Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Von Pein

In Lee Harvey Oswald's Room

Recommended Posts

HIDELL ADDENDUM:

I just now realized that there is additional evidence that proves the name "A.J. Hidell" was a name Oswald was using as an alias while in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 (apart from Marina Oswald's testimony and the documents linking the "Hidell" name to Oswald via the order forms for the guns).

That additional evidence is CE826, which is an FBI report filed by New Orleans agent Milton Kaack on October 31, 1963, three weeks BEFORE the assassination. The name "HIDELL" surfaces numerous times in CE826, during FBI Agent John Quigley's report about his personal interview with Oswald in the New Orleans police station in August '63. (Quigley's report is a part of Kaack's report.)

HERE'S the complete 17-page Kaack report. [An excerpt with several "Hidell" references is pictured below.]

WH_Vol17_0393a.jpg

More About Commission Exhibit 826

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HIDELL ADDENDUM:

I just now realized that there is additional evidence that proves the name "A.J. Hidell" was a name Oswald was using as an alias while in New Orleans during the summer of 1963 (apart from Marina Oswald's testimony and the documents linking the "Hidell" name with Oswald via the order forms for the guns):

That additional evidence is CE826, which is an FBI report filed by New Orleans agent Milton Kaack on October 31, 1963, three weeks BEFORE the assassination. The name "HIDELL" surfaces numerous times in this October FBI report:

http://jfk-archives....xhibit-826.html

Yeah, nice going Dave.

That was inserted into Kaack's report by Quigley. We only have Quigley's word that the insersion was done PRIOR to the assassination. Kaack by then had conveniently left the FBI and was not called to give his testimony.

Why should anyone believe Quigley?

He gave the following evidence before the WC:

Mr. McCLOY. One other thing. I have to leave shortly to go to lunch, but on page 7 of this report you described these

membership cards.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. Did he have the membership cards in his possession at that time?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes, sir; he did, sir.

Mr. McCLOY. You saw them?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes, sir; I did, sir. I think the last you will notice, in that last sentence he had in his possession both cards

and exhibited both of them.

Mr. McCLOY. Right. One of them was, at least one of them, was signed A. Hidell?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Later, under questioning as to whether he could identify the cards, Quigley forced himself into a corner. He claimed he could not positively ID them because THEY WERE EVIDENCE IN THE NOPD CASE AGAINST OSWALD!

Mr. McCLOY. Do we have those cards?

Mr. STERN. I believe we do. I do not have them here.

Mr. McCLOY. But it is important to have them because the name Hidell was in the handwriting--but these are membership cards purporting to be membership cards in the Fair Play for Cuba organization.

Would you be able to identify these cards if you saw them, Mr. Quigley, as the ones that were shown in Oswald's possession exhibited to you?

Mr. QUIGLEY. I don't believe I could truthfully say if you showed me a card, these two cards now that those were the identical ones.

From the description and the data that I have recorded I could say they were similar.

Mr. McCLOY. All right.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I don't just feel I could identify them. Bear this in mind, sir; this material was evidence as far as the New Orleans Police Department was concerned at the time, we couldn't take this material.

Mr. McCLOY. I understand.

So how then did Oswald PRODUCE them for Quigley? Was the NOPD in the habit of allowing prisoners to keep the evidence that would be used against them in court?

Quigley lied about the cards under oath.

As for his memo inserted into the Kaack report -- can you give any other examples showing this was standard FBI practice? It seems to be unique in the volumes.

Quigley, btw also left the FBI soon after testifying and took up a position with one of the members of the Dallas Host Committee....

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, good Lord! Now the Kaack report from 10/31/63 and the Quigley report from 8/10/63 are fakes too, is that correct?

There was simply NO END to the number of people who were willing to frame this schnook named Oswald in '63, was there? If it took 10,000 people....then 10,000 it is.

Ridiculous.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can save yourself the trouble, Lee. I know what your responses will be: Total conjecture and nothing of substance. As per usual. You're a JFK Conspiracy Theorist, so how could I expect ACTUAL EVIDENCE to back up a CTer's claims, when no such actual evidence exists in the first place? After all, you're not Houdini.

And in the final analysis, a bunch of speculation and suspicions coming from a covey of Anybody-But-Oswald hobbyists couldn't possibly matter less when stacked up against the huge pile of evidence that proves Lee Harvey Oswald was a double-murderer.

In Accessories After the Fact Sylvia Meagher devotes an entire chapter to Hidell and Oswald's alleged use of that name.

Meagher's treatment of the subject is comprehensive and anyone reading it would know that Lee Farley's statements are

closer to the truth than those of David Von Pein.

Von Pein's claims do not incorporate all of the evidence and testimony. Not by a long shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does he mean Morton Sobell?

Yes

On his "Denounced" side he has Atom Bomb Test

Im positive LHO would back a man like Sobell who was still in prison fighting to get out in 1963

I own an autographed 1st edition copy of his book "On Doing Time"

Very interesting read, even more interesting now that he has confessed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was expecting such a reaction on your part.

Really? Was that through your highly developed "critical thinking" skills? Amazing. What's your next trick? You going to pull one of your unsold books out of your ass?

Well, I don't blame you. It must be really hard to try to defend ludicrous conspiracy theories against all evidence, and being held up to ridicule (and deservedly so) by reasonable people every time you turn your computer on...

/F.C./.

On the 22nd July 2010, Pat Speer said this about you:

“One can only hope he came here, then, in search of a higher level of discourse. If so, I hope we can provide it.”

A month later this about sums up your contributions.

Frankie Carlier – The Best Bits

“And no, CE399 was not planted. Only in your dreams!”

“The truth is that Oswald WAS NOT "in the first floor lunchroom at 12:15 pm", as you claim.”

“My thoughts regarding Mexico City?

Well, again, my point is this: the evidence points to Oswald having killed Kennedy alone and the official version being true.”

“And I am quite intelligent and knowledgeable, and most of all well versed in critical thinking.”

“So, if you ask me, what happened in Mexico City is what the Warren Report tells you.”

“James W. Douglass, author of "JFK and the Unspeakable"? Give me a break. Don't tell me that's all you have?”

“And YES, a big yes, I am a "Case closed" fan.”

“What happened in Mexico City has no bearing whatsoever on the issue.”

“I think that your "Mexico City questions" won't lead you anywhere, but again, I have no problem with you asking them, but don't count on me to follow you on that trail.”

“I know as much as anybody here.

“My God ... poor men !”

“Actually, two empty boxes of ammunition were found among Oswald’s possessions. Thanks to Mister Gary Mack for helping me find that piece of evidence.”

“I studied magic and conjuring intensely. I have become a fairly good amateur conjuror.”

“I shall answer Bill Kelly, James DiEugenio and another member tomorrow.”

“I mean, who cares if nobody saw him arrange the boxes? Precisely, if he was the assassin, you can bet he made sure he was not seen.”

“Well, I guess you will always live in your dreams. In your own error-laden world.”

“That's it, keep asking your questions (instead of answering my message)”

“Thank you, Mister David Von Pein, for your very good work. I have always been a big fan of yours.”

“And my dog's barking makes more sense than all you can say in this forum!”

“It must be really hard to try to defend ludicrous conspiracy theories against all evidence, and being held up to ridicule (and deservedly so)”

Well, that’s about it Frank. That kinda sums up what you have provided us with over the last month. Nothing. Absolutely sod-all. The only thing you've given me is a headache and 17 personal messages that all said the same creepy thing.

You did give us all one massive post about how intelligent you are. I think it was a companion piece to your member picture where you are posing with one of the remaindered books that you conjured out your butt.

You are an "utter screwball" to use an expression from one of your heroes. Keep laughing it up with Davey Boy eh? The French have never been known for their sense of humor and you, Mr Slapsalot - the Musée du Louvre weekend clown, are no exception.

This is the last of my time and energy you will ever receive.

/L.F./

My God !

You're beyond help.

Keep dreaming and live in your world of conspiracies.

/F.C./

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very difficult to get all the way through one of Jim DiEugenio's "Everybody's A xxxx" type of posts without laughing or vomiting. (Or both.)

Jim, in what document can I find the info about Tippit's wallet being taken off of his corpse at Methodist Hospital?

Thank you.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/wallets-part-1.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/wallets-part-2.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/wallets-part-3.html

---------

From Part 3 of the above "Wallets" series:

"If the cops (or whoever) had actually planted the wallet on Tenth Street to incriminate Lee Oswald, then the DPD would certainly have been propping up that wallet for everybody to see!

"The fact that NO POLICE REPORT mentions anything about a wallet being found near Tippit's body is, all by itself, proof that the wallet that is seen in Ron Reiland's TV film is not Lee Harvey Oswald's wallet.

"And even conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio (who thinks the DPD was up to its collective necks in conspiracy and plotting and planting evidence all over Dallas on 11/22/63) should realize the built-in common sense and truth that exists in the last sentence I just wrote above.

"BTW, one of those "three" Oswald wallets that DiEugenio was talking about is a wallet that Oswald was known to keep his "savings" in (vs. his regular wallet that he carried with him every day). That fact is proven by way of Marina Oswald's Warren Commission testimony below:

"MARINA OSWALD -- "In my room at Ruth Paine's there was a black wallet in a wardrobe. Whenever Lee would come he would put money in there, but I never counted it." [1 H 69]

"In addition to the above Warren Commission testimony, the "spare wallet" fact is confirmed in another official document as well -- a November 28, 1963, FBI interview with Marina Oswald (which is part of CE1781):

" "She [Marina] said [Lee] OSWALD had a wallet which he kept in the apartment in New Orleans with this money that he was saving." [CE1781; at 23 H 387]

"And since we know beyond all reasonable doubt that the wallet seen in Ron Reiland's film is not Oswald's wallet, the final tally of wallets known to be owned by Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63 is two -- his regular wallet that he carried with him (which was removed from Oswald's pocket by police immediately after his arrest), plus the wallet that he used to store larger sums of cash." -- DVP

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, in what document can I find the info about Tippit's wallet being taken off of his corpse at Methodist Hospital?

Never mind, Jim. I found it myself, via the files of the Dallas Municipal Archives (Box 9; Folder 2; Item 3), shown below.

And (just as I suspected) this document showing Tippit's personal property most definitely does NOT prove that Tippit's wallet was taken off of his body at Methodist Hospital (or at Parkland, where he was taken for his autopsy).

How can I know?

Because Tippit's service revolver is ALSO listed on this inventory of Tippit's personal property ("1 SW Rev Ser # 138278"). And we know that Tippit's revolver was LEFT AT THE MURDER SCENE after Tippit was shot, being picked up by witness Ted Callaway.

Therefore, the "Black Billfold" listed in this document didn't necessarily have to be taken off of Tippit's body at Methodist or Parkland.

2586-001.gif

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the document I posted above from the Dallas Municipal Archives, Jim. It doesn't prove what you think it proves about the wallet.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MORE WALLET TALK:

Even though I have stated in the past that I think the "mystery wallet on 10th Street" was J.D. Tippit's wallet (and I do still think that is the best guess), I'm not even sure there was any wallet found on the ground next to Tippit's body at all on 11/22/63.

There's not a single witness at the scene of the crime who said they saw a wallet lying by Tippit's body (or even UNDERNEATH his body after Tippit was taken from the scene by ambulance).

And I think Vince Bugliosi makes a small error in his endnotes of "RH" when he says that Dale Myers proves that a wallet was "found at the murder scene" (via the unearthing of the WFAA/Ron Reiland film).

Yes, a wallet might have been "found" next to Tippit's body, but the witness testimony from those people who were there would indicate that no wallet was on the ground at all.

And just because Reiland filmed Sergeant Bud Owens of the DPD holding a wallet, that fact doesn't have to mean the wallet in the film was "found" on the ground at the scene of the murder. That's leaping to a conclusion that hasn't really been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, IMO.

Bottom Line (and Vince Bugliosi admits this in his book too, with Vince calling the wallet incident a "true mystery" [RH; p.453 of endnotes] -- Nobody knows for sure who owned the wallet that is seen in Ron Reiland's WFAA-TV film.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also Marina Oswald's Warren Commission testimony regarding the name Hidell. Marina, however, must have been confused about when she first heard the fictitious name "Hidell", because she couldn't possibly have heard the name "Hidell" on either one of Lee Oswald's WDSU radio appearances, because the name "Hidell" is never mentioned once during either of those two New Orleans radio programs in August 1963.

I suppose conspiracy theorists think that the name "Hidell" was placed into Marina Oswald's mouth during the Warren Commission testimony excerpted below (due to the fact we know she's wrong about when she first heard the name).

But regardless of Marina's confusion about the radio programs, it's fairly obvious that Marina herself knew that her husband was using the name Hidell as an alias at some point well prior to the assassination of JFK:

And I suppose you think Marina Oswald was a xxxx too, right? She testified that she first heard about her husband using the alias "Hidell" while she and LHO were still living in New Orleans in the summer of 1963, many months before the assassination.

David does not mention that in December of 1963 Marina Oswald told the Secret Service that "to her knowledge Lee had never used the name Alik Hidel."

In her testimony to the HSCA, she was questioned about this:

Mr. PREYER - As late as January 22, 1964, you were still denying that you knew Lee was going to Mexico when you lived in New Orleans, but about 10 days after that you testified before the Warren Commission that you did know of the trip. If you were trying to protect Lee in December by not telling of the Mexican trip---

Mrs. PORTER - I tried to protect myself as well, sir.

Mr. PREYER - Protecting yourself?.

Mrs. PORTER - To tell you the truth, I did not like the FBI. I did not like the treatment. I am sorry to say that, I was frightened and I sometimes was maybe deliberately difficult in giving information to the FBI.

Mr. PREYER - Were you pressured by anyone to change your testimony between those dates? That is just a 10-day period there. Did the FBI or the Secret Service or anyone suggest to you to change your testimony there?

Mrs. PORTER - Well, I don't remember.

Mr. PREYER - Would you not have remembered if one of them----

Mrs. PORTER - I think it was--well, I did not want to talk about the FBI, but I do believe that one of the FBI agents, he brought something that looks like it came from Mexico and, little by little in the questioning, I had to confess that I did know. Maybe that is what it was. I don't remember right now.

Mr. PREYER - As I understand your testimony, you are saying now that you did know of the trip to Mexico and you gave your earlier statements to the FBI to protect Lee and to protect yourself?.

Mrs. PORTER - That is correct.

Mr. PREYER - We talked earlier today about the use of the alias Alik Hidel by Lee in New Orleans. I think you also told the Warren Commission that Lee used Hidel and that that was just an altered form of the name Fidel, Fidel Castro. Why did you tell the Secret Service when they interviewed you 10 days after the assassination that to your knowledge Lee had never used the name Alik Hidel?

Mrs. PORTER - I don't remember this incident at all.

Mr. PREYER - I am sorry, I didn't understand you.

Mrs. PORTER - Ten days after assassination, you said?

Mr. PREYER - Yes; approximately 10 days afterwards you apparently indicated to the Secret Service that Alik or that Lee had never used the name Alik Hidel.

Mrs. PORTER - Well, my emotional conditions were not very normal at the time, you know, after the assassination, so I could maybe remember something one day and forget the next one or be frightened or whatever the circumstances were. But when I gave testimony to the Warren Commission, it was all the truth.

Two possibilities present themselves:

1) David did not know of this.

2) He knew of it and purposefully left it out of the discussion.

Neither one speaks well for his methods.

For years I've encountered David Von Pein's writings on the internet, including some newsgroup banter and Amazon

book reviews. I saw a pattern there that true to form, followed him here to the Education Forum.

I've believed that it is best to ignore David rather than try to fence with him about the evidence and data in this case.

This thread marks the first time I have ever responded to anything he wrote.

Dave has this propensity to paint conspiracy believers with a broad brush, i.e. CTs, ABOs, kooks, people that refuse to

consider the evidence, etc. Common sense and experience show that conspiracy believers range from inane and foolish to extremely

well-read and logical. To consistently employ attempts to lump them as like-minded is a sign of the weaknesses inherent in many

of David's arguments.

His one line dismissal of Sylvia Meagher ("the infamous Sylvia Meagher") demonstrates that David really does not want to

address Warren Commission evidentiary issues in their entirety. He knows he would lose if forced to do that. Regardless what

one thinks about Meagher's conclusions, her book remains an invaluable resource in finding out what the Warren Commission

did and did not say. Her citations are there for anyone to refer to.

David came here to roil the waters. Debating him about issues that were established more that forty years ago is an exercise in

futility and largely a waste of time. And it helps him accomplish his objective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You tried to construct a totally silly and unfounded argument that the post office served as fiduciary for REA. Then when Dale Myers says, no, he picked it up at REA, you then drop that whole line of argument like a hot potato and say that oh yes, how stupid of me, of course REA would not do such a thing. Even though Myers was using the exact same database you already had!

~sigh~

How many times do I have to repeat this, Jim?:

Dale Myers provided additional information from

the REA Vice President on this matter.

Will I have to repeat this a fourth time for you tomorrow, Jim?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP wants to keep the absurdities coming in even new and more bizarre shapes. The above reminds me of his order for the rifle that miraculously made it through the mail without a zip code over 700 miles, was checked in and then deposited within 24 hours, before the advent of computers.

It's been pointed out to Jim D. before (by me, just yesterday) that Oswald mailed his rifle order form and money order via air mail, which is why it travelled from Dallas to Chicago in just one day. Simple.

Oswald also most likely mailed the Klein's order very early in the morning on March 12th, which would have made it even easier for an AIR MAIL letter to start out in Texas on March 12 (AM) and arrive in Illinois sometime on March 13.

Naturally, Jim D. ignores the "Air Mail" notation on CE785.

Will I have to repeat this for a ninth time tomorrow, Jim?

WH_Vol17_0351a.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please show me the testimony, evidence or affidavit about the name plate, pens etc being stripped off Tippit at the scene. Yeah sure. Happens all the time right.

When did I ever suggest such a foolish and stupid thing, Jim?

Answer: Never.

But you have no proof that a DPD officer didn't take Tippit's wallet from 10th Street to either Methodist or Parkland between the time Tippit was shot and the time Captain Doughty signed-off on the document which catalogues all of Tippit's personal belongings at 3:25 PM.

Allow me to quote Jim DiEugenio's favorite author of all-time, Vincent T. Bugliosi:

"But whose wallet was it? Dallas WFAA-TV cameraman Ron Reiland, narrating the silent footage for his viewers, said it was Tippit’s wallet. Apart from [Dale] Myers saying that Reiland’s reportage over the assassination weekend contained numerous factual errors, the main reason why Myers rejects the possibility that the wallet was Tippit’s is that “1 Black Billfold” was listed among Tippit’s personal effects, and Myers says, “The only item known to have been brought to the hospital [Methodist, and later Parkland] and added to Tippit’s personal effects was Tippit’s revolver, which by all accounts was left behind at the murder scene” (Myers, With Malice, pp.299–300).

"But we know that several officers went to Methodist Hospital, where Tippit’s body was brought into the emergency ward, and they could have brought Tippit’s wallet from the murder scene to either there or Parkland. There certainly was plenty of time to do so before Tippit’s personal property was inventoried, at 3:25 p.m. [emphasis added by DVP] (Document titled “Identification Bureau Crime Scene Search Section, Police Department, Dallas, Texas,” box 9, folder 2, item 3, DMA; Myers, With Malice, p.301).

"Certainly, the mere absence of any statement or documentary evidence that an item of personal property (the wallet) was added to Tippit’s personal effects would not be strong evidence that such an event never took place.

"But if, indeed, it was Tippit’s wallet, why didn’t civilian witnesses like Jack Tatum, Ted Callaway, and the two ambulance attendants, Eddie Kinsley and J. C. Butler, see the wallet lying next to Tippit’s body? Nor did Joe Poe and Leonard Jez, two of the first officers to arrive at the scene. (Myers, With Malice, p.300)

"One thing we can be reasonably certain about: the wallet was not Oswald’s. Myers closely compared a close-up photo of Oswald’s arrest wallet (FBI Exhibit B-1) with the wallet found at the murder scene and found definite physical differences, causing him to conclude that “the Oswald arrest wallet is not the same billfold seen in the WFAA newsfilm” (Myers, With Malice, pp.298–299).

"Furthermore, a Dallas police officer had just been slain. It is inconceivable that members of the Dallas Police Department like Captains Westbrook and Doughty and Sergeant Hill would suppress and keep secret the fact that Tippit’s killer had left his calling card at the murder scene. That simply would not, could not, have happened. If Oswald’s wallet had been found at the murder scene, it is inconceivable that nowhere in the testimony or the reports of Westbrook, Hill, Doughty, Poe, and so on, would they bother to mention this extremely important fact." -- Page 454 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...