JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 975)

RON ECKER SAID:

Oswald rode to and from his job at the TSBD with Wesley Frazier on Fridays and Mondays, to spend weekends in Irving. How did he get to work on the other days of the week?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I believe he took a bus, Ron.

There was a bus stop right outside his front door at the Beckley roominghouse. And I think there was also a bus stop on the corner of Elm & Houston outside the TSBD front door too. So Lee wouldn't have even needed to walk more than a few steps to get to a bus stop at either location.

And the "bus stop" thing is something I've brought up in the past too. Because if there was a bus stop right there at Elm & Houston Streets, then why (if he wasn't "on the run") would he have walked several blocks east of the TSBD on Nov. 22 just to catch his bus? Why not just wait at the Elm & Houston corner?

That was just one of the unusual things that LHO did on both Nov. 21 and Nov. 22, 1963.


GREG PARKER SAID:

Ron, this is a question I have raised a number of times.

The official story - as DVP was quick to point to - is that he took the bus.

Now maybe DVP can point to the interviews with all the fellow commuters and bus drivers that the authorities no doubt easily tracked down. After all, who knows what info that would yield? Maybe he was in the habit of reading Das Kapital on the bus? Maybe he sat up the back murmuring vague threats against authority figures?

While he is at it, maybe DVP can also show where those daily fares are accounted for in all the work done on Oz's finances?

Or maybe the story is a crock because he never lived at that address. Ever.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think it's logical to conclude that the whopping total of approximately $1.60 per week for LHO's bus fares would be included in the monthly category the Warren Commission reserved for "Estimated cost of food, clothing, and incidental expenses".

Yes, the WC did include a separate entry for the $1.23 that Oswald spent on bus and taxi fares on 11/22/63, but the meager total that Lee spent on the bus for the rest of the month could easily have been covered by the $75.00 that the WC allowed in the "Food & Incidental Expenses" category.

And maybe Greg can tell me why the housekeeper at 1026 North Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff, Earlene Roberts, said all of these things about Lee Oswald (aka "O.H. Lee") in the interview below. Among other things, you don't think she actually saw the real Lee H. Oswald hurriedly enter his room on Nov. 22nd at all?

And then there's an interview with the landlady of the Beckley roominghouse, Gladys Johnson. Was she a liar too, Greg? Or was she also fooled by some "Oswald double" posing as "O.H. Lee"?....







GREG PARKER SAID:

The total amount has no bearing. There are a number of definitions of "incidental expenses" - none of which include REGULAR expenses. What would fit such a definition is the ALLEGED bus and cab fare of Nov 22, since he did not use the bus REGULARLY on Friday and taxis, rarely, if ever.

If your case that he lived at that address rests on Earlene Roberts and Gladys Johnson, you have no case.

There was no "O.H. Lee" at that address. There was a "H Lee" who was in room "O" or "0".

Now kindly explain the absence of any attempt to track down those potentially important witnesses who commuted 4 days a week with Oswald. If you cannot explain it, admit you can't.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Everyone please note that Greg Parker just called Earlene Roberts and Gladys Johnson bald-faced liars when he said this...

"There was no "O.H. Lee" at that address."

Why did Roberts and Johnson lie through their teeth about their roomer, "O.H. Lee", Greg?

(Just make up some half-baked excuse if you can't explain it logically.)


GREG PARKER SAID:

Wasn't the dump recently put on the market for $500,000?

Hasn't [it] been used as a museum for a long while as part of some grand Oswald tour?

Didn't Gladys ask to keep the scrap of paper she brought in to the WC so she could sell it?

There is your motive.

Now about those commuters who would have been great witnesses?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, I guess we can assume that Gladys and Earlene got rich (quarter of a million each perhaps?) by lying about "O.H. Lee". Right, Greg?

And what about the cops who searched Oswald's room and gathered up OSWALD'S personal belongings?

Did Earlene and Gladys "plant" Oswald's belongings in a room he never actually rented?

You're a riot, Greg.

(And I'd bet my next Langley check that you don't believe Oswald rented a room from Bledsoe either. Do you?)

And, Greg, what about the phone number WH 3-8993 that was in Ruth Paine's address book (CE402), which was the number of the Beckley roominghouse? That was a number given to Ruth by Lee Oswald himself. And yet he never was there at all? ....

RUTH PAINE -- "I said, "Is Lee Oswald there?" He said, "There is no Lee Oswald living here." As best as I can recall. This is the substance of what he said. I said, "Is this a rooming house?" He said "Yes." I said, "Is this WH 3-8993?" And he said "Yes." I thanked him and hung up."


GREG PARKER SAID:

Ah, David.

So phone numbers can't be inserted any time? Or maybe she knew someone else living there?

What sort of idiot gives his wife a contact phone number for when she goes into labor and then neglects to tell her, but when you ring, you need to ask for OH Lee?

Why does he live at Bledsoe's under his real name but then immediately start using an alias at his next address and then he doesn't even give it to his pregnant wife, making it impossible to contact him?

You are not stupid. You can see the multitude of issues. If you gave a rat's patootie about the facts, you'd admit it. The whole thing about that address stinks. That you won't admit it, but will persist in avoiding the issues raised while deflecting with polemical questions, shows you live by an agenda, not any need to establish facts.


GREG PARKER ALSO SAID:

Why were those commuters not tracked down?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No idea. Nor do I care in the slightest. It's irrelevant. This type of peripheral crap only matters to rabid CTers like Greg Parker.


GREG PARKER SAID:

Why was the question of transport from N. Beckley avoided like the plague?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No idea what you're talking about. But, again, it's chaff. Meaningless.

Plus: WHY would anybody want to pretend Oswald lived in a roominghouse if he didn't? (Oh, yes, to get rich after the assassination. Sorry. I forgot.)


GREG PARKER SAID:

Why were the costs not accounted for?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

They were. In "Incidentals". The paltry fare would only be about $1.60 or so per week (8 individual bus trips to and from work). Oswald might have been able to find that much in the seat cushions in the Beckley living room while watching television.


GREG PARKER SAID:

Why do you avoid the issue of H Lee living there?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Who's avoiding it? Big deal. An "H. Lee" lived there. Okay. But so did an "O.H. Lee" and that Mr. Lee was Lee H. Oswald.

Now all you have to do, Greg, is answer this question:

WHY WAS THIS ROOMINGHOUSE CHARADE EVEN NEEDED?

Why?


GREG PARKER SAID:

I see you've moved to ploy number 2. When your deflecting questions get called what they are, you move on to pretending the questions you have been assiduously avoiding answering are pointless, irrelevant etc.

Only you would call potential witnesses who might give investigators vital information pertaining to Oswald's motive, mental state etc as being so unimportant you can dismiss them with "who cares?"

No need to take this any further. You deal yourself out as having any ethics, let alone regard for facts.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's been an established fact for more than 50 years now that Lee Harvey Oswald lived for a few weeks at 1026 N. Beckley Avenue in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff. You, Greg Parker, just refuse to accept that fact (for some reason).


GREG PARKER SAID:

I'd suggest those interested, review the thread and note the issues each of us has addressed and make up your own minds who is avoiding what.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah. I presented actual interviews with two people who knew that Oswald had rented a room at 1026 Beckley (and who actually SAW Oswald at that roominghouse), plus CE402 (Ruth Paine's address book featuring the Beckley phone number).

Greg has produced silliness like this....

"Maybe the story is a crock because he never lived at that address. Ever."

Not even a close call on this one.

DVP wins. And Greg Parker looks like a desperate CTer who can't possibly explain the logic of anyone wanting to pretend Lee Oswald lived at a particular address in October and November of 1963. But it somehow makes sense in Greg's CT world. I guess the "Beckley ruse" somehow was supposed to make Oswald look GUILTIER of murdering the President. ~shrug~


GREG PARKER SAID:

Yes, witnesses who had motive to lie, as I showed.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Incredibly, folks, Greg Parker is seriously wanting people to believe that Gladys Johnson AND Earlene Roberts AND Ruth Paine AND (apparently) the Dallas Police all got together to make it look (falsely) as though Oswald rented a cubbyhole room at 1026 Beckley in the fall of '63.

The DPD gets in on the act by (apparently) only PRETENDING to seize Lee Oswald's possessions from the roominghouse.

Whose items WERE seized by the DPD then, Greg? Or did the DPD just make it all up about seizing ANY items from that location?

And let's just have a look at a few of the items that the Dallas Police took possession of while searching Oswald's room at 1026 Beckley after the assassination....

Letter to Lee Oswald, dated August 2, 1963.

Letter to L.H. Oswald, dated July 31, 1963, from Communist Party U.S.A.

Letter to Lee H. Oswald dated December 13, 1962.

Letter to Oswald dated December 19, 1962.

And more HERE.

And yet Greg Parker doesn't think Lee H. Oswald set foot inside the 1026 North Beckley roominghouse--ever.

Incredible.

This is what happens when a foolhardy, crackpot theory gets put on the table. An LNer like me will come along and thoroughly debunk it with hard evidence (like CE402 and the Johnson/Roberts interviews, not to mention the WC testimony of those women to boot), while the CTer pushing the fairy tale does nothing but flop around on the deck like a fish out of water.

Greg, you're flopping around, in case you hadn't noticed. And you've got nowhere to go, because every single solid FACT is against you.

You need one liar on top of another --- Roberts, Johnson, Paine, the DPD, and probably Marina too.

Everybody's lying. And for WHAT purpose again, Greg? You never did tell us? The "Let's Get Rich By Pretending Lee Harvey Oswald Lived Here" excuse is laughable, of course. So try something else that won't make you blush so much.


GREG PARKER SAID:

Roberts, like Wes Frazier, was a godsend to the cops. All they needed from her was that he lived there, and he came back there. She gave them both of those things. They could disregard everything else she said. It worked, didn't it? The lie that Oswald lived at that dump and came back on Nov 22nd to pick up a pistol has lasted 50 years.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, it was such a good lie that Mrs. Roberts even got the patsy to believe it....

"I [Dallas Police Captain J. Will Fritz] asked him [Lee Harvey Oswald] where he went to when he left work, and he told me that he had a room on 1026 North Beckley, that he went over there and changed his trousers and got his pistol and went to the picture show." -- Warren Report; Page 601

Amazing woman, that Earlene Roberts.

The stupid things some CTers believe continue to boggle the mind 50 years on.


GREG PARKER SAID:

And the register was not taken as evidence, but was destroyed by Gladys (according to her grand-daughter). You have some fantastic witnesses!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good, job, Greg. Right on cue. More liars.


GREG PARKER SAID:

And you have nothing to say about the willful destruction of evidence in the biggest case in US history which would have either verified that they were not lying - or proved that they were.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Greg,

But you just said that it was Gladys Johnson who "destroyed" the Beckley Avenue register with O.H. Lee's name on it.

But she's not a law enforcement official. She's a private citizen. So it wouldn't have been a case of the police deliberately destroying evidence. Or do you think Gladys was working in cooperation with the DPD and/or FBI?

Other private citizens who destroyed evidence were Marina and Marguerite, when they burned a backyard photo of LHO in their hotel room on 11/23/63, which is a backyard photo that most CTers think never existed in the first place. (I wonder what picture they burned?)

And btw, I got a kick out of Greg Parker talking about how the Beckley register was destroyed by Gladys Johnson, who is the very same Gladys Johnson that Greg thinks had a motive to lie because she wanted to make a bundle off of the (fake) fact that LHO had lived at 1026 Beckley.

I realize that from Greg's oddball POV of LHO never setting foot inside 1026 Beckley in his life, Mrs. Johnson would have had no choice BUT to lie about the "O.H. Lee" registration because nobody EVER signed the register with that name. So, per Parker, Gladys had to make up yet another lie and say she had destroyed the register page that never existed in the first place.

But I just think it's humorous and ironic. Because I'm sure Greg thinks that Gladys would have just loved to have been able to sell that "O.H. Lee" signature on E-Bay for $56,575. Wouldn't she, Greg?


GREG PARKER SAID:

I see you've moved on to ploy 3 - putting words in the mouth of the other person, and reinterpreting their position in a manner that allows it to be rebutted. Talk about irony! That's exactly what Fritz did with Oswald's alibi.

What's that called in your case again?

Oh that's right - being a total fucking xxxxx who knows he can do this because he is protected by fucking rules designed to fucking protect utter arseholes like you.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Sweet talk will get you nowhere. And I reinterpreted nothing.

You, Gregory Parker, just refuse to admit that your "Oswald Never Stepped Inside The "Dump" At 1026 North Beckley" theory is a lame-ass and stupid theory.

And I doubt you can find more than one or two conspiracy clowns on the Internet who agree with your idiotic theory. Can you?

But at least you can make yourself feel better by slamming ol' DVP around and calling him a xxxx xxxx xxxx [fill in the expletive of your choice].

Ain't the First Amendment grand? (I think so too. So keep it up, you filthy piece of slime.)


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Another thing that's kind of ironic about the ridiculous "OSWALD NEVER LIVED AT 1026 BECKLEY" theory is that anyone who endorses that theory can no longer ever utter the following words....

Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't have possibly killed J.D. Tippit because he didn't have enough time to get to the Tippit murder site on Tenth Street after leaving his roominghouse on Beckley.

But if Greg Parker is to be believed, Oswald never went to the Beckley roominghouse at all on 11/22/63. And, therefore, the popular "He Couldn't Get To Tenth Street In Time To Shoot Tippit" theory goes flying out the window, because there would be no "starting point" for Oswald's trip to Tenth and Patton at all.

So Greg Parker is discarding one false theory for another one.

The same type of ironic twist exists when discussing Oswald's paper bag (CE142) too. For years, the most popular "paper bag" conspiracy theory was this one....

Oswald didn't take the Carcano rifle into the TSBD on November 22 because the paper bag he carried into the building that morning was too short to hold the disassembled rifle.

But that theory has to be taken off the table if a conspiracy theorist now believes that Oswald never carried ANY large-ish paper bag to work with him at all.

Ironic, isn't it?

But it just goes to prove one thing --- Regardless of which theory they embrace, conspiracy theorists never get anything right.

David Von Pein
July 17-21, 2015


================================

SEVEN YEARS LATER....


GREG PARKER SAID:

You dragged the subject here and now you are attempting to run a mile from it because you cannot refute any one point. Your link proves nothing except that you have a big fat nothing in response. You have not got the balls to try and address me point by point. Do one of the ladies say that there were 2 Mr Lee's living there? No? We all know why.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I refuted all your points.

The videos I posted featuring Earlene Roberts and Gladys Johnson accomplished that "refuting" trick very nicely all by themselves.

Plus, there's the fact that Lee Oswald himself, in his first interview with Captain Fritz on November 22nd, told Fritz he had a room at 1026 Beckley (at 4 H 214):

JOSEPH BALL -- "Now, in this first conversation, he [Lee Oswald] told you that he had lived at 1026 Beckley, didn't he?"

CAPTAIN J.W. FRITZ -- "Yes, sir. He didn't know whether it was north or south."

Plus, there's Ruth Paine's address book (at 17 H 74), which has the phone number of the Beckley boarding house in it. (But, naturally, Kook Parker thinks that fact means nothing; he thinks it's just one more part of some kind of ridiculous and needless "Let's Try To Make Everybody Think Lee Oswald Lived At 1026 Beckley" ruse.)

But for any reasonable and sensible person, the things I just mentioned above are more than enough to refute and debunk Greg Parker's silly fantasy concerning the Beckley roominghouse.

But please, Greg, keep insisting that Lee Oswald never set foot inside 1026 North Beckley Avenue. After all, we need all of your incredibly stupid make-believe crap so that reasonable people have something to ridicule on a daily basis. And, as usual, the Greg Parkers of the world never disappoint in the "incredibly stupid" department.

David Von Pein
July 19, 2022

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1080)

ROBERT PRUDHOMME SAID:

I was going over the 2nd floor plan of the TSBD earlier, and something struck me as I was looking at it.



In the upper left corner, we have the 2nd floor landing, with the stairs coming from the 1st floor and the stairs going to the 3rd floor shown. There is a door on each stairwell that must be opened. Roy Truly was ahead of Officer Marrion Baker, and Baker would likely have seen Truly making a hard left onto the 2nd floor landing as Baker was coming up to the 2nd floor landing; in other words, he was trying to keep up with Truly, and would have made an identical hard turn.

Now look at the diagram where it shows the vestibule door, leading to the hallway, and the lunch room door just beyond it (follow the solid line into the lunch room). As the WC apologists would have us believe, Baker, on his way to follow Truly to the 3rd floor stairwell, just happened to glance through the small window, in the upper part of the vestibule door, to catch a glimpse of Oswald in the lunch room, walking away from him.

One small problem, though. If you look again at the top of the stairs Baker was exiting, it is plain to see that, if Baker was making a hard left, in pursuit of Truly, he was not in a position for the window in the upper part of the vestibule door to line up with the lunch room door.

How could he have seen Oswald? If Oswald was just the other side of the door, why did Baker not report seeing the door still closing by means of its automatic closer?

Many of the WC apologists will say that Baker did not go directly to the 3rd floor stairwell but, rather, made a wide sweep of the 2nd floor landing, looking for bad guys. Well, there is a bit of a problem here, too, as the photo below shows.



Think the boxes are stacked only in view of the camera? I doubt it, in fact, I'll bet the mess of stacked boxes gets worse as you get into the corner, out of view to the camera's right. The corner, as the diagram shows, is a completely untravelled piece of floor, and that attracts clutter like nothing else in a warehouse.

Baker would have to be 2-3 feet to the right to get any kind of view into the lunch room and, unless he deliberately was attempting to look into the lunch room, why would he climb over a bunch of boxes? His testimony clearly states he saw Oswald quite by accident.

Once again, if Oswald had not travelled the 5 feet between the vestibule door and the lunch room door, would the vestibule door not still be in the process of closing itself, and would Baker not have stated this in his testimony?

As there was no window on the lunch room door, the diagram shows us another potential problem. See how the lunch room door is almost closed in the diagram? Think about that for a bit.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bob,

Do you REALLY think Marrion Baker AND Roy Truly are telling a pack of lies in these 1964 TV interviews? If so....please tell us WHY you think those two men felt compelled to lie like this on national television? ....




GREG PARKER SAID:

Wow! Who knew it was against the law to lie on NATIONAL television? Round [up] every politician in the U.S. and lock 'em up!

Btw, David... this is an appeal to incredulity. A logical fallacy -- which is one of many logical fallacies you employ, but quite obviously one of your favorites.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If the whole Baker/Truly "encounter" was nothing but a lie in the first place, then why in hell didn't the Twins Of Deception (Baker and Truly) make their lie a much better one by saying they had encountered Oswald on the SIXTH FLOOR?

For Pete sake, even Oswald HIMSELF confirmed the second-floor encounter (Warren Report; Pages 600 and 619).

But I guess both Fritz and Bookhout were liars too, huh?


RICHARD GILBRIDE SAID:

The lunchroom incident either happened, or it did not happen. Thanks to the multi-year efforts of Sean Murphy & Greg Parker, a school of thought has emerged that contends that the incident was hoaxed.

They refuse to acknowledge that every item of evidence relating to the lunchroom incident has a mundane explanation, readily available, that supports the incident's reality.

They refuse to acknowledge that there is a set of items, an aggregate — the filmed interviews, the Sept. 23rd affidavit, the will-call counter bump, the lack of corroboration for Biffle's news story, the Martha Jo Stroud document — and every item of this aggregate has to be contorted, beyond common sense, in order to be construed as supporting the hoax.

Even if the researcher successfully un-contorts one of these items, there are four more to justify, and all of them must be justified in order to support a hoax interpretation, i.e. its chances are infinitesmal (if that).

Which means that you, the researcher, must evaluate this Bakerview problem through the lens of the lunchroom incident's reality.

Sean Murphy & Greg Parker are zealots in regards to this issue. They cannot and will not be reasoned with. To admit defeat would entail a loss of their sycophants, and an extreme loss of face. After all, they are the co-discoverers and marketers of this pernicious school of thought.

They might seem progressive, but are actually regressive. In this arena they are sophists extraordinaire.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Plus, Richard, as I said in my last post, if Baker and Truly were just going to MAKE UP an "encounter" with the person they were trying to frame for JFK's assassination, they would have made the encounter occur on the sixth floor, not the second floor (which was four floors away from the Floor Of Death).

Placing Oswald on the SECOND floor 90 seconds after the murder doesn't do anything to make LHO the patsy in JFK's killing. In fact, most CTers utilize that exact argument to try and get Oswald OFF the hook--not ONTO the hook. Those CTers will tell me --- Well, Dave, we know Oswald must be innocent--because there's no way he could have gotten down from the sixth floor to the second floor in only 90 seconds.

But now, the conspiracists in the "Baker & Truly Lied About The Lunchroom Encounter" club can never use the above argument ever again, because they think B&T just invented the 2nd-floor incident from whole cloth.

And another oft-heard theory that many CTers must now dump by the roadside is the "Bag Is Too Short" theory. Many Internet CTers now want to pretend that Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle just MADE UP the paper bag story. But it doesn't bother those CTers that Frazier and Randle decided to make their MAKE-BELIEVE BAG too short to hold Oswald's rifle (even though, of course, Buell and Linnie COULD have made their imaginary bag ANY length they wanted to make it).

But such massive illogic regarding the Baker/Truly encounter and the paper bag never even faze a veteran Internet CTer. They'll just pretend the logic gaps don't even exist. Go figure.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

As I wrote in Reclaiming Parkland (p. 193):

​"...the final Commission version does not even resemble the incident that Baker described on the day of the assassination. On that day Baker executed an affidavit in which he described this encounter himself. He described going up the stairs with Truly. Then this startling passage follows:

"As we reached the third or fourth floor, I saw a man walking away from the stairway. I called to the man and he turned around and came back towards me. The manager said I know that man he works here. I then turned the man loose and went on up to the top floor. The man I saw was a white man approximately thirty years old, 5' 9', 165 pounds, dark hair and wearing a light brown jacket."

(p. 194...)

"In the affidavit, there is nothing about seeing Oswald through a window in the door. Nothing about the lunchroom. Nothing about a Coke. They weren't even in any room, but near a stairway. And the guy he saw does not appear to be Oswald. He was older, heavier and he was wearing a brown jacket."

~~~~~~~

And let us not leave out that Baker signed this affidavit not once but twice. And further he made out the handwritten version in the witness room--with Oswald sitting about five feet away from him. He almost had to fall over him to walk out.

And you are going to say that he never once asked this guy, "Didn't I stick a gun in your stomach in the lunchroom of the TSBD earlier today?"

Can you imagine at that phony baloney trial in London if that ingenue Spence had waited for Bugliosi to go ahead and take Baker through his paces. He then stood up and looked at Bugliosi, and said something, like "Vince, you are about to be taken to school." Walked over to the witness, put this affidavit in front of Baker, asked him if he recognized it, waited until he said yes, and then turned, walked over to the prosecutor and started reading it right in front of Bugliosi.

I would have paid a lot of money to have been there for that. When Lee Oswald really would have had a defense.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

As usual, James DiEugenio doesn't have the slightest idea how to properly evaluate the sum total of the evidence connected with the various sub-topics associated with the JFK murder case. In this particular instance, Jim has decided that Marrion Baker told a bunch of lies in his Warren Commission testimony and in his 1964 CBS-TV interview.

And Jim believes Officer Baker lied about the lunchroom encounter even though Jim knows about Roy Truly's 11/23/63 affidavit, wherein Truly confirms that both he and Officer Baker saw "Lee Oswald" in the second-floor lunchroom within just a couple of minutes of the assassination.

So now Jim has no choice but to believe that BOTH Marrion L. Baker AND Roy S. Truly were big fat liars when it comes to the topic of their lunchroom encounter with Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963.



DiEugenio probably thinks the above affidavit filled out by Depository Superintendent Roy S. Truly is totally worthless and completely bogus due to the date that is on it -- November 23rd. Jimmy thinks that the fix was in by that time. So that means that anything Roy Truly said on the 23rd must have been the result of coaching by patsy-framing members of the DPD and FBI. Right, James?

As far as Baker saying "Nothing about a Coke" in his 11/22/63 affidavit, that's easy to explain, which I do, RIGHT HERE.

Re: this comment made by DiEugenio....

"And the guy [Marrion Baker] saw does not appear to be Oswald. He was older, heavier and he was wearing a brown jacket."

....as I told Hank Sienzant recently:

"I like to keep this "Assassination Arguments Part 1000" page handy whenever somebody tells me that it would have been utterly impossible for any witness to think Lee Oswald weighed as much as 165 pounds." -- DVP


GREG PARKER SAID:

"I rushed into the building with a policeman. He thought the shooting came from the roof, and we ran up the stairway. On the second floor, he stuck his head into a snack bar we have, and saw Oswald sitting at one of the tables. "Does this man work here?", the policeman asked. I said, "Yes he does". We continued up the stairs. That was when Oswald left the building." -- U.S. News and World Report, Dec. 8, 1963

Egads! According [to] you, DVP, Truly LIED to the national media!!!!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, Greg, do you want to throw Truly under the bus because he (allegedly) said that Oswald was sitting at a table?

Does that discrepancy mean the "encounter" never took place at all?

Egads indeed!


GREG PARKER SAID:

Ah... so it's okay for him to lie to the media all of a sudden? Your double standards would embarrass a lesser mortal!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If you take multiple statements made by the same witness to the same event, you'll likely find some minor differences in how they tell their story with each re-telling. Your inability to account for this reality would embarrass any reasonable and fair-minded mortal.

But, let's face it, your mind has been made up on this thing for years. You're going to toss Roy Truly under the bus no matter what. And to hell with common-sense inquiries like this one that I offered up earlier today:

If the whole Baker/Truly "encounter" was nothing but a lie in the first place, then why in hell didn't the Twins Of Deception (Baker and Truly) make their lie a much better one by saying they had encountered Oswald on the SIXTH FLOOR?


GREG PARKER SAID:

In various statements, Truly and Baker between them had Oswald walking away from the stairway, sitting in the lunchroom, leaning on the table, and standing beside the coke dispenser.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And so you think BOTH Baker & Truly were so dumb, so stupid, so idiotic, they decided to alter their totally fabricated lie a half-a-dozen times??

And would you care to explain WHY the evil Baker/Truly twins decided to put Oswald on the SECOND floor via their lies---instead of the SIXTH floor?

How does putting him on the second floor do the patsy-framers any good at all?


GREG PARKER SAID:

But you do have something right. Roy Truly is going under the bus. No "ifs" no "buts".


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gee, what a shocker.


GREG PARKER SAID:

Why didn't they put him on the 6th floor? Are you serious? That's hilarious!

The Headline:

DUMB DALLAS COP CATCHES SNIPER RED-HANDED BUT RELEASES HIM! HIS SUPERIORS DESCRIBE HIM AS SLOW WITTED.

Subhead:

Building superintendent arrested as accomplice after vouching for shooter.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, right. Too funny. As if Baker and Truly KNEW the sniper had been on the sixth floor as of 12:31:30 on Nov. 22. (Is that going to be your next lame-ass theory, Greg --- that Baker & Truly knew the "sixth floor" was the Floor Of Death as of 12:31 PM?)

Regardless of the FLOOR NUMBER, this headline would still apply....

DALLAS COP CATCHES SNIPER BUT RELEASES HIM!

Greg,

You think Jim Bookhout lied on WCR Page 619 too, right?


GREG PARKER SAID:

No I don't.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good. Then you agree that Oswald himself said he encountered the policeman on the second floor.

It's good to have that finally settled. Thanks.


GREG PARKER SAID:

Oswald's interrogations and the subsequent reports are [a] different kettle of fish. I am working on a major piece about those.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Will the number of liars in that "major piece" be three dozen or four dozen?


GREG PARKER SAID:

Baker supposedly stuck his gun in Oswald's gut for being in a second floor lunchroom. He thought the shots came from much further up. Don't you think if he catches someone on the 6th floor, he is going to hold him?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No. Not unless the person was carrying a gun. Baker very likely would have let him go from the sixth floor (just like he did on the 2nd floor) after Mr. Truly identifies LHO as just another employee. Baker originally thought the gunshots came from the roof, not the 6th floor (or any other floor).


GREG PARKER SAID:

The number one rule of a cop interrogation is to lie through your teeth at every opportunity. It's just policy and nothing personal, you understand.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Is that Rule #2A from "The CTer Guide To Make-Believe JFK Conspiracy Theories"?

But such a rule probably is in place for many Internet CTers. Otherwise, outer-fringe conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio and Greg R. Parker wouldn't be able to build up their lists of never-ending liars in the JFK case nearly as easily.

Good imaginary rule, Greg. It keeps you from having to accept the reality of Lee Harvey Oswald's obvious guilt.


BART KAMP SAID:

Refute that Truly was full of it when he said he was ahead of Baker, when two newspaper interviews clearly state he was behind him!

[...]

Refute that Baker can't keep his story straight for one second!

Refute that Reid did not lie her sorry arse off, with Hine being inside the office clearly stating that between 12:25-12:35 no one was in that office and the first person that came in was a cop!

[...]

Refute that Truly spoke to Brennan!

[...snipping remainder of fantasy-filled nonsense...]

[...]

I can go on till the cows come home DVP, this matter has bypassed you and taken you over again leaving you a full lap behind, seriously this whole thing has moved on big time!

Oh and there's a 30 odd page update in a few weeks, so get ready and refute that torrent of evidence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I know I shouldn't be the least bit surprised anymore when I see Internet conspiracy fantasists travelling to the ends of the Earth digging up things to try and justify their bizarre beliefs (like their super-nutty fantasy about the second-floor Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter never occurring at all), but the level of denial about certain things relating to President Kennedy's assassination that exists within some quarters of the "JFK Conspiracy Community" on the World Wide Web has just about reached levels of unparallelled proportions in the last few years (IMO). And, frankly, it's just plain crazy.

David Von Pein
December 24-26, 2015
January 29, 2017

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 641)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I was surprised that Professor McAdams didn't respond to DiEugenio's repulsive and far-fetched 2-part anti-McAdams smear piece that's been online for a long time now [linked below].

PART 1 --- PART 2

It could be that .John did respond in some fashion and I just missed it.

But it could also be a situation where DiEugenio's accusations and slurs against John are so outrageous (and downright hilarious--which they are, of course) that Mr. McAdams felt no need to reply at all. Just a smile and a shake of the head are enough.

However, in my own personal case of being attacked in print by Jimmy D. four years ago, I could not resist getting in a few healthy swings in rebuttal to DiEugenio's non-stop silliness (Parts 1 thru 5)....

DVP VS. DiEUGENIO

I only wish Ruth Paine and Buell Wesley Frazier would step up to their computers (if they have any) and type out something to put that silly little man named James DiEugenio in his proper place. A nice little slander suit against JD wouldn't hurt things one bit either.

I get a little sick of seeing Jimmy D. propping up his fantasies as if they were rock-solid, proven facts. When, in point of fact, DiEugenio has no PROOF of any wrong-doing on the part of Ruth Paine or Wesley Frazier.

But to a JFK conspiracy theorist like Jimbo, pure out-and-out speculation is a perfectly reasonable substitute for something called "Proof".

Ruth? Wesley? You out there somewhere?


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

I have better things to do than waste time with a loon like DiEugenio.


BRAD SAID:

To Reitzes, McAdams, Von Pein, Harris:

All of you are talented authors that do a great public service with the time you invest in explaining your take on the murders of President Kennedy, Lee Oswald, J.D. Tippit & the attempted murder of John Connally IMO. What you all have to say matters. Regardless of what anyone posts on the Internet, that is how I feel.

When it comes to bashing [a] person online, I believe in a fair fight. Otherwise, I see it as a case of bullyism. Nothing about a bully appeals to me at all in any way.

Most, if not all of Jim DiEugenio's critiques are posted online at CTKA. I've read David Von Pein's online rebuttal but haven't seen a response from the good Professor [John McAdams] or Mr. Reitzes yet. Each week I look for something.

I am sure Jeff Morley has his hands full trying to maintain balance on his website in an effort to be fair & objective. Those 2 words are drilled into the mind of every professional journalist, along with the words 'who, what, when, where & why'. It takes courage to write about people & organizations that have the capacity to kill them once their piece is publicized.

Just between us, I'd like to see all of you here working with Jeff someday. Between all of you combined no stone would be left unturned. The public couldn't ask for better IMO.


GREG PARKER SAID:

That link is to a thread about the closure of the [Education] forum. You posted a link to THAT thread about DiEugenio.

Why didn't you just post the same link here if that is what you wanted to bring attention to? I don't know why you would want to anyway... but some people really are gluttons for punishment.

Btw, you can bring Ruth Paine on any time. I have a few questions for her that have never been asked of her previously. She can't lie to me because I already have the answers.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, sure Greg.

I'd love to see you go up against Ruth Paine. Even at age 81, she'd make mince meat out of your silly conspiracy theories surrounding her. I can hear it now:

GREG PARKER -- "Hi, Ruth. Can you tell me if you helped plant Lee Harvey Oswald in the Book Depository in October of 1963? And what did you get out of it yourself? And are you connected with the Central Intelligence Agency (like your sister is, even though you pretended to know nothing about her involvement with the CIA)?"

RUTH PAINE -- "Your questions are ludicrous, Mr. Parker. Now let me ask you a question -- do you have even one ounce of proof to back up your vile accusation that I helped "plant" Lee Oswald in the Depository, or that I was part of some CIA plot to assassinate President Kennedy? I'll answer that question myself, Mr. Parker -- the answer is: No, of course you don't possess an ounce of proof to back up those claims. Nor does any other conspiracy theorist on this planet. So you are free to leave the room now. I'm done with you. And good riddance."


Ruth's simulated answer above would have been prefaced, of course, by a considerable amount of laughter from Mrs. Paine, which is exactly what happened when Ruth had to answer that same ridiculous "Are you a CIA agent?" question when Gerry Spence asked it in 1986:





And Greg Parker might like this 2013 video featuring Mrs. Paine. I'm guessing that a lot of conspiracy believers must think that Ruth is up to her waist in lies here:





GREG PARKER SAID:

David, as much as you desire with all your heart and soul to IMAGINE I'm talking about some theory or other, I assure you I am not. I am in possession of verifiable facts that I would like to ask her about. I am sure she will pull the same schtick you are pulling right now. But that will just underline how uncomfortable these facts are for her.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What's the first question you'd ask her, Greg?


GREG PARKER SAID:

David, the questions aren't for public consumption - yet. The answer to one however, will soon be available.


[MORE CAN BE FOUND HERE.]


February 20, 2014
February 21, 2014

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 986)

KENNETH DREW SAID:

Almost 52 years and no one has put up any evidence that would convict LHO. Most nutters don't even try. All they do is stand up and try to shout louder that all the CTers have is that everyone is lying. That's not the way the justice system works. If you want to prove someone did it, you show the evidence. If you have no evidence, there is no case. That's where we are: No Case.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Regardless of how many times you say a stupid thing, it's still a stupid thing. And the above quote by Kenneth Drew is really stupid. And it's provably wrong.

But that fact won't keep Kenny Drew from telling me 101 more times that I have presented "no evidence" whatsoever of Oswald's (double) guilt. Ken will just gaze, unseeing and unfazed, at all of the many things in evidence that point directly to Lee Oswald....

http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

And after glancing at or just totally ignoring that list altogether, Ken will return to his keyboard to write tripe like this once more....

"There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle, there is no proof of what weapon was fired at him, there is not one piece of evidence linking any human to having fired at him, and there is not one piece of evidence that any shots have ever been fired from the sniper's nest. To sum it all up, your total is Zero." -- Kenneth Drew; June 1, 2015

That's the type of fantasy world Ken Drew wishes to live in. Sad, isn't it?

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

Reality Break....

"During my examination of the evidence in preparation for the [1986 mock] trial, I found that virtually every piece of evidence against Oswald maddeningly had some small but explainable problem with it. However, two things became obvious to me: One was that Oswald, an emotionally unhinged political malcontent who hated America, was as guilty as sin. Based on the Himalayan mountain of uncontroverted evidence against Oswald, anyone who could believe he was innocent would probably also believe someone claiming to have heard a cow speaking the Spanish language.

Secondly, there was not one speck of credible evidence that Oswald was framed or that he was a hit man for others in a conspiracy to murder the president. I meticulously examined every major conspiracy theory that had thus far been adduced, and although there were a few (a precious few) that at first blush seemed plausible, upon sober scrutiny they did complete violence to all conventional notions of logic and common sense. Though there are some notable exceptions, by and large the persistent ranting of the Warren Commission critics, some of whom were screaming the word conspiracy before the fatal bullet had even come to rest, came to remind me, as H. L. Mencken said in a different context, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights.

[...]

If Oswald's guilt as the lone assassin is as obvious as I suggest, why, one may logically ask, the need for this extraordinarily long book ["Reclaiming History"]? Make no mistake about it. The Kennedy assassination, per se, is not a complicated case. I've personally prosecuted several murder cases where the evidence against the accused was far more circumstantial and less robust than the case against Oswald. .... The case against Oswald himself is overwhelming and relatively routine. Earl Warren himself said, "As district attorney of a large metropolitan county [Oakland, California] for years . . . I have no hesitation in saying that had it not been for the prominence of the victim, the case against Oswald could have been tried in two or three days with little likelihood of any but one result." [Earl Warren, "Memoirs", p.367]

The allegation of conspiracy introduces an element of complexity into the case because it is inherently more difficult to prove a negative than a positive, and this complexity is compounded by the fact that Oswald was a deeply troubled person and a restless Marxist who traveled to Russia and Mexico. But the complexity is only superficial.

[...]

Throughout this book ["RH"], I will be referring to Oswald as Kennedy's killer, and conspiracy theorists, as well as legal purists, have maintained for years that the only proper way to refer to Oswald is "alleged assassin," on the rationale that under our system of justice in America, a suspect or defendant is presumed to be innocent until a jury finds him guilty in a court of law.

But this invests a power and legitimacy to a verdict of guilty or not guilty that it does not have. A verdict of not guilty, for instance, cannot change the reality of whether or not the defendant committed the crime. That reality was established the moment of the crime, and nothing that happened thereafter can ever change it. If a courtroom verdict could, then if the defendant actually robbed a bank, but the three witnesses who saw him do it were unavailable to testify against him at the trial (e.g., the defendant's associates had either killed them or threatened them into not testifying), his subsequent not-guilty verdict means he didn't really rob the bank.

In other words, the jury verdict succeeded in doing something that God can't even do—change the past. Likewise, if someone did not rob a bank, but in a case of mistaken identity he was found guilty, the new reality is that he actually did rob the bank. To those who have challenged my calling Oswald guilty throughout the years by saying he was never found to be guilty in a court of law, I've responded that "under that theory, Adolf Hitler never committed any crimes, Jack the Ripper never committed any crimes, and the only crime Al Capone ever committed was income tax evasion." " -- Vincent Bugliosi


GLENN NALL SAID:

You've never destroyed anyone with this doggerel you classify as "evidence."


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And there's the rub. You don't consider ANYTHING "evidence". Nor does Jon G. "Counselor for Oswald" Tidd. Nor does Kenneth "There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle" Drew. Nor does anyone else who thinks Oswald didn't fire a shot at President Kennedy.

The physical evidence in this case all screams Oswald's guilt and everybody knows it. Hence, CTers in the ABO [Anybody But Oswald] club are forced to pretend it's all fake. Because if it's not ALL FAKE, then Oswald is guilty. That is plainly--and simply--true.

I suggest that the ball is in the defense (CTers') court when it comes to the accusation that every last piece of evidence connected with the JFK and Tippit murder cases is artificially crafted (i.e., fake) evidence.

Conspiracists are making the extraordinary allegation that all the evidence is phony. Not LNers. So wouldn't it be kind of nice--just for a change of pace--to have just one conspiracy theorist actually provide some kind of PROOF to back up the idea that the evidence (just ONE piece of it!) against Lee Harvey Oswald is fraudulent?

Or am I asking for the moon when I suggest that CTers actually prove something they say?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Incredible how DVP completely reverses the standard of evidence. Which shows he has no comprehension of what the legal system is all about.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jimmy thinks we're in a courtroom here. Somebody should straighten Jim out on that mistake.

And isn't it funny that BOTH the Warren Commission and the HSCA had no problem at all coming to the conclusion that CE399 was THE EXACT BULLET that injured both JFK and John Connally. And that's a lot of LAWYERS making that claim.

Are you a lawyer, Jim?

That's what I thought.


GLENN NALL SAID:

Understanding basic legal jurisprudence and procedure is not limited to lawyers. Other people are allowed to study and understand the law, too.

On the other hand, continuing to place good faith in the conclusions formed by the WC and the HSCA does seem to be limited to - well, the limited...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah. Limited to people with some basic common sense and an ability to evaluate the evidence properly.


JON G. TIDD SAID:

A certain poster here assumes, absurdly, Oswald's guilt. Once Oswald's guilt, however absurdly, is assumed, one can postulate any "evidence" as pointing toward his guilt. The law doesn't work that way. Evidence is used to establish guilt. The certain poster in question shouts, "evidence!" But all this certain poster is doing is assuming Oswald did it and then taking every scrap of allegation, calling it "evidence", and using it to nail Oswald. Even Pontius Pilate was more logical than that.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's "absurd" to follow the evidence to where it leads, Jon?

Your highbrow legalistic posts are getting more "absurd" and bizarre and hard to follow by the day.

And, considering the amount of evidence that exists against Mr. Oswald, this statement by Jon G. Tidd is downright hysterical....

"A certain poster here assumes, absurdly, Oswald's guilt."

In other words, Jon thinks it's "absurd" to actually rely on the evidence, because, according to Jon, it's not REALLY "evidence" at all because it was never introduced into a courtroom. So, I guess we have to call it something else, or we should just ignore it altogether until it finds its way into a courtroom, which Jon knows can never happen because the defendant is dead.

Wow. Thanks for that lesson in logic, Jon.


GREG PARKER SAID:

[Quoting DVP:] "It's "absurd" to follow the evidence to where it leads, Jon?"

Not at all.

But it is absurd to ignore the indicators of a frame when you are dealing with a man who claimed to be framed by a police force and DA's now infamous for the number of innocent people they locked up with planted evidence, falsified statements, what is known here as "police verbals", rigged juries, terrified defense counsels and crooked judges.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How did that evil DPD force get Oswald to act so guilty and to tell so many lies?

Or did the DPD coerce Oswald to be part of his own frame-up? (Boy, they were good, weren't they?)

And you're not going to sit there and tell me you DON'T think Oswald acted "guilty" in the movie theater, are you Greg?


GREG PARKER SAID:

What lies, David? You simply take the word of others when, given what we know now, you ought not do that.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And you just take the word of the person who was charged with two murders, is that it?

You think, therefore, that the DPD was more likely to lie than was the person who was trying to kill members of the DPD in the Texas Theater?

You ought not do that. (IMO.)


GREG PARKER SAID:

Well, what was McDonald's first statement to the media? He was calm and gave no trouble.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You mean this one?....

"He was cool and calm up until the time that he made that jump for me."
-- Officer M.N. McDonald; 11/23/63




GREG PARKER SAID:

But we'd know for sure if Ron Reiland had not--probably for the first time in his professional career--used the wrong lens filter. How unlucky was that? Your big mistake on the biggest case.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Are you suggesting that there was something sinister going on with Ron Reiland's film?

And, btw, how would Reiland's film have told us "for sure" if there was a fight in the theater even if Reiland had used the correct filter on his camera? He only filmed a brief snippet of Oswald after the police had already handcuffed him and were leading him out of the theater. Are you saying that Reiland actually filmed the fight between McDonald and Oswald? I don't think he did.

HERE is Reiland's film (narrated by Reiland himself).


GREG PARKER SAID ALL THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What a bunch of nitpicking there, Greg.

You're actually trying to impeach McDonald by using Bentley's "he fought like a wild man" quote?? Geez.

Well, AFTER McDonald approached Oswald--and AFTER Oswald had exhibited his "cool and calm" demeanor--Oswald DID fight like a wild man--even McDonald said that.

So, where's the discrepancy? I see none. You're just trying desperately to find something you can hitch your CT wagon to (as per usual).

And that Robertson testimony is hardly proof that Reiland actually filmed the McDonald/Oswald fight....

Mr. GRIFFIN. How close was your photographer to you?
Mr. ROBERTSON. I don't have any idea. He was there someplace shooting his pictures.

Yeah, that sounds really definitive there, Greg.

If Reiland HAD filmed the actual fight in the theater, I'm guessing that that footage (even if it was pitch dark) would have been shown on WFAA-TV on 11/22/63. After all, WFAA televised the really crappy-looking and very dark snippet of Reiland's film showing Oswald being led out of the theater, which is virtually worthless footage because it's so dark. So why wouldn't they show another really dark portion of the film--featuring the actual fight--if Reiland had filmed it? I think they would have.

Then, too, perhaps a portion of the pitch-blackness we see in the Reiland film IS the theater fight between Oswald and the police. It's impossible to tell.


GREG PARKER SAID:

He [Oswald] fought only in self-defense. You know it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Total bullshit. Your nonsense is laughable.

Oswald whipped out a gun and tried to shoot McDonald with it. Stop pretending otherwise.

The CTers' continual attempts at twisting the truth regarding the McDonald/Oswald theater encounter are sickening.

Even Oswald himself admitted that he fought with the police in the theater....

"Oswald admitted to carrying a pistol with him to this movie, stating he did this because he felt like it, giving no other reason. Oswald further admitted attempting to fight the Dallas police officers who arrested him in this movie theater when he received a cut and a bump." -- 11/22/63 FBI Report by James Hosty and James Bookhout; Warren Report, Page 613

But Greg Parker thinks Oswald slugged Officer McDonald in the face and pulled out a gun merely in "self-defense", which is pure tommyrot. McDonald hadn't even drawn his gun when he approached Oswald. So where does any "self defense" argument come into play? Did Oswald think McDonald was going to strangle him with his bare hands?

Self defense? Hilarious. And typical CTer desperation.

Nice job, Greg. Your recent posts further illustrate just how pathetic and paper-thin all conspiracy arguments truly are. Please keep it up.


GREG PARKER SAID:

You need to admit you are more than happy to turn a blind eye to the evidence uncovered over the last few decades showing the disgraceful malfeasance of law enforcement in Dallas during the Wade era. You willfully ignore all of that, don't you, Dave?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's irrelevant in THIS (JFK) case. Oswald's actions pretty much convict him. And the Dallas Police Department couldn't possibly have controlled those actions.

Plus, the U.S. Secret Service would have had to also be in bed with the evil DPD in order for Oswald to be innocent (realistically), since the DPD never even touched CE399 or the two front-seat bullet fragments, all three of which were fired in Oswald's rifle.

So, how did the DPD get the SS (and the FBI too) to jump on board the LET'S FRAME OSWALD gravy train?


JON G. TIDD SAID:

Which actions do you mean, DVP?

And convict him in what sense?

Oswald's location in the TSBD between 12 noon and 12:30 p.m. has been the subject of great debate, as has been his means of transportation following his departure from the TSBD, as well as his route and timing of travel to the Texas Theater. How do you have certainty as to these matters? I'd like to know.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jon,

I mean that Oswald's provable "actions" and movements, in general, certainly point more toward his GUILT than they do his INNOCENCE. Wouldn't you agree? E.G.,

...He leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination.

...He dashes in and out of his rented room to get a gun.

...He acts "funny" and "scared" in Johnny Brewer's shoe store entrance.

...He pulls a gun on the police in the theater and fights with them. (And if this isn't a sure sign that Mr. Oswald had done SOMETHING against the law that day, then what would be?)

...He lied to Buell Frazier about the "curtain rods".

...He carried a long paper package into the Depository on the day of the President's assassination (and lied about the contents of that package).

If you want to dispute each and every item above, feel free to do so. But those are FACTS, in my opinion. They are facts that have been established by a variety of witnesses. Am I to believe they all got together and lied--Roberts, Brewer, McDonald, Frazier, Randle?

And I didn't even mention the Tippit witnesses.


JON G. TIDD SAID:

BTW, you still haven't said what is your definition of "evidence".


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think the various online dictionaries give a very good definition of what I mean when I use the word "evidence". Let's have a look at some of those definitions....

EVIDENCE (noun) --
1. A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.
2. Something indicative; an indication or set of indications.
3. [In Law] -- The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects.

EVIDENCE (noun) --
1. The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

EVIDENCE (noun) --
1. That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. Something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign.

EVIDENCE (noun) --
1. Something which shows that something else exists or is true.
2. A visible sign of something.
3. Material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something.

EVIDENCE (noun) --
1. Something that gives proof or leads to a conclusion.

EVIDENCE (noun) --
1. Ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood.
2. A mark or sign that makes evident; indication.


JON G. TIDD SAID:

Did Bugliosi ever argue that the "evidence" points toward Oswald's "guilt"? Just curious. A competent lawyer wouldn't have said that.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here's what Vince Bugliosi said in his book (emphasis on the word "evidence" is DVP's):

"The evidence against Oswald proves his guilt not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt, or, as they say in the movies, beyond a shadow of a doubt. In other words, not just one or two or three pieces of evidence point toward Oswald's guilt, but more than fifty pieces point irresistibly to his guilt. And not only does all of the physical, scientific evidence point solely and exclusively to Oswald's guilt, but virtually everything he said and did points unerringly to his guilt.

Prosecutors like to argue in their final summation to the jury that "looking at the evidence as a whole" (or "the totality of the evidence," or "all the evidence") makes it clear the defendant is guilty. But in the case against Oswald, one doesn't have to look at all or even most of the evidence to reach the conclusion he is guilty. Indeed, there are many individual things he did, like immediately fleeing the Book Depository Building after the shooting, killing Officer Tippit, et cetera, which by themselves point clearly to his guilt." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 952 of "Reclaiming History"

[End Quote.]

I guess Vince must have been using the following definition of the word "evidence", which is, of course, a definition that all sensible and reasonable people use when they talk about "evidence"....

"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."


Also see (hear) the interview below:





David Von Pein
July 30-31, 2015
August 2-4, 2015

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 599)

GREG PARKER SAID:

>>> "So you believe JFK being shot was a positive?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Huh? WTF?

You're off to a really great start with your rebuttal, Greg. ~smirk~


>>> "Less than 90 seconds, David [that is Greg's detailed timing of when Oswald was seen by Police Officer Marrion Baker and Roy Truly in the 2nd-floor TSBD lunchroom]." <<<

Oh, that's right! Greg Parker was in Dealey Plaza with his stopwatch on November 22nd and was timing every move made by Oswald, Baker, and Truly. I forgot about that.


>>> "Try within a minute [Oswald being seen by either Pierce Allman or Robert MacNeil]." <<<

That's based on your timing of these things with your own stopwatch again, eh Greg?

And I don't imagine that Greg finds it the slightest bit odd that Lee Oswald wanted to leave the scene of the crime only one minute (per Greg's clocked account of when Oswald left) after the U.S. President had just been shot outside LHO's workplace.

It was just another ho-hum, ordinary Friday around the Book Depository on November 22. Nothing big happening at all.

Right, Greg?


>>> "Yet you would have him in suicide mode inside the TT [Texas Theater]." <<<

Why would you say that?

You think Oswald's pulling a gun on police officers in the theater was a sign of him being SUICIDAL?

LOL.

It's a sign of just the opposite, of course -- i.e., he wanted to kill the cops before they could kill him.


>>> "Then he [LHO] should have headed straight out of the state, no? [after I had earlier said that Oswald "probably wanted to put some mileage between himself and the crime scene as soon as he could"]" <<<

He probably was headed "out of the state". But he never got that far.

Seeing as how he had to walk and use busses and cabs for his transportation, it's not surprising he didn't get very far after murdering the President. (Duh.)

Oswald's post-assassination movements are, of course, a very good reason to know that Oswald was performing a solo act on 11/22/63. But, for some reason, conspiracy theorists always refuse to use their common sense when talking about this case.

So, naturally, in the upside-down world of conspiracy-hungry kooks, Oswald's post-assassination actions (which undeniably are saying "I'm All Alone!") are interpreted as meaning something else entirely by the CTers.

Go figure the topsy-turvy thinking of conspiracists.


>>> "Is there anything in the WCR which is unreasonable, in your opinion?" <<<

Not very much, no. They investigated the murder of the President in great detail....and they arrived at the truth regarding that murder (and J.D. Tippit's murder and Lee Harvey Oswald's murder too).

I have a small quibble with the Commission, though when it comes to the reconstructions of Oswald's post-12:30 movements (see later comments). But that quibble, in the long run, only makes Lee Oswald MORE likely to be the killer of JFK, not less likely.


>>> "Timings established by ludicrous recreations... jogging for chrissakes.... were Baker and Truly in training for a Fun Run or chasing down an assassin?" <<<

During one of the re-creations, the Warren Commission should have had Secret Service Agent John J. Howlett SPRINT across the sixth floor and down the stairs, instead of merely doing two reconstructions at a "normal walking pace" and a "fast walk" [Warren Report, p.152].

I kind of doubt that Oswald was strolling along at a "normal walking pace" after having just shot the President of the United States in the head. A "fast walk"? Perhaps. But, IMO, the WC should have performed at least one re-creation test at a pace that was FASTER THAN JUST "WALKING". But they did not do such a test.

"A test was...conducted to determine the time required to walk from the southeast corner of the [TSBD] sixth floor to the second-floor lunchroom by [the] stairway. Special Agent John Howlett of the Secret Service carried a rifle from the southeast corner of the sixth floor along the east aisle to the northeast. corner. He placed the rifle on the floor near the site where Oswald’s rifle was actually found after the shooting. Then Howlett walked down the stairway to the second-floor landing and entered the lunchroom. The first test, run at normal walking pace, required 1 minute, 18 seconds; the second test, at a “fast walk” took 1 minute, 14 seconds. The second test followed immediately after the first. The only interval was the time necessary to ride in the elevator from the second to the sixth floor and walk back to the southeast corner. Howlett was not short winded at the end of either test run." -- WCR; Page 152


>>> "And yet, [after I said this: "The WC didn't merely pick "12:33" out of their collective ass, Mr. Kook. It was a reasonable approximation of the time Oswald left the building, based on the observations of a variety of witnesses"] you will argue WHEN IT SUITS YOU, as does Bugliosi, that "time estimates given by, for instance, a single witness would often change every time the witness was interviewed and nearly always be in conflict with those given by other witnesses. All of this, of course, is normal and to be expected." [End Bugliosi quote] .... Your hero [Greg means VB, of course] shoots you down." <<<

Vince, of course, is correct. Time estimates should be weighed and balanced, and many times they should be discarded entirely, such as Helen Markham's time estimates for the Tippit murder. We know via other evidence that Markham was most certainly incorrect about her "1:06" to "1:07" timing for the Tippit slaying (and at one point she said she thought the murder occurred at around 1:30).

But many CTers think we should let Tippit's murderer (that was Lee Oswald, of course) off the hook because of Markham's timeline (and Bowley's), even though Oswald was positively identified by Mrs. Markham (and others) as Tippit's killer.

With respect to the Baker/Truly/Oswald timeline, conspiracy theorists always will totally ignore the fact that re-creations were done by the Secret Service, FBI, and Warren Commission....all of which favor the likelihood of Oswald being able to get from the sixth floor to the second floor in well under 90 seconds.

And, as mentioned earlier, it's likely that Oswald was moving much faster than Agent Howlett of the Secret Service was moving during Howlett's reconstruction of the event, making it much more likely that Oswald got to the lunchroom on the 2nd Floor in less than Howlett's best time of 74 seconds.

But it's best if CTers continue to ignore these realities. Otherwise, it might make the prized "patsy" look a lot guiltier.


>>> "Mary Bledsloe [sic; Bledsoe] was old and Oswald had only been a boarder for a very short time. Her memory was obviously not good as she needed notes to give her testimony -- and that on the suggestion of Secret Service. Let's be kind and say she was manipulated into her role, or was simply genuinely mistaken, but encouraged." <<<

LOL. Oh, good! More people being "manipulated" by the evil "Let's Frame Oswald" forces that were present in massive quantities in late 1963 in Dallas (and Washington...and New Orleans...and Mexico City...etc.).

That's the CT motto playing out again -- i.e., "IF IT POINTS TO OSWALD, LET'S PRETEND THAT EVERYONE WAS LYING THEIR ASSES OFF IN ORDER TO FRAME HIM".


>>> "McWatters was absolutely not a liar. He told the truth. He was under the impression he was brought in to ID the laughing boy." <<<

Could be. But so what?


>>> "[The paper bus transfer was] conveniently found [in Oswald's shirt pocket] after they got reports of laughing boy and wanted to make Oswald fit that role. In fact, the transfer was probably given to, and taken from young Master [Milton] Jones." <<<

You kooks are a riot.

You think that the cops even went to the trouble of lying about something totally meaningless -- like the bus transfer in Oswald's pocket.

Naturally, you have absolutely no good-enough reason to suspect the authorities of foul play with respect to the bus transfer (or anything else). But that won't stop you from planting a seed of suspicion against the Dallas cops. Right, Greg?

In a word -- Pathetic.


>>> "There is also this from a commission letter to the FBI re McWatters... "...changed his story to the effect that he was mistaken when he identified Oswald as the individual who rode on his bus on 11/22/63. McWatters stated that the person who was the subject of his testimony was a young teenager named Milton Jones." <<<

Big ol' LOL here! [In fact, I think two are needed in this instance.]

The conspiracy theorist named Greg Parker actually seems to think that the above statement by the Warren Commission regarding bus driver Cecil McWatters is something that can be utilized by kooks such as Mr. Parker to somehow paint the Commission and/or the DPD (et al) as lying, rotten crooks in some fashion. (You DO think that the WC was full of nothing but lying, rotten crooks who were bent on finding Oswald guilty, don't you Greg?)

In reality, that particular transmission from the WC to the FBI shows the HONESTY of the Commission in general. It's also called: GETTING THE FACTS STRAIGHT (which is something that CTers never seem capable of doing).


>>> "He [LHO] denied it [being on the bus] initially, and we only have the word of his interrogators that he recanted." <<<

And, naturally, those "interrogators" never would tell the truth. Would they, Greg?


>>> [After I said this: "Oswald also readily admitted that he was stopped by a policeman inside the TSBD just after the shooting. (The cops are all liars, right? Plus Truly? Plus Bledsoe? The list of liars grows and grows whenever you talk to a conspiracy kook.)" -- Greg Parker then uttered this batch of retarded idiocy:] "No. He was stopped. Just not by Baker and not on the 2nd floor." <<<

Good! More liars to add to a kook's list -- Marrion L. Baker and Roy S. Truly.


>>> "LOL. After two days, this simple action of a bus ride had not been fully fleshed out???!!! Yet these were the genuises [sic] who got their man in record time? Come on." <<<

The "not fully fleshed out" conclusion is, of course, the only reasonable one to come to.

But to a conspiracy kook, it's MORE reasonable to think that a bunch of people were trying their darndest to frame an innocent man for TWO murders.

Sorry, Greg, but my scenario is just a tad more "reasonable".


>>> "The only valid conclusion is that it took time for these moroons to realise [sic] Oswald was not Laughing Boy Milton. But by then, they were not about to admit such an egregious error. Oswald had to be place[d] on that bus now just to save face." <<<

District Attorney Henry Wade (et al) merely were incorrect about Oswald being the "laughing boy". Simple as that.

All reasonable people know that Oswald was on Cecil McWatters' bus on 11/22/63. It's only the retarded conspiracy-happy kooks who want to try and deny that LHO was ever on the bus.

Per the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists, it evidently was "THE WORLD VS. THE PATSY" in November 1963, and everybody in officialdom decided to join in the frame-up of an innocent man.

Right, Greg?


>>> "[It was Milton] Jones' [bus] transfer. No mystery." <<<

So you think somebody planted Milton Jones' bus transfer in Lee Oswald's shirt pocket in order to frame Sweet Lee, eh?

LOL. The lengths you kooks will go to try and exonerate a double-murderer have no boundaries. Do they, Greg?

Didn't think so.

David Von Pein
June 26, 2009

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1314)

"BOZ" SAID:

[Quoting DVP:]

"And yet I think it's Mr. DiEugenio's opinion that Oswald was, indeed, being set up as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder far in advance of the assassination. And yet the architects of this grandiose "patsy" plot apparently don't give a damn that their one and only fall guy is wandering around the FIRST FLOOR of the building (even though the conspirators are planning to frame him as the SIXTH-FLOOR sniper). Brilliant, huh?" -- David Von Pein [August 2009]

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-27.html


STEVE M. GALBRAITH SAID:

Does Mr. DiEugenio believe Garrison's allegations that Oswald, Shaw and Ferrie and others conspired to kill JFK and that, as Garrison claimed, Oswald brought the rifle to the building and yet also believe that Oswald was totally innocent of any involvement in the assassination?

Yes, Garrison said that Oswald was left to take responsibility for the act -- i.e., a "patsy"; but he also believed that Oswald was "in" on the act from its inception. Of course, Garrison (and I guess DiEugenio) believe that Shaw, using the alias Clay Bertrand, tried to hire an attorney (Dean Andrews) to defend Oswald. I wouldn't consider that abandoning Oswald.

Furthermore, does he believe that these three oddballs--Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald--hatched this idea at a party in New Orleans (with people around them listening to them discuss the idea!) and then somehow got the CIA, DPD, Pentagon and dozens of others to go along with it?

Are their any limits to the credulity of some in the conspiracy crowd?


STEVE M. GALBRAITH ALSO SAID:

How would they know where Oswald would be at the moment they shot JFK? If he had an alibi, if he was out on the street or back at Ft. Worth [sic; I think Steve meant to say "Irving" here] with Marina or anywhere where others could see him, then he couldn't be framed.

In order to frame a person for a crime they can't have an alibi; they must be "frameable". So you must not only know where that person is at the time of the crime you must be sure that you know that others aren't with him at the time.

So, how did they control this one small, but enormously complex, problem?

We know: they just did, right? The evidence for this, the proof is that they pulled it off. No details are needed.

And so it goes.


GREG PARKER SAID:

You know that is not the way police frame anyone, Steve. They kept him away from legal counsel, hammered him with questions, lied to him, presented false evidence to him, took his palm-print just prior to doing the paraffin test, ensuring a positive result on the hands, intimidated witnesses, allowed witnesses to view line-ups together, had older, better dressed police personnel in line-ups, and on and on.

If the cops and FBI were so cocksure they had the case cinched, why was Lovelady saying everyone was so relieved when he ID'd himself in the Altgens frame? Could it be because Oswald was telling them in the interrogations that he was out on the steps?

I will say again for the umpteenth time -- they didn't care where Oswald was or what he did. He was "frameable" so long as he turned up for work and was not clearly shown in any films to be elsewhere. If he didn't turn up, or left to go to lunch somewhere else, they frame someone else in the building. No shortage of potential there.

The most important thing was to break him and get a confession (as they did with numerous innocent people before and after Oswald). When that failed, he was executed without trial.


GREG PARKER ALSO SAID:

Can you quote anyone saying Oswald was the "one and only" fall guy they had?

It wasn't made "well in advance" but even Wade initially claimed it had to have been planned weeks or months in advance. That of course was prior to the requested switch to a LN scenario.

Those behind the hit didn't care what Oswald did. If he had phoned in sick that day, we may be here now discussing Frazier, Molina or one of the African-American workers instead. But Oswald didn't phone in sick, nor were his actions controlled. He was deliberately allowed to leave by Truly and then reported missing. Once DPD got a sniff of Oswald's ties to the Soviet Union, the plotters knew they could rely on them to do whatever it took to nail him.

If the Darnell or Weigman [sic] films had been immediately available, if they had not been blurry and clearly showed Oswald on the steps, and the films were shown on TV before they could be suppressed, Oswald is released and they frame someone else from that building. Or claim Oswald was a lookout and the shooter escaped. A conspiracy of two losers instead of one.

DVP's ploy is no different to many others... always pretending there are only two choices in any question - and only he/they get to say what those choices are. Here, it is either one patsy in a massive conspiracy, or one lone nut.

It's a false dichotomy and it's about time some of you started trying to win your arguments without relying on such cheap tactics. It is not any way to find the truth. You ARE interested in the truth, aren't you?

Imagine if all law enforcement agencies only ever considered two diametrically opposite scenarios? Wouldn't that be a joke? Of course it would. Just like DVP's posts are a joke when they rely on this method.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So you think your made-up conspirators (aka: the unknown/unseen "they") actually had MULTIPLE "patsies" lined up to be framed for the murders of both JFK and Officer Tippit on 11/22/63?

Such a "Multi-Patsy" scenario, of course, would have made it DOUBLY (or triply?) difficult for the patsy-framers that day. Keeping just one guy where they needed him to be in order for him to be conveniently framed would be a hard enough chore. But you're now suggesting that the make-believe "they" had more than one such patsy ready to go on November 22. (That's hilarity at its finest, Greg.)

Care to go out on a limb and tell us WHO the second patsy was supposed to be on 11/22? And was there a third one waiting in the wings on "stand by" status as well?


REPLAY....
GREG PARKER SAID:

Those behind the hit didn't care what Oswald did. If he had phoned in sick that day, we may be here now discussing Frazier, Molina or one of the African-American workers instead.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, Greg. And the DPD could have also called up "Patsies For All Occasions, Inc." (located on Commerce Street in downtown Dallas) and ordered two or three more back-up patsies (just in case Wesley Frazier, Joe Molina, or one of the African-American TSBD workers didn't work out as the #2 patsy behind Oswald).

In other words, according to Greg Parker, it seems that all the Dallas Police Department had to do was snap their collective fingers and--Voila!--a patsy is born! Nothing to it at all. It's as simple as moving bishops and pawns around a chess board. Right, Greg?

And let me ask this----

If Depository employee Joe Molina had been utilized as a "back-up patsy" by the DPD (or FBI or Secret Service or whoever), just exactly how do you think that frame-up would have been accomplished on 11/22/63? Would they have (somehow) quickly created a new set of fake documents to show that it was really Molina, instead of Lee Oswald, who owned the C2766 Carcano rifle (which is the rifle that all reasonable people know killed President Kennedy)? Or would "they" have framed Molina using a different weapon entirely?

And how on Earth could the DPD have possibly "framed" Joe Molina for the murder of J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street? Would the crooked cops have been able to get Ted Callaway and Helen Markham and Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis and all of the other "I Saw Oswald" witnesses to somehow say they saw Joe R. Molina instead?!

In other words, how could all of that "OSWALD KILLED JFK & TIPPIT" evidence that we currently have piled up against the door in this case somehow get turned into "MOLINA KILLED JFK & TIPPIT" evidence?

And just SAYING it could easily be done isn't going to cut it.

Talk is mighty cheap. But most conspiracy theorists seem to thrive on such inexpensive chatter.


GREG PARKER SAID:

You once again demonstrate that the only way you can debate is by putting words in the mouths of others and "debating" what you wish they had said.

Let me spell it out for you. The frame was so shoddy, it could have had only limited pre-planning, if any at all. If there was any "patsy" pre-planning, it was in having potential patsies in other parts of the motorcade. Russell McLarry might be one example.

If they had to rely on framing someone inside the TSBD and they were unable to use Oswald for whatever reason, I suspect that the next in line was probably Givens.

The idea seems to have been to toss someone to the DPD and let them do what they do best - make (up) a case against their suspect.

Your desperation in trying to twist this into a complicated multi-level conspiracy involving a cast of thousands won't work with me friend.

It was your garden variety DPD frame which just happen to be applied in the biggest case of the 20th century.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, like I said before, you think the cops could (and would!) just snap their fingers and come up with an instant patsy on a moment's notice.

You don't even seem to realize how silly and utterly ridiculous this statement of yours is....

"The idea seems to have been to toss someone to the DPD and let them do what they do best - make (up) a case against their suspect."

David Von Pein
March 18-20, 2019