JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 93)


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "Explain Jackie's comments about this incident and the fact that she did crawl out onto the trunk lid. I want you to repeat the comment about her being a coward for all to read." <<<



DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

When did I ever call Jackie a "coward", Mr. Mega-Kook?

Jacqueline Kennedy was far from being a coward. She is (was) a woman
I hold in the highest of regards. She had more courage and strength in
November 1963 than 10,000 other people put together. She was incredible.

But in that car at 12:30, she obviously was in a panicked state....and
she was trying to get the hell out of the way of the falling, bloody
body in the back seat. It was a perfectly natural reaction to climb up
on that trunk. Mainly because there was NOPLACE ELSE SHE COULD HAVE
GONE. She had no other immediate "escape" hatch (except, of course,
for the heretofore-unknown "secret compartment" in the back of the
limo, per Brian Andersen; but maybe even Jackie didn't know about this
"compartment"; anyway, it was already occupied with JFK's "double",
remember).

But, in the final analysis, Jackie's trunk excursion is a lot to-do about
absolutely nothing. It means nothing. It solves nothing. It's a complete
non-issue, and always was. It's only meaningful to a conspiracy-thirsty
kook. So....drink up.


>>> "So before the "Urologist's" test we had the Veterinarian run test on skulls for us. This is the respect a dead president gets." <<<

What DIFFERENCE does it make WHO conducted the tests?? Those tests
(with HUMAN SKULLS, not only "melons") verified that a skull will travel
TOWARD THE SHOOTER after being struck with a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet.

Why does it matter WHO did the shooting in these tests? It could have
been Jerry Lewis or Shirley Temple or Beaver Cleaver who fired those
test shots...point is: the test skulls DID travel toward the shooter.

And, as I pointed out to you previously (but you will ignore this
powerful evidence just because you don't like the profession the
gunman who did the tests was in), every single one of Dr. Lattimer's
test skulls moved TOWARD THE GUNMAN. Every one.

"I wish to re-emphasize that none of our test objects in these experiments with melons and skulls ever jumped or fell off the stand AWAY from the shooter." -- John K. Lattimer; Page 251 of "Kennedy And Lincoln"

But, since Lattimer wasn't an "official ballistics expert", it means his
FILMED TESTS are to be tossed in the trash by kooks like Dr. Caprio.

Right, Super-Kook?

You can watch (and totally ignore or skew) one of Lattimer's tests HERE.
The skull moves toward the shooter.


>>> "It is easier to explain a duplicate/faked X-ray than to explain the Nix film, Z-film, Jackie, Dr. Jenkins, all the doctors/nurses at Parkland, the mortician, the embalmer, the men who photographed and X-rayed JFK, the attendants who put JFK in the casket at Parkland, Hill, Kellerman and the Chief Pathologist at Methodist are all wrong." <<<

No, not really. But you, embracing the nutty "Anybody But Oswald" scenario
that you seemingly love so much, cannot see how your argument above is
patently weak from a bona fide scientific standpoint. And that's because
you can't just merely say the X-ray shown below is "fake".



You've got to travel deeper into CT-ville and now contend that all of the
various photographic experts who looked at that X-ray after 11/22/63
and deemed it an "unaltered" non-faked X-ray picture of John F. Kennedy's
head are also liars (or that they all were totally incompetent when it came
to their skills at determining whether a particular image is "unaltered" or not).

You REALLY want to travel that far down Conspiracy Avenue, Robert?
Really?*

* = Silly question. Of course you want to travel that far down that
road. Because if you kooks were to actually admit that the above X-ray
of the right side of President Kennedy's head is real and authentic
and not faked in any way (which is the case, of course, per every
expert who looked at the X-ray for the HSCA)....you would then have to
admit the obvious -- which is: JFK did not have a great-big hole at
the far-right-rear portion of his head on November 22, 1963.

And what CT-Kook worth his salary would EVER want to admit to the
accuracy of that last sentence...I ask you?


>>> "Melons? Like melons act the same as a head attached to a human, please." <<<

It's my opinion that it's even MORE impressive and definitive to see a
NON-TETHERED object (melon or human skull) move toward the gunman
after being shot.

Why?

Because an object that isn't attached to a "neck" is probably going to
be even MORE LIKELY to move AWAY from the shooter when shot with a
high-speed bullet. Stands to reason, IMO.

But what happened in those many tests to UNTETHERED objects? They all
moved BACKWARD, toward the shooter, even though none of them was
attached to anything (like a human neck) that would have further
prohibited their FORWARD motion AWAY from the shooter.

So, the fact that none of these test skulls and melons were "attached"
to anything at all...and the fact that they STILL traveled toward the
shooter is even BETTER for the overall "Lone Assassin" position, in my view.

And no, I'm not a "ballistics expert" in this departmart...not even a
urologist or a vet. It's just a garden-variety observation on DVP's part,
coupled with what I think is just ordinary common sense as well.


>>> "To boot we throw in a Urologist to do the testing. Real sound stuff there. Penn & Teller, please." <<<

Yeah....Wyatt Earp and John Wayne would have been much better choices
to perform those skull and melon tests. Because I'm sure that a skull hit
from behind by "The Duke" would have acted MUCH differently than one that
was hit by just some worthless/useless "urologist". Right, Mr. Mega-Kook?

David Von Pein
December 17, 2007







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 92)


ROB CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "You obviously have not read about or seen the Nix film." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Rob actually thinks I've never seen Orville Nix's film. ~chuckle~


>>> "[The Nix Film] shows very clearly that [Jackie Kennedy] is reaching for a piece of skull on the back portion of the automobile." <<<

The Nix Film shows the exact same thing that the Zapruder Film shows.
Except that the Z-Film shows it much, much better and clearer and
closer.

But, again...so what? Who really cares? It's a complete non-issue when
the "sum total" of evidence that CTers refuse to face is placed next
to Jackie's "trunk" action (alone).

(Didn't you even read why I wrote about this earlier, and why it's a
total non-issue, like most of the silly things propped up as
meaningful by you conspiracy mongers?)


>>> "Clint Hill saw this as well and told the WC that it appeared to him that Mrs. Kennedy was, "reaching for something" (II, 138) flying over the rear of the automobile." <<<

Yep. And I fully acknowledged Hill's statement along those lines in my
earlier post on this matter.

Again, so what?


>>> "What else do you think would make Mrs. Kennedy get up and crawl to the back of a moving car with shots being fired? I can't think of anything, how about you?" <<<

Yeah, I can think of one tiny little thing that might make Jacqueline
Bouvier Kennedy react in such a manner --- THE BLOODY HEAD OF HER
HUSBAND WAS FALLING DIRECTLY TOWARD HER IN THE BACK SEAT!

Think that MIGHT make a person want to initially GET THE HELL OUT OF
THE WAY OF THE FALLING BODY? I do.

But evidently, per you kooks, within literally TWO SECONDS of seeing
her husband shot in the head a few inches from her own body, Jackie's
ONLY thought during those horrifying seconds was to retrieve a chunk
of skull on the trunk.


>>> "The blowout occurs with the EXIT area of the wound." <<<

Yep. (And "Duh!" too.)

And the EXIT wound on John Kennedy's head was just where the official
autopsy X-ray (shown below) suggests it is -- at the RIGHT-FRONT
portion of the head.

And just look at the BACK part of JFK's head in the X-ray below (which
would be the area of the head on the LEFT side of the X-ray picture).
Not a sign of a hole anywhere.

In fact, the fracture lines that radiate from the larger wound in the
right-front of the head are not even all that extensive at the RIGHT-
REAR portion of the head at all (at least any such radiating "fracture
lines" are certainly not very noticeable in this "Right Side Of The
Head" X-ray at any rate).

Which is pretty doggone amazing if the BACK part of Kennedy's skull
had been totally BLASTED AWAY, as most of you conspiracy kooks believe
was the case. And this X-ray has not been "faked":



"The [House Select] committee did, however, subject the autopsy photographs and X-rays to scientific analysis. These examinations by the committee's consultants established the inaccuracy of the Parkland observations. The experts concluded that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were authentic and unaltered, confirming the observations of the autopsy personnel and providing additional support for the conclusions of the medical consultants." -- HSCA Report; Volume VII


>>> "In other words, the force of the bullet leaving causes the skull, blood, tissue and matter to go in the SAME direction as the exit direction. If the skull is blown backwards, then the shot came from the front." <<<

Tell that to all of the many people who have conducted tests with
rifle bullets being shot into human skulls who have proved EXACTLY THE
OPPOSITE of what you just said about the direction a skull will move
when shot.

The test skulls of John Lattimer's ALL moved toward the direction of
the shooter. Every single one (of many). .....

"Combinations of human skull tops and melons were tested, and, again, all fell backward off the stand toward the shooter. No melon or skull combination ever fell AWAY from the shooter. .... I wish to re-emphasize that none of our test objects in these experiments with melons and skulls ever jumped or fell off the stand AWAY from the shooter." -- Dr. John K. Lattimer; Page 251 of "KENNEDY AND LINCOLN" (c.1980)

http://www.Amazon.com/DVP Review

========

And prior to Lattimer's skull tests, there were Dr. Olivier's tests
done for the Warren Commission in '64, which produced results very
similar to Lattimer's and closely resembled JFK's actual head wound
after a test skull was shot from behind. Let's listen:

DR. ALFRED G. OLIVIER -- "This is the [test] skull in question [CE861]..."

ARLEN SPECTER -- "And what does that show as to damage done to the skull?"

DR. OLIVIER -- "It blew the whole side of the cranial cavity away."

MR. SPECTER -- "How does that compare, then, with the damage inflicted on President Kennedy?"

DR. OLIVIER -- "Very similar. I think they stated the length of the defect, the missing skull was 13 centimeters if I remember correctly. .... In this [test] case, it is greater, but you don't have the limiting scalp holding the pieces in, so you would expect it to fly a little more; but it is essentially a similar type wound."

========

INSTANT REPLAY.....

>>> "If the skull is blown backwards, then the shot came from the
front." <<<


Again, tell that to the late Dr. Lattimer, who proved just the opposite. Or,
you can call up Penn & Teller and call them liars too. They conducted
an on-camera rifle test (with a melon, since neither Rob nor Jim Fetzer would
volunteer to get into the line of fire for the test, darn-it!)...and guess which
direction the melon fell? [See video below.]

video

"Second gunman?....my achin' ass."


>>> "Anything is possible, but this is not very likely." <<<

Especially if a man named "Oswald" is suspected of anything more than
jaywalking on 11/22/63...right Mr. Conspiracy?


>>> "There is no way [JFK] could have been shot from behind, and yet have a piece of skull from the front of his head go back that far against the force of the exit area pressure." <<<

Even though we KNOW (and can SEE) that his head is thrown violently to
the REAR just after the head shot, huh? (After the initial FORWARD head
movement, of course, which indicates the shot struck him from BEHIND.)

But, Dr. Caprio has spoken! So I guess we must yield to his superior
knowledge as an expert in this field.


>>> "[Jackie] could have put [a skull fragment imagined by kooks to have been retrieved by Jackie off of the trunk] on her lap. This is not real hard to imagine." <<<

Nor is the much-more-likely-to-be-true (and much-more-sensible)
scenario of Jackie gaining possession of a skull fragment while trying
to hold JFK's head together.


>>> "You need to think up better rebuttals." <<<


Why? Mine work just fine. They totally destroy your conspiracy-
flavored nonsense each and every time. Why on Earth would I need
anything "better" to embarrass you with?

You, OTOH, should think about coming up with some better kook
arguments. Your current crop only displays your utter lack of
knowledge in virtually all aspects of this case (and, of course,
displays your lack of ordinary common sense, to boot).

But, then too, almost all CT-Kooks jettison their common sense once
they start talking about this assassination. That's a very curious
"across-the-kook-board" occurrence.

And your arguments above about the direction a skull will positively
move after being shot only further entrench you in the "ignorant"
category. Congrats.

David Von Pein
December 16, 2007




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 91)


http://Amazon.com/forum

http://Amazon.com/forum


RICHARD VAN NOORD SAID:

>>> "David, let's get to the best witness, shall we? .... Jackie Kennedy's direct Warren Commission testimony, the testimony NOT redacted: "I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was NOTHING --- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." (My emphasis)" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yep. That's what Jackie said alright. I know that. And although her
testimony is far from being crystal-clear with respect to the
locations of JFK's wounds, it sounds to me like she's describing a
hole at the FRONT part of the head, not the rear.

Why would these words make anyone think that Jackie was describing a
huge hole at the BACK of her husband's cranium? --- "From the front
there was nothing."



>>> "Clearly, she was trying to hold his skull on IN THE BACK." <<<

At best, her words are muddled and ambiguous. The Warren Commission
wasted a golden opportunity with Jackie to get some things settled
with respect to JFK's head wounds.


>>> "When she climbed on to the back of the limo, she grabbed a piece of her husband's skull." <<<

There's no proof of that at all. Jackie never even remembered going
onto the trunk.

Yes, it was Clint Hill's opinion that Jackie was, indeed, reaching for
something on the trunk. But so what? We can see her doing her
"reaching" right on the Z-Film. Everybody can see that. But it looks
to me like she's trying to keep from losing her balance.




Plus, there are these two things to consider with respect to the
"Jackie On The Trunk" issue.....

1.) Even if she DID grab a piece of JFK's head on the trunk, it's
really another "So what?" type of thing. Why? Because we know that
JFK's head DOES, indeed, snap BACKWARD sharply immediately after
going FORWARD about 2 inches or so at the critical POINT OF IMPACT
from Z312 to Z313.

Therefore, since we know his head is snapping BACKWARD (i.e., TOWARD
THE TRUNK OF THE CAR), it's certainly possible (but not provable) that
a chunk of his just-blasted-open head was thrown onto the trunk lid as
a result of that BACKWARD head movement that is observed after his
head goes initially forward after being hit from BEHIND by Lee Harvey
Oswald's bullet.

So a shot from BEHIND Kennedy could certainly have resulted in a piece
of his head ending up BEHIND him as well, given the violent rearward
movement of his head after he was shot.

Plus, we know that the FBI's Robert Frazier testified that blood and
brain tissue was literally ALL OVER that car (inside and outside) when
it was examined at the White House garage on November 22-23, 1963.

2.) If Jackie really did pick up a piece of JFK's head on that trunk,
then WHAT DID SHE DO WITH IT during the 5-minute high-speed drive to
Parkland Hospital as she was ALSO using her hands to try to "hold his
hair on"?

Did she put the grisly piece of skull in her pocket or something? In
her pillbox hat? Or is it the contention of conspiracy theorists that
she grabbed the piece of skull off of the trunk lid and held onto it
in one hand all the way to Parkland, while she used that same hand
(and I can only assume that she was using BOTH of her hands here) to
try and "hold" the President's "skull on" during the drive to the
hospital?

A more reasonable explanation, IMO, is that while she was in the
process of attempting to hold the skull of JFK together, a piece of
loose skull or brain tissue came off in her hands...and it was this
piece of skull she gave to a Parkland doctor inside the hospital.

YMMV. But it really won't matter, because I've got the autopsy report
(which definitively states that JFK was shot just twice, and only from
"behind and above"), the proven-unaltered photos of JFK at autopsy,
and my #1 item above in this particular "Jackie On The Trunk" sub-
topic discussion, which can never be totally debunked by CTers either.
But good luck trying.


>>> "She [Jackie] held it and gave it [to] attendants at Parkland." <<<

She actually gave the skull fragment to Dr. Marion T. (Pepper)
Jenkins, not to "attendants".


>>> "DPD officer Bobby Hargis was hit with piece of the President's brain. He was back and to the left of JFK." <<<

So what? See above. The President's brain tissue and blood were
spraying out in virtually EVERY direction after he was shot. The spray
goes several feet up into the air, for Pete sake. Plus, there's the
likelihood that the wind blew some of this up-in-the-air debris right
directly toward Officer Hargis and Officer Martin (the wind was said
to have been blowing in such a direction that day).

Think up something else. This argument about Hargis and the "Jackie
Retrieves A Skull Piece" argument are moribund (at best).


>>> "Please explain to me how the cerebellum leaked onto the gurney at Parkland." <<<

It didn't. No "cerebellum" was seen by anybody. During Dr. Boswell's
1996 ARRB session, we find this exchange taking place (CTers have to
believe that Boswell was lying through his teeth here):


DR. BOSWELL -- "In Dallas, they had said that the cerebellum was the
part of the brain that was injured and exuding. But they were wrong,
because the cerebellum is enclosed in a dural sort of compartment, and
in order to get the cerebellum out, you have to cut the dura around,
and then you--that's the only hard part about getting the brain out.
And the manner in which we were doing it, both the cerebral
hemispheres were already exposed without dura, and it was really very
simple to take out."

QUESTION -- "During the course of the autopsy, did you have an
opportunity to examine the cerebellum?"

DR. BOSWELL -- "Yes."

QUESTION -- "And was there any damage to the cerebellum that you
noticed during the time of the autopsy?"

DR. BOSWELL -- "No."

QUESTION -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
were intact?"

DR. BOSWELL -- "Yes."


>>> "David, if the bullet blew the front of JFKs head off, why no brain or tissue matter on Connally, Nellie, Greer or Kellerman?" <<<

~sigh~

Are you nuts? Nellie and John Connally always said in interviews that
they were covered with brain matter after the head shot.

JOHN CONNALLY SAID:

"Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see
on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain
tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my
trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my
thumb."


NELLIE CONNALLY SAID:

"The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot
falling all over us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was
the matter, brain tissue, or whatever, just human matter, all over the
car and both of us."

==========

Why aren't you aware of any of this basic stuff, Richard? John and
Nellie Connally, in probably dozens of interviews they gave after
1963, always said the very same thing about being showered with JFK's
head debris. You've actually never seen ANY of those many interviews
with either Nellie or JBC? Very curious.


>>> "Also, why doesn't the magic bullet, having caused all that damage and having gone through 17 pieces of clothing, have ZERO fabric striations on it?" <<<

"Fabric striations"?? And "17 pieces of clothing"?? WTF?? That must be
a new one pulled out of the "Conspiracy Kook" files, huh Richard? Never
heard that one before. (Just more chaff for the kooks to chew on, no doubt.)

But I did hear a brand-new theory just yesterday, which is being self-
promoted around the Internet here in December 2007 by the theory's
evidently very loony author (Brian David Andersen). And it's a theory
that Richard Van Noord (or Dean Jackson) might not even be able to
swallow (incredible as that might seem) ---

Andersen's new book "My God, I'm Hit!" purports that JFK wasn't shot
in the head AT ALL on 11/22/63. Instead, Kennedy faked his own demise
during the "incident" on Elm Street.

(Just when you thought the kooks couldn't sink any further into
absurdity, huh?)


>>> "A little wheat from the chaff, of course." <<<


As I've said for a long time, it's the CT-Kooks who are the experts at
latching onto the chaff and ignoring the wheat field right before
their orbs. Your "Jackie On Trunk" and "Hargis" chaff-like items above
are two prime examples of this.

You'd think that you kooks would start gagging on all that chaff after
44 years....but I guess conspiracists must think it's extremely tasty,
since they devour a steady diet of it daily. (Go figure.)

David Von Pein
December 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (DECEMBER 15, 2007)



JFK'S ASSASSINATION:
NBC-TV COVERAGE


PART 1:




PART 2:















HQ RAW FILES:



THE "LOST" BULLETINS:




PHOTOS:



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


RELATED LINKS:
















THE JFK ASSASSINATION: AS IT HAPPENED
(ABC-TV & WFAA-TV COVERAGE)










=========================




THE JFK ASSASSINATION: AS IT HAPPENED
(WFAA-RADIO COVERAGE)
(DALLAS, TEXAS)






video



===========================











THE JFK ASSASSINATION: AS IT HAPPENED
(KILT-RADIO COVERAGE)
(HOUSTON, TEXAS)









=============================











THE JFK ASSASSINATION: AS IT HAPPENED
(WCCO-RADIO COVERAGE)
(MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA)






video



video



video








DVP vs. DiEUGENIO
(PART 71)


http://EducationForum.com


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Anyone who sees these pitiful displays or reads the column I wrote about him will understand that he [David Von Pein] is not a guy to be trusted with the factual record. Since he has a full blasted, fuel injected, liquid rocket agenda which twists and turns every fact to favor the WC. And never places anything in context." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, brother.

Let me repeat that, because just once isn't NEARLY enough to absord the utter hypocrisy of that "never places anything in context" statement made above by Mr. DiEugenio:

Oh, brotherrrrrr!


>>> "DVP has become so discredited that he now goes under false names. (Which he denies of course.)" <<<

I deny it because it's nothing but an outright lie. And it always was an outright lie. And even YOU know it's a lie, James. Even YOU have never referred to me on Len Osanic's weekly Anybody-But-Oswald Internet radio program as anyone other than who I am (DVP) -- except for that one time in late 2008, when Osanic had you nearly convinced that I was Dave Reitzes. But you later came to learn that I am not Mr. Reitzes.

So why are you playing the "false names" card now? You know it's a lie (originally invented by a really strange conspiracy loon named David G. Healy at alt.conspiracy.jfk, who took it upon himself to start believing that I was numerous different people who posted messages at that newsgroup).

Anyway, Jim, thanks for allowing me to get under your skin (yet again). More LNers should try it.

And if there is anyone in this world who fails to put things in the proper "context" (or "whole") regarding the JFK murder case, it is certainly a school teacher in Los Angeles named James DiEugenio, whose middle name should be "piecemeal", because that's how he treats all issues of the JFK case. He isolates everything and never ever sees fit to provide us with a coherent, reasonable "totality" or "whole" that would justify the utterly screwy things he seems to believe.

Which is undoubtedly why he has decided to almost totally ignore (to a large degree) some of the biggest areas of concern in the whole case -- e.g., The actual scene of the crime in Dealey Plaza and Lee Harvey Oswald's own incriminating actions and statements on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63.

Jim is on record, in fact, saying that lately he doesn't really care too much about the "Who?" or the "How?" or the "How many gunmen were involved?" questions regarding JFK's murder. Those things aren't nearly as important to nail down when compared with ultra-important questions like these (paraphrasing):

"What happened to that envelope that Oswald supposedly mailed to Seaport?"

"Why does Capt. Fritz perform that little 'underhanded wave' just before Oswald is shot by Ruby?"

"Why didn't the Dallas cops pluck the five unfired bullets from Oswald's pocket during the 'fast frisk' in the Texas Theater?"

"Why didn't the FBI go to the Railway Express office to check the records about Oswald's revolver purchase?"

"How do we know Oswald ever purchased any bullets at all to put into his rifle or his revolver?"

"How do we know that that is REALLY Oswald's own signature in the hotel's register in Mexico City? Just because a whole bunch of handwriting 'experts' tell us it's his? Horse hockey! I think it's fake! To hell with the 'experts'!"

"How do we know that's REALLY Oswald's writing on ALL of the various documents for the rifle and revolver purchases? Just because a gob of handwriting 'experts' say so? Nonsense! I say ALL of those documents have been manufactured and are frauds! And TO HELL with the 'experts' who say otherwise!"

"How do we know that all of JFK's autopsy photographs and X-rays are REALLY legitimate? Just because 20 or so 'experts' on an HSCA panel say so? Fiddlesticks! I say they're all fakes! I couldn't care less what some Government shills tell me!"


====================

And when Jimbo does decide to talk about anything having to do with the scene of the crime (the TSBD and Dealey Plaza), we get gems like this beaut from Jimmy:

"I'm not even sure they [the real killers of JFK, not Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally] were on the sixth floor [of the Book Depository]. I mean, they might have been. But what's the definitive evidence that the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth floor, they could have been at the other [west] end. .... And I've always suspected there was a sniper in the Dal-Tex Building." -- James DiEugenio; February 11, 2010 (Black Op Radio)


And a few more of my favorites from DiEugenio's lips are these gut-busters below:

"I don't think [Howard] Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 27, 2010 (Black Op Radio)


"Specter and Humes understood that the probe was gonna be a big problem. They thought the photographs would never be declassified. So Specter made up this B.S. story about the strap muscles, never knowing that that story was going to be exposed." -- James DiEugenio; July 16, 2009 (Black Op Radio)


"Somebody else might have done it [burned the first draft of the autopsy report and Dr. Humes' blood-stained notes]. .... Today, I think that's what really happened. I think that that whole thing about burning the notes...was just a cover story." -- James DiEugenio; December 11, 2008 (Black Op Radio)


"The story of this (these) paper bag(s), Wesley Frazier, his sister, and the curtain rods can be challenged every single step of the way. .... By the early evening of [November] 22nd [1963], the DPD had very little besides the notorious Howard Brennan. Shaky eye witness Howard Brennan couldn't be relied upon to put Oswald on the sixth floor. As Police Chief Jesse Curry later admited [sic], they had no one who put Oswald in the building with a gun in his hand. Therefore, they needed Frazier and his "Oswald carrying a package" story." -- James DiEugenio; In Part 6 of his Bugliosi review


"I have minimized the testimony of Linnie Mae [Randle]. I do so because in my view it is highly questionable." -- James DiEugenio; Part 6 of Bugliosi review


I've archived lots more of Jimmy's fantasies HERE.


In summary -- Given the above examples that illustrate some of the incredibly silly and flat-out ridiculous things that Jim believes, I cannot see how anyone with any logic or common sense (or true facts about the JFK assassination by their side) can take anything that is uttered by Mr. James DiEugenio seriously at all.

And yet, with his Hypocrisy Button set on "full speed ahead", Jim claims that I am the one exhibiting a "full blasted, fuel injected, liquid rocket agenda which twists and turns every fact".

Amazing.

David Von Pein
November 29, 2011



DVP vs. DiEUGENIO
(PART 70)


NOTE -- A few other conspiracy theorists besides Jim DiEugenio also contribute to this 70th "DVP vs. DiEUGENIO" installment.


http://EducationForum.com


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jimmy [DiEugenio],

The proof that Oswald picked up the revolver, regardless of where he picked it up, is the undeniable fact that Mr. Oswald had Revolver V510210 in his hands when he was arrested in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63.

Duh!


LEE FARLEY THEN INTERJECTED WITH:

Of course he did. He tried to shoot Nick McDonald, didn't he? And there was an indent on the primer of the shell, wasn't there?


DAVID VON PEIN THEN SAID:

And the two NON-POE bullet shells found at the Tippit murder scene match the gun that you conspiracy clowns want to take out of LHO's hands.

Given that FACT, now try to pretend Oswald was innocent of shooting Tippit, Lee. (I'm sure you'll find a way, though, no matter how much real evidence [and witnesses] you have to toss in the trash.)


LEE FARLEY SAID:

Yeah, Dave. The same gun he tried, unsuccessfully, to shoot Nick McDonald with in the Theater. The same gun that didn't go off and left an indent on one of the shells.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So what? Who cares?

Oswald's V510210 gun was obviously in perfect working order at approx. 1:14-1:15 PM when he plugged Officer Tippit four times with it.

But, as always, hard-nosed conspiracists always prefer to concentrate on meaningless chaff, instead of focusing on the wheat field that is Oswald's guilt.


TIME FOR A COMMON-SENSE BREAK:

video



LEE FARLEY SAID:


Helen Markham's regular bus had long gone by 1:14pm.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Untrue.


LEE FARLEY SAID:

And how did the indent disappear that the arresting officers saw and wrote about in their official reports and discussed with the media?

Maybe you can call Max Holland? Perhaps he knows what happened to the lost indent?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Do you have any idea WHY this chaff matters in the slightest degree when it comes to proving Oswald's guilt in Tippit's slaying?

You REALLY think the cops switched guns? AND switched the bullet shells that littered Tenth & Patton?

Therefore, if the above things were true, the Dallas cops couldn't have cared less about Tippit's real killer getting away. They were concerned only with framing an innocent man named Oswald for the death of their fellow officer.

Come now, Lee, you don't REALLY believe that kind of silliness, do you?


LEE FARLEY SAID:

Dave, go and get yourself a handful of turkey fat and shove your copy of Reclaiming History up your hoop.

It matters. Just not to someone so ideologically corrupt as yourself.

Helen Marham's regular bus was 1:12pm.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, it doesn't matter.

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/J.D. Tippit


LEE FARLEY SAID:

I already said it doesn't matter to you. Because you are ideologically corrupt. I wrote it right there in my post you replied to, Dave.

1:12pm.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It doesn't matter--period (as far as being able to determine whether or not your prized patsy murdered two people with his own guns on 11/22/63, that is).


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Maybe you missed this one. But there are three more coming up on [John] McAdams' joke of a book.

Let me make this point, because DVP does not have the guts to do so.

There is no proof that Oswald ever picked up the revolver in question.

None.

In fact, the preponderance of the evidence indicates he did not.

One of the silliest arguments I ever saw is DVP saying that the USPS kept a special box for people picking up merchandise from private carriers. HA HA HA

He then switched to Oswald picking it up at REA [Railway Express Agency]. He did not realize he was boxed in on this one.

Because there is no evidence the FBI ever went to REA to check on this. None.

That is because Oswald never went to REA.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, since there's no official record of Oswald having gone to the REA office to pick up the revolver (which is a revolver that we know beyond all doubt that he definitely ordered; Jimbo's absurd protests notwithstanding), this must mean, per DiEugenio, that Oswald couldn't possibly have gone to REA to get the gun.

Brilliant, Jim.

Via that tortured logic, then whenever a person does something that is not witnessed by someone else (or was not investigated by anybody in order to seek out anyone who saw it occurring), I guess this would mean that the thing the person did never really got done, because nobody was there to see it or verify its happening.

Jim, you continue to be one of the best jokes on the World Wide Web when it comes to the topic of President Kennedy's assassination.


ED LeDOUX SAID:

Excellent summation, Jim.

Where there is smoke there is fire, and this thread is HOT!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, this thread (as I mentioned before) is useless and worthless. Merely started to cast doubt about something of which there is NO DOUBT -- Oswald took possession of Revolver V510210. We KNOW he did, because that SAME GUN was in his hands in the theater.

Why this stuff is even debated is a mystery to me. (Well, really it's not much of a mystery after you've hung around conspiracy boards like this one for a while. CTers want Oswald to be innocent of ALL murders he committed on 11/22/63. Simple as that.)

Maybe DiEugenio missed this book review [which is no longer there ... sigh ... but at least I copied an excerpt from it before it disappeared forever into cyber heaven].

[Excerpt:]

"John McAdams’ book is the final nail in the coffin of conspiracy theorists who have grabbed the attention of the mainstream media for far too long—mainly because the media understands all too well how the public loves a mystery. If John McAdams’ book is read in conjunction with the excellent books mentioned earlier in this review the JFK assassination will be no mystery at all."
-- Mel Ayton


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Quoting Mel Ayton praising McAdams is like quoting you praising Bugliosi.


GREG PARKER SAID:

More spin than even the great Abdul Qadir could muster.

I have been monitoring media stories during this anniversary. The vast majority came under 4 categories:

[Stephen] King's book
The Lost Bullet documentary
Praise for Posner & Bugliosi and/or ridicule of conspiracy theories
The giving of an award to Johnny Brewer

Most of the remainder were simple remembrances of the event ("where were you when?" type pieces...).

Those that actually came out in support of a conspiracy could be counted on one hand.

But as usual, you guys won't let the facts get in the way of your propaganda.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Mel Ayton used the wrong term in his book review, IMO, because the "mainstream media" (CBS, ABC, NBC, etc.) is certainly overwhelmingly in favor of Oswald's lone guilt, which is obviously the correct conclusion, of course.

What Mel probably should have said instead of "mainstream" media is just "media" in general, plus book writers, movie producers, documentary filmmakers, and the Internet. Given those parameters, Mel's comment that I quoted earlier would be spot-on correct.

It's interesting that you cited that quote and responded the way you did, Greg, because just yesterday I added that same quote of Mr. Ayton's to my "Quoting Common Sense" website, but I left out the part about the "mainstream media", because I agree with you on that point--the MSM isn't pro-conspiracy at all.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:


As per the DPD being proof that Oswald picked up the revolver, Davey Boy, did the DPD go to REA to check on any witnesses or receipts that Oswald left behind?

Please point out when and where this happened.

They were too busy scaring the heck out of Wesley Frazier over his Enfield.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why on Earth would the Dallas Police Department have needed to go to the Railway Express office to confirm Oswald picked up the revolver, when Oswald had that very same gun in his hands when he was arrested in the theater?

Regardless of HOW and WHEN that gun made its way into Oswald's hands on 11/22/63, the undeniable fact is that it DID make it into his hands on November 22nd in the Texas Theater.

DiEugenio's theories are so bizarre that you'd have to be a resident of R.P. McMurphy's cuckoo's nest to even begin to believe them.


LEE FARLEY SAID:

Your logic goes something like this:

We know Oswald shot Tippit because he was caught with the revolver in his hand at the Theater, and if we know he shot Tippit then we know he shot him between 1:14-1:15 because any sooner and he wouldn't have been humanly able to get there, and we know he got there because we know he shot him, and if we know he shot him then we know that Helen Markham's regular bus didn't take her to work every day at 1:12pm.

And you've got the neck on you to suggest other members of this forum should be in an insane asylum.

I should hope this is the end of the "untrue" matter! Because you are full of crap, Davey.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You are the one who is "full of crap", Lee Farley.

Mrs. Helen Markham wasn't due at work at her job at the "Eat Well Restaurant" until 2:30 PM on 11/22/63.

2:30 PM, Lee. That gave her plenty of time to get to work on time even if she missed the bus at 1:12. The busses left every ten minutes along that route on Jefferson Boulevard. So she could have easily gotten on the 1:22 bus and had ample time to get to her job before 2:30 (even if she normally did want to make the 1:12 bus each day).

And I'd be willing to bet you my next disinfo check that Mrs. Markham didn't always make the 1:12 bus every day.

Why do I say that?

Because the fact is -- She simply didn't NEED to make the specific 1:12 bus in order to get to work by 2:30.

I'd wager that there were many days when she had to settle for the 1:22 bus, or the 1:32....which would still give her plenty of time to get to work by 2:30 (even if the bus was practically crawling every step of the way).

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

HELEN MARKHAM -- "Eat Well Restaurant, 1404 Main Street, Dallas, Tex."

JOE BALL -- "Were you working there on November 22, 1963?"

MARKHAM -- "I was."

BALL -- "What hours did you work?"

MARKHAM -- "I was due at work from 2:30 in the evening until 10:30 at night."
*

* = Mrs. Markham really meant to say "2:30 in the afternoon", of course, since 2:30 PM is far from being "in the evening". But I would imagine that some conspiracy theorists want to bite her head off for making that simple error.


video



LEE FARLEY SAID:

Let me say this reeeeeeeeal sloooooow for you.

Markham had a regular bus. The regular bus was 1:12. She said (UNDER OATH) that she left at her regular time so she could catch her regular bus. Got that? What is it that you fail to grasp on this point?

I don't give a flying rat's ass what you believe about whether she could have gotten a later bus. Keep what you believe to yourself.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It'd be nice if you would follow that same advice. Because the things you believe should, indeed, be kept to yourself (due to their built-in silliness).


LEE FARLEY SAID:

How do you know she [Markham] didn't mean to say she was due at work at 1:30 in the afternoon? Do you have the Dobb's timekeeping records under your pillow? But don't worry. It's irrelevant. She told us what time she left for work. A little after 1:00pm.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And "a little after 1:00" perfectly fits with Markham witnessing Oswald killing Tippit at 1:14-1:15.

And if she really meant "1:30", then her "in the evening" comment is even more absurd, because 1:30 is even further away from "evening" than is 2:30. (Maybe Farley didn't think of that angle, though.)

It's interesting that it doesn't bother CTers like Lee Farley that Markham's positive IDing of LHO is corroborated by the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (the bullet shells from LHO's gun, which are shells that prove LHO was the killer, since he still had that same gun on him 35 minutes later).

So, what do the conspiracy clowns do (as always) -- they'll blame the DPD, and say they switched the shells. And they'll even go so far down Patsy Avenue as to pretend that the cops PLANTED Revolver V510210 on Oswald (or just entered that gun into the evidence chain later on).

That's how far off the rails a person needs to go in order to buy into the notion that Lee Oswald was innocent of killing Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.

But Lee Farley is perfectly willing to go that far off the rails. And he has. (What a surprise.)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

[John] McAdams said that there were two types of handgun bullets found on Oswald after his arrest. Wrong. There were only Remingtons. But guess what? When the police frisked Oswald at the Texas Theater, they found nothing--no bullets. The only place Oswald ever went after was the police station. So we can guess where those came from. The most corrupt police force in America at the time.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dead wrong. Both Remington-Peters bullets and Winchester-Western bullets were in the possession of Oswald when he was arrested.

Sure, only one brand was in Oswald's pocket, but HIS GUN was loaded with an even mix of both Remingtons and Winchesters. (Which, of course, is what John McAdams meant. And it's unbelievable that DiEugenio wouldn't realize that that is what McAdams meant.)

And why on Earth you think the cops would have wanted to pluck the unfired bullets from Oswald's pants pocket during the so-called "fast frisk" is anybody's guess. That's just stupid. The initial frisk of Oswald was obviously to make sure he didn't have any other WEAPONS on his person. Why would they care if he had any extra BULLETS in his pocket at that moment in time? Answer: They wouldn't.

Do you think the cops should have been worried about Oswald having some loose bullets in his pocket AFTER he had been disarmed? Was he going to throw the bullets at the cops in an attempt to kill them or something (even after he was handcuffed)?

The five unfired bullets being in Oswald's pocket after he was stripped of his gun were about as much of a concern to the DPD at that time as the thirteen dollars and eighty-seven cents that was also in his pocket at the same time. The $13.87 was just about as dangerous.

Hence, the bullets in Oswald's pocket weren't removed until later (along with the $13.87 and other items). And the cops probably didn't even realize he had any unfired bullets in his pocket during the initial frisk anyway, because (as mentioned) they were frisking him for GUNS -- not small bullets.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Smell that stench, Davy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, the stench is pretty potent. And it's all coming from your computer. The way you will twist the facts to pretend LHO didn't kill Tippit stinks to high heaven. And always has. Your delusional paranoia has reached its zenith.

And I'll ask again --- What about Callaway, Jimmy? You still want to ignore him? Or call him a liar? (Bet ya do. Because to accept Callaway is to admit that Oswald was a gunman at the Tippit murder scene. And that would never do, would it Jimmy?)


LEE FARLEY SAID:

You'll always be haunted by the fact that Helen Markham left her house between 1:04-1:07pm and T.F. Bowley's watch will, for the rest of time, be at 1:10pm when he looked at it.

Which means Tippit was killed between 1:07pm and 1:09pm. And that being the case, Oswald didn't do it and your stinking and so-called best evidence is shown up for what it truly is -- fraudulent.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It doesn't mean anything of the sort, Lee.

Since ALL of the times associated with Oswald's movements after he fled the Book Depository are merely ESTIMATES (and, undeniably, they ARE only estimates and approximations), we cannot say with 100% certainty that Earlene Roberts' timing of how long Oswald stayed inside his Beckley Avenue room is spot-on perfect.

In fact, common sense, coupled with some of Mrs. Roberts' own testimony, would indicate that Oswald was only in his room for a very few seconds--one minute at most. Here's why I say that.

So, even if Tippit was killed at 1:07 or 1:09 (or whatever time close to 1:00 you want to come up with), we're really only talking about a very few minutes in real time here. Oswald might very well have left his roominghouse BEFORE 1:00 PM, which would have placed him at Tenth & Patton earlier than 1:14-1:15.

My own opinion (coupled with the excellent and detailed research done on the Tippit murder by author Dale K. Myers) is that Tippit was probably killed at 1:14 to 1:15 PM. But it could conceivably have been earlier, because (as noted) the timing of Lee Harvey Oswald's movements after 12:30 PM is not firmly fixed in stone. And it never was. We can only guess as to the EXACT times.

But, in the final analysis of J.D. Tippit's murder, the hard physical evidence simply HAS to trump all other evidence.

And just because conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio and Lee Farley want to believe that the physical evidence in the Tippit case is "fraudulent" (to use Farley's own term), that doesn't mean that everybody is required to accept such far-fetched notions.

And it's a particularly far-fetched notion in the Tippit case, due to the fact that a DPD officer had been slain. Therefore, according to the theories of people like DiEugenio and Farley, apparently a bunch of cops in charge of investigating the murder of their fellow officer, decided to just IGNORE the real evidence at the scene and, instead, they decided they were going to frame an innocent schnook named Lee Oswald.

Do you realize how silly that proposition is?

I wonder if James DiEugenio or Lee Farley (or any other conspiracist) really do realize how silly that theory truly is. And it certainly is just a "theory". Because no CTer on the planet has proven that ANY evidence that exists against Lee Harvey Oswald in either the JFK or Tippit murder cases is "fraudulent".


LEE FARLEY SAID:

Come now, David. What you propose is contrary to the official version of events. The Warren Commission had to use every trick in the book to get Oswald to Beckley by 1:00 p.m. To the point of getting William Whaley to make a liar out of himself on his second appearance. I don't care how long he was in his room.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But it could be very important, because the Warren Commission's estimated times were being based on Earlene Roberts being RIGHT when she said that LHO was in his room for "3 to 4 minutes".

But just look at what ELSE Earlene Roberts said:

JOE BALL -- "How long did he [Oswald] stay in the room?"

EARLENE ROBERTS -- "Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes. Just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it." (Emphasis added by DVP.)

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

So, from Mrs. Roberts' OWN MOUTH, we have her saying that LHO likely wasn't in his room any longer than it would take "to go in there and get a jacket and put it on".

Also take note of the words "maybe" and "I guess" in Roberts' WC testimony there.

IOW--She was GUESSING. That's all. She wasn't timing Oswald with a stopwatch.

And I kinda doubt that it would take 3-4 minutes to just get a jacket. In fact, via the re-enactment done in the 1978 television movie "Ruby & Oswald" (see video below), it took the actor playing Oswald a mere 22 seconds to do all the things that we're fairly certain Oswald did while he was in his room on 11/22--e.g., grab his gun and put his jacket on.


video


But even if the WC estimates are correct (with LHO leaving 1026 Beckley at precisely 1:03), there was still time enough for Oswald to get to the Tippit murder site by 1:14-1:15 (which is the best estimate for when Tippit's murder took place, being based primarily on the DPD radio tapes, which indicate that Bowley's call to the DPD occurred at 1:18, which followed about 90 seconds of microphone "pumping" by Domingo Benavides prior to Bowley taking the mike).

We know that the trip from 1026 Beckley to 10th & Patton can be done in about 11 minutes. Several people have done it in just that amount of time. (Plus, we can't possibly know how fast Oswald was walking, or exactly what route he took to get there.)

Let me ask you this, Lee:

Do you think it's reasonable to believe that Benavides waited for NINE MINUTES to grab Tippit's radio and start pumping the mike?

And via the most commonly-believed scenario among CTers of Tippit being killed at 1:06, you've got Benavides waiting for about TEN FULL MINUTES to get on that radio.

Frankly, Lee, that's goofy. Benavides didn't wait any nine or ten minutes before grabbing that microphone. And you know he didn't.

Hence, via the DPD tapes (and common sense, plus Domingo Benavides' testimony), Tippit was likely shot at about 1:14 or 1:15.

David Von Pein
November 2011



DVP vs. DiEUGENIO
(PART 69)


http://EducationForum.com


BEFORE JAMES DiEUGENIO AND DAVID VON PEIN JOINED THE ABOVE-LINKED "EDUCATION FORUM" DISCUSSION, DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Where is the CHECK/MONEY ORDER for Oswald's $10 [for the deposit that was paid to Seaport Traders of Los Angeles, California, for the purchase of Oswald's .38 Smith & Wesson revolver in March 1963]?

It specifically asks for a CHECK or MONEY ORDER for the $10 (one-third) deposit.

There was no envelope, and once again, no proof of delivery.

Since Seaport did ship the pistol, SOMEONE sent a $10 deposit.

Who did? When? And where is it? Along with the transfer of the $21.22 to Seaport for the balance?


ED LeDOUX SAID:

Seaport shows it got ten dollars CASH, and Josephs correctly asks how the money got to Seaport?

Well if the Post Office was forwarding monies around for Lee (hanging my head low in disbelief), then they must have just forwarded the ten bucks too. (picks myself off floor, straightens my tie, and continues typing)

As DVP says -- "I suppose it's possible that I'm wrong about how these types of C.O.D. transactions worked..."

Ya think?!?!

Yeah, have DVP cough up the Jackson pay stub while he's at it.

Oh that's right, he can't....Just like a Seaport Check/MO or envelope that would need to hold the coupon and/or ten dollars.

They don't exist.

And at this point are fable. .... Facts are not DVP's friend.


JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

Nice work guys.

IMO, the more you look at this, the phonier it gets.

As with so many things in the WC [Warren Commission], you have to buy into an incompetence that is simply not present in the real world.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just because Seaport Traders preferred customers to make payments using check or money order (as all mail-order companies prefer, quite obviously [and today, with credit cards too, of course]), that doesn't mean that Oswald HAD to use such payment methods.

Oswald sent Seaport $10 in cash [as this order form confirms] and then Oswald paid the C.O.D. balance when he picked up the revolver (regardless of WHERE it was that he picked it up, which was probably at the REA Express office in Dallas).*

* = I was originally incorrect about how REA handled "COD" shipments to P.O. Boxes in 1963. And I fully acknowledge that fact in my article on Oswald's revolver, HERE.

But do the conspiracists in this forum (whose job seemingly is to cast continual and unrelenting doubt on Oswald's guilt, regardless of how flimsy and/or silly their nitpicking theories are) actually think that if Oswald had sent Seaport Traders a ten-dollar bill through the mail (instead of sending the preferred M.O. or check) that Seaport would have REFUSED Oswald's/Hidell's order for the revolver?

Seaport obviously DID receive a $10 payment from Oswald/(Hidell). We know this is true via Heinz Michaelis' WC testimony. And Michaelis said the payment was IN CASH. Michaelis said -- quote -- "We received, together with the order, the amount of $10 in cash."

So why in the world does this thread even exist? It's meaningless and useless. It was started merely for the purpose of casting a shadow of doubt over a subject (Oswald's $10 deposit for the revolver) where absolutely NO DOUBT exists. And such doubt about this matter never did exist.

In short -- There is no doubt whatsoever that Lee Oswald ordered, paid for, and received Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210 from Seaport Traders in Los Angeles in early 1963.

The only people who have the slightest doubt about that fact are people who WANT Oswald to be labelled "innocent" of murdering Officer J.D. Tippit. And to believe that Oswald was innocent of THAT murder too is, frankly, just too silly for a reasonable person to even contemplate.


JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

Where did he pick it up at, Davey? And what is your proof he did so?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jimmy D.,

The proof that Oswald picked up the revolver, regardless of where he picked it up, is the undeniable fact that Mr. Oswald had Revolver V510210 in his hands when he was arrested in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63.

Duh!




JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey, we have been through all this.

But you never get tired of reviving defeated arguments.

It simply was not possible for LHO to be at the scene at the time of the [Tippit] murder. Now you can do the McAdams hit and say the times were all over the place. But see, rational people go for the best evidence--that is watches and clocks.

In addition to Bewley [sic] there is also the witness in Barry Ernest's book, The Girl on the Stairs. That woman also matches Bewley [sic] perfectly. And she said she looked out her window at the time the shots went off. No one looking like Oswald was there. Shades of Acquilla Clemons.

Obviously, it was not possible for Oswald to be at the scene that early. And we have Lee Farley and Robert Morrow to prove that for us.


DVP INTERJECTION:




DiEUGENIO CONTINUES WITH HIS FANTASY:

But further, while [I] was in Dallas, I met someone who knows a police officer who was at the scene of the Tippit shooting. Guess what she told me? This officer saw the wallet also. And the ID was Oswald's. According to this woman, [David] Lifton is working on this one. So it's all over on that score, partner. Someone dropped Oswald's ID there, and it was not Oswald.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The best evidence mean zilch to you conspiracy mongers. And the best evidence in the Tippit murder case is certainly not "watches and clocks" to determine what happened. The best evidence is the physical evidence -- i.e., the bullet shells and the murder weapon being in LHO's hands when he was arrested, while trying to kill still more policemen with it, not to mention all the various witnesses either AT or NEAR the murder scene who positively IDed Lee Oswald.

But conspiracy theorists have a built-in excuse -- It's all faked.

Incredible silliness. Does it ever end?


I just thought of something interesting....

Since you [James DiEugenio] are of the incredibly wrong opinion that Oswald wasn't even at Tenth & Patton on 11/22/63, then you most certainly have no choice but to believe that witness Ted Callaway was either mistaken or an outright liar when he identified LHO as the man he saw running from the murder site with a gun in his hands. Right, Jimmy?

Now, by all accounts (except to perhaps an Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy buff like Mr. DiEugenio), Ted Callaway was a very good witness (and a very brave one too).

As far as I am aware, Callaway never ever changed his story one bit since Day #1 on November 22, 1963. He always maintained he heard FIVE pistol shots (which might very well be true, accounting for the mismatch in the brands of bullets and shells recovered), and Callaway always maintained from Day 1 that the gunman he saw just seconds after Tippit was killed was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Now, Jim D., how do you explain Callaway's observations in your theory that Oswald wasn't even at the Tippit murder scene at all on 11/22/63?


GREG PARKER SAID:

David, correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason for saying this would be to indicate that changes in a story over time is indicative of someone lying (here, I am referring only to substantial changes that give an entirely different picture to that originally stated). Is that about how you see it?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Essentially, yes, I think that would be an accurate way to put it, Greg. And Jean Hill and Roger Craig are probably the two best examples of such behavior you'll find in the JFK case. There's no question that both Craig and J. Hill were outright liars when it came to some of the things they said in later years.

The people who love to cite Roger Craig's "7.65 Mauser" story have no choice but to totally ignore Craig's 1968 interview with the Los Angeles Free Press, where he specifically said that he had no idea WHAT KIND of gun the rifle was that was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

QUESTION: "Did you handle that rifle [found on the sixth floor of the TSBD]?"

ROGER CRAIG: "Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles."


This March 1, 1968, L.A. Free Press article (with "RC" being Roger Craig) is the proof that Craig was a bald-faced liar when he later insisted in the Mark Lane video "Two Men In Dallas" that he had seen (with his own eyes) the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel of the gun.

CLICK THE TWO IMAGES BELOW TO ENLARGE THEM:






Craig also claimed to have "handled" the rifle after it was found on 11/22/63. That very likely is another lie told by Craig.

But getting back to Ted Callaway -- He was always very consistent in his story, from 1963 and onward. And he IDed LHO on the day of the assassination, not at some later point in time. (And yes, you can now throw Howard Brennan up in my face if you like--because he did not ID Oswald on 11/22. But, IMO, his reason for not doing so on 11/22 makes a great deal of sense to me. YMMV.)


JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

You [DVP] cannot be serious with the bullet evidence.

I mean that stuff is so compromised it literally smells of garbage. But the point is you know all the problems with it, yet you still bring it up.

Why? In any other case it would be a liability. But yet you do not even detail it before accepting it.

For the prurient reader, the sorry details are in Henry Hurt's book (pgs. 152-56) and Jim Garrison's (pgs. 197-201).

And please do not reply with that old standard of yours, "It's only the Poe bullet." Completely false. And again you know it.

Therefore both the provenance of the revolver is in question as is the ballistics evidence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There's absolutely NO question marks hanging over the two bullet shells found by the Davis girls on 11/22/63. They each found a shell and turned it over to a different DPD detective (Doughty and Dhority), who, in turn, marked the shell they each received.

You can't slip away from this one, Jimbo. For, even WITH a question mark hanging above the two Poe shells, you have nowhere to run regarding the other two shells, which are shells that are positively from Oswald's gun, and we also know that ALL of the shells being dumped at 10th & Patton were being dumped there by JUST ONE SINGLE GUNMAN.

You surely don't deny my last statement about "one single gunman" being seen dumping shells out of a revolver by BOTH of the Davis girls (Barbara and Virginia), do you?

Are both of the Davis girls liars, too, when they said they saw a man they both IDed as Oswald cutting across their yard dumping shells from a gun (which couldn't have been an AUTOMATIC pistol, of course, because an automatic would eject the shells by itself)?

Keep fighting City Hall, Jimbo. I love watching conspiracy clowns continually trying to exonerate a proven double-killer. (It's sad and pathetic to watch, but fun.)

[Still waiting for Jimbo's brilliant "Oswald's Innocent" explanation when factoring in the observations and testimony of Ted Callaway. Maybe Jimbo can use the pathetic excuse that conspiracy kook Tom Rossley utilized in a radio debate, when he casually decided to toss aside the testimony of Callaway just because he was a car salesman. I guess anybody who sells used cars cannot possibly make a decent eyewitness.]

David Von Pein
November 2011