David Von Pein

Yes, Glenn, of course I cite Brennan. Should I just PRETEND he didn't positively identify Oswald as the assassin (albeit belatedly)? Like it or not, Howard Brennan's testimony is part of the record of this case. If you don't think he is credible, fine. But I see no really good reason for tossing Mr. Brennan under the White House press bus. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html

You're going to need WAY more than just J. Edgar in this frame-up, Tom. You're going to need Fritz and Curry and many others from the DPD. And you'll need the Secret Service too. Plus the Dallas Sheriff's office. As another LNer succinctly put it.... "[it was] either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007

DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Jimmy Orr, in your experience [as a USPS employee for more than 30 years], in general, how long does it take an air mail letter to go from Dallas, Texas, to Chicago, Illinois (provided the letter was mailed no later than 10:30 AM local Dallas time)? Thanks. JIMMY ORR SAID: David, Cancelled in Dallas by 10:30 AM and flown to Chicago that afternoon. Arrival for mail processing at a Chicago General Mail Facility during the early morning hours of the 13th and on the street for delivery to Klein's that same day. Makes perfect sense considering the volumes handled in 1963. More.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

I've done quite a bit of online promoting of the book via my websites. (Not that it's done much good.) But I have never fooled myself into thinking "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" was going to sell well at all. I was hoping it would, of course, but I never expected it to. And, btw, the publisher ("Strategic Media Books") is a joke. At least they were a joke as far as "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is concerned. Mel Ayton and I can tell multiple horror stories about our dealings with that particular publishing house. Related conversation..... GARRY PUFFER SAID: David is obviously just out to make a buck, like all those horrible conspiracy authors. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: You're nuts. I knew the book wouldn't sell very well at all. And it hasn't. I doubt it's sold 50 copies yet since its release in December 2014. Sales are pathetic, just as I knew they would be. I got involved in the BRD book project because Mel Ayton asked me to contribute some of my material to his manuscript. And I was honored to be asked to do so. I didn't do it to "make a buck". I haven't seen dollar #1 yet, btw [as of June 7, 2015]. And I'm wondering if I'll ever see even 50 cents. So you can take your "out to make a buck" garbage and do something unmentionable with it. 10-4? David Von Pein June 6-7, 2015 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-951.html ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ But thanks for mentioning the book again, Jim. Every little bit of advertising helps. My "BRD" book page: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/04/beyond-reasonable-doubt.html

Not a single solitary bit of DiEugenio's Bugliosi-trashing effort above has anything whatsoever to do with Vince Bugliosi's JFK book "Reclaiming History". Jimbo is just looking for an excuse--any excuse--to bash Vincent T. Bugliosi. And Jim is willing to travel far outside the "JFK Assassination" perimeter to try and somehow smear Vince's 20-year effort regarding the JFK case. I guess the idea is: If Vince wasn't a saint all of his life, that must mean he was all wrong about all of the evidence in the JFK murder case. But as the late Mr. Bugliosi himself would no doubt quickly point out to Jim --- That's a non sequitur of Olympian proportions there. But the fact remains that Vince Bugliosi, in his huge tome "Reclaiming History", has proven Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt at least ten times over. The question of whether or not Oswald was involved in ANY type of conspiracy can never, of course, be answered with 100% certainty (and I've said that very thing myself in the past; and if you want my direct quotes, I'll be happy to dig them up). But I agree with Vince when he said.... "In the [John F.] Kennedy case, I believe the absence of a conspiracy can be proved to a virtual certainty." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 973 of "Reclaiming History"

No, not at all. Not even close. You surely aren't still arguing the worn-out "back and to the left" garbage, are you Jim? jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/head-shot.html Not at all. Not even close. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-862.html Your bullet points for conspiracy are getting weaker by the minute. The "wrong rifle" crap is just another example of James DiEugenio not having the slightest idea (or desire) how to properly evaluate the JFK evidence. Jim knows perfectly well what the reasonable answer is for the "36-inch vs. 40-inch" rifle discrepancy, but he just refuses to look at this issue fairly and rationally. Here's the logical answer DiEugenio refuses to accept: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/12/oswald-ordered-rifle.html FBI Agent Elmer Todd most certainly marked Bullet CE399. It's just that the pictures of the bullet don't show the markings very well at all. And even Frazier's and Cunningham's and Killion's initials are very hard to discern. But Commission Document No. 7 proves enough (to me) to indicate that Elmer Todd marked bullet CE399. But to the CTers like DiEugenio, these words written by Todd on November 22 (see the date in the lower left corner of Todd's FD-302 report) are just more lies---right, Jim?.... "At 8:50 p.m. [on 11/22/63], Mr. JAMES ROWLEY, Chief, United States Secret Service, gave to SA ELMER LEE TODD an envelope containing a bullet. This envelope and its contents were taken directly to the FBI Laboratory and delivered to SA ROBERT A. FRAZIER. The envelope was opened and initials of both SA TODD and FRAZIER were etched on the nose of the bullet for identification purposes." -- CD7 (page 288) Better start another "This Means Conspiracy" list, Jim. Because that last list of yours really sucks.

Jim, Nothing you have ever said knocks down the case against Lee Oswald murdering both JFK and Officer Tippit. Because in order for Oswald to be innocent of BOTH of those crimes, as you (incredibly) do believe, then we'd have to believe that literally ALL of the many pieces of evidence that incriminate Oswald are fake or fraudulent pieces of evidence. And that notion is, of course, just plain ridiculous. And now, Jim, you seem to think that after a relatively brief examination into the Manson case, you have discovered things that rip apart the whole "Helter Skelter" case that Vincent Bugliosi worked on for over a year between late 1969 and January of 1971. Your arrogance is staggering, James. And as far as the JFK case goes, as I said before (and it's probably even more accurate today, with Jim DiEugenio entertaining the idea of even more conspiracy theories in his head since I wrote this 1.5 years ago).... "I can add dozens of additional outrageous things to the list [below], but I'll stop at those twenty-two items for now. And yet despite [that] laundry list of silliness, James DiEugenio is still held in high esteem by many people when it comes to his evaluation of the evidence and his assessment of the facts concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Unbelievable." -- David Von Pein; January 4, 2013 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-81.html#The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes

So, Jim, do you think Charlie Manson ordered the Tate-LaBianca murders? Or was Manson just a "patsy"? I want to hear James DiEugenio utter these words.... Charles Manson was completely innocent. He didn't order anybody to be killed. In light of Susan Atkins CONFESSING to the murders, Jim has already made himself look really silly with this remark from last year.... "In my opinion, there is no way somebody like Susan Atkins should have ever spent the rest of her life in jail. It's very debatable whether she ever killed anybody. I don't think she did." -- Jim DiEugenio; March 6, 2014 I just want to see how far down Absurd Avenue Jim is willing to go in order to smear the late Mr. Bugliosi (and Vince's tireless work that he did on the Manson case) by telling the world he thinks Manson is snow-white innocent. Are you willing to go that far, Jim? Or have you done so already?

Given all of the evidence presented HERE, plus adding in just a small amount of common sense to go with it, can any reasonable person really come to a conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald did not own and possess Rifle #C2766 (CE139) in the year 1963? I'll answer that last question myself -- No, they cannot. Lots more Rifle Talk below..... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/mannlicher-carcano.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/lee-harvey-oswalds-rifle.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/01/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-591.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-852.html

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/03/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-93.html Excerpt from above article.... "In the final analysis of the Manson case, regardless of what the motive for the murders might have been, it is crystal clear by taking just a cursory look at the trial transcripts and the trial excerpts that can be found in the book "Helter Skelter", that Vincent Bugliosi did, in fact, prosecute the real killers of the seven victims in the Tate-LaBianca case. Another thing that has become crystal clear is that James DiEugenio has made a habit out of turning guilty murderers into innocent bystanders. He's attempted to perform that magical feat in the JFK case when he insists that a double-murderer named Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of killing President Kennedy and was also innocent of murdering Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit, and now Jim D. seems to want to do it again with respect to a vicious and savage killer by the name of Susan Denise Atkins. But, then too, given DiEugenio's track record of getting almost everything wrong when it comes to the John F. Kennedy murder case [such as all of these things], I guess I shouldn't be too surprised by any of the foolish things that come out of his mouth anymore." David Von Pein March 7, 2014

Yeah, Ken. It's either that or maybe I was having a bit of a giggle at the expense of crazy JFK conspiracy theories. Which of those two options is likely the correct one?

I can't possibly know the answer to that question for certain, Jon. No one can know. But I do have some thoughts on it.... 11:55 AM-12:05 PM (estimated) -- Oswald has the whole sixth floor to himself. This is just prior to Bonnie Ray Williams coming back up to the 6th Floor to eat his lunch. It's my belief that Lee Oswald, during this (approx.) 10-minute time period around noon or shortly after, probably went to the west end of the sixth floor (where he had his rifle hidden in the brown bag). Oswald unwraps the rifle at the west end of the sixth floor and assembles the rifle at the west end (hence, Arnold Rowland sees a white man with a rifle at the west end of the building at approx. this time, maybe a little later, 12:15 or so, but keep in mind the approximation of all times). It's quite possible, IMO, that Oswald initially was considering using the WEST-end window as his shooting window. But, for one reason or another, he decided that a window on the EAST end of the sixth floor would better serve his purposes. Perhaps he was mentally factoring in the angles and trajectories in his head, and possibly realized that an east-end perch would be a better one, especially since the Secret Service agents would all have their backs to him when he began firing, if he decided to wait until after the cars had turned the Elm/Houston corner....which, IMO, Oswald definitely had in his mind to do, due to the pre-arranged way the rifle-rest boxes were constructed (i.e., in a "Rifle Always Pointing West/Southwest" manner). It's also possible that, as Oswald mulled over potential shooting locations, he realized that a goodly number of boxes were already down on the east end of the 6th Floor, which would make constructing a makeshift "Nest" all the easier for him. More.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-timeline-part-1.html Wrong. The dent in one of the shell casings does NOT mean it MUST have been fired before 11/22. The HSCA (and many others who have fired Carcano rifles) have achieved a dented lip on a cartridge case AFTER firing a shot and then very quickly working the bolt. It's been proven. And it merely indicates Oswald's haste in trying to work the bolt. The shell just wasn't quite clear of the chamber yet, and Oswald's very fast working of the bolt dented the ejecting spent cartridge. Close. I think it was more like 8.36 seconds: Shot 1 -- Z160 (approx.). Shot 2 -- Z224. Shot 3 -- Z313. Total Time = 8.36 seconds.

Tell all that to Dr. Cyril Wecht, Mark. If I remember Dr. Wecht's comments about this topic correctly, he thinks all wounds should be referenced FROM THE TOP OF THE HEAD DOWNWARD, which, of course, means it would ALSO be a "movable" body part, because it still is, after all, being referenced in relation to the HEAD, which is movable. The mastoid measurement is perfectly fine. CTers just like to gripe about everything the autopsists did. If the measurement was taken from the mastoid when the body was in an anatomic posture (i.e., the "autopsy" position)--and why would Humes be doing such a measurement with the body of JFK in any other position?--then measuring from the mastoid process is a perfectly good place to measure from. Certainly AS GOOD as Dr. Wecht's preferred starting point of the top of the head.

The shirt doesn't tell anybody where the wound was. The autopsy photo and the "14 cm. below tip of right mastoid process" measurement from the autopsy report and the face sheet are the things that tell us where the wound was located on the body of John F. Kennedy. You think the SHIRT is BETTER information than the "14 cm. below the mastoid" measurement? Why would anyone other than Cliff Varnell think that? The Rydberg drawings are pretty much worthless. I never use them. I use CE903 instead. It's much more accurate. And no "Neck" entry required (or even WANTED) here....

As if Talbot and Bugliosi aren't "researchers". You're funny, Healy. But maybe this one will suit your needs. I know all CTers love this guy. Right, DGH?....

An example of the "Conspiracy Mind" at work..... The second nun from the left in that Nov. 25 picture bears a striking resemblance to Sister Mary Stigmata in the movie "The Blues Brothers": And based upon the fact that Stigmata was in Dallas on Nov. 25, 1963, just three days after the assassination, coupled with the fact that she was a Catholic nun and John F. Kennedy was a Catholic, I think it's reasonable to conclude that Sister Stigmata (aka Kathleen Freemen) probably was packing a rod deep within the sewer system of Dealey Plaza at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63, and she utilized her status as a "Woman Of The Cloth" to avoid any suspicion by the authorities, and that it was Stigmata (and not Jimmy Files or Mac Wallace or Lumpy Rutherford) who fired the fatal shot into President Kennedy's brain from the storm drain on Elm Street. And after performing the grisly deed, Stigmata concealed the murder weapon under her vestments, hitched a ride back to Jack Ruby's apartment with David Ferrie, and waited until the heat was off before returning to her regular church duties at The Church Of The Holy Hit Man in Clay Shaw's hometown of Kentwood, Louisiana. Case solved. It couldn't have happened any other way given the evidence of the nuns praying in the Plaza on Monday, November 25th, 1963.

My post that you so foolishly think makes me look bad and makes you look good speaks for itself. It says that I, unlike CTers, do not have the freedom to "make up stuff from pure nothingness". THAT'S the "freedom" I do not possess. And yet you use that quote as a signature because you actually are silly enough to think I'm suggesting I don't have the "freedom" to believe what I want to believe. (As if I would ever want to start creating unsupportable conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination.) Here's an idea, Ken --- Why don't you switch signatures for a while and use the following quote of yours. I'm sure you think this makes you look GOOD, right? So why not spotlight it?.... "Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?"

I've heard many CTers claim that the Stemmons sign was removed the day after the assassination, which is nonsense. The two pictures below were taken during the WC re-enactment in Dealey Plaza on May 24, 1964 (6 months and 2 days after JFK was killed), and it sure looks like BOTH the Stemmons and R.L. Thornton signs are the same ones that were there on Nov. 22. If they are different signs, I sure can't tell the difference.... And here are the two signs on 11/24/63.... And here's the Stemmons sign on 11/25/63....

Oh, yes, David. I agree that some of the Rydberg drawings are worthless. They're a mess. And the photo on the right that you posted above is totally wrong (of course). It's not even close to representing the correct location of either wound. According to that silly drawing, the wound in the upper back is so far right of the spine, it almost misses JFK entirely. WTF? I wonder who invented that fictional entry location? ~shrug~ But there's no "dishonest" intent in those drawings, IMO. How can I POSSIBLY say such a thing, you ask? Answer: Commission Exhibit 903 (again), which shows precisely where the WC puts the wound on the back side of JFK's body---and it is NOT up in the "neck" (nor does it NEED to be in the "neck" to accommodate the SBT, as CE903 proves for all time). But, since we now DO have the ACTUAL autopsy pictures to look at, we can SEE where the real wounds are located. And those two entry wounds are both on the BACK part of JFK's body (in the back and head), perfectly consistent with the conclusion that TWO shots (and only two) struck JFK from BEHIND. You don't deny my last sentence, do you David (regardless of the where the terrible Rydberg drawings place the wounds)?

Kenny needs to go to math class. But maybe Ken thinks that measurements are taken at an autopsy from the feet upward. LOL.

You just did it again. You just again implied that I might be using Gary Mack's name to make "your [my] statement". And you don't even seem to know it. Amazing.

"Did he [Gary Mack] actually say these things to you or are you allowed to use his name to represent what you think he would say?" -- Kenneth Drew Where is the damage control? What did I accuse you of? I asked you a question, which you continue to duck. Does he or does he not allow you to use his name in making your statement? I'm not saying that he does, I'm asking you if he allows you to speak on his behalf? Simple question. Now I'm convinced Kenny can't read at all. Earth to Drew! --- Check out Post #205.

WTF? Ken is getting more hilarious by the minute. Kenny thinks this is a 6-inch ruler in this picture, and yet Ken also thinks "the hole is at approx the 5-6 inch point". All anyone can do now is shake their heads and do this --- ~shrug~