OSWALD, CRAIG, A BUS, A RAMBLER, AND SOME LIES
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a68e934c4f9abf3d/aa162cfbf9620b64?#aa162cfbf9620b64
>>> You were disputing him {Pope Roger The First} being in the office at one point..." <<<
Sure. And I still dispute it. But I was careful with my verbiage
regarding the specific "Craig In Fritz' Office" point. Hence, the word
"probably" being used in my posts in this regard.
>>> "You have called RC a liar, so now all of a sudden you are mister diplomat?" <<<
Craig definitely was a liar with respect to any "7.65 Mauser" stamp
being on the gun found in the TSBD. He lied about that. No doubt about
that.
And since he was freely willing to tell a huge blatant lie about the
rifle, it makes it much easier to believe that he MIGHT lie about some
other things too.
The same goes for Lee Oswald -- We KNOW he lied about several critical
facts associated with the assassination evidence. He was definitely
trying to DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM THE TWO MURDER WEAPONS (the MC rifle
he used on JFK and the .38 S&W revolver that he used to kill Tippit).
Hence, it seems reasonable to think that since Oz was willing to lie
about certain important things, he would therefore possibly tell other
lies as well.
I'm not saying that Craig or Oswald lied CONSTANTLY. Because that's
certainly not the case at all. Oswald told some truths. But he only
told the truth when he didn't feel THREATENED BY THE EVIDENCE. In
every question he was asked which could possibly connect him to the 2
murders he was charged with, he distanced himself from that
evidence....every time.
But when asked more benign questions, Oswald didn't NEED to lie to
save his murdering hide, so he didn't.
As for Roger Craig, I do think he saw someone who might have resembled
Oswald get into a station wagon on Elm St. around 12:40 PM on November
22. This observation is backed up by additional witnesses as well. But
that person getting into that Rambler was positively not Lee Harvey
Oswald.
Furthermore, it COULD NOT have been Oswald. It's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
for it to have been Oswald, because Oswald was several blocks east of
the Book Depository at that precise moment getting on a bus on Elm
Street. That's a proven fact. The bus transfer in Oswald's pocket plus
the observations of Mary Bledsoe prove beyond all doubt that LHO could
not have gotten into a car on Elm at 12:40.
Plus, Oswald told us (via the police) that he did, indeed, get on a
bus after leaving the TSBD. And here we have an instance where Oswald
didn't feel he had to tell a lie, so he didn't tell a lie....because
his getting on a bus doesn't make him guilty of shooting a gun at the
President. Same with the cab ride. So he admitted to that too.
David Von Pein
November 2007
David Von Pein
You'd better go back to school and read Roger Craig's Warren
Commission testimony, wherein he told the Commission on April 1st,
1964, that it was CAPTAIN FRITZ (not Oswald) who FIRST MENTIONED THE
WORDS "STATION WAGON". This contradicts the story Craig would be
telling later, such as in the "Two Men In Dallas" video program. .....
DAVID BELIN -- "What did Captain Fritz say and what did you say and
what did the suspect {Lee Oswald} say?"
ROGER D. CRAIG -- "Captain Fritz then asked him about the---uh---he
said, "What about this station wagon?" And the suspect interrupted him
and said, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine"---I believe is
what he said. "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do
with it." And--uh--Captain Fritz then told him, as close as I can
remember, that, "All we're trying to do is find out what happened, and
this man saw you leave from the scene." And the suspect again
interrupted Captain Fritz and said, "I told you people I did." And--
uh--yeah--then, he said--then he continued and he said, "Everybody
will know who I am now."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm
I will admit that the above section of Roger Craig's 1964 WC testimony
is virtually identical (in most respects) to Craig's later accounts of
what allegedly took place in Captain Fritz' office on 11/22/63....all
EXCEPT the "station wagon" remarks. Craig told the WC that it was,
indeed, Fritz who FIRST brought up the subject of the "station wagon",
and not Oswald.
And if Deputy Craig's Warren Commission testimony is accurate (and it
was testimony being given just a little over four months after the
assassination itself), Fritz allegedly (per Craig) used the words
"station wagon" and not merely "car" during the interrogation session
with Oswald. That's not what Craig would be saying years later
however.
BTW, here's a portion of the June 1964 affidavit that was filled out
by Will Fritz (wherein he mentions the fact that he doesn't "remember
anything about Lee Harvey Oswald jumping up or making any remarks or
gestures to this man {Craig} or to me at this time, and had I brought
this officer into my inner office I feel sure that I would remember
it". .....
"I don't remember the name Roger Craig, but I do remember a man
coming into my outer office and I remember one of my officers calling
me outside the door of my private office. I talked to this man for a
minute or two, and he started telling me a story about seeing Oswald
leaving the building.
"I don't remember all the things that this man said, but I
turned him over to Lt. Baker who talked to him. Lee Harvey Oswald was
in my office at this time. I don't remember anything about Lee Harvey
Oswald jumping up or making any remarks or gestures to this man or to
me at this time, and had I brought this officer into my inner office I
feel sure that I would remember it.
"There were other officers in {my} inner office at the time, and
I have found no one who knows about the remarks that you have asked
about." -- Signed, J.W. Fritz (June 9, 1964)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz2.htm
A related note re. Craig and Oswald.....
I find this statement attributed to Oswald by Craig to be completely
out of character with what Oswald was saying to the press and to the
live television audience on the VERY SAME DAY (per Roger Craig) ---
"Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."
That's a very interesting "admission", of sorts, by Lee Oswald. (If
we're to believe that LHO ever said it in the first place, that is.)
It's an "admission" in the sense that Oswald certainly seemed to know,
via that alleged comment, why he was sitting in Captain Fritz' office,
which is totally at odds with ALL of Oswald's first-day (November 22)
comments that he made in front of the TV cameras.
All the way up through the "Midnight Press Conference" on Friday
night, the calm and cool Oswald continued to say "I DON'T KNOW WHAT
THIS SITUATION IS ALL ABOUT".
And yet, per Roger Craig, Oswald (at some point PRIOR to that midnight
press gathering) certainly seems to know "what the situation is all
about", via the words "this" and "it" in these two sentences ---
"Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."
I can't prove that the above words were never spoken by Lee Oswald.
And I'll admit I can't prove that Roger Craig was never in Fritz'
office. (I've admitted in previous posts, in fact, that Craig might
very well have been in that office with Oswald.)
But one thing is a rock-solid certainty (with or without Oswald's
statements allegedly made in Fritz' office in the alleged presence of
Roger Craig) --- Lee H. Oswald was a liar and a double-murderer. And
no CTer alive can ever change those two basic facts.
>>> "Come on Dave, there is no evidence that points to LHO, other than the stuff that was obviously "manufactured" to make him look guilty." <<<
Which would encompass, of course, EVERY LAST PIECE OF PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE IN THE CASE....e.g., all the bullets, all the bullet shells,
all the guns (the MC rifle and the S&W revolver), the empty paper bag
with Oswald's prints on it, the other prints of LHO's that indicate he
handled both the Carcano AND the boxes that were used to construct the
Sniper's Nest, the fibers in the paper bag, and the fibers stuck in
the Carcano's butt plate.
Every bit of that stuff was "manufactured", eh?
If you believe that all of that evidence is fake, I've got a "K" word
that's just itching to be re-typed on my keyboard.
>>> "The death certificate, autopsy report and the WC said he {JFK} died "from high velocity bullets" and we all know the M-C is a low velocity carbine." <<<
Technically-speaking, the "low-velocity" statement is true. And the
FBI's Robert Frazier even acknowledged that very fact in his WC
testimony. But he also acknowledged something else, which is just as
important (if not more important).....
"This {Carcano} has a low velocity, but has very adequate
killing power with reference to humans, because it is an established
military weapon." -- Robert A. Frazier; Firearms Identification
Expert; FBI
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcano
>>> "There is a poor chain of custody. .... The defense team would have ripped all of this {LHO-Did-It evidence} to shreds. .... Look at all the "evidence" they had on LHO and all of it could be shown to be planted with very good certainty for the jury." <<<
This is complete bullshit.
Only in the "courtroom" of your own CT-infested mind could such a
thing happen, or even be suggested as having actually happened.
Because a jury that includes some people with a few brains in their
heads (the O.J. jury is excluded because of this prerequisite) knows
that it takes a LITTLE more than just some nutcase defense lawyer (or
a conspiracy-loving kook typing continuous strands of unsupportable
bullshit into his computer) to "prove" that evidence in a murder case
has been mishandled.
Moreover, it's going to take a whole lot more than what CTers have
offered up to date as "proof of evidence-planting" to convince a
reasonable jury that evidence WAS, in fact, "planted" at the various
MULTIPLE crime scenes associated with John F. Kennedy's murder.
Such extraordinary allegations suggesting such highly-unlikely covert
activity require equally EXTRAORDINARY PROOF to support the notion
that such "planting" actually did occur in the JFK case.
A kook who has a feeling or an inkling that something's not quite
right with a HUGE amount of evidence in a particular case is not going
to get very far with a good and REASONABLE jury.
At SOME point in time, the kook who is spouting "It's all planted and
fake!" is going to have to (as Vince Bugliosi likes to say) pay the
piper. At some point, the kook is going to have to step up to the
plate and PROVE THAT ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD IS
FAKED AND/OR PLANTED.
And, thus far, the CTers in the "Everything Was Planted" club haven't
PROVED that a single piece of evidence in the JFK case was planted.
The kooks only have their suspicions and "inklings".
Is an "inkling" equal to "proof"? Last time I checked, those two words
are not even close to being synonymous. But to certain CTers, the two
words are apparently identical in meaning.
And, btw, "mishandling" evidence is a long, long way from "planting"
it. Perhaps certain conspiracy theorists in the "Everything Was
Planted" club should learn the significant difference between those
two words as well.
David Von Pein
>>> "Can you summarize what {Oliver} Stone did, please? Have not seen that but once or twice a long time ago." <<<
Oliver Stone (in his 1991 movie "JFK"), via voice-over narration from
Kevin Costner (playing Jim "Mega-Kook" Garrison) during the courtroom
scene, claims that when the police converged in mass on the Texas
Theater it was (quoting verbatim from the movie itself) -- "The most
remarkable example of police intuition since the Reichstag fire. I
don't buy it. They knew--someone knew--Oswald was going to be there.
In fact, as early as 12:44, only 14 minutes after the assassination,
the police radio put out a description matching Oswald's size and
build."
But there was nothing whatsoever "remarkable" or unusual about the
police converging quickly (and in great numbers) on the theater where
Oswald was hiding.
A police officer had been gunned down in the street only half-an-hour
earlier. The police knew that the killer was ON FOOT and heading down
Jefferson Boulevard. When they received that call from Julia Postal,
OBVIOUSLY the police were going to move (fast) to check out the
"suspicious" man who just went into the dark movie theater.
And yet, to hear Stone telling it (through Garrison/Costner's words in
the script), the cops swarming the theater was some incredible piece
of fortune-telling and crystal-ball-gazing. Nonsense.
I need to correct an error I made in my earlier post --- Upon being
reminded of some additional dialogue in Oliver Stone's film (via the
link provided below, which comes from Dave Reitzes' excellent
website), I will retract my earlier statement where I said that Stone
avoided Brewer's and Postal's involvement entirely in the "JFK" movie.
I see now, via Mr. Reitzes' site, that I was not correct there,
because Brewer is, indeed, mentioned (and so is the "cashier", who was
Postal).
However, it's still fairly obvious (via the dialogue I re-printed
above) that Mr. Stone just doesn't want to believe that the ONLY
reason the police descended upon the theater on November 22nd was
because of the observations of Johnny Brewer and Julia Postal. Stone
doesn't "buy it".
But if anybody, after researching the true facts re. Brewer and
Postal, still "buys" Stone's version put forth in his movie, then
they'd probably buy that bridge that's always for sale in Brooklyn
too.
Also -- The 12:44 PM police broadcast put out by the DPD for the
assassin of JFK was not the slightest bit suspicious or
"conspiratorial" in any way either (contrary to what Oliver Stone
wants his viewing audience to believe).
Howard Brennan almost immediately approached the police after the
shooting to give them a description of the man he had clearly seen
pulling the trigger from the sixth-floor TSBD window -- with that
description generally matching Oswald's "size and build" (as Stone/
Garrison/Costner said in the film).
So, quite obviously, the police didn't just sit on their collective
hands sipping sodas and munching on Dunkin' Donuts for an hour.
Instead, they acted on this witness' information and put out an APB
broadcast over all channels of the police radio at 12:43-12:44 PM on
November 22nd, less than 15 minutes after the last shot came out of
Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.
So, once again, as can be easily determined once the true facts of the
case are researched, Ollie Stone has deliberately deceived and misled
his movie-going audience.
David Von Pein
October 2007
================================================
More "Stone Stuff" below:
www.jfk-online.com/jfk100theatre.html
www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html
================================================
MOVIE/DVD REVIEW -- OLIVER STONE'S "JFK":
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51b89da58d3e6489
OSWALD'S SHOOTING PERFORMANCE....AND OLIVER STONE'S BLUNDER:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9bce073792dae800
THE BRAINWASHING OF AMERICA (A LA OLIVER STONE):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/22e70f88404a998b
MORE "OLIVER STONE" DISCUSSION:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0a931249aa0eddff
================================================
robcap...@netscape.com
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
>
> >>> You were disputing him {Pope Roger The First} being in the office at one point..." <<<
"Sure. And I still dispute it. But I was careful with my verbiage
regarding the specific "Craig In Fritz' Office" point. Hence, the word
"probably" being used in my posts in this regard."
Chicken.
> >>> "You have called RC a liar, so now all of a sudden you are mister diplomat?" <<<
"Craig definitely was a liar with respect to any "7.65 Mauser" stamp
being on the gun found in the TSBD. He lied about that. No doubt about
that."
Prove it. Show me why two officers signed affadavits saying a
"Mauser" was discovered if none was. Why would a captain with 43
years of experience say he didn't know what a "Mauser" looked like?
"And since he was freely willing to tell a huge blatant lie about the
rifle, it makes it much easier to believe that he MIGHT lie about some
other things too."
Slow down, you haven't proved he lied about seeing a "Mauser" yet.
Prove this beyond all doubt and then you can make the leap you are
making here.
The same goes for Lee Oswald -- We KNOW he lied about several critical
facts associated with the assassination evidence. He was definitely
trying to DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM THE TWO MURDER WEAPONS (the MC rifle
he used on JFK and the .38 S&W revolver that he used to kill Tippit)."
You have failed just as badly proving LHO lied as well. So far all I
have read is DVP's say so.
"Hence, it seems reasonable to think that since Oz was willing to lie
about certain important things, he would therefore possibly tell other
lies as well."
That is reasonable thinking, which surprises me, but it only applies
once you have proved he has lied. So far I have seen NO proof.
"I'm not saying that Craig or Oswald lied CONSTANTLY. Because that's
certainly not the case at all. Oswald told some truths. But he only
told the truth when he didn't feel THREATENED BY THE EVIDENCE. In
every question he was asked which could possibly connect him to the 2
murders he was charged with, he distanced himself from that
evidence....every time."
The word "saying" is key as you have presented NO proof or evidence,
it is all your sayso. His actions were very similar to how an
intelligence person would behave. The police said they had not seen
someone handle interrogation so well, he knew what was coming
constantly.
"But when asked more benign questions, Oswald didn't NEED to lie to
save his murdering hide, so he didn't."
Pure conjecture, no proof given.
"As for Roger Craig, I do think he saw someone who might have
resembled Oswald get into a station wagon on Elm St. around 12:40 PM
on November 22. This observation is backed up by additional witnesses
as well. But that person getting into that Rambler was positively not
Lee Harvey Oswald."
Good for you, but how about proving it. You are like the WC, you
think you know better than someone there. Let's see some proof it was
NOT LHO, okay?
"Furthermore, it COULD NOT have been Oswald. It's PHYSICALLY
IMPOSSIBLE
for it to have been Oswald, because Oswald was several blocks east of
the Book Depository at that precise moment getting on a bus on Elm
Street. That's a proven fact. The bus transfer in Oswald's pocket plus
the observations of Mary Bledsoe prove beyond all doubt that LHO could
not have gotten into a car on Elm at 12:40."
Prove he was several blocks away on the bus too. You may want to
actually read witness testimony first though to see no one beyond
Bledsoe said he was, and she is very shaky like all other WC
witnesses.
"Plus, Oswald told us (via the police) that he did, indeed, get on a
bus after leaving the TSBD. And here we have an instance where Oswald
didn't feel he had to tell a lie, so he didn't tell a lie....because
his getting on a bus doesn't make him guilty of shooting a gun at the
President. Same with the cab ride. So he admitted to that too."
You said he was a liar, now you believe him? He was told to relay
this story if he got caught so he wouldn't implicate his cohorts.
Check out the posts CJ and I have, there is no credible proof he was
on the bus or in the cab.
"David Von Pein
November 2007"
Robert Caprio
February 2008
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "RC {Roger Craig} testified that LHO mentioned the station wagon (they said car) belonged to Ruth Paine..." <<<
"You'd better go back to school and read Roger Craig's Warren
Commission testimony, wherein he told the Commission on April 1st,
1964, that it was CAPTAIN FRITZ (not Oswald) who FIRST MENTIONED THE
WORDS "STATION WAGON". This contradicts the story Craig would be
telling later, such as in the "Two Men In Dallas" video
program. ....."
I know this, my point was it was NOT Roger Craig who mentioned the
station wagon first. I like how you dig out these old posts and edit
them.
> DAVID BELIN -- "What did Captain Fritz say and what did you say and
> what did the suspect {Lee Oswald} say?"
>
> ROGER D. CRAIG -- "Captain Fritz then asked him about the---uh---he
> said, "What about this station wagon?" And the suspect interrupted him
> and said, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine"---I believe is
> what he said. "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do
> with it." And--uh--Captain Fritz then told him, as close as I can
> remember, that, "All we're trying to do is find out what happened, and
> this man saw you leave from the scene." And the suspect again
> interrupted Captain Fritz and said, "I told you people I did." And--
> uh--yeah--then, he said--then he continued and he said, "Everybody
> will know who I am now."
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm
>
"I will admit that the above section of Roger Craig's 1964 WC
testimony is virtually identical (in most respects) to Craig's later
accounts of what allegedly took place in Captain Fritz' office on
11/22/63....all EXCEPT the "station wagon" remarks. Craig told the WC
that it was, indeed, Fritz who FIRST brought up the subject of the
"station wagon", and not Oswald."
Agreed, my point was some have said Craig said it was a staion wagon
first.
"And if Deputy Craig's Warren Commission testimony is accurate (and it
was testimony being given just a little over four months after the
assassination itself), Fritz allegedly (per Craig) used the words
"station wagon" and not merely "car" during the interrogation session
with Oswald. That's not what Craig would be saying years later
however."
You make an accusation and then just leave the scene. Why not post
his later remarks that are different from the ones above?
"BTW, here's a portion of the June 1964 affidavit that was filled out
by Will Fritz (wherein he mentions the fact that he doesn't "remember
anything about Lee Harvey Oswald jumping up or making any remarks or
gestures to this man {Craig} or to me at this time, and had I brought
this officer into my inner office I feel sure that I would remember
it". .....
"I don't remember the name Roger Craig, but I do remember a man coming
into my outer office and I remember one of my officers calling me
outside the door of my private office. I talked to this man for a
minute or two, and he started telling me a story about seeing Oswald
leaving the building.
"I don't remember all the things that this man said, but I turned him
over to Lt. Baker who talked to him. Lee Harvey Oswald was in my
office at this time. I don't remember anything about Lee Harvey Oswald
jumping up or making any remarks or gestures to this man or to me at
this time, and had I brought this officer into my inner office I feel
sure that I would remember it.
"There were other officers in {my} inner office at the time, and I
have found no one who knows about the remarks that you have asked
about." -- Signed, J.W. Fritz (June 9, 1964)"
The man's name? Craig was almost guaranteed to have been summoned so
even if Fritz didn't know all the officers in his command someone had
to have told him Craig's name before he spoke with him. Craig never
said he jumped up, but said "He was leaning over the desk. At this
time, (declaring everyone would know who he was) he had risen
PARTIALLY out of the chair and leaning over the desk, looking directly
at Captain Fritz." (VI, 270) This is a far cry from "jumping out of
his chair" in my opinion. The WC disregarded Craig because of Mary
Bledsoe, although they would say due to "overwhelming evidence."
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz2.htm
"A related note re. Craig and Oswald.....
I find this statement attributed to Oswald by Craig to be completely
out of character with what Oswald was saying to the press and to the
live television audience on the VERY SAME DAY (per Roger Craig) ---
"Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."
That's a very interesting "admission", of sorts, by Lee Oswald. (If
we're to believe that LHO ever said it in the first place, that is.)"
Prove he didn't say it then.
"It's an "admission" in the sense that Oswald certainly seemed to
know, via that alleged comment, why he was sitting in Captain Fritz'
office, which is totally at odds with ALL of Oswald's first-day
(November 22) comments that he made in front of the TV cameras."
No it doesn't, it means simply he didn't want Ruth Pained tied to
whatever he was being interrogated about. You are making leaps again.
"All the way up through the "Midnight Press Conference" on Friday
night, the calm and cool Oswald continued to say "I DON'T KNOW WHAT
THIS SITUATION IS ALL ABOUT".
And yet, per Roger Craig, Oswald (at some point PRIOR to that midnight
press gathering) certainly seems to know "what the situation is all
about", via the words "this" and "it" in these two sentences ---"Don't
try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it.""
You are reading into it what you want to think, it could simply mean
he did not want her questioned as she was one of his handlers.
"I can't prove that the above words were never spoken by Lee Oswald.
And I'll admit I can't prove that Roger Craig was never in Fritz'
office. (I've admitted in previous posts, in fact, that Craig might
very well have been in that office with Oswald.)
But one thing is a rock-solid certainty (with or without Oswald's
statements allegedly made in Fritz' office in the alleged presence of
Roger Craig) --- Lee H. Oswald was a liar and a double-murderer. And
no CTer alive can ever change those two basic facts."
Facts? Your above statement says it all "I can't prove..." as you
have shown NO proof for any of your wild claims.
> >>> "Come on Dave, there is no evidence that points to LHO, other than the stuff that was obviously "manufactured" to make him look guilty." <<<
"Which would encompass, of course, EVERY LAST PIECE OF PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE IN THE CASE....e.g., all the bullets, all the bullet shells,
all the guns (the MC rifle and the S&W revolver), the empty paper bag
with Oswald's prints on it, the other prints of LHO's that indicate he
handled both the Carcano AND the boxes that were used to construct the
Sniper's Nest, the fibers in the paper bag, and the fibers stuck in
the Carcano's butt plate."
Pretty much, because it is only "evidence" if it shows and links
someone to the crime, none of the "evidence" in this case tied LHO to
the crimes.
"Every bit of that stuff was "manufactured", eh?"
It had to be as there was NO real evidence to link LHO to the crimes.
If you read the real statements and about the evidence beyond what the
WC claimed you would know this.
"If you believe that all of that evidence is fake, I've got a "K" word
that's just itching to be re-typed on my keyboard."
Of course you do because you have NO real evidence to counter with so
you go for character assassination instead.
> >>> "The death certificate, autopsy report and the WC said he {JFK} died "from high velocity bullets" and we all know the M-C is a low velocity carbine." <<<
"Technically-speaking, the "low-velocity" statement is true. And the
FBI's Robert Frazier even acknowledged that very fact in his WC
testimony. But he also acknowledged something else, which is just as
important (if not more important)....."
Technically speaking? The muzzle velocity is a low-velocity caliber,
medium at best, NOT high-velocity, we don't need Frazier to confirm
this. I notice you NEVER mention something else the death certificate
mentions - the back wound was located at the T-3 thoracic vertebrae,
not where the WC placed it. I believe the autopsy report also showed
it there, not a the T-1 level later claimed
"This {Carcano} has a low velocity, but has very adequate killing
power with reference to humans, because it is an established military
weapon." -- Robert A. Frazier; Firearms Identification Expert; FBI"
And this is relevant to it firing a high-velocity round how? IT was a
military rifle designed for close combat, it could NEVER generate a
high-velocity round, period. Quit trying to distract.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcano
> >>> "There is a poor chain of custody. .... The defense team would have ripped all of this {LHO-Did-It evidence} to shreds. .... Look at all the "evidence" they had on LHO and all of it could be shown to be planted with very good certainty for the jury."
"This is complete bullshit."
Only in your strange world.
"Only in the "courtroom" of your own CT-infested mind could such a
thing happen, or even be suggested as having actually happened.
Because a jury that includes some people with a few brains in their
heads (the O.J. jury is excluded because of this prerequisite) knows
that it takes a LITTLE more than just some nutcase defense lawyer (or
a conspiracy-loving kook typing continuous strands of unsupportable
bullshit into his computer) to "prove" that evidence in a murder case
has been mishandled."
All it takes is show the evidence was mishandled, and in this case a
first year law student could do that. So many things were not logged,
photographed, or accounted for in terms of custody they would have not
been allowed in. Furthermore, you have to have corroborating witness
testimony to enter such evidence, and in this case so many of the
officers and witnesses did NOT see the "evidence" later presented, it
would have been found inadmissable. You again show your ingorance to
our system of justice.
Moreover, it's going to take a whole lot more than what CTers have
offered up to date as "proof of evidence-planting" to convince a
reasonable jury that evidence WAS, in fact, "planted" at the various
MULTIPLE crime scenes associated with John F. Kennedy's murder."
Only in your dreams, the O.J. case had about a 10th of what this case
has and he was found innocent.
"Such extraordinary allegations suggesting such highly-unlikely covert
activity require equally EXTRAORDINARY PROOF to support the notion
that such "planting" actually did occur in the JFK case."
They are NOT allegations as your investigative people were so inept
they made a nice trail that showed us their inability to provide a
chain of evidence for everything.
"A kook who has a feeling or an inkling that something's not quite
right with a HUGE amount of evidence in a particular case is not going
to get very far with a good and REASONABLE jury."
Well you will have a problem due to almost 90% of the population you
will be drawing from for your jury thinks there was a conspriracy.
"At SOME point in time, the kook who is spouting "It's all planted and
fake!" is going to have to (as Vince Bugliosi likes to say) pay the
piper. At some point, the kook is going to have to step up to the
plate and PROVE THAT ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE AGAINST LEE HARVEY OSWALD IS
FAKED AND/OR PLANTED."
The only kook I see is the one who claims all this "evidence" is
genuine when the authorities made it crystal clear for all to see it
is not.
"And, thus far, the CTers in the "Everything Was Planted" club haven't
PROVED that a single piece of evidence in the JFK case was planted.
The kooks only have their suspicions and "inklings"."
It has been proven, you choose to stay ignorant, big difference.
"Is an "inkling" equal to "proof"? Last time I checked, those two
words are not even close to being synonymous. But to certain CTers,
the two words are apparently identical in meaning."
Look who is talking, you NEVER provide any proof or evidence, it is
all your OPINION.
"And, btw, "mishandling" evidence is a long, long way from "planting"
it. Perhaps certain conspiracy theorists in the "Everything Was
Planted" club should learn the significant difference between those
two words as well."
Not in a court of law, if the evidence has questionable origins it is
obvious to most it could be planted.
YoHarvey
wrote:
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
find this statement attributed to Oswald by Craig to be completely
out of character with what Oswald was saying to the press and to the
live television audience on the VERY SAME DAY (per Roger Craig) ---
"Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."
That's a very interesting "admission", of sorts, by Lee Oswald. (If
we're to believe that LHO ever said it in the first place, that is.)"
Prove he didn't say it then.
How does somebody, anybody PROVE somebody didn't say something?
Typical Jesus comment. Once an asshole, ALWAYS an asshole. But why
the need to prove it with every posting Jesus?
David Von Pein
Why not just repeat the unsupportable garbage regarding Craig (etc.)
that you have already spouted in the original November 2007 posts from
which my above re-posts were culled?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/a68e934c4f9abf3d
I really don't need to hear you repeat your tripe again.
My only reason for posting my various messages/articles again is to
remind the one "lurker" per month what the real evidence is in the
case (and to emphasize the built-in silliness that exists within every
post written by members of the "Anybody But Oswald" crowd, who will go
to ANY lengths to turn the evidence [and Oz's obvious guilt in 2
murders] upside-down).
If nothing else is achieved via my posts (and re-posts), that latter
point stressed above about the ABO crowd most certainly comes across
loud and clear.
Thanks for re-emphasizing that point once more, Rob-Kook. Much
obliged. And by all means...continue. Your "ABO" colors are showing up
brilliantly and boldly (as usual).
You must be very proud of your posts, Rob C. After all, ignoring every
scrap of evidence in order to try and exonerate a known double-
murderer via your many posts on these NG pages will become your
"Google Groups Legacy".
Your children and your grandchildren can go to their own computers in
future years and pull up the file on "Rob Kook" (oops, that's
"Robcap"; sorry), and they can learn and profit by all of your
wonderful evidence-ignoring messages that litter the Internet
landscape.
What a great legacy to leave your kids! --- "LHO SHOT NO ONE THAT
DAY" (Robert Caprio; October 22, 2007 AD)
robcap...@netscape.com
"Robcap,
"Why not just repeat the unsupportable garbage regarding Craig (etc.)
that you have already spouted in the original November 2007 posts from
which my above re-posts were culled?"
Because I have better things to do then to go back and revisit
discussions that are months old.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/threa...
"I really don't need to hear you repeat your tripe again."
Why not? I see you are repeating your bogus opinions again? Why
exclude my comments?
"My only reason for posting my various messages/articles again is to
remind the one "lurker" per month what the real evidence is in the
case (and to emphasize the built-in silliness that exists within every
post written by members of the "Anybody But Oswald" crowd, who will go
to ANY lengths to turn the evidence [and Oz's obvious guilt in 2
murders] upside-down)."
I agree that probably not many read these beyond the regulars, but
let's be honest, the ONLY ones never posting any evidence or proof are
the LNers. As for the "Anybody but Oswald" that is not true, as I am
interested in the ones that did it not looking at everyone in the
world.
"If nothing else is achieved via my posts (and re-posts), that latter
point stressed above about the ABO crowd most certainly comes across
loud and clear."
You give a slanted view, yours, so I will have to continue to respond
as many times as you post them.
"Thanks for re-emphasizing that point once more, Rob-Kook. Much
obliged. And by all means...continue. Your "ABO" colors are showing up
brilliantly and boldly (as usual)."
Dave, please, I have feelings too.
"You must be very proud of your posts, Rob C. After all, ignoring
every scrap of evidence in order to try and exonerate a known double-
murderer via your many posts on these NG pages will become your
"Google Groups Legacy"."
The problem for you is I have NOT ignored all the "evidence" put forth
by the WC, that is how I know it is NOT evidence. You really should
learn to use the word "alleged" as he was NEVER convicted in a court
of law.
"Your children and your grandchildren can go to their own computers in
future years and pull up the file on "Rob Kook" (oops, that's
"Robcap"; sorry), and they can learn and profit by all of your
wonderful evidence-ignoring messages that litter the Internet
landscape."
Dave, the only one here who will be embarrased by their "Google
Legacy" is you as you are delibrately supporting a lie, and you know
it. I hope future Von Pein's will not shun their namesake like those
with Hitler did.
"What a great legacy to leave your kids! --- "LHO SHOT NO ONE THAT
DAY" (Robert Caprio; October 22, 2007 AD)"
I always teach my children to tell the truth, if I told them LHO did
shoot 3 people on 11/22/63 I'd be lying to them. The evidence does
NOT show this to be the case.
David Von Pein
>>> "Because I have better things to do then [sic] to go back and revisit discussions that are months old." <<<
But you'll re-post fresh comments in a thread that you (probably)
immediately knew you've already responded to previously. Right?
(Crazy logic, man.)
>>> "As for the "Anybody but Oswald", that is not true, as I am interested in the ones that did it, not looking at everyone in the world." <<<
If you were really interested in the ones who did it, you'd stop at
Oswald....because he so obviously is the lone guilty party.
REPRISE:
>>> "I am interested in the ones that did it, not looking at everyone in the world." <<<
As long as the person(s) you are looking for isn't Lee Oswald, you
mean. As long as you can keep Lee's name off the list of suspects,
you're happy. Gotcha.
>>> "You give a slanted view, yours, so I will have to continue to respond as many times as you post them." <<<
Even though you've got "better things to do then [sic] to go back and
revisit discussions that are months old" {which this whole thread so
obviously is, given the fact I even dated the thread-starter "November
2007"}.
Right?
(Crazy, man.)
>>> "Dave, please, I have feelings too." <<<
And they're all pro-conspiracy and ABO feelings (i.e., the kind of
"feelings" that deserve no respect at all, especially from a person
who, presumably, has studied this case in some depth over the years).
>>> "The problem for you is I have NOT ignored all the "evidence" put forth by the WC, that is how I know it is NOT evidence. You really should learn to use the word "alleged" as he {LHO} was NEVER convicted in a court of law." <<<
Therefore, per these "rules" of yours, I can certainly utilize that
word ("Alleged") when referring to any kind of "Pro-Conspiracy"
conclusion reached by the HSCA too, right? (Seeing as how Oswald
wasn't standing trial in a "court of law" during the HSCA's
investigation either. Right?)
Or does the "alleged" thing only apply when it applies to a CTer who
is trying to take the noose from around Saint Oswald's neck?
>>> "I always teach my children to tell the truth, if I told them LHO did shoot 3 people on 11/22/63 I'd be lying to them. The evidence does NOT show this to be the case." <<<
Yes it does. You just don't want to believe this evidence. Simple as
that.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Because I have better things to do then [sic] to go back and revisit discussions that are months old." <<<
"But you'll re-post fresh comments in a thread that you (probably)
immediately knew you've already responded to previously. Right?"
Davy, Davy, and Davy, it is different because I can count on you
either leaving out good portions of my comments or gleaning those
parts that work for you best. This way, by repsonding again, I get
in what I want in.
"(Crazy logic, man.)"
Perhaps, but this way I make sure my side is represented.
> >>> "As for the "Anybody but Oswald", that is not true, as I am interested in the ones that did it, not looking at everyone in the world." <<<
"If you were really interested in the ones who did it, you'd stop at
Oswald....because he so obviously is the lone guilty party."
I wish I could, it would be easier, but when the WC evidence is looked
at it doesn't stand up. It doesn't link LHO to the crimes.
"REPRISE:
> >>> "I am interested in the ones that did it, not looking at everyone in the world."
"As long as the person(s) you are looking for isn't Lee Oswald, you
mean. As long as you can keep Lee's name off the list of suspects,
you're happy. Gotcha.
The reason he is not on the list is because he was "investigated"
already and the "evidence" put forth does not show he did the crimes.
It has been time to look at others in depth, but our government is to
afraid to do so.
> >>> "You give a slanted view, yours, so I will have to continue to respond as many times as you post them." <<<
"Even though you've got "better things to do then [sic] to go back and
revisit discussions that are months old" {which this whole thread so
obviously is, given the fact I even dated the thread-starter "November
2007"}."
It is not the same, as I can't count on the whole response being
there, or having someone click on the link and reading old posts, can
I?
"Right?"
Wrong, Americans are very much in the moment kind of people, they
don't want to read old posts, they want the new ones.
"(Crazy, man.)"
I'm not the one dedicating all my free time to keeping a blog running
that does not tell the whole story.
> >>> "Dave, please, I have feelings too." <<<
"And they're all pro-conspiracy and ABO feelings (i.e., the kind of
"feelings" that deserve no respect at all, especially from a person
who, presumably, has studied this case in some depth over the years)."
You should learn to respect your enemies and those who think
differently as you can learn from them. I have studied the case in-
depth and that is why I know you are full of hot air.
> >>> "The problem for you is I have NOT ignored all the "evidence" put forth by the WC, that is how I know it is NOT evidence. You really should learn to use the word "alleged" as he {LHO} was NEVER convicted in a court of law." <<<
"Therefore, per these "rules" of yours, I can certainly utilize that
word ("Alleged") when referring to any kind of "Pro-Conspiracy"
conclusion reached by the HSCA too, right? (Seeing as how Oswald
wasn't standing trial in a "court of law" during the HSCA's
investigation either. Right?)"
Yes, as none of these government investigations held the same as a
court of law. That has always been my point, your theories are no
more proven than the CT theories, but most LNers act like your side is
a proven fact and the case is closed. Far from it, there was no day
in court on this and there are no statute of limitations on murder,
thus, the big lie must continue to protect those who have benefited.
"Or does the "alleged" thing only apply when it applies to a CTer who
is trying to take the noose from around Saint Oswald's neck?"
No, you can use it as well as something that was not proven in a court
is just a supposition or a hypothesis. This is why most CTers I have
read over the years don't make declarative statements about guilt
without using "probably", "could have", "allegedly" as they do not
want to be sued.
> >>> "I always teach my children to tell the truth, if I told them LHO did shoot 3 people on 11/22/63 I'd be lying to them. The evidence does NOT show this to be the case." <<<
"Yes it does. You just don't want to believe this evidence. Simple as
that."
Why wouldn't I want to believe it? You aren't making sense Dave. I
have no allegiance to LHO, but the evidence is horrible and it does
not show he did anything on 11/22/63 in terms of using a gun. Perhaps
he was guilty of other things but again, the WC was deficient in
finding any of this out if it was there.
David Von Pein
It isn't "different" at all. It's a verbatim copy-&-paste from my Nov.
'07 post. So I haven't changed a thing from my Nov. post...hence,
you're responding to the exact same post of mine from Nov., and
whatever portions of your ABO kookiness I chose to excise back in Nov.
are the same in the Feb. '08 version which you have responded to
(again).
Get it now?
David Von Pein
>>> "I'm not the one dedicating all my free time to keeping a blog running that does not tell the whole story." <<<
It tells the whole story of WHO KILLED JOHN KENNEDY & J.D. TIPPIT,
I'll tell ya that.
Telling the "whole story" of every conspiracy-happy clown with a
pencil (or a mouse) doesn't really matter. Because the theories of you
kooks couldn't possibly matter LESS.
www.blogger.com/profile/12501570830179992520
>>> "You should learn to respect your enemies and those who think differently as you can learn from them." <<<
LOL time. Yeah, I can learn things like:
"How to avoid using common sense when framing a lone patsy."
and
"How to avoid all of the real evidence in a double-murder
case...without really trying too hard either."
and
"How to call people liars, shills, and cover-up operatives without a
scrap of proof to back up these notions."
Yeah...those things I'm just DYING to become more proficient in.
Please help me Rob. After all, you're one of the Grand Poobahs in that
club!
>>> "I have studied the case in-depth and that is why I know you are full of hot air." <<<
It might be hot....but it's also the CS&L-filled truth of the matter.
Like it or not. Your choice.
>>> "I have no allegiance to LHO." <<<
Could have fooled me.
>>> "The evidence is horrible..." <<<
Because it convicts your "patsy"...right?
>>> "...And it {the evidence} does not show he {St. Oz} did anything on 11/22/63 in terms of using a gun." <<<
Even though he was SEEN with TWO different guns on that day, and was
seen firing those two guns AT PEOPLE that day, and was captured while
attempting to use one of those guns on MORE PEOPLE in the theater on
that same day....right Mr. Kook?
(Rob REALLY doesn't know how easy he makes this, does he? Go figure.)
>>> "Perhaps he {Oz The Great} was guilty of other things..." <<<
But never EVER is Oz to be considered guilty of pulling the trigger of
ANY gun on November 22, 1963....right, Rob? That sickening possibility
is simply out of the question, isn't it?
>>> "...But again, the WC was deficient in finding any of this out if it was there." <<<
The WC found out enough to know beyond ALL doubt that LHO fired two
guns at various people on 11/22/63, murdering two of those people he
was firing at.
But Robby can't seem to figure out this extremely-easy case at all.
All kinds of extra characters and motives and guns and covert plotters
MUST be added into the mix in order for Robby to be satisfied.
And even though all of the available evidence points to one man named
Lee committing these murders, Rob believes that "LHO SHOT NO ONE THAT
DAY" (11-22-63).
All we can do now is shake the ol' head in bewilderment at such a
mindset. (At least that's what I usually do at times like this
anyway.)
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "I'm not the one dedicating all my free time to keeping a blog running that does not tell the whole story." <<<
"It tells the whole story of WHO KILLED JOHN KENNEDY & J.D. TIPPIT,
I'll tell ya that."
You tell the official theory also know as the "Big Lie."
"Telling the "whole story" of every conspiracy-happy clown with a
pencil (or a mouse) doesn't really matter. Because the theories of you
kooks couldn't possibly matter LESS."
The conspiracy discussion lasts only because there is NO evidence or
proof in the official theory.
For all the latest propaganda visit here:
www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
www.blogger.com/profile/12501570830179992520
> >>> "You should learn to respect your enemies and those who think differently as you can learn from them." <<<
"LOL time. Yeah, I can learn things like:
"How to avoid using common sense when framing a lone patsy."
The only common sense not being displayed is by LNers who believe a
report that has NO proof or evidence in it.
and
"How to avoid all of the real evidence in a double-murder
case...without really trying too hard either."
This is a LN trademark, in fact, most of you don't even know what the
alleged evidence is.
and
"How to call people liars, shills, and cover-up operatives without a
scrap of proof to back up these notions.""
Hurts doesn't it? You call people "Kooks", liars and many other nasty
things all the time. Perhaps if you cleaned up your act you would get
some respect in return. I try to never call someone a liar, just show
why they are wrong in their assumption.
"Yeah...those things I'm just DYING to become more proficient in.
Please help me Rob. After all, you're one of the Grand Poobahs in that
club!"
You are pretty good at personal attacking already from what I read.
> >>> "I have studied the case in-depth and that is why I know you are full of hot air." <<<
"It might be hot....but it's also the CS&L-filled truth of the matter.
Like it or not. Your choice."
It is many things, but common sense and logic are two things it is
not. Like it or not.
> >>> "I have no allegiance to LHO." <<<
"Could have fooled me."
I have an allegiance to truth and evidence, and both are lacking on
the side of those who claim LHO did the killings. You are aiding and
abetting the real criminals in helping to coverup their crimes.
> >>> "The evidence is horrible..." <<<
"Because it convicts your "patsy"...right?"
Only in your non-CS&L mind, and the 10% who think like you.
> >>> "...And it {the evidence} does not show he {St. Oz} did anything on 11/22/63 in terms of using a gun." <<<
"Even though he was SEEN with TWO different guns on that day, and was
seen firing those two guns AT PEOPLE that day, and was captured while
attempting to use one of those guns on MORE PEOPLE in the theater on
that same day....right Mr. Kook?"
Who saw him with a gun? I know who you will say, but the truth is
they never ID'd LHO and the clothes the man was wearing wasn't even
close to what LHO was wearing.
"(Rob REALLY doesn't know how easy he makes this, does he? Go
figure.)"
It is easy because you always ingore my requests for proof and
evidence. You move on and select different things for your next post,
it is a never ending treadmill discussion with you. You have NO
evidence or proof, so I guess it is all you can do.
> >>> "Perhaps he {Oz The Great} was guilty of other things..." <<<
"But never EVER is Oz to be considered guilty of pulling the trigger
of ANY gun on November 22, 1963....right, Rob? That sickening
possibility is simply out of the question, isn't it?"
That is what the put forth evidence shows, it was NOT LHO who did the
shootings.
> >>> "...But again, the WC was deficient in finding any of this out if it was there." <<<
"The WC found out enough to know beyond ALL doubt that LHO fired two
guns at various people on 11/22/63, murdering two of those people he
was firing at."
Well you are in a very small minority in believing that. It is just
your belief, but you can't PROVE it, can you?
"But Robby can't seem to figure out this extremely-easy case at all.
All kinds of extra characters and motives and guns and covert plotters
MUST be added into the mix in order for Robby to be satisfied."
Killing a President is NEVER easy, anyone who believes that really
shows they have NO CS&L. You need inside help to make it work, that
is just common sense.
"And even though all of the available evidence points to one man named
Lee committing these murders, Rob believes that "LHO SHOT NO ONE THAT
DAY" (11-22-63)."
Well you must be hiding evidence NO ONE else has ever seen, because
what the WC put forth shows LHO did NOT shoot at anyone on 11/22/63.
"All we can do now is shake the ol' head in bewilderment at such a
mindset. (At least that's what I usually do at times like this
anyway.)"
Sure, shake away, as I can't expect real evidence and proof to be put
forth.