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
