CONSPIRACY THEORIST ROB CAPRIO SAID:
>>> "Of course, I can't state with 100% certainty that no evidence was handled properly, now can I?" <<<
LONE-ASSASSIN ADVOCATE DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But, being a rabid "ABO" [Anybody But Oswald] kook, you have no
problem at all with calling a bunch of people liars and evidence-planters
and strong-armers without a single shred of proof to support your
accusations. Right, kook?
And the extra helpings of "Good riddance" from your pathetic e-lips
when referring to David Belin, Richard Nixon, and Gerald Ford were a
very nice Kook Touch.
Does Jackie go into your disgusting "Good riddance" pile too? How
about Robert Kennedy? Earl Warren? (I'm sure Earl is worthy of a
"Good riddance" from a miserable kook like you, huh?)
Pathetic.
>>> "Along with witness testimony that shows they remember or heard or saw things very differently than what is presented." <<<
Like Jean Hill maybe? On November 22, she said she hadn't seen anybody
firing any weapons. But years later, her memory suddenly improves
greatly, to the point where she actually sees with her own eyes a
gunman firing shots from the Knoll, which is something that she
specifically denied having seen on the day of the assassination.
I'd be willing to bet, though, that you kind of like Jean Hill's later
account of the shooting better than her November 22 account.
Any takers?
>>> "Why is Fritz moving the shells around before the photo is taken?" <<<
There's no proof he did any such thing. Show me the Alyea Film which
shows Fritz moving the shells before they were photographed.
You, of course, can't show me that film, can you?
>>> "There is ample proof there [were] very poor crime-scene procedures in the TSBD that day." <<<
Actually, the DPD did very well. They collected the majority of the
evidence that proves beyond any and all doubt that every kook's
favorite "patsy" was really a double-murderer after all.
Not a bad day's work, if you ask me.
However, I wish the DPD hadn't decided to remove that police car from
the basement garage at the exact time it was moved on Sunday morning,
November 24th (which resulted in a DPD officer stepping into [or very near]
the street to block traffic, which gave Jack Ruby a perfect opening to slip
into the basement unnoticed).
Other than that (unintentional) goof, and the stupid way that Fritz
and Curry and Wade were blabbing all kinds of details about Oswald's
guilt being "cinched", etc., to the live TV audience before Oswald was
killed, I'd say that the DPD did a good job in November 1963.
>>> "Also, there is a nice photo of a cop with a bucket cleaning the limo out during its time at Parkland! What is this?" <<<
I've already discussed this with you, 60% of the way through
this October 2007 post.
>>> "The car was rushed to Detroit to be fixed, why?" <<<
It wasn't "rushed". That's Conspiracy Myth #409. .....
"The [Presidential] limousine was not, as the buffs allege without any supporting authority, immediately rebuilt. The rebuilding of the car did not commence until over a year later in Detroit." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 1276 of "Reclaiming History"
>>> "John Connally's clothes were laundered, why?" <<<
Blood stains maybe? Lint? Or maybe some fuzzballs building up on them?
And you're going to have to call Nellie Connally a prime conspirator if
you want to go down this stupid path any further.
>>> "X-rays and photos of the body are different from the ones the people taking them remember, why?" <<<
Simple. Memories of human beings are not perfect. Never were. Never
will be.
And you're going to have to go down the "Autopsy Pictures And X-rays
Are Fakes" road if you go much further here.
Is that a road you really want to travel down?
Silly question. OF COURSE Robby wants to go down that avenue. Because
he can't trust ANYTHING uttered by anyone in Officialdom, like these
words spoken by the HSCA's photo panel:
"The experts concluded that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were authentic and unaltered, confirming the observations of the autopsy personnel and providing additional support for the conclusions of the medical consultants." -- HSCA Volume VII
>>> "The palm print on the gun is a joke and even Liebeler said as much." <<<
Quote Wesley Liebeler saying the Oswald palmprint match is a "joke".
Can you do that?
Anyway, regardless of what Mr. Liebeler may or may not have said in
this regard, that print is positively a palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald
that was lifted off the barrel of Rifle #C2766 by Lt. J.C. Day of the
DPD on 11/22/63, without a sliver of a doubt. .....
LT. J.C. DAY -- "On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun."
DAVID W. BELIN -- "Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?"
Mr. DAY -- "This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood."
Mr. BELIN -- "Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?"
Mr. DAY -- "It has the name "J. C. Day" and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing [plus] "off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766"."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/day1.htm
>>> "I could go on forever, but why bother? You stopped reading in the first sentence probably." <<<
Your record's still intact. You haven't gotten a thing right yet. But,
then again, a .000 batting average is very easy to achieve when you're
a charter member of the "Anybody But Oswald" and "All Evidence Is
Fake" clubs.
You're not likely to get a base hit all season. And that's even below
the dreaded Mendoza Line.
>>> "[Those non-Poe bullet shells found by Virginia Davis and Barbara Davis] were from an automatic gun, not LHO's." <<<
You're a fucking evidence-skewing idiot. Those are the two "DAVIS"
shells, and I've never heard a single CTer (not even a Mega-Kook) ever
complain about those two shells having a broken chain of custody.
They went from the Davis girls straight to the DPD and were
appropriately marked. And those two spent cartridge cases were
positively ejected from the Smith & Wesson revolver that was taken off
of Lee Oswald in the Texas Theater.
There's not a speck of wiggle room for the conspiracy nuts of the world
with respect to those two bullet shells.
But, being the freaking moron you are, you'll just pretend that those
two shells found by the Davis girls in their own yard were "from an
automatic gun".
I wonder what proof Robby has to back up that bold assertion?
Answer -- None.
>>> "[The three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest were] From a Carcano, but never proven they were from the C2766." <<<
100% wrong, as per usual. (Is it POSSIBLE to be wrong so often about
very important matters surrounding this case? Well, I guess it is.
Because Rob Caprio is alive and kicking, and spewing kookshit by the ton.)
All three rifle shells found beneath the sixth-floor sniper's window were
traced directly and undeniably to Oswald's MC rifle "to the exclusion".
Check out the testimony of Robert Frazier, Cortlandt Cunningham, and/
or Joseph Nicol for verification of this obvious and easy-to-confirm
fact.
The next thing I expect to hear from Robert is that Marguerite Oswald
was an "Imposter LHO Mother". Robby seems to love John Armstrong's
"Double Oswald" nonsense to a great degree, so I wouldn't be surprised
if something like that did come out of his mouth soon.
>>> "[Rifle C2766] was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt to even belong to LHO. .... You have no real, hard evidence LHO ordered it or ever owned it." <<<
Only if I want to completely ignore the paper trail of evidence that
shows that LHO ordered and paid for Rifle C2766. Not to mention the
multiple LHO prints found on the gun....the palmprint and the two
fingerprints on the trigger guard.
But, quite naturally, all CT-Kooks like Rob MUST ignore all of that
evidence. It's part of the incurable disease they are saddled with.
>>> "[Oswald's] revolver was a special and it caused the casings to bulge in the middle when fired and none of the casings supposedly tying this gun to LHO had this bulge." <<<
~sigh~
Conspiracy Myth #968 is still being adhered to religiously by Robby boy.
Typical.
It doesn't matter to Rob that Oswald's .38 was conclusively and
irrevocably tied to the four bullet shells found by witnesses on Tenth
Street.
Therefore -- REGARDLESS OF LATER TESTS SHOWING ANY "BULGES" ON THE
CASINGS, Lee Oswald's .38 revolver was positively the revolver that
ejected those four spent bullet shells on Tenth Street on November
22nd, 1963.
>>> "The bullets and fragments from J.D. Tippit do not match this gun either." <<<
Means nothing. The bullets were badly mangled, prohibiting a positive
ballistics match to ANY gun. Except, of course, for Joe Nicol's
positive match that he made on one of the four Tippit bullets.
Naturally, conspiracy-happy kooks would rather ignore that testimony
provided by Nicol. It's just too "official" I guess, even though it
comes from the ONLY NON-GOVERNMENT/INDEPENDENT firearms expert
who examined the bullets for the Warren Commission.
But the kooks probably think Nicol was given a bagful of money to tell
a bunch of lies to the Commission.
>>> "It [LHO's revolver] was said to have a bent firing pin." <<<
Who cares? The gun was certainly in working order when four bullets
came out of it while being aimed at Officer J.D. Tippit.
But you probably ought to stick to the "bent firing pin" crappola.
It'll serve your "Anybody But Oswald" needs much better if you do.
>>> "The man who helped "trace" it to LHO died rather quickly in short order after the assassination." <<<
Goodie, goodie!! A "mystery death" added to Robby's post! A kook's
post wouldn't be complete without one of those!
>>> "They [the two bullet fragments found in the front seat of the Presidential limousine] are from a 6.5mm round and there are millions of them out there. Can't be linked to C2766." <<<
Via the above idiocy, your status has just been bumped up to "Super-
Duper Mega-Moron".
You actually have the audacity to pass yourself off as a pretty fair
expert on the evidence surrounding the JFK assassination, and yet you
gush forth such obviously inaccurate statements like this (when
referring to CE567 and CE569, the two bullet fragments discovered in
the limousine) -- "CAN'T BE LINKED TO C2766".
Only one word is truly appropriate here in response -- Bullshit!
CE567/569 were positively linked to Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle "to
the exclusion" of every other rifle on Planet Earth. You should cower
with embarrassment at suggesting otherwise. (But you won't, will
you?) .....
JOHN J. McCLOY -- "As a result of all these comparisons, you would say that the evidence is indisputable that the three shells that were identified by you were fired from that rifle?"
ROBERT FRAZIER (FBI) -- "Yes, sir."
Mr. McCLOY -- "And you would say the same thing of Commission Exhibit 399, the bullet 399 was fired from that rifle?"
Mr. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."
Mr. McCLOY -- "And the fragment 567---"
Mr. FRAZIER -- "567, the one we have just finished."
Mr. McCLOY -- "Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?"
Mr. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."
Mr. McCLOY -- "You have no doubt about any of those?"
Mr. FRAZIER -- "None whatsoever."
~~~~~
MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Mr. Chairman, may I have this bullet fragment marked Q-3 admitted as Commission 569? .... Mr. Frazier, did you examine this bullet fragment with a view to determining whether it had been fired from the rifle, Exhibit 139?"
Mr. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."
Mr. EISENBERG -- "What was your conclusion?"
Mr. FRAZIER -- "This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569, was fired from this particular rifle, 139."
Mr. EISENBERG -- "Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?"
Mr. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0141b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0142a.htm
>>> "You have no fingerprints [of Oswald's on Rifle C2766], and even if there were some, it doesn't prove he fired it that day, just at some time." <<<
Apart from the obvious lie (or just plain ignorance, it's sometimes
hard to tell which applies when speaking to this idiot named Rob)
regarding "no fingerprints" of Oswald's on the Carcano rifle (which is
dead wrong, of course), there's also a more elementary and garden-
variety type of question that probably should be asked whenever this
topic of Oswald and his rifle comes up.
And that garden-variety question is:
At ANY given point in time after Lee Oswald acquired his Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle via mail-order in March 1963, WHO IS MORE LIKELY to have
used it -- on ANY day, including November 22, 1963 -- than its owner,
LEE HARVEY OSWALD?
While it's certainly true that the above question doesn't really
"prove" anything, I still think it's a reasonable question that needs
to be asked of CTers once in a while, just in a basic "What Are The
Odds?" manner.
For, if rifle-owner OSWALD didn't use OSWALD'S own rifle on November
22nd, then WHO DID use OSWALD'S VERY OWN RIFLE to fire bullets from it
at John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza?
On the basis of OWNERSHIP ALONE, Lee Harvey Oswald is very, very
likely to have been the man squeezing the trigger of Rifle C2766 on
November 22 (or any other day of the year).
If conspiracy theorists think it's MORE likely for Malcolm Wallace (or
anyone else) to have been up on that sixth floor using Oswald's gun
on 11/22/63, they've got a huge hurdle to overcome. And that hurdle
is -- NOBODY OWNED THAT RIFLE EXCEPT FOR LEE HARVEY OSWALD.
>>> "His [Dr. Vincent P. Guinn's] work has been shown to be very faulty. It is not all his fault, as members of the panel were only given "evidence" in segmented format, meaning they weren't getting the whole picture. This was done by the HSCA to manipulate the results they wanted." <<<
The mega-kook named Rob actually seems to think (via the above
parameters he spelled out) that the HSCA DIDN'T want to find a
"conspiracy".
That's a howl, because the HSCA was desperate to find a
conspiracy....and ANY conspiracy theory would do, it seems. And that's
why the silly and since-destroyed "4th Shot Heard On The Dictabelt
Recording" conclusion was arrived at by the House Select Committee at
the 11th hour in late 1978.
But AT THE SAME TIME, we're still left with the other (logical and
accurate) parts of the HSCA's conclusions, which were:
LEE HARVEY OSWALD FIRED THE ONLY BULLETS THAT STRUCK THE TWO VICTIMS
ON 11/22/63 IN DEALEY PLAZA. AND THOSE BULLETS WERE FIRED FROM
MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE #C2766.
>>> "When you are talking about ballistics, there is no such thing as "similar" or "very likely"; it either matches or it doesn't." <<<
Bullshit.
Many times, the general characteristics or composition of bullet lead
can be said to be "similar" or "consistent with" a comparison bullet,
even if the fragment being examined has been badly damaged.
Robert Frazier of the FBI provided just exactly that kind of non-
exacting testimony for the Warren Commission. He testified in such a
manner on multiple occasions, in fact.
With respect to CE842 (a small bullet fragment taken out of Governor
Connally's wrist), we find this testimony given by the FBI's Bob
Frazier:
ARLEN SPECTER -- "Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9 for FBI record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842, will you describe that fragment for us, please?"
ROBERT FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; this is a small fragment of metal which weighed one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory. It is a piece of lead, and could have been a part of a bullet or a core of a bullet. However, it lacks any physical characteristics which would permit stating whether or not it actually originated from a bullet."
Mr. SPECTER -- "Are its physical characteristics consistent with having come from Commission Exhibit 399?"
Mr. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; it could have."
=========
And we also have Frazier testifying in the following fashion with respect
to the small amount of lead residue that was scraped off of the limousine's
windshield:
Mr. SPECTER -- "Was a comparison made of the lead residues on the inside of the windshield with any of the bullet fragments recovered about which you have heretofore testified?"
Mr. FRAZIER -- "Yes. They were compared with the bullet fragment found on the front seat, which in turn was compared with Commission 399. The lead was found to be similar in composition."
=========
By the way.....
As an addendum to the first Frazier WC excerpt above (regarding CE842,
the Connally wrist fragment), it's worth highlighting this part of Frazier's
testimony once more:
"This is a small fragment of metal which weighed one-half a grain when I first examined it in the laboratory."
The key words there being "one-half a grain", which means that almost
TWO FULL ADDITIONAL GRAINS could have been recovered from the bodies
of both John Connally and John Kennedy and still not have TOO MUCH
BULLET LEAD found in the victims to eliminate CE399 as a candidate for
having caused the injuries to both Connally and Kennedy.
Before it was fired through Oswald's Carcano, Bullet CE399 weighed
approximately 161 grains (which was said by ballistics experts,
including Robert Frazier [see testimony below], to be the average
weight of an unfired MC bullet from two of the four lots of MC bullets
manufactured by the Western Cartridge Company that were used by Lee
Oswald in his own rifle in 1963):
MEL EISENBERG -- "Mr. Frazier, did you determine the weight of the exhibit-that is, 399?"
Mr. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir. Exhibit 399 weighs 158.6 grains."
Mr. EISENBERG -- "How much weight loss does that show from the original bullet weight?"
Mr. FRAZIER -- "We measured several standard bullets, and their weights varied, which is a normal situation, a portion of a grain, or two grains, from 161 grains--that is, they were all in the vicinity of 161 grains. One weighed 160.85, 161.5, 161.1 grains."
=========
In addition, Dr. John Lattimer, during his extensive assassination
experiments and tests in the 1970s, weighed 100 unfired MC/WCC bullets
from all four sub-lots used by Oswald (Lot Nos. 6000 through 6003).
Lattimer's data was almost identical with the FBI's from 1963-1964,
with Lattimer's 100 WCC test bullets ranging in weight from 159.80 to
161.50 grains, for a "median" weight of 160.80 grains. [Source: Dr.
Lattimer's 1980 book "Kennedy And Lincoln"; Pg. 287.]
The above testimony from Frazier, when coupled with his other
testimony about the Connally wrist fragment weighing only "one-half a
grain", indicates that close to 2 more full grains of metal could have
been discovered in the victims and still not exceed the approx. weight
of Bullet CE399 prior to its being fired from Rifle C2766. (As Frazier
mentioned in his above testimony, CE399 weighed exactly 158.6 grains
after it was found on a Parkland stretcher on November 22.)
And as far as I know, CE842 represents the LARGEST fragment among the
"2 or 3" (per Dr. Charles Gregory [6 H 98]) metallic fragments that were
removed from Connally's right wrist. The ONE single tiny fragment left
inside Governor Connally's left thigh wound was microscopic in size. And
there were zero pieces of metal of any type discovered in Connally's
torso/trunk.
And we also know that zero pieces of metal were discovered inside John
Kennedy's neck or upper-back regions at his autopsy. But even if there
HAD been some very small traces of bullet material discovered inside
JFK (and some people have suggested that a fragment could have existed
in Kennedy's neck), it would still not mean that CE399 would be eliminated
as a source for any such metal fragments, because there's still nearly two
more grains that could have been deposited in the victims and still be
within the average total weights of WCC bullets supplied by the FBI and,
later, by Dr. Lattimer.
There's also the following WC testimony from Bob Frazier of the FBI
that is relevant to this sub-topic about "Average Bullet Weights":
Mr. EISENBERG -- "In your opinion, was there any weight loss?"
Mr. FRAZIER -- "There did not necessarily have to be any weight loss to the bullet. There may be a slight amount of lead missing from the base of the bullet, since it is exposed at the base, and the bullet is slightly flattened; there could be a slight weight loss from the end of the bullet, but it would not amount to more than 4 grains, because 158.6 is only a grain and a half less than the normal weight, and at least a 2 grain variation would be allowed. So it would be approximately 3 or 4 grains."
>>> "The bullets [removed from J.D. Tippit's body] were not consistent with LHO's gun in the least bit, according to 99.9% of the people I have read (hundreds)." <<<
That's because you prefer conspiracy writers instead of the actual
truth.
But the truth is: the four bullets that came out of Tippit's body were
consistent with having been fired from Lee Harvey Oswald's .38
revolver, with "nothing evident that would exclude the weapon", per
the WC testimony of firearms identification expert Joseph D. Nicol:
Mr. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Nicol, finally I hand you a group of four bullets marked Commission Exhibits 602, 603, 604, and 605, which I state for the record were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit, and a group of two bullets marked Commission Exhibit 606, which I state for the record were fired by the FBI through the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143. .... Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?"
JOSEPH NICOL -- "Yes; I did."
Mr. EISENBERG -- "What was your conclusion?"
Mr. NICOL -- "Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605, 604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of class characteristics-that is to say, there is nothing evident that would exclude the weapon. However, due to mutilation and apparent variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that of saying that the few lines that were found would indicate a modest possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be positive. However, on specimen 603...I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606."
Mr. EISENBERG -- "That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?"
Mr. NICOL -- "Yes, sir."
Mr. EISENBERG -- "By the way, on the cartridge cases, that was also to the exclusion of all other weapons?"
Mr. NICOL -- "Correct."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/nicol.htm
>>> "The [autopsy] photos have been tampered with." <<<
You just said that to prove my earlier point about conspiracy-hungry
kooks needing to believe in fake photos....right?
Well, at least you're not in bed with David Lifton. I guess that earns
you one-half of a dog biscuit anyway. Enjoy.
>>> "Don't doctors usually sign the autopsy report?" <<<
Autopsy reports of the "known to be totally incorrect" nature, you
mean? Which is what you kooks believe; i.e., Drs. Humes, Finck, and
Boswell EACH signed off on an autopsy report that CTers think is
nothing but a pack of lies, distortions, and/or half-truths.
Do most pathologists in the world sign autopsy reports like that,
Mr. Conspiracy?
>>> "How about the cause of death?" <<<
Let me think a minute....
It'll come to me soon....
I got it! ---
He was "nibbled to death by ducks"???
Did I get it right?
Per many kooks, maybe that guess is not too far afield from reality.
>>> "The WC tried to get Randle and Frazier to change their testimony regarding the package's length, but surprisingly, and to their credit, they didn't do it." <<<
And yet some CTers think Buell Wesley Frazier was one of the
conspirators who was "setting up" poor innocent Oswald. Some kooks, in
an indirect kind of kooky way, accuse Randle of the same type of thing
too.
And yet, even though the brother-and-sister team (per some CTers) was
framing LHO for the President's murder, they EACH decided to remain
steadfast and firm when it came to their "27 inch" or "about 2 feet
long" measurements regarding the brown paper bag that THEIR OWN PATSY
was carrying on November 22nd.
Doesn't add up for those kooks' requirements, of course.
But what does add up is this.....
Oswald positively took a bulky paper bag into work with him on
11/22/63.
-- plus: --
Oswald lied to Wes Frazier about the contents of that paper bag.
-- plus: --
Both Frazier & Randle observed Oswald carrying a long, "bulky" brown
paper bag on the morning of President Kennedy's assassination.
-- plus: --
After the assassination, Oswald's rifle turns up missing from its
KNOWN storage location of Ruth Paine's garage.
-- plus: --
An EMPTY 38-inch-long paper bag (similar in color and style to the bag
seen by Frazier & Randle) turns up in the TSBD's Sniper's Nest, from
where an Oswald-like individual was seen firing a RIFLE at JFK's car.
And the empty bag has--Voila!--Oswald's prints on it. With one of the
prints--the right-hand palmprint--perfectly matching the way Wes
Frazier said that Oswald carried the bag. And fibers matching the
blanket in Paine's garage are found inside the empty bag as well.
-- plus: --
At 1:22 PM CST on November 22nd, Oswald's RIFLE (Serial Number C2766),
with Oswald's own prints on it, was found on the same floor of the
TSBD where the empty paper bag was found.
-- plus: --
Oswald, from the weight of all the evidence, carried NO PACKAGE at all
out of the Depository when he left the building at approx. 12:33 PM on
11/22/63.
-- equals: --
Lee Harvey Oswald carried his Carcano rifle into the Depository on
November 22, concealed inside a homemade paper bag (the length of
which was incorrectly estimated by witnesses Frazier and Randle),
with Oswald then leaving the empty paper bag (with his prints on it)
underneath the window from where he fired the shots that killed
President Kennedy.
Any other alternative scenario that differs greatly from the above
version of events cannot hold up to any kind of scrutiny (or common
sense) at all.
>>> "So what [if LHO's prints are on the boxes in the Sniper's Nest]? He worked there." <<<
The LHO prints on the SN boxes are not (themselves) conclusive proof
of Oswald's guilt, true.
But when placing those prints (and the critical, key LOCATIONS of
where those prints were found and on WHAT SPECIFIC BOXES) next to all
of the other "LHO Was Here" evidence that is piled against the door,
those box prints of Oswald's become more significant, in that those
prints are CORROBORATIVE OF OTHER "OSWALD" EVIDENCE that was
found in the Sniper's Nest.
It's beyond me how anyone can completely dismiss those multiple LHO
prints (which are prints that were found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the
assassin's Sniper's Nest) with the typical three-word CTer retort of
"He worked there".
The "he worked there" response that we always hear from conspiracy
theorists is a weak retort with respect to the fingerprints on the
boxes, IMO, considering WHAT ELSE was also found under that sixth-
floor window on November 22nd.
>>> "[The fibers found wedged into the rifle] Could have been planted, like the palm print." <<<
Oh goodie! More excruciatingly complicated and needless "planting"
being performed by the very same band of moron plotters who decided
to green-light that ever-popular MULTI-GUN, ONE-PATSY assassination
scheme prior to November 22. Lovely.
Or maybe this needless piece of fiber planting was being performed
by a rogue "planter", who was working outside the realm of the pre-
arranged "Let's Get Oz" plot.
I'm sure it doesn't matter to a CT-Kook though....just as long as the
kook can cry "it was planted", he's happy and contented.
>>> "[It's] Not LHO's [jacket], based on the laundry tags (a place he never went to) and the color. Marina said he had two coats and two coats only, and this was neither." <<<
Dead wrong (as per the CT-Kook norm).
I always laugh at the idea that the laundry tag in the jacket HAS to mean
the jacket wasn't Oswald's. When, in fact, the cheap-ass skinflint named
Lee Oswald might very well have bought the jacket second-hand with the
tag already in it.
Regarding Marina denying all knowledge of CE162 (which is the gray
zipper jacket found under a car at the Texaco station on Jefferson
Blvd.), we have this WC testimony from Marina Oswald:
J. LEE RANKIN -- "Do you recall any of these clothes that your husband was wearing when he came home Thursday night, November 21, 1963?"
MARINA OSWALD -- "On Thursday, I think he wore this shirt."
Mr. RANKIN -- "Is that Exhibit 150?"
Mrs. OSWALD -- "Yes."
Mr. RANKIN -- "Do you remember anything else he was wearing at that time?"
Mrs. OSWALD -- "It seems he had that jacket, also."
Mr. RANKIN -- "Exhibit 162?"
Mrs. OSWALD -- "Yes."
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/html/WH_Vol16_0272b.htm
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_m1.htm
[2021 EDIT: We can know, however, that Marina was mistaken when she said Lee wore the gray jacket (CE162) to Irving on 11/21/63. He definitely didn't do that, because LHO put that jacket on after he went to his roominghouse the next day. But in her above testimony, Marina certainly seems to indicate that the CE162 jacket is one she was familiar with.]
>>> "The purchase order that supposedly paid for the gun was purchased at a time LHO was at work. He did not miss a single day from the time he started until the assassination, so where did he get all the time to do all the things the WC claim?" <<<
Yeah, it must have been one of those 24 "Imposter Oswalds" who bought
the money order for the rifle, huh?
The money order couldn't possibly have been purchased by the REAL Oswald
BEFORE his "at work" hours, could it?
BTW, Rob, Oswald wasn't working at the Book Depository when he sent
off that money order to Chicago in mid-March '63. His TSBD job was
still many months away at the time he acquired the Carcano.
Perhaps I misunderstood you above, but you seemed to be implying that
LHO was working at the Depository at the time he bought the rifle (via
the words "from the time he started"). But "started" where? Which job?
Oswald had several jobs in 1963. I think you probably were implying
that he was already working at the TSBD at the time of the rifle
purchase. But, of course, he wasn't.
>>> "...And the writing on the money order and envelope could have been faked." <<<
Yeah, that's always a good all-encompassing excuse for you kooks to
use when you're stuck for something better -- like PROOF of the
massive plot you love so much.
Just say something "could have been faked" and the CT nuts are off the
hook. Nice tactic.
I wonder how a jury would respond to the never-ending "This could have
been faked but, of course, I can never prove it to you" tactic that is
constantly being employed by retarded JFK conspiracy theorists?
Well, I guess you can always hope that all jury boxes are filled to
the brim with "O.J." jurors. That's about the only ray of hope you'd
have.
>>> "Also, there were many sightings of LHO when we know he was at work, so what was this all about?" <<<
I guess it shows how completely stupid and moronic your "patsy-
framers" were, doesn't it?
Because if those plotters, who were bent on framing Oswald for murder,
had done a good and thorough job when parading their imposter Oswalds
all over Dallas, would they have deliberately allowed some of their
imposters to be seen in public, by various people, at times when these
ace patsy-framers should have known that the real Lee Oswald was at
work in another part of the city?
Or didn't the conspirators who were in the detailed process of framing
Oswald for two future murders give a damn about trivial stuff like
that?
But those same conspirators (per some CT-Kooks) apparently DID care
enough about silly little trivial patsy-framing details to want to have
a fake Oswald be seen at a rifle range or at a car lot weeks before
November 22, even though those two sightings do absolutely nothing
to further the notion that Oswald was guilty of the two murders the
patsy-framers were attempting to frame LHO for.
Go figure those idiot patsy-framers. (And then try to figure out the
kooks who actually believe in such nonsense.)
Allow me to repeat something I have said previously (and it applies
even more today, after reading Robby's latest post filled with mangled
evidence and kook-invented supposition):
"Rob [Caprio] is a cartoon character. He's an overblown CT joke." -- DVP; Nov. 2007
David Von Pein
November 2007
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 18, 2007)
