David Von Pein

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

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?

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? 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 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

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 "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.

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.

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

You see, folks, this is the kind of mind-numbing (il)logic I'm confronted with every day here in the "JFK world". Kenny Drew knew exactly what I meant when I said (correctly) that J.D. Tippit's last name was spelled the same backward and forward. But Kenny will nitpick about the Capital T. He does this just to argue and for no other worthwhile purpose. Mind-boggling, isn't it?

Okay..... Now, you, Ken, will be sure to let us know as soon as you've learned how to spell Tippit, right? (And his name is spelled the same backward as forward. The capitalization doesn't count when speaking of that particular fact. If you truly think it does count, you're just being silly.)

Maybe I should have added the word "reasonable" to the above quote, Ray.

I've never once heard any LNer claim that Buell Frazier was "lying". CTers, of course, just refuse to assess the "paper bag" information in a reasonable manner. ----------------- "I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor? Care to guess at what those odds might be? They must be close to "O.J. DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was found by the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the very same bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands on the morning of November 22, 1963). I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle), which was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's window on 11/22/63. I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it." -- DVP; October 2007

Another thing that's kind of ironic about the ridiculous "OSWALD NEVER LIVED AT 1026 BECKLEY" theory is that anyone who endorses that theory can no longer ever utter the following words.... Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't have possibly killed J.D. Tippit because he didn't have enough time to get to the Tippit murder site on Tenth Street after leaving his roominghouse on Beckley. But if Greg Parker is to be believed, Oswald never went to the Beckley roominghouse at all on 11/22/63. And, therefore, the popular "He Couldn't Get To Tenth Street In Time To Shoot Tippit" theory goes flying out the window, because there would be no "starting point" for Oswald's trip to Tenth and Patton at all. So Greg Parker is discarding one false theory for another one. The same type of ironic twist exists when discussing Oswald's paper bag (CE142) too. For years, the most popular "paper bag" conspiracy theory was this one.... Oswald didn't take the Carcano rifle into the TSBD on November 22 because the paper bag he carried into the building that morning was too short to hold the disassembled rifle. But that theory has to be taken off the table if a conspiracy theorist now believes that Oswald never carried ANY large-ish paper bag to work with him at all. Ironic, isn't it? But it just goes to prove one thing --- Regardless of which theory they embrace, conspiracy theorists never get anything right.

Related comments.... Some CTers insist that Lt. Carl Day found NO PRINTS whatsoever on the Carcano rifle on Nov. 22. But the memo below totally destroys that bogus theory. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-953.html

Greg, But you just said that it was Gladys Johnson who "destroyed" the Beckley Avenue register with O.H. Lee's name on it. But she's not a law enforcement official. She's a private citizen. So it wouldn't have been a case of the police deliberately destroying evidence. Or do you think Gladys was working in cooperation with the DPD and/or FBI? Other private citizens who destroyed evidence were Marina and Marguerite, when they burned a backyard photo of LHO in their hotel room on 11/23/63, which is a backyard photo that most CTers think never existed in the first place. (I wonder what picture they burned?) And btw, I got a kick out of Greg Parker talking about how the Beckley register was destroyed by Gladys Johnson, who is the very same Gladys Johnson that Greg thinks had a motive to lie because she wanted to make a bundle off of the (fake) fact that LHO had lived at 1026 Beckley. I realize that from Greg's oddball POV of LHO never setting foot inside 1026 Beckley in his life, Mrs. Johnson would have had no choice BUT to lie about the "O.H. Lee" registration because nobody EVER signed the register with that name. So, per Parker, Gladys had to make up yet another lie and say she had destroyed the register page that never existed in the first place. But I just think it's humorous and ironic. Because I'm sure Greg thinks that Gladys would have just loved to have been able to sell that "O.H. Lee" signature on E-Bay for $56,575. Wouldn't she, Greg?

Good, job, Greg. Right on cue. More liars.

Jon, It's hard to establish habits and a "daily routine" when you move around as much as Oswald did, and when you have as many different jobs as he did. Wouldn't you say? But you said it pretty well, Jon, when you said the words "Odd duck". Oswald would definitely fit that description, as illustrated numerous times during his 1963 radio appearances....

Another person who must be on Greg Parker's decent-sized Liars List is A.C. Johnson, the owner of the roominghouse at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff.... A.C. JOHNSON. I saw his picture on television and I hollered..."Why, it's this fellow that lives in here". Mr. BELIN. You told them that you had seen the picture of this man on television? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Mr. BELIN. And did you tell them what this man was known to you as? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. Mr. BELIN. What did they say? Mr. JOHNSON. Well, they wanted to see the records, and we showed them--the register, I mean--and we showed them the register. And then they searched his room. Mr. BELIN. You showed them the register with this name of O. H. Lee? Mr. JOHNSON. That's right. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/johnso_a.htm