David Von Pein

Talk about utter crapola. The WC did a very good job at getting at the truth. And the reason we can know that they did a good job is because after 50+ years of CTers trying desperately to uncover a conspiracy, they have failed miserably at achieving that goal. Ergo, the WC's Lone Assassin conclusion is still erect and holding up very well. (A CTer's whining about it notwithstanding, of course.) LOL. What a crock. Based on the evidence the WC had, which all pointed to LHO, what should they have concluded, Jim? Should they have just IGNORED all that evidence and declared Oswald innocent (just like you have been doing for 20+ years)?

Ruth didn't just join Facebook in 2017. Her page says she's been on there since at least June of 2013. But it's pretty obvious that she never posts anything there.

Sorry for the confusion, Kirk. I merely wanted to "bump" this thread. And I therefore had to post something in order to bump it, so I chose a recent discussion from JFK Facts. (I guess I should have just posted the word "Bump" and let that suffice.)

Okay. Ten-Four.

Boy, talk about missing the point. I think Kirk might have missed it (just a tad).

http://jfkfacts.org/oswald-work-building/#comment-919542

I doubt it. Steve very likely just overlooked the "lineup" references in Guinyard's and Callaway's affidavits.

Exactly.

You can easily determine that the Davis girls' affidavits were taken after the lineup, because they both refer to the lineup within their individual affidavits: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/jfk-assassination-affidavits.html

My thanks to the participants of this thread. It has provided me with still more material for this 7-year-old article on my site (thank goodness blogs can be edited forever ): http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-36.html

Excellent, Alistair. The chronology you laid out makes perfect sense to me. WHY anyone wants to pretend Howard Brennan never attended a police lineup on 11/22/63 is a big mystery to me. As I asked previously: What purpose would such a charade have served, since Brennan failed to I.D. Oswald? It makes no sense.

This quote pretty much says it all about Jimbo.... "It's not my job to say what really happened. I am part of the defense team." -- Jim DiEugenio; July 26, 2015 * * Source: http://educationforum.com/topic/22122

Well, Michael, just from an "EVIDENCE" standpoint, you surely don't deny (do you?) that all of the physical evidence in BOTH the JFK and Tippit murders points directly at Lee Oswald....right? (How could you possibly deny that basic fact?) And as Vince Bugliosi loved to say.... "If you're innocent of a crime, chances are there's not going to be any evidence whatsoever pointing to your guilt." Therefore, how is it even remotely possible for Oswald to be innocent of TWO murders when so much evidence exists that says otherwise?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-971.html https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOUXJRSDlsaVk0MTg/view

And yet we KNOW that Brennan was able to see well enough to identify both Norman and Jarman as two of the black men he saw on the fifth floor, just one floor below the sniper's window. And Brennan IDed those men within minutes of the shooting. So don't give me the bunk about Brennan making up that part of his story later on. Plus, DiEugenio is surely aware that Brennan's problems with his eyesight only occurred AFTER the assassination. His eyes were injured in a sandblasting accident in early 1964, months after he had already seen Oswald kill the President from the Depository. Jim DiEugenio, of course, doesn't care one whit about logical questions like: What useful purpose did it serve for the cops to pretend Brennan was at a lineup? and.... If there was never a long brown bag in the first place, then why didn't Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle make sure to make their MAKE-BELIEVE BAG big enough to hold Oswald's rifle? Such questions are totally brushed aside by conspiracy fantasist James DiEugenio of Los Angeles. He'd rather ignore such reasonable inquiries. Jimbo, after all, hasn't yet reached 1,000 on his Liars List yet. (But he must be getting close to that number by now.)

How about answering this simple question, Mr. DiEugenio..... If the whole "BRENNAN ATTENDED A LINEUP" story was only a manufactured story from the get-go, then what useful purpose did such a fairy tale serve? At the lineup that you say Brennan never attended, Brennan said he COULD NOT positively identify Oswald as the assassin! So what good did it do to say Brennan attended a lineup in the first place? If the whole thing had been a lie (with Brennan participating in the lie), Brennan would have identified Oswald. But he didn't. The whole ridiculous "Brennan Never Attended A Lineup" theory collapses into a cloud of dust based on just the common sense in my last sentence alone.

Amen. .... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/everything-oswald-did-says-guilt.html

I'm ashamed of you, Lance! I posted that information about DiEugenio's silliness three days ago in this very thread (below). Why didn't you see it? The boss at DVP & Payette PLLC isn't gonna like such sloppiness on your part, Lance. BTW, did you also know that Mr. DiEugenio has decided that Lee Oswald carried no large bag to work at all on 11/22/63? Yep. You heard right. The whole "paper bag/curtain rod" story was just a big fairy tale, per some CTers. And yet those same CTers never once have bothered to ask themselves: Well, gee, if there never was any bag in the first place, and Buell Frazier just made the whole thing up, then why didn't he make the make-believe bag big enough to hold the rifle that was supposed to be inside that bag? Funny, huh? (In more ways than one.)

You're right, Bill. I should have said, "...but to hear many CTers tell it..." So sorry. BTW, good to see you again, Bill. I haven't battled with you since the Lancer days of 2004 and 2005. Hope you're doing well. (I am assuming you are the same Bill Miller from the old Lancer forum. Correct? If not, my apologies.)

Yes, Lance, there are people who are silly enough to believe that very thing. .... "I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 27, 2010 (http://box.com/audio/DiEugenio)

Is Altgens 6 a fake picture too, John?

Yes. And Jean Hill was just one of dozens of witnesses who testified in front of the Warren Commission who said something of a "conspiratorial" nature. But to hear CTers tell it, the WC didn't call a single witness who said anything but "Oswald did it alone". Such talk from CTers is utter tommyrot, of course. Related 2016 discussion I had with some CTers at Amazon: "NICK" SAID: Why do you refuse to acknowledge that multiple witness statements have been provably altered? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Point me to an altered statement. Thanks. "NICK" SAID: Amazon.com/forum/MsgID=MxU5WAG373RON6 DAVID VON PEIN SAID: IMO, those examples provided by Nick are pretty weak when it comes to PROVING any witness statements were actually altered. There are plenty of statements, testimonies, and affidavits available which could lead (on the surface anyway) to a conclusion that a conspiracy existed. Seymour Weitzman's affidavit being one such example. And the Warren Commission testimony of witnesses like Jean Hill and Sam Holland. So why would the FBI or the WC feel compelled to "change" a little bit of testimony here and a dash there, when they left so much other testimony "unaltered" (like Holland's and Hill's and many others)? Doesn't make any sense to me to do that. "NICK" SAID: Who cares what makes sense to you? It was done. Period. And the "little bit" of testimony here and "a dash" there, as you put it, were not innocuous statements. They were the entire CRUX of the case, which the FBI just "happened" to get wrong. Over and over again. Explain. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: But when ALL of the witnesses are taken into account---many of which said things that lead a lot of people into believing a conspiracy existed---what actual bottom-line benefit would be served by altering just a few statements here and there? Even with a "new" and "altered" version of a few statements, the FBI and Warren Commission still left dozens and dozens of statements untouched that tend to lead toward conspiracy. So what the heck was the point of altering just a few random statements? It makes no sense in the long run. Or do you think that people are likely to see only the allegedly "altered" statements, while not reading any of the unaltered statements made by people like Jean Hill, Sam Holland, Seymour Weitzman, Eugene Boone, Roger Craig, Marguerite Oswald, Mark Lane, and so many others? "NICK" SAID: Laughable examples, since Weitzman and Boone stopped referring to the weapon as a Mauser (by the way, anyone notice how hastily Boone's testimony gets wrapped up as soon as the word "Mauser" is uttered?) The reputations of the others on your list have been so severely attacked so as to make anything they say automatically dismissed without cause. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: So, you're actually referring to the 1963-1964 statements and testimony and affidavits of Jean Hill and S.M. Holland and Roger Craig as being "laughable examples" of witnesses who said things that many CTers prop up as proof of conspiracy? That's nice. Thanks. BTW.... Here's something that I'd be willing to bet DOES exist in the JFK case.... A witness (or two or three or more) who originally said something to the WC or the FBI that leads to a "Lone Assassin" conclusion, but then (later) that witness noticed that their statement had been "altered" so that it now reflects something that would lead to a conclusion of conspiracy. (IOW, just the opposite from what CTers allege happened with many witnesses.) But the reason we've never heard about those type of "altered" statements is because no conspiracy author would ever even think to ask a witness whose published statements lean toward "conspiracy" if their statements had been "altered" or "changed" in any manner. But I'd bet the farm that there are at least a few witnesses who fall into that category. Which, if it could be proven, would render all of the arguments made by conspiracy theorists about "altered statements" pretty much worthless (or, at the very least, substantially weaken such an argument regarding alleged "altered" witness statements). I'd never even given it a thought until the idea crossed my mind tonight [April 16, 2016]. But I don't really care enough about it to take the time to look. Maybe somebody else does. If so, that'd be great. I'd love to be able to shove the "Altered Statements" junk down the gullets of the conspiracy hobbyists. However, even without researching it, I think some of Charles Brehm's statements might come close to meeting the requirements I just discussed above. GARRY PUFFER SAID: Virtually everything from DVP is accompanied by a statement such as "Doesn't make any sense to me," or "I believe" or "it seems clear that" or "it's entirely possible." In other words, virtually everything from him is sheer speculation. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Pot crashes head-first with Kettle --- yet again. David Von Pein April 14-16, 2016

And...speaking of the above testimony of Howard L. Brennan.... "Another important point to be made concerning Brennan's ability to positively identify people within the Book Depository from his location across the street from that building is the fact that Brennan, minutes after the shooting, correctly identified two of the three black men he had observed in the fifth-floor window (directly under the rifleman's window) at the time he had also observed the gunman on the sixth floor. Brennan's Warren Commission testimony in that regard [at 3 H 146]: MR. BRENNAN -- "{I} spoke to Mr. Sorrels, and told him that those were the two colored boys that was [sic] on the fifth floor, or on the next floor underneath the man that fired the gun." GERALD FORD -- "You positively identified them?" MR. BRENNAN -- "I did, at that time." Brennan's identification of both Harold Norman and James Jarman Jr. (the "colored boys" on the 5th Floor) is, in my view, very important information -- because it proves beyond all doubt that is WAS, indeed, possible for an eyewitness to positively identify specific human beings located on the upper floors of the Depository Building from Brennan's vantage point across Elm Street." -- DVP; February 2006 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html

That particular section of Howard Brennan's testimony is easily understandable if you just look at the whole thing..... Mr. BELIN. Mr. Brennan, you testified here this morning, is that correct? Mr. BRENNAN. Right. Mr. McCLOY. You are still under oath, Mr. Brennan. Mr. BELIN. I believe that you testified that you thought you recognized two of the people that you saw looking out of the fifth floor of the School Book Depository Building you thought you recognized outside of the building sometime after the assassination, is that correct? The two people that you saw, are they any of these three people here? Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. I believe it is the one on the end and this one here, I am not sure. Mr. BELIN. By that you would mean-- Mr. BRENNAN. I don't know which of those two. Mr. BALL. Let's identify. Mr. BELIN. Which person do you mean, you mean Mr. Norman sitting opposite? Mr. BRENNAN. Yes; I believe he was one of them. Mr. BELIN. And you believe it was Mr. Jarman together? Mr. BRENNAN. Jarman. Mr. BELIN. Were they with some policeman as they came out of the building or in custody of some plainclothesman? Mr. BRENNAN. I don't believe they were. Mr. BELIN. You saw them together come out of the building? Mr. BRENNAN. I don't believe they were. I don't recall seeing any officer bring them out or with them. Mr. BELIN. Now you do not believe then that it was Mr. Williams? Mr. BRENNAN. No; I won't say for sure. I can't tell which of those two it was. Mr. BELIN. In other words, you say that you can't, when you say you can't tell whether it was Mr. Williams or Mr. Norman, did you just see one person or two? Mr. BRENNAN. I saw two but I can't identify which one it was. Mr. BELIN. Could it have been neither one of these persons that you saw? Mr. BRENNAN. I think it was one of them. I think it was this boy on the end. Mr. BELIN. You thought it was Mr. Norman. And what about Mr. Jarman? Mr. BRENNAN. I believe it was him, too. Am I right or wrong? Mr. BALL. I don't know. Mr. BRENNAN. I explained that to you this morning. Mr. BALL. I understand. Any questions? Mr. McCLOY. Did you recognize anyone in this room that you saw in the fifth floor window while you were sitting on the masonry opposite the school book depository? Mr. BRENNAN. That is the two boys that I am speaking of now. Mr. McCLOY. That you are speaking of now? Mr. BRENNAN. Yes. Mr. McCLOY. You saw these two men in the fifth-floor window and you saw them again on the first floor? Mr. BRENNAN. Coming out of the building down the stairway, coming out on the street, those were the only two people I could identify.