David Von Pein

Nobody is suggesting that LHO gained 20 pounds in two days. The three people who estimated his weight simply THOUGHT he looked like he weighed more than he did. That's all. Why on Earth are you playing dumb and pretending like you don't realize the basic point I was making about those three weight estimates? Those THREE people (Baker, Brennan, Dallas coroner) all were looking at LHO....and ALL THREE estimated his weight as being somewhere between 150 and 175 pounds. But Oswald very likely did not weigh that much at all. And yet we have three people in Nov. '63 who thought that he did weigh that much. The actual and TRUE weight of Oswald is totally irrelevant in this discussion. It's what those three witnesses THOUGHT Oswald's true weight was that is relevant. Do you really not understand this, Glenn? I already explained this in my last post. Go read it and find out.

When I said "And btw, Oswald's weight at his autopsy was estimated at "150 pounds". Not 131-132 lbs.", it was a direct response to this comment by Tommy.... "Oswald weighed only 131 or 132 pounds at autopsy." ....which looked to me as if Tommy was incorrectly asserting that THE AUTOPSY REPORT ITSELF said that LHO weighed 131-132, since Tommy used the words "at autopsy" in his comment. But, again, the main point I've been stressing is that MORE THAN ONE PERSON who saw the real Lee Oswald in Nov. '63 incorrectly thought Oswald weighed more than he really weighed. Are you going to deny that fact, Glenn? Even with the autopsy estimate AND Marrion Baker's 11/22 affidavit staring you in the face? Not to mention Brennan, who we all know DID see Lee Oswald shooting at the President (even though no CTer on the Internet would ever have the guts to admit that obvious fact). So that really makes three different people who estimated Oswald's weight at between 150 and 175 pounds. And I have no doubt at all that those three persons were each looking at the real Lee Oswald when they made those estimates.

Yeah, sure, Glenn. That's why I utilized the "wink" and "smiley" icons in my post. Because I knew you must've been dead serious. Good job, Glenn. Nothing slips by you.

And I answered that question when I said: "I really don't know." Why are you acting like I never answered it? Of course not, Glenn. And I have never once suggested anything that silly. LHO's autopsy report (CE1981) estimates his weight at 150 pounds. That figure is very likely not a correct one. But so what? It's just an estimate for the paperwork that was done. Perhaps Oswald looked a little heavier to the coroner who was doing the autopsy. I don't know. And it matters very little (if at all) in the long run. But I will say this.... If Oswald did weigh only 131 pounds on Nov. 22 when he was arrested, then the "150 pounds" estimate we find in the autopsy report would serve as just one additional item to indicate that different people who were looking at the real Lee Oswald were making inaccurate (i.e., too heavy) guesses as to Oswald's weight. We know Marrion Baker guessed incorrectly in a "too heavy" manner. And we can see that the person who estimated LHO's weight at his autopsy did the same thing --- he thought Oswald weighed more than he really did.

Are you sure you meant to say it that way, Glenn? But thanks anyway. yes, i meant to say it that way, David. exactly that way. i wanted it to reek of sarcasm, to smell of sarcasm the way wet dogs smell of "yeck" - thinking you are aware enough to detect it and know what i'm really saying. am i expecting too much, David? Yeah, I figured you were in Sarcasm mode there. I'm used to it. Good job.

Are you sure you meant to say it that way, Glenn? But thanks anyway.

So you're pretty much saying the patsy-framers screwed up pretty badly, huh? They were trying to frame the very skinny, 131-pound Lee Oswald, but they used a 165-pound person as their "Oswald double"? Is that it? And you think BOTH Baker and Brennan were "coached"? And what about Roy Truly? Was he "coached" to say the encounter occurred on the second floor too? Tommy, that's a lot of unprovable and unfounded speculation on your part, don't you think? You have no GOOD reason to think Marrion Baker was "coached". Why would you even suggest such a thing? I'll answer my last question myself --- You NEED to suggest it in order for your conspiracy theory to work. So--voila!--Baker was "coached". Not very persuasive, Tommy.

Glenn, I said Tommy was "mixed up" because he was. And he knows that now too. Tommy was claiming things were happening to the dead body of Lee Oswald on Nov. 25 that could not have been happening to Oswald on Nov. 25, because Lee was inside a casket that whole day. That's what I meant by "mixed up".

As I proved earlier [in another EF thread], it was certainly possible for a person to stare right at Lee Harvey Oswald and guess his AGE and WEIGHT incorrectly. And Marrion L. Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit is the PROOF that that did happen. And, as fate would have it, Howard Brennan said the sixth-floor assassin was around 30 years of age and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds....perfectly matching Baker's inaccurate guesses with respect to the real Lee Harvey Oswald. And Mr. Oswald just happened to be a man whose fingerprints (and bullet shells) littered the exact same place where Brennan saw his "30-year-old, 165- to 175-pound" assassin in the window firing a rifle. How 'bout that for coincidence? Baker's 11/22 Affidavit: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4oxRP0t5ZBM/Tvw52B7FIGI/AAAAAAAABwU/QbBHYHhIM4Q/s1200-h/Marrion-Baker-Affidavit.gif Brennan's 11/22 Affidavit: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-jTmnYgFvqzM/Tvw3vTpzhsI/AAAAAAAABuI/QJ__Z34iHho/s1200-h/Howard-Brennan-Affidavit.gif

I really don't know. I'm puzzled by those figures too (69.5 inches and 131 lbs. exactly). I was looking through the WC exhibits relating to the cards that Oswald had on him when he was arrested, and I was thinking that one of those cards might have had that height and weight information on them. But I didn't find any such document or card. But I'm thinking there might be one. But I suppose it's also possible the DPD put Oswald on a scale and also measured his height as part of the routine procedure when booking a suspect who has been arrested. (Is it routine to "weigh in" the suspects after they're arrested? I haven't the foggiest idea. But maybe they did. That info could be in the WC testimony of some DPD personnel, I suppose.) But the whole topic about Marrion Baker seeing somebody OTHER than the real Lee Oswald on the 2nd floor is simply CTer desperation in full-fledged panic mode. Nothing more than that. As I proved earlier, it was certainly possible for a person to stare right at Lee Harvey Oswald and guess his AGE and WEIGHT incorrectly. And Marrion L. Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit is the PROOF that that did happen. And, as fate would have it, Howard Brennan said the sixth-floor assassin was around 30 years of age and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds....perfectly matching Baker's inaccurate guesses with respect to the real Lee Harvey Oswald. And Mr. Oswald just happened to be a man whose fingerprints (and bullet shells) littered the exact same place where Brennan saw his "30-year-old, 165- to 175-pound" assassin in the window firing a rifle. How 'bout that for coincidence?

You're a bit mixed up, Tommy. On 11/25/63, Oswald was already six feet under at Rose Hill Cemetery in Fort Worth. (Well, actually, he was buried on that exact day.) And nobody took Lee's fingerprints on Nov. 25. Those prints were taken of the living Oswald on Nov. 22. Commission Exhibit No. 630 [below] was dated "11-25-63", after his death, yes. But his prints most certainly weren't taken on Nov. 25. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0156a.htm It's obvious that some of the info on that fingerprint card (CE630) was acquired when Oswald was still alive. Note the "Refused To Sign" remark on the same document. And I doubt that refers to Oswald's corpse. Most dead people wouldn't be able to "refuse to sign" anything. Because they're dead. So the "131 lbs." weight figure on his fingerprint card couldn't possibly have been obtained on Nov. 25 either. LHO was in a casket the whole day. And the autopsy report's "estimated 150 pounds" weight is the only official weight figure I know of for LHO after his death. And if they weighed the corpse on a scale, why the need to "estimate" the weight in the official autopsy report? Makes no sense.

Then what do you do about OSWALD HIMSELF confirming that the encounter with Officer Baker took place on the SECOND floor, not the fourth or any other floor? Oswald told Captain Fritz it was the "second floor". That's in Fritz' notes and Fritz' written report too (WR; p.600). http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0312b.htm Was Oswald lying too? Was LHO in cahoots with Truly and Baker....and Fritz? Or was Fritz the other l-i-a-r, Tommy? Which is it?

Hi Gayle, That's an interesting observation about potential new records surfacing following the deaths of people associated with the police department or D.A.'s office, etc. I certainly wouldn't proclaim any such evidence as being fake. That tactic is usually reserved for the conspiracy theorists. I had never thought about it before, but in the case of Assistant DA Bill Alexander's recent passing, I suppose a few things from his personal papers could come to light at some point.

Why do I ask? Why are you asking that question? I'm asking because it's nutty to think Marrion Baker saw anyone OTHER than Lee Oswald on 11/22/63 on the SECOND FLOOR. That's a FACT confirmed by Roy S. Truly. Is Truly a l-i-a-r too, Tommy?

So, Tommy, are you really suggesting that Baker DIDN'T see the real Lee Oswald on the 2nd floor of the TSBD? Is that what you're saying? And btw, Oswald's weight at his autopsy was estimated at "150 pounds". Not 131-132 lbs. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0013a.htm

Something for CTers to ponder.... Howard Brennan's initial description of the gunman is remarkably similar to policeman Marrion Baker's description of the man he encountered on the 2nd floor just a couple of minutes after the shooting. And the man Baker encountered was undeniably Lee Harvey Oswald (although, incredibly, some CTers on the outer fringe of reality are now pretending that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter on the 2nd floor never even happened AT ALL, which is pure tommyrot, of course). Here's a 2014 exchange I had with two CTers about the similar descriptions provided by Brennan and Officer Baker.... BEN HOLMES SAID: He [Lee Harvey Oswald] gave his *OWN* weight as 140... and a document from after his death gives his weight as "131," which due to the number given, is almost certainly the most accurate number of all. David won't address this issue, even though Oswald's *TRUE* weight is clearly the issue, not the autopsy. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: No, Oswald's *TRUE* weight is not actually the overriding issue here at all. The overriding issue, as far as the eyewitnesses are concerned, is what those witnesses thought Oswald's weight was when they saw him on 11/22/63. And the very best evidence for a person whose estimated weight was given as "165 pounds" actually being Lee Harvey Oswald resides in the 11/22/63 affidavit of policeman Marrion L. Baker, who said these exact words in that affidavit (and we know without any doubt that he is talking about Lee Oswald here, because Roy Truly verified that the person Baker stopped at gunpoint in the second-floor lunchroom was Oswald).... "The man I saw was a white man approximately 30 years old, 5'9", 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket." -- Marrion L. Baker; 11/22/63 HERE is Baker's affidavit. Therefore, the real Lee Harvey Oswald, who did not weigh 165 pounds, did appear to weigh 165 pounds to Officer Baker on November 22 in that lunchroom. And the real Oswald also appeared to be "approximately 30 years old" to Baker too, perfectly matching Howard Brennan's estimate of the age of the sixth-floor assassin that he also saw that same day. And Brennan's weight estimate for the sixth-floor assassin also generally matches the incorrect weight estimate provided by Baker. Plus: Baker thought (incorrectly) that Oswald was wearing a "jacket", when we know the "brown jacket" Baker spoke of was only Oswald's brown shirt (which was open and not tucked in). The "jacket" comment also matches another witness' incorrect assertion about Oswald wearing a jacket--and that witness is William Whaley. But the conspiracy theorists have nowhere to run with all those mistakes that Officer Baker made about Oswald's description---because there can be no doubt whatsoever that Baker was describing a person who we know (via Roy Truly) was Lee Harvey Oswald. Ergo, a weight estimate of 165 pounds for Lee Harvey Oswald most certainly does not mean that Baker (or Brennan) had to have seen someone other than Oswald in the Depository on November 22, 1963. And Marrion Baker's official affidavit is the thing that forever proves that fact. BEN HOLMES SAID: You're lying again, David. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: The main point concerning the topic of Oswald's weight is clearly a point that Ben Holmes cannot grasp. And that important point is: The REAL Oswald was said to weigh 165 pounds by a witness who we know saw the REAL Lee Oswald (not some "imposter"). And that witness is Marrion Baker. Holmes would be much better off just stating that Baker lied his eyes out in his 11/22 affidavit that I posted earlier, wherein Baker claims that the man he stopped in the lunchroom weighed 165 pounds (and was about 30 years old, which is also wrong). Ben, do you think Baker was lying about the "165 pounds" and "approximately 30 years old" portions of his affidavit, just to conform to Howard Brennan's nearly identical description of the sixth-floor sniper and/or to conform to the Dallas Police Department's 12:45 PM APB radio broadcast concerning the description of the President's assassin? Because if conspiracy clowns like Ben Holmes think Baker was being totally truthful in that affidavit, then they've got no choice but to admit that a witness who saw the real Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, definitely did think he weighed 165 pounds. GARRY PUFFER SAID: No matter what DVP says, I find it difficult to understand how a person weighing 131 pounds could be said to have weighed 165. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: So, are you saying Marrion Baker was lying in his affidavit? Because Baker definitely did see Oswald, and Baker definitely did estimate Oswald's weight to be 165. And Ted Callaway also positively identified Lee Oswald (at a police lineup), and Callaway said this to the Warren Commission about Oswald's weight (varying by only five pounds from Baker's guess about LHO's weight): MR. CALLAWAY -- "Just a nice athletic type size boy, I mean. Neither fat nor thin." MR. BALL -- "What did you estimate his weight when you talked to the officer before the lineup?" MR. CALLAWAY -- "I told him it looked to me like around 160 pounds." Was Callaway lying too? And there's also Howard Brennan, who (albeit belatedly) did positively identify Lee Oswald as the sixth-floor assassin. In his 11/22/63 affidavit, Brennan said the sniper in the TSBD window weighed "about 165 to 175 pounds". But a key word used by Brennan in that same affidavit that is often overlooked by conspiracists is "slender". Brennan said the "165 to 175-pound" person was ALSO "slender". And Oswald was "slender". David Von Pein June 13, 2014

Cliff, Why do you still insist that my "little bit" remark means that I now believe in conspiracy OR that the SBT is now totally discredited? It means NEITHER. You are attaching way too much significance to my "little bit" comment. I don't know how many inches (or centimeters) JFK's clothing was "bunched up" by just looking at the photos of Kennedy taken in Dealey Plaza. And you don't know either. How could ANYONE know such a thing with any precision? So why not stop pretending that you can measure such unmeasurable things? And I'm just curious, Cliff.... Can you make one single post without talking about the clothing? Just one? Have you EVER posted about anything other than the jacket and shirt? Ever??

A double root canal would be preferable to reading that book. I mean, a guy [DiEugenio] who still props up Garrison in the 21st century? Geesh. Incredible.

Well, I didn't "sit down" with anyone during the writing of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", but I did "reach out" (which would be the more appropriate term) to a few people for help. (Or doesn't a "reach out" type of conversation count, Jim? Does it have to be a face-to-face "sit down" interview in order to qualify as "research"? ~shrug~) Anyway, I "reached out" via e-mail several times, as I recall, to two people in particular -- former Secret Service agent Gerald Blaine and Sixth Floor Museum curator Gary Mack. Both of those men were very helpful to me concerning various aspects of research I have done in the last few years. (See pages 65-66 and 414-415 of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".) And I should point out that this "reaching out" to Blaine and Mack is something I did prior to helping Mel Ayton write the "BRD" book. But I was able to incorporate the information I had previously gathered from Gerald Blaine and Gary Mack into the final manuscript for the book. (Does that still count, Jim? Or am I disqualified on a technicality?) And there were several additional "reaching out" sessions that I have had with people like Dale Myers, John McAdams, and Jean Davison (three of the best JFK sources you could possibly hope to find, in my opinion) that I desperately wanted to include in the book, but due to space restrictions, there was a whole bunch of my stuff (more than 20,000 words, in fact) that had to be cut out of the manuscript. (Should I try to get "BRD 2" published?) Also.... Mel Ayton, the book's primary author, conducted several personal interviews. Each of which is sourced in the Notes & Sources section of the book. Also see: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-926.html#BRD-Editing But the reality is that the amount of JFK assassination material is so vast and so detailed via all of the previous investigations and documents and books (and, in particular, Vincent Bugliosi's monumental tome, in which almost any source imaginable can be extracted and cited from Vince's 2800 total pages), that it makes "original" sources (via "sit down" interviews with people) less necessary in the years 2014 and 2015 when compared to many years ago, especially in the pre-"Reclaiming History" years before 2007. I think it really boils down to this question: How does the author evaluate the existing evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases? And I think Mel Ayton and myself have properly and fairly evaluated the evidence in those two murder cases (plus the murder of Lee Oswald by Jack Ruby as well). A conspiracy theorist like Jim DiEugenio will, of course, disagree with my last statement above. Jim thinks all of the evidence (or pretty close to all of it) should be tossed out the window. He thinks it's tainted evidence. I, however, could not disagree more strongly. In fact, I've always felt that the "Everything Is Fake" mindset of many conspiracy theorists is nothing but a cop-out and a convenient way for those CTers to summarily dismiss nearly everything that points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the guilty party--no matter how much evidence they have to toss aside. Quoting wound ballistics investigator Larry Sturdivan.... "While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of 'Keystone Kops', with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and 'evil geniuses', with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" (2005)

What a crock. If by "original", you mean "primary" sources, then, yes, I love those types of sources too -- "primary" ones, like the original investigations and the official Government follow-up investigations [e.g., DPD, WC, HSCA, Clark Panel, Rockefeller Commission] and the "primary" witnesses involved in the case. But you, Jim, seem to like to THROW AWAY almost all of the "primary" source material. You find a reason (any reason) to toss all of that "primary" (first day) evidence right into the trash can (e.g., the guns, bullets, prints, fibers, paper bag, bullet shells, the autopsy report, the autopsy photos, and lots more). You don't USE those primary sources and first-day evidence. You MISuse those things. Every last one of them. With Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle being a prime example of how you misuse (and totally mangle) the evidence in this case. You've done everything in your power to take that gun out of the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, and even out of his hands at ANY point in time in the year 1963. You're so enamored with the silly idea that Oswald never touched Rifle C2766 that you are now even saying that Oswald never even ORDERED that rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods. And Oswald having ordered and paid for a rifle from Klein's is a rock-solid fact that no reasonable and sensible person on the planet who has looked at the evidence can possibly deny. And yet Mr. DiEugenio denies it--and vehemently. What a crock. And what a joke you are. And that's just one example (among dozens) of how DiEugenio treats the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases. There ought to be some kind of law against it. But I guess freedom of speech (and, in Jim's case, the freedom to look like a horse's hind quarters when he pretends that all of the evidence against Oswald is fake) overrides any hope I ever had of James DiEugenio being able to properly assess any of the evidence in the John F. Kennedy assassination. A 22-point reminder (in case anyone missed it).... The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes

I guess Tom needs a hint.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/hoover-and-oswald.html

I never said the mastoid WASN'T a "movable" part of the body. What I said was it would be FIXED if the body is in the anatomical position, as would ANY other body landmark. Isn't that fact obvious? Same with Dr. Wecht's preference of taking measurements "from the top of the head". But it's still the HEAD, which is MOVABLE. All parts of the human head are movable.

Oh yeah. That's right, Cliff. I am always going around pretending the physical evidence doesn't exist, aren't I? Guns, prints, bullets, witnesses, shells. I never mention any of that stuff, do I? But apparently the ONLY "real evidence" in the whole case is the clothing of JFK. Right? Nothing else matters. It's all about the clothes (as always), according to One-Note Cliff. Geez Louise, Cliff. You're obsessed with haberdashery. (Is there a doctor who specializes in that? If so, make an appointment---quick!)

No, it's the truth that you don't want to face. And you'll just ignore the immense "Two Bullets That Didn't Exit" problem too. Won't you, Bob? And you'll ignore, as always, the fact that every Government investigation into JFK's death---plus the autopsy doctors too!---concluded that one bullet DID go all the way through Kennedy's body. But what do THEY know, right? After all, the HSCA's FPP was only comprised of NINE very trained pathologists. But we'll just trust Dr. Prudhomme instead of placing an ounce of faith in those NINE medical doctors. Right, Bobby? Oh, you mean the other 99 times you posted your charts and graphs was just the warm-up? The real ballgame hasn't started yet, eh? Good. I've got time to get a hot dog and a Dr. Pepper (LHO's favorite) before game time then. Bring it on, Dr. Anatomy. My answer will still be the same. It'll be that "child's rant" I posted above --- which is the absolute truth and you know it. But waste more bandwidth on 22 more anatomy charts if you want. I'm going to watch the Reds game instead.

Jon, I agree with the Government's conclusions about Oswald's guilt if that's what you mean. But....so what? Millions of people agree with the Government's "Oswald Did It" conclusion. I'm just one of them. Although, to hear Jim DiEugenio tell it, it would seem as if the "LN" club consisted of just a very few people on the whole planet --- myself, the late Vince Bugliosi, Tom Hanks, and Gerald Posner....and that's about it. But there are a lot of other people in the world who think Oswald killed JFK (and probably did it alone). Those people just don't hang out on JFK Internet forums every day of their lives.