Why did he miss an easy shot? (pg. 692)—“the double window through which the bullet was fired had a wooden frame running horizontally in the middle of it. The police saw that the bullet had struck the upper portion of the window frame near the center of the locking mechanism… thus deflecting the bullet”
Also: Walker realized later (in considering how LHO missed) that the glare of the light in the room would have blurred the window sash. This is especially true in using a telescope, the sash would not have been visible to the shooter.
Ballistics – Robert Frazier, FBI ballistics export examined both the slug found at the Walker house and those taken from the rifle used by LHO. His testimony (694) was not definitive due to the poor shape of the Walker slug. He did say the rifling marks were identical to those of a Manicher-Carcano rifle (“Four lands and grooves with a right twist”). He could not definitively say it came from the same gun.
Marina Oswald statement -- Marina described the day of the event and days after. LHO told her he did it. She also found a notebook with maps, bus schedules, drawings and photographs of Walker’s house. LHO was going to keep it. She told him to burn it, which he did (pg. 693-694).
> Why did he miss an easy shot? (pg. 692)—“the double window through which the bullet was fired had a wooden frame running horizontally in the middle of it. The police saw that the bullet had struck the upper portion of the window frame near the center of the locking mechanism… thus deflecting the bullet”
as if the shooter could not see the window frame and adjust by shifting his position slightly along the fence? especially if the window frame were to obstruct his line of sight to the intended target? ...does not say much for the ability of the shooter, does it?
either LHO is an expert marksman or he is not. you can’t have it both ways and retain your credibility.
> Also: Walker realized later (in considering how LHO missed) that the glare of the light in the room would have blurred the window sash. This is especially true in using a telescope, the sash would not have been visible to the shooter.
So Walker is suddenly an expert on optics? Why is walker cited... but not an actual optics expert? might it be because Walker’s claim is in fact relatively weak and does not bear closer consideration?
> Ballistics – Robert Frazier, FBI ballistics export examined both the slug found at the Walker house and those taken from the rifle used by LHO. His testimony (694) was not definitive due to the poor shape of the Walker slug. He did say the rifling marks were identical to those of a Manicher-Carcano rifle (“Four lands and grooves with a right twist”). He could not definitively say it came from the same gun.
“... not definitive...” “...not definitely...” is not the same as direct evidence justifying the hard WR conclusion, unless the WR objective is in fact propaganda and not an honest investigation.
> Marina Oswald statement — Marina described the day of the event and days after. LHO told her he did it. She also found a notebook with maps, bus schedules, drawings and photographs of Walker’s house. LHO was going to keep it. She told him to burn it, which he did (pg. 693-694).
I’ve read elsewhere that Marina was held in isolation by the authorities for two full months of questioning. I’ve replied before that none of what she allegedly claimed can be regarded as above suspicion in contrast to being potentially influenced by her interrogators. Marina was not an eyewitness to the shooter at the scene (no one was).
For Bugliosi: What is the DIRECT evidence linking LHO to the Walker shooting?’ (I know, he can’t answer because he passed away.)
For those seeking honesty, the honest truth is that Bugliosi and Posner remain unconvincing to many if not most people. Why do these high powered lawyer-authors even bother trying? Could it be that many if not most people find the WR unconvincing? And there are any number of minor “writers” and “reporters” who continue to publish 8 paragraph articles all the time purporting that LHO was the shooter. Why? because what’s out there is not enough to prove LHO guilty of the Walker shooting (or anything else for that matter).
It is well known that lawyers have issues with morals. Before and at trial, the job of lawyers is not to find the truth, but to convince the jury and public at large that their client is innocent— or that someone other than their client is guilty. What better candidate for a propaganda piece could the CIA find than a lawyer (or two)?