(PART 18)


You're allowed to wonder "what if", but we [conspiracists] are kooks if we [do it], right? It is fun to show how lame bugman [Vincent Bugliosi] is.


Rob seems to actually think that Vincent Bugliosi wrote this simulated Q&A himself. (LOL.)

But, of course, Vince had nothing to do with it. He didn't write it. I did.
I merely used Vincent's name as the "prosecutor" in my mock courtroom
setting. (No better prosecutor to use, too, IMO.)

Oh, that's right....DVP is supposed to actually BE Vince B. this week.
I almost forgot who I was for a minute. Next week, I'll be Dale Myers.
That's kinda fun, too.

Anyway, back to my (DVP's) simulation --- the answers that Oswald
provides in my mock courtroom questioning are NOT based on
conjecture or speculation at all. Those answers are based on the lies
he positively told to the police after his arrest in November '63. Which
was pretty much the whole point for writing up my little "mock LHO
testimony" post in the first place (i.e., to place Oswald's many lies
into a "courtroom" setting, with a lawyer pounding away at him and
getting him to state such lies in front of a jury).

And those lies of Oswald's almost certainly WOULD have been told by
LHO at a real trial too (if Oz was stupid enough to actually take the
witness stand). Because, if he suddenly ADMITS on the witness stand
that he DOES own the rifle and that he DID take a bulky package into
work, and that he DID talk about 'curtain rods' to Wes Frazier, etc.,
then he's going to be found out to STILL be a liar, because of the
contradictory things he told the cops earlier, when he said just the
OPPOSITE and said he DIDN'T own a rifle and DIDN'T say anything about
'curtain rods', etc.

So, my "Oswald" answers to Bugliosi's simulated questions are not really
guesses at all. They are based on things that Oswald said to people (like
Buell Wesley Frazier and various police officers) in November of 1963.

David Von Pein
October 2007