(PART 94)

NOTE -- Some other people besides DVP and
Jim DiEugenio also contribute to the discussion below.


Why has he [John McAdams] not replied to my queries [re: Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle purchase]? Let me repeat them:

What is the proof Oswald ever picked up the rifle?

Who is the witness who gave him the long box?

Where are the regulation documents which should be in the record for shipment of a weapon over state lines?

Where is the USPS card which authorized someone named Hidell to pick up merchandise at a box in someone else’s name? (BTW, Wikipedia even lied about this one.)

If all of this is lacking, and it seems to be so, then Oswald picking up the rifle is a WC factoid. There is no real evidence, let alone proof, he did so.

And BTW, this is not Armstrong. These are lacunae in the WC records that they ignored. (David Belin in particular.)

Secondly, where is the proof the FBI was at REA [Railway Express Agency] the day of the murder to certify that Oswald picked up the handgun? Would that not have to be a necessity if the FBI was at DPD HQ? Which they were.


LOL. Jim D. thinks the FBI would need to go to REA to confirm that Oswald took possession of S&W revolver ‪#‎V510210‬, even though Oswald had that gun IN HIS HAND just 35 minutes after Tippit was shot with it.

But DiEugenio is much more concerned about Oswald picking up that gun eight months earlier (as if that matters a whit).

IOW–let’s just ignore the fact Oswald was waving around the Tippit murder weapon in the theater (trying to kill more cops with it), and instead concentrate on how LHO took possession of it back in March. After all, chaff always trumps wheat in Jimbo’s world.

It’s hilarious to watch the lengths the CTers will travel to pretend Oswald was innocent of the Tippit murder too.

Many more examples of such hilarity concerning Lee Harvey Oswald and his revolver can be found HERE.



Let’s look at the situation you describe from an evidentiary standpoint.

At trial, you try to tie the revolver Oswald allegedly ordered to the Tippit murder weapon. You fail, because the chain of custody is lacking, and because the bullets in Tippet’s [sic] body cannot be matched to the pistol allegedly recovered from Oswald.

Please, to convince all here, without emotion or hyperbole, lay out the chain of custody from Seaport Traders to Oswald. Document each step. Then, please, address the bullets recovered from Tippit’s body and whether they were matched to the revolver Oswald alledgedly had.


Why on Earth do you think a “chain of custody” is needed from Seaport Traders to Oswald? Such a chain is not needed in the slightest way to prove Oswald killed Tippit.


Because Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM when he was arrested in the theater. (Do you think somebody ELSE killed Tippit with Revolver V510210 and then gave that gun to Oswald in the next 35 minutes?)

What difference does it make HOW and WHEN Oswald came into possession of the Smith & Wesson revolver (V510210) prior to the 22nd of November? The critical issue is: he DID have it in his hands at 1:50 PM CST on November 22nd. That is a proven fact.

In short — Given the evidence in the Tippit case (including the various eyewitnesses), it is virtually impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to have been innocent of shooting Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit on 11/22/63.


The bullets are a red herring. The spent cartridges found at the site of the Tippit murder matched Oswald’s revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons.


DVP actually once said that the post office delivered the gun to Oswald and kept his money and then gave it to REA!

I am not kidding. He actually wrote that out on Simkin’s forum. This is how much at a loss he was to explain that transaction. But hey, when the evidence is not there, you have to fill in the cracks with something, anything.


It's interesting to note how short Mr. DiEugenio's memory is. Either that, or Jim wants to deliberately ignore the fact that in THIS DISCUSSION in December 2011, I essentially proved to Jim that the post office DOES, indeed, collect money from people who receive C.O.D. mail through the United States Post Office, with the post office then forwarding the customer's money to the proper party (or "mailer").

Allow me to quote the USPS regulation regarding this matter that was in place for the handling of COD mail as of 2003 (now, Jim D. can argue that this regulation might not have been in effect in 1963, but he cannot dodge these words that were on the USPS books as of August of 2003):

"Any mailer may use collect on delivery (COD) service to mail an article for which the mailer has not been paid and have its price and the cost of the postage collected from the recipient. If the recipient pays the amount due by check payable to the mailer, the USPS forwards the check to the mailer. If the recipient pays the amount due in cash, the USPS collects the money order fee(s) from the recipient and sends a postal money order(s) to the mailer. The amount collected from the recipient may not exceed $1,000. COD service provides the mailer with a mailing receipt, and a delivery record is maintained by the USPS."

Jim should be shifting his argument to this one ---

[Simulated Quote On:]

Well, Davey, then where is the "delivery record" that your regulation above says was "maintained by the USPS" for Oswald's revolver transaction in March 1963?

[Simulated Quote Off.]

Instead, Jimbo is still saying I was dead wrong about the post office EVER handling cash from COD customers.

Switch your arguments, Jim. Because it's fairly clear you've lost the first one (even though you have failed to notice that since 2011).


Mr. Von Pein, your facts and statements are incorrect sir and no give and take debate is ever resolved unless one sticks to the facts.

You sir seem to have left out one minor detail: the woman who did in fact witness Tippet's [sic] murder! She said right after the police arrived and took her statement that she had witnessed two men at the scene--one short and heavy, the other tall and very thin, neither of which was Oswald, and both had pistols. The tall skinny one was the shooter!

Her name was Acquilla Clemons [sic]! Oh, and your beloved Warren Commision never called her to testify. Wonder why?


To Brian H.,

Keep pretending Clemmons’ solo account of TWO killers trumps the OTHER TWELVE people who fingered Oswald as either the LONE killer of Tippit or the LONE man fleeing the scene with gun in hand.

Is it any wonder CTers keep chasing their tails? They can’t even figure out the real easy stuff–like who killed J.D. Tippit. And nothing is easier than that one.

BTW, Clemmons did NOT witness the murder of Tippit. She witnessed the aftermath.

(And I just got a lecture from Brian about “sticking to the facts”. Geez.)


Documents providing a chain-of-custody would be able to show if someone else had originally picked up the revolver and transferred it to LHO. That would be an important fact – wouldn’t it?


It would be nice to know, yes. But, as I mentioned, such a "chain" for Oswald's revolver is not needed to determine WHO killed J.D. Tippit. There IS no "reasonable" doubt about the answer to that question--it was Lee H. Oswald, and he did it with Smith & Wesson Revolver No. V510210. Only a person in total denial of the facts can possibly disagree with my last sentence.

Of course, I fully realize there are, indeed, many people--particularly on this great and vast information tool known as "The Internet"--who have decided to take up residence in the "Denial Hotel" whenever the subject of Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt comes to the forefront. But, in my opinion, denying that Oswald murdered Tippit is like denying that grass is green. You can try to deny it if you so desire, but it won't change the bottom-line fact that Oswald committed that crime.

Plus, there actually IS plenty of documentation to show that Lee Oswald did order and take possession of the Tippit murder weapon in early 1963. The Seaport Traders records clearly indicate that they sent the eventual Tippit murder weapon to Oswald's known P.O. Box in Dallas in March of 1963.

Are the Seaport documents, including the REA records too, supposedly all fake, similar to the many Klein's records for the rifle that many conspiracy theorists insist are completely bogus as well? How can anyone really believe in such mass, across-the-board fakery--from Klein's to Seaport to REA? Where does it end? It seemingly never ends when discussing these things with conspiracists like James DiEugenio and others.

And then we've got Oswald, probably just days after receiving the revolver in the mail, being photographed in his Neely Street backyard with a pistol on his hip. More fakery perhaps? Many people think so, of course. I, however, do not. And the HSCA photo panel didn't either, giving those pictures a clean bill of health --- "The [HSCA Photo] panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." [6 HSCA 146]

I suppose people can argue that the pistol on Oswald's hip in the backyard photographs isn't the same one he received from Seaport in the mail. And I suppose they could be right. But the timing is perfect -- Oswald, having just received BOTH his rifle and revolver just days earlier, asks Marina to take his picture showing his new toys (guns). And there is no evidence (that I've ever heard) of Oswald ever owning more than one revolver in 1963.

As a side note regarding the "chain of custody" topic --- The snub-nosed pistol that Jack Ruby used to kill Oswald was actually purchased for Ruby by his police officer friend, Joe Cody. Would this mean, per conspiracists, that Mr. Cody is to be considered a "suspect" or have some "connection" with the murder that Jack Ruby ultimately committed while using the gun that was purchased for him by Cody? Of course it doesn't mean that.

But in Oswald's case, we know it was Oswald HIMSELF who ordered the gun in early '63 [GO HERE for all kinds of proof Oswald himself ordered that gun].

And we know it was Oswald who was in possession of that very same gun in the Texas Theater on November 22nd, 1963. If Oswald had allowed a friend to borrow the gun between March of '63 and November of '63--so what? Lee's ownership of that weapon is clearly established via the Seaport records, regardless of whether anyone at REA or the post office remembers handing him the gun package or not.


Disputing the factual findings of the WC is fine I suppose. But where I’m at in this process – it is easier to just look at facts everyone seems to agree on first and take it from there.

And to their credit, some researchers are using the WC’s own witnesses and testimony to discredit the overall conclusion of the commission. They get it.

That’s not wasted time. I think arguing about facts that people can’t agree on to begin with is usually a waste of time.

I am a novice. So that is where I start. What facts do both sides have in common? What are their theories to explain those agreed-upon facts? Which of their theories makes sense? Which beg credulity?


In my view, the conspiracy theory that is lacking the most in the "makes sense" department is the one that a large percentage of conspiracists actually seem to swallow whole -- the one that has a gang of unknown assassins/conspirators planning to kill the President AND trying to frame one man--Lee Harvey Oswald--for this crime. Those alleged assassins then decided--IN ADVANCE, quite obviously--to fire shots (per the CTers) at President Kennedy's body from both the rear and FRONT of JFK's limousine, thereby ensuring the failure of their "One Patsy" plot if any of those frontal shots hit any victims in the car (or hit anything else).

People endorsing such a MULTI-gun, ONE-patsy plot have either never thoroughly thought about the complete insanity and illogic of such a plan, or those theorists are blood relatives of Oliver Stone's. :-)

RELATED LINK -- How To Frame A Patsy (And How Not To Do It)


David, it’s simple: Did the DPD sniff Oswald’s pistol? Answer: No.


LOL. I guess Jonathan thinks “sniffing” the pistol is a much better way to prove or disprove Oswald’s guilt, instead of relying on the bullet shells the killer was dumping on the ground and all of those witnesses who said it was Oswald.

Better yet -- Let’s just ASK Oswald: Did you do it?

“I didn’t shoot anybody, no sir.” — Lee H. Oswald; 11/22/63

Case solved. Let’s go have lunch.

David Von Pein
May 2014




An interesting sidebar discussion/fray has developed between "JFK Facts" owner/moderator Jefferson Morley and Marquette Professor John McAdams as a result of Morley refusing to post some of McAdams' comments aimed at the stupid and outrageous claims made by conspiracy clown James DiEugenio in May of 2014. Let's eavesdrop on some of Mr. McAdams' private e-mails with Mr. Morley, which were posted at the JFK assassination newsgroup that McAdams moderates:


Jimmy D. [DiEugenio], on Jeff [Morley's] site, has been doing his "all the evidence is corrupt and everything is faked" routine.

I've responded to him, but my posts have not appeared.

You can see both Jim's comments and my posts "awaiting moderation" here:


While I can see my posts, nobody else who visits Jeff's site can.

Is Jeff protecting Jim DiEugenio?

When the posts didn't appear the first time, I reposted them, since some posts on Jeff's site seem to merely fall between the cracks. But they still haven't appeared.

I contacted Peter Voskamp, who has been the moderator about this, and got this response:

[quote on:]

Hi John,
Best give Jeff a shout at [jfkfacts e-mail address].

[end quote]

So is Peter no longer the moderator? Has Jeff decided I'm not allowed to post, or perhaps merely not challenge DiEugenio?

Jeff has not responded to my e-mail earlier today.



Well now he [Morley] *has* responded:

[quote on:]

I'm holding your comments because I've gotten so many complaints about your style, John.

As you know, I have always rebuffed the complaints for the sake of the widest possible debate.

But I hear from people that your style is intentionally destructive, seeking to undermine debate not encourage it.

I don't agree with these complaints but I want to know what you think of them.


[end quote]

I responded as follows:

[quote on:]

"My style" is just an excuse to object to the actual content of what I post.

Just what in the world does "intentionally destructive" mean? That I set out to "destroy" the arguments I think are wrong?

Of course, but that's what happens in debate.

Nothing about the posts you are holding should be considered objectionable.

And if you are going to allow DiEugenio to post claims about how the evidence against Oswald is bogus, it's not fair to allow him to make those arguments and then not allow them to be rebutted.

How can it "undermine debate" to allow both sides to be heard?


[end quote]

As of this writing, my comments are still not visible.


Jeff, I'm afraid, is more and more getting assimiliated into the buff subculture.

This reminds one of another stupid stunt that Jeff pulled:




Morley Doubles Down on Censorship....

Here is his e-mail to me:

[quote on:]

From: Jefferson Morley
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:49 PM
To: McAdams, John


None of the other guests in the discussion at JFK Facts have insulted the host.

So I've come up with a solution. I've added a provision to comments policy that anyone who insults the editor (ie me) or otherwise use[s] language will have their comments put on a 24 hour delay.

So John your comments are on 24 hour delay until you apologize for insulting me or until I feel your language has improved. Your comments are not being censored.


[end quote]

I responded as follows:

[quote on:]

So you are censoring them unless I apologize?


You should apologize to me for your initial act of failing to approve them.

Indeed, you owe me an apology for this.

And you should apologize for comparing me to an obnoxious guest at a dinner party. I'm only obnoxious to intolerant people who don't want their buff factoids contradicted.

Now, I would suggest you approve the five comments you refused to approve. If you don't, it will be obvious your site lacks credibility, and that you caved to buff pressure.


[end quote]


[quote on;]

Yes, Jeff, I am being censored, and the reason is that some buffs who are intolerant of different opinions complained about me to you.

So you held my posts in spite of the fact that you admitted you saw nothing wrong with them.

And I didn't actually call you "stupid." I said you engaged in a "stupid stunt."

Here it is, Jeff, for all to see:



[quote off]


Of course, I'm not going to post on any site that wants to put me on "48 hour moderation."

Jeff started this by pandering to irate buffs who hate having me contest their theories.

And he faces the consequences.



All of my posts have been getting through at Morley's site. And I've probably been a little more antagonistic toward Jim "LHO Shot Nobody In 1963" DiEugenio than John Mac has been. Go figure.


That's why it is almost certainly NOT about:

1) DiEugenio - For as you noted, you have been an even harsher critic.

2) John's style - For you're just as direct and (I'm sure you would agree) tend to be even more strident and unsparing in you criticism of CT's.

3) John's arguments - For what's the substantive difference?

That leaves only one thing - John's longer tenure in this little fight and relatively higher public profile (professor, author, JFK Assassination talking head) have pretty much made him "Public Enemy #1" in the CT world. It seems that for many of them, they simply go nuts like Pavlov's dog at the mere mention of his name.

That's my 2 cents anyway.


From Morley's blog:

[quote on:]


May 7, 2014 at 7:38 am

No. John McAdams is not being censored. Nor is anyone else.

As I have explained to John, his comments are on 48 hour delay because he said, falsely, that his comments were being "censored". They were being held, pending a discussion about his tone, a discussion I have had with other commenters. He also, falsely, [said] that I had "caved in" to pressure from other people; I had not. He also said that I had engaged in a "stupid stunt" which I had not.

For this kind of uncivil language, the publication of his comments is delayed 48 hours until further notice, as stipulated by the site's Comments Policy, which you can read here:

[end quote]

Of course, [as of 9:23 AM EDT, May 7, 2014] Morley *still* hasn't approved the five comments I made in response to DiEugenio's ranting about how all the evidence tying Oswald to the rifle and revolver was faked and forged.

And I posted those comments in good faith, *before* Morley sent me the insulting letter relaying buff complaints about my "style."

I sent him a civil response back, and he *still* failed to approve the comments.

Jeff, it's hard to avoid the conclusion you are caving to buff pressure (even if you have ginned up an excuse to do so), and censored posts that buffs would not like.

Your credibility is shot.



From Morley's blog (scroll down):


First, a good comment from Jean Davison:

[Quote on:]

Jean Davison
May 7, 2014 at 2:03 pm


It's your site, you make the rules, but I respectfully disagree with your decision. IMO, withholding moderation approval so that all of someone's posts go into limbo is definitely a form of censorship. Didn't John use the word "censored" only *after* his posts started being withheld?

If John's posts were withheld because of complaints you'd received from other commenters and not because of anything specific that he said, I would call that "caving in to pressure." Should I be put on a 48-hour delay also for agreeing with him? (Eventually maybe all the LNs here will be in 48-hour limbo, if others complain enough.)

Last of all, is creating a new forum rule in response to complaints about one person really necessary or fair? What *old* forum rule did John break, if I may ask?

IMO, anyone who doesn't like John McAdams' posts should suck it up or simply stop reading them.

Again, this is just my opinion respectfully submitted FWIW, but I sincerely hope you will reconsider, Jeff. What's wrong with the old policy of rejecting individual posts that cross the line?

May 7, 2014 at 2:28 pm

Jean: you are laboring under a misapprehension. NONE OF JOHN'S POSTS HAVE BEEN CENSORED.

Your notion that publication after 48 hours is "censorship" is silly. It's not censorship. It's punishment for John being uncivil to me.

I did not delay his comments because of complaints from other readers. I delayed his comments because he accused me, falsely, of censoring his comments. (Did I mention? EVERY POST HE HAS SUBMITTED RECENTLY HAS BEEN PUBLISHED). He also accused me, falsely, of a "stupid stunt."

John is entitled to his views and they're welcome on the site. (He's been published more on my site than I have on [his]. Is that a sign of "censorship", Jean?)

Now you may sey that the 48 hour delay rule is discriminatory, and you would be right. It discriminates against people who are rude to me.

So tell me what exactly you disagree with? That I should publish all of John's posts? I have.

Do you think that I shouldn't delay the comments of people who insult me?

Well then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I promise you and everybody else who reads this site: if you insult me, your posts will be put on 48 hour delay. That's not "censorship", Jean. That's enforcing good manners.

[End Quote]