David Von Pein

Of course that's out of the question. Because the one and only bullet that hit John Connally was CE399, which certainly wasn't plucked from the Texas Governor's left leg.

No, he was just wrong. Not lying. So you definitely DO think Gregory was lying. That's nice.

So you think Dr. Gregory was lying through his teeth here?.... "We were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all."

Dr. Charles Gregory, who was responsible for Governor Connally's wrist injury, gave the following testimony, which proves that Dr. Robert Shaw did not have all the facts when he told the press that the bullet was still inside Connally's leg. DVP's emphasis.... DR. GREGORY -- "I think again that bullet, Exhibit 399, could very well have struck the thigh in a reverse fashion and have shed a bit of its lead core into the fascia immediately beneath the skin, yet never have penetrated the thigh sufficiently so that it eventually was dislodged and was found in the clothing. I would like to add to that we were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all. Here was our patient with three discernible wounds, and no missile within him of sufficient magnitude to account for them, and we suggested that someone ought to search his belongings and other areas where he had been to see if it could be identified or found, rather."

Probably just bureaucratic red tape that none of the agencies ever wants to bother fighting. But whenever a new and previously "classified" document does get released --- what's in it? Certainly nothing that has proven a conspiracy.

Only a rabid CTer could possibly think Stone's movie full of fantasy and sheer speculation has "set back" WCR supporters in any way whatsoever. But, then too, Healy's current address is "Another Planet", so who knows what he's likely to believe (or swallow).

LEE HARVEY OSWALD, MARRION BAKER, ROY TRULY, AND THE COKE: Excerpt..... "Officer Baker's 9/23/64 statement is weird, I'll grant the conspiracy theorists that much. It's obviously not Baker's handwriting. It's someone else's. But Baker DID sign it and initial the cross-outs. There's no doubt about that either. If CTers want to think Baker was coerced into crossing out the "Coke" reference, I'll ask again -- Why didn't the FBI simply re-write the whole thing--sans any "Coke" reference--and then have Baker sign the revised statement? That would have taken--what?--an extra 5 minutes? The fact that CROSS-OUTS exist in that document at all is pretty good proof that the FBI wasn't hiding anything concerning that document. Heck, they could also have just as easily crossed out the word "Coke" entirely. But they didn't even do that. The word "Coke" can still easily be read underneath Baker's cross-out. Some cover-up there." -- DVP; January 11, 2013

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html

No. Not unless the person was carrying a gun. Baker very likely would have let him go from the sixth floor (just like he did on the 2nd floor) after Mr. Truly identifies LHO as just another employee. Baker originally thought the gunshots came from the roof, not the 6th floor (or any other floor). Is that Rule #2A from "The CTer Guide To Make-Believe JFK Conspiracy Theories"? But such a rule probably is in place for many Internet CTers. Otherwise, outer-fringe conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio and Greg R. Parker wouldn't be able to build up their lists of never-ending liars in the JFK case nearly as easily. Good imaginary rule, Greg. It keeps you from having to accept the reality of Lee Harvey Oswald's obvious guilt.

Good. Then you agree that Oswald himself said he encountered the policeman on the second floor. It's good to have that finally settled. Thanks. Will the number of liars in that "major piece" be three dozen or four dozen?

Yeah, right. Too funny. As if Baker and Truly KNEW the sniper had been on the sixth floor as of 12:31:30 on Nov. 22. (Is that going to be your next lame-ass theory, Greg --- that Baker & Truly knew the "sixth floor" was the Floor Of Death as of 12:31 PM?) Regardless of the FLOOR NUMBER, this headline would still apply.... DALLAS COP CATCHES SNIPER BUT RELEASES HIM!

Greg, You think Jim Bookhout lied on WCR Page 619 too, right? ..... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

And so you think BOTH Baker & Truly were so dumb, so stupid, so idiotic, they decided to alter their totally fabricated lie a half-a-dozen times?? And would you care to explain WHY the evil Baker/Truly twins decided to put Oswald on the SECOND floor via their lies---instead of the SIXTH floor? How does putting him on the second floor do the patsy-framers any good at all? Gee, what a shocker.

At 23:45....

Ah... so it's okay for him to lie to the media all of a sudden? Your double standards would embarrass a lesser mortal! If you take multiple statements made by the same witness to the same event, you'll likely find some minor differences in how they tell their story with each re-telling. Your inability to account for this reality would embarrass any reasonable and fair-minded mortal. But, let's face it, your mind has been made up on this thing for years. You're going to toss Roy Truly under the bus no matter what. And to hell with common-sense inquiries like this one that I offered up earlier today: If the whole Baker/Truly "encounter" was nothing but a lie in the first place, then why in hell didn't the Twins Of Deception (Baker and Truly) make their lie a much better one by saying they had encountered Oswald on the SIXTH FLOOR?

So, Greg, do you want to throw Truly under the bus because he (allegedly) said that Oswald was sitting at a table? Does that discrepancy mean the "encounter" never took place at all? Egads indeed!

Same to you, Jim. Happy Holidays. And here's my special holiday gift to you, Jim. It's an interview with Melvin Belli that I discovered just yesterday and added to my YouTube collection. It deals (in part) with one of your favorite people---Jim Garrison. .... P.S. --- And here's another 1968 interview I had never heard before. It's a radio interview with Bill Turner (also re: Garrison).... http://bayarearadio.org/audio/knew/1968/KNEW_Joe-Dolan_Jan-1968.mp3

And it's also a requirement to check your logic at the door if you were a conspirator trying to frame Oswald for JFK's murder in 1963. They shot up Dealey Plaza within a "Let's Frame Oswald As The Sole Assassin" framework by firing bullets at Kennedy from a VARIETY of different locations (per CT mongers). They wanted to make people think that Oswald carried a rifle into the TSBD by carrying it in a MAKE-BELIEVE bag that was way too small to hold that rifle (per CTers). And, per CTers, "they" made up an "encounter" with LHO in the TSBD, but decided to have the meeting take place FOUR FLOORS away from the Death Floor---instead of just MAKING UP a good story about Baker & Truly actually seeing Oswald with a gun ON THE SIXTH FLOOR (where the shooting actually occurred). Where does the LOGIC lie in ANY of the above things that many Internet CTers think really did happen? Answer --- On the front stoop. Because all of those things are just plain ILLOGICAL to begin with.

LNers are the ones obsessed with "minutiae", Healy? That's hilarity (and irony) at its finest! Healy's Pot/Kettle posts just never stop flowing. And, BTW, I still post semi-regularly at Amazon, Healy. So we can chalk that up as yet another thing you don't have a clue about.

GARRY PUFFER SAID: A guy who weighs 141 pounds would never be said to weigh 165. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Tell that to Marrion L. Baker of the Dallas Police Department, Garry.... "The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds." -- M.L. Baker; November 22, 1963 Let me guess, Garry --- Marrion Baker wasn't really describing the real Lee Harvey Oswald when he said the man he stopped at gunpoint in the Depository's second-floor lunchroom weighed "165 pounds", right? You think Baker was either lying or he was describing somebody besides Oswald (despite the fact Roy Truly, who was right there in the lunchroom with Baker during the encounter, confirmed it was Lee Oswald). Right? Let's hear the CTers' lame, rip-roaring, half-baked excuse for totally dismissing these words written by Roy Truly on 11/23/63: "The officer and I went through the shipping department to the freight elevator. We then started up the stairway. We hit the second floor landing, the officer stuck his head into the lunch room area where there are Coke and candy machines. Lee Oswald was in there. The officer had his gun on Oswald and asked me if he was an employee. I answered yes." -- Roy S. Truly; November 23, 1963 http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx11OYBTDZ9DDNL&cdMsgNo=1022&cdPage=41&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3S6UAIF5802TL#Mx11OYBTDZ9DDNL

As usual, James DiEugenio doesn't have the slightest idea how to properly evaluate the sum total of the evidence connected with the various sub-topics associated with the JFK murder case. In this particular instance, Jim has decided that Marrion Baker told a bunch of lies in his Warren Commission testimony and in his 1964 CBS-TV interview. And Jim believes Officer Baker lied about the lunchroom encounter even though Jim knows about Roy Truly's 11/23/63 affidavit, wherein Truly confirms that both he and Officer Baker saw "Lee Oswald" in the second-floor lunchroom within just a couple of minutes of the assassination. So now Jim has no choice but to believe that BOTH Marrion L. Baker AND Roy S. Truly were big fat liars when it comes to the topic of their lunchroom encounter with Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963. DiEugenio probably thinks the above affidavit filled out by Depository Superintendent Roy S. Truly is totally worthless and completely bogus due to the date that is on it -- November 23rd. Jimmy thinks that the fix was in by that time. So that means that anything Roy Truly said on the 23rd must have been the result of coaching by patsy-framing members of the DPD and FBI. Right, James? As far as Baker saying "Nothing about a Coke" in his 11/22/63 affidavit, that's easy to explain, which I do, RIGHT HERE. Re: this comment made by DiEugenio.... "And the guy [Marrion Baker] saw does not appear to be Oswald. He was older, heavier and he was wearing a brown jacket." ....as I told Hank Sienzant recently: "I like to keep this "Assassination Arguments Part 1000" page handy whenever somebody tells me that it would have been utterly impossible for any witness to think Lee Oswald weighed as much as 165 pounds." -- DVP

Plus, Richard, as I said in my last post, if Baker & Truly were just going to MAKE UP an "encounter" with the person they were trying to frame for JFK's assassination, they would have made the encounter occur on the sixth floor, not the second floor (which was four floors away from the Floor Of Death). Placing Oswald on the SECOND floor 90 seconds after the murder doesn't do anything to make LHO the patsy in JFK's killing. In fact, most CTers utilize that exact argument to try and get Oswald OFF the hook--not ONTO the hook. Those CTers will tell me -- Well, Dave, we know Oswald must be innocent--because there's no way he could have gotten down from the sixth floor to the second floor in only 90 seconds. But now, the CTers in the "Baker & Truly Lied About The Lunchroom Encounter" club can never use the above argument ever again, because they think B&T just invented the 2nd-floor incident from whole cloth. And another oft-heard theory that many CTers must now dump by the roadside is the "Bag Is Too Short" theory. Many Internet CTers now want to pretend that Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle just MADE UP the paper bag story. But it doesn't bother those CTers that Frazier & Randle decided to make their MAKE-BELIEVE BAG too short to hold Oswald's rifle (even though, of course, Buell & Linnie COULD have made their imaginary bag ANY length they wanted to make it). But such massive illogic regarding the Baker/Truly encounter and the paper bag never even faze a veteran Internet CTer. They'll just pretend the logic gaps don't even exist. Go figure.

If the whole Baker/Truly "encounter" was nothing but a lie in the first place, then why in hell didn't the Twins Of Deception named Baker & Truly make their lie a much better one by saying they had encountered Oswald on the SIXTH FLOOR? For Pete sake, even Oswald HIMSELF confirmed the second-floor encounter (WR; Pages 600 and 619). But I guess both Fritz and Bookhout were liars too, huh? http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm

Bob, Do you REALLY think Marrion Baker AND Roy Truly are telling a pack of lies in these 1964 TV interviews? If so....please tell us WHY you think those two men felt compelled to lie like this on national television? .... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-rcjDGNFEH_eGtobmZGdmthcW8/view

I think it's quite possible that Oswald went to the post office and purchased his money order BEFORE he went to work on March 12th. But other possibilities certainly exist as well, as Gary Mack speculated about in this e-mail to me in 2011: "True, there's no evidence showing Oswald to have been anywhere but J-C-S that day, but do his time sheets list his working hours AND breaks - including lunch - NO. Of course not, they just show that he was paid to be at J-C-S for a full day.....and he was. As for Oswald's J-C-S times sheet, researcher Mary Ferrell, whom I had great respect for, wrote, "OSWALD'S time sheet for March 12 is evidence that he probably lied sometimes about his hours. On the day he ordered the rifle, he signed in from 8:15 a.m. to 5:15 p.m., (Exhibit no. 1855, Vol. 23, p. 605)." She then wrote that the post office opened at 8am, after noting Harry Holmes' testimony that the envelope was mailed in the early morning. The simple fact that Marina and Marguerite both admitted back then and for years later - I've heard the story directly from both women - that he posed for pictures with the guns he ordered trumps everything else." -- Gary Mack; March 25, 2011 You expect way too much from the post office clerks eight months after one of them handed a package to a person who was--at the time in March of '63--just one of hundreds of ordinary people who picked up packages at that post office that same day. Well, Jim, I guess you should really be scolding the bumbling patsy framers--yet again--for still another stupid error on their part. The alleged plotters were trying desperately (from the look of things that you claim are "bogus") to make it look as though Lee Oswald ordered and took possession of Rifle C2766 in March of 1963, and yet they rigged the evidence in such a way so that it would have been impossible (legally) for the patsy to have obtained the "Hidell"-ordered Mannlicher-Carcano through the postal system? Oh, those brilliant conspirators! And no matter how many times I point Jimbo to the reasonable explanation which reconciles this "rifle length" discrepancy (linked again below), DiEugenio will still insist the discrepancy has never once been explained in a logical manner. Go figure. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html Jim, don't you think maybe it's time for conspiracy theorists like yourself to finally shed at least a couple of the conspiracy myths that were debunked and/or fully explained in non-conspiratorial ways years ago? Such as your silly "Wrong Rifle" canard. And the "Postal Zone 12" theory is very likely another myth that should be dumped at sea as well. Here's why.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html