David Von Pein

Greg Doudna's wild and fantastic (and, IMO, crazy) theory revolving around Mr. Curtis LaVerne "Larry" Crafard (not "Craford", as explained in the last paragraph of Crafard Exhibit No. 5226) made me want to read Crafard's complete Warren Commission testimony for the first time. It's quite a roller coaster ride of a read (starting at 13 H 402).

The long and rambling life story of this drifter named Larry Crafard, which the Warren Commission's Leon Hubert and Burt Griffin probed for hours on end for three days (April 8-10, 1964) and which takes up nearly 200 pages in WC volumes 13 and 14, could have been featured on The Edge Of Night, Guiding Light, and As The World Turns all at the same time, because this guy's constant travels and dozens of different jobs (not to mention a wife who left him twice, and gave birth to Larry's baby boy---or did she?) could probably fill up all three of those soap operas all at once.

Why on Earth all of the details surrounding Crafard's entire life prior to November 1963 were things that Mr. Hubert and Mr. Griffin deemed necessary to place into the Warren Commission's official record, I really have no idea.

Incredibly, Crafard's testimony consumes nearly seven times the number of pages than that of President Kennedy's chief autopsy physician, Dr. James Humes. Humes' testimony takes up only 29 pages in total. Crafard = 197 pages. Unbelievable.

23 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. I like your website and good cheer and agree with you on a lot except where I don’t 🙂 , carry on.

Thank you, Greg. I have enjoyed many of our chats this year. Happy Holidays. 😎

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

And there is a good likelihood the paper-bag revolver, which has never been otherwise explained, was a tossed murder weapon, and there is a very striking plausibility in terms of location, timing, motive and opportunity that that paper-bag revolver may have been tossed by Craford [sic], just before he took off for Michigan the morning of Nov 23.

But, Greg, in this particular case (the Tippit murder case), wouldn't you agree that it's much (MUCH!) more likely that the ballistics evidence is just simply telling us the TRUTH, and that it was OSWALD who killed Officer J.D. Tippit....and it was OSWALD'S revolver that fired the fatal bullets into Tippit's body....and it was OSWALD who was really the one who was seen dumping shells out of his gun as he fled the scene of the crime on Tenth Street --- versus believing that all of the witnesses were either mistaken or lying or coerced or whatever else AND that the bullet shells were switched by the police to frame an innocent Oswald?

And in THIS case especially---the case where a local police officer has just been shot dead---don't you have a particularly difficult time believing that anyone in the Dallas Police Department would have had any desire at all to participate in some kind of a frame-up against an innocent Oswald, which would automatically mean those officers participating in such a frame-up would be deliberately allowing the real killer of their brother officer to get away scot-free?

Isn't all of that "frame-up" stuff rather hard to swallow in THIS (Tippit) case particularly? I sure think it is.

13 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Please don’t lump me in with red herrings and straw men of others...

I didn't. I never mentioned your name in my final paragraph. I merely that there are "many conspiracy theorists who seem to enjoy calling Mr. Myers an outright [L-word]". And there are. If you, Greg Doudna, are not such a CTer, that's great. I'm glad to hear it. And I'll try to remember that fact in the future. Thanks.

Paula Bosse, the expert blogger when it comes to "All Things Relating To Dallas, Texas", recently posted the pictures seen below at her "Flashback: Dallas" website/blog. These 1962 photos depict ads for Jack Ruby's Carousel Club (which was being referred to as "The New Carousel" at the time)....

Click to enlarge:



A few more Carousel Club advertisements, plus one from Abe Weinstein's Colony Club (Jack Ruby's rival club, also located on Commerce Street), can be seen in Paula Bosse's complete blog post here.
 

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Did Myers ever interview Doughty?

According to Dale Myers' book "With Malice" (1998 Edition) [Page 650; Endnote #800], Myers had "contact" with George M. Doughty on March 14, 1996, which was four years after Doughty had suffered a stroke. This "contact", as Myers refers to it in his book (as opposed to an "interview"), was three pages in length (when put in transcript form) and was evidently mostly in reference to the mysterious "Wallet" issue. I'm not sure if Myers ever talked to Doughty about placing his initials on one of the bullet shells found near the Tippit murder scene.

More importantly.....if you turn to Page 267 of "With Malice" (1998 version), you'll find photos (taken by Dale Myers himself) of the bullet shell that has the initials of Captain George M. Doughty scratched into it. Quoting from Page 267 of Myers' book (1998 Edition):

"FBI Exhibit Q76 .... This Winchester-Western hull was identified by Dallas crime lab Captain George M. Doughty as the hull found by Barbara J. Davis. Three sets of markings are visible on the inside rim of the hull, including Doughty's initials, "GD" in script. Three sets of FBI related initials -- JH, CK, and RF -- are on the outside of the hull."

----------

So, as we can see from the above book excerpt, Dale Myers himself actually saw Captain Doughty's initials etched into the bullet shell in question.

The photos of the "Q76" shell that appear in Myers' book are, unfortunately, not distinct enough to clearly make out the "GD" initials that Dale says appear (in script) on the inside rim of that shell. 

And since there are many conspiracy theorists who seem to enjoy calling Mr. Myers an outright l-i-a-r when it comes to lots of stuff he has written about J.D. Tippit's murder, I'm guessing that those CTers must also think Myers was telling a tall tale about seeing Doughty's initials with his own eyes on bullet shell Q76.

23 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

You know, in the FBI reports, there is contradictory reports whether it was Norvell, or McElroy, who found the Walker bullet. 

CE2011 tells us that Norvell "identified his marking on this slug"  [CE573 / aka C148].

So, do you think that TWO bullets were fired into Walker's house on 4/10/63?

27 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Do you think the two typed and contemporaneous police reports from the Dallas Police Dept., signed by two detectives and two patrolmen, attesting they found "steel jacketed" bullet in the home of General Walker on April 10, are accurate? 

The CE573 bullet was positively IDed in June '64 by the officer who first found it at Walker's house. Why isn't this good enough for CTers?....

"On June 12, 1964, Exhibit C148 [aka CE573], a mutilated rifle slug, was shown to Billy Gene Norvell, former Dallas police officer, 1603 Darr Street, Apartment 147, Irving, Texas, by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum, Federal Bureau of Investigation. He identified this exhibit as the same one which he had found at the residence of Major General Edwin A. Walker, Dallas, Texas, on April 10, 1963, and identified his marking on this slug." -- CE2011 <---CLICK

Plus....let me add this....

The fact that CE573 (the "Walker bullet") cannot be linked to any specific rifle is virtual proof, right there, that it was not "planted" into the evidence pile. Because only a total idiot would want to do something so stupid. Although, yes, CE573 looks exactly like CE399 in many respects. No doubt about it. But if you're going to go to the trouble of PLANTING a bullet to frame a particular person, you're surely going to make sure that that bullet can be tied exclusively to the patsy's gun. Wouldn't you agree?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/12/edwin-walker-and-lee-harvey-oswald.html

11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Cites please.

Oswald denied ever being in Mexico City in his interrogations.

But what about COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 15, Sandy? (Which has OSWALD'S own signature on it.)

Don't tell me! Let me guess! CE15 is yet another piece of "fake" evidence!?

Is that going to be your response to CE15, Sandy?

14 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Everything's a lie, everything's fake. Pretty convenient to just trot that out as an excuse every time someone challenges you on your claims.

As you know, Jonathan, that's the M.O. of virtually all Internet conspiracy theorists. And has been for years now.

Here's what Jim Hargrove wrote in December 2018:

JIM HARGROVE SAID: Question: How much of the evidence against “Lee Harvey Oswald” is fake? Answer: ALL OF IT, except, of course, for the many mistakes made during the hasty cover-up.

DAVID VON PEIN THEN SAID: Thanks, Jim Hargrove, for putting that belief in writing (and in a succinct form). I'll now be able to use your quote whenever I want to highlight yet another CTer's absurd "Over The Top" beliefs relating to the evidence in the John F. Kennedy murder case. Much obliged. (And the placing of quotation marks around Lee Harvey Oswald's name is another humorous little idiosyncrasy to be found among the current batch of 21st-century conspiracy fantasists. As if there was actually more than one "Lee Harvey Oswald". Too cute.)

Click for a nice big view of a pre-Stemmons Freeway photo of Dealey Plaza and west Dallas. This picture was taken on JFK's 35th birthday (May 29th, 1952)....

For a related discussion, CLICK HERE.

21 minutes ago, William Paris said:

I don't think there were any "hard hitting" type of questions.

That's too bad.

22 minutes ago, William Paris said:

What I can say David, is it's not too late to get some clarification.  I recommend you reach out to Robenalt immediately.

Thanks for the info, William.

Bump.....

I wonder how the proposed "redesign" of Dealey Plaza is progressing, one year later?

(Click to enlarge these photos....)

19 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So...are the words on this website copyrighted? I honestly don't know. And if they are, by whom? 

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

If a person puts any meaningful thought into something they write, it is creative. And since it is creative, the writer automatically has copyright to it.

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

Copyright Registration Fees can be found HERE.

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

51 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You need to get permission from the authors (regardless of forum rules) because they are the copyright holders.

You're dead wrong about this.

You need to re-read Pat Speer's last several posts regarding this issue.

"Just having Lee Oswald in the general area of the [Tippit] 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."  --  DVP; October 2006

8 hours ago, Marcus Fuller said:

"Oswald did not kill Tippit and I know this because...."

..he couldn't be in two places at once. 

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/tippit-timelines.html

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

Here's another good question that conspiracy theorists need to answer....

The fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was running around---on foot---with a gun in his hands near the area of Tenth Street and Patton Avenue in Oak Cliff at just about the very same time when J.D. Tippit was being shot and killed is a fact that is NOT really important at all when trying to determine who shot Officer Tippit....because....?

On 12/10/2023 at 4:20 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

DVP took that material from the Education Forum without permission.

On 12/11/2023 at 12:17 AM, David Von Pein said:

No permission was required prior to Aug. 2019 (which is when James Gordon decided to add a new rule to the EF rulebook so that he could find a "legal" [sort of] excuse to kick me out the door, which he did). So Sandy's comment above does not apply, and is not a fair comment.

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You need to get permission from the author, not the forum.

But I didn't "need" to get any permission from anybody prior to late August of 2019, because no such "Get Permission" rule was officially on the EF books until Aug. 27, 2019.

That was the point, Sandy (which you seem to want to ignore).

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So...is David making money off his website?

The answer to that is ..... No. Not a penny.

12 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

If you read Hosty's testimony he mentions that he doesn't write in sentences when taking notes. In point of fact, almost no one does. So it follows that this was a draft, and not notes. He published his notes, moreover, in his book, and it was as you would expect...words and fragments. 

OK. That sounds reasonable. Thanks.

"Hosty Notes" Addendum.....

I don't think the words "Presidential Parade" came out of the mouth of Lee Harvey Oswald at all. Based on all of the official FINAL reports (from Fritz, Bookhout, Hosty, and Kelley), I think the words "P. Parade" that appear in the "new" Hosty note were probably HOSTY'S words and HOSTY'S interpretation of Oswald's "out with Bill Shelley" statement. Otherwise, we'd have a lot more reports (and notes) that had the word "Parade" in them.

More....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2019/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1308.html