10 Conclusions (of Pat Speer)

[Kenneth Drew]

5 year old letters from people who had to ask other people to relay his quotes is what you're posting?

That's about the size of it, yeah. I just felt like sharing after reading DiEugenio's latest Bugliosi-bashing post.

(Vince B. had an aversion to computers, you see. So his messages to me had to be relayed through someone else.)

So his messages to me had to be relayed through someone else.) HIS messages to YOU had to be relayed through SOMEONE else. Do we know who 'someone else' is?

[Kenneth Drew]

BTW/FYI, Glenn, your signature is incomplete. You haven't attributed DiEugenio's "defense team" quote to Jimbo.

And apparently you think that quote is something that enhances Jimmy's reputation, right? Incredible.

That's because it's my signature and not Jim's, David.

[...]

I made it my signature because you told him to put it in his. I figured it'd get to you.

It got to my funny bone, yes. That's about all.

This "signature" game is quite humorous. And now Ken Drew has added another quote of mine to his sig that he obviously thinks makes me look bad. But, of course, it does no such thing. Nor does his other DVP signature either. Both quotes are wholly reasonable and sensible. The fact that Kenny thinks he's taking me down a peg or two by using them in his sig can only elicit laughter.

And by admitting you are part of Oswald's "defense team", you and DiEugenio have now forever thrown out any chance you ever had of being considered unbiased when it comes to the evidence in the JFK murder case.

I salute you both. Most CTers would never come right out and admit to the world that they are dedicated solely to Oswald's defense. Congrats.

Both quotes are wholly reasonable and sensible. The fact that Kenny thinks he's taking me down a peg or two by using them in his sig can only elicit laughter. Let's see, wholly reasonable? " I wish I had your total freedom " So you post an opinion and 'expect' someone to think it is your freely formed opinion when you've just stated that you don't have the freedom to form your own opinion? Just what or who is dictating your opinion to you? Oh wait, that doesn't matter it's just a TLD, tiny little difference, right? The difference in a freely formed opinion and one that is not a freely formed opinion is just a TLD. That's like the difference in firing a bullet through a dummy with no arms and made of cotton fabric vs through two human bodies that actually contain bones and body parts. What the hell, it's just a TLD. Right DVP? and I can just see this 'eliciting laughter'.

[Kenneth Drew]

BTW/FYI, Glenn, your signature is incomplete. You haven't attributed DiEugenio's "defense team" quote to Jimbo.

And apparently you think that quote is something that enhances Jimmy's reputation, right? Incredible.

That's because it's my signature and not Jim's, David.

[...]

I made it my signature because you told him to put it in his. I figured it'd get to you.

It got to my funny bone, yes. That's about all.

This "signature" game is quite humorous. And now Ken Drew has added another quote of mine to his sig that he obviously thinks makes me look bad. But, of course, it does no such thing. Nor does his other DVP signature either. Both quotes are wholly reasonable and sensible. The fact that Kenny thinks he's taking me down a peg or two by using them in his sig can only elicit laughter.

And by admitting you are part of Oswald's "defense team", you and DiEugenio have now forever thrown out any chance you ever had of being considered unbiased when it comes to the evidence in the JFK murder case.

I salute you both. Most CTers would never come right out and admit to the world that they are dedicated solely to Oswald's defense. Congrats.

you've been on the ropes for a few weeks now DVP. Is this desperation time or what? Been doin' some mighty fine dancing of late...

you've been on the ropes for a few weeks now DVP. Is this desperation time or what? Been doin' some mighty fine dancing of late...

The old 'rope a dope'.

[Robert Prudhomme]

DVP reminds me of going for a test drive in a used Ford with a used car salesman. When you ask him about the clunking in the transmission, he goes into a half hour speech about how Ford is a wonderful car maker, has always made wonderful cars, and he never does address the clunking transmission.

[Robert Prudhomme]

I mean, seriously, would you buy a used car from this man?

[Linda Giovanna Zambanini]

Regarding the presence of military intelligence officers in Dealey Plaza, James Richards recently offered a bit of information (and this photo) that was previously unknown to me.

David A. Sooy was an ONI officer stationed in Dallas. He was photographed with another ONI man named Frank Krystinic. Krystinic was close friends with Michael Paine. Sooy was in his car parked in front of the TSBD when the shots were fired, a fact which is referenced in his obituary.

Just another coincidence?

10414571_650535015066813_827721137919513780_n.jpg

Bumped with a question for Linda:

Is this the only photo we have of Sooy?

Some of the photos that James Richards posted on another thread are gone now, but it's my understanding that in this photo Sooy is on the right and Krystinic is on the left. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

--Tommy

Hi Tommy!

Yes, that's correct, Sooy is on the RIGHT. They look like twins almost don't they? The only good photo i have of him besides that one above linked above (which was ca. '52-'54 since that's when Krystinik was in the USN) is the one i used to compare him to the man i found in the DCA film at 6:15 whom i'm convinced is Sooy. This photo (credit to James Richards), in his dress whites I think i remember it being said it was from the "late 50's". I did research on his military record a couple of nights ago and found he retired in July 1960. So that is probably the lastest it could be. Just keep in mind it was probably ~5 years old or more in '63. I took multiple screen captures from the DCA film and made this comparison:

NB: he is wearing glasses with a dark rim at the top and rimless or light rim at the bottom. At first blush he appeared he had weird cheek bones, then i realized it's the reflection/refraction of light and and magnification of his face by the lens that's creating that look.

There was another photo James Richards mentioned in the "A Paine on the "Right" thread which he describes as follows:

"The image below shows D.A. Sooy third from the left. On the far left is Kelly Smith, chief of Chance Vought tool engineers. Acting State President of the Navy League W.H. Wright is on the far right."

I've never seen this photo and have tried to find it online today to no avail.

I have a crappy photo of him bending down to give a disabled child an award - unfortunately, you can't see his face at all only the top of his bald head! So without that hat - he was shiny as a cue ball! He did have dark hair on the sides. If anyone really wants to see it i can upload it.

There is what could be a nice photo of him receiving a safety award at the Dallas NAS in a '55 edition of the Grand Prairie (TX) Daily News (he's on the left) - but i can only read the OCR text. Since i'm not a premium member of "newspapersdotcom" i can't see the photo clearly - and it's unfortunately not available on the genealogy site where I am a paid member. So, if someone here is a member of newspapersdotcom could you please snag this photo?

The only photo i've seen of Krystinik is the one you posted with Sooy in '52-'54.

I did find a helpful article in the Grand Prairie Texan News dated 7/20/54 (no photo) - which was the written the day before he took over as Cmdr. of the Dallas Naval Air Station. The article had a nice bio of his military career up till the time when he took charge of the D-NAS. He was there till sometime in '56, and then transferred to the NAS at Bilbao Panama for about a year then to the NAS at Chaguaramas, Trinidad W.I. (near Port of Spain) in 1957 - that entire peninsula had been owned by the US from around 1940. Wiki says the NAS there was undergoing a post-WWII downsizing during the 50's and early '60's and was handed over to the Trinidadians in 1963. I couldn't find a record of it ...but it appears he was there from '57 until he retired in July '60. Here it is:

Sooy Taking AS Command Wednesday

Capt. David A. Sooy, USN, is to relieve Comdr. Jack A. Francis of command of the Naval Air Station here

at a formal ceremony tomorrow morning, The Grand Prairie Texan learned today. Captain Sooy will be the

permanent commander, succeeding Capt. Stanley C. Strong, USN, who was detached in June to assume

command of the USS Tarawa.

During the period since Captain Strong left, Commander Francis has been acting commanding officer. He

will assume the duties of executive officer of the NAS when Captain Sooy officially takes command.

A native of Chicago, Captain Sooy was born Nov. 5, 1903. He was first commissioned in the U. S. Naval

Reserve Sept. 1, 1931, as an ensign. After two stays of inactive duty in the 1930s, Captain Sooy was recalled

in 1938 as an instructor at NAS, Pensacola, Fla. In April, 1941, he was aboard the USS

Saratoga when the United States entered World War II.

Captain Sooy took part in fighting in the Solomons until he was detached and ordered to

NAS, San Diego, Calif. During the last few months of the war, he was executive officer of the

USS Kasaan Bay, and took part in anti-submarine operations around the Marshall-Gilbert Islands,

the Marianas mid Philippine Sea.

He attended the General UNA School [sic - this should read USNWC, the US Naval War College, in

Newport RI; not the U(S)NA, US Naval Academy, which is in Annapolis], Newport, R. I. in 1946 and

1947, and later served as officer in charge of Tactical Air Control Squadron Three.

January, 1949, he joined the staff of the commander, Amphibious Training Command, U. S Pacific Fleet, with

headquarters at Coronado, Calif. He became head of the technical section, Civil Aviation Liaison Branch, office

of the deputy chief of Naval Operations (Air) in Washington in August, 1950.

A year ago [1953] he reported as executive officer of the Naval Air Station, Kwajalein, Marshall Islands, where

he was serving when ordered to the NAS here.

Captain Sooy holds the American defense service medal, Asiatic-Pacific Campaign medal, American campaign

medal, World War II victory medal and national defense service medal.

He is married to the former Josephine Zillah Moore* of San Jose, Calif, They

have one daughter, Chandra Lou. [b. Feb.6 1933, Los Angeles]

**

*I later found he and his first wife divorced ( she died in 1987) and he remarried. I found a little article stating he married the first female Cmdr. of the Dallas Naval Air Station , "Lt. Cmdr. Nadine Niehouse" (aka Evelyn Nadine Niehouse) possibly in Aug. 1963 - the wording is a little unclear. So at the time of the assassination he was about to marry the new Cmdr of the D-NAS. As far as I have been able to ascertain, she is still alive and must be in her 90s. I've not been able to find a marriage record for them but obviously they married: she goes by Evelyn Niehouse Sooy or Evenlyn Nadine Sooy on radaris and is at the same address with him (even though he was long ago deceased in '95).

Edited August 5, 2015 by Linda Giovanna Zambanini

[David Von Pein]

Do you know the difference between helping to form a conclusion and proving a conclusion?

Yes, I do. But there are many conspiracy theorists who don't know the difference. Maybe you ought to lecture them for a little while.

HIS [Vince Bugliosi's] messages to YOU had to be relayed through SOMEONE else. Do we know who 'someone else' is?

Having a difficult time with your reading glasses, Ken?

I clearly identified who the "someone else" is in Post 110.

Edited August 5, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Glenn Nall]

" ...the difference between helping to form a conclusion and proving a conclusion?"

DVP: Yes, I do. But there are many conspiracy theorists who don't know the difference. Maybe you ought to lecture them for a little while.

BACK TO ME:

you delay in answering so that the context is lost. if someone asks if you know the answer, then the implied request is to provide the answer, and you know that.

if you'd provided the answer then it would invalidate your reasoning that the evidence, as you've defined it in the post, supports your assertion, that the evidence proves such and such, when, according to your definition, it only helps in forming a conclusion (requiring further supporting evidence), and does not prove the conclusion (in this context, a VAST difference).

please show us how your definition of evidence supports your assertion?

/******************************/

the follow up to this request:

for instance, your statement:

"why are you constantly insisting the EVIDENCE (i.e., the items collected by the police at the scenes of the Dallas crimes) is not really EVIDENCE?"

precedes your definition:

"A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment."

and refers to the items collected by the DPD at the crime scenes. ok. but you make many flat statements that this evidence proves O's guilt, when in fact, by your own provided definition, evidence only serves as being "helpful in forming" a conclusion. in other words, by the use of the word "help", other evidence is necessary to be included.

you have thereby contradicted yourself, and will do so in the future, by asserting that any such evidence as you may posit "proves" Oswald's guilt.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[Kenneth Drew]

I mean, seriously, would you buy a used car from this man?

Wouldn't buy a new car from him

[Kenneth Drew]

Do you know the difference between helping to form a conclusion and proving a conclusion?

Yes, I do. But there are many conspiracy theorists who don't know the difference. Maybe you ought to lecture them for a little while.

HIS [Vince Bugliosi's] messages to YOU had to be relayed through SOMEONE else. Do we know who 'someone else' is?

Having a difficult time with your reading glasses, Ken?

I clearly identified who the "someone else" is in Post 110.

Yes, I do. But there are many conspiracy theorists who don't know the difference. And then there are those that don't have the freedom to believe what they'd like to believe.

[David Von Pein]

but you make many flat statements that this evidence proves O's guilt, when in fact, by your own provided definition, evidence only serves as being "helpful in forming" a conclusion. in other words, by the use of the word "help", other evidence is necessary to be included.

I'm just curious to know HOW MANY pieces of evidence CTers require in order for the SUM TOTAL of those pieces to become the equivalent of "proof"? Does such a number exist? Or could there EVER be enough pieces of evidence against Oswald that would convince a CTer? I truly wonder.

Again, it's by looking at ALL of the stuff that points to Oswald that makes an "Oswald Is Guilty" conclusion mandatory, in my opinion. Not by isolating everything and keeping every single item separated from the whole -- which is precisely what conspiracists very often do, such as when CTers isolate Oswald's unusual Thursday trip to Irving. I've heard some CTers say to me: Well, Dave, just because LHO decided he wanted to visit his wife on a Thursday for a change, that doesn't prove he murdered anybody the next day.

And, yes, that is true. The Thursday trip to Irving--when isolated by itself--doesn't prove a darn thing. But when that unusual Thursday trip to Ruth Paine's house is added to all of the other items of evidence, then that Irving excursion by Oswald takes on a whole new meaning. But it seems as though some conspiracists I've talked to never want to ADD IN anything else after they berate me for having the audacity to suggest that Lee Oswald's visit to Irving on November 21st should be INCLUDED in the list of things that ADD UP to Oswald's guilt.

Another classic example of CTer Isolation involves Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints being found on the boxes that were inside the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. I can't remember how many times I've argued with various conspiracy theorists over the last several years about those prints. And I have always admitted that those prints on the TSBD boxes, by themselves, do not PROVE that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy. But when those prints are ADDED to the other pieces of Oswald-incriminating evidence, then those prints rise to a much higher level of importance and significance, IMO.

But the CTers I've talked to about those prints will almost always scold me for even bringing those prints up at all, as if I should just totally ignore them altogether, with those CTers invariably saying something along the following lines --- Well, you know, Davey, that Oswald did work there at the Depository. You know that, right? So why wouldn't his prints be on those boxes? It was just a part of his regular work duties to touch the boxes and move them around. So your arguments about the Sniper's Nest prints mean nothing.

It took me only a few seconds to find just such an argument in my archived discussions on my website (copied below). And there are no doubt a few more in there too....

ROB CAPRIO SAID:

So what [if LHO's prints are on the boxes in the Sniper's Nest]? He worked there.

DAVID VON PEIN THEN SAID:

The LHO prints on the SN boxes are not (themselves) conclusive proof of Oswald's guilt, true. But when placing those prints (and the critical, key LOCATIONS of where those prints were found and on WHAT SPECIFIC BOXES) next to all of the other "LHO Was Here" evidence that is piled against the door, those box prints of Oswald's become more significant, in that those prints are CORROBORATIVE OF OTHER "OSWALD" EVIDENCE that was found in the Sniper's Nest.

It's beyond me how anyone can completely dismiss those multiple LHO prints (which are prints that were found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the assassin's Sniper's Nest) with the typical three-word CTer retort of "He worked there".

The "he worked there" response that we always hear from conspiracy theorists is a weak retort with respect to the fingerprints on the boxes, IMO, considering WHAT ELSE was also found under that sixth-floor window on November 22nd.

DVP

November 2007

-----------------

Related articles of interest:

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-was-in-snipers-nest.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html

Edited August 5, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Glenn Nall]

but you make many flat statements that this evidence proves O's guilt, when in fact, by your own provided definition, evidence only serves as being "helpful in forming" a conclusion. in other words, by the use of the word "help", other evidence is necessary to be included.

I'm just curious to know HOW MANY pieces of evidence CTers require in order for the SUM TOTAL of those pieces to become the equivalent of "proof"? Does such a number exist? Or could there EVER be enough pieces of evidence against Oswald that would convince a CTer? I truly wonder.

Again, it's by looking at ALL of the stuff that points to Oswald that makes an "Oswald Is Guilty" conclusion mandatory, in my opinion. Not by isolating everything and keeping every single item separated from the whole -- which is precisely what conspiracists very often do, such as when CTers isolate Oswald's unusual Thursday trip to Irving. I've heard some CTers say to me: Well, Dave, just because LHO decided he wanted to visit his wife on a Thursday for a change, that doesn't prove he murdered anybody the next day.

And, yes, that is true. The Thursday trip to Irving--when isolated by itself--doesn't prove a darn thing. But when that unusual Thursday trip to Ruth Paine's house is added to all of the other items of evidence, then that Irving excursion by Oswald takes on a whole new meaning. But it seems as though some conspiracists I've talked to never want to ADD IN anything else after they berate me for having the audacity to suggest that Lee Oswald's visit to Irving on November 21st should be INCLUDED in the list of things that ADD UP to Oswald's guilt.

Another classic example of CTer Isolation involves Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints being found on the boxes that were inside the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. I can't remember how many times I've argued with various conspiracy theorists over the last several years about those prints. And I have always admitted that those prints on the TSBD boxes, by themselves, do not PROVE that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy. But when those prints are ADDED to the other pieces of Oswald-incriminating evidence, then those prints rise to a much higher level of importance and significance, IMO.

But the CTers I've talked to about those prints will almost always scold me for even bringing those prints up at all, as if I should just totally ignore them altogether, with those CTers invariably saying something along the following lines -- Well, you know, Davey, that Oswald did work there at the Depository. You know that, right? So why wouldn't his prints be on those boxes? It was just a part of his regular work duties to touch and move around boxes. So your arguments about the Sniper's Nest prints mean nothing.

It took me just a few seconds to find just such an argument in my archived discussions on my website (copied below). And there are no doubt a few more in there too....

ROB CAPRIO SAID:

So what [if LHO's prints are on the boxes in the Sniper's Nest]? He worked there.

DAVID VON PEIN THEN SAID:

The LHO prints on the SN boxes are not (themselves) conclusive proof of Oswald's guilt, true. But when placing those prints (and the critical, key LOCATIONS of where those prints were found and on WHAT SPECIFIC BOXES) next to all of the other "LHO Was Here" evidence that is piled against the door, those box prints of Oswald's become more significant, in that those prints are CORROBORATIVE OF OTHER "OSWALD" EVIDENCE that was found in the Sniper's Nest.

It's beyond me how anyone can completely dismiss those multiple LHO prints (which are prints that were found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the assassin's Sniper's Nest) with the typical three-word CTer retort of "He worked there".

The "he worked there" response that we always hear from conspiracy theorists is a weak retort with respect to the fingerprints on the boxes, IMO, considering WHAT ELSE was also found under that sixth-floor window on November 22nd.

DVP

November 2007

-----------------

Related articles of interest:

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-was-in-snipers-nest.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html

i said this:

you make many flat statements that this evidence proves O's guilt

you said this (before you deleted it):

And you don't think I could add any "other evidence" that could be added to the pile to prove O's guilt?

and then this:

Again, it's by looking at ALL of the stuff that all points to Oswald that an "Oswald Must Be Guilty" conclusion must be reached by any reasonable person

but my point was that that's not what you SAY. You too often SAY that some such single piece of evidence proves his guilt.

i didn't say you can't, i said you don't. and i will prove this to you in time so that you cannot say that you didn't say that.

[David G. Healy]

[...]

Ii took me just a few seconds to find just such an argument in my archived discussions on my website (copied below). And there are no doubt a few more in there too....

ROB CAPRIO SAID:

So what [if LHO's prints are on the boxes in the Sniper's Nest]? He worked there.

DAVID VON PEIN THEN SAID:

The LHO prints on the SN boxes are not (themselves) conclusive proof of Oswald's guilt, true. But when placing those prints (and the critical, key LOCATIONS of where those prints were found and on WHAT SPECIFIC BOXES) next to all of the other "LHO Was Here" evidence that is piled against the door, those box prints of Oswald's become more significant, in that those prints are CORROBORATIVE OF OTHER "OSWALD" EVIDENCE that was found in the Sniper's Nest.

It's beyond me how anyone can completely dismiss those multiple LHO prints (which are prints that were found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the assassin's Sniper's Nest) with the typical three-word CTer retort of "He worked there".

The "he worked there" response that we always hear from conspiracy theorists is a weak retort with respect to the fingerprints on the boxes, IMO, considering WHAT ELSE was also found under that sixth-floor window on November 22nd.

DVP

[...]

Don't give up your day job, son... "DEEP INSIDE" -- lmfao, a homicide investigator you aren't, Thespis of Icaria, maybe, quite possible -- provided of course, it's worth the effort. Vinnie B. or Rosemary ever tell you, that at times you can be embarrassing?

[David Von Pein]

You too often SAY that some such single piece of evidence proves his guilt.

Where? When?

Hey, almost no one has a perfect memory. I certainly don't. So I suppose you MIGHT be able to find some post written by me where I (foolishly) stated that a SINGLE item of evidence "proves" Oswald's guilt.

I, however, do not think I have ever constructed a post using those exact words before. I certainly cannot recall ever having done so. But if you do find one, I would like to see it--so I can delete it. So please keep hunting for such a post, and if you find one, please let me know. Because I think you're right on this point---not any SINGLE thing "proves" Oswald's guilt in the JFK and Tippit murders. It's always been my belief (which I've stated hundreds of times over the years) that it's the "totality" or "sum total" of evidence that proves Oswald was guilty.

I'll give you a heads-up, Glenn (so you won't have to dig for it), to a post I wrote in January 2006, entitled "THESE TWO THINGS PROVE LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT". This was written as a kind of an experiment (based on Vince Bugliosi's claim that "You could throw 80% of the evidence against Oswald out the window and there would still be more than enough left to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"). But even in this article, I'm not singling out just ONE item of evidence. It's two things....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/two-things-that-prove-oswalds-guilt.html

Edited August 5, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Talk about leading with your chin again.

DVP names the rifle as being ordered by Oswald, and the paper bag as being conclusive proof of Oswald's guilt.

As Gil Jesus proved pretty much conclusively, the paper bag in evidence was almost certainly made up by the DPD after the fact.

And as more than one person has shown, the latest being David Josephs, that rifle was almost definitely not ordered by Oswald or picked up by Oswald.

Edited August 5, 2015 by James DiEugenio