Message From David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

25 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

So Mary Bledsoe's witness testimony was just confused.

I doubt that very much. I don't think Oswald changed his shirt at all at the roominghouse. And (quite obviously) the WC and the HSCA didn't think he did either.

Edited July 9, 2022 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

29 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Some believe Wes [Frazier's] handler is CIA asset Hugh Aynesworth. 

Did everybody connected with this case have a "handler", Ron?

Edited July 9, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Ron Bulman]

2 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Did everybody connected with this case have a "handler", Ron?

Do you?

[David Von Pein]

Just now, Ron Bulman said:

Do you?

Do I need one, Ron?

[Bill Brown]

On 7/1/2022 at 2:18 PM, Norman T. Field said:

No less than John Connelly did not believe in the 'magic' bullet and stated that he carried enough lead in his body for the rest of his life to personally disprove the single bullet theory. Even President Ford acknowledged to Valery Giscard d'Estaing that the magic bullet was a made up bit of theater. 

IMHO, anyone who continues to fervently espouse this nonsense is unworthy of membership in this forum. I fear the latest DVP experiment will end the same as previous encounters with him banned again for the same reasons. 

As Einstein stated, "doing the same thing over and over and expecting the results to be different is the definition of insanity". 

"...and stated that he carried enough lead in his body for the rest of his life to personally disprove the single bullet theory."

 

Cite please.

[Bill Brown]

On 7/1/2022 at 5:15 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

David,

The problem with your  analysis of Ruth Paine showing that she could not have been the one who placed Oswald at the TSBD (assuming that your analysis is the same as what others have said) is that it assumes that all those involved have testified truthfully.

Since it is possible for witnesses to lie and to be talked into lying (e.g. for national security reasons) then what you think if proof isn't proof at all.

There is a good deal of strong circumstantial evidence that requires Oswald being intentionally placed at the TSBD for the purpose of playing patsy in the assassination plot.

It is for that reason that I believe some of the witnesses lied about how Oswald got the job there.

 

In other words, when you do not like what the witness testimony tells you, ignore it and call them all  l i a r s.  Problem solved.

Edited July 9, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

On 7/1/2022 at 9:05 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

(BTW, JBC's shirt, on display in Texas, reveals a small bullet hole in its back---thus was struck by a non-tumbling bullet). 

 

 

The bullet hit Connally in the back, causing an 8mm x 15mm elliptical wound. This wound measurement proves that the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connally's back, proof that the bullet had passed through something else BEFORE hitting Connally in the back.

[Bill Brown]

On 7/1/2022 at 9:48 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

He just says that naturally he's gonna be in the building given that he works there. He doesn't say he was inside the building right when the motorcade past.

And now we know that in his interrogation, he said he was outside watching the presidential parade. His alibi was covered up, but discovered a few years ago.

Why did they cover up his alibi?

 

Reporter:  "Were you in that building at the time?"

 

Oswald:  "Naturally if I work in that building, yes Sir."

Edited July 9, 2022 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

On 7/5/2022 at 3:18 AM, David Von Pein said:

I think every reasonable person knows, deep down, that the film cannot possibly show Lee Oswald. Because if it did show Oswald, I'd have at least one or two news videos in my collection which include Oswald shouting to the world, "I was on the steps!"

Can there be any doubt at all that what I just said is absolutely true and makes total sense?

On film....

Oswald: "I work in that building."

Reporter: "Were you in that building at the time?"

Oswald: "Naturally if I work in that building, yes sir."

Therefore, Oswald was not out on the front steps or on the landing.

If Oswald was not out on the front steps or the landing, then he is not Prayer Man.

If Oswald was not Prayer Man, then who cares who Prayer Man was?

[Bill Brown]

On 7/5/2022 at 7:36 PM, Roger Odisio said:

I hesitate to answer your question about Oswald and a lawyer, David, because the answer is so obvious it feels like I'm being played.  But I'm new here so I will.

Any suspect has a constitutional right to remain silent and have the presence of an attorney because anything he says can be used against him in a court of law.  In the Miranda decision in 1966, the Supreme Court ruled that a suspect must be informed of those basic rights, which always existed, before he is questioned by authorities.  

Oswald was entitled to have a lawyer present during questioning.  He knew it.  He asked for one (I think more than once).  They kept questioning him. He  never did get a lawyer.  That was illegal.

Others have told stories--I think one was by the head of the local bar at the time--of trying to get to Oswald to offer their services only to be thwarted by the cops.  That was a further layer of illegality by the authorities, tho it's not necessary to establish their fundamental breaking of the law in the first instance.   

 

 

Oswald had a right to an attorney before the arraignment, yes.

 

But that is not to say that Oswald had a right to a court-appointed attorney before the arraignment. 

 

In 1963, the right to a court-appointed attorney before arraignment did not exist.  That is the difference.

[Bill Brown]

On 7/7/2022 at 7:24 PM, Roger Odisio said:

Try using a little logic.  You're a stranger.  You pass up all the all of the spots on either side of Elm St. from the corner on down to the underpass where the crowd is thin and the view is easy.  Instead you leave the street and push thru the pack of Depository employees on the steps and go to the back corner of the top step.  Into the shadows as it were.  Where you lose sight of the motorcade quickly as it starts down the hill.

Have you been on those steps?  I have.  The view is lousy; PM could not have seen the shots from there.

Add the fact that all employees on those steps answered no when asked if they saw any strangers among them, and I think you can conclude PM was an employee. 

The view from the front landing was not lousy if one is attempting to get a good view of the Presidential limo as it makes the turn from Houston onto Elm.

 

For some reason, you are acting like those on the landing were there for a view of the limo further down Elm.  Strange.

[Cory Santos]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Did everybody connected with this case have a "handler", Ron?

Lol.   Good one. 
The point is pm photo is so unclear unless it is Oswald then it has no value in exonerating him.   

Edited July 9, 2022 by Cory Santos

[Joe Bauer]

3 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

The bullet hit Connally in the back, causing an 8mm x 15mm elliptical wound. This wound measurement proves that the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connally's back, proof that the bullet had passed through something else BEFORE hitting Connally in the back.

True BB.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Oswald had a right to an attorney before the arraignment, yes.

 

But that is not to say that Oswald had a right to a court-appointed attorney before the arraignment. 

 

In 1963, the right to a court-appointed attorney before arraignment did not exist.  That is the difference.

Indeed, DPD only had to tell him he was entitled to have a lawyer present during questioning.  Nothing more at that point. 

What is a little odd is LHO seemed to always ask for a lawyer, not fully getting it that is was something he had to arrange himself ?  If we believe the reports some did offer to be his lawyer (or get him one), but he was being picky (contradictory to him asking for help).  Possibly - at that moment - he assumed he was "safe untill further notice"....  

All I heard and read on that, is strange... (just like the statement by the Pres. of the Dalles Bar Ass. ... but we will never know if LHO was the reason for this strange behaviour).  Everybody was thinking "somebody was doing something", while they were perhaps not.   Or was LHO betting on the wrong people to help him ?

Who actually DID something that actually resulted in help in for LHO when he was in prison ?    IMO nobody, I somehow I can understand most people would keep a distance (not wanting to be dragged into this), but lawyers... I would think he had a choice of those... or not, or was he indeed picky ?   

Many questions, and I believe we will never know what actually happened in the process of getting a lawyer.  

[Mark Tyler]

9 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

After my last post, I went to Robin Unger's excellent photo archive and downloaded this version of the "PM" picture (taken from Jimmy Darnell's WBAP-TV news film), and now I think I've changed my mind about the "forearm in sunlight" theory. When looking at the whole image, I don't think PM's arm is in sunlight at all. We can see where the shade/shadow ends, and we can see the sunlight shining on Buell Frazier's chest in this image. But it doesn't look like the forearm of "Prayer Man" is in the sunlight at all. All of PM seems to be in the shade.

I agree, I think PM is entirely in the shade.  If you look at the direction of the shadows of those on the street, you can see the direction of the sun, which confirms that the PM corner would be in the shade.

So it's agreed: it's short sleeves, or possibly rolled up long sleeves?