David Von Pein

PS Davey never answered the question I submitted to him. Where did the list of 24 witnesses go, and why could the FBI not find it? Keep blowing smoke Davey I am about to demolish you again.

And keep pretending that George Applin is another member of your Liars Club (or was coerced into writing the affidavit below), Jimmy.

The more you keep rambling, the more you sound like a clone of Prof. James H. Fetzer.

Time to add Murray Jackson to the Liars Club, Jimbo....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6f3QM-zH5k

Why did the police never submit the official list of patrons drawn up by the police for the Texas Theater? The estimate is about 24.

Jim D.,

Perhaps you are aware of a witness by the name of George J. Applin Jr.

Mr. Applin filled out an official affidavit on the day of the assassination, wherein he stated the following:

"On Friday evening [sic], November 22, 1963 at about 1:45 p.m., I was seated on the main floor of the Texas Theater on West Jefferson in Dallas, Texas. As I watched the movie I saw an officer walking down the isle [sic] with a riot gun and about that time the light came on in the theater. One of the patrolmen walked down to the front of the theater and walked back up the isle [sic] and I got up and started walking toward the front of the theater. I saw the officer shake two men down and then asked a man sitting by himself to stand up. As the officer started to shake him down, and when he did, this boy took a swing at the officer and then the next thing I could see was this boy had his arm around the officer's left shoulder and had a pistol in his hand. I heard the pistol snap at least once. Then I saw a large group of officers subdue this boy and arrest him." -- /s/ George Jefferson Applin Jr.

Affidavit-Of-George-Applin-Jr.gif

--------

So, as we can see in the above affidavit, George Applin, a 21-year-old civilian who was in the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested, confirms all of the basic points brought out in Officer M.N. McDonald's account of Oswald's arrest. And Applin told the Warren Commission essentially the same things he said in his 11/22/63 affidavit (starting at 7 H 88).

So, Jim, should we now add the name of George Applin Jr. to your list of liars? Or is George on that list already?

FYI....

Here is JFK's complete "U.S. Steel" press conference....

Was anyone disputing that a scuffle of some sort took place?

Who can tell with Internet CTers. They simply utilize whole cloth speculation to supplant the facts, as DiEugenio has done so many times, such as the examples quoted below....

"Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015

"I believe the incident [i.e., second-floor encounter] was created after the fact. .... I think the guy on the stairway was probably the guy that [James] Worrell saw running out the back of the building. I think the other conspirators got out through the freight elevator after planting the rifle and shells. And I think the odds are that Sean [Murphy] is correct about LHO being outside. Sean brought up some other devastating evidence--including photos--about how the WC aided in putting the whole lunch room encounter together. It took them awhile to get it down and he showed some amazing photos of the dress rehearsal." -- James DiEugenio; July 14, 2015

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

So it wouldn't surprise me the least little bit if tomorrow Jimmy D. declares that no fight involving Lee Harvey Oswald occurred at all in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63. Such a declaration of nonsense is just exactly what I have come to expect from Internet conspiracy hounds.

And Jimbo is just a whisker away from accepting Oswald as "Prayer Man" in the Depository doorway too. So, nothing would surprise me at this point. Because it couldn't be more obvious here in 2015 that retiring schoolteacher James DiEugenio of Los Angeles, California, can be very easily swayed and influenced by just about any conspiracy theorist---just as long as that CTer is a member of the "Oswald Never Shot Anybody" frat club.

I mean, DiEugenio still thinks Jim Garrison, John Armstrong, Sean Murphy, Martin Hay, and Gil Jesus are convincing sources for factual information. And that's pretty sad company to be in. Yikes!

And the CT model is SO much more efficient, isn't it Greg?...

Endless-List-Of-Liars.com

You [Greg Parker] won't win any prizes for it, but if it makes you feel better, keep claiming credit for being the first to doubt Baker encountered Oswald.

This is hilarity at its finest.

It's kind of like wanting to take credit for being the person who designed The Edsel.

LOL

I once put tighter a list of fifty witnesses who all contradicted the official story in a serious way.

Davey accepted them by saying they were not lying.

That is the kind of case he defends. What? Fifty people?

Sure. Why not? Talk to 50 people about the very same event and you're likely to get dozens of different versions of that event.

You just confirmed that Mark Knight was dead wrong when he said I think a whole bunch of people connected with the JFK case were liars. I never have said anything of the kind, of course. The only provable liars in the case that I can think of offhand are Roger Craig and Jean Hill.

But how about answering my previous question, Jim.....

Do you think Oswald drew a gun in the Texas Theater?

Yet you insist that in any story that conflicts with the "official" story, someone must be "LYING."

When have I ever "insisted" anything of the kind, Knight? Please cite.

Or do you think "WRONG" and "LYING" have the exact same meaning?

In actuality, I have called very few people "liars" when it comes to the JFK case. Very few. Far fewer than Jim DiEugenio, that's for certain.

I just wonder how it becomes Jim DiEugenio calling Mcdonald a l-i-a-r when he's merely quoting testimony of another police officer, testimony that's also found in the Warren Commission Report. I would think that would make the testimony of one or the other of the officers to be cast into question.

Or did only the officers who support a certain story line tell the truth? If so, what does that make the other officers whose stories conflict?

No officer "lied", Mark. (Oh, sorry, I mean "Knight". You don't want to use first names, remember.)

Some of the stories just didn't perfectly match other officers' accounts. Simple as that. No lies. Just slight inconsistencies about a chaotic event that nobody was tape recording. Does everybody's memory of a hectic event HAVE to match perfectly in order for one party or the other to NOT be considered liars? That's crazy talk.

It's not my job to say what really happened. I am part of the defense team.

Those two sentences speak volumes.

IOW, to hell with common sense and to hell with reasonable interpretation of some minor inconsistencies in the record concerning Patrolman M.N. McDonald's account (and the accounts of other officers) of what happened in the theater during Oswald's arrest.

"I am part of the defense team" -- which means it is merely my job and my obligation to get Oswald off the hook if I can do so -- regardless of how many people I have to call liars.

Is that last sentence a fair assessment of what you've been doing to the John F. Kennedy murder case for the last 20+ years, Jim? I think it is. I'm just glad you admitted it with this bold statement (which indicates--to me anyway--that you're more interested in Oswald's DEFENSE than you really are in getting at the TRUTH)....

"I am part of the defense team." -- James DiEugenio; 7/26/15

So, Jim, is it your contention that Oswald never even pulled a gun (ANY gun) out of his pants in the Texas Theater? Is that what you think?

Or do McDonald's lies extend only as far as Oswald's alleged utterances inside the theater and the pinched hand that McDonald said kept LHO's revolver from firing?

Are you ready to state right here on this forum that it is your belief that Lee Harvey Oswald never brandished a firearm while inside the Texas Theater on November 22, 1963?

But, remember, if you do admit such a belief, you've got to add Johnny Brewer to your Liars List. Are you prepared to do that? (Silly question, I know. Jim's always got room for one more on that list. But I think Jim has already got Brewer on his Liars List anyway.)

Nobody has "detonated" Officer M.N. McDonald's story. And you're living in Fantasy Land if you think they have.

Apart from a few minor inconsistencies, McDonald's account of what happened in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63 is solid as a rock -- i.e., as McDonald approached the suspect in the theater, Oswald punched McDonald in the face and pulled a revolver from his waist and tried to shoot some policemen with that gun. During the struggle that ensued in an effort to disarm Oswald, Officer McDonald suffered this scratch on the left side of his face....

Do you think Nick McDonald himself caused that scratch on his face? Did he cut his own face just to make the "Let's Frame Oswald" plot look a little more genuine and authentic?

I think James DiEugenio knows, deep down, that M.N. McDonald was telling the truth about the theater scuffle. But Jim just can't pass up yet another opportunity to label another person a xxxx (that's the L word, of course, but the forum software won't allow that awful word to be printed here anymore).

Right, Jimmy?

I love it when Jimbo gets going on one of his "Everybody Lied" tangents. I wish he'd do it more often, in fact. Because it only solidifies things more for the "Lone Assassin" side. And that's because when you're forced to twist yourself into a pretzel in order to make your case for conspiracy or cover up by pretending that a whole bunch of people (from different walks of life) were outright liars, as Jim DiEugenio constantly does when discussing the JFK and Tippit murders, all reasonable people can easily see how desperate (and unreasonable) an argument that truly is.

Just because there aren't very many police officers who heard Oswald make his "This is it" and/or "It's all over now" statements, Jimmy D. is ready to declare Dallas Patrolman M.N. McDonald a member of Jim's Liars Club. It's just silly.

McDonald was the officer who was the closest to Oswald (and to Oswald's MOUTH) when Oswald made his statement (or statements, if he did, in fact, make both of the statements, which is not 100% clear; but LHO certainly made at least ONE statement, per Officer McDonald, that indicates a guilty state of mind, that's for sure).

And WHY would McDonald feel the need to lie about ANY statement that came out of Oswald's mouth? Just....why?

Yes, I myself have said that either of those two statements attributed to Oswald "reeks with guilt", that's true enough. But even WITHOUT such verbal statements coming from Oswald's lips, the facts are pretty clear that Oswald fought wildly with the police after pulling a gun on Officer McDonald in the Texas Theater. And that gun Oswald was waving around (which was seen during the struggle by civilian eyewitness Johnny C. Brewer as well) was proven to be the exact same gun that ended the life of Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit. And, try as he might, there's nothing Jimmy DiEugenio can do to change those basic facts.

So keep piling on those liars, Jim. Every time you do, you look much sillier than the day before.

Related article....

EVERYTHING LEE HARVEY OSWALD DID INDICATES HIS GUILT

Davey, in all honesty, Hoosier Pride and all, let me ask you this:

Do you ever trace the history of an evidentiary point in this case, or see if there are any differing views in the official story by someone else who was there on the scene?

Because if you had in this case, you would have seen that if there is one cop who may be as bad as Gerry Hill as a witness, it's McDonald. Either one of these guys would have been humiliated on the stand by a competent attorney.

But further, that BS about the police blocking a shot by LHO in the theater, please. Please Davey. The FBI lab technician exposed that for a hoax many years ago. Gil Jesus once had that on his site. And we are supposed to believe you do not know that? It's ancient history, and you know it.

What's wrong, slow day at KFC today?

Good job, Jimmy. Just keep piling on those liars. Gerald Hill, Nick McDonald, Johnny Brewer. (In addition to Buell Frazier, Linnie Randle, Ruth Paine, Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, and Will Fritz, among dozens of others.)

Who's next on your Liars List, Jim? Julia Postal? Or is she already part of your "Let's Frame Oswald At All Costs" fantasy plot?

Good gravy, even Oswald himself admitted that he had a gun on him when he was arrested [WR, p.601].

But maybe Lee was trying to frame himself as the patsy, eh Jim? Or you can always pretend that Captain Fritz was lying again on page 601 of the Warren Report. But if you go down the "Fritz lied" road, you're going to have to deal with the report written on 11/22/63 by FBI agents Hosty and Bookhout, which says....

"Oswald admitted to carrying a pistol with him to this movie, stating he did this because he felt like it, giving no other reason. Oswald further admitted attempting to fight the Dallas police officers who arrested him in this movie theater when he received a cut and a bump." -- 11/22/63 FBI Report by James Bookhout and James Hosty; WR, p.613

More liars, right Jimmy?

It's never a slow day at the "Let's Pretend Everybody Was Lying In Order To Frame Lee Harvey Oswald" factory, is it Jimbo?

DVP,

Apart from the fact that the DPD merely made allegations as to Oswald's behavior in the Texas Theater and never had to present those allegations to a jury at trial, I ask you to consider the behavior of Sandra Bland who was stopped by a Texas cop for not signaling a lane change. Bland was indignant and let the cop know in no uncertain terms. What offense did Bland commit? Her main offense, it's clear, was standing up to the cop.

When I get stopped for speeding, I'm all "Yes, sir. No, sir." That's because I know how the game is played and don't have any chip on my shoulder. Lots of individuals do have chips on their shoulders, however. That doesn't make them bad people. It indicates they're ordinary Americans who don't want to be hassled.

Jon,

Did Sandra Bland whip out a .38 revolver and start fighting wildly with the police officer who stopped her for a lane change violation?

Was Ms. Bland apprehended just a few blocks from where a policeman had been shot and killed with a .38 revolver just 35 minutes previously?

Did Ms. Bland make any statements like "This is it" or "It's all over now"?

And, to extrapolate a little bit more here, was Ms. Bland's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the building from where the President of the United States was assassinated just 80 minutes before she was stopped by the police?

So, Jon, while you are no doubt correct when you say that "ordinary Americans don't want to be hassled", the circumstances that existed when comparing Lee Harvey Oswald's statements and actions to those of Sandra Bland are not even close to being similar.

In other words, Jon, the argument you just made is a desperate argument that a person might make when he knows he really doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the question I asked in my thread-starting post, which was this question----

If Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of shooting BOTH John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit, then why did Oswald act like a guilty person in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63?

DVP,

We're talking here about two things: [1] police behavior, and [2] the behavior of ordinary citizens confronted by police.

We know from the Bland arrest and many other arrests about the overreaction of police. We also know about the reaction of citizens to being arrested. Some who were major perps caved at arrest (e.g., Ted Bundy). Some who were minor or not perps resisted.

You make lots of assumptions. I wish to keep assumptions to a minimum.

Jon,

In the case of Oswald's arrest in the Texas Theater, we know that Oswald pulled out a gun and was fighting with the policemen who were trying to get that gun away from him.

Did Sandra Bland pull out a gun?

And do you really think that I'm just dealing with "assumptions" when it comes to Oswald pulling a revolver out of his pants and fighting with the cops in the theater? You think those things are merely unproven "assumptions" on my part? Do you really believe that? If so, you've got to bring "ordinary American" Johnny Brewer into the alleged conspiracy and/or cover-up too, because Mr. Brewer was an eyewitness to Oswald's arrest in the movie theater and Brewer said that Lee Harvey Oswald had a gun in his hand during the scuffle with the police officers....

JOHHNY BREWER -- "McDonald was back up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air."

DAVID BELIN -- "Did you see from where the gun came?"

MR. BREWER -- "No."

MR. BELIN -- "You saw the gun up in the air?"

MR. BREWER -- "And somebody hollered "He's got a gun". And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I heard some of the police holler, I don't know who it was, "Kill the President, will you." And I saw fists flying and they were hitting him."

MR. BELIN -- "Was he fighting back at that time?"

MR. BREWER -- "Yes; he was fighting back."

[WC testimony of Johnny C. Brewer, at 7 H 6.]

Now, it's true that in Johnny Brewer's 12/6/63 affidavit, Brewer did not mention Oswald pulling out a gun in the theater. In his affidavit, however, Brewer did mention "the fight" that went on between Oswald and the police, plus the additional observation about how Oswald had "hit the officer and knocked him back".

But in subsequent statements, Brewer has maintained that Oswald had also pulled a gun on the arresting officers, such as in the 1986 video below....

And the 1964 CBS video linked below features separate interviews with Johnny Brewer and Police Officer M.N. McDonald. In McDonald's segment, he re-enacts the fight he had with Oswald (with Eddie Barker of KRLD-TV playing the part of Oswald). Do conspiracy theorists think Brewer and McDonald are telling a bunch of lies in that '64 CBS program?

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/warren-report-1964-cbs-tv.html

Question: What drives your thinking about the JFK assassination? Your conclusions? Or provable facts?

I think my conclusions are BASED on the "provable facts" in the JFK and Tippit murder cases. Such as....

...Oswald took a large-ish bag into the Book Depository Building on 11/22/63.

...Oswald lied about the contents of that bag.

...Oswald owned the rifle that killed President Kennedy.

...Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon in his hand 35 minutes after J.D. Tippit was killed with that same gun.

...Oswald did several unusual and out-of-the-ordinary things on Nov. 21 and Nov. 22, 1963.

The above things are, indeed, all "provable facts" as far as I am concerned. I know that many conspiracy promoters don't think ANY of the items listed above are "facts" at all. But the overall weight of the evidence and the testimony surrounding the above five facts would indicate that those conspiracy theorists are 100% wrong.

Jon,

Did Ms. Bland whip out a .38 revolver and start fighting wildly with the police officer who stopped her for a lane change violation?

Was Ms. Bland apprehended just a few blocks from where a policeman had been shot and killed with a .38 revolver just 35 minutes previously?

Did Ms. Bland make any statements like "This is it" or "It's all over now"?

And, to extrapolate a little bit more here, was Ms. Bland's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found in the building from where the President of the United States was assassinated just 80 minutes before she was stopped by the police?

So, Jon, while you are no doubt correct when you say that "ordinary Americans don't want to be hassled", the circumstances that existed when comparing Lee Harvey Oswald's statements and actions to those of Sandra Bland are not even close to being similar.

In other words, Jon, the argument you just made is a desperate argument that a person might make when he knows he really doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to the question I asked in my thread-starting post, which was this question----

If Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of shooting BOTH John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit, then why did Oswald act like a guilty person in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63?

If Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of shooting BOTH John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit, as so many Internet conspiracy theorists seem to believe he was, then why did Oswald act like a guilty person in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63?

Do completely innocent people normally do the things we know Oswald did while he was being apprehended in the theater that day? -- E.G., pulling a gun on police officers and saying things like "It's all over now" and/or "This is it".

Those two verbal statements -- all by themselves -- are extremely incriminating circumstantial evidence against Lee Oswald.

How can conspiracy theorists who believe in Oswald's complete innocence (CTers such as J. Raymond Carroll, for instance) possibly explain those words that Oswald was said to have uttered within a theory that has Oswald shooting nobody at all on November 22, 1963?

And the Cops All Lied About What Oswald Said dodge is hardly a convincing argument in light of what arresting officers M.N. McDonald and Paul Bentley had to say the following day (11/23/63)....

And then there are also the statements that Oswald allegedly made in the police car on the way to City Hall....

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "What is this all about? I know my rights. .... Police officer been killed? I hear they burn for murder."

POLICE OFFICER C.T. WALKER -- "You might find out."

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Well, they say it just takes a second to die."

[Via Warren Commission testimony of C.T. Walker; at 7 H 40 and 7 H 41.]

Now, what would a reasonable, objective person make out of Oswald's comment -- "Well, they say it just takes a second to die"? Would a truly innocent person have uttered the words "it just takes a second to die"? That statement reeks with guilt and Oswald's guilty state-of-mind just after he was taken into custody.

David Von Pein

July 26, 2015

bump

I questioned the Baker/Oswald encounter back in the 1990s on Rich DellaRosa's old forum. I wasn't alone. This isn't something Greg Parker or anyone else recently came up with. The same thing goes for Lee Farley questioning Oswald's alleged bus ride. I questioned that, along with every other aspect of Oswald's supposed post-assassination actions, long before he even started researching this case. And again, there were others who felt the same way.

And the contortions a CTer needs to go through in order to believe that ANY of those facts are false are staggering in number.

Liars, liars everywhere.

That seems to be the CTer motto.

And the list of liars includes all kinds of non-Government people too -- like Cecil McWatters, William Whaley, Buell Frazier, Linnie Mae Randle, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, Gladys Johnson, Earlene Roberts, Johnny Brewer, Virginia Davis, Barbara Davis, Helen Markham, Ted Callaway, William Scoggins, and God knows how many more.

Shouldn't at least a few Internet CTers see how utterly preposterous it is to believe that all of the above citizens were lying through their teeth about things relating to 11/22/63?

Well, even if CTers can't see it, I sure as hell can.

The goal of education is the advancement of knowledge and the dissemination of truth JFK once said. You make a mockery of it, and your enablers here are just as guilty for caring more about "foul" language than about the foul tactics you and others employ in your battle to thwart any chance of "education" here.

The "OSWALD NEVER RENTED A ROOM AT 1026 BECKLEY" is an idiotic theory and all rational people know it. Even most CTers know it.

Such a theory is completely at odds with all of the testimony and evidence that proves with 100% certainty that Lee Oswald rented a room at the Beckley roominghouse in October and November of 1963.

And let's bask in the irony of a CTer who is berating me for being a "mockery" when it comes to the "advancement of knowledge and the dissemination of truth" relating to this "Beckley roominghouse" topic.

If Greg Parker gets any further from the truth on this thing, he'll be taking up residence on Neptune.

Because he's that far out on this subject for sure.

I don't think Oswald changed his trousers. LHO lied about that part of his "Beckley" story.

Once again, when someone's statement disagrees with your position, they are lying.

The "trousers" thing isn't really very important at all. I just don't think Oswald took the time to change his pants (or shirt) when he went to his roominghouse on Nov. 22. Therefore, it's my opinion that Oswald lied about his pants. It's possible that he changed his pants, but I'm doubting it. It just doesn't make any sense to me that he would have done that.

And goodness, we all know that if it was in the Warren Report it must be real.

You're right. I don't think Oswald changed his trousers. LHO lied about that part of his "Beckley" story.