David Von Pein

Do you think Oswald had curtain rods in the package he took to work on 11/22/63, Andrew?

Curtain Rod Addendum.... From comments he made to his wife on 11/21/63, there is at least some indication that Lee Oswald was planning to move away from his Beckley room soon after 11/21/63. If this was in Oswald's mind on the evening of November 21st, then the act of obtaining curtain rods for a room he would soon be vacating makes no sense whatsoever. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / Curtain Rods --- Part 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

From a July 2016 Internet discussion..... ANTHONY MARSH SAID: I can't prove anything about the package, but I can GUESS. .... The package held a pair of curtain rods, because he [Lee Oswald] wanted to put up room darkening curtains instead of the flimsy curtains he had in his rooming house. I had to do the same thing when I moved into a rooming house and my room was right under the street light. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Then what happened to those "curtain rods" after the assassination, Tony? Why weren't they found ANYWHERE? You're not going to theorize that the cops deep-sixed the rods, are you Anthony? That would be pure speculation and wishful thinking on your part, wouldn't it? I guess you could create a brand-new theory --- i.e., Oswald had the curtain rods with him when he left the Book Depository Building at approximately 12:33 PM on November 22nd, but somebody stole them from him before LHO could reach his roominghouse on Beckley Avenue. And then Oswald just decided to keep quiet about this theft after he was arrested, because he didn't want to get the poor thief in trouble. How 'bout that one, Tony? Great new twist, eh? ANTHONY MARSH SAID: The conspirators took his rifle out of the garage while Oswald slept. One of them carried it up to the sixth floor and shot the President. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: It's fun to just invent unsupportable theories out of thin air, isn't it Tony? But, Tony, why would you choose to believe the wholly unsupportable scenario you just put on the table above instead of simply believing what the evidence (coupled with Lee Harvey Oswald's own actions and LIES) clearly indicates is the truth --- which is: Lee Oswald himself took his own rifle to work with him on 11/22/63 and used that gun to shoot President John F. Kennedy. Why would you go with an extraordinary theory about "conspirators" sneaking into Ruth Paine's garage and stealing Oswald's rifle when a perfectly reasonable ordinary explanation is available for the choosing? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Much more about Oswald's "Curtain Rods" lie: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/curtain-rods.html -----------------------------------------------------------------

You're wrong, Gil. In Ruth's testimony that took place in her garage, she definitely unwrapped TWO different wrapped packages....and then they took down the two curtain rods (which were not wrapped in anything) from a shelf. Here's the testimony concerning the TWO distinctly separate wrapped packages [located at 9 H 422-423] (emphasis is my own).... --------------------------------- MR. JENNER -- "Now I'll ask Mr. Howlett to take the package down, since he is already up there on top of the bench, and we will open it in the presence of Mrs. Paine and see what it contains. ---- The package has now been taken down from the shelf in our presence and Mrs. Paine is opening it. Mrs. Paine, and in your presence, Mr. Howlett, what does the package contain?" MRS. PAINE -- "It contains two venetian blinds, both of them are 2 feet, 6 inches." MR. JENNER -- "And they are of the metal variety, are they not?" MRS. PAINE -- "They are." .... MR. JENNER -- "For the record, when we sought to rewrap the package, it has a paster on the outside of Sears, Roebuck & Co., Dallas, No. 4017, and "Will call--M.R. Paine"." .... MR. JENNER -- "Now, we see in back of this package that we have just described a much longer package also wrapped...in light-tan wrapping paper. .... And it is how long?" MR. HOWLETT -- "3 feet, 9 inches long, as it is folded now." MR. JENNER -- "And in general, is it a rectangular package?" MR. HOWLETT -- "Yes, sir." .... MR. JENNER -- "Mrs. Paine, before we open it, what is in that package?" MRS. PAINE -- "My best guess would be that it contains two pull blinds which I did have in the southeast bedroom." .... MR. JENNER -- "Mr. Howlett, would you be good enough to take that package down and we will open it in Mrs Paine's presence here." [Package is then opened.] MR. JENNER -- "It contains, does it not, what you call the pull blinds, and which I, in my vernacular call spring window shades." MRS. PAINE -- "All right, that's correct, and these are cut to fit the windows in the southeast bedroom."

But Ruth Paine maintained that she had only TWO curtain rods (total) in her garage. Whether they were wrapped in paper or not, the total number of rods that Ruth said she had in her garage was TWO. And that's the number of curtain rods that were found on a shelf in Ruth's garage during her WC testimony. Pat, Do you think Ruth was lying about having just two rods in her garage? Or do you think she was merely confused about how many rods she might have had in her house during the 1963-1964 time period? I don't deny that my last suggestion is most certainly a possibility, particularly since Ruth was quite obviously hazy about the way the curtain rods were wrapped (or even if they were wrapped in paper at all). But the thing that makes your suggestion unbelievable about Oswald possibly helping himself to a set of Ruth's rods is the fact that if Lee Oswald HAD done such a thing on 11/22/63, he most certainly would have admitted that fact to the police after his arrest. Instead, he tells Captain Fritz that Buell Frazier was the li@r when it comes the topic of any curtain rods. It makes no sense for Oswald to deny all knowledge of any curtain rods unless Oswald had something ELSE inside that package that he was desperate to hide from the police. (Yes, I know you're going to tell me that we don't really know anything that Oswald really told the cops after his arrest, and therefore I'm supposed to assume that the DPD was putting all kinds of things into LHO's mouth in order to frame him more conveniently. But forgive me if I don't follow you down that murky and unprovable path.)

You're wrong when you say that the curtain rods found in Ruth Paine's garage (Ruth Paine Exhibits 275 and 276) were "wrapped" in "paper". Ruth made it quite clear in her WC testimony that those 2 curtain rods were NOT "wrapped" in any kind of paper or wrapping at all. (See the testimony below.) You're probably confusing the curtain rods with the other two packages that Ruth did unwrap in her garage during her WC session. Those two packages were wrapped in paper, with one of those paper packages containing venetian blinds and the other containing window shades (or "pull blinds"). But the two curtain rods in Ruth's garage were not wrapped at all. And, therefore, no paper wrapping connected with those rods could have possibly been checked for Oswald's (or anyone else's) fingerprints. -------------------- MR. JENNER -- "It was your impression as you testified last week that you had some curtain rods on the shelf wrapped in a paper wrapping?" MRS. PAINE -- "Well, I testified that---." MR. JENNER -- "That was your impression, was it not?" MRS. PAINE -- "And as part of the testimony I said they were very light and might not deserve their own wrapping." [...] MR. JENNER -- "Is there another shelf below the shelf on which you found the first two packages?" MRS. PAINE -- "Yes, there is." [...] MR. JENNER -- "Now, we all see, do we not, peeking up what appears to be a butt end of what we might call a curtain rod, is that correct?" MRS. PAINE -- "That's correct." [...] MR. JENNER -- "Would you reach back there and take out what appears to be a curtain rod, Mr. Howlett. How many do you have there?" MR. HOWLETT -- "There are two curtain rods, one a white and the other a kind of buff color or cream colored." [...] MR. JENNER -- "Mrs. Paine, are the curtain rods that Mr. Howlett has taken down from the lower of the two shelves the two curtain rods to which you made reference in your testimony before the Commission last week?" MRS. PAINE -- "Yes, they are." MR. JENNER -- "And you know of no other curtain rods, do you, in your garage during the fall of 1963?" MRS. PAINE -- "No, I do not." MR. JENNER -- "And in particular, no other curtain rods in your garage at any time on the 21st or 22nd of November 1963?" MRS. PAINE -- "None whatsoever." [...] MR. JENNER -- "Miss Reporter, the cream-colored curtain rod, we will mark Ruth Paine Exhibit 275, and the white one as Ruth Paine Exhibit No. 276." ---------------------------------------------- And there's also this from an earlier Warren Commission session with Ruth Paine:

The Case For No Mauser (Parts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5): http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-803.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Mauser+Weitzman+Boone+Craig

A wide variety of sources. Here's what I told someone else who asked me the same question in 2018.... http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2016/12/dvp-audio-video-master-index.html

And remember to keep a large grain of salt by your side when viewing it (at least for Part 1 anyway). Here's why: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/evidence-of-revision.html

FWIW, here are some interviews that I've archived featuring people on the "Lone Assassin" side of the fence:

Derek, The info you've got above is, indeed, very likely our 10th Street Acquilla Clemons. It's the middle name (Elizabeth) that might be the key there (plus all the rest of the spelling). I note that Dale Myers, in this 2020 blog article, has made six separate references to "Acquilla E. Clemons" (with one M). See image below as well. BTW .... I've noticed over the course of the last several years, Dale Myers has been very careful about the spelling of Clemons' last name. He has actually changed his mind about the way her last name is really spelled, because I've noticed he has her name spelled Clemmons (with two Ms) all throughout the original 1998 edition of his book "With Malice", but in Dale's more recent blog posts (such as that one from 2020 I linked above), he always now spells her name Clemons (with just one M). And since Dale has done more research on the Tippit murder and its associated witnesses than any other human on Earth, I have no qualms about accepting Dale's current version of Acquilla's last name. (Although given Dale's very fastidious attention to detail and accuracy, it does make me wonder why Mr. Myers didn't have Acquilla's name spelled with just the one M in the 1998 version of his book? Dale obviously thought he had it right in his '98 volume, but then later apparently learned the correct spelling. It probably drives him nuts to know that her name is misspelled many times throughout the '98 book. I know if it were my book, something unfixable like that would drive me batty.)

A little more from 2015..... DVP said: I must say, this lengthy debate, featuring more ups and downs than an Otis elevator, has got to be the weirdest, most incredible odyssey I've ever been associated with when it comes to any sub-topic dealing with the JFK assassination. It's simply been unbelievable. Victory (or so it seems). Then defeat. Then a (partial) victory---or so it seems. Then the rug gets pulled out from underneath somebody yet again in the very next post. Absolutely mind-boggling. It's endless. I've never seen anything like it in all my born days here at the CIA Disinfo Center at Langley. ~wink~ But at this point--as I reach for more aspirin while I wallow in my latest defeat (or so it seems) at the hands of Sandy Larsen regarding the "fine sort" matter--I want to repeat a couple of important things that I have mentioned earlier in this saga, which are things that, in my own opinion, prove the conspiracists are 100% wrong when they cry "That money order is a fake!" .... "The TWO most important things (IMO) that establish the 1963 Hidell money order as being a legitimate and valid document are: Oswald's writing on the money order (as determined by multiple handwriting analysts in 1964 and 1978 -- Cole, Cadigan, McNally, and Scott) and the Klein's "Pay To The Order Of First National Bank" stamp on the back of the money order. So we KNOW from the above two things that Oswald handled and wrote on that money order and Klein's Sporting Goods handled and stamped the same document. And the above two things are true, IMO, even without any other bank markings present on the document." -- DVP And let me also repeat this comment from several weeks ago in this discussion.... "As for the lack of any bank stamps appearing on the back of Oswald's postal money order, I don't have a definitive answer to explain it. But I'd be willing to bet the farm that there IS a reasonable and non-conspiratorial answer to explain the lack of markings on the back of that document without resorting to the conclusion that the money order was manufactured and faked by a group of conspirators in a complicated and intricate effort to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for John F. Kennedy's murder." -- DVP

From one of the 2015 Money Order discussions: HENRY SIENZANT SAID: David, Not sure if you caught this, but Sandy Larsen is confusing P.O. DISBURSEMENT money orders with P.O. CONSUMER money orders (like the one Oswald purchased). He says "Here's the proof", then cites something that doesn't apply to Oswald's money order whatsoever: Sandy wrote: "From the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR 762.29c .... "Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders drawn in favor of financial organizations: All Disbursement Postal Money Orders drawn in favor of financial organizations, for credit to the accounts of persons designating payment so to be made, shall be endorsed in the name of the financial organization as payee in the usual manner." [End Quote.] A disbursement money order is one the Post Office issues to pay its own bills... they disburse the money to various contractors who do repairs, or those who they buy stuff from. See the prior page, section 762.13: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders are issued solely by Postal data centers and solely for the purpose of paying Postal Service obligations." Also see that page, section 762.11(b): "Disbursement Postal Money Orders, unlike other postal money orders, bear on their face the phrase, "This special money order is drawn by the postal service to pay one of its own obligations"." And see page 211, section 762.11(a): "Disbursement Postal Money Orders have words of negotiability -- "Pay to the Order of" -- printed on their face, while other postal money orders simply bear the words "Pay to" on their face." Oswald's money order was clearly NOT a disbursement money order. Oswald's money order bears the words "pay to", so it was NOT a disbursement money order. As always, there's sleight of hand when conspiracy theorists try to present evidence. They claim it's one thing, but it's another thing entirely. Either they don't know the difference, or they know the difference and are trying to pull a fast one. Count your fingers when discussing the JFK assassination with conspiracy theorists.

https://web.archive.org/web/20160121141437/https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/afips/1966/5068/00/50680479.pdf

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/11/acquilla-clemons-and-murder-of-jd-tippit.html

Yep. Right on cue. Just as I predicted. The CTer is defeated in one area, so what does he do? He merely shifts the goal posts and tries to make something else look suspicious. The FLN, of course, indicates that the Hidell PMO made it all the way to a Federal Reserve Bank after going through the hands of Klein's. Because it's only the FRB which marks the document with the FLN (File Locator Number). But, naturally, CTers think the FLN is now phony too. And what good would a handful of First National Bank markings do, Sandy? If they were on there, do you truly think that very many CTers would consider them to be legitimate markings? Would you?

Here's what I said to Jim D. about this topic back in 2015..... [Quote On:] "In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case as the critics of the Warren Commission would present it, Vince would have had to touch base with every single CTer who has ever posted on the Internet (or who has ever written one of the hundreds of books on the case), because almost every CTer has at least a slightly different theory or approach to the evidence in the case. A statement like Vince made -- "I intend to set forth all of their main arguments, and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth, before I seek to demonstrate their invalidity" [see the complete quote in the image below] -- is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some conspiracy theorist out there who will be able to say (after reading Bugliosi's book) -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a li@r! He didn't present THIS part of the case in the exact way I think it should have been presented, and therefore I get to call Vince a cheat and a li@r. It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("the way they, not I, want them to be set forth"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even if he had written 10,000 pages instead of just 2,800. But I, myself, think Vince did just fine in debunking virtually all of the major conspiracy theories connected with the JFK murder case. Many CTers, quite naturally, will vehemently disagree with me. Well, so be it." -- DVP; July 2015 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [But please also note the precise words that Bugliosi used in his book -- "I intend to set forth all of their main arguments..." A key word there is the word "main". Let me also add this important quote from Vince Bugliosi's book (regarding "wheat" and "chaff"): "One of my very biggest tasks for you, the reader, was to separate the wheat from the chaff out of the virtually endless allegations, controversies, and issues surrounding the case. I believe I have done this, and it is this wheat, as it were, that constitutes this very long book." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xlv of "Reclaiming History"] http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-101

~sigh~ And here we go again with "phony" stuff. And "It's Phony" continues to be the CT mantra with respect to Oswald's Postal Money Order even after Lance Payette, at this very forum in 2015, proved that that money order (CE788) has the File Locator Number on it which proves that it was processed at a Federal Reserve Bank facility. But evidence like this never fazes a staunch Anybody-But-Oswald CTer. When confronted with such proof of processing, the CTers just turn to something else they think looks suspicious. (Or: they'll simply say, as many have done since Lance's 2015 discovery, "Well, that FLN must have been added by the conspirators after Nov. 22.") http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/The Hidell Money Order Look no further than Gil Jesus' latest post in this thread to prove my prior point about CTers turning to something else that they feel is suspicious after having one of their pet theories debunked (and Gil's "Klein's Didn't Start Selling The 40-Inch Rifle Until August 1963" pet theory has most certainly been debunked in this very thread): "That's all well and good but the Depository rifle wasn't purchased in March and it wasn't purchased by Oswald." -- G. Jesus

So, are you implying that Gary Mack lied to me in 2010 in his e-mail regarding the 40-inch rifle appearing in the April '63 issue of American Rifleman?

I did, Gil. But since you "don't get posts from Lone Nutters", you never saw that evidence. I have shown it to the world, many times, including on page 1 of this thread. I've had this evidence for 12 years now. Why haven't you seen it before? But I guess you've got me on ignore, so you'll never know that this whole thread you've started here is total crap. The 40-inch Carcano was advertised in American Rifleman as early as the April '63 issue (which means, no doubt, that people could have easily seen that issue as early as mid-March). Here's the American Rifleman breakdown again (in case you were of the opinion that "Guns" Magazine was THE only publication anyone could use to try and prove a point; maybe a CTer can copy this into a future post so Gil J. Jesus can lay eyes on it for himself): ------------------------------------- Jan 63 -- p. 61 -- 36-inch “6.5 Italian Carbine” -- $12.88 -- $19.95 (with scope) Feb 63 -- p. 65 -- Same ad as above Mar 63 -- No ad Apr 63 -- p. 55 -- 40-inch “6.5 Italian Carbine” -- $12.88 -- $19.95 (with scope) May 63 -- Missing pp. 63-66 Jun 63 -- p. 59 -- 40-inch “6.5 Italian Carbine” -- $12.88 -- $19.95 (with scope) Jul 63 -- p. 67 -- 40-inch “6.5 Italian Carbine” -- $12.78 -- $19.95 (with scope) Aug 63 -- p. 79 -- Same ad as above Sep 63 -- p. 89 -- Same ad as above Oct 63 -- p. 85 -- Same ad as above Nov 63 -- No ad Dec 63 -- No ad [Source: E-mail to David Von Pein from Gary Mack, August 18, 2010.] ---------------------------------

Re: Mitchell Westra and the Scope.... https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search=Mitchell+Westra ----------------------------- Excerpt.... "Undoubtably Klein's mounted some..." -- Mitchell Westra; Feb. 1978 ----------------------------- Also..... To say [as many CTers do] that Klein's never mounted scopes on its 40-inch rifles is practically the same as totally ignoring all of the many ads that Klein's Sporting Goods was placing in magazines in mid to late 1963. Was Klein's lying to its mail-order customers when it said that a customer could purchase a 40-inch carbine with scope ("as illustrated") -- i.e., the scope is attached to the gun itself?

The key there would be the last sentence here: "The same serial number appears on weapons manufactured by more than one concern. Some bear a letter prefix and some do not." I think the above words (which come from CE2562) very likely could (and should) be interpreted in the following manner: The exact same 4-digit serial NUMBER (i.e., the numerals 0 through 9) can appear on multiple Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles that were manufactured at different plants, but if the very same 4-digit number does appear on any two rifles, then one of these rifles will include a letter prefix in front of the 4-digit number, while the other rifle will not have this prefix. Jim D. just can't let go of any of these tired worn-out myths, can he? (And I also doubt that Jim will ever be able to fully accept as fact that Elmer Todd's initials do, indeed, reside on Bullet CE399.) Re: Purvis and Lattimer and C2766: https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-8.html Excerpt from above link (highlighting Jim's complete denial of a known and proven fact): "It is doubtful that Klein's stocked a forty inch rifle in 1963." -- James DiEugenio; 2008

Re: Commission Exhibit No. 2562: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-323.html