RIC LANDERS [RL] SAID:
Oswald wasn't a "communist"...
DAVID VON PEIN [DVP] SAID:
That was my slip [in this post]. I should have specified "Marxist" indeed. Or "Communist sympathizer". My fault.
One (very, very small) point for you. :)
RL SAID:
His so-called "attempted murder" needs explanation if you're going to make the claim; specifically, why wasn't he ever charged with the crime?
DVP SAID:
Somebody pinch me. Did Ric Landers really ask this silly question?
He wasn't "charged" with shooting at Walker because nobody on Earth knew where to look for the shooter until December of 1963, when the Walker bullet (consistent with Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano) was linked to Oswald and his gun, plus the incriminating evidence provided by Marina Oswald:
"He only told me that he had shot at General Walker." -- Marina Oswald; Warren Commission testimony [1 H 16]
"But then later that night when he came home, I asked him to explain. He was out of breath and he was pale, and asked him to explain this note, and he said that "I just shot General Walker."" -- Marina Oswald Porter; HSCA testimony [2 HSCA 232]
RL SAID:
You call him a murderer. Presumably, you're referring to a murder conviction.
DVP SAID:
No, of course I'm not referring to a murder "conviction". Why would I be referring to such a thing that could never have occurred in Oswald's case, post-11/24/63?
Oswald is a "murderer" because the evidence overwhelmingly makes that claim true.
He's not a "convicted" murder (in a court of law), true. But so what?
RL SAID:
Provide details or stop claiming he's a murderer.
DVP SAID:
You must not have read any of my "details", huh?
Okay...."details": CLICK HERE
If you don't like my version of the details of Oswald's obvious guilt, you can always go here (the details at that link are more "official" in nature).
RL SAID:
The question is whether he was a nut. Please keep your eye on the ball.
DVP SAID:
My eye's been on the ball. But I'm not even sure you're inside the stadium or not.
RL SAID:
The question is whether anyone other than Bugliosi is on record for calling Oz a nut.
DVP SAID:
I certainly am.
But, actually, WHO CARES if anyone else is "on record" as saying this? (And I'm pretty sure other people are "on record" saying they thought LHO was "nuts".)
But the bottom-line facts are.....
1.) Lee H. Oswald killed 2 people on 11/22/63.
2.) And, like Vince Bugliosi said in '86, a person who engages in #1 (above), especially when one of the two victims was a POTUS, has got to be a bit "nuts" or "bonkers". Not "legally insane", mind you...just "nuts" in the loose, general type sense that people use that word every day of the week. Such as when I say that YOU, Ric, are "nuts" via these "crazy" comments you're making in your posts here. THAT kind of "nuts". ;)
RL SAID:
You're making the totally unrelated case that many disliked him.
DVP SAID:
You, yourself, brought up the sub-topic of people thinking Oswald was "swell", etc.; but my counter post regarding those people who thought just the opposite is considered "totally unrelated"??
Somebody pinch me (again)!
RL SAID:
If ["On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"] is any indication, Bugliosi is a hack. His summation was the Charles Manson summation retooled to fit Oswald. Apparently Bugliosi thinks it was his brilliant lawyering that got Manson convicted. Someone needs to tell him that the lawyer from "My Cousin Vinnie" could have convicted Manson. The case was impossible to lose.
But worse than this, his summation was an example of textbook circular reasoning: Oswald killed the President because he's crazy. And he's crazy because he tried to kill the President.
DVP SAID:
Yeah, forget about all of that OTHER STUFF that Vince talked about at the mock trial (and presented to the jury) -- e.g., THE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE proving Oswald guilty (guns, bullets, prints, witnesses). That stuff.
Do you REALLY think that the "circular reasoning" example you provided above was the ONLY thing VB had to work with at the "trial"?
Are you serious??
Read this.
RL SAID:
And how anyone can have confidence in an attorney who uses antique metaphors like "guilty as sin" is beyond me.
DVP SAID:
"Circular reasoning" again?? -- i.e., Bugliosi is a hack because he uses antique metaphors. And therefore I cannot have confidence in a hack who uses such metaphors.
(That's more of a three-fourths circle there...but I'm sure you get the general [and nutty] idea anyway.)
BTW, why is "guilty as sin" considered to be an "antique metaphor"? I use it all the time when talking about Oswald, and other known killers when they come up in conversation.
RL SAID:
Oswald picked up Russian so quickly, his wife thought he was a native Russian speaker when she first met him.
DVP SAID:
Which MUST, therefore, indicate that this same man was incapable of murdering the President by himself. (What's the Russian term for "Is that about the size of the situation as she exists, kook?" .... Maybe I ought to ask that cool, suave sophisticate named Lee.)
RL SAID:
The guy [LHO] was very, very smart.
DVP SAID:
I think he was fairly bright too. That's why he thought he had enough brains to kill the President ALL BY HIMSELF AND (MAYBE, JUST MAYBE) GET AWAY WITH IT.
David Von Pein
March 16, 2007
March 16, 2007
January 18, 2014
