David Von Pein

Now this a very good example of why I post at forums like this one. And also a good example of why this "mostly CTer" forum NEEDS an "LNer" around to stamp out the conspiracy myths that never seem to die the death they deserve---like the one above that Paul Trejo just spouted. I hope you won't mind my quoting Mr. Bugliosi (yet again). For occasions like this one, about a year or so ago I created the following screen capture, which includes a portion of Pages 134 and 135 of Endnotes in Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History". These excerpts totally destroy the common myth that conspiracy theorists still cling to even to this day about Chief Justice Earl Warren's "Not in your lifetime" quote, as well as destroying the myth about Warren himself allegedly sealing the Warren Commission records for "75 years". (Click on the link directly above the image to see a much bigger version of the RH book excerpts.) .... "RECLAIMING HISTORY" BOOK EXCERPTS

Okay, Jon, fair enough. But does that mean--in your opinion--that the Carcano rifle and CE399 and the bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest and the two bullet fragments found in the front seat of the President's limousine and the testimony of William Scoggins and Barbara Davis and Ted Callaway and Charles Brehm (et al) cannot be used by ANYONE outside of an "official" court of law to evaluate the facts surrounding the deaths of President Kennedy and J.D. Tippit? Are you saying we have no choice but to wait until Mac Wallace (is he dead?) or James Files or Ruth Paine or Buell Frazier is actually put ON TRIAL before we can utilize any of the "Potential Evidence" in the JFK case to try and figure out what happened?

Well, Jon, what you just said about "evidence" is a little silly, IMO. If you think the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle doesn't qualify as "evidence" because it was never introduced into Oswald's court trial, well, I guess you're entitled to think that. But if that Carcano isn't "evidence", then what is it? What would you call it? Is it merely "Potential Evidence" in your view? Aren't we really arguing semantics here? Anyway, the old dodge I hear from a lot from CTers -- "We can never declare Oswald guilty of either of the Nov. 22 murders he was charged with, because he didn't go to trial" -- is simply a big fat COP-OUT, in my opinion. The "evidence" is still the "evidence" (Carcano and the rest), even though Oswald didn't live long enough to see it introduced as People's Exhibit No. 1 at an LHO trial. And I know that no conspiracy believer in the world thinks that the 1986 Bugliosi/Spence mock trial resembled anything close to a "real" trial, but there WAS a "real" judge sitting on the bench during that mock trial, and Vince Bugliosi told me in 2009 that there WAS, indeed, an evidentiary hearing held before the trial started to see what evidence would be admitted at the trial. And guess what one of those pieces of admissible evidence was? None other than Commission Exhibit No. 399. "The admissibility of CE 399 (along with other items of evidence) was, indeed, dealt with in London by Judge Lucius Bunton at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, and Bunton, a sitting federal judge in Texas at the time, ruled in my favor that CE 399 (not the actual bullet, of course, which we did not have in London) was admissible at the London trial." -- Vincent Bugliosi; August 2009 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vince-bugliosi-on-ce399.html

Thanks, Jon. In case you missed my answer to "WHY DO YOU POST HERE?" -----> EducationForum.com/entry301550 ---------

Dawn Meredith is on record as saying she would never permit an "LNer" to register at DPF. She said that very thing as recently as February 20, 2014: "We don't allow LN ers. So that omits that waste of time." -- Dawn Meredith; Founding Member of Deep Politics Forum; 2/20/14 https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?13107-Education-Forum-closing-yet-again&p=83084#post83084

IN ANOTHER DISCUSSION IN 2012, DAVID JOSEPHS SAID: An open letter to Gary Mack and DVP: Are you going to now try and say that the HIDELL ORDER was the only one in which a rifle serial # and VC # were written? That Klein's would not keep track of who bought what, when and where? As they did on the HIDELL ORDER? Are you claiming that you've NEVER SEEN ANOTHER KLEIN'S order…EVER? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Why on Earth would the FBI care about other orders in the Klein's files other than the paperwork connected with the purchase of one particular rifle with the serial number C2766 on it (which was purchased by Oswald, of course)? That's the only gun purchase the FBI was looking for -- the one with C2766 attached to it. And that's because they knew that the JFK murder weapon was a gun with "C2766" on it. Any other Klein's order was useless and immaterial to the FBI's investigation. Isn't this obvious? You, David Josephs, are merely concentrating on all the wrong things (again), in order to make Oswald blameless. Of course there were many other order forms in the Klein's files that looked similar to Waldman #7. But none of those other orders had the serial number "C2766" written on them, and therefore none of those many other Klein's orders had any bearing whatsoever on the JFK murder case. DVP August 6, 2012 EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19357#entry257775

Jon, Waldman #7 is an internal Klein's form. The customer never sees that form at all. It's generated by Klein's after they receive the order form in the mail from the customer. From 7 H 366... DAVID BELIN -- "Now, I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 and ask you to state if you know what this is." WILLIAM J. WALDMAN -- "This is a copy made from our microfilm reader-printer of an order received by Klein's from a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box No. 2915, in Dallas, Texas. I want to clarify that this is not the order, itself, received from Mr. Hidell, but it's a form created by us internally from an order received from Mr. Hidell on a small coupon taken from an advertisement of ours in a magazine." 7 H 366: http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0187b.htm I do wonder why William Waldman refers to Hidell as "Mister"? The order coupon that Oswald mailed to Klein's says simply "A. Hidell", which could be a female ordering the gun for all Klein's knew at the time in March 1963. (Although I suppose it might be a bit unusual for a woman to be ordering firearms from Klein's Sporting Goods; but it certainly could happen.) Obviously, though, Mr. Waldman would have later become aware that "A. Hidell" was, in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald, who was, of course, a "Mister". But I just wanted to put that out there before a conspiracist jumps all over Waldman for improperly addressing Hidell as "Mr. A. Hidell". Perhaps some CTers think that the "Mister" indicates William Waldman had advanced knowledge of who "Hidell" was prior to Waldman's Warren Commission session and, therefore, Waldman was part of the alleged "plot" to frame "Mr. Hidell". I've never heard that theory---but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it resides in some CTer's mind right now. [NOTE -- Edited by DVP to correct error in Waldman's testimony above that appears on the McAdams/Marquette website. There's a chunk of Waldman's testimony omitted on the McAdams page for some reason. The above testimony is taken directly from 7 H 366 as it appears on Rex Bradford's "History Matters" site.]

Thanks, Steve. And my thanks to Colin Crow too, for the extra links. FYI... I put in my two cents' worth about the "Bags & Bones" subjects just last month. I've archived much of those discussions at my site, here.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-914.html

But, B.A., do you really think Klein's is a co-conspirator in this thing? Really? If so....for what possible purpose? Coerced by the FBI to do so? Or don't you consider that a valid question for me to ask?

Well, that's certainly good enough for me, Brad. That's all I need to hear. If Mrs. Rodgers said it, it's got to be true. Thanks, Brad. The case is solved.

It's Von Pein, Brad and David. Not just Pein. And what's a "honey-boo rerun"? I'm intrigued.

Therefore, David J., you think KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS of Chicago, Illinois, played a large part in the "plot" to frame Lee Oswald. Is that correct? You do realize how goofy that accusation is, don't you David? And why would anybody think it strange that the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" doesn't appear on Waldman 7 when Oswald used his alias Hidell to order the rifle? Should Klein's have shipped the gun to "Oswald" even though the name on the order form said "Hidell"? Video regarding the rifle and Klein's:

David J., The DPD figured out who did it on Day 1. It was quite obvious to them. After all, they charged the man named Oswald with TWO murders prior to midnight on the 22nd. And you don't do that unless you've got a TAD BIT of something called "evidence" to back up those TWO murder charges. Right, David J.? It took the DPD 11 hours to figure it out. It's taken the CTers 51 years to figure out....nothing. Go figure.

B.A. Copeland, Do you believe this document below is really a fake document? Because if you don't, then Klein's positively shipped Rifle C2766 to Oswald/"Hidell" on 3/20/63 (regardless of the fact Oswald had actually ordered from a coupon advertising a 36-inch gun).... Waldman No. 7 pictured above sinks every conspiracist who has ever uttered these words: "Lee Harvey Oswald never ordered any rifle from Klein's and was never shipped any rifle by Klein's."

Asked and answered -----> http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21855#entry301550 So why are you asking it again?

Well, Bob, let me turn the tables --- Why do YOU post so much, Bob? Using your words, "Why on earth would you even care?"

Because there's always a very small chance that there are a few "lurkers" out there who haven't been totally sucked into the abyss created by the Internet conspiracy believers. (And based on the 2013 polls, the number of CTers is dropping fairly quickly---to 59% via one of the polls--which is always good to see.) So if I can counteract a little bit of the silly "conspiracy" talk on the Web, it's a pleasure to do so. As Jon G. Tidd accurately said above, no CTer on the Internet is ever going to be swayed by one single thing ANY LNer says, or will ever say. (Has that EVER happened since the Internet was invented? If it has, I've yet to encounter it.) But since freedom of speech and expression and opinion hasn't been outlawed in the USA (to my knowledge), I can try to get the "Oswald was guilty" message out there....because I think Oswald was guilty (and was a lone assassin).

Probably James W. Powell. Also..... "If Lee Harvey Oswald could easily misidentify a newsman as a Secret Service agent in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 (and he did, per his comments about this matter to the police after his arrest) -- then why is it out of the realm of possibility for other witnesses in the Plaza to have made the very same kind of mistake that Oswald made that day?" -- DVP; April 9, 2009 Or, to use the words of Vincent Bugliosi: "From all the evidence it clearly appears that the Secret Service sightings on the grassy knoll and behind the Book Depository Building after the shooting are entitled to about the same weight as Oswald's statement in Captain Fritz's office about being confronted by a Secret Service agent in front of the Book Depository Building." -- Page 871 of "Reclaiming History" Lots more on the "Fake Secret Service Agents" here.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/fake-secret-service-agents.html And here.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-710.html

Many conspiracy theorists believe that the Warren Commission was created merely to cover up the truth about President Kennedy's assassination. And some conspiracists also believe that Earl Warren's Commission, in effect, framed the late Lee Harvey Oswald for the murders of both Kennedy and policeman J.D. Tippit, with those particular conspiracy theorists believing that the Warren Commission knew full well that Oswald was totally innocent of both of those murders, but the Commission decided to conclude in its final report that Oswald was guilty of those crimes and that he had acted alone. To the conspiracy theorists who possess such a nonsensical mindset, I offer up at the link below several excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History". And after reading these book excerpts, a good question to then ask CTers would be this one---- Is this how the Warren Commission would have behaved if the MAIN OBJECTIVE of the members of that Commission was to rubber-stamp the "Oswald Did It Alone" conclusion reached by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the FBI's 12/9/63 report on the assassination? ..... JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/warren-commission-objectives.html --------------

If I could travel back to late 1963 and early 1964 in a time machine, one of the things I would be most anxious to do would be to sit in on a few of the executive sessions of the Warren Commission (in a "fly on the wall" manner), just to hear for myself what was being discussed (even "off the record") during those Commission meetings. maryferrell.org / WC Executive Sessions And if such "fly on the wall" eavesdropping on the Warren Commission could be accomplished in a handy time machine, I have a feeling that every single bogus cloud of suspicion that many conspiracy theorists have decided to hang over the heads of the entire Commission would evaporate very quickly. And the reason that such suspicions would disappear in very quick order is because people like Burt Griffin and David Belin were telling the truth -- they really did want to find a conspiracy. But they couldn't do it....because Lee Harvey Oswald really was the lone assassin of President Kennedy and Jack Ruby really was a second "lone nut" in Dallas in November 1963. Sometimes things really are as they appear to be. David Von Pein October 29, 2009 ========================================== COLIN CROW SAID: History shows that the Warren Commision [sic] ultimately did not convince the majority of the US public (and world) that there was not a conspiracy. This was it's [sic] prime objective... DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Oh, goodie, that old canard again. Any chance you can prove that the "prime objective" of the Warren Commission was to whitewash things? Any chance of that at all? A conspiracy theorist believing that somebody (or some group) was up to no good is meaningless. What the CTers need is some kind of proof that people were conspiring with each other to do the following: 1.) Kill JFK. 2.) Make Oswald the patsy. 3.) Whitewash ALL of the various post-assassination investigations so that everybody would think Oswald (and Ruby) did it alone -- including the Dallas Police Department's initial investigation on the weekend of November 22-24, 1963, plus the Warren Commission's investigation, plus the HSCA's probe into the murder. And to believe that ALL THREE of those individual investigations into President Kennedy's murder were "whitewash" jobs is just too ridiculous a thought to consider for more than two seconds. And yet, a goodly number of conspiracy theorists think that ALL THREE of those investigative agencies were, indeed, part of a "cover-up". Such thinking is silly beyond all tolerance. To date, none of the above three things has been proven by the conspiracy believers of the world. And they never will be proven, because none of the extraordinary things that conspiracists think happened in this case really happened. Nor could they have happened in the real world in which we live. David Von Pein January 13, 2010

I agree. But I think in Oswald's case, the truth rests more with Oswald wanting to GET OUT of the United States and abandon American life than it does with him wanting to sing the Star Spangled Banner every day. He wants to go to Russia (of all places)! He wants to go to Cuba (again--of all places)! And you think THAT'S a man who is deeply fond of the USA?

Via either method, one irrevocable conclusion becomes very plain --- Marina's husband killed two people on November 22nd. The only way to avoid that conclusion is to just ignore all the evidence. (IMHO.)

Hi Larry, You're correct, Oswald didn't "legally defect" to Russia. But he sure as heck wanted to in October of '59. But then, like with other things in his life, he became dissatisfied with life in the USSR too, so back he comes to America. He was pretty much dissatisfied with everything in his life. Drifting from one lowly job to another, drifting from one American city to the next, and even drifting from one country to another (while trying desperately to get to a third---Cuba). If some people want to think that all that adds up to a young man who loves the United States (despite telling a policeman in New Orleans the exact opposite), well, okay. Everybody's entitled to their views. But given Oswald's last attempt to ditch America for yet another hostile nation--Castro's Cuba--via LHO's Mexico excursion in Sept. '63, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that Mr. Oswald was in love with the good ol' USA.

What about Lee's trying to defect to a hostile nation, Mark? Just more "bravado"?

Mark, Oswald had four years to start hating America between the time he was discharged from the Marines and the time he told Martello that he "hated America" in August of 1963. Tell me, Mark, do you think Francis Martello just MADE UP the "HATED AMERICA" dialogue that he attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald? If so, what for? Conversely, if Oswald DID say what Martello said he said, do you think Oswald was LYING to Martello? Did Lee really love his country of birth, but told Martello he hated it? And what kind of person voluntarily leaves a country he loves in order to defect to a nation like Russia? That move ALONE shows Oswald's dissatisfaction with American life. Wouldn't you agree, Mark? Or do you think Oswald was a "fake defector"? IOW -- Is ANYTHING surrounding Lee H. Oswald what it seems to be? Or was Oswald's entire life pretty much nothing but smoke and mirrors?