Bug's 53
mnhay27
pointing to Oswald's guilt but as of yet I haven't heard him say what they
are. Can anyone fill me in?
Sammy, G.
Revisionist Regurgitated BULL.
Sammy, G.
"mnhay27" <mnh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1192298413....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200860
For several examples of "The VB 53", see (via link above):
"CHAPTER 15 (19 PAGES) -- "SUMMARY OF OSWALD'S GUILT"."
yeuhd
1. Oswald had Wesley Frazier drive him to the Paine residence in Irving on
a Thursday, the day before the assassination, where he kept his rifle. He
had never visited on a weekday. Previously, Oswald had always visited on
Fridays through Mondays.
2. Oswald's told Frazier he was going to Irving to get curtain rods, but
his rooming house room already had them, and he said nothing about curtain
rods to his landlady or housekeeper, or to anyone at the Paine home.
3. Oswald told Wesley Frazier on Nov. 21 that he would not be needing a
ride to Irving on the afternoon of Friday, Nov. 22.
4. Oswald, who had an abiding interest in politics and read the newspaper
regularly, ignored Marina's attempt to talk about Kennedy's visit the next
day.
5. When Oswald left the Paine home on Nov. 22, he left his wedding ring
and and $170 for Marina.
6. Oswald placed a long, bulky package in Wesley Frazier's car on the
morning of Nov. 22.
7. Frazier noticed that for the first time, Oswald did not bring a lunch
with him on Nov. 22.
8. Oswald picked up the package from the back seat, and for the first time
ever, quickly walked far ahead of Frazier to the TSBD. Previously, they
had always walked from the parking lot together.
9. Every morning, Oswald would enter the TSBD and read the local newspaper
in the first floor break room. On Nov. 22, he did not.
10. Despite JFK's visit receiving wide publicity in Dallas, Oswald, who
read the newspapers regularly, pretended ignorance on why people were
gathering outside the TSBD.
11. Howard Brennan, sitting 120 feet across the street, saw Oswald shoot
the final shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD.
12. Oswald's rifle was found on the 6th floor, and three empty cartridges
fired from the rifle were found below the window where Brennan saw Oswald.
13. Oswald claimed on Nov. 22 that he spent his lunch in the first floor
break room, then on Nov. 24 switched his alibi and said he was working on
the 6th floor at the time of the assassination.
14. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting and the ensuing chaos,
Oswald's reaction was to get a soda.
15. Oswald appears to have been the only TSBD with no interest in watching
the motorcade from either outside or from a window inside; neither of his
alibis had him watching it. And in the immediate aftermath of the
shootings, he showed no interest in what just happened, and spoke with no
one about it.
16. Oswald and Charles Givens were the only TSBD employees not present in
a roll call after the assassination; Givens was located shortly
thereafter.
17. Oswald could have boarded the bus to his rooming house just across the
street from the TSBD, as he did every day; instead he walked seven blocks
east to catch a bus that was headed to pass the TSBD anyway, demonstrating
flight from the scene of a crime.
18. When the bus got caught in traffic, Oswald got off, again
demonstrating flight.
19. On a cab ride to his rooming house, Oswald said nothing in response to
the driver's question about what all the sirens and police vehicles were
about.
20. Instead of having the cab drop him off at his residence, Oswald had
the cab pass his residence, and let him off several blocks south. Since we
know the rooming house was his destination, this showed an attempt to
prevent the driver from knowing where he lived.
mnhay27
Thank you for your help. Certainly nothing new there. I won't bother
parting with my cash.
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/82c732a45723ceae
>>> "Certainly nothing new there {amongst the first 20 of Vincent
Bugliosi's "53 pieces of evidence" that prove Oswald's guilt}. I won't
bother parting with my cash." <<<
And if it's not brand "new", it's not good enough evidence against
Oswald...is that it?
Did you expect the #1 item on VB's list to say: "OSWALD CONFESSED TO
FRITZ! AND ONLY I (VINCE BUGLIOSI) HAVE THIS INFORMATION!" ??
Actually, in a way, Vince DOES kind of think Oswald DID confess....via the
many, many lies that came from Oswald's own lips. And Vince told the jury
just that at the 1986 Mock Trial too. Here's an excerpt.....
"When he was interrogated, Oswald, from his own lips, he TOLD us he
was guilty....he told us he was guilty....almost the same as if he had
said 'I murdered President Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell us?
Well, the lies he told, one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE
consciousness of guilt.
"If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny
purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why did
he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary to do
that if he's innocent?
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing
to do with President Kennedy's assassination and was framed....this
otherwise independent and defiant would-be revolutionary, who disliked
taking orders from anyone, turned out to be the most willing and
cooperative frame-ee in the history of mankind!! Because the evidence of
his guilt is so monumental, that he could have just as well gone around
with a large sign on his back declaring in bold letters 'I Just Murdered
President John F. Kennedy'!!!" -- Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq.; July 1986;
Via TV Docu- Trial ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"); c.1986, LWT
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9ccd8645d5da3d91
Back to Bugliosi's "53 Pieces Of Evidence"........
Among the "VB 53", I can think of only ONE item that really doesn't belong
there (and even THAT item has an asterisk beside my explanation of why I
think that)....that item being the paraffin test.
FROM MY "RECLAIMING HISTORY" BOOK REVIEW:
=======================================
DVP: In {the "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt"} chapter, Vincent Bugliosi
lists every one of his "53 pieces of evidence" that point toward Lee
Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination. The only item on Vince's
list that I think really doesn't belong there is #41, where VB talks about
the results of the paraffin test on Oswald's hands being positive.
In my opinion, it was a mistake for Vince to have placed that
particular item on his list because he knows that paraffin tests are not
considered very reliable. And VB even discusses the unreliability of such
tests on page 164 of this book.
However, in VB's defense of including the paraffin test results on
his 53-item list, I'd like to add this .... While it is, indeed, true that
paraffin tests are inherently unreliable (since the presence of nitrates
on a person's hands can be caused by various other things besides just
gunpowder residue) -- I'd also ask this question with respect to Lee
Oswald's "positive" paraffin results in this case:
What do you suppose the odds are of something OTHER than gunpowder
residue causing that "positive" result in his paraffin test when we also
know that Lee Oswald was CARRYING A GUN ON HIM when he was apprehended in
the Texas Theater on November 22nd, 1963?
I'd say, given these circumstances (plus the fact that the very gun
Oswald had on him when he was arrested was determined beyond all doubt to
be the weapon that killed Officer J.D. Tippit), the odds would be pretty
doggone low that something other than gunpowder resulted in that positive
paraffin conclusion.
I think Vince Bugliosi should have probably included the above "What
are the odds?" argument as an addendum to his 41st item on page 965, but
he did not include any such addendum.
But other than that one quibble I have with #41, VB's large list is
excellent, with several "powerful new inferences" (as Bugliosi would say)
emerging along the way.
Here's a sampling of some of the things listed on "The VB 53":
>>> "Before Oswald got into Frazier's car that Friday morning, the day of
the assassination, he placed a long, bulky package on the rear seat,
telling Frazier it contained...curtain rods." -- VB; Page 956 <<<
------------------
>>> "During Sunday's interrogation Oswald slipped up and placed himself on
the sixth floor at the time of the assassination. .... In his
Sunday-morning interrogation he said that at lunchtime, one of the "Negro"
employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he declined. .... He said
before he could finish whatever he was doing, the commotion surrounding
the assassination took place and when he "WENT DOWNSTAIRS," a policeman
questioned him as to his identification, and his boss stated that he was
one of their employees. .... WHERE WAS OSWALD AT THE TIME THE NEGRO
EMPLOYEE INVITED HIM TO LUNCH, AND BEFORE HE DESCENDED TO THE SECOND-FLOOR
LUNCHROOM? {Answer:} The sixth floor." [All emphasis Bugliosi's.] -- VB;
Page 957 <<<
------------------
>>> "There is another very powerful reason why we can know that Oswald, at
the time of his confrontation with Baker in the second-floor lunchroom,
had just come down from the sixth floor, not up from the first floor, as
he claimed. .... Indeed there was a Coca-Cola machine in the {second-floor
lunch} room. But to my knowledge, there is no direct reference in the
assassination literature to a SECOND soft drink machine in the Book
Depository Building. .... Neither Williams nor Frazier expressly said what
floor this machine was on. .... Through a few phone calls I was able to
reach Wesley Frazier, whom I hadn't talked to since 1986, when he
testified for me at the London trial. Still living in Dallas, he told me
that "there was a Dr. Pepper machine on the first floor." Where,
specifically, was it? "It was located by the double freight elevator near
the back of the building." .... And indeed, I subsequently found proof of
the existence of the machine, with the words "Dr. Pepper"!
near the top front of it, in an FBI photo taken for the Warren
Commission of the northwest corner of the first floor, and it is located
right next to the refrigerator. .... So we see that apart from all the
conclusive evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy from the sniper's nest, and
therefore HAD to have descended from there to the second floor, his story
about going UP to the second floor to get a Coke doesn't even make sense.
Why go up to the second floor to get a drink for your lunch when there's a
soft drink machine on the first floor, the floor you say you are already
on, particularly when the apparent drink of your choice {Dr. Pepper by all
accounts} is on this first floor, not the second floor?" -- VB; Pages
957-958 <<<
------------------
DVP: Via a source note Vince provides, I located the WC photo in
question....and sure enough, there's the forgotten-about Dr. Pepper
machine, in "Warren Commission Document CD496; Photo 7". Here's a direct
link to that photograph:
www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10896&relPageId=12
------------------
>>> "There is yet another reason why Oswald's statement that he was on the
first floor eating lunch at the time of the shooting makes no sense at
all. If he had been, once he heard the shots and the screaming and all the
commotion outside, if he were innocent, what is the likelihood that he
would have proceeded to go, as he claims, up to the second floor to get
himself a Coke? How could any sensible person believe a story like that?"
-- VB; Page 958 <<<
------------------
DVP: This is yet another very good common-sense inference made by VB
here. In fact, even from the point-of-view of Oswald being merely a
"patsy" (as he is portrayed in Oliver Stone's 1991 movie), i.e., he knows
SOMETHING about the assassination plot but Oswald, himself, wasn't one of
the triggermen, his story about going UP to the second floor (a floor
NEARER THE DEPOSITORY ASSASSIN) to get a drink at that critical time is
totally unbelievable. Oswald was obviously telling a lie when he told the
police he went UP to get a Coke.
------------------
>>> "Forty-five minutes after the shooting in Dealey Plaza, out of the
close to three-quarters of a million or so people in Dallas, Lee Harvey
Oswald is the one who just happened to murder Dallas police officer J.D.
Tippit. .... For all intents and purposes there were...ten witnesses who
identified Oswald as the murderer {including the several witnesses who
watched Oswald flee the Tippit murder scene, gun in hand}." -- VB; Pages
960-961 <<<
------------------
>>> "No one knew Oswald as well as his wife, Marina. .... Marina told
{author Priscilla} McMillan that when she visited her husband in jail on
the day after the assassination, she came away knowing he was guilty. ....
She said she knew that had he been innocent, he would have been screaming
to high heaven for his "rights," claiming he had been mistreated and
demanding to see officials at the very highest levels." -- VB; Page 962
<<<
------------------
>>> "In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one
of them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both
Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we
talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or
trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- VB; Page 964 <<<
------------------
>>> "When he {Oswald} was asked {by police} to furnish all of his previous
residences since his return from Russia...he gave all of them...with one
notable exception. He omitted any reference to the Neely residence, the
residence, of course, where he knew his wife had photographed him with the
murder weapon in the backyard. .... Oswald flat-out denied ever living
there." -- VB; Page 966 <<<
------------------
>>> "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." -- VB; Page 966 <<<
------------------
DVP: Yes, indeed. Even though Oswald was caught red-handed with the
Tippit murder weapon ON HIM in the Texas Theater, he still felt the need
to distance himself from the revolver he used to kill Officer Tippit (just
as he had done by continuously trying to distance himself from the
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle he had used to assassinate President Kennedy).
Lee Harvey Oswald's lies were almost non-stop from the moment he was
arrested in the theater on November 22, 1963. If you want to see just how
many more lies Oswald told, check out my essay below:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/beb8390c3526124d
------------------
>>> "I can tell the readers of this book that if anyone in the future
maintains to them that Oswald was just a patsy and did not kill Kennedy,
that person is either unaware of the evidence against Oswald or simply a
very silly person. .... Any denial of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of
serious discussion." -- VB; Page 969 <<<
==============================================
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showpost.php?p=3200858
yeuhd
verbatim.
Anthony Marsh
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/82c732a45723ceae
>
>
>>>> "Certainly nothing new there {amongst the first 20 of Vincent
> Bugliosi's "53 pieces of evidence" that prove Oswald's guilt}. I won't
> bother parting with my cash." <<<
>
>
> And if it's not brand "new", it's not good enough evidence against
> Oswald...is that it?
>
> Did you expect the #1 item on VB's list to say: "OSWALD CONFESSED TO
> FRITZ! AND ONLY I (VINCE BUGLIOSI) HAVE THIS INFORMATION!" ??
>
> Actually, in a way, Vince DOES kind of think Oswald DID confess....via the
> many, many lies that came from Oswald's own lips. And Vince told the jury
> just that at the 1986 Mock Trial too. Here's an excerpt.....
>
> "When he was interrogated, Oswald, from his own lips, he TOLD us he
> was guilty....he told us he was guilty....almost the same as if he had
> said 'I murdered President Kennedy'....he told us. How did he tell us?
> Well, the lies he told, one after another, showed an UNMISTAKABLE
> consciousness of guilt.
>
> "If Oswald were innocent, why did he find it necessary to deny
> purchasing that Carcano rifle from the Klein's store in Chicago? Why did
> he even deny owning any rifle at all? Why did he find it necessary to do
> that if he's innocent?
>
Because he had used that rifle to try to assassinate General Walker.
> "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing
> to do with President Kennedy's assassination and was framed....this
> otherwise independent and defiant would-be revolutionary, who disliked
> taking orders from anyone, turned out to be the most willing and
> cooperative frame-ee in the history of mankind!! Because the evidence of
> his guilt is so monumental, that he could have just as well gone around
> with a large sign on his back declaring in bold letters 'I Just Murdered
> President John F. Kennedy'!!!" -- Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq.; July 1986;
> Via TV Docu- Trial ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"); c.1986, LWT
>
If Oswald was really guilty, why would the government need to lie about
all the evidence?