These Two Things Prove Lee Harvey Oswald's Guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt....
David VP
THE NAME OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S KILLER --- "LEE HARVEY OSWALD"!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In late September of 1964, Chief Justice Earl Warren handed a thick
book to President Lyndon B. Johnson at the White House. That heavy tome
was the final "Warren Commission Report" regarding the investigation
into the November 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
The seven-member Warren Commission panel (plus its staff of counsel
members and legal staff), in a nearly ten-month probe into the
circumstances surrounding the murder of JFK, arrived at a conclusion
which has divided America ever since -- they concluded that Lee Harvey
Oswald, by himself, had fired all of the bullets that struck down and
killed President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas.
A vast majority of people vehemently disagree with these WC findings.
I, however, am not a member of that majority. Lee Harvey Oswald was
indeed, in my opinion, the sole gunman that day in Dallas. The physical
evidence (as well as the circumstantial evidence) that is currently in
the official record tells me that Oswald was most certainly the
murderer of America's 35th President.
And when virtually ALL of the hard, PHYSICAL evidence in a criminal
case leans one way and supports one single conclusion, reaching an
opposite conclusion (as most conspiracy theorists have done with
respect to the evidence in the JFK case) -- i.e., that Oswald is
totally INNOCENT of the two murders he was charged with on 11/22/63
(both JFK's and police officer J.D. Tippit's as well) -- defies all
logic and reasoned thinking.
Like most things in life, the John Kennedy murder case can be reduced
(in most areas within it) to common sense and the hard, documented
physical evidence, and we all know where the latter leads -- right
straight into the two guns of one Lee Harvey Oswald (his
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle plus his revolver, the latter which was used
to kill Officer Tippit). Plus, the "common sense" part of that equation
leads directly to Lee Oswald and his weaponry as well. And "common
sense" would tell anybody that Oswald is guilty.
I was thinking recently about the following quote by
author-attorney-LNer Vincent Bugliosi (I think a lot about his
comments, because they make so much "sense" of the "common"
variety).....
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80 percent
of the evidence against him out the window and there would still be
more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole
role in the crime." -- Vince Bugliosi
.....And then, just for the sake of illustrating the validity of the
above-mentioned statement made by Mr. Bugliosi, I went about the task
of tossing out certain pieces of evidence that lead toward Oswald's
guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders.....and I came to the
conclusion, after stripping away several "LHO Is Guilty" items, that
the following two things prove Lee Harvey Oswald guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt (or at least they prove his guilt beyond all of my
personal "reasonable doubt")......
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used
to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John
Connally. (With said weapon being found inside the building where
Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when
both of these men were wounded by rifle fire.)
2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of
employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning
of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the
contents of this package to a co-worker.*
* = As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the
"curtain rods" based on the following:
A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository
after the assassination.
B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his roominghouse
at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just prior to 1:00
PM on the afternoon of the assassination.
A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods"
were in that paper package on 11/22/63.
Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in evidence
but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin.
Now, when you start adding in the wealth of ADDITIONAL physical and
circumstantial evidence against Oswald -- his guilt is then proven not
beyond just a "reasonable" doubt...but it's proven beyond any SPECK of
a doubt.**
** = Things like: Oswald's prints on a paper bag IN THE SNIPER'S NEST;
which was a paper bag that perfectly matches the type of bag that
co-worker Wesley Frazier said Oswald carried into the Depository
building at 8:00 AM on November 22nd. (With a nicely-incriminating
"right palmprint" of Oswald's later discovered by the police in the
VERY SPOT on that bag which equates PERFECTLY with the precise way
Frazier said Oswald carried the bag in his right hand! That's a very
important point, IMO, and is undeniably-strong physical evidence of
Oswald's guilt.)
Plus there are these additional items: Eyewitness Howard Brennan's
positive IDing of Oswald as a gunman in the Sniper's Nest window. ....
The Tippit murder that was unquestionably committed by Oswald. .... The
fingerprints of Oswald located on the rifle, plus his prints located on
multiple boxes DEEP WITHIN THE SNIPER'S NEST. .... Oswald having no
verifiable alibi for the precise time when President Kennedy was being
gunned down on Elm Street at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63. .... Oswald dashing
out of the TSBD at approximately 12:33 PM, just minutes after a U.S.
President had been shot within yards of Oswald's workplace. .... And
Oswald's other lies he told to the police after his arrest (apart from
the obvious large lie re. the curtain rods).
But it all starts with the basic points brought out by #1 and #2 above.
The evidence (and Oswald's OWN words and actions) tell a reasonable
person that Lee H. Oswald was guilty as ever-lovin' sin of two murders
in 1963, and there's nothing any CTer (or anybody else on the planet)
can do or say to change that basic of all facts.
The conspiracists will continue to try to set Oswald free, of course,
like always. But the more a reasonable person examines the evidence
(and applies just a small dose of ordinary common sense to these facts
in evidence), the more hollow, shallow, and inept all those
pro-conspiracy arguments become.
David Von Pein
January 2006
Robert Harris
Since you can't deal with these questions, why don't you pass them on to
Mr. Bugliosi and see if he can do any better, David:-)
1. Why did Clint Hill jump from the followup car, just before the
fatal head wound at 312, and why did he think JFK first reacted at the
same time he leaped?
2. Why did Charles Brehm claim that the President was only "15-20
feet" from him when the first of a series of shots was fired, and that
the limo only travelled "10-12 feet" as three shots were being fired?
3. Why did Bill Greer feel the "concusion" of the second shot as he
was turned to the rear, and then panic and slow the limousine?
4. Why did Kellerman claim to hear the first of "at least" two shots
in a "flurry", as he was turned to the rear?
5. Why did Mrs. Connally think the second shot was fired after she
looked back at JFK, and that she never looked to the rear again, after
hearing that shot?
6. Why did Mrs. Kennedy feel guilty that she allowed Gov. Connally's
shouting to draw her attention away from her husband, so that she
wasn't looking at him (JFK), when the first of two shots was fired?
7. Why did the Warren Commission conclude that "most witnesses" said
the final shots were bunched closely together?
8. Why was it that not even one law enforcement professional testifed
to hearing the first shots being closer together as required by the
Posner and WC theories?
9, Why did SA Hickey, SA Taylor, Hwy Patrolman Wright, and SA Bennett,
all describe hearing two shots *after* events which we can easily see
in the Altgens photo taken at Z255, had not yet happened, when that
photo was snapped?
10. Why did Dr. Luis Alvarez concluded that Abraham Zapruder was
startled by a loud noise at precisely, frame 285?
11. Why did every nonvictim in the Presidential limousine, react at
precisely the same instant that Zapruder did - as confirmed by Larry
Sturdevan, John mcadams, Chad Zimmerman, and by this part of the
Zapruder film:
http://jfkhistory.com/reactions18fps.mov
Robert Harris
In article <1146022520.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
Gerry Simone (O)
the years on this NG.
When the discussion turns to the inconsistency or quality of the evidence,
possible tampering or loss of control in the evidence chain and cover up,
political pressure or bias towards a lone nut assassin, not to mention the
evidence of possibility of other shooters, it throws any notion of a slam
dunk case out the window, imo.
Not to say that what you've recounted is garbage; not at all - it's all good
stuff to incriminate Oswald who's behaviour was suspicious to boot. In fact
David, if I were the prosecution, I'd say the same thing, if not more.
But you make it sound like a slam dunk and objectively speaking, I don't
think it is.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1146022520.0...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Ricky
You do not know this. You know that no curtain rods were taken into
evidence from within the SBD. Some officer may have over looked them
during the search.
>B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his roominghouse
>at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just prior to 1:00
>PM on the afternoon of the assassination.
>
Yes.
But did exit the SBD with them and drop them on the way or leave them
on the bus?
>A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods"
>were in that paper package on 11/22/63.
>
That is not proven.
It does not disprove others were part of a conspiracy even if Oswald
is the only shooter and it does not disprove other shooters.
Spence
would have lasted a week at best. Oz to the gas chamber by 65. Slam
Dunk!
David VP
Are you implying that Oswald brought an innocent package WITH CURTAIN
RODS IN IT on 11/22 AM....then left work with them at 12:33 PM....then
tossed them in a trash dumpster between 411 Elm St. and 1026 N. Beckley
Ave.?
Answer this.......
Why would he do that if the package DID, indeed, have merely innocent
curtain rods in it? Why?
Spence
tomnln
Destroyed Evidence.
"Spence" <rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146139408.3...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ricky
Texas used the electric chair so he would never see the gas chamber.
You have to get your facts rights. Yes Texas was a very different
place due to people and time. I know because I have always lived
here. I also know that it takes time to present the case to a jury.
Do you think you could present all the WC in a week to a jury? The
defense gets to cross examine each witness and that takes time. It
also takes time to pick a jury that is impartial. Jury selection
alone could take a few weeks depending upon the judge. The defense
could also take a few weeks.
The appeal would have taken a few years in state courts and another
few years in the federal courts. Some people spent years (15, 20 and
more) on death row. The Supreme Court banned the death penalty in
about 1969 thus Oswald would be alive today in all probability because
of the mandatory appeals and then the habeas appeals.
Ricky
Yes. He could have tossed or forgot them before he got into the cab
also. If the package did have innocent curtain rods (or some other
innocent item) he did this because he was going home to install them
but lost them in the confusion of the events. It is some thing that
remains unproven and a jury could find it reasonable enough to doubt.
Spence
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
Does admitting the wrongs of man reduce their worth in your eyes? You,
yourself, admit that officials destoyed evidence. What does that make you?
Chad
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:q1g4g.5798$8q.5448@dukeread08...
Dr. Chad Zimmerman
Chad
"Spence" <rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146239185.0...@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On 27 Apr 2006 15:27:14 -0400, "Spence" <rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Texas in 1964 is a very different place than Texas of 2006, the trial
>> would have lasted a week at best. Oz to the gas chamber by 65. Slam
>> Dunk!
>>
> Texas used the electric chair so he would never see the gas chamber.
> You have to get your facts rights. Yes Texas was a very different
> place due to people and time. I know because I have always lived
> here. I also know that it takes time to present the case to a jury.
> Do you think you could present all the WC in a week to a jury? The
> defense gets to cross examine each witness and that takes time. It
> also takes time to pick a jury that is impartial. Jury selection
> alone could take a few weeks depending upon the judge. The defense
> could also take a few weeks.
>
This may be academic, but what if the federal government had taken over
the case? Can a person be tried for the same crime in both a state court
and a federal court? I believe there have been some precedents.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Ricky wrote:
>> On 27 Apr 2006 15:27:14 -0400, "Spence" <rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Texas in 1964 is a very different place than Texas of 2006, the trial
>>> would have lasted a week at best. Oz to the gas chamber by 65. Slam
>>> Dunk!
>>>
>> Texas used the electric chair so he would never see the gas chamber.
>> You have to get your facts rights. Yes Texas was a very different
>> place due to people and time. I know because I have always lived
>> here. I also know that it takes time to present the case to a jury.
>> Do you think you could present all the WC in a week to a jury? The
>> defense gets to cross examine each witness and that takes time. It
>> also takes time to pick a jury that is impartial. Jury selection
>> alone could take a few weeks depending upon the judge. The defense
>> could also take a few weeks.
>>
>
>This may be academic, but what if the federal government had taken over
>the case? Can a person be tried for the same crime in both a state court
>and a federal court? I believe there have been some precedents.
>
Yes, you can be tried by both a state and the Federal government for
the same crime. It seems to be double jeopardy, but in fact the
precedents are long-established.
The cops who beat Rodney King were acquitted in a state trial, and
then convicted in a Federal one.
BUT NOTE: killing the President was not a Federal crime in 1963. So
this doesn't apply to Lee.
.John
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
Left them in the cab?
Spence
in both the State and Fed. I think the Fed charge involved civil
rights.
John McAdams
You are correct about that, but I was talking about the fact that they
were changed by the Feds for the same *act.*
Ricky
McAdams) wrote:
>On 29 Apr 2006 16:39:54 -0400, Anthony Marsh
><anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Ricky wrote:
>>> On 27 Apr 2006 15:27:14 -0400, "Spence" <rob.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Texas in 1964 is a very different place than Texas of 2006, the trial
>>>> would have lasted a week at best. Oz to the gas chamber by 65. Slam
>>>> Dunk!
>>>>
>>> Texas used the electric chair so he would never see the gas chamber.
>>> You have to get your facts rights. Yes Texas was a very different
>>> place due to people and time. I know because I have always lived
>>> here. I also know that it takes time to present the case to a jury.
>>> Do you think you could present all the WC in a week to a jury? The
>>> defense gets to cross examine each witness and that takes time. It
>>> also takes time to pick a jury that is impartial. Jury selection
>>> alone could take a few weeks depending upon the judge. The defense
>>> could also take a few weeks.
>>>
>>
>>This may be academic, but what if the federal government had taken over
>>the case? Can a person be tried for the same crime in both a state court
>>and a federal court? I believe there have been some precedents.
>>
>
>Yes, you can be tried by both a state and the Federal government for
>the same crime. It seems to be double jeopardy, but in fact the
>precedents are long-established.
Wrong you cannot be charged with the same crime in both state and
federal courts. You can be charged with multiple crimes based upon
the same facts.
>The cops who beat Rodney King were acquitted in a state trial, and
>then convicted in a Federal one.
Two different charges. In state court the crime was most likely
assault. In federal court it was violation of civil rights. They
could have been convicted in both and done time for both.
>
>BUT NOTE: killing the President was not a Federal crime in 1963. So
>this doesn't apply to Lee.
>
Unless some type of conspiracy law would make it federal. Today
conspiracy is a major federal crime.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, a distinction without a difference. Someone is acquitted of murder
in a state court and then found guilty of murder in a federal court.
Or conspiracy to murder, not precisely the same thing.
>> The cops who beat Rodney King were acquitted in a state trial, and
>> then convicted in a Federal one.
>
> Two different charges. In state court the crime was most likely
> assault. In federal court it was violation of civil rights. They
> could have been convicted in both and done time for both.
>
Which is what possibly could have happened if Oswald had been found not
guilty in a Texas court.
>> BUT NOTE: killing the President was not a Federal crime in 1963. So
>> this doesn't apply to Lee.
>>
> Unless some type of conspiracy law would make it federal. Today
> conspiracy is a major federal crime.
>
Treason is a federal crime.
Anthony Marsh
Correct, but I believe that if they had tried hard enough they could
have found some law under which to prosecute Oswald in a federal court.
tomnln
Spence admitted "The Authorities" destroyed evidence.
Do you get it Now?
"Dr. Chad Zimmerman" <doc...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:4453...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
jim....@fuse.net
necessary for BOTH the FBI and the CIA to obstruct justice in the
investigations into the assassination of JFK?
Robert Blakey charges the CIA with obstructing justice in this 2003
statement.
(quote)
G. Robert Blakey's 2003 Addendum to this Interview:
I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency
co-operated with the committee. My reasons follow:
The committee focused, among other things, on (1) Oswald, (2) in New
Orleans, (3) in the months before he went to Dallas, and, in
particular, (4) his attempt to infiltrate an anti-Castro group, the
Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil or DRE.
These were crucial issues in the Warren Commission's investigation;
they were crucial issues in the committee's investigation. The Agency
knew it full well in 1964; the Agency knew it full well in 1976-79.
Outrageously, the Agency did not tell the Warren Commission or our
committee that it had financial and other connections with the DRE, a
group that Oswald had direct dealings with!
What contemporaneous reporting is or was in the Agency's DRE files? We
will never know, for the Agency now says that no reporting is in the
existing files. Are we to believe that its files were silent in 1964 or
during our investigation?
I don't believe it for a minute. Money was involved; it had to be
documented. Period. End of story. The files and the Agency agents
connected to the DRE should have been made available to the commission
and the committee. That the information in the files and the agents who
could have supplemented it were not made available to the commission
and the committee amounts to willful obstruction of justice.
Obviously, too, it did not identify the agent who was its contact with
the DRE at the crucial time that Oswald was in contact with it: George
Joannides.
During the relevant period, the committee's chief contact with the
Agency on a day-to-day basis was Scott Breckinridge. (I put aside our
point of contact with the office of chief counsel, Lyle Miller) We sent
researchers to the Agency to request and read documents. The
relationship between our young researchers, law students who came with
me from Cornell, was anything but "happy." Nevertheless, we were
getting and reviewing documents. Breckinridge, however, suggested that
he create a new point of contact person who might "facilitate" the
process of obtaining and reviewing materials. He introduced me to
Joannides, who, he said, he had arranged to bring out of retirement to
help us. He told me that he had experience in finding documents; he
thought he would be of help to us.
I was not told of Joannides' background with the DRE, a focal point of
the investigation. Had I known who he was, he would have been a witness
who would have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the
committee. He would never have been acceptable as a point of contact
with us to retrieve documents. In fact, I have now learned, as I note
above, that Joannides was the point of contact between the Agency and
DRE during the period Oswald was in contact with DRE.
That the Agency would put a "material witness" in as a "filter" between
the committee and its quests for documents was a flat out breach of the
understanding the committee had with the Agency that it would
co-operate with the investigation.
The committee's researchers immediately complained to me that Joannides
was, in fact, not facilitating but obstructing our obtaining of
documents. I contacted Breckinridge and Joannides. Their side of the
story wrote off the complaints to the young age and attitude of the
people.
They were certainly right about one question: the committee's
researchers did not trust the Agency. Indeed, that is precisely why
they were in their positions. We wanted to test the Agency's integrity.
I wrote off the complaints. I was wrong; the researchers were right. I
now believe the process lacked integrity precisely because of
Joannides.
For these reasons, I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an
appropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald.
Anything that the Agency told us that incriminated, in some fashion,
the Agency may well be reliable as far as it goes, but the truth could
well be that it materially understates the matter.
What the Agency did not give us none but those involved in the Agency
can know for sure. I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on
any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to
you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony.
I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any
further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside
the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from
the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the
commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path
in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission
of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.
Significantly, the Warren Commission's conclusion that the agencies of
the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.
We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have
been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to
obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.
Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of
prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its
people. Period. End of story.
I am now in that camp.
(unquote)
Why did the FBI lie about the original stretcher bullet with a "pointed
tip" being the Frazier/FBI-C1-CE399 bullet? And why did the FBI
withhold this secret message about
"Oswald" from the WC investigation?
An FBI AIRTEL dated 11-19-63 contains the following information.
This was sent 2 days before the assassination.
TO: DIRECTOR, FBI (105-82555)
FROM: SAC, WFO (105-37111) (RUC)
LEE HARVEY OSWALD
IS - R
SOBIR
(00:DL)
Re cablegram to Director from Legat, Mexico City,
10/18/63, Captioned "LEE OSWALD, IS - R."
An informant who has furnished reliable information in
the past (documentation - anonymous), advised on 11/18/63, that LEE H.
OSWALD was recently in contact with Consular Office, Soviet Embassy,
Washington, D. C., at which time he related he had recently met with
Comrade Kostin, Soviet Embassy, Mexico City, Mexico. At this time
OSWALD indicated to Soviet Embassy WAC, that he was unable to remain in
Mexico because of Mexican visa restriction of 15 days and that he could
not request a new visa UNLESS HE USED HIS REAL NAME. (emphasis mine)
It would be nice, David, if you could temper your allusions to fact
with more "unofficial" or bona fide evidence because the "official
evidence" you have based your opinions on has a peculiar odor about it,
like something has gone bad in the refrigerator. Regards, Jim
Ricky
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
They could have used firearm identity fraud at the Post Office for
one. This would put him in Federal custody preventing/delaying
execution and delaying State charges.
James K. Olmstead
That's the statue that the FBI used to become involved in the first place.
There are Civil Rights laws that can be used for murder trials in Federal
Court. Murder is a crime for the States....not the USG.
jko
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message news:445408f6...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Spence
Anthony Marsh
> Lee could have been tried under Title 18, section 371, in Federal Court.
>
> That's the statue that the FBI used to become involved in the first place.
> There are Civil Rights laws that can be used for murder trials in Federal
> Court. Murder is a crime for the States....not the USG.
>
Are you saying now or just back then? I believe it was a federal crime
back then in some cases.
James K. Olmstead
took it over.........Title 18, section 371 in 1963 covered the FBI in enterering
the case. JFK's civil rights were violated giving them full power in the murder
investigation and prosecution.
Public Law 89-318 was created to restrict investigation of the evidence by anyone
not approved.....CT's or defense teams.
jko
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:34mdnb7SmcKycMrZ...@comcast.com...
Anthony Marsh
> Years ago a lawyer evaluated how and why the FBI entered the case and
> took it over.........Title 18, section 371 in 1963 covered the FBI in enterering
> the case. JFK's civil rights were violated giving them full power in the murder
> investigation and prosecution.
>
Yes, thanks. I can't say that I think that is the best route, but it is
plausible and gets the job done. I would have preferred treason.