JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1090)


TOM WILSON SAID:

Means
Motive
Opportunity

Any criminal investigation must explain these facors to seek successful prosecution.

Did LHO have the means? The research into this question clearly proves the lack of coorobative evidence to support that he had the means.

Did he have the motive? Not even close.

Did he have the opportunity? The evidence says he did not.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Tom Wilson is 100% wrong on all three counts. LHO most certainly had the Motive, Means, and Opportunity to kill President Kennedy (particularly the last two--means and opportunity).

Does Tom Wilson really want to deny that Oswald had ready access to his own rifle in November 1963? (Does Tom wish to pretend that Rifle C2766 was planted?)

And does Tom W. also want to deny that Oswald was working in the TSBD Building on 11/22/63, and that LHO even admitted to being INSIDE that building at 12:30 when JFK was being killed? (I wonder how Oswald's prints got on two of the boxes that were located in the exact same very tiny area of the southeast corner of the 6th Floor where an assassin was located on Nov. 22nd? Did the patsy-framers just get LUCKY by choosing two boxes that Oswald just happened to touch on Nov. 21 or 22?)


TOM WILSON SAID:

Yes, I deny that LHO had "his" rifle.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gee, what a surprise. A conspiracist is ignoring the hard, physical evidence in the JFK murder case. Will wonders never cease?

And Tom Wilson, naturally, will continue to deny that C2766 was Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle, even with Waldman Exhibit No. 7 staring him in the face, plus the order form for the rifle in Oswald's own writing, plus the backyard photos (wherein the characteristics of Rifle #C2766 were identified by the photo panel of the HSCA -- in other words, Oswald is holding the TSBD rifle in those backyard pictures).

All "fake" stuff, eh Tom?

Sad.


TOM WILSON SAID:

Of course he worked there. So did many others. But you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he fired those shots. You cannot.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That fact was proven on the day the assassination occurred, Tom. I'm surprised you're not aware of that fact. Just listen to D.A. Henry Wade, on the evening of 11/24/63, run down the laundry list of stuff that proves Oswald's guilt. It would make any prosecutor's mouth water:

video


TOM WILSON SAID:

The rifle did not have his prints on it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dead wrong.

There's CE637 (never proven to be planted there); and there are the oft-overlooked trigger guard fingerprints which were positively Oswald's, per print expert Vincent Scalice. He's a liar too?


TOM WILSON SAID:

It [Rifle C2766] could not be matched to the "paper bag." etc, etc, etc, etc.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But that paper bag (with Oswald's own prints on it, of course) was tied to the blanket that we know held that rifle in Ruth Paine's garage. (The fiber experts were liars too, Tom?)


TOM WILSON SAID:

His fingerprints on boxes in the sniper's nest? That is what you want to hang him with? He toted boxes, that was his job. Sad.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I always get a kick out of conspiracy theorists like Tom Wilson here. They'll go to the ends of the Earth, it seems, to avoid the obvious implications of ALL of the Oswald-did-it evidence -- from the rifle, to the paper bag, to the bullet shells by the window, to the two large bullet fragments FIRED FROM OSWALD'S GUN that were found in the President's car, to CE399, to the fibers, to the Tippit evidence (I'm not sure if the Tippit stuff applies to Tom Wilson or not, but it sure applies to a lot of other Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists on the Internet these days), and to the fingerprints on the boxes too.

Just how much evidence is necessary to have a guilty Lee Oswald in this case?

For conspiracy theorists, it would appear the answer to my last inquiry is: There can never be enough. Sad.

And those fingerprints and palmprints of Oswald's on those boxes deep inside that Sniper's Nest should not just be tossed aside (as all CTers want to do), as discussed here.


TOM WILSON SAID:

Sad.

I suppose it would make you happy, sir, if I were to respond to your ridiculous postings. Then we would be off on a "my dog's bigger than your dog" rant. So let me simply say that you have to take the so-called evidence and weigh it entirely. You chose not to. That is certainly your right.

For 48 years, the American public, in poll after poll, agrees with me. The vast majority of work done in the research of the assassination supports me. You have Bugliosi and Posner.

Sad.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The work done by the many, many people who actually investigated (in depth) the murders of JFK and Officer Tippit supports me.

You have no choice but to believe that EVERY official investigative team that looked into the JFK assassination totally botched up everything -- from the DPD, to the FBI, to the Warren Commission, to the HSCA, to the Clark Panel, to the Rockefeller panel.

I've got all of the above. You've got Stone, Garrison, Armstrong, Fetzer, Lane, and Lifton.

Sad.
And pathetic.

And btw, according to the 1,031 people polled by ABC News in Nov. 2003, only 7% of those people think that Oswald did not fire any shots at President Kennedy. Not exactly an overwhelming majority, is it?


TOM WILSON SAID:

David,

I don't know you, so I assume your beliefs are heartfelt. I truly do not mean anything personal.

My original comment concerned Means, Motive, and Opportunity. These are the bars to be reached in any criminal case.

In THIS case, had Oswald lived, there would be, in my opinion, a very hard uphill climb for the prosecution of Oswald based on the evidence purportedly found by the DPD. There is no evidence in that sense.

Once LHO was murdered, the evidence for evidentiary value no longer existed. So here we are, all these many years later, stuck with what ifs, shoulda' beens, and oh darns!

The evidence that points to Oswald is countered, as I'm sure you know, by many other pieces of evidence. Unfortunately it is a parlor dance because it will never see the fluorescent lights of a courtroom. So you and I arguing the viability of evidence that is clearly of debate does no good.

Those who believe the basic story of the WC are OK with me. It's like politics, left and right rarely agree. The actions by those who tear down the adversary is the issue.

I do not desire to change your mind, not at all. What I care about, what I seek, is the truth about who killed my President.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But, Tom, don't Oswald's own incriminating actions lead you down the path to that truth you seek?

You surely must admit that Oswald shot Officer Tippit, right? That fact is even more obvious than his guilt in JFK's murder.

And Oswald's other actions on Nov. 21 and 22 certainly add up to his guilt too (and his planning to commit some kind of illegal act on the 22nd, based on the provable lie he told Buell Frazier about the "curtain rods").

Lee Harvey Oswald, on both Nov. 21 and 22, signed his name to the murders of John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit. Conspiracy theorists are treating this double-murder case as some kind of unknowable, unsolvable game of "Clue". But the evidence is quite clear: It was Oswald with C2766 from the Depository. No other scenario comes close to matching the evidence, coupled with (again) Oswald's own very incriminating actions and movements on both Nov. 21 and 22.

And if Oswald's own actions were somehow "fake", then we might as well be living in some alternate universe where Topsy-Turvy is the norm.

David Von Pein
June 17, 2011