THE brown paperbag...
aeffects
manufactured by federal police after they had rendered the original
(brown paperbag) useless...WC iv, 93; xvi, 960 -- Mark Lane, Rush to
Judgement pg.328 1966-Sixth Printing
Legal beagles think that will stand up? "Ah, your honor, we destroyed
the evidence but we recreated one that looks just like the one we
destroyed, we'd like to enter this into evidence as the package used
to hidie and transport the murder weapon into the TSBD..." Eh, think
that will fly?
So, if you can't get the MC rifle into the TSBD (alleged handcarried
by Oswald inside the brown paperbag, the morning of the
assassination), and you can't get him in the window at 12:30 --
explain this to CTer's --
perhaps daBugliosi will clear this up, eh, DavidV?
Or, are we back to all those rifles seen in Truly's office a day or so
before the assassination....help us out David VonPein...
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> The reconstructed evidence included a facsimile of the brown paperbag
> manufactured by federal police after they had rendered the original
> (brown paperbag) useless...WC iv, 93; xvi, 960 -- Mark Lane, Rush to
> Judgement pg.328 1966-Sixth Printing
My God, you don`t believe the shit you read in those kook-books, do
you?
> Legal beagles think that will stand up? "Ah, your honor, we destroyed
> the evidence but we recreated one that looks just like the one we
> destroyed, we'd like to enter this into evidence as the package used
> to hidie and transport the murder weapon into the TSBD..." Eh, think
> that will fly?
They didn`t distroy the bag, it was altered by the fingerprint
treatment.
> So, if you can't get the MC rifle into the TSBD (alleged handcarried
> by Oswald inside the brown paperbag,
Sure we can. Oz was sen carrying a long bag into work that morning.
A long bag with Oz`s prints was found near where the shots were fired
from. Easy-peasey.
> the morning of the
> assassination), and you can't get him in the window at 12:30 --
Sure we can. He was seen by a witness.
> explain this to CTer's --
>
> perhaps daBugliosi will clear this up, eh, DavidV?
No, Bugliosi will be powerless to clear this up to kooks.
> Or, are we back to all those rifles seen in Truly's office a day or so
> before the assassination....
No, all of the thousands of other rifles in Dallas need not apply,
they ween`t tied ballistically to the fragments in the limo.
>help us out David VonPein...
Doubtful anyone can.
Walt
> aeffects wrote:
> > The reconstructed evidence included a facsimile of the brown paperbag
> > manufactured by federal police after they had rendered the original
> > (brown paperbag) useless...WC iv, 93; xvi, 960 -- Mark Lane, Rush to
> > Judgement pg.328 1966-Sixth Printing
>
> My God, you don`t believe the shit you read in those kook-books, do
> you?
Kook books??..... WC Vol IV page 960.... Are you now down to
calling the actual records "kook books'??
>
> > Legal beagles think that will stand up? "Ah, your honor, we destroyed
> > the evidence but we recreated one that looks just like the one we
> > destroyed, we'd like to enter this into evidence as the package used
> > to hidie and transport the murder weapon into the TSBD..." Eh, think
> > that will fly?
>
> They didn`t distroy the bag, it was altered by the fingerprint
> treatment.
The reason they gave for fabricating a fake bag to show to Frazier and
Randle was because the original had been DESTROYED in the process of
testing of fingerprints. That's another lie...... The original bag
that was nothing but a book wrapper had been sent to the FBI lab in
Washington D.C. The FBI agents wanted a bag to take to show to
Randle and Frazier but it was in Washington, so they allegedly had Roy
Truly fabricate a "identical replica" ( how did they know it was an
identical replica when the original was 2000 miles away??) to show to
Randle and Frazier.
>
> > So, if you can't get the MC rifle into the TSBD (alleged handcarried
> > by Oswald inside the brown paperbag,
>
> Sure we can. Oz was sen carrying a long bag into work that morning.
The bag Lee carried was 28 inches long......the rifle was 40 inches
long.
> A long bag with Oz`s prints was found near where the shots were fired
> from. Easy-peasey.
A large book wrapper was found near the scene where the spent shells
had been planted. The book wrapper had been handled by Lee Oswald when
he unwrapped some books to fill an order.
>
> > the morning of the
> > assassination), and you can't get him in the window at 12:30 --
>
> Sure we can. He was seen by a witness.
Oh this is soooooo good.... A witness saw Oswald firing from that
window??? Who was this witness??
Walt
aeffects
> aeffects wrote:
> > The reconstructed evidence included a facsimile of the brown paperbag
> > manufactured by federal police after they had rendered the original
> > (brown paperbag) useless...WC iv, 93; xvi, 960 -- Mark Lane, Rush to
> > Judgement pg.328 1966-Sixth Printing
>
> My God, you don`t believe the shit you read in those kook-books, do
> you?
he'll be daBugliosi's downfall, and Vince knows it!
> > Legal beagles think that will stand up? "Ah, your honor, we destroyed
> > the evidence but we recreated one that looks just like the one we
> > destroyed, we'd like to enter this into evidence as the package used
> > to hidie and transport the murder weapon into the TSBD..." Eh, think
> > that will fly?
>
> They didn`t distroy the bag, it was altered by the fingerprint
> treatment.
>
> > So, if you can't get the MC rifle into the TSBD (alleged handcarried
> > by Oswald inside the brown paperbag,
*altered* evidence? LMFAO -- so,what bag are you talking about -- what
the WC lackey's reviewed, and/or the "federal" police presented as
evidence was a facsimile of the bag they (the federal police)
destroyed....
Dudster we need a word merchant here, so do us a favor take your
tinfoil beanie on a trip downtown-beantown....
> Sure we can. Oz was sen carrying a long bag into work that morning.
> A long bag with Oz`s prints was found near where the shots were fired
> from. Easy-peasey.
wouldn't make it in through the frondoor of the courthouse, let alone
as evidence in a murder trial
> > the morning of the
> > assassination), and you can't get him in the window at 12:30 --
>
> Sure we can. He was seen by a witness.
which one, the one with 4 different stories?
> > explain this to CTer's --
>
> > perhaps daBugliosi will clear this up, eh, DavidV?
>
> No, Bugliosi will be powerless to clear this up to kooks.
no need to be fearful Dudster, we'll carry you through this. Ct's
suspect daBugliosi will be falling on his sword for the cause, be
proud!
aeffects
this scenario get funnier and funnier, Walt! the interesting thing
about MLane is he wrote RUSH to Judgement 41 years ago, and Nutter's
can't get passed it. Lane single handidly destroys, the WCR!
eca...@tx.rr.com
1) In the first place the cops
DO NOT have to put Oswald "in
the window" using the bag.. The
rest of the evidence can easily
do that. Do you think if nobody
had seen the bag Oz would have
been acquitted?!?
2) Oswald was seen carrying a
long bwn paper bag that morning..
If that's not the real bag,
someone (The DPD?) *planted* a
fake bag and ..
3) and.. knew to *plant* Oz's
palm print at the bottom of the
fake bag..
4) AND.. *planted* fibers similar
to his blanket in the fake bag..
5) Not to mention somebody swiped
Oz's rifle from the Paine garage
and..
6) Brennan saw someone in a
"Oswald disguise" up in the 6F/SN
window..
Give it a rest Healy.. There's
such a thing as throwing mud on
the wall but now you're throwing
fluff.. Only the kookdumb cheering
section (down to Sacknutz, Walt &
Luthier41) will applaud you.
**********
We have an evidence *pattern*
You don't. And that's the
DIFFERENCE.
**********
MR ;~D
PS: "There's Something Fishy Here"
is not evidence Healy..
aeffects
Eddie, Eddie, EDDIE, Again, you're irrelevant - you'd do us all better
by perfecting those attributes you claim to have (must be 88,000 by
now, eh?) -- think Fading Away, graphic expert, think 'Fading
Away'..... and while you're at it, repent! It is Sunday after-all!
Give us a legal-beagle, a word merchant if you will, not these
Neutered children thinking they're aware of the WCR and the Lone
Nutter attendent volumes....
tomnln
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173637925.2...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com...
The LAST thing in the world ed cage wants to address if the Official
Records.
On 2/11/07he wrote>>.
> I will address each of the 3 or 4 but
> at some point I'd like to know your
> source(s) for each claim you "quote"
> Quite frankly there's so much subjective
> BS on your site I'm a little leary of you
> just saying "here's what happened and
> what Baker did" ..
We are STILL Waiting for his reply.
I Repeatedly asked him to address these>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/altgens.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/zapruder%20film.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/autopsy.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/characters.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/croft_photo_with_anaylisis.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/warren.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/Evid%20Tamp.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/videopg.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/AUDIO%20PAGE.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/reasonable.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/VEITNAM.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CIA.htm
AGAIN, we are STILL waiting.
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 11 Mar, 11:08, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > aeffects wrote:
> > > The reconstructed evidence included a facsimile of the brown paperbag
> > > manufactured by federal police after they had rendered the original
> > > (brown paperbag) useless...WC iv, 93; xvi, 960 -- Mark Lane, Rush to
> > > Judgement pg.328 1966-Sixth Printing
> >
> > My God, you don`t believe the shit you read in those kook-books, do
> > you?
>
> Kook books??..... WC Vol IV page 960.... Are you now down to
> calling the actual records "kook books'??
Depend if Mark Lanes book uses the same partial, misleading fragment
that aeffects produced here. Using the fingerprint chemicals did not
render the bag useless for identification purposes, the chemicals
didn`t change the size and shape of it.
> > > Legal beagles think that will stand up? "Ah, your honor, we destroyed
> > > the evidence but we recreated one that looks just like the one we
> > > destroyed, we'd like to enter this into evidence as the package used
> > > to hidie and transport the murder weapon into the TSBD..." Eh, think
> > > that will fly?
> >
> > They didn`t destroy the bag, it was altered by the fingerprint
> > treatment.
>
> The reason they gave for fabricating a fake bag to show to Frazier and
> Randle was because the original had been DESTROYED in the process of
> testing of fingerprints.
No, idiot, Randle and Frazier were shown the original bag found in
the TSBD.
> That's another lie...... The original bag
> that was nothing but a book wrapper
Who says it was a book wrapper? Anyone besides you?
>had been sent to the FBI lab in
> Washington D.C. The FBI agents wanted a bag to take to show to
> Randle and Frazier but it was in Washington,
No, it wasn`t, it was returned by the time Odum and Neely
interviewed WBF and LMR. They were shown the original bag, which it
clearly says in there report, which I, and many people before me, have
explained to Walt (to no avail).
> so they allegedly had Roy
> Truly fabricate a "identical replica" ( how did they know it was an
> identical replica when the original was 2000 miles away??) to show to
> Randle and Frazier.
Because it wasn`t 2000 miles away. It was set to Washington on the
22nd, and tested. It was taken by FBI agents Odum and Neely and shown
to these witnesses (Dec 2nd, I believe).
> > > So, if you can't get the MC rifle into the TSBD (alleged handcarried
> > > by Oswald inside the brown paperbag,
> >
> > Sure we can. Oz was sen carrying a long bag into work that morning.
>
> The bag Lee carried was 28 inches long......
Amazing you can determine such a precise length, considering
neither witness measured it.
>the rifle was 40 inches
> long.
Not when broken down, it wasn`t.
> > A long bag with Oz`s prints was found near where the shots were fired
> > from. Easy-peasey.
>
> A large book wrapper was found near the scene where the spent shells
> had been planted.
<snicker> Near the window no shots were fired from, right Walt? 40
plus years, and the kooks can`t get one basic fact of this case right.
> The book wrapper had been handled by Lee Oswald when
> he unwrapped some books to fill an order.
Says who? Truly was shown the bag, he was unfamiliar with it.
> > > the morning of the
> > > assassination), and you can't get him in the window at 12:30 --
> >
> > Sure we can. He was seen by a witness.
>
> Oh this is soooooo good.... A witness saw Oswald firing from that
> window??? Who was this witness??
Are you that unfamiliar with the evidence? Howard Brennan.
Walt
> Healy you moron..
> 1) In the first place the cops
> DO NOT have to put Oswald "in
> the window" using the bag.. The
> rest of the evidence can easily
> do that. Do you think if nobody
> had seen the bag Oz would have
> been acquitted?!?
would have been acquitted. More-over if Oswald had nit been murdered I
doubt that he would even have been indicted. If He had lived just a
couple more days he would have spilled the beans and the true killers
would have been on the run.
> 2) Oswald was seen carrying a long bwn paper bag that morning.........
True, but the evidence shows that the bag he carried was not more
than 29 inches long.
If that's not the real bag, someone (The DPD?) *planted* a fake
bag .....
Nonsense,.... No one had to plant a fake bag. There were paper book
wrappers galore around the book storage areas in the TSBD. There is no
photographic record that shows the book wrapper lying on the floor
where they claimed it was found.
> 3) and.. knew to *plant* Oz's palm print at the bottom of the fake bag..
It was Oswald's job to take books out of protective paper wrappers and
send them off to customers. How could he unwrap the books without
leaving finger prints on the wrappers??
> 4) AND.. *planted* fibers similar to his blanket in the fake bag..
pssssst Eddie.... The blanket fibers were on the OUTSIDE of the bag.
There are photos that were taken of the evidence being turned over to
the FBI which show the blanket touching the OUTSIDE of the paper
wrapper.
> 5) Not to mention somebody swiped Oz's rifle from the Paine garage.....
Good point.... Do you know who it was and WHEN it was stolen??
> 6) Brennan saw someone in a "Oswald disguise" up in the 6F/SN window
Really?? yer kiddin....The Gunman was about 30 to 35 years old, and
he weighed 165 to 175 pounds, and he was dressed in a white shirt and
white trousers. Are you saying that Oswald could age ten years at
will?? and gain or lose 35 pounds at will?? And he could remove his
white shirt and trousers and don a DARK colored reddish brown shirt
and dark gray trousers and then dash down to the lunchroom ...all in
just 90 seconds?? I gotta tell ya Eddie I don't think you can sell
this idea to any sane folks. In fact those folks might call the
WhiteJackets to come and get you.
Walt
> > before the assassination....help us out David VonPein...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> On Mar 11, 10:08 am, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > aeffects wrote:
> > > The reconstructed evidence included a facsimile of the brown paperbag
> > > manufactured by federal police after they had rendered the original
> > > (brown paperbag) useless...WC iv, 93; xvi, 960 -- Mark Lane, Rush to
> > > Judgement pg.328 1966-Sixth Printing
> >
> > My God, you don`t believe the shit you read in those kook-books, do
> > you?
>
>
> he'll be daBugliosi's downfall, and Vince knows it!
Lane? He`ll be one more book sale, is all.
> > > Legal beagles think that will stand up? "Ah, your honor, we destroyed
> > > the evidence but we recreated one that looks just like the one we
> > > destroyed, we'd like to enter this into evidence as the package used
> > > to hidie and transport the murder weapon into the TSBD..." Eh, think
> > > that will fly?
> >
> > They didn`t destroy the bag, it was altered by the fingerprint
> > treatment.
> >
> > > So, if you can't get the MC rifle into the TSBD (alleged handcarried
> > > by Oswald inside the brown paperbag,
>
> *altered* evidence? LMFAO --
Yah, the process they used to detect fingerprints discolored the
paper. Why do you kooks need this stuff explained to you time after
time for decades, will it ever sink in? Are you aware of a fingerprint
process that wouldn`t alter the paper that was available in the
sixties? Is the objection to this procedure that it provided evidence
against your beloved patsy?
> so,what bag are you talking about -- what
> the WC lackey's reviewed, and/or the "federal" police presented as
> evidence was a facsimile of the bag they (the federal police)
> destroyed....
Read the FBI report, knucklehead. It tells that two bags were shown
to the witnesses, a facsimile and the original found in the TSBD. It
even tells why, Read it, your ignorance can be prevented.
> Dudster we need a word merchant here, so do us a favor take your
> tinfoil beanie on a trip downtown-beantown....
You don`t need a word merchant, you need a brain that isn`t steeped
in illegal substances.
> > Sure we can. Oz was sen carrying a long bag into work that morning.
> > A long bag with Oz`s prints was found near where the shots were fired
> > from. Easy-peasey.
>
> wouldn't make it in through the frondoor of the courthouse, let alone
> as evidence in a murder trial
No, they never allow fingerprint evidence. It`s that "first frame
flash" stuff that leads to convictions.
> > > the morning of the
> > > assassination), and you can't get him in the window at 12:30 --
> >
> > Sure we can. He was seen by a witness.
>
> which one, the one with 4 different stories?
Why is it news to the kooks that there is a witness to JFK`s
murderer? Is that fact left out of all the kook books?
> > > explain this to CTer's --
> >
> > > perhaps daBugliosi will clear this up, eh, DavidV?
> >
> > No, Bugliosi will be powerless to clear this up to kooks.
>
> no need to be fearful Dudster, we'll carry you through this. Ct's
> suspect daBugliosi will be falling on his sword for the cause, be
> proud!
He may use things like witnesses to murders, and fingerprints...
you know, the stuff they don`t allow in the front door of courtrooms.
eca...@tx.rr.com
"The bag Lee carried was 28 inches long..
Wrong again Walt. The bag found
up in the 6F/SN was more than
adequate to hold Oswald's rifle..
Your size est of the bag is way
off.. Additionally when it was
disassembled it was 34.8"
Ed
> > Doubtful anyone can.- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
It's fairly obvious that you are probably BEYOND help, Sir Kook. You,
being the rabid conspiracy theorist you so obviously are, love to
isolate and mangle and INVENT evidence whenever it pleases you (and it
pleases you a whole lot in this murder case).
Back to some reality (and common sense) here, we have this stuff on
the evidence table, in a (lone) nutshell:
1.) A Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (CE139), verifiably purchased via mail-
order by Lee Harvey Oswald in March 1963, was found on the sixth floor
of the Texas School Book Depository Building at 1:22 PM on the
afternoon of President John Kennedy's assassination (November 22,
1963). This very rifle was positively linked to two bullets directly
connected with JFK's murder.
2.) Lee Harvey Oswald carried a brown paper bag CONTAINING SOMETHING
BULKY (HEAVY) into the TSBD on the morning the President was murdered.
3.) A very similar-looking EMPTY bag was found beneath the very window
from where JFK was shot by a person who looked just like somebody
named Lee Harvey Oswald. (And also the very same window where
additional "Oswald Was Here" evidence resided, e.g., bullet shells
from LHO's rifle and multiple prints of Lee's on the boxes WITHIN the
"Nest" itself.)
4.) The empty bag contains fibers that generally match the fibers of
the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage (the known storage location of
Oswald's rifle)
5.) Oswald's own fingerprint and palmprint are discovered on the empty
paper bag. (Did the police "manufacture" and "plant" these prints too,
per CTers?)
6.) Given all the known evidence (via witnesses), it's fairly obvious
that Oswald carried no bulky package OUT of the Book Depository when
he left in a hurry just minutes after the biggest event in the history
of Dealey Plaza took place just yards from the Depository's front
stoop.
7.) Given all the known evidence in the case, it can be determined
that Oswald felt the need to LIE about the contents of the bulky
package he hauled into the TSBD on 11/22. He lied (twice) to Wesley
Frazier about the supposed "curtain rods" that LHO said were in the
package; and Lee lied to the police when he flatly denied having ever
told Frazier anything about a package containing "curtain rods"....and
LHO lied some more when he told the police that the ONLY package he
took to work on 11/22 was a "lunch" bag.*
* = The latter lie being verified as an Oswald lie by Wesley Frazier
as well, via these words to the Warren Commission ---
"He {LHO} didn't take his lunch, because I remember right when I got
in the car, I asked him where was his lunch, and he said he was going
to buy his lunch that day." -- Buell Wesley Frazier
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb1.htm
8.) No curtain rods were discovered inside the Book Depository after
the assassination (despite CTer claims that rods were discovered). Roy
Truly, the TSBD Superintendent, confirmed that no curtain rods were
found anywhere within the Depository after the assassination ("He is
certain no curtain rods were found in the TSBD building" -- CE2640).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0465a.htm
9.) Oswald definitely did not take any bulky package into his
roominghouse on Beckley Avenue when he returned there briefly
following JFK's shooting on 11/22/63.
10.) There is absolutely NO evidence to support the "CT" notion that a
SECOND paper bag was manufactured by the police to covertly REPLACE
the bag that was found near the sniper's window by the Dallas police
on 11/22/63. If the CT-Kooks who continually spout such allegations
have some proof that this type of underhanded activity took
place....then let's have that proof. To date, no such proof exists.
~~~~~~~~
#1 through #10 above add up to ---- LEE HARVEY OSWALD CARRYING HIS OWN
RIFLE TO WORK ON THE MORNING OF 11/22/63, CONCEALED IN A BROWN PAPER
BAG....A BAG THAT WAS LATER FOUND (EMPTY) BENEATH THE WINDOW FROM
WHERE AN ASSASSIN WAS FIRING A RIFLE AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY.
~~~~~~~~
"So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL
doubt that OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!!! ... And it's
obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building that day in
that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As far as Mr.
Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his armpit, he
conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald was carrying
that bag. He didn't have any reason to." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
Walt
> WALT ON:----------
> "The bag Lee carried was 28 inches long..
> the rifle was 40 inches long."
> WALT OFF----------
>
> Wrong again Walt. The bag found
> up in the 6F/SN was more than
> adequate to hold Oswald's rifle..
> Your size est of the bag is way
> off.. Additionally when it was
> disassembled it was 34.8"
So what if the bag found was 10 feet long....it was NOT the bag Oswald
carried that morning....and it's NOT my size estimate.... Linnie Mae
Randle and Buell Frazier both told the FBI that the 38 inch bag was
much bigger than the bag they saw Oswald carry....THEY estimated the
bag that Lee carried to be about TWO feet long. When The FBI agents
asked THEM what they based their estimates on Linnie Mae said the bag
was the distance from Lee's hand to a couple inches from the ground
( about 27 inches) Buell based his estimate on the amount of the seat
of his car the package covered. THE FBI measured that distance as 28
inches.
What the hell difference does it make it the rifle could be
disassembled to 34.8 inches....it still wouldn't fit in a 28 inch bag.
Walt
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Actually I think either Frazier or Randle said that the Dallas cops
showed them a large pice of brown paper at the police station on
Friday night. I think it was Frazier but it definitely was NOT
described as a brown paper sack, He said it was a piece of brown
paper. and they asked him if he'd ever seen it before. I'll see if I
can find that quote.
Lt Day said he picked up a paper sack THAT WAS SHAPED like a guncase
and asked Roy Truly who was with him at the time if he'd ever seen
that TAPERED paper sack before. It MUST have been DIFFERENT than the
other pieces of brown paper on the sixth floor because it caught Lt
Day's eye. There is a memo in which Day says that he kept that TAPER
GUN CASE SHAPED paper sack in his possession and never displayed it to
anybody.
An inquisitive mind would ask..WHY would Day want to keep that guncase
shaped bag out of sight?? And why did he allow another bag to be
substituted for that bag??
>
> > > > the morning of the
> > > > assassination), and you can't get him in the window at 12:30 --
>
> > > Sure we can. He was seen by a witness.
>
> > Oh this is soooooo good.... A witness saw Oswald firing from that
> > window??? Who was this witness??
>
> Are you that unfamiliar with the evidence? Howard Brennan.
Hmmmm...Let's look at how Howard Brennan DESCRIBED the gunman, and
compare his DESCRIPTION with the physical characteristics of Lee
Oswald.
Brennan described the gunman as 30 to 35 years old ....... Oswald was
just 24 years old
Brennan described the gunman as weighing from 165 to 175
pounds .....Oswald's booking sheet lists his weight as 140 lbs.
Brennan described the gunman as dressed in a white shirt and white
trousers.... Oswald was wearing a DARK colored REDDISH BROWN shirt and
DARK gray trousers.
Do you believe Brennan's DESCRIPTION fits Lee Oswald??
Walt
>
>
>
> > Walt
>
> > > > explain this to CTer's --
>
> > > > perhaps daBugliosi will clear this up, eh, DavidV?
>
> > > No, Bugliosi will be powerless to clear this up to kooks.
>
> > > > Or, are we back to all those rifles seen in Truly's office a day or so
> > > > before the assassination....
>
> > > No, all of the thousands of other rifles in Dallas need not apply,
> > > they ween`t tied ballistically to the fragments in the limo.
>
> > > >help us out David VonPein...
>
aeffects
> >>> "The re-constructed evidence included a facsimile of the brown paper bag manufactured by federal police after they had rendered the original (brown paper bag) useless. Perhaps daBugliosi will clear this up, eh, DavidV? Help us out David Von Pein." <<<
>
> It's fairly obvious that you are probably BEYOND help, Sir Kook. You,
> being the rabid conspiracy theorist you so obviously are, love to
> isolate and mangle and INVENT evidence whenever it pleases you (and it
> pleases you a whole lot in this murder case).
rabid? my-oh-my Davie-boyo.... I do believe I cited the WC, two
volumes in fact, you have a problem with the volumes now? DaBugliosi
taken over Earl 'the pearl' Warren's position?
> Back to some reality (and common sense) here, we have this stuff on
> the evidence table, in a (lone) nutshell:
>
> 1.) A Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (CE139), verifiably purchased via mail-
> order by Lee Harvey Oswald in March 1963, was found on the sixth floor
> of the Texas School Book Depository Building at 1:22 PM on the
> afternoon of President John Kennedy's assassination (November 22,
> 1963). This very rifle was positively linked to two bullets directly
> connected with JFK's murder.
>
> 2.) Lee Harvey Oswald carried a brown paper bag CONTAINING SOMETHING
> BULKY (HEAVY) into the TSBD on the morning the President was murdered.
hearsay, Davie....
> 3.) A very similar-looking EMPTY bag was found beneath the very window
> from where JFK was shot by a person who looked just like somebody
> named Lee Harvey Oswald. (And also the very same window where
> additional "Oswald Was Here" evidence resided, e.g., bullet shells
> from LHO's rifle and multiple prints of Lee's on the boxes WITHIN the
> "Nest" itself.)
hearsay, Davie....
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0...
>
> 9.) Oswald definitely did not take any bulky package into his
> roominghouse on Beckley Avenue when he returned there briefly
> following JFK's shooting on 11/22/63.
>
> 10.) There is absolutely NO evidence to support the "CT" notion that a
> SECOND paper bag was manufactured by the police to covertly REPLACE
> the bag that was found near the sniper's window by the Dallas police
> on 11/22/63. If the CT-Kooks who continually spout such allegations
> have some proof that this type of underhanded activity took
> place....then let's have that proof. To date, no such proof exists.
>
> ~~~~~~~~
>
> #1 through #10 above add up to ---- LEE HARVEY OSWALD CARRYING HIS OWN
> RIFLE TO WORK ON THE MORNING OF 11/22/63, CONCEALED IN A BROWN PAPER
> BAG....A BAG THAT WAS LATER FOUND (EMPTY) BENEATH THE WINDOW FROM
> WHERE AN ASSASSIN WAS FIRING A RIFLE AT PRESIDENT KENNEDY.
all this nonesense and you believe LHO would of been found guilty as
JFK's sole assassin based on hearsay evidence.... That's a word you
better get use to Davie, **hearsay**! LMAO
Bud
Could very well be. When Day found the bag, he showed it to Truly,
and asked him if it looked familiar. Truly said the bag wasn`t, but
the paper looked like the paper they used to wrap books. He went to
the first floor and got Day a sample of the paper off the roll on the
wrapping table.
Yet above, you say he showed it to Truly, proving the memo wrong.
And Montgomery walked out with it.
> An inquisitive mind would ask..WHY would Day want to keep that guncase
> shaped bag out of sight??
You haven`t shown he did.
> And why did he allow another bag to be
> substituted for that bag??
You haven`t shown there was a bag substituted.
> > > > > the morning of the
> > > > > assassination), and you can't get him in the window at 12:30 --
> >
> > > > Sure we can. He was seen by a witness.
> >
> > > Oh this is soooooo good.... A witness saw Oswald firing from that
> > > window??? Who was this witness??
> >
> > Are you that unfamiliar with the evidence? Howard Brennan.
>
> Hmmmm...Let's look at how Howard Brennan DESCRIBED the gunman, and
> compare his DESCRIPTION with the physical characteristics of Lee
> Oswald.
> Brennan described the gunman as 30 to 35 years old .......
Why lie? He said "early thirties".
> Oswald was
> just 24 years old
You think this rules out Oz as the man he saw?
> Brennan described the gunman as weighing from 165 to 175
> pounds .....Oswald's booking sheet lists his weight as 140 lbs.
His autopsy said 150. But, a more telling description was Brennan
saying the man he saw was slender. Oz was slender, so he hit Oz`s
build accurately, more important than a weight estimate.
> Brennan described the gunman as dressed in a white shirt and white
> trousers....
So did Mrs Reid, who saw Oz shortly after the shooting.
> Oswald was wearing a DARK colored REDDISH BROWN shirt and
> DARK gray trousers.
At times he had a brown shirt on. Probably not when he was killing
JFK, though.
> Do you believe Brennan's DESCRIPTION fits Lee Oswald??
Yah, better than I likely would have given, and likely good enough
to get Tippit to stop him. I read somewhere that a lot of cops thought
right away when the heard the descrption of Tippit`s killer over the
airwaves, that they thought it was connected to the assassination,
because the descriptions were so close. Not surprising, the
descriptions were of the same person.
Bud
aeffects wrote:
> On Mar 11, 2:09 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>> "The re-constructed evidence included a facsimile of the brown paper bag manufactured by federal police after they had rendered the original (brown paper bag) useless. Perhaps daBugliosi will clear this up, eh, DavidV? Help us out David Von Pein." <<<
> >
> > It's fairly obvious that you are probably BEYOND help, Sir Kook. You,
> > being the rabid conspiracy theorist you so obviously are, love to
> > isolate and mangle and INVENT evidence whenever it pleases you (and it
> > pleases you a whole lot in this murder case).
>
> rabid? my-oh-my Davie-boyo.... I do believe I cited the WC, two
> volumes in fact, you have a problem with the volumes now? DaBugliosi
> taken over Earl 'the pearl' Warren's position?
You gave a partial quote. why not finish it? "...they had rendered
the original (brown paper bag) useless..." Useless how? For
determining the color, perhaps?
> > Back to some reality (and common sense) here, we have this stuff on
> > the evidence table, in a (lone) nutshell:
> >
> > 1.) A Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (CE139), verifiably purchased via mail-
> > order by Lee Harvey Oswald in March 1963, was found on the sixth floor
> > of the Texas School Book Depository Building at 1:22 PM on the
> > afternoon of President John Kennedy's assassination (November 22,
> > 1963). This very rifle was positively linked to two bullets directly
> > connected with JFK's murder.
> >
> > 2.) Lee Harvey Oswald carried a brown paper bag CONTAINING SOMETHING
> > BULKY (HEAVY) into the TSBD on the morning the President was murdered.
>
>
> hearsay, Davie....
<snicker> Kooks never want to listen to the witnesses. "hearsay" is
a legal term used in trial, BTW, stoner. This isn`t a trial.
> > 3.) A very similar-looking EMPTY bag was found beneath the very window
> > from where JFK was shot by a person who looked just like somebody
> > named Lee Harvey Oswald. (And also the very same window where
> > additional "Oswald Was Here" evidence resided, e.g., bullet shells
> > from LHO's rifle and multiple prints of Lee's on the boxes WITHIN the
> > "Nest" itself.)
>
> hearsay, Davie....
Ah, the kook approach. Throw out all the information, then claim to
be trying to figure this thing out.
No, you see , for there to be a trail, Oz would need to be alive. If
Oz was alive, this information wouldn`t be heresay.
> That's a word you
> better get use to Davie, **hearsay**! LMAO
Look it up , stoner, see if you can use it correctly.
David Von Pein
Oh, the Warren Commission said this in its volumes, did they? --- "The
re-constructed evidence included a facsimile of the brown paper bag
manufactured by federal police after they had rendered the original
(brown paper bag) useless".
News to me. The "original bag" (CE142) was certainly not rendered
useless. And (quite obviously) was not destroyed or tossed in the
trash....because it's got an official WC exhibit number, and was
photographed as such:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0269a.jpg
CE364, the "second paper bag"....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pages/WH_Vol16_0492b.jpg
....was created by the FBI on Dec. 1, 1963, for comparison purposes,
not to REPLACE the bag found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD (CE142). The
reason for CE364 being created is fully explained by James Cadigan on
the WC page you "cited":
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0051a.htm
CT-Kooks, as per the everlasting norm, skew the evidence once more.
Surprise!
eca...@tx.rr.com
"all this nonesense and you believe LHO would
of been found guilty as JFK's sole assassin
based on hearsay evidence.... That's a word
you better get use to Davie, **hearsay**! LMAO"
Healy once again you display your
ignorance for all to see..
* The fingerprints on the rifle and bag
were not "hearsay" yet you reject
them..
* Ballistics tests on the rifle were
not hearsay..
* Tests on the spent Tippit shells were
not hearsay..
* The 3 shells on the 6F/SN were not
hearsay..
* Oswald's rifle found on the 6F was not
"hearsay"
Yet incredibly you reject each of these
pieces of hard evidence and even offer
"Nobody ever saw Oswald pick up that
rifle at the PO Box" as some sort of
nutty evidence.. (?!?)
MR :~? ED
> > that bag. He didn't have any reason to." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
Idiot..... Why do you want to display your lack of ability to
reason?
Of course Day showed the bag to Truly..... Truly was with him at the
time. As they were looking around the place were the spent shells were
found, he spotted a paper sack that was TAPERED and looked like a GUN
CASE. Apparently it had an unusual appearance because something about
it attracted his attention. When he picked it up he naturally asked
Truly if he'd ever seen the paper gun case before. How else would he
know that it wasn't just another book wrapper?? When Truly said "no"
it indicated that the tapered gun case may be evidence. He folded
the paper sack and put it in his pocket ...never to be seen again. If
you had a mind you'd want to know what happened to that sack? And an
inquisitive mind would ask WHY did Day keep that TAPERED GUN CASE
hidden?? A deductive mind, with the ability to reason, would think
that the guncase indeed was evidence.....but it didn't serve to
support the tale that Oswald was the killer, so it disappeared just
like the Dr Pepper soda bottle, and the Viceroy cigarette package, and
the cigarette butts, that were found on the floor near the spent rifle
shells.
I'd bet that the paper gun case that Day picked up, was the bag that
was seen in the corner of the stage prop "sniper's nest". Once he
picked it up, and put it in his pocket, it was no longer there when
the photos were taken of the fake "crime scene".
I'd also bet that the long tapered paper gun case was the same guncase
that J. Mercer saw a man remove from the side box of a plumbers
truck. I'd bet the bag wasn't big enough to accommodate the
Mannlicher Carcano with a scope mounted on it, that had been planted
in the cavern of boxes on the sixth floor.
>
> > An inquisitive mind would ask..WHY would Day want to keep that guncase
> > shaped bag out of sight??
>
> You haven`t shown he did.
>
> > And why did he allow another bag to be
> > substituted for that bag??
>
> You haven`t shown there was a bag substituted.
Is the 38 inch bag shown on page 132 WR ( CE 1304 ) TAPERED?? Does
it LOOK like a guncase?? Would Lt Day see anything unusual about this
paper bag in a storeroom that had paper book wrappers everywhere??
Since I believe a rational mind would answer the above questions "no"
then a rational mind would ask the next logical question....Why was
this book wrapper substituted for the long TAPERED paper guncase that
Day found and put in his pocket?
Walt
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> Walt wrote:
> > On 11 Mar, 13:29, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > Walt wrote:
> > > > On 11 Mar, 11:08, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > aeffects wrote:
> > > > > > the morning of the
> > > > > > assassination), and you can't get him in the window at 12:30 --
>
> > > > > Sure we can. He was seen by a witness.
>
> > > > Oh this is soooooo good.... A witness saw Oswald firing from that
> > > > window??? Who was this witness??
>
> > > Are you that unfamiliar with the evidence? Howard Brennan.
>
> > Hmmmm...Let's look at how Howard Brennan DESCRIBED the gunman, and
> > compare his DESCRIPTION with the physical characteristics of Lee
> > Oswald.
> > Brennan described the gunman as 30 to 35 years old .......
>
> Why lie? He said "early thirties".
>
> > Oswald was
> > just 24 years old
>
> You think this rules out Oz as the man he saw?
Not by itself...... The difference in age between Lee and the gunman
isn't conclusive by itself, but let's continue.
> > Brennan described the gunman as weighing from 165 to 175
> > pounds .....Oswald's booking sheet lists his weight as 140 lbs.
>
> His autopsy said 150. But, a more telling description was Brennan
> saying the man he saw was slender. Oz was slender, so he hit Oz`s
> build accurately, more important than a weight estimate.
LMAO..... You're not serious.... Your making yourself look like a
fool.
>
> > Brennan described the gunman as dressed in a white shirt and white
> > trousers....
>
> So did Mrs Reid, who saw Oz shortly after the shooting.
Mrs Reid said she "THOUGHT" Lee was dressed in a Tee shirt..... She
had seen him many times working in his Tee shirt, and that's what see
remembered. Just a minute before officer Baker had seen him drinking
a coke in the lunch room and noticed that he had on a brown shirt or
jacket. When he boarded Mc Watters bus, Mrs Bledsoe saw him wearing
the brown shirt . Do you believe he removed the brown shirt when he
departed the lunch room and then put it back on before boarding the
bus??
AND more important.... What happened to the white trousers?? Brennan
said the gunman was wearinf WHITE trousers, Oswald was wearing DARK
GRAY trousers.
So let's try again....
The gunman was possibly as old as 35.... Lee was 24
The gunman was possibly as heavy as 175 lbs.....Lee weighed 140
The gunman was wearing a white shirt ....Lee was wearing a reddih
brown shirt
The gunman was wearing white trousers......Lee was wearing dark gray
colored trousers.
>
> > Oswald was wearing a DARK colored REDDISH BROWN shirt and
> > DARK gray trousers.
>
> At times he had a brown shirt on. Probably not when he was killing
> JFK, though.
what about the DARK GRAY trousers that Oswald was wearing?
>
> > Do you believe Brennan's DESCRIPTION fits Lee Oswald??
>
> Yah, better than I likely would have given,
I'd agree with that....you've demonstrated that you couldn't describe
an orange.
and likely good enough to get Tippit to stop him.
Riiight!... The description that was broadcast over the police radio
only fit about 50 or 60 thousand men in Dallas.
I read somewhere that a lot of cops thought right away when the heard
the descrption of Tippit`s killer over the
> airwaves, that they thought it was connected to the assassination,
Very astute of those cops.... to notice that the description of the
suspect in both cases fit 50 or 60 thousand men in Dallas.
> because the descriptions were so close. Not surprising, the
> descriptions were of the same person.
You betcha Sherlock......
Walt
>
>
>
> > Walt
>
> > > > Walt
>
> > > > > > explain this to CTer's --
>
> > > > > > perhaps daBugliosi will clear this up, eh, DavidV?
>
> > > > > No, Bugliosi will be powerless to clear this up to kooks.
>
> > > > > > Or, are we back to all those rifles seen in Truly's office a day or so
> > > > > > before the assassination....
>
> > > > > No, all of the thousands of other rifles in Dallas need not apply,
> > > > > they ween`t tied ballistically to the fragments in the limo.
>
> > > > > >help us out David VonPein...
>
> > > > > Doubtful anyone can.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 11 Mar, 12:25, ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
> > Healy you moron..
> > 1) In the first place the cops
> > DO NOT have to put Oswald "in
> > the window" using the bag.. The
> > rest of the evidence can easily
> > do that. Do you think if nobody
> > had seen the bag Oz would have
> > been acquitted?!?
> Dumb question..... However, If Lee had a trial I feel very sure he
> would have been acquitted. More-over if Oswald had nit been murdered I
> doubt that he would even have been indicted. If He had lived just a
> couple more days he would have spilled the beans and the true killers
> would have been on the run.
Walt held a seance, and Oz told him this directly, so you know
it`s true.
> > 2) Oswald was seen carrying a long bwn paper bag that morning.........
>
> True, but the evidence shows that the bag he carried was not more
> than 29 inches long.
How could what we have, the brief, uninterested observations of
these witnesses, be used to establish anything?
> If that's not the real bag, someone (The DPD?) *planted* a fake
> bag .....
> Nonsense,.... No one had to plant a fake bag. There were paper book
> wrappers galore around the book storage areas in the TSBD.
Who says this bag was one of them?
> There is no
> photographic record that shows the book wrapper lying on the floor
> where they claimed it was found.
The bag Oz made to conceal the rifle when he brought it into the
TSBD was picked up before the photos were taken. Read the evidence,
tou`d know these things.
> > 3) and.. knew to *plant* Oz's palm print at the bottom of the fake bag..
>
> It was Oswald's job to take books out of protective paper wrappers and
> send them off to customers. How could he unwrap the books without
> leaving finger prints on the wrappers??
Who said this bag was a book wrapper? People who worked in the
TSBD, Truly, Frazier, were shown the bag. Did they say it was a book
wrapper?
> > 4) AND.. *planted* fibers similar to his blanket in the fake bag..
>
> pssssst Eddie.... The blanket fibers were on the OUTSIDE of the bag.
Again, you don`t know the evidence. The contents of the inside of
the bag were tapped out and collected.
> There are photos that were taken of the evidence being turned over to
> the FBI which show the blanket touching the OUTSIDE of the paper
> wrapper.
The fibers were collected from the inside of the bag.
> > 5) Not to mention somebody swiped Oz's rifle from the Paine garage.....
>
> Good point.... Do you know who it was and WHEN it was stolen??
There is no reason to believe it ever was.
> > 6) Brennan saw someone in a "Oswald disguise" up in the 6F/SN window
>
> Really?? yer kiddin....The Gunman was about 30 to 35 years old, and
> he weighed 165 to 175 pounds, and he was dressed in a white shirt and
> white trousers. Are you saying that Oswald could age ten years at
> will??
Six years to get to the bottom of Brennan`s range of "early
thirties". With Oz`s high hairline, and from a distance, he could look
older. Certainly, this does more to include Oz, than exclude him.
> and gain or lose 35 pounds at will??
Autopsy put Oz`s weight at 150, so Brennan was off by 15 pounds.
But, Brennan also said "slender", a perfect description of Oz`s build.
Again, this does more to include Oz, then exclude him.
> And he could remove his
> white shirt and trousers and don a DARK colored reddish brown shirt
> and dark gray trousers and then dash down to the lunchroom ...
He merely put his brown shirt over the white t-shirt he wore while
working.
>all in
> just 90 seconds??
Not an established time.
> I gotta tell ya Eddie I don't think you can sell
> this idea to any sane folks. In fact those folks might call the
> WhiteJackets to come and get you.
Of course, it is a much more supportable idea that Oz did this than
anyone else. There is no evidence to support a mystery shooter in the
TSBD. We know Oz was there.
<SNIP>
aeffects
This the same Brennan who, when questioned, he saw NO rifle discharge
from any 6th floor... Rush to Judgement-Mark Lane, 1966, pg. 77
<quote on>
WCommissioner John J. McCloy: Did you ever see a rifle explode? Did
you see a flash of what was either the second or third shot?
Brennan: No ...
John J. McCloy: Did you ever see the rifle discharge, did you see the
recoil or the flash?
Brennan: No.
<quote off>
This the same Brennan you're talking about? This the guy who ID'ed
LHO?
aeffects
> Walt wrote:
> > On 11 Mar, 11:08, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > aeffects wrote:
> > > > The reconstructed evidence included a facsimile of the brown paperbag
> > > > manufactured by federal police after they had rendered the original
> > > > (brown paperbag) useless...WC iv, 93; xvi, 960 -- Mark Lane, Rush to
> > > > Judgement pg.328 1966-Sixth Printing
>
> > > My God, you don`t believe the shit you read in those kook-books, do
> > > you?
>
> > Kook books??..... WC Vol IV page 960.... Are you now down to
> > calling the actual records "kook books'??
> > Depend if Mark Lanes book uses the same partial, misleading fragment
> that aeffects produced here. Using the fingerprint chemicals did not
> render the bag useless for identification purposes, the chemicals
> didn`t change the size and shape of it.
Dudster.... Lane is quoting testimony regarding the evidence. Lane is
not brilliant, he's a straigh talking defense legal-beagle whom I
suspect would make mince-meat of Bugliosi in a courtroom setting, not
to mention Bugliosi's upcoming Nutter wet-dream (if in fact, its a pro
Nutter book)...
Take a walk on the wild side, buy Lane's book... perhap's the Griz
will lend you his copy!
Bud
Quite the opposite of my intentions.
> Of course Day showed the bag to Truly..... Truly was with him at the
> time. As they were looking around the place were the spent shells were
> found, he spotted a paper sack that was TAPERED and looked like a GUN
> CASE.
Thats how it looks to me...
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag1.jpg
> Apparently it had an unusual appearance because something about
> it attracted his attention. When he picked it up he naturally asked
> Truly if he'd ever seen the paper gun case before. How else would he
> know that it wasn't just another book wrapper?? When Truly said "no"
> it indicated that the tapered gun case may be evidence. He folded
> the paper sack and put it in his pocket ...never to be seen again.
It was seen again, many times. It was given to the FBI, who tested
it.
> If
> you had a mind you'd want to know what happened to that sack? And an
> inquisitive mind would ask WHY did Day keep that TAPERED GUN CASE
> hidden??
By walking out front with it, and allowing photographers to take
pictures of it? That kind of hidden?
> A deductive mind, with the ability to reason, would think
> that the guncase indeed was evidence.....
And treated accordingly. Sent to be tested on what material was
used to make it, dusted for prints, it`s contents removed and
analyzed.
>but it didn't serve to
> support the tale that Oswald was the killer, so it disappeared just
> like the Dr Pepper soda bottle, and the Viceroy cigarette package, and
> the cigarette butts, that were found on the floor near the spent rifle
> shells.
You think all the trash in the building is evidence? The Dr Peper
bottle was accounted for by Jarman.
> I'd bet that the paper gun case that Day picked up, was the bag that
> was seen in the corner of the stage prop "sniper's nest". Once he
> picked it up, and put it in his pocket, it was no longer there when
> the photos were taken of the fake "crime scene".
Luckily, Day remembered where he picked it up from.
> I'd also bet that the long tapered paper gun case was the same guncase
> that J. Mercer saw a man remove from the side box of a plumbers
> truck. I'd bet the bag wasn't big enough to accommodate the
> Mannlicher Carcano with a scope mounted on it, that had been planted
> in the cavern of boxes on the sixth floor.
It was a valley of boxes, it was oppen at the top. You keep
inferring that there were boxes over the rifle, when the photos show
none.
> > > An inquisitive mind would ask..WHY would Day want to keep that guncase
> > > shaped bag out of sight??
> >
> > You haven`t shown he did.
> >
> > > And why did he allow another bag to be
> > > substituted for that bag??
> >
> > You haven`t shown there was a bag substituted.
>
> Is the 38 inch bag shown on page 132 WR ( CE 1304 ) TAPERED?? Does
> it LOOK like a guncase??
It does in the picture above. Are you going to say the switch was
made before or after this picture?
> Would Lt Day see anything unusual about this
> paper bag in a storeroom that had paper book wrappers everywhere??
He must have, he picked it up. He even wrote a notation on it,
another way it can be identified as the one he found.
> Since I believe a rational mind would answer the above questions "no"
> then a rational mind would ask the next logical question....Why was
> this book wrapper substituted for the long TAPERED paper guncase that
> Day found and put in his pocket?
And L.D. Mongomery carried out in broad daylight for people to see
and take pictures of.
Walt
Duh...Dud....you forgot that the killer had on WHITE trousers ....tell
me what did he do with them?
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 11 Mar, 20:31, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > On 11 Mar, 13:29, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > On 11 Mar, 11:08, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > aeffects wrote:
> > > > > > > the morning of the
> > > > > > > assassination), and you can't get him in the window at 12:30 --
> >
> > > > > > Sure we can. He was seen by a witness.
> >
> > > > > Oh this is soooooo good.... A witness saw Oswald firing from that
> > > > > window??? Who was this witness??
> >
> > > > Are you that unfamiliar with the evidence? Howard Brennan.
> >
> > > Hmmmm...Let's look at how Howard Brennan DESCRIBED the gunman, and
> > > compare his DESCRIPTION with the physical characteristics of Lee
> > > Oswald.
> > > Brennan described the gunman as 30 to 35 years old .......
> >
> > Why lie? He said "early thirties".
> >
> > > Oswald was
> > > just 24 years old
> >
> > You think this rules out Oz as the man he saw?
>
> Not by itself...... The difference in age between Lee and the gunman
> isn't conclusive by itself, but let's continue.
Why bother to pretend you are going to approach this in a rational
manner. We both know you can`t...
> > > Brennan described the gunman as weighing from 165 to 175
> > > pounds .....Oswald's booking sheet lists his weight as 140 lbs.
> >
> > His autopsy said 150. But, a more telling description was Brennan
> > saying the man he saw was slender. Oz was slender, so he hit Oz`s
> > build accurately, more important than a weight estimate.
>
> LMAO..... You're not serious.... Your making yourself look like a
> fool.
Out of the two of us, I`m the smart enough to do so. But, what are
you laughing about? Do you contest that Brennan described the shooter
as "slender", or that Oz is slender?
> > > Brennan described the gunman as dressed in a white shirt and white
> > > trousers....
> >
> > So did Mrs Reid, who saw Oz shortly after the shooting.
>
> Mrs Reid said she "THOUGHT" Lee was dressed in a Tee shirt.....
You don`t seem to realize that everything a witnesses relates is
what they "THOUGHT". We are always dealing with impressions, some
accurate, some not. You kooks just want to declare some carved in
stone, others mush, is all.
>She
> had seen him many times working in his Tee shirt, and that's what see
> remembered.
That is a possibility, but why do you state it as fact? In what
meaningful way have you determined that Oz could not have been wearing
a t-shirt when Reid saw him?
> Just a minute before officer Baker had seen him drinking
> a coke in the lunch room and noticed that he had on a brown shirt or
> jacket.
He expressed unsurety about his clothing descriptions. And I still
would like to see you show where Baker said he was drinking a coke.
> When he boarded Mc Watters bus, Mrs Bledsoe saw him wearing
> the brown shirt . Do you believe he removed the brown shirt when he
> departed the lunch room and then put it back on before boarding the
> bus??
I think the most likely explaination is that Oz was working in his t-
shirt, without his shirt, like Jarman said he did. Brennan and other
witnesses outside saw Oz in the white v-necked t-shirt. Baker, who was
frantically looking for a killer, misidentified what Oz was wearing.
Mrs Reid was correct , and Oz retrieved his brown shirt from the first
floor on the way out. The only one who needs to be wrong is Baker for
my version, and like you say with Reid could apply to Baker, who saw
Oz at the police station in his brown shirt, which could have
influenced his impressions.
> AND more important.... What happened to the white trousers?? Brennan
> said the gunman was wearinf WHITE trousers, Oswald was wearing DARK
> GRAY trousers.
Why bother to lie about the evidence, you know I`m going to check
what you say? He said "light colored", not "white". This is what your
mind does to information, your reading of it deletes the actual
information, which is replaced by words you choose.
> So let's try again....
>
> The gunman was possibly as old as 35.... Lee was 24
Or as young as 30, according to Brennan`s estimate of "early
thirties", but only an idiot would think that Brennan`s estimate means
the shooters age *must* be 30-33.
> The gunman was possibly as heavy as 175 lbs.....Lee weighed 140
150, according to Oz`s autopsy. Brennan said 160-170, so he was off
by as little as 10 pounds. Again, why must Brennan nail his weight
from a distance? Most of Brennan`s observations were made before the
shooting, do you think he scans the crowd, noting everyone`s weight?
> The gunman was wearing a white shirt ....Lee was wearing a reddih
> brown shirt
No, the only person who saw Oz during the shooting said he had a
light-colored shirt on.
> The gunman was wearing white trousers......Lee was wearing dark gray
> colored trousers.
Yah, pants seems to be something most people get wrong. Many people
wouldn`t even venture a guess at what color pants Oz was wearing. In
any case, Brennan didn`t designate a color for the pants, only that
they were "light".
> > > Oswald was wearing a DARK colored REDDISH BROWN shirt and
> > > DARK gray trousers.
> >
> > At times he had a brown shirt on. Probably not when he was killing
> > JFK, though.
>
> what about the DARK GRAY trousers that Oswald was wearing?
What about them? Are you saying that if Brennan doesn`t nail every
detail, it can`t be Oz that he saw?
> > > Do you believe Brennan's DESCRIPTION fits Lee Oswald??
> >
> > Yah, better than I likely would have given,
>
> I'd agree with that....you've demonstrated that you couldn't describe
> an orange.
By your standards, if I want to kill someone, I`m better off with a
lot of witnesses, and an idiot like you on the jury. As soon as a few
witnesses produce some descrepancies, I`d be home free with a hung
jury, courtsey of your being unable to reconcile them.
> and likely good enough to get Tippit to stop him.
>
> Riiight!... The description that was broadcast over the police radio
> only fit about 50 or 60 thousand men in Dallas.
And the one Tippit stopped. Perhaps the circumstances added to the
encounter. Some people, like Mrs Bledsoe on the bus, said Oz looked
wild "like a maniac". Maybe Tippit picked up on this. In any case, if
he saw him pumping gas, for instance, I doubt he would have rousted
him. Likely the description and Oz`s demeanor that led to his being
stopped.
> I read somewhere that a lot of cops thought right away when the heard
> the descrption of Tippit`s killer over the
> > airwaves, that they thought it was connected to the assassination,
>
> Very astute of those cops.... to notice that the description of the
> suspect in both cases fit 50 or 60 thousand men in Dallas.
But they did rule out many times more of the residents of Dallas.
And more importantly, they were close to each other. But then, why
shouldn`t they be. Eyewitnesses have said Oz was killing people at
both locations.
David Von Pein
Notice how the "He" is capitalized.
Anybody else sense the humorous irony here?
Oswald's a God to Walt.
The capitalized "He" was no doubt just a mistake by Walt.....
....or was it? ;)
Walt
>
> > Walt wrote:
> > > On 11 Mar, 12:25, ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
>
> This the same Brennan who, when questioned, he saw NO rifle discharge
> from any 6th floor... Rush to Judgement-Mark Lane, 1966, pg. 77
>
> <quote on>
> WCommissioner John J. McCloy: Did you ever see a rifle explode? Did
> you see a flash of what was either the second or third shot?
>
> Brennan: No ...
>
> John J. McCloy: Did you ever see the rifle discharge, did you see the
> recoil or the flash?
>
> Brennan: No.
> <quote off>
>
> This the same Brennan you're talking about? This the guy who ID'ed
> LHO?
>
Dave, you seem to be implying that Howard Bennan was a liar....You
seem to be implying that Brennan could not have avoided seeing the
recoil or muzzle flash. I don't think HB was lying. Howard was a
religous man, and I don't think he lied after placing his hand on the
Bible, and swearing to tell the truth.
The Warren Commission lawyers knew he wouldn't lie, so THEY had to
twist his words to make them fit their agenda.
John J. McCloy: Did you ever see a rifle explode? Did you see a flash
of what was either the second or third shot?
Brennan: No.
John J. McCloy: Did you ever see the rifle discharge, did you see the
recoil or the flash?
Brennan: No.
I don't believe Brennan was lying....There could be a couple of
explanations for HB saying he never saw the rifle recoil ot the muzzle
flash.
First off, HB may not have seen the recoil or muzzle flash because....
maybe that guy never actually fired the rifle. Perhaps he was a decoy
whose job was to draw the cops away from the sniper behind the fence.
If he had been caught he could easily have said he was just part of a
ruse made to appear that he had tried to shoot JFK as part of a plan
to flee to Cuba, where Castro would give him sanctuary. I've long
thought that he never fired a shot based on Brennan saying that he was
"aiming the rifle out of the window" rather than he was FIRING from
the window. Pretty weak....yes... but still.....
Second... IF the gunman had actually fired the rifle Brennan may not
have been able to see the muzzle flash in the bright sunlight.
Third... If the gunman fired the rifle he may have been braced tight
enough to absorb the recoil so it was imperceptible
If the rifle was a Carcano ....it wouldn't have much recoil... The
carcano is a light recoil rifle.
All of the early evidence indicates that Brennan was an honest man who
merely wanted to do his duty as a good citizen. He gave an affidavit
in which he said he would be able to identify the 30 to 35 year old,
165 to 175 pound, gunman who was dressed in a white shirt and white
trousers, if he ever saw him again.. A few hours after he wrote his
affidavit he was taken to view a line up in which Oswald was
present. He told the cops that he DID NOT see the gunman in that
line up. He saw Oswald on TV before he went to the line up so he knew
who the cops wanted him to finger. The cops pressed him to finger
Oswald by prodding him to ID Oswald. He said "NO" he didn't think the
gunman was Oswald, because Oswald looked different than the gunman.
The cops pressed him further and asked . How did he look different?
Brennan said "Well for one thing, he's dressed different".... He knew
the gunman had been dressed in a white shirt and white trousers....
The cops told him that Oswald had changed his clothes before he was
arrested. but still Brennan refused to finger Oswald.
The cops were telling a half truth.... Oswald did change his clothes
before going to the Texas theater...and he put the clothes he took off
in a drawer of his dresser in his room . Later that day when they
searched his room they found a Reddish brown shirt and a pair of dark
gray trousers in the dresser drawer. If the gunman had been Oswald
they should have found a WHITE shirt and WHITE trousers.
Walt
aeffects
> On 12 Mar, 09:24, "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 12, 7:02 am, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Walt wrote:
> > > > On 11 Mar, 12:25, ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
>
> > This the same Brennan who, when questioned, he saw NO rifle discharge
> > from any 6th floor... Rush to Judgement-Mark Lane, 1966, pg. 77
>
> > <quote on>
> > WCommissioner John J. McCloy: Did you ever see a rifle explode? Did
> > you see a flash of what was either the second or third shot?
>
> > Brennan: No ...
>
> > John J. McCloy: Did you ever see the rifle discharge, did you see the
> > recoil or the flash?
>
> > Brennan: No.
> > <quote off>
>
> > This the same Brennan you're talking about? This the guy who ID'ed
> > LHO?
>
> Dave, you seem to be implying that Howard Bennan was a liar....
Not I Walt, Commissioner McCloy asked Brennan the above questions,
Brennan responses above
You
> seem to be implying that Brennan could not have avoided seeing the
> recoil or muzzle flash.
he may NOT of, perhaps he wasn't looking, if he wasn't looking, I
guess that makes him a liar
He was also asked if he saw a recoil during the 2nd or 3rd shot, his
answer was NO.
> Third... If the gunman fired the rifle he may have been braced tight
> enough to absorb the recoil so it was imperceptible
> If the rifle was a Carcano ....it wouldn't have much recoil... The
> carcano is a light recoil rifle.
My experience Walt: I've never fired a 6.5, 7.62 or .233 cal weapon
with a "light recoil", especially those with steel butt-plates :)
>
> All of the early evidence indicates that Brennan was an honest man who
> merely wanted to do his duty as a good citizen. He gave an affidavit
> in which he said he would be able to identify the 30 to 35 year old,
> 165 to 175 pound, gunman who was dressed in a white shirt and white
> trousers, if he ever saw him again.. A few hours after he wrote his
> affidavit he was taken to view a line up in which Oswald was
> present. He told the cops that he DID NOT see the gunman in that
> line up. He saw Oswald on TV before he went to the line up so he knew
> who the cops wanted him to finger. The cops pressed him to finger
> Oswald by prodding him to ID Oswald. He said "NO" he didn't think the
> gunman was Oswald, because Oswald looked different than the gunman.
> The cops pressed him further and asked . How did he look different?
> Brennan said "Well for one thing, he's dressed different".... He knew
> the gunman had been dressed in a white shirt and white trousers....
> The cops told him that Oswald had changed his clothes before he was
> arrested. but still Brennan refused to finger Oswald.
Mark Lane goes over this entire episode in great detail in Rush to
Judgement... I think it would do the lurkers well to review a copy of
Lane's book
> The cops were telling a half truth....
I think your generous Walt, REAL generous.....
Walt
> Walt wrote:
> > On 11 Mar, 20:31, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > Walt wrote:
> > > > On 11 Mar, 13:29, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > > On 11 Mar, 11:08, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > aeffects wrote:
>
> > AND more important.... What happened to the white trousers?? Brennan
> > said the gunman was wearinf WHITE trousers, Oswald was wearing DARK
> > GRAY trousers.
>
> Why bother to lie about the evidence, you know I`m going to check
> what you say? He said "light colored", not "white". This is what your
> mind does to information, your reading of it deletes the actual
> information, which is replaced by words you chose
EXCELLENT.....Please do check what I say.... I'll even tell you where
to look ...Check Brennan's W.C.testimony.
You will see that he said ....the sixth floor gunman had on a light
colored shirt it could have been a "DINGY WHITE" and the gunman's
trousers "WERE A SHADE LIGHTER" than his shirt.
If you don't post his testimony about the WHITE shirt and trousers I
will.....save yourself the embarassment post it and apologize.
Walt
Walt
> On 12 Mar, 14:56, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Walt wrote:
> > > On 11 Mar, 20:31, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > On 11 Mar, 13:29, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > > > On 11 Mar, 11:08, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > aeffects wrote:
>
> > > AND more important.... What happened to the white trousers?? Brennan
> > > said the gunman was wearinf WHITE trousers, Oswald was wearing DARK
> > > GRAY trousers.
>
> > Why bother to lie about the evidence, you know I`m going to check
> > what you say? He said "light colored", not "white". This is what your
> > mind does to information, your reading of it deletes the actual
> > information, which is replaced by words you chose
>
> EXCELLENT.....Please do check what I say.... I'll even tell you where
> to look ...Check Brennan's W.C.testimony.
>
> You will see that he said ....the sixth floor gunman had on a light
> colored shirt it could have been a "DINGY WHITE" and the gunman's
> trousers "WERE A SHADE LIGHTER" than his shirt.
HEY DUD....Oh Dud...Where are you?? I've got something to show
you... Here it is Dud.....
Mr. Belin.
Do you remember the specific color of any shirt that the man with the
rifle was wearing?
Mr. Brennan.
No, other than light, and a khaki color--maybe in khaki. I
mean other than light color--not a real white shirt, in other words.
If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side.
Mr. Belin.
I am handing you what the court reporter has marked as Commission
Exhibit 150.
Does this look like it might or might not be the shirt, or can you
make at this time any positive identification of any kind?
Mr. Brennan.
I would have expected it to be a little lighter--a shade or so
lighter.
Mr. Belin.
Than Exhibit 150?
Mr. Brennan.
That is the best of my recollection.
Mr. Belin.
All right.
Could you see the man's trousers at all?
Do you remember any color?
Mr. Brennan.
I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same color of
the shirt or a little lighter. And that was another thing that I
called their attention to at the lineup.
Mr. Belin.
What do you mean by that?
Mr. Brennan.
That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the
window.
Mr. Belin.
You mean with reference to the trousers or the shirt?
Mr. Brennan.
Well, not particularly either. In other words, he just didn't have the
same clothes on.
Mr. Belin.
All right.
How da ya like that Dud??
Bud
You said Brennan said the shirt he saw was white. This is *not*
Brennan saying the shirt he saw was white. The fact that you can`t
tell the difference is why you should not be looking at this evidence
at all, as you can only distort it. Let me walk you through my reading
of what was asked of Brennan, and what he reponded. Belin asked him if
could say what specific color the shirt he saw was. Brennan replied in
the negative (this negative answer would encompass the color
"white",BTW), that he couldn`t say what the color was for sure, only
that it was light. He then goes on to speculate what it may have been,
but the only assertion he is willing to make , and stand by, is that
it was "light".As usual, my reading of the evidence is superior to
yours because it can be backed up by the actual testimony, which you
read, quote, and still can`t understand. Thats why I say, it isn`t a
problem with the evidence, it a problem with kooks.
> Mr. Belin.
> I am handing you what the court reporter has marked as Commission
> Exhibit 150.
> Does this look like it might or might not be the shirt, or can you
> make at this time any positive identification of any kind?
> Mr. Brennan.
> I would have expected it to be a little lighter--a shade or so
> lighter.
<snicker> Have you seen CE150? I`ve seen fire trucks a shade or two
lighter than that ugly shirt (but I suspect the color in the picture I
looked at is not right).
And, I`ve asked you a few times about CE150, Walt. Is this the
shirt Oz wore in the morning, or the one you think he changed into?
And for you, and anyone else interested, I saw the shirt that Oz
was shot in was listed as "gray men`s flannel shirt cut up" in the
Dallas archives.
I have no problem with it, Walt. You don`t understand, these
clothing descriptions, hair descriptions, times, weights, ect, are
all things you kooks make a big deal out of, so you can try to justify
your irrational belief that someone other than Oz committed these
crimes. I don`t think that Brennan was sitting there, noting the
clothing of all the people he casually observed while sitting there
waiting for the motorcade, nor do I think he would perfectly note
details of the shooter while the shooting was being done. I don`t
expect witnesses to do any of the feats of observation you bestow upon
them, I don`t think people note time that well or that closely, I
don`t think they note height and weight, especially under excited
conditions, I don`t think they note details about all the objects that
cross their path during the course of a day. I don`t do these things
well, and I haven`t seen it established that I should expect these
witnesses did. This is all kook expectations (so they can take leaps
from the evidence like you are), I don`t know which witnesses were
right about Oz`s clothes, and which weren`t, it is conflicting (even
me and DVP differ on who to believe, I take Reid over Baker, he takes
Baker as being the one more likely right). Some of the witnesses are
likely very accurate in their descriptions, but it`s impossible to
discern with certainty which ones. It`s like the direction of the
shots, since it is conflicting, you can`t use the information to
establish where the shots came from, because you can`t prove any given
witness right or wrong. Same with the clothes. You`ve latched on to
two things in the evidence, and created a theory that you like. There
is a lot of evidence that indicates your theory is wrong, but you
ignore it (I looked through google, and saw people bringing things to
you attention that shoot your theory down since 1997). You use Bledsoe
(Beldsoe is correct, says Walt, Reid is mistaken, based on nothing but
Bledsoe is useful to Walt`s theory, and what Reid said is detrimental)
as if her saying there was a hole in the sleeve of Oz`s shirt makes
that a fact, and the photo of Oz giving the leftist salute, a picture
that doesn`t show the whole sleeve, making it impossible to make the
determination you are trying to make from it. This whole thing is just
a case of you assuming, misrepresenting, claiming, but at the end of
the day, establishing nothing.
eca...@tx.rr.com
"So, if you can't get the MC rifle into the TSBD (alleged handcarried
assassination), and you can't get him in the window at 12:30 --
Healy you have a fundamental
misunderstanding of what is
required in reaching a
conclusion on a murder
investigation. It is rare
indeed, that detectives would
ever know how the murder weapon
was transported to the murder
scene in terms of whether it
was in a bag, purse, glove box,
coat, hand held, etc.. It comes
under the "nice to know but not
crucial" category.. Do you
really think Police with
*ownership* established, *prints*,
*ballistics*, etc and finding the
weapon at the actual murder scene
would then say, "Yeah but how do
we establish what mode of
transportation was used to get it
in the door or we can't hang the
murder on Mr X?"
MR ;~D 0256Mar1307
On Mar 11, 11:56 am, "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The reconstructed evidence included a facsimile of the brown paperbag
> manufactured by federal police after they had rendered the original
> (brown paperbag) useless...WC iv, 93; xvi, 960 -- Mark Lane, Rush to
> Judgement pg.328 1966-Sixth Printing
>
> Legal beagles think that will stand up? "Ah, your honor, we destroyed
> the evidence but we recreated one that looks just like the one we
> destroyed, we'd like to enter this into evidence as the package used
> to hidie and transport the murder weapon into the TSBD..." Eh, think
> that will fly?
>
> So, if you can't get the MC rifle into the TSBD (alleged handcarried
> by Oswald inside the brown paperbag, the morning of the
> assassination), and you can't get him in the window at 12:30 --
> explain this to CTer's --
>
> perhaps daBugliosi will clear this up, eh, DavidV?
>
> Or, are we back to all those rifles seen in Truly's office a day or so
> before the assassination....help us out David VonPein...
eca...@tx.rr.com
Yet another bOoGgErEd up post by Walt..
Walt
> On 12 Mar, 16:10, "Walt" <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 12 Mar, 14:56, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Walt wrote:
> > > > On 11 Mar, 20:31, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > > On 11 Mar, 13:29, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > Walt wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 11 Mar, 11:08, "Bud" <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > aeffects wrote:
>
> > > > AND more important.... What happened to the white trousers?? Brennan
> > > > said the gunman was wearinf WHITE trousers, Oswald was wearing DARK
> > > > GRAY trousers.
>
> > > Why bother to lie about the evidence, you know I`m going to check
> > > what you say? He said "light colored", not "white". This is what your
> > > mind does to information, your reading of it deletes the actual
> > > information, which is replaced by words you chose
>
> > EXCELLENT.....Please do check what I say.... I'll even tell you where
> > to look ...Check Brennan's W.C.testimony.
>
> > You will see that he said ....the sixth floor gunman had on a light
> > colored shirt it could have been a "DINGY WHITE" and the gunman's
> > trousers "WERE A SHADE LIGHTER" than his shirt.
Hey Dud.....Apparently you lost focus on Howard Brennan's testimony
because you snipped the testimony after the point where Brennan said
the shirt the gunman was wearing was a light color..... That's ok I
understand how hard it is for a mentally challenged person to
consentrate ans stay focused, so I'll just pick it up where you
snipped it....
>
> HEY DUD....Oh Dud...Where are you?? I've got something to show
> you... Here it is Dud.....
>
> Mr. Belin.
> Do you remember the specific color of any shirt that the man with the
> rifle was wearing?
> Mr. Brennan.
> No, other than light, and a khaki color--maybe in khaki. I
> mean other than light color--not a real white shirt, in other words.
> If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side.
Ya see that Dud...Brennan said the gunman's shirt was light colored
possibly a dingy WHITE.
> Mr. Belin.
> I am handing you what the court reporter has marked as Commission
> Exhibit 150.
> Does this look like it might or might not be the shirt, or can you
> make at this time any positive identification of any kind?
> Mr. Brennan.
> I would have expected it to be a little lighter--a shade or so
> lighter.
> Mr. Belin.
> Than Exhibit 150?
> Mr. Brennan.
> That is the best of my recollection.
> Mr. Belin.
> All right.
> Could you see the man's trousers at all?
> Do you remember any color?
> Mr. Brennan.
> I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same color of
> the shirt or a little lighter.
Here's the killer Dud.... Can you read it?? Brennan said that the
Gunman's trousers were WHITE
And that was another thing that I
> called their attention to at the lineup.
> Mr. Belin.
> What do you mean by that?
> Mr. Brennan.
> That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the
> window.
I'm sure you didn't understand this little tidbit, Dud so I'll explain
it for you.... Howard Brennan was telling Mr.Belin that he KNEW that
Oswald was NOT the gunman he'd seen aiming the rifle from the west end
window on the sixth floor. AND he tried to tell the police that Oswald
was NOT the gunman ...he said Oswald,... Quote "was not dressed in
the same clothes that I saw the man in the window." unquote... and
Brennan told Belin...Quote...."that was another thing that I called
their attention to at the lineup"...unquote
Is that clear now Dud?? Or do I have to explain it to you again?
Walt
Walt
You're a damned Liar.... The worst kind of liar....one who lies to
himself.
You know damned well that if you had just continued another sentence
in Brennan's response to Belin he SPECIFIED that the shirt could have
been a DINGY WHITE. And incidently that shoots down your lie that
the gunman was Oswald but he was wearing his T shirt. Oswald's Tee
shirt was NOT a dingy white.... there are photos of Oswald in custody
wearing that Tee shirt ...it is WHITE WHITE..... NOT an off white,
tan, khaki, light yellow, or cream color.
As usual, my reading of the evidence is superior to
> yours because it can be backed up by the actual testimony, which you
> read, quote, and still can`t understand. Thats why I say, it isn`t a
> problem with the evidence, it a problem with kooks.
>
> > Mr. Belin.
> > I am handing you what the court reporter has marked as Commission
> > Exhibit 150.
> > Does this look like it might or might not be the shirt, or can you
> > make at this time any positive identification of any kind?
> > Mr. Brennan.
> > I would have expected it to be a little lighter--a shade or so
> > lighter.
>
> <snicker> Have you seen CE150? I`ve seen fire trucks a shade or two
> lighter than that ugly shirt (but I suspect the color in the picture I
> looked at is not right).
Thank you ...so you admit that the shirt Oswald was wearing was a DARK
reddish brown.
> And, I`ve asked you a few times about CE150, Walt. Is this the
> shirt Oz wore in the morning, or the one you think he changed into?
>
> And for you, and anyone else interested, I saw the shirt that Oz
> was shot in was listed as "gray men`s flannel shirt cut up" in the
> Dallas archives.
Something'swrong with that.... Oswald was wearing a dark blue or black
pull over SWEATER when he was murdered by Ruby.
>
> > Mr. Belin.
> > Than Exhibit 150?
> > Mr. Brennan.
> > That is the best of my recollection.
> > Mr. Belin.
> > All right.
> > Could you see the man's trousers at all?
> > Do you remember any color?
> > Mr. Brennan.
> > I remembered them at that time as being similar to the same color of
> > the shirt or a little lighter.
I'll try to clarify that for you Dud...... Brennan had just told Belin
that the gunman's shirt was a very light color, possibly DINGY
WHITE.. Then he told Belin that the gunman's trousers were a...."
little lighter"...color, than the shirt .
If the shirt was a dingy white as Brennan said and the trousers were a
"little lighter" then the trouser had to be WHITE.
And that was another thing that I
> > called their attention to at the lineup.
> > Mr. Belin.
> > What do you mean by that?
> > Mr. Brennan.
> > That he was not dressed in the same clothes that I saw the man in the
> > window.
Do you see this Dud??... Brennan is telling Belin that when he saw
Oswald in the line up, Oswald ...Quote.."was not dressed in the same
clothes that I saw the man in the window."....unquote
I'll repeat that for you ... OSWALD WAS NOT DRESSED IN THE SAME
CLOTHES THAT I SAW THE MAN IN THE WINDOW ( WEARING)
Brennan also told Belin...."And that was another thing that I called
their attention to at the lineup"
Brennan clearly is telling Belin THAT HE TRIED TO TELL THE POLICE THAT
OSWALD WAS NOT THE GUNMAN HE SAW AIMING A RIFLE FROM THE WEST END
WINDOW OF THE SIXTH FLOOR.
DO you understand, Dud??
Walt
> ...
>
> read more ยป- Hide quoted text -
Bud
You said Brennan said the shirt he saw was white. This is *not*
Brennan saying the shirt he saw was white. The fact that you can`t
tell the difference is why you should not be looking at this evidence
at all, as you can only distort it. Let me walk you through my reading
of what was asked of Brennan, and what he reponded. Belin asked him if
could say what specific color the shirt he saw was. Brennan replied in
the negative (this negative answer would encompass the color
"white",BTW), that he couldn`t say what the color was for sure, only
that it was light. He then goes on to speculate what it may have been,
but the only assertion he is willing to make , and stand by, is that
it was "light".As usual, my reading of the evidence is superior to
yours because it can be backed up by the actual testimony, which you
read, quote, and still can`t understand. Thats why I say, it isn`t a
problem with the evidence, it a problem with kooks.
> Mr. Belin.
> I am handing you what the court reporter has marked as Commission
> Exhibit 150.
> Does this look like it might or might not be the shirt, or can you
> make at this time any positive identification of any kind?
> Mr. Brennan.
> I would have expected it to be a little lighter--a shade or so
> lighter.
<snicker> Have you seen CE150? I`ve seen fire trucks a shade or two
lighter than that ugly shirt (but I suspect the color in the picture I
looked at is not right).
And, I`ve asked you a few times about CE150, Walt. Is this the
shirt Oz wore in the morning, or the one you think he changed into?
And for you, and anyone else interested, I saw the shirt that Oz
was shot in was listed as "gray men`s flannel shirt cut up" in the
Dallas archives.
> Mr. Belin.
I have no problem with it, Walt. You don`t understand, these
> Walt
Walt
> HEALY ON:-----------
> "So, if you can't get the MC rifle into the TSBD (alleged handcarried
> by Oswald inside the brown paperbag, the morning of the
> assassination), and you can't get him in the window at 12:30 --
> explain this to CTer's"
> HEALY OFF-----------
Mr Ed babbled:......
Healy you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is required in
reaching a conclusion on a murder investigation. It is rare indeed,
that detectives would ever know how the murder weapon was transported
to the murder scene in terms of whether it was in abag, purse, glove
box, coat, hand held, etc.. It comes under the "nice to know but not
crucial" category.. Do you really think Police with *ownership*
established, *prints*, *ballistics*, etc and finding the weapon at the
actual murder scene would then say, "Yeah but how do we establish what
mode of transportation was used to get it in the door or we can't hang
the murder on Mr X?"
MR ;~D 0256Mar1307
Hey shallow thinkin Ed..... Yer playin Monday morning QB again. The
murder of JFK was no ordinary murder .... The world was in a panic,
the news media were broadcasting that the murder was the work of "an
international band of Communists" lead by Lee Harvey Oswald , and
retaliation for the murder was overshadowed by a mushroom shaped
cloud. The cops were under tremendous pressure to find the "truth"
about the murder ASAP. The cops had NOTHING solid to back up their
THEORY, so they grabbed every tiny piece of "evidence" and held it up
to the public to PROVE that their THEORY was accurate and Oswald was
the killer. You're right ....In a normal murder case the detectives
wouldn't try to figure out how the suspect carried the murder weapon
to the scene....but this was no normal murder case.
Walt
>
> On Mar 11, 11:56 am, "aeffects" <aeffe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The reconstructed evidence included a facsimile of the brown paperbag
> > manufactured by federal police after they had rendered the original
> > (brown paperbag) useless...WC iv, 93; xvi, 960 -- Mark Lane, Rush to
> > Judgement pg.328 1966-Sixth Printing
>
> > Legal beagles think that will stand up? "Ah, your honor, we destroyed
> > the evidence but we recreated one that looks just like the one we
> > destroyed, we'd like to enter this into evidence as the package used
> > to hidie and transport the murder weapon into the TSBD..." Eh, think
> > that will fly?
>
> > So, if you can't get the MC rifle into the TSBD (alleged handcarried
> > by Oswald inside the brown paperbag, the morning of the
> > assassination), and you can't get him in the window at 12:30 --
> > explain this to CTer's --
>
> > perhaps daBugliosi will clear this up, eh, DavidV?
>
> > Or, are we back to all those rifles seen in Truly's office a day or so
> > before the assassination....help us out David VonPein...- Hide quoted text -