David Von Pein

Looks like John Butler is shooting for a new "outer fringe" record here. Nice going, John. You and Ralph Cinque ought to start dating. A match made in heaven.

Oh, I guess that means you were just kidding throughout this whole thread, huh? That's good.

Oh brother. The silliness of the outer fringe conspiracy theorists just never stops, does it? (Obviously not, because John Butler just proved to everybody that it doesn't stop by creating this ludicrous forum thread.) And speaking of "outer fringe" CTers, take a look at this hilarious excerpt from a new e-book I noticed today at Amazon. John Butler should love this Steven Green nut:

Thank you, Alistair. Your explanation about the Gerald Ford LIFE article makes perfect sense. (And it's much more palatable than the one I offered up previously.)

Well, yes, I guess that's possible. But I don't know if a "mistake" is likely, since the LIFE article (apparently written by Gerald Ford himself) clearly says that there was a "second lineup" attended by Brennan at the DPD. In 2015, I offered up a possible explanation for it as an alternative to Mr. Ford coming across as a teller of tales [you can't use the L-word here and have it show up in posts, for some silly reason], but that explanation isn't even too satisfying to an LNer like myself.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-994.html#Gerald-Ford-Quote-In-LIFE-Magazine-October-2-1964 Yes. I provided the link to it at my webpage. But here it is directly: https://books.google.com/books?id=UUgEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA1&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q&f=true And I just took note of another place in the LIFE article (below) where it says that "Brennan later identified Oswald in a police lineup", which, of course, is a totally misleading statement: https://books.google.com/books?id=UUgEAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA1&pg=PA41#v=onepage&q&f=true

Dead wrong (again). The typed version is identical to the version that was handwritten by Givens. Ergo, the typed version has "Givens' own words" in it. Why you think otherwise is the mystery.

FYI.... Interviews with Jean Hill and Mary Moorman.... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOcDYyTDRna0VJT1E/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOUFpfcFp2YmVzZkU/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGONFFsaUtnSUxUMUE/view http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/05/mary-moorman-interview.html

Instead of denying an obvious fact—Howard L. Brennan viewing Lee Harvey Oswald in a police lineup at Dallas City Hall on 11/22/63—conspiracy believers should probably be focusing more of their attention on this potential lie that appeared in LIFE Magazine in October 1964, which concerns whether or not Mr. Brennan really viewed Oswald in two different lineups at the Dallas Police Department shortly after President Kennedy's assassination: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/22169-gerald-ford-and-howard-brennan

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-36.html DVP vs. DiEUGENIO (PART 36): Jim DiEugenio has now added one more person to his already huge list of liars and cover-up artists associated with President Kennedy's assassination. And that person is witness Howard L. Brennan. Brennan could conceivably have already been on DiEugenio's "liars" list prior to May of 2010. I'm not sure if he was or not. But as of 5/27/10, we can now be certain that DiEugenio thinks that the late Howard Brennan was positively a xxxx, because DiEugenio has said he now believes that Brennan never viewed a police lineup AT ALL on November 22, 1963: "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." -- Jim DiEugenio; 5/27/10 http://www.box.net/shared/axiednnqla Nice, huh? DiEugenio has decided that Howard Leslie Brennan was a rotten xxxx too. (Jim recently also added civilian witnesses Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle to his list of liars as well.) For the record, Brennan said this to the Warren Commission: "They told me they were going to conduct a lineup and wanted me to view it, which I did." -- Howard L. Brennan; Via his 1964 Warren Commission testimony [at 3 H 147]. Plus, Brennan also said the following things in his Sheriff's Department affidavit that he filled out on the DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION (I wonder if DiEugenio thinks this is a fake document too?): "In the east end of the building and the second row of windows from the top I saw a man in this window. I had seen him before the President's car arrived. .... He was a white man in his early 30's, slender, nice looking, slender and would weigh about 165 to 175 pounds. .... I then saw this man I have described in the window and he was taking aim with a high powered rifle. I could see all of the barrel of the gun. I do not know if it had a scope on it or not. I was looking at the man in this window at the time of the last explosion. Then this man let the gun down to his side and stepped down out of sight. He did not seem to be in any hurry. I could see this man from about his belt up. There was nothing unusual about him at all in appearance. I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again." -- Howard L. Brennan; 11/22/63 Affidavit So, Brennan--on the day of the assassination!--told the Dallas County Sheriff's Department (via his affidavit) that "I could identify this man if I ever saw him again". And so, even though these key words are contained within Brennan's November 22nd affidavit -- "I could identify this man if I ever saw him again" -- Jim DiEugenio thinks that the police NEVER TOOK THIS MAN NAMED HOWARD BRENNAN TO VIEW A LINEUP. In addition, there is Commission Exhibit 2006, which contains an FBI report of an interview that the FBI had with Brennan on January 7, 1964. Here are some highlights from that FBI interview (which took place two months before Brennan's Warren Commission session): "Mr. BRENNAN added that after his first interview at the Sheriff's Office, on November 22, 1963, he left and went home at about 2 P.M. While he was at home, and before he returned to view a lineup, which included the possible assassin of President KENNEDY, he observed LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S picture on television. Mr. BRENNAN said that this, of course, did not help him retain the original impression of the man in the window with the rifle; however, upon seeing LEE HARVEY OSWALD in the police lineup, he felt that OSWALD most resembled the man whom he had seen in the window." And in addition to now labelling Howard Brennan as a xxxx regarding the lineup, DiEugenio is also forced (by necessity) to place the label of "xxxx" around the neck of Secret Service agent Forrest V. Sorrels as well. And that's because Sorrels made the following statements to the Warren Commission concerning Howard Brennan viewing a lineup on the night of November 22, 1963 [at 7 H 354]: "I also got information to Captain Fritz that I had this witness, Brennan, that I had talked to, and that I would like very much for him to get a chance to see Oswald in a lineup. And Captain Fritz said that would be fine. So I instructed Special Agent Patterson, I believe it was, after I had located Brennan--had quite a difficult time to locate him, because he wasn’t at home. And they finally prevailed upon his wife to try to help me locate him, and she, as I recall it, said that she would see if she could locate him by phone. I called her, I believe, the second time and finally got a phone number and called him and told him we would like for him to come down and arrange for him to meet one of our agents to pick him up at the place there. And when they came down there with him, I got ahold of Captain Fritz and told him that the witness was there, Mr. Brennan. He said, “I wish he would have been here a little sooner, we just got through with a lineup. But we will get another fixed up.” [...] "So when we got to the assembly room, Mr. Brennan said he would like to get quite a ways back, because he would like to get as close to the distance away from where he saw this man at the time that the shooting took place as he could. And I said, “Well, we will get you clear on to the back and then we can move up forward.” They did bring Oswald in in a lineup. He [Brennan] looked very carefully, and then we moved him up closer and so forth, and he said, “I cannot positively say.” I said, “Well, is there anyone there that looks like him?” He said, “Well, that second man from the left,” who was Oswald--“he looks like him.”" -- Forrest V. Sorrels ------------------- In short, James DiEugenio doesn't care how many innocent people he has to smear in order to promote his nonsensical theories. The more liars, the merrier, it would seem. David Von Pein May 2010

No, that's not what you said earlier. Here's what you said: "...the 8 line affidavit are not Givens actual words."

Some of the affidavits are much lengthier, however. It just depends on the witness. Buell Wesley Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit, for example, is a longer one and extends to a second page. I think it's quite obvious that the police told Frazier to write down more information about Lee Oswald than about Frazier's own observations concerning the assassination itself, because the vast majority of Frazier's affidavit includes stuff about Oswald and the paper bag that Lee took into the Depository, plus the "curtain rod" story, etc., with the shooting of the President being almost an afterthought. I've archived many of the witness affidavits (in large format) at my webpage below:

Why in the world are you guys saying that the words that appear in Charles Givens' 11/22/63 affidavit are "not Givens' actual words"? That's not true at all. Those are most definitely the words that Givens HIMSELF wrote down on paper on Nov. 22 (and in his own handwriting; see the original handwritten affidavit below). Look at all the references to "I did this" and "I did that" in this statement. If these aren't Givens' own words, then whose do you think they are?....

Huh? Of course he was close to the elevators. You think Oswald shouted down the elevator shaft from the opposite side of the building? So he could lock the elevator down on the sixth floor, Ray. That's why. I'll ask again: Why did LHO want to stay on the sixth floor for so long? What could he possibly be doing up there if he wasn't filling orders (which he wasn't)?

Then why didn't Oswald just go downstairs with the boys at 11:45, Ray? He certainly had no intention of doing any more work up there on the sixth floor. The three unfilled orders on his clipboard prove that (see Warren Report, Page 143). So why did he want to stay on the sixth floor for so long? What could he possibly be doing up there if he wasn't filling orders (which he wasn't)? I know the answer, Ray. Why don't you?

Per Jimmy D., we've got all kinds of lying and deliberate deception involving Charles D. Givens. And for what? Just to have Oswald seen 35 minutes before the assassination on the sixth floor (but OUTSIDE of the Sniper's Nest) and without a rifle or any kind of package.....which is essentially exactly the same thing that THREE other Depository witnesses had said in their testimony and statements (Lovelady, Arce, and Williams). All that deception and lying by Givens was a complete waste. Don't you agree, Jim? Because even if we throw away every word Givens said, we've still got Billy Lovelady and Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce. Were all three of those witnesses lying too, Jim?

Allow me to repeat what should already be obvious to anyone who knows about the testimony of 3 other TSBD employees.... "If the goal of the FBI and Warren Commission was to shore up their "case" against Oswald, why wouldn't they have made Givens' lies even BETTER? They could have gotten Givens to say he saw Oswald moving boxes in the southeast corner of the sixth floor. Or they could have gotten Givens to say he actually saw Oswald with a long brown package too. But instead, Givens' "cigarettes and jacket" story pretty much amounts to nothing more than the testimony given by Lovelady, Arce, and Williams -- i.e., Givens sees Oswald on an upper floor without a package, and without a gun. The biggest difference would be that Givens did place a definitive floor number on Oswald's whereabouts--the sixth floor (the Floor Of Death), whereas some of the other witnesses I mentioned were not quite sure whether Oswald was shouting down his request for an elevator from the FIFTH floor or the SIXTH Floor. But if Givens' "going to get cigarettes" story was nothing but a fabrication invented by the authorities, it amounted to very little more than what other witnesses were also providing (or would very soon be providing to the Warren Commission)." -- DVP

Naturally. Why not quote the best? That's my philosophy. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/07/favorite-quotes-from-reclaiming-history.html

Just for Ray.... "The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi After dueling a lot of CTers during the last fifteen years, all I can say about Vincent's quote above is: Amen, brother!

Yeah, that discrepancy right there should tell you something about the reliability of the times supplied by witnesses. But since we've got FOUR different TSBD employees hearing Oswald shouting down the elevator shaft at about 11:45 or so, then I think that fact should cast just a tad bit of doubt on Givens' account of seeing Oswald sitting in the Domino Room reading a newspaper at 11:50. (Shouldn't it, Ray?) I don't know why you're insisting that Givens' jacket was "non-existent", Ray. You don't allow any room for the possibility that Givens' memory could have been a little inaccurate as to what kind of "jacket" or "coat" he wore to work on November 22nd? He HAD to be lying in your view, right Ray? No other explanation is even possible, is that it? Plus, to believe Givens was lying about a "non-existent" jacket, you'd have to also necessarily believe that Mr. Givens had a very short memory. Because just minutes before telling David Belin that he had retrieved his jacket from the sixth floor, Charlie Givens had already told Belin that he had probably worn a raincoat to work on the morning of November 22. Another possibility is that Givens' jacket could have conceivably been left there in the Depository by Givens on some previous day. Hence, perhaps he had both a "jacket" and a "raincoat" in the TSBD on 11/22/63. Who can know for sure? I don't. But to think that Givens was lying his ass off about his jacket just in order to say he saw Oswald with a clipboard (not a rifle) on the sixth floor at 11:55 AM (35 minutes before the assassination) is akin to believing someone would be willing to lie about his whereabouts just in order to claim he saw the sun rise in the east one morning. In other words, such an alleged lie by Givens would be completely superfluous, given the fact we already KNOW (from other witnesses) that Lee Oswald was shouting down the elevator shaft from an UPPER FLOOR of the Depository just a very few minutes before Givens said he made his jacket/cigarette trip back up to the sixth floor.

Again, already answered in my previous Post #341159 on Page 5. But since you refuse to read that post, I'll say it all again.... ------------- "I do feel, however, that Givens, by the time he testified in front of the Warren Commission, had merely forgotten that he said those things about Oswald to the FBI men. But the WC wasn't hiding the "11:50" incident from anyone. The Commission published Mr. Belin's question about the incident in WC volume 6 for everybody to read [at 6 H 354]. And Charlie Givens could have answered "Yes" to that question asked by David Belin about Givens seeing Oswald downstairs at 11:50, couldn't he? Let me guess---conspiracy theorists believe that David Belin had Charles D. Givens wrapped around his little finger when Givens testified in front of the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964, right? So Belin knew what was coming, and maybe Belin even instructed Givens to answer "No" to this question.... "Did you ever tell anyone that you saw Lee Oswald reading a newspaper in the domino room around 11:50, 10 minutes to 12 on that morning on November 22nd?" Well, if some CTers want to believe that someone told Givens to answer "No" to the above question, I certainly cannot do anything to persuade those CTers to think otherwise. And such CTers also no doubt think that Givens lied through his teeth when he said he went back up to the sixth floor to get his cigarettes and then saw Oswald. (Did David Belin put those words in Givens' mouth too?)"

Good post, Lance. Thanks. Regarding Oswald's "bizarre" actions on Nov. 22..... WILLIAM KELLY SAID: So Dave, Why do you think Oswald had Whaley drive him FIVE blocks past his rooming house, so then he had to walk back? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Simple, Bill. The reason was very likely two-fold on Oswald's part: LHO didn't want the cab driver to know exactly where he lived. And #2 (which is even a better reason IMO), he wanted to see if any police or strangers were lurking near 1026 Beckley. After all, he had just killed the President, and he had to know that the cops would be hot on his trail very soon. Yes, he could, of course, have checked the immediate area around his roominghouse for cop cars and "strangers", etc., and then have Whaley let him out just a few yards beyond the roominghouse, which would have made the walk back to his room much shorter. But he didn't do that. And since nobody can read his mind on this issue, we'll never know for sure exactly why Oswald did all of the things he did on November 22. But we know he DID do them. And: Oswald also knew that nobody at the TSBD had his Beckley address, so that fact would buy him some extra time to go get his revolver (and, no, I don't know why he would not have taken his Smith & Wesson revolver with him to work on 11/22; the reason there, IMO, is likely because he would have needed to take the revolver into work at the Depository Building TWICE [and transport the gun in Wes Frazier's car TWICE too], because of his unusual Thursday trip to Irving; perhaps he thought Frazier might see it and start asking questions, with Frazier possibly putting 2 & 2 together and then saying something to somebody about LHO having a gun; I really don't know). I also think it's quite possible that Oswald just simply forgot his revolver when he left for work on Thursday, the 21st. His plan to murder JFK was, indeed, slipshod and half-assed in some ways. And it certainly reeks of being "last minute" (or nearly so, relatively-speaking). But, hey, it's hard to argue with success, isn't it? He achieved his primary goal of killing the President, despite a slipshod getaway plan. Too many people criticize the way Oswald did things on Nov. 21 and 22, 1963. But, as mentioned, it's hard to knock perfection. And Oswald achieved "perfection", from his point-of-view -- he assassinated the person he was attempting to assassinate. BTW, Oswald was driven only THREE blocks past his roominghouse, Bill. Not five. LHO had Whaley drop him off in the 700 block of N. Beckley, instead of travelling all the way to the 500 block, which LHO originally told Whaley was his destination. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1208.html

Reprise.... "But even if conspiracists wish to toss Charlie Givens under the bus and deem him a totally worthless [L-word] (which many CTers have done), what do they do with Lovelady and Williams and Arce with respect to their individual observations about seeing (and hearing) Lee Oswald on an upper floor of the TSBD shortly before 12:00 noon on 11/22/63? With those three witnesses saying what they each said, why would the FBI or the Warren Commission (or anyone else) have felt the need to coerce Charlie Givens to tell some wild tale about seeing Oswald in just about the VERY SAME PLACE at just about the VERY SAME TIME that those three other men saw him?" -- DVP

Already answered above, Ray. (Following the words "BEN HOLMES SAID" in my lengthy post above.)

And so you think that Givens' coat could not possibly have been moved from one floor to another during the course of the morning on November 22nd? Perhaps this scenario occurred after Givens originally hung up his coat/jacket in the Domino Room on the first floor (and, yes, I'm just guessing again) --- When he realized he would be working all day long on just one floor (to fix the plywood floor on the sixth floor), perhaps he decided to take his jacket (with his cigarettes in the pocket) up to the sixth floor.