JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 94)

ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

When you say [Jackie] would leave her dying husband, and only worry about her own safety, that is basically what you are saying [that Jackie was a "coward"].


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Goodie. More stuff being mangled by a rabid conspiracist.

I never said that Jackie went to the trunk because she was worried about "her own safety". Never once did I even HINT about such a thing. In fact, that's just dumb. Because if she had been only concerned with her own "safety" at that moment, she would have cowered to the bottom of the limo's back seat, away from any more potential gunfire. But, instead, she did exactly the opposite....making herself a bigger target out on the trunk.

I said she probably went to the trunk to merely get out of the way of the falling (bloody) body of her husband....which is almost certainly the truth of the matter. She almost certainly did NOT have it in her mind at that point in time (2 seconds after the fatal shot, mind you) to go out on the trunk and get a hunk of JFK's head. That's just idiotic, IMO.


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

She [Jackie] could have "jumped ship" when JFK brought his arms up and supposedly said, "I'm hit".


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

JFK never uttered a word. Only Kellerman made that claim. But the two women (Jackie and Nellie), who were closer to JFK than Kellerman was, testified that JFK said nothing at all after he was shot.


J. LEE RANKIN -- "Do you recall anyone saying anything else during the time of the shooting?"

JACQUELINE KENNEDY -- "No; there weren't any words. There was just Governor Connally's. And then I suppose Mrs. Connally was sort of crying and covering her husband. But I don't remember any words."


I wonder why you believe Kellerman, but won't believe Jackie (or Nellie) in this regard?

But, anyway, this "I'm hit" topic is just one more meaningless subject that goes nowhere for CTers. Because even if JFK did say those words...who cares? So what?

We can see via the Z-Film that Kennedy HAD, indeed, been "hit" by that point in time (i.e., by the time he reached toward his throat and mouth area, which is the point in time when Kellerman claimed the "I am hit" dialogue was being spoken). So it's a moot point anyway. It solves nothing.

BTW, if JFK had really uttered those five words ("My God, I am hit") that Roy Kellerman claims were said by the President, why can't we see JFK's lips moving and forming those words on the zoomed-in version of the Zapruder Film?

We can certainly SEE John Connally making his "Oh, no, no, no" statement on the Z-Film. But JFK's lips seem to be shut tight. Wonder why...if he was actually saying something after being hit by a bullet?


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

Do you realize how close JFK's and Jackie's heads were when he was hit with the fatal shot? Very close. That is further proof to me that only a professional could have made that shot in a moving vehicle (albeit a very slow moving vehicle) and NOT hurt Jackie at all.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You believe that kind of stuff because you are a complete and utter nutcase/kook. No reasonable person, when confronted with the "LHO Did It" evidence on the table, would believe that ONLY a "professional" would have had the capability to hit JFK but not wound the person sitting next to him.

You're getting goofier by the minute.


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

Why did [Jackie] wait for the fatal shot before leaving?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well...um...uh...maybe because she didn't have a bloody body FALLING TOWARD HER IN THE CAR prior to Frame #313 of the Z-Film. (Could that be it?)


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

You make her sound horrible. Like she said, "Oh well, he is dead, and I'm getting out of here".


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Goodie. More garbage out of the mouth of the kook that I need to set straight.

Your last statement is total bullshit and completely misrepresents what I said about Jackie's post-shooting movements.

Jackie starts to move toward the trunk within TWO SECONDS of the fatal head shot. Probably a little less than that even. Do you really think that I think that Jackie was thinking "Oh well, he is dead, and I'm getting out of here"?

If you do think that I think that, you're nuts. (Well, more nuts than you were an hour ago, I should say.)


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

I knew you wouldn't even attempt to answer how the Harper fragment was 25 FEET back and to the left of the car at the time of the shot.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Great! More chaff from a CTer, even though a barrel of wheat can be accessed regarding the Harper Fragment:

"The 'Harper fragment' was discovered around 5:30 p.m. on November 23, 1963, by Billy A. Harper. .... Dr. [J. Lawrence] Angel...declared the Harper fragment to be 'clearly parietal bone' that had come from 'roughly the middle of the right parietal' area (i.e., above the right ear)." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 236-237 of the CD Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

Also See:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

Why have people schooled in different disciplines then if a Vet and a Urologist can do forensic wound evaluations? Why spend and waste money on different programs at schools if one degree fits all, right? What a nut job.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, you are.

Since Dr. John K. Lattimer was a urologist, it means you get to ignore his definitive tests regarding human skulls and their reactions when hit by Oswald-like rifle bullets....right?


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

It is still not the same, since the head attached to a body is different from a skull by itself.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah...which (IMO) make the tests performed by Dr. Olivier and Dr. Lattimer even MORE effective (in a "JFK's Head Could Certainly Have Reacted This Way Too" kind of fashion), because an unattached skull is more likely to be blown FORWARD (i.e., away from the shooter), not BACKWARD (toward the gunman), because (duh!) it has NOT BEEN ATTACHED TO A HUMAN NECK.

And yet what happened virtually every time in those Olivier/Lattimer tests?

Answer -- The unattached skulls went BACKWARD toward the gunman anyway.

And yet, to CTers, this "Moved Toward The Gunman" fact is irrelevant.

~large shrug~


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

Furthermore, when a man who has no experience in an area uses more people with no experience in the area to assist, it goes downhill even quicker.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why don't you get a rifle, and a test skull from the graveyard that's right next to your trailer park, and perform your own "Skull Test" like Lattimer's? Let's see how your test skulls behave.

Oh, no, wait. That won't work. Because you're only a garbage man. So that means that any skulls that you take a shot at with Oswald's exact ammunition won't count. You need to have some kind of "degree" in ballistics or forensics or something, in order for YOUR shots to count as "valid" shots into test skulls using Lee Harvey Oswald's ammunition and a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

Sorry, forget it. When you get your "I'M ALLOWED TO SHOOT A TEST SKULL" degree, let me know.


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

I never mentioned ballistics, as that is not the point here. I said FORENSIC WOUND experience. You know what that is, don't you? It is what two-thirds of the doctors lacked during the autopsy of a man who was SHOT! It matters a lot.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

A "forensics" degree means zilch when you're simply performing a test to see which direction a test skull will move after being struck by a bullet. Why you think otherwise is the bigger mystery.


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

I guess you think a Proctologist could do open heart surgery too, right?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No. But that proctologist could certainly take a rifle and shoot at a skull to see which way that skull will move after being shot by the gun being held by that proctologist.

Why you think a "forensics" degree is required to pull that trigger is yet another of the many mysteries that surrounds kooks like you.


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

It makes me wonder how [Dr. Lattimer] had them tethered down in the first place.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

He didn't. That was my whole point, idiot.


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

This is all a side issue though, as Lattimer could NOT duplicate the wounds seen in JFK.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Goodie! The kook's gonna change the subject completely. Nice.

BTW, some of the test skulls that were shot by Lattimer did, indeed, show a very similar pattern of wounds to those on JFK.

Of course, as Dr. Olivier explained to the Warren Commission (did you ignore him completely, as usual?), the SCALP on a living human head will certainly have an affect on the bullet wounds and their size.

But in the Lattimer and Olivier tests, obviously no such scalp was present on the dead test skulls. But this difference was noted and accounted for by Olivier.

Conspiracy kooks, naturally, won't be satisfied until a perfect JFK-like duplication with living, breathing human beings is performed. Even then, I'm sure the kooks would come up with some excuse to think that a perfect duplication was "fake" too.

David Von Pein
December 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (DECEMBER 17, 2007)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1095)

ROB CAPRIO SAID:

You can’t show LHO had a pistol on him [in the Texas Theater] beyond McDonald’s word.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Now, folks, I want to use the above quote by Robert Caprio as a good example of the type of off-the-wall, goofy conspiracy theorists who are currently posting on the Internet.

Caprio obviously wants to actually believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did NOT pull a gun on Dallas Police Officer M.N. McDonald in the Texas Theater on November 22, 1963.

Let me repeat --

Based on the implication of the above quote from his e-lips, R. Caprio thinks that Oswald WAS NOT ARMED WITH A GUN IN THE TEXAS THEATER.

Now, I ask any reasonable person: Given that position being held by Rob Caprio, should we really place a single ounce of trust in him regarding ANY other portion of the JFK case?

I mean, if he's willing to believe that Oswald really didn't have a gun on him in the theater, then he's probably willing to believe almost any other crazy theory connected to the events of 11/22/63.

Plus, in order to believe that Oswald was unarmed in the theater, Caprio has to believe that Oswald himself lied about it. Because we know from the police interrogations that Oswald ADMITTED to being armed with a pistol in the theater. (And it's only natural that he would, indeed, admit to being armed in the theater. How could he possibly deny it, since he was caught red-handed with a gun in his hands.)

Oswald told the police these things shortly after his arrest, which are quotes from Oswald that Caprio must think the Dallas Police Department just made up from whole cloth (paraphrasing Oswald's words [source: Mae Brussell's article, "The Last Words Of Lee Harvey Oswald"]):

"The only thing I have done is carry a pistol into a movie."

"I fought back there, but I know I wasn't supposed to be carrying a gun."

"When I left the Depository, I went to my room, changed my trousers, got a pistol, and went to a picture show."

"You know how boys do when they have a gun, they carry it."

----------

Plus, Caprio is forced to call ordinary Dallas citizen Johnny Brewer a liar too, because Brewer said this during his Warren Commission testimony:

"[Oswald] just knocked him [McDonald] down for a second and he was back up. And I jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun come up and--in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air. .... And there were a couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and they took the gun from him."

And there's also Brewer's similar 1986 remarks about Oswald being armed:



In the final analysis, I think we can all safely say (without fear of too much argument) that Robert Caprio is a certifiable idiot when it comes to any and all matters dealing with the assassination of the 35th U.S. Chief Executive.

David Von Pein
September 8, 2011

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 350)

ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

The REALITY is the document you referenced has the word CARBINE on it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So what?

The serial number is the key, you idiot.

The word "Carbine" is typed (or stamped) on Waldman Exhibit No. 7,
whereas the serial number (C2766) and the Klein's internal "control
number" (VC 836) are printed by hand on the document/invoice -- which
makes perfect sense, of course. (Except if you're an 'ABO' kook who
wants to start believing that Waldman #7 is a "fake" document and that
the handwritten portions of the document were written in at a later
date, just to implicate Patsy Lee. I'm quite sure that there are many
CTers who do, indeed, believe in that precise scenario.)

But as anyone can easily see on Waldman #7, those internal documents
used by Klein's Sporting Goods are designed so that some of the
information that ends up on them is supposed to be written in by hand,
vs. some of the information being stamped (or typed) on them.

Pre-stamped (or pre-typed) information on those Klein's documents
includes such info as the item number of the merchandise being
purchased (which in Waldman #7 would be the "C20-T750" item
number that Oswald ordered with the magazine mail-order coupon, plus
the words "ITALIAN CARBINE 6.5 W/4X SCOPE", plus the price of "19.95",
plus "CON #" and "SER #").

It's obvious that those specific "CON" and "SER" numbers are meant to
be written in by hand on every order that Klein's processes:



So, if Oswald had stood trial for JFK's murder....and after the
prosecutor had shown the jury Waldman Exhibit #7, and after the
prosecution gets William Waldman to take the stand to testify to what
all of the markings on Waldman #7 mean (which anybody with a brain
could figure out for themselves, of course, but the prosecutor needs
to have Waldman say it all on the stand anyway), and after Robert
Frazier of the FBI takes the stand to testify that the rifle found in
the TSBD on November 22 had the exact same serial number stamped
on it as the number that appears in Waldman #7....

The jury would then, unless it was comprised of 12 kooks named
Rob Caprio, quite obviously have come to the only possible reasonable
conclusion they could come to with respect to whether or not the TSBD
rifle (CE139) is the same rifle that was shipped by Klein's to "A. Hidell"
at P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas on 3/20/63.

And that reasonable conclusion, quite naturally, is -- Yes, they are
the same weapon.


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

PROVE your assertion that LHO was sent a 40" Carcano.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Waldman Exhibit 7 proves it. Because the serial number of the rifle
mailed to Oswald was "C2766", which is stamped on a 40.2-inch MC,
not a 36-inch MC.

Mark VII. And case closed.

Rob, if you can't figure out these really, really easy things, how can
you possibly hope to figure out some of the more difficult problems
connected with this case -- like, say, figuring out whether or not
Lee Oswald was a boy or a girl?

David Von Pein
October 15, 2008

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 65)

CONSPIRACY THEORIST ROB CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "I disregard your theory because you have no real proof." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I guess by "real proof", you mean a tape-recorded confession of Lee Oswald
saying at the top of his lungs -- "I KILLED JFK" and "I KILLED J.D. TIPPIT".
Right, Mr. Kook?

But that still wouldn't prove anything to a conspiracy kook. You'd just say
that Oswald was coerced into confessing to two murders that somebody
else committed (with Oswald's arsenal of weapons).

~sigh~


>>> "I go where the evidence leads." <<<

If that were true, you'd be an LNer, of course.

Truth is, being a kook, you go where the kooky conspiracy authors lead
you. You really have no mind of your own. You think you do. But your
mind belongs to John Armstrong, Mark Lane, Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison,
and Joan Mellen.


>>> "He [Proverbial Patsy Lee Harvey Oswald] is as innocent as DVP." <<<

What makes you think I'm innocent?

I was hiding in the sewer with four other killers on November 22nd, you
dumbbell!


>>> "We know from his Marine service, LHO couldn't hit the side of a barn--even one standing still." <<<

I love it when the kooks drag out the old tired conspiracy myths all over
again, as if they are new once more. This one regarding Oswald and the
"side of the barn" is Myth #64 I believe.

Truth is, of course, that Oswald was a very good shot by "civilian" standards.
But in the hands (and mind) of a kook, a 212 Marine Corps rating of
"Sharpshooter" becomes a crappy rating owned by someone who "couldn't
hit the side of a barn--even one standing still".

Amazing ignorance.

You're some kind of "CT Plant", aren't ya Robby? Sent here to make
even Benjamin Holmes, David G. Healy, and Walter Cakebread look like
the cream of the conspiracy crop, right? You can fess up. I won't tell
anybody (except our one "lurker" per month).


>>> "If you were so confident in your theory, there would be no need to mock others." <<<

Robby gets another one wrong. Still batting .000 for the season. But he
thinks he's leading the league at .455 (or even 1.000 probably).

Truth is, I'd mock your nuttiness even if I were a conspiracy theorist.


>>> "I didn't wake up one day and say "Geez, JFK was killed by a conspiracy". I read a lot about the case in college and approached it in a fair way, but the evidence...is so weak that it would not stand up in court." <<<

It could have just SAT there, dorment on a table, with no prosecutor
present at all, and Lee Oswald would have been convicted of at LEAST
one murder (Officer J.D. Tippit's).

And unless the jury box was filled with O.J. Simpson's jurors, LHO would
have hanged for JFK's murder too. Only a kook could possibly believe
otherwise. Because.....

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to do with President Kennedy's assassination and was framed....this otherwise independent and defiant would-be revolutionary, who disliked taking orders from anyone, turned out to be the most willing and cooperative frame-ee in the history of mankind!! Because the evidence of his guilt is so monumental, that he could have just as well gone around with a large sign on his back declaring in bold letters 'I Just Murdered President John F. Kennedy'!!!" Anyone...ANYONE who would believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent, would believe someone who told them that they heard a cow speaking the Spanish language!" -- VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; 1986




>>> "Also, the poor job the DPD did in protecting LHO makes it even more obvious." <<<

And that sloppiness on the part of the DPD on Sunday, November 24th
somehow ERASES all of that evidence that says Oswald killed two people
two days earlier?

Just how does that work, kook? Jack Ruby's bullet suddenly makes ALL OF
THE EVIDENCE against the man he murdered vanish into thin air? (Remember
now, I'm talking to you with the knowledge that you're in the "LHO Shot
No One" club.)

So tell me how Ruby killing Oswald makes Oswald innocent.

I can't wait to hear this tale.


>>> "I can eventually find the cite for everything I say." <<<

Oh, yeah? Including the cite for your assertion a few days ago that
the three shells found in the Sniper's Nest could not be linked to
Oswald's rifle? (Where's the official "cite" for that bald-faced lie?)

Or maybe you're talking about the cite for your other assertion that
the two front-seat bullet fragments were never tied conclusively to
Lee Oswald's Carcano either. (Where's that citation for that? In your
attic, with Babushka Lady and her film maybe?)

You're a CT joke. Time to admit that, don't you think?


>>> "How do you explain him [LHO] denying the deed?" <<<

Most real killers like to separate themselves from their crimes.
Oswald relished the attention. Even one of the DPD detectives said
that. (I think it was James R. Leavelle.) He thought Oswald was
enjoying all the attention he was getting and all the turmoil he had
caused by killing two people in cold blood on Nov. 22nd.

Sure, Oswald wanted to be important on the world stage. He wanted to
do something that changed the world. And he wanted to do something
that people would remember him for.

And guess what, Rob? He succeeded on all three of those counts....if
you just stop to think about it for a minute.


>>> "And claiming to be a patsy?" <<<

Just part of the game Oswald was playing with his captors. He was
aiming that remark at the DPD anyway....not at the people who
supposedly "set him up" as the fall guy before the assassination. Why
can't you see the distinction of that?

Therefore, the kooks can't even win the "I'm just a patsy" debate
(unless you really want to think that the DPD was framing Oz for TWO
murders well in ADVANCE of November 22nd just because of the fact
Oswald "lived in the Soviet Union", which is precisely the reason that
Oswald himself gave for being "taken in" and for being used as a
"patsy").



So, was Oswald ONLY telling the truth when he uttered that one word --
"patsy" -- but he was lying about the REASON he said he was being turned
into that patsy? Is that what you want to believe?


>>> "I think I have proved I am your intellectual superior on many occassions [sic] here." <<<

Except when trying to spell "occasions".

Oh, btw, LOL time for your last hunk of hilarity. (I'm being told I'm
intellectually inferior by a nutcase who loves to say "LHO SHOT NO
ONE". I've almost reached my "Irony" capacity for today.)


>>> "Almost nothing you write is your own opinion." <<<

Goodie! The kook's still without a base hit in 2007!

Better start reading the stuff at the website below then:




>>> "They were afraid of him [Jim Garrison] because he was on the right track." <<<

Jim Garrison made a mockery of justice by trying to convict a man he
knew had zilch to do with the murder of the President.

Garrison was pure slime. Top to bottom.

But at least you have a "Mellen" you can latch on to. She'll keep
propping Mr. Slimeball up from time to time so you won't lose faith in
good ol' Jimbo.

Just never read Garrison's 1967 Playboy article (it might make you
cry...or reach orgasm...I'm not sure which, since you're such an
Anybody-But-Oswald nut).

"Instead of referring to [Clay] Shaw (or "the defendant") a great number of times as he tried to connect him to the conspiracy and murder, as any prosecutor would do if he believed the person he was prosecuting was guilty, unbelievably Garrison only referred to Shaw ONCE in his entire summation, and then not to say that the evidence showed he was guilty. NOT ONCE did Garrison tell the jury he had proved Shaw's guilt or that the evidence pointed toward Shaw's guilt." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 1380 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)




>>> "They attacked his [Garrison's] service record, they claimed he was gay, they claimed he didn't really care about the dead president, as his only goal was fame for himself. They exaggerated things that he said. .... They basically did the old character assassination tactics." <<<

Oh, cry me a fucking river! (Pass me the Garrison-embossed Kleenex,
Mr. Kook.)

If anyone's "character" ever deserved to be "assassinated", it was the
character of Earling Carrothers Garrison.

But, it seems fitting of your own character to defend Garrison's. I wouldn't
have expected anything less from you.

(Current Rob Batting Average: .000.)


>>> "Well, I don't personally think there was a man in the sewer." <<<

Hey! You just managed to foul a pitch off! Pretty soon you might have
your very first base hit!


>>> "But that brings up a good question: why were the manhole covers not welded shut? They are supposed to be by protocol." <<<

Yeah, kinda like that impossible-to-enforce Secret Service rule about
there being "no open windows" anywhere along the President's motorcade
route, right?

Just...not...doable. Period. (Fletcher Prouty's absurdities notwithstanding.)


>>> "You are forgetting the main point here: [Johnny] Carson was out to discredit him [King Garrison] up front." <<<

And Johnny did a damn fine job of it too.

For that I say -- Hail Johnny!!

"Mort Sahl got him [Garrison] on the Johnny Carson show on January 31, 1968. Johnny may have been a comedian, but he had a good, solid head on his shoulders, and he could spot a phony, or at least an empty vessel, when he saw one." -- Vince Bugliosi; Pages 1369-1370 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)




>>> "Again, like Marina, he [Robert Oswald] was afraid for his life." <<<

Oh? Robert Oswald told you this personally, did he? First I've heard
of that. (Luckily, though, we have "Triple-Zero" Caprio setting the
record straight about so many different things surrounding 11/22/63.)


>>> "Any testimony he [Robert Oswald] gave is suspect." <<<

That's the kook in you talking (again).

And the Robert Oswald quote I provided earlier wasn't "testimony".
It was said by Robert in the year 2003, for heaven's sake.

~sigh time~

BTW, you just struck out. Again.

C'mon, at least get hit by a pitch every now and then. This is
getting too easy.


>>> "Furthermore, from what I have read over the years they [Robert & Lee Oswald] weren't that close." <<<

Ah! You just fouled off another pitch. But, while it's true that they weren't
really, really "close", they were still blood brothers, and Lee did look up to
his big brother as a kid (especially after Robert joined the Marines). That
was the main reason that Lee wanted to join the Marine Corps in the first
place, because his big brother had joined. Plus, of course, to get away
from that kook of a mother they both had. That's one of the main reasons
Robert join the Marines too, in fact.

Maybe we shouldn't underestimate the unseen powers of "brotherhood".
When Robert visited Lee in jail that weekend in November 1963, Robert
could see that Lee was probably guilty. And Robert never seemed to
waver from that initial first feeling.


>>> "Remember, Lee was gone a lot doing his intelligence work." <<<



And Robert Caprio had a camera right there focused on Lee the whole time,
watching LHO sneaking off on his clandestine meetings to do "intelligence"
work for the Government (or whatever other made-up organization Rob
thinks might be appropriate to insert into the fairy tale today; the
"Oddfellows" maybe?).


>>> "Anyone over the age of 10 can tell you it is impossible for LHO to have done this all by himself." <<<

I see. I guess the Warren Commission was made up of all 9-year-olds then.

And I can tell Vince Bugliosi that he's young again once more!


>>> "There are also those pesky other attempts on JFK's life in the weeks prior to Dallas. How does this compute on your radar?" <<<

They'd compute better if there was just some semblance of PROOF that
any "attempts" had actually been made on JFK's life in those other
cities (Chicago, Tampa, or Miami).

There is the guy who was caught with a carload of ammunition and
weapons. But where's the TIE-IN TO DALLAS with respect to that
apparent ONE-MAN operation? There is none.

Furthermore, how does that incident of the guy with weapons in his
trunk tie in (in any fashion) to any of the colorful characters that the
CTers believe DID kill Kennedy in Dallas? Answer: It doesn't. At all.

It was another kook/loner who MIGHT have tried to kill JFK before
11/22/63. But, since he was grabbed well ahead of time, we'll never
know if he would have tried something or not.

It's just too bad that James P. Hosty was sleeping on the job in
November 1963. He was just about the only person in Dallas (except
Marina, who already knew of Lee's capacity to take a human life via
the Walker murder attempt in April) who possibly could have made a
significant difference in the way things turned out in Dealey Plaza.

Unfortunately, though, Hosty (as of November) didn't know about the
Walker attempt, and he had no really good reason to suspect that
Oswald was a danger to the President.

The rest is (tragic) history.


>>> "He [LHO] wanted to be someone so bad that after pulling off what every expert rifleman in the world said they couldn't do, he claims he is innocent and just a patsy. How does this make any sense?" <<<

Already explained earlier. Oswald did want to be "somebody". And by
SUCCESSFULLY KILLING THE PRESIDENT and then basking in the turmoil and
chaos and undivided attention that he ultimately received, he GOT HIS
WISH.

Why is that impossible to understand?

Oswald wanted to be "somebody". But he wanted to be a LIVING somebody
at the same time. He was not suicidal. And the Tippit killing demonstrates
that amply.


>>> "He [Robert Oswald] likes breathing..." <<<

And so too did his brother, Lee. (Just like I said above.)


>>> "His [Robert Oswald's] words don't mean much, as it is impossible for LHO to do what they said." <<<

Strike three! (Yet again.)


>>> "Who respects him [Vincent Bugliosi]?" <<<

Many, many people.

I wonder who respects Robert Caprio though? (The opposing pitchers in
this JFK Ballgame love you, though; because you're an automatic
strikeout every time up.)


>>> "He [Bugliosi] hasn't tried a case in like, what? 20 years?" <<<

So what?

(Strike 1.)


>>> "He [Bugliosi] is washed up." <<<

Bullshit.

(Strike 2.)


>>> "And if he [VB] didn't write this loser book ["Reclaiming History"] no one would be talking about him now." <<<

Hit the pine, kook.

(Strike 3!)


>>> "I would love to give you a spelling test offline. I'm sure you are not really that good at spelling either." <<<

Yet another wrong answer from Robby-boy.


>>> "I don't use a program to spell check on this board..." <<<

Nor do I.


>>> "We know he ["Always Innocent" Oswald] didn't shoot JFK or J.D. Tippit." <<<

Another classic quote to add to Rob's ever-growing list of idiotic statements.
Thanks. Your "idiot" file is already enormous. Nice job.


>>> "But he [Patsy Oswald] did shoot himself in the marines." <<<

That's funny, I thought it was another part of his body. (Where's the
"Marines"? Is that near the big toe someplace?)

:-)


>>> "Your full name is Dave of Dumb." <<<

That doesn't even earn you a final foul tip, Robby my man. It's a
swing-and-a-miss.

I wonder what kind of silly manager keeps sending a boob up to the
plate who hasn't gotten a base hit the whole season?

I'll ponder that question as Rob "LHO Shot No One" Caprio whimpers
back to the dugout, bat in hand (as usual), after being demolished
once more on the JFK field of reality.

David Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 24, 2007)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 64)

CONSPIRACY NUT ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "Speaking the truth causes some to mock, i.e., those paid to defend the government's lies..." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm paid to specifically mock kooks, not to support the Government.
Can't you get ANYTHING right, ever?


>>> "...but I don't care what you think, as you are in the very small minority." <<<

Yeah, just disregard the lone-assassin truth since you're on the side
with the largest head count. Right?

Nice policy. If you're a kook.

By the way, the particular theory you subscribe to ("LHO shot no one")
is certainly NOT the majority opinion in the USA. It's a much-smaller
minority, in fact, than the minority of 19% which currently (as of
2003 anyway) believes in the Lone Assassin scenario.

Maybe you should re-think your Anybody-But-Oswald position (since
you seem to enjoy the company of other warm bodies around you
for conspiracy support).


>>> "It is me, you miss the point. What I say is who I am." <<<

Okay. Have it your way, kook.

So, given those parameters, I guess I now am supposed to despise YOU
as a human being too (instead of just despising and mocking your
idiotic position regarding the JFK murder case).

That's too bad, too. Because outside the confines of the JFK case,
you're probably a pretty fair-minded person. That's just a surmise
anyway, because a lot of JFK kooks are nice, reasonable people when
they step away from this case for awhile.

It's only when they climb the Grassy Knoll that they become
unreasonable, conspiracy-seeking nutcases. An odd disease indeed. And
one that perhaps psychiatrists and medical doctors worldwide should
try to find a cure for (or at least a NAME for it....maybe "Patsy
Paranoia Plague" or somethin' like that there).


>>> "I don't make up stuff to earn a paycheck." <<<

No, you just make up stuff for free.


>>> "I write what I feel." <<<

And to hell with the evidence!

"I FEEL CONSPIRACY! THEREFORE, A CONSPIRACY EXISTS!"
"I FEEL A PATSY! THEREFORE, A PATSY WAS FRAMED FOR
TWO MURDERS IN '63!"

Classic.

Can I play too?.....

"I FEEL AS THOUGH I'M CONVERSING WITH A BRAIN-IMPAIRED KOOK!
THEREFORE, ROBERT C. IS A KOOK OF THE RETARDED VARIETY!"

(Hey! You're right, Rob! It works! Thanks for that "I WRITE WHAT I
FEEL" tip, man!)


>>> "The first thing they did to Garrison was discredit him and who he was." <<<

And the fact that Jimbo was spouting utter nonsense and unsupportable
allegations against totally innocent people regarding the assassination
of a U.S. Chief Executive should be overlooked, right?

BTW, what was the "first thing" that you think the unnamed "they" did
to Jim Garrison in order to "discredit" him (outside Jim's foolishness
about the JFK case)?

Just wondering.


>>> "IF the person is discredited, then anything they say is discredited by extension." <<<

But there's no need to go about things in such a complicated, backward
fashion. The bullshit and unsupportable tripe gushed incessantly by
the kook will "discredit" him all by itself.

Just listen to Garrison on NBC-TV on 1/31/68 on "The Tonight Show".
His 5-gunmen (one in the sewer drain), 1-patsy, Anybody-But-Oswald
nonsense is utterly hysterical....and is pure unprovable garbage that
discredits the moron all by itself.

There is no need to go outside the JFK case to discredit him. Because
WITHIN the JFK case, King Kook Garrison easily self-implodes.




>>> "You really should learn this stuff, as you are being paid well with our tax money to do your job." <<<

Yeah, the one "lurker" per month who comes into this asylum needs to
know his tax money is well-spent, right? So I'd better shape up to
meet the 'Kook Standards', huh?


>>> "Who is your boss again?" <<<

If I told you, I'd have to "arrange" a car accident (kinda like we did
with Lee Bowers in '66). You catch my drift, right?


>>> "I want to report that Davy is going soft." <<<

And I want to report that Robby is a kook. (Not exactly a brand-new
bulletin, granted. But worth repeating daily.)


>>> "We give [reasonable explanations surrounding the assassination evidence] all the time, but your job won't allow you to accept what is being said." <<<

It never occurs to kooks like Robby that "what is being said" by the
CTers like Robcap is worthy of being mocked and ridiculed.

That might be the biggest irony of all.

BTW, Robcap.....Do you think that Robert Oswald probably knew his own
brother a little bit better than most people knew him? (Certainly
better than you or I knew him, right?)

If so, what do you make of Robert Oswald's following comments? .....

"It is my belief....my conviction....no one but Lee was involved --- period. .... He had problems at home. He had problems on his job. He was completely frustrated about what was going on around him. This is not EXCUSING what he did. This is UNDERSTANDING what he did. He wanted to be somebody. And this opportunity came about coincidental. Nothing planned. Nothin' organized. It HAPPENED that way. It's one of those happenstances of history." -- Robert Oswald (Brother of Lee Harvey Oswald); 2003

Is LHO's brother a dirty, rotten, no-good, Government-sponsored shill
too? Or don't you think that Lee's brother has studied the case enough
to offer up an informed opinion about the assassination that is worth
considering?

Just curious.


>>> "Reason number 1,112 why he [Vince Bugliosi] is a total ignaramous [sic; more irony; what's NOT to love about this kook?! I ask you?!]. He's a moron too!" <<<

The classic hits just keep on flowing from the "Kwazy Kook Kwarters"!

In this installment, we've got a crazy kook (Rob C.) calling a
respected attorney and author (Vince B.) a "total ignaramous [sic]"
and a "moron". (With the kook [Rob C.] also burying himself further by
saying that he's got 1,111 OTHER reasons to know that VB is a "total
ignaramous" [sic], to boot.)

And this comes from the e-lips of a mega-kook who can say the
following probably without exhibiting any redness in the face at all
(or even giggling a little bit, if you can imagine that).....

"LHO SHOT NO ONE." -- Robert Caprio

Rob's middle initial MUST be "I" (for "Irony"). Either that, or "K",
for...well, you know.

David Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 23, 2007)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 729)

ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

...LHO spent a good part of his time on the first floor and NOT the sixth floor as we have been led to believe.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What a silly discussion this is.

Even if Oswald really did spend most of his time on the first floor in the course of a normal day at the Book Depository, we know beyond all doubt that he WAS on the sixth floor shortly before the assassination on 11/22/63 because Charles Givens places him there at about 11:55 AM. (Not to mention Howard Brennan placing Oswald in the Sniper's Nest window at the time of the assassination itself.)

And the various TSBD employees who raced the elevators downstairs at about 11:45 also ALL verified that Oswald was on an UPPER floor (either the fifth or sixth floor) when the boys were taking the two freight elevators down for lunch.

So you're doing no harm at all to the "Lone Assassin" version of events. And this thread is really doing more harm than good to the CTers' theory about Oswald being innocent, because Lee Oswald's presence on the sixth floor shortly before JFK was killed, coupled with the known fact that NONE of the multiple orders that were on Oswald's clipboard on November 22nd were filled, indicates that his presence on the sixth floor around noontime on 11/22/63 could be considered outside of the "normal" location for him to be located at ANY point in time on ANY given work day in the building, and with a clipboard full of UNFILLED orders, his presence on that sixth floor would most certainly indicate that he was up there for a purpose OTHER than to fulfill his normal duties as an order filler.

Gee, I wonder what that other purpose might have been?


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

You mean the Givens who said nothing about seeing Oswald in his affidavit on the 22nd.

or…

An 11-23-63 FBI report (CD5 p329) on Oswald co-worker Charles Douglas Givens declares:

“On November 22, 1963, Givens worked on the sixth floor of the building until about 11:30 A.M. when he used the elevator to travel to the first floor where he used the restroom at about 11:35 A.M. or 11:40 A.M. Givens then walked around on the first floor until 12 o'clock noon, at which time he walked onto the sidewalk and stood for several minutes...Givens recalls observing Lee working on the fifth floor during the morning filling orders. Lee was standing by the elevator in the building at 11:30 A.M when Givens went to the first floor. When he started down in the elevator, Lee yelled at him to close the gates on the elevator door so that he (Lee) could have the elevator returned to the sixth floor…Givens observed Lee reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M.”

This FBI report expanded on a statement signed by Givens on the day before (24H210). Givens swore:

"I worked on the sixth floor today until about 11:30 A.M. Then I went downstairs and into the bathroom. At twelve o'clock I took my lunch period. I went to the parking lot at Record and Elm Street."

The FBI report on Givens thereby appeared to confirm Oswald's story that he'd come down and had lunch in the domino room, something that seemed unlikely if Oswald had planned on killing the president in 40 minutes and still needed to assemble his rifle.

He changed his story later to say he went upstairs for his cigarettes, and saw Oswald. How convenient.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just because Charles Givens didn't mention seeing Oswald in his affidavit, you think that automatically means he lied in his later statements and during his testimony in front of the Warren Commission?

Silly.

Givens merely didn't mention his brief encounter with Oswald when Givens wrote his affidavit. Such an omission certainly doesn't mean that Givens' sixth-floor encounter with Lee Oswald never happened. Only a conspiracy theorist would possibly believe such a thing.

Plus, we know that there's no good reason for the authorities to start putting words into Givens' mouth about seeing Oswald on the sixth floor, because even WITHOUT Givens' account of seeing LHO on the sixth floor at approximately 11:55 AM, there is still ample witness testimony from other Depository employees who said they saw (and heard) Oswald on an UPPER FLOOR (either the fifth or sixth floor) shortly before noon. Those other employees are Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray Williams, and Danny Arce. And even Givens HIMSELF, in the FBI report Ray Mitcham quoted above, talks about hearing Oswald shout down the elevator shaft.

There is some confusion surrounding some of Charles Givens' statements with respect to Oswald asking to have the elevator sent back upstairs to him, which I talk about in this article.

But even if conspiracists wish to toss Charlie Givens under the bus and deem him a totally worthless liar (which many CTers have done), what do they do with Lovelady and Williams and Arce with respect to their individual observations about seeing (and hearing) Lee Oswald on an upper floor of the TSBD shortly before 12:00 noon on 11/22/63?

With those three witnesses saying what they each said, why would the FBI or the Warren Commission (or anyone else) have felt the need to coerce Charlie Givens to tell some wild tale about seeing Oswald in just about the VERY SAME PLACE at just about the VERY SAME TIME that those three other men saw him?

Many CTers think the FBI (and later the Warren Commission) desperately needed a witness on the inside of the TSBD building to place Oswald on the sixth floor to firm up the FBI's and WC's framing of poor innocent Lee Harvey Oswald. Therefore, per CTers, they got the easily-coerced Givens to add a lie to his story about going back up to the sixth floor to get his cigarettes and then seeing Oswald up there.

But if the goal of the FBI and Warren Commission was to shore up their "case" against Oswald, why wouldn't they have made Givens' lies even BETTER? They could have gotten Givens to say he saw Oswald moving boxes in the southeast corner of the sixth floor. Or they could have gotten Givens to say he actually saw Oswald with a long brown package too.

But instead, Givens' "cigarettes and jacket" story pretty much amounts to nothing more than the testimony given by Lovelady, Arce, and Williams -- i.e., Givens sees Oswald on an upper floor without a package, and without a gun. The biggest difference would be that Givens did place a definitive floor number on Oswald's whereabouts--the sixth floor (the Floor Of Death), whereas some of the other witnesses I mentioned were not quite sure whether Oswald was shouting down his request for an elevator from the FIFTH floor or the SIXTH Floor.

But if Givens' "going to get cigarettes" story was nothing but a fabrication invented by the authorities, it amounted to very little more than what other witnesses were also providing (or would very soon be providing to the Warren Commission).

In addition, I'll also add that Charles Givens' 11/22/63 affidavit is one that is very brief. It's a very short statement made voluntarily by Givens within hours of the assassination. Givens uses short, to-the-point sentences, not elaborating on anything at all--not even the shooting. He merely says "I think I heard three shots".

So it's fairly obvious to me when looking at Givens' 11/22 affidavit (which can be seen here) that it wasn't Givens' purpose at that time to go into very much detail about anything that happened on November 22. He was obviously making it as short as he could. And just because he did not mention his encounter with Oswald on the sixth floor in that very brief statement, that certainly does not mean such an encounter never took place.

Givens' statement given to the FBI on November 22nd (the FBI report was dated "11/23/63" at the top of the document, however) is another matter for discussion. It's true that Givens didn't say anything about going back up to the sixth floor to get his jacket and cigarettes in that November 22nd interview with two FBI agents. But Givens did mention hearing Oswald shout down to have the elevator sent back up "so that he (LEE) could have the elevator returned to the SIXTH FLOOR" (DVP's emphasis).

So it's fairly clear from that FBI statement that Givens was saying he thought Oswald was on the SIXTH FLOOR and wanted an elevator to be sent back up to the SIXTH floor.

With such detail coming from Charles Givens himself about Oswald being on the SIXTH FLOOR shortly before noon on the day of the assassination, why on Earth would the FBI (or anyone else) feel the need to then coerce Givens to add an additional layer of lies to his story, which would be a fabricated layer of lies that essentially ADDS NOTHING NEW to the story Charlie Givens had already told the two FBI agents who interviewed him on November 22, 1963?

Also....

The conspiracy theorists who think Charles Givens just MADE UP his sixth-floor encounter with Lee Oswald due to the fact that Givens said nothing about such an encounter in his original November 22nd affidavit are going to have to accuse Billy Lovelady of pretty much the very same thing (i.e., leaving out important
"I heard Oswald shout down the elevator shaft from an upper floor around noontime" information in his affidavit), because in Lovelady's 11/22/63 affidavit, he never says a thing about that occurrence.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

David, when are you going to realise that "before noon" does not equal 12:30 when the shots were fired?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Have I ever said it did?

Answer: No, I have not.

But, then too, YOUR argument about how Charles Givens lied about his cigarette trip back up to the sixth floor doesn't place Oswald on the sixth floor at exactly 12:30 either. Givens' "cigarette" testimony only puts Oswald on the sixth floor at around 11:55 AM, thirty-five minutes before the shooting.

Therefore, what's your point?

And why are you scolding me about the "shortly before noon" comments I've made when the statement made by Givens, that YOU think is a great-big lie, ALSO only places Oswald on the sixth floor "shortly before noon". Therefore, it's a wash. Which is why you're being silly regarding Givens' statements, because the part of Charlie Givens' later statement about going back up to the sixth floor to retrieve cigarettes and his jacket doesn't provide any more substantial information than the info he had already provided the FBI in his 11/22/63 statement seen in CD5. And if you think it does, you're wrong.


RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Nobody except Givens (dubiously) said Oswald was on the sixth floor.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dead wrong. Howard Brennan said Oswald was on the sixth floor (3 H 148).

And....

Per the things that the FBI wrote in its report on 11/22/63 (CD5), Charles Givens said that Oswald wanted an elevator sent back up to him on the SIXTH floor.

And....

Bonnie Ray Williams said that Oswald was on either the fifth or sixth floor when LHO yelled down the elevator shaft (3 H 168)....

BONNIE RAY WILLIAMS -- "On the way down I heard Oswald--and I am not sure whether he was on the fifth or the sixth floor. But on the way down Oswald hollered "Guys, how about an elevator?" I don't know whether those are his exact words. But he said something about the elevator. And Charles said, "Come on, boy," just like that. And he said, "Close the gate on the elevator and send the elevator back up." I don't know what happened after that. .... I assume it was the fifth or the sixth. The reason I could not tell whether it was the sixth or the fifth is because I was on the opposite elevator, and if you are not thinking about it it is kind of hard to judge which floor, if you started moving."

So, Williams wasn't sure which floor Oswald was on shortly before 12:00 on November 22. But the SIXTH floor is certainly still in the running as far as Bonnie Ray Williams' testimony is concerned. Throw out his testimony if you want to, but I'm not going to, because Williams positively places Lee Oswald on an upper floor (possibly the SIXTH) a short time before the assassination.

And....

Danny Arce goes into the same "I'm Not Sure" category that Bonnie Ray Williams resides in, because in his Warren Commission testimony (at 6 H 365), Arce said exactly the same thing about the floor numbers that Williams said....

DANNY ARCE -- "That's what I'm not too sure; I believe he [Oswald] was on five or the sixth floor. I am not too sure but we were going down and I believe he was on the fifth; I am not too sure."


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

There are witnesses that put him [Oswald] on the first floor eating Dave. We all know that. YOU can't show he was on the sixth floor as the WC claimed. .... He was on the first floor, Dave. The evidence shows this as you can't cite any to place him on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I already did -- Brennan (at 3 H 148).

But not having a specific witness who was INSIDE the Book Depository Building saying that they physically saw Lee Oswald on the sixth floor after 12:00 noon on November 22 doesn't surprise me at all -- and it shouldn't surprise anyone else either.

Why?

Because nobody was on the sixth floor between 12:00 and 12:30 that day, except Bonnie Ray Williams, who was up there for just a few minutes to eat his chicken-on-the-bone sandwich lunch (and he said he couldn't see into the southeast corner, because boxes were blocking the view; and Oswald was almost certainly already hiding in the Sniper's Nest when Williams was up there crunching away on his chicken-on-the-bone sandwich).

But other than Williams, all of the other workers who were laying the new plywood flooring on the sixth floor that morning had gone downstairs to eat lunch and/or watch the motorcade prior to 12:00 noon. So why would we expect any of the TSBD employees to see Oswald on the sixth floor past noon?

I'm also wondering what kind of stupid patsy-framing plotters Rob Caprio thinks were in charge of the assassination frame-up on November 22nd? They evidently just allowed Oswald to roam around the FIRST and SECOND floors of the Book Depository, free as a bird, at just about the same time they were trying to frame him on the SIXTH FLOOR for shooting the President.

What a brilliant patsy plan indeed.

And, per some nuts like Ralph Cinque, the plotters even permitted Oswald to go out onto the front steps and get himself photographed by Jim Altgens too. (Oh great! That's now more stuff the goofy plotters have to fake!)


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

The fact you are desperate enough to use a man who DID NOT IDENTIFY LHO when he viewed a lineup on November 22, 1963 makes me very happy.

You have confirmed the desperate position you WC defenders are in. Clinging to lifeboats at this point is pretty appropriate.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In light of the large amount of evidence that hangs Lee Oswald for not just one murder on 11/22/63--but TWO!--a conspiracy clown like Robert Caprio telling an LNer that he is "desperate" can only elicit laughter. (And lots of it.)


BEN HOLMES SAID:

He [DVP] CANNOT admit that Givens originally reported that Oswald was reading a newspaper downstairs at 11:50.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Of course I can "admit" that the 11/22/63 FBI report [CD5] says that Givens said he saw Oswald reading a newspaper on the first floor at about 11:50 AM.

But the crux of Givens' two statements (his November 22 statement to the FBI in CD5 and his Warren Commission testimony when he said he saw Oswald on the sixth floor shortly before noon) is still basically identical -- that "crux" being: Givens is saying (both times) that Lee Oswald was on an upper floor of the TSBD shortly prior to 12:00 noon on November 22 (give or take a few minutes in real time). In both of those statements made by Givens, Oswald is upstairs many minutes PRIOR to the assassination.

Therefore, given the fact that human beings are not human clocks and don't possess a built-in ability to automatically know exactly what time it is when they are observing casual things (like seeing a man in a building at any certain point in time on any particular day), Charles Givens' various statements are essentially the same with respect to Givens' first-hand knowledge of the whereabouts of Lee Harvey Oswald shortly prior to noon on November 22, 1963.

Yes, Givens did tell the FBI agents on 11/22 that he saw Oswald on the first floor reading a paper at about 11:50. I don't deny that fact. And I don't for a minute think the FBI got that part of their report wrong. [2018 EDIT: After being exposed to another FBI report, I do now think the FBI did, indeed, get the "11:50" time wrong. For more info, Click Here]. But in his WC testimony, Givens flatly denied ever saying such a thing:

Mr. BELIN. Did you see him in the domino room at all around anywhere between 11:30 and 12 or 12:30?

Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Did you see him reading the newspaper?

Mr. GIVENS. No; not that day. I did--he generally sit in there every morning. He would come to work and sit in there and read the paper, the next day paper, like if the day was Tuesday, he would read Monday's paper in the morning when he would come to work, but he didn't that morning because he didn't go in the domino room that morning. I didn't see him in the domino room that morning.

[Later...]

Mr. BELIN. Did you ever tell anyone that you saw Lee Oswald reading a newspaper in the domino room around 11:50, 10 minutes to 12 on that morning on November 22nd?

Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.

I do feel, however, that Givens, by the time he testified in front of the Warren Commission, had merely forgotten that he said those things about Oswald to the FBI men.

But the WC wasn't hiding the "11:50" incident from anyone. The Commission published Mr. Belin's question about the incident in WC volume 6 for everybody to read [at 6 H 354].

And Charlie Givens could have answered "Yes" to that question asked by David Belin about Givens seeing Oswald downstairs at 11:50, couldn't he?

Let me guess---Ben Holmes and other conspiracy theorists believe that David Belin had Charles D. Givens wrapped around his little finger when Givens testified in front of the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964, right Ben? So Belin knew what was coming, and maybe Belin even instructed Givens to answer "No" to this question....

"Did you ever tell anyone that you saw Lee Oswald reading a newspaper in the domino room around 11:50, 10 minutes to 12 on that morning on November 22nd?"

Well, if some CTers want to believe that someone told Givens to answer "No" to the above question, I certainly cannot do anything to persuade those CTers to think otherwise. And such CTers also no doubt think that Givens lied through his teeth when he said he went back up to the sixth floor to get his cigarettes and then saw Oswald. (Did David Belin put those words in Givens' mouth too?)

I, however, will remain the naive and gullible little fool who prefers to believe that even though portions of Charles D. Givens' statements and Warren Commission testimony don't fit together perfectly (which I fully discuss here), Mr. Charles Givens nevertheless was not lying through his teeth (and therefore was not coerced by any outside forces to tell an array of lies to the Warren Commission) when he said he saw Lee Harvey Oswald on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building at approximately 11:55 AM CST on November 22, 1963.

If Ben Holmes and other conspiracy theorists want to believe otherwise, well, go right ahead and do so. It's a free country. But I'll also remind everyone of this portion of Charles Givens' WC testimony....

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Givens, we surely appreciate your cooperation in coming down here. Now, you and I didn't talk about this at all until we started taking this deposition, did we?

Mr. GIVENS. No, sir.

[...]

Mr. BELIN. Have I ever met you before?

Mr. GIVENS. I don't believe so. I don't believe I have.


I'll also add this ---

If Charlie Givens did see Lee Oswald in the Domino Room on the first floor at about 11:50 AM (and also allowing for the fact that all times provided by witnesses--Givens included--can really only be looked upon as "approximate" times, which is only common sense), that fact in no way destroys the entire case against Oswald as JFK's assassin.

Oswald, like all of the other order fillers who worked at the Book Depository, could move around freely in the building during the course of any work day, and therefore could have been on the first floor at some point in time before noon and then also have been seen upstairs on the sixth floor just a very few minutes later.

I can easily envision a scenario which has Givens seeing Oswald on the first floor in the Domino Room at some point in time prior to 12:00, with Oswald then going to the fifth or sixth floor a short time later, with Oswald then being in a position on either the fifth floor or the sixth floor (some of the TSBD witnesses were uncertain as to which of those exact floors Oswald was on) to shout down the elevator shaft to the four employees who were racing the two freight elevators downstairs. And then, after the elevator race, Charles Givens goes back up to the sixth floor to get his jacket and cigarettes and encounters Oswald.

The above reconstruction of possible events would blend perfectly with the testimony and FBI statements of all four of the Depository employees who rode the elevators downstairs around lunchtime on November 22--including Charles D. Givens--without a single lie or instance of coercion being necessary whatsoever.

Via the above scenario I just laid out, the only thing that would require any "adjustment" at all would be the time when Givens saw Oswald on the first floor. The time of that event was very likely a little earlier than the 11:50 timestamp placed on it by Givens in his 11/22/63 interview with the FBI.

But, again, such instances of "timestamping" must always be taken with a grain of salt, because it is not reasonable to expect every witness to recall the EXACT time they saw someone or did something. Because that person, at the time of the incident itself, would have had no reason under the sun to stop and say to himself: "Gee, I'd better make a note of the exact time of day that I saw Lee Oswald walking around the building today". Any times given by witnesses, therefore, must always be considered merely estimates and approximations on the part of the witness providing such information.

But some conspiracists seem to want to believe that the timestamps provided by witnesses connected with the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases are times that have been proven to be spot-on accurate--right down to the minute. Such a notion, of course, is preposterous. And that goes for Charles Givens' time estimates of when he saw Lee Harvey Oswald in the Depository, and it also applies to the timestamping of the Tippit murder provided by eyewitness Helen Markham as well.

David Von Pein
July 1, 2014 [This forum link is no longer available.]
July 2, 2014 [This forum link is no longer available.]

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 60)

ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "Why do so many LNers have no idea what their theory is
all about?" <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I can only stand here, mouth agape, as I gaze at the above idiocy, and
say.....WTF???!!!

Hey, all lone-assassin advocates: Did you guys know that we
have "no idea" what our theory is all about?

That's kinda odd, huh? I always thought it was just the opposite.

But, leave it to a conspiracy kook to get everything topsy-turvy. It
must be a gift they're born with.

I wonder if most conspiracists type with their feet? After all, everything
they say seems to be backwards; so their hands are probably located
at the bottom of their legs.


>>> "Why can't they [LNers] debate evidence?" <<<

Goodie! Another WTF moment. Lovely.

Try this 60-Volume set of debates. Maybe you'll learn something.

(~~ Awaiting Rob's next retort, which will no doubt be something
akin to this --- "Making up the questions and the answers yourself
isn't "debating", Davy. It just shows how much of a nutjob you are by
talking to yourself." ~~)

To that retort, of course, I can suggest that Robby use his feet
(er, hands, sorry) to utilize the Google Search function, and then
he'd be able to find almost all of the "Debate" points brought up by
the "CTers" in my links above.

Many of the "CTer" comments from my posts can also be found coming
from the mouths of various conspiracy-mad nuts at the JFK Lancer forum,
which is now occupied for the most part only by conspiracy theorists
(most of them kooks, similar to Robert Caprio).


>>> "I'll be right here to keep you in line though." <<<

Goodie. Robby's going to keep me "in line". I love to be kept "in line"
by a mega-kook who says things like the following (which are all
direct quotes from Rob; I'm not kidding, he really said them; and
remember: this fruitcake named Rob is going to keep me "in line";
classic!):

"LHO shot no one."

"No one saw LHO do anything."

"It wasn't LHO that shot JDT [J.D. Tippit]."

"Which witness said they saw the [Tippit] killer shaking out
bullets?"


>>> "It does really sadden me to know I have contributed so much to something no one will ever read though (save the seniors in between bingo)." <<<

Yeah, your "LHO shot no one" gem is a major breakthrough contribution
to the truth surrounding the events of November 22, 1963.

You should be very proud. (Even though nobody but Grandma Moses will
be reading it.)




>>> "You have provided no real proof to show I'm wrong in my beliefs." <<<

I've proven your "LHO Shot No One" beliefs to be 100% wrong a hundred
times over. For some reason (probably because you're an idiot as well
as being an Any-But-Oswald moron), you just cannot realize that obvious fact.


>>> "I have been called Superman a lot by women!" <<<

Are those same women impressed by the life-sized poster of Lee Harvey
Oswald that you've got stuck to your ceiling too (with the bold caption
"Patsy!" printed diagonally across it)? That poster is sure to turn a lot
of women on, huh?


>>> "I have the knowledge that 85-90% of the rest of the people in the world think like me." <<<

Rob The Kook actually thinks that 7% = 85-90%:

http://PollingReport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy

Go figure.

David Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 22, 2007)

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 488)

ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

Don't you love how Dave SKIPS over the comment about LHO being shown Secret Service credentials when THERE WERE NO SS AGENTS IN DEALEY PLAZA DURING AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ASSASSINATION? Who was this man and where did he get SS credentials?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It was either Pierce Allman or Robert MacNeil (maybe both, since they both did EXACTLY the same thing at about the same time -- i.e., they each asked a white guy where the phone was and they were each directed to the front of the TSBD).

And since there would be absolutely NO LOGICAL REASON WHATSOEVER for ANYONE (a SS agent or any civilian) to have flashed any I.D. to Oswald (or to TELL HIM they were "Secret Service") just in order to get simple directions to a telephone....the reasonable inference then becomes this one: Thomas J. Kelley placed in his report words that weren't 100% accurate about what Oswald said EXACTLY.

If you want to say I'm "cherry-picking" -- okay. Go ahead. I guess I am in this instance, because I'm choosing to believe the part about "Secret Service", but I'm disbelieving Kelley's report regarding Oswald actually being shown a "book of identification" AND I'm most certainly disbelieving the part where Kelley says that Oswald heard the words "Secret Service" come out of the mouth of the man who we know (via the best and most reasonable accounts of what happened) was either Pierce Allman of WFAA-TV or Robert (Robin) MacNeil of the National Broadcasting Company.

And the part about the man actually SAYING "I'm Secret Service" is just silly, given the circumstances....mainly because, as I said, there's no reason for the man to want to even take the time to say that to Oswald and also to dig out his ID. It's just...well...silly (IMO).

So, hang me from the nearest tree in your backyard if you want. But that's my opinion nonetheless.


ROB CAPRIO SAID:

But how did Powell get SS credentials when he was NOT in the SS? Please explain this for us.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

He didn't have "SS" credentials, you idiot. And he never showed anybody any Secret Service credentials. And nobody ever EXAMINED his credentials closely to confirm WHAT agency James Powell was with. That's quite obvious...and, just as important, it's totally logical.

Any reason we can't use CS&L [Common Sense & Logic] to help "solve" this crime, Rob?

David Von Pein
April 11, 2009

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 131)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I love getting conspiracy theorist Rob Caprio all wound up. It's fun seeing the kookshit streaming from his keyboard like water over Niagara.

Let me just highlight the choice tidbits of utter insanity written by Robert Caprio, culled from this Usenet newsgroup message dated January 30th, 2008. These tidbits should be sent to Ripley's Museum, to be placed in the display case marked "Did that kook actually have the gonads to utter this shit?":


ROB CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "You have NO evidence or proof." <<<


DVP SAID:

LOL right off the bat. I'm sure Rob will only get funnier. Let's see.


>>> "Prove it. .... You have NO proof or evidence. I have to keep reminding all the readers out there of this simple fact." <<<

Yep. Even funnier indeed.


>>> "Your long-winded posts NEVER have ANY real evidence in
them!" <<<

And as we all know by now, only people who believe in a JFK "conspiracy" have any "real evidence". Right, Robert C.?


>>> "Prove it was [Lee Harvey Oswald's] gun! I have seen NO proof from you or the WC." <<<

That's probably because you're an "Anybody But Oswald" idiot. (Ya think?)


>>> "IF [Oswald] ordered a rifle at all, and this is highly suspect, it was a 36-inch rifle, yet they found a 40.2-inch rifle!!" <<<

I think it's quite possible that Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago didn't always mail the EXACT rifle that was ordered via their various magazine ads to the customer. It's quite possible that on occasion they had to substitute slightly-different models for the ones pictured in the advertisements.

I believe this might have been the case with Lee Harvey Oswald's order for his "Italian Carbine". The ad said one dimension for the rifle, but Klein's sent a slightly-different version of the gun.

If I recall correctly, I also think that other researchers looking into this matter have said that Klein's was, indeed, running low on their stock of 36-inch Carcanos at about the time of Oswald's order in March.

So it seems reasonable to think that it's quite possible that Klein's just simply ran out of the 36-inch version of the weapon and sent LHO a 40-inch model instead. Klein's definitely did carry and sell BOTH a 36-inch Carcano rifle and a 40-inch MC variant during the calendar year of 1963.

In any case, it's quite obvious that Lee Oswald (using his alias "A. Hidell") WAS indeed shipped a Model 91/38 Mannlicher-Carcano Italian carbine (i.e., rifle) in March of '63 by Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago, Illinois.

But, evidently, to a suspicious "ABO" kook like Robby, this slight 4-inch discrepancy in the rifle length MUST mean that Oswald received NO RIFLE AT ALL from Klein's in March 1963.

Go figure kooks.





>>> "Why NO prints of [Oswald's] on the rifle?" <<<

There were prints of Ozzie's on the rifle. But you just want to dismiss this evidence. Like always.

But the fact that you dismiss the LHO palmprint doesn't mean it wasn't found by J.C. Day and appropriately preserved...because it was. Your denials regarding this evidence couldn't possibly matter less.


>>> "There is NO proof LHO ever owned [Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766]." <<<

There's tons of proof that LHO owned Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766. Your denials regarding this evidence couldn't possibly matter less.


>>> "The ID of LHO for the J.D. Tippit murder was a joke." <<<

Yeah, we LNers could only prove LHO guilty of that murder if there had been 14 different witnesses in the area. Instead, we LNers have only got 13 (or pert-near that number, counting the Patton Ave. people).

Damn! One shy of the kook requirement!

And Oswald's guilt could only be proven (ballistically) if we had FIVE bullet shells linked conclusively to LHO's revolver. Instead, we've only got four (sad to say).

Again, one item short of the "LHO Did It" Promised Land!


>>> "You've got nothing." <<<

Don't you ever get tired of revealing your ignorance in public? You'd think you would, especially after three-plus months of your kind of tripe. But, I guess not. Continue, kook....


>>> "You LNers amaze me each day with your naiveness." <<<

CTers are amazed by the strangest things, aren't they?


>>> "[David Von Pein] believes in sending people to the gas chamber with NO proof; and [per DVP's spot-on accurate appraisal] I'm the kook. Go figure." <<<

I would have preferred the hangman's noose or the firing squad for Oswald. Gas would have been too dignified for his double-murdering ass.


>>> "I'm well aware of the evidence. The killer used an automatic pistol [to plug J.D. Tippit]. He then pulled out a standard revolver and made a show of throwing shell casings out into the air to be seen." <<<

Another LOL moment here I see. Don't ya just love it when a kook decides ON HIS OWN what the real evidence in a murder case is going to be? Pa-thet-ic.


>>> "The problem for the WC, and clueless people like you, is the [Tippit] shells were from a standard .38 pistol, yet LHO's was refitted and was .38 special." <<<

More ignorance (or lies) from Robby-boy here. None of the four shells found at 10th and Patton on 11/22/63 were "Standard" shells. They were all clearly marked "38 Special". [See 7 HSCA 408, Figure 36C.]

Why you think otherwise is a mystery. But, then too, most CTers like you have a unique way of mangling the verified evidence so that it appears to be exactly the opposite from the truth.

Your "pathetic" stature grows with each passing lie/misrepresentation that comes out of your mouth.




>>> "Neither [Barbara Davis nor Virginia Davis] ID'd LHO." <<<

Right on cue. Another outright falsity. In fact, this might be your most blatant lie to date.

Back to the actual facts now:

BOTH Davis girls (Barbara and Virginia) positively identified the man they saw dumping bullet shells in their yard as Lee Harvey Oswald....and any halfwit knows this.

But somehow Rob doesn't seem to be aware of this most basic of facts.

~shrug~


>>> "The key here is they [Barbara and Virginia Davis] saw a "man", they never said LHO." <<<

More lies--or ignorance--from our resident nuthatch. I wonder why Robert just doesn't read the Warren Commission witness transcripts of Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis to see what they each said?

Even though he'll toss every last sentence within those transcripts out the window (because a kook can never take the WC and its witnesses at face value), Rob can prove to himself that his last idiotic declaration ("THEY NEVER SAID LHO") is a bald-face lie.

Even the 11/22/63 affidavits filled out and signed under oath by Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis indicate it was Oswald, for Pete sake. (Both affidavits say "the #2 man" in the police line-up, that is. And who was that "#2 man" in the line-up? Lee Harvey Oswald. That's who.)

And then there's this from Virginia Davis' 1964 Warren Commission session:

VIRGINIA DAVIS -- "The boy that was known as Lee Harvey Oswald shot J.D. Tippit."


And this via Barbara Davis' WC testimony:

JOE BALL -- "Did you recognize anyone in that room?"

BARBARA DAVIS -- "Yes, sir. I recognized number 2. .... I thought number 2 was the man that I saw." ....

BALL -- "By number 2, was the man you saw the man you saw doing what?"

DAVIS -- "Unloading the gun."

BALL -- "And going across your yard?"

DAVIS -- "Yes, sir."


>>> "Where do they say LHO was the "man" they saw? I must have missed it." <<<

You miss a lot of things. (I think your brain is in Tulsa someplace. Better check the lost-and-found there.)


>>> "Only one person [Helen Markham] would testify she ID'd LHO [as Tippit's killer]." <<<

Only if you want to toss out (because you're a kook) the positive "Oswald IDs" made by Scoggins, Davis, Davis, Callaway, Guinyard, Patterson, and Brock [among others].

Any particular reason why those seven positive IDs of LHO need to be trashed (other than the fact you're a freakin' moron and an "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy clown)?


>>> "None beyond Markham ever say under oath it was LHO they
saw." <<<

Bullshit. I'll again remind the kook of these words spoken by Virginia Davis (via her under-oath WC testimony) --- "The boy that was known as Lee Harvey Oswald shot J.D. Tippit".

Let me guess -- Virginia doesn't count. Right, kook?


>>> "In fact, several say they don't remember Markham being there at the time of the shooting!!" <<<

Great. Now the kook is going to try to argue that Helen Markham wasn't even AT the Tippit murder scene.

Lovely. But typical Kook Think.



>>> "NOT one witness positively ID'd LHO as the shooter of JDT,
period." <<<

I love it when a kook gives me several openings within the very same forum post with which to expose his astounding idiocy concerning the basic facts of the case:

"The boy that was known as Lee Harvey Oswald shot J.D. Tippit." -- Virginia Davis; Warren Commission Testimony; April 2, 1964

Let me guess -- Virginia's testimony doesn't count. Right, Robby? She didn't actually SEE Oswald pulling the trigger and killing Officer Tippit; therefore, I suppose (per your basic rules of insanity/conspiracy), we're forced to think that Oswald really DIDN'T shoot Tippit; he was merely in the area with a gun and was unloading that gun immediately after somebody ELSE murdered the policeman. Right, Mr. Kook?


>>> "NO ONE counts entrance and exit wounds as separate wounds, Einstein." <<<

Roy Kellerman did, Einstein. That's obvious.

Why is it obvious?

Because John F. Kennedy DID, indeed, have just "four wounds" (i.e., bullet holes) in his body. And two of those holes were determined at autopsy to positively be EXIT holes for the bullets that entered on the other side of those exits.


REPLAY (JUST FOR THE LAUGHS):

>>> "NO ONE counts entrance and exit wounds as separate wounds." <<<

So, do you now want to purport that Kennedy was hit by FOUR bullets? Is that it, Einstein? And zero of these four missiles exited his body at all? No "exit" holes were present on JFK's body whatsoever? Is that correct?

Or do you want to believe that JFK had many additional holes in his body from these four bullets that hit him? But, somehow, these extra holes just didn't show up in the photographs and were never reported (or were just missed) by the three autopsists at Bethesda?

Maybe the X-rays of JFK somehow managed to completely miss the FOUR bullets that went into President Kennedy and failed to exit, huh?

Or maybe the X-rays were all fakes?

Or maybe Humes, et al, were all liars?

(Go with those latter two choices, Rob. Being a kook, you no doubt shall.)


>>> "A phony call went out over the police radio calling everyone to the Marsalis library for a possible suspect." <<<

Oh goodie! Something else that's considered "phony" by a conspiracy nut.

As my very able and astute LN cohort Bud likes to say on occasion (paraphrasing here) --- What could possibly matter less than the unsupportable opinions of a conspiracy-loving kook?

David Von Pein
January 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (JANUARY 31, 2008)