Lee Harvey Oswald's Rifle -- Stolen By Conspirators? Or Used By Oswald Himself To Kill JFK?
David Von Pein
11/22/63?
OR WAS THAT RIFLE IN OSWALD'S OWN HANDS WHEN JOHN KENNEDY WAS BEING
SHOT AND KILLED IN DALLAS, TEXAS?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A conspiracy theorist asked the following question:
>>> "If someone steals my rifle and then kills someone, my fingerprints are on it, but does that prove that *I* was the killer?" <<<
To which I shall now reply.....
If a rifle YOU own is used in a crime, the odds are certainly in favor
of YOU, the owner of said weapon, being the killer. You're certainly
the #1 prime suspect, that's for sure. Why wouldn't you be?
Mere ownership of a rifle doesn't prove you killed a person with said
weapon, true. But nobody can possibly deny that the sheer ODDS are in
favor of you (the weapon's rightful owner) being the actual killer.
And you'll need to do a lot more work to establish the FACT that your
rifle was stolen. An accused killer saying to the cops (or to a jury)
that he thinks his rifle was stolen by some unknown person or persons
isn't gonna cut it. And I think the "Stolen Rifle" defense is even a
tougher road to hoe in the JFK murder case than most conspiracy
theorists seem to want to admit.
The known storage location of Lee Harvey Oswald's one and only rifle in
the weeks leading up to President Kennedy's assassination on 11/22/63
was Ruth Paine's garage in Irving. There were no signs of any "theft"
or "break in" at the Paine house at any time in the weeks prior to Nov.
22.
Now, I suppose it's true that some clever thief could have slipped in
and out of Mrs. Paine's garage, totally undetected, and made off with
the rifle. But there is absolutely no hard evidence at all to indicate
that such a theft took place at the Paine house in late 1963.
The totality of circumstantial "rifle" evidence in the JFK case
certainly does not indicate a "theft" carried out by conspirators
wishing to frame Oswald -- but, instead, this evidence tells a
reasonable person that Lee Oswald, himself, took that rifle from a
rolled-up blanket in the Paine garage either on the night of Nov. 21 or
the early morning of Nov. 22.
Oswald's OWN LIES that he told later about the "package" and his
rifle-ownership status are telling a reasonable person that Oswald
desired to distance himself from any "long, bulky package" and ANY
"rifle" that he owned whenever he was questioned about those items by
the authorities.
And why would Oswald NEED to "distance" himself from EITHER of those
items if he merely was hauling innocent "curtain rods" to work on the
morning of Nov. 22nd (as he twice told fellow Book Depository worker
Wesley Frazier)?
The answer is, of course, quite an obvious one.
Heck, Oswald himself didn't even bother to use the "Somebody Stole My
Rifle" alibi....which actually would have been a far better alibi for
him to try to use instead of denying ownership of a weapon that he has
got to KNOW will be traced to him very quickly. For Pete's sake, he
knows he had the gun shipped to a P.O. Box where he received mail.
But, instead, Oswald denied having owned ANY rifle, ever...and he
denied telling Frazier anything about curtain rods...and claimed the
only "package" he carried to work on Nov. 22 was his "lunch".
On top of these lies, we know that Oswald killed policeman J.D. Tippit
without a sliver of a doubt, which is devastating evidence that tells a
reasonable person that LHO also killed JFK less than one hour earlier
-- due to the fact that JFK just happened to be killed while driving by
the place where Tippit's killer worked, and which was also a building
that contained scads of "Oswald Was Here At 12:30 Shooting At The
President" type of evidence (not even counting the eyewitnesses who
placed an Oswald-like shooter on the sixth floor of the TSBD).
For example:
1.) Oswald's gun was found on the 6th Floor.
2.) Bullet shells from LHO's gun were found in the Sniper's Nest.
3.) Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints were found on multiple boxes
DEEP WITHIN the Sniper's Nest.
4.) An empty paper bag with Oswald's prints on it was found near the
sniper's window....including a right palmprint of LHO's on the closed
end of the bag which perfectly aligns with the testimony given by Wes
Frazier about how Oswald carried a bag that day. If that bag was a
"plant" and was "manufactured" after the fact by the police, then those
cops deserve an award for such outstanding work, given that perfect job
of "planting" that RIGHT PALMPRINT OF LEE OSWALD'S ON THE CLOSED END OF
THE BAG.
Plus -- Oswald leaves the Book Depository just minutes after all the
commotion has just begun around his workplace. And LHO lies about why
he left. He and Bill Shelley never talked after the shooting. This was
just one of dozens of post-12:30 lies that LHO told the police. Another
being his "I had lunch with Junior" alibi attempt.
Plus -- There is Oswald's not being the least bit surprised or startled
or scared when confronted in the 2nd-Floor lunchroom at gunpoint by
policeman Marrion Baker (per Baker's and Roy Truly's testimony re.
Oswald's behavior).
And there's a logical "He's Guilty" reason for this non-reaction of
Oswald's too (IMO) -- i.e., he no doubt EXPECTED the building to be
filled with cops very shortly after he fired three highly-audible rifle
shots from an open window that he knew would be heard by a lot of
people in Dealey Plaza.
How could Oswald NOT have expected the police to race into that very
building within minutes of the shooting? Of course he expected that to
happen. Hence, his rush to get off of the "Floor Of Death" (Floor #6)
and at least down to a lower floor where the shooting did not occur.
Unfortunately for him, he had to peel off at the 2nd Floor when he no
doubt heard the heavy bootsteps of Baker (plus Truly too) coming up the
stairs.
But fortunately for Oswald, he worked there, and was cleared by Truly
as just another employee of the TSBD. If Lee had not been employed
there, J.D. Tippit would probably still be alive, because Oswald would
have likely been detained by Officer Baker due to his "unknown" status
in the eyes of Superintendent Roy Truly.
After the Baker encounter, Oswald can no doubt breathe a tad
easier....because he's just passed a major hurdle in slipping through
any early post-shooting dragnet. So, he pauses at the Coke machine for
just a moment or two and purchases a soft drink.*
* = Whether it was a "Coca-Cola" (in the trademark "hourglass"-shaped
bottle) or Oswald's favorite soft drink, Dr. Pepper, is something that
I do not believe has ever been officially established.
But, regardless of flavor, LHO buys a soft drink and walks through the
Depository's second-floor offices, where Mrs. Robert A. Reid sees
Oswald and even speaks to him, telling him "The President has been
shot, but maybe they didn't hit him".
Oswald then exhibits another perfectly-reasonable reaction from his own
point-of-view, seeing as how he already KNOWS the information being
told to him by Mrs. Reid -- that reaction being (like with Officer
Baker) another "non-reaction" for the most part, as he brushes by Reid
without saying anything that Reid could understand (she said he
"mumbled something to me"), and without displaying the slightest bit of
shock, surprise, or concern. According to Mrs. Reid, Oswald was "very
calm".**
** = A grain of salt needs to be taken here re. Reid's testimony. This
salt is needed because we know that Reid herself was somewhat upset
about the President being shot and she would have had no particular
reason at all to pay very much attention to Lee Oswald as he passed by
her, a trip which took no more than a few fleeting seconds, quite
obviously.
Mrs. Reid said to the Warren Commission that a major reason why she
recalls seeing LHO that day is due to the fact that it was somewhat
unusual to see any of the "warehouse boys" in the office area except
when they needed change for the soda machine. But since Reid could see
that Oswald already had a "full" bottle of a soft drink, she knew he
probably wasn't in the office to get change.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/reid.htm
Oswald then departs the TSBD at approx. 12:33 PM and goes home in a
very unusual way (for him)....via bus AND taxicab. Being the miser that
he was, the 95-cent cab ride ($1.00 including the tip for driver
William Whaley) was definitely out of character for the frugal Mr.
Oswald.
So, a logical question needs to be asked here as well -- Why doesn't
Oswald just take the bus home (like usual), instead of asking for a bus
transfer from driver Cecil McWatters and then walking to the Greyhound
taxi stand to get into a cab? Why is Oswald in such a hurry to get to
his roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue on this particular November
day....only minutes after a U.S. President has been shot from right in
front of the building that Oswald just vacated?
Another question that needs to be asked is -- Why does Oswald leave
work at midday in the first place if he was totally innocent of any
wrong-doing that day?
That last question is a valid one, since we KNOW that Oswald lied when
he gave his own explanation for leaving work when he did on Nov. 22.
That lie being: He said that he assumed there would be "no more work"
done that day due to the fact the President had been shot.
Via at least one official Dallas Police account of Oswald's story, LHO
said he had confirmed with his boss, Bill Shelley, that he (LHO) could
leave the building and knock off for the rest of the day. That was
positively a lie, and here's why (via the Warren Commission witness
transcripts).....
MR. BALL -- "Did you, at any time after the President was shot, tell
Oswald to go home?"
MR. SHELLEY -- "No, sir."
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/shelley2.htm
~~~~~~~
So, when all of the above things are assembled together, a pretty clear
picture begins to form. There's so much evidence to show that Lee
Oswald is a double-murderer, it's staggering. There is so much, in
fact, that the idea that ALL of this stuff (including
impossible-to-control circumstantial evidence) could possibly have been
manipulated so perfectly and so swiftly (by the DPD, the FBI, or
whoever) is a foolhardy conspiratorial belief.
There's just too much stuff here....stuff that couldn't have been
perfectly "controlled" by anyone attempting to frame Oswald for two
murders. And the biggest reason to know that this is true is by taking
a look at Oswald's own incriminating, guilty-like actions after 12:30
on November 22. Does an innocent "patsy" act like Oswald acted in the
hours following JFK's murder (a murder that LHO said he had nothing to
do with)?
Or, to quote an excellent passage uttered by Larry Sturdivan in his
book "The JFK Myths".....
"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have
been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or
team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated
whole....with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence, that is
in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Page 246
of "The JFK Myths"
~~~~~~~
Vincent Bugliosi also provides a good capsule account of assassination
events, via the following remarks, spoken in 1986:
"So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL
doubt that OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!!
And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building that
day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As far
as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his
armpit...he conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald
was carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to.
At this point if we had nothing else...nothing else...how much do you
need?...if we had NOTHING else...this would be enough to prove Oswald's
guilt beyond all REASONABLE doubt." -- V. Bugliosi
~~~~~~~
Given the facts previously discussed (and several more not touched
upon), I'd say, yes, it's a pretty safe bet that the owner of that
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the 6th Floor, a Mr. Lee Harvey
Oswald (alias "A.J. Hidell"; alias "D.F. Drittal"), was indeed the
person who actually used it to shoot and kill John F. Kennedy on
November 22, 1963.
~~~~~~~
Addendum.....
Re. Wesley Frazier's observations specifically, there are these
oft-overlooked words spoken by Frazier himself during the 1986
television Docu-Trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald":
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did you recall how he {Oswald} was carrying the bag?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to his body."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his
body....on the right side?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. On the right side."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I
think you've said that in the past."
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
attention to this bag?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of
his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
~~~~~~~
Re-Constructing The Steps Of A Presidential Assassin:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/aaeb4a1389e69938
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/909b5b194cab1cbe
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4dd73f8e676a5db8
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7a460183ae4c6c41
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f4466b08f8be7c36
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/182cecc7c4e37bb2
dcwi...@netscape.net
DVP I've seen tends to prefer pronouncements to discussion....
dw
aeffects
dcwi...@netscape.net wrote:
> There are about 17 holes in these arguments, which I would detail, but
> DVP I've seen tends to prefer pronouncements to discussion....
Davie Von Pein is on a sabatical from writing outdated, outmode,
television/book reviews re programs/books nobody watches/reads..... I
suspect all his latest JFK nonsense is in the hopes DaBugLIOSI will
send him a free copy of his latest tome[s] due out by 2019...
LMAO!
David Von Pein
than that!
Most CT-Kooks have no problem "finding holes" in the evidence-laden LN
scenario....even when no holes are there at all. They'll just pretend
there are holes when none exist. They have to pretend in this
regard....because there's nothing else for the kooks TO argue.
The CTers don't have a bullet, a shell, a gun, or a single eyewitness
who saw anyone shooting a gun.
Great case you've got there indeed.
cdddraftsman
shouldn't you let it out of your tiny jock strap , so we can all laugh
at it ? A ' Big Fella ' like you keeping all them there hidden
assassins to your self and not sharing them with anyone ?
................. Well A S S H O L E ? Cough up the goods , put the
curtain rods up or get off the pot ! :
http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=437rjvq
......TL
Anthony Marsh
> Well ? What about it A S S H O L E ? If there was a Conspiracy ,
> shouldn't you let it out of your tiny jock strap , so we can all laugh
> at it ? A ' Big Fella ' like you keeping all them there hidden
> assassins to your self and not sharing them with anyone ?
> ................. Well A S S H O L E ? Cough up the goods , put the
> curtain rods up or get off the pot ! :
> http://tinypic.com/view/?pic=437rjvq
> ......TL
>
>
You have nothing better to do with your time? How about doing some
actual research?
dcwi...@netscape.net
begin it. All hail! DVP & his impregnable fortress of evidence!
dw
David Von Pein wrote:
David Von Pein
Shame on me for not checking with a kook named Healy on what TV/Book
products I like and choose to review. I'll be sure to get Healy's
approval from now on.
(Although I'd probably be reviewing nothing but Pro Wrestling videos
and James Fetzer books if I were to rely on Healy's tastes.)
David Von Pein
Damn right.
But it's not MY fortress of evidence. It's the fortress of evidence that
DOES EXIST in the John F. Kennedy murder case. And it's been there for 43
years. CTers just want to either ignore it, skewer it, skew it, or pour
gasoline over it (for no really good-enough reason whatsoever). Go figure
that.
~~~~
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury....if Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to
do with President Kennedy's assassination and was framed....this otherwise
independent and defiant would-be revolutionary, who disliked taking orders
from anyone, turned out to be the most willing and cooperative frame-ee in
the history of mankind!!!
Because the evidence of his guilt is so monumental, that he could have
just as well gone around with a large sign on his back declaring in bold
letters 'I Just Murdered President John F. Kennedy'!!!
Anyone...ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent,
would believe someone who told them that they heard a cow speaking the
Spanish language." -- Vincent Bugliosi
dcwi...@netscape.net
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "All hail! DVP & his impregnable fortress of evidence!" <<<
>
> Damn right.
>
> But it's not MY fortress of evidence. It's the fortress of evidence that
> DOES EXIST in the John F. Kennedy murder case. And it's been there for 43
> years. CTers just want to either ignore it, skewer it, skew it, or pour
> gasoline over it (for no really good-enough reason whatsoever). Go figure
> that.
>
disinterested party who continued to mourn the sudden shocking death of
a very likable, witty President. Then, a movie was about to come out,
& I read in the political columns of the SF Chronicle & Examiner that
the movie should not have been made, but since it was made it should be
boycotted, or at least not seen. That's when I began to get
interested--why were these columnists worried about the reception of a
movie which questioned the Lone Gunman story? Was their worry just for
my own good? Or their good? I was hooked--there was at least some
ambiguity, which I had not realized before. Despite this "fortress of
evidence", these columnists (I think George Will was one of them) were
worried that it was, well, maybe, pregnable....
dw
James K. Olmstead
<dcwi...@netscape.net> wrote in message news:1166251250.9...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
Few today can argue that Oswald was totally "innocent" of involvement, in
actions that led to the death of JFK. It is the fine line between "operative"
and "independent action" that is difficult to remove from consideration....that's
because of how the case was offically handled.....
>> Because the evidence of his guilt is so monumental, that he could have
>> just as well gone around with a large sign on his back declaring in bold
>> letters 'I Just Murdered President John F. Kennedy'!!!
That evidence.....to be so "monumental" has to ignore anything exculpatory
relating to the exact same evidence.
>>
>> Anyone...ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent,
>> would believe someone who told them that they heard a cow speaking the
>> Spanish language." -- Vincent Bugliosi
Perhaps......but some hold that he was framed... one reason is.due to the lack
of any major effort to balance the prosecutional effort with some greater level
of defense position during the WC, on Oswald's "involvement" but not being
the shooter.
jko
>
>
David Von Pein
Will was one of them) were worried that it was, well, maybe,
pregnable...." <<<
Yeah...Either that or they realized from the get-go that Stone's "JFK" was
full of virtually nothing but misrepresentations, distortions, and
outright lies.
Ever think of that option?
So, once more, you're proving that people won't think for themselves and
look at the evidence themselves...but will, instead, let their opinions be
guided (at least partially) by the feelings and opinions of others...when
you imply that your thinking was initially being guided by a batch of San
Francisco "columnists", as you insinuate that those newspaper people were
trying to hide something by denouncing Stone's film as not worth seeing.
Did a handful of S.F. columnists actually continue some kind of "cover
up"? Or were they merely aware that Stone's movie was not representing the
truth with respect to the JFK assassination?
I'll give the columnists the benefit of the doubt and choose that latter
option. (And after having seen the film, I'd pin a medal on each of those
columnists' chests if I knew where to find them. Because they were 100%
right.)
dcwi...@netscape.net
they have a *patent* on "the truth"? You're very trusting. I'm not.
And I don't believe in pre-emptive strikes against countries or movies....
dw
eca...@comcast.net
dcwi...@netscape.net
I thought I'd answered this, but.... One person's lie is another person's
Warren Report. I'm afraid even you can't play Gawd & decide what's
misrepresentation & what's just plain old representation. Or you can,
rather, but then others, in turn, can second you or overrule you. As for
the columnists, I don't believe in pre-emptive strikes, in war or in
publishing or in moviemaking. And I trust artists a bit more than
columnists....
dw
David Von Pein
Could they have seen it in advance of the film's general public release?
guybann...@aol.com
was found in a[n] [Indiana?] motel shortly after the assassination? I
believe I forst read of it several years ago in the first edition of
Dick Russell's "The Man Who Knew Too Much."
If so, can you review the case? Any new developments to report?
eca...@comcast.net
as a 5 star only because
they don't offer a 10 star
option!
I hope all you new researchers
will take a minute to READ
David's superb post. It's so
strong that I think this one
may not even be rebutted.
MR ;~D
Regards and Merry Christmas
Ed Cage 0641Dec1706
(Cowboys torch the Falcons
38-28 as Romo sizzles..)
tomnln
events?
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1166333159.7...@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
dcwi...@netscape.net
David Von Pein wrote:
> >>> "These guys were "reviewing" the movie before it came out!" <<<
>
> Could they have seen it in advance of the film's general public release
As I recall, they did not so indicate. Furthermore, as I recall (again),
one or two of them did write *after* the film's release, but did not seem
to have bothered to see it. At any rate, their desire to keep me from the
movie made me want to see it. Of course, it could all have been a
reverse-psychological publicity stunt, meant to stoke the controversy.
"Banned by George Will"--what more incentive could one want to see the
banned article?!
dw
tomnln
Historical Events?
ALL movies use "Artistic License".
That's the ONLY way one can compress years into a 2-3 hour movie.
Did Oliver Stone Destroy Evidence?
The authorities DID. Those are Felonies.
http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1166304469.5...@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> DVP -- These guys were "reviewing" the movie before it came out! And did
Someone leaked a draft of the script.
> they have a *patent* on "the truth"? You're very trusting. I'm not.
> And I don't believe in pre-emptive strikes against countries or movies....
>
Columnists review movies before they are released.