Part 1372 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of January 1—31, 2024. 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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID THIS.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The big question I have now regarding Victoria E. Adams is:
Why on Earth would she have told author Barry Ernest (in the early 2000s, was it?) that she had definitely not seen Shelley & Lovelady just after she got to the first floor of the TSBD on 11/22/63?
Prior to her interviews with Ernest, had her memory of events been so diminished that she had actually thought the Warren Commission had added things to her sworn testimony? I suppose the "fading memory" explanation is always a possibility to consider. (Victoria passed away in November 2007. She was 66.)
Also, I'm wondering what Barry Ernest's opinion was/is of Victoria's "mental state" when he interviewed her? Did her memory of the events seem clear and vivid? Or was it somewhat shaky and murky? (I'm just wondering.)
MARCUS FULLER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Marcus,
Why wasn't the "real assassin" seen by anybody coming down those same back stairs?
I guess you think the real killer(s) must have just stayed up on the Floor Of Death for several extra minutes, running the great risk of being caught right there on the sixth floor. Is that it?
[DVP NOTE -- I received nothing but dead silence in response to my above inquiry.]
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
Sandra Styles was, of course, with Victoria Adams when they went down the back stairs of the Book Depository shortly after the assassination on 11/22/63. Styles was not called to testify in front of the Warren Commission, but she did talk at some length with assassination researcher Sean Murphy in 2008. Here's what she told Murphy at that time:
[Quoting Sandra Styles:]
“I watched the motorcade from a south-facing window on the fourth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. With me was one of my Scott Foresman colleagues, Victoria Adams (who sadly passed away last year). When the shooting took place, we were not even aware at first that it was a shooting. It sounded like fireworks. President Kennedy was obscured from our view at the critical moments by tree foliage. All I could make out in those moments was the pink of Mrs. Kennedy's suit.
Contrary to what Vickie [Adams] told the Warren Commission, she and I did NOT go to the rear stairs within a minute or so of the shooting. First, we lingered by the window for quite some time, trying to determine what was going on outside. Things were very confused. Next, we made an attempt to take the front-of-building elevator downstairs. For some reason, however, this elevator—which, unlike the rear elevator, went only as high as the fourth floor—did not come when we called it. It was only after trying to call the elevator that we thought of going towards the rear stairs. And even then we did not proceed very quickly — we were wearing high-heel shoes!
While we were still in the office area, our view of the rear stairs was blocked by partitions. Anyone could have come down those stairs without us knowing about it. All this time we had absolutely no idea that shots might have come from the Depository building. As a result, I was paying very little attention to what was going on inside the building in those first few minutes after the assassination.
If the Warren Report estimated that Vickie and I reached the first floor via the rear stairs some 4 or 5 minutes after the shooting, then I'd have to say that sounds a little conservative. If anything, it was probably longer. I have no clear recollection of seeing Bill Shelley or Billy Lovelady (both of whom I had a passing acquaintance with) near the rear of the building when we reached the first floor. I have a vague recollection of seeing them at some point around the front entrance. But it's perfectly possible we did see them where Vickie said we did—near the freight elevator. I really wasn't paying much attention to people IN the building. I thought all the action was outside.
It always puzzled me how Vickie seemed to exaggerate the speed with which we went to the rear stairway. Although I was fond of her, I guess she was what you might call a 'person of drama'. I found the version of events she told people somewhat sensationalistic and at odds with my own memory of those minutes. I simply stated what I recalled, but I didn't contradict her because I felt I couldn't say what she saw or didn't see; just because I didn't recall it the same way did not mean she was in error necessarily. I am not that noble a person that I would not have contradicted her to the interviewers had it been necessary.
Why was Vickie the only one called to testify before the Warren Commission? I don't know. My recollection has always been that I WAS interrogated by a representative from the Warren Commission very briefly in our office, but there was no follow-up, whereas she was questioned more than once. I have wondered whether it might have been that her testimony required more investigation and mine was more plausible or I was less positive in my recollections than she.
Vickie was a very friendly and gregarious person, while I am more reserved and less outgoing. She may have exaggerated some points, while I was cautious about what I said, not wanting to mislead. In some instances, her version might be more accurate.”
-- Sandra Styles; July 2008
| Source Link | ----> |  |
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, Greg, I agree. Plus, there's the fact that that front elevator is much closer to the place where Adams and Styles were watching the motorcade from (as we can see when looking at the floor plan for the fourth floor). So it makes perfect sense that they would have first tried to go down in the more-convenient front elevator rather than clomp down the rickety stairs while wearing high heels.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'm just wondering, though, if Lovelady had actually SEEN (with his own eyes) Truly & Baker going to the stairs....or if (just perhaps) he was telling the HSCA in 1978 something he knew had happened but hadn't actually seen himself???
Because it would certainly seem as though the things Lovelady & Shelley said they did after the shooting would consume a minimum of at least a couple of minutes before they re-entered the building, which would mean Lovelady couldn't possibly have actually seen Baker & Truly on the 1st floor, because we know B&T were in the lunchroom with Oswald within about 90 seconds of the last shot.
But, boy!, trying to fit everybody's "timing" issues into a workable theory sure does cause headaches, doesn't it? Because there's always going to be some piece of the "timing" puzzle that doesn't quite fit.
SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
So you think BAKER lied. And you think TRULY lied. And you think FRITZ lied when he said that Oswald himself said he encountered the policeman on the second floor. And you think BOOKHOUT lied when he said (on Page 619 of the Warren Report) that Oswald admitted that the 2nd-floor encounter did occur.
When you need to accuse so many people of telling blatant lies, it should send up a red flag to all reasonable researchers.
David Von Pein
January 1-9, 2024
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Video recommendation:
More Ruth Paine videos
and discussion:
David Von Pein
January 1, 2024
================================
JIM HARGROVE SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
We can argue forever about the exact time that Officer Tippit was shot. There will always be disagreement amongst LNers and CTers concerning that point. But it doesn't really make a whole lot of difference precisely when Tippit was shot, because regardless of what the exact time was, we KNOW (or at least I do) that Tippit's murderer was positively (and beyond all possible doubt) Lee Harvey Oswald.
And we can know this for a fact not only due to the many witnesses who positively identified Oswald as either Tippit's one and only killer or as the one and only gunman who fled the scene of the crime....but also due to the even-more-definitive ballistics evidence that Oswald was kind enough to leave behind at the scene of the murder---which consisted of those four bullet shell casings that positively came from the same gun that was used to kill Officer Tippit, which was also the same gun that Oswald still had in his very own hands just 35 minutes after Tippit was slain.
Yes, virtually all CTers will argue that those bullet shells were faked or planted or switched to incriminate the resident "patsy", but when asked what proof the conspiracy theorists possess to support such an extraordinary and vile allegation, the silence becomes overwhelming. In short, no such evidence exists and every reasonable person knows it.
And therefore....
ROBERT BURROWS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
My, what a convenient and handy cop-out for conspiracy theorists to use, year after year --- "We don't know any facts".
In other words, Robert Burrows must believe that virtually everybody in Officialdom was on a mission to frame Lee H. Oswald in November of 1963 (and for many months afterward too).
Typical ridiculous over-the-top CT mindset.
David Von Pein
January 2-6, 2024
================================
KEVEN HOFELING SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In addition to his appearance in 1988's "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", Dr. Robert McClelland also performed a "hand-on-his-head" demonstration for the PBS-TV camera in another 1988 television program, "Who Shot President Kennedy?", hosted by Walter Cronkite.
In that PBS program, Dr. McClelland twice put his right hand over the upper-right portion of the back of his head to indicate where he said the large wound was located in President Kennedy's head (see the screen captures below).
The late Doctor Robert McClelland, in my opinion, had some very strange beliefs concerning JFK's head wounds and what he was seeing when he viewed the autopsy photographs at the National Archives for that PBS/NOVA program in 1988, which I discuss HERE and HERE.
Here's an excerpt from Vince Bugliosi's book concerning Dr. McClelland:
[Book Quote On:]
“When I spoke over the telephone to Dr. McClelland in late September and early October of 2002, McClelland, a respected Dallas surgeon whom no one accuses of trying to deliberately mislead anyone, only of being completely wrong in what he thought he saw (the most honest people in the world can think they saw the darndest things), said he was positive the president had a "massive hole to the back of his head."
He said at the time of his observation he was holding a metal retractor that was pulling the skin away from the president's trachea so Drs. Perry and Carrico could perform their tracheotomy. "I had nothing else to do or to distract me so I fixated on this large, gaping hole to the back of the president's head for ten to twelve minutes."
When I wondered how he could see the large hole when the president was always lying on his back, he said the wound was so large that he nevertheless could see "most of it." If what he said was true, I asked, how is it possible that on the Zapruder film itself, the explosion is clearly to the right frontal portion of the president's head with a large amount of brain matter spraying out, and the back of his head appears to be completely intact?
Dr. McClelland gave an answer that deserves some type of an award for inventiveness: "What the explanation for this is, I just don't know, but what I believe happened is that the spray of brain matter and blood was kind of like a bloodscreen, similar to a smokescreen, that precluded a clear view of the occipital area."
If, I pursued the matter, the exit wound was to the back of the president's head, where was the entrance wound for this bullet? McClelland, who believes the shot to the head came from the grassy knoll, said he believed the president was struck "around the hairline near the middle of his forehead."
If that was so, I asked, how was it that seventeen pathologists, including Dr. Wecht, all agreed that the president was only struck twice, both times from the rear, and none of them—from photographs, X-rays, and personal observation (by the three autopsy surgeons)—saw any entrance wound to the president's forehead?
Again, McClelland, who acknowledged, "I'm not a pathologist and I've never conducted an autopsy," said, "I don't know the answer to your question." But he remained sincerely inventive in his imagination. "What I believe happened is that none of the pathologists saw the entrance wound because it became a part of the destruction to the whole right side and top of the president's head. In other words, it was no longer a separate hole that could be identified."
(Of course, none of the autopsy photographs show any such massive injury to the president's forehead extending to the right side of his head, and none is referred to in the autopsy report, nor in the reports of the Clark Panel and Rockefeller Commission. As the HSCA said, "There is no evidence that the president was struck by a bullet entering the front of his head.")
"So you do acknowledge," I said, "the explosion to the right front part of the president's head?" "Oh, yes," the doctor said, "but that's not where the bullet exited. It exited in the occipital region of his head, leaving a hole so big I could put my fist in it."
When I pointed out to the doctor again that not only didn't the Zapruder film show any large hole to the back of the president's head but autopsy photographs never showed any large hole there either, he said that although it was pure "supposition" on his part, at the time the photographs were taken, someone "could have pulled a flap of the president's skin, attached to the base of his neck, forward," thereby covering the large defect. When I asked him if he saw any such loose flap of skin at Parkland, he acknowledged, "I did not."
It was getting late in the evening, Dallas time, but before I ended the interview I reminded Dr. McClelland of the fact that in his Parkland Hospital admission note at 4:45 p.m. on the day of the assassination, he had written that the president died "from a gunshot wound of the left temple." "Yes," he said, "that was a mistake. I never saw any wound to the president's left temple. Dr. Jenkins had told me there was a wound there, though he later denied telling me this."
Since there was no bullet wound to the left side of the president's body, and since the conspiracy theorists allege that Kennedy was shot from the grassy knoll to his right front, conspiracy author Robert Groden solves the problem and avoids having his star witness, Dr. McClelland, look very confused and non-credible simply by changing McClelland's words "left temple" to "right temple" in his book, The Killing of a President.
When I called Dr. McClelland the following evening to discuss further one of the points he had made, he quickly told me he was glad I had called because "since we hung up last night, I've had some second thoughts about the exact location of the exit wound."
Unlike the many conspiracy theorists who have exploited Dr. McClelland's obvious errors to their benefit, he told me, "I don't question the integrity of all the pathologists who disagree with me" (he wasn't so kind to his colleague, Dr. Charles Crenshaw: "Chuck had a lot of problems and fabricated a lot of things"), saying, for instance, that he and the three autopsy surgeons were "obviously looking at the same head and the same wound," but that the area on the head where they placed the wound differed because of "the different positions from which we viewed it and also because of the different interpretations of what we saw, which is normal."
But he made a major concession in an effort to reconcile his position with theirs. "I have to say that the sketch I first drew for Josiah Thompson's book a few years after the assassination was misleading. Since last night, I've been thinking that I placed the large hole in the president's head farther back than it really was, maybe. It may have been a bit more forward."
When I asked him where he now put it, he said, "Partially in the occipital region and partly in the right back part of the parietal bone" (which I told him was actually consistent with the original position he took in his Warren Commission testimony), but he still insisted that this large exit wound was not to the right frontal area of the president's skull as concluded by all the pathologists.
Dr. McClelland told me he believes there were two gunmen, Oswald and someone else, and further believes that "the CIA and FBI, mostly the CIA, were behind the conspiracy to kill Kennedy, and they brought in the Mafia, who carried out the killing."
He said he didn't know but suspects that "the Warren Commission covered up the conspiracy." On that note, I thanked the good doctor for his time and bid him a good night.”
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 405-407 of "Reclaiming History"
SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
There is a ZERO per cent chance of the autopsy photos being fraudulent/fake/altered, as confirmed in 7 HSCA 41, which is a page of the House Select Committee's volumes that nearly 100% of CTers will either totally ignore or they'll pretend that the entire Photographic Panel of the HSCA was filled with either all liars or an assortment of nothing but boneheads who didn't know what the hell they were talking about when they said none of the photos had been altered.
I wonder why so many conspiracy theorists on this planet think they know more about photo analysis and interpretation than the multiple photo experts who comprised the HSCA's Photographic Panel? That's a question I've never been able to answer.
SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Sandy Larsen, in his post above, said that the HSCA was "largely corrupt". And yet they concluded there WAS a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.
So, according to Sandy, the HSCA was both CORRUPT and TRUTHFUL at the same time.
Doesn't that seem the slightest bit odd?
SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I strongly disagree, Sandy. I agree totally with the things Pat Speer said in his post here. And, just like Pat, I too am often accused of saying the Parkland doctors were "hallucinating". But I have never said anybody at Parkland suffered from hallucinations.
Most of the Parkland doctors were, however, unquestionably WRONG (i.e., mistaken) about the location of President Kennedy's large head wound, and the autopsy photos and X-rays provide the undeniable proof that those Parkland physicians were wrong, and as such they all (for some inexplicable reason) experienced a "Mass Mistaken Observation" (for lack of a better phrase).
MICHAEL GRIFFITH SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Due to Jackie's handiwork of "trying to hold his head on" during the ride to Parkland, most of the witnesses probably didn't get to see the full WIDE-OPEN extent of the large head wound at the right-front of JFK's head.
They, instead, saw all the gore/blood/brains that was pooling at the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head on the gurney. This led those witnesses to believe there was a large "wound" at the right-rear, when, in fact, no such "wound" was there at all (as proven by the autopsy pictures AND X-rays).
That's not exactly a perfectly satisfying explanation---even for me. And I'm sure all conspiracy believers think such an explanation is totally laughable, preposterous, and idiotic. But it's the best I can do. (And it's Dr. Michael Baden's best explanation as well -- Click Here.)
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But, IMO, the "Blood Pooling At The Right-Rear Of The Head" explanation, coupled with the known fact that Jackie Kennedy was busy in the limo "Trying to hold his head on" (which probably means she closed up the large flap on the right side of the head, which essentially masked all or most of the huge hole that Oswald's bullet created in the right-front of JFK's skull), are still much better explanations than the rather far-fetched and incredibly hard-to-believe "All Of The Doctors (In Unison) Couldn't Tell The SIDE Of JFK's Head From The BACK Of His Head Simply Because The President Was Lying Flat On His Back" explanation that author Jim Moore endorses in his 1990 book.
KEVEN HOFELING SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I have no idea why Keven Hofeling is blasting me on the McClelland "hands-on demonstrations" topic. McClelland's "demonstrations" have ALWAYS placed the large "blow out" wound at the RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head (with very little variation). So where's the disagreement there, Keven?
The disagreement comes, of course, when I point out the fact that Dr. McClelland was 100% wrong, as proven for all time by the HSCA-authenticated autopsy photos and X-rays, plus the Z-Film, which also proves that ALL of the witnesses who said there was a huge blow-out wound at the rear of Kennedy's head were dead wrong.
But CTers like Keven Hofeling will, evidently, continue to pretend that the autopsy photos AND the X-rays AND the Zapruder Film AND the autopsy report AND the testimony of all 3 autopsy surgeons are ALL (in perfect tandem) fake/phony/altered/manufactured.
KEVEN HOFELING SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Gee, talk about someone not getting the point. Keven Hofeling has earned that distinction with ease in this discussion.
David Von Pein
January 4-25, 2024
================================
JOHN DEIGNAN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
So, according to Rob Reiner in the 10th and final installment of his "Who Killed JFK?" podcast series (which can be heard HERE), the "real assassins" shoot up Dealey Plaza using FIVE gunmen located to the front and rear of JFK; and they are doing this while also attempting to frame just ONE lone "patsy" in the Book Depository.
Does that sound like a plan that's likely to succeed....or doomed to fail?
Also....
Is it even remotely likely that such a FIVE-SHOOTER / ONE-PATSY plot would have even been considered by any group(s) who was planning to kill the President and wanted to get away with it and wanted to pin the blame on just one lone killer in the Depository Building on 11/22/63?
Were the architects of such a loony, over-the-top plot all insane....or did they merely enjoy the challenge of doing things the (very!) hard way?
In short, such a pre-planned "multi-gunmen with just one patsy" assassination scheme, very similar in nature to Oliver Stone's absurd 3-Gun, 1-Patsy plot, is just plain idiotic.*
* Not to mention the fact that there's not one shred of physical evidence to indicate that more than just one assassin (located on the sixth floor of the TSBD) fired any shots at President Kennedy, let alone five gunmen. But I guess the actual evidence in the JFK murder case doesn't mean very much to Mr. Reiner.
NICK BARTETZKO SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
All of those things you [Nick B.] have listed are things that have, indeed, been explained in non-conspiratorial ways over the last 60 years. Most of those items (if not all) were covered in a pretty decent amount of depth, of course, in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 tome. And many other Lone Assassin advocates, including myself, have tackled most of those things as well.
A very reasonable possibility for James Tague's injury, as a matter of fact, is provided right there in the Warren Report itself (on my all-time favorite WCR page, which nearly every conspiracy theorist continues to ignore on a daily basis---Page 117). So the Warren Commission itself had, in effect, started debunking some of the pro-conspiracy nonsense before their final report ever went to press.
David Von Pein
January 10, 2024
================================
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
You [John Mytton] don't want or can't produce the actual evidence that Oswald was on the 6th floor of the TSBD when the shots were fired and went down the stairs within 75 seconds after the last shot.
Wow, how would that play out in court?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Martin, like all Internet conspiracy theorists, is not very good at simple math.....especially when it comes to adding things up concerning Lee Harvey Oswald and his movements and actions on November 22, 1963.
Martin, of course, could perform the 2nd-grade math if he really wanted to. But he doesn't want to. So, he'll just continue to pretend that Oswald's movements are impossible to figure out from the known evidence.
Such is the way with Internet conspiracy theorists/fantasists.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
All guys like you do, on a daily basis, is tell the same lies and misrepresentations hoping that some day they will actually become true.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I've never told any "lies" about the JFK case. (And an "opinion" that doesn't agree with your conspiracy-slanted version of events is not a "lie". I hope you'll keep that fact in mind if you ever decide to call me a liar again in the future.)
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
Btw, I just had a quick look at part one of Oswald's time line on your site, and found it filled with assumptions and speculation. Time after time you say things like "I believe", "It's possible", "I assume" and you make claims for which there is not a shred of evidence.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, since there was absolutely nobody else up there on the 6th floor when Oswald was doing the things that I think he did just before 12:30 on 11/22/63, then OF COURSE I've used terms like "I believe" and "It's possible" on my Timeline Page. Isn't that better than saying Oswald "definitely did this" or "positively did that at exactly this time"?
Since there are no 6th-floor witnesses to anything the assassin did, all I can possibly do is "assume" the things that "I believe" are most certainly "possible" regarding Oswald's exact actions and movements on the sixth floor on 11/22. It's either engaging in some guesswork or just forget about making up a "Timeline" at all. I chose the former option.
Obligatory ----> Duh!!
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
The whole saga of Oswald hiding in the sniper's nest when Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th floor is pure fiction.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
No, it's a reasonable inference (i.e., a good guess) as to where Oswald was located during the few minutes when Bonnie Ray was up there eating his chicken-on-the-bone sandwich lunch.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
The truth is that you can't place Oswald on the 6th floor anywhere after a couple of minutes past 12 noon.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Wrong. I can place him in the Sniper's Nest shooting at JFK at exactly 12:30 --- via the witness all CTers love to hate, Howard L. Brennan.
But, like it or not, Brennan (in front of the Warren Commission) did positively I.D. Oswald as the assassin.
Plus: Via another "reasonable inference", I can place Oswald on the west side of the sixth floor, holding his Carcano rifle (another wholly "reasonable inference" there), at approximately 12:15 PM. Those reasonable inferences (guesses) come, of course, via the testimony of Arnold Rowland.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
The story about Oswald going down the stairs is also a mere assumption for which there is no evidence.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Once again, it's a "reasonable inference" based on the evidence AS A WHOLE, which is telling any reasonable and sensible person looking at that totality of evidence that Lee Oswald (and his rifle) were, indeed, on the sixth floor shooting at the President at exactly 12:30 PM.
And since we have irrefutable proof (via Marrion Baker and Roy Truly) that Mr. Oswald was positively in the second-floor lunchroom (near the back stairway) within just two minutes or so after the President was shot by Oswald and his Carcano, then the reasonable inference to reach here is:
Lee Oswald must have utilized that back staircase between 12:30 PM and 12:32 PM CST on November 22nd. (And this inference/conclusion can easily still be reached regardless of the observations of Dorothy Garner, Victoria Adams, or anyone else. With the simple answer to the Garner/Adams/Styles controversy being: Adams and Styles beat everybody else to the stairs that day.)
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
When you say that Adams and Styles beat everybody else to the stairs, meaning they were ahead of the killer, you must agree that Adams and Styles immediately left the 4th floor window after the last shot. Right? That means that the conclusion of the WC that Adams saw Shelley and Lovelady at the bottom of the stairs was wrong, as those men couldn't possibly have been there at that time. Do you agree?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The "Adams & Styles Beat Everybody Else To The Stairs" conclusion is probably not what happened, IMO. I offered it up in my previous post as merely a POSSIBLE solution to the controversy involving Adams, Styles, and Garner. But, like you said, that "possible" solution brings about other snags and problems---like the Lovelady/Shelley timing.
But we must always keep in mind when evaluating "timeline" type evidence and testimony that nobody on Nov. 22 had a stopwatch to provide any to-the-second exactitude relating to their movements. And that goes for everybody involved---from Adams to Garner to Shelley to Lovelady to Baker.
And although Baker's movements were timed in two re-creations done for the WC, we also must remember that Baker himself said that he probably took LONGER to do the things he did on Nov. 22 itself than he did in his reconstructions in March of '64. So that fact (alone) could affect the "timelines" of multiple people, and it could mean that (just perhaps) Adams & Styles didn't get to the stairs quite as fast as Adams says they did (even if they DID beat Truly & Baker to those same stairs).
Anyway, after evaluating all of the various "timeline" issues associated with the race down the back stairs, it's my own opinion that Adams & Styles were very likely on the stairs only after Truly and Baker had started up those same stairs.
And a possible scenario to account for Dorothy Garner's observations (which first came to light in the Stroud document) would be that Adams & Styles were on the second-floor landing at the precise time when Truly, Baker, and Oswald were all in the lunchroom/vestibule, which would have placed all of those men in a location where they could not have been seen by Adams/Styles. Perhaps that scenario isn't very likely, but it's certainly not impossible. And, in fact, it's a scenario that is even mentioned as a possibility on Page 154 of the Warren Report.
All of my thoughts on the Adams/Styles/Garner Staircase Controversy are archived at my site HERE.
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:
I really wish that David, or any other LN, could conclusively place Oswald on the 6th floor at 12:30 on 11/22/63 because that would close the book on the assassination of Kennedy. Unfortunately, all we get is assumptions disguised as "reasonable inference".
The problem with assumptions is that with enough of them you can find anybody guilty of anything. Is this really what the most important murder case of the century is coming down to?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, Martin, it sure would be ideal if I could offer up a photo or a film of Oswald shooting Kennedy. And it would be equally as handy if I could offer up a sixth-floor witness who happened to see Lee Oswald as he was pulling the trigger. But, unfortunately, Oswald got extremely lucky to have the entire sixth floor to himself for that brief period of time it took him to kill the President. So what else is there except a certain amount of "inference" and "guesswork" to be done when it comes to what you want me to "prove"? There are no sixth-floor witnesses---period.
But what we DO have are the things OSWALD left behind --- HIS rifle, HIS prints at the exact spot where JFK's assassin was located (i.e., deep within the Sniper's Nest), and the empty 38-inch paper bag with HIS prints on it.
And there's also the fact that Oswald had no provable alibi for the exact time of the assassination. (Is there any other Depository employee who can be placed in that "No Alibi" category? I doubt that there is.)
Therefore, why on Earth shouldn't I be pointing a finger of guilt at Lee Harvey Oswald, the man to whom all of the physical evidence leads?
Should I just IGNORE all of that evidence or pretend it's all been "planted" there to frame an innocent Oswald? Sorry, but that idea is beyond silly and foolish (IMHO).
MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Hello again Martin,
As you no doubt already know, it's my opinion that absolutely none of the evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases has been faked or manufactured or planted, and as such it is fairly obvious that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of the two murders he was charged with committing on 11/22/63.
I also fully realize, of course, that most (if not all) people who lean toward believing in a conspiracy in the Kennedy and Tippit cases think that it is highly likely that at least some (and probably most) of the physical evidence that points toward Oswald was in some way tainted by the police and/or FBI following the two murders. So that's a disagreement that is always going to exist and will likely never be reconciled to please both sides of the debate.
But in addition to the physical evidence itself, a good deal of attention also needs to be focused on Oswald's own actions and movements on both November 21st and 22nd---which are things that I don't think even the most imaginative conspiracy theorist on the planet could possibly believe were "manufactured" by the authorities.
And when those actions and movements are examined, it becomes quite clear that Mr. Oswald did several unusual things on each of those days, such as:
.... Going out to Ruth Paine's house in Irving, Texas, with Buell Frazier on a Thursday (instead of his normal Friday).
.... Telling a lie about why he wanted a ride to Irving on Thursday, Nov. 21st. (And it's fairly clear that Oswald's "curtain rods" story was, indeed, nothing but a lie.)
.... Bringing a large-ish paper package with him to work on 11/22 (and telling a lie to Frazier about the contents of that package).
.... Walking ahead of Frazier into the TSBD Building on the morning of 11/22.
.... Asking for an elevator to be sent back up to him on an upper floor of the TSBD at about 11:45 AM on 11/22. (Now, why do you suppose Oswald wanted that to be done?)
.... Leaving the TSBD Building within about three minutes of the Presidential shooting and then proceeding to walk several blocks east on Elm Street in order to get on a bus that he only stayed on for a matter of a few minutes before getting off and catching a cab at the Greyhound bus terminal (which was likely the only time in his life that Lee Oswald paid for a taxicab ride while in the United States of America).
.... And after getting into William Whaley's cab on 11/22, where does Oswald tell the driver to drop him off? Not at the front doorstep of 1026 N. Beckley (which Whaley could have easily done), but instead Oswald tells Whaley to drop him off three whole blocks beyond his Beckley roominghouse.
.... Oswald then backtracks to his rented room, grabs his revolver and a jacket, and quickly leaves the roominghouse.
.... Oswald then shoots and kills police officer J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street. [Continual reminder for conspiracy theorists ----> Click Here.]
.... Oswald is next seen acting "funny" and "scared" while he has his back turned to the wailing police cars on Jefferson Boulevard in front of Johnny Brewer's shoe store.
.... Then it's on to the Texas Theater for LHO, as he sneaks in without bothering to pay for the cheap ticket.
.... Oswald then pulls his gun on police officer McDonald inside the theater.
.... And the comments made by Oswald at the time of his arrest in the theater certainly don't conjure up visions of an "innocent patsy" either.
So, as we can see, Oswald's Movements certainly can't be ignored or swept under the rug---because, in my opinion, Lee Oswald's own movements and actions on Nov. 21 and Nov. 22 add up to the actions of a guilty person.
And when we add the physical evidence (plus the Tippit eyewitnesses) to Oswald's own guilty-like actions, then the only conceivable way to exonerate Mr. Oswald for the murders of John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit would be to do what most conspiracy theorists do, and that is to make the following bold claim (sans any proof at all):
All of that evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald was fake!
Also....
The chain of possession/custody for Bullet CE399 is, in my opinion, a lot stronger than most conspiracists believe it is. And it got even stronger in June 2022 when researcher Steve Roe discovered Elmer Todd's initials on the bullet.
More discussion on CE399's chain of custody HERE and HERE.
Lots more proof of Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt at the link below:
FERGUS O'BRIEN SAID:
Your stance is the official stance, which is that Oswald left the building within 3 minutes of the shooting via the front door. .... I would like to ask you for proof that Oswald did leave the depository via the FRONT door 3 minutes after the shooting.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But what difference does it really make which door Oswald utilized to leave the building? Whether it be the back door or the front door, there is no doubt whatsoever that Lee Oswald WAS inside the building at circa 12:32 PM and he then got onto a bus (and then a cab) a few minutes later. You surely don't deny the fact that Oswald made it to his roominghouse by about 1:00 PM, do you? Therefore, Oswald definitely DID leave the TSBD building within a very few minutes of the shooting. That fact is beyond all doubt (even amongst CTers).
Also....
When I discussed Oswald's "unusual" actions on 11/21 and 11/22, you need to ADD UP ALL of those actions and movements, instead of isolating just one of them (which is what you did above).
And when ALL of those actions/movements are added together, the result is, IMO, a person named Oswald who certainly was NOT an innocent "patsy" on 11/22/63.
FERGUS O'BRIEN SAID:
There is no doubt that Oswald left his workplace. Which door he left by is not a proven thing by any stretch, and that was my point. Even you, in essence, state something to be fact that actually is not proven fact.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I do, indeed, think that Oswald did exit the building via the front door. Is this a "proven" fact? No. But it is certainly the most reasonable inference to be made from the available evidence (mainly based on the testimony of Mrs. Reid, who saw Oswald walking toward the FRONT stairs on the 2nd floor at about 12:32).
And since we KNOW that Oswald (who was no doubt attempting to get out of that building as quickly as he could following the shooting which was carried out with HIS RIFLE from the sixth floor) did exit the building very soon after the shooting, it doesn't make very much sense for him to go down the front stairs (which is the direction he was headed when Reid saw him), but then reverse his direction and go all the way to the back of the building again so he could exit via the Loading Dock door (which, IMO, would look more suspicious to anyone who might happen to see him leave by that back door right after a Presidential assassination attempt).
So the "reasonable inference" reached by the Warren Commission (and by David R. Von Pein of the Hoosier State) is that Lee H. Oswald very likely departed the Book Depository via the front entrance at about 12:33 PM CST on November 22nd. Your opinion may vary. But if it does vary, it's certainly not going to be nearly as "reasonable" as the "front door" inference.
And, btw, in this thread itself, I never said a word about Oswald leaving by the "front door". All I said was this:
".... Leaving the TSBD Building within about three minutes of the Presidential shooting and then proceeding to walk several blocks east on Elm Street in order to get on a bus that he only stayed on for a matter of a few minutes before getting off and catching a cab at the Greyhound bus terminal (which was likely the only time in his life that Lee Oswald paid for a taxicab ride while in the United States of America)."
FERGUS O'BRIEN SAID:
He [Lee Oswald] could have sat alone eating in the lunchroom as per the interrogation notes and also have no alibi.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
LHO sure was one unlucky S.O.B. on 11/22, wasn't he? He was probably the only employee in the entire building to not have a provable alibi for the exact time of the shooting. And it just so happens that all of the evidence points directly at him. And it also just so happens that he was seen by a policeman at the back of the building (near the stairs) within 2 minutes of the shooting. And it also just so happens that Oswald wasn't sitting down at a table eating lunch either. He was seen by Baker & Truly while he (LHO) was STANDING UP and walking toward the middle of the lunchroom.
As I said .... 11/22/63 was certainly NOT the luckiest of Fridays for Mr. Oswald.
FERGUS O'BRIEN SAID:
What about Mrs. Reid, the witness you cited, seeing Oswald only in a white tee shirt as he was leaving with COKE in hand? I am interested in your thoughts on this.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The "Coke" answer is quite simple:
Oswald bought the Coke AFTER his encounter with Truly/Baker. Not before.
More "Coke" talk HERE.
Re: Oswald's Shirts....
It's been my opinion for many years that Oswald probably wasn't wearing his brown outer shirt when he shot Kennedy. He was only wearing his white T-shirt at that moment. I think he used the brown shirt as a fingerprint-wiping rag as he ran from the Sniper's Nest to the northwest stairway (to wipe off at least some of the prints on the rifle). He then quickly put on the brown shirt (but left it unbuttoned) at some point after he started to descend the staircase.
It makes the most sense to me that he likely put on the brown shirt while he was descending the stairs. But, with Mrs. Reid's testimony in mind, it could be that LHO was still holding the shirt in his hand when he passed Reid on the 2nd floor, and he only put the shirt on after leaving Reid's sight. Or, it could be that Oswald was wearing his unbuttoned brown shirt the whole time, but Reid just didn't notice it during her five-second encounter with the fleeing assassin.
David Von Pein
January 10-21, 2024
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Embedded below is my copy of Helen Markham's 1964 interview with CBS News. It's a little longer than this other version that has been posted in this thread.
What I find interesting in this video is the part where Markham actually claims that she herself used the radio in Tippit's patrol car. There's a snippet in the interview (right after the DPD radio call excerpt is played) when Markham says "And they heard me". Which implies, of course, that she herself had called in the shooting on Tippit's car radio.
There is, of course, nothing in the Dallas Police transcripts or the DPD audio recordings that would indicate that Mrs. Markham ever talked to the DPD over the police radio. (Unless we're to believe that Markham had the same trouble Domingo Benavides had when attempting to operate Tippit's car radio, and that she just simply could not get through to the dispatcher, but she thought she had.)
David Von Pein
January 11, 2024
================================
SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Far and away the #1 best "Dealey Plaza witness" was the Bell & Howell movie camera being held by Abraham Zapruder.
That camera isn't lying to us or misrepresenting President Kennedy's head wound. That Bell & Howell camera is clearly telling us that the President's large "blow-out" head wound was most definitely NOT anywhere in the BACK of the head:
.gif)
Also See:
David Von Pein
January 16, 2024
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Below is a very interesting video that I found recently at the KFMB-TV
San Diego YouTube channel. It features many "man in the street" interviews with the people of San Diego, California, over the course of three days (November 22, 23, and 24, 1963).
Also included in this video is a fairly extensive 11/23/63 interview with a Mr. Larry Hollis, who was a witness just 24 hours earlier to Lee Harvey Oswald's arrest at the Texas Theater (that interview begins at 15:22)....
Related Videos:
David Von Pein
January 17, 2024
================================
MICHAEL GRIFFITH SAID:
JFK's Dramatic Z226-232 Reaction:
More Proof that the SBT Is a Silly Myth ----> Click Here.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Not only isn't the Single-Bullet Theory a "silly myth", it's almost certainly a rock-solid FACT. And the following Zapruder Film clip, which shows JFK and Connally raising their right arms at the exact same instant, goes a long way toward proving it's a fact:
Also....
I wonder what the odds are of the Warren Commission being able to re-create such a nearly perfect SBT demonstration (via CE903, pictured below) and yet NOT have such a demonstration represent the truth of what actually happened? I wouldn't want to take those odds to Vegas if I was an anti-SBT conspiracy believer. And yet I'm supposed to believe the CTers who tell me that two (or probably THREE) different bullets lined themselves up beautifully so that Arlen Specter could later present this impressive "one bullet" exhibit to the world. Talk about incredibly good luck for Mr. Specter & Company! ....
MICHAEL GRIFFITH SAID ALL THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
JFK isn't "reacting" at all prior to Z226. The HSCA's "Z190" SBT timeline is total nonsense and totally wrong. President Kennedy's right hand is still being LOWERED between Z224 and 225:
Connally's and Kennedy's right arms are then simultaneously moving upward between 225 and 226. And Connally was struck in his RIGHT wrist during the shooting. Just a coincidence? If so, what's causing this rapid up-then-down movement of the exact same arm/wrist that was wounded by a bullet?
CTers have come up with all kinds of lame-ass excuses to try and explain away all of the many things we see going on with Governor Connally in Zapruder frames 224 to 230 (GO HERE to see about a dozen such excuses), but sensible people can easily see through the B.S. and constant denial being exhibited by the conspiracy theorists.
Re: the HSCA's absurd "11-degree upward angle" of the bullet path through JFK's upper back and neck....
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Location Of JFK's Back Wound
David Von Pein
January 26, 2024
