GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Oswald: 1:04 rooming house
Tippit: 1:07 dead about one mile from rooming house
Only an idiot can believe Oswald could get there in time to shoot Tippit.
It doesn't matter how much evidence you THINK you have against Oswald if he could not be at the scene. Are you guys really as retarded as it appears?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, that's right, Garry. Just ignore the best evidence (the bullet shells and the dozen or so witnesses who IDed Oswald at or near the scene) in favor of that timeline mush you conspiracy clowns love so much.
And keep pretending you know for a fact that Oswald left his room at exactly 1:04 and that Tippit was killed at exactly 1:07, neither of which can possibly be confirmed.
But at least you gave Oswald sixty additional seconds. Most conspiracy clowns pretend that Officer Tippit was shot at 1:06.
GARRY PUFFER SAID:
Come on, David. You have no ballistics evidence really. Some shells which (once again) have no unbroken chain of custody (this is what you consider best evidence?). You have some people who saw someone who may have looked something like Oswald.
Oswald was seen standing in front of the rooming house at 1:04, even the WC believed this. The one thing Helen Markham was probably right about was the time of the shooting, which was well before 1:10. You know that the WC cheated in moving the time of the shooting, so you find yourself caught up in their lies. Why cheat and lie in such an open-and-shut case?
You are one gullible puppy if you believe that Tippit was shot at 1:15. Keep on pretending that your evidence is rock solid. What a laugh.
Tippit is most definitely dead by 1:07. Oswald would have had to leave his rooming house before he arrived in order to get there on time.
Why does chain of custody mean nothing to you people?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You've got to be kidding, Garry.
There were more than ten witnesses who all positively IDed Oswald. And yet you toss them all aside like an old shoe, as if their positive identification means zilch.
And the "chain of custody" is not broken at all regarding the two non-Poe shells. Why pretend it is? Doughty and Dhority each marked the shell they each recovered from the Davis girls. Their initials can be seen on the two shells in question. (See "With Malice".)
And then we've got Oswald being in the same general Oak Cliff area waving a gun around and exclaiming "This is it". Nothing suspicious there, is there Garry? Just a day at the movies for Lee Harvey, huh?
I guess putting the pieces together isn't a CTer's strong suit, is it?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
You're a liar, Davey. You're desperate to imply a "positive" ID that in many cases, simply did not happen. You can't *NAME* 10 witnesses who "POSITIVELY" ID'ed Oswald in the Tippit case, and you know it.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Holmes knows perfectly well there were more than ten witnesses who POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED OSWALD as either the gunman who killed Officer Tippit or the one and only man seen near the scene of the crime with a gun in his hand. The list is HERE.
DEX OLSEN SAID:
I'm sure one of DVP's *10 witnesses* is Warren Reynolds whom only thought it was Oswald fleeing the Tippit scene AFTER he recovered from a gunshot wound to his head.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Dex needs to learn the evidence better. Here's what Warren Reynolds told the FBI on January 21, 1964:
"REYNOLDS was shown a photograph of LEE HARVEY OSWALD, at which time he advised he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual." -- 1/22/64 FBI Report
Therefore, Reynolds was saying the killer was probably OSWALD on January 21, which was two days BEFORE Reynolds was shot in the head. (Reynolds was shot on January 23rd.) So Reynolds never changed his story at all. He was saying the man he saw with a gun was probably Lee Harvey Oswald even before he himself was shot.
So tell me again the reason for anybody wanting to bump off Warren Reynolds?
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Scoggins was not sure of his identification.
Benavides... I'm sure Davey knows well the problems with this witness...
Jack Tatum - the first statement came in 1978. He attended *NO* lineups... so you're just a liar claiming that Tatum "positively" identified Oswald.
And anyone who puts Markham in a list of "positive" ID'ers is just desperate and dishonest.
Go ahead, Davey... let's see you refute these brief comments about your lack of honesty... I've not even bothered to check all your witnesses... I've already proven you a liar.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Holmes is the liar. He knows that both Tatum and Benavides (and Scoggins too) definitely DID "positively I.D." Oswald.
Tatum's "positive IDing" occurred in 1977 or 1978, yes, that's true. But he still DID positively I.D. Oswald as the gunman. Disbelieve him if you want. I don't care. But it's a lie to say Tatum, at any time, did not I.D. Oswald, because he did do that.
Same with Benavides. Benavides DID "positively I.D." Oswald in 1967. So toss him under the bus too if you want. But it's a lie to say that Domingo NEVER positively IDed LHO.
And Scoggins IDed LHO on Nov. 23rd. Without doubt.
From Vincent Bugliosi's book....
"When Whaley saw Oswald's picture in the newspaper this morning [Sat., 11/23/63], he recognized him immediately. Now, in the flesh, there is no doubt that Oswald is the man who got in his cab. Leavelle asks each of the prisoners a question so that the witnesses can hear them speak, although Oswald is spared the procedure. "Anybody up there look like the man you saw?" Leavelle asks Whaley. "Yes, number 3, the man in the T-shirt," Whaley says. "That's him all right." Detective Leavelle turns to Scoggins, who is holding up three fingers at his waist. "Are you sure?" Leavelle asks. "Well, he can bitch and holler all he wants," Scoggins says to Detective Leavelle, "but that's the man I saw running from the scene. Number 3.""
[End book quote.]
Oswald was the #3 man in the line-up.
BEN HOLMES SAID:
And Bugliosi cannot cite for that. Not any citation that anyone else can view and verify.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Bugliosi offers up two sources for just the following words that appear in his book "Reclaiming History"....
" "Are you sure?" Leavelle asks. "Well, he can bitch and holler all he wants," Scoggins says to Detective Leavelle, "but that's the man I saw running from the scene. Number 3." "
Those 2 sources are:
"Interview of James R. Leavelle by Dale K. Myers on July 1, 1996; [and] 7 H 266, WCT James R. Leavelle."
HERE is 7 H 266.
So Ben Holmes can now pretend that Jim Leavelle is a liar too. Because Leavelle positively said to the Warren Commission that William Scoggins IDed the No. 3 man (Oswald) in the police line-up on November 23, 1963.
David Von Pein
July 24, 2015 [This forum link is no longer available.]
