Whose Finger Prints ?

Walt

unread,

Mar 25, 2008, 11:33:36 AM3/25/08

to

Detective Pete Barnes dusted the side of JD Tippits car for finger
prints while it sat on 10th street where Tippit had been shot and
killed about an hour earlier. Pete found sme identifiable prints on
the side of the car, and those prints were NOT Lee Oswald's. Several
witnesses saw the pedestrain who shot Tippit lean on the side of
Tippit's patrol car as he talked to Tippit through the open vent
window. The DPD attempted to match the prints that Pete Barnes found
to Lee Oswald and determined that the prints had NOT been left on
Tippit's car by Oswald's fingers.

Ordinarily finger print evidence is used as either incriminating or
exculpatory evidence. Why was it completely ignored in this case?? I
consider myself fairly knowledgable about the facts surrounding the
murder of JD Tippit but until recently I never knew that the cops had
found fingerprints that were probably deposited on Tippit's car by the
killer. Perhaps I just overlooked this evidence but I feel sure that
the DPD kept this information quiet.

When the DPD discovered that the prints were not Oswald's why didn't
they attempt to identify those prints???

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,

Mar 25, 2008, 4:38:00 PM3/25/08

to

Great question Walt. I have asked DVP to explain this several times
but of course he goes into his shuck and jive routine when I do. How
about this from the post I did yesterday?

"Dulles observed one afternoon that the commission had just learned
that the putative murder rifle had upon it **"the finger prints of
Lee
Oswald, among others."** It is a problem with this case that, when a
commission source offers this sort of canape of information, he so
often raises more questions than he settles. Who, to take a case, are
these "others" whose finger prints show up on Oswald's rifle?" "

Whose fingerprints were these on the rifle found in the TSBD? Why were
they not investigated or released? I think we know why, don't we?

Walt

unread,

Mar 25, 2008, 7:54:56 PM3/25/08

to

On 25 Mar, 14:38, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
wrote:

There are several problems in the above statement....

First off Oswald's prints were NOT found on the TSBD Carcano #C2766

His prints weren't there among others or alone......PERIOD!

If there were fingerprints of others on the rifle where were they??
Detective Day said the only prints he found were on the trigger
housing. and the wooden foregrip. Who found other prints?

There is no proof that Oswald owned that rifle on 11-22-63.

>
> Whose fingerprints were these on the rifle found in the TSBD? Why were

> they not investigated or released? I think we know why, don't we?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 25, 2008, 7:58:10 PM3/25/08

to

>>> "There is no proof that Oswald owned that rifle on 11-22-63." <<<

You're an idiot.

Message has been deleted

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,

Mar 25, 2008, 8:22:34 PM3/25/08

to

I agree 100%, but we can't expect the WC to say this can we?
Therefore, for the sake of this post I ask who else left prints on the
rifle found? Why don't we know this?

> > Whose fingerprints were these on the rifle found in the TSBD? Why were
> > they not investigated or released? I think we know why, don't we?- Hide quoted text -
>

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 25, 2008, 8:31:13 PM3/25/08

to

>>> "...But to simply create out of thin air some goofy theory that Oswald didn't own the MC on 11-22-63 takes a special kind of liar. A liar named Walt Cakebread." <<<

Just like this completely made-up invention of Walt's too (let's watch
as the kook imagines things that never happened):

"He [LHO] asked the [cab] driver to wait a couple of minutes
while he went to his room. The driver was parked at a bus stop and
told Oswald to hurry. While Oswald was in his room changing his
clothes a police car pulled up behind the CITY cab and honked the car
horn to warn the cab driver to move on out of the bus stop. The driver
left and circled the block. When Oswald emerged from his room hastily
putting on a jacket the cab was gone, a minute later at about 1:04,
the cab reappeared and took Oswald to the Texas theater." -- Walt;
03/24/08

Walt does, indeed, take the cake (and even the bread).

Bud

unread,

Mar 25, 2008, 8:52:56 PM3/25/08

to

Walt wrote:
> Detective Pete Barnes dusted the side of JD Tippits car for finger
> prints while it sat on 10th street where Tippit had been shot and
> killed about an hour earlier. Pete found sme identifiable prints on
> the side of the car, and those prints were NOT Lee Oswald's. Several
> witnesses saw the pedestrain who shot Tippit lean on the side of
> Tippit's patrol car as he talked to Tippit through the open vent
> window.

Name and quote these witnesses.

> The DPD attempted to match the prints that Pete Barnes found
> to Lee Oswald and determined that the prints had NOT been left on
> Tippit's car by Oswald's fingers.
>
> Ordinarily finger print evidence is used as either incriminating or
> exculpatory evidence.

There are never fingerprints found at murder scenes that are
neither?

> Why was it completely ignored in this case??

It wasn`t ignored, idiot, you said Barnes collected it.

> I
> consider myself fairly knowledgable about the facts surrounding the
> murder of JD Tippit but until recently I never knew that the cops had
> found fingerprints that were probably deposited on Tippit's car by the
> killer. Perhaps I just overlooked this evidence but I feel sure that
> the DPD kept this information quiet.

Where did you find the information?

> When the DPD discovered that the prints were not Oswald's why didn't
> they attempt to identify those prints???

How do you know they didn`t?

Bud

unread,

Mar 25, 2008, 9:08:40 PM3/25/08

to

Walt wrote:
> Detective Pete Barnes dusted the side of JD Tippits car for finger
> prints while it sat on 10th street where Tippit had been shot and
> killed about an hour earlier. Pete found sme identifiable prints on
> the side of the car, and those prints were NOT Lee Oswald's.

I just looked at Barne`s tetimony, and he said he found "smudges,
nothing of value". Some on the top of the door, some on the front
fender.

> Several
> witnesses saw the pedestrain who shot Tippit lean on the side of
> Tippit's patrol car as he talked to Tippit through the open vent
> window.

I looked at Markham`s testimony, and she said that the man she
identified as Oswald rested his arms on the door as he talked through
the open car door window (not vent) to Tippit.

Walt

unread,

Mar 25, 2008, 9:13:18 PM3/25/08

to

On 25 Mar, 18:16, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:

> On Mar 25, 6:58 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "There is no proof that Oswald owned that rifle on 11-22-63." <<<
>
> > You're an idiot.
>

> He's worse than an idiot.
>
> He's a liar.
>
> Walt lies...period.
>
> Walt lies about the JFK assassination in big details, and little
> details.
>
> He's an equally opportunity liar.
>
> He likes to lie.
>
> He lies when he says he doesn't lie.
>
> Don't get me wrong...Walt is about as big an idiot as there is on this
> board, but he is also a liar. To argue that Oswald didn't shoot
> Kennedy, or that he did and he had help is one thing, but to simply

> create out of thin air some goofy theory that Oswald didn't own the MC
> on 11-22-63 takes a special kind of liar.
>
> A liar named Walt Cakebread.

I'm sure you can point out at least ONE lie...... Let's see it.

Walt

unread,

Mar 25, 2008, 9:30:01 PM3/25/08

to

On 25 Mar, 19:08, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> Walt wrote:
> > Detective Pete Barnes dusted the side of JD Tippits car for finger
> > prints while it sat on 10th street where Tippit had been shot and
> > killed about an hour earlier. Pete found sme identifiable prints on
> > the side of the car, and those prints were NOT Lee Oswald's.
>
> I just looked at Barne`s tetimony, and he said he found "smudges,
> nothing of value". Some on the top of the door, some on the front
> fender.

Take a look at pages 274, 275, 276, & 277 in With Malice.

The prints are very clear, and they are not Oswald's

>
> > Several
> > witnesses saw the pedestrain who shot Tippit lean on the side of
> > Tippit's patrol car as he talked to Tippit through the open vent
> > window.
>
> I looked at Markham`s testimony, and she said that the man she
> identified as Oswald rested his arms on the door as he talked through
> the open car door window (not vent) to Tippit.

Markham was on the left side of the car about 150 feet SW of the car,
she couldn't tell if the window was up or down from her position.
However photos show that the wing window is wide open.

Billy Smith and Jimmy Burt saw the killer leaning with his hands on
the car.
Actually this makes sense when you know that the killer was talking
through the wing window. Markham's account doesn't make sense,
because it would be a bit awkward for a man to put his elbows down
that low and try to talk through the vent window. .....While on the
other hand it would be a natural and comfortable stance to place the
right hand on the rear of the front fender and the left had beneath
the window while talking through the vent window.

>
>
>
> > The DPD attempted to match the prints that Pete Barnes found
> > to Lee Oswald and determined that the prints had NOT been left on
> > Tippit's car by Oswald's fingers.
>
> > Ordinarily finger print evidence is used as either incriminating or
> > exculpatory evidence. Why was it completely ignored in this case?? I
> > consider myself fairly knowledgable about the facts surrounding the
> > murder of JD Tippit but until recently I never knew that the cops had
> > found fingerprints that were probably deposited on Tippit's car by the
> > killer. Perhaps I just overlooked this evidence but I feel sure that
> > the DPD kept this information quiet.
>
> > When the DPD discovered that the prints were not Oswald's why didn't

> > they attempt to identify those prints???- Hide quoted text -

Message has been deleted

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 12:14:19 AM3/26/08

to

In article <ae06df00-9f0f-4504...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...

>
>On 25 Mar, 18:16, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:

It doesn't matter how many times you challenge the trolls... they can't produce
the lies that they accuse everyone of.

Yet on the other side - I seem to have no problem *quoting* their lies and the
giving the citations that make it so.

Walt - they *have* to assert that you're a liar - because they can't confront
the evidence you keep raising.

Sad, really...

Message has been deleted

rwalker

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 1:46:21 AM3/26/08

to

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:07b6e8a5-c643-4cbe...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

>
>>>> "There is no proof that Oswald owned that rifle on 11-22-63." <<<
>
>
> You're an idiot.

Thank you!

Bud

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 5:31:27 AM3/26/08

to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <ae06df00-9f0f-4504...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Walt says...
> >
> >On 25 Mar, 18:16, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 25, 6:58=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > >>> "There is no proof that Oswald owned that rifle on 11-22-63." <<<
> >>
> >> > You're an idiot.
> >>
> >> He's worse than an idiot.
> >>
> >> He's a liar.
> >>
> >> Walt lies...period.
> >>
> >> Walt lies about the JFK assassination in big details, and little
> >> details.
> >>
> >> He's an equally opportunity liar.
> >>
> >> He likes to lie.
> >>
> >> He lies when he says he doesn't lie.
> >>
> >> Don't get me wrong...Walt is about as big an idiot as there is on this
> >> board, but he is also a liar. To argue that Oswald didn't shoot
> >> Kennedy, or that he did and he had help is one thing, but to simply
> >> create out of thin air some goofy theory that Oswald didn't own the MC
> >> on 11-22-63 takes a special kind of liar.
> >>
> >> A liar named Walt Cakebread.
> >
> >I'm sure you can point out at least ONE lie...... Let's see it.
>
> It doesn't matter how many times you challenge the trolls... they can't produce
> the lies that they accuse everyone of.

Walt averages two lies every post he makes of substance. I pointed
out half a dozen in his recent post about what Brennan said. Many of
them were lies I exposed as lies in previous discussions with him, but
that hasn`t stopped him from telling them.

> Yet on the other side - I seem to have no problem *quoting* their lies and the
> giving the citations that make it so.

I`ll post up another installment of my "Ben Holmes`s Lying Lies"
series if you like.

> Walt - they *have* to assert that you're a liar -

Because we hate lies and liars.

> because they can't confront
> the evidence you keep raising.

Walt constantly puts words in the witnesses mouths that they never
said. He constantly represents his conclusions as established fact,
when they are not. The fact is that Walt constantly lies about,
distorts, misrepresents and misinterprets every aspect of the case he
discusses. Anyone familiar with the case that had any honesty at all
would know this. You, of course would not. But, instead of throwing
your support in from the wings, why not stop hiding and come out and
support the things Walt claims?

> Sad, really...

Pitiful, actually, the both of you.

Bud

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 5:55:56 AM3/26/08

to

Walt wrote:
> On 25 Mar, 19:08, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > Detective Pete Barnes dusted the side of JD Tippits car for finger
> > > prints while it sat on 10th street where Tippit had been shot and
> > > killed about an hour earlier. � Pete found sme identifiable prints on
> > > the side of the car, and those prints were NOT Lee Oswald's.
> >
> > � �I just looked at Barne`s tetimony, and he said he found "smudges,
> > nothing of value". Some on the top of the door, some on the front
> > fender.
>
> Take a look at pages 274, 275, 276, & 277 in With Malice.

Don`t have that book. But, that car had people in and out of it
after the shooting, they could be Benavides`s, Callaway`s, Bowley`s,
or any of the dozen of people around the car, some of who can be heard
on the police tapes giving the address.

> The prints are very clear, and they are not Oswald's

Says who? Barnes said he collected no usable prints, so who
collected them and tried to match them?

> > > � Several

> > > witnesses saw the pedestrain who shot Tippit lean on the side of
> > > Tippit's patrol car as he talked to Tippit through the open vent
> > > window.
> >
> > � �I looked at Markham`s testimony, and she said that the man she
> > identified as Oswald rested his arms on the door as he talked through
> > the open car door window (not vent) to Tippit.
>
> Markham was on the left side of the car about 150 feet SW of the car,
> she couldn't tell if the window was up or down from her position.
> However photos show that the wing window is wide open.

Those photos weren`t taken during the shooting. Callaway or
somebody took Tippit`s gun and put it in the front seat of the patrol
car. It`s not unlikely he would roll up the window to prevent anyone
from reaching in and taking it.

> Billy Smith and Jimmy Burt saw the killer leaning with his hands on
> the car.

Are you kinding? They were both inside a house a block away when
they heard shots. They came out, got in their car, and drove to the
scene. How could they see what occurred before the shooting?

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

> Actually this makes sense when you know that the killer was talking
> through the wing window.

Markham, the only real witness to the shooting, said Oz talked to
Tippit through the car door window, with his arms resting on the
window ledge. She was there.

> Markham's account doesn't make sense,

Because you`re an idiot. You want to replace what she said with
things your mind invents.

> because it would be a bit awkward for a man to put his elbows down
> that low and try to talk through the vent window. ....

It doesn`t make sense when you disregard what she said. She didn`t
say anything about a wing window, she said the person she identified
as Oz had his "arms" on the "window ledge". Not "elbows", and not
"vent window".

>.While on the
> other hand it would be a natural and comfortable stance to place the
> right hand on the rear of the front fender and the left had beneath
> the window while talking through the vent window.

This is what you do with every aspect of the case you look at. You
brain replaces what is actually in evidence with whatever your brain
cooks up. And your brain is a lousy cook.

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 9:51:54 AM3/26/08

to

On 25 Mar, 19:53, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:

> On Mar 25, 8:13 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > I'm sure you can point out at least ONE lie...... Let's see it.
>

> Your bald faced assertion that there is no evidence Oswald owned the
> MC on 11/22/63.

Psssst.... Schmuck... I can say that there isn't any proof that Oswald
owned that rifle, or had possession of it on 11-22-63. You may not
agree with me, but unless you can prove he did, it's just a matter of
two differing opinions. You really need to educate yourself about
what constitutes a lie.

I think the Warren Commission was a pack of liars.....And I think you
believe them, therefore if you KNOW that they lied and you perpetrate
and propagate the lie then you are the liar.

>
> There is plenty of evidence he owned the rifle...before 11/22/63, and
> on that fateful day.

Let's see the PROOF.....

>
> Do we really, really need to go through all of it, Cakebread?
>
> It just doesn't fit in with your "Lee Oswald, American Hero" template,
> so you lie and say there is no evidence he owned it.
>
> You should be ashamed of posting something so ridiculous.
>
> You're beyond buffdom.
>
> You're an Unreachable...that special brand of MegaKook that willfully
> ignores every single scrap of evidence that points towards your hero
> Oswald.

Oh No, I'm not "unreachable".... I'm just a stubborn SOB who wants to
see the PROOF, before I'll believe the world is flat. You show me
the Proof and I'll change in a heatbeat.

>
> A lot of people think there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy.
>
> Very few deny he owned the rifle.

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 9:56:11 AM3/26/08

to

On 25 Mar, 22:43, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Mar 25, 11:14 pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <ae06df00-9f0f-4504-93dd-032f0b0db...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

> > Sad, really...- Hide quoted text -

>
> > - Show quoted text -
>

> What is sad, really, is your belief that you are some sort of scholar
> on the JFK assassination.
>
> Seems you haven't been around much since Todd made mincemeat out of
> your Officer Chaney claims and the pointed work Tim Brennan and
> others, like Burly,unearthed regarding your Nix/Zapruder film
> silliness.
>
> Of course, you won't respond to this because you have me killfiled.

If Ben has you killfiled......

If "killfile" another name for "circular file" which is another term
for TRASH CAN?..... That's where you should be filed.

>
> Coward.- Hide quoted text -

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 10:25:01 AM3/26/08

to

In article <03fc9146-79f1-4ce0...@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...
>

>On 25 Mar, 22:43, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:

>> On Mar 25, 11:14=A0pm, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <ae06df00-9f0f-4504-93dd-032f0b0db...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups=

>.com>,
>> > Walt says...
>>
>> > >On 25 Mar, 18:16, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:

>> > >> On Mar 25, 6:58=3DA0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> > >>> "There is no proof that Oswald owned that rifle on 11-22-63." <=

><<
>>
>> > >> > You're an idiot.
>>
>> > >> He's worse than an idiot.
>>
>> > >> He's a liar.
>>
>> > >> Walt lies...period.
>>
>> > >> Walt lies about the JFK assassination in big details, and little
>> > >> details.
>>
>> > >> He's an equally opportunity liar.
>>
>> > >> He likes to lie.
>>
>> > >> He lies when he says he doesn't lie.
>>

>> > >> Don't get me wrong...Walt is about as big an idiot as there is on thi=

>s
>> > >> board, but he is also a liar. To argue that Oswald didn't shoot
>> > >> Kennedy, or that he did and he had help is one thing, but to simply
>> > >> create out of thin air some goofy theory that Oswald didn't own the
>> > >> MC on 11-22-63 takes a special kind of liar.
>>
>> > >> A liar named Walt Cakebread.
>>
>> > >I'm sure you can point out at least ONE lie...... Let's see it.
>>
>> > It doesn't matter how many times you challenge the trolls... they can't
>> > produce the lies that they accuse everyone of.

And interestingly, they STILL haven't done it.

>> > Yet on the other side - I seem to have no problem *quoting* their lies
>> > and the giving the citations that make it so.
>>
>> > Walt - they *have* to assert that you're a liar - because they can't
>> > confront the evidence you keep raising.
>>
>> > Sad, really...
>>

>> What is sad, really, is your belief that you are some sort of scholar
>> on the JFK assassination.

Compared to you, I am.

Compared to others, I'm a dabbler... but in neither case can you answer the
evidence.

Notice that Chuckie didn't quote any "lies" and give the citations that made
them so for either Walt or myself.

He can't.

>> Seems you haven't been around much since Todd made mincemeat out of
>> your Officer Chaney claims

Never happened.

Chaney said what he said, and my cites have always been accurate. It's not
possible to make "mincemeat" out of factual evidence.

Nor can you quote any such happening...

>> and the pointed work Tim Brennan and
>> others, like Burly,unearthed regarding your Nix/Zapruder film
>> silliness.

What was silly was the trolls trying to claim that they saw only *two* people on
the grass in the relevant Nix frame. Care to try defending that obvious lie?

The films don't match - and you have a problem that you can't handle.

>> Of course, you won't respond to this because you have me killfiled.
>
>If Ben has you killfiled......

Yep... I do. I routinely killfile *all* the trolls. I really have better
things to do. If a troll wants my comments, all he has to do is write a good
enough post that will draw the comments of others on this forum who are *NOT*
killfiled.

>If "killfile" another name for "circular file" which is another term
>for TRASH CAN?..... That's where you should be filed.

Yep... nothing but lies and denials come from the killfiled trolls. Why bother?
Trolls think that they have some sort of right to hold debate with me - and they
certainly do - AS LONG AS THEY ANSWER MY QUESTIONS JUST AS I ANSWER THEIRS. But
when the trolls run, then they get killfiled.

>> Coward.

The coward is the one who makes statements, then can't support them. Such as
your comment that Toddy made "mincemeat" out of my "Officer Chaney claims."

Something you can't quote or defend.

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 10:31:51 AM3/26/08

to

On 26 Mar, 03:55, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> Walt wrote:
> > On 25 Mar, 19:08, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > Walt wrote:
> > > > Detective Pete Barnes dusted the side of JD Tippits car for finger
> > > > prints while it sat on 10th street where Tippit had been shot and
> > > > killed about an hour earlier. � Pete found sme identifiable prints on
> > > > the side of the car, and those prints were NOT Lee Oswald's.
>
> > > � �I just looked at Barne`s tetimony, and he said he found "smudges,
> > > nothing of value". Some on the top of the door, some on the front
> > > fender.
>
> > Take a look at pages 274, 275, 276, & 277 in With Malice.
>
> Don`t have that book. But, that car had people in and out of it
> after the shooting, they could be Benavides`s, Callaway`s, Bowley`s,
> or any of the dozen of people around the car, some of who can be heard
> on the police tapes giving the address.
>
> > The prints are very clear, and they are not Oswald's
>
> Says who? Barnes said he collected no usable prints, so who
> collected them and tried to match them?

Hey Dumbass, ask someone who has "With Malice" if Barnes got nice
clear prints off the side of Tippit's car. Then ask them to look on
page 277
which displays the right index finger print from Tippits car and the
right index finger print of Oswald, even a nearly blind man can see
that the fingerprint on Tippit's car was NOT Lee Oswald's.

that car had people in and out of it after the shooting, they could be
Benavides`s, Callaway`s, Bowley`s, or any of the dozen of people
around the car,

Thank you for making my point.... Why weren't those people asked to
submit their finger print as a way of eliminating them as the innocent
person who inadvertantly placed their finger prints EXACTLY where a
man leaning down to talk through the vent window would place his
hands???

> > � Several
> > > > witnesses saw the pedestrain who shot Tippit lean on the side of
> > > > Tippit's patrol car as he talked to Tippit through the open vent
> > > > window.
>
> > > � �I looked at Markham`s testimony, and she said that the man she
> > > identified as Oswald rested his arms on the door as he talked through
> > > the open car door window (not vent) to Tippit.
>
> > Markham was on the left side of the car about 150 feet SW of the car,
> > she couldn't tell if the window was up or down from her position.
> > However photos show that the wing window is wide open.
>
> Those photos weren`t taken during the shooting. Callaway or
> somebody took Tippit`s gun and put it in the front seat of the patrol
> car. It`s not unlikely he would roll up the window to prevent anyone
> from reaching in and taking it.

After they loaded Tippit into the ambulance someone put Tippit's
pistol on the hood of his car. Bowley said he took Tippit's revolver
off the hood of the car where someone had placed it and put it on the
driver's seat of the squad car. Ted Callaway took it from the car, and
commandeered Scroggins and his Taxi in an attempt to hunt down the
killer.

Nobody rolled up any windows........

>
> > Billy Smith and Jimmy Burt saw the killer leaning with his hands on
> > the car.
>
> Are you kinding? They were both inside a house a block away when
> they heard shots. They came out, got in their car, and drove to the
> scene. How could they see what occurred before the shooting?

Perhaps you should read their afidavits....they're published in With
Malice, then you can come back and correct your erroneous statement.

>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/burt.htm
>
> > Actually this makes sense when you know that the killer was talking
> > through the wing window.
>
> Markham, the only real witness to the shooting, said Oz talked to
> Tippit through the car door window, with his arms resting on the
> window ledge. She was there.
>
> > Markham's account doesn't make sense,
>
> Because you`re an idiot. You want to replace what she said with
> things your mind invents.

THINK with yer tiny little pea brain..... If you were attempting to
talk to the driver of a car through the window, what posture would you
take?
If you're gonna put your arms on the "window ledge" you have to squat
down, because the your head would be jammed against the window if you
attempted to lean over and put your forearms on the "window ledge"

>
> > because it would be a bit awkward for a man to put his elbows down
> > that low and try to talk through the vent window. ....
>
> It doesn`t make sense when you disregard what she said. She didn`t
> say anything about a wing window, she said the person she identified
> as Oz had his "arms" on the "window ledge". Not "elbows", and not
> "vent window".

And I'm telling you that the photos show that the passenger windows
were closed..... but the vent window was open. Markham was on the
other side (left) of the car so she could not have known that the
window was closed.

>
> >.While on the
> > other hand it would be a natural and comfortable stance to place the
> > right hand on the rear of the front fender and the left had beneath
> > the window while talking through the vent window.
>
> This is what you do with every aspect of the case you look at. You
> brain replaces what is actually in evidence with whatever your brain
> cooks up. And your brain is a lousy cook.

Some folks think it's pretty good......Sorry if you don't like this
particular dish.....It's called "TRUTH"

>
>
> > > > The DPD attempted to match the prints that Pete Barnes found
> > > > to Lee Oswald and determined that the prints had NOT been left on
> > > > Tippit's car by Oswald's fingers.
>
> > > > Ordinarily finger print evidence is used as either incriminating or
> > > > exculpatory evidence. �Why was it completely ignored in this case?? �I
> > > > consider myself fairly knowledgable about the facts surrounding the
> > > > murder of JD Tippit but until recently I never knew that the cops had
> > > > found fingerprints that were probably deposited on Tippit's car by the
> > > > killer. �Perhaps I just overlooked this evidence but I feel sure that
> > > > the DPD kept this information quiet.
>
> > > > When the DPD discovered that the prints were not Oswald's why didn't
> > > > they attempt to identify those prints???- Hide quoted text -
>

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 11:44:30 AM3/26/08

to

On 25 Mar, 22:14, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> In article <ae06df00-9f0f-4504-93dd-032f0b0db...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

Ben,.... If I truely was a liar, I might be offended at someone
exposing my lies and showing me to be a liar. That's been my
experience with liars....They don't like to be exposed. Since I know
I'm not lying about any aspect of the information surrounding the
murder of president Kennedy, I'm not offended by some simpleton who is
a gullible, naive, fool, calling me a liar. How many people called C.
Columbus, T.E. Edison, Orville and Wilbur Wright, Albert Einstein, and
hundreds of others,...... a liar?
All the people who called the Wright's liars when they said they could
build a machine that would fly through the air are now unknown and
forgotten, because they refused to use their God given brains as God
intended for them to use them. The fools simply accepted the
OPINIONS of pseudo "experts" who proclaimed that the Wrights were
liars, and rather than use their own good God given brains they merely
regurgitate the OPINIONS of the "experts".

The only way I compare myself to the famous people memtioned above, is
that I too am a obstinate SOB who tries to use the marvelous computer
I was created with, as my creator intended for me to use it.

>
> Sad, really...- Hide quoted text -

aeffects

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 12:22:57 PM3/26/08

to

right on, Walt.... Keep on truck'in

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 1:32:41 PM3/26/08

to

Hey Dud, here's a little educational material for you. Find a 10 year
old who can comprehend what he reads, and have him tell you where Burt
and Smith were at the time Tippit was shot and killed.

Mr. Ball.
Did something happen a little after 1 o'clock there that day that you
noticed?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir; policeman got shot.
Mr. Ball.
Now, at the time the policeman was shot, where were you?
Mr. Smith.
In the front yard, at 505 East 10th.

IN THE FRONT YARD AT 505 EAST 10th.

Mr. Ball.
Who was with you?
Mr. Smith.
Jimmy Burt.

JIMMY BURT

Mr. Ball.
That was about how far from where the policeman got shot?
Mr. Smith.
One block.
Mr. Ball.
That would be about a block east, wouldn't it?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Policeman was shot in the 400 block?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
And you were in the 500 block?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
What called your attention to this incident?
Mr. Smith.
I heard some shots.
Mr. Ball.
And what? You looked down that way?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Mr. Ball.
Did you go down to where the policeman was shot?
Mr. Smith.
Yes.
Mr. Ball.
What did you see?
Mr. Smith.
Saw the policeman lying on the ground. I mean on the street.
Mr. Ball.
And did a crowd gather around there?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
How long did you stay there?
Mr. Smith.
About 45 minutes.
Mr. Ball.
Did you give your name to the police?
Mr. Smith.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Why?
Mr. Smith.
Because I was on probation. I thought it might hurt my probation
record.
Mr. Ball.
All right; you did tell someone you had seen it, didn't you?
Mr. Smith.
Yes.
Mr. Ball.
Who?
Mr. Smith.
This boy I ran around with.
Mr. Ball.
What's his name?
Mr. Smith.
James Markham.
Mr. Ball.
Is he the son of Helen Markham?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Did you talk to her?
Mr. Smith.
No, sir; she talks to me.
Mr. Ball.
Mrs. Markham talked to you?
Mr. Smith.
Yes.
Mr. Ball.
And did you tell Mrs. Markham?
Mr. Smith.
I told her what I saw and that is the reason I am here, I a----
Mr. Ball.
Did the police come out and see you?
Mr. Smith.
The FBI.
Mr. Ball.
The FBI did? Did you tell them the same story you told me?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Now, did you see Oswald on television?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
On the night of the shooting?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Did it appear to you to be the same man you had seen?
Mr. Smith.
He had lighter hair than he did when I saw him.
Mr. Ball.
Well, now, wait a minute. You mean the man you saw on television----
Mr. Smith.
Had lighter hair.
Mr. Ball.
Mr. Smith--than the man you saw running away?
Mr. Smith.
Yes.
Mr. Ball.
Is that right?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
What color hair did the man have that you saw running away?
Mr. Smith.
Brown, brownish-black. It was dark.
Mr. Ball.
How did the hair appear on television?
Mr. Smith.
Looked blond.
Mr. Ball.
Were you later shown a picture of Oswald?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
By whom?
Mr. Smith.
FBI agent.
Mr. Ball.
What was the color of the hair in the picture?
Mr. Smith.
Brown.
Mr. Ball.
What did you see? What did you tell the FBI agent about the appearance
of the man in the picture?
Mr. Smith.
I said it looked more like him than it did on television.
Mr. Ball.
And did you think when he showed you the picture that it looked
anything like the man you had seen running away?
Mr. SMITH. What I saw of him; yes.
Mr. Ball.
First time you ever saw this man was after you heard these shots?
Mr. Smith.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Is that right? You had never seen him walking?
Mr. Smith.
No.
Mr. Ball.
You hadn't seen him walking in front of the house?
Mr. Smith.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
Where you were standing?
Mr. Smith.
No, sir.
Mr. Ball.
What kind of clothes did he have on when he shot the officer?
Mr. Smith.
He had on dark pants--just a minute. He had on dark pants and a sport
coat of some kind. I can't really remember very well.

Message has been deleted

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 2:59:01 PM3/26/08

to

In article <ebbf4261-95fb-4b9e...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

Compare your attitude with those that I've caught, quoted, and cited as liars.

The most recent one was on the verge of physical threats... Of course, anyone is
welcome anytime to confront me face to face anytime - I use my real name.

>That's been my
>experience with liars....They don't like to be exposed.

Yep... I know some who simply stop posting in this forum... Tony is one example.

>Since I know
>I'm not lying about any aspect of the information surrounding the
>murder of president Kennedy, I'm not offended by some simpleton who is
>a gullible, naive, fool, calling me a liar. How many people called C.
>Columbus, T.E. Edison, Orville and Wilbur Wright, Albert Einstein, and
>hundreds of others,...... a liar?
>All the people who called the Wright's liars when they said they could
>build a machine that would fly through the air are now unknown and
>forgotten, because they refused to use their God given brains as God
>intended for them to use them. The fools simply accepted the
>OPINIONS of pseudo "experts" who proclaimed that the Wrights were
>liars, and rather than use their own good God given brains they merely
>regurgitate the OPINIONS of the "experts".
>
>The only way I compare myself to the famous people memtioned above, is
>that I too am a obstinate SOB who tries to use the marvelous computer
>I was created with, as my creator intended for me to use it.
>
>
>> Sad, really...

I was particularly amused at Buddy the troll's characterization of the
fingerprints as "smudges."

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 3:01:34 PM3/26/08

to

>>> "You make up stuff, Walt. You get busted on it all the time." <<<

Yep. Constantly. But in a kook's world, "made up" stuff is the only
possible way they can get Oswald off the (double) murdering hook.
There is no other way to do it.

Monday's "Made-Up Stuff" example (reprise):

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 3:07:16 PM3/26/08

to

>>> "I was particularly amused at Buddy the troll's characterization of the fingerprints as "smudges"." <<<

Let's see what W.E. Barnes of the DPD actually said (at 7 WC 272):

Mr. BARNES. The first thing that I did was to check the right side of
Tippit's car for fingerprints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you find any fingerprints on the right side of the car?
Mr. BARNES. There was several smear prints. None of value.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0140b.htm

Replay:

"There was several smear prints. NONE OF VALUE."

"NONE OF VALUE."

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 3:07:36 PM3/26/08

to

aeffects

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 3:10:49 PM3/26/08

to

On Mar 26, 12:07 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I was particularly amused at Buddy the troll's characterization of the fingerprints as "smudges"." <<<
>
> Let's see what W.E. Barnes of the DPD actually said (at 7 WC 272):
>
> Mr. BARNES. The first thing that I did was to check the right side of
> Tippit's car for fingerprints.
> Mr. BELIN. Did you find any fingerprints on the right side of the car?
> Mr. BARNES. There was several smear prints. None of value.
>

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_014...

>
> Replay:
>
> "There was several smear prints. NONE OF VALUE."
>
> "NONE OF VALUE."
>
> "NONE OF VALUE."

english david, ENGLISH smear-smudge are they spelled the same?

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 3:21:30 PM3/26/08

to

>>> "english david, ENGLISH -- smear-smudge; are they spelled the same?" <<<

Buy a dictionary, Mr. Crackpipe. The official DEFINITION of "smudge"
IS "smear". (Duh.)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/smudge

smudge [noun, verb] smudged, smudg·ing.
-noun
1. a dirty mark or smear.
2. a smeary state.

Message has been deleted

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 3:55:33 PM3/26/08

to

Hey asshole, I'm merely proposing a possible scenario, just like the
Warren Commission proposed possible scenarios. The difference is my
scenario is based on the FACT that Oswald told the interrogators that
he rode a CITY cab to the theater.

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 4:07:47 PM3/26/08

to

On 26 Mar, 13:36, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:

> On Mar 26, 9:25 am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>
> > >> What is sad, really, is your belief that you are some sort of scholar
> > >> on the JFK assassination.
>
> > Compared to you, I am.
>

> No comparison needed, Ben. Your JFK knowledge is a mile wide and an
> inch deep. I readily admit that I'm not a JFK assassination scholar.
> The difference is that I know I'm not, nor do I pretend to be, and you
> think you are.

Schmuck wrote:..... "I readily admit that I'm not a JFK assassination
scholar.
The difference is that I know I'm not, nor do I pretend to be,"

First Schmuck tells the truth when he writes...."I readily admit that
I'm not a JFK assassination scholar."

But then closes the sentence with a gargantuan whopper.... "nor do I
pretend to be,"....

Hey Schmuck...If you don't think you know all about the murder of
President Kennedy, because you know the official tale from the Warren
report, why would you argue with those who have gone far beyond the
Warren Report and researched the actual evidence?

>
> And your not.

>
>
>
> > Compared to others, I'm a dabbler... but in neither case can you answer the
> > evidence.
>

> You have no evidence for conspiracy that hasn't been addressed and
> refuted.

>
>
>
> > Notice that Chuckie didn't quote any "lies" and give the citations that made
> > them so for either Walt or myself.
>
> > He can't.
>

> I'll quote your lies, and you'll claim I didn't. That's your pattern.

>
>
>
> > >> Seems you haven't been around much since Todd made mincemeat out of
> > >> your Officer Chaney claims
>
> > Never happened.
>

> Isn't your claim that Chaney said the limo stopped? Let's let lurkers
> judge.
>
> From a May 17th 2006 exchange with Martin Shackleford, you wrote:
>
> "Chaney asserts a shot, THEN a limo stop."
>
> Brought to light by Todd Vaughan recently, here's what Chaney said to
> KRLD/KDFW-TV:
>
> Reporter: Did the President's car stop?
> Chaney: I didn't see a stop.
>
> (KRLD Tape 9 - KRLD/KDFW-TV Collection/The Sixth Floor Museum at
> Dealey Plaza)
>
> (Another embarrassing day for Holmes.) Yep, you really know the
> 'evidence'.

>
> > Chaney said what he said, and my cites have always been accurate. It's not
> > possible to make "mincemeat" out of factual evidence.
>
> > Nor can you quote any such happening...
>

> How do you explain the KRLD/KDFW-TV interview then, you liar? Was that
> forged, too?

>
> > What was silly was the trolls trying to claim that they saw only *two* people on
> > the grass in the relevant Nix frame. Care to try defending that obvious lie?
>

> Easy. I can't say it better than Tim Brennan, so here's a post from
> March 21 of this year from a thread titled, "A Sincere Question For
> David Healy II".
>
> Tim <on>:
>
> "One thing I've noticed is that both Healy and Holmes don't want to
> discuss specifics of their theory any more. And here's why:
>
> "Holmes and Healy have both been asked how many light posts there
> were
> in the Main Street stretch of Dealey Plaza, but they won't reply.
> Reason is it shows *how silly* Holmes was to come up with his
> alteration nonsense in the first place. And *how silly* Healy was to
> agree with it.
>
> "There are four light posts, evenly spaced, in the Main Street
> stretch
> of Dealey Plaza. The first is near the peristyles and reflecting
> pools, the second and third are on the grass and the fourth is right
> at the end of the grass, where the road goes under the underpass.
>
> "Nix was standing on the corner of Main and Houston when he was
> filming. As his camera pans from right to left, following the car, it
> picks up light post # 2 in the foreground. As it continues to pan
> left
> it picks up *Yellow Legs* but never pans left enough to pick up light
> post # 3.
>
> "Now when Zapruder is filming, at around Z 369, when the Franzen
> group
> is in view, a light post can be seen in the background, and shortly
> after Main Street beyond it. For Holmes' theory to work, this would
> have to be light post # 2 but it isn't! It is light post # 3, the one
> that Nix's camera never panned far across enough to film in the
> assassination sequence.
>
> "You can tell it is light post # 3 as light post # 4 comes into view
> as
> Zapruder continues to pan right and the car goes under the underpass.
>
> "Nix and Zapruder never filmed the same section of grass, where
> *Yellow
> Legs* was standing, because Zapruder's camera never panned that far
> back. This can be shown with some of the links you have provided, if
> anyone is interested."
>
> <off>
>
> Another embarrassing day for Ben Holmes!

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 4:25:45 PM3/26/08

to

>>> "...why would you argue with those who have gone far beyond the Warren Report and researched the actual evidence...?" <<<

...And then mangled that "actual evidence" beyond all possible
recognition.

Care to address Brennan's 5/7/64 affidavit, Walt-Kook? The place where
Brennan said:

"...the man I saw firing a rifle fro[m] the southeast corner of
the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository..." -- H. Brennan

Brennan REALLY meant to say "southwest" when he said
"southeast"....right Walt-Kook?

Let's watch the evidence-mangling idiot named Walter Cakebread make up
more lies in order to worm his way out of this little "SOUTHEAST"
snafu.

We don't have to worry, though....because Walt will make something up
from pure whole cloth in order to have Brennan really seeing a gunman
in a west-end window instead of the SE/SN window, even though Howard
used the word "southeast" on May 7, 1964.

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 4:28:49 PM3/26/08

to

On 26 Mar, 13:07, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "I was particularly amused at Buddy the troll's characterization of the fingerprints as "smudges"." <<<
>
> Let's see what W.E. Barnes of the DPD actually said (at 7 WC 272):
>
> Mr. BARNES. The first thing that I did was to check the right side of
> Tippit's car for fingerprints.
> Mr. BELIN. Did you find any fingerprints on the right side of the car?
> Mr. BARNES. There was several smear prints. None of value.
>

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_014...

>
> Replay:
>
> "There was several smear prints. NONE OF VALUE."
>
> "NONE OF VALUE."
>
> "NONE OF VALUE."

Hey Von Pea Brain....Perhaps you'd better check pages274, 275, 276,
and 277 in the book "With Malice". On page 275 you'll see a
cluster of finger prints that Pete Barnes identified in his
handwriting as;

qoute.... " from the rt front fender of squad car" ....unqoute

That hand written note is written above a cluster of finger prints
some of which are very clear. The cluster of prints was lifted from
the upper rear area of the right front fender near the cowl. They
were found in the EXACT position on the car that a man would support
himself while leaning down to talk through the vent window. He must
have been very nervous because the constant hand movement required to
make that cluster of prints are just what would be expected of a very
nervous person.

On page 277 Myers shows the enlarged right index finger print of
Oswald next to an enlarged copy of a right index finger print lifted
by Barnes from the fender. They obviously DO NOT MATCH.

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 4:34:48 PM3/26/08

to

On 26 Mar, 14:25, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "...why would you argue with those who have gone far beyond the Warren Report and researched the actual evidence...?" <<<
>
> ...And then mangled that "actual evidence" beyond all possible
> recognition.
>
> Care to address Brennan's 5/7/64 affidavit, Walt-Kook? The place where
> Brennan said:

Hey Von Pea Brain, Let's not change the subject right now..... Let me
finish help up helping you make a fool of yourself on the subject of
this thread...."Whose Finger Prints". After I finish kickin yer ass
on this subject then if ya want more I accomodate you on Brennan's
affidavit.

Bud

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 4:56:08 PM3/26/08

to

Walt wrote:
> On 26 Mar, 03:55, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > On 25 Mar, 19:08, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > Detective Pete Barnes dusted the side of JD Tippits car for finger
> > > > > prints while it sat on 10th street where Tippit had been shot and
> > > > > killed about an hour earlier. � Pete found sme identifiable prints on
> > > > > the side of the car, and those prints were NOT Lee Oswald's.
> >
> > > > � �I just looked at Barne`s tetimony, and he said he found "smudges,
> > > > nothing of value". Some on the top of the door, some on the front
> > > > fender.
> >
> > > Take a look at pages 274, 275, 276, & 277 in With Malice.
> >
> > Don`t have that book. But, that car had people in and out of it
> > after the shooting, they could be Benavides`s, Callaway`s, Bowley`s,
> > or any of the dozen of people around the car, some of who can be heard
> > on the police tapes giving the address.
> >
> > > The prints are very clear, and they are not Oswald's
> >
> > Says who? Barnes said he collected no usable prints, so who
> > collected them and tried to match them?
>
> Hey Dumbass, ask someone who has "With Malice" if Barnes got nice
> clear prints off the side of Tippit's car.

Barnes said he didn`t. Why would I ask someone else?

> Then ask them to look on
> page 277
> which displays the right index finger print from Tippits car and the
> right index finger print of Oswald, even a nearly blind man can see
> that the fingerprint on Tippit's car was NOT Lee Oswald's.

There may be hundreds of fingerprints on a car.

> that car had people in and out of it after the shooting, they could be
> Benavides`s, Callaway`s, Bowley`s, or any of the dozen of people
> around the car,
>
> Thank you for making my point.... Why weren't those people asked to
> submit their finger print as a way of eliminating them as the innocent
> person who inadvertantly placed their finger prints

Barnes said he got no usable prints.

> EXACTLY where a
> man leaning down to talk through the vent window would place his
> hands???

Who said Oz spoke to Tippit through the vent window, idiot?

> > > � Several
> > > > > witnesses saw the pedestrain who shot Tippit lean on the side of
> > > > > Tippit's patrol car as he talked to Tippit through the open vent
> > > > > window.
> >
> > > > � �I looked at Markham`s testimony, and she said that the man she
> > > > identified as Oswald rested his arms on the door as he talked through
> > > > the open car door window (not vent) to Tippit.
> >
> > > Markham was on the left side of the car about 150 feet SW of the car,
> > > she couldn't tell if the window was up or down from her position.
> > > However photos show that the wing window is wide open.
> >
> > Those photos weren`t taken during the shooting. Callaway or
> > somebody took Tippit`s gun and put it in the front seat of the patrol
> > car. It`s not unlikely he would roll up the window to prevent anyone
> > from reaching in and taking it.
>
> After they loaded Tippit into the ambulance someone put Tippit's
> pistol on the hood of his car. Bowley said he took Tippit's revolver
> off the hood of the car where someone had placed it and put it on the
> driver's seat of the squad car. Ted Callaway took it from the car, and
> commandeered Scroggins and his Taxi in an attempt to hunt down the
> killer.
>
> Nobody rolled up any windows........

There is evidence that the windows were rolled up after the murder.
Markham indicates the passenger side was down when Tippit spoke with
Oz through it, and she was there, not you.

> > > Billy Smith and Jimmy Burt saw the killer leaning with his hands on
> > > the car.
> >
> > Are you kinding? They were both inside a house a block away when
> > they heard shots. They came out, got in their car, and drove to the
> > scene. How could they see what occurred before the shooting?
>
> Perhaps you should read their afidavits....they're published in With
> Malice, then you can come back and correct your erroneous statement.

I told you, I don`t have "With Malice". They told the FBI they came
out after hearing shots. If they saw Oz leaning on the car, they would
have to see the murder, right? Did they witness the murder? I`ve never
seen it mentioned that they had.

> > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/burt.htm
> >
> > > Actually this makes sense when you know that the killer was talking
> > > through the wing window.
> >
> > Markham, the only real witness to the shooting, said Oz talked to
> > Tippit through the car door window, with his arms resting on the
> > window ledge. She was there.
> >
> > > Markham's account doesn't make sense,
> >
> > Because you`re an idiot. You want to replace what she said with
> > things your mind invents.
>
> THINK with yer tiny little pea brain..... If you were attempting to
> talk to the driver of a car through the window, what posture would you
> take?

I`ve leaned on the door of a car and talked through the open window
to the driver as Markham described many times.

> If you're gonna put your arms on the "window ledge" you have to squat
> down, because the your head would be jammed against the window if you
> attempted to lean over and put your forearms on the "window ledge"

It`s your position that it would be impossible that the person on
the left in this photo could bend at the waist, put his forearms on
the door ledge, and talk to the driver?

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/8c/Photo_wcd630_0022.jpg

> > > because it would be a bit awkward for a man to put his elbows down
> > > that low and try to talk through the vent window. ....
> >
> > It doesn`t make sense when you disregard what she said. She didn`t
> > say anything about a wing window, she said the person she identified
> > as Oz had his "arms" on the "window ledge". Not "elbows", and not
> > "vent window".
>
> And I'm telling you that the photos show that the passenger windows
> were closed.....

And I told you those photo weren`t taken at the time of the murder.

> but the vent window was open. Markham was on the
> other side (left) of the car so she could not have known that the
> window was closed.

She`d know if the window was open if she saw Oz`s arms on the
window ledge as she described. It doesn`t seem impossible that she
could from this photo, seems you can see the passenger door through
the back window (keep in mind her view was likely better than this
photo shows it to be, as far as clarity of detail go)....

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=351112

Why can`t what Markham says be trusted all of the sudden, she
seemed so trustworthy back at the washeria.

> > >.While on the
> > > other hand it would be a natural and comfortable stance to place the
> > > right hand on the rear of the front fender and the left had beneath
> > > the window while talking through the vent window.
> >
> > This is what you do with every aspect of the case you look at. You
> > brain replaces what is actually in evidence with whatever your brain
> > cooks up. And your brain is a lousy cook.
>
> Some folks think it's pretty good......Sorry if you don't like this
> particular dish.....It's called "TRUTH"

Seems more like the musings of an idiot. And it looks inedible.

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 5:03:43 PM3/26/08

to

On 26 Mar, 12:54, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:

> On Mar 26, 8:51 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > Your bald faced assertion that there is no evidence Oswald owned the
> > > MC on 11/22/63.
>
> > Psssst.... Schmuck... I can say that there isn't any proof that Oswald
> > owned that rifle, or had possession of it on 11-22-63. You may not
> > agree with me, but unless you can prove he did, it's just a matter of
> > two differing opinions. You really need to educate yourself about
> > what constitutes a lie.
>

> Look up liar in the dictionary. Your picture is next to the
> definition. You make up stuff, Walt. You get busted on it all the
> time.
>
>
>

> > I think the Warren Commission was a pack of liars.....And I think you
> > believe them, therefore if you KNOW that they lied and you perpetrate
> > and propagate the lie then you are the liar.
>

> I think the Warren Report is excellent. Not perfect, but darn good.

>
>
>
> > > There is plenty of evidence he owned the rifle...before 11/22/63, and
> > > on that fateful day.
>
> > Let's see the PROOF.....
>

Schmuck admitted: That's the rub...there isn't anything I could post
that would change your mind.

So you admit there is NO PROOF that Oswald owned the TSBD rifle on
11-22-63. Thank you.......

You are unreachable. You've been posting at this board
> probably for a decade. I'm sure I could pull up numerous exchanges
> between you and others where the history of his order from Kleins in
> Chicago was mentioned, the backyard photos showing Lee with the rifle,
> etc. You just think that you are right and the WC lied. There is a ton
> of evidence that Lee owned that rifle. You are flat out lying when you
> say there is no evidence he owned the rifle on 11/22/63.

>
> > > You're an Unreachable...that special brand of MegaKook that willfully
> > > ignores every single scrap of evidence that points towards your hero
> > > Oswald.
> > Oh No, I'm not "unreachable".... I'm just a stubborn SOB who wants to
> > see the PROOF, before I'll believe the world is flat. You show me
> > the Proof and I'll change in a heatbeat.
>

> What would you accept as proof?
>
> (Crickets chirping as Walt retreats into the night.)

Bud

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 5:09:10 PM3/26/08

to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> Top Post:
>
> Bud, like all the rest of the trolls - simply lie about the evidence. Smart
> lurkers would do well to *ALWAYS* look at the actual evidence, and not rely on
> what *anyone* around here says ... at least until they can figure out who tells
> the truth, and can always cite.

Get back behind your killfiler, pussy, you know you aren`t about to
support one claim you make.

Anyone with half a brain would see that Walt offered these
witnesses as seeing the assailant leaning on the patrol car, when
these witnesses didn`t get to the scene of the crime until after the
shooting. Do you think the shooter shot Tippit and then leaned on the
car until these guys arrived?

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 5:25:25 PM3/26/08

to

Excellent point..... WHY haven't we seen this evidence before???

Bill Smith, and Jimmy Burt saw Tippit's patrol car stop about 3/4 of a
block east of their position in the front yard of 505 E 10th street.
The police car caught their attention. Burt turned to go into the
house ( probably because he was AWOL from the army) but Bill Smith
continued to watch as Tippit got out of his car. Smith saw the man
who had been leaning on the car shoot Tippit, and Burt may not have
made it inside before the shots rang out because he later told the FBI
that he exclaimed to Smith... Quote" Billy, that guy just shot that
policeman".. unquote. Burt may not have seen the actual shooting but
he heard the shots and saw Tippit lying on the street.

You have to ask yourself.... WHY wasn't Smith and Burt's stories made
known?

The authorities certainly knew about what Smith and Burt said they
saw.

Perhaps we/ve never heard their stories because they said the killer
who fled the scene was about 5' 7" or 5' 8" tall and weighed about 150
to 160 pounds, ( that would make him stocky not slender) and he had
DARK hair possibly black.

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...

Bud

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 5:27:56 PM3/26/08

to

> Are you kidding? They were both inside a house a block away when

> they heard shots. They came out, got in their car, and drove to the
> scene. How could they see what occurred before the shooting?

I produced a source (the FBI report) that put them inside a house
at 9th and Denver (Jimmy Burt`s brother`s house).

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

But it is totally irrelevant to the discussion where they started
from. Your claim was "Billy Smith and Jimmy Burt saw the killer
leaning with his hand on the car". Is it you contention that the
assailant (Oswald) shot Tippit, and then leaned on the car, idiot?

> Hey Dud, here's a little educational material for you. Find a 10 year
> old who can comprehend what he reads, and have him tell you where Burt
> and Smith were at the time Tippit was shot and killed.

They heard shots, came out, started up their car, drove at least
one block, and the shooter was still standing there leaning against
the patrol car? Or did you lie when you said you had witnesses to the
person Tippit talked to having his hands on the car?

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 5:34:31 PM3/26/08

to

>>> "That handwritten note is written above a cluster of finger prints some of which are very clear. The cluster of prints was lifted from the upper rear area of the right front fender near the cowl. They were found in the EXACT position on the car that a man would support himself while leaning down to talk through the vent window. He must have been very nervous because the constant hand movement required to make that cluster of prints are just what would be expected of a very nervous person." <<<

So, Walt, is it now your contention that the gunman had his hands all
over the "RIGHT FRONT FENDER" of Tippit's car (near the right
HEADLIGHT of the car; see "Barnes Exhibit A" below) in order to talk
to Tippit through one of the windows?!! (In a word -- Huh?)

Which way do you want it, Kook? Do you want the killer's prints on the
RIGHT-HAND DOOR or on the RIGHT-FRONT FENDER (which is a location on
the car which is much further FORWARD, near the front of the vehicle,
per Barnes' marked exhibit linked below)?

Do you think the gunman wallowed all over the car with his hands (the
right door AND all over the right front fender near the HEADLIGHTS)?

Or would you like to stick to just the "passenger door" for the
GUNMAN'S POSSIBLE PRINTS?

In short -- What difference does it really make if there were non-
smudged prints on the FENDER of the car IF THE GUNMAN NEVER TOUCHED
THAT PORTION OF THE VEHICLE AT ALL ON 11/22/63? (And I'm trying to
figure out at this point WHY any gunman would be placing his hands
that far forward on the car, near the headlights. Did ANY witness
specifically say that the gunman had his hands that far forward on the
car? I don't recall such testimony.)

~shrug~

Yes, W.E. Barnes lifted prints from the right front fender. But what
I'd like to know is this (and I haven't looked into it deeply as of
this moment) -- WHO was it who said that the gunman might have touched
the FENDER portion of the car...in addition to the top of the right
door? I suppose a witness might have said this, which prompted Barnes
to check the fender (as well as the door) for prints.

But from my conversations with you kooks (who love to pore over chaff
while ignoring the "OSWALD WAS HERE" wheat, of course), it seems that
the ONLY part of the car where potential prints left by a gunman were
said to be located would be the TOP OF THE RIGHT DOOR.....and not an
area around the front fender.

I'm just asking myself -- Why on Earth would ANY gunman have had a
desire (or need) to place his hands ALL OVER THE FRONT FENDER of
Tippit's car in the very few SECONDS he was standing by the car before
pulling out a gun and killing Tippit?

Does that make much sense....even to a CTer?

But, yes, I'll grant you one thing (and I'll say it aloud--again--so I
won't get jumped on with a vengeance) -- Barnes DID, indeed, dust the
fender for prints and some prints definitely came off of that fender.
And we have "Barnes Deposition Exhibit A", where Barnes marked a photo
of the police car, indicating the area that he checked for prints:

Mr. BELIN. You have circled that in ink. Now going back to Barnes
Deposition Exhibit A: earlier, Sergeant Barnes, you said that you
tried to get some prints and you found some smears on the right side
of the car. I wonder if on Barnes Deposition Exhibit A with a red
pencil you could show us the general area where you found the smears?

Mr. BARNES. [Marks with red pencil on photo, linked below:]

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=140881

Mr. BELIN. You put on this print a relatively horizontal line on the
right front car door immediately below the bottom part of the window,
and also what I will call the right part of the top of the right-front
fender near where the headlight is.

Mr. BARNES. That is true.

~~~~~~~~~

But I can't quite figure out why the killer would be wanting to touch
the area near the right headlight of Tippit's patrol car during the
ultra-short encounter that the killer had with Tippit before killing
him. I suppose it's possible he would want to touch the front part of
the car....but....why?

~another shrug~

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 5:46:03 PM3/26/08

to

Sure ....so have I, ....BUT the window has to be open, otherwise it's
impossible to put your arms beneath the window without jammin yer head
back between yer shoulder blades.

>
> > If you're gonna put your arms on the "window ledge" you have to squat
> > down, because the your head would be jammed against the window if you
> > attempted to lean over and put your forearms on the "window ledge"
>
> It`s your position that it would be impossible that the person on
> the left in this photo could bend at the waist, put his forearms on
> the door ledge, and talk to the driver?

Yes... if the window was closed, as the photos show it to be.

However....If the man was talkin to Tippit through the OPEN vent
window, it's perfectly feasible that he rested his left hand on the
door beneath the window and his right hand on the right front fender.
Since Markham was on the other side of the car and about 150 feet away
she could easily have perceived that the killer was leaning his arms
beneath the window as he talked to Tippit through a window that she
thought was open.

IMO.... The man INTENDED to kill Tippit. He didn't just shoot him to
incapacitate him...He INTENDED to kill him. If the window had been
down the killer would have shot him as he sat behind the wheel of the
car.

>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/8/8c/Photo_wcd630_0022.jpg
>
> > > > because it would be a bit awkward for a man to put his elbows down
> > > > that low and try to talk through the vent window. ....
>
> > > It doesn`t make sense when you disregard what she said. She didn`t
> > > say anything about a wing window, she said the person she identified
> > > as Oz had his "arms" on the "window ledge". Not "elbows", and not
> > > "vent window".
>
> > And I'm telling you that the photos show that the passenger windows
> > were closed.....
>
> And I told you those photo weren`t taken at the time of the murder.
>
> > but the vent window was open. Markham was on the
> > other side (left) of the car so she could not have known that the
> > window was closed.
>
> She`d know if the window was open if she saw Oz`s arms on the
> window ledge as she described. It doesn`t seem impossible that she
> could from this photo, seems you can see the passenger door through
> the back window (keep in mind her view was likely better than this
> photo shows it to be, as far as clarity of detail go)....
>

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...

YoHarvey

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 5:47:30 PM3/26/08

to

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...

>
> Mr. BELIN. You put on this print a relatively horizontal line on the
> right front car door immediately below the bottom part of the window,
> and also what I will call the right part of the top of the right-front
> fender near where the headlight is.
>
> Mr. BARNES. That is true.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~
>
> But I can't quite figure out why the killer would be wanting to touch
> the area near the right headlight of Tippit's patrol car during the
> ultra-short encounter that the killer had with Tippit before killing
> him. I suppose it's possible he would want to touch the front part of
> the car....but....why?
>
> ~another shrug~

http://www.jfk-online.com/prints.html

Bud

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 5:53:09 PM3/26/08

to

Where did you find it? Under a rock?

> Bill Smith, and Jimmy Burt saw Tippit's patrol car stop about 3/4 of a
> block east of their position in the front yard of 505 E 10th street.
> The police car caught their attention.

<snicker> You just produced the testimony, and already you are lying
about what it says. Smith said it was the shots that caught his
attention. Have you no shame?

> Burt turned to go into the
> house ( probably because he was AWOL from the army) but Bill Smith
> continued to watch as Tippit got out of his car.

You just produced the tesimony, liar...

Ball: First time you ever saw this man was after you heard the
shots?

Smith: Yes, sir.

> Smith saw the man
> who had been leaning on the car shoot Tippit,

Where does Smith say this?

> and Burt may not have
> made it inside before the shots rang out because he later told the FBI
> that he exclaimed to Smith... Quote" Billy, that guy just shot that
> policeman".. unquote. Burt may not have seen the actual shooting but
> he heard the shots and saw Tippit lying on the street.
>
> You have to ask yourself.... WHY wasn't Smith and Burt's stories made
> known?

They were questioned by the WC, knucklehead. You think they didn`t
do enough to make sure this information came to the attention of
idiots like yourself?

> The authorities certainly knew about what Smith and Burt said they
> saw.

They saw very little. Oz leaving the scene in a hurry, is all.

> Perhaps we/ve never heard their stories because they said the killer
> who fled the scene was about 5' 7" or 5' 8" tall and weighed about 150
> to 160 pounds, ( that would make him stocky not slender) and he had
> DARK hair possibly black.

Smith said the Oz looked like the guy he saw, altough he thought
his hair looked darker in person than it did on TV.

Message has been deleted

Bud

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 6:08:49 PM3/26/08

to

Like the witness said it was.

> otherwise it's
> impossible to put your arms beneath the window without jammin yer head
> back between yer shoulder blades.
>
> >
> > > If you're gonna put your arms on the "window ledge" you have to squat
> > > down, because the your head would be jammed against the window if you
> > > attempted to lean over and put your forearms on the "window ledge"
> >
> > It`s your position that it would be impossible that the person on
> > the left in this photo could bend at the waist, put his forearms on
> > the door ledge, and talk to the driver?
>
> Yes... if the window was closed, as the photos show it to be.

Markham describes the window being open earlier than the photos
were taken.

> However....If the man was talkin to Tippit through the OPEN vent
> window,

Who describes this occurring?

> it's perfectly feasible that he rested his left hand on the
> door beneath the window and his right hand on the right front fender.

It`s both feasible and supportable that Oz shot Tippit. The lack of
Oz`s fingerprints being on the var could be explained by Oswald not
touching the car wuth his fingers.

> Since Markham was on the other side of the car and about 150 feet away
> she could easily have perceived that the killer was leaning his arms
> beneath the window as he talked to Tippit through a window that she
> thought was open.

Or her perception was correct, and the window was open with Oz
leaning into it with his arms on the door ledge, talking to Tippit.

> IMO.... The man INTENDED to kill Tippit. He didn't just shoot him to
> incapacitate him...He INTENDED to kill him. If the window had been
> down the killer would have shot him as he sat behind the wheel of the
> car.

IMO, Oz tried to first talk his way out. When this seemed unlikely
to work, he shot and killed Tippit. My opinion, unlike yours, is
supportable.

justm...@gmail.com

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 6:13:28 PM3/26/08

to

> http://www.jfk-online.com/prints.html- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

If the killer was talking thru the vent window, he must have had arms
about 4 feet long to reach the front fender at the same time. Walt is
crazier then a shit house rat. It sounds like he and robcrap are
related. No matter what you say to either of them it goes in one ear
and out the other. There must be a race for biggest CT idiot going on,
because I've never seen so many stupid comments as there have been the
past couple days.

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 6:16:32 PM3/26/08

to

>>> "It's perfectly feasible that he rested his left hand on the door beneath the window and his right hand on the right front fender." <<<

The killer was also a contortionist evidently! (Per the locations of
the prints marked by Barnes below):

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=140881

I guess the killer decided to stretch out his arms to impossible-to-
achieve lengths (and for no reason at all) as he had his left hand
near the top of the door and his right hand way down near the
headlight of Tippit's car....huh Walt?

Bud

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 6:49:42 PM3/26/08

to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <ebbf4261-95fb-4b9e...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Walt says...
> >
> >On 25 Mar, 22:14, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> >>In article <ae06df00-9f0f-4504-93dd-032f0b0db...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> >> Walt says...
> >>
> >>
> >> >On 25 Mar, 18:16, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Mar 25, 6:58=A0pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > >>> "There is no proof that Oswald owned that rifle on 11-22-63." <<<
> >>
> >> >> > You're an idiot.
> >>
> >> >> He's worse than an idiot.
> >>
> >> >> He's a liar.
> >>
> >> >> Walt lies...period.
> >>
> >> >> Walt lies about the JFK assassination in big details, and little
> >> >> details.
> >>
> >> >> He's an equally opportunity liar.
> >>
> >> >> He likes to lie.
> >>
> >> >> He lies when he says he doesn't lie.
> >>
> >> >> Don't get me wrong...Walt is about as big an idiot as there is on this
> >> >> board, but he is also a liar. To argue that Oswald didn't shoot
> >> >> Kennedy, or that he did and he had help is one thing, but to simply
> >> >> create out of thin air some goofy theory that Oswald didn't own the MC
> >> >> on 11-22-63 takes a special kind of liar.
> >>
> >> >> A liar named Walt Cakebread.
> >>
> >> >I'm sure you can point out at least ONE lie...... Let's see it.
> >>
> >>It doesn't matter how many times you challenge the trolls... they can't produce
> >> the lies that they accuse everyone of.
> >>
> >>Yet on the other side - I seem to have no problem *quoting* their lies and the
> >> giving the citations that make it so.
> >>
> >> Walt - they *have* to assert that you're a liar - because they can't
> >> confront the evidence you keep raising.
> >
> >Ben,.... If I truely was a liar, I might be offended at someone
> >exposing my lies and showing me to be a liar.
>
> Compare your attitude with those that I've caught, quoted, and cited as liars.
>
> The most recent one was on the verge of physical threats... Of course, anyone is
> welcome anytime to confront me face to face anytime - I use my real name.
>
>
> >That's been my
> >experience with liars....They don't like to be exposed.
>
> Yep... I know some who simply stop posting in this forum... Tony is one example.
>
> >Since I know
> >I'm not lying about any aspect of the information surrounding the
> >murder of president Kennedy, I'm not offended by some simpleton who is
> >a gullible, naive, fool, calling me a liar. How many people called C.
> >Columbus, T.E. Edison, Orville and Wilbur Wright, Albert Einstein, and
> >hundreds of others,...... a liar?
> >All the people who called the Wright's liars when they said they could
> >build a machine that would fly through the air are now unknown and
> >forgotten, because they refused to use their God given brains as God
> >intended for them to use them. The fools simply accepted the
> >OPINIONS of pseudo "experts" who proclaimed that the Wrights were
> >liars, and rather than use their own good God given brains they merely
> >regurgitate the OPINIONS of the "experts".
> >
> >The only way I compare myself to the famous people memtioned above, is
> >that I too am a obstinate SOB who tries to use the marvelous computer
> >I was created with, as my creator intended for me to use it.
> >
> >
> >> Sad, really...

>
>
> I was particularly amused at Buddy the troll's characterization of the
> fingerprints as "smudges."

You are easily amused. But I did use a word I thought the witness
had, but I was wrong. Barnes, the officer who took the prints had this
to say...

Barnes: There were several smear prints. None of value.

I used "smudge" instead of "smear". It was a mistake, but not the
purposeful deceit Walt employs almost every time he posts.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 6:56:48 PM3/26/08

to

>>> "I used "smudge" instead of "smear". It was a mistake..." <<<

And, as I pointed out to Mr. Crackpipe earlier today, such an error
matters very little (if any)...because "smudge" literally means
"smear" in the dictionary. They are identical in meaning:

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 7:11:16 PM3/26/08

to

This thread vividly exemplifies another feature/phenomenon that we
encounter so very often here at the "Asylum/Nuthouse" -- and that is
the "BY THE SEAT OF YOUR PANTS" type of arguments we often see being
espoused by kooks like Walt.

Now, I'll be up front with everybody here in the "asylum" -- I had
never EVER seen "Barnes Deposition Exhibit A" before just a few hours
ago when I looked it up on the Ferrell site in order to respond to
Walt's lunacy in this thread.

In fact, I wasn't even aware that there WERE any "Barnes Exhibits" in
the WC volumes at all. Those aren't part of the "CE" numbered
exhibits, of course; so we have to look elsewhere to find the exhibits
that the Commission decided to label with a witness' actual name. (Why
did the WC do this with only selected witnesses, btw? Does anybody
know? It can be quite confusing when looking through the volumes while
searching for a picture or exhibit that you KNOW exists, but you can't
find a "CE" number for it; very aggravating; it's happened to me
before.)

It's amazing how much raw material that exists that is connected to
the JFK case (e.g., exhibits, photos, statements, affidavits, FBI
reports, Commission "Documents" [CDs] that are not part of the "CE"
numbers, etc.).

And I know of no one who has gone through EVERY last item. Maybe
somebody exists who HAS seen every last "Barnes Exhibit" and every
last FBI report, etc.; but I haven't met that person as yet.

Even Vince Bugliosi admits that he hasn't looked at EVERYTHING
connected with this case (and he worked on his book for 20+
years). .....

"I haven't seen EVERY document; it would take a couple of
LIFETIMES to look at every document connected to this case." -- Vince
Bugliosi (paraphrased just slightly); via 2007 radio interviews

www.box.net/static/flash/box_explorer.swf?widgetHash=7f8im4pic0&v=1

Anyway, back to my "Seat Of The Pants" point.....

Walt makes a statement saying something happened in a certain way
(always rejecting the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald could have POSSIBLY
been involved in any way at all, of course; that goes without saying
when confronting an "ABO" Mega-Kook in Walter's class); but it would
seem that before posting an idiotic statement like this one.....

"It's perfectly feasible that he [Tippit's killer] rested his

left hand on the door beneath the window and his right hand on the

right front fender." -- Walt; 03/26/08

.....Walt had no desire to do what I did today and LOOK UP ADDITIONAL
INFORMATION regarding the point he was trying to pass off as a
reasonable scenario with respect to the gunman's car-touching posture
just before Tippit was shot.

And it's certainly not like the information ISN'T readily available
and easily accessible--for FREE--on this great tool called The
Internet....because it only took me a few minutes to dig up this WC
exhibit to demonstate how silly Walt's above-quoted scenario truly is
(although I will admit, it took a bit longer to locate this exhibit,
because I first had to find out what volume the "Barnes Exhibits" were
stored in):

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=140881

In short -- Walt seems to be extremely lazy. He very rarely posts any
links to any exhibits or testimony. Occasionally he will do that, but
he certainly doesn't seem to want to go the extra (and FREE)
"electronic mile" in order to drive home a point even harder.

Of course, if I were a kook like Walt, I certainly would want to keep
any "lurkers" in the dark in this "exhibit" and "real evidence" regard
too -- because the unbelievably-stupid and highly-untenable positions
he takes on virtually EVERY topic connected with the murders of both
John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit are positions that are better left
unsourced (from Walt's POV anyway).

In fact, such crackpot CT scenarios MUST remain "unsourced" -- because
almost everything theorized by Walter is only "true" in the strange
mind of Walt Cakebread (and in the minds of other conspiracy-happy
kooks like him).

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 7:19:15 PM3/26/08

to

On 26 Mar, 15:34, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "That handwritten note is written above a cluster of finger prints some of which are very clear. The cluster of prints was lifted from the upper rear area of the right front fender near the cowl. They were found in the EXACT position on the car that a man would support himself while leaning down to talk through the vent window. He must have been very nervous because the constant hand movement required to make that cluster of prints are just what would be expected of a very nervous person." <<<
>
> So, Walt, is it now your contention that the gunman had his hands all
> over the "RIGHT FRONT FENDER" of Tippit's car (near the right
> HEADLIGHT of the car; see "Barnes Exhibit A" below) in order to talk
> to Tippit through one of the windows?!! (In a word -- Huh?)
>
> Which way do you want it, Kook? Do you want the killer's prints on the
> RIGHT-HAND DOOR or on the RIGHT-FRONT FENDER (which is a location on
> the car which is much further FORWARD, near the front of the vehicle,
> per Barnes' marked exhibit linked below)?

Ha,ha, ha, ha....ROTFLMAO!!

Duh.....I love to point out how stupid you are. The front fender and
the door nearly toch each other. The front of the door is only
separated from the back of the fender by a quarter inch gap. That's
where Pete Barnes found the prints.
There are photos of him dusting the area for prints.

>
> Do you think the gunman wallowed all over the car with his hands (the
> right door AND all over the right front fender near the HEADLIGHTS)?
>
> Or would you like to stick to just the "passenger door" for the
> GUNMAN'S POSSIBLE PRINTS?
>
> In short -- What difference does it really make if there were non-
> smudged prints on the FENDER of the car IF THE GUNMAN NEVER TOUCHED
> THAT PORTION OF THE VEHICLE AT ALL ON 11/22/63? (And I'm trying to
> figure out at this point WHY any gunman would be placing his hands
> that far forward on the car, near the headlights. Did ANY witness
> specifically say that the gunman had his hands that far forward on the
> car? I don't recall such testimony.)

Ha, ha,ha,... Watta dumbass!!

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 7:27:01 PM3/26/08

to

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...

>
Mr. BELIN. You put on this print a relatively horizontal line on the
right front car door immediately below the bottom part of the window,
and also what I will call the right part of the top of the right-
front
fender near where the headlight is.

Mr. BARNES. That is true.

Photos taken of Barnes dusting Tippit's car prove that Barnes was
lying to Belin.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 7:45:23 PM3/26/08

to

In article <095665ba-45eb-4951...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...

>
>On Mar 26, 12:07 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "I was particularly amused at Buddy the troll's characterization of the

>>fingerprints as "smudges"." <<<
>>
>> Let's see what W.E. Barnes of the DPD actually said (at 7 WC 272):
>>
>> Mr. BARNES. The first thing that I did was to check the right side of
>> Tippit's car for fingerprints.
>> Mr. BELIN. Did you find any fingerprints on the right side of the car?
>> Mr. BARNES. There was several smear prints. None of value.
>>
>> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_014...
>>
>> Replay:
>>
>> "There was several smear prints. NONE OF VALUE."
>>
>> "NONE OF VALUE."
>>
>> "NONE OF VALUE."
>

>english david, ENGLISH smear-smudge are they spelled the same?

Actually, they would have been screaming from the mountain top had those prints
been matched to Oswald - AND THEY ARE CERTAINLY GOOD ENOUGH PRINTS TO EITHER
MATCH TO OSWALD, OR EXCLUDE HIM.

So "smudge", "smear", or any other description whatsoever that hides the fact
that the prints were perfectly good enough to utilize in an investigation is
nothing less than a lie.

Bud knows this... so does DVP. But they're perfectly willing to lie to people.

Bud

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 7:46:10 PM3/26/08

to

Thanks for the support, David, I had missed the exchange. But, I
would prefer to use what the witnesses actually said, I just was too
lazy to check, and used my imperfect memory instead. To my mind, there
is a subtle difference between what I picture when I think of a
smeared fingerprint, and a smudged one. A smeared one would be likely
caused by dragging the finger across the surface, the cause of a
smudge would be twisting the finger on the surface. I wouldn`t be
surprised if fingerprint experts draw a distinction between the two.
And, as usual, the kooks focus on the wrong things, Barnes testified
that "No legible prints were found".

Ben Holmes

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 7:56:36 PM3/26/08

to

In article <d5f6373f-86be-48b3...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Walt says...
>
>On 26 Mar, 13:36, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 9:25=A0am, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >> What is sad, really, is your belief that you are some sort of scholar=
>
>> > >> on the JFK assassination.
>>
>> > Compared to you, I am.
>>
>> No comparison needed, Ben. Your JFK knowledge is a mile wide and an
>> inch deep. I readily admit that I'm not a JFK assassination scholar.
>> The difference is that I know I'm not, nor do I pretend to be, and you
>> think you are.
>
>Schmuck wrote:..... "I readily admit that I'm not a JFK assassination
>scholar.
> The difference is that I know I'm not, nor do I pretend to be,"
>
>First Schmuck tells the truth when he writes...."I readily admit that
>I'm not a JFK assassination scholar."
>
>But then closes the sentence with a gargantuan whopper.... "nor do I
>pretend to be,"....
>
>Hey Schmuck...If you don't think you know all about the murder of
>President Kennedy, because you know the official tale from the Warren
>report, why would you argue with those who have gone far beyond the
>Warren Report and researched the actual evidence?

That's a question with no possible answer. Chuck simply doesn't know the
evidence, yet he's willing to lie and run away from it in order to retain his
faith.

>> And your not.
>>
>> > Compared to others, I'm a dabbler... but in neither case can you
>> > answer the evidence.
>>
>> You have no evidence for conspiracy that hasn't been addressed and
>> refuted.

When you must lie to make a point, the only point you've made is that you're a
liar.

>> > Notice that Chuckie didn't quote any "lies" and give the citations
>> > that made them so for either Walt or myself.
>>
>> > He can't.
>>
>> I'll quote your lies, and you'll claim I didn't. That's your pattern.

He can't.

>> > >> Seems you haven't been around much since Todd made mincemeat out of
>> > >> your Officer Chaney claims
>>
>> > Never happened.
>>
>> Isn't your claim that Chaney said the limo stopped? Let's let lurkers
>> judge.
>>
>> From a May 17th 2006 exchange with Martin Shackleford, you wrote:
>>
>> "Chaney asserts a shot, THEN a limo stop."
>>
>> Brought to light by Todd Vaughan recently, here's what Chaney said to
>> KRLD/KDFW-TV:
>>
>> Reporter: Did the President's car stop?
>> Chaney: I didn't see a stop.

Isn't what he told others, as you well know. This is hardly "mincemeat" that
you proclaimed. Toddy can't change the evidence any more than you can.

>> (KRLD Tape 9 - KRLD/KDFW-TV Collection/The Sixth Floor Museum at
>> Dealey Plaza)
>>
>> (Another embarrassing day for Holmes.) Yep, you really know the
>> 'evidence'.

The evidence is *STILL* there. It isn't going to go away.

>> > Chaney said what he said, and my cites have always been accurate. It's not
>> > possible to make "mincemeat" out of factual evidence.
>>
>> > Nor can you quote any such happening...
>>
>> How do you explain the KRLD/KDFW-TV interview then, you liar?

I don't. I've not seen it. If and when I get a copy of it, then I'll be able
to see if his statements are indeed contradictory.

For that's the *BEST* you can argue right now - without lying about the facts.

>> Was that forged, too?

It would, of course, be interesting to see the full context.

>> > What was silly was the trolls trying to claim that they saw only *two*
>> > people on the grass in the relevant Nix frame. Care to try defending that
>> > obvious lie?
>>
>> Easy.

And yet, as we see below - you fail to address it completely:

>> I can't say it better than Tim Brennan, so here's a post from
>> March 21 of this year from a thread titled, "A Sincere Question For
>> David Healy II".
>>
>> Tim <on>:
>>
>> "One thing I've noticed is that both Healy and Holmes don't want to
>> discuss specifics of their theory any more. And here's why:
>>
>> "Holmes and Healy have both been asked how many light posts there
>> were
>> in the Main Street stretch of Dealey Plaza, but they won't reply.
>> Reason is it shows *how silly* Holmes was to come up with his
>> alteration nonsense in the first place. And *how silly* Healy was to
>> agree with it.
>>
>> "There are four light posts, evenly spaced, in the Main Street
>> stretch
>> of Dealey Plaza. The first is near the peristyles and reflecting
>> pools, the second and third are on the grass and the fourth is right
>> at the end of the grass, where the road goes under the underpass.
>>
>> "Nix was standing on the corner of Main and Houston when he was
>> filming. As his camera pans from right to left, following the car, it
>> picks up light post # 2 in the foreground. As it continues to pan
>> left
>> it picks up *Yellow Legs* but never pans left enough to pick up light
>> post # 3.
>>
>> "Now when Zapruder is filming, at around Z 369, when the Franzen
>> group
>> is in view, a light post can be seen in the background, and shortly
>> after Main Street beyond it. For Holmes' theory to work, this would
>> have to be light post # 2 but it isn't! It is light post # 3, the one
>> that Nix's camera never panned far across enough to film in the
>> assassination sequence.
>>
>> "You can tell it is light post # 3 as light post # 4 comes into view
>> as
>> Zapruder continues to pan right and the car goes under the underpass.
>>
>> "Nix and Zapruder never filmed the same section of grass, where
>> *Yellow
>> Legs* was standing, because Zapruder's camera never panned that far
>> back. This can be shown with some of the links you have provided, if
>> anyone is interested."
>>
>> <off>
>>
>> Another embarrassing day for Ben Holmes!

Sadly, you're long rambling quote from Timmy never addressed the issue I
mentioned. Seems like you're just as much a coward as you ever were... and
deservedly remain in the killfile.

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 7:57:28 PM3/26/08

to

On 26 Mar, 17:45, Ben Holmes <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote:
> In article <095665ba-45eb-4951-ad05-62204b608...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,

Absolutely right Ben..... Anybody with one fair eye can look at the
photos on page 275 and 277 in "With Malice", and see that Belin and
Barnes were lying when they referred to the prints as "smears".

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 7:59:08 PM3/26/08

to

Yes that's right....But if you look at page 275 of With Malice you can
see that he was lying.

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 8:02:31 PM3/26/08

to

>>> "Photos taken of Barnes dusting Tippit's car prove that Barnes was lying to Belin." <<<

Thanks, Walt, for once again proving my "By The Seat Of Your Pants"
point that I made in my last post. You never fail to reveal yourself
as a total joke (not to mention an evidence-mangling moron).

And here we have yet another "CT phenomenon" that we often encounter
when dealing with kooks like Walt who have nowhere to go with their
arguments after they've been proven to be idiots via a certain piece
of evidence (like Barnes Exhibit A previously discussed) ---

The "WHEN IN A TOUGH SPOT, JUST ACCUSE SOMEBODY OF TELLING A BUNCH OF
LIES" phenomenon.

In other words, Walt now knows that his previous posture regarding the
way the gunman on 10th Street was touching the police car is a totally-
unreasonable posture (both Walt's "posture" and the gunman's too).
~wink~

So, instead of admitting that he made a mistake, the ABO kook will
resort to just exactly what I knew was coming --- the kook must claim
that SOMEBODY IS LYING.

Walt thinks that the short WFAA-TV film clip of Barnes dusting the
DOOR of Tippit's squad car somehow proves that Barnes lied in his WC
testimony. (As if ALL of the car-dusting was captured in the WFAA
film.)

(Check the bottom photo on Page 153 of "WITH MALICE", which is a still
frame from the WFAA film, showing Barnes dusting the DOOR of Tippit's
car.)

Or: Does Walt have another "photo" in mind, not Reiland's film, which
shows Barnes dusting the car? If so, it's a picture that's not found
in "With Malice".

YoHarvey

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 8:10:36 PM3/26/08

to

Holmes? Why does an honest man have to lie? You lie
continuously...so, we can safely say, you're inherently dishonest. Is
this correct?

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 8:21:15 PM3/26/08

to

On 26 Mar, 18:02, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Photos taken of Barnes dusting Tippit's car prove that Barnes was lying to Belin." <<<
>
> Thanks, Walt, for once again proving my "By The Seat Of Your Pants"
> point that I made in my last post. You never fail to reveal yourself
> as a total joke (not to mention an evidence-mangling moron).
>
> And here we have yet another "CT phenomenon" that we often encounter
> when dealing with kooks like Walt who have nowhere to go with their
> arguments after they've been proven to be idiots via a certain piece
> of evidence (like Barnes Exhibit A previously discussed) ---
>
> The "WHEN IN A TOUGH SPOT, JUST ACCUSE SOMEBODY OF TELLING A BUNCH OF
> LIES" phenomenon.
>
> In other words, Walt now knows that his previous posture regarding the
> way the gunman on 10th Street was touching the police car is a totally-
> unreasonable posture (both Walt's "posture" and the gunman's too).
> ~wink~
>
> So, instead of admitting that he made a mistake, the ABO kook will
> resort to just exactly what I knew was coming --- the kook must claim
> that SOMEBODY IS LYING.
>
> Walt thinks that the short WFAA-TV film clip of Barnes dusting the
> DOOR of Tippit's squad car somehow proves that Barnes lied in his WC
> testimony. (As if ALL of the car-dusting was captured in the WFAA
> film.)

Von Pea Brain wrote:.... (Check the bottom photo on Page 153 of "WITH

MALICE", which is a still frame from the WFAA film, showing Barnes
dusting the DOOR of Tippit's car.)

Excellent ....Yes everybody please do look at page 153 in "With
Malice" and notice the area where Pete Barnes is applying finger print
dust detecting powder. Notice that he's applying the powder on the
forward part of the door just a couple of inches from where the fender
and door join below the vent window. Then go to the link that the
Pea Brain provided and notice where Barnes circled the area where he
said he found the smears on the car door. He circled an area
directly below the window as the location where he found the
smears.

Perhaps he did find smears beneath the window, but he found very good
indentifiable prints in the area where he's seen applying the powder
in the photo on page 153.

Thank You Von Pea Brain....For helping me kick yer ass

tomnln

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 8:37:14 PM3/26/08

to

Yo(Momma)Harvey still gets Excited over some author's "Opinions" over
evidence/testimony.

THIS Yo(Momma)Harvey>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/baileynme.htm

"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3d56adc9-791c-493c...@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

Bud

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 8:45:41 PM3/26/08

to

Ben Holmes wrote:
> In article <095665ba-45eb-4951...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> aeffects says...
> >
> >On Mar 26, 12:07 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "I was particularly amused at Buddy the troll's characterization of the
> >>fingerprints as "smudges"." <<<
> >>
> >> Let's see what W.E. Barnes of the DPD actually said (at 7 WC 272):
> >>
> >> Mr. BARNES. The first thing that I did was to check the right side of
> >> Tippit's car for fingerprints.
> >> Mr. BELIN. Did you find any fingerprints on the right side of the car?
> >> Mr. BARNES. There was several smear prints. None of value.
> >>
> >> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_014...
> >>
> >> Replay:
> >>
> >> "There was several smear prints. NONE OF VALUE."
> >>
> >> "NONE OF VALUE."
> >>
> >> "NONE OF VALUE."
> >
> >english david, ENGLISH smear-smudge are they spelled the same?
>
>
> Actually, they would have been screaming from the mountain top had those prints
> been matched to Oswald - AND THEY ARE CERTAINLY GOOD ENOUGH PRINTS TO EITHER
> MATCH TO OSWALD, OR EXCLUDE HIM.

If you want to particpate in the discussion, enter it, but be
prepared to defend your words. If not, stay out of the discussions,
and e-mail your remarks straight to the stoner.

As for this particular idea, it is stupid. One, the officer who
took the prints said there were no usable prinmts found. But, even if
there were, and they weren`t Oz`s, it wouldn`t mean Oz wasn`t the
killer. There are probably hundreds of prints around my house. If a
person came in right now and killed me, none of those prints would
match the killer, or exhonerate him.

> So "smudge", "smear", or any other description whatsoever that hides the fact
> that the prints were perfectly good enough to utilize in an investigation is
> nothing less than a lie.

So, Ben decalres Barnes a liar. What else is new, when someone
gives information a kook doesn`t want to hear, that person is a liar.
But the day will never come when the kooks can make any real case that
Barnes showed up soon after a fellow officer`s murder, and set out
*not* to gather evidence against the murderer.

> Bud knows this... so does DVP. But they're perfectly willing to lie to people.

Come out from behind your killfiler, pussy..Do you really think you
have credibility when you come to the defense of a serial liar like
Walt?

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 9:01:48 PM3/26/08

to

>>> "Yes, everybody please do look at page 153 in "With Malice" and notice the area where Pete Barnes is applying finger print dust detecting powder. Notice that he's applying the powder on the forward part of the door just a couple of inches from where the fender and door join below the vent window. Then go to the link that [DAVID R. VON PEIN, MY #2 HERO; LHO IS #1] provided and notice where Barnes circled the area where he said he found the smears on the car door. He circled an area directly below the window as the location where he found the smears." <<<

Barnes didn't "circle" anything on that particular exhibit, kook. He
drew lines on it.

>>> "Perhaps he did find smears beneath the window, but he found very good indentifiable prints in the area where he's seen applying the powder in the photo on page 153." <<<

Goodie! Walt's lying (again)! Surprise!

Even after being SHOWN the specific location on the "FRONT FENDER" of
Tippit's car where Barnes said he found some fingerprints (which was
way up near the car's right HEADLIGHT!), Walt still has the monster-
sized gonads to utter this lie:

"He [W.E. Barnes] found very good indentifiable prints in the
area where he's seen applying the powder in the photo on page 153 [of
Dale Myers' book "WITH MALICE"]."

Walt never fails to theorize his way into idiocy. And he just did it
again. (Surprise!)

>>> "Thank You Von Pea Brain....For helping me kick yer ass." <<<

Why would I need to worry about having my ass kicked by a kook who
can't even tell a "circle" from a straight line? .....

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=140881

I thought for just a millisecond that Walt MIGHT actually produce
something that he said existed that would help to support his CT
position (i.e., "Photos taken of Barnes dusting Tippit's car prove
that Barnes was lying to Belin")...but, of course, Walt came up bone-
dry once again. As usual.

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 9:03:14 PM3/26/08

to

> > Excellent point..... WHY haven't we seen this evidence before???
>
> Where did you find it? Under a rock?
>
> > Bill Smith, and Jimmy Burt saw Tippit's patrol car stop about 3/4 of a
> > block east of their position in the front yard of 505 E 10th street.
> > The police car caught their attention.
>
> <snicker> You just produced the testimony, and already you are lying
> about what it says. Smith said it was the shots that caught his
> attention. Have you no shame?
>
> > Burt turned to go into the
> > house ( probably because he was AWOL from the army) but Bill Smith
> > continued to watch as Tippit got out of his car.
>
> You just produced the tesimony, liar...
>
> Ball: First time you ever saw this man was after you heard the
> shots?
>
> Smith: Yes, sir.
>
> > Smith saw the man
> > who had been leaning on the car shoot Tippit,
>
> Where does Smith say this?

Read the footnotes in "With Malice" ......

>
> > and Burt may not have
> > made it inside before the shots rang out because he later told the FBI
> > that he exclaimed to Smith... Quote" Billy, that guy just shot that
> > policeman".. unquote. Burt may not have seen the actual shooting but
> > he heard the shots and saw Tippit lying on the street.
>
> > You have to ask yourself.... WHY wasn't Smith and Burt's stories made
> > known?
>
> They were questioned by the WC, knucklehead. You think they didn`t
> do enough to make sure this information came to the attention of
> idiots like yourself?
>
> > The authorities certainly knew about what Smith and Burt said they
> > saw.
>
> They saw very little. Oz leaving the scene in a hurry, is all.
>
> > Perhaps we/ve never heard their stories because they said the killer
> > who fled the scene was about 5' 7" or 5' 8" tall and weighed about 150
> > to 160 pounds, ( that would make him stocky not slender) and he had
> > DARK hair possibly black.
>
> Smith said the Oz looked like the guy he saw, altough he thought
> his hair looked darker in person than it did on TV.

>
> > > > > http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/burt.htm
>
> > > > > > Actually this makes sense when you know that the killer was talking
> > > > > > through the wing window.
>
> > > > > Markham, the only real witness to the shooting, said Oz talked to
> > > > > Tippit through the car door window, with his arms resting on the
> > > > > window ledge. She was there.
>
> > > > > > Markham's account doesn't make sense,
>
> > > > > Because you`re an idiot. You want to replace what she said with
> > > > > things your mind invents.
>
> > > > THINK with yer tiny little pea brain..... If you were attempting to
> > > > talk to the driver of a car through the window, what posture would you
> > > > take?
>
> > > I`ve leaned on the door of a car and talked through the open window
> > > to the driver as Markham described many times.
>

> > > > If you're gonna put your arms on the "window ledge" you have to squat
> > > > down, because the your head would be jammed against the window if you
> > > > attempted to lean over and put your forearms on the "window ledge"
>
> > > It`s your position that it would be impossible that the person on
> > > the left in this photo could bend at the waist, put his forearms on
> > > the door ledge, and talk to the driver?
>

> > > > > > > > they attempt to identify those prints???- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

Herbert Blenner

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 9:26:50 PM3/26/08

to

On Mar 25, 7:16 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:

> On Mar 25, 6:58 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "There is no proof that Oswald owned that rifle on 11-22-63." <<<
>
> > You're an idiot.
>
> He's worse than an idiot.
>
> He's a liar.
>
> Walt lies...period.
>
> Walt lies about the JFK assassination in big details, and little
> details.
>
> He's an equally opportunity liar.
>
> He likes to lie.
>
> He lies when he says he doesn't lie.
>
> Don't get me wrong...Walt is about as big an idiot as there is on this
> board, but he is also a liar. To argue that Oswald didn't shoot
> Kennedy, or that he did and he had help is one thing, but to simply
> create out of thin air some goofy theory that Oswald didn't own the MC
> on 11-22-63 takes a special kind of liar.
>
> A liar named Walt Cakebread.

Source: Report of the FBI Laboratory - November 23, 1963

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0105-001.gif

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0105-002.gif

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0105-003.gif
:
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0105-004.gif

"The latent prints appearing in the photograph taken of the rifle, K1,
by the Dallas Police department, are too fragmentary and indistinct to
be of any value for identification purposes. Photographs of this
weapon taken by this Bureau also failed to produce prints of
sufficient legibility for comparison purposes."

Source:
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0105-005.gif

"No latent prints of value were developed on Oswald's revolver, the
cartridge cases, the unfired cartridge, the clip in the rifle or the
inner parts of the rifle."

Herbert

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 9:28:43 PM3/26/08

to

Yes actually I'm a little ashamed of myself for slappin the crap outta
a light weight like you.....But I'll get over it.

Here's the opening paragraph in the report that FBI agents James Ward
and Robert Basham compiled while talking to Bill Smith on 12/ 3 / 63.

William Arthur Smith, age 20, 328 1/2 East 8th street was interviewed
at the residence of his brother-in-law, Timmie Anzaldua 1831 Idaho
street, Dallas. He advised that he observed Officer Tippit when he was
being shot by an unknown white male, but he did not report to police
because he claimed he had been on two years probation for auto theft
and thought he might get in trouble with the police. He said he was
too far away from the individual to positively identify him but he
said he was a white male, about 5' 7" or 5' 8", 20 to 25 years of age,
150-160 pounds, wearing a white shirt, light brown jacket, and dark
pants.

Smith advised that he did not believe it was Oswald when he first saw
Oswald on TV because it looked like Oswald had light colored hair. He
was exhibited a photograph of Oswald and stated that the individual he
observed had dark hair......

He advised that he observed Officer Tippit when he was being shot by
an unknown white male,

Can you read this Dud????

>
> > Burt turned to go into the
> > house ( probably because he was AWOL from the army) but Bill Smith
> > continued to watch as Tippit got out of his car.
>
> You just produced the tesimony, liar...
>
> Ball: First time you ever saw this man was after you heard the
> shots?
>
> Smith: Yes, sir.
>
> > Smith saw the man
> > who had been leaning on the car shoot Tippit,
>
> Where does Smith say this?
>

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

Message has been deleted

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 9:46:34 PM3/26/08

to

On 26 Mar, 19:01, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Yes, everybody please do look at page 153 in "With Malice" and notice the area where Pete Barnes is applying finger print dust detecting powder. Notice that he's applying the powder on the forward part of the door just a couple of inches from where the fender and door join below the vent window. Then go to the link that [DAVID R. VON PEIN, MY #2 HERO; LHO IS #1] provided and notice where Barnes circled the area where he said he found the smears on the car door. He circled an area directly below the window as the location where he found the smears." <<<
>
> Barnes didn't "circle" anything on that particular exhibit, kook. He
> drew lines on it.
>
> >>> "Perhaps he did find smears beneath the window, but he found very good indentifiable prints in the area where he's seen applying the powder in the photo on page 153." <<<
>
> Goodie! Walt's lying (again)! Surprise!
>
> Even after being SHOWN the specific location on the "FRONT FENDER" of
> Tippit's car where Barnes said he found some fingerprints (which was
> way up near the car's right HEADLIGHT!), Walt still has the monster-
> sized gonads to utter this lie:
>
> "He [W.E. Barnes] found very good indentifiable prints in the
> area where he's seen applying the powder in the photo on page 153 [of
> Dale Myers' book "WITH MALICE"]."
>
> Walt never fails to theorize his way into idiocy. And he just did it
> again. (Surprise!)
>
> <additional chuckle>
>
> >>> "Thank You Von Pea Brain....For helping me kick yer ass." <<<
>
> Why would I need to worry about having my ass kicked by a kook who
> can't even tell a "circle" from a straight line? .....
>

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...

>
> I thought for just a millisecond that Walt MIGHT actually produce
> something that he said existed that would help to support his CT
> position (i.e., "Photos taken of Barnes dusting Tippit's car prove
> that Barnes was lying to Belin")...but, of course, Walt came up bone-
> dry once again. As usual.

Hey Pea Brain.... There are many photos available of detectives
examining Tippits car .....Can you direct me to JUST ONE that shows
that they had any interest in the right front fender near the head
light??

There is a good photo on page 155 of WM which shows Pete Barnes
preparing to dust the car for prints, and Captain George Dougherty is
looking at Bill Smith and Jimmy Burt and seems to be asking them where
they saw the killer touching the car.

Can you show me a SINGLE photo where anybody has any interest in the
fender near the headlight??

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 9:48:16 PM3/26/08

to

>>> "William Arthur Smith...said he was too far away from the individual to positively identify him but he said he was a white male, about 5' 7" or 5' 8", 20 to 25 years of age, 150-160 pounds, wearing a white shirt, light brown jacket, and dark pants." <<<

Walt never EVER fails to expose himself as a nutcase. Ever!

Walt actually seems to think that Smith, via the above description,
couldn't have seen Oswald at the Tippit murder scene. That's a howl.
Let's see why:

Smith said the person he saw at the Tippit shooting scene was:

"A white male".

Oswald was:

A white male.

Smith said the person was:

"About 5' 7" or 5' 8".

Oswald was:

5'9".

Smith said:

"20 to 25 years of age."

Oswald was:

24 years old.

Smith said:

"150-160 pounds."

Oswald weighed:

150 pounds (via his 11/24/63 autopsy report).

Smith said Tippit's killer was:

>>> "Wearing a white shirt, light brown jacket, and dark pants."

Oswald, when arrested 35 minutes later, was wearing:

A white (tee) shirt, a brown shirt over the white T-shirt (with this
brown shirt possibly resembling a "jacket" to someone who was quite a
distance away, like Smith), and dark pants.

William Smith saw Lee Harvey Oswald at the scene of Tippit's murder,
without a shred of a doubt.

But, being a kook, Walt thinks that this description (which fits
Oswald almost perfectly) couldn't possibly be a description of Mr.
Oswald:

"White male, about 5' 7" or 5' 8", 20 to 25 years of age,

150-160 pounds, wearing a white shirt, light brown jacket, and dark
pants."

To a Mega-Kook: A perfect description of Lee Oswald at the scene of a
murder = Lee Oswald couldn't possibly be the murderer.

Go figure.

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 10:00:28 PM3/26/08

to

>>> "Can you show me a SINGLE photo where anybody has any interest in the fender near the headlight??" <<<

I love it! The kook turns logic on its head once more, as he thinks
the ABSENCE OF A PHOTO showing something that is said to have taken
place by a DPD officer is PROOF of some kind that the action taken by
the officer (i.e., dusting the front fender near the headlight) never
took place.

We don't have a photo of Callaway running from the scene with Tippit's
gun either. Does that mean we can't believe that Callaway ran from the
scene with Tippit's gun?

We don't have a photo of Oswald killing Tippit either -- but Oswald's
still guilty (regardless of you ABO kooks).

There's no photo of Barnes physically LIFTING any prints off the car
either (just "dusting" it). Does this mean that he lifted NO PRINTS at
all?

Walt would have been better off if he would have simply shut his trap
after I posted Barnes Exhibit A (which Walt, undoubtedly, never knew
existed prior to my posting it today; and as I have stated...I never
knew it existed before today either).

But Walt, being a nutjob, will continue to try to squeeze out some
loony theory about prints even AFTER seeing Barnes Exhibit A.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=140881

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 10:26:38 PM3/26/08

to

On 26 Mar, 19:48, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "William Arthur Smith...said he was too far away from the individual to positively identify him but he said he was a white male, about 5' 7" or 5' 8", 20 to 25 years of age, 150-160 pounds, wearing a white shirt, light brown jacket, and dark pants." <<<
>
> Walt never EVER fails to expose himself as a nutcase. Ever!
>
> Walt actually seems to think that Smith, via the above description,
> couldn't have seen Oswald at the Tippit murder scene. That's a howl.
> Let's see why:
>
> Smith said the person he saw at the Tippit shooting scene was:
>
> "A white male".
>
> Oswald was:
>
> A white male.
>
> Smith said the person was:
>
> "About 5' 7" or 5' 8".
>
> Oswald was:
>
> 5'9".
>
> Smith said:
>
> "20 to 25 years of age."
>
> Oswald was:
>
> 24 years old.
>
> Smith said:
>
> "150-160 pounds."
>
> Oswald weighed:
>
> 150 pounds (via his 11/24/63 autopsy report).

A 160 pound 5' 7" man would be stocky....not slender....Oswald was
slender. His booking sheet listed his weight as 140 pounds.

>
> Smith said Tippit's killer was:
>
> >>> "Wearing a white shirt, light brown jacket, and dark pants."
>
> Oswald, when arrested 35 minutes later, was wearing:
>
> A white (tee) shirt, a brown shirt over the white T-shirt (with this
> brown shirt possibly resembling a "jacket" to someone who was quite a
> distance away, like Smith), and dark pants.

Whoa!!.... Hold on jist a minute you bare faced liar. What happened
to the light colored jacket that several witnesses said the killer was
wearing when he shot Tippit?

>
> William Smith saw Lee Harvey Oswald at the scene of Tippit's murder,
> without a shred of a doubt.
>
> But, being a kook, Walt thinks that this description (which fits
> Oswald almost perfectly) couldn't possibly be a description of Mr.
> Oswald:
>
> "White male, about 5' 7" or 5' 8", 20 to 25 years of age,
> 150-160 pounds, wearing a white shirt, light brown jacket, and dark
> pants."
>
> To a Mega-Kook: A perfect description of Lee Oswald at the scene of a
> murder = Lee Oswald couldn't possibly be the murderer.
>
> Go figure.

I figger yer a gutless liar.... because you ommitted the crucial part
where Smith said he saw Oswald on TV and he didn't think Oswald was
the DARK HAIRED man he saw shoot Oswald.

It's probably escaped you that Bill Smith palled around with Helen
Markham's son, and he knew Mrs Markham. He said she had talked to him
about the description of the killer and she too thought the killers
hair was darker than Oswalds. Smiths description of the killer is
almost identical to Helen Markham's .... and that description did NOT
fit Oswald.

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 10:30:44 PM3/26/08

to

On 26 Mar, 20:00, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Can you show me a SINGLE photo where anybody has any interest in the fender near the headlight??" <<<
>
> I love it! The kook turns logic on its head once more, as he thinks
> the ABSENCE OF A PHOTO showing something that is said to have taken
> place by a DPD officer is PROOF of some kind that the action taken by
> the officer (i.e., dusting the front fender near the headlight) never
> took place.
>
> We don't have a photo of Callaway running from the scene with Tippit's
> gun either. Does that mean we can't believe that Callaway ran from the
> scene with Tippit's gun?
>
> We don't have a photo of Oswald killing Tippit either -- but Oswald's
> still guilty (regardless of you ABO kooks).
>
> There's no photo of Barnes physically LIFTING any prints off the car
> either (just "dusting" it). Does this mean that he lifted NO PRINTS at
> all?
>
> Walt would have been better off if he would have simply shut his trap
> after I posted Barnes Exhibit A (which Walt, undoubtedly, never knew
> existed prior to my posting it today; and as I have stated...I never
> knew it existed before today either).

I'd be willing to wager I've forgotten more about this case than you
know..... You'd be the one who would be wise to keep yer trap shut,
because you expose yer ignorance nearly everytime you open it.

>
> But Walt, being a nutjob, will continue to try to squeeze out some
> loony theory about prints even AFTER seeing Barnes Exhibit A.
>

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...

Walt

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 10:40:12 PM3/26/08

to

On 26 Mar, 20:00, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Can you show me a SINGLE photo where anybody has any interest in the fender near the headlight??" <<<
>
> I love it! The kook turns logic on its head once more, as he thinks
> the ABSENCE OF A PHOTO showing something that is said to have taken
> place by a DPD officer is PROOF of some kind that the action taken by
> the officer (i.e., dusting the front fender near the headlight) never
> took place.

Thank you....You've just admitted that there is no photos which show
that Barnes or anybody else had any interest in looking for finger
prints near the headlight. ( when you think about it ....It is an
absurd idea! The cops were seeking evidence.....They asked witnesses
if the killer had touched the car. When the witnesses said that the
killer was by the passenger window that would be the logical place to
look for prints. Since NOBODY said the killer was anywhere near the
headlight, it's utterly ridiculous to think Barnes would have looked
there for any fingerprint evidence. It would make just as much sense
for Barnes to have checked the left rear hubcap.

Watta lyin moron you are......

>
> We don't have a photo of Callaway running from the scene with Tippit's
> gun either. Does that mean we can't believe that Callaway ran from the
> scene with Tippit's gun?
>
> We don't have a photo of Oswald killing Tippit either -- but Oswald's
> still guilty (regardless of you ABO kooks).
>
> There's no photo of Barnes physically LIFTING any prints off the car
> either (just "dusting" it). Does this mean that he lifted NO PRINTS at
> all?
>
> Walt would have been better off if he would have simply shut his trap
> after I posted Barnes Exhibit A (which Walt, undoubtedly, never knew
> existed prior to my posting it today; and as I have stated...I never
> knew it existed before today either).
>
> But Walt, being a nutjob, will continue to try to squeeze out some
> loony theory about prints even AFTER seeing Barnes Exhibit A.
>

> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 10:54:18 PM3/26/08

to

>>> "Watta lyin moron you are." <<<

<lol>

Better stick to calling Barnes the liar. I'm not the one who drew the
lines on this picture:

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=140881

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 11:04:31 PM3/26/08

to

>>> "Whoa!!.... Hold on jist a minute you bare faced liar. What happened to the light colored jacket that several witnesses said the killer was wearing when he shot Tippit?" <<<

Oh, yes. The gray jacket. For some reason I forgot the jacket Oswald
had on to hide his .38. I must've had a brain cramp for a second (I
hope Walt is wearing off on ME. Yikes!)

Well, now....when we add in the gray zipper jacket that I omitted in
my other post, it actually makes Smith's description even MORE like
Oswald's appearance as of 1:15 PM on 11/22/63 -- because it means
Smith was not mistaken about the killer wearing a "jacket".

Smith saw Oswald's white T-shirt underneath Oz's grayish jacket. If
Smith said "light brown" for the jacket, he was wrong about the exact
color.

Why does Walt want to pretend that a double-murderer didn't kill
anybody?

A very strange hobby.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 11:20:19 PM3/26/08

to

>>> "You omitted the crucial part where Smith said he saw Oswald on TV and he didn't think Oswald was the DARK HAIRED man he saw shoot Oswald." <<<

El-Oh-El.

In Walt's mind, the fact that Smith said the killer had "dark hair"
somehow exonerates Oswald, who, Voila!, had dark hair too.

Go figure.

David Von Pein

unread,

Mar 26, 2008, 11:27:25 PM3/26/08

to

>>> "It's utterly ridiculous to think Barnes would have looked there for any fingerprint evidence. It would make just as much sense for Barnes to have checked the left rear hubcap." <<<

And now all you have to come up with is a reason for why Pete Barnes
would have had any desire to say he dusted the headlight area of the
car for fingerprints if he really didn't dust such an area of the car
for prints?

Any ideas on that, Mr. Kook?

Was Barnes "lying" just for the sake of telling a useless, meaningless
lie?

Bud

unread,

Mar 27, 2008, 7:03:18 AM3/27/08

to

You slap yourself. I just point it out.

> Here's the opening paragraph in the report that FBI agents James Ward
> and Robert Basham compiled while talking to Bill Smith on 12/ 3 / 63.
>
> William Arthur Smith, age 20, 328 1/2 East 8th street was interviewed
> at the residence of his brother-in-law, Timmie Anzaldua 1831 Idaho
> street, Dallas. He advised that he observed Officer Tippit when he was
> being shot by an unknown white male, but he did not report to police
> because he claimed he had been on two years probation for auto theft
> and thought he might get in trouble with the police. He said he was
> too far away from the individual to positively identify him but he
> said he was a white male, about 5' 7" or 5' 8", 20 to 25 years of age,
> 150-160 pounds, wearing a white shirt, light brown jacket, and dark
> pants.
>
> Smith advised that he did not believe it was Oswald when he first saw
> Oswald on TV because it looked like Oswald had light colored hair. He
> was exhibited a photograph of Oswald and stated that the individual he
> observed had dark hair......
>
> He advised that he observed Officer Tippit when he was being shot by
> an unknown white male,
>
> Can you read this Dud????

Are you trying to prove you are an idiot? I produced the FBI report
that from Jimmy Burt that says they were both inside a house a block
away from the shooting, and came out when they heard the shots. You
produced Smith testimony as a source, and acted as if Smith`s
testimony was better, more reliable information than what the FBI
recoreded from Burt.

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

So, I worked off of what Smith told the WC, and now you act as if
the FBI report of Smith trumps what he told the WC. This is called
cherry picking. What we have is an FBI report (Jimmy Burt`s) saying
they didn`t see the murder, testimony of Smith`s that he didn`t see
the murder, and an FBI report indicating that Smith did see the
murder. But this bit of misdirection is meaningless to your original
point that these guys saw Oswald touching Tippit`s car. That is what
these guys were brought up to support, remember? So quit slapping
yourself, and support this statement you made...

"Billy Smith and Jimmy Burt saw the killer leaning with his hand on
the car."

I don`t see it in the FBI reports from these guys, or the
testimony. Don`t refer to some footnote in a book, quote them saying
they saw Oz`s hand on Tippit`s patrol car.

One more thing... you make the point that Markham was too far away
to see what she said she had. So you disregard what she said, yet
offer witnesses even further away than she was to support your silly
premises. Here is the map. You can see that Smith`s location at 505
east 10th is something like 10 times further away from the murder than
Markham was at the corner of 10th and Patton (so far away that Burt
and Smith drove to the scene)...

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&abauth=f4247c1c%3AnZ96DQufHFNj9vIakOmcnlg_wnE&output=html&hl=en&q=505+east+10th+dallas&btnG=Search+Maps

I think the reason you do this is because you are an idiot. Do you
tell these outrageous tales because you are starved for attention?

Walt

unread,

Mar 27, 2008, 9:53:37 AM3/27/08

to

On 26 Mar, 21:00, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:

> On Mar 26, 9:30 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > I'd be willing to wager I've forgotten more about this case than you
> > know..... You'd be the one who would be wise to keep yer trap shut,
> > because you expose yer ignorance nearly everytime you open it.
>

> Like Ben, your knowledge is a mile wide and an inch deep.
>
> Look at your own disjointed, rambling responses. You lack the critical
> thinking chip most people start to develop around junior high school.
> It's all one huge plot, and super-patriot Walt is out to save
> AmeriKKKa and restore it to its former glory. The WC is a pack of
> lies. Ford, Spector, Chief Justice Warren, Belin, etc. were all evil
> liars, blah, blah.
>
> What was the purpose *they* had in mind framing Oswald for shooting
> Tippit? Wasn't it enough to plant guys on the knoll, other parts of
> the TSBD, sewers, etc. to kill Kennedy? Why was Tippit killed?
>
> Man, you are one dumb senior.

You asked the questions....and you are the guy that just stated that
you believe the Warren Commission..... If you believe the WC there's
no need to ask the questions.... and there's no need to frequent this
NG. Try to be just a little bit honest....You're looking for answers,
because in your heart you know you haven't been told the truth.
Who's the dumbass?

Schmuck...if you were confident that the WC performed an honest
investigation and gave you the truth, you'd be secure in your belief,
and wouldn't waste a moment arguing about the case.

I'm secure in believing the earth is a globe ..... And I wouldn't
waste two seconds trying to convince someone who professes to believe
the earth is a flat disc. So why are you here??

Walt

unread,

Mar 27, 2008, 9:59:37 AM3/27/08

to

On 26 Mar, 21:04, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Whoa!!.... Hold on jist a minute you bare faced liar. What happened to the light colored jacket that several witnesses said the killer was wearing when he shot Tippit?" <<<
>
> Oh, yes. The gray jacket. For some reason I forgot the jacket Oswald
> had on to hide his .38. I must've had a brain cramp for a second (I
> hope Walt is wearing off on ME. Yikes!)
>
> Well, now....when we add in the gray zipper jacket that I omitted in
> my other post, it actually makes Smith's description even MORE like
> Oswald's appearance as of 1:15 PM on 11/22/63 -- because it means
> Smith was not mistaken about the killer wearing a "jacket".

Whoa! jist a damned minute you barefaced liar...... Where do you get
off making the claim that the jacket was gray..... What color did
most of the witnesses say the jacket was?? And did the Davis sisters
say the jacket was DARK colored?

>
> Smith saw Oswald's white T-shirt underneath Oz's grayish jacket. If
> Smith said "light brown" for the jacket, he was wrong about the exact
> color.

How the hell do you know what Smith saw..... He didn't say anything
about a T-shirt. Your just makin up stuff, to placate your master.

Walt

unread,

Mar 27, 2008, 10:23:20 AM3/27/08

to

Damn yer one dumb SOB...... It wasn't solely the distance that made
it impossible for Markham to determine the position of the window, and
the killers stance beside the car, although the 150 feet distance was
a mitigating factor. The PRIMARY reason that Markham could see that
the window was up and the killer talked to Tippit through the vent
window was because Tippits car BLOCKED HER VIEW. Bill Smith was about
the same distance away but he was IN FRONT of the car so his view was
not BLOCKED BY THE CAR.

So you disregard what she said, yet
offer witnesses even further away than she was to support your silly
premises. Here is the map. You can see that Smith`s location at 505
east 10th is something like 10 times further away from the murder
than
Markham was at the corner of 10th and Patton (so far away that Burt
and Smith drove to the scene)...

> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&abauth=f4247c1c%3AnZ96DQufHFNj9vIakOm...

>
> I think the reason you do this is because you are an idiot. Do you
> tell these outrageous tales because you are starved for attention?
>
>
>
> > > > Burt turned to go into the
> > > > house ( probably because he was AWOL from the army) but Bill Smith
> > > > continued to watch as Tippit got out of his car.
>
> > > You just produced the tesimony, liar...
>
> > > Ball: First time you ever saw this man was after you heard the
> > > shots?
>
> > > Smith: Yes, sir.
>
> > > > Smith saw the man
> > > > who had been leaning on the car shoot Tippit,
>
> > > Where does Smith say this?
>
> > > > and Burt may not have
> > > > made it inside before the shots rang out because he later told the FBI
> > > > that he exclaimed to Smith... Quote" Billy, that guy just shot that
> > > > policeman".. unquote. Burt may not have seen the actual shooting but
> > > > he heard the shots and saw Tippit lying on the street.
>
> > > > You have to ask yourself.... WHY wasn't Smith and Burt's stories made
> > > > known?
>
> > > They were questioned by the WC, knucklehead. You think they didn`t
> > > do enough to make sure this information came to the attention of
> > > idiots like yourself?
>
> > > > The
>

Walt

unread,

Mar 27, 2008, 10:45:09 AM3/27/08

to

You really need to educate yourself and learn the facts.....And then
try to apply just a little commonsense to what you learn.

505 east 10th street is not even a full block away from the site
where Tippit was shot. Tippit stopped his squad car on the south
side of the street in front of 410 East 10th street and that's where
he was killed. The even numbers are on the south side of 10th street,
and the odd numbers are on the north side of the street. The 500
block of 10th street is the next block west of the 400 block. 501
being the first house on the north side of the street. 505 is the next
house on the noth side of the street. 505 East 10 th street is not 10
times further away than Markham was. The distance to 505 East 10th is
roughly 2.5 times the distance Markham was from the scene, or about
about 325 feet, just a little more than the length of a football
field.

TEN TIMES the distance.....oh how you exaggerate!!

>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&abauth=f4247c1c%3AnZ96DQufHFNj9vIakOm...

>
> I think the reason you do this is because you are an idiot. Do you
> tell these outrageous tales because you are starved for attention?
>
>
>
> > > > Burt turned to go into the
> > > > house ( probably because he was AWOL from the army) but Bill Smith
> > > > continued to watch as Tippit got out of his car.
>
> > > You just produced the tesimony, liar...
>
> > > Ball: First time you ever saw this man was after you heard the
> > > shots?
>
> > > Smith: Yes, sir.
>
> > > > Smith saw the man
> > > > who had been leaning on the car shoot Tippit,
>
> > > Where does Smith say this?
>
> > > > and Burt may not have
> > > > made it inside before the shots rang out because he later told the FBI
> > > > that he exclaimed to Smith... Quote" Billy, that guy just shot that
> > > > policeman".. unquote. Burt may not have seen the actual shooting but
> > > > he heard the shots and saw Tippit lying on the street.
>
> > > > You have to ask yourself.... WHY wasn't Smith and Burt's stories made
> > > > known?
>
> > > They were questioned by the WC, knucklehead. You think they didn`t
> > > do enough to make sure this information came to the attention of
> > > idiots like yourself?
>
> > > > The
>

Walt

unread,

Mar 27, 2008, 11:01:16 AM3/27/08

to

I figger yer a liar..... Anybody can look at what Smith said and see
that he said he saw Oswald's picture on TV and Oswald's hair appeared
lighter than the hair of the man he saw shoot Tippit.

Walt

unread,

Mar 27, 2008, 11:02:27 AM3/27/08

to

Barnes was doing what he was ordered to do if he wanted to keep his
job and stay healthy.

Message has been deleted