David Von Pein

Why didn't you quote the very next words out of Brewer's mouth? Those words being.... "...with his back to the street while all of the commotion was going on outside; I thought that quite unusual." You're trying your darndest to make Johnny Brewer out to be a falsehood teller, aren't you Scott? Why are you doing that? Any particular reason? OK. Here.... Mr. BELIN - Do you remember the sirens going away? Mr. BREWER - Yes; the sirens were going away. I presume back to where the officer had been shot, because it was back down that way. And when they turned and left, Oswald looked over his shoulder and turned around and walked up West Jefferson towards the theatre. Mr. BELIN - Let me hold you a minute. You used the word Oswald. Did you know who the man was at the time you saw him? Mr. BREWER - No. Mr. BELIN - So at the time, you didn't know what his name was? Mr. BREWER - No.

There's no video or audio of the WC hearings, Scott. But we've got Brewer's "testimony" at the 1986 mock trial:

Julia Postal herself never saw Oswald "running" at all. That's true enough. And Johnny Brewer never saw Oswald in the act of physically "running" either. That's true too. When Postal used the word "running" in her call to police, she wasn't using that word to describe a person who was exhibiting an all-out sprinting or "running" action. She only meant that the person who went into the theater was attempting to evade the police.

I was less than 2 years old when the assassination occurred. And when I first became interested in the subject in 1981, I don't have a clear memory of being on EITHER side of the "CT or LN" fence. But after learning lots more about Oswald and the assassination, it became pretty clear that LHO was the lone gunman. But I was never a full-fledged "CTer". I often wish I could remember exactly what I was thinking as I read David Lifton's book back in '81, but I just can't remember. (I'm just glad I didn't swallow Lifton's fairy tale, though.) jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/07/dvp-interview-about-television-and-jfk.html

You need to read Johnny Brewer's testimony, Scott. It seems there are a lot of details about the events of 11/22/63 that you are unaware of.... http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm

Let me get this straight (from your point-of-view), Scott.... You don't think there was anything at all suspicious or strange about the way Lee Oswald was behaving shortly after the Tippit murder? For example: You don't think it was strange for him to be lurking in the entrance to Johnny Brewer's shoe store, with his back to the street as police cars were roaring by on Jefferson Boulevard? You don't think it was strange for LHO to duck into the theater without buying the cheap ticket (even though he had more than $13 in his pocket at the time)? You don't think it was odd (or a sign of guilt) for Oswald to be brandishing a revolver when the police approached him in the movie theater? You don't think it was odd (or a sign of guilt) for Oswald to shout out "This is it!" when he was seized by Officer McDonald? All of that stuff was just normal everyday activity in the life of Lee Harvey Oswald? Is that it, Scott?

So, Sandy, are you actually suggesting that those "26 officers" were part of some plot to frame Oswald as of 1:45 PM CST on November 22nd? Is that what you're saying? To use your own words --- How ridiculous! IMO / FWIW.... The Dallas Police Department, of course, was certainly not privy to any advanced information as to the whereabouts of Lee Harvey Oswald in the Texas Theater on November 22, 1963. That notion is a tremendously ludicrous one, in my view. But as far as the mindset of the Dallas Police at the time when many police cars were dispatched to the Texas Theater in Oak Cliff on that Friday in 1963, I think it's quite likely that many of those police officers did make a possible connection in their minds (even if they didn't want to admit it later on) between President Kennedy's assassination and the murder of the policeman. After all, the police knew the President had been shot just 45 minutes before a police officer was also shot and killed. And the two shootings occurred just a few miles apart. And the DPD also knew that the description they had of the suspect in the Presidential shooting was "similar" to the description they had of the suspect who had just shot the policeman. Here's one of the radio transmissions that was made over the DPD radio system at 1:28 PM Dallas time on November 22: Dispatcher -- "Notify 1 that officer involved in this shooting, Officer J.D. Tippit, we believe, was pronounced DOA at Methodist. 1:28 p.m." Deputy Chief of Police N.T. Fisher -- "Is there any indication that it has any connection with this other shooting?" Dispatcher -- "Well, the descriptions on the suspect are similar and it is possible." ---------- Given these circumstances, Sandy, what would YOU have done if you had been the Dallas Police Department's dispatcher on 11/22/63?

A policeman had just been gunned down in the general area of the theater in Oak Cliff, and the police get a call very shortly after that shooting from a citizen who told them that a person in the theater (who generally matches the description of Officer Tippit's killer) is "running from them for some reason" and is also ducking the sirens.... And you think the police should have dispatched just--what?--one patrol car to investigate? That's funny, Sandy. And, btw, Sandy....do you still think Scott was correct when he repeated this conspiracy myth earlier?.... "...a flurry of police officers arrives at the Texas Theater because someone didn't pay for a ticket."

This is nothing but total B.S. invented by CTers who are desperate to keep Lee Oswald blameless for all November 22 crimes. The reason the police swarmed the Texas Theater was certainly NOT because Oswald had entered without buying a ticket. The reason, instead, was a perfectly logical and sensible one, all explained by the person who called the police, Julia Postal, in her Warren Commission testimony (the key sentence in Postal's testimony emphasized in bold text by DVP below). I don't think the police even knew that Oswald had not bought a movie ticket when the police went to the theater.* There's nothing in Mrs. Postal's testimony that would indicate she told the police on the phone that the man who just entered the theater had not purchased a ticket. It's possible that she told the DPD that information, but she certainly doesn't indicate it here.... JULIA POSTAL -- "I told Johnny [brewer] about the fact that the President had been assassinated. "I don't know if this is the man they want," I said, "in there, but he is running from them for some reason," and I said "I am going to call the police, and you and Butch [burroughs] go get on each of the exit doors and stay there." So, well, I called the police, and he wanted to know why I thought it was their man, and I said, "Well, I didn't know," and he said, "Well, it fits the description," and I have not---I said I hadn't heard the description. All I know is, "This man is running from them for some reason." And he wanted to know why, and told him because everytime the sirens go by he would duck and he wanted to know----well, if he fits the description is what he says. I said, "Let me tell you what he looks like and you take it from there." And explained that he had on this brown sports shirt and I couldn't tell you what design it was, and medium height, ruddy looking to me, and he said, "Thank you," and I called the operator and asked him to look through the little hole and see if he could see anything and told him I had called the police, and what was happening, and he wanted to know if I wanted him to cut the picture off, and I says, "No, let's wait until they get here." So, seemed like I hung up the intercom phone when here all of a sudden, police cars, policemen, plainclothesmen, I never saw so many people in my life. And they raced in, and the next thing I knew, they were carrying----well, that is when I first heard Officer Tippit had been shot because some officer came in the box office and used the phone, said, "I think we have got our man on both accounts." "What two accounts?" And said, "Well, Officer Tippit's," shocked me, because Officer Tippit used to work part time for us years ago. I didn't know him personally." Complete Testimony Of Julia Postal * EDIT -- After looking at Mrs. Postal's 12/4/63 affidavit, I see I was incorrect about the "ticket" information. Postal, in her affidavit, says that she definitely DID inform the police that the suspect in the theater had not purchased a ticket (after the policeman on the phone asked her if he had bought a ticket). So I stand corrected on that point.

What good would that do you, Jon? You mean you'd actually believe that such a bank statement, should it ever be produced, wasn't capable of being faked or manufactured by conspirators? I'm amazed that you'd accept such a "bank statement" as proof of anything. Very few Internet CTers would.

Thank you, Saint Scott. However, as unlikely as the "Bank Screwed Up" theory might be, I will say this.... That "Screwed Up" theory is still MUCH more likely to be true than the nonsensical "Everything Connected To The Rifle Purchase Is Fake" theory. "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity [or incompetence]." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

Scott, I said in Post 119 that the "bank forgot" theory is "pretty unlikely". Did you forget that post?

OK. Sorry. I thought you were trying to say you thought the plotters were "incompetent". But you (incredibly) think that the plotters KNEW that there SHOULD be 3 or 4 FNB stamps on the money order, but they decided to take a chance and NOT put any of them on the PMO, because it would create another line of inquiry that they didn't want. So they just hoped nobody would notice (or care) that the 3 or 4 FNB markings were nowhere to be found on a PMO that they surely wanted to make people think was real and genuine. Gotcha. Thanks.

No, Scott. You offered up "incompetence" as an excuse. I assumed you meant incompetence by the CONSPIRATORS. Isn't that what you meant?

So, Scott, the plotters could be guilty of incompetence, but the First National employees could not? Is that it?

And yet, incredibly, apparently the plotters who allegedly faked the Hidell PMO must ALSO have believed in that same "theory" that DVP has endorsed....because those plotters decided to not place a single FNB marking on that phony Hidell PMO. So, Sandy Larsen either believes in mind-boggling stupidity on the part of the conspirators.....or he'd have to put some stock in my theory about cash letters and bulk bank deposits. Is there a third alternative, Sandy?

I look at it this way.... If Sandy Larsen is 100% correct about bank endorsements being mandatory on the front and/or back of every single individual U.S. Postal Money Order that was deposited by First National Bank of Chicago in March 1963, then one of the following two things must have occurred.... 1.) If the Hidell money order is a fake (and the plotters had any brains at all), then those plotters faking the PMO would have surely known that at least SOME First National Bank markings would need to be placed on the PMO if they wanted it to look "real" and "kosher". Right? But the plotters not only failed to stamp the money order ONE time with a phony First National endorsement, but (per the FRB regulations cited by Sandy Larsen) those stupid conspirators omitted at least three or four separate FNB markings that should be on that money order -- including the date of the transaction and TWO separate ABA transit numbers. or: 2.) If the Hidell money order is legitimate and was not faked by anyone, then we'd have to believe that the First National Bank personnel just forgot to put at least 3 or 4 of their stamps on the Hidell money order before sending it along to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. I ask --- How likely is it for EITHER one of the above two scenarios to be the true and accurate one? I'd say it's pretty unlikely that either option is correct. Therefore, IMO, this is the likely solution.... "I would guess that the Hidell money order was probably "endorsed" as part of a bulk batch of U.S. Postal Money Orders sent by First National Bank to the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago. All of the money orders in such a "bulk" transfer were going to be sent to the very same place--the FRB in Chicago, Illinois--so I can't see why a single stamped endorsement placed on a separate document (which would be attached to the bundle of bulk money orders being sent from First National to the FRB) wouldn't suffice in a bulk transaction like that, instead of having to stamp a separate endorsement on each and every money order. I do not know for certain if such a "single endorsement on bulk transfers" procedure was actually in place at major U.S. banks in 1963, but such a process makes perfect sense to me. And it would certainly save the bank a lot of "stamping" time too." -- DVP; December 3, 2015

David (J.) is wrong, Scott. As usual. And there's a very good chance that the CTers are dead wrong about the "Zone 12" argument too.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

No, as I explained in my last post, I choose to believe that the following words within the FRB regulation can be properly applied to the Hidell Postal Money Order, IF that money order had been included in a large bulk "cash letter" type of deposit by the FNB of Chicago. In such a "bulk" deposit, "All cash items" (in BULK form) probably were endorsed via a "cash letter" which accompanied the multiple money orders that FNB sent to the FRB, which would include the Hidell M.O. .... "All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent."

Scott..... MR. EISENBERG -- "Did you see these items before they were treated for fingerprints." MR. CADIGAN -- "I know I saw Exhibit No. 788 [the money order] before it was treated for fingerprints. As to Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802, I don't know at this time." MR. EISENBERG -- "Are the photographs which you produced photographs of the items before they were treated for fingerprints or after?" MR. CADIGAN -- "Yes; before they were treated for fingerprints. In other words, it is regular customary practice to photograph an exhibit before it is treated for latents for exactly this reason, that in the course of the treatment there may be some loss of detail, either total or partial."

You didn't look very hard then, Sandy, because I've given your so-called "proof" plenty of space at my site. Although you haven't proved what you think you've proved, because of the word "should" in the regulation. But anyway, here are excerpts from my webpage (and, no, I didn't just this second add these posts to my page, in case you want to accuse me of that bit of deception. And the reason I didn't copy and paste Sandy's entire post into my page here is because his post was very very long, with a lot of indented text and hyperlinks; and for really long posts like that, I normally do what I did in this instance, I include a direct link to the post and embed the link in the word "THIS". But Sandy's arguments are all here for anyone to read. And I even repeat the regulations Sandy cited in my reply. So the text of the regulation is visible on my site too.... SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thanks, Sandy. But as part of these sections of the regulation you cited.... "Postal money orders will be handled in accordance with an agreement made by the Postmaster General, in behalf of the United States, and the Federal Reserve Banks as depositaries and fiscal agents of the United States. .... All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar endorsement. .... The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the American Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides." ....why couldn't something like this procedure I talked about yesterday at another forum have been in place for "bulk" transfers of U.S. Postal Money Orders? Yes, it says "All cash items" in that postal regulation you cited, and it also says the cash items should be dated and should show a transit number "on both sides" (geez, imagine the time it would take to place all those markings and stamps on BOTH SIDES of each and every one of the hundreds if not thousands of Postal Money Orders that were being sent to a huge bank like the First National Bank in Chicago on a daily basis), but I'm still thinking that in the case of large bulk transfers or deposits of U.S. Postal Money Orders, the process I speculate about at that last link I provided above was probably the way First National Bank handled the Hidell money order in 1963 (seeing as how that M.O. does not have any First National stamp on it at all). [Later....] SANDY LARSEN SAID: I've notice in the postal money order debate that [Tommy Graves] agree with nearly anyone who presents an argument that bank stamps weren't required on PMOs in 1963. Maybe you believe they were never required. I've given documentary proof that they were required. .... I just want to understand why you pick the less likely of two choices.

Sandy needs to look up the word "should".

Wrong again, Scott. What you're seeing is merely the bleeding through of the ink from the other side of the money order (as a result of the FBI applying liquid to the M.O. to check it for fingerprints). Fortunately, however, Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 shows a photo of the M.O. BEFORE the liquid was applied to it, so we see no bleed-thru at all here.... http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0152a.htm

Good night, Scot [sic]. (Do you really think the name "Dave" is spelled without an E on the end? That's mighty peculiar.)

Scott, Nothing you just cited proves what you want it to prove. Sorry.