ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:
>>> "Hey, Reitzes, how much do they pay you for switching teams?" <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're off to a great start, Kook Robert. You seem to think you're
talking to David A. Reitzes. But, of course, you're not.
Strike 1 (of several dozen "strikes" to come, no doubt). Robby hasn't
collected a base hit since joining the Anybody-But-Oswald team of acj
retards in October 2007. And yet, he thinks he's the star player on
the team. Go figure that.
>>> "NO moron, that is in the WC's own words when they described their evidence and how it was received! Much of it came from another wierd [sic] method, ACTUALLY INTERVIEWING ALL THE WITNESSES TO THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE CRIME!" <<<
I'll leave it to other kooks (similar to Rob) to try and decipher the
above seemingly contradictory statement.
~shrug~
>>> "Why NOT share the chain of custody with us so the lurkers can see for themselves?" <<<
And if I can't show you a specific "chain of custody" for EVERY last
piece of evidence connected to both the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder
investigations, then that means that you (a conspiracy-loving retard)
are therefore free to believe that "almost all the evidence" (your
quote) has a lousy chain of custody associated with it.
Right, Mr. Retard?
For example:
I cannot type in on my keyboard the PRECISE, EXACT "chain of
possession" for the two limo bullet fragments (CE567/CE569). So, I
guess this means that I should be automatically suspicious of what the
exact chain of possession (or "chain of custody") was for CE567 and
CE569.
Right, Mr. Retard?
Well, here's a blast of news for Robby The Automatically Suspicious
Nutcase -- I'm not the LEAST bit "suspicious" when it comes to the
exact chain of custody for CE567/569.
And that's because I have absolutely no reason to be suspicious of it.
And I also have no reason whatsoever to be suspicious of the "chain"
for ANY of the other hundreds of pieces of evidence connected to the
JFK case, which is evidence that you--a retard--incredibly think is
"almost all" tainted in some fashion when it comes to the chain of
custody for all this evidence.
That's one of the big differences between a rabid conspiracist and a
reasonable person who looks at the evidence in this case -- i.e., you
(being a fool and a retard when it comes to ANYTHING associated with
the date 11/22/63) are more than willing to accept the EXTRAORDINARY
explanations for things (such as "almost all the evidence" having a
lousy chain of possession).
But I, OTOH, being a reasonable person and a non-kook when it comes to
looking at the evidence in the Kennedy case, can easily figure out
that the ORDINARY (i.e., NON-CONSPIRATORIAL) explanation for things is
usually the correct explanation; with the EXTRAORDINARY (i.e.,
CONSPIRATORIAL) version of events (which the Robs of the world will
ALWAYS favor instead of the routine, ordinary answers) normally being
dismissed....mainly because it's so EXTRAORDINARY (i.e., downright
stupid-sounding) most of the time.
>>> "Actually two bullets [the kook really means bullet SHELLS here, not "bullets"] were there when the nest was "discovered"." <<<
Oh, good! Rob's starting to invent the evidence (again).
Name ONE Dallas police officer or sheriff's deputy who claimed that
only two shells (instead of the correct and accurate number--three)
were found in the Sniper's Nest. You can't do it.
Plus: Your belief that only two shells were discovered really puts you
between a rock and a hard place when it comes to accepting one of the
bald-faced lies told by one of your heroes -- Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig.
Because Liar Craig later claimed that when the shells were first
discovered in the Nest, the THREE shells were lying on the floor "no
more than an inch apart".
(LOL break needed here.)
Would you like to now jettison Liar Craig from your list of reliable
witnesses?
But surely you don't want to jettison Roger, do you Rob? Because he's
the liar who makes your theories sound so good a lot of the time.
You'd better keep him, and then pretend that he really saw only "two"
bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest, instead of the three that he said
he saw.
>>> "Where is your PROOF LHO ordered a 40" Carcano again?" <<<
Lee Oswald didn't order a 40-inch gun, Mr. Retard. That's obvious from
the order form he sent in to Klein's. He ordered a 36-inch carbine.
And, btw, to those CT-Kooks who love to keep insisting that the
40-inch version of the rifle that appeared in one of the two
different Klein's ads in 1963 was not a "carbine" at all, I'd like to
offer up the following photograph of the Klein's ad that features
the 40-inch model of the gun. This is an ad that says, plain as day,
"6.5 ITALIAN CARBINE":
So much for the 40-inch variant not being termed a "carbine". At least
Klein's thinks the 40-incher was a "carbine".
Anyway, back to Oswald's purchase -- It doesn't make a damn bit of
difference what Oswald ORDERED. The key is: WHAT KLEIN'S SHIPPED TO
OSWALD/(HIDELL). And the rifle that Klein's shipped was a "40-inch
carbine" (just like in the alternate 1963 Klein's ad shown above).
And I doubt very seriously if Oswald got out a tape measure after
picking up his 40-inch Carcano at the post office in late March of
'63, in an effort on his part to verify the weapon's overall length.
He ordered a 36-inch rifle....Klein's shipped him a nearly identical
model (which was 4 inches longer). Simple as that.
But, naturally, to the Anybody-But-Oswald kooks of the world, this
4-inch discrepancy between what Oswald ordered and what he received
in the mail is a HUGE deal...and it must mean that there's another rifle
floating around someplace associated with Oswald's Klein's rifle order
from March 1963.
But to a reasonable person who examines this slight discrepancy, the
answer couldn't be more obvious....as explained above.
>>> "But this revolver COULD NOT be matched to the bullets INSIDE JDT [J.D. Tippit], now could they?" <<<
We've been over this well-worn ground before, of course. Joe Nicol DID
say that one of the four bullets taken from J.D. Tippit's body could be
linked to LHO's revolver.
Naturally, Nicol must be a liar. Right?
Anyway, even without Nicol's testimony in this "bullet" regard,
Oswald's guilt is still proven BALLISTICALLY beyond ALL doubt in the
Tippit murder -- via the four bullet shells that littered the ground
in the yard of Virginia and Barbara Davis.
Naturally, though, the CT-Kooks like Rob don't trust ANY of those four
shells either....not even the two NON-POE shells!
Go figure kooks.
>>> "Absolutely [no] chain of custody [for CE567 & CE569] since the Limosuine [sic] was spirited off to D.C. before the local police, who had jurisdiction at that time, could examine it. Thus anything found in it is contaminated." <<<
See my earlier remarks about chain of custody (in general).
But that's a nice (in general) type of excuse you've got there, Robby.
Since the limo was moved from Dallas to Washington, you therefore have
an open door to believe a bunch of crazy crap regarding the bullets
found in that limousine.
Think a jury would buy this argument, Rob? Really and truly, do you
think any jury besides the "OJ 12" would buy this argument?:
"[Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is] absolutely [no] chain of custody [for bullet fragments CE567 and CE569] since the [President's] limousine was spirited off to D.C. before the local police [in Dallas], who had jurisdiction at that time, could examine it. Thus anything found in it is contaminated."
Good luck with that argument Robby. You'll need it. (Unless, as I
said, you get lucky and the O.J. Twelve are seated in the jury box.)
>>> "There is NO link to LHO for CE-139 anyway, so even if you could link them [the very small bullet fragments found in the limo] to the rifle, so what?" <<<
You're nuts (of course). Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (CE139) is
linked and tied to LHO in many different ways. You just wish to ignore
those things (as always).
It's so nice being an evidence-ignorer and evidence-mangler, isn't it
Robcap? The freedom to be a kook that such evidence-mangling provides
must be exhilarating indeed.
>>> "They [the bullet fragments removed from John Connally's wrist] EQUALED GREATER WEIGHT than was missing from your claimed CE-399, right? How does that happen?" <<<
It doesn't happen. And it never did.
Dr. Charles Gregory removed (per his WC testimony) "2 or 3" very tiny
metal fragments from Connally's right wrist. The total weight of those
fragments, as far as I am aware, is not known with 100% accuracy. But
the weight was said to have been "very small" (direct 1964 quote from
Dr. Gregory):
ARLEN SPECTER -- "Did you observe any foreign objects identifiable as
bits of fragments or portions of a bullet missile?"
DR. CHARLES F. GREGORY -- "A preliminary X-ray had indicated that
there were metallic fragments or at least metallic fragments which
cast metallic shadows in the soft tissues around the wounded forearm.
Two or three of these were identified and were recovered and were
observed to be metallic in consistency. These were turned over to
appropriate authorities for further disposition."
MR. SPECTER -- "Approximately how large were those fragments, Dr.
Gregory?"
DR. GREGORY -- "I would judge that they were...flat, rather thin, and
that their greatest dimension would probably not exceed one-eighth of
an inch. They were very small."
(The above March 23, 1964, testimony can be found in Warren Commission
Volume 6, Page 98, linked HERE.)
In summary -- The total amount of metal recovered from John Connally's
wrist was a tiny amount of metal, weighing very little. To say that
these "very small" fragments taken from Connally exceeded the total
weight lost from Bullet CE399 (which was a total lost weight in the
neighborhood of 2.4 grains) is just plain silly, and is an argument
made by conspiracy theorists that just does not agree with the records
in this case--specifically the WC testimony of the Parkland doctor
(Gregory) who REMOVED and SAW those "2 or 3" fragments from Governor
Connally's wrist.
>>> "All this NAA stuff is junk[,] as [the] whole practice has been recently shown to be worthless." <<<
But a CTer still cannot fight the following logic with respect to Dr.
Vincent P. Guinn's NAA analysis (and the bullet evidence that exists
in the JFK case, in general):
"Even via 1970s-era NAA technology, what are the odds that Guinn's data would end up revealing the likelihood that ONLY BULLETS FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE STRUCK ANY VICTIMS ON 11/22/63? My guess is this -- The odds of that type of scientific evidence favoring the likelihood that only Oswald's gun was involved in the assassination, and somehow having that data being totally FALSE, must be fairly low indeed. In addition (and probably even more important on the "common sense" and "sheer luck" scales):
What do you think the chances are that a multi-gun conspiracy took place in Dealey Plaza, with bullets from MORE THAN ONE GUN striking the victims in JFK's limousine on Elm Street....and yet, after the bullets stopped flying and the missiles and fragments were examined, NOT A SINGLE BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-C2766 gun turned out to be large enough to be tested in order to positively eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the source for ALL of the bullets and fragments that hit any victims on Elm Street?
Would anybody be willing to take those incredibly low odds to Vegas?" -- DVP; June 2007
>>> "CE-399 has NO chain of custody anyway and there is more fragment weight in JBC's wrist than what was missing from CE-399[,] so you have a very WORTHLESS bullet there." <<<
A bullet (CE399) that's in the OFFICIAL RECORD ASSOCIATED WITH THE
MURDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES is, per Rob, to be deemed
"a very WORTHLESS bullet".
Rob needs a padded cell.
I have no doubt at all that if CE399 had a 100% perfect, to-the-letter
"chain of possession" (from even the POV of a conspiracy idiot like
Robert Caprio)....it still wouldn't matter to the Anybody-But-Oswald
nuts of the world.
Because via such a "100% perfect" scenario, the CT-Kooks would
unquestionably still find a way to sweep Bullet CE399 into the gutter
as "a very WORTHLESS bullet" as it relates to the JFK assassination
case.
Does anyone have ANY doubt as to the accuracy of my last statement
above? (I sure don't.)
>>> "Which ones [autopsy photos of JFK]? The real ones or the faked ones?" <<<
There are no "fake" autopsy photographs or X-rays of President Kennedy.
You just made that shit up....because you think you HAVE to (I guess).
>>> "After the ORIGINAL notes [of Dr. Humes] were burned following LHO's death!" <<<
Rob The Kook must think, therefore, that Dr. James Humes' original
autopsy notes (which Humes burned in his home fireplace on 11/24/63
because they had the blood of the President on them) must have had
something written in them that proved the conspiracy that Robby so
desperately seeks. Right, Rob?
Otherwise, what's your point here?
I think Vincent Bugliosi summed up this "note-burning" episode quite
well when he wrote the following in his 2007 JFK book:
"Conspiracy theorists often refer to the missing “draft notes” that Dr. Humes burned in his fireplace in the early morning hours of November 24 after he handwrote a draft of the autopsy report. Critics see this act as highly suspicious, and consequently conspiracy books cite the burning of the draft notes as evidence of some cover-up.
For example, Mark Lane calls Humes’s act a “destruction of hard evidence” (Lane, Rush to Judgment, p.62). Josiah Thompson writes, “It is unclear just what this earlier [burned] draft contained. One distinguished member of the [Warren] Commission’s staff [later identified as Wesley Liebeler] told Life [magazine] that he was ‘certain’ Humes burned the original draft because it reflected a finding contrary to the official report,” Thompson adding that this opinion of a Warren Commission staff member, though not appearing in Life magazine, was seen by him in a report by a Life representative (Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, pp.201, 214 note 8; identification of Liebeler: Lifton, Best Evidence, p.348 footnote).
It apparently has not entered the minds of the conspiracy theorists (nor did it, allegedly, enter the mind of Liebeler--who did not, by the way, believe there was a conspiracy behind the assassination) that since we’re dealing with the same person, Humes, if one believes that Humes was willing to lie on his autopsy report (his draft notes reflecting the true and different situation), why wouldn’t he likewise have been willing to lie on his notes, thereby obviating the need to destroy them?
Did those behind the assassination come to Humes after he wrote the first draft and convince him, for the first time, to join the conspiracy, he agreed, and then they told him what they wanted his autopsy report to say? But what about Drs. Boswell and Finck? Did they join the conspiracy too? Because if they didn’t, how is it that their conclusions just happened to coincide with Humes’s new, conspiratorial conclusion?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 276-277 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"
>>> "Which paper bag? Can you show us a picture of it in situ? Can you show it listed on your DPD inventory lists? The way in which the prints were located makes it highly unlikely LHO could have put them there while carrying them [sic; "them"?]." <<<
Huh? What's this shit you're making up now?
Two of Lee Oswald's positively-IDed prints were on that brown paper
bag that was found underneath the killer's window. And even if there's
no official picture of the bag underneath the window, that fact does
not ELIMINATE THE BAG FROM EXISTENCE AS EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE.
Apparently many conspiracy theorists think that the bag (CE142) should
be tossed out the window and should not be considered "evidence" in
this murder case at all--merely due to the fact that no official
photograph of it exists when it was first discovered by the police on
November 22, 1963.
Of course, via such a silly notion as the one I mentioned above, we'd
also have to throw out Bullet CE399 too....because 399 was never
officially photographed in the precise place where Darrell Tomlinson
found it within Parkland Memorial Hospital on 11/22/63.
And, we'd also have to toss ALL of the limousine bullet fragments into
the trash can too, due to the fact that no official pictures were
taken of those fragments when they were first discovered by the
authorities.
And on and on to absurdity in this regard.
FACT: Lee Oswald's prints were on an object (the brown paper bag known
as CE142) that was said by the police to be found beneath the window
from where the assassin fired a rifle at JFK.
And it's an object (an EMPTY homemade paper bag) that has no
reasonable and/or INNOCENT reason to have been located where it was
found (under the assassin's window) on the day of JFK's assassination.
Do CTers think Oswald just happened to unwrap his so-called "curtain
rods" at the exact same spot on the sixth floor of the TSBD where an
assassin would also soon be taking shots at the President? (Silly question
to ask of CTers here, I know....because these rabid ABO kooks, of course,
think that the empty paper sack was "manufactured" and "planted" by the
evil and dastardly DPD and/or FBI.)
I wonder how the cops managed to plant two of LHO's prints on the darn
thing though? CTers never say. They just think the bag, like all other
evidence that leads directly to their prized patsy, is "suspicious" in
some manner.
>>> "Why were NO other [TSBD] employees prints ID'd [on the SN boxes] when we know they would have touched them in the normal handling process of their jobs (or moving them to lay down the new floor)?" <<<
That's not a bad question, I must admit. But you still cannot get
around the FACT that Lee Oswald's prints were, indeed, on two of the
boxes that were DEEP INSIDE the Sniper's Nest.
That's a very important and usually-overlooked point too....because
we're talking about Oswald's own prints being located on two of the
boxes inside the Sniper's Nest that were undoubtedly touched at some
point in time on November 22nd by THE PERSON WHO TOOK SHOTS AT
PRESIDENT KENNEDY.
>>> "You mean the jacket that was a medium when LHO wore a small?" <<<
And a person who usually wears "small"-sized clothes couldn't POSSIBLY
have wedged himself into a piece of clothing that was LARGER than what
he usually wore....right Mr. Retard?
You're goofy.
>>> "The ONLY paper trail I have ever seen shows he [LHO] would have ordered a 36" Carbine, if any at all..." <<<
See my earlier "36-inch vs. 40-inch" rifle comments.
>>> "...but there is NO paper trail for him [LHO] receiving it [Rifle C2766] from the Post Office. How did he receive the rifle Dave?" <<<
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald (aka "A. Hidell") fills out a Klein's order
coupon for a rifle [CE773 & CE785].
2.) Oswald then purchases a money order on 3/12/63 for the exact
amount it will cost him to obtain the rifle from Klein's ($21.45) [CE788].
3.) Oswald then mails the order form and the money order to Klein's
Sporting Goods Company in Chicago, Illinois, USA.
4.) Klein's processes the "Hidell" order and creates the proper
paperwork for the transaction (as Waldman Exhibit No. 7, seen below,
verifies beyond all possible doubt):
5.) The U.S. Postal Service then delivers the rifle package to
Oswald's ("Hidell's") P.O. box in Dallas.
Footnote --- And whether or not the proper "firearms" paperwork and
forms were attached to this rifle package that was delivered to
"Hidell" at P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas is not germane to this "How Did
LHO Receive The Rifle?" discussion. And that's because it's not the
fault of the POST OFFICE if Klein's failed to process the order
properly with the correct paperwork. The Post Office merely delivers
the mail; they aren't responsible for any negligence that might apply
to the sender of that mail.
6.) Oswald finds a paper notice ("a regular card", per the testimony
of U.S. Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes) in his P.O. box one day in
late March of 1963, which indicates that an oversized package has been
delivered to P.O. Box 2915.
7.) Oswald takes the paper card from his P.O. box to a clerk at a
window (or at the counter) inside the Post Office building.
8.) The clerk inside the Post Office building then retrieves the
package and gives it to Lee Harvey Oswald.
Footnote --- It is assumed by the clerk that the person who has
possession of the card is ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE PACKAGE CONNECTED
WITH THAT CARD. This information comes directly from the Warren
Commission testimony of Harry Holmes, shown below:
WESLEY LIEBELER -- "The package would have come in addressed to Hidell
at Post Office Box 2915, and a notice would have been put in the post
office box without regard to who was authorized to receive mail from
it?"
HARRY D. HOLMES -- "Actually, the window where you get the box is all
the way around the corner and a different place from the box, and the
people that box the mail, and in theory---I am surmising now, because
nobody knows. I have questioned everybody, and they have no
recollection. The man would take this card out. There is nothing on
this card. There is no name on it, not even a box number on it. He
comes around and says, "I got this out of my box." And he says, "What
box?" "Box number so and so." They look in a bin where they have this
by box numbers, and whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him,
he just hands him the package, and that is all there is to it."
LIEBELER -- "Ordinarily, they won't even request any identification
because they would assume if he got the notice out of the box, he was
entitled to it?"
HOLMES -- "Yes, sir."
LIEBELER -- "It is very possible that that in fact is what happened in
[this] case?"
HOLMES -- "That is in theory. I would assume that is what happened."
LIEBELER -- "On the other hand, it is also possible that Oswald had
actually authorized Hidell to receive mail through the box?"
HOLMES -- "Could have been. And on the other hand, he had this
identification card of Hidell's in his billfold, which he could have
produced and showed the window clerk. Either way, he got it."
>>> "What was the EXACT time they discovered the "A. Hidell" card on LHO on 11/22/63?" <<<
The kook thinks the DPD "logged in" the time when they discovered the
Hidell card(s) in Oswald's wallet in the police car on the way
downtown. Hilarious.
Anyway, the "Hidell" identification was discovered at approximately
1:55 PM CST on Friday, 11/22/63 (i.e., minutes after Oswald was
arrested).
>>> "You have a bunch of worthless evidence in the sense NONE of what you listed would have either shown the claim to be true, or would have been allowed in court anyway." <<<
And yet Judge Lucius Bunton of the state of Texas, in July 1986,
allowed virtually ALL of this evidence to come in at the Lee Harvey
Oswald televised Docu-Trial in London -- even Stretcher Bullet CE399!
Yes, that TV trial was only a "mock" court trial, that's true enough,
but it was also a trial that was bound by the RULES OF COURT PROCEDURE
AND TEXAS LAW.
Are you suggesting that Judge Bunton of Texas was part of the "cover-
up" in the JFK case too, Rob? Because that Texas judge allowed CE399
to be talked about again and again at that TV Docu-Trial in 1986.
And the front-seat limo fragments (CE567 and CE569) were talked about
at that trial too. And so were the backyard photos (which you no doubt
think are fake). And so was the paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest.
And so was Oswald's Carcano rifle (CE139). And so were the three
bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest.
All of that stuff was ALLOWED TO BE PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE at the '86
mock trial.
But if NONE of that evidence "would have been allowed in court", then
NONE of those pieces of evidence I just mentioned could have been
brought up EVEN ONCE by attorneys Vincent Bugliosi and Gerry Spence
in front of the jury at the TV mock trial in England. And yet...those
things WERE brought up, over and over again.
Was it a "Docu-Trial Conspiracy And Cover-Up", Rob? Or was Judge
Bunton just totally incompetent (i.e., he didn't know that ALL of this
evidence should have really been excluded at the mock trial, due to
some legal technicality or a "chain of custody" irregularity of some
kind)?
In Summary --- Rob doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking
about when he boldly proclaimed -- "You have a bunch of worthless
evidence in the sense NONE of what you listed would have either shown
the claim to be true, or would have been allowed in court anyway."
ADDENDUM REGARDING THE "CHAIN OF CUSTODY" SUBJECT:
From Vince Bugliosi's book:
"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. ....
The first observation I have to make is that I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.
Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.
Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible.
I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Via a footnote on page 442 of the endnotes in "Reclaiming History"
>>> "Show me the chain of custody for the CE-399 Dave!" <<<
From Tomlinson...to Wright...to Johnsen...to Rowley...to Todd...to
Frazier.
>>> "The FBI did it BEFORE they had jurisdicition, thus they VIOLATED the chain of custody for everything they touched!" <<<
You're an idiot. (Obviously.)
>>> "What "LHO-did-it" evidence is there?" <<<
You're still a (very big) idiot. (Quite obviously.)
>>> "Why did LHO have NO representation before his death and after, except for the limited things Mr. Lane could do?" <<<
He had no legal representation before his death because HE REFUSED THE
HELP OF THE DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION (i.e., Mr. Nichols):
H. LOUIS NICHOLS -- "He [LHO] said: 'Either Mr. Abt or someone who is
a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, and if I can find a
lawyer here who believes in anything I believe in, and believes as I
believe, and believes in my innocence...I might let him represent me'.
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'."
>>> "IF LHO was guilty, why was the WC soooo afraid of allowing him representation?" <<<
They weren't. And they did allow him representation.
You, Rob, are an idiot.
>>> "Why did a Commission "searching for the truth" have CLOSED SESSIONS?" <<<
Probably to keep goofballs like you from constantly interrupting the
sessions with the stupid shit you constantly enjoy bringing up.
(That's as good a reason as any for having "closed" WC sessions, IMO.)
>>> "We, CTers, don't even really need to argue the "fake" card UNLESS we want to as the evidence the WC presented does NOT show the claims they made to be true all by themselves! And that is being generous in the sense of allowing them to present their evidence in full, since we KNOW most, possibly all, would have been disbarred due to discovery, processing and custody issues." <<<
The net draws ever nearer to the Rob-ster. And so does the funny farm.
>>> "Keep your WORTHLESS evidence Dave, it does NOT show LHO to be guilty in the slightest." <<<
Time for bed, isn't it Robby? The ghost of your hero, Jim Garrison, is
waiting for you there. Garrison, too, was silly enough to constantly
embarrass himself in public by saying that there was no evidence at
all to show that Oswald shot anybody on 11/22/63.
I consider Jimbo Garrison to be the "Original Super Kook" with respect
to the JFK assassination. You, Rob, should be proud to continue in the
tradition of your kooky mentor.
>>> "Claims are EASY to make, but VERY HARD to prove..." <<<
Yeah, just ask any CTer about that. (Like, say, Lifton or Garrison or
Fetzer or Armstrong or Mellen or Lane. None of them has ever proven
their CT "claims".)
David Von Pein
March 16, 2009
