JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 848)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents of this package to a co-worker.


CRAIG SAID:

I don't quite agree with this one - it doesn't mention Oswald's own statements on the issue, where he claimed it was his lunch and denied ever saying it had curtain rods, making the strength of the claim only the co-worker's testimony.

I think the co-worker was right, but it's not exactly indisputable.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Craig,

Linnie Mae Randle saw the package too. Not just Wesley Frazier.

Do you really think BOTH Linnie and Wesley dreamed up the long package?


CRAIG SAID:

Of course not. He had a large bag.

He was asked about that and answered that you can't always find the size of bag you want for your lunch.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, Craig. Come now. Even if Randle and Frazier's 27-inch estimates were correct.....

A 27-inch-long lunch sack???

That's CTer desperation showing there.


CRAIG SAID:

No, it's not. It's saying that the issue should be described more accurately. We don't have a fixed measurement of 27 inches, we have estimates, and even if it is 27 inches, is it impossible that was the only size bag he had that day for lunch?

I don't believe it at all. I think he said it was curtain rods, I think it had the rifle.

But I don't think the posted description of the issue is as accurate as it should be, making no mention of Oswald having said anything about the issue, and simply saying 'beyond a reasonable doubt' as opposed to saying 'one co-worker said Oswald claimed the bag had curtain rods'.

It reminds me of a CT argument I saw today. It said the 'foolproof FBI paraffin test proved Oswald hadn't shot'. Now, that's not accurate.

Even if you think Oswald did not shoot, you can't just say the test is 'foolproof' when it's far from that, and you can't just shorten the actual facts we have to 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're dancing between raindrops, Craig. My verbiage ("beyond a reasonable doubt") is perfectly correct and accurate given the sum total of everything.

My "These Two Things Prove Oswald's Guilt" article is a condensed piece, but I haven't ignored any of Oswald's statements (i.e., lies), nor have I forgotten Frazier's and Randle's bag size estimates. Those things are discussed at length elsewhere on my site. I just didn't elaborate on those items in my "Two Things" piece. But I do talk about Oswald's "curtain rod" lie in that article. Maybe you didn't read the whole thing.

In summary --

Those "Two Things" I talked about are huge hurdles for the CTers to climb in order to pretend Oswald was totally innocent of shooting JFK. A truly innocent person would not have BOTH of those things applying to him on 11/22/63. No way.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Lil Davy whimpers: "Linnie Mae Randle saw the package too. Not just Wesley Frazier."

And you can't believe either one of them.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I "believe" they each saw a long-ish brown bulky package, Ben.

It's YOU, Ben, who should join DiEugenio in the camp labeled -- "Frazier & Randle Lied About The Bag's Existence".

Because that bag is devastating evidence against your patsy.

But keep trying to find a way to dance around the fact that....

Your patsy took a long bag to work.

And:

An empty long bag--with your patsy's prints on it--was found at the exact spot where someone was firing OSWALD'S rifle at the President on 11/22.

An unborn embryo could figure this out. Why can't Ben Holmes?

~shrug~


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Someone not aware of the weakness of their case wouldn't need to lie on the evidence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Any "weakness" in the case against Lee Oswald is overcome by the case's many many strengths.

Of course, a person like Ben Holmes refuses to admit there are any "strengths" associated with the case against his favorite patsy. But that type of frozen CT mindset only elicits a big stretch and a yawn from this writer.

I think Mark Fuhrman said it very well in his book when he said this about Mr. Oswald....

"There is no exculpatory evidence that outweighs the accumulated proof against him." -- Mark Fuhrman

Your problem, Ben, is that you cannot seem to assess the available evidence properly. Most CTers struggle with that affliction. Everything's isolated from the whole by CTers. Like the alleged package length stated by Frazier/Randle.

But we know LHO had a long-ish bag that morning.

A long-ish EMPTY bag is found in the TSBD--with LHO's prints on it. (Yes, Ben, I know you think CE142 is a plant. But that's a crummy argument and a cop-out and everybody knows it.)

Oswald takes no long bag OUT of the TSBD.

3rd-grade math here. But for CTers, well....you know.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

There aren't any "strengths".


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yep. Didn't I just minutes earlier predict Holmes would refuse to admit to any strengths in the LHO case? (Thanks for not disappointing us, Ben.)


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Tell us, for example, why Lt. Day didn't photograph the "palm print"?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

He probably should have photographed it before lifting it. But he opted for "lifting over photography" in the case of that palmprint. Whereas, the opposite was true for the trigger guard prints. Lt. Day opted for "photography over lifting" on those prints.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

...and why Latona said it didn't exist when *HE* examined the rifle?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Because the print was no longer on the rifle when Latona examined it in Washington. Lt. Carl Day had already lifted it. (Duh.)

And this is true despite Lt. Day's original thoughts about there being enough of a print still on the rifle after he lifted it --- which is something I've never understood at all---if the print has been lifted off of the object, why would there be anything left to "lift" later on? Doesn't make much sense to me.

And, of course, in this instance, that was the case--there was no print left to lift in Washington because Day lifted the whole thing off the gun in Dallas.


INSTANT REPLAY---

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:


But he [Lt. J.C. Day] opted for "lifting over photography".


BEN HOLMES SAID:

No such thing.

Lifting can be DESTRUCTIVE - so photographing before lifting is the only definitive way to preserve evidence without destroying it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're obviously wrong when you say "no such thing" here, because that's exactly what J.C. Day did -- he lifted the palmprint off of the barrel of Carcano Rifle #C2766 but did not take any pictures of the print before lifting it.

Now, if that's a violation of police procedure, then go gripe to Lt. Day and get him fired (in circa 1963). But to simply say "no such thing" is a cop-out in light of what we know DID happen.

Maybe there's "no such thing" in some police departments of the world, but apparently there WAS such a thing being done in some cases in the crime scene search section of the identification bureau of the Dallas, Texas, Police Department on the 22nd day of November back in 1963 -- because Lieutenant Day told us so. And Mr. Day had been with the DPD for 23 years as of the time of this Warren Commission testimony in 1964....

DAVID W. BELIN -- Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?

LT. J.C. DAY -- This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.

MR. BELIN -- Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?

MR. DAY -- It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing [and] "off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766".

MR. BELIN -- When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?

MR. DAY -- It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

You *KNOW* that every single claim you can make can be credibly attacked ON THE BASIS OF THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's easy for a critic to "attack" the evidence. Nearly all JFK conspiracy theorists on the Internet do this. It's what they HAVE to do. It's what they NEED to do in order to keep Patsy Oswald's skirts clean as a whistle.

The CT clowns will pretend to know that all of the evidence against Oswald was faked, planted, switched, or whatever. But when it comes to PROVING that ANY of it---even one single piece of it---WAS actually faked or planted or switched....well, that's another kettle of fish entirely, because no conspiracist on the planet has ever done any such thing, and they never will, of course.

The "Let's Attack All The Evidence" approach utilized by conspiracy theorists is merely a hobby for them. It's a game they'll play because there really isn't any other game in town they can play when it comes to the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases.

Because unless all of that evidence (e.g., rifle, shells, bullets, fingerprints, paper bag) has been forged, then Lee Harvey Oswald is guilty of two murders.

David Von Pein
November 24, 2014
November 25, 2014 (EST)