Mr. DA.... V.Bugliosi
aeffects
comment, eh? Dave? Was this material covered in the boat anchor?
*****************
A Lawyer's Notes on the Warren Commission Report
by Alfredda Scobey * Law Assistant to the Court of Appeals of Georgia
American Bar Association Journal, January 1965, Vol. 51, pages 39-43.
[...]
The Evidentiary Aspects of the Report
From a legal standpoint, analysis of the report and particularly
of Chapter IV stating that the case against Oswald, is of special
interest because of its evidentiary aspects. It has been widely
deplored that Oswald was killed before he could be brought to trial.
Our basic emotional and intellectual demands that the concepts of due
process and fair trial be observed have led both lawyers and laymen to
the conclusion that in the absence of such a trial during the lifetime
of the accused, carrying with it the defendant's right to procure and
present his own side of the story, something will be lacking in the
conclusion reached. Had this document set out to be a brief for the
prosecution, that would indeed have been true. SINCE IT IS NOT, THE
FACT IS INESCAPABLE THAT THE REPORT, ALTHOUGH CRAMMED WITH FACTS THAT
WOULD **NOT** BE ADMISSABLE ON THE TRIAL OF A CRIMINAL CASE, SETS OUT
THE WHOLE PICTURE IN A PERSPECTIVE A CRIMINAL TRIAL COULD NEVER
ACHIEVE (emphasis mine)
[...]
YoHarvey
Wtf does this have to do with anything? Healy? There are times I
believe you type for the sake of proving to this audience that you are
one dumb SOB. There is no other explanantion for your behavior. You
have got to be fighting mental health. Can't be anything else. Your
postings lack intelligence, cohesiveness, and any semblance
that you know anything about the events of 11/22. If more ignorant
people like you exist on this earth, only you Jesus/Robcap, Rossley
and Holmes are members of the club.
robcap...@netscape.com
This highlights the LNers inability to comprehend the case, the
evidence (they don't really even know this stuff) and the rules of
court. This person's comment about what does this post have to do
with anything shows this in all its glory. The post is clear to
anyone who can think what the writer is saying. No addressal of the
points made, just personal attacks, standard operating proceedure for
the LNers I guess.
aeffects
wrote:
way back in 1965 the above cite no-less -- so its reasonable to assume
if LHO been tried, he stood a good chance of walking... the WCR was a
farce in 1964 as it is now..... the Lone Nutter's have no clue what
their supporting
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
This highlights the LNers inability to comprehend the case, the
evidence (they don't really even know this stuff) and the rules of
court. This person's comment about what does this post have to do
with anything shows this in all its glory. The post is clear to
anyone who can think what the writer is saying. No addressal of the
points made, just personal attacks, standard operating proceedure for
the LNers I guess.
Jesus/Robcap? Guess what "toots". As long as you, or one of your
pseudonyms continues to post pure and total bullshit, I'll be all over
you like white on rice. Get used to it. By the time I'm done with
you, you won't show that ugly face in public again. Whether LHO would
have been convicted at trial is speculative. Nothing more. For you
to post as you did is nothing more than the same bullshit and crap you
have posted for years. 44 years AND AGAIN NOTHING BUT SPECULATION.
Your entire existence is based on speculation. The night you were
conceived, your father was probably working and whomever fucked your
mother that night...got her knocked up with speculation. Because
that's all you are.....it's all you'll ever be. Failed speculation.
Live with it.
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20b916b9-5ca4-4599...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
Wtf does this have to do with anything? Healy? There are times I
believe you type for the sake of proving to this audience that you are
one dumb SOB. There is no other explanantion for your behavior. You
have got to be fighting mental health. Can't be anything else. Your
postings lack intelligence, cohesiveness, and any semblance
that you know anything about the events of 11/22. If more ignorant
people like you exist on this earth, only you Jesus/Robcap, Rossley
and Holmes are members of the club.
WRONG AGAIN SPIFFY;
Just from THIS forum, there are 17 of us "doin" yer wife.
Yer the STUPID one.
GO FOR IT>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
already been discussed at this NG/Forum.
Perhaps Healy-Kook forgot. ......
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c119a29302dc1339
"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 T. Bugliosi;
Page 442 of the Endnotes in "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of
President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)
robcap...@netscape.com
> This topic of "admissibility in a court of law" (from VB's POV) has
> already been discussed at this NG/Forum.
>
> Perhaps Healy-Kook forgot. ......
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c119a29302dc1339
>
"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. ...."
Very true, the chain of custody in most of the "evidence" is abysmal.
"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."
Same goes for Official Theory Buffs (OTB), and the evidence shows us
he was not guilty, therefore, when you consider how much court
wouldn't allow on top of the weak case you have to start with, what do
you think would happen? This is also a ridiculous statement as he is
implying we do not consider LHO's guilt when looking at the "evidence"
presented. It goes hand-in-hand, they are NOT seperate issues.
"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."
What is he smoking? Doesn't he realize drugs are illegal? He has to
be laughing when he writes this stuff.
"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."
Who said they did? NO one is claiming this point as fact, it has
nothing to do with the custody issues in the JFK case, which are
abysmal for the most part. Gregory Hines would be proud of this tap
dancing.
"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 T. Bugliosi;
Page 442 of the Endnotes in "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of
President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)
He is so full of it, if it can be shown the "evidence" is questionable
due to the way it was accepted it is not allowed, period. Maybe he
railroaded everyone, but there are rules in court and thankfully they
are followed more than they aren't.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e4776aef88c2e3b9
>>> "He {Vince B.} is so full of it, if it can be shown the "evidence" is questionable due to the way it was accepted it is not allowed, period." <<<
So there we have it folks, straight from the lips of "Prosecutor
Caprio".
Caprio, in effect, is saying that he knows much more about courtroom
procedures and "admissibility rules" than does Vincent T. Bugliosi,
who served as Deputy D.A. in Los Angeles County for 8 years and won
105 of 106 felony jury trials in that capacity.
So, "Caprio The Kook" evidently thinks that VB is merely lying through
his prosecutorial teeth when Vince said this in B&W in an endnote in
"Reclaiming History":
"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"." -- VB
=======================
I, for one, think it's about time for Robert Caprio to shut his
ignorant mouth when it comes to things he obviously knows Jack-Shit
about.
Of course, Mr. Kook WON'T shut his ignorant mouth. I'm just saying
it'd be wise it he did stick a dirty sock in it.
But I would guess Robby The Moron will continue to embarrass himself
endlessly on this forum when it comes to every single solitary aspect
of John Kennedy's murder (and also with respect to Vince Bugliosi's
masterpiece of a book), with every one of Rob's incredibly-stupid
Google posts being archived, so that years from now we can revisit
Rob's insane ramblings whenever a good laugh is needed (or whenever
some college student somewhere, in the year 2027, wants to locate
material for his upcoming psychological essay, entitled "CONSPIRACY-
LOVING KOOKS: EVALUATING THEIR STRANGE MINDSET").
Ben Holmes
robcap...@netscape.com says...
"... I discussed the evidence at length with two acknowledged authorities on
both Texas and United States law, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas
and former Watergate special prosecutor and assistant Texas attorney general
Leon Jaworski. After reviewing the evidence and its handling by the
authorities, both Fortas and Jaworski unhesitatingly declared that virtually all
of the evidence gatheed by the authorities would eventually have been disallowed
because of the shamefully incompetent and sinister manner in which it was
handled." - The JFK Assassination Debates by Michael Kurtz, pg 50.
I suspect that a former U.S. Supreme Court justice, and a former Assistant Texas
Attorney General would be a tad more knowledgeable about the law than Bugliosi -
who, after all, obviously never made it to the heights of the legal profession
that these two experts did.
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/e4776aef...
>
> >>> "He {Vince B.} is so full of it, if it can be shown the "evidence" is questionable due to the way it was accepted it is not allowed, period." <<<
"So there we have it folks, straight from the lips of "Prosecutor
Caprio"."
Finally Davey is catching on! Show me one piece of major "evidence"
that did not hve a questionable chain of custody. Just one.
"Caprio, in effect, is saying that he knows much more about courtroom
procedures and "admissibility rules" than does Vincent T. Bugliosi,
who served as Deputy D.A. in Los Angeles County for 8 years and won
105 of 106 felony jury trials in that capacity."
No Von Pein (I guess we are on last name basis now) what I am saying
is Bugliosi is lying when he says this stuff. I said awhile ago that
the JFK case has a different set of rules in all aspects from real
life. IF the chain of custody in this case was presented in any other
case, there is no doubt the majority of it would NOT be admissable.
"So, "Caprio The Kook" evidently thinks that VB is merely lying
through his prosecutorial teeth when Vince said this in B&W in an
endnote in "Reclaiming History":"
You took the words right out of my mouth. He is, as I would like to
see him present the chain of custody in the JFK case in any other case
and see what happens.
"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"." -- VB"
And I'm supposed to just believe this because? I don't buy it.
> =======================
"I, for one, think it's about time for Robert Caprio to shut his
ignorant mouth when it comes to things he obviously knows Jack-Shit
about."
Okay Archie, remember this isn't Nazi Germany, I'm allowed to attack
your idol if I want to.
"Of course, Mr. Kook WON'T shut his ignorant mouth. I'm just saying
it'd be wise it he did stick a dirty sock in it."
Why should I? Why don't you stop posting this lying garbage and then I
won't have to comment on it?
"But I would guess Robby The Moron will continue to embarrass himself
endlessly on this forum when it comes to every single solitary aspect
of John Kennedy's murder (and also with respect to Vince Bugliosi's
masterpiece of a book), with every one of Rob's incredibly-stupid
Google posts being archived, so that years from now we can revisit
Rob's insane ramblings whenever a good laugh is needed (or whenever
some college student somewhere, in the year 2027, wants to locate
material for his upcoming psychological essay, entitled "CONSPIRACY-
LOVING KOOKS: EVALUATING THEIR STRANGE MINDSET")."
Tsk, tsk, Davey is getting personal again, this means he knows he has
nothing. Bugman is a paid con man who pushes the WC because it pays
better than whatever he was doing before (which was not lawyering). I
think when people look back on these posts (and let's be honest,
hardly anyone will be looking at anybody's post in 20 years) they will
see the truth, as I'm sure it will be exposed by then. You be shown
as the dishonest, albeit well-paid, con man shill for the DOJ.
P.S. With the losers that post here as LNers, I'm not too worried
about looking bad to this group.
tomnln
"robcap...@netscape.com" <robc...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:f9337bc0-ccd3-486d...@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
This highlights the LNers inability to comprehend the case, the
evidence (they don't really even know this stuff) and the rules of
court. This person's comment about what does this post have to do
with anything shows this in all its glory. The post is clear to
anyone who can think what the writer is saying. No addressal of the
points made, just personal attacks, standard operating proceedure for
the LNers I guess.
Don't let the personal attaqcfks bother you.
Just enjoy the RETALIATIONS.
Lots of them have RUN.
Some have RUN & come back under other names.
(too embarrassed)
NONE will address these>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomnln
WHO is Yo(Momma)Harvey?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/baileynme.htm
WHAT does he RUN From?>>>
1 Rossley
2 Evidence/Testimony>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
3 BUBBA
tomnln
of a "Warren Commission Attorney".
KEEP on destroying the credibility of the Warren Commission David.
NO Wonder you RUN from WC evidence/testimony>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5d641796-9305-4556...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
> This topic of "admissibility in a court of law" (from VB's POV) has
> already been discussed at this NG/Forum.
never has it been discussed on this board -- you're a liar! Bugliosi
has never posted to this board.... which make you a fraud perpetrating
lies....
Now if you be so kind to have your chain puller make his presence
known here, there's a few attorney's waiting in the wings with a few
questions --- mano-a-mano, eh? Vinnie all caught up on Texas Law?
1963 style?
DavidVP-KOOK (aka Dave Reitzes) why do you make this so easy --
aeffects
> In article <aff34946-0e4f-4b6d-8ace-43b924fec...@21g2000hsj.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein will be silent... no place to run - no place to hide.
Is there ANY doubt WHY the won't debate the admissiable JFK
assassination evidence.... Your silence Dave, is the sweet sound of a
drum softly sounding throughout all Lone Nut KOOKdom. Carry on hon!
Give my best to Vin! That book made the $3/bin at K-Mart yet?
David Von Pein
>>> "Never has it been discussed on this board -- you're a liar!" <<<
DVP SAYS:
Healy is an idiot (naturally).
I even posted a direct link to a post where those exact words of VB's
re. admissibility of evidence were previously posted by me on Nov.
12th. This link:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c119a29302dc1339
And what does Healy-Kook respond with? This --- "Never has it been
discussed on this board -- you're a liar!"
That was a short vacation from the forum, huh Liar Healy?
BTW, if Dave Reitzes by chance reads this, remember to get together
with me before you file your income-tax return, because since you and
I are the same person, per a Super-Kook named Healy, we should be able
to save some money on our collective taxes this year.
There's no sense in filing 2 separate returns, esp. since our tax
brackets are each quite high now, due to the increased "Disinfo"
salary that the CIA has been paying us since Vincent's book hit the
stands in May. We oughta clean up pretty good since we're the same
person.
David Von Pein
"Admissibility" Addendum:
BTW.....linked below is another NG post where the previously-mentioned
VB quote was brought up (by me of course) on these Google Forums
(actually two posts, because I posted the same thing on the moderated
side after posting it here in the asylum, on December 4th and 5th,
2007); the full Dec. 4-5 post in question is copied below the links,
with that post containing some additional CS&L re. the Connally
stretcher bullet that CT-Kooks love to avoid like the clap).
So, as usual, Healy-Kook doesn't know his anal crack from the crack
that makes him high daily. .....
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/da5ae470e20d28a9
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1bb1139f2a953ceb
========================================
RE-POST FROM DECEMBER 2007:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/4a8a545a45c91fa9
>>> "David, there is NO evidence the bullet was found on Connally's
stretcher..." <<<
Sure there is. Connally's stretcher just BEING in that hallway is
circumstantial evidence that CE399 was found on CONNALLY'S stretcher.
When coupled with the fact that the occupant (Ronnie Fuller) of the
ONLY OTHER stretcher that is a candidate of producing Bullet CE399 was
most certainly NOT shot with a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet from Oswald's
rifle on 11/22/63 (was he?)....well, the stretcher choices get
narrowed down to a pretty small number -- to one -- Connally's.
Plus: There's Darrell Tomlinson himself, who certainly seemed a tad
bit confused regarding the stretcher issue when he said this to the
Warren Commission:
ARLEN SPECTER -- "Now, Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was
stretcher "A" that you took out of the elevator and not stretcher
"B"?"
DARRELL TOMLINSON -- "Well, really, I can't be positive, just to be
perfectly honest about it, I can't be positive, because I really
didn't pay that much attention to it. The stretcher was on the
elevator and I pushed it off of there and I believe we made one or two
calls up before I straightened out the stretcher up against the wall."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tomlinso.htm
>>> "As a result it's difficult to figure out where the bullet came from and what wounds it created." <<<
It's not difficult at all....unless you want to believe in something
quite EXTRAordinary in nature, i.e., either a "planted" bullet or a
"switched" bullet.
And the latter option requires most/many CTers to abandon the notion
that ANY bullet could emerge in very good shape after breaking those
bones in JBC. Because isn't it the conventional theory among many
CTers that WHATEVER bullet was found on WHATEVER stretcher it was
found on, it was an INTACT, UNFRAGMENTED bullet that certainly wasn't
mangled beyond recognition?
And don't extraordinary accusations and theories require some degree
of associated extraordinary PROOF to back them up and make them take
flight?
Or, as Vince B. is wont to say, is the mere accusation and rumor
enough to substitute for proof of bullet-handling
underhandedness? .....
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the
tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty
pieces of solid evidence; ...treats rumors, even questions, as the
equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to
the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain
everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent
Bugliosi; Page xliii of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
========
"It is...remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't
troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that
Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation
that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." --
Vincent Bugliosi; Page 952 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)
========
>>> "Dr. Aguilar has successfully demonstrated that Bugliosi's book fails to answer some of the questions surrounding this bullet {CE399}." <<<
Bugliosi has answered them just fine. And that's because Vince relies
not only on the other "LHO bullet" evidence to prop up the obviousness
regarding CE399 (and all of the other many things that spell out "LHO
Shot JFK With Rifle C2766"), but Vincent also uses ample amounts of
common sense to beat the CTers into the backwoods (where they belong)
with respect to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, too.
Like this short (but sweet) example:
"The whole issue of what stretcher the bullet was found on,
Connally's or some unknown person's, is a giant nonissue. Since we
know that the bullet was fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle, and we
know it wasn't found on Kennedy's stretcher, it had to have been found
on Connally's stretcher." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 431 of "Reclaiming
History" (Endnotes CD)(c.2007)
========
By the way, regarding the "admissibility" of certain JFK assassination
evidence, Bugliosi has this to say (although, granted, VB doesn't
mention "CE399" in this passage specifically, but it's worth a look
anyway, coming as it does from a seasoned ex-prosecutor who certainly
knows his "Rules of Law"):
"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; Page
442 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes CD)(c.2007)
========
>>> "This is the kind of essay {the one written by Dr. Gary Aguilar} Bugliosi would have welcomed, prior to publication, should he have been sincerely interested in writing a great book. Instead he hid out and wrote up a prosecutor's brief. Horribly disappointing." <<<
"Reclaiming History" is not disappointing to a reasonable person who
is tired of wading through the incessant, unsupportable theories being
spouted by CTers (and an endless stream of associated CT books).
But, one's man "reasonable" is another man's "horribly
disappointing".
~shrug~
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
Well, had he any honesty, he *would* be silent. But before I killfiled him, I
noticed that slamming him with the evidence that *PROVED* him wrong never
stopped him... he'd merely sidestep and continue, or just ignore what was said.
DVP is a master at ignoring evidence he doesn't want to be forced to admit.
And my crystal ball tells me that within the next few years, DVP will bring up
this SAME assertion about the admissibility of the evidence ... as if it hasn't
already been devastated by the quotes above.
>no place to run - no place to hide.
>Is there ANY doubt WHY the won't debate the admissiable JFK
>assassination evidence.... Your silence Dave, is the sweet sound of a
>drum softly sounding throughout all Lone Nut KOOKdom. Carry on hon!
>Give my best to Vin! That book made the $3/bin at K-Mart yet?
It would be amusing (and fun too!) if Bugliosi would ever learn enough about
computers to get in this forum, and face people who *know* the evidence.
tomnln
"Ben Holmes" <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote in message
news:flli4...@drn.newsguy.com...
IN A NUTSHELL>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
YoHarvey
> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@khadaji.com> wrote in message
>
> news:flli4...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
>
> - Show quoted text -
Holmes quotes Kurz, a known conspiracy theorist. Holmes? You are
sooooooo unimpressive roflmao. Wanna debate LIVE??? I'll eat you up
and spit you out. Let's do it.
aeffects
> MEGA-KOOK HEALY SAID:
>
> >>> "Never has it been discussed on this board -- you're a liar!" <<<
>
> DVP SAYS:
>
> Healy is an idiot (naturally).
>
> I even posted a direct link to a post where those exact words of VB's
> re. admissibility of evidence were previously posted by me on Nov.
> 12th. This link:
The thread is directed to Mr. Bugliosi, you moron.... if you care to
assume that responsibility, by all means.... show us where he,
Bugliosi, has authorized you to speak for him his offices -- surely
tyou have something to identify yourself as such, eh?
A copy of intiial post for this thread was sent to Bugliosi (through
proper channels) for comment.
How do we take a 'no' response Dave? Wait with baited breath for YOUR
USENET copy and paste response covering his NO response? If that be
the case Dave, let me (and a few other members of the media) know YOUR
credentials re officially speaking for him, his agent and his
publisher..... Could become a stickey-wicket Dave -- this being after
all, a public forum....
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c119a29302dc1339
>
> And what does Healy-Kook respond with? This --- "Never has it been
> discussed on this board -- you're a liar!"
hasn't Dave.... look son, your career selling oldtime TV re-runs,
baseball 'team' history[s] on VHS/DVD must be looking pretty good
about now, eh....? You're a neophyte when it comes to PR especially
when the author needs a semi-truck and double trailers to carry his
ego around.... all the USENET board copying and pasting isn't going to
hide Bugliosi's from the questions that have formed all over the
country.... (HBO can't hide it nor would they want to -- considering
the widespread reviews of Reclaiming History, what's gone on on broad
internet boards-blogs this since Bugliosi's latest birthing, there's
more info for a 6ea. 58:50 minute documentary's on how the WCR handled
the case evidence...
> That was a short vacation from the forum, huh Liar Healy?
no vacation for me Dave.....not dealing with nutter wannabes tis
all....
> BTW, if Dave Reitzes by chance reads this, remember to get together
> with me before you file your income-tax return, because since you and
> I are the same person, per a Super-Kook named Healy, we should be able
> to save some money on our collective taxes this year.
we KNOW he's reading it..... we beg for him to come frome the closet,
we have a few Bob Vernon questions he needs to clear up
> There's no sense in filing 2 separate returns, esp. since our tax
> brackets are each quite high now, due to the increased "Disinfo"
> salary that the CIA has been paying us since Vincent's book hit the
> stands in May. We oughta clean up pretty good since we're the same
> person.
:) hiding right out there in view of the public, eh? btw, what was his
advance again?
aeffects
> In article <e4d1212d-5c0a-491d-8c16-c65c88bb0...@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Yes it would. However,sitting across from camera[s], responding to
simple questions from interviewer[s] who KNOW proper *author-type*
questions, familiar with the topic matter is an entire different
world.... At this stage of the game, VBugliosi can't don't that -- he
can't step out of his assumed prosecutor role, he's now running around
like a Judge has hung a gag-rule over his head..... showing up for
media gigs with morons that that call themselves program hosts
throwing around T-ball questions..... VBugliosi has to control each
and every set he steps on, or he doesn't show up......
Witness David Von Pein's exercise of futility, the entire internet....
a rank amateur (with no visible credentials) representing VB, his
agent, Reclaiming History and its publisher..... joke!
David Von Pein
>>> "The thread is directed to Mr. Bugliosi, you moron." <<<
So what? I cited (from VB's POINT-OF-VIEW) what Vincent's opinion is
about the "admissibility of evidence" issue as it relates to the JFK
case.
This cite (reprinted once again below) from "RH" would probably be
just about exactly what you would receive through the "proper
channels" if Vince decided to actually respond to your correspondence
(which went "through proper channels"; lol). .....
"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. .... 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 "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(c.2007)
aeffects
> >>> "The thread is directed to Mr. Bugliosi, you moron." <<<
>
> So what?
you're irrelevant, son..... Bugliosi is the "sole" author, PERIOD!
Remember
I cited (from VB's POINT-OF-VIEW) what Vincent's opinion is
> about the "admissibility of evidence" issue as it relates to the JFK
> case.
see above
> This cite (reprinted once again below) from "RH" would probably be
> just about exactly what you would receive through the "proper
> channels" if Vince decided to actually respond to your correspondence
> (which went "through proper channels"; lol). .....
through the proper channel -- nothing, nil, zippo.... get on it -
gopher, I want a statement from his people, not YOU!
> "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. .... 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.
Kurtz think differently, evidently so did a few emminent jurists, one
a Supreme Court Judge...... shall we go on?
> "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 "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(c.2007)
end notes..... bullshit-nonsense! His office Von Pein, you got any
pull or you just the internet errand guy, looking for some menial job
in the Bugliosi's stockroom -- either deliver or move out of the way,
son!
David Von Pein
>>> "Through the proper channel...I want a statement from his {VB's} people, not YOU!" <<<
~Another Laugh Break~
So a kook named Healy thinks that a DIRECT BOOK CITATION WRITTEN BY
THE AUTHOR HIMSELF isn't nearly good enough.
I guess Healy wants to believe that John McAdams, or Jean Davison, or
Pat Lambert, (or maybe DVP) wrote this on endnotes Page 442 of
"Reclaiming History", instead of it being penned by VB himself.....
"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"."
=============================
Is it truly possible to be as big a moron as Healy pretends to be?
(Just wondering? Because Guinness would like to know -- for the
"record".)
David Von Pein
Here we have another of Healy's many invented fantasies.
Kinda like his fantasy about me being D. Reitzes.
But, we all need our fantasies, I guess.