David Von Pein

My house doesn't have a basement, Bob. So, looks like you've struck out again.

Orders from my Langley bosses, Robert. I've got no choice. Earl Warren chained me to my desk in September 1964 and I haven't had a free day since. Nobody can find the key to the damn leg irons either.

Oh, I don't know Ken -- maybe that pile of stuff collected from the TSBD and that other pile of shells (and many witnesses) collected from the area of Tenth Street & Patton Avenue. Plus that revolver that was wrested out of Oswald's own hands in the theater. (You know, the gun that killed J.D. Tippit.) So we're only talking about ALL the bullets, ALL SEVEN bullet shells (covering both murders), BOTH guns (which were both Oswald's), the fingerprints, the fibers, the paper bag, and Oswald's own highly incriminating actions and provable lies. (Not to mention the dozen or so witnesses who fingered Oswald near 10th & Patton.) Doesn't ANY of that stuff qualify as "evidence" in your world, Ken? If not, why not? The Warren Commission isn't even needed to solve this case and prove that Oswald was a double-murderer. The DPD already proved that (double) fact by the end of the second day (11/23/63). The Warren Commission didn't collect ANY of the evidence that hangs Oswald for both the Kennedy and Tippit killings. The Dallas Police collected virtually all of it. The WC merely evaluated that evidence after Jack Ruby intervened. Tell me this, Ken -- If there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE against Oswald (as you seem to be suggesting very strongly), then what made the DPD decide to charge Lee Oswald with two murders before midnight on November 22, 1963? Do people usually get officially charged with TWO murders by the police department if there is absolutely no evidence against them whatsoever? Based on a "4th Shot" Dictabelt conclusion that has been totally shredded of all value. Naturally, most CTers totally ignore the many many holes in the HSCA's acoustics theory. Show me a conspiracist who will stop promoting an already-debunked theory about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and I'll show you a miracle for the ages. DVP's JFK Archives / The Conspiracy Myths Continue DVP's JFK Archives / Debunking The Acoustics Evidence Quoting-Common-Sense.blogspot.com

Here again, Bill, you're using the word "accused" in a manner that doesn't apply at all. The rifle was most certainly in Wes Frazier's back seat on 11/22/63. It's the only explanation that fits the sum total of the evidence--and it perfectly explains Oswald's double "curtain rod" lie. I'd like for some conspiracist to explain what Oswald had in that 38-inch paper bag found right there in the Sniper's Nest (with Oswald's prints on the bag--so we KNOW he handled it) if it wasn't the rifle in that bag that day? We know it wasn't curtain rods. This, again, is extremely easy to figure out. Why do CTers deny the obvious regarding that paper bag too? Just why? (And as a reminder -- Bob Studebaker, L.D. Montgomery, and J.C. Day all testified they saw that empty paper bag lying in the Sniper's Nest, on the floor, before Day picked it up. So the "planting" idea is not going to fly.) As for Frazier's newer tale about seeing Oswald coming down Houston Street -- I, for one, don't believe that part of Buell's story. But even if it is true--so what? It doesn't affect anything relating to the evidence and Oswald's guilt. But even you, Bill, surely recognize the contradiction in Frazier's story. I already posted the relevant quote from his Nov. 22 affidavit. Which should we believe--his 1963 story or his 2002/2013 story? Beats me. But, as I said already, there's no picture (AFAIK) of MacNeil or Allman in front of the TSBD either. So, why not? You're picking and choosing. Huh? The reporters saw Oswald in FRONT of the building. You think Oswald, who was already outside in front of the building, would then have wanted to go back inside the building and then come right back out again via the back door? That's not very logical, Bill. So you think it could be a lone assassin (but not Oswald), even though all the evidence leads back to Oswald's rifle, Oswald's bullets, Oswald's shells, Oswald's prints, and even an identification of Oswald by a witness? Come on Bill. Why are you denying the obvious? And you do realize, do you not, that virtually all of the Dallas detectives who worked on the case have had no hesitation in expressing their beliefs that Oswald was guilty--and that he acted alone? Are all the DPD detectives part of some cover-up? I'm not counting Jesse Curry in that group of DPD people, since he decided to turn into somewhat of a CTer in his later years; but even Curry is on record saying he had no doubt that Oswald "is the man who killed the President" (Curry; TV interview; 11/23/63). And, of course, DPD Captain Fritz told the world on that same day (11/23/63) that the case against Oswald was "cinched". Was he out to frame an innocent man for two murders too (including the murder of one of his fellow DPD police officers)? That, IMO, is a notion that is just too crazy to even talk about. I think it is important to take note of those statements made by the Dallas Police officers (and the Police Chief and Captain Fritz), because they were the ones interrogating Oswald and they were the ones who collected most of the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases. So why shouldn't the opinions and statements made by the DPD people be some of the most important (and relevant) in the whole case? IMO, they are some of the most important statements and opinions--since those people were closer to Lee Harvey Oswald (and the evidence) than any other people alive when the assassination occurred in November of 1963. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KhoxU7EOQM&list=PL0O5WNzrZqIPQLpS3HuL0xa35eRABBQFB&index=7

For example....? Is believing the evidence to be authentic in the JFK and Tippit murder cases really something I should be ashamed of? And let's face facts, Ken -- if the evidence is authentic, then Oswald's guilty.

That's not Dr. Shires dressed in scrubs next to Dr. Shaw at Shaw's press conference. It's Bill Stinson, aide to Governor Connally.

I think Mr. Specter has mixed up the doctors. It was Dr. Perry who speculated that the throat wound was an entry and might have caused the large head wound. I've never once heard Dr. Humes ever speculate about such a thing. In fact, Humes' autopsy report expressly verifies just the opposite -- i.e., the wound in JFK's throat was unquestionably an EXIT wound.... "The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm

You can have your live cartridge, Bob. I don't need it. I've got all this stuff to solve the case with (I'll bet you wish you had this much stuff)....http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com I love the mindset of the Internet CTers. A case in which ALL of the physical evidence points to Lee Oswald as the assassin is turned upside-down by the CTers, to the point where some silly person actually said this to me (twice) today: "As I said, Dave, you got NOTHIN'!!" I love it!

Why don't you prove to the world that every object that is touched by human hands MUST leave identifiable fingerprints behind. Can you do that? And while you're at it, answer this too: How long did it take your band of "real assassins" (the make-believe non-LHO killers you think were framing Patsy Oswald) to wipe THEIR prints off that rifle and those three cartridge cases? After all, those shells didn't just GROW there in the Sniper's Nest by themselves, did they? So your make-believe plotters must have touched them, right? (Just pretend they were all wearing gloves, Bob. It's all a fantasy anyway. So the glove thing should help you.) I guess those make-believe "plotters with gloves" are up to their old tricks again, huh? Now, tell us how the plotters managed to plant Oswald's prints on the paper bag (CE142)? (Those guys were good, weren't they?) BTW, I think it's quite possible (even likely) that Oswald wiped off as many prints as he could from the rifle using his brown shirt. Hence, the fresh fibers matching that shirt getting wedged into the rifle. He then put the shirt on as he fled down the stairs to the lunchroom. Hence, a possible reason why Officer Baker thought Oswald's brown shirt was a "jacket". It was untucked on top of his white T-shirt. Marrion Baker said it was "hanging out".

You need to grow a thicker skin, I'll tell you that. And turning on the "ALL CAPS" key certainly doesn't help your weak arguments at all either, Bill. (Am I allowed to complain about Bill SCREAMING AT ME through this tidal wave of needless capital letters?) But it sure points in that direction, wouldn't you agree Bill? And, of course, you also have to call Howard Brennan a xxxx too. Don't forget that. Why? And what possible evidentiary value would it have had even if it had been found? We know he DID have a Coke after the shooting. Reid verifies that fact. Do you think maybe some "nitrates" could have been detected on the soda bottle, Bill? Frazier came up with that story (AFAIK) for the first time in the 2002 interview with Gary Mack below: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/event/178017 But what did Buell say in his affidavit on the very day of the assassination? Here's what he said: "I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today." -- B.W. Frazier; 11/22/63 http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fnUXqaMoRpw/TvxpsigRUwI/AAAAAAAABzY/mDQwRYPV0lE/s1600-h/Buell-Wesley-Frazier-Affidavit.png Well, we've got Robert MacNeil and/or Pierce Allman to possibly give us a clue on that, Bill. One of those two men (and possibly even both of them) probably ran into Oswald right after the shooting. And I believe I'm correct in saying that both of those men (MacNeil & Allman) were near the front entrance of the Depository when the alleged encounter(s) with Oswald took place. BILL KELLY SAID: >>> "JUST DON'T LUMP ME IN WITH EVERYONE ELSE YOU DON'T LIKE AND KEEP CALLING ME A CONSPIRACY THEORIST BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A THEORY TO PROMOTE." <<< You're promoting the unreasonable theory that Oswald didn't even fire a single shot at President Kennedy. And therefore that makes you one of the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorists I often refer to in my Internet posts. Based on your posts, you are indeed a member of that strange club. Why not face it? That's where the "guys like you" comes from. REPRISE: BILL KELLY SAID: >>> "I DON'T HAVE A THEORY TO PROMOTE." <<< Yeah, right Bill. That must be why you said this just two hours ago: "I don't know who the Sixth Floor Sniper was but I suspect he too was an employee of the TSBD or a cop and knew that there was no hurry to leave the scene, as he wouldn't be considered a suspect since Ozzie the Rabbit had been set loose and everyone would follow him." -- William Kelly; 9/27/13 If the above isn't a "theory to promote", then what is it?

I guess Ken D. totally ignored this post which answers that question.

LOL. Yeah, you've made up your mind to IGNORE the huge pile of "LHO Was Here" evidence that's scattered all over the sixth floor. That's what you've done. Why do you do that, William? You don't REALLY believe ALL of that evidence (rifle, 3 shells, paper bag, prints) was planted or faked, do you? If not, then it's pretty clear who the killer probably is, right? Why in the world are you harping on Oswald's Coke bottle, Bill? Oswald probably took that bottle of Coke with him out the door of the Depository when he left at approximately 12:33 PM. And he very likely disposed of it somewhere along Elm Street as he walked several blocks east of the TSBD prior to getting on McWatters' bus. Why is that scenario out of the realm of reasonable theories? Therefore, why would you even expect to be able to recover such an item like his Coca-Cola bottle? I find nothing suspicious at all in the fact that Oswald's Coke bottle was never found. It means nothing. In fact, I'd have been surprised if Oswald's Coke bottle HAD been recovered, considering he had just purchased it from the lunchroom soda machine and was headed toward the front stairs with it when he was seen by Mrs. Robert Reid. I think he took it with him out of the building. Why wouldn't he have done that? (Yes, I suppose technically the purchaser of a bottled beverage back in those days was supposed to put the empty bottle in a crate so it could be retrieved by the Coke man the next time he filled the machine. But do you really think Oswald cared about that at that particular time on November 22nd? I kind of doubt he did.) And I think it's quite humorous to hear Bill Kelly go on and on about stuff that was never found (like this meaningless Coca-Cola bottle of Lee Oswald's), but Bill seems to want to pay very little attention to a whole lot of "Oswald" evidence that WAS found right there where the President's killer was located in the Book Depository Building. IOW--To many CTers, what isn't in evidence is always much more important and "case breaking" than the mountain of stuff that is on the evidence table in the JFK case. Funny, isn't it? (I think it is anyway.) Geesh, now the innocuous term "guys like you" is suddenly an insult to Mr. Kelly's tender sensibilities. Talk about having thin skin. If I were to gripe about all the things I have been called by CTers in the last few years on the Internet, I'd never get anything done but write posts complaining about the awful way I've been treated by "guys like you". I wasn't being abusive or hateful toward you there, Bill. Must I walk on eggshells whenever I'm in your midst? And please take note of the nearly identical words Bill Kelly used in his last post to describe the likes of myself, David Reitzes, and John McAdams -- "You guys". So I guess "you guys" is okay, but "guys like you" is way out of bounds. (Hilarious.)

I've got a whole lot more than you, that's for sure. I've got every bullet, every shell, every gun, all of Oswald's prints, the paper bag, all of Oswald's known lies, and all of the Tippit witnesses (who all said it was Oswald, save Clemons). What hard evidence do you have to support conspiracy? (Your imagination and a stack of pro-conspiracy books don't count as "hard evidence", btw.)

It's nice of you to at least admit that part of it, Bill. Because most CTers refuse to even acknowledge that Oswald COULD have done it (time-wise). They seem to like to embrace the idea that NOBODY (no matter how swift their feet) could have gone from the sixth floor to the second floor in 90 seconds or less--despite Page 152 of the Warren Report staring them in the face every day. Richard Belzer, in his 2012 book "Dead Wrong", is a perfect example: Amazon.com / DVP Review. Most definitely. Oswald did all of those things. So, yes. And how would you expect Oswald to escape from the murder scene anyway? Was he supposed to put on his Superman cape and soar out of the Sniper's Nest window? He didn't have a car and he couldn't drive (very well). And I doubt he'd want to ask Wesley Frazier for a ride home at 12:33 PM after having just shot at the President. So, what's left? Then you're skeptical about a lot of proven facts, Bill. Because Oswald shot at Walker and killed Tippit beyond all reasonable doubt. And he was the sixth-floor assassin too. So you're 0-for-3 today. Yeah, why follow the evidence trail (which ALL leads to Oswald, of course) when you can just as easily pretend a Dallas cop or another non-Oswald Depository worker murdered President Kennedy? What was the point of even collecting ANY evidence in this case, Bill? Guys like you will just ignore every last speck of it anyway. You conspiracy theorists are unbelievable (as always). (And another "unbelievable" thing is that William Kelly gets mad when he's called a "conspiracy theorist". But just take a look at the last quote from Bill I just cited above. If that's not a "conspiracy theory", then please tell me what would qualify as one?)

As if Roy Truly's opinion on this point makes any difference whatsoever. We know for a fact that a human being (with two working legs) can definitely get from the sixth-floor sniper's perch down to the second-floor lunchroom in less than 80 seconds -- and that time was achieved by Secret Service agent John J. Howlett while not even running or trotting or walking very fast. Howlett did it in just 78 seconds while walking at a "normal walking pace" [WR; Page 152]. And "Howlett was not short winded at the end of either test run" [WR; Pg. 152]. I wonder why so many conspiracy believers just totally ignore the Howlett test runs that are detailed on Page 152 of the Warren Commission Report? I suppose everything that's written on that page is nothing but a great-big lie too. Is that what the CTers believe? DVP's JFK Archives / Reconstructing The Steps Of A Presidential Assassin

Well, I'm so sorry Bob, but all anyone can muster are the "hearsay" reports of the FBI agents, Captain Fritz, and Postal Inspector Holmes. Not many other people were present when Oswald was talking. I would have delivered a tape recorder to Captain Fritz myself, but unfortunately I was a bit young and didn't get out of my baby crib too much back in '63. Sorry (again). But why on Earth would you think Marrion Baker and Roy Truly were lying about seeing Oswald on the second floor? (Or do you think they were?) Plus, I find it very interesting to see the conspiracy theorists doubting the legitimacy of the Baker/Truly/Oswald 2nd-floor encounter....because most of the time the CTers enjoy utilizing that encounter to try and verify their inaccurate belief that Oswald couldn't have been the sixth-floor assassin. I.E., Oswald couldn't possibly have travelled down those four flights of stairs so fast. Ergo, he must be innocent. Which way do the CTers want to go with it? ~shrug~

A 1964 CBS-TV interview with Marrion Baker is on this webpage (scroll a little ways to see it). Roy Truly is interviewed in that same video .... DVP-Video-Audio-Archive / Witness Videos

Nah. He was much more like Jerry Lewis in this 1964 feature flick (one of the CTers' favorites, I would guess)..... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058456/

You're kidding, right? There's tons of corroboration for Oswald lying about the "never owned a rifle" fiction (such as the backyard photos and the money order--and the Klein's order form for the rifle from the American Rifleman magazine that was filled out in Oswald's own handwriting--and Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which all prove that LHO was lying through his teeth about the rifle), and there's corroboration for Oswald telling the truth about seeing Baker & Truly on the 2nd floor (the corroboration: Baker and Truly themselves). You mean to say there are actually still people who think Baker and Truly just lied their asses off about encountering Lee Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom? Incrediburgable! No thanks, Ken. I'll just settle for Oswald's Coke with my meal tonight. He's not going to finish it anyway--seeing as how it's just a prop.

I just said that, Ken.

In the Hosty/Bookhout report, which details their interrogation of Oswald on November 22 [WR; Page 613]. And in another of FBI agent Bookhout's reports, which also details Oswald's statements [WR; Page 619]. Oswald didn't mention the encounter with Baker in the first report linked above, but he does in the second one. But he says he was on the second floor in each instance.

Talk about muddled. I think your post above qualifies as being that. Because this stuff you're coming up with regarding Goldberg is just goofy. And placing the sinister word "accusing" in your posts concerning Goldberg defies all logic, since you previously said you don't think Goldberg made up anything relating to the lunchroom encounter for the Warren Commission: "I'm accusing Alfred Goldberg of writing the Warren Report narrative that includes the Second Floor Lunchroom encounter and the coke..." "I don't know whether it is the truth or not." But... "I believe it." And, of course, any sensible person would have to believe an encounter took place on the second floor involving Oswald, Baker, and Truly -- because ALL THREE of those people (including the murderer himself, Mr. Oswald) confirmed that the encounter took place. So Alfred Goldberg's input on this matter amounts to NOTHING. Nada. So why even bring him up at all? Just to muddy the very clear waters surrounding the obviously true second-floor lunchroom encounter? Is your memory failing you badly, Bill? You know the answer to that question you just asked, because you've been talking about that article that's on my website for several days now. (Didn't you even read it?) Let me quote from it..... "After reading Jean Davison's 1/10/10 post regarding this matter, I decided to dig into it a little further, with the thought in my mind that there is probably a "cover letter" from the FBI associated with those Baker and Truly affidavits from September of 1964. And, sure enough, there is. I found the cover letter in question at the Mary Ferrell website. It's located in Warren Commission Document #1526. CD1526 includes a letter that was sent from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to J. Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission (dated September 25, 1964): "Reference is made to a telephone conversation between Mr. Alfred Goldberg of your [Warren Commission] staff and Mr. J. R. Malley of this Bureau [FBI] on September 23, 1964. During this conversation Mr. Goldberg requested that signed statements be obtained from Mr. Roy S. Truly and Officer Marrion L. Baker of the Dallas Police Department. Enclosed are the original signed statements obtained from these individuals and a Xerox of each. Sincerely yours, /s/ J. Edgar Hoover" So, it appears that Jean Davison could very well be correct when she said this in an earlier Internet message: "Baker's affidavit of Sept 23, 1964 and a similar one from Truly were dated only one day before the Warren Report was officially released, and both their statements were, unlike all the other FBI documents I'm aware of, *handwritten*. IOW, they were prepared in a big hurry. Their statements are footnoted to a WR paragraph on the "rumor" that there was someone else in the lunchroom when Baker confronted Oswald. (Neither Baker or Truly had been specifically asked this in their testimony. Their 9/64 affidavits supplied the explicit answer: no one else was in the lunchroom.) I surmise that someone at the WC realized at the last minute that they needed a "cite" for this statement." -- Jean Davison; 01/10/10 The 9/25/64 letter from Hoover to Rankin doesn't mention anything about the specific reason(s) as to WHY Goldberg and the Warren Commission wanted the additional statements from Baker and Truly, but Hoover's letter certainly DOES tell us that the Baker/Truly statements were taken because of a direct request by the Warren Commission itself. But Jean is definitely correct about these three things: 1.) Both of the 9/23/64 statements mention the fact that Oswald was ALONE in the second-floor lunchroom when Baker and Truly saw LHO on 11/22/63. 2.) The 9/23/64 statements obtained from Baker and Truly "were prepared in a big hurry" [Jean Davison; 1/10/10]. This is fairly obvious because of the date of the telephone call from Alfred Goldberg to the FBI--September 23, 1964--the exact same date when the statements were signed by both Marrion Baker and Roy Truly. 3.) "Their [baker's & Truly's] statements are footnoted to a WR paragraph on the "rumor" that there was someone else in the lunchroom when Baker confronted Oswald" [Jean Davison; 1/10/10]. Jean, once again, is 100% correct. In Appendix XII of the Warren Commission Report (entitled "Speculations and Rumors"), the following text can be found on Page 648: "Speculation. -- There were other people present in the lunchroom at the time that Baker and Truly saw Oswald there. "Commission finding. -- Baker and Truly have both stated that there was no one in the lunchroom other than Oswald at the time that they entered. No other witness to this incident has been found." " -- DVP; January 2010 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html

Huh?? So, in essence, you're "accusing" (??) Mr. Goldberg of simply telling the truth about the second-floor encounter. Is that correct? Should the word "accusing" be a part of your above quote then? If he's not "making up" anything, then what is he being "accused" of? I'm stumped. ~shrug~ It appears to me as if Bill Kelly is manufacturing an "accusation" that even he doesn't believe in.

Bill, you said: "I suspect that Goldberg...is the author of the Second Floor encounter." That sure sounds like you're accusing Goldberg himself of just MAKING UP the encounter on the second floor. But I suppose maybe you just meant that Goldberg wrote the section in the WR about the second-floor encounter (but didn't MAKE UP anything about it). Is that what you meant? If so, I apologize. But words like "I suspect that Goldberg is the author..." certainly have a sinister ring. And you can't be serious about being angry with me for calling you a "conspiracy theorist" (or CTer). You believe in a conspiracy. Ergo, you are a CTer. So why pretend otherwise? BTW, it wasn't Jean Davison who mentioned Alfred Goldberg. It was me. I dug up CD1526 and quoted the passage with Goldberg's name in it after Jean first posted on the subject. But I don't think she ever brought up Goldberg's name at all.

Oh good! Now we've got someone else for a conspiracy theorist to label as a xxxx without a single solitary shred of proof to back it up--Mr. Alfred Goldberg. Lovely.