Vincent Bugliosi's 53 "Reasons", #8 - Refuted... Evidence that "Bud" is a Murderer

[Ben Holmes]

(9) For the first time ever, Oswald didn't read the paper in the TSBD domino room.

You have to go to the endnotes to find out where Bugliosi pulled this "fact" from... here's the relevant testimony:

Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?
Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.

Now, Bugliosi wants us to believe that because Givens didn't recall Oswald reading a newspaper on a specific day 5 months earlier – that he was guilty of murder.

But we KNOW FROM THE TESTIMONY that he was eating lunch. Bugliosi wants to imply that Oswald was busy constructing the 'snipers lair' – but he dare not assert it, because he KNOWS that there's testimony putting Oswald downstairs eating lunch.

But let's look at a statement from the FBI report of Griffin & Odum, from 11/23/63: "On the morning of November 22, 1963, GIVENS observed LEE reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M."

Givens testifies that he saw Oswald at 11:55 on the 6th floor, and never saw him again... technically true, he'd earlier reported seeing Oswald 5 minutes EARLIER reading the paper.

I daresay that there were quite a few employees at that building that never saw Oswald reading a newpaper that day... but not seeing Oswald after 11:55 – and claiming therefore that he wasn't reading a newspaper, is something only a Warren Commission Believer can accept.

And another excellent example of presuming guilt, then taking any action or speech to 'prove' that guilt.

And since "Bud" didn't read a newspaper recently, he's guilty of murder. Who's the victim, "Bud?"

Lurkers - watch carefully as not a SINGLE believer will explain how reading or not reading a newspaper has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with someone being guilty of murder - a "lone assassin" at that... nor will any believer have enough basic honesty to admit that Bugliosi simply went over the edge on this one...

[lazu...@gmail.com]

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 9:58:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> (9) For the first time ever, Oswald didn't read the paper in the TSBD domino room.

For those interested in what Ben is deceitfully leaving out, here is the passage in its entirety.

"9. Every morning after arriving for work at the Book Depository Building, Oswald would go to the domino room on the first floor of the building and read the previous morning’s edition of the Dallas Morning News, which another employee had brought in. On the morning of the assassination, for the first time, he did not do this."

> You have to go to the endnotes to find out where Bugliosi pulled this "fact" from... here's the relevant testimony:
>
> Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?
> Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.

Looks like support, although the word "generally" is troubling. If Ben understood qualifiers that is where he would be focusing.

> Now, Bugliosi wants us to believe that because Givens didn't recall Oswald reading a newspaper on a specific day 5 months earlier – that he was guilty of murder.
>
> But we KNOW FROM THE TESTIMONY that he was eating lunch.

And we know from the testimony that you just produced from Givens that he said that Oswald read the paper in the domino room in the morning. Probably the first thing he did when he came in, he probably came in a little early so he read the paper. But the day something monumental was happening right on his doorstep he suddenly has no interest in current events.

> Bugliosi wants to imply that Oswald was busy constructing the 'snipers lair' –

Not first thing in the morning. In the morning hiding the rifle probably took up all his paper reading time.

> but he dare not assert it, because he KNOWS that there's testimony putting Oswald downstairs eating lunch.

Who said they saw Oswald downstairs eating lunch?

> But let's look at a statement from the FBI report of Griffin & Odum, from 11/23/63: "On the morning of November 22, 1963, GIVENS observed LEE reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M."

Is Ben trying to trump what Givens actually said with hearsay?

> Givens testifies that he saw Oswald at 11:55 on the 6th floor, and never saw him again... technically true, he'd earlier reported seeing Oswald 5 minutes EARLIER reading the paper.

You have to expect these kinds of things when you are getting information from fallible human beings. Sometimes what they say one place contradicts what they say elsewhere.

> I daresay that there were quite a few employees at that building that never saw Oswald reading a newpaper that day... but not seeing Oswald after 11:55 – and claiming therefore that he wasn't reading a newspaper, is something only a Warren Commission Believer can accept.

Stick to what Bugliosi actually said and refute that.

> And another excellent example of presuming guilt, then taking any action or speech to 'prove' that guilt.
>
> And since "Bud" didn't read a newspaper recently, he's guilty of murder. Who's the victim, "Bud?"

Your brain cells, apparently.

> Lurkers - watch carefully as not a SINGLE believer will explain how reading or not reading a newspaper has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with someone being guilty of murder - a "lone assassin" at that... nor will any believer have enough basic honesty to admit that Bugliosi simply went over the edge on this one...

It is very simple to explain, I explained it before. Bugliosi is going for the cumulative effect. He is building a case. Brennan saying he saw Oswald shooting Kennedy would never be enough on its own to convict Oswald.

Now, this particular issue is similar to the wedding ring issue. If Oswald happens to do something on the day he is the prime suspect in a murder that he never did before, or does something out of his normal routine, then this is grounds for suspicion *in light of all the other indications of his guilt*. Conspiracy hobbyist are great believers in coincidence when it suits them.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 10:52:35 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 9:58:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > (9) For the first time ever, Oswald didn't read the paper in the TSBD domino room.
>
> For those interested in what Ben is deceitfully leaving out, here is the passage in its entirety.
>
> "9. Every morning after arriving for work at the Book Depository Building, Oswald would go to the domino room on the first floor of the building and read the previous morning’s edition of the Dallas Morning News, which another employee had brought in. On the morning of the assassination, for the first time, he did not do this."

Quite dishonestly, "Bud" can't point to anything relevant not contained in BT George's summary.

Nor will "Bud" say anything about BT George.

Quite the scumbag, aren't you "Bud?"

> > You have to go to the endnotes to find out where Bugliosi pulled this "fact" from... here's the relevant testimony:
> >
> > Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?
> > Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.
>
> Looks like support, although the word "generally" is troubling. If Ben understood qualifiers that is where he would be focusing.

Not needed.

Bugliosi lied about Oswald not reading a newspaper - the most CREDIBLE evidence is that he did.

Nor would a video of him *NOT* reading a newspaper mean anything at all - it certainly doesn't indict him in a murder charge.

Speaking of which, who did *YOU* murder?

> > Now, Bugliosi wants us to believe that because Givens didn't recall Oswald reading a newspaper on a specific day 5 months earlier – that he was guilty of murder.
> >
> > But we KNOW FROM THE TESTIMONY that he was eating lunch.
>
> And we know from the testimony that you just produced from Givens that he said that Oswald read the paper in the domino room in the morning. Probably the first thing he did when he came in, he probably came in a little early so he read the paper. But the day something monumental was happening right on his doorstep he suddenly has no interest in current events.

Tut tut tut... you're lying again, "Bud"

> > Bugliosi wants to imply that Oswald was busy constructing the 'snipers lair' –
>
> Not first thing in the morning. In the morning hiding the rifle probably took up all his paper reading time.

Tut tut tut, speculation isn't evidence.

> > but he dare not assert it, because he KNOWS that there's testimony putting Oswald downstairs eating lunch.
>
> Who said they saw Oswald downstairs eating lunch?

Feel free to read the testimony, "Bud". You might learn something.

> > But let's look at a statement from the FBI report of Griffin & Odum, from 11/23/63: "On the morning of November 22, 1963, GIVENS observed LEE reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M."
>
> Is Ben trying to trump what Givens actually said with hearsay?

Ah! So the FBI was lying.

Good to know.

> > Givens testifies that he saw Oswald at 11:55 on the 6th floor, and never saw him again... technically true, he'd earlier reported seeing Oswald 5 minutes EARLIER reading the paper.
>
> You have to expect these kinds of things when you are getting information from fallible human beings. Sometimes what they say one place contradicts what they say elsewhere.

The most *CREDIBLE* evidence puts Oswald downstairs reading the newspaper.

But it doesn't matter whether he did or not.

Because *YOU* are a murderer, "Bud".

> > I daresay that there were quite a few employees at that building that never saw Oswald reading a newpaper that day... but not seeing Oswald after 11:55 – and claiming therefore that he wasn't reading a newspaper, is something only a Warren Commission Believer can accept.
>
> Stick to what Bugliosi actually said and refute that.

I already did - you ran.

Give ANY LOGICAL REASON WHATSOEVER for why reading or not reading a newspaper shows guilt in a murder case.

But you won't. You're a dishonest coward...

> > And another excellent example of presuming guilt, then taking any action or speech to 'prove' that guilt.
> >
> > And since "Bud" didn't read a newspaper recently, he's guilty of murder. Who's the victim, "Bud?"
>
> Your brain cells, apparently.

Quite the scumbag, aren't you "Bud?"

> > Lurkers - watch carefully as not a SINGLE believer will explain how reading or not reading a newspaper has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with someone being guilty of murder - a "lone assassin" at that... nor will any believer have enough basic honesty to admit that Bugliosi simply went over the edge on this one...
>
> It is very simple to explain, I explained it before. Bugliosi is going for the cumulative effect. He is building a case. Brennan saying he saw Oswald shooting Kennedy would never be enough on its own to convict Oswald.

I could quite easily indict *YOU* for murder on the sort of "evidence" that Bugliosi is using.

Indeed, based on your not reading the newspaper - YOU are a murderer.

> Now, this particular issue is similar to the wedding ring issue. If Oswald happens to do something on the day he is the prime suspect in a murder that he never did before, or does something out of his normal routine, then this is grounds for suspicion *in light of all the other indications of his guilt*.

Yet you can't show this... nor do you even try. You're rather gutless, aren't you "Bud?"

> Conspiracy hobbyist are great believers in coincidence when it suits them.

Yep... I predicted it.

Believers just run from obvious facts... Bugliosi knew well that the earliest, AND THEREFORE THE MOST CREDIBLE information was that Oswald did nothing out of the ordinary that day. He was seen reading a newspaper as he often did.

But even presuming that he didn't - IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM BEING A MURDERER - AND CERTAINLY NOT A "LONE" MURDERER.

The fact that "Bud" can't acknowledge these simple truths demonstrate just how dishonest he is.

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 10:52:35 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 9:58:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > (9) For the first time ever, Oswald didn't read the paper in the TSBD domino room.
> >
> > For those interested in what Ben is deceitfully leaving out, here is the passage in its entirety.
> >
> > "9. Every morning after arriving for work at the Book Depository Building, Oswald would go to the domino room on the first floor of the building and read the previous morning’s edition of the Dallas Morning News, which another employee had brought in. On the morning of the assassination, for the first time, he did not do this."
>
> Quite dishonestly, "Bud" can't point to anything relevant not contained in BT George's summary.

Of course "Bud" can. The first two words. Bugliosi is talking about morning and you went on about lunchtime.

> Nor will "Bud" say anything about BT George.

He didn`t bring it here.

> Quite the scumbag, aren't you "Bud?"

You have the original to work from and instead you insist on working from some flawed version you found on the internet. I`ll be pointing out you deceit every time you fail to use Bugliosi`s actual words.

>
> > > You have to go to the endnotes to find out where Bugliosi pulled this "fact" from... here's the relevant testimony:
> > >
> > > Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?
> > > Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.
> >
> > Looks like support, although the word "generally" is troubling. If Ben understood qualifiers that is where he would be focusing.
>
>
> Not needed.

Trying to help. "generally" means "in most cases; usually". Bugliosi is using what the witness supplied to say "in all cases, always".

> Bugliosi lied about Oswald not reading a newspaper - the most CREDIBLE evidence is that he did.

I wouldn`t trust you to make that determination.

> Nor would a video of him *NOT* reading a newspaper mean anything at all - it certainly doesn't indict him in a murder charge.

If my neighbors said that I *always* fill my birdfeeder at 7 o`clock in the morning, but there is a planned murder that I am implicated in that occurred the day I missed filling my birdfeeder any real investigator would find that significant. Even if I am out of birdseed, because previously I was always careful to make sure I had it. Conspiracy retards just have no aptitude for investigation.

> Speaking of which, who did *YOU* murder?

A change in routine on the day I was implicated in a murder would be a red flag to any *real* investigator.

>
> > > Now, Bugliosi wants us to believe that because Givens didn't recall Oswald reading a newspaper on a specific day 5 months earlier – that he was guilty of murder.
> > >
> > > But we KNOW FROM THE TESTIMONY that he was eating lunch.
> >
> > And we know from the testimony that you just produced from Givens that he said that Oswald read the paper in the domino room in the morning. Probably the first thing he did when he came in, he probably came in a little early so he read the paper. But the day something monumental was happening right on his doorstep he suddenly has no interest in current events.
>
>
> Tut tut tut... you're lying again, "Bud"

Someone who is unfamiliar with the case might think so. Always kept himself abreast of the news except when the President was going past.

> > > Bugliosi wants to imply that Oswald was busy constructing the 'snipers lair' –
> >
> > Not first thing in the morning. In the morning hiding the rifle probably took up all his paper reading time.
>
>
> Tut tut tut, speculation isn't evidence.

There is support for the speculation. It is only speculation that when Oswald is seen on different floors that he used the stairs.

>
> > > but he dare not assert it, because he KNOWS that there's testimony putting Oswald downstairs eating lunch.
> >
> > Who said they saw Oswald downstairs eating lunch?
>
>
> Feel free to read the testimony, "Bud". You might learn something.

Lied, didn`t you? Would have been easy to just produce a name, instead of some vague handwaving towards the testimony.

>
> > > But let's look at a statement from the FBI report of Griffin & Odum, from 11/23/63: "On the morning of November 22, 1963, GIVENS observed LEE reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M."
> >
> > Is Ben trying to trump what Givens actually said with hearsay?
>
>
> Ah! So the FBI was lying.
>
> Good to know.

Ben is displaying his hypocrisy again? Good to know.

>
> > > Givens testifies that he saw Oswald at 11:55 on the 6th floor, and never saw him again... technically true, he'd earlier reported seeing Oswald 5 minutes EARLIER reading the paper.
> >
> > You have to expect these kinds of things when you are getting information from fallible human beings. Sometimes what they say one place contradicts what they say elsewhere.
>
>
> The most *CREDIBLE* evidence puts Oswald downstairs reading the newspaper.

Having you decide what is the most credible evidence is like having Stevie Wonder decide the brightest color.

> But it doesn't matter whether he did or not.

You seem to be clueless both about what Bugliosi is doing and what you yourself set out to do.

> Because *YOU* are a murderer, "Bud".

Not so far.

>
> > > I daresay that there were quite a few employees at that building that never saw Oswald reading a newpaper that day... but not seeing Oswald after 11:55 – and claiming therefore that he wasn't reading a newspaper, is something only a Warren Commission Believer can accept.
> >
> > Stick to what Bugliosi actually said and refute that.
>
>
> I already did - you ran.

You`ve established as fact that Oswald did not read a newspaper every morning in the Domino room? When and how did you do that?

> Give ANY LOGICAL REASON WHATSOEVER for why reading or not reading a newspaper shows guilt in a murder case.

Any change of routine of his on this particular day would be a red flag.

> But you won't. You're a dishonest coward...
>
>
> > > And another excellent example of presuming guilt, then taking any action or speech to 'prove' that guilt.
> > >
> > > And since "Bud" didn't read a newspaper recently, he's guilty of murder. Who's the victim, "Bud?"
> >
> > Your brain cells, apparently.
>
>
> Quite the scumbag, aren't you "Bud?"

<snicker> You really should consider hoisting your skirt and fleeing back to your group.

>
>
> > > Lurkers - watch carefully as not a SINGLE believer will explain how reading or not reading a newspaper has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with someone being guilty of murder - a "lone assassin" at that... nor will any believer have enough basic honesty to admit that Bugliosi simply went over the edge on this one...
> >
> > It is very simple to explain, I explained it before. Bugliosi is going for the cumulative effect. He is building a case. Brennan saying he saw Oswald shooting Kennedy would never be enough on its own to convict Oswald.
>
> I could quite easily indict *YOU* for murder on the sort of "evidence" that Bugliosi is using.

Yes, anyone. It is how it is done, you put together supportive elements into a cohesive package. Something conspiracy hobbyists will never do.

> Indeed, based on your not reading the newspaper - YOU are a murderer.

Do you think Bugliosi is making that assessment based on this alone, dope?

>
> > Now, this particular issue is similar to the wedding ring issue. If Oswald happens to do something on the day he is the prime suspect in a murder that he never did before, or does something out of his normal routine, then this is grounds for suspicion *in light of all the other indications of his guilt*.
>
>
> Yet you can't show this...

It has been shown for over 50 years.

> nor do you even try. You're rather gutless, aren't you "Bud?"
>
>
> > Conspiracy hobbyist are great believers in coincidence when it suits them.
>
>
> Yep... I predicted it.
>
> Believers just run from obvious facts... Bugliosi knew well that the earliest, AND THEREFORE THE MOST CREDIBLE information was that Oswald did nothing out of the ordinary that day.

He did quite a bit out of the ordinary. He went to the Paine`s on a week day, which was out of the ordinary. He left his wedding ring, which was out of the ordinary. The first time he carried a big sack to work. He didn`t read a newspaper in the domino in the morning, which was his custom. He didn`t fill work orders the day of the assassination.

But Ben is correct, if you ignore all the things that Oswald did that were out of the ordinary then Oswald did nothing out of the ordinary.

> He was seen reading a newspaper as he often did.

First thing in the morning?

> But even presuming that he didn't - IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM BEING A MURDERER - AND CERTAINLY NOT A "LONE" MURDERER.

You assert in caps what you can`t show. Oswald may very well have missed his morning paper because he was busy hiding the rifle.

> The fact that "Bud" can't acknowledge these simple truths demonstrate just how dishonest he is.

You are much better at booing and hissing from ringside than you are in the ring.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 1:48:16 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 10:52:35 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 9:58:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > (9) For the first time ever, Oswald didn't read the paper in the TSBD domino room.
> > >
> > > For those interested in what Ben is deceitfully leaving out, here is the passage in its entirety.
> > >
> > > "9. Every morning after arriving for work at the Book Depository Building, Oswald would go to the domino room on the first floor of the building and read the previous morning’s edition of the Dallas Morning News, which another employee had brought in. On the morning of the assassination, for the first time, he did not do this."
> >
> > Quite dishonestly, "Bud" can't point to anything relevant not contained in BT George's summary.
>
> Of course "Bud" can. The first two words. Bugliosi is talking about morning and you went on about lunchtime.

So when you denied reading the newspaper, was that in the morning that you didn't read it?

Or at lunchtime?

In any case, Bugliosi has demonstrated that you're a murderer.

Who did you kill?

[Bud]

Your reasoning is atrocious.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 3:22:24 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 5:41:47 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 1:48:16 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 10:52:35 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 9:58:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > (9) For the first time ever, Oswald didn't read the paper in the TSBD domino room.
> > > > >
> > > > > For those interested in what Ben is deceitfully leaving out, here is the passage in its entirety.
> > > > >
> > > > > "9. Every morning after arriving for work at the Book Depository Building, Oswald would go to the domino room on the first floor of the building and read the previous morning’s edition of the Dallas Morning News, which another employee had brought in. On the morning of the assassination, for the first time, he did not do this."
> > > >
> > > > Quite dishonestly, "Bud" can't point to anything relevant not contained in BT George's summary.

And still refuses to do so...

> > > Of course "Bud" can. The first two words. Bugliosi is talking about morning and you went on about lunchtime.
> >
> > So when you denied reading the newspaper, was that in the morning that you didn't read it?

No answer...


> > Or at lunchtime?


No answer...

> > In any case, Bugliosi has demonstrated that you're a murderer.
> >
> > Who did you kill?

Taking the 5th.


> Your reasoning is atrocious.


It's not *my* reasoning... it's Vincent Bugliosi's... so why are you labeling his reasoning "atrocious?"

[Bud]

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 6:37:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 3:22:24 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 5:41:47 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 1:48:16 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 10:52:35 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 9:58:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > (9) For the first time ever, Oswald didn't read the paper in the TSBD domino room.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For those interested in what Ben is deceitfully leaving out, here is the passage in its entirety.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "9. Every morning after arriving for work at the Book Depository Building, Oswald would go to the domino room on the first floor of the building and read the previous morning’s edition of the Dallas Morning News, which another employee had brought in. On the morning of the assassination, for the first time, he did not do this."
> > > > >
> > > > > Quite dishonestly, "Bud" can't point to anything relevant not contained in BT George's summary.
>
>
> And still refuses to do so...

Already did so.

>
> > > > Of course "Bud" can. The first two words. Bugliosi is talking about morning and you went on about lunchtime.
> > >
> > > So when you denied reading the newspaper, was that in the morning that you didn't read it?
>
>
> No answer...

You don`y under the concept that Bugliosi is going for, and you don`t understand the concept of "refutation".

>
> > > Or at lunchtime?
>
>
> No answer...

You are removing all the context here. You`ve been removing content without a snip, not addressing Bugliosi`s full arguments, just a lot of dishonest activity on your part.

>
> > > In any case, Bugliosi has demonstrated that you're a murderer.
> > >
> > > Who did you kill?
>
>
> Taking the 5th.

I think you`ve been drinking one.

>
> > Your reasoning is atrocious.
>
>
> It's not *my* reasoning...

Take ownership of your own stupidity.

> it's Vincent Bugliosi's... so why are you labeling his reasoning "atrocious?"

*Your* reasoning is atrocious.

[Ben Holmes]

On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 4:22:02 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 6:37:38 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 3:22:24 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 5:41:47 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 1:48:16 PM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 2:34:34 PM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 10:52:35 AM UTC-8, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 29, 2017 at 9:58:49 AM UTC-5, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > (9) For the first time ever, Oswald didn't read the paper in the TSBD domino room.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For those interested in what Ben is deceitfully leaving out, here is the passage in its entirety.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "9. Every morning after arriving for work at the Book Depository Building, Oswald would go to the domino room on the first floor of the building and read the previous morning’s edition of the Dallas Morning News, which another employee had brought in. On the morning of the assassination, for the first time, he did not do this."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Quite dishonestly, "Bud" can't point to anything relevant not contained in BT George's summary.
> >
> >
> > And still refuses to do so...
>
> Already did so.

You're lying again, "Bud"...

[Bud]

Where in your initial post did you mention that Bugliosi specifically said the paper reading occurred in the morning?

[Ben Holmes]

[David Von Pein]

"Virtually all of [Vincent] Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case." -- DVP; Jan. 25, 2017

[Ben Holmes]

On Wednesday, February 1, 2017 at 10:46:44 AM UTC-8, David Von Pein wrote:
> "Virtually all of [Vincent] Bugliosi's arguments (when evaluated and weighed AS A UNIT, and not merely isolated individually) make perfect sense to any reasonable person who knows the basic facts of the JFK murder case." -- DVP; Jan. 25, 2017

Keep right on mumbling this garbage... it doesn't make it true.