JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1306)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Who the heck was a good guy on the DPD?

And what the heck was Tippit doing across the viaduct, pulling over the car, at the Tip Top Record Store, and then so far out of position at 10th and Patton?

When all is said and done, Westbrook might have been in on it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good! More worthless liars and scumbags!

In James DiEugenio's fantasy world, it was The World Vs. The Patsy.

Obligatory ----->


DAVID HEALY SAID:

Even you DVP can't hide from the stench.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I agree. Oswald's heinous solo act does, indeed, stink to high heaven.

But it wasn't the Dallas Police Department who took a long bag into the Book Depository Building on the morning of November 22nd.

It wasn't the DPD who lied (twice) to Buell Frazier about the contents of that bag.

And it wasn't the DPD who was seen firing bullets into the body of J.D. Tippit.

And it wasn't the DPD who was seen fleeing the scene of the Tippit murder with a gun in hand.

Now, you can pretend that the Dallas Police Department lied and coerced witnesses and planted bullet shells, etc., as part of the "World Vs. The Patsy" plot that most Internet conspiracy theorists think the DPD and District Attorney Henry Wade and Sheriff Bill Decker were all allegedly involved in --- but you only look silly in the eyes of all reasonable people when you engage in such widespread and unprovable speculation.

Lee Harvey Oswald's ACTIONS speak for themselves. And Oswald's actions on November 22, 1963, are not the actions of an innocent "patsy" who was being framed by the police.

David Von Pein
January 30, 2019












JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1305)


DOUGLAS CADDY POSTED THIS VIDEO:

JFK Assassination Panel with Roger Stone and Jim DiEugenio [Nov. 22, 2013]....




DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, Douglas.

Even though I disagree with virtually every single thing James DiEugenio and Roger Stone have to say about the JFK assassination in that November 22, 2013, Internet video program above, I must say that I enjoyed watching it. And I'm sure conspiracy theorists will love it even more. 😉

But when Jim D. said this near the end of the program....

"I think we've already proved, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Oswald didn't shoot anybody that day."

....Jim was saying something that, in my opinion, is every bit as crazy and nonsensical as the "Hickey Shot JFK" theory that Jim was denouncing in that very same program. Because when Jim said the words "didn't shoot anybody", he was, of course, including Officer Tippit too. And how any reasonable person could think Oswald was not guilty of J.D. Tippit's murder too is something I just cannot even begin to fathom at all.




JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

This was the highest rated article at Kennedys and King last year. And on Dave Giglio's Our Hidden History, it has 35,000 views:

http://kennedysandking.com/the-tippit-case-in-the-new-millennium

I take no credit for any original work in that essay. The lion's share goes to Joe McBride's book.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jim's above article notwithstanding, I still hold strong to my previous comment in this thread....

"How any reasonable person could think Oswald was not guilty of J.D. Tippit's murder too is something I just cannot even begin to fathom at all." -- DVP

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JD-Tippit


RON BULMAN SAID:

Big blue letters don't make something reasonable. Logic and a grain of salt work better. I was already suspicious of Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder from what I'd read previously, but Mr. McBride's Into the Nightmare leaves little doubt LHO didn't shoot Tippit. Have you read it David? Likely not given your participation here, your website, others and blogs. You wouldn't have time, even with split multiple personalities. Logic makes it seem unreasonable that you're one person with so much knowledge that responds in depth so quickly and often.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, I haven't read Joseph McBride's book. But I've seen quite a number of Mr. McBride's posts on The Education Forum (enough to get a pretty good idea what his opinions are of the Tippit murder), and I do not think Mr. McBride "leaves little doubt" that Oswald was innocent of shooting Officer Tippit. Quite to the contrary. McBride's theories about how Tippit was killed are totally outrageous and wrong, in my opinion. And this 2014 article by Dale Myers is certainly in line with my own thoughts about the Tippit case.

To me, if "logic" is utilized in the J.D. Tippit murder case, then there's no possible way to avoid declaring Lee Harvey Oswald guilty of that crime.

As I said six years ago....

"The only possible way for Lee Harvey Oswald to be innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit is if the following idiotic situation occurred (which nobody could possibly even begin to believe happened on November 22, 1963) ----- Somebody other than Lee Oswald shoots Tippit with Oswald's revolver. This "non-Oswald" shooter (who looks just exactly like Lee Harvey Oswald, but really isn't him) then flees the scene of the Tippit crime, dumping four shells on the ground as he runs away. This non-Oswald shooter then meets up with the real Lee Oswald and hands off the Tippit murder weapon to LHO. Oswald then proceeds to the Texas Theater where he is arrested while in possession of the gun that somebody else used to kill Officer Tippit just 35 minutes earlier." -- DVP; June 4, 2013


CORY SANTOS SAID:

David, respectfully, you have not read his book? Forget what Myers said. If nothing else watch the youtube videos. I think LHO did it and conspiracists do a great disservice by not reading academic research in this matter. You don't have to agree but you cannot say the other side is wrong unless you read it. That is like a prosecutor going to trial not having read the defense's experts report or vice versa.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why on Earth would any sensible person do something so silly as to "forget what Myers said" when it comes to the subject of J.D. Tippit's murder? Mr. Myers, in my opinion, is the foremost expert on the Tippit crime.

http://With--Malice.blogspot.com


RON BULMAN SAID:

There is no academic research supporting the Warren Omission BS. LHO did not do it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Surely you jest.


RON BULMAN SAID:

I think that right winger, an early hero of mine, John Wayne, said Not Hardly.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Since you brought up John Wayne....

This is what should be done to conspiracy theorists every time they say "Oswald didn't shoot anybody that day"....




B.A. COPELAND SAID:

It is absolutely reasonable to conclude that LHO did not shoot anyone that day when the evidence is considered today. I would love for the case to go to court officially and Mexico City comes up where someone clearly impersonated LHO on the telephone, not to mention clarifying the Odio incident.

We also have the late SR/CI Chief Pete Bagley stating to Blunt that LHO had to be a witting asset. Do I dare mention Westbrook and his very suspicious role within the DPD (among notable others)?

These are what's called game changers, powerful counterpoints to the historical narrative we've been given officially. As a result, we must rethink what we think we know about LHO or the assassination narrative as a whole.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

We don't need the DPD at all to determine LHO's guilt in the Tippit murder. For all reasonable people, the MANY witnesses who positively identified Oswald at or near the murder scene (with gun in hand) certainly should suffice.

"Oswald just being in the area of J.D. Tippit's murder brandishing a pistol is extremely incriminating circumstantial evidence of LHO's guilt." -- DVP; May 11, 2009


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

I haven't really studied the Tippit case. But didn't Captain Westbrook have Oswald's wallet in his possession at the Tippit scene, even though Oswald still had his wallet at the Texas theater? And wasn't this information buried and then later rediscovered?

If so, that alone is proof that Oswald was being framed for Tippit's murder.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Sandy, yes that is all correct.


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

Well then, DVP, why are you protesting? Oswald was obviously framed. (Thanks Jim.)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sandy,

There is no proof that Westbrook had Oswald's wallet at the Tippit murder scene.


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

No proof??

LOL, oh please. I just did a little looking around and here is what I found:

1. Dallas TV station WFAA has film footage of DPD police officers looking over a wallet found at the Tippit scene.

2. In the late 1990s, officer Kenneth Cory revealed that an unidentified civilian handed the wallet to him.

3. In James Hosty's book Assignment Oswald, Hosty wrote that when FBI agent Bob Barrett arrived at the Tippit scene, Captain Westbrook was going through a wallet that had been found there and asked Barrett if he knew anything about Lee Oswald or Alek Hidell.

4. There is a YouTube video of Bob Barrett relating the same story himself. Barrett points out the obvious... that the names must have come from the
wallet. (!!)

So there you have it... proof that Oswald was being set up for Tippit's murder. (Given that Oswald's real wallet was gotten from him later, on his way back from Texas Theater.)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And if Oswald's wallet HAD been found right there at the murder scene, why on Earth wouldn't the cops (who were FRAMING OSWALD, according to you) have wanted to shout that fact to the world?! It makes no sense.

Lots of good info regarding the Tippit murder (and "the wallet") can be found at Dale Myers' blog here.


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

First, it was the CIA framing Oswald, not the DPD. Second, no I would not expect the police to be shouting anything to the world. Especially given that it contradicted the story of Oswald's real wallet.


REPLAY....
SANDY LARSEN SAID:

Barrett points out the obvious... that the names must have come from the wallet.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

CTers like to jump to unprovable conclusions, don't they?

And if a wallet with the names "Lee Harvey Oswald" and "Alek James Hidell" in it had really been found at the site of J.D. Tippit's murder, then ANYONE who was (allegedly) framing Oswald—whether it be the CIA or the Dallas Police Department or Stafford, Indiana, Police Lieutenant Philip Gerard (from "The Fugitive")—of course would have been shouting "We found Oswald's wallet next to Tippit's body!" to the world. And they would have simply made the other wallet "disappear" (the one taken from LHO in the police car). That's as obvious as can be.

But it's fun to watch you CTers tie yourselves into pretzels as you try to explain to the world why the cops wouldn't want to reveal that LHO's wallet was found on 10th Street (especially within the framework of the usual conspiracy theory that has the DPD framing the man whose wallet was allegedly found).

It's similar to the amusement that can be derived from listening to conspiracy theorists as they try to explain why the "real" assassins in Dealey Plaza decided to complicate their plot to an absurd degree by shooting at JFK from the Grassy Knoll, even though they were attempting to set up a patsy in the Book Depository Building. It's hilarious—especially Mr. Lifton's "sophisticated strategic deception" malarkey.

But, Sandy, it's nice to know that you don't think the Dallas Police Department framed Lee Oswald for any murder in 1963 (not even J.D. Tippit's)....

"...it was the CIA framing Oswald, not the DPD." -- S. Larsen; 2/7/19

You're certainly in the vast minority at this forum when it comes to that particular issue. (I wonder if you'll change your mind tomorrow?)

David Von Pein
January 28—February 7, 2019









DVP vs. DiEUGENIO
(PART 132)


DEREK THIBEAULT SAID:

On the Fair Play for JFK site on FB [Facebook], a person asked if us CT'ers all believe Oswald is a patsy (which not all CT'ers do) then how do we explain Oswald going to the Paine's house on Thursday instead of his norm. To set him up they would have to make sure he goes home Thursday. So I am curious how we would explain that.

I could think of some possible reasons, but I don't have any evidence. There are a lot smarter people here that could help me to figure this inconsistency out. I don't buy the curtain rods story. I do think [Buell Wesley] Frazier is untrustworthy in a lot of his story along with his sister.

So how do we get Oswald home so we can get him "bringing his rifle to work"?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Because he had an argument with Marina and wanted to straighten it out with her.

That is in the WCR.


JAMES DiEUGENIO LATER SAID:

There was never any rifle at the Paine household.

Which would not mean they could not have framed Oswald through the Paines anyway.

They could have just said that he picked it up previously and gone through with that whole blanket act.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And Jim can utter the above junk even though Marina said she saw the butt end of a rifle sticking out of the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage.

But I'm supposed to think Marina did nothing but tell one lie after another after the assassination, right James?

I guess she wanted to frame her own husband, so she told the story about seeing the rifle in the garage.

~~eyeroll~~


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Oh puhlease.

As attorney Larry Schnapf said, Marina Oswald would be utterly shredded upon any real cross examination. Even the junior lawyers on the WC did not want to use her as a witness, and in a real trial it is highly unlikely she would have been allowed to testify.

But I would have preferred she would have since she would have been reduced to rubble.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jim,

Do you really and truly (deep down) believe that Marina Oswald was lying when she said these things in her Warren Commission testimony?....


MARINA OSWALD -- After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.

[...]

J. LEE RANKIN -- After your husband returned from Mexico, did you examine the rifle in the garage at any time?

MRS. OSWALD -- I had never examined the rifle in the garage. It was wrapped in a blanket and was lying on the floor.

MR. RANKIN -- Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?

MRS. OSWALD -- I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.

MR. RANKIN -- When was that?

MRS. OSWALD -- About a week after I came from New Orleans.

MR. RANKIN -- And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?

MRS. OSWALD -- Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.


Replay:

"I saw that it was a rifle. .... I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock." -- Marina Oswald


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey just doesn't know when to quit.

I don't know if DVP has ever heard of a guy named Stombaugh. But he was the FBI agent who was called as an expert for hair and fiber evidence. His testimony is in volume 4, and it is the epitome of just how bad the WC really was. The WC desperately wanted him to link the blanket to the rifle in any possible way that he could. He could not. He had to resort to the shirt and that got rather sticky.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I ask Jim a straightforward question --- Do you really and truly (deep down) believe that Marina Oswald was lying when she said these things in her WC testimony? --- and Jim starts talking about fiber expert Paul Stombaugh. As if Stombaugh's testimony has anything at all to do with Marina's testimony concerning whether she ever SAW A RIFLE in the Paine garage.


REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

The WC desperately wanted him [Paul Stombaugh] to link the blanket to the rifle in any possible way that he could. He could not.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Actually, he did (although indirectly). It was a linkage between the paper bag (CE142) and the blanket---via some fibers found in the bag that generally were consistent with fibers from the blanket.

And since all reasonable people know that a RIFLE was stored in that blanket....and if the bag had fibers from that blanket in it....well, then, the math is pretty easy to do after that. (Although, I'll admit, the fiber connection is certainly not definitive. But the fibers in the bag were consistent with the blanket fibers.)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey now has to make like he does not understand that Stombaugh's failure to do anything at all to connect the rifle to the blanket was a big problem for the WC. Because, to any normal thinking person--automatically excluding Davey--it indicated the rifle was not in the blanket. That is why they had Marina do what she did.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You don't care how many people you call liars, do you?

Pathetic. As always.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey also ignores the fact that [Pat] Speer also showed how they were so desperate to connect that rifle to LHO that it looks like the DPD stuffed some shirt fibers in the butt plate.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good! More liars! More planted stuff!


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

But it is actually even worse than that. Why? Because it probably was the wrong shirt. This brings in the utterly risible testimony of none other than Mary Bledsoe, who may be worse than Marina.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good! Another liar!

(What's one more worthless liar, right Jim?) 

The last count of the number of liars in Jim's JFK World --- Way too numerous to tally.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

The paper bag to the blanket. This makes your argument even worse.

First, you ignore the evidence of the fibers the DPD most likely put in the butt plate because they did not have anything else...

But to resort to the the bag? HA HA HA HA ROTF


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good! More liars! And MORE fake evidence!

Keep 'em comin', Jimmy.

I'm waiting for the "Jackie's Fake Pillbox Hat" theory.

Re: The Bag ----> Go Here.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Bledsoe has the credibility of Brennan.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh good! The non-stop parade of worthless scumbag witnesses continues (via Jim's Fantasy World Of Conspiracy & Covering Up).

OK, Jim, let's keep it going....

What about Linnie Mae?


REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

But to resort to the the bag? HA HA HA


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just citing the actual evidence, Jim. Look it up. In Stombaugh's testimony.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Did you see those Trade Mart invitations in David Josephs' essay? And he [Lee Oswald] had to ask someone why there was a crowd below.

Oswald was not even on the sixth floor at that time, let alone later. And the WC knew this and that is why they had Givens lie his head off.

What luck? The luck of having Ruth Paine lie about not telling him about that other job he could have had that paid more money, thus making sure he was at the TSBD?

Some luck.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You see, this is one of the big differences between conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio and "LNers" like myself --- Jim sees everything through the darkened prism of "conspiracy" and "cover up". While I, on the other hand, don't possess such a mindset. I don't automatically jump to a "conspiratorial" conclusion about every single thing connected to the JFK case. Jim almost always does.

Jim never allows for even a possible non-conspiratorial answer to any of the things he mentioned in his last post. For example, the fact that Oswald asked some of his TSBD co-workers why there were crowds gathering at Elm and Houston Streets prior to the motorcade arriving in Dealey Plaza. This action taken by Oswald, in DiEugenio's mind, must indicate that Oswald really and truly wasn't even aware that President Kennedy was going to be driving by the Depository that day.

In Jim's conspiracy-infested brain, Oswald couldn't possibly have only been feigning his ignorance when he asked his fellow workers why the crowds were forming outside the building. But the overall weight of the evidence, which unquestionably favors Oswald's guilt in the murder of JFK, is telling me that Lee Oswald certainly was feigning his ignorance.

And Jim thinks the Warren Commission needed to have Charles Givens "lie his head off", just so the WC could have Oswald in almost exactly the same place he was when Givens and the other TSBD employees heard Oswald shout down the elevator shaft just a few minutes before Givens' encounter with Oswald on the sixth floor at about 11:55.

Were Lovelady, Williams, and Arce also lying when they each placed Oswald on an UPPER FLOOR of the Depository (either the fifth or sixth floor) at about 11:45 AM? If not, what was really gained by having Givens "lie his head off"? I don't see much of any "gain" at all. But I guess Jim does, therefore Givens gets to be labelled as yet another liar in Jim's excruciatingly long list of liars connected to this murder case.

After a short while, it should become embarrassing for DiEugenio to call so many different people "liars". Just look at how many people he has called outright liars in just this discussion alone. It's pathetic.

More on Charles Givens here.

Re: The higher-paying job that James DiEugenio is convinced that Ruth Paine deliberately kept Oswald from getting, Click Here.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Some of my additional thoughts regarding Lee Oswald's "curtain rod" story and his visit to Ruth Paine's house on Nov. 21....

From an Internet post I wrote on January 8, 2010....

Another question that no conspiracy theorist ever bothers asking regarding the "curtain rod" issue is this one:

Since we know that Lee Oswald had no intention of living in his shoebox-sized room on Beckley Avenue for very much longer, then why in the world would he want to put up some new curtains and curtain rods in the Beckley room? It makes no sense.

And we can know that Oswald certainly had it in his mind to vacate the Beckley roominghouse fairly soon after November 22, 1963, because of his behavior on 11/21/63 at Ruth Paine's house when he pleaded with Marina to come back to Dallas with him. LHO also told Marina on November 21st that he would rent an apartment "tomorrow".

And I somehow doubt that Lee had it in his mind to take his wife and two children back to the walk-in closet he called home on Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff. Per Marina, Lee had every intention and desire to LEAVE HIS BECKLEY ROOM AS EARLY AS NOVEMBER 22! That's an important point that shouldn't be overlooked or ignored when the subject of Lee Oswald's "curtain rod" fairy tale is discussed.

In short -- Oswald invented the curtain rod story. He lied to Buell Wesley Frazier about the curtain rods to cover up the fact he was going to Irving to get his rifle on November 21st. And he lied again to Frazier about the curtain rods on November 22nd to conceal the fact that he was carrying his rifle to work. It's as simple as that.

Anyone who actually believes that Lee Harvey Oswald had any curtain rods with him on the morning of President Kennedy's assassination is a person who probably also believes that a political fanatic (Oswald) had absolutely no motive whatsoever for murdering a President (Kennedy) who was the chief representative of a country that the political fanatic (Oswald) had grown to despise.

Also.....

Another thought occurred to me recently with respect to Lee Harvey Oswald's unusual Thursday-night trip to Ruth Paine's house in Irving on November 21:

Oswald's visit to Irving on 11/21/63 was the only time that LHO had failed to call Paine's house to let either Ruth or Marina know he was coming. And this could be another key point when reflecting upon Oswald's actions that day.

In Lee Oswald's mind, a call to the Paine house prior to his November 21st visit could have been a bit risky. Because: what if Ruth or Marina, for some unknown reason, had told Lee not to come to Irving that evening? What would Lee have done then? Would he have obeyed Ruth/Marina and stayed in Oak Cliff, thereby eliminating any chance he had of fetching his rifle from the Paine garage before JFK's Friday arrival in Dallas? That's not very likely, granted. But Oswald would have had an additional layer of explaining to do if he had called Ruth's house and was told not to come, but went there anyway.

But the way Oswald planned it (with no call being made to Irving), he doesn't run the risk of being told to stay home. So he simply went to the Paine house unannounced, which gave him easy access to his rifle. And once he arrived in Irving, what were Marina and/or Ruth going to do--throw him out in the streets or tell him to turn around and go back home? Not likely, especially since Lee has no car.

And while it's likely that Lee would have gone out to Irving with Wesley Frazier on Thursday night even if he HAD called Ruth or Marina and had been told NOT to come, it was still a wiser decision by Lee to NOT call the Paine house prior to his Thursday arrival.

And if Oswald had REALLY only been wanting to retrieve some curtain rods from Ruth Paine's home, then the fact that he did not call Ruth or Marina prior to his Thursday visit is even more bizarre and unexplainable, especially considering the fact that he had ALWAYS called Ruth's house prior to all of his other weekend visits.

And THIS particular November 21 visit in question, via such an innocuous and innocent reason for going there on a Thursday (to get some curtain rods), should have certainly elicited an advance telephone call from Lee -- BECAUSE HE WOULD BE COMING TO IRVING ON A THURSDAY, SOMETHING HE HAD NEVER DONE BEFORE.

More food for thought regarding Lee Oswald's unusual trip to Irving on 11/21/63, isn't it?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

The above is more of Davey's Kreskin type of mind reading.

Yawn.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just keep on ignoring the obvious, Jimmy. After all, it's the only way you can convince yourself that Oswald was nothing but a patsy.




JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey Boy is shameless.

Don't bother clicking through to his latest "obviousness".

Why? Because they are anything but.

First, Oswald never ordered that rifle, Davey. You can moan and groan and think up any silly and stupid excuse you want to. But one of the more convincing witnesses at the Houston mock trial was Brian Edwards. When he testified that the rifle in evidence is not the rifle the WC said it was, that was a turning point. It's the first time that got on any kind of a jury record. It will not go away.

Second, funny about that so-called sack. How come no one else saw it? Why did Shields tell the HSCA that Oswald was not even with Frazier when he parked his car that morning? Why did the DPD not photograph it in situ? They got the whole sixth floor except that. Why did Studebaker say the bag was twice as long as the one Frazier testified to? Why did Cadigan say there was no oil or grease found on the inside of the sack he got from the DPD? Yet the rifle was supposed to be soaked in Cosomoline. (Jim DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 199-209. I had a lot of fun with this whole gun sack story.)


DEREK THIBEAULT SAID:

Frazier dropped Oswald off in the front with his sack lunch, then he parked the car. No rifle. No walk in together with Oswald way out in front.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You just made that up. Nothing you just said is true.

It's funny how many people are said to be liars in this case by CTers---EXCEPT Lee Harvey Oswald. He's a beacon of truth and honesty, per many CTers.

It's ridiculous.


DEREK THIBEAULT SAID:

It's my opinion based on what I have read. Most of the evidence comes from 2 sources, Frazier and Randle. I don't believe them. No one else saw Oswald with the bag.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey likes to say things like this and he does it by ignoring evidence.

Derek did not just make that up.

Shields told the HSCA that Frazier arrived at the parking lot without Oswald. I have that in my book and it's sourced there. Davey wants to call him a liar.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Nope. I've never once called Edward Shields a liar. But Shields' testimony does not (and cannot, IMO) trump the words of Buell Wesley Frazier. No way.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Now, there has never been anyone else at the TSBD who said they saw Oswald with that gun sack. Dougherty specifically said he did not see it. Therefore he is a liar according to DVP. (Unless you want to use the whole "fishing pole" story that Lifton is going to use in his book. That did not get a good reception when Lifton tried to use it here [Click Here].)

The point is that no one is ever going to know for sure since the WC was such a debacle of investigatory technique. One would think they would at least have gotten to the bottom of why there was no picture of the so-called gun sack in situ. To my knowledge they did not.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And Dougherty also said he only saw Oswald "out of the corner of my eye" --- which means Dougherty wasn't even looking at Oswald directly when LHO came in the door. Yet CTers use Dougherty like he was the Holy Grail of witnesses. Hardly.

Plus, as I've pointed out before, it's quite conceivable that Oswald left the rifle out on the loading dock somewhere and didn't bring it inside the building until a little later. We'll never know, of course, but it is possible.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

What Davey does not say is that the corner of the eye thing is in the FBI report.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No it's not. The "corner of my eye" verbiage is in Dougherty's Warren Commission testimony. [at 6 H 376-377] ....


JOSEPH BALL -- The [FBI] statement says, "I recall vaguely having seen Lee Oswald, when he came to work at about 8 a.m. today."

JACK DOUGHERTY -- That's right.

MR. BALL -- Now, is that a very definite impression that you saw him that morning when he came to work?

MR. DOUGHERTY -- Well, oh--it's like this--I'll try to explain it to you this way---you see, I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye---that's the reason why I said it that way.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

What a card shark Davey is.

It would have never come up if Ball had not read the FBI report.

Can you be honest and give me a yes or no to that Davey?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How the heck do I know if it would have come up or not?

But that's not the point. I wrote my last post merely to point out your error when you said this --- "the corner of the eye thing is in the FBI report" --- which is an inaccurate statement on your part.

The bottom line regarding Jack Dougherty's testimony is....

He "vaguely" recalls having seen Oswald "out of the corner of my eye" as Oswald entered the Book Depository on 11/22/63.

And even though Dougherty did say he was sure Oswald had nothing in his hands, I think a reasonable person would look at Dougherty's "I recall vaguely having seen Lee Oswald" and "I just caught him out of the corner of my eye" statements and conclude that Dougherty wasn't really looking at (or paying any attention to) Oswald when Lee walked in the back door of the TSBD on November 22nd, 1963.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Now, as Sylvia Meagher noted in her book, there is not any other witness in the volumes that can place a gun sack in Oswald's hands prior to the shooting or after he got in Frazier's car.

I ask, does that sound possible? Does it sound probable?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes and yes. Here's why.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Let me bring up the key name of Troy West. West was the paper dispenser at the TSBD. When asked if Oswald ever came to him to get some paper in the weeks leading up to the assassination, he said no. When asked if he ever left his station, he said nope. When asked if he ate lunch there, he said yes.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here are my thoughts on the topic of Troy West.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

It's ok when DVP calls someone a liar, right? e.g., Shields and Dougherty.

He then tries to cover up that fact by saying, well, I just think Frazier's testimony supersedes them, which is baloney. Either Frazier is lying or Shields is about whether or not LHO was with Frazier parking the car. Either Dougherty is lying or Frazier is about Oswald's package.

The reason he does this is that he does not want us to use his tactics on him. That motive is pretty transparent.

Shields and Dougherty had no reason to lie. Frazier did.

I once put together a list of 57 people who had to be lying for DVP to be right. He did the same salsa dance.

Talk about a double standard.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

DiEugenio, once more, doesn't evaluate things properly. (No surprise there, of course.)

I have never once said Shields or Dougherty were liars. And I certainly do not think either man was lying about anything.

Shields merely didn't notice Oswald walking some 50 feet ahead of Frazier. So, yes, he might have seen Frazier walking to the building alone (i.e., without Oswald being right there next to him), or Shields could even have seen Frazier IN HIS CAR ALL ALONE (without Oswald), because Oswald got out of the car ahead of Frazier and started walking toward the Depository with his package. So there was a period of time when Edward Shields could have seen Buell Frazier ALONE in his car in the TSBD parking lot and/or ALONE while walking toward the building.

And Jack Dougherty, as discussed before, wasn't even looking at Oswald at all when LHO came in the door. He admitted that fact. So that should be the end of that topic.

Memo to James DiEugenio....

A person can be WRONG without being a LIAR.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey and FC [Francois Carlier] like to cover up the problems with the witnesses they like. And they then say that everyone who contradicts them is a liar.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's a bald-faced lie right there. I've called very few people liars in this case. DiEugenio, however, has called more people liars than you can shake a stick at.

Anyone can go back through Jim's posts in just this thread alone and find where Jimmy accuses many different people of being liars. Let's just take an inventory of some of them.... 

Marina Oswald ["Marina was so full of crap." -- J. DiEugenio; 1/19/19]

Mary Bledsoe ["who may be worse than Marina." -- JD]

The DPD (via the alleged "planted shirt fibers") [LOL]

Howard Brennan

Buell Frazier

Linnie Mae Randle

Henry Wade 

Will Fritz

Bill Shelley 

Billy Lovelady

J. Edgar Hoover 

Ruth Paine

Harold Norman

Charles Givens ["what a lying cuss this guy was." -- JD]

------------- 

As we can see, DiEugenio doesn't give a damn how many people he has to smear and call rotten liars in order to set a double-murderer free. And Jim's proud as a peacock about it too. But in reality, it's simply TOO MUCH. It's actually laughable how many people Jimmy has to pretend were liars in order to make his precious Oswald turn into the "Patsy" Jimmy desires him to be. It's over-the-top nonsense---times ten!

Can anybody imagine that many people actually being rotten evil liars within the confines of one single murder investigation? Couldn't happen in the "real" world in fifty lifetimes.

And, to stress this point again, my list above covers just this discussion thread at The Education Forum, which only was started a mere seven days ago!




DEREK THIBEAULT SAID:

How about answering why Shields stated that Frazier told him he dropped LHO off? Was that a lie?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The only thing I can think of there is that Shields must have been thinking of some other day when such a thing happened, because we know Frazier did not drop off Oswald at the front door on 11/22. And the testimony of Jack Dougherty would tend to support that conclusion too, with Dougherty seeing Oswald come in the BACK door. Although, of course, Oswald could have easily walked to the back of the building, even if he had been dropped off at the front door. But does anyone know if an employee could enter through the FRONT door as early as 8:00 AM? I have no idea if that could normally happen or not at the TSBD. Was the front door unlocked at 8:00 AM? ~shrug~

Plus....

Why would Buell Frazier feel the need to lie about the precise location where Oswald got out of the car on Nov. 22? The story would be virtually the same either way---i.e., Oswald gets out of the car with package in hand and walks to the building. There's no substantial difference regardless of where Oswald started his journey (whether it be the parking lot or the front door).


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

I found the following text on a couple of Internet sites concerning Edward Shields' interview with the HSCA in the late 1970s. Here's the exchange between Shields and the HSCA investigator regarding the topic of Buell Frazier and his "rider" (whether this is the complete exchange on this topic, I'm not sure; but this is the only portion of the interview I was able to find online)....


EDWARD SHIELDS -- I think Charles Givens hollered out there and asked Frazier where was his rider and he told him: "I dropped him off at the building." Yeah, that was it...Well, I was down on the floor when they hollered out and said and the answer he gave them, I don't know, I think he said: "I dropped him off at the building." Now, whoever it was hollering asked him, I don't know.

HSCA -- This is the morning of the assassination?

SHIELDS -- Mm-hmm.

HSCA -- Somebody hollered out the window and say: "Where is your rider?" And to your recollection, Frazier says, "I dropped him off at the building."

SHIELDS -- Yes.

HSCA -- Alright. The day of the assassination, did you see Oswald come to work with Frazier?

SHIELDS -- No, I didn’t.

----------

So, we can see that it wasn't really Shields at all who asked Frazier anything that day. Shields thinks it was Charles Givens, who apparently hollered something to Frazier from a window of one of the Depository buildings. Was he hollering from the Houston Street TSBD warehouse building? I guess he must have been, because that's the building Shields worked in (as confirmed by Shields himself in his March 23, 1964, statement to the FBI which can be found in Commission Document No. 706).

But that's a bit confusing to me, because I thought Givens worked in the building at 411 Elm Street. He was certainly working at the Elm St. building on 11/22/63 at any rate. So this "teaming" of Edward Shields and Charlie Givens on November 22nd seems kind of odd and out of sync when it comes to the buildings they worked in. But perhaps Givens was just visiting with Shields in the building at 1917 North Houston Street before Givens started his work day on Nov. 22 at the other TSBD building on Elm Street. ~shrug~

[Here's a map which illustrates the locations of the two different TSBD buildings in relation to each other, and in relation to "Parking Lot No. 1", which is where Buell Frazier parked his car on 11/22/63.]

Plus....

We can see that Shields is far from certain about some of the things he was telling the HSCA investigator. We find all of these wishy-washy phrases in Shields' interview:

"I think Charles Givens hollered out."

"I don't know..."

"I think he said..."

"Whoever it was hollering asked him, I don't know."


And yet it is this witness (Edward Shields), per the conspiracy theorists, who is supposed to totally demolish the unwavering statements and testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier.

Yeah, right.



BTW....

As far as I am aware, Charles Givens never said a word about the above encounter that Shields said he and Givens had with Buell Frazier on the morning of November 22nd. (But, of course, most CTers think that Givens was a big fat liar about many of the things he did say in his testimony and statements, so the fact that Givens himself has never corroborated the things Shields told the HSCA probably doesn't mean much to many CTers.)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

You are so full of it Davey.

In my book, that is what I said. That Shields heard Frazier's reply to someone else's question.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, Givens. A guy you've called a liar about other things connected to this case. But you really like the stuff Givens said in THIS one particular instance, huh? So, naturally, you're going to try and use it to your advantage.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

What does it matter who asked it?

What matters is what Shields heard Frazier say.

This is another example of your diversionary methods, and also your double standard when it comes to evaluation of witnesses.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Pot meets Kettle yet again. You just demonstrated your own "double standard" with regard to Charles Givens.

But, let's face the "real world" here --- almost everybody exhibits a "double standard" (or "cherry picking" of evidence) at one time or another when arguing their points connected with the JFK case. I've yet to meet one single person who hasn't exhibited a double standard at some point in their arguments. It's human nature and it always happens when you dive deep into any controversial issue.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

He [Shields] said he thought it was Givens, he did not say it was him. Read English much, partner? 

But he expressed no doubt about what Frazier said. 

But I am glad we smoked you out on this. According to you, Shields is lying. So Shields and Dougherty, liars; but Dougherty twice, right? Because he was in position to see Oswald fly down the stairs at the right time after the shots rang out.

And Adams and Styles? Are they lying or mistaken, Davey? And Stroud? Lying or mistaken?

Therefore, that is three instances of lying and three of either liars or mistakes or whatever you want to call it.

Shameless.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Only a conspiracy fantasist who has called DOZENS of different people liars could possibly think it's "shameless" for me to think some witnesses were "mistaken" (i.e., wrong, but not "lying").

——Shaking My Head——


REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

And Adams and Styles? .... And Stroud?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

http://jfk-archives/Adams, Styles, And Stroud


REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

But he [Edward Shields] expressed no doubt about what Frazier said.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You must be kidding! Shields expressed nothing BUT doubt about the whole episode. Read English much, partner?

Allow me to highlight Shields' doubts....


"Well, I was down on the floor when they hollered out and said and the answer he gave them, I don't know, I think he said: "I dropped him off at the building." Now, whoever it was hollering asked him, I don't know."


And what the heck does Shields mean when he says "I was down on the floor"? WTF is that all about? ~shrug time~


REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

But I am glad we smoked you out on this.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, me too. Because it gave me a chance to find out what a wishy-washy and weak witness your Mr. Edward Shields truly is.

Thanks for "smoking me out", Jim. :)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

He is referring to the man who said it, not the reply. 

Somebody hollered out the window and say: "Where is your rider?" And to your recollection, Frazier says, "I dropped him off at the building."

How did you talk with those people at KFC? Sign language? 

BTW, Davey does this a lot, that is, he distorts the original testimony with all kinds of tricks, breaking it up, enlarging certain parts to make them central, when they are not etc. Like I said, he is the equivalent of a cardsharp.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How did you talk with your students at your L.A. high school? Sign language?

I know exactly what he's referring to. And in this sentence below, Shields is not referring to the person who hollered out the TSBD window, he's referring to Frazier. And it's a tentative and unsure statement by Shields. That's why he uses the words "I don't know" and "I think he said"....

"...the answer he gave them, I don't know, I think he said: "I dropped him off at the building"."

But you just keep on pretending that the above junk is something written in stone.

David Von Pein
January 16-24, 2019




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1304)


DEREK THIBEAULT SAID:

I don't buy the curtain rods story. I do think [Buell Wesley] Frazier is untrustworthy in a lot of his story along with his sister.


FRANCOIS CARLIER SAID:

Are there really people here [who] believe that Buell Frazier was a liar? I mean, really? That can't be true!

I have heard a lot of ludicrous claims over the years, but come on, calling Buell Frazier a liar is definitely going way over the top!!!


TONY KROME SAID:

Certainly inconsistencies:

Mr. BALL - When was the last time you can remember you saw Lee?
Mr. FRAZIER - You mean on the 22nd?
Mr. BALL - On the 22nd, that day.
Mr. FRAZIER - Somewhere between--it was after 10 and somewhere before noon.

---------

Gary [Mack]: How long after the assassination do you think this was?
Buell: Oh, probably five to ten minutes probably.
Gary: So, you remember seeing him briefly coming down Houston Street along the side of the building?
Buell: (nodding) Yes.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, you're right, Tony. There are some inconsistencies in Buell Frazier's statements over the years. Another one is: the location where Frazier said the shots came from. More about that here.

But one thing about which Buell Wesley Frazier has always been very consistent over the last 50+ years is when he talks about the paper bag (and the item that Lee Oswald told Frazier was contained within that paper bag—the "curtain rods").

So when many Internet CTers nowadays claim that Frazier just MADE UP the story about Oswald carrying a long-ish bag on the morning of 11/22/63, those CTers aren't just highlighting an "inconsistency" in Frazier's testimony or statements. They are, instead, taking an element of Buell Frazier's account that has always remained constant and the CTers are just totally throwing it away—just as if the paper bag never existed at all. Poof! It's gone!

And when the CTers perform that "Poof" magic act of theirs with that brown paper bag, they are also (by necessity) accusing another person—Linnie Mae Randle—of lying through her teeth as well. So it's not just Buell Frazier who gets treated like a bald-faced liar with respect to the "paper bag" topic—it's Linnie Mae too. And, in my opinion, that "double whammy" accusation against both Frazier and Randle is not only ridiculous, but it's totally unfair as well. Because every CTer on Earth who has made such a silly accusation has to know—deep down—that they can never prove such an accusation——even if their life depended on it.


BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER AND LINNIE MAE RANDLE
IN THE 1964 FILM "FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER":









JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

It's ok when DVP calls someone a liar, right? e.g., Shields and Dougherty.

He then tries to cover up that fact by saying, well, I just think Frazier's testimony supersedes them, which is baloney. Either Frazier is lying or Shields is about whether or not LHO was with Frazier parking the car. Either Dougherty is lying or Frazier is about Oswald's package.

The reason he does this is that he does not want us to use his tactics on him. That motive is pretty transparent.

Shields and Dougherty had no reason to lie. Frazier did.

I once put together a list of 57 people who had to be lying for DVP to be right. He did the same salsa dance.

Talk about a double standard.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

DiEugenio, once more, doesn't evaluate things properly. (No surprise there, of course.)

I have never once said Shields or Dougherty were liars. And I certainly do not think either man was lying about anything.

Shields merely didn't notice Oswald walking some 50 feet ahead of Frazier. So, yes, he might have seen Frazier walking to the building alone (i.e., without Oswald being right there next to him), or Shields could even have seen Frazier IN HIS CAR ALL ALONE (without Oswald), because Oswald got out of the car ahead of Frazier and started walking toward the Depository with his package. So there was a period of time when Edward Shields could have seen Buell Frazier ALONE in his car in the TSBD parking lot and/or ALONE while walking toward the building.

And Jack Dougherty, as discussed before, wasn't even looking at Oswald at all when LHO came in the door. He admitted that fact. So that should be the end of that topic.

Memo to James DiEugenio....

A person can be WRONG without being a LIAR.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey and FC [Francois Carlier] like to cover up the problems with the witnesses they like. And they then say that everyone who contradicts them is a liar.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's a bald-faced lie right there. I've called very few people liars in this case. DiEugenio, however, has called more people liars than you can shake a stick at.

Anyone can go back through Jim's posts in just this thread alone and find where Jimmy accuses many different people of being liars. Let's just take an inventory of some of them.... 

Marina Oswald ["Marina was so full of crap." -- J. DiEugenio; 1/19/19]

Mary Bledsoe ["who may be worse than Marina." -- JD]

The DPD (via the alleged "planted shirt fibers") [LOL]

Howard Brennan

Buell Frazier

Linnie Mae Randle

Henry Wade 

Will Fritz

Bill Shelley 

Billy Lovelady

J. Edgar Hoover 

Ruth Paine

Harold Norman

Charles Givens ["what a lying cuss this guy was." -- JD]

------------- 

As we can see, DiEugenio doesn't give a damn how many people he has to smear and call rotten liars in order to set a double-murderer free. And Jim's proud as a peacock about it too. But in reality, it's simply TOO MUCH. It's actually laughable how many people Jimmy has to pretend were liars in order to make his precious Oswald turn into the "Patsy" Jimmy desires him to be. It's over-the-top nonsense---times ten!

Can anybody imagine that many people actually being rotten evil liars within the confines of one single murder investigation? Couldn't happen in the "real" world in fifty lifetimes.

And, to stress this point again, my list above covers just this discussion thread at The Education Forum, which only was started a mere seven days ago!




DEREK THIBEAULT SAID:

How about answering why Shields stated that Frazier told him he dropped LHO off? Was that a lie?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The only thing I can think of there is that Shields must have been thinking of some other day when such a thing happened, because we know Frazier did not drop off Oswald at the front door on 11/22. And the testimony of Jack Dougherty would tend to support that conclusion too, with Dougherty seeing Oswald come in the BACK door. Although, of course, Oswald could have easily walked to the back of the building, even if he had been dropped off at the front door. But does anyone know if an employee could enter through the FRONT door as early as 8:00 AM? I have no idea if that could normally happen or not at the TSBD. Was the front door unlocked at 8:00 AM? ~shrug~

Plus....

Why would Buell Frazier feel the need to lie about the precise location where Oswald got out of the car on Nov. 22? The story would be virtually the same either way---i.e., Oswald gets out of the car with package in hand and walks to the building. There's no substantial difference regardless of where Oswald started his journey (whether it be the parking lot or the front door).


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

I found the following text on a couple of Internet sites concerning Edward Shields' interview with the HSCA in the late 1970s. Here's the exchange between Shields and the HSCA investigator regarding the topic of Buell Frazier and his "rider" (whether this is the complete exchange on this topic, I'm not sure; but this is the only portion of the interview I was able to find online)....


EDWARD SHIELDS -- I think Charles Givens hollered out there and asked Frazier where was his rider and he told him: "I dropped him off at the building." Yeah, that was it...Well, I was down on the floor when they hollered out and said and the answer he gave them, I don't know, I think he said: "I dropped him off at the building." Now, whoever it was hollering asked him, I don't know.

HSCA -- This is the morning of the assassination?

SHIELDS -- Mm-hmm.

HSCA -- Somebody hollered out the window and say: "Where is your rider?" And to your recollection, Frazier says, "I dropped him off at the building."

SHIELDS -- Yes.

HSCA -- Alright. The day of the assassination, did you see Oswald come to work with Frazier?

SHIELDS -- No, I didn’t.

----------

So, we can see that it wasn't really Shields at all who asked Frazier anything that day. Shields thinks it was Charles Givens, who apparently hollered something to Frazier from a window of one of the Depository buildings. Was he hollering from the Houston Street TSBD warehouse building? I guess he must have been, because that's the building Shields worked in (as confirmed by Shields himself in his March 23, 1964, statement to the FBI which can be found in Commission Document No. 706).

But that's a bit confusing to me, because I thought Givens worked in the building at 411 Elm Street. He was certainly working at the Elm St. building on 11/22/63 at any rate. So this "teaming" of Edward Shields and Charlie Givens on November 22nd seems kind of odd and out of sync when it comes to the buildings they worked in. But perhaps Givens was just visiting with Shields in the building at 1917 North Houston Street before Givens started his work day on Nov. 22 at the other TSBD building on Elm Street. ~shrug~

[Here's a map which illustrates the locations of the two different TSBD buildings in relation to each other, and in relation to "Parking Lot No. 1", which is where Buell Frazier parked his car on 11/22/63.]

Plus....

We can see that Shields is far from certain about some of the things he was telling the HSCA investigator. We find all of these wishy-washy phrases in Shields' interview:

"I think Charles Givens hollered out."

"I don't know..."

"I think he said..."

"Whoever it was hollering asked him, I don't know."


And yet it is this witness (Edward Shields), per the conspiracy theorists, who is supposed to totally demolish the unwavering statements and testimony of Buell Wesley Frazier.

Yeah, right.



BTW....

As far as I am aware, Charles Givens never said a word about the above encounter that Shields said he and Givens had with Buell Frazier on the morning of November 22nd. (But, of course, most CTers think that Givens was a big fat liar about many of the things he did say in his testimony and statements, so the fact that Givens himself has never corroborated the things Shields told the HSCA probably doesn't mean much to many CTers.)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

You are so full of it Davey.

In my book, that is what I said. That Shields heard Frazier's reply to someone else's question.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, Givens. A guy you've called a liar about other things connected to this case. But you really like the stuff Givens said in THIS one particular instance, huh? So, naturally, you're going to try and use it to your advantage.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

What does it matter who asked it?

What matters is what Shields heard Frazier say.

This is another example of your diversionary methods, and also your double standard when it comes to evaluation of witnesses.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Pot meets Kettle yet again. You just demonstrated your own "double standard" with regard to Charles Givens.

But, let's face the "real world" here --- almost everybody exhibits a "double standard" (or "cherry picking" of evidence) at one time or another when arguing their points connected with the JFK case. I've yet to meet one single person who hasn't exhibited a double standard at some point in their arguments. It's human nature and it always happens when you dive deep into any controversial issue.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

He [Shields] said he thought it was Givens, he did not say it was him. Read English much, partner? 

But he expressed no doubt about what Frazier said. 

But I am glad we smoked you out on this. According to you, Shields is lying. So Shields and Dougherty, liars; but Dougherty twice, right? Because he was in position to see Oswald fly down the stairs at the right time after the shots rang out.

And Adams and Styles? Are they lying or mistaken, Davey? And Stroud? Lying or mistaken?

Therefore, that is three instances of lying and three of either liars or mistakes or whatever you want to call it.

Shameless.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Only a conspiracy fantasist who has called DOZENS of different people liars could possibly think it's "shameless" for me to think some witnesses were "mistaken" (i.e., wrong, but not "lying").

——Shaking My Head——


REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

And Adams and Styles? .... And Stroud?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

http://jfk-archives/Adams, Styles, And Stroud


REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

But he [Edward Shields] expressed no doubt about what Frazier said.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You must be kidding! Shields expressed nothing BUT doubt about the whole episode. Read English much, partner?

Allow me to highlight Shields' doubts....


"Well, I was down on the floor when they hollered out and said and the answer he gave them, I don't know, I think he said: "I dropped him off at the building." Now, whoever it was hollering asked him, I don't know."


And what the heck does Shields mean when he says "I was down on the floor"? WTF is that all about? ~shrug time~

David Von Pein
January 22-23, 2019








JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1303)


DEREK THIBEAULT SAID:

On the Fair Play for JFK site on FB [Facebook], a person asked if us CT'ers all believe Oswald is a patsy (which not all CT'ers do) then how do we explain Oswald going to the Paine's house on Thursday instead of his norm. To set him up they would have to make sure he goes home Thursday. So I am curious how we would explain that.

I could think of some possible reasons, but I don't have any evidence. There are a lot smarter people here that could help me to figure this inconsistency out. I don't buy the curtain rods story. I do think [Buell Wesley] Frazier is untrustworthy in a lot of his story along with his sister.

So how do we get Oswald home so we can get him "bringing his rifle to work"?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Because he had an argument with Marina and wanted to straighten it out with her.

That is in the WCR.


DEREK THIBEAULT SAID:

So it just happened to be a random reason. So, say he just goes back to his apartment instead. They still set him up but they don't have him bringing the rifle to work. Was that just lucky added evidence that he went there? Does Marina force him there? That's pretty lucky for the conspirators that he had an argument with her and had to go back there.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Indeed, Derek. It's refreshing to see this kind of thinking on this forum. It's very rare. You're one of the very few here who actually thinks in a reasonable way regarding Oswald's out-of-the-ordinary behavior on Nov. 21 and 22.

Here's what I said to a CTer a few years ago....

"Don't you think it would be wise to evaluate Oswald's odd behavior on November 21 and 22 in connection with the physical evidence in the case, which all screams "Oswald"? Or would you prefer to isolate everything in a bubble and never be forced to assess Oswald's actions and movements in conjunction with all that physical evidence that came out of a gun owned by Lee Oswald? In my opinion, it's a package deal that fits together perfectly --- Oswald's actions + the physical evidence = Oswald's undeniable guilt in two murders in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63." -- DVP; June 2015

More HERE.


DEREK THIBEAULT SAID:

I am a CT'er, but we can still believe Oswald did it or was involved, just not alone. I personally believe he wasn't involved in either murder, but that doesn't mean there aren't things that need to be reconciled.

I think it was a good question from a Facebook group that has a louder LN contingent. No matter what stance you take, there are unreconciled things that can't fully be explained without some leaps.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then how can you reconcile all the witnesses at the Tippit scene? Why did so many identify OSWALD as the person they saw (if it really wasn't him)?

And how can you reconcile the fact that the bullet shells at the Tippit murder scene were tied conclusively to the same gun that Oswald had on him when he was arrested?


DEREK THIBEAULT SAID:

You turned on me fast. LOL!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I didn't turn on you. Why do you say that? I was merely asking two logical questions about the Tippit murder.


DENNY ZARTMAN SAID:

I don't see what is so incriminating about Thursday instead of Friday. I thought the incriminating aspect of the Thursday visit was the allegation that Oswald picked up a rifle there and we have Ruth and Marina as witnesses even though they didn't see a rifle or Oswald with a rifle.

If LHO hadn't gone to the Paine's house that Thursday night, what would have prevented the official explanation from being "Oswald was keeping his rifle at his rooming house"? The only things that are lost are Oswald's change in usual schedule (hardly proof that he fired a rifle) and two questionable "witnesses."


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

There was never any rifle at the Paine household.

Which would not mean they could not have framed Oswald through the Paines anyway.

They could have just said that he picked it up previously and gone through with that whole blanket act.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And Jim can utter the above junk even though Marina said she saw the butt end of a rifle sticking out of the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage.

But I'm supposed to think Marina did nothing but tell one lie after another after the assassination, right James?

I guess she wanted to frame her own husband, so she told the story about seeing the rifle in the garage.




JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Oh puhlease.

As attorney Larry Schnapf said, Marina Oswald would be utterly shredded upon any real cross examination. Even the junior lawyers on the WC did not want to use her as a witness, and in a real trial it is highly unlikely she would have been allowed to testify.

But I would have preferred she would have since she would have been reduced to rubble.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jim,

Do you really and truly (deep down) believe that Marina Oswald was lying when she said these things in her Warren Commission testimony?....


MARINA OSWALD -- After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.

[...]

J. LEE RANKIN -- After your husband returned from Mexico, did you examine the rifle in the garage at any time?

MRS. OSWALD -- I had never examined the rifle in the garage. It was wrapped in a blanket and was lying on the floor.

MR. RANKIN -- Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?

MRS. OSWALD -- I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.

MR. RANKIN -- When was that?

MRS. OSWALD -- About a week after I came from New Orleans.

MR. RANKIN -- And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?

MRS. OSWALD -- Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.


Replay:

"I saw that it was a rifle. .... I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock." -- Marina Oswald


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey just doesn't know when to quit.

I don't know if DVP has ever heard of a guy named Stombaugh. But he was the FBI agent who was called as an expert for hair and fiber evidence. His testimony is in volume 4, and it is the epitome of just how bad the WC really was. The WC desperately wanted him to link the blanket to the rifle in any possible way that he could. He could not. He had to resort to the shirt and that got rather sticky.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I ask Jim a straightforward question --- Do you really and truly (deep down) believe that Marina Oswald was lying when she said these things in her WC testimony? --- and Jim starts talking about fiber expert Paul Stombaugh. As if Stombaugh's testimony has anything at all to do with Marina's testimony concerning whether she ever SAW A RIFLE in the Paine garage.


REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

The WC desperately wanted him [Paul Stombaugh] to link the blanket to the rifle in any possible way that he could. He could not.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Actually, he did (although indirectly). It was a linkage between the paper bag (CE142) and the blanket---via some fibers found in the bag that generally were consistent with fibers from the blanket.

And since all reasonable people know that a RIFLE was stored in that blanket....and if the bag had fibers from that blanket in it....well, then, the math is pretty easy to do after that. (Although, I'll admit, the fiber connection is certainly not definitive. But the fibers in the bag were consistent with the blanket fibers.)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey now has to make like he does not understand that Stombaugh's failure to do anything at all to connect the rifle to the blanket was a big problem for the WC. Because, to any normal thinking person--automatically excluding Davey--it indicated the rifle was not in the blanket. That is why they had Marina do what she did.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You don't care how many people you call liars, do you?

Pathetic. As always.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey also ignores the fact that [Pat] Speer also showed how they were so desperate to connect that rifle to LHO that it looks like the DPD stuffed some shirt fibers in the butt plate.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good! More liars! More planted stuff!


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

But it is actually even worse than that. Why? Because it probably was the wrong shirt. This brings in the utterly risible testimony of none other than Mary Bledsoe, who may be worse than Marina.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good! Another liar!

(What's one more worthless liar, right Jim?) 

The last count of the number of liars in Jim's JFK World --- Way too numerous to tally.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

The paper bag to the blanket. This makes your argument even worse.

First, you ignore the evidence of the fibers the DPD most likely put in the butt plate because they did not have anything else...

But to resort to the the bag? HA HA HA HA ROTF


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good! More liars! And MORE fake evidence!

Keep 'em comin', Jimmy.

I'm waiting for the "Jackie's Fake Pillbox Hat" theory.

Re: The Bag ----> Go Here.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Bledsoe has the credibility of Brennan.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh good! The non-stop parade of worthless scumbag witnesses continues (via Jim's Fantasy World Of Conspiracy & Covering Up).

OK, Jim, let's keep it going....

What about Linnie Mae?


REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

But to resort to the the bag? HA HA HA


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just citing the actual evidence, Jim. Look it up. In Stombaugh's testimony.


LAWRENCE SCHNAPF SAID:

If he didn't go to the Paines house Thursday night, then the false narrative would have changed and they would have said he brought the rifle at a different date. The cover story is done looking backwards. What "facts" can be manufactured to support the situation as confronted.

The bag is not reliable evidence. Would not likely have been admissible in court for a variety of reasons. Many witnesses have said their unsworn and unsigned statements produced by the DPD and FBI were changed. We have other numerous examples of how witness testimony and other parts of the historic record was "manufactured". I'm working on a piece that focus on this part of the "historic record". As a result of the Innocence Project, we have learned that manufacturing of evidence is unfortunately common in our criminal justice system.


REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Because he had an argument with Marina and wanted to straighten it out with her.

That is in the WCR.


FRANCOIS CARLIER SAID:

Don't tell me that you believe what's in the Warren report...


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

I wrote a piece assuming Oswald must have had a plan.... not so much...

http://KennedysAndKing.com/Oswald On November 22, 1963


DEREK THIBEAULT SAID:

Thanks. Great article. It all makes sense...a lot of it's common sense, i.e. Oswald not knowing the parade route ahead of time so he could get a job at TSBD.

Curious how the lone nut crew would debate your article. It sounds like it was random that Oswald went home that night and perhaps Frazier and his sister may have been used to show potential guilt.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

My $0.02....

[Quoting from a May 2018 Internet post....]

I really don't think Lee Oswald thought---deep down---that he would actually have a chance to use his Mannlicher-Carcano on the President that day. Yes, he took his rifle to work with the hope in his mind of somehow being able to secrete himself somewhere within the Depository at the precise moment when Kennedy drove past the building. But he probably also realized as he was driving to work that morning with Buell Frazier that the odds of being able to successfully conceal himself from the view of everyone else in the building (i.e., being able to have an entire warehouse floor of the TSBD all to himself at just exactly the appropriate minutes before, during, and just after the President drove by the building) were very small odds indeed.

But, as Oswald's incredible luck would have it (and even though he picked a floor--the sixth--that had MORE than the usual number of employees working on it throughout the entire morning that day, due to the floor-laying project that was occurring on that floor), Lee had the good fortune of having the entire sixth floor all to himself at precisely the time he desperately needed to have it all to himself---between 12:20 and 12:31 PM.

It's always been my opinion that if Bonnie Ray Williams had decided to stay on the sixth floor, instead of moving down to the 5th floor at about 12:20, then JFK would not have been shot at all....because (IMO) Oswald wouldn't risk firing at the President if he knew for certain that somebody else was on that same sixth floor just a few feet away.

And if somehow he was able to pull off the shooting in total secrecy (which he was), I doubt if Lee thought he would live very long beyond 12:30. Hence, I don't think he cared too much about having a lot of money on him when he departed Ruth Paine's house on November 22.*

* Yes, I know that that last part about Lee thinking he wouldn't be long for this world if he shot the President is likely to be considered inconsistent with the portion of my theory which has Oswald not taking the risk of shooting if Bonnie Ray remained on the sixth floor. CTers can fire back with:

But, David, if he didn't think he'd get away alive, then why would he care if anyone else was up there with him to finger him for the crime?

Fair point (if someone wants to make it). But I think it's quite clear that Oswald did have a desire to continue living beyond 11/22/63. That fact is very clear to me when looking at Oswald's actions after 12:30 PM on November 22 --- e.g., fleeing the building within minutes of the assassination, taking a cab to get back to his roominghouse (a very out-of-the-ordinary mode of transportation for Oswald), arming himself with a pistol and at least 15 rounds of ammunition within 30 minutes of JFK being shot, and then committing a second murder a few minutes later when he encountered Officer Tippit.

Having a desire to survive the aftermath of the assassination, vs. thinking he will survive, are two different things entirely. I would guess that Lee Harvey Oswald was probably very surprised that he was afforded the ideal opportunity to shoot at President Kennedy from a totally vacant sixth floor of his workplace and still live to see another sunrise.

IMHO. YMMV.

More....

http://jfk-archives/Oswald's Decision To Shoot President Kennedy


CORY SANTOS SAID:

I hear your points. However, assuming he did it, one problem is that he had to hide the weapon and bullets on the drive to work, walk into work with no one noticing the weapon and/or bullets, go up several floors to work without anyone noticing the weapon and/or bullets, work for several hours and hope no one sees the gun and/or bullets, or hear the bullets if he had them on him in a pocket, and finally hide the weapon and/or bullets while he was on the first and second floor which we know by testimony he was seen before 12:30.

That is a lot of wishful thinking on his part.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I agree. It was. But....

The wishing paid off ..... because Bonnie Ray vacated the 6th floor just in time for Oswald to do his dirty deed.

Oswald was one lucky SOB on 11/22/63. No doubt about it. But LUCK can certainly play a part in big events like the JFK assassination. Such as LHO's additional "good luck" with the weather on that Friday too. If it had continued to rain....who knows what might have happened. Perhaps a bullet would have been deflected. Or, perhaps, Oswald doesn't even attempt to fire any shots at the enclosed bubbletop at all.


CORY SANTOS SAID:

I think that is all fair to say.


JOE BAUER SAID:

Oswald reportedly immediately took off on his own after arriving at the TSBD that day, leaving Buell Frazier behind and alone to do whatever he did to his car such as revving his engine to give his battery a little extra charge for later starting. Could it be that Oswald wanted to get up to that 6th floor quickly before punching in on the lower floors just minutes later? Leaving Frazier behind as soon as possible would have been imperative.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, I think that's quite possible.

But I think it's also possible that Oswald stashed his rifle temporarily out on the loading dock before he entered the building to be seen by Jack Dougherty (and this could be the reason Dougherty didn't notice anything in Oswald's hands at that time). And at some later time, Oswald retrieved the rifle from the loading dock area and took it upstairs.

All of this kind of talk is, of course, 100% guesswork on the part of anyone choosing to do the speculating. But, I'll admit, it is fun to guess about these things once in a while.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

What is fair to say, Cory?

Did you see those Trade Mart invitations in David Josephs' essay? And he had to ask someone why there was a crowd below.

Oswald was not even on the sixth floor at that time, let alone later. And the WC knew this and that is why they had Givens lie his head off.

What luck? The luck of having Ruth Paine lie about not telling him about that other job he could have had that paid more money, thus making sure he was at the TSBD?

Some luck.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You see, this is one of the big differences between conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio and "LNers" like myself --- Jim sees everything through the darkened prism of "conspiracy" and "cover up". While I, on the other hand, don't possess such a mindset. I don't automatically jump to a "conspiratorial" conclusion about every single thing connected to the JFK case. Jim almost always does.

Jim never allows for even a possible non-conspiratorial answer to any of the things he mentioned in his last post. For example, the fact that Oswald asked some of his TSBD co-workers why there were crowds gathering at Elm and Houston Streets prior to the motorcade arriving in Dealey Plaza. This action taken by Oswald, in DiEugenio's mind, must indicate that Oswald really and truly wasn't even aware that President Kennedy was going to be driving by the Depository that day.

In Jim's conspiracy-infested brain, Oswald couldn't possibly have only been feigning his ignorance when he asked his fellow workers why the crowds were forming outside the building. But the overall weight of the evidence, which unquestionably favors Oswald's guilt in the murder of JFK, is telling me that Lee Oswald certainly was feigning his ignorance.

And Jim thinks the Warren Commission needed to have Charles Givens "lie his head off", just so the WC could have Oswald in almost exactly the same place he was when Givens and the other TSBD employees heard Oswald shout down the elevator shaft just a few minutes before Givens' encounter with Oswald on the sixth floor at about 11:55.

Were Lovelady, Williams, and Arce also lying when they each placed Oswald on an UPPER FLOOR of the Depository (either the fifth or sixth floor) at about 11:45 AM? If not, what was really gained by having Givens "lie his head off"? I don't see much of any "gain" at all. But I guess Jim does, therefore Givens gets to be labelled as yet another liar in Jim's excruciatingly long list of liars connected to this murder case.

After a short while, it should become embarrassing for DiEugenio to call so many different people "liars". Just look at how many people he has called outright liars in just this discussion alone. It's pathetic.

More on Charles Givens here.

Re: The higher-paying job that James DiEugenio is convinced that Ruth Paine deliberately kept Oswald from getting, Click Here.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Some of my additional thoughts regarding Lee Oswald's "curtain rod" story and his visit to Ruth Paine's house on Nov. 21....

From an Internet post I wrote on January 8, 2010....

Another question that no conspiracy theorist ever bothers asking regarding the "curtain rod" issue is this one:

Since we know that Lee Oswald had no intention of living in his shoebox-sized room on Beckley Avenue for very much longer, then why in the world would he want to put up some new curtains and curtain rods in the Beckley room? It makes no sense.

And we can know that Oswald certainly had it in his mind to vacate the Beckley roominghouse fairly soon after November 22, 1963, because of his behavior on 11/21/63 at Ruth Paine's house when he pleaded with Marina to come back to Dallas with him. LHO also told Marina on November 21st that he would rent an apartment "tomorrow".

And I somehow doubt that Lee had it in his mind to take his wife and two children back to the walk-in closet he called home on Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff. Per Marina, Lee had every intention and desire to LEAVE HIS BECKLEY ROOM AS EARLY AS NOVEMBER 22! That's an important point that shouldn't be overlooked or ignored when the subject of Lee Oswald's "curtain rod" fairy tale is discussed.

In short -- Oswald invented the curtain rod story. He lied to Buell Wesley Frazier about the curtain rods to cover up the fact he was going to Irving to get his rifle on November 21st. And he lied again to Frazier about the curtain rods on November 22nd to conceal the fact that he was carrying his rifle to work. It's as simple as that.

Anyone who actually believes that Lee Harvey Oswald had any curtain rods with him on the morning of President Kennedy's assassination is a person who probably also believes that a political fanatic (Oswald) had absolutely no motive whatsoever for murdering a President (Kennedy) who was the chief representative of a country that the political fanatic (Oswald) had grown to despise.

Also.....

Another thought occurred to me recently with respect to Lee Harvey Oswald's unusual Thursday-night trip to Ruth Paine's house in Irving on November 21:

Oswald's visit to Irving on 11/21/63 was the only time that LHO had failed to call Paine's house to let either Ruth or Marina know he was coming. And this could be another key point when reflecting upon Oswald's actions that day.

In Lee Oswald's mind, a call to the Paine house prior to his November 21st visit could have been a bit risky. Because: what if Ruth or Marina, for some unknown reason, had told Lee not to come to Irving that evening? What would Lee have done then? Would he have obeyed Ruth/Marina and stayed in Oak Cliff, thereby eliminating any chance he had of fetching his rifle from the Paine garage before JFK's Friday arrival in Dallas? That's not very likely, granted. But Oswald would have had an additional layer of explaining to do if he had called Ruth's house and was told not to come, but went there anyway.

But the way Oswald planned it (with no call being made to Irving), he doesn't run the risk of being told to stay home. So he simply went to the Paine house unannounced, which gave him easy access to his rifle. And once he arrived in Irving, what were Marina and/or Ruth going to do--throw him out in the streets or tell him to turn around and go back home? Not likely, especially since Lee has no car.

And while it's likely that Lee would have gone out to Irving with Wesley Frazier on Thursday night even if he HAD called Ruth or Marina and had been told NOT to come, it was still a wiser decision by Lee to NOT call the Paine house prior to his Thursday arrival.

And if Oswald had REALLY only been wanting to retrieve some curtain rods from Ruth Paine's home, then the fact that he did not call Ruth or Marina prior to his Thursday visit is even more bizarre and unexplainable, especially considering the fact that he had ALWAYS called Ruth's house prior to all of his other weekend visits.

And THIS particular November 21 visit in question, via such an innocuous and innocent reason for going there on a Thursday (to get some curtain rods), should have certainly elicited an advance telephone call from Lee -- BECAUSE HE WOULD BE COMING TO IRVING ON A THURSDAY, SOMETHING HE HAD NEVER DONE BEFORE.

More food for thought regarding Lee Oswald's unusual trip to Irving on 11/21/63, isn't it?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

The above is more of Davey's Kreskin type of mind reading.

Yawn.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just keep on ignoring the obvious, Jimmy. After all, it's the only way you can convince yourself that Oswald was nothing but a patsy.




JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey Boy is shameless.

Don't bother clicking through to his latest "obviousness".

Why? Because they are anything but.

First, Oswald never ordered that rifle, Davey. You can moan and groan and think up any silly and stupid excuse you want to. But one of the more convincing witnesses at the Houston mock trial was Brian Edwards. When he testified that the rifle in evidence is not the rifle the WC said it was, that was a turning point. It's the first time that got on any kind of a jury record. It will not go away.

Second, funny about that so-called sack. How come no one else saw it? Why did Shields tell the HSCA that Oswald was not even with Frazier when he parked his car that morning? Why did the DPD not photograph it in situ? They got the whole sixth floor except that. Why did Studebaker say the bag was twice as long as the one Frazier testified to? Why did Cadigan say there was no oil or grease found on the inside of the sack he got from the DPD? Yet the rifle was supposed to be soaked in Cosomoline. (Jim DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 199-209. I had a lot of fun with this whole gun sack story.)


DEREK THIBEAULT SAID:

Frazier dropped Oswald off in the front with his sack lunch, then he parked the car. No rifle. No walk in together with Oswald way out in front.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You just made that up. Nothing you just said is true.

It's funny how many people are said to be liars in this case by CTers---EXCEPT Lee Harvey Oswald. He's a beacon of truth and honesty, per many CTers.

It's ridiculous.


DEREK THIBEAULT SAID:

It's my opinion based on what I have read. Most of the evidence comes from 2 sources, Frazier and Randle. I don't believe them. No one else saw Oswald with the bag.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey likes to say things like this and he does it by ignoring evidence.

Derek did not just make that up.

Shields told the HSCA that Frazier arrived at the parking lot without Oswald. I have that in my book and it's sourced there. Davey wants to call him a liar.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Nope. I've never once called Edward Shields a liar. But Shields' testimony does not (and cannot, IMO) trump the words of Buell Wesley Frazier. No way.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Now, there has never been anyone else at the TSBD who said they saw Oswald with that gun sack. Dougherty specifically said he did not see it. Therefore he is a liar according to DVP. (Unless you want to use the whole "fishing pole" story that Lifton is going to use in his book. That did not get a good reception when Lifton tried to use it here [Click Here].)

The point is that no one is ever going to know for sure since the WC was such a debacle of investigatory technique. One would think they would at least have gotten to the bottom of why there was no picture of the so-called gun sack in situ. To my knowledge they did not.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And Dougherty also said he only saw Oswald "out of the corner of my eye" --- which means Dougherty wasn't even looking at Oswald directly when LHO came in the door. Yet CTers use Dougherty like he was the Holy Grail of witnesses. Hardly.

Plus, as I've pointed out before, it's quite conceivable that Oswald left the rifle out on the loading dock somewhere and didn't bring it inside the building until a little later. We'll never know, of course, but it is possible.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

What Davey does not say is that the corner of the eye thing is in the FBI report.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No it's not. The "corner of my eye" verbiage is in Dougherty's Warren Commission testimony. [at 6 H 376-377] ....


JOSEPH BALL -- The [FBI] statement says, "I recall vaguely having seen Lee Oswald, when he came to work at about 8 a.m. today."

JACK DOUGHERTY -- That's right.

MR. BALL -- Now, is that a very definite impression that you saw him that morning when he came to work?

MR. DOUGHERTY -- Well, oh--it's like this--I'll try to explain it to you this way---you see, I was sitting on the wrapping table and when he came in the door, I just caught him out of the corner of my eye---that's the reason why I said it that way.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

What a card shark Davey is.

It would have never come up if Ball had not read the FBI report.

Can you be honest and give me a yes or no to that Davey?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How the heck do I know if it would have come up or not?

But that's not the point. I wrote my last post merely to point out your error when you said this --- "the corner of the eye thing is in the FBI report" --- which is an inaccurate statement on your part.

The bottom line regarding Jack Dougherty's testimony is....

He "vaguely" recalls having seen Oswald "out of the corner of my eye" as Oswald entered the Book Depository on 11/22/63.

And even though Dougherty did say he was sure Oswald had nothing in his hands, I think a reasonable person would look at Dougherty's "I recall vaguely having seen Lee Oswald" and "I just caught him out of the corner of my eye" statements and conclude that Dougherty wasn't really looking at (or paying any attention to) Oswald when Lee walked in the back door of the TSBD on November 22nd, 1963.


CORY SANTOS SAID:

David, I read your post. For you to rely on Brennan's identification to prove beyond a reasonable doubt LHO did it is impossible for me. I really find it hard to believe that it would survive in court. The show-up was ridiculous. As a lawyer, to me that point is worthless, the wedding ring carries more weight as evidence against him.

Don't you think you should mention how many times it took him to id LHO and mention the other people in the line up?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Howard Brennan, IMO, comes across as an honest witness. He provided a reasonable explanation for why he failed to I.D. Oswald on Day 1. And I believe him. A lot of CTers do not. So be it.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/howard-brennan.html

http://drive.google.com/1964 Interview With Howard Brennan


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Now, as Sylvia Meagher noted in her book, there is not any other witness in the volumes that can place a gun sack in Oswald's hands prior to the shooting or after he got in Frazier's car.

I ask, does that sound possible? Does it sound probable?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes and yes. Here's why.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Let me bring up the key name of Troy West. West was the paper dispenser at the TSBD. When asked if Oswald ever came to him to get some paper in the weeks leading up to the assassination, he said no. When asked if he ever left his station, he said nope. When asked if he ate lunch there, he said yes.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here are my thoughts on the topic of Troy West.

David Von Pein
January 16-22, 2019