JFK & O.J. Simpson
David Von Pein
JFK AND O.J.:
There are some rather remarkable similarities when comparing the JFK
murder case and the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial -- e.g., so-called
police misconduct, "planting" of gobs of evidence (according to the
loony conspiracy theorists), and the supposed "framing" of an innocent
man for murder.
The following video clip comes from the live TV coverage of the
prosecution's closing arguments at the O.J. Simpson criminal trial in
late September of 1995.
Please take note of the striking similarities that exist between
Marcia Clark's argument about the so-called "planted" bloody glove in
this clip and the conspiracy theory in the JFK murder case regarding
the alleged planting of Warren Commission Exhibit No. 399 (the
Connally stretcher bullet).
You could literally dub over many of Marcia Clark's words in this
video and replace her words with "CE399", and you'd have almost
exactly the same common-sense argument that I (and a lot of other lone-
assassin believers) have made in the past concerning the illogic of
planting Bullet CE399:
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/04/oj-simpson-jfk-similarities.html
"Just like in the O.J. Simpson case, the notion of police
misconduct in the JFK/Tippit cases is totally blown up to massive,
unprovable proportions by people who literally NEED such misconduct to
be taking place in order to have their beloved conspiracy exist." --
David Von Pein; August 7, 2006
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/84689b600ce41d68
bigdog
> JFK AND O.J.:
>
> There are some rather remarkable similarities when comparing the JFK
> murder case and the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial -- e.g., so-called
> police misconduct, "planting" of gobs of evidence (according to the
> loony conspiracy theorists), and the supposed "framing" of an innocent
> man for murder.
>
> The following video clip comes from the live TV coverage of the
> prosecution's closing arguments at the O.J. Simpson criminal trial in
> late September of 1995.
>
> Please take note of the striking similarities that exist between
> Marcia Clark's argument about the so-called "planted" bloody glove in
> this clip and the conspiracy theory in the JFK murder case regarding
> the alleged planting of Warren Commission Exhibit No. 399 (the
> Connally stretcher bullet).
>
> You could literally dub over many of Marcia Clark's words in this
> video and replace her words with "CE399", and you'd have almost
> exactly the same common-sense argument that I (and a lot of other lone-
> assassin believers) have made in the past concerning the illogic of
> planting Bullet CE399:
>
>
> "Just like in the O.J. Simpson case, the notion of police
> misconduct in the JFK/Tippit cases is totally blown up to massive,
> unprovable proportions by people who literally NEED such misconduct to
> be taking place in order to have their beloved conspiracy exist." --
> David Von Pein; August 7, 2006
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/84689b600ce41d68
There are few sure things in life but two that I am absolutely convinced
of beyond any and all doubt is that both LHO and OJ were double murderers
and I don't need a jury's conviction to know that. The evidence against
LHO was so overwhelming that there is little doubt about his conviction.
Unlike OJ who could hire a multi-million dollar dream team of lawyers to
hoodwink a panel of gullible and symptathetic jurors, LHO would not have
had none of those advantages. He might have got some high profile attorney
to take his case because of the noteriety, but he would have easily been
convicted on the merits of the case. In fact, the London TV producers who
staged the mock trial in 1986, got LHO arguably the best trial lawyer of
his day, Jerry Spence, who never lost a jury trial as either a prosecutor
or defense attorney. He was the choice of Amelda Marcos who could have
afforded any lawyer in the country. Even Jerry Spence could not get Oswald
acquitted in the mock trial due to the relentless prosecution by Vincent
Bugliosi.
WhiskyJoe
These claims are standard in many cases:
In the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, wild
arguments are made that Booth did not fire the
fatal shot. Booth got next to Lincoln, but the
fatal shot was actually fired from the audience,
according to the claim.
In the Lindbergh kidnapping case, all sorts of
claims are made that Bruno Hauptmann was framed
by the police. This despite the overwhelming case
against Hauptmann, including:
* Hauptmann tried to pay for gas with a bill from
the ransom money
* all the ransom money was accounted for, $ 15,000
was found on Hauptmann's property and the other
$ 35,000 was lost by Hauptmann in risky investments
* Hauptmann stopped working as a carpenter the day
the $ 50,000 ransom was paid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Hauptmann
**************************************************
This is quite similar to the claims that some
people make that Oswald was totally innocence
despite:
* he immediately left work and the Dealey Plaza
area within 3 minutes after the assassination
* he caught a rare for him, possibly his only,
taxi ride to get home when before the
assassination he wasn't expected to get home
until hours later.
* he was seen within a block and within a minute
of a murder site of a Dallas policeman
* he threw a punch and pulled a gun on another
policeman who walked up to him in a theater.
**************************************************
And, of course, in the RFK assassination, with the
evidence of guilt so overwhelming, people fall back
on the defense of last resort, mind control. There
has never been a murder case in history this defense
could not be utilized.
**************************************************
Anthony Marsh
>
> JFK AND O.J.:
>
>
> There are some rather remarkable similarities when comparing the JFK
> murder case and the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial -- e.g., so-called
> police misconduct, "planting" of gobs of evidence (according to the
> loony conspiracy theorists), and the supposed "framing" of an innocent
> man for murder.
>
> The following video clip comes from the live TV coverage of the
> prosecution's closing arguments at the O.J. Simpson criminal trial in
> late September of 1995.
>
> Please take note of the striking similarities that exist between
> Marcia Clark's argument about the so-called "planted" bloody glove in
> this clip and the conspiracy theory in the JFK murder case regarding
> the alleged planting of Warren Commission Exhibit No. 399 (the
> Connally stretcher bullet).
>
> You could literally dub over many of Marcia Clark's words in this
> video and replace her words with "CE399", and you'd have almost
> exactly the same common-sense argument that I (and a lot of other lone-
> assassin believers) have made in the past concerning the illogic of
> planting Bullet CE399:
>
> http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/04/oj-simpson-jfk-similarities.html
>
>
Why don't you also cite the similarities in perjury and destruction of
evidence?
David Von Pein
>>> "Why don't you also cite the similarities in perjury and destruction
of evidence?" <<<
What "destruction of evidence"?
The only thing "destroyed" in either the OJ or JFK case would be Hosty's
note. And we all know why that note was destroyed...right Tony? Or is
James P. Hosty Jr. of the FBI supposedly one of the conspirators who
rubbed out JFK now?
John McAdams
wrote:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/oj-lho.txt
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
bigdog
Interesting facts about Bruno Hauptmann. I had never studied that case
in much depth. Like those who learned about the JFK assassination from
Oliver Stone, my "knowledge" of the case came from a made for TV movie
in the 1970s in which Anthony Hopkins played Hauptmann. As I recall,
the movie was sympathetic to Hauptmann. I don't remember them trying
to make the case that he was innocent but did try to show some doubt
about the verdict. Based on what you have presented, there seems that
there really wasn't any doubt about it.
Anthony Marsh
I said nothing about Hosty. Just destroying evidence which is embarrassing
does not make someone a shooter or part of the conspiracy to murder. Hosty
ADMITS that he was part of the cover-up after the fact, what he calls (and
I agree) a "benign" cover-up.
Anthony Marsh
>
> These claims are standard in many cases:
>
> In the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, wild
> arguments are made that Booth did not fire the
> fatal shot. Booth got next to Lincoln, but the
> fatal shot was actually fired from the audience,
> according to the claim.
>
I don't remember that claim. Do you know which book it was in? Or did
you just make it up on the spot?
> In the Lindbergh kidnapping case, all sorts of
> claims are made that Bruno Hauptmann was framed
> by the police. This despite the overwhelming case
> against Hauptmann, including:
>
> * Hauptmann tried to pay for gas with a bill from
> the ransom money
>
> * all the ransom money was accounted for, $ 15,000
> was found on Hauptmann's property and the other
> $ 35,000 was lost by Hauptmann in risky investments
>
> * Hauptmann stopped working as a carpenter the day
> the $ 50,000 ransom was paid
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Hauptmann
>
Nothing new. It happens in every high profile case. Various people
confess to the crime or claim they are the Lindbergh baby.
> **************************************************
>
> This is quite similar to the claims that some
> people make that Oswald was totally innocence
> despite:
>
> * he immediately left work and the Dealey Plaza
> area within 3 minutes after the assassination
>
So did others. Are they also guilty? Selection bias.
> * he caught a rare for him, possibly his only,
> taxi ride to get home when before the
> assassination he wasn't expected to get home
> until hours later.
>
Because the bus, his normal mode of transportation, got stuck in
traffic. Duh! Even the WC could figure that one out.
> * he was seen within a block and within a minute
> of a murder site of a Dallas policeman
>
> * he threw a punch and pulled a gun on another
> policeman who walked up to him in a theater.
>
Criminals sometimes do that when the police try to arrest them.
davidemerling
> JFK AND O.J.:
>
> There are some rather remarkable similarities when comparing the JFK
> murder case and the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial -- e.g., so-called
> police misconduct, "planting" of gobs of evidence (according to the
> loony conspiracy theorists), and the supposed "framing" of an innocent
> man for murder.
>
> The following video clip comes from the live TV coverage of the
> prosecution's closing arguments at the O.J. Simpson criminal trial in
> late September of 1995.
>
> Please take note of the striking similarities that exist between
> Marcia Clark's argument about the so-called "planted" bloody glove in
> this clip and the conspiracy theory in the JFK murder case regarding
> the alleged planting of Warren Commission Exhibit No. 399 (the
> Connally stretcher bullet).
>
> You could literally dub over many of Marcia Clark's words in this
> video and replace her words with "CE399", and you'd have almost
> exactly the same common-sense argument that I (and a lot of other lone-
> assassin believers) have made in the past concerning the illogic of
> planting Bullet CE399:
>
>
> "Just like in the O.J. Simpson case, the notion of police
> misconduct in the JFK/Tippit cases is totally blown up to massive,
> unprovable proportions by people who literally NEED such misconduct to
> be taking place in order to have their beloved conspiracy exist." --
> David Von Pein; August 7, 2006
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/84689b600ce41d68
Another similarity between the two cases is that these conspirators went
OVERBOARD to frame somebody. Obviously, any time you are framing an
individual for a crime they did not commit, you do not want the framing to
be discovered. That would completely undo whatever purpose was served by
the framing in the first place. The more evidence you plant, the more
likely one piece of it will be found to be fraudulent. As soon as one
piece is revealed to be planted - it calls into question everything else.
Naturally, a conspirator, planting evidence, only needs to plant enough
evidence to lead the authorities to the patsy. You do not want to overdo
it.
For instance, in the O.J. Simpson case, once you have the victims' blood
in the "patsy's" car - isn't that really enough? What possible explanation
could there be to have BOTH Ron Goldman's and Nicole Simpson's blood in
O.J. Simpson's car? But no! Apparently that was not enough. The
conspirators had to place the blood on Simpson's clothing ... on Simpson's
rug in his house ... they had to plant a glove at the murder scene AND at
his residence ... and they had to enlist the services of the LAPD to plant
and tamper with further evidence.
There was even more mounted against Oswald than in the Simpson case.
Wouldn't planting Oswald's rifle on the 6th floor be enough? But no! They
had to fake a photograph with Oswald holding that rifle - as if the police
couldn't easily figure out that he owned it in the first place. But
apparently ONE faked photograph was not enough. They needed THREE! They
needed to plant shell casings, bullets, bullet fragments, and they had to
fake the autopsy. They had to coerce the members of the investigating
bodies to lie and cover-up.
It's overkill to the extreme!
The only way to make any sense of all this evidence (in both cases) is to
come to the common sense conclusion that the REASON that it is "overkill"
is because the evidence is indicating EXACTLY what it seems to be
indicating - the defendant is truly guilty of the crime. It LOOKS like he
did it because he DID do it!
If you want a good laugh, read Robert Groden's testimony in O.J. Simpson's
civil trial. He was being challenged as a photographic expert. You'll
recall, this is the only "expert" Simpson's attorneys could find who was
willing to take the stand and swear, under oath, that the photographs of
O.J. Simpson wearing those "ugly ass" Bruno Magli shoes was faked - a
common theme with Groden.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/groden1.htm
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
Furhman was not a scientist. He had no way of knowing if any of that blood
would be found and if it could be linked to the victims. For all he knew
it could be Simpson's blood or someone elses. That's why he had to make
sure by planting the glove. And it may have been obvious to everyone
during the trial that he planted the glove to frame Simpson, and it
certainly was obvious to the jury which found him NOT GUILTY, but it
wasn't obvious to the racists who would convict Simpson even without
evidence.
> It's overkill to the extreme!
>
> The only way to make any sense of all this evidence (in both cases) is to
> come to the common sense conclusion that the REASON that it is "overkill"
> is because the evidence is indicating EXACTLY what it seems to be
> indicating - the defendant is truly guilty of the crime. It LOOKS like he
> did it because he DID do it!
>
You don't seem to understand. The defendant is truly guilty of the crime,
but that doesn't stop the cops from planting evidence to make sure that
enough evidence will be found to convict. Our local cops do it all the
time, planting drugs and money on known drug dealers.
WhiskyJoe
>> In the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, wild
>> arguments are made that Booth did not fire the
>> fatal shot. Booth got next to Lincoln, but the
>> fatal shot was actually fired from the audience,
>> according to the claim.
> I don't remember that claim. Do you know which
> book it was in? Or did you just make it up on
> the spot?
Kennedy and Lincoln, Medical & Ballistic Comparisons
of their Assassinations by Dr. John K. Lattimer
Page 44 - Did the Bullet Come from the Wrong Direction?
<quote>
"Since the assassin approached from the President's
right side, according to the testimony of the only
two witnesses, it was puzzling that the wound of
entrance should be on the rear-left side of the
head. This dilemma mystified some of those
concerned with the assassination. There were
cries that it could not have been Booth, that
the shot must have come from the opposite
direction, and that therefore it must have been
a different shooter. This is amazing similar to
the crises of the Kennedy generation of critics
100 years later, that the shot must have come
from the opposite direction from a different
shooter."
<unquote>
Dr. Lattimer goes on to explain a more reasonable explanation, than
Lincoln being shot from the
audience just as Booth got up to point blank
range (I guess Presidential assassinations always
require crossfire, what if the other assassin
missed Lincoln and killed Booth?), was that
Lincoln may have turned his head left, sharply
away from Booth, exposing the back left side of
his head to Booth. At least one witness,
Mr. James P. Ferguson, reported seeing Lincoln
turn his head just as the shot was fired.
Mr. Ferguson was looking at Lincoln instead of
the play because he saw out of the corner of his
eye a man enter the Presidential balcony and he
wondered if it was General Grant. Of course,
it was Booth.
**************************************************
>> This is quite similar to the claims that some
>> people make that Oswald was totally innocence
>> despite:
>> * he immediately left work and the Dealey Plaza
>> area within 3 minutes after the assassination
> So did others. Are they also guilty? Selection bias.
What others?
What are their names?
Were they in the building at the time of the shooting?
Who left the building so quickly?
Who left the area so quickly?
I understand others left the building. No one spent
the rest of their life in the building. But who else
left the Dealey Plaza area immediately, leaving the
scene of a terrible but historical event to go catch
a movie?
>> * he caught a rare for him, possibly his only,
>> taxi ride to get home when before the
>> assassination he wasn't expected to get home
>> until hours later.
> Because the bus, his normal mode of transportation,
> got stuck in traffic. Duh! Even the WC could figure
> that one out.
But why pay for an expensive taxi ride? Why not send
an hour and walk home. He wasn't due back home until
after 5 PM. What was the big rush? Why would the poor
and extremely thirty Oswald pay $ 1.00 to avoid a one
hour walk. He only made $ 1.25 and hour.
WhiskyJoe
> Interesting facts about Bruno Hauptmann. I had
> never studied that case in much depth. Like those
> who learned about the JFK assassination from
> Oliver Stone, my "knowledge" of the case came
> from a made for TV movie in the 1970s in which
> Anthony Hopkins played Hauptmann. As I recall,
> the movie was sympathetic to Hauptmann. I don't
> remember them trying to make the case that he was
> innocent but did try to show some doubt about
> the verdict. Based on what you have presented,
> there seems that there really wasn't any doubt
> about it.
There is always doubt. Nothing is ever know to an
absolute certainty. But if Hauptmann was innocent
then a lot of others, including Hauptmann, did
some strange things.
Movies often take the more dramatic story,
that someone was frame.
Hauptmann's story is that a friend of his,
Isidor Fisch, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isidor_Fisch
without a word, left a shoebox full of $ 15,000
at Hauptmann's home. Hauptmann found this on his
own and started spending the money because Fisch
own him $ 7,000 (!?!).
So the story is, Mr. Fisch was presumably the
real kidnapper.
Mr. Fisch was a friend of Hauptmanns and could
not defend himself because he had died at a
young age.
The Nazi's at the time strongly endorsed this
theory because, while Hauptmann was an "Aryan"
German, Fisch, also from Germany, was Jewish.
This defense was brought up by Hauptmann's defense
and the Prosecution brought over from Germany
Mr. Fisch's family to refute this theory.
As an aside, Wikipedia has a picture of his family
taken when they were temporarily in America during
the trial. The article does not say what happened
to them, but I would guess, they went back to
Germany. If they were not able to emigrate,
they were probably killed in the Holocaust.
**************************************************
Here is a partial list of what unlikely things
people would have to do if Hauptmann was
innocent.
* Fisch was the kidnapper, collected the ransom
money or somehow got a hold of the money.
* Two days after the ransom money was collected,
Hauptmann quits his job as a carpenter and never
works another day in his life again. The timing
was sheer coincidence.
* Weeks later, Fisch visits Hauptmann and without
a word, leaves a box full of $ 15,000 and leaves.
* Fisch returns to Germany where within a year he
dies at the age of 28, of poverty, malnutrition,
and tuberculosis. A fraction of the shoebox money
likely would have saved his life.
* Hauptmann, by accident, stumbles upon the
shoebox at home and starts spending some of
the money.
* After arresting Hauptmann, the police make a
ladder from the wood from Hauptmann's residence
and substitute it for the ladder found at the
kidnapping site.
**************************************************
The "Hauptmann is Innocent" theory requires people
doing a lot of inexplicable things. Like why would
Fisch abandon all his money, return to Germany and
die in poverty?
Of course, as soon as one adopts a more reasonable
theory, "Hauptmann is Guilty", everything makes
sense.
* Fisch returned to Germany broke because he never
had the ransom money. That is why he died in
poverty.
* Hauptmann quit his job because with the ransom
money, he never needed to work again. He made of
stayed on a day or two in case anyone thought it
suspicious he quit the day the ransom was paid.
* The police did not plant the ladder.
The kidnapping ladder really was constructed
from the building Hauptmann lived in.
**************************************************
Similarly the peculiar things Oswald did easily
become explainable once one adopts the correct
theory, "Oswald was Guilty"
* Leaves his work and the site of a terrible but
historical event immediately
* Pays for an expensive, for him, taxi ride
home, when he was not due home for hours and
he could have walked home in an hour.
* Punches and pulls a gun on a policeman who
walked up to him in a theater
> Interesting facts about Bruno Hauptmann. I had
> never studied that case in much depth. Like those
> who learned about the JFK assassination from
> Oliver Stone, my "knowledge" of the case came
> from a made for TV movie in the 1970s in which
> Anthony Hopkins played Hauptmann. As I recall,
> the movie was sympathetic to Hauptmann. I don't
> remember them trying to make the case that he was
> innocent but did try to show some doubt about
> the verdict. Based on what you have presented,
> there seems that there really wasn't any doubt
> about it.
There is always doubt. Nothing is ever know to an
absolute certainty. But if Hauptmann was innocent
then a lot of others, including Hauptmann, did
some strange things.
Movies often take the more dramatic story,
that someone was frame.
Hauptmann's story is that a friend of his,
Isidor Fisch, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isidor_Fisch
without a word, left a shoebox full of $ 15,000
at Hauptmann's home. Hauptmann found this on his
own and started spending the money because Fisch
own him $ 7,000 (!?!).
So the story is, Mr. Fisch was presumably the
real kidnapper.
Mr. Fisch was a friend of Hauptmanns and could
not defend himself because he had died at a
young age.
The Nazi's at the time strongly endorsed this
theory because, while Hauptmann was an "Aryan"
German, Fisch, also from Germany, was Jewish.
This defense was brought up by Hauptmann's defense
and the Prosecution brought over from Germany
Mr. Fisch's family to refute this theory.
As an aside, Wikipedia has a picture of his family
taken when they were temporarily in America during
the trial. The article does not say what happened
to them, but I would guess, they went back to
Germany. If they were not able to emigrate,
they were probably killed in the Holocaust.
**************************************************
Here is a partial list of what unlikely things
people would have to do if Hauptmann was
innocent.
* Fisch was the kidnapper, collected the ransom
money or somehow got a hold of the money.
* Two days after the ransom money was collected,
Hauptmann quits his job as a carpenter and never
works another day in his life again. The timing
was sheer coincidence.
* Weeks later, Fisch visits Hauptmann and without
a word, leaves a box full of $ 15,000 and leaves.
* Fisch returns to Germany where within a year he
dies at the age of 28, of poverty, malnutrition,
and tuberculosis. A fraction of the shoebox money
likely would have saved his life.
* Hauptmann, by accident, stumbles upon the
shoebox at home and starts spending some of
the money.
* After arresting Hauptmann, the police make a
ladder from the wood from Hauptmann's residence
and substitute it for the ladder found at the
kidnapping site.
**************************************************
The "Hauptmann is Innocent" theory requires people
doing a lot of inexplicable things. Like why would
Fisch abandon all his money, return to Germany and
die in poverty?
Of course, as soon as one adopts a more reasonable
theory, "Hauptmann is Guilty", everything makes
sense.
* Fisch returned to Germany broke because he never
had the ransom money. That is why he died in
poverty.
* Hauptmann quit his job because with the ransom
money, he never needed to work again. He made of
stayed on a day or two in case anyone thought it
suspicious he quit the day the ransom was paid.
* The police did not plant the ladder.
The kidnapping ladder really was constructed
from the building Hauptmann lived in.
**************************************************
Similarly the peculiar things Oswald did easily
become explainable once one adopts the correct
theory, "Oswald was Guilty"
* Leaves his work and the site of a terrible but
historical event immediately
* Pays for an expensive, for him, taxi ride
home, when he was not due home for hours and
he could have walked home in an hour.
* Punches and pulls a gun on a policeman who
David Von Pein
>>> "You don't seem to understand. The defendant is truly guilty of the
crime, but that doesn't stop the cops from planting evidence to make sure
that enough evidence will be found to convict. Our local cops do it all
the time, planting drugs and money on known drug dealers." <<<
So, per Tony Marsh, Fuhrman risked his own freedom (and even his life) by
planting evidence, even though such "planting" was totally
unneeded...because O.J. was GUILTY ANYWAY. But Fuhrman somehow KNEW
(evidently) that the real evidence against Simpson wouldn't be nearly
enough to hang him--so he plants a glove to make the GUILTY man seem MORE
GUILTY.
Okay. Whatever floats your yacht, Tony.
But Tony, naturally, totally ignores the FACT that Mark Fuhrman could not
possibly have "planted" that glove at Rockingham....and that's because
FOURTEEN different LAPD officers testified that they saw ONLY ONE GLOVE at
the crime scene BEFORE Fuhrman ever even got there!
But Tony wants to believe (evidently) that ALL FOURTEEN of those cops
lied....or that somehow they all missed seeing a SECOND glove, and Fuhrman
was the only officer to see that second glove at the Bundy crime scene
that night.
Let's now watch as Tony twists and mangles the known evidence to fit his
glove-planting scenario. It's always fun to watch a conspiracist do that,
isn't it?
Anthony Marsh
>
>>>> "You don't seem to understand. The defendant is truly guilty of the
> crime, but that doesn't stop the cops from planting evidence to make sure
> that enough evidence will be found to convict. Our local cops do it all
> the time, planting drugs and money on known drug dealers."<<<
>
> So, per Tony Marsh, Fuhrman risked his own freedom (and even his life) by
> planting evidence, even though such "planting" was totally
How did he risk his own freedom? He was convicted of perjury and he
didn't go to prison or get killed. If OJ Simpson had been convicted,
then maybe Furhman would have been killed.
> unneeded...because O.J. was GUILTY ANYWAY. But Fuhrman somehow KNEW
> (evidently) that the real evidence against Simpson wouldn't be nearly
> enough to hang him--so he plants a glove to make the GUILTY man seem MORE
> GUILTY.
>
He didn't SEE enough evidence and the fact that the jury found Simpson NOT
GUILTY proves my point that they didn't have enough evidence to convict.
> Okay. Whatever floats your yacht, Tony.
>
> But Tony, naturally, totally ignores the FACT that Mark Fuhrman could not
> possibly have "planted" that glove at Rockingham....and that's because
> FOURTEEN different LAPD officers testified that they saw ONLY ONE GLOVE at
> the crime scene BEFORE Fuhrman ever even got there!
>
Cops miss evidence all the time.
> But Tony wants to believe (evidently) that ALL FOURTEEN of those cops
> lied....or that somehow they all missed seeing a SECOND glove, and Fuhrman
> was the only officer to see that second glove at the Bundy crime scene
> that night.
>
Maybe because a detective's job is different than a beat cop's.
Anthony Marsh
>
>>> In the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, wild
>>> arguments are made that Booth did not fire the
>>> fatal shot. Booth got next to Lincoln, but the
>>> fatal shot was actually fired from the audience,
>>> according to the claim.
>
>> I don't remember that claim. Do you know which
>> book it was in? Or did you just make it up on
>> the spot?
>
> of their Assassinations by Dr. John K. Lattimer
>
> Page 44 - Did the Bullet Come from the Wrong Direction?
>
> <quote>
>
> "Since the assassin approached from the President's
> right side, according to the testimony of the only
> two witnesses, it was puzzling that the wound of
> entrance should be on the rear-left side of the
> head. This dilemma mystified some of those
> concerned with the assassination. There were
> cries that it could not have been Booth, that
> the shot must have come from the opposite
> direction, and that therefore it must have been
> a different shooter. This is amazing similar to
> the crises of the Kennedy generation of critics
> 100 years later, that the shot must have come
> from the opposite direction from a different
> shooter."
>
> <unquote>
>
There's nothing in there about audience. You said AUDIENCE. You just made
up audience. BTW, right rear is not the same opposite from left rear as
the JFK case opposite being either from the rear or from the front.
> Dr. Lattimer goes on to explain a more reasonable explanation, than
> Lincoln being shot from the
Dr. Lattimer doesn't say AUDIENCE. YOU made up audience.
Pay attention. We've discussed this thousands of time.
> I understand others left the building. No one spent
> the rest of their life in the building. But who else
> left the Dealey Plaza area immediately, leaving the
> scene of a terrible but historical event to go catch
> a movie?
>
Do you think Oswald's intent was to go to the movies? Silly.
>>> * he caught a rare for him, possibly his only,
>>> taxi ride to get home when before the
>>> assassination he wasn't expected to get home
>>> until hours later.
>
>> Because the bus, his normal mode of transportation,
>> got stuck in traffic. Duh! Even the WC could figure
>> that one out.
>
> But why pay for an expensive taxi ride? Why not send
> an hour and walk home. He wasn't due back home until
Did Oswald ever walk all the way home?
Peter Fokes
O.J. Simpson was an actor in the series.
Here is a snippet from the mini-series on You Tube. Check the 7:30
minute mark ...
OJ sure could run ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HM3OQIW6PE&feature=related
... but ultimately, he couldn't hide.
PF
David Von Pein
Yep. I was right when I said.....
"Let's now watch as Tony twists and mangles the known evidence
to fit his glove-planting scenario. It's always fun to watch a
conspiracist do that, isn't it?"
Thanks, Tony. You're as dependable as a morning sunrise.
Thalia
> JFK AND O.J.:
>
> There are some rather remarkable similarities when comparing the JFK
> murder case and the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial -- e.g., so-called
> police misconduct, "planting" of gobs of evidence (according to the
> loony conspiracy theorists), and the supposed "framing" of an innocent
> man for murder.
>
> The following video clip comes from the live TV coverage of the
> prosecution's closing arguments at the O.J. Simpson criminal trial in
> late September of 1995.
>
> Please take note of the striking similarities that exist between
> Marcia Clark's argument about the so-called "planted" bloody glove in
> this clip and the conspiracy theory in the JFK murder case regarding
> the alleged planting of Warren Commission Exhibit No. 399 (the
> Connally stretcher bullet).
>
> You could literally dub over many of Marcia Clark's words in this
> video and replace her words with "CE399", and you'd have almost
> exactly the same common-sense argument that I (and a lot of other lone-
> assassin believers) have made in the past concerning the illogic of
> planting Bullet CE399:
>
>
> "Just like in the O.J. Simpson case, the notion of police
> misconduct in the JFK/Tippit cases is totally blown up to massive,
> unprovable proportions by people who literally NEED such misconduct to
> be taking place in order to have their beloved conspiracy exist." --
> David Von Pein; August 7, 2006
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/84689b600ce41d68
OJ did it, a truth almost universally acknowledged. You have the oppsitite
with the Kenendy assassination. OJ got off because it was black jury who
had chips on their shoulder about the police.
This muckracking, of trying to compare the assassination of JFK and the
debate surrounding it, to other discredited, corrupt or unsavoury things,
like the OJ trial or the belief in UFO's or the belief the moon landings
were faked, is intellectually dishonest, and a sign of how desperate some
Lone Nutters are becoming.
WhiskyJoe
>> Dr. Lattimer goes on to explain a more
>> reasonable explanation, than Lincoln
> Dr. Lattimer doesn't say AUDIENCE.
> YOU made up audience.
Your right. The theory was not that fatal shot
was fired from the audience. They really meant
the shot was fired from the lone actor on the
stage as he said:
"Don't know the manners of good society, eh?
Well, I guess I know enough to turn you inside
out, old gal — you sockdologizing
old man-trap..."
>> But why pay for an expensive taxi ride?
>> Why not send an hour and walk home.
>> He wasn't due back home until
> Did Oswald ever walk all the way home?
As far as I know, no. If he was on a bus that
was held up in traffic, he would do what most
people would do, just stay on the bus and get
to their destination a little late. Only people
who are in a real hurry get off the bus. But
I don't know why Oswald would be in a real
hurry to get home when a few minutes before he
wasn't scheduled to get home for many more
hours. Unless, it was to insure he beats the
police there so he can pick up something.
davidemerling
To be fair, I believe Von Pein's comparison of the two cases was limited
to the faulty interpretation of the evidence and the contention that a
conspiracy existed in BOTH cases. I think that's fair. Naturally, there
are some significant differences in other regards. But he didn't address
those issues. YOU did.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
bigdog
>
So what make JFK conspiracy theories more credible than the above
mentioned?
Anthony Marsh
>
>>> Dr. Lattimer goes on to explain a more
>>> reasonable explanation, than Lincoln
>>> being shot from the audience, ...
>
>> Dr. Lattimer doesn't say AUDIENCE.
>> YOU made up audience.
>
> Your right. The theory was not that fatal shot
> was fired from the audience. They really meant
> the shot was fired from the lone actor on the
> stage as he said:
>
This argument is not about whether a shot from below was possible. It is
only about the fact that Lattimer did not say AUDIENCE. That is was YOU
who interjected that idea of AUDIENCE to make up a straw man argument that
some conspiracy authors have gone so far as to claim that the shot came
from the audience rather than Booth. No one has. But I personally don't
think any shot from below the balcony could have hit him in the back of
the head while he was watching the play.
> "Don't know the manners of good society, eh?
> Well, I guess I know enough to turn you inside
> out, old gal ? you sockdologizing
> old man-trap..."
>
>>> But why pay for an expensive taxi ride?
>>> Why not send an hour and walk home.
>>> He wasn't due back home until
>
>> Did Oswald ever walk all the way home?
>
> As far as I know, no. If he was on a bus that
> was held up in traffic, he would do what most
> people would do, just stay on the bus and get
> to their destination a little late. Only people
Maybe some people did. Maybe other people also got off the bus. You don't
know. That's the point. Because you are not a researcher.
> who are in a real hurry get off the bus. But
> I don't know why Oswald would be in a real
> hurry to get home when a few minutes before he
> wasn't scheduled to get home for many more
> hours. Unless, it was to insure he beats the
What do you mean scheduled? Oswald had no schedule to meet.
If I have a half day of work, I can either rush home or do some errands
on the way home.
David Von Pein
>>> "This muckracking, of trying to compare the assassination of JFK and
the debate surrounding it, to other discredited, corrupt or unsavoury
things, like the OJ trial or the belief in UFO's or the belief the moon
landings were faked, is intellectually dishonest, and a sign of how
desperate some Lone Nutters are becoming." <<<
Oh, pleeeease! You're dreaming.
I was merely pointing out a FACT, with that fact being: The OJ Simpson
and JFK murder cases have a lot of things in common.
And another point I was making (actually, I guess this was my biggest
"point" of all) is this----
When attempting to defend either killer (OJ and LHO), a person putting on
that defense is forced to ignore or mangle the evidence in each murder
case -- such as pretending all of the evidence was planted and/ or tainted
in some way, which is exactly what the Simpson Scheme Team of lawyers did
in 1995, and it is exactly what the conspiracy kooks of the world do every
day of their lives with respect to Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK
assassination.
So, Thalia, tell me again how my above observations turn me into a
"desperate" LNer?
http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/vincent-bugliosi-vs-oj-simpson.html
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/04/oj-simpson-jfk-similarities.html
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4bb6...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
slice...@comcast.net
What a ridiculous leap. You're doing great, Dave: continue to applaud and
apologize for and gloss over why we don't have all the evidence, then do
whatever you can to protect the incomplete understanding of what happened
that results from not having all the evidence.
Let's also add to the list: pics of LHO at embassies in Mexico City,
select autopsy pics, and Humes' first draft of the autopsy report.
Anthony Marsh
The fact that people like you use a straw man like UFOs to try to
discredit any research.
Thalia
wrote:
Yes cavity, and inside of head, photos of JFK taken to show pathways
of bullets - standard procedure in any bullet death autopsies
David Von Pein
http://Amazon.com/review/R21IRCSNWEZNW6
While rewatching the closing arguments of the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder
trial (as I edit together a massive multi-part series of videos
dealing with those closing arguments by the prosecution and defense),
something interesting occurred to me out of the blue that I had never
thought about before. (At least I think it's kind of interesting
anyway.)
And these observations concerning the O.J. Simpson case (at the link
provided above) could be generally applied in some areas of the JFK
case too -- by asking yourself this:
Is it reasonable to believe that PRE-assassination conspirators as
well as POST-assassination Government and law-enforcement agencies
would have possessed a UNIFIED DESIRE to want to frame the very same
person (Lee Harvey Oswald) for the murders of both JFK and J.D.
Tippit?
Food for thought.
============================================
RELATED LINKS:
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/vincent-bugliosi-vs-oj-simpson.html
http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/04/oj-simpson-jfk-similarities.html
http://YouTube.com/view_play_list?p=3C3290976C7F570A
http://YouTube.com/view_play_list?p=DC859A18EEE7B6EF
============================================
David Von Pein
F.Y.I. note:
My new 100-part O.J. Simpson Trial series is now completed (with 18
hours of courtroom footage):
David Von Pein
I recently discovered something related to the O.J. Simpson murder case
that just goes to prove that even an "expert" on a particular subject can
make a mistake every now and then....
Vincent Bugliosi, who wrote a best-selling book on the Simpson case in
1996, said in many interviews that when O.J. Simpson uttered the words "I
have no idea, man" during his interrogation with Los Angeles police
detectives Philip Vannatter and Tom Lange on June 13, 1994 (the day after
the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman), Simpson was
referring to the injury on his left hand that he earlier admitted he had
cut the previous night.
But when we listen to the actual tape recording of the 6/13/94 interview
with Simpson, or read the written transcript of the interview, it becomes
clear that Simpson is not talking about the cut on his finger when he
answered a question with the words "I have no idea, man".
The previous series of questions during the interview had, indeed, been
focusing on Simpson's bloody finger, but then the questioning took an
abrupt turn, and when Detective Vannatter asked O.J., "What do you think
happened? Do you have any idea?", that question (and Simpson's answer that
followed) obviously had nothing to do with how O.J. cut his finger, but
was concentrated instead on what had happened to cause Simpson's ex-wife
to be murdered the previous night.
Here's more of the exchange in question:
PHILIP VANNATTER -- "What do you think happened? Do you have any idea?"
O.J. SIMPSON -- "I have no idea, man. You guys haven't told me anything. I
have no idea. When you said to my daughter, who said something to me
today, that somebody else might have been involved, I have absolutely no
idea what happened. I don't know how, why or what. But you guys haven't
told me anything. Every time I ask you guys, you say you're going to tell
me in a bit."
VANNATTER -- "Well, we don't know a lot of answers to these questions yet
ourselves, O.J., okay?"
~~~~~~~~~
Previously in the same interview, Simpson does, indeed, feign ignorance
about how he got the cut on his left hand, but Mr. Bugliosi was definitely
wrong when he said in many of his interviews that O.J.'s "I have no idea,
man" statement was referring to the cut on Simpson's finger.
I'm sure there are some conspiracy theorists out there who probably think
Vincent Bugliosi's mistake regarding O.J.'s "I have no idea, man" remark
was a deliberate and malicious lie uttered by Vince in order to
intentionally deceive people. Naturally, being a long-time admirer of the
late Mr. Bugliosi, I would adamantly disagree with any such negative
assessment of Vince's error. And the reason I would so strongly disagree
is....
"I refuse to ever believe that Vincent Bugliosi is (or ever was) an
outright liar. I refuse to believe that Vince would be willing to print
something in one of his books that he KNOWS IS A FLAT-OUT LIE. I will
never believe that kind of thing could ever apply to Mr. Vincent Bugliosi.
Because, in my opinion, Vince is just not cut from that sort of devious
cloth." -- DVP; July 14, 2011
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-bEyazi8WAuaVhSNkgzZmwwakU/view
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1060.html
BOZ
Vannatter: How did you get the injury on your hand?
Simpson: I don't know. The first time, when I was in Chicago and all, but
at the house I was just running around.
Vannatter: How did you do it in Chicago?
Simpson: I broke a glass. One of you guys had just called me, and I was in
the bathroom, and I just kind of went bonkers for a little bit.
Lange: Is that how you cut it?
Simpson: Mmm, it was cut before, but I think I just opened it again, I'm
not sure.
Lange: Do you recall bleeding at all in your truck, in the Bronco?
Simpson: I recall bleeding at my house and then I went to the Bronco. The
last thing I did before I left, when I was rushing, was went and got my
phone out of the Bronco.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/OJSstmnt.html
BOZ
finger that you aren't real clear on. Do you recall having that cut on
your finger the last time you were at Nicole's house?
Simpson: A week ago?
Lange: Yeah.
Simpson: No. It was last night.
Lange: OK, so last night you cut it.
Vannatter: Somewhere after the recital?
Simpson: Somewhere when I was rushing to get out of my house.
Vannatter: OK, after the recital.
Simpson: Yeah.
Vannatter: What do you think happened? Do you have any idea?
Simpson: I have no idea, man. You guys haven't told me anything. I have no
Anthony Marsh
glass on the plane/
> I'm sure there are some conspiracy theorists out there who probably think
> Vincent Bugliosi's mistake regarding O.J.'s "I have no idea, man" remark
> was a deliberate and malicious lie uttered by Vince in order to
> intentionally deceive people. Naturally, being a long-time admirer of the
> late Mr. Bugliosi, I would adamantly disagree with any such negative
> assessment of Vince's error. And the reason I would so strongly disagree
> is....
>
prosecuted guilty people. OJ was guilty, but prosecutorial misconduct
created Reasonable Doubt. You can't convict someone just because you think
he may have committed a crime. You have to prove it beyond a reasonable
doubt.
> "I refuse to ever believe that Vincent Bugliosi is (or ever was) an
> outright liar. I refuse to believe that Vince would be willing to print
That does not make OJ Simpson innocent.
> something in one of his books that he KNOWS IS A FLAT-OUT LIE. I will
> never believe that kind of thing could ever apply to Mr. Vincent Bugliosi.
> Because, in my opinion, Vince is just not cut from that sort of devious
> cloth." -- DVP; July 14, 2011
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-bEyazi8WAuaVhSNkgzZmwwakU/view
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1060.html
>
mainframetech
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-bEyazi8WAuaVhSNkgzZmwwakU/view
>
> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1060.html
a.dea...@gmail.com
a.dea...@gmail.com
a.dea...@gmail.com
school because of affirmative action and the jury did not know what DNA
was.
bigdog
assumptions.
David Von Pein
Which cut? You mean the one he explained as happening when he broke a
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
O.J. Simpson never claimed he broke a glass on the airplane. It was in the
hotel bathroom in Chicago.
David Von Pein
But maybe you were just kidding.
~shrug~
BOZ
Anthony Marsh
Anthony Marsh
BOZ
David Von Pein
David Von Pein
early 2017)....
http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2016/12/dvp-audio-video-master-index.html#The-1995-OJ-Simpson-Murder-Trial