JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 729)


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

...LHO spent a good part of his time on the first floor and NOT the sixth floor as we have been led to believe.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What a silly thread this is.

Even if Oswald really did spend most of his time on the first floor in the course of a normal day at the Book Depository, we know beyond all doubt that he WAS on the sixth floor shortly before the assassination on 11/22/63 because Charles Givens places him there at about 11:55 AM. (Not to mention Howard Brennan placing Oswald in the Sniper's Nest window at the time of the assassination itself.)

And the various TSBD employees who raced the elevators downstairs at about 11:45 also ALL verified that Oswald was on an UPPER floor (either the fifth or sixth floor) when the boys were taking the two freight elevators down for lunch.

So you're doing no harm at all to the "Lone Assassin" version of events. And this thread is really doing more harm than good to the CTers' theory about Oswald being innocent, because Lee Oswald's presence on the sixth floor shortly before JFK was killed, coupled with the known fact that NONE of the multiple orders that were on Oswald's clipboard on November 22nd were filled, indicates that his presence on the sixth floor around noontime on 11/22/63 could be considered outside of the "normal" location for him to be located at ANY point in time on ANY given work day in the building, and with a clipboard full of UNFILLED orders, his presence on that sixth floor would most certainly indicate that he was up there for a purpose OTHER than to fulfill his normal duties as an order filler.

Gee, I wonder what that other purpose might have been?


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

You mean the Givens who said nothing about seeing Oswald in his affidavit on the 22nd.

or…

An 11-23-63 FBI report (CD5 p329) on Oswald co-worker Charles Douglas Givens declares:

“On November 22, 1963, Givens worked on the sixth floor of the building until about 11:30 A.M. when he used the elevator to travel to the first floor where he used the restroom at about 11:35 A.M. or 11:40 A.M. Givens then walked around on the first floor until 12 o'clock noon, at which time he walked onto the sidewalk and stood for several minutes...Givens recalls observing Lee working on the fifth floor during the morning filling orders. Lee was standing by the elevator in the building at 11:30 A.M when Givens went to the first floor. When he started down in the elevator, Lee yelled at him to close the gates on the elevator door so that he (Lee) could have the elevator returned to the sixth floor…Givens observed Lee reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M.”

This FBI report expanded on a statement signed by Givens on the day before (24H210). Givens swore:

"I worked on the sixth floor today until about 11:30 A.M. Then I went downstairs and into the bathroom. At twelve o'clock I took my lunch period. I went to the parking lot at Record and Elm Street."

The FBI report on Givens thereby appeared to confirm Oswald's story that he'd come down and had lunch in the domino room, something that seemed unlikely if Oswald had planned on killing the president in 40 minutes and still needed to assemble his rifle.

He changed his story later to say he went upstairs for his cigarettes, and saw Oswald. How convenient.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just because Charles Givens didn't mention seeing Oswald in his affidavit, you think that automatically means he lied in his later statements and during his testimony in front of the Warren Commission?

Silly.

Givens merely didn't mention his brief encounter with Oswald when Givens wrote his affidavit. Such an omission certainly doesn't mean that Givens' sixth-floor encounter with Lee Oswald never happened. Only a conspiracy theorist would possibly believe such a thing.

Plus, we know that there's no good reason for the authorities to start putting words into Givens' mouth about seeing Oswald on the sixth floor, because even WITHOUT Givens' account of seeing LHO on the sixth floor at approximately 11:55 AM, there is still ample witness testimony from other Depository employees who said they saw (and heard) Oswald on an UPPER FLOOR (either the fifth or sixth floor) shortly before noon. Those other employees are Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray Williams, and Danny Arce. And even Givens HIMSELF, in the FBI report Ray Mitcham quoted above, talks about hearing Oswald shout down the elevator shaft.

There is some confusion surrounding some of Charles Givens' statements with respect to Oswald asking to have the elevator sent back upstairs to him, which I talk about in this article.

But even if conspiracists wish to toss Charlie Givens under the bus and deem him a totally worthless liar (which many CTers have done), what do they do with Lovelady and Williams and Arce with respect to their individual observations about seeing (and hearing) Lee Oswald on an upper floor of the TSBD shortly before 12:00 noon on 11/22/63?

With those three witnesses saying what they each said, why would the FBI or the Warren Commission (or anyone else) have felt the need to coerce Charlie Givens to tell some wild tale about seeing Oswald in just about the VERY SAME PLACE at just about the VERY SAME TIME that those three other men saw him?

Many CTers think the FBI (and later the Warren Commission) desperately needed a witness on the inside of the TSBD building to place Oswald on the sixth floor to firm up the FBI's and WC's framing of poor innocent Lee Harvey Oswald. Therefore, per CTers, they got the easily-coerced Givens to add a lie to his story about going back up to the sixth floor to get his cigarettes and then seeing Oswald up there.

But if the goal of the FBI and Warren Commission was to shore up their "case" against Oswald, why wouldn't they have made Givens' lies even BETTER? They could have gotten Givens to say he saw Oswald moving boxes in the southeast corner of the sixth floor. Or they could have gotten Givens to say he actually saw Oswald with a long brown package too.

But instead, Givens' "cigarettes and jacket" story pretty much amounts to nothing more than the testimony given by Lovelady, Arce, and Williams -- i.e., Givens sees Oswald on an upper floor without a package, and without a gun. The biggest difference would be that Givens did place a definitive floor number on Oswald's whereabouts--the sixth floor (the Floor Of Death), whereas some of the other witnesses I mentioned were not quite sure whether Oswald was shouting down his request for an elevator from the FIFTH floor or the SIXTH Floor.

But if Givens' "going to get cigarettes" story was nothing but a fabrication invented by the authorities, it amounted to very little more than what other witnesses were also providing (or would very soon be providing to the Warren Commission).

In addition, I'll also add that Charles Givens' 11/22/63 affidavit is one that is very brief. It's a very short statement made voluntarily by Givens within hours of the assassination. Givens uses short, to-the-point sentences, not elaborating on anything at all--not even the shooting. He merely says "I think I heard three shots".

So it's fairly obvious to me when looking at Givens' 11/22 affidavit (which can be seen here) that it wasn't Givens' purpose at that time to go into very much detail about anything that happened on November 22. He was obviouisly making it as short as he could. And just because he did not mention his encounter with Oswald on the sixth floor in that very brief statement, that certainly does not mean such an encounter never took place.

Givens' statement given to the FBI on November 22nd (the FBI report was dated "11/23/63" at the top of the document, however) is another matter for discussion. It's true that Givens didn't say anything about going back up to the sixth floor to get his jacket and cigarettes in that November 22nd interview with two FBI agents. But Givens did mention hearing Oswald shout down to have the elevator sent back up "so that he (LEE) could have the elevator returned to the SIXTH FLOOR" (DVP's emphasis).

So it's fairly clear from that FBI statement that Givens was saying he thought Oswald was on the SIXTH FLOOR and wanted an elevator to be sent back up to the SIXTH floor.

With such detail coming from Charles Givens himself about Oswald being on the SIXTH FLOOR shortly before noon on the day of the assassination, why on Earth would the FBI (or anyone else) feel the need to then coerce Givens to add an additional layer of lies to his story, which would be a fabricated layer of lies that essentially ADDS NOTHING NEW to the story Charlie Givens had already told the two FBI agents who interviewed him on November 22, 1963?

Also....

The conspiracy theorists who think Charles Givens just MADE UP his sixth-floor encounter with Lee Oswald due to the fact that Givens said nothing about such an encounter in his original November 22nd affidavit are going to have to accuse Billy Lovelady of pretty much the very same thing (i.e., leaving out important "I saw Oswald on an upper floor around noontime" information in his affidavit), because in Lovelady's 11/22/63 affidavit, he never says a thing about seeing Oswald.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

David, when are you going to realise that "before noon" does not equal 12:30 when the shots were fired?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Have I ever said it did?

Answer: No, I have not.

But, then too, YOUR argument about how Charles Givens lied about his cigarette trip back up to the sixth floor doesn't place Oswald on the sixth floor at exactly 12:30 either. Givens' "cigarette" testimony only puts Oswald on the sixth floor at around 11:55 AM, thirty-five minutes before the shooting.

Therefore, what's your point?

And why are you scolding me about the "shortly before noon" comments I've made when the statement made by Givens, that YOU think is a great-big lie, ALSO only places Oswald on the sixth floor "shortly before noon". Therefore, it's a wash. Which is why you're being silly regarding Givens' statements, because the part of Charlie Givens' later statement about going back up to the sixth floor to retrieve cigarettes and his jacket doesn't provide any more substantial information than the info he had already provided the FBI in his 11/22/63 statement seen in CD5. And if you think it does, you're wrong.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Nobody except Givens (dubiously) said Oswald was on the sixth floor.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dead wrong. Howard Brennan said Oswald was on the sixth floor (3 H 148).

And....

Per the things that the FBI wrote in its report on 11/22/63 (CD5), Charles Givens said that Oswald wanted an elevator sent back up to him on the SIXTH floor.

And....

Bonnie Ray Williams said that Oswald was on either the fifth or sixth floor when LHO yelled down the elevator shaft (3 H 168)....

BONNIE RAY WILLIAMS -- "On the way down I heard Oswald--and I am not sure whether he was on the fifth or the sixth floor. But on the way down Oswald hollered "Guys, how about an elevator?" I don't know whether those are his exact words. But he said something about the elevator. And Charles said, "Come on, boy," just like that. And he said, "Close the gate on the elevator and send the elevator back up." I don't know what happened after that. .... I assume it was the fifth or the sixth. The reason I could not tell whether it was the sixth or the fifth is because I was on the opposite elevator, and if you are not thinking about it it is kind of hard to judge which floor, if you started moving."

So, Williams wasn't sure which floor Oswald was on shortly before 12:00 on November 22. But the SIXTH floor is certainly still in the running as far as Bonnie Ray Williams' testimony is concerned. Throw out his testimony if you want to, but I'm not going to, because Williams positively places Lee Oswald on an upper floor (possibly the SIXTH) a short time before the assassination.

And....

Danny Arce goes into the same "I'm Not Sure" category that Bonnie Ray Williams resides in, because in his Warren Commission testimony (at 6 H 365), Arce said exactly the same thing about the floor numbers that Williams said....

DANNY ARCE -- "That's what I'm not too sure; I believe he [Oswald] was on five or the sixth floor. I am not too sure but we were going down and I believe he was on the fifth; I am not too sure."


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

There are witnesses that put him [Oswald] on the first floor eating Dave. We all know that. YOU can't show he was on the sixth floor as the WC claimed. .... He was on the first floor, Dave. The evidence shows this as you can't cite any to place him on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I already did -- Brennan (at 3 H 148).

But not having a specific witness who was INSIDE the Book Depository Building saying that they physically saw Lee Oswald on the sixth floor after 12:00 noon on November 22 doesn't surprise me at all -- and it shouldn't surprise anyone else either.

Why?

Because nobody was on the sixth floor between 12:00 and 12:30 that day, except Bonnie Ray Williams, who was up there for just a few minutes to eat his chicken-on-the-bone sandwich lunch (and he said he couldn't see into the southeast corner, because boxes were blocking the view; and Oswald was almost certainly already hiding in the Sniper's Nest when Williams was up there crunching away on his chicken-on-the-bone sandwich).

But other than Williams, all of the other workers who were laying the new plywood flooring on the sixth floor that morning had gone downstairs to eat lunch and/or watch the motorcade prior to 12:00 noon. So why would we expect any of the TSBD employees to see Oswald on the sixth floor past noon?

I'm also wondering what kind of stupid patsy-framing plotters Rob Caprio thinks were in charge of the assassination frame-up on November 22nd? They evidently just allowed Oswald to roam around the FIRST and SECOND floors of the Book Depository, free as a bird, at just about the same time they were trying to frame him on the SIXTH FLOOR for shooting the President.

What a brilliant patsy plan indeed.

And, per some nuts like Ralph Cinque, the plotters even permitted Oswald to go out onto the front steps and get himself photographed by Jim Altgens too. (Oh great! That's now more stuff the goofy plotters have to fake!)


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

The fact you are desperate enough to use a man who DID NOT IDENTIFY LHO when he viewed a lineup on November 22, 1963 makes me very happy.

You have confirmed the desperate position you WC defenders are in. Clinging to lifeboats at this point is pretty appropriate.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In light of the large amount of evidence that hangs Lee Oswald for not just one murder on 11/22/63--but TWO!--a conspiracy clown like Robert Caprio telling an LNer that he is "desperate" can only elicit laughter. (And lots of it.)


BEN HOLMES SAID:

He [DVP] CANNOT admit that Givens originally reported that Oswald was reading a newspaper downstairs at 11:50.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Of course I can "admit" that the 11/22/63 FBI report [CD5] says that Givens said he saw Oswald reading a newspaper on the first floor at about 11:50 AM.

But the crux of Givens' two statements (his November 22 statement to the FBI in CD5 and his Warren Commission testimony when he said he saw Oswald on the sixth floor shortly before noon) is still basically identical -- that "crux" being: Givens is saying (both times) that Lee Oswald was on an upper floor of the TSBD shortly prior to 12:00 noon on November 22 (give or take a few minutes in real time). In both of those statements made by Givens, Oswald is upstairs many minutes PRIOR to the assassination.

Therefore, given the fact that human beings are not human clocks and don't possess a built-in ability to automatically know exactly what time it is when they are observing casual things (like seeing a man in a building at any certain point in time on any particular day), Charles Givens' various statements are essentially the same with respect to Givens' first-hand knowledge of the whereabouts of Lee Harvey Oswald shortly prior to noon on November 22, 1963.

Yes, Givens did tell the FBI agents on 11/22 that he saw Oswald on the first floor reading a paper at about 11:50. I don't deny that fact. And I don't for a minute think the FBI got that part of their report wrong. But in his WC testimony, Givens flatly denied ever saying such a thing:

Mr. BELIN. Did you see him in the domino room at all around anywhere between 11:30 and 12 or 12:30?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?
Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.

[Later...]

Mr. BELIN. Did you ever tell anyone that you saw Lee Oswald reading a newspaper in the domino room around 11:50, 10 minutes to 12 on that morning on November 22nd?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.


I do feel, however, that Givens, by the time he testified in front of the Warren Commission, had merely forgotten that he said those things about Oswald to the FBI men.

But the WC wasn't hiding the "11:50" incident from anyone. The Commission published Mr. Belin's question about the incident in WC volume 6 for everybody to read [at 6 H 354].

And Charlie Givens could have answered "Yes" to that question asked by David Belin about Givens seeing Oswald downstairs at 11:50, couldn't he?

Let me guess---Ben Holmes and other conspiracy theorists believe that David Belin had Charles D. Givens wrapped around his little finger when Givens testified in front of the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964, right Ben? So Belin knew what was coming, and maybe Belin even instructed Givens to answer "No" to this question....

"Did you ever tell anyone that you saw Lee Oswald reading a newspaper in the domino room around 11:50, 10 minutes to 12 on that morning on November 22nd?"

Well, if some CTers want to believe that someone told Givens to answer "No" to the above question, I certainly cannot do anything to persuade those CTers to think otherwise. And such CTers also no doubt think that Givens lied through his teeth when he said he went back up to the sixth floor to get his cigarettes and then saw Oswald. (Did David Belin put those words in Givens' mouth too?)

I, however, will remain the naive and gullible little fool who prefers to believe that even though portions of Charles D. Givens' statements and Warren Commission testimony don't fit together perfectly (which I fully discuss here), Mr. Charles Givens nevertheless was not lying through his teeth (and therefore was not coerced by any outside forces to tell an array of lies to the Warren Commission) when he said he saw Lee Harvey Oswald on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building at approximately 11:55 AM CST on November 22, 1963.

If Ben Holmes and other conspiracy theorists want to believe otherwise, well, go right ahead and do so. It's a free country. But I'll also remind everyone of this portion of Charles Givens' WC testimony....

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Givens, we surely appreciate your cooperation in coming down here. Now, you and I didn't talk about this at all until we started taking this deposition, did we?
Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.

[...]

Mr. BELIN. Have I ever met you before?
Mr. GIVENS. I don't believe so. I don't believe I have.



I'll also add this ---

If Charlie Givens did see Lee Oswald in the Domino Room on the first floor at about 11:50 AM (and also allowing for the fact that all times provided by witnesses--Givens included--can really only be looked upon as "approximate" times, which is only common sense), that fact in no way destroys the entire case against Oswald as JFK's assassin.

Oswald, like all of the other order fillers who worked at the Book Depository, could move around freely in the building during the course of any work day, and therefore could have been on the first floor at some point in time before noon and then also have been seen upstairs on the sixth floor just a very few minutes later.

I can easily envision a scenario which has Givens seeing Oswald on the first floor in the Domino Room at some point in time prior to 12:00, with Oswald then going to the fifth or sixth floor a short time later, with Oswald then being in a position on either the fifth floor or the sixth floor (some of the TSBD witnesses were uncertain as to which of those exact floors Oswald was on) to shout down the elevator shaft to the four employees who were racing the two freight elevators downstairs. And then, after the elevator race, Charles Givens goes back up to the sixth floor to get his jacket and cigarettes and encounters Oswald.

The above reconstruction of possible events would blend perfectly with the testimony and FBI statements of all four of the Depository employees who rode the elevators downstairs around lunchtime on November 22--including Charles D. Givens--without a single lie or instance of coercion being necessary whatsoever.

Via the above scenario I just laid out, the only thing that would require any "adjustment" at all would be the time when Givens saw Oswald on the first floor. The time of that event was very likely a little earlier than the 11:50 timestamp placed on it by Givens in his 11/22/63 interview with the FBI.

But, again, such instances of "timestamping" must always be taken with a grain of salt, because it is not reasonable to expect every witness to recall the EXACT time they saw someone or did something. Because that person, at the time of the incident itself, would have had no reason under the sun to stop and say to himself: "Gee, I'd better make a note of the exact time of day that I saw Lee Oswald walking around the building today". Any times given by witnesses, therefore, must always be considered merely estimates and approximations on the part of the witness providing such information.

But some conspiracists seem to want to believe that the timestamps provided by witnesses connected with the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases are times that have been proven to be spot-on accurate--right down to the minute. Such a notion, of course, is preposterous. And that goes for Charles Givens' time estimates of when he saw Lee Harvey Oswald in the Depository, and it also applies to the timestamping of the Tippit murder provided by eyewitness Helen Markham as well.

David Von Pein
July 1, 2014
July 2, 2014




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 728)


GIL JESUS SAID:

In all the necessary handiwork of securing the paper, preparing this three foot package, taping it together, putting the rifle inside, and finally taking it out of the package—, how did Oswald manage to ONLY leave a right palmprint and the left fingerprint of his index finger?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here, folks, we have another excellent example of an "Anybody But Oswald" mega-kook in action.

Gilbert J. Jesus (the mega-kook in question) has ironclad PROOF right in front of him (via the two LHO prints found on the bag) showing that Lee Harvey Oswald handled the brown paper bag [CE142] that was found by police in the TSBD's Sniper's Nest.

But Gilbert, instead of accepting the obvious FACT that his favorite patsy for all 11/22/63 murders--Lee H. Oswald--handled that bag on the same day JFK was assassinated with a gun owned by the same Mr. Oswald, wonders how he can manage to take the noose from around Oswald's neck with respect to this "fingerprints on the paper bag" issue.

So, Gil will try to make Oswald appear innocent by asking why there weren't MORE prints of LHO's on the bag, which is a bag that already has TWO of his prints on it (verifying that Oswald definitely was in possession of that bag at some point prior to the police finding it on the afternoon of November 22nd).

This is kind of like declaring Oswald innocent of J.D. Tippit's murder because there were only about TWELVE total witnesses who either saw Oswald shoot Tippit or flee the scene (gun in hand) right after the murder.

Gil probably thinks it takes a minimum of TWENTY witnesses to definitively prove someone is guilty of a crime. Twelve won't cut it in Gil's CT world.

And it probably takes at least FIVE bullet shells from Oswald's gun to prove that it was LHO's gun that killed Tippit. Having only four shells on Tenth Street puts the DPD one short of the promised land.

Tomorrow's meaningless question that Gil will ask:

WHY WEREN'T FIBERS FROM THE SEAT OF WESLEY FRAZIER'S CAR EMBEDDED ONTO THE PAPER BAG THAT OSWALD ALLEGEDLY BROUGHT INTO THE DEPOSITORY ON THE MORNING OF THE ASSASSINATION?

David Von Pein
October 5, 2009







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 727)


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

It [Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle] was not a carbine. It was a short rifle.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

A "carbine" is a "rifle". Simple as that.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/carbine

car⋅bine
–noun
1. a light, gas-operated semiautomatic rifle.
2. (formerly) a short rifle used in the cavalry.


Why do CTers continually ignore the fact that a carbine IS a "rifle"?


HERBERT BLENNER SAID:

A rifle with a manually operated bolt is not a carbine.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Is that why every dictionary in the world says that a "Carbine" is a "Rifle", Herb?


HERBERT BLENNER SAID:

The definition that you cited asserted that a carbine is a gas-operated semiautomatic rifle. So according to your source, the statement that a carbine is a rifle is consistent with my statement that a rifle with a manually operated bolt is not a carbine.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, Herb, you must think that Klein's Sporting Goods (circa 1963) didn't have the slightest idea what they were doing when they placed the following words in their magazine ads (linked below). And these are words that appear TOGETHER in the VERY SAME ad:

"6.5 Italian Carbine"

and

"Turned-down bolt"







Klein's quite obviously considered a rifle with a "turned-down bolt" (i.e., "a rifle with a manually operated bolt") to also be a "carbine".

What about it, Herbert? Didn't Klein's know what they were selling? Or should they have contacted a conspiracy kook before placing the words "turned-down bolt" and "carbine" in the very same ad?

David Von Pein
September 17, 2009




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 726)


A "YouTuber" SAID:

Mr. Von Pein, I don't see how you can disagree with Mr. [S.M. "Skinny"] Holland's interview [with Mark Lane in Lane's 1967 film "Rush To Judgment"]. He is more than a credible witness. There is no doubt that Kennedy was shot in the head from behind that picket fence and the Warren Commission, the FBI, top military brass and the Dallas police covered it up.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There is no possibility of JFK being hit in the head from the Grassy Knoll. There was one and only one entry wound in JFK's head, and it was in the BACK of his head without doubt....and it was a bevelled-in, cratered entry hole for Oswald's bullet from the TSBD.

That entry wound is irrefutable physical evidence that Kennedy was hit in the head from the rear...and no amount of arguing will change that fact. Here's the wound:



The autopsy photograph above was declared by the HSCA to be unaltered in any way.

So, conspiracy theorists who think President Kennedy was killed by a shot from the front are forced to believe that all three autopsy surgeons PLUS the Warren Commission PLUS the HSCA's Photographic Panel PLUS the members of the Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission were ALL in on a cover-up to hide the truth about JFK's head wounds. And that, frankly, is just silly.

Sorry, but Skinny Holland's observations don't come close to discrediting the evidence I just mentioned above.

David Von Pein
October 5, 2009


video







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 725)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Whether or not Earlene Roberts was "lying" about the honking of the police car is not relevant as far as proving Oswald's guilt or innocence in the Tippit murder. It's a side issue (at best).

Plus, the horn-honking police car is something that had occurred in front of 1026 Beckley on other days before 11/22/63. (Shouldn't that send a signal to some of the CTers regarding Roberts' testimony in this regard?)

But there can be no doubt that Oswald did go to his room on 11/22 at around 1:00 and leave very shortly thereafter (with or without a honking police car).

The best witnesses to prove Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder are, IMO, the two Davis girls, who each IDed Oswald later that day in a lineup. And they each saw LHO dumping shells out of a REVOLVER. (Ergo, the killer was not armed with an "automatic", which would be foolish in this case anyway, since--per CTers--they were trying to "frame" good ol' Lee Harvey for this 2nd murder too; so why would they frame him with an automatic when the patsy didn't own such a weapon?)

Barbara Davis Affidavit

Virginia Davis Affidavit


There is no safe hiding place for the conspiracy-seeking clowns in the Tippit case. Oswald left his calling card at the scene, and was positively identified by multiple witnesses (either doing the shooting or fleeing the area immediately afterward).

No amount of conspiracy spin will exonerate Lee Oswald for J.D. Tippit's slaying.

Just the fact that Oswald was in the area of the crime, brandishing a pistol and fighting with police, within 35 minutes of Officer Tippit being shot is very powerful circumstantial evidence of his guilt right there.

And when we add in the undeniable fact that the gun Oswald was holding in the theater WAS the Tippit murder weapon (based on firearms tests that positively link the four bullet shells at 10th & Patton to Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver #V510210), then nothing more needs to be said to prove Oswald's guilt.

But maybe the conspiracy theorists think that someone ELSE (who was a dead ringer for Oswald) used LHO's gun to kill Tippit, and then this real killer somehow got Oswald to take back his gun in the next 35 minutes before Oswald was arrested. And then Oswald felt like killing some cops in the movie theater. (Yeah, that's a theory any jury would buy, isn't it?)


RELATED LINKS:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / In Lee Harvey Oswald's Room

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com / Interviews With Earlene Roberts



GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Ah, those Davis ladies, who definitely saw Oswald but somehow could not get the color of his jacket right, not even agreeing with each other.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The Davis girls weren't focusing mainly on Oswald's JACKET, for Pete sake. They were focusing on his FACE and WHAT HE WAS DOING -- i.e., dumping shells out of a revolver just a few feet away from each of the Davis girls' faces.

The "jacket" was certainly a secondary thing on the minds of Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis during those very few brief seconds they were looking at J.D. Tippit's killer.

But, once again, chaff always trumps wheat in a CTer's field of absurdity. In other words, the differing JACKET descriptions positively (somehow) mean that Oswald wasn't the killer. And a POSITIVE I.D. at the police station by both Davis girls means nothing in the world of many CTers.

Brilliant!


BEN HOLMES SAID:

This boggles the mind... the EASIEST thing for humans to spot is the color of someone's clothing. It's the LARGEST OBJECT in view, and quickly categorized.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Therefore, per Holmes' logic here about the jacket colors, EVERY witness who said the jacket of the fleeing gunman was a DIFFERENT color (or shade) really saw DIFFERENT gun-toting people. Barbara Davis saw someone DIFFERENT than her sister-in-law. And Ted Callaway saw yet another different person (because of the jacket, which could never be misidentified in color by ANY witness because, per Ben, it's the "largest object in view"). [LOL break.]

Ergo, if there had been up to TEN differing jacket descriptions by the witnesses, it would have to mean, per Ben, that there must have been TEN different escaping gunmen from the Tippit murder scene on November 22nd, 1963.

Brilliant, Ben. You've solved it. It was a team of TEN killers--all wearing different-colored jackets!

Call Blakey and Willens! Ben's found the smoking gun [and jackets]!


BEN HOLMES SAID:

There is NO credible evidence that Oswald ordered and owned the murder weapon.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Let's see....

...A paper trail a mile deep, featuring OSWALD'S own writing on the order form and money order (plus Waldman No. 7, which is the proof that Klein's shipped Rifle C2766 to Oswald/Hidell).

...OSWALD'S prints on the rifle (barrel and trigger guard).

...Photos of OSWALD holding the rifle in his backyard.

...Marina sees OSWALD dry-firing a rifle on the porch in New Orleans.

...Marina sees a rifle wrapped in a blanket on the floor of Ruth Paine's garage.

...The DeMohrenschildts see a rifle propped up in a closet in OSWALD'S apartment shortly after Oswald ordered a rifle from Klein's.

All of the above, in the strange world of conspiracy clowns, adds up to:

Lee Oswald never owned any rifle at all in the year 1963.

It's an odd universe these CTers inhabit, isn't it?

Ben must think Klein's was in the habit of mailing out rifles to people who DIDN'T order them. (A curious thing to do indeed.)

Tell us, Ben, who was it who rented PO Box 2915 in Dallas in March of '63? Any idea?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

The order form to which you are referring doesn't exist.

What *does* exist is a copy of the microfilm of the original. As well, many of the "samples" of handwriting for Oswald were copies.

Here's what an expert says: "Photographic reproductions could only be compared visually with other photographic reproductions or with original documents. All conclusions based solely upon photographic reproductions are necessarily tentative and inconclusive, since they cannot reveal much about pen pressure and other dynamic qualities of handwriting. Further, they sometimes conceal, rather than reveal, evidence of tracings, alterations, erasures, or obliterated writing."

"tentative and inconclusive".

Not me, Lil Davy... but an expert in handwriting analysis.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Quite obviously, Ben, there are some experts who disagree (re: Oswald's writing being on Warren Commission Exhibit No. 773, the Klein's order form)....

MELVIN EISENBERG. Returning to Commission Exhibit No. 773, did you compare the handwriting on that exhibit with the writing in the known standards to see if they were written by the same person?

JAMES CADIGAN. Yes; I did.

Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?

Mr. CADIGAN. That the writer of the known standards, Lee Harvey Oswald, prepared the handwriting and hand printing on Commission Exhibit No. 773.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

No Davy, you're lying again. There are *NO* document examiners who will agree that examining copies leads to anything less than tentative conclusions.

Nor can you produce one.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're lying, Ben.

(Of course, Benji really meant to say "anything MORE than tentative conclusions". But for some reason he said "LESS than". ~shrug~)

Anyway, I produced Cadigan, who said CE773 was the handprinting of LHO. And you can just choke on it.

And here's another questioned documents examiner who said CE773 was Oswald's writing--Alwyn Cole....

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cole, have you compared the documents 774-783, all signed "Lee H. Oswald," with the document 773, the photograph of a purchase order to Klein's Sporting Goods, for purposes of determining whether the author of the documents 774-783 also authored the document 773?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your conclusion?

Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the author of the standard writing bearing the exhibit numbers which you just related----

Mr. EISENBERG. 774-783?

Mr. COLE. 774-783, is the author of the handwriting on Commission Exhibit 773.

[...]

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, continuing on these standards for a moment, have you examined other questioned documents besides Commission 773 at my request?

Mr. COLE. I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do the standards which you selected, that is, items 774 through 788, in your opinion provide a sufficient basis for comparison of the other questioned documents which you also examined?

Mr. COLE. They do provide a satisfactory basis for comparison.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are they sufficiently close in time, both to 773 and to the other questioned documents which you have examined?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.

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

And here's Examiner #3 for Benji to choke on -- Joseph McNally (HSCA testimony)....

Mr. KLEIN - At this time would you please be seated, Mr McNally. I would now direct your attention to exhibit JFK F-504, which is a microfilm reproduction of an order form to Klein's Sporting Goods Co. for a rifle, plus the envelope in which the order form was sent; and JFK F-509, which is a money order made out to Klein's Sporting Goods Co., both of which documents have the name Hidell on them.

Mr. MCNALLY - I have both of them.

Mr. KLEIN - JFK F-504 and F-509; do you recognize those documents?

Mr. MCNALLY - I do.

Mr. KLEIN - Did the entire panel have an opportunity to examine those documents?

Mr. MCNALLY - They did.

Mr. KLEIN - Did the panel reach a conclusion with respect to those documents?

Mr. MCNALLY - They did.

Mr. KLEIN - What was that conclusion?

Mr. MCNALLY - That JFK exhibit F-504 and F-509 were written by the same person, again with the caveat. JFK exhibit F-504 is a photo reproduction of a microfilm.

Mr. KLEIN - The document, which is marked F-509, the money order, is an original document; is it not?

Mr. MCNALLY - It was; yes.

Mr. KLEIN - And your conclusion is they were written by the same person who wrote the other documents?

Mr. MCNALLY - That is right.

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

Three reasons to know Holmes is a liar -- Cadigan, Cole, and McNally.

Embarrassing, isn't it Ben?


BEN HOLMES SAID:

And the proof would simply be a document examiner who DOES agree that copies of originals are just as good as the originals when making judgments on handwriting.

But you've refused to provide that proof.

Why is that Davy?

Why the CONSTANT cowardice and lies on your part?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Another lie by Ben. When did I ever say that examiners Cole, Cadigan, and McNally claimed that COPIES were "as good" as ORIGINALS?

Answer: Never.

You're a liar.

Of COURSE originals are better than copies. But it's also true that the COPY of CE773 examined by Cole, Cadigan, and McNally produced a conclusion from all three that CE773 was written by Oswald and no one else.

But Ben-boy wants to move the goal posts and now claim that I said that examiners have said copies are as good as originals. And I never even HINTED at any such thing.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

The note to "Mr. Hunt," allegedly written by Oswald, was authenticated by experts, but no one these days believes that this note was actually written by Lee Oswald. And I believe the note was an original, not a copy.

So what exactly is that original authentication worth?

The problem is compounded with the rifle order because there is very little writing to verify. Too small a sample. That, together with the fact that forensic handwriting analysis is not as cut-and-dried an exercise as David would like us to think (mistakes are made), together with the fact that forging documents is one of the things the CIA does well, and it is not at all unreasonable to think that maybe, just maybe, if Oswald was being set up, the rifle order could have been a part of this.

I ask again just how LNers can tell evidence of plotters from evidence against Oswald. If the frame-up is good enough, you can't tell, and that's kind of the point behind a frame-up.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sure, mistakes could be made in examining almost anything---handwriting, fingerprints, ballistics....anything. But the fact still remains that all three of the questioned documents examiners I quoted previously -- Cadigan, Cole, and McNally -- all came to the conclusion that the handprinting on Commission Exhibit No. 773 is the writing of Lee H. Oswald. And there's nothing any CTer can do to change those findings. Talk about potential mistakes all you want, but THREE different examiners (plus actually even more than that for McNally's "panel" in 1978 for the HSCA) came to the same conclusion regarding CE773.

And then there's CE788 (the money order) on top of CE773. More "mistakes" by ALL of the document examiners?

How much "It Was Oswald's Writing" confirmation is required in the world of conspiracy theorists?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Mr. MCNALLY. ....Oswald's general writing pattern is simple and tends to be rather legible, and to turn out something like that would be not particularly difficult.

( 4 H 360 )

Mr. McNALLY. ......It could very well be a situation where this thing has been patched together from original writing of Oswald. It can be done using a photo reproduction process.

( 4 HSCA 361 )

"....it is possible to incorporate or insert changes and alterations into copies. A method frequently used is to paste together parts of documents to make one fraudulent document, which is then copied. If the first copy can pass inspection, it will be used; if not, it will be reworked to eliminate all signs of alteration. This amended copy is then recopied for the finished product. This is usually referred to as the "cut and paste" method."

( 8 HSCA 239 )


DALE H. HAYES, JR. SAID:

It's deja vu all over again - DVP cites testimony and evidence proving his point and Ben, with his compromised interpretive skills, deflects and nitpicks and twists - it is the infallible sign of a dishonest person of low character who cannot and will not face simple truth. Ben is blind to it, but he employed the exact same sick pattern of discussion with Hank after Hank took him to school - it really is pathetic. DVP asked how much evidence would convince a Cter - the answer is obvious - NONE. No amount of evidence will suffice for dishonest people with an axe to grind.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Sorry, David, gotta go with Ben on this one. You used a "tentative and inconclusive" expert opinion to claim definitively that it was "OSWALD'S own writing on the order form" without acknowledging that such a conclusion was not definitive.

Yes, indeed, you did not use the words "a copy is as good as an original," but your statement allows us to conclude that you must believe that a copy is most definitely as good as an original. This is more than "hinting at" the issue, yet you claimed you didn't even hint at such a statement.

You lose on the issue of the order form and money order. There is no definitive proof that the handwriting was Oswald's because one cannot have definitive proof if one is working with a copy. Surely you must realize this. It's not a matter of my opinion, or Ben's opinion, or your opinion. It's a fact known and recognized by questioned document examiners the world over.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The testimony I provided from Cole, Cadigan, and McNally sure doesn't sound very "tentative and inconclusive" to me. Particularly Cadigan's testimony, wherein he even said this....

"The writer of the known standards, Lee Harvey Oswald, prepared the handwriting and hand printing on Commission Exhibit No. 773." -- James C. Cadigan; 1964

And in Alwyn Cole's Warren Commission session, he says that the SAME PERSON who wrote the documents in CE774-783 is the same person who wrote CE773 (the Klein's order form).

Now, just take a look at CE774 to 783 and see what you'll find there---there are many different documents featuring Lee H. Oswald's signature and various other writing.

Do conspiracists actually want to contend that a person who WASN'T Lee Oswald (and was merely faking LHO's writing in order to frame him) prepared all of the various documents, from letters to library card applications, that we find in CE774 to CE783?

Frankly, that's a nutty idea, that an Oswald imposter, who was perfect at faking LHO's own handwriting, would have been faking so many different and varied documents relating to LHO.

But in order for the CTers to have a fighting chance at debunking the experts like Alwyn Cole, Jim Cadigan, and Joe McNally, the CTers actually *do* have to believe that an Oswald imposter faked ALL of those documents.....because it's clear from the testimony of the document experts that the SAME PERSON whose writing is seen in CE774-783 did write CE773.

In other words, a member of the Anybody-But-Oswald team will go to the ends of the Earth to avoid the obvious truth re this matter, with that truth being: All of the writing we see in CE773 to CE783, plus the original money order seen in CE788, was written by Lee Harvey Oswald.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

...BUT RATHER THAN PRESUME THAT THESE THREE DOCUMENTS MIGHT HAVE BEEN FORGED TO FRAME OSWALD - YOU PRETEND THAT *ALL* OF THE LEGITIMATE HANDWRITING OF OSWALD MUST HAVE BEEN FAKED.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Nice job at twisting things around there. I'm not even sure I can decipher what the heck you're trying to say there.

But, anyway, are you now going to accept as LEGITIMATE the writing we find in all of the documents in CE774 to 783 (which are the standards Mr. Cole used for the Warren Commission to compare to CE773)?

If you DO consider CE774 to 783 to be the LEGITIMATE handwriting of Lee H. Oswald, then you are also forced to accept CE773 as being the writing of Oswald, per Alwyn Cole's testimony here.....

"It is my conclusion that the author of the standard writing bearing the exhibit numbers which you just related--774-783--is the author of the handwriting on Commission Exhibit 773." -- A. Cole

So, which way do you want to swing here, Holmes? Is the writing seen in 774-783 REALLY the writing of Oswald, or was it all faked by plotters to frame him? If you choose the former, which your last post indicates you have done, then you're sunk by Cole's testimony shown above.

By the way, CE788 (the money order Oswald mailed to Klein's for the rifle) is NOT a microfilm copy. It's an original document. And the various document experts have all said that CE788 was written by Lee Oswald.....

Mr. KLEIN - The document, which is marked F-509 [aka CE788], the money order, is an original document; is it not?

Mr. MCNALLY - It was; yes.

Mr. KLEIN - And your conclusion is they were written by the same person who wrote the other documents?

Mr. MCNALLY - That is right.

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

Mr. CADIGAN. That the postal money order, Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, had been prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. EISENBERG. The postal money order is Commission Exhibit No. 788 and your picture is Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, is that correct?

Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.


BEN HOLMES SAID ALL THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'll try to talk slowly this time (for Ben's sake) --- Since Warren Commission Exhibits 774 through 783 include a wide variety of Lee Harvey Oswald's handwriting and handprinting (which even you seem to accept as a fact), then CE773 (per the testimony of each man I've been citing--Cadigan, Cole, and McNally) was ALSO written by Lee H. Oswald.

They MATCH. ALL of them---from CE773 through CE783 (plus CE788 too, don't forget--which is an original document, not a microfilmed copy). All of those documents contain the handwriting of ONE INDIVIDUAL PERSON---i.e., they were all written by the SAME PERSON, per all of the document experts.

Why can't you understand the simple and easy-to-read testimony of those three different document examiners?

Or, to toss your words back at you --- Why the incredible cowardice on your part to admit the obvious?

Ben, I know that you feel it's your civic duty to pretend that all of the evidence that exists against your boyfriend (Mr. Oswald) was fake, planted, or otherwise manipulated by a team of evil-doers, but your nitpicking and failure to gaze upon that forest that is Oswald's guilt has reached stupendous proportions, with this handwriting topic being just the latest example of your refusal to accept the obvious.

And it's something that even you, one of the biggest conspiracy-happy clowns in the free world, knows full well is true -- that is: Lee H. Oswald (the real one) ordered, paid for, and took possession of Carcano Rifle #C2766 in late March of 1963.

It really boils down to this simple choice -- Either a bunch of people were running around making it look like Lee Oswald murdered President Kennedy and Officer Tippit by faking tons of evidence and impersonating Oswald all over the place....or: Lee Harvey Oswald really was guilty of both of those murders.

Now Ben, which of the above two options is most likely to be true?


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Related Question.....

Does anyone know if the money order [CE788] was ever checked for fingerprints?


"ASDFG" SAID:

Moot point, Davy.

Oswald was manipulated and had no idea why he possibly ordered those guns in that manner; probably posed for the backyard photos; possibly took a fake shot at General Walker; definitely handed out pro-Cuba/Castro fliers in New Orleans; may have visited Sylvia Odio with two other men; definitely got a job doing grunt work for minimum wage in THAT building - 15 miles from N. Beckley and was most likely told by Ruth Paine on the previous weekend that he could have some curtain rods the next time he stopped over.

Of course, I could be wrong.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ya think?!!

BTW, that certainly wouldn't be a "moot point" to most CTers, because most CTers in the "Anybody But Oswald" club (which includes the vast majority of CTers posting regularly on the Internet) believe that Oswald never touched that money order that was mailed to Klein's. They think that the money order was forged by unknown plotters. So Oswald never handled it at all.

But I'd love to be able to put Oswald's own fingerprints on that money order. Of course, his "prints" are already on it (in a sense), since he himself wrote all the words we see on that document. But having his fingerprints on it too would be just more icing on the cake for the wretched lowlife LNers like DVP. :)


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

I'll now answer my own question about whether CE788 (the money order) was checked for fingerprints:

It was.

And "no latent fingerprints of value were developed" [per Commission Document No. 49].

Also....

Mr. EISENBERG. Other Commission Exhibits, specifically Nos. 788, 801, and 802 also appear to have been treated for fingerprints?

Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Exhibit No. 788 has been desilvered?

Mr. CADIGAN. Desilvered, and Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802 are still in their original silvered condition.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you see these items before they were treated for fingerprints.

Mr. CADIGAN. I know I saw Exhibit No. 788 before it was treated for fingerprints. As to Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802, I don't know at this time.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are the photographs which you produced photographs of the items before they were treated for fingerprints or after?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; before they were treated for fingerprints. In other words, it is regular customary practice to photograph an exhibit before it is treated for latents for exactly this reason, that in the course of the treatment there may be some loss of detail, either total or partial.


More of this discussion
can be found HERE.



David Von Pein
June 2014




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 724)


BUD SAID:

How many times did he [Wesley Frazier] say he didn't pay attention to the bag?


BARB JUNKKARINEN SAID:

Have you read anything on these two [Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle] besides Posner? Doesn't seem like it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bud doesn't need to read anything about Buell Wesley Frazier (other than Frazier's WC testimony) in order to know that the question Bud asked in his last post is a very good and valid inquiry.

The fact is, when we read Wesley Frazier's 1964 Warren Commission testimony, Frazier tells the Commission TEN SEPARATE TIMES that he wasn't paying very close attention to Oswald's paper bag or the way that LHO was carrying that bag on the morning of 11/22/63.

Let's take a look (these are all quotes from the mouth of Buell Wesley Frazier, via his Warren Commission session on March 11, 1964 [emphasis added by DVP]):

"I noticed there was a package laying on the back seat, I didn't pay too much attention and I said, "What's the package, Lee?""

"I will be frank with you, I didn't pay much attention to the package because like I say before and after he told me that it was curtain rods and I didn't pay any attention to it, and he never had lied to me before so I never did have any reason to doubt his word."

"Like I say, I didn't pay much attention to the package other than I knew he had it under his arm and I didn't pay too much attention the way he was walking because I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all."

"I will say I am not sure about that, whether it was folded over or not, because, like I say, I didn't pay that much attention to it."

"Like I said, I remember I didn't look at the package very much, paying much attention, but when I did look at it he did have his hands on the package like that."

"Well, you know, like I said now, I said I didn't pay much attention--"

"I didn't pay much attention, but when I did, I say, he had this part down here, like the bottom would be short he had cupped in his hand like that and, say, like walking from the back if you had a big arm jacket there you wouldn't tell much from a package back there."


[End Frazier Quotes.]

And then there's also Wes Frazier's testimony at the 1986 TV docu-trial ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald" [see the video below]), which includes this exchange between witness Frazier and prosecutor Vince Bugliosi:

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."

BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."


video


RELEVANT EXCERPTS FROM "RECLAIMING HISTORY":

"[Buell Wesley] Frazier's statements that the rifle was tucked under Oswald's armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent in all of his statements to investigators, it was clearly inferable from his Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption on his part based on his limited view.

Frazier told the Commission that "the only time" he saw the way Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that was visible was "just a little strip [of the package] running down" along the inside of Oswald's arm.

[...]

Since he could only see this small portion of the package under Oswald's right arm, and because he didn't notice any part of the package sticking above his right shoulder...Frazier assumed that it must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, "I don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your armpit."

Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's conclusion, it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and over (no less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much attention to the package or to the way Oswald carried it.

[...]

In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused. So we don't even know, for sure, how Oswald was carrying the rifle in front of his body, which Frazier could not see.

[...]

The most likely scenario was postulated well by Dan Rather [in 1967], who rhetorically told his audience, "You can decide whether Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in his own words, not paying much attention, might have missed the few inches of the narrow end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 409-410 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

David Von Pein
October 2, 2009







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 723)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In 2006, shortly after reading Warren Commission counsel David W. Belin's very good 1973 book "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury", I wrote a review for the book. I'd like to offer up this excerpt from that review now....

[Quote On:]

"[The] opening section of "You Are The Jury" is a dandy section too, with Belin systematically demolishing the oft-uttered theory by the conspiracy kooks that the paraffin test given to Lee Oswald on 11/22/63 is virtual proof of his innocence in the JFK murder.

As Belin thoroughly explains, the paraffin test given to Oswald by the Dallas Police is a completely unreliable way to determine whether or not a person has recently fired a gun....in that the nitrates that can show up via such a test can also be present on a person's hands (or elsewhere on the body) if the person has recently come into contact with other substances, like tobacco or ordinary household cleaning products (like Clorox for instance).

Plus (and this is the kicker, which destroys the "Paraffin Tests Are Reliable" claims of many conspiracists) -- Belin points out that a test was done with Oswald's own rifle, where an FBI agent fired LHO's gun and, to quote the text directly from page 18 of [Belin's] book:

"There were negative reactions on both hands and on the cheek of the FBI agent who fired the assassination weapon. Thus, we had the other side of the coin: A negative reaction from the paraffin test did not prove that a person had not fired a rifle."

Given the above results done by the FBI, how can anyone then continue to tout the paraffin procedure as being at all a convincing test, either in a pro or con manner?" -- DVP; November 22, 2006

[End 2006 Quote.]

Until today (June 27, 2014), I had not been aware of the existence of any written reports or other source material which would verify the fact that an FBI agent, after firing Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle three times, tested "negative" on his hands and cheek after being given a paraffin test.

But such verification can be located in the form of a letter written to the Warren Commission by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on April 2nd, 1964. That letter is found in Warren Commission Document No. 787. The most important part of that letter is the final paragraph, which I have highlighted in the photo below (click the picture to see the whole page of the document):



So, apparently it's the view of many conspiracy theorists that the letter we find in Commission Document No. 787 is yet another of the many alleged lies told by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover following the assassination of President Kennedy. Because it's also stated by many conspiracy believers that the negative result of Lee Harvey Oswald's paraffin test conducted on his cheek proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Oswald did not fire a rifle at JFK in Dallas on November 22nd, 1963.

Commission Document 787 indicates otherwise, however, to the dismay of the conspiracists, including Doug Horne, who thinks the negative "cheek" test on Oswald is one of the best reasons there is to believe that Oswald didn't shoot the President.

David Von Pein
June 27, 2014


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


PARAFFIN TESTS
(PART 2)



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




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 722)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I offer up the following text excerpts from the 1969 Clay Shaw trial
which I think are quite interesting:

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

IRVIN DYMOND (DEFENSE LAWYER FOR CLAY SHAW) -- "Now, in all of these
five, six, seven or eight times that you saw Dave Ferrie after the
assassination, was there ever any discussion of the assassination of
President Kennedy?"

PERRY RUSSO -- "No. The times that we met were for very short periods,
and he was a broken person in '64 and '65, I thought. When we met I
was generally on the run most of the time because Charlton Lyons, this
thing was coming up, of course that was I think in March, and then
they had the national elections and all that kind of stuff, Goldwater
election in '64, and also this other thing I was involved in during
the summer months, in '64 it was baseball, the baseball team, again in
'65, and '63 and '64 was my graduating year, and whenever he came over
it would not be more than three or four or five minutes at the most,
maybe a little bit longer."

MR. DYMOND -- "And to the best of your recollection, the assassination
was never discussed. Is that correct?"

MR. RUSSO -- "No."

MR. DYMOND -- "Did he ever ask you, "For goodness sake, keep quiet
about what you heard up on Louisiana Avenue Parkway"?"

JAMES ALCOCK (PROSECUTING ATTORNEY) -- "Objection, Your Honor, Mr.
Dymond knows that is hearsay."

JUDGE EDWARD A. HAGGERTY JR. -- "Sustained."

MR. DYMOND -- "I don't think that is hearsay on Your Honor's previous
ruling on a point of similarity yesterday."

JUDGE HAGGERTY -- "The acts and declarations of each co-conspirator, a
conspiracy, if one did actually exist, it was at an end after the
commission of the intended crime."

MR. DYMOND -- "To which ruling, if the Court please, Counsel for the
Defense reserves a bill of exception, making the question, the
objection, the ruling of the Court a part of the bill. Now, if the
Court please, in order for me to perfect this bill, I am going to have
to get an answer from the witness, which of course would have to be
done out of the presence of the Jury."

MR. ALCOCK -- "There is no provision in the law for such a procedure."

MR. DYMOND -- "Unless we do that, the Supreme Court has no way of
knowing in the event of appeal what testimony we were deprived of."

MR. ALCOCK -- "The question is quite obvious, what did this man say in
1964, and the objection is to hearsay, the Court has sustained it, and
what he is going to say is totally immaterial. The Court can
determine, I am sure, the Supreme Court can determine whether or not
as a matter of law that was hearsay, whatever the response was."

MR. DYMOND -- "If the Court please, as you well know, whether it is
hearsay or not would be completely immaterial to an appellate court
unless the appellate court found it was harmful, prejudicial, to keep
that out of evidence."

JUDGE HAGGERTY -- "You are asking to have the Jury go upstairs so you
can perfect your bill?"

MR. DYMOND -- "They can go back in the anteroom, I can get this in a
matter of 30 seconds."

JUDGE HAGGERTY -- "Let me make one statement for the record so that
the record will show what happened. The Court sustained an objection
by the State on the grounds that the evidence sought to be elicited
was hearsay, primarily because the conspiracy, if one actually
existed, it was at an end after the commission of the intended crime;
however, Defense Counsel requested the Court to remove the Jury so he
could ask certain questions of the witness to perfect his bill of
exception, and that is the status of the case as of this moment."

MR. DYMOND -- "I might say out of the presence of the Jury, and I
would like to refer Your Honor to the Enganic [sp?] case with which
you are familiar."

JUDGE HAGGERTY -- "I prosecuted the case."

MR. DYMOND -- "Co-conspirators were held for the actions of co-
conspirators after the actual commission of the crime."

JUDGE HAGGERTY -- "The Code states specifically they are liable for
the actions up until the time the conspiracy comes to a conclusion."

MR. DYMOND -- "Right up until the time of arrest, Your Honor."

MR. ALCOCK -- "Referring to the Code, Article 844 of the Louisiana
Code of Criminal Procedure, I think that article is quite clear in
where it states in Paragraph B, a form of bill of exception shall
contain only the evidence necessary to form the basis for the bill,
and the only evidence necessary to form the basis for this bill is the
propounded questioning, my objection, and the Court's ruling. There is
no provision in this law to have counsel have this question answered
for the benefit of an appellate court, should it be necessary. If that
is the case, Your Honor, any time Defense Counsel wanted to reserve a
bill, knowing the testimony would not be proper, although the Jury
might be removed, he could still get in what he wanted to get into the
record."

MR. DYMOND -- "It's on the basis of that very article that we contend
we do have a right to do this, this is testimony that is necessary to
make up the bill of exception."

JUDGE HAGGERTY -- "I will permit you to proceed in this matter for
this reason: You feel that the answer to be sought from the witness
may have a great bearing on your bill to be considered by the Court. I
will permit you to proceed."

[Jury is removed from courtroom.]

MR. DYMOND (TO WITNESS) -- "At any of these meetings, wherein you saw
David Ferrie and spoke with him, after the assassination of President
Kennedy, did he ever caution you to keep quiet about what you had
heard on Louisiana Avenue Parkway?"

MR. RUSSO -- "No."

MR. DYMOND -- "That's all."

JUDGE HAGGERTY -- "Bring the Jury back in."

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


PORTIONS OF DEFENSE LAWYER IRVIN DYMOND'S CLOSING ARGUMENTS TO THE
JURY AT THE CLAY SHAW TRIAL (FEBRUARY 28, 1969):


"Now, gentlemen, I am launching into what you would consider a
tirade in defense of the Warren Report, and, as you know, we have been
very limited in the evidence that we have presented along those lines,
but once again before I launch into what evidence we did have in that
connection, let me say that I know that you are not lawyers, but I
also know that you don't have to be lawyers to distinguish between a
contest over the validity of the Warren Report and a contest over the
question of whether this Defendant, Clay Shaw, sat in an apartment at
3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway with Lee Harvey Oswald and David Ferrie
and planned the killing of the President of the United States,
conspired to kill him.

"Gentlemen, please bear in mind that that is the question that
you are here to pass on. There may be some among you who violently
disapprove of the Warren Report. To these I want to accentuate this
statement: that is, that a verdict of acquittal of Clay Shaw does not
constitute your stamp of approval on the report issued by the Warren
Commission. I say that not apologetically, gentlemen, but I say it out
of practicality, recognizing the possibility that there may be among
you those who feel that way.

[....]

"As you will remember, the first witness that we put on in
connection with the Warren Report was Mr. [Robert A.] Frazier, the FBI
ballistics expert.

"Gentlemen, I was somewhat taken aback when the State actually
had the temerity to come before you in a closing argument and question
the fact that this man was an expert. The reason that it shocked me,
gentlemen, was that upon an examination of the State's opening
argument, what do you see but a statement to the effect that not the
Defense but that the State will offer the testimony of Special Agent
Robert A. Frazier of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, an expert in
the field of ballistics.

"Gentlemen, we didn't get Mr. Frazier down here, the State
subpoenaed Mr. Frazier, got him down here and obviously didn't like
what they heard, so we decided to use him.

[....]

"Mr. Frazier told you how the scene was re-enacted, Mr. Frazier
told you that he was in the sixth floor window of the Book Depository
and a complete presidential parade was re-enacted there, and that as a
result of this examination it was his opinion as an expert in the
field of ballistics that the President was hit in the back with one
shot from the School Book Depository window, and in the back of the
head with another shot from the window.

"Now, just what the State's position is in regard to Mr.
Frazier, I don't know. Do you they contend that he isn't an expert? I
hardly see how they could have subpoenaed him as an expert themselves.
Do they contend that he is just flat lying? Possibly they will come
before you and say that. They may well do that if they see fit to come
before you and allege that giant, impossible, fraudulent scheme that I
have mentioned.

[....]

"We brought before you Mr. Lloyd C. Cobb. Gentlemen, I can
unhesitatingly say that no one who knows Mr. Cobb would argue with the
fact that he is one of the leading citizens of New Orleans, a man who
would not dream of getting on that witness stand and lying, perjuring
himself for anybody or anything.

"Mr. Cobb testified to you that during this same period when
this Defendant was supposed to be running around the countryside up to
Clinton, Louisiana, running up there with David Ferrie and Lee Harvey
Oswald, who-have-you, that Mr. Cobb and this Defendant, Clay Shaw,
were engaged in perhaps the three or four busiest months in the lives
of either one of them.

"Now, gentlemen, this was not something that Mr. Cobb had to
call on his memory for in order to determine the dates. He has his
leases, he knew when they were negotiating these leases, he knew when
his deadline was, and I am sure that when you heard the testimony of
Mr. Cobb that he knew where Clay Shaw was during every working day --
and this had to be a working day up in Clinton, the barbershops were
open, the Voter Registration Office was open -- that you knew that it
was absolutely ridiculous to believe that this man would be running up
to Clinton for any purpose, or that he could have done it and not have
been missed by Mr. Cobb. ....

"There is no way in the world that this Defendant could have
been in Clinton, Louisiana, when the State claims that he was there,
unless Lloyd Cobb is lying, Goldie Moore is lying, and Clay Shaw is
lying. Now, if you can conclude that on the basis of the type of
identification that we had from Clinton, more power to you. I don't
see how you can.

"We go on, gentlemen, from the Clinton episode to this deal with
Vernon Bundy on the Lakefront. Now, gentlemen, Mr. Alcock said that he
would not apologize to you for having put Bundy on the witness stand.
Well, let me say that now I as an officer of the Court will apologize
to you for your having been subjected to him. And I mean that.

"Gentlemen, this fantastic story that this convicted thief, this
admitted liar, this inveterate and veteran narcotics addict, told on
this witness stand is worthy of Alice in Wonderland.

"Let's look at it. Let's consider something that Mr. Alcock --
something else that he said in his opening argument. He told you that
when Bundy was sitting out on that seawall that he had only two things
in mind: shooting those narcotics and avoiding arrest, and that is why
he was able to look right at Mr. Shaw and be sure of his
identification.

"Gentlemen, Mr. Alcock is right. Narcotics addicts are very
properly in fear of arrest when they are fooling with narcotics, and
it is absolutely beyond the belief of any reasonable man that Vernon
Bundy, this man who has been taking junk since he was 13 year old, by
his own testimony, that Vernon Bundy, who was living in a 25-room
house, would leave the security and safety of his own home, the
security and safety of his own bathroom where he could flush the
toilet, flush the dope down the toilet if the police came, and where
the police probably wouldn't come anyway, and carry this dope out to a
public place out on the seawall at the Lakefront to shoot dope.

"Gentlemen, that is absolutely fantastic, it is absolutely
beyond belief!

[....]

"Now let's get on to the other completely unbelievable point in
Bundy's testimony. Bundy, if you will recall, under cross-examination
by me admitted that there was at least a mile of vacant seawall in
each direction from where he was shooting this dope.

"Now, with two miles of vacant seawall there, gentlemen, Bundy
tells you that this Defendant picked the very spot where he, Bundy, is
sitting to meet with Lee Harvey Oswald to turn over money to Oswald.
The implication is that at that time they were probably planning to
kill the President. Gentlemen, what is the matter with some spot in
one direction or the other? That doesn't make sense.

[....]

"Gentlemen, this is another one, another one in the parade of
unfit witnesses that the State has trotted out before you and on the
basis of whose testimony they are asking you to return a verdict of
conviction. You can just stand them in line. [Charles] Spiesel was
there first, and Bundy can now take his place right alongside of him,
but for a different reason.

"Now, gentlemen, I won't go at length into the Spiesel
testimony. Frankly, I wouldn't insult your intelligence by doing so.
Suffice it to say that we can add just one more little impossibility
to this story, and that is, here we have Spiesel in a group of
complete strangers, people who have never seen him before, and they
are going to plan to kill the President right in front of him. That
makes a great deal of sense, too.

[....]

"Gentlemen, next we come to...the trip to the West Coast by Clay
Shaw. The State would have you believe that this was planned far in
advance, that Mr. Shaw was going to go out to the West Coast so as to
have an alibi. ....

"Now, the absolutely ridiculous part about this contention that
this perfectly legitimate speaking trip was actually, as the State
would claim, an overt act in a conspiracy, is this: If you are here in
New Orleans, why are you going to go out to the West Coast to get an
alibi for a crime that is being committed in Dallas?

"Once again, gentlemen, it doesn't add up. No earthly reason.

[....]

"Perry Raymond Russo to Officer [Edward] O'Donnell said, "Do you
really want to know the truth?" O'Donnell said yes. Russo said, "I
don't know whether Shaw was there or not." He said, "If I really had
to give a yes or no, I would have to say no."

"Gentlemen, that is Perry Raymond Russo, that is the man who
takes this witness stand and says one thing, goes elsewhere and says
another thing, takes the witness stand in another courtroom and says
something else, a man whose veracity, whose credibility, has been
shattered beyond repair, beyond question, and that is the man whom Mr.
Alcock says is the backbone of the State's case, their case sinks or
swims, stands or falls on the testimony of Perry Raymond Russo. ....

"Perry Raymond Russo came down here from Baton Rouge wanting a
little publicity. He gets down here and he is hypnotized three or four
times, given Sodium Pentathol. Somehow or another they get a story out
of him, and he has tried to stick to it and hasn't even done a good
job at that.

[....]

"Gentlemen, don't let the horror of this awful deed that was
committed in Dallas cause you to convict an innocent man just to try
to balance the scales. Just remember that it would not be at all
beyond the realm of possibility for you or me to be sitting right in
that chair called upon to prove where you were in 1963, called upon to
prove that you didn't know somebody. That is not easy, gentlemen, not
when you have liars like Perry Raymond Russo testifying, not when a
dope fiend gets up there, a person that everybody knows is always
trying to curry favor with law enforcement agencies in case he happens
to get caught. He is willing to get up there and testify against you
to help himself.

"Gentlemen, just remember...that the Indictment in this case
charges Clay Shaw with having agreed up there on Louisiana Avenue to
kill President Kennedy; that the only testimony on that is Perry
Raymond Russo's, a liar. .... I submit to you, gentlemen, that the
State's case is a total flop.

[....]

"Gentlemen, I implore you not to make a mistake. This man [Clay
Shaw] is as innocent as any one of you fourteen men sitting here on
this Jury. To find him guilty you have got to believe an admitted
liar, and I don't think you can do that. I am confident you can't. I
ask you to vote your conscience, follow the law, and don't make a
mistake. Thank you."

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

ALSO SEE:

http://Garrison-Carson.blogspot.com

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/prusso1.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/prusso2.htm

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/dymondc.htm


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

David Von Pein
September 28, 2009




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 721)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ben [Holmes],

What can I say to a person like you who is incapable of evaluating things properly (and without "isolating")?

I didn't START by assuming Oswald was guilty. Oswald made himself guilty. I had nothing to do with it.

Should I just IGNORE those shells from Oswald's rifle?

Should I just ignore the two bullet fragments from OSWALD'S rifle found in the limousine itself!?

Should I just ignore LHO's lies he told to the police about the rifle (plus his "They've taken me in because I lived in the Soviet Union" lie too)?

Should I just ignore the fact he shot Tippit?

Should I just ignore the lie he told Buell Frazier regarding the "curtain rods"? Etc., etc.

It's that sum total that hangs Oswald, not each individual leaf on the tree.

Is it really possible that Ben Holmes doesn't understand this? Somebody pinch me. For I fear I've entered the Twilight Holmes Zone!


"MAR" SAID:

Well David, it seems you are actually ignoring fragments, three to be exact since there were 5 fragments found in the limo. I'm sure you already knew that. Are the 3 other fragments found a bit too inconvenient for you?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Not at all. Those fragments came out of President Kennedy's head after Oswald's bullet struck the back of JFK's cranium, killing him.

But what is very inconvenient for the conspiracy theorists of the world is the fact that the only bullets and fragments in the whole case that were big enough to compare to test bullets were conclusively proven to have come out of Oswald's rifle. (And yes, Oswald definitely did own Rifle C2766. Any attempts to deny that fact only make the conspiracy crowd look more desperate than usual. But apparently it's "in vogue" now to say that Oswald never ordered the rifle, never paid for it, and never even touched it at all. Silliness amongst CTers seems to have sprung anew in the last few years on that score.)

Were all the big fragments from all those extra bullets that struck JFK and Connally conveniently deep-sixed by various plotters after the shooting? Or did the real assassins who pelted the victims from many angles just get lucky when ALL of their bullets and fragments vanished on their own or fragmented so badly (CE840) that nobody can say exactly what gun fired them?

Once again, conspiracy believers will isolate everything, without ever putting the individual pieces back together to form a cohesive "whole".

ALL fragments and bullets large enough to be positively linked to a particular gun ALL lead straight into Oswald's Carcano; but the CTers would rather isolate the tiny fragments in the limo and the tiny fragments in Kennedy's brain and the tiny fragments in John Connally's body, so that they (the CTers) can pretend other guns fired the shots that produced those very small fragments. Right, Mar?

But such tiny fragments existing in the places where they were found in this case (the limo, inside Connally's wrist and thigh, and in JFK's head) are just exactly what I would expect to find in a scenario which has Lee Harvey Oswald firing all of the bullets that hit both victims.

Also see:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-guinn-and-naa.html


Re: Oswald's "They've taken me in because of the fact I lived in the Soviet Union" statement....

Are you telling me, Mar, that you've never heard Oswald utter those exact words before? You must be kidding. It's part of Lee Oswald's famous "I'm just a patsy" statement. And he said it on live TV, so we don't have to rely on any DPD notes or testimony. We've got the videotape to prove for all time that Oswald was a blatant liar. Here it is:

video


"ASDFG" SAID:

Oh Davy,

PLEASE!!

You're accusing CTs of what you do all day long blindfolded... and clutching at straws 10 ways 'till Sunday attempting to prove Oswald was guilty. If it's such an open and shut case why did Bugliosi need 2,600 pages (including the CD) to prove his point?

If he's the lone assassin why are documents still classified?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bugliosi needed 2800+ pages mainly because of the CTers of the world. (What else?) (Duh.)

And there is nothing "still classified" that will prove a darn thing in the JFK case. That's just CTer wishful thinking (and "clutching at straws").

What records are still sealed?.....
INTERVIEW EXCERPT WITH VINCENT BUGLIOSI

David Von Pein
June 23, 2014
June 26, 2014