In Lee Harvey Oswald's Room

[David Von Pein]

Now before DVP tries to do his cover-up act about Adams, which I know he will, let me quote the truth from Breach of Trust.

"Adams" later reported "that she started down the stairs not thirty seconds to a minute but 15 to 20 seconds after she saw the head shot. Adams corrected the Commission's account of her testimony when of February 17, 1964 she went to the US attorney's office in Dallas to check the transcript of her testimony." (p. 399)

DiEugenio just wrecked his whole argument, and he doesn't even realize it. Because if Adams and Styles were REALLY on the stairs within 15 to 20 seconds of the last shot, it means they would very likely have gone down those stairs BEFORE Oswald. Therefore, Adams/Styles would not have had to SEE Oswald on the stairs. Duh.

Of course, Adams' timing of 15-20 seconds is totally ridiculous on its face. There's no way they "started down the stairs" just 15 seconds after the shooting; and we also know how totally lousy people are at judging times accurately. But DiEugenio is willing to accept any hunk of nonsense (as long as it supports his ludicrous "Oswald Was Innocent" fairy tale).

Adams and Styles were almost certainly on the stairs only AFTER those same stairs were used by Oswald, Baker, and Truly.

And, of course, another little snafu that doesn't bother James "ABO" DiEugenio in the least is this question: Why didn't Adams/Styles HEAR or SEE Roy Truly and Marrion Baker on the SAME STAIRS they were on?

And if Jimbo wants to counter with: The two women were on the stairs BEFORE Baker/Truly....then he's got a big problem. Because if the ladies were on the stairs before Baker/Truly, then it stands to reason those same ladies were probably on the stairs BEFORE Oswald too. Hence, they weren't going to see or hear LHO either.

And also keep in mind that Adams and Styles started out on the FOURTH floor of the TSBD, which was two floors BELOW where Oswald started his down-the-stairs journey. And if all three of those people had started down the stairs at about the same time, it still wouldn't mean that Adams/Styles would have had to see Oswald, because Oswald started out two floors higher.

DiEugenio is cooked on this "staircase" issue any way you slice it.

And Jim also doesn't ask: Why didn't Adams/Styles hear the "REAL KILLERS" descending the same stairs?

We know that nobody took the elevators down from the Floor Of Death (the sixth floor). So where did the "real killers" go? Did they cloak themselves and disappear? Or did they use their Bat Ropes to shinny down the side of the TSBD Building?

These questions don't matter to DiEugenio however. As long as he can pretend Saint Oswald wasn't anywhere near the sixth floor, then Jimbo is happy as a lark.

Edited August 22, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Jim DiEugenio's reply in Post #470 was pathetic (as usual).

Jim doesn't even wonder to himself the following ---

Hmmmm....maybe DVP has a point when he said,

"Why didn't Adams/Styles hear the "REAL KILLERS" descending the same stairs? We know that nobody took the elevators down from the Floor Of Death (the sixth floor). So where did the "real killers" go? Did they cloak themselves and disappear? Or did they use their Bat Ropes to shinny down the side of the TSBD Building? These questions don't matter to DiEugenio however. As long as he can pretend Saint Oswald wasn't anywhere near the sixth floor, then Jimbo is happy as a lark." [unquote]

Evidently, per Jim's way of thinking, NOBODY fired any shots from the sixth floor. And apparently there were NO ASSASSINS on the sixth floor whatsoever on November 22, 1963. In fact, [hang onto your hats, folks!] Jim D. actually had the 'nads to suggest that very thing (i.e., no shooters on the sixth floor) on Black Op Radio on February 11, 2010. Quoting DiEugenio from that program:

"I'm not even sure they [the real killers of JFK, not Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally] were on the sixth floor [of the Book Depository]. I mean, they might have been. But what's the definitive evidence that the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth floor, they could have been at the other [west] end. .... And I've always suspected there was a sniper in the Dal-Tex Building." -- James DiEugenio

Allow me to repeat a few of those words again, just so the idiocy of them can sink in a little deeper (and, after all, a quote this ridiculous and ludicrous deserves an instant replay anyway):

"I'M NOT EVEN SURE THEY WERE ON THE SIXTH FLOOR. .... WHAT'S THE DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE HIT TEAM WAS ON THE SIXTH FLOOR?" -- Jim DiEugenio; February 11th, 2010

Unbelievable.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-32.html

Edited August 22, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

You can stuff your silly "Baker" nonsense too, Jim. It's all a smokescreen, like everything you say. Baker saw LHO on the second floor and all REASONABLE people know this. It's one of the basic, raw FACTS of the case. And ROY TRULY verified it, as everyone can see in the videos below (Truly is only in the first video, however, but Officer Baker's story is clearcut and definitive in both videos; Jim D., naturally, must think that Baker continued to tell his lies for 23 years):

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/08/marrion-baker.html

You, Jim, simply have no capacity for reasonably and rationally evaluating the evidence in the JFK case. And all one need do is look once more at this quote by you (Jim D.) in order to verify that what I just said is true (i.e., you stink at reasonably evaluating the evidence in this case):

"I'M NOT EVEN SURE THEY WERE ON THE SIXTH FLOOR. .... WHAT'S THE DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE HIT TEAM WAS ON THE SIXTH FLOOR?" -- Jim DiEugenio; February 11th, 2010

P.S. -- Can I now bitch to the moderators about DiEugenio pasting huge blocks of text from his CTKA site into this Edu. Forum for "advertising" his position?

I hope you sensed the irony contained within my last sentence above, Jim.

Edited August 22, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Dean Hagerman]

Larry Dunkel, the Fable Guy

[William Kelly]

You can stuff your silly "Baker" nonsense too, Jim. It's all a smokescreen, like everything you say. Baker saw LHO on the second floor and all REASONABLE people know this. It's one of the basic, raw FACTS of the case. And ROY TRULY verified it, as everyone can see in the videos below (Truly is only in the first video, however, but Officer Baker's story is clearcut and definitive in both videos; Jim D., naturally, must think that Baker continued to tell his lies for 23 years):

http://dvp-potpourri...rion-baker.html

You, Jim, simply have no capacity for reasonably and rationally evaluating the evidence in the JFK case. And all one need do is look once more at this quote by you (Jim D.) in order to verify that what I just said is true (i.e., you stink at reasonably evaluating the evidence in this case):

"I'M NOT EVEN SURE THEY WERE ON THE SIXTH FLOOR. .... WHAT'S THE DEFINITIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE HIT TEAM WAS ON THE SIXTH FLOOR?" -- Jim DiEugenio; February 11th, 2010

P.S. -- Can I now bitch to the moderators about DiEugenio pasting huge blocks of text from his CTKA site into this Edu. Forum for "advertising" his position?

I hope you sensed the irony contained within my last sentence above, Jim.

Dave, if you believe Baker, then how do you get around this? :

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15429

Thanks,

BK

[Michael Hogan]

There is a film of this wallet being handled at the Tippit scene. Pretty good stuff, huh Davey?

Yeah, and the person who shot that film (Ron Reiland) told everybody on live TV within hours of filming the scene that the wallet was Tippit's.

Reiland's exact quote:

"This is the officer's billfold that was found lying on the ground right alongside of the car."

Watch Ron Reiland's Film Here

So, where did Reiland get the idea that the wallet was Tippit's, do you think Jim? Did he just pull that out of his ass?

Your favorite author of all-time, Vincent T. Bugliosi, has the likely answer (which makes all kinds of common sense):

"If I had to wager, I’d conclude it was Tippit’s wallet, and the reason Reiland stated, on WFAA film, that it was Tippit’s wallet is that the police had informed him at the scene that it was [emphasis added by DVP]. Quite apart from Barrett, it makes no sense to me that the Dallas police and detectives, several of whom were Tippit’s friends, would keep from the world that his killer’s wallet was found near his body." -- VB; Page 456 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

What David refers to as "Reiland's exact quote" is not quite complete.

When the close-up of Tippit's revolver and the wallet appeared, Reiland reported,

"This gun you see in the background

here in this officer's hand (C.B. Owens) is the one that was allegedly used to shoot the police officer.

(bold added) This is

the officer's billfold that was found lying on the ground right alongside of the car." (With Malice by Dale Myers, page 299)

Dale Myers took pains to note that Reiland "had made a number of factual errors while reporting news during the course of the weekend."

Myers also writes:

In fact, as expected, all of Tippit's personal effects were removed from his pockets at Methodist Hospital after his death.

A list was eventually prepared by the Dallas Police Crime Scene Search Section. Among the items on the list was one "black billfold."

(Myers reproduces the list on the adjoining page.)

The only item known to have been brought to the hospital and added to Tippit's personal effects was Tippit's revolver, which by all

accounts was left behind at the murder scene.

If Tippit's wallet was also left at the scene, it is a mystery as to how, when, and why

it was removed from his body at Tenth and Patton.

(With Malice, page 300)

Where did Reiland get the idea that the gun shown was the one used to shoot Tippit? Did he just pull that out of his...well, never mind.

Lightweight stuff from David Von Pein.

[William Kelly]

There is a film of this wallet being handled at the Tippit scene. Pretty good stuff, huh Davey?

Yeah, and the person who shot that film (Ron Reiland) told everybody on live TV within hours of filming the scene that the wallet was Tippit's.

Reiland's exact quote:

"This is the officer's billfold that was found lying on the ground right alongside of the car."

Watch Ron Reiland's Film Here

So, where did Reiland get the idea that the wallet was Tippit's, do you think Jim? Did he just pull that out of his ass?

Your favorite author of all-time, Vincent T. Bugliosi, has the likely answer (which makes all kinds of common sense):

"If I had to wager, I'd conclude it was Tippit's wallet, and the reason Reiland stated, on WFAA film, that it was Tippit's wallet is that the police had informed him at the scene that it was [emphasis added by DVP]. Quite apart from Barrett, it makes no sense to me that the Dallas police and detectives, several of whom were Tippit's friends, would keep from the world that his killer's wallet was found near his body." -- VB; Page 456 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

What David refers to as "Reiland's exact quote" is not quite complete.

When the close-up of Tippit's revolver and the wallet appeared, Reiland reported,

"This gun you see in the background

here in this officer's hand (C.B. Owens) is the one that was allegedly used to shoot the police officer.

(bold added) This is

the officer's billfold that was found lying on the ground right alongside of the car." (With Malice by Dale Myers, page 299)

Dale Myers took pains to note that Reiland "had made a number of factual errors while reporting news during the course of the weekend."

Myers also writes:

In fact, as expected, all of Tippit's personal effects were removed from his pockets at Methodist Hospital after his death.

A list was eventually prepared by the Dallas Police Crime Scene Search Section. Among the items on the list was one "black billfold."

(Myers reproduces the list on the adjoining page.)

The only item known to have been brought to the hospital and added to Tippit's personal effects was Tippit's revolver, which by all

accounts was left behind at the murder scene.

If Tippit's wallet was also left at the scene, it is a mystery as to how, when, and why

it was removed from his body at Tenth and Patton.

(With Malice, page 300)

Where did Reiland get the idea that the gun shown was the one used to shoot Tippit? Did he just pull that out of his...well, never mind.

Lightweight stuff from David Von Pein.

Wait a minute, I thought that one of the witnesses, bystanders or someone who appeared at the scene, picked up Tippit's revolver and jumped in a car and went after the killler with Tippit's gun.

If that's the case, then what was the gun in the filmed scene?

BK

Edited August 22, 2010 by William Kelly

[Michael Hogan]

There is a film of this wallet being handled at the Tippit scene. Pretty good stuff, huh Davey?

Yeah, and the person who shot that film (Ron Reiland) told everybody on live TV within hours of filming the scene that the wallet was Tippit's.

Reiland's exact quote:

"This is the officer's billfold that was found lying on the ground right alongside of the car."

Watch Ron Reiland's Film Here

So, where did Reiland get the idea that the wallet was Tippit's, do you think Jim? Did he just pull that out of his ass?

Your favorite author of all-time, Vincent T. Bugliosi, has the likely answer (which makes all kinds of common sense):

"If I had to wager, I'd conclude it was Tippit's wallet, and the reason Reiland stated, on WFAA film, that it was Tippit's wallet is that the police had informed him at the scene that it was [emphasis added by DVP]. Quite apart from Barrett, it makes no sense to me that the Dallas police and detectives, several of whom were Tippit's friends, would keep from the world that his killer's wallet was found near his body." -- VB; Page 456 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

What David refers to as "Reiland's exact quote" is not quite complete.

When the close-up of Tippit's revolver and the wallet appeared, Reiland reported,

"This gun you see in the background

here in this officer's hand (C.B. Owens) is the one that was allegedly used to shoot the police officer.

(bold added) This is

the officer's billfold that was found lying on the ground right alongside of the car." (With Malice by Dale Myers, page 299)

Dale Myers took pains to note that Reiland "had made a number of factual errors while reporting news during the course of the weekend."

Myers also writes:

In fact, as expected, all of Tippit's personal effects were removed from his pockets at Methodist Hospital after his death.

A list was eventually prepared by the Dallas Police Crime Scene Search Section. Among the items on the list was one "black billfold."

(Myers reproduces the list on the adjoining page.)

The only item known to have been brought to the hospital and added to Tippit's personal effects was Tippit's revolver, which by all

accounts was left behind at the murder scene.

If Tippit's wallet was also left at the scene, it is a mystery as to how, when, and why

it was removed from his body at Tenth and Patton.

(With Malice, page 300)

Where did Reiland get the idea that the gun shown was the one used to shoot Tippit? Did he just pull that out of his...well, never mind.

Lightweight stuff from David Von Pein.

Wait a minute, I thought that one of the witnesses, bystanders or someone who appeared at the scene, picked up Tippit's revolver and jumped in a car and went after the killler with Tippit's gun.

If that's the case, then what was the gun in the filmed scene?

BK

The same gun. Ted Callaway brought it back and gave it to Officer Kenneth Croy. Both Croy and Scoggins (the cab driver)

thought Callaway was a private detective, maybe because he was wearing a tie, or maybe by the way Callaway asserted himself.

Did you think the guy kept it as a momento?

Edited August 22, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[John Dolva]

Has anyone pondered a scenario where for a short time it was necessary to have JDTs reolver out of the loop for however long?

[David Von Pein]

When the close-up of Tippit's revolver and the wallet appeared, Reiland reported, "This gun you see in the background here in this officer's hand (C.B. Owens) is the one that was allegedly used to shoot the police officer. ... This is the officer's billfold that was found lying on the ground right alongside of the car." (With Malice by Dale Myers, page 299)

That is, indeed, an excellent point, Michael. And you're 100% right. I should have pointed out in this thread that Reiland made an obvious error just one second before he said the wallet was Tippit's. With the error being, as Michael Hogan noted, that the gun being held by Owens in the film was the murder weapon.

I have pointed out that error by Reiland, btw, in other posts I have made on the Internet regarding this subject. But you are right to scold me for not including that information in THIS thread. It is, indeed, a "double standard". And I shall have to re-think the matter about HOW Reiland could have determined it was Tippit's wallet, and yet make the error about the gun being the murder weapon.

So, yes, a good question is: If Reiland could be wrong about the gun in Owens' hand being the weapon used to kill Tippit (and he was wrong), then why couldn't he be wrong about the wallet belonging to Tippit?

I still think it's quite likely that the wallet seen in Ron Reiland's film is Tippit's...but as I've also stressed in this thread, the wallet could really have belonged to anybody at the scene of the crime. Perhaps a witness. Who can know for sure? Nobody can. And nobody does.

But I will maintain until the cows come knocking at my front door that the one person to whom that wallet most certainly did NOT belong was Lee Harvey Oswald. Because if it was Oswald's wallet (or a fake/planted Oswald wallet even), then we would surely have found that important information being placed in at least ONE of the police officers' reports associated with the Tippit murder.

Edited August 22, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Terry Priest]

somebody who has actually seen the building might be able to give some insight. is there just one staircase?

the guys that were on the 5th floor, that heard in a deafening way 3 shots, and heard the shellcasings hit the floor, because the sub-floor was all there was, and there were cracks in it, i think all that is from posner, did they hot foot it down the stairs, or did they hide because they knew the assassin was coming down the stairs? did anybody ask them how tempted were you to see who was coming down the stairs?

if you are going to shoot the president from the sixth floor, with no accomplices, you got to assume you are not getting down those stairs. i think oswald would have been a nervous wreck all morning and somebody should have noticed it. it was no plan at all. the witness across the street said the shooter stopped, seemed calm, didnt seem in a hurry.

100 employees? the best vantage point would be the building, a lot of folks watching from windows, according to the witness. it would seem everybody in the building would hear the shots, everybody would know somebody was coming down the stairs.

[Michael Hogan]

I still think it's quite likely that the wallet seen in Ron Reiland's film is Tippit's...but as I've also stressed in this thread, the wallet could really have belonged to anybody at the scene of the crime. Perhaps a witness. Who can know for sure? Nobody can. And nobody does.

Dale Myers makes it clear he does not believe it was Tippit's wallet and he gives plenty of reasons why. Surely David is aware of those compelling reasons.

Ted Callaway, whom Myers considers to be an excellent witness, was interviewed by Myers in 1996:

"I'll tell you one thing," Callaway said with certainty, "there was no billfold at that scene. If there was,

there would have been too many people who would have seen it."

(With Malice, page 300)

Myers spends considerable time (17 pages) discussing the wallet shown in the Reiland film. He ends with this:

The wallet issue ultimately boils down to one of credibility. Barrett's activities on November 22, 1963 took him to the

Texas School Book Depository, the Tippit shooting scene, and the Texas Theater. In each case, photographs show Barrett doing

exactly what he claimed to have done, at times consistent with his account. Over the course of more than thirty years - whether writing

a report, or testifying before an investigative committee - Bob Barrett's version of events has steadfastly remained consistent

and reasonably accurate. In essence, Barrett has proven to be an excellent witness.

His account of a wallet being in police hands at the Tippit scene is part of the filmed record, and his reasons for remembering

the incident are sound and quite believable.

(page 300)

Dale Myers' closing paragraph on the matter lacks much conviction:

On the other hand, there are a sprinkling of inaccuracies throughout Barrett's thirty-year-old recollections,

which raises the possibility that Barrett - despite his insistence - may be mistaken about where he was when

Westbrook asked him about the names Hidell and Oswald.

(page 300)

I think it is wrong to summarily dismiss With Malice just because Myers concludes that Oswald shot Tippit. Half the book consists

of excellent photographs, maps and charts, and primary documents. Myers has conducted interviews with participants many years later,

always a valuable contribution to history. And by and large, he includes many things in his book that at least leave open the possibility

of conspiracy to the careful reader.

To reject everything that appears in With Malice because of the author's conclusions and the biased slant that necessarily accompanies those

conclusions would show just as narrow of a mind as one that rejects all of John Armstrong's remarkable research simply because Armstrong concluded

the evidence showed that Oswald had been impersonated and framed.

[William Kelly]

I still think it's quite likely that the wallet seen in Ron Reiland's film is Tippit's...but as I've also stressed in this thread, the wallet could really have belonged to anybody at the scene of the crime. Perhaps a witness. Who can know for sure? Nobody can. And nobody does.

Dale Myers makes it clear he does not believe it was Tippit's wallet and he gives plenty of reasons why. Surely David is aware of those compelling reasons.

Ted Callaway, whom Myers considers to be an excellent witness, was interviewed by Myers in 1996:

"I'll tell you one thing," Callaway said with certainty, "there was no billfold at that scene. If there was,

there would have been too many people who would have seen it."

(With Malice, page 300)

Myers spends considerable time (17 pages) discussing the wallet shown in the Reiland film. He ends with this:

The wallet issue ultimately boils down to one of credibility. Barrett's activities on November 22, 1963 took him to the

Texas School Book Depository, the Tippit shooting scene, and the Texas Theater. In each case, photographs show Barrett doing

exactly what he claimed to have done, at times consistent with his account. Over the course of more than thirty years - whether writing

a report, or testifying before an investigative committee - Bob Barrett's version of events has steadfastly remained consistent

and reasonably accurate. In essence, Barrett has proven to be an excellent witness.

His account of a wallet being in police hands at the Tippit scene is part of the filmed record, and his reasons for remembering

the incident are sound and quite believable.

(page 300)

Dale Myers' closing paragraph on the matter lacks much conviction:

On the other hand, there are a sprinkling of inaccuracies throughout Barrett's thirty-year-old recollections,

which raises the possibility that Barrett - despite his insistence - may be mistaken about where he was when

Westbrook asked him about the names Hidell and Oswald.

(page 300)

I think it is wrong to summarily dismiss With Malice just because Myers concludes that Oswald shot Tippit. Half the book consists

of excellent photographs, maps and charts, and primary documents. Myers has conducted interviews with participants many years later,

always a valuable contribution to history. And by and large, he includes many things in his book that at least leave open the possibility

of conspiracy to the careful reader.

To reject everything that appears in With Malice because of the author's conclusions and the biased slant that necessarily accompanies those

conclusions would show just as narrow of a mind as one that rejects all of John Armstrong's remarkable research simply because Armstrong concluded

the evidence showed that Oswald had been impersonated and framed.

I think there are some very valuable points and some unique pieces of information in Myers' book With Malice that aren't anywhere else, it's just a shame that he has such a bias that he deliberatly leaves other, much more important information out, and comes to the wrong conclusions, mainly because of his attempts to console the Tippit family and exonerate the Dallas PD of any neglegance or wrong doing.

Myers puts forth the probably true possiblity that Tippit's killler had been walking towards him rather than away from him - and abruptly turns around, calling attention to himself. This is a strong consideration since there are some witnesses who saw a man walking from that direction, but no witnesses behind Tippit saw anyone walk past them, as they should have if the killer had been walking in the direction Tippit was driving.

It's just a shame that Myers didn't do the complete job on the Tippit murder that still has to be done, and he was intentionally deceptive about many of the aspects of the case that he did do.

And if you only use his book as a source, you don't know what those significant things that he leaves out and the tidbits he is intentionally deceptive about.

BK

[Bernice Moore]

It's interesting how you ignore the fact that Scoggins managed to identify Oswald's smashed up face in one of the most unethical and unfair lineups ... [snipping the remainder of Farley's silly anti-DPD tirade re: the lineups]...

LOL. Oh, sure. His face was bloodied and "smashed up" to an absolute pulp by those evil DPD bastards, wasn't it Lee? I can hardly tell that it's Oswald at all here, his face is so pulp-like. Get real:

Your MO is so predictable.

So is yours. I can see through you like a great-big ol' sheet of Reynold's Wrap.

LOL LOL LOL

Putting words in people's mouths again eh, Dave? I never said "to an absolute pulp." He had a long bruised cut on his head. He had a bruised a slightly cut nose that was bringing up two "panda" black eyes and his left eye was quite badly swollen and cut. He also had a bad bruise on the back of his right neck. He was wearing a sweaty and dirty t-shirt and he gave his real name and where he worked.

You're right. Who would ever pick Oswald out of this lineup;

LEE; HERE IS THE SIDE VIEW... B

[Bernice Moore]

LHO COMPLAINING; FROM A VIDEO FRAME, I BELIEVE.NOTE TIME ON THIS ARREST REPORT... .B