DVP vs. DiEUGENIO
(PART 79)


http://EducationForum.com


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

[The initials of FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd are on Bullet CE399 in the National Archives.] You just can't see them in the NARA photos.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

This has now gone beyond absurdity.

Davey Boy, everyone here is still waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is. Something you never ever do. In other words...go to Travelocity, book a flight and a hotel room, and go ahead and do what you have been saying you would do for ages:

Prove John Hunt is a liar [when Hunt said that Elmer Todd's initials are definitely not on the CE399 bullet].


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, right, Jimbo. Like the NARA is going to allow me to just waltz right in and examine CE399.

Get real.

Fact is: John Hunt DID NOT examine the bullet itself. He examined the same photos that have been posted in this very thread. And those photos (as good as they might be) are not definitive proof that Todd did not mark CE399.

Plus: There are TWO separate (and corroborating) official FBI documents that tell us that Elmer Todd DID mark the bullet (CD7 and CE2011). And CD7 confirms that Todd marked the bullet on the day of the assassination itself.

Spit on those records if you want to; call them fake if you want to (and you do want to, naturally). But I'm not willing to do so. Period.




JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

And here you have the same pattern repeated: "I am going to prove all those critics deluded." Well, go ahead and do it then. And if you have no intention of doing it, then please leave. Since it's just more of your empty bombast: Sound and fury signifying nothing.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:



Pot...meet Pa Kettle.

Reminder: Jim D. is a person who seriously thinks that Jim Garrison was right re the JFK case. And Jimbo's also a person who is deluded enough to actually think that BOTH Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle just MADE UP the paper bag that each of those witnesses said they saw Oswald carrying on 11/22/63.

Talk about "empty bombast...sound and fury signifying nothing". Jim and all other conspiracy theorists have a patent on such bombast.

Another LNer at another forum asked a good question a few months back when he asked: What have the JFK conspiracy theorists really accomplished? Anything of significance whatsoever? (Other than "bombast" and speculative theorizing that never ends?)

Food for thought as the 50th approaches.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Don't ever compare me with you, since my work on this case emanates from the sum total of the evidence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jim just keeps getting funnier by the day.

The "sum total of the evidence" somehow indicates, in Jim DiEugenio's bizarre "Guilty Is Really Innocent" world, that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of all three of the following crimes:

1.) JFK's murder.
2.) J.D. Tippit's murder.
3.) The attempted murder of Major General Edwin Walker.

Oh, my poor bladder!




JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

You leave important points out, you source from unreliable literature and people, and then you come to a conclusion that is simply untenable in light of the facts.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:



Have SOME pity on my funny bone, will ya Jimmy?

Can it GET any better on a "Pot/Kettle" scale than this?

The above hunk of mindboggling crackpottery comes from a man (J. DiEugenio) who actually thinks John Armstrong and Jim Garrison are "reliable" people when it comes to the JFK case. And Armstrong is a man who, need I remind anyone listening to me now, actually claims that there were TWO Lee Oswalds AND two Marguerite Oswalds.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

A great example of this, perhaps the best of all, is your support of a book that had not been published!! Simply because you knew what the bottom line would be!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, yeah, Jim. The fact that I turned out to be correct about Vincent Bugliosi's excellent book really has me wanting to hang my head in shame for singing its praises in advance of its 2007 release. (You're a hoot.)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

What was in it [Bugliosi's book] did not matter. At all. As long as it supported your obsolete view of the case. This proves beyond any doubt that the evidence does not matter a whit to you. Not one iota. Which is why your arguments have no credibility.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

My arguments are just as valid and supportable today as they were in 2005 and 2006 when I was touting Mr. Bugliosi's yet-to-be-released JFK tome.

And since when are FACTS considered "obsolete", Jimmy? You're as phony as a D.A. named Garrison if you truly believe that ALL of the evidence against your favorite "patsy" named Lee Harvey was faked/planted/whitewashed/manufactured/etc.

You can't even muster up enough common sense and reasoned thinking to acknowledge that even ONE single piece of evidence that hangs Oswald is legitimate. Can you? Not one! That's beyond pathetic. It's insane. You and Garrison were made for each other alright.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Everything I write about the Garrison inquiry in my upcoming book is profusely footnoted to both the original NODA memos, trial testimony, and interviews I did with those involved. Plus the declassified ARRB record of what the CIA and FBI did to block Garrison's case. When you actually note something to the primary sources in this matter, instead of Dave Reitzes, Lambert, and Phelan, or some other nutty, and in the case of Phelan, lying, shill I will listen to what you have to say. Until then--which will be never--you are just doing your usual over the top bloviating.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

When it comes to the assassination of President Kennedy, I would sooner believe anything uttered by any of those individuals you named than to believe ANYTHING written or spoken by virtually any conspiracy theorist (especially the all-knowing, all-perfect James DiEugenio of Los Angeles, California). The day one of your silly theories is proven even halfway accurate is the day that Hades freezes rock solid.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

You know about as much about the Garrison case as you do electrical engineering.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't need to memorize the Garrison fiasco chapter-and-verse. And the main reason for that is something I said to you in previous correspondence; and it's still true today, of course, although you're not sensible enough to realize I'm 100% correct about it. Allow me to repeat it:

"Even if we were to make the assumption (just for the sake of this particular discussion, although I'm not conceding this to be a true fact at all) that Lee Oswald WAS acquainted with the various "New Orleans" characters that Jim DiEugenio thinks LHO was acquainted with in the summer of 1963 (e.g., Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Guy Banister).....that would still be a million miles away from proving that ANY of those New Orleans characters had ANY INVOLVEMENT, IN ANY WAY, WITH THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN DALLAS ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963.

"And the reason the above paragraph is the truth is because (once Perry Russo's lie is tossed aside, as it must be) there isn't a shred of evidence that CONNECTS any of those New Orleans individuals to the planning and/or carrying out of the murder of John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. No evidence whatsoever.

"Everything Lee Harvey Oswald did on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 indicates that he was a LONE ASSASSIN in Dallas. And that fact would still be true even IF Oswald had been pals with ALL of the three previously-named New Orleans-based people (Shaw, Ferrie, and Banister).

"In other words -- Where is Jim DiEugenio's (or anyone's) BRIDGE and/or UMBILICAL CORD that allows conspiracy theorists to make the grand leap from this --- LEE HARVEY OSWALD KNEW CLAY SHAW, DAVID FERRIE, AND GUY BANISTER --- to this --- SHAW, FERRIE, AND BANISTER WERE CO-CONSPIRATORS IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY?

"Given the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists of ONLY OSWALD'S GUILT in the assassination of JFK, such a monumental leap of faith like the one suggested above is, to put it bluntly, monumentally ridiculous."
-- DVP; July 31, 2009


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Uh, Davey Boy, this does not work here like it does [at] Duncan [MacRae's] fruity site. You have to supply facts and evidence. What, you are afraid to do so? Typical.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's yet another hilarious statement from the King Of The Evidence Manglers.

Jimmy actually seems to think that I never "supply facts and evidence" when talking about my lone-assassin beliefs in the JFK and Tippit cases. In actuality, nothing could be a bigger falsehood than that. I cite evidence (mixed with common sense) almost constantly. Jim must have taken in too much of that California smog again today.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Linnie [Randle] could not have seen Oswald with a bag that day, unless she had x-ray vision.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jimbo seems to think that Linnie Mae Randle needed to have X-ray vision in order to watch Lee Oswald walk across the street from her kitchen window.

In this example of Jim's eagerness to take that paper bag out of Oswald's hands at any costs, Jimbo is willing to look like a total and complete idiot by suggesting that the ONLY time Mrs. Randle observed Lee Harvey Oswald carrying a paper bag on November 22, 1963, was when she opened her kitchen door to look inside the carport.

But, of course, if that's what Jimbo was trying to pass off as the truth here, he's dead wrong, because we all know that Randle saw Oswald with the bag when Oswald was walking toward the Randle house and as he was crossing Westbrook Street, heading toward Linnie Mae's driveway [2 H 248]:

JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you see Lee [Oswald]?"

LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "Yes, I did."

MR. BALL -- "Where did you see him?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "I saw him as he crossed the street and come across my driveway to where Wesley had his car parked by the carport."

MR. BALL -- "What street did he cross to go over?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "He crossed Westbrook."

MR. BALL -- "And you saw him walking along, did you?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "Yes, sir."

MR. BALL -- "Was he carrying any package?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "Yes, he was."

MR. BALL -- "What was he carrying?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "He was carrying a package in a sort of a heavy brown bag, heavier than a grocery bag it looked to me. It was about, if I might measure, about this long, I suppose, and he carried it in his right hand, had the top sort of folded down and had a grip like this, and the bottom, he carried it this way, you know, and it almost touched the ground as he carried it."


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

[Paper Bag Addendum -- Click HERE to see my thoughts about what I think happened with respect to the carport and Linnie Mae's "X-ray vision".]


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

And this is based on the WC's own evidence. Just look at the photos of the layout of the house. Do you think she had x-ray vision? Please tell us. If not, then just be quiet.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Maybe it is YOU who should have kept quiet on this Randle issue, Jimmy. (Just like you should have also remained silent when discussing the Post Office regulations concerning possible ways that Oswald could have picked up his revolver.) Because it seems fairly obvious that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, or you just want to totally ignore the Warren Commission testimony of Mrs. Randle that I just cited extensively above, which is testimony that proves she saw Lee Oswald carrying a long brown paper package on the morning of JFK's assassination.

You can either face that obvious fact, or you can continue to pretend that Linnie Mae and her brother, Buell Wesley Frazier, were "forced" (Jimbo's word from a Black Op Radio show) by the Dallas Police to fabricate a story about seeing LHO with a bag.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Now, in the TSBD, who else besides Wesley testified to seeing Oswald with that long paper bag under his arm?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There is no other person who witnessed that event. But so what? I don't find it strange that nobody else saw Oswald that day with the bag. After all, there wasn't anybody else in the car with Wesley and Oswald on their drive to work. And after getting into the building, I think it's fairly reasonable to assume that Lee did everything in his power to HIDE the rifle package from everybody else in the building, if he could do so, which he obviously DID do, because nobody saw any such brown paper package in the building all morning.

But, again, I would EXPECT that to happen given the circumstances. After all, Lee was planning on killing the President in a few hours with the contents of that paper bag, so I think it's also reasonable to conclude that he wouldn't want to draw attention to himself or the package by standing up on Troy West's wrapping table and shouting "Hey everybody! It's me, Lee! Just wanted y'all to know I've arrived here at work! And, lookie what I've got here! It's my rifle! I brought it from Irving today! Just wanted everybody to know!"


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

What about the mom? Ignore her too, right?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If you're referring to Linnie's and Wesley's mother (Essie Mae Williams), no, I haven't ignored her at all. She only saw Lee at the kitchen window AFTER he had already put his package into Wesley's car. So why do you think she's a critical witness here? She isn't.

[Also see THIS POST again for more discussion about Wes Frazier's mother.]


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Why was the bag not photographed in situ? And why does the bag in evidence not match the one the Fraziers said they saw?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

See these articles:

FRAZIER, RANDLE, AND THE PAPER BAG

OSWALD, HIS RIFLE, AND THE PAPER BAG

In addition to the above articles on the paper bag, I'll add this:

Even though no picture of the bag was taken by the DPD that shows the bag in the Sniper's Nest, there were multiple police officers who testified that they DID see a paper bag lying on the floor in the southeast corner window on the sixth floor before the bag was picked up. Four of those officers are:

L.D. Montgomery [7 H 97]
Robert Studebaker [7 H 143-144]
J.C. Day [4 H 267]
Marvin Johnson [7 H 103]

It's fairly obvious, of course, why conspiracy clowns like DiEugenio feel the need to distance themselves from the reality concerning that brown paper bag. Because if those conspiracists were to actually face the stubborn truth about the bag (with that truth being: it was Lee Harvey Oswald's homemade bag and Oswald carried his rifle, inside that bag, into the Book Depository Building), then those conspiracists would be forced to admit that their precious "patsy" had probably taken that gun to work in order to shoot somebody with it on the day President Kennedy came to town.

What other reasonable and logical conclusion could anyone come to after they've admitted to themselves the obvious truth -- that Lee Oswald did, in fact, walk into the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963, with a rifle wrapped in brown paper?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Why did Frazier lie about following Oswald into the TSBD that day?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Huh? You think he lied about that? Are you suggesting that Wesley DIDN'T go into the back door of the Depository shortly after Oswald had entered that same door?

Please elaborate. I love science fiction.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Frazier's story about following LHO into the TSBD was contradicted by Shields, who said he parked the car by himself that morning and then walked to the building alone.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's a mighty weak argument, Jim.

That scenario of Buell Frazier parking the car "by himself" and walking to the building "alone" is, essentially, correct (when factoring in the fact that Oswald got out of the car first and started to walk ahead of Wesley Frazier toward the TSBD, with Frazier remaining in his car to charge the battery).

Given those circumstances, a person (like Shields) might very well have thought Frazier was "alone" when he walked toward the building, with Oswald walking some 50 feet ahead of Frazier. Because, as mentioned, essentially Frazier WAS "alone" when he walked to the building on that particular day. And Shields could have thought Frazier parked the car "alone", because Frazier did get out of the car ALONE--i.e., not at the same time as Oswald.

Is this the best you've got, Jimbo? If so, it's awfully lousy, because you've also got to get around the testimony of Linnie Randle too. After all, she DID definitely see LHO on the morning of November 22, right? (I assume you don't think she was lying about merely SEEING Oswald that day, do you?)

And what other possible reason would Lee have had to come to the Randle house on November 22 other than to catch his usual ride to work with fellow TSBD employee Wes Frazier?

Do you want to propose a theory, perhaps, that has Oswald riding only PART of the way to work with Frazier....with Frazier then kicking Lee out of the car a mile or so before they reached the Depository parking lot?

Even an Anybody But Oswald nutcase like you isn't THAT silly....are you James?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Maybe because of what happened to him [Wesley Frazier] on the night of the 22nd? Why not tell that story Davey Boy?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why not just listen to Wesley tell his own story (in this nice long 2-hour interview from 2002).

By far the biggest "bombshell" in that 2002 interview is when Buell says he actually SAW Oswald walking on Houston Street about 5 to 10 minutes AFTER the assassination. THAT probably ought to be the biggest thing you scold Frazier for, because that statement totally contradicts his 11/22/63 affidavit.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

You are so afraid to tell the whole story since you know if you do it shows what an agenda driven fanatic you really are. In fact, with you, it's so bad it's a case of mythomania. You live in a habitual dream world in which you think you are pulling over something on someone. You are not. You are kidding one person: You.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The pot/kettle stuff never stops flowing from Jimmy's huge mouth. Never. Everybody just read that last quote of DiEugenio's once more--and then after reflecting on some of Jimbo's obsessive "Anybody But Oswald" ramblings (e.g., Oswald was innocent of everything; there was NO paper bag at all; Armstrong's theory is a good one; Garrison's case against Shaw was a good one; etc.), ask yourself who it is who truly is the "agenda driven fanatic" who lives in a "dream world".

I rest my case.

David Von Pein
October 3, 2012
August 6, 2015