David Von Pein

Just for the sake of being complete.... A third different version of the arrest report can be seen here.

But that doesn't really make much sense either, because all murders are investigated. ~shrug~

Click Here to see another version of the arrest report which doesn't include the "Deceased" stamp. This version also includes an extra charge: "Assault to Murder" (related to the wounding of John Connally).

Thanks, Steve, for providing this link to the full-sized (non-truncated) version of the Oswald arrest report being discussed in this thread (also seen below). Now we know it's not a fake report, and we now know who the author of the report was (Dallas Police Officer M.N. McDonald). One odd thing that I noticed in McDonald's arrest report is the reference to the type of murder that McDonald claimed Oswald was being charged with—"Inv. Murder". I assume the "Inv." means "Involuntary Murder", which is quite strange (and inaccurate) in this case with respect to the murder of Officer Tippit, which was the first of the murders Oswald was officially charged with.

I don't know what you mean regarding the KLIF broadcast. Care to elaborate? And what was so "bizarre" about Oswald's arrest in the theater?

It's merely a report that was written (at least in part) at a later time (i.e., well after the arrest of Oswald). That's the only thing that needs to be "interpreted". The contents of the document need no further interpretation. Just the question of WHEN it was written.

Please explain how you came to that rather strange conclusion. Is it because I utilized a little basic common sense to conclude that the document in question was not written up at 1:40 PM CST on 11/22 (as you seem to believe it was)?

Oh for heaven's sake. Why all the fuss about something that couldn't be more obvious, Mervyn? The majority of the arrest report was clearly written after the DPD had gathered enough evidence against Oswald to charge him with the two murders that the evidence shows he committed. But let's hear your take on that arrest report, Mervyn. Do you truly think the DPD had all that info about Oswald as early as 1:40 PM CST on 11/22? If so, let's see your proof.

Mervyn, are you really suggesting that this arrest report was written at 1:40 PM Dallas time on November 22nd? You surely aren't seriously advocating such an absurd position regarding that DPD arrest report....are you? Because it couldn't be more obvious that that report was filled out much later than 1:40. (As I mentioned before, Oswald wasn't even in custody until 1:50 PM!) As to the possibility of the arrest report in question being a fake document, I really don't know for sure. But unlike a lot of conspiracy promoters, I'm not a person who is constantly claiming that documents have been manufactured by the authorities in order to frame the so-called patsy named Oswald. Therefore, I have no good reason to believe it's a phony document. As for the conclusions reached by the Dallas Police Department at the bottom of the arrest report, I agree 100% with those conclusions. Based on the evidence, Oswald did, indeed, kill JFK and Officer Tippit. But I'm not contradicting my own approach to "hard evidence", Mervyn. And the arrest report isn't really "hard evidence" anyway. It's merely a brief report providing us with the opinion of the people at DPD who were at that time processing and evaluating the "hard evidence" in the Kennedy and Tippit murder cases. I'm merely using my common sense to evaluate the timing of when the Oswald arrest report was created (which you don't seem to be factoring in at all). Given all the information we have concerning the gathering of the physical evidence against Lee Oswald, plus the "time" factors of when the Dallas police became aware of certain things concerning Oswald, I think it's safe to say that that arrest report was filled out much later than 1:40 PM on Nov. 22. Now, you might want to argue that the Dallas police shouldn't have been so bold as to place this definitive statement on their Oswald arrest report: "This man shot and killed President John F. Kennedy and Police Officer J.D. Tippit." But, based on the overwhelming evidence of Oswald's guilt that was collected within the first few hours after both Kennedy and Tippit were murdered, such a statement can, indeed, be looked upon as a wholly accurate one.

But as far as that particular "Arrest Card" is concerned, we cannot possibly know exactly what time (or even what day, for that matter) that arrest report was written out. (I know of no specific info in the Warren Commission volumes that gives us that precise information. Do you?) But one thing I do know for certain (based on logic and common sense) is this --- that arrest report most certainly was NOT written up at 1:40 PM CST on 11/22/63. Not even close. It was filled out much later than that.

FYI -- I just now edited my last comment in order to add the last paragraph.

Mervyn, The written section at the bottom of that arrest card showing the "other details of the arrest" was quite obviously not written at 1:40 PM (the time noted at the top of the card). Those details had to have been placed on that card at a time considerably later than 1:40. In fact, there's no way that anything on that card was written as early as 1:40 PM, because Oswald wasn't even arrested in the theater until about 1:50 PM, and much of the information shown on the card wasn't confirmed by the Dallas police until much later than 1:40. Therefore, given the above time factors, this statement made by Mervyn Hagger — "But within one hour, the Dallas Police Department has solved two murders and arrested the lone suspect. Simply amazing police work. Not" — is not a fair or accurate statement at all.

I'm not hearing even a hint of an S. But I'm certainly hearing the K sound, plus the ER. I've looped the Tippit transmission several times at the link below. http://box.com / audio file / J.D. Tippit Radio Transmission (Nov. 22, 1963)

FWIW.... In J.D. Tippit's last radio transmission concerning his location, I definitely can hear a "K" (or hard C) sound being uttered by Tippit, which almost certainly eliminates "Lansing" from the mix. And while the "S" in Lancaster can't be discerned, I think the "er" at the end of "Lancaster" can be heard. Sounds like an "er" to my ears anyway. It's at 5:04 in this video:

And I suppose this means you also think the FBI lied through their collective anal cracks when they said that Linnie Mae Randle said the exact same thing that Buell Frazier said about the bag (with respect to the bag's color). Right? From a discussion here at the EF in March of 2018: DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Reprise [the "she" in this report (CD7) refers to Linnie Randle].... JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: Notice in the last sentence, the two dependent clauses begun with the words "if" and "could". Thanks for posting that David. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thanks for totally missing the point, Jim. That point being: If the bag that Linnie Mae Randle saw Lee Oswald carrying had REALLY been quite a bit shorter than the "original" bag she was later shown, then there should have been no "ifs" and "coulds" about it in Randle's mind—i.e., the "original" bag (via those conditions) could not possibly have been the bag Linnie Mae saw on Nov. 22, regardless of the bag's COLOR. But instead of saying to the FBI agents something like this.... Regardless of the color issue, there's no way in the world this "original" bag you are showing me now could be the same one I saw Oswald carrying on Nov. 22nd, because this "original" bag is way too long. ....she, instead, tells the FBI agents that the "original" bag she was being shown is still in the mix of possible bags that Lee Oswald "could have been" carrying on November 22nd. Do conspiracy theorists think that Mrs. Randle just TOTALLY IGNORED the LENGTH of the "original" bag when she said that the original sack was still a candidate for the one she saw Oswald toting on 11/22? Was she ONLY concerned with the COLOR of the bags at that point in time in her FBI interview? In other words, she knew the original bag was much too long, but she was unable to concentrate on two separate aspects of the bag at the same time (color and length), so she said "could have been" with respect to the color only, all the while totally forgetting that this "original" bag in front of her was entirely too big. Is that what some conspiracists want to contend? [2023 Edit --- Or, more likely, the CTers of the world probably think that it was the FBI that was playing fast & loose with the evidence. In other words, the FBI's only concern in the CD7 interviews with both Frazier & Randle was the COLOR of the bag. They didn't give a damn that both Frazier and Randle were (probably) screaming these words at their FBI interviewers: "That CE142 bag is way too big!! So why are you only interested in the COLOR of the bag?!"] In addition.... There's also the fact that the amount of Oswald's bag that was available to view from Randle's perspective on Nov. 22 was very likely a few inches less than the bag's overall length of 38 inches. It was "folded" in some manner, as Wesley Frazier said in his 11/22/63 affidavit: "The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under." -- Buell Wesley Frazier RAY MITCHAM SAID: Frazier actual quote [Mitcham's emphasis]... "It must have been about 2 feet long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under." Slightly changes the debate when all the info is given. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Well, then, Ray, don't forget to mention the fact that Wesley Frazier said a total of TEN TIMES during his Warren Commission testimony that he wasn't paying much attention to Oswald's paper sack. [Click Here to see all ten "I didn't pay much attention" references.] But keep pretending that Frazier's "two feet" estimate is a rock-solid fact as far as the actual length of Oswald's bag is concerned. Did Frazier whip out a tape measure the instant he saw the brown bag resting on his back seat? More: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2018/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1275.html

The Non-Existent Bullet That Buddy Walthers Supposedly "Found".... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-927.html

It's definitely worthy of a second (and third) look, that's for sure.

The JFK-related video below was made public on YouTube on July 24, 2023. It's called "The Kennedy Assassination: Inside The Book Depository" and was created by a "30-something Swedish guy" who runs the YouTube channel known as "LEMMiNO". And this talented fellow from Sweden evidently has quite a large following there at YouTube, because his Kennedy video embedded below has amassed more than 3-million views in just its three days of existence. It's a darn good video too—very (very!) good, in fact—featuring stellar graphics, music, and narration. I was quite impressed by just about everything in this video, including the common sense and logic that exists within the video's narration and (most importantly) the accuracy of the evidence and testimony that was presented throughout the 98-minute program. That last comment I just made should have given away the following fact --- the video definitely was not made by a conspiracy theorist. Given the tremendous amount of detail that had to have gone into the graphics work, research, sourcing, and voiceover narration for this video, this impressive project must have taken a very long time to complete. I applaud "Lemmino" for his diligent efforts. I, for one, think those efforts were worth it. Here's the video: To see the complete (and huge) list of sources utilized for the video, GO HERE.

FWIW, here's a short passage from Vince Bugliosi's tome relating to the Oswalds' voyage on the Maasdam: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To see the two sets of answers that Lee Oswald wrote in preparation for the press interviews that never materialized upon his return to America, CLICK HERE.

Someone on Facebook today re-posted a 2019 Facebook post which includes the following photograph of Lee Harvey Oswald, which purports to be a picture taken aboard the ship S.S. Maasdam in 1962 when Lee was on his way back to the USA from Russia (click to enlarge): Maybe the above photo is old news to many people at this forum, but I had never seen it before today. One skeptical person at Facebook asked: If that's really LHO in that photograph, then where's Marina? I suppose that's a fair question to ask, since we know that Marina (plus her baby daughter, June) was, indeed, also aboard the Maasdam for that long journey across the Atlantic in June of '62. But perhaps Marina and the baby were there with Lee, but at the time when the picture was being taken, maybe Marina had to get up from the table and tend to the baby. (Diaper change perhaps?) Or: Perhaps Marina and the baby never went to the dining room with Lee for this particular meal at all. However, it does, indeed, look like some food and drink is present on the table (opposite from Lee), suggesting that Lee was not sitting alone at his table. But was it Marina's food and drink, or perhaps someone else's? We can never know, of course. Isn't it fun when a "new" picture pops up out of nowhere occasionally? Here's the full Facebook post from which I culled the LHO photo.

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/06/kennedy-gallery-154.html

Here's a video I edited and put together on July 10th, 2023. It's part of my "Highlights Series" of JFK-related programs and TV/radio broadcasts:

The latest addition to my November 1963 Newspaper Archive.... Click to enlarge....

I was recently made aware of the following television newscast, which was broadcast on the evening of November 22, 1963, by the United Kingdom's ITV (Independent Television) Network. My thanks go out to Stephen May for providing me with the information about the existence of this rare British coverage of JFK's assassination: