Oswald on the Stand
RICLAND
With LHO on the stand as much as 90% of the SBT evidence would be
rendered worthless.
For example, if LHO could show he was a CIA operative everything
pertaining to Fair Play for Cuba, Russia, Gen. Walker, Trips to Mexico,
etc, would be of no value to the government's case.
If LHO could prove he knew Ferrie, members of the New Orleans
underworld, Clay Shaw, et al., the conspiracy is easily established.
If LHO named his handlers, told how he got into and out of Russia, why
he was taught Russian at the military language school, what his mission
in Russia was, etc., vast parts of the case against go up in smoke.
Assassins don't proclaim they're innocence. Look at the history of
assassination in the U.S., not one assassin has ever said he didn't do
it. The whole point of assassination is to make a political point, to
become a martyr.
Yet Oswald seemed not to even be aware he was charged with killing Kennedy.
"I'm not being charged with that."
More the reason why Bugliosi's prosecution in "The Trial of Oswald" was
inferior lawyering meant to appeal to a jury of inferior intelligence.
Bug presented a profile of Oswald completely at odds with everything we
know about assassins. Nobody in criminology was familiar with the
profile Bug used to describe Oswald which, of course, explains why Bug
added the element of "insanity."
"Oswald was crazy!"
But the problem with this is two-fold: first, if the Oswald we know from
radio interviews was on the witness stand, the jury would hear and see a
highly sane and intelligent young man; and second, nothing in Oswald's
resume even hints at insanity.
Result: the pillars of Bug's case -- Oswald's "craziness" and his
supposed pinko commie hatred for the U.S, Kennedy, dissolve before his
eyes. Bug is left with nothing to explain why a sane, CIA operative
killed the President.
ricland
Bud
RICLAND wrote:
> With LHO on the stand as much as 90% of the SBT evidence would be
> rendered worthless.
>
> For example, if LHO could show he was a CIA operative everything
> pertaining to Fair Play for Cuba, Russia, Gen. Walker, Trips to Mexico,
> etc, would be of no value to the government's case.
Or maybe, if he could show himself to be an angel, and above the
laws of mortal men. Maybe.
> If LHO could prove he knew Ferrie, members of the New Orleans
> underworld, Clay Shaw, et al., the conspiracy is easily established.
Like the "Kevin Bacon" game, right?
> If LHO named his handlers, told how he got into and out of Russia, why
> he was taught Russian at the military language school, what his mission
> in Russia was, etc., vast parts of the case against go up in smoke.
Not the important part, him shooting JFK.
> Assassins don't proclaim they're innocence. Look at the history of
> assassination in the U.S., not one assassin has ever said he didn't do
> it.
Out of the thousands of assassins? Hundreds? Dozens?
> The whole point of assassination is to make a political point, to
> become a martyr.
The whole point of killing a person is to fulfill the desires of
the person doing the killing.
> Yet Oswald seemed not to even be aware he was charged with killing Kennedy.
Based on what he said only.
> "I'm not being charged with that."
Isn`t it "I`ve not been charged with that."?
> More the reason why Bugliosi's prosecution in "The Trial of Oswald" was
> inferior lawyering meant to appeal to a jury of inferior intelligence.
Why do you expect to get a jury of smart people? I`ve been on jury
duty. It wasn`t a box of hundred watts.
> Bug presented a profile of Oswald completely at odds with everything we
> know about assassins.
But consistant with what was known about Oz.
> Nobody in criminology was familiar with the
> profile Bug used to describe Oswald which, of course, explains why Bug
> added the element of "insanity."
Worked against Manson. Don`t care for that label myself. Oswald
wasn`t insane, he knew the consequences of his actions.
> "Oswald was crazy!"
>
> But the problem with this is two-fold: first, if the Oswald we know from
> radio interviews was on the witness stand, the jury would hear and see a
> highly sane and intelligent young man; and second, nothing in Oswald's
> resume even hints at insanity.
Calling Oswald crazy is a device to reach the ordinary person. A
normal person wouldn`t dream of doing what Oz did, so his actions
would appear crazy to them. And having a person listen to Oz espouse
Marxist viewpoints on the radio isn`t going to help Oz`s case, no
matter how articulate he is.
> Result: the pillars of Bug's case -- Oswald's "craziness" and his
> supposed pinko commie hatred for the U.S, Kennedy, dissolve before his
> eyes. Bug is left with nothing to explain why a sane, CIA operative
> killed the President.
I see no reason for him to explain either of those things. He only
had to show that Oz killed JFK, not explain why he did.
> ricland
RICLAND
> RICLAND wrote:
>> With LHO on the stand as much as 90% of the SBT evidence would be
>> rendered worthless.
>>
>> For example, if LHO could show he was a CIA operative everything
>> pertaining to Fair Play for Cuba, Russia, Gen. Walker, Trips to Mexico,
>> etc, would be of no value to the government's case.
>
> Or maybe, if he could show himself to be an angel, and above the
> laws of mortal men. Maybe.
You miss the point ... or maybe you don't.
Bugliosi thought the question was important enough to base half his
summation on.
>
>> If LHO could prove he knew Ferrie, members of the New Orleans
>> underworld, Clay Shaw, et al., the conspiracy is easily established.
>
> Like the "Kevin Bacon" game, right?
You're obviously so clever mere words don't transmit your incredible wit
well.
>
>> If LHO named his handlers, told how he got into and out of Russia, why
>> he was taught Russian at the military language school, what his mission
>> in Russia was, etc., vast parts of the case against go up in smoke.
>
> Not the important part, him shooting JFK.
Him shooting JFK is not fact. There was never a trial. We don't say a
person is guilty in this country if he hasn't been found guilty at trial.
What part of this don't you understand?
>
>> Assassins don't proclaim they're innocence. Look at the history of
>> assassination in the U.S., not one assassin has ever said he didn't do
>> it.
>
> Out of the thousands of assassins? Hundreds? Dozens?
And here you're fishing.
>
>> The whole point of assassination is to make a political point, to
>> become a martyr.
>
> The whole point of killing a person is to fulfill the desires of
> the person doing the killing.
What are the "desires" of riflemen in a firing squad?
>
>> Yet Oswald seemed not to even be aware he was charged with killing Kennedy.
>
> Based on what he said only.
DUH ...
>
>> "I'm not being charged with that."
>
> Isn`t it "I`ve not been charged with that."?
Isn't the period superfluous?
The quote is part of your sentence. Why then did you insert period?
>
>> More the reason why Bugliosi's prosecution in "The Trial of Oswald" was
>> inferior lawyering meant to appeal to a jury of inferior intelligence.
>
> Why do you expect to get a jury of smart people? I`ve been on jury
> duty. It wasn`t a box of hundred watts.
Please re-read my comment again. I merely characterized his prosecution
of the case.
>
>> Bug presented a profile of Oswald completely at odds with everything we
>> know about assassins.
>
> But consistant with what was known about Oz.
Are you just commenting to see your words on the screen? My observation
is tells us something; yours is masturbatory.
>
>> Nobody in criminology was familiar with the
>> profile Bug used to describe Oswald which, of course, explains why Bug
>> added the element of "insanity."
>
> Worked against Manson. Don`t care for that label myself. Oswald
> wasn`t insane, he knew the consequences of his actions.
Are you aware of one person who thinks Manson is innocent? Are you aware
millions think Oswald is innocent?
Do you know what "cognitive dissonance" means?
>
>> "Oswald was crazy!"
>>
>> But the problem with this is two-fold: first, if the Oswald we know from
>> radio interviews was on the witness stand, the jury would hear and see a
>> highly sane and intelligent young man; and second, nothing in Oswald's
>> resume even hints at insanity.
>
> Calling Oswald crazy is a device to reach the ordinary person. A
> normal person wouldn`t dream of doing what Oz did, so his actions
> would appear crazy to them. And having a person listen to Oz espouse
> Marxist viewpoints on the radio isn`t going to help Oz`s case, no
> matter how articulate he is.
More childish reasoning. Assassins are rarely "crazy" which is why I
characterize Bugliosi's lawyering as inferior. His argument that Oswald
was "crazy" would have been rejected by informed jury members.
>
>> Result: the pillars of Bug's case -- Oswald's "craziness" and his
>> supposed pinko commie hatred for the U.S, Kennedy, dissolve before his
>> eyes. Bug is left with nothing to explain why a sane, CIA operative
>> killed the President.
>
> I see no reason for him to explain either of those things. He only
> had to show that Oz killed JFK, not explain why he did.
Yet Bugliosi's entire summation was (a) Oswald was crazy, and, (b).
Oswald was not a CIA operative.
I rest my case.
ricland
>
>> ricland
>
aeffects
there'll be a flurry of new posts getting this thread on to the next
page... hope you're around when the daBugliosi tome makes the
street... good job!
> ricland
>
>
>
> >> ricland
Bud
RICLAND wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > RICLAND wrote:
> >> With LHO on the stand as much as 90% of the SBT evidence would be
> >> rendered worthless.
> >>
> >> For example, if LHO could show he was a CIA operative everything
> >> pertaining to Fair Play for Cuba, Russia, Gen. Walker, Trips to Mexico,
> >> etc, would be of no value to the government's case.
> >
> > Or maybe, if he could show himself to be an angel, and above the
> > laws of mortal men. Maybe.
>
> You miss the point ... or maybe you don't.
>
> Bugliosi thought the question was important enough to base half his
> summation on.
Had persausive evidence been produced by the defense that Oz was
CIA, perhaps Bugs would have used a different summary.
> >> If LHO could prove he knew Ferrie, members of the New Orleans
> >> underworld, Clay Shaw, et al., the conspiracy is easily established.
> >
> > Like the "Kevin Bacon" game, right?
>
> You're obviously so clever mere words don't transmit your incredible wit
> well.
I mix in the wise cracks. No proof of a connection to those people
has been produced, despite a great effort. Nothing found amongst his
possessions at the Paines or the boardinghouse indicates a connection.
Where would he get this proof from?
> >> If LHO named his handlers, told how he got into and out of Russia, why
> >> he was taught Russian at the military language school, what his mission
> >> in Russia was, etc., vast parts of the case against go up in smoke.
> >
> > Not the important part, him shooting JFK.
>
> Him shooting JFK is not fact. There was never a trial. We don't say a
> person is guilty in this country if he hasn't been found guilty at trial.
Your point was that if evidence about Oz being some kind of
operative would harm the case against him some. My counterpoint was
that a jury wouldn`t be trying to determine if he was an operative,
only whether he killed JFK.
> What part of this don't you understand?
I understood the exchange well enough, I think. As far as being
unable to declare Oz guilty because he died before a trial, since when
is a trial necessary to establish a historical event? We can`t say the
Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because there wasn`t a trial to
determine it?
> >> Assassins don't proclaim they're innocence. Look at the history of
> >> assassination in the U.S., not one assassin has ever said he didn't do
> >> it.
> >
> > Out of the thousands of assassins? Hundreds? Dozens?
>
> And here you're fishing.
You have a very sparse data base from which to work. To say "they"
do this, or "they" do that, when you only have a few is weak, in my
estimation. Except for JW Booth, all the assassins and would be
assassins are caught on the spot, making a claim to innocence under
those conditions is pretty weak.
> >> The whole point of assassination is to make a political point, to
> >> become a martyr.
> >
> > The whole point of killing a person is to fulfill the desires of
> > the person doing the killing.
>
>
> What are the "desires" of riflemen in a firing squad?
Not being punished for refusing to follow orders, I would think.
Perhaps a dislike for the person being executed, and their cause.
> >> Yet Oswald seemed not to even be aware he was charged with killing Kennedy.
> >
> > Based on what he said only.
>
>
> DUH ...
You`re point, not mine. You are basing an argument on the words of
a known liar.
> >> "I'm not being charged with that."
> >
> > Isn`t it "I`ve not been charged with that."?
>
> Isn't the period superfluous?
No.
> The quote is part of your sentence. Why then did you insert period?
The period denotes the end of Oz`s utterance. My question mark
denote that I was asking a question about that utterance. I phrased it
as a question because I`m unsure whther my rememberance of what Oz
said is correct.
> >> More the reason why Bugliosi's prosecution in "The Trial of Oswald" was
> >> inferior lawyering meant to appeal to a jury of inferior intelligence.
> >
> > Why do you expect to get a jury of smart people? I`ve been on jury
> > duty. It wasn`t a box of hundred watts.
>
> Please re-read my comment again. I merely characterized his prosecution
> of the case.
And the jury`s intellegence. My point was that Bugs might talk down
to the jury for a reason.
> >> Bug presented a profile of Oswald completely at odds with everything we
> >> know about assassins.
> >
> > But consistant with what was known about Oz.
>
> Are you just commenting to see your words on the screen? My observation
> is tells us something; yours is masturbatory.
I think there was a point in what I said, and your point is
meaningless. Bugs wasn`t trying all the assassins in history, he was
trying the individual LHO. So, Bugs presents a profile that is
specific to a relevant person, the person he is prosecuting, and
neglects to address the people who are irrelevant to his arguments,
all the other assassins in recorded history.
Also, since you think all assassins are consistant in their
motives, perhaps you can explain Hinkely. He was unsucessful, but not
from want of trying. He is unique in claiming his assassination
attempt was to impress a girl. Isn`t this completely at odds with
everything we know about assassins? Does this make Hinkley (I know I`m
spelling the name wrong) innocent?
> >> Nobody in criminology was familiar with the
> >> profile Bug used to describe Oswald which, of course, explains why Bug
> >> added the element of "insanity."
> >
> > Worked against Manson. Don`t care for that label myself. Oswald
> > wasn`t insane, he knew the consequences of his actions.
>
>
> Are you aware of one person who thinks Manson is innocent?
Manson didn`t kill anyone that I`m aware of.
> Are you aware
> millions think Oswald is innocent?
Has what to do with my point that Bugs used a tactic that had
served him well in the past? The average person has a hard time with
the concept of a murder of a popular person like this, they can see
themsselves doing it, so they have a hard time imagining someone else
doing it. Labeling the person who does something out of the norm like
this a "nut" makes it easier for the average Joe Blow to get a handle
on it. Call the guy a nut, and then the ordinary person doesn`t have
to get a firm explaination for the suspect`s actions, because being
normal themselves, a nut`s actions would be inscrutable.
> Do you know what "cognitive dissonance" means?
Can you use it in a sentence?
> >> "Oswald was crazy!"
> >>
> >> But the problem with this is two-fold: first, if the Oswald we know from
> >> radio interviews was on the witness stand, the jury would hear and see a
> >> highly sane and intelligent young man; and second, nothing in Oswald's
> >> resume even hints at insanity.
> >
> > Calling Oswald crazy is a device to reach the ordinary person. A
> > normal person wouldn`t dream of doing what Oz did, so his actions
> > would appear crazy to them. And having a person listen to Oz espouse
> > Marxist viewpoints on the radio isn`t going to help Oz`s case, no
> > matter how articulate he is.
>
>
> More childish reasoning. Assassins are rarely "crazy" which is why I
> characterize Bugliosi's lawyering as inferior. His argument that Oswald
> was "crazy" would have been rejected by informed jury members.
As I explained above, it is an easily understood rational. Of
course a normal person wouldn`t commit an act like this, so Bugs
declares the suspect "nuts". Makes it more understandable to the jury,
they don`t have to think hard about why Oz did what he did, and they
can focus on the act itself.
> >> Result: the pillars of Bug's case -- Oswald's "craziness" and his
> >> supposed pinko commie hatred for the U.S, Kennedy, dissolve before his
> >> eyes. Bug is left with nothing to explain why a sane, CIA operative
> >> killed the President.
> >
> > I see no reason for him to explain either of those things. He only
> > had to show that Oz killed JFK, not explain why he did.
>
>
> Yet Bugliosi's entire summation was (a) Oswald was crazy,
To steer the jury away from any troubling thoughts about Bug`s
failure to provide a definite motivation. But, Bug`s failure to
produce a motive was more a product of the kind of tight-lipped person
Oz was. He didn`t confide in people, tell them his business, and
enjoyed keeping people in the dark in order to feel superior to them.
> and, (b).
> Oswald was not a CIA operative.
I don`t know why Bugs would use a sledgehammer to kill that flea.
There isn`t enough persausive information that Oz was CIA to need that
much countering.
> I rest my case.
Let the reader decide, then.
> ricland
>
> >
> >> ricland
> >
David Von Pein
Which is why Bugliosi never ONCE used the word "insane" in his
"prosecution" of LHO in 1986. VB was smarter than that. He knew if he
had used that word ("insane"), it would only harm his case against
Oswald. Because it could add the element of "sympathy for an insane
person" into the jury's mind.
I've always thought Vince came a little TOO close to that very thing
-- i.e., coming out and telling the "jury" that Oswald WAS "insane" --
but he stopped short of that word (and for very good reasons, IMO).
Vince called Oswald "nuts", "bonkers", and "crazy", and "mentally
unhinged" -- but he never said that Oz was "insane". At an actual
trial, I think Vince might have not used some of these precise terms,
for fear that the jury WOULD, indeed, equate "crazy" with "legally
insane".
RICLAND
> RICLAND wrote:
>> Bud wrote:
>>> RICLAND wrote:
>>>> With LHO on the stand as much as 90% of the SBT evidence would be
>>>> rendered worthless.
>>>>
>>>> For example, if LHO could show he was a CIA operative everything
>>>> pertaining to Fair Play for Cuba, Russia, Gen. Walker, Trips to Mexico,
>>>> etc, would be of no value to the government's case.
>>> Or maybe, if he could show himself to be an angel, and above the
>>> laws of mortal men. Maybe.
>> You miss the point ... or maybe you don't.
>>
>> Bugliosi thought the question was important enough to base half his
>> summation on.
>
> Had persausive evidence been produced by the defense that Oz was
> CIA, perhaps Bugs would have used a different summary.
Gad, man, why do you bother to write things like that? Of course he'd
have used a different summary. You're wasting bandwidth.
>
>>>> If LHO could prove he knew Ferrie, members of the New Orleans
>>>> underworld, Clay Shaw, et al., the conspiracy is easily established.
>>> Like the "Kevin Bacon" game, right?
>> You're obviously so clever mere words don't transmit your incredible wit
>> well.
>
> I mix in the wise cracks. No proof of a connection to those people
> has been produced, despite a great effort. Nothing found amongst his
> possessions at the Paines or the boardinghouse indicates a connection.
> Where would he get this proof from?
Your Kevin Bacon comment was not a wise crack; worse still, it didn't
even make sense.
>
>>>> If LHO named his handlers, told how he got into and out of Russia, why
>>>> he was taught Russian at the military language school, what his mission
>>>> in Russia was, etc., vast parts of the case against go up in smoke.
>>> Not the important part, him shooting JFK.
>> Him shooting JFK is not fact. There was never a trial. We don't say a
>> person is guilty in this country if he hasn't been found guilty at trial.
>
> Your point was that if evidence about Oz being some kind of
> operative would harm the case against him some. My counterpoint was
> that a jury wouldn`t be trying to determine if he was an operative,
> only whether he killed JFK.
I'm not sure how much more of your befuddlement I can take. Were Oswald
able to show he was a CIA operative, there'd be no case. Think it
through, man.
>
>> What part of this don't you understand?
>
> I understood the exchange well enough, I think. As far as being
> unable to declare Oz guilty because he died before a trial, since when
> is a trial necessary to establish a historical event? We can`t say the
> Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because there wasn`t a trial to
> determine it?
You mean "historic" event, not "historical."
Your other point is so ridiculous I won't dignify it with a response.
By the way. How old are you?
>
>>>> Assassins don't proclaim they're innocence. Look at the history of
>>>> assassination in the U.S., not one assassin has ever said he didn't do
>>>> it.
>>> Out of the thousands of assassins? Hundreds? Dozens?
>> And here you're fishing.
>
> You have a very sparse data base from which to work. To say "they"
> do this, or "they" do that, when you only have a few is weak, in my
> estimation. Except for JW Booth, all the assassins and would be
> assassins are caught on the spot, making a claim to innocence under
> those conditions is pretty weak.
I didn't restrict it to Presidential assassins.
>
>>>> The whole point of assassination is to make a political point, to
>>>> become a martyr.
>>> The whole point of killing a person is to fulfill the desires of
>>> the person doing the killing.
>>
>> What are the "desires" of riflemen in a firing squad?
>
> Not being punished for refusing to follow orders, I would think.
> Perhaps a dislike for the person being executed, and their cause.
Sorry, dude, I'm going to end it here. I just get the feeling I'm
talking to a 16-year old.
ricland
RICLAND
What's the difference? I saw the clip and thought he meant insane and
I'm sure many others thought the same thing too. The point here is that
nobody but Bugliosi ever made this claim. But would he have been able to
use it had Oz lived?
Read on ...
Oswald was not some guy living in a tool shed in the mountains. He had a
family and plenty of co-workers he got along with swell. He had a
land-lady who thought he was a nice young man. He was only a few years
from the military and no one from his unit thought he was "nuts" and
they certainly would know this better than Bug. He had a top shelf
security clearance. He had no police record, so where does Bug get
"bonkers" from?
Bug was dealing in circular reasoning. Bug was saying Oswald is crazy
because only a crazy man would shoot the President. This assertion is
wrong and of inferior quality. It's wrong because we know sane people
kill all the time. It's inferior because it's an insult to any informed
person's intelligence.
Bug used it for two reasons: first, because he could find no other
reason for Oz killing the President; and second, because it's the
argument he used so successfully against Manson.
But the important thing here is this: Had Oswald lived, Bug would not
have been able to use this "bonkers" argument. We've heard Oz in action.
Those radio tapes of him toying with tough news reporters about Fair
Play for Cuba, show a highly intelligent guy who knows how to think on
his feet.
Bug would have looked ridiculous trying to convince the jury Oswald was
nuts.
ricland
David Von Pein
Plenty (given the right context). "Crazy" can mean "insane", yes. But
it can also mean.....
"Passionately preoccupied", "Obsessed", "Erratic", "Askew", or
"Unusual".
Lots of different meanings.
http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/crazy
>>> "I saw the clip and thought he meant insane..." <<<
I didn't. Mainly because it would have been utterly STUPID for Vince
to have come out and called Oswald "insane"....because VB knows he
wasn't LEGALLY INSANE (i.e., not being able to tell the difference
between right and wrong).
>>> "Oswald was not some guy living in a tool shed in the mountains." <<<
Not far from it. He could barely support himself at a $7 or $8 a week
boardinghouse. His family had to sponge off of friends for months at a
time. Might as well have been up in those mountains with Jed and
Granny and livin' on possum innards.
>>> "He had a family..." <<<
Which he could not support...
Next?....
>>> "...plenty of co-workers he got along with swell." <<<
LOL. "Swell"?
Yeah, I love "Leave It To Beaver" myself. It's one of my all-time
favorite shows, in fact (plug, plug)....
But back to Oswald.....
Most of his co-workers thought he was a loner, who was distant,
uncommunicative, standoffish, and who thought he was "a little better
than everybody else around him". (Some of those things go beyond just
his "co-workers" however; they were said by others who knew LHO. And
not many people had very many good things to say about him, except
maybe Wes Frazier.)
Ruth Paine didn't like him at all. Nor did several of his fellow
Marines. Oswald was a Communist, a wife-abuser, a liar, a schemer, and
a murderer (times 2; with one "attempted murder" under his belt, to
boot--General Walker).
Great stuff for a resume, huh? Maybe we can get Lee Harvey voted into
office in '64.
>>> "He had a land-lady who thought he was a nice young man." <<<
Gladys Johnson, you mean?
Okay, so maybe Frazier wasn't his only friend (if you're right about
Gladys; I can't remember). Or did you really mean "housekeeper"
Earlene Roberts here? Well, doesn't matter really.
>>> "He was only a few years from the military and no one from his unit thought he was "nuts"; and they certainly would know this better than Bug." <<<
Bull. Several former Marines who served with LHO have come forth with
negative stories about this guy named Oswald.
>>> "He had a top-shelf security clearance." <<<
As did all radar operators at that MILITARY base at Atsugi.
Next?....
>>> "He had no police record..." <<<
Unless you want to count that sidewalk skirmish in New Orleans in
Summer '63. That doesn't count?
Oh...and that little business where he took a rifle over to Walker's
house on 04/10/63 and tried to end the ex-General's life. Luckily for
him, he missed....so no "police record" on file for this act until
December '63 when the cops put the pieces together.
You're doing great so far though....I'm wanting to buy my next used
car from Oswald right now, in fact!
Next?....
>>> "So where does Bug get "bonkers" from?" <<<
>From the FACT that Oswald shot JFK and J.D. Tippit dead in Nov. '63.
That's where. Geez.
(Plus, Mr. Bugliosi was merely doing what he does at every one of his
trials -- he was "spoon-feeding" the jury there, quite obviously. He's
hammering Oswald's obvious guilt down the jury's collective
throat...as every good prosecutor WOULD do in such a case with this
much "He's Guilty" evidence on the table!)
Let's listen as Vince "spoon feeds"......
==============================
"If the jury, if Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to do with President
Kennedy's assassination and was framed....this otherwise independent
and defiant would-be revolutionary, who disliked taking orders from
anyone, turned out to be the most willing and cooperative frame-ee in
the history of mankind!! Because the evidence of his guilt is so
monumental, that he could have just as well gone around with a large
sign on his back declaring in bold letters 'I Just Murdered President
John F. Kennedy'!!!"
"Anyone...ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was
innocent, would believe someone who told them that they heard a cow
speaking the Spanish language!!" -- VB; 1986
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b3a8181c73cfa095
==============================
RICLAND
>>>> "What's the difference {between "crazy" and "insane"}?" <<<
>
> Plenty (given the right context). "Crazy" can mean "insane", yes. But
> it can also mean.....
>
> "Passionately preoccupied", "Obsessed", "Erratic", "Askew", or
> "Unusual".
>
> Lots of different meanings.
>
> http://209.161.33.50/dictionary/crazy
>
>
>>>> "I saw the clip and thought he meant insane..." <<<
>
> come out and called Oswald "insane"....because VB knows he wasn't
> LEGALLY INSANE (i.e., not being able to tell the difference between
> right and wrong).
>
>
>
> boardinghouse. His family had to sponge off of friends for months at a
>
>
>>>> "He had a family..." <<<
>
> Which he could not support...
>
> Next?....
>
>>>> "...plenty of co-workers he got along with swell." <<<
>
> LOL. "Swell"?
>
> Yeah, I love "Leave It To Beaver" myself. It's one of my all-time
> favorite shows, in fact (plug, plug)....
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/discussions/start-thread.html/ref=cm_rdp_dp/002-2065385-6525668?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B000B7HZUK&authorID=A1FDW1SPYKB354&store=yourstore&reviewID=R3I581OAAM10HA&displayType=ReviewDetail
>
> But back to Oswald.....
>
> Most of his co-workers thought he was a loner, who was distant,
> uncommunicative, standoffish, and who thought he was "a little better
> than everybody else around him". (Some of those things go beyond just
> his "co-workers" however; they were said by others who knew LHO. And
> not many people had very many good things to say about him, except
> maybe Wes Frazier.)
>
> Ruth Paine didn't like him at all. Nor did several of his fellow
> Marines. Oswald was a Communist, a wife-abuser, a liar, a schemer, and
> a murderer (times 2; with one "attempted murder" under his belt, to
> boot--General Walker).
I've ignored you other comments because they're perile. Not trying to
start a flame war, but often don't rise to the occassion.
Ok, Oswald wasn't a "communist" but to understand why he wasn't, you'd
have to understand the difference between a Marxist and
Marxist-Leninist, which you clearly don't.
Second, if he was a CIA Op -- which we'll never know -- he wasn't
either, a question that would have surely been answered had he stood trial.
Third, his so-called "attempted murder" needs explanation if you're
going to make the claim; specifically, why wasn't he ever charged with
the crime?
Fourth, you call him a murderer. Presumably, you're referring to a
murder conviction. Provide details or stop claiming he's a murderer.
Fifth, the question is whether he was a nut. Please keep your eye on the
ball. Not liking a person doesn't make him a nut; were this true, my
dislike of you would render you a nut.
>
> Great stuff for a resume, huh? Maybe we can get voted into office in
> '64.
>
>
>>>> "He had a land-lady who thought he was a nice young man." <<<
>
> Gladys Johnson, you mean?
>
> Okay, so maybe Frazier wasn't his only friend. :)
>
>
>>>> "He was only a few years from the military and no one from his unit thought he was "nuts" and they certainly would know this better than Bug." <<<
>
> Bull. Several former Marines who served with LHO have come forth with
> negative stories about this guy named Oswald.
Sorry, got to end here. I just can't continue to dignify your off-topic
comments with a response. The question is whether anyone other than
Bugliosi is on record for calling Oz a nut. You're making the totally
unrelated case that many disliked him.
Honestly, debating you is like debating someone with a hearing impediment.
ricland
>
>
>>>> "He had a top-shelf security clearance." <<<
>
> As did all radar operators at that MILITARY base at Atsugi.
>
> Next?....
>
>
>>>> "He had no police record..." <<<
>
> Unless you want to count that sidewalk skirmish in New Orleans in
> Summer '63. That doesn't count?
>
> Oh...and that little business where he took a rifle over to Walker's
> house on 04/10/63 and tried to end the ex-General's life. Luckily for
> him, he missed....so no "police record" on file for this act until
> December '63 when the cops put the pieces together.
>
> You're doing great so far though....I'm wanting to buy my next used
> car from Oswald right now, in fact!
>
> Next?....
>
>
>>>> "So where does Bug get "bonkers" from?" <<<
>
>>From the FACT that Oswald took shot JFK and J.D. Tippit dead in Nov.
David Von Pein
That was my slip. I should have specified "Marxist" indeed. Or
"Communist sympathizer". My fault.
One (very, very small) point for you. :)
>>> "His so-called "attempted murder" needs explanation if you're going to make the claim; specifically, why wasn't he ever charged with the crime?" <<<
Somebody pinch me. Did you really ask this silly question?
He wasn't "charged" with shooting at Walker because nobody on Earth
knew where to look for the shooter until December of 1963, when the
Walker bullet (consistent with Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano) was linked
to Oswald and his gun....plus the incriminating evidence provided by
Marina Oswald ("Lee told me, 'I just shot at Walker'." -- M. Oswald).
>>> "You call him a murderer. Presumably, you're referring to a murder conviction." <<<
I need a second pinch. Gee-sus!
No, of course I'm not referring to a murder "conviction". Why would I
be referring to such a thing that could never have occurred in
Oswald's case, post-11/24/63?
Oswald is a "murderer" because the evidence overwhelmingly makes that
claim true.
He's not a "convicted" murder (in a court of law), true. But....so
what?
(BTW, to borrow your own question from earlier in the day to someone
else -- How old are you anyway? Do you have a license to operate a
motor vehicle in your state of residence?)
>>> "Provide details or stop claiming he's a murderer." <<<
You must not have read any of my "details", huh?
Okay...."details":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/16b70728d9c8ecd4
If you don't like my "version" of the details of Oswald's obvious
guilt, you can always go here (these details below are more "official"
in nature):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/contents.htm
>>> "The question is whether he was a nut. Please keep your eye on the ball." <<<
My eye's been on the ball. But I'm not even sure you're inside the
stadium or not.
>>> "Not liking a person doesn't make him a nut; were this true, my dislike of you would render you a nut." <<<
Back at ya there.
>>> "I just can't continue to dignify your off-topic comments with a response." <<<
A third pinch may be required here. (Holy Mackerel, I'm gonna be black
and blue by the end of this session from all that pinching.)
>>> "The question is whether anyone other than Bugliosi is on record for calling Oz a nut." <<<
I certainly am.
But, actually...WHO CARES if anyone else is "on record" as saying
this? (And I'm pretty sure other people are "on record" saying they
thought LHO was "nuts".)
But the bottom-line facts are.....
1.) Lee H. Oswald killed 2 people on 11/22/63.
2.) And, like Vince Bugliosi said in '86, a person who engages in #1
(above), especially when one of the two victims was a POTUS, has got
to be a bit "nuts" or "bonkers". Not "legally insane", mind you...just
"nuts" in the loose, general type sense that people use that word
every day of the week. Such as when I say that YOU, Ricland, are
"nuts" via these "crazy" comments you're making in your posts here.
THAT kind of "nuts". ;)
>>> "You're making the totally unrelated case that many disliked him." <<<
You, yourself, brought up the sub-topic of people thinking Oswald was
"swell", etc.; but my counter-post re. those people who thought just
the opposite is considered "totally unrelated".
Somebody pinch me (again)!
>>> "Honestly, debating you is like debating someone with a hearing impediment." <<<
Huh? Sorry, couldn't you, Gramps! My hearing aid was turned down. ;)
Footnote -- Ric, I'm not usually THIS snippy with someone I've never
talked to previously on the Internet...but you're an exception since
you took it upon yourself to insult Bud in a previous post for reasons
that escape a logical person's mind.
So, by insulting one of THE best and most-astute JFK researchers
(i.e., Bud) within the walls of this loony-bin known as
"alt.conspiracy.jfk", it affords you immediate "Kook" status in my
files. Sorry. But them's the breaks.
Now, back to Lumpy and Beaver. (Or is it my "lumpy beaver". Ewwww.
That doesn't sound too good at all, does it?) :) .....
aeffects
David you're making a complete fool of yourself! Your lack of case
knowledge is unbelievable... the Dudster, astute? LMAO, he's sitting
on his ear these day's! C'mon!
David Von Pein
But at least I know enough about the case to not say something really
stupid like this.......
"The House Select Committee threw it {the SBT} in the toilet."
The above was uttered by "Ricland" on 03/16/07.
And I'm the fool, huh? Jesus H. Christ, kooks galore here!
I'm beginning to think that Ricland probably had no idea who General
Walker was until that name was brought up earlier today.
(Wonder if he's even heard of "Tippit"?)
aeffects
It's in the toilet, man -- you're looking squarely i the eye what
you're going to encounter when Bugliosi's book hits the stands...
We know daBugliosi is going to say, " I'm done with this case, no more
discussion...., yada-da, yadada, yadada" He's going to pawn it off to
you guys... Get use to it, it'll get worse....G U A R N T E E D!
David Von Pein
Yet another senseless, mindless hunk of .... nothing from Healy.
Your record's fine in '07, Mr. Healy. Not a post with any substance
yet.
And you're striving for the all-time record I see.
(BTW, do you actually think the HSCA threw the SBT "in the toilet"?
Just curious.)
RICLAND
>>>> "Oswald wasn't a "communist"..." <<<
>
> That was my slip. I should have specified "Marxist" indeed. Or
> "Communist sympathizer". My fault.
>
> One (very, very small) point for you. :)
>
>
>>>> "His so-called "attempted murder" needs explanation if you're going to make the claim; specifically, why wasn't he ever charged with the crime?" <<<
>
>
> Somebody pinch me. Did you really ask this silly question?
>
> He wasn't "charged" with shooting at Walker because nobody on Earth
> knew where to look for the shooter until December of 1963, when the
> Walker bullet (consistent with Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano) was linked
> to Oswald and his gun....plus the incriminating evidence provided by
> Marina Oswald ("Lee told me, 'I just shot at Walker'." -- M. Oswald).
I see. Because his rifle is linked to the Walker shooting, you call him
an "attempted murderer." Would you care to share with us how you arrive
at the "murder" component of the charge? And I didn't include Marina's
statement for obvious reasons.
>
>
>>>> "You call him a murderer. Presumably, you're referring to a murder conviction." <<<
>
>
> I need a second pinch. Gee-sus!
>
> No, of course I'm not referring to a murder "conviction". Why would I
> be referring to such a thing that could never have occurred in
> Oswald's case, post-11/24/63?
>
> Oswald is a "murderer" because the evidence overwhelmingly makes that
> claim true.
Ok, here's where I end this discussion. Have a nice day.
ricland
David Von Pein
1.) Man takes a gun...
2.) Man points gun at a human being...
3.) Man pulls trigger of gun...
4.) Gun goes off, narrowly missing the human head that was being aimed
at.
1-4 = "Attempted Murder".
Next?.....
>>> "And I didn't include Marina's statement for obvious reasons." <<<
And those "obvious reasons" would be?
>>> "Ok, here's where I end this discussion." <<<
Kook.
>>> "Have a nice day." <<<
I will. Because I'm not a CT-Kook.
Bud
RICLAND wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > RICLAND wrote:
> >> Bud wrote:
> >>> RICLAND wrote:
> >>>> With LHO on the stand as much as 90% of the SBT evidence would be
> >>>> rendered worthless.
> >>>>
> >>>> For example, if LHO could show he was a CIA operative everything
> >>>> pertaining to Fair Play for Cuba, Russia, Gen. Walker, Trips to Mexico,
> >>>> etc, would be of no value to the government's case.
> >>> Or maybe, if he could show himself to be an angel, and above the
> >>> laws of mortal men. Maybe.
> >> You miss the point ... or maybe you don't.
> >>
> >> Bugliosi thought the question was important enough to base half his
> >> summation on.
> >
> > Had persausive evidence been produced by the defense that Oz was
> > CIA, perhaps Bugs would have used a different summary.
>
>
> Gad, man, why do you bother to write things like that? Of course he'd
> have used a different summary. You're wasting bandwidth.
Yah, they`ll make more. I feel complelled to squash your points,
for fear some idiot might think them valid.
> >>>> If LHO could prove he knew Ferrie, members of the New Orleans
> >>>> underworld, Clay Shaw, et al., the conspiracy is easily established.
> >>> Like the "Kevin Bacon" game, right?
> >> You're obviously so clever mere words don't transmit your incredible wit
> >> well.
> >
> > I mix in the wise cracks. No proof of a connection to those people
> > has been produced, despite a great effort. Nothing found amongst his
> > possessions at the Paines or the boardinghouse indicates a connection.
> > Where would he get this proof from?
>
>
> Your Kevin Bacon comment was not a wise crack; worse still, it didn't
> even make sense.
It was a stretch. Most of your conspiracy books play a variation
of the "Kevin Bacon" game. This person knows this person, who went to
school with this person. That kind of weak, tenuous linkage
> >>>> If LHO named his handlers, told how he got into and out of Russia, why
> >>>> he was taught Russian at the military language school, what his mission
> >>>> in Russia was, etc., vast parts of the case against go up in smoke.
> >>> Not the important part, him shooting JFK.
> >> Him shooting JFK is not fact. There was never a trial. We don't say a
> >> person is guilty in this country if he hasn't been found guilty at trial.
> >
> > Your point was that if evidence about Oz being some kind of
> > operative would harm the case against him some. My counterpoint was
> > that a jury wouldn`t be trying to determine if he was an operative,
> > only whether he killed JFK.
>
> I'm not sure how much more of your befuddlement I can take. Were Oswald
> able to show he was a CIA operative, there'd be no case. Think it
> through, man.
Because it would be impossible for a person linked to the CIA to
commit murder?
> >> What part of this don't you understand?
> >
> > I understood the exchange well enough, I think. As far as being
> > unable to declare Oz guilty because he died before a trial, since when
> > is a trial necessary to establish a historical event? We can`t say the
> > Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor because there wasn`t a trial to
> > determine it?
>
> You mean "historic" event, not "historical."
Maybe. BTW, when you said "Assassins proclaim they`re innocence",
you should have used "their". At the time I thought it a petty thing
to point out.
> Your other point is so ridiculous I won't dignify it with a response.
Another way of saying "I concede the point". By the way, would you
say Hitler was guilty of war crimes? The man never did get his day in
court. Obviously he is a patsy.
> By the way. How old are you?
Too old.
> >>>> Assassins don't proclaim they're innocence. Look at the history of
> >>>> assassination in the U.S., not one assassin has ever said he didn't do
> >>>> it.
> >>> Out of the thousands of assassins? Hundreds? Dozens?
> >> And here you're fishing.
> >
> > You have a very sparse data base from which to work. To say "they"
> > do this, or "they" do that, when you only have a few is weak, in my
> > estimation. Except for JW Booth, all the assassins and would be
> > assassins are caught on the spot, making a claim to innocence under
> > those conditions is pretty weak.
>
> I didn't restrict it to Presidential assassins.
You did limit it to the U.S. So, you mean to include all the
assassinations of Senators and Congressmen?
> >>>> The whole point of assassination is to make a political point, to
> >>>> become a martyr.
> >>> The whole point of killing a person is to fulfill the desires of
> >>> the person doing the killing.
> >>
> >> What are the "desires" of riflemen in a firing squad?
> >
> > Not being punished for refusing to follow orders, I would think.
> > Perhaps a dislike for the person being executed, and their cause.
>
>
> Sorry, dude, I'm going to end it here. I just get the feeling I'm
> talking to a 16-year old.
You need to work on your self esteem if you think a sixteen year
old could handle you so easily. Dude.
RICLAND
If The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald" is any indication, Bugliosi is a
hack. His summation was the Charles Manson summation retooled to fit
Oswald. Apparently Bugliosi thinks it was his brilliant lawyering that
got Manson convicted. Someone needs to tell him that the lawyer from "My
Cousin Vinnie" could have convicted Manson. The case was impossible to
lose.
But worse than this, his summation was an example of textbook circular
reasoning: Oswald killed the President because he's crazy. And he's
crazy because he tried to kill the President.
And how anyone can have confidence in an attorney who uses antique
metaphors like "guilty as sin?" is beyond me.
Finally, can you imagine him trying to convince the jury that a cool,
devilishly smart Oswald is "nuts"? Remember, Oswald picked up Russian so
quickly, his wife thought he was a native Russian speaker when she first
met him. The guy was very, very smart, that's why he was sent to
language school in the first place.
And if Oswald were a CIA operative, nothing Bugliosi used in the mock
trial would work. So what does Bug do then? We don't know because he
took the easy way out == Oz was not a CIA operative.
Which was the problem with the mock trial -- no LHO.
ricland
RICLAND
Sorry, David, you're a chatroom class debater. For example, your little
exhibition directly above is the level of response we find in a chat
room where two Britney Spears fans are arguing over her new haircut.
I can't get involved in that kind of vapid discourse.
ricland
>
David Von Pein
Vapid even. Nice touch.
Yeah, my "1 through 4" math is probably a little too difficult for
you. I can understand that. You're forgiven. Sometimes you 16-year-
olds can't figure out what 1 + 4 equals.
RICLAND
> RICLAND wrote:
>>> Your point was that if evidence about Oz being some kind of
>>> operative would harm the case against him some. My counterpoint was
>>> that a jury wouldn`t be trying to determine if he was an operative,
>>> only whether he killed JFK.
>> I'm not sure how much more of your befuddlement I can take. Were Oswald
>> able to show he was a CIA operative, there'd be no case. Think it
>> through, man.
>
> Because it would be impossible for a person linked to the CIA to
> commit murder?
Because the conspiracy then becomes a coup de ta. Nothing else would
explain a CIA operative in the TSBD at the time of Kennedy's death.
ricland
Bud
RICLAND wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > RICLAND wrote:
>
> >>> Your point was that if evidence about Oz being some kind of
> >>> operative would harm the case against him some. My counterpoint was
> >>> that a jury wouldn`t be trying to determine if he was an operative,
> >>> only whether he killed JFK.
>
>
> >> I'm not sure how much more of your befuddlement I can take. Were Oswald
> >> able to show he was a CIA operative, there'd be no case. Think it
> >> through, man.
> >
> > Because it would be impossible for a person linked to the CIA to
> > commit murder?
>
>
> Because the conspiracy then becomes a coup de ta.
The murder of JFK becomes a conspiracy when you can establish some
conspiring. Since the conspiracy mongers can`t show any actual
conspiring, they keep attempting these "end-arounds".
> Nothing else would
> explain a CIA operative in the TSBD at the time of Kennedy's death.
A meaningless declaration. IF Oz had lived and stood trial, AND
been able to somehow prove he was a CIA asset, he could still be found
guilty of JFK`s murder if the Dallas jury could be convinced that LHO
pulled the trigger that ended JFK`s life.
> ricland
David Von Pein
Yeah, forget about all of that OTHER STUFF that Vince talked about at
the Mock Trial (and presented to the jury) -- e.g., THE PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE proving Oswald guilty (guns, bullets, prints,
witnesses...that stuff).
Do you REALLY think that the "circular reasoning" example you provided
above was the ONLY thing VB had to work with at the "trial"?
Are you serious??
Read......
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b3a8181c73cfa095
>>> "And how anyone can have confidence in an attorney who uses antique metaphors like "guilty as sin" is beyond me." <<<
"Circular reasoning" again?? -- i.e., Bugliosi is a hack because he
uses antique metaphors. And therefore I cannot have confidence in a
hack who uses such metaphors.
(That's more of a three-fourths circle there...but I'm sure you get
the general {nutty} idea anyway.)
BTW, why is "Guilty as sin" considered to be an "antique metaphor"? I
use it all the time when talking about Oswald, and other known killers
when they come up in conversation.
>>> "Oswald picked up Russian so quickly, his wife thought he was a native Russian speaker when she first met him." <<<
Which MUST, therefore, indicate that this same man was incapable of
murdering the President by himself. (What's the Russian term for "Is
that about the size of the situation as she exists, kook?" .... Maybe
I ought to ask that cool, suave sophisticate named Lee.)
>>> "The guy {LHO} was very, very smart." <<<
I think he was fairly bright too. That's why he thought he had enough
brains to kill the President ALL BY HIMSELF AND (MAYBE, JUST MAYBE)
GET AWAY WITH IT.
Ben Holmes
>
>Bud wrote:
>> RICLAND wrote:
>>> With LHO on the stand as much as 90% of the SBT evidence would be
>>> rendered worthless.
>>>
>>> For example, if LHO could show he was a CIA operative everything
>>> pertaining to Fair Play for Cuba, Russia, Gen. Walker, Trips to Mexico,
>>> etc, would be of no value to the government's case.
>>
>> Or maybe, if he could show himself to be an angel, and above the
>> laws of mortal men. Maybe.
>
>You miss the point ... or maybe you don't.
>
>Bugliosi thought the question was important enough to base half his
>summation on.
>
>>
>>> If LHO could prove he knew Ferrie, members of the New Orleans
>>> underworld, Clay Shaw, et al., the conspiracy is easily established.
>>
>> Like the "Kevin Bacon" game, right?
>
>You're obviously so clever mere words don't transmit your incredible wit
>well.
You're speaking to one of our famous trolls... this is one who likes to play the
clown.
Sad, too... since he's far more knowledgeable about the case that most of the
other kooks that I've killfiled.
RICLAND
> RICLAND wrote:
>> Bud wrote:
>>> RICLAND wrote:
>>>>> Your point was that if evidence about Oz being some kind of
>>>>> operative would harm the case against him some. My counterpoint was
>>>>> that a jury wouldn`t be trying to determine if he was an operative,
>>>>> only whether he killed JFK.
>>
>>>> I'm not sure how much more of your befuddlement I can take. Were Oswald
>>>> able to show he was a CIA operative, there'd be no case. Think it
>>>> through, man.
>>> Because it would be impossible for a person linked to the CIA to
>>> commit murder?
>>
>> Because the conspiracy then becomes a coup de ta.
>
> The murder of JFK becomes a conspiracy when you can establish some
> conspiring. Since the conspiracy mongers can`t show any actual
> conspiring, they keep attempting these "end-arounds".
No.
And I must say I'm beginning to become annoyed at the low quality of
debate here.
Is the sound of a falling tree in the forest dependent on whether people
here it or not? If not, why do you say the JFK becomes a conspiracy when
one establishes conspiring?
ricland
RICLAND
> In article <U9KdncSbhqOubWfY...@comcast.com>, RICLAND says...
>> Bud wrote:
>>> RICLAND wrote:
>>>> With LHO on the stand as much as 90% of the SBT evidence would be
>>>> rendered worthless.
>>>>
>>>> For example, if LHO could show he was a CIA operative everything
>>>> pertaining to Fair Play for Cuba, Russia, Gen. Walker, Trips to Mexico,
>>>> etc, would be of no value to the government's case.
>>> Or maybe, if he could show himself to be an angel, and above the
>>> laws of mortal men. Maybe.
>> You miss the point ... or maybe you don't.
>>
>> Bugliosi thought the question was important enough to base half his
>> summation on.
>>
>>>> If LHO could prove he knew Ferrie, members of the New Orleans
>>>> underworld, Clay Shaw, et al., the conspiracy is easily established.
>>> Like the "Kevin Bacon" game, right?
>> You're obviously so clever mere words don't transmit your incredible wit
>> well.
>
> You're speaking to one of our famous trolls... this is one who likes to play the
> clown.
>
> Sad, too... since he's far more knowledgeable about the case that most of the
> other kooks that I've killfiled.
These fellows seem to think resorting to masturbation when reason fails
them is a brilliant debating tactic.
ricland
David Von Pein
Says the idiot who posted this blatant falsehood just hours
earlier.......
"It's over, dude. SBT has been throughly debunked. The House Select
Committee threw it in the toilet." -- RICLAND; 03/16/2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ca5cd8ee9f2a76de?hl=en&
Why would anyone even halfway familiar with the JFK case utter such a
silly and untrue statement? Any ideas, Ricland?
Or is "SBT" supposed to = The "LN" scenario? Is that it? You've used
"SBTers" to = "LNers" I noticed earlier in some posts. You just use
"SBT" (lacking the "er" on the end) to confuse everybody...when you
really mean "Lone Assassin position"?
But even there, I want to see a quote where Arlen Specter "strongly
disavows" the "LN" scenario. Or the actual SINGLE-BULLET THEORY
scenario, which I know damn well Specter never abandoned.
Any chance of getting those cites out of you, Ric?
Bud
RICLAND wrote:
> Bud wrote:
> > RICLAND wrote:
> >> Bud wrote:
> >>> RICLAND wrote:
> >>>>> Your point was that if evidence about Oz being some kind of
> >>>>> operative would harm the case against him some. My counterpoint was
> >>>>> that a jury wouldn`t be trying to determine if he was an operative,
> >>>>> only whether he killed JFK.
> >>
> >>>> I'm not sure how much more of your befuddlement I can take. Were Oswald
> >>>> able to show he was a CIA operative, there'd be no case. Think it
> >>>> through, man.
> >>> Because it would be impossible for a person linked to the CIA to
> >>> commit murder?
> >>
> >> Because the conspiracy then becomes a coup de ta.
> >
> > The murder of JFK becomes a conspiracy when you can establish some
> > conspiring. Since the conspiracy mongers can`t show any actual
> > conspiring, they keep attempting these "end-arounds".
>
>
> No.
Devastating rebuttal. But, I think the point I made was valid.
Conspiracy isn`t proven by showing associations. It isn`t even proven
by showing multiple shooters. It`s proven by establishing some actual
conspiring.
> And I must say I'm beginning to become annoyed at the low quality of
> debate here.
<snicker> I`m sorry that you feel disappointed. Certainly what you
are offering isn`t raising the bar any.
> Is the sound of a falling tree in the forest dependent on whether people
> here it or not?
"what" it? And yes, there needs to be comfirmation that a tree
actually fell.
> If not, why do you say the JFK becomes a conspiracy when
> one establishes conspiring?
If the FBI gathered evidence against a mobster, do you think they`s
just say in court "You know the Mafia, they`re always conspiring.", or
do you think they`d need to show the conspiracy in that particular
case?
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <U9KdncSbhqOubWfY...@comcast.com>, RICLAND says...
> >
> >Bud wrote:
> >> RICLAND wrote:
> >>> With LHO on the stand as much as 90% of the SBT evidence would be
> >>> rendered worthless.
> >>>
> >>> For example, if LHO could show he was a CIA operative everything
> >>> pertaining to Fair Play for Cuba, Russia, Gen. Walker, Trips to Mexico,
> >>> etc, would be of no value to the government's case.
> >>
> >> Or maybe, if he could show himself to be an angel, and above the
> >> laws of mortal men. Maybe.
> >
> >You miss the point ... or maybe you don't.
> >
> >Bugliosi thought the question was important enough to base half his
> >summation on.
> >
> >>
> >>> If LHO could prove he knew Ferrie, members of the New Orleans
> >>> underworld, Clay Shaw, et al., the conspiracy is easily established.
> >>
> >> Like the "Kevin Bacon" game, right?
> >
> >You're obviously so clever mere words don't transmit your incredible wit
> >well.
>
> You're speaking to one of our famous trolls... this is one who likes to play the
> clown.
And that was Ben Holmes., ricland. He`s a kook, and he`s not
playing.
> Sad, too... since he's far more knowledgeable about the case that most of the
> other kooks that I've killfiled.
I have low to moderate knowledge of the case, but am fully aware of
the kook approach to it (see the post I started entitled "Walt`s
admission" for a glaring example). Knowing the evidence is incidental,
knowing the kooks is what is important.
Bud
And this is what passes for clever to you? You won`t be here
long.
> ricland
Walt
> >>> "Would you care to share with us how you arrive at the "murder" component of the charge?" <<<
>
> 1.) Man takes a gun...
> 2.) Man points gun at a human being...
> 3.) Man pulls trigger of gun...
> 4.) Gun goes off, narrowly missing the human head that was being aimed
> at.
>
> 1-4 = "Attempted Murder".
Wrong......You have not shown that the intent was murder.
We will never know what Lee's intention was....... Only he could know
that.
But your thinking on this subject reflects your bias thinking on the
entire case. The Walker incident is just a microcosm of how you look
at the murder of President Kennedy. You start with the idea that
Oswald is guilty and then close your "mind" to anything that doesn't
support your preconceived notion.
I'm no psychiatrist but I'd say you are a classic case of denial.
Walt
David Von Pein
Attempted Murder.
What does that equal in Kookville....Breaking & Entering??
I'm no shrink...but it looks to me like Walt is a Oswald-adoring kook!
What's he look like to you guys?
Walt
I like this simple approach....... Thanks Von Pea brain
Let's analyze your 4 step approach to the Walker incident....
1.) Man takes a gun...
a) What man?...... Name, rank and serial number please
2.) Man points gun at a human being...
a) Proof that man was pointing at human being please..... I belive
the bullet struck the HOUSE
3.) Man pulls trigger of gun...
a) No argument..... Obviously the trigger had to be pulled to fire
the cartridge
4.) Gun goes off, narrowly missing the human head that was being
aimed at.
a) Gun goes off.... Granted.... That's what usually happens when the
trigger is pulled
b) narrowly missing the human head that was being aimed at.
Unsubstantiated.... The bullet stuck the BOTTOM horizontal sash of
the window.
c) If man was aiming at human head .....human was crawling on floor
beneath window.
d) Since human head was sitting on 6'2"man's shoulders who was
sitting on chair behind desk the bullet could not have passed anywhere
close to man's head.
Walt
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
These fellows seem to think resorting to masturbation when reason
fails
them is a brilliant debating tactic.
Has Ricland provided reason? He's provided
conjecture and speculation. His obvious
lack of knowledge about Oswald and his
motivations is evident. Can we say with
100% certainty Oswald pulled the trigger
from the TSBD? No, we cannot. However,
using the scientific method in looking at
evidence, we can say with a very high
probability Oswald is "guilty as sin".
To believe the CIA would plant one as
unsophisticated as Oswald in Minsk
is absurd if one looks at CIA history.
In addtion, the KGB files released in
1991 show that they perceived Oswald
as a fool. Lest not forget, the KGB
was NOT an intelligence service.
The KGB was a security service
who surveilled Oswald 24/7 for two
years. Those who believe Oswald
to have been CIA have produced
no evidence of this in 44 years.
Oswald's fascination with Marxism
were stronger than his feelings for
life and family. His delusions of
grandeur allowed him to believe
he deserved a greater stage in
history. Oswald was prone to
violence throughout his life.
He was a cunning individual
who respected nobody and
how better to prove his abilities
than to eliminate the most
powerfulman man in the world.
It's not that complicated.
aeffects
evidently you fail to realize the defense will be presenting a case...
what a concept, eh?
> To believe the CIA would plant one as
> unsophisticated as Oswald in Minsk
> is absurd if one looks at CIA history.
talk about *speculation* ROFLMAO!
<snip>
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
aeffects? While I realize education
and reading go beyond your capa-
bilities, I suggest you have somebody
READ to you the history of the CIA.
With each of your ROFLMAO you
simply show more ignorance.
Gil Jesus
> The murder of JFK becomes a conspiracy when you can establish some
> conspiring. Since the conspiracy mongers can`t show any actual
> conspiring, they keep attempting these "end-arounds".
Wrong Bud. It is not necessary to show conspiring. The murder of JFK
becomes a conspiracy when it is proven that the crime was beyond the
capability of one person, whether that person was Oswald or anyone
else. Once it is proven that the crime could not have been committed
by one person, then there were multiple shooters and thus a
conspiracy.
That was proven long ago.
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 16 Mar, 20:40, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>> "Would you care to share with us how you arrive at the "murder" component of the charge?" <<<
> >
> > 1.) Man takes a gun...
> > 2.) Man points gun at a human being...
> > 3.) Man pulls trigger of gun...
> > 4.) Gun goes off, narrowly missing the human head that was being aimed
> > at.
> >
> > 1-4 = "Attempted Murder".
>
> Wrong......You have not shown that the intent was murder.
>
>
> We will never know what Lee's intention was....... Only he could know
> that.
Obviously, he was trying to unlock Walker`s window for him.
> But your thinking on this subject reflects your bias thinking on the
> entire case. The Walker incident is just a microcosm of how you look
> at the murder of President Kennedy. You start with the idea that
> Oswald is guilty and then close your "mind" to anything that doesn't
> support your preconceived notion.
It does have the benefit of explaining his wife saying he told her
that he made the attempt, without resorting to inventing people to
coercing her into saying it.
> I'm no psychiatrist but I'd say you are a classic case of denial.
Weren`t there photos of Walker`s house and sites in the
surrounding area amongst Oz`s possessions?
YoHarvey
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Wrong Bud. It is not necessary to show conspiring. The murder of JFK
becomes a conspiracy when it is proven that the crime was beyond the
capability of one person, whether that person was Oswald or anyone
else. Once it is proven that the crime could not have been committed
by one person, then there were multiple shooters and thus a
conspiracy.
That was proven long ago.
And there's good Old Gil throwing
around more bullshit. I'll ask the
obvious question KNOWING I
will not get an answer BECAUSE
Gil Jesus NEVER answers questions
about his posts. He truly believes
people are as stupid as he is.
However, Gil please enlighten us
all: Who has PROVEN conspiracy?
The key word is PROVEN. Not
conjecture, not speculation and
please do not insult us with your
typically ignorant theories.
Bud
Jesus, Jesus, if you continue this poor thinking, I`m going to have
to throw you off the case. Many a kook has remarked on what a perfect
shooting location Dealey Plaza is/was. Many a kook has remarked how
dangerous a place Dallas was, filled with JFK enemies (many of whom
didn`t know one another). Ergo (thats not the frozen waffle),
multiptiple shooters do not necessarily mean that those shooters were
connected, or conspired together.
> That was proven long ago.
I know all about the things you folks claim are "proven".
Walt
> Walt wrote:
> > On 16 Mar, 20:40, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >>> "Would you care to share with us how you arrive at the "murder" component of the charge?" <<<
>
> > > 1.) Man takes a gun...
> > > 2.) Man points gun at a human being...
> > > 3.) Man pulls trigger of gun...
> > > 4.) Gun goes off, narrowly missing the human head that was being aimed
> > > at.
>
> > > 1-4 = "Attempted Murder".
>
> > Wrong......You have not shown that the intent was murder.
>
> > We will never know what Lee's intention was....... Only he could know
> > that.
>
> Obviously, he was trying to unlock Walker`s window for him.
>
> > But your thinking on this subject reflects your bias thinking on the
> > entire case. The Walker incident is just a microcosm of how you look
> > at the murder of President Kennedy. You start with the idea that
> > Oswald is guilty and then close your "mind" to anything that doesn't
> > support your preconceived notion.
>
> It does have the benefit of explaining his wife saying he told her
> that he made the attempt, without resorting to inventing people to
> coercing her into saying it.
What he told his wife is irrelevant......He could have been with
another person who actually fired the rifle.
I believe he did fire a bullet through he sash of General Walker's
window but that what he told Marina is NOT proof that he was in fact
the triggerman.
>
> > I'm no psychiatrist but I'd say you are a classic case of denial.
>
> Weren`t there photos of Walker`s house and sites in the
> surrounding area amongst Oz`s possessions?
Yes there was.....I'm not denying that Lee wasn't involved with
Demorhenschildt and Paine in a ruse to make it appear that he had
taken a shot at a very vocal foe of Fidel Castro. As I pointed out
to Pea Brain.... We don't know what his intention was.
Walt
> > Walt
>
> > > Next?.....
>
> > > >>> "And I didn't include Marina's statement for obvious reasons." <<<
>
> > > And those "obvious reasons" would be?
>
> > > >>> "Ok, here's where I end this discussion." <<<
>
> > > Kook.
>
> > > >>> "Have a nice day." <<<
>
Bud
Ah, the "I wasn`t robbing the bank, I just happened to be with the
guy who was robbing the bank" defense. A proven winner.
> I believe he did fire a bullet through he sash of General Walker's
> window but that what he told Marina is NOT proof that he was in fact
> the triggerman.
Of course not. But if Baker says Oz was walking away from him in
one account, and towards him in another, that is seen by kooks as
proof Baker was sent to kill Oz.
> > > I'm no psychiatrist but I'd say you are a classic case of denial.
> >
> > Weren`t there photos of Walker`s house and sites in the
> > surrounding area amongst Oz`s possessions?
>
> Yes there was.....I'm not denying that Lee wasn't involved with
> Demorhenschildt and Paine in a ruse to make it appear that he had
> taken a shot at a very vocal foe of Fidel Castro. As I pointed out
> to Pea Brain.... We don't know what his intention was.
Yah, why couldn`t the WC produce such wild, extraordinary tales of
intrigue? Oh, thats right, they had to back up what they said.
Walt
Hey Dud....... You may find this interesting. The authorities
learned that Lee had been involved in the shooting at the Walker
residence in December of 1963. They got that information from Marina
a couple of weeks after the murder of JFK.
During the questioning of Marina about the walker shooting incident
she told them that Lee ha told her that he buried the rifle
immediately after the shooting and before he returned home that
night.
The FBI had the Mannlicher Carcano rifle in their possion, that had
been found in the TSBD after the murder of President Kennedy. They
said that the rifle they had in their possession was Lee Oswald's
rifle. AFTER they learned that from Marina that Lee said he'd
buried the rifle before he returned home, they went looking for that
rifle. They spent a good part of the summer of 1964 looking for that
buried rifle. QUESTION..... IF they were so certain that the rifle
that had been found in the TSBD which they had in their possession was
in fact Lee Oswald's rifle, why did they spend so much time looking
for Lee Oswald's rifle in 1964???
Walt
Bud
They had pictures of locations in the vicintity of Walker`s house.
It makes sense to go to those locations, to check them out, and see if
they yield any evidence.
> QUESTION..... IF they were so certain that the rifle
> that had been found in the TSBD which they had in their possession was
> in fact Lee Oswald's rifle, why did they spend so much time looking
> for Lee Oswald's rifle in 1964???
You really can`t figure this out? How could they be sure how many
rifles Oz owned? Wasn`t there a rifle for sale in the TSBD a few days
before the assassination? Oz could have bought that one, saved himself
the trouble of sneaking his own in. But, he knew his.
Walt
They had to back up what they said??? Oh, you mean like when Helen
Markham told Mark Lane on a recording that Tippit's killer was
"short", "a little bit heavy" and had "dark bushy hair". And they
had to "BACK UP" ( and punt) and make it look like Helen Markham meant
it was Oswald with his thinning hair and receding hair line which was
messed up by the scuffle in the theater. They had to BACK UP and
make it appear that it was the 5' 9", 140 pound, slender, Oswald with
thinning hair who she saw.
Is that what you meant???
Walt
Walt
DamnedifIknow...... First I heard about a rifle for sale.
I do recall that Roy Truly had three rifles in his office on Wednesday
Nov 20. At least that's what ex-FBI agent James Hosty wrote in his
book, "Assignment Oswald". But I didn't think they were for sale. My
impression was they had just been purchased and Truly and Campbell,
wanted the ex-marine Lee Oswald, to give his expert evaluation of
those rifles. ( pretty sneaky way to try to get a patsy to leave his
finger prints all over a weapon that they intended to plant as a
murder weapon)
Walt