(PART 20)


>>> "This guy [Vincent Bugliosi] smokes as much stuff as you do." <<<


That's curious....I thought I *WAS* him. (My identity crisis has reach
its zenith.)

~head swirling~

>>> "How was the gun linked to LHO?" <<<

You mean BESIDES the paper trail leading to LHO's P.O. Box in Dallas
and the palmprint and the backyard photos and the Walker shooting
(which involved a bullet that almost certainly came from C2766, and Oz
admitted he shot at Walker [via Marina's testimony]...and I kinda doubt
he used a spitwad-thrower to do the job on the retired General)?

Besides those little piddly items, I guess there's nothing. So, I
guess you're right. Oswald is in the clear.

>>> "It is claimed he ordered it via mail order." <<<

He did. But you, being in the "ABO" (Anybody But Oswald) Club, have to
reject that verified evidence. It MUST mean that some schnook named
"A.J. Hidell" (who happens to have Lee Harvey Oswald's exact same
handwriting) really ordered the rifle and shipped it to LHO's P.O. Box.

It's obvious, you dolt! Hidell did it!

>>> "No one ever saw him with the gun at anytime, period." <<<

It sure gets tiresome having to correct your stupid errors every day.
(Maybe Rob-Kook is a "CT Plant", placed here to make even the likes of
Walt [Cakebread] and Ben [Holmes] look good.)

Fact is -- Marina saw LHO dry-firing his rifle during the calendar
year of 1963. He covered the rifle with a raincoat, and would then sit
on the porch and practice working the bolt and dry-firing in the darkness
of night.

It's a wonder that Marina didn't take the baby and run for the hills
after putting up with some of the shit this kook named Lee did,
including, of course, several wife-beating sessions.

What a great guy.

>>> "The photos of him holding the gun have been proven by Scotland Yard to be fake." <<<


Scotland Yard is in the mix now, eh? Where did that fairy tale come
from? Care to show us?

>>> "The brother and sister tag team don't matter as they are the only two to see LHO with a package that day." <<<

Oh, I see. The fact that Wesley and Linnie Mae were "brother and
sister" somehow disqualifies them as reliable witnesses with respect
to being able to say for certainty whether or not they saw LHO with a
bulky package on November 22, 1963.

Nice made-up kook rule you've got there, I must say.

So, I guess if Donny & Marie had each seen Lee with the package,
they'd be disqualified too, huh?

It's also good to know that Linnie's and Wesley's testimony is
worthless...because that means I can now toss out their testimony
about the length of the bag. (Or is THAT part of their observations
still valid, Mr. Kook, because it supports your ABO position?)

>>> "How were the bullets linked to LHO?" <<<

Through Rifle #C2766 which fired them (a rifle owned by LHO).

Time for a "Duh" here.

>>> "They [the bullets] weren't, as they were linked to a gun that was never linked to LHO." <<<


>>> "You ever hear the term "frame up"? " <<<

When it comes to the JFK assassination case, that's the only term you
kooks have EVER heard of---

LHO was "framed" for the Walker shooting.
LHO was "framed" for the JFK shooting.
LHO was "framed" for the Tippit shooting.

Care to go for one more? Maybe Oz shot Medgar Evers too.

>>> "Why would LHO need a gun in the first place if he had one to shoot at General Walker?" <<<

Same gun, you stupid fool.

>>> "LNers can't have it both ways. If he [the Saint named Oswald] shot at Walker with a Springfield 30.6, where was that gun on 11/22/63?" <<<

Walker wasn't shot with a 30.06, you kook. The bullet taken out of
Walker's wall was a 6.5mm Carcano bullet, just like Oswald's

>>> "Secondly, he [Sweet LHO] could have purchased a gun at hundreds of places in Texas with cash and left no record." <<<

Shame on Lee for not living up to the standard "He Should Have Done It
This Way" requirements that the kooks demand.

Lee should have been shot for such stupidity. (Oh, yeah, he was.)

>>> "[Vince Bugliosi] forgets to tell the sucker, er, the reader that no fingerprints of LHO's were on the gun or bag he supposedly carried the gun into the TSBD with." <<<

You can't possibly be this ignorant of the basic facts, can you? Oswald's verified prints were located on BOTH the gun and the paper bag.

Two prints were on the bag, with one of them (a RIGHT-hand palmprint)
perfectly corroborating Wesley Frazier's testimony of how LHO carried
the bag (cupped in his RIGHT hand).

Next idiotic point please?.....

>>> "How does that happen?" <<<

It didn't. See above.

>>> "Flight from the murder scene? I love this one. He [the "patsy" for all Texas murders, circa 1963: Lee Harvey Oswald] could have simply left for the day. Like work was going to continue anyway." <<<

Yeah, who gives a damn about all of that chaotic activity going on
outside your workplace's front door at 12:33 when Oswald decides (on
his own) that there won't be any more work done that day, just three
measly MINUTES after the shooting that YOU say Lee Oswald knew nothing


>>> "Unprovable lies after he was arrested. How do you know this?" <<<

You meant to say "provable" lies, idiot.

And many of LHO's lies can easily be proven. But, being an ABO nutjob,
you couldn't see a Boeing 747 if it had just crashed through your

>>> "How does VB [Vincent Bugliosi] know this?" <<<

Mainly due to the fact he's not a conspiracy kook.

>>> "Neither one of you was there." <<<

And you were, of course.

>>> "I have laid out what happened." <<<

Stop the presses!! A kook has it all "laid out"!!

Only one problem with it -- you haven't a speck of evidence to support
a single thing you assert.

But that never stopped a kook, did it?

Embarrassment doesn't run in your family I see.

>>> "Show how we know the gun is his [Patsy Extraordinaire Oswald's]." <<<

He ordered it.
He paid for it.
His prints are on it. (And on the triggerguard too. But conspiracy nuts
like to ignore those prints, of course.)

>>> "A card with an alias that was the name used to order it. Please, a good lawyer would shred this." <<<

Even though it was in Oswald's handwriting, huh?

Did "Hidell" just happen to write exactly like Lee Oswald? Is that the
"Magic Coincidental Handwriting Theory"?

But, being a kook, I guess the testimony of the handwriting experts
who said that the order form for the rifle was written in Lee Oswald's
own handwriting is just another of the many pieces of official
evidence you kooks can simply ignore. Right?

>>> "Especially when he could subpeona the FBI/CIA for their employee records regarding LHO." <<<

No such records exist, Mr. Kook.

>>> "Wasn't he [Vince Bugliosi] part of the prosecution team in the RFK case?" <<<

No. Vincent got involved in the RFK thing in the mid-1970s. He
investigated the possibility that more than just Sirhan's gun was
involved in RFK's murder. (Based primarily, I think, on the number of
bullet holes in the doors and walls of the hotel's kitchen pantry.)

But I believe that Vince is now content with the idea that Sirhan
Sirhan acted alone.

Steve Barber, who first discovered the "crosstalk" on the Dictabelt
tape that the HSCA claimed proved a JFK conspiracy, has also done
extensive work on the RFK acoustics evidence too. And Steve's work has
established the fact that only one gun was used to murder Senator
Robert Kennedy in June 1968.

>>> "Like there was a doubt Manson would go to jail. Come on, he scared the shit out [of] every juror--it was a slam dunk." <<<

How can you call it a "slam dunk" when Manson himself never killed
anyone in August 1969? Seems to me that would be a very rough road to
hoe for Vince Bugliosi (or any prosecutor).

Sure, Manson scared some people with his crazy, whacked-out looks and
actions in the courtroom. But that's a far cry of PROVING he ordered

Vince did a brilliant job in that case. Of course, I'll admit, if it hadn't
been for Linda Kasabian making a deal with the L.A. DA's office, it might
have been a different story. Linda ratted out the killers (and Manson).

Plus: Just because Vince got convictions against the Tate-LaBianca
killers (Atkins, Van Houten, and Krenwinkel), that didn't mean the
jury had to ALSO convict Charles Manson of murder as well.

If the jury had any reasonable doubt about Manson ordering the
murders, they could have let Charlie off the hook, and he might still be
among the free to this day. But Bugliosi, thank goodness, was able to
convince the jury that Charlie was the Grand Master behind the killings.


>>> "He [Lee Oswald] didn't kill anyone either. Why doesn't VB use his experience in convicting Manson for conspiracy to commit murder in the LHO case?" <<<

Well...uh...maybe it has something to do with this little fact shown
below (in VB's own words):

"There was no plot, no conspiracy. JFK wasn't murdered by anti-Castro Cubans, the mob, or rogue CIA agents. In almost 40 years, there has not been one scintilla of proof tying the assassination to anyone but Oswald. There have been theories, but no evidence. Oswald had the motive, the opportunity, and the skill to kill President Kennedy. .... My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted alone." -- Vincent Bugliosi; circa 2001


"Though there are some notable exceptions, for the most part the persistent rantings of the Warren Commission critics remind me of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights." -- Vincent Bugliosi; 1986

>>> "...Because there is more money in defending the crazy official theory." <<<

There is? Is that why the number of pro-conspiracy books outnumbers
the pro-"LN" books by about a 10-to-1 margin (maybe more than that
even)? Because there's "more money in defending the crazy official

Sounds like "conspiracy" sells the most books to me.

David Von Pein
October 2007