JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
It's not my job to say what really happened. I am part of the defense team.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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
GLENN NALL SAID:
I made it ["I am part of the defense team"] my signature because you told him [DiEugenio] to put it in his. I figured it'd get to you.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It got to my funny bone, yes. That's about all.
This "signature" game is quite humorous. And now Kenneth Drew has added another quote of mine to his signature at The Education Forum 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 my quotes 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 conspiracy clowns would never come right out and admit to the world that they are dedicated solely to Oswald's defense. Congrats.
IN ANOTHER DISCUSSION,
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oswald's actions pretty much convict him.
JON G. TIDD SAID:
Which actions do you mean, DVP? .... 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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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...
MARK KNIGHT SAID:
So did Charles Givens. James Jarman Jr. testified that when the roll call that indicated Oswald was missing was taken, so was Givens.
Does that also make Givens guilty?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Charles Givens had two alibi witnesses standing with him when President Kennedy was shot (James and Edward Shields) [See 6 H 351].
Plus, Givens went back to the Book Depository after the shooting, but it had been sealed off by then and he couldn't get back in. So he left. That's hardly a situation that could be defined as fleeing the crime scene....
CHARLES GIVENS -- "Well, we broke and ran down that way, and by the time we got to the corner down there of Houston and Elm, everybody was running, going toward the underpass over there by the railroad tracks. And we asked--I asked someone some white fellow there, 'What happened?' And he said, 'Somebody shot the President'. Like that. So I stood there for a while, and I went over to try to get to the building after they found out the shots came from there, and when I went over to try to get back in, the officer at the door wouldn't let me in." [6 H 355]
GLENN NALL SAID:
He wasn't suggesting that Givens is guilty, David. Damn. He was pointing out that, by your reasoning, if someone was missing from roll call, then he must be guilty.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's not my reasoning at all, Glenn.
I was merely pointing out to Mark Knight that the situations that existed on 11/22/63 when comparing Lee Harvey Oswald with Charles Givens are not even remotely the same.
As I said in the list of things I'm repeating below (which is a list that needs to be looked at in its TOTALITY, instead of each item being isolated from the sum total), Oswald "leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination", which is not at all what Givens did. Givens had already left the building many minutes BEFORE the shooting. Givens then tried to get BACK INTO the building, but could not. So he eventually left the area. (Who wouldn't?)
Reprise.....
"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)."
-- DVP; August 4, 2015
David Von Pein
July 26, 2015
August 4, 2015
August 3-5, 2015
