Conspiracy JFK Forum Site

(6) On Friday morning, Oswald placed a long paper-wrapped package in the back seat of Frazier's car.



Until you can put a rifle in that package, it does nothing to indict Oswald. It's also worth noting that every witness who saw that package, and testified about it, stated that it was too short to contain a rifle. Their testimony is quite compelling, because of the way that they stated Oswald had carried the package, with his palm under the package, and the top of the package was UNDER his armpit.



Now, either Oswald had the arms of an Orangutan, or the package wasn't long enough for the Mannlicher Carcano that Bugliosi believes it contained.



Since Bugliosi already lied about curtain rods not having turned up in this case - one can legitimately wonder if Oswald would have stopped to tie his shoelaces, it would have ended up in Bugliosi's list of evidence...



Again, the theme of presuming Oswald's guilt – THEN using everything he did and said as evidence of that 'guilt'. We're seeing this theme over and over again.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-6-Refuted

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Patrick C Wrote:

Henry Sienzant Wrote:Patrick,



Regarding the unfathomable logic, Ben is simply assuming what he needs to prove regarding Kilduff's knowledge (that Kilduff saw the body, which is a claim not in evidence)... and he's ignoring the fact that Kilduff, even if he saw a large wound in the temple area of the President's head, couldn't make the determination whether it was an entrance or an exit wound (as I pointed out to a previous poster, not only is Kilduff not qualified to make that determination - he's a assistant press secretary, not a forensic pathologist - but there's no evidence Kilduff or Dr. Burkley examined the head to the degree necessary to make that determination. That's why we have autopsies, I said. Ben prefers not to discuss what the autopsy found, and what Humes testified to - a small entry wound in the back of the head [determined by the beveling on the skull]). Instead he want to focus on the large wound and simply assume it's an entrance (which is what the prior poster was doing as well). So telling someone to watch the video doesn't establish anything other than where the large wound was (above the ear), which we already knew from the eyewitness testimony of witnesses in Dealey Plaza like Bill Newman, Abraham Zapruder, and Ike Altgens, as well as from the Zapruder film, the autopsy, the autopsy x-rays and the autopsy photographs. Kilduff's locating the large wound above the ear merely confirms the other evidence is correct. (Original found here.)

Patty whimpers: "Hank, Thanks for the post, Mr Holmes is clearly a gulf away from Ms Bates' excellent advice!"

You lied, Henry lied, and it's clear that neither one of you is capable of addressing your lies...



How embarrassing that you're now attributing false statements that Henry made to ME...



REALLY embarrassing that Henry is doing the same...



Both of you have been schooled on where Kilduff got the information about the head wound - and now you can't admit that you were wrong...



But ANYONE can view Malcolm Kilduff's Press Conference on Youtube, and he TELLS YOU where he got the information... from Dr. Burkley.



That both of you need to lie on this issue simply goes to show that you understand the weakness of your case...

Truly amusing that even though Patrick PROVABLY knew that Dr. Burkley was the source of Malcolm Kilduff's description of the wound, that he turns around and lies about it.



Claiming now that it was Dr. Perry...



The truth simply cannot be found on the side of believers... they lie at the drop of a hat.



Then absolutely REFUSE to take responsibility for their lies, and publicly defend or retract them.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Henry-Sienzant-Lies-On-Malcolm-Kilduff

(5) Friday morning, Oswald left almost all his cash and his wedding ring in Irving.



This is by no means a certain issue. We don't even know who found the ring ... the earliest report stated that the police had found it. 22H764 (CE 1401) - Then we have both Marina finding it 23H399 (CE 1787) and 23H475-476 (CE 1820), and Ruth Paine finding it 3H111-112



Marina had testified that Oswald didn't like wearing his ring when he went to work, due to the width of the ring:

Quote:Mr. RANKIN. Had your husband ever left his wedding ring at home that way before?

Mrs. OSWALD. At one time while he was still at Fort Worth, it was inconvenient for him to work with his wedding ring on and he would remove it, but at work--he would not leave it at home. His wedding ring was rather wide, and it bothered him. I don't know now. He would take it off at work.

Another major problem here is that you can see him wearing a ring on his 'ring finger' of his left hand when arrested. Although records state that this was a Marine Corps ring - the fact that such a ring is not in the National Archives, and the fact that he was wearing it where a wedding ring should go - cause problems for this case. It's not at all certain that the story told by the Warren Commission is a truthful one.



As for the cash he left, it's sheer speculation that this was "almost all his cash". As anyone married knows, his wife and children needed more money than he did. I find it particularly amusing that financially caring for his family is turned into evidence that he murdered the President.



I can't even recall how many times I've left my ring at home... but I've not been charged with shooting the President yet... (One day last week I left my ring on the kitchen table... no police at my door yet...)



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-5-Refuted

Mac Kilduff interview in which he talks about the shots.



As the shots were fired Kilduff heard them and turned back to the TSBD......he states clearly that he did not at any time think the shots came from the front.



So in effect he confirms that the gesture he made in the press gathering when he announced the death and pointed to his right temple was merely just that - a gesture. This finally wraps up all that silliness around Kilduff supposedly pointing to the front of his head because that is where JFK was hit.



Kilduff also states he does not think that Oswald intended to shoot John F. Kennedy, rather Connally.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eSpw9w5GGYk



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Malcolm-Kilduff-interview-from-1991

(4) That night Oswald avoided Kennedy talk with Marina, a subject it was their custom to discuss.



How silly! I ask readers - how many times do you FAIL to bring up, or discuss a topic? I'd be sentenced to multiple death sentences if this is all it took as evidence of crime. Bugliosi is clearly stretching in order to find "evidence" that Oswald was guilty.



Again, the same theme as I've mentioned before – presuming a person's guilt, then looking at all actions or statements as 'proof' of that guilt.



There are MILLIONS of people worldwide who last night did not discuss a favorite topic... should we expect to see a few million murders today? Yet this is the logic that Bugliosi employs.



And since Patrick has refused to speak of President Obama the last few WEEKS, we should hope for Patrick's sake for President Obama's good health.



For otherwise, Patrick would be indicted by Vincent Bugliosi for the crime.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-4-Refuted

Quote:(3) Oswald told Frazier he would NOT be coming back to Irving on Friday night.

First point... this is hearsay. It's also interesting to note that Frazier was very nearly arrested for the murder of JFK... his rifle was confiscated, and he was subjected to a forced lie detector test.



As well, Why would this be strange??? When Oswald got a ride with Frazier to go to Irving on a Thursday, it didn't mean that he was required then to also come back on Friday and stay the weekend.

Vincent Bugliosi Wrote: (2) Oswald's claim to be getting curtain rods in Irving was an implausible lie.

No, it wasn't. We know now that chances are quite good that there were no curtains up in Oswald's apartment, as we now know of photos taken Saturday morning showing curtain rods being put up.



As well, Dallas Police archives have now shown photographs of curtain rods that have been dusted for fingerprints... So the claim that there were no curtain rods ever found in this case is simply not true. http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/



Bugliosi in fact lied at this point, when he stated that no curtain rods had been found. Once again, Bugliosi is simply lying about the evidence in order to fabricate his case.



We also don't know that Oswald made this claim. Since his statements under questioning were never recorded, all we have is testimony from a few who questioned Oswald, and a few notes that have surfaced many years later. We also have testimony from Frazier, whom we now know had his rifle confiscated, and who was run through a lie detector test late that evening. I suspect that someone who was clearly on the edges of being labeled a suspect in this case was willing to say whatever needed to be said to avoid that.



Be careful to note that believers will absolutely refuse to defend Bugliosi as I go through his '53 Reasons' and show them to be the nonsense that they are.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-2-Refuted

George Joannides is all the proof needed that the CIA had a need to coverup the facts in the assassination of JFK. Joannides was called out of retirement by the CIA to act as the CIA's liason with the HSCA.



There was an excellent reason for this action by the CIA - Joannides knew "where the bodies were buried"... he was heavily involved in the Anti-Castro movement. Joannides directed and financed Directio Revolucionario Estudantil (DRE), translated as the Student Revolutionary Directorate, that consisted of a group of Cuban exiles whose officers had contact with Oswald in the months before the assassination.



Yet Joannides hid these very pertinent facts from the HSCA.



Believers have no refutation for these facts. Nor can they explain how these facts can be related to their favorite scenario - where simply a lone nut assassinates the President.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-CIA-s-Coverup

Vincent Bugliosi, famed prosecutor who put away Charles Manson for the Tate-LaBianca murders, has written what is indisputably the longest book defending the Warren Commission's conclusion that a lone nut, Lee Harvey Oswald, shot JFK. Weighing in at 1,612 pages, and a CD that has an additional 1,159 pages of footnotes, Mr. Bugliosi makes a strong case.



That is, if you don't know the evidence.



Mr. Bugliosi lists 53 reasons that "proved Oswald's guilt," and I'd like to go through them one by one, and show that they do no such thing. Please keep in mind that I've abbreviated most of Bugliosi's points, and lest I be accused of being misleading, I've actually taken the abbreviated list from McAdam's Forum - a Warren Commission Believer compiled this list. I've been careful to expand the point Bugliosi was making on occasion for more accuracy - but I've not shortened any of these...

---

(1) Oswald always visited Marina in Irving on a Friday. Nov 21 was the first Thursday visit ever.



Background: Oswald and Marina were married, but living apart at the time. Oswald almost always spent the weekends with Marina, but didn't usually visit midweek.



On the day before President Kennedy was assassinated, Oswald went to Irving Texas to visit Marina.



The Warren Commission and Vincent Bugliosi wish to argue that because this was an unique event, it had to be related to Oswald picking up a rifle to kill the President with. (this is, in fact, exactly what Bugliosi asserts.) If Oswald had visited midweek before, this argument loses much of it's force.



And, in fact, Bugliosi is lying about Nov 21st being the 'first Thursday visit ever.' Nor is it the first midweek visit. It's true that such midweek visits weren't common - but it's a lie to state that they never occurred.



Let's examine the evidence that Bugliosi surely knew of:

Quote:Mrs. Tarrants stated as best as she recalls, on Thursday night, October 31, 1963 LEE HARVEY OSWALD appeared at the cashier's cage and presented the above check to her and requested that it be cashed." (CE 1165 pg 6)

While this is certainly short of absolute proof of a prior Thursday visit, it's also certainly evidence of one. Evidence that Bugliosi surely knew of, and has not refuted. So he knew he was lying when he tried to make the claim that Nov 21st was the 'first Thursday visit ever.'



Oswald is also known to have gone back to Irving on a Monday, Oct 21, after the birth of his second child. Bugliosi surely knew this from the testimony of witnesses before the Warren Commission.



Lying about the known evidence in order to 'create' evidence for your belief isn't very convincing.



It's CERTAINLY not proof that Oswald murdered JFK.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Vincent-Bugliosi-s-53-Reasons-1-Refuted

Henry Sienzant Wrote:

Ben Holmes Wrote:

Quote:No credible evidence suggests that the shots were fired from the railroad bridge over the Triple Underpass, the nearby railroad yards or any place other than the Texas School Book Depository Building." (WCR 61)

Only by ignoring the overwhelming mass of eyewitnesses can the WC make a statement such as this. And since the legal system in America does accept eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence", the WC was simply lying. ...

Stop right there. There is no such thing as the U.S. Judicial system accepting all eyewitness testimony as "credible evidence" as you claim.

You're lying again, Henry.



More importantly, you KNOW you're lying.



Tell us, why do you think that you can support your belief with lies?



Henry has never admitted his lie, nor retracted it. Notice how subtle the lie is... with the addition of only a single word, "all" - Henry has transformed a perfectly accurate and correct statement into something he can "refute".



Patrick goes further than Henry... Patrick will simply make things up... not with the addition of a mere word, but entire sentences...



This is what believers need to do to argue the evidence.



Lie about it.



via Forums - All Forums http://conspiracyjfkforum.com/Thread-Henry-Sienzant-Demonstrates-How-To-Lie