(PART 1075)


Jim DiEugenio knows a phenomenal amount about the assassination of JFK -- he, like David [Von Pein], is a true scholar re everything JFK. Most of us, especially myself, are armchair amateurs when it comes to comparing to the knowledge that someone like Jim or David possess. I enjoy reading about what BOTH of them have to say. I, for one, am very grateful for the excellent JFK material that David has on his web site -- it truly is remarkable.

However, please do not -- under any circumstances -- try to diminish the work done by Jim DiEugenio in terms of asking deep probing questions re the JFK assassination as well as other topics. The debate [between DiEugenio and John McAdams in September and Ocober 2009] was very informative and civil. Len [Osanic] allowed no interjection or talking over one another and gave both debaters plenty of time to put their points across.

A debate between Jim and David would be incredible because EACH person has an incredible knowledge base that puts most of us to shame. Thought provoking questions allows one to go off and do private research to see why there is so much conflict in this case.

In regards to the so-called "bags", Jim is absolutely correct -- read the WC testimonies yourself. Frazier and his sister couldn't identify the "correct" bag.


Now you know that when one encounters a crime scene, you do not touch anything and photograph the scene--correct? So where was the rifle bag in a photograph taken by the crime scene investigators? I am still looking for one.


Thanks, Tony.

About the paper bag:

It's certainly true that there is no photo of the paper bag in the Sniper's Nest. And if the DPD had to do it over again, I think we can all agree that they would have certainly photographed that bag in that Nest before anybody picked the damn thing up off the floor.

But, then too, we must look at that great thing called "THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE". And the "totality" of the evidence with respect to the paper bag specifically is certainly telling any reasonable person that the brown bag in evidence (CE142) is the very same bag that was taken into the Book Depository Building by Lee Harvey Oswald on the morning of 11/22/63.

That "totality" includes:

1.) Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle BOTH saw Lee Oswald with a large-ish brown paper bag that morning (November 22).

2.) Oswald's prints (a palmprint and a fingerprint) were found on the CE142 paper bag after the assassination.

3.) A brown viscose fiber consistent with the blanket from Ruth Paine's garage was found inside the CE142 bag. And that same blanket was known to be the place where Oswald stored his rifle prior to November 22.

4.) Oswald lied to the police about taking ANY large type bag into work that day. (And is it more reasonable to think Oswald, the accused assassin, was telling lies about the bag or people like Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle? But don't ask Jim DiEugenio that question. Because what you'll get is an answer that is totally UNreasonable....and laughable.)

So, even without a picture of the bag in the Sniper's Nest, it's quite clear to me (as it should be to all reasonable individuals of Planet Earth) that the bag with OSWALD'S PRINTS on it (CE142) was, in fact, the bag that Frazier and Randle saw in Oswald's hands on November 22, 1963.

And lots of other "totality" concerning Oswald's Carcano rifle tells a reasoned-thinking person that Commission Exhibit No. 142 was the bag that Oswald used to carry his rifle into work on the day he killed the President with it.


I will admit that I am not nearly as well-versed in several aspects of the JFK case as Mr. DiEugenio is. And one of those areas is "New Orleans/Jim Garrison", which is an area where DiEugenio excels--no doubt about that.

But even though Jim D. has far more knowledge than I about various aspects of the New Orleans and Garrison subjects, I am still very confident in saying the following (and I'll just do a bit of copying-and-pasting at this point, because these words from 2009 certainly still apply now; and these comments actually can be applied to not only the so-called "New Orleans plot", but also to many other theories and purported "conspirators" relating to JFK's assassination too):

"Even if we were to make the assumption (just for the sake of this particular discussion, although I'm not conceding this to be a true fact at all) that Lee Oswald WAS acquainted with the various "New Orleans" characters that Jim DiEugenio thinks LHO was acquainted with in the summer of 1963 (e.g., Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Guy Banister).....that would still be a million miles away from proving that ANY of those New Orleans characters had ANY INVOLVEMENT, IN ANY WAY, WITH THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN DALLAS ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963.

And the reason the above paragraph is the truth is because (once Perry Russo's lie is tossed aside, as it must be) there isn't a shred of evidence that CONNECTS any of those New Orleans individuals to the planning and/or carrying out of the murder of John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. No evidence whatsoever.

Everything Lee Harvey Oswald did on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 indicates that he was a LONE ASSASSIN in Dallas. And that fact would still be true even IF Oswald had been pals with ALL of the three previously-named New Orleans-based people (Shaw, Ferrie, and Banister).

In other words -- Where is Jim DiEugenio's (or anyone's) BRIDGE and/or UMBILICAL CORD that allows conspiracy theorists to make the grand leap from this --- LEE HARVEY OSWALD KNEW CLAY SHAW, DAVID FERRIE, AND GUY BANISTER --- to this --- SHAW, FERRIE, AND BANISTER WERE CO-CONSPIRATORS IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY?

Given the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists of ONLY OSWALD'S GUILT in the assassination of JFK, such a monumental leap of faith like the one suggested above is, to put it bluntly, monumentally ridiculous."
-- DVP; July 31, 2009

David Von Pein
April 14, 2010