David Von Pein

In Post #6 of this thread. With lots more about your incredibly silly "asterisk" theory at my webpage below.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html#Ruth-Paine-Calendar

Here's a little tidbit of information that I was unaware of until reading some of Jesse Curry's Warren Commission testimony today.... It seems as though the Dallas Police Department wanted to have one of their cars (which would have contained Homicide Captain Will Fritz and some heavily-armed DPD detectives) positioned between President Kennedy's car and the Secret Service follow-up car during the motorcade through Dallas on 11/22/63. But the Secret Service said no to that plan---and I can certainly see why. The "Queen Mary" SS follow-up car, of course, is equipped with running boards for the agents to stand on, whereas I don't think any car provided by the DPD would be so equipped. So it would have been a very bad decision to have placed the SS car further behind JFK's car in the event of trouble. That would have meant that agents Clint Hill (et al) would have had Fritz' car between them and the President---and that's just dumb, IMO. And I guess the Secret Service thought so too. Plus, I think that putting a car between the President's vehicle and the SS car would have been a major violation of Secret Service protocol and standard procedures for Presidential protection. I have never seen any photos or films which had ANY vehicle placed between the President's limousine and the SS follow-up car. Sometimes, in fact, the SS car gets so close to JFK's car that the bumpers are almost touching (such as in the photos below). So it's no wonder the SS nixed the DPD's idea. But I just wonder if some conspiracy theorists think that this testimony given by Chief Curry reveals part of the alleged "security stripping" that some CTers think took place in Dallas on November 22nd? .... --------------------------------- [WC Testimony On:] DALLAS POLICE CHIEF JESSE E. CURRY - We had planned to have Captain Fritz and some of his homicide detectives immediately following the President's car which we have in the past, we have always done this. Mr. RANKIN - Now, would that be between the President's car and the Secret Service? Mr. CURRY - And the Secret Service. We have in past done this. We have been immediately behind the President's car. [DVP INTERJECTION: I wonder when this strange occurrence would have occurred? I have my doubts that it ever did occur with respect to a Presidential motorcade. It sounds like a ridiculous motorcade arrangement to me, making the job of the Secret Service even more difficult.] Mr. RANKIN - Did you propose that to someone? Mr. CURRY - Yes, sir. Mr. RANKIN - Who did you propose it to? Mr. CURRY - To Mr. Lawson and Mr. Sellers. Mr. RANKIN - What did they say about that? Mr. CURRY - They didn't want it. Mr. RANKIN - Did they tell you why? Mr. CURRY - They said the Secret Service would be there. Mr. RANKIN - And then? Mr. CURRY - They said we can put this vehicle in between Captain Fritz and his detectives immediately at the end of the motorcade. They said, "No, we want a white or marked car there bringing up the rear," so Fritz and his men were not in the motorcade. Mr. DULLES - What do you mean in the past when there have been previous Presidents visiting Dallas or other dignitaries? Mr. CURRY - Yes; that is right; other dignitaries. Yes; our thinking along this was that in the past there have been this. Captain Fritz, he is a very experienced homicide man so are his detectives. They know the city very well. They have been there very, Captain Fritz to my knowledge, over 40 years. It is customary that they in trying to protect a person if they are in the immediate vicinity, and Captain Fritz told me later, he said, "I believe that had we been there we might possibly have got that man before he got out of that building or we would have maybe had the opportunity of firing at him while he was still firing" because they were equipped, would have been equipped with high-powered rifles and machine guns, submachine guns. Representative FORD - Where were they instead of being at the motorcade. Mr. CURRY - Actually they were not in the motorcade at all. They followed up the motorcade. Representative FORD - Were they in a car following up the motorcade? Mr. CURRY - Yes, sir; they were in a car. Representative FORD - How far away would they have been? Mr. CURRY - I think they would have been at the rear, I believe. Representative FORD - Captain Fritz is going to be here later. Mr. RANKIN - Yes. Representative FORD - And fill in what he did at that time? Mr. RANKIN - Yes. Mr. CURRY - But we tried to do what the Secret Service asked us to do, and we didn't try to override them because we didn't feel it was our responsibility, that it was their responsibility to tell us what they wanted and we would try to provide it. Mr. RANKIN - Did you refuse to do anything that they asked you to do? Mr. CURRY - No, sir; not to my knowledge we don't--we didn't refuse them to do anything. Mr. DULLES - You considered them to be the boss in this particular situation? Mr. CURRY - Yes, sir; the Secret Service; yes, sir. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/curry1.htm --------------------------- jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/secret-service.html

Huh? What argument? Healy made no argument. He said nothing. Like always. (And I assume you weren't referring to Mark Lane's arguments.) Healy was merely heaping praise upon a wholly unworthy recipient -- Ben Holmes -- who is a person I've destroyed with the facts on dozens of previous occasions--and Healy knows it. Show me one argument made online by David G. Healy that isn't completely laughable on its face. I dare ya to find one. You'll be searching for a while. In fact, you'll have a hard time finding any "argument" made by Healy at all on the Internet. And everybody knows it. All he does is throw insults and call people "hon". Great debating skills there.

So much for Healy's tantalizing promise..... "My time has come and now gone. Too old and too tired. This will be my last post on JFK assassination-related forums." -- David G. Healy; July 25, 2015 Well, it was nice while it lasted anyway.

Great response there, Glenn. Your useless reply has most certainly convinced me that all the evidence against Oswald was faked.

MORE MARK LANE: dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/mark-lane.html

Glenn, The only way a person can believe in Lee Harvey Oswald's "innocence" is for that person to just completely ignore (or misrepresent) the dozens of pieces of evidence (and Oswald's own actions) which point unwaveringly to Oswald's guilt in the two murders he was officially charged with in November of 1963. Do you, Glenn, wish to ignore all of that evidence? And if so---why?

Why do you insist upon nitpicking the Klein's dates to death? When looking at the dates that were available to the FBI on 11/23/63 via the Klein's microfilm records, and given a choice of which date to choose for a press release to Chief Curry and to the world (if I had to pick only ONE date, that is) -- I think I, too, might very well have told America (and Jesse Curry) that the rifle transaction had taken place on March 20, 1963. Because from the available information supplied by Klein's Sporting Goods on November 23rd, the March 20 date is the date that confirms that the sale of the rifle to Oswald/Hidell had been completed (i.e., shipped by Klein's to Oswald/Hidell). So what's wrong with using the shipping date in the press releases? Yes, Chief Curry told reporters that "This purchase was made on March 20th", which technically is not quite 100% accurate, since Oswald had actually dropped his order form for the rifle in the mailbox on March 12th, but we're really only talking about a very tiny difference in terms here -- with the "ordering" of the gun by Oswald occurring on March 12th, and the "shipping" of the gun taking place on March 20th. But why on Earth would anyone, even a conspiracy theorist, make a big deal out of this "March 12 vs. March 20" date thing? You think that by saying the rifle was "purchased" on March 20, this somehow means the rifle transaction between Oswald and Klein's is all shot to hell -- even though that exact date (March 20) is on the Klein's internal order blank? This entire argument about the March 20 date is just another example of a totally frivolous argument being made by CTers in a feeble attempt to cast doubt (somehow) on a piece of evidence connected to JFK's assassination. And this particular frivolous argument concerning the March 20 date is even more useless and nonsensical than most other arguments put forth by CTers. (And that's really saying something.)

FYI / FWIW.... Here's a third 11/23/63 news report mentioning the March 20th date for the rifle purchase (via KLIF-Radio in Dallas).... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-984.html#KLIF-Radio-Clip-11-23-63

Once again, Jim DiEugenio sees "mysteries" and sinister activity and evil wickedness everywhere he looks --- even in the ordinary and innocuous calendar owned by Mrs. Ruth Paine [Commission Exhibit 401]. Jimmy and I thrashed this out a year or two ago. Here are some excerpts highlighting Jim's ravenous appetite for believing in absurd things that never happened.... [DVP Quotes On:] "Does Jimbo think "Ruthy" was leaving a little bread crumb of conspiratorial proof for future researchers to find, so that those researchers can scream these words with delight -- "Aha! I told you Ruth Paine was a xxxx [L-word]!"? Can anyone (even conspiracy mongers like Jim D.) REALLY believe Ruth would do something so utterly stupid? Evidently Jimbo CAN believe that Mrs. Paine would be so foolish -- because it's obvious that DiEugenio DOES believe that Ruth Paine wrote the words "LHO purchase of rifle" on her calendar BEFORE the assassination ever took place. Which, therefore, must also mean that DiEugenio believes that Ruth was privy to the "March 20th" date of Oswald's rifle purchase PRIOR to the time when Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry made that date of 3/20/63 known to the public on national television on November 23, 1963. So, Jimbo, tell us how Ruth became aware of that "March 20" information prior to 11/23/63? Was she in cahoots with Klein's Sporting Goods too? Or did the evil FBI furnish her with that exact date? Or could it be that it was Ruth Paine HERSELF who faked and manufactured Waldman Exhibit No. 7? Maybe it was Ruth herself who wrote "3/20/63" on that Klein's document. Is that how she knew the date prior to November 23rd, Jimbo? But, then too, James DiEugenio actually thinks Lee Harvey Oswald had NO LARGE PAPER BAG WITH HIM AT ALL when he entered Buell Wesley Frazier's car on November 22nd. So, given such absurd notions, it should be fairly obvious that this previous statement of mine concerning Jimmy's conspiratorial beliefs in the JFK case is 100% accurate: "No theory is too outrageous or preposterous for Mr. DiEugenio's gullible palate." -- DVP; January 4, 2013 [...] I'll tell you one piece of physical evidence that points AWAY from the direction of Ruth's involvement in a conspiracy plot: And that's the entry that Ruth made on her March 1963 calendar (talked about earlier), where she wrote the words "LHO purchase of rifle". In a situation where Ruth Paine would surely have every reason to believe she would be thoroughly questioned by the authorities (or at Oswald's trial, had he lived to see one), can you think of a single reasonable explanation for why Mrs. Paine, if she had been a conspirator trying to frame Oswald in the weeks and months prior to November 22, would have wanted to write that "purchase of rifle" entry on her calendar at a time (October 23, not November 23) when she has stated she had no idea that Oswald even owned a rifle? (And it's fairly obvious that DiEugenio DOES think Ruth wrote those words PRIOR to November 22; otherwise, there would be no need for him to bring up that particular item at all.) Plus: Via such a pre-11/22 theory, WHERE did Ruth get the information about the rifle purchase in the first place? How could she have possibly known--PRIOR to 11/22--that Lee Oswald had bought a rifle on March 20th? (Which, of course, was merely the Klein's shipping date for the rifle; it wasn't the actual "purchase" date, nor was it the date he actually took possession of the rifle, which also makes it pretty clear WHEN Ruth heard about that March 20 date. She heard about it when Jesse Curry mentioned that exact date on live TV on 11/23/63.) That "purchase of rifle" thing is just one small example of how CTers will twist the evidence in this case to suit their needs. In this instance, DiEugenio labels the calendar entry as being "the most bizarre point of all" when it comes to the topic of Ruth Paine. But he will completely disregard Ruth's own testimony about that calendar entry. In other words, Jimbo's eager to disbelieve ANYTHING uttered by Mrs. Ruth Paine. Even though, as mentioned, placing such an entry on her calendar PRIOR to the assassination really doesn't make much sense either. In fact, it would have been utterly stupid for Mrs. Paine to have done that, because it, in effect, would expose a part of the plot -- i.e., her pre-November knowledge about a specific date--March 20th--which was not generally revealed to the public until November 23rd." -- DVP; circa 2013—2014 More here ----> DVP-vs-DiEugenio-Part-87/Ruth Paine's Calendar

I think that is an extremely minor and peripheral point. When the FBI examined the Klein's internal order blank for the rifle---Waldman Exhibit No. 7---they undoubtedly noticed the written-in date of "3/20/63" on the form, and they might have taken no notice at all of the smaller stamped date of "Mar-13-63" at the top of the order blank. Or perhaps the FBI just didn't know what the March 13th date really signified. So they just decided to go with the March 20 date as the "order date", even though that was really the "Shipping Date". But I can't see that it makes much difference one way or the other regarding the dates. The most significant thing that was being revealed to the press and to the world on 11/23/63 was that the FBI was able to positively tie Lee Harvey Oswald to the ownership of the weapon that was used to kill President Kennedy, by way of the handwriting on the "order letter", as Chief Curry called it (CE773). You've got things backwards, David. You're the one on the "dark side". Not me. And I have, for years, been using my video and audio archive for "good instead of evil". The original first-day and second-day TV and radio broadcasts can be very useful in debunking any number of conspiracy myths. Such as the persistent myth that still exists in some quarters even today about how Jack Ruby must have personally been acquainted with Lee Harvey Oswald due to the fact that Ruby was one of the people who shouted out the name "Fair Play For Cuba" during Henry Wade's late-night press conference at City Hall on the night of November 22nd. (The conspiracy theorists, of course, completely ignore the fact that one or two OTHER people, besides just Ruby, shouted out the "Fair Play For Cuba" name at the exact same time Ruby did. But I don't hear the CTers accusing those OTHER people of knowing Lee Oswald prior to the assassination. Go figure.) Anyway, the early live TV reports can come in handy when various unwarranted allegations surface, such as the "How Could Ruby Have Known About The FPCC?" conspiracy theory, which I debunk here: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-383 I've been searching my video files trying to unearth the "Smoking Gun" news broadcast in which a witness goes on live television a few hours after the assassination and boldly declares, "I saw Jimmy Files firing a Fireball pistol at the President from behind the fence atop the Grassy Knoll!" But, unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate that broadcast as yet.

David J., The date "March 20th" was definitely announced on television on Saturday, 11/23/63. It was announced to the press by Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry during one of his many hallway interviews with reporters on Nov. 23 [at 27:55 in the video below].... And the March 20 date was also mentioned by Frank Reynolds on WBKB-TV in Chicago on the evening of November 23rd....

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: PS The WC interviewed 2 of the 24 patrons. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: And I've already supplied ample information concerning one of those two Texas Theater patrons--George Applin. The other would be a Mr. John Gibson, who said this to the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964: JOHN GIBSON -- "Oswald was standing in the aisle with a gun in his hand. .... He had this pistol in his hand." [...] JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you see any officer grab hold of Oswald?" MR. GIBSON -- "Yes, sir." MR. BALL -- "Which one can you describe where he was and what he did--just tell us in your own words what you saw him do?" MR. GIBSON -- "Well, just like I guess you have heard this a lot of times--the gun misfired--it clicked and about the same time there was one police officer that positively had him." MR. BALL -- "What do you mean--"had him"?" MR. GIBSON -- "Well, I mean he grabbed ahold of him." MR. BALL -- "Did he grab ahold of him before you heard the click or afterwards?" MR. GIBSON -- "Gee, that's a question that's kind of hard to answer because I would say possibly seconds before or a second--maybe at the precise time the gun clicked. It happened pretty fast and like I say, I just went in to eat a hot dog for lunch and I wasn't expecting any of this." [...] MR. BALL -- "Did you hear anybody say anything?" MR. GIBSON -- "Well, I heard the officers, but I don't remember what they said--I couldn't tell you if my life depended on it." MR. BALL -- "Did you hear Oswald say anything?" MR. GIBSON -- "No." ----------- So, Gibson also heard the pistol "click". Just like Applin (with Applin using the word "snap" instead of "click"). And Gibson also saw the fight between Oswald and the policemen. And, of course, Gibson also testified that he saw a gun in Lee Harvey Oswald's hand in the theater. Do you think Applin and Gibson were "planted" or "coerced" witnesses with respect to their similar testimony about seeing a man in the theater (Oswald) holding a gun and hearing that gun "snap" or "click" during the struggle with the police?

Common Sense Break.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/murder-of-jd-tippit-part-1.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/hilarious-defense-of-oswald.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html

Well, you claim Ruby knew Oswald. And you also claim that Ruby killed Oswald as part of a conspiracy. So I guess nobody's perfect, huh?

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

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.... JFK-Press-Conferences.blogspot.com / All 64 JFK Press Conferences

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

This is hilarity at its finest. It's kind of like wanting to take credit for being the person who designed The Edsel.

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?

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.

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.