Oswald's "Sole Guilt" Refuted #15

[Ben Holmes]

Continuing the refutations of David Von Pein's unsupported claim,
here's the next one in the series:

> 14.) Oswald, in flight, shoots and kills Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippit
> on 10th Street in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff. Multiple witnesses
> confirm it was Oswald who shot Officer Tippit.
>
> In the Tippit case, are we truly to accept the minority number of
> people (which is a minority of one, Mrs. Acquilla Clemons) who stated
> "It was a larger man" or "There were two people", rather than believe
> the vast majority of witnesses who claimed they saw Oswald kill Tippit
> or flee the scene of the murder immediately after the shooting?

Amusingly, once again we have ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE of anyone's
guilt in shooting the President - let alone the "sole guilt" of
anyone.

Yet David Von Pein doesn't seem embarrassed at all that he's making
claims that he cannot support.

So let's go through his claims, and see what other lies he's telling:

> 14.) Oswald, in flight,

No evidence *WHATSOEVER* for this claim. Sheer speculation... indeed,
speculation that the evidence EXPLICITLY CONTRADICTS.

Stopping to answer a reporter's question... The story of him offering
his cab to someone... the bus story... ending up watching a movie at a
theater...

All of these EXPLICITLY CONTRADICT this "fleeing" suspect assertion.

What David is doing, of course, is to CLAIM guilt, then SPECULATE on
his every action as that of a guilty man.

But what David *cannot* do - is offer evidence for his nonsense.

> shoots and kills Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippit on 10th Street in the
> Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff.


This is merely another speculation on your part, and it completely
fails to support your "sole guilt" in the shooting of JFK.


> Multiple witnesses confirm it was Oswald who shot Officer Tippit.


Multiple witnesses DENIED that it was Oswald.

And my statement is *JUST* as accurate as yours.

What you have is *contradictory* evidence. None of which show the
"sole guilt" of anyone.


> In the Tippit case, are we truly to accept the minority number of
> people (which is a minority of one, Mrs. Acquilla Clemons) who stated
> "It was a larger man" or "There were two people", rather than believe
> the vast majority of witnesses who claimed they saw Oswald kill Tippit
> or flee the scene of the murder immediately after the shooting?


What we *should* accept is the fact that like much else in this case,
the EVIDENCE IS CONTRADICTORY.

And rather than turn a blind eye to the contradictions and witnesses
you don't like - to examine ALL the witnesses, and figure out how they
can all be reconciled.

Most of the problems in this case are due to believers like you trying
to stuff your theory into a box the evidence doesn't support.

You've turned a blind eye to what the evidence shows, and pretend that
it supports the "sole guilt" of anyone at all.

Yet you offer nothing to support your claim.

Why is that, David?

And why the continued cowardice?

[Bud]

On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 11:03:03 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Continuing the refutations of David Von Pein's unsupported claim,
> here's the next one in the series:
>
> > 14.) Oswald, in flight, shoots and kills Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippit
> > on 10th Street in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff. Multiple witnesses
> > confirm it was Oswald who shot Officer Tippit.
> >
> > In the Tippit case, are we truly to accept the minority number of
> > people (which is a minority of one, Mrs. Acquilla Clemons) who stated
> > "It was a larger man" or "There were two people", rather than believe
> > the vast majority of witnesses who claimed they saw Oswald kill Tippit
> > or flee the scene of the murder immediately after the shooting?
>
> Amusingly, once again we have ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE of anyone's
> guilt in shooting the President - let alone the "sole guilt" of
> anyone.

Thats right, lurkers, Ben thinks that Oswald was just having a bad streak where everywhere he went people got murdered.

> Yet David Von Pein doesn't seem embarrassed at all that he's making
> claims that he cannot support.
>
> So let's go through his claims, and see what other lies he's telling:
>
> > 14.) Oswald, in flight,
>
> No evidence *WHATSOEVER* for this claim. Sheer speculation... indeed,
> speculation that the evidence EXPLICITLY CONTRADICTS.

Nonsense, lurkers, and this speak to the problem with the tards, they say "the evidence, the evidence, the evidence" and then they ignore the most import things and focus on nonsense, like Ben does here. Oswald had the cab drop him away from the boardinghouse, which indicates he thought the police might be already there. He rushed in, grabbed his gun and left.

> Stopping to answer a reporter's question...

It was in Oswald`s best interest to not appear like a murder fleeing the scene of the murder, lurkers.

> The story of him offering
> his cab to someone...

Conflicting stories about that, lurkers. And again, once clear of the TSBD it was in his best interests to appear like an average joe. Also he might not have felt getting another cab would significantly impact his getaway.

> the bus story...

Which was Oswald fleeing the scene, lurkers. He just got in a bus stuck in traffic.

> ending up watching a movie at a
> theater...

Fleeing to a movie theater to avoid capture for killing Tippit, lurkers. But it is good of Ben to expose himself as a retard playing silly games with the deaths of these men in such a blatant manner, it makes what I am doing so much easier. "The President has been killed on the doorstep of my work, let me rush home, grab my gun and catch a movie" is what is being presented as a reasonable conclusion, everything else is sneered at as "speculation".

> All of these EXPLICITLY CONTRADICT this "fleeing" suspect assertion.

Nonsense, lurkers. And take note of the hypocrisy once more, Oswald`s as an innocent man is given free reign to do any odd thing he likes, but as a guilty man fleeing a crime he needs to follow a certain course of action with no deviation. Even though the *exact* course *he did take* was successful in getting him away from the scene of the crime.

> What David is doing, of course, is to CLAIM guilt, then SPECULATE on
> his every action as that of a guilty man.

What DVP is doing is drawing reasonable conclusion from the available information. If everyone could do it there would be no conspiracy retards.

> But what David *cannot* do - is offer evidence for his nonsense.

He could, but what would be the point, lurkers? To hear the reasons a retard has contrived to ignore it?

> > shoots and kills Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippit on 10th Street in the
> > Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff.
>
>
> This is merely another speculation on your part, and it completely
> fails to support your "sole guilt" in the shooting of JFK.

Of course Oswald shooting Tippit is supportive of the idea that Oswald shot Kennedy, lurkers, and vice versa. Just like the attempt on Walker`s life by Oswald is supportive of the idea that he shot JFK. That Ben doesn`t understand this is why retards are rarely tapped to conduct criminal investigations.

>
> > Multiple witnesses confirm it was Oswald who shot Officer Tippit.
>
>
> Multiple witnesses DENIED that it was Oswald.

Ben loves to lie, lurkers.

> And my statement is *JUST* as accurate as yours.

No, it isn`t, lurkers. Ben flat out lied.

> What you have is *contradictory* evidence.

Ben lies, lurkers. What you have is corroborating evidence.

> None of which show the
> "sole guilt" of anyone.

It indicates the guilt of one individual, Lee Harvey Oswald, lurkers.

> > In the Tippit case, are we truly to accept the minority number of
> > people (which is a minority of one, Mrs. Acquilla Clemons) who stated
> > "It was a larger man" or "There were two people", rather than believe
> > the vast majority of witnesses who claimed they saw Oswald kill Tippit
> > or flee the scene of the murder immediately after the shooting?
>
>
> What we *should* accept is the fact that like much else in this case,
> the EVIDENCE IS CONTRADICTORY.

The person who crossed the lawn carrying a handgun was positively identified by numerous people as Oswald. That is corroboration, lurkers.

> And rather than turn a blind eye to the contradictions and witnesses
> you don't like - to examine ALL the witnesses, and figure out how they
> can all be reconciled.

What the tards want reasonable people to do is buy into their contrived reasons to disregard the evidence that points to Oswald, lurkers.

> Most of the problems in this case are due to believers like you trying
> to stuff your theory into a box the evidence doesn't support.

The retards want everyone to do what they do, look at all the wrong things, and look at those wrong things incorrectly.

> You've turned a blind eye to what the evidence shows, and pretend that
> it supports the "sole guilt" of anyone at all.

The tards don`t like what the evidence shows, lurkers. What could matter less?

[Ben Holmes]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2018 16:03:07 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:

>On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 11:03:03 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> Continuing the refutations of David Von Pein's unsupported claim,
>> here's the next one in the series:
>>
>> > 14.) Oswald, in flight, shoots and kills Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippit
>> > on 10th Street in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff. Multiple witnesses
>> > confirm it was Oswald who shot Officer Tippit.
>> >
>> > In the Tippit case, are we truly to accept the minority number of
>> > people (which is a minority of one, Mrs. Acquilla Clemons) who stated
>> > "It was a larger man" or "There were two people", rather than believe
>> > the vast majority of witnesses who claimed they saw Oswald kill Tippit
>> > or flee the scene of the murder immediately after the shooting?
>>
>> Amusingly, once again we have ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE of anyone's
>> guilt in shooting the President - let alone the "sole guilt" of
>> anyone.
>
> Thats right, lurkers, Ben thinks that Oswald was just having a bad
> streak where everywhere he went people got murdered.

This is yet another example of the presumption of guilt.

>> Yet David Von Pein doesn't seem embarrassed at all that he's making
>> claims that he cannot support.
>>
>> So let's go through his claims, and see what other lies he's telling:
>>
>> > 14.) Oswald, in flight,
>>
>> No evidence *WHATSOEVER* for this claim. Sheer speculation... indeed,
>> speculation that the evidence EXPLICITLY CONTRADICTS.
>

> Nonsense, lurkers, and I'm just a tards...


Ad hominem simply shows that you understand the weakness of your case.

>> Stopping to answer a reporter's question...
>
> It was in Oswald`s best interest to not appear like a murder
> fleeing the scene of the murder, lurkers.

It was in the murderer's best interest to pretend to be a reporter
calling in a story...

>> The story of him offering
>> his cab to someone...
>
> Conflicting stories about that, lurkers.

Yet another empty claim...

> And again, once clear of the TSBD it was in his best interests to
> appear like an average joe.

Caught by the police rushing in, the murderer pretended to be going in
to find a phone, then made his gettaway after the cop went up the
stairs.

> Also he might not have felt getting another cab would significantly
> impact his getaway.

The real murderer had a preconceived, and well executed getaway. So
well done that you can't name it.

>> the bus story...
>
> Which was Oswald fleeing the scene, lurkers. He just got in a bus
> stuck in traffic.

What stump won't do is explain how he exonerates all the rest of the
bus passengers. Indeed, HE CAN'T EVEN NAME THEM!

>> ending up watching a movie at a
>> theater...
>
> Fleeing to a movie theater to avoid capture for killing Tippit,
> lurkers.

Sadly, dufus can't name the alibi offered by all the others in the
theater...

Indeed, once again, HE CAN'T EVEN NAME THE PEOPLE WHO WERE HIDING FROM
THE POLICE IN THAT THEATER.

> But it is good to expose myself as a retard playing silly games
> with the deaths of these men in such a blatant manner, this forum

> makes what I am doing so much easier.

Go expose yourself somewhere else.

>> All of these EXPLICITLY CONTRADICT this "fleeing" suspect assertion.
>
> Nonsense, lurkers.

Another empty claim.

>> What David is doing, of course, is to CLAIM guilt, then SPECULATE on
>> his every action as that of a guilty man.
>

> What DVP is doing....

...of course, is to CLAIM guilt, then SPECULATE on his every action as

that of a guilty man.

>> But what David *cannot* do - is offer evidence for his nonsense.
>
> He could,

BUT HE DIDN'T!!!

And that's the point. David made a claim he can't back up.

> but what would be the point, lurkers?

To prove that he's honest enough to support what he claims.


> I'm just a retard and will ignore it...


Never learn, do you?

>> > shoots and kills Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippit on 10th Street in the
>> > Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff.
>>
>>
>> This is merely another speculation on your part, and it completely
>> fails to support your "sole guilt" in the shooting of JFK.
>
> Of course Oswald shooting Tippit is supportive of the idea that
> Oswald shot Kennedy, lurkers, and vice versa.

The two have *NOTHING* in common.

> Just like the attempt on Walker`s life by Oswald is supportive of
> the idea that he shot JFK.

Speculations without any evidence... what a coward you are stump!

> That Ben doesn`t understand this

And yet, I daily give evidence that I *DO* understand, and prove over
and over again the dishonesty & cowardice needed to be a believer.


> I'm just a retard...


That never learns.

>> > Multiple witnesses confirm it was Oswald who shot Officer Tippit.
>>
>> Multiple witnesses DENIED that it was Oswald.
>
> Ben loves to lie, lurkers.

Another empty claim.

>> And my statement is *JUST* as accurate as yours.
>
> No, it isn`t, lurkers. Ben flat out lied.

You're lying again, stump.

>> What you have is *contradictory* evidence.
>
> Ben lies, lurkers. What you have is corroborating evidence.

You're lying again, stump.

>> None of which show the
>> "sole guilt" of anyone.
>
> It indicates the guilt of one individual, Lee Harvey Oswald, lurkers.

No stump, it doesn't.

>> > In the Tippit case, are we truly to accept the minority number of
>> > people (which is a minority of one, Mrs. Acquilla Clemons) who stated
>> > "It was a larger man" or "There were two people", rather than believe
>> > the vast majority of witnesses who claimed they saw Oswald kill Tippit
>> > or flee the scene of the murder immediately after the shooting?
>>
>>
>> What we *should* accept is the fact that like much else in this case,
>> the EVIDENCE IS CONTRADICTORY.
>
> The person who crossed the lawn carrying a handgun was positively
> identified by numerous people as Oswald. That is corroboration,
> lurkers.

Only a moron refuses to admit that much of the evidence in the JFK
case is contradictory.

>> And rather than turn a blind eye to the contradictions and witnesses
>> you don't like - to examine ALL the witnesses, and figure out how they
>> can all be reconciled.
>

> I'm just a tard...

Who clearly refuses to learn...

>> Most of the problems in this case are due to believers like you trying
>> to stuff your theory into a box the evidence doesn't support.
>

> I'm a retard...

Not an answer.

>> You've turned a blind eye to what the evidence shows, and pretend that
>> it supports the "sole guilt" of anyone at all.
>

> I'm a tard

You're repeating yourself.

>> Yet you offer nothing to support your claim.
>>
>> Why is that, David?
>>
>> And why the continued cowardice?

Dead silence...