David Von Pein

I don't know what will happen to Vince's papers. But it would be nice if a complete "On Trial" transcript could be made available. Several years ago, I asked Vince if there was any way to obtain the complete 21-hour trial on videocassette. He told me to contact his lawyer friend Jack Duffy, because Vince thought that Duffy had the whole 21 hours of the trial on VHS tape. I did try to reach Duffy at his law office website, and I asked if he did have the entire trial on tape. I never received an answer through his law office. But Jack Duffy is a person I have talked to (and argued with about the JFK case) at Facebook in the past few years. I don't recall ever asking Jack if he had the tapes or not. But anyone here could contact him at Facebook. Here's his FB page.... https://www.facebook.com/jack.duffy.58 Whether or not he'd be willing to make copies of the tapes for anyone who asks is another matter entirely however.

....

It's been an established fact for more than 50 years now that Lee Harvey Oswald lived for a few weeks at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff. You, Greg Parker, just refuse to accept that fact (for some reason).

Now all you have to do, Greg, is answer this question: WHY WAS THIS ROOMINGHOUSE CHARADE EVEN NEEDED? Why?

No idea. Nor do I care in the slightest. It's irrelevant. This type of peripheral crap only matters to rabid CTers like Greg Parker. No idea what you're talking about. But, again, it's chaff. Meaningless. Plus: WHY would anybody want to pretend Oswald lived in a roominghouse if he didn't? (Oh, yes, to get rich after the assassination. Sorry. I forgot.) They were. In "Incidentals". The paltry fare would only be about $1.60 or so per week (8 individual bus trips to and from work). Oswald might have been able to find that much in the seat cushions in the Beckley living room while watching television. Who's avoiding it? Big deal. An "H. Lee" lived there. Okay. But so did an "O.H. Lee" and that Mr. Lee was Lee H. Oswald.

And, Greg, what about the phone number WH 3-8993 that was in Ruth Paine's address book (CE402), which was the number of the Beckley roominghouse? That was a number given to Ruth by Lee Oswald himself. And yet he never was there at all? .... RUTH PAINE -- "I said, "Is Lee Oswald there?" He said, "There is no Lee Oswald living here." As best as I can recall. This is the substance of what he said. I said, "Is this a rooming house?" He said "Yes." I said, "Is this WH 3-8993?" And he said "Yes." I thanked him and hung up." CE402: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0050b.htm

So, I guess we can assume that Gladys and Earlene got rich (quarter of a million each perhaps?) by lying about "O.H. Lee". Right, Greg? And what about the cops who searched Oswald's room and gathered up OSWALD'S personal belongings? Did Earlene and Gladys "plant" Oswald's belongings in a room he never actually rented? You're a riot, Greg. (And I'd bet my next Langley check that you don't believe Oswald rented a room from Bledsoe either. Do you?)

Please note, everyone, that Greg Parker just called Earlene Roberts and Gladys Johnson bald-faced liars when he said this... "There was no "O.H. Lee" at that address." Why did Roberts and Johnson lie through their teeth about their roomer, "O.H. Lee", Greg? (Just make up some half-baked excuse if you can't explain it logically.)

I think it's logical to conclude that the whopping total of approximately $1.60 per week for LHO's bus fares would be included in the monthly category the WC reserved for "Estimated cost of food, clothing, and incidental expenses".... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0385a.htm Yes, the WC did include a separate entry for the "$1.23" that Oswald spent on bus and taxi fares on 11/22/63, but the meager total that Lee spent on the bus for the rest of the month could easily have been covered by the $75.00 that the WC allowed in the "Food & Incidental Expenses" category. Okay, Greg. Tell me, then, why the housekeeper at 1026 North Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff, Earlene Roberts, said all of these things about Lee Oswald (aka "O.H. Lee") in the 1964 CBS-TV interview below? Among other things, you don't think she actually saw the real Lee H. Oswald hurriedly enter his room on Nov. 22nd at all? And then there's an interview on 11/23/63 with the landlady of the Beckley roominghouse, Gladys Johnson. Was she a l-i-a-r too, Greg? Or was she also fooled by some "Oswald double" posing as "O.H. Lee"?.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngYZi47eURI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5KzxaZcc5w

I believe he took a bus, Ron. There was a bus stop right outside his front door at the Beckley roominghouse. And I think there was also a bus stop on the corner of Elm & Houston outside the TSBD front door too. So Lee wouldn't have even needed to walk more than a few steps to get to a bus stop at either location. And the "bus stop" thing is something I've brought up in the past too. Because if there was a bus stop right there at Elm & Houston Streets, then why (if he wasn't "on the run") would he have walked several blocks east of the TSBD on Nov. 22 just to catch his bus? Why not just wait at the Elm & Houston corner? That was just one of the unusual things that LHO did on both Nov. 21 and Nov. 22, 1963.

Note -- The "altering" spelling error was corrected by me before I ever saw Kenny's complaint. (Kenny won't believe that, but it's true just the same.) And TIPPIT is unquestionably the correct spelling of Officer Tippit's name. Why Ken thinks it's even possible that it was spelled differently (esp. after seeing Tippit's tombstone) is anyone's guess. It's just Ken being Ken, I guess. ~shrug time~ And btw, Ken, you missed a chance to scold me for another typo I made in that same post.... "Thereforwe" (Already fixed, of course. Yet another fat-finger typo. Happens constantly. But they never STAY that way in my posts.)

Only because it was needed to show possession. But Tippit's name itself doesn't have an S at the end of it. Are you trying mightily to be sillier than you usually are, Ken? Because it's sure working. I'm just demonstrating that no matter how silly or outrageous something is that is posted you have to weigh in as the "expert on that subject" even to attempting to be an elementary teacher and teach spelling techniques. So let me get this straight. Tippet's name doesn't actually have an s on the end it is just almost always spelled that way to make it correct, is that what you're saying? So if you were talking about his pistol, it would be correct to say the pistol of J.D. Tippet, not J.D. Tippet's pistol. Because then you would be putting an s on the end of his name and it doesn't have an s. Is that what you're saying? You're just being deliberately ridiculous and obtuse, Ken. Because it's not humanly possible to be THAT dense about the "apostrophe S". (Nice job of intentionally mangling Tippit's name again, BTW. And three times too. Nice touch.)

Oh, yes. It's on my site. I archive almost everything there. But it's certainly not out of context at all. I copied both of our posts (yours then mine) verbatim from this forum thread. And, just like on Page 12 of this EF thread, the two posts appear back-to-back, with no other comments between them. Therefore, given what YOU wrote (which I posted in full), followed immediately by what I wrote right underneath your post, how could anybody possibly think I was trying to deceive anyone? Answer -- They couldn't think such a thing. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html Oh, come on, Mark. (Excuse me, make that just "Knight". No first names permitted. Sorry.) You think that by posting those two posts BACK-TO-BACK, I could have possibly have had an intention of trying to show how I "converted" you? You cannot possibly be serious. I'm sorry you feel that way. Because you are 100% incorrect about me. I'm not in the habit of "altering the meaning" of quotes or "deceiving" people. And I think you surely realize that my explanation about how our two posts appear back-to-back on the same forum page certainly eliminates any possibility that I was on some evil and dastardly mission to "deceive" all of those millions of EF lurkers out there. It looks to me as if you are just inventing excuses to question my integrity without thinking your accusations through in a logical manner.

You can't possibly be serious, Knight. I was AGREEING with you when you said I should have done this in an earlier post.... "I'm simply surprised you didn't double down, and use your "anyone with half a brain" argument...as in, "Anyone with half a brain could see they were talking about the second floor lunchroom encounter," despite the fact there was no mention of the second floor at all. I'm totally SHOCKED that you failed to go there with your "explanation." That wasn't like you at all." -- M. Knight And I guess you think nobody can follow a forum thread from post to post without having every last word of a prior post quoted (i.e., repeated) by the next poster. Is that correct? You think someone who has read BOTH of our posts is going to think that *I* was ACTUALLY suggesting that you were REALLY advocating and supporting your "half a brain" quote? Which, btw, are posts that appear BACK-TO-BACK on Page 12 of this thread. They were CONSECUTIVE posts in the same thread, interrupted by ZERO other posts. And yet you still think that my intent was to "alter the meaning" of your words and to "deceive"? Get real. Anyone who has read BOTH posts (one right after the other on Page 12) could not possibly think that I was intending to "deceive" anybody.

When have I ever said anything like that about Brennan? Please provide the citation. You'll never find it. You probably meant to say that I said that Ruby's polygraph was essentially worthless. But, as always, Kenneth gets nothing right. Dead wrong (as always). Brennan didn't suffer his eye injury that affected his eyesight until January of 1964, two months after he saw Oswald murder the President (3 H 147): DAVID W. BELIN -- "Has there been anything that has happened since the time of November 22, 1963, that has changed your eyesight in any way?" HOWARD L. BRENNAN -- "Yes, sir." BELIN -- "What has happened?" BRENNAN -- "The last of January I got both eyes sandblasted." BELIN -- "This is January of 1964?" BRENNAN -- "Yes. And I had to be treated by a Doctor Black, I believe, in the Medical Arts Building, through the company. And I was completely blind for about 6 hours." BELIN -- "How is your eyesight today [as of March 24, 1964]?" BRENNAN -- "He says it is not good." BELIN -- "But this occurred January of this year, is that correct?" BRENNAN -- "Yes."

No problem, Knight. Please just ignore me from now on. In fact, I INSIST on it. And I'll ignore you too. Okay, Knight? Life will be so much easier. Thank you.

Only because it was needed to show possession. But Tippit's name itself doesn't have an S at the end of it. Are you trying mightily to be sillier than you usually are, Ken? Because it's sure working.

Good for you, Mark. Now go get your pitchfork.

So, Ken, you think when someone writes "Tippit's", the "apostrophe S" becomes part of Tippit's name? You're too much, Big K.

Yes. Exactly. It's just a little memory trick. Kind of like the "trick" regarding the EF posts of somebody named Kenneth Drew, who keeps posting bogus nonsense about how DVP has never posted a single solitary piece of evidence to support Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt. When I see such a post by Kenny Drew, my "memory trick" automatically comes to the forefront. (Unfortunately, this being a moderated forum, I can't post what that memory trick entails. Sorry.) Huh? You think his name has an S at the end, do you? Well, Duh!! Kenny, The Picker Of Nits strikes again.

Only because people are too lazy to confirm the correct spelling. A quick way to recall how to spell Tippit's name is to remember this--- His last name is spelled exactly the same BACKWARD as it is FORWARD. Maybe Tippit's gravestone will give you a hint.... Good luck with that task.

Mark, Actually, that "anyone with half a brain" argument isn't too bad. Maybe I should have used those words. (But this being a moderated forum, I'm always walking on eggshells, of course, so such a comment might not fly too well here. So I'm always careful not to heap on the insults in large doses.) But, yes, since the SUM TOTAL of the Baker & Truly & Oswald (through Fritz) statements positively indicates that the "encounter" did take place on the SECOND floor and no other floor of the Book Depository, you could, indeed, look upon that previous post of mine that you seem to have a problem with (where I put "second-floor encounter" in quotation marks) as representing substitute wording in lieu of using these precise words Mark Knight just now used.... " "Anyone with half a brain could see they were talking about the second floor lunchroom encounter," despite the fact there was no mention of the second floor at all." -- M. Knight; 7/17/15 Not bad, Mark. In fact, given the obvious fact that the encounter did occur on the second floor, that quote of yours above fits like a glove. Thanks.

I disagree, Ron. And so did the HSCA.... "The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA

Pat, I think it's a case of Pat Speer seeing what he wants to see. (And, yes, I looked at your webpage on this, Pat. I see no "hole" in the place you think there is one.) jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/boh-part-10.html Also, let's ponder this question.... I wonder what the odds are of there being a "red spot" on the back of JFK's head in the autopsy picture below that only LOOKS like it could be a bullet hole--but really ISN'T--and then, on top of that coincidence, there happens to be another bullet hole somewhere else on the back of JFK's head that can't really be seen at all (except by Patrick J. Speer)? Those TWO things MUST co-exist in tandem here in order for Pat to be correct --- a thing that looks like a bullet hole (but isn't) and something in the same picture that is pretty much invisible that is the actual bullet hole. Again---what are the odds? Let's take it to Vegas and see. And, btw, the red circle in the picture on the left below is certainly located BELOW the EOP, wouldn't you say, Pat? And we know the wound was said to be "slightly ABOVE the EOP", per the autopsy report (meager though that description is).

Oh, that's not true at all. I ignore a whole lot of the junk you CTers post. I ignore most of it, in fact. But, anyway, the "Lane/Baker" exchange that Jim D. posted was obviously just invented by Jim entirely. It was Jim's "What if Mark Lane had cross-examined Marrion Baker on the witness stand?" exercise. I've performed several similar exercises with Vince Bugliosi in the role as prosecutor in "simulated" courtroom questioning. Such as this one (which is a simulation that assumes the Warren Commission had ALSO investigated the JFK case, even though a court trial was taking place too; but, it's just make-believe stuff anyway).... MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Mrs. Markham, did you provide verbal testimony before the Warren Commission panel in the year 1964, telling them what you saw on Tenth Street in Oak Cliff/Dallas on November 22nd, 1963, as a police officer was shot dead before your eyes?" MRS. MARKHAM -- "Yes, sir." MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And did you tell the Commission at that time, in 1964, that the man you saw shoot and kill Officer J.D. Tippit in Oak Cliff had "bushy" hair and was "stocky" in build?" MRS. MARKHAM -- "No, sir...I did not say those things." MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did you positively identify Officer Tippit's killer as a man named Lee Harvey Oswald?" MRS. MARKHAM -- "Yes, sir. I did." MR. BUGLIOSI -- "I now offer for this court's approval, as an exhibit, a tape recording containing a telephone conversation said to have been recorded by Mr. Mark Lane on March 2nd, 1964, just a little more than three months after the assassination of President Kennedy and the murder of Officer Tippit. I'd like to have that tape marked as an official exhibit and I'd also like to play that tape for the jury, if it pleases the court?" THE COURT -- "The exhibit will be so marked. You may play the tape, Mr. Bugliosi." [Playing tape...A transcript of the tape recording can be found HERE.] MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now, Mrs. Markham, after just now having heard that taped telephone conversation, do you recognize the female voice on the recording as being your own voice?" MRS. MARKHAM -- "Yes, that is me." MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now, does the playing of this recording here in the courtroom today refresh in your own mind that taped conversation that you had in early March of 1964 with the lead defense attorney in this case--Mr. Mark Lane--who is currently seated in front of you at the defense counsel table?" MRS. MARKHAM -- "Yes, I can recall the conversation now." MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Now, to reiterate a key point brought out on that tape, did you at any time EVER say to any reporters who might have interviewed you following November 22nd, 1963, that Officer Tippit's killer was "stocky", "heavy", or a person who possessed "bushy hair"?" MRS. MARKHAM -- "No, sir. I do not ever recall having used those words to describe the man I saw shoot the policeman." MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Thank you, Mrs. Markham. No further questions at this time."