22 outlandish things David Von Pein believes...

[David G. Healy]

posted to Ed Forum with permission 8-6-2015 ... --dh

Posted on Aug 6, 2015 1:28:41 PM PDT

Garry Puffer says:

22 outlandish things Davey-poo Von Pein believes.

If you can wrap your head around this, Von Pein actually believes the following nonsense:

1) Oswald shot at Gen. Walker even though Walker was shot at using a 30.06 steel-jacketed bullet

2) Oswald shot Officer Tippit even though Tippit was dead by 1:07 and Oswald was nearly a mile away at 1:04

3) Oswald shot JFK even though Jesse Curry was not willing to say there was any proof of that (but DVP knows better than Curry, of course)

4) That one bullet caused 7 wounds in two men, hit ribs and bone and came out looking virtually unscathed

5) That JFK's anterior neck wound was an exit wound even though all medical personnel who saw it dispute that and even though it was 3-5 mm whereas WC tests showed M-C exit wounds are in the 10 mm range

6) That Oswald picked up a pistol mailed to him even though the proper forms were not kept

7) That Oswald picked up a rifle mailed to him even though the proper forms were not kept

8) That the backyard photos are real even though the nose shadow remains the same and the heads from the different poses can be superimposed to show they are exactly the same photo - he believes this because a photo panel said they were not forgeries and we all know that panels of experts can never be wrong

9) That Marina can be used to justify some bit of data even though the WC and HSCA knew her to be a serial xxxx whose stories changed day to day

10) No one impersonated Oswald in Mexico City even though everyone else seems to be aware of this impersonation

11) That no one could forge Oswald's handwriting even though experts validated the "Mr. Hunt" note which later was acknowledged a forgery

12) That Ruth Paine was merely a kind Quaker lady even though her CIA connections seem to have been well known to many people at that time

13) That Clay Shaw did not commit perjury when he denied in court that he was a CIA asset even though the CIA later admitted he did work for them

14) That there was no interference from the CIA and FBI in the Garrison investigation and trial even though everyone else knows there was

15) That the bullets "discovered" in Oswald's pocket two hours after his arrest were there all along and were not planted by the DPD even though they show bullet slide corrosion and Oswald owned no bullet slide

16) That the DPD would file two detailed reports of the Mauser found in the TSBD if it had not been found but was a Mannlicher-Carcano instead

17) That a person would own a rifle and a pistol and have no gun cleaning equipment

18) That the main goal of the plotters was to frame a lone assassin even though that is merely an assumption made after the fact and used over and over as one of the lamest arguments imaginable

19) That Capt. Fritz had a good reason for running ahead when Oswald was being taken through the basement instead of remaining as a protective shield, which was the point of his being in front

20) That the autopsy photos are genuine even though the autopsy photographer said they aren't

21) That the X-rays are genuine even though we have proof of forgery

22) That the autopsy report is genuine even though Humes destroyed not only his notes but the first report

http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx36OD5BRJLYPQ0&cdMsgNo=379&cdPage=16&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3S6UAIF5802TL#Mx36OD5BRJLYPQ0

--and--

In reply to your post on Aug 6, 2015 3:51:28 PM PDT

Garry Puffer says:

David H asks:
amazing.... do you mind if this post migrates to a few other forums, Garry?

Me:
Not at all. I modeled it on DVP's 22 stupid things that James DiEugenio believes. Found at
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-81.html#The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes

[David Von Pein]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Garry Puffer now wants to pretend that those 22 things (aka myths) he itemized haven't already been explained by LNers in a reasonable manner 1,001 times before.

Keep pretending, Garry. After all, it's all you can do at this point.

This myth below is my favorite (and a relatively new fairy tale too; did DiEugenio invent this one, or did he get it from one of the many conspiracy-happy authors he loves to quote so dearly?)....

"15) That the bullets "discovered" in Oswald's pocket two hours after his arrest were there all along and were not planted by the DPD even though they show bullet slide corrosion and Oswald owned no bullet slide."

Absolutely hilarious. Now we've got kooks claiming the unfired bullets in Oswald's pants pocket were "planted". And for what possible purpose again?

Oh yes, I forgot---the patsy framers got bored and decided to plant needless and useless unfired bullets in Oswald's trousers.

How can Garry not be beet red after writing that #15 item?

~shrug~


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

The idea that a murder subject is allowed to walk around with bullets in his pocket for two hours is too silly for words.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah. Those bullets were really dangerous objects without a gun to put them into, weren't they, Garry? And with Oswald in handcuffs too.

No, the silly thing is to even begin to believe that the cops would have had any desire to "plant" 5 unfired bullets on suspect Oswald.

But CTers have a patent on "silly". In fact, it's stamped on their driver's licenses in most U.S. states.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Okay... If you're telling the truth... then simply cite the previous LNTer answer to Capt Fritz's reason for moving out way ahead of Oswald. My guess is that you won't. So I'll just save both of us the trouble, and label you a xxxx.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Captain Fritz was helping to clear the path ahead of Oswald. Fritz can even be seen shoving a man aside with his hand just a second before Ruby fired his shot:

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kdfw/projects/JFKvideo/video/jfk021.html

But to think Fritz deliberately opened up a gap so that Ruby could slip in and shoot Oswald is a theory that's just about as nutty as Garry Puffer's 15th item on his above list of silliness.

The whole "Fritz plotted to have Oswald killed" thing is just too silly to even contemplate. But since neither I (nor any other LNer on the planet) can possibly fully explain exactly WHY Captain Fritz was walking a little bit out in front of Oswald in the DPD basement, that "unknowable" is apparently something that CTers think gives them the freedom to speculate that Fritz was part of some prearranged plot to have Lee Harvey Oswald murdered in the basement of City Hall on 11/24/63.

But, of course, CTers are in the exact same boat as LNers on this one --- because the CTers can also not possibly PROVE any theory they have with respect to why Captain Fritz was walking ahead of Oswald that day. The CTers can only do what they always do with every single "unknowable" aspect of the whole JFK case --- they speculate. Nothing more.

And, IMO, it's groundless (and laughable) speculation.


DEX OLSEN SAID:

For enough money, Davy, history has proved even the POTUS will do unimaginable things. And compared with Fritz giving Ruby an unobstructed target, it's not nearly as far-fetched as you're making it sound.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's far-fetched from the following standpoint all by itself....

The DPD would not want to DELIBERATELY give themselves a permanent black eye by opening themselves up to severe public criticism by their utter failure in being able to protect the life of the most famous prisoner they would ever see at City Hall.

You really think Fritz and Company would have wanted to stain themselves in such a manner for all time---ON PURPOSE?!

Time for a Reality Check, Dex.


ON ANOTHER TOPIC, DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

I've always been a bit baffled by the crackpot conspiracy theorists who argue that Lee Harvey Oswald never ordered or paid for or ever took possession of Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 in 1963.

It seems to me that even the rabid CTers in the "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity would be better off by just admitting the obvious---that Oswald did purchase that rifle. Because the CTers could then pretend that the conspirators who framed Oswald did so by using OSWALD'S OWN RIFLE.

Isn't that a better theory than the loopy "Oswald Never Ordered The Rifle At All" theory? Via that theory of LHO never ordering the weapon, the CTers are then forced to pretend that the entire rifle transaction and the paperwork for that transaction was falsely manufactured from the ground up!

And yet that type of "Everything's Fake" nonsense is supposedly more believable than just conceding that Rifle C2766 was Oswald's own rifle and some plotters framed LHO with it on 11/22/63? Bizarre.

But that's the CT world, I guess --- Bizarre.

http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx2T1ONZ8JU428H&cdMsgNo=381&cdPage=16&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3S6UAIF5802TL#Mx2T1ONZ8JU428H

Edited August 7, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

***Comedy Break!!***

24 ASSASSINS IN DEALEY PLAZA---INCLUDING JACK RUBY (IN THE TSBD)!! .....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-993.html

Edited August 7, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Greg Burnham]

[...]

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

The idea that a murder subject is allowed to walk around with bullets in his pocket for two hours is too silly for words.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah. Those bullets were really dangerous objects without a gun to put them into, weren't they, Garry? And with Oswald in handcuffs too.

No, the silly thing is to even begin to believe that the cops would have had any desire to "plant" 5 unfired bullets on suspect Oswald.

But CTers have a patent on "silly". In fact, it's stamped on their driver's licenses in most U.S. states.

[...]

Not only would bullets definitely be confiscated from the pockets of a murder suspect immediately, but so would EVERYTHING else! Arrest procedures are relatively uniform (but not identical) throughout the 50 States and have not changed very much at all since the days of the Old West. Of course, new technology has been introduced. But, as far as how the personal property of an arrestee is handled, the Constitution (the 4th Amendment) governs search procedures. If an officer has probable cause to effect an arrest he also has probable cause to search the pockets of the suspect and to remove from the suspect's possession any items that are potentially dangerous to the officer, to the suspect himself, or to others. This is not limited to "weapons" or ammunition, but potentially includes anything. A search "incident to the arrest" has been very common place for a very long time although that terminology wasn't in use prior to about 1969.

Have you ever watched the show COPS? Have you ever seen an officer find a crack pipe in a suspect's pocket? Have you ever seen an officer decide to put it back because the suspect had no crack cocaine to smoke in it? After all, theoretically speaking, if the pipe had never been used it would have had no residual illegal substance in it and would therefore itself not be illegal to possess. So too, an officer would not leave bullets in ANY arrestee's pockets under ANY circumstances. That the arrestee was a murder suspect and the victim was killed with a gun would give the presence of the bullets in the suspect's pockets even greater importance as well as bolster the probable cause justification for the search.

If not convicted of the crime, it is also the suspect's Constitutional Right to be reunited with his possessions (so long as they are legally his or hers to own) upon release. Therefore the content of his pockets, such as, his wallet, car keys, money, pocket knife, compass, scrap paper, and -- even bullets -- would need to be segregated according to what constitutes evidence against the accused versus that which is merely his or her personal property. In the end, if no indictment (or conviction) is entered against the suspect, then his or her personal property must be returned.

[David Von Pein]

Greg,

Do you think the Dallas Police planted five unfired bullets in Lee Oswald's pocket?

Or, alternatively, do you think the DPD just MADE UP a story about LHO having 5 bullets in his pocket?

Edited August 7, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

***Comedy Break!!***

24 ASSASSINS IN DEALEY PLAZA---INCLUDING JACK RUBY (IN THE TSBD)!! .....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-993.html

always comedy, eh son? At least until Harold Weisberg is mentioned. Right? Then watch lone neuters flee for higher ground. David VP leading the pact...

The case against Oswald is simple, there is no case!

Add Tippit's murder to the JFK assassination mix, and everyone hates a cop killer, right?

There is no evidence Oswald murdered the president of the United States, PERIOD! Wishful thinking on nutter's part.

[David Von Pein]

I guess Jim DiEugenio (and other CTers too) have added DPD detective Elmer L. Boyd to their Liars List with respect to the five unfired bullets that Boyd said he himself took out of Lee Harvey Oswald's pocket on 11/22/63 [at 7 H 126]....

Mr. BALL. Before you went into the showup, did you search Oswald?
Mr. BOYD. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. And what did you find?
Mr. BOYD. I found five .38 shells, I believe it was five.
Mr. BALL. Live? Live shells?
Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you do with them?
Mr. BOYD. Well, I put them in an envelope and put them with the rest of the property up there to be turned in.
Mr. BALL. Did you put any mark on them?
Mr. BOYD. Let me see I can look and see.
Mr. BALL. I will show you Commission Exhibit 592 in an envelope, will you take a look at that--at the cartridges?
Mr. BOYD. Yes---I got my mark on them.
Mr. BALL. You have your mark on all five of them?
Mr. BOYD. I have my mark on the first three---yes, sir---I have my mark on all of them.
Mr. BALL. On all five of them?
Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You put those marks on there, did you?
Mr. BOYD. Yes, I did.
Mr. BALL. Now, looking those cartridges over, can you tell me whether these five cartridges, which constitute Commission Exhibit 592, are the cartridges which you took from Oswald?
Mr. BOYD. Yes, they are.
Mr. BALL. And where were you when you put the mark on them?
Mr. BOYD. I was back up in my office.
Mr. BALL. When you first took them from Oswald, where did you put them?
Mr. BOYD. I put them in my pocket.

Edited August 7, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Mark Knight]

Whether you believe the bullets were planted or not--and I don't believe they were planted--this shows a gross mishandling of either (a) evidence or ( personal property, depending upon which class you assign to the bullets. Mr. Burnham is correct on the proper way to deal with both personal property AND evidence collected from the person of a suspect.

I tend to think that finding the bullets later is simply evidence of sloppy police work AND poor procedure in handling evidence or personal property. If cops missed FIVE BULLETS in Oswald's pocket, what else might they have missed? A handcuff key, for example, might have turned the tables on an officer at some point.

[Greg Burnham]

Greg,

Do you think the Dallas Police planted five unfired bullets in Lee Oswald's pocket?

Or, alternatively, do you think the DPD just MADE UP a story about LHO having 5 bullets in his pocket?

I have no idea what actually happened, but something is wrong with this picture. Very wrong.

I do not believe for a second that any competent police officer in any city in America would have failed to confiscate, mark, bag and protect the provenance (chain of custody) of such incriminating evidence. Its presence on the person of the suspect, if it actually existed at the time the arrest was effected, would be "golden" for the prosecution's case. That is to say, its mere appearance on the suspect would have definitely been used against the suspect in court had he lived to stand trial. Such evidence would be an "icing on the cake" piece of inculpatory evidence even if they failed to match the murder weapon. If they did match the murder weapon, it would nearly be a slam dunk.

The higher the case's profile and/or the higher the emotional investment of the arresting officer (suspect is accused of murdering a fellow police officer), then the more likely are the police to be extremely thorough in searching for and discovering incriminating evidence, collecting and safeguarding that evidence, all the while adhering to the letter of the law (not just the intent of the law) in order to insure that the suspect doesn't "walk on a technicality."

So I don't know if they: 1) planted evidence on his person; 2) just made it up; 3) were astonishingly incompetent; or 4) other -- But I suspect the answer is no longer relevant. However, in 1963, the answer to that question would have impacted a jury trial in favor of the defense.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Re: planting of bullets on Oswald

The whole story of Oswald's having a revolver or clip-fed semi-automatic on November 22 is rife with question marks. The whole story of his arrest is rife with question marks. Question marks hang over the head of Julia Portal. Why was Pinky Westbrook in on the arrest? Who was taken by police out the back of the theater? If the DPD found Oswald's wallet in the police car, how did they miss bullets in his pockets? And so on.

All of this suggests police misbehavior. Police have been known to drop uncharted pistols next to corpses. What's so hard about believing the Dallas cops fudged as to the bullets allegedly found on Oswald?

Surely on the afternoon of November 22, the DPD leadership wanted the same thing as the Dallas political leaders: not to see Dallas blamed for the assassination. Yet that is exactly how the story immediately began to unfold. Kennedy shouldn't have gone to Dallas; Dallas was responsible for Kennedy's death. Even today the assassination is often referred to as "Dallas". So it's easy to imagine that if the DPD leadership was offered a way out, by fingering Oswald, it would jump at the chance uncritically.

[David Von Pein]

What's so hard about believing the Dallas cops fudged as to the bullets allegedly found on Oswald?

But what for, Jon? Why would they even WANT to "fudge" anything relating to the five unfired bullets that Detective Elmer Boyd said he took out of Lee Oswald's pocket?

The DPD already had the bullet shells at the Tippit murder scene and the six unfired bullets in the chamber of the gun they wrested out of Oswald's hand. Not to mention the revolver itself. So why would an additional five bullets be needed to convict Oswald? Makes no sense to me.

And I completely disagree with this statement you made above, Jon:

"The whole story of Oswald's having a revolver or clip-fed semi-automatic on November 22 is rife with question marks."

The key to knowing that Officer Tippit's killer positively did not shoot Tippit with any kind of an automatic weapon is the location of where the bullet shells were found after the shooting.

Those shells weren't found right next to Tippit's patrol car--which, of course, IS where Tippit's murderer was located when he shot Tippit--right there by the car.

The shells, instead, were found by THREE separate civilian witnesses near the corner of Tenth Street and Patton Avenue. If Tippit's killer had used an automatic, the shells would have been automatically ejected right there by Tippit's police car.

Therefore, how can conspiracy theorists who think Tippit was shot with an automatic gun possibly even begin to (logically) explain how those four expended bullet shells could have been found at the corner of 10th & Patton if J.D. Tippit was really shot many yards up the road on Tenth Street (which, of course, he was, according to every witness at the scene)?

Plus, we can know that Tippit's killer did not have in his possession an automatic weapon by also examining the first-day (November 22) statements of witnesses Virginia Davis and Barbara Davis. Each of those Davis girls said in her 11/22/63 affidavit that the man they each saw cutting across their yard right after the shooting occurred was dumping shells from the gun he was holding. And that means the gunman was carrying a revolver, not an automatic.

Both Davis girls, who each positively identified the gunman they saw as Lee Harvey Oswald, used the same word in their individual affidavits that they filled out and signed on November 22nd -- "unloading":

Virginia Davis -- "I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."

Barbara Davis -- "I saw this man walking across my front yard unloading a gun."

Edited August 8, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Mark Knight]

OK...let's stop right now and get the terms correct.

First, since there was no MAC-10 or similar pistol involved [the MAC-10 was invented in 1964, so it couldn't have been used to kill Tippit], there was NO "automatic" pistol involved.

What Mr. Von Pein described is correctly referred to as a SEMIAUTOMATIC, as one has to pull the trigger for each shot. A semiautomatic does automatically eject spent rounds and load fresh rounds into the chamber from a removable magazine.

The Smith & Wesson revolver that was entered into evidence is a DOUBLE-ACTION revolver, meaning that one does not need to manually cock the hammer in order to fire any rounds from the pistol, and the bullets are individually loaded into a revolving cylinder.

It would be GREAT if EVERYONE would use the correct terminology, as it might reduce misunderstandings in the discussions. [And I really HATE to hear a semiautomatic referred to as an "automatic," because that's a tactic anti-gunners use to falsely equate the two.]