(PART 986)


Almost 52 years and no one has put up any evidence that would convict LHO. Most nutters don't even try. All they do is stand up and try to shout louder that all the CTers have is that everyone is lying. That's not the way the justice system works. If you want to prove someone did it, you show the evidence. If you have no evidence, there is no case. That's where we are: No Case.


Regardless of how many times you say a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing. And the above quote by Kenneth Drew is really stupid. And it's provably wrong.

But that fact won't keep Kenny Drew from telling me 101 more times that I have presented "no evidence" whatsoever of Oswald's (double) guilt. Ken will just gaze, unseeing and unfazed, at all of the many things in evidence that point directly to Lee Oswald....


And after glancing at or just totally ignoring that list altogether, Ken will return to his keyboard to write tripe like this once more....

"There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle, there is no proof of what weapon was fired at him, there is not one piece of evidence linking any human to having fired at him, and there is not one piece of evidence that any shots have ever been fired from the sniper's nest. To sum it all up, your total is Zero." -- Kenneth Drew; June 1, 2015

That's the type of fantasy world Ken Drew wishes to live in. Sad, isn't it?


Reality Break....

"During my examination of the evidence in preparation for the [1986 mock] trial, I found that virtually every piece of evidence against Oswald maddeningly had some small but explainable problem with it. However, two things became obvious to me: One was that Oswald, an emotionally unhinged political malcontent who hated America, was as guilty as sin. Based on the Himalayan mountain of uncontroverted evidence against Oswald, anyone who could believe he was innocent would probably also believe someone claiming to have heard a cow speaking the Spanish language.

Secondly, there was not one speck of credible evidence that Oswald was framed or that he was a hit man for others in a conspiracy to murder the president. I meticulously examined every major conspiracy theory that had thus far been adduced, and although there were a few (a precious few) that at first blush seemed plausible, upon sober scrutiny they did complete violence to all conventional notions of logic and common sense. Though there are some notable exceptions, by and large the persistent ranting of the Warren Commission critics, some of whom were screaming the word conspiracy before the fatal bullet had even come to rest, came to remind me, as H. L. Mencken said in a different context, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights.


If Oswald's guilt as the lone assassin is as obvious as I suggest, why, one may logically ask, the need for this extraordinarily long book ["Reclaiming History"]? Make no mistake about it. The Kennedy assassination, per se, is not a complicated case. I've personally prosecuted several murder cases where the evidence against the accused was far more circumstantial and less robust than the case against Oswald. .... The case against Oswald himself is overwhelming and relatively routine. Earl Warren himself said, "As district attorney of a large metropolitan county [Oakland, California] for years . . . I have no hesitation in saying that had it not been for the prominence of the victim, the case against Oswald could have been tried in two or three days with little likelihood of any but one result." [Earl Warren, "Memoirs", p.367]

The allegation of conspiracy introduces an element of complexity into the case because it is inherently more difficult to prove a negative than a positive, and this complexity is compounded by the fact that Oswald was a deeply troubled person and a restless Marxist who traveled to Russia and Mexico. But the complexity is only superficial.


Throughout this book ["RH"], I will be referring to Oswald as Kennedy's killer, and conspiracy theorists, as well as legal purists, have maintained for years that the only proper way to refer to Oswald is "alleged assassin," on the rationale that under our system of justice in America, a suspect or defendant is presumed to be innocent until a jury finds him guilty in a court of law.

But this invests a power and legitimacy to a verdict of guilty or not guilty that it does not have. A verdict of not guilty, for instance, cannot change the reality of whether or not the defendant committed the crime. That reality was established the moment of the crime, and nothing that happened thereafter can ever change it. If a courtroom verdict could, then if the defendant actually robbed a bank, but the three witnesses who saw him do it were unavailable to testify against him at the trial (e.g., the defendant's associates had either killed them or threatened them into not testifying), his subsequent not-guilty verdict means he didn't really rob the bank.

In other words, the jury verdict succeeded in doing something that God can't even do—change the past. Likewise, if someone did not rob a bank, but in a case of mistaken identity he was found guilty, the new reality is that he actually did rob the bank. To those who have challenged my calling Oswald guilty throughout the years by saying he was never found to be guilty in a court of law, I've responded that "under that theory, Adolf Hitler never committed any crimes, Jack the Ripper never committed any crimes, and the only crime Al Capone ever committed was income tax evasion." "
-- Vincent Bugliosi


You've never destroyed anyone with this doggerel you classify as "evidence."


And there's the rub. You don't consider ANYTHING "evidence". Nor does Jon G. "Counselor for Oswald" Tidd. Nor does Kenneth "There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle" Drew. Nor does anyone else who thinks Oswald didn't fire a shot at President Kennedy.

The physical evidence in this case all screams Oswald's guilt and everybody knows it. Hence, CTers in the ABO [Anybody But Oswald] club are forced to pretend it's all fake. Because if it's not ALL FAKE, then Oswald is guilty. That is plainly--and simply--true.

I suggest that the ball is in the defense (CTers') court when it comes to the accusation that every last piece of evidence connected with the JFK and Tippit murder cases is artificially crafted (i.e., fake) evidence.

Conspiracists are making the extraordinary allegation that all the evidence is phony. Not LNers. So wouldn't it be kind of nice--just for a change of pace--to have just one conspiracy theorist actually provide some kind of PROOF to back up the idea that the evidence (just ONE piece of it!) against Lee Harvey Oswald is fraudulent?

Or am I asking for the moon when I suggest that CTers actually prove something they say?


Incredible how DVP completely reverses the standard of evidence. Which shows he has no comprehension of what the legal system is all about.


Jimmy thinks we're in a courtroom here. Somebody should straighten Jim out on that mistake.

And isn't it funny that BOTH the Warren Commission and the HSCA had no problem at all coming to the conclusion that CE399 was THE EXACT BULLET that injured both JFK and John Connally. And that's a lot of LAWYERS making that claim.

Are you a lawyer, Jim?

That's what I thought.


Understanding basic legal jurisprudence and procedure is not limited to lawyers. Other people are allowed to study and understand the law, too.

On the other hand, continuing to place good faith in the conclusions formed by the WC and the HSCA does seem to be limited to - well, the limited...


Yeah. Limited to people with some basic common sense and an ability to evaluate the evidence properly.


A certain poster here assumes, absurdly, Oswald's guilt. Once Oswald's guilt, however absurdly, is assumed, one can postulate any "evidence" as pointing toward his guilt. The law doesn't work that way. Evidence is used to establish guilt. The certain poster in question shouts, "evidence!" But all this certain poster is doing is assuming Oswald did it and then taking every scrap of allegation, calling it "evidence", and using it to nail Oswald. Even Pontius Pilate was more logical than that.


It's "absurd" to follow the evidence to where it leads, Jon?

Your highbrow legalistic posts are getting more "absurd" and bizarre and hard to follow by the day.

And, considering the amount of evidence that exists against Mr. Oswald, this statement by Jon G. Tidd is downright hysterical....

"A certain poster here assumes, absurdly, Oswald's guilt."

In other words, Jon thinks it's "absurd" to actually rely on the evidence, because, according to Jon, it's not REALLY "evidence" at all because it was never introduced into a courtroom. So, I guess we have to call it something else, or we should just ignore it altogether until it finds its way into a courtroom, which Jon knows can never happen because the defendant is dead.

Wow. Thanks for that lesson in logic, Jon.


[Quoting DVP:] "It's "absurd" to follow the evidence to where it leads, Jon?"

Not at all.

But it is absurd to ignore the indicators of a frame when you are dealing with a man who claimed to be framed by a police force and DA's now infamous for the number of innocent people they locked up with planted evidence, falsified statements, what is known here as "police verbals", rigged juries, terrified defense counsels and crooked judges.


How did that evil DPD force get Oswald to act so guilty and to tell so many lies?

Or did the DPD coerce Oswald to be part of his own frame-up? (Boy, they were good, weren't they?)

And you're not going to sit there and tell me you DON'T think Oswald acted "guilty" in the movie theater, are you Greg?


What lies, David? You simply take the word of others when, given what we know now, you ought not do that.


And you just take the word of the person who was charged with two murders, is that it?

You think, therefore, that the DPD was more likely to lie than was the person who was trying to kill members of the DPD in the Texas Theater?

You ought not do that. (IMO.)


Well, what was McDonald's first statement to the media? He was calm and gave no trouble.


You mean this one?....

"He was cool and calm up until the time that he made that jump for me."
-- Officer M.N. McDonald; 11/23/63


But we'd know for sure if Ron Reiland had not--probably for the first time in his professional career--used the wrong lens filter. How unlucky was that? Your big mistake on the biggest case.


Are you suggesting that there was something sinister going on with Ron Reiland's film?

And, btw, how would Reiland's film have told us "for sure" if there was a fight in the theater even if Reiland had used the correct filter on his camera? He only filmed a brief snippet of Oswald after the police had already handcuffed him and were leading him out of the theater. Are you saying that Reiland actually filmed the fight between McDonald and Oswald? I don't think he did.

HERE is Reiland's film (narrated by Reiland himself).



What a bunch of nitpicking there, Greg.

You're actually trying to impeach McDonald by using Bentley's "he fought like a wild man" quote?? Geez.

Well, AFTER McDonald approached Oswald--and AFTER Oswald had exhibited his "cool and calm" demeanor--Oswald DID fight like a wild man--even McDonald said that.

So, where's the discrepancy? I see none. You're just trying desperately to find something you can hitch your CT wagon to (as per usual).

And that Robertson testimony is hardly proof that Reiland actually filmed the McDonald/Oswald fight....

Mr. GRIFFIN. How close was your photographer to you?
Mr. ROBERTSON. I don't have any idea. He was there someplace shooting his pictures.

Yeah, that sounds really definitive there, Greg.

If Reiland HAD filmed the actual fight in the theater, I'm guessing that that footage (even if it was pitch dark) would have been shown on WFAA-TV on 11/22/63. After all, WFAA televised the really crappy-looking and very dark snippet of Reiland's film showing Oswald being led out of the theater, which is virtually worthless footage because it's so dark. So why wouldn't they show another really dark portion of the film--featuring the actual fight--if Reiland had filmed it? I think they would have.

Then, too, perhaps a portion of the pitch-blackness we see in the Reiland film IS the theater fight between Oswald and the police. It's impossible to tell.


He [Oswald] fought only in self-defense. You know it.


Total bullshit. Your nonsense is laughable.

Oswald whipped out a gun and tried to shoot McDonald with it. Stop pretending otherwise.

The CTers' continual attempts at twisting the truth regarding the McDonald/Oswald theater encounter are sickening.

Even Oswald himself admitted that he fought with the police in the theater....

"Oswald admitted to carrying a pistol with him to this movie, stating he did this because he felt like it, giving no other reason. Oswald further admitted attempting to fight the Dallas police officers who arrested him in this movie theater when he received a cut and a bump." -- 11/22/63 FBI Report by James Hosty and James Bookhout; Warren Report, Page 613

But Greg Parker thinks Oswald slugged Officer McDonald in the face and pulled out a gun merely in "self-defense", which is pure tommyrot. McDonald hadn't even drawn his gun when he approached Oswald. So where does any "self defense" argument come into play? Did Oswald think McDonald was going to strangle him with his bare hands?

Self defense? Hilarious. And typical CTer desperation.

Nice job, Greg. Your recent posts further illustrate just how pathetic and paper-thin all conspiracy arguments truly are. Please keep it up.


You need to admit you are more than happy to turn a blind eye to the evidence uncovered over the last few decades showing the disgraceful malfeasance of law enforcement in Dallas during the Wade era. You willfully ignore all of that, don't you, Dave?


It's irrelevant in THIS (JFK) case. Oswald's actions pretty much convict him. And the Dallas Police Department couldn't possibly have controlled those actions.

Plus, the U.S. Secret Service would have had to also be in bed with the evil DPD in order for Oswald to be innocent (realistically), since the DPD never even touched CE399 or the two front-seat bullet fragments, all three of which were fired in Oswald's rifle.

So, how did the DPD get the SS (and the FBI too) to jump on board the LET'S FRAME OSWALD gravy train?


Which actions do you mean, DVP?

And convict him in what sense?

Oswald's location in the TSBD between 12 noon and 12:30 p.m. has been the subject of great debate, as has been his means of transportation following his departure from the TSBD, as well as his route and timing of travel to the Texas Theater. How do you have certainty as to these matters? I'd like to know.



I mean that Oswald's provable "actions" and movements, in general, certainly point more toward his GUILT than they do his INNOCENCE. Wouldn't you agree? E.G.,

...He leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination.

...He dashes in and out of his rented room to get a gun.

...He acts "funny" and "scared" in Johnny Brewer's shoe store entrance.

...He pulls a gun on the police in the theater and fights with them. (And if this isn't a sure sign that Mr. Oswald had done SOMETHING against the law that day, then what would be?)

...He lied to Buell Frazier about the "curtain rods".

...He carried a long paper package into the Depository on the day of the President's assassination (and lied about the contents of that package).

If you want to dispute each and every item above, feel free to do so. But those are FACTS, in my opinion. They are facts that have been established by a variety of witnesses. Am I to believe they all got together and lied--Roberts, Brewer, McDonald, Frazier, Randle?

And I didn't even mention the Tippit witnesses.


BTW, you still haven't said what is your definition of "evidence".


I think the various online dictionaries give a very good definition of what I mean when I use the word "evidence". Let's have a look at some of those definitions....

EVIDENCE (noun) --
1. A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
2. Something indicative; an indication or set of indications.
3. [In Law] -- The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.

EVIDENCE (noun) --
1. The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

EVIDENCE (noun) --
1. That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. Something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign.

EVIDENCE (noun) --
1. Something which shows that something else exists or is true.
2. A visible sign of something.
3. Material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something.

EVIDENCE (noun) --
1. Something that gives proof or leads to a conclusion.

EVIDENCE (noun) --
1. Ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood.
2. A mark or sign that makes evident; indication.


Did Bugliosi ever argue that the "evidence" points toward Oswald's "guilt"? Just curious. A competent lawyer wouldn't have said that.


Here's what Vince Bugliosi said in his book (emphasis on the word "evidence" is DVP's):

"The evidence against Oswald proves his guilt not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt, or, as they say in the movies, beyond a shadow of a doubt. In other words, not just one or two or three pieces of evidence point toward Oswald's guilt, but more than fifty pieces point irresistibly to his guilt. And not only does all of the physical, scientific evidence point solely and exclusively to Oswald's guilt, but virtually everything he said and did points unerringly to his guilt.

Prosecutors like to argue in their final summation to the jury that "looking at the evidence as a whole" (or "the totality of the evidence," or "all the evidence") makes it clear the defendant is guilty. But in the case against Oswald, one doesn't have to look at all or even most of the evidence to reach the conclusion he is guilty. Indeed, there are many individual things he did, like immediately fleeing the Book Depository Building after the shooting, killing Officer Tippit, et cetera, which by themselves point clearly to his guilt."
-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 952 of "Reclaiming History"

[End Quote.]

I guess Vince must have been using the following definition of the word "evidence", which is, of course, a definition that all sensible and reasonable people use when they talk about "evidence"....

"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Also see (hear) the interview below:

David Von Pein
July 30-31, 2015
August 2-4, 2015