Part 1360 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of January 1—31, 2023. To read the entire forum discussion from which my own comments have been extracted, click on the "Full Discussion" logo at the bottom of each individual segment (if it's available).
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Re: Lee Oswald possibly practicing with his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in the months prior to JFK's assassination....
There's this HSCA testimony provided by Marina Oswald, which lends support to the idea that LHO did, indeed, on multiple occasions in 1963, go somewhere to "target practice" with his rifle:
David Von Pein
January 1, 2023
================================
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In the post I just linked above, Jim DiEugenio is boasting about the fact that the Oliver Stone-directed documentary JFK Revisited, which was written by DiEugenio, is still doing very well in DVD sales after several months on the market. Which prompted me to say:
Just goes to show that people enjoy wallowing in fantasy-filled speculation and conjecture.
Similarly, David Lifton's book of fantasy, Best Evidence, was on the New York Times best-seller list for three months, getting as high as #4.
Conspiracy sells. The Lone-Nut truth? Not so much.
David Von Pein
January 1, 2023
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The answer to the oft-asked question of "Why did JFK's brain weigh so much?" can likely be found right there in the supplementary autopsy report (on Page 544 of the Warren Report).
The very first words of that supplementary report are:
"Following formalin fixation the brain weighs 1500 gms."
So it would seem as if JFK's brain was only weighed AFTER it had been fixed in the liquid (formalin) solution. So that's probably the answer right there---the brain absorbed much of the formalin solution, which added a certain amount of weight to the brain. Why the brain wasn't weighed prior to its being soaked in the watery solution is anyone's guess.
Also see Vincent Bugliosi's book, Reclaiming History (on Pages 282 to 285 of Endnotes), for some interesting information regarding the topic of "Brain Weights". (I've culled some excerpts from those pages below.)
David Von Pein
January 2, 2023
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Here's a portion of this archived 2017 online discussion that I think deserves to be repeated every now and then....
BEN HOLMES SAID:
Neither one of you [DVP and Bud] will post even a *SINGLE* one of the 20 items that shows the "sole guilt" of anyone at all.
Such AMUSING cowardice!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Ben still has the amusing idea that I even ATTEMPTED to put forth just ONE single piece of evidence to prove Oswald's "Sole Guilt". Of course I never did that. It's the 20 items TOGETHER that implicate Oswald as the one and only assassin.
Ben The Stump continually tried to pull this same silly "HE CAN'T NAME ONE!" argument when we were previously discussing "Bugliosi's 53 Things That Point To Oswald's Guilt" a little while back. As if just ONE thing on Vincent Bugliosi's list was supposed to prove the ironclad guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald. But that, of course, wasn't Bugliosi's thinking (or his intention) when he wrote that "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in his 2007 book, "Reclaiming History" (pages 951-969).
Vince was, of course, writing that chapter for readers who AREN'T COMPLETE STUMPS. He wrote it for people who could easily figure out that Vince was talking about the reasonable conclusion that would be reached about Lee Oswald's guilt AFTER PUTTING THOSE 53 THINGS TOGETHER AND NOT JUST LEAVING EACH ONE OF THEM ISOLATED FOREVER.
It's quite humorous to realize that Ben Holmes, after all this time, still apparently cannot grasp that very simple "ADD THEM ALL UP" concept that Vince Bugliosi was quite obviously utilizing in "Reclaiming History".
And the same "ADD 'EM UP" technique is what I was using when I created my "Oswald Is Guilty" website. It's not just one thing that makes Oswald the guilty assassin (and the "Sole" assassin), it's the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence that turns that trick.
[End 2017 Quotes.]
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If the Prayer Man advocates are correct and Lee Harvey Oswald had truly been innocent of shooting President Kennedy and if Oswald had really been standing on the front steps of the Book Depository Building when JFK was shot, is it truly likely (or reasonable to assume) that he would have just clammed up when he was afforded the perfect opportunity to shout his "I Was On The Front Steps!" alibi to the world when he was asked this specific question by a reporter at 7:55 PM CST on 11/22/63:
Were you in the building at the time [of the assassination]?
Now, if the people who think Oswald is "Prayer Man" are right, then when LHO was confronted with the above question, wouldn't Oswald's logical and likely response have been one that resembled something like this one?:
No sir! I was NOT inside the building at the time the President was being shot! I was OUTSIDE that building at that time! I was standing on the front steps of that building, right next to Buell Wesley Frazier and several other employees of the Depository! Go ask Wesley! He'll tell you I was there!
But instead of Oswald giving the above answer (or one similar to it), what we heard coming from Lee Oswald's mouth when asked "Were you in the building at the time?" was this:
"Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."
Now, maybe it's just a funny little quirk that only I possess, but if I had just been dragged into custody by the police and been charged with TWO murders I never committed (because, as we know, a whole lot of misguided conspiracy theorists are of the opinion that Mr. Oswald was innocent of killing Police Officer J.D. Tippit too), I would be wanting to shout my innocence and my provable alibi to everybody in the world as soon as I could!
But many conspiracists seem to think that Oswald would have wanted to wait and reveal his "On The Steps" alibi only after he had obtained a lawyer.
But is it truly reasonable to think that a person in Oswald's position (if he had been innocent) would have wanted to stay silent about his alibi for two solid days?
And is it also reasonable to think that Oswald would have had a desire to actually tell a lie concerning his alibi to Captain Fritz? Because Fritz said this in his written report:
"I asked him [Lee Oswald] what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor." -- Captain J.W. Fritz; Warren Report--Page 600
So no matter how you look at it, the "Oswald Is Prayer Man" theory just does not add up.
Plus: As I've argued in the past, no matter what any desperate conspiracy theorist wants to believe, the steps in front of the TSBD are most certainly NOT located INSIDE the building. More on that topic here.
Also:
"To answer the question about Prayer Man: I have been looking at this all day, and I can tell you this: I 100% have no idea who that person is. I can also tell you 100% that is not Lee Harvey Oswald. First, Lee was not out there. I know that to be true. Second, for anyone who thinks Prayer Man is Lee, the individual has a much larger frame than Lee." -- Buell Wesley Frazier; March 28, 2021
David Von Pein
January 7-8, 2023
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Late in the day on January 7, 2023, I just happened to notice that The Sixth Floor Museum's website has recently added many full-length interviews from their extensive Oral History Collection. In past years, only limited excerpts from those interviews had been made available on the Sixth Floor site.
One of those full-length programs is linked below. It's the complete four-hour video version of the June 2002 Oral History interview featuring assassination eyewitness Buell Wesley Frazier. My previous version of this interview is in audio form only and contains just half of the complete program. So this represents a nice upgrade.
My thanks go out to The Sixth Floor Museum At Dealey Plaza for making available this entire interview (plus many others) on their public website.
Whether or not the current collection of complete and uncut Oral History programs will remain on The Sixth Floor website in the future, I cannot say. But as of this date (January 7-8, 2023), the uncut programs are indeed available to view, free of charge.
Here's the uncut Buell Frazier interview from 2002:
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
Ambulance driver Aubrey Rike recorded this Oral History interview in September 2001 [also available here], and he said several interesting things in that interview that I had not heard before. Such as:
Aubrey said he actually talked to First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy at Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63 while Jackie was sitting alone outside of Trauma Room One.
And Aubrey also said he gave Jackie a damp cloth so she could wipe off some of the blood from her clothing. So Jackie did wipe off a lot of the blood with the wet cloth supplied to her by Mr. Aubrey Rike. She then gave the bloody cloth back to Rike.
I thought that information was very interesting.
Another interesting segment of Mr. Rike's interview is the part when Mrs. Kennedy asked Aubrey for a cigarette, which Rike did give to her. But before Jackie was able to take the cigarette from Rike's hand, a Secret Service agent intervened and snatched the package of cigarettes away from Rike, scattering them all over the floor. The SS agent then took one of the remaining cigarettes from the package, inspected it closely, and gave it to Mrs. Kennedy.
I wonder if that agent was Clint Hill?
And in yet another rarely-heard tidbit, Mr. Rike tells about how he applied some lubricant to President Kennedy's finger so that Jackie Kennedy could more easily get her wedding ring to slide onto JFK's finger.
Two more interviews featuring Aubrey Rike are below:
David Von Pein
January 8-13, 2023
================================
CORY SANTOS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You bet I disagree with Dr. Finck's opinion concerning the weight of the Connally bullet fragments. And it is just his opinion, you know.
Why, therefore, do CTers think that Finck's opinion about the fragments is more correct than the opinion of the doctor who actually operated on Gov. Connally?
The fact is: Nobody on Earth knows exactly how much the Connally fragments weighed. And that's because only ONE of the fragments was ever weighed.
But another fact is: The Connally fragments were certainly very very small---all of them.
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Connally Bullet Fragments
CORY SANTOS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
My blog article already fully acknowledges the "speculative" nature of some of my beliefs regarding the Connally bullet fragments (such as in the two excerpts below). But given the testimony of Connally's doctors plus a look at Connally's pre-operative X-rays, it's my opinion that no reasonable person could possibly come to the conclusion that John Connally ever had more than 2 grains of metal present in his body at any time on November 22, 1963 (after Bullet CE399 fell out of his leg, that is).
------------------
"The distinct possibility exists that John B. Connally went to his grave with a mere TWO tiny bullet fragments left in his whole body (one in the thigh and one in his wrist). The latter part about the wrist is slightly speculative, but comes from a good source: the WC testimony of Dr. Charles F. Gregory." -- DVP; December 18, 2011
"The number of bullet fragments that John Connally took with him to his grave is not a definitive number, and I'll readily admit that fact. But I think a good case can be made for only TWO tiny fragments of metal being left in Connally's whole body when combining the testimony of all the doctors involved in Governor Connally's treatment--Drs. Charles Gregory, Robert Shaw, and Tom Shires." -- DVP; July 15, 2014
David Von Pein
January 14, 2023
================================
JOE BAUER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh, I don't know about Buell Wesley Frazier's car being a "sputtering, rattling, oil-burning and black-exhaust-spewing rust bucket", Joe.
In this filmed re-enactment that Frazier performed for David Wolper's movie cameras (which occurred sometime prior to October of 1964), Buell's ten-year-old Chevrolet sedan seems to be running pretty smoothly and quietly (based on what we can hear during the limited time when the microphone actually picks up the sounds of the car's engine just after Frazier gets in the car and starts it).
But maybe Wolper's film crew just got lucky and the 1954 Chevy* was having a good day when that re-creation scene was filmed.
* The narration in the Wolper film has the wrong model year for Frazier's vehicle. The narrator, Richard Basehart, says it's a 1953 model. But as we can see from Buell's ownership papers, it's actually a '54 model.
I've always wondered why that mistake was made by the Wolper crew, especially since they had Wesley Frazier right there with them for the re-enactment scene, and he should have been able to tell the film crew that his car was a '54 and not a '53. But maybe Frazier just plain forgot and told them it was a '53. That's what I think probably happened.
David Von Pein
January 19, 2023
================================
JOE BAUER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If there had been an Oscar category for "The Most Embellished & Purely Fictional Scenes", then Oliver Stone's film "JFK" would have been a shoo-in for that award. 😊
David Von Pein
January 19, 2023
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
What you just said about "Conspiracy World" is oh so true, Lance. As far as I can recall, about the only piece of evidence connected to the whole case (including the Tippit murder) that most conspiracy theorists are willing to accept as real and legitimate evidence might be the Oswald fingerprints that were found on the boxes deep inside the Sniper's Nest.
And the only reason CTers accept those prints as being legit is because they will insist that those particular prints don't really indicate "guilt" on the part of Lee Oswald at all.
Whenever the subject of those box prints comes up, I'm always treated to the "Well, he worked there" excuse, with CTers forever ignoring the rather incriminating portions of the boxes where some of those fresh prints were found (such as the Oswald palmprint found on the box LHO probably utilized as a chair).
And speaking of the "Nothing Is Ever What It Seems To Be" Conspiracy Club, Lance's post above reminded me of this exchange from a few years back:
"James Gordon seems to want to come up with SOME type of excuse so that he won't have to call Governor Connally's movements what they really are -- "flinching", "arm-raising", and "grimacing". Conspiracy theorists do the exact same kind of crap with JFK's forward head movement between frames 312 and 313. They say it's merely a "blur", or some kind of "video anomaly". It can't REALLY be the President's head moving forward though, they'll say. But how many of these "It's not really what it seems to be" excuses is one excuse too many?" -- DVP; May 13, 2015
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
~sigh~ Now we're treated to one of Pat Speer's frequent "Holy cow! Get real, Lance/DVP! I debunked that nonsense years ago!" declarations.
When, in fact, Pat hasn't "debunked" a single one of the Warren Commission's (Lone Nut) conclusions. He only thinks he's done some "debunking".
To give credit where credit is due, however, Pat did do some "debunking" in 2009 concerning one small aspect of the JFK case revolving around some incorrect information written by author Vincent Bugliosi in his book "Reclaiming History" (which was an issue concerning the conflicting paper bag documents written by Vincent Drain of the FBI---discussed at my site here).
But as far as actually "debunking" (i.e., proved to be wrong) any of the major topics or theories or pieces of actual evidence connected with the JFK and Tippit murder cases, Patrick J. Speer has not debunked a single thing. And that is a fact.
MICHALEEN KILROY SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And yet no CTer seems to think it "amazing" that the real killer(s) (i.e., total strangers to everyone who worked in the TSBD) managed to do that very thing ("go undetected on a floor with people").
Funny, huh?
MICHALEEN KILROY SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
No, Steve Roe's interpretation is right because it's simply, well, right. Unless you want to now theorize that the DPD, at the precise time of Oswald's arrest at the Texas Theater, did have knowledge of the fact that Oswald lived in Russia.
Because unless you want to go down that road, then it couldn't be more obvious that Lee Harvey Oswald's "I'm just a patsy" statement was nothing but a dodge and a bald-faced lie. And that's because he was blaming the DPD for his "Patsy" status. He wasn't accusing the CIA or David Ferrie or Clay Shaw or anyone else of making him the "patsy". He was accusing only the people who have "taken me in"---and that was the Dallas Police Department.
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I think it's quite possible that the police officers who later said they did not see any paper bag on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building might have actually physically seen the bag on the floor but simply didn't associate it with "evidence" in the JFK case.
Maybe they thought it was merely a piece of trash lying in the corner (akin to the many cigarette butts that were littering the TSBD floorboards; and I don't think every one of those cigarette butts was retrieved as "evidence" by the Dallas Police Department), and therefore even though some of those officers (the ones who stood right in the Sniper's Nest itself) must have caught at least a glimpse of the bag, it was something that just didn't register in their minds as anything of importance that they should retain in their memory.
We must also remember that the bag was not found directly underneath the sniper's window. It was found east of the window, as indicated in Commission Exhibit No. 1302.
According to Dallas Police Detective Robert Studebaker, who saw the paper bag lying on the floor before he himself picked it up, the bag was located "in the southeast corner of the building, in the far southeast corner, as far as you can get is where it was" [Studebaker; WC Testimony; at 7 H 144].
Studebaker also testified [at 7 H 143-144] that when he saw and picked up the bag (or "sack") in the corner of the sixth floor, it was "folded" and "doubled over".
And according to DPD Officer Marvin Johnson [at 7 H 103], the bag he saw in the corner was "folded and then refolded. It was a fairly small package":
-----------------------
JOSEPH BALL -- "Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?"
ROBERT L. STUDEBAKER -- "Yes sir."
MR. BALL -- "Where?"
MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Storage room there—in the southeast corner of the building—folded."
[Later...]
MR. BALL -- "Does that sack show in any of the pictures you took?"
MR. STUDEBAKER -- "No; it doesn't show in any of the pictures."
MR. BALL -- "Was it near the window?"
MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Yes, sir."
MR. BALL -- "Which way from the window?"
MR. STUDEBAKER -- "It was east of the window."
MR. BALL -- "Over in the corner?"
MR. STUDEBAKER -- "Over in the corner—in the southeast corner of the building, in the far southeast corner, as far as you can get is where it was." [Emphasis added by DVP.]
[...]
DAVID BELIN -- "Did you find anything else up in the southeast corner of the sixth floor? We have talked about the rifle, we have talked about the shells, we have talked about the chicken bones and the lunch sack and the pop bottle by that second pair of windows. Anything else?"
MARVIN JOHNSON -- "Yes, sir. We found this brown paper sack or case. It was made out of heavy wrapping paper. Actually, it looked similar to the paper that those books was [sic] wrapped in. It was just a long narrow paper bag."
MR. BELIN -- "Where was this found?"
MR. JOHNSON -- "Right in the corner of the building."
MR. BELIN -- "On what floor?"
MR. JOHNSON -- "Sixth floor."
MR. BELIN -- "Which corner?"
MR. JOHNSON -- "Southeast corner."
MR. BELIN -- "Do you know who found it?"
MR. JOHNSON -- "I know that the first I saw of it, L.D. Montgomery, my partner, picked it up off the floor*, and it was folded up, and he unfolded it."
MR. BELIN -- "When it was folded up, was it folded once or refolded?"
MR. JOHNSON -- "It was folded and then refolded. It was a fairly small package." [Emphasis added by DVP.]
-----------------------
* This part of Marvin Johnson's testimony conflicts with that of L.D. Montgomery. Montgomery testified [at 7 H 98] that it was Detective Studebaker who physically picked the bag up off of the floor.
There are other possible explanations for why some of the officers did not notice the bag, such as:
They weren't in a position to see the bag at all (which would certainly be the explanation for those officers who never actually stepped INSIDE the Sniper's Nest area itself prior to the bag being picked up on 11/22/63).
Or:
Perhaps some of the policemen in question just simply weren't as observant as other officers, and for one reason or another they missed seeing the paper bag in the far southeast corner of the 6th floor.
But there's ample testimony from multiple other police officers who said they did see the bag to indicate that the paper bag (CE142) was most definitely found on the sixth floor of the Depository on November 22nd.
Do conspiracy theorists really think all of these officers were lying when they each testified that they saw the bag on the 6th floor?:
J.C. Day [4 H 267].
L.D. Montgomery [7 H 97].
Marvin Johnson [7 H 103].
Robert Studebaker [7 H 143-144].
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Why you're saying "all of them" missed seeing the paper bag is mystifying (and just dead wrong too). I already linked to the testimony of FOUR different DPD officers who said the bag was there. And I think there are 2 others who said they saw it too.
Plus....
I haven't checked every officer's testimony in this regard, but let me repeat something I said in my last post (which certainly might apply to several officers):
Isn't it possible that some of the officers who said they didn't see the bag simply were never in a position to see the bag at all? Maybe some of those officers were at least partially blocked out by the Sniper's Nest boxes, so they didn't have a good view of the far southeast corner.
Plus, according to Marvin Johnson, the bag was folded over TWICE, not just once, which made it (per Johnson) "a fairly small package".
Shouldn't those two things I just mentioned at least be considered as possible explanations for why more people failed to see the bag that 4 to 6 other officers absolutely confirmed WAS there on 11/22/63?
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
Important Paper Bag Addendum....
On October 22, 2019, Patrick Jackson (in this post at Duncan MacRae's JFK Assassination Forum), noticed something in one of the original DPD photographs taken on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on 11/22/63 that apparently nobody else had ever noticed prior to that time in 2019. Jackson noticed that the empty paper bag (which became Commission Exhibit No. 142, as well as CE626) was actually visible in this picture (also seen below) which shows the boxes around the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest.
The paper bag, with its creases and folds plainly visible, is sitting on top of some of the Sniper's Nest boxes. I've drawn a blue box around the paper bag, which has been, quite literally, hiding in plain sight for over 50 years:
And here's an extra-large zoomed-in version of the photo, produced in 2019 by Patrick Jackson, highlighting the paper bag on top of the boxes (click to enlarge):
The Warren Commission utilized the above photograph showing the outside of the Sniper's Nest as Commission Exhibit No. 508. And the back side of the original photograph taken by the Dallas Police Department indicates that that photo was taken on "11-22-63" on "6th floor, 411 Elm, SE Corner where shots fired from window".
And here's another high-quality version of the very same photo (from the Dallas Municipal Archives). Click for a bigger view:
So, the above 11/22/63 photo showing an empty paper bag sitting atop boxes which are bordering the Sniper's Nest (which is a location just a few feet from where the police originally discovered the folded-up paper sack) is providing pretty good evidence for CE142 being a legitimate and valid piece of evidence in the JFK murder case.
Because if there was never any paper bag found near the Sniper's Nest at all on November 22nd, as many CTers claim, then how can they explain the presence of what certainly looks like the CE142 bag sitting on top of those SN boxes on November 22?
After looking at the above picture, will conspiracists now contend that the evil DPD cops decided to haul their "fake" paper bag back up to the sixth floor and place it atop the Sniper's Nest boxes?
But if the evil Dallas cops did something like that, why in the world wouldn't they have wanted to take a photograph of the fake bag in the place where they say it was originally discovered (the far southeast corner, on the floor)?
In my opinion, the above photo of the bag creates quite a problem for the many conspiracy theorists who currently reside in the "There Was Never Any Paper Bag Found On The Sixth Floor On November 22nd" club.
BENJAMIN COLE SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Nonsense. It's the SIZE and the SHAPE of the paper bag that's the key (of course). How many hunks of TSBD wrapping paper shaped like the one on top of those boxes do you think were in the building at that moment on 11/22?
The likely answer to that question is: 1 (which is the same one Lee Oswald brought to work in Buell Frazier's car that morning).
TOM GRAM SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The DPD didn't "make up" anything. The bag was first found folded up and on the floor near the pipes in the far southeast corner of the sixth floor. It was then picked up and unfolded and placed on the boxes surrounding the Sniper's Nest. It was then photographed by the DPD (with that photo later becoming CE508).
But, of course, the purpose of the CE508 photograph was most certainly not an effort to document the paper bag. (That's fairly obvious, seeing as how nobody on Earth even noticed that the bag was sitting on top of those boxes until 56 years later.) The bag just happened to show up (just barely) in one of the crime scene photos.
CHARLES BLACKMON SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Of course it looks bigger that the estimates provided by Frazier and Randle. That's because it IS bigger than those incorrect 24-to-27-inch estimates.** It's really a 38-inch bag (when unfolded and fully extended).
** Linnie Mae Randle, however, did provide this "36-inch" estimate to the FBI on the very same day of the assassination [also available to view in Commission Document No. 5]. She apparently revised that "3 feet" estimate later on and decided the bag was only about 27 inches in length.
CHARLES BLACKMON SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I agree with you about Buell Wesley Frazier with respect to his observations about the way Lee Oswald was carrying the package. Buell is not a good witness in that regard. At the 1986 mock trial, Frazier admits that the bag could have been "protruding" out in front of LHO's body, but in other interviews he insists that the package HAD to be under Lee's armpit AND cupped in his right hand.
So, you're right, he's not a good (or reliable) witness to that part of the day's events. He has, in effect, admitted that he really has no idea just how Oswald was carrying the package as he walked toward the TSBD on 11/22.
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If Lee Oswald really did have curtain rods in his large paper package on Nov. 22, then why did Lee tell this lie to Captain Fritz? ....
"I asked him [Lee Oswald] if he had told Buell Wesley Frazier why he had gone home a different night, and if he had told him anything about bringing back some curtain rods. He denied it." -- Captain Will Fritz' written report [Warren Report; Page 604]
So, you're going to try to convince people that LHO really did have curtain rods in that package on 11/22, but he then deliberately LIES to the police after he's arrested concerning that very thing---whether he did or did not bring curtain rods into the building?!
Come on! Let's not allow all common sense to go sliding down the drain here!
Or am I supposed to believe that Captain Fritz was the real liar in the above quote from his report?
And if you think that Fritz was actually the person telling tall tales about the curtain rods, instead of Mr. Oswald being the liar, then you also have no choice but to add FBI agent James Bookhout to your Liars List in this regard as well. Because Bookhout, in this 11/23/63 FBI report, said he also heard Oswald denying all knowledge of any curtain rods:
"He [LHO] denied telling Wesley Frazier that the purpose of his visit to Irving, Texas, on the night of November 21, 1963, was to obtain some curtain rods from Mrs. Ruth Paine." -- James W. Bookhout
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Thanks for your post above, Greg. It's refreshing to hear a conspiracy believer utter the words "I do not have a good answer to it" when talking about a particular sub-topic associated with JFK's assassination. Thank you for admitting that.
In putting myself in the shoes of the CTers who believe in Oswald's innocence, I've been straining my brain today trying to come up with some kind of at least halfway logical and semi-sensible reason for why an innocent Lee Harvey Oswald, if he really had brought some curtain rods with him to work on Nov. 22 (instead of bringing his Carcano rifle to work with him that morning), would have had any desire at all to want to tell the police after his arrest that he hadn't brought any curtain rods into the TSBD Building on that day.
And I'm coming up blank. Because I can't understand why Oswald (via the scenario in which he really did take curtain rods to work instead of his rifle) would have thought it was actually better for him to tell a lie to the cops about the curtain rods instead of simply telling Fritz & Company the truth about the rods (and the associated reason for why Oswald decided to not take those rods with him when he left the building at approximately 12:33 PM on 11/22, which seems to me would be another sticky problem for conspiracists to reconcile in a scenario which has Oswald totally innocent of shooting the President).
The chronology of Captain Fritz' interrogations of Oswald, per Fritz' written report, indicates that the "curtain rod" subject (and Oswald's denial of all knowledge of that topic) occurred during the interrogation session on Saturday (November 23) at 10:25 AM. And by that time on Saturday, of course, Oswald had already been officially charged with JFK's murder and Officer Tippit's slaying.
So when Oswald denied all knowledge of the curtain rods, he certainly knew the full reasons for why he was being held in custody by the DPD, which makes any "curtain rods" denial coming from an innocent Lee Oswald all the more perplexing. For Lee certainly didn't think that possession of an innocuous and harmless item like curtain rods on the day of the President's visit to Dallas would (or could) be looked upon as something suspicious that he would want to hide from the authorities. Right? Right. So what would be his incentive for denying any knowledge of the curtain rods story?
The answer to my last question is, in my opinion, very simple and very logical (after weighing the sum total of evidence in the JFK case). But the answer comes from my perspective as a "Lone Assassin" advocate, instead of coming from an "Oswald Didn't Shoot Anybody" point-of-view:
Oswald's incentive for denying that he said anything to Wesley Frazier about "curtain rods" was:
Mr. Oswald was (quite obviously, IMO) attempting to distance himself from that large paper package as much as he could because he knew that that package contained the rifle that he used to shoot President Kennedy.
TOM GRAM SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In Harry Holmes' report (on Page 3, last paragraph), we're treated to yet another lie told by Lee Oswald (which Oswald had to know was a big crock, because he knew the children's birthday party had been the previous weekend, not the weekend of Nov. 22):
"To an inquiry as to why he [LHO] went to visit his wife on Thursday night, November 21, whereas he normally visited her over the weekend, he stated that on this particular weekend he had learned that his wife and Mrs. Payne [sic] were giving a party for the children and that they were having a "houseful" of neighborhood children and that he just didn't want to be around at such a time. Therefore, he made his weekly visit on Thursday night." -- Harry D. Holmes; 12/17/63 Report
And more lies from Oswald are featured on Page 4 of Holmes' report:
"When asked if he [Lee Oswald] didn't bring a sack with him the next morning to work, he stated that he did, and when asked as to the contents of the sack, he stated that it contained his lunch.
Then, when asked as to the size or shape of the sack, he said "Oh, I don't recall, it may have a small sack or a large sack, you don't always find one that just fits your sandwiches."
When asked as to where he placed the sack when he got in the car, he said in his lap, or possibly the front seat beside him, as he always did because he didn't want to get it crushed. He denied that he placed any package in the back seat.
When advised that the driver stated that he had brought out a long parcel and placed it in the back seat, he stated "Oh, he must be mistaken or else thinking about some other time when he picked me up."
When asked as to his whereabouts at the time of the shooting, he stated that when lunch time came, and he didn't say which floor he was on, he said one of the Negro employees invited him to eat lunch with him and he stated "You go on down and send the elevator back up and I will join you in a few minutes."
Before he could finish whatever he was doing, he stated, the commotion surrounding the assassination took place and when he went down stairs, a policeman questioned him as to his identification and his boss stated that
"he is one of our employees" whereupon the policeman had him step aside momentarily. Following this, he simply walked out the front door of the
building." -- H. Holmes
----------------
Plus, Thomas Kelley of the Secret Service also mentions in his written report the fact that Oswald denied that he had brought any large package to work on 11/22 and Kelley also heard Oswald deny the curtain rod story.
So that makes a minimum of four people (Fritz, Bookhout, Holmes, and Kelley) who personally witnessed (and documented on paper) those two key LHO denials.
MICHAEL GRIFFITH SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Here's some of the late Vincent Bugliosi's always-insightful logic regarding the topic of "The Well-Oiled Rifle". Click to enlarge:
Commission Exhibit No. 2974 can be seen HERE.
David Von Pein
January 20-27, 2023
================================
CORY SANTOS SAID THIS.
GERRY DOWN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But, to be fair to Stone and DiEugenio, that piece of info about Elmer Todd's initials being discovered on the CE399 bullet didn't come out until June 2022, which was well after the Stone film was released.
It would be nice, however, if the information about Todd's initials would at least be mentioned in passing during one of the many recent interviews done by Jim D. and Oliver Stone. But, to date, I've yet to hear either one of them acknowledge the fact that Todd's initials are on the bullet.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's incredible how you can actually believe that you "proved" there was ANY large-sized hole in the back of Kennedy's head. You "proved" no such thing and everybody here knows it. You're simply bloviating, big-time.
CORY SANTOS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Oh for Pete sake, Cory. You must be kidding with such nonsense.
"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."
-- HSCA Volume 7, Page 41 [Emphasis added by DVP.]
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:
My congratulations go out to Fred Litwin for writing a very good book ("Oliver Stone's Film-Flam"), which IMO successfully rips to shreds virtually every conspiracy theory put forth in the Stone/DiEugenio 2021 documentary film, "JFK: Destiny Betrayed". Nice job, Fred.
My favorite quote in "Oliver Stone's Film-Flam" is the one below. Heck, I could almost swear that I was the author of this spot-on excerpt:
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Good job, DiEugenio! Just ignore all the evidence-based CONTENT in Fred Litwin's book and start griping because a lot of it STARTED OUT on his very comprehensive blog. (And what's wrong with that anyway?)
You're disgraceful.
DiEugenio and Stone distorted so many facts in their "documentary", my guess is that Litwin's book could have probably been three times as long as it is now.
For instance, the ridiculous and insane claim made by DiEugenio and other conspiracy theorists that the Second-Floor Lunchroom Encounter never even happened is surely talked about in the 4-hour edition of the Stone/DiEugenio evidence-mangling marathon, isn't it? And Fred didn't even touch upon that hunk of pure silliness in his book.
And then there's the "Oswald Never Went To Mexico City" tripe. Fred didn't tackle that batch of CTer misinfo either, but certainly could have if he had wanted to.
And don't forget the "Ruth Paine Is LHO's Handler" allegation/lie. (That's surely brought up in Stone's four hours of distortion and tommyrot, right?)
Maybe Fred will publish a "Film-Flam Volume Two" in the future. There's certainly enough provably-wrong garbage in "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" to fill at least one more Litwin volume. Probably two or three more.
Also....
Nobody has "discredited" anything written by either Fred Litwin or Steve Roe concerning the non-stop B.S. that gushes forth in your "documentary". And that's because Litwin and Roe have relied on actual FACTS and EVIDENCE to debunk the junk in your "documentary". Just check Litwin's 600+ sources that totally destroy Stone's film. As opposed to the weak-sister weapons offered up by Stone and DiEugenio --- e.g., such things as speculation, innuendo, guesswork, wishful thinking, and witnesses' 40-year-old memories.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Keep going, Jim. With each passing tirade, your reputation continues to sink. However, why in the world you had any "reputation" (of a positive nature, that is) as a "JFK Assassination Expert" in the first place is beyond me---especially after we review this list of 22 nonsensical things that Mr. DiEugenio believes (a list I originally compiled in January 2013):
1.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at JFK.
2.) Oswald didn't fire a single shot at J.D. Tippit.
3.) Oswald didn't fire a shot at General Walker.
4.) Oswald did not visit the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.
5.) Oswald probably wasn't even IN Mexico City in Sept./Oct. 1963.
6.) Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods.
7.) Oswald never ordered a revolver from Seaport Traders Inc.
8.) Oswald's signature on the register of the Hotel del Comercio in Mexico City is a fake signature.
9.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's rifle purchase from Klein's are fake.
10.) All of the documents pertaining to Oswald's revolver purchase are fake.
11.) Marina Oswald lied about dozens of things, including when she said that Oswald had told her that he had taken a shot at General Walker.
12.) Ruth Paine was a major co-conspirator in JFK's murder, with Ruth being instrumental in getting Oswald his job at the Book Depository so that LHO could be set up as the proverbial "patsy".
13.) Linnie Mae Randle lied when she said she saw Oswald crossing Westbrook Street in Irving with a large paper package on the morning of Nov. 22, 1963.
14.) Buell Wesley Frazier lied about a bunch of stuff after the assassination, including the whopper about seeing Oswald carrying a large bag into the TSBD. And in addition to the individuals mentioned above, DiEugenio thinks a lot of other people lied about many other things pertaining to the JFK murder case too, including Marrion Baker, Roy Truly, and Howard Brennan. Two of DiEugenio's most hilarious quotes can be found below:
"Baker never saw Oswald. .... I believe the [Oswald/Baker/Truly] incident was created after the fact." -- James DiEugenio; July 2015
"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 2010
15.) Captain J. Will Fritz of the Dallas Police was a major co-conspirator in a plot to have Jack Ruby rub out Lee Oswald in the DPD basement on Nov. 24, with Fritz deliberately opening up a big gap between himself and prisoner Oswald just before Ruby fired his fatal shot.
16.) The backyard photos of Oswald are fakes (despite what the HSCA said).
17.) The autopsy report is pure bunk, which almost certainly means that DiEugenio thinks that all three autopsy doctors (Humes, Finck, and Boswell) lied out their collective assholes about President Kennedy's wounds.
18.) The conspirators planning the assassination, although they wanted to frame ONLY Lee Oswald, shot JFK from a variety of locations, and they fired more than three shots in so doing, which pretty much guaranteed that their "One Patsy" plot would be exposed after the shooting. (But Jimbo and many like him believe this craziness anyway. Go figure.)
19.) A Mauser rifle was found in the TSBD after the assassination, even though the plotters knew they had to frame their one and only patsy with a Carcano rifle. (Brilliant!)
20.) All of the physical evidence that leads to Lee Oswald in the two Nov. 22 murders (JFK's and Tippit's) has been faked, planted, manipulated, or manufactured in order to falsely incriminate a patsy named Lee Harvey.
21.) There were very likely at least two "Lee Oswalds" running around in various locations before the assassination. (In general, DiEugenio pretty much believes everything in John Armstrong's book of fantasy about there being "2 Oswalds" and "2 Marguerites". This proves that NO theory is too outrageous or preposterous for Mr. DiEugenio's gullible palate.)
22.) Jim Garrison was right about Clay Shaw after all. Shaw was guilty of being a co-conspirator in JFK's murder, despite the fact that Garrison did not provide ONE solid piece of evidence at Shaw's 1969 New Orleans trial to show that Shaw was involved in planning the assassination.
-------------
Whew! Talk about mangling the facts. How anyone can possibly even begin to take James DiEugenio seriously when it comes to the JFK assassination after reading the above list continues to be a huge mystery to me.
David Von Pein
January 28-30, 2023
================================
CHARLES BLACKMON SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Lee Oswald's guilt in J.D. Tippit's murder is far from being "just speculation".
For heaven's sake, Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon still on him when he fought with the police just half-an-hour after Tippit was shot. (And please don't try and tell me that the gun Oswald had on him when he was arrested was planted on him, or that the bullet shells that littered Tenth Street were later "switched". Because that type of crap is really "just speculation" and every reasonable person knows it.)
David Von Pein
January 29, 2023
