JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1218)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Anyone who can't figure out that Lee Harvey Oswald shot J.D. Tippit should probably not even be walking around.

But, somehow, the Tippit murder is a big mystery to many conspiracy theorists -- despite a dozen witnesses, from various walks of life (all non-Governmental), who all place Oswald at or near 10th & Patton after 1:00 PM CST on November 22, 1963.

That's called ignoring the best evidence completely.


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

DVP,

Among your dozen witnesses who saw Oswald in Oak Cliff, do you include Oswald buying the ticket to [the] Dick Clark show at Top Ten? Oswald showing a driver's license with his name on it to buy a beer? Oswald sitting in Mather's car at the Mexican restaurant? The Oswald look-alike - Cuban at the Alpha 66 house who was mistaken for Oswald in Oklahoma? And which one was it who killed Tippit?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bill,

I'm talking, of course, about the dozen witnesses who were in the immediate vicinity of Tenth & Patton at approximately 1:15 PM on November 22 and saw Oswald firing bullets into the body of a policeman and/or saw Oswald leaving that murder scene with gun in hand, dumping shells out of that gun.

I'm not talking about people who think they saw Oswald elsewhere in Dallas, doing things that we know he could not have been doing at about that same time.

Tell me, Bill, do you really and truly think that all (or any) of those other "I Saw Oswald" witnesses saw the real LHO or an "imposter" on November 22?

And if it's the latter, then what kind of goofballs were those patsy-framers anyway? They've got Oswald driving a car (when they should know the real LHO couldn't do that--at least not very well anyway), and they've even got him in other CITIES, like Oklahoma City, when he's being framed for two murders in DALLAS??

The various "mistaken identity" witnesses are fun to play around with, but they obviously were all truly mistaken. Because the real Oswald's whereabouts are accounted for. And you know that--don't you Bill?


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

How do you know they were "mistaken identity" witnesses, and if they were, how come the ones who saw "Oswald" shoot Tippit at 10th & Patton didn't make the same "mistaken identity," especially if there was someone or more than one person who either looked like Oswald or was intentionally impersonating him?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Come on, Bill. You're kidding with this question, right?

The answer is, if course -- Because Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon
ON HIM when he was arrested, Bill.

Do you want to theorize that an Oswald "look-alike" shot Tippit with Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210, and then handed off that gun to the real Oswald less than 35 minutes later in the theater?

That's just crazy talk, Bill.


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

How come all the Tippit murder witnesses, at least in your mind, say they saw the historic LHO, when the others were mistaken, even though Oswald was certainly in the hood at the time?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Again, the gun.

There was only ONE Tippit murder weapon (despite Don Thomas' recent goofy claims). And that ONE gun was in the real Oswald's hands 35 minutes after Tippit was shot.

This one's a no-brainer, William. Why in the world CTers even consider this topic to be "in doubt" is the bigger mystery.


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And who was that guy who said he was Oswald buying jeeps in Louisiana, when Oswald was in USSR?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Beats me. But I know it wasn't the same guy who shot J.D. Tippit in Oak Cliff on November 22nd.

And why on Earth would any plotters who were attempting to frame Oswald for some later crime even WANT to do something so silly by having a person pretend to be a guy who they surely knew was thousands of miles away (in Russia) at the time he was being impersonated in the state of Louisiana?

Did these so-called plotters have any brains at all?


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And who was that guy who shot at the targets they say was Oswald when Oswald was at the Paines?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think one of those LHO sightings at the rifle range might have really been Oswald. Although the part about Oswald possibly driving away in a car is a bit hard to buy. That's the part of the story that makes me think it wasn't Oswald. But Malcolm Price and Garland Slack are pretty convincing.

And, I'll be honest, I kinda want that guy to be the Real McCoy (i.e., the real Oswald).

Why do I say that?

Because if the real Lee Harvey Oswald was target-shooting at the Sports Drome Rifle Range in September of 1963, it means that the conspiracy theorists are dead wrong about yet another one of their many theories associated with the JFK murder case -- and that's the theory about how Oswald never practiced with a rifle in the months leading up to President Kennedy's assassination.

Frankly, I'd love it if it could be proven that the person who was firing bullets into Garland Slack's paper target was, in fact, Lee H. Oswald. I know that that can never be "proven". But I wish it could be (for the reason I just stated).


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And who was that guy who called the embassy in Mexico City and claimed to be Oswald?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That was the real Lee Harvey Oswald, of course.

Given the wealth of documentary evidence that indicates that the real LHO was, in fact, in Mexico City in September and October of 1963, the idea that he called up the embassy in that city during the time he was down there isn't really the mystery of the ages.

Since the topic of Mexico City has arisen in this discussion, let me ask you this question Bill (which is a question that I don't recall anybody ever asking--or reasonably answering--in the past):

If the real Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT in Mexico City in late September and early October 1963, then can you tell me WHERE THE REAL LEE HARVEY OSWALD WAS LOCATED during that time period in question?

As far as I am aware, there is not a single person who has ever stated that they saw Lee Oswald in New Orleans or in Fort Worth or in Dallas or in Muncie, Indiana, or anywhere else on the planet other than Mexico City during that time period when the Warren Commission said he was in Mexico City, Mexico.

How come Marina didn't see her husband during that time period if he really WASN'T in Mexico?

Did he make himself invisible for eight days and nights? Was he hiding somewhere else OTHER than Mexico City during those eight days? Where was Lee Oswald during that time if not in Mexico City?


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And who was that guy who tried to get the job at the radio stations in Alice, Texas?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I haven't the foggiest. (And neither do you, Bill.)


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And who was that guy who drove the Ford down Stemmons?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think that could have been the real Oswald too. But, just like all of your other "Oswald Double" examples, it doesn't really matter in the long run. Because the ONE AND ONLY Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and J.D. Tippit. And his own actions (both before and after the shooting of the President), coupled with the physical evidence of his double-guilt, make that fact abundantly clear.


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And who was that guy who hitchhiked a ride in the pickup to the TSBD with a rifle?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's almost certainly a bogus "sighting", Bill. The fellow who made that claim could have had knowledge of all of those details prior to telling his tale. And the kicker there, IMO, could very well be the words "window shades" (the exact words in Mr. Yates' and Mr. Jones' story), which were also the exact same words spoken by District Attorney Henry Wade during his 11/24/63 press conference after Oswald was shot and killed:




WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And who was that guy with the foreign wife, little girl and baby who went to the furniture store looking for a gun shop?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have no idea. (And neither do you, Bill.)

But even if it was the real Lee Oswald in that furniture store, please tell me how that fact means diddly when it comes to the evidence in the JFK/Tippit cases?

And if the family was an "Imposter Oswald Family", please tell me why any conspirators setting up Oswald for the President's murder would have wanted to go through some silly charade at a furniture store prior to the assassination? Were the plotters bored that day? And they employed a WHOLE FAMILY to impersonate the Oswald family? It's silly beyond belief.


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And who was that guy named Oswald who had his gun sight adjusted?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dial Ryder's story is almost certainly bogus. Bugliosi has a nice section in "Reclaiming History" which destroys Mr. Ryder.


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And who was that guy who signed his name Lee H. Oswald; Dallas at the Nuclear Energy Museum in Tennessee?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

LOL.

When you get to the Oswald sighting in my hometown of Richmond, Indiana, let me know. Because I want to know if Lee was hiding in my basement on Pearl Street while I was upstairs in my crib. (Don't forget about Ruth Paine's visit to Richmond in September of '63. There's probably a "connection" there for an industrious conspiracy theorist, don't you think?)


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

How can you be so convinced that Oswald shot Tippit and then went to the movie theater when others at the theater say Oswald showed up earlier and bought popcorn? Who was that guy?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, let me get this straight, Bill -- you're saying that an "Oswald" person went into the theater prior to the time when Johnny Brewer saw Oswald go into the theater?

Which would mean one of two things (both equally silly):

1.) It was the same "Oswald" who entered the theater on both of those occasions on November 22, 1963. Which would also mean that Oswald decided to GO BACK OUTSIDE after going into the theater and buying some popcorn, so that he could be seen acting "funny" and "scared" by Johnny Brewer in the lobby area of Brewer's shoe store.

or:

2.) There were two different "Oswalds" who entered the theater that day, which means that the goofy plotters were pulling another scenario like Edwin Lopez has suggested occurred in Mexico and just like John Armstrong has said occurred in the TSBD on November 22 -- with BOTH an "imposter" and the Real McCoy showing up at the same place at the very same time (or pert-near the same time anyway).

If #2 is correct, wouldn't the plotters be a little hesitant to allow an imposter to be seen in the very same place as the guy he was impersonating?

Or didn't the brain-dead conspirators give a damn about potentially blowing their "patsy" plot to bits by risking having an unknown number of possible witnesses seeing TWO Oswalds walking around in the same building at the same time?


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

How do you differentiate between the positive identifications of Oswald and the bogus ones?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, in the case of any sightings of Oswald being somewhere other than near Tenth & Patton at about 1:15 PM CST on 11/22/63, it's very easy to differentiate between a "bogus" sighting and a real sighting. All sightings of an "Oswald" being someplace other than near Tenth Street and Patton Avenue at that time are definitely "bogus" (for the reasons stated previously).

Common sense and geography debunk several of the other bogus sightings -- such as the ones about seeing "Oswald" in cities that we pretty much know he was not in at the time in question.


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And if the bogus ones aren't a case of mistaken identity but intentional impersonation, what was that all about?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, IMO, that would be a case of the plotters who were supposedly setting up the real Oswald being mighty, mighty stupid. Because they're having him do things and be in places that only tend to advertise the fact that it's a fake Oswald.

Plus there's the fact, of course, that on Game Day (Nov. 22) all of their detailed "imposter" preparations would be sliding right down the toilet because these incredibly dumb conspirators then decided to shoot JFK with multiple guns in Dealey Plaza (according to 99% of all conspiracy theorists on the planet), thereby assuring that their lone "patsy" could never be proven to be the SOLE ASSASSIN of President Kennedy.

Apparently gray matter was in short supply in the "Let's Frame Lee Harvey Oswald As Our Lone Patsy" Department at Langley in 1963. Wouldn't you agree, William Kelly?

David Von Pein
December 6-7, 2010


RELATED ARTICLES:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1173)

WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

How did the rifle get in the building if Frazer didn't drive it from Irving?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Buell Wesley Frazier, of course, did drive the rifle from Irving to the TSBD on 11/22/63. That fact couldn't be more obvious. And it's also obvious that the bag found on the sixth floor could easily hold Oswald's disassembled rifle, as this side-by-side photo amply illustrates (the caption of the FBI photo is slightly off when it says that the blanket was found in "Oswald's garage"; it should say Ruth Paine's garage, of course; that is one of dozens of errors made by the FBI during its haste in preparing its 12/9/63 report):



Ergo, Wesley Frazier was simply in error about the bag's length.

~~~~~~~~~~

VINCE BUGLIOSI -- "Is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?"

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "That is true."

BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."



~~~~~~~~~~

Tell us, William Kelly, how did Oswald's prints get on that 38-inch paper bag (CE142) if he didn't handle it at some point prior to the assassination?


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

How did the rifle get from Dallas to New Orleans and back again if Oswald didn't take it with him on the bus?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The rifle was almost certainly transported back to Dallas from New Orleans via Ruth Paine's station wagon. No mystery there at all. So why create one?


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

Who was that man in the window when Oswald was with Baker and Truly on the second floor?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There was nobody in the Sniper's Nest window during that time. You surely aren't relying on Lillian Mooneyham's observations about seeing a person in the window several MINUTES after the shooting, are you? The idea that any assassin would just be hanging around the sniper's window (to be easily seen from the outside) for several minutes after having just shot the President is just crazy and everybody knows it.

Mooneyham's times are off--which couldn't be a more common mistake made by witnesses. Another perfect example being Earlene Roberts' estimate of "3 or 4 minutes" for Oswald staying inside his closet-sized room on 11/22, even though Roberts herself contradicted her own "3 or 4 minutes" timeline when she also said that Oswald was in his room "just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on". Does that activity usually take a person three or four minutes to accomplish?


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

Did that man leave fingerprints on the boxes, which were moved around while he was there - as the photo evidence proves?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, there was no "man" in the window several minutes after the assassination. But anyway, I do know that OSWALD'S fingerprints and palmprints were on two of the boxes that were located deep within the Sniper's Nest.

Stated another way -- Lee Harvey Oswald's fingers touched the same boxes that were utilized by the person who fired a rifle at President Kennedy.

Do the math. It isn't rocket science--or even 10th grade algebra. It's 1st grade 2+2 arithmetic. You're just looking for an excuse to throw away some very incriminating evidence that corroborates and solidifies all of the other "Oswald Was Here" stuff that is also on the table.

But go ahead and play defense attorney for Oswald if that's your desire. But I doubt a jury would buy it (especially when that same jury considers whose gun deposited those three empty cartridge cases that were lying just a few inches away from Oswald's prints on those boxes).


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

How many fingerprints are on the boxes besides Oswald's (and Malcolm Wallace's) and the Cops?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I see you've fallen for the myth about Malcolm Wallace's prints being on the TSBD boxes. Of course, Wallace's prints were not on any of those boxes, because the only unidentified print on ANY of the TSBD boxes (per Commission Exhibit 3131) was a palmprint, not a fingerprint. The Wallace thing is a hoax. Simple as that.

David Von Pein
September 23, 2013

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1057)

WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

So Oswald, perhaps like serial killer Ted Bundy, had to be able to hide his psychosis pretty good in order to fool pretty much everybody who knew him.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Darn right.

Isn't this obvious, Bill?

And isn't it also obvious that Lee Oswald probably would not be boasting about shooting at General Edwin Walker to every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the street corner (or at Ruth Paine's house, in which Mrs. Paine was allowing the wife of the nutcase who shot at General Walker to live free of charge)?


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And his wife, who knew about the Walker shooting, didn't think he was totally out of his mind, or she wouldn't have let him visit.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What makes you think this, Bill?

I'm pretty sure there were times when Marina thought her husband was, indeed, off his rocker. The night of April 10, 1963, was no doubt one such occasion. And March 31, 1963, was another, when Marina took the backyard photos of her strange hubby:

"I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business--it was man's business." -- Marina Oswald


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And that Oswald was a homicidal maniac was quite a surprise to Special Agent Hosty, who was involved in the investigation of the Walker shooting and Oswald's security case as a returning defector AT THE SAME TIME, but didn't put two and two together.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Maybe Jim Hosty of the FBI should have put two and together together. But, then too, hindsight is almost always 20/20, isn't it?


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And since two suspects were seen leaving the scene of the Walker shooting, then it must also be assumed that he had an accomplice, which is not in lock step with the Lone Nut case scenario that you embrace.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There's no proof that the people seen getting into a car by one of Walker's neighbors on 4/10/63 had anything whatsoever to do with the Walker shooting. But it's fun to think they were involved, isn't it Bill?


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

And how did he get the rifle to the scene [of the Walker shooting] -- on the bus? Hidden in a raincoat? Let's try to imagine how he did that.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Conspiracy theorists love to focus the bulk of their attention on impossible-to-answer questions like the one above, instead of focusing on the provable facts--such as Lee Harvey Oswald's known participation in the Walker shooting.

It's the same way regarding certain aspects of the JFK case too -- e.g., conspiracists always want an answer to things that they know can never be answered (otherwise their questions WOULD have been answered by now), such as:

How did Oswald manage to sneak the paper and tape out of the Book Depository Building without Troy West seeing him?

Or:

How did Oswald get the paper bag to Irving? Was it folded up inside his jacket? Or was he hiding it in his cheeks, disguised as a big hunk of chewing tobacco?

Or:

Why is it that only two measly prints of Oswald's were found on the paper bag (CE142) after the assassination? (Even though the conspiracy theorists who ask that last question should probably already know that a person doesn't always have to leave distinguishable fingerprints on an object even when a person handles that object extensively--especially when the object is paper. Paper items very often do not have observable fingerprints on them after being handled.)


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

But what if, what if Phillips just said to the Pawn - something like "When given the opportunity, take the shot," knowing that the opportunity would be provided by moving the King into position so the practically invisible Pawn could take him out?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's fun to speculate, isn't it Bill?


IN ANOTHER DISCUSSION AT YouTube,
AN ANONYMOUS PERSON SAID:

David,

I enjoy the way you debunk the conspiracy kooks, but I need help with a debate. At Parkland Hospital, there is a photo of a bucket of water next to the limo. A CT kook claims that the Secret Service cleaned it up as part of the plot.

Can you enlighten me on the facts behind this?

Thanks!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No one has ever proved the bucket was part of any plot or cover-up. And common sense would indicate that it was not. Who would do something like that in front of a bunch of cameras?

If there was any "Limo Clean-Up" at Parkland, while certainly not a recommended thing to do at that time (in fact, it would have been mighty stupid), it was not part of any cover-up. For one thing, how would any cover-up/clean-up crew know what to eliminate and what not to disturb at that early hour? JFK wasn't even dead yet.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER ADDED:

From Vince Bugliosi's book:

"Critics claim that the backseat was washed out with a bucket of water, citing photographs that allegedly show a bucket near the limousine. Nurse’s aide Shirley Randall was reportedly asked to perform such a task, but in the excitement, never got around to it. (Manchester, "Death of a President", p.180 footnote)

But on the face of it, it appears highly unlikely that the Secret Service would wash away the “crime scene” before the FBI criminalists could examine the car, and there is no testimony or statement from anyone that this was done."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 33 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

Also See:

Shirley Randall's 11/22/63 statement here, and this statement made by Parkland Hospital orderly Joe Richards.

David Von Pein
October 1, 2010
June 2015
September 2018

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1198)

BILL KELLY SAID:

Somebody picked up the rifle in the package at the Post Office where it was delivered to PO box 2915, but it wasn't Oswald, who was working that day at Jaggers/Chiles/Stoval [sic].

[...]

He [Oswald] was at work...on the day and the time he reportedly mailed and had postmarked the money order for the rifle - March 12, and the day it was picked up - March 25.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

We have no idea exactly what day Oswald picked up his rifle at the post office. Why are you pretending to know this type of unknowable information, Bill?

We know that Klein's shipped the rifle to Hidell/(Oswald) on March 20, 1963. And we know that Oswald had the rifle in his possession by at least Sunday, March 31, 1963 (for the backyard photo session).

But that's all we know about the precise dates (and even the March 31st date is a little bit up in the air; Marina was able to pin it down somewhat during her Warren Commission testimony, and the Commission thought that the pictures were most likely taken on 3/31/63).

So, please inform the masses, William Kelly, as to how you are privy to such detailed information about the pick-up date at the post office for Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

Somehow, Kelly's crystal ball is telling him things that nobody else on Planet Earth has been privy to in 46+ years. Amazing indeed.


BILL KELLY SAID:

The REALISTIC choice is that someone other than Oswald picked up the rifle and pistol at the Post Office.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, sure, Bill. Sure. Even though both of those weapons were positively ORDERED BY LEE OSWALD, which means (obviously) that LEE OSWALD HIMSELF would have been expecting them to arrive at the P.O. Box that HE HAD THEM MAILED TO....you still think that it's more "realistic" to believe that "someone other than Oswald picked up the rifle and pistol at the Post Office".

Brilliant deductive reasoning there, William. Just brilliant!

So, if I order a gun from a mail-order house, and have it shipped to a P.O. Box at my local post office here in Indiana (a P.O. Box that I am renting at the time and a P.O. Box that I specified for the gun to be mailed to), according to William Kelly's logic and reasoning, it's much more likely that SOMEBODY ELSE went to the post office and picked up that gun instead of the person who ordered it and would have been expecting it to arrive at his P.O. Box within just a few days.

Gotta love CTer reasoning. It's always weird. And dead wrong. But it sure provides the humor.


BILL KELLY SAID:

Okay, Dave, I'll back off the March 25 date to pick up the rifle and pistol packages. I'm only using that date because it's the one that is used in the official chronology and generally accepted by LNs.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What "official chronology" has "March 25" as THE EXACT DATE that Oswald picked up BOTH the rifle and pistol? I've never heard or seen such an "official chronology" in my life.

(You wouldn't be pulling stuff out of your hat, now would you Bill?)


BILL KELLY SAID:

So you acknowledge that...there is no evidence, witness or record of Oswald picking up the weapons, right?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There's no "witness" or "record", no. To that I agree. Naturally.

But there's more than enough circumstantial evidence to establish as rock-solid FACT that Oswald did pick up Rifle C2766 from HIS OWN POST OFFICE BOX. (I emphasize those last words for a reason--because just ordinary common sense and ODDS are going to suggest that the person who ordered and paid for the rifle and pistol and had them mailed to his own P.O. Box, is probably also the person who fetched them from HIS OWN POST OFFICE BOX.)

Oswald was photographed with the Carcano within days of it being mailed to Oswald's post office box.

Does a person need to be an expert in high mathematics to figure this one out, William? I think not.

P.S. -- You're obviously a sharp man, Bill. So let me ask you this -- Why on Earth do you spend so much time trying to prove something that is so obviously stupid--i.e., the notion that Oswald himself did not pick up the rifle and pistol, even though those two items were positively ordered and paid for by LHO and were positively shipped by two separate companies to LHO's own P.O. Box?




BILL KELLY SAID:

David, I just wanted you to know that on your Ruth Paine page [Ruth-Paine.blogspot.com] you have the wrong date—11/22/63—twice of when she went into the garage on the night before the assassination and found the lights on, evidence used to indicate that Oswald went to Irving that night to pick up the rifle. That had to be 11/21/63, right?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you for noticing that error, Bill. (It's nice to know that someone is actually reading some of my JFK ramblings on the Internet.)

I have corrected the mistake about the date, although I only found one such error in my Ruth Paine blog, not two. If you could point out the second error, I'll fix that one too. The one I fixed is in this passage (which has the corrected date here):

"And here we have some additional deeply-detailed data and info being revealed by way of Albert Jenner's "in Ruth's house" WC session with Mrs. Paine -- this segment of testimony dealing with the precise wattage of the light bulb that was left burning in Paine's garage on the night of 11/21/63..."




BILL KELLY SAID:

I say there is no evidence Oswald actually picked up the weapons at the Post Office, not that he didn't do it, though it is certainly a possibility that someone else did. Say Gary Taylor. His address is on the PO box application, and whoever took the note from the box and went into the back of the Post Office to pick up the packages and hand them over the counter - that person would have to give the packages to Oswald posing as Hidell, or someone else posing as Hidell, or someone with a key to the PO Box who Oswald had asked to pick up the packages - which could be done if the PO clerk just thought that if the guy had a key to the box to get the notice, he had to be okay and didn't ask for any ID.

What other possibilities are there, especially any non-conspiratorial possibilities, like Oswald at a different time, Gary Taylor - or even Marina?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Okay. But by far the MOST LIKELY answer is that the person who ordered and paid for the guns and would have been expecting those guns to arrive in late March 1963 AT HIS OWN POST OFFICE BOX is probably the person who went to the Post Office himself to pick them up.

Why bring Gary Taylor into the mix needlessly? He didn't order and pay for the rifle and the revolver. Oswald did.


BILL KELLY SAID:

I believe the back yard photos are real. I don't think the Z-film has been altered, and I don't blame the government for anything.

JFK was killed by individual human beings with names, not generic government acronym agencies.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Congrats, Bill! Welcome to the world of LNers!

Via your last comments above, it almost looks like you've been converted (except for the pluralization you utilized when you said "individual human beings with names"). There's no need for the plural to be used there, of course. Oswald was only ONE single person. Not two or more. :)


BILL KELLY SAID:

They don't really have to fake anything. All they had to do was name Oswald the suspect and kill him before they [he?] went to court.

Once JFK got to Dealey Plaza, all they had to do was kill JFK and blame Oswald, and whatever happened, happened.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But why the need to complicate the uncomplicated, Bill?

It was OSWALD'S rifle, OSWALD'S shells, OSWALD'S bullet fragments in the limousine, OSWALD'S prints deep inside the Sniper's Nest, OSWALD'S lies that he told to the police, OSWALD left the building within minutes of the shooting, OSWALD shot Tippit, OSWALD was acting "funny" in front of Johnny Brewer's shoe store, and it was OSWALD who pulled a gun on Officer McDonald in the theater.

If those are the actions of an innocent patsy, please wake me up when sanity has been restored. Because given the above laundry list, OSWALD is as guilty as he can possibly be.


BILL KELLY SAID:

Lee Harvey Oswald was not a double-murder[er]...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, shucks! Just when Bill Kelly was making a little headway toward seeing the obvious truth, he goes and says something silly again.


BILL KELLY SAID:

The questions are whether or not Oswald was an assassin or patsy, and whether he acted alone or with others.

I can accept Oswald was the lone assassin, but if he was, I reject your profile of him being a lone nut loser, because he must have been really good to fool so many people all by himself.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not quite sure what you mean here, Bill. Oswald didn't "fool" anybody. (Except perhaps a bunch of conspiracy theorists; Oswald certainly fooled them into actually believing him when he said he was "just a patsy".)

But he certainly didn't "fool" any of the authorities or investigative committees that looked into the murders. Far from it. Oswald signed his name to both of his murders by leaving his popcorn trail of evidence for both the JFK and Tippit slayings.

So, besides the gullible CTers, who was it that you think Oswald was "fooling" in November 1963?

Or are you possibly referring to Oswald being able to mask his identity as "Future Presidential Assassin" in the days/weeks/months leading up to 11/22/63? Is that what you mean by Oswald being able to "fool so many people all by himself"?


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

What a goofy hobby CTers have.


BILL KELLY SAID:

Not a hobby, a civic duty.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You have a civic duty to embrace silly ideas?

That's weird, Bill.


BILL KELLY SAID:

And I'm not a Conspiracy Theorist.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You could've fooled me.


BILL KELLY SAID:

I hate CTs more than you do, especially those who claim the Cubans, the Mafia or the CIA is behind the assassination.

There are endless possible scenarios one can imagine, but it only happened one way, and that is what should be detected and determined.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's already been done -- back in '63 and '64. You just don't want to believe that the DPD, FBI, and WC got it right. You prefer your own explanations over the perfectly reasonable ones supplied by the Dallas Police, FBI, and Warren Commission.

Right, Bill?


BILL KELLY SAID:

Hi Dave,

Maybe you can answer my question. If Oswald ordered the pistol in early January, why was it shipped on March 20, the same day as the rifle, from a different company in a different city?

What was the delay, did anyone bother to find out?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't have a definitive answer to your question there, Bill. But I will offer up this possibility (which I think is a reasonable answer to this mystery):

I think it's quite possible that Oswald mailed the order forms for both the rifle and the revolver at about the same time--possibly mailing them on the very same day (March 12, 1963).

Just because the Seaport Traders order form [CE790] has a "January 27" date written in by Oswald, that doesn't necessarily have to mean he mailed that order form on that exact day in January. Maybe he waited and mailed it in March. We can never know for sure.


BILL KELLY SAID:

And who was the witness again, D. F. Drittle [sic]? Was he pals with A. J. Hidell?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, come now, Bill. You're tugging at my lower extremities here, aren't you, you jokester you? :)

You and I both know that "D.F. Drittal" is another invented name that was created out of thin air by Lee H. Oswald. Just as "A.J. Hidell" was created out of thin air.

So, Drittal and Hidell were pals with nobody--except their inventor, Lee Harvey.


BILL KELLY SAID:

And another thing, if Oswald could have bought the pistol and the rifle with cash from any sporting goods or department store in Texas without a record, why did he buy them through the mail?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I doubt very much that Oswald could have walked into any store in Texas and bought a gun without any record being left behind. I'm pretty sure that's Conspiracy Myth #884, and is one that Oliver Stone propped up as the truth in his 1991 fantasy film too.

Just recently, Jean Davison posted some interesting information [HERE], which deals with this very subject regarding tracing guns that were purchased in brick-and-mortar stores in Texas in 1963.

As Davison mentioned, Albert Yeargan's July 1964 affidavit certainly indicates that RECORDS WERE KEPT of the sale of firearms at the H.L. Green Sporting Goods store in 1963 [see 11 H 207].

This whole topic is something that I very recently started thinking about more and more, and via Jean Davison's post linked above, it certainly looks to me as though Oliver Stone (and other CTers) have been peddling a myth regarding Texas gun shops, circa 1963.

I first brought up this topic just last month in fact, in this post (excerpted below):

"I'd like to know if conspiracists are right when they say that Oswald could have walked into any gun shop or department store in Texas in 1963 and bought a gun that could never be traced?

No paperwork was required at a gun shop in Texas in '63? No signature from the purchaser? Nothing? Just grab the gun and run?

I'm not saying that perhaps that wasn't how it worked in Texas gun stores, circa 1963, but I'm just wondering if it really was that cut-&-dried--even back in '63? I've never really ever seen that confirmed anywhere (that I can think of).

Could that be just another of the many conspiracy myths that we've been saddled with since the JFK assassination--with Oliver Stone giving it a handy push in his blockbuster movie too? I just wonder.

~~Thinking about the "Benavides' Brother" myth that was destroyed recently, with Domingo's brother really being killed in 1965, not 1964~~" -- DVP; July 21, 2010

David Von Pein
July 14, 2010
July 19, 2010
August 2, 2010

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 430)

ON JANUARY 22, 2009, JOHN SIMKIN SAID:

A researcher has asked for information on David Von Pein.


PAM BROWN SAID:

Why doesn't the researcher go to alt.assassination.jfk and ask him directly?


DAVID HEALY SAID:

Every chance Lone Nut-Wing Nut Von Pein gets to promote Vinnie Bugliosi's tome Reclaiming History, Von Pein blathers on.

His foolishness, and his minions, can be found on alt.conspiracy.jfk too! DVP never announced at any public function that he is indeed David Von Pein. Never participated in a public JFK assassination forum, seminar, symposium, anniversary and/or function as David Von Pein.

Some speculate David Von Pein and David Reitzes are one in the same, as was recently discussed on Black Op Radio with Jim DeEugenio [sic].

Frankly I'm surprised anyone cares who the hell he is, or what he does.

[...]

Von Pein is nothing more than a glorified copy & paste artist with zilch to offer.

[...]

No one that I know of has met or even seen a David Von Pein at any public JFK assassination function, with ANY of the big names within the research community.


BILL MILLER SAID:

I am not a fan of Von Pein at all. I believe him to be a troll. But in his defense, a big name to you (David [Healy]) is one that has more than three letters in it, so what was your point?


PAM BROWN SAID:

Has anyone met DVP? Has anyone met Reitzes? Is the question of whether he is an actual person or a persona the reason the question is being asked here?


MARK KNIGHT SAID:

I'm curious to find out who Von Pein actually is (I'm assuming it's a nom de plume), and I don't need another thread to ignore because of the juvenile squabbling.


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

Yea, even though he's a nitwit, there's no need to be insulting him by implying he's one and the same as David Reitzes, as I can attest they are two different nitwits who don't have the gonads to sign on here and talk honestly about the assassination of President Kennedy.

And indeed, instead of rising above mere debunkers and generating new and useful knowledge and research, they decided they liked being nitwit schmucks and distractions. They could have been contenders though...if they only had the gonads.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

Indeed. In my experience, the Peinster [that'd be me--DVP 😁] always puts up a fight no matter how lame and fact-free it is. [Varnell is nuts, of course.]

Dave Reitzes always curls into a ball and never engages the discussion. "That's my opinion, Cliff" -- is as far as he ever got in rebuttal with me.

Two different clowns. Same circus.


PAT SPEER SAID:

I am also curious about Von Pein's identity, and suspect he's somebody else. Most LN's are more than happy to tell you their qualifications. Not so Von Pein, who won't even post a picture of himself.

That said, I don't consider him a total troll. He's posted a lot of early news footage on his Youtube channel; these are definitely worth looking at. He's also posted links to interviews with his hero, Bugliosi, which prove that Bugliosi was working pretty much from a script, repeating the same lines from city to city, much as a stand-up comedian. Call VB the anti-Bill Hicks.


BILL MILLER SAID:

I would also like to know who the guy is because he is one of the most biased people I have ever seen post and no one, not even Oswald, was always right or wrong. Pein [sic] seemed bent on propaganda.


KATHY BECKET SAID:

I do not know David von Pein [sic], but I have emailed Dave Reitzes a few times, and always found him to be a very polite and sincere person. While I do not agree with alot of what he says, the level of discussion is always done with great respect.

I have read that he is not interested in joining this forum, because he believes all that will occur from his posting will be alot of namecalling, and to tell you the truth, he is probably right.

Shame.


WILLIAM KELLY SAID:

There is a point when David von Pein [sic] and Dave Reitzes reached where they could have become legitimate independent researchers and knowing the basic background of the case, forged new information, unearthed new documents, find a fresh witness, and expanded our knowledge of the assassination. Instead they decided to become debunkers and one of Prof. Rahn's coincidentalists.


J. WILLIAM KING SAID:

The one place I've found Mr. von Pein [sic] 24/7 is the Internet Movie Database (IMDB) on the Oliver Stone movie "JFK". He and his cronies are on there all day, all night blasting anyone who even asks the most innocent question.

Some on there say he and about 6 others are all the same person. The all agree with each other that anyone who questions the official version is obviously nuts. He posts there under "DVP-1" and probably other names as well, such as "NickSlickReturns".

I know the JFK movie discussion board on the IMDB isn't for serious researchers, but I worry about younger people who's [sic] first exposure to the assassination discussion is that board, and they end up falling right into his (and others) lone nutter grasp.

[DVP INTERJECTION --- Oh, those poor, poor youngsters who are unfortunate enough to fall into my evil "lone nutter grasp".]




PAM BROWN SAID:

"DVP" is just chock full of excuses for not providing any information that can be verified. There seems to be an agenda. Unfortunate, as he appears to have a bit of a following who might appreciate more concrete interactions with him, such as talking by phone or even actually meeting in person. However, this is not likely to happen as he is too busy trying to stay on the tightrope he has created.


GIL JESUS SAID:

This guy is never seen publicly.

He won't post a picture of himself or any bio info.

Sounds like an alias for someone we would all recognize.


ANTTI HYNONEN SAID:

David R. Vonpein [sic]

Mooresville, IN


PETER FOKES SAID:

Hi Antti,

Yes. It was a simple matter to find this name on the White Pages. I asked DVP last night on alt.assassination.jfk (before your post) whether he had ever been to Mooresville. :-)

But DVP hasn't been hiding that location. It is included in many of his Amazon reviews. Just do a search.


DAVE REITZES SAID:

Pam [Brown] & friends gossip about me & DVP:

http://EducationForum.com


J.G. LEYDEN SAID:

Well, they spelled your name right, Dave [Reitzes]. What more can you ask for? Of course, they also suggest you're David Von Pein, which can't be good news because it would double your work load. Gotta love these people. I'll bet they check under their beds every night and are disappointed when they don't find a CIA or FBI agent there.


JOHN McADAMS SAID:

What a bunch of wackos!


PAM BROWN SAID:

Typical McAdams. Ignore the context and make a blanket accusation.

The question about whether DVP was Reitzes was raised because it was discussed on Black Op Radio. It was asked as a question. Nobody has met DVP. So far, his identity is unverified.

Since McAdams is so big on documentation lately, why not provide some documentation for who this person actually is, and give us info on what contact McAdams has had with him? Where does DVP live? Who has actually met him? That would have some value; knee-jerk sputterings do not.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You stole my whole response, John ["What a bunch of wackos!"]. Now I don't need to post it. :)

BTW, I'm also supposed to be an LNer named Steve Keating (per one of those "wackos").

Three...three...three mints (er...LNers) in one! (Remember that commercial?)


WHISKY JOE SAID:

There are three levels of Conspiracy Theory researchers.

The highest level tries to tie the assassination to the CIA or Mafia or the KGB.

The second level tries to tie in the Judyth Baker story.

And the third level tries to prove that Dave Reitzes and David Von Pein are really the same person with ties to the CIA.

To be fair, Von Pein does sound like the name of someone who used to work for the East German Security and Intelligence Service.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, it's the name I was born with on Wednesday, 12/27/61 (while JFK was serving as President, btw). So, I guess I'm stuck with it--German Intel Service jokes and all. ;)

I considered changing my name to "Vincent Moore Posnerelli", but I figured that such a moniker would be too "obvious".


PETER FOKES SAID:

So Dick Van Dyke was already on TV when you were born?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yep. That CBS-TV program was, indeed, on the air at that time. It debuted 2+ months before I was hatched. :)

BTW -- For trivia buffs, the premiere episode of "The Dick Van Dyke Show" was filmed on the same day JFK was inaugurated (1/20/61).

http://Dick-Van-Dyke-Show.blogspot.com


WHISKY JOE SAID:

I predict that in the coming year some good progress will be made in the "Grand Unification Theory" that proves that Reitzes, Von Pein, Myers and McAdams are really the same person.

Note, to be fair, Pam [Brown] does not seem to buy into the theory that Reitzes and Von Pein are the same person.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

The fourth level [of Conspiracy Theory researchers] tries to prove that Whisky Joe is the new alias of Brandy Alexander. Notice how the WC defenders love to use aliases? They are to embarrassed to use their real names.


DAVE REITZES SAID:

Bob Harris thinks I'm at least two people. Someone at the Nuthouse [aka alt.conspiracy.jfk] once asked him if I and a certain LNer who used to post here were the same person. He responded, "I don't know if [name deleted] is posting through that account or not, but I have no doubt whatsoever that people of widely varying writing skills are. The long-winded stuff is definitely coming from a pro. If that is the David Reitzes we all know and love, then I would expect that he is published somewhere. But the guy who writes most of the day-to-day stuff is nowhere near that level."

He's accused me of some other interesting things (including a novel claim about how three well known JFK researchers and I spend the holiday season), but I don't want to tax the moderators' patience too much. \:^)


PAM BROWN AND DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

JFK Assassination Arguments (Part 429)


PAM BROWN SAID:

Are you refusing to acknowledge that there are some people who are wondering if you are an actual person or a persona?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Huh?

Of COURSE I "acknowledge" the fact that some people (all CTers, naturally) think that I'm posing as several different individuals on the Internet. It's fairly obvious that some CTers have jumped to that wholly unwarranted conclusion.

But do I need to officially "acknowledge" those suspicions from atop an orange crate in the middle of Town Square or something?


PAM BROWN SAID:

Don't you want to clear that up fast?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Actually, no. I love watching conspiracy theorists make fools out of themselves on a daily basis. And this issue of "DVP aliases" has been extremely entertaining from my end of the computer. I hope it continues. I enjoy it immensely. It's especially enjoyable since I know every one of those conspiracy theorists is 100% wrong.

So, no, I have no real desire to "clear that up" anytime soon. If the silly CTers who think I'm really several other people want to think that....let them. Heck, a CTer or two in the past actually alleged that I was Vincent Bugliosi in disguise. And what's not to like about that?!

There's probably nothing I could do to make those people stop believing that fantasy anyway. After all, most of those same CTers actually think that a THREE-BULLET substitute for the Single-Bullet Theory is a MORE REASONABLE and accurate explanation for the wounding of JFK and John Connally than is the SBT.

So, as you can see, that's the type of conspiratorial mentality I'm up against here. And who can fight imagination? It almost always trumps reality in a conspiracist's world.


PAM BROWN SAID:

You have managed to continue to be evasive.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:



Yeah, I've been "evasive" by forthrightly answering every single question that was asked of me.

See what I mean? I can't win even when I answer everything that's put to me. I love it!


PAM BROWN SAID:

So far, you have not presented any documentation to the fact that you are not an alias.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Another one of these needs to go here (for sure) --->

And just exactly what kind of "documentation" do you (or anyone) possess to show that the "He's Using Multiple Aliases" and "DVP Is Reitzes" rumors are correct? Anything at all?

IOW -- Is the burden of proof on ME here? Or should it be on the ill-informed people who make the accusations?

I guess nothing short of a birth certificate will suffice here, huh?

Oops. No, that won't be good enough either. Because somebody could say that all I did was swipe this guy's birth certificate.




DAVE REITZES SAID:

There are now TWO threads about DVP at the Simkin forum [The Education Forum].

Not bad for someone who doesn't even exist.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That other Education Forum thread was started by Tom "I Can't Say It Here At AAJ Because The Post Will Certainly Be Rejected If I Call Him This Name" Purvis back in September '08.


BRENDAN SLATTERY SAID:

Crackpot Simkin and his flying monkeys really do give Nixon a run for his money in the paranoia department. During my brief stay there, the locals were *obsessed* with my listed occupation, demanding to know more about my work. More than a few suggested that I might be a government "plant."

Thank God I didn't submit my real photo (they had no right to that anyway; that goes double for my real name). The vast majority of them are unhinged, Bush-hating leftists who bewailed things like FISA and the Patriot Act to no end, yet didn't think twice about compromising MY privacy. A pox on all of them.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here's a little something that indicates that certain people at The Education Forum can't even follow the progression of a simple forum thread, and are unable to identify the people who are making the posts. (It's either that explanation, or Bill Kelly just simply cannot read....or he thinks that Mr. Slattery [aka "slats"] is another one of the many fake names I'm supposed to be using on the Internet, per the conspiracists.)

William Kelly of The Education Forum said this in the post linked below:

"Apparently Von Pein is not his real name and he's so afraid of the truth he won't post a picture of himself, so he's disqualified on two points. He's concerned about his "privacy"? He calls Simkin a crackpot and me a flying monkey but doesn't have the balls to join the debate?" -- William Kelly; February 1, 2009

Kelly (as well as Pat Speer) seem to think that I wrote this post.

Somebody should teach William Kelly how to read forum posts. Because it's quite obvious that the post which Kelly/Speer credit as being mine was written by "slats", who used to post common-sense stuff at The Edu. Forum, which is why the kooks hated his guts there too.

Another interesting (and deceptive) thing that Kelly did in the above Education Forum post was to add in the web address to my JFK Blog at the bottom of that message. Kelly added that weblink HIMSELF. Because that link does not appear in either my original post to which "slats" was responding or in the post "slats" made.

Seems to me as though Mr. Kelly is trying to pull the wool over somebody's eyes there at the Edu. Forum by ADDING IN something that never appeared in the aaj posts he was quoting from, making it look as if I (DVP), myself, had "signed" that post with my blog address. That's pretty darn deceptive, IMO.

Anyway, maybe I should thank Mr. Kelly for the free advertising, since I have no way of posting a link to my JFK Blog on that Edu. Forum myself. [As of early 2009, that is. But since that time, I have rejoined The Education Forum as an active member.]

BTW/FYI:

I did not refuse to post a picture of myself during my short-lived stay at The Education Forum in July of 2006. I told Mr. Simkin that I did not have any picture to post (which was the absolute truth; I had none at all available). [I did, however, find a very tiny picture to use as my Profile photo when I rejoined that forum in August of 2010.]

I was in the process of trying to work out some kind of a compromise regarding my adhering to the Forum rule about all members putting a picture in their profiles (even though, as I pointed out to Mr. Simkin at that time in 2006, there were several long-time members in mid-'06 who were not fulfilling that requirement as well), when Mr. Simkin decided to cut off my membership after only four days of posting. Therefore, no such "photo compromise" could be worked out.


PAM BROWN SAID:

More excuses from "DVP" to attempt to justify his not posting on the Ed Forum and instead complaining about it here. Guess this is the kind of mishmash one can expect from a died-in-the-wool WC apologist.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Or -- it's the kind of raw truth you can expect from a person who posted for four days at a forum that detests the likes of lone-assassin believers.

Your choice.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

If I remember correctly, the Education Forum requires registration and that you use your REAL name.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes. Correct. Which I did.

So what's your point?


PAM BROWN SAID:

I feel sure John Simkin would find a way for "DVP" to post if he were to pony up bio info and photo; especially since it was John who initiated this thread.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have no problem with revealing "bio" type info (e.g., location, age, e-mail address). In fact, I almost always "pony up" such info on websites where a "Profile" is made available to the world [such as here].

And I don't really have a problem with providing a photo either. It's just that (in 2006) I did not have a photo available.

I have discovered, however, a very small picture that I could use as a profile image (although it will probably show up way too blurry and indistinct if it's blown up much at all).

But I'm certainly willing to sign up again as an active member at The Education Forum (if John Simkin hasn't banned me completely after my dismissal three years ago). Does he allow people to re-join after they've been previously kicked off? I have no idea about that. ~shrug~

Anyway, I'm game.....if John S. is.


BUD SAID:

It's always interesting to read Pam's interpretation of what someone says. The way she reads what is written explains the conclusions she draws. How could she not be a CT?


PAM BROWN SAID:

You have to use your real name "DVP"...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I did. (Your disbelief notwithstanding, of course.)


PAM BROWN SAID:

...and you have to provide bio information connected to it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Does such mandatory info stop at "locale, age, race, sex, favorite cereal, and shoe size"? Or do I have to provide my blood type and last 12 employers as well in order to satisfy Mr. Simkin's hunger for useless data?


PAM BROWN SAID:

Plus, you have to post a photo, which you refused to do.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Incorrect. (As usual.)


PAM BROWN SAID:

Get real.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I have.

Maybe you, though, should learn to read (and comprehend correctly), Pam. That'd help greatly.

Plus, it would probably help if you would refrain from hanging a label of suspicion on people when you have so little reason to do so.

But, hey, maybe I'm just being totally unreasonable to expect such restraint from a conspiracy believer.


BUD SAID:

If you [Pam] really wanted to "get real" you'd acknowledge that the only reason they started enforcing the photograph requirement was to contrive a reason to kick DVP out. If it wasn't for him posting there, it would have never been an issue, as it wasn't strictly enforced prior to his participation in that forum (and as far as I can tell, there are still members who haven't provided a photo, but these mostly lurk without posting).

The "real" reason they wanted him gone is that he keeps bringing up that pesky evidence that gets in the way of the silly things they want to believe.


PAM BROWN SAID:

You also have to have a photo as your avatar [at The Education Forum] and a bio that provides some information about you. Hard for a persona to do that.


BARB JUNKKARINEN SAID:

Why? Anyone who can create a "persona" can come up with a pic and create a bio to go with it.

You seem obsessed with ragging on DVP as being a "persona" ... yet you created several fake ID [e-mail] addreses a few months ago to attack me and a couple others. Not knowing what an IP address is, you got outed immediately.

But isn't it more than a tad hypocritical for you to make it such a pursuit to rag on someone else who you accuse of creating a persona ... when you don't have any proof it's true in the first place ... and when you have done the same thing yourself?


PAM BROWN SAID:

Simkin started the thread to find out if "DVP" is an actual person. You figure it out.


BARB JUNKKARINEN SAID:

When you get right down to it, what difference does it make? What any of us have to deal with are the words others put out....regardless of who, or what, they are.

[...]

You, Pam, do little else but distract from discussion of actual research on evidence and issues with nonsense like this on DVP and others ... particularly those who don't buy Judyth [Baker's] story.

Is that your goal?


DAVE REITZES SAID:

Three Von Pein threads at the Simkin forum . . . and counting.


BARB JUNKKARINEN SAID:

He must be seen as an effective threat on something to garner so much interest and attention??


DAVE REITZES SAID:

One Nuthouse psycho [at the alt.conspiracy.jfk newsgroup] is even calling upon people to bomb DVP's home residence.

It's a swell class of people over there.


REPRISE....
JOHN SIMKIN SAID:

A researcher has asked for information on David Von Pein.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:







Also See:
DVP Vs. Various Individual Conspiracy Theorists


David Von Pein
January 24—February 4, 2009
August 6, 2018

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1006)

BILL KELLY SAID:

Is D. F. Drittal written in the same handwriting [on the mail-order coupon for the Smith & Wesson revolver]? It doesn't appear to be to me.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The FBI's James Cadigan said it is, yes. (Just as I said in this post, where I quote Cadigan's Warren Commission testimony.)

But, of course, the "D.F. Drittal" portion of the coupon is really supposed to be written by someone other than the person who is ordering the gun.

So, if Oswald had any sense at all, he would have written the name "D.F. Drittal" in a slightly different writing style from that of his own handwriting--in order to fool the people at Seaport Traders into thinking that this fictitious person named "Drittal" had really signed the order coupon and was really vouching for this guy "A.J. Hidell".

But, per James Cadigan's testimony, Oswald obviously didn't disguise his handwriting well enough to fool a questioned documents expert like Cadigan.

Why is there this extreme need by conspiracy theorists such as Jim DiEugenio to pretend that Oswald never ordered the revolver from Seaport Traders? What a bizarre notion.

Even if the order coupon never existed--who cares? It doesn't matter one bit. Because Oswald was caught red-handed with Revolver #V510210 in his hands in the Texas Theater just 35 minutes after somebody killed Officer J.D. Tippit with Revolver #V510210.

This is kindergarten math here. Oswald's guilty.

Footnote---

Here's a composite photo I just now put together, showing the words "Dallas, Texas" printed on two different Warren Commission exhibits -- CE790 and CE794 -- the latter being a change-of-address card that Oswald filled out in 1963. Notice any similarities?:




BILL KELLY SAID:

And why "Drittal"?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why not Drittal?


BILL KELLY SAID:

And why fill out the forms at all? You make it seem like Jimmy D [DiEugenio] is some sort of idiot for not putting two and two together and acknowledging that Oswald owned the pistol said to have been used to kill Tippit.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think your next four words that you wrote below should tell you something....


BILL KELLY SAID:

Okay, it's his gun.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, you're admitting that Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210 WAS Lee Harvey Oswald's gun?

That's a good start to realizing that the OWNER OF THAT GUN (who had that same gun ON HIM when he was arrested) is very likely the person who used it to fire the bullets FROM THAT GUN into the body of Officer Tippit.

And please don't say — But the bullets couldn't be matched to that V510210 revolver, David — because that fact doesn't mean Oswald's gun did not murder Tippit, and every reasonable person knows it.

And the lack of J.M. Poe's initials on two of the shells doesn't prove anything either -- because there are TWO MORE SHELLS at that crime scene that conspiracists love to ignore completely. And those OTHER two shells were ejected from the ONLY GUN that was being dumped of its shell casings on Tenth Street right after Tippit's murder.


BILL KELLY SAID:

He [Oswald] had it on him when he was arrested in the theater, and acknowledged it to interrogators, but how come we don't have any evidence -- records or witnesses of him picking it up at the Post Office, or the rifle for that matter, and when did he do it if he worked six days a week and the PO was closed on Sundays?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why do conspiracy seekers think that Oswald HAD to pick up his guns at a specific time of the day? Maybe he got the guns BEFORE work hours...or AFTER work. Nobody can know for certain. But there's certainly at least a few minutes of a few different days when there was a window of opportunity for Oswald to collect his guns from the post office and the REA Express office. Or: maybe Oswald ducked out of worked for a short time one day. Who can know?


BILL KELLY SAID:

Did somebody pick up the weapons for him?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There was no need for that. See my last comments above.


BILL KELLY SAID:

And why did he go through the whole rigamarole of ordering the pistol and the rifle through the mails and the PO box with the aliases and money orders, when he could have gone to Green's down the street and bought both with cash and no records of his identification to purchase them?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Can you PROVE that H.L. Green's in Dallas didn't keep records on the PEOPLE who bought guns from them in 1963?

This issue of Oswald being able to walk into any gun store or department store in the state of Texas and buy a gun without a speck of paperwork being left behind is something that I do not think has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. My guess is: it's another silly myth created by conspiracy theorists.

Maybe SOME stores didn't keep records of their gun transactions. But I think that SOME did keep full records of such firearms purchases. And Jean Davison has been recently looking into this matter more deeply, and has posted some interesting information on it, such as the two posts HERE and HERE.


BILL KELLY SAID:

So he's guilty in your mind, but you still haven't figured out how he got the guns from the Post Office, or where he got the bullets from, or where the rifle and pistol were when he went to New Orleans and Mexico City, and what's with that strap--the one on the rifle said to have been used to kill the President? Where'd that come from? The US AF officer holster strap. I know, it doesn't matter, as long as Oswald is guilty, all the other questions are meaningless.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I want to know if there's ever been a murder case in U.S. history where it has been mandatory to find out WHERE the accused killer acquired his BULLETS to put into his gun(s)?

And has there ever been a case in history where it's been required to know with 100% certainty where the accused murderer got the strap that he put on his rifle?

And has there ever been a case where it's been a requirement to know WHERE the murder weapon was stored for a certain period of time TWO MONTHS BEFORE the murder was committed?

You're concentrating on all the wrong things, William Kelly. You're looking right at the killer who practically has a smoking gun in his hand (in the case of the Tippit murder anyway, with Oswald trying to kill more cops in the theater with the very same gun he had just used to kill Officer Tippit) and you are, in essence, ignoring the obvious and asking unimportant and trivial questions instead.

You might just as well ask this --- Gee, I wonder where Oswald got those shoes he was wearing when he was arrested in the Texas Theater? I really don't think he could have done all that walking on November 22 while wearing those particular shoes. They look too uncomfortable.

David Von Pein
August 12, 2010

DVP vs. DiEUGENIO (PART 74)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here are some portions of the transcript of Raymond Marcus' telephone interview with Darrell C. Tomlinson on Monday, July 25, 1966; 8:00 pm, Pacific Time:

T: Tomlinson
M: Marcus

******

M: Did anybody show you the bullet after the time you found it, and after the time you gave it to Mr. Wright?

T: I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr. Shanklin from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel with Mr. Wright there when they called me in.

M: When Shanklin and Mr. Wright called you in at that time, did they show you the bullet?

T: Yes.

M: Did they ask you if it looked like the same one?

T: Yes, I believe they did.

M: And as far as you could tell--- of course, you weren't making a ballistics test of it--- but as far as you could tell, did it look like the same one to you?

T: Yes, it appeared to be the same one.

[....]

M: Now I know they questioned you over and over again in the volumes there, about which stretcher the bullet came off of, and you seemed to think it was not off the one that came off of the elevator?

T: No, it (pause) that *was* the one that it came off of.

M: You think it was off the one that came off the elevator?

T: I know it was.

M: OK, all right.

[....]

M: Now, when it rolled out from under the pad, it rolled out onto the stretcher itself?

T: Right there, there's a little dip in the stretcher there.

M: Right.

T: And that bullet, it must have been lodged right under the pad there.

M: I got it. I got it. And your best recollection is that was from the stretcher that came off the elevator?

T: Yes, that's right.

M: OK; now when you noticed the bullet there --- this wasn't clear -- then it never fell on the floor? The bullet didn't actually fall to the floor, did it?

T: No, uh uh (as in shaking one's head to indicate negative)

M: It was right there on the stretcher?

T: That's right (unintellig. words -- about 2 or 3)

M: Now, who did you-- did you pick the bullet up yourself at that time?

T: Right. I picked the bullet up and put it in my pocket.

M: OK, did you-- as far as you can tell, I know you just picked it up like that, but did you notice, was it bloody, did the bullet show any evidence of blood on it itself?

T: I didn't notice it.

M: It would have been too slight to notice, I imagine.

T: Right. I just glanced at the (? ---damned, says RM) bullet so I put it in my pocket and the first time that the security chief stopped by, Mr. Wright, I turned it over to him-- first time by.

M: OK. Now do you recall when you saw that bullet, was there anything about it that struck you, was it, uh, was it, uh, banged up, or was it neat and clean, or do you recall that, was it mangled at all?

T: No, it wasn't mangled., it was a pretty clean bullet.

M: Pretty clean shape.

T: Yep.

SOURCE LINK


COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF THE MARCUS/TOMLINSON INTERVIEW


CONSPIRACY THEORIST WILLIAM KELLY INTERJECTED:

You also claim to enjoy humoring yourself by proving [Robert] Harris and [James] DiEugenio wrong, and as Harris has said, and I'm sure Jimmy D will acknowledge, they are open to persuasion and will correct the record where necessary, but that still doesn't change the fact that the provenance of CE399 is tarnished, there is evidence that it isn't what caused all of the non-fatal damage in the limo, and that its origin has never been established.


DAVID VON PEIN:

CE399 is a bullet from Oswald's gun, Bill.

That fact ALONE is powerful evidence that it IS a legit bullet in this case. And that's because, as I've mentioned before, it dovetails and fits perfectly with all of the other ballistics evidence connected with JFK's murder. Which is ballistics evidence recovered from THREE different locations by multiple law enforcement agencies.

That's some fantastic across-the-board coordination for the bullet fakery in this case, wouldn't you agree Bill? The SS and the FBI and the DPD all got together and decided to make it look UNIFIED so that everything would come back to this conclusion in the end:

Lee Oswald's Carcano was the murder weapon.

Amazing that anyone could even begin to believe that ANY of the bullet/rifle evidence in this case is faked or planted when considering the fact that this stuff was recovered by DIFFERENT law agencies and was found in THREE separate places--Parkland, the Depository, and in the President's limousine itself.





WILLIAM KELLY:

As I quoted what Bill Turner said about the assassin's bullets - the important question is who paid for them? A question you can't answer, don't bother to ask or try to find the answer to - because you already know they were somehow obtained by LHO, the accused assassin, and he's a nut case anyway, so we don't really need to know where the bullets came from or who paid for them, do we?

I don't know why [Robert] Harris and Jimmy D even bother trying to amuse you, but I guess it's good they keep you busy with this nonsense.


DAVID VON PEIN:

It is all nonsense, Bill. CTer nonsense, that is.

The WC and the HSCA had no problem declaring that Oswald killed Kennedy.

And the WC and HSCA had no problem declaring that CE399 was THE BULLET that struck both JFK and Connally.

But apparently you think the HSCA was too stupid (or was too corrupt) to seek out the truth about the stretcher bullet. So they merely rubber-stamped the Warren Commission's conclusion of CE399 being the SBT bullet.

Two different fact-finding committees (the WC & HSCA), some 14 years apart, reached the conclusion that Oswald was JFK's murderer and that CE399 was the SBT bullet.

But that EXTRA hunk of confirmation by the House Select Committee means NOTHING to conspiracy theorists, does it Bill? The HSCA was filled with nothing but liars too, right?

And to think we need to know WHERE Oswald purchased the bullets he used to kill President Kennedy is just another one of the many chaff-like things that CTers love to prop up to cloud the true facts of Oswald's guilt.

Heck, CTers now even demand to know where Oswald got his revolver bullets too -- even though Oswald was caught red-handed with that gun in his hands just 35 minutes after he shot J.D. Tippit with it!

Can you name one other murder case in history where the prosecution, in order to secure a conviction, was required to track down where the accused killer bought his bullets? (And it's a particularly needless thing to know in a case where the accused murderer was caught by the police with the murder weapon in his hands when he was arrested.)


JAMES DiEUGENIO:

Davey: Where is the record of this interview with Shanklin that you and Jeannie [Davison] are so attached to? Can you please show me the memorandum by Shanklin?


DAVID VON PEIN:

No, I can't. And that's because the agent who visited Tomlinson & Wright at Parkland on 6/12/64 probably wasn't Gordon Shanklin. It was probably just exactly who the FBI said it was in its July 1964 report (seen in CE2011) -- Bardwell Odum.

And, no, I can't show you the official "FD-302" report from Odum either. But there are undoubtedly lots of FBI interviews that were conducted after the assassination where the FD-302s have never been tracked down (or even looked for). Have you seen EVERY FD-302 connected with every FBI interview regarding this case, Jim? Of course you haven't. That doesn't mean that they never existed.

I wouldn't be surprised if a 302 form for Odum's interviews with Tomlinson and Wright is buried somewhere at the Mary Ferrell site right now. If you give me sixteen years, I'll try to find it for you, Jimmy. [See the Dec. 2022 edit below.]

Anyway, regardless of the "FD-302" form, this stuff below from Tomlinson's own lips is getting under Jimmy's skin. And that's quite obvious from the nature of DiEugenio's last question. He still doesn't want to believe that Tomlinson said anything to ANYBODY like the stuff quoted below (let alone having this stuff being elicited by a CTer like Marcus; that really irks Mr. Anybody But Oswald).

And even if an official FD-302 form never existed for the FBI's visit to Parkland in June of '64, we still have Tomlinson telling Marcus that the FBI did show him a bullet at some point in time after Nov. 22, and we still have Tomlinson telling Marcus that the bullet that was shown to him by an FBI man "appeared to be the same one" that Tomlinson found on a stretcher on November 22:


Marcus: Did anybody show you the bullet after the time you found it, and after the time you gave it to Mr. Wright?

Tomlinson: I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr. Shanklin from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel with Mr. Wright there when they called me in.

Marcus: When Shanklin and Mr. Wright called you in at that time, did they show you the bullet?

Tomlinson: Yes.

Marcus: Did they ask you if it looked like the same one?

Tomlinson: Yes, I believe they did.

Marcus: And as far as you could tell--- of course, you weren't making a ballistics test of it--- but as far as you could tell, did it look like the same one to you?

Tomlinson: Yes, it appeared to be the same one.


DAVID VON PEIN:

The next theory that I expect to hear from DiEugenio is this one:

Well, yes, Davey, I'll concede that an FBI agent went out to Parkland and showed Tomlinson a "bullet", and I'll concede that Tomlinson told the FBI man that that bullet looked pretty much like the bullet Darrell had taken off a stretcher.

But the reason for that is: The FBI didn't show him CE399 at all. They showed him the POINTY-TIPPED BULLET that Tomlinson REALLY DID find on a stretcher. And that's why Tomlinson was able to say that the bullets looked the same.

After all, since Hoover and his boys were the ones who actually SWITCHED the bullets, then they wouldn't dare go out to Parkland and show Tomlinson a bullet that they knew WASN'T the bullet Tomlinson actually saw on 11/22.

[End CTer Simulation.]

Would you like to try that theory out for size, Jim D.?

Anyway, I'm sure Jimbo is working on some kind of new twist that will somehow still make the FBI out to be liars regarding the Tomlinson matter. Wait and see.


JAMES DiEUGENIO:

OK, so you admit that you cannot find any memo of this interview with Shanklin. Even though this is what Tomlinson said happened.

Did you look? Just curious.

Because Gary Aguilar did look for the record of all field interviews in this category.

He could not come up with any at the National Archives.

So you and Jeanie did not look then did you? Even though you claim that Jeannie (AKA Priscilla) is such a careful researcher. (I mean you even had Bill K swallowing that BS.) When in fact she is not a researcher at all. IF she was, she would have cross checked this out.

She either did not do so, or she thinks it did not happen. Which would be a good reason for her not to check.


DAVID VON PEIN:

Oh, goodie. This just keeps getting better and better. Because now (by inference) DiEugenio wants to call Tomlinson a liar. And Ray Marcus too. (And Raymond is one of Jimmy's own CT boys.)

WHO CARES if a 302 exists for the Tomlinson interview, Jim? We have Marcus' transcript, which is a VERBATIM ACCOUNT of his telephone conversation with Darrell C. Tomlinson.

You think Marcus just made up his 1966 interview with Tomlinson? A CTer who thinks CE399 is a "Bastard Bullet" just made up the part where Tomlinson admitted that 399 looked the same as the stretcher bullet? Is that what you want to believe, Jimmy?

Give it another try, Jimbo. Because your last pathetic attempt to discredit both Tomlinson and Marcus reeks of "Anybody But Oswald" desperation. (As usual.)

Footnote---

It's also possible that an official FD-302 report by Odum (or Shanklin) would not really be required in the instance of the FBI interviews with Tomlinson, Wright, Rowley, Johnsen, and Todd.....and that's because the July 7, 1964, FBI report essentially COULD serve as the FD-302 report regarding those interviews.

In other words, the FBI report of 7/7/64 (seen in CE2011) says the exact same thing that a 302 would also say.

[DECEMBER 2022 EDIT -- The third paragraph of This June 27, 1964, FBI Airtel seems to confirm the fact that no FD-302 reports were filed by the FBI agents for the individual interviews they conducted for the FBI report which eventually became Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2011. Quoting from the 6/27/64 Airtel: "Inasmuch as this investigation was conducted at the specific request of the President's Commission, information contained in the letterhead memorandum will not be set forth in a subsequent report UACB (Unless Advised to the Contrary by the Bureau)." .... Also see this post.]








JAMES DiEUGENIO:

Gordon Shanklin does not remotely recall Bardwell Odum. You and Jeannie just made that up in order to insert it into CE 2011.


DAVID VON PEIN:

Huh? You're going to have to explain that last hunk of nonsense regarding Shanklin and Odum, Jimbo. What is it that "Jeannie" and I just "made up"?


JAMES DiEUGENIO:

Now, let us continue so we can see the kind of work DVP does, and the kind of work he admires. You know, that "fine" researcher Jean Davison.

In a June [1964] Airtel the FBI sent to Hoover, the message is that Tomlinson (and Wright) could not ID the bullet. (Whichever bullet it was.)

But see, that contradicts what Davey Boy is saying here. And he does not even note the paradox. For if Tomlinson DID identify the bullet with Shanklin, why would the FBI say he did not?


DAVID VON PEIN:

The June 20, 1964, Airtel is not contradictory at all with Tomlinson's interview with the FBI agent at Parkland on 6/12/64.

Tomlinson didn't make a POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION of the bullet EITHER time. And the Airtel does not say that Tomlinson said that CE399 was definitely NOT the stretcher bullet. It merely means (quite obviously) that Tomlinson could not POSITIVELY identify the bullet.

How COULD he have positively IDed it? He didn't put any mark on the stretcher bullet. So the most he could say is that 399 looked similar to the bullet he saw on 11/22/63, which is exactly what he told the FBI on June 12th, 1964, which, btw, is eight days before the 6/20/64 FBI Airtel to Hoover.

The FBI report seen in CE2011 wasn't officially dated until July 7, 1964, but that multi-page report contains many FBI interviews with various witnesses, spanning from June 2nd to July 6th, 1964.

So it's very likely that Tomlinson's June 12th interview (when he DID say that CE399 looked the same as the stretcher bullet) actually came BEFORE the June 20th Airtel report, and not the other way around.

In fact, given the very close range of dates here, the 6/20/64 FBI Airtel might very well be referring to the very same interview that the FBI did with Darrell Tomlinson on 6/12/64. Tomlinson, after all, told Ray Marcus that he had only been shown CE399 "one time" after 11/22/63. So, the Airtel is very likely referring to the June 12th interview with Tomlinson. And if that's the case, then the FBI Airtel is a non-issue, because CE2011 confirms that Tomlinson told the FBI that CE399 looked like the stretcher bullet.

[EDIT: The two-page 6/20/64 FBI Airtel message, which can be seen HERE, is almost certainly referring to the 6/12 interview. There's even reference in the Airtel to the 5/20/64 letter sent to the FBI by the Warren Commission, which is also mentioned at the top of Page 1 in CE2011.]

DiEugenio is now undoubtedly going to play word games with the FBI's June '64 Airtel message....with Jimbo likely saying that the words "could not identify the bullet" absolutely have to mean this:

CE399 doesn't even resemble the bullet I [Darrell C. Tomlinson] found on a stretcher on Nov. 22, 1963.

But that's not the meaning in that Airtel. It merely means that Tomlinson could not provide any kind of POSITIVE identification.

And the FBI HAD to know, of course, that they weren't going to get a "Yes, that's definitely THE bullet I saw on Nov. 22" response out of Tomlinson or O.P. Wright -- because the FBI knew that neither man had put any initials on the bullet. So the best the FBI could possibly hope for is just what the FBI man got out of Tomlinson and Wright on June 12th, which is when BOTH Tomlinson & Wright were specifically asked if CE399 looked like the stretcher bullet.* And both men said at that time that CE399 did look like the bullet they each saw on 11/22.

* = At least we can know that Tomlinson was SPECIFICALLY asked that question, because Tomlinson told Marcus in 1966 that he was asked that question (and since O.P. Wright was right there with Tomlinson, I think it's reasonable to assume that Wright was also asked this specific question too):

MARCUS: Did they ask you if it looked like the same one?

TOMLINSON: Yes, I believe they did.

MARCUS: And as far as you could tell--- of course, you weren't making a ballistics test of it--- but as far as you could tell, did it look like the same one to you?

TOMLINSON: Yes, it appeared to be the same one.

The FBI Airtel has likely made many CTers salivate, because of the language used. But just because Tomlinson said he "could not ID" the bullet in the Airtel, that doesn't mean that CE399 couldn't at least resemble the stretcher bullet.

And we've got TWO interviews with the same man (Tomlinson) that verify that when Tomlinson WAS specifically asked if CE399 resembled the stretcher bullet, Tomlinson said Yes, 399 looks like the stretcher bullet. Those two interviews are the FBI interview of 6/12/64 and the Marcus interview with Tomlinson on 7/25/66.

And Jim D. cannot escape the Marcus transcript....which is a document that proves for all time that Darrell Tomlinson definitely told the FBI that CE399 "appeared to be the same one" that Darrell found on a Parkland stretcher on November 22nd.


JAMES DiEUGENIO:

Talk about playing word games.

He started this whole thread by saying that Tomlinson said that he did ID CE 399 as the bullet,

Now he says, Oh geez, he could not really be sure since he did not mark it.

C'mon, you double-talking back tracker. Fess up.

The FBi airtel says the exact opposite of what you are now claiming and you did not even have the guts or honesty to tell the reader that.

That is the truth. So don't start dancing around like you are getting salsa lessons.

Tell the truth, man, is that so foreign?

You came on like gangbusters here, that you had this really hot discovery that was going to shove it down our throats. Then me and Bob [Harris] start poking holes in your "discovery" and Jean Davison's "fine researcher" illusion, and what do you do?

Oh, he didn't mark it!

Davey, since when do witnesses mark evidence? Maybe in Hoosier country?

But man, that is a road you don't want to go down do you?

Because whose initials are on the bullet? C'mon tell the truth, just for once maybe?

Next time, put things in context OK? Then you won't have to go through this denuding process.


DAVID VON PEIN:

Mighty weak, Jimmy. Especially in light of the Marcus transcript, which confirms something you just flat-out don't want to believe---

I.E.,

Darrell Tomlinson DID talk to the FBI in '64 and he DID tell an FBI agent that CE399 looked like the stretcher bullet and he DID tell Marcus that the bullet he found came from the ELEVATOR stretcher.

Go ahead, Jim....call Ray Marcus a liar. I dare ya.

Or perhaps you'd prefer to spit on Jean Davison some more. Being the type of repulsive Anybody But Oswald conspiracy clown that you are, it wouldn't surprise me if you came right out and accused Jean of making up the whole Marcus transcript. After all, you've already essentially called both Jean and myself liars earlier in this thread when you claimed that Jean and I "made up" something connected with CE2011. (What was the "made up" stuff again, Jimbo? You never did tell me.)


REPEATING THIS DiEUGENIO QUOTE:

Davey, since when do witnesses mark evidence?


DAVID VON PEIN:

Exactly. Which is one of the main points I made earlier. Didn't you hear me when I said this just a little while ago? .....

"Tomlinson didn't make a POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION of the bullet EITHER time. And the Airtel does not say that Tomlinson said that CE399 was definitely NOT the stretcher bullet. It merely means (quite obviously) that Tomlinson could not POSITIVELY identify the bullet.

"How COULD he have positively IDed it? He didn't put any mark on the stretcher bullet. So the most he could say is that 399 looked similar to the bullet he saw on 11/22. ....

"And the FBI HAD to know, of course, that they weren't going to get a "Yes, that's definitely THE bullet I saw on Nov. 22" response out of Tomlinson or O.P. Wright -- because the FBI knew that neither man had put any initials on the bullet. So the best the FBI could possibly hope for is just what the FBI man got out of Tomlinson and Wright on June 12th, which is when BOTH Tomlinson & Wright were specifically asked if CE399 looked like the stretcher bullet. And both men said at that time that CE399 did look like the bullet they each saw on 11/22." -- DVP


JAMES DiEUGENIO:

But I am still not done with you partner. Just warming up.


DAVID VON PEIN:

Bring it on, Mr. Conspiracy Clown. I always look forward to reading more of your silly claptrap (for the laughs). Maybe you can start by clearing up that allegation of yours that Jean Davison and I "made up" some stuff recently. I'd enjoy cramming that lie down your silly gullet.


JAMES DiEUGENIO:

You try and insinuate through pure alchemy that somehow CE 2011 is now salvaged because of the Marcus-Tomlinson interview.

But evidently you never read Gary Aguilar's definitive article on this episode. (The Assassinations, pgs 282-86)

[...]

[Quoting Aguilar:]

"Thus, no contemporaneous FBI record supports the claim in Commission Exhibit 2011 that either Tomlinson or Wright said CE 399 resembled the bullet they saw on the day JFK died." (p. 284)

Now, this article was written especially for that book, which was published in 2003. And as I mentioned earlier, Gary was in direct contact with the Archives in his records search. So at least as far as that date goes, no other search surpasses it. And this is much more than you and that "fine researcher" Jean Davison (aka Priscilla Johnson) did. Therefore, one has to consider this to be rather definitive. That is unless someone goes back to NARA and finds out a mistake was made or that something new has been released.


DAVID VON PEIN:

This is really getting hilarious, Jimmy.

Incredibly, DiEugenio evidently thinks Aguilar's article, which does not include a verbatim interview with Darrell Tomlinson (as Marcus' transcript does), somehow trumps Ray Marcus' personal interview with Tomlinson.

I love it!

This is a great example of a conspiracy theorist squirming and flapping in the wind after discovering that something happened that he has insisted for years never happened at all. And it's actually TWO important things that people like DiEugenio insist never happened, both of which do a nice of job of clogging up Jimbo's Anybody-But-Oswald works:

1.) Tomlinson definitely said that CE399 looked like the stretcher bullet.

2.) Tomlinson was definitely shown Bullet CE399 by a member of the FBI.

Both of the above things are confirmed in the Marcus/Tomlinson interview. And both of those things are things that ABO CTers like Jim DiEugenio have (for years) said the FBI lied about.

So, short of calling Raymond Marcus (a CTer like Jimmy, no less) an outright liar and/or calling Darrell Tomlinson an outright liar, there is no escape hatch for Jimbo and other CTers concerning this particular issue.

But I love watching a conspiracy monger like DiEugenio attempt to wiggle his way out of the fact that Tomlinson said he told the FBI that 399 looked like the stretcher bullet.

And although it's utterly despicable and vomit-inducing, I also love Jimbo trying to discredit one of the very finest JFK researchers ever born--Jean Davison.

And the "aka Priscilla Johnson" stuff when referring to Jean is really weird....even for Mr. Anybody-But-Oswald (DiEugenio).


JAMES DiEUGENIO:

From a guy who tries to substitute Gordon Shanklin for Bardwell Odum. .... There was no separate interview Odum did with Tomlinson. You are just making that up. CE 2011 is a fraud. Because Odum never had CE 399 to show. (BTW, I wanted to make sure there was no ambiguity on this. So I called Gary [Aguilar] up on this and asked him directly about it. He said, yes, that is what he meant since that is what Odum told him.)


DAVID VON PEIN:

For Jimbo's edification, it wasn't me who said that the FBI agent Tomlinson talked to was Gordon Shanklin. It was Darrell Tomlinson who said that:

"I believe Mr. Shanklin from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel with Mr. Wright there when they called me in." -- Darrell C. Tomlinson; 7/25/66

So, after seeing the above Tomlinson quote (and also after seeing the part in the Tomlinson/Marcus interview about Tomlinson saying that he had seen CE399 just "one time" after 11/22/63), it seems fairly logical to conclude one of the following things:

1.) CE2011 is incorrect as to the name of the FBI agent who showed Tomlinson a bullet on 6/12/64. (It was really Shanklin and not Bardwell Odum.)

2.) Darrell Tomlinson, in his 1966 interview with Marcus, was incorrect about the name of the FBI agent. (It was really Odum and not Shanklin.)

3.) Perhaps BOTH Odum and Shanklin went to Parkland Hospital on 6/12/64 to interview Tomlinson and O.P. Wright, and only the name of the field agent (Odum) was placed in the 7/7/64 FBI report that appears in CE2011.

Any one of the above three possibilities seems fairly reasonable to me, in light of the Marcus/Tomlinson interview.

Of course, NONE of those three choices is even in the ballpark for Jimbo DiEugenio. Right, Jim?


ADDENDUM:

Vincent Bugliosi had this to say about this issue:

"Per the July 7, 1964, report (CE 2011), the FBI agent who showed Tomlinson and Wright Commission Exhibit No. 399 (FBI Exhibit C-1) was Bardwell D. Odum. But interestingly, when assassination researchers [Gary] Aguilar and Josiah Thompson visited Odum at his home in Dallas in late September of 2002, Odum told them he never had that bullet in his possession and, hence, did not show it to anyone.

"Unless the July report is in error as to the name of the agent who showed Tomlinson the bullet, Odum, almost forty years after the fact, has simply forgotten. Odum said that if he had shown anyone the bullet, he would have prepared an FBI report (called a “302” after the number of the form, FD-302) on it. (Letter from Gary Aguilar to author dated October 13, 2004)

"The same “bogus” [Aguilar's word] July 7, 1964, FBI report (CE 2011) says that Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen, to whom O. P. Wright gave the slug, “could not identify this bullet,” and James Rowley, chief of the U.S. Secret Service to whom Johnsen gave the slug, also “could not identify this bullet.” (FBI special agent Elmer Todd, to whom Rowley gave the bullet, was, per the report, able to identify it “from initials” marked thereon by Todd at the FBI laboratory.)

"In an effort to explain why, if the FBI were up to no good, FBI agents would falsify what Tomlinson and Wright told them, but not what Johnsen and Rowley told them, Aguilar amusingly writes that the FBI authors of the July 7, 1964, report (CE 2011) probably thought that “Secret Service agents would have been more likely to read the FBI reports” than Tomlinson and Wright would."

-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 544-545 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

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

David Von Pein
December 2011





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