CONSPIRACY KOOK ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:
>>> "What a sucker Bud is. Or is he the dreaded "L" word?" <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yep -- "Logical".
>>> "The odds her brother (Linnie Mae Randle) would come to Dallas (Irving) and move in with her..." <<<
Linnie Mae doubled as her own brother, eh?
>>> "...and that her house would be just a few blocks away from Ruth Paine..." <<<
Why do you keep saying "a few blocks"? Paine's and Randle's homes
weren't nearly that far apart. They were only a half-a-block from one
another.
So, now Robby The Mega-Kook probably thinks he has even MORE of a
reason to believe there's something "suspicious" about the proximity
of the two houses in Irving (seeing as how I just placed the two
houses even closer together than the Mega-Kook was aware of).
I love watching a kook doing things backwards--like Robby always does.
He's Monday-morning quarterbacking the whole business about the
distance between the Paine and Randle houses.
Nobody but the Mega-Kook faction (like Robby Caprio) thinks there's anything
the slightest bit "suspicious" or "conspiratorial" about the general proximity
between those two Irving homes, or about the way in which LHO got his
job at the Book Depository.
So, once again we're treated to a kook's ultimate motto --
ACCUSE NOW; PROVE NEVER.
And just think, Robby claims that the DPD, the WC, the HSCA, DVP, Bud,
and all other LNers "have NO proof, NO evidence, and NO motive LHO
shot JFK and JDT". But when it comes to Rob (and all other CTers)
going about the burdensome task of actually providing some PROOF for
any of their conspiracy allegations (such as this current loopy one that
the kook is implying; i.e., that Randle, Frazier, Paine, Truly et al, were
involved in some kind of plot to place LHO in the TSBD)....forget it.
It'll never happen. They can't, because no such CT proof exists, and
never did.
But a total lack of proof never stopped a CTer from accusing all kinds
of innocent people of being criminals. Right, Rob?
>>> "Do you have any clue how many homes are in Dallas and the surrounding suburbs (of course not)? Now add in her brother (Wes Frazier) getting a job at the TSBD with NO connections (supposedly)..." <<<
Yeah, I imagine getting a minimum-wage job pushing a two-wheeled cart
full of books required a massive number of inside "connections", huh?
Nobody could ever HOPE to get hired there without some "connections",
right?
~LOL Break~
>>> "LHO needed a job and they could get one so easily for him when there were NO openings (Roy Truly said so)..." <<<
Bullshit.
Let's take a look at what Roy Truly actually said (sans any CTer's
mangling and misrepresentations):
ROY TRULY -- "I told Mrs. Paine to send him down, and I would talk to him--that I didn't have anything in mind for him of a permanent nature, but if he was suited, we could possibly use him for a brief time."
I'll repeat this part for the kooks:
"If he was suited, we could possibly use him for a brief time." -- R. Truly
BTW, let's have a look at the following additional hunk of Roy Truly's
testimony -- with these words, keep in mind, coming from the lips of
one of THE MAIN "CONSPIRATORS" in a plot to murder the President of
the USA, per many CTers. He'd have to be one of the main plotters,
since it was Truly who hired Oswald:
ROY S. TRULY -- "I believe that was the first and the last time that I talked to Mrs. Paine [referring to the phone call between Truly and Paine on October 14, 1963]. In fact, I could not remember her name afterwards until I saw her name in print, and then it popped into my mind that this was the lady who called me."
So, I guess Roy Truly was a pretty decent liar, wasn't he Robby?
Because you obviously must believe that Ruth Paine and Mr. Truly were
in cahoots with one another prior to that 10/14/63 telephone
call....which means that Truly lied when he said he couldn't remember
Paine's name and he must have certainly been telling a whopper of a
lie (per the CT nutjobs) when he said he had only ONCE talked with
Ruth Paine in his entire life (on 10/14/63).
Any reasonable person can obviously see how utterly impossible it is
to "connect" all of these unconnected threads of SHEER HAPPENSTANCE
regarding Paine, Truly, Frazier, and Randle in order to weave the
magical type of "Oswald Was Planted In The TSBD" conspiracy plot that
kooks like Rob imagine took place.
But just because no CTer has yet been able to come close to weaving
that magic carpet of conspiracy involving all of those innocent people
(like Frazier, Paine, and Truly), it won't stop morons like Rob from
pretending that a massive pre-assassination "plot" involving those
very people really did occur in 1963.
>>> "You [referring to Bud] are insane." <<<
Bud is being called "insane" by a person who has said "LHO shot no one
that day [11-22-63]."
The irony abounds. (Pot & Kettle, too.)
>>> "Ruby was caught on film shooting LHO. Where is the film showing how LHO learned JFK was coming to Dallas and would pass right beneath the windows of his workplace?" <<<
Searching for answers to stupid questions like the one asked above is
the forte of a good conspiracy-giddy mega-kook.
Oswald's gun, bullets, shells, fingerprints, and flight from the crime
scene (plus a positive "It Was Oswald" identification by a witness)
aren't nearly good enough for the Conspiracy Kook Faction. They enjoy
wallowing in forever-unsolvable chaff surrounding the JFK case (such
as the unanswerable question of exactly how and when LHO learned that
JFK was coming to Dallas), so the CT-Kooks will continue going around in
circles for all time, instead of following the evidence where it actually leads.
In Rob's strange world (where only Kook Rules apply), a jury could
probably never convict a defendant of a crime without having the crime
on film. If Rob were sitting on the jury during an armed robbery case
(and even though there was an eyewitness verifying the defendant's
guilt, plus fingerprint and ballistics evidence leading to the same
person), the guilty defendant would go free because the D.A. couldn't
answer this question: "Can the prosecution prove that the defendant
was even aware of where the liquor store was located prior to the date
of the robbery?"
The prison population would certainly be a lot smaller if Rob's oddball rules
for proving a person's guilt were applied in the real world.
>>> "Where is the proof that LHO even knew JFK was coming to
Dallas?" <<<
~sigh~
Reprise from one of my previous posts on this matter:
RUTH PAINE -- "As I entered the house [at approx. 5:30 PM CST on Nov. 21, 1963] and Lee had just come in, I said to him, "Our President is coming to town". And he said, "Ah, yes", and walked on into the kitchen, which was a common reply from him on anything. I was just excited about this happening, and there was his response. Nothing more was said about it."
Would Rob now like to pretend that LHO just didn't hear Mrs. Paine's
words "Our President is coming to town"? Or would Rob like to continue
to pretend that nearly every word that came out of Ruth Paine's mouth
was a lie?
Either way, Rob still will look like a kook on this one (as usual).
>>> "You're right, there is nothing suspicious here." <<<
Glad you agree. There was nothing suspicious at all about the way Lee
Oswald got his Depository job. It was all pure HAPPENSTANCE (i.e.,
EVERYDAY LIFE OCCURRENCES). And if conspiracists want to believe
otherwise, then the burden is on those conspiracists to prove it. And
wild guesses don't count as "proof". Sorry.
David Von Pein
July 1, 2008
