Who shot Tippit?
Walt
was given a paraffin test on both hands and his right cheek to
determine whether or not he had fired a weapon. When a handgun is
fired, the explosion of the gunpowder causes a dispersion of nitrates
on the hand in which it is held.
"dispersion of nitrates ON the hand in which it is held."
Common sense dictates that the gases and unburned powder would be
deposited on the OUTSIDE surface of the hand holding a revolver, when
it is fired. Since there isn't a gas tight seal between the barrel
and the revolving cylinder that holds the cartridges, it's obvious
that the high pressure, hot gases, can escape at the point where the
cylinder joins the barrel.
The joint between the cylinder and barrel is forward and above the
trigger of the revolver.
When a cartridge is fired the escaping gases have a tendency to cling
to the OUTSIDE surfaces of the hand that is pulling the trigger.
When the nitrate tests were performed on Oswald they found traces of
nitrates on the PALM side of his hands and NO nitrates at all on his
face. The tests show that Oswald had not fired either a pistol or a
rifle that day.
The Mannlicher Carcano rifle leaks gas around the bolt when the rifle
is fired. That hot gas blows back and is deposited on the cheek of the
person firing the rifle. The parfin tests performed on Oswald
indicated he had NOT fired a rifle that day.
The parafin tests on Oswald's hands found nitrates on the PALMS of his
hands. It is well known that many everyday items contain nitrates that
can produce a positive reaction on a parafin test. Apparently Oswald
had handled something with the PALMS of his hands that deposited
traces of nitrate on his palms.
The bottom line is:..... The parafin tests indicate that Oswald had
not fired a firearm that day, therefore he was not guilty of either
murder he was accused of.
Walt
lazu...@webtv.net
the preponderance of nitrate traces to be on the palmer side of the
hand, and not on the dorsal as would be expected if he had fired a
handgun recently. As you say, the palmer deposits indicate only that he
may have handled any number of objects at work which contain nitrates,
and possibly even a weapon, but certainly no proof the weapon was
discharged while in his hand.
Old Laz
Bud
Different day, same shit. Nitrates were detected on the back of Oz`s
hands as well. And the witnesses describe Oz removing spent shells
with his hands. I don`t suppose he used the backs of his hands to do
that. The weak premises the kooks latch onto to disregard their
beloved Patsy`s cupability in Tippit`s cold-blooded murder is
sickening. If this link works, it`ll shown the results of the nitrate
testing on Oz`s left hand...
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/03/0317-001.gif
.
> Walt
Walt
HANDS??? The link shows a tiny area of nitrates on Lee's LEFT
hand. He was right handed, so if he had been Tippit's killer the
RIGHT hand should have large deposits from four shots on the dorsal
side of the hand. Do you have the guts to provide a link to the
nitrate tests of Oswald's RIGHT hand?
Walt
>and the witnesses describe Oz removing spent shells
> with his hands. Witnesses DESCRIBE the killer removing spent shells with his FINGERS.
Is there any nitrates on Lee's FINGERS in the nitrate chart?
Walt
I don`t suppose he used the backs of his hands to do
> that.
WOW! A glimmer of commonsense from a kook.
The weak premises the kooks latch onto to disregard their
> beloved Patsy`s cupability in Tippit`s cold-blooded murder is
> sickening.
WEAK??? There are many cases on file where nitrate evidence has
been used sucessfully by both prosecution and defense.
Walt
If this link works, it`ll shown the results of the nitrate
> testing on Oz`s left hand...
>
> http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/03/0317-001.gif
>
> .
>
>
>
> > Walt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt
Hey Dud.... Here's what Dallas's District Attorney said about the
nitrate tests on 11 -23-63
>
> .At a news conference, Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade, while
labelling Oswald a "lone nut", was careful not to incriminate himself
by publicly falsifying the results of the test. He was asked about
the
paraffin test:
Q: What about the paraffin tests ?
A: Yes, I've got paraffin tests that showed he had recently fired a
gun-- it was on both hands.
Q: On both hands ?
A: On both hands.
Q: Recently fired a rifle ?
A: A gun.
The exchange indicates that the press was surprised to find that the
test revealed nitrates on both hands. They correctly surmised that
the gunman would have used only one hand to fire the pistol, so they
couldn't understand how nitrates would be found on both hands..
Also, Wade was asked specifically if the test revealed that Oswald
had used a rifle. His
response indicates that he was selecting his words carefully,
differentiating between a rifle and "a gun" (a pistol).
Are Henry Wades words supported by the nitrate charts of Lee's hands?
Walt
wig...@xit.net
> Walt:
>
> Be fair and admit that regardless of what the paraffin tests showed
> that you'd use that information to your advantage.
>
> If the results came back positive on his cheek(s) you'd find that
> suspicious or claim that there were all sorts of possible explanations
> besides discharging a rifle that could account for the positive
> reading, or you'd find a study quoting how paraffin tests sometimes
> produce false positives.
>
> The tests came back negative for his face/cheek(s), so you use that to
> exonerate him.
>
> The tests showed nitrate residue on his hands, and you use that to
> exonerate him because it doesn't show up where you say it should, or
> because the presence of nitrates was found on BOTH hands.
>
> Isn't that a double standard?
>
> Isn't it possible in your mind that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK
> but that Oswald gunned down this cop? The evidence is really, really
> compelling. Multiple eyewitness accounts from close range, arrested
> with a pistol that is a ballistic match to one of the slugs, left his
> jacket near the murder scene, etc.
>
> I mean, you can pick things apart all day long, but there isn't any
> REASONABLE doubt that LHO gunned down Tippit.
>
> People like you aren't conspiracists. You are unreachables. The bottom
> of the conspiracy barrel. There isn't ANYTHING that would satisfy you.
>
> Do you believe that the US government planted demolition charges in
> the WTC and used a cruise missile, etc. on 9/11?
>
> The reason I ask is because if you DON'T believe in that baloney, you
> should check out some of the sites that debunk 9/11 conspiracy garbage
> and see how similar you sound to those people.
We never landed on the moon either. Although that one is common
knowledge.
Walt
> Walt:
>
> Be fair and admit that regardless of what the paraffin tests showed
> that you'd use that information to your advantage.
I don't blindly accept or reject information like a LNer..... I
evaluate the information.
Unlike a Warren Commission apologist who blindly accepts the Warren
Report as his holy bible I question any information. I KNOW without
a doubt that the DPD created information to FRAME Oswald. I'll admit
that since I KNOW that, I'm biased in favor of Oswald..... I don't
believe it's neccessary to FRAME a truly guilty person. The evidence
should convict him....and in this case it doesn't.
>
> If the results came back positive on his cheek(s) you'd find that
> suspicious or claim that there were all sorts of possible explanations
> besides discharging a rifle that could account for the positive
> reading, or you'd find a study quoting how paraffin tests sometimes
> produce false positives.
>
> The tests came back negative for his face/cheek(s), so you use that to
> exonerate him.
>
> The tests showed nitrate residue on his hands, and you use that to
> exonerate him because it doesn't show up where you say it should, or
> because the presence of nitrates was found on BOTH hands.
>
> Isn't that a double standard?
>
> Isn't it possible in your mind that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK
> but that Oswald gunned down this cop?
In a word....NO!
The evidence is really, really compelling.
Only if you have your head up your ass.
Multiple eyewitness accounts from close range,
Oh, you must be referring to Dom Benavides who said that Tippit's
killer had his hair cut in a totaly different manner than Lee Oswald.
arrested
> with a pistol that is a ballistic match to one of the slugs,
Hmmm... apparently you haven't read your Warren report where Cortland
Cummingham said he fired that pistol many times under laboratory
conditions and wasn't able to retrieve a SINGLE bullet that could be
ballistically traced to that pistol. Cunningham also said that the
bullets he had fired into water and cotton, etc were not effected by
passing through a package of cigarettes, heavy cloth uniform, brass
buttons, bones like the bullets recovered from tippit. He said the
bullets recovered from Tippit's body were badly mutilated. Now,
perhaps you're stupid enough to believe a liar who said he was able to
ballistically trace one bullet from Tippit's body to the pistol, but
commonsense should tell you that if Cunningham couldn't retrieve a
SINGLE bullet under lab conditions, the odds are infinitesimal that
Nicols could match one of those mutilated bullets to that pistol.
left his
> jacket near the murder scene, etc.
The jacket was NOT Oswald's.....
>
> I mean, you can pick things apart all day long, but there isn't any
> REASONABLE doubt that LHO gunned down Tippit.
Oh really..... Tell that to 80% of the American people.
>
> People like you aren't conspiracists. You are unreachables. The bottom
> of the conspiracy barrel. There isn't ANYTHING that would satisfy you.
I'm not gonna take a bite outta a dog turd just because you're eating
it and think it's a tootsie roll.
Walt
Bud
Sure, Walt, I have the guts to produce it, do you have the
integrity to admit your whole premise lacks merit (The funny thing is
that I`m getting this information by goggling people schooling Walt on
this subject as far back as 2002. No matter how often it is done, it
doesn`t seem to take)? Heres the link you request, showing the
nitrates found exactly where you are demanding they should be found,
on the dorsal side of the hand. I suppose this will dispel any
lingering doubts you have about whether Oswald shot Tippit.
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/21/2199-003.gif
If the link doesn`t work, it can be found on the Dallas Police JFK
collection, Box 7, folder 7, item #12.
> Walt
>
> >and the witnesses describe Oz removing spent shells
> > with his hands. Witnesses DESCRIBE the killer removing spent shells with his FINGERS.
> Is there any nitrates on Lee's FINGERS in the nitrate chart?
To pull out the spent shells, he would have to have his hands on
the gun, thus transferring the nitrates onto his palms. To remove the
spent shells from the cylinders he likely used his fingernails to
flick them out (as witnesses described). In any case, your
expectations of what should or should not be found is hardly
scientific.
> Walt
>
>
> I don`t suppose he used the backs of his hands to do
> > that.
>
> WOW! A glimmer of commonsense from a kook.
>
> The weak premises the kooks latch onto to disregard their
> > beloved Patsy`s cupability in Tippit`s cold-blooded murder is
> > sickening.
>
> WEAK??? There are many cases on file where nitrate evidence has
> been used sucessfully by both prosecution and defense.
Not using the weak arguments you are using. You can`t use positive
results of nitrates to indicate Oz didn`t fire a gun.
Bud
You are such an idiot, you shouldn`t even be allowed to look at
this case. That exchange indicates that the prosecuter was careful not
to overstate the evidence.
> They correctly surmised that
> the gunman would have used only one hand to fire the pistol, so they
> couldn't understand how nitrates would be found on both hands..
Funny how the kooks think you can easily have nitrates transferred
by touching cardboard, but not by handling a recently fired handgun.
> Also, Wade was asked specifically if the test revealed that Oswald
> had used a rifle. His
> response indicates that he was selecting his words carefully,
> differentiating between a rifle and "a gun" (a pistol).
Of course he did, because the test does not differentiate between
the two types of weapons, it only indicates the presense of nitrates.
> Are Henry Wades words supported by the nitrate charts of Lee's hands?
Yes, the presense of nitrates can be explained by Oz having fired a
gun.
Walt
Hey Dud..... You'll notice that there is NO nitrates on the dorsal
side of the right hand. There is a trace on the web between the thumb
and first finger and a trace on the cuticle of the right thumb. The
Palm side has far and away more nitrates than the dorsal side....and
that's opposite of what would be found on a person who had fired a
revolver.
Also I'm sure you can find someone who can read so that you will know
that these paraffin tests were taken on SATURDAY 11-23-63. They are
not the ones that were taken at 2:50 PM on FRIDAY 11-22-63
Walt
Walt
And your dreamin if you think the spent shells could have been picked
out with fingernails.....
Bud
On the hand right where the hammer hits the primer.
> The
> Palm side has far and away more nitrates than the dorsal side....and
> that's opposite of what would be found on a person who had fired a
> revolver.
I don`t suppose you can produce an expert who supports your
expectations, can you?
> Also I'm sure you can find someone who can read so that you will know
> that these paraffin tests were taken on SATURDAY 11-23-63. They are
> not the ones that were taken at 2:50 PM on FRIDAY 11-22-63
As if a descrepancy in the record proves anything.
eca...@comcast.net
Oswald as the killer of
Tippit I doubt you will
ever be able to do much
beyond "barking" endlessly
at nothing all night long
like some nutty dog..
My God Man.. Even
hard-core CTist Peter Fokes
(who admittedly has no
conspiracy theory) admits
Oz killed Tippit. It's like
arguing about the 11-22-63
date for Christ's sake!
I feel sorry for ya in a way..
Do you wanna wind up like Ben?
MR <;~{ ED
'
'
'
cdddraftsman
of
enough wiggle room for an out at the last minute . I think LHO washed
his hands thoughally when he went into the theater , before he sat
down
which would of eliminated most of the nitrates on both hands . He was
sure
to concentrate on washing his right hand , but the left hand , he
missed a
portion that was retained . Again the level of nitrates on a persons
hand in
no way indicates fully that he fire a gun . Many things will reproduce
that
effect . They were painting in the building at that time , that would
also
produce a positive result . What makes his guilt beyond a reasonable
doubt
are the 6 witnesses that saw him do it , minus the ones that seek
notority
by going against the grain .............................tl
Walt
Are you try to say that the primer leaks gases when the powder
ignites?? What the hell kinda ammo are you firing? Try again
Dud..... And have you found anybody who can decipher the meaning of
11-23-63 (the date on the nitrate charts that you linked to) You are
aware that the nitrate tests on Lee were performed at 2:50 pm 11 -22-
63 aren't you? Do you know who they tested on 11 -23- 63 ?
Walt
Walt
> Walt if you can't except
> Oswald as the killer of
> Tippit I doubt you will
> ever be able to do much
> beyond "barking" endlessly
> at nothing all night long
> like some nutty dog..
Why should I accept something that I KNOW to be untrue??
>
> My God Man.. Even
> hard-core CTist Peter Fokes
> (who admittedly has no
> conspiracy theory) admits
> Oz killed Tippit.
Oh I see .... I should accept something simply because someother
person accepts it?? Are you serious?
If you and PF believe a dog turd is a tootsie roll, as you happily
chew on it, you think I should also take a bite.... Well forget it,
I'm not going to join you. Just keep on eatin those tootsie
rolls....yer gettin more full of shit everyday.
Walt
Bud
Why don`t you produce the expert who says the pattern of nitrates
found on Oz`s hands are inconsistant with firing a handgun. So far,
I`ve only seen you offer the expectations of an idiot.
> And have you found anybody who can decipher the meaning of
> 11-23-63 (the date on the nitrate charts that you linked to) You are
> aware that the nitrate tests on Lee were performed at 2:50 pm 11 -22-
> 63 aren't you? Do you know who they tested on 11 -23- 63 ?
The took the casts of Oz`s hands on the 22nd. They may not have
completed the test until the following day.
cdddraftsman
Factory that Walt dispenses with such ease
in regards to wild theory's ? Is it true ? :
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=48cqzb7
Walt
Hey Dud......You are a perfect example of a LNer.....You and all
LNer's are too stupid or intellectually lazy to use your own brain.
You are only too willing to allow some "EXPERT" to tell you that
you'lI get burned if you touch a hot stove. I guess I shouldn't be
surprised that you would show your obtuseness in an effort to save
your ego..... However I'd like to know are you really this stupid, or
are you too intellectually lazy to use your own brain.
The concept that the gases and burned powder residues would deposit on
the backside ( dorsal side) of the hands is NOT a very difficult
concept. Even a little kid knows it he holds a cup with his finger
through the ear of the cup under a spray of water, from a water
fawcett, any water that slashes from the spay will deposit on the back
of his hands NOT and not the palms. The same basic idea applies to
the hot gases from the cylinder of a revolver.
Walt
Ben Holmes
eca...@comcast.net says...
>
>Walt if you can't except
(Sorry folks... literacy was never a requirement to believe the WC...)
>Oswald as the killer of
>Tippit I doubt you will
>ever be able to do much
>beyond "barking" endlessly
>at nothing all night long
>like some nutty dog..
>
>My God Man.. Even
>hard-core CTist Peter Fokes
>(who admittedly has no
>conspiracy theory) admits
>Oz killed Tippit.
Peter Fokes is just as welcome as you are to provide the *EVIDENCE* for such a
claim.
>It's like
>arguing about the 11-22-63
>date for Christ's sake!
No, it isn't. The *date* of JFK's murder is an established fact, accepted by
all.
*YOUR* theory, that the WC was correct, is accepted by a small minority of
Americans...
>I feel sorry for ya in a way..
>Do you wanna wind up like Ben?
What... knowledgeable about the evidence?
aeffects
> I hear even Walts dog is tired of the Tootsie Roll
> Factory that Walt dispenses with such ease
> in regards to wild theory's ? Is it true ? :http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=48cqzb7
evidently you and your brother STUMP Eddie laCage are easily
entertained....perhaps you could humor those in Las Vegas by dropping
by for a *tootsie rolling contest*? Say, on the Strip, between
Flamingo and Tropicana -- with your noses of course. SNIFF out some
real action!
Bud
Yah, we should instead rely on the expectations of an idiot (one
who expects the physical descriptions given by witnesses to be
perfectly accurate). How many hundreds of pairs of hands that fired
handguns have you examined the nitrate pattern of, Walt. What exactly
is comon, are they all the same? Please, speak knowledgably about this
issue, or shut up about it.
> I guess I shouldn't be
> surprised that you would show your obtuseness in an effort to save
> your ego..... However I'd like to know are you really this stupid, or
> are you too intellectually lazy to use your own brain.
I do use my brain. I just don`t claim to know what I don`t know,
which is how the nitrate dispersal should look like on a person`s
hands who has fired a handgun. You don`t know either, but assume you
do.
> The concept that the gases and burned powder residues would deposit on
> the backside ( dorsal side) of the hands is NOT a very difficult
> concept.
Also apparently unsupportable by anything other than your
expectations.
> Even a little kid knows it he holds a cup with his finger
> through the ear of the cup under a spray of water, from a water
> fawcett, any water that slashes from the spay will deposit on the back
> of his hands NOT and not the palms. The same basic idea applies to
> the hot gases from the cylinder of a revolver.
Thank you Mr Science. What do you conclude about the toughness of
skin effecting the penetration of nitrates (fingertips are tougher
than the backs of the hands, for instance)? What about the effects of
wear on nitrate deposits on skin, will using your fingertips to
perform tasks effect the nitrate deposits on them? C`mon Walt, give us
the benefit of your expertise in this area.
Walt
Hey Dud Here's what Cortland Cunnungham had to say about yer screwed
up idea.....
To extract empty cartridge cases, the cylinder is swung out and an
ejector rod attached to the cylinder is pushed, simultaneously
ejecting all of the cartridge cases ( and cartridges)in the cylinder.
If both live cartridges and expended cartridge are in the cylinder,
before pushing the ejector rod one can tip and dump the live
cartridges into his hand. The cartridges CASES will not fall out,
because they are lighter than the live cartridges, and when the spent
cartridges were fired they expanded so as to tightly fit the chamber
walls.
My addendum.... If the chamber is dirty or rusty the spent cartridges
will stick very tight and it is very difficult to remove them. Even in
a nice clean cylinder the bulged cases CANNOT be picked out with a
person's fingernails.
Walt
Bud
But what he doesn`t say is that the ejector is the only way to get
spent cartridges from the cylinder.
> My addendum.... If the chamber is dirty or rusty the spent cartridges
> will stick very tight and it is very difficult to remove them. Even in
> a nice clean cylinder the bulged cases CANNOT be picked out with a
> person's fingernails.
When ted posted here, he attested to the fact that shells can be
individually removed by hand from revolvers. Heres is Benavides
testimony about what he observed the gunman do...
Benavides: Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk
and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of
stalled. He didn`t exactly stop. And he threw down one shell and must
have took five or six steps and threw the other shell up, and then he
stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.
Doesn`t sound like he is describing an ejector being used, Walt.
Walt
I don't see how you can make that all inclusive statement...... I
would agree that he doesn't seem to be describing the gunman as
employing the extractor of a S&W .38 revolver. It seems to me that he
is describing the actions of a man removing spent shells from a single
action revolver, like a Ruger or a Colt or a Hi Standard ...... The
spent shells in those revolvers are removed one-at- a- time by
rotating the cylinder and opening a gate on the side of the revolver
to the rear of the cylinder. There is a rod that is pushed toward the
rear of the revolver which is inserted into the chamber containing the
spent shell. The rod contacts the inside of the spent shell and pushes
it out through the open gate where it falls free of the gun.
But sometimes the shell doesn't get pushed completely free of the
cylinder and when that happens the gun can be shaken to dislodge the
shell ot it can be plucked out with the fingers.
Walt
>
> > Walt
>
> > n any case, your
> > > > > > > > expectations of what should or should not be found is hardly
> > > > > > > > scientific.
>
> > > > > > > > > Walt
>
> > > > > > > > > I don`t suppose he used the backs of his hands to do
> > > > > > > > > > that.
>
> > > > > > > > > WOW! A glimmer of commonsense from a kook.
>
> > > > > > > > > The weak premises the kooks latch onto to disregard their
> > > > > > > > > > beloved Patsy`s cupability in Tippit`s cold-blooded murder is
> > > > > > > > > > sickening.
>
> > > > > > > > > WEAK??? There are many cases on file where nitrate evidence has
> > > > > > > > > been used sucessfully by both prosecution and defense.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Walt
I owe you a debt of gratitude for calling my attention to the primers
of the .38 caliber cases that were allegedly found at the tippit
murder scene. I wanted to see if there was any evidence of a primer
rupture on any of the shells. ( A primer rupture could allow
nitrates to be deposited on the web of the thumb) But large blowup
photographs of the shells on page 139 of "The Search For lee Harvey
Oswald" shows that none of the shells have a rutured primer.
However....One of them does not appear to have been fired in the same
gun as the other three. The second cartridge down from the top ( a
Western cartridge ) appears to have been fired in a gun that had a
bigger diameter firing pin than the other three. Furthermore the
other three show that the firing pin struck the primers slightly off
center. If the firing pin divot is rotated so the divot falls on the
upper quadrant of a 12:00 o'clock / six o'clock axis, it's obvious
that firing pin struck in exactly the same place on shells 1,3, and 4.
and the divot occupies about 25 /30 % of the primer surface. Which
indicates that these three shells were probably fired in the same
gun.
Shell #2 however was fired in a pistol that had a bigger diameter
firing pin and that firing pin struck closer to the center of the
primer than the firing pin of the gun that fired shells 1,3, and4.
The bigger diameter firing pin caused a divot that occupies
approximately 60 /65% of the primer surface.
This information fits very well with the DPD official Homicide Report
that said that Tippit was struck THREE times once in the right temple,
once in the right chest, and once in the stomach. It also fits very
well with the testimonies of Benavides Poe and Barnes that there were
only TWO shells found at the scene at the time and a third shell was
brought to the police station by one of the Davis sisters.
Walt
David Von Pein
to begin with....because such tests have been proven to be totally
unreliable when it comes down to determining whether or not a person
fired a gun. Oswald's case is no different.
About the only reason that some police departments even use the
paraffin test at all is to see the reaction of the person being
suspected of the gun crime (i.e., to see if the suspect will balk or
not when it's suggested he undergo such a nitrate test).
Following the JFK assassination, an FBI man fired Oswald's rifle and
was then given a paraffin test. The results -- no sign of any nitrates
on either hand or his cheek....thus proving the total unreliability of
the test.
cdddraftsman
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=2mru0wg
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Hey Dud...I owe you a debt of gratitude for caling my attention to the
shells that were allegedly found at the Tippit shooting scene. I
wanted to see if a primer had ruptured on any of those shells. A
ruptured primer would have deposited nitrates on the web of the thumb
of the hand firing the gun. I found a large clear enlarged photo of
them on page 139 of The Search For lee Harvey Oswald. There is no
indication that any of the primers ruptured but there is evidence that
one of the shells was NOT fired from the same gun as the other three.
The second shell down on the page is a Western case and it appears to
have been fired in a gun that had a bigger diameter firing pin than
the other three cases. Furthermore the divot made by the firing pin
is off center on shells 1,3, and 4. If a line is drawn from the 12:00
o'clock position to the 6:00 o'clock position and the divot on shells
#1, 3, and 4 are placed in the upper quadrant of the circle with the
imiginary line disecting the divot it's obvious that the cases were
all fired from a gun with a firing pin that stuck the primer in the
same place on all three shells. Furthermore the divot occupies
approximately 25 / 30% of the surface of the primer. Conversely the
firing pin divot occupies about 60 / 65% of the primer surface of
shell #2 and that bigger firing pin struck the primer closer to the
center.
This fits very well with the official DPD Homicide Report that said
that Tippit was struck THREE times.
Walt
> > > > > > > > > been used sucessfully by both prosecution and defense.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1170973412.5...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Pages 16-18 of the book "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury" (c.
1973), by David W. Belin, Esq. .....
"Therefore, a POSITIVE reaction to the paraffin test is worthless in
determining whether a suspect has recently fired a weapon." -- David
Belin
Walt
That's not been my experience .... I've fired many Mannlicher
Carcano's and I ALWAYS have felt the powder and hot gases blow back
on my face......
Walt
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1170984511....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Walt
> >>> "CITATION PLEASE?" <<<
>
> Pages 16-18 of the book "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury" (c.
> 1973), by David W. Belin, Esq. .....
Now there's a reliable source.... David Belin the prime author of the
Warren Report, a book which most Americans believe is a crock.....
Walt
David Von Pein
Which must mean, of course, that it (and Belin) definitely ARE
crocks....right kook?
Idiot.
tomnln
NOW, when are you gonna address the lies of officer Baker?>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1170991314.7...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Agent Cortlandt Cunningham. (Is he a liar and/or a worthless source
too?).....
MR. EISENBERG -- "You testified this morning that many common
substances will produce a positive reaction to the nitrate test, so-
called paraffin test. Will the handling of an unclean weapon also
produce a positive reaction?"
MR. CUNNINGHAM -- "Just as much as firing it will. That is what makes
this test so unreliable. Handling a recently-fired weapon that is
covered with residues--you would get just as many oxidizing agents in
the form of nitrates and nitrates on your hands as you would from
firing it...and in some cases more."
MR. EISENBERG -- "If the FBI is having an investigation by itself in a
matter it has primary jurisdiction over, will it use the paraffin
test?"
MR. CUNNINGHAM -- "No; not the paraffin-chemical test."
MR. FORD -- "Is that because of the feeling that it is not as reliable
as it should be?"
MR. CUNNINGHAM -- "It is the feeling that it is definitely not
reliable as to determining whether or not a person has fired a
weapon..."
MR. DULLES -- "You and I with our pipes would be in trouble here,
wouldn't we?"
MR. CUNNINGHAM -- "Yes, sir. ... I would be willing to state right now
if we processed both of your hands you would come up positive, because
invariably pipe smokers stick their finger in the bowl and you would
get a positive reaction. I am a cigar smoker; I also would come up
positive."
MR. RHYNE -- "I take it in sum and substance that these paraffin tests
are practically worthless?"
MR. CUNNINGHAM -- "For the determination of whether or not a person
has fired a weapon."
MR. RHYNE -- "A gun?"
MR. CUNNINGHAM -- "Yes."
Walt
Theses assholes knew that Oswald had no nitrates on his face and that
FACT cleared him of the murder of John Kennedy...... So they tried to
invalidate the test. I've fired many Carcano's and I KNOW that if
Lee had fired that rifle his face would have had a lot of nitrate on
it.
Walt
David Von Pein
Yep. That must be it. Everybody and his butcher were part of the Let's
Get Oswald club....including Cortlandt Cunningham, who lied his ass
off in front of the WC....right kook?
>>> "I've fired many Carcanos and I KNOW that if Lee had fired that rifle his face would have had a lot of nitrate on it." <<<
And after you fired those Carcanos, how many paraffin tests were you
subjected to?
The FBI man who fired C2766 had no nitrates on his face at all. All
lies (again)...right kook?
You kooks are sickening.
"For the most part the persistent rantings of the Warren Commission
critics remind me of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights."
-- Vince B.
Amen, Vince. You oughta log in here once in a while, Vince, and you'll
really hear some idiotic CT barking.
An idiot named Walt even argues stuff that he doesn't even need to
argue at all in order to be right....such as the paraffin thing.
Because the "unreliable" factor makes the paraffin thing a NEUTRAL
issue, with Walt just as correct as myself or Bud or Chuck or anybody
else here.
It's a non-issue completely....with nobody winning. But Walt-Kook will
stamp his feet about the test results anyway.
Goes to show....you can't please kooks.
David Von Pein
---------------------------------
A one-patsy plot featuring more than one gun?
Why would that plan be needed to get the job done?
Did the plotters get lucky when Oswald wouldn't crack?
Or could it be true that Lee really did kill Jack?
The Z-Film, the photos, the gun, and every shell...
Is there ANYTHING in this case that kooks think doesn't smell?
A plot of this size was a pretty big job...
How many were there -- an Army-sized mob?
Is there any coherence to any kook's plots?
I kinda doubt it -- they've got from 4 to 12 shots!
Did Badge Man really fire the head shot that day?
And if he did -- where's the BOH spray?
I have a strong feeling the conspiracy end is near...
Because Bugliosi is coming -- and he's an LNer kooks should fear.
Walt
> >>> "These assholes knew that Oswald had no nitrates on his face and that FACT cleared him of the murder of John Kennedy...so they tried to invalidate the test." <<<
>
> Yep. That must be it. Everybody and his butcher were part of the Let's
> Get Oswald club....including Cortlandt Cunningham, who lied his ass
> off in front of the WC....right kook?
No Dumbass....The "assholes" I was referring to, were the Warren
Commission lawyers, not Cunningham.
If you'll have somebody who can understand what he reads read the
testimony it's obvious that Cunningham is talking about the validity
of the paraffin nitrate tests on a suspects HANDS HANDS.
Cunningham said that many objects contained nitrates that could be
deposited on a suspects HANDS just as a fired pistol would. Therefore
the paraffin tests on a suspects HANDS were useless.
The Warren Commission lawyers tried to invalidate ALL paraffin tests
because they knew that the paraffin nitrate tests on Oswalds FACE were
negative. ( There wasn't a trace of nitrate on Oswald's FACE) I'll
let you fire any of my Carcanos and then we'll test your face to see
if there are any nitrates on it. I'll guarantee you won't need the
test .....When you fire the rifle you'll feel the burned powder on
your face and smell it in your nose.
Walt
Walt
> >>> "These assholes knew that Oswald had no nitrates on his face and that FACT cleared him of the murder of John Kennedy...so they tried to invalidate the test." <<<
>
> Yep. That must be it. Everybody and his butcher were part of the Let's
> Get Oswald club....including Cortlandt Cunningham, who lied his ass
> off in front of the WC....right kook?
>
> >>> "I've fired many Carcanos and I KNOW that if Lee had fired that rifle his face would have had a lot of nitrate on it." <<<
>
> And after you fired those Carcanos, how many paraffin tests were you
> subjected to?
>
> The FBI man who fired C2766 had no nitrates on his face at all. All
> lies (again)...right kook?
>
> You kooks are sickening.
>
> "For the most part the persistent rantings of the Warren Commission
> critics remind me of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights."
> -- Vince B.
>
> Amen, Vince. You oughta log in here once in a while,
Yes you should Vince..... Von Pea Brain needs all the help he can
get. Some how he thinks you're a real heavy weight..... Well let's
see yer stuff... com'n get in the ring. I'm confident I can kick yer
"heavy weight" ass.
Walt
Walt
Love this signature
Ben Holmes
What!! Is DVP starting to be honest???
Ben Holmes
>
>On Feb 9, 7:03 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "These assholes knew that Oswald had no nitrates on his face and that FACT
>>cleared him of the murder of John Kennedy...so they tried to invalidate the
>>test." <<<
>>
>> Yep. That must be it. Everybody and his butcher were part of the Let's
>> Get Oswald club....including Cortlandt Cunningham, who lied his ass
>> off in front of the WC....right kook?
You can't believe what he said... so why pretend?
>>>>> "I've fired many Carcanos and I KNOW that if Lee had fired that rifle his
>>face would have had a lot of nitrate on it." <<<
>>
>> And after you fired those Carcanos, how many paraffin tests were you
>> subjected to?
>>
>> The FBI man who fired C2766 had no nitrates on his face at all. All
>> lies (again)...right kook?
Yep... it is. There were a number of tests done, and *every one of them* showed
"heavy deposits" on the cheeks of those firing the rifle. This information was
simply buried by the Warren Commission, and no LNT'er is willing to admit this.
>> You kooks are sickening.
The truth sickens you? All we are doing is touting the evidence... don't blame
us that the evidence doesn't support your speculations...
>> "For the most part the persistent rantings of the Warren Commission
>> critics remind me of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights."
>> -- Vince B.
Wow! He *has* gone over the deep end.
Walt
I agree.... Benavides seems to be describing the actions of a man
removing spent shells from a western style revolver. A single action
revolver like a Ruger, Hi Standard, Colt. etc has a gate at the rear
of the cylinder on the right hand side of the revolver. This gate is
hinged at the bottom and can be swung open to allow the spent shells
to be removed. When the gate is open a ejector rod can be pushed
toward the rear of the gun . The rod enters the front of the cylinder
and contacts the inside of the empty shell. As the rod continues
toward the rear it pushes the spent shell out of the chamber. At this
point a fresh live round could be inserted into the empty chamber.
Benavides and the two Davis sisters saw the man holding the pistol up
and shaking it while walking and removing empty shells. Their
descriptions are the actions of a man removing spent shells from a
western style revolver NOT a S&W DOUBLE ACTION revolver.
Walt
> > > > > > > > > been used sucessfully by both prosecution and defense.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Walt
> On Feb 8, 4:23 pm, "DavidVonPein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > The entire topic of paraffin/nitrate tests is useless and meaningless
> > to begin with....because such tests have been proven to be totally
> > unreliable when it comes down to determining whether or not a person
> > fired a gun. Oswald's case is no different.
Hmmm.....Perhaps then you can explain why one of the big Kahunas of
the Lone Nut contingent used the nitrate tests to convict Oswald on
11 /23 /63...... Here's what Dallas's District Attorney Henry Wade
said about the nitrate tests on 11 -23-63
> .At a news conference, Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade, while
labelling Oswald a "lone nut", was careful not to incriminate himself
by publicly falsifying the results of the test. He was asked about
the paraffin test:
Q: What about the paraffin tests ?
A: Yes, I've got paraffin tests that showed he had recently fired a
gun-- it was on both hands.
Q: On both hands ?
A: On both hands.
Q: Recently fired a rifle ?
A: A gun.
Now Von Pea Brain......Here's one of your heros using the nitrate
tests to convict Oswald in the minds of the newspaper reporters.
Quote..."I've got paraffin tests that showed he had recently fired a
gun-- it was on both hands." Unquote.
Quite naturally those reporters write their articles based on what A
lying LONE NUTTER said.
Now I want to know which is correct .....You liars have attempted to
spin it both ways, and always the spin is to convict Oswald. If you
think the sap was guilty why do you have to lie?
Walt
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1171034801.3...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Walt says...
> >
> >On Feb 9, 7:03 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "These assholes knew that Oswald had no nitrates on his face and that FACT
> >>cleared him of the murder of John Kennedy...so they tried to invalidate the
> >>test." <<<
> >>
> >> Yep. That must be it. Everybody and his butcher were part of the Let's
> >> Get Oswald club....including Cortlandt Cunningham, who lied his ass
> >> off in front of the WC....right kook?
>
>
> You can't believe what he said... so why pretend?
Typical Ben. Has nothing to say, yet responds anyway.
> >>>>> "I've fired many Carcanos and I KNOW that if Lee had fired that rifle his
> >>face would have had a lot of nitrate on it." <<<
> >>
> >> And after you fired those Carcanos, how many paraffin tests were you
> >> subjected to?
> >>
> >> The FBI man who fired C2766 had no nitrates on his face at all. All
> >> lies (again)...right kook?
>
>
> Yep... it is. There were a number of tests done,
How many?
> and *every one of them* showed
> "heavy deposits" on the cheeks of those firing the rifle.
<snicker> Ben has never seen the results of the testing done, but
somehow "knows" it exists, and can actually quote it.
> This information was
> simply buried by the Warren Commission, and no LNT'er is willing to admit this.
Are you willing to admit that you`ve never seen the results of this
alleged testing? Did the shooters use the iron sights or the scope?
What did Oz use?
> >> You kooks are sickening.
>
>
> The truth sickens you? All we are doing is touting the evidence... don't blame
> us that the evidence doesn't support your speculations...
You even tout evidence you`ve never seen. Even quote it.
> >> "For the most part the persistent rantings of the Warren Commission
> >> critics remind me of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights."
> >> -- Vince B.
>
> Wow! He *has* gone over the deep end.
Don`t you mean "woof-woof"?
Bud
Then you can quote any of those three witnesses saying they say the
gunman holding the pistol up and shaking it, right?
> Their
> descriptions are the actions of a man removing spent shells from a
> western style revolver NOT a S&W DOUBLE ACTION revolver.
>
>
> Walt
>
<SNIP>
David Von Pein
That's right, Walt. Henry Wade did say that stuff .... and Will Fritz
and Jesse Curry uttered similar "Oswald Is Guilty" type comments to
the press on Live TV ("I understand it {the paraffin test} was
positive" -- Curry).
Wade, Fritz, and Curry talked WAY too much in the hallways. I don't
deny that fact. Wade and Fritz, in fact, went way over the top (IMO)
in some of their hallway declarations.
Oswald was, of course, guilty as hell of 2 murders...but for the
Police Chief and the DA to say stuff about the suspect (on 11/22 and
11/23, before any detailed investigation had been completed) like this
is kind of crazy:
"This case is cinched!" -- Will Fritz
"I figure we have enough evidence to convict him." -- Henry Wade
"This is the man who shot the President." -- Henry Wade
Yes, the evidence was overwhelming in favor of the above quotes being
correct. But this kind of hallway talk is probably too bold before the
accused killer goes to trial....which would certainly have made
getting an impartial jury a much more difficult task had Oswald
lived.
I doubt if any potential juror alive would have NOT heard at least one
of the bold assertions of LHO's guilt being spouted on Live TV by
Fritz, Wade, and Curry. Which could easily sway a juror right there to
lean toward conviction. After all, when the lead homicide detective is
telling the world just a day after the murder that "This case is
cinched!" -- it's Katie, bar the door time in a lot of potential
jurors' minds I would think.
IMO, the DPD was definitely over-confident in the DPD hallways....but
that's still a long distance away from their being "crooked" and
"Patsy framers".
Walt
You recognize that they were poisoning the water and yet you're
willing to believe they didn't mean any harm by that act....That's not
rational.
Have you seen a shrink lately?
I may have one big advantage over you.... I don't have to speculate if
the authorties were just merely bring "overconfident" or the were
DELIBERATELY creating evidence to frame oswald. I KNOW with 100%
certainty that they DID in FACT create false evidence to frame
Oswald.
Walt
David Von Pein
Have YOU seen your shrink lately?
You're overdue for an appointment it would seem (via your last
crackpot assertion re. the DPD).
And to think that Walt has passed up the millions he could have raked
in with that new, tell-all book re. the PROOF-POSITIVE Walt-discovered
TRUTH about how the DPD "CREATED FALSE EVIDENCE TO FRAME OSWALD".
Can we expect that revelatory tome fairly soon, Mister Kook? I look
forward to seeing your proof on paper.
tomnln
What they did Above Clinches "DISMISSAL".
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1171065818....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Walt
David, This post is a breath of fresh air.... You actually admit that
the authorities were stacking the deck against Oswald....what
refreshing candor.
Of course you taint it a little by attempting to say that they knew
Oswald was guilty so they had an airtight case against him. The fact
that we are still arguing about the case today is proof that they did
NOT have an air tight case against Oswald.
I suspect that there were actually two plots swirling around in Dallas
that weekend. One of course was the plot that killed JFK. The other
one was the plot by the DPD to cover their asses in a botched up
mess.
I'm sure that many of the cops were livid with rage because they
"believed" that Oswald had shot one of their comrade in arms in cold
blood. They wanted revenge and they didn't want to wait for a trial,
where some sharpie Lawyer might get him off the hook. That's why they
were stacking the deck against him. Since it is a well known fact
that Jack Ruby had close ties with the cops on the DPD, they probably
contacted Ruby to execute Oswald to be sure he paid for the murder of
J.D.Tippit.
The other plot involved Hoover and the murder of John Kennedy. Hoover
knew that JFK was going to be murdered, and after the fact he was
jumpin through his ass trying cover his ass. He didn't want the DPD
to investigate the case for fear they would uncover the truth, so he
pulled out all stops to wrest the investigation away from the DPD, and
interfere as much as possible.
No matter what the actual reasoning of the Dallas authorities was, for
stacking the deck against Oswald, the FACT remains they DID stacked
the deck, just as you have acknowleged. Now after over 40 years we
have uncovered enough of the information that we should have had 40
years ago, to see that the DPD had anything but an open and shut case
against Oswald. THE FACT that the cops stacked the deck really screws
up the case. A researcher can rely on very little of the
"evidence".... because the cops manipulated it. Oswald DID NOT shoot
John Kennedy, but there "MAY" have been a solid case against Oswald in
the Murder of Officer JD Tippit if the cops hadn't screwd it up by
stacking the deck to make him appear to be guilty.
As it now stands I'm convinced that Oswald committed neither crime for
which he was as lynched.
Walt
David Von Pein
They certainly did have an airtight case against LHO....there is no
disputing that (unless you're a...well...you know the word).
Oswald's guns.
Oswald's prints.
Oswald's bullets everywhere.
Oswald's shells everywhere where the killings occurred.
Oswald's lies.
Good God, man, what more do you NEED? A tablet brought down from the
mountains by Moses?!
>>> "The fact that we are still arguing about the case today is proof that they did NOT have an air tight case against Oswald." <<<
It proves no such thing. Oswald was killed. So, no trial. But the
evidence of the bum's guilt isn't going to disappear just because LHO
did. Get real.
If Oswald had gone to trial, this forum likely would not exist at all.
>>> "I'm sure that many of the cops were livid with rage because they "believed" that Oswald had shot one of their comrade in arms in cold blood. They wanted revenge and they didn't want to wait for a trial, where some sharpie Lawyer might get him off the hook." <<<
It looks like you're pulling an "OJ" defense tactic here...implying
the DPD was trying to frame a GUILTY man. Which, of course, is crazy.
If LHO's guilty, the evidence is going to point right at him (and it
does of course), so why the need for a "stacked deck" and/or "frame-
up"?? To frame a GUILTY party??
Cochran, et al, pulled that same shit at the O.J. trial....implying
the LAPD didn't want to lose another "big case", so that's why the
cops went to great lengths to FRAME AN ALREADY-GUILTY SIMPSON (by
planting blood of OJ's where blood ALREADY EXISTED, per the
defendant's OWN MOUTH).
Sound familiar, doesn't it?
The similarity -- In the JFK case, many CT-Kooks think that some photo-
fakers created forged backyard photos when at least one REAL pic of
the same thing already existed. Logical? Or just stupid? The latter is
your best bet. Same with the "planting" of OJ's blood all over the
place...in locations where Simpson already confirmed he was dripping
blood on the night of the 1994 murders.
>>> "Since it is a well known fact that Jack Ruby had close ties with the cops on the DPD, they probably contacted Ruby to execute Oswald to be sure he paid for the murder of J.D.Tippit." <<<
Yeah, after they instructed Jack to cut the "hit" as close as can
be...by making sure Jack was standing in line at a Western Union
office just minutes prior to the lamb being led to slaughter. Right?
(That whole "Western Union" business was just a clever
"ruse"...right?)
Plus, it's always a great idea to have your patsy killed on Live TV in
front of millions. That way, nobody'll suspect the cops of any wrong-
doing.
Plus, it's also a grand idea to hire a hit man to rub out the GUILTY
MAN WHO THE DPD HAVE GOBS OF ACTUAL EVIDENCE AGAINST TO CONVICT HIM IN
A REAL COURT OF LAW. Right, Walt?
Nice use of the word "probably" above too, Walt. That gets you off the
hook entirely. That means you don't have to provide any names of the
crooked cops who had Oz "executed". No details need to be delved
into...because it only "probably" happened that way. Nice.
But you blew it with the bit about the cops attempting to FRAME (then
knock off) a person they knew was guilty in the first place (via
ironclad evidence of his guilt). No "frame-up" needed. Think up
something else.
>>> "The other plot involved Hoover and the murder of John Kennedy. Hoover knew that JFK was going to be murdered..." <<<
Did Hoover have those backyard photos faked too? Was that his crazy
handiwork too?
You should have added a "probably" in here too Walt. In would have
served your unprovable theory in better stead.
>>> "He didn't want the DPD to investigate the case for fear they would uncover the truth..." <<<
What "truth" is that, Walt? That Oswald WAS really guilty of murdering
Tippit, just as the DPD thought? And also guilty of killing the
President...just as the wealth of evidence indicates anyway?
Was Hoover out to FRAME A GUILTY MAN too? Crazy.
>>> "The FACT remains they DID stack the deck, just as you have acknowleged." <<<
LOL. As if I had implied that the STACKED DECK was filled with nothing
but jokers (i.e., FALSE/FAKED evidence against Oswald). I never
implied any such thing.
That deck was stacked with "I'm Guilty As Hell" stuff by OSWALD
HIMSELF, you goof! Nobody else had to stack a damn thing. Oswald might
just as well have been covered in JFK's and Tippit's blood when he was
arrested....his guilt is that obvious.
>>> "A researcher can rely on very little of the "evidence"..." <<<
Kook Logic again. Only the CT-Kookatics think this skewed way. There's
not a shred of proof to back up the notion that the DPD "stacked" the
deck against LHO with FAKE EVIDENCE. You're in CT fantasy
land....where ANY evidence can be tossed aside by merely adding a few
well-chosen allegations and suspicions...just as you've done in this
thread.
But PROVE that the DPD was crooked. Prove it.
Prove to me that James R. Leavelle and J.M. Poe and Gerald Hill and
Glen King and Will Fritz and Jesse Curry and Pat Dean and L.C. Graves,
et al, were part of the STACKED DECK OF FALSE EVIDENCE against Lee H.
Oswald.
Can you do that?
I'd love to see the proof that those guys (and more?) were all members
of the "Let's Get Oswald" club....a man they thought was guilty
ANYHOW! LOL.
>>> "Oswald DID NOT shoot John Kennedy..." <<<
Stand by one.....
<barf break>
.....Ah. Thank you.
Continue the CTer-skewed bullshit now....
>>> "But there "MAY" have been a solid case against Oswald in the murder of JD Tippit..." <<<
Stand by again....I feel another one coming up....
>>> "As it now stands I'm convinced that Oswald committed neither crime..." <<<
As it stands now (via your last two comments), I'm convinced that you,
Walter, are Mark Lane in disguise. (Or James H. Fetzer...not sure
which. But neither one is a good thing.)
Post-closing VB reality check for a kook named Walt (or Mark/
Jim)......
"The evidence of {Oswald's} 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'!!!" --
Vincent "Main Man" Bugliosi
Bud
It`s rational to worry about whether the trial that was never
conducted was tainted? Whenever there is a high profile case, the
media serves the public up a large dose of information, much of it
opinion. Those issues are addressed at jusy selection, when both sides
determine whether a particulat juror is suitable. At this stage of the
game, bringing up trial issues is stupid, because there will not be
one. At this point, it is a historical investigation, and what those
men had do say doesn`t help or hinder determining what occurred.
> Have you seen a shrink lately?
>
> I may have one big advantage over you.... I don't have to speculate if
> the authorties were just merely bring "overconfident" or the were
> DELIBERATELY creating evidence to frame oswald.
Those are instances of opinions being expressed, not false evidence
being presented.
> I KNOW with 100%
> certainty that they DID in FACT create false evidence to frame
> Oswald.
And if you were interviewed back then, and the media decided to go
on air with the opinion you expressed, what then? Any potential juror
who heard that opinion would be tainted (after all, they might not
know you to be the idiot we do) . The fact is that any juror would be
instructed to focus on the information and evidence presented at
trial, and only that. Kooks, for some reason are confident only they
can do this, other people can`t even be trusted to take part in line-
ups to identify murderers they saw.
> Walt
Walt
If you can pull yer head outta yer ass long enough to go to the
library and get a book entitled "Adams vs Texas" I think it will help
you get the shit outta yer eyes.
Walt
Walt
Oh you didn't.....Then who posted this??..................
Quote..."I've got paraffin tests that showed he had recently fired a
gun -- it was on both hands." Unquote." <<<
That's right, Walt. Henry Wade did say that stuff .... and Will Fritz
and Jesse Curry uttered similar "Oswald Is Guilty" type comments to
the press on Live TV ("I understand it {the paraffin test} was
positive" -- Curry).
Wade, Fritz, and Curry talked WAY too much in the hallways. I don't
deny that fact. Wade and Fritz, in fact, went way over the top (IMO)
in some of their hallway declarations.
"This case is cinched!" -- Will Fritz
"I figure we have enough evidence to convict him." -- Henry Wade
"This is the man who shot the President." -- Henry Wade
>
eca...@comcast.net
and why you know Oswald
didn't kill Tippit. And don't
come with a sh*t load of
questions ST, questions
are not *evidence*
Ed
On Feb 7, 8:27 pm, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 6:06 pm, ecag...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > Walt if you can't except
> > Oswald as the killer of
> > Tippit I doubt you will
> > ever be able to do much
> > beyond "barking" endlessly
> > at nothing all night long
> > like some nutty dog..
>
> Why should I accept something that I KNOW to be untrue??
>
>
>
> > My God Man.. Even
> > hard-core CTist Peter Fokes
> > (who admittedly has no
> > conspiracy theory) admits
> > Oz killed Tippit.
>
> Oh I see .... I should accept something simply because someother
> person accepts it?? Are you serious?
>
> If you and PF believe a dog turd is a tootsie roll, as you happily
> chew on it, you think I should also take a bite.... Well forget it,
> I'm not going to join you. Just keep on eatin those tootsie
> rolls....yer gettin more full of shit everyday.
>
> Walt
>
> It's like
>
>
>
> > arguing about the 11-22-63
> > date for Christ's sake!
>
> > I feel sorry for ya in a way..
> > Do you wanna wind up like Ben?
>
> > MR <;~{ ED
> > '
> > '
> > '
> > > On the hand right where the hammer hits the primer.
>
> > > > The
> > > > Palm side has far and away more nitrates than the dorsal side....and
> > > > that's opposite of what would be found on a person who had fired a
> > > > revolver.
>
> > > I don`t suppose you can produce an expert who supports your
> > > expectations, can you?
>
> > > > Also I'm sure you can find someone who can read so that you will know
> > > > that these paraffin tests were taken on SATURDAY 11-23-63. They are
> > > > not the ones that were taken at 2:50 PM on FRIDAY 11-22-63
>
> > > As if a descrepancy in the record proves anything.
>
> > > > Walt
>
> > > > > http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/21/2199-003.gif
>
> > > > > If the link doesn`t work, it can be found on the Dallas Police JFK
> > > > > collection, Box 7, folder 7, item #12.
>
> > > > > > Walt
>
> > > > > > >and the witnesses describe Oz removing spent shells
> > > > > > > with his hands. Witnesses DESCRIBE the killer removing spent shells with his FINGERS.
> > > > > > Is there any nitrates on Lee's FINGERS in the nitrate chart?
>
> > > > > To pull out the spent shells, he would have to have his hands on
> > > > > the gun, thus transferring the nitrates onto his palms. To remove the
> > > > > spent shells from the cylinders he likely used his fingernails to
> > > > > flick them out (as witnesses described). In any case, your
> > > > > expectations of what should or should not be found is hardly
> > > > > scientific.
>
> > > > > > Walt
>
> > > > > > I don`t suppose he used the backs of his hands to do
> > > > > > > that.
>
> > > > > > WOW! A glimmer of commonsense from a kook.
>
> > > > > > The weak premises the kooks latch onto to disregard their
> > > > > > > beloved Patsy`s cupability in Tippit`s cold-blooded murder is
> > > > > > > sickening.
>
> > > > > > WEAK??? There are many cases on file where nitrate evidence has
> > > > > > been used sucessfully by both prosecution and defense.
>
> > > > > Not using the weak arguments you are using. You can`t use positive
> > > > > results of nitrates to indicate Oz didn`t fire a gun.
>
> > > > > > Walt
> > > > > > If this link works, it`ll shown the results of the nitrate
> > > > > > > testing on Oz`s left hand...
>
> > > > > > > http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/03/0317-001.gif
>
> > > > > > > .
>
> > > > > > > > Walt- Hide quoted text -
Ben Holmes
eca...@comcast.net says...
>
>Okay Sperm Tank, tell us how
>and why you know Oswald
>didn't kill Tippit. And don't
>come with a sh*t load of
>questions ST, questions
>are not *evidence*
>
>Ed
Eddie... first you have to lay out a reasonable case that your favorite suspect
did the crime. You can't even *put him at the scene* when it happened.
Why are questions concerning the EVIDENCE so frightening to you?
eca...@comcast.net
that Oswald didn't do it and I ask
how he knows that and then you
butt-in with a typical air-head
Holmes contribution of asking me
to first put Oz at the scene!! (?!)
>>Ben you are incoherent<<
For God's sake Ben are you
really this *stewpit* or do you
just have trouble keeping up
with others?
Perhaps you should consider
being a professional gutless
coward.. I think you've got the
right stuff. Gaawwd Ben, you
are dumb as a fence post.
MR ;~D
On Feb 10, 10:09 pm, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
> In article <1171159122.967449.19...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> ecag...@comcast.net says...
Ben Holmes
eca...@comcast.net says...
>
>Ben you moron.
It's not *I* who couldn't answer this... here it is again:
Eddie... first you have to lay out a reasonable case that your favorite
suspect did the crime. You can't even *put him at the scene* when it
happened.
Why are questions concerning the EVIDENCE so frightening to you?
>Walt makes a claim
>that Oswald didn't do it and I ask
>how he knows that and then you
>butt-in with a typical air-head
>Holmes contribution of asking me
>to first put Oz at the scene!! (?!)
Yep... what a moron! Asking someone to prove their assertion...
Sadly, you typify the kooks that run around and defend the WCR.
You presume, you don't understand the evidence, and when it's pointed out to
you, you run screaming in the opposite direction.
>>>Ben you are incoherent<<
>
>For God's sake Ben are you
>really this *stewpit* or do you
>just have trouble keeping up
>with others?
Literacy problems, Eddie?
"trouble keeping up..." I seem to recall responding to all 35 of your reasons -
which postdate (you *do* understand the term "postdate", right?) my 35
Questions... in a single post.
If someone is having troubles "keeping up", you'll probably find him by looking
in the mirror.
>Perhaps you should consider
>being a professional gutless
>coward..
I think you have that profession locked down quite well, Eddie. After all,
you've *STILL* never answered even half of the 35 "reasons" rebuttals - nor have
you ever personally answered even *one* of the 35 questions.
>I think you've got the
>right stuff.
Oh? Don't you think you should illustrate just *where* I've demonstrated
cowardice first, Eddie?
Or is this another Warren Commission... you know, decide on the facts, then lie
about the evidence?
>Gaawwd Ben, you
>are dumb as a fence post.
Considering that I provide the evidence that you can't respond to, I wonder what
that would make you?
>MR ;~D
I noticed that you've had nothing to say after I posted the 12th item that you
DID NOT answer... you can do simple math... why not simply admit that you lied
about responding to 24 of the 35 items, Eddie?
Lurkers really *aren't* stupid Eddie... they can read just as well (if not
considerably better) than you.
aeffects
> Ben you moron. Walt makes a claim
> that Oswald didn't do it and I ask
> how he knows that and then you
> butt-in with a typical air-head
> Holmes contribution of asking me
> to first put Oz at the scene!! (?!)
>
> >>Ben you are incoherent<<
>
> For God's sake Ben are you
> really this *stewpit* or do you
> just have trouble keeping up
> with others?
>
> Perhaps you should consider
> being a professional gutless
> coward.. I think you've got the
> right stuff. Gaawwd Ben, you
> are dumb as a fence post.
Gaw'd I just love having you here.... never in the course of .acj
events has anyone displayed ignorance of this case like you. One can
cut Von Pein some slack, he's just plain impressionable, gullible and
stupid, you on the other hand raise the term ignorant to new heights.
I annoit you Mr. Diddley~~, the 2007, Lone Nutter-poster child ! ! !
David Von Pein
None of the DVP quotes you posted there imply that I thought the DPD
was "stacking Oswald's deck with false/fake evidence". You're a nut if
you think they do imply that.
The paraffin test WAS positive (on LHO's hands) -- therefore that was
certainly not a LIE by the DPD/Wade.
Oswald's prints WERE on the rifle -- so that's not a LIE by the DPD.
Tell Groden and Fetzer to roll over so you can get out of bed....and
then try again.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <1171159122....@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> eca...@comcast.net says...
> >
> >Okay Sperm Tank, tell us how
> >and why you know Oswald
> >didn't kill Tippit. And don't
> >come with a sh*t load of
> >questions ST, questions
> >are not *evidence*
> >
> >Ed
>
> Eddie... first you have to lay out a reasonable case that your favorite suspect
> did the crime. You can't even *put him at the scene* when it happened.
The witnesses to Tippit being killed do that.
> Why are questions concerning the EVIDENCE so frightening to you?
Why are you so unable to view the evidence in a reasonable manner?
<SNIP>
Walt
> >>> "Oh you didn't? Then who posted this??....." <<<
>
> None of the DVP quotes you posted there imply that I thought the DPD
> was "stacking Oswald's deck with false/fake evidence". You're a nut if
> you think they do imply that.
>
> The paraffin test WAS positive (on LHO's hands) -- therefore that was
> certainly not a LIE by the DPD/Wade.
Looking at the paraffin cast of Oswald's right hand it's apparent that
Lee had a TRACE of nitrate on his hand, most of ot was on the palm
side ( where he might have gotten it by picking up a newspaper with
ink on it.) The dorsal side of his hand sjould have had a lot of
nitrate on it if he had fired that old worn short barreled pistol.
There is very little on the dorsal side of his hand and NONE where it
would be expected to be. ( The biggest deposits should have been on
the dorsal side of the trigger finger.) So Henry wade was
lying.....
>
> Oswald's prints WERE on the rifle -- so that's not a LIE by the DPD.
LEARN the FACTS.... The partial prints on the rifle were NEVER NEVER
NEVER identified and they most certainly were NOT NOT identified as
Lee Oswald's by 8"00 o'clock saturday morning.
Henry Wade was lying and framing Oswald!!
Is it necessary to frame a guilty person??
Walt
David Von Pein
That's exactly what I asked you earlier? Didn't you read that
post....where I explained how I was a tad confused as to whether you
truly thought the DPD thought LHO was guilty or innocent?
Walt
Duh.... The POINT is... If Oswald had been guilty there would have
been no reason for the District Attorney to give false information to
the press.
Henry wade was lying to make Oswald "APPEAR" to be guilty by telling
the whole wide world ( through the newspapers)that Oswald's
fingerprints had been found on the rifle, Which was a LIE, and his
hands were covered with nitrate from firing a gun, which was TWO lies
in one statement. His hand had a trace of nitrate on it and it was
NOT from firing a gun.
I know yer a pea brain,But even you should be able to comprehend Henry
Wades intention.
Walt
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1171202617.6...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Walt
> Walt:Read my comment on the cartridge cases. All were I.D.'ed as being from
Oswald's weapon to the exclusion of all others. How do you address
that?
Are you serious, Chuck?? ..... Haven't you read yer bible, the Warren
report?
The W.R. tells us that both J.M. Poe and Pete Barnes marked TWO spent
cases at the scene of Tippit's murder. Dom Benavides had watched the
killer remove the shells from his gun as he left the scene, so he knew
wxactly where to look for those spent shells. When he found them he
put them in an empty Winston cigarette package. When the DPD
dectectives arrived on the scene he tried to give the those TWO shells
to Gerald Hill, but Hill suspictiously wouldn't take them. He told
officer JM Poe to take the shells and be sure to mark them for ID
purposes. Poe did that and then tried to give them to Hill, but Hill
told him in order to keep the chain of possession as small as possible
he should give them directly to Pete Barnes the evidence custodial
officer. Barnes received TWO shells from Benevides and he marked them
with the letter"B". When the Warren Commission presented FOUR shells
that were allegedly found at the scene and asked both Joe Poe and Pete
Barnes ( in separate sessions) if they could verify that they were in
FACT the shells that had been recovered, neither of them could find
thir initials on those shells. Ergo....The original shells that
didn't match Oswald's pistol were swaooed for shells that had been
fired in his pistol.
Walt
>
> Be fair and admit that regardless of what the paraffin tests showed
> that you'd use that information to your advantage.
>
> If the results came back positive on his cheek(s) you'd find that
> suspicious or claim that there were all sorts of possible explanations
> besides discharging a rifle that could account for the positive
> reading, or you'd find a study quoting how paraffin tests sometimes
> produce false positives.
>
> The tests came back negative for his face/cheek(s), so you use that to
> exonerate him.
>
> The tests showed nitrate residue on his hands, and you use that to
> exonerate him because it doesn't show up where you say it should, or
> because the presence of nitrates was found on BOTH hands.
>
> Isn't that a double standard?
>
> Isn't it possible in your mind that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK
> but that Oswald gunned down this cop? The evidence is really, really
> compelling. Multiple eyewitness accounts from close range, arrested
> with a pistol that is a ballistic match to one of the slugs, left his
> jacket near the murder scene, etc.
>
> I mean, you can pick things apart all day long, but there isn't any
> REASONABLE doubt that LHO gunned downTippit.
>
> People like you aren't conspiracists. You are unreachables. The bottom
> of the conspiracy barrel. There isn't ANYTHING that would satisfy you.
>
> Do you believe that the US government planted demolition charges in
> the WTC and used a cruise missile, etc. on 9/11?
>
> The reason I ask is because if you DON'T believe in that baloney, you
> should check out some of the sites that debunk 9/11 conspiracy garbage
> and see how similar you sound to those people.
wig...@xit.net
Walt, clear chain of possession on Q75 & Q76 with markings by Dhority
& Brown. When the "swaooed" occurred what happened with these two
shells?
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry aboput the typo.... that word should be swapped....
There's no clear chain of evidence for those spent shells....Poe and
Barnes both marked the TWO spent shells that Benavides gave to Poe.
The other TWO shells were allegedly brought to the police station by
Barbara and Virginia Davis late that afternoon. ( Who knows where
they came from)
Domingo Benavides, Joe Poe , and Pete Barnes all said that there were
only TWO spent shells in that Winston cigarette package. But Gerald
Hill attempted to say there was THREE and he never had possession of
the shells. If there was THREE as Hill claimed and the Davis sisters
brought two more shells to the police station that's a total of
FIVE..... But the Warren Commission allegedly only had FOUR.
The Official Homicide report on J.D. Tippit makes it very clear that
Tippit was hit by a total of TRHEE bullets... The report was
substantiated by a report by Captain Glenn King on April 24 1964 when
he told newspaper reporters that Tippit had been hit by THREE
bullets.Vol XX ppg 465
If you don't smell something fishy ....perhaps you need your olfactory
glands checked.
And since they are close to the brain have the doc see if yours is
still there?
wig...@xit.net
scene & marked the shell with his initials. 4th shell found by
Virginia Davis ten minutes after DPD left the scene. Was picked up by
Brown & Dhority at 7:00 P.M. and was marked by both officers at the
scene. Davis's were at that time brought in to the DPD & made
positive ID of LHO from lineup.
>
> Domingo Benavides, Joe Poe , and Pete Barnes all said that there were
> only TWO spent shells in that Winston cigarette package. But Gerald
> Hill attempted to say there was THREE and he never had possession of
> the shells. If there was THREE as Hill claimed and the Davis sisters
> brought two more shells to the police station that's a total of
> FIVE..... But the Warren Commission allegedly only had FOUR.
>
> The Official Homicide report on J.D. Tippit makes it very clear that
> Tippit was hit by a total of TRHEE bullets... The report was
> substantiated by a report by Captain Glenn King on April 24 1964 when
> he told newspaper reporters that Tippit had been hit by THREE
> bullets.Vol XX ppg 465
Actually, nothing fishy. Tippit was hit by four .38 slugs. Of the
four, three slugs were removed from the body. The fourth, hit a shirt
button & was deflected just under the skin surface. The autopsy
facesheet signed by Dr. Rose confirms the four injuries that Tippit
received.
>
> If you don't smell something fishy ....perhaps you need your olfactory
> glands checked.
> And since they are close to the brain have the doc see if yours is
> still there?
Walt, thanks for the concern but I'm doing fine.
Walt
>
> Walt
> > If you don't smell something fishy ....perhaps you need your olfactory
> > glands checked.
> > And since they are close to the brain have the doc see if yours is
> > still there?
>
Walt
Really?.Then you won't have any trouble posting verification for your
claim, will you?
Dhority is only mentioned in the W.R. in conjunction with moving the
police car at the time Oswald was murdered.
He's also listed on DPD official witness list as some one who could
verify that a bus transfer had been in Oswald's pocket, and someone
who was at the line up that Whaley saw, and he took 3 spent 6.5 rifle
shells to crime lab.....and a few other items but there isn't anything
about him receiving any spent .38 caliber shells from either of the
Davis girls....If he had received those spent shells from Barbara
Davis don't you think that would have ranked higher in importance than
the bus transfer in Oswald's pocket??
Walt
When the "swaooed" occurred what happened with these two
tomnln
Virginai Davis' phone number was found in Jack Ruby's note book.
Virginia's number is on page 562 of Volume XIX
Jack's note book is on page 65 of Volume XIX
<wig...@xit.net> wrote in message
news:1171323795.9...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Walt
> On Feb 7, 5:27 pm, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Walt wrote:
> > > On Feb 7, 4:27 pm, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 7, 12:32 pm, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > RIGHT hand should have large deposits from four shots on the dorsal
> > > > > side of the hand. Do you have the guts to provide a link to the
> > > > > nitrate tests of Oswald's RIGHT hand?
>
> > > > Sure, Walt, I have the guts to produce it, do you have the
> > > > integrity to admit your whole premise lacks merit (The funny thing is
> > > > that I`m getting this information by goggling people schooling Walt on
> > > > this subject as far back as 2002. No matter how often it is done, it
> > > > doesn`t seem to take)? Heres the link you request, showing the
> > > > nitrates found exactly where you are demanding they should be found,
> > > > on the dorsal side of the hand. I suppose this will dispel any
> > > > lingering doubts you have about whether OswaldshotTippit.
>
> > > Hey Dud..... You'll notice that there is NO nitrates on the dorsal
> > > side of the right hand. There is a trace on the web between the thumb
> > > and first finger and a trace on the cuticle of the right thumb.
>
> > On the hand right where the hammer hits the primer.
>
> of the .38 caliber cases that were allegedly found at thetippit
> murder scene. I wanted to see if there was any evidence of a primer
> rupture on any of the shells. ( A primer rupture could allow
> nitrates to be deposited on the web of the thumb) But large blowup
> photographs of the shells on page 139 of "The Search For lee Harvey
> Oswald" shows that none of the shells have a rutured primer.
> However....One of them does not appear to have been fired in the same
> gun as the other three. The second cartridge down from the top ( a
> Western cartridge ) appears to have been fired in a gun that had a
> bigger diameter firing pin than the other three. Furthermore the
> other three show that the firing pin struck the primers slightly off
> center. If the firing pin divot is rotated so the divot falls on the
> upper quadrant of a 12:00 o'clock / six o'clock axis, it's obvious
> that firing pin struck in exactly the same place on shells 1,3, and 4.
> and the divot occupies about 25 /30 % of the primer surface. Which
> indicates that these three shells were probably fired in the same
> gun.
>
> Shell #2 however was fired in a pistol that had a bigger diameter
> firing pin and that firing pin struck closer to the center of the
> primer than the firing pin of the gun that fired shells 1,3, and4.
> The bigger diameter firing pin caused a divot that occupies
> approximately 60 /65% of the primer surface.
>
> This information fits very well with the DPD official Homicide Report
> that said thatTippitwas struck THREE times once in the right temple,
> once in the right chest, and once in the stomach. It also fits very
> well with the testimonies of Benavides Poe and Barnes that there were
> only TWO shells found at the scene at the time and a third shell was
> brought to the police station by one of the Davis sisters.
>
> Walt
> > > > > > sickening.
>
> > > > > WEAK??? There are many cases on file where nitrate evidence has
> > > > > been used sucessfully by both prosecution and defense.
>
> > > > Not using the weak arguments you are using. You can`t use positive
> > > > results of nitrates to indicate Oz didn`t fire a gun.
>
> > > > > Walt
> > > > > If this link works, it`ll shown the results of the nitrate
> > > > > > testing on Oz`s left hand...
>
> > > > > > http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/03/0317-001.gif
>
> > > > > > .
>
Commission's claim that Oswald shot Tippit.
During his interrogation Lee Oswald told Captain Fritz that He had
decided to go to the movies after his supervisor told him there
wouldn't be anymore work in the TSBD that afternoon...and he was
apprehended in the movie theater. Whether he just decided that he'd go
to the movies on the spur of a moment, or if he had planned to go
there is open to question.... I believe he was involved in a ruse
that he THOUGHT would make him "APPEAR" to be guilty of taking a shot
at the president of the United States. The plan called for him to meet
someone in the theater who he thought would help him flee to Cuba
where Castro would welcome him as a fellow traveler.
There's little doubt that his intended destination when he left the
TSBD was the Texas Theater. (And according to an usher ( Burroughs) at
the theater he arrived there at about 1:10.) Since he obviously was
headed for the Texas Theater he would not have went anywhere near 10th
and Patton in his trip to the theater. The most direct route from the
rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley to the Theater would not have taken
him within four blocks of the scene of Tippit's murder. And since he
left his the area in front of his room at about 1:04 and was in the
theater at 1:15 he must have caught the bus he was looking for when he
Mrs Robert's last saw him at the bus stop in front of the rooming
house, because he could not have traveled the mile and a half on foot
in 6/8 minutes. The bus could easily have transported him from the
room to the theater in 6 /8 minutes.
Walt
Walt
Bud
<SNIP>
> Just a glance at a map of Oakcliff throws doubt on the Warren
> Commission's claim that Oswald shot Tippit.
>
> During his interrogation Lee Oswald told Captain Fritz that He had
> decided to go to the movies after his supervisor told him there
> wouldn't be anymore work in the TSBD that afternoon...and he was
> apprehended in the movie theater.
Therefore Oz corroborates himself. Stellar.
> Whether he just decided that he'd go
> to the movies on the spur of a moment, or if he had planned to go
> there is open to question....
Probably spur of the moment, to avoid the police who were looking
for him in connection to the policeman he killed.
> I believe he was involved in a ruse
> that he THOUGHT would make him "APPEAR" to be guilty of taking a shot
> at the president of the United States.
At least that is what the voices tell him.
> The plan called for him to meet
> someone in the theater who he thought would help him flee to Cuba
> where Castro would welcome him as a fellow traveler.
Our story so far... Oz knew the President was to be killed, let
himself be set up for that murder (making sure he was out of sight
during it), knew he would be able to exit the TSBD, knew after the
assassination he was to meet an unnamed (and non-existant) contact in
the theater, so he could flee from the murder he didn`t commit to a
country that it would be suicide for it to admit. These are the people
who find fault with the WC, folks.
.
> There's little doubt that his intended destination when he left the
> TSBD was the Texas Theater. (And according to an usher ( Burroughs) at
> the theater he arrived there at about 1:10.)
Yet nothing about it appears in his testimony.
> Since he obviously was
> headed for the Texas Theater
It`s obvious he ducked in as as refuge from the storm he created.
> he would not have went anywhere near 10th
> and Patton in his trip to the theater.
Another strong indication that it wasn`t his intention to go to the
theater. He definately was at 10th and Patton, and that is out of the
way to go to Texas Teater from the boardinghouse.
> The most direct route from the
> rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley to the Theater would not have taken
> him within four blocks of the scene of Tippit's murder.
<snicker> Yah, just blocks away from where people said he killed a
cop, and kooks still can`t make that connection.
> And since he
> left his the area in front of his room at about 1:04
I love it when the kooks pretend they have solid, established
information.
> and was in the
> theater at 1:15
What time was he arrested?
> he must have caught the bus he was looking for when he
> Mrs Robert's last saw him at the bus stop in front of the rooming
> house, because he could not have traveled the mile and a half on foot
> in 6/8 minutes. The bus could easily have transported him from the
> room to the theater in 6 /8 minutes.
See, Oz had an alibi after all, he rode to the theater in the bus
Walt imagines.
> Walt
>
> Walt
Walt
> .
> <SNIP>
>
> > Just a glance at a map of Oakcliff throws doubt on the Warren
> > Commission's claim that Oswald shot Tippit.
>
> > During his interrogation Lee Oswald told Captain Fritz that He had
> > decided to go to the movies after his supervisor told him there
> > wouldn't be anymore work in the TSBD that afternoon...and he was
> > apprehended in the movie theater.
>
> Therefore Oz corroborates himself. Stellar.
>
> > Whether he just decided that he'd go
> > to the movies on the spur of a moment, or if he had planned to go
> > there is open to question....
>
> Probably spur of the moment, to avoid the police who were looking
> for him in connection to the policeman he killed.
>
> > I believe he was involved in a ruse
> > that he THOUGHT would make him "APPEAR" to be guilty of taking a shot
> > at the president of the United States.
>
> At least that is what the voices tell him.
>
> > The plan called for him to meet
> > someone in the theater who he thought would help him flee to Cuba
> > where Castro would welcome him as a fellow traveler.
>
> Our story so far... Oz knew the President was to be killed,
No that's not right.... Oswald had been involved in the staged attempt
on Walker in April of 63. Hethought they were using the same basic
MO. He would make it "APPEAR" that he had shot at JFK. Though he
didn't actually shoot any gun....
After his staged attempt on Walker Marina pointed out that what he had
done in shooting to miss Walker was a really dumb thing to do because
someone else could actually have shot Walker and then it would look
like he was the guilty party. She made him promise he wouldn't ever
fire a gun toward anybody ever again. And that's what he thought he
was involved in with the staged attempt on JFK.
1:50PM
>
> > he must have caught the bus he was looking for when he
> > Mrs Robert's last saw him at the bus stop in front of the rooming
> > house, because he could not have traveled the mile and a half on foot
> > in 6/8 minutes. The bus could easily have transported him from the
> > room to the theater in 6 /8 minutes.
>
> See, Oz had an alibi after all, he rode to the theater in the bus
> Walt imagines.
>
>
>
> > Walt
>
> > Walt- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> On Feb 15, 1:51 pm, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > No that's not right.... Oswald had been involved in the staged attempt
> > on Walker in April of 63. Hethought they were using the same basic
> > MO. He would make it "APPEAR" that he had shot at JFK. Though he
> > didn't actually shoot any gun....
> > After his staged attempt on Walker Marina pointed out that what he had
> > done in shooting to miss Walker was a really dumb thing to do because
> > someone else could actually have shot Walker and then it would look
> > like he was the guilty party. She made him promise he wouldn't ever
> > fire a gun toward anybody ever again. And that's what he thought he
> > was involved in with the staged attempt on JFK.
>
>
> ...And none of this sounds crazy to you, Walt?
Look at the backyard photo (CE 133A) that Oswald created ....It is a
blatantly ametuerish attempt at telling the veiwer...Hey look!!... I'm
a armed and ready communist revolutionary and ready for action. He
created that photo thinking that after his staged attempt on Walker
the photo would surface to be published along with the story that he
was wanted for the attempted murder of General walker, and was a
fugitive from justice. In his mind he thought he could dupe Castro's
agents into thinking he really was a Castro sympathsizer who wanted
polititical assylum in Cuba.
I agree Oswald's actions seem bizzarre ....and that makes it possible
to believe he would have been involved in this bazzarre scheme.
Walt
dcwi...@netscape.net
> > > On Feb 8, 2:09 am, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > On Feb 7, 5:27 pm, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > > > On Feb 7, 4:27 pm, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 12:32 pm, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > > > > > RIGHT hand should have large deposits from four shots on the dorsal
> > > > > > > > > side of the hand. Do you have the guts to provide a link to the
> > > > > > > > > nitrate tests of Oswald's RIGHT hand?
>
> > > > > > > > Sure, Walt, I have the guts to produce it, do you have the
> > > > > > > > integrity to admit your whole premise lacks merit (The funny thing is
> > > > > > > > that I`m getting this information by goggling people schooling Walt on
> > > > > > > > this subject as far back as 2002. No matter how often it is done, it
> > > > > > > > doesn`t seem to take)? Heres the link you request, showing the
> > > > > > > > nitrates found exactly where you are demanding they should be found,
> > > > > > > > on the dorsal side of the hand. I suppose this will dispel any
> > > > > > > > lingering doubts you have about whether Oswald shot Tippit.
>
> > > > > > > Hey Dud..... You'll notice that there is NO nitrates on the dorsal
> > > > > > > side of the right hand. There is a trace on the web between the thumb
> > > > > > > and first finger and a trace on the cuticle of the right thumb.
>
> > > > > > On the hand right where the hammer hits the primer.
>
> > > > > ignites?? What the hell kinda ammo are you firing? Try again
> > > > > Dud.....
>
> > > > Why don`t you produce the expert who says the pattern of nitrates
> > > > found on Oz`s hands are inconsistant with firing a handgun. So far,
> > > > I`ve only seen you offer the expectations of an idiot.
>
> > > Hey Dud......You are a perfect example of a LNer.....You and all
> > > LNer's are too stupid or intellectually lazy to use your own brain.
> > > You are only too willing to allow some "EXPERT" to tell you that
> > > you'lI get burned if you touch a hot stove. I guess I shouldn't be
> > > surprised that you would show your obtuseness in an effort to save
> > > your ego..... However I'd like to know are you really this stupid, or
> > > are you too intellectually lazy to use your own brain.
>
> > > The concept that the gases and burned powder residues would deposit on
> > > the backside ( dorsal side) of the hands is NOT a very difficult
> > > concept. Even a little kid knows it he holds a cup with his finger
> > > through the ear of the cup under a spray of water, from a water
> > > fawcett, any water that slashes from the spay will deposit on the back
> > > of his hands NOT and not the palms. The same basic idea applies to
> > > the hot gases from the cylinder of a revolver.
>
> > > Walt
>
> > > > > And have you found anybody who can decipher the meaning of
> > > > > 11-23-63 (the date on the nitrate charts that you linked to) You are
> > > > > aware that the nitrate tests on Lee were performed at 2:50 pm 11 -22-
> > > > > 63 aren't you? Do you know who they tested on 11 -23- 63 ?
>
> > > > The took the casts of Oz`s hands on the 22nd. They may not have
> > > > completed the test until the following day.
>
> > > > > Walt
>
> > > > > > > The
> > > > > > > Palm side has far and away more nitrates than the dorsal side....and
> > > > > > > that's opposite of what would be found on a person who had fired a
> > > > > > > revolver.
>
> > > > > > I don`t suppose you can produce an expert who supports your
> > > > > > expectations, can you?
>
> > > > > > > Also I'm sure you can find someone who can read so that you will know
> > > > > > > that these paraffin tests were taken on SATURDAY 11-23-63. They are
> > > > > > > not the ones that were taken at 2:50 PM on FRIDAY 11-22-63
>
> > > > > > As if a descrepancy in the record proves anything.
>
> > > > > > > Walt
>
> > > > > > > > http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/21/2199-003.gif
>
> > > > > > > > If the link doesn`t work, it can be found on the Dallas Police JFK
> > > > > > > > collection, Box 7, folder 7, item #12.
>
> > > > > > > > > Walt
>
> > > > > > > > > >and the witnesses describe Oz removing spent shells
> > > > > > > > > > with his hands. Witnesses DESCRIBE the killer removing spent shells with his FINGERS.
> > > > > > > > > Is there any nitrates on Lee's FINGERS in the nitrate chart?
>
> > > > > > > > To pull out the spent shells, he would have to have his hands on
> > > > > > > > the gun, thus transferring the nitrates onto his palms. To remove the
> > > > > > > > spent shells from the cylinders he likely used his fingernails to
> > > > > > > > flick them out (as witnesses described).
>
> > up idea.....
>
> > To extract empty cartridge cases, the cylinder is swung out and an
> > ejector rod attached to the cylinder is pushed, simultaneously
> > ejecting all of the cartridge cases ( and cartridges)in the cylinder.
> > If both live cartridges and expended cartridge are in the cylinder,
> > before pushing the ejector rod one can tip and dump the live
> > cartridges into his hand. The cartridges CASES will not fall out,
> > because they are lighter than the live cartridges, and when the spent
> > cartridges were fired they expanded so as to tightly fit the chamber
> > walls.
>
> But what he doesn`t say is that the ejector is the only way to get
> spent cartridges from the cylinder.
>
> > My addendum.... If the chamber is dirty or rusty the spent cartridges
> > will stick very tight and it is very difficult to remove them. Even in
> > a nice clean cylinder the bulged cases CANNOT be picked out with a
> > person's fingernails.
>
> When ted posted here, he attested to the fact that shells can be
> individually removed by hand from revolvers. Heres is Benavides
> testimony about what he observed the gunman do...
>
> Benavides: Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk
> and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of
> stalled. He didn`t exactly stop. And he threw down one shell and must
> have took five or six steps and threw the other shell up, and then he
> stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.
>
> Doesn`t sound like he is describing an ejector being used, Walt.
>
You're taking the word of a man who for 3 months or more said
*nothing* about Tippit. Made no affidavit. Spoke to no FBI agent.
Did not make a SS statement. Spoke to no reporters. Nada. Then, 3
months later, after his brother is killed, he testifies... to what?
To whatever was wanted by the authorities, I'd bet....
dw
>
> > Walt
>
> > n any case, your
> > > > > > > > expectations of what should or should not be found is hardly
> > > > > > > > scientific.
>
> > > > > > > > > Walt
>
> > > > > > > > > I don`t suppose he used the backs of his hands to do
> > > > > > > > > > that.
>
> > > > > > > > > WOW! A glimmer of commonsense from a kook.
>
> > > > > > > > > The weak premises the kooks latch onto to disregard their
> > > > > > > > > > sickening.
>
> > > > > > > > > WEAK??? There are many cases on file where nitrate evidence has
> > > > > > > > > been used sucessfully by both prosecution and defense.
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
<SNIP>
> > Benavides: Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk
> > and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of
> > stalled. He didn`t exactly stop. And he threw down one shell and must
> > have took five or six steps and threw the other shell up, and then he
> > stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.
> >
> > Doesn`t sound like he is describing an ejector being used, Walt.
> >
> You're taking the word of a man who for 3 months or more said
> *nothing* about Tippit.
I don`t take his word. I view what he relates with an eye towards
what is reasonable to believe. But, how do you know he said nothing
about Tippit`s murder, because you don`t have it on record (doubtless
so you could scour it for descrepancies)?
> Made no affidavit. Spoke to no FBI agent.
> Did not make a SS statement. Spoke to no reporters. Nada.
And then told the WC what he saw. Probably imperfectly, but such is
often the case with witnesses.
> Then, 3
> months later, after his brother is killed, he testifies...
Yah, but he didn`t witness that murder, so the police didn`t ask him
about it. They were interested in the one he saw.
> to what?
To what he saw.
> To whatever was wanted by the authorities, I'd bet....
Well, as is usual with kooks, to back up extraordinary conjecture,
they offer.... nothing.
> dw
<SNIP>
Walt
Testimony??? When was Oswald allowed to defend himself??
Yet nothing about it appears in his testimony.
Oswald thought he was 007.... He had successfully penetrated the Iron
Curtain as an American intelligence agent and was rather conceited
about his success. He arrogantly sneered at those who he deemed too
stupid to understand the craftiness of the intelligence community.
( It's a trait common to many intelligence agents)
He still believed in his mission after the murder of JFK. Although
someone had actually killed JFK while he was STAGING an attempt on
JFK's life he still believed his agency would use the events of FRiday
11 / 22/63 to bolster his bona-fides and allow him to "escape" to
Cuba. When his brother Robert visited him in jail on saturday and all
but accused him of shooting JFK, and asked asked him to explain
himself. He told Robert in couched language...."Don't believe
everything you hear...Things are not as they appear" Later on saturday
afternoon when they showed him a FAKE Back Yard photo, he began to
realize that he was being set up. He KNEW that the photo they had was
NOT the one he had created, and when Fritz pointed out that the photo
showed him holding the murder weapon he bagan to realize that he was
being railroaded. Up until that point he was pretty tight lipped when
he was taken through the corridors of the police station and bombarded
with questions by the reporters. But even at that point he didn't
fully realize what he was up against.He still thought he was going to
be "allowed to escape" when they took him to his lynching. Just
before the cops took him down on the elevator he said... "Oh, so this
is the plan, huh?."
Walt
> > Walt- Hide quoted text -
Bud
<SNIP>
> > > There's little doubt that his intended destination when he left the
> > > TSBD was the Texas Theater. (And according to an usher ( Burroughs) at
> > > the theater he arrived there at about 1:10.)
> >
> > Yet nothing about it appears in his testimony.
>
> Testimony???
Yah, Borroughs gave testimony before the WC. He didn`t mention
seeing Oz, though.
>When was Oswald allowed to defend himself??
He could have tried a "Matrix" move to avoid Ruby`s bullet.
> Yet nothing about it appears in his testimony.
>
> Oswald thought he was 007.... He had successfully penetrated the Iron
> Curtain as an American intelligence agent and was rather conceited
> about his success. He arrogantly sneered at those who he deemed too
> stupid to understand the craftiness of the intelligence community.
> ( It's a trait common to many intelligence agents)
>
> He still believed in his mission after the murder of JFK. Although
> someone had actually killed JFK while he was STAGING an attempt on
> JFK's life he still believed his agency would use the events of FRiday
> 11 / 22/63 to bolster his bona-fides and allow him to "escape" to
> Cuba. When his brother Robert visited him in jail on saturday and all
> but accused him of shooting JFK, and asked asked him to explain
> himself. He told Robert in couched language...."Don't believe
> everything you hear...Things are not as they appear"
What he said, according to Robert, was "Don`t believe the so-called
evidence."
>Later on saturday
> afternoon when they showed him a FAKE Back Yard photo, he began to
> realize that he was being set up. He KNEW that the photo they had was
> NOT the one he had created, and when Fritz pointed out that the photo
> showed him holding the murder weapon he bagan to realize that he was
> being railroaded. Up until that point he was pretty tight lipped when
> he was taken through the corridors of the police station and bombarded
> with questions by the reporters. But even at that point he didn't
> fully realize what he was up against.He still thought he was going to
> be "allowed to escape" when they took him to his lynching. Just
> before the cops took him down on the elevator he said... "Oh, so this
> is the plan, huh?."
This is what the WC critics think the WC`s finding should have
looked like. Only if that body was comprised entirely of kooks like
Walt.
> Walt
>
<SNIP>
dcwi...@netscape.net
> <SNIP>
>
> > > Benavides: Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk
> > > and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of
> > > stalled. He didn`t exactly stop. And he threw down one shell and must
> > > have took five or six steps and threw the other shell up, and then he
> > > stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.
>
> > > Doesn`t sound like he is describing an ejector being used, Walt.
>
> > You're taking the word of a man who for 3 months or more said
> > *nothing* about Tippit.
>
> I don`t take his word. I view what he relates with an eye towards
> what is reasonable to believe. But, how do you know he said nothing
> about Tippit`s murder, because you don`t have it on record
Well, we/I do & we/I don't. That is, Det Leavelle stated at least
twice (in his initial report & at the hearings) that Benavides did/may
have come to police hq & made a statement. In that report, he
actually said unequivocally that Benavides was one of those who made a
statement 11/22/63. But that statement was never made public. Why?
Actually, he may have said plenty about Tippit's murder, but the
authorities perhaps did not want it on record. I don't see how he
could have avoided interviews with the FBI & the SS--all the other
witnesses connected with Tippit were interviewed at least once by the
FBI, I believe. But the fact that B made out an affidavit (as per
Leavelle) on 11/22, & it's gone missing for how many decades, & that
we have nothing from him from the FBI or the SS, makes his WC
testimony next-to-worthless. We can't compare it to *anything*. We
have to trust his memory/honesty 3 or 4 months after the fact. I
myself feel completely helpless with his story--I have no idea what it
was. Early DPD reports say, alternately, that he saw/didn't see the
shooting. That he may have made a statement. That he saw the shooter
run across a *church* lawn. That he saw the shooter run across the
Davises' lawn. There's nothing reliable to go on. Leading up to &
including his testimony....
dw
(doubtless
> so you could scour it for descrepancies)?
I think we'd all like to scour his 11/22 statement....
>
> > Made no affidavit. Spoke to no FBI agent.
> > Did not make a SS statement. Spoke to no reporters. Nada.
>
> And then told the WC what he saw. Probably imperfectly, but such is
> often the case with witnesses.
>
> > Then, 3
> > months later, after his brother is killed, he testifies...
>
> Yah, but he didn`t witness that murder, so the police didn`t ask him
> about it. They were interested in the one he saw.
You're making a gigantic assumption--that he "saw" the murder of a
police officer. Yet, for 3 months or more the record is blank as to
what he might have seen.
>
> > to what?
>
> To what he saw.
>
> > To whatever was wanted by the authorities, I'd bet....
>
> Well, as is usual with kooks, to back up extraordinary conjecture,
> they offer.... nothing.
It's not conjecture--what Benavides offered for 3 months was...
nothing. Why? Aren't you the least little bit curious? For 3
months, the cops were saying what Benavides saw. Why wouldn't he
confirm their reports?
>
> > dw
>
> <SNIP>
Bud
dcwi...@netscape.net wrote:
> On Feb 15, 5:39 pm, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > > > Benavides: Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk
> > > > and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of
> > > > stalled. He didn`t exactly stop. And he threw down one shell and must
> > > > have took five or six steps and threw the other shell up, and then he
> > > > stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.
> >
> > > > Doesn`t sound like he is describing an ejector being used, Walt.
> >
> > > You're taking the word of a man who for 3 months or more said
> > > *nothing* about Tippit.
> >
> > I don`t take his word. I view what he relates with an eye towards
> > what is reasonable to believe. But, how do you know he said nothing
> > about Tippit`s murder, because you don`t have it on record
>
> Well, we/I do & we/I don't. That is, Det Leavelle stated at least
> twice (in his initial report & at the hearings) that Benavides did/may
> have come to police hq & made a statement. In that report, he
> actually said unequivocally that Benavides was one of those who made a
> statement 11/22/63. But that statement was never made public. Why?
Dunno. He was available for questioning by the WC, though. If that
is somehow unsatisfactory to you, why don`t you cry about it, that
might help. Or heap it onto the pile of things kooks find suspicious,
but can go nowhere with.
> Actually, he may have said plenty about Tippit's murder, but the
> authorities perhaps did not want it on record.
Perhaps Benavides severely damged his usefulness as a witness when
he indicated that he felt he couldn`t ID the man he saw shoot Tippit.
And perhaps law enforcement personel understand this in ways kooks
cannot.
> I don't see how he
> could have avoided interviews with the FBI & the SS--all the other
> witnesses connected with Tippit were interviewed at least once by the
> FBI, I believe. But the fact that B made out an affidavit (as per
> Leavelle) on 11/22, & it's gone missing for how many decades, & that
> we have nothing from him from the FBI or the SS, makes his WC
> testimony next-to-worthless.
Thats kooky thinking, no wonder you folks have so much trouble
with this case. You throw out what you do have, because of what you
don`t have. It kills you that you don`t have multiple accounts to
scour for descrepancies, doesn`t it?
> We can't compare it to *anything*. We
> have to trust his memory/honesty 3 or 4 months after the fact.
No, we really don`t. You weigh what every witness says, regardless
of how many times he says it.
> I
> myself feel completely helpless with his story--I have no idea what it
> was. Early DPD reports say, alternately, that he saw/didn't see the
> shooting. That he may have made a statement. That he saw the shooter
> run across a *church* lawn. That he saw the shooter run across the
> Davises' lawn.
Only a kook finds these insignificant details significant. Same
stupid kook approach, ignore anything of use the witness might supply,
focus on the descrepancies, because they are always signs of
conspiracy. Doesn`t occur to you folks that witnesses might be
lackadaisical when reporting details that they don`t find very
important, does it?
> There's nothing reliable to go on. Leading up to &
> including his testimony....
Well, you kooks are always eager to throw out as much information
as you can, for any reason that pops into your head. Seems to me that
Benavides isn`t much good as a witnesses for speaking to whether it
was or wasn`t Oz who shot Tippit, but is useful to corroborate some
small details, like the shooter throwing away the spent shells.
> dw
<SNIP>
David Von Pein
does no harm whatever to the "LN/Oswald" scenario. Benavides didn't
positively I.D. Oswald -- but he said that Oswald looked like the
killer after DB saw "pictures" of LHO.
And Domingo provides many other details that perfectly align with
other 10th-Street witnesses....and he verifies that Clemmons was wrong
re. the "2 Killer" scenario. Benavides didn't see TWO killers; he saw
one....and the killer resembled Oswald.
Let's listen......
D. BENAVIDES -- "I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing
by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to
him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the
other side of the car. ....
Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the
sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He
didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or
six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of
stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner. ....
I went back and I knew exactly where they {the shells} was at, and I
went over and picked up one in my hand, not thinking and I dropped it,
that maybe they want fingerprints off it, so I took out an empty pack
of cigarettes I had and picked them up with a little stick and put
them in this cigarette package. ....
I would say he was about your size {5'10" to 5'11"}, and he had a
light-beige jacket, and was lightweight. It seemed like it was a
zipper-type jacket. ....
They were dark {his trousers}. ....
It {his shirt} was dark in color, but I don't remember exactly what
color. ....
I would say he was average weight. ....
>From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy.
That was the reason I figured it was Oswald."
lazu...@webtv.net
Acquila Clemons specifically says Two people-one short and bushy haired
with a pistol- the other tall and thin working together..doesn't sound
like Oswald does it? Frank Wright saw 2 people as well.
Bud
lazu...@webtv.net wrote:
> .
>
>
> Acquila Clemons specifically says Two people-one short and bushy haired
> with a pistol- the other tall and thin working together..doesn't sound
> like Oswald does it?
And there exists in the record of an account of two people working
together, with Tippit`s gun, looking for the killer.
> Frank Wright saw 2 people as well.
But the people who saw Tippit killed report one killer. They said
it was Oswald. That does sound like Oswald, doesn`t it?
eca...@tx.rr.com
Bud.. You are exactly right.
I'm somewhat amused that folks
are still picking around with
that lame theory that maybe it
was some other guy who killed
Tippit who looked like Oswald..
Then of course the real killer
somehow found Oswald in the
area, then he simply ( gULp::)
*planted*
the murder weapon on poor Oz..
Oswald then took the bait and
ducked in and out of stores up
and down Jefferson trying to
look suspicious with the
*planted* pistol in his pocket
that was later proven to be the
gun that killed Tippit.. And oh
yeah.. To make it look good Oz
then slips into the TT as the
ticket clerk watches.. Of course
all the other eyewitnesses who
put Oz at the scene of Tippit's
slaying were either bribed or
mistaken or just trying to set
Oz up for the cold blooded
killing of a Dallas Police
Officer..
Works for me..
Yeppers it's all coming into
focus after 43 years, poor Oz
was set up on 11-22-63 for not
one but TWO separate murders.
It was a bad day for Oswald.
MR ;~D
Ed Cage 0632Feb1707
On Feb 17, 6:20 am, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
Walt
> Domingo Benavides provided plenty of info via his WC interview that
> does no harm whatever to the "LN/Oswald" scenario. Benavides didn't
> positively I.D. Oswald -- but he said that Oswald looked like the
> killer after DB saw "pictures" of LHO.
>
> And Domingo provides many other details that perfectly align with
> other 10th-Street witnesses....and he verifies that Clemmons was wrong
> re. the "2 Killer" scenario. Benavides didn't see TWO killers; he saw
> one....and the killer resembled Oswald.
>
> Let's listen......
>
> D. BENAVIDES -- "I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing
> by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to
> him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the
> other side of the car. ....
>
I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot
him,
OR THE MAN THAT SHOT HIM.......
Sounds like Benavides is telling them something....
> Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the
> sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He
> didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or
> six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of
> stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner. ....
Benavides is describing the actions of "MAN THAT SHOT HIM" as the
actions of a man emptying spent shells from a SINGLE ACTION revolver.
The revolver that was taken from LHO was a DOUBLE ACTION revolver.
>
> I went back and I knew exactly where they {the shells} was at, and I
> went over and picked up one in my hand, not thinking and I dropped it,
> that maybe they want fingerprints off it, so I took out an empty pack
> of cigarettes I had and picked them up with a little stick and put
> them in this cigarette package. ....
>
> I would say he was about your size {5'10" to 5'11"}, and he had a
> light-beige jacket, and was lightweight. It seemed like it was a
> zipper-type jacket. ....
>
> They were dark {his trousers}. ....
>
> It {his shirt} was dark in color, but I don't remember exactly what
> color. ....
>
> I would say he was average weight. ....
>
> >From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy.
>
> That was the reason I figured it was Oswald."
>From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy.
That was the reason I figured it was Oswald."
"RESEMBLED THE GUY"
At the end of his testimony Benavides said...." well One thing I
remamber clearly, was his hair cut" As he turned around I noticed
that he had his hair cut in a distinctive manner. He had it cut in a
way that made the back of his head look flat, but when I saw pictures
of Oswald I noticed that he had his hair cut differently, the back of
his head looked somethng like a bee hive."
Walt
tomnln
You had Multiple opportunities to address the evidence/testimony in the
Tippit case
You REFUSED to so you can Pick & choose like you pick your Nose/Ass.
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
Tell us how Oswald did a 3 minute mileWalking?
THEN, tell us WHY you Chickened out on this one?>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
After saying you would address it?
<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1171716425....@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Walt
> On Feb 17, 3:30 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Domingo Benavides provided plenty of info via his WC interview that
> > does no harm whatever to the "LN/Oswald" scenario. Benavides didn't
> > positively I.D. Oswald -- but he said that Oswald looked like the
> > killer after DB saw "pictures" of LHO.
Not quite right...... Not only DIDN'T Dom Identify Oswald as the man
he saw shoot Tippit, He said...Quote..."I seen Oswald, or the man that
shot him," unqoute. If Bebevides had been absolutely sure that the
killer was Oswald he would not have added the ...." or the man that
shot him" ... to his statement. In my opinion He KNEW the killer was
NOT Lee Oswald and wanted the Warren Commission to know that.
> Walt- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On Feb 17, 3:30 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Domingo Benavides provided plenty of info via his WC interview that
> > does no harm whatever to the "LN/Oswald" scenario. Benavides didn't
> > positively I.D. Oswald -- but he said that Oswald looked like the
> > killer after DB saw "pictures" of LHO.
> >
> > And Domingo provides many other details that perfectly align with
> > other 10th-Street witnesses....and he verifies that Clemmons was wrong
> > re. the "2 Killer" scenario. Benavides didn't see TWO killers; he saw
> > one....and the killer resembled Oswald.
> >
> > Let's listen......
> >
> > D. BENAVIDES -- "I then pulled on up and I seen this officer standing
> > by the door. The door was open to the car, and I was pretty close to
> > him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot him, standing on the
> > other side of the car. ....
> >
>
> I was pretty close to him, and I seen Oswald, or the man that shot
> him,
>
>
> OR THE MAN THAT SHOT HIM.......
>
> Sounds like Benavides is telling them something....
Yah, the same thing he told the police who came around the day of
the murder, that he didn`t feel he could provide a positive ID of the
shooter.
> > Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the
> > sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He
> > didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or
> > six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of
> > stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner. ....
>
> Benavides is describing the actions of "MAN THAT SHOT HIM" as the
> actions of a man emptying spent shells from a SINGLE ACTION revolver.
> The revolver that was taken from LHO was a DOUBLE ACTION revolver.
Some kooks think an automatic was used. And in no meaningful way
has Walt ruled out that it was Oz and his revolver the witnesses are
describing. In fact, they say it was Oz.
> > I went back and I knew exactly where they {the shells} was at, and I
> > went over and picked up one in my hand, not thinking and I dropped it,
> > that maybe they want fingerprints off it, so I took out an empty pack
> > of cigarettes I had and picked them up with a little stick and put
> > them in this cigarette package. ....
> >
> > I would say he was about your size {5'10" to 5'11"}, and he had a
> > light-beige jacket, and was lightweight. It seemed like it was a
> > zipper-type jacket. ....
> >
> > They were dark {his trousers}. ....
> >
> > It {his shirt} was dark in color, but I don't remember exactly what
> > color. ....
> >
> > I would say he was average weight. ....
> >
> > >From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy.
> >
> > That was the reason I figured it was Oswald."
>
>
>
> >From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy.
>
> That was the reason I figured it was Oswald."
>
> "RESEMBLED THE GUY"
Resembled what guy? Oswald.
> At the end of his testimony Benavides said....
Not at the end, about two-thirds in Benavides mentions the
shooter`s hair. And what Benavides had to say in no way is what Walt
is putting into quotes below.
>" well One thing I
> remamber clearly, was his hair cut" As he turned around I noticed
> that he had his hair cut in a distinctive manner. He had it cut in a
> way that made the back of his head look flat, but when I saw pictures
> of Oswald I noticed that he had his hair cut differently, the back of
> his head looked somethng like a bee hive."
Needless to say, Walt is just making stuff up again. This is what
Benavides actually had to say about the shooter`s hair...
<Quote on>
Benavides: I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline
was sort of -- looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of
tapered off and he looked like he needed a haircut of about two weeks,
but his hair didn`t taper off, it kind of went down and squared off
and made his head look flat in the back.
<Quote off>
Walt strikes again, mangling the record everywhere he goes,
inserting into the record what the voices in his head whisper in his
ear.
> Walt
Walt
Thank you Dud... I deliberately posted what I thought Benavides
message was....Knowing full well that one of you Maggots would feel
compelled to call me a liar. And you would post exactly what Dom
Benavides said....and you did that. The bottom line is Benavides
DESCRIBED the killers haircut....As "SQUARED OFF AT THE COLLAR" which
made the BACK OF THE KILLERS HEAD "LOOK FLAT".... and Oswald's hair
was TAPERED which made the back of his head look like a BEE HIVE .
THIS IS A POSITIVE STATEMENT BY A WITNESS THAT OSWALD WAS NOT THE
KILLER.
Walt
>
> Walt strikes again, mangling the record everywhere he goes,
> inserting into the record what the voices in his head whisper in his
> ear.
>
>
>
> > Walt- Hide quoted text -
Bud
You`re welcome.
> I deliberately posted what I thought Benavides
> message was....
In layman`s terms, you lied about what the witness said. Put it in
quotes, too.
>Knowing full well that one of you Maggots would feel
> compelled to call me a liar.
The question is, what compelled you to lie?
> And you would post exactly what Dom
> Benavides said....and you did that.
Because you found it more convenient to imagine words, and put them
in his mouth than look it up, and present what the man actually said.
It is the same slipshod manner you approach the whole case, giving
more weight to what you think than what is known.
> The bottom line is Benavides
> DESCRIBED the killers haircut....
But didn`t use the words "bees hive" or "bear`s butt", or any other
words you might imagine to describe it.
>As "SQUARED OFF AT THE COLLAR"
Who are you quoting here, idiot? Benavides didn`t say "squared off
at the collar".
> which
> made the BACK OF THE KILLERS HEAD "LOOK FLAT".... and Oswald's hair
> was TAPERED which made the back of his head look like a BEE HIVE .
Yet Benavides did not rule out that it was Oz he saw.
> THIS IS A POSITIVE STATEMENT BY A WITNESS THAT OSWALD WAS NOT THE
> KILLER.
No, you see, you can`t turn the excited impressions of witnesses
into positive, established facts. He emerges from under the dashboard
to see a scene of a mortally wounded police officer, and a shooter
leaving the scene. It is possible that the collar of Oz coat was rode
up making his hairline appear straight across.
lazu...@webtv.net
the shots she saw 2 people working togeher going off in different
directions-neiher one which matches LHO, she also said in the 66
interview with Mark Lane, that she had never been contacted by the
Warren Commisson, but a couple days after the murder was told to keep
quiet by who she assumed was a policeman or she could get hurt.
Walt
Benavides said...."THE MAN THAT SHOT HIM" ( had a ) "hairline sort of
went square instead of tapered"
Oswald's mug shot that was taken about two hours after Benavides saw a
man " Who resembled" Oswald shoot J.D.Tippit. His mug shot shows that
oswald's hair DID DID TAPER and the back of his head looked conical,
NOT flat.
> > which
> > made the BACK OF THE KILLERS HEAD "LOOK FLAT".... and Oswald's hair
> > was TAPERED which made the back of his head look like a BEE HIVE .
>
> Yet Benavides did not rule out that it was Oz he saw.
>
> > THIS IS A POSITIVE STATEMENT BY A WITNESS THAT OSWALD WAS NOT THE
> > KILLER.
>
> No, you see, you can`t turn the excited impressions of witnesses
> into positive, established facts.
Really?? Benavides was still excited when he told the W.C. that the
back of the killers head appeared to be FLAT, several months after he
saw Tippit shot??
Are you sure??.....6 months seems like an awfully long time to remain
"excited"
"In the event an erection lasts for more than four hours consult your
doctor"
He emerges from under the dashboard
... I think you're exaggerating...Didn't Dom say he kinda "ducked down
behind the steering wheel" That's not quite the same as hiding under
the dashboard.
> to see a scene of a mortally wounded police officer, and a shooter
> leaving the scene. It is possible that the collar of Oz coat was rode
> up making his hairline appear straight across.
Dud yer a drowning man grasping at straws..... This is an utterly
ridiculous argument. It kind reminds me of the Maggots claim that
JFK's coat rode up on his back, but in this case One glance at
Oswald's mug shot shows that he didn't have enough hair on his neck to
make it appear that his hairline was cut straight across.
Walt