David Von Pein

Yeah, Givens. A guy you've called a l-i-a-r about other things connected to this case. But you really like the stuff Givens said in THIS one particular instance, huh? So, naturally, you're going to try and use it to your advantage. Pot meets Kettle yet again. You just demonstrated your own "double standard" with regard to Charles Givens. But, let's face the "real world" here --- almost everybody exhibits a "double standard" (or "cherry picking" of evidence) at one time or another when arguing their points connected with the JFK case. I've yet to meet one single person who hasn't exhibited a double standard at some point in their arguments. It's human nature and it always happens when you dive deep into ANY controversial issue.

A follow-up on Shields.... I found the following text on a couple of Internet sites concerning Edward Shields' interview with the HSCA in the late 1970s. Here's the exchange between Shields and the HSCA investigator regarding the topic of Buell Frazier and his "rider" (whether this is the complete exchange on this topic, I'm not sure; but this is the only portion of the interview I was able to find online).... EDWARD SHIELDS -- I think Charles Givens hollered out there and asked Frazier where was his rider and he told him: "I dropped him off at the building." Yeah, that was it...Well, I was down on the floor when they hollered out and said and the answer he gave them, I don't know, I think he said: "I dropped him off at the building." Now, whoever it was hollering asked him, I don't know. HSCA -- This is the morning of the assassination? SHIELDS -- Mm-hmm. HSCA -- Somebody hollered out the window and say: "Where is your rider?" And to your recollection, Frazier says, "I dropped him off at the building." SHIELDS -- Yes. HSCA -- Alright. The day of the assassination, did you see Oswald come to work with Frazier? SHIELDS -- No, I didn’t. ------------------- So, we can see that it wasn't really Shields at all who asked Frazier anything that day. Shields thinks it was Charles Givens, who apparently hollered something to Frazier from a window of one of the Depository buildings. Was he hollering from the Houston Street TSBD warehouse building? I guess he must have been, because that's the building Shields worked in (as confirmed by Shields himself in his March 23, 1964, statement to the FBI which can be found in Commission Document No. 706). But that's a bit confusing to me, because I thought Givens worked in the building at 411 Elm Street. He was certainly working at the Elm St. building on 11/22/63 at any rate. So this "teaming" of Edward Shields and Charlie Givens on November 22nd seems kind of odd and out of sync when it comes to the buildings they worked in. But perhaps Givens was just visiting with Shields in the building at 1917 North Houston Street before Givens started his work day on Nov. 22 at the other TSBD building on Elm Street. ~shrug~ [EDIT --- Here's a map which illustrates the locations of the two different TSBD buildings in relation to each other, and in relation to "Parking Lot No. 1", which is where Buell Frazier parked his car on 11/22/63.] Plus.... We can see that Shields is far from certain about some of the things he was telling the HSCA investigator. We find all of these wishy-washy phrases in Shields' interview: "I think Charles Givens hollered out." "I don't know..." "I think he said..." "Whoever it was hollering asked him, I don't know." And yet it is this witness (Edward Shields), per the conspiracy theorists, who is supposed to totally demolish the unwavering statements and testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier. Yeah, right. BTW.... As far as I am aware, Charles Givens never said a word about the above encounter that Shields said he and Givens had with Buell Frazier on the morning of November 22nd. (But, of course, most CTers think that Givens was a big fat l-i-a-r about many of the things he did say in his testimony and statements, so the fact that Givens himself has never corroborated the things Shields told the HSCA probably doesn't mean much to many CTers.)

The only thing I can think of there is that Shields must have been thinking of some other day when such a thing happened, because we know Frazier did not drop off Oswald at the front door on 11/22. And the testimony of Jack Dougherty would tend to support that conclusion too, with Dougherty seeing Oswald come in the BACK door. Although, of course, Oswald could have easily walked to the back of the building, even if he had been dropped off at the front door. But does anyone know if an employee could enter through the FRONT door as early as 8:00 AM? I have no idea if that could normally happen or not at the TSBD. Was the front door unlocked at 8:00 AM? ~shrug~ Plus.... Why would Buell Frazier feel the need to lie about the precise location where Oswald got out of the car on Nov. 22? The story would be virtually the same either way---i.e., Oswald gets out of the car with package in hand and walks to the building. There's no substantial difference regardless of WHERE Oswald started his journey (whether it be the parking lot or the front door).

That's a bald-faced lie right there. I've called very few people liars in this case. DiEugenio, however, has called more people liars than you can shake a stick at. Anyone can go back through Jim's posts in just this thread alone and find where Jimmy accuses many different people of being liars. Let's just take an inventory of some of them.... Marina Oswald ["Marina was so full of crap." -- J. DiEugenio; 1/19/19] Mary Bledsoe ["who may be worse than Marina." -- JD] The DPD (via the alleged "planted shirt fibers") [LOL] Howard Brennan Buell Frazier Linnie Mae Randle Henry Wade Will Fritz Bill Shelley Billy Lovelady J. Edgar Hoover Ruth Paine Harold Norman Charles Givens ["what a lying cuss this guy was." -- JD] ------------- As we can see, DiEugenio doesn't give a damn how many people he has to smear and call rotten liars in order to set a double-murderer free. And Jim's proud as a peacock about it too. But in reality, it's simply TOO MUCH. It's actually laughable how many people Jimmy has to pretend were liars in order to make his precious Oswald turn into the "Patsy" Jimmy desires him to be. It's over-the-top nonsense----times ten! Can anybody imagine THAT many people ACTUALLY being rotten evil liars within the confines of one single murder investigation? Couldn't happen in the "real" world in fifty lifetimes. And, to stress this point again, my list above covers JUST this discussion thread here at EF, which only was started a mere seven days ago!

Is that man with the camera the same guy standing next to Ruby at 1:15? Could be. But, again, it's not RUBY with the camera/object. It's some other unknown person. https://drive.google.com/file/d/143opZnTaprXuRpEsGz1TBFuw8tZlWVJT/view

DiEugenio, once more, doesn't evaluate things properly. (No surprise there, of course.) I have never once said Shields or Dougherty were liars. And I certainly do not think either man was lying about anything. Shields merely didn't notice Oswald walking some 50 feet ahead of Frazier. So, yes, he might have seen Frazier walking to the building ALONE (i.e., without Oswald being right THERE next to him), or Shields could even have seen Frazier IN HIS CAR ALL ALONE (without Oswald), because Oswald got out of the car ahead of Frazier and started walking toward the Depository with his package. So there WAS a period of time when Edward Shields could have seen Buell Frazier ALONE in his car in the TSBD parking lot and/or ALONE while walking toward the building. And Jack Dougherty, as discussed before, wasn't even looking at Oswald at all when LHO came in the door. He admitted that fact. So that should be the end of that topic. Memo to James DiEugenio.... A person can be WRONG without being a L-I-A-R.

But it's the OTHER MAN (standing next to Ruby) who is holding the object you say is a "camera" (even though you can't possibly tell exactly what it is at all). Ruby isn't holding it. I guess you must think Ruby has just handed this other man the object, with the other man then looking at it in such a way as if he's saying, "Hey, this is a cool thing. Where did you get this, Jack?" ..... is that correct? http://drive.google.com/file/1960 Video Of Jack Ruby (Combing Hair, At The 1:15 Mark)

Yes, you're right, Tony. There are some inconsistencies in Buell Frazier's statements over the years. Another one is: the location where Frazier said the shots came from. More about that here....http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com. But one thing about which Buell Wesley Frazier has always been very consistent over the last 50+ years is when he talks about the paper bag (and the item that Lee Oswald told Frazier was contained within that paper bag---the "curtain rods"). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So when many Internet CTers nowadays claim that Frazier just MADE UP the story about Oswald carrying a long-ish bag on the morning of 11/22/63, those CTers aren't just highlighting an "inconsistency" in Frazier's testimony or statements. They are, instead, taking an element of Buell Frazier's account that has always remained constant and the CTers are just totally throwing it away----just as if the paper bag never existed at all. Poof! It's gone! And when the CTers perform that "Poof" magic act of theirs with that brown paper bag, they are also (by necessity) accusing another person---Linnie Mae Randle---of lying through her teeth as well. So it's not just Buell Frazier who gets treated like a bald-faced l-i-a-r with respect to the "paper bag" topic----it's Linnie Mae too. And, in my opinion, that "double whammy" accusation against both Frazier and Randle is not only ridiculous, but it's totally unfair as well. Because every CTer on Earth who has made such a silly accusation has to know--deep down--that they can never prove such an accusation---even if their life depended on it. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Re-Created Scenes In The Movie "Four Days In November"

Thank you.

I've just added several new books to my "Kennedy Catalog" below. If anyone notices any titles I have omitted (and I know there are several), please post them in this thread so I can update my Catalog asap. Thanks. ....

More lies, eh? You guys never stop piling on the lies, do you?

What's your point? (Or do you even have one?) My point is --- Brennan's eyesight was OK on Nov. 22. What difference does it make what his eyesight was like at some point AFTER the assassination? Who cares?

Yes and yes. Here's why.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Only Two People Saw Oswald With The Bag Here are my thoughts on the topic of Troy West.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-103.html#Troy West

How the heck do I know if it would have come up or not? But that's not the point. I wrote my last post merely to point out your error when you said this --- "the corner of the eye thing is in the FBI report" --- which is an inaccurate statement on your part. The bottom line regarding Jack Dougherty's testimony is.... He "vaguely" recalls having seen Oswald "out of the corner of my eye" as Oswald entered the Book Depository on 11/22/63. And even though Dougherty did say he was sure Oswald had nothing in his hands, I think a reasonable person would look at Dougherty's "I recall vaguely having seen Lee Oswald" and "I just caught him out of the corner of my eye" statements and conclude that Dougherty wasn't really looking at (or paying any attention to) Oswald when Lee walked in the back door of the TSBD on November 22nd, 1963.

No it's not. The "corner of my eye" verbiage is in Dougherty's WC testimony. [6 H 376-377] .... Mr. BALL - The [FBI] statement says, "I recall vaguely having seen Lee Oswald, when he came to work at about 8 a.m. today." Mr. DOUGHERTY - That's right. Mr. BALL - Now, is that a very definite impression that you saw him that morning when he came to work? Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, oh--it's like this--I'll try to explain it to you this way--- you see, I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye---that's the reason why I said it that way.

I think it was pretty good on 11/22/63. There's no indication his eyesight was awful prior to that time. His sight only got really bad AFTER Nov. 22. But you probably want to pretend he was blind as a bat on the day of the assassination, right? .... Mr. BELIN. Has there been anything that has happened since the time of November 22, 1963, that has changed your eyesight in any way? Mr. BRENNAN. Yes, sir. Mr. BELIN. What has happened? Mr. BRENNAN. The last of January I got both eyes sandblasted. Mr. BELIN. This is January of 1964? Mr. BRENNAN. Yes.

Howard Brennan, IMO, comes across as an honest witness. He provided a reasonable explanation for why he failed to I.D. Oswald on Day 1. And I believe him. A lot of CTers do not. So be it. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html http://drive.google.com/file/video/1964 Interview With Howard Brennan

Nope. I've never once called Edward Shields a l-i-a-r. But Shields' testimony does not (and cannot, IMO) trump the words of Buell Frazier. No way. And Dougherty also said he only saw Oswald "out of the corner of my eye" ---- which means Dougherty wasn't even looking at Oswald directly when LHO came in the door. Yet CTers use Dougherty like he was the Holy Grail of witnesses. Hardly. Plus, as I've pointed out before, it's quite conceivable that Oswald left the rifle out on the loading dock somewhere and didn't bring it inside the building until a little later. We'll never know, of course, but it is POSSIBLE.

You just made that up. Nothing you just said is true. It's funny how many people are said to be liars in this case by CTers----EXCEPT Lee Harvey Oswald. He's a beacon of truth and honesty, per many CTers. It's ridiculous.

Just keep on ignoring the obvious, Jimmy. After all, it's the only way you can convince yourself that Oswald was nothing but a patsy.

Some of my additional thoughts regarding Lee Oswald's "curtain rod" story and his visit to Ruth Paine's house on Nov. 21.... From a 2010 Internet post.... Another question that no conspiracy theorist ever bothers asking regarding the "curtain rod" issue is this one: Since we know that Lee Oswald had no intention of living in his shoebox-sized room on Beckley Avenue for very much longer, then why in the world would he want to put up some new curtains and curtain rods in the Beckley room? It makes no sense. And we can know that Oswald certainly had it in his mind to vacate the Beckley roominghouse fairly soon after November 22, 1963, because of his behavior on 11/21/63 at Ruth Paine's house when he pleaded with Marina to come back to Dallas with him. LHO also told Marina on November 21st that he would rent an apartment "tomorrow". And I somehow doubt that Lee had it in his mind to take his wife and two children back to the walk-in closet he called home on Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff. Per Marina, Lee had every intention and desire to LEAVE HIS BECKLEY ROOM AS EARLY AS NOVEMBER 22! That's an important point that shouldn't be overlooked or ignored when the subject of Lee Oswald's "curtain rod" fairy tale is discussed. In short -- Oswald invented the curtain rod story. He lied to Buell Wesley Frazier about the curtain rods to cover up the fact he was going to Irving to get his rifle on November 21st. And he lied again to Frazier about the curtain rods on November 22nd to conceal the fact that he was carrying his rifle to work. It's as simple as that. Anyone who actually believes that Lee Harvey Oswald had any curtain rods with him on the morning of President Kennedy's assassination is a person who probably also believes that a political fanatic (Oswald) had absolutely no motive whatsoever for murdering a President (Kennedy) who was the chief representative of a country that the political fanatic (Oswald) had grown to despise. Also..... Another thought occurred to me recently with respect to Lee Harvey Oswald's unusual Thursday-night trip to Ruth Paine's house in Irving on November 21: Oswald's visit to Irving on 11/21/63 was the only time that LHO had failed to call Paine's house to let either Ruth or Marina know he was coming. And this could be another key point when reflecting upon Oswald's actions that day. In Lee Oswald's mind, a call to the Paine house prior to his November 21st visit could have been a bit risky. Because: what if Ruth or Marina, for some unknown reason, had told Lee not to come to Irving that evening? What would Lee have done then? Would he have obeyed Ruth/Marina and stayed in Oak Cliff, thereby eliminating any chance he had of fetching his rifle from the Paine garage before JFK's Friday arrival in Dallas? That's not very likely, granted. But Oswald would have had an additional layer of explaining to do if he had called Ruth's house and was told not to come, but went there anyway. But the way Oswald planned it (with no call being made to Irving), he doesn't run the risk of being told to stay home. So he simply went to the Paine house unannounced, which gave him easy access to his rifle. And once he arrived in Irving, what were Marina and/or Ruth going to do--throw him out in the streets or tell him to turn around and go back home? Not likely, especially since Lee has no car. And while it's likely that Lee would have gone out to Irving with Wesley Frazier on Thursday night even if he HAD called Ruth or Marina and had been told NOT to come, it was still a wiser decision by Lee to NOT call the Paine house prior to his Thursday arrival. And if Oswald had REALLY only been wanting to retrieve some curtain rods from Ruth Paine's home, then the fact that he did not call Ruth or Marina prior to his Thursday visit is even more bizarre and unexplainable, especially considering the fact that he had ALWAYS called Ruth's house prior to all of his other weekend visits. And THIS particular November 21 visit in question, via such an innocuous and innocent reason for going there on a Thursday (to get some curtain rods), should have certainly elicited an advance telephone call from Lee -- BECAUSE HE WOULD BE COMING TO IRVING ON A THURSDAY, SOMETHING HE HAD NEVER DONE BEFORE. More food for thought regarding Lee Oswald's unusual trip to Irving on 11/21/63, isn't it? David Von Pein January 8, 2010 http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Lee Harvey Oswald

Pot/Kettle Alert!! (Again!)

FYI / FWIW.... Here's a brief interview with Senator Yarborough on the day of the assassination.... https://drive.google.com/file/Ralph Yarborough Interview On Nov. 22, 1963

What did you have in mind, David?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Curtain Rods (Part 1) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Oswald's "Curtain Rods" (Part 2)