David Von Pein

The film that David Josephs spoke of (if it exists at all) is undoubtedly a re-creation that was filmed in Dealey Plaza for a movie. There have been several of these type of re-creations done for films and mini-series, such as the scene below (which was filmed for the 3-hour TV movie "The Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" in 1977). But to think that a REAL (11/22/63) film exists that shows the things David Josephs mentioned is laughable. No "real" film of that nature exists. And it's humorous to think that anyone could possibly think it does.

Because during the SBT test done in Australia for the Discovery Channel program "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet", they didn't fire a bullet through two real human bodies (quite obviously). They used expensive surrogate torsos (dummies). Hence the reason I put quotation marks around the word "bodies". (Were you just pulling my chain with that question, Steve?) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, you're saying that if it can't be duplicated A LOT OF THE TIME, then we have to say that Oswald couldn't possibly have done the deed on 11/22, is that correct? (Excuse me if I giggle a little bit here.) Also --- Do you think your same "Valid But Unreliable" conclusion also applies to the SBT? I'm thinking of the 2004 Australian test, which essentially showed that the SBT is "valid" (with respect to the basic path that the 2004 test bullet took through two "bodies", with the missile ending up in one unbroken piece). But until the SBT is duplicated perfectly a total of TEN times (or whatever number you decide on), then the theory is still to be considered "unreliable"? Is that it? IMO, it sounds to me like you, Steve Thomas, are just looking for excuses to dismiss even a "valid" theory. So you're piling on more and more requirements to keep from having to accept a theory that destroys part of your "conspiracy" stance. (There's a word for this type of thing, isn't there? It starts with a D, I think.)

Not in this (JFK) case, it doesn't (if you're a conspiracy theorist, that is). Many CTers think it's ALL fake evidence --- both the actual physical evidence is fake/phony/planted/manufactured (per many CTers) and many of the photos are fake/phony (per many CTers) as well. So if you're a conspiracy theorist in this case, nothing trumps anything (except the CTer's vivid imagination, which seems to trump everything under the sun---even Lee Harvey Oswald's unusual and guilty-like actions on Nov. 21st and 22nd, 1963).

Such a Warren Commission Q&A session with Randle and/or Frazier would have had very little (probably ZERO) impact on a conspiracy theorist of your ilk, James. Because, regardless of what the answers to the WC questions would have been regarding Linnie Mae's ability or inability to see through the slats, you've got your mind made up (based on a variety of your other bogus allegations) that there really was no large brown paper package in Lee Oswald's hands AT ALL on 11/22/63. Nothing, at this point, is going to ever change your mind about that fanciful "No Bag" theory. Along similar lines, nothing at this point is likely to change your mind regarding your equally-as-silly and nonsensical "The Baker/Oswald Lunchroom Encounter Never Happened" and "Howard Brennan Never Attended A Police Line-up" theories as well. (I'm noticing a trend in recent years among Internet conspiracy theorists—it's the "I'm Going To Pretend This Event Never Happened At All, Even Though Multiple Witnesses Verified It Really Did Happen" syndrome. Quite a curious ailment/syndrome indeed.) As far as the question you asked ("...why did the WC not ask either witness about the contradiction the pics clearly demonstrate?").... Since hindsight is, of course, always 20/20, there are a lot of things that now, 54 years later, we can look back on concerning the Warren Commission's investigation and ask ourselves questions about. Such as.... Why didn't they ask him/her this question? or: Why wasn't this or that witness called upon to testify? or: Why didn't the Commission do a timed re-creation of Victoria Adams' post-shooting movements? or (one of my pet peeves with the WC): Why on Earth didn't the Commission perform a third re-creation of Oswald's post-assassination movements, and this time have Oswald's stand-in running from the Sniper's Nest to the second floor, in order to establish the absolute minimum amount of time that was required to travel between those two points in the TSBD, instead of merely doing tests at two different "walking" speeds? and a thousand other "Why didn't they...?" questions. And, I guess, the question Jim D. asked above about Linnie Mae Randle and the carport slats would be another of those thousand questions that could be placed on such a "hindsight" list. I don't know why the Commission didn't ask that exact question when Linnie Mae testified. But, without feeling the burden of assigning a "sinister" motive to the Commission's intent and actions, my guess would be that they just felt it wasn't necessary to grill Linnie Mae about the "slats" topic. She said she saw certain things through the carport, and the Commission accepted those answers as truthful ones. After all, if Linnie Mae really couldn't see anything at all through the slats in her carport, why would she lie to the Commission about something that could so easily be discovered to be a lie? And this photo definitely shows that there is enough of a gap between the slats in the carport wall for a person to see at least a portion of what is on the other side of the carport. So this whole topic is really a non-issue, IMO. For the record, here's the Warren Commission testimony of Linnie Mae Randle dealing with the topic of Randle seeing Oswald go to Frazier's car.... Mr. BALL. Did you see him go to the car? Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. Mr. BALL. What did he do? Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the package down, so I closed the door. I didn't recognize him as he walked across my carport and I at that moment I wondered who was fixing to come to my back door, so I opened the door slightly and saw that it--I assumed he was getting in the car, but he didn't, so he come back and stood on the driveway. Mr. BALL. He put the package in the car. Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I don't know if he put it on the seat or on the floor, but I just know he put it in the back. [Later....] Senator COOPER. Did you see Lee Oswald place the package in the automobile? Mrs. RANDLE. In the automobile. I do not know if he put it on the seat or on the floor. Senator COOPER. I mean, did you see him throw open the door? Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir. Senator COOPER. When he placed the package in there, do you remember whether he used one hand or two? Mrs. RANDLE. No; because I only opened the door briefly, and what made me establish the door on Wesley's car, it is an old car and that door, the window is broken and everything and it is hard to close, so that cinched in my mind which door it was, too. But it was only briefly that I looked. Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, could I ask--how far away were you? You were at the kitchen door and the automobile was in the driveway, what was the distance between yourself and Mr. Oswald? Mrs. RANDLE. Sir, I don't know. The carport will take care of two cars, and then Wesley's car was on the other side of the carport, so that would be three car lengths plus in-between space. Mr. JENNER. Car widths? Mrs. RANDLE. Car widths, excuse me. ----------------- Also.... The following section of Linnie Mae Randle's WC testimony is quite interesting as well, in that it demonstrates that Linnie Mae was aware of Lee Oswald's curtain rod story as early as Thursday afternoon or evening, November 21st. In other words, if this testimony below is the absolute truth, which I believe it to be (but many conspiracists must think this is just another in a series of lies coming from the mouth of Mrs. Randle), then the "curtain rod" story could not have been a story that was created by Frazier or the Dallas Police after the assassination had occurred.... Mr. BALL. Do you remember anything about curtain rods? Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. Mr. BALL. What do you remember about that? Mrs. RANDLE. He had told Wesley-- Mr. BALL. Tell me what Wesley told you. Mrs. RANDLE. What Wesley told me. That Lee had rode home with him to get some curtain rods from Mrs. Paine to fix up his apartment. Mr. BALL. When did Wesley tell you that? Mrs. RANDLE. Well, that afternoon I suppose I would have had to ask him, he wouldn't have just told me. Mr. BALL. You mean that night? Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. After he came home? Mrs. RANDLE. I was on my way to the store. So I probably asked him when I got back what he was doing riding home with him on Thursday afternoon. Mr. BALL. You think that was the time that Wesley told you-- Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; after I got back home. Mr. BALL. That Lee had come home to get some curtain rods? Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, I am sure he told me that. [DVP's emphasis.] -----------------

But, Ray (and James D.), if the idea promoted by conspiracists is true and the paper bag story is total fiction, then wouldn't you think that Buell Wesley Frazier, in his recent interviews, would be ready to shout from the rooftops: "The Dallas police made me pretend I saw Lee Oswald with a package! But the truth is: there was never any large paper bag at all!" ?? Why, in all the years since the assassination of JFK, has Buell Frazier never once said anything like the simulated quote presented above? After all, Buell has been quite vocal in his public interviews about his belief that there was NO WAY the package could have contained a rifle. So he's certainly not being "controlled" by any evil forces that would like him to keep spouting the "Lone Assassin Government line". So why is Buell still insisting he saw Oswald with a package if, as many conspiracy theorists advocate, there never was a bag in the first place? Especially in light of Buell's more recent tale about Captain Will Fritz, which is a story I find a little hard to completely accept, particularly the part where Frazier says that Fritz raised a hand to physically strike him. So, given that tale now being told by Mr. Frazier, it's even more difficult to believe that Wesley's actions and words are being controlled by anyone who wants to quell all talk of conspiracy or cover-up. Do CTers think that Mr. Frazier just cannot allow himself to tell the truth after all these years---even though he, himself, is really (when it comes right down to it, based on a number of things he has said in his interviews over the years) a believer in a conspiracy himself? Also.... Since many CTers think that Buell Wesley Frazier is a great big l-i-a-r when it comes to the topics of "The Paper Bag" and "The Curtain Rod Story", then I'm wondering what in the world would make him have any desire at all to voluntarily put himself in a position where he would need to lie his a-s-s off whenever the interviewer brings up the subjects of the paper package and those phantom curtain rods? Do CTers think Buell was paid a whole lot of money to do those interviews and lie like a cheap rug every single time? Or was Buell doing it just because he ENJOYED the idea of lying in front of hundreds of people (and on camera for the Internet streams)? Bottom Line (IMHO & FWIW) --- The conspiracy theorists who keep insisting that Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle saw no large-ish paper bag in the possession of Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63 are just plain nuts. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://drive.google.com/video file/David Belin & Robert Blakey/Sept. 1981 http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/david-belin-march-1992.html

And yet, even though the brother-and-sister team (per some CTers) was framing LHO for the President's murder, they EACH decided to remain steadfast and firm when it came to their "27 inch" or "about 2 feet long" measurements regarding the brown paper bag that THEIR OWN PATSY was carrying on November 22nd. Doesn't add up for those CTer requirements, of course. But what does add up is this..... Oswald positively took a bulky paper bag into work with him on 11/22/63. -- plus: -- Oswald lied to Wes Frazier about the contents of that paper bag. -- plus: -- Both Frazier & Randle observed Oswald carrying a long, "bulky" brown paper bag on the morning of President Kennedy's assassination. -- plus: -- After the assassination, Oswald's rifle turns up missing from its KNOWN storage location of Ruth Paine's garage. -- plus: -- An EMPTY 38-inch-long paper bag (similar in color to the bag seen by Frazier & Randle) turns up in the TSBD's Sniper's Nest, from where an Oswald-like individual was seen firing a RIFLE at JFK's car. And the empty bag has--Voila!--Oswald's prints on it. With one of the prints--the right-hand palmprint--perfectly matching the way Wes Frazier said that Oswald carried the bag. And fibers matching the blanket in Paine's garage are found inside the empty bag as well. -- plus: -- At 1:22 PM CST on November 22nd, Oswald's RIFLE (Serial Number C2766), with Oswald's own prints on it, was found on the same floor of the TSBD where the empty paper bag was found. -- plus: -- Oswald, from the weight of all the evidence, carried NO PACKAGE at all out of the Depository when he left the building at approx. 12:33 PM on 11/22/63. -- equals: -- Lee Harvey Oswald carried his Carcano rifle into the Depository on November 22, concealed inside a homemade paper bag (the length of which was incorrectly estimated by witnesses Frazier and Randle), with Oswald then leaving the empty paper bag (with his prints on it) underneath the window from where he fired the shots that killed President Kennedy. Any other alternative scenario that differs greatly from the above version of events cannot hold up to any kind of scrutiny (or common sense) at all.

That's exactly the question you need to be asking people like Jim DiEugenio and Ian Griggs, who think Frazier just MADE UP the whole paper bag story from whole cloth. But if that was so, then why on Earth would Frazier (and his sister too, who was also a big fat l-i-a-r, per DiEugenio) want to claim that his MAKE BELIEVE bag was TOO SHORT to hold the thing that was obviously supposed to go into that bag--LHO's gun? It makes no sense from the POV of the CTers who think the bag was a pure invention. But from my POV, all I need to believe in is that Buell Frazier was simply mistaken about some things relating to the bag. He didn't scrutinize the bag, he didn't measure it. And he admitted in 1986 that Oswald might have carried the bag in a different (non-armpit) way on 11/22.

More lies here....right David J.? .... Mr. BELIN. I will now hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit 626 and ask you to state if you know what this is, and also appears to be marked as Commission Exhibit 142. Mr. DAY. This is the sack found on the sixth floor in the southeast corner of the building on November 22, 1963. Mr. BELIN. Do you have any identification on that to so indicate? Mr. DAY. It has my name on it, and it also has other writing that I put on there for the information of the FBI. Mr. BELIN. Could you read what you wrote on there? Mr. DAY. "Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day." Mr. BELIN. When did you write that? Mr. DAY. I wrote that at the time the sack was found before it left our possession. Mr. BELIN. All right, anything else that you wrote on there? Mr. DAY. When the sack was released on November 22 to the FBI about 11:45 p.m., I put further information to the FBI reading as follows: "FBI: Has been dusted with metallic magnetic powder on outside only. Inside has not been processed. Lieut J. C. Day." ------------------------------------- As for when LHO constructed his handmade CE142 paper bag ---- It's just a guess (since Oswald didn't deign to tell us this info before Ruby shot him), but I'd guess he made the bag at the Paine house (in the garage) on Thursday night, 11/21. (The light was left on in the garage that night, remember. Or was Ruth Paine lying about that too?) I would have been interested in searching the Paine trash cans to see if maybe some scraps of brown paper were discarded by Oswald on 11/21. But, AFAIK, there wasn't a search of Ruth Paine's trash containers. (Was there? I don't think there was.)

@David J. --- There weren't "so many different bags around". There were just 2 -- Oswald's original (CE142) and the one "replica" bag (CE364). CE677 isn't a "bag", of course. It's just a piece of sample paper from the TSBD. So I have no idea why that would be included in your "bags montage". Anyway, all of the bags that you, David Josephs, think are "different" bags are, in fact, the very same CE142 bag. And Lt. Carl Day's handwritten message and signature on the CE142 bag pretty much "authenticates" it (as far as I'm concerned). Much the same way that Lt. J.C. Day's name being scratched into the stock of the Carcano rifle will forever authenticate (to my satisfaction) the fact that the CE139 rifle was definitely the one and only rifle found on the 6th floor of the Book Depository. The chain of possession for the rifle, in fact, pretty much BEGINS and ENDS with Lt. J.C. Day, since that rifle never left his possession up until 11:45 PM CST on 11/22. What more do CTers want as far as "chain of custody" for the rifle? It was a perfect "1 person" chain on 11/22/63. It can't possibly get any better than that from a "minimizing the chain of possession" standpoint. You, of course, require more "authentication" for everything. Much more. But nothing would ever satisfy your "authentication" needs. Would it, David? You can admit it. The great thing about my stance as far as ALL of the JFK case evidence is concerned is the fact that I, as a "Lone Nutter", don't require ANY liars within the Dallas Police Department (or the FBI, or the Secret Service, or the Warren Commission, or the HSCA, etc., etc.). Whereas, you, David Josephs, if your various theories about the evidence being tainted are true, require MANY different liars within all of the above-named law enforcement agencies and investigative organizations. You require at least FOUR liars within the DPD with respect to just the "paper bag" issue alone (Studebaker, Day, Montgomery, and Johnson). But, in my opinion, when a theory requires so many alleged liars and "cover-up" agents, I think it might be time to consider abandoning the Conspiracy ship. But it seems that many CTers adhere to a policy that is just the opposite. They seem to like the motto: The More Liars, The Better. (Go figure.)

Even though no picture of the large brown paper bag was taken by the Dallas Police that shows the bag in the Sniper's Nest, there were multiple police officers who testified that they DID see a paper bag lying on the floor in the southeast corner window on the sixth floor before the bag was picked up. Four of those officers are: L.D. Montgomery [7 H 97] Robert Studebaker [7 H 143-144] J.C. Day [4 H 267] Marvin Johnson [7 H 103] Should I believe that all 4 of the above officers were liars with regard to the "large paper bag" topic? It's fairly obvious, of course, why conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio and Ian Griggs and David Josephs (et al) feel the need to distance themselves from the reality concerning that brown paper bag. Because if those conspiracists were to actually face the stubborn truth about the bag (with that truth being: it was Lee Harvey Oswald's homemade bag and Oswald carried his rifle, inside that bag, into the Book Depository Building), then those conspiracists would be forced to admit that their precious "patsy" had probably taken that gun to work in order to shoot somebody with it on the day President Kennedy came to town. What other reasonable and logical conclusion could anyone come to after they've admitted to themselves the obvious truth -- that Lee Oswald did, in fact, walk into the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, with a rifle wrapped in brown paper? Re: Jack Dougherty..... I noticed that David J. left out this important part of Dougherty's WC testimony.... Dougherty said he only saw Oswald enter the back door "out of the corner of my eye" [6 H 377]. Therefore, why would Dougherty have been expected to notice anything in Oswald's hands? He could have easily missed seeing the package because he wasn't really LOOKING at Oswald at all. And yet, to hear conspiracy theorists tell it, Dougherty is a rock-solid witness whose testimony positively PROVES Oswald never had any package with him on 11/22/63. It's pathetic.

Then what happened to the bag that Oswald REALLY DID take into the building on 11/22? Did it just vanish? And what happened to the contents of Oswald's real bag as well? He certainly didn't leave the building with any large-ish bag (unless he ditched it in a dumpster between 411 Elm and McWatters' bus). And you, Tommy, surely don't subscribe to the ridiculous "Oswald Had No Large Bag At All On 11/22 & Frazier/Randle Just MADE UP The Bag From Whole Cloth" theory, do you?

Worth a reprise.... I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor? I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-tinged explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper bag was in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's window on 11/22/63. I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it.

I would have thought the difference between the words "noticeable" and "noticed" would be readily apparent to anyone familiar with the English language. But, I guess I was wrong. Ray has no idea that the two words are not the same.

That's not the point. Such a protrusion above the shoulder probably would have been "noticeable", yes. But just because it COULD have been seen, does that mean Frazier (who, remember, wasn't paying very much attention) WOULD definitely have noticed it? Of course not.

I didn't say "no attention at all", I said "virtually NO ATTENTION at all". Slightly changes the debate when all the info is given, eh Ray? And you can prove he "would have noticed" that, eh Ray? (And you're overstating the amount of the package that would have been protruding above LHO's shoulder.) How do you think you can prove this? Especially since you know that Frazier admits that he didn't pay much attention to Oswald as they walked toward the TSBD. In your world, does "I didn't pay much attention to the package" somehow translate to "would have noticed" a particular protrusion?

Wesley Frazier quote.... "Like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all." -------------------- Therefore, given the fact that Frazier was paying virtually NO ATTENTION at all to Oswald as the two of them walked toward the building, tell me again, Ray, WHY Frazier would have had no choice but to see (and make a mental note of, for future reference) the part of the package that was likely protruding above Lee's right shoulder?

"I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor? Care to guess at what those odds might be? They must be close to "O.J. DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was found by the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the very same bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands on the morning of November 22, 1963). I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle [see the comparison photo above]), which was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's window on 11/22/63. I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it." -- David Von Pein; October 2007

34.8 inches. And allow me to repeat this.... VINCE BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?" BUELL FRAZIER -- "That is true." BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?" FRAZIER -- "That is true."

He was holding a dismantled Carcano rifle wrapped in brown paper (just like Oswald did on 11/22/63). And Dan Rather was able to walk away from the CBS camera without having the bag fall out of his hand.

Yes, Ray, I know what Frazier said about the length of the bag. He usually said it was "two feet, give or take". But my "27 inch" comment was referring to LINNIE RANDLE'S estimate. It wasn't referring to anything Buell Frazier said. And I'm fully willing to eat some crow and say "I was wrong" when it comes to my earlier remark (from 2007), when I said a 24-inch object could not be wedged in the armpit by a 5-foot-9 man. That was, indeed, an incorrect statement (based on Ray Mitcham's test that he performed today). However, on a "27 inch" object, I stand firm. That couldn't have been done by the 5-foot-9 Oswald.

Dan Rather was able to do it, here (at 12:35).... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2oJmFGgfM3zZ3pLeHJNc243TFE/view Plus, what was keeping Oswald from using his LEFT hand to steady the package as he walked along? (He did have another hand, you know.)

Seems to me the object (whether it be a rifle or whatever) would just naturally be resting on your shoulder via such a posture. I don't see what's so difficult about it. ~shrug~