David Von Pein

5 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

Why would the WC or HSCA need them?

They didn't. They did just fine at arriving at the truth without seeing those sketchy Fritz notes.

Does that fact amaze you so?

5 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

Move along; nothing to see here.

10-4.

1 minute ago, Paul Cummings said:

Yeah a big so what after 30+ years.

Implying that the Fritz notes are all fake? Is that it?

2 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

Fritz notes were released when?

Nov. 20, 1997.

But so what? At least we have them now to look at.

https://web.archive.org/web/19991008085244/http://www.jfklancer.com/Fritzdocs.html

28 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

It's not even about the tape recorder. How do you have multiple people in the room and not come out of those interrogations with similar notes?

The notes are similar. Why are you saying otherwise?

What's so different when comparing the notes of all those present (Fritz, Hosty, Bookhout, Kelley, and Holmes)?

9 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

Yeah why have documentation when the suspect was being held for possibly killing the President of the United States or a DPD Officer. (sarcasm)

I agree with you on this, Paul. It would be great if a recording existed of all the lies told by Oswald. We could then hear for ourselves, in LHO's own voice, all of those falsehoods that Oswald dished up for Fritz, Kelley, Bookhout, Hosty, et al.

But, as I said, it obviously was not SOP for the DPD to record/transcribe the interrogations of every suspect that was brought into City Hall back then---even when the suspect is accused of murdering the POTUS.

Incredibly lax? Maybe so. But what are we supposed to do about it now?

And should I assume that the lack of any Oswald in-custody recordings automatically means that Captain Fritz and Company lied their eyes out about the things that Oswald allegedly told the police while in custody?

That's a huge leap that I refuse to take. If others want to make that leap of faith, so be it.

16 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

David - what do you think of the fact that no transcripts or tape recordings of the DPD and company ‘interviews’ of Oswald have ever surfaced? 

As far as I know (and per the testimony of Captain Fritz printed below), the DPD just simply was not in the habit in 1963 of tape recording or transcribing the statements made by a suspect while in custody. That might sound extremely odd (and negligent) by today's standards of how police departments operate, but that was apparently the way it was in Dallas, circa 1963.

From Captain Fritz' 1964 testimony:

Mr. BALL. Did you have any tape recorder?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I don't have a tape recorder. We need one, if we had one at this time we could have handled these conversations far better.
Mr. BALL. The Dallas Police Department doesn't have one?
Mr. FRITZ. No, sir; I have requested one several times but so far they haven't gotten me one.

[End Quotes.]

What I would like to see is some proof from the conspiracy crowd to show that is was, indeed, normal for the DPD in the early 1960s to tape record and/or transcribe via a stenographer the statements made by an arrested suspect.

Can any CTer come up with any other case in DPD history (circa early 1960s) where the Dallas Police Department positively did tape or create a transcript of a suspect's interrogation sessions? I've certainly never seen any such "proof". (I'm not sure anybody has ever even attempted to look for such a thing among the DPD records.)

And if such a tape recording or text transcript cannot be dug up for even one other 1960s-era DPD case, then why would the lack of any tapes/transcripts for Oswald's interrogations be looked upon as sinister or underhanded in any way---versus merely being normal SOP for the DPD in circa 1963?

23 minutes ago, Paul Cummings said:

So him asking for legal representation was all for show?

You bet it was. Just listen to that H. Louis Nichols interview again above.

1 hour ago, Roger Odisio said:

Oswald was entitled to have a lawyer present during questioning.  He knew it.  He asked for one (I think more than once).  They kept questioning him.  He never did get a lawyer.  That was illegal.

No, it's not. It's not "illegal" to ask questions of a suspect even without a lawyer present. Where did you get such a notion?

The suspect in custody is warned by the police that anything he says can be used against him. And the suspect then chooses whether to talk to the cops or just keep his trap shut. Oswald chose to talk. Nothing "illegal" about that at all.

And we also know (from H. Louis Nichols' interview, below) that Oswald on Saturday (Nov. 23) actually refused the help of Nichols and the Dallas Bar Association. Oswald told Nichols he didn't want his help.

And here's what Captain Fritz told the WC:

Mr. FRITZ. I told him [Oswald] that any evidence that he gave me would be used against him, and the offense for which the statement was made, that it would have to be voluntary, made of his own accord.

Mr. BALL. Did he reply to that?

Mr. FRITZ. He told me that he didn't want a lawyer and he told me once or twice that he didn't want to answer any questions at all. And once or twice he did quit answering any questions and he told me he did want to talk to his attorney, and I told him each time he didn't have to if he didn't want to. So, later he sometimes would start talking to me again.

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

Dorothy Garner, the supervisor of the women watching out of the 4th floor window, stayed behind on the landing, while 2 other women went down the stairs immediately after the shooting.  She was still there when Truly came up the stairs with a cop.  No Oswald. 

Here's something I said at Duncan MacRae's forum in 2014 regarding Dorothy Garner (and, eight years later, this still makes perfect sense to me):

"Why in the world would anyone think Dorothy Garner had her eyes transfixed on the STAIRS every single second immediately following the President's assassination? How silly would that be, considering what had just happened outside those fourth-floor, SOUTH-SIDE windows just moments earlier? Why would she (or anyone) have kept a vigil on the staircase? Therefore, since it makes no logical sense to think that Garner (or ANYBODY ELSE) had their eyes peeled on those stairs every second, Oswald could have easily been on that 4th-floor landing for a matter of--what?--five seconds and not been seen by anyone who was on the same floor. Or do conspiracy theorists REALLY want to contend that Dorothy Garner never took her eyes off those stairs between 12:30 and 12:32 PM? That's incredibly silly to believe that's the case (even if she DID catch a glimpse of Truly and Baker)." -- DVP; October 2014

4 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

DVP's supporting tape begins with Oswald asking for a lawyer to represent him.  Which he was entitled to but had been illegally denied by the cops.

It would be nice to see this claim proven by a CTer.

Any proof whatsoever, Roger, that Oswald "had been illegally denied" a lawyer by the Dallas cops?

27 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Depends on what you call inside the building.

Is being at the the top of the steps considered to be inside the building? Or do you consider that he was outside the building?

No reasonable person could possibly claim that anyone who was standing on these steps was located "inside" the building. These steps are OUTSIDE the building entirely---in the open air---and OUTSIDE the front door. These steps are NOT "inside" the Book Depository Building. No way, no how. ....

12 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, he could have been holding back on stuff like that until he got a lawyer. But, yeah, I agree, it seems probable he would have said something like "I am just a Patsy! I was standing outside watching the parade!" That he did not suggests he was inside the building.

He told the world he was inside the building "at the time" of the shooting, Pat.

22 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

I'd bet the farm it remains unseen because it doesn't actually show Oswald. 

I think every reasonable person knows, deep down, that the film cannot possibly show Lee Oswald. Because if it did show Oswald, I'd have at least one or two news videos in my collection which include Oswald shouting to the world, "I was on the steps!"

Can there be any doubt at all that what I just said is absolutely true and makes total sense?

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

If the stated goal of lone assassin theorists is to debunk conspiracy theories and restore trust in government, is there any better way you can do that than to rally your side to really push for better scans of Weigman and Darnell for the 60th anniversary? .... The challenge is getting people to actually do something about it, which is something you could legitimately help with if you wanted to.

As I've said before (such as right here at this forum just three days ago), I'm definitely in favor of trying to get better versions of the Wiegman and Darnell films. Let's do it! But how? Is there a petition of some kind that all of us can sign which can then be placed in front of the eyes of the people who own those original films?

And who does own them now? Wiegman's is an NBC-TV film. Does NBC own it now? (I would guess that they do.) And Darnell was a WBAP-TV reporter/cameraman, right? So is his original film in the hands of KXAS-TV (formerly WBAP) in Fort Worth? Or did the Sixth Floor Museum snatch up some rights to those films (which they have done with other TV footage)?

16 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

But for the sake of argument, let's say he [Oswald] said that. It just means that he told two different versions of the story regarding where he was. At least one of these is then false by any standard. This would fit right in with the other lies he told while in custody.

Precisely.

Allow me to rewind the calendar back to 2019 once again:

"Even if the handwritten notes were written by James Hosty (and they probably were; I'm not arguing that they weren't), then IMO it's just another in a long list of lies being uttered by Lee Oswald after he was arrested.

My goodness, are LNers supposed to now fold up their tents and go home whimpering because another lie has been discovered coming from the lips of Lee Harvey Oswald (assuming LHO actually did say those exact words about going outside to watch the "P. Parade")? [EDIT -- And I have some doubts about whether Oswald actually did utter those exact words; Click Here.]

LNers didn't fold their tents after seeing that Oswald told Fritz he was on the first floor (and not the sixth) at the time of JFK's murder. So why would LNers now decide that this new revelation discovered by Malcolm Blunt in the National Archives is revealing something TRUTHFUL being spoken by Oswald? That'd be crazy.

So, nothing's changed for Lone Assassin believers. Nothing at all. The hard evidence of Oswald's guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders doesn't suddenly stop being in existence just because of one additional lie being told by the assassin himself. To think otherwise is to be mired in the "Prayer Man" garbage, which is where "Wishful Thinking" and a reference to "P. Parade" will now merge to provide the "PM" disciples with something to make them feel that their fantasy about Oswald being on the TSBD steps has now turned into reality. But, at most, all that's been "discovered" is just one more lie being told by a World Class l-i-a-r named Oswald." -- DVP; Feb. 2019

Hi Cory,

I assume that Kirk Gallaway is just having a little fun. (I was enjoying his tales too, in fact. I wish he'd keep it up.)

As for the others, like that "Dealey Joe" person I quoted, I have no idea where he got his fanciful notions. Right off the top of his head I guess. But I like to keep his silly quote handy in order to emphasize just how bizarre (and cuckoo) some of the stuff put on the table by conspiracy theorists can be.

Sandy,

So, do you think the Clark Panel was examining fake photos and X-rays in 1968? Is that what you believe---despite what the HSCA determined on page 41 of HSCA Volume 7?

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

...this is disinformation. .... [DVP] routinely spreads WC nonsense.

So, Sandy, you think that if somebody quotes something from one of the official investigations (or a quote in later years from the head of the HSCA's FPP), it's "disinformation", eh?

It's incredible you could actually call such quotes "disinformation". Particularly the Clark Panel quote I supplied. I know CTers can't stand Dr. Baden, but what's the beef with the FOUR doctors who were on the Clark Panel? They're part of a plot and "cover-up" too, Sandy? Come on!

(And remember, the Clark Panel doctors were looking at the original first-generation autopsy photos and X-rays, which are much better quality than anything that's available on the Internet.)

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

One thing led to another and eventually I had to conclude that Oswald must have been outside. It was at that time that I  got off the fence and accepted Prayer Man as being Oswald.

And so that's the reason why I wasn't surprised to learn that Oswald's alibi was that he was outside watching the presidential parade.

Oswald's alibi wasn't that he was outside the building during the assassination. His alibi (per Captain Fritz's interrogation of LHO) was that he was inside the building---on the first floor---when the shooting occurred:

"I asked him what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor." [Warren Report; Page 600]

Now, if Lee had really been out on the steps at 12:30, does anybody really believe that Oswald would have responded to Fritz's question the way Fritz says LHO responded?

If Oswald had been on the steps, Oswald would, of course, have been shouting to Fritz in no uncertain terms that he had been, in fact, on the TSBD steps when the President was shot, instead of providing Fritz with the very weak and wishy-washy reply about "having his lunch about that time on the first floor".

CTers can (and do) call Captain John Will Fritz the L-word when it comes to reporting what LHO actually said during his time in custody. But there's also this from the Hosty/Bookhout report:

"Oswald claimed to be on the first floor when President John F. Kennedy passed this building." [Warren Report, Page 613]

And there's also the undeniable fact that Oswald, when given multiple opportunities on both Nov. 22 and Nov. 23 to shout out "I was standing on the TSBD steps!" to the live TV cameras and microphones, never said anything of the kind to the press.

I expressed my own thoughts about the new Hosty document in 2019:

"I don't think the words "Presidential Parade" came out of the mouth of Lee Harvey Oswald. Based on all of the official FINAL reports (from Fritz, Bookhout, Hosty, and Kelley), I think the words "P. Parade" that appear in the "new" Hosty note were probably HOSTY'S words and HOSTY'S interpretation of Oswald's "out with Bill Shelley" statement. Otherwise, we'd have a lot more reports (and notes) that had the word "Parade" in them." -- DVP; February 2019

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

Lots more here:

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Yeah, Mike and Dave were like big hellions! Dave has some stories about Mike that would blow your mind!  Right Dave?

I hesitate to say a word here. Because I don't want to interrupt your tall tales, Kirk. They're fascinating! I can hardly wait to find out what the next "Mike & Dave" adventure will consist of! Please continue!

Maybe you can even top this fantasist from back in 2010, who places me in Ruth Paine's lap in 1963:

"Do not be fooled by this guy [DVP]. His education is what he has
always kept covered up. Hiding his real identity has thrown everyone
for a loop, his plan exactly. According to my findings, he is very well
educated. One university he likely either attended or taught, maybe
both, was a Quaker college, Guilford. Remember he was from the town
that Ruth Paine visited on her trip to pick up Marina -- Richmond, Indiana,
a strong Quaker town. Von Pein would only have been a couple years old
in '63, but he had family. Although I can't prove it, I think his family
knew Ruth Paine. He may have set [sic] on her lap? Now since he is
found out, he has decided to come out of the closet as far as his
picture. We already knew what he looked like. He thrives on controversy
because it keeps everyone off guard. I suspect he is a disinfo agent."
-- "Dealey Joe"; August 3, 2010

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Who's the older lady hammering Oswald's rod?

That's Gladys Johnson, Oswald's landlady at the Beckley rooming house.

22 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Well said over your last three posts John.  You should do so more often imho.  Of course, you will never convince DVP of Truth with Facts. 

Good. Now Ron Bulman also seems to be admitting that John Connally's wrist was, indeed, struck by a bullet as early as Z226.

Excellent.

Progress is being made.

1 hour ago, John Deignan said:

I don’t think you understand the difference between someone moving their hand in reaction (to a strike elsewhere on their body) and a bullet doing the moving of a hand by actually striking it. 

You think ALL of this large amount of movement of Connally's right hand was being caused ONLY by the bullet itself, vs. some (if not most) of this movement being the result of Connally exhibiting an involuntary reflex reaction? You think the bullet itself moved the hand this much? I kind of doubt that, John.

But at least you're willing to acknowledge that John Connally's wrist WAS hit by a bullet prior to Z227. Most members of this forum don't agree with you on that point at all.

On 7/2/2022 at 9:37 PM, John Deignan said:

The Connally hat flip happens the same time JFK hands are at his neck. JFK is Reacting to a bullet that has struck him. While J.C’s hat flip would be the actual moment the bullet is striking him, moving his wrist and hat. JFK move his own hands while the actual bullet moves J.C’s wrist. Just doesn’t seem like one bullet to me. 

Good gosh, you're splitting a lot of hairs here. You seem to want to fine-tune it down to about a millionth of a second regarding each victim's reaction time. Fact is, of course, that reaction times to people getting struck by bullets will vary from person to person. But in this Z-Film instance, we can SEE the two people who were being hit by a rifle bullet jerking their arms upward at precisely the same instant.

Now, CTers can argue (and they will) that the REASON for the simultaneous reactions we see in JFK & JBC is not that they were actually reacting to the BULLET that was hitting them at just about this exact same time (and even CTers will have to agree with my "just about" statement here), but CTers will likely say that Connally was merely reacting to the SOUND of a bullet he heard whiz past his ear.

I'd then ask: What's causing this sudden jerking up of Connally's right arm---the very same arm/wrist that (per CTers) has not yet been hit (but WILL be hit) by a bullet in another fraction of a second?

Just hearing the SOUND of a bullet is causing this hat dance? That's a mighty convenient excuse for CTers, IMO.

11 minutes ago, John Deignan said:

It just seems that JFK’s hands to his neck beat the bullet to J.C’s wrist. Faster than a speeding bullet? 

Look again. The right hands of both Kennedy and Connally are rising upward at exactly the same instant. And keep in mind, it was Connally's right wrist that was smashed by a bullet: