"DaBugman Proves Nothing on Cross"
robc...@netscape.com
A simulated sample of what very likely would have happened if Oswald
had taken the witness stand at his own murder trial (with Mr. Bugliosi
serving as the prosecutor).....
Rob Said:
Self-promoting again Vince? I'll skip it as it all conjecture. A
real defense attorney, and believe me, LHO would have had some of the
best in the country lined-up for this case since it was high profile,
would have not allowed all this stuff to be asked.
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit number
139, which is a bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial number
C2766. Police officers who testified at this trial have verified the
fact that this exact rifle was found on the sixth floor of your
workplace...
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: "Objection, Is there a question here? Prosecution
is testifying."
JUDGE: "Sustained - ask a question bugman."
skipped - ( ...the Texas School Book Depository, just 52 minutes after
President Kennedy was shot and killed from right in front of that
building on November the 22nd, 1963.) skipped
BUGLIOSI: "A palmprint of yours was located on this exact weapon. ....
I ask you now, Mr. Oswald, have you ever seen this rifle before?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir. I have not."
BUGLIOSI -- "Did you, Mr. Oswald, ever send in a mail-order coupon to
Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, a coupon for a 6.5-millimeter
carbine rifle, during the first half of the year 1963?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir." (I didn't order any rifle through the mail.) His
lawyer would have tutored him on keeping anwers brief. You don't add
things like this because they can bit you in the a** later.
BUGLIOSI -- "Have you ever owned a rifle in your lifetime, Mr.
Oswald....a privately-owned rifle, that is, since you got out of the
Marine Corps in late 1959?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir." (I have never owned a rifle in my life.)" Same as
above, No is enough.
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit number 134,
a photograph of a man who looks exactly like you--Lee Harvey Oswald.
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: "Objection, Leading. The prosecution has not proven
the man in the picture is my client." JUDGE: "Sustained, move on
Bugman."
BUGLIOSI: "This man in the photo, who looks like you..."
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: "Objection! The Prosecution could not prove the man
in the picture was my client."
JUDGE: "SUSTAINED"
BUGLIOSI: " The man is holding a rifle, has a handgun in a holster
around his waist, and is also holding up two Russian newspapers, dated
March 11th and March 24th of 1963. .... I ask you now, Mr. Oswald, are
you the man depicted in this photograph?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir." (That picture must be a fake or something. I
never posed for any picture like that in my life.") Same as above.
Let the prosecution earn their case.
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now direct your attention to the date of
President Kennedy's assassination--November the 22nd, 1963--and I ask
you now, Mr. Oswald, if you know a young man by the name of Buell
Wesley Frazier?"
OSWALD -- "Yes, I worked with him at the (book store....)the
Depository."
Talk about a fictious leading answer. Why would LHO start to say
bookstore? LHO was a man of few words based on what people who knew
him said. You have, I mean bugman has, made him into a chatting
Cathy.
BUGLIOSI -- "And did Mr. Frazier give you a ride to work on the
morning of President Kennedy's visit to Dallas--that is the morning of
Friday, November the 22nd, 1963?"
OSWALD -- "Yes" (I believe I did ride to work with him that morning.)"
Yes is enough. If he is too dense to ask open-ended questions, why
help him?
BUGLIOSI -- "Okay. And did you bring any type of paper package with
you to work on that particular morning?"
OSWALD -- "I brought my lunch." (That's all.)" Stressing "that's all"
can make you sound guilty. Cut it out.
BUGLIOSI -- "You brought ONLY a lunch sack with you to work on
November 22nd, is that correct?"
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: "Objection! Badgering the witness. My client has
already said he only brought his lunch bag."
JUDGE: "Sustained, move on bugman."
BUGLIOSI -- "Did you have any OTHER paper package with you that
morning at all? Anything larger than a small lunch bag?"
DEFENSE ATTORNEY: "Objection! Your Honor? Prosecution has asked this
question 3 times, my client has answered it."
JUDGE: "Sustained. This the last time I'm going to say this counseler,
move on."
BUGLIOSI -- "Wesley Frazier, just this morning, told this court and
this jury that he observed you carrying a much-larger paper bag on the
morning of November the 22nd. Mr. Frazier said that you told him you
had some curtain rods in that larger paper package. Did you tell
Wesley Frazier anything like that on the morning of November 22nd?"
OSWALD -- "No, sir!" (Absolutely not! I don't know why he'd say a
thing like that. I never told him anything like that.)" Ditto, all
this crap makes you sound guilty, no wonder bugman thinks he can win.
BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, another witness--Mr. Frazier's sister, Linnie
Mae Randle--also testified during this trial that she also observed
you carrying a bulky-type brown paper bag as you walked toward her
house in Irving, Texas, around 7:10 AM on the morning of November
22nd, 1963. Was she mistaken, Mr. Oswald? Did she ONLY see your small
paper lunch sack?"
OSWALD -- ("Yes sir. As I have said earlier that was all I had with
me.") He would have been instructed to answer like this:
"I only brought my lunch bag with me on that morning."
(The defense of course would have pointed out that no other employee
saw him carrying any bag, only this brother and sister)
This would have not been said - (Well...(er...I...uh...I really can't
speak for what another witness might or might not have said. I can
only tell you that she's wrong if she said I had a big bag with me
that day. I just carried my lunch to work, like I usually do on work
days.") Ditto, talk about making LHO convict himself.
BUGLIOSI -- "Thank you, Mr. Oswald....no further questions at this
time."
Rob says: What did this questioning prove? Nothing. Yet he has him
all but convicted in "Reclaiming History".
[END COURTROOM SIMULATION OF OSWALD'S DESTRUCTION.]
The above questioning is a figment of bugman's imagination. He would
have been up against the best defense lawyer(s) in the country due to
the nature of the case. He thinks those "big" cases in L.A. make him
important, but try one for a slain president that effects the whole
country. Those type of defense lawyers would eat him for lunch.
YoHarvey
The above is opinion, not evidence. DVP's posting is for
entertainment value. The issue will never be resolved so people
resort to wondering "what if"? It's fun.
David Von Pein
~sigh~
I guess I'll have to spell it out for the (evidently) brain-dead CTer
named Robert Caprio:
The above simulated Oswald testimony (if it had been uttered in court
by a CTer's favorite patsy, Mr. Oswald) proves that Oswald LIED, and
proves he lied several times about crucial issues connected to the
case.
Of course, Rob decided to leave out the following paragraphs that I
wrote in my original post that included the above simulated LHO/VB
exchange. And in these paragraphs I fully explain what the simulation
"proves".
Here's the portion Rob decided not to include.......
"The above questioning of Oswald would have been, of course,
preceded by a parade of witnesses who would have confirmed (without a
shred of a doubt) that Lee Oswald DID purchase Rifle #C2766 by mail-
order in March 1963, and WAS photographed (by his own wife) while
holding that weapon on 3/31/63, and DID take a bulky paper package
into the Book Depository on 11/22/63.
"Who do you think the jury is going to believe? The accused
murderer? Or the succession of several different witnesses who all
paint Oswald as the liar he obviously was when he told Mr. Bugliosi
(via my simulated courtroom proceeding above): "I have never owned a
rifle in my life"?
"The jury wouldn't even break a sweat on that decision.
"In short, Lee Harvey Oswald's many, many LIES would have done
almost as much to convict the bastard as would the wealth of physical
and circumstantial evidence in the JFK case (which also convicts him
ten
times over, of course)." -- DVP
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d2c24506aa7154bf
robc...@netscape.com
> The above is opinion, not evidence. DVP's posting is for
> entertainment value. The issue will never be resolved so people
> resort to wondering "what if"? It's fun.
Sure, when it doesn't work out well for you then it is for fun?
You're allowed to wonder "what if" but we are kooks if we, right? It
is fun to show how lame bugman is.
YoHarvey
>
> You can say what you want about Bugs, but he was a darn fine
> prosecutor. The evidence against Oswald was overwhelming.
Sure, when it doesn't work out well for you then it is for fun?
You're allowed to wonder "what if" but we are kooks if we, right? It
is fun to show how lame bugman is.
Jesus? Man, you have got to be brain dead. NOBODY else would post
the foolishness YOU DO with each posting. I realize as I've stated
before you have no education, whether rudimentary or classical.
Here's an enlighting differrence between an idiot such as yourself and
ANY LN: LN's base their comments ON THE EVIDENCE. We don't WONDER as
you typed. You get on this newsgroup and declare the following:
1. The entire DPD was "in on it".
2. There was a "battle" for the body at Parkland
3. Connally shot JFK.
Do you EVER produce an iota of evidence? NO, you never do because
THERE ISN'T ANY.
Point Jesus is you people speculate and conjure at what you believe
"could be" no matter how foolish is makes you look. LNs don't need to
do this. We have the evidence on our side.
David Von Pein
Rob seems to actually think that Vincent Bugliosi wrote the above
simulated Q&A himself. (LOL time.)
But, of course, Vince had nothing to do with it. He didn't write it. I
did. I merely used VB's name as the "prosecutor" in my mock courtroom
setting. (No better prosecutor to use, too, IMO.)
(Oh, that's right....DVP is supposed to actually BE Vince B. this
week. I almost forgot who I was for a minute. Next week, I'll be Dale
K. Myers. That's kinda fun, too.)
Anyway, back to my (DVP's) simulation......the answers that Oswald
provides in my mock courtroom questioning above are NOT based on
conjecture or speculation at all. Those answers are based on the lies
he positively TOLD TO THE POLICE after his arrest in Nov. '63. Which
was pretty much the whole point for writing up my little "mock LHO
testimony" post in the first place (i.e., to place Oswald's many lies
into a "courtroom" setting, with a lawyer pounding away at him and
getting him to state such lies in front of a jury).
And those lies of Oswald's almost certainly WOULD have been told by
LHO at a real trial too (if Oz was stupid enough to actually take the
witness stand). Because, if he suddenly ADMITS on the witness stand
that he DOES own the rifle and that he DID take a bulky package into
work, and that he DID talk about 'curtain rods' to Wes Frazier, etc.,
then he's going to be found out to STILL be a liar, because of the
contradictory things he told the cops earlier, when he said just the
OPPOSITE and said he DIDN'T own a rifle and DIDN'T say anything about
'curtain rods', etc.
So, my "Oswald" answers to "VB's" simulated questions are not really
"guesses" at all. They are based on things that Oswald said to people
(like Wes Frazier and various police officers) in November of 1963.
===================================
A SAMPLE OF HOW VINCE BUGLIOSI WOULD HAVE EASILY CONVICTED OSWALD:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d2c24506aa7154bf
MY BEST VINCENT BUGLIOSI IMITATION:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3ae26a3befc052b8
"ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" (1986 DOCU-TRIAL TEXT EXCERPTS):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
aeffects
you live in fantasyland, son..... Does daBug know you represent him on
this forum?
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "What did this questioning prove? Nothing." <<<
>
> ~sigh~
>
> I guess I'll have to spell it out for the (evidently) brain-dead CTer
> named Robert Caprio:
Good day to you too Dave. This proves nothing. LHO would have been
the last part of a very long trial. It would have been shown that the
backyard photos were faked (or at least put alot of doubt in the minds
of the jury and that's all the defense has to do), no one but a
brother and sister team saw a bundled paper package on the morning of
the assassination, that LHO never ordered that gun in the first place,
that he had ties to the FBI/CIA, that no prints were ever found on the
gun belonging to LHO (beside a very suspicious smudged palm print),
that Ruth & Michael Paine had CIA connections, George DeMohrenschildt
had CIA connections, that Guy Banister had FBI connections, that the
SBT is total bull, that JFK was hit 3 times and not 2, etc...
You would need a hell of cross to bury LHO and then the defense team
can just redirect and call rebuttal witnesses. Think of all the good
things a defense team could have brought up. Wow! Obviously the
conspirators thought of and had Ruby kill him before a trial could
happen. Isn't it funny that the two reporters and his first lawyer
all were killed when they had been in Ruby's apartment on 11/24/63
before the shooting. What a coincidence, huh?
YoHarvey
Ah, so now coincidence is EVIDENCE in the demented world of Chico
Jesus/Rocap!
robc...@netscape.com
> On Oct 26, 3:51 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>
>
> You can say what you want about Bugs, but he was a darn fine
> prosecutor. The evidence against Oswald was overwhelming.
Yo,
It was all circumstantial. You can't link him to anything involved in
the case. A great defense team would have slaughtered him. What did he
win besides Sirhan Sirhan (set-up like this case) and Charles Manson?
If he couldn't put a real kook like Manson away then he should have
retired.
David Von Pein
Keep on dreaming, Robby. (It's what you seem to do best anyway.)
BTW, any luck on finding that info re. the Sibert/O'Neill Report (you
know, the PROOF that both of those FBI agents said they saw TWO
separate bullet holes in JFK's back/neck)? I'm still waiting for that
"WE SAW 2 WOUNDS BACK THERE" verification.
Should I hold my breath while waiting?
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is simply remarkable. ONE more time for Mr. Braindead Chico
Jersus/Robcap. Their limited knowledge of jurisprudence is evident.
Mr. Bugliosi performance in the prosecution of Charles Manson was
extraordinary on EVERY level. This case is used at the best law
schools. Mr. Bugliosi got a first degree murder charge against
Charles Manson and MANSON WASN'T EVEN AT THE MURDER SCENES.
But hey, the limited intellect and reasoning abilities of Jesus/Robcap
makes one understand their positions as kooks.
He makes comments about a respected lawyer such as VB and yet knows
nothing about VB. Yet, Jesus/Robcap attempt to demonize him. They do
exactly the same thing in the JFK case. They NEVER have studied
Oswald and they don't care. They NEED CONSPIRACY.
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "You're allowed to wonder "what if", but we {CTers} are kooks if we {do it}, right? It is fun to show how lame bugman is." <<<
>
> Rob seems to actually think that Vincent Bugliosi wrote the above
> simulated Q&A himself. (LOL time.)
I knew it wasn't bugman by the fact it proved nothing. I'm sure he
would do a little better than that.
>
> Anyway, back to my (DVP's) simulation......the answers that Oswald
> provides in my mock courtroom questioning above are NOT based on
> conjecture or speculation at all. Those answers are based on the lies
> he positively TOLD TO THE POLICE after his arrest in Nov. '63. Which
> was pretty much the whole point for writing up my little "mock LHO
> testimony" post in the first place (i.e., to place Oswald's many lies
> into a "courtroom" setting, with a lawyer pounding away at him and
> getting him to state such lies in front of a jury).
That's is my point Dave, in a courtroom setting things are totally
different. This is why the WC got away with so much as the witnesses
weren't allowed to have a lawyer so as you can see it very easy to
lead, twist or bully a witness when no one is there for them. He
could have written "War & Peace" in the police department, but his
answers would be different in court and they would have precluded alot
of what he said since he had no representation. Funny they didn't
bring a lawyer in for him, huh? Oh that's right, they wanted Shaw
(CIA ties) to hire someone they knew would forget what was said and
keep his mouth shut.
>
> And those lies of Oswald's almost certainly WOULD have been told by
> LHO at a real trial too (if Oz was stupid enough to actually take the
> witness stand). Because, if he suddenly ADMITS on the witness stand
> that he DOES own the rifle and that he DID take a bulky package into
> work, and that he DID talk about 'curtain rods' to Wes Frazier, etc.,
> then he's going to be found out to STILL be a liar, because of the
> contradictory things he told the cops earlier, when he said just the
> OPPOSITE and said he DIDN'T own a rifle and DIDN'T say anything about
> 'curtain rods', etc.
If he was taking the stand he would have kept his answers brief. Why
would he admit that stuff when it is not true? There is no firm proof
tying him to that gun in terms in owning it or using it. He was in
the process of moving to a new apartment and that is where the curtain
rod story came from as it had none.
David Von Pein
"Conspiracy theorists have attacked the case against Oswald as
being weak because it was "only circumstantial," the implication being
that any case based on circumstantial evidence is not solid. .... But
nothing could be further from the truth. ....
"Not only was there PHYSICAL circumstantial evidence against
Oswald {e.g., guns, bullets, and fingerprints traced to the
defendant}, but there was an enormous amount of non-physical
circumstantial evidence, including the very most powerful in this
category: his flight from the murder scene, his resisting arrest, and
his telling one provable lie after another upon his apprehension, all
showing an unmistakable consciousness of guilt." -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI;
Page 528 of "Reclaiming History" (Via the endnotes section on the CD-
ROM)
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8845d85a86407d31
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d654c1e6ad40ca56
>>> "You can't link him {Saint Oz} to anything involved in the case." <<<
~~I'm unable to utter a sound after reading the above 10 words penned
by Rob The Mega-Kook. (Only a Super-Duper Mega-Kook would dare write
the above ten words.)~~
>>> "What did he {VB} win besides Sirhan Sirhan..." <<<
Huh? What are you babbling about now? Vince didn't "win" anything re.
the RFK case. In fact, I think Vince now believes he was wrong about
his original thoughts of "conspiracy" in Robert Kennedy's
assassination.
>>> "If he {VB} couldn't put a real kook like Manson away then he should have retired." <<<
Another idiotic statement from an obvious idiot who immediately types
out every loony thought that enters his head.
But, of course, the truth is that Charles Manson DIDN'T KILL ANY OF
THE SEVEN TATE-LaBIANCA VICTIMS.
Therefore, Vince Bugliosi had to prove that Manson orchestrated and
ordered those 7 murders. And VB did prove that. And Vince got the jury
to convict Manson of both murder and conspiracy to commit murder, even
though Manson himself never murdered any of the victims.
Maybe I'm nuts, but I wouldn't have wanted to be in Vince's shoes
during that trial, i.e., trying to convince a jury that a man who
didn't kill any of the victims was actually the MAIN MURDERER (in a
sense) in the whole case.
Not exactly an open-and-shut case. But, in hindsight, it looks like an
open-and-shut one...because of VB's work on that case.
So, Rob, you can stuff your anti-VB rhetoric up your kooky ass.
(Forgive my French. But it seemed like an appropriate place for it
there.)
muc...@gmail.com
Bugliosi prosecuted Sirhan?
David Von Pein
Yes, he does. And he's told me to "keep up the good work" too. (A
verbatim VB quote from July 2007.)
So, Mr. Healy....go to hell.
aeffects
shit hon, conspiracy is YOUR life, without it you lose DVP er, Dave
Reitzes. Wouldn't want that now would we? LMFAO!
aeffects
but Dave.... I was released from the bondage of hell when I declared
JFK was murdered by conspiracy. Try it you'll like it hon, doesn't
hurt a bit!
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Oct 26, 5:04 pm, chuck schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 3:51 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 26, 4:41 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > The above is opinion, not evidence. DVP's posting is for
>> > > entertainment value. The issue will never be resolved so people
>> > > resort to wondering "what if"? It's fun.
>>
>> > Sure, when it doesn't work out well for you then it is for fun?
>> > You're allowed to wonder "what if" but we are kooks if we, right? It
>> > is fun to show how lame bugman is.
>>
>> Rob,
>>
>> You can say what you want about Bugs, but he was a darn fine
>> prosecutor. The evidence against Oswald was overwhelming.
>
>Yo,
>
>It was all circumstantial. You can't link him to anything involved in
>the case. A great defense team would have slaughtered him. What did he
>win besides Sirhan Sirhan
He wasn't involved with Sirhan Sirhan. He got involved years later.
Interestingly, he dug up the proof that more than one gun was fired in the
pantry that night.
He went to court on a libel case, and argued for conspiracy in both the RFK and
JFK cases.
>(set-up like this case) and Charles Manson?
>If he couldn't put a real kook like Manson away then he should have
>retired.
Fortunately, he *DID* put Manson away... and it was actually a very difficult
task, legally speaking.
Sadly, he demonstrated that he was a has been with his literary efforts.
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
The room that he was *CURRENTLY* renting had none. The landlord said otherwise,
undoubtably under pressure - but the FACT is that a newspaper photographer took
a picture SATURDAY MORNING of someone hanging curtain rods. LNT'ers like to
tell the story that the police search of his room was so violent and vicious
that they tore the curtain rods off the wall - but I'll let lurkers judge the
possibilities there.
The *FACT* is that we have a photograph.
And it shows curtain rods BEING HUNG in Oswald's room the day AFTER he was
arrested.
Ben Holmes
muc...@gmail.com says...
No.
Interestingly, however - he was of the opinion that the RFK (and JFK) killings
were conspiracies.
At least, he did back in the 70's.
David Von Pein
This is about the 50th time Ben-Kook has uttered this lie now.
VB never ever specifically argued in favor of a "JFK conspiracy".
But that won't stop Ben The Mega-Kook from spouting this lie...again
and again.
robc...@netscape.com
> BTW, any luck on finding that info re. the Sibert/O'Neill Report (you
> know, the PROOF that both of those FBI agents said they saw TWO
> separate bullet holes in JFK's back/neck)? I'm still waiting for that
> "WE SAW 2 WOUNDS BACK THERE" verification.
>
> Should I hold my breath while waiting?
If you do hold your breath I'll slow down on getting it. I already
gave you the source Dave, it is in the CD 7 section of the WCR. It is
a document. The pages of the document that pertain to the lower back
wound are in my earlier posts. I wouldn't make something like that
up, believe me. I believe in conspiracy, but I don't believe in every
theory out there. I read Lifton's book like 15 years ago, but was
skimming it the other day and saw that section. In his book it is on
pp.101-109, but as I said the FBI report was an addemdum to the WCR.
robc...@netscape.com
> This is simply remarkable. ONE more time for Mr. Braindead Chico
> Jersus/Robcap. Their limited knowledge of jurisprudence is evident.
> Mr. Bugliosi performance in the prosecution of Charles Manson was
> extraordinary on EVERY level. This case is used at the best law
> schools. Mr. Bugliosi got a first degree murder charge against
> Charles Manson and MANSON WASN'T EVEN AT THE MURDER SCENES.
Ever hear of conspiracy to commit murder? Oh, that's right you
probably didn't. So how was Bugman able to convict Manson if he
wasn't there? Because you can show someone/or groups orchestrate an
event and therefore, they are just as guilty. To bad you don't give
LHO the same break you give the Manson girls. This was a slam dunk
case dude.
>
> But hey, the limited intellect and reasoning abilities of Jesus/Robcap
> makes one understand their positions as kooks.
> He makes comments about a respected lawyer such as VB and yet knows
> nothing about VB. Yet, Jesus/Robcap attempt to demonize him. They do
> exactly the same thing in the JFK case. They NEVER have studied
> Oswald and they don't care. They NEED CONSPIRACY.
Yeah, I wouldn't be able to live if there wasn't a conspiracy.
Unfortunately there are conspiracies because governments don't tell
the citizenry everything that is really happening. Keep the posts up
YoDimWit maybe you'll learn something.
David Von Pein
Rob misses the point yet again.
CD7 doesn't prove your case about there being TWO separate back
wounds. It does just the opposite, in fact, because CD7 mentions only
ONE back wound.
I guess O'Neill and Sibert just forgot to put in the stuff about that
SECOND back/neck wound, huh?
Here's the pertinent page of CD7......
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10408&relPageId=291
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "It was all circumstantial." <<<
>
> "Conspiracy theorists have attacked the case against Oswald as
> being weak because it was "only circumstantial," the implication being
> that any case based on circumstantial evidence is not solid. .... But
> nothing could be further from the truth. ....
>
> "Not only was there PHYSICAL circumstantial evidence against
> Oswald {e.g., guns, bullets, and fingerprints traced to the
> defendant}, but there was an enormous amount of non-physical
> circumstantial evidence, including the very most powerful in this
> category: his flight from the murder scene, his resisting arrest, and
> his telling one provable lie after another upon his apprehension, all
> showing an unmistakable consciousness of guilt." -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI;
> Page 528 of "Reclaiming History" (Via the endnotes section on the CD-
> ROM)
>
LHO? It is claimed he ordered it via mail order. No one ever saw him
with the gun at anytime, period. The photo of him holding the gun
have been proven by Scotland Yard to be fake. The brother and sister
tag team don't matter as they are the only two to see LHO with a
package that day. How were the bullets linked to LHO? They weren't
as they were linked to a gun that was never linked to LHO. You ever
hear the term "frame up"? Why would LHO need a gun in the first place
if he had one to shoot at General Walker? LNers can't have it both
ways. If he shot at Walker with a Springfield 30.6 where was that gun
on 11/22/63? IF, he burrowed it, who leant it to him? Where is this
accomplice? Secondly, he could have purchased a gun at hundreds of
places in TX with cash and left no record. VB forgets to tell the
sucker, er, the reader that no fingerprints of LHO were on the gun or
bag he supposedly carried the gun into the TBSD with. How does that
happen? No one saw him with gloves on. Flight from the murder scene?
I love this one. He could have simply left for the day. Like work
was going to continue anyway. If he was on the 2nd floor he wouldn't
know the shots came from the TBSD so it wouldn't have been fleeing.
Besides, fleeing didn't seem to hurt O.J. that much. Unprovable lies
after he was arrested. How do you know this? How does VB know this?
Neither one of you was there. It was before Miranda rights became
law, but there had to be rules for handling suspects and I don't think
interrogating someone for 12 hours with no record and no offer of a
lawyer would cut it.
> >>> "You can't link him {Saint Oz} to anything involved in the case." <<<
>
> ~~I'm unable to utter a sound after reading the above 10 words penned
> by Rob The Mega-Kook. (Only a Super-Duper Mega-Kook would dare write
> the above ten words.)~~
See above. You LNers throw all this stuff out but you don't prove any
of it. I have laid out what happened. Show we how we know the gun is
his. A card with an alias that was the name used to order it.
Please, a good lawyer would shred this. Especially when he could
supeona the FBI/CIA for their employee records regarding LHO.
>
> >>> "What did he {VB} win besides Sirhan Sirhan..." <<<
>
> Huh? What are you babbling about now? Vince didn't "win" anything re.
> the RFK case. In fact, I think Vince now believes he was wrong about
> his original thoughts of "conspiracy" in Robert Kennedy's
> assassination.
Wasn't he part of the prosecution team in the RFK case? I don't
idolize the guy like you, but I thought he was part of that case.
>
> >>> "If he {VB} couldn't put a real kook like Manson away then he should have retired." <<<
>
> Another idiotic statement from an obvious idiot who immediately types
> out every loony thought that enters his head.
Why is this idiotic? Like there was a doubt Manson would go to jail.
Come on, he scared the shit out every juror - it was a slam dunk.
>
> But, of course, the truth is that Charles Manson DIDN'T KILL ANY OF
> THE SEVEN TATE-LaBIANCA VICTIMS.
>
> Therefore, Vince Bugliosi had to prove that Manson orchestrated and
> ordered those 7 murders. And VB did prove that. And Vince got the jury
> to convict Manson of both murder and conspiracy to commit murder, even
> though Manson himself never murdered any of the victims.
Exactly, just like the LHO case. He didn't kill anyone either. Why
doesn't VB use his experience in convicting Manson for conspiracy to
commit murder in the LHO case? Because there is more money in
defending the crazy official theory.
>
> Maybe I'm nuts,
No maybe about it. :-)
but I wouldn't have wanted to be in Vince's shoes
> during that trial, i.e., trying to convince a jury that a man who
> didn't kill any of the victims was actually the MAIN MURDERER (in a
> sense) in the whole case.
This is actually quite common. Ever hear of murder for hire? There
are alot of cases where spouses get someone to do the dirty deed for
them. With a crazy bunch like the LNers, er, Manson girls it wasn't
that hard.
>
> Not exactly an open-and-shut case. But, in hindsight, it looks like an
> open-and-shut one...because of VB's work on that case.
Why don't you marry this guy. Are you president of his fan club?
>
> So, Rob, you can stuff your anti-VB rhetoric up your kooky ass.
> (Forgive my French. But it seemed like an appropriate place for it
> there.)
Sounds like VB is shoving something up your butt. :-0 Forgive my
French but it seemed appropriate.
robc...@netscape.com
> Bugliosi prosecuted Sirhan?
My mistake, I was giving him too much credit. I knew he was a deputy
D.A. in L.A. around that time, but they gave it too someone else. So
his only claim to fame is convicting a raving lunatic - i.e. Manson.
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "I already gave you the source Dave, it is in the CD 7 section of the WCR." <<<
>
> Rob misses the point yet again.
No you are Dave. This is a seperate wound from the neck wound. This
one was below the shoulders and Dr. Humes could feel the end of the
wound with his fingertip, which means it did not transit out of JFK.
Why are you not getting this? This is not, repeat not, the back wound
attributed to the SBT. That was higher in the back area (dirty rotten
liar Ford moved it a few inches to the left to make the SBT work).
Humes reasoning that "it worked its way back out" precludes it from
the other wound because you falsely believe it left JFK and hit JBC.
>
> CD7 doesn't prove your case about there being TWO separate back
> wounds. It does just the opposite, in fact, because CD7 mentions only
> ONE back wound.
It is exclusively talking about the back wound not associated with the
SBT scenario, that is why it is so important.
>
> I guess O'Neill and Sibert just forgot to put in the stuff about that
> SECOND back/neck wound, huh?
Yawn~~~~ to quote you. The whole report is about this second back
wound.
>
> Here's the pertinent page of CD7......
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=104...
Thanks for the link as it is nice to have it on my computer.
David Von Pein
>>> "This is a seperate [sic] wound from the neck wound." <<<
No, it isn't. There is no "second" back/neck bullet hole.
No matter how many times you spout this "2nd hole" drivel, there will
never EVER be a second hole in JFK's back.
And you're a kook if you actually believe in such a stupid,
unsupportable notion. Simple as that.
>>> "Why are you not getting this?" <<<
I've got a better question: Why aren't you currently in a strait-
jacket?
>>> "This is not, repeat not, the back wound attributed to the SBT." <<<
It's always good when a CT-Kook says "repeat" to make his silly,
unsupportable point seem stronger. (Placing the "not" in all CAPS
would enhance it even more. Try that next time.)
>>> "Thanks for the link, as it is nice to have it on my computer." <<<
S'alright. I specialize in making things easy for people who are too
lazy to find easy-to-find Internet stuff for themselves. ;)
http://history-matters.com/archive/contents.htm
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
robc...@netscape.com
> >>> "This is a seperate [sic] wound from the neck wound." <<<
>
> No, it isn't. There is no "second" back/neck bullet hole.
Yes, it is. This is not the base of neck wound associated with the
fairy tale SBT. This is the wound that a bullet fell out of and
landed on JFK's stretcher and is the real CE399. No wonder you are
dancing around here. The lack of damage to the bullet would be
consistent with the partial back wound described in this report.
>
> No matter how many times you spout this "2nd hole" drivel, there will
> never EVER be a second hole in JFK's back.
Well, too bad as two FBI agents say differently.
>
> And you're a kook if you actually believe in such a stupid,
> unsupportable notion. Simple as that.
So you are saying the FBI and Dr. Humes are lying? No you don't
believe them, huh?
>
> >>> "Why are you not getting this?" <<<
>
> I've got a better question: Why aren't you currently in a strait-
> jacket?
Because Dave, only nuts like you get put into the straightjacket. I
am totally sane.
>
> >>> "This is not, repeat not, the back wound attributed to the SBT." <<<
>
> It's always good when a CT-Kook says "repeat" to make his silly,
> unsupportable point seem stronger. (Placing the "not" in all CAPS
> would enhance it even more. Try that next time.)
That report spells it all out. Another big piece of the puzzle is now
in place. We have proof of multiple gunmen and a conspiracy.
>
> >>> "Thanks for the link, as it is nice to have it on my computer." <<<
>
> S'alright. I specialize in making things easy for people who are too
> lazy to find easy-to-find Internet stuff for themselves. ;)
It's the American way!
David Von Pein
>>> "This guy {VB} smokes as much stuff as you do." <<<
That's curious....I thought I *WAS* him. (My identity crisis has reach
its zenith.)
~head swirling~
>>> "How was the gun linked to LHO?" <<<
You mean BESIDES the paper trail leading to LHO's P.O. Box in Dallas
and the palmprint and the backyard photos and the Walker shooting
(which involved a bullet that almost certainly came from C2766, and Oz
admitted he shot at Walker...and I kinda doubt he used a spitwad-
thrower to do the job on the retired General)?
Besides those little piddly items, I guess there's nothing. So, I
guess you're right. Oz is in the clear.
>>> "It is claimed he ordered it via mail order." <<<
He did. But you, being in the "ABO" (Anybody But Oswald) Club, have to
reject that verified evidence. It MUST mean that some schnook named
"A.J. Hidell" (who happens to have Lee Harvey Oswald's exact same
handwriting) really ordered the rifle and shipped it to LHO's P.O.
Box.
It's obvious, you dolt! Hidell did it!
>>> "No one ever saw him with the gun at anytime, period." <<<
It sure gets tiresome having to correct your stupid errors every day.
(Maybe Rob-Kook is a "CT Plant", placed here to make even the likes of
Walt and Ben look good.)
Fact is -- Marina saw LHO dry-firing his rifle during the calendar
year of 1963. He covered the rifle with a raincoat, and would then sit
on the porch and practice working the bolt and dry-firing in the pitch-
darkness of night.
It's a wonder that Marina didn't take the baby and run for the hills
after putting up with some of the shit this kook named Lee did,
including, of course, several wife-beating sessions. What a great guy.
>>> "The photos of him holding the gun have been proven by Scotland Yard to be fake." <<<
LOL. Scotland Yard is in the mix now, eh? Where did that fairy tale
come from? Care to show us?
>>> "The brother and sister tag team don't matter as they are the only two to see LHO with a package that day." <<<
Oh, I see. The fact that Wesley and Linnie Mae were "brother and
sister" somehow disqualifies them as reliable witnesses with respect
to being able to say for certainty whether or not they saw LHO with a
bulky package on November 22.
Nice made-up kook rule you've got there, I must say.
So, I guess if Donny & Marie had each seen Lee with the package,
they'd be disqualified too, huh?
It's also good to know that Linnie's and Wesley's testimony is
worthless...because that means I can now toss out their testimony
about the length of the bag. (Or is THAT part of their observations
still valid, Mr. Kook, because it supports your ABO position?)
>>> "How were the bullets linked to LHO?" <<<
Through Rifle #C2766 which fired them (a rifle owned by LHO).
Time for a "Duh" here.
>>> "They {the bullets} weren't, as they were linked to a gun that was never linked to LHO." <<<
Kook.
>>> "You ever hear the term "frame up"? " <<<
When it comes to the JFK assassination case, that's the only term you
kooks have EVER heard of --- LHO was "framed" for the Walker shooting.
LHO was "framed" for the JFK shooting. LHO was "framed" for the Tippit
shooting.
Care to go for one more? Maybe Oz shot Medgar Evers too.
>>> "Why would LHO need a gun in the first place if he had one to shoot at General Walker?" <<<
Same gun, you stupid fool.
>>> "LNers can't have it both ways. If he {the Saint named Oswald} shot at Walker with a Springfield 30.6, where was that gun on 11/22/63?" <<<
Walker wasn't shot with a 30.06, you kook. The bullet taken out of
Walker's wall was a 6.5mm Carcano bullet, just like Oswald's
ammunition.
>>> "Secondly, he {Sweet LHO} could have purchased a gun at hundreds of places in Texas with cash and left no record." <<<
Shame on Lee for not living up to the standard "He Should Have Done It
This Way" requirements that the kooks demand.
Lee should have been shot for such stupidity. (Oh, yeah, he was.)
>>> "VB forgets to tell the sucker, er, the reader that no fingerprints of LHO's were on the gun or bag he supposedly carried the gun into the TSBD with." <<<
You can't possibly be this ignorant of the basic facts, can you?
Oswald's verified prints were located on BOTH the gun and the paper
bag.
Two prints were on the bag, with one of them (a RIGHT-hand palmprint)
perfectly corroborating Wesley Frazier's testimony of how LHO carried
the bag (cupped in his RIGHT hand).
Next idiotic point please?.....
>>> "How does that happen?" <<<
It didn't. See above.
>>> "Flight from the murder scene? I love this one. He {the "patsy" for all Texas murders, circa 1963: LHO} could have simply left for the day. Like work was going to continue anyway." <<<
Yeah, who gives a damn about all of that chaotic activity going on
outside your workplace's front door at 12:33 when Oswald decides (on
his own) that there won't be any more work done that day (just three
measly MINUTES after the shooting that YOU say Lee Oswald knew nothing
about).
Kooky.
>>> "Unprovable lies after he was arrested. How do you know this?" <<<
You meant to say "provable" lies, idiot.
And many of LHO's lies can easily be proven. But, being an ABO nutjob,
you couldn't see a Boeing 747 if it had just crashed through your
ceiling.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ea04b9e6141f0098
>>> "How does VB know this?" <<<
Mainly due to the fact he's not a conspiracy kook.
>>> "Neither one of you was there." <<<
And you were, of course.
>>> "I have laid out what happened." <<<
Stop the presses!! A kook has it all "laid out"!!
Only one problem with it -- you haven't a speck of evidence to support
a single thing you assert.
But that never stopped a kook, did it?
(Embarrassment doesn't run in your family I see.)
>>> "Show how we know the gun is his {Patsy Extraordinaire Oswald's}." <<<
He ordered it.
He paid for it.
His prints are on it. (And on the triggerguard too. CTers like to
ignore those.)
>>> "A card with an alias that was the name used to order it. Please, a good lawyer would shred this." <<<
Even though it was in Oswald's handwriting, huh?
Did "Hidell" just happen to write exactly like Lee Oswald? Is that the
"Magic Coincidental Handwriting Theory"?
But, being a kook, I guess the testimony of the handwriting experts
who said that the order form for the rifle was written in Lee Oswald's
own handwriting is just another of the many pieces of "official"
evidence you kooks can simply ignore. Right?
>>> "Especially when he could subpeona the FBI/CIA for their employee records regarding LHO." <<<
No such records exist, Mr. Kook.
>>> "Wasn't he {Vince Bugliosi} part of the prosecution team in the RFK case?" <<<
No. Vincent got involved in the RFK thing in the mid-1970s. He
investigated the possibility that more than just Sirhan's gun was
involved in RFK's murder. (Based primarily, I think, on the number of
bullet holes in the doors and walls of the hotel's kitchen pantry.)
But I believe that Vince is now content with the idea that Sirhan
Sirhan acted alone.
Steve Barber, who first discovered the "crosstalk" on the Dictabelt
tape that the HSCA claimed proved a JFK conspiracy, has also done
extensive work on the RFK acoustics evidence too. And Steve's work has
established the fact that only one gun was used to murder Senator
Robert Kennedy in June 1968.
>>> "Like there was a doubt Manson would go to jail. Come on, he scared the shit out {of} every juror--it was a slam dunk." <<<
How can you call it a "slam dunk" when Manson himself never killed
anyone in August 1969? Seems to me that would be a very rough road to
hoe for VB (or any prosecutor).
Sure, Manson scared some people with his crazy, whacked-out looks and
actions in the courtroom. But that's a far cry of PROVING he ordered
SEVEN MURDERS.
Vince did a brilliant job in that case. Of course, I'll admit, if it
hadn't been for Linda Kasabian making a deal with the LA DA's office,
it might have been a different story. Linda ratted out the killers
(and Manson).
Plus: Just because Vince got convictions against the Tate-LaBianca
killers (Atkins, Van Houten, and Krenwinkel), that didn't mean the
jury had to ALSO convict Charles Manson of "murder" as well.
If the jury had any reasonable doubt about Manson ordering the
murders, they could have let Charlie off the hook, and he might still
be among the free to this day. But VB, thank goodness, was able to
convince the jury that Charlie was the Grand Master behind the
killings.
BOOK REVIEW -- "HELTER SKELTER":
www.amazon.com/review/RDPQ2O3NXYWA
>>> "He {St. Oswald} didn't kill anyone either. Why doesn't VB use his experience in convicting Manson for conspiracy to commit murder in the LHO case?" <<<
Well...uh...maybe it has something to do with this little fact shown
below (in VB's own words):
"There was no plot, no conspiracy. JFK wasn't murdered by anti-
Castro Cubans, the mob, or rogue CIA agents. In almost 40 years, there
has not been one scintilla of proof tying the assassination to anyone
but Oswald. There have been theories, but no evidence. Oswald had the
motive, the opportunity, and the skill to kill President Kennedy. ....
My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey
Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted
alone." -- Vince Bugliosi; circa 2001
~~~~~
A BONUS VB GEM:
"Though there are some notable exceptions, for the most part the
persistent rantings of the Warren Commission critics remind me of dogs
barking idiotically through endless nights." -- Vince Bugliosi; 1986
>>> "...Because there is more money in defending the crazy official theory." <<<
There is? Is that why the number of pro-conspiracy books outnumbers
the pro-"LN" books by about a 10-to-1 margin (maybe more than that
even)? Because there's "more money in defending the crazy official
theory"??
Sounds like "conspiracy" sells the most books to me.
>>> "Why don't you marry this guy {VB}?" <<<
How can I marry myself??
(Is this the "SST" maybe? I.E.: The "Single Spouse Theory"?)
>>> "Are you president of his {VB's} fan club?" <<<
I wouldn't make myself President of my OWN fan club, you silly-willy.
(I'm merely the Treasurer.)
>>> "Sounds like VB is shoving something up your butt." <<<
Again, I thought I WAS Vince. So how could I perform the above raunchy
act (unless I was a really good contortionist)?
David Von Pein
No, they don't.
You're an idiot.
WHERE in the FBI report do O'Neill/Sibert say there were TWO bullet
holes in JFK's back? Where?
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10408&relPageId=291
tomnln
"chuck schuyler" <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in message
news:1193432668....@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 26, 3:51 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 4:41 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > The above is opinion, not evidence. DVP's posting is for
>> > entertainment value. The issue will never be resolved so people
>> > resort to wondering "what if"? It's fun.
>>
>> Sure, when it doesn't work out well for you then it is for fun?
>> You're allowed to wonder "what if" but we are kooks if we, right? It
>> is fun to show how lame bugman is.
>
> Rob,
> You can say what you want about Bugs, but he was a darn fine
> prosecutor. The evidence against Oswald was overwhelming.
Which of these official records of evidence would YOU care to address?
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
He's "Doin" yer wife TOO.
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193433090.3...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 26, 5:04 pm, chuck schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 3:51 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>>
>> > On Oct 26, 4:41 pm, YoHarvey <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > The above is opinion, not evidence. DVP's posting is for
>> > > entertainment value. The issue will never be resolved so people
>> > > resort to wondering "what if"? It's fun.
>>
>> > Sure, when it doesn't work out well for you then it is for fun?
>> > You're allowed to wonder "what if" but we are kooks if we, right? It
>> > is fun to show how lame bugman is.
>>
>> Rob,
>>
>> You can say what you want about Bugs, but he was a darn fine
>> prosecutor. The evidence against Oswald was overwhelming.
>
> Sure, when it doesn't work out well for you then it is for fun?
> You're allowed to wonder "what if" but we are kooks if we, right? It
> is fun to show how lame bugman is.
>
> Jesus? Man, you have got to be brain dead. NOBODY else would post
> the foolishness YOU DO with each posting. I realize as I've stated
> before you have no education, whether rudimentary or classical.
> Here's an enlighting differrence between an idiot such as yourself and
> ANY LN: LN's base their comments ON THE EVIDENCE. We don't WONDER as
> you typed. You get on this newsgroup and declare the following:
>
> 1. The entire DPD was "in on it".
> 2. There was a "battle" for the body at Parkland
> 3. Connally shot JFK.
>
> Do you EVER produce an iota of evidence? NO, you never do because
> THERE ISN'T ANY.
>
> Point Jesus is you people speculate and conjure at what you believe
> "could be" no matter how foolish is makes you look. LNs don't need to
> do this. We have the evidence on our side.
>
tomnln
You don't even know that 83 people just from this Forum are "Doin yer wife".
Even your wife discusses evidence/testimony. (when her mouth isn't full)
THESE>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
Een a Slut is smarter than you.
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193434456.1...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
> On Oct 26, 5:24 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>> On Oct 26, 4:50 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >>> "What did this questioning prove? Nothing." <<<
>>
>> > ~sigh~
>>
>> > I guess I'll have to spell it out for the (evidently) brain-dead CTer
>> > named Robert Caprio:
>>
>> Good day to you too Dave. This proves nothing. LHO would have been
>> the last part of a very long trial. It would have been shown that the
>> backyard photos were faked (or at least put alot of doubt in the minds
>> of the jury and that's all the defense has to do), no one but a
>> brother and sister team saw a bundled paper package on the morning of
>> the assassination, that LHO never ordered that gun in the first place,
>> that he had ties to the FBI/CIA, that no prints were ever found on the
>> gun belonging to LHO (beside a very suspicious smudged palm print),
>> that Ruth & Michael Paine had CIA connections, George DeMohrenschildt
>> had CIA connections, that Guy Banister had FBI connections, that the
>> SBT is total bull, that JFK was hit 3 times and not 2, etc...
>>
>> You would need a hell of cross to bury LHO and then the defense team
>> can just redirect and call rebuttal witnesses. Think of all the good
>> things a defense team could have brought up. Wow! Obviously the
>> conspirators thought of and had Ruby kill him before a trial could
>> happen. Isn't it funny that the two reporters and his first lawyer
>> all were killed when they had been in Ruby's apartment on 11/24/63
>> before the shooting. What a coincidence, huh?
>
> Ah, so now coincidence is EVIDENCE in the demented world of Chico
> Jesus/Rocap!
spiffy, Am I Glad you're still here;
You're gonna have to Do something about your PIG wife.
Last night she offered me Illegal drugs.
(something about making more $ than those $0.35 Tricks on the streets.)
Did she get them from you?
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
By all means, don't "think"... ask him.
He argued a conspiracy in BOTH the RFK and JFK case... you can't get around that
simple fact.
He was instrumental in *PROVING* that there were at least two pistols fired in
the pantry that night.
If he actually *has* decided that he was wrong... then why couldn't he have been
right originally, and wrong now? By all means, tell us the *basis* of any
supposed change in his thoughts!
Of course, most people will understand that Bugliosi is merely arguing the side
of the case that's paying his fee... nothing more.
>Wasn't he part of the prosecution team in the RFK case? I don't
>idolize the guy like you, but I thought he was part of that case.
No, he did interview a number of eyewitnesses, and proved that too many bullets
were fired. He was on the defense team of a man charged with libel for
asserting who was involved in the conspiracy. (His side lost, by the way)
>>>>> "If he {VB} couldn't put a real kook like Manson away then he should have
>>retired." <<<
>>
>> Another idiotic statement from an obvious idiot who immediately types
>> out every loony thought that enters his head.
>
>Why is this idiotic? Like there was a doubt Manson would go to jail.
>Come on, he scared the shit out every juror - it was a slam dunk.
No, it wasn't.
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Oct 26, 7:39 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "I already gave you the source Dave, it is in the CD 7 section of the WCR."
>><<<
>>
>> Rob misses the point yet again.
>
>No you are Dave. This is a seperate wound from the neck wound. This
>one was below the shoulders and Dr. Humes could feel the end of the
>wound with his fingertip, which means it did not transit out of JFK.
>Why are you not getting this? This is not, repeat not, the back wound
>attributed to the SBT. That was higher in the back area (dirty rotten
>liar Ford moved it a few inches to the left to make the SBT work).
>Humes reasoning that "it worked its way back out" precludes it from
>the other wound because you falsely believe it left JFK and hit JBC.
There were only three wounds on JFK's back. The wound in the back, the entry
near the EOP, and the exit out of the occipital/parietal area of JFK's head.
tomnln
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote in message
news:ffvh8...@drn.newsguy.com...
Ooooooooh you mean "Flip-Flop" Vince Bugloisi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
Your link to CD 7 is as OFF the mark as you are.
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote in message
news:ffvhd...@drn.newsguy.com...
robc...@netscape.com
> There were only three wounds on JFK's back. The wound in the back, the entry
> near the EOP, and the exit out of the occipital/parietal area of JFK's head.
Exactly, 3 wounds. The WC says two wounds. They take the wound that
was below the shoulders and move it up for the SBT to work. Then
there is the head wound. My questions are: 1) where is the exit wound
relating to the the front of the neck wound? 2) How can you use the
lower back wound for the SBT when it did not transit the body? Thus,
it could not leave JFK and enter Connally. There had to be two back
wounds, the one mentioned by the FBI agents and the exit wound for the
frontal neck wound seen by all of the Parkland staff. Anyway you
discuss this the SBT can't work. Just one more reason why, along with
about 5 other reasons.
Ben Holmes
robc...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Oct 27, 9:19 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@websitewealthcollege.com> wrote:
>
>> There were only three wounds on JFK's back.
Poorly worded... "There were only three wounds (created by bullets) located at
the back of JFK's body." would more accurately reflect what I was saying.
>> The wound in the back, the
>> entry near the EOP, and the exit out of the occipital/parietal area of
>> JFK's head.
>
>Exactly, 3 wounds. The WC says two wounds.
That would depend on how you read the testimony regarding the exit wound. The
WCR specifies the exit wound as being located on the "right side of the head".
But Dr. Humes *DID* testify that the exit wound was on the rear of the head, and
you're surely already familiar with the large number of eyewitnesses to the
large BOH wound.
>They take the wound that
>was below the shoulders and move it up for the SBT to work.
Even LNT'ers accept that Ford's verbal 'moving' of this was inaccurate.
>Then there is the head wound. My questions are: 1) where is the exit wound
>relating to the the front of the neck wound?
Wasn't one. The bullet ranged downward into JFK's body. That's the most
probable scenario *BASED ON THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE*. It's also what at least one
doctor at Parkland believed, and was the reason they felt for JFK's problems
breathing.
>2) How can you use the
>lower back wound for the SBT when it did not transit the body?
I certainly don't.
>Thus, it could not leave JFK and enter Connally. There had to be two back
>wounds, the one mentioned by the FBI agents and the exit wound for the
>frontal neck wound seen by all of the Parkland staff.
No, there *DIDN'T* have to be another wound. Although there undoubtably was -
the right temple wound.
But *that* speculation is based on evidence. You can't base speculation on
speculation ... you have to have EVIDENCE.
You're trying to get the SBT to "work"... it won't. The frontal neck wound
*WAS* an entrance, not an exit... based on *ALL* the evidence.
Connally was hit by a different bullet than hit JFK - based not only on
Connally's testimony, but by Chaney's assertions - who watched the bullets hit
from less than a dozen feet away.
>Anyway you discuss this the SBT can't work.
Of course not. *FIRST* you have to have medical evidence of transit.
>Just one more reason why, along with
>about 5 other reasons.
But speculating about *another* bullet wound where there is no evidence isn't
necessary. I leave speculation to the LNT'ers.
lazu...@webtv.net
"Where is the exit wound relating to the front of the neck wound?"
IF the throat wound were an entrance wound from a small caliber weapon,
it didn't have to transit the neck, so no exit wound to be found in the
rear. I've made a point many times re: the claim by Custer that he saw
fragments in the mid-cervical level (on a straight track from the
entrance wound) on the now missing full-cervical Xray. He was told to
mind his own businss when he brought it to the attention of Dr.
Ebersole.---Old Laz