JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 101)

>>> "Now are you really going to try to make us believe the cops didn't beat the shit outta him [LHO] after he alledgedly [sic] had murdered one of their fellow officers???" <<<

Doesn't look like he was beaten up too badly, does it now, Walt-Kook?:

http://reclaiming-history.googlegroups.com/web/048.+LEE+HARVEY+OSWALD+IN+CUSTODY?gda=aeBtqVMAAACxA9os6ADQQ0uomp7ozclQDfg4Tzo_V8X06bU4d0mPI6ed24aXTXo5RDD_EroDFbJAS4Zt-dVv1OY7eET-BdoQMrYifh3RmGHD4v9PaZfDexVi73jmlo822J6Z5KZsXFo

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b72/Shhhsplain/bf42ded3.jpg

>>> "You're outta touch with reality." <<<

Says the kook who ignores all the evidence in both the JFK & JDT
murder cases. Lovely.

>>> "How did they treat him at the theater??" <<<

He was treated a lot better than he could have been treated under
those circumstances, that's for sure.

The bastard pulls a gun and pops an officer in the face, and Walt
thinks he should have been treated with kid gloves.

Walt's nuts. (Naturally.)

Oswald was quite lucky he wasn't graveyard dead at 1:55 PM on
11/22/63.

>>> "Have you seen the photos of they way he was dragged from the theater??" <<<

He had just pulled a gun on the cops in the theater, Mr. Brainless.
Jesus H. Christ, were they supposed to wipe his nose, dust him off,
and send him on his merry way with a mere "Don't do that again, okay?"
warning?

Walt's nuts. (Naturally.)

>>> "How do you suppose those cops treated him once he was no longer in view of the public???" <<<

He was treated just fine. Take note of Chief Curry's statement near
the end of his WC testimony shown below. (Curry's a liar, right
Walt?):

GERALD FORD -- You mentioned earlier there had been some allegations
to the effect that Oswald had been badly treated.

CHIEF JESSE E. CURRY -- There was---I didn't hear this myself but
someone told me, I don't recall who it was, that some of the news
media, I understood this was broadcast over the radio and TV.

FORD -- Did you investigate that rumor?

CURRY -- Yes, sir.

FORD -- What did you find out?

CURRY -- I found he had not been mistreated.

FORD -- You checked with all the police personnel who had anything to
do with it?

CURRY -- Everyone I knew about and the only marks on him was, that I
could see there was a slight mark on his face up here, and this was
received when he was fighting the officers in that theatre, and they
had to subdue him and in the scuffle, this episode in the theatre, he
apparently received a couple of marks on his face. But he didn't
complain to me about it. I think he--one of the times he was coming
down the hall someone asked him what was the matter with his eye and
he said, "A cop hit me," I believe, or "A policeman hit me." ....

FORD -- But not in your presence did he [Oswald] object to any
treatment he received from the Dallas police force?

CURRY -- No, sir. I would like to say for the record that we are very
strict on our officers in the treatment of prisoners, and we have a
personnel section setup that any person who complains that they have
been mistreated by the police officer, a thorough investigation is
made, and if it is determined that he has been mistreated in any way,
disciplinary action is taken, and on occasion we have, not frequently,
but on occasion where we have found that this has been true we have
dismissed personnel for mistreating a prisoner, so our personnel know
positively this is not tolerated regardless of who it is.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/curry1.htm

David Von Pein

unread,

Jun 6, 2009, 7:30:01 AM6/6/09

to

ANOTHER FUN KOOK-BASHING INSTANT REPLAY:

>>> "[Williams, Norman, and Jarman] Acted as if no one were above them. Williams even testified that they didn't give the supposed shooter above them a second [thought]--check his testimony!" <<<

Here we have more typical Kook Logic -- i.e., a conspiracy-happy idiot
gets to decide for himself what the witnesses should or should not
have "thought" in association with the assassination and its
aftermath.

And if the thoughts and/or actions of the witnesses don't meet the
CTer's expectations, which they rarely do of course, then the CT-Kook
gets to make up his own "Why Didn't The Witness Do This?" rules and
berate the innocent witness for not meeting the expectations of the
idiot asking the silly question.*

* = Which, of course, are all expectations that are teeming with
"Monday-morning quarterbacking" hindsight. A similar situation has
played itself out with another conspiracy-giddy halfwit (Rob) in
another thread regarding the testimony of Mary Bledsoe and Ruth Paine:

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fa7198f5a466188a

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a0950fe0a478a7f8

Rob thinks that Ruth should have behaved differently toward Marina and
Lee Oswald in the weeks and months before the assassination of
President Kennedy.

Robby thinks there's a reason to suspect that Mrs. Paine and Mrs.
Bledsoe were telling one lie after another to the Warren Commission.
The only thing Rob the Idiot has to go on, of course, is a gut feeling
that something's not quite right in the testimony of Bledsoe and
Paine. And, for Rob, this "gut feeling", naturally, is more than
enough of a reason to call the two ladies bald-face liars here on the
World Wide Web.

IOW -- To hell with the actual under-oath testimony (per many a-CTer).
The CTers will merely insert their own suspicions and treat the words
of the witnesses as something totally irrelevant.

Such is the mindset of people like Donald W. and Robby C.

I have a mental picture of Donald Willis poring over the testimony and
affidavits and FBI statements of the TSBD witnesses, in the hopes of
finding something--ANYTHING--that he can latch onto as an
inconsistency or a supposed inaccuracy of some kind. Day & night,
night & day, Willis will never stop until he can place innocent
witnesses like Bonnie Ray Williams, James Jarman Jr., Harold Norman,
and Danny Arce in the gas chamber (figuratively-speaking).

As another LNer has said in past posts (and it's damn good advice too,
IMO) -- Kooks like Donny and Robby should seek out new hobbies.
Because the one they are currently engaged in involving the JFK
assassination reeks with silliness (not to mention defamation of
character with respect to the scads of innocent people they have no
hesitation in calling "liars", "gunmen", "murderers", and/or
"conspirators").

I hear coin-collecting can be rewarding. (Although Donald and Rob
would probably find some way to screw up that hobby too....probably by
over-examining an original '64 Kennedy half-dollar and insisting the
coin had been counterfeited by David Ferrie.)

David Von Pein
June 16, 2008

aeffects

unread,

Jun 6, 2009, 6:13:26 PM6/6/09

to

On Jun 6, 4:30 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

uh-huh-huhhhh dipshit.... no free advertising asshole....

David Von Pein

unread,

Jun 9, 2009, 9:15:29 PM6/9/09

to

THE WARREN COMMISSION, JOHN CONNALLY, ROSE CHERAMI, CBS-TV, OSWALD'S
MISUNDERSTOOD "PATSY" STATEMENT, AND SOME OTHER STUFF TOO:

www.HomeTheaterForum.com/htf/3568167-post.html

www.HomeTheaterForum.com/htf/3568721-post.html

aeffects

unread,

Jun 10, 2009, 3:41:06 AM6/10/09

to

can you hear me now? allo, allo, ALLO! CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jun 10, 2009, 6:52:57 PM6/10/09

to

AN UNIDENTIFIED PERSON AT "YOU TUBE" SAID TO ME:

>>> "I noticed you take some jabs at Jim Garrison. This is not surprising..." <<<

DVP SAID:

No, it isn't. Why would that be "surprising" to anybody? You actually
think that the late Mr. Garrison DOESN'T deserve some verbal salvos
being slung at him? If you think Garrison should be glorified or
praised in some manner, you're a fool. Simple as that.

>>> "Your loyal support of the "official" investigation has never wavered even when real investigators like Jim DiEugenio put you to shame every time you try to debate him." <<<

LOL. Yeah, even when Mr. DiEugenio lies and says stupid things like:
"JFK's head is in the exact position [in Z313 as it was in Z312]", and
"The Connallys should have been covered in blood" (as if they
weren't).

You should examine more closely some of the really stupid things
uttered by Mr. DiEugenio. I've mapped out many of them at the links
provided below:

www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/browse_thread/thread/4de239e56e02f210

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dc1d90f0571b73f0

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/10311d20ec887eac

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fb486bcbb592bacf

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/089724b74596fdd1

www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f40f7c3d2563783f

>>> "At least Garrison actually tried to find out what really happened, which is way more than the WC did." <<<

Nonsense. The Warren Commission did an excellent job at determining
"what really happened", including a detailed reconstruction of the
crime in Dealey Plaza on May 24, 1964.

On the other hand, Jim Garrison lied like a dog on many key issues
connected to the case. He never could "identify" any snipers behind
BOTH the picket fence and the retaining wall, even though he
maintained he could identify the "assassins" located there. But that
was nothing but a great-big lie and everybody knows it.

Another example of Garrison playing fast and loose with the facts is
the topic of "Doorway Man". Garrison knew damn well that it was Billy
Lovelady (and not Oswald) standing in the doorway of the Book
Depository when the assassination occurred. But in 1967, three years
after the matter was settled for good, Garrison was still spreading
the false story that it just might have been Oswald in the doorway
after all. That's pathetic. Pathetic lies from a pathetic prosecutor.

>>> "The mountain of evidence proving a conspiracy is so voluminous that even a devoted government apologist such as yourself must have some questions." <<<

The "mountain of evidence" you refer to is more like an anthill. And
that anthill can be blown away too (usually via common sense alone).
Conspiracy promoters don't have ONE solid piece of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE
to support their continual claims of a multi-gun plot in the JFK
assassination. Not a single piece. All we ever get from the Warren
Commission critics are smoke and mirrors (and shadows), and nothing
more.

In reality, the "mountain" of conspiracy has been MANUFACTURED by
conspiracy theorists. Just read Vincent Bugliosi's landmark book on
the case, "Reclaiming History", for ample proof of this. A good place
to start is the 36-page "RH" Introduction (available to read for free
at the link below):

www.ReclaimingHistory.com/excerpts/ReclaimHistIntro.pdf

>>> "You and that McAdams fraud have been totally discredited and are the joke of all serious JFK assassination discussion." <<<

Yeah, imagine somebody actually following the evidence where it leads
them and drawing conclusions from that evidence...vs. pulling a
Garrison and pretending that all of the evidence is faked and planted
-- like the four bullet shells on 10th Street. Garrison thought those
shells were planted by somebody to frame Oswald, with Garrison even
going so far as to say that he didn't believe Tippit's killer (who was
Lee Oswald, of course) dumped ANY shells on the ground at all. That's
how big a "fraud" (and a kook) Mr. Garrison was.

Happy shadow-chasing to you (whoever you are).

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

aeffects

unread,

Jun 11, 2009, 3:27:38 AM6/11/09

to

On Jun 10, 3:52 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> AN UNIDENTIFIED PERSON AT "YOU TUBE" SAID TO ME:
>
> >>> "I noticed you take some jabs at Jim Garrison. This is not surprising..." <<<
>

sure the person was unidentified.... LMFAO. I think you get a woody
when Jim Garrison's name pops up, Dave. JKust like when the town of
Clinton is named, sends shivers up your spine, eh?