In Lee Harvey Oswald's Room

[David Von Pein]

Also check out CE2994 (below), in which Mrs. Lillian Brantley, co-proprietor of Ray's Hardware Store in Dallas, "attested to an entry in the books of the store which show that Jack Ruby purchased a Colt Cobra revolver from Ray's" in 1960:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0268b.htm

[William Kelly]

What I want to see is the proof that shows that the conspiracy theorists are correct when they continually say that Oswald could have walked into any gun store in Texas in '63 and bought a gun without any paperwork being involved at all.

I don't think that has been proven. And the statements from various gun shop owners who provided information to the Warren Commission (or the FBI) would certainly indicate that at least SOME gun shop owners DID keep records of the people to whom they sold firearms in 1963.

I'm guessing that (in large part) this whole business about buying a gun in a gun shop without leaving a trace, which is promoted in Oliver Stone's fantasy movie as well, is probably nothing more than yet another in a long line of conspiracy myths foisted on the public since JFK's assassination.

NOTE -- To protect myself from future abuse by the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists on the Internet, I will conclude this message with this addendum: I could be wrong about the last paragraph I just wrote above concerning the topic of buying guns in gun stores in 1963.

Relating to my comments above, I received the following e-mail from Gary Mack:

Date: 8/17/2010 1:57:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

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

Dave,

Regarding the purchase of weapons in Texas in the early 60s, Federal regulations required retailers to keep a log of all such sales. For example, Ray's Hardware in Dallas still has their January 19, 1960 log showing the revolver bought by Jack Ruby (but paid for by police detective Joe Cody, one of Ruby's friends). One of the folks at Ray's told me long ago that they must keep such records.

Gary

Wait a Minute!

Joe Cody, the Dallas Cop, bought the gun for Jack Ruby that he used to kill Oswald?

Joe Cody? The Same Joe Cody who was pals with the Campisis? Who ate dinner with Ruby and the Campisis on occassion?

And who used the Campisi's office telephone to call Carlos Marcello in New Orleans?

The SAME Joe Cody?

And nobody thinks this is suspicious at all?

I guess there wouldn't be any problem if Cody bought the pistol, rifle and ammo for Oswald too?

Bill Kelly

Edited August 18, 2010 by William Kelly

[Michael Hogan]

I've admitted, Michael, that I could be wrong about the gun shop thing. Do I have to write that admission in blood for you?

But, as Jean Davison pointed out, I still don't think it's been proven that absolutely no paper trail would be created when a person bought a gun in Texas in '63. In fact, Gary Mack's e-mail about Cody & Ruby's tranaction in Jan. 1960 indicates that there WOULD be a paper trail for such a brick-&-mortar gun purchase.

And this statement:

"....transferors were not required to obtain positive identification of their customers"....

....doesn't mean there would be NO PAPER TRAIL at all and it doesn't mean they would have obtained NO IDENTIFICATION AT ALL from their customers.

The gun sellers would probably still gather information from the gun buyer, although that buyer might be using an alias--as Oswald undoubtedly would have done, with HIDELL, even if he had bought a gun at HL Green's or any other store.

The gun seller would then have a record of THE ALIAS USED BY OSWALD--HIDELL.

First of all, your stated willingness to admit you could be wrong about the gun shop thing has no bearing on this discussion as far

as I'm concerned. I'm more concerned about how you react to arguments presented to you. The gun shop thing was your creation as a way

of deflecting Bill Kelly's underlying question. Repeating the email from Mack and the irrelevant speculation of Davison are as meaningless

as they were the first time around. Just because a particular store owner kept a "log" doesn't mean that any identification was required.

And even if it was (contrary to Zimring's study and contrary to common-sense), their statements have nothing to do with whether or not Oswald

had the wherewithal to obtain an untraceable weapon in Texas. Of course he did. Davison's idea that every gun purchase in 1963 would leave a

paper trail (whatever that means) is a fantasy.

David, you (or Mack or Davison) can't possibly know what a particular Texas gun seller might have done in 1963. It's clear that you did not spend

any time reading that study I posted. Federal gun laws were not enforced, even in criminal cases. Store owners could be (and were)

very lax in their record keeping. Any Tom, Dick or Harry could become a gun dealer and many did. Oswald did not have to get a

rifle from a gun store. Oswald could have obtained a rifle from a want-ad, someone dealing guns with no store-front, or he could

have stolen one. Just assume that he could have obtained an untraceable weapon. To argue that he could not is an untenable position.

Then try to answer Bill Kelly's question.

And finally, if Oswald had purchased a traceable rifle at Green's and used his Hidell alias as you speculate, Bill Kelly's question would remain. Why?

[Jack White]

What I want to see is the proof that shows that the conspiracy theorists are correct when they continually say that Oswald could have walked into any gun store in Texas in '63 and bought a gun without any paperwork being involved at all.

I don't think that has been proven. And the statements from various gun shop owners who provided information to the Warren Commission (or the FBI) would certainly indicate that at least SOME gun shop owners DID keep records of the people to whom they sold firearms in 1963.

I'm guessing that (in large part) this whole business about buying a gun in a gun shop without leaving a trace, which is promoted in Oliver Stone's fantasy movie as well, is probably nothing more than yet another in a long line of conspiracy myths foisted on the public since JFK's assassination.

NOTE -- To protect myself from future abuse by the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists on the Internet, I will conclude this message with this addendum: I could be wrong about the last paragraph I just wrote above concerning the topic of buying guns in gun stores in 1963.

Relating to my comments above, I received the following e-mail from Gary Mack:

Date: 8/17/2010 1:57:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

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

Dave,

Regarding the purchase of weapons in Texas in the early 60s, Federal regulations required retailers to keep a log of all such sales. For example, Ray's Hardware in Dallas still has their January 19, 1960 log showing the revolver bought by Jack Ruby (but paid for by police detective Joe Cody, one of Ruby's friends). One of the folks at Ray's told me long ago that they must keep such records.

Gary

Wait a Minute!

Joe Cody, the Dallas Cop, bought the gun for Jack Ruby that he used to kill Oswald?

Joe Cody? The Same Joe Cody who was pals with the Campisis? Who ate dinner with Ruby and the Campisis on occassion?

And who used the Campisi's office telephone to call Carlos Marcello in New Orleans?

The SAME Joe Cody?

And nobody thinks this is suspicious at all?

I guess there wouldn't be any problem if Cody bought the pistol, rifle and ammo for Oswald too?

Bill Kelly

On one occasion, a nephew of Joe Cody spoke to Jim Marrs' JFK class about his uncle (he was suspicious of).

He related that Cody had a pilot's license, and flew out of town on 11-22 in order to have an alibi and

not be connected to events he had prior knowledge of.

Jack

[David Von Pein]

Oswald could have obtained a rifle from a want-ad, someone dealing guns with no store-front, or he could have stolen one.

Yes, I agree with you there, Michael.

As to why Oswald decided to purchase his rifle via mail-order when he knew full well he would be attempting an illegal act with that weapon within just a few days of receiving it (attempting to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker) --- my answer to that inquiry is this:

~shrug~

And everyone else's answer should be that same "shrug" too, because nobody can know for sure why Kook Oswald did the nutty things he did in 1963.....because he never told anybody why he did them prior to meeting his Maker in the City Hall basement.

[Michael Hogan]

Jack:

Were Gary Mack and Dave Perry at that class calling the guy a "Damned xxxx!"

I think it was Jean Hill.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6492&view=findpost&p=70107

[David Von Pein]

Maybe because he didn't do them?

Who did do them then, James?

If not Oswald--then who?

And why does your innocent patsy behave like the guiltiest man in Dallas after 12:30 on 11/22? Was he just mad at the cops for interrupting his Van Heflin flick?

Edited August 18, 2010 by David Von Pein

[John Dolva]

Good one John.

And Mack is in thick with the DPD also.He actually excused the frame up regime of Fritz/ Wade with, "Well a lot of police departments had those kinds of problems."

If Watkins had not been elected though he would have been telling us what a great operation the DPD and DA ran. Sort of like what VB tells us in his book.

BTW, between you and me, do you think DVP missed the joke and he really believes that BS about putting the bullets back?

I find the idea of putting the bullets ''back'' silly. I can accept ''putting them there''. Dallas was a city riddled with corruption, run by a ruling elite with a basic interest of being the ruling elite. The cops were just a toolset in the apparatus. Of course that applies world wide, but prior to the assassination it was very much a closed city with a long tradition of being so.

[Tony Austin]

Oswald could have obtained a rifle from a want-ad, someone dealing guns with no store-front, or he could have stolen one.

Yes, I agree with you there, Michael.

As to why Oswald decided to purchase his rifle via mail-order when he knew full well he would be attempting an illegal act with that weapon within just a few days of receiving it (attempting to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker) --- my answer to that inquiry is this:

~shrug~

And everyone else's answer should be that same "shrug" too, because nobody can know for sure why Kook Oswald did the nutty things he did in 1963.....because he never told anybody why he did them prior to meeting his Maker in the City Hall basement.

It seems strange to me that Oswald did not apply for a mail box using the name Hidell and then arrange for the rifle that was ordered in the name of Hidell to be delivered to that mail box. Ordering a rifle using a false name and then arranging for it to be delivered to a mail box that is being used in your real name seems to be strange self-defeating behaviour.

Another question to give a big shrug in reply I presume.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Tony Austin

[David Von Pein]

Oswald behaved like the guiltiest guy in Dallas?

Let us see: he catches a bus, a form of public transportation with witnesses to see him.

Gets off the bus and walks back to a bus terminal, where more witnesses can see him.

Hails a taxi, but attempts to give it up to an elderly lady. Just so she will remember him right, and he can then hang around the scene of the crime longer.

Yes, Jim, LHO acted like a guilty person.

Jim conveniently leaves out the these little tidbits (which apparently, to Jim D., are things that an INNOCENT PATSY would have done in a heartbeat):

1.) Oswald rushes into his roominghouse "in a hurry" [E. Roberts' testimony], picks up a gun, and rushes out of the room.

2.) Oswald is seen acting "funny" and "scared" [testimony of Jack Brewer] in front of Brewer's Hardy's shoe store. LHO is obviously trying to avoid the cop cars on Jefferson Blvd., but to Jim D., these odd actions by Oswald are the actions of an INNOCENT PATSY who never shot anyone prior to acting "scared" and "funny" on Jefferson Blvd.

3.) Oswald then sneaks into the theater without paying for the cheap ticket.

4.) Oswald then fights like mad with police in the theater, as he brandishes a fully-loaded revolver.

5.) Oswald makes one (or two) very incriminating statements in the theater: "This is it" and/or "It's all over now". Either statement reeks of a guilty state of mind. But to Jim DiEugenio, apparently the "IT" in both statements must mean something completely innocuous and innocent. He was perhaps terribly upset about having been caught sneaking into the theater to watch "War Is Hell" without buying a ticket??

And I didn't even mention the #1 thing that spells out "OSWALD WAS ACTING GUILTY OF SHOOTING JFK":

Oswald shoots and kills Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street.

But, these things were apparently just the norm for Lee Oswald. Just a regular mundane Friday for the TSBD worker. Meh.

Edited August 18, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

Oswald behaved like the guiltiest guy in Dallas?

Let us see: he catches a bus, a form of public transportation with witnesses to see him.

Gets off the bus and walks back to a bus terminal, where more witnesses can see him.

Hails a taxi, but attempts to give it up to an elderly lady. Just so she will remember him right, and he can then hang around the scene of the crime longer.

Yes, Jim, LHO acted like a guilty person.

Jim conveniently leaves out the these little tidbits (which apparently, to Jim D., are things that an INNOCENT PATSY would have done in a heartbeat):

1.) Oswald rushes into his roominghouse "in a hurry" [E. Roberts' testimony], picks up a gun, and rushes out of the room.

2.) Oswald is seen acting "funny" and "scared" [testimony of Jack Brewer] in front of Brewer's Hardy's shoe store. LHO is obviously trying to avoid the cop cars on Jefferson Blvd., but to Jim D., these odd actions by Oswald are the actions of an INNOCENT PATSY who never shot anyone prior to acting "scared" and "funny" on Jefferson Blvd.

3.) Oswald then sneaks into the theater without paying for the cheap ticket.

4.) Oswald then fights like mad with police in the theater, as he brandishes a fully-loaded revolver.

5.) Oswald makes one (or two) very incriminating statements in the theater: "This is it" and/or "It's all over now". Either statement reeks of a guilty state of mind. But to Jim DiEugenio, apparently the "IT" in both statements must mean something completely innocuous and innocent. He was perhaps terribly upset about having been caught sneaking into the theater to watch "War Is Hell" without buying a ticket??

And I didn't even mention the #1 thing that spells out "OSWALD WAS ACTING GUILTY OF SHOOTING JFK":

Oswald shoots and kills Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street.

But, these things were apparently just the norm for Lee Oswald. Just a regular mundane Friday for the TSBD worker. Meh.

So...Dave...a barely related question. If a black man accused of raping a white girl in the depression-era south killed a deputy sheriff while trying to run from a lynch mob, would you take that as a sign he'd actually raped the girl?

I wouldn't.

[David Von Pein]

To Martin Hay:

Why does Oswald feel it necessary to duck away from the police cars on Jefferson Boulevard if he had not just killed J.D. Tippit?

Or do you think Johnny Brewer was a xxxx?

[David Von Pein]

So...Dave...a barely related question. If a black man accused of raping a white girl in the depression-era south killed a deputy sheriff while trying to run from a lynch mob, would you take that as a sign he'd actually raped the girl?

No, I wouldn't.

However--if there had been about a dozen witnesses to the crime, who all made a positive identification of the culprit (as there were in the case of Oswald shooting Officer Tippit), then my answer to your question would be "Yes".

I have a feeling perhaps Pat Speer watched this motion picture last night. Is this what prompted the "rape" analogy? Great film too. And it was made when JFK was in the White House:

"To Kill A Mockingbird"

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/to-kill-mockingbird.html

Edited August 18, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Complete speculation and complete garbage. Everything you've written it utter crap.

Every single thing I wrote HERE is the 100% truth. They are FACTS.

But, as usual, FACTS = "COMPLETE GARBAGE" to an ABO conspiracy theorist.

Edited August 18, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

[Oswald] Hails a taxi, but attempts to give it up to an elderly lady. Just so she will remember him right, and he can then hang around the scene of the crime longer.

Jim DiEugenio evidently thinks JFK was killed at the Greyhound Bus Terminal. Interesting theory there.