VON PEIN LIES AGAIN
Gil Jesus
>"Gil now wants to evidently pretend that no prints AT ALL of Oswald's were >found on Rifle C2766"
to which I responded:
> When the Dallas Police sent the rifle to the FBI for processing of
> fingerprints, how many prints did the FBI find on the rifle ?
and received no answer to the question, but instead insults.
So now I respond with this:
OK, David, it appears that you're not man enough to answer the
question, but instead would rather respond with childish name-calling
and running away like a sissy. You prefer that I answer the question
for you instead and once again make a jackass out of you.
And this time I'll use the testimony from the 26 volumes that you so
wholeheartedly defend.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Latona, you were saying that you had worked over
that rifle by applying a gray powder to it. Did you develop any
fingerprints?
Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on
the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the
weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything
else. And no latent prints of value were developed.
Mr. EISENBERG. Does that include the clip?
Mr. LATONA. That included the clip, that included the bolt, it
included the underside of the barrel which is covered by the stock.
Mr. EISENBERG. Were cartridge cases furnished to you at that time?
Mr. LATONA. They were, which I processed, and from which I got no
prints.
Mr. EISENBERG. Therefore, the net result of your work on Exhibit 139
was that you could not produce an identifiable print?
Mr. LATONA. That's correct.
Mr. EISENBERG. So as of November 23, you had not found an identifiable
print on Exhibit 139?
Mr. LATONA. That is right.
( 4 H 23 )
You posted:
"Gil now wants to evidently pretend that no prints AT ALL of Oswald's
were found on Rifle C2766"
The fact is that the FBI did NOT find Oswald's prints on exhibit 139
( the rifle C2766) on November 23rd.
That's not pretending, idiot, that's FACT.
Now answer the original question, # 33 on my list:
33. How did Oswald hide the rifle without leaving any identifiable
fingerprints on either the weapon or the boxes surrounding it ?
Have a nice day.
Gil Jesus
bump
David Von Pein
>>> "When the Dallas Police sent the rifle to the FBI for processing of fingerprints, how many prints did the FBI find on the rifle?" <<<
Gil, of course, is a mega-kook with the memory of roadkill.
Gil also knows that Lt. Carl Day of the DPD only had possession of
Oswald's rifle for a fairly-limited time on 11/22/63 (in order to
search it thoroughly for prints) before he was ordered to turn the
weapon over to the FBI in Washington.
Gil also knows this fact (or at least he should)....and this is a fact
he undoubtedly hates with a passion:
Lieutenant Carl Day did see the fingerprints on the rifle's trigger
guard (or trigger housing) on 11/22/63, and he thought the prints
probably were the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald (but Day didn't have
enough time to examine the prints in more depth in order to compare
them properly to Oswald's known prints).
Further, more-detailed analysis in later years concerning those
trigger-guard prints revealed that they almost certainly belonged to
Lee Oswald. (Which is another fact that kooks like Gil despise.)
Here's what J.C. Day told the Warren Commission in 1964. These are
comments that Gil, being a kook, will be forced to ignore completely;
or Gil will merely try to paint Lt. Day as one of the hundreds of
"liars" connected to the JFK murder investigation:
LT. J.C. DAY -- "After ejecting the live round, then I gave my
attention to the rifle. I put fingerprint powder on the side of the
rifle over the magazine housing. I noticed it was rather rough. I also
noticed there were traces of two prints visible. I told Captain Fritz
it was too rough to do there, it should go to the office where I would
have better facilities for trying to work with the fingerprints. ....
I could see traces of ridges, fingerprint ridges, on the side of the
housing." ....
DAVID BELIN -- "Did you do anything with the other prints or partial
prints that you said you thought you saw?"
LT. DAY -- "I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them."
DAVID BELIN -- "Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the
two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720
and 721. I will ask you to state what these are."
LT. DAY -- "These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--
of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun
No. C2766."
DAVID BELIN -- "Were those prints in such condition as to be
identifiable, if you know?"
LT. DAY -- "No, sir. I could not make positive identification of these
prints."
DAVID BELIN -- "Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these
pictures or not?"
LT. DAY -- "I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all
possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were,
but I could not positively identify them."
DAVID BELIN -- "What was your opinion so far as it went as to whose
they were?"
LT. DAY -- "They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger
of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald."
==============
Footnote --- Many people think Lt. Carl Day was nothing but a rotten,
evil liar, who told all kinds of lies regarding Oswald's rifle and how
he discovered a palmprint on the underside of the gun on November
22nd.
But if Lt. Day HAD, indeed, been the rotten liar that many CTers seem
to think he was in 1964, then why on Earth didn't he EXTEND his lies a
little more with regard to the fingerprints found on the trigger
housing of the rifle?
IOW--Why would Day, if his goal was to paint Lee Harvey Oswald as the
sole assassin, tell the Warren Commission this in '64?:
"I thought I knew which [fingerprints] they were, but I could
not positively identify them."
Why wouldn't Mr. Day have said this instead?:
"Yes, Mr. Belin, I can say definitely that those prints I saw on
the trigger housing of Rifle C2766 were positively the fingerprints of
Lee Harvey Oswald."
CT-Kooks should probably make up their minds with respect to stuff
like this regarding witness testimony -- Was Lt. Carl Day a liar? Was
he a truth-teller? Or was he only a PARTIAL liar, telling only a FEW
lies from time to time to further the "cover-up", but at other times
he decided to tell the unvarnished truth?
I'm sure Gilbert has all the answers, though. Most kooks usually
do...even though every answer they provide invariably reeks with
inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0158b.htm
Gil Jesus
> >>> "When the Dallas Police sent the rifle to the FBI for processing of fingerprints, how many prints did the FBI find on the rifle?" <<<
>
> Gil, of course, is a mega-kook with the memory of roadkill.
>
> Gil also knows that Lt. Carl Day of the DPD only had possession of
> Oswald's rifle for a fairly-limited time on 11/22/63 (in order to
> search it thoroughly for prints) before he was ordered to turn the
> weapon over to the FBI in Washington.
>
Are you suggesting that the 10 or 11 hours Day had with the rifle
wasn't enough time to process the rifle for fingerprints ?
Didn't the FBI dust the rifle for prints and found NONE ?
Did they not have enough time with the rifle also ?
You're such a bullshit liar David. No wonder no one respects you.
David Von Pein
>>> "VON PEIN LIES AGAIN" <<<
I just noticed that a new rule has apparently been inserted into Gil's
"Guide For Conspiracy Idiots":
Evidently by my not responding at all to one of Gil's inane questions
recently, it means that I'm a liar.
IOW -- A total non-response = "Von Pein Lies Again" (per a certain
maga-kook named Jesus).
You've gotta love a kook's interpretation of things. Always good for a
warm chuckle.
David Von Pein
>>> "Are you suggesting that the 10 or 11 hours Day had with the rifle wasn't enough time to process the rifle for fingerprints ?" <<<
Evidently not, Mr. Kook.
But these facts still remain re. the rifle:
1.) Lt. Carl Day found a palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald's on the
underside of C2766 (and he lifted the print off of the rifle on
11/22/63; hence, there wasn't enough trace of the print left on the
rifle for the FBI to see when the FBI got the weapon after 11 PM CST
on Nov. 22, even though Lt. Day THOUGHT that there was enough of the
print remaining on the rifle for the FBI to see and process; but Day
was wrong about that assumption).
2.) Lt. Day saw two prints on the trigger guard (housing) of Rifle
C2766 on 11/22/63, and although he wasn't positive as to the identity
of the person who left those prints there, Day was of the opinion that
the prints were Lee H. Oswald's.
Kooks like Gil can belly-ache from now till the year 2063, but such
tirades won't change the above two undeniable facts. And they are
facts that implicate Gil's beloved "patsy"....so Gil MUST refuse to
accept those facts.
Simple as that.
Idiotic....but simple.
>>> "You're such a bullshit liar David. No wonder no one respects you." <<<
Here we have just one more thing in a long succession of things that
Mr. Jesus is guessing about. Gil The Mega-Kook doesn't have the
slightest idea who I am...nor does he have the foggiest idea whether
anyone on the globe "respects" me or not.
So, as per the norm, Gil is talking out of his anal crack.
aeffects
oh David.... Lone Nut gibberish suits you just FINE. So listen laddie:
the WCR is flawed, a deeply flawed piece of work. No amount cajoling
by you and/or the rest of your band of merry Lone Neuters will change
that. You're obsession with drugs and other nasties is your lasting
legacy here, David. We understand, we'd like help you...
Not to mention, your pathological adoration of Vinnie daBugliosi....
carry on, troll!
Gil Jesus
It is with this troll as it is with many other trolls.
Truth is not the issue here with these people, for when they are faced
with the truth, they either run away from it, or respond with childish
name-calling. Many of them are living in a fantasy world, where their
purpose in this life is to save the world from "kooks" who do not
share their views. This is why in every forum he particpates in, Von
Pein refers to anyone who disagrees with him as "Mr. Kook". He doesn't
know these people, he doesn't know what they think or what they
believe. He only knows them as the enemy because they don't share his
views.
His tactics of deception include using vague generalities and avoiding
details. Sometimes, he'll imply that something is not the truth, as he
did in this case :
"Gil now wants to evidently pretend that no prints AT ALL of Oswald's
were found on Rifle C2766"
He doesn't say that Oswald's prints were found on the rifle, only that
I wanted to pretend that no prints of Oswald were on the rifle.
Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on
the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the
weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything
else. And no latent prints of value were developed.
( 4 H 23 )
So when the FBI got the rifle there were no identifiable prints on it.
Unidentifiable prints means that they couldn't determine whose they
were. They were of "no value" for the purpose of identification. They
couldn't tell if they were from Oswald or anyone else.
Therefore, no prints AT ALL of Oswald's were found on Rifle C2766 when
the FBI examined it.
Von Pein then responds that the 10 or 11 hours that Lt. Day had with
the weapon was not enough time to dust it and lift prints off of it.
"Gil also knows that Lt. Carl Day of the DPD only had possession of
Oswald's rifle for a fairly-limited time on 11/22/63 (in order to
search it thoroughly for prints) before he was ordered to turn the
weapon over to the FBI in Washington".
Which, of course, has nothing to do with the original question of how
Oswald managed to hide the weapon without leaving any identifiable
fingerprints on it or the boxes near it.
If the weapon had unidentifiable prints on it when it got to the FBI,
then it had unidentifiable prints on it when it was in the possession
of the Dallas Police, regardless of how much time Day had to examine
it. That fact would not change no matter how much Von Pein disagrees.
And he does disagree:
"Lieutenant Carl Day did see the fingerprints on the rifle's trigger
guard (or trigger housing) on 11/22/63, and he thought the prints
probably were the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald (but Day didn't have
enough time to examine the prints in more depth in order to compare
them properly to Oswald's known prints)."
So Lt. Day thinks the PARTIAL prints on the trigger guard are Oswald's
before he even begins to do a lift. As a former police officer with
fingerprinting experience, I have to say that this man is truly
remarkable. And the 10 or 11 hours he has the weapon before turning it
over to FBI Agent Drain was not enough time to lift them and compare
them.
Then Von Pein rests his ID of Oswald's prints on the trigger guard on
a flawed examination:
"Further, more-detailed analysis in later years concerning those
trigger-guard prints revealed that they almost certainly belonged to
Lee Oswald. (Which is another fact that kooks like Gil despise.)"
Not really.
He's referring to the 1988 PBS show "Frontline" where "First Day
Knowledge" photographs of partial prints on the trigger guard were
compared to Oswald arrest card fingerprints by Vincent Scalese.
But Scalese's procedure for matching the PARTIAL prints on the trigger
guard to Oswald would have been disallowed in court.
He took the "first day evidence" photogrpahs of partial fingerprints
found on the trigger guard and "matched" the partial prints to Oswald
by putting the partial prints together, like pieces of a puzzle.
When in reality, that's not the way fingerprint identification is
done.
The partials have to be examined INDIVIDUALLY and CANNOT be combined
for a match to be legal.
Von Pein is being deceptive (again) by not mentioning to the reader
that prior to Scalese's IDing of the partial prints as Oswald's,
Frontline had a police fingerprint expert examine those same partials
and he could not come up with more than 3 simimlarities with ANY of
Oswald's prints.
Anywhere from 6-10 similarities would have been needed to secure a
match.
And THAT is why the FBI couldn't identify the partials as Oswald's.
Their examination was straight-forward, legal and it would have been
acceptable as evidence in court.
As any law enforcement officer will tell you, Scalese's "match" is NOT
evidence.
At least not in an American court.
But in Von Pein's world, it's considered "more detailed analysis".
Bud
> On Sep 4, 5:17 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "VON PEIN LIES AGAIN" <<<
>
> > I just noticed that a new rule has apparently been inserted into Gil's
> > "Guide For Conspiracy Idiots":
>
> > Evidently by my not responding at all to one of Gil's inane questions
> > recently, it means that I'm a liar.
>
> > IOW -- A total non-response = "Von Pein Lies Again" (per a certain
> > maga-kook named Jesus).
>
> > You've gotta love a kook's interpretation of things. Always good for a
> > warm chuckle.
>
> oh David.... Lone Nut gibberish suits you just FINE. So listen laddie:
Blah-Blah-Blah-Blah. Sooner or later Healy will have something to
add to a discussion, the laws of probability will kick in eventually.
David Von Pein
Looks like Gil is due for another visit from Nurse Ratched....which is
obvious when he claims that some LNers are living in a "fantasy world"
and that LNers "run away" from "the truth".
Can anyone fail to see the hilarious pot/kettle relationship within
Gil's latest unintentional batch of irony?
In reality, of course, "the truth" to a conspiracy-spouting kook like
G. Jesus is about as foreign as a man from Mars (or Neptune even).
Where's the next "Gil 37", Jesus? Can we expect those next 37 inane
questions next week or the week after next?
Walt
Hey Von Pea Brain..... You're probably too obtuse to realize
it.....But Gil just shoved some FACTS down yer throat. One of those
FACTS is: Not a single examiner,( no one, nobody, zilch) found any
identifiable prints on the Mannlicher Carcano that was found in the
TSBD. THAT is a FACT, my obtuse friend.
The slimey Warren Commission lawyer, David Belin, cajoled Day into
offering an OPINION about a couple of partial prints that were
allegedly on the trigger housing of the gun. Day had just told him
that he could NOT identify the partial prints but Belin pushed him
into offering an OPINION based on NOTHING.
Don't you ever get tired of having to lie to defend yourself against
the CT's who routinely shove facts down your throat? Doesn't it make
you gag?? ....ROTFLMAO!
Walt
> >>> "Are you suggesting that the 10 or 11 hours Day had with the rifle wasn't enough time to process the rifle for fingerprints ?" <<<
>
> Evidently not, Mr. Kook.
>
> But these facts still remain re. the rifle:
>
> 1.) Lt. Carl Day found a palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald's on the
> underside of C2766
This is damned LIE...... Lt Day found an UNIDENTIFIABLE SMUDGE that
he thought could be a palm print on the WOODEN foregrip of the rifle
just minutes after the rifle was found BENEATH a stack of boxes in the
TSBD. ( Whan a rifle is fired it, is usually supported by placing the
palm beneath the foregrip. So that's where an investigator looks for a
palm print)
(and he lifted the print off of the rifle on
> 11/22/63; hence, there wasn't enough trace of the print left on the
> rifle for the FBI to see when the FBI got the weapon after 11 PM CST
> on Nov. 22, even though Lt. Day THOUGHT that there was enough of the
> print remaining on the rifle for the FBI to see and process; but Day
> was wrong about that assumption).
>
> 2.) Lt. Day saw two prints on the trigger guard (housing) of Rifle
> C2766 on 11/22/63, and although he wasn't positive as to the identity
> of the person who left those prints there, Day was of the opinion that
> the prints were Lee H. Oswald's.
Two PIECES of a finger print..... and he offers an OPINION.
You think that this is PROOF that Oswald handled that rifle??... Get
real you moron.
aeffects
> On Sep 5, 4:11 am, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 4, 5:17 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "VON PEIN LIES AGAIN" <<<
>
> > > I just noticed that a new rule has apparently been inserted into Gil's
> > > "Guide For Conspiracy Idiots":
>
> > > Evidently by my not responding at all to one of Gil's inane questions
> > > recently, it means that I'm a liar.
>
> > > IOW -- A total non-response = "Von Pein Lies Again" (per a certain
> > > maga-kook named Jesus).
>
> > > You've gotta love a kook's interpretation of things. Always good for a
> > > warm chuckle.
>
> > oh David.... Lone Nut gibberish suits you just FINE. So listen laddie:
>
> Blah-Blah-Blah-Blah. Sooner or later Healy will have something to
> add to a discussion, the laws of probability will kick in eventually.
son, it must seem horrible being wrong all the time -- carry on, troll
tims...@gmail.com
Well you'd be able to tell us, wouldn't you ol' Toots-E-Roll fella?
Does it seem horrible being wrong all the time, Mr David *aeffects*
Healy?
How does it seem to you, given that you're wrong all the time?
Lest we forget, your specilaist field is <snicker> *Z film
alteration*, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Bud
Of course it is evidence, idiot.. Here is case where investigators
combined two partial prints found on a stolen car`s steering wheel to
help solve a 47-year old double police murder case.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ayHr0mFX6LYC&pg=PA565&lpg=PA565&dq=cold+case+steering+wheel+partial+fingerprints&source=web&ots=rqXZy2exx0&sig=io4OwTQycxp7POzyAfQghX062Zg&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA638,M1
> At least not in an American court.
>
> But in Von Pein's world, it's considered "more detailed analysis".
Actually, Gil either misunderstands, or misrepresents what SCALICE
did. Vincent J. Scalice (for those wishing to search using his correct
name) did not use parts of different prints to form a composite (that
would be impossible, as the partial prints were of different fingers,
so they could not be combined), what he did do was use different
TECHNIQUES to enhance the prints. See this interesting article on the
prints, with the information about Scalice`s work near the bottom...
aeffects
> TOP POST
>
> Well you'd be able to tell us, wouldn't you ol' Toots-E-Roll fella?
>
> Does it seem horrible being wrong all the time, Mr David *aeffects*
> Healy?
>
> How does it seem to you, given that you're wrong all the time?
>
> Lest we forget, your specilaist field is <snicker> *Z film
> alteration*, LOL!
>
> Regards,
apparently you can't get enough of me toots-e-roll.... we've become
use to perverted, drug induced Lone Nutters such as yourself on this
USENET board...you really need to set your sights higher, troll.....
lest you fucking morons forget; I'm the one who said he can't prove
Zapruder-film alteration (on-the-record) -- carry on troll. ROTFLMFAO!
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2c005b7758dda8da
Thanks, Bud, for your post (linked above) regarding the prints and
Vincent Scalice's work. (I can never remember Scalice's name when this
subject about the trigger-housing prints comes up, for some reason.
I'm now going to burn his name into my memory, for future
reference.) ;)
The source link Bud supplied re. Scalice comes from the always-worthy-
of-praise website of Dave Reitzes. Here's the excerpt concerning Mr.
Scalice's work:
"...An independent examination of Rusty's [former Dallas Police
Crime Lab Detective R. W. (Rusty) Livingston] trigger-housing photos
was done for the television program FRONTLINE by Vincent J. Scalice, a
Certified Latent Print Examiner. Scalice was the fingerprint expert
used by the HSCA in 1978. He stated in a letter of conclusions to the
author that "Based upon the results of this examination and
comparison, it is logical to assume that ALL of these photographs,
which exhibit varying degrees of contrast, were not available for
detailed comparison purposes in 1963 or 1978." Scalice had not seen
all of the photos possessed by Rusty before.
"Instead of focusing on only the clearest photograph (detailed
in this chapter as performed by Captain Powdrill), Scalice used
different enhancement techniques with all of the photographs. He
stated. "It was necessary to utilize all of the photographs in order
to carry out this procedure as the photographs were taken at different
exposures ranging from light to medium and dark.
"As a result of the varying degrees of contrast from photo to
photo, it became possible to locate and identify a sufficient amount
of identifying characteristics on which to base a positive
identification. As a result of an exacting and detailed examination
and comparison under varying degrees of magnification and
illumination, I have reached the conclusion that the developed latent
prints are the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald's right middle finger
(#3) and right ring finger (#4) as they appear on the inked
fingerprint card [JFK Exhibit F-400 of the HSCA]."
"A comparison was also done by Scalice of Rusty's fingerprint
card to JFK Exhibit F-400. He determined that "the inkless prints
taken by Rusty [and J. B. Hicks] were indeed those of Lee Harvey
Oswald, as they compared favorably with the inked impressions taken on
8-9-63."
"Although the trigger-housing fingerprints were "extremely faint
and barely distinguishable" and "partially distorted," a positive
identification of Lee Harvey Oswald was made by Scalice. This is
perhaps the most important finding made since the time of the
assassination. It may now be stated as fact that the fingerprints of
Lee Harvey Oswald were left behind on the trigger housing of the rifle
found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository."*
* = One of the footnotes attached to the above article is this one:
"Initially, only Oswald's partial palm print was identified
under the barrel of the rifle (10 points of identification are usually
required for a positive ID). In 1992, I met with Rusty Livingston, a
former Dallas policeman assigned to the crime lab at the time of the
assassination. Livingston had saved high contrast photo prints of the
rifle, taken before it was shipped to FBI headquarters in Washington.
The photos contained evidence that had gone unnoticed, and when
Frontline had them analyzed, Oswald's guilt seemed even more certain.
Vincent Scalice, a renowned fingerprint expert and HSCA consultant,
was engaged by Frontline and expressed astonishment at what he saw --
three fingers from Oswald's right hand had left their mark just inches
from the trigger.
"Scalice, in fact, had located a whopping 18 points of
identification. After the production aired, he continued his work and
increased the total to 24 points. "If I had seen these four
photographs in 1978," says Scalice, "I would have been able to make an
identification at that point in time. After this reexamination, I
definitely conclude these are Oswald's prints. There is no doubt about
it." Other experts pointed out that the prints were "fresh" because
they would not last long on a smooth, oily metal surface such as the
trigger guard housing." (Gus Russo, Live by the Sword [Baltimore,
Maryland: Bancroft Press, 1998] p. 462.)"
Complete Article:
www.jfk-online.com/prints.html
tims...@gmail.com
Now Gil, civility. Civility please. After all, you advocate *civility
in newsgroup posting* don't you Gil?
Actually, I think quite a few people respect DVP. You, on the other
hand, well let's see who you've picked up kudos from, eh?
There was Spider McCain, the grown man who posted YouTube videos
praising your work whilst wearing a Spiderman mask, Phil, er, Ossofee
who thinks you are a <snicker> *crackerjack* researcher, Harry
Freeloader who...
Hmm, perhaps, on second thought, perhaps best not to go there, eh Gil?
:-)
Disrespectful Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Gil Jesus
> Of course it is evidence, idiot.. Here is case where investigators
combined two partial prints found on a stolen car`s steering wheel to
help solve a 47-year old double police murder case.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ayHr0mFX6LYC&pg=PA565&lpg=PA565&dq=c...
Then please tell us why BUD, the FBI could not identify the prints as
Oswald's.
> � Actually, Gil either misunderstands, or misrepresents what SCALICE
> did.
Would you like me to post the video ?
Gil Jesus
Now trolls:
explain to us what part of the following you don't understand:
Mr. LATONA. I was not successful in developing any prints at all on
the weapon. I also had one of the firearms examiners dismantle the
weapon and I processed the complete weapon, all parts, everything
else. And no latent prints of value were developed.
( 4 H 23 )
That means no Oswald prints.
Now for the upteenth time:
Gil Jesus
Give us the citation in the WC where the FBI on either 11/22 or 11/23
identified the partial prints on the weapon as Oswald's.
David Von Pein
>>> "Give us the citation in the WC where the FBI on either 11/22 or 11/23 identified the partial prints on the weapon as Oswald's." <<<
The FBI didn't identify any prints on the rifle as Oswald's on the
dates of 11/22/63 or 11/23/63. I know that very well, Mr. Idiot.
As of those dates in question (November 22-23), the FBI didn't even
see the print Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Department took
off of the rifle....well, mainly because Lt. Day TOOK THE DAMN THING
OFF OF THE RIFLE. Period.
And the trigger-guard prints weren't of any "value" to Mr. Latona and
the FBI in '64 either.
But, as fully explained in Dave Reitzes' article on his outstanding
website (linked earlier), Mr. Scalice was able to take more time with
the photographs of those trigger prints and while utilizing different
methods from those that were apparently employed by the FBI, Scalice
was able to pretty much confirm (beyond a "reasonable doubt" anyway)
that the two prints that were of no "value" in 1964 were, in fact, the
prints of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Conspiracy-loving fools are, of course, forced to discount and
undermine Scalice's contributions to the JFK investigation. What else
CAN a good CT-Kook do...except to try and undermine the work of
someone like Mr. Scalice?
Because if a kook were to actually admit that those two prints near
the TRIGGER of Rifle C2766 were, in fact, the prints from the very
hands of their favorite patsy for all murders committed in Dallas on
11/22/63, then those same kooks would have a very big problem trying
to exonerate their all-time #1 "Patsy" in history. Wouldn't they, Gil?
Because if those prints are, indeed, Oswald's near that trigger of
that rifle, then Lee Oswald was almost certainly the person who last
used that weapon on November 22, 1963 (and we know it WAS used to fire
bullets at JFK's car on November 22...that fact is BEYOND debate).
Face facts, Gil (if that's not an oxymoron in your case) -- There's
just too much "Oswald Killed Kennedy" stuff on the table (from a
variety of different sources and a variety of DIFFERENT MURDERS,
including Tippit's!) to believe that Lee H. Oswald was anything but a
double-murderer in November 1963.
But, regardless of all these "LHO Was Guilty" facts, kooks of Gil's
ilk will keep trying to exonerate a double-killer nonetheless. Of
that, I have minimal doubt.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Gil,
Say, looks like you're moving the goalposts here, ol' buddy, right
after Bud and DVP have scored a king hit on you. Your original
question, Gil, from your list was:
QUOTE ON:
33. How did Oswald hide the rifle without leaving any identifiable
fingerprints on either the weapon or the boxes surrounding it ?
QUOTE OFF
Your question has been answered, Gil. Now that it has been you simply
don't like the answer, you ol' <snicker> *crackerjack* JFK researcher
you. Looks like sour grapes to me, Gil.
Maybe next time you better think a bit harder before you trundle out
one of your stupid questions, then flounce around demanding answers to
your nonsense, you ol' *crackerjack* you! LOL!
Crackerjack Regards!
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Bud
> On Sep 5, 5:01 pm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:> Of course it is evidence, idiot.. Here is case where investigators
>
> combined two partial prints found on a stolen car`s steering wheel to
> help solve a 47-year old double police murder case.
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=ayHr0mFX6LYC&pg=PA565&lpg=PA565&dq=c...
>
> Then please tell us why BUD, the FBI could not identify the prints as
> Oswald's.
The science of fingerprinting saw advances over the decades. That
enabled Scalice to do what the FBI in `63 could not.
> > Actually, Gil either misunderstands, or misrepresents what SCALICE
> > did.
>
> Would you like me to post the video ?
Post whatever rebuttal information you have, Gil. Like any
information you kooks get your hands on, you likely misunderstand/
misrepresent it.
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:72167d49-3bc4-40e7...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Now Gil, civility. Civility please. After all, you advocate *civility
in newsgroup posting* don't you Gil?
Actually, I think quite a few people respect DVP. You, on the other
hand, well let's see who you've picked up kudos from, eh?
There was Spider McCain, the grown man who posted YouTube videos
praising your work whilst wearing a Spiderman mask, Phil, er, Ossofee
who thinks you are a <snicker> *crackerjack* researcher, Harry
Freeloader who...
Hmm, perhaps, on second thought, perhaps best not to go there, eh Gil?
:-)
Disrespectful Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timmy Hates witnesses on Video.
Timmy Hates witnesses in testimony under oath in the Official Reports.
Warren Commission Volumes (26)
Church Committee Volumes (14)
HSCA Volumes. (12)
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/
Timmy believes the REAL Oswald was;
5 ft. 3 inches tall
Blond Haired
119 pounds.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/you_asked_for_it.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6abdc3ad-9f09-41f2...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Do you expect someone who believes in SBT to undersstand this?
Do you expect someone who believes in CARTOONS to undersstand this?
Do you expect someone who RUNS from evidence/testimony to undersstand this?
Do you expect someone who REJECTS exculpatory evidence/testimony to
undersstand this?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
tomnln
"Gil Jesus" <gjj...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5b48906e-561a-4fcc...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
What makes you think your/yours "Speculations" (guesses) are any more valid
than the
"Speculations" (guesses) of the /Warren Commission???
Timmy;
Did the authorities withhold evidence/
Did the authorities Alter evidence?
Did the authorities Destroy evidence?
Did the authorities LIE about evidence Repeatedly?
Did the authorities Subourn Perjury?
Did the authorities Intimidate witnesses?
You don't ENDORSE Felonies do you Timmy?
ps;
The REAL Oswald was NOT 5 ft. 3 inches tall like Duran testified.
The REAL Oswald was Blond Haired like Duran testified.
The REAL Oswald was NOT 119 pounds like Duran testified.
Even the FBI said the REAL Oswald was NOT in Mexico City.
You & I BOTH know Oswald was in Dallas at Sylvia Odio's with "Anti-Castro"
Cubans during that time frame don't we Timmy! ! !
Even the HSCA believes Slyvia odio Timmy. (HSCA Report page 139)
Hey Timmy;
Was J Edger Hoover concerned that someone ELSE was using Oswald's Birth
Certificate while Oswald was in Russia?
How many of those will a "Well Read fella" like you RUN from?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fdbbe514-2a3d-4b2b...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
Bud
Interesting. I hadn`t appreciated the significance of Oz`s prints on
the rifle. I mean, it was his rifle, he is seen holding it in photos,
why wouldn`t his prints be on it? But, the rifle containing prints of
a limited duration, a limited lifespan so to speak, means this
evidence takes on a significance I hadn`t previously considered. Most
kook scenarios have the rifle being taken fro the Paine`s garage by
the Conspiracy days or weeks prior to the assassination. It doesn`t
seem possible for prints of this nature to survive this long. Of
course, other kook conjecture about how the rifle got into the TSBD
revolves around the theory that Oz brought the rifle in to sell it to
some identified party, and they used it to kill JFK.
Gil Jesus
Lotta "if"s there Dave. "If's" don't reference facts.
Here's one more:
If' Oswald's partial prints were on ther rifle, how do you know they
were put there on 11/22 ?
Gil Jesus
> � � The science of fingerprinting saw advances over the decades. That
> enabled Scalice to do what the FBI in `63 could not.
>
please give examples when you make general statements
Gil Jesus
> � � Post whatever rebuttal information you have, Gil. Like any
> information you kooks get your hands on, you likely misunderstand/
> misrepresent it.
Bud, explain to us how one misunderstands a video ?
David Von Pein
>>> "If Oswald's partial prints were on the rifle, how do you know they were put there on 11/22?" <<<
Common sense (mostly).
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's partial prints were located very near the
trigger of Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766.
And:
2.) That same rifle (C2766) was positively used on 11/22/63 to fire
bullets at JFK's car.
So common sense dictates that the LAST PERSON who pulled that trigger
prior to the police finding the rifle on the 6th Floor of the
Depository was Lee Harvey Oswald.
Or does Gil think that a DIFFERENT person fired the gun into JFK's car
on 11/22 from the TSBD, but this other person managed to avoid the
partial prints of Oswald's that were already on the gun prior to
11/22?
Yes, I suppose a person could have avoided putting their fingers on
the same portions of the trigger housing where Oswald's two prints
were found, given the length of the Carcano housing (shown below), but
I wonder if you could get a jury to buy that argument?
www.surplusrifle.com/carcano9138/rifledisassembly/graphics/l/3.jpg
And please, Gil, don't travel down the road marked: "There's No Proof
At All That C2766 Was Ever Fired On 11/22/63".
You surely don't want to travel down that worn-out path, do you Gil?
Bud
An idiot such as yourself can manage to misunderstand any
information he comes across. Recently, you`ve claimed that entry
wounds from gunshots are always smaller than exits. Forensic sources
showed that to be wrong. You`ve claimed that Delagado gave testimony
that Oswald`s recorded shooting scores were fixed, when in fact
Delgado indicated the opposite. You misrepresented Scalice`s work, by
saying he was piecing together partial fingerprints "like a jigsaw
puzzle" to form a single print to match, which was not the case at
all. You claimed such piecing together would not be "evidence", and it
was shown that such evidence is being used to help solve cases. So, I
guess my question is this... why should a person who is constantly and
consistently wrong on almost every point he brings up be someone to
listen to in regards to this case?
Bud
tomnln
Because it's not a CARTOON! ! ! !
tims...@gmail.com
LOL! Say, Bud, it would be hard to give a better answer than that.
KUTGW mate!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Gil,
Well apparently Oswald didn't manage to, according to this excerpt
from the transcript of *Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald*:
Mr. SCALICE : There were a total of four photographs in all. And I
began to examine them and I saw two faint prints and as I examined
them, I realized that these prints had been taken at different
exposures and it was necessary for me to utilize all of the
photographs to compare against the ink prints. As I examined them, I
found that by maneuvering the photographs in different positions, I
was able to pick up some details on one photograph and some details on
another photograph. Using all of the photographs at different
contrasts, I was able to find in the neighborhood of about 18 points
of identity between the two prints. Well, I feel that this is a major
breakthrough in this investigation because we're able for the first
time to actually say that these are definitely the fingerprints of Lee
Harvey Oswald and that they are on the rifle. There is no doubt about
it.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Gil,
Sure, why don't you go right ahead and post the video, Gil. Make sure
it includes the following segment, taken from the transcript of the
show, won't you Gil:
QUOTE ON:
Mr. SCALICE : There were a total of four photographs in all. And I
began to examine them and I saw two faint prints and as I examined
them, I realized that these prints had been taken at different
exposures and it was necessary for me to utilize all of the
photographs to compare against the ink prints. As I examined them, I
found that by maneuvering the photographs in different positions, I
was able to pick up some details on one photograph and some details on
another photograph. Using all of the photographs at different
contrasts, I was able to find in the neighborhood of about 18 points
of identity between the two prints. Well, I feel that this is a major
breakthrough in this investigation because we're able for the first
time to actually say that these are definitely the fingerprints of Lee
Harvey Oswald and that they are on the rifle. There is no doubt about
it
QUOTE OFF
That doesn't seem to quite accord with what you've said on this
particular thread about Scalice, Gil. Nor does it appear to quite
accord with what you said about him on a similar thread to me last
week.
Looks like Bud has got you snookered once again, Gil, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eaaf565f-d1e4-4bd2...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Hi Gil,
Well apparently Oswald didn't manage to, according to this excerpt
from the transcript of *Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald*:
Mr. SCALICE : There were a total of four photographs in all. And I
began to examine them and I saw two faint prints and as I examined
them, I realized that these prints had been taken at different
exposures and it was necessary for me to utilize all of the
photographs to compare against the ink prints. As I examined them, I
found that by maneuvering the photographs in different positions, I
was able to pick up some details on one photograph and some details on
another photograph. Using all of the photographs at different
contrasts, I was able to find in the neighborhood of about 18 points
of identity between the two prints. Well, I feel that this is a major
breakthrough in this investigation because we're able for the first
time to actually say that these are definitely the fingerprints of Lee
Harvey Oswald and that they are on the rifle. There is no doubt about
it.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timmy hasn't yet figured out that TV is designed for Entertainment ! ! ! !
The same Timmy who believes that the REAL Oswald in Mexico City was....
5 ft. 3 inches tall
Blond Haired Haired
119 pounds.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
How many times has Timmy "DODGED" these issues of Evidence Tampering?
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1b9b0a3e-082c-4e70...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Hi Gil,
QUOTE ON:
QUOTE OFF
Regards,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coming from one who hasn't figured out yet that TV is designed for
Entertainment.
Coming from one who RUNS from multiple issues of the authorities Tampering
with Evidence>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
Coming from one who Endorses the "Suspension of the Rules of Evidence".
Coming from one who Endorses the "Suspension of the Adversary Procedure".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tims...@gmail.com
Hi tomnln,
LOL! You're simply blathering now, tomnln.
Why would I *hate witnesses on video* when I spent a reasonable amount
of time last week talking positively about the show *Lee Harvey
Oswald: On Trial*, a dry court room video presentation of a succession
of witnesses?
You're the one, tomnln, that frequently dismisses such productions
with words like *TV is for entertainment*. It appears that YOU hate
witnesses on video, tomnln, not me.
As for your claim about witnesses in *the Official Reports*, tomnln,
it is YOU who appears to disregard them, for example your refusal to
change your website's claim that Mrs Duran *then and only then
identified Oswald as the man she met* when some CIA tapes were
analysed by the Dallas FBI on 25 November, 1963.
That's not supported by CE 2121 in the WC volumes, nor by HSCA book
III, tomnln. She says she knew by the evening of 22 November it was
Oswald she'd met in September, tomnln. She says she went to the
Consulate and retrieved Oswald's visa application and brought it to
the attention of the Cuban Consul the morning of 23 November, tomnln.
That's before she was ever arrested by the Mexican police, tomnln. You
appear to hate *Official Reports* tomnln.
As for your 5' 3" Mexican midget nonsense, tomnln, anyone can see the
tortured reasoning you've used to arrive at that description on your
Mexico City webpage, but they must wonder why you don't feature any
segments from the VERY SAME HSCA interview of Mrs Duran you've used
where she CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY states that the person she met is
depicted in HSCA photo # 57, a photo of Lee Harvey Oswald taken in New
Orleans on 9 August,1963, tomnln.
Isn't that the case, tomnln? Or don't you know the evidence/testimony
in these *Official Reports* well enough to give an answer? You
wouldn't misinterpret the *Official Reports* on purpose now, would you
tomnln?
It appears you'll simply ignore them, though, if they don't fit your
version of history. You are the one who appears to have a problem with
*Official Reports*, tomnln. Not me.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Sep 6, 1:15 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
tomnln
Because he loses his butt on evidence/testimony>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:IBBwk.42971$Rs1....@newsfe08.iad...
tims...@gmail.com
Hi tomnln,
Say, weren't you just jabbering on about how I *hate witnesses on
video*?
You bounce from one side of the argument to the other at the drop of a
hat, tomnln.
Do you even read your inconsistent nonsense through before you post
it, tomnln? LOL!
Amazed Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Sep 7, 6:24 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htmhttp://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b5acbb0a-a097-493d...@s1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Hi tomnln,
LOL! You're simply blathering now, tomnln.
Why would I *hate witnesses on video* when I spent a reasonable amount
of time last week talking positively about the show *Lee Harvey
Oswald: On Trial*, a dry court room video presentation of a succession
of witnesses?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timmy;
TV is designed for Entertainment! ! !
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're the one, tomnln, that frequently dismisses such productions
with words like *TV is for entertainment*. It appears that YOU hate
witnesses on video, tomnln, not me.
Timmy;
TV is designed for Entertainment! ! !
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for your claim about witnesses in *the Official Reports*, tomnln,
it is YOU who appears to disregard them, for example your refusal to
change your website's claim that Mrs Duran *then and only then
identified Oswald as the man she met* when some CIA tapes were
analysed by the Dallas FBI on 25 November, 1963.
Duran said the New Orleans mug shot of Oswald was the man she had seen in M
C "MONTHS" after she was Arrested & "Intimidated/Threatened"
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not supported by CE 2121 in the WC volumes, nor by HSCA book
III, tomnln. She says she knew by the evening of 22 November it was
Oswald she'd met in September, tomnln. She says she went to the
Consulate and retrieved Oswald's visa application and brought it to
the attention of the Cuban Consul the morning of 23 November, tomnln.
That's before she was ever arrested by the Mexican police, tomnln. You
appear to hate *Official Reports* tomnln.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cuban Counsel Eusebio Azcue met with the Oswald Impersonator 3 times.
Even Argued with that Impersonator.
Azcue said in testimony, it was NOT the real Oswald in M C.
Even the FBI said it was NOT the real Oswald.
ALL found HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for your 5' 3" Mexican midget nonsense, tomnln, anyone can see the
tortured reasoning you've used to arrive at that description on your
Mexico City webpage, but they must wonder why you don't feature any
segments from the VERY SAME HSCA interview of Mrs Duran you've used
where she CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY states that the person she met is
depicted in HSCA photo # 57, a photo of Lee Harvey Oswald taken in New
Orleans on 9 August,1963, tomnln.
NOT "MY" Mexican midget nonsense Timmy.
It's from Sylvia Duran's testimony>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
THAT's why you attribute her testimony to ME! ! !
Duran's testimony "Embarrasses" you so much that you attribute her
description of the Oswald Impesonator in M C to "me".
It's all here>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm In the "Official
Records".
PS;
You're STILL Running from the multiple issues of the authorities Tampering
with Evidence Timmy.
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
Looks like you ENDORSE those Felonies! ! ! !
btw;
You never answered my question if you're Really Rob Spencer?
Remember when I beat the Snot ouitta him with evidence/testimony>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/rob_spencer_page.htm
Stands to reason that would Force him(her) to change names.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ac93d8ea-62a5-4eb4...@v13g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Hi tomnln,
Say, weren't you just jabbering on about how I *hate witnesses on
video*?
You bounce from one side of the argument to the other at the drop of a
hat, tomnln.
Do you even read your inconsistent nonsense through before you post
it, tomnln? LOL!
Amazed Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TV is designed for "Entertainment" Timmy.
Gil has Actual Witnesses on Video>>> http://www.youtube.com/user/GJJdude
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tims...@gmail.com
Whatever are you tomnlning on about now? You've gone off on some
bizarre tangent here about my *speculations* here. No speculations
here, tomnln. Analysis by a qualified expert, more like it. Let's
stick to the matter at hand, shall we? Gil, in his question # 33,
asked *How did Oswald hide the rifle without leaving any identifiable
fingerprints on either the weapon or the boxes surrounding it ?*
It's been shown that Gil's question is incorrect, tomnln. Oswald DID
leave identifiable fingerprints on the weapon according to the
following from fingerprint expert Vincent Scalice:
---------------------------
Mr. SCALICE : There were a total of four photographs in all. And I
began to examine them and I saw two faint prints and as I examined
them, I realized that these prints had been taken at different
exposures and it was necessary for me to utilize all of the
photographs to compare against the ink prints. As I examined them, I
found that by maneuvering the photographs in different positions, I
was able to pick up some details on one photograph and some details on
another photograph. Using all of the photographs at different
contrasts, I was able to find in the neighborhood of about 18 points
of identity between the two prints. Well, I feel that this is a major
breakthrough in this investigation because we're able for the first
time to actually say that these are definitely the fingerprints of Lee
Harvey Oswald and that they are on the rifle. There is no doubt about
it.
----------------------------
This fellow, Vincent Scalice, found 18 points of identity between
Oswald's NOPD prints and the prints on the rifle, tomnln. 18!!
Gil is threatening to post the actual video of Scalice, who was a
fingerprint expert for the HSCA, I understand. Whether Gil does so
seems highly unlikely, given his propensity for running the minute he
is proven wrong and the fact that Mr Scalice blows Gil's fingerprint
nonsense right out of the water, LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5827af42-4538-410e...@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Gil,
OIC, if Gil uploads it and the interview props up the JFK-CT side of
the debate then it's *witnesses on video* is it?
Say, I seem to recall you disparaging *On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald* as
*entertainment*, tomnln.
All the people in that show are actual witnesses testifying under
oath, tomnln.
Do they now count as *witnesses on video* too, tomnln?
Awaiting your reply, tomnln, with interest.
:-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> >http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htmhttp://whokilledjfk.net/CASE...
tims...@gmail.com
Hi tomnln,
Say, why are you stating that *The REAL Oswald was Blond Haired like
Duran testified*, tomnln?
You've said it twice now, tomnln.
As for your statement that *Even the FBI said the REAL Oswald was NOT
in Mexico City*, tomnln, that is a patent untruth.
The FBI discovered a mountain of evidence showing that Oswald was in
Mexico City, tomnln.
Haven't you read the 26 volumes, tomnln?
Oh dear...
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
tomnln
Do you Really believe that Gerry Spence offered a "REAL Defense" for Oswald
in that MOVIE?
WHY do you jump from subject to subject without addressing the Tampering of
Evidence by the authorities?
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:24fa0127-9a70-4d9e...@n33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2b59a39e-13d5-4920...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Hi tomnln,
Say, why are you stating that *The REAL Oswald was Blond Haired like
Duran testified*, tomnln?
You've said it twice now, tomnln.
As for your statement that *Even the FBI said the REAL Oswald was NOT
in Mexico City*, tomnln, that is a patent untruth.
The FBI discovered a mountain of evidence showing that Oswald was in
Mexico City, tomnln.
Haven't you read the 26 volumes, tomnln?
Oh dear...
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's ALL here>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
FBI Report
5th exhibit down from the top.
You're STILL Running from these>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
Thanks to you, I'm developing a "Superiority Complex".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tims...@gmail.com
Hi tomnln,
You'll have to post something better than that, tomnln. I can't even
read it. Put up a better quality scan, tomnln.
Want another look at the HSCA photo book tomnln?
Here it is:
http://www.cuban-exile.com/doc_226-250/doc0244.html
Photo # 57 was the one Mrs Duran picked out for HSCA interviewers as
depicting the man she met in September 1963 at CUBCON, tomnln.
That's a photo of Oswald taken on 9 August, 1963 by the New Orleans
Police Department, tomnln.
As for your other nonsense, we're not through with your Mexico City
page yet, tomnln. Stop trying to change the subject.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Sep 8, 3:39 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2b59a39e-13d5-4920...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> TOP POST
>
> Hi tomnln,
>
> Say, why are you stating that *The REAL Oswald was Blond Haired like
> Duran testified*, tomnln?
>
> You've said it twice now, tomnln.
>
> As for your statement that *Even the FBI said the REAL Oswald was NOT
> in Mexico City*, tomnln, that is a patent untruth.
>
> The FBI discovered a mountain of evidence showing that Oswald was in
> Mexico City, tomnln.
>
> Haven't you read the 26 volumes, tomnln?
>
> Oh dear...
>
> Concerned Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> It's ALL here>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
>
> FBI Report
> 5th exhibit down from the top.
>
> You're STILL Running from these>>>
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htmhttp://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:986ce6aa-6a76-4a2c...@b2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Hi tomnln,
You'll have to post something better than that, tomnln. I can't even
read it. Put up a better quality scan, tomnln.
Want another look at the HSCA photo book tomnln?
Here it is:
http://www.cuban-exile.com/doc_226-250/doc0244.html
Photo # 57 was the one Mrs Duran picked out for HSCA interviewers as
depicting the man she met in September 1963 at CUBCON, tomnln.
That's a photo of Oswald taken on 9 August, 1963 by the New Orleans
Police Department, tomnln.
As for your other nonsense, we're not through with your Mexico City
page yet, tomnln. Stop trying to change the subject.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Timmy;
WHY do you neglect to mention that Duran picked out Oswald's photo AFTER she
was Arrested TWICE
along with her whole family & INTIMIDATED???
Do you Encourage Nazi Justice?
You FEAR her description of the Oswald "Impersonator" in Mexico City So Much
that you attribute her words to Me! ! !
You even RUN from the FBI Report stating that Oswald was being
"Impersonated" in Mexico City.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
photo & Enlarge it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
(Any Excuse will do for Felon Supporters.)
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:6Ufxk.832$cV2...@newsfe01.iad...
tomnln
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:5sFwk.38589$9u1....@newsfe09.iad...
tomnln
Never look at the evidence/testimony.
"tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Clgxk.844$cV2...@newsfe01.iad...
Gil Jesus
> The REAL Oswald was NOT 5 ft. 3 inches tall like Duran testified.
> The REAL Oswald was Blond Haired like Duran testified.
> The REAL Oswald was NOT 119 pounds like Duran testified.
The committee did, however, obtain independent evidence that someone
might have posed as Oswald in Mexico in late September and early
October 1963. The former Cuban consul in Mexico City, Eusebio Azcue,
testified that the man who applied for an in-transit visa to the
Soviet Union was not the one who was identified as Lee Harvey Oswald,
the assassin of President Kennedy on November 1963. Azcue, who
maintained that he had dealt on three occasions in Mexico with someone
who identified himself as Oswald, described the man he claimed was an
imposter as a 30-year-old white male, ABOUT 5 feet 6 inches in height,
with a long face and a straight and pointed nose.
In addition, the committee interviewed Silvia Duran, a secretary in
the Cuban consulate in 1963. Although she said that it was in fact
Oswald who had visited the consulate on three occasions, she described
him as 5 feet 6, 125 pounds, with sparse blond hair, features that did
not match those of Lee Harvey Oswald.
( Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations in the
assassination of President JFK section entitled "President John F.
Kennedy did not receive adequate protection", pg. 250 )
Duran's description of 160 or 162 centimeters ( 3 HSCA 103 ) equals
5-3 or slightly shorter.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "If Oswald's partial prints were on the rifle, how do you know they were put there on 11/22?" <<<
>
> Common sense (mostly).
This is impossible since you have NONE! I think lies and distortion
are on the way instead.
> 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's partial prints were located very near the
> trigger of Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766.
NO they weren't as the FBI did not find any of value, and the man you
claim found a partial, Lt. Day, refused to sign a document to the
effect when Hoover asked him to. Why?
> And:
>
> 2.) That same rifle (C2766) was positively used on 11/22/63 to fire
> bullets at JFK's car.
IT was? Where is the proof for this wild claim?
> So common sense dictates that the LAST PERSON who pulled that trigger
> prior to the police finding the rifle on the 6th Floor of the
> Depository was Lee Harvey Oswald.
If your common sense relies on lies then of course you will believe
lies, but neither point of yours is accurate.
> Or does Gil think that a DIFFERENT person fired the gun into JFK's car
> on 11/22 from the TSBD, but this other person managed to avoid the
> partial prints of Oswald's that were already on the gun prior to
> 11/22?
Well since the M-C found was not fired at all (I mean with a rusty
firing pin and a loose scope who would use it?) your point is moot.
There were shots from the TSBD, Dal-Tex, and the right front of the
car (maybe the DCRB as well), but none were fired by LHO.
> Yes, I suppose a person could have avoided putting their fingers on
> the same portions of the trigger housing where Oswald's two prints
> were found, given the length of the Carcano housing (shown below), but
> I wonder if you could get a jury to buy that argument?
These "prints" were unidentfiable, why don't you learn the case. The
only claimed print to link LHO was the palm print.
> www.surplusrifle.com/carcano9138/rifledisassembly/graphics/l/3.jpg
>
> And please, Gil, don't travel down the road marked: "There's No Proof
> At All That C2766 Was Ever Fired On 11/22/63".
Why? You have NOT proven it was fired on 11/22/63 and we are not
going to just take your word for it.
> You surely don't want to travel down that worn-out path, do you Gil?
Why have you NEVER provided proof if it is so "worn-out?"
Gil Jesus
wrote:
============================================
Von Pinhead cannot prove that the rifle was ever fired from the 6th
floor.
1. The rifle was never examined to see if it had been fired.
2. The FBI did NOT find Oswald's prints on the rifle on the night of
the assassination.
3. The Spectrographic Test and the Neutron Activation Analysis of the
bullet fragments were "matched" to CE 399 by using flawed data that
the FBI stopped using in the 90's.
4. The bullet fragments allegedly found in the limousine were never
photographed in their places as discovered.
5. CE 399 had no bone particles, no clothing fibers and NO BLOOD on it
from EITHER victim.
6, There is NO CONTINUITY in the evidence and thus there is NO PROOF
that Oswald's rifle was fired from the TSBD.
This is what I mean by "continuity":
You have to put the rifle in the hands of the accused
Next, you have to have a bullet fired from that rifle.
Then you have to prove the bullet hit the victims
But in this case, we have this:
1. The rifle not examined to see if it had been fired
2. Oswald's prints not on the rifle
3. A test of the fragments that was inconclusive
4. No physical proof that the fragments were in the car
5. A bullet that contained no proof that it passed through any human
bodies
Sounds like a pretty solid case, huh ?
aeffects
game set, match! CT's win..... back to the drawing board nutter's, get
busy now, ya'll hear now!
Bud
> On Sep 8, 7:33 pm, "robcap...@netscape.com" <robcap...@netscape.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 6, 3:24 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > And please, Gil, don't travel down the road marked: "There's No Proof
> > > At All That C2766 Was Ever Fired On 11/22/63".
>
> > Why? You have NOT proven it was fired on 11/22/63 and we are not
> > going to just take your word for it.
>
> > > You surely don't want to travel down that worn-out path, do you Gil?
>
> > Why have you NEVER provided proof if it is so "worn-out?"
>
> ============================================
>
> Von Pinhead cannot prove that the rifle was ever fired from the 6th
> floor.
>
> 1. The rifle was never examined to see if it had been fired.
What test did the DPD have to determine this?
> 2. The FBI did NOT find Oswald's prints on the rifle on the night of
> the assassination.
The DPD did find prints, and the FBI did see the prints that were
later determined to be Oswald`s.
> 3. The Spectrographic Test and the Neutron Activation Analysis of the
> bullet fragments were "matched" to CE 399 by using flawed data that
> the FBI stopped using in the 90's.
Luckily, a few of he larger bullet fragments could be matched
balistically to Oswald`s rifle.
> 4. The bullet fragments allegedly found in the limousine were never
> photographed in their places as discovered.
So?
> 5. CE 399 had no bone particles, no clothing fibers and NO BLOOD on it
> from EITHER victim.
It was carried in the pockets of a few people.
> 6, There is NO CONTINUITY in the evidence and thus there is NO PROOF
> that Oswald's rifle was fired from the TSBD.
>
> This is what I mean by "continuity":
>
> You have to put the rifle in the hands of the accused
Brennan did that.
> Next, you have to have a bullet fired from that rifle.
Have fragments and a whole bullet matched to the rifle found on the
floor witnesses say shots were fired from.
> Then you have to prove the bullet hit the victims
<snicker> You think Kennedy was just thinking hard when his head
exploded?
> But in this case, we have this:
>
> 1. The rifle not examined to see if it had been fired
How is this done?
> 2. Oswald's prints not on the rifle
Fingerprint experts say they were. Idiots say they weren`t.
> 3. A test of the fragments that was inconclusive
Two larger fragments were shown to have been fired from Oswald`s
rifle.
> 4. No physical proof that the fragments were in the car
>
> 5. A bullet that contained no proof that it passed through any human
> bodies
Is such proof necessary? Aren`t there plenty of extenuating
circumstances to draw that conclusion from? Is there any reasonable
alternative to the bullet coming from Connally?
How does Gil think people are convicted of gunshot murders in the
real world?
> Sounds like a pretty solid case, huh ?
Well, kooks would like to throw out all the evidence, because the
evidence points at their precious patsy. But the fact is, if the
evidence in evidence is all worthless, how do you kooks expect to
solve the case with no rifle, no bullets, nothing at all? Using the
kook distortions of the evidence, nobody could ever be convicted of
the crime.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi tomnln,
I guess the reason I neglected *to mention that Duran picked out
Oswald's photo AFTER she was Arrested TWICE along with her whole
family & INTIMIDATED???* was because Duran picked out Oswald's photo
in 1978, tomnln, fifteen years after the events you detail above.
LOL, tomnln! A minute you were going on about me not knowing the
difference between Duran's WC and HSCA statements, now you're back to
claiming that Mrs Duran was INTIMIDATED when she picked Oswald out of
the HSCA photo book in 1978.
You simply change the story from post to post, tomnln, in a desperate
attempt to disguise the fact that Mrs Duran identified Oswald as the
man she met multiple times in her HSCA testimony, tomnln.
Your 5' 3" 119 pound midget nonsense is kaput.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> >http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htmhttp://whokilledjfk.net/CASE...
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:63c658d9-5f38-402c...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Hi tomnln,
I guess the reason I neglected *to mention that Duran picked out
Oswald's photo AFTER she was Arrested TWICE along with her whole
family & INTIMIDATED???* was because Duran picked out Oswald's photo
in 1978, tomnln, fifteen years after the events you detail above.
LOL, tomnln! A minute you were going on about me not knowing the
difference between Duran's WC and HSCA statements, now you're back to
claiming that Mrs Duran was INTIMIDATED when she picked Oswald out of
the HSCA photo book in 1978.
You simply change the story from post to post, tomnln, in a desperate
attempt to disguise the fact that Mrs Duran identified Oswald as the
man she met multiple times in her HSCA testimony, tomnln.
Your 5' 3" 119 pound midget nonsense is kaput.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YOU'RE "kaput" Timmy
You're FORCED to dismiss your own witness.
It was NEVER "my" 5'3" 119 pound testimony Timmy.
It was YOUR Witness>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
I realize it Embarrasses you so much that you must attribute it to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tims...@gmail.com
Hi tomnln,
Say, well you're the one trying to make the argument. If you can't be
bothered presenting your <snicker> slam dunk *evidence/testimony* of
conspiracy in a readable format then I don't care, tomnln.
I don't have the slightest bit of interest in you proving your, in my
view, wholly inadequate take on things, tomnln.
Say, it's interesting how on page 119 of her HSCA testimony that Mrs
Duran says the man she met on September 27 in Mexico City is the same
man she saw on television being shot by Jack Ruby in November 1963,
isn't it tomnln?
No doubt about it, according to Mrs Duran.
Would you like me to post a link to page 119, tomnln?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Sep 9, 6:58 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Timmy's NOT smart enough to figure out that all he has to do is save the
> photo & Enlarge it.
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>
> (Any Excuse will do for Felon Supporters.)
>
> "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:6Ufxk.832$cV2...@newsfe01.iad...
>
>
>
> >>http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htmhttp://whokilledjfk.net/CASE...
tims...@gmail.com
LOL! Say, tomnln, your handling of the evidence contained in Mrs
Duran's HSCA testimony is laughable, in my view.
You've latched onto this ridiculous 5' 3" scenario and been presenting
it as gospel for months now, all the while skating over the facts that
Mrs Duran identified Oswald from both his NOPD mugshot AND the film of
Ruby shooting Oswald to the HSCA investigators in the same interview.
Someone really credulous like Gil Jesus probably thinks you've made a
good point with your 5' 3" nonsense, but the reality is that even the
HSCA investigators who interviewed her concluded the almost certain
probability that Oswald met Duran in September 1963.
They wrote as much in their report. Bugliosi even cites them in his
book!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> ...
>
> read more »
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a624390b-6a3a-48ff...@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Hi tomnln,
Say, well you're the one trying to make the argument. If you can't be
bothered presenting your <snicker> slam dunk *evidence/testimony* of
conspiracy in a readable format then I don't care, tomnln.
I don't have the slightest bit of interest in you proving your, in my
view, wholly inadequate take on things, tomnln.
Say, it's interesting how on page 119 of her HSCA testimony that Mrs
Duran says the man she met on September 27 in Mexico City is the same
man she saw on television being shot by Jack Ruby in November 1963,
isn't it tomnln?
No doubt about it, according to Mrs Duran.
Would you like me to post a link to page 119, tomnln?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazing how #2 man Mirabal supports Duran....."He was SHORT"
Amazing how #1 man Azcue supports Duran....."It was NOT real Oswald"
Amazing how CIA Report supports Duran....."Spoke Broken Russian"
Amazing how FBI Report supports Duran....."individual was NOT Lee Harvey
Oswald"
ALL found HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
WHY did the CIA request that she be Arrested Timmy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7f95e4c8-214a-4462...@25g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
LOL! Say, tomnln, your handling of the evidence contained in Mrs
Duran's HSCA testimony is laughable, in my view.
You've latched onto this ridiculous 5' 3" scenario and been presenting
it as gospel for months now, all the while skating over the facts that
Mrs Duran identified Oswald from both his NOPD mugshot AND the film of
Ruby shooting Oswald to the HSCA investigators in the same interview.
Someone really credulous like Gil Jesus probably thinks you've made a
good point with your 5' 3" nonsense, but the reality is that even the
HSCA investigators who interviewed her concluded the almost certain
probability that Oswald met Duran in September 1963.
They wrote as much in their report. Bugliosi even cites them in his
book!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are denying that Duran testified that Oswald was.....
5 ft. 3 inches tall
Blond Haired
119 pounds
Are you DENYING that?
Are you Denying #2 man Mirabal said "He was SHORT"
Are you Denying that #1 man Azcue said it was NOT real Oswald
Are you Denying that the FBI said "NOT real Oswald"
Are you Denying the CIA report states "NOT real Oswald"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
> >> > Timmy;
> >> > Did the authorities withhold evidence/
> >> > Did the authorities Alter evidence?
> >> > Did the authorities Destroy evidence?
> >> > Did the authorities LIE about evidence Repeatedly?
> >> > Did the authorities Subourn Perjury?
> >> > Did the authorities Intimidate witnesses?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tims...@gmail.com
Hi tomnln,
Amazing how these people support Duran? You mean the Silvia Duran that
told both the WC and the HSCA that Lee Harvey Oswald WAS the man she
met in September 1963 at CUBCON?
Well the more the merrier that agree with Mrs Duran that she met
Oswald, tomnln, in my view. KUTGW! :-)
BTW, her claim is supported by evidence/testimony, tomnln. No wonder
you support her too! :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> ...
>
> read more »
tims...@gmail.com
Hi tomnln,
Are YOU denying, tomnln, that Mrs Duran said that the person she met
was depicted in Oswald's NOPD mugshot?
Are YOU denying, tomnln, that Mrs Duran recognised Oswald as the man
she met in the TV film of Ruby shooting him?
Are YOU denying those facts, tomnln?
Appears time you dodged a bit more *evidence/testimony*, eh tomnln?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> ...
>
> read more »
tims...@gmail.com
Hi tomnln,
Gerry Spence did the best he could with the shamefully weak defence
material he had to hand. The open and shut nature of the case was made
apparent by Bugliosi's brilliant prosecution of the clearly guilty
Oswald.
BTW, tomnln, it was a docudrama. Movies have scripts and rehearsals.
There was no script and there was no rehearsal for *On Trial: Lee
Harvey Oswald*.
Also, when did the discussion move onto evidence tampering? I thought
we were discussing *witnesses on video* versus *TV is designed for
entertainment* tomnln.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Sep 8, 2:36 am, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Timmy;
>
> Do you Really believe that Gerry Spence offered a "REAL Defense" for Oswald
> in that MOVIE?
>
> WHY do you jump from subject to subject without addressing the Tampering of
> Evidence by the authorities?
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htmhttp://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
>
tomnln
<tims...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eb58ee84-1959-4a1e...@a8g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
TOP POST
Hi tomnln,
Gerry Spence did the best he could with the shamefully weak defence
material he had to hand. The open and shut nature of the case was made
apparent by Bugliosi's brilliant prosecution of the clearly guilty
Oswald.
NOT very professional os Gerry Spence Timmy;
If I could find Numerous issues of evidence tampering by the authorities,
WHY coujldn't Spence find them?
SEE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
It was evidence tampering by the authorities that got O J Simpson Aquitted
Timmy.
But, of course Oswald never had a Lawyer or, the adversary procedure Timmy.
You're not as well read on the subject as you would have people believe are
you Timmy! ! !
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, tomnln, it was a docudrama. Movies have scripts and rehearsals.
There was no script and there was no rehearsal for *On Trial: Lee
Harvey Oswald*.
Also, when did the discussion move onto evidence tampering? I thought
we were discussing *witnesses on video* versus *TV is designed for
entertainment* tomnln.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
I have been pointing out evidence tampering for decades Timmy.
As a matter of fact, YOU've been Dodging that subject since you've been
here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gil Jesus
>
> Someone really credulous like Gil Jesus probably thinks you've made a
> good point with your 5' 3" nonsense, but the reality is that even the
> HSCA investigators who interviewed her concluded the almost certain
> probability that Oswald met Duran in September 1963.
>
> They wrote as much in their report. Bugliosi even cites them in his
> book!
>
> Regards,
>
> Tim Brennan
> Sydney, Australia
> *Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
WRONG AGAIN TIIMMY. FROM THE HSCA REPORT:
"The committee did, however, obtain independent evidence that someone
might have posed as Oswald in Mexico in late September and early
October 1963. The former Cuban consul in Mexico City, Eusebio Azcue,
testified that the man who applied for an in-transit visa to the
Soviet Union was not the one who was identified as Lee Harvey Oswald,
the assassin of President Kennedy on November 1963. Azcue, who
maintained that he had dealt on three occasions in Mexico with someone
who identified himself as Oswald, described the man he claimed was an
imposter as a 30-year-old white male, about 5 feet 6 inches in height,
with a long face and a straight and pointed nose.
In addition, the committee interviewed Silvia Duran, a secretary in
the Cuban consulate in 1963. Although she said that it was in fact
Oswald who had visited the consulate on three occasions, she described
him as 5 feet 6, 125 pounds, with sparse blond hair, features that did
not match those of Lee Harvey Oswald."
Findings of the Select Committee on Assassinations in the
assassination of President JFK section entitled "President John F.
Kennedy did not receive adequate protection", pg. 250
Duran said 5-3, but the committee met her "half-way" between the 5-3
and Oswald's 5-9.
So they called it 5-6.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Gilly,
Say, I was actually referring to the Lopez report, Gilly, the one
written by the people who interviewed Silvia Duran. Still, it's nice
of you to point out that the HSCA wrote about Duran that "she said
that it was in fact Oswald who had visited the consulate on three
occasions". With a friend like you, Gilly, ol' tomnln is never going
to need an enemy, LOL!
BTW, Gil, perhaps you should have continued reading onto page 251 of
the HSCA report you quote from, where you would have found the
following:
QUOTE ON:
Despite the unanswered questions, the weight of the evidence supported
the conclusion that Oswald was the individual who visited the Soviet
Embassy and Cuban consulate. Silvia Duran, who dealt with Oswald at
three different times, told the committee she was certain that the
individual who applied for an in-transit visa to Russia via Cuba was
Oswald.(28)
She specifically identified the individual in the photograph on
Oswald's visa application form as the Lee Harvey Oswald who had
visited the Cuban consulate.(29)
Moreover, Duran stated that Oswald's visa application was signed in
her presence.(30)
Duran's statements were corroborated by Alfredo Mirabal who succeeded
Azcue as Cuban consul in Mexico City in 1963. Mirabal testified that
on two occasions, from a distance of 4 meters, he had observed Oswald
at the Cuban consulate and that this was the same person who was later
photographed being shot by Jack Ruby.(31)
QUOTE OFF
Now isn't that so, Gil? I'm very surprised you left that bit out. Was
it simply poor research on your part, Gil, or were you hoping that no
one would notice?
Still, must say it rather blows your argument out of the water though,
LOL!
Will we be hearing any more from you on this matter, Gilly, or will
you be doing your *usual* runner? My money is on the latter course of
action, though I expect that time will tell. :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
tims...@gmail.com
Hi tomnln,
Well why don't you inform Gerry Spence of his shortcomings then,
tomnln? I'm sure he'll be literally quaking in his boots to know that
Tom *tomnln* Rossley, JFK-CT poster down @ the newsgroups is demanding
answers to perceived deficiencies in his defence work.
BTW, tomnln, Spence called Hosty as an adverse witness in *On Trial:
Lee Harvey Oswald* and examined him under oath, tomnln. You've
obviously never even seen the show have you tomnln, LOL!
They went into the issue of the note, tomnln. Too bad you missed it.
Oh, and BTW, OJ is a good comparison for Oswald. They are about as
innocent as one another, tomnln. LOL!
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Nesgroup(s) Commentator*
On Sep 12, 1:29 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> <timst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:eb58ee84-1959-4a1e...@a8g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> TOP POST
>
> Hi tomnln,
>
> Gerry Spence did the best he could with the shamefully weak defence
> material he had to hand. The open and shut nature of the case was made
> apparent by Bugliosi's brilliant prosecution of the clearly guilty
> Oswald.
>
> NOT very professional os Gerry Spence Timmy;
>
> If I could find Numerous issues of evidence tampering by the authorities,
> WHY coujldn't Spence find them?
>
> SEE>>>http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htmhttp://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
> >http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htmhttp://whokilledjfk.net/CASE...
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Gil,
I didn't realise you posted this a number of days ago. The obvious
answer is that you should have turned over to page 251 and kept
reading, isn't it Gil? I've posted it again for you:
QUOTE ON:
Despite the unanswered questions, the weight of the evidence supported
the conclusion that Oswald was the individual who visited the Soviet
Embassy and Cuban consulate. Silvia Duran, who dealt with Oswald at
three different times, told the committee she was certain that the
individual who applied for an in-transit visa to Russia via Cuba was
Oswald.(28)
She specifically identified the individual in the photograph on
Oswald's visa application form as the Lee Harvey Oswald who had
visited the Cuban consulate.(29)
Moreover, Duran stated that Oswald's visa application was signed in
her presence.(30)
Duran's statements were corroborated by Alfredo Mirabal who succeeded
Azcue as Cuban consul in Mexico City in 1963. Mirabal testified that
on two occasions, from a distance of 4 meters, he had observed Oswald
at the Cuban consulate and that this was the same person who was later
photographed being shot by Jack Ruby.(31)
QUOTE OFF
BTW, Gil, as an ex policeman, do you give any evidential weight to
things like Oswald's signed Cuban Transit Visa application, with his
photo attached, being retrieved from the files of the Cuban
Consulate?
Or do you simply rely on eyewitness descriptions that certain people
choose to distort in a desperate attempt to prop up their rather
unconvincing arguments?
tims...@gmail.com
Hey Gil,
Looks like DVP has already shown where there were fingerprints on the
weapon before it left Dallas.
Theses prints mentioned are the ones that Scalice examined, using
Livingstone's photos, aren't they Gil?
The idea that you put so much stock in whatever rumour Brinkley chose
to put to air is laughable, Gil.
Day had the rifle in his hands and examined it, Gil. Brinkley never
did.
BTW, when you originally replied to David Von Pein you didn't exhibit
too much civility, Gil. Looks like you were upset with what he had
posted, proving you wrong, so you lost your temper, Gil.
LOL! Now Gil, civility. Civility please. :-)
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Sep 5, 9:46 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "When the Dallas Police sent the rifle to the FBI for processing of fingerprints, how many prints did the FBI find on the rifle?" <<<
>
> Gil, of course, is a mega-kook with the memory of roadkill.
>
> Gil also knows that Lt. Carl Day of the DPD only had possession of
> Oswald's rifle for a fairly-limited time on 11/22/63 (in order to
> search it thoroughly for prints) before he was ordered to turn the
> weapon over to the FBI in Washington.
>
> Gil also knows this fact (or at least he should)....and this is a fact
> he undoubtedly hates with a passion:
>
> Lieutenant Carl Day did see the fingerprints on the rifle's trigger
> guard (or trigger housing) on 11/22/63, and he thought the prints
> probably were the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald (but Day didn't have
> enough time to examine the prints in more depth in order to compare
> them properly to Oswald's known prints).
>
> Further, more-detailed analysis in later years concerning those
> trigger-guard prints revealed that they almost certainly belonged to
> Lee Oswald. (Which is another fact that kooks like Gil despise.)
>
> Here's what J.C. Day told the Warren Commission in 1964. These are
> comments that Gil, being a kook, will be forced to ignore completely;
> or Gil will merely try to paint Lt. Day as one of the hundreds of
> "liars" connected to the JFK murder investigation:
>
> LT. J.C. DAY -- "After ejecting the live round, then I gave my
> attention to the rifle. I put fingerprint powder on the side of the
> rifle over the magazine housing. I noticed it was rather rough. I also
> noticed there were traces of two prints visible. I told Captain Fritz
> it was too rough to do there, it should go to the office where I would
> have better facilities for trying to work with the fingerprints. ....
> I could see traces of ridges, fingerprint ridges, on the side of the
> housing." ....
>
> DAVID BELIN -- "Did you do anything with the other prints or partial
> prints that you said you thought you saw?"
>
> LT. DAY -- "I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them."
>
> DAVID BELIN -- "Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the
> two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720
> and 721. I will ask you to state what these are."
>
> LT. DAY -- "These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--
> of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun
> No. C2766."
>
> DAVID BELIN -- "Were those prints in such condition as to be
> identifiable, if you know?"
>
> LT. DAY -- "No, sir. I could not make positive identification of these
> prints."
>
> DAVID BELIN -- "Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these
> pictures or not?"
>
> LT. DAY -- "I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all
> possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were,
> but I could not positively identify them."
>
> DAVID BELIN -- "What was your opinion so far as it went as to whose
> they were?"
>
> LT. DAY -- "They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger
> of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald."
>
> ==============
>
> Footnote --- Many people think Lt. Carl Day was nothing but a rotten,
> evil liar, who told all kinds of lies regarding Oswald's rifle and how
> he discovered a palmprint on the underside of the gun on November
> 22nd.
>
> But if Lt. Day HAD, indeed, been the rotten liar that many CTers seem
> to think he was in 1964, then why on Earth didn't he EXTEND his lies a
> little more with regard to the fingerprints found on the trigger
> housing of the rifle?
>
> IOW--Why would Day, if his goal was to paint Lee Harvey Oswald as the
> sole assassin, tell the Warren Commission this in '64?:
>
> "I thought I knew which [fingerprints] they were, but I could
> not positively identify them."
>
> Why wouldn't Mr. Day have said this instead?:
>
> "Yes, Mr. Belin, I can say definitely that those prints I saw on
> the trigger housing of Rifle C2766 were positively the fingerprints of
> Lee Harvey Oswald."
>
> CT-Kooks should probably make up their minds with respect to stuff
> like this regarding witness testimony -- Was Lt. Carl Day a liar? Was
> he a truth-teller? Or was he only a PARTIAL liar, telling only a FEW
> lies from time to time to further the "cover-up", but at other times
> he decided to tell the unvarnished truth?
>
> I'm sure Gilbert has all the answers, though. Most kooks usually
> do...even though every answer they provide invariably reeks with
> inconsistencies, contradictions, and absurdities.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm
Walt
> TOP POST
>
> Hey Gil,
>
> Looks like DVP has already shown where there were fingerprints on the
> weapon before it left Dallas.
>
> Theses prints mentioned are the ones that Scalice examined, using
> Livingstone's photos, aren't they Gil?
>
> The idea that you put so much stock in whatever rumour Brinkley chose
> to put to air is laughable, Gil.
>
> Day had the rifle in his hands and examined it, Gil. Brinkley never
> did.
>
> BTW, when you originally replied to David Von Pein you didn't exhibit
> too much civility, Gil. Looks like you were upset with what he had
> posted, proving you wrong, so you lost your temper, Gil.
>
> LOL! Now Gil, civility. Civility please. :-)
Civility!!??.... Let's see if I understand where yer comin from.....
We're discussin the nice "civil" act of murder...and you want to
discuss it in a civil manner? Is that right??
About the only act that I can think of that is lower and more
uncivilized than murder is cannibalism. The conspirators put a more
"civilized" spin on the cold blooded murder of JFK by calling it an
"assassination" ( murder has such a nasty ring to it) and now when
discussing that cold blooded uncivil act....you want civility??
> >http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gil Jesus
> We're discussin the nice "civil" act of murder...and you want to
> discuss it in a civil manner? � Is that right??
>
> About the only act that I can think of that is lower and more
> uncivilized than murder is cannibalism. �The conspirators put a more
> "civilized" spin on the cold blooded murder of JFK by calling it an
> "assassination" ( murder has such a nasty ring to it) and now when
> discussing that cold blooded uncivil act....you want civility??
>
Timmy doesn't know what civility is:
This scenario is FAR more plausible than Ben Holmes's *Lady In Yellow
Pants In The Nix Film Indicates Zapruder Film Alteration* nonsense.
What a STINKER that particular theory was! :-)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b69beee9ece702bf
----------------------------------------------
Suddenly tomnln doesn't appear to want to discuss *evidence/testimony*
anymore. I wonder why that is?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c905c35623f4f6ea
--------------------------------------------------
An touching except? Don't you mean a touching excerpt? The speech is
OK but the mawkish, choclate-box music rather ruins the effect, don't
you think? Talk about schlock, LOL!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e089fdb4408ee5bc
--------------------------------------------------
Say, on the photo you've used for your posting profile you look as
bald as a bloody badger yourself mate, LOL!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a269d2d1da41458d
----------------------------------------------------
That's true. And let's not forget that Wim is a VERY big backer of the
Judyth Vary Baker story. :-)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6a624482025607d3
----------------------------------------------------
Such contortions of logic on her part may eventually lead to a
questioning of the reasoning supporting Pamela's published work on
SSX100. Time will tell...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/eabd15f5a8195a11
-----------------------------------------------------
the haphazard and inebriated responses of your low rent sidekick,
David *aeffects* Healy you simply run like a coward, Ben.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a046f28c882170c1
-----------------------------------------------------
That would be my definition of a *real* kook, Ben. Is it true that you
posit that the Z film has been altered, Ben?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cdc9fe9331875bc0
--------------------------------------------------
SOME OF TIM'S "CIVIL" SUBJECTS
Discussion subject changed to "GIL JESUS DISTORTS AGAIN" by
timst...@gmail.com
Discussion subject changed to "GILLY TYPIFIES IDIOCY" by
timst...@gmail.com
Discussion subject changed to "GILLY DEMONSTRATES COWARDICE" by
timst...@gmail.com
Discussion subject changed to "Benny "Yellow Pants" Holmes Still
Ducking Any Discussion Of His Absurd Theory" by timst...@gmail.com
JESUS DISTORTS AGAIN
---------------------------------------------
....AND OF COURSE IT GOES ON AND ON......
These are just some of the examples of Timmy's civility.
Apparently, sarcasm and insults are acceptable as "civil" discussion
depending on who the poster is. Once again, we've seen where the
judges are the ones who should do the least judging.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Gil,
Say, it looks like you don't want to discuss the fingerprints issue
anymore, eh?
DVP already posted on this thread something that blows your Brinkley
*NO fingerprints on the rifle* nonsense out of the water.
You know, the argument you had to change to *no IDENTIFIABLE
fingerprints on the rifle* because the two didn't quite gel.
Now you're intending to hide behind the *civility* issue, Gil? LOL!
That's simply a sideshow to the fact that Scalice identified Oswald's
prints on the rifle years ago, Gil.
You didn't handle what DVP posted the first time around very well,
Gil.
Are you going to give it another go?
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6a6244820256...
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Such contortions of logic on her part may eventually lead to a
> questioning of the reasoning supporting Pamela's published work on
> SSX100. Time will tell...
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/eabd15f5a819...
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Little Gilly the bigot seems to forget that he was the one that made
the big stink about people being civil in their postings, now he's
trying to turn it around and make it look like you're being the
hypocrite. LMAO he does that in almost every single post lately.
tims...@gmail.com
Hi Gil,
Say, this doesn't look like a very *civil* response from you,
particularly as DVP had, well, *ripped you a new one* on the matter at
hand:
QUOTE ON:
You're such a bullshit liar David. No wonder no one respects you.
QUOTE OFF
You ARE the poster that advocates civility in newsgroup posting,
aren't you Gil?
LOL! Gil, you trot out Bible quotations, yet you post something like
THAT about another person on a public newsgroup?
It doesn't look very good, Gil. It doesn't look very good at all...
Concerned Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
On Sep 5, 10:13 am, Gil Jesus <gjjm...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Sep 4, 7:46 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "When the Dallas Police sent the rifle to the FBI for processing of fingerprints, how many prints did the FBI find on the rifle?" <<<
>
> > Gil, of course, is a mega-kook with the memory of roadkill.
>
> > Gil also knows that Lt. Carl Day of the DPD only had possession of
> > Oswald's rifle for a fairly-limited time on 11/22/63 (in order to
> > search it thoroughly for prints) before he was ordered to turn the
> > weapon over to the FBI in Washington.
>
> Are you suggesting that the 10 or 11 hours Day had with the rifle
> wasn't enough time to process the rifle for fingerprints ?
>
> Didn't the FBI dust the rifle for prints and found NONE ?
>
> Did they not have enough time with the rifle also ?
>
> You're such a bullshit liar David. No wonder no one respects you.
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Now do you see why he's earned the title Christian hypocrite Tim? He
lives up to it very well, every single day. Pathetic little loser that
he is.
Gil Jesus
If this evidence were a witness who had come forward after 30 years
to
say that he saw the gunman and it wasn't Oswald, I doubt you would be
embracing him.
You obviously don't know the terminology used by police. To a cop, if
there are no identifiable prints on the weapon or no prints of value
for idenitfication, there's no prints on the weapon.
Since the Dallas Police could find no identifiable prints on the
weapon, they announced there were no prints on the weapon. becuase
the
FBI found no identifiable prints on the weapon, they announced there
were no prints on the weapon.
Brinkley is not a witness, merely a reporter relaying information
that
was given to him by the Dallas Police.
It's not rocket science, Tim. It's just understanding the
terminology.
If you've been following my posts, you'll see that I never argued
that
there were no partial prints on the rifle. Quite the opposite. I
posted testimony that said that there WERE partials on the rifle, but
that those partials were unidentifiable.
I'm not moving the goal posts Tim. You and I are arguing apples and
oranges.
I'm arguing that the evidence indicates that Oswald's fingerprints
were NOT IDENTIFIED and thus for evidentiary purposes were NOT on the
rifle before the rifle was returned to the Dallas Police.
This position is supported by the DPD announcement as reported by
Brinkley and the FBI testimony. No idenitifiable = no prints.
Your arguing that someone looked at some pictures 30 years later and
was able to put the partials together, they came up with Oswald's
print and thus the print was on the rifle BEFORE the rifle was sent
to
the FBI. Your further argument is that the FBI was unable to find the
print because they did not have the technology at the time to do so.
But your argument requires you to prove two things:
a.) That the photos Scalice looked at in 1993 were the same photos
Latona looked at in 1963.
I don't personally believe they were, not because I believe that the
cops tampered with the evidence (which they did) , but because these
photos had been locked away for 30 years and were not a part of the
official evidence.
So I believe that Latona and Scalice examined two different sets of
photographs.
b.) That the photos Scalice looked at in 1993 were taken BEFORE the
rifle was sent to the FBI.
Remember that the photos Scalice looked at were NOT part of the
official evidence. Those were photos that had been locked in the
briefcase of a Dallas Detective for 30 years. Where's the evidence
that these photos were taken BEFORE the rifle was sent to the FBI ?
How do we know that these photos were not a second set taken after
the
rifle was returned to the DPD and the partials were obtained after
Oswald was dead ?
Now IF the Scalice photos were taken before the rifle was sent to the
FBI, my next question would be this:
Why did the Dallas Police send to the FBI photos that could not be
used for identification purposes when they had in their possession
photos that could ?
These are questions that NEED to be answered before we can accept as
evidence photographs that were not a part of the offical evidence in
the case.
aeffects
Timmy?
aeffects
wrote:
oh-pervert no sense trying to impress Timmy from down-undah, he's got
an alias reputation to uphold, he's not interested in your brand of
nonsense -- carry on, troll!
Gil Jesus
This scenario is FAR more plausible than Ben Holmes's *Lady In Yellow
Pants In The Nix Film Indicates Zapruder Film Alteration* nonsense.
What a STINKER that particular theory was! :-)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b69beee9ece702bf
----------------------------------------------
Suddenly tomnln doesn't appear to want to discuss *evidence/testimony*
anymore. I wonder why that is?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c905c35623f4f6ea
--------------------------------------------------
An touching except? Don't you mean a touching excerpt? The speech is
OK but the mawkish, choclate-box music rather ruins the effect, don't
you think? Talk about schlock, LOL!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e089fdb4408ee5bc
--------------------------------------------------
Say, on the photo you've used for your posting profile you look as
bald as a bloody badger yourself mate, LOL!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a269d2d1da41458d
----------------------------------------------------
That's true. And let's not forget that Wim is a VERY big backer of the
Judyth Vary Baker story. :-)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6a624482025607d3
----------------------------------------------------
Such contortions of logic on her part may eventually lead to a
questioning of the reasoning supporting Pamela's published work on
SSX100. Time will tell...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/eabd15f5a8195a11
-----------------------------------------------------
the haphazard and inebriated responses of your low rent sidekick,
David *aeffects* Healy you simply run like a coward, Ben.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a046f28c882170c1
-----------------------------------------------------
That would be my definition of a *real* kook, Ben. Is it true that you
posit that the Z film has been altered, Ben?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cdc9fe9331875bc0
--------------------------------------------------
SOME OF TIM'S "CIVIL" SUBJECTS
Discussion subject changed to "GIL JESUS DISTORTS AGAIN" by
timst...@gmail.com
Discussion subject changed to "GILLY TYPIFIES IDIOCY" by
timst...@gmail.com
Discussion subject changed to "GILLY DEMONSTRATES COWARDICE" by
timst...@gmail.com
Discussion subject changed to "Benny "Yellow Pants" Holmes Still
Ducking Any Discussion Of His Absurd Theory" by timst...@gmail.com
DALLAS FINGERPRINTS FOR GIL or JESUS DISTORTS AGAIN
---------------------------------------------
....AND OF COURSE IT GOES ON AND ON......