Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Oh, sure, Raymond. The prosecutor would have looked at the giant pile of "OSWALD WAS HERE" evidence that was a mile high in the TSBD, the LIMO, and PARKLAND, and he would have said: "I can never win this case on flimsy evidence like this! I'll need at least 6 more bullets and a confession before I can go to trial. These 30 or 40 hunks of evidence aren't nearly enough!"

You ABO conspiracy mongers are a scream.

LOL.gif

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh, sure, Raymond. The prosecutor would have looked at the giant pile of "OSWALD WAS HERE" evidence that was a mile high in the TSBD, the LIMO, and PARKLAND, and he would have said: "I can never win this case on flimsy evidence like this! I'll need at least 6 more bullets and a confession before I can go to trial. These 30 or 40 hunks of evidence aren't nearly enough!"

[/Quote]

Your six or seven pieces of evidence has now been multiplied by six or seven. You must be a whizz at Math, David.

But essentially that is right. Since they could not prove him guilty, they knew they had to make sure he would be dead before he ever got a chance to retain a defense lawyer.

You ABO conspiracy mongers are a scream.

For "ABO conspiracy mongers" Read INNOCENCE MONGERS.

& you Warren mongers are the real scream, a tiny but vocal minority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I said "30 or 40 hunks of evidence", I was (quite obviously) not referring to ONLY bullets, shells, prints, and guns (although those 18 pieces of evidence against Oswald in those categories ALONE are enough to hang him too, of course).

But I was referring to EVERYTHING that convicts your prized patsy -- and when "everything" is counted--it's at least 30 or 40 things (including Oswald's OWN ACTIONS AND LIES that reek of his guilt).

Here's a starter kit of 20 items (which I completed in 2003 and revised a few years later to include a few more things). And there are several more I could add to this list:

XX.+Oswald+Is+Guilty+Blog+Logo.png

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a starter kit of 20 items (which I completed in 2003 and revised a few years later to include a few more things). And there are several more I could add to this list:

That would be great, if QUANTITY could beat QUALITY.

But all the evidence implicating OZ in the crime is clearly open to the interpretation that he was framed, and there were quite a few who had the MOTIVE to frame him, whereas he had NO MOTIVE AT ALL.

Yeats:

Look always on the Motive, not the Deed,

THe Shadow of shadows upon the Deed Itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeats:

Look always on the Motive, not the Deed,

THe Shadow of shadows upon the Deed Itself.

You may think Yeats was a guy who went around with his head in the clouds, and what does he know? Yeats had a secret addiction to CRIME NOVELS & popular mysteries of every type, and he made it his business as a poet to examine the foul rag and bone shop of the (human) heart.

But if you won't take the word of a poet, how about the word of a PROSECUTOR?

THe case against OJ was a circumstantial case, no video of him committing the act, no eyewitness, just like the murder of JFK.

But the case against OJ was a solid three-legged stool, and all three legs fully working. The BIGGEST difference with the JFK case is MOTIVE (of course there are others):

http://books.google.com/books?id=lMWGu1ex4_YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Bugliosi&hl=en&ei=jFWXTbGtIu610QG6rsD-Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=motive&f=false

Ain't it odd that Mr. B. writes so forcefully about the importance motive in the OJ case and in the case of CHARLES MANSON, yet in the Oswald case it seems that motive is something he never heard of?

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to post
Share on other sites
But all the evidence implicating OZ in the crime is clearly open to the interpretation that he was framed, and there were quite a few who had the MOTIVE to frame him, whereas he had NO MOTIVE AT ALL.

It was mighty silly, then, of your patsy-framers to try and frame someone who had "NO MOTIVE AT ALL" for killing JFK.

Wouldn't you agree, Raymond?

I guess we'll just chalk that one up as goofball mistake #297 made by the retarded conspirators who were stumbling around in the dark attempting to frame Oswald by planting a MAUSER and shooting Kennedy from the FRONT and by shooting Tippit with an AUTOMATIC and by not putting the proper bank stamps on the money order and by faking the Klein's order in a way to make it seem to CTers that it was impossible for the order form to get to Chicago in such a short time and by mailing the money order from Dallas at a time they knew Oswald was at work and by setting up a guy who--oops!--had no motive at all for wanting Kennedy dead.

Did your patsy-framers WANT to get caught by doing so many stupid things that the CTers think they actually did do?

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites
do you have "proof" LHO was at the 6th floor, TSBD window Nov 22nd 1963 1230PM? Let's start there hon

Of course. The proof has been on the table since 1963-1964. You just refuse to accept

the obvious, honey lamb.

wishful thinking, conjecture AND a solo eyewitness account (with

documented eyesight problems no-less) OBVIOUS proof? Since 1964? The

WCR? Grow up hon! Have to do much better than that!

:ice

Link to post
Share on other sites

Brennan's eyesight was not poor on 11/22/63, sugar pie.

And that, old cream puff, explains why he was unable to identify anyone in the lineup that evening.

He had never seen any of them before, including Lee Oswald.

And as for Bugliosi's views on MOTIVE, you were saying.....?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please keep in mind, Jimbo, that your theories about the evidence are WORTHLESS. They mean zilch.

If you are so confident that all of the evidence against Oswald is fake and planted....why don't you do something about it -- get somebody in power to re-open the case and investigate all your stupid theories about the evidence.

And after the Congressmen stop laughing at Jimbo regarding his utterly nutty ideas about Oswald never having taken possession of the revolver--EVEN THOUGH HE WAS ARRESTED WITH THAT GUN IN HIS HANDS--it's doubtfuil whether Jimbo The Great would have a lick of credibility left in his conspiracy-weary bones.

And I love the way Jim thinks everybody should automatically agree with his ABO and EVERYTHING IS FAKE theories and bow down to him out of deference to his great research skills.

Maybe it's time for James DiEugenio to get over himself, because despite what he THINKS the evidence means in the JFK case, he hasn't proven that even ONE piece of the evidence against Oswald was manufactured/tainted/planted/faked/or doctored. The "fake" stuff is all in Jimbo's head. And yet he thinks it's reality. What a laugh. And the bigger laugh is--he thinks he has PROVEN that all the evidence against Saint Oswald was fake.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

Raymond,

I guess that's why Brennan filled out an affidavit (BEFORE he ever laid eyes on Oswald) that gave descriptive details of a gunman who COULD be Lee Oswald -- i.e., "slender", "white", "male", about 160 pounds, about 30 yrs. old (Oswald looked older than 24).

Must've been the look-alike, huh?

And if you DON'T think it was an Oz look-alike whom Brennan saw, then it's Retarded Plotter Error #298 for putting a gunman in the Sniper's Nest who was SUPPOSED to be Oswald, and yet he didn't look a thing like Oswald.

Try to weasel out of that one, J. Ray.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

Raymond,

I guess that's why Brennan filled out an affidavit (BEFORE he ever laid eyes on Oswald) that gave descriptive details of a gunman who COULD be Lee Oswald -- i.e., "slender", "white", "male", about 160 pounds, about 30 yrs. old (Oswald looked older than 24).

Must've been the look-alike, huh?

David Von: I used to think that you seriously believed the things you say, but now I see that you have no real interest in evidence, which means you have no real interest in the TRUTH.

THe RECORD shows that Brennan was taken to a lineup in city hall, that Lee Oswald was one of the men in that lineup,and that Brennan was "UNABLE TO IDENTIFY" anyone in the lineup. It doesn't matter how much weaseling you or Bugliosi or Earl Warren do with this, it remains and will remain a FACT.

Try to weasel out of that one, J. Ray.

You are the only person on this thread who is trying to weasel, not only about Howard Brennan, but also about all those Bugliosi quotes I posted on the importance of MOTIVE, and Bugliosi's strange reticence about the lack thereof in the case of Lee Oswald.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Raymond,

I guess that's why Brennan filled out an affidavit (BEFORE he ever laid eyes on Oswald) that gave descriptive details of a gunman who COULD be Lee Oswald -- i.e., "slender", "white", "male", about 160 pounds, about 30 yrs. old (Oswald looked older than 24).

Must've been the look-alike, huh?

And if you DON'T think it was an Oz look-alike whom Brennan saw, then it's Retarded Plotter Error #298 for putting a gunman in the Sniper's Nest who was SUPPOSED to be Oswald, and yet he didn't look a thing like Oswald.

Try to weasel out of that one, J. Ray.

Even Jesse Curry, DPD Chief, said that they could never beyond a reasonable doubt place LHO in "that window" with "that rifle" at the moments the shots were fired. So apparently Curry himself had no faith in Brennan's ID of Oswald as the gunman.

Now, before you go off shouting at me over what I do or don't believe--and get it wrong--I'll spell it out for you. I believe that Oswald MIGHT have been the gunman on the 6th floor. BUT I also believe he might NOT have been. I believe the evidence is inconclusive. A competent defense attorney would have torn the prosecution's case to shreds...had their been a trial. Doesn't mean Ozzie was innocent; just means that there is no conclusive evidence that he did the deed, to the exclusion of all other people on the face of the earth...as you seem to believe.

And I believe that YOUR arguments are based on backwards logic; i.e., you believe Oswald to be guilty, so he MUST HAVE done this or he MUST HAVE done that, or he COULD HAVE done this or he COULD HAVE done that...and then your "must haves" and "could haves" somehow become transformed into "he DID it, because we KNOW he's guilty...so that could only mean that he's guilty because he did it." And that circular reasoning gets old after the first couple of thousand times of reading it.

Edited by Mark Knight
Link to post
Share on other sites

Raymond,

You know full well why Howard Brennan refused to I.D. Oswald in the lineup on Friday. You just want to play games (as usual).

HOWARD L. BRENNAN -- "I [didn't positively identify Oswald in the lineup] more or less for security reasons--my family and myself."

[...]

DAVID W. BELIN -- "Mr. Brennan, could you tell us now whether you can or cannot positively identify the man you saw on the sixth floor window as the same man that you saw in the police station?"

BRENNAN -- "I could at that time I could, with all sincerity, identify him as being the same man."

----------

Brennan was merely lying out his ass, right J. Ray?

Now, try and weasel out of this affidavit that Brennan filled out BEFORE he ever saw Lee H. Oswald:

http://www.jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/brennan1.htm

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...