(PART 110)


>>> "You are so off base it is not funny. I already addressed all of that and more in my "LHO is innocent at last" posts. All of it is easily refuted. There is no real prosecutorial case against LHO, that is why he was gunned down." <<<


And since we have the tablets brought down from Mount Kook by Rob Heston [Caprio] via his "LHO Is Innocent" thread, the LNers can close up shop and go home whimpering....is that it?

Somebody get a net for this kook. He'll be escaping soon if we don't.

>>> "At least we read things newer than 1963/64..." <<<

Yeah, like John Armstrong, right? And Fetzer. And Groden. And Stone/Garrison. And Mellen, who's attempting to resurrect Garrison yet again with yet another book on that Mega-Kook (a full bio on his life). You CTers build your foundation of CTism on quicksand, and then you keeping adding more kookshit from more kook authors with no solid evidence at all, and yet you still expect to remain afloat. Go figure.

>>> "...And even though lame people you read (Posner, Bugman, Myers, etc) use the same lame stuff." <<<

Yeah, such as the only evidence that has ever existed in this whole case (which all points toward your secret lover--L.H.O.).

Imagine my actually having the gall to use the evidence against Oswald as a reason to think Oswald shot some people. *I* should be shot too!

Time for an additional Reality Jolt from VB.......

"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. ....

"The first observation I have to make is that I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.

"Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.

"Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible.

"I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Via his book "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy"

David Von Pein
November 2007