David Von Pein

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The best witnesses to prove Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder are, IMO, the two Davis girls, who each IDed Oswald later that day [11/22/63] in a lineup. And they each saw LHO dumping shells out of a REVOLVER. (Ergo, the killer was not armed with an "automatic", which would be foolish in this case anyway, since--per CTers--they were trying to "frame" good ol' Lee Harvey for this 2nd murder too; so why would they frame him with an automatic when the patsy didn't own such a weapon?)

Barbara Davis Affidavit

Virginia Davis Affidavit

There is no safe hiding place for the conspiracy theorists in the Tippit case. Oswald left his calling card at the scene, and was positively identified by multiple witnesses (either doing the shooting or fleeing the area immediately afterward).

No amount of conspiracy spin will exonerate Lee Oswald for J.D. Tippit's slaying.

Just the fact that Oswald was in the area of the crime, brandishing a pistol and fighting with police, within 35 minutes of Officer Tippit being shot is very powerful circumstantial evidence of his guilt right there.

And when we add in the undeniable fact that the gun Oswald was holding in the theater WAS the Tippit murder weapon (based on firearms tests that positively link the four bullet shells at 10th & Patton to Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver #V510210), then nothing more needs to be said to prove Oswald's guilt.

But maybe the conspiracy theorists think that someone ELSE (who was a dead ringer for Oswald) used LHO's gun to kill Tippit, and then this real killer somehow got Oswald to take back his gun in the next 35 minutes before Oswald was arrested. And then Oswald felt like killing some cops in the movie theater. (Yeah, that's a theory any jury would buy, isn't it?)

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Ah, those Davis ladies, who definitely saw Oswald but somehow could not get the color of his jacket right, not even agreeing with each other.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The Davis girls weren't focusing mainly on Oswald's JACKET, for Pete sake. They were focusing on his FACE and WHAT HE WAS DOING -- i.e., dumping shells out of a revolver just a few feet away from each of the Davis girls' faces.

The "jacket" was certainly a secondary thing on the minds of Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis during those very few brief seconds they were looking at J.D. Tippit's killer.

But, once again, chaff always trumps wheat in a CTer's field of absurdity. In other words, the differing JACKET descriptions positively (somehow) mean that Oswald wasn't the killer. And a POSITIVE I.D. at the police station by both Davis girls means nothing in the world of many CTers.

Brilliant!


BEN HOLMES SAID:

This boggles the mind... the EASIEST thing for humans to spot is the color of someone's clothing. It's the LARGEST OBJECT in view, and quickly categorized.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Therefore, per Holmes' logic here about the jacket colors, EVERY witness who said the jacket of the fleeing gunman was a DIFFERENT color (or shade) really saw DIFFERENT gun-toting people. Barbara Davis saw someone DIFFERENT than her sister-in-law. And Ted Callaway saw yet another different person (because of the jacket, which could never be misidentified in color by ANY witness because, per Ben, it's the "largest object in view"). [LOL break.]

Discussion continued here....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-725.html

James DiEugenio said:

If the reader recalls, [Gerald] Hill was the policeman who first reported from the Tippit scene that the shells fired there were from an automatic.

[...]

The delay in getting the shells on the inventory list and the failure to send all the ammunition exhibits promptly to the FBI has led some to suspect that the police fiddled with the evidence—to the extent that it suggests that the original weapon perhaps really was an automatic.

But regardless of anything that was ever said by DPD Sergeant Jerry Hill, and regardless of any "delay" in sending any bullet shells to the FBI, when we examine what the multiple eyewitnesses at 10th & Patton said about the gunman DUMPING SHELLS out of his gun as he fled the scene of the crime, and when we think about WHERE the four bullet shells were actually found (which was many yards away from where the murder actually occurred, with the murder occurring right next to Tippit's police car, which is a location where NO bullet shells were recovered), then the idea of the Tippit murder weapon really being an "automatic" becomes a virtual impossibility.

And I don't think even any hardened conspiracy theorist has enough gall to call ALL of the various witnesses liars who verified the aspects of the Tippit case I just talked about---i.e., the "Shell Dumping" witnesses (Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, Sam Guinyard) and the "Shells Were Found Near The Corner Of Tenth & Patton" witnesses (Domingo Benavides, Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis).

More:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/oliver-stone-and-jd-tippit.html

Two interviews on 11/22/63 with Gerald Hill:

James DiEugenio said:

I thought the Tippit case merited a new look considering the appearance of the McBride book, which has not gotten enough attention I think.

And also some work by other people like Armstrong and Simpich and Mike Griffith, who is also relatively ignored.  In my view, the Tippit case has been taken to a new plateau.

How anyone can read Croy's story and keep a straight face is beyond me.  Due to the work of these writers, the Tippit case looks very suspicious today.

That anyone in the 21st century can have even a shred of a doubt about Lee Harvey Oswald's painfully obvious guilt in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit is beyond me. (But I'm certainly not surprised that another Oswald Didn't Do It thread would pop up here at EF Conspiracy Central.)

In short, we have the BEST possible COMBINATION of evidence that hangs Oswald in the Tippit case ---

1. Physical (ballistics) evidence left behind at the murder scene by the one and only gunman. (With the murderer---Oswald---being kind enough to HANG ONTO that gun after the crime, instead of chucking it in a dumpster in the alley behind Jefferson Boulevard someplace. Thank you for that, Lee.)

--and--

2. A multiplicity of witnesses who positively identified Lee Oswald as the one and only person who shot Officer Tippit or fled the scene (gun in hand) immediately after the shooting.*

* And the people, like Mark Lane, who don't even consider William Scoggins to be a good witness to the murder itself are highly delusional (and they should know why without me even mentioning the reasons).

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

"Just having Lee Oswald in the general area of the crime, with a gun, and acting "funny" and obviously avoiding the police is a good hunk of circumstantial evidence leading to his guilt right there. Where does the road of common sense take a reasonable person when JUST the above after-the-shooting activity of Lee Harvey Oswald is examined objectively? It sure doesn't lead to total innocence, I'll tell ya that right now. (Especially when the stuff that went on inside the movie theater is factored in as well.) In a nutshell, this murder boils down to the following concrete fact (based on the overall weight of the evidence that surrounds the crime): If Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill J.D. Tippit -- then J.D. Tippit wasn't killed at all. Maybe it was all some kind of "Bobby Was In The Shower" type of dream or something instead."

-- David Von Pein; October 2006

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

Evidence Galore.....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Kenneth+Croy

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

JFK's appearances at the White House Correspondents Dinners in 1961 and '62....

1961 --- https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B294SBAT_oH6VUhybWdQTFhJSnc/view

1962 --- https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B294SBAT_oH6cWNJZUJnMjVlcVE/view

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

...when is he [Jason Ward] going to explain why [it's] the wrong rifle[?]

Or maybe he will just defer us to Von Pein.

DiEugenio, of course, knows full well what the logical and reasonable answer is to his perpetual "Wrong Rifle" BS. It's been explained to him dozens of times. But he'll continue to pretend that it's an explanation that makes no sense at all --- even though it makes perfect sense, especially when we consider what length of rifle Klein's started selling to its mail-order customers in April of 1963, very shortly after Oswald purchased his gun from Klein's....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

15 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

I beg to differ.  I have never knowingly intentionally lied on here to promote a theory.

Ron,

I think Jason was talking about about how "everybody lies" in life in general. I don't think Jason was implying that any forum member here was lying about anything. He was referring to "lies" that we all tell from time to time in our ordinary lives (and in front of authority figures as well).

Is that a correct interpretation of what you meant, Jason?

(BTW/FWIW, "Reclaiming History" author Vince Bugliosi has said basically the same thing that Jason Ward said above regarding the "Everybody Lies" topic. Such a passage can probably be found in Vincent's book, and I know I heard him say it in some of his 2007 radio interviews too.)

6 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

David - how do you square FBI scouring gun shops for a Carcano when the rifle was first identified by Dallas Police as a Mauser?  

The police officers who said they thought it was a Mauser did not get a good close-up look at the rifle at the time they made their initial observations. They were guessing. Simple as that.

And in case Roger Craig's name should come up here....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/10/The Lies Of Roger D. Craig

1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

This in my count is version #3 of how they came to determine the rifle came from Klein's.

[...]

The appearance of manufactured evidence and chaotic, ludicrous explanations like this one from Pinkston is all over the place.

But keep in mind, Jason, that the Nat Pinkston quote previously supplied is a quote from July of 2007. That makes it 44 years after the events took place, and Pinkston is trying to recall every small detail. He likely got a few details wrong. But, essentially, his 2007 account is fairly accurate with respect to how the FBI first was made aware of Klein's in Chicago (with Dallas FBI agents scouring local gun shops to try and find a store that might have sold the Italian-made rifle). Pinkston, however, left out one of the steps that led the FBI to Klein's---Crescent Firearms in New York. But, again, it's 44 years after the fact (per that document posted above by David Josephs), so I'd cut Pinkston a tiny bit of slack on some of the details. Wouldn't you?

Someone might ask --- But, Dave, how could Pinkston possibly get things so mixed up--even 44 years after the fact? And why didn't he mention Crescent Firearms, etc.?

Well, you just never know how a person's memory of an event is going to be recalled so many years later. A good example of this would be when Buell Wesley Frazier decided (for some reason) to start adding things to his story in about 2002. Frazier, at that time in '02, started saying in interviews [like this one] that he had actually seen Lee Oswald walking down Houston Street shortly after the assassination, which is a detail that completely contradicts what Frazier said in his 11/22/63 affidavit. And I don't think for a minute that Buell Frazier is a deliberate l-i-a-r at all. But, for some odd reason, that extra info about seeing Oswald out on the street at about 12:35 to 12:40 on Nov. 22nd has now surfaced every time Buell is interviewed. ~shrug~

41 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

But the shells didn't match.

The 4 shells Oswald dumped from Revolver V510210 at 10th & Patton perfectly matched the gun that was taken from Oswald in the theater.

Or are you talking about the "Winchester/Remington" mismatch when comparing the shells to the bullets in Tippit's body? If so, I think it's quite possible that Oswald fired 5 shots at Officer Tippit, with one bullet missing Tippit entirely and never being recovered (along with one missing shell as well).

From a post I wrote on this "shells" subject in 2012....

"Obviously what happened is this: Lee Harvey Oswald shot J.D. Tippit with Smith & Wesson revolver #V510210, and after firing four (or perhaps five) bullets at Tippit, Oswald ran (or walked briskly) toward the corner of Tenth & Patton. When he reached the corner, Oswald began to unload the empty shells from his revolver, with two of the shells falling to the ground on Tenth Street (very near the corner itself), with the other two shells coming out of the gun after Oswald had reached the side yard of the Davis apartment building (see page 266 of [Dale Myers'] "With Malice").

The above scenario of Oswald's shell-dumping is also perfectly consistent with the known characteristics of Lee Oswald's V510210 revolver, which is a gun that would result in bulged (or slightly expanded) cartridge cases after bullets were fired through the rechambered revolver. Which means the shells would have a tendency to stick in the chamber, resulting in additional effort being required by any gunman attempting to manually remove the shells from the weapon (see page 258 of "With Malice").

This "sticky shells" situation was almost certainly the case with Oswald's revolver on November 22, 1963, at 10th & Patton, with the shells being a bit difficult for Oswald to remove from the gun all at once. Hence, there were two shells found near the corner on Tenth Street, while the other two shells were found around the corner in the Davises' side yard.

It's also quite possible that the "sticky" nature of Oswald's bullet shells could be the reason that only four shells were recovered at the Tippit murder scene (with the possibility existing that Oswald actually fired five bullets at Officer Tippit, with one bullet missing the target).

If Oswald did, indeed, fire five shots at Tippit (which can never be proven, of course), instead of just four shots, then it's possible that the fifth bullet shell was simply lost to history, never having been recovered by anyone after the shooting.

The above scenario is somewhat buttressed by the testimony of eyewitness Sam Guinyard, who watched Oswald flee the scene of Tippit's murder from Ted Callaway's car lot.

Guinyard told the Warren Commission that he saw Oswald "knocking empty shells out of his pistol", although it's a little unclear exactly where Oswald was located when Guinyard saw him removing the shells. It's possible Guinyard was only referring to Oswald kicking out shells near the corner of 10th & Patton. But it's also possible that Guinyard saw Oswald still in the process of dumping shells out of the gun when Oswald was much further down Patton Avenue.

And if the latter situation is true, then it's quite conceivable that Oswald could have removed at least one bullet shell from his revolver when he was near the corner of Patton and Jefferson Boulevard. And we know that no bullet shells were recovered that far away from where J.D. Tippit was killed." -- David Von Pein; January 7, 2012

10 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

There is absolutely no proof REA ever shipped a gun to him [Oswald] or Hidell...

You must be joking. The Seaport Traders & REA paper trails are extensive, and provide conclusive proof (via their paperwork) that Revolver V510210 was shipped to "Hidell" in March '63.

Is all this paperwork supposedly phony too?....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html

Plus, Oswald was caught with the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM on 11/22. So why anyone even CARES about where or when Oswald INITIALLY gained possession of the revolver eight months earlier is something I fail to completely understand. I think the priorities of CTers regarding the topic of Oswald's pistol are misguided (to say the least).

11 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Has anyone else ever read anything about Oswald telling one of the cops he bought his pistol at a pawn shop in Fort Worth?  Or is my memory playing tricks on me?

Yes, Ron. Oswald uttered that "Fort Worth" lie to Captain Will Fritz (see Warren Report; Page 606). Oswald didn't say "pawn shop", however (per Fritz' report).

That was one of many lies told by Oswald on Nov. 22 and 23, 1963. Here's my list of LHO's lies (in two parts)...

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/The Lies Of Oswald (Part 1)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/The Lies Of Oswald (Part 2)

3 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Marina Oswald's first interview had her not knowing that rifles with scopes on them existed.

And on the afternoon of 11/22/63, when the police asked Marina (through Ruth Paine) if Lee Oswald owned a rifle, Marina Oswald took the police immediately into the garage and pointed to the blanket roll on the floor.

And....

[Quoting Marina Oswald:]

"I was very nervous that day when I took the [backyard] pictures. I can't remember how many I took, but I know I took them and that is what is important. It would be easier if I said I never took them, but that is not the truth." -- Marina Oswald-Porter; Early 1990s
 

FYI / FWIW,

If anybody wants the links from my Web archives that pretty much destroy all of Jim DiEugenio's ludicrous theories regarding Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle and revolver purchases, let me know. I've got dozens of them at the ready.

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

...Magic Handwriting®...

[...]

...the bogus “documentation” for the Magic Rifle®...

[...]

...the key was the Magic Money Order®...

[...]

...an all new money order was needed to incriminate the Designated Patsy...

The strange things CTers will believe. Amazing.

(And why isn't there an ® symbol to accompany your make-believe "Designated Patsy"? A shocking oversight!)

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Interesting, though, that the Bureau worked so hard to hide the fact it had confiscated Klein’s microfilm—preferring to let people believe it was safely locked away at Klein’s!

Yeah, that must be why the FBI wrote up Commission Document No. 75, which plainly states that William J. Waldman relinquished control of the microfilm on 11/23/63 to the FBI, with Waldman himself saying that very thing in his Warren Commission testimony.

Waldman also put his initials on the cardboard box containing the microfilm (FBI Exhibit D-77 / Waldman Exhibit No. 6). And the date "11-23-63" appears twice on the cardboard box as well....

CD75 also plainly says that Waldman made available the microfilm "from a safe in his control", which perfectly aligns with the earlier FBI FD-302 report we find in CD7.

And when examining both reports (CD7 vs. CD75), we see that the EXACT same detailed information is provided in both reports regarding the things that were found on the Klein's "Order Blank" (which would become Waldman No. 7) -- e.g., the transaction number, the VC number, the C2766 serial number, the March 20th date, etc.

All info is identical in both FBI reports, one of which (CD7) was written prior to the FBI taking the microfilm from Waldman/Klein's; with the second report (CD75) being prepared after the FBI took control of the microfilm from Klein's.

CTers like John Armstrong evidently think that BOTH of those FBI reports are false and full of lies regarding the things the FBI agents saw on the Order Blank provided by Klein's. But in reality, the truth is:

William Waldman kept possession of the microfilm in his safe for just a very short period of time on 11/23/63 (certainly no more than a few hours) before he turned it over to the FBI that very same day. CD7 precedes CD75 as far as the chronological order of the reports. And if you're a person who isn't prone to thinking the FBI faked everything imaginable concerning the JFK case, then CD7 -- all by itself -- provides the written proof that Klein's Sporting Goods most definitely had in its possession on November 23, 1963, an internal "Order Blank" for a 6.5-mm. Italian rifle (Serial # C2766) that was shipped by Klein's to "A. Hidell" in Dallas on 3/20/63.

That should be enough, right there, for all reasonable people to stamp this mystery "Solved".

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jfk-assassination-wlw-radio.html

A close examination of events shows that the FBI was just making up stories for a week following the assassination, before settling on the final legend.

That's total nonsense, Jim.

As I have mentioned in previous discussions, there are very sensible and logical (and non-sinister) explanations for the initial inaccurate reports concerning the details of the Hidell/Oswald rifle purchase -- particularly the confusion that arose from the "$12.78" figure and the "March 20" date.

But to an Internet conspiracy theorist, however, virtually everything done by Officialdom is looked at as being part of some secretive and underhanded plot. So silly.

I think more conspiracy believers should embrace Hanlon's Razor....

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

James DiEugenio said:

...the idea that somehow Klein's had to be involved in the plot is so silly that I don't even think you really believe it.

Given the fact that Klein's internal paperwork (Waldman #7) and a Klein's-produced microfilm for the order form for a rifle (Commission Exhibit #773) and the detailed testimony of Klein's Vice President William J. Waldman all play an integral and key role in the "Rifle Evidence" against Lee Harvey Oswald, I can't see any reasonable way for Klein's Sporting Goods Company of Chicago, Illinois, to NOT be "involved in the plot" that conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio have invented for themselves.

Good gosh, the key and relevant rifle documents (CE773 and Waldman Exhibit No. 7) were, in fact, found in the Klein's files in Chicago, and were found by Klein's employees themselves early in the morning of 11/23/63.

But, incredibly, per conspiracy fantasists like Mr. DiEugenio, we're supposed to believe that there was really no such legitimate "Hidell" order form for Rifle C2766 found in the Klein's files at all! --- because Jim doesn't think Oswald/Hidell really ordered ANY rifle from Klein's at any time!

Talk about believing in something "silly". The "Oswald Never Ordered A Rifle At All" nonsense would certainly be it. And I don't see how any such ridiculous theory could possibly NOT include at least a few Klein's employees who must have been privy to the "plot". Maybe James D. can explain how that could have happened.

On 4/24/2018 at 4:51 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

...the Magic Money Order®...

[...]

...the Magic Rifle®...

[...]

...the Magic Bullet®...

You're kidding, right?

12 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Oswald Did NOT Purchase a Rifle from Kleins

and 

MAIL ORDER RIFLE

It's time once again to play Dueling External Links....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html

and

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#Guns-Backyard-Photos-And-Other-Evidence

15 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Sorry, we barely submit anything in paper form anymore and although I recall bulk transfers from earlier in my career, I don't have any details to share.   I respond to you because you have a grip on rational thought -however- the whole topic should be at most two posts long: a non-banker asking for a banker's opinion followed by an answer in the next post.  If you don't believe ME, ok, simply print out the back of the money order and bring it to your bank and ask if this is a valid endorsement.   The fact is with a large commercial depositor, no one at any stage of processing is checking the endorsement - it could be a scribble, it could be in Chinese, it could be missing entirely.   The endorsement means almost nothing (in this case), likewise any "missing" endorsement or ABA number means nothing.   The Fed promulgated guidelines and has since time began never enforced them in routine daily transactions.  Then and now processing occurs without signatures, with missing dates, and with all kinds of arguably invalid attributes.   To imagine Klein's is in on the assassination is why CTers are seen as the lunatic fringe.

Imagining you can read a tiny snippet of federal regulations and become an expert on check processing without any bank experience is ridiculous.

Thanks for your response, Jason. I'll be sure to add it to my mile-long "Money Order" webpage [linked again below].

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/The Hidell Money Order

Perhaps banker Jason Ward can shed some light on the concept of "cash letters" and "bulk transfers" of U.S. Postal Money Orders.