The Courtroom Destruction Of Lee Harvey Oswald

[David Von Pein]

ROB CAPRIO SAID:

You are violating the rights of a deceased citizen. Don't you know
you are innocent until proven guilty in this country? That means in a
court of law by your peers, not by a presidential commission that was
not interested in investigat[ing] what really happened.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Some soft violin music might help here, to accompany your pathetic
attempts at getting an obviously guilty double-murderer off the hook.

Obviously there can be no "trial". Does that mean that Oswald's guilt
can never be proven? Hardly. Many times (or most) a guilty killer
never takes the witness stand at his trial anyway.

So, we probably would never have heard a peep out of Saint Oswald at
his trial anyway (had he lived to face trial). Therefore, if the
murdering bastard had gone to trial, the only thing the jury would
have heard from the defense lawyers would be the same type of defense
that was placed on the table in 1995 at O.J. Simpson's trial -- i.e.,
a defense filled with murkiness and unsupportable charges that all of
the evidence in the case had been "tainted" or "mishandled" or was
"fake" or was "planted" or was "altered" in some fashion, etc., etc.

http://OJ--Simpson.blogspot.com

That's THE ONLY type of defense that was offered up at Simpson's trial
(plus the "Race Card" defense too, which should have never been
allowed in by Judge Ito, but it was anyway).

Yes, the pathetic jury voted Simpson Not Guilty, but my point still
stands regarding his defense and the tactics used by his Scheme Team
of shameless attorneys.

And Simpson, of course (being the guilty double-murderer he was),
didn't take the stand either. Just as Oswald (being the guilty double-
murderer he was in '63) wouldn't have dared take the stand had he gone
to trial either.

Here's a simulated sample of what very likely would have happened if
Oswald had taken the witness stand at his own murder trial (with Vince
Bugliosi serving as the prosecutor):

VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit
number 139, which is a bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial number
C2766. Police officers who testified at this trial have verified the fact that
this exact rifle was found on the sixth floor of your workplace, the Texas
School Book Depository, just 52 minutes after President Kennedy was shot
and killed from right in front of that building on November the 22nd, 1963.
A palmprint of yours was located on this exact weapon. I ask you now, Mr.
Oswald, have you ever seen this rifle before?"

LEE H. OSWALD -- "No, sir. I have not."

BUGLIOSI -- "Did you, Mr. Oswald, ever send in a mail-order coupon to
Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, a coupon for a 6.5-millimeter
carbine rifle, during the first half of the year 1963?"

OSWALD -- "No, sir. I didn't order any rifle through the mail."

BUGLIOSI -- "Have you ever owned a rifle in your lifetime, Mr.
Oswald....a privately-owned rifle, that is, since you got out of the
Marine Corps in late 1959?"

OSWALD -- "No, sir. I have never owned a rifle in my life."

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit number 134,
a photograph of a man who looks exactly like you--Lee Harvey Oswald.
This man in the photo, who looks like you, is holding a rifle, has a
handgun in a holster around his waist, and is also holding up two
Russian newspapers, dated March 11th and March 24th of 1963. I ask you
now, Mr. Oswald, are you the man depicted in this photograph?"

OSWALD -- "No, sir. That picture must be a fake or something. I never
posed for any picture like that in my life."

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now direct your attention to the date of
President Kennedy's assassination--November the 22nd, 1963--and I ask
you now, Mr. Oswald, if you know a young man by the name of Buell
Wesley Frazier?"

OSWALD -- "Yes, I worked with him at the book store....the Depository,
I mean."

BUGLIOSI -- "And did Mr. Frazier give you a ride to work on the
morning of President Kennedy's visit to Dallas--that is the morning of
Friday, November the 22nd, 1963?"

OSWALD -- "Yes....I believe I did ride to work with him that morning."

BUGLIOSI -- "Okay. And did you bring any type of paper package with
you to work on that particular morning?"

OSWALD -- "I brought my lunch. That's all."

BUGLIOSI -- "You brought ONLY a lunch sack with you to work on
November 22nd, is that correct?"

OSWALD -- "Yes, sir. I had my lunch with me."

BUGLIOSI -- "Did you have any OTHER paper package with you that
morning at all? Anything larger than a small lunch bag?"

OSWALD -- "No, I had nothing else with me that day."

BUGLIOSI -- "Wesley Frazier, just this morning, told this court and
this jury that he observed you carrying a much larger paper bag on the
morning of November the 22nd. Mr. Frazier said that you told him you
had some curtain rods in that larger paper package. Did you tell
Wesley Frazier anything like that on the morning of November 22nd?"

OSWALD -- "No, sir! Absolutely not! I don't know why he'd say a thing
like that. I never told him anything like that."

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, another witness--Mr. Frazier's sister, Linnie
Mae Randle--also testified during this trial that she also observed
you carrying a bulky type brown paper bag as you walked toward her
house in Irving, Texas, around 7:10 AM on the morning of November
22nd, 1963. Was she mistaken, Mr. Oswald? Did she ONLY see your small
paper lunch sack?"

OSWALD -- "Well...er...I...uh...I really can't speak for what another
witness might or might not have said. I can only tell you that she's
wrong if she said I had a big bag with me that day. I just carried my
lunch to work, like I usually do on work days."

BUGLIOSI -- "Thank you, Mr. Oswald....no further questions at this time."

[END COURTROOM SIMULATION OF OSWALD'S DESTRUCTION.]

The above questioning of Oswald would have been, of course, preceded
by a parade of witnesses who would have confirmed (without a shred of
a doubt) that Lee Oswald DID purchase Rifle #C2766 by mail-order in
March 1963, and WAS photographed (by his own wife) while holding that
weapon on 3/31/63, and DID take a bulky paper package into the Book
Depository on 11/22/63.

Who do you think the jury is going to believe? The accused murderer?
Or the succession of several different witnesses who all paint Oswald
as the liar he obviously was when he told Mr. Bugliosi (via my
simulated courtroom proceeding above): "I have never owned a rifle in
my life"?

The jury wouldn't even break a sweat on that decision.

In short, Lee Harvey Oswald's many, many LIES would have done almost
as much to convict the bastard as would the wealth of physical and
circumstantial evidence in the JFK case (which also convicts him ten
times over, of course).

David Von Pein
October 2007

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-16.html

[David Von Pein]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/prosecuting-oswald.html

[mainframetech]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 11:46:27 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> ROB CAPRIO SAID:
>
> You are violating the rights of a deceased citizen. Don't you know
> you are innocent until proven guilty in this country? That means in a
> court of law by your peers, not by a presidential commission that was
> not interested in investigat[ing] what really happened.
>
>
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> Some soft violin music might help here, to accompany your pathetic
> attempts at getting an obviously guilty double-murderer off the hook.
>

From the evidence it is NOT obvious that Oswald was guilty.

> Obviously there can be no "trial". Does that mean that Oswald's guilt
> can never be proven? Hardly. Many times (or most) a guilty killer
> never takes the witness stand at his trial anyway.
>

It really was a trial that was had publicly. The conspirators HAD TO
HAVE a 'patsy' and the 'trial' had to be done to prove to the public that
Oswald was guilty, so the book could be closed and the plotters could go
free. There was a lawyer chosen to represent Oswald's interests in the
fake 'trial' but he never showed up for it.

> So, we probably would never have heard a peep out of Saint Oswald at
> his trial anyway (had he lived to face trial).

That's an opinion, whereas my opinion is that Oswald would have had
much to say, to the detriment of many people.

Therefore, if the
> murdering bastard had gone to trial, the only thing the jury would
> have heard from the defense lawyers would be the same type of defense
> that was placed on the table in 1995 at O.J. Simpson's trial -- i.e.,
> a defense filled with murkiness and unsupportable charges that all of
> the evidence in the case had been "tainted" or "mishandled" or was
> "fake" or was "planted" or was "altered" in some fashion, etc., etc.
>
> http://OJ--Simpson.blogspot.com
>
> That's THE ONLY type of defense that was offered up at Simpson's trial
> (plus the "Race Card" defense too, which should have never been
> allowed in by Judge Ito, but it was anyway).
>

More opinion! Don't you ever prove anything you say?

> Yes, the pathetic jury voted Simpson Not Guilty, but my point still
> stands regarding his defense and the tactics used by his Scheme Team
> of shameless attorneys.
>

Which has nothing to do with Oswald.

> And Simpson, of course (being the guilty double-murderer he was),
> didn't take the stand either. Just as Oswald (being the guilty double-
> murderer he was in '63) wouldn't have dared take the stand had he gone
> to trial either.
>

Some of us hold different opinions on that, but that's all you have is
opinion.

> Here's a simulated sample of what very likely would have happened if
> Oswald had taken the witness stand at his own murder trial (with Vince
> Bugliosi serving as the prosecutor):
>
> VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit
> number 139, which is a bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial number
> C2766. Police officers who testified at this trial have verified the fact that
> this exact rifle was found on the sixth floor of your workplace, the Texas
> School Book Depository, just 52 minutes after President Kennedy was shot
> and killed from right in front of that building on November the 22nd, 1963.
> A palmprint of yours was located on this exact weapon. I ask you now, Mr.
> Oswald, have you ever seen this rifle before?"
>
> LEE H. OSWALD -- "No, sir. I have not."
>

WRONG! The rifle was Oswald's and so a print on it is perfectly fine.
The same for the paper bag that was used by Oswald to get the rifle into
the TSBD quietly.

> BUGLIOSI -- "Did you, Mr. Oswald, ever send in a mail-order coupon to
> Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, a coupon for a 6.5-millimeter
> carbine rifle, during the first half of the year 1963?"
>
> OSWALD -- "No, sir. I didn't order any rifle through the mail."
>
> BUGLIOSI -- "Have you ever owned a rifle in your lifetime, Mr.
> Oswald....a privately-owned rifle, that is, since you got out of the
> Marine Corps in late 1959?"
>
> OSWALD -- "No, sir. I have never owned a rifle in my life."
>
> BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit number 134,
> a photograph of a man who looks exactly like you--Lee Harvey Oswald.
> This man in the photo, who looks like you, is holding a rifle, has a
> handgun in a holster around his waist, and is also holding up two
> Russian newspapers, dated March 11th and March 24th of 1963. I ask you
> now, Mr. Oswald, are you the man depicted in this photograph?"
>
> OSWALD -- "No, sir. That picture must be a fake or something. I never
> posed for any picture like that in my life."
>

Oswald got Marina to take his photo with his guns and his literature
right after getting his rifle. That is not in contention. He then rolled
the rifle up in a blanket and threw it in the garage. I suggest to you
that he wanted to impress some people he wanted to get in with by showing
that he was a rough and ready guy looking for action.

That was a complete waste of time. Oswald owned the rifle, and he
never practiced with it. He threw it in the garage and forgot about it
until (I believe) he was scammed into bring it into the TSBD and hiding it
to avoid the supervisor seeing him doing stuff unrelated to work.

> The above questioning of Oswald would have been, of course, preceded
> by a parade of witnesses who would have confirmed (without a shred of
> a doubt) that Lee Oswald DID purchase Rifle #C2766 by mail-order in
> March 1963, and WAS photographed (by his own wife) while holding that
> weapon on 3/31/63, and DID take a bulky paper package into the Book
> Depository on 11/22/63.
>
> Who do you think the jury is going to believe? The accused murderer?
> Or the succession of several different witnesses who all paint Oswald
> as the liar he obviously was when he told Mr. Bugliosi (via my
> simulated courtroom proceeding above): "I have never owned a rifle in
> my life"?
>

Look at the phony conversation above. Nowhere does it prove that
Oswald was in the window of the TSBD on the 6th floor firing the rifle out
the window at the motorcade. However, he was seen in the 2nd floor
lunchroom at about 12:15pm, and at about that same time 2 men were seen in
the 6th floor window with a gun. For those that think that Oswald had
time to get to the 6th floor, that may be true, but with 2 men with a gun,
they would have sent him away if he had tried. Shortly after the
shooting, Oswald was still seen in the 2nd floor lunchroom by Baker and
Truly.

> The jury wouldn't even break a sweat on that decision.
>

They would declare him innocent when the proofs were laid out. There
was nothing there that put the rifle in his hands or had him firing out
the window.

> In short, Lee Harvey Oswald's many, many LIES would have done almost
> as much to convict the bastard as would the wealth of physical and
> circumstantial evidence in the JFK case (which also convicts him ten
> times over, of course).
>

WRONG yet again.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

King of the Straw Man arguments.

#
#
############
#
# #
# #
# #
# #

[bigdog]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 11:46:27 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:

People don't understand that presumption of innocence is a principle that
applies in criminal trials. It protects the rights of the accused by
placing the burden on the state to prove the accused has committed a crime
before it takes their life, liberty or property. History has no such
burden. The sole purpose of history is to record the truth. There is no
more requirement to convict Oswald to call him Kennedy's assassin than
there is to declare John Wilkes Booth was Lincoln's assassin. If it were
necessary to obtain a courtroom conviction for history to declare someone
committed heinous crimes then we would have to call Hitler, Stalin, and
Pol Pot swell guys.

[bigdog]

On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 10:24:39 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 11:46:27 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > ROB CAPRIO SAID:
> >
> > You are violating the rights of a deceased citizen. Don't you know
> > you are innocent until proven guilty in this country? That means in a
> > court of law by your peers, not by a presidential commission that was
> > not interested in investigat[ing] what really happened.
> >
> >
> > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> >
> > Some soft violin music might help here, to accompany your pathetic
> > attempts at getting an obviously guilty double-murderer off the hook.
> >
>
>
>
> From the evidence it is NOT obvious that Oswald was guilty.
>

Since you only use the word "obvious" when making a statement for which
there is no evidence, it is not surprising you would say something is "not
obvious" which is supported by lots of evidence.

>
>
> > Obviously there can be no "trial". Does that mean that Oswald's guilt
> > can never be proven? Hardly. Many times (or most) a guilty killer
> > never takes the witness stand at his trial anyway.
> >
>
>
> It really was a trial that was had publicly. The conspirators HAD TO
> HAVE a 'patsy' and the 'trial' had to be done to prove to the public that
> Oswald was guilty, so the book could be closed and the plotters could go
> free. There was a lawyer chosen to represent Oswald's interests in the
> fake 'trial' but he never showed up for it.
>

The WC was not a trial. It was a fact finding body. They accomplished
their mission.

>
>
> > So, we probably would never have heard a peep out of Saint Oswald at
> > his trial anyway (had he lived to face trial).
>
>
>
> That's an opinion, whereas my opinion is that Oswald would have had
> much to say, to the detriment of many people.
>

Not if he listened to his lawyers. There's no way they would have wanted
him to take the stand. Once he did that, he would forfeit his 5th
Amendment right to remain silent.

>
>
> Therefore, if the
> > murdering bastard had gone to trial, the only thing the jury would
> > have heard from the defense lawyers would be the same type of defense
> > that was placed on the table in 1995 at O.J. Simpson's trial -- i.e.,
> > a defense filled with murkiness and unsupportable charges that all of
> > the evidence in the case had been "tainted" or "mishandled" or was
> > "fake" or was "planted" or was "altered" in some fashion, etc., etc.
> >
> > http://OJ--Simpson.blogspot.com
> >
> > That's THE ONLY type of defense that was offered up at Simpson's trial
> > (plus the "Race Card" defense too, which should have never been
> > allowed in by Judge Ito, but it was anyway).
> >
>
>
>
> More opinion! Don't you ever prove anything you say?
>
>
>
> > Yes, the pathetic jury voted Simpson Not Guilty, but my point still
> > stands regarding his defense and the tactics used by his Scheme Team
> > of shameless attorneys.
> >
>
>
> Which has nothing to do with Oswald.
>

Oswald wouldn't have been able to afford a multi-million dollar dream team
and thus would not have been able to cheat justice.

>
>
> > And Simpson, of course (being the guilty double-murderer he was),
> > didn't take the stand either. Just as Oswald (being the guilty double-
> > murderer he was in '63) wouldn't have dared take the stand had he gone
> > to trial either.
> >
>
>
> Some of us hold different opinions on that, but that's all you have is
> opinion.
>

Since you've done such a poor job of defending Oswald on this forum, it is
not surprising you would give him the bad advice of taking the stand.

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

And we can add that these conspiracy believers who defend Oswald cannot go
around and state LBJ or Helms or Hoover were complicit in the crime. Not
if they want to be consistent.

Isn't it fascinating: if we say Oswald killed JFK we're violating his
rights or presumption of innocence. When they say Helms or Hoover et
cetera killed JFK it's perfectly fine.

I'll even add that the Oswald defenders who complain about the WC saying
he killed JFK are silent about Jim Garrison stating IN COURT that Oswald
conspired with others to kill JFK. If they're so concerned about Oswald's
name then why aren't they upset at what Garrison did?

[Anthony Marsh]

History does not record the truth. It is written by the victors. It is
propaganda to mislead the public.

> more requirement to convict Oswald to call him Kennedy's assassin than
> there is to declare John Wilkes Booth was Lincoln's assassin. If it were

Well, you might start by telling the truth and admitting that both
assassinations were conspiracies. Even if you don't know what the
shooter ate for lunch.

> necessary to obtain a courtroom conviction for history to declare someone
> committed heinous crimes then we would have to call Hitler, Stalin, and
> Pol Pot swell guys.
>

Hitler was convicted and put in jail.

[mainframetech]

On Monday, November 14, 2016 at 1:42:16 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:

And yet you're the first one to call Oswald guilty for the murder of
JFK, even though he was never found guilty in a court of law.

Chris

[David Emerling]

On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 10:46:27 PM UTC-6, David Von Pein wrote:
>
> In short, Lee Harvey Oswald's many, many LIES would have done almost
> as much to convict the bastard as would the wealth of physical and
> circumstantial evidence in the JFK case (which also convicts him ten
> times over, of course).

Lying about substantive matters in a crime is classic
consciousness-of-guilt behavior and is, in itself, considered evidence of
guilt.

You are quite right in pointing out how Oswald's feeble attempt to lie
about easily provable matters would poison a jury against him. There would
be no Johnnie Cochran there to save him.

The evidence would be bad enough for Oswald. His LYING about the evidence
would seal the deal.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bigdog]

Yeah, I do that a lot. I think John Wilkes Booth was guilty too. I think
Hitler was a mass murderer. And Stalin. And Pol Pot. Let's throw in Castro
and Chairman Mao while we're at it. Was Osama Bin Liden ever convicted of
a crime? We shot him. Does that make Obama a murderer?

[Anthony Marsh]

Ridiculous. Do you even know that the HSCA claimed that Oswald shot and
killed JFK?

You try to artificially manufacture these US vs THEM situations so that
you can play the hero slaying the demons.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/15/2016 3:42 PM, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 10:24:39 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
>> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 11:46:27 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
>>> ROB CAPRIO SAID:
>>>
>>> You are violating the rights of a deceased citizen. Don't you know
>>> you are innocent until proven guilty in this country? That means in a
>>> court of law by your peers, not by a presidential commission that was
>>> not interested in investigat[ing] what really happened.
>>>
>>>
>>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>>
>>> Some soft violin music might help here, to accompany your pathetic
>>> attempts at getting an obviously guilty double-murderer off the hook.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From the evidence it is NOT obvious that Oswald was guilty.
>>
>
> Since you only use the word "obvious" when making a statement for which
> there is no evidence, it is not surprising you would say something is "not
> obvious" which is supported by lots of evidence.
>

Isn't it obvious that he can't prove anything when he has to resort to
constantly saying "obvious"? Isn't it obvious that you enjoy beating a
dead horse so that you don't have to discuss the evidence?

>>
>>
>>> Obviously there can be no "trial". Does that mean that Oswald's guilt
>>> can never be proven? Hardly. Many times (or most) a guilty killer
>>> never takes the witness stand at his trial anyway.
>>>
>>
>>
>> It really was a trial that was had publicly. The conspirators HAD TO
>> HAVE a 'patsy' and the 'trial' had to be done to prove to the public that
>> Oswald was guilty, so the book could be closed and the plotters could go
>> free. There was a lawyer chosen to represent Oswald's interests in the
>> fake 'trial' but he never showed up for it.
>>
>
> The WC was not a trial. It was a fact finding body. They accomplished
> their mission.

Wrong. It was created as a cover-up.

Mark Lane, pro bono.

Oswald would have been easily convicted in Texas and then become a cause
celebre which would create a Supreme Court ruling forever cited as the
Oswald Warning and set free.

[mainframetech]

Oswald was trying to protect what he had going before the murder of
JFK, and so he lied in hopes of going back to that. He commented at one
point that the whole thing was going to be let out into the open.
However, he knew he was innocent and that he would be exonerated when he
had the right people subpoenaed to tell the story. He didn't expect to be
murdered and was confident of his freedom to the end. That could be seen
in his comments for the cameras.



> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN

[mainframetech]

Oh? I have news for you. LBJ certainly had an involvement in the
murder of JFK, and I'm reasonably sure that Hoover knew what the story was
on it too, and may have issued orders to help cover up any evidence of
plotting. Because it's almost a sure thing that Mac Wallace was involved
in the murder, that implicates LBJ, who used Wallace as his personal hit
man. And LBJ had plenty of motive.

> Isn't it fascinating: if we say Oswald killed JFK we're violating his
> rights or presumption of innocence. When they say Helms or Hoover et
> cetera killed JFK it's perfectly fine.
>
> I'll even add that the Oswald defenders who complain about the WC saying
> he killed JFK are silent about Jim Garrison stating IN COURT that Oswald
> conspired with others to kill JFK. If they're so concerned about Oswald's
> name then why aren't they upset at what Garrison did?

I'm upset at what Garrison did. He was wrong in a few ways, though
not all.

Chris

[mainframetech]

On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 3:42:46 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 10:24:39 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 11:46:27 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > ROB CAPRIO SAID:
> > >
> > > You are violating the rights of a deceased citizen. Don't you know
> > > you are innocent until proven guilty in this country? That means in a
> > > court of law by your peers, not by a presidential commission that was
> > > not interested in investigat[ing] what really happened.
> > >
> > >
> > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > >
> > > Some soft violin music might help here, to accompany your pathetic
> > > attempts at getting an obviously guilty double-murderer off the hook.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > From the evidence it is NOT obvious that Oswald was guilty.
> >
>
> Since you only use the word "obvious" when making a statement for which
> there is no evidence, it is not surprising you would say something is "not
> obvious" which is supported by lots of evidence.
>

WRONG yet again! You know very well that I've provided proofs for
just about everything I've said along the way. That was a foolish attempt
to discredit, but you keep trying in hopes that something will change and
you'll win an argument for a change.

> >
> >
> > > Obviously there can be no "trial". Does that mean that Oswald's guilt
> > > can never be proven? Hardly. Many times (or most) a guilty killer
> > > never takes the witness stand at his trial anyway.
> > >
> >
> >
> > It really was a trial that was had publicly. The conspirators HAD TO
> > HAVE a 'patsy' and the 'trial' had to be done to prove to the public that
> > Oswald was guilty, so the book could be closed and the plotters could go
> > free. There was a lawyer chosen to represent Oswald's interests in the
> > fake 'trial' but he never showed up for it.
> >
>
> The WC was not a trial. It was a fact finding body. They accomplished
> their mission.
>

WRONG! You can use any name you like, it was a trial, with phony court
room sounding comments and style with the lawyers asking questions and the
'prosecution'choosing only the evidence they thought would 'convict' to
present to the 'jury'.

> >
> >
> > > So, we probably would never have heard a peep out of Saint Oswald at
> > > his trial anyway (had he lived to face trial).
> >
> >
> >
> > That's an opinion, whereas my opinion is that Oswald would have had
> > much to say, to the detriment of many people.
> >
>
> Not if he listened to his lawyers. There's no way they would have wanted
> him to take the stand. Once he did that, he would forfeit his 5th
> Amendment right to remain silent.
>

Ah, but once he started talking it would become OBVIOUS that he was
innocent.

> > > Therefore, if the
> > > murdering bastard had gone to trial, the only thing the jury would
> > > have heard from the defense lawyers would be the same type of defense
> > > that was placed on the table in 1995 at O.J. Simpson's trial -- i.e.,
> > > a defense filled with murkiness and unsupportable charges that all of
> > > the evidence in the case had been "tainted" or "mishandled" or was
> > > "fake" or was "planted" or was "altered" in some fashion, etc., etc.
> > >
> > > http://OJ--Simpson.blogspot.com
> > >
> > > That's THE ONLY type of defense that was offered up at Simpson's trial
> > > (plus the "Race Card" defense too, which should have never been
> > > allowed in by Judge Ito, but it was anyway).
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > More opinion! Don't you ever prove anything you say?
> >
> >
> >
> > > Yes, the pathetic jury voted Simpson Not Guilty, but my point still
> > > stands regarding his defense and the tactics used by his Scheme Team
> > > of shameless attorneys.
> > >
> >
> >

> > Which has nothing to do with Oswald. And BTW, Bugliosi was an attorney too, who was shameless in his pretending that Oswald was guilty.

> Oswald wouldn't have been able to afford a multi-million dollar dream team
> and thus would not have been able to cheat justice.
>

No problem. Since he was innocent of the murder of JFK, and could
show it.

> > > And Simpson, of course (being the guilty double-murderer he was),
> > > didn't take the stand either. Just as Oswald (being the guilty double-
> > > murderer he was in '63) wouldn't have dared take the stand had he gone
> > > to trial either.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Some of us hold different opinions on that, but that's all you have is
> > opinion.
> >
>
> Since you've done such a poor job of defending Oswald on this forum, it is
> not surprising you would give him the bad advice of taking the stand.

I wouldn't need to advise him, he would choose to speak himself. He
knew much more of what was going on in Dallas than anyone wanted him to
tell. From the illegal business of Jack Ruby to the work of the Cubans
and the involvement of the FBI in his trial.

Chris

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 1:47:46 AM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:

This is why his attorney would have never allowed him to take the stand in
his defense. Since this happened pre-Miranda I wonder if his lies during
interrogation would have been allowed into evidence.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/16/2016 1:47 AM, David Emerling wrote:
> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 10:46:27 PM UTC-6, David Von Pein wrote:
>>
>> In short, Lee Harvey Oswald's many, many LIES would have done almost
>> as much to convict the bastard as would the wealth of physical and
>> circumstantial evidence in the JFK case (which also convicts him ten
>> times over, of course).
>
> Lying about substantive matters in a crime is classic
> consciousness-of-guilt behavior and is, in itself, considered evidence of
> guilt.
>

Stop beating yourself up in public. It's unseemly. Remember, when the WC
defenders lie it's not because they were part of the hit team. They are
just doing their patriotic duty to cover up the conspiracy to prevent
WWIII.

> You are quite right in pointing out how Oswald's feeble attempt to lie
> about easily provable matters would poison a jury against him. There would
> be no Johnnie Cochran there to save him.
>

You don't know what Oswald said. All you know are the lies from law
enforcement intended to frame him.

> The evidence would be bad enough for Oswald. His LYING about the evidence
> would seal the deal.
>

But WC defenders lying about the evidence is ok, because they're just
doing their patriotic duty?

> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

I believe so because, according to the accounts, both Fritz and the FBI
agents informed him of his rights; although it's less clear about Fritz
(he never mentioned it in his notes or testimony).

According to Bugliosi, Texas state law at that time required that all
defendants/suspects be read their right to remain silent before
questioning but it did not require that they be told of the right to
counsel. But Fritz informed Oswald of this latter right when he (Oswald)
asked for counsel; thus the calls to John Abt, et cetera.

Hosty said it was FBI policy at that time to read/inform suspects of their
rights. And both Hosty and James Bookhout, the other FBI agent who
interrogated Oswald, testified that they read him his rights to counsel
and silence.

Here's Bugliosi's note (from RH, ppgs. 115-116):

"Although the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has provided since
1791 that an accused has teh right to counsel to assist him in his
defense, in Texas in 1963 the polic did not have to ADVISE [his emphasis]
a suspect or person arrested of this right. In this case, Oswald asked
Fritz if he had the right to counsel and Fritz told him he did....However,
Texas statutory laws at the time DID require that someone under arrest be
advised that he did not have to make a statement, and if he did, it could
be used against him. Although there is nothing in the report of Captain
Fritz on his interrogation of Oswald that he advised Oswald of his right
against self-incrimination, Dallas attorney Bill Alexander, who sat in on
many interrogations of arrestees by Fritz through the year, said that
Fritz ALWAYS would comply with Texas law and he assumes the reason this
was not in Fritz's notes is that it "went without saying" that he gave
Oswald this admonition. In any event, once FBI agents James Bookhout and
James Hosty joined in Oswald's interrogation, the agents adviser Oswald of
both rights."

More here: https://books.google.com/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&q=Miranda#v=snippet&q=Miranda&f=false

[Anthony Marsh]

But you won't admit that the Lincoln Assassination was a conspiracy. You
formed the Mary Surrat Innocence Project (MSIC).

> Hitler was a mass murderer. And Stalin. And Pol Pot. Let's throw in Castro
> and Chairman Mao while we're at it. Was Osama Bin Liden ever convicted of
> a crime? We shot him. Does that make Obama a murderer?
>

Presidents have authorized several assassinations. Does that make them
murders? Not clear in the law. You could cite war crimes, but that is too
complicated.

Was LBJ responsible for My Lai?

[bigdog]

The only part of that which made any sense is that he didn't expect to be
murdered. Unless he was a village idiot he knew he was going to be
convicted and sentenced to the electric chair for a double murder. Just a
guess but I think he was surprised the DPD chose to take him alive. I
think he thought suicide by cop was the endgame.

[bigdog]

I didn't know that LBJ and Wallace were convicted of murder or that Hoover
was convicted of obstruction of justice. Does that mean we are now allowed
to say people were guilty of crimes even though they were never convicted?

[bigdog]

On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 4:26:00 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 3:42:46 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 10:24:39 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 11:46:27 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > ROB CAPRIO SAID:
> > > >
> > > > You are violating the rights of a deceased citizen. Don't you know
> > > > you are innocent until proven guilty in this country? That means in a
> > > > court of law by your peers, not by a presidential commission that was
> > > > not interested in investigat[ing] what really happened.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > >
> > > > Some soft violin music might help here, to accompany your pathetic
> > > > attempts at getting an obviously guilty double-murderer off the hook.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From the evidence it is NOT obvious that Oswald was guilty.
> > >
> >
> > Since you only use the word "obvious" when making a statement for which
> > there is no evidence, it is not surprising you would say something is "not
> > obvious" which is supported by lots of evidence.
> >
>
>
>
> WRONG yet again! You know very well that I've provided proofs for
> just about everything I've said along the way. That was a foolish attempt
> to discredit, but you keep trying in hopes that something will change and
> you'll win an argument for a change.
>

I know you've frequently claimed to have provided proof of your claims. I
can't recall an instance in which you actually did that.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > Obviously there can be no "trial". Does that mean that Oswald's guilt
> > > > can never be proven? Hardly. Many times (or most) a guilty killer
> > > > never takes the witness stand at his trial anyway.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It really was a trial that was had publicly. The conspirators HAD TO
> > > HAVE a 'patsy' and the 'trial' had to be done to prove to the public that
> > > Oswald was guilty, so the book could be closed and the plotters could go
> > > free. There was a lawyer chosen to represent Oswald's interests in the
> > > fake 'trial' but he never showed up for it.
> > >
> >
> > The WC was not a trial. It was a fact finding body. They accomplished
> > their mission.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! You can use any name you like, it was a trial, with phony court
> room sounding comments and style with the lawyers asking questions and the
> 'prosecution'choosing only the evidence they thought would 'convict' to
> present to the 'jury'.
>

No it wasn't a trial. A trial is an adversarial procedure. There was no
prosecution, defense, judge or jury. There was a commission of
distinguished men including the Chief Justice, a Democrat and Republican
from each house of Congress. Their mission was to discern the facts of the
assassination of JFK. Nothing more. Nothing less. Much of the evidence
gathering was done by the staff lawyers as opposed to the commissioners
themselves who had day jobs to tend to. To a man these staff lawyers
wanted to be the one who found the smoking gun of conspiracy. In the end
they had to conclude that there was no evidence of such. That all the
credible evidence pointed to Oswald alone.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > So, we probably would never have heard a peep out of Saint Oswald at
> > > > his trial anyway (had he lived to face trial).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That's an opinion, whereas my opinion is that Oswald would have had
> > > much to say, to the detriment of many people.
> > >
> >
> > Not if he listened to his lawyers. There's no way they would have wanted
> > him to take the stand. Once he did that, he would forfeit his 5th
> > Amendment right to remain silent.
> >
>
>
>
> Ah, but once he started talking it would become OBVIOUS that he was
> innocent.
>

You do love your baseless assumptions.

>
>
> > > > Therefore, if the
> > > > murdering bastard had gone to trial, the only thing the jury would
> > > > have heard from the defense lawyers would be the same type of defense
> > > > that was placed on the table in 1995 at O.J. Simpson's trial -- i.e.,
> > > > a defense filled with murkiness and unsupportable charges that all of
> > > > the evidence in the case had been "tainted" or "mishandled" or was
> > > > "fake" or was "planted" or was "altered" in some fashion, etc., etc.
> > > >
> > > > http://OJ--Simpson.blogspot.com
> > > >
> > > > That's THE ONLY type of defense that was offered up at Simpson's trial
> > > > (plus the "Race Card" defense too, which should have never been
> > > > allowed in by Judge Ito, but it was anyway).
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > More opinion! Don't you ever prove anything you say?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Yes, the pathetic jury voted Simpson Not Guilty, but my point still
> > > > stands regarding his defense and the tactics used by his Scheme Team
> > > > of shameless attorneys.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Which has nothing to do with Oswald. And BTW, Bugliosi was an attorney too, who was shameless in his pretending that Oswald was guilty.
>
>
>
> > Oswald wouldn't have been able to afford a multi-million dollar dream team
> > and thus would not have been able to cheat justice.
> >
>
>
>
> No problem. Since he was innocent of the murder of JFK, and could
> show it.
>

His lawyers would have had two possible options to save Oswald from a
death sentence. Plea bargain or plead insanity. There's no way a
prosecutor would have settled for a life sentence for a presidential
assassin/cop killer. I doubt an insanity defense would have fared any
better although it worked for Hincley. If Oswald declined to follow either
course, they would have done the best they could with a losing hand.

>
>
> > > > And Simpson, of course (being the guilty double-murderer he was),
> > > > didn't take the stand either. Just as Oswald (being the guilty double-
> > > > murderer he was in '63) wouldn't have dared take the stand had he gone
> > > > to trial either.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Some of us hold different opinions on that, but that's all you have is
> > > opinion.
> > >
> >
> > Since you've done such a poor job of defending Oswald on this forum, it is
> > not surprising you would give him the bad advice of taking the stand.
>
>
>
> I wouldn't need to advise him, he would choose to speak himself. He
> knew much more of what was going on in Dallas than anyone wanted him to
> tell. From the illegal business of Jack Ruby to the work of the Cubans
> and the involvement of the FBI in his trial.
>

Even though he gave no indication he had any such knowledge during two
days of interrogation. But you are still free to assume such nonsense.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 11/16/2016 11:02 PM, stevemg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 4:29:40 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 1:47:46 AM UTC-5, David Emerling wrote:
>>> On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 10:46:27 PM UTC-6, David Von Pein wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In short, Lee Harvey Oswald's many, many LIES would have done almost
>>>> as much to convict the bastard as would the wealth of physical and
>>>> circumstantial evidence in the JFK case (which also convicts him ten
>>>> times over, of course).
>>>
>>> Lying about substantive matters in a crime is classic
>>> consciousness-of-guilt behavior and is, in itself, considered evidence of
>>> guilt.
>>>
>>> You are quite right in pointing out how Oswald's feeble attempt to lie
>>> about easily provable matters would poison a jury against him. There would
>>> be no Johnnie Cochran there to save him.
>>>
>>> The evidence would be bad enough for Oswald. His LYING about the evidence
>>> would seal the deal.
>>>
>>
>> This is why his attorney would have never allowed him to take the stand in
>> his defense. Since this happened pre-Miranda I wonder if his lies during
>> interrogation would have been allowed into evidence.
>
> I believe so because, according to the accounts, both Fritz and the FBI
> agents informed him of his rights; although it's less clear about Fritz
> (he never mentioned it in his notes or testimony).
>
> According to Bugliosi, Texas state law at that time required that all

According to a professional liar?

> defendants/suspects be read their right to remain silent before
> questioning but it did not require that they be told of the right to
> counsel. But Fritz informed Oswald of this latter right when he (Oswald)
> asked for counsel; thus the calls to John Abt, et cetera.
>

Pretty close. Do you think maybe Fritz was being proactive and
anticipating Miranda based on earlier cases?
Is that why Fritz did not beat a confession out of his suspect as they
normally did in Dallas?

> Hosty said it was FBI policy at that time to read/inform suspects of their
> rights. And both Hosty and James Bookhout, the other FBI agent who

The rights as established by the Supreme Court at the time.

> interrogated Oswald, testified that they read him his rights to counsel
> and silence.
>
> Here's Bugliosi's note (from RH, ppgs. 115-116):
>
> "Although the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has provided since
> 1791 that an accused has teh right to counsel to assist him in his
> defense, in Texas in 1963 the polic did not have to ADVISE [his emphasis]
> a suspect or person arrested of this right. In this case, Oswald asked
> Fritz if he had the right to counsel and Fritz told him he did....However,
> Texas statutory laws at the time DID require that someone under arrest be
> advised that he did not have to make a statement, and if he did, it could
> be used against him. Although there is nothing in the report of Captain
> Fritz on his interrogation of Oswald that he advised Oswald of his right
> against self-incrimination, Dallas attorney Bill Alexander, who sat in on
> many interrogations of arrestees by Fritz through the year, said that
> Fritz ALWAYS would comply with Texas law and he assumes the reason this
> was not in Fritz's notes is that it "went without saying" that he gave
> Oswald this admonition. In any event, once FBI agents James Bookhout and
> James Hosty joined in Oswald's interrogation, the agents adviser Oswald of
> both rights."
>
> More here: https://books.google.com/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&q=Miranda#v=snippet&q=Miranda&f=false
>

The right to counsel during a trial does no good after the police have
been allowed to violate his rights before the trial.

[mainframetech]

On Thursday, November 17, 2016 at 5:27:06 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 4:26:00 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 3:42:46 PM UTC-5, bigdog wrote:
> > > On Sunday, November 13, 2016 at 10:24:39 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 12, 2016 at 11:46:27 PM UTC-5, David Von Pein wrote:
> > > > > ROB CAPRIO SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > You are violating the rights of a deceased citizen. Don't you know
> > > > > you are innocent until proven guilty in this country? That means in a
> > > > > court of law by your peers, not by a presidential commission that was
> > > > > not interested in investigat[ing] what really happened.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
> > > > >
> > > > > Some soft violin music might help here, to accompany your pathetic
> > > > > attempts at getting an obviously guilty double-murderer off the hook.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > From the evidence it is NOT obvious that Oswald was guilty.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Since you only use the word "obvious" when making a statement for which
> > > there is no evidence, it is not surprising you would say something is "not
> > > obvious" which is supported by lots of evidence.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > WRONG yet again! You know very well that I've provided proofs for
> > just about everything I've said along the way. That was a foolish attempt
> > to discredit, but you keep trying in hopes that something will change and
> > you'll win an argument for a change.
> >
>
> I know you've frequently claimed to have provided proof of your claims. I
> can't recall an instance in which you actually did that.
>

Wrong! Either your Alzheimer's is kicking in, or you've been listening
to the liars again and repeating their phony lines. Sign of a weak mind
either way. At least the first time I add in new information, I provide
the cites and links for it. I may leave it out after that, but if one is
smart enough, they will be able to copy it all down. Some will not be
astute enough though.

> > > > > Obviously there can be no "trial". Does that mean that Oswald's guilt
> > > > > can never be proven? Hardly. Many times (or most) a guilty killer
> > > > > never takes the witness stand at his trial anyway.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > It really was a trial that was had publicly. The conspirators HAD TO
> > > > HAVE a 'patsy' and the 'trial' had to be done to prove to the public that
> > > > Oswald was guilty, so the book could be closed and the plotters could go
> > > > free. There was a lawyer chosen to represent Oswald's interests in the
> > > > fake 'trial' but he never showed up for it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The WC was not a trial. It was a fact finding body. They accomplished
> > > their mission.
> > >
> >
> >
> > WRONG! You can use any name you like, it was a trial, with phony court
> > room sounding comments and style with the lawyers asking questions and the
> > 'prosecution' choosing only the evidence they thought would 'convict' to
> > present to the 'jury'.
> >
>
> No it wasn't a trial. A trial is an adversarial procedure. There was no
> prosecution, defense, judge or jury.

As I said, I understand there was a lawyer picked to defend Oswald
during the proceedings, but he never showed up. They carried on without
him anyway. It was a kangaroo court the way they ran it. The WC knew why
they were picked.

There was a commission of
> distinguished men including the Chief Justice, a Democrat and Republican
> from each house of Congress. Their mission was to discern the facts of the
> assassination of JFK. Nothing more. Nothing less.

A distinguished bunch of politicians who knew why they were there.

Much of the evidence
> gathering was done by the staff lawyers as opposed to the commissioners
> themselves who had day jobs to tend to. To a man these staff lawyers
> wanted to be the one who found the smoking gun of conspiracy. In the end
> they had to conclude that there was no evidence of such. That all the
> credible evidence pointed to Oswald alone.

Crap! They followed procedures that left out certain evidence and
witnesses, and they crucified Oswald. There was evidence of his
innocence, but they wouldn't dare let it out in the open. That evidence
is now free of the binding it was under and it tells the tale of cover
ups, mainly the FBI and the Bethesda prosectors.

> > > > > So, we probably would never have heard a peep out of Saint Oswald at
> > > > > his trial anyway (had he lived to face trial).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's an opinion, whereas my opinion is that Oswald would have had
> > > > much to say, to the detriment of many people.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not if he listened to his lawyers. There's no way they would have wanted
> > > him to take the stand. Once he did that, he would forfeit his 5th
> > > Amendment right to remain silent.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > Ah, but once he started talking it would become OBVIOUS that he was
> > innocent.
> >
>
> You do love your baseless assumptions.
>

I think the suggestions were there from the beginning, but with people
like you in the way, it was difficult to bring it out. Now that I'm here,
it will be easier to bring these things out.

> > > > > Therefore, if the
> > > > > murdering bastard had gone to trial, the only thing the jury would
> > > > > have heard from the defense lawyers would be the same type of defense
> > > > > that was placed on the table in 1995 at O.J. Simpson's trial -- i.e.,
> > > > > a defense filled with murkiness and unsupportable charges that all of
> > > > > the evidence in the case had been "tainted" or "mishandled" or was
> > > > > "fake" or was "planted" or was "altered" in some fashion, etc., etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://OJ--Simpson.blogspot.com
> > > > >
> > > > > That's THE ONLY type of defense that was offered up at Simpson's trial
> > > > > (plus the "Race Card" defense too, which should have never been
> > > > > allowed in by Judge Ito, but it was anyway).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > More opinion! Don't you ever prove anything you say?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Yes, the pathetic jury voted Simpson Not Guilty, but my point still
> > > > > stands regarding his defense and the tactics used by his Scheme Team
> > > > > of shameless attorneys.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Which has nothing to do with Oswald. And BTW, Bugliosi was an attorney too, who was shameless in his pretending that Oswald was guilty.
> >
> >
> >
> > > Oswald wouldn't have been able to afford a multi-million dollar dream team
> > > and thus would not have been able to cheat justice.
> > >
> >
> >
> >

> > No problem, since he was innocent of the murder of JFK, and could

> > show it.
> >
>
> His lawyers would have had two possible options to save Oswald from a
> death sentence. Plea bargain or plead insanity. There's no way a
> prosecutor would have settled for a life sentence for a presidential
> assassin/cop killer. I doubt an insanity defense would have fared any
> better although it worked for Hincley. If Oswald declined to follow either
> course, they would have done the best they could with a losing hand.
>

WRONG! The difference is that Oswald knew he was innocent. I believe
he also knew where a few bodies were buried in Dallas as well. One of the
reasons he was selected for death was that he knew things that he could
blat out and make a mess of certain ongoing profitable ventures. Her also
had a connection with the federal authorities and could bring that out to
protect himself. It would mean the end of his little charade in Dallas,
but he could be moved elsewhere and do it all over again somewhere else.

> >
> >
> > > > > And Simpson, of course (being the guilty double-murderer he was),
> > > > > didn't take the stand either. Just as Oswald (being the guilty double-
> > > > > murderer he was in '63) wouldn't have dared take the stand had he gone
> > > > > to trial either.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Some of us hold different opinions on that, but that's all you have is
> > > > opinion.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Since you've done such a poor job of defending Oswald on this forum, it is
> > > not surprising you would give him the bad advice of taking the stand.
> >
> >
> >
> > I wouldn't need to advise him, he would choose to speak himself. He
> > knew much more of what was going on in Dallas than anyone wanted him to
> > tell. From the illegal business of Jack Ruby to the work of the Cubans
> > and the involvement of the FBI in his trial.
> >
>
> Even though he gave no indication he had any such knowledge during two
> days of interrogation. But you are still free to assume such nonsense.

You think he gave no idea of his status while being questioned? You
forget parts of the case again?


In questioning, at one point he made the statement "Everybody will know
who I am now." It was said in the style of someone realizing that their
long time paly was being called in... Not that of someone wanting notice
of the public.

What does that mean to you? Could it be that he was playing a role and
would now be figured out? Ruining whatever little plans he was carrying
out when all this happened to him? Of course, you haven't a clue.

Chris

[mainframetech]

What has stopped you from blatting off any old thing you pleased?
What you think of Wallace and LBJ is your business. Generally, history
says Wallace was a hit man for LBJ. He was convicted of murder and got
off completely free with LBJ's help. Don't you follow the stories going
around?

Chris

[mainframetech]

He knew nothing of the kind. He was confident and ready to do verbal
battle with cops and FBI. I guess you can't tell fro the attitude he
exhibited as he was paraded around the police station.


Chris

[stevemg...@yahoo.com]

I know I shouldn't but one last time.

Bigdog asked whether Oswald's statements/lies to the police made AT THAT
TIME - in 1963 and not in 1966 - would have been admitted in Texas court.

I opined/guessed that they would have since AT THAT TIME, i.e., 1963, none
of Oswald's rights under Texas law or the US Constitution were violated.

The Miranda ruling was handed down in 1966 or about 2+ years AFTER Oswald
was arrested. Oswald would have been tried in either late 1963 or 1964.
This is before 1966 and BEFORE the Miranda ruling was handed down.

Because it was before 1966 the statements made by Oswald to the police
would have been admitted. Why? Because, again, it would not have been - at
that time - a violation of a right the Court found about 2+ years later.

I know this was a useless exercise on my part because you will not
understand any of the above.

But I gave it one last - and this is the last - attempt.

[Anthony Marsh]

There are a lot of stories going around. Do you read the National
Enquirer and believe every story in it? Do you think Ted Cruz's father
helped assassinate JFK?

[Anthony Marsh]

They were just following orders, to cover up the conspiracy.

[bigdog]

Conspiracy hobbyists are fond of arguing that since Oswald was never
convicted of a crime he must be presumed innocent. Yet those same people
will turn around and willy nilly accuse others of being guilty of
conspiracy to murder JFK and/or cover up the crime. It is typical of the
double standards you have employed. I can't recall if you have made the
argument that Oswald must be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but if
you have, it is the height of hypocrisy for you to claim that LBJ or Mac
Wallace took part in the murder or that Hoover took part in the cover up
since none of them were even charged with a crime much less convicted.

[bigdog]

What I saw was an obnoxious, self centered loser which gave me even
greater satisfaction when he got gunned down. He finally succeeded at
doing something he set out to do and Jack Ruby denied him the chance to
enjoy his celebrity for more than a couple days. Thank you again, Jack
Ruby. Yes, what you did was wrong but I'm still glad you did it.

[Anthony Marsh]

Yes, we've discussed this dozens of times before. When you talk about
Miranda you mean the Supreme Court decision. But the Miranda arrest and
controversy happened a couple of years earlier and many people knew about
the issue even at the time of Oswald's arrest. Fritz and Wade took
preemptive caution to try to avoid the issue.

> Because it was before 1966 the statements made by Oswald to the police
> would have been admitted. Why? Because, again, it would not have been - at
> that time - a violation of a right the Court found about 2+ years later.
>

As I've said dozens of times, it would not have been the Miranda ruling
in 1966 it would have been the Oswald ruling in 1964.

> I know this was a useless exercise on my part because you will not
> understand any of the above.
>

I posted the entire history from Wikipedia here a few times.

> But I gave it one last - and this is the last - attempt.
>

My point is that you don't read the old messages and jump to false
conclusions.

[Anthony Marsh]

No double standard. Without a trial the accused suspect is granted the
assumption of innocence.

The other people we are talking about were not formally charged.

[mainframetech]

Naturally, we have to consider whether there is evidence of Oswald's
innocence, and there is. As to the guilty parties, is there evidence
against them?

[bigdog]

There is zero evidence of anyone's involvement except Oswald. Accusations
that other people took part in the plot and/or the cover up are based
entirely on assumptions and speculation. If you think that is a false
statement that should be easy to prove. Provide just ONE piece of evidence
of someone else's involvement. Note that challenging the evidence against
Oswald does not constitute evidence that someone else was involved.

[mainframetech]

No problem.

1. The many bullet strikes in Dealey plaza, far more than 3 supposedly
from the TSBD 6th floor. This proves that there were more than one
shooter.

2. The path of fine particles in the skull of JFK, signaling that it
was a lead bullet and NOT an FMJ bullet that killed him, meaning a
different rifle than the MC rifle.

3. The absolute proof inside the body of JFK where the back wound
bullet did NOT go all the way through and was stopped at the pleura.
That meant that more than 3 bullets were fired, meaning another shooter.

4. he efforts of the government in putting up the phony WC, which
looked at only certain evidence and not all evidence, a sure sign that
there was a conspiracy being covered up.

5. Many other anomalies that shouldn't have happened in a normal case
of murder.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

So how did Oswald fire the shot from the grassy knoll?

> that other people took part in the plot and/or the cover up are based
> entirely on assumptions and speculation. If you think that is a false
> statement that should be easy to prove. Provide just ONE piece of evidence

Scientific evidence.

[bigdog]

Only if one has a very low threshold for what constitutes proof. Where is
the evidence of these bullet strikes? Notice I said evidence, not
assumptions.

> 2. The path of fine particles in the skull of JFK, signaling that it
> was a lead bullet and NOT an FMJ bullet that killed him, meaning a
> different rifle than the MC rifle.
>

This is nothing more than your FUBAR analysis of the x-rays which you
haven't seen. No competent person who has seen the x-rays has reached that
conclusion. Opinions of amateurs are not evidence.

> 3. The absolute proof inside the body of JFK where the back wound
> bullet did NOT go all the way through and was stopped at the pleura.
> That meant that more than 3 bullets were fired, meaning another shooter.
>

More of your FUBAR analysis of the medical evidence. Again no competent
person has reached the conclusions that you have.

> 4. he efforts of the government in putting up the phony WC, which
> looked at only certain evidence and not all evidence, a sure sign that
> there was a conspiracy being covered up.
>

So your evidence of a conspiracy is your assumption of a conspiracy.
WTG!!!

> 5. Many other anomalies that shouldn't have happened in a normal case
> of murder.
>

Many other anomalies??? Now there's some irrefutable evidence. <chuckle>

Five swings. Five misses. You and your cohorts are 0 for 53 years. Keep
swinging. The Cubs recently ended 108 years of futility. I think their
record is safe for another 55 years. Assuming of course the Indians break
their 68 year old streak.

[Anthony Marsh]

Sure, but who would be smart enough to figure that out? Dr. Earl Rose?
Dr. Cyril Wecht? Dr. Henry Lee?
All non-military.

> 3. The absolute proof inside the body of JFK where the back wound
> bullet did NOT go all the way through and was stopped at the pleura.

Physically impossible.

> That meant that more than 3 bullets were fired, meaning another shooter.
>

Or a faster shooter.

> 4. he efforts of the government in putting up the phony WC, which
> looked at only certain evidence and not all evidence, a sure sign that
> there was a conspiracy being covered up.
>
> 5. Many other anomalies that shouldn't have happened in a normal case
> of murder.
>

Stuff like this happens all the time.

> Chris
>

[mainframetech]

The list of strikes has been given to you many times over, please don't
pretend you're too stupid to remember any of them.

> > 2. The path of fine particles in the skull of JFK, signaling that it
> > was a lead bullet and NOT an FMJ bullet that killed him, meaning a
> > different rifle than the MC rifle.
> >
>
> This is nothing more than your FUBAR analysis of the x-rays which you
> haven't seen. No competent person who has seen the x-rays has reached that
> conclusion. Opinions of amateurs are not evidence.
>

LOL! Had a hard time finding that phony excuse didn't you? If you
checked into the 'experts' that are so dear to your heart, you will find
that some of them have indeed mentioned the path of fine particles and
that they were not FMJ. However, they mentioned the path of the bullet
from back to front and not the true direction front to BOH.

> > 3. The absolute proof inside the body of JFK where the back wound
> > bullet did NOT go all the way through and was stopped at the pleura.
> > That meant that more than 3 bullets were fired, meaning another shooter.
> >
>
> More of your FUBAR analysis of the medical evidence. Again no competent
> person has reached the conclusions that you have.
>

No competent person has read the statements of some of the autopsy team
then. If they had, it would become immediately OBVIOUS to them what had
happened.



> > 4. The efforts of the government in putting up the phony WC, which

> > looked at only certain evidence and not all evidence, a sure sign that
> > there was a conspiracy being covered up.
> >
>
> So your evidence of a conspiracy is your assumption of a conspiracy.
> WTG!!!
>

Apparently you can't read. It doesn't say that, it says that there was
a phony WC put together with people who knew that their job was to find
Oswald guilty of murder. And so put the rumors to bed. It failed. And
the leftover WC was proof of complicity.

> > 5. Many other anomalies that shouldn't have happened in a normal case
> > of murder.
> >
>
> Many other anomalies??? Now there's some irrefutable evidence. <chuckle>
>

I didn't feel like hunting through all those anomalies, but since I've
explained every one of them to you, I expect your wonderful mind to retain
them all.

> Five swings. Five misses. You and your cohorts are 0 for 53 years. Keep
> swinging. The Cubs recently ended 108 years of futility. I think their
> record is safe for another 55 years. Assuming of course the Indians break
> their 68 year old streak.

Naturally, you're WRONG yet again! They're all hits. It's just your
sour grapes attitude that makes you miss the truth.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

So, because the FBI couldn't find the mark on the curb you say there was
no mark there. And you can't see it in the Dillard photo.

>> 2. The path of fine particles in the skull of JFK, signaling that it
>> was a lead bullet and NOT an FMJ bullet that killed him, meaning a
>> different rifle than the MC rifle.
>>
>
> This is nothing more than your FUBAR analysis of the x-rays which you

You mean which YOU haven't seen. Because you refuse to look at the evidence.

> haven't seen. No competent person who has seen the x-rays has reached that
> conclusion. Opinions of amateurs are not evidence.
>

What conclusion?
Your opinions are not evidence.

>> 3. The absolute proof inside the body of JFK where the back wound
>> bullet did NOT go all the way through and was stopped at the pleura.
>> That meant that more than 3 bullets were fired, meaning another shooter.
>>
>
> More of your FUBAR analysis of the medical evidence. Again no competent
> person has reached the conclusions that you have.
>

Right, so stop citing Humes because he said it was an ice bullet.
Again, something that no competent person would ever say.
Only a wild eyed conspiracy kook.

>> 4. he efforts of the government in putting up the phony WC, which
>> looked at only certain evidence and not all evidence, a sure sign that
>> there was a conspiracy being covered up.
>>
>
> So your evidence of a conspiracy is your assumption of a conspiracy.
> WTG!!!
>
>> 5. Many other anomalies that shouldn't have happened in a normal case
>> of murder.
>>
>
> Many other anomalies??? Now there's some irrefutable evidence. <chuckle>

Not evidence. Challenges to the evidence. You can't refute them. I did.
I had to do the hard work because you're so lazy.

>
> Five swings. Five misses. You and your cohorts are 0 for 53 years. Keep

We won, you lost. We got the HSCA which you opposed and they prove
conspiracy which you denied. Live with it.

> swinging. The Cubs recently ended 108 years of futility. I think their
> record is safe for another 55 years. Assuming of course the Indians break
> their 68 year old streak.
>

Maybe Obama fixed the game to let his home town win.

[bigdog]

Yes it has and was never accompanied by hard evidence. Except for the 3
shot fired by Oswald, all of them are phantoms.

>
>
> > > 2. The path of fine particles in the skull of JFK, signaling that it
> > > was a lead bullet and NOT an FMJ bullet that killed him, meaning a
> > > different rifle than the MC rifle.
> > >
> >
> > This is nothing more than your FUBAR analysis of the x-rays which you
> > haven't seen. No competent person who has seen the x-rays has reached that
> > conclusion. Opinions of amateurs are not evidence.
> >
>
>
> LOL! Had a hard time finding that phony excuse didn't you? If you
> checked into the 'experts' that are so dear to your heart, you will find
> that some of them have indeed mentioned the path of fine particles and
> that they were not FMJ. However, they mentioned the path of the bullet
> from back to front and not the true direction front to BOH.
>

I know this is a futile request but quotes from those experts would be
nice. Your interpretation of what these people said is not evidence of
anything.

>
>
> > > 3. The absolute proof inside the body of JFK where the back wound
> > > bullet did NOT go all the way through and was stopped at the pleura.
> > > That meant that more than 3 bullets were fired, meaning another shooter.
> > >
> >
> > More of your FUBAR analysis of the medical evidence. Again no competent
> > person has reached the conclusions that you have.
> >
>
>
> No competent person has read the statements of some of the autopsy team
> then. If they had, it would become immediately OBVIOUS to them what had
> happened.
>

Why would highly qualified medical examiners change their findings because
of what a few technicians had to say many years later? Do you think they
would have ignored what they saw in the photos and x-rays and trusted the
word of unqualified technicians.

>
>
> > > 4. The efforts of the government in putting up the phony WC, which
> > > looked at only certain evidence and not all evidence, a sure sign that
> > > there was a conspiracy being covered up.
> > >
> >
> > So your evidence of a conspiracy is your assumption of a conspiracy.
> > WTG!!!
> >
>
>
> Apparently you can't read.

Yes I can. You said the government put up the phony WC. That is an
assumption.

> It doesn't say that, it says that there was
> a phony WC put together with people who knew that their job was to find
> Oswald guilty of murder.

As I was saying, an assumption. That's not evidence.

> And so put the rumors to bed. It failed. And
> the leftover WC was proof of complicity.
>

And another assumption. Zero evidence to support it.

>
>
> > > 5. Many other anomalies that shouldn't have happened in a normal case
> > > of murder.
> > >
> >
> > Many other anomalies??? Now there's some irrefutable evidence. <chuckle>
> >
>
>
> I didn't feel like hunting through all those anomalies, but since I've
> explained every one of them to you, I expect your wonderful mind to retain
> them all.
>

If they were as compelling as the crap you did post, I'm not surprised you
would be reluctant to post them.

>
>
> > Five swings. Five misses. You and your cohorts are 0 for 53 years. Keep
> > swinging. The Cubs recently ended 108 years of futility. I think their
> > record is safe for another 55 years. Assuming of course the Indians break
> > their 68 year old streak.
>
>
>
> Naturally, you're WRONG yet again! They're all hits. It's just your
> sour grapes attitude that makes you miss the truth.
>

Not only do you not have any hits. You haven't even managed to hit a foul
ball. Nothing but whiffs.

[mainframetech]

FALSE! Check into the bullet that struck the curb by James Tague that cut his cheek. There are photos of the crease the bullet caused and they removed the section of curb not too long after that:


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-632-0-32373100-1365390277.jpg

> > > > 2. The path of fine particles in the skull of JFK, signaling that it
> > > > was a lead bullet and NOT an FMJ bullet that killed him, meaning a
> > > > different rifle than the MC rifle.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is nothing more than your FUBAR analysis of the x-rays which you
> > > haven't seen. No competent person who has seen the x-rays has reached that
> > > conclusion. Opinions of amateurs are not evidence.
> > >
> >
> >
> > LOL! Had a hard time finding that phony excuse didn't you? If you
> > checked into the 'experts' that are so dear to your heart, you will find
> > that some of them have indeed mentioned the path of fine particles and
> > that they were not FMJ. However, they mentioned the path of the bullet
> > from back to front and not the true direction front to BOH.
> >
>
> I know this is a futile request but quotes from those experts would be
> nice. Your interpretation of what these people said is not evidence of
> anything.
>

That's no interpretation, it's a statement clearly telling what they had to say. But I'm not going to search it out for you. Your statement about not meaning anything is the same as your constant opinions, which also mean nothing.

> > > > 3. The absolute proof inside the body of JFK where the back wound
> > > > bullet did NOT go all the way through and was stopped at the pleura.
> > > > That meant that more than 3 bullets were fired, meaning another shooter.
> > > >
> > >
> > > More of your FUBAR analysis of the medical evidence. Again no competent
> > > person has reached the conclusions that you have.
> > >
> >
> >
> > No competent person has read the statements of some of the autopsy team
> > then. If they had, it would become immediately OBVIOUS to them what had
> > happened.
> >
>
> Why would highly qualified medical examiners change their findings because
> of what a few technicians had to say many years later? Do you think they
> would have ignored what they saw in the photos and x-rays and trusted the
> word of unqualified technicians.
>

Of course, since the autopsy team were not amateurs. They were experienced at their profession.

> >
> >
> > > > 4. The efforts of the government in putting up the phony WC, which
> > > > looked at only certain evidence and not all evidence, a sure sign that
> > > > there was a conspiracy being covered up.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So your evidence of a conspiracy is your assumption of a conspiracy.
> > > WTG!!!
> > >
> >
> >
> > Apparently you can't read.
>
> Yes I can. You said the government put up the phony WC. That is an
> assumption.
>

FALSE! It's not an assumption. It's a fact. The evidence that has been discussed just between you and I proves it was a conspiracy many times over.

> > It doesn't say that, it says that there was
> > a phony WC put together with people who knew that their job was to find
> > Oswald guilty of murder.
>
> As I was saying, an assumption. That's not evidence.
>

The evidence is clear in how they ran the WC. And how the lawyers also followed their instructions. The witnesses they refused to listen to and their assumptions they made proved their intent.

> > And so put the rumors to bed. It failed. And

> > the leftover WCR was proof of complicity.

> >
>
> And another assumption. Zero evidence to support it.
>
> >
> >
> > > > 5. Many other anomalies that shouldn't have happened in a normal case
> > > > of murder.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Many other anomalies??? Now there's some irrefutable evidence. <chuckle>
> > >
> >
> >
> > I didn't feel like hunting through all those anomalies, but since I've
> > explained every one of them to you, I expect your wonderful mind to retain
> > them all.
> >
>
> If they were as compelling as the crap you did post, I'm not surprised you
> would be reluctant to post them.
>
> >
> >
> > > Five swings. Five misses. You and your cohorts are 0 for 53 years. Keep
> > > swinging. The Cubs recently ended 108 years of futility. I think their
> > > record is safe for another 55 years. Assuming of course the Indians break
> > > their 68 year old streak.
> >
> >
> >
> > Naturally, you're WRONG yet again! They're all hits. It's just your
> > sour grapes attitude that makes you miss the truth.
> >
>
> Not only do you not have any hits. You haven't even managed to hit a foul
> ball. Nothing but whiffs.

Naah. You'll never be an umpire.

Chris

[Anthony Marsh]

Wrong. The curb was not removed until August 1964. You know nothing
about the JFK assassination.

Wrong. The Three Stooges. Do you believe the Humes Ice Bullet Theory?

[bigdog]

There is no evidence that was caused by a shot that was fired by any rifle
except Oswald's rifle. There is no definitive evidence which bullet if any
caused that but the best guess is was ricochet from the first shot or a
fragment of it.

>
> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-632-0-32373100-1365390277.jpg
>
>
>
> > > > > 2. The path of fine particles in the skull of JFK, signaling that it
> > > > > was a lead bullet and NOT an FMJ bullet that killed him, meaning a
> > > > > different rifle than the MC rifle.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is nothing more than your FUBAR analysis of the x-rays which you
> > > > haven't seen. No competent person who has seen the x-rays has reached that
> > > > conclusion. Opinions of amateurs are not evidence.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > LOL! Had a hard time finding that phony excuse didn't you? If you
> > > checked into the 'experts' that are so dear to your heart, you will find
> > > that some of them have indeed mentioned the path of fine particles and
> > > that they were not FMJ. However, they mentioned the path of the bullet
> > > from back to front and not the true direction front to BOH.
> > >
> >
> > I know this is a futile request but quotes from those experts would be
> > nice. Your interpretation of what these people said is not evidence of
> > anything.
> >
>
>
> That's no interpretation, it's a statement clearly telling what they had to say. But I'm not going to search it out for you. Your statement about not meaning anything is the same as your constant opinions, which also mean nothing.
>

Really? Which expert said those particles were not from a FMJ bullet.

>
>
> > > > > 3. The absolute proof inside the body of JFK where the back wound
> > > > > bullet did NOT go all the way through and was stopped at the pleura.
> > > > > That meant that more than 3 bullets were fired, meaning another shooter.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > More of your FUBAR analysis of the medical evidence. Again no competent
> > > > person has reached the conclusions that you have.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > No competent person has read the statements of some of the autopsy team
> > > then. If they had, it would become immediately OBVIOUS to them what had
> > > happened.
> > >
> >
> > Why would highly qualified medical examiners change their findings because
> > of what a few technicians had to say many years later? Do you think they
> > would have ignored what they saw in the photos and x-rays and trusted the
> > word of unqualified technicians.
> >
>
>
> Of course, since the autopsy team were not amateurs. They were experienced at their profession.
>

They were trained to do specific tasks to aid the people who were actually
qualified to make judgements regarding medical evidence. In the mock trial
Paul O'Connor described the procedure for removing the brain. It sounded
like he knew how to do that. That doesn't qualify him as a medical
examiner and no qualified medical examiner would trust his opinions over
what they could see with their own eyes.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > 4. The efforts of the government in putting up the phony WC, which
> > > > > looked at only certain evidence and not all evidence, a sure sign that
> > > > > there was a conspiracy being covered up.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So your evidence of a conspiracy is your assumption of a conspiracy.
> > > > WTG!!!
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Apparently you can't read.
> >
> > Yes I can. You said the government put up the phony WC. That is an
> > assumption.
> >
>
>
>
> FALSE! It's not an assumption. It's a fact. The evidence that has been discussed just between you and I proves it was a conspiracy many times over.
>

Just because you declare it is a fact doesn't establish it is a fact. You
also are a poor judge as to what constitutes proof.

>
>
>
> > > It doesn't say that, it says that there was
> > > a phony WC put together with people who knew that their job was to find
> > > Oswald guilty of murder.
> >
> > As I was saying, an assumption. That's not evidence.
> >
>
>
> The evidence is clear in how they ran the WC. And how the lawyers also followed their instructions. The witnesses they refused to listen to and their assumptions they made proved their intent.
>

You seem to use the word "clear" interchangeably with the word "obvious".
When you are making a bases claim you like to use one or the other. It
does nothing to establish the validity of your claim. For that you need
real evidence, not your silly assumptions.

>
>
> > > And so put the rumors to bed. It failed. And
> > > the leftover WCR was proof of complicity.
> > >
> >
> > And another assumption. Zero evidence to support it.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > 5. Many other anomalies that shouldn't have happened in a normal case
> > > > > of murder.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Many other anomalies??? Now there's some irrefutable evidence. <chuckle>
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I didn't feel like hunting through all those anomalies, but since I've
> > > explained every one of them to you, I expect your wonderful mind to retain
> > > them all.
> > >
> >
> > If they were as compelling as the crap you did post, I'm not surprised you
> > would be reluctant to post them.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Five swings. Five misses. You and your cohorts are 0 for 53 years. Keep
> > > > swinging. The Cubs recently ended 108 years of futility. I think their
> > > > record is safe for another 55 years. Assuming of course the Indians break
> > > > their 68 year old streak.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Naturally, you're WRONG yet again! They're all hits. It's just your
> > > sour grapes attitude that makes you miss the truth.
> > >
> >
> > Not only do you not have any hits. You haven't even managed to hit a foul
> > ball. Nothing but whiffs.
>
>
> Naah. You'll never be an umpire.
>

Actually I was for about 40 years at the high school, college and
professional levels. I never made it to the big leagues although I did
work a couple big league spring games. At the college level I worked two
NCAA regionals. This is one area where I do have some expertise of my own.

[mainframetech]

FALSE! There is no way that there was a ricochet to the curb by Tague.
The angle doesn't allow for that. See for yourself. Try again:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TEV9xliiOdI/AAAAAAAAE0E/R79eTS0K1Pg/s1600/Main-St.-Curb.jpg

The angle is to sharp to be from any place that a bullet might have
fragmented. It is higher up than the level of the people standing in the
limousine.

And if a bullet that hit something or someone fragmented, then what was
the exit where the fragment got away and went sailing off on its own?
And the missing bullet from the 3 shells in the TSBD struck the limo above
the windshield:

http://itwasjohnson.impiousdigest.com/dash.jpg

> >
> > http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-632-0-32373100-1365390277.jpg
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > > 2. The path of fine particles in the skull of JFK, signaling that it
> > > > > > was a lead bullet and NOT an FMJ bullet that killed him, meaning a
> > > > > > different rifle than the MC rifle.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > This is nothing more than your FUBAR analysis of the x-rays which you
> > > > > haven't seen. No competent person who has seen the x-rays has reached that
> > > > > conclusion. Opinions of amateurs are not evidence.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > LOL! Had a hard time finding that phony excuse didn't you? If you
> > > > checked into the 'experts' that are so dear to your heart, you will find
> > > > that some of them have indeed mentioned the path of fine particles and
> > > > that they were not FMJ. However, they mentioned the path of the bullet
> > > > from back to front and not the true direction front to BOH.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I know this is a futile request but quotes from those experts would be
> > > nice. Your interpretation of what these people said is not evidence of
> > > anything.
> > >
> >
> >
> > That's no interpretation, it's a statement clearly telling what they had to say. But I'm not going to search it out for you. Your statement about not meaning anything is the same as your constant opinions, which also mean nothing.
> >
>
> Really? Which expert said those particles were not from a FMJ bullet.
>

Please read above.

> >
> >
> > > > > > 3. The absolute proof inside the body of JFK where the back wound
> > > > > > bullet did NOT go all the way through and was stopped at the pleura.
> > > > > > That meant that more than 3 bullets were fired, meaning another shooter.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > More of your FUBAR analysis of the medical evidence. Again no competent
> > > > > person has reached the conclusions that you have.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No competent person has read the statements of some of the autopsy team
> > > > then. If they had, it would become immediately OBVIOUS to them what had
> > > > happened.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why would highly qualified medical examiners change their findings because
> > > of what a few technicians had to say many years later? Do you think they
> > > would have ignored what they saw in the photos and x-rays and trusted the
> > > word of unqualified technicians.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Of course, since the autopsy team were not amateurs. They were experienced at their profession.
> >
>
> They were trained to do specific tasks to aid the people who were actually
> qualified to make judgements regarding medical evidence. In the mock trial
> Paul O'Connor described the procedure for removing the brain. It sounded
> like he knew how to do that. That doesn't qualify him as a medical
> examiner and no qualified medical examiner would trust his opinions over
> what they could see with their own eyes.
>

You forget the important part of statements of the autopsy team members.
It was stated that ALL of the prosectors and the rest of the team SAW the
PROOF! And you are not qualified to discuss what training the autopsy
team members had, nor are you able to determine what training they had or
didn't have. They certainly had experience which they discussed at one
time or another, usually in the ARRB testimonies. Among the autopsy team
members that saw the PROOF was Pierre Finck, an 'expert' in his fields.

unfortunately, you have NO medical examiners that saw all the proofs
needed to make a complete conclusion about the death of JFK. So don't try
to say again that you have 'experts' speaking for you.

> > > > > > 4. The efforts of the government in putting up the phony WC, which
> > > > > > looked at only certain evidence and not all evidence, a sure sign that
> > > > > > there was a conspiracy being covered up.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So your evidence of a conspiracy is your assumption of a conspiracy.
> > > > > WTG!!!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Apparently you can't read.
> > >
> > > Yes I can. You said the government put up the phony WC. That is an
> > > assumption.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > FALSE! It's not an assumption. It's a fact. The evidence that has been discussed just between you and I proves it was a conspiracy many times over.
> >
>
> Just because you declare it is a fact doesn't establish it is a fact. You
> also are a poor judge as to what constitutes proof.
>

And you are a poor judge of facts. Now we've expressed opinions, which
mean nothing, let's get back to the proofs.

> > > > It doesn't say that, it says that there was
> > > > a phony WC put together with people who knew that their job was to find
> > > > Oswald guilty of murder.
> > >
> > > As I was saying, an assumption. That's not evidence.
> > >
> >
> >
> > The evidence is clear in how they ran the WC. And how the lawyers also followed their instructions. The witnesses they refused to listen to and their assumptions they made proved their intent.
> >
>
> You seem to use the word "clear" interchangeably with the word "obvious".
> When you are making a bases claim you like to use one or the other. It
> does nothing to establish the validity of your claim. For that you need
> real evidence, not your silly assumptions.
>

As to silliness, that statement is about a silly as it can get. The
meanings of the 2 words has been established for many years. Try and
learn them, since you still can't figure them out.

> >
> >
> > > > And so put the rumors to bed. It failed. And
> > > > the leftover WCR was proof of complicity.
> > > >
> > >
> > > And another assumption. Zero evidence to support it.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > 5. Many other anomalies that shouldn't have happened in a normal case
> > > > > > of murder.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Many other anomalies??? Now there's some irrefutable evidence. <chuckle>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I didn't feel like hunting through all those anomalies, but since I've
> > > > explained every one of them to you, I expect your wonderful mind to retain
> > > > them all.
> > > >
> > >
> > > If they were as compelling as the crap you did post, I'm not surprised you
> > > would be reluctant to post them.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Five swings. Five misses. You and your cohorts are 0 for 53 years. Keep
> > > > > swinging. The Cubs recently ended 108 years of futility. I think their
> > > > > record is safe for another 55 years. Assuming of course the Indians break
> > > > > their 68 year old streak.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Naturally, you're WRONG yet again! They're all hits. It's just your
> > > > sour grapes attitude that makes you miss the truth.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Not only do you not have any hits. You haven't even managed to hit a foul
> > > ball. Nothing but whiffs.
> >
> >
> > Naah. You'll never be an umpire.
> >
>
> Actually I was for about 40 years at the high school, college and
> professional levels. I never made it to the big leagues although I did
> work a couple big league spring games. At the college level I worked two
> NCAA regionals. This is one area where I do have some expertise of my own.

Doubtful.

Chris

[bigdog]

You probably aren't aware that when a bullet ricochets, the angle of it's
trajectory changes.

> The angle is to sharp to be from any place that a bullet might have
> fragmented. It is higher up than the level of the people standing in the
> limousine.
>

Who was standing in the limousine and what the hell would that have to do
with the angle of the bullet strike.

> And if a bullet that hit something or someone fragmented, then what was
> the exit where the fragment got away and went sailing off on its own?
> And the missing bullet from the 3 shells in the TSBD struck the limo above
> the windshield:
>
> http://itwasjohnson.impiousdigest.com/dash.jpg
>

You are making no sense whatsoever.

>
>
> > >
> > > http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-632-0-32373100-1365390277.jpg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > 2. The path of fine particles in the skull of JFK, signaling that it
> > > > > > > was a lead bullet and NOT an FMJ bullet that killed him, meaning a
> > > > > > > different rifle than the MC rifle.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This is nothing more than your FUBAR analysis of the x-rays which you
> > > > > > haven't seen. No competent person who has seen the x-rays has reached that
> > > > > > conclusion. Opinions of amateurs are not evidence.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > LOL! Had a hard time finding that phony excuse didn't you? If you
> > > > > checked into the 'experts' that are so dear to your heart, you will find
> > > > > that some of them have indeed mentioned the path of fine particles and
> > > > > that they were not FMJ. However, they mentioned the path of the bullet
> > > > > from back to front and not the true direction front to BOH.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I know this is a futile request but quotes from those experts would be
> > > > nice. Your interpretation of what these people said is not evidence of
> > > > anything.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > That's no interpretation, it's a statement clearly telling what they had to say. But I'm not going to search it out for you. Your statement about not meaning anything is the same as your constant opinions, which also mean nothing.
> > >
> >
> > Really? Which expert said those particles were not from a FMJ bullet.
> >
>
>
> Please read above.
>

I did. There is no mention of an expert who said the particles in JFK's
head were not from an FMJ bullet.

>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > > > 3. The absolute proof inside the body of JFK where the back wound
> > > > > > > bullet did NOT go all the way through and was stopped at the pleura.
> > > > > > > That meant that more than 3 bullets were fired, meaning another shooter.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > More of your FUBAR analysis of the medical evidence. Again no competent
> > > > > > person has reached the conclusions that you have.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > No competent person has read the statements of some of the autopsy team
> > > > > then. If they had, it would become immediately OBVIOUS to them what had
> > > > > happened.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why would highly qualified medical examiners change their findings because
> > > > of what a few technicians had to say many years later? Do you think they
> > > > would have ignored what they saw in the photos and x-rays and trusted the
> > > > word of unqualified technicians.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Of course, since the autopsy team were not amateurs. They were experienced at their profession.
> > >
> >
> > They were trained to do specific tasks to aid the people who were actually
> > qualified to make judgements regarding medical evidence. In the mock trial
> > Paul O'Connor described the procedure for removing the brain. It sounded
> > like he knew how to do that. That doesn't qualify him as a medical
> > examiner and no qualified medical examiner would trust his opinions over
> > what they could see with their own eyes.
> >
>
>
> You forget the important part of statements of the autopsy team members.
> It was stated that ALL of the prosectors and the rest of the team SAW the
> PROOF!

That wasn't stated by any of the prosectors. Try again.

> And you are not qualified to discuss what training the autopsy
> team members had, nor are you able to determine what training they had or
> didn't have.

I know the only qualified medical examiners were Humes, Boswell, and Finck

> They certainly certainly had experience which they discussed at one

> time or another, usually in the ARRB testimonies. Among the autopsy team
> members that saw the PROOF was Pierre Finck, an 'expert' in his fields.
>

Unfortunately for you, you can't quote Finck saying anything that supports
your will beliefs. In fact his on the record statements refute what you
are trying to peddle.

> unfortunately, you have NO medical examiners that saw all the proofs
> needed to make a complete conclusion about the death of JFK. So don't try
> to say again that you have 'experts' speaking for you.
>

You have no medical examiners on your side, period.

>
>
>
> > > > > > > 4. The efforts of the government in putting up the phony WC, which
> > > > > > > looked at only certain evidence and not all evidence, a sure sign that
> > > > > > > there was a conspiracy being covered up.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So your evidence of a conspiracy is your assumption of a conspiracy.
> > > > > > WTG!!!
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Apparently you can't read.
> > > >
> > > > Yes I can. You said the government put up the phony WC. That is an
> > > > assumption.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > FALSE! It's not an assumption. It's a fact. The evidence that has been discussed just between you and I proves it was a conspiracy many times over.
> > >
> >
> > Just because you declare it is a fact doesn't establish it is a fact. You
> > also are a poor judge as to what constitutes proof.
> >
>
>
> And you are a poor judge of facts. Now we've expressed opinions, which
> mean nothing, let's get back to the proofs.
>

When will you start?

>
>
> > > > > It doesn't say that, it says that there was
> > > > > a phony WC put together with people who knew that their job was to find
> > > > > Oswald guilty of murder.
> > > >
> > > > As I was saying, an assumption. That's not evidence.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The evidence is clear in how they ran the WC. And how the lawyers also followed their instructions. The witnesses they refused to listen to and their assumptions they made proved their intent.
> > >
> >
> > You seem to use the word "clear" interchangeably with the word "obvious".
> > When you are making a bases claim you like to use one or the other. It
> > does nothing to establish the validity of your claim. For that you need
> > real evidence, not your silly assumptions.
> >
>
>
>
> As to silliness, that statement is about a silly as it can get. The
> meanings of the 2 words has been established for many years. Try and
> learn them, since you still can't figure them out.
>

I know what the words mean which is why I know you use them when they are
not appropriate, like when you are making a baseless claim.

Would you care to make a wager on that. I will have no problem documenting
that. In fact one of your heroes, Gil Jesus actually went to the trouble
of using my e-mail address to determine who I was and the hit he got was
that I was the president of the Central Ohio Baseball Umpires Association.
At the time it was the second time I had been elected to that position. He
thought he was being really clever when in reality if he wanted to know
who I actually was, all he had to do was ask. I've never tried to make a
secret of my identity.

I'll even give you a really good clue.

https://www.bizapedia.com/oh/central-ohio-baseball-umpires-association.html

[mainframetech]

WRONG! I get more points! But one needs to look at the curbsrtone
that was ghit and decide where and how low it was that a ricochet could
come from. You'll see that the angle that hit the curb was from a higher
point than the head level of any persons. And the point of the bullet
strike over the limo windshield was too flat on to deflect a bullet or
fragment over to where Tague was. Think it through.



> > The angle is too sharp to be from any place that a bullet might have

> > fragmented. It is higher up than the level of the people standing in the
> > limousine.
> >
>
> Who was standing in the limousine and what the hell would that have to do
> with the angle of the bullet strike.
>

You've often tried to say that a bullet fragmented by hitting JFK's
skull and was deflected away as a ricochet. The angle of the strike on
the curb is too high to be that case, as well as the case where the
fragment came from the bullet strike over the windshield, which probably
generate the 2 fragments in the front seat. How many bullet strikes in
Dealey Plaza do you want to try?

> > And if a bullet that hit something or someone fragmented, then what was
> > the exit where the fragment got away and went sailing off on its own?
> > And the missing bullet from the 3 shells in the TSBD struck the limo above
> > the windshield:
> >
> > http://itwasjohnson.impiousdigest.com/dash.jpg
> >
>
> You are making no sense whatsoever.
>

WRONG! I get another point! And you lose one. The problem is your
inability to understand or to formulate a decent question to help you
understand.

> > > > http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-632-0-32373100-1365390277.jpg
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > 2. The path of fine particles in the skull of JFK, signaling that it
> > > > > > > > was a lead bullet and NOT an FMJ bullet that killed him, meaning a
> > > > > > > > different rifle than the MC rifle.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is nothing more than your FUBAR analysis of the x-rays which you
> > > > > > > haven't seen. No competent person who has seen the x-rays has reached that
> > > > > > > conclusion. Opinions of amateurs are not evidence.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > LOL! Had a hard time finding that phony excuse didn't you? If you
> > > > > > checked into the 'experts' that are so dear to your heart, you will find
> > > > > > that some of them have indeed mentioned the path of fine particles and
> > > > > > that they were not FMJ. However, they mentioned the path of the bullet
> > > > > > from back to front and not the true direction front to BOH.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I know this is a futile request but quotes from those experts would be
> > > > > nice. Your interpretation of what these people said is not evidence of
> > > > > anything.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > That's no interpretation, it's a statement clearly telling what they had to say. But I'm not going to search it out for you. Your statement about not meaning anything is the same as your constant opinions, which also mean nothing.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Really? Which expert said those particles were not from a FMJ bullet.
> > >
> >
> >
> > Please read above.
> >
>
> I did. There is no mention of an expert who said the particles in JFK's
> head were not from an FMJ bullet.
>

WRONG! You can try your best to sway the point of the particles, but
it's clear to most average people that fine particles don't come from FMJ
bullets.

> >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > > > 3. The absolute proof inside the body of JFK where the back wound
> > > > > > > > bullet did NOT go all the way through and was stopped at the pleura.
> > > > > > > > That meant that more than 3 bullets were fired, meaning another shooter.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > More of your FUBAR analysis of the medical evidence. Again no competent
> > > > > > > person has reached the conclusions that you have.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No competent person has read the statements of some of the autopsy team
> > > > > > then. If they had, it would become immediately OBVIOUS to them what had
> > > > > > happened.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would highly qualified medical examiners change their findings because
> > > > > of what a few technicians had to say many years later? Do you think they
> > > > > would have ignored what they saw in the photos and x-rays and trusted the
> > > > > word of unqualified technicians.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Of course, since the autopsy team were not amateurs. They were experienced at their profession.
> > > >
> > >
> > > They were trained to do specific tasks to aid the people who were actually
> > > qualified to make judgements regarding medical evidence. In the mock trial
> > > Paul O'Connor described the procedure for removing the brain. It sounded
> > > like he knew how to do that. That doesn't qualify him as a medical
> > > examiner and no qualified medical examiner would trust his opinions over
> > > what they could see with their own eyes.
> > >
> >
> >
> > You forget the important part of statements of the autopsy team members.
> > It was stated that ALL of the prosectors and the rest of the team SAW the
> > PROOF!
>
> That wasn't stated by any of the prosectors. Try again.
>

WRONG! A prosector isn't needed to verify what they ALL saw. We're
not talking about a Gordian knot here, just a simple bruise and the PROOF
that the bullet stopped at the pleura, which they ALL saw!

> > And you are not qualified to discuss what training the autopsy
> > team members had, nor are you able to determine what training they had or
> > didn't have.
>
> I know the only qualified medical examiners were Humes, Boswell, and Finck
>

I don't know that they were qualified medical examiners, they were not
civilians. And they had little practice, which is why Humes asked for
Finck to join them. The problem was simpler than you seem to realize.
They all were plenty knowledgeable as to what they were seeing. The
statements you've seen proved that.




> > They certainly had experience which they discussed at one

> > time or another, usually in the ARRB testimonies. Among the autopsy team
> > members that saw the PROOF was Pierre Finck, an 'expert' in his fields.
> >
>
> Unfortunately for you, you can't quote Finck saying anything that supports
> your will beliefs. In fact his on the record statements refute what you
> are trying to peddle.
>

WRONG! I gain points again! You've tried that phony gimmick and you
know very well that not every person in the world has every word they say
recorded so that it can be read out just for you. And you're not in court
and evidence comes in clearly from people that tell us what was said.
However, the tea member that gave much of the info on them ALL having seen
the PROOF, was quoted, and I read it out for you. Oh, you didn't copy it
off word for word? Too bad.

> > unfortunately, you have NO medical examiners that saw all the proofs
> > needed to make a complete conclusion about the death of JFK. So don't try
> > to say again that you have 'experts' speaking for you.
> >
>
> You have no medical examiners on your side, period.
>

That has been discussed and you're trying to repeat it all to stall in
hopes that something will occur to you to help you out of your quandary.

WRIONG! I get a point and you lose one. "baseless claim" is an
opinion, and therefore means nothing.

LOL! If you were an umpire, I feel sorry for the players. Since you
can't tell a fact from a fantasy.

Chris

[bigdog]

It's hysterical that recently you have decided you are getting points for
this crap you post. Just what do you intend to do with all these points
you are piling up.

> But one needs to look at the curbsrtone
> that was ghit and decide where and how low it was that a ricochet could
> come from.

By all means look at it and then do what you always do and pull come
baseless claim out of your ass and tell us it is obvious what happened.

> You'll see that the angle that hit the curb was from a higher
> point than the head level of any persons. And the point of the bullet
> strike over the limo windshield was too flat on to deflect a bullet or
> fragment over to where Tague was. Think it through.
>

You must think bullets and fragments fly in a straight line.

>
>
> > > The angle is too sharp to be from any place that a bullet might have
> > > fragmented. It is higher up than the level of the people standing in the
> > > limousine.
> > >
> >
> > Who was standing in the limousine and what the hell would that have to do
> > with the angle of the bullet strike.
> >
>
> You've often tried to say that a bullet fragmented by hitting JFK's
> skull and was deflected away as a ricochet.

I have said the bullet that hit JFK's head fragmented. I have never stated
that one of those fragments struck the curb in front of Tague. That is
simply a possibility that cannot logically be discounted. I am more
inclined to believe the first shot struck the pavement to the right of the
limo and ricocheted down Elm St and crossed the median to hit the curb
near Tague. Again that is a just another possibility. There is no
definitive evidence as to what caused the curb strike. It I were to use
your tactics, I would say it's obvious the curb was struck by a ricochet
from the first missed shot but that would be a silly thing to do.

> The angle of the strike on
> the curb is too high to be that case, as well as the case where the
> fragment came from the bullet strike over the windshield, which probably
> generate the 2 fragments in the front seat. How many bullet strikes in
> Dealey Plaza do you want to try?
>

Why don't you show us the calculations you did to arrive at these
conclusions.

>
>
> > > And if a bullet that hit something or someone fragmented, then what was
> > > the exit where the fragment got away and went sailing off on its own?
> > > And the missing bullet from the 3 shells in the TSBD struck the limo above
> > > the windshield:
> > >
> > > http://itwasjohnson.impiousdigest.com/dash.jpg
> > >
> >
> > You are making no sense whatsoever.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! I get another point! And you lose one. The problem is your
> inability to understand or to formulate a decent question to help you
> understand.
>

There is no reason for me to even attempt to understand the things you
come up with. That would be a futile exercise.

>
>
> > > > > http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-632-0-32373100-1365390277.jpg
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2. The path of fine particles in the skull of JFK, signaling that it
> > > > > > > > > was a lead bullet and NOT an FMJ bullet that killed him, meaning a
> > > > > > > > > different rifle than the MC rifle.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This is nothing more than your FUBAR analysis of the x-rays which you
> > > > > > > > haven't seen. No competent person who has seen the x-rays has reached that
> > > > > > > > conclusion. Opinions of amateurs are not evidence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > LOL! Had a hard time finding that phony excuse didn't you? If you
> > > > > > > checked into the 'experts' that are so dear to your heart, you will find
> > > > > > > that some of them have indeed mentioned the path of fine particles and
> > > > > > > that they were not FMJ. However, they mentioned the path of the bullet
> > > > > > > from back to front and not the true direction front to BOH.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know this is a futile request but quotes from those experts would be
> > > > > > nice. Your interpretation of what these people said is not evidence of
> > > > > > anything.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That's no interpretation, it's a statement clearly telling what they had to say. But I'm not going to search it out for you. Your statement about not meaning anything is the same as your constant opinions, which also mean nothing.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Really? Which expert said those particles were not from a FMJ bullet.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Please read above.
> > >
> >
> > I did. There is no mention of an expert who said the particles in JFK's
> > head were not from an FMJ bullet.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! You can try your best to sway the point of the particles, but
> it's clear to most average people that fine particles don't come from FMJ
> bullets.
>

Oh, it's "clear". I guess you don't have to cite any evidence then.

There is no such proof. If there was the qualified medical examiners would
have found it. Since this proof is just imaginary, it took a conspiracy
hobbyist like yourself to come up with that.

>
>
> > > And you are not qualified to discuss what training the autopsy
> > > team members had, nor are you able to determine what training they had or
> > > didn't have.
> >
> > I know the only qualified medical examiners were Humes, Boswell, and Finck
> >
>
>
> I don't know that they were qualified medical examiners, they were not
> civilians. And they had little practice, which is why Humes asked for
> Finck to join them. The problem was simpler than you seem to realize.
> They all were plenty knowledgeable as to what they were seeing. The
> statements you've seen proved that.
>

No statement has ever been made by any of the prosectors that supports the
silly things you have claimed.

>
>
>
> > > They certainly had experience which they discussed at one
> > > time or another, usually in the ARRB testimonies. Among the autopsy team
> > > members that saw the PROOF was Pierre Finck, an 'expert' in his fields.
> > >
> >
> > Unfortunately for you, you can't quote Finck saying anything that supports
> > your will beliefs. In fact his on the record statements refute what you
> > are trying to peddle.
> >
>
>
> WRONG! I gain points again! You've tried that phony gimmick and you
> know very well that not every person in the world has every word they say
> recorded so that it can be read out just for you.

There's nothing phoney about it. There is no record of Finck saying
anything that supports your position. In fact everything we have on the
record refutes your beliefs.

> And you're not in court
> and evidence comes in clearly from people that tell us what was said.
> However, the tea member that gave much of the info on them ALL having seen
> the PROOF, was quoted, and I read it out for you. Oh, you didn't copy it
> off word for word? Too bad.
>

Still nothing from any of the prosectors that supports your beliefs.

>
>
> > > unfortunately, you have NO medical examiners that saw all the proofs
> > > needed to make a complete conclusion about the death of JFK. So don't try
> > > to say again that you have 'experts' speaking for you.
> > >
> >
> > You have no medical examiners on your side, period.
> >
>
>
> That has been discussed and you're trying to repeat it all to stall in
> hopes that something will occur to you to help you out of your quandary.
>

There's no quandary. You have no medical examiners on your side, period.

If it is just an opinion, why when I ask you for evidence to support your
claims you are unable to come up with any.

Thank you, Captain Irony.

[Anthony Marsh]

WHy not? That could be fun. Talk to Ken Rahn and Larry Sturdivan. Have
you seen their diagram?

> simply a possibility that cannot logically be discounted. I am more
> inclined to believe the first shot struck the pavement to the right of the
> limo and ricocheted down Elm St and crossed the median to hit the curb
> near Tague. Again that is a just another possibility. There is no
> definitive evidence as to what caused the curb strike. It I were to use
> your tactics, I would say it's obvious the curb was struck by a ricochet
> from the first missed shot but that would be a silly thing to do.
>

Ok how about a fragment from the head shot hitting the chrome topping?
Do you buy that?