Fritz & Studebaker Make Merry with Apparently Inconsequential Evidence
dcwi...@netscape.net
I hate to be a bear about this, but.... There were two golden
opportunities to fix the exact time & place of the discovery of the
hulls in the depository, but....
"And the minute I squeezed between these 2 stacks of boxes... I saw
the expended shells.... So I leaned out the window, the same window
from which the shots were fired, looked down, & I saw Sheriff Bill
Decker & Capt Will Fritz standing right on the ground. Well, so I
hollered, or signaled--I hollered, I more or less hollered.... And I
told them to get the crime lab officers en route...." (WC testimony,
Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney/v3pp284-5)
"I set my lens focus at the estimated distance from the camera to the
floor & held the camera over the top of the barricade & filmed [the
casings] before anybody went into the enclosure." (Tom Alyea, Secrets
from the 6th Floor Window p40)
But, oh, gee, darnit! Wouldn't you know--we've got no photos of
Mooney leaning & shouting & signaling out the window of the building
which, for an hour or so, was the media center of the universe--&
Alyea's film, over the box tops, of the hulls, does not yet seem to
have turned up. Of course, if I were conducting a cover-up, a proper
cover-up, I'd lose the Mooney photos (if such there were,) if they
showed him leaning out the *wrong* window, & I'd certainly have to
quash the Alyea footage, too, if it suggested that the actual site of
the discovery of the 13 Mannlicher-Winchester hulls was not the
official bonafide "nest" on the 6th floor.
But in fact there could be no photo evidence, at all, even later--long
after the moment of discovery--of the spent shells as they were found
since, according to Alyea & 2 deputy sheriffs, Fritz picked them up
before those crime-lab offissas got there: "By this time [a few
minutes after the discovery], the casings were already in Capt.
Fritz's pocket, & [the searchers] didn't see them." (Alyea e-mail
5/7/98) "Neither [crime labbers] Day nor Studebaker saw the casings
until Fritz took them from his pocket & handed them to Studebaker to
include them in the crime scene shot of the window". (Alyea e-mail
4/23/98) Any photo "evidence" after this moment is third-hand, so to
speak, &--as we have seen--there was no such evidence *before*,
either.... The Fritz & Studebaker team might have been dressing the
windows for Macy's at Christmas. "Oh! Let's put this little hull
right *here*, & what do you say to a chicken bone or 2 over *here*?"
And ask yourself, If this is how they handled the evidence, out in the
open--blithely contaminating same--with dozens of non-DPD personnel
wandering by--how conscientiously did they handle the *other*
evidence--say, the Dealey & Tippit slugs, the Tippit hulls, and, oh
yes, the Tippit witnesses--away from prying eyes & wandering
deppities... behind closed doors, where no one like Alyea, Faulkner or
Mooney could happen by & later tell possibly damaging tales?
dw
Bud
Kooks always perfer the evidence of their imagination over the
evidence that is in evidence. The evidence in evidence had been
contaminated by being touched by the people conducting the
investigation.
And a baker`s dozen of hulls, you`ve outdone yourself, dw.
One last comment, wouldn`t it be easier to manipulate the evidence
without the media there taking pictures?
> But in fact there could be no photo evidence, at all, even later--long
> after the moment of discovery--of the spent shells as they were found
> since, according to Alyea & 2 deputy sheriffs, Fritz picked them up
> before those crime-lab offissas got there: "By this time [a few
> minutes after the discovery], the casings were already in Capt.
> Fritz's pocket, & [the searchers] didn't see them." (Alyea e-mail
> 5/7/98) "Neither [crime labbers] Day nor Studebaker saw the casings
> until Fritz took them from his pocket & handed them to Studebaker to
> include them in the crime scene shot of the window". (Alyea e-mail
> 4/23/98) Any photo "evidence" after this moment is third-hand, so to
> speak, &--as we have seen--there was no such evidence *before*,
> either.... The Fritz & Studebaker team might have been dressing the
> windows for Macy's at Christmas. "Oh! Let's put this little hull
> right *here*, & what do you say to a chicken bone or 2 over *here*?"
Still trying to support elephants with toothpicks?
> And ask yourself, If this is how they handled the evidence, out in the
> open--blithely contaminating same--with dozens of non-DPD personnel
> wandering by--how conscientiously did they handle the *other*
> evidence--say, the Dealey & Tippit slugs, the Tippit hulls, and, oh
> yes, the Tippit witnesses--away from prying eyes & wandering
> deppities... behind closed doors, where no one like Alyea, Faulkner or
> Mooney could happen by & later tell possibly damaging tales?
Throw it all out, dw, nobody thinks you are seriously trying to
determine what happened anyway. You`re only interesting in pretending
that your beloved patsy didn`t do this thing.
The WC has already been to the top and planted the flag. The kooks
are convinced there must be a better, secret path that only they can
find to get there.
> dw
robcap...@netscape.com
Hopefully this new system will be easier on you Bud. The thing you
LNers like to ignore is evidence is NOT evidence until it passes rites
of the court. IOW, most of what you have on your side probably would
NOT have been entered into the official record of evidence due to
improper chain of custody. Therefore, you need to stop acting like
what was presented by the WC is the only "evidence" to exist.
>
> And a baker`s dozen of hulls, you`ve outdone yourself, dw.
>
> "One last comment, wouldn`t it be easier to manipulate the evidence without the media there taking pictures?"
Why? The media needed the police for their livlihood after this story
was over, why would they not cooperate? IF they did not, why do you
think they would not just take the film from the cameraman?
>
> > But in fact there could be no photo evidence, at all, even later--long
> > after the moment of discovery--of the spent shells as they were found
> > since, according to Alyea & 2 deputy sheriffs, Fritz picked them up
> > before those crime-lab offissas got there: "By this time [a few
> > minutes after the discovery], the casings were already in Capt.
> > Fritz's pocket, & [the searchers] didn't see them." (Alyea e-mail
> > 5/7/98) "Neither [crime labbers] Day nor Studebaker saw the casings
> > until Fritz took them from his pocket & handed them to Studebaker to
> > include them in the crime scene shot of the window". (Alyea e-mail
> > 4/23/98) Any photo "evidence" after this moment is third-hand, so to
> > speak, &--as we have seen--there was no such evidence *before*,
> > either.... The Fritz & Studebaker team might have been dressing the
> > windows for Macy's at Christmas. "Oh! Let's put this little hull
> > right *here*, & what do you say to a chicken bone or 2 over *here*?"
>
> "Still trying to support elephants with toothpicks?"
He is NOT repeating the official theory here.
>
> > And ask yourself, If this is how they handled the evidence, out in the
> > open--blithely contaminating same--with dozens of non-DPD personnel
> > wandering by--how conscientiously did they handle the *other*
> > evidence--say, the Dealey & Tippit slugs, the Tippit hulls, and, oh
> > yes, the Tippit witnesses--away from prying eyes & wandering
> > deppities... behind closed doors, where no one like Alyea, Faulkner or
> > Mooney could happen by & later tell possibly damaging tales?
>
> "Throw it all out, dw, nobody thinks you are seriously trying to determine what happened anyway. You`re only interesting in pretending that your beloved patsy didn`t do this thing."
Another tired trick of the LN camp, they make it sound like we knew
LHO and have a vested interest in making him innocent rather than
seeking the truth. Just speaking for myself, I have NO investment in
LHO and could care less if he was guilty, but the evidence put forth
by the government PROVES him to be innocent of both shootings.
> "The WC has already been to the top and planted the flag. The kooks are convinced there must be a better, secret path that only they can find to get there."
You won a conviction in a court of law? I don't remember this
happening, therefore, you have a THEORY like the CTers, and that is
all (a bad one too).
>
>
>
> > dw- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bud
I can use the information developed during the course of this case
to determine what occurred. You can`t. Never will.
> > � And a baker`s dozen of hulls, you`ve outdone yourself, dw.
> >
>
> > � "One last comment, wouldn`t it be easier to manipulate the evidence without the media there taking pictures?"
>
> Why?
You think that it is better to create as many loose ends as
possible? Thats right, this conspiracy has magical powers, they don`t
need to worry about these kinds of things. They can make anyone do
anything or say anything at any time.
> The media needed the police for their livlihood after this story
> was over, why would they not cooperate?
That might be what you would do, but what if this approach was used
on people of chracter?
> IF they did not, why do you
> think they would not just take the film from the cameraman?
You can`t support the premise that the police signed up Aleya on
the spot to take part in any shenanigans, so why go there? Why do you
think you unsupported ideas have merit, because they appeal to you?
> > > But in fact there could be no photo evidence, at all, even later--long
> > > after the moment of discovery--of the spent shells as they were found
> > > since, according to Alyea & 2 deputy sheriffs, Fritz picked them up
> > > before those crime-lab offissas got there: �"By this time [a few
> > > minutes after the discovery], the casings were already in Capt.
> > > Fritz's pocket, & [the searchers] didn't see them." (Alyea e-mail
> > > 5/7/98) �"Neither [crime labbers] Day nor Studebaker saw the casings
> > > until Fritz took them from his pocket & handed them to Studebaker to
> > > include them in the crime scene shot of the window". (Alyea e-mail
> > > 4/23/98) �Any photo "evidence" after this moment is third-hand, so to
> > > speak, &--as we have seen--there was no such evidence *before*,
> > > either.... The Fritz & Studebaker team might have been dressing the
> > > windows for Macy's at Christmas. �"Oh! Let's put this little hull
> > > right *here*, & what do you say to a chicken bone or 2 over *here*?"
> >
>
> > � "Still trying to support elephants with toothpicks?"
>
> He is NOT repeating the official theory here.
I know. He is looking at the fireman who responded to the fire to
figure out how the fire started.
His underlying premise is that some of these people knew the
President was to be shot, and had assigned roles to perform after the
shots rang out. An amazing and fanatastic idea supported by boxes
being moved.
> > > And ask yourself, If this is how they handled the evidence, out in the
> > > open--blithely contaminating same--with dozens of non-DPD personnel
> > > wandering by--how conscientiously did they handle the *other*
> > > evidence--say, the Dealey & Tippit slugs, the Tippit hulls, and, oh
> > > yes, the Tippit witnesses--away from prying eyes & wandering
> > > deppities... behind closed doors, where no one like Alyea, Faulkner or
> > > Mooney could happen by & later tell possibly damaging tales?
> >
>
> > � �"Throw it all out, dw, nobody thinks you are seriously trying to determine what happened anyway. You`re only interesting in pretending that your beloved patsy didn`t do this thing."
>
> Another tired trick of the LN camp, they make it sound like we knew
> LHO and have a vested interest in making him innocent rather than
> seeking the truth.
The truth isn`t a tired trick. A tired trick is the kooks trying
desperately to find some reason not to believe anything produced that
indicates Oz`s guiltt.
> Just speaking for myself, I have NO investment in
> LHO and could care less if he was guilty, but the evidence put forth
> by the government PROVES him to be innocent of both shootings.
I think you would need more witnesses saying it was Oz they saw in
order to prove him innocent.
> > � �"The WC has already been to the top and planted the flag. The kooks are convinced there must be a better, secret path that only they can find to get there."
>
> You won a conviction in a court of law?
Oz cunningly thwarted justice by dying.
> I don't remember this
> happening, therefore, you have a THEORY like the CTers,
The kooks have a multitude of them.
>and that is
> all (a bad one too).
It`s really too late, the WC planted the flag, and nobody expects
you kooks will ever produce the secret way to the top you imagine must
exist.
robcap...@netscape.com
That is baloney, of course I can. I just face the information
differently, you want to reject it and hold on to an obsolete and
unprovable theory.
> > > � And a baker`s dozen of hulls, you`ve outdone yourself, dw.
>
> > > � "One last comment, wouldn`t it be easier to manipulate the evidence without the media there taking pictures?"
>
> > Why?
>
> You think that it is better to create as many loose ends as
> possible? Thats right, this conspiracy has magical powers, they don`t
> need to worry about these kinds of things. They can make anyone do
> anything or say anything at any time.
>
> > The media needed the police for their livlihood after this story
> > was over, why would they not cooperate?
>
>"That might be what you would do, but what if this approach was used on people of chracter?">
It is a matter of reality, the media needs the police and politicians
for their stories. He obviously had done business with them before as
he was the only media person inside at this time.
> > IF they did not, why do you
> > think they would not just take the film from the cameraman?
>
>"You can`t support the premise that the police signed up Aleya on the spot to take part in any shenanigans, so why go there? Why do you think you unsupported ideas have merit, because they appeal to you?">
I'm not saying they signed him up to take part in the conspiracy, I'm
saying he knew how to play ball or he wouldn't have been allowed in
the building in the first place. He also knew he would need the same
kind of access to other crimes in the future. They have merit because
this is how the real world works Bud, not like the t.v. show "Leave it
to Beaver."
> > > > But in fact there could be no photo evidence, at all, even later--long
> > > > after the moment of discovery--of the spent shells as they were found
> > > > since, according to Alyea & 2 deputy sheriffs, Fritz picked them up
> > > > before those crime-lab offissas got there: �"By this time [a few
> > > > minutes after the discovery], the casings were already in Capt.
> > > > Fritz's pocket, & [the searchers] didn't see them." (Alyea e-mail
> > > > 5/7/98) �"Neither [crime labbers] Day nor Studebaker saw the casings
> > > > until Fritz took them from his pocket & handed them to Studebaker to
> > > > include them in the crime scene shot of the window". (Alyea e-mail
> > > > 4/23/98) �Any photo "evidence" after this moment is third-hand, so to
> > > > speak, &--as we have seen--there was no such evidence *before*,
> > > > either.... The Fritz & Studebaker team might have been dressing the
> > > > windows for Macy's at Christmas. �"Oh! Let's put this little hull
> > > > right *here*, & what do you say to a chicken bone or 2 over *here*?"
>
> > > � "Still trying to support elephants with toothpicks?"
>
> > He is NOT repeating the official theory here.
>
>"I know. He is looking at the fireman who responded to the fire to figure out how the fire started.">
NO, he is saying the police failed to follow SOP in a crime scene by
touching and moving the evidence before it was photographed and dusted
for prints. It was a captain doing this as well.
>"His underlying premise is that some of these people knew the President was to be shot, and had assigned roles to perform after the shots rang out. An amazing and fanatastic idea supported by boxes being moved.">
Perhaps they did, but even if they didn't they would have gotten their
marching orders to make it look a certain way. This is no more
fantastic than the official theory regarding LHO making the SN and
doing the shooting.
> > > > And ask yourself, If this is how they handled the evidence, out in the
> > > > open--blithely contaminating same--with dozens of non-DPD personnel
> > > > wandering by--how conscientiously did they handle the *other*
> > > > evidence--say, the Dealey & Tippit slugs, the Tippit hulls, and, oh
> > > > yes, the Tippit witnesses--away from prying eyes & wandering
> > > > deppities... behind closed doors, where no one like Alyea, Faulkner or
> > > > Mooney could happen by & later tell possibly damaging tales?
>
> > > � �"Throw it all out, dw, nobody thinks you are seriously trying to determine what happened anyway. You`re only interesting in pretending that your beloved patsy didn`t do this thing."
>
> > Another tired trick of the LN camp, they make it sound like we knew
> > LHO and have a vested interest in making him innocent rather than
> > seeking the truth.
>
>"The truth isn`t a tired trick. A tired trick is the kooks trying desperately to find some reason not to believe anything produced that indicates Oz`s guiltt.">
Truth? How do you know I or any other CT has an invested interest in
LHO? We are looking for the truth, and you are trying to hide the
truth that it was a conspiracy.
> > Just speaking for myself, I have NO investment in
> > LHO and could care less if he was guilty, but the evidence put forth
> > by the government PROVES him to be innocent of both shootings.
>
>"I think you would need more witnesses saying it was Oz they saw in order to prove him innocent.">
I have no idea what this means as the evidence put forth by the WC
proves him to be innocent.
> > > � �"The WC has already been to the top and planted the flag. The kooks are convinced there must be a better, secret path that only they can find to get there."
>
> > You won a conviction in a court of law?
>
>"Oz cunningly thwarted justice by dying."
Dying? I think he was murdered while in police custody, yet this makes
doesn't make you suspicious at all, how come?
>
> > I don't remember this
> > happening, therefore, you have a THEORY like the CTers,
>
>"The kooks have a multitude of them.">
So? Some of them are incorrect like yours.
> >and that is
> > all (a bad one too).
>
>"It`s really too late, the WC planted the flag, and nobody expects you kooks will ever produce the secret way to the top you imagine must exist.>
You have planted nothing but falsehoods and most Americans are NOT
buying it.
Bud
It is the only theory available.
> > > > � And a baker`s dozen of hulls, you`ve outdone yourself, dw.
> >
> > > > � "One last comment, wouldn`t it be easier to manipulate the evidence without the media there taking pictures?"
> >
> > > Why?
> >
> > You think that it is better to create as many loose ends as
> > possible? Thats right, this conspiracy has magical powers, they don`t
> > need to worry about these kinds of things. They can make anyone do
> > anything or say anything at any time.
> >
> > > The media needed the police for their livlihood after this story
> > > was over, why would they not cooperate?
> >
>
> >"That might be what you would do, but what if this approach was used on people of chracter?">
>
> It is a matter of reality, the media needs the police and politicians
> for their stories. He obviously had done business with them before as
> he was the only media person inside at this time.
So you are saying if you were Aleya`s position, you would do
whatever they told you to do?
> > > IF they did not, why do you
> > > think they would not just take the film from the cameraman?
> >
>
> >"You can`t support the premise that the police signed up Aleya on the spot to take part in any shenanigans, so why go there? Why do you think you unsupported ideas have merit, because they appeal to you?">
>
> I'm not saying they signed him up to take part in the conspiracy, I'm
> saying he knew how to play ball or he wouldn't have been allowed in
> the building in the first place. He also knew he would need the same
> kind of access to other crimes in the future. They have merit because
> this is how the real world works Bud, not like the t.v. show "Leave it
> to Beaver."
You can`t support that Aleya had any kind of agreement with the
police. That you can imagine one is of no consequence.
> > > > > But in fact there could be no photo evidence, at all, even later--long
> > > > > after the moment of discovery--of the spent shells as they were found
> > > > > since, according to Alyea & 2 deputy sheriffs, Fritz picked them up
> > > > > before those crime-lab offissas got there: �"By this time [a few
> > > > > minutes after the discovery], the casings were already in Capt.
> > > > > Fritz's pocket, & [the searchers] didn't see them." (Alyea e-mail
> > > > > 5/7/98) �"Neither [crime labbers] Day nor Studebaker saw the casings
> > > > > until Fritz took them from his pocket & handed them to Studebaker to
> > > > > include them in the crime scene shot of the window". (Alyea e-mail
> > > > > 4/23/98) �Any photo "evidence" after this moment is third-hand, so to
> > > > > speak, &--as we have seen--there was no such evidence *before*,
> > > > > either.... The Fritz & Studebaker team might have been dressing the
> > > > > windows for Macy's at Christmas. �"Oh! Let's put this little hull
> > > > > right *here*, & what do you say to a chicken bone or 2 over *here*?"
> >
> > > > � "Still trying to support elephants with toothpicks?"
> >
> > > He is NOT repeating the official theory here.
> >
>
> >"I know. He is looking at the fireman who responded to the fire to figure out how the fire started.">
>
> NO, he is saying the police failed to follow SOP in a crime scene by
> touching and moving the evidence before it was photographed and dusted
> for prints. It was a captain doing this as well.
Doubtful you have a clue whether photos first was the standard
operating procedure for the DPD at this time.
But lets say they did deviate from the SOP. So what? The most you
can do is criticize them for being sloppy. In itself, it doesn`t speak
to conspiracy, or Oz`s guilt. When Mark Furman arrived at Rockingham
(or was it Bundy, whichever was the murder scene), he noted and
recorded a clear blood fingerprint on the button that released the
automatic gate to leave the yard area. This print was destroyed
without being collected by someone who came later. That print alone
could have been enough to convict or exhonerate OJ. Once it was
destroyed, it was non-evidence, of no use to anyone. You kooks want to
make a case that consists largely of non-evidence such as this.
> >"His underlying premise is that some of these people knew the President was to be shot, and had assigned roles to perform after the shots rang out. An amazing and fanatastic idea supported by boxes being moved."
>
> Perhaps they did, but even if they didn't they would have gotten their
> marching orders to make it look a certain way.
Then you need one of the cops saying that someone ordered them to
make it "look a certain way". You being able to imagine it isn`t
enough.
> This is no more
> fantastic than the official theory regarding LHO making the SN and
> doing the shooting.
Oz shooting his rifle from his place of work is as simple as it
gets. I don`t need to imagine all kinds of conspiring between all
kinds of people cutting across all walks of life.
> > > > > And ask yourself, If this is how they handled the evidence, out in the
> > > > > open--blithely contaminating same--with dozens of non-DPD personnel
> > > > > wandering by--how conscientiously did they handle the *other*
> > > > > evidence--say, the Dealey & Tippit slugs, the Tippit hulls, and, oh
> > > > > yes, the Tippit witnesses--away from prying eyes & wandering
> > > > > deppities... behind closed doors, where no one like Alyea, Faulkner or
> > > > > Mooney could happen by & later tell possibly damaging tales?
> >
> > > > � �"Throw it all out, dw, nobody thinks you are seriously trying to determine what happened anyway. You`re only interesting in pretending that your beloved patsy didn`t do this thing."
> >
> > > Another tired trick of the LN camp, they make it sound like we knew
> > > LHO and have a vested interest in making him innocent rather than
> > > seeking the truth.
> >
>
> >"The truth isn`t a tired trick. A tired trick is the kooks trying desperately to find some reason not to believe anything produced that indicates Oz`s guiltt.">
>
> Truth? How do you know I or any other CT has an invested interest in
> LHO?
You want to believe other people committed his crimes. You w3ant to
believe you irrational fears are real, and that right wing forces are
at work to thwart left-wing progress.
> We are looking for the truth, and you are trying to hide the
> truth that it was a conspiracy.
If there really was the conspiracy that you imagine, nothing anyone
could do could stop the truth from coming out. People would be coming
forward weekly. A Markham saying she was coerced into selecting Oz
here, a photo technician saying he worked on putting Oz`s image in the
backyard photo there.
> > > Just speaking for myself, I have NO investment in
> > > LHO and could care less if he was guilty, but the evidence put forth
> > > by the government PROVES him to be innocent of both shootings.
> >
>
> >"I think you would need more witnesses saying it was Oz they saw in order to prove him innocent.">
>
> I have no idea what this means as the evidence put forth by the WC
> proves him to be innocent.
You seem ti think all the witnesses saying they saw Oz was in the
vicintity of the murder with a gun sonewhow proves his inncence.
> > > > � �"The WC has already been to the top and planted the flag. The kooks are convinced there must be a better, secret path that only they can find to get there."
> >
> > > You won a conviction in a court of law?
> >
>
> >"Oz cunningly thwarted justice by dying."
>
> Dying? I think he was murdered while in police custody, yet this makes
> doesn't make you suspicious at all, how come?
That has been explained. What more should I expect than a
reasonable explaination? What can you produce that makes Ruby shooting
Oz for his own reasons unacceptable?
> > > I don't remember this
> > > happening, therefore, you have a THEORY like the CTers,
> >
>
> >"The kooks have a multitude of them.">
>
> So? Some of them are incorrect like yours.
Mine is on the table. Where is yours? Be sure to explain all the
things that trouble you, like box moving in the SN. If the cops went
up there intent on destroying evidence, be sure to fully support that
concept.
> > >and that is
> > > all (a bad one too).
> >
>
> >"It`s really too late, the WC planted the flag, and nobody expects you kooks will ever produce the secret way to the top you imagine must exist.>
>
> You have planted nothing but falsehoods and most Americans are NOT
> buying it.
Most people aren`t giving it much thought.
David Von Pein
>>> "The thing you LNers like to ignore is: evidence is NOT evidence until it passes rites of the court." <<<
Goodie! Kook Rules are in place once more! Lovely!
So, per Rob-Kook, we should just IGNORE all of the LHO-Did-It
evidence, because it's not REALLY evidence "until it passes rites of
the court".
Therefore, a double-murderer, in essence, walks because he was killed.
Right, Mr. Kook?
Walt
Hey Don, This is way off topic .....but I thought I'd alert you to a
"Supplementary Offence Report" for the DPD. The report is dated
11-22-63, file number F85827. It's written by JR Leavelle ( the guy
that held Oswald's arms back so Ruby could put a fatal bullet in him)
and it was approved by Captain JW Fritz ( another fine example)
Anyway the report mentions some of the witnesses that were at the
scene of the Tippit Shooting when it happened. Leavelle mentions Ted
Callaway, Sam Guinyard, Helen Markham, WE scroggins, and Domingo
Benavides.
The closing paragraph of the report say..." All of the above
witnesses, with the exception of Scroggins made affidavits."
I wonder why Domingo Benavides affidavit has never been seen by the
public???
dcwi...@netscape.net
Goodness! You've just described a cover-up. Welcome to the real
world! Cops in Idaho don't cover-up something rotten in Texas....
You're slipping, Bud....
>
> And a baker`s dozen of hulls, you`ve outdone yourself, dw.
Gee, maybe I was being facetious here. Ever detect changes in tone in
written or spoken material before??
>
> One last comment, wouldn`t it be easier to manipulate the evidence
> without the media there taking pictures?
Yeah, Bud, but Alyea got there about 20 minutes *before* Fritz! It
would have looked even more suspicious if Fritz had had Sims & Boyd
escort him out! Try again! And, next time, *think* before you
input....
dw
Closer to the truth to say *your* beloved lone nut....
>
> The WC has already been to the top and planted the flag.
In Death Valley!
The kooks
> are convinced there must be a better, secret path that only they can
> find to get there.
>
>
>
dcwi...@netscape.net
Trask, in his book, suggests such is the case, & that violating this
procedure was a flagrant disregard of SOP. Trask is not a CTer....
dw
>
> But lets say they did deviate from the SOP. So what? The most you
> can do is criticize them for being sloppy. In itself, it doesn`t speak
> to conspiracy
But Fritz compounded his "sloppiness" by denying he touched the
hulls. Is perjury simple sloppiness?
Funny you should mention her. Many times, she said she last saw the
gunman heading into the alley, *not* up to Jefferson, as the official
version had it. She didn't have to say she was coerced into not
saying this to the Commission--away from the coercion, she told the
truth....
> > > > Just speaking for myself, I have NO investment in
> > > > LHO and could care less if he was guilty, but the evidence put forth
> > > > by the government PROVES him to be innocent of both shootings.
>
> > >"I think you would need more witnesses saying it was Oz they saw in order to prove him innocent.">
>
> > I have no
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt -- I've been wondering that for years! Add that to the fact that
no other Benavides statement or interview or affidavit *before* his
'64 WC testimony has been made public, & you have what even the
perfesser would admit is sinister....
dw
dcwi...@netscape.net
Notice how Von Pein takes on side-issues on threads, & avoids the hot
rail of their bases. Gutless wonder....
dw
David Von Pein
>>> "Gutless wonder." <<<
Weird kook.
tomnln
<dcwi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3f0a2308-9373-4c65...@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Davis V P seems to agree with justme's Shitting on American Military
Veterans.
He never said a word about her post saying just such.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/guess_who_wrote.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Von Pein
>>> "Davis V P seems to agree with...<cut crap>..." <<<
I wonder if "Davis" is my "DVP Double" or something?
I sure wish I could go back to being Dave Reitzes or Vinnie Bugliosi
again for a little while. I liked that.
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ad9cd4cd-d2ed-460e...@z38g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>>> "Gutless wonder." <<<
>
> Weird kook.
KOOK-SUCKER.
(sorry about the typo)
robcap...@netscape.com
This is ONLY true if you are the government or need to toe the line to
keep your job, most of the people in the world have other theories to
go on.
> > > > > � And a baker`s dozen of hulls, you`ve outdone yourself, dw.
>
> > > > > � "One last comment, wouldn`t it be easier to manipulate the evidence without the media there taking pictures?"
>
> > > > Why?
>
> > > You think that it is better to create as many loose ends as
> > > possible? Thats right, this conspiracy has magical powers, they don`t
> > > need to worry about these kinds of things. They can make anyone do
> > > anything or say anything at any time.
>
> > > > The media needed the police for their livlihood after this story
> > > > was over, why would they not cooperate?
>
> > >"That might be what you would do, but what if this approach was used on people of chracter?">
>
> > It is a matter of reality, the media needs the police and politicians
> > for their stories. He obviously had done business with them before as
> > he was the only media person inside at this time.
>
>"So you are saying if you were Aleya`s position, you would do whatever they told you to do?">
Probably. What would Alyea have gotten for ratting out the fact that
a captain picked up evidence and then threw it down incorrectly? Or
the fact he pocketed one shell for days? I can't judge him as most
people would have felt the pressure to do what he did, now if the
government had handled the investigation the way they were supposed
to, then he would have felt comfortable mentioning it I'm sure.
> > > > IF they did not, why do you
> > > > think they would not just take the film from the cameraman?
>
> > >"You can`t support the premise that the police signed up Aleya on the spot to take part in any shenanigans, so why go there? Why do you think you unsupported ideas have merit, because they appeal to you?">
>
> > I'm not saying they signed him up to take part in the conspiracy, I'm
> > saying he knew how to play ball or he wouldn't have been allowed in
> > the building in the first place. He also knew he would need the same
> > kind of access to other crimes in the future. They have merit because
> > this is how the real world works Bud, not like the t.v. show "Leave it
> > to Beaver."
>
>"You can`t support that Aleya had any kind of agreement with the police. That you can imagine one is of no consequence.">
I'm NOT saying he had a prior arrangement with them, but his failure
to mention what he had seen until years later at the Shaw trial made
him part of it.
> > > > > > But in fact there could be no photo evidence, at all, even later--long
> > > > > > after the moment of discovery--of the spent shells as they were found
> > > > > > since, according to Alyea & 2 deputy sheriffs, Fritz picked them up
> > > > > > before those crime-lab offissas got there: �"By this time [a few
> > > > > > minutes after the discovery], the casings were already in Capt.
> > > > > > Fritz's pocket, & [the searchers] didn't see them." (Alyea e-mail
> > > > > > 5/7/98) �"Neither [crime labbers] Day nor Studebaker saw the casings
> > > > > > until Fritz took them from his pocket & handed them to Studebaker to
> > > > > > include them in the crime scene shot of the window". (Alyea e-mail
> > > > > > 4/23/98) �Any photo "evidence" after this moment is third-hand, so to
> > > > > > speak, &--as we have seen--there was no such evidence *before*,
> > > > > > either.... The Fritz & Studebaker team might have been dressing the
> > > > > > windows for Macy's at Christmas. �"Oh! Let's put this little hull
> > > > > > right *here*, & what do you say to a chicken bone or 2 over *here*?"
>
> > > > > � "Still trying to support elephants with toothpicks?"
>
> > > > He is NOT repeating the official theory here.
>
> > >"I know. He is looking at the fireman who responded to the fire to figure out how the fire started.">
>
> > NO, he is saying the police failed to follow SOP in a crime scene by
> > touching and moving the evidence before it was photographed and dusted
> > for prints. It was a captain doing this as well.
>
>"Doubtful you have a clue whether photos first was the standard operating procedure for the DPD at this time.">
Don't you read anything about police procedures? It was standard
procedure for the DPD, the FBI and every other law enforcement agency
in the country. You have to photograph the evidence as it is found.
Failure to do so makes it open to being thrown out as it could have
been added later on.
>"But lets say they did deviate from the SOP. So what?">
So what? It flys in the face of all police procedures and makes it
easy for the defense to have all evidence found thrown out.
>"The most you can do is criticize them for being sloppy. In itself, it doesn`t speak
to conspiracy, or Oz`s guilt.">
It speaks to the "evidence" being claimed to found was NOT all there
in the first place as there is NO other reason NOT to show it in the
original crime scene photos. Do you realize the M.E. can't even touch
the body until the photos are done?
>"When Mark Furman arrived at Rockingham (or was it Bundy, whichever was the murder scene), he noted and recorded a clear blood fingerprint on the button that released the automatic gate to leave the yard area. This print was destroyed without being collected by someone who came later. That print alone could have been enough to convict or exhonerate OJ. Once it was destroyed, it was non-evidence, of no use to anyone. You kooks want to make a case that consists largely of non-evidence such as this.">
Poor example for you as O.J. got off.
> > >"His underlying premise is that some of these people knew the President was to be shot, and had assigned roles to perform after the shots rang out. An amazing and fanatastic idea supported by boxes being moved."
>
> > Perhaps they did, but even if they didn't they would have gotten their
> > marching orders to make it look a certain way.
>
>"Then you need one of the cops saying that someone ordered them to make it "look a certain way". You being able to imagine it isn`t enough.">
NO you don't, you just need the men in charge of most of the officers
to come in and touch evidence and pocket evidence so it is messed up.
You don't have to vocalize anything.
> > This is no more
> > fantastic than the official theory regarding LHO making the SN and
> > doing the shooting.
>
>"Oz shooting his rifle from his place of work is as simple as it gets. I don`t need to imagine all kinds of conspiring between all kinds of people cutting across all walks of life.">
Of course, it is so easy to believe an assassin who CAN'T drive has
his target come right to him. Yeah, that happens all the time.
> > > > > > And ask yourself, If this is how they handled the evidence, out in the
> > > > > > open--blithely contaminating same--with dozens of non-DPD personnel
> > > > > > wandering by--how conscientiously did they handle the *other*
> > > > > > evidence--say, the Dealey & Tippit slugs, the Tippit hulls, and, oh
> > > > > > yes, the Tippit witnesses--away from prying eyes & wandering
> > > > > > deppities... behind closed doors, where no one like Alyea, Faulkner or
> > > > > > Mooney could happen by & later tell possibly damaging tales?
>
> > > > > � �"Throw it all out, dw, nobody thinks you are seriously trying to determine what happened anyway. You`re only interesting in pretending that your beloved patsy didn`t do this thing."
>
> > > > Another tired trick of the LN camp, they make it sound like we knew
> > > > LHO and have a vested interest in making him innocent rather than
> > > > seeking the truth.
>
> > >"The truth isn`t a tired trick. A tired trick is the kooks trying desperately to find some reason not to believe anything produced that indicates Oz`s guiltt.">
>
> > Truth? How do you know I or any other CT has an invested interest in
> > LHO?
>
>"You want to believe other people committed his crimes. You w3ant to believe you irrational fears are real, and that right wing forces are at work to thwart left-wing progress.">
Yes, because the evidence, or lack thereof, show it was NOT LHO who
killed JFK and JDT, and who wounded JBC. I have no interest in LHO
being innocent, but the evidence shows he is. I never said anything
about right-wing or left-wing, as the people who had the power to
whack a president and get away with it don't fall into left-wing or
right-wing categories, they are all wings in one.
> > We are looking for the truth, and you are trying to hide the
> > truth that it was a conspiracy.
>
>"If there really was the conspiracy that you imagine, nothing anyone could do could stop the truth from coming out. People would be coming forward weekly. A Markham saying she was coerced into selecting Oz here, a photo technician saying he worked on putting Oz`s image in the backyard photo there.">
The truth has come out Bud, and the government has released most of
it. Do you think the people with so much power as to get rid of a
president will deny it like LHO? Heck no, they want everyone to know
it. That is why they had the WC write such an obvious report showing
it was NOT the person they were claiming it was. You either just
chose to ignore it or you make extra money acting like you really
believe it.
> > > > Just speaking for myself, I have NO investment in
> > > > LHO and could care less if he was guilty, but the evidence put forth
> > > > by the government PROVES him to be innocent of both shootings.
>
> > >"I think you would need more witnesses saying it was Oz they saw in order to prove him innocent.">
>
> > I have no
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "The thing you LNers like to ignore is: evidence is NOT evidence until it passes rites of the court." <<<
"Goodie! Kook Rules are in place once more! Lovely!"
Why not dispute it? Prove me wrong.
"So, per Rob-Kook, we should just IGNORE all of the LHO-Did-It
evidence, because it's not REALLY evidence "until it passes rites of
the court"."
Exactly, you are finally catching on. Your "evidence" carries NO more
weight than my evidence as neither has made it into a court of law.
It is all theory until it is ruled on by a judge and jury.
"Therefore, a double-murderer, in essence, walks because he was
killed. Right, Mr. Kook?"
First of all, you have failed to PROVE he is a double-murderer at all,
second of all, yes the irony is funny isn't it. I guess all those
cops should have guarded him better.
Walt
The authorities have always denied that Benavides gave a written
affidavit, but here's a report that says he did give an affidavit.
It's not likely that they didn't take Benavides affidavit because
we've seen the affidavits of all of the others .....so where's DB's
affidavit???
David Von Pein
>>> "But Alyea got there about 20 minutes *before* Fritz! It would have looked even more suspicious if Fritz had had Sims & Boyd escort him out!" <<<
Why? Fritz was the DPD Homicide CAPTAIN, Mr. ABO Kook! He was the Top
Dog of Homicide. Fritz SHOULD, in fact, have kicked Alyea off of the
sixth floor, IMO. But that didn't happen.
But, per Don W. and many other CT-Kooks like him, Fritz was a guy who
was "in" on a cover-up plot to some degree....and yet Donald Willis
thinks it was BETTER for Fritz and "The Cover-up Plot" to allow Alyea
to not only stay on the sixth floor (right amidst the actual crime
scene), but to also allow Alyea to continue to FILM THE SO-CALLED
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY (per kooks) being engaged in by Fritz and his gang
of merry evidence-manipulators on the 6th Floor!
So, per Willis' theory, rather than Fritz booting Alyea out of the
crime scene (which, as I mentioned, definitely SHOULD have been done
immediately by somebody), Fritz thought it was a wiser decision to
allow Alyea to stay there (and film everything that was going on, to
boot).
Crazy, man. Just crazy. Esp. from the "Fritz Was Doing Something Shady
On The Sixth Floor" POV.
But, as I've said before to this aggregation of evidence-skewing CTers/
idiots, when a person is innocent of any wrong-doing (as Fritz &
Company so obviously were), they don't worry about having to cover
their tracks....because there are no "shady" tracks to BE covered in
the first place.
Walt
Hey Von Pein Brain.... When you read the transcript of Fritz's
testimony before the Warren Commission it's pretty clear the old
KKKer was becoming senile. reading his hand scribbled notes also
reveals that his mind was a scrambled mess. So the fact that Alyea
was there didn't bother him at all.... His senile brain didn't see
any problem.
David Von Pein
Well, Walt, I think the above is as good an explanation as we can
expect from an ABO Mega-Kook of your stature.
Well done.
David Von Pein
>>> "His senile brain didn't see any problem." <<<
But Fritz was in full possession of his otherwise-"senile" faculties
when it came time to coordinate his good-sized part of the "cover-up"
in the assassination....right Mr. ABO?
Walt's a joke. A pathetic joke.
Walt
Fritz didn't coordinate the cover-up, moron..... Hoover and his
"Special" Special agents did.
Bud
"I think something fishy happened" is not a theory.
> > > > > > � And a baker`s dozen of hulls, you`ve outdone yourself, dw.
> >
> > > > > > � "One last comment, wouldn`t it be easier to manipulate the evidence without the media there taking pictures?"
> >
> > > > > Why?
> >
> > > > You think that it is better to create as many loose ends as
> > > > possible? Thats right, this conspiracy has magical powers, they don`t
> > > > need to worry about these kinds of things. They can make anyone do
> > > > anything or say anything at any time.
> >
> > > > > The media needed the police for their livlihood after this story
> > > > > was over, why would they not cooperate?
> >
> > > >"That might be what you would do, but what if this approach was used on people of chracter?">
> >
> > > It is a matter of reality, the media needs the police and politicians
> > > for their stories. He obviously had done business with them before as
> > > he was the only media person inside at this time.
> >
>
> >"So you are saying if you were Aleya`s position, you would do whatever they told you to do?">
>
> Probably.
Now we only need evidence that Aleya`s character is as lacking
morals as yours.
> What would Alyea have gotten for ratting out the fact that
> a captain picked up evidence and then threw it down incorrectly?
How can you establsih such a thing without Aleya saying it happened
that way?
> Or
> the fact he pocketed one shell for days?
All the evidence found on the 6th floor of the TSBD came into the
possession of the DPD.
> I can't judge him as most
> people would have felt the pressure to do what he did, now if the
> government had handled the investigation the way they were supposed
> to, then he would have felt comfortable mentioning it I'm sure.
Only an idiot would think his second-guessing and criticism could
nullify the Warren Commission`s report.
> > > > > IF they did not, why do you
> > > > > think they would not just take the film from the cameraman?
> >
> > > >"You can`t support the premise that the police signed up Aleya on the spot to take part in any shenanigans, so why go there? Why do you think you unsupported ideas have merit, because they appeal to you?">
> >
> > > I'm not saying they signed him up to take part in the conspiracy, I'm
> > > saying he knew how to play ball or he wouldn't have been allowed in
> > > the building in the first place. He also knew he would need the same
> > > kind of access to other crimes in the future. They have merit because
> > > this is how the real world works Bud, not like the t.v. show "Leave it
> > > to Beaver."
> >
>
> >"You can`t support that Aleya had any kind of agreement with the police. That you can imagine one is of no consequence.">
>
> I'm NOT saying he had a prior arrangement with them, but his failure
> to mention what he had seen until years later at the Shaw trial made
> him part of it.
Part of what? You haven`t shown a conspiracy to be part of.
> > > > > > > But in fact there could be no photo evidence, at all, even later--long
> > > > > > > after the moment of discovery--of the spent shells as they were found
> > > > > > > since, according to Alyea & 2 deputy sheriffs, Fritz picked them up
> > > > > > > before those crime-lab offissas got there: �"By this time [a few
> > > > > > > minutes after the discovery], the casings were already in Capt.
> > > > > > > Fritz's pocket, & [the searchers] didn't see them." (Alyea e-mail
> > > > > > > 5/7/98) �"Neither [crime labbers] Day nor Studebaker saw the casings
> > > > > > > until Fritz took them from his pocket & handed them to Studebaker to
> > > > > > > include them in the crime scene shot of the window". (Alyea e-mail
> > > > > > > 4/23/98) �Any photo "evidence" after this moment is third-hand, so to
> > > > > > > speak, &--as we have seen--there was no such evidence *before*,
> > > > > > > either.... The Fritz & Studebaker team might have been dressing the
> > > > > > > windows for Macy's at Christmas. �"Oh! Let's put this little hull
> > > > > > > right *here*, & what do you say to a chicken bone or 2 over *here*?"
> >
> > > > > > � "Still trying to support elephants with toothpicks?"
> >
> > > > > He is NOT repeating the official theory here.
> >
> > > >"I know. He is looking at the fireman who responded to the fire to figure out how the fire started.">
> >
> > > NO, he is saying the police failed to follow SOP in a crime scene by
> > > touching and moving the evidence before it was photographed and dusted
> > > for prints. It was a captain doing this as well.
> >
>
> >"Doubtful you have a clue whether photos first was the standard operating procedure for the DPD at this time.">
>
> Don't you read anything about police procedures? It was standard
> procedure for the DPD, the FBI and every other law enforcement agency
> in the country.
This is just you saying something. It carries no weight. Establish
as fact that the DPD, in each and every case prior to 11-22-63,
photographed all evidence in place before removing it.
>You have to photograph the evidence as it is found.
> Failure to do so makes it open to being thrown out as it could have
> been added later on.
You think there is a legal requirement that evidence be
photograpghed before it can be considered evidence? You are an idiot.
> >"But lets say they did deviate from the SOP. So what?">
>
> So what? It flys in the face of all police procedures and makes it
> easy for the defense to have all evidence found thrown out.
Luckily, it`s judges that decide this, not clueless idiots with no
understanding of the law.
> >"The most you can do is criticize them for being sloppy. In itself, it doesn`t speak
> to conspiracy, or Oz`s guilt.">
>
> It speaks to the "evidence" being claimed to found was NOT all there
> in the first place as there is NO other reason NOT to show it in the
> original crime scene photos.
There is no other reasonable possibility but that it was all there.
You think the DPD took a bag, rifle and shells to that floor? When you
position becomes so desperate that you need to float these ideas, it`s
time to accept that Oz was the shooter.
> Do you realize the M.E. can't even touch
> the body until the photos are done?
Have you ever seen photos of Tippit`s body at his murder scene?
> >"When Mark Furman arrived at Rockingham (or was it Bundy, whichever was the murder scene), he noted and recorded a clear blood fingerprint on the button that released the automatic gate to leave the yard area. This print was destroyed without being collected by someone who came later. That print alone could have been enough to convict or exhonerate OJ. Once it was destroyed, it was non-evidence, of no use to anyone. You kooks want to make a case that consists largely of non-evidence such as this.">
>
> Poor example for you as O.J. got off.
I was addressing the way altered evidence is handled in real cases
outside of kook ex[ectations. As always, the point was not made for
your benefit.
> > > >"His underlying premise is that some of these people knew the President was to be shot, and had assigned roles to perform after the shots rang out. An amazing and fanatastic idea supported by boxes being moved."
> >
> > > Perhaps they did, but even if they didn't they would have gotten their
> > > marching orders to make it look a certain way.
> >
>
> >"Then you need one of the cops saying that someone ordered them to make it "look a certain way". You being able to imagine it isn`t enough.">
>
> NO you don't, you just need the men in charge of most of the officers
> to come in and touch evidence and pocket evidence so it is messed up.
> You don't have to vocalize anything.
Didn`t you just say "gotten their marching orders" above, idiot?
How were they given, sign language?
> > > This is no more
> > > fantastic than the official theory regarding LHO making the SN and
> > > doing the shooting.
> >
>
> >"Oz shooting his rifle from his place of work is as simple as it gets. I don`t need to imagine all kinds of conspiring between all kinds of people cutting across all walks of life.">
>
> Of course, it is so easy to believe an assassin who CAN'T drive has
> his target come right to him. Yeah, that happens all the time.
Well, you can believe it happens all the time, but it seems a rare
occurance to me. Likely JFK was not his "target" until a few days
before the shooting, I don`t think he would have travelled to another
city to shoot him. It was just a combination of Oz`s extremist
politics, tempered by his unhappy lot in life that convinced him this
was a good thing to do.
> > > > > > > And ask yourself, If this is how they handled the evidence, out in the
> > > > > > > open--blithely contaminating same--with dozens of non-DPD personnel
> > > > > > > wandering by--how conscientiously did they handle the *other*
> > > > > > > evidence--say, the Dealey & Tippit slugs, the Tippit hulls, and, oh
> > > > > > > yes, the Tippit witnesses--away from prying eyes & wandering
> > > > > > > deppities... behind closed doors, where no one like Alyea, Faulkner or
> > > > > > > Mooney could happen by & later tell possibly damaging tales?
> >
> > > > > > � �"Throw it all out, dw, nobody thinks you are seriously trying to determine what happened anyway. You`re only interesting in pretending that your beloved patsy didn`t do this thing."
> >
> > > > > Another tired trick of the LN camp, they make it sound like we knew
> > > > > LHO and have a vested interest in making him innocent rather than
> > > > > seeking the truth.
> >
> > > >"The truth isn`t a tired trick. A tired trick is the kooks trying desperately to find some reason not to believe anything produced that indicates Oz`s guiltt.">
> >
> > > Truth? How do you know I or any other CT has an invested interest in
> > > LHO?
> >
>
> >"You want to believe other people committed his crimes. You want to believe you irrational fears are real, and that right wing forces are at work to thwart left-wing progress.">
>
> Yes,
I knew it.
> because the evidence, or lack thereof, show it was NOT LHO who
> killed JFK and JDT, and who wounded JBC.
Of course it was. Ordinary people saw him commit both crimes.
> I have no interest in LHO
> being innocent, but the evidence shows he is. I never said anything
> about right-wing or left-wing, as the people who had the power to
> whack a president and get away with it don't fall into left-wing or
> right-wing categories, they are all wings in one.
In any case, I was correct that your impetus to see Oz as innocent
is driven by your desire to believe others committed his crimes.
> > > We are looking for the truth, and you are trying to hide the
> > > truth that it was a conspiracy.
> >
>
> >"If there really was the conspiracy that you imagine, nothing anyone could do could stop the truth from coming out. People would be coming forward weekly. A Markham saying she was coerced into selecting Oz here, a photo technician saying he worked on putting Oz`s image in the backyard photo there.">
>
>
> The truth has come out Bud, and the government has released most of
> it. Do you think the people with so much power as to get rid of a
> president will deny it like LHO? Heck no, they want everyone to know
> it. That is why they had the WC write such an obvious report showing
> it was NOT the person they were claiming it was. You either just
> chose to ignore it or you make extra money acting like you really
> believe it.
Theres that convolted confused reasoning that is the hallmark of a
good kook. South Park used the same premise, but that was a parody of
this type of retarded thinking.
Bud
No, I described an investigation. Who do you think comes in and
processes the evidence, mailmen?
> Welcome to the real
> world! Cops in Idaho don't cover-up something rotten in Texas....
Cops in Dallas had as much to do with covering up this crime as
those in Idaho.
> You're slipping, Bud....
>
> >
> > � And a baker`s dozen of hulls, you`ve outdone yourself, dw.
>
> Gee, maybe I was being facetious here. Ever detect changes in tone in
> written or spoken material before??
Hard to detect in people with a history of writing stupid shit.
> > � One last comment, wouldn`t it be easier to manipulate the evidence
> > without the media there taking pictures?
>
> Yeah, Bud, but Alyea got there about 20 minutes *before* Fritz! It
> would have looked even more suspicious if Fritz had had Sims & Boyd
> escort him out!
What could be suspicious about chasing civilians out of a crime
scene?
> Try again! And, next time, *think* before you
> input....
No input, just observations.
David Von Pein
>>> "Fritz didn't coordinate the cover-up, moron..... Hoover and his "Special" Special agents did." <<<
Oh, yes. How silly of me to forget that.
You see, folks, Walt KNOWS this....because Walter was there in Dallas
(and Washington) on 11/22/63 and the days that followed.
In case it's not already brazenly obviously -- Walt is pathetic. Has
been for decades.
BTW, wasn't Hoover taking a big chance relying on a "senile" old
"KKKer" like J. Will Fritz to "cover up" things nicely and tightly?
Good thing Fritz didn't slip up, huh? (Oh, that's right...you kooks DO
think he slipped up....by picking up the shells in the Nest and
allowing somebody TO FILM HIM DOING SO. Right, Kook?)
robcap...@netscape.com
It is as much a theory as "LHO fired three shots through a tree with a
loose scope; hit two men with one bullet that would cause 7 wounds and
break 3 bones yet come virtually pristine; totally wipe his murder
weapon, loose cartridges, and the clip of all prints; and make it
downstairs in 90 seconds while running past two women on the stairs
and purchasing a coke when a cop sees him. Yeah, your theory and
"...something fishy happened" have nothing in common.
> > > > > > > � And a baker`s dozen of hulls, you`ve outdone yourself, dw.
>
> > > > > > > � "One last comment, wouldn`t it be easier to manipulate the evidence without the media there taking pictures?"
>
> > > > > > Why?
>
> > > > > You think that it is better to create as many loose ends as
> > > > > possible? Thats right, this conspiracy has magical powers, they don`t
> > > > > need to worry about these kinds of things. They can make anyone do
> > > > > anything or say anything at any time.
>
> > > > > > The media needed the police for their livlihood after this story
> > > > > > was over, why would they not cooperate?
>
> > > > >"That might be what you would do, but what if this approach was used on people of chracter?">
>
> > > > It is a matter of reality, the media needs the police and politicians
> > > > for their stories. He obviously had done business with them before as
> > > > he was the only media person inside at this time.
>
> > >"So you are saying if you were Aleya`s position, you would do whatever they told you to do?">
>
> > Probably.
>
">Now we only need evidence that Aleya`s character is as lacking
morals as yours.>"
It is called self-survival in regards to your health and career. If
you think I buy you wouldn't do the same thing you are whacky as you
support a bunch of lies way more than Alyea did.
> > What would Alyea have gotten for ratting out the fact that
> > a captain picked up evidence and then threw it down incorrectly?
>
">How can you establsih such a thing without Aleya saying it happened
that way?>"
Because he testified under the penalty of perjury, unlike the WC, at
the Shaw trial that he saw Fritz pick up the shells and then throw
them back down BEFORE the photos were taken.
> > Or
> > the fact he pocketed one shell for days?
>
">All the evidence found on the 6th floor of the TSBD came into the
possession of the DPD.>"
That is not refuting my claim, as he did eventually put a shell into
the evidence, but was it the same type as he found originally? You
can't prove it was, and in a court the defense doesn't have to prove
it, they just have to raise suspicions regarding whether it was the
same bullet or not to get it rejected as evidence.
.
> > I can't judge him as most
> > people would have felt the pressure to do what he did, now if the
> > government had handled the investigation the way they were supposed
> > to, then he would have felt comfortable mentioning it I'm sure.
>
">Only an idiot would think his second-guessing and criticism could
nullify the Warren Commission`s report."
Only an idiot would think the WC has any validity to most people in
the world. The only ones who really support it do so to keep their
power and jobs.
> > > > > > IF they did not, why do you
> > > > > > think they would not just take the film from the cameraman?
>
> > > > >"You can`t support the premise that the police signed up Aleya on the spot to take part in any shenanigans, so why go there? Why do you think you unsupported ideas have merit, because they appeal to you?">
>
> > > > I'm not saying they signed him up to take part in the conspiracy, I'm
> > > > saying he knew how to play ball or he wouldn't have been allowed in
> > > > the building in the first place. He also knew he would need the same
> > > > kind of access to other crimes in the future. They have merit because
> > > > this is how the real world works Bud, not like the t.v. show "Leave it
> > > > to Beaver."
>
> > >"You can`t support that Aleya had any kind of agreement with the police. That you can imagine one is of no consequence.">
>
> > I'm NOT saying he had a prior arrangement with them, but his failure
> > to mention what he had seen until years later at the Shaw trial made
> > him part of it.
>
">Part of what? You haven`t shown a conspiracy to be part of.>"
I sure have, as the theory the WC said happened as been proven to be
untrue, therefore, we have to move on and the only way to go is a
conspiracy.
Typical trick, instead of looking it up for yourself on the internet,
he just acts like I made it up to dismiss it. Sorry, it was and is
standard police procedure. It was the rule, whether they followed it
or not is up for debate as they were not a model department, but one
would think in the case of an assassinated president they would have
dotted their I's and crossed their T's.
> >You have to photograph the evidence as it is found.
> > Failure to do so makes it open to being thrown out as it could have
> > been added later on.
>
">You think there is a legal requirement that evidence be
photograpghed before it can be considered evidence? You are an
idiot.>"
Are you really this clueless or just acting? You need to read about
crime scene procedures. The personal attack confirms you know you
don't have a leg to stand on.
> > >"But lets say they did deviate from the SOP. So what?">
>
> > So what? It flys in the face of all police procedures and makes it
> > easy for the defense to have all evidence found thrown out.
>
">Luckily, it`s judges that decide this, not clueless idiots with no
understanding of the law."
I never said YOU would be deciding the evidence!
> > >"The most you can do is criticize them for being sloppy. In itself, it doesn`t speak
> > to conspiracy, or Oz`s guilt.">
>
> > It speaks to the "evidence" being claimed to found was NOT all there
> > in the first place as there is NO other reason NOT to show it in the
> > original crime scene photos.
>
">There is no other reasonable possibility but that it was all there.
You think the DPD took a bag, rifle and shells to that floor? When you
position becomes so desperate that you need to float these ideas, it`s
time to accept that Oz was the shooter."
I never said it was the DPD, you are saying that. I'm saying a few of
them delibrately messed up the crime scene.
> > Do you realize the M.E. can't even touch
> > the body until the photos are done?
>
">Have you ever seen photos of Tippit`s body at his murder scene?>"
Exactly, this is NOT normal procedure. What was the rush to get the
body out of there for?
> > >"When Mark Furman arrived at Rockingham (or was it Bundy, whichever was the murder scene), he noted and recorded a clear blood fingerprint on the button that released the automatic gate to leave the yard
>
Bud
The reason you can misrepresent the LN theory is because we have
one. I could just as easily misrepresent the kook theory, if you could
produce one.
> > > > > > > > � And a baker`s dozen of hulls, you`ve outdone yourself, dw.
> >
> > > > > > > > � "One last comment, wouldn`t it be easier to manipulate the evidence without the media there taking pictures?"
> >
> > > > > > > Why?
> >
> > > > > > You think that it is better to create as many loose ends as
> > > > > > possible? Thats right, this conspiracy has magical powers, they don`t
> > > > > > need to worry about these kinds of things. They can make anyone do
> > > > > > anything or say anything at any time.
> >
> > > > > > > The media needed the police for their livlihood after this story
> > > > > > > was over, why would they not cooperate?
> >
> > > > > >"That might be what you would do, but what if this approach was used on people of chracter?">
> >
> > > > > It is a matter of reality, the media needs the police and politicians
> > > > > for their stories. He obviously had done business with them before as
> > > > > he was the only media person inside at this time.
> >
> > > >"So you are saying if you were Aleya`s position, you would do whatever they told you to do?">
> >
> > > Probably.
> >
>
> ">Now we only need evidence that Aleya`s character is as lacking
> morals as yours.>"
>
> It is called self-survival in regards to your health and career.
But you`ve shown no threats to either against Alyea. That you can
imagine them is of no consequence.
> If
> you think I buy you wouldn't do the same thing you are whacky as you
> support a bunch of lies way more than Alyea did.
Don`t project your confessed failings on me.
> > > What would Alyea have gotten for ratting out the fact that
> > > a captain picked up evidence and then threw it down incorrectly?
> >
>
> ">How can you establsih such a thing without Aleya saying it happened
> that way?>"
>
> Because he testified under the penalty of perjury, unlike the WC, at
> the Shaw trial that he saw Fritz pick up the shells and then throw
> them back down BEFORE the photos were taken.
Heres the list of Clay Trial witnesses, show me Alyea`s name.
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/garr/trial/Index/html/Index_0005a.htm
> > > Or
> > > the fact he pocketed one shell for days?
> >
>
> ">All the evidence found on the 6th floor of the TSBD came into the
> possession of the DPD.>"
>
> That is not refuting my claim, as he did eventually put a shell into
> the evidence, but was it the same type as he found originally?
Yah, the police go to crime scenes and collect evidence. Who do you
think should do it?
> You
> can't prove it was, and in a court the defense doesn't have to prove
> it, they just have to raise suspicions regarding whether it was the
> same bullet or not to get it rejected as evidence.
And that same jury could decide that Oz was guilty just on Brennan`s
say-so.
.
> > > I can't judge him as most
> > > people would have felt the pressure to do what he did, now if the
> > > government had handled the investigation the way they were supposed
> > > to, then he would have felt comfortable mentioning it I'm sure.
> >
>
> ">Only an idiot would think his second-guessing and criticism could
> nullify the Warren Commission`s report."
>
> Only an idiot would think the WC has any validity to most people in
> the world. The only ones who really support it do so to keep their
> power and jobs.
It doesn`t seem popular with the jobless and the powerless, I`ll
grant you that.
> > > > > > > IF they did not, why do you
> > > > > > > think they would not just take the film from the cameraman?
> >
> > > > > >"You can`t support the premise that the police signed up Aleya on the spot to take part in any shenanigans, so why go there? Why do you think you unsupported ideas have merit, because they appeal to you?">
> >
> > > > > I'm not saying they signed him up to take part in the conspiracy, I'm
> > > > > saying he knew how to play ball or he wouldn't have been allowed in
> > > > > the building in the first place. He also knew he would need the same
> > > > > kind of access to other crimes in the future. They have merit because
> > > > > this is how the real world works Bud, not like the t.v. show "Leave it
> > > > > to Beaver."
> >
> > > >"You can`t support that Aleya had any kind of agreement with the police. That you can imagine one is of no consequence.">
> >
> > > I'm NOT saying he had a prior arrangement with them, but his failure
> > > to mention what he had seen until years later at the Shaw trial made
> > > him part of it.
> >
>
> ">Part of what? You haven`t shown a conspiracy to be part of.>"
>
> I sure have, as the theory the WC said happened as been proven to be
> untrue, therefore, we have to move on and the only way to go is a
> conspiracy.
Move on where? You kooks have thrown out all the evidence. If you
can`t find Oz guilty with a rifle, bullets , fingerprints and
witnesses, who are you going to convict with none of that?
In what way am I preventing you from supporting your claim?
> Sorry, it was and is
> standard police procedure.
<snicker> You don`t support the claim by repeating it.
> It was the rule,
Show it was a "rule" of the DPD in 1963. Show that they followed
this "rule" in previous cases they handled.
> whether they followed it
> or not is up for debate as they were not a model department, but one
> would think in the case of an assassinated president they would have
> dotted their I's and crossed their T's.
I would think they would do things like they always did, expecting
the same results. The LA forensic work in the OJ case was very sloppy.
The reason it was sloppy was because no one made the serious challenge
to their procedures before. You can bet they changed the way they did
things after being embarrassed, but only after.
> > >You have to photograph the evidence as it is found.
> > > Failure to do so makes it open to being thrown out as it could have
> > > been added later on.
> >
>
> ">You think there is a legal requirement that evidence be
> photograpghed before it can be considered evidence? You are an
> idiot.>"
>
> Are you really this clueless or just acting? You need to read about
> crime scene procedures. The personal attack confirms you know you
> don't have a leg to stand on.
Then answer the question. Do you believe there is a legal
requirement for evidence to be photographed before it can be
considered evidence?
> > > >"But lets say they did deviate from the SOP. So what?">
> >
> > > So what? It flys in the face of all police procedures and makes it
> > > easy for the defense to have all evidence found thrown out.
> >
>
> ">Luckily, it`s judges that decide this, not clueless idiots with no
> understanding of the law."
>
> I never said YOU would be deciding the evidence!
I`m not the one making claims about what would and would not be
allowed. Your understanding of the law seems to equal your
understanding about everything else you spout off about.
> > > >"The most you can do is criticize them for being sloppy. In itself, it doesn`t speak
> > > to conspiracy, or Oz`s guilt.">
> >
> > > It speaks to the "evidence" being claimed to found was NOT all there
> > > in the first place as there is NO other reason NOT to show it in the
> > > original crime scene photos.
> >
>
> ">There is no other reasonable possibility but that it was all there.
> You think the DPD took a bag, rifle and shells to that floor? When you
> position becomes so desperate that you need to float these ideas, it`s
> time to accept that Oz was the shooter."
>
> I never said it was the DPD, you are saying that. I'm saying a few of
> them delibrately messed up the crime scene.
But it really doesn`t matter if you say they messed up the crime
scene. In order to establish anything like that, you`d need to have
someone involved attest to purposeful destruction. Without that, you
can only muster second-guessing and criticism.
> > > Do you realize the M.E. can't even touch
> > > the body until the photos are done?
> >
>
> ">Have you ever seen photos of Tippit`s body at his murder scene?>"
>
> Exactly, this is NOT normal procedure. What was the rush to get the
> body out of there for?
You don`t know anything, do you? Who at 10th and Patton could
declare Tippit dead? They rushed Tippit to the hospital, and they
tried to revive him. Thats what they do, they don`t just assume he is
dead. They did the same for Kennedy, when you don`t even need to see
Kennedy`s body, a first year med student looking into the back seat
could tell you he was a dead man. Yet they still went through the
motions of trying to save him.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> >>> "Gutless wonder." <<<
>
> Weird kook.
Weird wonder.
dcwi...@netscape.net
> >>> "But Alyea got there about 20 minutes *before* Fritz! It would have looked even more suspicious if Fritz had had Sims & Boyd escort him out!" <<<
>
> Why? Fritz was the DPD Homicide CAPTAIN, Mr. ABO Kook! He was the Top
> Dog of Homicide. Fritz SHOULD, in fact, have kicked Alyea off of the
> sixth floor, IMO. But that didn't happen.
What is your rationale for this Fritz-shoulda action? By the same
token, should the cops on 10th Street have escorted Ron Reiland from
the scene? And there were reps from the FBI, ATF, Sheriffs among the
searchers--all of whom had a stake in the search. Why should Fritz
get to lord it over everybody?
>
> But, per Don W. and many other CT-Kooks like him, Fritz was a guy who
> was "in" on a cover-up plot to some degree....and yet Donald Willis
> thinks it was BETTER for Fritz and "The Cover-up Plot" to allow Alyea
> to not only stay on the sixth floor (right amidst the actual crime
> scene), but to also allow Alyea to continue to FILM THE SO-CALLED
> CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
Yow! You have seen Alyea's film of Fritz holding up the hulls! Not.
Either Fritz did *not* allow any such filming, or he knew that the
feds would pull any such film before it could be run in the
newspaper. (As per Connie Kritzberg re the FBI [apparently] changing
her story at the Herald.)
(per kooks) being engaged in by Fritz and his gang
> of merry evidence-manipulators on the 6th Floor!
>
> So, per Willis' theory, rather than Fritz booting Alyea out of the
> crime scene (which, as I mentioned, definitely SHOULD have been done
> immediately by somebody), Fritz thought it was a wiser decision to
> allow Alyea to stay there (and film everything that was going on, to
> boot).
Apparently not everything....
>
> Crazy, man. Just crazy. Esp. from the "Fritz Was Doing Something Shady
> On The Sixth Floor" POV.
>
> But, as I've said before to this aggregation of evidence-skewing CTers/
> idiots
VP can be so subtle
, when a person is innocent of any wrong-doing (as Fritz &
> Company so obviously were),
Wrong. Proof: Fritz's affidavit saying that he did not touch the
hulls in the TSBD.
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Get on im Don.... Tear him a new one.
dcwi...@netscape.net
And here is DVP's reply:
> they don't worry about having to cover
>
>
>
> > their tracks....because there are no "shady" tracks to BE covered in
> > the first place.- Hide quoted text -
dcwi...@netscape.net
Okay, now envision an *imperfect* world--unlike ours--in which the
*investigators* are also the *perpetrators*. They would not preserve
the evidence implicating themselves, would they? They would *adjust*
it. They would pick up the hulls & give them to Studebaker to set
down later, somewhere else, to photograph, as if they were found where
they were found....
dw
>
> > Welcome to the real
> > world! Cops in Idaho don't cover-up something rotten in Texas....
>
> Cops in Dallas had as much to do with covering up this crime as
> those in Idaho.
>
Oh, this perfect world!
> > You're slipping, Bud....
>
> > > � And a baker`s dozen of hulls, you`ve outdone yourself, dw.
>
> > Gee, maybe I was being facetious here. Ever detect changes in tone in
> > written or spoken material before??
>
> Hard to detect in people with a history of writing stupid shit.
Now, don't be so hard on yourself!
>
> > > � One last comment, wouldn`t it be easier to manipulate the evidence
> > > without the media there taking pictures?
>
> > Yeah, Bud, but Alyea got there about 20 minutes *before* Fritz! It
> > would have looked even more suspicious if Fritz had had Sims & Boyd
> > escort him out!
>
> What could be suspicious about chasing civilians out of a crime
> scene?
As I recall, "Z" detailed just such a perpetrators-as-investigators
story, & it was undeniably true
dcwi...@netscape.net
dw
PS And as I recall, Leavelle (in his WC testimony) equivocated re
whether or not DB did an affidavit
> Hide quoted text -
>
>
>
>
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -