An improbable act
Walt
possession, to be caught with it?
Was he too stupid to know what even very low IQ thugs know?
Well not according to all who knew him. He tested well above average
when he enlisted in the Marine Corp. And all of those who encountered
him from his employers, to the FBI, and the Dallas police, thought
that he was a pretty intelligent man.
Now then, If Oswald was as intelligent as most folks thought he
was.....why would he leave an incriminating trail as easy to see as
the white line on a highway? And then deny that he had assassinated
the president or shot a police officer?? The answer has to
be:....Oswald didn't leave an incriminating trail... Someone left it
for
him.
One of the best examples of sheer stupidity, and an act that only a
halfwit would do, is the act of retaining the pistol after he
committed a crime with a gun. If Oswald had been the man firing the
gun at the time that J.D.Tippit was shot, he would have had to have
had the IQ of a turnip to keep that gun in his possession. If Oswald
had been Tippit's killer it's very doubful that he would have kept
that gun on his person. Had he been Tippit's killer he would have
tossed that gun away once he was clear of the scene..... ( The
authorities would have us believe that he had the presence of mind to
shed his jacket ) Or he certainly would have removed it from his belt
and kicked it away under the seats in the darkened theater when he saw
the cops starting to search the other patrons in the theater.
The fact that Oswald had a gun on him when he was arrested is a strong
indicator that he had no idea that a cop had been shot just a few
blocks away from the theater.
Oswald's handler, (Tippit's killer) slipped him the gun and bullets in
the darkened theater, and told him that he may need them to protect
himself.
Walt
An added thought....... If Lee had been the cold-blooded killer who
didn't hesitate for an instant to kill Tippit, why would he have not
done the same in the theater?? Had he been the cold-blooded killer
who shot Tippit he had ample opportunity to pull the pistol from his
belt and simple wait until officer Mc Donald approached him, and then
shot him.
justm...@gmail.com
Walt? Your reasoning is one of a person with the IQ of a turnip. Do
you ever stop and think about any other possiblilites besides the
fantasys in that feeble mind of yours?
1. LHO shot a cop and ran...did it ever occur to you he kept the gun
incase he needed to use it again to make a getaway?
2. He discarded his jacket incase anyone saw him at the
scene...taking the jacket off wouldn't make him stick out like a sore
thumb when the crime was reported and police were looking for him.
3. Toss the gun where? He wasn't in the middle of the woods, or near a
river where he could toss a murder weapon without it being found for
days. So you think he should have tossed the revolver in someones yard
so that it could be found minutes later with his prints all over it?
LMAO you are an idiot. To any rational thinking person, when there is
no place to hide a weapon you keep it with you for 2 reasons:
Incase you need to use it again or if you don't get caught, you're not
leaving anything behind that would tie you to a murder.
Another thing you're unable to acknowledge is the fact that JDT's
murder was not planned. It was a spur of the moment event...rather
then you calling LHO stupid, what he did was the SMART thing to do.
Oswald acted rational after killing Tippet. An idiot like you would
have tossed the gun in someones bushes and then not only been caught,
but your prints would have been all over the gun. No wonder after 44
years you're still sitting around with your thumb up your butt
creating these idiotic scenerios that only YOU agree with.
What a joke.
JLeyd...@aol.com
> Was Oswald stupid? Would he have kept the murder weapon in his
> possession, to be caught with it?
A couple of names for you, Walt: Leoopold & Loeb, who committed the
"crime of the century" back in 1924 killing a 14-year old boy for the
thrill of committing the perfect crime. Both of them were considered
brilliant with genius-level IQs (one was over 200), early college
graduations and a list of academic honors. But they thoroughly
botched the murder -- i.e., Leopold dropped his eyeglasses at the
scene and the Rx was traced back to him. He also typed the ransom
note on his own typewriter and that became evidence as well.
Unfortunately, Clarence Darrow wasn't as smart as you and never tried
the too-smart-to-commit-the-crime defense. They went to prison,
probably patsies. (You know this is why CT case never gets anyplace.
Your guys spend your time playing games.)
JGL
Walt
> On Mar 30, 8:04 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> You are trying to find the rational in what is irrational.
Hmmmmm...... I musta struck a chord..... Three suckers, jumped at
the bait.
Several years ago I told Steve "The Parrot" Keating that pages from
the Warren Report were good bait for catching suckers... It looks like
they can't resist attempting to discredit solid common sense and
logic. Unfortunately the suckers try to attack the fisherman....and
end up in the frying pan.
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What you typed was as far away from solid common sense and knowledge
as China is to the USA. Nice try at a coverup for typing something
showing your stupidity though.
Ben Holmes
Walt says...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Was Oswald stupid? Would he have kept the murder weapon in his
>> > possession, to be caught with it?
>>
>> > Was he too stupid to know what even very low IQ thugs know?
>>
>> > when he enlisted in the Marine Corp. =A0And all of those who encountered=
>
>> > him from his employers, to the FBI, and the Dallas police, thought
>> > that he was a pretty intelligent man.
>>
>> > Now then, If Oswald was as intelligent as most folks thought he
>> > was.....why would he leave an incriminating trail as easy to see as
>> > the president or shot a police officer?? =A0 The answer has to
>> > be:....Oswald didn't leave an incriminating trail... Someone left it
>> > for
>> > him.
>>
>> > One of the best examples of sheer stupidity, and an act that only a
>> > halfwit would do, is the act of retaining the pistol after he
>> > committed a crime with a gun. If Oswald had been the man firing the
>> > gun at the time that J.D.Tippit was shot, he would have had to have
>> > had been Tippit's killer it's very doubful that he would have kept
>> > that gun on his person. Had he been Tippit's killer he would have
>> > tossed that gun away once he was clear of the scene..... ( The
>> > authorities would have us believe that he had the presence of mind to
>
>> > and kicked it away under the seats in the darkened theater when he saw
>> > the cops starting to search the other patrons in the theater.
>>
>> > The fact that Oswald had a gun on him when he was arrested is a strong
>> > indicator that he had no idea that a cop had been shot just a few
>> > blocks away from the theater.
>> > Oswald's handler, (Tippit's killer) slipped him the gun and bullets in
>> > the darkened theater, and told him that he may need them to protect
>> > himself.
>>
>> Walt:
>>
>> You are trying to find the rational in what is irrational.
>
>Hmmmmm...... I musta struck a chord..... Three suckers, jumped at
>the bait.
>
>Several years ago I told Steve "The Parrot" Keating that pages from
>the Warren Report were good bait for catching suckers... It looks like
>they can't resist attempting to discredit solid common sense and
>logic. Unfortunately the suckers try to attack the fisherman....and
>end up in the frying pan.
Hey! Watch it! I just got back from the grocery store with some nice salmon
that I was planning to eat tonight! Now I'm going to have nightmares... :)
Good analogy though...
Walt
> On Mar 30, 8:04�am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > Was Oswald stupid? Would he have kept the murder weapon in his
> > possession, to be caught with it?
>
> A couple of names for you, Walt: Leoopold & Loeb, who committed the
> "crime of the century" back in 1924 killing a 14-year old boy for the
> thrill of committing the perfect crime. Both of them were considered
> brilliant with genius-level IQs (one was over 200), early college
> graduations and a list of academic honors. But they thoroughly
> botched the murder -- i.e., Leopold dropped his eyeglasses at the
> scene and the Rx was traced back to him. He also typed the ransom
> note on his own typewriter and that became evidence as well.
Psssst...... Dumbass, do you really think there is a comparison
between a killer accidently dropping his glasses at the scene and a
killer keeping the murder weapon in his possession to be caught with
it??
It's no wonder yer a LN ( Loser, Nobody) You've just demonstrated your
limited ability to reason rationally.
Even the most stupid dolt criminal knows enough to dump the gun after
he commits a crime with it. That's a whole different ball game than
accidentally leaving evidence at the scene.
> > himself.- Hide quoted text -
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt once again ignores any posts that make sense and put his insane
logic to shame. Walt? You're an idiot!
aeffects
wrote:
a 58 year old crone impersonating a 20 year old, perverted-athestic
neo-nazi (also a known as an admitted lesbian impersonator) talking
about common sense -- imagine that! LMFAO...
Oh, and a no-nothing when it comes to the JFK assassination-conspiracy
USENET discussions... we have us the seeds for a mystery... LMAO!
Frankly, I think the old crone just needs a good screwing, perhaps
Todd will volunteer, he can dress in the flag and give the old battle-
ax a real whirl.... she's been taking it in, the, ahhh back-rend for
so long, getting it in the ear should be a real treat....
Bud
Walt wrote:
> Was Oswald stupid?
Cold and calculating.
> Would he have kept the murder weapon in his
> possession, to be caught with it?
I explained this to you last time you posted this. He still needed
the gun to kill Walker with. Also any other cops that might get in his
way.
> Was he too stupid to know what even very low IQ thugs know?
>
> Well not according to all who knew him. He tested well above average
> when he enlisted in the Marine Corp. And all of those who encountered
> him from his employers, to the FBI, and the Dallas police, thought
> that he was a pretty intelligent man.
Many thought him odd, strange.
> Now then, If Oswald was as intelligent as most folks thought he
> was.....why would he leave an incriminating trail as easy to see as
> the white line on a highway? And then deny that he had assassinated
> the president or shot a police officer?? The answer has to
> be:....Oswald didn't leave an incriminating trail... Someone left it
> for
> him.
And just about everyone that came across the trail was "in on it"
also, according to the kooks. Stupid nonsense.
> One of the best examples of sheer stupidity, and an act that only a
> halfwit would do, is the act of retaining the pistol after he
> committed a crime with a gun. If Oswald had been the man firing the
> gun at the time that J.D.Tippit was shot,
Like witnesses said he did...
> he would have had to have
> had the IQ of a turnip to keep that gun in his possession. If Oswald
> had been Tippit's killer it's very doubful that he would have kept
> that gun on his person.
Perhaps he didn`t want to have to choke Walker to death.
> Had he been Tippit's killer he would have
> tossed that gun away once he was clear of the scene.....
Perhaps being convicted for killing Tippit wasn`t a priority of his
at the time. There were still fascists to kill.
>( The
> authorities would have us believe that he had the presence of mind to
> shed his jacket )
What happened to the jacket he was wearing when he left the
boardinghouse, Walt?
> Or he certainly would have removed it from his belt
> and kicked it away under the seats in the darkened theater when he saw
> the cops starting to search the other patrons in the theater.
Decided to go out in a blaze instead.
> The fact that Oswald had a gun on him when he was arrested is a strong
> indicator that he had no idea that a cop had been shot just a few
> blocks away from the theater.
You really think Oz is an idiot if you think he didn`t know that he
shot someone?
> Oswald's handler, (Tippit's killer) slipped him the gun and bullets in
> the darkened theater, and told him that he may need them to protect
> himself.
If you believe this, then why do you contest that the gun Oz had
was the murder weapon, idiot?
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
WTF is an athestic??? You stupid ass. I'm not 58...I'm not 20, I'm not
a man and I never impersonated a lesbian. You have yet to show me the
link because you can't. You on the other hand spend time selling drugs
and booze to your Vet buddies who are a bunch of f ups just like you.
Never amounted to anything in Nam and even worse of a low life now
aren't ya Healy??? Or should we now call you da Healy? I don't give a
rats ass if you served in Nam, anyone that is as much a jerk off as
you deserves NO respect for anything done in their prior life. Any
questions toots?
YoHarvey
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ya gotta love Walt for his creativity. Each time he posts his
ludicrous crap, he claims to be "baiting" the LN's. He's surely
dumber than the perceived Oswald was huh Walt?
Todd W. Vaughan
>
> > On Mar 30, 8:04�am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> > > Was Oswald stupid? Would he have kept the murder weapon in his
> > > possession, to be caught with it?
>
> > A couple of names for you, Walt: Leoopold & Loeb, who committed the
> > "crime of the century" back in 1924 killing a 14-year old boy for the
> > thrill of committing the perfect crime. Both of them were considered
> > brilliant with genius-level IQs (one was over 200), early college
> > graduations and a list of academic honors. But they thoroughly
> > botched the murder -- i.e., Leopold dropped his eyeglasses at the
> > scene and the Rx was traced back to him. He also typed the ransom
> > note on his own typewriter and that became evidence as well.
>
> Psssst...... Dumbass, do you really think there is a comparison
> between a killer accidently dropping his glasses at the scene and a
> killer keeping the murder weapon in his possession to be caught with
> it??
Psst DUMBASS!!!!!
Apparently in WALT WORLD, no murdererl who has half a brain has EVER,
EVER, been caught with the murder weapon.
WALT's PHYSICAL CRIMINAL WORLD LAW #1 (2008)
For every murder by the intelligent criminal, there is an equal and
powerful action that automatically strips the murder weapon from the
murderer and depostis it somewhere else at a distance based upon the
IQ of the murderer.
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Todd W. Vaughan
"no-nothing"?
"no-nothing"?
Hey David, I think, just mauber, probably, that you meant "kno-
nothing".
LMFAO all over the place.
"No-nothing"!
>we have us the seeds for a mystery... LMAO!
> Frankly, I think the old crone just needs a good screwing, perhaps
> Todd will volunteer, he can dress in the flag and give the old battle-
> ax a real whirl.
Listen, you old ugly assed Frankenstein faced chesse-fuck, if you have
something to say to me, well then, say it to me. Don't bury it in some
reply to someone else, coward.
>... she's been taking it in, the, ahhh back-rend
Got a little Japanease in you, Healy (I bet you have)?
for
> so long, getting it in the ear should be a real treat....- Hide quoted text -
Walt
> Walt wrote:
> > Was Oswald stupid?
>
> Cold and calculating.
Oh really?? .... If that were true, and he had been Tippit's killer,
he'd have dumped the gun. Not very good reasoning on yer part,
Dud.
>
> > Would he have kept the murder weapon in his
> > possession, to be caught with it?
>
> I explained this to you last time you posted this. He still needed
> the gun to kill Walker with. Also any other cops that might get in his
> way.
It sounded stupid the first time you offered it...and it sounds even
dumber the second time around.
>
> > Was he too stupid to know what even very low IQ thugs know?
>
> > Well not according to all who knew him. He tested well above average
> > when he enlisted in the Marine Corp. And all of those who encountered
> > him from his employers, to the FBI, and the Dallas police, thought
> > that he was a pretty intelligent man.
>
> Many thought him odd, strange.
So what??.... Many think you're "odd" and "strange"
>
> > Now then, If Oswald was as intelligent as most folks thought he
> > was.....why would he leave an incriminating trail as easy to see as
> > the white line on a highway? And then deny that he had assassinated
> > the president or shot a police officer?? The answer has to
> > be:....Oswald didn't leave an incriminating trail... Someone left it
> > for
> > him.
>
> And just about everyone that came across the trail was "in on it"
> also, according to the kooks. Stupid nonsense.
>
> > One of the best examples of sheer stupidity, and an act that only a
> > halfwit would do, is the act of retaining the pistol after he
> > committed a crime with a gun. If Oswald had been the man firing the
> > gun at the time that J.D.Tippit was shot,
>
> Like witnesses said he did...
NONE of them DESCRIBED Oswald as the gunman in the first hour after
the shooting.
>
> > he would have had to have
> > had the IQ of a turnip to keep that gun in his possession. If Oswald
> > had been Tippit's killer it's very doubful that he would have kept
> > that gun on his person.
>
> Perhaps he didn`t want to have to choke Walker to death.
>
> > Had he been Tippit's killer he would have
> > tossed that gun away once he was clear of the scene.....
>
> Perhaps being convicted for killing Tippit wasn`t a priority of his
> at the time. There were still fascists to kill.
Do you think this is sound reasoning?? No flippin wonder you believe
the Warren Report..... You have the reasoning ability of a 10 year
old.
>
> >( The
> > authorities would have us believe that he had the presence of mind to
> > shed his jacket )
>
> What happened to the jacket he was wearing when he left the
> boardinghouse, Walt?
Personally I think it was picked up in the theater and kept out of
public view.
>
> > Or he certainly would have removed it from his belt
> > and kicked it away under the seats in the darkened theater when he saw
> > the cops starting to search the other patrons in the theater.
>
> Decided to go out in a blaze instead.
Oh Really??!!..... If that was true he had ample opportunity. Why
didn't he??
You have the reasoning ability of a 6 year old.
>
> > The fact that Oswald had a gun on him when he was arrested is a strong
> > indicator that he had no idea that a cop had been shot just a few
> > blocks away from the theater.
>
> You really think Oz is an idiot if you think he didn`t know that he
> shot someone?
All indications are....He didn't know a cop had been shot.
>
> > Oswald's handler, (Tippit's killer) slipped him the gun and bullets in
> > the darkened theater, and told him that he may need them to protect
> > himself.
>
> If you believe this, then why do you contest that the gun Oz had
> was the murder weapon, idiot?
The point being.....The gun "COULD" have been the murder weapon, but
there is no solid proof that it was, nor is there any proof that
Oswald could have been the man who had the gun at the time Tippit was
shot. In fact it would have been impossible for Oswald to have
traveled from the rooming house to the murder site in two minutes.
tomnln
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e5aada8-8d4f-4960...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
"no-nothing"?
"no-nothing"?
"No-nothing"!
WHO is toad vaughan?>>>
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Todd W. Vaughan
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:8e5aada8-8d4f-4960...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
WHO IS TOM ROSSLEY?
See...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_frm/thread/ade06520f69e517e?hl=en#
He's also my little Bitch, and will do whatever I say. I say jump, he
sau's how high and for how long.
>
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/tramps.htm
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
JLeyd...@aol.com
Well, Walt, nobody will ever contend that you were too smart to commit
a crime.
JGL
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
>
> WHO is toad vaughan?>>>
WHO IS TOM ROSSLEY?
See...
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_frm/thread/ade06520f69e517e?hl=en#
He's also my little Bitch, and will do whatever I say. I say jump, he
sau's how high and for how long.
WHO's yer Daddy toad???
Me or Myers???
We're BOTH Shovin it "Up Your ASS! ! !
How come you didn't Renounce your Momma justme when she Insulted our
Military Veterans???
Were you promised ANOTHER 30 pieces of silver???
Hey Healy, I understand you work with other Vets trying to help them
in the catagory of drugs and alcohol. What are your their supplier???
Does it get you an extra 10 bucks selling drugs and booze to your
fellow Vets so they can all be as fucked up as you are? Tell us all
about it Healy....you damn psycho case.
What a GREAT Salute to our Vets from justme.
Hey Healy, I understand you work with other Vets trying to help them
in the catagory of drugs and alcohol. What are your their supplier???
Does it get you an extra 10 bucks selling drugs and booze to your
fellow Vets so they can all be as fucked up as you are? Tell us all
about it Healy....you damn psycho case.
NOT posted once. But, TWICE! ! !
She even Degrades our Vets in her Feeble attempt to insult CT's.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 30 Mar, 13:08, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > Was Oswald stupid?
> >
> > � �Cold and calculating.
>
> Oh really?? .... If that were true, and he had been Tippit's killer,
> he'd have dumped the gun. Not very good reasoning on yer part,
> Dud.
Cold and calculating that he shot Tippit. He didn`t dump the gun for
the reason I gave you. He wasn`t done with it.
> > > Would he have kept the murder weapon in his
> > > possession, to be caught with it?
> >
> > � �I explained this to you last time you posted this. He still needed
> > the gun to kill Walker with. Also any other cops that might get in his
> > way.
>
> It sounded stupid the first time you offered it...and it sounds even
> dumber the second time around.
This is why you can`t figure these things out.
> > > Was he too stupid to know what even very low IQ thugs know?
> >
> > > Well not according to all who knew him. �He tested well above average
> > > when he enlisted in the Marine Corp. �And all of those who encountered
> > > him from his employers, to the FBI, and the Dallas police, thought
> > > that he was a pretty intelligent man.
> >
> > � �Many thought him odd, strange.
>
> So what??.... Many think you're "odd" and "strange"
Yah, but I`m not cold and calculating. Strange and cold is a bad
combination.
> > > Now then, If Oswald was as intelligent as most folks thought he
> > > was.....why would he leave an incriminating trail as easy to see as
> > > the white line on a highway? � And then deny that he had assassinated
> > > the president or shot a police officer?? � The answer has to
> > > be:....Oswald didn't leave an incriminating trail... Someone left it
> > > for
> > > him.
> >
> > � �And just about everyone that came across the trail was "in on it"
> > also, according to the kooks. Stupid nonsense.
> >
> > > One of the best examples of sheer stupidity, and an act that only a
> > > halfwit would do, is the act of retaining the pistol after he
> > > committed a crime with a gun. If Oswald had been the man firing the
> > > gun at the time that J.D.Tippit was shot,
> >
> > � �Like witnesses said he did...
>
> NONE of them DESCRIBED Oswald as the gunman in the first hour after
> the shooting.
The witnesses I was referring to said Oz was the man they saw. They
were there.
> > > he would have had to have
> > > had the IQ of a turnip to keep that gun in his possession. �If Oswald
> > > had been Tippit's killer it's very doubful that he would have kept
> > > that gun on his person.
> >
> > � �Perhaps he didn`t want to have to choke Walker to death.
> >
> > > Had he been Tippit's killer he would have
> > > tossed that gun away once he was clear of the scene.....
> >
> > � �Perhaps being convicted for killing Tippit wasn`t a priority of his
> > at the time. There were still fascists to kill.
>
> Do you think this is sound reasoning??
A murderer wanting to retain his weapon to commit more murders?
Sure, why not?
Oswald knew what awaited him when the cops finally caught up with
him. Why not take care of some unfinished business?
> No flippin wonder you believe
> the Warren Report..... You have the reasoning ability of a 10 year
> old.
You really should hang around those your own age.
> > >( The
> > > authorities would have us believe that he had the presence of mind to
> > > shed his jacket )
> >
> > � �What happened to the jacket he was wearing when he left the
> > boardinghouse, Walt?
>
> Personally I think it was picked up in the theater and kept out of
> public view.
Based on what?
> > > Or he certainly would have removed it from his belt
> > > and kicked it away under the seats in the darkened theater when he saw
> > > the cops starting to search the other patrons in the theater.
> >
> > � �Decided to go out in a blaze instead.
>
> Oh Really??!!..... If that was true he had ample opportunity. Why
> didn't he??
>
> You have the reasoning ability of a 6 year old.
He attacked the police who tried to arrest him, and pulled the
weapon. Said something like "this is it". He wanted to go out in a
blaze.
> > > The fact that Oswald had a gun on him when he was arrested is a strong
> > > indicator that he had no idea that a cop had been shot just a few
> > > blocks away from the theater.
> >
> > � �You really think Oz is an idiot if you think he didn`t know that he
> > shot someone?
>
> All indications are....He didn't know a cop had been shot.
I doubt he really thought he missed with all those shots he fired.
What did he think caused Tippit to fall if not his bullets?
> > > Oswald's handler, (Tippit's killer) slipped him the gun and bullets in
> > > the darkened theater, and told him that he may need them to protect
> > > himself.
> >
> > � �If you believe this, then why do you contest that the gun Oz had
> > was the murder weapon, idiot?
>
> The point being.....
You need to backpeddle.
>The gun "COULD" have been the murder weapon, but
> there is no solid proof that it was, nor is there any proof that
> Oswald could have been the man who had the gun at the time Tippit was
> shot.
<snicker> You disregard the aspects that can be supported, yet
latch on to products drawn wholly from your imagination.
> In fact it would have been impossible for Oswald to have
> traveled from the rooming house to the murder site in two minutes.
He was seen at the boardinghouse. He was seen at 10th and Patton.
How much time elapsed between the two sightings is unestablished.
justm...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Talking to Walt is like talking to a tree stump. And that's an insult
to the tree stump.
bigdog
I've been away from this board for a while but I came back for some
comic relief and Shemp didn't disappoint.
Shemp, you just might be the stupidest motherfucker I have ever come
across. I mean that in all sincerity. I thought Chico had shit for
brains (Actually, I still do). But when it comes being a brain-dead
flatliner, Chico isn't even in your league.
LONG LIVE THE KING!!!
Walt
Dud you know that's a lie..... most of the witnesses to the scuffle
saw the gun in Oswald's belt. He never pulled it. Read the damned
testimonies of the people who saw the scuffle....including the police
officers. And if he had wanted to die in a hail of gunfire, but take
as many cops down as he could before they killed him, he had ample
opportunity. You really should stop believing your own lies, someone
might think you're a psychopath.
>
> > > > The fact that Oswald had a gun on him when he was arrested is a strong
> > > > indicator that he had no idea that a cop had been shot just a few
> > > > blocks away from the theater.
>
> > > � �You really think Oz is an idiot if you think he didn`t know that he
> > > shot someone?
>
> > All indications are....He didn't know a cop had been shot.
>
> I doubt he really thought he missed with all those shots he fired.
> What did he think caused Tippit to fall if not his bullets?
>
> > > > Oswald's handler, (Tippit's killer) slipped him the gun and bullets in
> > > > the darkened theater, and told him that he may need them to protect
> > > > himself.
>
> > > � �If you believe this, then why do you contest that the gun Oz had
> > > was the murder weapon, idiot?
>
> > The point being.....
>
> You need to backpeddle.
>
> >The gun "COULD" have been the murder weapon, but
> > there is no solid proof that it was, nor is there any proof that
> > Oswald could have been the man who had the gun at the time Tippit was
> > shot.
>
> <snicker> You disregard the aspects that can be supported, yet
> latch on to products drawn wholly from your imagination.
>
> > In fact it would have been impossible for Oswald to have
> > traveled from the rooming house to the murder site in two minutes.
>
> He was seen at the boardinghouse. He was seen at 10th and Patton.
Walt
Thank you I had hoped that you'd ask that question.....
What color did Marina say Lee's jacket was?
Was it olive drab? ....see Page 96 of TKOAP
Was it grey?.....see page 406 of With Malice
Was it tan?.....or beige, ...or white?
There are many colored photos of the jacket.....I've seen photos in
which it appears olive colored, in others it apears to be grey, in
others it appears to be tan.... What color was the jacket that was
found behind Ballew's Texaco station?
Walt
> On Mar 30, 12:36 pm, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
> Well, Walt, nobody will ever contend that you were too smart to commit
> a crime.
>
> JGL
Hey Daffy, why did you decide to come out from behind yer alias? Did
you decide it was futile to try to hide behind an alias? I understand
WHY you would want to hide yer identity...... I'd be embarrassed too,
if I was .Johns lapdog, with no ability to think for myself.
Walt
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Holmes.
That's the problem.... Rob has no ideas.... He just regurgitates what
he reads..... and it doesn't make any difference if it's a comic book
or an FBI internal memo.... He gives everything equal weight.
Bud
Some reported seeing it in Oz`s hand. Applin. Brewer. McDonald.
> He never pulled it.
sure he did. They took it out of his hand.
> Read the damned
> testimonies of the people who saw the scuffle....including the police
> officers. And if he had wanted to die in a hail of gunfire, but take
> as many cops down as he could before they killed him, he had ample
> opportunity.
No, he didn`t. There was a cop with a shotgun nearby, among others.
He had to wait until McDonald was close to make a move.
> You really should stop believing your own lies, someone
> might think you're a psychopath.
Oz attacked McDonald and pulled the gun. I don`t think he was going
to hand it over.
Bud
Why, you aren`t going to offer anything to support what you said.
What evidence do you have that Oz had a jacket on in the theater?
> What color did Marina say Lee's jacket was?
>
> Was it olive drab? ....see Page 96 of TKOAP
> Was it grey?.....see page 406 of With Malice
> Was it tan?.....or beige, ...or white?
>
> There are many colored photos of the jacket.....I've seen photos in
> which it appears olive colored, in others it apears to be grey, in
> others it appears to be tan....
That might explain why so many witnesses said it was so many
different colors.
> What color was the jacket that was
> found behind Ballew's Texaco station?
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/3/35/Photo_naraevid_CE162-1.jpg
Walt
That's one of the photo's in which it appears to be beige.
Sorry I don't have the ability to post a link to the picture on page
96 of TKOAP...because the jacket on page 96 is much darker and appears
to be OD.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/you_asked_for_it.htm
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:5b9c4081-45b2-4205...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
robcap...@netscape.com
Thanks for the compliment!!
"That's the problem.... Rob has no ideas.... He just regurgitates
what he reads..... and it doesn't make any difference if it's a comic
book or an FBI internal memo.... He gives everything equal weight."
I have read some of your older ideas Walt and some of them made sense
(10 years or more), but now you are just throwing out whacky thoughts
you can't prove. Since I have no ideas according to you, why don't
you solve the case for me and all the readers. Give me the scenario
you think happened. I really want to see this since you dispute so
much of what years of research have shown to be what happened. I don't
know why I upset you since most of what I post the majority of the
conspiracy community agrees with, but since you have done your own
research with a cardboard model, tell me what happened on 11/22/63.
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Neil Coburn
improbable act. Neil
Walt
wrote:
Can't be done...... ONLY the individual resolve the problem fot
himself.
Give me the scenario you think happened. I really want to see this
since you dispute so much of what years of research have shown to be
what happened.
With that kind of thinking....Just accept the Warren Report....Then
the problem's solved.
I don't know why I upset you since most of what I post the majority of
the
conspiracy community agrees with,
Isn't that the "reasoning" yer mother warned you to beware of? Just
because everybody else believes you can jump off the cliff with an
umbrella for a parachute.....are you gonna do it? THINK for
yourself....LISTEN to others and THINK ...... If you think I don't
know what I'm talking about, present a valid counterpoint..... Don't
hand me the BS .... "Well I know it's true cuz I've read in 14
books....
but since you have done your own research with a cardboard model,
tell me what happened on 11/22/63.
Nope....Can't do that.....You'd just want to argue that you've never
read that in any book so it can't be right. Go back and review my
posts I've posted the answer many times.
Walt
> Here it is;
>
> http://whokilledjfk.net/you_asked_for_it.htm
>
Thanks Tom.... That picture makes my point. What is the true color
of the jacket in evidence, and does it match the color the witnesses
gave?
More and more, I'm starting to think that there were two men involved
in Tippit's murder. The evidence is starting to build in that
direction...... A couple of witnesses said the killer was wearing a
dark colored jacket while others say it was light colored but even the
witnesses who said it was light colored don't agree on WHAT light
color it was.
robcap...@netscape.com
Sure it can, you obviously think you know what happened and I can't
think for myself according to you, so just tell me what you think
happened. Spell it out for me so I can just believe your version.
> Give me the scenario you think happened. I really want to see this
> since you dispute so much of what years of research have shown to be
> what happened.
>
"With that kind of thinking....Just accept the Warren Report....Then
the problem's solved."
No it isn't, you attack me when I don't believe what you believe, so
tell me in full what you think happened so I can accept it since you
claim I don't think for myself. If I really didn't think for myself I
would accept what you said without question, so this really makes no
sense at all. More to the point, if I couldn't think for myself I
would believe the official theory, but I want to your ideas.
> I don't know why I upset you since most of what I post the majority of
> the
> conspiracy community agrees with,
>
"Isn't that the "reasoning" yer mother warned you to beware of? Just
because everybody else believes you can jump off the cliff with an
umbrella for a parachute.....are you gonna do it? THINK for
yourself....LISTEN to others and THINK ...... If you think I don't
know what I'm talking about, present a valid counterpoint..... Don't
hand me the BS .... "Well I know it's true cuz I've read in 14
books...."
Walt, I have seen you cite a ton of books so you do the same thing. I
am a secondary researcher meaning I do not have the time or the
opportunity to interview the witnesses first hand, so of course I rely
on books, but I do NOT just believe everything they say. Again, if I
did this I would believe everything you say, and you would like me
then.
> but since you have done your own research with a cardboard model,
> tell me what happened on 11/22/63.
"Nope....Can't do that.....You'd just want to argue that you've never
read that in any book so it can't be right. Go back and review my
posts I've posted the answer many times."
Why not? You attack me if I say something you don't agree with so you
must "know" what really happened, so why not share it with me? Save
me a bunch of time and give me the real scenario.
David Von Pein
>>> "...Most of what I post, the majority of the conspiracy community agrees with." <<<
~Huge LOL here~
Walt,
Does the "majority of the conspiracy community" agree with you
regarding your theory about the Croft photo proving that JFK was shot
through the throat from the front (via the "piece of white
shirt" [POWS] theory)?
And do you also think that this same CT "majority" agrees with you
with respect to the Tippit murder and Oswald's total innocence in that
crime too? And the part about somebody giving Oswald a gun in the
Texas Theater because he might need it later on?
And what about Howard Brennan, Walt-Kook? Do you actually think that
the "majority" of CTers believe in your manhandling of Brennan's WC
testimony? Do you really believe that the majority of even
conspiracists think that Brennan was "DESCRIBING" the WEST-END window
when he was talking about the location from where he saw the gunman
firing shots at JFK?
Folks, Walt is off in a little dream world all to himself. He has been
for years, I have a feeling. He doesn't even seem to realize that even
his FOUNDATIONAL, BASELINE position regarding this case (i.e., that
Oswald never fired a shot at either JFK or J.D. Tippit) is not even
close to representing a "majority" opinion among Americans (as of the
last major Gallup Poll on the matter, in 2003)...even among "CTers".
Only 7 measly percent of the people responding to this poll agree with
Walter Cakebread with respect to Oswald's role in the assassination of
John Kennedy (based on the 2003 poll below, which included more than
1,000 respondents, more than double the number who responded to the
2003 JFK "Gallup Poll"):
POLLING QUESTION (with 1,031 people responding):
"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
involved in the assassination at all?".....
ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%
www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
And if the additional question of "DO YOU THINK OSWALD SHOT OFFICER
TIPPIT?" had also been included in that poll, you can bet that the
"7%" figure would drop even lower (i.e., the total number of people
who think Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy AND also didn't shoot Tippit
would likely be even less than 7% of the respondents).
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c0189f6da4be3133
David Von Pein
Big ol. LOL!
45 years of detailed searching and scrounging and finding
nothing....and NOW (just NOW, out of the BLUE, it would seem!) the
"evidence is starting to build in [the] direction" of two killers
being involved in Tippit's death. (And neither is LHO, of course, per
the kooks. Go figure that.)
Walt's a joke. A pathetic joke.
>>> "A couple of witnesses said the killer was wearing a dark colored jacket while others say it was light colored, but even the witnesses who said it was light colored don't agree on WHAT light color it was." <<<
And yet, per all of the witnesses on Tenth St. and Patton and
Jefferson (other than Acquilla Clemons), these different jackets of
differing hues were WORN BY ONE SINGLE MAN/KILLER -- who just happened
to be a dead-ringer for Lee Harvey Oswald.
Somehow it doesn't seem ODD to Walt-Kook that ONLY ONE GUY was
apparently wearing these different-colored jackets.
To Walt, the differing JACKET COLORS trump the fact that there was
ONLY ONE KILLER AT THE SCENE OF THE CRIME.
Walt's a joke. A pathetic joke.
JLeyd...@aol.com
> Hey Daffy, why did you decide to come out from behind yer alias? Did
> you decide it was futile to try to hide behind an alias? I understand
> WHY you would want to hide yer identity...... I'd be embarrassed too,
> if I was .Johns lapdog, with no ability to think for myself.
>
You should be embarrassed, Walt, for a lot of other reasons.
JGL
Walt
> >>> "...Most of what I post, the majority of the conspiracy community agrees with." <<<
>
> ~Huge LOL here~
>
> Walt,
>
> Does the "majority of the conspiracy community" agree with you
> regarding your theory about the Croft photo proving that JFK was shot
> through the throat from the front (via the "piece of white
> shirt" [POWS] theory)?
Hey Rob....Do you want to tell him.....Or should I ??
I think I'll do it...... HEY DUMBASS! Yes... You, Von Pea Brain.....
I didn't write that...... Ha, ha,ha, ha,... The jokes on you.
Walt
C'mon Pea Brain..... Yer smart enough to know that the 7% who think
Oswald was not involved are probably all residents at the Rubber Wall
Hotel. Oswald obviously was involved..... Even if it was nothing
more involved than being the patsy.
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c0189f6da4be3133
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/81a34426b9a479d8
>>> "Hey Rob....do you want to tell him...or should I? I think I'll do it. .... I didn't write that. Ha, ha, ha, ha. The joke's on you." <<<
Well I'll be dipped. Walt's right. I was wrong. My apologies.
(Of course, if Walt would have used the proper quotation marks around
Rob's words, I probably wouldn't have made this error at all.)
But I will fully acknowledge my mistake here. It wasn't Walt who said
the above-quoted things in the linked post above. It was actually
another Anybody-But-Oswald mega-kook (Rob C.) who I was actually
responding to, without realizing it:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c41da347c3f1996a
But, it's actually a "6 of one, Half-dozen of the other" type of
situation here, because much of my response applies equally to Rob's
mindset too -- i.e., Rob is nuts if he thinks that the "majority" of
people actually think that "OSWALD SHOT NO ONE THAT DAY
[11/22/63]" (direct 2007 quote from Rob).
So, my previous post applies in large part to Rob too. Let's see how
easy it is to rearrange the wording of that post of mine and have it
easily apply to Rob (instead of Walt):
"And do you also think that this same CT "majority" agrees with
you with respect to the Tippit murder and Oswald's total innocence in
that crime too?
"Folks, ROB is off in a little dream world all to himself. He
has been for years, I have a feeling. He doesn't even seem to realize
that even his FOUNDATIONAL, BASELINE position regarding this case
(i.e., that Oswald never fired a shot at either JFK or J.D. Tippit) is
not even close to representing a "majority" opinion among Americans
(as of the last major national polls on the matter, in 2003)...even
among "CTers".
"Only 7 measly percent of the people responding to this poll
agree with ROBERT CAPRIO with respect to Oswald's role in the
assassination of John Kennedy (based on the 2003 poll below, which
included more than 1,000 respondents, more than double the number who
responded to the 2003 JFK "Gallup Poll"):
POLLING QUESTION (with 1,031 people responding):
"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
involved in the assassination at all?".....
ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%
www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
"And if the additional question of "DO YOU THINK OSWALD SHOT
OFFICER TIPPIT?" had also been included in that poll, you can bet that
the "7%" figure would drop even lower (i.e., the total number of
people who think Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy AND also didn't shoot
Tippit would likely be even less than 7% of the respondents)." -- DVP;
03/31/08
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c0189f6da4be3133
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/81a34426b9a479d8
>
> >>> "Hey Rob....do you want to tell him...or should I? I think I'll do it. .... I didn't write that. Ha, ha, ha, ha. The joke's on you." <<<
"Well I'll be dipped. Walt's right. I was wrong. My apologies."
It is a shame you don't admit your being wrong about the official
theory so fast, which you are by the way.
"(Of course, if Walt would have used the proper quotation marks around
Rob's words, I probably wouldn't have made this error at all.)
But I will fully acknowledge my mistake here. It wasn't Walt who said
the above-quoted things in the linked post above. It was actually
another Anybody-But-Oswald mega-kook (Rob C.) who I was actually
responding to, without realizing it:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c41da347c3f1996a
But, it's actually a "6 of one, Half-dozen of the other" type of
situation here..."
Not according to Walt, you have missed the whole point of the thread,
but what else is new, huh? Walt thinks I am off base so we do NOT
think alike which is what "6 of one, half-dozen of the other"
implies. I think we are pretty close except on some small stuff, but
Walt sees it differently and lumps me in with your group. That is the
most unkind think anyone can say to me.
"...because much of my response applies equally to Rob's mindset too
-- i.e., Rob is nuts if he thinks that the "majority" of people
actually think that "OSWALD SHOT NO ONE THAT DAY [11/22/63]" (direct
2007 quote from Rob)."
He didn't, and you have NO proof he did.
"So, my previous post applies in large part to Rob too. Let's see how
easy it is to rearrange the wording of that post of mine and have it
easily apply to Rob (instead of Walt):
"And do you also think that this same CT "majority" agrees with
you with respect to the Tippit murder and Oswald's total innocence in
that crime too?"
Yes.
"Folks, ROB is off in a little dream world all to himself. He
has been for years, I have a feeling. He doesn't even seem to realize
that even his FOUNDATIONAL, BASELINE position regarding this case
(i.e., that Oswald never fired a shot at either JFK or J.D. Tippit) is
not even close to representing a "majority" opinion among Americans
(as of the last major national polls on the matter, in 2003)...even
among "CTers"."
You are wrong. The majority of people realize LHO was NOT guilty of
shooting anyone, but he was involved in some way.
"Only 7 measly percent of the people responding to this poll
agree with ROBERT CAPRIO with respect to Oswald's role in the
assassination of John Kennedy (based on the 2003 poll below, which
included more than 1,000 respondents, more than double the number who
responded to the 2003 JFK "Gallup Poll"):"
I love how he drags this 5 year old poll out to prove his point. The
authorities can't have LHO totally innocent so they make sure it is
questioned in a way that has him actively involved.
"POLLING QUESTION (with 1,031 people responding):
"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
involved in the assassination at all?"....."
Notice the presumptive questioning here. LHO was NEVER found guilty
of shooting JFK in a court of law, yet 2 of the the 3 questions have
him involved either by himself or with someone else, and it is stated
as fact. Amazing. With this bias questioning who can rely on these
numbers? Not me. Why not ask "Who do you think shot JFK?"
"ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%"
Even with the misleading and bias questions 51% still think it was a
conspiracy.
www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
"And if the additional question of "DO YOU THINK OSWALD SHOT
OFFICER TIPPIT?" had also been included in that poll, you can bet that
the "7%" figure would drop even lower (i.e., the total number of
people who think Oswald didn't shoot Kennedy AND also didn't shoot
Tippit would likely be even less than 7% of the respondents)." -- DVP;
03/31/08"
You can prove he did shoot Tippit anytime you want, but you NEVER seem
able to, why?
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c0189f6da4be3133
David Von Pein
>>> "Yer smart enough to know that the 7% who think Oswald was not involved are probably all residents at the Rubber Wall Hotel. Oswald obviously was involved, even if it was nothing more involved than being the patsy." <<<
Walt has (naturally) skewed the results and meaning of the "7%" in
that particular poll. The people being polled were asked a very
SPECIFIC question in that poll--with respect to whether or not OSWALD
WAS A GUNMAN OR NOT. Only 7% said that Oswald was not a GUNMAN in
Dealey Plaza:
"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the
Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in
addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not
involved in the assassination at all?".....
ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%
But per Walt's loony "OSWALD NEVER FIRED A SHOT" mindset, Walt has no
choice but to believe that 83% of the people taking the above-
referenced poll were dead-wrong (or, to use Walter's own words here,
were probably "residents at the Rubber Wall Hotel")....because that
83% believes in something that Walt and his kooky ilk would never
DREAM of believing in -- i.e., that Lee Harvey Oswald had a gun in his
hands on November 22nd and was firing it at JFK's car in Dealey Plaza.
Bud
Walt wrote:
> On 30 Mar, 13:08, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
> > Walt wrote:
> > > Was Oswald stupid?
> >
> > � �Cold and calculating.
>
> Oh really?? .... If that were true, and he had been Tippit's killer,
> he'd have dumped the gun. Not very good reasoning on yer part,
> Dud.
>
> >
> > > Would he have kept the murder weapon in his
> > > possession, to be caught with it?
> >
> > � �I explained this to you last time you posted this. He still needed
> > the gun to kill Walker with. Also any other cops that might get in his
> > way.
>
> It sounded stupid the first time you offered it...and it sounds even
> dumber the second time around.
>
>
> >
> > > Was he too stupid to know what even very low IQ thugs know?
> >
> > > Well not according to all who knew him. �He tested well above average
> > > when he enlisted in the Marine Corp. �And all of those who encountered
> > > him from his employers, to the FBI, and the Dallas police, thought
> > > that he was a pretty intelligent man.
> >
> > � �Many thought him odd, strange.
>
> So what??.... Many think you're "odd" and "strange"
>
> >
> > > Now then, If Oswald was as intelligent as most folks thought he
> > > was.....why would he leave an incriminating trail as easy to see as
> > > the white line on a highway? � And then deny that he had assassinated
> > > the president or shot a police officer?? � The answer has to
> > > be:....Oswald didn't leave an incriminating trail... Someone left it
> > > for
> > > him.
> >
> > � �And just about everyone that came across the trail was "in on it"
> > also, according to the kooks. Stupid nonsense.
> >
> > > One of the best examples of sheer stupidity, and an act that only a
> > > halfwit would do, is the act of retaining the pistol after he
> > > committed a crime with a gun. If Oswald had been the man firing the
> > > gun at the time that J.D.Tippit was shot,
> >
> > � �Like witnesses said he did...
>
> NONE of them DESCRIBED Oswald as the gunman in the first hour after
> the shooting.
>
>
> >
> > > he would have had to have
> > > had the IQ of a turnip to keep that gun in his possession. �If Oswald
> > > had been Tippit's killer it's very doubful that he would have kept
> > > that gun on his person.
> >
> > � �Perhaps he didn`t want to have to choke Walker to death.
> >
> > > Had he been Tippit's killer he would have
> > > tossed that gun away once he was clear of the scene.....
> >
> > � �Perhaps being convicted for killing Tippit wasn`t a priority of his
> > at the time. There were still fascists to kill.
>
> Do you think this is sound reasoning?? No flippin wonder you believe
> the Warren Report..... You have the reasoning ability of a 10 year
> old.
>
>
> >
> > >( The
> > > authorities would have us believe that he had the presence of mind to
> > > shed his jacket )
> >
> > � �What happened to the jacket he was wearing when he left the
> > boardinghouse, Walt?
>
> Personally I think it was picked up in the theater and kept out of
> public view.
>
> >
> > > Or he certainly would have removed it from his belt
> > > and kicked it away under the seats in the darkened theater when he saw
> > > the cops starting to search the other patrons in the theater.
> >
> > � �Decided to go out in a blaze instead.
>
> Oh Really??!!..... If that was true he had ample opportunity. Why
> didn't he??
>
> You have the reasoning ability of a 6 year old.
>
> >
> > > The fact that Oswald had a gun on him when he was arrested is a strong
> > > indicator that he had no idea that a cop had been shot just a few
> > > blocks away from the theater.
> >
> > � �You really think Oz is an idiot if you think he didn`t know that he
> > shot someone?
>
> All indications are....He didn't know a cop had been shot.
>
> >
> > > Oswald's handler, (Tippit's killer) slipped him the gun and bullets in
> > > the darkened theater, and told him that he may need them to protect
> > > himself.
> >
> > � �If you believe this, then why do you contest that the gun Oz had
> > was the murder weapon, idiot?
>
> The point being.....The gun "COULD" have been the murder weapon, but
> there is no solid proof that it was, nor is there any proof that
> Oswald could have been the man who had the gun at the time Tippit was
> shot. In fact it would have been impossible for Oswald to have
> traveled from the rooming house to the murder site in two minutes.
There is more evidence that he was at 10th and Patton than the
boardinghouse.
Walt
wrote:
> On Apr 1, 6:32 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/81a34426b9a479d8
>
> > >>> "Hey Rob....do you want to tell him...or should I? I think I'll do it. .... I didn't write that. Ha, ha, ha, ha. The joke's on you." <<<
>
> "Well I'll be dipped. Walt's right. I was wrong. My apologies."
Ya can't just say that and drop it can you, Von Pea Brain?
You have to continue so that you can twist it into my error don't you?
Are you so little man that you can't simply say that you made a
mistake?
David Von Pein
>>> "Walt thinks I am off base, so we do NOT think alike, which is what "6 of one, half-dozen of the other" implies." <<<
You're both "Anybody But Oswald" nutjobs. So, yes, the "6/Half-Dozen"
comment still applies to both of you.
>>> "He {Saint Oz} didn't {shoot anyone on Nov. 22}, and you have NO proof he did." <<<
You're an evidence-ignoring idiot.
>>> "You are wrong. The majority of people realize LHO was NOT guilty of shooting anyone, but he was involved in some way." <<<
Bullshit.
I guess Rob thinks that ABC must have "rigged" or "faked" these poll
results then:
ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%
www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>>> "I love how he drags this 5-year-old poll out to prove his point." <<<
And it does so quite nicely too.
REPLAY:
>>> "I love how he drags this 5-year-old poll out to prove his point." <<<
As if major "polls" like this re. the JFK Assassination are conducted
every other day.
<chuckle> + <eyeroll>
>>> "The authorities can't have LHO totally innocent, so they make sure it is questioned in a way that has him actively involved." <<<
You're an idiot.
If more people than just the 7% really thought like you ABO kooks
think, the percentage of people voting in favor of "OSWALD NOT
INVOLVED" would be much, much higher (quite naturally).
Or were the majority of those 1,031 people who were involved in that
polling sample all part of the "cover up" too?
Worth a replay:
You're an idiot.
>>> "Notice the presumptive questioning here. LHO was NEVER found guilty of shooting JFK in a court of law, yet 2 of the 3 questions have him involved either by himself or with someone else, and it is stated as fact." <<<
Yeah, the poll should have left Patsy Oswald out of the equation
altogether, right Mister Mega-K? After all, there's not a shred of
actual evidence implicating Pope Oz, right? (Only his guns, his
shells, his bullets, his prints, and his own guilty-as-Hell actions
and lies. Who'd ever think that Oz should be a suspect based on that
kind of threadbare case? Right, Rob?)
If the "ABO" kooks had it their way, all JFK polls probably would
include questions like this:
SINCE WE KNOW LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF SHOOTING
ANYBODY ON 11/22/63, WHO DO YOU THINK REALLY KILLED PRESIDENT JOHN F.
KENNEDY?:
1.) THE MOB
2.) LBJ
3.) THE RIGHT WING
4.) THE DALLAS COWBOYS CHEERLEADERS
5.) V.T. LEE OF THE FPCC
6.) NO OPINION (BUT IT DEFINITELY *WASN'T* LEE H. OSWALD)
>>> "Why not ask "Who do you think shot JFK?" " <<<
See above.
REPLAY:
>>> "Why not ask "Who do you think shot JFK?" " <<<
If the question was open-ended like that, the people assessing the
poll's answers would be in for a lot of hearty laughs, that's for
sure.
From my "RH" review:
"CHAPTER 37 (11 PAGES) -- "THE PEOPLE AND GROUPS INVOLVED IN THE
PLOT TO KILL KENNEDY":
"DVP: In this humor-filled short chapter, {Vince Bugliosi}
provides some lists of the various people and groups who, per the
conspiracy kooks of the world, were supposedly involved in JFK's
murder. Vince comes up with 44 different organizations/groups/
countries who (at one time or another) have had a finger pointed at
them over the years, including NASA and "Martians and Venusians". ~big
grin~
"Although admittedly only a "partial" list, Vince has 82
individual persons who have been implicated by one conspiracy kook or
another since 1963 as having physically fired a weapon at President
Kennedy in Dealey Plaza or having been part of the "Dealey Plaza team
of killers", including (yes) Lyndon Johnson and J.D. Tippit. (The
madness never ends, does it?)
"And on another list, Vince B. is able to provide 214 different
alleged non-triggerman "co-conspirators", including Abe Zapruder,
Marina Oswald, and ex-baseball great Joe DiMaggio (that Marilyn/JFK
affair, remember....yep, Joltin' Joe MUST have been in on the plot).
"Additional LOL moment.....
""{Quoting author Edward J. Epstein}..."It would still be at
least THEORETICALLY conceivable that the rifle was passed from the
hands of one sniper to another between shots." .... Yes, and it is
also THEORETICALLY possible that the assassin was a robed nun whose
eyes were closed and who used her Catholic prayer book as a gun rest."
-- VB; Page 1496 of "RH" (c.2007)
www.amazon.com/David_Von_Pein/review/RZD82270D69E8
>>> "Even with the misleading and bias questions, 51% still think it was a conspiracy." <<<
But WITH Lee Harvey Oswald firing a gun at President Kennedy (which is
totally at odds with your "OSWALD SHOT NO ONE" POV).
Go figure.
>>> "You can prove he {every kook's favorite patsy named Lee} did shoot Tippit anytime you want, but you NEVER seem able to, why?" <<<
You're an idiot.
Oswald's guilt in both murders he committed on Nov. 22nd has been
proven a million times over (and was pretty much proven beyond all
reasonable doubt the very weekend of the murders by the Dallas Police
Department).
A goodly amount of the vast pile of evidence leading to Oswald's guilt
was discussed in a press conference given by Dallas D.A. Henry Wade on
the night Oswald was murdered.
But Rob must think that ALL of this stuff being discussed at the video
link below by Mr. Wade equals: "NO EVIDENCE" at all against Lee Harvey
Oswald.
This is why you're an idiot, Rob (watch and see for yourself):
David Von Pein
>>> "Are you so little man that you can't simply say that you made a mistake?" <<<
I admitted my mistake, Mr. Kook.
But you erred too, by not putting any type of quote marks or ">> <<"
thingies around Rob's text (which is the SOP around here...or anywhere
where you're QUOTING somebody else).
Duh.
~~Awaiting Walt's next hunk of brilliant kookshit~~
Walt
You simply can't shoulder the responsibility..... A honest man would
simply say..."I goofed, I'm sorry.... just proves I'm human".
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Walt thinks I am off base, so we do NOT think alike, which is what "6 of one, half-dozen of the other" implies." <<<
"You're both "Anybody But Oswald" nutjobs. So, yes, the "6/Half-Dozen"
comment still applies to both of you."
I know I'm not a "Anybody But Oswald" guy as I have a desire to narrow
it down to those that really planned the conspiracy.
> >>> "He {Saint Oz} didn't {shoot anyone on Nov. 22}, and you have NO proof he did." <<<
"You're an evidence-ignoring idiot."
This is straight from your buddy Rahn's site:
What is evidence?
Here are some typical legal definitions of evidence: (1) any
species of proof, or probative matter, legally presented at the trial
of an issue, by the act of the parties and through the medium of
witnesses, records, documents, exhibits, concrete objects, etc., for
the purpose of inducing belief in the minds of the court or jury as to
their contention; (2) testimony, writings, or material objects offered
in proof of an alleged fact or proposition; (3) that probative
material, legally received, by which the tribunal may be lawfully
persuaded of the truth or falsity of a fact in issue; (4) all the
means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is
submitted to investigation at judicial trial, is established or
disproved.
In other words, evidence includes all the ways by which we try to
prove allegations.
See, it all comes down to court, if nothing is presented to a judge
and jury, and ruled on one way or another, it is just really
speculation and allegations, NOT evidence. You'll note the abridged
version of allegations is "allege or alledged", words you need to
start using.
> >>> "You are wrong. The majority of people realize LHO was NOT guilty of shooting anyone, but he was involved in some way." <<<
"Bullshit."
Dirty language doesn't make you right.
"I guess Rob thinks that ABC must have "rigged" or "faked" these poll
results then:
ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%"
Of course I do when they ask leading questions which assume guilt in
regards to a man, LHO, who was NEVER proven to be guilty in a court of
law.
www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
> >>> "I love how he drags this 5-year-old poll out to prove his point." <<<
"And it does so quite nicely too."
How about providing the link to the original poll? It still proves
nothing as it was a loaded poll with questions that stated LHO was
guily, it was just a matter of question whether he had help or not.
"REPLAY:
> >>> "I love how he drags this 5-year-old poll out to prove his point." <<<
As if major "polls" like this re. the JFK Assassination are conducted
every other day.
<chuckle> + <eyeroll>"
Who is saying every other day? You are using a FIVE year old
poll!!!!!!
> >>> "The authorities can't have LHO totally innocent, so they make sure it is questioned in a way that has him actively involved." <<<
"You're an idiot."
You can't prove this anymore than you can prove LHO shot someone on
11/22/63.
"If more people than just the 7% really thought like you ABO kooks
think, the percentage of people voting in favor of "OSWALD NOT
INVOLVED" would be much, much higher (quite naturally)."
It is, it is just not reflected in this rigged media stooge poll.
"Or were the majority of those 1,031 people who were involved in that
polling sample all part of the "cover up" too?"
I don't know, I don't know anything about them, that is why I don't
accept the poll as gospel. Who knows what they think? Maybe a good
number were "moles" used to bump the LHO did it numbers. Who knows,
that is why I don't accept it.
"Worth a replay:
You're an idiot."
Replay: You CAN'T prove that either, just like everything else you
spout.
> >>> "Notice the presumptive questioning here. LHO was NEVER found guilty of shooting JFK in a court of law, yet 2 of the 3 questions have him involved either by himself or with someone else, and it is stated as fact." <<<
"Yeah, the poll should have left Patsy Oswald out of the equation
altogether, right Mister Mega-K? After all, there's not a shred of
actual evidence implicating Pope Oz, right? (Only his guns, his
shells, his bullets, his prints, and his own guilty-as-Hell actions
and lies. Who'd ever think that Oz should be a suspect based on that
kind of threadbare case? Right, Rob?)"
Again, you are distorting the truth as there is not a shred of real
proof he ever owned a rifle, thus his shells, bullets and prints are
all moot. What guilty actions? Taking a bus? He is the first
assassin ever to use a bus as an escape plan, and one that was going
back in the direction he just allegedly fled. Amazing.
"If the "ABO" kooks had it their way, all JFK polls probably would
include questions like this:
SINCE WE KNOW LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS COMPLETELY INNOCENT OF SHOOTING
ANYBODY ON 11/22/63, WHO DO YOU THINK REALLY KILLED PRESIDENT JOHN F.
KENNEDY?:"
That is as silly as saying he was guilty when it has NOT been proved
he was. Why not ask them who they think did the shooting?
"1.) THE MOB
2.) LBJ
3.) THE RIGHT WING
4.) THE DALLAS COWBOYS CHEERLEADERS
5.) V.T. LEE OF THE FPCC
6.) NO OPINION (BUT IT DEFINITELY *WASN'T* LEE H. OSWALD)"
How about the CIA? The military?
> >>> "Why not ask "Who do you think shot JFK?" " <<<
"See above."
You don't have to give choices, let them answer for themselves. You
are like most leaders of dictatorships, you are afraid to let your
citizens think for themselves.
"REPLAY:
> >>> "Why not ask "Who do you think shot JFK?" " <<<
If the question was open-ended like that, the people assessing the
poll's answers would be in for a lot of hearty laughs, that's for
sure."
You don't know this at all, you are just afraid of hearing what people
really think. Your efforts at distortion have been for NOTHING.
"From my "RH" review:
"CHAPTER 37 (11 PAGES) -- "THE PEOPLE AND GROUPS INVOLVED IN
THE PLOT TO KILL KENNEDY":
"DVP: In this humor-filled short chapter, {Vince Bugliosi}
provides some lists of the various people and groups who, per the
conspiracy kooks of the world, were supposedly involved in JFK's
murder. Vince comes up with 44 different organizations/groups/
countries who (at one time or another) have had a finger pointed at
them over the years, including NASA and "Martians and Venusians". ~big
grin~"
Vince doesn't get international power groups interlock with many
different groups, thus you will have a good number of different groups
involved in the assassination of a U.S. president.
"Although admittedly only a "partial" list, Vince has 82
individual persons who have been implicated by one conspiracy kook or
another since 1963 as having physically fired a weapon at President
Kennedy in Dealey Plaza or having been part of the "Dealey Plaza team
of killers", including (yes) Lyndon Johnson and J.D. Tippit. (The
madness never ends, does it?)"
What madness is tied to a man who was facing jail time on 11/21/63 and
then became president on 11/22/63? Why would he NOT be looked at as
he all the motive in the world.
"And on another list, Vince B. is able to provide 214 different
alleged non-triggerman "co-conspirators", including Abe Zapruder,
Marina Oswald, and ex-baseball great Joe DiMaggio (that Marilyn/JFK
affair, remember....yep, Joltin' Joe MUST have been in on the plot)."
Some people have advanced some odd theories over the years, so what?
It doesn't take away all the good research that has been done, nor do
any of the whacky CT theories top the official theory in terms of
wackiness.
"Additional LOL moment.....
""{Quoting author Edward J. Epstein}..."It would still be at
least THEORETICALLY conceivable that the rifle was passed from the
hands of one sniper to another between shots." .... Yes, and it is
also THEORETICALLY possible that the assassin was a robed nun whose
eyes were closed and who used her Catholic prayer book as a gun rest."
-- VB; Page 1496 of "RH" (c.2007)"
Like shooting through a tree with a loose scope and a rusty firing pin
is sooooo realistic, huh?
www.amazon.com/David_Von_Pein/review/RZD82270D69E8
> >>> "Even with the misleading and bias questions, 51% still think it was a conspiracy." <<<
"But WITH Lee Harvey Oswald firing a gun at President Kennedy (which
is totally at odds with your "OSWALD SHOT NO ONE" POV)."
That is because most Americans are not aware of all the details of the
case like the people on this board. They don't realize LHO showed via
a paraffin test he did NOT fire a rifle on 11/22/63.
"Go figure."
Nothing to figure, they don't know all the details, but their guts
tell them it was NOT one man who did the shooting.
> >>> "You can prove he {every kook's favorite patsy named Lee} did shoot Tippit anytime you want, but you NEVER seem able to, why?" <<<
"You're an idiot."
Still can't prove it, can you?
"Oswald's guilt in both murders he committed on Nov. 22nd has been
proven a million times over (and was pretty much proven beyond all
reasonable doubt the very weekend of the murders by the Dallas Police
Department)."
Wrong. It was alleged, implied, asserted and promoted that LHO was
guilty, but it was NEVER PROVEN in a court of law.
"A goodly amount of the vast pile of evidence leading to Oswald's
guilt was discussed in a press conference given by Dallas D.A. Henry
Wade on the night Oswald was murdered."
And this is a joke, that is why they let LHO be gunned down as this
"evidence" would have never made it into court or stood for long.
"But Rob must think that ALL of this stuff being discussed at the
video link below by Mr. Wade equals: "NO EVIDENCE" at all against Lee
HarveyOswald."
It doesn't, so I urge people to check it out for themselves. All Wade
is doing is making assertions, he couldn't prove them in a court.
"This is why you're an idiot, Rob (watch and see for yourself):"
You are the one lacking intelligence if you think I would believe
Wade's assertions. I know the "evidence" and I know it would have
stood up in court.
David Von Pein
>>> "A[n] honest man would simply say..."I goofed, I'm sorry....just proves I'm human"." <<<
But will we ever get an "honest" type of "I goofed" response out of
Walt, though, when it comes to Howard Brennan's testimony? I kinda
doubt it. Even AFTER Walt's been confronted with this 5/7/64 affidavit
("SOUTHEAST CORNER" emphasis is DVP's):
"On or about March 24, 1964, I testified in Washington, D.C.,
before the President's Commission on the Assassination of President
Kennedy. In that connection I testified as to the reasons why I
declined on November 22, 1963, to give, positive identification of Lee
Harvey Oswald as the man I saw firing a rifle fro the SOUTHEAST CORNER
of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building on
November 22, 1963." -- H.L. Brennan; 05/07/1964 AD
David Von Pein
>>> How about providing the link to the original poll?" <<<
I did. Many, many times, in fact.
What do you think this link is talking about--a recipe for clam dip?:
www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>>> "You are the one lacking intelligence if you think I would believe Wade's assertions." <<<
Oh, yes, of course. How stupid of me. Wade was one of the bigwig
"cover-uppers". Naturally.
BTW....you're an idiot. (Have I said that within the last 12 seconds?
If not, it's way overdue.)
>>> "I know the "evidence" and I know it would have stood up in court." <<<
I think so too. (Perhaps the kook made an error here....he probably
wanted to say "wouldn't" instead of "would".)
[Excising the rest of Kook Rob's "The Evidence Really Isn't The
Evidence At All" ramblings. It's the same ol' tripe coming from a
person who has his eyes taped tightly shut with ABO tape.]
tomnln
after Owning it.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
"Walt" <papakoc...@evertek.net> wrote in message
news:56e3db84-d88b-489f...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
Walt
> >>> How about providing the link to the original poll?" <<<
>
> I did. Many, many times, in fact.
>
> What do you think this link is talking about--a recipe for clam dip?:
>
> www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
>
> >>> "You are the one lacking intelligence if you think I would believe Wade's assertions." <<<
>
> "cover-uppers". Naturally.
Hey Von Pea Brain.... Henry Wade was in fact one of the key men in
the conspiracy. It was his "off hand" remark that was the single
biggest piece of "evidence" against lee Oswald. On saturday morning
Wade was setting up the framing of Oswald on the front steps of the
police station, by holding a press briefing. He answered several
questions that painted Oswald in an unfavorable light, and then acted
like he was going to wrap up the briefing, when a reporter asked
him..."Isn't there anything new, that you can tell us?" Wade acted
like he was thinking and then said..." Let's see.... Did I tell you
that we found his finger prints on the gun?"..... Of course he'd
never said that and it was like throwing raw meat to hungry lions....
The reporters jumped at the statement and ran for the telephones to
tell their editors. The news swept the country that they had found
Oswald's prints on the gun..... and it was all Henry Wade's lie.
Oswald's prints were never found on the gun.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> How about providing the link to the original poll?" <<<
"I did. Many, many times, in fact."
My mistake, I noticed it after I sent the last one. Sorry.
"What do you think this link is talking about--a recipe for clam
dip?:"
A recipe for clam dip would be more valuable.
www.pollingreport.com/news2.htm#Kennedy
> >>> "You are the one lacking intelligence if you think I would believe Wade's assertions." <<<
"Oh, yes, of course. How stupid of me. Wade was one of the bigwig
"cover-uppers". Naturally."
Of course he was as NO sane D.A. is publicly announcing within 24
hours they have a case locked up. Most take their time with an
investigation first.
"BTW....you're an idiot. (Have I said that within the last 12 seconds?
If not, it's way overdue.)"
I don't know, have you proved it within the last 12 seconds?
> >>> "I know the "evidence" and I know it would have stood up in court." <<<
I think so too. (Perhaps the kook made an error here....he probably
wanted to say "wouldn't" instead of "would".)"
Yes I did, I made a mistake. It should read "wouldn't" as we all know
it wouldn't. Thanks for the help.
"[Excising the rest of Kook Rob's "The Evidence Really Isn't The
Evidence At All" ramblings. It's the same ol' tripe coming from a
person who has his eyes taped tightly shut with ABO tape.]"
You totally miss the point constantly. Your "evidence" is just
supposition, NOT evidence as it has not been introduced and allowed
into a court of law.
David Von Pein
>>> "Henry Wade was in fact one of the key men in the conspiracy." <<<
Oh, naturally. (And the use of the words "in fact" in Walt's loony
post above always helps out a kook who's got no evidence at all to
back up his sad-sack theories. If those words had been in ALL CAPS, it
would have made me believe them all the more.)
BTW, Walt, you're an idiot.
>>> "It was all Henry Wade's lie. Oswald's prints were never found on the gun." <<<
Your incorrect opinion on this matter couldn't possibly matter less.
(BTW, Walt, you're an evidence-mangling idiot.) .....
LT. J.C. DAY -- "On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by
the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried
lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A
faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under
the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or
bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from
the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be
released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the
underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this
area of the gun."
DAVID BELIN -- "Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/ce637.jpg
DAY -- "This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of
the gun after I had removed the wood."
BELIN -- "Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?"
DAY -- "It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it
in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip,
C-2766."
David Von Pein
>>> "Your "evidence" is just supposition, NOT evidence, as it has not been introduced and allowed into a court of law." <<<
You're an idiot. (Have I said that in the last few hours? If not, it's
way, WAY overdue.)
===========================================================
"If anyone in the future maintains...that Oswald was just a
patsy and did not kill Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the
evidence against Oswald or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial
of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." -- Vincent T.
Bugliosi
===========================================================
David Von Pein
>>> "Your "evidence" is just supposition, NOT evidence, as it has not been introduced and allowed into a court of law." <<<
Wrong. .....
=============================
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
In late November of 1986, the cable television network "Showtime"
aired a two-part, five-and-a-half-hour special program -- "ON TRIAL:
LEE HARVEY OSWALD" -- which represented a first-of-its-kind JFK
assassination "mock" courtroom trial, with the accused assassin of
President John F. Kennedy as the defendant. (There was no actor used
to play the now-deceased Oswald, however; the defendant's chair was
left empty during the trial.)
A real sworn-in jury of twelve Dallas citizens was flown to London,
England, to sit in judgment of the man whom the Warren Commission (22
years earlier) had deemed guilty of killing President Kennedy and
Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit on November 22, 1963.
An actual judge was also used in the 1986 "Docu-Trial", and two of the
finest lawyers in America were employed to serve as the attorneys in
this important landmark case. Highly-successful defense lawyer Gerry
Spence of Wyoming acted in defense of his "client" (Oswald); and
Spence had not lost a case in front of a jury in the last 17 years
leading up to the LHO mock trial.
Former Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi served as
the lawyer for the prosecution (representing the "U.S. Government").
Bugliosi had a nearly-perfect 105-1 record in felony jury trials while
employed with the L.A. DA's office.
Many of the actual witnesses surrounding the assassination of JFK were
called to the witness stand during the trial, as well as police
officers, photo and medical experts, and members of the HSCA panel who
investigated the case in the late 1970s.
The end result of the 21-hour-long Docu-Trial (which was edited down
to 5.5 hours for the "Showtime" TV broadcast) was a "Guilty" verdict
being reached by the jury, with Oswald pronounced guilty of murdering
both John Kennedy and Officer Tippit.
The '86 mock trial prompted Bugliosi to spend the next 20 years of his
life writing an all-encompassing book on the JFK assassination, titled
"Reclaiming History" (published in May 2007). Information relating to
the book can be found at these links:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1f644880e9ae885d
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4d0e813277d5baa0
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0ea7f5a65f76eb0b
Below, I've typed out some verbatim excerpts from the fascinating
court proceeding known as "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD". These
excerpts provide a pretty good example of the massive amount of
evidence that Mr. Bugliosi had to work with as he successfully
attempted, albeit in mock-trial form only, to convict Lee Oswald for
the two murders Oswald so obviously committed on 11/22/63 in Dallas,
Texas......
==============================================
VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S OPENING STATEMENT TO THE JURY:
"Mr. Spence, Judge Bunton, ladies and gentlemen of the jury -- I don't
have to tell you that you have been called upon to sit on the jury of
perhaps the most important murder case ever tried in this country.
In any political assassination, ladies and gentlemen, almost as
inevitably as death and taxes, there is always a chorus of critics
screaming the word 'conspiracy' before the fatal bullet has even come
to rest.
The evidence that will be presented at this trial will show that there
is no substance to the persistent charge by these critics that Lee
Harvey Oswald was just a patsy, set up to take the fall by some
elaborate conspiracy.
We expect the evidence -- ALL of the evidence -- to show that Lee
Harvey Oswald, acting alone, was responsible for the assassination of
John F. Kennedy.
We expect the defense -- in an anemic effort to deflect suspicion away
from Mr. Oswald -- to offer theory, speculation, conjecture, but not
one speck of credible evidence that any other person or group murdered
President Kennedy and framed Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder that
they committed. As this trial unfolds, you will see how utterly
preposterous the allegation of a frame-up is.
The evidence at this trial will produce a vivid, and a rather stark,
psychological portrait of Oswald as a deeply-disturbed and maladjusted
man. It will show him to be a fanatical Marxist, who restlessly
searched for a country to embody the Marxist dream.
The evidence will show that on the morning of the assassination --
November the 22nd, 1963 -- Oswald carried his weapon, a 6.5-millimeter
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, into his place of employment at the Texas
School Book Depository Building. The Presidential motorcade was
scheduled to pass right in front of that building that very noon.
At 12:30 PM, as the President's limousine drove slowly by, three shots
rang out from the southeasternmost window on the sixth floor of that
building....one of which penetrated President Kennedy's upper-right
back, exited the front of his throat....another entering the right-
rear of his head, and exiting and shattering the right-frontal area of
his head.
As the Presidential limousine screeched away to Parkland Memorial
Hospital, where he was pronounced dead -- the President, his life
blood gushing from his body, lay mortally wounded in his wife
Jacqueline's lap.
Within minutes of the assassination, Oswald's rifle was found on the
same sixth floor -- the floor from which Oswald had brutally cut down,
at the age of only forty-six, the thirty-fifth President of these
United States.
The evidence will show that Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all
other weapons, was determined by firearms experts to be the rifle that
fired the two bullets that struck down President Kennedy.
The evidence will further show that just forty-five minutes after the
assassination, Oswald, in frantic flight from what he had just done,
shot and killed Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit....running from the
scene of the murder to a theater, where he was arrested and subdued
after drawing his revolver on one of the arresting officers.
Much more evidence, ladies and gentlemen, much more, will be produced
at this trial irresistibly connecting Oswald and no other person or
group to the assassination.
I have every confidence that after you folks fairly and objectively
evaluate all of the evidence in this case you will find that Lee
Harvey Oswald, and Lee Harvey Oswald alone, was responsible for the
assassination of President John F. Kennedy.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen."
==============================================
SELECTED WITNESS TESTIMONY:
VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "Did you recall how he {Lee Harvey Oswald} was
carrying the bag?"
BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER (Oswald's co-worker; he drove LHO to work on
11/22/63 and watched Lee carry a paper package into the Book
Depository that morning) -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to
his body."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his
body....on the right side?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. On the right side."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I
think you've said that in the past."
MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any
attention to this bag?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of
his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"
MR. FRAZIER -- "That is true."
----------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Boone, did the FBI ever show you a rifle which
they said was the rifle found on the sixth floor?"
EUGENE BOONE (Dallas County Deputy Sheriff who discovered a rifle in
the TSBD on 11/22/63) -- "Yes sir."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And what did you say when you looked at that rifle?"
MR. BOONE -- "It appears to be the rifle that I saw on the sixth floor
of the School Book Depository."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Well, didn't you just tell Mr. Spence that you could
not identify it?"
MR. BOONE -- "I could not identify it positively because I did not
have an identifying mark on the weapon."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Okay. But it appeared to be the same rifle?"
MR. BOONE -- "It appeared to be the same weapon."
----------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "What was the conclusion your panel came to as to how
many bullets struck the President, their point of entry, and the path
they took through the President's body?"
DR. CHARLES PETTY (one of 9 forensic pathologists who served on the
autopsy panel {aka the "FPP"} for the HSCA) -- "My conclusion, and the
conclusion of the panel, was that the President was struck by two
bullets -- one entering the right-upper back and exiting in the front
of the neck; the other entering the right back of the head, and
exiting what we call the right-frontal area, that is the front and
side of the head."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Is there any doubt in your mind, Doctor, whatsoever
that both bullets that struck the President came from the rear and no
bullets struck him from the front?"
DR. PETTY -- "None whatsoever."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Let me ask you this, Dr. Petty .... assuming the
President HAD been struck by a bullet from the front -- make that
assumption -- could the transference of momentum from that bullet have
thrown the President backward as is shown in frames 315 to 320 of the
Zapruder Film?"
DR. PETTY -- "No sir, not in my opinion."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And why is that?"
DR. PETTY -- "Because the head is too heavy. There's too much muscular
resistance to movement."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So the killings that people see on television and in
the movies, which is the only type of killings most people ever see,
where the person struck by the bullet very frequently, visibly, and
dramatically is propelled backward by the force of the bullet --
that's not what actually happens in life when a bullet hits a human
being?"
DR. PETTY -- "No, of course not."
----------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "What you're saying is that from your Neutron
Activation Analysis, there may have been fifty people firing at
President Kennedy that day....but if there were, they all
missed....ONLY bullets fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle hit the
President. Is that correct?"
DR. VINCENT P. GUINN (NAA Expert) -- "That's a correct statement;
yes."
----------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Delgado, I believe you testified before the
Warren Commission, that on the rifle range Oswald was kind of a joke,
a pretty big joke."
NELSON DELGADO (served with Oswald in Marine Corps) -- "Yes, he was."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "You're aware that at the time Oswald was doing poorly
on the range, he was about to be released from the Marines, is that
correct?"
MR. DELGADO -- "Yes, he was."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Are you aware that in 1956, when Oswald first joined
the Marines, and was going through Basic Training, he fired a 212 on
the rifle range with an M-1 rifle, which made him a 'sharpshooter' at
that time -- are you aware of that?"
MR. DELGADO -- "Yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Given the fact that Oswald was about to get out of
the Marines when he was in your unit, and the fact that he showed no
interest in firing on the range -- you don't attribute his poor
showing on the range to his being a poor shot?"
MR. DELGADO -- "No."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "He could have done better, you felt, if he tried?"
MR. DELGADO -- "Certainly."
----------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "While he {Lee Oswald} was at your home did he ask you
for any curtain rods?"
RUTH PAINE (acquaintance of Lee and Marina Oswald) -- "No, he didn't."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did he ever, at ANY time, ask you for curtain rods?"
MRS. PAINE -- "No."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was there any discussion between you and him, or you
and Marina, about curtain rods?"
MRS. PAINE -- "No."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now you, in fact, DID have some curtain rods in the
garage, is that correct?"
MRS. PAINE -- "In the garage...yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "After the assassination, they were still there."
MRS. PAINE -- "Yes, that's right."
~~~~~~~
MRS. PAINE -- "I do think for the historical record it's important
that people understand that Lee was a very ordinary person -- that
people can kill a President without that being something that shows on
them in advance."
MR. GERRY SPENCE -- "Is it really your purpose here to try to defame
this man in some way?"
MRS. PAINE -- "I'd like a FULL picture -- I think it's really
important for history that a FULL picture of the man be seen."
----------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now, Mr. O'Connor, if the President's brain being
missing from his head is one of the most shocking things that you've
ever seen in your entire life, a matter that you think should have
been investigated, certainly....and if they {the HSCA investigators}
spoke to you for one-and-a-half hours about your observations that
night, why wasn't it important enough for you to tell these people
about it?"
PAUL O'CONNOR (technician who assisted at JFK's autopsy at Bethesda
Naval Medical Center) -- "I was under orders not to talk until that
time."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "What?"
MR. O'CONNOR -- "I was under orders not to talk to anybody..."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "By whom?"
MR. O'CONNOR -- "By....the United States military brought in orders a
couple days after the autopsy, and we were to remain silent."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "But you talked to them for an hour-and-a-half. You
told them all types of things in that document."
MR. O'CONNOR -- "I received permission from the Select Committee on
Assassinations to talk to the Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of
Defense."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Paul, when I first asked you this question over the
phone, did you tell me -- 'the reason I never told them is....they
never asked me'?"
MR. O'CONNOR -- "Well, they didn't ask me."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So, in other words, Mr. O'Connor, even though this is
one of the most shocking things that you've ever seen, and you're
going to remember it till the day you die....and you feel this matter
should have been investigated....if those investigators for the House
Select Committee didn't ask you the magic question -- by golly you're
not about to tell 'em!! Is that correct?"
MR. O'CONNOR -- "No sir. I only answered what I was asked....and that
was it."
----------------------------
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now, Doctor, if the bullet was coming on a downward
path as it entered the Presidential limousine, as you say it was, is
that correct?"
DR. CYRIL H. WECHT (forensic pathologist who served on the HSCA's FPP
panel; has always believed a conspiracy existed with respect to JFK's
murder) -- "Yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Alright....and it MISSED Governor Connally....is that
correct...?"
DR. WECHT -- "Yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "...Why didn't it hit the driver of the car or do any
damage to the car, Doctor?"
DR. WECHT -- "A couple of things. The straight line in that open
limousine could have taken it over the left side of the car; and as
the line shows*, it would have and could have indeed missed the
driver."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Wait a minute....it's coming on a DOWNWARD path,
Cyril! It's coming on a downward path into the Presidential limousine,
goes through the President's body, misses Governor Connally, and
magically also misses the driver and doesn't do any damage to the
Presidential limousine."
DR. WECHT -- "Wait, just a moment! I did not say that THAT bullet
missed all of these people completely or that it missed the car! You
KNOW that there were fragments found in the car, Mr. Bugliosi!"
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "You said the bullet passed on a straight line through
the President's body..."
DR. WECHT -- "Absolutely."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "...Passed through soft tissue. So that bullet came
out pristine..."
DR. WECHT -- "That's right."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "The bullet fragments found in the front seat of this
car, Doctor, were bullet fragments....very, very damaged....very, very
small. What happened to that pristine bullet when it came through
President Kennedy's body?!! Who did it hit?!!"
DR. WECHT -- "What happened to the third bullet under the Warren
Commission theory, Mr. Bugliosi?!! Where is it?! You're asking ME to
be responsible for the bullets?!"
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "I want to know what happened to YOUR bullet, Doctor."
~~~~~~~
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Well, Doctor, by definition, it seems to me that you
are saying, that if the other eight pathologists disagreed with you --
and they did -- is that correct...?"
DR. WECHT -- "Yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "...Okay. Seems to me, Doctor, that by necessary
implication they are either hopelessly and utterly incompetent, or
they deliberately suppressed the truth from the American public. Is
that correct?"
DR. WECHT -- "There is a third alternative, which would be a hybrid to
some extent of the deliberate suppression, sir..."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "So, of the nine pathologists, Dr. Wecht, you're the
only one that had the honor and the integrity and the professional
responsibility to tell the truth to the American people....is that
correct, Doctor?"
DR. WECHT -- "I'll prefer to put it this way....I'm the only one who
had the courage to say that the King was nude, and had no clothes
on....yes."
MR. BUGLIOSI -- "No further questions."
~~~~~~~
* = NOTE RE. CYRIL WECHT'S TESTIMONY -- The diagram that was used by
Dr. Wecht at the mock trial (purporting what Wecht thinks was the
trajectory of the bullet path from the TSBD to the limousine) was
laughably askew and inaccurate as far as the "right-to-left"
trajectory line that was drawn on that schematic was concerned. The
angle from the Sniper's Nest in the TSBD to the car (at approx. the
SBT bullet strike at Zapruder Frame #224) was not nearly as sharp an
angle as purported in Wecht's chart/diagram. The diagram also does not
account for Governor Connally's being turned to his right in his jump
seat when struck with the SBT bullet.
==============================================
CLOSING ARGUMENTS / FINAL SUMMATION......
VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S INITIAL CLOSING ARGUMENTS:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, in the brief time I have to address
you in this historic trial, I want to point out what must already be
obvious to you....that Lee Harvey Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald alone
is responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, our
young and vigorous leader whose Presidency stirred the hopes of
millions of Americans for a better world, and whose shocking death
grieved and anguished an entire nation.
But before I summarize that evidence for you....against Mr.
Oswald....evidence that conclusively proves his guilt beyond all
reasonable doubt....I want to discuss several issues with you which
the defense has raised during this trial.
Several factors make it clear that Kennedy and Connally WERE struck by
the same bullet. There's absolutely no evidence of the existence of
any separate bullet hitting Connally.
With respect to whether or not any shots were fired from the Grassy
Knoll, I want to make the following observations -- firstly, it is
perfectly understandable that the witnesses were confused as to the
origin of fire. Not only does Dealey Plaza resound with echoes, but
here you have a situation of completely-unexpected shots over just a
matter of a few moments.
When you compound all of that with the fact that the witnesses were
focusing their attention on the President of the United States driving
by, a mesmerizing event for many of them....and the chaos, the
hysteria, the bedlam that engulfed the assassination scene....it's
remarkable that there was any coherence at all to what they thought
they saw and heard.
Human observation, notoriously unreliable under even the most optimum
situation, HAS to give way to hard, scientific evidence. And we do
have indisputable, scientific evidence in this case that the bullets
which struck President Kennedy came from his rear, not his front.
The surgeons who conducted the autopsy on President Kennedy's
body....plus ALL NINE --- even Wecht, even Wecht --- all nine forensic
pathologists who reviewed the photographic evidence and the X-rays of
the President's wounds for the House Select Committee on
Assassinations agreed that the two bullets that struck President
Kennedy were fired from behind....the upper-back wound and the wound
to the rear of the President's head being ENTRANCE wounds.
If EITHER of the two bullets that struck President Kennedy came from
the front, why weren't there any entrance wounds to the front of the
President's body, nor any exit wounds to the rear of his body?
Furthermore, if there WAS a gunman firing from the Grassy Knoll, how
come only bullets from Oswald's rifle struck President Kennedy and
Governor Connally? In fact, how come NOT ONE of this other gunman's
bullets even hit the Presidential limousine?
Does the defense want you folks to believe that this other
gunman....hired by a sophisticated group of conspirators
apparently....a well-financed group....I can assume he {Mr. Spence} is
going to tell you that....was so bad a shot, that not only couldn't he
hit Kennedy and Connally, he could not even hit the Presidential
limousine, a large car?
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it couldn't be more obvious that
there was no gunman at the Grassy Knoll. No one SAW anybody with a
rifle in that area. No weapon nor expended cartridges from a weapon
were found there. It didn't happen.
With respect to Ruby killing Oswald, the evidence is overwhelming that
he was a very emotional man. When we couple the fact that Ruby cared
deeply for Kennedy with the fact that he probably thought that he
would be viewed as a hero, Ruby's killing of Oswald has all of the
earmarks of a very personal killing, completely devoid of any outside
influence.
In the short time I have left, I want to summarize the evidence of
guilt against Mr. Oswald....
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, within minutes of the assassination,
a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle -- serial number C dash 2766
-- was found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.
Oswald ordered the rifle under the name 'A. Hidell' -- we KNOW that.
We know from the testimony of Monty Lutz, the firearms expert, that
the two large bullet fragments found inside the Presidential limousine
were parts of a bullet fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of
all other weapons.
We also know from the firearms people that the three expended
cartridge casings found on the floor, right beneath that sixth-floor
window -- undoubtedly the same casings that Mr. Norman heard fall from
above -- were fired in, and ejected from, Oswald's rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons.
So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL
doubt THAT OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON....that caused that
terrible, terrible spray of brain matter to the front! The worst sight
that I have ever seen in my entire life!
And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building that
day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As far
as Mr. Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his
armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald
was carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to.
At this point if we had nothing else....nothing else....how much do
you need?....if we had NOTHING else....this would be enough to prove
Oswald's guilt beyond all REASONABLE doubt. But there's so much more.
Let's look at Oswald's conduct .... November the 22nd, 1963, the day
of the assassination, was a Friday. Whenever Oswald would go to visit
his wife in Irving, he'd go on a Friday evening....come back on a
Monday morning.
On the week of the assassination, however, for the very first time, he
goes there on a THURSDAY evening....obviously to get his rifle for the
following day.
After the assassination, all the other employees of the Book
Depository Building return to work. There's a roll call. They're
accounted for. Not Oswald. He takes off. The ONLY employee who leaves
the building.
Just forty-five minutes after the assassination....out of the five
hundred thousand or so people in Dallas....Lee Harvey Oswald is the
one out of those five hundred thousand people who just happens to
murder Officer J.D. Tippit.
Oswald's responsibility for President Kennedy's assassination
explains....EXPLAINS....why he was driven to murder Officer Tippit.
The murder bore the signature of a man in desperate flight from some
awful deed. What other reason under the moon would he have had to kill
Officer Tippit?
Continuing on, when he was interrogated, Oswald, from his own lips, he
TOLD us he was guilty....he told us he was guilty....almost the same
as if he had said 'I murdered President Kennedy'....he told us. How
did he tell us? Well, the lies he told, one after another, showed an
UNMISTAKABLE consciousness of guilt.
If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny
purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why
did he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary
to do that if he's innocent?
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to
do with President Kennedy's assassination and was framed....this
otherwise independent and defiant would-be revolutionary, who disliked
taking orders from anyone, turned out to be the most willing and
cooperative frame-ee in the history of mankind!! Because the evidence
of his guilt is so monumental, that he could have just as well gone
around with a large sign on his back declaring in bold letters 'I Just
Murdered President John F. Kennedy'!!!"
Anyone...ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent,
would believe someone who told them that they heard a cow speaking the
Spanish language!
Normally, ladies and gentlemen, in a murder case, a verdict of guilty
brings about a certain measure of justice....obviously a limited
amount of justice....but a certain measure of justice for the victim
and his or her surviving loved ones. But here, the effect of this
assassination went far beyond President Kennedy and his family. This
was an enormous offense against the American people. And no justice
could ever be achieved.
I respectfully ask you to return a swift verdict of guilty against Lee
Harvey Oswald....simply because it is the only verdict that is
consistent with the evidence -- evidence which conclusively proves
Oswald's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen."
==============================================
MR. BUGLIOSI'S FINAL CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO THE JURY (WHICH FOLLOWED MR.
SPENCE'S CLOSING ARGUMENTS FOR THE DEFENSE):
"Based on the evidence in this case, Lee Harvey Oswald is as guilty as
sin, and there's NOTHING that Mr. Spence can do about it.
I have yet to see the man who can convince twelve reasonable men and
women as you folks are....that black is white....and white is black.
Mr. Spence, in his argument to you, no more desired to look at the
evidence in this case than one would have a desire to look directly
into the noonday sun. And I can't really blame him, because if I were
he, I wouldn't want to either.
Because there's not one tiny grain of evidence....not one microscopic
speck of evidence that ANYONE -- other than Lee Harvey Oswald -- was
responsible for the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
Mr. Spence did say this....it was kind of a subtle, very clever
argument....it took me a while to grasp exactly what he was doing....I
THINK he said this, and if I misrepresent you, sir, I'm sorry, but I
think he said that Lee Harvey Oswald was the exact type of person to
set up as a patsy. Or words to that effect. I'm just paraphrasing. A
Marxist, a defector to Soviet Russia.
Actually, he was the exact type of person to murder the President. And
my colleague very cleverly turned it around and said he's the exact
type of person to make as a patsy.
Let's take a look at Oswald .... Can anyone fail to see how utterly
and completely crazy this man here was? Utterly and completely nuts.
Bonkers. And you have to be bonkers to commit a Presidential murder;
you gotta be crazy; nuts.
One example, among many -- How many Americans....how many people
anywhere in the WORLD....defect to the Soviet Union? You'll find more
mango trees at the North Pole....more one-hundred-dollar bills in the
Florida poorhouse....than you'll find people defecting to Russia, or
to anywhere behind the Iron Curtain. That alone shows how completely
and utterly mentally unhinged this man was. Again, that's the exact
type of person to kill the President.
In his own writing, after ridiculing both the Soviet and American
systems of government, he {Lee Harvey Oswald} wrote: 'To a person
knowing both systems, he must be opposed to their basic foundations
and representatives'.
Elsewhere, after vehemently condemning both systems, he wrote: 'I
despise the representatives of both systems'. There's that word
'representative' again.
Though he may or may not have had any personal dislike for Kennedy, we
don't know that. For all we know maybe he didn't think Kennedy was
that bad a person....everything is relative in life. However, I think
one thing is pretty obvious, Kennedy almost undoubtedly would have
represented to Oswald the ultimate, quintessential representative --
that's the key word, 'representative' -- of a society for which he had
a grinding contempt.
On the issue of conspiracy, Mr. Spence {VB chuckles} -- I'm
paraphrasing him -- he certainly didn't say who specifically murdered
the President....but he certainly implied to you that it was...some
powerful group -- he never put the hat on anyone, he kept the hat on
his table here; I thought he was going to put it on someone's head,
but he didn't.
Some mysterious group....powerful group....murdered the President and
framed Lee Harvey Oswald. But he didn't say who these people were. He
did say the CIA covered-up here; he said the FBI covered-up there.
In which case, if the FBI and CIA were covering-up -- they'd be the
ones who murdered the President, right? Why doesn't Mr. Spence come
right out and say it? Why doesn't he accuse the CIA and the FBI of
murdering the President? One thing you can say about Mr. Spence, he's
not a shy man. He knows how to exercise his First-Amendment freedom of
speech....but he doesn't SAY it. Because he's very intelligent; very
wise.
I'll tell you why he doesn't say it -- because he KNOWS that if he
said that the FBI murdered the President, or the CIA murdered the
President....it would sound downright SILLY! You'd LAUGH at him!
But even though neither the CIA nor organized crime would have any
productive motive whatsoever to kill the President, let's make the
unwarranted assumption that they did....that they had such a motive,
and let's go on and discuss Mr. Spence's next point about Ruby killing
Oswald.
Mafia contract killers are always selected with utmost care. I mean
the one chosen to kill Oswald would be everything that Jack Ruby was
not. He'd be someone who had a long track record of effectively
carrying out murder contracts before for them. It would be a precise,
unemotional, business-like, and above all, tight-lipped, killer for
hire.
Another point HAS to be mentioned -- It is a well-known fact that
throughout the years organized crime has consistently and religiously
avoided killing public officials....if for no other reason, that they
have enough heat on them already, without significantly INCREASING
that heat by going after a public figure. They don't do it.
Going after the President of the United States -- of all people --
would be a suicidal act on their part....an act guaranteed to bring a
heat upon them not too much less than the surface of the sun. When the
Mob came to this country, they didn't leave their brains behind in
Palermo.
The whole notion of sophisticated groups -- like organized crime, U.S.
Intelligence -- getting Jack Ruby, of all people, to accomplish a job
which, if he talked, would prove fatal to their existence is just
downright laughable.
Organized crime and U.S. Intelligence, if they were the ones behind
this, could just as well have gone down to Disneyland and gotten
Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck to do their bidding for them. Not only is
the whole idea absurd, ladies and gentlemen, but there's just no
evidence to support it.
When Mr. Spence argued that Oswald was just a patsy and was framed, he
conveniently neglected to be specific. HOW was Lee Harvey Oswald
framed? When we look at the mechanics of such a possible conspiracy in
this case -- how COULD he have been framed?
Let's get into the mechanics .... Who was this other gunman who, on
the day of the assassination, made his way into the Book Depository
Building, carrying a rifle....went up to the sixth floor....shot and
killed the President....made his way back down to the first
floor....and escaped without leaving a trace?
How, in fact, if Oswald were innocent, did they GET Oswald, within
forty-five minutes of the assassination, to murder Officer Tippit? Or
was he framed for that murder too?!
Mr. Spence can't have it both ways. If the people who set Oswald up
were so sophisticated to come up with this incredible, elaborate
conspiracy -- I mean to the point they had people, according to Mr.
Spence, who can superimpose this man's head on someone else's body,
and imposters down in Mexico City -- if they were THAT bright, why
weren't they intelligent enough to know the most obvious thing of
all....
That you don't attempt to frame a man of questionable marksmanship
ability who possesses a nineteen-dollar mail-order rifle!
As surely as I am standing here, as surely as night follows day, Lee
Harvey Oswald -- acting alone -- was responsible for the murder of
President John F. Kennedy.
You are twelve reasonable men and women, and that is why I have every
confidence that you will confirm this fact for the pages of history by
your verdict of guilty.
Thank you so very much, ladies and gentlemen."
-------------------------------
[END TRIAL EXCERPTS.]
-------------------------------
POST-TRIAL COMMENTS BY VINCENT BUGLIOSI (INCLUDING SOME REMARKS MADE
IN 1988, DURING A REPEAT TELEVISION BROADCAST OF THE DOCU-TRIAL):
"The majority of the American people now believe, polls have shown,
that there was a conspiracy in this case....and the reason for that is
that the side of the Government has never been presented. It's been
presented, it's in the Warren Report; but that's 27 volumes. Who's
gone out and purchased 27 volumes? They haven't done that.
The only books that have come out on this case are by conspiracy
buffs; and these are the people that have gone on talk shows
throughout the country, and they finally convinced the American
people.
So the importance of this case is that we finally now gave the
American people, and the people around the world, the prosecution's
viewpoint." -- VB; November 1986
~~~~~~~
"It's been said that if you push something at someone long enough,
eventually they're going to start buying it -- particularly if they're
not exposed to any contrary view. And I think that's precisely what
has happened here. For 25 years, the American people have been
inundated with an unremitting torrent of books, and radio and TV talk
shows, all alleging conspiracy.
And what's happened is that the shrill voice of the conspiracy buffs
finally penetrated the consciousness of the American people and
convinced the majority of Americans that there was a conspiracy. Even
though the reality is that no one in 25 years has come up with one
scrap of credible, substantive evidence pointing in the direction of a
conspiracy.
In any event, throughout these same 25 years, apart from the early
media in 1963 and 1964, the United States Government's position hasn't
been told. True, it's been available. But how many Americans have gone
out and purchased the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission? They
haven't done that. And this is why the vote coming in will be very,
very heavy in favor of a conspiracy.
I think it's very, very noteworthy that before this five-hour
{televised Docu-} trial, 85 percent of the American people believed in
a conspiracy. And being exposed to only five hours, it dropped
dramatically to 71. If they had seen the eighteen hours of testimony
and evidence, it would drop even further. And if they knew all the
truth about the case, very few people would conclude that there was a
conspiracy." -- VB; 1988
==============================================
RELATED LINKS:
http://www.skepticfiles.org/weird/eoc8-4.htm
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0DE3DE1238F933A15752C1A960948260
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,962995,00.html
==============================================
Walt
You're the idiot.....I've shown you several times that CE 637 came
from the WOODEN foregrip of the rifle (ser. #C2766) It wasn't a palm
print...It was a worthless smudge. Day saw the smudge on the bottom
of the wooden foregrip right after he pulled the rifle from beneath
the stack of boxes. He THOUGHT it might be a palm print ( that's
where palm prints are usually found on rifles) so he lifyed it with
scotch tape and stuck it on a clean with 3X5 file card. He dated and
labeled the exhibit and put his initials on it. The note he wrote
said Quote..." from underside of gun barrell (sic) near end of
foregrip --- C2766"....Unquote.
Later that night the smudge on the card was sent along with other
evidence to the FBI in Washington DC. The next morning 11 /23 /63
Sabastian Latona the FBI finger print expert examined the smudge and
reported that it was worthless of identification purposes.
We've been through this before idiot......
Walt
Later that day JH Devon wrote a memo to Mr Conrad ........
Here's a memo for all you LNer's..... It's written on the fingernail
of my middle finger..... See it?
It's an FBI memo written on 11/ 23 / 63. It's from R.H. Jevons to
Mr. Conrad. The Subject is:... assassinationof the President.
Opening paragraph:..... My earlier memorandum of today lists the
items of evidence received in this matter to date. Among those items
was the revolver seized from suspect Le harvey Oswald upon his arrest
folling the killing of Dallas police officer Tippit, and the fatal
bullet removed from Officer Tippit's body.
( At the time of this memo the FBI didn't know that the bullet they
had received from the DPD was not the fatal bullet. It was the
bullet
that had struck Tippit's jacket button and caused superficial damge
to
his abdomen )
The memo continues ..... blah, blah, blah,...... and then there is
this addendum......
ADDENDUM: The latent finger prints examinations in this matter
have now been completed. In addition to those results previously
reported to you, no latent prints of any value were developed on
Oswald's revolver, the cartridge cases, the rifle clip, inner parts
of
the rifle, or the unfired cartridge.
Can you understand what the addendum says?? Probably not....Yer
rather stupid.