THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY -- IT CAN'T *ALL* BE COMPROMISED, CAN IT? (ACCORDING TO ONE CONSPIRACY KOOK--YES, IT CAN)
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fdd17ec84afd16bc
>>> "The lack of chain of custody in almost all the evidence makes it very easy to show or suggest very firmly that there was tampering and planting of evidence." <<<
Now, suddenly, "ALMOST ALL THE EVIDENCE" has a lousy chain of custody.
Where did you scrape that crap up from, Mr. Super-Kook? Is that in
another of your favorite CT books?
I love it! The kooks aren't satisfied with complaining about the
backyard pictures...or CE399...or the two "Poe" shells on 10th Street.
No, no. Suddenly, "ALMOST ALL THE EVIDENCE" has a bad chain of
possession connected to it.
And that would also include (in ADDITION to Bullet CE399, the Backyard
Photographs, and the two bullet cartridge cases that were handed over
to Officer J.M. Poe by witness Domingo Benavides).....
The non-Poe bullet shells on 10th Street.
The three bullet shells in the SN.
The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial # C2766).
The S&W .38 revolver that Oswald had ON HIM when arrested.
The two front-seat bullet fragments found in the Presidential
limousine.
The smaller bullet fragments found in the limousine (which were not
EXCLUDED as having come from Rifle C2766; i.e., they were consistent
with having come from that rifle).
The bullet fragments removed from John Connally's wrist (which, again,
were consistent with WCC/MC bullet lead).
The bullet fragments plucked from JFK's head (one of which was said by
Vincent Guinn, via NAA, to have come from Oswald's rifle).
The bullet lead removed from the inside surface of the limousine's
windshield (which was lead that was found to be "similar in
composition" [Robert Frazier's words] to Bullet CE399 and the front-
seat bullet fragments).
The bullets plucked from Officer Tippit's body (one of which was said
to be positively from Oswald's gun, per Joseph Nicol).
The autopsy photographs of President Kennedy.
The autopsy X-rays of President Kennedy.
The official autopsy report (which was signed and confirmed by all
three autopsists).
The paper bag in the SN (with LHO's prints on it).
The multiple LHO prints on the boxes in the SN.
The fibers found in the empty paper bag.
The fibers found wedged into the rifle.
The jacket that was found at the Texaco gas station.
The Zapruder Film (which many conspiracy-loving kooks actually think
has been "altered" in some way....with some of those CT nuts going so
far as to imply that the film has been--get this!--"wholly
fabricated" [verbatim verbiage from the back cover of Jim Fetzer's
book of insanity, "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"]).
The paper trail of documents that shows that Lee Harvey Oswald
positively ordered and paid for Rifle C2766 and the S&W revolver.*
* = I'm not sure if the kooks really consider these documents "weak"
on the "chain of custody" level. But many kooks certainly do think
that all of the various "A.J. Hidell" documents, in Oswald's own
handwriting, are not to be trusted. It's just one more sign of
"Anybody But Oswald" disease, of course.
===============
Now, for context, after listing the above pieces of physical evidence
that all lead down the "Oswald Did It" path, let me now repeat
Robkook's earlier hunk of hilarity (it's even funnier now, after
seeing my list above).....
"The lack of chain of custody in almost all the evidence makes
it very easy to show or suggest very firmly that there was tampering
and planting of evidence."
Robby.....a net awaits you.
David Von Pein
November 16, 2007
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0d44be6afc3237db
>>> "You can't really prove it based on the "evidence" the WR left you." <<<
There's nothing wrong with the evidence in the JFK case. Not a thing.
The problem is with you conspiracy kooks. You're the only thing
"tainted" about this case.
But the evidence and Oswald's obvious double-guilt are just
fine....and always were.
BTW, Mr. Goofball, the "WR" didn't "leave" me with the evidence. You
act as if the WC was responsible for collecting and cataloguing the
bullets, the shells, the guns, the prints, etc. The DPD and FBI did
that stuff.
The WC merely evaluated that evidence in order to reach a "Who Did
It?" conclusion. And they reached the only POSSIBLE conclusion they
could arrive at.
But, you kooks (for some reason known only to other kooks I guess)
think that the WC should have rejected all of the LHO-did-it evidence
out of hand.
I can just see the "CONCLUSION" section of the WCR if a band of CT-
Kooks had been assigned to author it.....
"We, the Commission and its Counsel members, have been shown a
wide variety of evidence that seems to point in the direction of one
man (L.H. Oswald of Dallas, Texas) as having been the killer of John
Kennedy and J.D. Tippit. But our final conclusion is this ..... None
of the vast array of evidence that points in the direction of L.H.
Oswald can be trusted. We, the Commission and Counsel, believe that
that evidence (ALL of it) has been cleverly manufactured to implicate
the man known as L.H. Oswald of Dallas.
"Neither the Commission nor its Counsel and staff members can
provide a shred of proof that such "manufacturing" of the evidence
against Mr. Oswald actually did take place, but we feel it is our duty
and obligation to seriously consider (and ultimately believe and
accept as an ironclad fact) the possibility that every piece of
evidence leading toward the guilt of L.H. Oswald in the two murders he
was charged with committing on 11/22/63 has been altered, planted,
faked, or otherwise manipulated in some fashion.
"In other words, FUCK THE EVIDENCE! We, the Commission and its
Counsel filled with brain-dead morons, believe the evidence is
fake....and that's that! See?!!" -- Signed, The "I Don't Give A Shit
About The Evidence" Commission
Yeah, if the above declaration of idiocy and non-evidence had appeared
within the Warren Report, it would have been MUCH better than these
silly (but truthful) words below, which can be found on page 195 of
the current version of the Report. Right, CT-Kooks?.....
"The Commission has found that Lee Harvey Oswald (1) owned and
possessed the rifle used to kill President Kennedy and wound Governor
Connally, (2) brought this rifle into the Depository Building on the
morning of the assassination, (3) was present, at the time of the
assassination, at the window from which the shots were fired (4)
killed Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit in an apparent attempt to
escape, (5) resisted arrest by drawing a fully loaded pistol and
attempting to shoot another police officer, (6) lied to the police
after his arrest concerning important substantive matters, (7)
attempted, in April 1963, to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, and (8)
possessed the capability with a rifle which would have enabled him to
commit the assassination. On the basis of these findings the
Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of
President Kennedy." -- WCR; Page 195
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0110a.htm
David Von Pein
November 2007
David Von Pein
Addendum/Title Revision (since the CT-Kook in question did use the
word "almost"):
"THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY -- ALMOST *ALL* OF IT CAN'T BE
COMPROMISED, CAN IT? (ACCORDING TO ONE CONSPIRACY KOOK--YES, IT CAN)"
robc...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fdd17ec84afd16bc
>
> >>> "The lack of chain of custody in almost all the evidence makes it very easy to show or suggest very firmly that there was tampering and planting of evidence." <<<
>
> Now, suddenly, "ALMOST ALL THE EVIDENCE" has a lousy chain of custody.
I guess since 1963 is "suddenly" to Reitzes/Von Pein, huh?
Hey, Reitzes, how much do they pay you for switching teams?
> Where did you scrape that crap up from, Mr. Super-Kook? Is that in
> another of your favorite CT books?
NO moron, that is in the WC's own words when they described their
evidence and how it was received! Much of it came from another wierd
method, ACTUALLY INTERVIEWING ALL THE WITNESSES TO THE VARIOUS PARTS
OF THE CRIME!
> I love it! The kooks aren't satisfied with complaining about the
> backyard pictures...or CE399...or the two "Poe" shells on 10th Street.
> No, no. Suddenly, "ALMOST ALL THE EVIDENCE" has a bad chain of
> possession connected to it.
Well it does, if you disagree, why NOT share the chain of custody with
us so the lurkers can see for themselves?
> And that would also include (in ADDITION to Bullet CE399, the Backyard
> Photographs, and the two bullet cartridge cases that were handed over
> to Officer J.M. Poe by witness Domingo Benavides).....
...and like almost ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE!
> The non-Poe bullet shells on 10th Street.
Yes, this is why they intial them in the FIRST PLACE!
> The three bullet shells in the SN.
Actually two bullets were there when the nest was "discovered."
> The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial # C2766).
Where is your PROOF LHO ordered a 40" Carcano again?
> The S&W .38 revolver that Oswald had ON HIM when arrested.
But this revolver COULD NOT be matched to the bullets INSIDE JDT, now
could they?
> The two front-seat bullet fragments found in the Presidential
> limousine.
Absolutely chain of custody since the Limosuine was spirited off to
D.C. before the local police, who had jurisdiction at that time, could
examine it. Thus anything found in it is contaminated.
> The smaller bullet fragments found in the limousine (which were not
> EXCLUDED as having come from Rifle C2766; i.e., they were consistent
> with having come from that rifle).
Being consistent with coming from a particular rifle and ACTUALLY
BEING CONFIRMED TO HAVE COME FROM A PARTICULAR RIFLE ARE TWO DIFFERENT
THINGS. Besides, there is NO link to LHO for CE-139 anyway, so even
if you could link them to the rifle, so what?
> The bullet fragments removed from John Connally's wrist (which, again,
> were consistent with WCC/MC bullet lead).
YES, but they EQUALED GREATER WEIGHT than was missing from your
claimed CE-399, right? How does that happen?
> The bullet fragments plucked from JFK's head (one of which was said by
> Vincent Guinn, via NAA, to have come from Oswald's rifle).
All this NAA stuff is junk as they whole practice has been recently
shown to be worthless. Next?
> The bullet lead removed from the inside surface of the limousine's
> windshield (which was lead that was found to be "similar in
> composition" [Robert Frazier's words] to Bullet CE399 and the front-
> seat bullet fragments).
Similar to is NOT the same as DEFINITELY FROM, now is it? Besides,
CE-399 has NO chain of custody anyway and there is more fragment
weight in JBC's wrist than what was missing from CE-399 so you have a
very WORTHLESS bullet there.
> The bullets plucked from Officer Tippit's body (one of which was said
> to be positively from Oswald's gun, per Joseph Nicol).
LOL!!! Explain why the FBI could NOT match bullets recently fired from
the revolver to the revolver then? Explain how the type of ammo did
NOT match the type of shell casings the WC presented? There is NO
definitive match for any of the bullets INSIDE JDT to LHO's revolver.
> The autopsy photographs of President Kennedy.
Which ones? The real ones or the faked ones?
> The autopsy X-rays of President Kennedy.
Which ones? The real ones or the faked ones?
> The official autopsy report (which was signed and confirmed by all
> three autopsists).
After the ORIGINAL notes were burned following LHO's death!
> The paper bag in the SN (with LHO's prints on it).
Which paper bag? Can you show us a picture of it in situ? Can you
show it listed on your DPD inventory lists? The way in which the
prints were located makes it highly unlikely LHO could have put them
there while carrying them. Also, remember he supposedly put the
package down into the back seat area of Frazier's car, thus he would
have handled the package in different areas in liklihood, so why are
the one and half prints in the same spot only?
> The multiple LHO prints on the boxes in the SN.
He worked there, there should have been more than the few they found
since he allegedly moved them all! Why were NO other employees prints
ID'd when we know they would have touched them in the normal handling
process of their jobs (or moving them to lay down the new floor)?
Very odd.
> The fibers found in the empty paper bag.
What paper bag?? YOU have failed to show us a paper bag ever existed
prior to the assassination.
> The fibers found wedged into the rifle.
You mean the fibers from the WRONG shirt?
> The jacket that was found at the Texaco gas station.
You mean the jacket that was a medium when LHO wore a small? The
jacket Marina said LHO never owed due to it's color? You mean the
jacket the FBI could NOT match the tag to in terms of the dry
cleaners? They searched over 400 in Dallas and nearly 300 in New
Orleans and could NOT find any that cleaned a jacket for LHO.
> The Zapruder Film (which many conspiracy-loving kooks actually think
> has been "altered" in some way....with some of those CT nuts going so
> far as to imply that the film has been--get this!--"wholly
> fabricated" [verbatim verbiage from the back cover of Jim Fetzer's
> book of insanity, "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"]).
We don't even need to get into it being altered, the WC's claim of the
when the shots occured does NOT match the testimony of the witnesses
who were in DP.
> The paper trail of documents that shows that Lee Harvey Oswald
> positively ordered and paid for Rifle C2766 and the S&W revolver.*
Which paper trial is this? The ONLY paper trail I have ever seen shows
he would have ordered a 36" Carbine, if any at all, but there is NO
paper trial for him receiving it from the Post Office. How did he
receive the rifle Dave?
> * = I'm not sure if the kooks really consider these documents "weak"
> on the "chain of custody" level.
Dave doesn't EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT CHAIN OF CUSTODY IS, NO WONDER HE IS
CONFUSED AND LYING!
> But many kooks certainly do think
> that all of the various "A.J. Hidell" documents, in Oswald's own
> handwriting, are not to be trusted. It's just one more sign of
> "Anybody But Oswald" disease, of course.
What was the EXACT time they discovered the "A. Hidell" card on LHO on
11/22/63 Dave??
> ===============
>
> Now, for context, after listing the above pieces of physical evidence
> that all lead down the "Oswald Did It" path, let me now repeat
> Robkook's earlier hunk of hilarity (it's even funnier now, after
> seeing my list above).....
YOU are full of it Dave, you have a bunch of worthless evidence in the
sense NONE of what you listed would have either shown the claim to be
true, or would have been allowed in court anyway.
> "The lack of chain of custody in almost all the evidence makes
> it very easy to show or suggest very firmly that there was tampering
> and planting of evidence."
Show me the chain of custody for the CE-399 Dave! Then we can go
through the other stuff, piece by piece, okay?
> Robby.....a net awaits you.
Dave, lie all you want, it will NOT make anything you listed any more
credible.
robc...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0d44be6afc3237db
>
> >>> "You can't really prove it based on the "evidence" the WR left you." <<<
>
> There's nothing wrong with the evidence in the JFK case. Not a thing.
UNLESS you are trying to show LHO did the crimes by himself, then you
have all kinds of issues!
> The problem is with you conspiracy kooks. You're the only thing
> "tainted" about this case.
LOL!! Dave's utter lack of knowledge about most issues in this case is
what makes his understanding of our judicial system "tainted."
> But the evidence and Oswald's obvious double-guilt are just
> fine....and always were.
Sure they are. NO matter how many times you lie Dave, this is NOT
going to be true!
> BTW, Mr. Goofball, the "WR" didn't "leave" me with the evidence. You
> act as if the WC was responsible for collecting and cataloguing the
> bullets, the shells, the guns, the prints, etc. The DPD and FBI did
> that stuff.
Yes, and the FBI did it BEFORE they had jurisdicition, thus they
VIOLATED the chain of custody for everything they tounched!
> The WC merely evaluated that evidence in order to reach a "Who Did
> It?" conclusion. And they reached the only POSSIBLE conclusion they
> could arrive at.
I love how Dave ADMITS they had a "LHO did it CONCLUSION" before they
even began working on this! For once Dave is honest! LOL!!
> But, you kooks (for some reason known only to other kooks I guess)
> think that the WC should have rejected all of the LHO-did-it evidence
> out of hand.
What "LHO-did-it" evidence is there?
> I can just see the "CONCLUSION" section of the WCR if a band of CT-
> Kooks had been assigned to author it.....
>
> "We, the Commission and its Counsel members, have been shown a
> wide variety of evidence that seems to point in the direction of one
> man (L.H. Oswald of Dallas, Texas) as having been the killer of John
> Kennedy and J.D. Tippit. But our final conclusion is this ..... None
> of the vast array of evidence that points in the direction of L.H.
> Oswald can be trusted. We, the Commission and Counsel, believe that
> that evidence (ALL of it) has been cleverly manufactured to implicate
> the man known as L.H. Oswald of Dallas.
They would have been more honest saying this then acting like the
evidence pointed to LHO, when it did NOT!
OF course the WC reached this conclusion SINCE THE DPD WROTE THIS
CONCLUSION ON LHO'S ARREST REPORT!! How about that for "innocent UNTIL
PROVEN guilty", huh?
> "Neither the Commission nor its Counsel and staff members can
> provide a shred of proof that such "manufacturing" of the evidence
> against Mr. Oswald actually did take place, but we feel it is our duty
> and obligation to seriously consider (and ultimately believe and
> accept as an ironclad fact) the possibility that every piece of
> evidence leading toward the guilt of L.H. Oswald in the two murders he
> was charged with committing on 11/22/63 has been altered, planted,
> faked, or otherwise manipulated in some fashion.
Why did LHO have NO representation before his death and after, except
for the limited things Mr. Lane could do? IF LHO was guilty, why was
the WC soooo afraid of allowing him representation? Why did a
Commission "searching for the truth" have CLOSED SESSIONS?
> "In other words, FUCK THE EVIDENCE! We, the Commission and its
> Counsel filled with brain-dead morons, believe the evidence is
> fake....and that's that! See?!!" -- Signed, The "I Don't Give A Shit
> About The Evidence" Commission
We, CTers, don't even really need to argure the "fake" card UNLESS we
want to as the evidence the WC presented does NOT show the claims they
made to be true all by themselves! And that is being generous in the
sense of allowing them to present their evidence in full, since we
KNOW most, possible all, would have been disbarred due to discovery,
processing and custody issues.
> Yeah, if the above declaration of idiocy and non-evidence had appeared
> within the Warren Report, it would have been MUCH better than these
> silly (but truthful) words below, which can be found on page 195 of
> the current version of the Report. Right, CT-Kooks?.....
Keep your WORTHLESS evidence Dave, it does NOT show LHO to be guilty
in the slightest.
> "The Commission has found that Lee Harvey Oswald (1) owned and
> possessed the rifle used to kill President Kennedy and wound Governor
> Connally, (2) brought this rifle into the Depository Building on the
> morning of the assassination, (3) was present, at the time of the
> assassination, at the window from which the shots were fired (4)
> killed Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit in an apparent attempt to
> escape, (5) resisted arrest by drawing a fully loaded pistol and
> attempting to shoot another police officer, (6) lied to the police
> after his arrest concerning important substantive matters, (7)
> attempted, in April 1963, to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, and (8)
> possessed the capability with a rifle which would have enabled him to
> commit the assassination. On the basis of these findings the
> Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of
> President Kennedy." -- WCR; Page 195
Claims are EASY to make, but VERY HARD to prove, and after 45 years NO
LNers or WC apologist has ever PROVED one claim the WC made in regards
to evidence and LHO!
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/13787f20f1545699
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5444cdb1f66855f7
>>> "Hey, Reitzes, how much do they pay you for switching teams?" <<<
You're off to a great start, Kook Robert. You seem to think you're
talking to David A. Reitzes. But, of course, you're not.
Strike 1 (of several dozen "strikes" to come, no doubt). Robby hasn't
collected a base hit since joining the Anybody-But-Oswald team of acj
retards in October 2007. And yet, he thinks he's the star player on
the team. Go figure that.
>>> "NO moron, that is in the WC's own words when they described their evidence and how it was received! Much of it came from another wierd [sic] method, ACTUALLY INTERVIEWING ALL THE WITNESSES TO THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE CRIME!" <<<
I'll leave it to other kooks (similar to Rob) to try and decipher the
above seemingly-contradictory statement.
~shrug~
>>> "Why NOT share the chain of custody with us so the lurkers can see for themselves?" <<<
And if I can't show you a specific "chain of custody" for EVERY last
piece of evidence connected to both the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder
investigations, then that means that you (a conspiracy-loving retard)
are therefore free to believe that "almost all the evidence" (your
quote) has a lousy chain of custody associated with it.
Right, Mr. Retard?
For example:
I cannot type in on my keyboard the PRECISE, EXACT "chain of
possession" for the two limo bullet fragments (CE567/CE569). So, I
guess this means that I should be automatically suspicious of what the
exact chain of possession (or "chain of custody") was for CE567 and
CE569.
Right, Mr. Retard?
Well, here's a blast of news for Robby The Automatically-Suspicious
Nutcase -- I'm not the LEAST bit "suspicious" when it comes to the
exact chain of custody for CE567/569.
And that's because I have absolutely no reason to be suspicious of it.
And I also have no reason whatsoever to be suspicious of the "chain"
for ANY of the other hundreds of pieces of evidence connected to the
JFK case, which is evidence that you--a retard--incredibly think is
"almost all" tainted in some fashion when it comes to the chain of
custody for all this evidence.
That's one of the big differences between a rabid conspiracist and a
reasonable person who looks at the evidence in this case -- i.e., you
(being a fool and a retard when it comes to ANYTHING associated with
the date 11/22/63) are more than willing to accept the EXTRAORDINARY
explanations for things (such as "almost all the evidence" having a
lousy chain of possession).
But I, OTOH, being a reasonable person and a non-kook when it comes to
looking at the evidence in the Kennedy case, can easily figure out
that the ORDINARY (i.e., NON-CONSPIRATORIAL) explanation for things is
usually the correct explanation; with the EXTRAORDINARY (i.e.,
CONSPIRATORIAL) version of events (which the Robs of the world will
ALWAYS favor instead of the routine, ordinary answers) normally being
dismissed....mainly because it's so EXTRAORDINARY (i.e., downright
stupid-sounding) most of the time.
>>> "Actually two bullets [the kook really means bullet SHELLS here, not "bullets"] were there when the nest was "discovered"." <<<
Oh, good! Rob's starting to invent the evidence (again).
Name ONE Dallas police officer or sheriff's deputy who claimed that
only two shells (instead of the correct and accurate number--three)
were found in the Sniper's Nest. You can't do it.
Plus: Your belief that only two shells were discovered really puts you
between a rock and a hard place when it comes to accepting one of the
bald-faced lie told by one of your heroes -- Deputy Sheriff Roger
Craig.
Because Liar Craig later claimed that when the shells were first
discovered in the Nest, the THREE shells were lying on the floor "no
more than an inch apart".
(LOL break needed here.)
Would you like to now jettison Liar Craig from your list of reliable
witnesses?
But surely you don't want to jettison Roger, do you Rob? Because he's
the liar who makes your theories sound so good a lot of the time.
You'd better keep him, and then pretend that he really saw only "two"
bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest, instead of the three that he said
he saw.
>>> "Where is your PROOF LHO ordered a 40" Carcano again?" <<<
Lee Oswald didn't order a 40-inch gun, Mr. Retard. That's obvious from
the order form he sent in to Klein's. He ordered a 36-inch carbine.*
* = And, btw, to those CT-Kooks who love to keep insisting that the
"40-inch" version of the rifle that appeared in one of the two
different Klein's ads in 1963 was not a "carbine" at all, I'd like to
offer up the following photograph of the Klein's ad that features the
40-inch model of the gun. This is an ad that says, plain as day, "6.5
ITALIAN CARBINE":
So much for the 40-inch variant not being termed a "carbine". At least
Klein's thinks the 40-incher was a "carbine".
Anyway, back to Oswald's purchase -- It doesn't make a damn bit of
difference what Oswald ORDERED. The key is: WHAT KLEIN'S SHIPPED TO
OSWALD/(HIDELL). And the rifle that Klein's shipped was a "40-inch
carbine" (just like in the alternate 1963 Klein's ad shown above).
And I doubt very seriously if Oswald got out a tape measure after
picking up his 40-inch Carcano at the post office in late March of
'63, in an effort on his part to verify the weapon's overall length.
He ordered a 36-inch rifle....Klein's shipped him a nearly-identical
model (which was 4 inches longer). Simple as that.
But, naturally, to the Anybody-But-Oswald kooks of the world, this 4-
inch discrepancy between what Oswald ordered and what he received in
the mail is a HUGE deal...and it must mean that there's another rifle
floating around someplace associated with Oswald's Klein's rifle order
from March 1963.
But to a reasonable person who examines this slight discrepancy, the
answer couldn't be more obvious....as explained above.
>>> "But this revolver COULD NOT be matched to the bullets INSIDE JDT, now could they?" <<<
We've been over this well-worn ground before, of course. Joe Nicol DID
say that one of the four bullets taken from J.D. Tippit's body could
be linked to LHO's revolver.
Naturally, Nicol must be a liar. Right, retard?
Anyway, even without Nicol's testimony in this "bullet" regard,
Oswald's guilt is still proven BALLISTICALLY beyond ALL doubt in the
Tippit murder -- via the four bullet shells that littered the ground
in the yard of Virginia and Barbara Davis.
Naturally, though, the CT-Kooks like Rob don't trust ANY of those four
shells either....not even the two NON-POE shells!
Go figure kooks.
>>> "Absolutely [no] chain of custody [for CE567 & CE569] since the Limosuine [sic] was spirited off to D.C. before the local police, who had jurisdiction at that time, could examine it. Thus anything found in it is contaminated." <<<
See my earlier remarks about chain of custody (in general).
But that's a nice (in general) type of excuse you've got there, Robby.
Since the limo was moved from Dallas to Washington, you therefore have
an open door to believe a bunch of crazy crap regarding the bullets
found in that limousine.
Think a jury would buy this argument, Rob? Really and truly, do you
think any jusy besides the "OJ 12" would buy this argument?:
"[Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is] absolutely [no]
chain of custody [for bullet fragments CE567 and CE569] since the
[President's] limousine was spirited off to D.C. before the local
police [in Dallas], who had jurisdiction at that time, could examine
it. Thus anything found in it is contaminated."
Good luck with that argument Robby. You'll need it. (Unless, as I
said, you get lucky and the O.J. Twelve are seated in the jury box.)
>>> "There is NO link to LHO for CE-139 anyway, so even if you could link them [the very small bullet fragments found in the limo] to the rifle, so what?" <<<
You're nuts (of course). Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (CE139) is
linked and tied to LHO in many different ways. You just wish to ignore
those things (as always).
It's so nice being an evidence-ignorer and evidence-mangler, isn't it
Robcap? The freedom to be a kook that such evidence-mangling provides
must be exhilarating indeed.
>>> "They [the bullet fragments removed from John Connally's wrist] EQUALED GREATER WEIGHT than was missing from your claimed CE-399, right? How does that happen?" <<<
It doesn't happen. And it never did.
Dr. Charles Gregory removed (per his WC testimony) "2 or 3" very tiny
metal fragments from Connally's right wrist. The total weight of those
fragments, as far as I am aware, is not known with 100% accuracy. But
the weight was said to have been "very small" (direct 1964 quote from
Dr. Gregory):
ARLEN SPECTER -- "Did you observe any foreign objects identifiable as
bits of fragments or portions of a bullet missile?"
DR. CHARLES F. GREGORY -- "A preliminary X-ray had indicated that
there were metallic fragments or at least metallic fragments which
cast metallic shadows in the soft tissues around the wounded forearm.
Two or three of these were identified and were recovered and were
observed to be metallic in consistency. These were turned over to
appropriate authorities for further disposition."
MR. SPECTER -- "Approximately how large were those fragments, Dr.
Gregory?"
DR. GREGORY -- "I would judge that they were...flat, rather thin, and
that their greatest dimension would probably not exceed one-eighth of
an inch. They were very small."
(The above March 23, 1964, testimony can be found in Warren Commission
Volume 6, Page 98, linked below.)
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0054b.htm
In summary -- The total amount of metal recovered from John Connally's
wrist was a tiny amount of metal, weighing very little. To say that
these "very small" fragments taken from Connally exceeded the total
weight lost from Bullet CE399 (which was a total lost weight in the
neighborhood of 2.4 grains) is just plain silly, and is an argument
made by conspiracy theorists that just does not agree with the records
in this case--specifically the WC testimony of the Parkland doctor
(Gregory) who REMOVED and SAW those "2 or 3" fragments from Governor
Connally's wrist.
RELATED LINK:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996
>>> "All this NAA stuff is junk[,] as [the] whole practice has been recently shown to be worthless." <<<
But a CTer still cannot fight the following logic with respect to Dr.
Vincent P. Guinn's NAA analysis (and the bullet evidence that exists
in the JFK case, in general):
"Even via 1970s-era NAA technology, what are the odds that
Guinn's data would end up revealing the likelihood that ONLY BULLETS
FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE STRUCK ANY VICTIMS ON 11/22/63? My guess is this
-- The odds of that type of scientific evidence favoring the
likelihood that only Oswald's gun was involved in the assassination,
and somehow having that data being totally FALSE, must be fairly low
indeed. In addition (and probably even more important on the "common
sense" and "sheer luck" scales):
"What do you think the chances are that a multi-gun conspiracy
took place in Dealey Plaza, with bullets from MORE THAN ONE GUN
striking the victims in JFK's limousine on Elm Street....and yet,
after the bullets stopped flying and the missiles and fragments were
examined, NOT A SINGLE BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-C2766 gun
turned out to be large enough to be tested in order to positively
eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the source
for ALL of the bullets and fragments that hit any victims on Elm
Street?
"Would anybody be willing to take those incredibly-low odds to
Vegas?" -- DVP; June 2007
RELATED LINKS (INCLUDING A 2004 VIDEO FEATURING KEN RAHN DEFENDING DR.
GUINN'S NAA ANALYSIS):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d0bc5be11042a291
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8ffad5a68bc0f306
>>> "CE-399 has NO chain of custody anyway and there is more fragment
weight in JBC's wrist than what was missing from CE-399[,] so you have
a very WORTHLESS bullet there." <<<
A bullet (CE399) that's in the OFFICIAL RECORD ASSOCIATED WITH THE
MURDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is, per Rob, to be deemed
"a very WORTHLESS bullet".
Rob needs a padded cell.
I have no doubt at all that if CE399 had a 100% perfect, to-the-letter
"chain of possession" (from even the POV of a conspiracy idiot like
Robert Caprio)....it still wouldn't matter to the Anybody-But-Oswald
nuts of the world.
Because via such a "100% perfect" scenario, the CT-Kooks would
unquestionably still find a way to sweep Bullet CE399 into the gutter
as "a very WORTHLESS bullet" as it relates to the JFK assassination
case.
Does anyone have ANY doubt as to the accuracy of my last statement
above? (I sure don't.)
>>> "Which ones [autopsy photos of JFK]? The real ones or the faked ones?" <<<
There are no "fake" autopsy photographs or X-rays of President
Kennedy. You just made that shit up....because you think you HAVE to
(I guess).
>>> "After the ORIGINAL notes [of Dr. Humes] were burned following LHO's death!" <<<
Rob The Kook must think, therefore, that Dr. James Humes' original
autopsy notes (which Humes burned in his home fireplace on 11/24/63
because they had the blood of the President on them) must have had
something written in them that proved the conspiracy that Robby so
desperately seeks. Right, Rob?
Otherwise, what's your point here?
I think Vincent Bugliosi summed up this "note-burning" episode quite
well when he wrote the following in his 2007 JFK book:
"Conspiracy theorists often refer to the missing “draft notes”
that Dr. Humes burned in his fireplace in the early morning hours of
November 24 after he handwrote a draft of the autopsy report. Critics
see this act as highly suspicious, and consequently conspiracy books
cite the burning of the draft notes as evidence of some cover-up.
"For example, Mark Lane calls Humes’s act a “destruction of hard
evidence” (Lane, Rush to Judgment, p.62). Josiah Thompson writes, “It
is unclear just what this earlier [burned] draft contained. One
distinguished member of the [Warren] Commission’s staff [later
identified as Wesley Liebeler] told Life [magazine] that he was
‘certain’ Humes burned the original draft because it reflected a
finding contrary to the official report,” Thompson adding that this
opinion of a Warren Commission staff member, though not appearing in
Life magazine, was seen by him in a report by a Life representative
(Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, pp.201, 214 note 8; identification
of Liebeler: Lifton, Best Evidence, p.348 footnote).
"It apparently has not entered the minds of the conspiracy
theorists (nor did it, allegedly, enter the mind of Liebeler--who did
not, by the way, believe there was a conspiracy behind the
assassination) that since we’re dealing with the same person, Humes,
if one believes that Humes was willing to lie on his autopsy report
(his draft notes reflecting the true and different situation), why
wouldn’t he likewise have been willing to lie on his notes, thereby
obviating the need to destroy them?
"Did those behind the assassination come to Humes after he wrote
the first draft and convince him, for the first time, to join the
conspiracy, he agreed, and then they told him what they wanted his
autopsy report to say? But what about Drs. Boswell and Finck? Did they
join the conspiracy too? Because if they didn’t, how is it that their
conclusions just happened to coincide with Humes’s new, conspiratorial
conclusion?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 276-277 of Endnotes in
"Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
>>> "Which paper bag? Can you show us a picture of it in situ? Can you show it listed on your DPD inventory lists? The way in which the prints were located makes it highly unlikely LHO could have put them there while carrying them [sic; "them"?]." <<<
Huh? What's this shit you're making up now?
Two of Lee Oswald's positively-IDed prints were on that brown paper
bag that was found underneath the killer's window. And even if there's
no official picture of the bag underneath the window, that fact does
not ELIMINATE THE BAG FROM EXISTENCE AS EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
Apparently many conspiracy theorists think that the bag (CE142) should
be tossed out the window and should not be considered "evidence" in
this murder case at all--merely due to the fact that no official
photograph of it exists when it was first discovered by the police on
November 22, 1963.
Of course, via such a silly notion as the one I mentioned above, we'd
also have to throw out Bullet CE399 too....because 399 was never
officially photographed in the precise place where Darrell Tomlinson
found it within Parkland Memorial Hospital on 11/22/63.
And, we'd also have to toss ALL of the limousine bullet fragments into
the trash can too, due to the fact that no official pictures were
taken of those fragments when they were first discovered by the
authorities.
And on and on to absurdity in this regard.
FACT: Lee Oswald's prints were on an object (the brown paper bag known
as CE142) that was said by the police to be found beneath the window
from where the assassin fired a rifle at JFK.
And it's an object (an EMPTY homemade paper bag) that has no
reasonable and/or INNOCENT reason to have been located where it was
found (under the assassin's window) on the day of JFK's assassination.
Do CTers think Oswald just happened to unwrap his so-called "curtain
rods" at the exact same spot on the sixth floor of the TSBD where an
assassin would also soon be taking shots at the President?**
** = Silly question to ask of CTers here, I know....because these
rabid ABO kooks, of course, think that the empty paper sack was
"manufactured" and "planted" by the evil and dastardly DPD and/or FBI.
I wonder how the cops managed to plant two of LHO's prints on the darn
thing though? CTers never say. They just think the bag, like all other
evidence that leads directly to their prized patsy, is "suspicious" in
some manner.
>>> "Why were NO other [TSBD] employees prints ID'd [on the SN boxes] when we know they would have touched them in the normal handling process of their jobs (or moving them to lay down the new floor)?" <<<
That's not a bad question, I must admit. But you still cannot get
around the FACT that Lee Oswald's prints were, indeed, on two of the
boxes that were DEEP INSIDE the Sniper's Nest.
That's a very important and usually-overlooked point too....because
we're talking about Oswald's own prints being located on two of the
boxes inside the Sniper's Nest that were undoubtedly touched at some
point in time on November 22nd by THE PERSON WHO TOOK SHOTS AT
PRESIDENT KENNEDY.
>>> "You mean the jacket that was a medium when LHO wore a small?" <<<
And a person who usually wears "small"-sized clothes couldn't POSSIBLY
have wedged himself into a piece of clothing that was LARGER than what
he usually wore....right Mr. Retard?
You're goofy.
>>> "The ONLY paper trail I have ever seen shows he [LHO] would have ordered a 36" Carbine, if any at all..." <<<
See my earlier "36-inch vs. 40-inch" rifle comments.
>>> "...but there is NO paper trail for him [LHO] receiving it [Rifle C2766] from the Post Office. How did he receive the rifle Dave?" <<<
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald (aka "A. Hidell") fills out a Klein's order
coupon for a rifle.
CE785:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0351a.htm
2.) Oswald then purchases a money order on 3/12/63 for the exact
amount it will cost him to obtain the rifle from Klein's ($21.45).
CE788:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0352a.htm
3.) Oswald then mails the order form and the money order to Klein's
Sporting Goods Company in Chicago, Illinois, USA.
4.) Klein's processes the "Hidell" order and creates the proper
paperwork for the transaction (as Waldman Exhibit No. 7, linked below,
verifies beyond all possible doubt):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
5.) The U.S. Postal Service then delivers the rifle package to
Oswald's ("Hidell's") P.O. box in Dallas.
Footnote --- And whether or not the proper "firearms" paperwork and
forms were attached to this rifle package that was delivered to
"Hidell" at P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas is not germane to this "How Did
LHO Receive The Rifle?" discussion. And that's because it's not the
fault of the POST OFFICE if Klein's failed to process the order
properly with the correct paperwork. The Post Office merely delivers
the mail; they aren't responsible for any negligence that might apply
to the sender of that mail.
6.) Oswald finds a paper notice ("a regular card", per the testimony
of U.S. Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes) in his P.O. box one day in
late March of 1963, which indicates that an oversized package has been
delivered to P.O. Box 2915.
7.) Oswald takes the paper card from his P.O. box to a clerk at a
window (or at the counter) inside the Post Office building.
8.) The clerk inside the Post Office building then retrieves the
package and gives it to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Footnote --- It is assumed by the clerk that the person who has
possession of the card is ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE PACKAGE CONNECTED
WITH THAT CARD. This information comes directly from the Warren
Commission testimony of Harry Holmes, shown below:
WESLEY LIEBELER -- "The package would have come in addressed to Hidell
at Post Office Box 2915, and a notice would have been put in the post
office box without regard to who was authorized to receive mail from
it?"
HARRY D. HOLMES -- "Actually, the window where you get the box is all
the way around the corner and a different place from the box, and the
people that box the mail, and in theory---I am surmising now, because
nobody knows. I have questioned everybody, and they have no
recollection. The man would take this card out. There is nothing on
this card. There is no name on it, not even a box number on it. He
comes around and says, "I got this out of my box." And he says, "What
box?" "Box number so and so." They look in a bin where they have this
by box numbers, and whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him,
he just hands him the package, and that is all there is to it."
LIEBELER -- "Ordinarily, they won't even request any identification
because they would assume if he got the notice out of the box, he was
entitled to it?"
HOLMES -- "Yes, sir."
LIEBELER -- "It is very possible that that in fact is what happened in
[this] case?"
HOLMES -- "That is in theory. I would assume that is what happened."
LIEBELER -- "On the other hand, it is also possible that Oswald had
actually authorized Hidell to receive mail through the box?"
HOLMES -- "Could have been. And on the other hand, he had this
identification card of Hidell's in his billfold, which he could have
produced and showed the window clerk. Either way, he got it."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/holmes2.htm
>>> "What was the EXACT time they discovered the "A. Hidell" card on LHO on 11/22/63?" <<<
The kook thinks the DPD "logged in" the time when they discovered the
Hidell card(s) in Oswald's wallet in the police car on the way
downtown. Hilarious.
Anyway, the "Hidell" identification was discovered at approximately
1:55 PM CST on Friday, 11/22/63 (i.e., minutes after Oswald was
arrested).
>>> "You have a bunch of worthless evidence in the sense NONE of what you listed would have either shown the claim to be true, or would have been allowed in court anyway." <<<
And yet Judge Lucius Bunton of the state of Texas, in July 1986,
allowed virtually ALL of this evidence to come in at the Lee Harvey
Oswald televised Docu-Trial in London -- even Stretcher Bullet CE399!
Yes, that TV trial was only a "mock" court trial, that's true enough,
but it was also a trial that was bound by the RULES OF COURT PROCEDURE
AND TEXAS LAW.
Are you suggesting that Judge Bunton of Texas was part of the "cover-
up" in the JFK case too, Rob? Because that Texas judge allowed CE399
to be talked about again and again at that TV Docu-Trial in 1986.
And the front-seat limo fragments (CE567 and CE569) were talked about
at that trial too. And so were the backyard photos (which you no doubt
think are fake). And so was the paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest.
And so was Oswald's Carcano rifle (CE139). And so were the three
bullet shells found in the SN.
All of that stuff was ALLOWED TO BE PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE at the '86
mock trial.
But if NONE of that evidence "would have been allowed in court", then
NONE of those pieces of evidence I just mentioned could have been
brought up EVEN ONCE by attorneys Vincent Bugliosi and Gerry Spence in
front of the jury at the TV mock trial in England. And yet...those
things WERE brought up, over and over again.
Was it a "Docu-Trial Conspiracy And Cover-Up", Rob? Or was Judge
Bunton just totally incompetent (i.e., he didn't know that ALL of this
evidence should have really been excluded at the mock trial, due to
some legal technicality or a "chain of custody" irregularity of some
kind)?
In Summary --- Rob doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking
about when he boldly proclaimed -- "You have a bunch of worthless
evidence in the sense NONE of what you listed would have either shown
the claim to be true, or would have been allowed in court anyway."
ADDENDUM REGARDING THE "CHAIN OF CUSTODY" SUBJECT:
From Vince Bugliosi's book:
"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is
that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because
the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was
not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of
law. ....
"The first observation I have to make is that I would think
conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy,
not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.
"Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much
of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two
large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.
"Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a
practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an
ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I
believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be
admissible.
"I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence
at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the
exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain
is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless
admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to
"the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the
jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Via
a footnote on page 442 of the endnotes in "Reclaiming History" (c.
2007)
>>> "Show me the chain of custody for the CE-399 Dave!" <<<
From Tomlinson...to Wright...to Johnsen...to Rowley...to Todd...to
Frazier.
>>> "The FBI did it BEFORE they had jurisdicition, thus they VIOLATED the chain of custody for everything they touched!" <<<
You're an idiot. (Obviously.)
>>> "What "LHO-did-it" evidence is there?" <<<
You're still a (very big) idiot. (Quite obviously.)
>>> "Why did LHO have NO representation before his death and after, except for the limited things Mr. Lane could do?" <<<
He had no legal representation before his death because HE REFUSED THE
HELP OF THE DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION (i.e., Mr. Nichols):
H. LOUIS NICHOLS -- "He [LHO] said: 'Either Mr. Abt or someone who is
a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, and if I can find a
lawyer here who believes in anything I believe in, and believes as I
believe, and believes in my innocence...I might let him represent me'.
I said, 'What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me
or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?' He said,
'No, not now'."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
>>> "IF LHO was guilty, why was the WC soooo afraid of allowing him representation?" <<<
They weren't. And they did allow him representation.
You, Rob, are an idiot.
>>> "Why did a Commission "searching for the truth" have CLOSED SESSIONS?" <<<
Probably to keep goofballs like you from constantly interrupting the
sessions with the stupid shit you constantly enjoy bringing up.
(That's as good a reason as any for having "closed" WC sessions, IMO.)
>>> "We, CTers, don't even really need to argue the "fake" card UNLESS we want to as the evidence the WC presented does NOT show the claims they made to be true all by themselves! And that is being generous in the sense of allowing them to present their evidence in full, since we KNOW most, possible all, would have been disbarred due to discovery, processing and custody issues." <<<
The net draws ever nearer to the Rob-ster. And so does the funny farm.
>>> "Keep your WORTHLESS evidence Dave, it does NOT show LHO to be guilty in the slightest." <<<
Time for bed, isn't it Robby? The ghost of your hero, Jim Garrison, is
waiting for you there. Garrison, too, was silly enough to constantly
embarrass himself in public by saying that there was no evidence at
all to show that Oswald shot anybody on 11/22/63.
I consider Jimbo Garrison to be the "Original Super Kook" with respect
to the JFK assassination. You, Rob, should be proud to continue in the
tradition of your kooky mentor.
>>> "Claims are EASY to make, but VERY HARD to prove..." <<<
Yeah, just ask any CTer about that. (Like, say, Lifton or Garrison or
Fetzer or Armstrong or Mellen or Lane. None of them has ever proven
their CT "claims".)
>>> "...and after 45 years[,] NO LNers or WC apologist has ever PROVED one claim the WC made in regards to evidence and LHO!" <<<
Allow me to close with one last very astute (and accurate)
observation:
The forum entity known as "Robcap" is a retarded, evidence-mangling
idiot.
aeffects
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/13787f20f1545699
you're all over the planet, Troll. Mom gonna charge you rent for that
bedroom? I'd be pissed too! ROTFLMFAO
robc...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/13787f20f1545699
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5444cdb1f66855f7
>
> >>> "Hey, Reitzes, how much do they pay you for switching teams?" <<<
>
> You're off to a great start, Kook Robert. You seem to think you're
> talking to David A. Reitzes. But, of course, you're not.
Sure, but in the BIG picture it does NOT really matter who you are,
now does it? I would probably want my REAL IDENTITY to be a secret too
IF I made my living LYING like you do!
> Strike 1 (of several dozen "strikes" to come, no doubt). Robby hasn't
> collected a base hit since joining the Anybody-But-Oswald team of acj
> retards in October 2007. And yet, he thinks he's the star player on
> the team. Go figure that.
Dave lives in the "bizzaro world" of George Constanza (Seinfeld) where
everything is opposite of reality, so if he thinks I'm hitless, I must
be batting .1000!
> >>> "NO moron, that is in the WC's own words when they described their evidence and how it was received! Much of it came from another wierd [sic] method, ACTUALLY INTERVIEWING ALL THE WITNESSES TO THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE CRIME!" <<<
>
> I'll leave it to other kooks (similar to Rob) to try and decipher the
> above seemingly-contradictory statement.
The evidence you SUPPORT is worthless in terms of proving anything the
WC claimed, and would NOT be allowed into a court of law enmass in all
liklihood. Simple enough for you?
> ~shrug~
Instead of "shrugging" why NOT read up on our judicial system?
> >>> "Why NOT share the chain of custody with us so the lurkers can see for themselves?" <<<
> And if I can't show you a specific "chain of custody" for EVERY last
> piece of evidence connected to both the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder
> investigations, then that means that you (a conspiracy-loving retard)
> are therefore free to believe that "almost all the evidence" (your
> quote) has a lousy chain of custody associated with it.
We will take it as it comes, I will be fair, as I am NOT afraid of the
WC's evidence anyway, okay?
> Right, Mr. Retard?
Call me what you want, BUT IF YOU RUN FROM THIS HONORABLE REQUEST WE
WILL ALL SEE YOU ARE A LIAR!
> For example:
> I cannot type in on my keyboard the PRECISE, EXACT "chain of
> possession" for the two limo bullet fragments (CE567/CE569). So, I
> guess this means that I should be automatically suspicious of what the
> exact chain of possession (or "chain of custody") was for CE567 and
> CE569.
Lurkers, notice how he is stalling and changing the topic? He CAN'T
show a chain of custody for the evidence (for the most part) so he is
going to try and change the subject. He is a man SUPPORTING A HUGE
LIE, he has NO other options.
> Right, Mr. Retard?
Stay ON topic Dave, show me the chain of custody for the WC's
evidence!
> Well, here's a blast of news for Robby The Automatically-Suspicious
> Nutcase -- I'm not the LEAST bit "suspicious" when it comes to the
> exact chain of custody for CE567/569.
~Yawn~
> And that's because I have absolutely no reason to be suspicious of it.
> And I also have no reason whatsoever to be suspicious of the "chain"
> for ANY of the other hundreds of pieces of evidence connected to the
> JFK case, which is evidence that you--a retard--incredibly think is
> "almost all" tainted in some fashion when it comes to the chain of
> custody for all this evidence.
Dave, I did NOT ask for your FEELINGS, I asked for the exact chain of
custody for the WC's evidence, piece by piece, remember?
> That's one of the big differences between a rabid conspiracist and a
> reasonable person who looks at the evidence in this case -- i.e., you
> (being a fool and a retard when it comes to ANYTHING associated with
> the date 11/22/63) are more than willing to accept the EXTRAORDINARY
> explanations for things (such as "almost all the evidence" having a
> lousy chain of possession).
NO, the BIG DIFFERENCE between a CTer and a liar, oops, a LNer, is we
are NOT afraid to discuss the chain of custody for the WC's evidence
like YOU obviously are! Will he keep stalling folks?
> But I, OTOH, being a reasonable person and a non-kook when it comes to
> looking at the evidence in the Kennedy case, can easily figure out
> that the ORDINARY (i.e., NON-CONSPIRATORIAL) explanation for things is
> usually the correct explanation; with the EXTRAORDINARY (i.e.,
> CONSPIRATORIAL) version of events (which the Robs of the world will
> ALWAYS favor instead of the routine, ordinary answers) normally being
> dismissed....mainly because it's so EXTRAORDINARY (i.e., downright
> stupid-sounding) most of the time.
Lurkers, he has rambled to the point of infinity, ALL THE WHILE
IGNORING my simple request for chain of custody explanations. IF it
was handled properly, why is Dave soooo afraid to discuss it?
> >>> "Actually two bullets [the kook really means bullet SHELLS here, not "bullets"] were there when the nest was "discovered"." <<<
>
> Oh, good! Rob's starting to invent the evidence (again).
> Name ONE Dallas police officer or sheriff's deputy who claimed that
> only two shells (instead of the correct and accurate number--three)
> were found in the Sniper's Nest. You can't do it.
Explain why the OFFICIAL Evidence photo has ONLY TWO shell casings in
it? Why would they leave out the third one if it was evidence? Curry
published this photo in his book and it can be found on page 88.
> Plus: Your belief that only two shells were discovered really puts you
> between a rock and a hard place when it comes to accepting one of the
> bald-faced lie told by one of your heroes -- Deputy Sheriff Roger
> Craig.
Please explain why a photo that contained the shell casings of a 6.5mm
variety (JUST TWO OF THEM), the fragment taken from JBC, the blanket,
the shirt LHO was wearing when he was arrested, the .38 revolver and a
paper bag (there were 8 items in all) published in Curry's book would
show just two if three were found? We were discussing chain of
custody, right? We were discussing processing of a crime scene,
right?
Come on think.
> Because Liar Craig later claimed that when the shells were first
> discovered in the Nest, the THREE shells were lying on the floor "no
> more than an inch apart".
Three were there at 1:12 PM on 11/22/63, but later we see ONLY two in
evidence when the OFFICIAL photo was taken, why? What happened to the
third casing? My comment was in regards to when the photos began
being taken, NOT when Mooney saw the shell casings. Please do keep
up.
> (LOL break needed here.)
I suggest you read up on the case DURING your break.
> Would you like to now jettison Liar Craig from your list of reliable
> witnesses?
Why would I? My question was NOT an indictment of Mooney or Craig,
but rather it was an indictment of the DPD's processing and chain of
custody of the evidence found on the sixth floor of the TSBD (and
elsewhere of course).
> But surely you don't want to jettison Roger, do you Rob? Because he's
> the liar who makes your theories sound so good a lot of the time.
> You'd better keep him, and then pretend that he really saw only "two"
> bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest, instead of the three that he said
> he saw.
YOU can call him a liar all you want BUT you have FAILED to prove he
did lie, so ipso facto YOU are the liar for making claims you CAN'T
prove!
> >>> "Where is your PROOF LHO ordered a 40" Carcano again?" <<<
>
> Lee Oswald didn't order a 40-inch gun, Mr. Retard. That's obvious from
> the order form he sent in to Klein's. He ordered a 36-inch carbine.*
I have to SAVE THIS ONE, FINALLY A LNER ADMITS HE DID NOT ORDER A 40"
CARCANO BASED ON THE WC EVIDENCE!
So the next logical question is WHAT HAPPENED TO THE 36" CARBINE DAVE?
> * = And, btw, to those CT-Kooks who love to keep insisting that the
> "40-inch" version of the rifle that appeared in one of the two
> different Klein's ads in 1963 was not a "carbine" at all, I'd like to
> offer up the following photograph of the Klein's ad that features the
> 40-inch model of the gun. This is an ad that says, plain as day, "6.5
> ITALIAN CARBINE":
Thank you Dave, you have FINALLY SAID SOMETHING TRUTHFUL.
NOW, explain for us how he got a 40" Carcano to allegedly pose for the
BY photos and allegedly shoot at JFK when it appears he would have
ordered a 36" Carbine. Bonus points: Explain what he did with the 36"
Carbine since it was NEVER found among his possessions.
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/122a.+KLEIN%27S+AD+FEA...
> So much for the 40-inch variant not being termed a "carbine". At least
> Klein's thinks the 40-incher was a "carbine".
YOU are back to lying Dave since the 40" Carcano was NEVER termed a
Carbine. They are TWO DISTINCT models. I doubt very much Klein's was
as confused about firearms as YOU obviously are! They ONLY had 36"
Carbines in stock in March of 1963!
> Anyway, back to Oswald's purchase -- It doesn't make a damn bit of
> difference what Oswald ORDERED.
IT sure does when you are tying him to a SPECIFIC kind of rifle!
> The key is: WHAT KLEIN'S SHIPPED TO
> OSWALD/(HIDELL). And the rifle that Klein's shipped was a "40-inch
> carbine" (just like in the alternate 1963 Klein's ad shown above).
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 40" CARBINE DAVE!! YOU are totally
clueless! The catalog number and dollor amount the order form had on
it was for a 36" Carbine, and that is what he would have been sent.
Klein's, like all businesses, was in the business of MAKING MONEY!
They did NOT send out more expensive product(s) when you ordered/paid
for less!
> And I doubt very seriously if Oswald got out a tape measure after
> picking up his 40-inch Carcano at the post office in late March of
> '63, in an effort on his part to verify the weapon's overall length.
Who cares what YOU think? I sure don't. NOW, can you show US when and
how LHO picked up the 36" Carbine you admitted he purchased? I ask
because the WC NEVER COULD!
> He ordered a 36-inch rifle....Klein's shipped him a nearly-identical
> model (which was 4 inches longer). Simple as that.
That thinking GOES AGAINST everything a business is in the business of
-- MAKING MONEY! Do you have some evidence/proof for this theory of
yours?
> But, naturally, to the Anybody-But-Oswald kooks of the world, this 4-
> inch discrepancy between what Oswald ordered and what he received in
> the mail is a HUGE deal...and it must mean that there's another rifle
> floating around someplace associated with Oswald's Klein's rifle order
> from March 1963.
ONLY a liar like Dave would think someone could order a 36" Carbine
and be sent a 40" Carcano short rifle, especially when one considers
research has shown Klein's had NO 40" models in stock in March 1963 to
send in the first place.
> But to a reasonable person who examines this slight discrepancy, the
> answer couldn't be more obvious....as explained above.
YOU have illustrated for us once again why you are NOT a reasonable
person. YOU are NOT even a reasonable liar, you are VERY BAD ONE!
> >>> "But this revolver COULD NOT be matched to the bullets INSIDE JDT, now could they?" <<<
>
> We've been over this well-worn ground before, of course. Joe Nicol DID
> say that one of the four bullets taken from J.D. Tippit's body could
> be linked to LHO's revolver.
That was his OPINION, we all have one, and the defense could have
found a bunch who would have said the truth, NONE of them could be
matched to LHO's revolver. The FBI COULD NOT even match bullets they
just fired to the gun they KNEW THEY JUST FIRED THEM FROM (LHO's
revolver) so how could Nicol match extremely damaged bullets to LHO's
revolver?
> Naturally, Nicol must be a liar. Right, retard?
He made comments that were BENFICIAL to the WC's theory, and he
offered UP OPINION instead of firm, conclusive proof.
> Anyway, even without Nicol's testimony in this "bullet" regard,
> Oswald's guilt is still proven BALLISTICALLY beyond ALL doubt in the
> Tippit murder -- via the four bullet shells that littered the ground
> in the yard of Virginia and Barbara Davis.
YOU mean the four shells that NO one could ID that had found them?
Those four shells?
> Naturally, though, the CT-Kooks like Rob don't trust ANY of those four
> shells either....not even the two NON-POE shells!
Why would I when the people who found them could NOT ID them when the
WC showed them the shells in evidence?
> Go figure kooks.
We will NEVER figure out liars like you, but I'll keep working on it.
> >>> "Absolutely [no] chain of custody [for CE567 & CE569] since the Limosuine [sic] was spirited off to D.C. before the local police, who had jurisdiction at that time, could examine it. Thus anything found in it is contaminated." <<<
> See my earlier remarks about chain of custody (in general).
Why would I waste my time? YOU don't even know what chain of custody
is!
> But that's a nice (in general) type of excuse you've got there, Robby.
> Since the limo was moved from Dallas to Washington, you therefore have
> an open door to believe a bunch of crazy crap regarding the bullets
> found in that limousine.
Dave calls our judicial laws, that were implemented to protect the
innocent from being railroaded for crimes they did not commit,
"excuses"! Sorry Dave, the laws are firm on this point, ONLY the
entity with JURISDICTION is allowed to do the discover and
processing. The SS violated this law, thus they contaminated
everything either found in the limo or claimed to be found. YOU have
to learn to accept the truth.
> Think a jury would buy this argument, Rob? Really and truly, do you
> think any jusy besides the "OJ 12" would buy this argument?:
The JURY would NOT be the ones to decide on this Dave! The court
would NOT allow this evidence in! Please do take a class or start
reading about our judicial system.
> "[Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is] absolutely [no]
> chain of custody [for bullet fragments CE567 and CE569] since the
> [President's] limousine was spirited off to D.C. before the local
> police [in Dallas], who had jurisdiction at that time, could examine
> it. Thus anything found in it is contaminated."
This would NOT even be explained to the jury SINCE THE EVIDENCE WOULD
HAVE BEEN BARRED FROM BEING INTRODUCED IN THE FIRST PLACE!
> Good luck with that argument Robby. You'll need it. (Unless, as I
> said, you get lucky and the O.J. Twelve are seated in the jury box.)
There is NO argument Dave, that is the LAW!
> >>> "There is NO link to LHO for CE-139 anyway, so even if you could link them [the very small bullet fragments found in the limo] to the rifle, so what?" <<<
> You're nuts (of course). Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (CE139) is
> linked and tied to LHO in many different ways. You just wish to ignore
> those things (as always).
Show us these "many ways" then, okay? Let's see what they are and how
the rifle has chain of custody, okay?
> It's so nice being an evidence-ignorer and evidence-mangler, isn't it
> Robcap? The freedom to be a kook that such evidence-mangling provides
> must be exhilarating indeed.
I never said the processes of discovery, processing and chain of
custody were easy Dave, but they were instituted to prevent folks like
you from railroading people into guilty verdicts.
I am NOT mangling anything, I am simply following our laws. YOU are
the ONE making UP HIS OWN LAWS!
> >>> "They [the bullet fragments removed from John Connally's wrist] EQUALED GREATER WEIGHT than was missing from your claimed CE-399, right? How does that happen?" <<<
>
> It doesn't happen. And it never did.
Lie all you want Dave, but Finck testified to this FACT at the Shaw
trial.
> Dr. Charles Gregory removed (per his WC testimony) "2 or 3" very tiny
> metal fragments from Connally's right wrist. The total weight of those
> fragments, as far as I am aware, is not known with 100% accuracy. But
> the weight was said to have been "very small" (direct 1964 quote from
> Dr. Gregory):
Forget the WC, why would Finck lie UNDER OATH (with a REAL PERJURY
PENALTY) at the Shaw trial and say the amount removed from JBC's wrist
EXCEEDED the amount CE-399 lost in total if it were NOT true?
> ARLEN SPECTER -- "Did you observe any foreign objects identifiable as
> bits of fragments or portions of a bullet missile?"
>
> DR. CHARLES F. GREGORY -- "A preliminary X-ray had indicated that
> there were metallic fragments or at least metallic fragments which
> cast metallic shadows in the soft tissues around the wounded forearm.
> Two or three of these were identified and were recovered and were
> observed to be metallic in consistency. These were turned over to
> appropriate authorities for further disposition."
>
> MR. SPECTER -- "Approximately how large were those fragments, Dr.
> Gregory?"
>
> DR. GREGORY -- "I would judge that they were...flat, rather thin, and
> that their greatest dimension would probably not exceed one-eighth of
> an inch. They were very small."
>
> (The above March 23, 1964, testimony can be found in Warren Commission
> Volume 6, Page 98, linked below.)
The TRUTH is the grains in JBC's wrist OUTWEIGHED the total amount
lost by CE-399, and this is IMPOSSIBLE IF CE-399 was the real bullet
that caused seven wounds and broke/nicked 3 bones.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_005...
> In summary -- The total amount of metal recovered from John Connally's
> wrist was a tiny amount of metal, weighing very little. To say that
> these "very small" fragments taken from Connally exceeded the total
> weight lost from Bullet CE399 (which was a total lost weight in the
> neighborhood of 2.4 grains) is just plain silly, and is an argument
> made by conspiracy theorists that just does not agree with the records
> in this case--specifically the WC testimony of the Parkland doctor
> (Gregory) who REMOVED and SAW those "2 or 3" fragments from Governor
> Connally's wrist.
List all the lies you want Dave, the truth came out in 1967/1968.
> RELATED LINK:www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/947d25e8fac5b996
>
> >>> "All this NAA stuff is junk[,] as [the] whole practice has been recently shown to be worthless." <<<
>
> But a CTer still cannot fight the following logic with respect to Dr.
> Vincent P. Guinn's NAA analysis (and the bullet evidence that exists
> in the JFK case, in general):
Don't need to fight a liar when he uses WORTHLESS junk-science, now do
I?
> "Even via 1970s-era NAA technology, what are the odds that
> Guinn's data would end up revealing the likelihood that ONLY BULLETS
> FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE STRUCK ANY VICTIMS ON 11/22/63? My guess is this
> -- The odds of that type of scientific evidence favoring the
> likelihood that only Oswald's gun was involved in the assassination,
> and somehow having that data being totally FALSE, must be fairly low
> indeed. In addition (and probably even more important on the "common
> sense" and "sheer luck" scales):
>
> "What do you think the chances are that a multi-gun conspiracy
> took place in Dealey Plaza, with bullets from MORE THAN ONE GUN
> striking the victims in JFK's limousine on Elm Street....and yet,
> after the bullets stopped flying and the missiles and fragments were
> examined, NOT A SINGLE BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-C2766 gun
> turned out to be large enough to be tested in order to positively
> eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the source
> for ALL of the bullets and fragments that hit any victims on Elm
> Street?
>
> "Would anybody be willing to take those incredibly-low odds to
> Vegas?" -- DVP; June 2007
YOUR beloved NAA was shown to be a fraudulent science that locked up
many innocent folks, but Gruppenfuehrer Von Pein LOVES that stuff!
> RELATED LINKS (INCLUDING A 2004 VIDEO FEATURING KEN RAHN DEFENDING DR.
> GUINN'S NAA ANALYSIS):www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d0bc5be11042a291www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8ffad5a68bc0f306
Link away, that WON'T CHANGE THE FACT NAA HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE A
FRAUD!
> >>> "CE-399 has NO chain of custody anyway and there is more fragment
>
> weight in JBC's wrist than what was missing from CE-399[,] so you have
> a very WORTHLESS bullet there." <<<
>
> A bullet (CE399) that's in the OFFICIAL RECORD ASSOCIATED WITH THE
> MURDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is, per Rob, to be deemed
> "a very WORTHLESS bullet".
The bullet in the OFFICIAL record has NO chain of custody, and DAVE
KNOWS THIS, that is why he is AVOIDING discussing that issue by
sidetracking things with other issues.
> Rob needs a padded cell.
YOU can prove me wrong by showing us the chain of custody for CE-399.
Show me where Tomlinson said it was the bullet HE found. Show me were
O.P. Wright said it was the bullet he saw.
> I have no doubt at all that if CE399 had a 100% perfect, to-the-letter
> "chain of possession" (from even the POV of a conspiracy idiot like
> Robert Caprio)....it still wouldn't matter to the Anybody-But-Oswald
> nuts of the world.
YOU are a liar, as I would recognize it IF it had perfect chain of
custody, BUT unfortunately for YOU, IT DOESN'T!
> Because via such a "100% perfect" scenario, the CT-Kooks would
> unquestionably still find a way to sweep Bullet CE399 into the gutter
> as "a very WORTHLESS bullet" as it relates to the JFK assassination
> case.
YOUR constant lying WON'T change the fact you have NO chain of custody
for CE-399.
> Does anyone have ANY doubt as to the accuracy of my last statement
> above? (I sure don't.)
90% of Americans have a TON OF DOUBT about ALL of your statements!
> >>> "Which ones [autopsy photos of JFK]? The real ones or the faked ones?" <<<
>
> There are no "fake" autopsy photographs or X-rays of President
> Kennedy. You just made that shit up....because you think you HAVE to
> (I guess).
Liar, aren't you?
> >>> "After the ORIGINAL notes [of Dr. Humes] were burned following LHO's death!" <<<
>
> Rob The Kook must think, therefore, that Dr. James Humes' original
> autopsy notes (which Humes burned in his home fireplace on 11/24/63
> because they had the blood of the President on them) must have had
> something written in them that proved the conspiracy that Robby so
> desperately seeks. Right, Rob?
Why did he burn them then? Is this destruction of evidence? Isn't
that normally a crime?
> Otherwise, what's your point here?
MY point is AFTER LHO was dead the good doctor felt a need to REWRITE
his notes! I guess he realized there would be NO trial, huh?
> I think Vincent Bugliosi summed up this "note-burning" episode quite
> well when he wrote the following in his 2007 JFK book:
>
> "Conspiracy theorists often refer to the missing “draft notes”
> that Dr. Humes burned in his fireplace in the early morning hours of
> November 24 after he handwrote a draft of the autopsy report. Critics
> see this act as highly suspicious, and consequently conspiracy books
> cite the burning of the draft notes as evidence of some cover-up.
Bugman would be ALL OVER ANY DOCTOR FOR DOING THIS IF he was
prosecuting them, but in the JFK case he is okay with BREAKING THE
LAW!
A crime is a crime, it is NOT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION!
> www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
> >>> "Which paper bag? Can you show us a picture of it in situ? Can you show it listed on your DPD inventory lists? The way in which the prints were located makes it highly unlikely LHO could have put them there while carrying them [sic; "them"?]." <<<
>
> Huh? What's this shit you're making up now?
LOL!! JUST POST THE PHOTO THAT SHOWS THE PAPER BAG AT THE SN WHEN THE
SN WAS DISCOVERED! OR show us the inventory logs where it is noted.
> Two of Lee Oswald's positively-IDed prints were on that brown paper
> bag that was found underneath the killer's window. And even if there's
> no official picture of the bag underneath the window, that fact does
> not ELIMINATE THE BAG FROM EXISTENCE AS EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
They were in very weird spots, and there should have been many more IF
he really carried the package.
> Apparently many conspiracy theorists think that the bag (CE142) should
> be tossed out the window and should not be considered "evidence" in
> this murder case at all--merely due to the fact that no official
> photograph of it exists when it was first discovered by the police on
> November 22, 1963.
NOR is it mentioned in any evidence inventory logs, but what the heck,
Dave DOESN'T like our judicial laws so he will JUST IGNORE THEM!
> Of course, via such a silly notion as the one I mentioned above, we'd
> also have to throw out Bullet CE399 too....because 399 was never
> officially photographed in the precise place where Darrell Tomlinson
> found it within Parkland Memorial Hospital on 11/22/63.
GOOD POINT, CE-399 being "thrown out" is duly noted, good work Dave!
> And, we'd also have to toss ALL of the limousine bullet fragments into
> the trash can too, due to the fact that no official pictures were
> taken of those fragments when they were first discovered by the
> authorities.
Again, "duly noted", you are finally showing us you are CAPAPBLE of
telling the truth!
> And on and on to absurdity in this regard.
Dave continues to call OUR LAWS absurd.
> FACT: Lee Oswald's prints were on an object (the brown paper bag known
> as CE142) that was said by the police to be found beneath the window
> from where the assassin fired a rifle at JFK.
YOU can't even prove the bag was discovered where it was said to be,
so the prints mean nothing. Add in the fact you can't even prove the
rifle was inside the bag, and you can't prove the rifle was LHO's, and
you have all kinds of problems.
> And it's an object (an EMPTY homemade paper bag) that has no
> reasonable and/or INNOCENT reason to have been located where it was
> found (under the assassin's window) on the day of JFK's assassination.
Lying again Dave?? The WC claimed the materials USED WERE FROM THE
TSBD, so it was NOT a "homemade" paper bag. Unfornutaely for them,
they NEVER COULD PROVE HE USED ANY OF THE PAPER OR TAPE FROM THE TSBD.
> Do CTers think Oswald just happened to unwrap his so-called "curtain
> rods" at the exact same spot on the sixth floor of the TSBD where an
> assassin would also soon be taking shots at the President?**
More junk from Dave since he CAN'T show what he is claiming is
remotely true.
> ** = Silly question to ask of CTers here, I know....because these
> rabid ABO kooks, of course, think that the empty paper sack was
> "manufactured" and "planted" by the evil and dastardly DPD and/or FBI.
Because they handled the evidence in such a way that this BECAME THE
MOST LIKELY SCENARIO!
> I wonder how the cops managed to plant two of LHO's prints on the darn
> thing though? CTers never say. They just think the bag, like all other
> evidence that leads directly to their prized patsy, is "suspicious" in
> some manner.
They had LHO in custody, they had his prints on file, they had access
to his dead body after they allowed him to be shot, you can use your
imagination. Who holds a heavy bag with two fingers anyway?
> >>> "Why were NO other [TSBD] employees prints ID'd [on the SN boxes] when we know they would have touched them in the normal handling process of their jobs (or moving them to lay down the new floor)?" <<<
>
> That's not a bad question, I must admit. But you still cannot get
> around the FACT that Lee Oswald's prints were, indeed, on two of the
> boxes that were DEEP INSIDE the Sniper's Nest.
ON two boxes, when he allegedly moved 20 or so (I forget the exact
number, but I'm sure Mr. "useless info" Von Pein will know) and the
one he leaned on supposedly for the steadying of his rifle had NONE on
it. Hmmm. Why was movement seen in the window after the shooting when
the WC said LHO had left by then?
> That's a very important and usually-overlooked point too....because
> we're talking about Oswald's own prints being located on two of the
> boxes inside the Sniper's Nest that were undoubtedly touched at some
> point in time on November 22nd by THE PERSON WHO TOOK SHOTS AT
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY.
That is an erroneous assumption Dave, especially when one considers
LHO WORKED THERE! Prints on a couple of boxes does NOT mean he fired
at JFK.
> >>> "You mean the jacket that was a medium when LHO wore a small?" <<<
>
> And a person who usually wears "small"-sized clothes couldn't POSSIBLY
> have wedged himself into a piece of clothing that was LARGER than what
> he usually wore....right Mr. Retard?
Why would he? And you forget the fact he did NOT own a jacket the
color of the one described by the witnesses.
> You're goofy.
Dave claims he purchased clothes "too big" for him and I'm the goofy
one!
> >>> "The ONLY paper trail I have ever seen shows he [LHO] would have ordered a 36" Carbine, if any at all..." <<<
>
> See my earlier "36-inch vs. 40-inch" rifle comments.
I did and thanks for ADMITTING LHO orderded a 36" Carbine, if he
ordered any at all, as most LNers lie about this point.
> >>> "...but there is NO paper trail for him [LHO] receiving it [Rifle C2766] from the Post Office. How did he receive the rifle Dave?" <<<
>
> 1.) Lee Harvey Oswald (aka "A. Hidell") fills out a Klein's order
> coupon for a rifle.
YOU can prove this, right?
> CE785:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> 2.) Oswald then purchases a money order on 3/12/63 for the exact
> amount it will cost him to obtain the rifle from Klein's ($21.45).
You can prove this right? I ask because it was purchased at a time he
was AT WORK! ALSO, the sequential numbers on the money order would
NOT be used for several years.
> CE788:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> 3.) Oswald then mails the order form and the money order to Klein's
> Sporting Goods Company in Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Sure, he did. YOU can prove this, right?
> 4.) Klein's processes the "Hidell" order and creates the proper
> paperwork for the transaction (as Waldman Exhibit No. 7, linked below,
> verifies beyond all possible doubt):
Except they "mistakenly" sent him a 40" Carcano they DID NOT HAVE IN
STOCK AT THE TIME, right?
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0...
>
> 5.) The U.S. Postal Service then delivers the rifle package to
> Oswald's ("Hidell's") P.O. box in Dallas.
Except LHO NEVER listed "Hidell" on his part 3 of his rental box
application, so how did the workers KNOW LHO was "Hidell"?
> Footnote --- And whether or not the proper "firearms" paperwork and
> forms were attached to this rifle package that was delivered to
> "Hidell" at P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas is not germane to this "How Did
> LHO Receive The Rifle?" discussion.
Footnote: Dave is LYING as usual! Anyone who has ever picked up a
package at the P.O. knows they ask for YOUR ID! But the main point
here is, without LHO listing "Hidell" as a LEGAL receipant of mail at
HIS box, they would NOT even know to put a receipt notice in his box
for a package addressed to "A. Hidell." This ISN'T a small issue as
Dave makes it seem as opening the mail of someone who is NOT you is a
FEDERAL OFFENSE! Why would LHO risk this IF he had bigger plans in
the works when simply could have added the name to his P.O box
application?
> And that's because it's not the
> fault of the POST OFFICE if Klein's failed to process the order
> properly with the correct paperwork. The Post Office merely delivers
> the mail; they aren't responsible for any negligence that might apply
> to the sender of that mail.
They DON'T deliver it to someone it DOES NOT belong to! IF they do
make a mistake the law in place of making it a crime to open someone
else's mail takes care of that. I guess Dave doesn't even know it is
a punishable offense to even open someone else's MAILBOX, let alone
their mail. If you don't believe this just look at the junk flyers
that are tacked to your mailbox, or put in your newpaper holder (if
you have one) as it is AGAINST THE LAW to open someone's mailbox and
put in NON-US Post Office mail.
So much for Dave's theory, huh?
> 6.) Oswald finds a paper notice ("a regular card", per the testimony
> of U.S. Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes) in his P.O. box one day in
> late March of 1963, which indicates that an oversized package has been
> delivered to P.O. Box 2915.
Why would LHO "find" this notice when he NEVER LISTED "HIDELL" AS
BEING ABLE TO RECIEVE MAIL AT HIS P.O. BOX? Why would LHO ordere the
weapons under this name when he WOULD HAVE KNOWN HE DID NOT LIST THIS
NAME AT THE POST OFFICE?
> 7.) Oswald takes the paper card from his P.O. box to a clerk at a
> window (or at the counter) inside the Post Office building.
Can you show evidence or proof for this claim?
> 8.) The clerk inside the Post Office building then retrieves the
> package and gives it to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Can you show evidence or proof for this claim? YOU are accusing the
Post Office employees of BREAKING THE LAW, the least you can do is
provide evidence and proof for this claim.
> Footnote --- It is assumed by the clerk that the person who has
> possession of the card is ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE PACKAGE CONNECTED
> WITH THAT CARD. This information comes directly from the Warren
> Commission testimony of Harry Holmes, shown below:
I don't care what Holmes, an FBI informant, said as the law states the
person has to list others on his application, thus they give you a
whole section to do this, who are entitled to receive mail at your
box. LHO NEVER LISTED ANYONE ELSE IN DALLAS. Thus, the employees
would have NO way of knowing LHO was "Hidell" the same whay they
wouldn't know you you are ALSO REITZES!
IF a package came in for Reitzes they wouldn't deliver it to your "Von
Pein" box unless you listed Reitzes as a person who could receive mail
there.
Thanks for posting these ludicrous lies for us! I guess the WC though
NO one ever gets packages and would know this was a pile of crap, huh?
> >>> "What was the EXACT time they discovered the "A. Hidell" card on LHO on 11/22/63?" <<<
>
> The kook thinks the DPD "logged in" the time when they discovered the
> Hidell card(s) in Oswald's wallet in the police car on the way
> downtown. Hilarious.
LOL!! This liar doesn't understand this is how evidence is
DOCUMENTED! Does Dave know anything?
> Anyway, the "Hidell" identification was discovered at approximately
> 1:55 PM CST on Friday, 11/22/63 (i.e., minutes after Oswald was
> arrested).
Really? Why did they ONLY list "O.H. Lee" as an alias on 11/22/63
then?
> >>> "You have a bunch of worthless evidence in the sense NONE of what you listed would have either shown the claim to be true, or would have been allowed in court anyway." <<<
>
> And yet Judge Lucius Bunton of the state of Texas, in July 1986,
> allowed virtually ALL of this evidence to come in at the Lee Harvey
> Oswald televised Docu-Trial in London -- even Stretcher Bullet CE399!
Hey, he was paid to say that! Can Lucius Bunton show us ONE OF HIS
CASES WHERE HE ALLOWED TAINTED EVIDENCE LIKE THIS STUFF INTO HIS
COURT?
YOU can dance out all the paid "WC shills" you want, that won't make
the WC's evidence have any more chain of custody, will it? NOW, back
to my challenge, when do you want to discuss the chain of custody for
all the evidence?
> >>> "Show me the chain of custody for the CE-399 Dave!" <<<
>
> From Tomlinson...to Wright...to Johnsen...to Rowley...to Todd...to
> Frazier.
Show me where Tomlinson and Wright said CE-399 was the bullet they
found and saw? I believe Johnsen is on record saying the bullet he
sent to D.C. is NOT the bullet presented as CE-399 either, but I will
have to check to make sure.
List their comments for us Dave.
> >>> "The FBI did it BEFORE they had jurisdicition, thus they VIOLATED the chain of custody for everything they touched!" <<<
>
> You're an idiot. (Obviously.)
YOU are the one IGNORING our laws! Sieg Heil!
> >>> "What "LHO-did-it" evidence is there?" <<<
>
> You're still a (very big) idiot. (Quite obviously.)
Sieg Heil!
Notice how he SKIPS this challenge yet again?
> >>> "Why did LHO have NO representation before his death and after, except for the limited things Mr. Lane could do?" <<<
>
> He had no legal representation before his death because HE REFUSED THE
> HELP OF THE DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION (i.e., Mr. Nichols):
You are lying, he had the right to an attorney whether he chose the
person or not after a certain amount of time went by as anything he
said without a lawyer could have/would have been barred from trial.
> H. LOUIS NICHOLS -- "He [LHO] said: 'Either Mr. Abt or someone who is
> a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, and if I can find a
> lawyer here who believes in anything I believe in, and believes as I
> believe, and believes in my innocence...I might let him represent me'.
> I said, 'What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me
> or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?' He said,
> 'No, not now'."
He had a right to shut up without a lawyer too. It is in the
Constitution Gruppenfuehrer, he was entitled to a lawyer.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm
>
> >>> "IF LHO was guilty, why was the WC soooo afraid of allowing him representation?" <<<
>
> They weren't. And they did allow him representation.
Really, who was that? Mark Lane had very limited access to the
proceedings.
> You, Rob, are an idiot.
You, Dave, are one big liar!
> >>> "Why did a Commission "searching for the truth" have CLOSED SESSIONS?" <<<
>
> Probably to keep goofballs like you from constantly interrupting the
> sessions with the stupid shit you constantly enjoy bringing up.
ONLY in Nazi Germany and Communist countries are closed sessions the
norm, in a supposedly free country all commissions like this should
have been wide open to the public. Sieg Heil!
Hey, they used one of Hitler's major historians to actually write the
WC report, so what else could we expect?
Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer!
> (That's as good a reason as any for having "closed" WC sessions, IMO.)
Ja Vol, Herr Gruppenfuehrer!
Heil Hitler!
> >>> "We, CTers, don't even really need to argue the "fake" card UNLESS we want to as the evidence the WC presented does NOT show the claims they made to be true all by themselves! And that is being generous in the sense of allowing them to present their evidence in full, since we KNOW most, possible all, would have been disbarred due to discovery, processing and custody issues." <<<
>
> The net draws ever nearer to the Rob-ster. And so does the funny farm.
Poor Dave, he RUNS from requests to show the evidence had a proper
chain of custody. Imagine having to do that?
> >>> "Keep your WORTHLESS evidence Dave, it does NOT show LHO to be guilty in the slightest." <<<
>
> Time for bed, isn't it Robby? The ghost of your hero, Jim Garrison, is
> waiting for you there. Garrison, too, was silly enough to constantly
> embarrass himself in public by saying that there was no evidence at
> all to show that Oswald shot anybody on 11/22/63.
Hey, the truth hurst doesn't it liar? The best part is that 90% of my
countrymen (and women) believe me and NOT you! I think when the
population has enough of these greedy stockbrokers and bankers and
they round them up for justice they should lump in all the LNers with
them. That is the kind of justice YOU SUPPORT, right?
> I consider Jimbo Garrison to be the "Original Super Kook" with respect
> to the JFK assassination. You, Rob, should be proud to continue in the
> tradition of your kooky mentor.
I offered to have a civil discussion on the chain of custody, and DAVE
HAS RUN LIKE A LITTLE GIRL! I wonder why he is running if the
evidence is legititmate?
> >>> "Claims are EASY to make, but VERY HARD to prove..." <<<
>
> Yeah, just ask any CTer about that. (Like, say, Lifton or Garrison or
> Fetzer or Armstrong or Mellen or Lane. None of them has ever proven
> their CT "claims".)
Why should they have to WHEN THE WC AND HSCA NEVER HAD TO?
> >>> "...and after 45 years[,] NO LNers or WC apologist has ever PROVED one claim the WC made in regards to evidence and LHO!" <<<
>
> Allow me to close with one last very astute (and accurate)
> observation:
>
> The forum entity known as "Robcap" is a retarded, evidence-mangling
> idiot.
Yet you RUN FROM ME LIKE A LITTLE GIRL, how come?
Chuck Schuyler
<snip>
>
> Sure, but in the BIG picture it does NOT really matter who you are,
> now does it? I would probably want my REAL IDENTITY to be a secret too
> IF I made my living LYING like you do!
Funny. Rob Caprio posts under an alias and has used the second alias,
curiousgeorge1, to rate his own posts. What a tiny, teeny, immature
man-child you are, Rob.
> Dave lives in the "bizzaro world" of George Constanza (Seinfeld) where
> everything is opposite of reality, so if he thinks I'm hitless, I must
> be batting .1000!
DVP employs copious amounts of common sense, backed with links to
original source material, to show kooks like you what the only logical
conclusion can be regarding the death of JFK--Oswald killed JFK alone,
with no help. It's idiots like you and Healy and Cupcake that come up
with bizzaro stuff like rubber/fake Zapruders, forged photos/film,
shooters in sewers, in the limo, on the knoll, poison darts, etc.
<snip>
>
> The evidence you SUPPORT is worthless in terms of proving anything the
> WC claimed, and would NOT be allowed into a court of law enmass in all
> liklihood. Simple enough for you?
The evidence shows Oswald killed Kennedy. You live in a childish
fantasy bubble were the USG fakes moon landings, kills its own
Presidents, starts war for oil by ramming jets into buildings, etc.
You are devoid of critical thinking skills. You're just plain dumb.
You're anti-intellectual with the added impediment of being clueless
to the fact that you are anti-intellectual. In fact, you operate under
the delusion that you are smarter than all of the men and women of the
WC...all of the cops, forensic scientists, ballistic experts, etc.
Yet you haven't been able to figure out the whole curiousgeorge1
thing.
What a dolt you are, Rob. What a frightened little boy you are. Afraid
of shadows. Afraid of mortgage bankers. Afraid of the CIA. Afraid of
GWB/Cheney blowing up the WTC's. Good grief.
<snip>
>
> Lurkers, he has rambled to the point of infinity, ALL THE WHILE
> IGNORING my simple request for chain of custody explanations. IF it
> was handled properly, why is Dave soooo afraid to discuss it?
Dave has discussed stuff like this dozens of times.
My question to you, Rob, is this:
What should the chain of custody look like, circa 1963/1964? What
would you, a kook with no training in police work, accept?
<snip, snip>
aeffects
> On Mar 17, 1:14 pm, robcap...@netscape.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > Sure, but in the BIG picture it does NOT really matter who you are,
> > now does it? I would probably want my REAL IDENTITY to be a secret too
> > IF I made my living LYING like you do!
>
> Funny. Rob Caprio posts under an alias and has used the second alias,
> curiousgeorge1, to rate his own posts. What a tiny, teeny, immature
> man-child you are, Rob.
>
Is this thee Chuckles daShoe Schuyler? The man-boy who blames all his
ills on his brother? LMFAO!
<spare us the rest of the bullshit>
Chuck Schuyler
> Is this thee Chuckles daShoe Schuyler? The man-boy who blames all his
> ills on his brother? LMFAO!
>
> <spare us the rest of the bullshit>
Hey, Red-Nose...shouldn't you be working on your 4th step, Mr. Twelve
Stepper?
There's gotta be a meeting somewhere in Nevada...you could be brewing
coffee or stacking chairs or handing out Big Books to the other
AA'ers...
Make yourself useful--you're like tits on a bull here.
Drag Chandra along for the Al-Anon meeting.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d8b36c0a837cdc34
>>> "Explain for us how he [LHO] got a 40" Carcano to allegedly pose for the [backyard] photos and allegedly shoot at JFK when it appears he would have ordered a 36" Carbine." <<<
He did order a 36-inch rifle. There is no doubt about that.
But, as I said before, the exact length of the rifle that he ORDERED
is meaningless. It's the rifle he ENDED UP WITH that matters here. And
it couldn't be more obvious (except to a kook who is buried under too
much Anybody-But-Oswald debris, like Robby) that Klein's shipped
Oswald/Hidell a 40-inch rifle INSTEAD of the 36-inch variant that
Oswald specifically ordered.
How could the above fact BE any more clear and obvious?
>>> "Bonus points: Explain what he [LHO] did with the 36" Carbine since it was NEVER found among his possessions." <<<
~sigh~
Oswald never possessed a "36-inch" rifle. Never. See my last answer,
Mr. Moron.
>>> "YOU are back to lying[,] Dave[,] since the 40" Carcano was NEVER termed a Carbine." <<<
You probably didn't even look at the Klein's ad I posted previously
(which can be blown up to a larger size for easy viewing of the small
lettering in the ad). Well, here it is again anyway....to once again
prove that you are dead wrong about something:
So, via the ad above, it's obvious that Klein's Sporting Goods Company
of Chicago definitely DID consider the 40-inch variety of their 6.5-
millimeter Italian rifles to be "CARBINES". In fact, the word
"carbine" is mentioned not just once in the above-linked advertisement
for the 40-inch weapon--but TWICE.
But keep denying the word "CARBINE" is mentioned TWICE in that ad,
Robby. It's better for you if you never even look at it. (Or maybe you
can claim that the ad is a "fake/forgery" too, like everything else
you consider fraudulent about this murder case.)
>>> "I doubt very much Klein's was as confused about firearms as YOU obviously are! They ONLY had 36" Carbines in stock in March of 1963!" <<<
Klein's quite obviously had a 40-inch carbine with the serial number
C2766 in stock in late March of '63 -- because they shipped that
particular 40-inch carbine with that serial number on it to Lee Oswald
on March 20th, 1963:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
It's also better, Rob, if you totally ignore Waldman Exhibit #7
(linked above). Because that particular document provides rock-solid
PROOF that Lee Harvey Oswald (aka "A. Hidell") was, indeed, shipped a
rifle with the serial number "C2766" on it....and (guess what?) the
rifle with that serial number stamped on it is a FORTY-INCH RIFLE.
~Mark VII~
>>> "Explain why the OFFICIAL Evidence photo has ONLY TWO shell casings in it?" <<<
It doesn't. You're an idiot. CE510 shows three spent cartridge cases
on the floor, plain as day:
CE510:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124a.htm
Yes, there is one particular photograph taken of the Sniper's Nest by
the DPD (looking toward the east) that only shows two of the bullet
shells on the floor (CE511 linked below). But that's quite obviously
due to the angle of the photo seen in CE511, you moron. The third
shell is there, it's just simply not visible in the picture:
CE511:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124b.htm
>>> "Please explain why a photo [in Jesse Curry's 1969 book]...would show just two [bullet shells] if three were found [in the Sniper's Nest]?" <<<
I believe that Captain J. Will Fritz initially put one of the three
shells in one of his desk drawers in his office at the DPD. That's
probably why there are only two in the picture you're referring to.
>>> "YOU can call him [Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig] a liar all you want[,] BUT you have FAILED to prove he did lie." <<<
I can prove that Roger Craig was a liar by typing out just the
following words:
STAMPED ON THE RIFLE WAS '7.65 MAUSER'.
Craig made the above claim about Oswald's rifle. That claim makes him
a liar. And there's NOTHING that Robert C. can do to UNDO Deputy
Craig's blatant and obvious LIE with respect to the rifle found on the
TSBD's sixth floor.
And Craig also later told another whopper of a lie when he said that
the three shell casings found in the Sniper's Nest were all situated
in a neat little row, facing the same direction, and were no more than
"an inch apart" from one another when they were first discovered by
the police. (LOL.)
Let's have another look at CE510:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124a.htm
So, who (or what) should a reasonable person believe? CE510 above? Or
Roger "Big Fat Liar" Craig?
Not a tough choice really. But guess who a retarded person named Rob
is going to believe? That's not tough to figure out either.
>>> "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 40" CARBINE[,] DAVE!!" <<<
Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago disagrees with you (as the ad below
again verifies):
What about the above ad, Rob, which is an ad that is advertising (in
big bold letters) a 40-inch "6.5 ITALIAN CARBINE"? What about it? Do
YOU know more about "carbines" than the company that sold these
weapons?
Please enlighten us with your firearms knowledge, oh great kook!
Carbine Footnote --- This whole silly "Carbine" vs. "Rifle" debate is
merely semantics anyway. The fact is a "carbine" is still considered a
"rifle" (by literal definition), whether James H. Fetzer or any other
conspiracy theorist likes it or not:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbine
And a "RIFLE" (i.e., "CARBINE") is a weapon that fires bullets from
its barrel. And those bullets come out of that barrel really, really
fast.
~Mark VII~
>>> "Can you show us when and how LHO picked up the 36" Carbine you admitted he purchased? I ask because the WC NEVER COULD!" <<<
Why would I (or the Warren Commission) need to show something that
obviously never happened? (Nor, of course, did it NEED to happen for
Oswald to be the lone assassin of President Kennedy.)
It's been explained to you before, but your head is too thick for it
to sink in:
Oswald ordered a 36-inch rifle via a magazine ad. But Klein's shipped
him a nearly-identical model that happened to be four inches longer
than the one LHO actually ordered via the magazine ad. The serial
number printed on Waldman Exhibit #7 proves this fact beyond any
doubt.
It couldn't be more obvious that the above scenario I just described
is 100% accurate. So why is that particular scenario so utterly
IMPOSSIBLE for you kooks to believe?
Well, I'll answer that last question myself -- it's because you belong
in the "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity. That's why.
>>> "THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN BARRED FROM BEING INTRODUCED [to a jury in a court of law] IN THE FIRST PLACE!" <<<
Texas Judge Lucius Bunton had no problem with the evidence in the JFK
case being introduced into his court in July of 1986 -- i.e., evidence
that YOU insist would never be allowed in a U.S. court of law.
How come?
Was Judge Bunton an idiot, Rob? Or did he merely flush all court rules
re. "admissibility of evidence" down the toilet because it was only a
"TV show"?
>>> "Lie all you want Dave, but Finck testified to this FACT [re: the overall weight of the Connally wrist fragments] at the Shaw trial." <<<
LOL. And Dr. Finck (one of KENNEDY'S AUTOPSISTS) was supposedly MORE
knowledgeable about the Connally wrist fragments than was the person
who plucked those fragments from the body of Governor Connally (i.e.,
Dr. Gregory)?
That's hilarious.
>>> "YOU can prove me wrong by showing us the chain of custody for CE-399. Show me where Tomlinson said it was the bullet HE found. Show me were O.P. Wright said it was the bullet he saw." <<<
The fact that those men couldn't positively identify CE399 at a later
date is not proof that CE399 was not inside Governor Connally and
President Kennedy on 11/22/63. And you're an idiot if you think that
it does mean that.
But what I'd like for a CTer to do is to come up with a REASONABLE and
BELIEVABLE scenario that includes a bullet OTHER than CE399 being the
one that O.P. Wright and Darrell Tomlinson saw on November 22nd, 1963.
Can you do that? I'm positive you can't. Because ANY alternate
scenario that involves a substitute or a planted bullet (in lieu of
CE399) is a scenario that will ultimately collapse under the weight of
its own idiocy, absurdity, conjecture, and silliness.
But good luck trying.
>>> "AFTER LHO was dead[,] the good doctor [James J. Humes] felt a need to REWRITE his notes!" <<<
You're dead wrong about the chronology of when Dr. Humes burned his
autopsy notes. He testified that he burned both his notes and the
first draft of the autopsy report BEFORE Lee Oswald was killed, not
after. Let's have a gander:
"In [the] privacy of my own home, EARLY IN THE MORNING OF
SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 24TH [DVP's emphasis], I made a draft of this report
which I later revised. .... That draft I personally burned in the
fireplace of my recreation room." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1964; WC
Testimony
--Plus:--
"When I noticed that these bloodstains were on this document
that I had prepared, I said nobody's going to ever get these
documents. I'm not going to keep them, and nobody else is ever going
to get them. So I copied them--and you probably have a copy in my
longhand of what I wrote. It's made from the original. And I then
burned the original notes in the fireplace of my family room to
prevent them from ever falling into the hands of what I consider
inappropriate people. .... It was handwritten notes and the first
draft that was burned [early in the morning on Sunday, 11/24/63; see
2nd link below for precise verbiage via Humes' ARRB session]." -- Dr.
James J. Humes; February 1996; ARRB Testimony
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humesa.htm
Maybe Robby The Kook should learn how to read testimony before leaping
to incorrect conclusions.
It would also be nice if Rob would learn how to use a comma, too.
>>> "They had LHO in custody, they had his prints on file, they had access to his dead body after they allowed him to be shot, you can use your imagination." <<<
Nah. I'll leave the imaginary stuff to you conspiracy-giddy kooks.
After all, your "imagination" is pretty much all you've got to work
with in order to "solve" the case your way.
>>> "Who holds a heavy bag with two fingers anyway?" <<<
The bulk of the "heaviness" of Oswald's bag was being supported at the
bottom of the bag--hence, LHO's right palmprint is found on the bottom
part of the bag (the weight of his rifle was pressing downing on his
right palm as he carried it from Buell Frazier's car to the Depository
on the morning of the assassination).
But Rob, of course, will totally ignore the significance of that
"right palmprint" being on the empty paper bag, which is a palmprint
that perfectly matches the way Frazier said Oswald carried the bag --
i.e., "cupped in his right hand" (paraphrased Frazier quote).
>>> "[Oswald's prints were] ON two boxes, when he allegedly moved 20 or so...and the one he leaned on supposedly for the steadying of his rifle had NONE on it." <<<
It's quite obvious (to a reasonable person) that Lee Oswald definitely
touched and moved around ALL of the boxes that comprised the inside
and the outside of the Sniper's Nest.
And regardless of whether or not any of his IDENTIFIABLE prints were
found on the bulk of those many SN boxes, it's obvious that Oswald
MUST have physically touched and handled all (or most) of those boxes.
Why?
Because:
Based on the sum total of evidence in the case, Lee Harvey Oswald was
the lone killer of John F. Kennedy and, therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald
was certainly the ONE AND ONLY person who constructed the Sniper's
Nest of boxes on Friday, November 22, 1963.
~Mark VII~
>>> "Anyone who has ever picked up a package at the P.O. knows they ask for YOUR ID!" <<<
LOL. Rob's displaying his "idiot" status again (as usual).
I've picked up many, many oversized packages at my local post office,
and I've never ONCE been asked to show I.D. Not once.
I merely give the yellow slip of paper that was in my mailbox to the
clerk behind the counter at the post office (and they have been clerks
I've never seen before in my life, btw), and then I get my package.
Simple as that. No identification is required. And no signature is
required on any documents either.
So, Rob (as usual) doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. But
that won't stop a kook like Robert C. -- because he's on an "Anybody
But Oswald" mission. And no amount of evidence against the "patsy" is
too much evidence for Rob to consider it ALL FAKED AND/OR MANIPULATED.
Right, Rob?
Right.
tomnln
Top 3 photos show 2 shells recovered ONLY.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:101940da-e9ba-4bbe...@p20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>>> "Top 3 photos show 2 shells recovered ONLY [in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository]." <<<
And that's due to the fact that Captain Fritz made the decision to
keep one of the three shells in his own personal possession at the
Dallas Police Department. Hence, it wasn't initially released to the
FBI.
And, of course, all of this "FRITZ KEPT ONE SHELL IN HIS OFFICE IN
DALLAS" information is easily obtained by merely taking one quick
glance at Captain Fritz's official affidavit that he filled out on
June 9, 1964:
Excerpt from Fritz's 6/9/64 affidavit:
"Three spent rifle hulls were found under the window in the
southeast corner of the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository
Building, Dallas, Texas, on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. When
the officers called me to this window, I asked them not to move the
shells nor touch them until Lt. Day of the Dallas Police Department
could make pictures of the hulls showing where they fell after being
ejected from the rifle.
"After the pictures were made, Detective R. M. Sims of the
Homicide Bureau, who was assisting in the search of building, brought
the three empty hulls to my office. These were delivered to me in my
office at the police headquarters. I kept the hulls in an envelope in
my possession and later turned them over to C. N. Dhority of the
Homicide Bureau and instructed him to take them to Lt. Day of the
Identification Bureau.
"I told Detective Dhority that after these hulls were checked
for prints to leave two of them to be delivered to the FBI and to
bring one of them to my office to be used for comparison tests here in
the office, as we were trying to find where the cartridges had been
bought. When Detective Dhority returned from the Identification
Bureau, he returned the one empty hull which I kept in my possession.
"Several days later, I believe on the night of November 27,
Vince Drain of the FBI called me at home about one o'clock in the
morning and said that the Commission wanted the other empty hull and a
notebook that belonged to Oswald. I came to the office and delivered
these things to the FBI. We have Mr. James P. Hosty's receipt for
these items in our report." -- Signed, J.W. Fritz (06/09/64)
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz2.htm
Conspiracy kooks, quite naturally, will completely ignore Captain
Fritz's perfectly logical explanation regarding the third bullet shell
(which Fritz explains in full in his June '64 affidavit).
The kooks, instead, would rather believe that something "sinister",
"shady", and "conspiratorial" was involved in connection with that
third shell.
Go figure kooks.
SHELL ADDENDUM:
Let's see if conspiracy theorists can overcome the following two
things--IN TANDEM:
1.) Harold Norman's testimony at the TV Docu-Trial of Lee Oswald in
1986.
And
2.) Warren Commission Exhibit #510.
Because those two things (in combination with one another) pretty much
sink the idea that there were only TWO bullet shells found in the
Sniper's Nest (not to mention the June '64 affidavit of Captain Fritz
that I discussed above):
HAROLD NORMAN (JULY 1986) -- "...I could hear the empty hulls--that's
what I call them--hit the floor; and I could hear the bolt action of
the rifle being pushed back and forward." ....
VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI -- "And by 'hulls', you mean cartridge casings?"
NORMAN -- "Cartridges."
BUGLIOSI -- "How many did you hear falling to the floor?"
NORMAN -- "Three."
www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/2d1eebb7e8de66a0
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mQ4s9zNFWs&fmt=18
=================================
CE510 (depicting three spent bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124a.htm
aeffects
>
Kev now listen,
You're not allowed questions here, dufus. You've no chops, yer still a
troll, son! Gotta get passed GO first. 3-5 more years, eh, you MIGHT
be ready!
<snip the troll's nonsense>
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
CE 510 (photo) was taken on Monday.
For proof, SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tom_alyea_film.htm
aeffects
> On Mar 17, 3:52 pm, aeffects <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Is this thee Chuckles daShoe Schuyler? The man-boy who blames all his
> > ills on his brother? LMFAO!
>
> > <spare us the rest of the bullshit>
>
> Hey, Red-Nose...shouldn't you be working on your 4th step, Mr. Twelve
> Stepper?
>
> There's gotta be a meeting somewhere in Nevada...you could be brewing
> coffee or stacking chairs or handing out Big Books to the other
> AA'ers...
For the lurkers, its obvious Kevin S. has no conception what he speaks
concerning
AA that being Alcoholic Anonymous founded in 1935 and has worked
miracles in the lives of 2 million plus sufferers. Some more than
likely related to alt.conspiracy.jfk resident troll Kevin Schuyler.
For those wondering about, alcoholism, alcohol abuse and their life is
or is becoming unmanageable or looking for answers concerning other
drugs - which I'm sure Kevin as a parent has daily concern about
(though the reality denier won't admit it, as he can't nad up [nad up
means grow some hair on his balls]).... look here:
http://www.aa.org/?Media=PlayFlash
and here:
http://www.aa.org/lang/en/meeting_finder.cfm?origpage=29
> Make yourself useful--you're like tits on a bull here.
>
> Drag Chandra along for the Al-Anon meeting.
perhaps you should spend more time wondering what YOUR kids are up to
these day's, hon... Are your children clean, sober, and virgin, Kev?
Ouch..... The world moves faster and faster and faster, troll
robc...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d8b36c0a837cdc34
>
> >>> "Explain for us how he [LHO] got a 40" Carcano to allegedly pose for the [backyard] photos and allegedly shoot at JFK when it appears he would have ordered a 36" Carbine." <<<
>
> He did order a 36-inch rifle. There is no doubt about that.
YOU are half-right, the evidence presented by your "beloved" WC shows
this is what he would have been ordering IF he did in fact place an
order. There is much doubt as to whether LHO ever placed an order on
his own.
> But, as I said before, the exact length of the rifle that he ORDERED
> is meaningless.
ONLY to a distorter like you! IN an real investigation this issue
would have been vital for the prosecution's case as you would be
foolish to claim someone committed a crime using a particular weapon,
but then show evidence he allegedly ordered a DIFFERENT weapon from
what you claimed IF your goal is to show he acted ALONE!
See in a conspiracy scenario he could have gotten the weapon they
claimed he used from someone else, and they could have explored this
scenario, but when they claimed he acted ALONE, it was encumbent upon
THEM to create a chain of evidence showing how LHO ordered, received
and owned the alleged murder weapon. They FAILED to do this on all
counts.
> It's the rifle he ENDED UP WITH that matters here.
This NOT how the criminal justice system works Dave, I have pointed it
out that you are clueless with this aspect of our country. YOU have
to show how he would have been sent the wrong rifle, can you? I have
never seen anyone claim they sent the wrong rifle, and I feel safe in
saying there probably is NO such claim simply because the WC wouldn't
have lied and used the WRONG AD if there such a statement. SO, beyond
your CLAIM they sent the wrong rifle, a model they did
NOT even have in stock at the time of LHO's alleged order, what
evidence can you offer us to show us this is a correct assumption on
your part?
> And
> it couldn't be more obvious (except to a kook who is buried under too
> much Anybody-But-Oswald debris, like Robby) that Klein's shipped
> Oswald/Hidell a 40-inch rifle INSTEAD of the 36-inch variant that
> Oswald specifically ordered.
Do you, Dave (a man who is BURIED under all ONLY-THE-WC-IS-RIGHT
debris), have any evidence or proof for this claim of yours? I mean
this is a HUGE claim, you are saying a company, who is in the business
of firearms sales, accidently sent a 40" Carcano (something they did
NOT even have in stock at the time) instead of a 36" Carbine. Call me
silly, BUT I don't think asking for some actual evidence is out of
line here.
> How could the above fact BE any more clear and obvious?
It COULDN'T! It is crystal clear that you are lying and MAKING THINGS
UP!
> >>> "Bonus points: Explain what he [LHO] did with the 36" Carbine since it was NEVER found among his possessions." <<<
>
> ~sigh~
>
> Oswald never possessed a "36-inch" rifle. Never. See my last answer,
> Mr. Moron.
The only problem with your stuff above is it LACKS ANY EVIDENCE to
support the claim in the least. Show me evidence that makes your
scenario possible.
> >>> "YOU are back to lying[,] Dave[,] since the 40" Carcano was NEVER termed a Carbine." <<<
>
> You probably didn't even look at the Klein's ad I posted previously
> (which can be blown up to a larger size for easy viewing of the small
> lettering in the ad). Well, here it is again anyway....to once again
> prove that you are dead wrong about something:
Dave is playing the "PICTIONARY" GAME TOO!! HE thinks because the
rifle in the picture is a 40" Carcano short-rifle, that mitigates the
fact the catalog number, the description and the dollor amount are for
a 36" Carbine! They don't make Carbines 40" long Dave, that defeats
the whole purpose of a Carbine!
Will someone get this guy a "guns for dummies" book? I love how he
calls me a retard when he can't tell the difference between a short-
rifle and a Carbine! LOL!!!
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/122a.+KLEIN%27S+AD+FEA...
>
> So, via the ad above, it's obvious that Klein's Sporting Goods Company
> of Chicago definitely DID consider the 40-inch variety of their 6.5-
> millimeter Italian rifles to be "CARBINES".
You're an idiot! They used the picture of a 40" short-rifle, but they
described, cataloged and priced the Carbine! Show me anyone at
Klein's calling a 40" Carcano a "Carbine", okay?
> In fact, the word
> "carbine" is mentioned not just once in the above-linked advertisement
> for the 40-inch weapon--but TWICE.
Yes, because they were SELLING CARBINES at that time, they
inadvertantly (or on purpose to sell more) used the wrong picture, but
that does not outweigh the other information.
YOU are hopeless! They had NO stock of 40" Carcanos in March 1963,
they received them in April, thus they could NOT send one even if they
wanted to! Furthermore, I admit they added the wrong picture, but a
picture does NOT outweigh a description, a catalog number and a lower
price.
> But keep denying the word "CARBINE" is mentioned TWICE in that ad,
> Robby. It's better for you if you never even look at it. (Or maybe you
> can claim that the ad is a "fake/forgery" too, like everything else
> you consider fraudulent about this murder case.)
Boy, YOU are lost! I have NEVER denied the word "CARBINE" is
mentioned as that is all they had to sell at that time, but rather my
point is they used the wrong picture for some reason. Can anyone
follow along with what you say around here?
> >>> "I doubt very much Klein's was as confused about firearms as YOU obviously are! They ONLY had 36" Carbines in stock in March of 1963!" <<<
>
> Klein's quite obviously had a 40-inch carbine with the serial number
> C2766 in stock in late March of '63 -- because they shipped that
> particular 40-inch carbine with that serial number on it to Lee Oswald
> on March 20th, 1963:
This reasoning is idiotice! YOU are assuming a conclusion without
evidence and proof, and then asserting they must have had because he
had one. HOW about showing us some evidence for this wild claim?
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0...
>
> It's also better, Rob, if you totally ignore Waldman Exhibit #7
> (linked above). Because that particular document provides rock-solid
> PROOF that Lee Harvey Oswald (aka "A. Hidell") was, indeed, shipped a
> rifle with the serial number "C2766" on it....and (guess what?) the
> rifle with that serial number stamped on it is a FORTY-INCH RIFLE.
Yeah, but your beloved document say "Carbine" on it IF I recall
correctly Dave, so how does that work? A 40" rifle in the Carcano
line CANNOT BE A CARBINE. Oh, by the way, the serial number C2766 is
NOT unique as each manufacturer of the Carcano USED THE SAME SERIAL
NUMBERS, so that number can be used as many times as there were
factories making Carcanos during WWII. Lisa Pease discovered this
years ago, you should try and keep up.
> ~Mark VII~
>
> >>> "Explain why the OFFICIAL Evidence photo has ONLY TWO shell casings in it?" <<<
>
> It doesn't. You're an idiot. CE510 shows three spent cartridge cases
> on the floor, plain as day:
BUT Curry publised a photo SHOWING JUST TWO, AND HE WAS THE CHIEF OF
POLICE IN DALLAS! WHY was this photo taken and NOT used by the WC?
> CE510:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> Yes, there is one particular photograph taken of the Sniper's Nest by
> the DPD (looking toward the east) that only shows two of the bullet
> shells on the floor (CE511 linked below). But that's quite obviously
> due to the angle of the photo seen in CE511, you moron. The third
> shell is there, it's just simply not visible in the picture:
Was it taken before or after Fritz handled the evidence and just threw
them back on the ground? That is a violation of all proceedures by
the way.
> CE511:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> >>> "Please explain why a photo [in Jesse Curry's 1969 book]...would show just two [bullet shells] if three were found [in the Sniper's Nest]?" <<<
>
> I believe that Captain J. Will Fritz initially put one of the three
> shells in one of his desk drawers in his office at the DPD. That's
> probably why there are only two in the picture you're referring to.
LOL!!! SO much for chain of custody, huh?? Thanks for admitting it at
least, your stock has gone up to .00000002 now! LOL!
> >>> "YOU can call him [Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig] a liar all you want[,] BUT you have FAILED to prove he did lie." <<<
>
> I can prove that Roger Craig was a liar by typing out just the
> following words:
>
> STAMPED ON THE RIFLE WAS '7.65 MAUSER'.
Obviously Dave missed the photo Sam McClung gave us as there were
Mauser stamped like this. Also, you would have to prove Craig was a
raving idiot to say he read "Made in Italy" and "6.5mm" and confused
that with a Mauser. Come on Dave, you can do better than this. Maybe
you can't?
> Craig made the above claim about Oswald's rifle. That claim makes him
> a liar. And there's NOTHING that Robert C. can do to UNDO Deputy
> Craig's blatant and obvious LIE with respect to the rifle found on the
> TSBD's sixth floor.
YOU are the one lying as two officers signed affadavits the NEXT DAY
saying it was a Mauser. The CIA called it a Mauser FIVE DAYS after
the event in a memo. And lastly, anyone that can read could tell it
was NOT a Carcano by what the Carcano had written on it.
> And Craig also later told another whopper of a lie when he said that
> the three shell casings found in the Sniper's Nest were all situated
> in a neat little row, facing the same direction, and were no more than
> "an inch apart" from one another when they were first discovered by
> the police. (LOL.)
NO lie as he was CORROBORATED (this is a term you NEVER see with the
WC's witnesses) by Alyea who said Fritz picked them up and then put
them down like that. They were NOT found in that condition.
> Let's have another look at CE510:http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> So, who (or what) should a reasonable person believe? CE510 above? Or
> Roger "Big Fat Liar" Craig?
You mean a man who won citations for the Sheriff's department vs. a
big group of liars? I'll take Craig's word for it as he had NOTHING to
gain by saying what he said, ONLY a bunch to lose.
> Not a tough choice really. But guess who a retarded person named Rob
> is going to believe? That's not tough to figure out either.
Of course it is NOT tough, the WC were a bunch of liars.
> >>> "THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A 40" CARBINE[,] DAVE!!" <<<
>
> Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago disagrees with you (as the ad below
> again verifies):
YOU are hopeless, they used the term Carbine for the 36" model they
HAD IN STOCK, NOT for a 40" model! YOU are soooo dumb.
> http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/122a.+KLEIN%27S+AD+FEA...
>
> What about the above ad, Rob, which is an ad that is advertising (in
> big bold letters) a 40-inch "6.5 ITALIAN CARBINE"? What about it? Do
> YOU know more about "carbines" than the company that sold these
> weapons?
>
> Please enlighten us with your firearms knowledge, oh great kook!
Is that from the February 1963 "American Rifleman"?? NO, it is from
the November 1963 "Field & Stream" magazine! How could LHO order a
weapon in March 1963 from a magazine that did NOT come out UNTIL
NOVEMBER 1963???
So, I ask, how does this ad HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE AD HE WOULD
HAVE BEEN ORDERING FROM?
> Carbine Footnote --- This whole silly "Carbine" vs. "Rifle" debate is
> merely semantics anyway. The fact is a "carbine" is still considered a
> "rifle" (by literal definition), whether James H. Fetzer or any other
> conspiracy theorist likes it or not:
You are lying again, a Carbine is a very short weapon used by Calvary
troops, mountain troops and Paratroops to name a few. They could not
carry the full weight of a longer rifle based on their assignments.
This debate is very valid and it was mentioned LONG BEFORE Mr. Fetzer
brought it up.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbine
>
> And a "RIFLE" (i.e., "CARBINE") is a weapon that fires bullets from
> its barrel. And those bullets come out of that barrel really, really
> fast.
ONLY a ignorant person in regards to firearms would make this
statement. The velocity is much higher for full rifles, that is why
they are used for assassinations.
> ~Mark VII~
>
> >>> "Can you show us when and how LHO picked up the 36" Carbine you admitted he purchased? I ask because the WC NEVER COULD!" <<<
>
> Why would I (or the Warren Commission) need to show something that
> obviously never happened? (Nor, of course, did it NEED to happen for
> Oswald to be the lone assassin of President Kennedy.)
WOW!! Using Dave's logic IF they failed to show him doing something
then it NEVER happened! Well, since they FAILED to show him EVER
picking up ANY rifle at the P.O. I guess it NEVER HAPPENED per Dave's
logic. Sounds good to me!
They never showed he picked up ANY PACKAGE!
> It's been explained to you before, but your head is too thick for it
> to sink in:
YOU are the one with a dense head and you are messing up BIG TIME, I
think those "troll checks" will be cut off soon.
> Oswald ordered a 36-inch rifle via a magazine ad. But Klein's shipped
> him a nearly-identical model that happened to be four inches longer
> than the one LHO actually ordered via the magazine ad. The serial
> number printed on Waldman Exhibit #7 proves this fact beyond any
> doubt.
What a liar. A Carbine and 40" model are NOT nearly identical. YOU
keep skipping over the fact they had NO 40" models in stock to send to
him even if he ordered one, and we KNOW he did NOT.
> It couldn't be more obvious that the above scenario I just described
> is 100% accurate. So why is that particular scenario so utterly
> IMPOSSIBLE for you kooks to believe?
Do you have any evidence or proof for your claim of them sending him a
40" model instead of a 36" Carbine?
> Well, I'll answer that last question myself -- it's because you belong
> in the "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity. That's why.
YOU are part of the "LIE all the time" club, but you don't see me
complaining about it.
> >>> "THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN BARRED FROM BEING INTRODUCED [to a jury in a court of law] IN THE FIRST PLACE!" <<<
>
> Texas Judge Lucius Bunton had no problem with the evidence in the JFK
> case being introduced into his court in July of 1986 -- i.e., evidence
> that YOU insist would never be allowed in a U.S. court of law.
> How come?
Because he was PAID to have no problem with it??? Show us one case he
presided over where he let in junk like this stuff as evidence!
> Was Judge Bunton an idiot, Rob? Or did he merely flush all court rules
> re. "admissibility of evidence" down the toilet because it was only a
> "TV show"?
NO, he was a paid for judge who needed the money I guess.
> >>> "Lie all you want Dave, but Finck testified to this FACT [re: the overall weight of the Connally wrist fragments] at the Shaw trial." <<<
>
> LOL. And Dr. Finck (one of KENNEDY'S AUTOPSISTS) was supposedly MORE
> knowledgeable about the Connally wrist fragments than was the person
> who plucked those fragments from the body of Governor Connally (i.e.,
> Dr. Gregory)?
Weight is NOT that hard Dave!
> That's hilarious.
YOUR pathetic lies are what are hilarious. I know small kids who can
lie better than you.
> >>> "YOU can prove me wrong by showing us the chain of custody for CE-399. Show me where Tomlinson said it was the bullet HE found. Show me were O.P. Wright said it was the bullet he saw." <<<
>
> The fact that those men couldn't positively identify CE399 at a later
> date is not proof that CE399 was not inside Governor Connally and
> President Kennedy on 11/22/63. And you're an idiot if you think that
> it does mean that.
It sure is since YOU CAN'T PROVE IT WAS EVER INSIDE EITHER MAN, now
can you?
> But what I'd like for a CTer to do is to come up with a REASONABLE and
> BELIEVABLE scenario that includes a bullet OTHER than CE399 being the
> one that O.P. Wright and Darrell Tomlinson saw on November 22nd, 1963.
It is easy, they found a bullet from JFK, probably the back wound, and
passed it on for evidence and then it was disposed of while the fake
bullet was inserted into evidence. NOT real complicated stuff here
Dave.
> Can you do that? I'm positive you can't. Because ANY alternate
> scenario that involves a substitute or a planted bullet (in lieu of
> CE399) is a scenario that will ultimately collapse under the weight of
> its own idiocy, absurdity, conjecture, and silliness.
Why? We have as much proof CE-399 was the bullet that caused 7 wounds
as an invisible bullet does! IN both CE-399 and an invisible, long
gone bullet you can't prove the following:
1) That either bullet was ever INSIDE either victim because they both
lack any blood, tissue and clothing striations.
2) That either bullet was ever fired from a rifle LHO owned.
3) That either bullet entered a phony wound in the base of the neck in
JFK.
4) That either bullet could be tied to CE-573.
Etc...See? An invisible bullet is as valuable as CE-399!
> But good luck trying.
Who needs to try? YOU have a worthless bullet that proves as much as
an invisible bullet does!
> >>> "AFTER LHO was dead[,] the good doctor [James J. Humes] felt a need to REWRITE his notes!" <<<
>
> You're dead wrong about the chronology of when Dr. Humes burned his
> autopsy notes. He testified that he burned both his notes and the
> first draft of the autopsy report BEFORE Lee Oswald was killed, not
> after. Let's have a gander:
Oh, you mean he testified to this at the WC hearing with NO penalty of
perjury? And he was testifying to something that made the lone gunman
scenario sound more plausible? Okay, let's read this stuff RIGHT
AWAY!!! NOT!!!
He broke the law and should have been thrown in the brig!
> "In [the] privacy of my own home, EARLY IN THE MORNING OF
> SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 24TH [DVP's emphasis], I made a draft of this report
> which I later revised. .... That draft I personally burned in the
> fireplace of my recreation room." -- Dr. James J. Humes; 1964; WC
> Testimony
>
> --Plus:--
>
> "When I noticed that these bloodstains were on this document
> that I had prepared, I said nobody's going to ever get these
> documents. I'm not going to keep them, and nobody else is ever going
> to get them. So I copied them--and you probably have a copy in my
> longhand of what I wrote. It's made from the original. And I then
> burned the original notes in the fireplace of my family room to
> prevent them from ever falling into the hands of what I consider
> inappropriate people. .... It was handwritten notes and the first
> draft that was burned [early in the morning on Sunday, 11/24/63; see
> 2nd link below for precise verbiage via Humes' ARRB session]." -- Dr.
> James J. Humes; February 1996; ARRB Testimony
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm
>
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humesa.htm
>
> Maybe Robby The Kook should learn how to read testimony before leaping
> to incorrect conclusions.
He admitted to burning his ORIGINAL notes, that is tampering with
evidence! I don't need to read his testimony for that!
> It would also be nice if Rob would learn how to use a comma, too.
Why, I have you as my EDITOR to do it for me!
> >>> "They had LHO in custody, they had his prints on file, they had access to his dead body after they allowed him to be shot, you can use your imagination." <<<
>
> Nah. I'll leave the imaginary stuff to you conspiracy-giddy kooks.
> After all, your "imagination" is pretty much all you've got to work
> with in order to "solve" the case your way.
He SUPPORTS an entire IMAGINARY theory but he says he leaves that
stuff to us CTers! LOL!! This guy is priceless!
> >>> "Who holds a heavy bag with two fingers anyway?" <<<
>
> The bulk of the "heaviness" of Oswald's bag was being supported at the
> bottom of the bag--hence, LHO's right palmprint is found on the bottom
> part of the bag (the weight of his rifle was pressing downing on his
> right palm as he carried it from Buell Frazier's car to the Depository
> on the morning of the assassination).
Sure he was. Do you have any evidence to show this is what happened?
Have you located any for the bag itself. I mean I have been
patient,but come on, it has been 45 years!
> But Rob, of course, will totally ignore the significance of that
> "right palmprint" being on the empty paper bag, which is a palmprint
> that perfectly matches the way Frazier said Oswald carried the bag --
> i.e., "cupped in his right hand" (paraphrased Frazier quote).
So the idea of Frazier saying what he was told has NEVER entered you
mind. Riddle me this idiot, how did he pick the bag up if the ONLY
prints are on the bottom of the bag???
> >>> "[Oswald's prints were] ON two boxes, when he allegedly moved 20 or so...and the one he leaned on supposedly for the steadying of his rifle had NONE on it." <<<
>
> It's quite obvious (to a reasonable person) that Lee Oswald definitely
> touched and moved around ALL of the boxes that comprised the inside
> and the outside of the Sniper's Nest.
Any evidence or proof, or more guesswork here?
> And regardless of whether or not any of his IDENTIFIABLE prints were
> found on the bulk of those many SN boxes, it's obvious that Oswald
> MUST have physically touched and handled all (or most) of those boxes.
But why is his prints on ONLY two boxes?? Explain this for us.
> Why?
>
> Because:
>
> Based on the sum total of evidence in the case, Lee Harvey Oswald was
> the lone killer of John F. Kennedy and, therefore, Lee Harvey Oswald
> was certainly the ONE AND ONLY person who constructed the Sniper's
> Nest of boxes on Friday, November 22, 1963.
LOL!! He can't even explain one thing, he has still DUCKED the chain
of custody request I made days ago, he is pathetic.
> ~Mark VII~
>
> >>> "Anyone who has ever picked up a package at the P.O. knows they ask for YOUR ID!" <<<
>
> LOL. Rob's displaying his "idiot" status again (as usual).
LOL!! This from a man who thinks ALL RIFLES ARE CARBINES!!
> I've picked up many, many oversized packages at my local post office,
> and I've never ONCE been asked to show I.D. Not once.
Well you have Postal employees who like to break the law then. OF
course all we have is your word for this and we all know what a liar
you are, right?
Why don't you give me the phone number to your local P.O. office and
I'll call them to verify this claim of yours, okay?
> I merely give the yellow slip of paper that was in my mailbox to the
> clerk behind the counter at the post office (and they have been clerks
> I've never seen before in my life, btw), and then I get my package.
> Simple as that. No identification is required. And no signature is
> required on any documents either.
I'm sure you are lying, so give me the number, and if they are doing
this I will report them. With the new Patriot Acts they are supposed
to be MORE strict than 1963, NOT less!
IF the package comes under "A. Hidell" how do they know to give it to
you??? Ditto for Reitzes?
> So, Rob (as usual) doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. But
> that won't stop a kook like Robert C. -- because he's on an "Anybody
> But Oswald" mission. And no amount of evidence against the "patsy" is
> too much evidence for Rob to consider it ALL FAKED AND/OR MANIPULATED.
I don't know what I am talking about???? This guy knows nothing about
our legal system, evidence collecting, processing and chain of custody
(he doesn't even know what chain of custody is), firearms, science,
etc... and I'm the one who doesn't "know what I'm talking about",
huh??? Priceless stuff!
aeffects
getting ugly!
David Von Pein
>>> "CE 510 (photo) was taken on Monday." <<<
LOL. That's a riot!
Sam Brown
"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fa1911ee-37f6-4b40...@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> you're getting your assed kicked David Von Pein. Call Vince, this is
> getting ugly!
Turn away from the mirror junkie, you're hallucinating again.
>
tomnln
>
>
>>>> "CE 510 (photo) was taken on Monday." <<<
>
> LOL. That's a riot!
David;
You're Ignorant for Not Knowing this.
You're a Coward for Snipping the Citation>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/tom_alyea_film.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "CE 510 (photo) was taken on Monday [11/25/63]." <<<
You're an idiot.
Following are extensive excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's JFK book
concerning the matter of Warren Commission Exhibit #510 and the three
spent bullet shells that were found in the Sniper's Nest on November
22nd, 1963:
====================================
"What perhaps is the strongest evidence against [Deputy Sheriff
Luke] Mooney’s contention that [DPD Captain J. Will] Fritz moved the
shells before Commission Exhibit Nos. 510 and 512 were taken is that
he said that once he discovered the shells he put his head out the
window “and called down to Sheriff Decker and Captain Fritz...to send
up the crime lab” (Sneed, No More Silence, p.226).
"So Fritz wasn’t even there on the sixth floor at the time. But
the Dallas police photographer, Robert Lee Studebaker, said he was,
and that when he arrived on the sixth floor “they hadn’t found
anything” yet. Studebaker went on to say that as soon as they found
the shells, “we [he and Lieutenant Day] went over there and took
photographs” (7 H 139, WCT Robert Lee Studebaker), which we can assume
would have been at least a few minutes before Captain Fritz even
arrived on the sixth floor.
"The three empty shells: Conspiracy author Noel Twyman lifted
the allegation of planted shells to new levels in his 1997 book Bloody
Treason, arguing that only two empty shells were found, not three,
proving that at least one bullet had been fired from somewhere other
than the sixth-floor sniper’s nest, and therefore, a conspiracy
existed to kill the president.
"As proof of his charge, Twyman pointed to a Dallas police
document published in the Warren Commission volumes which listed a
number of items that were turned over to the FBI laboratory on the
night of November 22. On the list are two “6.5 spent rounds”; however,
the number “2” has been replaced with a handwritten number “3.” (CE
2003, 24 H 260)
"The alteration was originally mentioned in J. Gary Shaw and
Larry Ray Harris’s 1976 book, Cover-Up, after Shaw and Harris
discovered a copy of the unaltered version of the document among the
files of the Texas Department of Public Safety (Shaw with Harris,
Cover-Up, pp.159–160).
"Twyman acknowledged that he originally intended to ignore the
handwritten change since it might be explained by a simple correction
of an “honest mistake,” but changed his mind when another researcher
discovered more “evidence” allegedly supporting Twyman’s theory.
"The evidence, per Twyman, had been “buried and suppressed in
the National Archives under the guise of national security,” and
consisted of two negatives (along with eight prints) showing only two
6.5-millimeter shell casings (and one live 6.5-millimeter round) that
had been turned over to the FBI laboratory by the Dallas police on the
night of the assassination.
"The negatives and photographs, stuffed into an envelope and
signed by FBI special agent J. Doyle Williams, were apparently taken
by the bureau as part of the documentation of the evidence that was
submitted to them by the Dallas police. (FBI File 89-43-1A [28],
Evidence Envelope dated November 22, 1963, National Archives; Crime
Scene Search Form, November 22, 1963, box 9, folder 4, items 31 and
32, DMA; CE 2011, 24 H 411)
"Twyman said the images were “conclusive evidence that there
were only two empty cartridges” found on the sixth floor—and hence, a
conspiracy (Twyman, Bloody Treason, pp.90–91). Twyman also noted that
the FBI lab report on the shells, returned to Dallas police chief
Jesse Curry on November 23, also only mentioned two cartridge shells
and one live round (Twyman, Bloody Treason, p.93; see also CE 2003, 24
H 262).
"Unbeknownst to his readers, all Twyman had managed to prove was
something that has been a well-known and established fact for years:
that on the night of November 22 the Dallas police turned over to the
FBI only two of the three cartridge cases they had recovered from the
sixth floor, along with the live round found in the rifle’s firing
chamber.
"The third shell (along with Oswald’s wallet, identification,
and notebook) was retained by Captain Fritz (who, let’s not forget,
was in charge of the investigation at this point) “to be used,” Fritz
said, “for comparison tests” since his office was trying to determine
where the cartridges had been bought. Fritz kept the shell in his desk
drawer until the early morning hours of November 27, when it was
turned over to FBI agent James P. Hosty Jr. (7 H 404, WC affidavit of
John Will Fritz; CE 2003, 24 H 347)
"Still, Twyman had one more “bombshell” to drop on this issue--
one that is still making the rounds among neophyte conspiracy buffs.
According to Twyman, the Warren Commission, in its absent-mindedness,
published photographic proof of the cover-up, proof that had been
glossed over by all of the conspiracy theorists before him.
"According to Twyman, two photographs, designated by the Warren
Commission as Commission Exhibit Nos. 510 and 512 and published in
volume 17 of the Warren Commission Hearings and Exhibits (CE 510, 17 H
221; CE 512, 17 H 223), demolished the government’s claim that three
empty cartridge cases were found below the sniper’s nest window.
"Both photos are multigenerational prints of two Dallas police
photographs taken of the spent hulls lying in the sniper’s nest on the
afternoon of November 22. Despite the fact that both photographs were
shown to Dallas deputy sheriff Luke Mooney, who identified them as
photographs of the three empty shells he found (3 H 286–287), Twyman
charges that Commission Exhibit No. 510 shows only two empty shells
and what “appears to be one [unfired] live round of ammunition,”
circled and, he says, erroneously identified as a third shell, shell
“A.”
"According to Twyman, Exhibit No. 510 wasn’t the only proof of
conspiracy that the Warren Commission had managed to accidentally
publish for all the world to see. In addition, he tells his readers,
the second photo (CE 512) of the three objects beneath the window
contains a “crude attempt of forgery.” The conspirators, you see, had
attempted to conceal the fact that there were only two empty cartridge
cases or shells and one live round of ammunition by darkening the area
around the live round, shell “A,” to make it look like a third shell.
"How does Twyman explain the buffoonery of the Keystone Cop
conspirators he has created? He writes, “Somehow, both the authentic
photo and the forged photo slipped through to the Commission. The
plotters were human. They were caught in their own web” (Twyman,
Bloody Treason, pp.97, 114–115).
"As you might have guessed, Twyman’s allegations, based on an
unclear, multigenerational copy of the original print, are groundless.
He could have saved a lot of paper and ink (and much embarrassment) by
taking a look at the original Dallas police crime-lab photographs that
Commission Exhibit Nos. 510 and 512 were based on.
"As the original photographs clearly show, Twyman’s supposed
“live round” is, in fact, exactly what the record has always shown--an
empty cartridge (DMA, Negative No. 91-001/329 for CE 510, and Negative
No. 91-001/039 for CE 512, per letter from Dallas City archivist John
Slate to author on April 19, 2005).
"What Twyman apparently mistook for a bullet in Exhibit No. 510
is a scrap of paper or debris lying in the crack between the floor and
the wall. In Twyman’s fuzzy, multigenerational version of the police
photograph, it looked like a bullet sticking out of the end of the
empty cartridge case.
"Twyman’s additional evidence of forgery in Commission Exhibit
No. 512 also turns out to be something far less sensational--an
obvious (even in the Warren Commission’s printed version) photographic
artifact that doesn’t appear in the original Dallas police prints. In
the end, Twyman’s “powerful and persuasive” (Bloody Treason, p.97)
proof of fabricated and planted evidence is nothing more than proof of
Twyman’s poor research on this issue, although by and large I found
him to be a better researcher than most conspiracy authors and
theorists.
"Apart from the fact that the photographic evidence proves there
were three shells found in the sniper’s nest, Deputy Sheriff Mooney,
who entered the sniper’s nest shortly after the shooting in Dealey
Plaza, testified he saw three shells on the floor there (3 H 284,
286). And Dallas police lieutenant J. C. Day, who arrived at the
sniper’s nest not too long after, also testified he saw three shells
there (4 H 249–250; Sneed, No More Silence, p.232).
"So what is Twyman’s point? That both Mooney and Day committed
perjury and lied under oath, each deciding to become accessories after
the fact to the president’s murder? If that’s not what he’s willing to
say, then again, what’s his point? ....
"It should be noted that the police photographer, Robert
Studebaker, may have taken only one photograph of the interior of the
sniper’s nest that showed all three shells on the floor before the
boxes were moved to dust for fingerprints, and that’s Studebaker
Exhibit A (21 H 643).
"John Slate, the Dallas City archivist, told me that the
negative for this photo is DMA Negative No. 91-001/081. (The only
other photograph Studebaker took before the moving of the boxes
[Studebaker Exhibit B, 21 H 644; CE 511, 17 H 222] did not show much
of the interior of the sniper’s nest and only picked up two of the
three shells.)
"See the photo section in ["Reclaiming History"] for the print
from Negative No. 91-001/081, showing all three shells. Two original
prints were made from this negative, numbered 91-001/390 and
91-001/355, and new negatives were made from these two prints.
"Slate said that the Dallas Municipal Archives has two other
original negatives in its collection, numbered 91-001/329 and
91-001/039, and believes they most probably were taken at the same
time as 91-001/081 because their images are so similar. (Letter from
John Slate to author on April 19, 2005, p.1; taken at same time:
Telephone interview of John Slate by author on April 19, 2005)
"What Slate says makes sense in that it is hard to believe that
Studebaker only took one photograph that picked up most of the
interior of the sniper’s nest before the boxes were moved slightly for
the taking of latent fingerprints.
"But there is evidence to the contrary, though it is slightly
ambiguous, in Studebaker’s testimony before the Warren Commission,
where he refers to the “pictures” he took “before they [the boxes]
were moved.” When assistant Warren Commission counsel then asks, “You
mean [Studebaker] Exhibit A and B?” Studebaker replies, “A and B.”
Elsewhere, counsel asks, “Do you have any pictures of the boxes before
they were moved other than those you have showed me?” Studebaker
replies, “Just those two,” to which counsel says, “Those are Exhibits
A and B?” Studebaker doesn’t say counsel is wrong, only answering, “We
have probably got one down there I can get you that is a lot better
print than that. If you want a better print, I can get it for you.” (7
H 140–141)
"It’s hard from this to infer that Studebaker did in fact take
one or more other photos of the sniper’s nest before the boxes were
moved. So it appears that Studebaker Exhibit A (which Slate says is
slightly “cropped” from Negative No. 91-001/081) may be, remarkably,
the only photograph he took of the three shells before the boxes were
moved.
"However, Studebaker testified that Lieutenant Day also took two
photographs before the boxes were moved (7 H 139), and the two copies
that Slate referred to (DMA Negative No. 91-001/329, which corresponds
to a cropped Commission Exhibit No. 510, and DMA Negative No.
91-001/039, which corresponds to a cropped Commission Exhibit No. 515
[sic; VB meant to say CE512 here, not CE515]) may be the photos taken
by Day. ....
"[Footnote] -- There is a slight possible discrepancy that I am
unable to resolve. Of the two photographs Studebaker took of the
sniper’s nest before the boxes were moved, only Studebaker Exhibit B
shows the open window, and it doesn’t appear to be open as much as in
the two photos taken by Dallas Morning News photographer Tom Dillard
within seconds of the shooting (Studebaker Exhibit B, 21 H 644;
Dillard Exhibits A and B, 19 H 563–564).
"One explanation may be that the angles of the subject photos
are completely different, Studebaker’s photo being from the top
looking down, and Dillard’s photos from the bottom looking up.
"Another possibility, though unlikely, is that although no boxes
had been moved before Studebaker took his two photos, someone may have
lowered the window a bit. But it’s hard to see why anyone would do
this." -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI; PAGES 418-421 OF ENDNOTES IN "RECLAIMING
HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY" (c.2007)
====================================
REPEATING THIS SEGMENT OF BUGLIOSI'S REMARKS (FOR FURTHER EMPHASIS):
"Both photos [CE510 and CE512] are multigenerational prints of
two Dallas police photographs taken of the spent hulls lying in the
sniper’s nest ON THE AFTERNOON OF NOVEMBER 22." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi
[DVP's added emphasis]
CE510:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0124a.htm
CE512:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0125a.htm
====================================
www.HomeTheaterForum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/63a6b5c898e20f56
>>> "They [Klein's] had NO stock of 40" Carcanos in March 1963." <<<
You're quite obviously dead wrong here -- because Klein's shipped
Oswald/Hidell a 40-inch Carcano on 3/20/63.
No matter how many times you deny the truth contained in the above
paragraph, you'll still be proven 100% wrong....because Klein's
positively shipped Oswald Carcano rifle #C2766 in late March of
1963....and rifle #C2766 is a 40-inch rifle. Period. End of story.
>>> "Furthermore, I admit they added the wrong picture..." <<<
LOL. As if the fuzzy PICTURE of a rifle in the Klein's ad makes any
difference at all. You're a stitch, Rob-Kook. A real howl!
It wasn't the PICTURE in the ad I was emphasizing, you Dufus! It was
the combination of the WORDS printed in the ad (words that you claim
CANNOT go together). These words:
"6.5 Italian Carbine"
and
"40 inches".
The picture in the ad is meaningless for the purposes of proving that
you (Robby The Moron) don't know what the hell you're babbling about
regarding this "carbine" subject.
Let's move ahead to Robby's next hilarious episode in his "Anybody But
Oswald" show....
>>> "...but a picture does NOT outweigh a description..." <<<
Right. As I said, the hazy picture of the rifle in the ad is
meaningless for this discussion. And the picture in the November 1963
magazine ad does not outweigh the description. You're right about
that. Which means that you are full of shit when you (and others) make
the incorrect claim that the 40-inch version of the Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle that Klein's sold was NEVER referred to as a "CARBINE".
Because, as we can easily see via the November 1963 ad linked below,
Klein's definitely DID describe (in WORDS) the "40-inch" weapon in the
ad as being a "carbine".
Care to eat some crow yet, Mr. Rob-Kook? Or do you still want to
contend that nobody at Klein's ever referred to the 40-inch Italian
Carcanos as "carbines"?
>>> "...but a picture does NOT outweigh a description, a catalog number and a lower price." <<<
LOL. The part about "a lower price" is hilarious too....because Oswald
would have paid EXACTLY the same amount of money for his rifle if he
had ordered it via the November 1963 Klein's ad instead of from the
February 1963 ad.
It appears that the catalog number is slightly different when
comparing the two ads (the February ad that Oswald used has the letter
"T" preceding the "750" in the catalog number), but the price for the
item that Oswald ordered (i.e., the rifle/"carbine" with the 4x scope
included) is exactly the same in both the February and November
advertisements ($19.95).
And the price difference for the rifle by itself is just 10 cents --
$12.88 in February and $12.78 in November. So, in November, Klein's
was actually selling the LONGER (40-inch) rifle for LESS money than
the 36-inch version.
That last fact I just mentioned causes another one of Robby's silly
arguments to blow up in his face, when Rob stated the following
(without even realizing, evidently, that the LENGTHIER 40-inch rifle
was LESS expensive than the 36-inch variant, per the two Klein's
advertisements in question):
"They [Klein's] did NOT send out more expensive product(s) when
you ordered/paid for less!" -- Rob; 03/17/09
Here's a direct comparison of the two ads:
>>> "I have NEVER denied the word "CARBINE" is mentioned[,] as that is all they [Klein's] had to sell at that time, but rather my point is they used the wrong picture for some reason." <<<
The picture is meaningless, you mega-kook. You claimed in earlier
posts that the 40-inch rifle was never referred to as a "carbine". The
photo of the November '63 ad that I supplied proves you are wrong,
because Klein's obviously DID refer to the 40-inch Italian rifle as a
"carbine".
And the fact that I linked a photo to the November 1963 ad (vs. the
exact February '63 ad from American Rifleman that was used by Oswald
to order his weapon) is not relevant to this discussion either. I knew
full well when I first posted that ad that it wasn't the exact ad that
Oswald ordered his rifle from.
I posted the pic to the November ad to show that you (the President of
the Anybody-But-Oz Clubs of America) were full of shit when you said
that nobody at Klein's had ever referred to the 40-inch Carcano rifle
as a "carbine". And the November '63 ad proves that you're wrong about
that....and there's nothing you can do about it.
>>> "Yeah, but your beloved document [says] "Carbine" on it[,] IF I recall correctly Dave, so how does that work?" <<<
Sure, Waldman Exhibit 7 says "carbine" on the Klein's paperwork. So
what? Klein's obviously considered BOTH the 36-inch rifle and the 40-
inch rifle to fall under the general heading of "6.5 ITALIAN
CARBINE" (which is what it says on Waldman 7, and the two magazine ads
linked above).
So what's your point, kook? Per the two Klein's ads in question, BOTH
lengths of the gun WERE considered "carbines". Period.
>>> "A 40-inch rifle in the Carcano line CANNOT BE A CARBINE." <<<
~big ol' sigh~
Why is there such vehement argument from you kooks about semantics and
a whopping FOUR-INCH difference in the length of the gun. Incredible.
INSTANT REPLAY:
>>> "A 40-inch rifle in the Carcano line CANNOT BE A CARBINE." <<<
Why not, Mister Kook?
ANOTHER INSTANT REPLAY:
>>> "A 40-inch rifle in the Carcano line CANNOT BE A CARBINE." <<<
Klein's says you're wrong (in big, bold letters here):
>>> "Oh, by the way, the serial number C2766 is NOT unique[,] as each manufacturer of the Carcano USED THE SAME SERIAL NUMBERS, so that number can be used as many times as there were factories making Carcanos during WWII." <<<
~yawn~
and
Bullshit!
FROM THE WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. FRAZIER OF THE
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION:
MEL EISENBERG -- "Based on your experience with firearms, is the
placement of a specific serial number on a weapon generally confined
to one weapon of a given type?"
ROBERT FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is. Particularly--may I refer to foreign
weapons particularly?
The serial number consists of a series of numbers which normally will
be repeated. However, a prefix is placed before the number, which
actually must be part of the serial number, consisting of a letter."
EISENBERG -- "Have you been able to confirm that the serial number on
this weapon is the only such number on such a weapon?"
FRAZIER -- "Yes, it is."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm
SERIAL NUMBER ADDENDUM:
But apart from the testimony I just presented above from the FBI's Bob
Frazier (which indicates that Robcap and other silly conspiracists of
his ilk are dead wrong about the serial number topic), here's a
challenge for all conspiracy-happy kooks..........
Come up with ANY RIFLE (or ANY MANUFACTURED ITEM, PERIOD, whether it
be a rifle or a handgun or a toaster or a refrigerator or a DVD player
or a hair dryer) that has the exact same serial number stamped on it
as Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle -- i.e., the serial
number "C2766".
I'd wager that nobody on this planet can come up with a single product
of ANY KIND (a Carcano rifle or otherwise) that is stamped with that
exact serial number.
Good luck.
>>> "Lisa Pease discovered this years ago." <<<
LOL. Lisa Pease is another charter member of your Fraternity Of Kooks.
See my 2007 discussion with Kook Pease at the link below:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ba42cab01ab9ebae
>>> "...you should try and keep up." <<<
You should try some anti-kook pills. Maybe they'd help you (a little
anyway).
>>> "A Carbine and 40" model are NOT nearly identical." <<<
Four inches difference. Whoopee!
>>> "YOU keep skipping over the fact they [Klein's Sporting Goods] had NO 40" models in stock to send to him [Saint Oswald] even if he ordered one, and we KNOW he did NOT." <<<
I certainly did not "skip over" this topic. It's obvious to anyone but
an ABO nutcase like you that Klein's HAD TO HAVE HAD a 40-inch Carcano
rifle in stock in March of '63....because they sent one of those
things to Lee Oswald in March of '63.
Has the reality of the above sentence sunk in yet?
(Silly question--of course it hasn't. Because Rob's head is made of
concrete.)
>>> "Do you have any evidence or proof for your claim of them [Klein's] sending him [Oswald] a 40" model instead of a 36" Carbine?" <<<
~sigh~
Geez Louise. Is this silly rifle talk ever going to end? (Apparently
not.)
Yes, of course I have evidence and proof that Klein's sent LHO a 40-
inch rifle instead of the 36-inch one he actually ordered from the
February 1963 American Rifleman magazine ad.
And, Mr. Braindead, that "evidence" and "proof" is called "Waldman
Exhibit No. 7":
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
I'll take it real slow this time:
1.) Klein's sent Oswald/"Hidell" one "Italian Carbine 6.5 With 4x
Scope" (per Waldman Exhibit #7) on March 20th, 1963.
2.) The "Italian Carbine" that was shipped by Klein's to LHO had the
serial number of "C2766" stamped on it (again, per Waldman #7, which
is a document you conspiracy-seeking kooks must really, really hate
with a passion).
3.) The rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63 had the
serial number "C2766" stamped on it (plus Lee Harvey Oswald's prints
on it too).
4.) And the biggie (as far as this silly topic is concerned) -- The
TSBD rifle with "C2766" stamped on it is positively a FORTY-INCH
CARCANO RIFLE!
~Another MARK VII~
>>> "He [Dr. James J. Humes] admitted to burning his ORIGINAL notes, that is tampering with evidence! I don't need to read his testimony for that!" <<<
Is that all you have to say here? Would you like to now admit that you
were full of shit (again) when you definitively claimed that Dr. Humes
burned his notes AFTER Lee Oswald had been killed by Jack Ruby?
But Humes' WC and ARRB sessions are proving you wrong there. Care to
retract your previous inaccuracy in this regard?
(Didn't think so. Most gutless kooks like you will always stick to
their fantasies....even when they're proven to be fantasies.)
>>> "LOL!! This from a man who thinks ALL RIFLES ARE CARBINES!!" <<<
Wrong again, Mister Misrepresentation.
I never once said that "all rifles are carbines". I said that (by
literal definition in the dictionary) all CARBINES are RIFLES. And
they are:
aeffects
> "aeffects" <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote in message
close your legs fer Christsakes.... ya stink!
Sam Brown
Dream on lap dog. Yap Yap poodle. ROTFLMAO
aeffects
> "aeffects" <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a22157bb-75e5-4bed...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 18, 4:47 pm, "Sam Brown" <samjbrow...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > "aeffects" <aeffect...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:fa1911ee-37f6-4b40...@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > you're getting your assed kicked David Von Pein. Call Vince, this is
> > > getting ugly!
>
> > Turn away from the mirror junkie, you're hallucinating again.
>
> close your legs fer Christsakes.... ya stink!
>
> Dream on lap dog. Yap Yap poodle. ROTFLMAO
yank that troll-munchers C-H-A-I-N.... ROTFLMFAO
David Von Pein
>>> "A rifle poking out {of the SN window} means nothing if it doesn't fire, as it could have been there for a distraction to draw attention away from the west window where the real shooter was." <<<
LOL. What a great addition to the "Lone Patsy" plot this was, huh?
I.E.,
The plotters trying to frame poor schnook Oswald decided to stick TWO
rifles out of opposite ends of the TSBD, and they just hoped and
prayed that nobody would notice the rifle that was REALLY firing the
bullets and MAKING ALL THE NOISE (on the WEST end)....right Mr. K?
What a kook you are. And what (double) kooks your retarded patsy-
framing plotters were! They tried to complicate an extremely-easy
assassination with multiple guns all over the place, including (per
Kook Rob) a rifle that was used JUST AS A USELESS PROP on the east end
of the building!
Ya can't beat that for retarded! Not with a stick ya can't beat it.
But at least you've got one other kook who will jump in the sack with
you on the "Prop Rifle" theory -- Donald "ARCE KILLED THE PRESIDENT"
Willis. You'd love his theories...they're every bit as stupid and
retarded as you are.
LOL replay!
>>> "The WC opened this door up and made it so easy to assert this issue by their poor report." <<<
The WC Report is excellent. It's you kooks who are severely messed up.
Simple as that. The WC came to the ONLY possible conclusion they could
have come to.
Did you expect the Warren Commission and its associated staff and
counsel members to act like you CT-favoring retards and totally IGNORE
the huge pile of evidence against Oswald, while they pretended that
some other people were involved in the shooting and/or pretended that
Oswald might have been "set up" to take the lone fall by a team of
stealth-like conspirators prior to November 22?
Maybe some crackerjack CTer who belongs to the "Anybody But Oswald"
club can rewrite the WCR, and call it "The WCR: The Retarded,
Everything-Was-Fake Edition".
>>> "They made it very obvious they did not use evidence that did not convict LHO, therefore, it is a biased opinion, and that is all it is, and not a true representation of what happened that day. I thinkd there is plenty of substantiation for it, if you would ever read Weisberg, Lane, Meagher, and Salandria as these folks basically only use the WCR and 26 volumes to show what a lie it was. They show brilliantly how the witnesses were bullied, or distorted to meet the required outcome. It is all very much COMMON SENSE stuff. Your theory is the one that is full of fantasy." <<<
Your "moron" colors are shining through once more. Because only a
total moron could believe that such a widespread cover-up operation
was being conducted by the WC and its counsel and its staff of lawyers
AND (later) the HSCA (with respect to the ONE PERSON--Oswald--whom the
HSCA said hit the victims with any bullets on Nov. 22).
>>> "You have not trashed me on anything." <<<
Oh, yes....I have. And even you know I have. You just won't admit it,
because you're buried too deep in your ridiculous unsupportable
theories to give common sense and "reasoned thinking" a fighting
chance. A pity. But expected.
>>> "You have no real proof..." <<<
Yeah....only every gun, every bullet, every shell, every print, every
"I'm Guilty" action acted out by Oswald on Nov. 22nd, and every
eyewitness to any killer on Elm Street or Tenth Street.
That's all. Just that stuff.
Must ALL be "fake" (somehow), huh?
~shrug~
>>> "You have no conviction, so you should stop acting like you have something we don't. Your case did not pass the test of a court and jury." <<<
In the only Oswald "trial" of any kind -- the 1986 TV Docu-Trial -- a
jury said your beloved "patsy" was guilty as all get out. And they
relied on--gasp!--that stuff that you say I have none of -- "real
proof" of Lee H. Oswald's guilt (namely: the evidence in the case).
I guess that jury of 12 in 1986 was "coerced" by the long arm of the
WC too, huh?
>>> "LHO never got his right to a trial and he WAS NOT FOUND GUILTY by a jury." <<<
In 1986 he was. But just keep pretending that that jury never
convicted your sweetheart. That way Lee Harvey can remain squeaky
clean....even via all "mock" trials too.
David Von Pein
December 23, 2007
tomnln
CE 510 (photo) was taken on Monday 11/25/63.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tom_alyea_film.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d130a321-0db2-428b...@c36g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...