These Two Things (Alone) Prove Oswald's Guilt Beyond A Reasonable Doubt
David Von Pein
book to President Lyndon B. Johnson at the White House. That heavy
tome
was the final "Warren Commission Report" regarding the investigation
into the November 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
The seven-member Warren Commission panel (plus its staff of counsel
members and legal staff), in a nearly ten-month probe into the
circumstances surrounding the murder of JFK, arrived at a conclusion
which has divided America ever since -- they concluded that Lee Harvey
Oswald, by himself, had fired all of the bullets that struck down and
killed President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas.
A vast majority of people vehemently disagree with these WC findings.
I, however, am not a member of that majority. Lee Harvey Oswald was
indeed, in my opinion, the sole gunman that day in Dallas. The
physical
evidence (as well as the circumstantial evidence) that is currently in
the official record tells me that Oswald was most certainly the
murderer of America's 35th President.
And when virtually ALL of the hard, PHYSICAL evidence in a criminal
case leans one way and supports one single conclusion, reaching an
opposite conclusion (as most conspiracy theorists have done with
respect to the evidence in the JFK case) -- i.e., that Oswald is
totally INNOCENT of the two murders he was charged with on 11/22/63
(both JFK's and police officer J.D. Tippit's as well) -- defies all
logic and reasoned thinking.
Like most things in life, the John Kennedy murder case can be reduced
(in most areas within it) to common sense and the hard, documented
physical evidence, and we all know where the latter leads -- right
straight into the two guns of one Lee Harvey Oswald (his
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle plus his revolver, the latter which was used
to kill Officer Tippit). Plus, the "common sense" part of that
equation
leads directly to Lee Oswald and his weaponry as well. And "common
sense" would tell anybody that Oswald is guilty.
I was thinking recently about the following quote by
author-attorney-LNer Vincent Bugliosi (I think a lot about his
comments, because they make so much "sense" of the "common"
variety).....
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80
percent
of the evidence against him out the window and there would still be
more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole
role in the crime." -- Vince Bugliosi
.....And then, just for the sake of illustrating the validity of the
above-mentioned statement made by Mr. Bugliosi, I went about the task
of tossing out certain pieces of evidence that lead toward Oswald's
guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders.....and I came to the
conclusion, after stripping away several "LHO Is Guilty" items, that
the following two things prove Lee Harvey Oswald guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt (or at least they prove his guilt beyond all of my
personal "reasonable doubt")......
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used
to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John
Connally. (With said weapon being found inside the building where
Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when
both of these men were wounded by rifle fire.)
2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of
employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning
of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the
contents of this package to a co-worker.*
* = As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the
"curtain rods" based on the following:
A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository
after the assassination.
B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his
roominghouse
at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just prior to 1:00
PM on the afternoon of the assassination.
A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods"
were in that paper package on 11/22/63.
Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in
evidence
but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin.
Now, when you start adding in the wealth of ADDITIONAL physical and
circumstantial evidence against Oswald -- his guilt is then proven not
beyond just a "reasonable" doubt...but it's proven beyond any SPECK of
a doubt.**
** = Things like: Oswald's prints on a paper bag IN THE SNIPER'S NEST;
which was a paper bag that perfectly matches the type of bag that
co-worker Wesley Frazier said Oswald carried into the Depository
building at 8:00 AM on November 22nd. (With a nicely-incriminating
"right palmprint" of Oswald's later discovered by the police in the
VERY SPOT on that bag which equates PERFECTLY with the precise way
Frazier said Oswald carried the bag in his right hand! That's a very
important point, IMO, and is undeniably-strong physical evidence of
Oswald's guilt.)
Plus there are these additional items: Eyewitness Howard Brennan's
positive IDing of Oswald as a gunman in the Sniper's Nest window. ....
The Tippit murder that was unquestionably committed by Oswald. ....
The
fingerprints of Oswald located on the rifle, plus his prints located
on
multiple boxes DEEP WITHIN THE SNIPER'S NEST. .... Oswald having no
verifiable alibi for the precise time when President Kennedy was being
gunned down on Elm Street at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63. .... Oswald dashing
out of the TSBD at approximately 12:33 PM, just minutes after a U.S.
President had been shot within yards of Oswald's workplace. .... And
Oswald's other lies he told to the police after his arrest (apart from
the obvious large lie re. the curtain rods).
But it all starts with the basic points brought out by #1 and #2
above.
The evidence (and Oswald's OWN words and actions) tell a reasonable
person that Lee H. Oswald was guilty as ever-lovin' sin of two murders
in 1963, and there's nothing any CTer (or anybody else on the planet)
can do or say to change that basic of all facts.
The conspiracists will continue to try to set Oswald free, of course,
like always. But the more a reasonable person examines the evidence
(and applies just a small dose of ordinary common sense to these facts
in evidence), the more hollow, shallow, and inept all those
pro-conspiracy arguments become.
David Von Pein
January 2006
Walt
> In late September of 1964, Chief Justice Earl Warren handed a thick
> book to President Lyndon B. Johnson at the White House. That heavy
> tome
> was the final "Warren Commission Report" regarding the investigation
> into the November 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Have you seen photos taken of Squirrel Warren handing that book to
Lynin Bastard Johnson?
That book was allegedly the "Report of The President's Commission on
the Assassination of President Kennedy'" Now commonly called the
Warren Report.
The book in the photos is twice as thick as the book that was released
to the public..... It makes one wonder if they didn't just use some
thick tome for the PR photo.
Walt
aeffects
not much, AGAIN...
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with
authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and
"minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it
isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or
citing sources.
from the disinfo 25 list..... not a cite to be found below....
surprised?
Gil Jesus
> 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used
> to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John
> Connally. (With said weapon being found inside the building where
> Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when
> both of these men were wounded by rifle fire.)
Based on what, the statements of the DPD, or the 26 volumes of LIES ?
Did you know that the police lineups were conducted to frame Oswald ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JskQDYovBGs
Did you know that evidence was falsified ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhqUTBPcdX4
Did you know that testimony was altered ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyhx0BRuVSk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55jY6RUvxAI
Did you know witnesses were ignored ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeI9Z32bOGU
>
> 2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of
> employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning
> of 11/22/63,
By whom ? Wesley Frazier ? Let's see how large Frazier said the
"package" was compared to the 35 inch rifle in its broken down stage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMFbOTmT2Gw
>
> * = As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the
> "curtain rods" based on the following:
>
> A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository
> after the assassination.
>
> B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his
> roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just prior to 1:00
> PM on the afternoon of the assassination.
Was Oswald's landlady photographed having curtain rods hung in his
room on the evening of the assassination ?
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L0DbJaHgt6Sov4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
Do you think he brought those curtain rods home with him ?
And what of the "curtain rods" that the FBI dusted for fingerprints.
Would they normally dust something that had NOTHING to do with the
crime ?
http://pictures.aol.com/galleries/gjjmail/41602cXrkH0*ic1Lb0imwIK1L6Bi23nHPXDZv4xQp5Fd3Ig=/large/
They have a name for people who are easily fooled................FOOLS.
David Von Pein
>>> "They have a name for people who are easily fooled....FOOLS." <<<
They have a name for Gil Jesus too. (It starts with a K. But you knew
that already, of course.)
Walt
Von Pea Brain, why do you lie??? Most folks in this NG know that
there isn't a single piece of evidence that can be certified as "hard
physical evidence"....NOT A SINGLE PIECE!. Virtually every last piece
of evidence can be called into question. But I'm sure you will
disagree... so name just ONE piece of evidence that irrefutably
indicates that Oswald murdered John Kennedy. ONLY ONE ...... Let's
see if you can present just ONE piece of evidence that can't be
questioned.
Walt
aeffects
here's what we call it Walt...
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with
authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and
"minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it
isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or
citing sources.
simple as that!
Walt
PROOF please...... PROVE that Lee Oswald owned or was in possession of
the TSBD rifle on 11 /22 /63 I'll grant you that Lee ordered the
rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods, and the rifle was shipped to his
P.O. Box in Dallas. But neither of these Facts PROVE that he didn't
buy the rifle for a third party, or at least at the urging of a third
party. We now know that George Demorhenschildt was working with Lee
Oswald and Mike Paine in some kind of clandestine plot that was
designed to build Oswald's credentials as a bonafide communist
revolutionary. De Morhenschildt ( a Jew) had classified Walker as a
Nazi, and told Lee that JFK had relieved Walker of his command because
he was giving Nazi literature to his troopers. De M had mentioned
that it was a shame that someone didn't shoot Walker and rid the world
of another Hitler in the making. About a month after Kleins shipped
the rifle to Oswald's P.o. Box a bullet was fired through General
Walker's window . It may be possible to tie those two events together
( The shipment of the rifle and the bullet hole in Walker's window)
but the information is still very vague and incomplete about the
Walke incident.
You think that a bullet that was obviously fired into a bullet trap
and recoved is PROOF that Oswald is the LONE individual who murdered
JFK. Do you realize how utterly naive you are??
Now c'mon .....Present just ONE irrefutable piece of evidence.
Walt
bigdog
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The replies made by our resident Stooges to DVP's typically logical
post proves something veteran LNs have known for years. No how much
evidence these devout CTs are confronted with of Oswald's guilt, they
will find an excuse, any excuse no matter how flimsy, to dismiss it's
obvious probative value. They absolutely refuse to accept any evidence
of his guilt because they have already made up his mind he was framed
so to them it logically follows that any evidence which indicates his
guilt must be either faked or not probative. If there were just a few
pieces of evidence to indicate Oswald's guilt, they might have a
theoretical argument. But when they have to resort to that same tactic
for the dozens of pieces of evidence that Oswald was guilty, they have
no argument whatsoever.
CTs can be divided into two camps. The rational ones who recognize
Oswald was the shooter but believe he was part of a plot involving
others. Unfortunately, this seems to be the smaller of the two camps.
Based on what we see on acj and aaj, the clear majority of CTs seem to
be the real loonies who think Oswald was framed. These are people
incapable of rational thought. Oswald-was-framed is their religion and
no amount of evidence will ever persuade these folks they are most
definitely wrong. I find it most amusing to see the lengths these
folks will go to in order to dismiss any and all evidence of Oswald's
guilt.
Walt
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> The replies made by our resident Stooges to DVP's typically logical
> post proves something veteran LNs have known for years. No how much
> evidence these devout CTs are confronted with of Oswald's guilt, they
> will find an excuse, any excuse no matter how flimsy, to dismiss it's
> obvious probative value. They absolutely refuse to accept any evidence
> of his guilt because they have already made up his mind he was framed
> so to them it logically follows that any evidence which indicates his
> guilt must be either faked or not probative. If there were just a few
> pieces of evidence to indicate Oswald's guilt, they might have a
> theoretical argument. But when they have to resort to that same tactic
> for the dozens of pieces of evidence that Oswald was guilty, they have
> no argument whatsoever.
>
> CTs can be divided into two camps. The rational ones who recognize
> Oswald was the shooter but believe he was part of a plot involving
> others. Unfortunately, this seems to be the smaller of the two camps.
> Based on what we see on acj and aaj, the clear majority of CTs seem to
> be the real loonies who think Oswald was framed. These are people
> incapable of rational thought. Oswald-was-framed is their religion and
> no amount of evidence will ever persuade these folks they are most
> definitely wrong. I find it most amusing to see the lengths these
> folks will go to in order to dismiss any and all evidence of Oswald's
> guilt.
You are dead wrong..... All you have to do is PROVE lee Oswald was
guilty.
Ct's are no different than any jury..... You must present compelling
solid evidence that shows oswald was guilty.
The best evidence would be a certified authentic photo that shows him
firing from that window at the time of the murder.
Wouldn't you agree?
Walt
YoHarvey
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > The replies made by our resident Stooges to DVP's typically logical
> > post proves something veteran LNs have known for years. No how much
> > evidence these devout CTs are confronted with of Oswald's guilt, they
> > will find an excuse, any excuse no matter how flimsy, to dismiss it's
> > obvious probative value. They absolutely refuse to accept any evidence
> > of his guilt because they have already made up his mind he was framed
> > so to them it logically follows that any evidence which indicates his
> > guilt must be either faked or not probative. If there were just a few
> > pieces of evidence to indicate Oswald's guilt, they might have a
>
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Von Pea Brain, why do you lie??? Most folks in this NG know that
there isn't a single piece of evidence that can be certified as "hard
physical evidence"....NOT A SINGLE PIECE!. Virtually every last
piece
of evidence can be called into question. But I'm sure you will
disagree... so name just ONE piece of evidence that irrefutably
indicates that Oswald murdered John Kennedy. ONLY ONE ...... Let's
see if you can present just ONE piece of evidence that can't be
questioned.
Walt
Here ya go Walt. The bag that LHO carried his MC into the TSBD on
11/22 contained fibers from the blanket found in the Paine garage (WC
Vol. IV, pp 57, 76 - 80). If LHO did NOT carry this bag, how did it
get into SN and who put it there?
Walt
Duh.... I asked for irrefutable evidence and you present one of the
most controversial pieces of evidence.
The ONLY two people who saw Oswald carry a paper sack that rainy
morning said it was NOT LONGER than 28 inches.
The bag that you are referring to is 36 inches long. You believe that
blanket fibers are some kinda conclusive proof, but ... IF... IF...
that was the bag that Oswald carried and... IF... ...IF he had a
disassembled rifle in it, and IF IF the rifle had been in that
blanket, then the rifle had to have transfered fibers from the blanket
to the bag. BUT there were NO ...NO blanket fibers found on that
rifle. How do you explain this screwy unrealistic idea ? And in
addition to that screwy idea how do you explain that FACT that the FBI
lab found not a SINGLE piece of evidence that would indicate that
disassembled rifle had ever been in that bag?? There surely would
have been gun oil oily dirt and scratches inside that bag IF IF that
rifle had been in that bag..... But the FBI labs found NO indication.
Now c'mon....You can do better than this...Let's have just ONE
irrefutable piece of evidence
bigdog
time to familiarize themselves with the evidence and has a brain in
their head. That doesn't include you , Shemp.
> Ct's are no different than any jury..... You must present compelling
> solid evidence that shows oswald was guilty.
>
You guys are dumber than the OJ jury.
> The best evidence would be a certified authentic photo that shows him
> firing from that window at the time of the murder.
>
> Wouldn't you agree?
>
> Walt
Right, Shemp. We can't find anybody guilty fo murder unless they are
caught on camera. Just how many murders do you think that would apply
to. Even if we did have such a photo, you dumb fucks would dream up
some excuse to dismiss it as a forgery. How can you be so fucking
stupid?
Walt
C'mon sewer mouth, I simply asked if you think a certified authentic
photo of Oswald firing a rifle from that window would be solid
evidence of his guilt?? That's a simple question that even someone
with your diminutive vocabulary and intelligence should be able to
answer.
Walt
bigdog
Of course it would be solid proof of his guilt, just as the paper
trail of Oswald's purchase of the rifle that was used to murder JFK,
the photos of him with the rifle that was used to murder JFK, The
paper bag with his palm print on it and fibers inside the bag matching
the blanket that he stored the rifle that was used to murder JFK,
Oswald's fingerprints all over the boxes that formed the sniper's nest
at the window where witnesses saw the rifle being fire from, the spent
shells that were matched to the rifle that was used to murder JFK, the
two recovered bullets that were matched to the rifle that was used to
murder JFK, and oh yeah, the rifle that was used to murder JFK which
was found on the 6th floor of the TSBD where witnesses saw the rifle
fired from that also had fibers matching Oswald's shirt in the butt
plate are all solid proof of Oswald's guilt. But since you are so
fucking stupid you can't figure out what all that other evidence adds
up to, why would anyone think you would find a photo of Oswald firing
the rifle to be solid proof of Oswald's guilt. There is no possible
proof that assholes like you would ever accept that Oswald is guilty
because it goes against your religion.
David Von Pein
>>> "Not a cite to be found below." <<<
What good would a barrel-full of citations do? You kooks would simply
skirt around the cites with accusations of the person being cited
having been "coerced" or being a rotten liar on their own, or the
evidence within a specific cite being "faked/planted".
You CT-Kooks always do that kind of skirting when cites are provided,
which, btw, is very often by yours truly within most of my posts. I'm
constantly linking to WC and HSCA material. Naturally, these cites are
going to be totally ignored or treated as "not good enough" by rabid
CTers, because those CTers think that virtually ALL of that stuff is
tainted -- incredibly, even the "LHO Did It" cites from the HSCA,
which was 15 years after the WC.
So we have a SECOND (and lengthier) investigation for the kooks to
completely ignore and distrust (except when it comes to that prized
"Dictabelt" nonsense that CTers won't hesitate to prop up in a
millisecond, even though those same CTers feel that all of the HSCA's
OTHER "Oswald Killed JFK & JDT" cannot be trusted at all).
Go figure kooks.
Anyway, presenting an official citation when talking to a CT-Kook
about the JFK case does about as much good as using a Kleenex for an
umbrella in a rainstorm. I.E., the person providing the cite is still
going to get showered with conspiracy-flavored crap from the CTer
anyway.
Conspiracy is built-in with you "Nothing Is Ever What It Seems To Be"
kooks.
Stay dry now. (And remember to listen for the knock of your crack
dealer at the back door at midnight. He's got a fresh batch for you.)
aeffects
> >>> "Not a cite to be found below." <<<
>
> What good would a barrel-full of citations do? You kooks would simply
> skirt around the cites with accusations of the person being cited
> having been "coerced" or being a rotten liar on their own, or the
> evidence within a specific cite being "faked/planted".
run Davey run..... the 45 questions come to mind... the 16 smoking
guns come to mind -- what do we get? You quoting yourself... worse yet
quoting VBugliosi quoting HIS-SELF... again <sigh>
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with
authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and
"minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it
isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or
citing sources.
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Go back to bed junkie, you're like a fly on shit...just can't leave it
alone.
aeffects
wrote:
really?
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also
known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods
qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with
unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-
wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia",
"racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This
makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same
label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c78d708a7a19e5d6
>>> "The paper bag of Oswald's, allegedly found in the sniper's nest, was folded in ways that did not indicate a gun had been stored in the bag." <<<
This is a silly argument (if, that is, you're referring to the
somewhat-"symmetrical" folds that existed in Oswald's paper bag, as
seen in the photos below).....
It's a silly CT type of argument because we know that Oswald would
have certainly folded up the paper that he swiped from the TSBD
workbench and stashed it under his coat during his drive to Irving
with Buell Frazier on Thursday night.
Oswald surely didn't take the paper to Irving in one long, unfolded
hunk of paper, for Pete sake. He folded the paper up, with those
creases still visible in the bag when Montgomery was photographed with
it on Nov. 22.
In fact, those creases and folds in the bag, IMO, are even MORE of a
reason to believe it was Oswald's rifle-toting bag -- because if those
creases and folds HADN'T been in that bag, a person (CTer or
otherwise) could logically ask: Well, how did LHO take that paper to
Irving without folding it in some manner...and furthermore, WHY in the
world would anyone transport a lengthy piece (or pieces) of paper like
that from one place to another WITHOUT folding it up for easier
carrying?
The folds we see in that bag are perfectly consistent with Lee Oswald
having taken it (empty and folded up) to Irving....placing a rifle in
it on Nov. 21 or 22....and transporting it back to the TSBD (with
Rifle C2766 inside) on the morning of President Kennedy's
assassination.
Oswald's prints (two of them!) were on the bag, making that empty bag
found on the 6th Floor devastating physical evidence against LHO
(given the exact location where it was said to be found by multiple
police officers, despite the lack of an official photo of the bag in
the Nest).
Do you think that Bob Studebaker and J.C. Day of the DPD were really
and truly lying when they both told the Warren Commission that an
empty paper bag was found in the southeast corner of the sixth floor?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/studebak.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm
Some CTers have a hard time believing that an obvious assassin and
double-killer named Lee Harvey Oswald would ever tell a lie (such as
his "I'm just a patsy" whitewash), but those CTers don't have any
problem at all with calling many, many members of law enforcement (and
others in Officialdom) outright liars and cover-up operatives.
And CTers spout these allegations without any proof whatsoever that
any lies were told by any members of the DPD (et al) in wake of JFK's
murder. Some mistakes were made, yes (like not photographing that bag
in the SN and originally speculating that LHO's gun was a "Mauser",
etc.)....but no outright "lies" were told by anyone in law enforcement
in connection with the JFK investigation that I am aware of.*
* = With one blatant exception (at least the only one I can think of
offhand) -- and that was Roger Craig's obvious "lie" about actually
seeing the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the rifle found in the TSBD.
That tale spun by Craig was positively a "lie". There's no other word
that can be used in that one particular instance.
>>> "Neither was there any oily residue in the bag...unusual, seeing the M-C was described as "well-oiled"." <<<
Which has to mean that the OUTSIDE components of Oswald's Mannlicher-
Carcano HAD to be oily, is that it?
It might have been unusual for a "well-oiled" rifle to leave no oil
traces in a paper object after it's removed from that paper
object....but is it truly an IMPOSSIBILITY for such a thing to occur?
Obviously it's not an impossibility at all -- because the sum total of
evidence says that LHO did, indeed, carry his "well-oiled" rifle into
work on Nov. 22 inside a brown paper bag.
And since only ONE empty paper bag WITH TWO OF OSWALD'S PRINTS ON IT
was found in the Depository (and right under the window where three of
Oswald's bullet shells were also discovered, and right under the same
window where an Oswald-like gunman was seen aiming a gun at JFK at
12:30 PM)....then it doesn't take a four-year college degree to arrive
at the likely conclusion of: the empty bag found on the sixth floor is
the same bag used by Oswald to transport the rifle that killed the
President.
A "V.B. CS&L" BREAK:
"We also know from the firearms people that the three expended
cartridge casings found on the floor, right beneath that sixth-floor
window -- undoubtedly the same casings that Mr. Norman heard fall from
above -- were fired in, and ejected from, Oswald's rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons.
"So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond
ALL doubt THAT OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!! ....
"And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the
building that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more
obvious. As far as Mister [Wesley] Frazier's testimony about Oswald
carrying the bag under his armpit, he conceded he never paid close
attention to just how Oswald was carrying that bag. He didn't have any
reason to.
"At this point if we had nothing else....nothing else....how
much do you need?....if we had NOTHING else....this would be enough to
prove Oswald's guilt beyond all REASONABLE doubt. But there's so much
more." -- Vincent Bugliosi; July 1986; "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD"
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
>>> "No fibres were found that matched the blanket in the Paine's garage." <<<
That's odd....exactly the opposite is true according to Paul Stombaugh
(hair-and-fiber expert for the FBI). Is Stombaugh a liar too?:
PAUL STOMBAUGH -- "The viscose fiber I found in the bag matched in all
observable microscopic characteristics some of the viscose fibers
found in the composition of this blanket. This would be the diameter,
the diameter of that same fiber would have the same size of
delustering markings, same shape, same form, and also same color."
MEL EISENBERG -- "Now, what about the green cotton fiber that you
found in the paper bag, Mr. Stombaugh, how did that compare with the
green cotton fiber--was it a green cotton fiber that your testimony
mentioned?"
STOMBAUGH -- "Yes; there were several light green cotton fibers."
EISENBERG -- "How did they compare with the green cotton fibers which
are contained in the composition of the blanket?"
STOMBAUGH -- "These matched in all observable microscopic
characteristics."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/stombaugh.htm
>>> "The boxes at the sniper's window -- only one fingerprint matched Oswald." <<<
Wrong (again). Two prints of Oswald's were found on one of the boxes
at the SN window (plus another palmprint on the box that LHO
undoubtedly sat on while waiting to shoot the President in the back
and in the back of the head on 11/22/63). .....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0255a.htm
Oswald no doubt also handled the other two cartons that were located
beneath the SN window too, but he didn't leave any identifiable prints
on those cartons. His prints are there without a doubt, but just not
clear or discernible enough to be positively identified. (This is all
too obvious a conclusion when examining the sum total of evidence in
the JFK case.)
>>> "All the witnesses who saw someone in the sniper's lair around the time of the shooting said the man was wearing a light-coloured shirt; Oswald wore a brown-orange shirt that day." <<<
LHO probably shot the President while wearing JUST his white t-shirt
(IMO). He probably had his brown shirt at his feet in the SN while he
performed his murderous act. And he probably used that brown shirt as
a fingerprint-wiping rag as he travelled from one side of the building
to the other after the shooting.
And that's probably how the fibers from that shirt got stuck
underneath the butt plate. No other scenario regarding those fibers
getting jammed in the rifle makes much sense to me. More below.....
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a3d654f3c43ed16
>>> "As for the so-called lies Oswald told the police, none of them would be admissible in a court of law (according to justice) because no-one bothered to officially record them." <<<
So we have to just ignore those many lies now, is that it?
Also -- I guess, per your above rules of law, the DPD and Captain
Fritz must have never been able to send a guilty person to prison
prior to November of 1963, since it would appear that it wasn't
uncommon in the slightest degree for the DPD and Fritz to NOT record a
single word uttered by suspects while being interrogated.
Oswald's non-recorded statements certainly weren't the exception for
the DPD (circa 1963) -- they were the RULE:
CAPTAIN J.W. FRITZ -- "I don't have a tape recorder. We need one, if
we had one at this time we could have handled these conversations far
better."
JOE BALL -- "The Dallas Police Department doesn't have one?"
FRITZ -- "No, sir; I have requested one several times but so far they
haven't gotten me one."
>>> "Oswald was not the only man fleeing the TSBD." <<<
And I never claimed he was. But, as far as I'm aware, he was the only
employee of the building who was positively known to have been INSIDE
THE DEPOSITORY at the exact time of JFK's murder to have left the
building immediately after the assassination.
>>> "Four unidentified men were seen racing out the back." <<<
Four? And the source for this "racing out the back" foursome is??
Were these men supposedly Oswald's "patsy handlers" or something? And
FOUR of them? LOL.
>>> "A well-known criminal and Mafia associate, Jim Braden, was caught fleeing the Dal-Tex building." <<<
Which was a building (the Dal-Tex) with absolutely NO connection to
the assassination whatsoever. And a building that, AFAIK, nobody (or
virtually nobody) thought any gunshots specifically came from.
In short -- Big deal.
=================================
"If anyone...maintains...that Oswald was just a patsy and did
not kill Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence
against Oswald or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial of
Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Page 969 of "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)
~~~~~~~~
"When he was interrogated, Oswald, from his own lips, he TOLD us
he was guilty....he told us he was guilty....almost the same as if he
had said 'I murdered President Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell
us? Well, the lies he told, one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE
consciousness of guilt.
"If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny
purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why
did he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary
to do that if he's innocent?
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if Lee Harvey Oswald had
nothing to do with President Kennedy's assassination and was
framed....this otherwise independent and defiant would-be
revolutionary, who disliked taking orders from anyone, turned out to
be the most willing and cooperative frame-ee in the history of
mankind!! Because the evidence of his guilt is so monumental, that he
could have just as well gone around with a large sign on his back
declaring in bold letters 'I Just Murdered President John F.
Kennedy'!!! ....
"Based on the evidence in this case, Lee Harvey Oswald is as
guilty as sin, and there's NOTHING that Mr. Spence can do about
it. .... Because there's not one tiny grain of evidence....not one
microscopic speck of evidence that ANYONE -- other than Lee Harvey
Oswald -- was responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; July 1986; "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD"
=================================
www.blogger.com/profile/12501570830179992520
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=7x7co2jkkg
www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/listmania/fullview/28ASYKLX6VLXX
=================================
Walt
Ok Thank you..... So conversely If there is at least one authentic
photo that was taken DURING the shooting which shows that there was
NOBODY firing a rifle from the so called sniper's nest window then
that would prove that Oswald didn't shoot JFK..... And there is at
least ONE photo that shows that very thing.
Walt
robcap...@netscape.com
"In late September of 1964, Chief Justice Earl Warren handed a thick
book to President Lyndon B. Johnson at the White House. That heavy
tome was the final "Warren Commission Report" regarding the
investigation into the November 1963 assassination of President John
F. Kennedy.
The seven-member Warren Commission panel (plus its staff of counsel
members and legal staff), in a nearly ten-month probe into the
circumstances surrounding the murder of JFK, arrived at a conclusion
which has divided America ever since -- they concluded that Lee Harvey
Oswald, by himself, had fired all of the bullets that struck down and
killed President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas."
The country was NOT divided 50-50, but usually anywhere from 75 or 90%
BELIEVE there was a conspiracy of some kind.
"A vast majority of people vehemently disagree with these WC findings.
I, however, am not a member of that majority. Lee Harvey Oswald was
indeed, in my opinion, the sole gunman that day in Dallas. The
physical evidence (as well as the circumstantial evidence) that is
currently in the official record tells me that Oswald was most
certainly the murderer of America's 35th President."
This tells me you are easily mislead.
"And when virtually ALL of the hard, PHYSICAL evidence in a criminal
case leans one way and supports one single conclusion, reaching an
opposite conclusion (as most conspiracy theorists have done with
respect to the evidence in the JFK case) -- i.e., that Oswald is
totally INNOCENT of the two murders he was charged with on 11/22/63
(both JFK's and police officer J.D. Tippit's as well) -- defies all
logic and reasoned thinking."
That is a very true statement, but it has to be the case, and anyone
who had looked at this case knows most of the physical evidence shows
conpiracy. You do defy logic and reasoned thinking. Go figure.
"Like most things in life, the John Kennedy murder case can be reduced
(in most areas within it) to common sense and the hard, documented
physical evidence, and we all know where the latter leads -- right
straight into the two guns of one Lee Harvey Oswald (his Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle plus his revolver, the latter which was used to kill
Officer Tippit). Plus, the "common sense" part of that equation leads
directly to Lee Oswald and his weaponry as well. And "common sense"
would tell anybody that Oswald is guilty."
You obviously don't know what constitutes "hard evidence" do you? Lay
some on us if you have so much. Let's see what you got.
"I was thinking recently about the following quote by author-attorney-
LNer Vincent Bugliosi (I think a lot about his comments, because they
make so much "sense" of the "common" variety)....."
For the readers out there this is the same guy who said there was a
conspiracy in the butcher killings of Charles Manson, but he thinks NO
ONE helped LHO at all in the murder of a president. Go figure.
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80
percent of the evidence against him out the window and there would
still be more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of
his sole role in the crime." -- Vince Bugliosi
Easy to say, but I notice he, and you, never do this, in fact, we
can't ever get you to list 10% of the evidence against LHO. I wonder
why?
".....And then, just for the sake of illustrating the validity of the
above-mentioned statement made by Mr. Bugliosi, I went about the task
of tossing out certain pieces of evidence that lead toward Oswald's
guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders.....and I came to the
conclusion, after stripping away several "LHO Is Guilty" items, that
the following two things prove Lee Harvey Oswald guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt (or at least they prove his guilt beyond all of my
personal "reasonable doubt")......:
Oh my goodness, he is FINALLY going to list some of this "evidence"
for us.
"1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used
to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John
Connally. (With said weapon being found inside the building where
Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when
both of these men were wounded by rifle fire.)"
Oh darn it, there is NO proof here yet again. Just a lot of bluster.
He says the rifle LHO allegedly ordered, which has NEVER been proven
beyond a reasonable doubt by the way, was the weapon positively. Even
if we ignore the order issue, where is the proof backing up this
statement? It is not here, therefore, do NOT be mislead by this con
man who is moving the shells around the table.
"2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of
employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning
of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the
contents of this package to a co-worker.*"
He was reportedly seen by one man, and one man ONLY, Wesley Frazier,
who is quite suspicious by himself. This man would testify to the WC
that he was, 1) NOT really paying attention to what LHO had that
morning, and 2) that the package they showed him (which was a stunt
double as they NEVER presented the one they claimed to have found in
the TSBD, as they said it was destroyed by chemical testing for
fingerprints) was too long to have been the one he and his sister saw.
NO one else saw LHO carry in any package either that morning.
"* = As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the
"curtain rods" based on the following:
A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository
after the assassination."
This whole story has to rely again on the same man, Frazier, as NO one
else was produced to say LHO mentioned coming to the Paine's for
"curtain rods." I love how the premise is NOT proved, but he moves on
like everything tied to it has been.
"B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his
roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just
prior to 1:00 PM on the afternoon of the assassination."
And this proves? It has nothing to do with anything. What are you
infering here?
"A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods"
were in that paper package on 11/22/63."
What paper package? We have NO photo at the crime scene of it and NO
mention in the inventory log made by the officers there. All we have
is a dotted line in a picture claiming to show where it was found. How
do we know for sure what was in it, since we don't know for sure it
ever existed?
"Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in
evidence but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin."
And he claims to use "common sense" and "logic?" Please, a 10 year-
old displays more of both. He is also a horrible mathematician as he
does not know how to add anything right.
"Now, when you start adding in the wealth of ADDITIONAL physical and
circumstantial evidence against Oswald -- his guilt is then proven not
beyond just a "reasonable" doubt...but it's proven beyond any SPECK of
a doubt.**"
Adding in? When did he show any evidence to start with?
"** = Things like: Oswald's prints on a paper bag IN THE SNIPER'S
NEST; which was a paper bag that perfectly matches the type of bag
that co-worker Wesley Frazier said Oswald carried into the Depository
building at 8:00 AM on November 22nd. (With a nicely-incriminating
"right palmprint" of Oswald's later discovered by the police in the
VERY SPOT on that bag which equates PERFECTLY with the precise way
Frazier said Oswald carried the bag in his right hand! That's a very
important point, IMO, and is undeniably-strong physical evidence of
Oswald's guilt.)"
Now he is talking about fingerprints on a unknown bag, unbelievable.
DVP believes everything these government hearings say are true. He
doesn't need to see proof, he just believes it. Amazing. Frazier and
his sister said the bag shown to them, again it was one made by the
FBI - not the one they claimed to have found - was too large! So for
him to say matter of factly that it "matches" the type of bag that
Frazier saw is an out and out deception. The palmprint was NOT found
initially, only later when it had been in custody for some time, just
like the palmprint on the rifle. How can anyone trust this?
"Plus there are these additional items: Eyewitness Howard Brennan's
positive IDing of Oswald as a gunman in the Sniper's Nest window. ....
The Tippit murder that was unquestionably committed by Oswald. ....
The fingerprints of Oswald located on the rifle, plus his prints
located on multiple boxes DEEP WITHIN THE SNIPER'S NEST. .... Oswald
having no verifiable alibi for the precise time when President Kennedy
was being gunned down on Elm Street at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63. ....
Oswald dashing out of the TSBD at approximately 12:33 PM, just minutes
after a U.S. President had been shot within yards of Oswald's
workplace. .... And Oswald's other lies he told to the police after
his arrest (apart from the obvious large lie re. the curtain rods)."
Brennan NEVER ID'd LHO, and the clothing he described was at total
odds with what LHO was wearing that day. The prints on the boxes
proved nothing, as they were only found on a couple (and no one else's
were found which is odd since LHO did NOT move them all by himself)
and when one thinks of the number of boxes he had to shift around to
make the famous sniper's nest, there should have been more boxes with
his prints. This is ALL a moot point anyway as LHO worked there and
any prints could have been left in his normal work that day. As for a
verifiable alibi for LHO, I don't think even if he had given one they
would have followed up on it, as he was the man who was set-up to take
the fall. I'm sure there were others who worked there that had the
same case of not being able to give a verfiable alibi. The curtain
rod story is a fantasy, like the rest of their case, it was NEVER
verified to be true.
"But it all starts with the basic points brought out by #1 and #2
above. The evidence (and Oswald's OWN words and actions) tell a
reasonable person that Lee H. Oswald was guilty as ever-lovin' sin of
two murders in 1963, and there's nothing any CTer (or anybody else on
the planet) can do or say to change that basic of all facts."
Luckily, most people reading these posts know how to reason and think
or you wouldn't be reading conspiracy stuff in the first place, so I'm
sure you will see DVP's posts for what they are - propaganda. NO
proof is ever offered.
"The conspiracists will continue to try to set Oswald free, of course,
like always. But the more a reasonable person examines the evidence
(and applies just a small dose of ordinary common sense to these facts
in evidence), the more hollow, shallow, and inept all those pro-
conspiracy arguments become."
He acts like hard evidence exist showing LHO's guilt and we are just
stubborn and won't admit it. CTers exist because there is NO hard
physical, or really any circumstantial evidence, against LHO for the
two shootings. IF he was guilty of some crime (and conspiracy to
commit a crime is a crime) they have failed to show this even. They
offer NO proof or evidence and then act like we are kooks because we
don't just go along with them anyway. Go figure.
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c78d708a7a19e5d6
>
> >>> "The paper bag of Oswald's, allegedly found in the sniper's nest, was folded in ways that did not indicate a gun had been stored in the bag." <<<
"This is a silly argument (if, that is, you're referring to the
somewhat-"symmetrical" folds that existed in Oswald's paper bag, as
seen in the photos below)....."
I simply say, where is this famous bag? Why is it not in the
inventory or in a photo? How do we know it exists if the WC couldn't
show it to us?
http://s217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/JFK%20Assassi...
"It's a silly CT type of argument because we know that Oswald would
have certainly folded up the paper that he swiped from the TSBD
workbench and stashed it under his coat during his drive to Irving
with Buell Frazier on Thursday night."
How did he swipe it from the TSBD? Mr. West said he NEVER saw LHO near
his paper or tape and the WC couldn't prove otherwise. DVP has all the
fictional answers doesn't he?
"Oswald surely didn't take the paper to Irving in one long, unfolded
hunk of paper, for Pete sake. He folded the paper up, with those
creases still visible in the bag when Montgomery was photographed with
it on Nov. 22."
You have failed to proved that the bag ever existed so all of this is
moot anyway.
"In fact, those creases and folds in the bag, IMO, are even MORE of a
reason to believe it was Oswald's rifle-toting bag -- because if those
creases and folds HADN'T been in that bag, a person (CTer or
otherwise) could logically ask: Well, how did LHO take that paper to
Irving without folding it in some manner...and furthermore, WHY in the
world would anyone transport a lengthy piece (or pieces) of paper like
that from one place to another WITHOUT folding it up for easier
carrying?"
What bag?
"The folds we see in that bag are perfectly consistent with Lee Oswald
having taken it (empty and folded up) to Irving....placing a rifle in
it on Nov. 21 or 22....and transporting it back to the TSBD (with
Rifle C2766 inside) on the morning of President Kennedy's
assassination."
What bag?
"Oswald's prints (two of them!) were on the bag, making that empty bag
found on the 6th Floor devastating physical evidence against LHO
(given the exact location where it was said to be found by multiple
police officers, despite the lack of an official photo of the bag in
the Nest)."
What bag?
"Do you think that Bob Studebaker and J.C. Day of the DPD were really
and truly lying when they both told the Warren Commission that an
empty paper bag was found in the southeast corner of the sixth floor?"
Yes, what bag?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/studebak.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm
"Some CTers have a hard time believing that an obvious assassin and
double-killer named Lee Harvey Oswald would ever tell a lie (such as
his "I'm just a patsy" whitewash), but those CTers don't have any
problem at all with calling many, many members of law enforcement (and
others in Officialdom) outright liars and cover-up operatives."
No body in the CT community has said that from what I read, on the
contrary, defining LHO's real role could open up many doors to the
truth, but it has never been shown that he lied. Never. Name one
supposed lie you can prove beyond a doubt to be such.
"And CTers spout these allegations without any proof whatsoever that
any lies were told by any members of the DPD (et al) in wake of JFK's
murder. Some mistakes were made, yes (like not photographing that bag
in the SN and originally speculating that LHO's gun was a "Mauser",
etc.)....but no outright "lies" were told by anyone in law enforcement
in connection with the JFK investigation that I am aware of.*"
Sound familar? I think we show more, much more, in way of proof than
you ever do. Mistakes? How do explain NOT photographing vital evidence
as a mistake? You are so forgiving of everyone but LHO.
"* = With one blatant exception (at least the only one I can think of
offhand) -- and that was Roger Craig's obvious "lie" about actually
seeing the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the rifle found in the TSBD.
That tale spun by Craig was positively a "lie". There's no other word
that can be used in that one particular instance."
He NEVER lied and there are signed affadavits by several officers
stating they found a Mauser rifle. Prove he lied. I dare you. How
about those affadavits by the other cops, were they lies to? IF so,
why should we believe them when they said later on it was really a
Carcano (which was stamped "Made in Italy" by the way)?
> >>> "Neither was there any oily residue in the bag...unusual, seeing the M-C was described as "well-oiled"." <<<
"Which has to mean that the OUTSIDE components of Oswald's Mannlicher-
Carcano HAD to be oily, is that it?
It might have been unusual for a "well-oiled" rifle to leave no oil
traces in a paper object after it's removed from that paper
object....but is it truly an IMPOSSIBILITY for such a thing to occur?"
Baloney, and they could have solved all of this for us by producing
said bag, but they didn't did they? What bag?
"Obviously it's not an impossibility at all -- because the sum total
of evidence says that LHO did, indeed, carry his "well-oiled" rifle
into work on Nov. 22 inside a brown paper bag."
What evidence? What bag?
"And since only ONE empty paper bag WITH TWO OF OSWALD'S PRINTS ON IT
was found in the Depository (and right under the window where three of
Oswald's bullet shells were also discovered, and right under the same
window where an Oswald-like gunman was seen aiming a gun at JFK at
12:30 PM)....then it doesn't take a four-year college degree to arrive
at the likely conclusion of: the empty bag found on the sixth floor is
the same bag used by Oswald to transport the rifle that killed the
President."
It was? Prove it. What bag? The officer who found the SN said no bag
was there. You can assert it all you want, but you can't prove it.
"A "V.B. CS&L" BREAK:
"We also know from the firearms people that the three expended
cartridge casings found on the floor, right beneath that sixth-floor
window -- undoubtedly the same casings that Mr. Norman heard fall from
above -- were fired in, and ejected from, Oswald's rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons."
He heard casings falling on the floor, BUT he never heard LHO
scrambling to hide the rifle and get downstairs. How does that happen?
"So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL
doubt THAT OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!! ...."
Sure, and your proof is where? I don't see any.
"And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building
that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious.
As far as Mister [Wesley] Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying
the bag under his armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to
just how Oswald was carrying that bag. He didn't have any
reason to."
Who is it obvious to? All the people who saw him carry it into the
TSBD? Oh, that's right, no one did see this except for Frazier who
wasn't really paying attention anyway. I like how they pin everything
on him for the rifle coming into the building with LHO, but in the
same breath state he wasn't really paying attention. Typical WC
common sense.
"At this point if we had nothing else....nothing else....how much do
you need?....if we had NOTHING else....this would be enough to prove
Oswald's guilt beyond all REASONABLE doubt. But there's so much more."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; July 1986; "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD"
You need proof, and you and Bugliosi have NONE. A motive wouldn't hurt
either.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
> >>> "No fibres were found that matched the blanket in the Paine's garage." <<<
"That's odd....exactly the opposite is true according to Paul
Stombaugh (hair-and-fiber expert for the FBI). Is Stombaugh a liar
too?:
PAUL STOMBAUGH -- "The viscose fiber I found in the bag matched in all
observable microscopic characteristics some of the viscose fibers
found in the composition of this blanket. This would be the diameter,
the diameter of that same fiber would have the same size of
delustering markings, same shape, same form, and also same color."
MEL EISENBERG -- "Now, what about the green cotton fiber that you
found in the paper bag, Mr. Stombaugh, how did that compare with the
green cotton fiber--was it a green cotton fiber that your testimony
mentioned?"
STOMBAUGH -- "Yes; there were several light green cotton fibers."
EISENBERG -- "How did they compare with the green cotton fibers which
are contained in the composition of the blanket?"
STOMBAUGH -- "These matched in all observable microscopic
characteristics.""
I notice DVP does NOT mention FBI expert, James Cardigan, who "said
explicitly that he had been unable to find any marks, scratches,
abrasions, or other indications that would tie the bag to the rifle.
Those negative findings assume greater significance in the light of an
FBI report (CE 2974) which states that the rifle found on the sixth
floor of the Book Depository was in a well-oiled condition."
What bag?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/stombaugh.htm
> >>> "The boxes at the sniper's window -- only one fingerprint matched Oswald." <<<
"Wrong (again). Two prints of Oswald's were found on one of the boxes
at the SN window (plus another palmprint on the box that LHO
undoubtedly sat on while waiting to shoot the President in the back
and in the back of the head on 11/22/63). ....."
Wow, two prints when he worked there and supposedly moved a bunch of
boxes around to make the SN, how does that happen?
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0...
"Oswald no doubt also handled the other two cartons that were located
beneath the SN window too, but he didn't leave any identifiable prints
on those cartons. His prints are there without a doubt, but just not
clear or discernible enough to be positively identified. (This is all
too obvious a conclusion when examining the sum total of evidence in
the JFK case.)"
Why didn't he leave prints on thoses two boxes? Did he put gloves on?
> >>> "All the witnesses who saw someone in the sniper's lair around the time of the shooting said the man was wearing a light-coloured shirt; Oswald wore a brown-orange shirt that day." <<<
"LHO probably shot the President while wearing JUST his white t-shirt
(IMO). He probably had his brown shirt at his feet in the SN while he
performed his murderous act. And he probably used that brown shirt as
a fingerprint-wiping rag as he travelled from one side of the
building to the other after the shooting."
Sorry, but the trajectories just don't line up from the window listed
as the SN, it has been shown by ballistic experts over the years. This
is laughable, so he can wipe a weapon clean of prints, store it behind
boxes and still get down four flights of steps in 90 seconds? He has
nothing on "Flash" I guess.
"And that's probably how the fibers from that shirt got stuck
underneath the butt plate. No other scenario regarding those fibers
getting jammed in the rifle makes much sense to me. More below.....""
Good one, but the fibers that are in the rifle, according to the WC,
match the shirt he changed into!!!! They goofed again, as they did
NOT realize he changed shirts and they said the fibers were from the
shirt he was arrested in at the TT. NOT one fiber from the shirt he
wore to work was on the rifle. Can anyone say frame job?
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a3d654f3c43ed16
> >>> "As for the so-called lies Oswald told the police, none of them would be admissible in a court of law (according to justice) because no-one bothered to officially record them." <<<
"So we have to just ignore those many lies now, is that it?"
What lies are we talking about, and hopefully you can PROVE they are
lies?
"Also -- I guess, per your above rules of law, the DPD and Captain
Fritz must have never been able to send a guilty person to prison
prior to November of 1963, since it would appear that it wasn't
uncommon in the slightest degree for the DPD and Fritz to NOT record a
single word uttered by suspects while being interrogated."
This is NOT true, it is required to take notes and or record
interrogations, if you want them entered into evidence that is. Sure
you can forget it if you don't, but how many people do the police
interrogate without going to court against them?
"Oswald's non-recorded statements certainly weren't the exception for
the DPD (circa 1963) -- they were the RULE:"
Prove it beyond John's site or the WC. I want an impartial source to
show they skipped notes and recordings all the time.
"CAPTAIN J.W. FRITZ -- "I don't have a tape recorder. We need one, if
we had one at this time we could have handled these conversations far
better."
JOE BALL -- "The Dallas Police Department doesn't have one?"
FRITZ -- "No, sir; I have requested one several times but so far they
haven't gotten me one.""
This is a joke, I don't believe this one for a minute. I want
independent proof.
>>>> "Oswald was not the only man fleeing the TSBD." <<<
"And I never claimed he was. But, as far as I'm aware, he was the only
employee of the building who was positively known to have been INSIDE
THE DEPOSITORY at the exact time of JFK's murder to have left the
building immediately after the assassination."
Sure you have, as you have repeatedly said there was a roll call
(there was NOT by the way) and he was the only person missing. You
are full of it.
> >>> "Four unidentified men were seen racing out the back." <<<
"Four? And the source for this "racing out the back" foursome is??"
He makes all kinds of silly claims with NO proof, now he demands it
immediately. What a hippocrite.
"Were these men supposedly Oswald's "patsy handlers" or something? And
FOUR of them? LOL."
They were probably shooters and radio men.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "A well-known criminal and Mafia associate, Jim Braden, was caught fleeing the Dal-Tex building." <<<
"Which was a building (the Dal-Tex) with absolutely NO connection to
the assassination whatsoever. And a building that, AFAIK, nobody (or
virtually nobody) thought any gunshots specifically came from."
Sure, that is why the trajectories done by numerous sources show a
much better match from there on several shots then from the TSBD.
Sell your bull somewhere else, we aren't buying it here.
"In short -- Big deal."
Only someone ignorant of the real facts would say this.
> =================================
"If anyone...maintains...that Oswald was just a patsy and did not kill
Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence against Oswald
or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial of Oswald's guilt is
not worthy of serious discussion." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 969 of
"RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)"
I would say the opposite is true, if you believe LHO is a patsy and
did not kill JFK then you are very AWARE OF THE EVIDENCE! That is
what the evidence says.
> ~~~~~~~~
"When he was interrogated, Oswald, from his own lips, he TOLD us he
was guilty....he told us he was guilty....almost the same as if he had
said 'I murdered President Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell us?
Well, the lies he told, one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE
consciousness of guilt."
Please, what a loon. He never said he was guilty for starters, so the
next leap of faith is really a doomed one.
"If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny
purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why
did he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary
to do that if he's innocent?"
I don't know Bugman, maybe because he NEVER did do those things! IS it
possible he was telling the truth? Since you CAN'T prove he acutally
did any of that stuff why not believe him?
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to
do with President Kennedy's assassination and was framed....this
otherwise independent and defiant would-be revolutionary, who disliked
taking orders from anyone, turned out to be the most willing and
cooperative frame-ee in the history of mankind!! Because the evidence
of his guilt is so monumental, that he could have just as well gone
around with a large sign on his back declaring in bold letters 'I Just
Murdered President John F. Kennedy'!!! ...."
~Yawn~ Just another huckster! See the bearded lady here folks!
"Based on the evidence in this case, Lee Harvey Oswald is as guilty as
sin, and there's NOTHING that Mr. Spence can do about it. .... Because
there's not one tiny grain of evidence....not one microscopic speck of
evidence that ANYONE -- other than Lee Harvey Oswald -- was
responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy." -- Vincent
Bugliosi; July 1986; "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD"
Sure, that is why none of these quotes EVER contain any evidence,
becuase it is so clear-cut right?
David Von Pein
>>> "Why is it {Oswald's paper bag with his 2 prints on it and fibers from Paine's blanket on it} not in the inventory or in a photo? How do we know it exists if the WC couldn't show it to us?" <<<
You're a fucking idiot. .....
CE142 (the bag with Ozzie's prints on it):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0269a.jpg
>>> "You have failed to prove that the bag ever existed; so all of this is moot anyway." <<<
You're a fucking idiot.
>>> "Nobody in the CT community has said that from what I read. On the contrary, defining LHO's real role could open up many doors to the truth, but it has never been shown that he {St. Oz} lied. Never." <<<
A Classic LOL moment here. The kook first says that "nobody in the CT
community has said that...", and then in his next idiotic breath, he
contradicts himself and shows that I'm right about a kook mindset with
respect to LHO and his lies, with this classic DVP-proving utterance:
"It has never been shown that he lied. Never."
Classic.
>>> "Name one supposed {LHO} lie you can prove beyond a doubt to be such." <<<
1.) "I didn't shoot anybody, no sir."
2.) "I don't know what I'm here for."
3.) "They {the DPD} haven't told me anything."
4.) "I have not committed any acts of violence."
5.) "I don't own a rifle."
6.) "I've never owned a rifle."
7.) "I've never heard the name A.J. Hidell."
8.) "I never told Wesley Frazier anything about curtain rods."
I could go on, but I guess 8 is enough lies for this post.
But if you want to read 31 more, you can click here:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d
>>> "The officer who found the SN said no bag was there." <<<
But Lt. Day and Robert Studebaker said there was a bag there in the
corner.
I guess those crooked cops should have gotten their cover-up stories
straight, huh?
>>> "He {Harold Norman} heard casings falling on the floor, BUT he never heard LHO scrambling to hide the rifle and get downstairs. How does that happen?" <<<
You're an idiot.
Per you kooks, I guess an invisible and footless "nobody" was firing a
rifle above Norman's head. Because whoever was firing above Norman
must've USED HIS FEET to escape the SN in pretty short order after the
shots.
Reprise -- You're an (astounding) idiot.
>>> "I like how they pin everything on him {Buell Wesley Frazier} for the rifle coming into the building with LHO, but in the same breath state he wasn't really paying attention. Typical WC common sense." <<<
More astounding idiocy.
As if Frazier needed to pay super-close attention to NOTICE THAT HIS
FELLOW PASSENGER ON NOV. 22 WAS CARRYING A BULKY PAPER SACK.
Somebody lasso this kook. He could get away you know! And think of
your children! And your neighbors! And their kids playing in the
streets with this Caprio kook on the loose! ~shivers~
>>> "I notice DVP does NOT mention FBI expert James Cardigan, who said explicitly that he had been unable to find any marks, scratches, abrasions, or other indications that would tie the bag to the rifle." <<<
And Cadigan also said this, Mr. One-Brain-Cell:
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was there an absence of markings which would be
inconsistent with the rifle having been carried in the bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I don't see actually, I don't know the condition of
the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag, it could have
been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer
of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn't moved too
much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but was unable to
associate them with this gun. The scratch marks in the paper could
come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were
no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any
other rifle or any other given instrument.
Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any absence of markings or absence of bulges
or absence of creases which would cause you to say that the rifle was
not carried in the paper bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is whether it had been wrapped or not wrapped?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is something I can't say.
Mr. DULLES. Would the scratches indicate there was a hard object
inside the bag, as distinct from a soft object that would make no
abrasions or scratches?
Mr. CADIGAN. Well, if you were to characterize it that way, yes. I
mean there were a few scratches here. What caused them, I can't say. A
hard object; yes. Whether that hard object was part of a gun----
Mr. DULLES. I understand.
Mr. CADIGAN. And so forth.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan1.htm
>>> "This is laughable, so he can wipe a weapon clean of prints, store it behind boxes and still get down four flights of steps in 90 seconds? He has nothing on "Flash" I guess." <<<
Yeah, I guess WALKING and WIPING something with a shirt at the same
time would be pretty impossible, huh?
It's probably particularly impossible to a conspiracy-giddy kook who
can't sit in a chair and chew gum at the same time...let alone walk
and wipe a rifle simultaneously.
Imagine the complexity of such a dual Oswald task! Walking AND wiping
at the very same time! It's a miracle!
>>> "But the fibers that are in the rifle, according to the WC, match the shirt he changed into!!!!" <<<
Oswald never changed his shirt.
Some people have SPECULATED he changed clothes (and Oswald, I believe,
at one point in his questioning told Fritz that he changed his
"trousers", but I don't think he mentioned changing his shirt
specifically)....but there's no way in the world you'll ever get me to
believe he took the time to change his shirt at Beckley. Especially
since it would have been needless to do so (if he was thinking of
doing it to change his appearance slightly)....because he COVERED HIS
SHIRT WITH HIS ZIPPERED JACKET AS HE LEFT THE BECKLEY ROOM.
Oswald didn't change his shirt. I'd bet my last CIA Disinfo dollar on
that.
>>> "Can anyone say frame job?" <<<
No, but I can say.....
You're a freaking (or fucking) idiot.
Ahhh.
>>> "You have repeatedly said there was a roll call (there was NOT by the way) and he {Saint/Patsy Oswald} was the only person missing." <<<
Quote me saying that. You won't be able to find such a DVP citation,
because none exists and never did.
You're confusing me with Vince Bugliosi in this regard. Vince
misstates (slightly) the facts about the "missing employees". He
states in his interviews that Oswald was "the only missing employee"
after the shooting.
What Vince should be saying there is: LHO was the only employee who
was known to have been INSIDE the building at exactly 12:30 during the
assassination to flee the building right afterward.
The "INSIDE THE BUILDING" part is what VB leaves out. And I think he
should add that part when he talks about that portion of the case
during his many interviews.
But, it just goes to show that even the best of the best (VB) makes an
occasional mistake.
Vince also repeatedly likes to claim that "Reclaiming History" is "the
only book" ever written (to date) that includes photos of Zapruder
frames 312 and 313 in it.
But that statement is positively false. I have only a minimal number
of JFK books (total), and at least three of them have 312 & 313
published in them, not counting VB's JFK book.
I've tried to get word to VB to stop repeating that incorrect
statement about Z312-313, but my message hasn't gotten through.
Of course, that's not really an important "error" at all. When
compared to Robcap's warehouse-full of moronic errors, distortions,
and misrepresentations of the facts in this case, Mr. Bugliosi's minor
boo-boos don't even show up on the radar at all.
>>> "It is required to take notes and/or record interrogations, if you want them entered into evidence, that is." <<<
Better go tell Will Fritz then. He must not realize that fact.
And just think, he'd been Captain of the Dallas Homicide & Robbery
Bureau for 31 years as of 11/22/63. And by all accounts, he was one of
the best police interrogators in the United States.
So you'd think he would know more about proper procedures and
"admissibility rules" and all that kind of stuff than some super-kook
named Robert C.
But...guess not. Go figure.
>>> "You are full of it." <<<
You're a mother-fucking moron/idiot/kook (triple-bill; take your pick
this time).
====================================
The VB Top 40 (some "Easy Listening" stations for the Mega-Kooks that
roam among us.)......
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=7f8im4pic0&v=1
====================================
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Why is it {Oswald's paper bag with his 2 prints on it and fibers from Paine's blanket on it} not in the inventory or in a photo? How do we know it exists if the WC couldn't show it to us?" <<<
"You're a fucking idiot. ....."
Being crude doesn't change a thing. Here are some quotes regarding the
bag.
Mr Ball: "Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken
from the Texas School Book Depository building?"
Detective John Hicks (DPD Crime Lab): "No, sir; I did not." (7H 289)
*********************************************************************
Mr Belin: "Was there any long sack laying in the floor there
that you remember seeing or not?"
Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig: "No; I don't remember seeing any." (6H
268)
************************************************************************************
Mr Ball: "Does the sack show in any of the pictures you took?"
Detective Robert Studebaker: "No; it doesn't show in any of the
pictures." (7H 144)
************************************************************************************
Mr Ball: "Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?"
Mr Jack Dougherty (TSBD employee): "Yes - when he first come into the
door."
Mr Ball: "Did he have anything in his hands or arms?"
Mr Dougherty: "Well, not that I could see of."
Mr Ball: "In other words, you would say positively that he had nothing
in his hands?"
Mr Dougherty: "I would say that - yes, sir." (6H 376/377)
**************************************************************************************
"CE142 (the bag with Ozzie's prints on it):"
Of course it does, let's look at how the prints got there. The bag
wouldn't be brought out for 3 hours after it was "discovered" and this
leads many to ask why? Add in the facts that it was not photographed
or inventoried and you have some major issues here. Further problems
arise from the fact that the WC could NOT shake Mr. West as he
maintained LHO was NEVER in his area. The thought many researchers
have is the bag was made post-haste by the authorities on-site
utilizing paper LHO may have touched in his normal work, thus, you
have the two prints on the paper. This hypothesis explains why ONLY
two prints were found when in reality it should have been loaded with
prints. There is also a question of whether there were enough points
to make a positive match (in court 10 is minimum, and 12 is the mark
to hit).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_...
> >>> "You have failed to proved that the bag ever existed so all of this is moot anyway." <<<
You're a fucking idiot.
Maybe, but the fact there was NO picture of it where it was supposedly
found and NO mention of it in the crime scene inventory makes me think
it was not found, but made after the fact. Only a lunch bag was found
in all liklihood.
> >>> "Nobody in the CT community has said that from what I read, on the contrary, defining LHO's real role could open up many doors to the truth, but it has never been shown that he lied. Never." <<<
"A Classic LOL moment here. The kook first says that "nobody in the CT
community has said that...", and then in his next idiotic breath, he
contradicts himself and shows that I'm right about a kook mindset with
respect to LHO and his lies, with this classic DVP-proving utterance:
"It has never been shown that he lied. Never.""
No, if you could read you would get the point. NO one in the CT
community I have read over the years states emphatically that LHO is
totally innocent, but rather they say his part is unkown. You think
all CTers think LHO is innocent, and maybe he was, but this is not the
issue, it is defining his guilt (if there is any) that matters. And
the evidence shows he has NO guilt in the three shootings, so if he is
guilty, it has to be in a different way. My point was the WC NEVER
explored this possibility and the least worked group of all was the
one that handled the conspiracy aspect of the case. I'm sure they did
no work for the most part.
"Classic."
It sure is, you are trying to side-track the conversation because you
have NO proof.
> >>> "Name one supposed {LHO} lie you can prove beyond a doubt to be such." <<<
I notice Davy left out the other part where I said provide proof they
are lies. No such luck on that end. Anyone can make accusations,
backing them up is the hard part. I won't waste time on these since he
did NOT hold up his part of the agreement, which was providing proof
they are lies to begin with.
> 1.) "I didn't shoot anybody, no sir."
> 2.) "I don't know what I'm here for."
> 3.) "They {the DPD} haven't told me anything."
> 4.) "I have not committed any acts of violence."
> 5.) "I don't own a rifle."
> 6.) "I've never owned a rifle."
> 7.) "I've never heard the name A.J. Hidell."
> 8.) "I never told Wesley Frazier anything about curtain rods."
"I could go on, but I guess 8 is enough lies for this post."
Of course you can, when proof is NOT needed you can say anything you
want.
"But if you want to read 31 more, you can click here:"
I doubt you'll find PROOF they are lies there either.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d
> >>> "The officer who found the SN said no bag was there." <<<
"But Lt. Day and Robert Studebaker said there was a bag there in the
corner."
Yeah the officer who found the SN just missed a huge bag on the
floor? Please. Sell your bull somewhere else.
"I guess those crooked cops should have gotten their cover-up stories
straight, huh?"
I guess not, as that is what the facts are. All your baloney CAN'T
cover that up either.
> >>> "He {Harold Norman} heard casings falling on the floor, BUT he never heard LHO
>
> scrambling to hide the rifle and get downstairs. How does that
> happen?" <<<
"You're an idiot.
Per you kooks, I guess an invisible and footless "nobody" was firing a
rifle above Norman's head. Because whoever was firing above Norman
must've USED HIS FEET to escape the SN in pretty short order after the
shots."
I'm an idiot? Notice here readers he did NOTHING to refute my claim,
he is using the mocking aspect to deflect attention away from a very
common sense point, something he claims to always think in. Go
figure.
"Reprise -- You're an (astounding) idiot."
Notice he NEVER addressed the point. Just used insults. There is NO
way a person can hear shell casings, but not hear a full grown man
running around. Makes NO sense whatever.
> >>> "I like how they pin everything on him {Buell Wesley Frazier} for the rifle coming into the building with LHO, but in the same breath state he wasn't really paying attention. Typical WC common sense." <<<
"More astounding idiocy."
Sounds like commons sense to me. I guess this is why he thinks he
uses common sense all the time as he doesn't know what that is either.
"As if Frazier needed to pay super-close attention to NOTICE THAT HIS
FELLOW PASSENGER ON NOV. 22 WAS CARRYING A BULKY PAPER SACK."
It would've helped since NO ONE else in the whole stinkin' building
saw LHO with a package. When you rest your whole case, or an aspect
of a case, on one person you shouldn't admit they were "not really
paying attention" anyway.
"Somebody lasso this kook. He could get away you know! And think of
your children! And your neighbors! And their kids playing in the
streets with this Caprio kook on the loose! ~shivers~"
Notice, he agains fails to refute anything, just goes for personal
insult. This always confirms he can't refute what you are saying. It
is a clear sign you are right and he is wrong.
> >>> "I notice DVP does NOT mention FBI expert, James Cardigan, who said explicitly that he had been unable to find any marks, scratches, abrasions, or other indications that would tie the bag to the rifle." <<<
"And Cadigan also said this, Mr. One-Brain-Cell:
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, was there an absence of markings which would be
inconsistent with the rifle having been carried in the bag?
Mr. CADIGAN. No; I don't see actually, I don't know the condition of
the rifle. If it were in fact contained in this bag, it could have
been wrapped in cloth or just the metal parts wrapped in a thick layer
of cloth, or if the gun was in the bag, perhaps it wasn't moved too
much. I did observe some scratch marks and abrasions but as unable to
associate them with this gun. The scratch marks in the paper could
come from any place. They could have come from many places. There were
no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that rifle or any
other rifle or any other given instrument."
This proves his case I guess. To me he took tap-dancing lessons from
Bugliosi. Where does he empahatically state the marks, abrasions or
scratches are from the "C2766" Carcano?
"Mr. EISENBERG. Was there any absence of markings or absence of bulges
or absence of creases which would cause you to say that the rifle was
not carried in the paper bag?"
Was there any lack of ammo in the gun to say if it was never fired
from the day it was made? What kind of nonsensical question is this?
Reverse psychology I guess.
"Mr. CADIGAN. No.
Mr. EISENBERG. That is whether it had been wrapped or not wrapped?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is something I can't say."
Again, he states he CAN'T say it was ever wrapped in a paper bag.
"Mr. DULLES. Would the scratches indicate there was a hard object
inside the bag, as distinct from a soft object that would make no
abrasions or scratches?"
I love this question, they haven't even established the RIFLE has been
in the bag and this loon is off to other objects that might have been
in there as well.
"Mr. CADIGAN. Well, if you were to characterize it that way, yes. I
mean there were a few scratches here. What caused them, I can't say. A
hard object; yes. Whether that hard object was part of a gun----
Mr. DULLES. I understand.
Mr. CADIGAN. And so forth."
Did I fall asleep? I mean I DID NOT see any confirmation from this
witness in the least. I guess Davy reads differently from me.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan1.htm
"Sorry, but the trajectories just don't line up from the window listed
as the SN, it has been shown by ballistic experts over the years. This
is laughable, so he can wipe a weapon clean of prints, store it behind
boxes and still get down four flights of steps in 90 seconds? He has
nothing on "Flash" I guess."
"Yeah, I guess WALKING and WIPING something with a shirt at the same
time would be pretty impossible, huh?"
Not just wiping, but wiping CLEAN. I mean the rifle was put through
TWO tests and nothing was found. Only during a "third" test was a
palmprint found. How can one wipe a weapon so clean with a shirt with
so little time?
"It's probably particularly impossible to a conspiracy-giddy kook who
can't sit and chew gum at the same time...let alone walk and wipe a
rifle simultaneously. Imagine that! Walking AND wiping at the very
same time! It's a miracle!"
No, it is impossible to any firearms and ballistics experts you talk
with or read about. What are the odds of him wiping away every print,
save a palmprint in a remote part of the rifle, in such a short time
with a shirt? As high as one bullet going through two men, breaking
two bones, and causing 7 wounds yet coming out virtually intact.
> >>> "But the fibers that are in the rifle, according to the WC, match the shirt he changed into!!!!" <<<
"Oswald never changed his shirt.
Some people have SPECULATED he changed clothes (and Oswald, I believe,
at one point in his questioning told Fritz that he changed his
"trousers", but not shirt specifically)....but there's no way in the
world you'll ever get me to believe he took the time to change his
shirt at Beckley. Especially since it would have been needless to do
so (if he was thinking of doing it to change his appearance
slightly)....because he COVERED HIS SHIRT WITH HIS ZIPPERED JACKET AS
HE LEFT THE BECKLEY ROOM."
LHO did say he changed, but there is proof as well. LHO stated during
his interrogation that he wore a long-sleeved shirt and gray pants to
work, and that he changed clothes after he arrived home. The
interviewing agent said Oswald described the shirt as "reddish." A
brown, long-sleeved shirt and gray pants were found in Oswald's
apartment by the Dallas police after the shooting. How could these
clothes be found IF he did not change?
Oswald didn't change his shirt. I'd bet my last CIA Disinfo dollar on
that."
And you would deserve to lose that ill-gotten money.
> >>> "Can anyone say frame job?" <<<
"No, but I can say.....
You're a freaking (or fucking) idiot. Ahhh."
More personal attacks, he has nothing.
> >>> "You have repeatedly said there was a roll call (there was NOT by the way) and he {Saint/Patsy Oswald} was the only person missing." <<<
"Quote me saying that. You won't be able to find such a DVP citation,
because none exists and never did."
Baloney, you have said it since the WC says it. Don't equate my lack
of desire to go back through your thousands of posts as any indication
you never said it, just chalk it up to I have better things to do.
Anyone who reads these posts frequently will know you have said it.
"You're confusing me with Vince Bugliosi in this regard. Vince
misstates (slightly) the facts about the "missing employees". He
states in his interviews that Oswald was "the only missing employee"
after the shooting."
Perhaps this is it, you quote him verbatim so much who can tell.
"What Vince should be saying there is: LHO was the only employee who
was known to have been INSIDE the building at exactly 12:30 during the
assassination to flee the building right afterward."
Even this is NOT correct as Frazier was gone along with several
others, and there were many workers outside so it is impossible to
know who was inside and then outside accurately. Why does Vince never
talk about the electric and phones going down in the building at the
time of the assassination?
"The "INSIDE THE BUILDING" part is wqhat VB leaves out. And I think he
should add that part on in his many interviews. But, it just goes to
show that even the best of the best (VB) makes an occasional mistake.
Vince also repeatedly likes to claim that "Reclaiming History" is "the
only book" ever written (to date) that includes photos of Zapruder
frames 312 and 313 in it. But that statement is patently false. I have
only a minimal number of JFK books (total), and at least three of them
have 312 & 313 published in them, not counting VB's new "RH". I've
tried to get word to VB to stop saying making that incorrect
statement about Z312-313, but my message hasn't gotten through.
Of course, that's not really an important "error" at all. When
compared to Robcap's warehouse-full of moronic errors, distortions,
and misrepresentations of the facts in this case, Mr. Bugliosi's minor
boo-boos don't even show up on the radar at all."
Maybe it is a major error, but the old adage of "if you mislead once,
you'll mislead again" is appropriate here. You can't prove I have
made any misrepresentations, you are the one doing that for the most
part by supporting the WC.
> >>> "It is required to take notes and/or record interrogations, if you want them entered into evidence, that is." <<<
"Better go tell Will Fritz then. He must not realize that fact."
I think he was lying through his teeth.
"And just think, he'd been Captain of the Dallas Homicide & Robbery
Bureau for 31 years as of 11/22/63. And by all accounts, he was one of
the best police interrogators in the United States. So you'd think he
would know more about proper procedures and "admissibility rules" and
all that kind of stuff than some super-kook named Robert Caprio."
You could easily prove it by providing a link to some independent
study or article that showed they regularly did NOT make notes or
record their interrogations, but I'm sure we both know that wil be a
waste of time.
"But...guess not. Go figure."
Go figure indeed, you'll keep coming up short with the proof.
>
> >>> "You are full of it." <<<
"You're a mother-fucking moron/idiot/kook (triple-bill; take your pick
this time)."
I could say something about your mom, but that is not my style. I like
to keep things centered on the JFK case, but of course I have so much
more to work with than you do.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Jan 13, 10:15=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>"In late September of 1964, Chief Justice Earl Warren handed a thick
>book to President Lyndon B. Johnson at the White House. That heavy
>tome was the final "Warren Commission Report" regarding the
>investigation into the November 1963 assassination of President John
>F. Kennedy.
>
>The seven-member Warren Commission panel (plus its staff of counsel
>members and legal staff), in a nearly ten-month probe into the
>circumstances surrounding the murder of JFK, arrived at a conclusion
>which has divided America ever since -- they concluded that Lee Harvey
>Oswald, by himself, had fired all of the bullets that struck down and
>killed President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas."
>
>The country was NOT divided 50-50, but usually anywhere from 75 or 90%
>BELIEVE there was a conspiracy of some kind.
>
>"A vast majority of people vehemently disagree with these WC findings.
>I, however, am not a member of that majority. Lee Harvey Oswald was
>indeed, in my opinion, the sole gunman that day in Dallas. The
>physical evidence (as well as the circumstantial evidence) that is
>currently in the official record tells me that Oswald was most
>certainly the murderer of America's 35th President."
>
>This tells me you are easily mislead.
Actually, it tells anyone who's paid attention that DVP is a liar. The physical
and circumstantial evidence DO NOT support the WCR's theories, and DVP is well
aware of that fact.
This explains why he refuses to support his own words when it's pointed out to
him that he's wrong.
DVP is simply doing what he's paid to do - clog up the newsforums with garbage,
so that it's difficult for lurkers to follow the evidence.
>"And when virtually ALL of the hard, PHYSICAL evidence in a criminal
>case leans one way and supports one single conclusion, reaching an
>opposite conclusion (as most conspiracy theorists have done with
>respect to the evidence in the JFK case) -- i.e., that Oswald is
>totally INNOCENT of the two murders he was charged with on 11/22/63
>(both JFK's and police officer J.D. Tippit's as well) -- defies all
>logic and reasoned thinking."
And when you need to lie to "make a point", the only point you've made is that
you're willing to lie.
>That is a very true statement, but it has to be the case, and anyone
>who had looked at this case knows most of the physical evidence shows
>conpiracy. You do defy logic and reasoned thinking. Go figure.
>
>"Like most things in life, the John Kennedy murder case can be reduced
>(in most areas within it) to common sense and the hard, documented
>physical evidence, and we all know where the latter leads -- right
>straight into the two guns of one Lee Harvey Oswald (his Mannlicher-
>Carcano rifle plus his revolver, the latter which was used to kill
>Officer Tippit). Plus, the "common sense" part of that equation leads
>directly to Lee Oswald and his weaponry as well. And "common sense"
>would tell anybody that Oswald is guilty."
>
>You obviously don't know what constitutes "hard evidence" do you? Lay
>some on us if you have so much. Let's see what you got.
>
>"I was thinking recently about the following quote by author-attorney-
>LNer Vincent Bugliosi (I think a lot about his comments, because they
>make so much "sense" of the "common" variety)....."
>
>For the readers out there this is the same guy who said there was a
>conspiracy in the butcher killings of Charles Manson, but he thinks NO
>ONE helped LHO at all in the murder of a president. Go figure.
Bugliosi also argued in court, that the RFK and JFK cases were both
conspiracies.
Now he's arguing that the JFK case was *not* a conspiracy. Lawyers are trained
to "believe" in whatever side's case is paying them.
Bugliosi, should he have desired to do so, could have made a much *STRONGER*
case for conspiracy in the JFK case, since the evidence actually favors a
finding of conspiracy.
>"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
>Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
>the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80
>percent of the evidence against him out the window and there would
>still be more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of
>his sole role in the crime." -- Vince Bugliosi
>
>Easy to say, but I notice he, and you, never do this, in fact, we
>can't ever get you to list 10% of the evidence against LHO. I wonder
>why?
Both Bugliosi and DVP have the same problem - easy to say, impossible to
demonstrate.
>".....And then, just for the sake of illustrating the validity of the
>above-mentioned statement made by Mr. Bugliosi, I went about the task
>of tossing out certain pieces of evidence that lead toward Oswald's
>guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders.....and I came to the
>conclusion, after stripping away several "LHO Is Guilty" items, that
>the following two things prove Lee Harvey Oswald guilty beyond a
>reasonable doubt (or at least they prove his guilt beyond all of my
>personal "reasonable doubt")......:
>
>Oh my goodness, he is FINALLY going to list some of this "evidence"
>for us.
>
>"1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used
>to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John
>Connally.
Actually, there's no scientific evidence of this. The NAA evidence *used* to be
the crumbling rock that LNT'ers stood on - but that has finally been shaken
completely to sand.
And although most CT'ers accept that the rifle alleged to have been Oswalds was
involved, even *that* isn't based on bedrock... for the prime suspects
controlled almost all of the ballistic evidence.
>(With said weapon being found inside the building where
>Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963,
Along with dozens of other people... at least one of which was never identified.
>when both of these men were wounded by rifle fire.)"
>
>Oh darn it, there is NO proof here yet again. Just a lot of bluster.
>He says the rifle LHO allegedly ordered, which has NEVER been proven
>beyond a reasonable doubt by the way, was the weapon positively. Even
>if we ignore the order issue, where is the proof backing up this
>statement? It is not here, therefore, do NOT be mislead by this con
>man who is moving the shells around the table.
>
>"2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of
>employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning
>of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the
>contents of this package to a co-worker.*"
Not "beyond a reasonable doubt" at all... in fact, it's only been in recent
years that CT'ers discovered that curtain rods WERE put up in Oswald's flat the
next day... and that curtain rods WERE fingerprinted by the DPD.
These are facts that contradict DVP's scenario.
>He was reportedly seen by one man, and one man ONLY, Wesley Frazier,
>who is quite suspicious by himself. This man would testify to the WC
>that he was, 1) NOT really paying attention to what LHO had that
>morning, and 2) that the package they showed him (which was a stunt
>double as they NEVER presented the one they claimed to have found in
>the TSBD, as they said it was destroyed by chemical testing for
>fingerprints) was too long to have been the one he and his sister saw.
>NO one else saw LHO carry in any package either that morning.
This same "eyewitness" was also arrested, ran through a polygraph, and had his
rifle confiscated FROM HIS HOME. I suspect that Frazier was willing to say just
about anything to get out from under...
>"* =3D As an extension to #2 above --- We KNOW Oswald lied about the
>"curtain rods" based on the following:
>
>A.) No "curtain rods" were found anywhere within the Book Depository
>after the assassination."
Untrue.
>This whole story has to rely again on the same man, Frazier, as NO one
>else was produced to say LHO mentioned coming to the Paine's for
>"curtain rods." I love how the premise is NOT proved, but he moves on
>like everything tied to it has been.
>
>"B.) Oswald definitely did not carry any package inside his
>roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue when he arrived back home just
>prior to 1:00 PM on the afternoon of the assassination."
>
>And this proves? It has nothing to do with anything. What are you
>infering here?
>
>"A and B above add up to the inescapable fact that: No "curtain rods"
>were in that paper package on 11/22/63."
Since one of your two statements is an outright lie, your "conclusion" is
likewise suspect.
But you knew that, right, DVP?
>What paper package? We have NO photo at the crime scene of it and NO
>mention in the inventory log made by the officers there. All we have
>is a dotted line in a picture claiming to show where it was found. How
>do we know for sure what was in it, since we don't know for sure it
>ever existed?
The evidence is extremely damning for the "paper bag's" existence. We even have
documentation in the FBI archives both for "it's the same paper as the TSBD",
and "it's not the same paper as the TSBD".
It's also interesting to note that the post office, after Oswald's death, had a
package addressed to him that contained a paper bag. Was the conspiracy's right
hand not talking to the conspiracy's left? Someone wanting to get some
fingerprints on a paper bag?
>"Adding #1 to #2 above, all by themselves, with nothing else in
>evidence but those items, makes Oswald a guilty assassin."
Well, you've failed, haven't you?
>And he claims to use "common sense" and "logic?" Please, a 10 year-
>old displays more of both. He is also a horrible mathematician as he
>does not know how to add anything right.
>
>"Now, when you start adding in the wealth of ADDITIONAL physical and
>circumstantial evidence against Oswald -- his guilt is then proven not
>beyond just a "reasonable" doubt...but it's proven beyond any SPECK of
>a doubt.**"
>
>Adding in? When did he show any evidence to start with?
>
>"** =3D Things like: Oswald's prints on a paper bag IN THE SNIPER'S
>NEST; which was a paper bag that perfectly matches the type of bag
>that co-worker Wesley Frazier said Oswald carried into the Depository
>building at 8:00 AM on November 22nd. (With a nicely-incriminating
>"right palmprint" of Oswald's later discovered by the police in the
>VERY SPOT on that bag which equates PERFECTLY with the precise way
>Frazier said Oswald carried the bag in his right hand! That's a very
>important point, IMO, and is undeniably-strong physical evidence of
>Oswald's guilt.)"
The "paper bag" killed no-one.
>Now he is talking about fingerprints on a unknown bag, unbelievable.
>DVP believes everything these government hearings say are true. He
>doesn't need to see proof, he just believes it. Amazing. Frazier and
>his sister said the bag shown to them, again it was one made by the
>FBI - not the one they claimed to have found - was too large! So for
>him to say matter of factly that it "matches" the type of bag that
>Frazier saw is an out and out deception. The palmprint was NOT found
>initially, only later when it had been in custody for some time, just
>like the palmprint on the rifle. How can anyone trust this?
>
>"Plus there are these additional items: Eyewitness Howard Brennan's
>positive IDing of Oswald as a gunman in the Sniper's Nest window.
Didn't happen, as DVP is well aware...
>....
>The Tippit murder that was unquestionably committed by Oswald.
Simply tossing out statements isn't going to convince anyone...
> ....
>The fingerprints of Oswald located on the rifle, plus his prints
>located on multiple boxes DEEP WITHIN THE SNIPER'S NEST. .... Oswald
>having no verifiable alibi for the precise time when President Kennedy
>was being gunned down on Elm Street at 12:30 PM on 11/22/63. ....
>Oswald dashing out
"Dashing out?" DVP is committing one of his more outrageous lies here...
>of the TSBD at approximately 12:33 PM, just minutes
>after a U.S. President had been shot within yards of Oswald's
>workplace. .... And Oswald's other lies he told to the police after
>his arrest (apart from the obvious large lie re. the curtain rods)."
Sadly, we have nothing that can be corroborated by disinterested witnesses
concerning any "lies" by Oswald.
>Brennan NEVER ID'd LHO, and the clothing he described was at total
>odds with what LHO was wearing that day. The prints on the boxes
>proved nothing, as they were only found on a couple (and no one else's
>were found
Untrue. Another set of prints, unidentified to this day, WERE found on one of
those boxes.
>which is odd since LHO did NOT move them all by himself)
>and when one thinks of the number of boxes he had to shift around to
>make the famous sniper's nest, there should have been more boxes with
>his prints. This is ALL a moot point anyway as LHO worked there and
>any prints could have been left in his normal work that day. As for a
>verifiable alibi for LHO, I don't think even if he had given one they
>would have followed up on it, as he was the man who was set-up to take
>the fall. I'm sure there were others who worked there that had the
>same case of not being able to give a verfiable alibi. The curtain
>rod story is a fantasy, like the rest of their case, it was NEVER
>verified to be true.
Actually, it's been demonstrated that he *did* have an alibi. He was able to
describe who was in the lunchroom.
That's a circumstantial alibi.
>"But it all starts with the basic points brought out by #1 and #2
>above. The evidence (and Oswald's OWN words and actions) tell a
>reasonable person that Lee H. Oswald was guilty as ever-lovin' sin of
>two murders in 1963, and there's nothing any CTer (or anybody else on
>the planet) can do or say to change that basic of all facts."
Or, more accurately, there's no amount of factual evidence that CT'ers can
*CITE* that will get the trolls to explain it in non-conspiratorial terms.
>Luckily, most people reading these posts know how to reason and think
>or you wouldn't be reading conspiracy stuff in the first place, so I'm
>sure you will see DVP's posts for what they are - propaganda. NO
>proof is ever offered.
>
>"The conspiracists will continue to try to set Oswald free, of course,
>like always. But the more a reasonable person examines the evidence
>(and applies just a small dose of ordinary common sense to these facts
>in evidence), the more hollow, shallow, and inept all those pro-
>conspiracy arguments become."
>
>He acts like hard evidence exist showing LHO's guilt and we are just
>stubborn and won't admit it. CTers exist because there is NO hard
>physical, or really any circumstantial evidence, against LHO for the
>two shootings. IF he was guilty of some crime (and conspiracy to
>commit a crime is a crime) they have failed to show this even. They
>offer NO proof or evidence and then act like we are kooks because we
>don't just go along with them anyway. Go figure.
>
>
>> David Von Pein
>> January 2006
DVP is a paid disinfo agent, nothing more...
David Von Pein
>>> "Bugliosi also argued in court, that the RFK and JFK cases were both conspiracies." <<<
This is one of the several lies that Holmes likes to drag out of his
closet every few months.
Bugliosi said in court in the '70s that many people BELIEVED IN A JFK
CONSPIRACY....but he, himself (VB), wasn't arguing IN FAVOR of a JFK
conspiracy.
Holmes HAS to know that what I just said is true...but he'll deny it
anyhow. And that's because he's a nutcase.
But even if Vince HAD "argued" in court in the 1970s in favor of a JFK
conspiracy (which he most certainly did not do)....so what?
Many former CTers have changed their tune after digging deeper into
the evidence and deeper into the BS dug up by CTers. It's a "so what?"
situation all the way around.
Plus: The RFK and JFK cases are separate murders. Not connected in any
way. Why some kooks want to tie the two together with an unbreakable
cord is anybody's guess.
Herbert Blenner
> >>> "The physical evidence of highly tangential entry wounds on President
>
> Kennedy exclude Oswald from shooting an[y?] victim anywhere near an
> upright position." <<<
>
> Total bullshit. (As per the CT norm.)
Perhaps a reading of the evidence would wash out your fifthly mouth.
Source:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0087b.htm
(424) The characteristics of the abrasion collar surrounding the
entrance perforation reflect the direction of the bullet at the
instant of impact with the skin and the angle of the trajectory prior
to contact with the skin, as well as the shape of the missile itself.
If the trajectory is perpendicular to the surface of the skin, the
hole is usually round and the abrasion collar correspondingly
symmetrical around it. (See fig. 45, a picture of an abrasion collar
when the missile was perpendicular to the target.) If the angle of the
trajectory of the missile to the skin surface is other than
perpendicular, the abrasion collar may be asymmetrical, that is, more
prominent on the surface with the most acute angle between the skin
and the bullet, and less apparent on the opposite surface, where there
may be undermining of the tissues. (See fig. 46 showing an abrasion
collar produced by a missile striking at an acute area.)
End of source.
Figure 46 shows an oval abrasion surrounding an elliptical hole made
by a highly tangential entry by a bullet. However, for the purposes of
discussing the elliptical wound on Connally's back the panel combined
their graphic of the wound with a drawing of entry by a tumbling
bullet. Nevertheless the graphic of the wound corroborates the
testimony of Commander Humes who attributed elongation of the entry
holes in Kennedy to tangential strikes.
Mr. McCLOY - Was the bullet moving in a direct line or had it begun to
tumble?
Commander HUMES - To tumble?
That is a difficult question to answer. I have the opinion, however,
that it was more likely moving in a direct line. You will note that
the wound in the posterior portion of the occiput on Exhibit 388 is
somewhat longer than the other missile wound which we have not yet
discussed in the low neck. We believe that rather than due to a
tumbling effect, this is explainable on the fact that this missile
struck the skin and skull at a more tangential angle than did the
other missile, and, therefore, produced a more elongated defect, sir.
End of source.
See the following link for a through discussion of the relationship
between the dimensions of an elliptical bullet hole and the incidence
angle of the tangential strike.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes.htm
Sorry, Mr. Von Pein, the link contains no tips on oral hygiene.
Herbert
David Von Pein
On a similar (confusing) note.......
[From my "Reclaiming History" book review:]
DVP: To add further confusion to the matter concerning the "downward
vs. upward" flight path of the bullet through JFK's back and neck,
Vince {Bugliosi} offers this in an endnote:
"It would seem to be that by straightening Kennedy's body out
into an anatomic position, not only does the bullet track (which is
always downward) go upward anatomically, but since the entrance wound
is a part of that track, it too is now abraded upward.
"If that's not the answer, then the language in 7 HSCA 87 is
simply incorrect, which certainly would not be the first time for the
HSCA. Indeed, when I spoke to two members of the HSCA forensic
pathology panel about the language in 7 HSCA 87, their attempted
explanations were so incomprehensible and incoherent that they don't
lend themselves to repeating." -- VB; Page 255 of Endnotes
DVP: But I'll repeat my thoughts on this subject again -- I cannot
disagree more strongly with the HSCA's determination that JFK's throat
wound was "anatomically" higher than his back wound. And the reason I
disagree so strongly is because the HSCA was so obviously wrong
concerning this matter. And the previously-linked autopsy photo*
proves beyond all doubt that JFK's back wound was higher than the
throat wound (even when Kennedy is placed in a ramrod-straight
posture).
* = This photo:
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/jfk_zeroang.jpg
Herbert Blenner
You are VB miss a lot.
See the following link for the web version of this entire article.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes.htm
Source: HSCA, Vol VII p. 84
"(245) The Panel examined photographs of the upper right back with the
body on its left side; these included 8 inch by 10 inch black and
white negatives and prints Nos. 11 and 12 and 4 inch by 5 inch
positive color transparencies and prints Nos. 38 and 39. (All
photographs and X-rays were examined with and without the aid of a 10X
magnifying lens.) Stereoscopic visualization of paired photographs
Nos. 38 and 39 revealed a slight change in the position of the camera
between the two exposures. Essentially the photographs consist of a
view of the right upper posterior thorax (back), with the camera in a
position such that it would be approximately horizontal to the body if
the body were erect, or at right angles to the skin surface and
parallel to a sagittal plane of the body. Within each photograph is a
centimeter ruler which overlies the midline of the back, extending
approximately 2.5 centimeters above the upper wound margin and 2
centimeters below the lower wound margin, with its edge approximately
2.5 centimeters medial to the wound margin. The ruler is in the plane
of focus of the wound, enabling reasonably accurate measurement of the
wound, which is oval, with one end of the long axis between 2 o'clock
and 3 o'clock and the opposite end between 8 o'clock and 9 o'clock.
The maximum wound diameter, determined by interpolation from the
photos, is 0.9 by 0.9 centimeter. The midpoint is estimated to be 13.5
centimeters below the right mastoid process, with the head and neck,
as positioned within the photograph, 6 centimeters below the most
prominent neck crease and 5 centimeters below the upper shoulder
margin. (See fig. 4, a drawing of this wound, and fig. 5, a close-up
photograph of it.)"
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes_files/doxback.jpg
"(246) There is a sharply outlined area of red-brown to black around
the wound in which there is dried, superficial denudation of the skin,
representing a typical abrasion collar resulting from the bullet's
scraping the margins of the skin at the moment of penetration. This is
characteristic of gunshot wounds of entrance and not typical of exit
wounds. This abrasion extends around the entire circumference, but is
most prominent between 1 o'clock and 7 o'clock about the defect (with
the head at 12 o'clock). In addition, there are several small linear,
superficial lacerations or tears of the skin extending radically from
the margins of the wound at 10 o'clock, 12 o'clock and 1 o'clock.
These measure 0.1, 0.2 and 0.1 centimeter respectively.
Photographically enhanced prints of photographs Nos. 38 and 39 reveal
much more sharply contrasted color determination and, to some degree,
more sharply outlined detail of the abrasion collar described above.
(247) Several members of the panel believe, based on an examination of
these enhancements, that when the body is repositioned in the anatomic
position (not the position at the moment of shooting) the direction of
the missile in the body on initial penetration was slightly upward,
inasmuch as the lower margin of the skin is abraded in an upward
direction. Furthermore, the wound beneath the skin appears to be
tunneled from below upward."
The Forensic Pathology Panel orientated an imaginary clock with twelve
at the head as a directional reference to discuss features seen on the
actual photographs. These pictures were the sources for the Dox
drawing of the back wound.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes_files/doxback.jpg
They described an oval wound with one end of its long axis at 75
degree and the opposite end at 255 degree. The panel placed the more
prominent hemisphere of the abrasion between 30 and 210 degree. They
noted superficial lacerations at -60, 0 and 30 degree. Further several
members recognized that the lower margin was abraded in an upward
direction and the wound beneath the skin appeared tunneled from below
upward. These observations are mutually inconsistent with scientific
analysis of a bullet wound.
A striking bullet induces two stresses in the skin. Obviously the
direct contact between the bullet and skin causes the primary stress.
The magnitude of this primary stress depends on the distance from the
penetrating bullet. When the bullet has a negligible yaw angle,
contours of equal stress are circular. For a tangential entry the
intersections of these contours with the inclined surface of the skin
are ellipses whose axes have the same directions as the axes of the
bullet hole. So the primary stress alone yields an elliptical abrasion
whose axes align with the axes of the elliptical bullet hole. The
secondary stress arises from the attachment of surrounding tissues to
those directly impacted and moved by the bullet. This attachment is
stiffest where the direction of the penetrating bullet makes the most
acute angle with the surface of the skin and least stiff where the
angle is most obtuse. So when tissues near the bullet hole have
comparable elasticities, the secondary stress widens the portion of
the abrasion nearest the most acute angle between the direction of the
penetrating bullet and the surface of the skin. This widening effect
produces an oval abrasion and its symmetry axis remains coincident
with the major axis of the bullet hole.
Assuming that a bullet caused the photographed back wound then the
direction of the symmetry axis of the oval abrasion from it's more to
less prominent portion coincides with the direction of the tangential
velocity, Vt, of the striking bullet.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes_files/tangential.jpg
For an infinitesimal interval of time, dt, the entering bullet moved a
distance ds = Vt dt, which made a 255-degree angle with the vertical
on the imaginary clock. This displacement had a slope of 0.97 unit
leftward at 9 o'clock for 0.26 unit downward at 6 o'clock. Using the
insert of the photographic enlargement of the abrasion enables
measurement of the length of the shorter axis divided by the length of
the symmetry axis. The quotient of 0.7 agrees with the 7 mm by 10 mm
dimensions reported by the Clark Panel. So the incidence angle was
approximately the inverse cosine of 0.7 or about 45 degree. This
result enables estimating the normal component, Vn, of the velocity of
the bullet as the tangential component, Vt, divided by the tangent of
the incidence angle. Hence the normal and the tangential velocities
had nearly equal speeds. The three-dimensional picture of the
trajectory becomes 0.68 unit to the leftward, 0.18 unit downward and
0.71 unit directly into the victim. In other words the abrasion shown
on photographs of the back wound depicts a bullet on a collision
course with the spine.
Tunneling beneath the skin occurs with every tangential entry and
becomes increasingly pronounced with increasing incidence angle.
Reading from left to right "Undermining of tissues" shows three
tangential entries with incidence angles of 20, 40 and 60 degree.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/punchingholes_files/undermine.jpg
The lightly shaded triangular regions immediately to the left of the
wound tracks represent cross sections of undermined tissues. The
undermining is most pronounced along the major axis of the bullet
hole, becomes less pronounced along directions between the major and
minor axes and vanishes at all directions bounded by the minor axis
and the portion of the major axis that made an acute angle with the
trajectory of the bullet.
An impinging bullet stretches tissue immediately before punching a
hole. When the impingement is tangential the stress in the stretched
tissue is largest where the direction of the strain has the smallest
radius of curvature. So tears and lacerations congregate around the
major axis of the bullet hole where the direction of the striking
bullet makes the most obtuse angle with the surface of the skin.
The reported tears and lacerations spanned an arc of 90 degree and
were centered around -10 or 350 degree. Without doubt these features
were misaligned with both ends of the symmetry axis of the oval
abrasion at 75 and 255 degree. However, the tears and lacerations
aligned with the superior end of the major axis of the bullet hole at
-15 degree as shown on CE 386. These results show that two objects
applied forces with substantially different directions upon the back
and produced a composite wound. One object produced the hole and
margins while the second object caused the oval abrasion. In other
words, the Forensic Pathology Panel described photographs of an
altered wound.
David Von Pein
And yet those same HSCA boys determined that the SBT was true and
correct, and that the SBT bullet was CE399 and was fired by Lee Oswald
from six stories above Elm Street on 11/22/63.
Go figure.
Given all of the detailed jargon and "abrasion collar" analysis, etc.,
being ejaculated above -- what's up with the HSCA's final "THE SBT IS
CORRECT" conclusion?
Merely double-talk on the part of the HSCA, Herb? Or what?
Herbert Blenner
Can you with a straight face tell us that you never heard of
conclusions contradicted by the supposedly underlying evidence?
Source: HSCA testimony of Dr. Michael Baden, Vol I p. 192
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0098b.htm
Mr. KLEIN. And the panel found an abrasion collar on the wound of the
President's back of the kind you have shown us in these drawings?
Dr. BADEN. Yes, sir. This represents a diagram, a blowup of the actual
entrance perforation of the skin showing an abrasion collar. The
abrasion collar is wider toward 3 o'clock than toward 9 o'clock, which
would indicate a directionality from right to left and toward the
middle part of the body, which was the impression of the doctors on
reviewing the photographs initially at the Archives.
Mr. KLEIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I would ask that the shirt,
jacket, and tie, marked JFK F-25, F-26, and F-27, be received as
committee exhibits.
Mr. DODD. Without objection.
End of source.
Herbert