can put forth if they so desire. But such a scenario is always going to be built on a foundation of nothing but speculation and guesswork, with no solid evidence to support it at all.
 

Edited 4 hours ago by David Von Pein