Any New Developements?
Robert Milner
Thanks, Bob Milner
David VP
No. Lee Harvey Oswald is still just as guilty as ever...just like in
1963. So nothing new on the "who did it?" front.
CTers like to THINK there's something "new" with each passing CT-Kook
book that gets itself published (somehow). But they're only treading
water and getting noplace fast.
The hard physical evidence of (only) Oswald's guilt in 2 murders in '63
is not going to suddenly vaporize and spell out "conspiracy". It isn't
going to happen after 40+ years. And Mr. V.T. Bugliosi obviously knows
that full-well, too.
Mr. Milner....I hope you will keep a watchful eye out for Mr.
Bugliosi's book (probably in mid-2007). Its title says it all. .....
www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671043773/102-0679552-6293763?v=glance&n=283155
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2468ba452baf99c0
Regards to you Mr. Milner,
DVP
SecretServiceguy
Charles Manson case ("Helter Skelter"), his book "Outrage" on the O.J.
Simpson case was right on the money, AND he bought my book to use for
HIS book, so he can't be all that bad [grin] :) That said, I think the
endless delays in his book (or is it books--2 volumes?) are telling:
THERE IS NO WAY IN THE WORLD BUGLIOSI, OR ANYONE ELSE, CAN OR WILL
CONVINCE ANYONE THAT LHO--AND RUBY---ACTED 100% ON THEIR OWN. To try to
succeed where the Warren Commission, Belin, Moore, Posner, Mailer, et.
al. failed at this late date is an extremely tall order, to put it
nicely. The other major reason for the delays: THE MASSIVE ARRB
RELEASES AND ALL THE BOOKS/ REVELATIONS FROM THE PAST 10 YEARS OR SO.
I would looooove to see how Bugliosi "deals" with all the (HSCA/ ARRB)
medical evidence releases/ information, all the CIA/ LHO/ Cuba
documents, etc. etc. etc. I mean, yes, you can convince the
lone-nutters---who are already convinced!---that LHO acted alone, but
hardly anyone (else) will buy the book, much less read it (sad but
true; ironically, the Pos did alot to make that a reality)and, again,
there is no way in the world you can prove a negative AND dismiss all
the pro-conspiracy evidence with rhetoric.
The Good Vince
Vince Palamara
David VP
I hope Vince "Not Palamara" Bugliosi had enough good sense to put
Palamara's book directly in the fireplace after doing whatever he
needed to do to debunk whatever silly CT rests within those Palamara
pages. VB surely wouldn't want to retain the book after thoroughly
trashing whatever unsupportable "JFK Conspiracies" are alluded to
within it. (Just a guess though.)
Also......
I wonder if Vince Palamara's book (whatever it's called) has the
following endorsements written on every page (just like a large % of
Palamara's say-nothing Amazon reviews do)? ......
"BEST JFK ASSASSINATION BOOK: ULTIMATE SACRIFICE!"
"BEST JFK ASSASSINATION BOOK: ULTIMATE SACRIFICE!"
"BEST JFK ASSASSINATION BOOK: ULTIMATE SACRIFICE!"
lazu...@webtv.net
Hey,let's exclude ourselves, just say we are too biased and let's ask
the good Vince if there was a conspiracy ok? Whatever he says is fine by
me.
David VP
Yeah, you're right. But snotty CTers who bring nothing substantive to
the table are oh so very appealing though. Nothing more attractive than
that, is there?
>> "Let's exclude ourselves, just say we are too biased and let's ask the good Vince if there was a conspiracy ok? Whatever he says is fine by me."
You must be referring to Palamara then....since Palamara is (evidently)
the only "good" Vince.
David VP
How do you know this, btw?
David VP
Sure he (Vince B.) can. The dialogue might, in fact, sound something
like this simulated VB Summation......
Robert Harris
Bos...@webtv.net (Robert Milner) wrote:
> I've been off line for a couple of years. Anything new worth mentioning?
> Thanks, Bob Milner
Hi Bob. Welcome back.
You might want to check this out.
http://two.fsphost.com/reharris/jfk.mov
Robert Harris
SecretServiceguy
Andy from the Last Hurrah Bookshop conveyed to me that Vince Bugliosi
personally wanted an autographed copy of my book, which he received
vince palamara:)
David VP
> David VP,
>
> Andy from the Last Hurrah Bookshop conveyed to me that Vince Bugliosi
> personally wanted an autographed copy of my book, which he received
>
OK.
Thanks, Vince.
DVP
Neil Coburn
Neil Coburn
David VP
Naturally, Neil.....ANYONE who dares to disagree with the CTers is
automatically deemed a "troll". Can't be anything else...right?
Right.
lazu...@webtv.net
doesn't give a damn about discussing the obvious contradictions in the
evidence. The WR is written in stone for him. That's his "faith-based"
authority. His purpose here, along with that of most of his LN cohorts
is only to disrupt and ridicule CT'rs, without countering their
arguments with anything other than ad hominem. Evidence and ideas are
as useless in the troll's world as a match is in hell.
"Great minds discuss ideas, mediocre minds discuss events, while small
minds discuss people."---Pascal
David VP
A very worthy and valiant occupation, I think everyone will readily
agree. And an occupation, as Bud has rightly pointed out in the past,
that should be engaged in as often as possible by as many LNers as
possible. The silly CTers have had their 43 years of fame. Time's up.
Vince is a-comin'.
Every CT can be struck down with VB-like CS&L....all of them (as VB's
book will show...with "hundreds of pages" devoted to just such a
CT-destroying task).
It's just that CTers don't like the LN alternatives to the CT
variations, so they'll spit on them. OK. Fine. But don't expect to NOT
be ridiculed and called a kook in the process of spitting on acceptable
LN evidence.
Hopefully, Vincent's book will be filled to the very brim with OJ-like
ridicule and Vince Venom. I certainly hope so anyway. I'll be severely
disappointed if that trademark Bugliosi sarcasm and CT-hating
fist-pounding doesn't shine through on every one of the 2,100 pages of
"Final Verdict".
CTers deserve every piece of venom and ridicule that can possibly be
dished up (esp. with respect to the Tippit murder, where every CTer
makes a fool out of themselves if they insist on staying in the "OSWALD
DIDN'T DO THIS CRIME EITHER" corner).
>> "Evidence and ideas are as useless in the troll's world as a match is in hell."
A tennis match? Or a croquet match? Which is it?
(Or did I misinterpret that "match" thing there?)
~a troll wink~
Dave "The Ridiculer" VP
Member LN FDIC.
Shake Well Before Using.
Product May Have Settled During Shipment.
Close Cover Before Ridiculing.
Ben Holmes
lazu...@webtv.net says...
Oh, I don't know... I think Davey-boy serves a very useful purpose. Along with
his ragtag bunch of LNT'ers, they illustrate that the other side simply has no
foundation. They are forced to lie about the evidence, dismiss evidence
(particularly eyewitnesses), and in general, simply act like fools.
If this is the best that the LNT'er crowd can do to rebut CT theory... it's
revealing.
David VP
And Common Sense & Logical-Thinking are as useless to a CT-Kook as a
mime is to Ray Charles.
And Ben's last post (re. "foundation" is a real whiz-bang of a
howl....in a kettle/pot kind of way). Can Ben possibly look any more
foolish with such a silly statement?? Doubtful. But he'll try to top it
no doubt.
I wonder what kind of "foundation" the CTers have "built" their case on
in contrast to the LN case? Hmmmm. Not a house I'd want to live in,
that's for sure. Because that foundation is non-existent.
Robert Milner
here are pretty much the same. Hope you're doing well. I can't connect
to the link that you suggested. Thanks, Bob Milner
Robert Harris
wrote:
>Glad to see that someone with sense is still here. Looks as tho things
>here are pretty much the same. Hope you're doing well. I can't connect
>to the link that you suggested. Thanks, Bob Milner
Well, I disappear from here too, sometimes for months at a time and
usually out of disgust:-)
You do need to have Quicktime 7 or higher installed to see the
presentation. You can get it at apple.com/quicktime for either PC or
Macintosh.
Bob
>
There is no question that an honest man will evade.
The JFK History Page
http://jfkhistory.com/
tomnln
Here's your chance to convince me that Oswald killed Tippit.
Tell me what time Oswald left his rooming house?
Tell me exactly how far from the rooming house to 10th & Patton?
Tell me Exactly what time Tippit was Killed?
Thanks in advance.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151634507.0...@d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
David VP
The exact time is unknown (quite obviously, since nobody was taking
detailed notes of when exactly (to the precise minute) they saw Lee
Harvey on 11/22/63; and, of course, nobody had a friggin' stopwatch on
him either, as LHO was walking and/or running from Beckley to Tenth
Street in Oak Cliff that day.
But the best guess is that Oswald left his roominghouse at approx. 1:03
or 1:04 PM (CST). My guess is it was even earlier than that; because
there's no way in hell he was fiddling around in that shoebox of a room
for "3 or 4 minutes", per Mrs. Roberts' account. There would be
absolutely no reason (logically-speaking) for Oswald to have been in
that room for more than 30 seconds at most. Was Earlene Roberts lying?
Of course she wasn't. But people have a habit of stretching out time
estimates to (incorrect) lengthier guesses when they're asked to
re-create "timelines".
I can think of two classic examples of such "time stretching" within
the JFK case alone. One being when a witness (can't recall who) claimed
the assassination of JFK took "5 minutes" to complete; and then there's
James Altgens' estimate of the Kennedy shooting, an event that Altgens
said took place in a timespan of "less than 30 seconds".
Yes, Ike was technically correct in this estimate....but a much-better
estimate, quite obviously, would not have included the
ridiculously-lengthy guess of "30 seconds" within such a piece of
guesswork. Those extra CT-created gunmen must have REALLY been popping
away with their 4 or 5 rifles indeed, for it to have taken
half-a-minute (or "5 minutes" even!) to dispose of their one target.
LOL.
>>> "Tell me exactly how far {it was} from the rooming house to 10th & Patton?" <<<
0.85 miles. (Via Warren Commission Exhibit CE1119-A; Insert A.)
>>> "Tell me exactly what time Tippit was killed?" <<<
That can only be estimated as well. But this "estimate" can certainly
be whittled down to a very few minutes, based on the official DPD Radio
logs (which we can only assume have the CORRECT time stamped to each
transmission). Officer Tippit, therefore, was definitely killed
sometime shortly before 1:16 PM.
The whole notion that Oswald is innocent, as many CTers advocate,
because he didn't have enough time to reach the Tippit murder site is
completely a moot point based on the wealth of evidence at 10th &
Patton -- e.g., multiple witnesses watching Oswald killing the officer,
plus even more people seeing Oswald (via positive I.D.) flee the scene,
revolver in hand, dumping shells along the way.....Plus the bullet
shells from Oswald's gun that CT kooks, evidently, will foolishly
insist were planted until VB comes along to straighten them out
forever.....Plus Oswald's suspicious behavior after he killed
Tippit.....Plus Oswald being arrested with the Tippit murder weapon on
him in the theater, wherein he pulls his rod on more cops and fights
like a wild man. (He sure seems to be guilty of something here; was he
willing to burn for murder just because he didn't pay the measly
movie-ticket fee?)
The WC found that Oswald's under-one-mile trek from Beckley to 10th St.
could "easily" have been done (WR; Pg. 648).
Also -- "Time tests of all of Oswald's movements establish that these
movements could have been accomplished in the time available to him."
-- WR; Pg. 649
Only a CT kook would demand absolute to-the-second exactness regarding
"timeline" evidence, when such exactitude is impossible to achieve.
But, then again, that's part of what makes a kook a kook....i.e.,
unreasonable demands so that they (CT Kooks) can make mountains out of
anthills and make guilty murderers seem innocent.
>>> "Here's your chance to convince me that Oswald killed Tippit." <<<
Any reasonable person looking at the evidence in the Tippit case
wouldn't require another person to "convince" them. I guess this means
you, Tomnln, are not a "reasonable" person who has looked at all of the
evidence that undeniably spells "Oswald Did It".
If you truly believe Oswald is innocent of Tippit's slaying you are a
genuine Grade-A CT Kook...or you belong in a padded room...or both.
Mark VII.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>"His {DVP's} purpose here, along with that of most of his LN cohorts is only to
>>>disrupt and ridicule CT'rs, without countering their arguments...blah-blah...."
>
>A very worthy and valiant occupation, I think everyone will readily
>agree.
Considering that you lie in the roughly 10% of America that admits belief in the
WCR, I suspect that the *facts* are that no, not everyone will "readily agree".
But don't let the facts stop you... they never have before.
>And an occupation, as Bud has rightly pointed out in the past,
>that should be engaged in as often as possible by as many LNers as
>possible. The silly CTers have had their 43 years of fame. Time's up.
>Vince is a-comin'.
Yeah... another LNT'er trying his luck. And he'll be no better than those
who've gone before.
>Every CT can be struck down with VB-like CS&L....all of them (as VB's
>book will show...with "hundreds of pages" devoted to just such a
>CT-destroying task).
Keep your hopes alive...
>It's just that CTers don't like the LN alternatives to the CT
>variations, so they'll spit on them. OK. Fine. But don't expect to NOT
>be ridiculed and called a kook in the process of spitting on acceptable
>LN evidence.
"Acceptable LN evidence?" Anything that hints at the WC conclusions.
Unfortunately - there's far too much that doesn't.
>Hopefully, Vincent's book will be filled to the very brim with OJ-like
>ridicule and Vince Venom. I certainly hope so anyway. I'll be severely
>disappointed if that trademark Bugliosi sarcasm and CT-hating
>fist-pounding doesn't shine through on every one of the 2,100 pages of
>"Final Verdict".
His book, if it's ever published, will be ripped apart as effectively as
Posner's.
>CTers deserve every piece of venom and ridicule that can possibly be
>dished up (esp. with respect to the Tippit murder, where every CTer
>makes a fool out of themselves if they insist on staying in the "OSWALD
>DIDN'T DO THIS CRIME EITHER" corner).
It is, after all, what the evidence shows.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>>"Evidence and ideas are as useless in the troll's world as a match is in hell."
>
>And Common Sense & Logical-Thinking are as useless to a CT-Kook as a
>mime is to Ray Charles.
When it's not supported by the evidence, of course!
You use CS&L *in place* of evidence.
>And Ben's last post (re. "foundation" is a real whiz-bang of a
>howl....in a kettle/pot kind of way). Can Ben possibly look any more
>foolish with such a silly statement?? Doubtful. But he'll try to top it
>no doubt.
Oh, I'm sure lurkers got what they wanted out of the post.
>I wonder what kind of "foundation" the CTers have "built" their case on
>in contrast to the LN case?
The evidence.
>Hmmmm. Not a house I'd want to live in,
>that's for sure. Because that foundation is non-existent.
When you must lie to advance your point, you've only illustrated that you're a
liar, nothing more.
tomnln
Your continuous Name-Calling opens the door for me to reciprocate.
Try to get your AIDS Infested brain to read testimony. below.
TIPPETT
DID OSWALD HAVE THE TIME TO GET TO THE SCENE OF THE TIPPIT MURDER?
On page 651 of the WR places the time of Tippit's murder at about 1:15-1:16
p.m. which still makes it impossible for Oswald to arrive at 10th & Patton
in time for the killing of Tippitt.
Oswald arrived home at 1:00 or later & stayed 3-4 minutes, see testimony of
Earlene Roberts.
Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, maybe I have. Now, that looks kind of like
the dark shirt that he had on.
Mr. BALL. Now, when Oswald came in, he was in a shirt--does this
shirt look anything like the shirt he had on?
Mrs. ROBERTS. It was a dark shirt he had on-I think it was a
dark one, but whether it was long sleeve or short sleeve or what--I don't
know.
439
731-222 0---64 vol. VI 29
Page 440
Mr. BALL. Does the color of this shirt which I show you here,
Commission Exhibit No. 150, look anything like the shirt he had on?
Mrs. ROBERTS. I'm sorry, I just don't know.
Mr. BALL.. You are not able to testify as to that--to tell us
that?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No.
Mr. BALL. Can you tell me what time it was approximately that
Oswald came in?
Mrs. ROBERTS. Now, it must have been around 1 o'clock, or maybe
a little after, because it was after President Kennedy had been shot-what
time I wouldn't want to say because
Mr. BALL.. How long did he stay in the room?
Mr. ROBERTS. Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes-just long enough,
I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out
zipping it.
Mr. BALL. You recall he went out zipping it-was he running or
walking?
Mrs. ROBERTS. He was walking fast-he was making tracks pretty
fast.
On page 215 of volume XXIV their STAR witness Helen Markham states the time
as 1:06 "BECAUSE SHE LOOKED AT HER WATCH." (Incidentally Mrs. Markham and
Domingo Benavides could NOT identify Oswald in the Police Line-up on
November 22, 1963. .
Volume XXIV page 202. T.F. Bowley states when he arrived at the scene of
the Tippit murder the officer was already lying on the street and several
people were already there and, someone was trying to use the police radio
but, didn't know how so, Bowley called the dispatcher. Bowley also said that
he looked at his watch. It was 1:10.p.m. (cst) The Commission's
pre_concieved conclusions couldn't afford the TIME testimony from a credible
witness such as Bowley. So, on page 166 of the WR they identified the
witness who called the dispatcher on Tippit's police radio as Domingo
Benavides. (Who in actuality was the man who didn't know how to use the
radio. Plus the fact that he didn't know what TIME it was.) "AFTER LUNCH"
There is however an interesting Q.& A. in Benavides testimony in
Volume VI pg. 454:
"Mr. Belin: Is there any thing you said before the court reporter got here
that is different in anyway that you said after the court reporter started
taking your testimony?
"Mr. Benavides: Maybe now ONLY IN THE CHANGE OF TIME, or I imagine I added
a little bit since she was here."
Volume VI page 451: Benavides describes Tippit's killer: "Ruddy complexion"
(Doesn't fit Oswald) "I remember the back of his head seemed like his
hairline was sort of_looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of
tapered off, and he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but
his hair didn'taper off, it kinda went down and squared off and made his
head look flat in the back." (Again it doesn't fit Oswald.)
Benavides heard only THREE shots and, he recovered TWO CHROME shells. Then
gave them to police.
READING IS POWER! In the past you've read that a DEDICATED athlete could
run a 4 minute mile. Well, because you have chosen to further you're
education thru reading you have just read that Lee Harvey Oswald WALKED a
TWO (2) minute mile on November 22, 1963. Had you chosen to read Benavides'
testimony on page 447 of Volume VI, you would have discovered that if Oswald
walked just THREE (3) blocks further in the same direction he was going, he
would be at Marsalis Street. (RUBY LIVED ON MARSALIS! WR 158)
The Marsalis bus which Oswald boarded traveled west on Elm, south on
Houston, and southwest across the Houston viaduct to service the Oak CLiff
area along Marsalis. A Beckley bus which also served the Oak CLiff area
followed the same route as the Marsalis bus through downtown Dallas, except
that it continued west on Elm, across Houston in front of the Depository
Building, past the triple underpass into west Dallas, and west on Beckley.
Marsalis Street is seven blocks from Beckley. Oswald lived at 1026 North
Beckley. HE COULD NOT REACH HIS ROOMING HOUSE ON THE MARSALIS BUS, BUT THE
BECKLEY BUS STOPPED ACROSS THE STREET. According to McWatters, the Beckley
bus was behind the Marsalis bus, but he did not actually see it." (WR pg.
160)
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151651077.3...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
David VP
Oh, you mean my calling you a "kook". I owe that to my expert and
always-fun-to-read LN cohort, Bud. I admit I copied that phrase from
Bud. But it "fits" so elegantly wrapped around virtually any post aimed
at Tomnln or Ben. So why wouldn't I use it? If the shoe fits....slip it
on.
But, by all means, "reciprocate" all you like. The "Aids" theme is
rather nice. I always enjoy those. So, keep those up please. If you
could work in "Disinfo Agent", "Paid Govt. Shill", "VB's lapdog", "Von
Pain", and "Skull & Bones" a few times, too, it'd help your variety.
As for my retorts...all I need is "kook".
>> "Try to get your AIDS Infested brain to read testimony."
Good, an "Aids" remark. I was hoping for that. Thanks.
But your attempts to free LHO of responsibility in the Tippit crime are
utterly laughable. As I said previously, only a kook would pick out
isolated parts of the whole case (i.e., Markham's "1:06" timeline) and
then use that as a centerpiece of the entire case in order to "prove"
Oswald couldn't do this or that or 'tother. You (and Ben) are
certifiable if you actually think the TOTALITY of evidence favors
Oswald's innocence in Tippit's murder. You don't even deserve to be on
these boards discussing this if you think that.
Of course, you also ignore the fact that the WC determined that
Markham's timeline was obviously in error, given the mile-high mountain
of other evidence telling any reasonable person she was wrong, plus
this passage (a wholly-reasonable one of course) on Page 651 of the WR:
"In her various statements and in her testimony, Mrs. Markham was
uncertain and inconsistent in her recollection of the exact time of the
slaying."
Tomnln, you're no more interested in the "truth" than is Ollie Stone or
Jim Garrison. You WANT a conspiracy to exist, so one will exist for
you, even re. the Tippit murder, which is so clear-cut in favor of Lee
Oswald's guilt that a jury would probably take about 10 minutes
deciding to convict the bastard.
But not CT Kooks -- Markham saying "it was 1:06" is just about all they
need to let Oswald go. Never mind that many other people saw LHO do
this thing (or flee right afterward)....never mind that Oswald was in
the very same area with a gun, acting "funny", and trying to hide in a
dark theater just 30 minutes after Tippit was killed WITH OSWALD'S OWN
GUN....Never mind the fact Oswald tried to kill more people in the
theater with that very gun when he was cornered.
"Well, they say it just takes a second to die." -- Lee Harvey Oswald;
Nov. 22, 1963; In police car after his arrest
Would a completely-innocent "Patsy" utter the above words?
CT kooks --- A strange breed.
tomnln
Markhan said 1:06 or 1:07 because she had to get the bus at 1:15 way down on
Jefferson.
T F Bowley said Tippit was already dead on the street at 1:10.
Domingo Benevides said what the stenographer for his testimony missed the
"difference in time"
discussed before she got there.
THAT's 3 corroberations for the same facts.
You AIDS infested Felon Supporters align yourselves with those other Faggots
Clay Shaw/David Ferrie.
Birds of a feather I guess.
ps;
By your own admission you are connected to Bud;
The CEO of AIDS Distributors who is so messed up he doesn't even believe in
GOD.
You people Surely belong Together.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151691148.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
David VP
You are probably all out of breath, old man, after that last tirade.
Right?
Geritol time, too, I imagine.
A kook mindset ---
"Let's let the always-slightly-imprecise "timeline" statistics from the
witnesses guide ALL of our thinking re. whether Oswald did this thing
or not. After all, Bowley's and Markham's wristwatches are MUCH better
evidence than stuff like "ballistics" matching Oswald's gun and direct
eyewitness accounts via multiple people saying "1 killer; It Was Oswald
For Sure!".
Yeah....I think I'll go with just the timeline discrepancies instead.
That's much better for my CT needs." --- Lesson 21 at "PS-101 School
For Kooks" (Tomlnlnlnln, Prof., when he stops wheezing that is)
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>>> "Your continuous Name-Calling opens the door for me to reciprocate."
>
>Oh, you mean my calling you a "kook". I owe that to my expert and
>always-fun-to-read LN cohort, Bud. I admit I copied that phrase from
>Bud. But it "fits" so elegantly wrapped around virtually any post aimed
>at Tomnln or Ben. So why wouldn't I use it? If the shoe fits....slip it
>on.
>
>But, by all means, "reciprocate" all you like. The "Aids" theme is
>rather nice. I always enjoy those. So, keep those up please. If you
>could work in "Disinfo Agent", "Paid Govt. Shill", "VB's lapdog", "Von
>Pain", and "Skull & Bones" a few times, too, it'd help your variety.
>
>As for my retorts...all I need is "kook".
>
>
>>> "Try to get your AIDS Infested brain to read testimony."
>
>Good, an "Aids" remark. I was hoping for that. Thanks.
>
>But your attempts to free LHO of responsibility in the Tippit crime are
>utterly laughable. As I said previously, only a kook would pick out
>isolated parts of the whole case (i.e., Markham's "1:06" timeline) and
>then use that as a centerpiece of the entire case in order to "prove"
>Oswald couldn't do this or that or 'tother. You (and Ben) are
>certifiable if you actually think the TOTALITY of evidence favors
>Oswald's innocence in Tippit's murder. You don't even deserve to be on
>these boards discussing this if you think that.
Yep... Davey-boy would *prefer* it if none of the up to 90% of America that
fails to believe the WCR ever posted on this newsgroup.
>Of course, you also ignore the fact that the WC determined that
>Markham's timeline was obviously in error, given the mile-high mountain
>of other evidence telling any reasonable person she was wrong, plus
>this passage (a wholly-reasonable one of course) on Page 651 of the WR:
>
>"In her various statements and in her testimony, Mrs. Markham was
>uncertain and inconsistent in her recollection of the exact time of the
>slaying."
She's far from the only evidence of an earlier time, as you should well know.
Amusing that you'd prefer to talk about the "totality" of the evidence, but run
away from it as fast as you can.
>Tomnln, you're no more interested in the "truth" than is Ollie Stone or
>Jim Garrison. You WANT a conspiracy to exist, so one will exist for
>you, even re. the Tippit murder, which is so clear-cut in favor of Lee
>Oswald's guilt that a jury would probably take about 10 minutes
>deciding to convict the bastard.
Opinions vary.
>But not CT Kooks -- Markham saying "it was 1:06" is just about all they
>need to let Oswald go. Never mind that many other people saw LHO do
>this thing (or flee right afterward)....never mind that Oswald was in
>the very same area with a gun, acting "funny", and trying to hide in a
>dark theater just 30 minutes after Tippit was killed WITH OSWALD'S OWN
>GUN....Never mind the fact Oswald tried to kill more people in the
>theater with that very gun when he was cornered.
"When you have to lie..."
tomnln
BADA-BING
(WR 172) States that one bullet taken from officer Tippit match Oswald's 38 "TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS"
BADA-BOOM
(WR 559) "The .38 had been RECHAMBERED for a .38 Special cartridge, it had not been REBARRELED for a .38 Special bullet. The barrel was therefore slightly oversized for a .38 Special bullet, which has a smaller diameter than a .38 S&W bullet. This would cause the passage of a .38 Special bullet through the barrel to be eratic, resulting in inconsistent microscopic markings."
(Curry pg. 84) Homicide report stating that Tippit was shot THREE (3) times.
(Curry pg. 95) FBI report stating that Tipit was shot THREE (3) times.
(WR pg. 172) CONCERNING THE TIPPIT BULLETS AND CASINGS:
BADA-BING BADA-BOOM
4 bullets=
3 Winchester_Western 4 casings=2 Winchester_Western
1 Remington Peters 2 Remington Peters
5. The Dallas Police radio logs printed in Volume XXI pp. 396-7 tell us that the casings found at the Tippit murder scene were from an "AUTOMATIC." and that the weapon used in the Tippit murder was an "AUTOMATIC."
CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT A DEFENSE ATTORNEY COULD DO WITH THIS "EVIDENCE" IN A COURT ROOM? (Or, a first year Law Student for that matter. Unless of course his/her First Major was PROSTITUTION.)
David VP
I guess Tom-kook thinks I hadn't the SLIGHTEST idea that those
inconsistencies re. the Tippit case existed.
And every one of those points is fully explained in a forthright and
pro-LN/LHO manner by Dale K. Myers in "With Malice".
Perhaps somebody can lend Tom-kook a copy. He's not getting mine
though. (But he wouldn't want my cootied copy anyway...that "Aids"
thing you know.)
www.amazon.com/gp/product/0966270975/102-0679552-6293763?v=glance&n=283155
tomnln
than evidence/testimony?
I see you snipped again to cover up your Crime of Supporting Felons.
You AIDS infested Felon Supporters HAVE TO ignore evidence/testimony.
You STILL haven't addressed it though have you?
Afraid Bud will Bar you from the AIDS conference?
ps; I advise you to stop kissing Bud's ass. (that AIDS thing you know)
Then Again.....Go Right Ahead we can get Rid of two birds (Vultures) at
once.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151694660.0...@d30g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
David VP
Because that "cartoonist" isn't named "Tomnlnlnlnlnlnln".
That's why.
>> "I see you snipped again to cover up your Crime of Supporting Felons."
Yep. Sure did. Good of you to notice.
You've never even set an eye on "With Malice"...have you? Yes or no?
tomnln
Simply because I had already seen his Cartoon.
But, I understand that most AIDS Distributors Love cartoons.
It kinda takes their minds off their minds off their minds off their minds
off their minds.
"David VP" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151695827....@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
David VP
Even though, of course, the "cartoon" that you saw has absolutely
nothing at all to do with the J.D. Tippit murder. Nice.
LOL.