JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 973)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Something for conspiracy theorists to ponder....

Howard Brennan's initial description of the gunman is remarkably similar to policeman Marrion Baker's description of the man he encountered on the 2nd floor just a couple of minutes after the shooting. And the man Baker encountered was undeniably Lee Harvey Oswald (although, incredibly, some CTers on the outer fringe of reality are now pretending that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter on the 2nd floor never even happened AT ALL, which is pure tommyrot, of course).


THOMAS GRAVES SAID:

To nip this argument in the bud, yes, David, I believe that Baker and Truly prevaricated about their "Oswald encounter."


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then what do you do about OSWALD HIMSELF confirming that the encounter with Officer Baker took place on the SECOND floor, not the fourth or any other floor? Oswald told Captain Fritz it was the "second floor". That's in Fritz' notes and Fritz' written report too (WR; p.600).

Was Oswald lying too? Was LHO in cahoots with Truly and Baker....and Fritz?

Or was Fritz the other liar, Tommy? Which is it?




THOMAS GRAVES SAID:

His [Oswald's] "estimated weight" at autopsy was 150 pounds. Nice round number. Kinda non committal right in the middle like that.

Whereas his cadaver was an exactly-measured 5' 9 1/2" "tall" and weighed an exact 131 pounds on 11/25/63 when his fingerprints were taken by the Dallas Police Department.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're a bit mixed up, Tommy. On 11/25/63, Oswald was already six feet under at Rose Hill Cemetery in Fort Worth. (Well, actually, he was buried on that exact day.) And nobody took Lee's fingerprints on Nov. 25. Those prints were taken of the living Oswald on Nov. 22.

Commission Exhibit No. 630 was dated "11-25-63", after his death, yes. But his prints most certainly weren't taken on Nov. 25.*

It's obvious that some of the info on that fingerprint card (CE630) was acquired when Oswald was still alive. Note the "Refused To Sign" remark on the same document. And I doubt that refers to Oswald's corpse. Most dead people wouldn't be able to "refuse to sign" anything. Because they're dead.

So the "131 lbs." weight figure on his fingerprint card couldn't possibly have been obtained on Nov. 25 either. LHO was in a casket the whole day. And the autopsy report's "estimated 150 pounds" weight [CE1981] is the only official weight figure I know of for LHO after his death. And if they weighed the corpse on a scale, why the need to "estimate" the weight in the official autopsy report? Makes no sense.

* Footnote/Addendum:

Also see 8 HSCA 385, which indicates that the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald seen in CE630 were taken on "November 22, 1963", and not on November 25. However, author Vincent Bugliosi was of the opinion that the FBI did take Oswald's prints after his death on November 25 at Miller Funeral Home in Fort Worth, Texas. [See pages 413-415 of Endnotes in Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History". And also Click Here.]

I, however, tend to disagree with Mr. Bugliosi on this particular topic. I think Vince overlooked the date shown at the top of 8 HSCA 385, and Vince also might not have realized the significance of the words "Refused To Sign" that are typed on the fingerprint card seen in CE630 and on page 385 of HSCA Volume 8. Those words -- "Refused To Sign" -- almost assuredly mean that Lee Oswald was ALIVE, and not dead at a funeral home in Fort Worth, when those fingerprints were taken off of Oswald's hands.


THOMAS GRAVES SAID:

So, when do you think Oswald was measured as being 5' 9 1/2" tall and weighing 131 pounds by the Dallas Police Department?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I really don't know. I'm puzzled by those figures too (69.5 inches and 131 lbs. exactly). I was looking through the Warren Commission exhibits relating to the cards that Oswald had on him when he was arrested, and I was thinking that one of those cards might have had that height and weight information on them. But I didn't find any such document or card. But I'm thinking there might be one.

But I suppose it's also possible the DPD put Oswald on a scale and also measured his height as part of the routine procedure when booking a suspect who has been arrested. (Is it routine to "weigh in" the suspects after they're arrested? I haven't the foggiest idea. But maybe they did. That info could be in the WC testimony of some DPD personnel, I suppose.)

But the whole topic about Marrion Baker seeing somebody OTHER than the real Lee Oswald on the 2nd floor is simply CTer desperation in full-fledged panic mode. Nothing more than that.

As I proved earlier, it was certainly possible for a person to stare right at Lee Harvey Oswald and guess his AGE and WEIGHT incorrectly. And Marrion L. Baker's 11/22/63 affidavit is the PROOF that that did happen.

And, as fate would have it, Howard Brennan said the sixth-floor assassin was around 30 years of age and weighed about 165 to 175 pounds....perfectly matching Baker's inaccurate guesses with respect to the real Lee Harvey Oswald.

And Mr. Oswald just happened to be a man whose fingerprints (and bullet shells) littered the exact same place where Brennan saw his "30-year-old, 165- to 175-pound" assassin in the window firing a rifle.

How 'bout that for coincidence?


GLENN NALL SAID:

If you're puzzled by those figures, then why were you so quick to say that Thomas was a bit mixed up? I had asked, "are you trying to say he gained 19 lbs. since he gave those fingerprints and then died...?" (which was ignored) and by that was saying the same things that Thomas declared - it seems more likely that LHO was closer to 131 lbs. than to 150.

You're quick to point out others' apparent errors even when you're puzzled by the material you use to do so.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Glenn,

I said Tommy was "mixed up" because he was. And he knows that now too. Tommy was claiming things were happening to the dead body of Lee Oswald on Nov. 25 that could not have been happening to Oswald on Nov. 25, because Lee was inside a casket that whole day.

That's what I meant by "mixed up".


PAT SPEER SAID:

Is this dispute over Oswald's being fingerprinted after death? Because I'm virtually positive he was. To my recollection, it was SOP when suspects were killed that they be fingerprinted so the records would reflect they were dead, and not on the lam somewhere. It's also true that Rusty Livingston, in First Day Evidence, admitted that he was the one who took Oswald's prints. He said he did this on Sunday night.

From "First Day Evidence":

"As stated earlier, Rusty has an original fingerprint card that he and J. B. Hicks made of Oswald following his murder while his body lay in the morgue at Parkland Hospital Sunday night. At that time, the Dallas Police Department used a small fingerprint card which was manufactured by the Faurot Company of New York. To use the card, an invisible chemical was placed on the victim's fingers, and the card was then rolled over them. The paper that the card was made from then reacted to the chemical from the finger, producing a print on the card. This type of card was typically used by detectives on deceased individuals in order to avoid leaving ink stains on a body already prepared for burial.

The reason Rusty and J. B. Hicks took a photograph and fingerprinted Oswald in the morgue was actually a routine assignment for the Crime Lab.

Rusty told me, "In fingerprinting, normally a lot of times we would have to go to a mortuary where a body had already been prepared for burial, and if we didn't get to it beforehand, we had to go to the mortuary and roll a set of prints. We did roll some prints while Oswald was in the morgue. He hadn't been prepared for burial."

Rusty and J. B. Hicks rolled at least three inkless cards and one inked card of Oswald that Sunday night in the Parkland morgue. Rusty retained one inkless card for his reference. The inked card was taken back to the Identification Bureau and was checked the following day against Oswald's prints taken the previous Friday. Rusty told me it was typical that when a detective back at the office verified that the prints were indeed from the same person, the fingerprint card was usually initialed by him, showing it had been done."



DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Pat,

I'm still scratching my head about the "Refused To Sign" remark if the prints seen in CE630 were really taken on 11/25/63. And the HSCA doesn't seem to think the CE630 prints were taken on 11/25 either.

~big shrug~

And the fingerprint card signed by J.B. Hicks is dated 11-22-63. It is seen in CE627.

Did Hicks take Oswald's prints twice? He sure as heck never said a word in his Warren Commission testimony about fingerprinting Lee Oswald after he was killed. Hicks said he fingerprinted Oswald in Captain Fritz' office at the DPD....

Mr. BALL -- "Where were you when you took the prints?"

Mr. HICKS -- "I was in Captain Fritz' office. In other words, I made those on an inkless pad. That's a pad we use for fingerprinting people without the black ink that they make for the records."



Hicks also said this.....

Mr. BALL -- "Did you do anything else with respect to the investigation?"

Mr. HICKS -- "I don't recall anything outstanding that I did in the investigation further there. Now, I know we were all pretty well busy there until about 2 or 2:30 in the morning but most of it was, I would imagine regular office work and just back and forth if someone had asked did we get a picture of this and picture of that; well, I can't recall any other particular item that I might have done."



Why wouldn't Hicks have told the Warren Commission that he had fingerprinted Oswald in the morgue if he really had done so and if it was merely "a routine assignment for the Crime Lab", as it says in the book "First Day Evidence"?


THOMAS GRAVES SAID:

David,

Thanks for admitting you don't have the foggiest idea about those measurements of Oswald that were written on his fingerprint card on 11/22/63.

Just because Baker said the man he encountered on the 2nd floor (Oswald?) or more likely on the 4th floor (Tan Jacket Man / Brown Coat Man?) weighed "about 165 pounds" and this figure seemed to dovetail with key witness Howard Leslie Brennan's "calculations" of "160 to 170 pounds" for the assassin (even though he "viewed," from far below and at a horrible angle, the assassin, standing and shooting through an impossible-to-shoot-through-from-a-standing-position dirty, partially-opened, low window) doesn't necessarily mean that Baker and Brennan were both talking about Oswald or that the descriptions they gave even supported each other's description of Oswald / The Assassin.

It's more plausible, IMHO, that Baker and Brennan were coached, maybe even beforehand, on the descriptions (based on a 1960 Lee Harvey Oswald FBI / CIA "marked card" in which Oswald was described as being a Robert E. Webster-like 5' 10", 165 pounds) they were to give the authorities in order to incriminate Oswald...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So you're pretty much saying the patsy-framers screwed up pretty badly, huh? They were trying to frame the very skinny, 131-pound Lee Oswald, but they used a 165-pound person as their "Oswald double"? Is that it?

And you think BOTH Baker and Brennan were "coached"?

And what about Roy Truly? Was he "coached" to say the encounter occurred on the second floor too?

Tommy, that's a lot of unprovable and unfounded speculation on your part, don't you think?

You have no GOOD reason to think Marrion Baker was "coached". Why would you even suggest such a thing?

I'll answer my last question myself --- You NEED to suggest it in order for your conspiracy theory to work.

So--voila!--Baker was "coached".

Not very persuasive, Tommy.


GLENN NALL SAID:

Are you asserting that he gained ~19 lbs. between the time he was weighed by DPD and the time his weight was estimated at autopsy?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Of course not, Glenn. And I have never once suggested anything that silly.

LHO's autopsy report estimates his weight at 150 pounds. That figure is very likely not a correct one. But so what? It's just an estimate for the paperwork that was done. Perhaps Oswald looked a little heavier to the coroner who was doing the autopsy. I don't know. And it matters very little (if at all) in the long run.

But I will say this....

If Oswald did weigh only 131 pounds on November 22 when he was arrested, then the "150 pounds" estimate we find in the autopsy report would serve as just one additional item to indicate that different people who were looking at the real Lee Oswald were making inaccurate (i.e., too heavy) guesses as to Oswald's weight.

We know Marrion Baker guessed incorrectly in a "too heavy" manner. And we can see that the person who estimated LHO's weight at his autopsy did the same thing --- he thought Oswald weighed more than he really did. Not to mention Howard Brennan, who we all know DID see Lee Oswald shooting at the President (even though no CTer on the Internet would ever have the guts to admit that obvious fact).

So that really makes three different people who estimated Oswald's weight at between 150 and 175 pounds. And I have no doubt at all that those three persons were each looking at the real Lee Oswald when they made those estimates.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

...Baker never saw Oswald...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's fun just making up total crap out of whole cloth, isn't it Jimmy?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Did you ever read either one of my most recent books?

Please, a yes or no answer will suffice for once.

If no--too busy reaching out to Mack and Davison right?--then where do you get the cajones to say something like the above? Especially after what I just did to you on the rifle order? You want some more?

It is you who are making stuff up. The worst part is that you don't even know it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Let's cut to the chase --- You're full of crap, Jimmy. And the worst part is that you don't even know it. (Or maybe you do, but you can't admit it.)

The bottom line on this is that you said something that was incredibly stupid and I called you on it. And now you don't like it. Well, that's just tough, Jimbo. And you can't walk it back. So you're stuck with that dumb quote from now until doomsday. You said something that is not supported by the facts in any way, shape, or form--and you damn well know it. And the incredibly stupid thing you said was this....

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

The above quote doesn't come close to resembling the facts and the witness testimony of both Marrion L. Baker and Roy S. Truly, and anyone with the ability to read the testimony (and to watch the video below) knows it.

And yet I am being chastised for "making stuff up". The irony is so delicious and thick, we'd need a chainsaw to slice through it.

You, Jimmy D., give new meaning to the words POT, KETTLE, and "MAKING STUFF UP".

You're a joke, Jimmy. And, yes, you're a clown. (There, I said it again. Cry me a river.)

video


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Please note above, Davey never answered my question.

Because he likely did not read either of the books.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Of course I haven't read any of your books. None. Nada. I get enough of your nonsense just reading it on the Internet. Why would I torture myself further by actually buying one of your fantasy books?

And it appears that Jim has already forgotten this short exchange we had just two days ago on this forum:

DiEUGENIO -- "Now if you look through the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, which you will not..."

DVP -- "A double root canal would be preferable to reading that book. I mean, a guy who still props up Garrison in the 21st century? Geesh. Incredible."


BTW, that was a hint that I had NOT read Jim's book.

So, let's continue....

I'm assuming that Jimmy is probably about done spreading his snake oil through the veins of this forum thread (for the moment anyway), so I'll talk again....

Nothing Jim DiEugenio has said in this thread [beginning here] concerning Marrion Baker negates the "second-floor encounter" that Officer Baker had with Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63. That encounter, on the second floor, is even confirmed by Oswald himself in the written report of Dallas Police Homicide Captain J. Will Fritz. Here's what Fritz said on page 2 of his report....

"I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a Coca-Cola when the officer came in."
-- Warren Report; Page 600

And the "second floor" encounter between Baker and Oswald is also mentioned in Fritz' handwritten notes as well, right here.

And if Jim wants to switch gears and talk about the "Coca-Cola" that Fritz said that Oswald said he was drinking at the time of the lunchroom encounter with Officer Baker, I'm prepared for that argument too. Click here.

So, in order for Jim to have a prayer of debunking the second-floor lunchroom encounter between Baker and Oswald, DiEugenio has no choice but to call all three of the following people outright liars when it comes to this particular issue:

Marrion Baker.
Roy Truly.
Lee Harvey Oswald (DiEugenio's resident "patsy" for all 11/22/63 murders).

Now, granted, Mr. Oswald was one heck of a liar. No doubt about that. He practically turned into a lying machine after he was arrested in the Texas Theater on November 22nd. But in this instance we're discussing here, when he was answering Captain Fritz' question about where he was located when the policeman encountered him within the Depository building, he was not lying. And we can know for an absolute fact he was not lying in this instance due to the fact that his "second floor" version of the event is corroborated by TWO other people---Marrion Baker and Roy Truly.

It's kind of a funny switch here, isn't it? The LNer (DVP) is supporting and believing something uttered by Oswald; and the CTer (DiEugenio) has no choice but to think Oswald was lying about this incident.

Or maybe Jim thinks Captain Fritz just put the words "second floor" into Oswald's mouth when Fritz wrote up his report. Either way, we can add one more "liar" to Jim's growing list of liars, can't we, Jim?

Jim DiEugenio is packaging and selling snake oil. He has attempted to dress up his snake oil in a "scholarly" and "well sourced" manner. But it's still snake oil that Jimmy is selling and nothing more.

The initial inconsistencies in Marrion Baker's account of what floor he saw Oswald on do not mean that Baker was lying. He simply mixed up the floor numbers in his rush to race up the stairs in a frantic effort to locate the President's assassin.

The very same kind of early first-day inconsistencies and innocent errors of fact can be found in several other places within the JFK assassination landscape. For instance, there are the initial news reports of FOUR bullet shells being found on the FIFTH floor of the Book Depository. But when the dust had settled, it became obvious that those early news reports were simply erroneous (and non-sinister) in nature, and that, in reality, only three shells had been found in the building--and on the SIXTH floor, not the fifth.

Two more examples that show how people can get things innocently mixed up can be found in the affidavits of two Dealey Plaza witnesses, Ronald Fischer and Robert Edwards. In Fischer's 11/22/63 affidavit, he said he saw a man on the "fifth floor". He later told the Warren Commission that the "white man" he saw was on either the "fifth or sixth floor". And since we know from the picture taken by Tom Dillard that there was no "white man" in any window on the southeast side of the fifth floor, Fischer was simply mistaken when he said "fifth floor" in his initial affidavit.

And Edwards, who was standing next to Fischer during the assassination, made the very same mistake Fischer made when Edwards filled out his affidavit on November 22 too. Edwards said the man was on the "fifth floor". But we can know that he really meant to say "sixth floor", because in the same affidavit Edwards said "there was a stack of boxes around him". And there certainly was not a "stack of boxes" surrounding anyone in the fifth-floor windows that day.

So, as we can see, it's certainly not unusual for witnesses to be mistaken when it comes to the TSBD's floor numbers.

It seems as if a whole new breed of conspiracy theorist is among us. And members of this new breed, in addition to being part of the proverbial "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity, are now also members of the "It Never Happened At All" club too.

I can remember not that long ago when CTers would argue in FAVOR of the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter happening just where all sensible people know it happened--in the second-floor lunchroom of the TSBD. With those CTers using that FACT as "proof" (they would say) of conspiracy, because they'd say that Oswald couldn't possibly have made it down to the second floor in time to see Officer Baker in the lunchroom.

But now we get INHAA [It Never Happened At All] members (like Mr. DiEugenio) who can never use that other "He Couldn't Have Made It There In Time" argument ever again---because DiEugenio is convinced the encounter never happened at all.

And the same with the "paper bag" argument. In past years, that brown paper bag (CE142) that Oswald was seen carrying on the morning of November 22, 1963, was propped up as a "proof of conspiracy" crown jewel by the conspiracy faithful, with the CTers insisting the bag itself was proof that Oswald never carried any rifle into the Depository on November 22 because the bag was way too short.

But now, it's a new ballgame with the bag. And people like Jim DiEugenio can never again utilize the "Too Short" argument. Why? Because Jimmy assures the world that Oswald never had a bag at all on November 22. Go figure.

Kind of funny, isn't it? I think so.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Anyway, thanks Davey, no one leads with his chin like you do. I am already getting emails thanking me for putting you in your place again. Some things never change.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And nobody can sell snake oil and a bunch of made-up, imaginary crap like you can, Jimbo. You just might be the new Babe Ruth of snake oil salesmen, Jimmy. Congratulations on that fine achievement in life.

My favorite bits of Jimbo made-up fantasy from his recent marathon filibuster regarding Marrion Baker and Lee Harvey Oswald are these gut-busters (which should make the "Fantasy Hall-of-Fame" very soon)....

"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

Only two words need be uttered by me at this point in the proceedings ---

Oh brother!

And please note that Jim D. totally avoids and/or ignores the affidavit of Depository Superintendent Roy Truly. It is, in fact, Mr. Truly who VERIFIED that Baker was pointing his gun at Lee Harvey Oswald in that second-floor lunchroom on 11/22/63.

Mr. Truly is the key to knowing that the man who was seen by Officer Baker on the second floor was, in fact, the one and only Lee H. Oswald --- and that's because Mr. Truly was the man who had hired Oswald at the Depository just one month before the assassination. Ergo, Truly knew Oswald on sight and then Truly cleared Oswald as being just one of the TSBD employees, so Baker let Oswald go on his way (unfortunately for Officer J.D. Tippit).

Roy S. Truly filled out this affidavit in his own words on Saturday, November 23, 1963, just one day after President Kennedy was murdered by Lee Oswald. Let's have a look at what Mr. Truly had to say (which DiEugenio completely ignored during his marathon posting session just a little while ago). The added emphasis is my own....

"The officer and I went through the shipping department to the freight elevator. We then started up the stairway. We hit the second floor landing, the officer stuck his head into the lunch room area where there are Coke and candy machines. Lee Oswald was in there. The officer had his gun on Oswald and asked me if he was an employee. I answered yes." -- Roy Truly; 11/23/63

Therefore, on the day after the assassination, the Depository's Superintendent, Roy Truly, is saying that he and Officer Baker definitely did encounter Lee Oswald (and nobody else) on the second floor of the TSBD right after the shooting of the President.

I guess Jim DiEugenio didn't think that Mr. Truly's affidavit was important at all. Eh, Jim?

Plus, we can also turn to Police Chief Jesse Curry's impromptu press conferences on Saturday (11/23/63) for additional confirmation that an encounter between Lee Harvey Oswald and a Dallas policeman did take place inside the Depository building just minutes after the President was shot.

And keep in mind this conversation with Chief Curry occurred only about 24 hours after JFK was killed. That's not much time for any "cover story" about the Baker/Oswald encounter to have developed and evolved. There is no mention of the "second floor" or "lunchroom" during Curry's interview with reporters, but it's quite clear from Curry's comments that an encounter DID take place inside the TSBD between a Dallas police officer and Lee Harvey Oswald...

video

REPORTER (BOB CLARK OF ABC) -- "Has he [Oswald] admitted that he was in the building at the time the shots were fired?"

DALLAS POLICE CHIEF JESSE CURRY -- "Yes....well, we know...he couldn't deny that. We have witnesses."

[...]

REPORTER (TOM PETTIT OF NBC) -- "Chief Curry, could you detail for us what led you to Oswald?"

CHIEF CURRY -- "Not exactly. Except...when we went to the building, he was observed in the building at the time, but the manager told us that he worked there. And the officers [sic] passed him on up then because the manager said he is an employee."

REPORTER -- "Is that before the shooting or after?"

CHIEF CURRY -- "After the shooting."

[...]

REPORTER (TOM PETTIT) -- "Did you say, Chief, that a policeman had seen him in the building, after the shot was fired?"

CHIEF CURRY -- "Yes."

REPORTER (TOM PETTIT) -- "Why didn't he arrest him then?"

CHIEF CURRY -- "Because the manager of the place told us that he was an employee. He said he's alright, he's an employee."

REPORTER (BOB CLARK) -- "Did he look suspicious to the policeman at this point?"

CHIEF CURRY -- "I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building."

[...]

REPORTER (TOM PETTIT) -- "And you have the witness who places him there [in the TSBD] after the time of the shooting?"

CHIEF CURRY -- "My police officer can place him there after the time of the shooting."



PAT SPEER SAID:

Unlike most researchers, who are mostly concerned with who killed Kennedy, and why, I have spent much of my time researching what people were thinking, when they were thinking it, and why they were thinking it. Your video archive has proved most helpful in this effort, so thank you for that.

In any event, when one approaches the case from this angle, it's clear that the media had no idea what was going on on 11-22-63, and quickly tired of guessing. They then decided to sit back and let the government tell them what to think. Meanwhile, the government, by and large, also had no idea what was going on, and then decided it was easiest and best to let the public believe it was one wacko acting alone.

The problem, however, is that this wasn't an actual conclusion, but a decision, a political decision. They then had to find a way to confirm this decision. This, then, led to another political decision--the creation of the Warren Commission. While this commission was purportedly granted the autonomy to come to whatever decision it felt appropriate, the members of this commission were all completely entrenched in Washington, and extremely unlikely to say anything which would reflect badly on the Johnson Administration, or cause public alarm. When one reads the news of the day, in fact, it seems clear that the commission's relatively minor criticisms of the FBI, and the SS, came as a bit of a surprise to those "inside the beltway".

Now, one could argue from all this that the WC was a whitewash of a crime that didn't need to be whitewashed. But nobody really does that, do they? No, those suspecting there was more to it than Oswald are normally treated like idiots by those thinking he acted alone, because those thinking he acted alone "know" he did it all alone.

It's called cognitive dissonance. Virtually all of those thinking Oswald acted alone also claim some inside baseball understanding of Oswald's motivations--that he was crazy, a wife-beater, a dyed-in-the-wool commie, an America-hater, etc. While NONE of that is clear from the record.

In other words, they KNOW Oswald did it, based upon what they actually don't know at all, but only think they know.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Nobody can ever prove Oswald's motive, Pat. All we can do is guess. And I've never been shy about saying that very thing.

But as far as the EVIDENCE incriminating Oswald --- well, that's a different matter. The evidence against him is truly overwhelming. You don't deny that, do you Pat?

And guilt is usually established by using evidence.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Only if the evidence shows guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And I know of no evidence, and you certainly haven't shown us any, that proves any guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In fact, I know of nothing you have shown that would get a guilty vote.

By the time all exculpatory evidence is presented, along with yours, the net is 'not guilty'.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, sure, Ken.

All you have to do, Ken, is totally IGNORE all of these little nitpicky items in order to avoid a "Guilty" vote against Lee Oswald....

...The C2766 rifle.

...The documents establishing that OSWALD owned the C2766 rifle.

...All of the bullets.

...All of the bullet shells.

...Oswald's prints on various items (boxes, rifle, paper bag).

...The Tippit murder evidence (and eyewitnesses).

...Howard Brennan's WC testimony.

...Oswald's OWN ACTIONS and out-of-the-ordinary behavior on both Nov. 21 and 22.


Good luck, Ken, in finding 12 jurors who are willing to pretend that ALL OF THE ABOVE is "fake" stuff (including OSWALD'S OWN ACTIONS AND LIES).

(Are all of the O.J. jurors still alive? You might give them a call. They're about your only hope.)


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

So, according to Jim DiEugenio and other conspiracy theorists, apparently there was NO WAY IN HADES that Baker's "third or fourth floor" remark in his Day 1 affidavit could have POSSIBLY been just a simple mistake. He MUST have been lying when he later confirmed it was the second floor?

Geesh.

And it's also clear already from his first-day affidavit that Baker was NOT EXACTLY SURE which floor it was -- "third or fourth". So he doesn't really know even on Day 1.


IAN LLOYD SAID:

A MISTAKE???? For Pete's sake, he only went up ONE floor! How could he possibly believe he had arrived at the 4th floor??


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Maybe it was because of the way the TSBD's stairways were constructed. Perhaps someone better informed of the way the stairs were configured can chime in on this....but didn't it take two "sets" of L-shaped stairs to constitute a whole flight of steps? Frankly, I've always been a little perplexed by the configuration of the TSBD stairwells.

Anyway, Marrion Baker made a mistake in his 11/22 affidavit. And anyone who thinks it was anything other than an honest mistake is a person bent on creating a conspiracy where none exists at all.

Here's the sixth-floor diagram....




ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Nice try, Davey, but probably one of the lamest posts you have ever come up with. You actually are trying to tell us that, as Baker made the turn, INSIDE the stairwell, from one set of steps to another, he believed he had arrived at the 2nd floor?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Bob, I just don't know. I was just throwing that out there as a possibility. And I said I was a bit confused myself as to the configuration of the staircases in the building. But I recalled from the Secret Service re-enactment films and the diagrams (like the one above) that the stairs were not laid out in one continuous set of steps from one floor to the next. So.....~SHRUG~.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

Baker made no mistake in his statement when he said he was on either the 3rd or 4th floor. The only mistake he made was allowing himself to be pressured into changing his memory to the 2nd floor lunch room.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But if the whole "second-floor lunchroom encounter" was fake and bogus from the very start, then why would the people who were allegedly trying to frame Lee Oswald want to make it look like Baker and Truly saw the "patsy" on the SECOND floor instead of where YOU say Baker really did see an "Oswald-like" person on the third or fourth floor?

Keeping the patsy CLOSER to the sixth floor (i.e., the "Floor of Death") would be better than creating a fake "encounter" way down on the SECOND floor, don't you think?

And what about Oswald HIMSELF? Captain Fritz' report shows that Oswald said he WAS on the second floor when the policeman stopped him. So was Oswald himself lying? Or was it Fritz who was lying?

And what about Roy Truly's 11/23/63 affidavit? I guess it's nothing but a lie too, correct Bob? Because Truly, right off the bat, said the encounter took place on the second floor and inside the lunchroom.

And then there's the video featuring Jesse Curry that I posted earlier. Is that nothing but a lie too?

All those lies and liars just to put Oswald four floors away from the gunman's sniper's perch?

Yeah, right.


ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

It's a matter of timing, Dave, plus the fact Oswald was seen by a receptionist on the 2nd floor. Whomever Baker saw on the 4th floor (wearing a jacket that Oswald did not own) could not have been LHO, as he could not be seen by the receptionist PLUS be on the 4th floor.

Add to this it would look very suspicious for Oswald to have descended only two storeys in the time it took Baker to make his way to the 4th floor.

Fritz's notes, written to appear to be hastily jotted down during an interview, were actually written a week after the assassination. Bogus, and not a reliable source.

Why was Truly's affidavit taken on the 23rd, while almost every other TSBD gave their affidavits on the 22nd?

Not only was the interview with Curry filmed on the 23rd, at no point does Curry say where the encounter with Baker and Oswald took place. It could have been at the front door, for all we know. No matter, by the 23rd, the conspiracy was taking shape nicely. If this interview with Curry had taken place on the afternoon of the 22nd, I might take you seriously.

You got nothin', Dave.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Let me get this straight, Bob....

You, too, are actually in the "THERE WAS NO SECOND-FLOOR ENCOUNTER AT ALL" camp?

So, here's the LIARS COUNT (per CTers) on JUST this one issue re: the second floor....

Baker
Truly
Fritz
Curry

Incredible.

And your excuse about Mrs. Reid and Oswald is laughable. If the encounter with Oswald had really happened on the 4th floor, there's no good reason under the moon to CHANGE it to the 2nd floor. In fact, it's idiotic. They'd be lying for no good reason whatsoever. And Oswald could have easily still seen Mrs. Reid in the 2nd-floor offices AFTER the encounter with Baker just two floors higher. There was nobody with a stopwatch timing Oswald's movements. The timing could have still worked out perfectly for LHO and Mrs. Reid to see each other on the 2nd floor.

You're inventing bogus nonsense out of nothing more than Marrion Baker misremembering exactly what floor he saw LHO on.

Pathetic.

IOW---par for the ABO [Anybody But Oswald] / CT course.


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

While searching my November 1963 newspaper archive, I found the following excerpt in the 11/23/63 Dallas Morning News....

"Police had encountered him [Oswald] while searching the building shortly after the assassination. They turned him loose when he was identified as an employe..." -- Dallas Morning News, 11/23/63, p.1

Now keep in mind that the DMN newspaper was, of course, a MORNING paper and therefore in order for the above words to appear in that paper on the morning of Saturday, November 23rd, the information in the article would have certainly been obtained no later than the previous evening (November 22).

Therefore, the story about Lee Harvey Oswald having been "encountered" by the "police" while the police were "searching the building shortly after the assassination", and then the police having "turned him loose when he was identified as an employe" (all direct quotes from the DMN front-page article on November 23), was most definitely being reported to the press no later than the evening of Friday, November 22, 1963.

So, it looks like the conspiracy theorists can add the staff of the Dallas Morning News to their list of liars when it comes to this topic of Baker and Oswald and the "second-floor encounter".

Click to enlarge....




MARK KNIGHT SAID:

Mr. Von Pein, if you would, kindly quote the part in that newspaper story where it says police encountered Oswald on the second floor...because I apparently missed that part.

And yes, I enlarged the newspaper to try to find it. Maybe your eyes are better than mine; please draw an arrow to the part...where it says police encountered Oswald on the second floor. Because I'm not seeing a "second-floor encounter," to use your words, mentioned at all.

If it's NOT in the news story shown that the encounter was on the second floor....then you cannot use this newspaper story to prove a "second-floor encounter."

Which means you're being deceitful IF you're trying to tell us it mentions a "second-floor encounter" when it actually does not.

So please have the courtesy to point out where in the story it says that there was a "second-floor encounter," or please have the courtesy to admit that the story makes no mention of a "second floor encounter" and you were engaging in something less than honesty.

Unless you mean that the DMN actually WAS lying, when they FAILED to mention an encounter on the second floor. If that's what you meant, please clarify your statement.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

~sigh~

Mark, when I put quotes around the words "second-floor encounter", I was certainly NOT directly quoting the DMN article. I've been putting quote marks around those words ("second-floor encounter") for the last couple of days now in my posts (such as this post and this post), only to stress that the conspiracy theorists think the "second-floor encounter" is a totally bogus and fabricated "second-floor encounter" altogether. The utilization of quotation marks around a word or phrase, as you know, oftentimes is done by a writer to denote something that ALLEGEDLY has taken place.

If I confused you with my quotation marks in my last post, I'm sorry. But I was not quoting the DMN there. Because, you're right, the paper doesn't specifically say the "encounter" took place on the second floor.

But the main point I was making in posting that DMN article was to simply show people like Bob Prudhomme, etc., that an "encounter" involving the police and Lee Oswald inside the Depository WAS being reported to the press on November 22. With the press also receiving the additional important information about Oswald being "turned...loose when he was identified as an employe".

All of that information fits perfectly with every version of the event that was ever uttered by both Marrion Baker and Roy Truly. The only thing missing is the exact location within the Depository where the "encounter" took place.

Now, let's see if Robert Prudhomme would like to take back what he told me just a few hours ago when he said this....

"If this interview with Curry had taken place on the afternoon of the 22nd, I might take you seriously." -- Bob Prudhomme

Well, I think I just proved in my last post (via the DMN article) that the press most definitely had the story on November 22 itself about Oswald being seen by the police in the TSBD and then "turned loose". But many CTers don't seem to believe that ANY "encounter" occurred between the policeman Baker and Lee Oswald AT ALL.

So let's see if Bob now wants to claim that the alleged official cover story concerning the Baker/Oswald encounter started just a tiny little bit BEFORE the 11/23/63 edition of the Dallas Morning News went to press.

And then when I find an AFTERNOON paper from November 22 from somewhere else in the country, or when I locate a radio or television snippet from the afternoon of November 22 which mentions the policeman/Oswald encounter (which might very well exist somewhere in my huge audio/video collection), maybe Bob can then move those goal posts even more, perhaps to the MORNING of November 22nd.


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

So then...the term "second floor encounter" is nowhere to be found in the newspaper page you used to prove a "second floor encounter." Thank goodness; I thought my eyes had failed me.

While I believe you DID intend to mislead by using the phrase "second floor encounter" in conjunction with the newspaper page, I'll let you off the hook since I cannot prove intent.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I resent the implication in that remark, Mr. Knight. I NEVER deliberately misquote people, or newspapers, or anything else, with an intent to deceive. Never have. Never will.

I fully explained the reason I utilized the quote marks in that previous post. And I even cited TWO previous recent examples where I did exactly the same thing (and I certainly wasn't quoting the DMN in those posts; ergo, those quote marks were there for a different purpose---the very same purpose I intended in the DMN post).


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

Resent all you want.

I'm simply surprised you didn't double down, and use your "anyone with half a brain" argument...as in, "Anyone with half a brain could see they were talking about the second floor lunchroom encounter," despite the fact there was no mention of the second floor at all. I'm totally SHOCKED that you failed to go there with your "explanation." That wasn't like you at all.

You're the one who has built these expectations of your style of debate...based entirely, of course, on your style of debate.

And I still believe that, had Tommy and I not called you on this, that's exactly where you would have left things.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Mark,

Actually, that "anyone with half a brain" argument isn't too bad. Maybe I should have used those words. (But this being a moderated forum, I'm always walking on eggshells, of course, so such a comment might not fly too well here. So I'm always careful not to heap on the insults in large doses.)

But, yes, since the SUM TOTAL of the Baker & Truly & Oswald (through Fritz) statements positively indicates that the "encounter" did take place on the SECOND floor and no other floor of the Book Depository, you could, indeed, look upon that previous post of mine that you seem to have a problem with (where I put "second-floor encounter" in quotation marks) as representing substitute wording in lieu of using these precise words Mark Knight just now used....

" "Anyone with half a brain could see they were talking about the second floor lunchroom encounter," despite the fact there was no mention of the second floor at all." -- M. Knight; 7/17/15

Not bad, Mark. In fact, given the obvious fact that the encounter did occur on the second floor, that quote of yours above fits like a glove. Thanks.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

Because it is in a morning paper does not mean they had to know the 'evening' before. Some reporters may actually work until the paper goes to press.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And when do you think the Dallas Morning News went to press in order for it to be on the streets early in the morning on the 23rd?

Care to split any more hairs, Ken?

You guys are cooked on this thing and you know it.

After my Curry and DMN proofs supplied in this discussion, no CTer can possibly still pretend that NO "encounter" (regardless of the floor number) took place between a Dallas policeman and Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63.

But I'm guessing there will be a few CTers who will still give it a try.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

If it had just been an encounter, then no one would be lying and you wouldn't have a point.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dead wrong, as usual.

In fact, that was THE WHOLE POINT that I was making in that post --- i.e., to show that "an encounter" (ANY encounter, regardless of the TSBD floor number) had occurred between a policeman and Oswald and that it was being reported in the media PRIOR to 12:01 AM Nov. 23rd. And I proved it via the DMN article. (Seeing as how the DMN reporters would have had that info on Nov. 22 for the Nov. 23 morning edition.)

Let's see you mangle what I just said yet again, Ken. You have a nice talent for that sort of thing.


KENNETH DREW SAID:

As it is, you tried to make up something to support your misleading info and got caught with your hand in the cookie jar.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Wrong yet again, as usual, Ken.

I only searched the newspaper archive to combat Prudhomme's previous post when he said this....

"If this interview with Curry had taken place on the afternoon of the 22nd, I might take you seriously." -- B. Prudhomme

And the Curry video doesn't say a thing about the encounter being a "second-floor encounter" either. And Bob's post referring to that Curry video was my entire motivation for seeking out a newspaper article to shove down his throat which proved that the same type of ENCOUNTER that was referred to in the Curry video (regardless of floor number) was also being reported on a day which Prudhomme said he would find more satisfactory so that he could stop pretending that ANY "encounter" took place INVOLVING OSWALD and a Dallas policeman. And I did find the proof in less than four minutes via the DMN article, which HAD to have been put to bed on Nov. 22, not Nov. 23.

Anyway, I knew exactly what I meant and what I was doing when I put "second-floor encounter" in quote marks.

You actually think I would be stupid enough to think you CTers wouldn't catch me in a lie if I truly was trying to suggest that those exact words ("second-floor encounter") WERE part of the DMN article---even when I posted the article itself for all to see and check?

That's hilarious.


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

I questioned the Baker/Oswald encounter back in the 1990s on Rich DellaRosa's old forum. I wasn't alone. This isn't something Greg Parker or anyone else recently came up with. The same thing goes for Lee Farley questioning Oswald's alleged bus ride. I questioned that, along with every other aspect of Oswald's supposed post-assassination actions, long before he even started researching this case. And again, there were others who felt the same way.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And the contortions a CTer needs to go through in order to believe that ANY of those facts are false are staggering in number.

Liars, liars everywhere!

That seems to be the CTer motto.

And the list of liars includes all kinds of non-Government people too -- like Cecil McWatters, William Whaley, Buell Frazier, Linnie Mae Randle, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, Gladys Johnson, Earlene Roberts, Johnny Brewer, Virginia Davis, Barbara Davis, Helen Markham, Ted Callaway, William Scoggins, and God knows how many more.

Shouldn't at least a few Internet conspiracy theorists see how utterly preposterous it is to believe that all of the above citizens were lying through their teeth about things relating to 11/22/63?

Well, even if CTers can't see it, I sure as hell can.


GREG PARKER SAID:

Up until 2001 or 02, the only criticism of the second floor lunch story was about how long it would take Oswald to get down there from 6. No one suggested that meant there was no encounter on the second floor. If anyone HAD suggested it, I believe the famous scene in Stone's movie would have looked quite different. No one gave the affidavit a second look. In fact, few in any, gave it a FIRST look. So Don [Jeffries] and anyone else claiming they questioned if the second floor lunchroom story ever actually happened are just conflating their questioning of ASPECTS of the story with questioning the whole damn story.


DON JEFFRIES SAID:

You [Greg Parker] won't win any prizes for it, but if it makes you feel better, keep claiming credit for being the first to doubt Baker encountered Oswald.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This is hilarity at its finest.

It's kind of like wanting to take credit for being the person who designed
The Edsel.



David Von Pein
July 12-27, 2015





ANOTHER....



AND ONE MORE....