Oswald's Midnight Press Conference

[Guest]

On 2/3/2023 at 2:32 PM, David Josephs said:

As Vince Bugliosi says, although he wishes you conclude the opposite, this is indeed the most complicated murder of all time, and the WCR proves it to be so.

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

Please people, forget about the "smirk", that was just on of his characteristics, doesn't mean a thing, but unfortunately it looked like... etc...

What I did find imoprtant, above all he wanted one thing : if somebody could step forward to give him legal represantation

If he really wanted Mr. Abt he would have said so right there (in the back rooms he could have named Abt when they asked him if he had a preference, but they sure not were going to make the call for him !). And neither were a bunch of others he had asked.  Yes the ACLU was there, but that was clearly a "will but won't" situation

 

 

 

Edited February 4, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[David Von Pein]

From March 2010:

A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:

That look he [Lee Oswald] gives when told he is being charged with the President's murder is priceless.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think there might be just a small bit of a "surprised" reaction on Oswald's face for just an instant after the reporter tells him (for the second time): "You have been charged" with JFK's murder.

But, in my opinion, the major reaction that I see from Oswald at his famous midnight press conference is more DISGUST and ANNOYANCE. (Poor Lee Harvey truly looks annoyed and PUT OUT when he's being removed from that room right after his brief press conference.)

In other words [simulating Oswald's feelings at that moment] -- "HOW DARE THEY TREAT ME LIKE THIS! ALL I DID WAS KILL THE PRESIDENT AND A POLICEMAN! I'M GONNA SUE THESE DAMN COPS FOR CHARGING ME WITH AN ASSASSINATION I COMMITTED!"

Now, when analyzing this a little bit more, since all reasonable people who have studied the JFK assassination know beyond any and all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy, this immutable FACT of Oswald's guilt HAS to mean that Oswald could not possibly have been VERY surprised by the news that he was being officially charged with the President's murder.

Knowing that he assassinated Kennedy AND that he had left a popcorn trail of physical evidence behind on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building AND that he had been arrested earlier in the day on a charge of murdering a policeman, Oswald therefore couldn't possibly have thought that he WOULDN'T eventually be officially charged with the President's murder too.

Unless Oswald was completely retarded (which he certainly wasn't), he had to realize that Presidential assassins aren't normally given just a light slap on the wrist and a $10 fine for having assassinated a U.S. President.

Given these undeniable facts regarding Oswald's guilt, there's no way that Lee Harvey could have been shocked very much (if at all) when the reporter told him he had already been charged with JFK's assassination.

Here's my guess (and I fully admit this is just a wild guess, and I certainly could be wrong about this)---

Oswald looked a little bit surprised possibly due to the fact that a NEWS REPORTER was breaking the news to him that he was being charged with the death of the President.

This was probably a very unusual case where the prisoner (being held in a police station, with policemen and detectives all around him for ten hours!) first learned of a murder charge against him from a news reporter, instead of first learning of that murder charge from the police themselves. This possibly startled and surprised Oswald a little bit, to hear that news FIRST from a newsman, vs. the cops who were surrounding him.

Again, that's just a pure guess on my part. But there's no way in Hades that Oswald truly thought he WOULDN'T be charged with JFK's murder, in light of the massive amount of evidence he conveniently left behind (not to mention the circumstantial stuff, such as the many lies he told the police in those first ten hours of interrogation).

I'll also add this -- It's quite possible that Oswald didn't even hear the reporter say the words "You have been charged". There was quite a bit of noise in that room at that particular time, so maybe Oswald didn't even hear the reporter. On the videotape version of the midnight press conference, the reporter's words "You have been charged" are, indeed, quite audible and clear. But from where Oswald was standing, I'm wondering if he heard those words as clearly as we do on the videotape? We can never know this for certain, of course.

But if, in fact, Oswald didn't even hear the reporter, it puts a whole new light on any "reaction" that we see on LHO's face, because under those conditions, it would obviously mean that Oswald's reaction wasn't one of "surprise" at all.


PAT SPEER SAID:

David, your response to this reeks of desperation.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, Pat.

Now, continue reading and we'll see who the "desperate" one is....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/oswald-midnight-press-conference.html

 

[David Josephs]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I accept that it's possible Oswald killed Kennedy. But the mountain of evidence I've studied strongly suggests otherwise. To put odds on it, I'd say that the odds of Oswald pulling the trigger are less than 1%. I would bet my life against it, but not my son's life. 

There is not a single item of evidence you can offer that cannot shown to be inauthentic... not one.

Evidence on its own is worthless... it has to be Authenticated.  It has to be considered "Real Evidence" in the legal sense of the term to be accepted as such in any court in any court in the land.  And if we are not going to agree that evidence must meet the legal standard, then we really have nothing to discuss.

I've spent my time trying to see if ANY evidence offered by the WCR can be authenticated, so far... not so much.  And since no one can put Oswald in that window with that rifle, the HSCA doesn't do much better.  As for the ARRB, if that work and Horne's work does not show you the WCR (and WCDocs) for what they were, I don't know where we can start...

I respect your work immensely Pat... early on your "slides" online were essential as nobody was doing what you were... so please accept sincere praise.

I cannot abide anyone who knows the evidence as you do, to claim there is evidence that actually proves Oswald's guilt which CAN be authenticated by the legal means available.  No Pat, not even 1% and yes, I'd bet my children's lives too...  Simply not possible.  If you bothered to read the essay I posted.

Please share... what evidence do you know of that would be accepted in a court of law, which incriminates Oswald...  and think carefully about your answer... I've been showing the Evidence to be the Conspiracy for a long time and there are very few areas of the case I have not shown this to be true.

 

[David Josephs]

DVP - you're on ignore too...  

I can't take any more of your regurgitate manure and your "why would he" approach to discussion.

Take it to Dealey Plaza... stand up on the Knoll and preach the gospel baby, preach away.

. 

[David Von Pein]

49 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

DVP - you're on ignore too...  

Oh no! Tell me you're just kidding! I'm destroyed beyond repair! I've been put on Ignore by a conspiracy fantasist! Oh, the horror of it!!!

And this is a conspiracy fantasist who thinks there were two LHOs and two Marguerites and who also has the temerity to gush forth this ridiculous and absurd statement:

"There is not a single item of evidence you can offer that cannot [be] shown to be inauthentic...not one."

Fantasy at its best right there.

More absurdities authored by David Josephs over the last several years are archived below:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=David+Josephs

 

Edited February 4, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Please share... what evidence do you know of that would be accepted in a court of law, which incriminates Oswald.

Quoting the late Vincent Bugliosi (who knew more than just a little bit about the subject of "Admissible Evidence" at a court trial):

"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 T. Bugliosi; Page 442 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

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

Related Link:

 

Edited February 4, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

On 2/3/2023 at 5:10 PM, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

What I did find imoprtant, above all he wanted one thing : if somebody could step forward to give him legal represantation

 

On 2/3/2023 at 5:50 PM, David Josephs said:

There is not a single item of evidence you can offer that cannot shown to be inauthentic... not one.

 

On 2/3/2023 at 5:52 PM, David Josephs said:

DVP - you're on ignore too... 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Ron Bulman]

7 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

The Warren Commission report and the HSCA report. Both reports said Oswald shot and killed JFK. 

They are not perfect reports, but I haven't seen any better ones. 

That's funny.  There are no other official reports as you well know.  The word perfect does not belong in consecutive sentences about the WC and HSCA.  Not perfect?  How about bullsh*t?  Have you read much by reputable researchers?  Please no Posner/Bugliosi/Litwin crap.

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Quoting the late Vincent Bugliosi (who knew more than just a little bit about the subject of "Admissible Evidence" at a court trial):

"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 T. Bugliosi; Page 442 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

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

Related Link:

 

Eegads! I am forced to agree with Bugliosi. I've read dozens of books and articles on evidence and criminal procedure, and most any piece of evidence that pertains to innocence or guilt for which someone can say "I found this evidence, or developed this evidence," etc, will be admitted.

The autopsy photos are the most glaring example. Stringer would say he took them and Humes and Boswell would testify that the photos are accurate depictions of the wounds. They would then be introduced. The same is true for the gun, and all paperwork related to the gun, and the fingerprints, etc. Someone would claim they found it and someone would say the rifle in evidence is the rifle that was found.

That the validity of a particular piece of evidence is open to question does not (and should not) prevent its being introduced at trial. 

It is up the defense to challenge such evidence, just as it would be up to the prosecution to challenge any evidence (such as a witness saying the defendant was elsewhere) that might help clear the defendant. 

 

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Eegads! I am forced to agree with Bugliosi.

And here are two more quotes from Mr. Bugliosi that should be very easy for any reasonable person to wholeheartedly agree with who has been exposed to the threadbare arguments presented by the various conspiracy theorists since 1963:

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

"The dreadful illogic and superficiality of the conspiracy theorists' modus operandi has inevitably resulted in the following situation: Though they have dedicated their existence to trying to poke holes in the Warren Commission's findings, they have failed abysmally to tell us (if the Warren Commission was wrong) what actually did happen. In other words, other than blithely tossing out names, they have failed to offer any credible evidence of who, if not Oswald, killed Kennedy. Nor have they offered any credible evidence at all of who the conspirators behind the assassination were. So after more than forty years, if we were to rely on these silly people, we'd have an assassination without an assassin (since, they assure us, Oswald didn't kill Kennedy), and a conspiracy without conspirators. Not a simple achievement." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 982 of "Reclaiming History"

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

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xliii of "Reclaiming History"

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

Dozens Of Bonus VB Quotations (Culled By Yours Truly):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / DVP's Favorite Vince Bugliosi Quotes

 

Edited February 4, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

31 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

And here are two more quotes from Mr. Bugliosi that should be very easy for any reasonable person to wholeheartedly agree with who has been exposed to the threadbare arguments presented by the various conspiracy theorists since 1963:

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

"The dreadful illogic and superficiality of the conspiracy theorists' modus operandi has inevitably resulted in the following situation: Though they have dedicated their existence to trying to poke holes in the Warren Commission's findings, they have failed abysmally to tell us (if the Warren Commission was wrong) what actually did happen. In other words, other than blithely tossing out names, they have failed to offer any credible evidence of who, if not Oswald, killed Kennedy. Nor have they offered any credible evidence at all of who the conspirators behind the assassination were. So after more than forty years, if we were to rely on these silly people, we'd have an assassination without an assassin (since, they assure us, Oswald didn't kill Kennedy), and a conspiracy without conspirators. Not a simple achievement." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 982 of "Reclaiming History"

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

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xliii of "Reclaiming History"

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

Dozens Of Bonus VB Quotations (Culled By Yours Truly):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / DVP's Favorite Vince Bugliosi Quotes

 

The first quote is nonsense, IMO. Bugliosi makes the most obvious of mistakes--assuming he is correct and that it is up to others to prove him wrong. He knows damn well that's not how it works in court or in life. Take the case of Jimmy Hoffa. Let's say a panel got together and wrote a report saying his nephew set him up, and was responsible. Believers in the nephews' innocence could argue against the panel's report without claiming they knew who was responsible. Methinks Bugliosi reveals his hand here. He admitted that he liked simple explanations. Well, it appears that his lust for such an explanation in the Kennedy case led him to dismiss arguments challenging the official evidence. It would be interesting, moreover, to find out if in his years as a prosecutor, Bugliosi ever questioned the evidence provided him by law enforcement. I would suspect not. His job as a prosecutor, and later as a writer, was to lay out the case against those he considered guilty, and never question the pieces of the puzzle that failed to fit.

As far as the second quote, I think there's some truth to it, but reject his use of the term "conspiracy community." 

[David Von Pein]

One more VB gem---just for the common sense (and the laughs):

"The Garrison devotees have apparently never been troubled by the question of why [Clay] Shaw and [David] Ferrie would select Oswald, of all people, as their hit man...or patsy when they had no way of knowing that the president would even come back to New Orleans, where Oswald lived at the time. Or were they planning to finance Oswald as he traveled, Carcano in his violin case, all around the country stalking Kennedy for a good opportunity to kill him or be the patsy for someone else who would? If the latter, aren't they troubled by the fact that we know, from Oswald's known whereabouts, that he never did travel around the country?" -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 847 of "Reclaiming History" Endnotes

 

Edited February 4, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Pete Mellor]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Methinks Bugliosi reveals his hand here. He admitted that he liked simple explanations. Well, it appears that his lust for such an explanation in the Kennedy case led him to dismiss arguments challenging the official evidence. It would be interesting, moreover, to find out if in his years as a prosecutor, Bugliosi ever questioned the evidence provided him by law enforcement. I would suspect not. His job as a prosecutor, and later as a writer, was to lay out the case against those he considered guilty, and never question the pieces of the puzzle that failed to fit.

Too true!  Bugliosi's record on his prosecution case on the Manson murders shows him to be a manufacturer of so called evidence, tampering or ignoring witnesses whose statements would not fit into his explanation of the crimes and writing a best selling book on this fiction.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

No, he didn't. He was just mouthing Marxist rhetoric. When the President of the Dallas Bar Association visited him in jail, he declined any offer of assistance. Like squawking "I am not resisting arrest!" after pulling his gun in the Texas Theater. Just Marxist rhetoric.

 

The President of the Dallas Bar Association visited him the next day.  

At the time of the conference (Friday late in the evening) no lawyer had offered him help yet,

My main point was : compared to the alleged smirk, him asking help was way more important