J.D. Tippit Story - Current
robcap...@netscape.com
the officers listed (for those who died in the line of duty). His
wife attended the ceremony. This article is a great example of how
our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO
conviction. The reader will see nary a word about being alleged, or
supposed killer of JFK or JDT. It is assumed by our media despite NO
evidence or conviction. In any other case they would be sued for
slander.
YoHarvey
wrote:
roflmao, roflmao
aeffects
step on your dick again, son? told ya.... take the damn golf shoes
off.... moron!
JLeyd...@aol.com
You know, Robocop, J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the
assassain of A. Lincoln altho there was NO trial and NO conviction.
And no one seems inclined to cut A. Hitler any slack for his many
crimes altho there was NO trial and NO conviction in that case
either. (It's pretty hard to bring dead people to trial. Even if you
prop up the bodies in the dock, they tend to smell up the court room.)
JGL
aeffects
oh-oh...Jelly's been in the jello again..... <sigh> next he'll be
telling us the Nuremberg Trials were a figment of all our
imaginations. The hanging of the Booth accomplices was sleight of
hand..... wake up, son.....
YoHarvey
It's all these CT nuts have left. NO trial, NO conviction. So,
forget ALL the evidence. Once again, this is why CT's are laughed at!
aeffects
ROTFLMFAO! psssst. You did horrible with the 45 questions.... back to
Lancer with ya!
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Healy? You live for crack. You live for 45 questions. You live to
get your daughter off the streets. As you were on the NON-Education
forum, you too are ignored on here. It's the story of your life
Healy. Stop embarrassing yourself further by typing.
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b6c1471-6beb-43f6...@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Yo(Momma)Harvey wrote;
roflmao, roflmao
I write;
Yo(Momma)Harvey spends his whole life "ON THE FLOOR".
Watch him RUN from these AGAIN>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grizzlie Antagonist
wrote:
It's even worse than you think.
Tippit is actually still alive. He was never shot in the first
place. He just went into hiding and a corpse was substituted into his
place -- after bullets were shot into it -- to make the frame-up even
more convincing.
The whole thing won't come out until a coterie of aging hippies and
pimply-faced teenagers with bad acne -- who live with their parents,
punctuate every third word out of their mouths with the expression
"Y'know", and write drug-induced fantasy literature about killing the
current president -- actually seize the reins of power in order to
make Karl Marx's dream of a classless society a reality.
tomnln
On Jun 6, 1:57 pm, "JLeyden...@aol.com" <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jun 6, 1:15�pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > They have finished a police memorial in D.C. and J.D. Tippit is one of
> > the officers listed (for those who died in the line of duty). �His
> > wife attended the ceremony. �This article is a great example of how
> > our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO
> > conviction. �The reader will see nary a word about being alleged, or
> > supposed killer of JFK or JDT. �It is assumed by our media despite NO
> > evidence or conviction. �In any other case they would be sued for
> > slander.
>
> >http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN...
>
> You know, Robocop, J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the
> assassain of A. Lincoln altho there was NO trial and NO conviction.
> And no one seems inclined to cut A. Hitler any slack for his many
> crimes altho there was NO trial and NO conviction in that case
> either. (It's pretty hard to bring dead people to trial. Even if you
> prop up the bodies in the dock, they tend to smell up the court room.)
>
> JGL
Yo(Momma)Harvey wrote;
It's all these CT nuts have left. NO trial, NO conviction. So,
forget ALL the evidence. Once again, this is why CT's are laughed at!
I write;
YOU are the one RUNNIN from the evidence/testimony>>>
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> They have finished a police memorial in D.C. and J.D. Tippit is one of
> the officers listed (for those who died in the line of duty). His
> wife attended the ceremony. This article is a great example of how
> our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO
> conviction. The reader will see nary a word about being alleged, or
> supposed killer of JFK or JDT. It is assumed by our media despite NO
> evidence
<snicker> Ignorance is bliss, and robcap is in heaven.
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> It's even worse than you think.
>
> Tippit is actually still alive. He was never shot in the first
> place. He just went into hiding and a corpse was substituted into his
> place -- after bullets were shot into it -- to make the frame-up even
> more convincing.
>
Don't start rumors like this, Griz. Remember you're dealing with sub-
adolescent minds here. You probably just launched a thousands blog
enteries.
JGL
robcap...@netscape.com
This guy laughs at everything. What part of this is the most
enjoyable. Just curious. I'm sure I'll regret asking as soon as I hit
send.
robcap...@netscape.com
You obviously have read nothing about the Lincoln assassination in the
last 20 years or so, as there is clear cut evidence it was a
conspiracy John Wilkes Booth worked for and with. As for Hitler, he
was convicted at Nuremburg post-death, that was the main point of the
trials. That is your theories problem, no trial due to LHO's death,
as he was in police custody when he was murdered.
robcap...@netscape.com
Hardly, the evidence is forgotten (the official variety) because it
proves NOTHING in terms of LHO's guilt.
robcap...@netscape.com
> robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > They have finished a police memorial in D.C. and J.D. Tippit is one of
> > the officers listed (for those who died in the line of duty). His
> > wife attended the ceremony. This article is a great example of how
> > our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO
> > conviction. The reader will see nary a word about being alleged, or
> > supposed killer of JFK or JDT. It is assumed by our media despite NO
> > evidence
>
"<snicker> Ignorance is bliss, and robcap is in heaven."
Heaven's a great place to be, but you still have NO evidence
supporting your theory.
>
>
>
> > or conviction. In any other case they would be sued for
> > slander.
>
> >http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN...- Hide quoted text -
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2:54�pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > > They have finished a police memorial in D.C. and J.D. Tippit is one of
> > > the officers listed (for those who died in the line of duty). �His
> > > wife attended the ceremony. �This article is a great example of how
> > > our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO
> > > conviction. �The reader will see nary a word about being alleged, or
> > > supposed killer of JFK or JDT. �It is assumed by our media despite NO
> > > evidence
> >
>
> "<snicker> Ignorance is bliss, and robcap is in heaven."
>
> Heaven's a great place to be, but you still have NO evidence
> supporting your theory.
People saw Oz, idjit. Thats evidence. That idiots like yourself
disregard this evidence doen`t make it evaporate.
robcap...@netscape.com
> robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 2:54�pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > > > They have finished a police memorial in D.C. and J.D. Tippit is one of
> > > > the officers listed (for those who died in the line of duty). �His
> > > > wife attended the ceremony. �This article is a great example of how
> > > > our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO
> > > > conviction. �The reader will see nary a word about being alleged, or
> > > > supposed killer of JFK or JDT. �It is assumed by our media despite NO
> > > > evidence
>
> > "<snicker> Ignorance is bliss, and robcap is in heaven."
>
> > Heaven's a great place to be, but you still have NO evidence
> > supporting your theory.
>
"People saw Oz, idjit. Thats evidence. That idiots like yourself
disregard this evidence doen`t make it evaporate."
This guy doesn't even know the evidence (or lack of it in this case)
yet everyone else is the idiot. Priceless! Who positively ID'd LHO
as the shooter again? Who matched the bullets in JDT to LHO's gun
again? It evaporated the day the WC presented it since it is NOT
valid in the least.
>
>
>
> > > > or conviction. �In any other case they would be sued for
> > > > slander.
>
> > > >http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN...Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
curtjester1
Weren't there like about 8 people convicted of the conspiracy of
Lincoln, and some hangings?
CJ
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Jun 6, 9:11 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > > On Jun 6, 2:54�pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > > > > They have finished a police memorial in D.C. and J.D. Tippit is one of
> > > > > the officers listed (for those who died in the line of duty). �His
> > > > > wife attended the ceremony. �This article is a great example of how
> > > > > our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO
> > > > > conviction. �The reader will see nary a word about being alleged, or
> > > > > supposed killer of JFK or JDT. �It is assumed by our media despite NO
> > > > > evidence
> >
> > > "<snicker> Ignorance is bliss, and robcap is in heaven."
> >
> > > Heaven's a great place to be, but you still have NO evidence
> > > supporting your theory.
> >
>
> "People saw Oz, idjit. Thats evidence. That idiots like yourself
> disregard this evidence doen`t make it evaporate."
>
> This guy doesn't even know the evidence (or lack of it in this case)
> yet everyone else is the idiot. Priceless! Who positively ID'd LHO
> as the shooter again? Who matched the bullets in JDT to LHO's gun
> again? It evaporated the day the WC presented it since it is NOT
> valid in the least.
The evidence isn`t Tinkerbell, it dosn`t need the belief of idiots
to exist.
Bud
JLeyd...@aol.com wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2:18�pm, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It's even worse than you think.
> >
> > Tippit is actually still alive. He was never shot in the first
> > place. He just went into hiding and a corpse was substituted into his
> > place -- after bullets were shot into it -- to make the frame-up even
> > more convincing.
> >
>
> Don't start rumors like this, Griz. Remember you're dealing with sub-
> adolescent minds here. You probably just launched a thousands blog
> enteries.
<snicker> I think Grizzley was trying hard to be absurd, and what
he wrote still doesn`t contrast greatly with most of the "theories" I
read around here.
Bud
JLeyd...@aol.com wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2:18�pm, Grizzlie Antagonist <lloydsofhanf...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > It's even worse than you think.
> >
> > Tippit is actually still alive. He was never shot in the first
> > place. He just went into hiding and a corpse was substituted into his
> > place -- after bullets were shot into it -- to make the frame-up even
> > more convincing.
> >
>
> Don't start rumors like this, Griz. Remember you're dealing with sub-
> adolescent minds here. You probably just launched a thousands blog
> enteries.
<snicker> I think Grizzley was trying hard to be absurd, and what
he wrote still doesn`t contrast greatly with most of the "theories" I
read around here.
Ouch, sorry for mangling your moniker, Grizzlie.
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
Robocop, you and the other one-name wonders here (Aeffects &
CurtJester to name just two) have one thing in common besides your
desire to cower behind screen names and hurl insults and that is you
don't read in context. I said there was NO trial and NO conviction
for either J.W. Booth or A. Hitler (True!) and thus we have to assume
them innocent using your logic. Hitler wasn't a defendant at the
Nuremberg trials. He was dead altho some say he lived on forever in
Argentina and Booth was gunned down in a barn in near Port Royal , VA,
altho some say he escaped to Oklahoma or Texas where he prospered.
But don't let me interrupt your fun.
JGL
Todd W. Vaughan
You self-admittedly don't know shit about the Tippit case, Healy, so
stop slobbering all over this thread.
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
>
>On Jun 6, 1:57=C2=A0pm, "JLeyden...@aol.com" <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 6, 1:15=EF=BF=BDpm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.co=
>m>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > They have finished a police memorial in D.C. and J.D. Tippit is one of
>is
>> > wife attended the ceremony. =EF=BF=BDThis article is a great example of =
>how
>> > our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO
>, or
>> > supposed killer of JFK or JDT. =EF=BF=BDIt is assumed by our media despi=
>te NO
>> > evidence or conviction. =EF=BF=BDIn any other case they would be sued fo=
>r
>> > slander.
>>
>> >http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN...
>>
>
>"You know, Robocop, J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the
>assassain of A. Lincoln altho there was NO trial and NO conviction.
>And no one seems inclined to cut A. Hitler any slack for his many
>crimes altho there was NO trial and NO conviction in that case either.
>p up
>the bodies in the dock, they tend to smell up the court room.)"
>
>You obviously have read nothing about the Lincoln assassination in the
>last 20 years or so, as there is clear cut evidence it was a
>conspiracy John Wilkes Booth worked for and with. As for Hitler, he
>was convicted at Nuremburg post-death, that was the main point of the
>trials. That is your theories problem, no trial due to LHO's death,
>as he was in police custody when he was murdered.
Yep... even with *KNOWN* historical conspiracies, LNT'ers want to spin, duck,
and run from the facts.
Say it with me: Lincoln's killing was a conspiracy....
Say it again a few dozen times... who knows, it might sink in...
Ben Holmes
curtjester1 says...>> On Jun 6, 1:15=EF=BF=BDpm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.co=
>m>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > They have finished a police memorial in D.C. and J.D. Tippit is one of
>is
>how
>> > our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO
>, or
>> > supposed killer of JFK or JDT. =EF=BF=BDIt is assumed by our media despi=
>te NO
>r
>> > slander.
>>
>> >http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN...
>>
>> You know, Robocop, J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the
>> assassain of A. Lincoln altho there was NO trial and NO conviction.
>> And no one seems inclined to cut A. Hitler any slack for his many
>> crimes altho there was NO trial and NO conviction in that case
>if you
>> prop up the bodies in the dock, they tend to smell up the court room.)
>>
>> JGL
>
>Weren't there like about 8 people convicted of the conspiracy of
>Lincoln, and some hangings?
>
>CJ
I would answer... but I don't want to miss seeing a LNT'er answer this question.
Ben Holmes
JLeyd...@aol.com says...
>
>On Jun 6, 7:27=C2=A0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>wrote:
>
>Robocop, you and the other one-name wonders here (Aeffects &
>CurtJester to name just two) have one thing in common besides your
>desire to cower behind screen names and hurl insults and that is you
>don't read in context. I said there was NO trial and NO conviction
>for either J.W. Booth or A. Hitler (True!) and thus we have to assume
>them innocent using your logic. Hitler wasn't a defendant at the
>Nuremberg trials. He was dead altho some say he lived on forever in
>Argentina and Booth was gunned down in a barn in near Port Royal , VA,
>altho some say he escaped to Oklahoma or Texas where he prospered.
>But don't let me interrupt your fun.
>
>JGL
You stated that "J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the assassain of A.
Lincoln" - can you admit, here in print; that the Lincoln assassination *WAS*
the result of a conspiracy?
>> On Jun 6, 1:57=C2=A0pm, "JLeyden...@aol.com" <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 6, 1:15=EF=BF=BDpm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.=
>com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > They have finished a police memorial in D.C. and J.D. Tippit is one of=
>
>> > > the officers listed (for those who died in the line of duty). =EF=BF=
>=BDHis
>> > > wife attended the ceremony. =EF=BF=BDThis article is a great example o=
>f how
>> > > our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO
>> > > conviction. =EF=BF=BDThe reader will see nary a word about being alleg=
>ed, or
>> > > supposed killer of JFK or JDT. =EF=BF=BDIt is assumed by our media des=
>pite NO
>> > > evidence or conviction. =EF=BF=BDIn any other case they would be sued =
>for
>> > > slander.
>>
>> > >http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN..=
>.
>>
>> "You know, Robocop, J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the
>> assassain of A. Lincoln altho there was NO trial and NO conviction.
>> And no one seems inclined to cut A. Hitler any slack for his many
>> crimes altho there was NO trial and NO conviction in that case either.
>> =C2=A0(It's pretty hard to bring dead people to trial. =C2=A0Even if you p=
>rop up
>> the bodies in the dock, they tend to smell up the court room.)"
>>
>> You obviously have read nothing about the Lincoln assassination in the
>> last 20 years or so, as there is clear cut evidence it was a
>> conspiracy John Wilkes Booth worked for and with. =C2=A0As for Hitler, he
>> was convicted at Nuremburg post-death, that was the main point of the
>> trials. =C2=A0That is your theories problem, no trial due to LHO's death,
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Jun 6, 7:27 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
"Robocop, you and the other one-name wonders here (Aeffects &
CurtJester to name just two) have one thing in common besides your
desire to cower behind screen names and hurl insults and that is you
don't read in context. I said there was NO trial and NO conviction
for either J.W. Booth or A. Hitler (True!) and thus we have to assume
them innocent using your logic. Hitler wasn't a defendant at the
Nuremberg trials. He was dead altho some say he lived on forever in
Argentina and Booth was gunned down in a barn in near Port Royal , VA,
altho some say he escaped to Oklahoma or Texas where he prospered. But
don't let me interrupt your fun."
You are a funny one, like all the LNers on this board. Robocop is NOT
may name, it is a nickname the LNers have given me. My first name is
Rob, and my last name starts with Cap, so my e-mail is Robcap so they
have turned it into this and Robocrap as well. I wouldn't talk about
monikers if I were you as most of the LNers on here do NOT use their
real names, but instead use YoHarvey, Bigdog, Justme1952, CDwhatever,
Grizzlie, etc...
No onto the rest of your post. As CJ said, they hanged 8 conspirators
and there was ample suspicion of others in Lincoln's cabinet being
involved in the conspiracy (but nothing was done), and true there was
no trial and no conviction of Booth but there are difference in this
case vs. the LHO one. The first and most important one is he was SEEN
doing the crime by many people in Ford's theater, whereas NO ONE saw
LHO shoot a rifle on 11/22/63. He also admitted doing the deed, LHO
did not. JWB was also trapped in a barn with a co-conspirator, David
E. Herold, whereas LHO was never proven to be guilty and he never
admitted doing it by himself or with others. Booth also talked about
his plans in his diary, LHO NEVER mentioned killing JFK in a diary, or
to anyone that could be fond. Here are JWB's co-conspirators: Samuel
Arnold, Michael O'Laughlen, John Surratt, Lewis Powell (a.k.a. Lewis
Paine, or Payne), George Atzerodt and David Herold. These men were
submitted to a military tribunal and found guilty, and since JWB was
their leader it is common sense he was guilty too.
As for Hitler, he lead a dictatorship, meaning NOTHING could be done
without his permission, therefore, to assume they could try the lower
men in his hierarchy and not hold Hitler accountable is just plain
nuts. There were also many camps, death ones and regular
concentration camps, liberated and this provided ample proof of the
crimes against humanity. To compare Hitler and LHO is just plain
nonsensical. Typical LNer tactic.
> > On Jun 6, 1:57 pm, "JLeyden...@aol.com" <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 6, 1:15�pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > They have finished a police memorial in D.C. and J.D. Tippit is one of
> > > > the officers listed (for those who died in the line of duty). �His
> > > > wife attended the ceremony. �This article is a great example of how
> > > > our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO
> > > > conviction. �The reader will see nary a word about being alleged, or
> > > > supposed killer of JFK or JDT. �It is assumed by our media despite NO
> > > > evidence or conviction. �In any other case they would be sued for
> > > > slander.
>
> > > >http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN...
>
> > "You know, Robocop, J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the
> > assassain of A. Lincoln altho there was NO trial and NO conviction.
> > And no one seems inclined to cut A. Hitler any slack for his many
> > crimes altho there was NO trial and NO conviction in that case either.
> > (It's pretty hard to bring dead people to trial. Even if you prop up
> > the bodies in the dock, they tend to smell up the court room.)"
>
> > You obviously have read nothing about the Lincoln assassination in the
> > last 20 years or so, as there is clear cut evidence it was a
> > conspiracy John Wilkes Booth worked for and with. As for Hitler, he
> > was convicted at Nuremburg post-death, that was the main point of the
> > trials. That is your theories problem, no trial due to LHO's death,
> > as he was in police custody when he was murdered.- Hide quoted text -
JLeyd...@aol.com
You still don't get it, Robocop. Neither Booth nor Hitler was ever
brought to trial and convicted and, thus, using your logic, they must
be presumed innocent. I mean that's that the standard you're using for
Oswald. As for you cravenly hiding behind a screen ID, I can
uderstand that. You don't want some prospective employer Googling you
and saying, "OMG, look what this guy believes. Scratch him."
JGL
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
JLeyd...@aol.com
> Weren't there like about 8 people convicted of the conspiracy of
> Lincoln, and some hangings?
Gosh, I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved on ACJ but, then, I feel
a need to educate all one-name wonders. Yes, the Feds did string up a
batch of Booth's buddies but -- pay attention now -- Booth was NEVER
brought to trial and NEVER convicted. That's not too hard to
comprehend, is it?
JGL
> CJ- Hide quoted text -
JLeyd...@aol.com
> You stated that "J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the assassain of A.
> Lincoln" - can you admit, here in print; that the Lincoln assassination *WAS*
> the result of a conspiracy?
>
Well, I would answer, Ben, but I don't want to divert your attention
from your "45 questions" thing. That's really important work and you
need to give it maximum concentration.
JGL
> In article <b829810a-c1e3-4f5b-ba41-d8a563736...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> JLeyden...@aol.com says...
> >> as he was in police custody when he was murdered.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
You responded to say you aren`t going to answer? You`re
priceless...
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <b829810a-c1e3-4f5b...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> JLeyd...@aol.com says...
> >
> >On Jun 6, 7:27=C2=A0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >Robocop, you and the other one-name wonders here (Aeffects &
> >CurtJester to name just two) have one thing in common besides your
> >desire to cower behind screen names and hurl insults and that is you
> >don't read in context. I said there was NO trial and NO conviction
> >for either J.W. Booth or A. Hitler (True!) and thus we have to assume
> >them innocent using your logic. Hitler wasn't a defendant at the
> >Nuremberg trials. He was dead altho some say he lived on forever in
> >Argentina and Booth was gunned down in a barn in near Port Royal , VA,
> >altho some say he escaped to Oklahoma or Texas where he prospered.
> >But don't let me interrupt your fun.
> >
> >JGL
>
>
>
> You stated that "J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the assassain of A.
> Lincoln" - can you admit, here in print; that the Lincoln assassination *WAS*
> the result of a conspiracy?
Notice that both fanatics, Booth and Oswald, when surrounded by
the authorities with no hope of escape both decided to go out in a
blaze of gunfire. These zealots were no different than today`s suicide
bombers.
Bud
Notice that with real conspiracies, you know who was in on it, who
their contacts were, where they plotted, and could probably find out
what the plotters ate for breakfast, even with a crime committed in
the 1800`s.
Chuck Schuyler
Was Hitler put on trial at Nuremberg? Twenty-four major captured Nazi
leaders were tried, and many other lesser Nazis, too.
I don't see Hitler on the list.
Chuck Schuyler
> You still don't get it, Robocop. Neither Booth nor Hitler was ever
> brought to trial and convicted and, thus, using your logic, they must
> be presumed innocent. I mean that's that the standard you're using for
> Oswald. As for you cravenly hiding behind a screen ID, I can
> uderstand that. You don't want some prospective employer Googling you
> and saying, "OMG, look what this guy believes. Scratch him."
>
> JGL
You're assuming people like robcap look for work.
Bud
Who knows what brilliant defense Hitler would have put on had he
lived to take the stand? It seems that just claiming to be a patsy
will bring thousands of idiots out of the woodwork to take up your
cause.
David Von Pein
>>> "It seems that just claiming to be a patsy will bring thousands of idiots out of the woodwork to take up your cause." <<<
Yes indeedy....and even when the person shouting "I'm just a patsy"
makes this statement just ONE SECOND after spouting a PROVABLE LIE,
too.
Go figure kooks.
The full "Patsy" declaration from LHO:
"They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the
Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!" -- Lee Harvey Oswald
Now, does any person alive today actually believe that Lee Oswald was
"taken in" by the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/63 due to the fact
that LHO had lived in Russia from late 1959 to June 1962?
And does any person alive today actually believe Oswald was telling
the truth when he said that it was, in effect, the DALLAS POLICE
DEPARTMENT that was turning him into the "patsy" for the murders he
was accused of committing?
After all, when taking into account the ENTIRE hallway statement made
by Oswald (and not just the last four words of it), if we're to take
Sweet Lee at his LITERAL word when he said "I'm just a patsy", it
could only mean that members of the DPD (not the Mob or David Ferrie
or Clay Shaw or Santo Trafficante or Wilma Flintstone) were the people
that Oswald said were framing him (i.e., making him the "patsy").
Lee Oswald was quite obviously telling a lie when he said that he had
been taken in because of previously residing in the USSR (and I know
of nobody who even disputes that fact, not even a hardline
CTer)....which is a lie that SHOULD make people all the more
suspicious about the four words that came out of the SAME MAN'S mouth
just one second later ("I'm just a patsy").
But instead of making certain conspiracy-loving kooks suspicious, many
CTers decided it was wise to hop aboard the "I'm Just A Patsy"
bandwagon and declare Oswald to be a truth-teller with respect to
those four now-famous words he uttered, despite the fact that even the
kookiest of "Anybody But Oswald" kooks can admit that Oz's "Soviet
Union" statement was an obvious and provable lie.
=======================================
AUDIO VERSION OF THE COMPLETE "PATSY" STATEMENT:
=======================================
Ben Holmes
JLeyd...@aol.com says...
>
>On Jun 7, 2:55=EF=BF=BDpm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
>> You stated that "J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the assassain
>> of A. Lincoln" - can you admit, here in print; that the Lincoln
>> assassination *WAS* the result of a conspiracy?
>>
>
>Well, I would answer, Ben,
And yet, you didn't. Rather gives a good clue to lurkers regarding your regard
for the truth, doesn't it?
Rather embarrassing when there was no equivalent to the WCR to put your faith
in, isn't it?
You got caught trying to imply a "Lone assassin" for the Lincoln assassination -
and the simple fact of history is that it was a proven conspiracy.
Now, given the opportunity to clarify your remark - you duck and run away from
it. Embarrassing, isn't it?
>but I don't want to divert your attention
>from your "45 questions" thing. That's really important work and you
>need to give it maximum concentration.
Interesting to see that your aware of the 45 Questions... and just like
Bugliosi, who was provably aware of the '16 Smoking Guns', you'll run away and
refuse to provide any non-conspiratorial explanation for the evidence.
>JGL
>
>> In article <b829810a-c1e3-4f5b-ba41-d8a563736...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> JLeyden...@aol.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 6, 7:27=3DC2=3DA0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.=
>com>
>> >wrote:
>>
>> >Robocop, you and the other one-name wonders here (Aeffects &
>> >CurtJester to name just two) have one thing in common besides your
>> >desire to cower behind screen names and hurl insults and that is you
>> >don't read in context. =EF=BF=BDI said there was NO trial and NO convicti=
>on
>> >for either J.W. Booth or A. Hitler (True!) and thus we have to assume
>> >them innocent using your logic. =EF=BF=BDHitler wasn't a defendant at the=
>
>> >Nuremberg trials. =EF=BF=BDHe was dead altho some say he lived on forever=
> in
>> >Argentina and Booth was gunned down in a barn in near Port Royal , VA,
>> >altho some say he escaped to Oklahoma or Texas where he prospered.
>> >But don't let me interrupt your fun.
>>
>> >JGL
>>
>> You stated that "J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the assassain
>> of A. Lincoln" - can you admit, here in print; that the Lincoln
>> assassination *WAS* the result of a conspiracy?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> On Jun 6, 1:57=3DC2=3DA0pm, "JLeyden...@aol.com" <JLeyden...@aol.com> w=
>rote:
>>
>> >> > On Jun 6, 1:15=3DEF=3DBF=3DBDpm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@=
>netscape.=3D
>> >com>
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > They have finished a police memorial in D.C. and J.D. Tippit is one=
> of=3D
>>
>> >> > > the officers listed (for those who died in the line of duty). =3DEF=
>=3DBF=3D
>> >=3DBDHis
>> >> > > wife attended the ceremony. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDThis article is a great =
>example o=3D
>> >f how
>> >> > > our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO
>> >> > > conviction. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDThe reader will see nary a word about be=
>ing alleg=3D
>> >ed, or
>> >> > > supposed killer of JFK or JDT. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDIt is assumed by our =
>media des=3D
>> >pite NO
>> >> > > evidence or conviction. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDIn any other case they would=
> be sued =3D
>> >for
>> >> > > slander.
>>
>> >> > >http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/D=
>N..=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> "You know, Robocop, J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the
>> >> assassain of A. Lincoln altho there was NO trial and NO conviction.
>> >> And no one seems inclined to cut A. Hitler any slack for his many
>> >> crimes altho there was NO trial and NO conviction in that case either.
>> >> =3DC2=3DA0(It's pretty hard to bring dead people to trial. =3DC2=3DA0Ev=
>en if you p=3D
>> >rop up
>> >> the bodies in the dock, they tend to smell up the court room.)"
>>
>> >> You obviously have read nothing about the Lincoln assassination in the
>> >> last 20 years or so, as there is clear cut evidence it was a
>> >> conspiracy John Wilkes Booth worked for and with. =3DC2=3DA0As for Hitl=
>er, he
>> >> was convicted at Nuremburg post-death, that was the main point of the
>> >> trials. =3DC2=3DA0That is your theories problem, no trial due to LHO's =
Ben Holmes
JLeyd...@aol.com says...
>
>On Jun 6, 10:44=C2=A0pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Weren't there like about 8 people convicted of the conspiracy of
>> Lincoln, and some hangings?
>
>Gosh, I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved on ACJ
Of course not... people here actually *KNOW* the facts. And the evidence, and
facts of history, are a dangerous thing to believers...
>but, then, I feel
>a need to educate all one-name wonders. Yes, the Feds did string up a
>batch of Booth's buddies but -- pay attention now -- Booth was NEVER
>brought to trial and NEVER convicted. That's not too hard to
>comprehend, is it?
>
>JGL
Nice of you to admit that there was a conspiracy in the Lincoln assassination...
while it's not exactly a retraction of your statement implying that it was a
"lone assassin," it at least recognizes historical reality.
Now if only you could do the same thing with the Kennedy assassination...
>> On 6 Jun, 10:57, "JLeyden...@aol.com" <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 6, 1:15=EF=BF=BDpm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.=
>com>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > They have finished a police memorial in D.C. and J.D. Tippit is one of=
>
>> > > the officers listed (for those who died in the line of duty). =EF=BF=
>=BDHis
>> > > wife attended the ceremony. =EF=BF=BDThis article is a great example o=
>f how
>> > > our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO
>> > > conviction. =EF=BF=BDThe reader will see nary a word about being alleg=
>ed, or
>> > > supposed killer of JFK or JDT. =EF=BF=BDIt is assumed by our media des=
>pite NO
>> > > evidence or conviction. =EF=BF=BDIn any other case they would be sued =
>for
>> > > slander.
>>
>> > >http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN..=
>.
>>
>> > You know, Robocop, J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the
>> > assassain of A. Lincoln altho there was NO trial and NO conviction.
>> > And no one seems inclined to cut A. Hitler any slack for his many
>> > crimes altho there was NO trial and NO conviction in that case
>> > either. =C2=A0(It's pretty hard to bring dead people to trial. =C2=A0Eve=
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <bf162b2a-c46d-423b...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> JLeyd...@aol.com says...
> >
> >On Jun 7, 2:55=EF=BF=BDpm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You stated that "J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the assassain
> >> of A. Lincoln" - can you admit, here in print; that the Lincoln
> >> assassination *WAS* the result of a conspiracy?
> >>
> >
> >Well, I would answer, Ben,
>
> And yet, you didn't. Rather gives a good clue to lurkers regarding your regard
> for the truth, doesn't it?
>
> Rather embarrassing when there was no equivalent to the WCR to put your faith
> in, isn't it?
>
> You got caught trying to imply a "Lone assassin" for the Lincoln assassination -
> and the simple fact of history is that it was a proven conspiracy.
Only an idiot who think he was implying that. It`s obious that he
was pointing out robcap`s logical fallacy that Oswald can`t be
considered guilty because he didn`t receive a trial.
> Now, given the opportunity to clarify your remark - you duck and run away from
> it. Embarrassing, isn't it?
His point was crystal clear, and you missed it by a mile. How
embarrasing is that?
> >but I don't want to divert your attention
> >from your "45 questions" thing. That's really important work and you
> >need to give it maximum concentration.
>
> Interesting to see that your aware of the 45 Questions... and just like
> Bugliosi, who was provably aware of the '16 Smoking Guns', you'll run away and
> refuse to provide any non-conspiratorial explanation for the evidence.
Theres not much point in engaging you in discussion after the poor
showing in reading comprehension you`ve just displayed.
Bud
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "It seems that just claiming to be a patsy will bring thousands of idiots out of the woodwork to take up your cause." <<<
>
> Yes indeedy....and even when the person shouting "I'm just a patsy"
> makes this statement just ONE SECOND after spouting a PROVABLE LIE,
> too.
>
> Go figure kooks.
>
> The full "Patsy" declaration from LHO:
>
> "They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the
> Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!" -- Lee Harvey Oswald
>
> Now, does any person alive today actually believe that Lee Oswald was
> "taken in" by the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/63 due to the fact
> that LHO had lived in Russia from late 1959 to June 1962?
>
> And does any person alive today actually believe Oswald was telling
> the truth when he said that it was, in effect, the DALLAS POLICE
> DEPARTMENT that was turning him into the "patsy" for the murders he
> was accused of committing?
I started a post once challenging kooks to support Oz`s claim that
the reason he was arrested was because he had been to the Soviet
Union. They all believe he was a patsy, none can support his claim
(and unlike all the lies Oz told the DPD, they can`t deny he told this
one).
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6a67a62a457ec590
>>> "I started a post once challenging kooks to support Oz's claim that the reason he was arrested was because he had been to the Soviet Union." <<<
And I would very much like to give full credit to the person who
opened my eyes with respect to Oswald's obvious lie when LHO told the
world on live television that the reason he had been "taken in" on
November 22 was because he had once lived in Russia.
The only problem is--I can't remember who the person is who posted
that message years ago (and I think it was here at acj)....although
I'd be willing to bet my next CIA Disinfo check that it was Bud.
Mainly because it's the type of common-sense, logical thinking that
accompanies all of Bud's forum posts.
The post in question could very well have been the one that you, Bud,
said you started some time ago. Anyhow, I know it was at least 2.5 to
3 years ago that my eyes were opened on this issue of Oswald's "patsy"
statement being completely skewed and misrepresented by the CT-Kooks
of Planet Earth.
In any event, when the "Patsy" statement isn't broken up into smaller
sections (which it usually is, so that people don't get to hear Oz's
incredibly-silly lie about being "taken in" because of his living in
Russia), it becomes fairly clear that the Patsy statement is nothing
more than a whitewash being uttered by Lee Harvey in an obvious
attempt to divert suspicion away from the man (Oz) who really did kill
two people in Dallas on 11/22/63.
And it was actually a rather lousy attempt on Oswald's part to steer
himself away from the finger of guilt, because even a teenaged
stringer on any newspaper in the country would have been able to
easily investigate Oswald's claim about being arrested due to his
previous Soviet Union residency and discover in a heartbeat that the
DPD couldn't possibly have known anything about Oswald's having lived
in the USSR by the time of his arrest at approximately 1:50 PM on
November 22nd.
Not to mention the fact that the organization whom Oswald was pointing
his finger at in the 'They're-Making-Me-The-Patsy-In-This-Thing'
regard (the Dallas Police Department) didn't even have the slightest
idea who Lee Harvey Oswald was as of the time of his arrest.
The police didn't officially know LHO's true identity until after they
got him to the police station. They were confused due to all of the
fake I.D. cards Oswald had on him. For all the DPD knew as of 2:00 PM
on 11/22, Oswald could very well have turned out to really be Mr. Alek
James Hidell.
========================================
WORTH A REPLAY:
The full "Patsy" declaration from LHO:
"They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the
Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy!" -- Lee Harvey Oswald
Now, does any person alive today actually believe that Lee Oswald was
"taken in" by the Dallas Police Department on 11/22/63 due to the fact
that LHO had lived in Russia from late 1959 to June 1962?
And does any person alive today actually believe Oswald was telling
the truth when he said that it was, in effect, the DALLAS POLICE
DEPARTMENT that was turning him into the "patsy" for the murders he
was accused of committing?
After all, when taking into account the ENTIRE hallway statement made
by Oswald (and not just the last four words of it), if we're to take
Sweet Lee at his LITERAL word when he said "I'm just a patsy", it
could only mean that members of the DPD (not the Mob or David Ferrie
or Clay Shaw or Santo Trafficante or Wilma Flintstone) were the people
that Oswald said were framing him (i.e., making him the "patsy").
Lee Oswald was quite obviously telling a lie when he said that he had
been taken in because of previously residing in the USSR (and I know
of nobody who even disputes that fact, not even a hardline
CTer)....which is a lie that SHOULD make people all the more
suspicious about the four words that came out of the SAME MAN'S mouth
just one second later ("I'm just a patsy").
But instead of making certain conspiracy-loving kooks suspicious, many
CTers decided it was wise to hop aboard the "I'm Just A Patsy"
bandwagon and declare Oswald to be a truth-teller with respect to
those four now-famous words he uttered, despite the fact that even the
kookiest of "Anybody But Oswald" kooks can admit that Oz's "Soviet
Union" statement was an obvious and provable lie.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6aa691f71db2d9ed
www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=7x7co2jkkg
========================================
"The whole "Patsy" remark has been completely skewed and twisted
and removed from its proper context by CTers in the first place.
Oswald told the provable lie of "They've taken me in because I lived
in the Soviet Union" just one single SECOND prior to saying "I'm just
a patsy".
"Now, when putting those two tail-gating statements together
(which CT-Kooks never do, they always separate them) -- it's clear
that Oswald isn't accusing Shaw, Ferrie, or the Boogie Man (or some
other unknown outside entity) of setting him up as "The Patsy". Oz is
pointing the "Patsy" finger of blame squarely at the DPD, due to the
perceived (and clearly wrong) idea that Oswald spouted about the DPD
"taking him in" due to his defection to Russia.
"Which is also, quite obviously, the reason that Oswald went NO
FURTHER than just his 4-word lie "I'm just a patsy". He COULDN'T start
naming names, because he's aiming his remark at the whole DPD in
general....not somebody who "placed" him in the Depository ahead of
time for the purpose of making him take the lone blame for JFK's
demise.
"And we know that Oswald's "Soviet Union" line of bullshit is a
lie -- because Oz was told in the police car on 11/22 why he was
"taken in".
"And even if he had NOT been specifically told why he was "taken
in" until after Oz's "Patsy" whitewash, Oswald's "Soviet Union" excuse
would still be a provable lie. Why? Because there's absolutely NO
DOUBT under the moon that Oswald killed J.D. Tippit. Therefore, Oswald
himself knew he had killed Tippit and that the cops would be swarming
Oak Cliff shortly, even if very few other people did know it at the
time. So, any way you look at it, Oswald positively had to KNOW the
real reason he was "taken in" by the police on 11/22.
"But, in fact, Oswald was told the reason he had been taken in.
Officer C.T. Walker, in Walker's WC testimony, says that Oswald had
been told point-blank by DPD officers that he had been arrested on
suspicion of killing a police officer --- "Oswald said, 'What is this
all about?'; he was relating this all the time. He said, 'I know my
rights'. And we told him that he was under arrest because he was
suspected in the murder of a police officer. And he said, 'Police
officer been killed?'; and nobody said nothing. He said, 'I hear they
burn for murder'. And I said, 'You might find out'. And he said,
'Well, they say it just takes a second to die'." -- DPD Officer C.T.
Walker; 4/8/64
"Oswald's comment about just taking a second to die reeks with
guilt as well. Would a truly INNOCENT person have conceivably said
those words after just seconds earlier being told they might find out
what it's like to "burn for murder" (a murder which that person, per
the kooks, supposedly NEVER COMMITTED)??
"Lee Harvey Oswald practically confessed to killing Officer J.D.
Tippit via the above-referenced quote alone." -- David Von Pein;
August 7, 2006
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cf7e02eca298afbf
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/4c02eefb838067d3
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/59788c64670330ef
========================================
"Oswald's declaration...["I'm just a patsy"]...has been taken
out of context by the conspiracy theorists, who want people to believe
that when Oswald said he was just a patsy he was referring to being a
patsy for the conspirators behind the assassination. But it appears
from the context that he was not." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 841 of
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
http://blog.myspace.com/davidvp1961
========================================
aeffects
[...]
> The post in question could very well have been the one that you, Bud,
> said you started some time ago. Anyhow, I know it was at least 2.5 to
> 3 years ago that my eyes were opened on this issue of Oswald's "patsy"
> statement being completely skewed and misrepresented by the CT-Kooks
> of Planet Earth.
>
[...]
ROTFLMFAO... you're priceless, son.... do keep coming back -- You're
the only Lone Nut illiterate around here that thinks no one is
watching....
Bud
David Von Pein wrote:
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6a67a62a457ec590
>
>
>
> >>> "I started a post once challenging kooks to support Oz's claim that the reason he was arrested was because he had been to the Soviet Union." <<<
>
>
> And I would very much like to give full credit to the person who
> opened my eyes with respect to Oswald's obvious lie when LHO told the
> world on live television that the reason he had been "taken in" on
> November 22 was because he had once lived in Russia.
I hope it wasn`t the credit I was fishing for, I try not to feed my
ego for fear it will grow and consume me. My only point in mentioning
it was to highlight the contrast between all the kooks believing Oz
was a patsy, and none of them being able to support what he actually
said.
> The only problem is--I can't remember who the person is who posted
> that message years ago (and I think it was here at acj)....although
> I'd be willing to bet my next CIA Disinfo check that it was Bud.
> Mainly because it's the type of common-sense, logical thinking that
> accompanies all of Bud's forum posts.
Ideas are tools used to make points. Who keeps track of the ideas? I
surf the archieves, read current posts, ect, I`m sure it wasn`t an
original idea of mine. If I throw a rock at a kook, I rarely say
"this is DVP`s rock", unless it was reiterating a recent point you
made. After about a monh, who originally said it is a blur. I think
the most important thing is we keep hitting kooks with rocks.
> The post in question could very well have been the one that you, Bud,
> said you started some time ago. Anyhow, I know it was at least 2.5 to
> 3 years ago that my eyes were opened on this issue of Oswald's "patsy"
> statement being completely skewed and misrepresented by the CT-Kooks
> of Planet Earth.
Here is the post I was thinking of (it probably stuck out in my head
because I start so few posts, maybe a dozen in 5 years)...
I`m sure I made the point in responses previous to this, but put it
in this form to counter Ben`s "45 questions" format (to show that LN
can ask questions the kooks won`t touch). Notice three kooks
responded, but none attempted to support Oz`s claim.
> In any event, when the "Patsy" statement isn't broken up into smaller
> sections (which it usually is, so that people don't get to hear Oz's
> incredibly-silly lie about being "taken in" because of his living in
> Russia), it becomes fairly clear that the Patsy statement is nothing
> more than a whitewash being uttered by Lee Harvey in an obvious
> attempt to divert suspicion away from the man (Oz) who really did kill
> two people in Dallas on 11/22/63.
His supporters have been using this diversionary ploy ever since.
"Look at Postal, look at Williams". Why, aren`t they just ordinary
Texans that fate threw into this event?
> And it was actually a rather lousy attempt on Oswald's part to steer
> himself away from the finger of guilt, because even a teenaged
> stringer on any newspaper in the country would have been able to
> easily investigate Oswald's claim about being arrested due to his
> previous Soviet Union residency and discover in a heartbeat that the
> DPD couldn't possibly have known anything about Oswald's having lived
> in the USSR by the time of his arrest at approximately 1:50 PM on
> November 22nd.
Inconvenient information never shows on kook radar. They take the
information they want, and discard the context, making the information
useless.
> Not to mention the fact that the organization whom Oswald was pointing
> his finger at in the 'They're-Making-Me-The-Patsy-In-This-Thing'
> regard (the Dallas Police Department) didn't even have the slightest
> idea who Lee Harvey Oswald was as of the time of his arrest.
Any idea where they get the "Some cop used Oswald`s name when he
was arrested in the Texas theater" nonsense from?
David Von Pein
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5e33956fcc9c4e19/4b2495824c62e5a0?lnk=gst&q=questions+for+the+kook+(%231)#4b2495824c62e5a0
Bud,
My favorite part of the February 2007 thread you linked was this post
by resident asylum kook Walter Cakebread:
"When was Oswald supposed to have said that he been taken in
because he had been to the Soviet Union? It seems like I've heard he
said that to Captain Fritz but I'm not sure." -- Walt; 02/23/07
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cb3cd8eef17b1433
Incredibly, Walt (as of February 23, 2007) seems to have been totally
unaware of the first portion of Lee Oswald's "I'm just a patsy"
statement that LHO made on live TV on the evening of November
22nd....which only goes to illustrate and buttress an earlier point
that I made regarding that particular DPD hallway declaration made by
Oswald:
"When the "Patsy" statement isn't broken up into smaller
sections (which it usually is, so that people don't get to hear Oz's
incredibly-silly lie about being "taken in" because of his living in
Russia), it becomes fairly clear that the Patsy statement is nothing
more than a whitewash being uttered by Lee Harvey in an obvious
attempt to divert suspicion away from the man (Oz) who really did kill
two people in Dallas on 11/22/63." -- DVP; 06/08/08
Walt (at least as of February 2007 anyway), like so many other people,
had apparently only heard the "I'm just a patsy" snippet culled from
the complete hallway statement uttered by Lee Oswald.
I've archived the full LHO statement at the webpage below (which is a
full statement, btw, that also includes yet another interesting and
almost-always-overlooked "admission" by Oswald--as he admits to having
been INSIDE the Book Depository Building at the exact time of JFK's
assassination, which is an admission that pretty much totally destroys
Jim Garrison's and Mark Lane's [et al] theory about Oswald being
"Doorway Man"....unless Garrison and Lane [et al] think that a person
who is standing on the front steps of the TSBD counts as being
"INSIDE" the actual building itself):
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Jun 7, 4:47 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
"You still don't get it, Robocop. Neither Booth nor Hitler was ever
brought to trial and convicted and, thus, using your logic, they must
be presumed innocent. I mean that's that the standard you're using for
Oswald. As for you cravenly hiding behind a screen ID, I can
uderstand that. You don't want some prospective employer Googling you
and saying, "OMG, look what this guy believes. Scratch him."
You don't get there was real evidence against Hitler and Booth, there
is NO real evidence against LHO. Hiter was convicted at Nuremburg,
and Booth would have been convicted if he had lived as the other 8 he
worked with were found guilty. I'm not sure what you are confused by.
I am not hiding behind a screen name as I explained it is my real name
they are distorting.
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Jun 6, 10:44 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Weren't there like about 8 people convicted of the conspiracy of
> > Lincoln, and some hangings?
>
"Gosh, I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved on ACJ but, then, I
feel a need to educate all one-name wonders. Yes, the Feds did string
up a batch of Booth's buddies but -- pay attention now -- Booth was
NEVER brought to trial and NEVER convicted. That's not too hard to
comprehend, is it?"
I like how this guy skips over the part where people SAW him commit
the crime!! Who saw LHO shoot JFK or JDT again?
>
> JGL
>
>
>
> > On 6 Jun, 10:57, "JLeyden...@aol.com" <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 6, 1:15�pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > They have finished a police memorial in D.C. and J.D. Tippit is one of
> > > > the officers listed (for those who died in the line of duty). �His
> > > > wife attended the ceremony. �This article is a great example of how
> > > > our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO
> > > > conviction. �The reader will see nary a word about being alleged, or
> > > > supposed killer of JFK or JDT. �It is assumed by our media despite NO
> > > > evidence or conviction. �In any other case they would be sued for
> > > > slander.
>
> > > >http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN...
>
> > > You know, Robocop, J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the
> > > assassain of A. Lincoln altho there was NO trial and NO conviction.
> > > And no one seems inclined to cut A. Hitler any slack for his many
> > > crimes altho there was NO trial and NO conviction in that case
> > > either. (It's pretty hard to bring dead people to trial. Even if you
> > > prop up the bodies in the dock, they tend to smell up the court room.)
>
> > > JGL
>
> > Weren't there like about 8 people convicted of the conspiracy of
> > Lincoln, and some hangings?
>
> > CJ- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> > JLeyden...@aol.com says...
>
> > >On Jun 6, 7:27=C2=A0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > >wrote:
>
> > >Robocop, you and the other one-name wonders here (Aeffects &
> > >CurtJester to name just two) have one thing in common besides your
> > >desire to cower behind screen names and hurl insults and that is you
> > >don't read in context. I said there was NO trial and NO conviction
> > >for either J.W. Booth or A. Hitler (True!) and thus we have to assume
> > >them innocent using your logic. Hitler wasn't a defendant at the
> > >Nuremberg trials. He was dead altho some say he lived on forever in
> > >Argentina and Booth was gunned down in a barn in near Port Royal , VA,
> > >altho some say he escaped to Oklahoma or Texas where he prospered.
> > >But don't let me interrupt your fun.
>
> > >JGL
>
> > You stated that "J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the assassain of A.
> > Lincoln" - can you admit, here in print; that the Lincoln assassination *WAS*
> > the result of a conspiracy?
>
"Notice that both fanatics, Booth and Oswald, when surrounded by the
authorities with no hope of escape both decided to go out in a blaze
of gunfire. These zealots were no different than today`s suicide
bombers."
You're ignorance is showing again, LHO was in POLICE CUSTODY when he
was gunned down by a man not tied to law enforcement. Booth was shot
and killed when he refused to surrender to the soldiers who had him
surrounded. Big difference.
> > >> as he was in police custody when he was murdered.- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
Another clueless one heard from, Hitler was the THIRD REICH, you
cannot charge others with crimes he sanctioned or ordered and NOT find
him guilty. Do you not read anything except wikepedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Then I say "How can Oswald shoot a cop in front of a bunch of
people and not be guilty?" then you say "That hasn`t ben proven in a
court of law". To which I reply "Hitler guilt wasn`t proven guilty in
a court of law". To which you reply "You cannot charge others with
crimes Hitler sanctioned and ordered". To which I reply "How can
Oswald shoot a cop in front of a bunch of people and not be guilty? To
which you reply "That hasn`t been proven in a court of law".'
In other words, your thinking is fallactious (from the Greek
fellatio) and circular. You want to claim that it is possible to
determine Hitler`s guilt without him having a trial, but impossible to
determine Oswald`s guilt without a trial. I think that is about as far
as I can dumb it down, I look forward to your misunderstanding of what
I wrote.
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Jun 7, 7:08 pm, "JLeyden...@aol.com" <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 10:44 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Weren't there like about 8 people convicted of the conspiracy of
> > > Lincoln, and some hangings?
> >
>
> "Gosh, I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved on ACJ but, then, I
> feel a need to educate all one-name wonders. Yes, the Feds did string
> up a batch of Booth's buddies but -- pay attention now -- Booth was
> NEVER brought to trial and NEVER convicted. That's not too hard to
> comprehend, is it?"
>
> I like how this guy skips over the part where people SAW him commit
> the crime!! Who saw LHO shoot JFK or JDT again?
Is your purpose here to show how ignorant of the case you are?
Bud
David Von Pein wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/5e33956fcc9c4e19/4b2495824c62e5a0?lnk=gst&q=questions+for+the+kook+(%231)#4b2495824c62e5a0
>
>
> Bud,
>
> My favorite part of the February 2007 thread you linked was this post
> by resident asylum kook Walter Cakebread:
>
>
>
>
> "When was Oswald supposed to have said that he been taken in
> because he had been to the Soviet Union? It seems like I've heard he
> said that to Captain Fritz but I'm not sure." -- Walt; 02/23/07
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cb3cd8eef17b1433
>
>
> Incredibly, Walt (as of February 23, 2007) seems to have been totally
> unaware of the first portion of Lee Oswald's "I'm just a patsy"
> statement that LHO made on live TV on the evening of November
> 22nd....which only goes to illustrate and buttress an earlier point
> that I made regarding that particular DPD hallway declaration made by
> Oswald:
Not only Walt. Did you see Ben`s reply? He said "I wonder...
shouldn`t LNTers have to document their claims before they demand an
answer?" Ben`s question shows he was also completely ignorant of
Oswald`s remarks prior to his "patsy" claim. They all see to know he
was a patsy, and they all ignore or are ignorant of the context which
he made that remark. (Also, did you notice Ben demanded documentation
for my claim... do you see him giving any documentation for the
questions in his "45 questions" series?)
Walt
I'd like to know the names of the "BUNCH of people" who you believe
saw Oswald shoot a cop.
How many people are there in a "BUNCH".... A dozen radishes or
carrots are considered a bunch...
I'm sure you won't be quick to post the list of about a dozen people
who "saw Oswald shoot a cop", because you're simply lying.
then you say "That hasn`t ben proven in a
> court of law". To which I reply "Hitler guilt wasn`t proven guilty in
> a court of law". To which you reply "You cannot charge others with
> crimes Hitler sanctioned and ordered". To which I reply "How can
> Oswald shoot a cop in front of a bunch of people and not be guilty? To
> which you reply "That hasn`t been proven in a court of law".'
>
> In other words, your thinking is fallactious (from the Greek
> fellatio) and circular. You want to claim that it is possible to
> determine Hitler`s guilt without him having a trial, but impossible to
> determine Oswald`s guilt without a trial. I think that is about as far
> as I can dumb it down, I look forward to your misunderstanding of what
> I wrote.
>
>
>
> > Do you not read anything except wikepedia?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials-Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
You think I asked "How mant radishes saw Oswald shoot Tippit?"
JLeyd...@aol.com
> Nice of you to admit that there was a conspiracy in the Lincoln assassination...
> while it's not exactly a retraction of your statement implying that it was a
> "lone assassin," it at least recognizes historical reality.
>
> Now if only you could do the same thing with the Kennedy assassination...
>
Oh, Lord, the job of an educator is never done. Actually, Ben -- pay
attention now --Booth was a lone assassin. There was no triangulation
of fire or other gimmick in Ford's theater. Booth just stepped into
the President's box and fired the fatal shot. Now he did have
confederates (more like acolytes) but they failed in their missions.
One wounded but did not kill Sec. of State Seward and the other
assigned to take out V.P. Johnson simply lost his nerve. Now don't
make me go over this again, please.
JGL
> In article <6cda4a41-b80a-4cf2-b677-9ca0919d1...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> JLeyden...@aol.com says...
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
> I like how this guy skips over the part where people SAW him commit
> the crime!! Who saw LHO shoot JFK or JDT again?
>
I get it: If there are eye witnesses, we don't need a trial. We just
string 'em up. You ought to run for public office (I'd vote for you)
but you're going to need to use your real name. No more hiding. That
may be a problem for you.
JGL
robcap...@netscape.com
First of all, no one said they saw LHO shoot a cop, your evidence does
NOT prove this. Secondly, you have no idea about Fuhrer directives
which were in writing and on file showing him approving the holocaust,
shooting of Communists, Gypsies, Jews and the shooting of
commissars. The Germans were very organized and kept everything nice
and tidy for us to find. So you are denying the war crimes of the
Germans? You are denying the holocaust? You are denying the
concentration camps? Good luck that with that one. The point I was
making is you have NO proof and NO evidence did any of the things the
WC said he did, period.
"In other words, your thinking is fallactious (from the Greek
fellatio) and circular. You want to claim that it is possible to
determine Hitler`s guilt without him having a trial, but impossible to
determine Oswald`s guilt without a trial. I think that is about as far
as I can dumb it down, I look forward to your misunderstanding of what
I wrote."
Heads of state are treated differently from alleged lone nuts.
Hitler's guilt is well documented and LHO's is NOT. You are walking
down the wrong path as I'm sure I know more about the Third Reich than
you do. Why did Himmler and Goering kill themselves if they was no
proof against them as you claim?
>
> > Do you not read anything except wikepedia?
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials-Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 7:08 pm, "JLeyden...@aol.com" <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Jun 6, 10:44 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Weren't there like about 8 people convicted of the conspiracy of
> > > > Lincoln, and some hangings?
>
> > "Gosh, I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved on ACJ but, then, I
> > feel a need to educate all one-name wonders. Yes, the Feds did string
> > up a batch of Booth's buddies but -- pay attention now -- Booth was
> > NEVER brought to trial and NEVER convicted. That's not too hard to
> > comprehend, is it?"
>
> > I like how this guy skips over the part where people SAW him commit
> > the crime!! Who saw LHO shoot JFK or JDT again?
>
"Is your purpose here to show how ignorant of the case you are?"
LOL!!!!!!!!! This is funnier than a pee doctor working on forensic
wound analysis!!!! A guy who shows day in and day out how little of
this case he knows (including his own side) and he asks this of
someone else. Priceless. Bud, are you bidding to do a MasterCard
commercial?
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Jun 9, 8:49 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I like how this guy skips over the part where people SAW him commit
> > the crime!! Who saw LHO shoot JFK or JDT again?
>
"I get it: If there are eye witnesses, we don't need a trial. We just
string 'em up. You ought to run for public office (I'd vote for you)
but you're going to need to use your real name. No more hiding. That
may be a problem for you."
You are an educator?? I certainly hope not. What I am saying is you
have NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE LHO SHOT ANYONE! In the other cases you
cite there was ample proof of guilt. You are playing the two step
again. The lack of a conviction means you cannot ASSUME guilt in the
media, that was my point of this thread. The media is assuming guilt
with NO evidence, NO proof and NO conviction. You have made this
thread a bunch of garbage to confuse the reader, and that was your
point I'm sure since you can't provide anything substantial proving
your ridiclous theory. I am using my real name, how about you?
Ben Holmes
JLeyd...@aol.com says...
>
>On Jun 8, 2:17=EF=BF=BDpm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
>> Nice of you to admit that there was a conspiracy in the Lincoln
>> assassination... while it's not exactly a retraction of your statement
>> implying that it was a "lone assassin," it at least recognizes historical
>> reality.
>>
>> Now if only you could do the same thing with the Kennedy assassination...
>>
>
>Oh, Lord, the job of an educator is never done. Actually, Ben -- pay
>attention now --Booth was a lone assassin.
No, he was a part of a conspiracy.
Say it with me... "Conspiracy"....
Go ahead, it really won't make you gag.
You know, and I know, that there was only one person FIRING A GUN in the Lincoln
case - but that hardly makes Booth a "lone assassin."
He was just one part of a group ... go ahead and say it...
>There was no triangulation
>of fire or other gimmick in Ford's theater. Booth just stepped into
>the President's box and fired the fatal shot. Now he did have
>confederates (more like acolytes) but they failed in their missions.
>One wounded but did not kill Sec. of State Seward and the other
>assigned to take out V.P. Johnson simply lost his nerve. Now don't
>make me go over this again, please.
>
>JGL
You can lie all you want to... it matters little. Don't ask me to agree to your
lies about history.
The assassination of Lincoln is historically a proven conspiracy. Tis that
simple.
The term "lone assassin" hardly fits with the term "conspiracy"... as well you
know.
>> In article <6cda4a41-b80a-4cf2-b677-9ca0919d1...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.c=
>om>,
>> JLeyden...@aol.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 6, 10:44=3DC2=3DA0pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:=
>
>>
>> >> Weren't there like about 8 people convicted of the conspiracy of
>> >> Lincoln, and some hangings?
>>
>> >Gosh, I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved on ACJ
>>
>> Of course not... people here actually *KNOW* the facts. =EF=BF=BDAnd the e=
>vidence, and
>> facts of history, are a dangerous thing to believers...
>>
>> >but, then, I feel
>> >a need to educate all one-name wonders. =EF=BF=BDYes, the Feds did string=
> up a
>> >batch of Booth's buddies but -- pay attention now -- Booth was NEVER
>> >brought to trial and NEVER convicted. =EF=BF=BDThat's not too hard to
>> >comprehend, is it?
>>
>> >JGL
>>
>> Nice of you to admit that there was a conspiracy in the Lincoln assassinat=
>ion...
>> while it's not exactly a retraction of your statement implying that it was=
> a
>> "lone assassin," it at least recognizes historical reality.
>>
>> Now if only you could do the same thing with the Kennedy assassination...
>>
>>
>>
>> >> On 6 Jun, 10:57, "JLeyden...@aol.com" <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Jun 6, 1:15=3DEF=3DBF=3DBDpm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@=
>netscape.=3D
>> >com>
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > They have finished a police memorial in D.C. and J.D. Tippit is one=
> of=3D
>>
>> >> > > the officers listed (for those who died in the line of duty). =3DEF=
>=3DBF=3D
>> >=3DBDHis
>> >> > > wife attended the ceremony. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDThis article is a great =
>example o=3D
>> >f how
>> >> > > our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO
>> >> > > conviction. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDThe reader will see nary a word about be=
>ing alleg=3D
>> >ed, or
>> >> > > supposed killer of JFK or JDT. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDIt is assumed by our =
>media des=3D
>> >pite NO
>> >> > > evidence or conviction. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDIn any other case they would=
> be sued =3D
>> >for
>> >> > > slander.
>>
>> >> > >http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/D=
>N..=3D
>> >.
>>
>> >> > You know, Robocop, J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the
>> >> > assassain of A. Lincoln altho there was NO trial and NO conviction.
>> >> > And no one seems inclined to cut A. Hitler any slack for his many
>> >> > crimes altho there was NO trial and NO conviction in that case
>> >> > either. =3DC2=3DA0(It's pretty hard to bring dead people to trial. =
>=3DC2=3DA0Eve=3D
>> >n if you
>> >> > prop up the bodies in the dock, they tend to smell up the court room.=
Walt
Try to concentrate on the question......Which was..... CAN you post a
list of about a dozen ( "a bunch") people who "saw Oswald shoot a
cop"???
You made that claim...So now's the time to back it up and make me
appear as the fool.... C'mon Dud, post the list of a "BUNCH" of
people who saw "Oswald shoot a cop". Have you let your alligator
mouth overload your tadpole ass again??
>
>
>
>
>
> > then you say "That hasn`t ben proven in a
> > > court of law". To which I reply "Hitler guilt wasn`t proven guilty in
> > > a court of law". To which you reply "You cannot charge others with
> > > crimes Hitler sanctioned and ordered". To which I reply "How can
> > > Oswald shoot a cop in front of a bunch of people and not be guilty? To
> > > which you reply "That hasn`t been proven in a court of law".'
>
> > > In other words, your thinking is fallactious (from the Greek
> > > fellatio) and circular. You want to claim that it is possible to
> > > determine Hitler`s guilt without him having a trial, but impossible to
> > > determine Oswald`s guilt without a trial. I think that is about as far
> > > as I can dumb it down, I look forward to your misunderstanding of what
> > > I wrote.
>
> > > > Do you not read anything except wikepedia?
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials-Hidequoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
JLeyd...@aol.com
wrote:
Ok, Robocop, I see this is a hopeless effort. I've already broken one
of my rules by giving this much time to an anon. poster. I figure if
they don't have the guts to sign their names to their screeds, they
don't deserve a response.
JGL
JLeyd...@aol.com
Ok, Ben, you've had your say. Now back to your ever popular "45
questions." And here's a thought, , why don't you work up something
like that for Lincoln?
JGL
> In article <fb4b3d91-1b03-42b9-a603-03d072e2b...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
Ben Holmes
JLeyd...@aol.com says...
>
>On Jun 9, 12:03=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
>Ok, Ben, you've had your say. Now back to your ever popular "45
>questions." And here's a thought, , why don't you work up something
>like that for Lincoln?
>
>JGL
I'm not anonymous, "JGL"... why not respond to the evidential questions I ask?
Or admit that you weren't exactly telling the truth when it came to a "lone
assassin" in the Lincoln assassination?
Top-posting to avoid the points made is a transparent method to duck & run...
Lurkers - look below to see what "JGL" couldn't answer:
>> In article <fb4b3d91-1b03-42b9-a603-03d072e2b...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.=
>com>,
>> JLeyden...@aol.com says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Jun 8, 2:17=3DEF=3DBF=3DBDpm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Nice of you to admit that there was a conspiracy in the Lincoln
>> >> assassination... while it's not exactly a retraction of your statement
>> >> implying that it was a "lone assassin," it at least recognizes historic=
>al
>> >> reality.
>>
>> >> Now if only you could do the same thing with the Kennedy assassination.=
>..
>>
>> >Oh, Lord, the job of an educator is never done. Actually, Ben -- pay
>> >attention now --Booth was a lone assassin.
>>
>> No, he was a part of a conspiracy.
>>
>> Say it with me... "Conspiracy"....
>>
>> Go ahead, it really won't make you gag.
>>
>> You know, and I know, that there was only one person FIRING A GUN in
>> the Lincoln case - but that hardly makes Booth a "lone assassin."
>>
>> He was just one part of a group ... go ahead and say it...
Simple truth... yet dead silence from the anonymous LNT'er crowd...
>> >There was no triangulation
>> >of fire or other gimmick in Ford's theater. =A0Booth just stepped into
>> >the President's box and fired the fatal shot. =A0Now he did have
>> >confederates (more like acolytes) but they failed in their missions.
>> >One wounded but did not kill Sec. of State Seward and the other
>> >assigned to take out V.P. Johnson simply lost his nerve. =A0Now don't
>> >make me go over this again, please.
>>
>> >JGL
>>
>> You can lie all you want to... it matters little. Don't ask me to agree
>> to your lies about history.
>>
>> The assassination of Lincoln is historically a proven conspiracy. Tis that
>> simple.
>>
>> The term "lone assassin" hardly fits with the term "conspiracy"... as well
>> you know.
Again, dead silence... What's wrong, "JGL," cat got your tongue?
>> >> In article <6cda4a41-b80a-4cf2-b677-9ca0919d1...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroup=
>s.c=3D
>> >om>,
>> >> JLeyden...@aol.com says...
>>
>> >> >On Jun 6, 10:44=3D3DC2=3D3DA0pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com>=
> wrote:=3D
>>
>> >> >> Weren't there like about 8 people convicted of the conspiracy of
>> >> >> Lincoln, and some hangings?
>>
>> >> >Gosh, I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved on ACJ
>>
>> >> Of course not... people here actually *KNOW* the facts. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBD=
>And the e=3D
>> >vidence, and
>> >> facts of history, are a dangerous thing to believers...
>>
>> >> >but, then, I feel
>> >> >a need to educate all one-name wonders. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDYes, the Feds d=
>id string=3D
>> > up a
>> >> >batch of Booth's buddies but -- pay attention now -- Booth was NEVER
>> >> >brought to trial and NEVER convicted. =3DEF=3DBF=3DBDThat's not too ha=
>rd to
>> >> >comprehend, is it?
>>
>> >> >JGL
>>
>> >> Nice of you to admit that there was a conspiracy in the Lincoln assassi=
>nat=3D
>> >ion...
>> >> while it's not exactly a retraction of your statement implying that it =
>was=3D
>> > a
>> >> "lone assassin," it at least recognizes historical reality.
>>
>> >> Now if only you could do the same thing with the Kennedy assassination.=
>..
>>
>> >> >> On 6 Jun, 10:57, "JLeyden...@aol.com" <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Jun 6, 1:15=3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBDpm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <r=
>obcap...@=3D
>> >netscape.=3D3D
>> >> >com>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > They have finished a police memorial in D.C. and J.D. Tippit is =
>one=3D
>> > of=3D3D
>>
>> >> >> > > the officers listed (for those who died in the line of duty). =
>=3D3DEF=3D
>> >=3D3DBF=3D3D
>> >> >=3D3DBDHis
>> >> >> > > wife attended the ceremony. =3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBDThis article is=
> a great =3D
>> >example o=3D3D
>> >> >f how
>> >> >> > > our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO
>> >> >> > > conviction. =3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBDThe reader will see nary a word=
> about be=3D
>> >ing alleg=3D3D
>> >> >ed, or
>> >> >> > > supposed killer of JFK or JDT. =3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBDIt is assume=
>d by our =3D
>> >media des=3D3D
>> >> >pite NO
>> >> >> > > evidence or conviction. =3D3DEF=3D3DBF=3D3DBDIn any other case t=
>hey would=3D
>> > be sued =3D3D
>> >> >for
>> >> >> > > slander.
>>
>> >> >> > >http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/storie=
>s/D=3D
>> >N..=3D3D
>> >> >.
>>
>> >> >> > You know, Robocop, J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the
>> >> >> > assassain of A. Lincoln altho there was NO trial and NO conviction=
>.
>> >> >> > And no one seems inclined to cut A. Hitler any slack for his many
>> >> >> > crimes altho there was NO trial and NO conviction in that case
>> >> >> > either. =3D3DC2=3D3DA0(It's pretty hard to bring dead people to tr=
>ial. =3D
>> >=3D3DC2=3D3DA0Eve=3D3D
>> >> >n if you
>> >> >> > prop up the bodies in the dock, they tend to smell up the court ro=
>om.=3D
Ben Holmes
JLeyd...@aol.com says...
>
>On Jun 9, 11:45=C2=A0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>wrote:
>
>Ok, Robocop, I see this is a hopeless effort. I've already broken one
>of my rules by giving this much time to an anon. poster. I figure if
>they don't have the guts to sign their names to their screeds, they
>don't deserve a response.
>
>JGL
Says the anonymous "JGL"
Of course, even when someone is *NOT* anonymous - my name is not the only thing
widely available - any half-wit can locate my phone number & address in a matter
of moments given the information I've supplied, the anonymous "JGL" won't
respond to my posts concerning the evidence.
You see, the *EVIDENCE* simply frightens LNT'ers such as "JGL"... he has no
explanations that fit the facts as we know them.
So he runs & ducks...
Embarrassing, isn't it?
>> On Jun 9, 11:04=C2=A0am, "JLeyden...@aol.com" <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jun 9, 8:49=C2=A0am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com=
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > > I like how this guy skips over the part where people SAW him commit
>> > > the crime!! =C2=A0Who saw LHO shoot JFK or JDT again?
>>
>> "I get it: If there are eye witnesses, we don't need a trial. =C2=A0We jus=
>t
>> string 'em up. =C2=A0You ought to run for public office (I'd vote for you)=
>
>> but you're going to need to use your real name. =C2=A0No more hiding. =C2=
>=A0That
>> may be a problem for you."
>>
>> You are an educator?? I certainly hope not. =C2=A0What I am saying is you
>> have NO PROOF OR EVIDENCE LHO SHOT ANYONE! =C2=A0In the other cases you
>> cite there was ample proof of guilt. =C2=A0You are playing the two step
>> again. =C2=A0The lack of a conviction means you cannot ASSUME guilt in the=
>
>> media, that was my point of this thread. =C2=A0The media is assuming guilt=
>
>> with NO evidence, NO proof and NO conviction. =C2=A0You have made this
>> thread a bunch of garbage to confuse the reader, and that was your
>> point I'm sure since you can't provide anything substantial proving
>> your ridiclous theory. I am using my real name, how about you?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > > On Jun 7, 7:08=C2=A0pm, "JLeyden...@aol.com" <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrot=
>e:
>>
>> > > > On Jun 6, 10:44=C2=A0pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote=
>:
>>
>> > > > > Weren't there like about 8 people convicted of the conspiracy of
>> > > > > Lincoln, and some hangings?
>>
>> > > "Gosh, I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved on ACJ but, then, I
>> > > feel a need to educate all one-name wonders. =C2=A0Yes, the Feds did s=
>tring
>> > > up a batch of Booth's buddies but -- pay attention now -- Booth was
>> > > NEVER brought to trial and NEVER convicted. =C2=A0That's not too hard =
>to
>> > > comprehend, is it?"
>>
>> > > I like how this guy skips over the part where people SAW him commit
>> > > the crime!! =C2=A0Who saw LHO shoot JFK or JDT again?
>>
>> > > > JGL
>>
>> > > > > On 6 Jun, 10:57, "JLeyden...@aol.com" <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > On Jun 6, 1:15=EF=BF=BDpm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@n=
>etscape.com>
>> > > > > > wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > > They have finished a police memorial in D.C. and J.D. Tippit i=
>s one of
>> > > > > > > the officers listed (for those who died in the line of duty). =
>=EF=BF=BDHis
>> > > > > > > wife attended the ceremony. =EF=BF=BDThis article is a great e=
>xample of how
>> > > > > > > our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO=
>
>> > > > > > > conviction. =EF=BF=BDThe reader will see nary a word about bei=
>ng alleged, or
>> > > > > > > supposed killer of JFK or JDT. =EF=BF=BDIt is assumed by our m=
>edia despite NO
>> > > > > > > evidence or conviction. =EF=BF=BDIn any other case they would =
>be sued for
>> > > > > > > slander.
>>
>> > > > > > >http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stor=
>ies/DN...
>>
>> > > > > > You know, Robocop, J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the
>> > > > > > assassain of A. Lincoln altho there was NO trial and NO convicti=
>on.
>> > > > > > And no one seems inclined to cut A. Hitler any slack for his man=
>y
>> > > > > > crimes altho there was NO trial and NO conviction in that case
>> > > > > > either. =C2=A0(It's pretty hard to bring dead people to trial. =
>=C2=A0Even if you
>> > > > > > prop up the bodies in the dock, they tend to smell up the court =
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Jun 9, 9:31 am, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > > On Jun 7, 7:08 pm, "JLeyden...@aol.com" <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 6, 10:44 pm, curtjester1 <curtjest...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Weren't there like about 8 people convicted of the conspiracy of
> > > > > Lincoln, and some hangings?
> >
> > > "Gosh, I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved on ACJ but, then, I
> > > feel a need to educate all one-name wonders. Yes, the Feds did string
> > > up a batch of Booth's buddies but -- pay attention now -- Booth was
> > > NEVER brought to trial and NEVER convicted. That's not too hard to
> > > comprehend, is it?"
> >
> > > I like how this guy skips over the part where people SAW him commit
> > > the crime!! Who saw LHO shoot JFK or JDT again?
> >
>
> "Is your purpose here to show how ignorant of the case you are?"
>
> LOL!!!!!!!!! This is funnier than a pee doctor working on forensic
> wound analysis!!!! A guy who shows day in and day out how little of
> this case he knows (including his own side) and he asks this of
> someone else. Priceless. Bud, are you bidding to do a MasterCard
> commercial?
I know the answer to the question you asked. You don`t seem to.
Bud
Your ignorance is showing again.
> your evidence does
> NOT prove this. Secondly, you have no idea about Fuhrer directives
> which were in writing and on file showing him approving the holocaust,
> shooting of Communists, Gypsies, Jews and the shooting of
> commissars.
So, you think it somehow revolves around whether you accept the
evidence, a trial isn`t really required at all? Hitler guilty, because
a know idiot accepts the evidence against him, Oswald not guilty,
because robcap the idiot doesn`t accept the evidence against him.
> The Germans were very organized and kept everything nice
> and tidy for us to find.
Yah, I find that suspicious so I throw all that tidy evidence out.
Too neat and clean, an obvious frame-up.
> So you are denying the war crimes of the
> Germans? You are denying the holocaust? You are denying the
> concentration camps? Good luck that with that one. The point I was
> making is you have NO proof and NO evidence did any of the things the
> WC said he did, period.
You don`t even understand your own point. The point you made that
people contested was that it was impossible to determine Oz`s guilt
because he didn`t get a trial.
> "In other words, your thinking is fallactious (from the Greek
> fellatio) and circular. You want to claim that it is possible to
> determine Hitler`s guilt without him having a trial, but impossible to
> determine Oswald`s guilt without a trial. I think that is about as far
> as I can dumb it down, I look forward to your misunderstanding of what
> I wrote."
>
> Heads of state are treated differently from alleged lone nuts.
We are all children of God, or so I was told. I guess that means
heads of state also. Lady Justice has a blindfold, all are equal under
the law. Both Hitler and Oswald never had their day in court.
> Hitler's guilt is well documented and LHO's is NOT. You are walking
> down the wrong path as I'm sure I know more about the Third Reich than
> you do. Why did Himmler and Goering kill themselves if they was no
> proof against them as you claim?
Where did I claim anything about those two, idjit? They both
cheated the hangman, is all. And perhaps they kept Hitler prisoner, a
drugged up figurehead, a PATSY.
Bud
Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <fb4b3d91-1b03-42b9...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> JLeyd...@aol.com says...
> >
> >On Jun 8, 2:17=EF=BF=BDpm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Nice of you to admit that there was a conspiracy in the Lincoln
> >> assassination... while it's not exactly a retraction of your statement
> >> implying that it was a "lone assassin," it at least recognizes historical
> >> reality.
> >>
> >> Now if only you could do the same thing with the Kennedy assassination...
> >>
> >
> >Oh, Lord, the job of an educator is never done. Actually, Ben -- pay
> >attention now --Booth was a lone assassin.
>
>
> No, he was a part of a conspiracy.
He was the singular (lone) killer (assassin) of Lincoln.
Bud
> > You think I asked "How many radishes saw Oswald shoot Tippit?"
>
> Try to concentrate on the question......
Your use of produce threw me.
>Which was..... CAN you post a
> list of about a dozen ( "a bunch") people who "saw Oswald shoot a
> cop"???
A dozen is your construct, I never said a dozen. I see your
raddishes, and raise you bananas, which come in bunches , but don`t
need to be 12.
> You made that claim...
Yah, I did. A little too intent in the main point I was making
(which you doubtlessly missed), I was sloppy on the wording there.
>So now's the time to back it up and make me
> appear as the fool....
Only you can do that.
> C'mon Dud, post the list of a "BUNCH" of
> people who saw "Oswald shoot a cop".
Ok, ok, I should have said a lot of people saw Oswald right after
he shot a cop. Only one person actually saw Oz shoot Tippit.
> Have you let your alligator
> mouth overload your tadpole ass again??
I thank you for bringing that error to my attention, you miserable
piece of human excrement.
Walt
Well, well, well.... lookie here....Dud admitted a "bunch" of people
DID NOT see Oswald shoot Tippit. However he errored in saying that
in FACT "Only one person actually saw Oz shoot Tippit.".....Because
NOBODY saw Oswald shoot Tippit, because Oswald DIDN'T shoot Tippit.
But aside from being wrong on the identity of the killer... Dud is
wrong in saying that only one person actually saw the shooting....
Helen Markham saw the shooting, Domingo Benavides saw the shooting,
and Billy Smith saw the shooting. Dom Benavides was the closest and
was looking directly at the killer from only twenty feet away.... And
he DESCRIBED the killer and that description did NOT match Oswald.
Helen Markham was about 150 feet away and she also DESCRIBED the
killer and her DESCRIPTION did not match Oswald. Billy Smith was
about a block away and he couldn't see the facial features of the
killer but he DESCRIBED the killer's clothing and that DESCRIPTION did
not fit Oswald.
>
> > Have you let your alligator
> > mouth overload your tadpole ass again??
>
> I thank you for bringing that error to my attention, you miserable
> piece of human excrement.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > then you say "That hasn`t ben proven in a
> > > > > court of law". To which I reply "Hitler guilt wasn`t proven guilty in
> > > > > a court of law". To which you reply "You cannot charge others with
> > > > > crimes Hitler sanctioned and ordered". To which I reply "How can
> > > > > Oswald shoot a cop in front of a bunch of people and not be guilty? To
> > > > > which you reply "That hasn`t been proven in a court of law".'
>
> > > > > In other words, your thinking is fallactious (from the Greek
> > > > > fellatio) and circular. You want to claim that it is possible to
> > > > > determine Hitler`s guilt without him having a trial, but impossible to
> > > > > determine Oswald`s guilt without a trial. I think that is about as far
> > > > > as I can dumb it down, I look forward to your misunderstanding of what
> > > > > I wrote.
>
> > > > > > Do you not read anything except wikepedia?
>
> > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials-Hidequotedtext -- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> On Jun 9, 11:45 am, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
"Ok, Robocop, I see this is a hopeless effort. I've already broken
one of my rules by giving this much time to an anon. poster. I figure
if they don't have the guts to sign their names to their screeds, they
don't deserve a response."
It is Robcap, NOT Robocop. I have explained this to you like two
times already, but like a small child you need to be told over and
over again. What does the "J" stand for? Why aren't you using your
first name (if Leyden is your real last name)? How do I know JLeyden
is your real name? You are making wild accusations to avert attention
from the fact you are totally wrong. You are acting like this is why
you will diregard Ben and I, instead of the fact you can't back up
your claims.
Bud
Markham said he did, and she was there, not you.
> But aside from being wrong on the identity of the killer... Dud is
> wrong in saying that only one person actually saw the shooting....
> Helen Markham saw the shooting, Domingo Benavides saw the shooting,
Said he ducked down under the steering wheel when the shooing
started.
> and Billy Smith saw the shooting.
But he was too far away to make an ID.
> Dom Benavides was the closest and
> was looking directly at the killer from only twenty feet away.... And
> he DESCRIBED the killer and that description did NOT match Oswald.
Funny that he would use the name "Oswald" in his testimony if he
knew the person he saw couldn`t be Oswald.
> Helen Markham was about 150 feet away and she also DESCRIBED the
> killer and her DESCRIPTION did not match Oswald.
Oswald moved closer to her after killing Tippit, and after careful
consideration at the police station, Markham identified Oswald as the
man she saw kill Tippit.
> Billy Smith was
> about a block away and he couldn't see the facial features of the
> killer but he DESCRIBED the killer's clothing and that DESCRIPTION did
> not fit Oswald.
Here is the description he gave to the FBI... "white male, 5`-7" to
5`-8", 20-25 years of age, 150-160, wearing a white shirt, light brown
jacket and dark pants". Walt believes Smith could not give this
description if it was Oz he saw. Walt is an idiot.
robcap...@netscape.com
Prove it then.
>
> > your evidence does
> > NOT prove this. Secondly, you have no idea about Fuhrer directives
> > which were in writing and on file showing him approving the holocaust,
> > shooting of Communists, Gypsies, Jews and the shooting of
> > commissars.
>
"So, you think it somehow revolves around whether you accept the
evidence, a trial isn`t really required at all? Hitler guilty, because
a know idiot accepts the evidence against him, Oswald not guilty,
because robcap the idiot doesn`t accept the evidence against him."
In this country, you know the U.S.A., you have to have a conviction to
use terms like killer and murderer WITHOUT an alleged in front of it.
In any other case the defendent or their family could sue the socks
off of any paper, radio, internet site or t.v. station that did not
use the term alleged or supposed in front of the accusations if NO
conviction was issued. You are also trying to avoid the issue by
bringing up Hitler as that is a seperate issue and country.
> > The Germans were very organized and kept everything nice
> > and tidy for us to find.
>
"Yah, I find that suspicious so I throw all that tidy evidence out.
Too neat and clean, an obvious frame-up."
Bud, your white sheets are showing again.
> > So you are denying the war crimes of the
> > Germans? You are denying the holocaust? You are denying the
> > concentration camps? Good luck that with that one. The point I was
> > making is you have NO proof and NO evidence did any of the things the
> > WC said he did, period.
>
"You don`t even understand your own point. The point you made that
people contested was that it was impossible to determine Oz`s guilt
because he didn`t get a trial."
NO, my point, which you and the anonymous "JGL" have distorted is that
the media has to have a conviction to pronounce guilt or face a
lawsuit. The fact none has ever been placed shows you the power of
the conspiracy. It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine LHO's guilt based on
the hilarious and flimsy evidence the WC put forth.
> > "In other words, your thinking is fallactious (from the Greek
> > fellatio) and circular. You want to claim that it is possible to
> > determine Hitler`s guilt without him having a trial, but impossible to
> > determine Oswald`s guilt without a trial. I think that is about as far
> > as I can dumb it down, I look forward to your misunderstanding of what
> > I wrote."
>
> > Heads of state are treated differently from alleged lone nuts.
>
"We are all children of God, or so I was told. I guess that means
heads of state also. Lady Justice has a blindfold, all are equal under
the law. Both Hitler and Oswald never had their day in court."
You are the most clueless guy on here, and this is some feat!! LOL!!!
Hitler could have had his day in court, in fact, everyone wanted that
but the guy shot himself according to history. LHO did NOT shoot
himself, he was in police custody and was expecting the proper
protection but he was killed anyway. To continue to make a comparison
between the two is the most absurd analogy I have ever read.
> > Hitler's guilt is well documented and LHO's is NOT. You are walking
> > down the wrong path as I'm sure I know more about the Third Reich than
> > you do. Why did Himmler and Goering kill themselves if they was no
> > proof against them as you claim?
>
"Where did I claim anything about those two, idjit? They both cheated
the hangman, is all. And perhaps they kept Hitler prisoner, a drugged
up figurehead, a PATSY."
Try to keep up nitwit. Himmler and Georing were number 2 and number 3
in the hierarchy by the end of the war. IF they thought they could
have beaten the wrap, as you keep saying there is no proof, why would
they kill themselves? They killed themselves because they knew they
would be hanged. Both were traitors to Hitler at the end, thus the
appointment of Grand Admiral Raeder as the new Fuehrer after Hitler
killed himself. You really need to quit reading just Mad magazine.
>
>
>
> > > > Do you not read anything except wikepedia?
>
> > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials-Hidequoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> On Jun 7, 8:50�pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > In article <b829810a-c1e3-4f5b-ba41-d8a563736...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> > > JLeyden...@aol.com says...
> >
> > > >On Jun 6, 7:27=C2=A0pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > >wrote:
> >
> > > >Robocop, you and the other one-name wonders here (Aeffects &
> > > >CurtJester to name just two) have one thing in common besides your
> > > >desire to cower behind screen names and hurl insults and that is you
> > > >don't read in context. �I said there was NO trial and NO conviction
> > > >for either J.W. Booth or A. Hitler (True!) and thus we have to assume
> > > >them innocent using your logic. �Hitler wasn't a defendant at the
> > > >Nuremberg trials. �He was dead altho some say he lived on forever in
> > > >Argentina and Booth was gunned down in a barn in near Port Royal , VA,
> > > >altho some say he escaped to Oklahoma or Texas where he prospered.
> > > >But don't let me interrupt your fun.
> >
> > > >JGL
> >
> > > You stated that "J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the assassain of A.
> > > Lincoln" - can you admit, here in print; that the Lincoln assassination *WAS*
> > > the result of a conspiracy?
> >
>
> "Notice that both fanatics, Booth and Oswald, when surrounded by the
> authorities with no hope of escape both decided to go out in a blaze
> of gunfire. These zealots were no different than today`s suicide
> bombers."
>
> You're ignorance is showing again, LHO was in POLICE CUSTODY when he
> was gunned down by a man not tied to law enforcement.
Right, a few days after he was surrounded by police with no hope of
escape. When the authorities caught up with both fanatics, they both
showed they were willing to die for thier fanatical beliefs.
> Booth was shot
> and killed when he refused to surrender to the soldiers who had him
> surrounded. Big difference.
None at all. Oz showed in the Texas Theater that he was as willing
to die for his cause as Booth was.
> > > >> On Jun 6, 1:57=C2=A0pm, "JLeyden...@aol.com" <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >> > On Jun 6, 1:15=EF=BF=BDpm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.=
> > > >com>
> > > >> > wrote:
> >
> > > >> > > They have finished a police memorial in D.C. and J.D. Tippit is one of=
> >
> > > >> > > the officers listed (for those who died in the line of duty). =EF=BF=
> > > >=BDHis
> > > >> > > wife attended the ceremony. =EF=BF=BDThis article is a great example o=
> > > >f how
> > > >> > > our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO
> > > >> > > conviction. =EF=BF=BDThe reader will see nary a word about being alleg=
> > > >ed, or
> > > >> > > supposed killer of JFK or JDT. =EF=BF=BDIt is assumed by our media des=
> > > >pite NO
> > > >> > > evidence or conviction. =EF=BF=BDIn any other case they would be sued =
> > > >for
> > > >> > > slander.
> >
> > > >> > >http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN..=
> > > >.
> >
> > > >> "You know, Robocop, J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the
> > > >> assassain of A. Lincoln altho there was NO trial and NO conviction.
> > > >> And no one seems inclined to cut A. Hitler any slack for his many
> > > >> crimes altho there was NO trial and NO conviction in that case either.
> > > >> =C2=A0(It's pretty hard to bring dead people to trial. =C2=A0Even if you p=
> > > >rop up
> > > >> the bodies in the dock, they tend to smell up the court room.)"
> >
> > > >> You obviously have read nothing about the Lincoln assassination in the
> > > >> last 20 years or so, as there is clear cut evidence it was a
> > > >> conspiracy John Wilkes Booth worked for and with. =C2=A0As for Hitler, he
> > > >> was convicted at Nuremburg post-death, that was the main point of the
> > > >> trials. =C2=A0That is your theories problem, no trial due to LHO's death,
> > > >> as he was in police custody when he was murdered.- Hide quoted text -
Chuck Schuyler
wrote:
"Both were traitors to Hitler at the end, thus the appointment of
Grand Admiral Raeder as the new Fuehrer after Hitler
killed himself. You really need to quit reading just Mad magazine."
Wrong.
Doenitz assumed the mantle of power after Hitler committed suicide,
not Raeder.
You can go back to your Mad magazine now, robcap.
Chuck Schuyler
wrote:
> On Jun 8, 1:45 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 6:27 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
>
> > > On Jun 6, 1:57 pm, "JLeyden...@aol.com" <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 6, 1:15�pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > They have finished a police memorial in D.C. and J.D. Tippit is one of
> > > > > our media and government have tried to make LHO guilty with NO
> > > > > supposed killer of JFK or JDT. �It is assumed by our media despite NO
> > > > > slander.
>
> > > > >http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN...
>
> > > "You know, Robocop, J.W. Booth is generally considered to be the
> > > assassain of A. Lincoln altho there was NO trial and NO conviction.
> > > And no one seems inclined to cut A. Hitler any slack for his many
> > > crimes altho there was NO trial and NO conviction in that case either.
> > > the bodies in the dock, they tend to smell up the court room.)"
>
> > > You obviously have read nothing about the Lincoln assassination in the
> > > last 20 years or so, as there is clear cut evidence it was a
> > > was convicted at Nuremburg post-death, that was the main point of the
> > > as he was in police custody when he was murdered.
>
> "Was Hitler put on trial at Nuremberg? Twenty-four major captured Nazi
> leaders were tried, and many other lesser Nazis, too.
>
> I don't see Hitler on the list."
>
> Another clueless one heard from, Hitler was the THIRD REICH, you
> cannot charge others with crimes he sanctioned or ordered and NOT find
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials-Hide quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not the point. You claimed Hitler was tried for war crimes. He was
not.
Using your logic via the LHO analogy, he (Hitler) was innocent because
he wasn't tried (just like Oswald wasn't tried). Oh wait...you claim
he (Hitler) WAS tried, but he wasn't.
Clear thinking and factual accuracy are not your strong suits.
Bring this up with your high school history teacher when you go back
after summer vacation.
Bud
How would you know it was proven?
> > > your evidence does
> > > NOT prove this. Secondly, you have no idea about Fuhrer directives
> > > which were in writing and on file showing him approving the holocaust,
> > > shooting of Communists, Gypsies, Jews and the shooting of
> > > commissars.
> >
>
> "So, you think it somehow revolves around whether you accept the
> evidence, a trial isn`t really required at all? Hitler guilty, because
> a known idiot accepts the evidence against him, Oswald not guilty,
> because robcap the idiot doesn`t accept the evidence against him."
>
> In this country, you know the U.S.A., you have to have a conviction to
> use terms like killer and murderer WITHOUT an alleged in front of it.
No you don`t, idiot. Watch... OJ killed his ex-wife. See, it isn`t
hard.
> In any other case the defendent or their family could sue the socks
> off of any paper, radio, internet site or t.v. station that did not
> use the term alleged or supposed in front of the accusations if NO
> conviction was issued.
You can sue anyone for just about any reason. Doesn`t mean you will
win.
> You are also trying to avoid the issue by
> bringing up Hitler as that is a seperate issue and country.
Defeated on all other fronts, you`ve decided to try geology to make
your assertion that Oswald needed to have a trial before his guilt
could be determined seem valid.
> > > The Germans were very organized and kept everything nice
> > > and tidy for us to find.
> >
>
> "Yah, I find that suspicious so I throw all that tidy evidence out.
> Too neat and clean, an obvious frame-up."
>
> Bud, your white sheets are showing again.
As are your communist leanings evident when you defend Oswald.
> > > So you are denying the war crimes of the
> > > Germans? You are denying the holocaust? You are denying the
> > > concentration camps? Good luck that with that one. The point I was
> > > making is you have NO proof and NO evidence did any of the things the
> > > WC said he did, period.
> >
>
> "You don`t even understand your own point. The point you made that
> people contested was that it was impossible to determine Oz`s guilt
> because he didn`t get a trial."
>
> NO, my point, which you and the anonymous "JGL" have distorted is that
> the media has to have a conviction to pronounce guilt or face a
> lawsuit.
Then you believe the media should say "the holocaust that Hitler
is alleged to have perpetrated", right?
> The fact none has ever been placed shows you the power of
> the conspiracy. It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine LHO's guilt based on
> the hilarious and flimsy evidence the WC put forth.
Well, impossibe for you, anyway.
> > > "In other words, your thinking is fallactious (from the Greek
> > > fellatio) and circular. You want to claim that it is possible to
> > > determine Hitler`s guilt without him having a trial, but impossible to
> > > determine Oswald`s guilt without a trial. I think that is about as far
> > > as I can dumb it down, I look forward to your misunderstanding of what
> > > I wrote."
> >
> > > Heads of state are treated differently from alleged lone nuts.
> >
>
> "We are all children of God, or so I was told. I guess that means
> heads of state also. Lady Justice has a blindfold, all are equal under
> the law. Both Hitler and Oswald never had their day in court."
>
> You are the most clueless guy on here, and this is some feat!! LOL!!!
> Hitler could have had his day in court, in fact, everyone wanted that
> but the guy shot himself according to history.
Now it`s the manner of his demise that allows you to assume his
guilt, eh?
> LHO did NOT shoot
> himself, he was in police custody and was expecting the proper
> protection but he was killed anyway.
He tried to get the police to kill him in the Texas Theater. He got
to live two more days than he should have.
> To continue to make a comparison
> between the two is the most absurd analogy I have ever read.
Yet you still miss the point of why Hitler (and Booth) was brought
up, and continue to scratch around for differences between the two.
> > > Hitler's guilt is well documented and LHO's is NOT. You are walking
> > > down the wrong path as I'm sure I know more about the Third Reich than
> > > you do. Why did Himmler and Goering kill themselves if they was no
> > > proof against them as you claim?
> >
>
> "Where did I claim anything about those two, idjit? They both cheated
> the hangman, is all. And perhaps they kept Hitler prisoner, a drugged
> up figurehead, a PATSY."
>
> Try to keep up nitwit.
OK. Lets start by you showing where I ever made any claims about
these two. I never mentioned them, but you seem to think I had made
some kind of assertions regarding them. Very strange.
>Himmler and Georing were number 2 and number 3
> in the hierarchy by the end of the war. IF they thought they could
> have beaten the wrap, as you keep saying there is no proof, why would
> they kill themselves? They killed themselves because they knew they
> would be hanged. Both were traitors to Hitler at the end, thus the
> appointment of Grand Admiral Raeder as the new Fuehrer after Hitler
> killed himself. You really need to quit reading just Mad magazine.
You haven`t said one thing I didn`t know, or one thing pertinent to
the discussion.
Bud
A correction, you said some things that weren`t true, it was Donitz
that succeded Hitler, not Raeder, and his tile was President, not
Fuhrer.
Walt
> Walt wrote:
> > On 9 Jun, 14:46, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > Walt wrote:
> > > > On 9 Jun, 09:50, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > > On 9 Jun, 08:26, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Jun 8, 1:45 am, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 6:27 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 1:57 pm, "JLeyden...@aol.com" <JLeyden...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 6, 1:15�pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > in FACT "Only one person actually saw Oz shootTippit.".....Because
> > NOBODY saw Oswald shootTippit, because Oswald DIDN'T shootTippit.
>
> Markham said he did, and she was there, not you.
>
> > But aside from being wrong on the identity of the killer... Dud is
> > wrong in saying that only one person actually saw the shooting....
> > Helen Markham saw the shooting, Domingo Benavides saw the shooting,
>
> Said he ducked down under the steering wheel when the shooing
> started.
>
> > and Billy Smith saw the shooting.
>
> But he was too far away to make an ID.
>
> > Dom Benavides was the closest and
> > was looking directly at the killer from only twenty feet away.... And
> > he DESCRIBED the killer and that description did NOT match Oswald.
>
> Funny that he would use the name "Oswald" in his testimony if he
> knew the person he saw couldn`t be Oswald.
>
> > Helen Markham was about 150 feet away and she also DESCRIBED the
> > killer and her DESCRIPTION did not match Oswald.
>
> consideration at the police station, Markham identified Oswald as the
> man she saw killTippit.
>
> > Billy Smith was
> > about a block away and he couldn't see the facial features of the
> > killer but he DESCRIBED the killer's clothing and that DESCRIPTION did
> > not fit Oswald.
>
Here is the description he gave to the FBI... "white male, 5`-7"
to
5`-8", 20-25 years of age, 150-160, wearing a white shirt, light
brown
jacket and dark pants". Walt believes Smith could not give this
description if it was Oz he saw. Walt is an idiot.
5'7" to 5'8".... LHO 5'9" ---- 150 to 160 ...LHO 140 ---- Wearing a
white shirt ..LHO was wearing a grayish brown shirt ----- Light brown
Jacket....The jacket "found" behind the Texaco station was WHITE.
Hmmmmm..... I do believe that you proved my point... that Smith
DESCRIBED
the killers clothing and it was DIFFERENT than the clothes LHO was
wearing.
>
>
>
> > > > Have you let your alligator
> > > > mouth overload your tadpole ass again??
>
> > > I thank you for bringing that error to my attention, you miserable
> > > piece of human excrement.
>
> > > > > > then you say "That hasn`t ben proven in a
> > > > > > > court of law". To which I reply "Hitler guilt wasn`t proven guilty in
> > > > > > > a court of law". To which you reply "You cannot charge others with
> > > > > > > crimes Hitler sanctioned and ordered". To which I reply "How can
> > > > > > > Oswald shoot a cop in front of a bunch of people and not be guilty? To
> > > > > > > which you reply "That hasn`t been proven in a court of law".'
>
> > > > > > > In other words, your thinking is fallactious (from the Greek
> > > > > > > fellatio) and circular. You want to claim that it is possible to
> > > > > > > determine Hitler`s guilt without him having a trial, but impossible to
> > > > > > > determine Oswald`s guilt without a trial. I think that is about as far
> > > > > > > as I can dumb it down, I look forward to your misunderstanding of what
> > > > > > > I wrote.
>
> > > > > > > > Do you not read anything except wikepedia?
>
> > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials-Hidequotedtext-- Hide quoted text -
Bud
<snicker> An inch from a block away? Thats a hit.
> 150 to 160 ...
Oz`s weight at the autopsy was estimated to be 150. If he can be
estimated at 150 lying naked on a table a few feet away, he can be
estimated at 150 block away. Thats a hit.
>LHO 140 ---- Wearing a
> white shirt ..
Oz had on a white t-shirt. thats a hit.
>LHO was wearing a grayish brown shirt ----- Light brown
> Jacket....The jacket "found" behind the Texaco station was WHITE.
Not white-white...
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/35/Photo_naraevid_CE162-1.jpg
The placard behind the jacket is white.
>
> Hmmmmm..... I do believe that you proved my point... that Smith
> DESCRIBED
> the killers clothing and it was DIFFERENT than the clothes LHO was
> wearing.
Besides the things iImentioned, he got hits on "white male" and age
for Oswald. And you think all these hits mean it couldn`t be Oswald he
saw?
David Von Pein
>>> "However he errored [sic] in saying that in FACT "Only one person actually saw Oz shoot Tippit.".....Because NOBODY saw Oswald shoot Tippit, because Oswald DIDN'T shoot Tippit." <<<
In actuality, four people saw Oswald shoot Tippit -- Markham,
Benavides, Scoggins, and Tatum.
If you want to put the proverbial asterisks next to Scoggins and Tatum
in this regard, fine. But in my book, they too qualify as "seeing" the
shooting--and seeing the shooter (positively IDed by both men as Lee
Oswald).
Sam Brown
"Bud" <sirs...@fast.net> wrote in message
news:8bef5f99-ebf6-4d37...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Ben Holmes wrote:
>> In article
>> <fb4b3d91-1b03-42b9...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>> JLeyd...@aol.com says...
>> >
>> >On Jun 8, 2:17=EF=BF=BDpm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Nice of you to admit that there was a conspiracy in the Lincoln
>> >> assassination... while it's not exactly a retraction of your statement
>> >> implying that it was a "lone assassin," it at least recognizes
>> >> historical
>> >> reality.
>> >>
>> >> Now if only you could do the same thing with the Kennedy
>> >> assassination...
>> >>
>> >
>> >Oh, Lord, the job of an educator is never done. Actually, Ben -- pay
>> >attention now --Booth was a lone assassin.
>>
>>
>> No, he was a part of a conspiracy.
>
> He was the singular (lone) killer (assassin) of Lincoln.
Benny the Dwarf is too dishonest to ever admit that you are 100% correct
Bud. I marvel at your resilience at being able to continue keeping the judo
queen honest without opening a vein in frustration.
Walt
Scoggins by his own statement said that he never actually saw the
shooting because a bush blocked his view. So you are lying about
Scoggins....
Tatum isn't mentioned anywhere in the evidence....He crawled out of
the pile of BS thirty years after the murder.....so his statement is
worthless....
Markham DESCRIBED a killer that had dark bushy hair and was kinda
short and kinda heavy....she wasn't DESCRIBING Oswald.
Benavides said that the killers hair was cut entirely different than
Oswalds...
Sorry that your lies just can't stand against the FACTS.....
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/128561a7470e3254
>>> "Tatum isn't mentioned anywhere in the evidence. He crawled out of the pile of BS thirty years after the murder....so his statement is worthless." <<<
I'll bet that Walt is in love with Gordon Arnold though. Who wants to
bet?
RE: SCOGGINS.....
DAVID BELIN -- "I believe you said you saw the officer fall. Did you
see where he fell?"
WILLIAM SCOGGINS -- "Yes, he fell right by the side of the front...a
little bit forward of the door, right about the door." ....
BELIN -- "When you saw the officer fall, when was the next place that
you saw the man, or did you see him at the same time you saw the
officer fall, the other man?"
SCOGGINS -- "No, I saw him coming kind of toward me around that cutoff
through there, and he never did look at me. He looked back over his
left shoulder like that, as he went by. It seemed like I could see his
face, his features and everything plain, you see. .... He had a pistol
in his left hand. .... I heard him mutter something like 'poor damn
cop' or 'poor dumb cop'. .... He muttered that twice. .... He [the man
Scoggins saw with a gun just after Tippit's murder] was a medium-
height fellow with, kind of a slender look, and approximately, I said
25, 26 years old, somewhere along there." ....
BELIN -- "Did you identify anyone in the [police] lineup?"
SCOGGINS -- "I identified the one we are talking about, Oswald. I
identified him."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/scoggins.htm
----------
RE: BENAVIDES.....
EDDIE BARKER (CBS-TV NEWS; 1967) -- "Is there any doubt in your mind
that Oswald was the man you had seen shoot Tippit?"
DOMINGO BENAVIDES -- "No, sir; there was no doubt at all. Period. I
could even tell you how he combed his hair and the clothes he wore and
what-have-you and the details....and if he'd had a scar on his face, I
could have probably told you about it. You don't forget things like
that."
----------
RE: TATUM.....
"[Jack] Tatum sees a man in a light tan-gray jacket start off in
Tatum's direction, hesitate at the rear of the police car, then step
back into the street and fire one more shot, right into the head of
the officer [J.D. Tippit] on the ground. .... [Footnote:] I asked
Tatum at the [1986] London trial ["On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"] if he
got "a good look" at the man who shot Tippit and whom he identified at
the trial. "Very good look," Tatum responded. I asked if there was
"any question in your mind" that the man was Oswald. "None
whatsoever," he answered. (Transcript of "On Trial", July 23, 1986, p.
200)" -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 79 of "Reclaiming History" (c.
2007)
Chuck Schuyler
> Markham DESCRIBED a killer that had dark bushy hair and was kinda
> short and kinda heavy....she wasn't DESCRIBING Oswald.
You are a real piece of work, Walt.
This discredited info comes from Mark Lane, and you know it. He taped
Markham (as you know) and had to virtually put the words directly into
her mouth to get this "stocky, bushy hair" description of Oswald's
killer.
In part, the transcript of his infamous, discredited, witness-leading
tape goes as follows:
Mr. Lane. And when you were there, did they ever ask you anything
else about Oswald? About whether he was tall or short?
Mrs. Markham. Uh, yes, sir. They asked me that.
Mr. Lane. And you said he was short, eh?
Mrs. Markham. Yes, sir, he is short. He was short.
Mr. Lane. He was short. And they asked if he was thin or heavy, and
you said he was a little on the heavy side?
Mrs. Markham. And he was, uh, uh, well not too heavy. Uh, say
around 160, maybe 150.
Mr. Lane. Well, did you say he wasn't too heavy, but he was a
little heavy?
Mrs. Markham. Uh-huh.
Mr. Lane. You did say that?
Mrs. Markham. I did identify him in the lineup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Choke on those words, Walt.
Despite Lane's badgering, Markham helpfully adds that she identified
Oswald in the lineup.
Lane's behavior here is terrible, and you are no better than Lane when
you repeat this garbage.
Bud
> "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:8bef5f99-ebf6-4d37...@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ben Holmes wrote:
> >> In article
> >> JLeyden...@aol.com says...
>
> >> >On Jun 8, 2:17=EF=BF=BDpm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Nice of you to admit that there was a conspiracy in the Lincoln
> >> >> assassination... while it's not exactly a retraction of your statement
> >> >> implying that it was a "lone assassin," it at least recognizes
> >> >> historical
> >> >> reality.
>
> >> >> Now if only you could do the same thing with the Kennedy
> >> >> assassination...
>
> >> >Oh, Lord, the job of an educator is never done. Actually, Ben -- pay
> >> >attention now --Booth was a lone assassin.
>
> >> No, he was a part of a conspiracy.
>
> > He was the singular (lone) killer (assassin) of Lincoln.
>
> Benny the Dwarf is too dishonest to ever admit that you are 100% correct
> Bud. I marvel at your resilience at being able to continue keeping the judo
> queen honest without opening a vein in frustration.
Good must fight evil, it`s what good does. I hate the sight of
my own blood, anyway.
Bud
> >>> "However he errored [sic] in saying that in FACT "Only one person actually saw Oz shoot Tippit.".....Because NOBODY saw Oswald shoot Tippit, because Oswald DIDN'T shoot Tippit." <<<
>
> In actuality, four people saw Oswald shoot Tippit -- Markham,
> Benavides, Scoggins, and Tatum.
I`d add Smith.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/smith_w.htm
But, realistically, both the Davis girls, who went to their door
immediately after the shots and saw Oz crossing their lawn with a gun
are shooting witnesses also, because how can they just happen to have
a gunman on their lawn who wasn`t Tippit`s shooter? And Callaway also.
Walt wants to pretend you have to have a witnesses to the assailant
actually shooting Tippit, in which case Brennan is the only witness to
the assassination.
Walt
> On Jun 9, 10:01 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > Markham DESCRIBED a killer that had dark bushy hair and was kinda
> > short and kinda heavy....she wasn't DESCRIBING Oswald.
>
> You are a real piece of work, Walt.
>
This discredited info comes from Mark Lane, and you know it. He taped
Markham (as you know) and had to virtually put the words directly
into
her mouth to get this "stocky, bushy hair" description of Oswald's
killer.
Schmuck, if you weren't so damned dumb you'd know that Mark Lane got
Helen Markham's DESCRIPTION of the killer from a newspaper.... Markham
had talked to some reporters about what she'd seen at the time Tippit
was shot, and THE NEWSPAPERS printed Helen Markham's description.
When Mark Lane read that description he telephoned Helen Markham and
she gave him the same basic description that she'd gave the reporters.
He taped the conversation and that recording was played by the warren
Commission, who then went about their task of destroying the
credibility of the witness...
>
> In part, the transcript of his infamous, discredited, witness-leading
> tape goes as follows:
>
> Mr. Lane. And when you were there, did they ever ask you anything
> else about Oswald? About whether he was tall or short?
>
> Mrs. Markham. Uh, yes, sir. They asked me that.
>
> Mr. Lane. And you said he was short, eh?
>
> Mrs. Markham. Yes, sir, he is short. He was short.
>
> Mr. Lane. He was short. And they asked if he was thin or heavy, and
> you said he was a little on the heavy side?
>
> Mrs. Markham. And he was, uh, uh, well not too heavy. Uh, say
> around 160, maybe 150.
>
> Mr. Lane. Well, did you say he wasn't too heavy, but he was a
> little heavy?
>
> Mrs. Markham. Uh-huh.
>
> Mr. Lane. You did say that?
>
> Mrs. Markham. I did identify him in the lineup.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Choke on those words, Walt.
>
> Despite Lane's badgering, Markham helpfully adds that she identified
> Oswald in the lineup.
Yes, she did say that she felt that Oswald was the killer because she
got a creepy feeling when she saw him in the line up. ( Since LHO was
the ONLY man in the line up that remotely resembled the killer it's
understandable that HM would get a cold chill while identifying a man
that she wasn't 100% sure of as the killer.)
Any rational and clear thinking person who reads Helen Markham's
testimony can see that she was scared to death of being charged with a
crime....
( She asked the WC lawyer if they were going to charge her)
After the newspaper story appeared that gave a description of the
killer as being "kinda short and stocky with dark bushy hair", Captain
Fritz called Markham and threatened her with legal action if she
didn't keep her mouth shut.
I'm sure you're to stupid to be able to think for yourself and
actually read HM's entire testimony. ......But for anybody who reads
her testimony with an open mind it's pretty obvious that Markham was
scared to death and would have said that she saw Elvis Presley shoot
Tippit, if she thought that would keep her out of "hot water".
robcap...@netscape.com
>
> Choke on those words, Walt.
>
> Despite Lane's badgering, Markham helpfully adds that she identified
> Oswald in the lineup.
>
> Lane's behavior here is terrible, and you are no better than Lane when
> you repeat this garbage.
Why doesn't Bud add in the testimony where Mrs. Markham was asked FIVE
TIMES if she ID'd the man and she said NO!!! The lawyer then broke
all protocol and said "you picked number two", wink-wink. She claimed
to look at the shooter right in the face yet she only allegedly ID'd
the number two man by his clothes!! Oh, and by chills. She never
ID'd LHO and you know it.
Walt
> >>> "However he errored [sic] in saying that in FACT "Only one person actually saw Oz shoot Tippit.".....Because NOBODY saw Oswald shoot Tippit, because Oswald DIDN'T shoot Tippit." <<<
>
> In actuality, four people saw Oswald shoot Tippit -- Markham,
> Benavides, Scoggins, and Tatum.
A man running away from the scene of the murder does NOT mean that he
was the man who committed the murder.... and any person who saw a man
leaving the vicinity could not be considered a witness that the man
was the killer, because they had not actually seen the man shot the
victim.
Sorry .... I mean you're sorry.... as in... a sorry excuse for an
American.
Bud
wrote:
It wasn`t Bud who provided that testimony, it was Chuck, idjit.
> The lawyer then broke
> all protocol and said "you picked number two", wink-wink.
Like you know anything about protocol. What Ball did was try get a
confused witness focused on the questioned being asked. These regular
people didn`t have a lot of experience being subjected to this kind of
questioning, and a lot the questioners didn`t have a lot of patience
with the witnesses inability to stay on track with what was being
asked. You kooks just really shouldn`t be looking into these things,
you are clueless idiots.
>She claimed
> to look at the shooter right in the face yet she only allegedly ID'd
> the number two man by his clothes!!
Just a lie. All you kooks do is misrepresent this witness. You do
this because you aren`t interested in the truth, you are only
interested in pretending your precious patsy is innocent. What she DID
say was this...
<Quote on>
Ball: Did you identify him because of the clothing he had on at
the lineup?
Markham: Just like I told you, I mostly looked at his face, his
eyes, and his clothing , too.
<Quote off>
How do you recognize people, idiot?
> Oh, and by chills. She never
> ID'd LHO and you know it.
Look above, idiot, in the call taped by Lane, Markham says "I did
identify him in the lineup". Markham thought she did. The cops thought
she did. I idiot doesn`t think she did.
Walt
It really ticks you off that us "idiots" keep kickin yer ass with the
facts.... doesn't it Dud?
>
> >She claimed
> > to look at the shooter right in the face yet she only allegedly ID'd
> > the number two man by his clothes!!
>
> Just a lie. All you kooks do is misrepresent this witness. You do
> this because you aren`t interested in the truth, you are only
> interested in pretending your precious patsy is innocent. What she DID
> say was this...
>
> <Quote on>
>
> Ball: Did you identify him because of the clothing he had on at
> the lineup?
>
> Markham: Just like I told you, I mostly looked at his face, his
> eyes, and his clothing , too.
>
> <Quote off>
>
> How do you recognize people, idiot?
>
> > Oh, and by chills. She never
> > ID'd LHO and you know it.
>
> Look above, idiot, in the call taped by Lane, Markham says "I did
> identify him in the lineup". Markham thought she did. The cops thought
> she did. I idiot doesn`t think she did.- Hide quoted text -
Chuck Schuyler
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I know the story behind the Lane interview with Markham.
This is so sad, Walt.
All this points out is the subjectiveness of eyewitness descriptions.
Many people ID'ed Oswald as the Tippit shooter or as the person they
saw fleeing the crime scene. The fact that the physical descriptions
differ a little bit is normal-people use different words, use words
innaccurately, use different phrases to describe things-this is the
way we communicate.
Where the rubber hits the road is the fact that Oswald was picked out
of lineups and photos as Tippit's killer.
You nit-pick differences in descriptions given by witnesses while
blithly gliding past the larger point: multiple witnesses identified
Oswald as Tippit's killer or as the person fleeing the area of Tenth
and Patton.
You're not interested in the truth. You have an agenda. Like many
CT's, this is an obsessive hobby, and to admit you have been wrong
about any aspect of the case means that you've wasted decades of your
life that could've been spent doing something meaningful...and you
just can't get yourself to admit that this whole thing is an absolute
waste of time.