David Von Pein

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

The revolver has no verifiable chain of custody whatsoever. Any defense attorney worth their salt could have had a field day with it. The arresting officers simply did not handle the gun the way they should have...

You're dead wrong. Lee Oswald's Smith & Wesson .38 revolver (Serial No. V510210) has a perfectly fine chain of custody ---- from Bob Carroll to Gerald Hill and then straight to the Dallas Police Headquarters at City Hall. No problem with that at all. CTers, as usual, are creating problems with the chain of possession for a piece of evidence where no problems exist whatsoever.

Do you think Bob Carroll and Sergeant Gerald L. Hill are both lying through their individual and collective teeth in their Warren Commission testimony below?

Emphasis added by DVP:

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

Mr. BELIN. I now want to hand you one of the exhibits which has been marked as Commission Exhibit 143 and ask you to state what that is?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir. It is a .38 caliber revolver with a blue steel 2" barrel with wooden handle.
Mr. BELIN. Have you ever seen this before?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes; I have.
Mr. BELIN. Where did you first see it?
Mr. CARROLL. I first saw it in the Texas Theatre on November 22, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Would you just tell us about this weapon, when you first saw it?
Mr. CARROLL. The first time I saw the weapon, it was pointed in my direction and I reached and grabbed it and stuck it into my belt.
Mr. BELIN. What did you happen to be doing at the time?
Mr. CARROLL. At the time I was assisting in the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whose hand was on the gun when you saw it pointed in your direction?
Mr. CARROLL. No; I do not.
Mr. BELIN. You just jumped and grabbed it?
Mr. CARROLL. I jumped and grabbed the gun; yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Then what did you do with it?
Mr. CARROLL. Stuck it in my belt.
Mr. BELIN. And then?
Mr. CARROLL. After leaving the theatre and getting into the car, I released the pistol to Sgt. Jerry Hill.
Mr. BELIN. Sgt. G. L. Hill?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Who drove the car down to the station?
Mr. CARROLL. I drove the car.
Mr. BELIN. Did you give it to him before you started up the car, or after you started up the car, if you remember?
Mr. CARROLL. After.
Mr. BELIN. How far had you driven when you gave it to him?
Mr. CARROLL. I don't recall exactly how far I had driven.
Mr. BELIN. Did you put any identification mark at all on this weapon?
Mr. CARROLL. Yes, sir; I did. The initials B. C., right above the screw on the inside of the butt of the pistol.

[...]

Mr. BELIN. What day did you put your initials on it?
Mr. CARROLL. November 22, 1963.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/carroll.htm

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

Mr. BELIN. Now I am going to hand you what has been marked Commission Exhibit 143. Would you state if you know what this is?
Mr. HILL. This is a .38 caliber revolver, Smith & Wesson, with a 2" barrel that would contain six shells. It is an older gun that has been blue steeled, and has a worn wooden handle.
Mr. BELIN. Have you ever seen this gun before?
Mr. HILL. I am trying to see my mark on it to make sure, sir. I don't recall specifically where I marked it, but I did mark it, if this is the one. I don't remember where I did mark it, now. Here it is, Hill right here, right in this crack.
Mr. BELIN. Officer, you have just pointed out a place which I will identify as a metal portion running along the butt of the gun. Can you describe it any more fully?
Mr. HILL. It would be to the inside of the pistol grip holding the gun in the air. It would begin under the trigger guard to where the last name H-i-l-l is scratched in the metal.
Mr. BELIN. Who put that name in there?
Mr. HILL. I did.
Mr. BELIN. When did you do that?
Mr. HILL. This was done at approximately 4 p.m., the afternoon of Friday, November 22, 1963, in the personnel office of the police department.
Mr. BELIN. Did you keep that gun in your possession until you scratched your name on it?

Mr. HILL. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. BELIN. Was this gun the gun that Officer Carroll handed to you?
Mr. HILL. And identified to me as the suspect's weapon.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_gl.htm

6 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

The 53 items he [Vince Bugliosi] lists, some of them I don't consider evidence of anything. 

IMO, only two of the 53 items on Vince's list should absolutely not be on such a list....

Item #23 (about Oswald changing his pants, which certainly doesn't prove anything one way or the other; and, in fact, I don't think Oswald changed his pants at Beckley at all on 11/22/63).

And:

Item #41 (about the paraffin test, since such tests are very unreliable, and even Mr. Bugliosi knows they are unreliable, so he shouldn't be using such a test as proof of anything).

Here's what I said to CTer Ben Holmes in this 2014 discussion when he and I were bashing each other over the head about the topic of "VB's 53 Items"....

DVP SAID:

Most of the things on Mr. Bugliosi's 53-item list are very solid and worthy of such a list of Oswald-incriminating material. And some of them fall into the "Why Didn't I Ever Think Of That?" category too. (At least for me they do.) Such as:

Vincent's 19th item, which is a great point Vince makes about Oswald's total silence while in William Whaley's taxicab just after the assassination. Even though Oswald was right there at the scene of the crime just minutes earlier....and even though Oswald has been told by Mrs. Robert Reid that the President has been shot (so even the CTers who think LHO didn't pull the trigger have to admit that Oswald still was made aware of the President being shot by Mrs. Reid)....Lee Oswald still doesn't utter a word to Whaley after Whaley says "I wonder what the hell is the uproar?"

Such silence in that particular situation and at that particular moment in time (and knowing what Oswald definitely did know) is, IMO, highly indicative of "consciousness of guilt" on Lee Harvey Oswald's behalf. Such silence most certainly cannot be utilized to point to Oswald's innocence, can it Ben?

BEN HOLMES SAID:

And you're demonstrating your cowardice. Don't worry, I'll be posting this series at a few places online - and I'll be sure to mention that you refuse to defend Bugliosi.

DVP SAID:

Anything, no matter how thorough and comprehensive, can be criticized by people, Ben. The Warren Commission and its very good report being a great example of that. And even LNers such as myself have criticized the Commission for certain things. And I have criticized a few parts of Vince Bugliosi's book too. The biggest (and weirdest) mistake in the book is probably this one.

But what conspiracy advocates should be doing, instead of constantly bashing Mr. Bugliosi's excellent book to death with meaningless nitpicky things that don't amount to a hill of beans in the long run, is to try and assemble a reasonable and coherent conspiracy plot and shooting scenario that they (the CTers) think really did occur in Dallas to combat the vast array of hard facts and physical evidence that Vincent Bugliosi has placed on the table via his book "Reclaiming History".

The conspiracy theorists can nitpick Vince all they want (and they do), but the overall case of Lee Oswald's guilt is still going to exist within the many pages of "Reclaiming History"---regardless of what any nitpicking CTer has to say about that evidence.

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

Also see:
"Reclaiming History" Errors (Part 1)
"Reclaiming History" Errors (Part 2)
 

9 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Oswald left the rooming house around 1:00 p.m. 1:01 p.m., maybe 1:02 p.m. Earlene Roberts said he was back in his room "just long enough to grab a jacket". Tippit was shot around 1:14 p.m. to 1:15 p.m.; plenty of time to get there on foot.

Also see:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/in-lee-harvey-oswalds-room.html

For good measure, I'll toss in a few things here regarding the Tippit murder that might be useful....

Here's Domingo Benavides' 1967 CBS-TV interview:

Helen Markham and her bus:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1242.html

And I never want people to forget this basic fact concerning Lee Oswald and the murder of Officer Tippit:

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

How do we know if Brennan had good or less good vision on the day of the assassination?

We do know that Joe Ball had a problem with this in March I think.

Which is about four months later.  Did it just occur within those four (or less) months?

Yes, Jim, it did! And I find it difficult to believe that you didn't know that fact in all these 30+ years that you've been studying the JFK case.

I even specifically cited and quoted Brennan's WC testimony (as it relates to his January 1964 eye injury) in this post (directed at you, Jim) from just four days ago. Here's what I said to you then:

"BTW, as Jim DiEugenio surely knows (or he certainly should), Howard Brennan's vision problems began in January of 1964, which was two months AFTER the assassination. And Brennan made that fact quite clear during his WC testimony [at 3 H 147]....

DAVID BELIN -- Has there been anything that has happened since the time of November 22, 1963, that has changed your eyesight in any way?

HOWARD BRENNAN -- Yes, sir.

BELIN -- What has happened?

BRENNAN -- The last of January I got both eyes sandblasted.

BELIN -- This is January of 1964?

BRENNAN -- Yes. And I had to be treated by a Doctor Black, I believe, in the Medical Arts Building, through the company. And I was completely blind for about 6 hours.

BELIN -- How is your eyesight today?

BRENNAN -- He says it is not good.

BELIN -- But this occurred January of this year, is that correct?

BRENNAN -- Yes.

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

So the CTers who continue to pretend that Brennan had rotten eyesight on November 22, 1963, are simply ignoring the above testimony provided by Brennan himself."

54 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Due to only "one" researcher we are informed enough about J.D. Tippit - his background, personal character and actions before, leading up to and during the assassination day - to know he logically deserves to be considered with much suspicion in the case.

The above comment made by Joe Bauer is, in my opinion, totally unwarranted and just flat-out ridiculous.

As time goes on, there are more and more conspiracy believers who seem to want to smear just about everyone connected with the Kennedy assassination except  the person to whom all of the evidence leads---Lee H. Oswald.

Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, J.D. Tippit, Buell Frazier, Linnie Randle, Roy Truly, Marrion Baker, Will Fritz, Gerald Hill, Captain Westbrook, and many others are branded with the label of "suspicious" by many CTers. While Lee Harvey Oswald, who was the owner of both of the 11/22/63 murder weapons (which is a provable fact no matter what any conspiracy theorist today wants to believe), is considered by many to be merely an innocent "patsy" in BOTH of those Nov. 22 murders, despite the pile of evidence that exists against him.

The logic of such thinking completely escapes me.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Rex Bradford, David. Rex. There was a researcher named Clint Bradford--I think I even met him once--but I believe he has been inactive for a decade or more. 

Ah yes, it's Rex. Not Clint. Sorry about that. I got my names mixed up.

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

...the evidence very strongly suggests that section three [of Lee Oswald's application for P.O. Box #2915] existed after the assassination. It actually said the name “A. Hidell”. Holmes saw it, and he subsequently colluded with his FBI handler Alfred Ellington (which Holmes indirectly confirmed to Larry Sneed) and the Secret Service to bury problematic evidence. 

But why on Earth would that "Part 3" of the application be considered "problematic evidence" for Holmes (or anybody else)---especially if it really DID say that "Hidell" was authorized to receive mail at Box 2915? In such a case, that would, of course, cut the legs out from under the people (like Mark Lane, for one) who keep telling the world that "Oswald could not have legally gotten the rifle in the mail because HIDELL was not authorized to get mail in that box".  *

So your "problematic evidence" argument makes no sense. Because there's no reason under the sun why anybody would have a desire to destroy or deep-six Part 3 of that P.O. Box application, particularly if the name "Hidell" had been written on it.

* And CTers like Lane make the above claim even though they really don't have the slightest idea WHOSE names were on Part 3, because Part 3, per H. Holmes, was thrown away in May '63. So the CTers who make the above claim are simply pretending they KNOW something that nobody really knows with any certainty whatsoever.

Plus, according to the FBI report we find in CE2585 (at 25 H 859), the FBI said exactly the opposite of what Tom Gram just claimed was observed by Harry Holmes. In CE2585, the FBI said:

"Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an 'A. Hidell,' would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas." -- Via FBI Report of 6/3/64 [CE2585]

Here's what I said several years ago when discussing this subject:

"But we know from all the available (and unavailable) evidence associated with the topic of Lee Harvey Oswald's P.O. Box applications that the FBI did not actually see and examine Part 3 of the application Oswald filled out for Box #2915 in Dallas, because that portion of the application simply does not exist. So, how could the FBI, in November 1963 or June 1964, have seen something that was thrown away in May 1963?

Therefore, when the FBI came to the conclusion cited above on Page 4 of its report dated June 3, 1964, the FBI was relying on information OTHER than Part 3 of Oswald's application for P.O. Box 2915.

And I'm wondering if possibly the FBI made the same mistake that Gary Craig and other people have made: they mixed up the two P.O. Box applications for boxes 2915 and 6225. The 6225 box application still had Part 3 attached to it, but Box 2915 did not.

Maybe the FBI made the same error conspiracy theorists make when those CTers try and prop up Cadigan Exhibit No. 13 as proof that Oswald didn't list A. Hidell as a person entitled to receive mail at Box 2915.

In any event, even if it was an error on the part of the FBI, the error most certainly cannot be considered to be a sinister lie. Not even conspiracy theorists could consider such an error to be conspiratorial or sinister.

Why?

Because J. Edgar Hoover's FBI is almost always thought to be one of the major forces behind a "cover-up" in the JFK assassination investigation by conspiracy promoters. And this possible mistake about the P.O. Box application of Oswald's is a mistake that makes it appear LESS likely that Oswald could have received the assassination weapon through the mail.

So, if Hoover's boys were making up stories, then they would have lied in the OTHER direction and would have claimed that Oswald definitely HAD listed A. Hidell as a person who could receive mail at P.O. Box 2915. Instead, the FBI concluded that he definitely had NOT listed Hidell on the application."

-- DVP; Circa 2010

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/post-office-applications.html

13 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Were the commission documents published in the WC Hearings and Exhibits or separately?

The Commission "Documents" weren't published by the WC at all (AFAIK).

But, fortunately, we can still access all of the "Warren Commission Documents" (linked below) due to the amazing archiving effort done by the people who run the Mary Ferrell website. There are 1555 of the WC "Documents" available at the Ferrell site (totalling approx. 50,000 pages). And they have been very valuable to me on many occasions during the last several years.

(I think Rex Bradford is [or at least was] the leading archivist there at the Mary Ferrell Foundation, is that correct? Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong about that.)

https://www.maryferrell.org/php/showlist.php?docset=1008

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Does that [Duncan MacRae] forum still exist?

Yes, it certainly does. It suffered a hacker attack in late 2017 and all posts were lost. But Duncan MacRae got it up and running again in January 2018. I've been a member there since February 2009:

https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?board=1.0

It might come as a surprise to some people here, but even with the multiple problems I've had at this Education Forum, I still like posting at this forum much better than at any other forum I've ever posted at (with the possible exception of the moderated Usenet newsgroup that was run by the late John McAdams, located at https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk).

The Education Forum has (IMO) the best and most user-friendly interface I've ever encountered at a JFK forum.

The McAdams forum/newsgroup, btw, is now pretty much defunct, due to John's death in April 2021. There's nobody left to moderate the forum at all, and that is unfortunate. Apparently Dr. McAdams didn't make any arrangements to see that the forum remained alive after his passing. But all of the posts that have ever been made at that forum have been archived and can still be viewed, which is a good thing.

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

why was the part 3 disposed of but the other part of the application was still there? Pretty simple point I think.

Here's a portion of a post I wrote on March 14, 2010, when I was in the midst of arguing about this exact "P.O. Box Regulations" subject with another conspiracy theorist at the alt.conspiracy.jfk Usenet newsgroup:

[3/14/2010 DVP Quote On:]

The document [pictured below] doesn't specify whether PART THREE of the P.O. Box application should be specifically saved for two years. It states that the "Box rental applications and control cards showing payment" should be saved. And Oswald's "box rental application" (the top portion with Oswald's name and signature) WAS saved. It is shown in CE791 and CE792.



It looks to me like Ralph R. Rea, the man who wrote that 1966 letter to Stewart Galanor (which appears in Mark Lane's book "Rush To Judgment"), has added some information about "Part Three" that doesn't necessarily have to apply to Postal Regulation 846.53h. Rea said this to Galanor on May 3, 1966:

"Section 846.53h, of the Postal Manual, provides that the third portion of box rental applications, identifying persons other than the applicant authorized to receive mail, must be retained for two years after the box is closed."

But as we can easily see above, nowhere in regulation 846.53h does it SPECIFY that the "third portion" of a P.O. Box application should be retained for two years.

It looks as if Rea was merely assuming that ALL PARTS of the application had to be saved via that postal regulation. And I'm not so sure he's right about that at all. And we've got Harry D. Holmes' testimony too, wherein Holmes said that Part 3 of P.O. Box applications are routinely thrown away after a box is closed.

3 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

David, Cadigan Exhibit 13 consists of section three of the application for Box 6225, and section one of the application for Box 2915. I don't think it was anything nefarious however.

Yes, Tom, I (of course) agree with you on this one. But there have been many CTers (including Jim DiEugenio in the 2003 video above) who apparently haven't bothered to notice that the P.O. Box number in question at the top of Cadigan Exhibit 13 is NOT for Box 2915, it's for Box 6225. But I've argued with some CTers who keep insisting (incorrectly) that Part 3 of the Box 2915 form is shown in Cadigan 13. Here's another CTer in the discussion below (Gary Craig) who made the same mistake DiEugenio made:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/post-office-applications.html

1 minute ago, Allen Lowe said:

What? Can’t hear you. 

Another brilliant Al Lowe contribution. Thanks.

Just now, Allen Lowe said:

David; no one’s listening.

Thanks for that bulletin, Al. Great contribution there.

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

For new members, DVP and I argued this for a long time.  

I can assure you he is a pro at recycling arguments he loses into a new dimension. So it looks like he did not.  That is what got him tossed last time.

I will be looking for anything new that he does post at his site to try and do the same thing.  Which he said he would not.

Anyone can find these old arguments, in which he uses his incredibly bad sources.

I have a lot of new things to do, like promoting the film in Florida, and trying to find those missing Church Committee documents on Oswald and Customs,  rather than recycle DVP's mildewed nonsense. As I showed with in another thread, that order could not have gotten to Klein's the next day. having nothing to do with flight time, but the double sorting process, and the deposit into the bank in less than 24 hours.

End of story. DVP loses. Again. 

Bye Dave.  Have Bill Brown hold your hand now.

Oh brother. Among the so-called "incredibly bad sources" I provide for my #2, #3, and #4 items above are Cadigan Exhibit 13, which PROVES for all time I was right on that PO Box point---it says RIGHT THERE that it's referring to Box 6225, not #2915. And yet, per DiEugenio, apparently Cadigan #13 is an "incredibly bad source" for the point I was making. Oh my.

And for #3, I utilized Ruth Paine's actual calendar page, which says RIGHT ON IT the "Oct. 23" date, not the Oct. 22 date that Jim incorrectly mentioned in his 2003 video. (Another "bad source", Jim?) (Oh my #2.)

And the 4th item on my list is something that I think even Jim has been forced to admit is true (much to his dismay, I'm sure)---i.e., that Elmer Todd's initials ARE on CE399, just as I have insisted they were for years now.

From July 2015:

JAMES DiEUGENIO -- "Todd's initials are not on the bullet."

DAVID VON PEIN -- "FBI Agent Elmer Todd most certainly marked Bullet CE399. It's just that the pictures of the bullet don't show the markings very well at all. And even Frazier's and Cunningham's and Killion's initials are very hard to discern. But Commission Document No. 7 proves enough (to me) to indicate that Elmer Todd marked bullet CE399."

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-101.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2022/06/the-initials-of-elmer-todd-are-on-ce399.html

And the sources I used for my 1st item---to combat the ultra-silly notion that Oswald would have had to walk many MILES out of his way to mail the Klein's order---are various people who are very familiar with U.S. postmarks and the tools that make such postmarks. And while I didn't receive an absolute concrete answer to what the "12" on the postmark signifies, I did get several "postmark experts" to say that it was their opinion that the "12" was not a Postal Zone Code.

End of story. Jim D. loses. Again. 

Bye Jim. Have Oliver Stone hold your hand now.

43 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

...those prints likely came from the killer. 

That, of course, would be impossible, since we all know that the real killer (Oswald) had the Tippit murder weapon in his possession just 35 minutes after Tippit was slain.

5 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

 

 

 

Thanks for the videos, Vince.

Here are just a few of my observations concerning some of the errors made by James DiEugenio in the above video presentations....

1.) The "12" that appears in the postmark on the envelope that Oswald mailed to Klein's Sporting Goods is very likely not a postal "zone" code designation at all. It's likely a machine number, as several people I've talked to over the last several years have said. (Much more on that subject at the link below.)

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

2.) Jim incorrectly seems to think that Cadigan Exhibit No. 13 (at 19 H 286) proves that the Warren Commission and/or FBI lied about the info on Oswald's P.O. Box application. But we can easily see that the form that Jim thinks is from "Box 2915" is really from a different P.O. Box application altogether---it's from Box 6225, which was the box that Oswald rented on Nov. 1, 1963.

3.) Relating to Oswald's rifle purchase, DiEugenio is dead wrong when he said that Ruth Paine wrote the date "Oct. 22nd" on her March '63 calendar page. And Jim makes a further error by saying that Ruth told the WC that the date should have been Nov. 22. But she actually wrote "Oct. 23" on this calendar page, and she fully explained to the WC that it was a mistake on her part, and she meant to write "Nov. 23", which was the date when she learned (no doubt via Jesse Curry's 11/23 DPD hallway press gathering) of the "March 20" date for Oswald ordering the rifle. Where DiEugenio got the "Oct. 22 / Nov. 22" dates from, I have no clue. But he's wrong about those dates.

4.) And, of course, we've got Jim D. repeating the now-proven-to-be-wrong claim that "Elmer Lee Todd's initials are not on that bullet [CE399]". And Jim also repeats the incorrect notion that John Hunt actually photographed CE399 itself, vs. what Hunt actually did in 2006---he saw the photos of the bullet at the National Archives and (I guess) re-photographed the photographs. But Hunt never said he handled the bullet itself. He said his work with CE399 was done "using four of NARA's preservation photos."

5.) Jim claims that Vincent Bugliosi (and all LNers) have, in effect, "four magic bullets" (the Walker bullet + the 3 rounds supposedly fired by LHO on 11/22). Such a claim made me laugh out loud, considering the fact that DiEugenio (and most other CTers), per the most widely-accepted conspiracy theories, have a number of "magic bullets" themselves.

E.G., the CTs have TWO bullets with pretty strong "magic" powers when talking about just the bullets that CTers say hit JFK in the back and throat. Both of those bullets, for some unknown and weird reason, failed to travel more than a couple of inches into Kennedy's body. Both bullets, per CT accounts, just simply stopped on a dime inside JFK, even though they hit no solid objects whatsoever. And then, on top of that hunk of "magic", both bullets then either got lost on their own or were dug out of JFK's body by alleged plotters who were apparently part of the forever unknown and always unseen "cover-up squad".

So, whenever I hear a conspiracy theorist pontificate about how it's the LNers who possess "magic bullets" in the JFK case, I am compelled to demand equal time so that I can then talk about those two "magic missiles" that the anti-SBT CTers have had possession of in their collective imaginations since 1963.

My hometown paper....

Click to enlarge:

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

November 1963 newspapers from all 50 states:

http://kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2013/03/kennedy-gallery-307.html

54 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Do you believe Brennan? They say yes. Then you say "Well he said the man he saw was not wearing the shirt the DPD, FBI, and WC said Oswald was wearing. So either Oswald was wearing the shirt, and Brennan did not ID him, or Oswald was wearing a different shirt, and the fibers on the shirt were planted. You can't have it both ways."

Oswald NOT wearing the brown shirt during the shooting most certainly does NOT automatically mean "the fibers were planted". Why on Earth would you, Pat, one of the more sensible CTers in this place, even suggest such a thing?

A shirt can easily be taken off and then put back on. And we know Oswald was wearing a T-shirt that day too. So even if he took off his brown shirt, he'd still have at least some shirt on. As I have suggested previously, Oswald could very easily have shed his outer shirt and shot JFK while just wearing his T-shirt. This point, of course, can never be proven one way or the other. So it's a stalemate, and always will be.

And you also cannot prove that Oswald did not use that shirt as a print-wiping rag right after the shooting. But, again, I can't prove he DID either. So that point is a wash as well. Although, a huge point in my favor on this topic is the fact that there were fibers generally matching Oswald's arrest shirt wedged in the rifle.

But your insistence that the fibers must have been planted if Oswald was not wearing the brown arrest shirt is just ridiculous.

16 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Euins is neither more nor less believable than Brennan. That is the nature of so much witness testimony in the JFKA.

Cherry-picking is allowed....

Well, Benjamin, when comparing the two choices of assassins provided by Euins and Brennan, and then looking at all that other stuff in evidence that all screams "OSWALD"....which witness is more likely to be correct---Euins or Brennan?

And they obviously can't BOTH be correct, right?

Not a difficult choice at all.

And Euins, in my opinion, got his floors mixed up. He didn't see a black man on the sixth floor. The "black man" he saw was on the fifth floor.

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Just curious, David. Do you really believe Brennan?

Yes, I certainly do. And one of the main reasons I believe him (apart from what I said in an earlier post) is because all of the OTHER evidence in the case ALSO points to Oswald as the assassin. So the chances of the man Brennan saw in the sixth-floor window NOT being Oswald are virtually non-existent (IMO).

53 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

The one thing Brennan was consistent on was that the man he saw was not wearing the shirt whose fibers were found on the rifle. Do you believe that?

It's quite possible that Oswald was not wearing the brown shirt when he shot Kennedy. He might very well have removed his brown outer shirt during the shooting, and therefore when he was seen by Brennan, Oswald had on only his white T-shirt. (And it's my opinion that Oswald then used his brown shirt to wipe some of his fingerprints off the rifle as he made his way to the northwest stairwell following the shooting. Hence, fibers from that brown shirt manage to get wedged under the butt plate of the rifle. Oswald then quickly put on the brown shirt as he descended the stairs to the second floor, leaving the shirt unbuttoned as he entered the lunchroom. All IMO.)

Yes, Brennan stressed the term "khaki" when he described the color of the assassin's shirt in his WC testimony. But I don't think this somewhat ambiguous testimony regarding shirt color eliminates the idea that Oswald was wearing only his white T-shirt when he shot JFK:

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember the specific color of any shirt that the man with the rifle was wearing?
Mr. BRENNAN. No, other than light, and a khaki color--maybe in khaki. I mean other than light color--not a real white shirt, in other words. If it was a white shirt, it was on the dingy side.

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

My suspicion is that LHO played a role in a false flag, intended-to-fail JFKA plot. Meaning that LHO could have been in the 6th-floor window, and shooting to miss, which might explain the Tague shot. 

So, you can easily envision Oswald there in the Sniper's Nest, firing a rifle, but not to HIT Kennedy. Only to miss?

CTers can sometimes get to within a whisker of reality....but then they feel the need to back away from it for some reason.

Amazing.

42 minutes ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

The foregoing does not mean that LHO did not shoot Tippit. It just means that one needs other evidence than ballistics. 

And we do, indeed, possess just that in the Tippit case.

As I've pointed out to this aggregation in the past, the Tippit case provides us with the best possible COMBINATION of evidence that you could ever hope to have in which to prove the guilt of the real killer (which was Lee Harvey Oswald, of course) ---

1.) Ballistics (firearms) proof. (Via the 4 bullet shells that Oswald was kind enough to scatter on the Davis girls' lawn, coupled with the additional hunk of kindness exhibited by Oswald on Nov. 22---that being: hanging on to the gun for 35 more minutes after ejecting those four shells on Tenth Street, so that Oswald could be caught carrying what various firearms experts proved was the Tippit murder weapon in his very own hands at the time he was arrested in the Texas Theater.)

2.) Positive identification from multiple eyewitnesses who either saw Oswald kill J.D. Tippit or saw Oswald fleeing the area of 10th & Patton with a gun in his hand.

The above combination of evidence provides rock-solid proof of the guilt of the killer (Oswald).

It is not logical, therefore, when faced with the above combination of evidence, to conclude that Lee Oswald was not  the murderer of J.D. Tippit.

"I watched the two-hour version of Oliver Stone's "JFK Revisited" documentary on December 19, 2021, and while some of that program's material is probably "new" from the standpoint of its having never been presented in documentary form on the big screen or on television in the past, I myself saw very little (if anything) that could be considered "new" or "revelatory" in nature buried within the program's 118-minute running time.

Of course, I'm saying that from my position as someone who has argued with many JFK conspiracy theorists during the last two decades (including the author of the "JFK Revisited" screenplay, James DiEugenio), with those arguments spanning nearly all of the sub-topics that surface in the Stone/DiEugenio program.

In my opinion, there is certainly nothing in that documentary that could be considered definitive proof that a conspiracy existed to end the life of President Kennedy in 1963. And there was nothing in that broadcast that would warrant the bold declaration that was uttered at one point by the show's director, Oliver Stone, when he said that "conspiracy theories" have now been turned into "conspiracy facts". I would vigorously argue just the opposite, Mr. Stone. Your "conspiracy facts" belong in the same categories that they have belonged in for these last 58 years—the categories reserved for "speculation", "guesswork", "conjecture", and "wishful thinking"." -- David Von Pein;  December 19, 2021

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Ball did not buy Brennan either.  The only eyewitness who claimed he saw Oswald shooting from the sixth floor.  Brennan denied the ID of LHO both at the line up and to the FBI. (p. 143). But he did positively ID before the WC.

Ball discovered that when he did a reconstruction with Brennan, the man appeared to have a vision problem. 

[...]

I don't even want to talk about Marina.

[...]

Redlich said in February, "Marina Oswald has lied to the secret Service, the FBI and this commission...."  (ibid, 143-44) But Redlich used her anyway. I don't need to add how fiercely LIebeler attacked some of these points in his famous memorandum.

So how do Roe and Litwin justify this huge double standard that Larry Schnapf pointed out?  Its a problem of necessity.  If you admit these people are XXXXX, what does that say about the WR? And you.

If you eliminate them from the matter, you have some problems in presenting the case against Oswald. So it's a matter of expediency and escapability.  That is not the way a legal proceeding should work.

Well, with regard to Marina Oswald's testimony, the Warren Commission was merely utilizing a witness they really had no choice but to utilize. Since Lee Oswald only had ONE wife---namely Marina---what was the WC going to do---just totally ignore the person who was by far the closest to the accused assassin? That would have been a foolish thing for the Commission to do. And so, naturally, we got a lot of testimony, warts and all, from Marina Oswald. Her testimony could not possibly have been avoided. Nor should it have been. Even with some warts included in it.

And regarding Howard Brennan....

I, for one, find Howard L. Brennan's testimony to be perfectly reasonable, realistic, and totally believable. And the reason Brennan gave to the Warren Commission for not initially positively identifying Lee Oswald at the DPD lineup on November 22nd is, IMO, a perfectly logical and reasonable reason for Brennan not wanting to I.D. the assassin of the President of the United States. I.E., he feared for the safety of himself and his family in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. An utterly believable reason there, without doubt.

In my view, conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio don't accept the WC testimony of Howard Brennan simply because they just do not want Lee Harvey Oswald to be the assassin of President Kennedy.

I think it pretty much can be boiled down to that fundamental fact for many CTers.

BTW, as Jim DiEugenio surely knows (or he certainly should), Howard Brennan's vision problems began in January of 1964, which was two months AFTER the assassination. And Brennan made that fact quite clear during his WC testimony [at 3 H 147]....

DAVID BELIN -- Has there been anything that has happened since the time of November 22, 1963, that has changed your eyesight in any way?

HOWARD BRENNAN -- Yes, sir.

BELIN -- What has happened?

BRENNAN -- The last of January I got both eyes sandblasted.

BELIN -- This is January of 1964?

BRENNAN -- Yes. And I had to be treated by a Doctor Black, I believe, in the Medical Arts Building, through the company. And I was completely blind for about 6 hours.

BELIN -- How is your eyesight today?

BRENNAN -- He says it is not good.

BELIN -- But this occurred January of this year, is that correct?

BRENNAN -- Yes.

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

So the CTers who continue to pretend that Brennan had rotten eyesight on November 22, 1963, are simply ignoring the above testimony provided by Brennan himself.