David Von Pein

Ruby knew he had to show up...

Then why wasn't Ruby already downtown prior to 10:00 AM, which is when Oswald was supposed to originally be transferred?

Holmes was as much an interloper as would have been anyone off the street.

That's kind of a ridiculous thing to say, Jon. Holmes was a U.S. postal inspector, and the POST OFFICE played a part in the evidence connected to Lee Harvey Oswald (via the P.O. Boxes he rented in 1963 and the U.S. Postal Money Order that Oswald used to order the assassination weapon).

So, Jon, I think Harry D. Holmes was a little bit more significant to the investigation than just any ol' John Doe pulled in off the street.

Ron,

You just proved my point about Carlin's call.

Thanks.

Ron,

The "Harry Holmes Delayed The Transfer" thing is something I've used many times in the past too. And that's because it is TRUE. If Holmes had not decided to go downtown and interrogate Oswald, then Ruby could not possibly have shot Oswald, because Oswald's transfer would very likely have already taken place by the time Ruby got done with his Western Union business.

That makes perfect sense to me. Just as it also makes perfect sense to say that if stripper Karen Carlin had not telephoned Ruby when she did on the morning of 11/24/63 (10:20 AM), then Oswald would very likely not have been shot. (And who in their right mind thinks Karen Carlin was a co-conspirator in a plot to rub out Oswald?)

IOW---Oswald was killed not by a conspiracy, but instead as a result of good old garden-variety HAPPENSTANCE. To believe anything else requires twisting yourself into a pretzel in order to bring "conspiracy" into Jack Ruby's movements on November 24th in Dallas.

Could it be here that Mr. Von Pein just MAY be willing to admit that at least one member of the Warren Commission was not 100% truthful when talking about the JFK assassination?

I think I made that relatively clear (without actually coming right out and calling Gerald Ford the L-word) when I said this in my thread-opener....

"And it is quotes like that one, which is just blatantly false (unless I am severely misinformed as to the correct number of police lineups attended by Howard L. Brennan in November of 1963), that make it even more difficult to convince the public that the Warren Commission's investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy was a completely honest and forthright one." -- DVP

I'm sure he'll likely find an excuse to reconcile why Ford's statement contradicts the evidence, but how neither the evidence nor Ford's words contain a lie. I'm just not certain how he'll perform such a contortionist act, but I'm sure we'll see it soon.

Part of the reason I created this thread was to gauge CTer reaction to that quote of Ford's, and also to find out how many people here were even aware that Ford said such a thing in LIFE Magazine in late 1964. (I certainly had not been previously aware of the quote, and I have never once in the past heard anyone else mention it either.)

It is disconcerting to me to think that a member of the Warren Commission would make such a false statement in an article that he knew would be seen by millions of people. I just don't know what to make of it. I really don't.

But the existence of such a strange quote has certainly NOT suddenly erased or destroyed the large amount of evidence that supports Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt in JFK's murder. Yes, it's a quote that I do not think is accurate at all--and it is entirely misleading as well (giving the impression to LIFE's readers that a key witness to the assassination had, in fact, made a positive identification of Oswald during an official police lineup at the Dallas Police Department--which I'm nearly certain did not happen at any time in November 1963).

But, based on that one foolish and inaccurate statement about Howard Brennan made by Gerald R. Ford, to then make a giant leap and to also start believing that the thousands of pages of documents and testimony and evidence that fully support and, in my opinion, confirm Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murders are all now suddenly fraudulent and inaccurate is too much for any reasonable person to accept. (IMO.)

In wrestling with the words contained in Ford's quote, in an attempt to find some kind of a fair and halfway reasonable explanation that could reconcile the statement in a manner that doesn't end up with Gerald Ford coming across as a bald-faced L-word, the only thing I could come up with is the following scenario (and it's not very satisfying to me, particularly since Ford made the statement at a time when the Warren Commission was undoubtedly still in existence in September 1964, which means his memory is not likely to have faded very much, if at all, when it comes to recalling the events and testimony surrounding the assassination)....

Mr. Ford, somehow, in some inexplicable manner, had it in his mind and honestly believed (as of September 1964, just a few months after Howard Brennan testified to something completely different in front of the Commission) that Mr. Brennan had, indeed, identified Oswald at a second police lineup at the DPD on either November 22 or 23, 1963 (the only two days Brennan could have possibly seen Oswald in a lineup).

In other words, via this wholly speculative scenario I'm painting here, Gerald Ford, who did know that Brennan did positively identify Lee Oswald at some point in time after the assassination, had it stuck in his mind that Brennan's positive IDing of Oswald while he was testifying in front of the Warren Commission was actually a positive identification provided by Brennan months earlier at a second police lineup at the Dallas Police Department.

A pretty ridiculous explanation, isn't it? Yeah, as I said, I think it is too. But in an effort to give Mr. Gerald Rudolph Ford every benefit of every doubt I can muster, it's about the only explanation I can come up with that would explain Ford's quote in a manner which has Mr. Ford NOT telling a whopper of a lie to the American people in one of the USA's most popular magazines on October 2, 1964.

David Von Pein

August 11, 2015

Today I was reading Gerald Ford's article that originally appeared in the October 2, 1964, issue of LIFE Magazine, and I noted something odd on page 50 of that magazine when Ford said this....

"H.L. Brennan, who actually saw Oswald shoot the President and provided the first description, decided soon afterward that his own life was in critical danger. At the first police lineup, he later told us, he recognized Oswald immediately but feared to admit it. At the second lineup, he made the identification despite the feared consequences."

But I am unaware of a SECOND police lineup attended by Howard Brennan. No second lineup is mentioned in Brennan's Warren Commission testimony.

The above quote by Gerald Ford, in which he tells America in LIFE Magazine that Howard Brennan DID positively identify Lee Harvey Oswald at a police lineup, has no doubt raised the hackles (and the suspicions) of some conspiracy theorists who are aware of the quote.

And it is quotes like that one, which is just blatantly false (unless I am severely misinformed as to the correct number of police lineups attended by Howard L. Brennan in November of 1963), that make it even more difficult to convince the public that the Warren Commission's investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy was a completely honest and forthright one.

I can only shrug my shoulders and wonder why Mr. Ford would want to invent a "second lineup", when such a thing is directly contradicted by Ford's very own Warren Commission final report (on Page 143, where it's stated fairly clearly that Brennan only attended one single lineup at the Dallas Police Department), as well as being contradicted in the testimony of Howard Brennan himself in WC Volume 3 and in Brennan's May 7, 1964, affidavit which also appears in Warren Commission Volume 11. All of which can easily be verified by any conspiracy theorist who takes the time to check out the information.

~big shrug~

Running neck and neck (well, sort of). As of 2:30 PM EDT on 8/10/15....

"Beyond Reasonable Doubt" (Mel Ayton & David Von Pein) --- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #140,315 in Books

"JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda" (Vincent Palamara) --- Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #261,299 in Books

What's so hard about believing the Dallas cops fudged as to the bullets allegedly found on Oswald?

But what for, Jon? Why would they even WANT to "fudge" anything relating to the five unfired bullets that Detective Elmer Boyd said he took out of Lee Oswald's pocket?

The DPD already had the bullet shells at the Tippit murder scene and the six unfired bullets in the chamber of the gun they wrested out of Oswald's hand. Not to mention the revolver itself. So why would an additional five bullets be needed to convict Oswald? Makes no sense to me.

And I completely disagree with this statement you made above, Jon:

"The whole story of Oswald's having a revolver or clip-fed semi-automatic on November 22 is rife with question marks."

The key to knowing that Officer Tippit's killer positively did not shoot Tippit with any kind of an automatic weapon is the location of where the bullet shells were found after the shooting.

Those shells weren't found right next to Tippit's patrol car--which, of course, IS where Tippit's murderer was located when he shot Tippit--right there by the car.

The shells, instead, were found by THREE separate civilian witnesses near the corner of Tenth Street and Patton Avenue. If Tippit's killer had used an automatic, the shells would have been automatically ejected right there by Tippit's police car.

Therefore, how can conspiracy theorists who think Tippit was shot with an automatic gun possibly even begin to (logically) explain how those four expended bullet shells could have been found at the corner of 10th & Patton if J.D. Tippit was really shot many yards up the road on Tenth Street (which, of course, he was, according to every witness at the scene)?

Plus, we can know that Tippit's killer did not have in his possession an automatic weapon by also examining the first-day (November 22) statements of witnesses Virginia Davis and Barbara Davis. Each of those Davis girls said in her 11/22/63 affidavit that the man they each saw cutting across their yard right after the shooting occurred was dumping shells from the gun he was holding. And that means the gunman was carrying a revolver, not an automatic.

Both Davis girls, who each positively identified the gunman they saw as Lee Harvey Oswald, used the same word in their individual affidavits that they filled out and signed on November 22nd -- "unloading":

Virginia Davis -- "I saw the boy cutting across our yard and he was unloading his gun."

Barbara Davis -- "I saw this man walking across my front yard unloading a gun."

I guess Jim DiEugenio (and other CTers too) have added DPD detective Elmer L. Boyd to their Liars List with respect to the five unfired bullets that Boyd said he himself took out of Lee Harvey Oswald's pocket on 11/22/63 [at 7 H 126]....

Mr. BALL. Before you went into the showup, did you search Oswald?
Mr. BOYD. Yes; I did.
Mr. BALL. And what did you find?
Mr. BOYD. I found five .38 shells, I believe it was five.
Mr. BALL. Live? Live shells?
Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. What did you do with them?
Mr. BOYD. Well, I put them in an envelope and put them with the rest of the property up there to be turned in.
Mr. BALL. Did you put any mark on them?
Mr. BOYD. Let me see I can look and see.
Mr. BALL. I will show you Commission Exhibit 592 in an envelope, will you take a look at that--at the cartridges?
Mr. BOYD. Yes---I got my mark on them.
Mr. BALL. You have your mark on all five of them?
Mr. BOYD. I have my mark on the first three---yes, sir---I have my mark on all of them.
Mr. BALL. On all five of them?
Mr. BOYD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL. You put those marks on there, did you?
Mr. BOYD. Yes, I did.
Mr. BALL. Now, looking those cartridges over, can you tell me whether these five cartridges, which constitute Commission Exhibit 592, are the cartridges which you took from Oswald?
Mr. BOYD. Yes, they are.
Mr. BALL. And where were you when you put the mark on them?
Mr. BOYD. I was back up in my office.
Mr. BALL. When you first took them from Oswald, where did you put them?
Mr. BOYD. I put them in my pocket.

Greg,

Do you think the Dallas Police planted five unfired bullets in Lee Oswald's pocket?

Or, alternatively, do you think the DPD just MADE UP a story about LHO having 5 bullets in his pocket?

Some reviews for "Beyond Reasonable Doubt"....

"'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' is co-authored by two of my favourite assassination writers/commentators. For me, Ayton and Von Pein are a dream ticket. Ayton is studious and measured, whilst Von Pein is battle-hardened and caustic. Ayton's academic credentials, allied with Von Pein's years of ferocious online exchanges with the baying masses of the Lee Harvey Oswald fan club, have come together in this outstanding book. This meeting-of-minds is the iron fist inside the velvet glove of assassination writing.

For readers who are looking for a no-nonsense introduction to a case that has been mangled and misrepresented by legions of cynics and paranoiacs for half-a-century, 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' is an ideal starting point.

The authors begin by discussing the two main investigations into the case: the Warren Commission and the HSCA. As is to be expected, both writers give praise and criticism where it is due. There's no ducking of issues here. Mistakes were made by both investigations and there's no attempt to whitewash the errors. Ayton and Von Pein call it like it is. A pat on the back here and a kick up the rear there.

The chapters move through the gathered evidence—and there was a lot of it—which shows Oswald to have been the murderer of two men.

[...]

The chapters dealing with 'Oswald's Defenders' and the 'Usual Suspects' are particularly enjoyable. Mel and David pour scorn on the charlatans who have earned big bucks by selling lies and deceptions to the public since day one.

[...]

The bulk of the book is given over to re-examining issues that have long been resolved. Unfortunately these issues can't be put to rest because the amateur researchers seem to feel that they are better qualified than the professionals to conduct investigations and reach conclusions. The 'Miss Marple' brigade will be with us for a long time yet, it seems. Hence the need for books like 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt'.

[...]

Appendix One is a 'solo' contribution from DVP and those familiar with his outstanding blogspot will recognise the man in full flow.

Appendix Two features a highly detailed debunking of the 'acoustic evidence' written by Michael O'Dell. It's very good and it meshes well with the analyses of the CBA, James C. Bowles and Dale Myers. There never was a grassy knoll shot.

Do I like or love this book? I love it! Readers who are grounded in provable facts and common sense will love it too."

— Barry Ryder; May 8, 2015

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

"I found 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' to be a very well written, easily readable book, and not simply a Warren Commission apology book. The author does not give the Warren Commission a free pass, and rightly so. Mr. Ayton does a nice job of pointing out that although the ultimate conclusion that Lee Oswald murdered Kennedy and Tippit was correct, the bureaucracies involved in the investigation were their own worst enemies in many respects, and their handling of the investigation ultimately added fuel for conspiracy theorists to pollute the JFK assassination landscape for decades. Much needed context regarding this is found in BRD.

Having David Von Pein's name attached to this book, and his contribution to BRD, is only a plus. Mr. Von Pein is one of the most knowledgeable, respected researchers/archivists around and has amassed an enormous archive of JFK-related material and blogs that is unmatched on the internet.

The contribution Michael O'Dell provides concerning his attempt to recreate the Weiss & Aschkenasy acoustic study results for the HSCA is, in my opinion, nothing short of stunning, and should be regarded as the historical standard of truth about the W&A/HSCA final conclusions of a so-called "possible conspiracy".

A welcome feature in the Kindle version of BRD are clickable links found in the Notes and Sources section as well as links to DVP's blog. This feature alone may make the Kindle version the way to go with this book.

'Beyond Reasonable Doubt' lives up to its title for 'reasonable' people who wish to learn about the assassination, and learn why many theories put forth by conspiracy theorists hopelessly fall flat under close scrutiny. Conspiracy theorists will stomp on a book like BRD, like a rhino putting out a jungle fire, but in the end BRD shows us how the conspiracy theorists have it all wrong, and always have, and beyond ALL reasonable doubt, Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of double murder on Nov. 22, 1963. Well done."

— Michael Giampaolo; April 26, 2015

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

"These gents, especially Mr. Von Pein, who I had the pleasure of debating for 24 hours [HERE], are very sincere in their contention that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin of President Kennedy and the murderer of Officer Tippit. Whatever your own feelings, you can be sure that the authors have done their due diligence and are "calling it as they see it". An all around compelling read that belongs on the shelf of all assassination researchers. No matter what your personal feelings are regarding the big event - this book will be a worthwhile addition to your library."

— Bruce Alan; February 1, 2015

MORE "GOOD" REVIEWS:

And, for the sake of equal "CTer" time, here are all the negative reviews for the book:

http://amazon.com/BRD/One-Star-Reviews

And since Vince Palamara was kind enough to start this thread about "BRD" in the first place (and thanks, Vince, for doing that), I'll put in a plug for Vince's newest book, "JFK: From Parkland To Bethesda: The Ultimate Kennedy Assassination Compendium", which is due out via Trine Day publishing on November 1, 2015....

TOM SCULLY SAID:

He's back [on The Education Forum]! What on earth are you [Jim DiEugenio] thinking?

AT DPF ON 7/10/15, JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

I didn't like DVP calling me a clown.

Second, I got the impression that Davey was essentially browbeating the opposition down.

Therefore, I thought it was necessary for Spartacus to arrange a jail break.

Some of those new people are not familiar with the techniques Davey uses.

ON 8/5/15, JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

As I just wrote elsewhere, if others will agree not to address someone who Bob P just called a clown, so will I.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, now that Jim has me on "Ignore", I guess his presence here is a bit superfluous.

It's funny. Jimbo re-joins EF to combat mean ol' DVP who is "browbeating the opposition". But after about three weeks, James puts me on his Ignore list. Kind of defeats the purpose of his re-joining, huh?

Hilarious.

***Comedy Break!!***

24 ASSASSINS IN DEALEY PLAZA---INCLUDING JACK RUBY (IN THE TSBD)!! .....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-993.html

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Garry Puffer now wants to pretend that those 22 things (aka myths) he itemized haven't already been explained by LNers in a reasonable manner 1,001 times before.

Keep pretending, Garry. After all, it's all you can do at this point.

This myth below is my favorite (and a relatively new fairy tale too; did DiEugenio invent this one, or did he get it from one of the many conspiracy-happy authors he loves to quote so dearly?)....

"15) That the bullets "discovered" in Oswald's pocket two hours after his arrest were there all along and were not planted by the DPD even though they show bullet slide corrosion and Oswald owned no bullet slide."

Absolutely hilarious. Now we've got kooks claiming the unfired bullets in Oswald's pants pocket were "planted". And for what possible purpose again?

Oh yes, I forgot---the patsy framers got bored and decided to plant needless and useless unfired bullets in Oswald's trousers.

How can Garry not be beet red after writing that #15 item?

~shrug~


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

The idea that a murder subject is allowed to walk around with bullets in his pocket for two hours is too silly for words.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah. Those bullets were really dangerous objects without a gun to put them into, weren't they, Garry? And with Oswald in handcuffs too.

No, the silly thing is to even begin to believe that the cops would have had any desire to "plant" 5 unfired bullets on suspect Oswald.

But CTers have a patent on "silly". In fact, it's stamped on their driver's licenses in most U.S. states.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Okay... If you're telling the truth... then simply cite the previous LNTer answer to Capt Fritz's reason for moving out way ahead of Oswald. My guess is that you won't. So I'll just save both of us the trouble, and label you a xxxx.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Captain Fritz was helping to clear the path ahead of Oswald. Fritz can even be seen shoving a man aside with his hand just a second before Ruby fired his shot:

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kdfw/projects/JFKvideo/video/jfk021.html

But to think Fritz deliberately opened up a gap so that Ruby could slip in and shoot Oswald is a theory that's just about as nutty as Garry Puffer's 15th item on his above list of silliness.

The whole "Fritz plotted to have Oswald killed" thing is just too silly to even contemplate. But since neither I (nor any other LNer on the planet) can possibly fully explain exactly WHY Captain Fritz was walking a little bit out in front of Oswald in the DPD basement, that "unknowable" is apparently something that CTers think gives them the freedom to speculate that Fritz was part of some prearranged plot to have Lee Harvey Oswald murdered in the basement of City Hall on 11/24/63.

But, of course, CTers are in the exact same boat as LNers on this one --- because the CTers can also not possibly PROVE any theory they have with respect to why Captain Fritz was walking ahead of Oswald that day. The CTers can only do what they always do with every single "unknowable" aspect of the whole JFK case --- they speculate. Nothing more.

And, IMO, it's groundless (and laughable) speculation.


DEX OLSEN SAID:

For enough money, Davy, history has proved even the POTUS will do unimaginable things. And compared with Fritz giving Ruby an unobstructed target, it's not nearly as far-fetched as you're making it sound.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's far-fetched from the following standpoint all by itself....

The DPD would not want to DELIBERATELY give themselves a permanent black eye by opening themselves up to severe public criticism by their utter failure in being able to protect the life of the most famous prisoner they would ever see at City Hall.

You really think Fritz and Company would have wanted to stain themselves in such a manner for all time---ON PURPOSE?!

Time for a Reality Check, Dex.


ON ANOTHER TOPIC, DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

I've always been a bit baffled by the crackpot conspiracy theorists who argue that Lee Harvey Oswald never ordered or paid for or ever took possession of Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 in 1963.

It seems to me that even the rabid CTers in the "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity would be better off by just admitting the obvious---that Oswald did purchase that rifle. Because the CTers could then pretend that the conspirators who framed Oswald did so by using OSWALD'S OWN RIFLE.

Isn't that a better theory than the loopy "Oswald Never Ordered The Rifle At All" theory? Via that theory of LHO never ordering the weapon, the CTers are then forced to pretend that the entire rifle transaction and the paperwork for that transaction was falsely manufactured from the ground up!

And yet that type of "Everything's Fake" nonsense is supposedly more believable than just conceding that Rifle C2766 was Oswald's own rifle and some plotters framed LHO with it on 11/22/63? Bizarre.

But that's the CT world, I guess --- Bizarre.

http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx2T1ONZ8JU428H&cdMsgNo=381&cdPage=16&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3S6UAIF5802TL#Mx2T1ONZ8JU428H

I am playing shortstop.

And that's where you'll have to stay throughout the entire game, Jim. You can never come to bat, because.....

"I am part of the defense team." -- James DiEugenio; July 26, 2015

Yeah, that's right, Jim. More "cover up" operatives. And more deception.

It never ends, does it, Jimmy? It's passed on from one generation of liars to the next, isn't it?

In a word --- Hogwash.

jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-shot-that-missed-jfk-a-new-forensic-study

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Fantasy? Doesn't Von Pein know that Oswald himself denied anything about curtain rods?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:



I love it! Jimmy is relying on the statements made by the accused assassin himself when it comes to the critically important topic of the alleged curtain rods.

Yeah, Jim, the assassin himself would certainly have no reason to lie about the contents of that brown paper bag, would he?

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ask Davey how many people saw Oswald carry a long, bulky package inside the TSBD?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Buell Frazier saw it. He was the only one. But, so what?

My question would be: Why isn't Buell Frazier's testimony on this point good enough for many of the conspiracy theorists? But since Jim D. has decided to paint Frazier as a big fat [L-word], without a stitch of proof to back up such a vile allegation, it means Jim now thinks it's okay to totally dismiss Frazier's unwavering testimony about seeing Oswald walk into the back door of the Depository carrying a long brown paper bag, which is testimony that Frazier has maintained since Day 1 on November 22, 1963, via his first-day affidavit.

And Buell never backtracked on the "curtain rods" part of his testimony and statements either, as we can also tell by looking at that same 11/22/63 affidavit, in which he mentions the "curtain rods" three separate times. (Buell was sure fast at making up a bunch of lies, wasn't he Jim?)

Earlier this year, I posted the following comments about this subject:

"Jack Dougherty said he only saw Oswald enter the back door "out of the corner of my eye" [6 H 377].

Therefore, why would Dougherty have been expected to notice anything in Oswald's hands? He could have easily missed seeing the package because he wasn't really LOOKING at Oswald at all.

And yet, to hear conspiracy theorists tell it, Dougherty is a rock-solid witness whose testimony positively PROVES Oswald never had any package with him on 11/22/63.

Once again, in my opinion, CTers fail to properly evaluate the sum total of JFK evidence. (Do they ever?)

[...]

Given the circumstances, why would you expect anybody else [other than Frazier and Randle] to necessarily have seen Oswald with the package?

It's early in the morning on Nov. 22. Lee walks toward the Frazier house. Linnie Mae happens to be looking out the window and sees LHO with the package. Then the only other person that I would have completely EXPECTED to see the package---Buell Wesley Frazier---sees the paper bag on the back seat (and sees LHO carry it into the TSBD Building).

And...it's quite possible that Oswald might have stashed the bag/rifle in the Loading Dock area BEFORE he ever entered the inner door that led to the TSBD's first floor (where Jack Dougherty was). But we also know that Dougherty said he only saw LHO that morning out of the "corner" of his eye. So why would you expect him to have necessarily seen any package even if Lee had it with him at that time?

So, IMO, the argument about "Only Two People Saw Him With The Package" is a very weak argument given the time of day and the conditions of Oswald putting the package in the back seat of Frazier's car (where nobody BUT Frazier and Oswald himself could possibly see it on the way to work). Therefore, I wouldn't necessarily expect anyone else to see that brown bag. And, quite obviously (given the overall evidence and testimony), I'm right---nobody else did see it."

-- DVP; March/April 2015

Now let's ask Jim how many people saw somebody with a gun behind the fence on the Grassy Knoll?

The answer to that question, as Jim knows full well, is ZERO. And yet Jim still thinks there was a gunman on that Knoll.

Go figure.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ask him why Ruth Paine never saw any rods.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Huh? You're kidding, right?

You think Ruth should have seen the curtain rods that Lee Oswald just made up out of thin air?!

Earth to Jimmy D. --- Lee Harvey Oswald's curtain rods never existed. Therefore, nobody (including Ruth Paine) could have seen Oswald's make-believe rods.

Duh!


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ask him why neither Ruth nor Marina saw any packing material left at the Paine household?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I only wish the police had searched through all of Ruth Paine's trash cans right after the assassination. If they had, I think they just might have found some scraps of TSBD paper and tape that might have been discarded by Oswald after he constructed his homemade 38-inch brown paper bag. But, as far as I am aware, no such "trash can search" occurred at Ruth's house. (Did it, Jim?) So, that could be the answer to your question right there.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ask Davey about Troy West and his testimony on this point.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I tackled the Troy West "problem" in 2007 with these remarks:

"If I had a gun to my head and was being forced to explain just exactly WHEN Oswald created his makeshift rifle-carrying bag, I'd say this:

Oswald, IMO, most likely took some wrapping paper and tape from the Texas School Book Depository's first-floor shipping/mailing area on Thursday, November 21st (which is the same day he asked Wesley Frazier for the unusual weeknight ride to Ruth Paine's home in Irving).

Yes, it's true that TSBD "mail wrapper" Troy West testified that he had never seen Oswald hanging around the wrapping-paper area on the first floor, but I think it's a fair and reasonable assumption to say that Oswald, in his quest to gain access to the paper and tape, was probably wise enough to wait until Mr. West had left his work station for a few minutes.

Perhaps Oswald waited until West went to use the bathroom, which everybody has to do a few times every single day of their lives. And while West was temporarily away from his mailing station, Oswald swiped some wrapping paper and some tape.

And, undoubtedly, LHO folded up the wrapping paper so he could conceal the paper more easily during his ride to Irving with Frazier on Thursday evening.

Oswald probably hid the folded paper and tape under his blue jacket that he certainly wore to work at least one time shortly before November 22nd (LHO's blue jacket was found in the first-floor "Domino Room" in early December 1963).

It's also worth mentioning that the bag found on the sixth floor of the TSBD after the assassination had symmetrical, evenly-spaced folds in it....just as if someone had folded it up to make its size much smaller before using it for stashing a 30-plus-inch object (like, say, a dismantled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle)....



I'll also add this concerning Troy West and his Warren Commission testimony:

West didn't say that a Depository employee positively COULDN'T have taken some paper and tape from the workbench/mailing area. In fact, with respect to the tape, Mr. West specifically told the Warren Commission that employees "could come get it if they wanted to use it" [6 H 361]." -- DVP; October 2007


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ask Davey how many people saw Oswald carry home a roll of long brown paper from the TSBD.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'll repeat something I said above, which seems to fit in nicely here:

"Undoubtedly, LHO folded up the wrapping paper so he could conceal the paper more easily during his ride to Irving with Frazier on Thursday evening. Oswald probably hid the folded paper and tape under his blue jacket that he certainly wore to work at least one time shortly before November 22nd (LHO's blue jacket was found in the first-floor Domino Room in early December 1963)."


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ask Davey about Cadigan's testimony about the lack of any oil or grease on the sack. Yet the rifle had been soaked in Cosmoline.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

"Soaked"? (Hilarious.)

Anyway, common sense should tell us that the OUTSIDE portions of a rifle (any rifle) probably won't be dripping (or "soaked") with oil or grease at any point in time. It's the INTERIOR portions of a rifle that get oiled. So why should we expect to see any oil or grease on the outer parts of the weapon? And if no grease or oil gets on the outer portions of the gun, then why would anybody expect to see any greasy substances on a paper bag that that gun was transported in?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ask Davey to show you the picture of the sack lying in situ at the TSBD.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In hindsight, that was, indeed, a mistake made by the DPD photographers (J.C. Day and Robert Studebaker). The bag should have been photographed before it was picked up by the police. But....

"Even though no picture of the bag was taken by the DPD that shows the bag in the Sniper's Nest, there were multiple police officers who testified that they DID see a paper bag lying on the floor in the southeast corner window on the sixth floor before the bag was picked up. Four of those officers are:

J.C. Day [4 H 267]
L.D. Montgomery [7 H 97]
Robert Studebaker [7 H 143-144]
Marvin Johnson [7 H 103]

It's fairly obvious, of course, why conspiracy clowns like DiEugenio feel the need to distance themselves from the reality concerning that brown paper bag. Because if those conspiracists were to actually face the stubborn truth about the bag (with that truth being: it was Lee Harvey Oswald's homemade bag and Oswald carried his rifle, inside that bag, into the Book Depository Building), then those conspiracists would be forced to admit that their precious "patsy" had probably taken that gun to work in order to shoot somebody with it on the day President Kennedy came to town.

What other reasonable and logical conclusion could anyone come to after they've admitted to themselves the obvious truth -- that Lee Oswald did, in fact, walk into the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, with a rifle wrapped in brown paper?" -- DVP; October 3, 2012


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

But most of all, ask him about Hoover's two differing memos on the paper used to construct the gun sack.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I've covered "Hoover's two differing memos" in great detail in this October 21, 2014, Internet discussion.

Oh, you don't want to deal with new evidence which shows the rifle was never ordered or picked up. Just like Vince did not.

Complete garbage. There is no "new" evidence that proves your goofy "No Rifle Was Ordered" theory, Jimmy. Only the CT INTERPRETATION of the Klein's evidence. And it's an interpretation that's about as believable as the moonbat "No Airplanes Hit The World Trade Center" theories. It's THAT ridiculous. You should be thoroughly embarrassed at having written the following words -- "I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction." [J. DiEugenio; 8/5/15]

But evidently no theory is too fringe-like for Mr. DiEugenio. He's proven that fact over and over again:

22 Stupid Things James DiEugenio Believes

Joe Ball's 1964 retort to Mark Lane concerning Oswald's rifle purchase is just as true today as it was then. It's a great quote, and completely accurate:

"I've never heard such a major distortion of what is actually a conclusive fact." -- Joseph A. Ball; 12/4/64

isn't that cute.

you have some silly idea that i visit your website. awwwww.....

Well, since you said you were going to try to trip me up on the issue of whether I have ever said that a SINGLE piece of evidence proves LHO's guilt, I assumed that meant a pretty good scouring of my site. But I guess you meant you were going to ONLY search this forum's archives. If so, you'll miss a lot of posts. But good luck anyway.

in fact, you had permission to think for yourself before he was gone. you just may not have realized it, it seems...

I have disagreed with Vince Bugliosi on several things relating to the JFK case. You just may not have realized it, it seems. But all of those disagreements are laid out on my website. Keep reading. You'll get to them--some day...some decade.

1964 Rifle Debate (Mark Lane vs. Joe Ball)....

How could I possibly top this, though, Mr. Healy? .....

"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." -- VB

Here's a real doozy of a conspiracy myth/fantasy:

The "Oswald Never Ordered The Rifle" Myth

The curtain rods story did not originate with Oswald.

That is pure hearsay through Frazier.

Great tactic, Jim. Make Buell Wesley Frazier the villain, instead of accepting the truth about Oswald's curtain rod lie.

That's exactly the type of argument that only a truly desperate conspiracy theorist would even consider making. A conspiracy theorist like, say, James DiEugenio, who admitted on July 26, 2015, that he considers himself to be "part of the defense team".

Oswald did not order or pick up that rifle.

More pure fantasy on DiEugenio's behalf. Or--to be more accurate--pure wishful thinking.

No reasonable person thinks Oswald never ordered the rifle. And, once again, the preposterous "Oswald Never Ordered The Rifle" myth is precisely the kind of claptrap that you'd expect to come from a person who said --- "It's not my job to say what really happened. I am part of the defense team."

Who's leading with their chin now, Jimmy?

and on, and on, and on, and ON... ad nauseam

What do you mean, David? I was actually doing something in that "Two Things" article that I never do -- I was "isolating" some of the evidence in order to make a point. As I told Glenn earlier, it was done as an exercise or "experiment" to emphasize and buttress Vince Bugliosi's comment about how you could toss aside "80% of the evidence" and still come away with a guilty Oswald.

But that is something--isolating from the whole--that I can only recall doing in that one instance (for that "Two Things" article in 2006). And I do, indeed, nine years later, still think I'm correct with respect to those "two things" that I isolated in that article. Because those two things, in tandem, in my opinion DO add up to a GUILTY LEE OSWALD.

What other reason--except for wanting to hide his guilt--would Oswald have had for telling his "curtain rods" lie to Wesley Frazier? (And he lied to Frazier TWICE remember--once on Nov. 21 and then again on the morning of Nov. 22.)

The FACT that the rifle was OSWALD'S (which it was, regardless of anything the CTers say about it--which are desperate and laughable arguments by those CTers in an anemic effort to keep Oswald away from Rifle C2766 at all costs), PLUS the fact Oswald was carrying a large-ish package with him on Nov. 22 (confirmed by TWO different witnesses), which was a package that Oswald LIED about when he told Wesley Frazier it contained curtain rods, are things that add up to only one thing, IMO --- Oswald's guilt. (And that's why LHO had to lie about what was in that paper bag.)