(PART 986)


Almost 52 years and no one has put up any evidence that would convict LHO. Most nutters don't even try. All they do is stand up and try to shout louder that all the CTers have is that everyone is lying. That's not the way the justice system works. If you want to prove someone did it, you show the evidence. If you have no evidence, there is no case. That's where we are: No Case.


Regardless of how many times you say a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing. And the above quote by Kenneth Drew is really stupid. And it's provably wrong.

But that fact won't keep Kenny Drew from telling me 101 more times that I have presented "no evidence" whatsoever of Oswald's (double) guilt. Ken will just gaze, unseeing and unfazed, at all of the many things in evidence that point directly to Lee Oswald....


And after glancing at or just totally ignoring that list altogether, Ken will return to his keyboard to write tripe like this once more....

"There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle, there is no proof of what weapon was fired at him, there is not one piece of evidence linking any human to having fired at him, and there is not one piece of evidence that any shots have ever been fired from the sniper's nest. To sum it all up, your total is Zero." -- Kenneth Drew; June 1, 2015

That's the type of fantasy world Ken Drew wishes to live in. Sad, isn't it?


Reality Break....

"During my examination of the evidence in preparation for the [1986 mock] trial, I found that virtually every piece of evidence against Oswald maddeningly had some small but explainable problem with it. However, two things became obvious to me: One was that Oswald, an emotionally unhinged political malcontent who hated America, was as guilty as sin. Based on the Himalayan mountain of uncontroverted evidence against Oswald, anyone who could believe he was innocent would probably also believe someone claiming to have heard a cow speaking the Spanish language.

Secondly, there was not one speck of credible evidence that Oswald was framed or that he was a hit man for others in a conspiracy to murder the president. I meticulously examined every major conspiracy theory that had thus far been adduced, and although there were a few (a precious few) that at first blush seemed plausible, upon sober scrutiny they did complete violence to all conventional notions of logic and common sense. Though there are some notable exceptions, by and large the persistent ranting of the Warren Commission critics, some of whom were screaming the word conspiracy before the fatal bullet had even come to rest, came to remind me, as H. L. Mencken said in a different context, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights.


If Oswald's guilt as the lone assassin is as obvious as I suggest, why, one may logically ask, the need for this extraordinarily long book ["Reclaiming History"]? Make no mistake about it. The Kennedy assassination, per se, is not a complicated case. I've personally prosecuted several murder cases where the evidence against the accused was far more circumstantial and less robust than the case against Oswald. .... The case against Oswald himself is overwhelming and relatively routine. Earl Warren himself said, "As district attorney of a large metropolitan county [Oakland, California] for years . . . I have no hesitation in saying that had it not been for the prominence of the victim, the case against Oswald could have been tried in two or three days with little likelihood of any but one result." [Earl Warren, "Memoirs", p.367]

The allegation of conspiracy introduces an element of complexity into the case because it is inherently more difficult to prove a negative than a positive, and this complexity is compounded by the fact that Oswald was a deeply troubled person and a restless Marxist who traveled to Russia and Mexico. But the complexity is only superficial.


Throughout this book ["RH"], I will be referring to Oswald as Kennedy's killer, and conspiracy theorists, as well as legal purists, have maintained for years that the only proper way to refer to Oswald is "alleged assassin," on the rationale that under our system of justice in America, a suspect or defendant is presumed to be innocent until a jury finds him guilty in a court of law.

But this invests a power and legitimacy to a verdict of guilty or not guilty that it does not have. A verdict of not guilty, for instance, cannot change the reality of whether or not the defendant committed the crime. That reality was established the moment of the crime, and nothing that happened thereafter can ever change it. If a courtroom verdict could, then if the defendant actually robbed a bank, but the three witnesses who saw him do it were unavailable to testify against him at the trial (e.g., the defendant's associates had either killed them or threatened them into not testifying), his subsequent not-guilty verdict means he didn't really rob the bank.

In other words, the jury verdict succeeded in doing something that God can't even do—change the past. Likewise, if someone did not rob a bank, but in a case of mistaken identity he was found guilty, the new reality is that he actually did rob the bank. To those who have challenged my calling Oswald guilty throughout the years by saying he was never found to be guilty in a court of law, I've responded that "under that theory, Adolf Hitler never committed any crimes, Jack the Ripper never committed any crimes, and the only crime Al Capone ever committed was income tax evasion." "
-- Vincent Bugliosi


You've never destroyed anyone with this doggerel you classify as "evidence."


And there's the rub. You don't consider ANYTHING "evidence". Nor does Jon G. "Counselor for Oswald" Tidd. Nor does Kenneth "There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle" Drew. Nor does anyone else who thinks Oswald didn't fire a shot at President Kennedy.

The physical evidence in this case all screams Oswald's guilt and everybody knows it. Hence, CTers in the ABO [Anybody But Oswald] club are forced to pretend it's all fake. Because if it's not ALL FAKE, then Oswald is guilty. That is plainly--and simply--true.

I suggest that the ball is in the defense (CTers') court when it comes to the accusation that every last piece of evidence connected with the JFK and Tippit murder cases is artificially crafted (i.e., fake) evidence.

Conspiracists are making the extraordinary allegation that all the evidence is phony. Not LNers. So wouldn't it be kind of nice--just for a change of pace--to have just one conspiracy theorist actually provide some kind of PROOF to back up the idea that the evidence (just ONE piece of it!) against Lee Harvey Oswald is fraudulent?

Or am I asking for the moon when I suggest that CTers actually prove something they say?


Incredible how DVP completely reverses the standard of evidence. Which shows he has no comprehension of what the legal system is all about.


Jimmy thinks we're in a courtroom here. Somebody should straighten Jim out on that mistake.

And isn't it funny that BOTH the Warren Commission and the HSCA had no problem at all coming to the conclusion that CE399 was THE EXACT BULLET that injured both JFK and John Connally. And that's a lot of LAWYERS making that claim.

Are you a lawyer, Jim?

That's what I thought.


Understanding basic legal jurisprudence and procedure is not limited to lawyers. Other people are allowed to study and understand the law, too.

On the other hand, continuing to place good faith in the conclusions formed by the WC and the HSCA does seem to be limited to - well, the limited...


Yeah. Limited to people with some basic common sense and an ability to evaluate the evidence properly.


A certain poster here assumes, absurdly, Oswald's guilt. Once Oswald's guilt, however absurdly, is assumed, one can postulate any "evidence" as pointing toward his guilt. The law doesn't work that way. Evidence is used to establish guilt. The certain poster in question shouts, "evidence!" But all this certain poster is doing is assuming Oswald did it and then taking every scrap of allegation, calling it "evidence", and using it to nail Oswald. Even Pontius Pilate was more logical than that.


It's "absurd" to follow the evidence to where it leads, Jon?

Your highbrow legalistic posts are getting more "absurd" and bizarre and hard to follow by the day.

And, considering the amount of evidence that exists against Mr. Oswald, this statement by Jon G. Tidd is downright hysterical....

"A certain poster here assumes, absurdly, Oswald's guilt."

In other words, Jon thinks it's "absurd" to actually rely on the evidence, because, according to Jon, it's not REALLY "evidence" at all because it was never introduced into a courtroom. So, I guess we have to call it something else, or we should just ignore it altogether until it finds its way into a courtroom, which Jon knows can never happen because the defendant is dead.

Wow. Thanks for that lesson in logic, Jon.


[Quoting DVP:] "It's "absurd" to follow the evidence to where it leads, Jon?"

Not at all.

But it is absurd to ignore the indicators of a frame when you are dealing with a man who claimed to be framed by a police force and DA's now infamous for the number of innocent people they locked up with planted evidence, falsified statements, what is known here as "police verbals", rigged juries, terrified defense counsels and crooked judges.


How did that evil DPD force get Oswald to act so guilty and to tell so many lies?

Or did the DPD coerce Oswald to be part of his own frame-up? (Boy, they were good, weren't they?)

And you're not going to sit there and tell me you DON'T think Oswald acted "guilty" in the movie theater, are you Greg?


What lies, David? You simply take the word of others when, given what we know now, you ought not do that.


And you just take the word of the person who was charged with two murders, is that it?

You think, therefore, that the DPD was more likely to lie than was the person who was trying to kill members of the DPD in the Texas Theater?

You ought not do that. (IMO.)


Well, what was McDonald's first statement to the media? He was calm and gave no trouble.


You mean this one?....

"He was cool and calm up until the time that he made that jump for me."
-- Officer M.N. McDonald; 11/23/63


But we'd know for sure if Ron Reiland had not--probably for the first time in his professional career--used the wrong lens filter. How unlucky was that? Your big mistake on the biggest case.


Are you suggesting that there was something sinister going on with Ron Reiland's film?

And, btw, how would Reiland's film have told us "for sure" if there was a fight in the theater even if Reiland had used the correct filter on his camera? He only filmed a brief snippet of Oswald after the police had already handcuffed him and were leading him out of the theater. Are you saying that Reiland actually filmed the fight between McDonald and Oswald? I don't think he did.

HERE is Reiland's film (narrated by Reiland himself).



What a bunch of nitpicking there, Greg.

You're actually trying to impeach McDonald by using Bentley's "he fought like a wild man" quote?? Geez.

Well, AFTER McDonald approached Oswald--and AFTER Oswald had exhibited his "cool and calm" demeanor--Oswald DID fight like a wild man--even McDonald said that.

So, where's the discrepancy? I see none. You're just trying desperately to find something you can hitch your CT wagon to (as per usual).

And that Robertson testimony is hardly proof that Reiland actually filmed the McDonald/Oswald fight....

Mr. GRIFFIN. How close was your photographer to you?
Mr. ROBERTSON. I don't have any idea. He was there someplace shooting his pictures.

Yeah, that sounds really definitive there, Greg.

If Reiland HAD filmed the actual fight in the theater, I'm guessing that that footage (even if it was pitch dark) would have been shown on WFAA-TV on 11/22/63. After all, WFAA televised the really crappy-looking and very dark snippet of Reiland's film showing Oswald being led out of the theater, which is virtually worthless footage because it's so dark. So why wouldn't they show another really dark portion of the film--featuring the actual fight--if Reiland had filmed it? I think they would have.

Then, too, perhaps a portion of the pitch-blackness we see in the Reiland film IS the theater fight between Oswald and the police. It's impossible to tell.


He [Oswald] fought only in self-defense. You know it.


Total bullshit. Your nonsense is laughable.

Oswald whipped out a gun and tried to shoot McDonald with it. Stop pretending otherwise.

The CTers' continual attempts at twisting the truth regarding the McDonald/Oswald theater encounter are sickening.

Even Oswald himself admitted that he fought with the police in the theater....

"Oswald admitted to carrying a pistol with him to this movie, stating he did this because he felt like it, giving no other reason. Oswald further admitted attempting to fight the Dallas police officers who arrested him in this movie theater when he received a cut and a bump." -- 11/22/63 FBI Report by James Hosty and James Bookhout; Warren Report, Page 613

But Greg Parker thinks Oswald slugged Officer McDonald in the face and pulled out a gun merely in "self-defense", which is pure tommyrot. McDonald hadn't even drawn his gun when he approached Oswald. So where does any "self defense" argument come into play? Did Oswald think McDonald was going to strangle him with his bare hands?

Self defense? Hilarious. And typical CTer desperation.

Nice job, Greg. Your recent posts further illustrate just how pathetic and paper-thin all conspiracy arguments truly are. Please keep it up.


You need to admit you are more than happy to turn a blind eye to the evidence uncovered over the last few decades showing the disgraceful malfeasance of law enforcement in Dallas during the Wade era. You willfully ignore all of that, don't you, Dave?


It's irrelevant in THIS (JFK) case. Oswald's actions pretty much convict him. And the Dallas Police Department couldn't possibly have controlled those actions.

Plus, the U.S. Secret Service would have had to also be in bed with the evil DPD in order for Oswald to be innocent (realistically), since the DPD never even touched CE399 or the two front-seat bullet fragments, all three of which were fired in Oswald's rifle.

So, how did the DPD get the SS (and the FBI too) to jump on board the LET'S FRAME OSWALD gravy train?


Which actions do you mean, DVP?

And convict him in what sense?

Oswald's location in the TSBD between 12 noon and 12:30 p.m. has been the subject of great debate, as has been his means of transportation following his departure from the TSBD, as well as his route and timing of travel to the Texas Theater. How do you have certainty as to these matters? I'd like to know.



I mean that Oswald's provable "actions" and movements, in general, certainly point more toward his GUILT than they do his INNOCENCE. Wouldn't you agree? E.G.,

...He leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination.

...He dashes in and out of his rented room to get a gun.

...He acts "funny" and "scared" in Johnny Brewer's shoe store entrance.

...He pulls a gun on the police in the theater and fights with them. (And if this isn't a sure sign that Mr. Oswald had done SOMETHING against the law that day, then what would be?)

...He lied to Buell Frazier about the "curtain rods".

...He carried a long paper package into the Depository on the day of the President's assassination (and lied about the contents of that package).

If you want to dispute each and every item above, feel free to do so. But those are FACTS, in my opinion. They are facts that have been established by a variety of witnesses. Am I to believe they all got together and lied--Roberts, Brewer, McDonald, Frazier, Randle?

And I didn't even mention the Tippit witnesses.


BTW, you still haven't said what is your definition of "evidence".


I think the various online dictionaries give a very good definition of what I mean when I use the word "evidence". Let's have a look at some of those definitions....

EVIDENCE (noun) --
1. A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
2. Something indicative; an indication or set of indications.
3. [In Law] -- The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.

EVIDENCE (noun) --
1. The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

EVIDENCE (noun) --
1. That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. Something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign.

EVIDENCE (noun) --
1. Something which shows that something else exists or is true.
2. A visible sign of something.
3. Material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something.

EVIDENCE (noun) --
1. Something that gives proof or leads to a conclusion.

EVIDENCE (noun) --
1. Ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood.
2. A mark or sign that makes evident; indication.


Did Bugliosi ever argue that the "evidence" points toward Oswald's "guilt"? Just curious. A competent lawyer wouldn't have said that.


Here's what Vince Bugliosi said in his book (emphasis on the word "evidence" is DVP's):

"The evidence against Oswald proves his guilt not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt, or, as they say in the movies, beyond a shadow of a doubt. In other words, not just one or two or three pieces of evidence point toward Oswald's guilt, but more than fifty pieces point irresistibly to his guilt. And not only does all of the physical, scientific evidence point solely and exclusively to Oswald's guilt, but virtually everything he said and did points unerringly to his guilt.

Prosecutors like to argue in their final summation to the jury that "looking at the evidence as a whole" (or "the totality of the evidence," or "all the evidence") makes it clear the defendant is guilty. But in the case against Oswald, one doesn't have to look at all or even most of the evidence to reach the conclusion he is guilty. Indeed, there are many individual things he did, like immediately fleeing the Book Depository Building after the shooting, killing Officer Tippit, et cetera, which by themselves point clearly to his guilt."
-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 952 of "Reclaiming History"

[End Quote.]

I guess Vince must have been using the following definition of the word "evidence", which is, of course, a definition that all sensible and reasonable people use when they talk about "evidence"....

"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

Also see (hear) the interview below:

David Von Pein
July 30-31, 2015
August 2-4, 2015

(PART 985)


Here's a little tidbit of information that I was unaware of until reading some of Jesse Curry's Warren Commission testimony today....

It seems as though the Dallas Police Department wanted to have one of their cars (which would have contained Homicide Captain Will Fritz and some heavily-armed DPD detectives) positioned between President Kennedy's car and the Secret Service follow-up car during the motorcade through Dallas on 11/22/63.

But the Secret Service said no to that plan---and I can certainly see why. The "Queen Mary" SS follow-up car, of course, is equipped with running boards for the agents to stand on, whereas I don't think any car provided by the DPD would be so equipped. So it would have been a very bad decision to have placed the SS car further behind JFK's car in the event of trouble. That would have meant that agents Clint Hill (et al) would have had Fritz' car between them and the President---and that's just dumb, IMO. And I guess the Secret Service thought so too.

Plus, I think that putting a car between the President's vehicle and the SS car would have been a major violation of Secret Service protocol and standard procedures for Presidential protection. I have never seen any photos or films which had ANY vehicle placed between the President's limousine and the SS follow-up car. Sometimes, in fact, the SS car gets so close to JFK's car that the bumpers are almost touching (such as in the photos below). So it's no wonder the SS nixed the DPD's idea.

But I just wonder if some conspiracy theorists think that this testimony given by Chief Curry reveals part of the alleged "security stripping" that some CTers think took place in Dallas on November 22nd? ....


[WC Testimony On:]

DALLAS POLICE CHIEF JESSE E. CURRY - We had planned to have Captain Fritz and some of his homicide detectives immediately following the President's car which we have in the past, we have always done this.

J. LEE RANKIN - Now, would that be between the President's car and the Secret Service?

Mr. CURRY - And the Secret Service. We have in past done this. We have been immediately behind the President's car.

[DVP INTERJECTION: I wonder when this strange occurrence would have occurred? I have my doubts that it ever did occur with respect to a Presidential motorcade. It sounds like a ridiculous motorcade arrangement to me, making the job of the Secret Service even more difficult.]

Mr. RANKIN - Did you propose that to someone?

Mr. CURRY - Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN - Who did you propose it to?

Mr. CURRY - To Mr. Lawson and Mr. Sellers.

Mr. RANKIN - What did they say about that?

Mr. CURRY - They didn't want it.

Mr. RANKIN - Did they tell you why?

Mr. CURRY - They said the Secret Service would be there.

Mr. RANKIN - And then?

Mr. CURRY - They said we can put this vehicle in between Captain Fritz and his detectives immediately at the end of the motorcade. They said, "No, we want a white or marked car there bringing up the rear," so Fritz and his men were not in the motorcade.

ALLEN DULLES - What do you mean in the past when there have been previous Presidents visiting Dallas or other dignitaries?

Mr. CURRY - Yes; that is right; other dignitaries. Yes; our thinking along this was that in the past there have been this. Captain Fritz, he is a very experienced homicide man so are his detectives. They know the city very well. They have been there very, Captain Fritz to my knowledge, over 40 years. It is customary that they in trying to protect a person if they are in the immediate vicinity, and Captain Fritz told me later, he said, "I believe that had we been there we might possibly have got that man before he got out of that building or we would have maybe had the opportunity of firing at him while he was still firing" because they were equipped, would have been equipped with high-powered rifles and machine guns, submachine guns.

GERALD FORD - Where were they instead of being at the motorcade.

Mr. CURRY - Actually they were not in the motorcade at all. They followed up the motorcade.

Representative FORD - Were they in a car following up the motorcade?

Mr. CURRY - Yes, sir; they were in a car.

Representative FORD - How far away would they have been?

Mr. CURRY - I think they would have been at the rear, I believe.

Representative FORD - Captain Fritz is going to be here later.

Mr. RANKIN - Yes.

Representative FORD - And fill in what he did at that time?

Mr. RANKIN - Yes.

Mr. CURRY - But we tried to do what the Secret Service asked us to do, and we didn't try to override them because we didn't feel it was our responsibility, that it was their responsibility to tell us what they wanted and we would try to provide it.

Mr. RANKIN - Did you refuse to do anything that they asked you to do?

Mr. CURRY - No, sir; not to my knowledge we don't--we didn't refuse them to do anything.

Mr. DULLES - You considered them to be the boss in this particular situation?

Mr. CURRY - Yes, sir; the Secret Service; yes, sir.


In the same testimony, Curry said that they wanted more motorcycles beside the limo, but the Secret Service wanted fewer and wanted them moved back. I believe this is called security stripping, although Curry didn't use that term.


Yes, I noticed the "four motorcycles on each side" request by Chief Curry too
[at 4 H 171]. However, once again, photographs of many pre-November 22 motorcades suggest that there were rarely (if ever) four cycles on each side of President Kennedy's car during motorcades. There were almost always TWO cycles flanking each side of the President's car, just exactly the same as in Dallas on 11/22/63, such as in the two pre-Nov. 22 examples seen below:

And I also have several pictures of JFK in motorcades where there are zero motorcycles riding beside his limo, such as these examples:

So if Chief Curry had received his request for EIGHT motorcycles flanking JFK's limousine (four on each side), it would most certainly have been a very unusual cycle configuration for a Kennedy motorcade, to be sure.



That's hilarious, Greg. Thanks for creating it. I love it!

Perhaps I should invent a paper called "The Patsy Press", featuring such bombshell headlines as:

Conspiracy Theorists Declare Oswald Innocent! Fuzzy Image That Is Essentially Worthless For Positive Identification Indicates That Oswald Was On Front Stoop Of Depository Saying A Prayer For Fidel When JFK Was Killed, CTers Say!


Oswald Innocent Of Slaying Police Officer! All Evidence Was Faked! One Dozen Eyewitnesses Coerced By Crooked Dallas Cops Into Positively IDing The Former Marine As Either Tippit's Killer Or As Gunman Fleeing Scene Of Crime, Conspiracists Assure Us!


Maybe Chief Curry, knowing Dallas as he did, thought it might be advisable to have more than the usual number of motorcycles around JFK's limo.


That's quite possible indeed, Ron.

But do you think the extra four cops on motorcycles would have been able to prevent President Kennedy from getting hit in the head by a bullet fired by a rifleman who was hiding somewhere in Dealey Plaza?


Perhaps not. All I know is that the SS wanted no protection around the limo at all beyond the rear fenders. It wanted no camera truck in front, it wanted no armed cops behind, and it did not want the guy with the "football" in the middle of the front seat. You know, in case a shot through the windshield might be needed.


But we know for a fact that in many motorcades prior to 11/22/63, those very things you just mentioned also occurred -- i.e., nobody riding in the middle of the front seat of JFK's car, only "rear fender" motorcycle escorts, etc.

Check out JFK's parade through the streets of San Diego on June 6, 1963, in the video below. Except for the presence of a press truck at the front of the motorcade, the configuration of the motorcade and the cycles and the lack of any military aide sitting in the middle of the front seat is exactly the same in San Diego as it was in Dallas on November 22nd. And yet I don't hear any CTers griping about any "security stripping" or "standdown" when it comes to this San Diego excursion....


The San Diego thing cracks me up to no end -- I HAVE STILL PHOTOS FROM THAT TRIP IN MY BOOK!

As "Welton Hartford", DVP posts a video of the San Diego trip in an attempt to debunk security stripping and so forth. Meanwhile, besides the 3 flatbeds of still/motion/live television press coverage he notes in front of the limo, MARINES LINE THE STREET AND FACE THE CROWDS, SAIC Behn was on the trip riding in the limo, multi story building rooftops were guarded (as confirmed by San Diego police outriders, thus confirming my general research beforehand) and the police intermingled in the crowds; THAT is how the Secret Service "overcame" their manpower shortages.

John McAdams tried the still photo "gotcha" game years ago with still shots (one each) of the Ireland and Hawaii trips. Yet, not only did agents intermittently walk/jog with the limo, once again, multi story buildings were guarded and police were intermingled in the crowds, common security measures used FDR-JFK (and beyond).


DVP used an alias, Weldon [sic] Hartford?


That, of course, never happened. I've never used an alias on the Internet.

Perhaps somebody named Welton Hartford embedded a video from my YouTube channel. Is that what happened, Vince? You should get it straight before posting.

Hartford does have a YouTube channel with a part of the San Diego video on it. But I am certainly not Welton Hartford.

And all of the points I have made about the ridiculous "Secret Service Standdown" theory are still valid points which indicate (via many photos and films and Secret Service documents, such as CD 821) that the security in the Dallas motorcade was exactly the same as it was in many pre-Nov. 22 motorcades. And Vince Palamara knows this is true. And so does anyone else who has bothered to look at the many photos and films of JFK's pre-Nov. 22 parades.


That is totally false. The security in Dallas was woefully short of the mark.


You're only saying that because JFK was killed in Dallas. But the motorcade configuration and the security that was DIRECTLY SURROUNDING the President in Dealey Plaza was virtually identical when compared to other pre-Nov. 22 motorcades. And that's a fact. And you surely know it.

In addition, we can know by reading the official Secret Service assassination report that the United States Secret Service did not have a habit of checking every building and every window along motorcade routes in 1963. See pages 12 and 13 of the 12/18/63 Secret Service Report (Warren Commission Document No. 3).

More lies??


Yes--blatant lies, as proven by pre-11/22/63 newspaper accounts and the man who wrote the Secret Service manual, Chief Inspector Michael Torina.

All BS because the agents were terrified of losing their jobs, their pensions, etc. CYA


Bull, Vince.

A person who has to resort to "THEY ALL LIED" is a desperate person.


You sound lame and pathetic on this one, Davey. I have to agree with Jim on this one.

It is the end of the ball game when Chief Inspector Michael Torina, who WROTE THE SECRET SERVICE MANUAL AND WAS WAY HIGHER IN RANK THAN BLAINE AND HILL AND THEIR ILK COMBINED, wrote in 1962 and confirmed various contemporary news accounts (FDR-JFK era) that multi story buildings were guarded. I spoke to Torina, as well...did you, DVP?


No, the "lame and pathetic" one is the one who thinks everybody under the sun was a lying SOB.

Given the manpower they had available to them in 1963 (which wasn't very much), the SS couldn't possibly check every single window in every building along a motorcade route in a big city like Dallas. Not possible---despite Fletcher Prouty's arguments to the contrary.


BTW, why did [Floyd] Boring lie about not [being] in Dallas that day?


He didn't......

Regarding Vince Palamara's 2014 claim that Secret Service agent Floyd Boring was lying and was really present at Love Field in Dallas on 11/22/63 instead of being elsewhere at that time, CLICK HERE.




Yeah, that must be why thousands of CTers just love to prop up and TRUST Clinton J. Hill when he said that the BACK of JFK's head was blown out. Right, Vince?

So, Vince, you think the Secret Service deliberately stripped JFK's security in Dallas so that the President could be murdered more easily? Is that it?

And if that's not IT --- what is?

I mean, it couldn't be more obvious that the Secret Service didn't do their job very well of protecting the President's life on 11/22/63. But do we really need this 576-page book by Vincent Palamara to tell us that?


You seem to be infatuated with these "pillars of virtue", DVP. Hill has changed his story now, trying to say that the head wound was more forward. .... Hill drank the night before and did not help Jackie. She got in and out of the limo of her own volition. The shooting was over and Hill was late getting there; sad but true. He was the "Jessica Lynch" of the assassination--a feel-good false "hero" in order to assuage the public and deflect from their gross negligence.

Heroes? JFK was killed because of them.

As you have seen in recent years, the agency is far from perfect. It began on 11/22/63 and, off and on, there have been problems since.

Keep in mind, I am much aware of all the good and bad said online about me from "fans" and Blaine's ilk; much aware.


And so you wrote a 576-page book to tell people what they already knew --- I.E., The Secret Service Blew It In Dallas On November 22, 1963.

What's on the other 575 pages?

David Von Pein
July 30-31, 2015

(PART 102)


If Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of shooting BOTH John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit, as so many Internet conspiracy theorists seem to believe he was, then why did Oswald act like a guilty person in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63?

Do completely innocent people normally do the things we know Oswald did while he was being apprehended in the theater that day? -- E.G., pulling a gun on police officers and saying things like "It's all over now" and/or "This is it".

Those two verbal statements -- all by themselves -- are extremely incriminating circumstantial evidence against Lee Oswald.

How can conspiracy theorists who believe in Oswald's complete innocence possibly explain those words that Oswald was said to have uttered within a theory that has Oswald shooting nobody at all on November 22, 1963?

And the Cops All Lied About What Oswald Said dodge is hardly a convincing argument in light of what arresting officers M.N. McDonald and Paul Bentley had to say the following day (11/23/63)....


Davey, in all honesty, Hoosier Pride and all, let me ask you this:

Do you ever trace the history of an evidentiary point in this case, or see if there are any differing views in the official story by someone else who was there on the scene?

Because if you had in this case, you would have seen that if there is one cop who may be as bad as Gerry Hill as a witness, it's McDonald. Either one of these guys would have been humiliated on the stand by a competent attorney.

But further, that BS about the police blocking a shot by LHO in the theater, please. Please Davey. The FBI lab technician exposed that for a hoax many years ago. Gil Jesus once had that on his site. And we are supposed to believe you do not know that? It's ancient history, and you know it.

What's wrong, slow day at KFC today?


Good job, Jimmy. Just keep piling on those liars. Gerald Hill, Nick McDonald, Johnny Brewer. (In addition to Buell Frazier, Linnie Randle, Ruth Paine, Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, and Will Fritz, among dozens of others.)

Who's next on your Liars List, Jim? Julia Postal? Or is she already part of your "Let's Frame Oswald At All Costs" fantasy plot?

Good gravy, even Oswald himself admitted that he had a gun on him when he was arrested [WR, p.601].

But maybe Lee was trying to frame himself as the patsy, eh Jim? Or you can always pretend that Captain Fritz was lying again on page 601 of the Warren Report. But if you go down the "Fritz lied" road, you're going to have to deal with the report written on 11/22/63 by FBI agents Hosty and Bookhout, which says....

"Oswald admitted to carrying a pistol with him to this movie, stating he did this because he felt like it, giving no other reason. Oswald further admitted attempting to fight the Dallas police officers who arrested him in this movie theater when he received a cut and a bump." -- 11/22/63 FBI Report by James Bookhout and James Hosty; WR, p.613

More liars, right Jimmy?

It's never a slow day at the "Let's Pretend Everybody Was Lying In Order To Frame Lee Harvey Oswald" factory, is it Jimbo?



I love it when Jimbo gets going on one of his "Everybody Lied" tangents. I wish he'd do it more often, in fact. Because it only solidifies things more for the "Lone Assassin" side. And that's because when you're forced to twist yourself into a pretzel in order to make your case for conspiracy or cover-up by pretending that a whole bunch of people (from different walks of life) were outright liars, as Jim DiEugenio constantly does when discussing the JFK and Tippit murders, all reasonable people can easily see how desperate (and unreasonable) an argument that truly is.

Just because there aren't very many police officers who heard Oswald make his "This is it" and/or "It's all over now" statements, Jimmy D. is ready to declare Dallas Patrolman M.N. McDonald an outright liar. It's just silly.

McDonald was the officer who was the closest to Oswald (and to Oswald's MOUTH) when Oswald made his statement (or statements, if he did, in fact, make both of the statements, which is not 100% clear; but LHO certainly made at least ONE statement, per Officer McDonald, that indicates a guilty state of mind, that's for sure).

And WHY would McDonald feel the need to lie about ANY statement that came out of Oswald's mouth? Just....why?

Yes, I myself have said that either of those two statements attributed to Oswald "reeks with guilt", that's true enough. But even WITHOUT such verbal statements coming from Oswald's lips, the facts are pretty clear that Oswald fought wildly with the police after pulling a gun on Officer McDonald in the Texas Theater.

And that gun Oswald was waving around (which was seen during the struggle by civilian eyewitness Johnny C. Brewer as well) was proven to be the exact same gun that ended the life of Dallas Patrolman J.D. Tippit. And, try as he might, there's nothing James DiEugenio can do to change those basic facts.

So keep piling on those liars, Jim. Every time you do, you look much sillier than the day before.


I am not calling McDonald a liar, the evidence is doing it.

You never answered my question, did you?

Why did you not check the evidentiary record before submitting another of your tall tales?

Further, you have absolutely no respect for:

1.) The works of the critical community which have demolished every aspect of the Warren Report many times over,

2.) The legal process. As I said, in a court of law, McDonald would have been, to put it kindly, impeached nine ways to Sunday. But somehow, you cannot countenance that fact. Can you? So you leave out all the facts that would detonate his story--including the other cops and the FBI!


Nobody has "detonated" Officer M.N. McDonald's story. You're cracked in the head if you think they have.

Apart from a few minor inconsistencies, McDonald's account of what happened in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63 is solid as a rock -- i.e., as McDonald approached the suspect in the theater, Oswald punched McDonald in the face and pulled a revolver from his waist and tried to shoot some policemen with that gun. During the struggle that ensued in an effort to disarm Oswald, Officer McDonald suffered this scratch on the left side of his face....

Do you think Nick McDonald himself caused that scratch on his face? Did he cut his own face just to make the "Let's Frame Oswald" plot look a little more genuine and authentic?

I think James DiEugenio knows, deep down, that M.N. McDonald was telling the truth about the theater scuffle. But Jim just can't pass up yet another opportunity to label another person a liar.

Right, Jimmy?


Oh really Davey?

Then why did the police never submit the official list of patrons drawn up by the police for the Texas Theater? The estimate is about 24.

Even the Warren Commission worried about what happened to this list.

John H Ely: "Captain, you mentioned that you had left orders for somebody to take the names of everybody in the theater, and you also stated you did not have this list. Do you know who has it?"

Westbrook: "No."

The Warren Commission then told the FBI to try and find the list. They could not.

Hmm. Wonder why? Maybe the incorruptible DPD just made a mistake and misplaced it, right?

Now, would an attorney have made a big deal of this in court? Yep.

Does Davey: Not a peep.

PS: Davey, doesn't Oswald have a bruise on his face also? What did they do? Duke it out one-handed with guns drawn?


So, Jim, is it your contention that Oswald never even pulled a gun (ANY gun) out of his pants in the Texas Theater? Is that what you think?

Or do McDonald's lies extend only as far as Oswald's alleged utterances inside the theater and the pinched hand that McDonald said kept LHO's revolver from firing?

Are you ready to state right here on this forum that it is your belief that Lee Harvey Oswald never brandished a firearm while inside the Texas Theater on November 22, 1963?

But, remember, if you do admit such a belief, you've got to add Johnny Brewer to your Liars List. Are you prepared to do that? (Silly question, I know. Jim's always got room for one more on that list. But I think Jim has already got Brewer on his Liars List anyway.)


It's not my job to say what really happened. I am part of the defense team.


Those two sentences above speak volumes.

In other words, to hell with common sense and to hell with reasonable interpretation of some minor inconsistencies in the record concerning Patrolman M.N. McDonald's account (and the accounts of other officers) of what happened in the theater during Oswald's arrest.

"I am part of the defense team" -- which means it is merely my job and my obligation to get Oswald off the hook if I can do so -- regardless of how many people I have to call liars.

Is that last sentence a fair assessment of what you've been doing to the John F. Kennedy murder case for the last 20+ years, Jim? I think it is. I'm just glad you admitted it with this bold statement (which indicates--to me anyway--that you're more interested in Oswald's DEFENSE than you really are in getting at the TRUTH)....

"I am part of the defense team."
-- James DiEugenio; July 26, 2015


I just wonder how it becomes Jim DiEugenio calling McDonald a liar when he's merely quoting testimony of another police officer, testimony that's also found in the Warren Commission Report. I would think that would make the testimony of one or the other of the officers to be cast into question.

Or did only the officers who support a certain story line tell the truth? If so, what does that make the other officers whose stories conflict?


No officer "lied", Mark.

Some of the stories just didn't perfectly match other officers' accounts. Simple as that. No lies. Just slight inconsistencies about a chaotic event that nobody was tape recording.

Does everybody's memory of a hectic event HAVE to match perfectly in order for one party or the other to NOT be considered liars?

That's crazy talk.


Yet you insist that in any story that conflicts with the "official" story, someone must be "LYING."


When have I ever "insisted" anything of the kind? Please cite.

Or do you think "WRONG" and "LYING" have the exact same meaning?

In actuality, I have called very few people "liars" when it comes to the JFK case. Very few. Far fewer than Jim DiEugenio, that's for certain.


Was anyone disputing that a scuffle of some sort took place?


Who can tell with Internet CTers. They simply utilize whole cloth speculation to supplant the facts, as DiEugenio has done so many times, such as the examples quoted below....

"Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015

"I believe the incident [i.e., second-floor encounter] was created after the fact. .... I think the guy on the stairway was probably the guy that [James] Worrell saw running out the back of the building. I think the other conspirators got out through the freight elevator after planting the rifle and shells. And I think the odds are that Sean [Murphy] is correct about LHO being outside. Sean brought up some other devastating evidence--including photos--about how the WC aided in putting the whole lunch room encounter together. It took them awhile to get it down and he showed some amazing photos of the dress rehearsal." -- James DiEugenio; July 14, 2015


So it wouldn't surprise me the least little bit if tomorrow Jim DiEugenio declares that no fight involving Lee Harvey Oswald occurred at all in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63. Such a declaration of nonsense is just exactly what I have come to expect from Internet conspiracy hounds.

And Jimbo is just a whisker away from accepting Oswald as "Prayer Man" in the Depository doorway too. So, nothing would surprise me at this point. Because it couldn't be more obvious here in 2015 that retiring schoolteacher James DiEugenio of Los Angeles, California, can be very easily swayed and influenced by just about any conspiracy theorist---just as long as that CTer is a member of the "Oswald Never Shot Anybody" frat club.

I mean, DiEugenio still thinks Jim Garrison, John Armstrong, Sean Murphy, Martin Hay, and Gil Jesus are convincing sources for factual information. And that's pretty sad company to be in. Yikes!


Like his mentor Vince Bugliosi, Davey has a real problem with quoting testimony and acknowledging evidence that counters what he says happened. So let me repeat what I wrote above....

Why did the police never submit the official list of patrons drawn up by the police for the Texas Theater? The estimate is about 24.



Perhaps you are aware of a witness by the name of George J. Applin Jr.

Mr. Applin filled out this official affidavit on the day of the assassination, wherein he stated the following:

"On Friday evening [sic], November 22, 1963 at about 1:45 p.m., I was seated on the main floor of the Texas Theater on West Jefferson in Dallas, Texas. As I watched the movie I saw an officer walking down the isle [sic] with a riot gun and about that time the light came on in the theater. One of the patrolmen walked down to the front of the theater and walked back up the isle [sic] and I got up and started walking toward the front of the theater. I saw the officer shake two men down and then asked a man sitting by himself to stand up. As the officer started to shake him down, and when he did, this boy took a swing at the officer and then the next thing I could see was this boy had his arm around the officer's left shoulder and had a pistol in his hand. I heard the pistol snap at least once. Then I saw a large group of officers subdue this boy and arrest him." -- /s/ George Jefferson Applin Jr.


So, as we can see in the above affidavit, George Applin, a 21-year-old civilian who was in the Texas Theater when Oswald was arrested, confirms all of the basic points brought out in Officer M.N. McDonald's account of Oswald's arrest. And Applin told the Warren Commission essentially the same things he said in his 11/22/63 affidavit (starting at 7 H 88).

So, Jim, should we now add the name of George Applin Jr. to your list of liars? Or is George on that list already?


How good of a witness is Applin?

He later said Ruby was in the theater. Good going Davey. You sure can pick them.


Well, you claim Ruby knew Oswald. And you also claim that Ruby killed Oswald as part of a conspiracy.

So I guess nobody's perfect, huh?


PS The WC interviewed 2 of the 24 patrons.


And I've already supplied ample information concerning one of those two Texas Theater patrons--George Applin. The other would be a Mr. John Gibson, who said this to the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964:

JOHN GIBSON -- "Oswald was standing in the aisle with a gun in his hand. .... He had this pistol in his hand."


JOSEPH BALL -- "Did you see any officer grab hold of Oswald?"

MR. GIBSON -- "Yes, sir."

MR. BALL -- "Which one can you describe where he was and what he did--just tell us in your own words what you saw him do?"

MR. GIBSON -- "Well, just like I guess you have heard this a lot of times--the gun misfired--it clicked and about the same time there was one police officer that positively had him."

MR. BALL -- "What do you mean--"had him"?"

MR. GIBSON -- "Well, I mean he grabbed ahold of him."

MR. BALL -- "Did he grab ahold of him before you heard the click or afterwards?"

MR. GIBSON -- "Gee, that's a question that's kind of hard to answer because I would say possibly seconds before or a second--maybe at the precise time the gun clicked. It happened pretty fast and like I say, I just went in to eat a hot dog for lunch and I wasn't expecting any of this."


MR. BALL -- "Did you hear anybody say anything?"

MR. GIBSON -- "Well, I heard the officers, but I don't remember what they said--I couldn't tell you if my life depended on it."

MR. BALL -- "Did you hear Oswald say anything?"

MR. GIBSON -- "No."


So, Gibson also heard the pistol "click". Just like Applin (with Applin using the word "snap" instead of "click"). And Gibson also saw the fight between Oswald and the policemen. And, of course, Gibson also testified that he saw a gun in Lee Harvey Oswald's hand in the theater.

Do you think Applin and Gibson were "planted" or "coerced" witnesses with respect to their similar testimony about seeing a man in the theater (Oswald) holding a gun and hearing that gun "snap" or "click" during the struggle with the police?


The WC were advocates for the prosecution of Oswald.


And DiEugenio says that even though he knows that several of the Warren Commission lawyers said exactly the OPPOSITE, i.e., lawyers such as David Belin and Burt Griffin and Joseph Ball have said that they WANTED to find evidence of a conspiracy, but they couldn't do it.

But, naturally, Belin, Griffin, and Ball (et al) were just lying through their collective teeth when they made such statements---right, Jim?

Was there even ONE lawyer on the entire staff of the WC or the HSCA who was honest, Jim? Anybody at all?


Davey, do you really know nothing about the WC?

The junior counsel, and even the senior counsel, were nothing.


Yeah, right, Jimmy. They were merely the ones doing almost all of the heavy lifting (i.e., the investigating and interrogation of witnesses). And yet they were "nothing"? That's a crock, Jimmy.

Maybe you should go back and learn a little more, Jimbo. (Start with Page 334 of "Reclaiming History".)


It's like I have always said, the WC was the Troika,: Dulles, McCloy and Ford, with Warren for window dressing.


More smelly garbage from DiEugenio---proving nothing.

"Troika". and .


And Hoover was doing most of the investigative work.


Hoover's agents at the FBI did a lot of the work, yes. But the WC staff and counsel did tons of investigative work on their own too. ....

"And the Commission didn't limit itself to taking testimony, which would alone immunize it from the total-reliance-on-the-FBI argument. Its staff went beyond this, going out into the field, mostly in Dallas. Assistant Warren Commission counsel Joseph Ball said, "As lawyers, we investigated the case thoroughly. We got some leads as to who to talk to from the FBI. But we went into the field, we talked to every witness that we reported on. We took depositions. We took people before the Commission. We handled this like we would handle...any lawsuit." " -- Pages 333-334 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi


In the intro to the WR, on page xii, "Immediately after the assassination more than 80 additional FBI personnel were transferred to the Dallas office on a temporary basis to assist in the investigation. Beginning November 22, 1963, the FBI conducted approximately 25,000 interviews and reinterviews...and by September 11, 1964, submitted over 2,300 reports totaling approximately 25,400 pages to the Commission."

Now, in the next sentence they cite stats which show the SS was a distant second with 1,550 interviews.

The idea that the WC staff was going to even approach those kinds of stats is so ludicrous only in the pages of RH could it exist.


I never said the FBI didn't do a whole lot of work on the Kennedy case. I'm just pointing out that the WC staff ALSO did a lot of investigating too.

And Vince Bugliosi never suggested that the Commission's investigative work actually surpassed that of the FBI's input either. Vince, in fact, was always trotting out the "25,000 FBI interviews" fact during his radio interviews. And, of course, Bugliosi highlights that figure in the Introduction section of "Reclaiming History" as well....

"The FBI alone (there were also companion investigations of the assassination by other agencies) conducted an unprecedented 25,000 interviews as the investigative arm of the Warren Commission, and submitted 2,300 separate reports. Eighty additional FBI agents were ordered into the Dallas area alone, and a great many more agents around the country worked on various parts of the case. A total of 3,154 items of evidence were introduced before the Commission in its investigation of the assassination." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page xxxiii of "Reclaiming History"


DVP wields a sword he calls "evidence". In the law, where "evidence" is defined rigorously, evidence can be a mighty sword. How mighty is determined by the jury in a jury trial. In a jury trial, the judge determines the law, the jury determines the facts.

I'd like nothing more than to argue with DVP here. But I can't. Because I know the law's definition of "evidence" but I don't know DVP's definition. So argument is not possible, because a key word lacks agreed definition.


Easy, if the WC or Vince Bugliosi says it, then to DVP, it's evidence. Don't worry about its authenticity, its origin or its chain of custody, or even a differing description.


You guys (CTers) are really something. You actually want to entertain the idea that ALL of the evidence (not just part, but ALL) is fraudulent/planted/manufactured.

I ask: Is that a reasonable thing to believe? Especially when the evidence was collected by MULTIPLE agencies and was found in MULTIPLE places (TSBD, Parkland, and the limo itself).

Get real. (CTers are anything but. Real, that is.)

And I suppose Vince B. is just lying some more when he said this on page 442 of the Endnotes (on the CD-ROM) in "Reclaiming History"....

"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. ....

The first observation I have to make is that I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.

Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.

Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible.

I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"."
-- Vincent T. Bugliosi


[Quoting DVP:] "You guys (CTers) are really something. You actually want to entertain the idea that ALL of the evidence (not just part, but ALL) is fraudulent/planted/manufactured."

Support this statement, please?


Why pretend otherwise, Glenn? You have surely got to know that a lot of Internet CTers DO, indeed, think that ALL of the evidence that points to Oswald is fake/phony evidence. Because if it's not all fake, then Oswald is very likely GUILTY, correct? (How could he not be?)

And there have been several CTers at The Education Forum who have said they think all of the evidence against LHO is fraudulent (or words to that effect), with the comments by Neal and Drew below certainly leaning in that direction, wouldn't you say? Granted, Ken Drew's comments are just flat-out weird, idiotic, and Twilight Zone-ish in nature, but I kinda doubt that Ken is suggesting that the evidence against Oswald is legit....

David Josephs said:
"Because - oh, deaf one - the EVIDENCE IS NOT AUTHENTIC."

Tom Neal said:
"JEH [J. Edgar Hoover] alone controlled all the evidence."

Kenneth Drew said:
"There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle, there is no proof of what weapon was fired at him, there is not one piece of evidence linking any human to having fired at him, and there is not one piece of evidence that any shots have ever been fired from the sniper's nest. To sum it all up, your total is Zero."


Davey is absolutely hysterical isn't he?

He is an expert in CYA.

First there is the CT label. When, in fact, no organization of government ever practiced a theory more than the WC.

I mean, what do you call the Single Bullet Fantasy? The WC was so theory based on that that they had to lie to their own members to get it through i.e. Richard Russell. Neither Davey nor Vince liked to talk about that. VB actually tried to say he's not sure that happened. Well, maybe one of these years the transcript will show up, eh Davey.

Second, he then says that all of the critics think ALL OF THE EVIDENCE is faked. Which takes in a lot of space. And a lot of people.

And it's simply Von Peinian goofiness. Let me now list some critics who do not think there is wholesale fakery in the evidence:

Randy Robertson.

Tink Thompson.

Cyril Wecht.

The late Roger Feinman.

Mark Lane.

Jerry Policoff.

Pat Speer.

Martin Hay.

Don Thomas.

Sherry Fiester.

But they all think Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. And about half of them wrote books about it. So, "all you critics think all the evidence is faked", this is just nonsense.


Point-blank question for James DiEugenio....

Do you, Jim, think ANY of the evidence pointing to Oswald is legitimate evidence?

And while Jimmy ponders the above question (which he likely will never answer, because Jim has said "It's not my job to say what really happened. I am part of the defense team"), let me also add this....

The evidence, btw, is also perfectly consistent with Lee Harvey Oswald's guilty-like actions displayed by Oswald on 11/22/63 and also perfectly consistent with the out-of-the-ordinary things Oswald did on 11/21/63 (e.g., first-ever Thursday-night trip to Irving and telling Buell Frazier the lie about "curtain rods").

But CTers never bother to add the EVIDENCE to OSWALD'S ACTIONS in order to arrive at a logical conclusion. Conspiracy theorists, instead, will forever separate LHO's odd and guilty-like actions from the physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases.

And it couldn't be more obvious why CTers want to keep those things separate and isolated. Because if they don't, then it becomes much more difficult to pretend that all of the physical evidence was manufactured in order to frame an innocent patsy named Oswald.

Somebody prove to me that the last paragraph I just wrote isn't 100% accurate. I bet nobody can. Because it is accurate. And CTers know it.


What Mr. Von Pein is missing--willfully, I'm sure--is that he's twisting what has been said.

Nobody is saying the evidence does not exist.

What has been stated over and over ad finitum is that the provenance of much, if not most, of the evidence does not meet the most rudimentary standards required to be accepted in a court of law. The three shells found on the 6th floor of the TSBD? While they were from a 6.5mm Carcano, it cannot be established that they were fired ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963. THAT is the quality of much of the evidence being used to "convict" Oswald.

It's not that CTers need to "prove" the shells were planted; it's that the prosecutors needed to prove that those shells were fired ON THE DAY OF THE ASSASSINATION. As of August 1, 2015, no tests were run that would determine that those shells were fired on the day of the assassination. Had they been tested and had it been concluded that the shells had been fired on the day of the assassination, the provenance of that particular piece of evidence [the shells] might be valuable to the prosecution in a court of law.

It's NOT up to CT'ers to "prove" who, when, where or why else those shells may have been fired. It's up to the police and the prosecution to prove those exact shells were the ones used on the date and time of the assassination.

"Anyone can see..." is not provenance for the evidence.

And THAT is the problem with the evidence. It's NOT that the CT'ers all claim it's faked; it's simply that provenance and chain-of-custody are not well documented enough for your average murder case involving your average citizen...much less the President of the United States.

But Mr. Von Pein most likely isn't listening. I'm betting he still falls back on the argument that ALL CTers think ALL the evidence is "fraudulent/planted/manufactured." That isn't the case. In the paragraphs above I have pointed out the distinction between the CTer position, as I understand it, and Mr. Von Pein's interpretation of the CTers' position on the evidence.

I don't believe I'm "talking over his head" here; I think Mr. Von Pein is likely a reasonably intelligent person. I just think he chooses to ignore the same nuances that cops and attorneys must consider daily when presenting a case in a court of law.


In short -- The CTers who think Oswald never fired a shot at either JFK or Tippit (which encompasses roughly 80% of Internet CTers, which is probably a conservative estimate) most certainly must believe that all of the evidence that points to Oswald is fraudulent.

The only way around that belief is to theorize about an "Oswald look-alike" who shot Tippit with the real Oswald's revolver and a gunman in the TSBD Sniper's Nest who also looks a lot like Oswald who fired shots at the President while using the real Oswald's rifle.

And then, on top of those wholly speculative and nonsensical theories, the CTers would need the real Oswald to act like the guiltiest person in Dallas in the Texas Theater as he waves a gun around while trying to shoot some policemen just 80 minutes after somebody else blew away the President while using the real Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano.

Whew! Somebody call the Baloney Police to allow that BS story to get off the ground.

So, yes, whether they admit it or not, it's a pretty good bet that each and every member of the "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anybody" society is also a charter member of the "Everything's Fake" club as well.

Now, the few vocal Internet CTers who actually have the common sense to realize that Oswald shot both Kennedy and Tippit will fall into a different category. They can easily believe that the evidence against LHO is legitimate, but also believe that the CIA or some other agency hired Oswald to kill the President. But as I look around the Internet here in 2015, there aren't many CTers who seem to fall into that category. Most Internet conspiracists want to have their Patsy cake and eat it too. God knows why, but that's the way it is.


The above is pure Von Pein.

"Geez, I just got proved wrong. Better backpedal and reposition myself before anyone notices."


I haven't backpedaled on anything, Jimmy. Take another Excedrin for your headache.

Obviously, I have never ONCE suggested that a CTer who WASN'T in the "Oswald Shot Nobody" club believes that "all the evidence is fake". Why would I suggest such a stupid thing in the first place?

If a CTer actually has the brains to realize Oswald DID shoot some people on 11/22/63, then that CTer probably also thinks at least SOME of the evidence that hangs LHO is legit. Otherwise, what would make them think Oswald was guilty in the first place? Tea leaves? A Ouija board? They might think some of the evidence was fake, but not ALL of it, which would still be a silly notion under such "Oswald did it" circumstances, because if he really DID shoot JFK and Tippit, then there would be no need for anyone to run around and start faking MORE evidence that suggests the same thing that the LEGITIMATE evidence also proves.


LHO was never proven guilty in the court of law.


So? Does that make the evidence against him disappear?

Should we just ignore the evidence against him because Ruby put a gun in his gut?


He [DVP] now asks me what I personally think of the authenticity of the evidence. That is irrelevant to the argument as he propounded it. My point is that the evidence is so weak and dubious that one can use a variety of arguments against it to show it's not probative.


Yeah, I knew you'd duck the question and refuse to answer it directly. The precise question, btw, was this one (in case you forgot the exact wording):

"Do you, Jim, think ANY of the evidence pointing to Oswald is legitimate evidence?"

But you actually have already answered it in a variety of posts and hundreds of Black Op Radio appearances, in which you have attempted (and failed at, of course) to trash and invalidate virtually every single piece of evidence in the whole case -- e.g., the rifle, the paper bag, every bullet, every shell casing, the Klein's paperwork, the backyard photos, the fingerprints and palmprints, the autopsy photos and X-rays, the autopsy report, the V510210 S&W revolver, every witness who fingered Oswald, and even the 5 unfired bullets that were taken out of Oswald's pocket after his arrest.

I doubt that a single piece of evidence has been left "undamaged" by DiEugenio The Evidence Expert in the Black Op shows plus your online handiwork of fantasy regarding the evidence. So you really HAVE already answered my question---you think all the evidence is fake. And, like always, that's a really silly thing to believe.

Here's a suggestion for Jim DiEugenio's new forum signature (it fits like a glove)....

"I am part of the defense team." -- James DiEugenio


Please produce another bullet anywhere that caused seven wounds, including the shattering of a human wrist (one of the thickest bones in the body), and came out looking like this bullet [CE399] did.


Australian SBT test ("Beyond The Magic Bullet"); October 2004....

Now we'll hear all the lame arguments about how the above test bullet didn't even come CLOSE to mimicking CE399. It's much more deformed. It bounced off the mock thigh, etc.

But that test bullet is COMPLETELY INTACT after taking a course through TWO mock-up torsos that was very similar to the path purportedly taken by CE399. And Don Jeffries surely knows it.

And yet we are still constantly hearing comments like this one from the anti-SBT camp....

"Please produce another bullet anywhere that caused seven wounds, including the shattering of a human wrist (one of the thickest bones in the body), and came out looking like this bullet did." -- Don Jeffries

Apparently the only thing that will satisfy CTers is to dig up JFK and Governor Connally and put them back in the limousine on Elm Street and shoot them again with CE399.

Even Dr. Fackler's ABSOLUTELY PRISTINE bullet doesn't faze or wrinkle the brow of any SBT critic one tiny bit. And this bullet here broke a human wrist in 1992, yet looks like an unfired missile....


What DVP did not tell you is this: in that docudrama, and that is what it was, there was a big problem. The dummies they used did not have arms. Therefore, the bullet did not demolish any wrist. Also, the bodies were nowhere near what a human would be.


Yeah, you're right, Jim. The Australian team should have sacrificed two real humans to serve their testing purposes. Nothing less will suffice, right?

Keep pretending that a perfect "SBT" re-creation is even possible (it isn't, of course, since any test has to SIMULATE the human nuances of John F. Kennedy and John B. Connally).

And keep pretending that the 2004 Australian test didn't come anywhere close to simulating the Single-Bullet Theory (even though it did).

52 years---and 52,000 excuses. That's the lasting legacy of conspiracy theorists.


That program was pretty awful, David. But, to their credit, they didn't hide the awfulness. They showed us one thing, and claimed another. For one, they tried to recreate the wounds but couldn't get the bullet to tumble and re-create Connally's back wound. So they then added some rope to the neck to get it to tumble.

Well, this was deceptive enough, because there had been nothing with the consistency of rope in Kennedy's neck. But when the bullet went through the rope, it slowed the bullet too much, so that it now bounced off the thigh. And even then the bullet was far more damaged than CE 399.

So, no, they didn't re-create the single-bullet theory. Not even close.


Total bullshit, Pat. They fired a 6.5mm. Carcano bullet through two mock bodies, with that bullet taking a general path very similar to the SBT/399 bullet. And the bullet ended up in pretty good shape. A very good SBT re-creation.

CTers just look for excuses to dismiss it. And they refuse to acknowledge the remarkable "SBT-like" similarities.

Amazing, isn't it, how ANY re-creation could come THAT close to mimicking an event (the SBT) that CTers think was a complete fabrication on the part of the Warren Commission?

Incredible indeed.


BTW/FYI, Glenn Nall, your signature is incomplete. You haven't attributed DiEugenio's "defense team" quote to Jimbo.

And apparently you think that quote is something that enhances Jimmy's reputation, right? Incredible.


That's because it's my signature and not Jim's, David. .... I made it my signature because you told him to put it in his. I figured it'd get to you.


It got to my funny bone, yes. That's about all.

This "signature" game is quite humorous. And now Ken Drew has added another quote of mine to his forum signature that he obviously thinks makes me look bad. But, of course, it does no such thing. Nor does his other DVP signature either. Both quotes are wholly reasonable and sensible. The fact that Kenny thinks he's taking me down a peg or two by using them in his sig can only elicit laughter.

And by admitting you are part of Oswald's "defense team", you and DiEugenio have now forever thrown out any chance you ever had of being considered unbiased when it comes to the evidence in the JFK murder case.

I salute you both. Most CTers would never come right out and admit to the world that they are dedicated solely to Oswald's defense. Congrats.

David Von Pein
July 26-28, 2015
July 31-August 2, 2015
August 2-4, 2015

(PART 984)


Ruth Paine IDs March 20 as the day Oswald ordered the rifle.

Except the order was sent March 12th.

Klein's deposit is March 13, and only on the Order Blank do we see the date March 20, 1963.

We have no idea what day the rifle was supposedly picked up and transported home.

Does anyone have any proof that the date MARCH 20, 1963 was broadcast related to the rifle purchase date? I can't imagine them broadcasting THAT date, this given the timeline and who had what info.

Only the FBI had access to that item of evidence until later in the afternoon on the 23rd when the SS arrives at Klein's.

I will continue looking, yet some of you are very intuned with what was broadcast - if you could help out, I think we can prove here that Ruth knows something on the 23rd that no one could know...

But I'm not sure.


The date "March 20th" was definitely announced on television on Saturday, 11/23/63. It was announced to the press by Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry during one of his many hallway interviews with reporters on November 23 [at 27:55 in the video below]....

And the March 20 date was also mentioned by Frank Reynolds on WBKB-TV in Chicago on the evening of November 23rd....

Plus, here's a third news report with the March 20 date being revealed. This one was broadcast by KLIF-Radio in Dallas shortly after 7:00 PM (CST) on November 23, 1963....


Thanks David. I knew if anyone had that info, it would be you.

Maybe you can help explain something then...

The FBI and SS both knew the order date was the 12th and that Klein's stamped the 13th at the top of the order blank.

March 20th is when they shipped the rifle. Was this just Curry's generality or do you think he was told the 20th by the FBI/SS?


I think that is an extremely minor and peripheral point. When the FBI examined the Klein's internal order blank for the rifle---Waldman Exhibit No. 7---they undoubtedly noticed the written-in date of "3/20/63" on the form, and they might have taken no notice at all of the smaller stamped date of "Mar-13-63" at the top of the order blank. Or perhaps the FBI just didn't know what the March 13th date really signified. So they just decided to go with the March 20 date as the "Order Date", even though that was really the "Shipping Date".

But I can't see that it makes much difference one way or the other regarding the dates. The most significant thing that was being revealed to the press and to the world on 11/23/63 was that the FBI was able to positively tie Lee Harvey Oswald to the ownership of the weapon that was used to kill President Kennedy, by way of the handwriting on the "order letter", as Chief Curry called it (CE773).


Thanks again for the assist - if nothing else you have one of the best collections of video and ability to recall what's on them around.

Now if I could only appeal to you to use them for good instead of evil. :-)


You've got things backwards, David. You're the one on the "dark side". Not me. :)

And I have, for years, been using my video and audio archive for "good instead of evil". The original first-day and second-day TV and radio broadcasts can be very useful in debunking any number of conspiracy myths. Such as the persistent myth that still exists in some quarters even today about how Jack Ruby must have personally been acquainted with Lee Harvey Oswald due to the fact that Ruby was one of the people who shouted out the name "Fair Play For Cuba" during Henry Wade's late-night press conference at City Hall on the night of November 22nd. (The conspiracy theorists, of course, completely ignore the fact that one or two OTHER people, besides just Ruby, shouted out the "Fair Play For Cuba" name at the exact same time Ruby did. But I don't hear the CTers accusing those OTHER people of knowing Oswald prior to the assassination. Go figure.)

Anyway, the early live TV reports can come in handy when various unwarranted allegations surface, such as the aforementioned "How Could Ruby Have Known About The FPCC?" conspiracy theory, which I debunk here.

I've been searching my video files trying to unearth the "Smoking Gun" news broadcast in which a witness goes on live television a few hours after the assassination and boldly declares, "I saw Jimmy Files firing a Fireball pistol at the President from behind the fence atop the Grassy Knoll!"

But, unfortunately, I haven't been able to locate that broadcast as yet.


Sorry, but I am posting a link to an FBI report page. It contains details counter to [David Josephs'] analysis, so I can presume it is fake, fabricated, unreliable?

The search results yielded on my first attempt, prompted by reading the opening post of this thread, displayed a link to a Weisberg file that included this:

http://maryferrell.org/Commission Document 735

(Update: Now, I see you've posted the same elsewhere and Von Paine [sic] has already shared the details displayed [above] with you.)


David Von Pein had the info and the video and the spot it was broadcast - wanted to say thanks to him for that.

We argue a bit, he and I, yet he still has the class to help me out... albeit just to prove me wrong...


[Quoting DVP]: "I think that is an extremely minor and peripheral point."

LOL, oh really Davey? Who cares when the rifle was ordered? Who cares who picked it up. Who cares how Oswald sent the order in.

Don't go near the mysteries of Ruth Paine's calendar.


Once again, Jim DiEugenio sees "mysteries" and sinister activity and evil wickedness everywhere he looks --- even in the ordinary and innocuous calendar owned by Mrs. Ruth Paine [Commission Exhibit 401].

Jimmy and I thrashed this out a year or two ago. Here are some excerpts highlighting Jim's ravenous appetite for believing in absurd things that never happened....

[DVP Quotes On:]

"Does Jimbo think "Ruthy" was leaving a little bread crumb of conspiratorial proof for future researchers to find, so that those researchers can scream these words with delight -- "Aha! I told you Ruth Paine was a liar!"?

Can anyone (even conspiracy mongers like Jim D.) REALLY believe Ruth would do something so utterly stupid?

Evidently Jimbo CAN believe that Mrs. Paine would be so foolish -- because it's obvious that DiEugenio DOES believe that Ruth Paine wrote the words "LHO purchase of rifle" on her calendar BEFORE the assassination ever took place.

Which, therefore, must also mean that DiEugenio believes that Ruth was privy to the "March 20th" date of Oswald's rifle purchase PRIOR to the time when Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry made that date of 3/20/63 known to the public on national television on November 23, 1963.

So, Jimbo, tell us how Ruth became aware of that "March 20" information prior to 11/23/63? Was she in cahoots with Klein's Sporting Goods too? Or did the evil FBI furnish her with that exact date? Or could it be that it was Ruth Paine HERSELF who faked and manufactured Waldman Exhibit No. 7? Maybe it was Ruth herself who wrote "3/20/63" on that Klein's document. Is that how she knew the date prior to November 23rd, Jimbo?

But, then too, James DiEugenio actually thinks Lee Harvey Oswald had NO LARGE PAPER BAG WITH HIM AT ALL when he entered Buell Wesley Frazier's car on November 22nd. So, given such absurd notions, it should be fairly obvious that this previous statement of mine concerning Jimmy's conspiratorial beliefs in the JFK case is 100% accurate:

"No theory is too outrageous or preposterous for Mr. DiEugenio's gullible palate." -- DVP; January 4, 2013


I'll tell you one piece of physical evidence that points AWAY from the direction of Ruth's involvement in a conspiracy plot: And that's the entry that Ruth made on her March 1963 calendar (talked about earlier), where she wrote the words "LHO purchase of rifle".

In a situation where Ruth Paine would surely have every reason to believe she would be thoroughly questioned by the authorities (or at Oswald's trial, had he lived to see one), can you think of a single reasonable explanation for why Mrs. Paine, if she had been a conspirator trying to frame Oswald in the weeks and months prior to November 22, would have wanted to write that "purchase of rifle" entry on her calendar at a time (October 23, not November 23) when she has stated she had no idea that Oswald even owned a rifle? (And it's fairly obvious that DiEugenio DOES think Ruth wrote those words PRIOR to November 22; otherwise, there would be no need for him to bring up that particular item at all.)

Plus: Via such a pre-11/22 theory, WHERE did Ruth get the information about the rifle purchase in the first place? How could she have possibly known--PRIOR to 11/22--that Lee Oswald had bought a rifle on March 20th? (Which, of course, was merely the Klein's shipping date for the rifle; it wasn't the actual "purchase" date, nor was it the date he actually took possession of the rifle, which also makes it pretty clear WHEN Ruth heard about that March 20 date. She heard about it when Jesse Curry mentioned that exact date on live TV on 11/23/63.)

That "purchase of rifle" thing is just one small example of how CTers will twist the evidence in this case to suit their needs. In this instance, DiEugenio labels the calendar entry as being "the most bizarre point of all" when it comes to the topic of Ruth Paine. But he will completely disregard Ruth's own testimony about that calendar entry.

In other words, Jimbo's eager to disbelieve ANYTHING uttered by Mrs. Ruth Paine. Even though, as mentioned, placing such an entry on her calendar PRIOR to the assassination really doesn't make much sense either. In fact, it would have been utterly stupid for Mrs. Paine to have done that, because it, in effect, would expose a part of the plot -- i.e., her pre-November knowledge about a specific date--March 20th--which was not generally revealed to the public until November 23rd."
-- DVP; circa 2013—2014

More here ----> DVP-vs-DiEugenio-Part-87/Ruth Paine's Calendar


Someone called Curry to tell him this date. Who, when and why did they get it wrong? Or did Curry?


Why do you insist upon nitpicking the Klein's dates to death?

When looking at the dates that were available to the FBI on 11/23/63 via the Klein's microfilm records, and given a choice of which date to choose for a press release to Chief Curry and to the world (if I had to pick only ONE date, that is) -- I think I, too, might very well have told America (and Jesse Curry) that the rifle transaction had taken place on March 20, 1963. Because from the available information supplied by Klein's Sporting Goods on November 23rd, the March 20 date is the date that confirms that the sale of the rifle to Oswald/Hidell had been completed (i.e., shipped by Klein's to Oswald/Hidell). So what's wrong with using the shipping date in the press releases?

Yes, Chief Curry told reporters that "This purchase was made on March 20th", which technically is not quite 100% accurate, since Oswald had actually dropped his order form for the rifle in the mailbox on March 12th, but we're really only talking about a very tiny difference in terms here -- with the "ordering" of the gun by Oswald occurring on March 12th, and the "shipping" of the gun taking place on March 20th.

But why on Earth would anyone, even a conspiracy theorist, make a big deal out of this "March 12 vs. March 20" date thing? You think that by saying the rifle was "purchased" on March 20, this somehow means the rifle transaction between Oswald and Klein's is all shot to hell -- even though that exact date (March 20) is on the Klein's internal order blank?

This entire argument about the March 20 date is just another example of a totally frivolous argument being made by CTers in a feeble attempt to cast doubt (somehow) on a piece of evidence connected to JFK's assassination. And this particular frivolous argument concerning the March 20 date is even more useless and nonsensical than most other arguments put forth by CTers. (And that's really saying something.)


The conversation has to change.... CTs don't need to prove his innocence and shouldn't try. LNers need to prove guilt.

Anything else is tap dancing around the issues and denying the core fundementals of the law - innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.


This is the point that is so frequently and conveniently forgotten, it seems. The zealots have forgotten that THEY are the ones who have leveled the charge and are therefore obligated to provide the proof.

Instead, they continually berate the populace and demand that his innocence be proven when he is, in fact and in spirit, already and STILL innocent. This basic practice has been in place since the beginning of the written language.

For a reason.



The only way a person can believe in Lee Harvey Oswald's "innocence" is for that person to just completely ignore (or misrepresent) the dozens of pieces of evidence (and Oswald's own actions) which point unwaveringly to Oswald's guilt in the two murders he was officially charged with in November of 1963.

Do you, Glenn, wish to ignore all of that evidence? And if so---why?


As predicted, your overuse of inconsequential adjectives and adverbs weakens your argument even more than its clear lack of any factual basis.


Great response there, Glenn. Your useless reply has most certainly convinced me that all the evidence against Oswald was faked.

David Von Pein
July 28-29, 2015