BATTLING AN "OSWALD IS INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY" KOOK

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 3, 2007, 12:00:52 AM4/3/07

to

>>> "Why in hell would Oswald stop to eject the shells from his pistol after he allegedly shot Tippit? Was he trying to set himself up?!" <<<

You'll have to ask the murderer himself (Oswald) that question. (If
you can dig him up.)

But Oswald DID do just that, i.e., eject four shells at the scene of
the Tippit murder. Of that there is not a shred of a doubt. Multiple
witnesses positively IDed Oswald as the SHELL-DUMPING KILLER, for Pete
sake!

What MORE do you need to be convinced of his guilt?

I doubt if a film of Oz doing his evil deeds in Dallas would convince
a lot of you conspiracy kooks of Oz's guilt. That's why
you're....kooks (of course).

Read up on the Tippit case before posting any more stupid comments
like the ones you wrote above, Clement. Okay?

Try the WC testimony of Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis first. Are
both of these young girls "in" on the plot to frame a poor innocent
"patsy"? (Get real.).....

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/davis_b.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/davis_vc.htm

TIPPIT'S MURDER AND THE HILARIOUS DEFENSE OF LEE OSWALD:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/85fe573544d89f90

And Gerald Ford's "on paper" "move" of the back wound does NOTHING to
discredit the SBT at all. Here's why:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bf3ae3c6c0993e13

>>> "You didn't see Oswald eject those shells, so you can't say that." <<<

LOL. You're too funny, Mr. Kook. By this oddball logic of yours, the
fact that *I* didn't "see" Oz eject the shells would therefore mean,
if I had been on Oswald's jury at a trial, I would be forced to
believe that Oz really DIDN'T eject them, regardless of how many
witnesses claimed to see him do it. Right?

Geesh. God help us if you ever sit on a jury.

>>> "Those "multiple witnesses" were losing relatives and getting death threats; so sure they IDed Oswald fast!" <<<

You're really in fantasy-land now. Just exactly how many relatives did
Barbara and Virginia Davis lose to the proverbial "Mystery Death
Squad" post-Nov. 22nd?

The "Mystery Deaths" thing is yet another of the silly CT myths you've
fallen for, I see. Typical.

But let's take a look at some of those "mystery" deaths, to see if
they make ANY sense at all....

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d52845e6c744cccf

>>> "Oswald was never tried or convicted of ANY murder..." <<<

Only because Jack Ruby (another lone nut) intervened. But, per Mr.
Finn-kook, we should just IGNORE all the evidence that leads to ONLY
Oswald (and it's approx. 58 miles high) and give him 2 free murders on
the house because there was never a "trial" to convict him.

If Charlie Manson and Susan Atkins had been killed before their trial,
would I be obliged to ignore all of the evidence of their guilt in the
7 Tate-LaBianca murders in 1969, too?

>>> "You're stuck in THEORY land..." <<<

Not at all. You, being a rabid conspiracist (via your silly postings
thus far), are the one stuck in "theory land". That's all CTers have
are "theories"...and unsupportable crazy ones at that.

The "LN" crowd has something else -- Hard, physical, documented
evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered 2 men in 1963.

You should be embarrassed by desiring to willingly set a known double-
killer free. If you knew anything at all about the verified evidence
in the JFK/Tippit cases, you couldn't blather on about poor Oswald's
constitutional rights. That talk sickens me.

Oswald was guilty. Live with it.

~~~~~~~~~~

A "Vince Preview" of what's coming in May 2007:

"Oswald, from his own lips, TOLD us he was guilty....he told us he was
guilty....almost the same as if he had said 'I murdered President
Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell us? Well, the lies he told,
one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE consciousness of guilt.

"If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny
purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why
did he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary
to do that if he's innocent?

"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 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

>>> "You need to get past the Warren Commission and read some of the HSCA, which found conspiracy." <<<

Are you really this stupid? The HSCA came to the same identical
conclusion that the WC did 15 years earlier with regard to the ONLY
gunman who hit any victims on 11/22/63 -- with that gunman being Lee
Harvey Oswald.

Hence, the HSCA declared Oswald the murderer of President Kennedy
(plus Officer Tippit).

The since-debunked Dictabelt crap is the ONLY thing that led the HSCA
to the (false) notion of conspiracy.

But even WITH that "probable conspiracy" declaration, the HSCA deemed
Oswald guilty....something that you can't seem to do, despite TWO
Govt. inquiries that say he's guilty as hell.

>>> "If you're not rabid why is everyone who disagrees with you a kook?" <<<

Because it's a word that perfectly fits conspiracy theorists like you.
And, it's fun to say.

Your first comments to me re. the Tippit shells proved instantly that
you resided in the "kook" category.

For, anyone who thinks Oswald even MIGHT be innocent of killing Tippit
is either nuts or is sleeping with Oliver Stone and/or Jim Garrison's
ghost.

>>> "I'm willing to entertain most any theory in this case, even that Oswald acted alone. But no one can PROVE anything in it anymore." <<<

It's already been proven sixteen ways to Sunday. You just don't want
to accept the official versions of Oz's guilt, merely because a guy
with a robe wasn't sitting behind a high desk someplace. Thus...you're
a kook. A kook who is dead-wrong. ~Mark VII~

Yes, I lied. I said I was done listening to you.

But kook-fighting is my job, you see. The CIA pays me well, so it's
hard just to bypass such an easy target as your kooky self whenever
you say something stupid...like you've been doing today.

>>> "The law requires more than the fact that a defendant lied about something to get a conviction." <<<

As if that "more" doesn't exist in the two murders Oz committed.
You're a stitch.

There's enough "more" there to convict Oz 30 times over and everybody
with a brain knows it -- his guns, his shells, his bullets, his
prints, witnesses to Oz committing both murders, his own actions right
after both murders. The list is almost endless.

The EVIDENCE convicts him too, you know. Whether it was presented in a
court or not...the evidence still EXISTS. It's not going away. And
you're goofy to ignore it all just because Ruby intervened.

>>> "And that tells me that no person has ever been tried in acourt of law in the murder of John F. Kennedy." <<<

Dead-wrong. Clay Shaw was. And it took the jury less than one hour to
return with a verdict of Not Guilty.

>>> "Nobody else wants to bother talking with you; only misguided charity has kept me around." <<<

Consider yourself freed up from your horrible burden then. Stop
talking. Because I'm certainly done listening to you. There's no
reasoning with kooks like you. So take a hike.

Happy trails as you continue to attempt to exonerate a proven-guilty
double-murderer.

Hitler's probably on your "innocent" list too, right?

tomnln

unread,

Apr 3, 2007, 1:14:11 AM4/3/07

to

Virginia Davis's phone number was found in Ruby's note book.

Wanna address THAT?>>> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1175572852.3...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 3, 2007, 2:32:26 AM4/3/07

to

>>> "Virginia Davis's phone number was found in Ruby's notebook." <<<

And was the 16-year-old kid named Virginia Davis "plotting" with Jack
Ruby in some manner to "frame" poor "patsy" Lee H. Oswald?

Is that what you're getting at here? Or do you have any idea what
you're getting at, Mr. kook-sack?

There seems to be a lot of teenagers in this plot of yours. .... Davis
(16), Frazier (19), Euins (15)...he's a plotter too, isn't he? Surely
he is, since he saw the "pipe" in the SN window, where certain kooks
don't even think a gunman was located at all. So Euins MUST be just
making up the "pipe". So, yeah, he's a lying plotter for sure.

And then there's a MAJOR (young) plotter named Bonnie Ray Williams
(age 19 or 20 as of 11/22/63)...and Williams, as we all know, was also
known as Bonnie Ray "WAVE A USELESS RIFLE OUT THE 5TH-FLOOR WINDOW
WHILE WE FRAME THE PATSY FROM A *DIFFERENT* FLOOR" Williams, per Mr.
Willis.

The plotters must've had trouble recruiting any seasoned, veteran
patsy-framers...so they went with the high-school kids for the biggest
PATSY PLOT they'd ever slap together. Nice.