David Von Pein

So, Jim, you obviously must think Buddy Walthers is a l-i-a-r too (in addition to Barrett), correct? This is a 1967 newspaper article, btw.....

And the very fact that it WAS over 30 years later that FBI Agent Bob Barrett first told his story about the wallet on Tenth Street should tell you something. It should indicate that Barrett's memory was probably not quite as sharp in 1996 as it was in 1963. Plus, since we know (via Dale Myers' detailed article on the "Wallet" topic) that Barrett did talk with police officers, including Captain W.R. Westbrook, about the names "Oswald" and "Hidell" a little later at DPD Headquarters, that fact tells me that Barrett's 1996 chronology of exactly when he first heard the names "Oswald" and "Hidell" might just be a little muddled. But, Jim, if you want, just keep believing that there was an "Oswald wallet" found at the Tippit murder site (either a real one or a "planted" one), even though such a belief makes absolutely no sense at all even for CTers, since none of the officers who were supposedly FRAMING Oswald ever said a word about finding such a wallet at the Tippit murder scene (even though those officers should have been salivating at the prospect of adding Oswald's wallet and I.D. cards to the pile of things they were framing him with). And your habit of failing to see the forest for the trees is even more "astonishing". You must be kidding. Of course I'm leaving it up. Because when it comes to the topic of "Was There A Bullet Found In The Grass In Dealey Plaza On 11/22/63?", my webpage devoted to that topic is most certainly one that has the facts concerning that topic. For there can be no doubt (after reading the newspaper citations and other source material relating to Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers that are included on my webpage here) that the answer to that "Was A Bullet Found?" question is No.

And, of course, that alleged l-i-a-r is the very same Robert M. Barrett that so many conspiracy theorists (including James DiEugenio of Los Angeles) love so dearly when it comes to the "Oswald Wallet" topic. Interesting, huh?

Well, OK. That's totally reasonable for such an excellent piece of well-researched journalism then. But I wouldn't go as high as five clams for it. [ EDIT --- Obligatory ----> ]

BTW, does it REALLY cost $5 (U.S.) to buy that Enquirer rag?! Egads!

Yeah, Ron, that photo showing the man allegedly picking up a bullet has been discussed at forums for many years. In actuality, of course, there was no "bullet" recovered from the grass in Dealey Plaza. Here's my webpage covering that subject: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-927.html

And the audio on the Nix and Muchmore films is even better --- because it's in 7.1 Surround Sound!

Actually, it's utter silliness, Micah. It's a desperate attempt by a CTer to add an element of perceived "conspiracy" into the JFK murder case. But the partially torn dollar bill means (and, more importantly, PROVES) nothing.

I don't have the slightest idea. But, as I said, such a "pledge" (as you like to call it) by Vince Bugliosi is really a No-Win proposition for Vince, for the reason I stated previously. Because there's always going to be a potential CTer popping up out of the woodwork in the future who could say that Vince didn't honor his "pledge". For example, let's say that the loony Brian David Andersen (the author of the "JFK Faked His Own Death" theory) pops up tomorrow and complains about Vince not thoroughly debunking his crazy theory about JFK exploding a pyrotechnics device on his head. Any number of insane theories (and maybe even some that aren't quite as insane as Andersen's fantasy) could have been added to Bugliosi's long book. But Vince (and his publisher) knew his book had to come to an end sometime. Not every nutty conspiracy theory could be explored in-depth and debunked individually to the satisfaction of CTers. (What could ever "satisfy" a CTer anyway? I know of nothing that could accomplish that task.) Another example of how a CTer's outer-fringe theory doesn't really even deserve to be included in a book like Reclaiming History (and I don't think it was included by Vince in his book, come to think of it) is a theory that you, Jim, put your full support behind and have for years --- the theory of how Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle (with the help of the evil DPD) just MADE UP the story about seeing Lee Oswald carrying any kind of a long-ish brown paper bag on the morning of 11/22/63. Now if you truly think that THAT "No Bag At All" theory is one that Vincent Bugliosi should have attempted to debunk in any fashion in his book, then you've gone off the deep end. Because that kind of crackpot fringe theory---along with the equally-as-nonsensical "Marrion Baker Never Really Encountered Lee Harvey Oswald In The Lunchroom At All" theory---only deserves to be laughed at (IMO).

Excuse me while I turn my head and upchuck after reading DiEugenio's anti-Bugliosi slop. ~yack~ With respect to the 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders which Vince Bugliosi prosecuted in Los Angeles, CLICK HERE for a brief glimpse at some of the preposterous things that Mr. DiEugenio endorses concerning that murder case. Replaying some previous Internet discussions concerning Vincent T. Bugliosi.... JIM DiEUGENIO SAID : I...showed...that Bugliosi could not be trusted since he said upfront that he would present the critics' arguments as they would want them presented. I then showed this was not at all the case. In other words, Vince was passing gas making that claim. I spend five pages in the intro to Reclaiming Parkland demonstrating how Bugliosi violated his own pledge. Therefore, how could the book be trusted? Now, go over to Davey's site and see if he notes this false claim in RH. Nope. DVP SAID (IN JULY 2015) : In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case "as the critics would present it", Vince would have had to touch base with every single CTer who has ever posted on the Internet (or who has ever written one of the hundreds of books on the case), because almost every CTer has at least a slightly different theory or approach to the evidence in the case. A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the conspiracy theorists themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some CTer out there who will be able to say (after reading Bugliosi's book) -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a l-i-a-r! He didn't present THIS part of the case in the exact way I think it should have been presented, and therefore I get to call Vince a cheat and a l-i-a-r. It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("present the case as conspiracists want it presented"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even if he had written 10,000 pages instead of just 2,800. But I, myself, think Vince did just fine in debunking virtually all of the major conspiracy theories connected with the JFK murder case. Many CTers, quite naturally, will vehemently disagree with me. Well, so be it. ------------------------ DVP SAID (ON JULY 10, 2015) : The fact remains that Vince Bugliosi, in his huge tome "Reclaiming History", has proven Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt at least ten times over. The question of whether or not Oswald was involved in ANY type of conspiracy can never, of course, be answered with 100% certainty (and I've said that very thing myself in the past; and if you want my direct quotes, I'll be happy to dig them up). But I agree with Vince when he said.... "In the [John F.] Kennedy case, I believe the absence of a conspiracy can be proved to a virtual certainty." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 973 of "Reclaiming History"

I, too, have a question for Vince Palamara (and I promise not to "derail" this Jim DiEugenio Lovefest Thread after this one question).... Vince, Can you give me just one single example of something that Lee Harvey Oswald did or said on either November 21st or November 22nd, 1963, that would indicate (even in a very small way) that he was involved in any kind of a conspiracy with any other person (or persons) with respect to the assassination of JFK or the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit? Thank you.

Also see this Dale Myers article: http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2014/03/solving-tippit-murders-wallet-mystery.html

From Vincent Bugliosi's book.... "One thing we can be reasonably certain about: the wallet was not Oswald’s. [Dale] Myers closely compared a close-up photo of Oswald’s arrest wallet 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. [...] If I had to wager, I’d conclude it was Tippit’s wallet, and the reason [Ron] Reiland stated, on WFAA film, that it was Tippit’s wallet is that the police had informed him at the scene that it was. 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." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 454 and 456 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

So, the Dallas cops supposedly find Oswald's wallet at the scene of Tippit's murder, and then those same cops decide not to say a single word about finding that wallet --- even though such a piece of evidence is virtual proof that Oswald was at the Tippit murder scene. And, remember, according to many CTers, Oswald is the same guy these same cops were supposedly FRAMING for Tippit's murder all along. Is that about the size of this insane situation? That's about the most ridiculous reasoning I've ever heard. The virtual proof that the wallet was definitely NOT Lee Oswald's is the fact that no police officer said a word about it right after Tippit's murder. So how can anybody -- even a conspiracy believer -- possibly believe this wallet belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald?.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/wallets-part-1.html

I really don't think Lee Oswald thought---deep down---that he would actually have a chance to use his Mannlicher-Carcano on the President that day. Yes, he took his rifle to work with the hope in his mind of somehow being able to secrete himself somewhere within the Depository at the precise moment when Kennedy drove past the building. But he probably also realized as he was driving to work that morning with Buell Frazier that the odds of being able to successfully conceal himself from the view of everyone else in the building (i.e., being able to have an entire warehouse floor of the TSBD all to himself at just exactly the appropriate minutes before, during, and just after the President drove by the building) were very small odds indeed. But, as Oswald's incredible luck would have it (and even though he picked a floor--the sixth--that had MORE than the usual number of employees working on it throughout the entire morning that day, due to the floor-laying project that was occurring on that floor), Lee had the good fortune of having the entire sixth floor all to himself at precisely the time he desperately needed to have it all to himself---between 12:20 and 12:31 PM. It's always been my opinion that if Bonnie Ray Williams had decided to stay on the sixth floor, instead of moving down to the 5th floor at about 12:20, then JFK would not have been shot at all....because (IMO) Oswald wouldn't risk firing at the President if he knew for certain that somebody else was on that same sixth floor just a few feet away. And if somehow he was able to pull off the shooting in total secrecy (which he was), I doubt if Lee thought he would live very long beyond 12:30. Hence, I don't think he cared too much about having a lot of money on him when he departed Ruth Paine's house on November 22.* * Yes, I know that that last part about Lee thinking he wouldn't be long for this world if he shot the President is likely to be considered inconsistent with the portion of my theory which has Oswald not taking the risk of shooting if Bonnie Ray remained on the sixth floor. CTers can fire back with: But, David, if he didn't think he'd get away alive, then why would he care if anyone else was up there with him to finger him for the crime? Fair point (if someone wants to make it). But I think it's quite clear that Oswald did have a desire to continue living beyond 11/22/63. That fact is very clear to me when looking at Oswald's actions after 12:30 PM on November 22 --- e.g., fleeing the building within minutes of the assassination, taking a cab to get back to his roominghouse (a very out-of-the-ordinary mode of transportation for Oswald), arming himself with a pistol and at least 15 rounds of ammunition within 30 minutes of JFK being shot, and then committing a second murder a few minutes later when he encountered Officer Tippit. Having a desire to survive the aftermath of the assassination, vs. thinking he will survive, are two different things entirely. I would guess that Lee Harvey Oswald was probably very surprised that he was afforded the ideal opportunity to shoot at President Kennedy from a totally vacant sixth floor of his workplace and still live to see another sunrise. IMHO. YMMV.

Ron B., It's interesting how CTers can conveniently turn all the evidence around into a theory that "maybe Oswald knew something about a operation he had been told about, not necessarily an assassination, that he had a maybe minor role in" [Ron Bulman quote]. OSWALD brings the rifle into the TSBD (despite the protests of CTers who deny this fact). OSWALD lies to Buell Frazier (and the police) about the "curtain rods" that LHO says were in the package. OSWALD has no believable (or provable) alibi for 12:30 PM on 11/22. OSWALD'S prints are all over the Sniper's Nest (the location of JFK's killer). OSWALD shoots and kills J.D. Tippit shortly after leaving the TSBD. OSWALD did numerous "odd" and "out of the ordinary" things on both November 21st and 22nd. And yet CTers will come up with every excuse in the book in order to defend Lee Oswald for TWO murders. I can only wonder WHY they continue to do this, given the evidence that unquestionably ALL LEADS TO ONE MAN named Oswald. That might be the biggest "mystery" in this whole case. And to think ALL the evidence against Oswald is phony or manufactured----please----that's a sign of sheer desperation utilized by conspiracy theorists like Barry Scheck, Johnnie Cochran, and F. Lee Bailey --- i.e., defense attorneys who have no choice BUT to argue such wholesale fakery in order for their client to have even a slim chance of being exonerated.

.........

But in order to be totally fair to Mr. Steve Thomas with regard to his previous post when he said that Lee Oswald "gave all his money to Marina", perhaps we should cut Steve some slack and assume that Steve probably wasn't talking about every last coin that Lee had in his pants pockets on 11/22/63. Steve could have just been referring to "folding" currency. But, of course, even if that's what he was referring to, he would still be wrong, because Oswald did not leave behind all of his paper money on the dresser at Ruth Paine's house on November 22nd either. He still had $13 on him at the time of his arrest. Speaking of the topic of "Oswald's Cash On Hand On 11/22/63"..... I've always noticed that the Warren Commission overlooked one very small purchase that Lee Oswald made on Nov. 22 --- the Coke purchase from the Depository lunchroom. The WC, in its very detailed anaylsis of Oswald's finances in Appendix XIV of the Warren Report, failed to mention anything about Oswald's probable Coca-Cola purchase on 11/22/63. It's possible, however, that Oswald didn't actually purchase the Coke at all. He could have possibly grabbed an open Coke bottle off of one of the tables inside the lunchroom just after his encounter with Marrion Baker and Roy Truly. But, IMO, the thing that suggests that Oswald probably did buy the Coke is the fact that there is testimony from Mrs. Robert Reid which indicates the Coke she saw Oswald holding was a "full" bottle of Coke [see 3 H 278], versus it being a "used" bottle left on a table by someone else. So, if Oswald did, in fact, buy the Coca-Cola with his own money on Nov. 22, it means that Lee left the Paine house that morning with a total of $15.20 in his pockets. His expenditures on Nov. 22nd would have included the Coke (10 cents), the short bus ride on Cecil McWatters' bus (23 cents), and the ride to Oak Cliff in William Whaley's taxicab ($1.00, including the 5-cent tip). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some of my miscellanous thoughts.... Lee Harvey Oswald leaving behind the money and his ring doesn't PROVE he shot the President, of course. But the TOTALITY of unusual things he did on November 21st and 22nd certainly indicate that Friday, November 22, 1963, was not just an ordinary regular work day for Lee Harvey Oswald. For example: 1.) Visiting his wife at Ruth Paine's house on a THURSDAY instead of his normal FRIDAY. 2.) Leaving Marina $170 and his wedding ring (in tandem) -- which left only approximately $15 in Lee's pockets when he left the Paine house on November 22 (and, remember, per Buell Wesley Frazier, Lee was not planning on returning to Irving on Friday night). 3.) Telling Marina to "take as much money as I [Marina] needed and to buy everything", which was highly unusual for the penny-pinching Mr. Oswald, according to his wife. 4.) Telling co-worker Buell Wesley Frazier he was going to Irving to get some curtain rods at the Paine house, which we know was a lie (based on the preponderance of evidence and testimony that proves it was a lie). 5.) Taking a large paper package into work with him on Nov. 22. 6.) Taking no lunch to work on Nov. 22, which was very unusual (per Buell Frazier's testimony). And when we add in the evidence of Oswald's guilt that was discovered AFTER the assassination, then what do all of these things suggest--in combination with one another? Do they suggest the actions of an innocent patsy? Or do they suggest the actions of a person who had a one-man plan to murder the President? Mr. Spence, your witness.

And the bus ride? And the Coke?

The above post by James DiEugenio is, of course, pure crap. Jim knows as well as I do that the fact that Oswald didn't pay for his cheap movie theater ticket had absolutely nothing to do with his eventual arrest. And as far as I am aware, there hasn't been a single "Lone Nutter" in the 54-year history of Lone Nutterism (including myself) who has ever once put forth the idea that Oswald's failure to pay for a movie ticket was the key factor in his eventual apprehension at the Texas Theater. That ridiculous myth has been sponsored solely by the conspiracy theorists and nobody else. The fact is, of course, that the testimony of Julia Postal below is the key factor that prompted the Dallas Police to quickly respond to the Texas Theater, and it always has been the key factor, regardless of the "Didn't Buy A Ticket" smokescreen erected by conspiracy theorists (emphasis by DVP).... "I called the police, and he wanted to know why I thought it was their man, and I said, "Well, I didn't know," and he said, "Well, it fits the description," and I have not---I said I hadn't heard the description. All I know is, "This man is running from them for some reason." And he wanted to know why, and told him because every time the sirens go by, he would duck." -- Julia Postal

Beats me. But it's probably because those reports are very short and brief synopses type reports. I wouldn't expect every single detail (and every word that came out of Oswald's mouth) to be printed up in such a brief overview.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/tippit-timelines.html The only way a jury would have acquitted Oswald in the Tippit murder is if the entire jury was comprised of the "OJ Twelve" (the same dimwitted jury which let Simpson go free). The evidence against Oswald in the Tippit murder is so strong and foolproof, no sensible person would have any trouble at all convicting him. 1.) The many "It Was Oswald With A Gun" witnesses. 2.) The bullet shells. 3.) Joseph Nicol's testimony too (don't totally dismiss this). 4.) Oswald's incredibly incriminating statements made to Officer C.T. Walker in the police car. 5.) And the clincher--Oswald still had the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM just half-an-hour after Tippit was killed. Even with some anomalies and discrepancies in the timelines and the "Remington" vs. "Winchester" bullet shells, the totality of evidence hangs Oswald for Tippit's murder and always has. And anyone saying otherwise just flat-out does not want to face the reality that exists within that "totality" of evidence.

But, Jim, the subject of the elder Tippit's "mental faculties" wasn't even an issue UNTIL 2013. It was only THEN, in 2013, that it became an issue after McBride's book came out. (And, btw, Edgar Tippit was 90 years old in 1992.) Quoting Dale Myers.... "According to McBride, J.D. Tippit and another officer were ordered to track down Oswald in Oak Cliff just fifteen minutes after the assassination – before police could possibly have known about Oswald’s link to the assassination. This, according to McBride, is proof positive that Tippit was part of a police plot to kill Kennedy and then murder his alleged assassin. The sole basis for McBride’s claim is his December 1992 interview with J.D.’s ninety-year-old father Edgar Lee Tippit. McBride describes Mr. Tippit as “vigorous” and “very sharp” with a memory “that seemed very good,” although I’m not sure how McBride could gauge the sharpness of the elder Tippit’s memory given this was his only interview of him. The reality is that Mr. Tippit’s family had already begun to notice the onset of dementia by 1990, which was full blown only a few years later. Edgar Lee Tippit’s father – J.D.’s paternal grandfather – also suffered from the same affliction." -- Dale Myers; Nov. 2013 http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-good-bad-and-ugly-new-and-updated.html

I really don't have an opinion one way or the other concerning the topic of whether Tippit was "more intelligent and capable and savvier" than some people have said. But, in any event, even if it's true, that seems like a mighty thin foundation on which to build a conspiracy plot.