"BOZ" SAID:
[Quoting DVP:]
"And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed, being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?" -- David Von Pein [August 2009]
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html
STEVE M. GALBRAITH SAID:
Does Mr. DiEugenio believe Garrison's allegations that Oswald, Shaw and Ferrie and others conspired to kill JFK and that, as Garrison claimed, Oswald brought the rifle to the building and yet also believe that Oswald was totally innocent of any involvement in the assassination?
Yes, Garrison said that Oswald was left to take responsibility for the act -- i.e., a "patsy"; but he also believed that Oswald was "in" on the act from its inception. Of course, Garrison (and I guess DiEugenio) believe that Shaw, using the alias Clay Bertrand, tried to hire an attorney (Dean Andrews) to defend Oswald. I wouldn't consider that abandoning Oswald.
Furthermore, does he believe that these three oddballs--Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald--hatched this idea at a party in New Orleans (with people around them listening to them discuss the idea!) and then somehow got the CIA, DPD, Pentagon and dozens of others to go along with it?
Are their any limits to the credulity of some in the conspiracy crowd?
STEVE M. GALBRAITH ALSO SAID:
How would they know where Oswald would be at the moment they shot JFK? If he had an alibi, if he was out on the street or back at Ft. Worth [sic; I think Steve meant to say "Irving" here] with Marina or anywhere where others could see him, then he couldn't be framed.
In order to frame a person for a crime they can't have an alibi; they must be "frameable". So you must not only know where that person is at the time of the crime you must be sure that you know that others aren't with him at the time.
So, how did they control this one small, but enormously complex, problem?
We know: they just did, right? The evidence for this, the proof is that they pulled it off. No details are needed.
And so it goes.
GREG PARKER SAID:
You know that is not the way police frame anyone, Steve. They kept him away from legal counsel, hammered him with questions, lied to him, presented false evidence to him, took his palm-print just prior to doing the paraffin test, ensuring a positive result on the hands, intimidated witnesses, allowed witnesses to view line-ups together, had older, better dressed police personnel in line-ups, and on and on.
If the cops and FBI were so cocksure they had the case cinched, why was Lovelady saying everyone was so relieved when he ID'd himself in the Altgens frame? Could it be because Oswald was telling them in the interrogations that he was out on the steps?
I will say again for the umpteenth time -- they didn't care where Oswald was or what he did. He was "frameable" so long as he turned up for work and was not clearly shown in any films to be elsewhere. If he didn't turn up, or left to go to lunch somewhere else, they frame someone else in the building. No shortage of potential there.
The most important thing was to break him and get a confession (as they did with numerous innocent people before and after Oswald). When that failed, he was executed without trial.
GREG PARKER ALSO SAID:
Can you quote anyone saying Oswald was the "one and only" fall guy they had?
It wasn't made "well in advance" but even Wade initially claimed it had to have been planned weeks or months in advance. That of course was prior to the requested switch to a LN scenario.
Those behind the hit didn't care what Oswald did. If he had phoned in sick that day, we may be here now discussing Frazier, Molina or one of the African-American workers instead. But Oswald didn't phone in sick, nor were his actions controlled. He was deliberately allowed to leave by Truly and then reported missing. Once DPD got a sniff of Oswald's ties to the Soviet Union, the plotters knew they could rely on them to do whatever it took to nail him.
If the Darnell or Weigman [sic] films had been immediately available, if they had not been blurry and clearly showed Oswald on the steps, and the films were shown on TV before they could be suppressed, Oswald is released and they frame someone else from that building. Or claim Oswald was a lookout and the shooter escaped. A conspiracy of two losers instead of one.
DVP's ploy is no different to many others... always pretending there are only two choices in any question - and only he/they get to say what those choices are. Here, it is either one patsy in a massive conspiracy, or one lone nut.
It's a false dichotomy and it's about time some of you started trying to win your arguments without relying on such cheap tactics. It is not any way to find the truth. You ARE interested in the truth, aren't you?
Imagine if all law enforcement agencies only ever considered two diametrically opposite scenarios? Wouldn't that be a joke? Of course it would. Just like DVP's posts are a joke when they rely on this method.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
So you think your made-up conspirators (aka: the unknown/unseen "they") actually had MULTIPLE "patsies" lined up to be framed for the murders of both JFK and Officer Tippit on 11/22/63?
Such a "Multi-Patsy" scenario, of course, would have made it DOUBLY (or triply?) difficult for the patsy-framers that day. Keeping just one guy where they needed him to be in order for him to be conveniently framed would be a hard enough chore. But you're now suggesting that the make-believe "they" had more than one such patsy ready to go on November 22. (That's hilarity at its finest, Greg.)
Care to go out on a limb and tell us WHO the second patsy was supposed to be on 11/22? And was there a third one waiting in the wings on "stand by" status as well?
REPLAY....
GREG PARKER SAID:
Those behind the hit didn't care what Oswald did. If he had phoned in sick that day, we may be here now discussing Frazier, Molina or one of the African-American workers instead.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, Greg. And the DPD could have also called up "Patsies For All Occasions, Inc." (located on Commerce Street in downtown Dallas) and ordered two or three more back-up patsies (just in case Wesley Frazier, Joe Molina, or one of the African-American TSBD workers didn't work out as the #2 patsy behind Oswald).
In other words, according to Greg Parker, it seems that all the Dallas Police Department had to do was snap their collective fingers and--Voila!--a patsy is born! Nothing to it at all. It's as simple as moving bishops and pawns around a chess board. Right, Greg?
And let me ask this----
If Depository employee Joe Molina had been utilized as a "back-up patsy" by the DPD (or FBI or Secret Service or whoever), just exactly how do you think that frame-up would have been accomplished on 11/22/63? Would they have (somehow) quickly created a new set of fake documents to show that it was really Molina, instead of Lee Oswald, who owned the C2766 Carcano rifle (which is the rifle that all reasonable people know killed President Kennedy)? Or would "they" have framed Molina using a different weapon entirely?
And how on Earth could the DPD have possibly "framed" Joe Molina for the murder of J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street? Would the crooked cops have been able to get Ted Callaway and Helen Markham and Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis and all of the other "I Saw Oswald" witnesses to somehow say they saw Joe R. Molina instead?!
In other words, how could all of that "OSWALD KILLED JFK & TIPPIT" evidence that we currently have piled up against the door in this case somehow get turned into "MOLINA KILLED JFK & TIPPIT" evidence?
And just SAYING it could easily be done isn't going to cut it.
Talk is mighty cheap. But most conspiracy theorists seem to thrive on such inexpensive chatter.
GREG PARKER SAID:
You once again demonstrate that the only way you can debate is by putting words in the mouths of others and "debating" what you wish they had said.
Let me spell it out for you. The frame was so shoddy, it could have had only limited pre-planning, if any at all. If there was any "patsy" pre-planning, it was in having potential patsies in other parts of the motorcade. Russell McLarry might be one example.
If they had to rely on framing someone inside the TSBD and they were unable to use Oswald for whatever reason, I suspect that the next in line was probably Givens.
The idea seems to have been to toss someone to the DPD and let them do what they do best - make (up) a case against their suspect.
Your desperation in trying to twist this into a complicated multi-level conspiracy involving a cast of thousands won't work with me friend.
It was your garden variety DPD frame which just happen to be applied in the biggest case of the 20th century.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, like I said before, you think the cops could (and would!) just snap their fingers and come up with an instant patsy on a moment's notice.
You don't even seem to realize how silly and utterly ridiculous this statement of yours is....
"The idea seems to have been to toss someone to the DPD and let them do what they do best - make (up) a case against their suspect."
David Von Pein
March 18-20, 2019
