DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Many conspiracy theorists seem to enjoy attempting to exonerate a double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald when it comes to the two killings he committed on 11/22/63.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
How can you "exonerate" a man never convicted of a crime?
BUD SAID:
By exonerating him. ....
exonerate [verb]; 1. (especially of an official body) absolve (someone) from blame for a fault or wrongdoing, especially after due consideration of the case.
Nothing about being convicted of a crime. Nothing about being dead or alive.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Just as you cannot kill a dead man, you cannot "exonerate" someone not guilty of any crime.
BUD SAID:
We aren't talking about someone innocent of any crime, we are talking about Lee Harvey Oswald.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
It seems silly to spank you like this, but my hint clearly didn't school you.
BUD SAID:
Did any of you lurkers see where Ben showed how the definition I supplied did not apply? Me neither.
[...]
Ben will defend Oswald until his last breath. He is an Oswald defender.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Is it reasonable to think that many, many people "plotted" to frame an innocent man named Oswald by planting several pieces of evidence favoring his guilt?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
The idea that the DPD intentionally "plotted" to frame an innocent man is a *very* dishonest assertion by David. (Not to mention that it could be done by just a couple of men... not "many many people"...)
Police don't frame "innocent" men... they "improve" the evidence to "help" them convict a suspect that they FIRMLY believe is the guilty party.
David will *NEVER* produce a case where the police intentionally plotted to frame someone they *KNEW* was innocent.
DAVID WILL **NEVER** PRODUCE A CASE WHERE THE POLICE INTENTIONALLY PLOTTED TO FRAME SOMEONE THEY **KNEW** WAS INNOCENT.
In other words, David is lying, and he *KNOWS* he's lying.
CHUCK SCHUYLER SAID:
That's not his assertion, asshole, it's the assertion of Oswald Lovers like yourself. Read for comprehension.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Exactly, Chuck.
Holmes is actually berating ME for simply pointing out something that HE HIMSELF believes—i.e., that an INNOCENT Oswald was framed for both JFK's and Tippit's murders. Geez, what a stump.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
You're a GUTLESS liar, David Von Pein.
I certainly DO NOT believe that silly assertion. Nor would *ANY* honest person.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Good. Then Oswald's guilty. Nice to have that settled. And it's nice to know that Ben Holmes has finally come to grips with Oswald's obvious guilt. Somebody notify CNN.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Even *YOU* certainly DO NOT believe that a police department, no matter *HOW* corrupt, would intentionally "plot" to frame SOMEONE THEY KNEW WAS AN INNOCENT MAN.
So tell us David, WHY DID YOU INTENTIONALLY LIE?
Or are you actually STUPID enough to believe that a police department in America would intentionally "plot" to frame someone they *KNEW* was completely innocent?
Speak up, moron... let's see if you have any courage... or prefer to slink back to the censored forum where lies like this aren't challenged.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Holmes,
Please help me understand the "LIE" I supposedly told, OK?
Does this mean you, Ben, DON'T think Oswald was innocent?
And does this mean you DON'T think Oswald was framed for both Kennedy's and Tippit's murders?
So, where's the "LIE", Mr. Stump?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
You made a claim about "an INNOCENT Oswald was framed for both JFK's and Tippit's murders."
I certainly DO NOT believe that silly assertion. Nor would *ANY* honest person.
Even *YOU* certainly DO NOT believe that a police department, no matter *HOW* corrupt, would intentionally "plot" to frame SOMEONE THEY KNEW WAS AN INNOCENT MAN.
Now, reread that until you understand... then do your best to document such a claim.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're the liar, Holmes. Because, based on all your posts over the years, you most certainly DO believe Oswald was "INNOCENT", and you most certainly DO believe that Oswald was "FRAMED" for BOTH murders he committed on 11/22/63.
So there is no DVP lie here. Never was. (Of course, we all knew that was the case in the first place. You just love to convolute things---as per usual.)
BEN HOLMES SAID:
I've been specific enough for any *honest* person to follow what I stated, but you're clearly a moron... so I'm going to repeat it in different words...
You claimed that *I* believed that the DPD, or *ANY* police department for that matter, would intentionally "plot" to frame someone they *KNEW* was innocent.
To "plot" means that at least *TWO* police officers, and perhaps more... *KNEW* that someone was innocent, yet conspired with others to frame that innocent person.
In other words, you're accusing those who work the hardest for justice in America of intentionally being UN-just.
There's never been a problem with *ANYONE* believing that police will "plot" to "frame" a suspect that they believe is guilty, thinking that they are making justice "work" easier... I've already stated that I can point to real examples of this.
But *YOU* have not, AND NEVER WILL offer any supporting example where police actually *plotted* to frame someone they *KNEW* was innocent.
You can't... because *YOU* are too stupid to realize just how dumb your assertion was.
The liar is *YOU*, David... and the *PROOF* is the fact that you cannot give a supporting example of this happening ANYWHERE in America.
Yet you accuse me of "believing" it, despite no evidence whatsoever.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You sure are acting like a Super Stump today, Holmes. I never once said anything about the "DPD" specifically. You decided to add in that part of the narrative yourself. Here's what I said YOU believe (and you definitely DO believe this, unless all your posts since the Internet was invented are fraudulent)....
"Holmes is actually berating ME for simply pointing out something that HE HIMSELF believes—i.e., that an INNOCENT Oswald was framed for both JFK's and Tippit's murders." -- DVP
YOU think Oswald was INNOCENT.
And:
YOU think Oswald was FRAMED by somebody---and I didn't specifically mention the Dallas Police Department as you asserted I did. But, anyway, you certainly think Oswald was innocent of killing JFK and J.D. Tippit and was framed for those murders. Therefore, there is no DVP lie. You just changed the context of my quote so that you could pretend I told a lie. A pathetic maneuver by Slimeball Holmes, to be sure. But we'd expect nothing less from a Super Scumbag like Benny Holmes, now would we?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
JUST HOW STUPID ARE YOU, DAVID?
I've long had my suspicions of your IQ being just a tad lower than average, but your inability to understand my points here go a long way to supporting it.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And your IQ seems to rival that of cold melba toast.
IN ANOTHER DISCUSSION, BEN HOLMES SAID:
CE399...is incontrovertably "hard evidence" ... and doesn't support "Oswald's lone guilt."
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Of course it supports Oswald's lone guilt. What OTHER person's guilt do you think CE399 supports? Jimmy Files? Mac Wallace? Donald Trump?
CE399 is undeniably a bullet that came out of the rifle owned by Lee Harvey Oswald. It's not a bullet from some OTHER person's gun. It's from ONLY Lee Oswald's gun. Hence, that piece of evidence does support Oswald's guilt and nobody else's.
Now, you can start pretending that some other person used Oswald's gun to shoot Kennedy. But that argument has always gone nowhere for CTers, and everybody knows it's just another in a series of cop-out arguments utilized by desperate conspiracy theorists like Ben Holmes.
But to say (as Holmes did) that Commission Exhibit No. 399 "doesn't support Oswald's lone guilt" is just plain wrong---and stupid, since we know that the one and only person in the world who was the owner of the rifle that fired that bullet was a person named Lee H. Oswald.
BUD SAID:
I think his objection is with the word "lone", in that it doesn't rule out someone else firing along with Oswald.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Sure, that's obvious, but Ben phrased it this way — "CE399...doesn't support Oswald's lone guilt". He isolated just CE399 and then claimed that that ONE piece of evidence, by itself, doesn't support Oswald's sole guilt. But, in actuality, as I pointed out above (and so did you), that bullet definitely does support ONLY Oswald's guilt and nobody else's.
So Ben, as usual, is dead wrong.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
I didn't "isolate" CE399... I used it as merely *ONE* example.
The autopsy photographs & X-rays--INDISPUTABLY "hard evidence"--would be another example that fails to do what *YOU* claimed it did.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And you're wrong in saying that that one example [CE399] does not support Oswald's lone guilt....because it does JUST THAT. It supports the notion that the owner of the gun that fired that bullet was the lone shooter (especially after factoring in the fact that ALL of the other bullet fragments and shells ALSO came from the very same Carcano rifle that fired CE399).
And you're wrong if you think the autopsy pictures and X-rays don't support Oswald's lone guilt as well, because those photos and X-rays most certainly DO support the notion of ONE SHOOTER firing from BEHIND....without doubt.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
It [CE399] doesn't support *ANYONE'S* "guilt" - indeed, you cannot even show that the bullet was fired on 11/22/63.
If you cannot show a firm chain of custody back to who found the bullet, then you *CERTAINLY* can't show, on the basis of CE399, who fired it.
What are you going to do, put CE399 on the witness stand?
And you know quite well the evidence AGAINST Oswald owning a rifle - you simply ignore anything you don't want to hear.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You know darn well there's ample evidence to prove Oswald was the owner of Rifle C2766. Tons of it. The evidence could hardly be stronger, as I point out here....
Why would you (or anyone) just ignore the MANY things that indicate the rifle was ORDERED, OWNED, and POSSESSED by Lee Oswald? Why?
David Von Pein
September 2006
October 13, 2017
October 14, 2017
October 14, 2017
