Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons - #9 - Refuted

[Ben Holmes]

(9) For the first time ever, Oswald didn't read the paper in the TSBD
domino room.

You have to go to the endnotes to find out where Bugliosi pulled this
"fact" from... here's the relevant testimony:

Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?
Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every
morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper,
the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read
Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he
didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that
morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.

Now, Bugliosi wants us to believe that because Givens didn't recall
Oswald reading a newspaper on a specific day 5 months earlier – that
he was guilty of murder.

But we KNOW FROM THE TESTIMONY that he was eating lunch. Bugliosi
wants to imply that Oswald was busy constructing the 'snipers lair' –
but he dare not assert it, because he KNOWS that there's testimony
putting Oswald downstairs eating lunch.

Let's now look at a statement from the FBI report of Griffin & Odum,
from 11/23/63: "On the morning of November 22, 1963, GIVENS observed
LEE reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat
lunch about 11:50 A.M." Despite what "Bud" says, this contemporary
"hearsay" trumps what Givens testified to months later.

Givens testifies that he saw Oswald at 11:55 on the 6th floor, and
never saw him again... technically true, he'd earlier reported seeing
Oswald 5 minutes EARLIER reading the paper.

I daresay that there were quite a few employees at that building that
never saw Oswald reading a newpaper that day... but not seeing Oswald
after 11:55 – and claiming therefore that he wasn't reading a
newspaper, is something only a Warren Commission believer can accept.

And another excellent example of presuming guilt, then taking any
action or speech to 'prove' that guilt.

And since "Bud" didn't read a newspaper recently, he's guilty of
murder. Who's the victim, "Bud?"

Lurkers - watch carefully as not a SINGLE believer will explain how
reading or not reading a newspaper has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with
someone being guilty of murder - a "lone assassin" at that... nor will
any believer have enough basic honesty to admit that Bugliosi simply
went over the edge on this one...

Davy Von Pein actually argues that not reading a newspaper is
"cumulative" evidence that Oswald is the sole assassin of our
President... WHAT A KOOK!

Even David Corbett cannot explain the logic for this one... perhaps
it's because *HE* recently admitted to not reading a newspaper.

And Huckster will simply either refuse to answer, or spatter dozens of
logical fallacies every which way to cover up the fact that *HE*
didn't read the newspaper either.

[John Corbett]

On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 10:54:56 AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
> (9) For the first time ever, Oswald didn't read the paper in the TSBD
> domino room.
>

Once again you give a brief description of Bugliosi's argument, failing to
provide the context. Bugliosi is making the case that on the morning of
11/22/63, Oswald deviated from his normal daily routine. By itself, that
is not evidence of guilt, but added to the overwhelming physical evidence
of Oswald's guilt, item 33-44 on Bugliosi's list, these help to paint a clear
picture that Oswald was doing something very out of the ordinary that
morning in preparation for what he planned to do during the lunch hour.
He hadn't filled a single order on his worksheet.

[Ben Holmes]

On Thu, 20 Apr 2023 08:14:59 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 10:54:56?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
>> (9) For the first time ever, Oswald didn't read the paper in the TSBD
>> domino room.

Once again, Corbutt simply deleted the majority of the post. So here
it is... back in:

>>(9) For the first time ever, Oswald didn't read the paper in the TSBD
>>domino room.
>>

>>You have to go to the endnotes to find out where Bugliosi pulled this
>>"fact" from... here's the relevant testimony:
>>
>>Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?
>>Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every
>>morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper,
>>the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read
>>Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he
>>didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that
>>morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.
>>
>>Now, Bugliosi wants us to believe that because Givens didn't recall
>>Oswald reading a newspaper on a specific day 5 months earlier – that
>>he was guilty of murder.

And Corbutt had **NOTHING* to say here... indeed, he simply deleted
it. He *couldn't* answer it.

Corbutt's a gutless coward.

>>But we KNOW FROM THE TESTIMONY that he was eating lunch. Bugliosi
>>wants to imply that Oswald was busy constructing the 'snipers lair' –
>>but he dare not assert it, because he KNOWS that there's testimony
>>putting Oswald downstairs eating lunch.
>>
>>Let's now look at a statement from the FBI report of Griffin & Odum,
>>from 11/23/63: "On the morning of November 22, 1963, GIVENS observed
>>LEE reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat
>>lunch about 11:50 A.M." Despite what "Bud" says, this contemporary
>>"hearsay" trumps what Givens testified to months later.

And again, Cobutt is so cowardly that he just can't face the truth. HE
HAS NOTHING TO SAY TO THE FACT THAT THE *EARLIEST* EVIDENCE SHOWS
OSWALD READING A NEWSPAPER!!!

And since Corbutt has admitted that he doesn't read a newspaper, we
know that according to Bugliosi, THE EVIDENCE FAR MORE SUPPORTS
CORBUTT AS A MURDERER THAN IT DOES OSWALD!!!

But Corbutt couldn't deal iwth this, so he merely deleted it, and
refused to respond.

>>Givens testifies that he saw Oswald at 11:55 on the 6th floor, and
>>never saw him again... technically true, he'd earlier reported seeing
>>Oswald 5 minutes EARLIER reading the paper.
>>
>>I daresay that there were quite a few employees at that building that
>>never saw Oswald reading a newpaper that day... but not seeing Oswald
>>after 11:55 – and claiming therefore that he wasn't reading a
>>newspaper, is something only a Warren Commission believer can accept.

And Corbutt has proven himself a loyal believer.

>>And another excellent example of presuming guilt, then taking any
>>action or speech to 'prove' that guilt.
>>
>>And since "Bud" didn't read a newspaper recently, he's guilty of
>>murder. Who's the victim, "Bud?"
>>
>>Lurkers - watch carefully as not a SINGLE believer will explain how
>>reading or not reading a newspaper has ANYTHING AT ALL to do with
>>someone being guilty of murder - a "lone assassin" at that... nor will
>>any believer have enough basic honesty to admit that Bugliosi simply
>>went over the edge on this one...

Corbutt has done his part to prove me right on this.

>>Davy Von Pein actually argues that not reading a newspaper is
>>"cumulative" evidence that Oswald is the sole assassin of our
>>President... WHAT A KOOK!
>>
>>Even David Corbett cannot explain the logic for this one... perhaps
>>it's because *HE* recently admitted to not reading a newspaper.

Notice that Corbutt ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to address this!

>>And Huckster will simply either refuse to answer, or spatter dozens of
>>logical fallacies every which way to cover up the fact that *HE*
>>didn't read the newspaper either.
>

>Once again you give a brief description of Bugliosi's argument

Once again, BT GEORGE summarized it - why are you caling BT George a
liar?

Here it is in full:

9. Every morning after arriving for work at the Book Depository
Building, Oswald would go to the domino room on the first floor of the
building and read the previous morning's edition of the Dallas Morning
News, which another employee had brought in. On the morning of the
assassination, for the first time, he did not do this.

Now, SHOW HOW THIS FULL VERSION IS **NOT** ADDRESSED BY MY ARGUMENTS
ABOVE THAT YOU SIMPLY RAN FROM!?

But you can't. So you **KNOW** that you're implied claims are
garbage. You're a coward and a liar.

>failing to provide the context. Bugliosi is making the case that on the morning of
>11/22/63, Oswald deviated from his normal daily routine.

As I proved in the statements you deleted, this is simply a lie. It
was a lie on the part of the Commission, it was a lie on the part of
Bugliosi, who knew better, AND IT'S A LIE ON YOUR PART, AS YOU
KNOWINGLY DELETED THE PROOF...

You can't support your lie, can you?

PROVE THAT BUGLIOSI WAS CORRECT - IT'S YOUR CASE, IT'S YOUR BURDEN.

But you won't... you can't.

> By itself, that is not evidence of guilt

Then Bugliosi simply lied? David Von Pein lied? Say it ain't so!

> but added to the overwhelming physical evidence
>of Oswald's guilt, item 33-44 on Bugliosi's list

Don't worry, we'll be getting to those in due course. So your attempts
to use items that YOU can't support, and that will be refuted in due
course, is quite stupid on your part.

I find it amusing that you've taken the time to look up this list -
SINCE I CITED WHERE IT CAME FROM IN THE VERY FIRST POST, despite your
outright lie that I didn't.

You've neither retracted that lie, nor apologized for it. You're
simply a gutless slime, aren't you?

And the next time you accuse BT George of not accurately summarizing
Bugliosi's arguments, you'd better step up to the plate, AND PROVE
YOUR POINT, or I'll simply delete it without comment.

> these help to paint a clear picture that Oswald was doing something
> very out of the ordinary that morning in preparation for what he
> planned to do during the lunch hour.

And the FACT that the earliest evidence shows that Oswald *WAS SEEN*
reading a newspaper then proves his innocence?

You lose.

> He hadn't filled a single order on his worksheet.

That's a lie you can't cite for... and won't.