JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 72)

DAVID G. HEALY SAID:

>>> "Lone Nutters do NOT believe in eyewitness testimony." <<<


DAVID R. VON PEIN SAID:

Lookie, Healy gets another one wrong.

To put things straight.....

A reasonable person (e.g., an "LNer", usually) will evaluate and weigh
the eyewitness/earwitness testimony to see if it's worthy of belief or
disbelief.

If the witness saw or heard things that are corroborated by OTHER
(harder, physical) evidence, then it's much more likely that that
witness is correct. (I think we're all in agreement there, right?
Maybe even the kooks.)

Example #1:

All of the Tippit witnesses who fingered Oswald (approx. 13 of them in
total). They saw something (Oswald at the murder scene) that is backed
up by other evidence (Oswald's bullet shells strewn on the Davis lawn).
It's therefore very unlikely that those witnesses are wrong about what
they saw.

Example #2:

Howard Brennan. He saw something (Oswald shooting a rifle at JFK's
car) that is backed up by TONS of other, harder evidence....gun,
shells, bullets, prints, fibers, and flight from the murder scene.

Given this non-Brennan evidence, the odds that Howard saw anyone up in
that window with a gun OTHER than Lee Harvey Oswald are almost non-
existent.

An example in the other direction (i.e., toward NOT believing certain
witnesses):

The Parkland witnesses who said that the back of JFK's head was blown
out. These witnesses have ZERO pieces of solid, hard evidence to back
them up (regardless of how many such witnesses there are).

The autopsy X-rays, the autopsy photos, the autopsy report, the
autopsists themselves, the Zapruder Film, and the ballistics evidence
(which all leads to one gun--Oswald's--which was to the REAR of
President Kennedy when the head shot occurred) tell a reasonable
person that, amazing as it might seem, ALL of the Parkland "BOH"
witnesses (and, incredibly, the few Bethesda "BOH" witnesses too),
were 100% wrong about there being a big, gaping hole in the back of
John F. Kennedy's cranium on November 22, 1963.

David Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 30, 2007)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 71)

ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "I showed there aren't enough bullets to cause 8 wounds, two large fragments, three tiny particles, a big dent in [the] chrome and a cracked windshield." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Don't you love it when a conspiracist thinks he knows certain things
beyond all doubt that are in complete opposition to what THE EXPERTS
WHO INVESTIGATED THE ASSASSINATION SAID (and MULTIPLE experts for
MULTIPLE investigations too...e.g., WC, HSCA, Clark Panel, Rockefeller
Commission, Dr. Olivier of the U.S. Army, etc.)??


>>> "8 wounds..." <<<

All of JBC's & JFK's wounds were positively caused by TWO bullets that
were fired from Lee Oswald's MC rifle.

That's a fact that was agreed upon by BOTH the Warren Commission and
the House Select Committee on Assassinations. (Both of those
organizations were full of liars, is that it Rob? Therefore, you think
you can just dismiss their "ONLY TWO BULLETS HIT THE VICTIMS"
conclusion out of hand. Right? It's nice being a nutcase, huh?)

The SBT is a rock-solid fact. Common sense alone makes it true. And
when the ONE bullet in evidence is coupled with the ZERO OTHER BULLETS
in evidence and the ZERO BULLETS found in Kennedy & Connally and the
LACK OF BODILY damage inside JFK's neck & back....then the SBT rises
several more notches on the "Actually Happened" scale.

Only a kook would ignore all of those obvious "common sense" factors
connected with the shooting and the SBT.

Plus: The viability of the SBT was given a big boost in late 2004 when
The Discovery Channel aired "JFK: BEYOND THE MAGIC BULLET", which
proved that a WCC/MC missile just like CE399 can (and will) go through
two "mock-ups" of the two Dallas victims, with that test bullet
travelling a very similar trajectory and doing a similar amount of
damage to the two mock "victims"....with the test bullet then
emerging IN ONE PIECE, like this:



The excellent "Beyond The Magic Bullet" demonstration is just more
stuff that the conspiracy-loving clowns must totally ignore (or skew)
in order to forge ahead with their silly and mindless "The SBT Was
Impossible" drivel.


>>> "...Two large fragments [in the limo]..." <<<

Which were from the head-shot bullet (from Oswald's rifle). So, we're
still at TWO total bullets hitting the victims.

Next....


>>> "...Three tiny particles [under Nellie Connally's jump seat in the limo]..." <<<

Which were almost certainly also from the head-shot bullet (from
Oswald's rifle). Nothing has knocked an "Oswald bullet" out of
contention regarding these fragments. So, we're still at TWO total
bullets hitting the victims. And both from LHO's Mannlicher-Carcano.

Next....


>>> "...A big dent in [the] chrome [at the front of the limousine]..." <<<

Which is a dent in the chrome that was almost certainly caused by one
of the two front-seat bullet fragments (from Oswald's gun) after those
fragments exited President Kennedy's head after Lee Harvey Oswald's
bullet crashed through JFK's cranium at approx. 2,100 to 2,200 feet
per second.

So, we're still at TWO total bullets hitting the victims. (Both from
Oswald's MC weapon.)

Next....


>>> "...And a cracked windshield." <<<

Which is a cracked windshield that was almost certainly caused by the
other of the two large bullet fragments from Lee Oswald's rifle that
struck Kennedy in the head, causing FORWARD-MOVING fragments to exit
his head, moving toward the front of the Presidential limousine,
naturally.

This is, again, perfectly consistent with the "LN/LHO/3-Shots-Fired/
Oswald-In-TSBD" viewpoint.

So, we are still at TWO total bullets striking the two victims in the
car....with both of those bullets coming out of the barrel of
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766.

Let's see the conspiracy kooks ignore all of this lone-assassin-proving
material (which, of course, they will ignore, without feeling a tiny bit
of embarrassment while so doing):

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cunningham1.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/nicol.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/contents.htm

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/contents.htm

David Von Pein
November 30, 2007

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 70)

CONSPIRACIST:

>>> "Where were the bullet [CE399] and the fragments [CE567 & CE569] found?? Were they removed from the body of the victim, or were they found in a remote location far removed from the body? If they were not removed from the body of the victim, and found in some remote place far removed from the body, how do you know they are the bullets that killed the victim??" <<<


DAVID V.P.:

Yeah, I guess I should start believing one of these two things:

1.) CE399, CE567, and CE569 were planted by one or more unknown,
unseen evidence-manipulators.

or:

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle just happened to be used in a DIFFERENT
shooting on 11/22/63, with this OTHER shooting event resulting in Bullet
CE399 being found in the very same hospital where JFK and Governor
Connally were transported.

I've tried mightily to come up with a "CT Kook's Goofy Alternative"
scenario with respect to CE567 & CE569 being found inside the
limousine on the same day when JFK & JBC were shot....but I'm having a
difficult time pretending to be one of you conspiracy-happy kooks when
it comes to making up some kind of alternate version of the obvious
truth regarding those two important pieces of bullet evidence.

But perhaps Walt The Kook can help me out here. -- Maybe those
fragments were ALREADY inside the car at some previous time before the
assassination, huh? And nobody noticed them until after Kennedy was
killed.

Yeah, try using that theory, Walt. It's just about as goofy as the
rest of your canned conspiracy tripe.


>>> "You know the evidence indicates that LHO could not have traveled from the rooming house to 10th and Patton in two or three minutes. You just don't want to admit that that FACT exonerates Oswald." <<<

Sure, that particular fact would, indeed, exonerate your favorite
patsy of the Tippit murder -- but ONLY if you can somehow establish
with 100% certainty that the "1:06" time for the murder that you kooks
love to precariously cling to is positively correct.

Plus, you would also need to (somehow) prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that Earlene Roberts' estimation about Oswald staying in his room "3
or 4 minutes" is 100% accurate AND that Oswald left his roominghouse
at exactly 1:03 or 1:04 PM.

In actuality, of course, not a single one of those "timeline" items
mentioned above can be locked down with absolute to-the-minute
precision. They're all estimations.

And, as we all know, OTHER EVIDENCE (and plenty of it) completely
trumps and destroys the "1:06" timeline that CTers embrace.

But, when you're an idiot like Walt, the subjective and approximated
timelines given by witnesses somehow trump the harder, more verifiable
evidence, such as the four bullet shells from Oswald's very own gun
and the numerous witnesses who said it was Oswald who was on Tenth
Street when Tippit died.


>>> "Actually, the MC [Mannlicher-Carcano] cost $19.95. An error on your part." <<<

No, it wasn't an error on my part at all. The $21.45 gun cost that I
previously mentioned is totally accurate. Because that's what it cost
Lee Harvey Oswald to obtain Rifle #C2766 -- $21.45 (including the
$1.50 for postage and handling).

http://history-matters.com/WH_Vol17_0352

David Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 29, 2007)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 69)

ROB CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "The extracted bullets [from J.D. Tippit's body] did not match the
gun Lee Harvey Oswald had when he was arrested, how do you explain that?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The bullets were too mutilated, idiot. (Joe Nicol did say one bullet could
be linked to Oswald's gun, though.)


>>> "Automatic shells were found." <<<

No, they weren't.

No automatic shells are in the record. And furthermore, no automatic
weapon could have been involved, because witnesses verify that Oswald
(who was the ONLY person toting a gun on 10th St.) was emptying a
REVOLVER....not an automatic.

Guess what? You're still batting triple-oh.


>>> "Also, the .38 shells in the National Archives do not match the revolver LHO had when he was arrested either, how do you explain this?" <<<

You're full of shit. The ONLY shells in evidence perfectly match
Oswald's S&W revolver. No amount of kookcrap you utter will change
that fact.


>>> "They took two Remingtons and two Winchesters from Tippit, but the shells consisted of three Winchesters and one Remington. How do you explain this?" <<<

And what do you offer as an alternate solution to the "Oswald Did It"
scenario here? Do you think that somebody with an automatic plugged
Tippit with the exact type of bullet brands that Oswald happened to
have in his gun on 11/22?

And do you think the goofball plotters decided to plant some shells on
Tenth Street, but they failed to get the mixture of shells aligned
correctly with the bullets in Tippit?

How did the plotters manage to "plant" the real Oswald on 10th St.,
who was seen dumping shells in the Davises' yard?

Let's hear your alternate CT scenario and see if it can stand on its
own two legs.


>>> "They were from an automatic pistol according to the police on the scene." <<<

Not one policeman saw a single "automatic" shell. Not one.

You know why? Because all four shells in evidence are from Oswald's
gun, which was not an automatic.

Explain that. (Can you do that without pretending that the cops
planted evidence?)


>>> "Answer this for me, if LHO shot JDT with a revolver, why did he leave incriminating evidence like "spent shells" when he could have taken them with him?" <<<

Oh goodie. Now I have to play psychologist in order to explain the
evidence left behind. And if I can't come up with a good psychological
report to explain Mr. Oswald's actions on 11/22, then Rob-Kook gets to
believe that the evidence left behind by Oswald never existed. Is that
it, kookmeister?

How many more flimsy excuses have you got in your ten-gallon hat so
you can pretend your favorite patsy is innocent? Quite a few, no
doubt.


>>> "Do you have proof his [LHO's] gun had been fired?" <<<

Four bullets from Oswald's gun went into Tippit's body on 11/22/63,
idiot. So, yes, I have ample proof. (Via the shells and via the fact
that the ONLY GUNMAN on Tenth Street was named Lee H. Oswald.)

But Mr. Tippit will be glad to know that the guy who shot and killed
him couldn't have done it.

J.D.'s probably still alive in Florida. How 'bout that?


>>> "Do you have a match between his gun and the bullets in JDT?" <<<

Joseph Nicol says so.

But even without such a match, it doesn't matter, because there was
only ONE person firing a gun on 10th St. on 11/22, and that one person
was LHO, and LHO had a revolver on him when arrested, and that
revolver was linked to all four shells littering the front and side
yards of the Davis property.


>>> "I think the odds are great [due] to the real killer using a combination of those types of ammo in his automatic pistol, whoever he was." <<<

Nice coincidence that the "real" killer happened to have Remington and
Winchester missiles in his gun too that day.

And it was damn lucky for those always-fortunate plotters that the
bullets were too mangled to ELIMINATE Oswald's revolver as the murder
weapon.

And it was also lucky that one of those bullets from a NON-Oswald gun
that went into Tippit was (somehow) identified positively as a bullet
from OSWALD'S gun by Joseph D. Nicol, huh?

I guess Mr. Nicol must have been on the conspirators' payroll
too....right, Mr. Kook? Because you claim that an "automatic" gun
killed Tippit; but Nicol says otherwise. Go figure. ~shrug~


>>> "You are not mentioning that the prints on JDT's car, taken from where witnesses said the killer leaned, did not match LHO, how come?" <<<

Citation please? (Something you never, ever provide.)

Anyway, your point is moot, because the evidence shows that Oswald
FOLDED HIS ARMS and then leaned against the patrol car's door. (Was
Oswald supposed to leave an identifiable "forearm print" on the car?
And while wearing a jacket?)


>>> "The bullets and shells did not match LHO's style of gun." <<<

A blatant lie.


>>> "You are assuming again that the shells found at the [Tippit] scene are the same ones found, right?" <<<

Huh? What's this double-speak? A form of Kook-Lingo, I suppose.


>>> "Poe initialed two shells, and yet his initials are nowhere to be found on the final evidence." <<<

Patrolman J.M. Poe said he didn't remember marking them, idiot. But be sure to ignore the following testimony:

JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you put any markings on the hulls?"
J.M. POE -- "I couldn't swear to it; no, sir."


>>> "They couldn't link Oswald's gun with the bullets taken out of JDT because the bullets were too mutilated." <<<

And yet, incredibly, you feel confident enough to know those "mutilated"
bullets were positively from an "automatic" gun, right? And those bullets,
therefore, couldn't possibly have come from Oz's gun, correct? (Go figure
the logic of this.)

Fact: The lead from the Tippit bullets was consistent with bullets
fired from Oswald's bored-out .38 Smith & Wesson revolver.


>>> "Even accepting that Oswald owned and possessed the weapon in question, and that the shells tested by the FBI had been fired from that weapon, the ballistics evidence is questionable." <<<

Only to a kook who wants Oswald innocent of this second November 22nd
murder too. To a reasonable person, however, the evidence is rock-solid,
and it all hangs your sweetheart named Lee Harvey.


>>> "At least you are being fair." <<<

It's just too bad you never are.


>>> "But they [the shell casings] simply don't match LHO's gun. His gun had work done (rechambered) to it and required a fatter shell case; the ones found did not have this characteristic." <<<

If you spout this lie 58 more times today it'll still be a lie.

All four shells in evidence were fired from Oswald's gun. Live with
it. Deal with it. It's called an irreversible "FACT". .....

MELVIN EISENBERG -- "By the way, on the cartridge cases, that was also to
the exclusion of all other weapons?"

JOSEPH D. NICOL -- "Correct."

Plus -- If you want to believe somebody was framing Oswald for the
Tippit murder too....why would they plant shells that could never in a
million years be traced to Ozzie's gun (via the "bulge" excuse that certain
conspiracy kooks constantly like to use)? That's nuts.


>>> "Only one person [positively identified Oswald as Tippit's lone killer] -- Helen Markham." <<<

Dead wrong, as usual. Three other witnesses did. But you'll ignore
Scoggins, Benavides, and Tatum. You have to. If you don't, Oswald is 4
times as guilty.

Plus, there are witnesses named Davis, Davis, Reynolds, Callaway,
Brock, Lewis, and Patterson -- who all saw Oswald fleeing the area of
the murder and saw NOBODY ELSE running from the crime scene.

But, maybe your "real killer" cloaked himself with the help of a
device supplied by James T. Kirk of the U.S.S. Enterprise.

Nice post, Rob. You managed to mangle 100% of the verified evidence
connected to Officer J.D. Tippit's murder. What a surprise.

BTW, why was there any need whatsoever to frame Oswald for Tippit's
murder too (as so many CT nuts seem to believe)?

If Oswald WASN'T really at the Tippit murder scene at all (as many
kooks firmly believe), then why wouldn't framing Oz for JUST the
President's murder have sufficed? Why complicate matters by trying to
set him up for DOUBLE the slayings on November 22nd?

So, per a lot of the kooks, the conspirators have doubled the
complexity of the case and doubled the chances of the patsy-framers
being caught by insisting upon needlessly framing LHO for Tippit's
murder too.

Wouldn't Ozzie hang from his noose just as easily for JUST having
killed President John Fitzgerald Kennedy in Dealey Plaza?

(Do you see how stupid all this covert "frame-up" shit sounds when you
step outside its rickety framework for two seconds and peer in?)

David Von Pein
November 29, 2007

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 68)

CONSPIRACY THEORIST ROB CAPRIO SAID:


>>> "You keep saying 'linked to the rifle' (this is in doubt...)." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's not in "doubt" in any way at all. Even most CTers will readily
admit that CE567/569 were linked to Rifle #C2766 "to the exclusion".
Same with the 3 bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest.

Why you keep saying this evidence is in doubt is anybody's guess. But
my guess is: it's because you're an evidence-ignoring moron.

(Did I come close?)


>>> "My question was if they came from two seperate [sic] bullets, which ones did they come from? Answer the question." <<<

Bullet fragments CE567 and CE569 didn't come from two separate
bullets, you idiot. They came from the one bullet that hit JFK in the
head, which is a bullet that came out of Lee Harvey Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.


>>> "It wasn't obvious to Frazier and Nicol (and most definitely the other two "experts" left out of the report in name [i.e., Cunningham & Killion], so why is so obvious to you?" <<<

Of course it was obvious to Frazier, Nicol, Cunningham, and Killion.
But, quite obviously, since the bullet was split into TWO SEPARATE
PARTS, the FBI and Nicol couldn't come right out and say with 100%
finality that CE567 & 569 were positively from the very same bullet.

But Frazier, et al, like anyone else with an ounce of common sense,
knew that those fragments were almost certainly from the same bullet.

The crazy notion that a matching portion of EACH of the two fragments
went AWOL, with no overlapping parts on either 567 or 569, is just
plain fairy-tale time. But, being a kook, you feel you have to go with
the fairy tale evidently.

"There is not enough of the two fragments [CE567 & CE569] in unmutilated condition to determine whether or not the fragments actually fit together. However, it was determined that there is no area on one fragment, such as 567, which would overlap a corresponding area on the base section of 569, so that they could be parts of one bullet, and then, of course, they could be parts of separate bullets." -- Robert A. Frazier; 1964 Warren Commission testimony


>>> "How do we know this (one bullet hitting JFK's head)? Again, how do you know this for sure? But the bullet supposedly used was a full-metal jacketed bullet that is designed not to fragment, just like the miracle bullet. Why did it here?" <<<

Playing the resident idiot again, I see.

Read Lattimer.
Read the WC.
Read Olivier.

Or: just look at this image below (and the accompanying text), which
vividly shows what happens to a Mannlicher-Carcano, 6.5-millimeter,
FMJ, Western Cartridge Company bullet after it hits a human skull
travelling at full velocity. (This is just something else for the CT-
Kooks to totally ignore, I would imagine.).....



David Von Pein
November 28, 2007

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 67)

CONSPIRACY NUT ROB CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "As I said before...[bullet lead] either matches or not; there is no third option." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And I should take the word of Dr. Robert Caprio over the word of a
qualified Professor of Chemistry (Dr. Vincent Guinn) and the various
other experts in the field of bullet-lead analysis and identification,
right?

(Somebody break out those LOL icons once more.)


>>> "Also, your experts couldn't say the fragments came from the same bullet, so which bullet left them, if the head shot didn't leave both?" <<<

You were talking about the "front-seat" fragments above, weren't you?
(Sometimes it's hard to read Kook Talk, but I think you were referring
to CE567/569 here.)

Anyway, only a total fool/idiot/moron who has looked at the SUM TOTAL
of the bullet evidence that was recovered in this murder case could
possibly think the CE567 and CE569 had come from TWO separate bullets
fired from Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle C2766.

Both fragments in question were positively linked to Oswald's C2766 rifle,
and there was no overlapping sections on the fragments that would
indicate they were from two different missiles.

Plus: One was a base of a bullet; while the other was just the
opposite--the nose portion of a bullet fired from rifle C2766.

And, when that TOTALITY of evidence is assessed and evaluated
(including the high likelihood that John Connally was struck by just
ONE single bullet, with that one bullet positively being CE399, due to
the location where that missile was found within Parkland Hospital),
then it becomes obvious that THE ONLY THING that could have possibly
caused the fragmentation of the C2766 bullet which deposited CE567 and
CE569 in the front seat of the limousine was JOHN F. KENNEDY'S HEAD.

Plus: We also know with 100% certainty that JFK was hit in the head by
ONLY ONE BULLET, and that bullet was fired from BEHIND the President's
car. That fact also perfectly corresponds with the bullet evidence
found in the front seat (CE567/569)...with those fragments ending up
to the FRONT of Kennedy's position, perfectly consistent with the head-
shot bullet travelling in a REAR-to-FRONT manner.

Plus: There are the TWO damaged areas to the limo itself -- the chrome
dent and the windshield crack....which is a perfect match for the two
bullet fragments that ended up in the front part of the car.

Every single thing fits perfectly in a "Lone Assassin/C2766" fashion.

But, naturally, the Kook Brigade must ignore the above common-sense
observations regarding the sum total of the bullet evidence, in order
to posit their make-believe theories about JFK being hit in the head
from the front.

BTW, any idea why that bullet from your make-believe Grassy Knoll
gunman didn't do any damage whatsoever to the LEFT hemisphere of
President Kennedy's cranium? Doesn't that little snafu seem the
SLIGHTEST bit odd to the "Badge Man Shot JFK From The Knoll" kooks? If
not....why not?

David Von Pein
November 27, 2007

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 66)

CONSPIRACY THEORIST ROB CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "I mean they [the DPD] interviewed the guy [Lee Harvey Oswald] for like 12 hours; why is there no recording of him confessing or anything else?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I guess maybe that's because he didn't confess....or anything. (Duh.)

Let's see you come up with proof that it was a regular DPD policy to
record or transcribe the statements of prisoners/suspects, circa 1963.
Can you do that?

Plus, we have this from J. Will Fritz. (But Fritz, a 31-year veteran
of the Dallas Police Department as of 11/22/63, is probably just lying
out his fat ass, right Mr. Rob-Kook?).....

JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you have any tape recorder?"

CAPTAIN J.W. FRITZ -- "No, sir; I don't have a tape recorder. We need
one, if we had one at this time we could have handled these
conversations far better."

MR. BALL -- "The Dallas Police Department doesn't have one?"

CAPTAIN FRITZ -- "No, sir; I have requested one several times but so
far they haven't gotten me one."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm


>>> "Also, if [the Dallas Police] had guarded him better, he would have gone to trial and we could have heard all the details." <<<

Oh, you mean all of those "conspiracy" details, right? You think that
a vast conspiracy would have been revealed by Patsy Oswald had he gone
to trial, huh? (He would have been a fool to step up on that witness
stand, of course, but that's another discussion.)

You kooks have been attempting to drag that Patsy Plot out into the
daylight for 44 years and 3 days now, and we haven't seen a vestige of
that plot proven yet. But I guess you think Oswald would have taken
that witness stand and started singing like a jaybird had he lived to
see his trial, right?

~Chuckle Time~


>>> "...But the DPD can't protect anyone I guess." <<<

So you think the DPD deliberately allowed Oswald to be killed in the
police basement? Is that it, kookmeister?

Or are you merely down in the dumps because your favorite patsy was
gunned down before he was convicted of the two murders that he
positively committed on 11/22/63?


>>> "Why did they [the DPD] not get him a lawyer?" <<<

The President of the Dallas Bar Association (H. Louis Nichols) came to
see Oswald on Saturday, November 23rd and offered the services of the
DBA, but LHO turned down the offer and told Nichols that he might
contact him later if he could not secure Mr. Abt's services. .....

"The chief [Jesse Curry] had the officer open the door, and he introduced me to Oswald, and told him my name and said that I was the president of the Dallas Bar Association and had come up to see him about whether or not he needed or wanted a lawyer. .... I said, 'What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?' He said, 'No, not now'." -- H.L. Nichols; Warren Commission Testimony; April 8, 1964

http://jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/nichol_h.htm


And there's also this testimony from Captain Fritz:

JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you say anything to him [Oswald] about an attorney
the first time you talked to him?"

CAPTAIN J.W. FRITZ -- "Yes, sir; the first time. He asked about an
attorney, and I told him he certainly could have an attorney any time
he wanted it. I told him he could have an attorney any time he liked,
any attorney he wanted. I told him, I said, we will do it. He said he
wanted an attorney in New York. And he gave me his name, Mr. Abt, and
he said that is who he wanted, and I told him he could have anyone he
liked."

[Later....]

CAPTAIN FRITZ -- "He [LHO] told me that he didn't want a lawyer and he
told me once or twice that he didn't want to answer any questions at
all. .... I talked to him about a lawyer a number of times and he said
he didn't want the local attorneys, some attorney had been up to see
him after one of these questionings, and he said he didn't want him at
all. He wanted Mr. Abt."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/fritz1.htm


Still think Oswald was being denied legal representation?


>>> "There is no evidence in LN land; therefore, I can't be a LNer if I follow the evidence." <<<

Let's listen to that one more time (just for the mindboggling
stupidity that exists within these few words):

"There is no evidence in LN land."

(It's even more mindbogglingly stupid the second time around.)


>>> "I started by reading the official document called the WCR, and unsatisfied with this horrible and ridiculous account, I began searching for more information." <<<

Yeah, why stick with the documented facts and the verified "It Was
Oswald" evidence when you can just as easily go "searching for more
information" until you find the pro-conspiracy kookshit you're desperately
seeking, right?

Good plan.


>>> "More people who were in the Marines with him have said he was a horrible shot, vs. anyone you can find. It is well documented with his scores as well." <<<

Bullshit.

Dr. John Lattimer was able to acquire Oswald's original "Score Book"
from the Marines (or at least one such book that recorded some of
Oswald's rifle-range scores), and that book showed the results of two
of Oswald's near-perfect scores on the range (at a 200-yard distance,
which is more than twice the distance of Oswald's third shot in Dallas,
which was only 88 yards).

In a documentary a few years ago, Dr. Lattimer showed the two pages of
the Score Book on camera. One of the scores was 48 out of 50; and on
another day, Oswald scored a 49 out of 50 on the 200-yard rifle range.

But it's best for you conspiracy-happy kooks if you keep on believing
that Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't hit the broadest side of the
proverbial barn, despite the fact that you're dead wrong.


>>> "He had no practice between this exam and the assassination, so how is he better than a civilian that hunts and practices all the time?" <<<

Firstly, you have absolutely no proof whatsoever that Oswald "had no
practice" between the time he scored that 191 late in his 3-year hitch
in the Marines and the day of the assassination. He might very well
have practiced with his Carcano between March and November. Nobody can
prove he did; but nobody can prove he didn't either.

Secondly, while I'll readily admit that Oswald's shooting ability
could have been a tad rusty as of November 1963 (since he had been out
of the Marines for four years by that time), he DID spend three full
years in the U.S. Marine Corps and DID make some very good scores on
the rifle range during those three years.

In short, Lee Harvey Oswald was a TRAINED MILITARY RIFLEMAN -- like it
or not. He was trained by men who know how to teach people how to
shoot rifles; and while Oswald was never in the top ("Expert") category,
he did make "Sharpshooter" in 1956, so the ability for some pretty decent
shooting with a rifle was certainly within the person of Lee H. Oswald.

Should I use the "It's like riding a bike--you never forget" analogy
here? (Okay...I just did anyway.)


>>> "You are the one saying I'm wrong, but as usual you have no proof to show." <<<

What is considered "proof" to a conspiracy kook anyway? Would a note
from God saying "It Was Lee" do the trick?

I guess it's going to take that heaven-sent message from above to
convince the kooks, because apparently the FIFTY-PLUS separate pieces
of individual evidence that lead toward Oswald's guilt are not nearly
enough for the "Anybody But Oz" loony-toons.

V.B. BREAK........

"As a prosecutor, I found out something -- and, really, you don't have to be a prosecutor to know this; it's just common sense -- and that is: if you are innocent of a crime, there's probably not going to be anything pointing toward your guilt. Why? Well, because you're INNOCENT. But because of the nature of life, and the unaccountability of certain things, every once in a while there might be one or two things that point toward your guilt, even though you're innocent. And in very rare situations, there might even be THREE things that point toward your guilt even though you're completely innocent. But in this case, EVERY SINGLE THING pointed toward Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt. Everything! In "Reclaiming History", I set forth 53 separate pieces of evidence that point irresistibly to Oswald's guilt. And under those circumstances, it would not be humanly possible for him to be innocent. Because you cannot have fifty-three separate pieces of evidence pointing toward your guilt and still be innocent....at least not in the world in which we live. Only in a fantasy world can you have fifty-three pieces of evidence pointing to your guilt and still be innocent." -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; 2007




>>> "I don't see what is so nutty about what I say." <<<

You supposedly have studied the evidence in this case (right??), and
yet you have the balls to say crap like this (on more than one occasion):

"LHO shot no one."

and

"There is no evidence in LN land."

And then you have the additional gall to say this:

"I don't see what is so nutty about what I say."

(Apparently Robby wouldn't notice a pair of elephants sitting in his
bathtub, even when Rob's in the bathtub with them.)

Fact is (of course): The junk Rob spews is so "nutty", we could make a
gallon of peanut butter with it. (Those elephants might come in handy
here after all.)


>>> "You think LHO is guilty based on very little evidence..." <<<

There's that nutty talk again. (Really nutty.)

You're just plain wrong here, Rob. Simple as that. No matter how many
times you insist that there's "very little evidence" against Lee
Oswald, it still won't be true. The exact opposite is true, in fact.

There is so much evidence against Oswald for the two murders he
carried out on November 22, 1963, it's almost beyond belief.

I suppose that's part of the reason you just simply don't want to
believe in the vast assortment of evidence that exists against Mr.
Oswald; i.e., you probably think it's just "too pat", right? It's too
convenient. Which means, per some CTers, that this huge mountain of
evidence (both physical and circumstantial) must somehow be fake or
manufactured in some way.

But at some point, the person making such bold claims must PROVE HIS
CASE, and prove that all (or ANY) of this evidence against LHO is, in
fact, "faked" or "planted", or whatever. Thus far, such proof has not
arrived.

In fact, CTers are pitiful in this regard. They don't really even TRY
to prove their claims about "phony evidence". They think that by just
SAYING the evidence is "no good", it magically makes it so. But, as
Vincent Bugliosi (a seasoned courtroom lawyer) would say -- "It's not
quite that easy!"

Speaking (again) of Vince, now seems like a pretty good time for
another "Vince Common Sense Break". Let's bask in the following logic
for just a minute or two, shall we? All quotes are directly from the
indicated pages of Bugliosi's 2007 masterwork "Reclaiming History: The
Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy":

"Not only was there PHYSICAL circumstantial evidence against Oswald [e.g., guns, bullets, and fingerprints traced to the defendant], but there was an enormous amount of non-physical circumstantial evidence, including the very most powerful in this category: his flight from the murder scene, his resisting arrest, and his telling one provable lie after another upon his apprehension, all showing an unmistakable consciousness of guilt." -- Page 528 of endnotes

==========

"In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- Page 964

==========

"It is remarkable that conspiracy theorists can believe that groups like the CIA, military-industrial complex, and FBI would murder the president, but cannot accept the likelihood, even the possibility, that a nut like Oswald would flip out and commit the act, despite the fact that there is a ton of evidence showing that Oswald killed Kennedy, and not an ounce showing that any of these groups had anything to do with the assassination. It is further remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- Pages 951-952

==========

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence." -- Pages 952-953

==========

"I can tell the readers of this book that if anyone in the future maintains to them that Oswald was just a patsy and did not kill Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence against Oswald or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." -- Page 969


>>> "The real point is that LHO could not do what your theory claims by himself (in terms of the SBT [Single-Bullet Theory], only with God's help); therefore, common sense says he had help at the very least. Help = conspiracy. Not real difficult, Dave." <<<

And just because ALL of the physical (ballistics) evidence DOES,
indeed, tell the world that you are 100% wrong, with that evidence
showing that one gunman DID, indeed, pull off the assassination of
President Kennedy all by himself (i.e., with Lee Harvey Oswald's very
own C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, firing three shots from Oswald's
own workplace on the 6th Floor of the Texas School Book Depository
Building in Dealey Plaza)....you, a rabid conspiracist, choose to
believe exactly the OPPOSITE from what this ballistics evidence
indicates.

Is that about the size of the situation as she currently exists there
in Kookville? (Meaning: Things are normal in Kookville....everything
is upside-down and topsy-turvy.)

And maybe you should take a closer look at the Single-Bullet Theory,
Robert. It's the only possible scenario that makes a lick of sense (when
all of the physical evidence and all variables regarding the victims
are evaluated).

I've taken a pretty close look at the SBT, along with the crazy solutions
that some CTers have invented to replace the SBT; and if you truly think
that ANY theory purported by CTers (if you can even get a CTer to talk
about a detailed anti-SBT scenario, which is very rare) is MORE reasonable
and MORE convincing than the single-bullet scenario, then you are immersed
deeper in conspiracy quicksand than anyone could possibly imagine.

If you peruse some of these articles, you'll be able to see what I mean.


>>> "Like he [Oswald] knew about all the things they were doing to frame him. Please. They are professionals; they knew how to do this and get away with it." <<<

Hilarious. The kook thinks that these "professionals" would have actually fired
upon JFK's limo from three (or more) different locations within the framework
of a "LET'S FRAME ONLY LEE HARVEY OSWALD AS OUR PATSY" assassination
plot.

Did those "professionals" have a patent on "Miracles Coming True", too?
They must have, if they forged ahead with a cuckoo scheme like that
one (which is a theory that many, many conspircists actually believe, too).


>>> "How do you explain the horrible effort by the Warren Commission if there was no coverup?" <<<

What "horrible effort"? Their effort was outstanding, for they arrived
at the truth about what happened on November 22, and then published
their findings (a few warts and all) for all Americans to read.

Thousands of pages of testimony were published and 3,154 exhibits were
introduced into evidence by the WC (not counting the many extra
"Commission Documents"). 552 witnesses were interviewed (many at great
length). And a staff of full-time lawyers investigated and researched
the case for over nine months.

Maybe you should try reading this impressive 888-page document. After
all, the truth rests within it.


>>> "They couldn't have planned on a better group of numskulls if they tried (except for Dick Russell)." <<<

What a surprise, huh? Rob picks out as his WC hero the one person on
the Commission who was, by far, the biggest know-nothing member of
that Commission (Richard Russell). Still batting triple-zero, Rob.
Good job.


>>> "Nothing like proving anything, huh? He [Vince Bugliosi] just uses an abstract reference to make his point. Just pathetic." <<<

Spoken by the kook as if Bugliosi presented ZERO pieces of evidence
pointing to Oswald's guilt during the course of the 21-hour TV Docu-Trial
in 1986.

Maybe you should actually THINK before you post your foolishness, Rob.
That might be nice for a change. And then you might want to actually
WATCH the TV Trial, to see the large amount of evidence against Oswald
that was introduced into the record of that trial (albeit a "mock" trial, yes;
but it's the exact same evidence that prosecutor Bugliosi would have
introduced at Oswald's real trial; and all of it dooms Lee Harvey).

Or, you can read some "On Trial" excerpts in print form HERE.

I guess Rob will next be saying that all of the following people were
liars, or were strong-armed, or were coerced by evil forces when they
each testified about things at that Mock Trial that point to a guilty
Lee Harvey Oswald (even though NONE of these witnesses was forced
to testify at the television "trial" in London, England, in July 1986; each
one of them appeared voluntarily):

Harold Norman, Wesley Frazier, Eugene Boone, Ruth Paine, Lyndal Shaneyfelt,
Jack Tatum, Charles Brehm, Marrion Baker, Ted Callaway, Vincent Guinn,
Charles Petty, Nelson Delgado, and Johnny Brewer (among others).




>>> "There is no real evidence linking him [Lee Harvey Oswald] to the two murders, if you want to look." <<<

Oh, I've looked. Perhaps you should look. Apparently you've conveniently
missed seeing the fifty or so things that incriminate your favorite patsy.
(Are all 50 "fake"? .... Put down the bottle.)


>>> "The DPD did a horrible job of protecting him on purpose, so there would be no trial." <<<

More hilarity. The DPD was willing to DELIBERATELY give the whole
department an irreversible black eye by allowing Ruby to shoot their
prisoner on live TV. Right, kookman?

And killing the patsy in front of 70 policemen and millions watching
on television would surely calm the public's fears that JFK's murder
was the result of some kind of conspiracy....wouldn't it, Robby?*

* = If a plot was brewing in Dallas, then the plotters killing Oswald
on TV in a police basement with cops all around him would certainly
have fueled more people's suspicions about a conspiracy than it
would squelch (and it did fuel such suspicions, of course). Which is
exactly the OPPOSITE of what any covert "plotters" would want the
general public to think, if there had, in fact, been an elaborate
"Let's Frame Oswald And Then Bump Him Off Before He Can Talk"
type of plot afoot in Dallas in 1963.


>>> "Why was Ruby allowed to get so close to shoot LHO? Answer that one." <<<

An amazing combination of things brought about the murder of JFK's
assassin in the police basement on November 24th, 1963. .....

1.) Jack Ruby and WHO he was; i.e., he was KNOWN by many DPD officers
and Dallas officials; and Ruby was SEEN by some of these people
earlier that weekend at DPD Headquarters. This made it very easy for
Ruby to blend in with the crowd at the bottom of the basement's ramp
just before Oswald was brought out. In effect, it would have been a
"normal" thing to have seen Jack Ruby there.

2.) The fact that the basement had been searched by police BEFORE Ruby
entered the basement at 11:20 AM. If Ruby had managed to sneak into
the basement a half-hour or so earlier, he almost certainly would have
been ejected by police officers. But Jack's timing was impeccable,
entering the basement probably no more than 45 seconds before Oswald
appeared.

3.) The moving of the police car which exited the basement garage just
seconds before the shooting....which allowed Ruby to sneak in
unnoticed by Officer Roy Vaughn, who was guarding the entrance ramp to
the garage, because Vaughn had to step into the street to stop traffic
so that Officer Pierce could drive out of the garage. Again, only the
incredibly fortunate timing by Jack Ruby allowed him to gain entry
into that basement.

4.) Karen Carlin's telephone call to Ruby on Sunday morning. That
call, and its timing, permitted Ruby to be in the right place at just
the right time at 11:20 AM at the top of the Main St. ramp, just one
minute before Oswald was killed.

5.) Ruby's habit of almost always carrying a gun ON HIM wherever he
went. Because if Ruby HADN'T had this habit, he wouldn't have been
able to kill Oswald anyway (unless he had planned to beat Lee Harvey
to death with the brass knuckles that Jack had in his car, also known
as "Ruby's Thrift Shop On Wheels").

6.) Jack Ruby's violent temper and his willingness to take the law into
his own hands. Without these character traits of Ruby's firmly in place
on 11/24/63, it's very likely that Mr. Oswald would have lived to see
the sun come up November 25th.


>>> "You are getting desperate Dave, as I never said that [i.e., Rob is saying here that he never claimed that the three bullet shells found in the sniper's nest were NEVER linked conclusively to Oswald's rifle], and you adding it later is not going to prove it." <<<

How about my proving it with a cite from the Google post where you
actually said it? Would that suffice? Yes, you did make that stupid
claim about the bullet shells, on November 17, 2007:

I said (while listing some of the evidence against Oswald):

"The three bullet shells in the SN."

Rob then said in direct response (which is actually a double hunk of
idiocy, including its second part too):

"From a Carcano, but never proven they were from the C2766, which in turn was never proven beyond a reasonable doubt to even belong to LHO."

Here's the whole post by Robert (for verification).


>>> "[The three shells in the sniper's nest] were fired at some point to the time of the assassination and left to frame LHO." <<<

And the DPD just happened to have three spent rifle cartridges on them
to "plant" beneath the killer's window, huh?

If that's not what you're suggesting, then what shells were photographed
by Lt. J.C. Day and Robert Studebaker very shortly after the assassination
(and BEFORE the Carcano rifle of Oswald's was even removed from the
building)?


>>> "CE399 is undoubtedly from the M-C, but it is an obvious plant and was not actually fired at the president or JBC." <<<

You're an idiot.




>>> "Got it straight now[?]" <<<

Oh, sure. You're a freaking idiot. Couldn't be any clearer.


>>> "The term 'very likely' is not definitive, as I have shown you several sources that said metal either matches or it doesn't, there is no 'very likely' about it." <<<

Again, you're an idiot. I've proven that you're wrong about this (regarding
the front-seat bullet fragments being provably linked to Oswald's rifle "TO
THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHER WEAPONS"), but you refuse to believe it.

I have even supplied weblinks to the testimony which proves this important
fact (a fact that every JFK researcher should know by heart, and without
ever having to refresh their memory).

But, I'll try it yet again.....

ROBERT FRAZIER -- "[CE]567 [one of the two front-seat bullet fragments], the one we have just finished."

JOHN McCLOY -- "Was likewise a portion of a bullet fired from that rifle?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

MR. McCLOY -- "You have no doubt about any of those?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "None whatsoever."

[Later...]

MR. FRAZIER -- "This bullet fragment, Exhibit 569 [the other of the two bullet fragments found in the front seat of the limousine], was fired from this particular rifle, 139."

MEL EISENBERG -- "Again to the exclusion of all other rifles?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr1.htm

--------------

Here's another important point I'd like to make about the Warren Commission
and the "experts" who were called upon to testify for that Commission:

Conspiracy theorists rarely, if ever, acknowledge the fact that the
Warren Commission went to additional lengths (beyond what they
certainly HAD to do, of course) to determine the truth with respect to
the major pieces of physical evidence connected with the assassination
(such as the ballistics/bullet evidence and the fingerprint evidence), in
that those pieces of evidence were examined by not only people
employed by the FBI....but also by INDEPENDENT experts OUTSIDE THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT in these fields of evidence identification.

Independent experts Joseph Nicol of Illinois (for ballistics) and Arthur Mandella
of the New York City Police Department (for fingerprint analysis) were
brought in by the WC to examine various pieces of evidence connected
with the case, and both Nicol and Mandella arrived at the exact same
conclusions that the FBI did.

In fact, one of the independent experts (Nicol) even went a step
beyond the FBI when he testified that one of the four bullets removed
from Officer J.D. Tippit's body could positively be linked to Lee Harvey
Oswald's Smith & Wesson .38 revolver to the exclusion of every other
gun on the planet. Here's what Nicol told the Commission:

JOSEPH NICOL -- "On specimen 602--I'm sorry--603 [one of the four bullets taken out of Tippit's body], which I have designated as Q-502, I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606."

MEL EISENBERG -- "That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?"

MR. NICOL -- "Yes, sir."

---------------

So, it would appear to me that the Warren Commission did an excellent
job of getting at the truth of the matters concerning these very important
determinations regarding the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the John F. Kennedy
murder case.

The Commission, in fact, utilized (in many instances) TRIPLE redundancy
when it came to arriving at conclusions about the evidence in the case;
i.e., the WC had up to three separate people (from both Governmental
and non-Governmental institutions) examine the critical pieces of physical
evidence in this murder case....and they ALL came to the same basic
conclusions when each of them testified for the Warren Commission in 1964.

The Commission, come to think of it, possibly utilized that type of
redundancy in an effort to ward off the exact kind of allegations that
are still be hurled at the WC to this day -- i.e., allegations that the
"fox [the Government's own FBI] was investigating the chicken coop".

But what about experts like the previously mentioned Nicol and
Mandella (who worked for non-Federal Government organizations in
Illinois and New York)?

Do conspiracy theorists think that those independent experts in the
fields of ballistics and fingerprint identification told a bunch of lies to
the Warren Commission, too?

In short, is there anything that conspiracy theorists won't do, say,
twist, or allege in order to try to discredit the work that was done
by the Warren Commission and its legal staff in 1963 and 1964?

I think I know the answer to that last question. Don't you?


>>> "My question is simple: if he [LHO] craved world attention, and he accomplished something the best shots in the world couldn't accomplish, why deny it?" <<<

Denying it got him the same amount of world attention, idiot. And
that's because Oswald knew he was guilty and he also knew that he left
behind a popcorn trail for the police that convicts him 30 times over.

Perhaps that's a viable explanation for why he left behind those
bullet shells in the window, and the gun on the same 6th Floor, and
his fingerprints all over the place, and the shells on 10th Street,
etc. Maybe, deep down, he WANTED to get caught.

We know that he certainly EXPECTED to get caught, that's for sure.
And we know this via his actions that Friday morning in Irving (e.g.,
leaving behind the $170 and the wedding ring for Marina).

It's hard to get inside the head of a person who actually has it
inside him the capacity to murder the President of the United States.
That's what makes it a bit difficult to know what Oswald's exact
motives were; or why he was so incredibly stupid and inept after
performing the shooting (e.g., leaving behind enough "LHO Was Here"
evidence to make sure he'd be convicted, and then, on top of that,
also killing a policeman while in full flight from the first murder,
and doing the latter in front of many witnesses too).

But to think that ALL of this stuff has been conveniently "planted" by
other people after the fact is just too ridiculous to be considered.
Author and ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan said it very nicely in
his 2005 book when he said:

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops", with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "Evil Geniuses", with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry M. Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths"


Oh, btw Robby, this statement of yours is dead wrong (as per your norm) --
"He accomplished something the best shots in the world couldn't accomplish."

Fact is, of course, that many people have duplicated (and even bettered)
Oswald's so-called "impossible feat", including some expert riflemen in
1967 (for this CBS-TV special).

So you can take that CT Myth out back and bury it too. (Along with all
the other outdated and debunked myths you insist upon espousing as
the truth.)


>>> [Referring to Jim Garrison:] "You don't have to agree with everything someone says or does to still find worth in their effort. You should learn this." <<<

Garrison did NOTHING of a redeeming or "worthy" nature. Nothing. Quite
the opposite, in fact. He prosecuted a man he knew to be totally innocent
(Clay Shaw), and he believed in the craziest of all imaginable JFK
conspiracy theories -- a pre-arranged one-patsy plot involving up to
FIVE shooters blasting away at the President.

And: Garrison went further into nutsville territory by uttering this brazen
lie in 1967 (just one of the many lies and misrepresentations he spewed
forth in the late 1960s):

"The clincher, as far as I'm concerned, is that four cartridges were found at the scene of the [Tippit] slaying. Now, revolvers do not eject cartridges, so when someone is shot, you don't later find gratuitous cartridges strewn over the sidewalk -- unless the murderer deliberately takes the trouble to eject them. We suspect that cartridges had been previously obtained from Oswald's .38 revolver and left at the murder site by the real killers as part of the setup to incriminate Oswald." -- Jim Garrison (Via his Playboy Magazine interview in 1967)


Maybe Mr. Garrison should have taken a good look at these affidavits
before shooting off his mouth to Playboy Magazine:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/vdavis.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm


>>> "He [Garrison] was after Shaw due to his CIA ties." <<<

Which, of course, were non-existent (apart from Shaw's "Domestic
Service" CIA involvement, which is a service that many, many other
ordinary Americans volunteered for and participated in as well).
You're talking crazy shit, as per usual.


>>> "Do you think there are open windows for Dubya? Kind of
doubt it." <<<

Why wouldn't there be? President Bush never drives around in a
convertible with the top down. No President has done that since
Kennedy on 11/22/63.

Idiot.


>>> "Can't you quote anyone besides Bugman [aka: Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq.]?" <<<

Well, my policy is this: Why not quote from the best source available
whenever possible? (IOW: Why quote a bunch of conspiracy kooks when
I've got Vince?)

Besides, your question is based on yet another inaccuracy....because
I've quoted many other people in my posts and reviews [click the link
below for plenty of examples] -- e.g., Belin, Sturdivan, Davison, Myers,
Lattimer, Posner, Fuhrman, Rahn, Ford, Manchester, Bud (from the
alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup, whose logic-filled posts many times rival
the words of Bugliosi), and many more.



David Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 26, 2007)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 65)

CONSPIRACY THEORIST ROB CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "I disregard your theory because you have no real proof." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I guess by "real proof", you mean a tape-recorded confession of Lee Oswald
saying at the top of his lungs -- "I KILLED JFK" and "I KILLED J.D. TIPPIT".
Right, Mr. Kook?

But that still wouldn't prove anything to a conspiracy kook. You'd just say
that Oswald was coerced into confessing to two murders that somebody
else committed (with Oswald's arsenal of weapons).

~sigh~


>>> "I go where the evidence leads." <<<

If that were true, you'd be an LNer, of course.

Truth is, being a kook, you go where the kooky conspiracy authors lead
you. You really have no mind of your own. You think you do. But your
mind belongs to John Armstrong, Mark Lane, Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison,
and Joan Mellen.


>>> "He [Proverbial Patsy Lee Harvey Oswald] is as innocent as DVP." <<<

What makes you think I'm innocent?

I was hiding in the sewer with four other killers on November 22nd, you
dumbbell!


>>> "We know from his Marine service, LHO couldn't hit the side of a barn--even one standing still." <<<

I love it when the kooks drag out the old tired conspiracy myths all over
again, as if they are new once more. This one regarding Oswald and the
"side of the barn" is Myth #64 I believe.

Truth is, of course, that Oswald was a very good shot by "civilian" standards.
But in the hands (and mind) of a kook, a 212 Marine Corps rating of
"Sharpshooter" becomes a crappy rating owned by someone who "couldn't
hit the side of a barn--even one standing still".

Amazing ignorance.

You're some kind of "CT Plant", aren't ya Robby? Sent here to make
even Benjamin Holmes, David G. Healy, and Walter Cakebread look like
the cream of the conspiracy crop, right? You can fess up. I won't tell
anybody (except our one "lurker" per month).


>>> "If you were so confident in your theory, there would be no need to mock others." <<<

Robby gets another one wrong. Still batting .000 for the season. But he
thinks he's leading the league at .455 (or even 1.000 probably).

Truth is, I'd mock your nuttiness even if I were a conspiracy theorist.


>>> "I didn't wake up one day and say "Geez, JFK was killed by a conspiracy". I read a lot about the case in college and approached it in a fair way, but the evidence...is so weak that it would not stand up in court." <<<

It could have just SAT there, dorment on a table, with no prosecutor
present at all, and Lee Oswald would have been convicted of at LEAST
one murder (Officer J.D. Tippit's).

And unless the jury box was filled with O.J. Simpson's jurors, LHO would
have hanged for JFK's murder too. Only a kook could possibly believe
otherwise. Because.....

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to do with President Kennedy's assassination and was framed....this otherwise independent and defiant would-be revolutionary, who disliked taking orders from anyone, turned out to be the most willing and cooperative frame-ee in the history of mankind!! Because the evidence of his guilt is so monumental, that he could have just as well gone around with a large sign on his back declaring in bold letters 'I Just Murdered President John F. Kennedy'!!!" Anyone...ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent, would believe someone who told them that they heard a cow speaking the Spanish language!" -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; 1986




>>> "Also, the poor job the DPD did in protecting LHO makes it even more obvious." <<<

And that sloppiness on the part of the DPD on Sunday, November 24th
somehow ERASES all of that evidence that says Oswald killed two people
two days earlier?

Just how does that work, kook? Jack Ruby's bullet suddenly makes ALL OF
THE EVIDENCE against the man he murdered vanish into thin air? (Remember
now, I'm talking to you with the knowledge that you're in the "LHO Shot
No One" club.)

So tell me how Ruby killing Oswald makes Oswald innocent.

I can't wait to hear this tale.


>>> "I can eventually find the cite for everything I say." <<<

Oh, yeah? Including the cite for your assertion a few days ago that
the three shells found in the Sniper's Nest could not be linked to
Oswald's rifle? (Where's the official "cite" for that bald-faced lie?)

Or maybe you're talking about the cite for your other assertion that
the two front-seat bullet fragments were never tied conclusively to
Lee Oswald's Carcano either. (Where's that citation for that? In your
attic, with Babushka Lady and her film maybe?)

You're a CT joke. Time to admit that, don't you think?


>>> "How do you explain him [LHO] denying the deed?" <<<

Most real killers like to separate themselves from their crimes.
Oswald relished the attention. Even one of the DPD detectives said
that. (I think it was James R. Leavelle.) He thought Oswald was
enjoying all the attention he was getting and all the turmoil he had
caused by killing two people in cold blood on Nov. 22nd.

Sure, Oswald wanted to be important on the world stage. He wanted to
do something that changed the world. And he wanted to do something
that people would remember him for.

And guess what, Rob? He succeeded on all three of those counts....if
you just stop to think about it for a minute.


>>> "And claiming to be a patsy?" <<<

Just part of the game Oswald was playing with his captors. He was
aiming that remark at the DPD anyway....not at the people who
supposedly "set him up" as the fall guy before the assassination. Why
can't you see the distinction of that?

Therefore, the kooks can't even win the "I'm just a patsy" debate
(unless you really want to think that the DPD was framing Oz for TWO
murders well in ADVANCE of November 22nd just because of the fact
Oswald "lived in the Soviet Union", which is precisely the reason that
Oswald himself gave for being "taken in" and for being used as a
"patsy").



So, was Oswald ONLY telling the truth when he uttered that one word --
"patsy" -- but he was lying about the REASON he said he was being turned
into that patsy? Is that what you want to believe?


>>> "I think I have proved I am your intellectual superior on many occassions [sic] here." <<<

Except when trying to spell "occasions".

Oh, btw, LOL time for your last hunk of hilarity. (I'm being told I'm
intellectually inferior by a nutcase who loves to say "LHO SHOT NO
ONE". I've almost reached my "Irony" capacity for today.)


>>> "Almost nothing you write is your own opinion." <<<

Goodie! The kook's still without a base hit in 2007!

Better start reading the stuff at the website below then:




>>> "They were afraid of him [Jim Garrison] because he was on the right track." <<<

Jim Garrison made a mockery of justice by trying to convict a man he
knew had zilch to do with the murder of the President.

Garrison was pure slime. Top to bottom.

But at least you have a "Mellen" you can latch on to. She'll keep
propping Mr. Slimeball up from time to time so you won't lose faith in
good ol' Jimbo.

Just never read Garrison's 1967 Playboy article (it might make you
cry...or reach orgasm...I'm not sure which, since you're such an
Anybody-But-Oswald nut).

"Instead of referring to [Clay] Shaw (or "the defendant") a great number of times as he tried to connect him to the conspiracy and murder, as any prosecutor would do if he believed the person he was prosecuting was guilty, unbelievably Garrison only referred to Shaw ONCE in his entire summation, and then not to say that the evidence showed he was guilty. NOT ONCE did Garrison tell the jury he had proved Shaw's guilt or that the evidence pointed toward Shaw's guilt." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 1380 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)




>>> "They attacked his [Garrison's] service record, they claimed he was gay, they claimed he didn't really care about the dead president, as his only goal was fame for himself. They exaggerated things that he said. .... They basically did the old character assassination tactics." <<<

Oh, cry me a fucking river! (Pass me the Garrison-embossed Kleenex,
Mr. Kook.)

If anyone's "character" ever deserved to be "assassinated", it was the
character of Earling Carrothers Garrison.

But, it seems fitting of your own character to defend Garrison's. I wouldn't
have expected anything less from you.

(Current Rob Batting Average: .000.)


>>> "Well, I don't personally think there was a man in the sewer." <<<

Hey! You just managed to foul a pitch off! Pretty soon you might have
your very first base hit!


>>> "But that brings up a good question: why were the manhole covers not welded shut? They are supposed to be by protocol." <<<

Yeah, kinda like that impossible-to-enforce Secret Service rule about
there being "no open windows" anywhere along the President's motorcade
route, right?

Just...not...doable. Period. (Fletcher Prouty's absurdities notwithstanding.)


>>> "You are forgetting the main point here: [Johnny] Carson was out to discredit him [King Garrison] up front." <<<

And Johnny did a damn fine job of it too.

For that I say -- Hail Johnny!!

"Mort Sahl got him [Garrison] on the Johnny Carson show on January 31, 1968. Johnny may have been a comedian, but he had a good, solid head on his shoulders, and he could spot a phony, or at least an empty vessel, when he saw one." -- Vince Bugliosi; Pages 1369-1370 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)




>>> "Again, like Marina, he [Robert Oswald] was afraid for his life." <<<

Oh? Robert Oswald told you this personally, did he? First I've heard
of that. (Luckily, though, we have "Triple-Zero" Caprio setting the
record straight about so many different things surrounding 11/22/63.)


>>> "Any testimony he [Robert Oswald] gave is suspect." <<<

That's the kook in you talking (again).

And the Robert Oswald quote I provided earlier wasn't "testimony".
It was said by Robert in the year 2003, for heaven's sake.

~sigh time~

BTW, you just struck out. Again.

C'mon, at least get hit by a pitch every now and then. This is
getting too easy.


>>> "Furthermore, from what I have read over the years they [Robert & Lee Oswald] weren't that close." <<<

Ah! You just fouled off another pitch. But, while it's true that they weren't
really, really "close", they were still blood brothers, and Lee did look up to
his big brother as a kid (especially after Robert joined the Marines). That
was the main reason that Lee wanted to join the Marine Corps in the first
place, because his big brother had joined. Plus, of course, to get away
from that kook of a mother they both had. That's one of the main reasons
Robert join the Marines too, in fact.

Maybe we shouldn't underestimate the unseen powers of "brotherhood".
When Robert visited Lee in jail that weekend in November 1963, Robert
could see that Lee was probably guilty. And Robert never seemed to
waver from that initial first feeling.


>>> "Remember, Lee was gone a lot doing his intelligence work." <<<



And Robert Caprio had a camera right there focused on Lee the whole time,
watching LHO sneaking off on his clandestine meetings to do "intelligence"
work for the Government (or whatever other made-up organization Rob
thinks might be appropriate to insert into the fairy tale today; the
"Oddfellows" maybe?).


>>> "Anyone over the age of 10 can tell you it is impossible for LHO to have done this all by himself." <<<

I see. I guess the Warren Commission was made up of all 9-year-olds then.

And I can tell Vince Bugliosi that he's young again once more!


>>> "There are also those pesky other attempts on JFK's life in the weeks prior to Dallas. How does this compute on your radar?" <<<

They'd compute better if there was just some semblance of PROOF that
any "attempts" had actually been made on JFK's life in those other
cities (Chicago, Tampa, or Miami).

There is the guy who was caught with a carload of ammunition and
weapons. But where's the TIE-IN TO DALLAS with respect to that
apparent ONE-MAN operation? There is none.

Furthermore, how does that incident of the guy with weapons in his
trunk tie in (in any fashion) to any of the colorful characters that the
CTers believe DID kill Kennedy in Dallas? Answer: It doesn't. At all.

It was another kook/loner who MIGHT have tried to kill JFK before
11/22/63. But, since he was grabbed well ahead of time, we'll never
know if he would have tried something or not.

It's just too bad that James P. Hosty was sleeping on the job in
November 1963. He was just about the only person in Dallas (except
Marina, who already knew of Lee's capacity to take a human life via
the Walker murder attempt in April) who possibly could have made a
significant difference in the way things turned out in Dealey Plaza.

Unfortunately, though, Hosty (as of November) didn't know about the
Walker attempt, and he had no really good reason to suspect that
Oswald was a danger to the President.

The rest is (tragic) history.


>>> "He [LHO] wanted to be someone so bad that after pulling off what every expert rifleman in the world said they couldn't do, he claims he is innocent and just a patsy. How does this make any sense?" <<<

Already explained earlier. Oswald did want to be "somebody". And by
SUCCESSFULLY KILLING THE PRESIDENT and then basking in the turmoil and
chaos and undivided attention that he ultimately received, he GOT HIS
WISH.

Why is that impossible to understand?

Oswald wanted to be "somebody". But he wanted to be a LIVING somebody
at the same time. He was not suicidal. And the Tippit killing demonstrates
that amply.


>>> "He [Robert Oswald] likes breathing..." <<<

And so too did his brother, Lee. (Just like I said above.)


>>> "His [Robert Oswald's] words don't mean much, as it is impossible for LHO to do what they said." <<<

Strike three! (Yet again.)


>>> "Who respects him [Vincent Bugliosi]?" <<<

Many, many people.

I wonder who respects Robert Caprio though? (The opposing pitchers in
this JFK Ballgame love you, though; because you're an automatic
strikeout every time up.)


>>> "He [Bugliosi] hasn't tried a case in like, what? 20 years?" <<<

So what?

(Strike 1.)


>>> "He [Bugliosi] is washed up." <<<

Bullshit.

(Strike 2.)


>>> "And if he [VB] didn't write this loser book ["Reclaiming History"] no one would be talking about him now." <<<

Hit the pine, kook.

(Strike 3!)


>>> "I would love to give you a spelling test offline. I'm sure you are not really that good at spelling either." <<<

Yet another wrong answer from Robby-boy.


>>> "I don't use a program to spell check on this board..." <<<

Nor do I.


>>> "We know he ["Always Innocent" Oswald] didn't shoot JFK or J.D. Tippit." <<<

Another classic quote to add to Rob's ever-growing list of idiotic statements.
Thanks. Your "idiot" file is already enormous. Nice job.


>>> "But he [Patsy Oswald] did shoot himself in the marines." <<<

That's funny, I thought it was another part of his body. (Where's the
"Marines"? Is that near the big toe someplace?)

:-)


>>> "Your full name is Dave of Dumb." <<<

That doesn't even earn you a final foul tip, Robby my man. It's a
swing-and-a-miss.

I wonder what kind of silly manager keeps sending a boob up to the
plate who hasn't gotten a base hit the whole season?

I'll ponder that question as Rob "LHO Shot No One" Caprio whimpers
back to the dugout, bat in hand (as usual), after being demolished
once more on the JFK field of reality.

David Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 24, 2007)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 64)

CONSPIRACY NUT ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "Speaking the truth causes some to mock, i.e., those paid to defend the government's lies..." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm paid to specifically mock kooks, not to support the Government.
Can't you get ANYTHING right, ever?


>>> "...but I don't care what you think, as you are in the very small minority." <<<

Yeah, just disregard the lone-assassin truth since you're on the side
with the largest head count. Right?

Nice policy. If you're a kook.

By the way, the particular theory you subscribe to ("LHO shot no one")
is certainly NOT the majority opinion in the USA. It's a much-smaller
minority, in fact, than the minority of 19% which currently (as of
2003 anyway) believes in the Lone Assassin scenario.

Maybe you should re-think your Anybody-But-Oswald position (since
you seem to enjoy the company of other warm bodies around you
for conspiracy support).


>>> "It is me, you miss the point. What I say is who I am." <<<

Okay. Have it your way, kook.

So, given those parameters, I guess I now am supposed to despise YOU
as a human being too (instead of just despising and mocking your
idiotic position regarding the JFK murder case).

That's too bad, too. Because outside the confines of the JFK case,
you're probably a pretty fair-minded person. That's just a surmise
anyway, because a lot of JFK kooks are nice, reasonable people when
they step away from this case for awhile.

It's only when they climb the Grassy Knoll that they become
unreasonable, conspiracy-seeking nutcases. An odd disease indeed. And
one that perhaps psychiatrists and medical doctors worldwide should
try to find a cure for (or at least a NAME for it....maybe "Patsy
Paranoia Plague" or somethin' like that there).


>>> "I don't make up stuff to earn a paycheck." <<<

No, you just make up stuff for free.


>>> "I write what I feel." <<<

And to hell with the evidence!

"I FEEL CONSPIRACY! THEREFORE, A CONSPIRACY EXISTS!"
"I FEEL A PATSY! THEREFORE, A PATSY WAS FRAMED FOR
TWO MURDERS IN '63!"

Classic.

Can I play too?.....

"I FEEL AS THOUGH I'M CONVERSING WITH A BRAIN-IMPAIRED KOOK!
THEREFORE, ROBERT C. IS A KOOK OF THE RETARDED VARIETY!"

(Hey! You're right, Rob! It works! Thanks for that "I WRITE WHAT I
FEEL" tip, man!)


>>> "The first thing they did to Garrison was discredit him and who he was." <<<

And the fact that Jimbo was spouting utter nonsense and unsupportable
allegations against totally innocent people regarding the assassination
of a U.S. Chief Executive should be overlooked, right?

BTW, what was the "first thing" that you think the unnamed "they" did
to Jim Garrison in order to "discredit" him (outside Jim's foolishness
about the JFK case)?

Just wondering.


>>> "IF the person is discredited, then anything they say is discredited by extension." <<<

But there's no need to go about things in such a complicated, backward
fashion. The bullshit and unsupportable tripe gushed incessantly by
the kook will "discredit" him all by itself.

Just listen to Garrison on NBC-TV on 1/31/68 on "The Tonight Show".
His 5-gunmen (one in the sewer drain), 1-patsy, Anybody-But-Oswald
nonsense is utterly hysterical....and is pure unprovable garbage that
discredits the moron all by itself.

There is no need to go outside the JFK case to discredit him. Because
WITHIN the JFK case, King Kook Garrison easily self-implodes.




>>> "You really should learn this stuff, as you are being paid well with our tax money to do your job." <<<

Yeah, the one "lurker" per month who comes into this asylum needs to
know his tax money is well-spent, right? So I'd better shape up to
meet the 'Kook Standards', huh?


>>> "Who is your boss again?" <<<

If I told you, I'd have to "arrange" a car accident (kinda like we did
with Lee Bowers in '66). You catch my drift, right?


>>> "I want to report that Davy is going soft." <<<

And I want to report that Robby is a kook. (Not exactly a brand-new
bulletin, granted. But worth repeating daily.)


>>> "We give [reasonable explanations surrounding the assassination evidence] all the time, but your job won't allow you to accept what is being said." <<<

It never occurs to kooks like Robby that "what is being said" by the
CTers like Robcap is worthy of being mocked and ridiculed.

That might be the biggest irony of all.

BTW, Robcap.....Do you think that Robert Oswald probably knew his own
brother a little bit better than most people knew him? (Certainly
better than you or I knew him, right?)

If so, what do you make of Robert Oswald's following comments? .....

"It is my belief....my conviction....no one but Lee was involved --- period. .... He had problems at home. He had problems on his job. He was completely frustrated about what was going on around him. This is not EXCUSING what he did. This is UNDERSTANDING what he did. He wanted to be somebody. And this opportunity came about coincidental. Nothing planned. Nothin' organized. It HAPPENED that way. It's one of those happenstances of history." -- Robert Oswald (Brother of Lee Harvey Oswald); 2003

Is LHO's brother a dirty, rotten, no-good, Government-sponsored shill
too? Or don't you think that Lee's brother has studied the case enough
to offer up an informed opinion about the assassination that is worth
considering?

Just curious.


>>> "Reason number 1,112 why he [Vince Bugliosi] is a total ignaramous [sic; more irony; what's NOT to love about this kook?! I ask you?!]. He's a moron too!" <<<

The classic hits just keep on flowing from the "Kwazy Kook Kwarters"!

In this installment, we've got a crazy kook (Rob C.) calling a
respected attorney and author (Vince B.) a "total ignaramous [sic]"
and a "moron". (With the kook [Rob C.] also burying himself further by
saying that he's got 1,111 OTHER reasons to know that VB is a "total
ignaramous" [sic], to boot.)

And this comes from the e-lips of a mega-kook who can say the
following probably without exhibiting any redness in the face at all
(or even giggling a little bit, if you can imagine that).....

"LHO SHOT NO ONE." -- Robert Caprio

Rob's middle initial MUST be "I" (for "Irony"). Either that, or "K",
for...well, you know.

David Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 23, 2007)