Vincent Bugliosi's 53 "Reasons", #53 - Refuted.

[Ben Holmes]

Finally at the end - and David Von Pein has shown that these refutations are so powerful that he dared to answer only a few. Quite the coward, David... pretending to defend Bugliosi - but when it comes to a knowledgeable critic's refutation - David simply ran away.


(53) Oswald told Fritz he had bought his .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver in Fort Worth, when he actually purchased it from a mail-order house in Los Angeles.

This is another one of those twisted tales... first let's look at Fritz' testimony:

Mr. BALL. What about the pistol that he had on him when he was arrested, did you question him about that this morning?
Mr. FRITZ. That morning?
Mr. BALL. Your notes show that you did.
Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I talked to him about the pistol and asked him where he got it.
Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mr. FRITZ. He told me he had got it about 6 or 7 months before in Fort Worth but he wouldn't tell me where he got it. When I asked him a little further about that he told me he didn't want to talk any further about the pistol.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm

So how can declining to state where he purchased the gun be transformed, in Bugliosi's mind, to a definite statement that he purchased a gun in Fort Worth???

Fritz' testimony makes clear that Oswald didn't say this. So it's simply not true that Oswald said he'd purchased the gun in Fort Worth. Indeed, he may have purchased A GUN while living in Fort worth. But let's check Fritz' notes:

"Says bgt gun 7 mo Ft W. didn't know what place"
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=29103

Again, supporting in this case, Fritz' testimony that Oswald wouldn't say where he got it. Note that in Fritz' testimony, he says "he wouldn't tell me where he got it" - but in his notes, it was merely "didn't know what place".

But, let's double-check Fritz' memory... let's go to the FBI's written report on this interrogation, and see if they support the fact that Oswald did NOT state what Bugliosi claimed:

Oswald stated that he purchased a pistol, which was taken off him by police officers November 22, 1963, about 6 months ago. He declined to state where he had purchased it.

So everyone agrees that Oswald either "declined to state", "wouldn't say", or simply didn't know where he'd bought it. It was, after all, actually 10 months later... he may not truly have remembered where he got it.

And, as his brother Robert claims, Oswald had bought more than one pistol.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-calio/lee-harvey-oswalds-other-_b_4205681.html

But it's an outright lie on Bugliosi's part to claim that Oswald had lied about where he purchased the pistol.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:30:48 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Finally at the end - and David Von Pein has shown that these refutations are so powerful that he dared to answer only a few. Quite the coward, David... pretending to defend Bugliosi - but when it comes to a knowledgeable critic's refutation - David simply ran away.
>
>
> (53) Oswald told Fritz he had bought his .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver in Fort Worth, when he actually purchased it from a mail-order house in Los Angeles.

Ben got up enough courage to address Bugliosi`s actual argument for once. I think it did it once before, two out of 53 isn`t bad for a retard.

> This is another one of those twisted tales... first let's look at Fritz' testimony:
>
> Mr. BALL. What about the pistol that he had on him when he was arrested, did you question him about that this morning?
> Mr. FRITZ. That morning?
> Mr. BALL. Your notes show that you did.
> Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I talked to him about the pistol and asked him where he got it.
> Mr. BALL. What did he say?
> Mr. FRITZ. He told me he had got it about 6 or 7 months before in Fort Worth but he wouldn't tell me where he got it. When I asked him a little further about that he told me he didn't want to talk any further about the pistol.
> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
>
> So how can declining to state where he purchased the gun be transformed, in Bugliosi's mind, to a definite statement that he purchased a gun in Fort Worth???

Because Oswald made the definite statement that he had purchased the gin in Fort Worth...

"He told me he had got it about 6 or 7 months before in Fort Worth..."

> Fritz' testimony makes clear that Oswald didn't say this.

How so?

> So it's simply not true that Oswald said he'd purchased the gun in Fort Worth. Indeed, he may have purchased A GUN while living in Fort worth. But let's check Fritz' notes:
>
> "Says bgt gun 7 mo Ft W. didn't know what place"
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=29103
>
> Again, supporting in this case, Fritz' testimony that Oswald wouldn't say where he got it.

He didn`t name the exact place. According to Fritz he only said Fort Worth.

>Note that in Fritz' testimony, he says "he wouldn't tell me where he got it" - but in his notes, it was merely "didn't know what place".

In either case Oswald did not specify the place. But according to Fritz he did specify the city.

> But, let's double-check Fritz' memory... let's go to the FBI's written report on this interrogation, and see if they support the fact that Oswald did NOT state what Bugliosi claimed:
>
> Oswald stated that he purchased a pistol, which was taken off him by police officers November 22, 1963, about 6 months ago. He declined to state where he had purchased it.

Oswald knew once the pistol was found to be mail ordered he would be tied to both the P.O. box and the Hidell name.

> So everyone agrees that Oswald either "declined to state", "wouldn't say", or simply didn't know where he'd bought it. It was, after all, actually 10 months later... he may not truly have remembered where he got it.

Fritz heard his say "Fort Worth".

> And, as his brother Robert claims, Oswald had bought more than one pistol.
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-calio/lee-harvey-oswalds-other-_b_4205681.html
>
> But it's an outright lie on Bugliosi's part to claim that Oswald had lied about where he purchased the pistol.

You still don`t understand the meaning of the word "refutation". To refute Bugliosi`s argument you would have to show that Oswald really didn`t remember he bought the gun by mail order.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 8:54:11 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:30:48 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > Finally at the end - and David Von Pein has shown that these refutations are so powerful that he dared to answer only a few. Quite the coward, David... pretending to defend Bugliosi - but when it comes to a knowledgeable critic's refutation - David simply ran away.
> >
> >
> > (53) Oswald told Fritz he had bought his .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver in Fort Worth, when he actually purchased it from a mail-order house in Los Angeles.
>
> Ben got up enough courage to address Bugliosi`s actual argument for once. I think it did it once before, two out of 53 isn`t bad for a retard.

Feel free to QUOTE the place where I didn't address Bugliosi's ACTUAL POINT.

You won't be able to do it.

> > This is another one of those twisted tales... first let's look at Fritz' testimony:
> >
> > Mr. BALL. What about the pistol that he had on him when he was arrested, did you question him about that this morning?
> > Mr. FRITZ. That morning?
> > Mr. BALL. Your notes show that you did.
> > Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I talked to him about the pistol and asked him where he got it.
> > Mr. BALL. What did he say?
> > Mr. FRITZ. He told me he had got it about 6 or 7 months before in Fort Worth but he wouldn't tell me where he got it. When I asked him a little further about that he told me he didn't want to talk any further about the pistol.
> > http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
> >
> > So how can declining to state where he purchased the gun be transformed, in Bugliosi's mind, to a definite statement that he purchased a gun in Fort Worth???
>
> Because Oswald made the definite statement that he had purchased the gin in Fort Worth...

You're lying again, "Bud."

> "He told me he had got it about 6 or 7 months before in Fort Worth..."
>
> > Fritz' testimony makes clear that Oswald didn't say this.
>
> How so?

Moron, aren't you? If you'd bother to READ this post, you'd understand.

> > So it's simply not true that Oswald said he'd purchased the gun in Fort Worth. Indeed, he may have purchased A GUN while living in Fort worth. But let's check Fritz' notes:
> >
> > "Says bgt gun 7 mo Ft W. didn't know what place"
> > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=29103
> >
> > Again, supporting in this case, Fritz' testimony that Oswald wouldn't say where he got it.
>
> He didn`t name the exact place. According to Fritz he only said Fort Worth.

You can run, "Bud," but you can't hide...

> >Note that in Fritz' testimony, he says "he wouldn't tell me where he got it" - but in his notes, it was merely "didn't know what place".
>
> In either case Oswald did not specify the place. But according to Fritz he did specify the city.

For what?

> > But, let's double-check Fritz' memory... let's go to the FBI's written report on this interrogation, and see if they support the fact that Oswald did NOT state what Bugliosi claimed:
> >
> > Oswald stated that he purchased a pistol, which was taken off him by police officers November 22, 1963, about 6 months ago. He declined to state where he had purchased it.
>
> Oswald knew once the pistol was found to be mail ordered he would be tied to both the P.O. box and the Hidell name.

Speculation isn't evidence.

> > So everyone agrees that Oswald either "declined to state", "wouldn't say", or simply didn't know where he'd bought it. It was, after all, actually 10 months later... he may not truly have remembered where he got it.
>
> Fritz heard his say "Fort Worth".

Sadly, you're too dishonest to admit that the evidence contradicts itself.

> > And, as his brother Robert claims, Oswald had bought more than one pistol.
> > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-calio/lee-harvey-oswalds-other-_b_4205681.html
> >
> > But it's an outright lie on Bugliosi's part to claim that Oswald had lied about where he purchased the pistol.
>
> You still don`t understand the meaning of the word "refutation". To refute Bugliosi`s argument you would have to show that Oswald really didn`t remember he bought the gun by mail order.

No, *YOU* have to show that Oswald lied.

You haven't.

You haven't even *tried*.

You lose again!!!

[Bud]

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 12:45:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 8:54:11 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:30:48 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > Finally at the end - and David Von Pein has shown that these refutations are so powerful that he dared to answer only a few. Quite the coward, David... pretending to defend Bugliosi - but when it comes to a knowledgeable critic's refutation - David simply ran away.
> > >
> > >
> > > (53) Oswald told Fritz he had bought his .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver in Fort Worth, when he actually purchased it from a mail-order house in Los Angeles.
> >
> > Ben got up enough courage to address Bugliosi`s actual argument for once. I think it did it once before, two out of 53 isn`t bad for a retard.
>
>
> Feel free to QUOTE the place where I didn't address Bugliosi's ACTUAL POINT.

Yes, let me get into an argument with a retard about what he discerns Bugliosi`s ACTUAL POINTS to be.

The fact is you should have been arguing against Bugliosi`s ACTUAL ARGUMENTS all along.

> You won't be able to do it.
>
>
> > > This is another one of those twisted tales... first let's look at Fritz' testimony:
> > >
> > > Mr. BALL. What about the pistol that he had on him when he was arrested, did you question him about that this morning?
> > > Mr. FRITZ. That morning?
> > > Mr. BALL. Your notes show that you did.
> > > Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I talked to him about the pistol and asked him where he got it.
> > > Mr. BALL. What did he say?
> > > Mr. FRITZ. He told me he had got it about 6 or 7 months before in Fort Worth but he wouldn't tell me where he got it. When I asked him a little further about that he told me he didn't want to talk any further about the pistol.
> > > http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
> > >
> > > So how can declining to state where he purchased the gun be transformed, in Bugliosi's mind, to a definite statement that he purchased a gun in Fort Worth???
> >
> > Because Oswald made the definite statement that he had purchased the gin in Fort Worth...
>
>
> You're lying again, "Bud."

You are stupid again. This is a definite statement being attributed to Oswald...

"He told me he had got it about 6 or 7 months before in Fort Worth..."


> > "He told me he had got it about 6 or 7 months before in Fort Worth..."
> >
> > > Fritz' testimony makes clear that Oswald didn't say this.
> >
> > How so?
>
>
> Moron, aren't you? If you'd bother to READ this post, you'd understand.

You posted testimony from Fritz that Oswald said this, and then you make the retarded claim that this supports the idea that Oswald didn`t say this. When I ask you how, you run.

> > > So it's simply not true that Oswald said he'd purchased the gun in Fort Worth. Indeed, he may have purchased A GUN while living in Fort worth. But let's check Fritz' notes:
> > >
> > > "Says bgt gun 7 mo Ft W. didn't know what place"
> > > http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=29103
> > >
> > > Again, supporting in this case, Fritz' testimony that Oswald wouldn't say where he got it.
> >
> > He didn`t name the exact place. According to Fritz he only said Fort Worth.
>
>
> You can run, "Bud," but you can't hide...

You are running from the point I made once more.

> > >Note that in Fritz' testimony, he says "he wouldn't tell me where he got it" - but in his notes, it was merely "didn't know what place".
> >
> > In either case Oswald did not specify the place. But according to Fritz he did specify the city.
>
>
> For what?

For where he bought the gun, stupid.

> > > But, let's double-check Fritz' memory... let's go to the FBI's written report on this interrogation, and see if they support the fact that Oswald did NOT state what Bugliosi claimed:
> > >
> > > Oswald stated that he purchased a pistol, which was taken off him by police officers November 22, 1963, about 6 months ago. He declined to state where he had purchased it.
> >
> > Oswald knew once the pistol was found to be mail ordered he would be tied to both the P.O. box and the Hidell name.
>
>
> Speculation isn't evidence.

But it does explain Oswald`s motivation for lying about not remembering where he purchased the gun.

> > > So everyone agrees that Oswald either "declined to state", "wouldn't say", or simply didn't know where he'd bought it. It was, after all, actually 10 months later... he may not truly have remembered where he got it.
> >
> > Fritz heard his say "Fort Worth".
>
>
> Sadly, you're too dishonest to admit that the evidence contradicts itself.

Fritz`s testimony and notes say the same thing, that Oswald said he purchased the gun in Fort Worth.

> > > And, as his brother Robert claims, Oswald had bought more than one pistol.
> > > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-calio/lee-harvey-oswalds-other-_b_4205681.html
> > >
> > > But it's an outright lie on Bugliosi's part to claim that Oswald had lied about where he purchased the pistol.
> >
> > You still don`t understand the meaning of the word "refutation". To refute Bugliosi`s argument you would have to show that Oswald really didn`t remember he bought the gun by mail order.
>
>
> No, *YOU* have to show that Oswald lied.

Shifting the burden. Your expressed purpose was to refute Bugliosi`s arguments. Despite your reluctance to even address his actual arguments you also consistently fail to refute them.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 1:27:25 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 12:45:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 8:54:11 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:30:48 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > Finally at the end - and David Von Pein has shown that these refutations are so powerful that he dared to answer only a few. Quite the coward, David... pretending to defend Bugliosi - but when it comes to a knowledgeable critic's refutation - David simply ran away.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > (53) Oswald told Fritz he had bought his .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver in Fort Worth, when he actually purchased it from a mail-order house in Los Angeles.
> > >
> > > Ben got up enough courage to address Bugliosi`s actual argument for once. I think it did it once before, two out of 53 isn`t bad for a retard.
> >
> >
> > Feel free to QUOTE the place where I didn't address Bugliosi's ACTUAL POINT.
>
> Yes, let me get into an argument with a retard about what he discerns Bugliosi`s ACTUAL POINTS to be.
>
> The fact is you should have been arguing against Bugliosi`s ACTUAL ARGUMENTS all along.
>
> > You won't be able to do it.

Yep... I predicted it...

[Bud]

Who are you to determine Bugliosi`s actual points?

[Ben Holmes]

Competent in reading... and honest.

Who are you to claim I've not answered his points, yet refuse to quote any examples?

[Bud]

<snicker>

> Who are you to claim I've not answered his points, yet refuse to quote any examples?

His points were supported by content you did not include.

[Jason Burke]

On 3/14/2017 7:30 AM, Ben Holmes wrote:
> Finally at the end - and David Von Pein has shown that these refutations are so powerful that he dared to answer only a few. Quite the coward, David.... pretending to defend Bugliosi - but when it comes to a knowledgeable critic's refutation - David simply ran away.

>
>
> (53) Oswald told Fritz he had bought his .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver in Fort Worth, when he actually purchased it from a mail-order house in Los Angeles.
>
> This is another one of those twisted tales... first let's look at Fritz' testimony:
>
> Mr. BALL. What about the pistol that he had on him when he was arrested, did you question him about that this morning?
> Mr. FRITZ. That morning?
> Mr. BALL. Your notes show that you did.
> Mr. FRITZ. Yes, sir; I talked to him about the pistol and asked him where he got it.
> Mr. BALL. What did he say?

> Mr. FRITZ. He told me he had got it about 6 or 7 months before in Fort Worth but he wouldn't tell me where he got it. When I asked him a little further about that he told me he didn't want to talk any further about the pistol..

> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm
>
> So how can declining to state where he purchased the gun be transformed, in Bugliosi's mind, to a definite statement that he purchased a gun in Fort Worth???
>
> Fritz' testimony makes clear that Oswald didn't say this. So it's simply not true that Oswald said he'd purchased the gun in Fort Worth. Indeed, he may have purchased A GUN while living in Fort worth. But let's check Fritz' notes:
>
> "Says bgt gun 7 mo Ft W. didn't know what place"
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=29103
>
> Again, supporting in this case, Fritz' testimony that Oswald wouldn't say where he got it. Note that in Fritz' testimony, he says "he wouldn't tell me where he got it" - but in his notes, it was merely "didn't know what place".
>
> But, let's double-check Fritz' memory... let's go to the FBI's written report on this interrogation, and see if they support the fact that Oswald did NOT state what Bugliosi claimed:
>
> Oswald stated that he purchased a pistol, which was taken off him by police officers November 22, 1963, about 6 months ago. He declined to state where he had purchased it.
>
> So everyone agrees that Oswald either "declined to state", "wouldn't say", or simply didn't know where he'd bought it. It was, after all, actually 10 months later... he may not truly have remembered where he got it.
>
> And, as his brother Robert claims, Oswald had bought more than one pistol.

> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-calio/lee-harvey-oswalds-other-_b_4205681..html

>
> But it's an outright lie on Bugliosi's part to claim that Oswald had lied about where he purchased the pistol.
>

Oh, goody! The retard finally made it to 53. Will he crawl back into his
mommy's basement now?

[Ben Holmes]

Ah! So the truth comes out... I *DID* address his points, just not the supporting evidence.

But that's not what you originally claimed.

So where's your retraction for your previous INCORRECT assertion?

Lied, didn't you?

[Bud]

I`ve already questioned your ability to discern what his actual points were several times, stupid, I don`t have to keep repeating it. I can make other criticisms as well.

And I have pointed out several cases where you didn`t address his actual argument, but addressed a strawman instead. And I`ve pointed this out the last time you challenged me to show where you didn`t address his actual arguments. I`m not going to keep going around and around on this.

[Ben Holmes]

On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 6:01:31 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 8:44:56 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 5:00:19 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 5:16:45 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 1:48:21 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 4:33:54 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 1:27:25 PM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 12:45:01 PM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 8:54:11 AM UTC-7, Bud wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 at 10:30:48 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Finally at the end - and David Von Pein has shown that these refutations are so powerful that he dared to answer only a few. Quite the coward, David... pretending to defend Bugliosi - but when it comes to a knowledgeable critic's refutation - David simply ran away.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > (53) Oswald told Fritz he had bought his .38 caliber Smith & Wesson revolver in Fort Worth, when he actually purchased it from a mail-order house in Los Angeles.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ben got up enough courage to address Bugliosi`s actual argument for once. I think it did it once before, two out of 53 isn`t bad for a retard.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Feel free to QUOTE the place where I didn't address Bugliosi's ACTUAL POINT.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, let me get into an argument with a retard about what he discerns Bugliosi`s ACTUAL POINTS to be.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The fact is you should have been arguing against Bugliosi`s ACTUAL ARGUMENTS all along.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You won't be able to do it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yep... I predicted it...
> > > > >
> > > > > Who are you to determine Bugliosi`s actual points?
> > > >
> > > > Competent in reading... and honest.
> > >
> > > <snicker>
> > >
> > > > Who are you to claim I've not answered his points, yet refuse to quote any examples?
> > >
> > > His points were supported by content you did not include.
> >
> > Ah! So the truth comes out... I *DID* address his points, just not the supporting evidence.
>

> I`ve already questioned your ability ...

Tut tut tut, "Bud," you've admitted that I've answered his points, yet didn't address his "evidence".

You've absolutely REFUSED to back up your own claim.

You lose!

[Bud]

No, retard, I contested your ability to discern his points. You can`t quote me saying that you answered his points.

[Ben Holmes]

> No, retard...

Lost again, eh "Bud?"

[Bud]

As a retard keeps score.

[Ben Holmes]

It's truly amusing to see how believers ran from my demonstration that Bugliosi's 53 bits of evidence was not even close to what Bugliosi claimed for it.

I suspect that you couldn't have convicted a man for spitting on the sidewalk with the "evidence" that Bugliosi was putting up.

You lose!

[Bud]

I see you`ve stopped claiming you`ve refuted them.

> I suspect that you couldn't have convicted a man for spitting on the sidewalk with the "evidence" that Bugliosi was putting up.

I suspect if there was film of Oswald shooting Kennedy you still wouldn`t be able to figure this crime out.

> You lose!

[Ben Holmes]

I see you've stopped admitting that you molest children.

[Bud]

You claim to see a lot of things that don`t exist in reality. But you did claim to be refuting Bugliosi.

[Ben Holmes]

[Bud]

I see you continue to claim to see things that have no basis in reality.

[Ben Holmes]

You mean you HAVEN'T stopped admitting that you molest children???

[Bud]

I mean you claim to see things that have no basis in reality.

[Ben Holmes]

Yep... you deny having stopped... my mistake.

[Bud]

Your mistake was claiming to see things that have no basis in reality.

[Ben Holmes]

> My mistake was claiming to have stopped molesting children.

So you didn't stop...

[Bud]

You haven`t stopped doing the scumbag thing of changing my words.

[Ben Holmes]

Well? Did you stop or not stop? People want to know! Particularly parents of children living near you.

And perhaps you'll remember this and think better about putting words in my mouth that I've never said.

Or not... you don't seem capable of learning from your errors...

[David Von Pein]

This 53rd item only shows the level of incredible desperation that has been reached by Ben Holmes in his non-stop (pathetic) efforts to try and knock down every one of Vince Bugliosi's 53 items.

And this one about where Oswald said he bought his revolver is particularly destined for Holmes' "Desperate Arguments" file, because the record couldn't be clearer that OSWALD HIMSELF told Captain Fritz that he (OSWALD) had purchased the gun IN FORT WORTH, TEXAS [see Page 606 of the Warren Report, plus the WC testimony of Captain J. Will Fritz at 4 H 230; linked below]....

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0315b.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0119b.htm

And we know that Oswald was telling a big fat LIE to Captain Fritz when he said he had purchased the revolver in Fort Worth. We all know that was a lie. And Oswald himself, of course, HAD to have known it was a lie as well when he was telling it. Which indicates a definite effort on Oswald's behalf to try and distance himself from even the revolver he used to kill Tippit, even though Oswald knows he was caught red-handed with that very same gun in his hands when he was arrested!

Oswald's blatant lie about where he bought the Tippit murder weapon is very powerful "consciousness of guilt" circumstantial evidence. Because if Oswald had been innocent of shooting anyone with that particular Smith & Wesson revolver, then logically he would have had *no reason whatsoever* to lie to the police about where he purchased that gun.

[David Von Pein]

ADDENDUM....

With respect to this comment made by Ben Holmes....

"And, as his brother Robert claims, Oswald had bought more than one pistol."

....I can only say that Robert Oswald's statements that he made to a reporter in 1993 about buying two handguns off of his brother, Lee, are certainly not consistent with the testimony that Robert gave to the Warren Commission in 1964 concerning the topic of Lee Oswald being in the possession of any firearms at various times throughout his life.

Now, perhaps Robert did, indeed, purchase a couple of pistols from his younger brother, Lee, at some point in time. That's always possible, I suppose. But if he had done so, I would think that that topic would have arisen when Robert was asked this question by the WC's Albert Jenner:

"Had, to your knowledge, Lee gone hunting or used firearms or played or been interested in firearms with you or with your brother?"

If Lee had, at ANY time during his youth, sold a couple of guns to his brother, then why would Robert Oswald have answered the above question in this manner (which is, indeed, the way he did answer it, at 1 H 295):

"No, sir. To my knowledge I don't remember any time he went hunting with myself or my older brother John. As I stated, there was no firearms in the house. He liked cap pistols, like any other kid. And to the extent that we didn't even own a BB gun."

1 H 295:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh1/html/WC_Vol1_0154a.htm

[Ben Holmes]

Tut tut tut, David...

Why did you refuse to quote my ACTUAL argument, then respond to it?

Why are you merely repeated statements I've already refuted without dealing with the refutations?

Why the cowardice, David?

[Ben Holmes]

Run David... RUN!!!

[Bud]

Please. You are trying to drive me off so you can claim victory. You are a scumbag, and this is how scumbags operate.

[Ben Holmes]

No, actually I've stated many times before, that when people pretend that I've said something that I've not said, that they should expect to get precisely the same treatment.

Now, PUBLICLY ADMIT that you lied about me when you claimed "I see you`ve stopped claiming you`ve refuted them."

Retract that lie, and I'll be happy to stop discussing your child molestation.

But I will *NOT* allow people to pretend I've said something I've never stated.

I *HAVE* refuted Vincent Bugliosi's claims... I HAVE **NEVER** stopped stating that simple truth.

And as long as you pretend I've said what I've never said, why are you embarrassed that I do the same thing to you?

[Bud]

I think I`ve characterized your motivations accurately.

> Now, PUBLICLY ADMIT that you lied about me when you claimed "I see you`ve stopped claiming you`ve refuted them."

This is the exchange...


YOU: "It's truly amusing to see how believers ran from my demonstration that Bugliosi's 53 bits of evidence was not even close to what Bugliosi claimed for it."

ME: "I see you`ve stopped claiming you`ve refuted them."

You started this series with the stated intention of refuting Bugliosi. Here, you moved the goalposts to showing that Bugliosi`s claims were "not even close", whatever that means. I pointed this out.

> Retract that lie, and I'll be happy to stop discussing your child molestation.

It doesn`t matter, most of what you "discuss" is imaginary anyway. You would need some sort of standing or credibility for me to worry about what you had to say. If anyone reading your nonsense and sees the stunts you pull would think you have either of those things I wouldn`t care about their opinions either.

> But I will *NOT* allow people to pretend I've said something I've never stated.

But you will be a scumbag who changes other posters words.

> I *HAVE* refuted Vincent Bugliosi's claims...

You can offer no definition of the word "refute" that could possibly apply to most of what you`ve offered here. You`ve questioned, you`ve criticized, but you haven`t refuted in almost all cases.

> I HAVE **NEVER** stopped stating that simple truth.
>
> And as long as you pretend I've said what I've never said, why are you embarrassed that I do the same thing to you?

You can`t pull my chain, Ben. You can`t even find it.

[Ben Holmes]

Then don't be surprised when I continue to "characterize" your perverse tendencies around children.

I will *NOT* allow people to put words in my mouth that I've never said without penalty.

[Bud]

All conspiracy retards are good for is fabricating lies.

> I will *NOT* allow people to put words in my mouth that I've never said without penalty.

But you *WILL* change other people words.