David Von Pein

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

Please share... what evidence do you know of that would be accepted in a court of law, which incriminates Oswald.

Quoting the late Vincent Bugliosi (who knew more than just a little bit about the subject of "Admissible Evidence" at a court trial):

"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. .... The first observation I have to make is that I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.

Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.

Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible.

I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"."

-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 442 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

----------------------

Related Link:

49 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

DVP - you're on ignore too...  

Oh no! Tell me you're just kidding! I'm destroyed beyond repair! I've been put on Ignore by a conspiracy fantasist! Oh, the horror of it!!!

And this is a conspiracy fantasist who thinks there were two LHOs and two Marguerites and who also has the temerity to gush forth this ridiculous and absurd statement:

"There is not a single item of evidence you can offer that cannot [be] shown to be inauthentic...not one."

Fantasy at its best right there.

More absurdities authored by David Josephs over the last several years are archived below:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=David+Josephs

From March 2010:

A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:

That look he [Lee Oswald] gives when told he is being charged with the President's murder is priceless.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think there might be just a small bit of a "surprised" reaction on Oswald's face for just an instant after the reporter tells him (for the second time): "You have been charged" with JFK's murder.

But, in my opinion, the major reaction that I see from Oswald at his famous midnight press conference is more DISGUST and ANNOYANCE. (Poor Lee Harvey truly looks annoyed and PUT OUT when he's being removed from that room right after his brief press conference.)

In other words [simulating Oswald's feelings at that moment] -- "HOW DARE THEY TREAT ME LIKE THIS! ALL I DID WAS KILL THE PRESIDENT AND A POLICEMAN! I'M GONNA SUE THESE DAMN COPS FOR CHARGING ME WITH AN ASSASSINATION I COMMITTED!"

Now, when analyzing this a little bit more, since all reasonable people who have studied the JFK assassination know beyond any and all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy, this immutable FACT of Oswald's guilt HAS to mean that Oswald could not possibly have been VERY surprised by the news that he was being officially charged with the President's murder.

Knowing that he assassinated Kennedy AND that he had left a popcorn trail of physical evidence behind on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building AND that he had been arrested earlier in the day on a charge of murdering a policeman, Oswald therefore couldn't possibly have thought that he WOULDN'T eventually be officially charged with the President's murder too.

Unless Oswald was completely retarded (which he certainly wasn't), he had to realize that Presidential assassins aren't normally given just a light slap on the wrist and a $10 fine for having assassinated a U.S. President.

Given these undeniable facts regarding Oswald's guilt, there's no way that Lee Harvey could have been shocked very much (if at all) when the reporter told him he had already been charged with JFK's assassination.

Here's my guess (and I fully admit this is just a wild guess, and I certainly could be wrong about this)---

Oswald looked a little bit surprised possibly due to the fact that a NEWS REPORTER was breaking the news to him that he was being charged with the death of the President.

This was probably a very unusual case where the prisoner (being held in a police station, with policemen and detectives all around him for ten hours!) first learned of a murder charge against him from a news reporter, instead of first learning of that murder charge from the police themselves. This possibly startled and surprised Oswald a little bit, to hear that news FIRST from a newsman, vs. the cops who were surrounding him.

Again, that's just a pure guess on my part. But there's no way in Hades that Oswald truly thought he WOULDN'T be charged with JFK's murder, in light of the massive amount of evidence he conveniently left behind (not to mention the circumstantial stuff, such as the many lies he told the police in those first ten hours of interrogation).

I'll also add this -- It's quite possible that Oswald didn't even hear the reporter say the words "You have been charged". There was quite a bit of noise in that room at that particular time, so maybe Oswald didn't even hear the reporter. On the videotape version of the midnight press conference, the reporter's words "You have been charged" are, indeed, quite audible and clear. But from where Oswald was standing, I'm wondering if he heard those words as clearly as we do on the videotape? We can never know this for certain, of course.

But if, in fact, Oswald didn't even hear the reporter, it puts a whole new light on any "reaction" that we see on LHO's face, because under those conditions, it would obviously mean that Oswald's reaction wasn't one of "surprise" at all.


PAT SPEER SAID:

David, your response to this reeks of desperation.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, Pat.

Now, continue reading and we'll see who the "desperate" one is....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/01/oswald-midnight-press-conference.html

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I put little stock in the "no one found curtain rods in the TSBD" blather. The DPD and FBI failed to recover Oswald's jacket and clipboard until it was handed to them. So what else was missed? 

But if there had REALLY been any curtain rods (i.e., if Oswald really had rods in his large package on 11/22), then Oswald would (of course) have told the police that fact after he was in custody. That only stands to reason. But he didn't do that. Instead, he denied all knowledge of any curtain rods.*

* Yes, I know CTers will insist that I'm supposed to believe that Captain Fritz was the "real li@r" in this regard....but IMO that solution is just not a reasonable one. Certainly not as reasonable or realistic as having the accused assassin being the one telling the police tall tales. Plus, it's not ONLY Fritz we'd have to call a li@r here. It's other people too--like Jim Bookhout of the FBI and Thomas Kelley of the Secret Service:

"He [LHO] denied telling Wesley Frazier that the purpose of his visit to Irving, Texas, on the night of November 21, 1963, was to obtain some curtain rods from Mrs. Ruth Paine." -- James W. Bookhout; 11/23/63 FBI Report

----------

"In response to questions put by Captain Fritz, Oswald...denied that he brought a package to work on that day and he denied that he had ever had any conversation about curtain rods with the boy named Wesley who drove him to his employment." -- Thomas J. Kelley; WCR, Page 626

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

My web page on the shirt is like 20 times more detailed and a heckuva lot more honest. You really should read it. I was actually hoping you would respond to my point about the shirt having no hole in the elbow when first photographed by presenting a photograph showing the hole. I would be glad to update my website should you find one.  

Well, I have, indeed, been looking for just such a picture in my photo archive, but I haven't been able to find one that shows the proper place on the shirt where the hole was located. But the hole IS definitely there, of course. It just can't be seen in the famous photograph of LHO raising his handcuffs (even though you seem to think the area in question on the sleeve is in that photo; but, of course, it's really not, because if it were---we'd see the hole).

And your inserts showing the hole are certainly not proof that the hole was created by the cops as part of yet another in a seemingly non-stop stream of fraudulent evidence manufactured by the police to frame poor sap Oswald. (Photogrammetry anyone?)

I'll keep looking for more 11/22 pictures of Oswald wearing his brown arrest shirt though. Maybe I'll get lucky and find the hole.

Also see the following excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book concerning the topic of Oswald's brown shirt (click to enlarge):

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Stombaugh said the fibers were clean...

Yes, but he also said there WAS some fingerprint powder on them, which he then cleaned off:

"These were fairly good long fibers. They were not dirty, with the exception of a little bit of fingerprint powder on them which I cleaned off, and the color was good." -- Stombaugh

Nothing about this "Fibers In The Butt Plate" issue seems the slightest bit suspicious or strange or "cover-uppish" to me. It's the CTers who are creating the "strangeness" and the "suspicion" (IMO).

Repeating an earlier comment of mine (just for good measure)....

"Once again, like most CTers in the world, you're putting some kind of conspiratorial/sinister spin on something that doesn't require it at all."

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

As far as the shirt Oswald was wearing. It does not have a hole in the elbow...but neither did the dark brown shirt prior to Bledsoe's saying she thought the shirt Oswald was wearing had a hole in the elbow. 

Oh Good Lord! More alleged fakery?

It just never ends, does it? So silly.

20 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

It is quite obviously the shirt described by Bledsoe. 

Does it have a hole in the elbow (as described by Bledsoe)?

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

One does not fingerprint a rifle by inserting fingerprint powder into crevices. Your claiming that this may have occurred is jaw-droppingly ridiculous,

And your thinking that no powder at all could have gotten into the crevice is mind-bogglingly silly on your part. (After all, those DPD cops were nothing but incompetent boobs most of the time, right?)

Anyway, obviously SOME powder DID seep into the crevice, whether it was intentionally done by Day or not.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Stombaugh's testimony is clear, to those who understand what he's talking about. The fibers were clean and neatly folded and sitting atop fingerprint powder. He needed to explain how this could be without pointing out the obvious--that the fibers could have been planted. So he makes out that the fibers were snagged on the edge of the butt plate, and got folded down into the crevice when Day was brushing, that is, after he applied the powder. This is a ridiculous scenario, but he had to say something. You do understand I hope that FBI examiners testify for the FBI and not themselves, and that Stombaugh could not have implicated the DPD in planting evidence without Hoover's say-so--which is to say without Johnson's say-so. and that was never gonna happen. So he floated his theory, and no one seemed to notice how silly it was...for decades...

Once again, like most CTers in the world, you're putting some kind of conspiratorial/sinister spin on something that doesn't require it at all. You should stop doing that, Pat.

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Are you talking about the back yard photos with the figure cut out? I thought the DPD said this was a photo of Det. Bobby Brown in the Oswald pose, and that they were testing to see if the back yard photos could have been a matte or some such thing. 

Related information.......

Date: 6/5/2015 (3:57:47 P.M. EDT)
E-Mail From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein

-------------------

Hey Dave,

Well, the CTs are all wound up again over the BY photos but I'm continually puzzled as to why they claim things don't make sense?

For example, [David] Josephs misrepresents when the third pose was found by saying "NYE 1976". I guess that's code for New Year's Eve? Anyway, that third pose was known to exist in November 1963. Det. Bobby Brown was interviewed for local TV back in the early 90s and described how and why Fritz sent him out to duplicate the poses (plural) to look into Oswald's claim that CE134 (the blowup) was fake.

So yes, DPD had at least three poses and it's fair to wonder what the heck happened to the missing negative. But the poses were evidence when Brown made his test studies.

As for the copies, as we know from DPD reports and later interviews, Det. Studebaker made souvenir copies of them for many officers, including Rusty Livingstone and, apparently, Roscoe White. Of course, anyone could have acquired copies from other officers in later weeks and months and there's just no way to know now who did what and when.

What the CTs never talk about is Marguerite and Marina both admitting to destroying a fourth pose in which Oswald held the rifle over his head. They did that the next day BEFORE Dallas Police found the other pictures.

I knew Marguerite and I know Marina (although we haven't spoken in years) and not only did both women readily admit to having testified to the WC about destroying the photo, both were aware of the picture controversy and both said the destroyed picture was, in fact, just like the other three - taken in the Neely Street back yard.

What this means is that IF the BY photos are fake (but they aren't), Oswald is the one who faked them! Phew! It's hard to keep all this straight.

Gary
 

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

He [Stombaugh] said the fibers were folded down neatly into the crevice there. In other words, the fibers didn't get there by the butt plate's rubbing against Oswald.

You're totally misrepresenting what Stombaugh said. He said (my emphasis):

"I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed."

It's the "jagged edge" that tore the fibers from Oswald's shirt. They were adhering to that "jagged edge" and then when Day came along with his brush, he "folded" them down into the crevice.

That's a very logical conclusion, and it doesn't require any conspiracy or cover-up involving anyone.

And there's no reason at all why a scenario couldn't have occurred which had Lt. Day dusting the crevice area of the rifle FIRST (before he ever touched the fibers), thus filling the crevice with powder, and only THEN he folded the fibers down into that crevice which was now filled with fingerprint powder. You can't possibly prove some scenario like that DIDN'T occur.

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

He then conjured up a scenario in which this could have happened when Day or whomever was dusting the rifle. In other words, it didn't happen when Oswald or anyone else wiped down the rifle. Why? Because the fibers were neatly folded and powder was down in the crevice. Well, this wouldn't make any sense if the powder was atop the fibers. So that leaves us with the fibers being on top of the powder. 

So, is it possible the powder beneath the fibers somehow slipped past the fibers, and misled Stombaugh? Perhaps but he didn't think so. So this left him with the only "innocent" explanation he could come up with--that the fibers were wrapped around the butt plate edge and down into the crevice when Day or whomever dusted the rifle. That is his testimony.

So...Is this feasible? No, not really. As stated, I've read what amounts to probably a dozen books on evidence collection, with a focus on fingerprint evidence and fiber evidence. And fibers aren't found neatly wrapped around the butt plates of rifles atop fingerprint powder. It doesn't happen that way. If you actually studied the case as opposed to repeating what you want to believe you would know this. 

The weapon is supposed to be inspected for fibers before it is dusted, in part, because the act of dusting a weapon will normally remove the fibers. But not here. Here, we're supposed to believe that the dusting of the rifle somehow folded the fibers into a crevice, and essentially glued the fibers to the rifle, instead of removing them from the rifle. It smells to high heaven.

In my opinion, Pat, the manner in which you have evaluated Paul Stombaugh's testimony and the whole "Fibers On The Rifle" topic is the only thing here that "smells to high heaven".

Plus....

It looks like most CTers here have decided to just take the word of the accused assassin when he claimed that he changed his shirt at his roominghouse on Nov. 22 (from a red one to a brown one)---even though we know from the testimony of at least three witnesses (and there's probably even more) that Oswald WAS wearing a BROWN shirt on 11/22 BEFORE he ever went to his roominghouse that day.

27 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The testimony you posted proved my point.

No it didn't. Not even close.

27 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Use your noodle. Stombaugh says the fibers were folded into the crevice by the dusting, and then says the powder was down and in the crevice there. If the powder was on top of the fibers he wouldn't have said he thought the fibers were folded into the crevice by the dusting. He would have said they were folded into the crevice before the dusting. 

You're being too overzealous in your efforts to paint the DPD as rotten evidence-planters here, Pat. You're telling us what you THINK Stombaugh SHOULD have said in a given scenario. But I don't think you're correct in your assumptions about Stombaugh's testimony at all.

Because there's no reason to believe that Lt. Day's dusting of the rifle couldn't have resulted in some of the fingerprint powder working its way down into the crevice of the gun. And this section of Stombaugh's testimony says that the fibers were "caught" on a "jagged edge" of the gun, and then Lt. Day pushed ("folded") them further down into the crevice:

"I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed."

Nothing sinister or even unusual there at all, IMO. And there's most certainly nothing in Stombaugh's testimony that would lead me to think the fibers were definitely resting ON TOP of all of the fingerprint powder. He just simply did not make any such definitive statement.

54 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

...the single most compelling point to me is that Oswald changed shirts at 1 pm at the rooming house, and only then put on the brown shirt.

But there are statements from multiple witnesses who saw Oswald on Nov. 22 BEFORE he ever went home to his Beckley room, with those witnesses saying that they saw Oswald wearing a BROWN shirt. Marrion Baker being one such witness (and I think it's reasonable to think that when Baker said "brown jacket", he was talking about LHO's brown untucked shirt, because we know that Oswald didn't even own a brown "jacket").

Another "brown shirt" witness is Mary Bledsoe, who saw Oswald on Cecil McWatters' bus, which was also before Oswald ever had any chance to get to his roominghouse to change any clothes on 11/22:

Mr. BALL - Now, what color shirt did he have on?
Mrs. BLEDSOE - He had a brown shirt.

And another "brown shirt" witness is cab driver William Whaley:

Mr. WHALEY -- He had on a brown shirt with a little silverlike stripe on it.

59 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, what does that mean? All questions were adequately answered in the scenario I presented. Anyone with common sense would refuse to believe it, but it adequately covered the questions. 

But, via Hanlon's adage, the "stupidity" you laid out in your simulated scenario is certainly NOT "adequate". And, just as you said, nobody with an ounce of brains could possibly even begin to believe such nonsense. Therefore, Hanlon's Razor cannot possibly be applied in your given scenario.

But the "Fibers Wedged In The Butt Plate" situation is rather different, and when looking at the WC testimony of the FBI's hair and fiber expert, Paul Stombaugh, I see no problem at all in believing that the fibers became legitimately adhered to Oswald's rifle via ordinary non-conspiratorial, non-planted means. It seems likely to me that when Lt. Day was dusting the rifle for prints, he merely pushed the fibers into the butt-plate crevice. And that's precisely what Stombaugh says in his testimony (excerpted below):

Mr. STOMBAUGH. I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed. These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide, and marked this particular slide "No. 2," because this little group of fibers--little tuft of fibers, appeared to be fresh. The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old.

[...]

Mr. STOMBAUGH. ...This was just a small tuft. They were adhering to the gun on a small jagged edge. In other words, the gun had caught on a piece of fabric and pulled these fibers loose. They were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not fragmented. They looked as if they had just been picked up. They were folded very neatly down in the crevice.

Mr. EISENBERG. Were these fibers in a position where they could have easily been knocked off by rough use?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; they were adhering to the edge rather tightly.

Mr. EISENBERG. In the crevice?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Well, it had the jagged edge sticking up and the fibers were folded around it and resting in the crevice.

Mr. DULLES. I think you testified, though, that might have been done in part by the dusting?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; I believe when the fingerprintman dusted it he probably ran his brush along the metal portion here.

Mr. EISENBERG. Of the butt plate?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Of the butt plate, and at the time the brush folded these down into the crevice.

Mr. EISENBERG. What led you to the particular conclusion that they had been folded into the crevice by the dusting?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. Because of the presence of fingerprint powder being down in and through the crevice here. It looked as if it had been dusted with a brush. You could make out the bristlemarks of the brush itself.

-------------------

Pat,

Where did you get your information about the fibers being ON TOP of the fingerprint powder? I can't find anything in Stombaugh's testimony where he says any such thing. The closest would be this passage here, but he doesn't specifically say the fibers were resting ON TOP of the powder:

"These were fairly good long fibers. They were not dirty, with the exception of a little bit of fingerprint powder on them which I cleaned off, and the color was good."

Is there other testimony from somebody other than Stombaugh about the rifle fibers which says they were "On Top" of the powder?

Also....

Pat, do you also believe that the fibers found in the CE142 paper bag (which generally matched the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage) were "planted" by the cops too? Just wondering.

Pat,

The key word in Hanlon's rule of thumb which you seem to have sidestepped in your courtroom scenario above is this important word:

"Adequately."

2 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The most likely solution--by far--is that the fibers were planted.

Bull!

Always remember Hanlon's Razor, Pat....

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

38 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

You're not following the facts, David. The fibers were found on top of fingerprint powder--indicating they were added to the rifle after it had been dusted for prints. Do you really believe the fibers were just dangling there, only to be wrapped onto the butt plate by an oblivious Lt. Day--even though he was closely inspecting the rifle at the time--looking for prints? 

Well, Pat, I certainly don't believe for a single solitary second  that any of the authorities planted the shirt fibers on the rifle in order to try and frame Oswald. (Which quite obviously is what you believe happened.)

Therefore, I believe there must be a non-"planting" (i.e., non-conspiratorial) answer to what you just said above about the fingerprint powder and the fibers. Just like there is a non-conspiratorial explanation for all other "conspiracy" claims made by JFK conspiracy believers (to date). (IMHO.)

Maybe Lieutenant Day did miss seeing the fibers initially. Isn't that a much more likely answer than the CTer "The fibers were planted" explanation?

1 minute ago, Pat Speer said:

As admitted by Lt. Day, and as discussed in virtually every book and article I've read on the subject, it is extremely rare for prints to be found on a wooden stock.

But that doesn't mean that Lee Oswald would have necessarily been aware of this "rare" fact on 11/22/63, does it Pat?

I think he did wipe down most of the gun with his brown shirt....but he missed the trigger guard prints.

29 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

If it had been wiped down, the trigger guard prints would have been wiped clean.

Not necessarily, Pat.

Oswald was, of course, in a very big hurry right after shooting the President, and as he moved quickly from the Sniper's Nest to the stairway, he simply forgot to wipe off the trigger guard (IMO). He was more concerned with the stock of the weapon (IMO).

A dumb mistake on Oswald's part? Yes, it sure was. No doubt about that. But I think he made that mistake nonetheless.

Can I prove any of this? Nope. I sure can't. It's one of those things that can never be "proved"---by anyone. (Unless we have a seance and are successful at making contact with Lee Oswald from his residence down below. Do you happen to know any good spiritual mediums?)  😁

BTW, the scenario that Bill Brown laid out above regarding Oswald shooting JFK while only wearing his white T-shirt and then wiping off prints with his brown shirt is the exact same scenario that I believe is true as well. I talk about it at my "Oswald Timeline" page, originally written in 2007:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/oswald-timeline-part-1.html

15 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Here is another one, this time by me:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-crimes-of-quillette

Fred is easy to demolish. Because, like Bugliosi, its hard to catch him doing any original research.

He just recycles mildewed rubbish.  He was a big fan of the HSCA for example.  And, along with Paul Hoch, he said they revivified the Magic Bullet.  In other words Guinn and Canning.

Now  even  Pat would not accept that one. Because Pat destroyed them both.  In fact, I think his is the best skewering of Canning there is.

Fred also tried to stand by the HSCA and their medical evidence. When, in fact, the HSCA not only did a lousy job on that, they actually L--D about the evidence.  It was so bad that Stokes went to see the Board and told them to do an inquiry into the medical evidence, since no one was satisfied with it from the HSCA.  See if you can find that in Fred's first book.  

Anyway, this is Fred the Facrceur.  He keeps on trying to bolster two inquiries that have been completely discredited. The latter by the ARRB.  And this is what I mean about putting up a front for another front. You can cite the WC and the HSCA from now until doomsday, But that is just piling up already exposed rubbish.

Keep going, Jim. With each passing tirade, your reputation continues to sink. However, why in the world you had any "reputation" (of a positive nature, that is) as a "JFK Assassination Expert" in the first place is beyond me---especially after we review this list of 22 nonsensical things that Mr. DiEugenio believes ( a list I originally compiled in January 2013 )....

1.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at JFK.

2.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at J.D. Tippit.

3.) Oswald didn't fire a shot at General Walker.

4.) Oswald did not visit the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.

5.) Oswald probably wasn't even IN Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.

6.) Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods.

7.) Oswald never ordered a revolver from Seaport Traders Inc.

8.) Oswald's signature on the register of the Hotel del Comercio in Mexico City is a fake signature.

9.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's rifle purchase from Klein's are fake.

10.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's revolver purchase are fake.

11.) Marina Oswald lied about dozens of things, including when she said that Oswald had told her that he had taken a shot at General Walker.

12.) Ruth Paine was a major co-conspirator in JFK's murder, with Ruth being instrumental in getting Oswald his job at the Book Depository so that LHO could be set up as the proverbial "patsy".

13.) Linnie Mae Randle lied when she said she saw Oswald crossing Westbrook Street in Irving with a large paper package on the morning of Nov. 22, 1963.

14.) Buell Wesley Frazier lied about a bunch of stuff after the assassination, including the whopper about seeing Oswald carrying a large bag into the TSBD. And in addition to the individuals mentioned above, DiEugenio thinks a lot of other people lied about many other things pertaining to the JFK murder case too, including Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, and Howard Brennan. Two of DiEugenio's most hilarious quotes can be found below:

"Baker never saw Oswald. .... I believe the [Oswald/Baker/Truly] incident was created after the fact." -- James DiEugenio; July 2015

"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 2010

15.) Captain J. Will Fritz of the Dallas Police was a major co-conspirator in a plot to have Jack Ruby rub out Lee Oswald in the DPD basement on Nov. 24, with Fritz deliberately opening up a big gap between himself and prisoner Oswald just before Ruby fired his fatal shot.

16.) The backyard photos of Oswald are fakes (despite what the HSCA said).

17.) The autopsy report is pure bunk, which almost certainly means that DiEugenio thinks that all three autopsy doctors (Humes, Finck, and Boswell) lied out their collective assholes about President Kennedy's wounds.

18.) The conspirators planning the assassination, although they wanted to frame ONLY Lee Oswald, shot JFK from a variety of locations, and they fired more than three shots in so doing, which pretty much guaranteed that their "One Patsy" plot would be exposed after the shooting. (But Jimbo and many like him believe this craziness anyway. Go figure.)

19.) A Mauser rifle was found in the TSBD after the assassination, even though the plotters knew they had to frame their one and only patsy with a Carcano rifle. (Brilliant!)

20.) All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey.

21.) There were very likely at least two "Lee Oswalds" running around in various locations before the assassination. (In general, DiEugenio pretty much believes everything in John Armstrong's book of fantasy about there being "2 Oswalds" and "2 Marguerites". This proves that NO theory is too outrageous or preposterous for Mr. DiEugenio's gullible palate.)

22.) Jim Garrison was right about Clay Shaw after all. Shaw was guilty of being a co-conspirator in JFK's murder, despite the fact that Garrison did not provide ONE solid piece of evidence at Shaw's 1969 New Orleans trial to show that Shaw was involved in planning the assassination.

-------------

Whew! Talk about mangling the facts. How anyone can possibly even begin to take James DiEugenio seriously when it comes to the JFK assassination after reading the above list continues to be a huge mystery to me.

17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

If you cannot prove who you are, then why should anyone believe anything you write?

By checking out the 600 sources he's got to back up what he's saying. That's how. (Not that I believe a single solitary thing that DiEugenio ever says about any LNer, mind you, including his above smear of Fred Litwin. But, you get the point--about the 600 sources.)

(Awaiting DiEugenio's next anti-LN tirade.)

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Pat,

Please, I know you like to get up on your podium for a holier than thou sermon on the mount, but....[blah, blah...]

Looks like it's national Let's Bash Pat Speer Day here in the United States. Most curious indeed.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, does anybody here know that this book [Oliver Stone's Film-Flam] IS NOT A BOOK.

What Fred the farceur did was do a cut and paste job from his blog and glued it altogether and passed it off as a book.

Good job, DiEugenio! Just ignore all the evidence-based CONTENT in Fred Litwin's book and start griping because a lot of it STARTED OUT on his very comprehensive blog. (And what's wrong with that anyway?)

You're disgraceful.

DiEugenio & Stone distorted so many facts in their "documentary", my guess is that Litwin's book could have probably been three times as long as it is now.

For instance, the ridiculous and insane claim made by DiEugenio and other conspiracy theorists that the Second-Floor Lunchroom Encounter never even happened is surely talked about in the 4-hour edition of the Stone/DiEugenio evidence-mangling marathon, isn't it? And Fred didn't even touch upon that hunk of pure silliness in his book.

And then there's the "Oswald Never Went To Mexico City" tripe. Fred didn't tackle that batch of CTer misinfo either, but certainly could have if he had wanted to.

And don't forget the "Ruth Paine Is LHO's Handler" allegation/lie. (That's surely brought up in Stone's four hours of distortion and tommyrot, right?)

Maybe Fred will publish a "Film-Flam Volume Two" in the future. There's certainly enough provably-wrong garbage in "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" to fill at least one more Litwin volume. Probably two or three more.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

There are two chapters in the middle he borrowed from Roe, you know Roe Consulting which is another joke. Since there is not any.

He then attached some beginning and end matter and that was it!

Matt D called me up about this, I said are you sure?  He said yes I am sure.  Because I already discredited just about everything on his blog, so yeah I know what Freddie did.. 

Funny how people here are blind to all this, egged on by people like Lance and Tracy and DVP.  Who just don't care about things like that.

Nobody has "discredited" anything written by either Fred Litwin or Steve Roe concerning the non-stop BS that gushes forth in your "documentary". And that's because Litwin and Roe have relied on actual FACTS and EVIDENCE to debunk the junk in your "documentary". Just check Litwin's 600+ sources that totally destroy Stone's film. As opposed to the weak-sister weapons offered up by Stone and DiEugenio --- e.g., such things as speculation, innuendo, guesswork, wishful thinking, and witnesses' 40-year-old memories.