David Von Pein

It probably is a made-up name. What makes you think "J. Evans" equates to Julian Evans? That doesn't necessarily have to be so.

Probably. Give it a shot. (Hopefully it'll be a Ritz Cracker. John likes those I think.) Although you've probably already used that word in previous aaj posts that went through. Right? If so, then the answer is "Yes, you can".

That was a crappy dodge, Jim. Especially in light of this quote of mine below that you cannot possibly have a reasonable or believable explanation for, since you believe the SAME DALLAS POLICE FORCE was trying to frame a patsy named Lee Harvey. Hell, you probably think it was the COPS themselves who planted the wallet (if not, then it sure was lucky that the cops wanted to FRAME THE SAME PATSY that was being framed by the person who dropped an Oswald wallet on 10th St., wasn't it?)..... "Bottom Line ---- Not a single cop put in their official reports that Oswald's wallet was found near Tippit's body on Tenth Street. Why that very important fact doesn't bother Jim DiEugenio is a good-sized mystery to me." -- DVP

Bill, This quote that you attribute to Bud is actually mine (from my "Case Closed" review HERE). And the Julian Evans quotes come from Page 15 of Posner's book: "Nobody could figure him [Lee Oswald] out. .... He didn't want you to get too close to him. .... I thought he was a psycho; I really did." -- Julian Evans (who knew Oswald when Lee was a youth) Why are you attibuting it to Bud? Or did Bud use that exact set of Evans quotes that I wrote in a post of his somewhere at aaj/acj? Just curious. ~shrug~

Boy, what a bunch of goofball, halfwit Patsy Framers you've got there, Jim. They planted a wallet that's supposed to be Oswald's on Tenth Street....and yet -- SLAPS FOREHEAD! -- they forgot about the wallet that Oswald probably was carrying with him in the theater! Great plan there. Of course, why this little "2 Wallets" snafu would bother your crackerjack team of DPD frame-up artists is a mystery to me --- they could have merely pretended that the 10th St. wallet near Tippit's body was the ONLY wallet associated with their patsy Oswald that day! Just get rid of the "theater" wallet and pretend the 10th St. wallet was Oswald's lone Nov. 22 wallet. That's a piece of cake for these DPD patsy framers. Right, Jim? Bottom Line ---- Not a single cop put in their official reports that Oswald's wallet was found near Tippit's body on Tenth Street. Why that very important fact doesn't bother Jim DiEugenio is a good-sized mystery to me.

Some of the people might not have actually SEEN the gun. But there can be no doubt the gun was in LHO's hands. Johnny Brewer's testimony PROVES that fact. And Brewer was NOT A COP. Hence, you can't place Brewer into your basket of cops who you want to pretend were framing Oswald for the murder of their fellow police officer--all the while those same cops DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT ALLOWING THE REAL KILLER OF THEIR FELLOW POLICEMAN TO GET OFF SCOT-FREE. http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/07/johnny-brewer.html Right. It doesn't. Hence, not a single "automatic" shell is in evidence in this murder case. Only shells from Oswald's S&W revolver are in evidence in this murder case. There is confusion about whose wallet it was. And, yes, it most certainly COULD have been Tippit's. Ron Reiland, who filmed the wallet for WFAA-TV, even says on live TV on Nov. 22 that the wallet was Tippit's: Ron Reiland's 11/22/63 Film "If I had to wager, I'd conclude it was Tippit's wallet, and the reason Reiland stated that it was Tippit's wallet is that the police had informed him at the scene that it was. .... It makes no sense to me that the Dallas police and detectives, several of whom were Tippit's friends, would keep from the world that his killer's wallet was found near his body." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 453 and 456 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes) And that last sentence by Bugliosi -- "It makes no sense to me that the Dallas police and detectives...would keep from the world that his killer's wallet was found near his body" -- makes even more sense when you factor in the theories of some conspiracists, who think some of those very same Dallas police officers were FRAMING Oswald for Tippit's murder! Under those "frame-up" conditions, why on Earth wouldn't the rotten cops advertise to the world with a megaphone that "OSWALD'S WALLET WAS FOUND NEXT TO TIPPIT'S BODY!"? Did ANY of the evil cops do this? No.

I never once said that I, myself, approved of any censorship on McAdams' moderated forum. And I don't know where William Kelly is getting that idea. Click here. Here's what I said to Bill Kelly, via two recent e-mails, regarding the topic of John McAdams and the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup: Subject: Re: "Crackers" & "Idiots" Date: 7/30/2010 6:26:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Bill Kelly [exact e-mail address deleted] BTW, Bill, After looking over the post that McAdams rejected at aaj, I can only ask you: Why on Earth are you the least bit surprised that such a post of yours was rejected at McAdams' moderated aaj newsgroup? You, in effect, called John McAdams an "idiot" in your post. Of course it was going to get rejected. What did you expect? [A portion of Bill's post that was rejected by McAdams is quoted below:] "Unless the CIA is paying McAdams to play at his fourm [sic] and publish his book, he's not a disinformation agent. He could be a disinformation idiot, though I like the word Cracker." -- William Kelly DVP ======================== Subject: Re: "Crackers" & "Idiots" Date: 8/1/2010 11:46:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Bill Kelly Yes, he did. That's exactly why he rejected that post of yours. I'd almost bet on it. John McAdams doesn't allow anyone to use that type of remark ("idiot") at the moderated aaj newsgroup if it's aimed directly at a CURRENT MEMBER of the newsgroup/forum, which McAdams, himself, is. I can call DiEugenio and Fetzer "kooks" all day long at aaj...and the posts won't get rejected--because those people aren't current members at the a.a.j. forum. But I can't ever say that you're a "kook" anymore at aaj, because you're a currently-active member. That might seem like an odd rule--being able to only call people "kooks", "liars", and "idiots" who aren't around to defend themselves from the aaj onslaught, while not permitting those types of descriptive terms to be utilized against people who ARE members, who CAN defend themselves on the forum--but that's the way it is at McAdams' aaj. DVP

THIS batch of CTers at the Edu. Forum??? (Many of which have lifetime membership cards to the "Anybody But Oswald" club.) Surely you jest. Shirley.

I'd love to, Dean. There's one LNer's posts that I particularly enjoy reading. He goes by the name of "Bud" at the acj and aaj newsgroups. His Usenet profile is HERE. Bud has an abundance of common sense, and has a very good ability to evaluate evidence properly. In 2009, I started a blog called "Quoting Common Sense" (relating to the JFK assassination), which is a blog that contains a bunch of quotes from various people (including me) that I think make a lot of "common sense". Hence, the blog's title. And I have found myself inserting many quotes by this fellow "Bud" into that blog.

No, Martin, not at all. Although I will admit that I get a great kick out of calling a spade a spade in that asylum known as acj. Some of the CTers in there are a real trip. There's even one guy who thinks 18-year-old TSBD worker Danny Arce killed the President. When reading stuff like that, it's very difficult not to have a little fun with them. But the #1 reason I post at acj is because of the "Individual Message" option that is offered at the Usenet newsgroups. I like that feature very much, because it places each post on its own unique webpage, or "deep link", as Usenet calls it. I then take those "deep links" and save them elsewhere in my JFK files. I will say, though, that acj is quickly becoming obsolete for my own "archiving" purposes (although I still use that newsgroup for archiving a lot of messages anyway; it's become a habit I guess)....because I've now gone to the blog format for storing most of my JFK ramblings, which I really could have been doing for many years now, but I was a bit late in discovering the excellent things you can do with a simple free "blog". It's still remarkable to me how these blog sites can host all of the content they do for free, with virtually no restrictions on user bandwidth or site usage. I, for one, deeply appreciate sites like Blogger.com. And, to that end, I appreciate sites like this one too -- because an unlimited number of views can be expressed and an endless number of topics discussed for free on the Internet. And I appreciate the remarks made by John Simkin the other day too, which are remarks that came after forum member James DiEugenio said this to John: "Why did you let certain people back on [this JFK forum] who do [muddy the waters]? I won't name names but his initials are DVP." -- Jim DiEugenio; August 5, 2010 "I am an old-fashioned liberal who believes in free speech. It is something that has got me into trouble with a lot of JFK researchers who do not share my ideals." -- John Simkin; August 5, 2010

~yawn~ (Short enough for ya?)

Hi Bill, Well, actually I think you've misrepresented my position a little bit on that particular matter. I never said I "supported John McAdams" and his decision to reject any posts over at his aaj newsgroup. In that discussion with you, I was merely pointing out the basic rules that McAdams lives by at that forum--i.e., you can't get by with calling a current forum member an "idiot" or a "kook" or a "xxxx", etc. He just won't allow it. But I don't recall ever saying that I, myself, endorse such restrictions on posts. In fact, I'll tell you right now that I, for one, think Mr. McAdams is a fool for wanting to take on the task of "moderating" a JFK forum like he does every single day. IMO, such a moderation job is just silly and needless. I would absolutely dread the task of turning on my computer and finding 76 new posts in the queue for moderation (or even 6). And then being forced to read all of them to make sure that no "liars" or "kooks" or "you're a WC shill" slip through the cracks. Yuck. What a horrible job. I can, however, kind of admire McAdams for taking on such a xxxxty job. But, IMO, he's nuts for even WANTING to do it every day. BTW: I got a kick out of this part of your above comments, Bill: "I came to his [McAdams] defense and said that he wasn't a Disinformation Agent, but a Disinformation Idiot..." If coming to someone's "defense" is achieved by calling them an "idiot", then remind me to never hire you as my defense lawyer the next time some conspiracy-loving "cracker" takes me to court on the charge of my being a dirty rotten CIA Disinfo Agent. ~wink~ BTW #2: Just "for the official record", here's exactly what I said to William Kelly, via two recent e-mails, regarding the topic of John McAdams and the alt.assassination.jfk Internet newsgroup: Subject: Re: "Crackers" & "Idiots" Date: 7/30/2010 6:26:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Bill Kelly [exact e-mail address deleted] BTW, Bill, After looking over the post that McAdams rejected at aaj, I can only ask you: Why on Earth are you the least bit surprised that such a post of yours was rejected at McAdams' moderated aaj newsgroup? You, in effect, called John McAdams an "idiot" in your post. Of course it was going to get rejected. What did you expect? [A portion of Bill's post that was rejected by McAdams is quoted below:] "Unless the CIA is paying McAdams to play at his fourm [sic] and publish his book, he's not a disinformation agent. He could be a disinformation idiot, though I like the word Cracker." -- William Kelly DVP ======================== Subject: Re: "Crackers" & "Idiots" Date: 8/1/2010 11:46:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Bill Kelly Yes, he did. That's exactly why he rejected that post of yours. I'd almost bet on it. John McAdams doesn't allow anyone to use that type of remark ("idiot") at the moderated aaj newsgroup if it's aimed directly at a CURRENT MEMBER of the newsgroup/forum, which McAdams, himself, is. I can call DiEugenio and Fetzer "kooks" all day long at aaj...and the posts won't get rejected--because those people aren't current members at the a.a.j. forum. But I can't ever say that you're a "kook" anymore at aaj, because you're a currently-active member. That might seem like an odd rule--being able to only call people "kooks", "liars", and "idiots" who aren't around to defend themselves from the aaj onslaught, while not permitting those types of descriptive terms to be utilized against people who ARE members, who CAN defend themselves on the forum--but that's the way it is at McAdams' aaj. DVP

What good would it do you, Jim, even if a signed receipt for the revolver with the name "A. Hidell" or even "Lee Harvey Oswald" existed? You know what would happen. I sure do anyway: You would merely say that THAT document has been forged too. You think EVERY document connected with BOTH firearm purchases made by Oswald in 1963 is fake. Every one! From the money order for the C2766 rifle...to the order form for the rifle...to the envelope the order form for the rifle was mailed in...to the order form for the revolver. All of the above is FAKE and PHONY, per Jim DiEugenio. Admit it, Jim--you think all of that stuff is fake, despite EVERY item listed being said by handwriting experts to be in the writing of LHO. So, having an extra receipt or two is meaningless to a conspiracy theorist like you, James. It would just be more stuff that you would pretend was faked by the evil patsy plotters.

Just like I said before, Dale Myers provided additional info from the Vice President of Railway Express. Can't you read? Nope. It was called Merchanteers. Didn't know it. And I really don't care. It's a meaningless fact--SINCE OSWALD HAD THE TIPPIT MURDER WEAPON ON HIM 35 MINUTES AFTER TIPPIT WAS SHOT. Maybe I should make that last sentence 70 feet tall and in blinking neon letters so that Mr. DiEugenio will get the message. So far, that little tidbit of a fact has apparently gone sailing right past his chaff-seeking nose. Mr. Michaelis did just fine. It's the conspiracy theorists who are the major problem in this case. They couldn't find oil in their own backyard if it was gushing through their windows. A certain Mr. DiEugenio can't even figure out that Oswald shot Tippit, even though Oswald HAD THE MURDER WEAPON IN HIS HANDS 35 MINUTES AFTER TIPPIT WAS SHOT.

It's very easy to understand Terminal DiEugenio Disease: If any evidence points to Lee H. Oswald, that evidence must be thrown straight in the garbage can (no matter how much of it there is). And it doesn't matter how many people you have to call liars in order to keep Saint Ozzie's skirts clean and starched -- Jimbo's always ready and eager to do it.

Firstly: I certainly would take the word of Dale Myers (who is a person I respect greatly) over the word of an Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorist any day of the week. That goes without saying, of course. (Duh.) Secondly: There's some additional information provided by Myers in his 1998 article re this matter that you didn't provide, which pretty much seals the deal about Oswald's REA pick-up: Quoting Myers: "REA Express VP, Robert Hendon, testified that in a similar case, "a card was sent to the name and address" on the package. Presumably, a card was sent to Oswald's P.O. Box, notifying him that a package was to be picked up at the REA Express Office." Myers' source for the above quote: "Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency, S1448-11, op. cit., p.3465" (The remainder of DiEugenio's latest post has all been addressed in earlier posts. No need to beat Jim's dead horse for a fourth time. Jim knows Oswald ordered, paid for, and picked up the Tippit murder weapon. He just wants to concentrate on the chaff...as per usual.)

Yeah, if you conspiracy-happy theorists take another 46 years, you'll probably be saying that the assassination never really occurred at all. It was probably some kind of "Bobby Was In The Shower" dream or something. Brian David Andersen is one step ahead of you guys though -- he knows JFK wasn't killed at all. It was merely an "incident" on Elm Street, not a killing. JFK was wearing a pyrotechnics device on his head to simulate his brains being blown out: http://MyGodImHit.com

Jim, Of course I was fully aware that Dale Myers' article said the opposite of what I said to you in our exchanges about this REA matter in this thread. That was the whole purpose for my posting it in the first place--to get it straightened out. I certainly wasn't trying to imply that the quoted passages I used from Myers' article were saying the exact same thing I had said about the revolver earlier this week in this forum thread. (Duh.) BTW, here's an "Edit" that I wrote this morning, which I have added to my archived blog version of this "revolver" discussion: Quoting from my blog post: "EDIT --- Since writing the above remarks, I've come into possession of additional information concerning the method by which Lee Harvey Oswald likely came into physical possession of the .38 Smith & Wesson mail-order revolver he ordered from Seaport Traders, Inc. "This information comes from the person who probably knows more about the J.D. Tippit murder (and, hence, more about the gun that was used to kill Officer Tippit) than anyone else on the planet, Dale K. Myers, the author of the excellent 1998 book "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald And The Murder Of Officer J.D. Tippit"." -- DVP [End quote.] I then added excerpts from Dale Myers' article directly underneath the words quoted above. BTW #2 (and just "for the record"): I'll remind Jim DiEugenio that I also made the following remarks in this Education Forum post four days ago, on August 3, 2010 (and please note that the post has not been edited by me since August 4, 2010 [via my local time in Indiana], three days ago): "I suppose it's possible that I'm wrong about how these types of "COD" transactions worked when companies shipped merchandise to P.O. Boxes, but if the PHYSICAL ITEM itself was actually shipped to P.O. Box 2915 (and Heinz Michaelis said it was in his WC testimony), then it means that the post office employees would be initially handling the money from Oswald (since, quite obviously, Oswald didn't set up camp and live right there inside his post office box as he waited for the delivery truck to show up with his pistol)." -- DVP Therefore, via the above remarks, I was essentially admitting several days ago that I wasn't absolutely certain as to the exact location where Oswald picked up his Smith & Wesson revolver in 1963. Right. And thanks for posting that passage from Page 174 of the Warren Report, because it further clouds and confuses the very same issue about WHERE the physical gun was sent. I.E., was the revolver sent to the post office or was it retained at the REA offices? But you should also take note of the source note (#588) that appears on page 174 of the WCR concerning that quoted passage -- it leads to the various Michaelis exhibits and to Heinz Michaelis' WC testimony at 7 H 376-378, which is the exact testimony that I found confusing regarding this precise "Where Was The Revolver Shipped?" topic. I think it's quite obvious that even the Warren Commission itself was confused about it. But that confusion is pretty well ironed out in Dale Myers' article. But I certainly agree that it seems a bit confusing. In fact, that very thing about Heinz Michaelis saying to the Warren Commission that the GUN ITSELF was shipped to P.O. Box 2915 is the main thing that made me say this to you (Jim D.) the other day: [DVP Quote On:] "There was very likely no need for Oswald to go to the Railway Express office to pick up the revolver. The gun itself was physically shipped by REA to Oswald's Dallas P.O. Box. We know that via Michaelis Exhibit No. 4 and the testimony of Heinz W. Michaelis [at 7 H 378]: JOSEPH BALL -- "I will show you another document here which is a slip of red paper marked "Railway Express Agency" which has been heretofore identified with an FBI Exhibit No. DL-29 [which was marked by the Warren Commission as "Michaelis Exhibit No. 4"]. What is that document?" .... HEINZ MICHAELIS -- "That is a copy of the receipt which we got from the Railway Express Agency showing that on March 20, 1963, one carton with a pistol was shipped to A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." " [/Quote off.] But in Myers' article, we can see that it's very likely that only a NOTIFICATION CARD was actually put into Oswald's P.O. Box -- and the physical gun itself was probably never inside the Dallas post office at all. Which does make sense too, because it eliminates the post office employees from having to handle any money from the person who is claiming the package. Which, of course, is something you yourself were saying the other day too--i.e., it would be odd for the post office to have to handle the money that is really supposed to go to Railway Express (and then to Seaport Traders). And you're right--it does make more sense for the C.O.D. cash transaction to be handled by the REA people themselves. But when looking at Heinz Michaelis' testimony shown above about the GUN PACKAGE ITSELF being physically sent to PO Box 2915, I deferred to that explanation. And, quite obviously, so did the Warren Commission on page 174 of the WCR. But it's probably not entirely accurate. What Michaelis should have said is that a card of notification of delivery gets sent to the P.O. Box, but not the merchandise itself. It would have been nice if Joe Ball had asked Michaelis this question (but he never did): "Now, Mr. Michaelis, what would Lee Oswald have had to do in order to physically take possession of the revolver he ordered through Seaport Traders after that gun was shipped by you via Railway Express? Would he have picked up the package at his post office box, or is there some other method by which he would get his package in a C.O.D. transaction like this one?" Unfortunately, no question similar to the one simulated above was asked of witness Heinz Michaelis. Oh, come now James! You can't be serious here! The Railway Express notification card that would have been put into Oswald's post office box isn't among the documents pictured on Page 173 of the Warren Report. That notification card no longer exists. And that's very likely because it was thrown away by the Railway Express people shortly after Oswald picked up his revolver at REA. That card had served its purpose, and there was really no reason for anybody to keep it. It's also reasonable to assume that the notification card that was put into Oswald's P.O. Box had the address of the REA Express office on it. Hence, Oswald knew where to go to get his revolver. For Pete sake, Jim, isn't this obvious?! Plus, Heinz Michaelis testified that there was proof that REA remitted the $19.95 to Seaport Traders. Which, quite obviously, would indicate that SOMEBODY PAID RAILWAY EXPRESS the amount of the C.O.D., and that "somebody" was undoubtedly the same person who ordered the gun in the first place--Lee Harvey Oswald. Quoting from Michaelis' WC testimony: JOE BALL -- "Is there anything in your files which shows that the Railway Express did remit to you the $19.95?" HEINZ MICHAELIS -- "The fact that the exhibit number...was attached to the red copy of the invoice...indicates that the money was received." In addition, as I mentioned the other day, the word "Paid" is written in on Michaelis Exhibit No. 2. And why would this order be marked as "Paid" if it wasn't really "paid" by the person who ordered it?:

1998 article by Dale Myers: Oswald’s Mail-Order Revolver Purchase: Critical Allegations Prove False After reading Myers' article above, I've made the appropriate addendums to this related article below regarding how Oswald came into physical possession of the V510210 revolver. Thank you, Dale Myers, for some great info here: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html

No way, Jose. The winner is always supposed to go on top. Didn't you know that, Jim?

That's a nice piece of backpedaling that Jim D. has done there regarding Oswald carrying a package into the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of President Kennedy's assassination. (And I assume Jim isn't talking about just a small "lunch" type of paper sack in his quote above. Because if he is referring to that type of small package, he's going to end up looking sillier than he already does concerning this "paper bag" subject.) Apparently Jim has reversed his opinion on this matter somewhat since January 14, 2010, when he said on Black Op Radio that Buell Wesley Frazier had been "pressured into doing what he did" by the Dallas Police Department. And the "doing what he did" portion of that quote is referring to DiEugenio's belief (at least as of January 2010) that Frazier had been "forced" (DiEugenio's word) into telling a lie about seeing Lee Oswald carrying a bag into the Book Depository on November 22, 1963. DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Part 7) Quoting DiEugenio (which can be heard at the 5:42 mark in the video linked above): "I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides [Howard] Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; 1/14/2010 Along the same lines, DiEugenio said the following in Part 6 of his review of Vincent Bugliosi's book, which are comments made by DiEugenio that certainly lean toward Jimmy D. believing there was NO PACKAGE AT ALL taken into the Depository by Lee Oswald -- because why on Earth would the cops have needed to coerce or "force" Wesley Frazier into inventing a story about Oswald carrying a paper bag if Oswald really HAD carried a paper bag (ANY paper bag) into the TSBD on the morning of November 22nd?: "The story of this (these) paper bag(s), Wesley Frazier, his sister, and the curtain rods can be challenged every single step of the way. .... By the early evening of [November] 22nd [1963], the DPD had very little besides the notorious Howard Brennan. Shaky eye witness Howard Brennan couldn't be relied upon to put Oswald on the sixth floor. As Police Chief Jesse Curry later admited [sic], they had no one who put Oswald in the building with a gun in his hand. Therefore, they needed Frazier and his "Oswald carrying a package" story. With what we know about this story now, we also know why Frazier needs to be handled by the likes of Dave Perry and Hugh Aynseworth [sic]. If this case were ever reopened, he would be one of the first witnesses called to the stand. And he would be there a long time. The reason is easy to understand: If there is no bag, there is no rifle." -- Jim DiEugenio I guess maybe that's part of the problem with being an "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorist like Jim DiEugenio -- he has invented so many ridiculous theories and fantasies about the JFK assassination, perhaps it's hard to keep all of his delusions straight from one week to the next.

Thanks, David W. I have seen that Ian Griggs piece in the past. I'd forgotten about that. Well, anyway, Jim D. should be happy. At least he knows he's not completely alone when he continues to peddle his "There Was No Bag At All" fiction.

It's just too bad that the subject (and the crap) you've just introduced doesn't have the slightest resemblance to the truth and the facts surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy. You don't seem to have the slightest idea how to properly evaluate evidence in the JFK case. And you certainly haven't got a clue as to how to separate the wheat from the chaff. (You ALWAYS prefer the chaff, it seems. Typical of rabid conspiracy believers, of course.) You CONSTRUCT crap from virtual nothingness and then you prop up your mush as a rock-solid foundation of Anybody-But-Oswald truth. For example--- Let's take your recently invented theory about how Buell Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Mae Randle were coerced by the evil DPD into creating their paper bag stories out of thin air. That theory is pure bunk--and every reasonable person who has studied this case knows it. Wesley Frazier never EVER has recanted his story about Oswald having a bag, or about Oswald saying that there were curtain rods in that paper bag. (Wesley never had a pang of conscience strike him in all these years about that whopper of a lie he told? Is that it, Jim?) It is YOU--Jim D--who invents crap out of thin air. And more people should really slap you down when you do it. Of course, no CTer will ever dare slap down the great and all-knowing James DiEugenio, who has evidently memorized every book ever written about every assassination that has ever occurred since the beginning of time. Therefore, unless someone like myself or John McAdams or Francois Carlier comes along to expose your nonsense (such as your ridiculous Frazier/Randle fairy tale), then you've got a clear field to run with your BS to the CT Endzone. In short -- You're a CT caricature, Jim DiEugenio. And the funniest part of all is -- you don't even realize it.

I'm not going to ever "report" anything that anyone says on this forum (or any other public forum). I'm a believer in free speech. Peter McGuire can call me a "traitor" all day long for all I care. I'll just pull out my favorite LOL icon and go on to the next silly post written by the many conspiracy theorists here. The only reason I brought up the "traitor" thing at all is because of the "forum rules" that Martin Hay pointed out yesterday after I posted something that was deemed offensive that was written by another person on another forum (and I hope you, Kathy, saw my public--and private--apologies that I made regarding that post--it was indeed out of line, per this forum's rules). But I will never use the "Report" button. I never have, and never will in the future -- no matter how many times I'm called a "traitor" or an "accessory after the fact". In fact, I wish you'd re-post Peter McGuire's message that you've now deleted entirely. Let Free Speech reign! Put Peter's post back up! You're welcome. And I also wish there were more women who had an interest in the JFK case. I wonder why this topic is so dominated by the male of the species? But there's no question that it is dominated by men. Kathy is probably outnumbered 30 to 1.

Jim DiEugenio is a howl! A real screamer! His ABO [Anybody But Oswald] tricks never cease. No matter how much evidence needs to be ignored (or deemed fake), Jim's right there on the job. There's a word for that, Jim. It starts with a "P".