Hello There, Guest!
View New Posts   View Today's Posts
Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.

  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average


03-29-2017, 02:12 PM #21
Hollywood
Junior Member
**
Posts: 26 Threads:0 Joined: Mar 2017 Reputation: 0 Stance WCR Supporter

RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
"If you want, I'll do EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM... but each in it's own post." Fire away - your attempted "refutations" of Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence haven't been too impressive, so I'm not expecting much - sorry. Anything you offer will be the same tired suppositions, innuendo and quotes taken out of context - still boring. Get some REAL evidence, Sir.

03-29-2017, 03:34 PM #22
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 950 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
(03-29-2017, 02:12 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  "If you want, I'll do EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM... but each in it's own post." Fire away - your attempted "refutations" of Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence haven't been too impressive,"

The fact that you've answered only one of them belies that claim.


(03-29-2017, 02:12 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  ... so I'm not expecting much - sorry. Anything you offer will be the same tired suppositions, innuendo and quotes taken out of context - still boring. Get some REAL evidence, Sir.

Quite the coward, aren't you?

Since you've refused... we'll start with your "his fingerprints on the weapon" claim.

According to the FBI, this simply isn't true.

There aren't *ANY* fingerprints that have been shown to have been Oswald's... there is, however, a palmprint. One that the FBI could not see on the rifle, so has no independent corroboration... what we have is a single source, Lt. Day...

And since Lt. Day violated normal procedure by not photographing the print in place before "lifting" it, there's quite reasonable doubt that the palmprint ever existed on the rifle.

Lt. Day's refusal to sign an affidavit on the issue when both the FBI & Warren Commission were trying to get to the bottom of this issue is very telling...

So what you have is speculation... you absolutely must rely on the honesty & character of Lt. Day.
This post was last modified: 03-29-2017, 03:36 PM by Ben Holmes.

03-29-2017, 05:10 PM #23
Hollywood
Junior Member
**
Posts: 26 Threads:0 Joined: Mar 2017 Reputation: 0 Stance WCR Supporter

RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
Several Commission assistant counsels met with FBI Inspector James R. Malley, the bureau's liason with the Commission and FBI fingerprint expert Sebastion Latona and they asked Latona if there was a way to prove the lift came from the rifle. Latona reeaxmined the lift submitted by Day and noticed pits, marks and rust spots on it that corresponded to "identical areas on the underside of the rifle barrel - the very spot from which Day said the print had been lifted. J. Edgar Hoover sent a letter by courier to the Commission on September 4 1978 to confirm this finding, along with a photograph showing the corresponding marks on the barrel and the lift. There was no doubt whatsoever that the palm print Day had lifted had come from Oswald's rifle.

Vincent Scalice, leading fingerprint expert for the New York City Police Dept. and also the HSCA fingerprint expert, compared the latent prints in the photographs with finger print exemplars of Oswald's. He found that by maneuvering  the photos in different positions, he was able to find about 18 points of identity. "These are definitely the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald - they are on the rifle. There is no doubt about it." Captain Jerry Powdrill also agreed with Scalice's judgement. So much for the charge that this is all speculation.......

03-29-2017, 09:31 PM #24
Posts: 59 Threads:13 Joined: Jun 2016 Reputation: 1 Stance Critic

RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
(03-29-2017, 02:12 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  your attempted "refutations" of Bugliosi's 53 pieces of evidence haven't been too impressive, so I'm not expecting much.

Ben has often said he will match any claim offered up by a LNer with just as much evidence as they provide. So if among Bugliosi's "evidence" are pieces which include Oswald didn't read the newspaper, Oswald didn't pack a lunch, and Oswald changed his pants, what you *deserve* in return is a response as equally impressive.

03-29-2017, 09:45 PM #25
Hollywood
Junior Member
**
Posts: 26 Threads:0 Joined: Mar 2017 Reputation: 0 Stance WCR Supporter

RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
Oswald not reading the paper, not packing a lunch, etc. are INDICATIONS of behavior consistent with a person contemplating an extraordinary act. The other items in Bugliosi's list, which I notice you avoid, are STRONG pieces of evidence which prove Oswald's obvious guilt. Notice the 53 items on the list include many different, varied TYPES of evidence - to honest people without an agenda, the inescapable conclusion is indisputable.

Does Mr. Holmes have ANYTHING on a par with ballistic evidence including bullet fragments, the murder weapon itself, etc.? Not even close - and you know it. How about an eyewitness to an actual GUNMAN on the GK, instead of hearsay evidence and innuendo from people offered after the fact, many times many years after the fact? When you place Bugliosi's list along side the flimsy nonsense in conspiracy books, it's embarrassing to see the distinction between the two.

03-29-2017, 11:54 PM #26
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 950 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
(03-29-2017, 05:10 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Several Commission assistant counsels met with FBI Inspector James R. Malley, the bureau's liason with the Commission and FBI fingerprint expert Sebastion Latona and they asked Latona if there was a way to prove the lift came from the rifle. Latona reeaxmined the lift submitted by Day and noticed pits, marks and rust spots on it that corresponded to "identical areas on the underside of the rifle barrel - the very spot from which Day said the print had been lifted. J. Edgar Hoover sent a letter by courier to the Commission on September 4 1978 to confirm this finding, along with a photograph showing the corresponding marks on the barrel and the lift. There was no doubt whatsoever that the palm print Day had lifted had come from Oswald's rifle.

Nope... not sworn testimony. It's truly amusing that the Warren Commission treated this with kid gloves, and didn't want any real examination of this information. Latona wasn't questioned on this, and neither was Hoover.

And since the *ONLY* information about this palmprint comes *AFTER* the rifle was back in the possession of the DPD - it's fairly meaningless.
(03-29-2017, 05:10 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Vincent Scalice, leading fingerprint expert for the New York City Police Dept. and also the HSCA fingerprint expert, compared the latent prints in the photographs with finger print exemplars of Oswald's. He found that by maneuvering  the photos in different positions, he was able to find about 18 points of identity. "These are definitely the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald - they are on the rifle. There is no doubt about it." Captain Jerry Powdrill also agreed with Scalice's judgement. So much for the charge that this is all speculation.......

All you're doing here is bringing an "expert" who's already been contradicted by other experts.

And running from all the questions I asked you about the evidence.

03-30-2017, 02:35 PM #27
Hollywood
Junior Member
**
Posts: 26 Threads:0 Joined: Mar 2017 Reputation: 0 Stance WCR Supporter

RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
Lieutenant Day:  "the general pattern of the two prints were the same as Oswald's but the ridges just were not clear enough for me to say they were his"

After Latona's initial examination he could see that the pattern formations were consistent with those on Oswald's hands but they were insufficient to make a definitive determination. Latona told the WC that when he received Day's actual lift card on November 29, "the palm print which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald."

Just as with the fibers found in the paper bag, the lack of an absolute positive identification doesn't preclude the obvious, reasonable conclusion from being reached - the preponderance of the evidence incriminates Oswald and cannot be logically denied. Conspiracy theorists inadvertantly admit the evidence points to Oswald or why else would they claim it is all tainted or corrupted?

I have quoted Scalice's findings and when combined with the above citations, a reasonable conclusion can be made - the prints were Oswald's - that is, to REASONABLE people.

03-30-2017, 03:09 PM #28
Ben Holmes
Administrator
*******
Posts: 950 Threads:276 Joined: May 2016 Reputation: 34 Stance Critic

RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
(03-30-2017, 02:35 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Lieutenant Day:  "the general pattern of the two prints were the same as Oswald's but the ridges just were not clear enough for me to say they were his"

After Latona's initial examination he could see that the pattern formations were consistent with those on Oswald's hands but they were insufficient to make a definitive determination. Latona told the WC that when he received Day's actual lift card on November 29, "the palm print which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald."

Just as with the fibers found in the paper bag, the lack of an absolute positive identification doesn't preclude the obvious, reasonable conclusion from being reached - the preponderance of the evidence incriminates Oswald and cannot be logically denied. Conspiracy theorists inadvertantly admit the evidence points to Oswald or why else would they claim it is all tainted or corrupted?

I have quoted Scalice's findings and when combined with the above citations, a reasonable conclusion can be made - the prints were Oswald's - that is, to REASONABLE people.


Amusingly, you refuse to do a 'reply' to my statements, so that people don't notice the questions you refuse to answer.

And despite claiming that these refutations "haven't been too impressive" - you've refused to explain why you've only responded to ONE of them.

You simply ignore any contrary evidence... and experts who disagree with Scalice, for example... and believe what you want to believe... but you aren't using evidence to do so.

The proof, of course; is that you cannot refute my refutation of Vincent Bugliosi... he had over 20 years to try to come up with the strongest possible evidence of Oswald's lone guilt - and failed.

03-30-2017, 03:51 PM #29
Hollywood
Junior Member
**
Posts: 26 Threads:0 Joined: Mar 2017 Reputation: 0 Stance WCR Supporter

RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
(03-30-2017, 03:09 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:  
(03-30-2017, 02:35 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  Lieutenant Day:  "the general pattern of the two prints were the same as Oswald's but the ridges just were not clear enough for me to say they were his"

After Latona's initial examination he could see that the pattern formations were consistent with those on Oswald's hands but they were insufficient to make a definitive determination. Latona told the WC that when he received Day's actual lift card on November 29, "the palm print which appears on the lift was identified by me as the right palm print of Lee Harvey Oswald."

Just as with the fibers found in the paper bag, the lack of an absolute positive identification doesn't preclude the obvious, reasonable conclusion from being reached - the preponderance of the evidence incriminates Oswald and cannot be logically denied. Conspiracy theorists inadvertantly admit the evidence points to Oswald or why else would they claim it is all tainted or corrupted?

I have quoted Scalice's findings and when combined with the above citations, a reasonable conclusion can be made - the prints were Oswald's - that is, to REASONABLE people.


Amusingly, you refuse to do a 'reply' to my statements, so that people don't notice the questions you refuse to answer.

And despite claiming that these refutations "haven't been too impressive" - you've refused to explain why you've only responded to ONE of them.

You simply ignore any contrary evidence... and experts who disagree with Scalice, for example... and believe what you want to believe... but you aren't using evidence to do so.

The proof, of course; is that you cannot refute my refutation of Vincent Bugliosi... he had over 20 years to try to come up with the strongest possible evidence of Oswald's lone guilt - and failed.
It is obvious you don't understand the concept of preponderance of evidence - or you don't even consider it for fear of facing the glaring truth - sorry for not clicking on "reply" - my mistake. Bugliosi and the WC BOTH laid out a most convincing case for LHO's guilt - you KNOW that ALL of the evidence in this case points to Oswald - all you can do is try to shoot down that evidence - you have none proving conspiracy - just suspicions, denials and innuendo. Sorry.

03-30-2017, 07:14 PM #30
Posts: 59 Threads:13 Joined: Jun 2016 Reputation: 1 Stance Critic

RE: Vincent Bugliosi's 53 Reasons... #37 Refuted.
(03-30-2017, 03:51 PM)Hollywood Wrote:  
(03-30-2017, 03:09 PM)Ben Holmes Wrote:   
Bugliosi and the WC BOTH laid out a most convincing case for LHO's guilt.

And therein lies the key problem, which funnily comes straight from your own mouth. It was not the WC's job to lay out a case against LHO. Their job (officially) was to "investigate" the assassination. Yet the notion that it *might* have been someone other than LHO is never even broached. An investigation that refuses to entertain more than one theory, especially considering all the victim's enemies and their motives, is incompetent and irresponsible at best. Corrupt and complicit at worst.

Bugliosi, as the prosecuting attorney, is supposed to lay out a case for Oswald's guilt. Not the WC.







Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)