Jump to content
The Education Forum

David Von Pein

Two Posts Per day
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Von Pein

  1. Jim H., The portion of Johnny Brewer's testimony you just highlighted doesn't eliminate the possibility that Brewer could have been very briefly pulled out into the alley by the police officers who grabbed him. I don't know if they did pull him out in the alley or not, but we do know that Brewer did open the back door (next to the alley), and a gun was held on Brewer and he was grabbed by the cops. And even if Brewer wasn't actually physically in the alley, it's possible that a witness who was in that alley could have still gotten a view of the cops grabbing Brewer at gunpoint just inside the back door of the Texas Theater.
  2. I think it's possible that some of the confusion about the alleged "two arrests" could have been initially sparked by the fact that Johnny Brewer was briefly held at gunpoint as a suspect by the police at the back of the theater. And Brewer, like Oswald, was a slender white male in his 20s. I can't find anything in the records that indicates whether or not Brewer was actually dragged outside into the alley behind the theater when he was held at gunpoint....and, of course, Brewer wasn't actually placed into a police car....but if someone did see the incident between the police and Johnny Brewer at the back of the theater, this could certainly have elevated the confusion of any witnesses as to how many people were being detained by the police at the theater. JOHNNY BREWER (WC Testimony) -- "I heard a noise outside, and I opened the door, and the alley, I guess it was filled with police cars and policemen were on the fire exits and stacked around the alley, and they grabbed me, a couple of them, and held and searched me and asked me what I was doing there, and I told them that there was a guy in the theatre that I was suspicious of, and he asked me if he was still there." JOHNNY BREWER (1986 Mock Trial Testimony) -- "...a gun was held on me."
  3. ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
  4. It was nothing but a slip of the tongue by Rankin ("rifle" instead of "pistol"). Why not just admit it wasn't some sinister cover-up move by Rankin to frame a patsy --- especially after reading the NEXT sentence uttered by Rankin, which is clearly referring to the pistol and not a rifle? Or can't you admit that anything (no matter how small and insignificant) could have been the result of something that happens over and over again with human beings --- he made a mistake?
  5. Another "Refused To Sign" Addendum.... There's also the following Warren Commission testimony of Dallas Police Sergeant W.E. Barnes [at 7 H 285], which certainly indicates that Lee Harvey Oswald, while he was still alive and breathing and in the custody of the Dallas Police Department, definitely did "Refuse To Sign" a fingerprint card at some point in time in late November of 1963: MR. BARNES -- "He [Oswald] would not sign the fingerprint card when I asked him. We have a place on this card for the prisoner's signature, and I asked him would he please sign that, and he said he wouldn't sign anything until he talked to an attorney."
  6. C'mon, Steve. Aren't you reaching just a little too much here in order to find something that you can criticize the WC for? In the passage you quoted above, it's obvious that J. Lee Rankin simply made an error by saying "rifle" instead of "pistol" or "revolver". It becomes quite obvious when just one second later he then describes a .38 REVOLVER. Or do you think Mr. Rankin was deliberately TRYING to look like a clueless dumbass?
  7. You're wrong about that, Paul. The rifle was identified at 6:16 PM CST Nov. 22 by the DPD's J.C. Day as being "6.5, apparently made in Italy, in 1940" (in the famous video clip of Lt. Day holding the rifle above his head as he walked down the DPD corridor). And that was 5 hours before the DPD handed the rifle over to the FBI. (See the video proof at the link below....) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html#An-Italian-Gun
  8. Maybe Jim didn't notice ---- Paul got that clip from me.
  9. Simple ---- The actual evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases, that's what. And that evidence most definitely proves (beyond the proverbial reasonable doubt) that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy and Officer Tippit on 11/22/63. No other conclusion is even possible, IMO. That's adequate motivation to write what I write, I would say.
  10. And any honest and objective person who wasn't hellbent on accusing many, many people of lying about the evidence in this case would easily come to the conclusion that the Lunchroom Encounter definitely DID happen---in the lunchroom on the 2nd floor---just as Roy Truly verified. I'll let the "honest and objective and normal" people decide if I make a good case here (and please note the utter desperation of CTers like DiEugenio in this discussion): http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-121.html I need my POT/KETTLE icon---yet again. The irony never ceases when you're talking to Jim.
  11. That'll be the day. It couldn't be more obvious that Lee Oswald purchased (and possessed) Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766 in 1963. In order for him to have NOT purchased and possessed that rifle, we'd actually have to be silly enough to believe a whole bunch of people "lied their eyes out" in 1963 (and continued to lie about it for the rest of their lives). But to CTers, of course, the more people they can accuse of being bald-faced l-i-a-r-s in this case, the better. Right, Paul?
  12. And that would mean that Jeanne DeMohrenschildt lied her eyes out too (at 9 H 315).... JEANNE DeMOHRENSCHILDT -- "And I believe from what I remember George sat down on the sofa and started talking to Lee, and Marina was showing me the house that is why I said it looks like it was the first time, because why would she show me the house if I had been there before? Then we went to another room, and she opens the closet, and I see the gun standing there. I said, what is the gun doing over there?" MR. JENNER -- "You say..." MRS. DeMOHRENSCHILDT -- "A rifle." MR. JENNER -- "A rifle, in the closet?" MRS. DeMOHRENSCHILDT -- "In the closet, right in the beginning. It wasn't hidden or anything." MR. JENNER -- "Standing up on its butt?" MRS. DeMOHRENSCHILDT -- "Yes." MR. JENNER -- "I show you Commission Exhibit 139. Is that the rifle that you saw?" MRS. DeMOHRENSCHILDT -- "It looks very much like it."
  13. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Lee Harvey Oswald's Revolver Purchase
  14. You just mentioned two of the things that make it so very good. [Click....]
  15. How long will CTers continue to ignore the "95 cents" proof that I've mentioned multiple times in this thread? "95 cents" was the taxi fare for Oswald's Nov. 22nd cab ride (revealed early on by Whaley---in his 11/23 affidavit and again in his 11/23 FBI interview), and it's a figure that pretty much PROVES that Whaley dropped Oswald off at Neely Street and not the "500 block". If Oswald had gone all the way to the 500 block of Beckley, does anybody think the fare would STILL have been exactly 95 cents?
  16. I wouldn't exactly classify "Parkland" as a "Classic", but I added it to my Movies site anyway. It's a good film (IMO). CTers, naturally, disagree strongly.... http://classic--movies.blogspot.com/2013/11/parkland.html
  17. Not even close. Oliver Stone's film is a flight of fancy. Nothing more. The best JFK assassination movie (by far) is this one....
  18. Only 4 people on that list are "l-i-a-r-s", IMO. Files, Hill, Oliver, and Craig. (And maybe Crenshaw.) Clemons is a witness who really isn't a good "conspiracy" witness at all when you read the complete story on her that hasn't been distorted by CT fanatics. She's just like Lee Bowers in a way....a witness who has been turned into a "CT" type witness by conspiracy theorists. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/11/acquilla-clemons-and-murder-of-jd-tippit.html
  19. And then they got Oswald himself to lie about it. (Yeah, right.)* * Obligatory Disclaimer ----> Yes, I know, you don't believe a thing uttered by Will Fritz regarding Oswald's in-custody statements, therefore CTers get to utilize the nice convenient cop-out of pretending that Oswald never really said a word about taking a bus and a cab to his roominghouse on 11/22.
  20. Yep. Just as I said. Nothing is ever what it seems to be in this case (per CTers).
  21. Well, since we know for a fact that the real Oswald rushed into his roominghouse at about 1:00 PM....and we also know that the same real Oswald was in Whaley's cab (at Neely & Beckley) in the minutes prior to 1:00 PM....then it's pretty clear that LHO must have walked north fairly soon after parting company with Whaley. CTers will, of course, arrive at their own (fantastic) conclusions instead.
  22. Oh, for Pete sake. You're being ridiculous. It's not even close. Almost everybody in the case is a l-i-a-r, according to most Internet CTers. [Partial List.]
  23. Doesn't really matter, of course. Because conspiracy fantasists like you are going to continue to believe the most outrageous and fantastic CT scenarios imaginable....regardless of anything I have to say. But for truly reasonable and sensible and "honest" people ------>
  24. Let me guess ---- You, Jim Hargrove, are one of those CTers who doesn't even believe Lee H. Oswald got into William Whaley's taxicab on November 22, 1963, despite Whaley confirming via a positive identification that his passenger was, indeed, the "real" Lee Harvey Oswald? Is that about the size of the situation? IOW --- The "Nothing Is Ever What It Seems To Be In The JFK Case" syndrome surfaces yet again. (And Oswald was never on McWatters' bus either, was he Jim?) (And Oswald was never in Mexico City either, was he Jim?) (And the Lunchroom Encounter never even happened, did it Jim?) (And Oswald never even owned a rifle [or pistol] in the year 1963, did he Jim?) (And Oswald never posed for the Backyard Photos, did he Jim?) (And Oswald never fired that shot at Edwin Walker either, did he James?) I wonder how many more verifiable happenings the Jim Hargroves of the world have rewritten and distorted to suit their fantasy version of events? (Too many to mention here, that's for sure.)
  • Create New...