David Von Pein

57 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

David, it's a simple question...

DVP? Do you really think that Ruby acted spontaneously, out of sorrow for the Kennedy family?

Whatever Ruby's motive might have been (and it was never proven exactly what that motive might have been), there's no question (in my mind anyway) that Ruby's actions and movements on 11/24/63 were positively "spontaneous" and unplanned. The timing of Karen Carlin's 10:19 AM phone call and the sending of the Western Union telegram at 11:17 AM are two things that indicate the "unplanned" nature of Ruby's murder of Oswald that day....with both of those things occurring AFTER the scheduled (and announced) 10:00 AM transfer of Lee Oswald.

As much as it might LOOK (on the surface) like a "Mob hit" on Oswald in the Dallas police basement, given the details of Jack Ruby's movements and actions and phone calls on the morning of November 24th, I cannot see any way to wedge a pre-planned conspiracy into Ruby's activities that day.

51 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't think DVP understands what I am talking about.

If such a thing would have been natural for Ruby, he would not have disguised himself as he did nor interjected himself into the discussion. Thereby drawing attention to himself.

I think you're overstating Jack's "disguise".

Also -- Why didn't Ruby kill Oswald at the midnight press conference on Friday night? He said he had his gun on him at that time. Why wait till Sunday?

Quote

As per Robert Blakey, he has always maintained the SBF.  And he does to this day.

So you are saying that since he thinks Ruby stalked LHO and killed him for the Mob, that is being a Conspiracy Theorist?

Yes. Of course it is. Without question.

Blakey, in fact, believes in a pretty massive conspiracy surrounding not only the murder of JFK (by the Mob), but the murder of Oswald (by the Mob, via Ruby). If that's not enough to classify Mr. Blakey as a "conspiracy theorist", then what would be enough?

More of my thoughts regarding Jack Ruby....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-673.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/wade-interviews-arranged-by-jack-ruby.html

James DiEugenio said:

It's normal to disguise yourself as a reporter, with glasses and notepad, and inject yourself into a press conference in that guise?

For Jack Ruby --- Yes! That is just exactly the type of thing that the gregarious and outgoing Mr. Ruby might want to do in order to thrust himself into the middle of a huge story like the one that was unfolding at Dallas City Hall on the night of November 22nd. It was vintage Jack Ruby all the way. Much like his behavior in the DPD hallways that same night when he arranged interviews with D.A. Henry Wade for WNEW's Ike Pappas and for two different reporters at KLIF Radio as well (listen to those KLIF interviews below, including an on-air credit given to Jack Ruby).

KLIF-RADIO INTERVIEWS WITH HENRY WADE, ARRANGED BY JACK RUBY

James DiEugenio said:

If what you are saying is accurate, that it was normal, Ruby would not have done that at all.

Huh?!

~shrug~

James DiEugenio said:

BTW, Blakey is now a conspiracy theorist?

Reprise .... Huh?!

You're just pulling my leg now, aren't you? You must be. Because you know that G. Robert Blakey is the biggest "The Mob Did It" conspiracy theorist of all time! Just listen to him---here.
 

3 hours ago, Tom Hume said:

...why are there two otherwise identical pictures where one important feature differs, vis-a-vis shell casing “A”?

The fact that there IS a difference (i.e., the "cigarette butt"-like object near "Shell A" seen in CE512) is the proof right there that's telling me they are 2 entirely different snaps of the shutter.

59 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

When you examine the evidence, it's pretty obvious that Blakey is correct on this issue: from the night of the assassination, until Sunday at 11:21, Ruby was stalking Oswald.

I disagree. The things you (and other conspiracy theorists) insist are evidence of Jack Ruby "stalking" Lee Harvey Oswald are actually just normal things for Jack Ruby to have done in the wake of JFK's murder.

If it had been someone other than Ruby engaging in the behavior he engaged in from 11/22/63 to 11/24/63, I might agree with you about the "stalking" angle. But knowing about Ruby's penchant for wanting to be where the action is, then such behavior can very easily be considered normal in every sense of that word—"normal"—for one Jacob Leon Rubenstein.

So, how can somebody's normal and expected behavior be looked upon as "stalking"?

11 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

David,

Thank you, but to my untrained eye, this looks like a higher quality resolution of CE510, not of CE 512.

It's neither one. It's a completely different picture altogether.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I agree that the circles look machine added.  The WC probably did that. 

Yes, I agree. The dark circles in CE512 are undoubtedly not hand-drawn on the picture. The WC probably added the darker circles because the original circles were so light and dim, the Commission might have thought they wouldn't even be noticed. Hence, they merely accentuated the hand-drawn circles.

The same thing happened with the two "machine" circles in CE511 (below).

And my guess would be that the only reason they didn't add in three machine-enhanced circles in CE510 is because those original hand-drawn circles are bold and noticeable enough for everybody to easily see. So there was no need to "accentuate" the obvious there.

As for why the WC didn't feel the need to "accentuate" the very dim hand-drawn circles we find in yet another Warren Commission exhibit showing the three bullet shells on the floor—CE716—I haven't the foggiest idea. But from a "dim" standpoint, CE716 needs accentuating more than any of the other exhibits.

But, Sandy, how in the world do you KNOW that the woman who's crying in the above photo is the SAME woman who's standing just to the left of the woman in the blue scarf near the Stemmons sign in the Z-Film?

Now, maybe you ARE correct. I don't know. But it seems to me you're making a "tie-in" that doesn't necessarily have to be right. And the hair colors do look different to me. Westbrook, in her 2017 interview, certainly thinks that lady has RED hair, and so did Stephen Fagin in the interview. And it looks reddish to me too.

In any event, no matter who's right --- what difference does it really make anyway?

Thomas Graves said:

I can no longer find that very short Darnell clip which was viewable on this forum about a year ago, but I can post two frames of it for you here.  Shall I do that for you, David?

Yes, please do.

17 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

David,

Be careful... you are speaking from a position of ignorance. You haven't seen the photos that we have.

For example, there IS a photo where we see them clearly from the front.

But the Z-Film portion of any comparison is only showing the BACKS of the women. Not the front. So how can you be sure? Do you think you got a "positive match" on the clothing? Or the hair style? Or hair color? Or some other distinguishing feature?

I'm not saying you guys are dead wrong on your attempted IDing of the women on Elm. But I'm somewhat skeptical about declaring a "positive identification" of the Elm Street ladies, since we can't see any of their faces.

1 hour ago, Thomas Graves said:

It wasn't only Jacob and Holt that said that ["south side"], but their colleague Sharron [sic] Simmons (Nelson), too.

No, that's not correct. Simmons/Nelson never said "south side" (or north side). Her CD706 statement merely says she was "standing on the sidewalk on Elm Street".

Quote

Regardless, they all said they were standing near Elm Street.  Can you find three women close together on the south side of Elm Street in Zapruder or any of the other films / photographs?

No. And in my previous post, I acknowledged the fact that the Holt/Jacob "south side" statements were incorrect:

"I realize that somebody must have made an error when they said "south side" in those reports, because there's not a group of women standing on the SOUTH side of Elm halfway between Houston St. & the Underpass." -- DVP

Quote

Sandy and I and others went all over this subject about a year ago.

Apparently you missed it.

Yes, apparently I did. I haven't been following very much of the Calvery/Lovelady/Prayer Man discussions. I just look in on them occasionally.

Quote

You do realize that Robin Unger's "Calvary" (sic) in the labeled Z-Frame is dark-complected, don't you?  And you do realize, don't you, that Stella Mae Jacob described herself as a Native American? As is discenable [sic] in a "side profile" from the Z-Film of that woman's face, as well as the way she looks in a Darnell clip that was made a few minutes after the assassination?

None of those things you just mentioned are things that have been "realized" by me at any point in time right up to the present moment. And I doubt that any such "realization" by anyone interested in the events of 11/22/63 really makes much difference--if any--when it comes to the Big Ticket questions relating to the assassination. (Do you?)

Quote

Have you seen Gloria Jeanne Holt's high school photos?  (They've disappeared from the Forum.)  If you had, you would already know that Westbrook's "Calvery" is actually Gloria Jenne [sic] Holt.

And you feel confident that you can make such a positive identification of that woman in the Z-Film, even though you can only see her FROM BEHIND, with no facial features available to view whatsoever?

Would you take such an identification to Vegas and bet the farm on it?

Hi Thomas Graves,

I'm sure you've researched all the TSBD employees a lot more than I have. (I've never really had a huge interest in trying to identify every single person in every film or photo....although, I admit, such an exercise can be rather entertaining at times.)

Now, maybe you're right and Karen Westbrook-Scranton is 100% wrong regarding the identities of the ladies in the Z-Film....but I'm wondering if you have any idea WHY both Stella Jacob and Gloria Jeanne Holt (in their respective and almost identically worded) FBI reports each (apparently) incorrectly told the FBI that they each were standing on the SOUTH side of Elm Street during the motorcade?

I realize that somebody must have made an error when they said "south side" in those reports, because there's not a group of women standing on the SOUTH side of Elm halfway between Houston St. & the Underpass. The mistake must have come from either Jacob and Holt themselves, or (more likely) from the FBI, who no doubt had a lot to do with the identically worded phrases that appear in nearly all of the 73 statements we find in CD706. But I'm just wondering if you, or anyone, knows why the FBI (or Holt or Jacob) would say SOUTH when they so obviously meant to say NORTH?

Also --- How can you be so sure my yellow arrow is pointing to Nelson (nee Simmons) and not Westbrook? How can anybody know with 100% certainty who any of those women are? After all, there's no faces to identify in the Zapruder Film. I would tend to lean more toward Westbrook's own personal identification of (at least) herself in the Z-Film. That's not to say she couldn't have made a mistake too. Maybe she did. There are, after all, several ladies wearing scarves on Elm Street. But Karen's identification comes from a rare source---i.e., somebody who was THERE on 11/22/63 and is attempting to find herself in the Zapruder Film.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

On April 23, 1964 Day wrote that one of the shells, CE 543, had only the initials GD on it.  Yet when George Doughty was interviewed by Day, he did not recall handling  that exhibit. This is an important point.

Where Davey picks up the story is in the rehab mode. On June 23, 1964 Day reversed himself.  He said he had initialed CE 543 with Doughty.  In Day's original story, that particular shell was not sent to Washington with the others.  It was kept by Fritz in his desk drawer.  But as Krusch shows, with this new affidavit, the story changed. (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 94)

That mix-up/discrepancy is fully (and reasonably) explained by Lieutenant J.C. (Carl) Day in his 6/23/64 affidavit. But if you want to think this is all a great-big lie, go ahead. ....

--Quote On:--

"The third hull, commission number 545, was later released directly to the FBI by the Dallas Police Department Homicide Division. At 10:00 P.M. November 22, 1963, Detective C. N. Dhority brought the three hulls in the marked envelope back to Lieutenant Day in the Identification Bureau office to recheck for prints. Dhority retained one hull, commission number 545 and left the other two, commission numbers 543, 544 along with the envelope with me to be sent to the FBI. Vince Drain, FBI agent, took custody at 11:45 A.M. the same day. When I appeared before the commission April 22, 1964, I could not find my name on one of the hulls, identified as commission number 543, and thought this was the hull that had been retained by Dhority. On June 8, 1964, the three hulls, commission numbers 543, 544, and 545, were back in Dallas and were examined by Captain G. M. Doughty and myself at the local FBI office. Close examination with a magnifying glass under a good light disclosed that my name "Day" was on all three hulls, at the small end. Also GD for Captain George Doughty was on two of them. Commission numbers 543 and 544 were the first two sent to Washington on November 22, 1963. They have Doughty's initials where he marked the hulls as they were released to Vince Drain at 11:45 P.M. on November 22, 1963 by Doughty and Day. The third hull, commission number 545, does not have Doughty's mark, but is plainly marked "Day". In Washington, I had numbers 543 and 545 switched because I didn't find my name on number 543. I can identify commission numbers 543, 544, and 545 from my name on them, as the three hulls found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963. As to the time I scratched my name on the hulls, I do not remember whether it was at the window when picked up or at 10:00 P.M. November 22, 1963, when they were returned to me by Dhority in the marked envelope. It had to be one or the other, because this is the only time I had all three hulls in my possession."

--End Lt. Day Quote.--
 

Thanks, Tom Hume. They look identical to me.

No, Steve, the shells have not been moved. In the poor-quality photo we see in CE512, we can barely see two of the shells, and the thing you might be thinking is a "shell" (closest to the cameraman) in CE512 is actually not a shell. It's a piece of paper or debris of some kind.

Here's a higher-quality picture of the three bullet shells from the Dallas Municipal Archives....

16 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Davey:

Did you read Reclaiming Parkland...?

No, of course I haven't. I wouldn't bring that thing into my house if you paid me.

Quote

If you buy the Fritz story, is it just a coincidence that the one shell that was left behind is the tell tale one, CE 543?

You're wrong, Jimmy. The one shell left behind was CE545 --- not CE543. See Lt. Day's 6/23/64 affidavit below....

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--Q6RSXAuTJ0/Tvx0e2wwpvI/AAAAAAAABz8/oD6-XmFWkhE/s1500-h/J-C-Day-Affidavits.png

James DiEugenio said:

I am sure that people here are familiar with the photos in the Twyman book which appear to show just two shells and one live round.  So it's not just the written reports.

The late Vincent Bugliosi got out of this one by saying Fritz picked up one of the shells for testing.  Which is simply goofy.  No lab had better testing [than] the FBI at the time.

"Goofy" or not, Captain Fritz did retain one of the 3 shells in his office at the DPD.

Here's exactly what Captain Fritz said in an affidavit dated June 9, 1964:

--Quote On:--

"Three spent rifle hulls were found under the window in the southeast corner of the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, Dallas, Texas, on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. When the officers called me to this window, I asked them not to move the shells nor touch them until Lt. Day of the Dallas Police Department could make pictures of the hulls showing where they fell after being ejected from the rifle. After the pictures were made, Detective R. M. Sims of the Homicide Bureau, who was assisting in the search of building, brought the three empty hulls to my office. These were delivered to me in my office at the police headquarters. I kept the hulls in an envelope in my possession and later turned them over to C. N. Dhority of the Homicide Bureau and instructed him to take them to Lt. Day of the Identification Bureau. I told Detective Dhority that after these hulls were checked for prints to leave two of them to be delivered to the FBI and to bring one of them to my office to be used for comparison tests here in the office, as we were trying to find where the cartridges had been bought. When Detective Dhority returned from the Identification Bureau, he returned the one empty hull which I kept in my possession. Several days later, I believe on the night of November 27, Vince Drain of the FBI called me at home about one o'clock in the morning and said that the Commission wanted the other empty hull and a notebook that belonged to Oswald [sic; this is an error on Fritz' part, because the "Commission" didn't even exist as of 11/27; Fritz probably meant to say "the FBI" instead of "the Commission"]. I came to the office and delivered these things to the FBI. We have Mr. James P. Hosty's receipt for these items in our report." -- J.W. Fritz; 6/9/64

--End Quote.--

So, Jim, is it your opinion that the above affidavit, which is completely reasonable and sensible in every respect, is nothing but a pack of lies?

Thomas Graves said:

Is that Lovelady Talking With a Woman (Gloria Calvery?) on the Steps?

FWIW....

According to another TSBD employee, Karen Westbrook, the person whom some people here think is Gloria Calvery (wearing a scarf on her head) can't be Gloria. Westbrook, in the 2017 interview below, says that she and Calvery can be identified just to the left (east) of the Stemmons sign in the Zapruder Film----and Gloria C. was not wearing a scarf. Karen seems pretty positive that the red-headed woman to her left in the Z-Film is Gloria Calvery (although Karen repeatedly refers to her as "Gloria Calvert" [with a T], instead of using her correct last name, Calvery).

Related Debate:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-121.html

The Sixth Floor Museum video below features a fantastic November 2017 interview with one of the lesser-known assassination eyewitnesses and TSBD employees, Karen Westbrook, who was an 18-year-old secretary with South-Western Publishing Company on 11/22/63. She was one of the 73 Depository employees interviewed by the FBI in March 1964. Her statement appears on Page 97 of Commission Document No. 706.

OK, Trygve, I see the links now. I'll check them out tonight. Thanks.

Trygve V. Jensen said:

Of course subscribed to the Youtube channel. But 65 websites?

A lot of the audio/video materials on my 65 sites (i.e., blogs) are, in effect, duplicates of many of the things I have on my YouTube channel. (Sort of an alternate version of my YouTube collection.) So perhaps it's not quite as daunting a task as it might seem. But I'd like to think the "duplicate" materials on my sites do offer up some "new" things too---such as comments and/or reviews of many of the videos, which make the websites a bit different from my YouTube versions.

Thanks for your positive sentiments. I appreciate it.

P.S. --- I'm not (yet) seeing any screenshots of your A/V collections. Technical problem, I guess. But I'd like to see your collection, in order to compare it with my own. If you've got some items that make me salivate with jealousy, maybe you'd consider sharing them with me.

17 minutes ago, Ron Ecker said:

David,

You win a free chicken dinner.

Can you make it a sirloin steak instead?