Author Topic: Framing a patsy  (Read 40294 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Rob Caprio

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22497
Re: Framing a patsy
« Reply #63 on: September 06, 2012, 04:33:00 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is a point in all of this - is there no way that a rifle could have made its way into the TSBD prior to November 22?  I mean, if there was a conspiracy of any form, I doubt it started at 9 AM that Friday.

Warren Caster brought TWO rifles into the TSBD on 11/20/63.  Who knows IF others did too with much less fanfare.


Online Richard Smith

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3465
Re: Framing a patsy
« Reply #64 on: September 06, 2012, 04:53:03 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sooooo, why oh why did he hide the rifle?

Hmmmmm??

For one thing he is holding it in his hands and is on the move unlike the shells which he would have to gather up in the shooting location in front of a window from which he has just shot the President.  He has one bullet left and doesn't know if anyone else is on the floor.  Maybe he anticipates having to shoot someone to reach the stairs.  So he carries it with him until he is near the stairs and it is a simple matter to slide it between some boxes.  However, the point is not why he hid the rifle or didn't hide the shells, it is that the discovery of these items were not the reason he was initially suspected.  Finding them did not result in his arrest.  He was suspected and arrested because of his actions.  The rifle and shells were traced to him later.  The original claim was that he would buy time for himself by picking up the shells.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2012, 05:07:52 PM
by Richard Smith
»

Online Richard Smith

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3465
Re: Framing a patsy
« Reply #65 on: September 06, 2012, 07:31:40 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:cop: He didn't just "slide it between some boxes". He took the time to make a slot for it out of boxes and then stacked other boxes atop of that.

And what "actions" led to him being suspected and arrested for the murder of JFK? Drinking a Coke in the 2nd floor lunchroom?

How do you know this?  Couldn't some of that been done beforehand?  Regardless, it takes him only a few seconds.  I guess fleeing the scene, matching the description of the assassin, getting a gun on the way to the movies and shooting a police officer is not suspicious to you.  Isn't that why he was arrested per my original point?  Do you disagree and believe he was arrested because he didn't hide the shells?  That was the claim that I was addressing.  

Offline Bill Brown

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17157
Re: Framing a patsy
« Reply #66 on: September 06, 2012, 07:39:54 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Exactly, Colin. Thanks.

What do you say to that, Bill? Stuck between boxes and boxes pulled over top of them. Mommy never tell you not to tell lies, boy?

Boone's testimony does not describe the rifle as being "buried beneath a stack of boxes".  Try again.

Also, why are you misquoting Boone?  He did not say that the rifle was "stuck between boxes and boxes pulled over top of them".  When you have to lie, it only shows that you've lost.  Why do you constantly lie?

Offline Bill Brown

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17157
Re: Framing a patsy
« Reply #67 on: September 06, 2012, 07:44:58 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
:cop: He didn't just "slide it between some boxes". He took the time to make a slot for it out of boxes and then stacked other boxes atop of that.

And what "actions" led to him being suspected and arrested for the murder of JFK? Drinking a Coke in the 2nd floor lunchroom?

More lies.  Oswald did not stack "boxes" atop of that and it certainly was not "buried", as you would have us believe.  This stuff is JFK Assassination 101 and you don't have a clue about it at all.

Online Richard Smith

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3465
Re: Framing a patsy
« Reply #68 on: September 06, 2012, 07:47:17 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is no possibility of Oswald pulling this off and escaping unnoticed.
Does the fact that Oswald did manage to escape unnoticed all the way to the Texas Theater after walking out from TSBD mean he didn't do it? Is that what you are suggesting Richard?

No.  A person matching his description was identified as the shooter.  His absence was noted to the police by Truly.  He was very fortunate to get out of the building as he was approached by a police officer holding a gun on him and is arrested in short order.  However, your original point was that he was a meticulous planner in the case of Walker and appears less so with JFK.  Citing an example of his failure to hide the shells.  Implying that this is sinister.  However, as I pointed out, those were very different situations.  There was no good escape plan under the circumstances presented in the JFK assassination.  And finding the shells had nothing to do with identifying Oswald as a suspect since there was no immediate way to connect him to those shells.  As a result, it wouldn't have bought him any additional time to hide the shells.  

Online Rob Caprio

  • Super Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22497
Re: Framing a patsy
« Reply #69 on: September 06, 2012, 08:00:02 PM »
Ssh...I have a new student in my class!  Good Old Walt Cakebread needs some "educatin'" on the rifle too!  This is from 2008.

********************************************

> Boone didn't say CE 139 was NOT that same rifle that he'd found...He
> said it looked like the same rifle. -- Walt

I said:

But he COULDN'T POSITIVELY ID it could he? I guess Walt will play the
same game of "well it could be" despite him saying he "couldn't
positively say it was."
  Why did Ball NOT ask him if it was the same
rifle?  Why the lame question of "does it look the same?"  Why?
Because in law school you are taught NEVER to ask a question you don't
either know the answer to, or the answer is detrimental to your case.

(New note: Who else plays this game?  Good old Bill Brown is who!)

> When Boone was shown a photo (CE 514) of the rifle insitu.....he said
> he couldn't be sure...-- Walt

I said:

Right, and it seems if he was shown the same rifle it would have said
"yes it is."  Walt doesn't get this is called "reasonable doubt" which
means when you CANNOT prove your claims you have planted doubt in the
jury's mind.

> Boone said the rifle in the photo that he was being shown (The rifle
> down among the boxes AFTER many other boxes had been removed) " looked
> to be", "appeared to be", "seemed to be", the same the same rifle he
> had found BURIED BENEATH boxes of books.  He could not BE 100%
> absolutely sure that it was because he could only see a small portion
> of it in the photo. -- Walt

(New note: The ONLY other person who has said the rifle was "buried beneath boxes" is good old Walt Cakebread!
While it is true it was COVERED by boxes, the term "buried" is inappropriate.  The point is still the same though, the
time it took to hide the rifle in the way it was found would take LONGER than the time alloted for LHO to hide it.)


I said:

Well Walt exaggerates again.  Here is what Boone testified to.

Mr. BALL - I show you a rifle which is Commission Exhibit 139. Can you
tell us whether or not that looks like the rifle you saw on the floor
that day?

Mr. BOONE - It looks like the same rifle. **I have no way of being
positive.**


Mr. BALL - You never handled it?

Mr. BOONE - I did not touch the weapon at all.

Where does he say "seems to be" or "appears to be"?

Now according to the WC this is because he did not touch the rifle,
thus, giving the impression he did not really look at it. But then he
goes on to answer two questions based on viewing the rifle.


Senator COOPER - Did you notice whether the rifle that you discovered
had a telescopic sight?

Mr. BOONE - Yes, it did.

Senator COOPER - Did it have a sling?

Mr. BOONE - Yes, it did. Because Captain Fritz picked it up by the
sling when he removed it from its resting place.

Wow, this is pretty good for someone who really wasn't very
interested. The other thing they ignore (LNers like Walt) is that the
WC claimed Weitzman called it a Mauser first, but here we see Boone
says it was Capt. Fritz.


Mr. BALL - There is one question. Did you hear anybody refer to this
rifle as a Mauser that day?


Mr. BOONE - Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I
thought it was 7.65 Mauser.

Mr. BALL - Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?

Mr. BOONE - **I believe Captain Fritz.** He had knelt down there to
look at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said
that is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his
name is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it.
We were just discussing it back and forth. And he said it looks like a
7.65 Mauser.

>  What about the WC ignoring and burying Weitzman's affidavit Dave?

>  What about Weitzman swearing to an affidavit when he only got a
>  "glimpse" of the rifle Dave? -- Two questions by me for DVP

Walt said:

> Dear SB... An affidavit does NOT necessarily state the true and
> accurate facts....It is merely a written account of a witness
> recording what he BELIEVES to be true.

(New note: SB was shorthand for STUPID Barsteward -- something Walt called anyone who
disagreed with his insane logic -- which was most of us!)


I said:

Boy this guy shoots himself in the foot constantly in an effort to
keep all his lies going at once.  How many times as Walt argued in
defense of Brennan that his early statements were the most accurate?
Prove Weitzman's affidavit is NOT accurate.  While you are at it, and
since you are helping DVP
, explain why the WC made no reference to, or
included the affidavit in their report.

>  What about Weitzman describing the rifle and scope in great detail
> despite only "glancing" at the rifle Dave? -- Me to DVP

Walt said:

> When did Weitzman give a detailed description that included the
> statement that he'd seen 7.65 Mauser stamped on the barrel.  Obviously
> Day statrted examining the rifle as soon as he removed it from where
> it had been HIDDEN by BURYING it BENEATH boxes of books.  Weitzman
> could easily have seen Day dusting the rifle for prints ( He found the
> smudge (palm print) at that time) and remember that it had a heavt
> leather sling and other details.

I said:

You are a conniver and a liar.  I will include Weitzman's description
again so you CAN'T IGNORE it this time. This is what I wrote to Dave
yesterday.

(Quote on)

In addition to the telescopic sight he described the rifle in pretty
good detail for only getting a "glimpse" of it.

He said it "...was gun-metal color...blue metal...the rear portion of
the bolt was VISIBLY WORN...dark brown oak...rough wood."
(VII, p.
109) (Emphasis mine)

Not bad for a "glimpse", huh?

(Quote off)

Now Walt, how would he see the bolt was visibly worn if he did NOT
really look at but for a glimpse?

> There ya go Dave....Happy ta help you out -- Walt being proud of HELPING
fellow LNer DVP -- but keep in mind -- Walt CLAIMED to be a CTER!


I said:

All you did was help with the lies.  Walt is really pathetic now as
his only comrades are his fellow LNers.

> Ha.ha,ha,hee,hee,hee,hee.....ROTFLMAO. -- Walt

I said:

Spreading lies causes glee in the Cakebread house.