SOP for Dealing with Wintnesses in the JFK Assassination
Harry
Tip O’Neill relates this account of a conversation with Kenneth
O’Donnell, aide to JFK, who was riding in the Secret Service car
directly behind JFK’s limousine:
“Five years after Jack died, I was having dinner with Kenny O’Donnell
and a few other people at Jimmy’s Harborside Restaurant in Boston, and
we got to talking about the assassination. I was surprised to hear
[Kenneth] O’Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that
came from behind the fence.
“That’s not what you told the Warren Commission,’ I said.
“’You’re right,’ he replied. ‘I told the FBI what I had heard, but
THEY SAID IT COULDN’T HAVE HAPPENED THAT WAY and that I must have been
imagining things. So I TESTIFIED THE WAY THEY WANTED ME TO. I just
didn’t want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family.’”
tomnln
"Harry" <harryfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21f21f82-3de6-4e5d...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
That's from O'Neil's book "Man of the House".
Do you know how to spell "Intimidation"?
Ben Holmes
Harry says...
Troll Toddy will explain to you that FBI intimidation didn't exist.
tomnln
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote in message
news:g8ccl...@drn.newsguy.com...
Toad vaughan has been Exposed HERE>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
And, HERE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/frick.htm (subject #3)
>
Gil Jesus
>
> “’You’re right,’ he replied. ‘I told the FBI what I had heard, but
> THEY SAID IT COULDN’T HAVE HAPPENED THAT WAY and that I must have been
> imagining things. So I TESTIFIED THE WAY THEY WANTED ME TO. I just
> didn’t want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family.’”
In a LEGITIMATE investigation, the investigators ASK witnesses what
they saw, they don't TELL them what they saw.
THAT'S the difference between a LEGITIMATE investigation and a coverup.
Bud
> In article <21f21f82-3de6-4e5d-8ee7-375256a9f...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Define it.
Bud
> Tip O’Neill relates this account of a conversation with Kenneth
> O’Donnell, aide to JFK, who was riding in the Secret Service car
> directly behind JFK’s limousine:
>
> “Five years after Jack died, I was having dinner with Kenny O’Donnell
> and a few other people at Jimmy’s Harborside Restaurant in Boston, and
> we got to talking about the assassination. I was surprised to hear
> [Kenneth] O’Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that
> came from behind the fence.
This is hearsay, but even had O`Donnell testified to this, it would
not have changed a thing. A lot of people were wrong about where the
thought the shots came from.
> “That’s not what you told the Warren Commission,’ I said.
>
> “’You’re right,’ he replied. ‘I told the FBI what I had heard, but
> THEY SAID IT COULDN’T HAVE HAPPENED THAT WAY and that I must have been
> imagining things. So I TESTIFIED THE WAY THEY WANTED ME TO.
Where is the intimidation?
>I just
> didn’t want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family.’”
Yah, that makes sense, his good friend was murdered, but he didn`t
want to make waves getting the person responsible. Kooks will believe
anything.
I`ve seen quotes of O`Donnell himself, sticking to what he told the
WC. Tip was probably tipsy.
Harry
Your right, troll. It never happened. Have a nice day.
Bud
Yah, O`Donnell had this to say to the Chicago Tribune about the
story that he thought shots came from behind the fence...
"The story is an absolute lie".
And...
"it`s an absolute, outright lie".
> Have a nice day.
Don`t tell me what to do, idiot.
Harry
That comes down to "Reliable Witnesses," doesn't it, troll
Don`t tell me what to do, idiot.>>>>>>
Why, IDIOT? Are you gonna climb through the computer and punch my
lights out? LOL!!
You trolls think you can set the rules on the internet and decide who
and what to believe for everyone?
Troll Assign: Present evidence that would convict LHO in a court of
law or STFU, troll!!
That's an ORDER!
Bud
Thats my standard response when cashiers and whatnot tell me to
have a nice day. I never hit them.
> You trolls think you can set the rules on the internet and decide who
> and what to believe for everyone?
No, you kooks will always believe stupid things over rational
things, thats why you are kooks. I only point this out.
> Troll Assign: Present evidence that would convict LHO in a court of
> law or STFU, troll!!
Shouldn`t I first show water is wet or the sun is hot?
> That's an ORDER!
David Von Pein
>>> "That's my standard response ["Don't tell me what to do, idiot"] when cashiers and whatnot tell me to have a nice day." <<<
I'll bet you're a real hit at Starbuck's, huh, Bud?
<grin>
Harry
How "gracious" of you, your eminence. Now tell us the story of The Old
Woman in the Shoe, except put Oswald in it. This time make his
character a gay guy--like you.
Don`t tell me what to do, idiot.>>>>>>>>
Oh Jeeves, the toilets are dirty. Snap to it!
Harry
And...
Is that so? Well, since you're a troll do have any way to verify your
statement? Do you have a copy of that particular article you'd care to
share with us? A photocopy, a link, or am I supposed to take the word
of a pompous lying jackass like you?
Harry
Shouldn`t I first show water is wet or the sun is hot? >?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you wish, you may do that. But, after that, present evidence on
this board that would convict LHO in a court of law. YOU, not the WC
or HSCA. YOU! If you're so cock-sure Oswald is guilty, then surely you
could take him into court as the prosecutor and convince a jury of his
OVERWHELMING guilt.
David Von Pein
>>> "Surely you could take him [LHO] into court as the prosecutor and convince a jury of his OVERWHELMING guilt." <<<
Vincent Bugliosi has already done that, of course. 22 years ago:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c97b33ec54d3cba7
But Bud could easily do it, too. Heck, the Comic Book Guy from "The
Simpsons" could take Oswald to trial and win with ease. In fact, he
could phone his case in, while still staying behind the counter of his
comic-book store.
In fact, it's very, very difficult to find ANY physical evidence in
the JFK and Tippit murder cases that DOESN'T lead directly back to the
kooks' favorite "patsy", L.H. Oswald.
While straining my brain just now, I'm hard-pressed to come up with a
SINGLE example of physical evidence in either 11/22 murder case that
doesn't have an Oswald tie-in. Offhand, I can think of zero such
examples.
How about you, Mr. Harry-Kook? Can you think of one? (Make-believe
kook evidence doesn't count, keep in mind. "Mausers" don't count
either, since there isn't a Mauser in sight, as far as the official
evidence is concerned. But have fun looking.)
Harry
> >>> "Surely you could take him [LHO] into court as the prosecutor and convince a jury of his OVERWHELMING guilt." <<<
>
> Vincent Bugliosi has already done that, of course. 22 years ago:
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c97b33ec54d3cba7
>
> But Bud could easily do it, too. Heck, the Comic Book Guy from "The
> Simpsons" could take Oswald to trial and win with ease. In fact, he
> could phone his case in, while still staying behind the counter of his
> comic-book store.
Jeepers, Wally, then why doesn't Budinsky do it?
>
> In fact, it's very, very difficult to find ANY physical evidence in
> the JFK and Tippit murder cases that DOESN'T lead directly back to the
> kooks' favorite "patsy", L.H. Oswald.
Then where IS that evidence, Wally?
While straining my brain just now, (LMFAO!!!!!! WHAT BRAIN, he
smirked)
I'm hard-pressed to come up with a
SINGLE example of physical evidence in either 11/22 murder case that
doesn't have an Oswald tie-in. Offhand, I can think of zero such
examples.
And am I supposed to surprised by the epiphany of yours? In trollese
it means, "I can't prove shit. I'm just on this board because mommy's
not home and I'm sooooo lonely."
> How about you, Mr. Harry-Kook?
Golly, no I can't Mr. Pine-Cone. You see Oswald is innocent until
proven guilty and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. That's
you and squirrel-brain Bud, in case you haven't figured that out.
Can you think of one? (Make-believe kook evidence doesn't count, keep
in mind. "Mausers" don't count>>>>>>>>>>>
Keep in mind, Pine-Needle, ALL evidence is presentable in a court of
law that has relevance on any particular case. The prosecution (that's
you, nitwit) can request of the court that evidence not be admitted
because of irrelevancy, BUT, he must convince the court of his
assertions that evidence has no bearing on a case. The prosecution
(that's you pecker-head) cannot arbitrarily and without authority
(since you don't have any in the first place) decide what the defense
may present on behalf of his client. You understand that, Dumbo?
> either, since there isn't a Mauser in sight, as far as the official
> evidence is concerned.>>>>>>>
This wouldn't be the first case in the history of American
jurisprudence where evidence was destroyed to convict an innocent
person.
You know Ozzie, you're really a stupid little twit. Just a friendly
reminder in case you'd forgotten.
David Von Pein
>>> "Golly, no I can't Mr. Pine-Cone." <<<
Translation: Harry The Mega-Kook can't think of a single piece of
physical evidence that doesn't have an "Oswald tie-in" attached to it,
and yet (per Mr. Kook) there isn't a shred of evidence to take into a
courtroom to convict Oswald of the 2 murders he committed.
Fascinatingly-backward Kook Logic there.
Nice job, Harold.
>>> "You know Ozzie, you're really a stupid little twit. Just a friendly reminder in case you'd forgotten." <<<
The kook is now apparently talking to the dead (via the "Ozzie"
remark). That must be either Lee Oswald or Ozzie Nelson, huh?
And....
Just in case you've forgotten, Harry -- You're a conspiracy-loving ABO
(Anybody-But-Oswald) kook/moron/idiot/savant (coming close to being in
Rob-Kook's league, in fact; congrats).
Harry
> >>> "Golly, no I can't Mr. Pine-Cone." <<<
>
> Translation: Harry The Mega-Kook can't think of a single piece of
> physical evidence that doesn't have an "Oswald tie-in" attached to it,
> and yet (per Mr. Kook) there isn't a shred of evidence to take into a
> courtroom to convict Oswald of the 2 murders he committed.
>
> Fascinatingly-backward Kook Logic there.
>
> Nice job, Harold.
>
> >>> "You know Ozzie, you're really a stupid little twit. Just a friendly reminder in case you'd forgotten." <<<
>
> The kook is now apparently talking to the dead (via the "Ozzie"
> remark). That must be either Lee Oswald or Ozzie Nelson, huh?
>
> And....
>
> Just in case you've forgotten, Harry
Actual Translation: David Von Dipshit can't think of a single piece of
physical evidence that he could bring into court to convict the person
he keeps persecuting shamelessly.
Fascinatingly-backward LONE-NUT Logic there. All one has to do is
point a finger, like the Spanish Inquisition, and falsely accuse
someone with no proof, then expect the accused to prove the accuser is
lying. Is this the 21rst Century or the Middle Ages?
Just in case you've forgotten, Pine-Cone, the burden of proof lies in
YOUR corner, not mine.
Ozzie surely wasn't a reference to Ozzie Osborne, you nut-job.
Still waiting for you to prove LHO guilty. Tick, tick, tick.........
David Von Pein
I guess Harry The Kook's memory isn't even in the "6-minute" range I
mentioned in a prior post -- his is more like 6 seconds.
To remind "ABO Harry", he just said a few minutes ago that he couldn't
think of ONE piece of physical evidence in either murder case (JFK's
or Tippit's) that DIDN'T lead back to Saint Oswald -- but the kook
then says I'm "persecuting shamelessly" the likes of poor innocent Mr.
Oswald, and I'm "falsely [accusing]" the poor boy from New Orleans
named Lee.
Go figure.
Apparently, then, per the Mega-Kook, "ALL" of the evidence leading
toward the defendant (Oswald) really equals "NO EVIDENCE" pointing
toward the defendant (Oswald).
Is that about the size of the situation as she exists in your ABO
mind, Mr. K-word?
>>> "Ozzie surely wasn't a reference to Ozzie Osborne, you nut-job." <<<
Was he related to that guy named Osborne who sat beside Oswald on the
bus during LHO's trip to Mexico City? ;)
(You know, that was the bus trip to Mexico that you kooks think Oswald
never took.)
>>> "David Von [Pein] [--my hero--] can't think of a single piece of physical evidence that he could bring into court to convict the person he keeps persecuting shamelessly." <<<
Yeah, only every single piece of physical evidence that's available in
this case. That's all. Nothing more.
But that's not nearly enough for an ABO kook. They need to invent
imaginary non-Oswald evidence in order to free their poor patsy who
they pretend never fired a shot.
But let's listen to what a seasoned lawyer has to say regarding the
topic of "Evidence Admissibility", shall we?:
"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; PAGE
442 OF "RH" ENDNOTES (c.2007)
http://blog.myspace.com/davidvp1961
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Surely you could take him [LHO] into court as the prosecutor and convince a jury of his OVERWHELMING guilt." <<<
>
> Vincent Bugliosi has already done that, of course. 22 years ago:
Law & Order is more realistic than this docu-trial! LOL!!!
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c97b33ec54d3cba7
>
> But Bud could easily do it, too. Heck, the Comic Book Guy from "The
> Simpsons" could take Oswald to trial and win with ease. In fact, he
> could phone his case in, while still staying behind the counter of his
> comic-book store.
>
> In fact, it's very, very difficult to find ANY physical evidence in
> the JFK and Tippit murder cases that DOESN'T lead directly back to the
> kooks' favorite "patsy", L.H. Oswald.
LOL!!! How about naming some of this physical evidence for kicks?
>
> While straining my brain just now, I'm hard-pressed to come up with a
> SINGLE example of physical evidence in either 11/22 murder case that
> doesn't have an Oswald tie-in. Offhand, I can think of zero such
> examples.
Dave suffers from NOT understanding almost all things needd in this
case, but in this case he fails to understand what constitutes
evidence.
> How about you, Mr. Harry-Kook? Can you think of one? (Make-believe
> kook evidence doesn't count, keep in mind. "Mausers" don't count
> either, since there isn't a Mauser in sight, as far as the official
> evidence is concerned. But have fun looking.)
Au contraire mon frere, there were two SIGNED affadavits that mention
a Mauser and the CIA was still refering to the weapon as a Mauser 5
days later in a memo.
David Von Pein
>>> "How about naming some of this physical evidence for kicks?" <<<
Yeah, that's only been done about 98-million times since '63. But
evidently Robby's "magic number" is 99-million before any of can be
accepted.
(Rob has a 4-second memory it would appear.)
>>> "Dave suffers from NOT understanding almost all things needed in this case, but in this case he fails to understand what constitutes evidence." <<<
Like Harry, Robby suffers from "All The Evidence = No Evidence"
disease.
Too bad there's not a pill you can take to remedy that ailment.
>>> "There were two SIGNED affadavits that mention a Mauser and the CIA was still referring to the weapon as a Mauser 5 days later in a memo." <<<
But where's this mysterious Mauser when you kooks need it?
Answer: It's gone.
And the reason for that is: It never existed in the first place.
In simplistic terms, a "Mauser" is a generic term for a "bolt-action"
gun, which Oswald's MC was.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "How about naming some of this physical evidence for kicks?" <<<
>
> Yeah, that's only been done about 98-million times since '63. But
> evidently Robby's "magic number" is 99-million before any of can be
> accepted.
>
> (Rob has a 4-second memory it would appear.)
NO, once again Dave is wrong. Assertions, suppositions, and
allegations have been mentioned 98 million times, NOT proof and
evidence.
> >>> "Dave suffers from NOT understanding almost all things needed in this case, but in this case he fails to understand what constitutes evidence." <<<
>
> Like Harry, Robby suffers from "All The Evidence = No Evidence"
> disease.
>
> Too bad there's not a pill you can take to remedy that ailment.
Dave suffers from offering opinion as evidence and he then wonders why
no one believes him.
> >>> "There were two SIGNED affadavits that mention a Mauser and the CIA was still referring to the weapon as a Mauser 5 days later in a memo." <<<
>
> But where's this mysterious Mauser when you kooks need it?
>
> Answer: It's gone.
>
> And the reason for that is: It never existed in the first place.
>
> In simplistic terms, a "Mauser" is a generic term for a "bolt-action"
> gun, which Oswald's MC was.
You are full of it. No one uses "Mauser" as a generic term for bolt-
actioned rifles, if they did all BOLT-ACTIONED RIFLES would be called
Mausers, and they were not. I have studied WWII for 25 years and I
know beyond Germany and Austria all other countries in the war used
different terms for their rifles (satellites of the Axis also would
incorporate some of the weapons as well, but they all had their own
models as well). Why are the British ones called "Enfields" instead
of "Mauser?" Why are the American ones called "Springfields" instead
of "Mausers?" Talk about clueless.
Walt
Now there's a challenge!! Anybody making book on Bud's willingness
to accept that challenge??
If someones taking bets....I'd like to get in on the action. I love
betting on sure things.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt
wrote:
> On Aug 19, 8:52 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "How about naming some of this physical evidence for kicks?" <<<
>
> > Yeah, that's only been done about 98-million times since '63. But
> > evidently Robby's "magic number" is 99-million before any of can be
> > accepted.
>
> > (Rob has a 4-second memory it would appear.)
>
> NO, once again Dave is wrong. Assertions, suppositions, and
> allegations have been mentioned 98 million times, NOT proof and
> evidence.
>
> > >>> "Dave suffers from NOT understanding almost all things needed in this case, but in this case he fails to understand what constitutes evidence." <<<
>
> > Like Harry, Robby suffers from "All The Evidence = No Evidence"
> > disease.
>
> > Too bad there's not a pill you can take to remedy that ailment.
>
> Dave suffers from offering opinion as evidence and he then wonders why
> no one believes him.
>
> > >>> "There were two SIGNED affadavits that mention a Mauser and the CIA was still referring to the weapon as a Mauser 5 days later in a memo." <<<
>
> > But where's this mysterious Mauser when you kooks need it?
>
> > Answer: It's gone.
>
> > And the reason for that is: It never existed in the first place.
>
> > In simplistic terms, a "Mauser" is a generic term for a "bolt-action"
> > gun, which Oswald's MC was.
>
> You are full of it. No one uses "Mauser" as a generic term for bolt-
> actioned rifles, if they did all BOLT-ACTIONED RIFLES would be called
> Mausers, and they were not.
Rob ya just stuck yer foot in yer mouth again.... Many old timers
referred to any large caliber bolt action militaty rifle as a
"Mauser" The bolt action rifle became prominent durring WWI. Prior to
WWI many military rifles were lever action rifles. Many old timers
generically called these lever action rifles "Winchesters" because
most of them were manufactured by Winchester Arms Corp. Likewise
many oldtimers referred to any bolt action military rifle as a
"Mauser".
Ya know Rob.....You are your own worst enemy. You let yer alligator
mouth over load yer tadpole ass many times. I'm reluctant to say
that because you obviously are on the CT team..... But sometimes I
wish you'd join the LNer's team.
Harry
Then PRESENT IT. Or is sentence too hard for you to comprehend?
> "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.>>>>>>>>>
OUTRIGHT LIE!!!
Since you want to engage in lies, this conversation is over.
If you don't understand what a lie is, here's a link to dictionary.com
Use it.
David Von Pein
>>> "No one uses "Mauser" as a generic term for bolt-actioned rifles..." <<<
Better go inform Deputy Boone (who first discovered Oswald's rifle on
the 6th Floor) of that fact then, Mister Foot-In-Mouth:
VINCE BUGLIOSI (at '86 mock trial; paraphrased): "Is the word 'Mauser'
used as a generic term meaning 'bolt-action rifle'?"
DEPUTY EUGENE BOONE: "Yes."
Harry
Deputy Boone, Mrs. Dipshit, discovered a 7.65 Mauser. The word
"Mauser" was stamped in the barrel according to a more "reliable"
witness.
OK, Senor Putz?
Anyone that would drag BUG-LEE-0-SEE out to try to prove ANYTHING
believes in Moon Maidens.
If you want to watch TV so much, try Jerry Springer. He's more to your
tastes anyway, Dumb Fuck.
David Von Pein
>>> "This conversation is over." <<<
Thank heavens. I get tired of correcting your insane notions all day
long.
Please go away. Forever. One kook of Robcap's ilk around here is more
than enough. My weak bladder can't handle two of you on a daily basis.
So have some pity. Please.
Harry
Piss yourself and see who cares. You're one of the most idiotic,
stupid, inane, senseless idiots on planet Earth. Of course, this isn't
news to you. Many people in your lifetime have informed of this.
Probably even your own parents, SHITHEAD!
tomnln
Weitzman
Boone
Mooney
Craig
"IN THE PRESENCE OF Capt.FRITZ/Lt. DAY"
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
"Harry" <harryfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3acee93d-2aec-46c1...@v1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Bud
> On 19 Aug, 07:42, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 19, 5:51 am,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 18, 10:05 pm, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > On Aug 18, 9:27 pm, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
You guys do understand Oswald is dead, right?
Bud
> On Aug 18, 7:54 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 18, 9:27 pm, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Dave Rietzes produced the whole article in this thread....
Harry
DO YOU? It wouldn't appear so the way you keep FALSELY claiming the he
committed the crime of the 20th century with no evidence to back you
claim.
Harry
>
> > A photocopy, a link, or am I supposed to take the word
> > of a pompous lying jackass like you?
Dave Rietzes produced the whole article in this thread....>>>>>>>>>>
And just who, pray tell, is David Rietzes? Another LONE-NUT WACKO like
yourself?
Bud
Yah. I even understand that trials aren`t conducted against dead
people. DO YOU?
>It wouldn't appear so the way you keep FALSELY claiming the he
> committed the crime of the 20th century with no evidence to back you
> claim.
What a stupid thing to say.
Bud
The guy who produced the Chicago Tribune article you asked for. Do
try to keep up.
> Another LONE-NUT WACKO like
> yourself?
Not whacko enough to think that what someone said O`Donnell told
them trumps what came straight from O`Donnell.
Harry
You hold Oswald up to TRIAL every day you exist, you stupid fruitcake.
Prove he's guilty, chimp lips, and stop trying to backpedal out of it.
Coward!
Harry
Why don't YOU produce the article instead of just slapping links on
the internet?
So sorry, Buffalo Butt, I don't KEEP UP with LONE-NOTE Wacko web
sites.
Do you, in all the wisdom that resides in that itty bitty little pea
brain of yours, know EVERYTHING there is to know concerning the
assassination?
No?
I didn't think so, ya pompous dick head.
tomnln
The one who was paid by the CIA/FBI?
ORRRRRRRRR,
The Fake Oswald in nMexico City that Timmy believes is....
5 ft. 3 inches tall
Blond Haired
119 pounds?
"Harry" <harryfr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:62ce6d27-d6aa-43e3...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Bud
I referred you to the post where the article was provided. Did you
read it? Did you understand it?
> So sorry, Buffalo Butt, I don't KEEP UP with LONE-NOTE Wacko web
> sites.
But you did start this post. How did you think that anything anyone
said O`Donnell said could outweigh what O`Donnell himself said?
> Do you, in all the wisdom that resides in that itty bitty little pea
> brain of yours, know EVERYTHING there is to know concerning the
> assassination?
No, but when I do come across information, I have some idea how to
weigh it properly.
> No?
>
> I didn't think so, ya pompous dick head.
<snicker> Thats some weak flaming.
Harry
<snicker> Thats some weak flaming.>>>>>>>.
If you have some POINT to prove, then prove it. Don't expect people to
go on wild goose chases for your amusement. You still have not not
posted anything here to prove your assertion. Until you do, I'll just
consider you to be liar that, in reality, you are.
Apparently not. It got you to respond, piss ant. <snicker>
Have a nice day, DUMBO.
Bud
You presented this premise, and I`d say you proved it. This was an
example of the standard way kooks treat witnesses in the JFK
assassination.
> Don't expect people to
> go on wild goose chases for your amusement.
What good would information on a silver platter do you? You`re an
idiot, information is wasted on you.
> You still have not not
> posted anything here to prove your assertion.
My assertion is "What O`Donnell actually said trumps what someone
said he said". You need that verified?
> Until you do, I'll just
> consider you to be liar that, in reality, you are.
>
> Apparently not. It got you to respond, piss ant. <snicker>
>
> Have a nice day, DUMBO.
What are you, nine?
Harry
No, I posted what Tip O'Neill related about what Kenneth O'Donnell
said in his presence. You jumped in the refute it with no evidence
other than your word since And since you are a troll, your word is
absolutely worthless.
What good would information on a silver platter do you? >>>>>>>
Yes. If you have a valid point to make, back it up with proof, IDIOT!
You're a known liar and no one is going to take your word as gospel,
troll.
You`re an diot, information is wasted on you.>>>>>>
If you have no information in the first place, I can understand your
attitude when you get called to task and can't provide. So sorry,
chump.
My assertion is "What O`Donnell actually said trumps what someone said
he said". You need that verified?>>>>>
OPINION not FACT. Your OPINION is worthless to me as well as others.
What are you, nine?>>>>>>>
What are you, senile?
Have a nice day, piss ant.
Bud
The fact is that what O`Donnell had to say under oath has been on
record for decades.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/odonnell.htm
>Your OPINION is worthless to me as well as others.
>
> What are you, nine?>>>>>>>
>
> What are you, senile?
>
> Have a nice day, piss ant.
Seven?
Harry
Oh, look. Bud posted a link to the Idiot John McAdams site. Thank you,
Bud. That was very kind of you. The only thing is John McAdams is
flaming douche bag, just like you.
It makes me wonder why you are so intent on insulting the intelligence
of the rest of the world by expecting us to fall for the fairy tales
you hold so dear to your pea-picking little heart.
No wait, I've got figured out now. The answer is that you're a damned
idiot!
IDIOT!!
Still senile?
Bud
> On Aug 19, 7:29 pm,Bud<sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 19, 8:11 pm, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > On Aug 19, 6:47 pm, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > > On Aug 19, 4:56 pm, Harry <harryfreeloa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> flaming douche bag, just like you.
It`s a link to O`Donnell`s WC testimony, knucklehead. You should
read it, maybe you`ll learn what O`Donnell had to say about the event.
> It makes me wonder why you are so intent on insulting the intelligence
> of the rest of the world by expecting us to fall for the fairy tales
> you hold so dear to your pea-picking little heart.
>
> No wait, I've got figured out now. The answer is that you're a damned
> idiot!
Not idiotic enough to take an uncorroborated "he said" over
O`Donnell`s sworn testimony.
> IDIOT!!
>
> Still senile?
Stll seven?
Harry
I'm not interested in anything you have to post any more, Dipshit. If
you like playing puerile games, go back to kindergarten. You'll be a
riot with the teacher. You can't stand up like a reasonable man and
make your points. That's not why your here anyway. You came to the
board--who knows when, and who cares--to agitate. Take your medicine
show and snake oil down the road, fool.
The epithet on your gravestone?--HERE LIES AN ASSHOLE.
Still sniff your own farts?
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Surely you could take him [LHO] into court as the prosecutor and convince a jury of his OVERWHELMING guilt." <<<
>
> Vincent Bugliosi has already done that, of course. 22 years ago:
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c97b33ec54d3cba7
LOL!!!!! Dave makes a big banner headline about taking on witnesses,
and then when asked to he refers to Bugman. Reprise: LOL!!! Dave,
that was a T.V. SHOW!!! ALL T.V. shows have a SCRIPT, and the outcome
is KNOWN ahead of time. Geez, I wish I had some swampland to sell as
I know the first person I would offer it to.
> But Bud could easily do it, too. Heck, the Comic Book Guy from "The
> Simpsons" could take Oswald to trial and win with ease. In fact, he
> could phone his case in, while still staying behind the counter of his
> comic-book store.
LOL!!! Oh Dave, stop, thankfully I DON'T have a weak bladder like
you! IF this is the truth why can't you or Bud show any of this guilt
here on this forum at any time? You two prove NOTHING, day in and day
out.
> In fact, it's very, very difficult to find ANY physical evidence in
> the JFK and Tippit murder cases that DOESN'T lead directly back to the
> kooks' favorite "patsy", L.H. Oswald.
Funny how that worked huh? I mean they got all this "evidence" in a
few hours didn't they? Unfortunately for you Dave, those of us who
know all about this "evidence" know it proves nothing of the sort (LHO
did it alone, or at all). Lay some of this "evidence" on us poorly
ill-informed folks again, okay?
> While straining my brain just now, I'm hard-pressed to come up with a
> SINGLE example of physical evidence in either 11/22 murder case that
> doesn't have an Oswald tie-in. Offhand, I can think of zero such
> examples.
Here's just one of the top of my head: JFK's back wound was at the
T-3 level, too far right of the spine and did NOT transverse the
body. Yet you claim this same wound was linked to the throat wound.
I say produce a probe picture linking these two wonds to settle the
issue. This is key, for if Dave can't PROVE the SBT (and this is the
key wound for this) then there is only one other conclusion - multiple
shooters. Let's see your PROOF once and for all Dave. I dare you!
> How about you, Mr. Harry-Kook? Can you think of one? (Make-believe
> kook evidence doesn't count, keep in mind. "Mausers" don't count
> either, since there isn't a Mauser in sight, as far as the official
> evidence is concerned. But have fun looking.)
See above, but here's a bonus question: Why did the prosectors of the
autopsy put the wound in the back of the head at the EOP area when the
lateral X-ray shows a 10 cm trail of metal at the top of the head?
Prove to me the bullet entering in the lower portion of the head could
leave a trial of metal at the top of the head. While you are at it,
prove how FMJ bullets (supposedly the type LHO used) left a trail of
metal in the first place.
Oh wait, there are so many to ask, here's another: Prove LHO fired a
rifle on 11/22/63. When you have handled these three I'll come up
with more "homework" for you.