Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Debating The John F. Kennedy Assassination (Part 33)

10 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Feb 18, 2007, 9:01:21 AM2/18/07
to
DEBATING THE JFK CASE (PART 33):

-----------------------------------------------------------------

SUBJECT -- The JFK Assassination: The Ongoing "Lone Assassin vs.
Conspiracy" Debate.

FEATURED TEXT -- Archived JFK Forum Messages From February 2005.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

CTer (A CONSPIRACY THEORIST) -- The continued citing of outdated
scientific data does not reflect highly on your desire to set bias
aside and use the most advanced data possible. ... The term
'exclusion' was used because of poor outdated data that was acceptable
at the time.


DVP (DAVID VON PEIN) -- I'm glad you brought this topic up
(specifically with regard to the ability to link Lee Harvey Oswald's
C2766 M-C rifle to various bullets and/or fragments).

I'll still contend that the phrase being used by Vincent Bugliosi in
1986 (and probably by investigators elsewhere as well) of -- "To the
exclusion of all other weapons" -- is NOT to be taken lightly or to be
totally thrown out the nearest window, circa the 21st century.

For, explain to me HOW, once a weapon has been determined to be THE
weapon linked to a certain bullet or fragment "to the exclusion of all
other weapons ever made", this same weapon can now, XX number of years
later, all of a sudden NOT be the weapon "to the exclusion of all
others"? I truly do not understand this philosophy.

For, if Oswald's weapon (as Vince Bugliosi stated to the "mock" jury
in his Opening Statement of the LHO TV Docu-Trial in 1986) has already
been determined to be THE one and only weapon positively linked to
certain evidence (bullets) "to the exclusion of all other
weapons" (not just SOME weapons, but "ALL") -- tell me HOW this
determination can be totally UNDONE years later?

Yes, I understand that new technology comes along with regard to
ballistics, etc.; but it seems to me this is GOING BACKWARD in
technological terms -- because Mr. Bugliosi would not have tossed
around DEFINITIVE phrases like "to the exclusion of..." without first
knowing he was RIGHT about such a wide-sweeping claim.

It seems similar in nature to saying that O.J. Simpson's blood really
WASN'T his blood found at the murder scene in 1994, due to newer
technology, which could in later years potentially WIPE OUT the
incredible odds in 1994 of it BEING HIS BLOOD (with the likelihood of
it NOT being his blood, in 1994, being only 1 in 57 billion).

If Mr. Bugliosi's 1986 statement of.....

"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." -- VB

.....is, indeed, now (in the 21st century) totally outdated and
archaic in nature (and therefore simply false) -- then what I have a
major problem with is the fact that this phrase -- "To The Exclusion
Of" -- has been utilized by lawyers and investigators and researchers
over the years, when it WAS NOT POSSIBLE at the time to actually
EXCLUDE ALL OTHER WEAPONS in these various arguments re. the rifle and
bullets.

Again, in my view, you simply cannot UNDO this phrase "To the
exclusion...", even with new technology. If such a thing were possible
to do today, then nobody had any business using such "To the
exclusion" terms in the 1970s and 1980s -- because they would not be
accurate.

And I'm highly dubious of Mr. Bugliosi using such misleading terms, at
ANY time during his career. He would not have said it if it couldn't
be proven.

The "old vs. new ballistics comparison" is similar to new "DNA"
technology, which (since invented and put into use in the courts in
1987) has, indeed, proven some convicted murderers to be innocent and,
hence, freed from prison based on the new DNA tests.

But -- the difference is the PHRASEOLOGY being used in past decades
re. the ballistics argument, i.e.: "To the exclusion of all other
weapons", which is a phrase that should never have been used in past
decades if it could not literally be proven to be true and
unalterable.

My $0.02 anyway.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e68af2a823062f43

-------------------------------------------

CTer -- I doubt that you have ever met Bugliosi; so in reality you
don't know 'jack-shit'.


DVP (February 14, 2005) -- Mr. Bugliosi's integrity speaks for itself,
whether you think it does or not; as does his solid reputation for
thoroughness and ACCURACY.

Which is how I know for an undeniable fact that when his book "Final
Verdict" {later re-titled "Reclaiming History"} hits the streets, it
will, indeed, be the 'final verdict' and the new JFK Assassination
Bible. So, in reality, I DO know "jack-shit" in this particular
regard, but it's far from being feces-related however.

The preparation and far-reaching scope by which Mr. Bugliosi tackles
ANY case he's working on is unparalleled -- just ask fellow attorney
Aaron Stovitz (who worked with Vince on the Manson case), or ANY other
lawyer who has worked with Mr. Bugliosi.

And in the JFK case, in particular, this preparation has transcended
multiple decades of research and investigation and re-examining of
witnesses, etc. It's hard for me to even fathom and imagine just how
deep into this case Mr. Bugliosi has delved for his book.

"Awesome" and "Boundless" would undoubtedly be appropriate words to
describe the scope and breadth of Mr. Bugliosi's undertaking in the
case of the Kennedy assassination.

Which is part of the reason I'm having a major problem when people
choose to ignore (or to stamp as "outdated") the "To the exclusion"
hurdle. Mr. Bugliosi leaped that hurdle by uttering those UNDENIABLY-
DECISIVE AND IRREVOCABLE words to a jury in 1986. He does not say
those words casually or off-the-cuff.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/450518c94e5e8ded

-------------------------------------------

CTer -- The matter of who was in the doorway wasn't as easy to clear
up as you have stated, or the Feds would not have spent so much time
on the matter.


DVP -- I don't see what would be complicated about the matter.
Lovelady testified on April 7, 1964 (to the WC) that it was definitely
HIM (Lovelady) in the doorway. He was shown a copy of the Altgens
picture, and he verified that it was not Oswald, but Lovelady himself.

Plus, I might add -- In another film taken at 2:00 PM on November 22nd
(when Oswald was first brought into DPD headquarters), we get a
glimpse of Lovelady sitting in a waiting room as Oswald is dragged in,
and Lovelady's manner of dress (his shirt/T-shirt combination that he
wore on 11/22) matches what we see "Doorway Man" wearing in the
Altgens photo.

It's a controversy that was really put to rest, for all intents and
purposes, in April 1964, when Lovelady told the Warren Commission that
it was not Oswald in the doorway.

-------------------------------------------

CTer -- I would be embarrassed to make such unfounded replies.


DVP -- And yet you seem perfectly comfortable with making replies (and
wild guesses) based on nothing but conjecture and speculation -- like
your post below.....

"I mean...how hard is it to understand that the shooter closest to you
will drown out other shooters further away who may be firing at the
same time."

Also -- The fact that several witnesses HAVE, unquestionably, gone on
record as to having heard ONLY SHOTS FROM THE FRONT OF THE LIMO is
telling me something very important. That being: they cannot be
totally correct; and are more-than-likely mistaken about the source of
ALL the shots they heard (based on hearing ZERO of the MULTIPLE rear
shots).

The echo patterns have made these "I only heard frontal shots"
witnesses THINK they heard the shots from ONE place (the Knoll area)
-- but we KNOW they are wrong, because there were shots definitely
coming from the rear.

The very, very low percentage of witnesses who heard shots from
MULTIPLE LOCATIONS (less than 5%) is another telling sign that reveals
the likely fact that shots DID NOT come from more than one location.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7b06a89bd4042363

-------------------------------------------

CTer -- I have read Lovelady's testimony before and I don't recall him
pointing to himself and saying 'this is me'. Can you find the line
where he actually identified himself in the photograph that Altgens
took?


DVP -- Yes, I sure can find that. Quite easily. Lovelady even drew an
arrow on CE369 (which is the Altgens photo) pointing to himself on the
steps in the TSBD doorway:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0495a.htm

JOSEPH BALL -- "I have got a picture here, Commission Exhibit 369. Are
you on that picture?"

BILLY N. LOVELADY -- "Yes, sir."

MR. BALL -- "Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are."

MR. LOVELADY -- "Where I thought the shots are?"

MR. BALL -- "No; you in the picture."

MR. LOVELADY -- "Oh, here [indicating]."

MR. BALL -- "Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an
arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you. Where were
you when the picture was taken?"

MR. LOVELADY -- "Right there at the entrance of the building standing
on the step....would be here [indicating]."

~~~~~~~~

It's kind of odd that you could find the testimony of Lovelady saying
he heard shots from the "little concrete Knoll dealie", but the
testimony on the very same page (or series of closely-knit pages)
regarding him positively IDing himself in the doorway seemed too much
of a task to track down. Most curious. ;)

-------------------------------------------

CTer -- I'm not saying it was Oswald, but that it was of obvious
concern to some of the best people in the investigative world who must
not have had your cunning ability at photo interpretation.


DVP -- I have no idea why it was of such concern to the FBI (and the
gobs of CTers who followed who are STILL not convinced that it was
Billy Lovelady in that Depository doorway at 12:30 PM).

And what "photo interpretation" skills do I necessarily need to
possess when it comes to this particular Lovelady vs. Oswald matter?

Answer: None. Because we have Lovelady testifying under oath that it
was he, himself, in the doorway. He knows where he stood; and the
picture verifies that fact. Plus, Oswald was not seen in this same
area by Lovelady or by anybody else who was standing on or near those
steps.

-------------------------------------------

CTer -- Anyone can plant shell casings on the floor.


DVP -- Sure they can. Which, therefore, means (via this always-cynical
logic) that NO prosecutor could ever get a conviction based on such
"bullet shells" evidence.

And I guess it would also mean, too, that nobody would ever be
convicted through the fact that a rifle known to be owned by a
particular individual was found at a murder scene --- based simply on
the possibility that ALL of this evidence could conceivably have been
"planted".

Not a valid and logical all-encompassing argument at all. (Especially
when there's absolutely no evidence to support such notions of
"planting" -- with respect to the rifle, the 3 shells in the SN, or
CE399 at Parkland.)

Every single bit of this is a wild guess on the part of CTers to
promote certain theories, and has never been more than that.

Any jury who would buy into the all-inclusive "planting" notions in
this case would HAVE to reside in either the Twilight Zone or Fantasy
Land. (Or had served on the O.J. jury, where all the valid, important
evidence was also ignored in favor of an obviously-ludicrous verdict.)

If only the people defending Oswald had ONE slim shred of evidence to
support the planting of shells or CE399 (or perhaps the rifle as
well). Plus, don't forget those Backyard Photos, too. The "planting"
seems never-ending in this case.

If only one person had seen somebody acting hinky hanging around the
6th Floor of the TSBD shortly after the shooting. If only one person
could testify that they saw some stranger entering the Paine home
prior to 11/22 (to "plant" assorted articles).

Or if just ONE person had seen Jack Ruby (or whoever it was supposed
to have been) hanging out next to John Connally's stretcher at
Parkland Hospital on November 22nd (to support the notion that ANYBODY
"planted" bullet CE399).

But there is NOTHING of this kind, regarding any of the many
"planting" claims purported by CTers.

Why?

The common-sense and logical reason is: Because NONE of this
suspicious activity ever occurred in the first place.

-------------------------------------------

CTer -- {Dr. Cyril Wecht} also said that the bullet alleged to have
caused the severe wounds to Connally after passing through the
President was in "almost perfect condition"; and this "made it
virtually impossible that it could have caused such damage".


DVP -- And, of course, Dr. Wecht has been proven 100% wrong (in
October 2004, during the TV documentary "JFK: Beyond The Magic
Bullet"), when the Australian investigative team conducted the most
accurate "SBT Test" to date (using as-real-as-could-be-obtained mock
torsos of human beings).

And the bullet wasn't anywhere near as damaged as what Wecht thinks it
would have HAD to have been after going through two people.

The 2004 "test" bullet looked MUCH closer to the actual "CE399" than
the totally-destroyed "Cadaver Test Bullets" that we've seen in the
past. (Which, of course, were tests not conducted under the same
conditions as that of the assassination whatsoever.)

I wonder what Dr. Wecht thinks now -- following such a test that
verifies that a 6.5mm bullet (exactly like that of CE399) would NOT
have to necessarily be pulverized to smithereens after doing lots of
damage to two human-like mock-ups?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6f6c34dca27986d7

-------------------------------------------

CTer -- It is totally deceiving to try and argue a case for what CE399
could have done when the test was only as close to the real thing one
could get. Wecht doesn't study the remains of rubber torsos. He deals
with real people.


DVP -- This is almost word-for-word what I expected to see posted in
response to my Wecht comment. Typical.

The 2004 test provided as reasonable an answer as there's ever going
to be (short of shooting up two actual humans); and, while not
"perfect" of course, it PROVES beyond MY reasonable doubt that a
similar CE399-like missile COULD indeed have traversed the "SBT" path
and emerge in good to very good condition.

Naturally, all CTers have to play dumb re. this test, and insist that
it's "not good enough".

I say to that -- Horsefeathers!

eca...@tx.rr.com

unread,
Feb 18, 2007, 10:33:23 AM2/18/07
to
Another great post David.
Thanks a lot,
Ed

> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0...

0 new messages