Kenneth Drew

You ain't gonna learn what you don't wanna know very true. and TLD, er, uh, DVP doesn't want to learn anything. His goal is to shout down anyone that does not buy the WCR whole hog. But, he has said that he is not free to believe what he wants to. Whatever that means. I just watched the YOUTube video about the creation of the film of the shooting of LHO by Jack Ruby. I've never even heard of that theory, but I'm sure gonna check it out. Seems possible. Now I realize that someone will tell me that theory has been around 'forever', but I have also, and I have never heard of it.

... In fact, you'll have a hard time finding any "argument" made by Healy at all on the Internet. And everybody knows it. All he does is throw insults and call people "hon". Great debating skills there. right you are, son. I have no need to argue... facts and truth win out. Class researchers both here and other forums/boards are wiping their collective feet on the 1964 WCR. It's all over but the lone nut whining. Those that now argue: a conspiracy did NOT murder JFK, do absolutely nothing else but argue and some build overweight websites to bolster their argument. Argue for argument sake, what a novelty, what a diversion. Here's something startling: read Bob Tanenbaum's (HSCA's lead investigator into the assassination of JFK), Corruption of Blood (1995/6). It would be good for you soul, a real eye opener, if you can find it...the book's front cover blurb: "His most enthralling legal thriller to date" --Vincent Bugliosi. (oh-my) Within the first 100 pages of the book, after *Butch* read the 1964 WCR, as did his investigative team... *there's nothing there...* No case against Oswald? WHAT! A guy that has personally prosecuted hundred + and responsible in a supervising capacity prosecuting hundreds of other murder cases and he never, ever lost one personally, saying that after reading the entire WCR? I don't have to argue dude... *there's nothing there...* No case against Oswald? Very true, almost 52 years and no one has put up any evidence that would convict LHO. Most nutters don't even try. All they do is stand up and try to shout louder that all the CTers have is that everyone is lying. That's not the way the justice system works. if you want to prove someone did it, you show the evidence. If you have no evidence, there is no case. That's where we are: No Case.

Greg, would you post a link to your forum? Thanks.

Yes, I've read that. The FBI/CIA/SS had/have some very creative people. As soon as someone 'speculated' that LHO had bought a rifle, each of them, independently it seems, immediately found/created a PMO to fit the circumstances. Seems as if the normal storage in KC was search, one created in DC, one in Dallas, etc. odd how each one missed some detail or other. for example the one from Dallas had a number obviously from the new stack but several weeks in the future. Not from the past. others didn't have correct endorsements. One should not have been in DC, etc. but they finally seemed to come up with a 'consensus' one, but without adequately 'hiding' the others.

I don't think so. He doesn't seem to be able to think for himself. If he hasn't learned that in 53 years, it's gonna be hard to pick it up now.

TLD er, uh, DVP I changed my signature to include another one of your 'sayings'. I'm sure a lot of people agree with you that the 'Tiny Little Details" aren't 'really' important. That's why the world has discussed them for 52 years.

Gee, there's a surprise. An LNer in conflict with CTers. Amazing, huh? An LNer An Lner? That's more correctly stated as a Nutter.

The only way a person can believe in Lee Harvey Oswald's "innocence" is for that person to just completely ignore (or misrepresent) the dozens of pieces of evidence Got that backward didn't you, TLD? uh,,or uh, DVP. In actuality, you have to believe that LHO was innocent because no one has turned up any evidence that would prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I realize that is a 'TLD', but that is what the legal system is built on. Even if you think they are 'not important'.

Why do you insist upon nitpicking the Klein's dates to death? When looking at the dates that were available to the FBI on 11/23/63 via the Klein's microfilm records, and given a choice of which date to choose for a press release to Chief Curry and to the world (if I had to pick only ONE date, that is) -- I think I, too, might very well have told America (and Jesse Curry) that the rifle transaction had taken place on March 20, 1963. Because from the available information supplied by Klein's Sporting Goods on November 23rd, the March 20 date is the date that confirms that the sale of the rifle to Oswald/Hidell had been completed (i.e., shipped by Klein's to Oswald/Hidell). So what's wrong with using the shipping date in the press releases? Yes, Chief Curry told reporters that "This purchase was made on March 20th", which technically is not quite 100% accurate, since Oswald had actually dropped his order form for the rifle in the mailbox on March 12th, but we're really only talking about a very tiny difference in terms here -- with the "ordering" of the gun by Oswald occurring on March 12th, and the "shipping" of the gun taking place on March 20th. But why on Earth would anyone, even a conspiracy theorist, make a big deal out of this "March 12 vs. March 20" date thing? You think that by saying the rifle was "purchased" on March 20, this somehow means the rifle transaction between Oswald and Klein's is all shot to hell -- even though that exact date (March 20) is on the Klein's internal order blank? This entire argument about the March 20 date is just another example of a totally frivolous argument being made by CTers in a feeble attempt to cast doubt (somehow) on a piece of evidence connected to JFK's assassination. And this particular frivolous argument concerning the March 20 date is even more useless and nonsensical than most other arguments put forth by CTers. (And that's really saying something.) Yes, Chief Curry told reporters that "This purchase was made on March 20th", which technically is not quite 100% accurate, since Oswald had actually dropped his order form for the rifle in the mailbox on March 12th, but we're really only talking about a very tiny difference in terms here -- with the "ordering" of the gun by Oswald occurring on March 12th, and the "shipping" of the gun taking place on March 20th. But why on Earth would anyone, even a conspiracy theorist, make a big deal out of this "March 12 vs. March 20" date thing? Yeah, that's right. Why would anyone question 'the tiny little details' ? I mean, really. LHO was on the 2nd floor when the shots were fired, but that's just a 'tiny' little detail. I mean, really, just one little bullet was fired from in front of the car, that 'tiny little detail' is not 'really' important is it. It still could have been LHO firing from the 2nd floor lunchroom, right? What's all this business about 'tiny little details' anyhow? Who's paying attention to that? I guess we're gonna have to change DVP to TLD, no one would notice, it's just a 'tiny little detail', right?

I'm not sure how discussions evolve around to these things. There was NO 'order date', there was no 'ship date' These are creations of the conspirators, that has been proven so many times where all the 'created info' came from. this just feeds the nutters goals. Yet Kenneth, there was physical evidence offered which had dates and times and descriptions. Them being "creations of the conspirators" is true yet I am not sure the "where they came from" part has been flushed out as I will be offering next week on CTKA. For example, was the ORDER BLANK of which we are talking created from scratch or a repurpose of a real order for a C20-T750? Was the Money Order created from scratch or repurposed, altered from the real one with that real #? We are definitely seeing things the same way... All I am saying is that "according to the evidence offered" March 20 was the ship date, March 13th was the day Klein's rec'd the order and deposited the PMO and MArch 12 is the cancellation date on the envelope, all supposedly in the FBI's hands by 6am DC time on Nov 23rd. Someone called DPD Curry to tell him this date. Who, when and why did they get it wrong? or did Curry? At this point it is my belief all we have left in the evidence is the ability to reconstruct the conspiracy. Any talk of WCR conclusions being accurate or reflective of the situation does not even enter the conversation. The LNer is left with having to find a way to authenticate incriminating evidence that can't be. The conversation has to change.... CTs don't need to prove his innocence and shouldn't try. LNers need to prove guilt. Anything else is tap dancing around the issues and denying the core fundementals of the law - innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. Was the Money Order created from scratch or repurposed, altered from the real one with that real #? It was pulled from the stack of still unsold PMO's at the Dallas Post office and the details put in. Forgetting to put the correct endorsements on the back. Completely created. All I am saying is that "according to the evidence offered" March 20 was the ship date, March 13th was the day Klein's rec'd the order and deposited the PMO and MArch 12 is the cancellation date on the envelope, all supposedly in the FBI's hands by 6am DC time on Nov 23rd. Having been created before midnight on 11/22. Actually it turns out that there were 2 PMO's found/created. One of them later disappeared, once they realized their mistake. And of course the rifle was never owned by Kleins and never shipped to anyone from Klein's. Any evidence to the contrary was, of course, entirely fabricated.

I read this book about 10-15 years ago. I remember very little about it. I do recall thinking it was long and boring. I interpreted the 'intent' to show what the US got into even having the "Best and the Brightest" running things and how bad everything got all screwed up. And the final conclusion was that "sometimes the Best and the Brightest" are NOT.

Once again, Jim DiEugenio sees "mysteries" and sinister activity and evil wickedness everywhere he looks --- even in the ordinary and innocuous calendar owned by Mrs. Ruth Paine [Commission Exhibit 401]. Jimmy and I thrashed this out a year or two ago. Here are some excerpts highlighting Jim's ravenous appetite for believing in absurd things that never happened.... [DVP Quotes On:] "Does Jimbo think "Ruthy" was leaving a little bread crumb of conspiratorial proof for future researchers to find, so that those researchers can scream these words with delight -- "Aha! I told you Ruth Paine was a xxxx [L-word]!"? Can anyone (even conspiracy mongers like Jim D.) REALLY believe Ruth would do something so utterly stupid? Evidently Jimbo CAN believe that Mrs. Paine would be so foolish -- because it's obvious that DiEugenio DOES believe that Ruth Paine wrote the words "LHO purchase of rifle" on her calendar BEFORE the assassination ever took place. Which, therefore, must also mean that DiEugenio believes that Ruth was privy to the "March 20th" date of Oswald's rifle purchase PRIOR to the time when Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry made that date of 3/20/63 known to the public on national television on November 23, 1963. So, Jimbo, tell us how Ruth became aware of that "March 20" information prior to 11/23/63? Was she in cahoots with Klein's Sporting Goods too? Or did the evil FBI furnish her with that exact date? Or could it be that it was Ruth Paine HERSELF who faked and manufactured Waldman Exhibit No. 7? Maybe it was Ruth herself who wrote "3/20/63" on that Klein's document. Is that how she knew the date prior to November 23rd, Jimbo? But, then too, James DiEugenio actually thinks Lee Harvey Oswald had NO LARGE PAPER BAG WITH HIM AT ALL when he entered Buell Wesley Frazier's car on November 22nd. So, given such absurd notions, it should be fairly obvious that this previous statement of mine concerning Jimmy's conspiratorial beliefs in the JFK case is 100% accurate: "No theory is too outrageous or preposterous for Mr. DiEugenio's gullible palate." -- DVP; January 4, 2013 [...] I'll tell you one piece of physical evidence that points AWAY from the direction of Ruth's involvement in a conspiracy plot: And that's the entry that Ruth made on her March 1963 calendar (talked about earlier), where she wrote the words "LHO purchase of rifle". In a situation where Ruth Paine would surely have every reason to believe she would be thoroughly questioned by the authorities (or at Oswald's trial, had he lived to see one), can you think of a single reasonable explanation for why Mrs. Paine, if she had been a conspirator trying to frame Oswald in the weeks and months prior to November 22, would have wanted to write that "purchase of rifle" entry on her calendar at a time (October 23, not November 23) when she has stated she had no idea that Oswald even owned a rifle? (And it's fairly obvious that DiEugenio DOES think Ruth wrote those words PRIOR to November 22; otherwise, there would be no need for him to bring up that particular item at all.) Plus: Via such a pre-11/22 theory, WHERE did Ruth get the information about the rifle purchase in the first place? How could she have possibly known--PRIOR to 11/22--that Lee Oswald had bought a rifle on March 20th? (Which, of course, was merely the Klein's shipping date for the rifle; it wasn't the actual "purchase" date, nor was it the date he actually took possession of the rifle, which also makes it pretty clear WHEN Ruth heard about that March 20 date. She heard about it when Jesse Curry mentioned that exact date on live TV on 11/23/63.) That "purchase of rifle" thing is just one small example of how CTers will twist the evidence in this case to suit their needs. In this instance, DiEugenio labels the calendar entry as being "the most bizarre point of all" when it comes to the topic of Ruth Paine. But he will completely disregard Ruth's own testimony about that calendar entry. In other words, Jimbo's eager to disbelieve ANYTHING uttered by Mrs. Ruth Paine. Even though, as mentioned, placing such an entry on her calendar PRIOR to the assassination really doesn't make much sense either. In fact, it would have been utterly stupid for Mrs. Paine to have done that, because it, in effect, would expose a part of the plot -- i.e., her pre-November knowledge about a specific date--March 20th--which was not generally revealed to the public until November 23rd." -- DVP; circa 2013—2014 More here ----> DVP-vs-DiEugenio-Part-87/Ruth Paine's Calendar But, then too, James DiEugenio actually thinks Lee Harvey Oswald had NO LARGE PAPER BAG WITH HIM AT ALL when he entered Buell Wesley Frazier's car on November 22nd. He doesn't have to 'think' so, since ALL the evidence proves that there was no large paper bag anywhere.

I'm not sure how discussions evolve around to these things. There was NO 'order date', there was no 'ship date' These are creations of the conspirators, that has been proven so many times where all the 'created info' came from. this just feeds the nutters goals.

I had read that. seems as if a lot of people are being mislead.

Gee, I'm disappointed. No one rattles my cage. If I see something I disagree with, I say so. I don't do it to 'rattle' a cage, but only for discussion. and Mark, I didn't know that there is a 'standard' CT conclusion. I know of at least 10 or so, is it likely that one of those is the 'standard'?

It's also bollocks, Ken - useful as a very rough guide only. It is a compilation of quotes from various sources (some more reliable than others) and should not be seen as necessarily accurate, or even what is generally "known" or supported. It is one of the rare instances where Holmes' testimony has been used, but you'll find few who know it's Holmes, and fewer still who care. The section you quote is certainly not in any sort of chronological order. From memory, the rest is pretty much the same. And is it even possible to copyright a series of quotes with no input from yourself, except the randomness of the order you put them in? It's also bollocks, Ken - useful as a very rough guide only. It is a compilation of quotes from various sources (some more reliable than others) and should not be seen as necessarily accurate, It is clearly labeled as you describe it, so there is no 'attempt' to fool anyone that these are official exact quotes. But it does clearly show that the discrepancy in whether LHO encountered a cop (Baker) or not, was being discussed at least in 1978. It seems as if his statement implies that someone asked him where a phone was and he thought it might have been a policeman (would that indicate he was in a suit instead of a uniform) but then he did talk with a cop that was accompanied by his supervisor. Isn't that 'likely' the encounter with Baker and Truly? Since all of them mention that and no one mentions that it might have been a different cop and different supervisor. That was the only point. I do not claim that as proof of anything except that it was copyrighted in 1978. And is it even possible to copyright a series of quotes with no input from yourself, except the randomness of the order you put them in? It must be possible, it's copyrighted.

and LBJ, believed the cover-up was best for the U.S. Especially since it was to his benefit and covered his butt.

Wouldn't you say that most politicians in DC believe that or know it? They simply don't have the freedom of speech to say it. Yes, and this is why I found it odd that John Kerry, as sitting Secretary of State, would say publicly that he believed the assassination was a conspiracy. Not only that, but he would finger the Cubans as part of a Communist conspiracy as the likely culprit, a little over a year before the US would announce its intent open diplomatic ties with Cuba. John Kerry, as sitting Secretary of State, would say publicly that he believed the assassination was a conspiracy. Not only that, but he would finger the Cubans as part of a Communist conspiracy He at least took the position that it wasn't US politicians that did it. But also remember he ran for Pres and didn't make it.

Well, I labeled my statement as 'speculation'. I've never studied that event. Just assumed that the Ayatollah was trying, and succeeded, in making a fool of Carter. and didn't think he could get away with that with Reagan. Wasn't the Iran Contra affair after Reagan got in office and after the hostages were freed? Anyhow, I've never studied that and don't know much about it.

The insinuation being that Reagan had a deal. My speculation is that the Ayatollah knew damn well that Reagan would not be as passive as Carter had been and didn't want to be a dedicated target of the new government.

9:30 - 11:15 A.M., SUNDAY MORNING, NOV. 24,1963 Interrogation in Capt. Will Fritz's Office "After the assassination, a policeman or some man came rushing into the School Book Depository Building and said, `Where is your telephone?' He showed me some kind of credential and identified himself, so he might not have been a police officer. . . . `Right there,' I answered, pointing to the phone. . . . `Yes, I can eat lunch with you,' I told my co-worker, `but I can't go right now. You go and take the elevator, but send the elevator back up.' [The elevator in the building was broken.] . . . After all this commotion started, I just went downstairs and started to see what it was all about. A police officer and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told officers that I am one of the employees in the building. . . . If you ask me about the shooting of Tippit, I don't know what you are talking about. . . . http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html ? By the way, this was copyrighted in 1978

Ken, you may have thought that is what you said, but this is actually what you did say... "how much credence do you give to LHO's statement that he and Baker encountered each other in the lunchroom? LHO didn't change his story." LHO moreover, never said he had a meeting with Baker and Truly. He simply said a cop (or cops, plural) and his superintendent (or supervisor). Baker= Barnett. Truly could be right - or it could be Shelley. Ken, you may have thought that is what you said, but this is actually what you did say..never said he had a meeting with Baker and Truly. He simply said a cop (or cops, plural) and his superintendent Well, you certainly cleared that up

He didn't have to change it. Fritz did. The only person who told the truth about his alibi was the much maligned Harry Holmes. Harry was brought in because of the PO boxes and weapons orders. He did his job on those stitching Oswald up. But they forgot to clue him in on the alibi and he gave it away. Mr. BELIN. Did anyone say anything about Oswald saying anything about his leaving the Texas School Book Depository after the shooting? Mr. HOLMES. He said, as I remember, actually, in answer to questions there, he mentioned that when lunchtime came, one of the Negro employees asked him if. he would like to sit and each lunch with him, and he said, "Yes, but I can't go right now." He said, "You go and take the elevator on down." No, he said, "You go ahead, but send the elevator back up." He didn't say up where, and he didn't mention what floor he was on. Nobody seemed to ask him. You see, I assumed that obvious questions like that had been asked in previous interrogation. So I didn't interrupt too much, but he said, "Send the elevator back up to me." Then he said when all this commotion started, "I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about." And he wouldn't tell what happened then. Mr. BELIN. Did he say where he was at the time of the shooting? Mr. HOLMES. He just said he was still up in the building when the commotion-- he kind of---- Mr. BELIN. Did he gesture with his hands, do you remember? Mr. HOLMES. He talked with his hands all the time. He was handcuffed, but he was quiet--well, he was not what you call a stoic phlegmatic person. He is very definite with his talk and his eyes and his head, and he goes like that, you see. Mr. BELIN. Did Oswald say anything about seeing a man with a crewcut in front of the building as he was about to leave it? Do you remember anything about that? Mr. HOLMES. No. Mr. BELIN. You don't remember anything about that. Did he say anything about telling a man about going to a pay phone in the building? Mr. HOLMES. Policeman rushed--I take it back---I don't know whether he said a policeman or not--a man came rushing by and said, "Where's your telephone?" And the man showed him some kind of credential and I don't know that he identified the credential, so he might not have been a police officer, and said I am so and so, and shoved something at me which I didn't look at and said, "Where is the telephone?" And I said, "Right there," and just pointed in to the phone, and I went on out. Mr. BELIN. Did Oswald say why he left the building? Mr. HOLMES. No; other than just said he talked about this commotion and went out to see what it was about. --------------------- The bolded, underlined text is exactly what happened with the so-called rol call. Police took personal contact details before allowing people to leave. Did Oswald just correctly guess that that was what happened? His interrogation report says much the same: "When asked as to his whereabouts at the time of the shooting, he stated that when lunch time came, and he didn't say which floor he was on, he said one of the Negro employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he stated "You go on down and send the elevator back up and I will join you in a few minutes." Before he could finish whatever he was doing, he stated, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he went down stairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that "he is one of our employees" whereupon the policeman had him step aside momentarily. Following this, he simply walked out the front door of the building. I don't recall that anyone asked why he left or where or how he went. I just presumed that this had been covered in an earlier questioning. This was supported by some first day news stories citing unnamed police (probably ed Hickey) It was further supported by evidence from a fellow employee given to the HSCA and again deed-sixed. This in my opinion is how Oswald's name appeared at the top of Revill's employee list. No Baker. The cop was most likely Welcome Barnett who guarded the front entrance (though naturally he denied seeing Oswald leave). Greg, Great post. I've got a question about Holmes' testimony. If it's true that Oswald "wouldn't tell me what happened then," I wonder why not? Do you think Holmes was just being devious here? EDIT: Possible explanation -- Oswald didn't want to admit to Holmes that he left work without permission and after being told by his supervisor and / or a police officer to wait around for further questioning with the other TSBD workers. [...] Mr. BELIN. Did anyone say anything about Oswald saying anything about his leaving the Texas School Book Depository after the shooting? Mr. HOLMES. He said, as I remember, actually, in answer to questions there, he mentioned that when lunchtime came, one of the Negro employees asked him if. he would like to sit and each lunch with him, and he said, "Yes, but I can't go right now." He said, "You go and take the elevator on down." No, he said, "You go ahead, but send the elevator back up." He didn't say up where, and he didn't mention what floor he was on. Nobody seemed to ask him. You see, I assumed that obvious questions like that had been asked in previous interrogation. So I didn't interrupt too much, but he said, "Send the elevator back up to me." Then he said when all this commotion started, "I just went on downstairs." And he didn't say whether he took the elevator or not. He said, "I went down, and as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions, and my superintendent of the place stepped up and told the officers that I am one of the employees of the building, so he told me to step aside for a little bit and we will get to you later. Then I just went on out in the crowd to see what it was all about." And he wouldn't tell what happened then. [...] Thanks, --Tommy That's possible Tommy. Or he didn't want to talk about his mode of transport for a any number of reasons - not least, simply not wanting to drag someone else into it that he thought had done nothing wrong. My point was that LHO said there was a meeting with Baker and Truly at or near the front door. Baker said 3rd or 4th, Truly said 2nd. seems certain that it was one or the other. It seems as if anyone thinks there was a lot of commotion going on at the time, they would be correct.

One other question Greg. If you are basing your preposition on the difference in Baker's story, 3rd or 4th floor vs Truly's 2nd floor lunchroom, then how much credence do you give to LHO's statement that he and Baker encountered each other in the lunchroom? LHO didn't change his story.

I can't dispute Greg Parker's claims depends on which 'claims'. If he's referring to the 'first time anyone ever questioned Baker's story was 13 or 15 years ago. Then I'd say 'not likely'. It's obvious from the records that there was clearly a discrepancy no later than 11/24/63. It's hard to believe that 'no one' questioned that for 35 years. Kenneth, I'm not for a minute disputing no one ever questioned Baker's story. You guys keep repeating the same refrain and I keep agreeing with you. This is a mountain of proof for such questioning. But you all keep avoiding the actual issue I'm raising - that is that no one ever specifically put forward that the 2nd floor lunchroom encounter was false in its entirety. As for the discrepancies between Baker and Truly's first day statements - no one questioned that. Why? Because Baker's statement got buried and he was kept away from the media. In all of the subsequent years when he was interviewed or questioned - including by the WC and BBC trial - no one - NO ONE ever produced Baker's first days statement, waved it front of him and grilled him about it. So your whole premise that it seems impossible to you that no one ever questioned it in all that time, is based on a false assumption that everyone was aware of what he originally said. They were not. It was deep-sixed. is based on a false assumption that everyone was aware of what he originally said. I'm sure I heard the story back at the time that Baker said he had encountered LHO in his search of the building. Hundreds of stories were run on all the channels back then and they put everyone that wanted to be on tv on to tell their stories. I know I heard of the encounter. I did not write a book saying that I didn't believe the story,, I just took it for what it was. I do know just from what I see now that on day one, Truly said the encounter was in the lunchroom. As far as I know, the stories were told independently on 11/23 with Baker saying 3rd or 4th floor and Truly saying 2nd floor lunchroom. Were they both supposed to say the same thing. Is it possible that was part of the conspiracy. Sure.