David Von Pein

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!

What does the position of Specter's RIGHT hand have to do with anything? And: the last photo you used isn't good at all for your "Left to Right" purposes. That's a photo from the SS re-enactment, using a standard Lincoln car. That's not a stretch Lincoln like SS-100-X. Here's the correct angle (slightly Right to Left):

I think you're confused. And your little markings on the CE903 picture are totally meaningless. You can't just start drawing lines on a 2D picture and get 3-dimensional results. It's impossible.

They subtracted the 3-degree, 9-minute slope of Elm when they went to the garage. Out on the street, the angle is 21+ degrees from the sixth-floor window to the inshoot wound on JFK's back. When the slope of Elm is taken off, the angle becomes 17.72 degrees (based, of course, on the "average" angle between Zapruder frames 210 and 225, which is the "range" of frames the WC was using for the SBT hit). And so, as we can easily see, SOME slack MUST be given to the WC's tests....because their re-creation is being based on just an AVERAGE angle between Z210 and 225 in the first place. So unless JFK was hit at exactly Z217.5 (which is quite unlikely), then the angles and measurements ARE going to be slightly off. But CTers can't permit any "slack" or "leeway" to be given to Mr. Specter & Company, can they? For a CTer, if it's not 100% exact to the millimeter, then we must toss the re-enactments in the trash can. Right? Come on! That's a ridiculously rigid mindset to have. Don't you agree?

Doesn't really matter. Because, as I just outlined previously, the WC didn't really rely on the crappy Rydberg drawing at all. Because if they HAD relied on it, we wouldn't find the wound where it is in Commission Exhibit 903 and in all of those "opposite angle" photographs.

Totally untrue. Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission could have very easily determined the location of the back wound from the autopsy report ("14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process"). And that's no doubt what they did. Even if they did look at the autopsy photo, they wouldn't have relied ONLY on that photo. They would have utilized the best measurement for the back wound---which was in the autopsy report. Oddly, Thomas J. Kelley of the Secret Service testified that the chalk mark was determined by just looking at the crappy Rydberg drawing and the coat of JFK --- which is ridiculous, because if ONLY those two things were the source of the chalk mark, the mark would certainly NOT be in the location where we find it in CE903. Therefore, it's logical to conclude that the WC would have certainly gone to the best place for determining where on Kennedy's body the wound was located---and that's the autopsy report. And, in fact, we find this info on Page 107 of the WCR, confirming what I just said above about the WC relying on the autopsy report itself.... "The wounds of entry and exit on the President were approximated based on information gained from the autopsy reports and photographs." The above sentence could give the appearance that the Warren Commission was admitting that they had, in fact, looked at the autopsy photos. But when the WC used the word "photographs" on Page 107 of its Report, they appear (via the source note provided on Page 107) to only be referring to the crappy Rydberg drawings (see Thomas Kelley's testimony at 5 H 133-134). But I think it's fairly obvious that Arlen Specter and the WC were definitely relying on more than just JFK's jacket and the awful Rydberg drawing (seen in Commission Exhibit No. 386). They had easy access, of course, to Page 3 of JFK's autopsy report, which clearly indicates the precise location of where a bullet had entered President Kennedy's upper back. So it is utterly ridiculous, in my opinion, to believe that the Commission would NOT have utilized Page 3 of that autopsy report when it came time to place that chalk mark on the back of the JFK stand-in during the Warren Commission's assassination reconstruction effort in Dallas, Texas, on Sunday, May 24, 1964.

Also See: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/CE903 (Part 3) (Re: Angles) Do CTers here REALLY think that the Warren Commission has skewed the angles and the measurements and the wound locations that are depicted in CE903 so badly that the SBT is a total impossibility? And even though it's true that we can't actually see the chalk mark on the stand-in's back in CE903, does anybody really think that the wound placement on the back of the JFK stand-in (which would be in the UPPER BACK, without question, if we were to move Specter's metal rod just a little to his left) is so far off as to totally discredit the Single-Bullet Theory completely? And even if the trajectory angle seen in this reverse angle picture is exactly 17-43-30 (which I am not sure of, since that picture is not an official photo and does not appear in the Warren Commission volumes), the rod in Specter's hand in that reverse angle photo is a very short distance above that chalk mark. Very short indeed.

Why don't you just post it here yourself? Haven't you learned how to post a picture yet? Come to think of it, have you EVER posted any photos here? I'm not being critical of you in this regard, it's just that I can't think of any posts where you've added any pictures, which seems kind of curious, since this crime is one that has so many "photographic" aspects to it. But since you seem to refuse to post those "opposite angle" pictures for yourself, I'll do it for you....