David Von Pein

You see, this is one of the big differences between conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio and "LNers" like myself --- Jim sees everything through the darkened prism of "conspiracy" and "cover up". While I, on the other hand, don't possess such a mindset. I don't automatically jump to a "conspiratorial" conclusion about every single thing connected to the JFK case. Jim almost always does. Jim never allows for even a possible non-conspiratorial answer to any of the things he mentioned in his last post. For example, the fact that Oswald asked some of his TSBD co-workers why there were crowds gathering at Elm and Houston Streets prior to the motorcade arriving in Dealey Plaza. This action taken by Oswald, in DiEugenio's mind, must indicate that Oswald really and truly wasn't even aware that President Kennedy was going to be driving by the Depository that day. In Jim's conspiracy-infested brain, Oswald couldn't possibly have only been feigning his ignorance when he asked his fellow workers why the crowds were forming outside the building. But the overall weight of the evidence, which unquestionably favors Oswald's guilt in the murder of JFK, is telling me that Lee Oswald certainly was feigning his ignorance. And Jim thinks the Warren Commission needed to have Charles Givens "lie his head off", just so the WC could have Oswald in almost exactly the same place he was when Givens and the other TSBD employees heard Oswald shout down the elevator shaft just a few minutes before Givens' encounter with Oswald on the sixth floor at about 11:55. Were Lovelady, Williams, and Arce also lying when they each placed Oswald on an UPPER FLOOR of the Depository (either the fifth or sixth floor) at about 11:45 AM? If not, what was really gained by having Givens "lie his head off"? I don't see much of any "gain" at all. But I guess Jim does, therefore Givens gets to be labelled as yet another l-i-a-r in Jim's excruciatingly long list of liars connected to this murder case. After a short while, it should become embarrassing for DiEugenio to call so many different people "liars". Just look at how many people he has called outright liars in just this discussion alone. It's pathetic. More on Charles Givens here. Re: The higher-paying job that James DiEugenio is convinced that Ruth Paine deliberately kept Oswald from getting, Click Here.

Yes, I think that's quite possible. But I think it's also possible that Oswald stashed his rifle temporarily out on the loading dock before he entered the building to be seen by Jack Dougherty (and this could be the reason Dougherty didn't notice anything in Oswald's hands at that time). And at some later time, Oswald retrieved the rifle from the loading dock area and took it upstairs. All of this kind of talk is, of course, 100% guesswork on the part of anyone choosing to do the speculating. But, I'll admit, it is fun to guess about these things once in a while.

I agree. It was. But.... The wishing paid off ..... because Bonnie Ray vacated the 6th floor just in time for Oswald to do his dirty deed. Oswald was one lucky SOB on 11/22/63. No doubt about it. But LUCK can certainly play a part in big events like the JFK assassination. Such as LHO's additional "good luck" with the weather on that Friday too. If it had continued to rain....who knows what might have happened. Perhaps a bullet would have been deflected. Or, perhaps, Oswald doesn't even attempt to fire any shots at the enclosed bubbletop at all.

My $0.02.... I really don't think Lee Oswald thought---deep down---that he would actually have a chance to use his Mannlicher-Carcano on the President that day. Yes, he took his rifle to work with the hope in his mind of somehow being able to secrete himself somewhere within the Depository at the precise moment when Kennedy drove past the building. But he probably also realized as he was driving to work that morning with Buell Frazier that the odds of being able to successfully conceal himself from the view of everyone else in the building (i.e., being able to have an entire warehouse floor of the TSBD all to himself at just exactly the appropriate minutes before, during, and just after the President drove by the building) were very small odds indeed. But, as Oswald's incredible luck would have it (and even though he picked a floor--the sixth--that had MORE than the usual number of employees working on it throughout the entire morning that day, due to the floor-laying project that was occurring on that floor), Lee had the good fortune of having the entire sixth floor all to himself at precisely the time he desperately needed to have it all to himself---between 12:20 and 12:31 PM. It's always been my opinion that if Bonnie Ray Williams had decided to stay on the sixth floor, instead of moving down to the 5th floor at about 12:20, then JFK would not have been shot at all....because (IMO) Oswald wouldn't risk firing at the President if he knew for certain that somebody else was on that same sixth floor just a few feet away. And if somehow he was able to pull off the shooting in total secrecy (which he was), I doubt if Lee thought he would live very long beyond 12:30. Hence, I don't think he cared too much about having a lot of money on him when he departed Ruth Paine's house on November 22.* * Yes, I know that that last part about Lee thinking he wouldn't be long for this world if he shot the President is likely to be considered inconsistent with the portion of my theory which has Oswald not taking the risk of shooting if Bonnie Ray remained on the sixth floor. CTers can fire back with: But, David, if he didn't think he'd get away alive, then why would he care if anyone else was up there with him to finger him for the crime? Fair point (if someone wants to make it). But I think it's quite clear that Oswald did have a desire to continue living beyond 11/22/63. That fact is very clear to me when looking at Oswald's actions after 12:30 PM on November 22 --- e.g., fleeing the building within minutes of the assassination, taking a cab to get back to his roominghouse (a very out-of-the-ordinary mode of transportation for Oswald), arming himself with a pistol and at least 15 rounds of ammunition within 30 minutes of JFK being shot, and then committing a second murder a few minutes later when he encountered Officer Tippit. Having a desire to survive the aftermath of the assassination, vs. thinking he will survive, are two different things entirely. I would guess that Lee Harvey Oswald was probably very surprised that he was afforded the ideal opportunity to shoot at President Kennedy from a totally vacant sixth floor of his workplace and still live to see another sunrise. IMHO. YMMV. David Von Pein May 6-7, 2018 More: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/01/lee-harvey-oswald's-decision-to-shoot-jfk

............

Off Topic (but kind of fun)..... I have to say, I was deeply distressed when I found out that President Trump's Fast Food Feast at the White House on January 14, 2019, did not contain any KFC items. The Colonel would be heartbroken.

"Everybody"? Who besides Roy Truly noticed Oswald's absence?

More "Paper Bag" stuff.... https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-258.html https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-735.html

Just citing the actual evidence, Jim. Look it up. In Stombaugh's testimony.

Where's "home"? Any chance of an answer this year, Kamp?

Oh good! The non-stop parade of worthless scumbag witnesses continues (via Jim's Fantasy World Of Conspiracy & Covering Up). OK, Jim, let's keep it going.... What about Linnie Mae?

Good! More liars! And MORE fake evidence! Keep 'em comin', Jimmy. I'm waiting for the "Jackie's Fake Pillbox Hat" theory. Re: The Bag.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html

You don't care how many people you call liars, do you? Pathetic. As always. Good! More liars! More planted stuff! Good! Another l-i-a-r! (What's one more worthless l-i-a-r, right Jim?) The last count of the number of liars in Jim's JFK World ---- Way too numerous to tally.

I didn't turn on you. Why do you say that? I was merely asking two logical questions about the Tippit murder.

Actually, he did (although indirectly). It was a linkage between the paper bag (CE142) and the blanket---via some fibers found in the bag that generally were consistent with fibers from the blanket. And since all reasonable people know that a RIFLE was stored in that blanket.....and if the bag had fibers from that blanket in it....well, then, the math is pretty easy to do after that. (Although, I'll admit, the fiber connection is certainly not definitive. But the fibers in the bag were consistent with the blanket fibers.)

RAY MITCHAM SAID: Only two people said they saw Oswald carrying a package. Frazier and his sister. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: And given the circumstances, why would you expect anybody else to necessarily have seen Oswald with the package? It's early in the morning on Nov. 22. Lee walks toward the Frazier house. Linnie Mae happens to be looking out the window and sees LHO with the package. Then the only other person that I would have completely EXPECTED to see the package---Buell Wesley Frazier---sees the paper bag on the back seat (and sees LHO carry it into the TSBD Building). And, as mentioned previously, it's quite possible that Oswald might have stashed the bag/rifle in the Loading Dock area BEFORE he ever entered the inner door that led to the TSBD's first floor (where Jack Dougherty was). But we also know that Dougherty said he only saw LHO that morning out of the "corner" of his eye. So why would you expect him to have necessarily seen any package even if Lee had it with him at that time? So, IMO, the argument about "Only Two People Saw Him With The Package" is a very weak argument given the time of day and the conditions of Oswald putting the package in the back seat of Frazier's car (where nobody BUT Frazier and Oswald himself could possibly see it on the way to work). Therefore, I wouldn't necessarily expect anyone else to see that brown bag. And, quite obviously (given the overall evidence and testimony), I'm right---nobody else did see it. More.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-914.html

I ask Jim a straightforward question --- Do you really and truly (deep down) believe that Marina Oswald was lying when she said these things in her WC testimony? --- and Jim starts talking about fiber expert Paul Stombaugh. As if Stombaugh's testimony has anything at all to do with Marina's testimony concerning whether she ever SAW A RIFLE in the Paine garage. Well, maybe Jimmy's having a bad day.

Jim, Do you really and truly (deep down) believe that Marina Oswald was lying when she said these things in her WC testimony?.... MARINA OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle. [...] Mr. RANKIN. After your husband returned from Mexico, did you examine the rifle in the garage at any time? Mrs. OSWALD. I had never examined the rifle in the garage. It was wrapped in a blanket and was lying on the floor. Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket? Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle. Mr. RANKIN. When was that? Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans. Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock. --------------------- "I saw that it was a rifle. .... I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock." -- Marina Oswald

And Jim can utter the above junk even though Marina said she saw the butt end of a rifle sticking out of the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage. But I'm supposed to think Marina did nothing but tell one lie after another after the assassination, right James? I guess she wanted to frame her own husband, so she told the story about seeing the rifle in the garage.

Then how can you reconcile all the witnesses at the Tippit scene? Why did so many identify OSWALD as the person they saw (if it really wasn't him)? And how can you reconcile the fact that the bullet shells at the Tippit murder scene were tied conclusively to the same gun that Oswald had on him when he was arrested?

Indeed, Derek. It's refreshing to see this kind of thinking on this forum. It's very rare. You're one of the very few here who actually thinks in a reasonable way regarding Oswald's out-of-the-ordinary behavior on Nov. 21 and 22. Here's what I said to a CTer a few years ago.... "Don't you think it would be wise to evaluate Oswald's odd behavior on November 21 and 22 in connection with the physical evidence in the case, which all screams "Oswald"? Or would you prefer to isolate everything in a bubble and never be forced to assess Oswald's actions and movements in conjunction with all that physical evidence that came out of a gun owned by Lee Oswald? In my opinion, it's a package deal that fits together perfectly --- Oswald's actions + the physical evidence = Oswald's undeniable guilt in two murders in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63." -- DVP; June 2015 More: https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-959.html

Oh, sure. I certainly have. The topic of Dr. Humes burning the first draft of the autopsy report and his blood-stained notes has come up many times in the discussions I have archived at my site. For some examples, CLICK HERE. And, BTW, Humes first testified about the burning of the first draft of the autopsy report in his 1964 Warren Commission testimony. That subject didn't first come up in the 1990s with the ARRB. Humes said this to Arlen Specter on Page 373 of WC Volume 2.... "In privacy of my own home, early in the morning of Sunday, November 24th, I made a draft of this report which I later revised, and of which this represents the revision. That draft I personally burned in the fireplace of my recreation room." And Humes also testified in 1964 that he had "destroyed certain preliminary draft notes" (also at 2 H 373). The specific reason for the burning of the notes (the blood stains) was not mentioned by Humes in his Warren Commission testimony, however. But, as we can see, Humes admitted to having "burned" and "destroyed" both the first draft of the autopsy report and some draft notes during his WC testimony in 1964. Dr. Humes never said the burned first draft of the autopsy report had any blood on it. The blood was only on the notes, not the "report".

The above ridiculous sentence was written by a person who, just three sentences later, accused me of making "silly assertions". Jim never gets tired of providing his readers with a non-stop flow of Pot/Kettle irony.

MY secret?? You're too funny, Jim. Anyway, don't blame me. I didn't do the autopsy. Go blame Humes for measuring from the mastoid. (Oh, wait, you DO blame Humes, right? And he's nothing but a l-i-a-r, to boot. So he's both incompetent AND a l-i-a-r, correct?)

And I just noticed that Jackie & Nellie have been kidnapped out of the car too! (Plus Kellerman.) I'm calling Chief Curry right now! Something's not right here! And in addition to the multiple kidnappings, I also noticed that somebody stole Adam Johnson's and Jim DiEugenio's apostrophe keys too! There oughta be a law!