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 Historical content remains viewable.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

JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 61)

9 views
Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 9, 2008, 4:59:51 AM6/9/08
to
ARCHIVED JFK ASSASSINATION FORUM POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 61):

=====================================================

BATTLING STILL MORE CONSPIRACY KOOKS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/cef5a7acc5266049
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7aa504b6ac72fb7f
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1a969c59928b89ca
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bea241759733f8ef
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f83921e90bc723f1
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e8922de67751bd4f
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a9b7dcd126918060

J.D. TIPPIT'S MURDER:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/8422b42d989ad4d8
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3630f17435997001


JULIA POSTAL:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/67e0ec52da4bc17b


LEE OSWALD -- A LIAR OR AN HONEST MAN?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7a2c8708cfd829e3

THE SINGLE-BULLET CONCLUSION:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/442c8dda7b9ab472
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fc1e7646b6040f96

KENNEDY PHOTOGRAPHS:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/66f4c62e9a5e14b8

OFF TOPIC -- BUGLIOSI ON BUSH:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/de0cfc69b66b6b0e
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d9b4766f02e2bc01
http://www.amazon.com/DVP/review/R29B7NYHLKV3SH
http://www.amazon.com/Bush-For-Murder/forum/Fx1CGTOUKHJ9EBU
http://www.amazon.com/Bush-For-Murder/forum/Fx1CGTOUKHJ9EBU/TxLHK5IEBZU4G3/1/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=2&asin=159315481X&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx3HABUN6OVBI12#Mx3HABUN6OVBI12
http://www.amazon.com/Bush-For-Murder/forum/Fx1CGTOUKHJ9EBU/Tx13X3AW1XN3WQ5/1/ref=cm_cd_ef_tft_tp?%5Fencoding=UTF8&asin=159315481X


=====================================================


David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 19, 2008, 3:40:35 AM6/19/08
to

>>> "He {LHO} was NEVER on the bus." <<<

Goodie! More baloney coming from a CTer whom I didn't think could sink
any deeper into his morass of invented kookshit!

So, Robcap thinks that the cops (or somebody) must have PLANTED the
bus transfer in Oswald's shirt pocket on 11/22/63 (complete with the
accurate date and timestamping, plus Cecil McWatters' unique crescent-
shaped hole punch on the paper transfer)....

AND:

....Rob-Kook also must think that witness Mary E. Bledsoe was a liar
when she positively identified Oswald as having been on McWatters' bus
on Nov. 22.

Wasn't it nice and convenient for the cops and (later) the Warren
Commission to be able to come up with so many different witnesses who
were willing to tell lie after lie when they said they saw Lee Oswald
in various places and doing various things on 11/22 that kooks like
Robcap believe are not true at all? ---

E.G.:

1.) Bledsoe and the bus incident.

2.) Virginia & Barb Davis and the Tippit murder. (Plus Markham,
Scoggins, Callaway, Tatum, and all the rest of the witnesses near 10th
Street.)

3.) Howard Brennan and JFK's murder.

AND:

Wasn't it also convenient for the assassination plotters (and for the
CTers later on) to have so many other people tell a string of lies for
years on end, in order to further the continuing "cover-up" that the
CT-Kooks think is still being perpetuated to this day by some people?
---

E.G.:

1.) Humes, Finck, & Boswell and JFK's autopsy. Those three autopsy
doctors ALL lied (per the CT-Kooks) when they ALL agreed that JFK was
shot just TWICE, and both bullets hit the President from ABOVE and
BEHIND.

2.) The various police officers who collected and handled the evidence
in ways which the conspiracy kooks think was suspicious or mysterious
in some manner...with those officers (all of them, save Roger "Big Fat
Liar" Craig) all testifying in ways that can lead to only one possible
conclusion -- i.e., Lee Oswald fired three shots at JFK and four or
five shots at J.D. Tippit on November 22, 1963.

3.) The Warren Commission (which was a panel full of nothing but "I
WANT OSWALD TO BE GUILTY NO MATTER WHAT" clowns, per the CT-Kooks).

4.) The HSCA (which, per CTers, must have been an organization that
was comprised of either complete idiots or WC-backing shills, to a
large degree anyway, since the HSCA agreed with WC regarding Oswald as
the only gunman who hit any victims with any bullets in Dealey Plaza
or on Tenth Street).

Apparently, per the rabid conspiracy theorists who will believe in
anything in order to make Lee Oswald appear totally innocent of any
wrong-doing in Dallas in Nov. 1963, there was an all-encompassing plot
and cover-up in place after the assassination (save Roger "Big Fat
Liar" Craig), engaged in by many different agencies and organizations
and investigative bodies, in order to pull the wool over the
collective eyes of the general public and attempt to make that public
believe that a COMPLETELY INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself,
murdered not only President Kennedy, but also J.D. Tippit as well.

That type of blanket conspiratorial scenario, which is almost
certainly accepted as FACT by many conspiracists worldwide, is just
flat-out idiotic. And always has been. Simple as that.

CTers have their dreams. But LNers, thankfully, have an obviously-
guilty Lee Harvey Oswald (not to mention all of the bullets and all of
the other physical evidence, to boot).

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

aeffects

unread,
Jun 19, 2008, 3:44:26 AM6/19/08
to
ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 22, 2008, 8:10:27 AM6/22/08
to


www.amazon.com/forum/Fx2TVHW5I0UEY9A/TxR9QNQTFC20JF/6/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?%5Fencoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=135&cdAnchor=0393045250&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1PWZ3E9BOD8WR#Mx1PWZ3E9BOD8WR


CTer Richard V.N. said:

>>> "Oh, by the way David, he {John J. Howlett of the Secret Service during his LHO 're-creations' in March 1964} also didn't stay at the window, like Howard Brennan said he {Lee Harvey Oswald} did {on November 22, 1963}." <<<


Once again, the exact timing of Oswald's post-assassination movements
will never be known for sure. We can only guess. But if you want to
tack on an extra 8 or 10 seconds to Howlett's time, feel free.

But while doing that, keep in mind that Oswald almost certainly was
moving FASTER than Agent Howlett was moving during those re-
constructions that were done several months later.

BTW, here's a freeze-frame image from the Mal Couch film, showing
Officer Marrion Baker heading toward the Book Depository front
entrance:

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3641.jpg


>>> "What about the Dillard photo of the east window that shows a figure in the window, shot 30 SECONDS after the head shot." <<<


Tom Dillard's photo shows no such "figure". That's your over-active
CTer imagination at work there. I've seen the "enhanced" blow-ups. I
see no human figure.

It's funny you didn't mention the WEST-end window, too. Because many
CTers, including Robert Groden (the photo "expert" who was ripped to
shreds at the O.J. Simpson civil trial), think there's a guy (with a
HUGE head evidently) visible at the WEST-end window on the sixth floor
of the Book Depository about 30 seconds after the shooting.

But, yes, I've also seen the colored-in enhancements done of the EAST-
end (Oswald's) window too, with some CTers believing there's a person
visible at the east end as well.

Here's the supposed "West-End Conspirator" (after just the right
amount of photographic "enhancement" has been applied to the photo):

http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/5559.gif

When a person starts coloring in all sorts of stuff in B&W
photographs, sure, you can probably see a "man" in almost any photo
you want to see one in.

Take this ridiculously-overdrawn "Badge Man" photo for instance
(below). I see Elvis wearing big glasses and holding a microphone in
this picture too. But nobody else does. I wonder why?.....

http://members.optushome.com.au/tnorth/badgeman1.jpg


>>> "What about Lillian Mooneyham's testimony that she saw a person in the east window 3 minutes after the head shot?" <<<


That's a perfect example of how human beings fail to estimate TIME
very well. Let's take witness J.C. Price as another example. He
thought the gunshots were--get this--possibly as much as FIVE MINUTES
apart! (See what I mean?)

Plus: What kind of idiot/boob plotters and assassins were in Dealey
Plaza on November 22 anyhow? They shoot JFK from different guns and
different directions in the Plaza (per most CT accounts of the event),
even though their single "patsy" is supposed to be in the Depository
ONLY (obviously).

And now, per Mooneyham, a gunman (or surely somebody who was part of
the "plot") decides he'll hang around the "window of death", in full
view of witnesses, for THREE minutes after the shooting???

How can a reasonable person think that Mooneyham actually saw an
ASSASSIN (or even an assassin's helper) in any window three full
minutes after the assassination (assuming her time estimate is spot-on
accurate, that is)?

In a few words -- No reasonable person could possibly believe such a
crazy thing.


>>> "Sorry, David. Oswald WAS coming from the first floor, and that's the only way Baker could have seen him coming through the vestibule." <<<


Bull. You've utilized your own selective pro-conspiracy interpretation
of these things to arrive at your ONE & ONLY way it could have
happened....while completely ignoring the best evidence and ignoring
common sense.

In short, you cannot micro-analyze the movements of two men whose
EXACT, TO-THE-SECOND timelines can never be known. Period. And yet you
still insist that you can do this with ultra precision. I can only
scratch my cabeza and wonder....why?


>>> "You have a timing issue, David. And it favors Oswald's innocence and you offer no counter." <<<


I only have a "timing issue" if I choose to totally ignore the VERY
BEST EVIDENCE (the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence, that is) which tells
any reasonable person that Lee Harvey Oswald was, indeed, the lone
assassin of President Kennedy.

Allow me to quote from Mr. Bugliosi's book (yet again). He said it in
fine fashion when he wrote these words on page #953 of "Reclaiming
History":

"Once you establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done,
then you also NECESSARILY know that there is an answer (whether the
answer is known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the
endless alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the
conspiracy theorists have raised through the years about Oswald's
guilt." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi


www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=dvp1122

www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com


www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 22, 2008, 8:41:34 AM6/22/08
to
>>> "Two of the {Tippit} shells...were marked "JMP". ... The shells the FBI were given six days later were NOT marked. Conclusion of any nonbiased person: They are not the same shells. ... Someone in {the} DPD changed them. Period." <<<

You don't have any complaints about the two shells found by the Davis
ladies, though, do you?

If you don't have any problem with those two shells (and why should
you?)....then you will have to readily admit that Lee Harvey Oswald's
gun was at the scene of the Tippit murder. Correct?

Now, let's use some garden-variety common sense (not usually employed
by CTers who enjoy looking under every rock for a reason to exonerate
Oswald, but I'll give it a try nonetheless).....

If TWO of Oswald's bullet shells (i.e., the two shells found on Nov.
22 by Davis & Davis) came out of Oswald's revolver just after J.D.
Tippit was shot four times by ONE GUN and ONE GUNMAN....and two
additional bullet shells were also found, but these two "Poe/
Benavides" shells don't have quite as clear-cut a chain of possession/
custody as the two Davis shells:

What logical conclusion should a reasonable researcher come to with
respect to this evidence? .....

1.) Should we assume that the DPD was playing fast & loose with the
shells...planting/switching evidence in a murder case involving a
fellow officer?*

* = If so, why? For what possible logical reason? They knew that ONLY
ONE GUN was involved in the murder. And TWO shells have an undeniable
chain of custody. So how could the other two shells, dropped by hand
from the SAME GUN, possibly be from a different gun or gunman?
Impossible on its face, given the weight of the evidence in the case.

2.) Or should we (just maybe) assume that Officer J.M. Poe was a
confused police officer, who couldn't really recall if he marked the
shells as Gerald Hill asked or not? But, not wanting to bear the wrath
of scorn that would surely befall him, he said that he had indeed
marked the shells as ordered. But, in reality, he probably did not
mark the shells at all.

Which scenario is most likely to be accurate? --- One scared DPD
officer who possibly made a mistake with some bullet shells and didn't
want to come right out and admit his mistake? Or some really rotten,
scheming cops who tampered with evidence which was connected (in part)
to the murder of a U.S. President?

Guess which option I'll choose?

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 22, 2008, 8:45:40 AM6/22/08
to
>>> "Yes, some of the {Tippit} witnesses describe a man who basically fits the description of Oswald. But others describe a man as "short", "heavy", "chunky", "black hair", "bushy hair"." <<<

ONE man with a gun (positively identified as Lee Oswald by both
Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis, who were just a few feet from the
gunman as he cut across their yard) was seen dumping bullet cartridge
casings from a revolver just seconds after J.D. Tippit was slain.

Even if you wish to toss out ALL the other evidence (including every
eyewitness), the shells hang Oswald as Tippit's killer beyond all
doubt. And this is so even if you wish to toss out the two "Poe"
shells that were recovered by Benavides. Because the OTHER 2 shells
don't even have the slightest hint of murkiness around their chain of
custody. None.

The two shells found later on Nov. 22 by the Davis girls (each Davis
girl found one shell) did not go through J.M. Poe's hands at any point
and are positively shells that were fired in Lee Oswald's .38 S&W
revolver.

And since nobody claims that TWO guns were used to kill Tippit (not
even Clemons claimed that)....how on Earth can Oswald be innocent
under these "shell" circumstances?

He cannot be innocent under these circumstances, considering that
Oswald had in his own possession the very same gun that ejected those
two "Davis shells" when he was arrested just 35 minutes after Tippit
was killed.

Planted shells? Or "switched" shells? If anyone believes that, please
tell the world WHY the DPD wanted to help the "real" killer(s) of
their fellow officer to get away sans any punishment at all, and why
they insisted on pinning the murder on somebody they must not have
thought shot Tippit?

Cop killers are especially vile persons to OTHER COPS...wouldn't you
agree?

The DPD would simply not be party to any frame-up in this case? No
way. No how.

Try shooting down the above logic. Can any CTer do so?

>>> "Why are you accusing {DPD Officer} Poe of being confused and scared?" <<<

Because he probably was. That's much more believable than a CT version
of events, involving planting evidence and scheming to frame poor
Oswald, etc.

You don't have a (reasonable) leg to stand on here, and everybody
knows it. Because ONE GUN killed Tippit and TWO shells from the murder
weapon are (even by CT accounts) perfectly preserved in the "chain of
custody" department....and those two shells came out of Oswald's gun.

So, do the math with respect to the OTHER TWO SHELLS. It's not that
difficult.

>>> "In 28 years, no person can point to a time when he {J.M. Poe, the magnificent} failed to mark evidence." <<<

What's the saying?...."There's a first time for everything".

Lee Harvey Oswald had never, ever shot a U.S. President in all his 24
years on Earth either (before 11/22/63). But he did it just the same.
First time for everything, I guess.

And Lee Oswald had never, ever gone out to the Paine house in Irving
on a Thursday prior to November 21, 1963 (or without asking permission
first). First time for everything.

aeffects

unread,
Jun 22, 2008, 2:04:47 PM6/22/08
to
have you ever done stand-up comedy? Do you KNOW stand-up comedy? If
not, you missed your calling, son.

David Von Pein

unread,
Jun 23, 2008, 12:09:05 AM6/23/08
to

PAT SPEER SAID:


>>> "I have studied the photo and offered an argument--a comparison photo matched to the bag in the evidence photos--to show that the bag removed from the [TSBD] building was much more than 8 inches wide. The burden is now on YOU or anyone else claiming that the bag IS just a bit over 8 inches wide in the photo to show us how this could be." <<<


DVP SAYS:

Here we have example #798 of a conspiracy theorist looking sideways at
a piece of verified evidence and claiming that something just doesn't
look quite right, and then demanding that a person from the LN side of
the fence explain things to meet the conspiracy theorist's stiff
requirements.

And if the LNer's explanation isn't good enough for the CTer in
question (which it can never ever be, of course, since the CTer has
his mind made up to believe in some type of kooky shit with respect to
the particular piece of evidence in question), then the CTer gets to
claim a victory and spike the ball in his "It Was Faked All Along,
Just Like I Said" endzone.

But, as Vincent Bugliosi is wont to say in front of a jury (when
confronted with conjecture-based silliness of this nature) -- "It's
not quite that easy!"

Patrick Speer has decided that the following two pictures show two
completely different paper bags:

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/JFK%20ASSASSINATION%20PHOTO%20ALBUM%20--%20VOLUME%202/Empty_Paper_Bag_Removed_From_TSBD.jpg?t=1214180908

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/OswaldsRiflePaperBagFromFBIReport.jpg?t=1214180859


Pat, like many CTers try to do (and always fail), is attempting to
micro-manage the measurements of objects by merely looking at two-
dimensional photographs. Such an exercise is 100% futile and always
has been, as pointed out by esteemed JFK researcher and "With Malice"
author Dale K. Myers:

"Photogrammetry describes how three-dimensional spatial
relationships can be extracted from two-dimensional photographs or
images. Without taking into account these relationships, accurate
interpretations of two-dimensional images are impossible. In short,
you cannot simply draw or overlay lines on a two-dimensional image (as
[Jack] White and the subject theorist [Bill Miller] have claimed) and
extract three-dimensional information." -- Dale K. Myers

www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

And Dale told Pat Speer pretty much that very same thing in May 2008
(in the article linked below) when Pat was attempting to undermine and
debunk Myers' placement of John Connally's limousine jump seat in a
2004 TV documentary that Dale appeared in:

www.jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/05/con-job-debunking-debunkers.html


Pat,

Did you apply "photogrammetry" techniques when you attempted to
measure the width of the paper bag in the various photos you examined?
(I'm doubting you did.)

Pat, though, seems to think he can, indeed, come up with exacting
measurements for the width of the paper bag being held by L.D.
Montgomery of the DPD in one of the above photos (and in one of the
pictures shown in Mr. Speer's own montage linked below):

www.patspeer.com/Noteaxctly2.jpg/Noteaxctly2-full.jpg

But such exactitude regarding specific measurements of objects while
relying exclusively on two-dimensional photos for those measurements
is just not possible, as Dale Myers has pointed out.

The very same type of argument has been made by conspiracy theorists
in the past with regard to the rifle being held by Lee Harvey Oswald
in the various "backyard photos" that were taken of LHO on March 31,
1963.

I've heard some CTers claim that the rifle that Oswald is seen holding
in the picture linked below cannot possibly be the same Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle that was labelled CE139 by the Warren Commission:

www.oswaldsghost.com/Site/Press_Information_files/Oswald's%20Backyard%20photo_1.jpg

Many CTers think that some of the specific dimensions of the rifle
seen in the backyard photos don't match the dimensions of CE139. Those
CTers, therefore, think they can extract perfect TO-THE-INCH and/or TO-
THE-MILLIMETER measurements from a two-dimensional photograph (like
the backyard picture shown above) when they compare the picture to
other photos of the gun that were taken from different angles (like
the one below, which has Lt. Carl Day of the DPD holding the rifle
above his head as the picture is snapped):

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/JFK%20ASSASSINATION%20PHOTO%20ALBUM%20--%20VOLUME%202/Lt._Day_Holding_Up_Oswald_Rifle.jpg?t=1214181148

A 2-D photo comparison might get you pretty close to the exact
measurements, but since so much depends on the precise angles at which
a photo is taken and the distance from the camera, etc., I doubt if an
exact measurement comparison could ever be made.

At best, such measurements based on merely comparing various two-
dimensional images would just be guesswork to a large degree.

================

AND JUST FOR THE RECORD:

Linnie Mae Randle (at 2 H 249) is on the WC record as saying that the
width of the paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (CE142) was about
the same width as the bag she saw Oswald carrying on the morning of
11/22/63:


JOSEPH BALL -- "There is another package here. You remember this was
shown you. It is a discolored bag, which is Exhibit No. 142, and
remember you were asked by the Federal Bureau of Investigation agents
if this looked like the package. Do you remember?"

LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "Yes, sir."

MR BALL -- "Now, first of all with color, you told them the bag was
not the color?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "Yes."

MR. BALL -- "But they showed you a part of the bag that had not been
discolored, didn't they?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "Yes, sir."

MR. BALL -- "Looking at this part of the bag which has not been
discolored--does that appear similar to the color of the bag you saw
Lee carrying that morning?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "Yes, it is a heavy type of wrapping paper."

MR. BALL -- "Now, with reference to the width of this bag, does that
look about the width of the bag that he [Lee Oswald] was carrying?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "I would say so; yes, sir."

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0129a.htm

================

There's also the following WCR passage concerning Linnie Randle's
estimates of the length and width of the paper bag she saw LHO
carrying on the morning of November 22nd:

"Mrs. Randle estimated that the package was approximately 28
inches long and about 8 inches wide." -- WARREN REPORT; PAGE 133*

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0079a.htm

* = Source Note #150 is attached to the above passage from the WCR,
with Note 150 leading to "2 H 249-250 (Randle [testimony])".

================

V.B. ADDENDUM:

Vincent Bugliosi weighs in on the "paper bag" topic in various places
within his 2007 magnum opus, "Reclaiming History". Here's a relevant
excerpt, culled from the CD-ROM's endnotes:

"Both [Buell Wesley] Frazier and his sister [Linnie Mae Randle],
although saying the package found in the sniper’s nest was “similar”
in color to the one they saw Oswald carrying on the morning of the
assassination (2 H 240, WCT Buell Wesley Frazier; 2 H 249, WCT Linnie
Mae Randle), described the package they had seen Oswald carrying as
being shorter than what would have been needed for the disassembled
rifle--a fact that conspiracy critic Sylvia Meagher called “the
central weakness of the Commission’s thesis” that Oswald carried the
murder weapon into the Depository the day of the assassination.

"Linnie Mae Randle, who first saw Oswald with the package from
her kitchen window and then from her kitchen door on the morning of
the assassination, described the package as a “heavy brown bag,
heavier than a grocery bag” that was “more bulky” toward the bottom
(where the butt of the rifle would be) than it was on the top. She
also thought the bag might have been about 27 to 28 inches long--the
bag found in the Depository was actually 38 inches in length, while
the 40-1/5-inch rifle, disassembled, measured 34-4/5 inches.

"When shown the bag found beneath the sixth-floor window, Randle
recalled that the bag she saw Oswald with was around the same width.
(2 H 248–250, WCT Linnie Mae Randle; CE 2008, 24 H 407–408; 34-4/5
inches: 3 H 395, WCT Robert A. Frazier; Meagher, Accessories after the
Fact, p.54–57)

"Wesley Frazier, who first saw the package lying on the backseat
of his car and later in Oswald’s hand as he carried it into the
Depository, recalled the package as being about 2 feet long, “give and
take a few inches” (2 H 226). He showed agents of the FBI how much
space on the backseat of his car the package occupied, and they
measured the length at 27 inches. He also thought Oswald’s package
might have been an inch or two narrower than the dimensions of the
actual bag found on the sixth floor. (CE 2009, 24 H 408–410)

"However, he added that the bag “could have been the sack or
package” he saw in Oswald’s possession but he did not feel he was “in
a position to definitely state” it was. The Warren Commission
concluded that Frazier and Randle probably erred in their
recollections of the length of the bag (WR, p.134), and it was
understandable the two had done so.

"Neither Frazier nor his sister, the only two people who saw
Oswald with the package, suspected that it was of any significance.
They therefore had no reason to note its dimensions for later recall.
Frazier caught only a glimpse of the package on the backseat as he got
behind the wheel of his car.

"After arriving at the Depository, Oswald got out first and
remained ahead of Frazier by from twelve to ultimately fifty feet (by
the time Oswald reached the Book Depository Building) as they walked
toward the building (the first time, he said, that Oswald had ever
walked in front of him into the building)." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page
408 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(c.2007)

www.google.com/group/Reclaiming-History/topics

aeffects

unread,
Jun 23, 2008, 12:51:06 AM6/23/08
to
David, you don't love CT's anymore?

Why, you ask? We don't tolerate your bullshit, thats why!

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Jun 23, 2008, 4:32:03 PM6/23/08
to
On Jun 19, 3:40 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "He {LHO} was NEVER on the bus." <<<

"Goodie! More baloney coming from a CTer whom I didn't think could
sink any deeper into his morass of invented kookshit!"

Dave, all you have to do is PROVE he was, but here we are close to 45
years later and you and your theory NEVER have. How come?

"So, Robcap thinks that the cops (or somebody) must have PLANTED the
bus transfer in Oswald's shirt pocket on 11/22/63 (complete with the
accurate date and timestamping, plus Cecil McWatters' unique crescent-
shaped hole punch on the paper transfer)...."

Dave acts like this is difficult for a group who has just killed the
President. How did the investigators deduce it was McWatters's bus
route in the first place? I want to hear this.

"AND:

"....Rob-Kook also must think that witness Mary E. Bledsoe was a liar
when she positively identified Oswald as having been on McWatters' bus
on Nov. 22."

We've already covered this, yes she lied through her teeth either out
of fear or just because she wanted to be important. I'm NOT saying
take my word for it, read the testimony of the others on the bus and
you will see NONE of them agree with her on any point.

"Wasn't it nice and convenient for the cops and (later) the Warren
Commission to be able to come up with so many different witnesses who
were willing to tell lie after lie when they said they saw Lee Oswald
in various places and doing various things on 11/22 that kooks like
Robcap believe are not true at all? ---"

Nothing convenient about it, when you have that kind of power behind
you people are willing to do anything to stay out of trouble. Why did
McWatters NOT phone or go to the police if LHO was his passenger
(let's see how well Dave knows the real facts of this topic)?

"E.G.:

1.) Bledsoe and the bus incident."

She gave testimony that did NOT agree with anyone else on the bus, not
my fault.

"2.) Virginia & Barb Davis and the Tippit murder. (Plus Markham,
Scoggins, Callaway, Tatum, and all the rest of the witnesses near 10th
Street.)"

Ditto. The Davis ladies also could NOT even ID the shells they found
to be such shells, but Dave always skips over this fact, how come? IF
he is for the truth why does he skip so many issues? Markham is on
record of denying to ID LHO FIVE times in her testimony as the
shooter, and she said she left home at 1:06 PM to catch a 1:15 PM bus
while the WC said JDT was shot at 1:16 PM. None of this makes any
sense to an honest person.

"3.) Howard Brennan and JFK's murder."

Show me where he ID'd LHO by physical specifications or clothing.
Show me where he described the rifle to be the same as the one LHO
allegedly used (e.g. he said the rifle he saw had NO scope attached).
Show me any concrete evidence he witnessed LHO at the SN. I'm waiting
but NOT holding my breath.

"AND:

"Wasn't it also convenient for the assassination plotters (and for the
CTers later on) to have so many other people tell a string of lies for
years on end, in order to further the continuing "cover-up" that the
CT-Kooks think is still being perpetuated to this day by some people?"

I call it bad planning in a pinch, but when you have that kind of
power behind you, who cares really? How about believing an assassin
who CAN'T DRIVE whould shoot a President in the first place? Dave,
you know classic movies. Remember "The Killers" with Burt Lancaster
and Ava Gardner? It is one of the most famous "film-noir" movies of
all time. Well in the initial script they had the two hit men arrive
in the small town to kill "Swede" (Burt Lancaster) via the train, but
the producer quickly changed this to a car as he said "who would
believe killers would use public transportation as a getaway method?"
This was 1946 and he knew no one was dumb enough to believe this, but
the WC tried to sell this to the American people in 1963.


> ---

"E.G.:

"1.) Humes, Finck, & Boswell and JFK's autopsy. Those three autopsy
doctors ALL lied (per the CT-Kooks) when they ALL agreed that JFK was
shot just TWICE, and both bullets hit the President from ABOVE and
BEHIND."

You call it lying, they called it following orders and saving their
political careers. See, they knew, just like most Americans, there
was NOTHING they really could do to change what happened, so why not
save themselves? Also, they did really tell the truth if one reads
between the lines of their comments and actions. For starters they
disagreed with quite a few things in the autopsy report making one
wonder (who is honest with themself) who actually wrote the autopsy
report. The Clarke Panel also changed the location of the BOH wound
without ever even looking at the autopsy photos, how does this happen?
You have it wrong as usual as these men left enough clues to show
there was a conspiracy, but they did it in a way as to not endanger
themselves.

"2.) The various police officers who collected and handled the
evidence in ways which the conspiracy kooks think was suspicious or
mysterious in some manner...with those officers (all of them, save
Roger "Big Fat Liar" Craig) all testifying in ways that can lead to
only one possible conclusion -- i.e., Lee Oswald fired three shots at
JFK and four or five shots at J.D. Tippit on November 22, 1963."

I don't think there was anything mysterious about their handling of
the "evidence", I think they both showed an ineptness in terms of
chain of custody on the one hand (those possibly involved in the
coverup), and at the same time a truthfulness that would be totally at
odds with the WC's phony assertions (e.g. the bag the rifle was
allegedly carried inside of). You can claim those phony assertions
all you want, but you have failed to provide proof for your theory for
44 years now. I like how a decorated officer (Craig) is a "big, fat
liar" but less credible witnesses like Paine, Markham, Bledsoe, et.
al. are not and you are a "kook" if you think so. Classic Von Pein
"logic."

"3.) The Warren Commission (which was a panel full of nothing but "I
WANT OSWALD TO BE GUILTY NO MATTER WHAT" clowns, per the CT-Kooks)."

Well said Dave, there is hope for you yet.

"4.) The HSCA (which, per CTers, must have been an organization that
was comprised of either complete idiots or WC-backing shills, to a
large degree anyway, since the HSCA agreed with WC regarding Oswald as
the only gunman who hit any victims with any bullets in Dealey Plaza
or on Tenth Street)."

They were very dishonest as they continually criticized the WC's inept
investigation (and rightly so), but then they agreed with virtually
every assertion made by the WC. How does this happen? Then at
midnight hour they said there was probably a conspiracy to kill JFK,
but LHO was the only shooter to hit him. They then disbanded before
they could be asked to explain or answer any questions on the issue.

"Apparently, per the rabid conspiracy theorists who will believe in
anything in order to make Lee Oswald appear totally innocent of any
wrong-doing in Dallas in Nov. 1963, there was an all-encompassing plot
and cover-up in place after the assassination (save Roger "Big Fat
Liar" Craig), engaged in by many different agencies and organizations
and investigative bodies, in order to pull the wool over the
collective eyes of the general public and attempt to make that public
believe that a COMPLETELY INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald, by himself,
murdered not only President Kennedy, but also J.D. Tippit as well."

I would think most CTers would simply say the evidence, put forth by
the WC, is what shows LHO was guiltless in the actual shooting of JFK
and JDT. How ironic, huh? He was involved in the conspiracy, but
they did not want to know in what regards or role.

"That type of blanket conspiratorial scenario, which is almost
certainly accepted as FACT by many conspiracists worldwide, is just
flat-out idiotic. And always has been. Simple as that."

Nothing as simple as the WC's own "evidence" shows LHO was NOT the
shooter of JFK or JDT, huh?

"CTers have their dreams. But LNers, thankfully, have an obviously-
guilty Lee Harvey Oswald (not to mention all of the bullets and all of
the other physical evidence, to boot)."

You can prove this assertion anytime you like, you don't need to build
up to it for several years. Lay your proof and evidence (and motive)
out on the table for us all to see.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Jun 23, 2008, 5:05:09 PM6/23/08
to
On Jun 22, 8:41 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Two of the {Tippit} shells...were marked "JMP". ... The shells the FBI were given six days later were NOT marked. Conclusion of any nonbiased person: They are not the same shells. ... Someone in {the} DPD changed them. Period." <<<

"You don't have any complaints about the two shells found by the Davis
ladies, though, do you?"

They did, how come? (XXIV, p. 414) Why do you keep sidestepping this
issue?

"If you don't have any problem with those two shells (and why should
you?)....then you will have to readily admit that Lee Harvey Oswald's
gun was at the scene of the Tippit murder. Correct?"

You are totally false and incorrect as usual, the ladies who found
them had a PROBLEM with them as they said the ones presented were NOT
the same ones they found. Why? Deal with this issue once and for
all.

"Now, let's use some garden-variety common sense (not usually employed
by CTers who enjoy looking under every rock for a reason to exonerate
Oswald, but I'll give it a try nonetheless).....

"If TWO of Oswald's bullet shells (i.e., the two shells found on Nov.
22 by Davis & Davis) came out of Oswald's revolver just after J.D.
Tippit was shot four times by ONE GUN and ONE GUNMAN....and two
additional bullet shells were also found, but these two "Poe/
Benavides" shells don't have quite as clear-cut a chain of possession/
custody as the two Davis shells:"

Where does the "clear chain of custody" show up in the Davis's
scenario? Virginia was visited by two FBI agents on June 18, 1964
(agents Kenneth Albert and Paul Wulff) and was shown four shells
allegedly found at the muder scene of Officer Tippit (C47-C50), but
she was UNABLE to ID any of the four as the one she found. Here it is
(bottom paragraph on the right):

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0216b.htm

They did not even bother to ask Barbara Davis, but instead relied on
an UNSIGNED FBI document and the cop who allegedly was given the
shells by the women. This is hardly stellar chain of custody to me.

"What logical conclusion should a reasonable researcher come to with
respect to this evidence? ....."

That the shells presented by the WC were NOT ID'd by anyone who found
them (Benavides, Virginia and Barbara Davis, and Darrel Tomlinson)
when presented to them at their testimony, thus they have to be
different shells. In the Benavides case, we have a rare chance for a
chain of custody to have occured (in this messed up case) as two
officers initialed them. Officer Poe put a "JMP" signature and Sgt.
Barnes put a "B" on those two shells, yet both in official evidence
lack these signatures, why?

"1.) Should we assume that the DPD was playing fast & loose with the
shells...planting/switching evidence in a murder case involving a

fellow officer?*'

I think it was someone group higher up the food chain that played
"fast and loose" with the evidence.

"* = If so, why? For what possible logical reason? They knew that ONLY
ONE GUN was involved in the murder. And TWO shells have an undeniable
chain of custody. So how could the other two shells, dropped by hand
from the SAME GUN, possibly be from a different gun or gunman?
Impossible on its face, given the weight of the evidence in the case."

For what possible reason? Is this guy joking or what? Where have you
been for 44 years Dave? They wanted to make ONE man look guilty.
Back to the undeniable chain of custody again, prove it, show the
Davis women were liars. You are long on gibberish and very SHORT on
evidence.

"2.) Or should we (just maybe) assume that Officer J.M. Poe was a
confused police officer, who couldn't really recall if he marked the
shells as Gerald Hill asked or not? But, not wanting to bear the wrath
of scorn that would surely befall him, he said that he had indeed
marked the shells as ordered. But, in reality, he probably did not
mark the shells at all."

Sure, everyone who supports your theory is confused, but when they
don't they are "big, fat liars", funny how that works. He told the
FBI a few months after he testified that he did indeed mark them, no
confusion there. You are offering pure speculation, but you are good
at that since you have NO real proof or evidence on your side.

"Which scenario is most likely to be accurate? --- One scared DPD
officer who possibly made a mistake with some bullet shells and didn't
want to come right out and admit his mistake? Or some really rotten,
scheming cops who tampered with evidence which was connected (in part)
to the murder of a U.S. President?"

They showed shells comprable to the ones found by Sgt. Hill and then
the ones that would have fit LHO's .38 special in that "Frontline"
show. Any person who thinks a person with many years of military and
police experience would confuse an automatic shell and a special .38
shell are either liars or buffoons. An automatic shells is smaller and
very different looking from a revolver shell. Check it out for once
Dave.

"Guess which option I'll choose?"

The other LNers don't call you "Kookmeister" for no reason, so we will
guess you will take the dishonest one.

robcap...@netscape.com

unread,
Jun 23, 2008, 6:29:26 PM6/23/08
to
On Jun 22, 8:45 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "Yes, some of the {Tippit} witnesses describe a man who basically fits the description of Oswald. But others describe a man as "short", "heavy", "chunky", "black hair", "bushy hair"." <<<

"ONE man with a gun (positively identified as Lee Oswald by both
Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis, who were just a few feet from the
gunman as he cut across their yard) was seen dumping bullet cartridge
casings from a revolver just seconds after J.D. Tippit was slain."

I like how Dave sidesteps the issue that his theory's main witness for
the JDT slaying, Markham, is the one that described the killer in this
way also, and she felt so sure about it she told local reporters this
was what the killer looked like. Prove the Davis women positively
ID's LHO as the shooter. I see in Barbara Davis's testimony there is
some hedging regarding whether or not she had seen LHO's picture in
the newspaper or on t.v. before she went to view the lineup.

Mr. BALL. Did you read a newspaper and see any pictures in a
newspaper, picture of a man in the newspaper, before you went down
there?
Mrs. DAVIS. I don't really know. I couldn't be quite sure. I can't
remember whether I did or not.
Mr. BALL. Do you take an evening or a morning paper?
Mrs. DAVIS. We take an afternoon paper, we took an afternoon paper
then.
Mr. BALL. Do you recall whether or not you did see a picture in the
paper of the man?
Mrs. DAVIS. I don't remember. I don't even remember whether I read it
or not. There was so much excitement.

Come on, you can't remember if you saw a picture of the alleged
shooter, but we are supposed to believe everything else you claim
happened? This is the problem with all of the WC witness, in an
effort to make their testimony "fit" their phony scenario they force
their own witnesses to sound confused, unsure and not very credible on
the simpliest of things, but then we are supposed to believe them on
the bigger and more important aspects of the event(s). The main point
here is IF she did see the alleged killer, LHO, on t.v. or in the
newspaper BEFORE making her ID this would have invalidated any ID'ing
she made (if she made any). This is why the came up with the "I don't
remember" scenario as to admit she did would sink her as a witness.

Virginia Davis is even more interesting as her and her husband ran the
"Sports Drome Rifle Range", the very same rifle range that would have
an incident that would allegedly involve LHO shooting at someone
else's target. She would refuse to ID LHO as the man her coworker
claimed came in to use the range late one night. She also said they
kept sign-in logs for all visitors to the shooting range, and when the
FBI checked there was NO LHO on them. This man could NOT have been
LHO as she describes him:
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know whether or not this man who Mr. Price took
down to the range this evening as the last customer signed in the book
or not?
Mrs. DAVIS. He did not. It was our last customer and he just went on
down with him because it was late and they were tired and cold and
wanting to get home. But he was in an old car and he was alone and he
was a young slender man, and that is all I know.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you know what kind of car it was?
Mrs. DAVIS. No; I don't.

Why is Liebeler so excited about the make of the car instead of HOW
this man could be driving it if it was LHO as he thinks? Why was this
Mr. Price so helpful to this young man?

Mr. LIEBELER. The first incident was when?
Mrs. DAVIS. A late customer when Mr. Price brought them in.
Mr. LIEBELER. The man was a late customer?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you see this man?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes; I did, but it was dark and I didn't see his face. I
just went to the window and Mr. Price said, "I will take him. You
won't have to take him down." We always take the customer to the range
and stay with them and put their target up for them because you can't
let them stay down there. They are liable to shoot anything, and he
took him down, and I locked up, and I left, and they were there.
Mr. LIEBELER. You are not able to identify this man if I showed you a
picture of Oswald or someone else?
Mrs. DAVIS. I don't remember.

She would then go over the shooting of the target incident. She said
her husband handled it so she did not see the two men doing the
shooting of some else's target. They would call her husband and he
said one man had a big beard and was huge:
Mr. LIEBELER. The fellow with the beard?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. He was how tall, approximately?
Mr. DAVIS. **He was over 6 feet and he weighed a good 250 pounds. A
big bruiser.**
Mr. LIEBELER. I think we can assume that was not Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. DAVIS. They were trying to find him. Charlie Brown was trying to
find this person, and 2 weeks ago on a Sunday morning I saw him in an
automobile out on Davis, I believe it was.
Mr. LIEBELER. The big fellow with the beard?
Mr. DAVIS. The big fellow there with the beard. And I got the license
number on the car and the type of car it was and called it into the
office.
I haven't heard anything from Mr. Brown since then, whether he got the
information, but I am sure he did when I turned it into the office.

Minus the beard this sounds like it could be the man several people
saw at 11:45 AM on 11/22/63 carring a gun case. Notice how Liebeler
doesn't follow up on his statement of getting the man's, the man he
believed to be the "bearded man", license plate and sending it in and
not hearing anything back. He is then asked to look at some photos
and he does recognize a person in the picture, but NOT LHO.

Mr. LIEBELER. I want to show you some pictures which have been
previously marked as Commission Exhibits Nos. 451, 453, 454, 455, and
456, and ask you if you recognize from these pictures the pictures of
the individuals who were firing from booth No. 8, at your range on
Sunday, November 17, 1963?
Mr. DAVIS. He sure looks familiar, but I couldn't say for sure. It
sure looks familiar. This would have been the taller of the two (6' to
6'1") , and this is almost.
Mr. LIEBELER. You pointed to Commission Exhibit 451, and you think
that gentleman resembles the taller of the two men that were firing
from booth No. 8?
Mr. DAVIS. Yes; he is about the same size. The face features, I seem
to have seen them before, but as far as--it sure looks like him. I
couldn't say definitely that it was him, but it sure looks a lot like
him.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you see any resemblance between any of the pictures
which I have shown and the shorter of the two men?

Notice how he could care less that he has said the taller man looked
like the man in the picture as he quickly moves on to "Do you see any
resemblance between any of the pictures which I have shown and the
shorter of the two men?" Who is the man in CE451 that Mr. Davis said
was probably the man shooting from booth 8? Curtis LaVerne Crafard.
Sound familar? It should as this was a man who was very friendly with
Ruby. Here is the photo:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0098b.htm

What about LHO?

Mr. DAVIS. The face on the other one, I couldn't say what it looked
like. So many of these pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald have been shown
to me, and they started showing me things about the time it all
happened, **and I would hate to say that it was him.** But definitely
this fellow, the taller of the two fellows was about his built. He
looked like he is about my size. He may be a little bit shorter in
those pictures.

Here is a man who saw the two men up close, and yet he would "hate to
say it was LHO". This proves in my mind the whole story is phony as
we have known for years, but we are led down several new roads that
are extremely interesting. I have not read any CT books that cover
these questions (they may be out there, but I have not read them):

1) What was this man, Crafard, doing at this shooting range at this
time, beyond making a ruckus to draw attention to him and the other
guy he was with? Crafard was an associate of Ruby and he would leave
town right after the assassination and finally was picked up by the
FBI in Michigan. He would meet with Ruby and George Senator the day
after the assassination in a Dallas garage and then leave town. None
of these actions by themselves could prove guilt or involvement, but
when one studies the pattern of these "random" events you start to get
a bigger picture of the crime.

2) Of all places in Dallas, why did they pick the shooting range that
was run by the Davis's? Is this just another in a long line of
coincidences? Or were they trying to get her to ID LHO as the shooter
when the time came by parading men who fit his general description in
front of her?

3) Why was the "bearded" man's info (booth 10) never followed up on?
I mean he seemed to fit two, possibly three, other sightings on
11/22/63 which included carrying a gun case. Back to Virginia's
testimony as she mentions the "bearded" man.

Mr. LIEBELER. I don't think I have any more questions at this point.
Is there anything that you can think of?
Mrs. DAVIS. I have thought and thought, and I would give anything if I
could think of something or identify someone he was with. I think that
would be more of a help to you people than anything, wouldn't it?
Mr. LIEBELER. Yes, it would.
Mrs. DAVIS. My husband did call in that he saw this bearded man. Do
you have that on your records?
Mr. LIEBELER. Your husband told us.
Mrs. DAVIS. He went right to the phone and called, because we were
convinced. Do you know anybody that was with him that day? The man may
be completely innocent, but we just feel that he was with him because
he was so belligerent and stood around and he wouldn't talk. You don't
find people like that at a gun range. They are really friendly and
they come out to shoot and have a good time, and I have never had
anyone treat me like he did.
Mr. LIEBELER. This bearded man?
Mrs. DAVIS. Yes.

They wouldn't waste time asking her to ID the shell she found since
they knew already it was not the same.

"Even if you wish to toss out ALL the other evidence (including every
eyewitness), the shells hang Oswald as Tippit's killer beyond all
doubt. And this is so even if you wish to toss out the two "Poe"
shells that were recovered by Benavides. Because the OTHER 2 shells
don't even have the slightest hint of murkiness around their chain of
custody. None."

Which witnesses ID'd LHO again as the shooter of JDT? Shells hang LHO,
but he fact the bullets INSIDE JDT did NOT match LHO's revovler have
NO bearing at all, right Dave? Again, please go to page 414 in Volume
XXIV so you learn the case fully as neither Davis women could ID the
shell they found in terms of what was presented to them later on.

"The two shells found later on Nov. 22 by the Davis girls (each Davis
girl found one shell) did not go through J.M. Poe's hands at any point
and are positively shells that were fired in Lee Oswald's .38 S&W
revolver."

Where did they find the shells Dave? Why don't you explain the
shooter would have had to hurled them to get them near their house
from where he was seen. Does this make sense to an honest person? NO
Dave, the shells presented as having to been found were from LHO's
revolver, the shells the Davis women actually found are unknown as
they were gotten rid of.

"And since nobody claims that TWO guns were used to kill Tippit (not
even Clemons claimed that)....how on Earth can Oswald be innocent
under these "shell" circumstances?"

You continue to work from a faulty premise (or you are lying) as the
Davis women said the bullets presented to them by the FBI were NOT the
shells they found. Why can't we have ONE bullet shell casing be the
one actually found on 11/22/63 in this case?

"He cannot be innocent under these circumstances, considering that
Oswald had in his own possession the very same gun that ejected those
two "Davis shells" when he was arrested just 35 minutes after Tippit
was killed."

You are using faulty and dishonest circumstances to make your point,
so what is your point worth? Prove this assertion regarding the Davis
shells.

"Planted shells? Or "switched" shells? If anyone believes that, please
tell the world WHY the DPD wanted to help the "real" killer(s) of
their fellow officer to get away sans any punishment at all, and why
they insisted on pinning the murder on somebody they must not have
thought shot Tippit?"

You keep assuming the DPD changed out the shells, but I doubt that for
the reason they intialed two of them! No, these shell casings were
switched out at a later date by more powerful forces. The simple fact
is NOT ONE witness to the shell casings could actually ID the shell
casings presented by the WC as being the ones they either found,
touched or initialed at the JDT crime scene.

"Cop killers are especially vile persons to OTHER COPS...wouldn't you
agree?"

You are making the assumption the DPD did it again. Remember, they
initially ID'd the shells as automatics so they were doing their
jobs.

"The DPD would simply not be party to any frame-up in this case? No
way. No how."

Some of the upper levels were, Fritz and Curry, and their actions show
this to be true.

"Try shooting down the above logic. Can any CTer do so?"

Already done, read and weep.


> >>> "Why are you accusing {DPD Officer} Poe of being confused and scared?" <<<

"Because he probably was. That's much more believable than a CT
version of events, involving planting evidence and scheming to frame
poor Oswald, etc."

Prove he was confused. You have no way of proving this absurd
accusation.

"You don't have a (reasonable) leg to stand on here, and everybody
knows it. Because ONE GUN killed Tippit and TWO shells from the murder
weapon are (even by CT accounts) perfectly preserved in the "chain of
custody" department....and those two shells came out of Oswald's gun."

He claims a cop is so "confused" he can't do his job right, basic
parts of his job by the way, and he invokes the "reasonable" clause
again. How funny. What CT accounts say the Davis shells are
"perfectly preserved in the chain of custody" department? I haven't
read or run into any like this. I read straight from the WC's own
account how they couldn't ID the shells shown to them as being the
ones they found on 11/22/63. Therefore, ipso facto, you can't prove
the shells in possession were found by them or that they came from
LHO's revolver.

"So, do the math with respect to the OTHER TWO SHELLS. It's not that
difficult."

You seem to be the ONLY person NOT doing the math.


> >>> "In 28 years, no person can point to a time when he {J.M. Poe, the magnificent} failed to mark evidence." <<<

"What's the saying?...."There's a first time for everything"."

Notice the derogatory comment, the magnificent, no one is saying that,
but on the other hand, Dave the brain dead, is saying he can't even
tell the difference between an automatic shell from a revlolver shell
and whether or not he initialed them.

"Lee Harvey Oswald had never, ever shot a U.S. President in all his 24
years on Earth either (before 11/22/63). But he did it just the same.
First time for everything, I guess."

PROVE IT. For the love of all things holy, will you FINALLY PROVE
IT!!!!

"And Lee Oswald had never, ever gone out to the Paine house in Irving
on a Thursday prior to November 21, 1963 (or without asking permission
first). First time for everything."

You are so clueless about the case as he did go out one other time on
a Thursday, this is common knowledge by now.

0 new messages