JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 28)

>>> "Dave, I certainly agree that that alleged statement {about LHO wanting to get an apartment in Dallas on Nov. 22 for himself and Marina} is inconsistent with my {"LHO Was Set Up"} scenario. It is certainly inconsistent as well with Oswald's plan to shoot Kennedy, unless you feel he was so "namby-pamby" about it he would have called it off if Marina had returned to Dallas with him. I mean, if he shot JFK to secure his place in history, he was willing to give up that place if he would only get Marina back? A pretty wishy-washy guy!" <<<

Well, yes, I think he was pretty wishy-washy to a great degree. And
this wishy-washiness shows up in his lackluster preparations and
escape plan for a Presidential murder attempt.

And, btw, Vince Bugliosi does, indeed, tend to lean toward the belief
that if Marina had said "Yes, Lee, I'll come back to Dallas with you
tomorrow", then Lee probably would never have shot JFK the next day.

And, IMO, I think it makes a good deal of sense, too. But with Marina
saying "No" to him, and snubbing him and turning away his advances as
she did on Nov. 21st, this just might have had a major effect on LHO's
state-of-mind for the following day.

Hard to believe? Maybe. But such acts of insane violence and the deep-
rooted reasons they occur are very often hard to swallow, and very
often hard to believe. (Like a guy wanting to climb to the top of a
University tower in Texas in 1966 and start shooting every stranger in
sight. Hard to believe.)

But I'd be willing to bet that if a small incident (perhaps akin to
this Marina/Lee reconciliation thing) had gone differently in Charles
Whitman's life in the days and weeks leading up to August 1st, 1966,
then those Tower Shootings would never have happened either.

A very small thing in someone's life can trigger a major change in
their train of thought and mindset. I think that is a simple fact of
life that no one can argue with.

It's just unfortunate for our country that Marina Oswald didn't
realize what her husband was planning to do the next day.

That hindsight, for Marina, must indeed be pretty hard to live with
all these years later. And perhaps that is part of the reason why she
has since convinced herself that her husband was just an innocent
'patsy', after initially thinking LHO was guilty.

Maybe all those years of hindsight thinking caught up to her; and the
only way she could handle it was to place a veil of doubt around Lee's
guilt.*

* = Yes, that's a wild guess on my part. Of course. But food for
thought anyway.

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 27, 2007, 3:49:07 AM9/27/07

to

>>> "Could you concede that the evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy is both "clear and convincing", but NOT beyond a reasonable doubt?" <<<

I can honestly state that I have absolutely NO REASONABLE DOUBT about
Oswald's guilt.

In other words -- If I'm on that jury, and Vince Bugliosi (or whoever)
has just presented a case akin to the arguments that can be found in
VB's book "Reclaiming History"....I MUST vote "Guilty".

And it would take a heck of a lot to talk me into thinking that this
mountain of evidence against this ONE PERSON has all been tainted in
some fashion...or has been used to set up some innocent 'patsy'.

That, IMO, is just not a "reasonable doubt". Sorry. It isn't.

You, sir, seem to be making an attempt at literally TALKING YOURSELF
OUT of believing the evidence that's staring you in the face with
respect to Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the two murders which the
evidence says he committed in Dallas in 1963.

And I can't help but wonder....why?

Why is "Occam's" even in my dictionary, if I can never be allowed to
use it in cases like this one?

DVP
09/27/2007 AD

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Sep 27, 2007, 5:39:18 AM9/27/07

to

Seems to me someone planning on shooting a President pre 1968 before the
lone nut myth echoed in the media and inspired some true lone nuts,
would have to be an obsessed nutjob with a pathological hatred and
determination that would render anything Marina did irrelevant.

Oswald's behavior like roughly everything in this case is mysterious and
can go two or more ways- on one hand he doesn't seem to particularly
care JFK has been killed, but on the other hand certainly appears to be
a person who hates the position he finds himself in... doesn't seem at
all like he's proud he's thrown his life and family's name away does he?
Jeff...

aeffects

unread,

Sep 27, 2007, 3:40:15 PM9/27/07

to

On Sep 9, 3:29 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 28):
>

who is Bugliosi?

tomnln

unread,

Sep 27, 2007, 3:45:14 PM9/27/07

to

"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190922015.9...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> On Sep 9, 3:29 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 28):
>>
> who is Bugliosi?

An Ambulance Chaser who won't allow questions on his written Lies.

Sam Brown

unread,

Sep 27, 2007, 8:30:46 PM9/27/07

to

"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1190922015.9...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> On Sep 9, 3:29 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 28):
>>
> who is Bugliosi?

Who is John "Francis" Kennedy? Fuckstick.

>

tomnln

unread,

Sep 27, 2007, 8:51:48 PM9/27/07

to

With a mouth like that, it's easy to see that AIDS comes from ABOMINATIONS.

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm

"Sam Brown" <samjb...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:46fc4b56$0$18304$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...