[Ben Holmes]

(9) For the first time ever, Oswald didn't read the paper in the TSBD domino room. 

You have to go to the endnotes to find out where Bugliosi pulled this "fact" from... here's the relevant testimony:

Quote:Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?
Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.

Now, Bugliosi wants us to believe that because Givens didn't recall Oswald reading a newspaper on a specific day 5 months earlier – that he was guilty of murder.

But we KNOW FROM THE TESTIMONY that he was eating lunch. Bugliosi wants to imply that Oswald was busy constructing the 'snipers lair' – but he dare not assert it, because he KNOWS that there's testimony putting Oswald downstairs eating lunch.

But let's look at a statement from the FBI report of Griffin & Odum, from 11/23/63: "On the morning of November 22, 1963, GIVENS observed LEE reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M."

Givens testifies that he saw Oswald at 11:55 on the 6th floor, and never saw him again... technically true, he'd earlier reported seeing Oswald 5 minutes EARLIER reading the paper.

I daresay that there were quite a few employees at that building that never saw Oswald reading a newpaper that day... but not seeing Oswald after 11:55 – and claiming therefore that he wasn't reading a newspaper, is something only a Warren Commission Believer can accept.

And another excellent example of presuming guilt, then taking any action or speech to 'prove' that guilt.

P.S. It's also a very good barometer of honesty that you'll never find a believer willing to publicly state that Bugliosi was wrong here... let alone that he was clearly off his rocker for this particular attempt...

[Patrick C]

You state that

Ben Holmes Wrote:Now, Bugliosi wants us to believe that because Givens didn't recall Oswald reading a newspaper on a specific day 5 months earlier – that he was guilty of murder.

WRONG - that is not what Bugliosi is saying.

He is saying that on Friday 22 Nov Oswald conducted himself in some instances that was not typical of him. When these instances are associated together, they help build a case for Oswald's guilt.

[Ben Holmes]

(10-25-2016, 01:59 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  You state that

Ben Holmes Wrote:Now, Bugliosi wants us to believe that because Givens didn't recall Oswald reading a newspaper on a specific day 5 months earlier – that he was guilty of murder.

WRONG - that is not what Bugliosi is saying.

He is saying that on Friday 22 Nov Oswald conducted himself in some instances that was not typical of him. When these instances are associated together, they help build a case for Oswald's guilt.

Bugliosi certainly knew that the earliest evidence was that Oswald read the newspaper. YOU know that the earliest evidence was that Oswald was doing exactly what he routinely did - read the newspaper.

Yet you excuse Bugliosi - and pretend that someone not following a routine so precisely is evidence of guilt.

Once again - I'm going to ask you ... and I know that you'll evade answering... but since when does something (an "instance") that doesn't show guilt... suddenly show guilt when added to other things that LIKEWISE SHOW NO GUILT?

There's absolutely NO WARRENT WHATSOEVER to point to someone not reading a newpaper on a single day, AND BASED ON ONLY A SINGLE WITNESS - as being guilty of anything at all...

Not even failing to read the newspaper...

[renevil]

(10-25-2016, 05:52 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(10-25-2016, 01:59 PM)Patrick C Wrote:   Oswald only worked at the TSBD 5 or 6 weeks so I find it incredible that someones "habits" can be observed in such a small time frame. Also, could Givens state Oswald read the newspaper on the morning of October 30th with any accuracy?

Did he habitually follow Oswald around to see if he was reading a paper? Did he actually go and look if the papers that Oswald read every day were actually there to be read?

Did Oswald, arriving as he did with Frazier, get there a lot nearer to his starting time? I know when I got public transport I arrived at work earlier than when I drove/was driven because you can pick the time you leave as opposed to be at the mercy of public transport timetables. Perhaps going with Frazier meant he didnt have time to read a newspaper.

I think it is folly to suggest that one person stating Oswald never read a paper THAT morning is proof Oswald shot the President. 

Ben Holmes Wrote:Now, Bugliosi wants us to believe that because Givens didn't recall Oswald reading a newspaper on a specific day 5 months earlier – that he was guilty of murder.

WRONG - that is not what Bugliosi is saying.

He is saying that on Friday 22 Nov Oswald conducted himself in some instances that was not typical of him. When these instances are associated together, they help build a case for Oswald's guilt.

Bugliosi certainly knew that the earliest evidence was that Oswald read the newspaper. YOU know that the earliest evidence was that Oswald was doing exactly what he routinely did - read the newspaper.

Yet you excuse Bugliosi - and pretend that someone not following a routine so precisely is evidence of guilt.

Once again - I'm going to ask you ... and I know that you'll evade answering... but since when does something (an "instance") that doesn't show guilt... suddenly show guilt when added to other things that LIKEWISE SHOW NO GUILT?

There's absolutely NO WARRENT WHATSOEVER to point to someone not reading a newpaper on a single day, AND BASED ON ONLY A SINGLE WITNESS - as being guilty of anything at all...

Not even failing to read the newspaper...

[Lee Abbott]

Patrick, as usual, is in Fairy Tale Land where residents invent excuses... Who in the workd was watching Oswald's every move during his 5 weeks as a loner at the TSBD? In other words, who's to say what was "normal" for him on that Friday, as opposed to any other day?

[Ben Holmes]

(10-25-2016, 07:13 PM)Lee Abbott Wrote:  Patrick, as usual, is in Fairy Tale Land where residents invent excuses... Who in the workd was watching Oswald's every move during his 5 weeks as a loner at the TSBD? In other words, who's to say what was "normal" for him on that Friday, as opposed to any other day?

Nor will Patrick tell us who read the paper on a regular basis there at the TSBD.

This is simply the common tactic used by believers - presuming Oswald's guilt, and the truthfulness of a Lone Assassin, then twisting anything and everything into supporting those presumptions.

Trying to explain the REAL evidence is something they cannot do.

[Patrick C]

(10-30-2016, 08:52 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(10-25-2016, 07:13 PM)Lee Abbott Wrote:  Patrick, as usual, is in Fairy Tale Land where residents invent excuses... Who in the workd was watching Oswald's every move during his 5 weeks as a loner at the TSBD? In other words, who's to say what was "normal" for him on that Friday, as opposed to any other day?

Nor will Patrick tell us who read the paper on a regular basis there at the TSBD.

This is simply the common tactic used by believers - presuming Oswald's guilt, and the truthfulness of a Lone Assassin, then twisting anything and everything into supporting those presumptions.

Trying to explain the REAL evidence is something they cannot do.

Ben Holmes Wrote:Trying to explain the REAL evidence is something they cannot do.

Excellent summation of the rather more extreme pro conspiracy angles Lee.....

[Ben Holmes]

(10-31-2016, 05:11 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

(10-30-2016, 08:52 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  

(10-25-2016, 07:13 PM)Lee Abbott Wrote:  Patrick, as usual, is in Fairy Tale Land where residents invent excuses... Who in the workd was watching Oswald's every move during his 5 weeks as a loner at the TSBD? In other words, who's to say what was "normal" for him on that Friday, as opposed to any other day?

Nor will Patrick tell us who read the paper on a regular basis there at the TSBD.

This is simply the common tactic used by believers - presuming Oswald's guilt, and the truthfulness of a Lone Assassin, then twisting anything and everything into supporting those presumptions.

Trying to explain the REAL evidence is something they cannot do.

 

Ben Holmes Wrote:Trying to explain the REAL evidence is something they cannot do.

Excellent summation of the rather more extreme pro conspiracy angles Lee.....

As is usual - Patrick demonstrates his cowardice by refusing to answer who else read the newspaper in the TSBD... or more importantly, who did not.

But of course, I've already pointed out that trying to explain the REAL evidence is something Patrick cannot do. And rather than refute that statement, Patrick merely substantiates it...

[Patrick C]

Ben Holmes Wrote:As is usual - Patrick demonstrates his cowardice by refusing to answer who else read the newspaper in the TSBD... or more importantly, who did not.

Allow me to translate that for you Ben.....

"Patrick demonstrates his lack of interest in debating trivial nonsense with a person of limited intellectual rigour in respect of the JFK case."

Who gives a shit what other persons read the newspaper in the TSBD you buffoon! Once again an absolute howler.....do you actually read whay you have written before you post Ben....?

[Ben Holmes]

(11-05-2016, 12:54 PM)Patrick C Wrote:  

Ben Holmes Wrote:As is usual - Patrick demonstrates his cowardice by refusing to answer who else read the newspaper in the TSBD... or more importantly, who did not.

Allow me to translate that for you Ben.....

"Patrick demonstrates his lack of interest in debating trivial nonsense with a person of limited intellectual rigour in respect of the JFK case."

Who gives a shit what other persons read the newspaper in the TSBD you buffoon! Once again an absolute howler.....do you actually read whay you have written before you post Ben....?

You are, of course, making my point for me.

Bugliosi, the Warren Commission, and believers such as yourself have PRESUMED AT THE BEGINNING that Oswald was the lone assassin, and then taken virtually everything he's documented to have done as evidence for that guilt.

If not reading a newspaper is evidence of guilt - then it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask who else read or didn't read a newspaper. If you were truly interested in finding the guilty. But such questions are only of interest to you if they apply to Lee Harvey Oswald - and no-one else.

That fact tells the tale...