RE-CREATED SCENES IN DAVID WOLPER'S 1964 MOVIE, "FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER"

Movie producer David L. Wolper was at the helm of what I consider to be the best and most factual motion picture ever made about the assassination of President Kennedy--that being "Four Days In November", which made its debut in late 1964, very shortly after the Warren Commission's final report was made available to the public.

During the filming of the movie, which was narrated by actor Richard Basehart, executive producer David Wolper and his camera crew filmed several "re-creations" of the actual events that occurred prior to and just after JFK's 1963 murder. On this webpage, I have extracted those re-created scenes and placed them in separate videos.

One of the re-creations includes footage shot inside Ruth Paine's garage in the Dallas suburb of Irving, Texas. And it's a rather chilling reconstruction, in that the filmmakers created this realistic replica of the blanket that assassin Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was wrapped in as it was being stored in Mrs. Paine's garage for a couple of months prior to the assassination in late 1963.

The two pictures below depict Ruth Paine's garage. The photo on the left comes from the "Four Days In November" re-creation showing the simulated "Oswald rifle/blanket" on the floor; while the image on the right was taken by the FBI as part of a booklet entitled "Paine And Randle Homes", which can be found in Warren Commission Document No. 497.

Click the pictures for a larger view:




Following are four re-created scenes that appear in the "Four Days In November" motion picture:


RUTH PAINE'S HOUSE:




BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER
& LINNIE MAE RANDLE:




WILLIAM WHALEY:




JOHNNY BREWER:


David Von Pein
November 30, 2014


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


WATCH THE
WHOLE FILM HERE:




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


ALSO SEE:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 856)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Near the end of this 1992 video [at 3:03:25], I got a kick out of some of the comments made by Herbert Parmet (a New York history professor), who kept insisting that Lee Harvey Oswald never really said the word "patsy" after he was arrested on November 22, 1963.

Parmet kept insisting that the "only" place we're going to find the word "patsy" is in one of Mark Lane's books. (In other words, Parmet thinks Lane just made up this "patsy" lie.)

I hate to throw stones at a fellow LNer, but Professor Parmet's claim that Lee Oswald never said "I'm just a patsy" in November 1963 is simply laughable, especially since Oswald's "patsy" remark is undoubtedly the most famous utterance made by LHO during his two days in custody, and is a comment that anyone can easily hear for themselves via the many recorded copies of the remark that exist in various media formats.

For heaven sake, Oswald said it on live TV for everybody to hear at 7:55 PM on 11/22/63, per reporter Seth Kantor's original handwritten notes, as seen in the Warren Commission's Kantor Exhibit No. 3. So that is one more place where the word "patsy" is written down on paper too, in Kantor's notes.

I can't think of any student of the JFK assassination who hasn't heard the following famous recording at least a few times in their life. But evidently Mr. Parmet is one of the select few who has not heard it (as of April 1992 anyway):



Mr. Parmet also said, despite being a firm believer in the Warren Commission's single-assassin conclusion, that the reason LBJ created the Warren Commission in the first place was to "allay the fears" of the American public about there having been any kind of a conspiracy to assassinate the President.

And Parmet made that claim about the Commission's mission despite the fact that Howard P. Willens of the Warren Commission had testified at that same 1992 Government Subcommittee only an hour before Parmet's appearance, with Willens specifically stating that it was his own personal desire to try and FIND a conspiracy, vs. trying to "allay the fears" of the American public by covering up evidence of one.

David Belin and other Warren Commission counsel members have also expressed the very same sentiments in the past as well -- i.e., they wanted to uncover a plot, rather than cover one up.

But I guess Mr. Parmet simply does not believe the words of people like Willens and Belin, even though Parmet seems to fully support the lone-gunman conclusion reached by those men.

~shrug~

David Von Pein
February 4, 2010

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 855)

MICHAEL T. GRIFFITH SAID:

Dr. Robert Karnei, who viewed and assisted with the autopsy, told the ARRB he clearly remembered that a photo was taken showing a probe inserted into the body. No such photo is to be found in the autopsy photos in evidence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How could there possibly be a photograph of something that never happened in the first place (i.e., a picture of a probe IN THE BODY of John F. Kennedy)?

Quoting Dr. Boswell:

"We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you COULDN'T GET A FINGER OR A PROBE THROUGH IT." [DVP's emphasis.] -- Dr. J. Thornton Boswell; February 26, 1996; Page 75 of Dr. Boswell's ARRB deposition

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

But even if a photo DID exist that showed a "probe" somewhere in the picture -- so what?

Dr. Boswell stated in his 1996 ARRB deposition that President Kennedy's upper-back wound WAS, indeed, probed with "all sorts of probes", but the probes would not go through the body due to JFK's muscles having "closed".

So we know that some type of "probe" was utilized by the autopsists at JFK's autopsy on the night of November 22, 1963. Dr. Boswell certainly wasn't hiding that fact during the ARRB excerpt I cited above.

Is it the contention of certain conspiracy theorists (and possibly John Canal too) that a picture was taken during the autopsy that supposedly depicts a probe going ALL THE WAY THROUGH John F. Kennedy's body?

But, since we know from the various testimony sessions of autopsy doctors Boswell and Humes that no such "all the way through the body" probing was done at JFK's autopsy, then (obviously) no such photograph like that could exist in the first place.

And I'm trying to figure out why photographer John Stringer would have wanted to take a picture of a probe that had been placed only a small distance into JFK's upper-back wound (with the probe obviously not going very far into the body, per Dr. Boswell's ARRB testimony)?

What purpose would a "partial probe" photograph have served in the overall documentation of JFK's autopsy? I can think of no good reason for Stringer to have taken a photo of that nature at all. A photo like that would have served about the same purpose as taking a picture of Dr. Humes inserting his finger into JFK's back wound.

In other words, such "partial probe" photography would be essentially worthless and useless, IMO.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

[Stringer might have taken a "partial probe" photo] To prove that the bullet only penetrated an inch or so.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But such a picture would "prove" no such thing.

Why?

Because of these words spoken by Dr. Boswell in 1996:

"We probed this hole which was in his neck with all sorts of probes and everything, and it was such a small hole, basically, and the muscles were so big and strong and had closed the hole and you COULDN'T GET A FINGER OR A PROBE THROUGH IT." [DVP's emphasis.] -- Dr. J.T. Boswell


MARK SAID:

In that particular portion of the male anatomy, do we expect the muscles in a cadaver to be "so big and strong" as to prevent probing?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Evidently so. Boswell said so.

Let me guess -- Boswell is lying scum. Right?

David Von Pein
February 3-6, 2010

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 854)

MICHAEL CHAMBERS SAID:

Where would you calculate the entrance/exit [in the X-ray of the right side of JFK's head]?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Below, I've marked where I believe the probable entrance wound is located. The exit wound is pretty self-evident:



The trajectory/angle of the bullet through JFK's head looks just about right to me to support the idea that that bullet originated from Oswald's gun on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building (based on the X-ray with my markings on it below).

Of course, it's not really fair to compare TOO closely the angle of the head shot with the angle of the "SBT" bullet through JFK's body, because those bullets were bound to perform in different ways due to the substances being struck by the bullets.

The bullet entering the back of the head struck hard bone without having hit anything else first. So that bullet is likely to deflect a little more from entry to exit. Whereas, the SBT bullet passed through the soft tissues of JFK's neck and upper back, striking no bone at all in Kennedy. Ergo, very little (if any) deflection before exiting his throat.




MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

David,

X-ray technician Jerrol Custer is on public record saying that he did not take the X-ray you are using and that it does not show the wounds as he saw them.

Custer and and photographer Floyd Reibe are also on record saying that the autopsy photos do not show what they saw as well as that the photos now at the National Archives have been doctored.

Are they lying?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, of course they aren't lying. They're just wrong, that's all.

The photos exist in stereo pairs, which is virtually impossible to fake.

And you don't believe in the impossible, do you Martin?

In addition, that X-ray is also perfectly consistent with the Zapruder Film. And it's perfectly consistent with what the closest witnesses to JFK said about the location of the large wound in the President's head:










MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

That's rich..... the man who actually took the X-rays denies he took the one you have used and you just say he's mistaken?

Really? Custer and Reibe both say the same thing. They are backed up by O'Connor and Gawler's embalming assistant, Tom Robinson, who worked on Kennedy's head for three hours. Have you seen the video where he shows where the wound was really located?

And you (who was not there) just simply say all these men (who all were there) are all mistaken...... very rich indeed. Too bad you only have your opinion and belief in the faked photos to support your claim. Not very convincing.

Nope.. I do not believe in the impossibe, but Custer and Reibe both denied having taken the autopsy photos that are now at the National Archives. With that in mind I do believe it is absolutely possible and can't be ruled out that the NA photos were taken of another head, which basically destroys your "stereo" argument.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Check the Zapruder Film, Martin. Where's the large exit wound located in the film?

And what about the witnesses pictured above? They were there too, witnessing the shooting. Are they all wrong when they each said the SIDE of JFK's head came off--not the BACK of his head?

You ridicule me for ignoring Riebe and Custer. But you have no choice but to ignore the witnesses pictured above, because none of them said the BACK of John Kennedy's head was blown out. They all put the large wound on the SIDE of the head--just exactly where the Zapruder Film shows the wound to be and just exactly where the autopsists said it was and exactly where the photos and X-rays confirm it to be.

Why ignore the BEST evidence, Martin? And by far the best evidence when it comes to determining the location of JFK's wounds is the autopsy pictures and X-rays. Are those ALL faked--stereoscopically? Not possible. Especially in 1963. And not even today.


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Autopsy photos denied as being genuine by the men who are supposed to have taken them is...evidence of photos having been falsified.

IMO if this case had ever gone to trial, the combined testimony of these men alone would have blown the entire case for the prosecution.


JOHN MYTTON SAID.


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Was there a massive hole in the front of JFK's head, as is shown in the X-ray or did Jerrol Custer simply tell the truth when he said that he had not taken that X-ray?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Of course there was a big hole toward the front of JFK's head (above and a little forward of the right ear)---just as the Zapruder Film so vividly proves.

And the three images below perfectly corroborate and support each other--to a tee. The large wound is in the exact same location in each image. The turned-sideways autopsy photo of JFK in the middle doesn't show the wound quite as extensively as the Zapruder Film frame or the X-ray--but that's because the scalp flap looks to be partially closed in that photo. But there is obviously major damage in the exact same area of the head where we also find major damage to the head in both the Zapruder Film and in the X-ray.....


CLICK TO ENLARGE:


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Sorry David... but the Z-film proves nothing. You are just seeing something you want to see.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, for Pete sake. You can't see the large blow-out above President Kennedy's right ear in Zapruder frames 313-340, Martin?

If you can't see the right-frontal wound, you really need a new pair of glasses.


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

But if there was a right-frontal wound, where is it in the so-called death stare photo?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The "death stare" picture is taken at an angle that makes it difficult to see the wound. Plus, it's quite possible that the scalp flaps are closed in that picture (as well as the other autopsy photo I posted earlier), which hides the extent of the large wound somewhat.

But let me ask you a question now, Martin.....

Since you obviously think that pretty much all of the X-rays and photos are fakes---and you think the "right-frontal" wound isn't visible in any of those pictures---then why didn't the photo-fakers paint in a right-front wound to match the Zapruder Film and the autopsy report?

You mean they faked the pictures, but DIDN'T put the wound in the right place?

Crazy.

David Von Pein
November 29, 2014 [This forum link is no longer available.]
November 29, 2014 [This forum link is no longer available.]

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 853)

WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

So please explain how your warped reasoning arrives at the conclusion that these two blank order blanks are in any way incriminating of Lee Oswald?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The answer should be blatantly obvious even to most CTers.....

1.) Many (most) Internet CTers do not believe Oswald purchased any rifle at all from Klein's Sporting Goods.

2.) Therefore, via such a cockeyed belief, those CTers should find it at least a tad bit unusual for Mr. Oswald to have had any blank order forms from Klein's Sporting Goods Company among his possessions on 11/23/63.

When examined by a reasonable person (which automatically eliminates Walter Cakebread from contention), those two blank Klein's forms being found in Ruth Paine's garage provide additional (albeit peripheral) circumstantial evidence linking Lee Oswald to the mail-order company in Chicago that mailed Oswald/(Hidell) the weapon that would ultimately be used in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 to assassinate America's 35th Chief Executive.

Get the basic connection now, Walter?


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

I asked you to explain what USE Lee would have for order blanks SIX MONTHS after he had already ordered a rifle??

Is this question too difficult for you??


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Walt, it would seem as though Oswald might have been considering ordering something else from Klein's in the future.

But since you don't think the blank Klein's order forms help to incriminate Oswald in even the slightest peripheral way, then I assume, therefore, that you DO concede that those two blank forms found in Ruth's garage were NOT "planted" there by anybody. Correct?

Because if they WERE planted, then it was, according to you, a futile and useless planting effort by the "Let's Frame Oswald" conspiracy team. Right?


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

Don't be so presumptive. I absolutely do believe the cops planted those two order blanks.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What for?

You've said you think those order forms do NOTHING to make Oswald look guiltier. So why did somebody want to plant them? Just for the fun of breaking into Ruth Paine's garage?


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

Mr Von Pea Brain,

Isn't it true that Lee packed his bags in September? And doesn't September come five months after April? And isn't there an April photo that shows Lee with a Mannlicher Carcano?

Why would Lee want any order blanks AFTER he ordered the merchandise?? Did he pack his bags in September when Marina left New Orleans??


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I see that Walt has overdosed on his Thick Pills today.

Of course Oswald's bags were packed long after he bought the rifle, Walt. Everybody knows this. Duh.

But--SO WHAT?

Oswald obviously kept a couple of extra Klein's ordering coupons for possible future use.

Is that so impossible to believe in your CT world, Walter?


JOHNNY HARTLEY SAID:

Obviously.

Having shot at Walker, it is only natural that he would keep avoidable evidence that would link him directly to the place where he had bought the gun.

It is not like a guy capable of carrying this out would have thought of using a reliable, untraceable second hand or stolen gun, instead of an unreliable, traceable gun, is it?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Johnny, we know he kept the GUN ITSELF after the Walker shooting. Only fringe CTers believe otherwise. So his keeping a couple of Klein's ads isn't too brazen considering the fact he hung onto the rifle itself too.


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Are those two blank order forms mentioned on the DPD lists of items recovered during the searches of Ruth Paine's house?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The two Klein's forms are mentioned in the 12/2/63 DPD report here.

The Klein's ads are also mentioned in this FD-302 report filed by FBI agents Bookhout and Carlson on 12/2/63, with the agents clearly indicating that the two Klein's ads were found in Ruth Paine's house on November 23rd.

And Detective Richard Stovall testified to having found the two Klein's ads "in the same box with the photographs".


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Thanks for that, David, but it's not really the answer to my question.

Back to my original question....

Around noon on Saturday 11/23/63 a search warrant is issued for a search of Ruth Paine's house. When the officers return they are required to fill out a report detailing the result of the search and an inventory of all recovered items has to be made. We know such a list exists...... but (and this was my question) are the Klein's order forms mentioned in that list?

My second question, based upon the information you have provided, would now be: Are we really to believe and accept that these three officers found those Klein's order forms and some other items during a search on 11/23/63 but waited 9 days before they handed them to the DPD property clerk on 12/02/63?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't have the slightest idea whether the 2 Klein's ads are listed in an inventory from Nov. 23.

I looked at the Dallas Municipal Archives site and I couldn't find a Nov. 23 list with the Klein's ads.

But I provided multiple links verifying where and when the Klein's clippings were found. If you want to disregard that evidence because it comes from Dec. 3 reports instead of Nov. 23, go ahead and disregard it. But I'm not going to.

Being found in a "box" as the Klein's ads were, it's possible that those two ads were included in a reference to one of the various boxes that were found, which didn't include a detailed itemizing of each item in the box.

E.G., there's a reference in this document to "1 Black and grey metal box...letters, etc."

I'm just guessing here, yes, but the box containing the Klein's ads might have been mentioned in some of those DPD inventory lists, without making mention of every last scrap of paper contained therein. And then, later, the ads were singled out for attention in early December (when the significance of "Klein's" became more widely known among the police officers).


WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

The dept 472 indicated that the order blank came from the NOVEMBER 1963 issue of Guns and Ammo magazine.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I see no "Dept 472" shown in either Klein's ad in question. I see "Dept 425" in the top order blank; and "Dept 222" in the bottom one. Where's the "472"? ....





WALT CAKEBREAD SAID:

Oh that's right.....The department number 472 (Nov 63 issue of Guns & Ammo) was on the order blank that the DPD used when they said it was the ad that Lee had used to order the rifle. DPD Chief Jesse Curry published it on page 99 of his book, JFK Assassination File.

I'll check my files and tell you what magazines the department numbers 425 and 222 came from. The Feb 1963 issue of American Rifleman used the dept #358. Dept #425 came from the June issue of American Rifleman.

Kinda strange.....Lee didn't subscribe to any gun magazines, and he wasn't a member of the NRA. So where would he get these order blanks?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Possibly Adrian Alba's garage. Oswald would go in there and shoot the breeze with Alba and talk about guns. I'd bet that Alba supplied Lee with some magazines from time to time too.

Or: Oswald could have just simply bought some magazines at any store that sold them.

I guess that possibility isn't on Walt's radar, though. If it isn't sinister in nature, Walt ignores it.


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Btw...the significance of "Klein's" involvement was already clear on Saturday 11/23/63 when it was already reported (in amazingly great detail I might add) by WBKB TV in Chicago, as you yourself have shown in the clip [you] provided.

Amazing how quickly they got hold of all that information...... they know not only the make and number of the rifle, but also the Hidell alias and Oswald's ownership of the P.O. box in Dallas..... go figure!

What happened? Did the FBI hand out press releases every hour to provide the latest results of their investigation?




DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, but the DPD's Jesse Curry was on TV constantly on 11/23/63 giving out all kinds of information and details, including most of the details about "the order letter" (as Police Chief Curry referred to it; see video below) that was sent by Oswald to Klein's to purchase the rifle.

Curry, however, didn't mention the name "Klein's" in his many 11/23/63 hallway news conferences, but he did say the rifle had been bought from a "mail-order house in Chicago". Curry also reveals the "Hidell" alias that Oswald used and also tells the press that the rifle had, indeed, been mailed to a P.O. Box that was owned by "our suspect, Oswald".

The "Klein's" part of it might have been mentioned by other radio and TV outlets that day, however. Hence, the people at WBKB-TV in Chicago had plenty to work with by early evening on November 23rd as they tried to track down still more details pertaining to the rifle that was purchased from a company in their city.




MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Thanks for that, David....

Kinda destroys your earlier claim, doesn't it? ....

Quote from David Von Pein:

"I'm just guessing here, yes, but the box containing the Klein's ads might have been mentioned in some of those DPD inventory lists, without making mention of every last scrap of paper contained therein. And then, later, the ads were singled out for attention in early December (when the significance of "Klein's" became more widely known among the police officers)."


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Point taken, Martin.

But sometimes even police officers and FBI men are in the dark about some things until much later. Take the FBI's 12/9/63 report, for instance. They just totally ignored the autopsy report for the most part. Which could indicate that the FBI men hadn't even read the autopsy report as of December 9th.

And then there's the FBI head man, J. Edgar Hoover himself, who was apparently completely out of the loop on many important aspects of the case as late as November 29th when he talked to LBJ.

So, things do slip through the cracks.


MARTIN WEIDMANN SAID:

Oh, I agree that where people work mistakes are made and the flow of information could often be better.

But if we get back to basics..... Stovall, Adamcik and Rose obtained a search warrant for Ruth Paine's house. They search the place (and miss for instance the BY [Backyard Photos] camera) and then take everything they found back to the station, where they turn over the items found to the property clerk and an inventory list is made.

Two days later, when - as we have seen earlier - the name Klein's had already been widely reported by the media, Rose writes two supplement offense reports; one about the blanket that allegedly had contained the rifle and the other about finding several papers and documents including two BY photos......but somehow there is still no mention of the Klein's coupons.

That only comes 9 days after the search..... Now, ask yourself this; if the Klein's coupons had been in the metal boxes found at Ruth Paine's house and mentioned on the inventory list (which means they were already turned over to the property clerk) why [would] there have been any need to hand the coupons over to the property clerk again?

We know it happened, right? The coupons were handed in nine days later, but why did that happen, when they simply could have said they were part of the content of the metal boxes and thus already in evidence storage from day one?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, I see what you're saying, Martin. And I have no specific answer to explain the delay in reporting the two Klein's ads. But let's look at this from another perspective and ask an important question.....

Why would the Dallas Police Department have wanted to suddenly plant a couple of blank Klein's Sporting Goods order forms among Lee Harvey Oswald's belongings several days after Oswald had been murdered?

Seems to me that any "planting" of evidence by the cops would have been performed while Oswald was still alive and breathing--i.e., at a time when the police doing the alleged planting would have had every reason to think Oswald would be going to trial for President Kennedy's murder.

What possible purpose would be served by planting the two Klein's ads on December 2nd? What did the DPD gain by planting the Klein's clippings eight days after the person they were allegedly attempting to frame was killed? They certainly weren't going to be able to use the Klein's ads at Oswald's trial, because he's already graveyard dead.

Was the DPD just trying to help out the Warren Commission by adding two needless Klein's coupons to the evidence pile?

That type of thinking doesn't make sense to me....at all.

David Von Pein
November 28-29, 2014

MISC. JFK POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 81)

THE MURDER OF OFFICER J.D. TIPPIT:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/J.D. Tippit (Part 1)
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/J.D. Tippit (Part 2)
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/J.D. Tippit (Part 3)


THE NECK VS. THE BACK:
https://alt.assassination.jfk/xirbG0iyQkY/TGEv8fzWnOkJ
https://alt.assassination.jfk/xirbG0iyQkY/ubWonTdehPQJ
https://facebook.com/groups/permalink/628047383989395
http://jfk-archives/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-860


THE HEAD WOUNDS:
http://educationforum.com/index/topic=21535#entry292550
https://facebook.com/groups/permalink/627621147365352


JACK RUBY:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/sTNRzIn8XfA/YV4Lp_lgeSkJ


LUKE MOONEY:
http://jfk-archives/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1243


BUDDY WALTHERS AND THE "FILE CABINETS":
http://educationforum.com/topic=23701/comment=351233


LOST IN A SEA OF FAKERY AND LIARS:
https://alt.conspiracy.jfk/_QfAfPjJVg0/W7M28fJuAAAJ
http://educationforum.com/topic=23701/comment=349403


THE VALIDITY OF THE AUTOPSY PICTURES:
http://educationforum.com/topic=21535&entry292837


THE SHOOTING OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD:
https://facebook.com/groups/permalink/352997188194105


MARINA AND LEE ON NOVEMBER 22ND:
https://alt.assassination.jfk/RrVAKvowrpU/MJS5cvdQ7h0J


MISCELLANY:
https://facebook.com/groups/permalink/353476958146128
https://alt.assassination.jfk/RrVAKvowrpU/7cDDlG1zl-YJ
https://facebook.com/groups/permalink/630486090412191


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

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 852)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

While re-reading a few portions of Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History" today, I came across something that I don't remember having seen before. This happens to me frequently when revisiting parts of Bugliosi's immense JFK book---I'll find something that seems brand-new, even though I read the book in its entirety years ago.

But this habit of "revisiting" Vincent's book from time to time is usually a worthwhile exercise, because since the book is so large, some stuff in it is bound to be forgotten or overlooked after going through it just once (or even twice).

Here's the interesting segment from today's "re-reading" of page 790 of Bugliosi's tome:

"In a search pursuant to a search warrant by Dallas Police Department detectives of Oswald's belongings in Ruth Paine's garage on November 23, 1963, portions of two Klein's magazine ads for the rifle were found inside a box." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 790 of "Reclaiming History"


Sources used by Bugliosi for the above quote:

CD 578, March 7, 1964, FBI Exhibit D-85; and
7 H 195, WCT Richard S. Stovall.


In addition to the sources shown above, one other source concerning this subject that Bugliosi didn't mention is Commission Document No. 7, Page 388.

So, we can see HERE that there were two separate clipped portions of two different Klein's magazine advertisements found among Lee Oswald's possessions in Ruth Paine's garage on November 23, 1963, both of which are nearly identical to the order form that Oswald used to order his rifle from Klein's in March of 1963 [seen in CE773 and Waldman Exhibit No. 8].



This particular topic of two nearly identical Klein's order forms being found among Oswald's belongings the day after President Kennedy was assassinated is something I don't recall being discussed too much (if at all) among JFK researchers.

I wonder how the conspiracy theorists who think Lee Oswald never ordered the rifle from Klein's are able to combat this additional "Klein's" evidence that was found in Ruth Paine's garage the day after the assassination?

Do those theorists want to believe that those blank Klein's order forms were planted in Paine's garage in order to help frame Oswald for Kennedy's murder? Or do the CTers who know about this "Klein's" evidence found in Commission Document No. 578 simply shrug it off as being irrelevant and immaterial entirely?

But it is rather revealing to have in evidence those two other "Klein's" order forms, seeing as how Klein's in Chicago is the exact same mail-order company that sent a rifle with the serial number C2766 on it to a post office box in Dallas that was being used at the time by a certain Mr. Lee H. Oswald.

The clippings seen in CD578 provide further physical evidence tying Lee Harvey Oswald to Klein's Sporting Goods.


Footnote/Addendum....

Vincent Bugliosi's verbiage in the quote I cited above isn't quite 100% accurate. Vince says that "portions of two Klein's magazine ads for the rifle were found" in Ruth Paine's garage. (Emphasis added by DVP.)

The words "for the rifle", however, do not apply in that quote, because as we can see in the links I provided earlier, the Klein's clippings are not ads "for the rifle" that Oswald ultimately ended up receiving from Klein's in late March of 1963. The clippings only show two blank Klein's order forms.

So, Mr. Bugliosi has overstated the facts just a little bit in that quote I cited. The proper way for Vince to have said it in his book would have been this way (IMO)....

"In a search pursuant to a search warrant by Dallas Police Department detectives of Oswald's belongings in Ruth Paine's garage on November 23, 1963, portions of two Klein's magazine ads were found inside a box."

I'm sure the discovery of another small error in Vince Bugliosi's book will make some conspiracy theorists jump for joy, because they can now claim once again that Vince deliberately "lied" to his readers on page 790 of "Reclaiming History", with a determined and calculated effort being made by Bugliosi to deceive them.

I, of course, will choose to categorize Vincent's "for the rifle" mistake in a different manner, as I have done when confronted with the "Bugliosi Is A Liar" brigade in the past as well.

David Von Pein
November 28, 2014


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


THE KLEIN'S ADS
(PART 2)


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


RELATED VIDEO CONCERNING
KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS:





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


RELATED ARTICLES:







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

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 851)

AN UNKNOWN PERSON SAID:

Dave,

I spent some time reading your section about Ruth Paine. Very thorough. Although CTers love to portray her [as] a sinister and shadowy figure who was somehow guiding Oswald's hand (perhaps brainwashing him with her folk music?), your portrayal of her is much more accurate. She was highly intelligent, very candid, a woman of great faith and high moral standards, and painfully honest in her statements.

That candor and honesty probably cost her the friendship that she had developed with Marina, according to Priscilla Johnson McMillan.

[...]

Your blog referenced the book "Ruth Paine's Garage" [sic] by Thomas Mallon, so I assume you've read it.

[DVP Interjection (11/27/14) -- Actually, my blog never mentions that book at all. But perhaps I did reference it in circa 2010, but I've since edited out the reference to it; although I can't imagine why I'd do any such editing of that sort. ~shrug~]

I thought it was an excellent book, although somewhat overly sentimental. I would have liked more information about the physical layout of the actual garage.

Since the "Oswald was Innocent" CTers claim that his rifle was stolen from the Paine's garage in a Watergate-like burglary and later placed in the TSBD building by others, I have spent a great deal of time researching that aspect of the case.

What I discovered was that the garage had one of those old hinge-type doors that opened upward and outward from the bottom. Since Mrs. Paine normally parked in the driveway close to the garage door, it would have been difficult for burglars to enter through the front of the garage. The only other access was through the kitchen.

However, I did come across a photograph showing Ruth Paine holding her young son Christopher in front of the garage, circa 1963. The garage door is open, and you can clearly see that there is a row of windows along the outer wall. This might have made a burglary somewhat easier, although still highly improbable.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Hi,

Good observations. Thanks for sharing them with me.

I've never read "Mrs. Paine's Garage".

BTW, the author of that book, Thomas Mallon, was one of the first people to review Vincent Bugliosi's masterpiece, "Reclaiming History", in 2007. Mallon's positive review of Bugliosi's book made the conspiracists turn on him like a pack of wolves. So, naturally, they also tried to trash his own book, "Garage".

In January 2002, Mallon made a public appearance to promote his new book. C-Span covered the event. Here's the video of it, which you might like to see.

I definitely know about the picture you mentioned, with Ruth standing in front of her garage. It's this photo:





The Paine garage is also viewable in David Wolper's film "Four Days In November" [see the screen captures below].








David Von Pein
February 2, 2010

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 850)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

For anybody who thinks Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald as part of a pre-arranged conspiratorial plot (which would encompass almost all conspiracy theorists worldwide), this video is certainly worth watching.

That C-Span video includes a panel of journalists who assembled at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas, for a day-long commemorative seminar on November 20, 1993, to observe the 30th anniversary of JFK's assassination.

The moderator of the panel in the above-linked video is Tony Zoppi, who was Jack Ruby's friend since 1951. It's fascinating to hear Zoppi explain his relationship with Ruby [see the video below], and particularly the part about Ruby's trip to Havana, Cuba, in late 1958, which many conspiracy theorists seem to think was conspiratorial in some fashion.



Other journalists featured in the video include Bob Jackson, Wes Wise, Ike Pappas, and Hugh Aynesworth.

The segment with Ike Pappas [available below] is another very good part of the 1993 program, as he vividly and energetically recounts the role he played during the unforgettable weekend of President Kennedy's death. Pappas died fairly recently, on August 31, 2008.

I hadn't realized until today that a portion of Pappas' remarkable coverage of the murder of Oswald was (according to Pappas himself) actually recorded after Ike had departed the DPD basement. The tape was then edited and pieced together at a later time. (It reminds me of the KBOX-Radio re-creation, which is a recording that for decades had me fooled into thinking it was done "live" on 11/22/63.)

Another enlightening and interesting part of this additional segment of the 1993 "Reporters Remember 11-22-63" conference/seminar is the part where Gary DeLaune of Dallas radio station KLIF talks about how he didn't think it was unusual for Jack Ruby to have simply walked down the Main Street ramp leading into the City Hall basement on 11/24/63 just before Lee Oswald was shot, because DeLaune says that he HIMSELF walked down that very same ramp shortly before Ruby killed Oswald.

Given the sum total of all the witness statements connected with the important subject of "The Main Street Ramp", Gary DeLaune's statement about how he himself walked down that same ramp shortly before Oswald was shot must be taken with a grain of salt, of course. But DeLaune did make such a statement nevertheless.

Here's the KLIF-Radio audio from November 24th, 1963, which includes an extremely out-of-breath Gary DeLaune telling the radio audience about what he had just witnessed in the basement of the Dallas Police Department a few minutes earlier. DeLaune sounds as if he is on the verge of collapse in this remarkable clip. He is so out of breath, he can barely speak.

David Von Pein
February 1, 2010
February 2, 2010

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 849)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

On November 21, 2014, Professor John McAdams debated conspiracy theorist Roger Stone on The Mitch Henck Show on radio [listen to the complete debate below].





A few random observations about the above 43-minute McAdams/Stone debate....

Roger Stone put a rather interesting twist on the theory about how Malcolm Wallace was one of the assassins shooting from the sixth floor of the Book Depository, with Stone saying this (which is something I have never heard anyone say before)....

"Six eyewitnesses see a man who meets his [Wallace's] description in the windows in the Texas School Book Depository Building."

I guess Mac Wallace must have somewhat resembled Lee Harvey Oswald, eh? Anyway, that was a nice sneaky trick by Stone, to turn the Oswald-like figure in the windows of the Depository into Malcolm Wallace.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: The so-called "bewildered Secret Service agent" at Love Field, which is another subject that surfaced in this debate....

The general public probably still doesn't even realize that the identity of that "shrugging" agent isn't who they think it is. It very likely isn't Henry Rybka doing the arm waving and shoulder shrugging. It's Donald Lawton. And Donald Lawton was never supposed to ride in the motorcade through downtown Dallas. He was assigned to stay at Love Field Airport.

More on that Secret Service subject can be found HERE and also in Appendix #1 of the book I co-authored with Mel Ayton, "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".




~~~~~~~~~~~~

The funniest moment of the debate was McAdams' quip about country music singer Patsy Cline, with the Professor wondering how her name was left out of Richard Belzer's "Hit List" book concerning all of the alleged "mysterious deaths" connected to JFK's murder.

I'm sure a few conspiracists will jump all over Professor McAdams for even suggesting (even with his tongue in his cheek) that Ms. Cline could have ever been a candidate for the mystery death list, since Cline died in March 1963, eight months before the assassination of President Kennedy.



~~~~~~~~~~~~

Overall, it was another calm, cool, and straightforward recitation of the facts presented by Professor McAdams concerning the JFK assassination.

Roger Stone has a conspiracy theory about Lyndon Johnson's alleged involvement in JFK's death that is wholly unsupported by any hard facts (and even the "Wallace fingerprint" theory is being attacked and refuted by some conspiracists nowadays).

And based on some of the things I heard him say in the above debate, Mr. Stone seems to believe in just about every silly (and already debunked) conspiracy theory imaginable. Whereas, John McAdams has the hard physical evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt on his side.

And with this much evidence having been amassed against the prime suspect in the crime that occurred in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November 22nd, 1963, no speculative "theories" need to be advanced at all. The physical evidence, plus Lee Oswald's own actions, handily do the job of proving Oswald's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

David Von Pein
November 25, 2014


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


ALSO SEE:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 848)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents of this package to a co-worker.


CRAIG SAID:

I don't quite agree with this one - it doesn't mention Oswald's own statements on the issue, where he claimed it was his lunch and denied ever saying it had curtain rods, making the strength of the claim only the co-worker's testimony.

I think the co-worker was right, but it's not exactly indisputable.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Craig,

Linnie Mae Randle saw the package too. Not just Wesley Frazier.

Do you really think BOTH Linnie and Wesley dreamed up the long package?


CRAIG SAID:

Of course not. He had a large bag.

He was asked about that and answered that you can't always find the size of bag you want for your lunch.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, Craig. Come now. Even if Randle and Frazier's 27-inch estimates were correct.....

A 27-inch-long lunch sack???

That's CTer desperation showing there.


CRAIG SAID:

No, it's not. It's saying that the issue should be described more accurately. We don't have a fixed measurement of 27 inches, we have estimates, and even if it is 27 inches, is it impossible that was the only size bag he had that day for lunch?

I don't believe it at all. I think he said it was curtain rods, I think it had the rifle.

But I don't think the posted description of the issue is as accurate as it should be, making no mention of Oswald having said anything about the issue, and simply saying 'beyond a reasonable doubt' as opposed to saying 'one co-worker said Oswald claimed the bag had curtain rods'.

It reminds me of a CT argument I saw today. It said the 'foolproof FBI paraffin test proved Oswald hadn't shot'. Now, that's not accurate.

Even if you think Oswald did not shoot, you can't just say the test is 'foolproof' when it's far from that, and you can't just shorten the actual facts we have to 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're dancing between raindrops, Craig. My verbiage ("beyond a reasonable doubt") is perfectly correct and accurate given the sum total of everything.

My "These Two Things Prove Oswald's Guilt" article is a condensed piece, but I haven't ignored any of Oswald's statements (i.e., lies), nor have I forgotten Frazier's and Randle's bag size estimates. Those things are discussed at length elsewhere on my site. I just didn't elaborate on those items in my "Two Things" piece. But I do talk about Oswald's "curtain rod" lie in that article. Maybe you didn't read the whole thing.

In summary --

Those "Two Things" I talked about are huge hurdles for the CTers to climb in order to pretend Oswald was totally innocent of shooting JFK. A truly innocent person would not have BOTH of those things applying to him on 11/22/63. No way.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Lil Davy whimpers: "Linnie Mae Randle saw the package too. Not just Wesley Frazier."

And you can't believe either one of them.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I "believe" they each saw a long-ish brown bulky package, Ben.

It's YOU, Ben, who should join DiEugenio in the camp labeled -- "Frazier & Randle Lied About The Bag's Existence".

Because that bag is devastating evidence against your patsy.

But keep trying to find a way to dance around the fact that....

Your patsy took a long bag to work.

And:

An empty long bag--with your patsy's prints on it--was found at the exact spot where someone was firing OSWALD'S rifle at the President on 11/22.

An unborn embryo could figure this out. Why can't Ben Holmes?

~shrug~


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Someone not aware of the weakness of their case wouldn't need to lie on the evidence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Any "weakness" in the case against Lee Oswald is overcome by the case's many many strengths.

Of course, a person like Ben Holmes refuses to admit there are any "strengths" associated with the case against his favorite patsy. But that type of frozen CT mindset only elicits a big stretch and a yawn from this writer.

I think Mark Fuhrman said it very well in his book when he said this about Mr. Oswald....

"There is no exculpatory evidence that outweighs the accumulated proof against him." -- Mark Fuhrman

Your problem, Ben, is that you cannot seem to assess the available evidence properly. Most CTers struggle with that affliction. Everything's isolated from the whole by CTers. Like the alleged package length stated by Frazier/Randle.

But we know LHO had a long-ish bag that morning.

A long-ish EMPTY bag is found in the TSBD--with LHO's prints on it. (Yes, Ben, I know you think CE142 is a plant. But that's a crummy argument and a cop-out and everybody knows it.)

Oswald takes no long bag OUT of the TSBD.

3rd-grade math here. But for CTers, well....you know.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

There aren't any "strengths".


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yep. Didn't I just minutes earlier predict Holmes would refuse to admit to any strengths in the LHO case? (Thanks for not disappointing us, Ben.)


BEN HOLMES SAID:

Tell us, for example, why Lt. Day didn't photograph the "palm print"?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

He probably should have photographed it before lifting it. But he opted for "lifting over photography" in the case of that palmprint. Whereas, the opposite was true for the trigger guard prints. Lt. Day opted for "photography over lifting" on those prints.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

...and why Latona said it didn't exist when *HE* examined the rifle?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Because the print was no longer on the rifle when Latona examined it in Washington. Lt. Carl Day had already lifted it. (Duh.)

And this is true despite Lt. Day's original thoughts about there being enough of a print still on the rifle after he lifted it --- which is something I've never understood at all---if the print has been lifted off of the object, why would there be anything left to "lift" later on? Doesn't make much sense to me.

And, of course, in this instance, that was the case--there was no print left to lift in Washington because Day lifted the whole thing off the gun in Dallas.


INSTANT REPLAY---

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But he [Lt. J.C. Day] opted for "lifting over photography".


BEN HOLMES SAID:

No such thing.

Lifting can be DESTRUCTIVE - so photographing before lifting is the only definitive way to preserve evidence without destroying it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're obviously wrong when you say "no such thing" here, because that's exactly what J.C. Day did -- he lifted the palmprint off of the barrel of Carcano Rifle #C2766 but did not take any pictures of the print before lifting it.

Now, if that's a violation of police procedure, then go gripe to Lt. Day and get him fired (in circa 1963). But to simply say "no such thing" is a cop-out in light of what we know DID happen.

Maybe there's "no such thing" in some police departments of the world, but apparently there WAS such a thing being done in some cases in the crime scene search section of the identification bureau of the Dallas, Texas, Police Department on the 22nd day of November back in 1963 -- because Lieutenant Day told us so. And Mr. Day had been with the DPD for 23 years as of the time of this Warren Commission testimony in 1964....

DAVID W. BELIN -- Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?

LT. J.C. DAY -- This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.

MR. BELIN -- Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?

MR. DAY -- It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing [and] "off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766".

MR. BELIN -- When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?

MR. DAY -- It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.


BEN HOLMES SAID:

You *KNOW* that every single claim you can make can be credibly attacked ON THE BASIS OF THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's easy for a critic to "attack" the evidence. Nearly all JFK conspiracy theorists on the Internet do this. It's what they HAVE to do. It's what they NEED to do in order to keep Patsy Oswald's skirts clean as a whistle.

The CT clowns will pretend to know that all of the evidence against Oswald was faked, planted, switched, or whatever. But when it comes to PROVING that ANY of it---even one single piece of it---WAS actually faked or planted or switched....well, that's another kettle of fish entirely, because no conspiracist on the planet has ever done any such thing, and they never will, of course.

The "Let's Attack All The Evidence" approach utilized by conspiracy theorists is merely a hobby for them. It's a game they'll play because there really isn't any other game in town they can play when it comes to the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases.

Because unless all of that evidence (e.g., rifle, shells, bullets, fingerprints, paper bag) has been forged, then Lee Harvey Oswald is guilty of two murders.

David Von Pein
November 24-25, 2014 [This forum link is no longer available.]

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 847)

A PERSON NAMED DAVE SAID:

DVP's description was an interesting explanation of the [Secret Service] film in terms of an accurate technical review and information about its availability.

In my opinion, the film provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever of LHO's possible guilt or involvement, but does give very interesting views of Dealey Plaza, the roadways, motorcade route and the 6th floor of the TSBD.

[...]

The most important sequence, in my opinion, is the telescopic head-on view of JFK as [his] car approaches the TSBD, clearly showing an unobstructed shooter's view of the target.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But the car being filmed at that moment is not a car that was equipped with "jump seats" in the middle of the vehicle. The car that is seen in the 1963 Secret Service reconstruction film is a standard Lincoln Continental convertible [pictured below], not a specially-built limousine with jump seats to carry extra passengers.



Whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald would have had an unobstructed view of President Kennedy from the sixth-floor sniper's perch on November 22, 1963, while JFK's car was on Houston Street, has never been proven (as far as I am aware). It's quite possible that a portion of Governor Connally's body might have blocked Oswald's view of Kennedy when the car was moving north on Houston Street.

And any scenes of that nature that are in Oliver Stone's 1991 movie are scenes that I believe were filmed from the SEVENTH FLOOR of the Book Depository, not the sixth floor. So, any such re-creations through a rifle scope that are seen in that motion picture cannot be looked upon as a perfect reconstruction of Lee Oswald's precise view of the President's car, because Stone filmed any such scenes from one flight above Oswald's Sniper's Nest.

David Von Pein
January 27, 2010

MISC. JFK POSTS OF INTEREST (PART 80)

JFK ASSASSINATION DEBATE -- JOHN McADAMS VS. ROGER STONE:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/McAdams Vs. Stone
https://alt.assassination.jfk/EqKWqcZa_5o/Wb00HEWLMAoJ
https://facebook.com/groups/permalink/621626054631528


LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS:
http://jfk-archives/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-852


THESE TWO THINGS PROVE LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S GUILT:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/two-things


THE FBI:
https://alt.assassination.jfk/lwW_924YC4Q/13Ww9v74BgAJ


WHERE'S THE "COVER-UP"?
https://alt.assassination.jfk/MBIuM1ykxoU/LjNawXGzEAAJ
https://alt.assassination.jfk/MBIuM1ykxoU/REWPApCAEQAJ


CLINT HILL:
http://jfk-archives/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1211


THE END OF CTKA:
http://educationforum.com/topic=23242/comment=338260
http://educationforum.com/topic=23242/comment=338266


THE JET EFFECT:
http://jfk-archives/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1215


DARRELL TOMLINSON AND THE STRETCHERS:
https://alt.assassination.jfk/lwW_924YC4Q/hmqmlFZeBwAJ
https://alt.assassination.jfk/lwW_924YC4Q/BLA7g0uHCAAJ
https://alt.assassination.jfk/lwW_924YC4Q/wbmK4bE3CQAJ
https://alt.assassination.jfk/lwW_924YC4Q/Z4PMnLfYCAAJ


A WILD IMAGINATION COME TO LIFE:
https://alt.assassination.jfk/fs6u6xYfBS8/t4DXIffjCwAJ


SOMEBODY PINCH ME!:
https://alt.assassination.jfk/TBATkFMSoYc/aEidGFc0DAAJ


GERALD POSNER:
https://facebook.com/groups/permalink/349749755185515


MARINA OSWALD:
https://alt.assassination.jfk/bQ0HvQy6lW4/uBwiLJLWQyoJ


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

INDEX OF WARREN COMMISSION EXHIBITS

CE 1 ---> CE 391

CE 392 ---> CE 884

CE 885 ---> CE 1053

CE 1054 ---> CE 1512

CE 1513 ---> CE 1975

CE 1976 ---> CE 2189

CE 2190 ---> CE 2651

CE 2652 ---> CE 3154


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


MORE
JFK ASSASSINATION
RECORDS:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 846)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Conspiracy theorist Robert J. Groden was interviewed on Jack Duffy's BlogTalkRadio Internet show on November 13, 2014, and during that one-hour interview, which can be heard HERE, I noticed this blatant lie being told by Groden regarding the murder of J.D. Tippit:

"There were several witnesses to the Tippit killing--every one of which said that Oswald was not the shooter." -- Bob Groden; 11/13/14

How about that for totally mangling and misrepresenting the facts, folks?

In point of fact, of course, most of the witnesses who were at or near the scene of Officer Tippit's murder positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone killer of Tippit or as the one and only person leaving the scene of the crime with a gun in his hand -- from Markham, to Scoggins, to the two Davis girls, to Callaway, and on and on.

And, of course, since Fort Worth lawyer and radio host Jack Duffy is an avid conspiracy theorist who thinks Oswald was framed as the "patsy" for Kennedy's murder, he doesn't utter a word to try and correct Groden's outrageous falsehood quoted above.

Why Groden thinks it's okay to just completely change around the witnesses' testimony is anyone's guess. I suppose he's just hoping nobody listening to him will bother to turn to the Warren Commission volumes with William Scoggins' testimony in it, or Helen Markham's, or Barbara Davis', or Ted Callaway's.

It's no wonder people like Groden have ZERO credibility. When you go on a radio show and say that nobody IDed Oswald as Tippit's murderer, well....it doesn't get much more disingenuous than that.




MARTIN J. KELLY JR. SAID:

Groden is hopeless and this post is just another data point to the conclusion.

Remember, he used [to] show photos at conspiracy conventions of black spaces from various TSBD windows and claim there was a figure who couldn't be LHO, although it could be Casper the Ghost.

I had Groden in to speak to my College Course on the Assassination in the late 90s. At lunch afterward, he claimed that his mother had died by nefarious means in NYC in about 1969 and that the cover-up autopsy was performed by Michael Baden. I called Michael Baden and he reported he didn't perform said autopsy.

Nobody can take any claim by Groden to be worthy of attention.


MICHAEL GIAMPAOLO SAID:

So Lee [Oswald] hated pennies? Did soda machines even take pennies? Who gives change for a dollar and includes pennies? Oswald hated pennies??


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, I love the "Lee hated pennies" thing from Groden too. Of course, I guess it never occurred to Groden that maybe Oswald didn't want pennies because, as you said Michael, the soda machine won't accept pennies.

But this whole topic about Oswald being in the 2nd-floor offices and getting change from Mrs. Reid at exactly 12:30 on 11/22/63 is pure fantasy in the first place. It never happened, so the "I don't want pennies" dialogue is total fiction from the get-go.

But IF Oswald had actually said that to anyone while getting change to buy a Coke, it's not illogical for him (or anyone) to not want pennies, because the Coke machine won't take pennies. (Duh!)

By the way, the 11/13/14 interview above includes many more Groden lies too (not just his blatant falsehood about the Tippit witnesses). Another lie being when Groden insists that Connally was sitting DIRECTLY in front of JFK on 11/22. Everyone knows that's a lie, because the seats are structured in such a way that Connally was inboard slightly.

Plus, there's another factor that is often overlooked....i.e., JFK was sitting as FAR RIGHT in his seat as possible (based on the photos), which placed Kennedy as FAR RIGHT of the jump seat as humanly possible.

More of Groden's fantasies can be heard HERE.


MICHAEL GIAMPAOLO SAID:

Lee Harvey Oswald hates pennies. It doesn't get more commie than that.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think Lee was irrationally afraid of getting copper poisoning, Michael. It's surprising he used FMJ copper-coated bullets in his rifle.




MICHAEL GIAMPAOLO SAID:

Haha. He hated fives too. I'll bet he used that as an excuse to have a bunch of ones on hand for the Carousel Club.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

As an aside to the silly "Lee Oswald hated pennies because they've got Abraham Lincoln's face on them" topic....

A similar very silly line of reasoning (IMO) has crept into the brains of some JFK researchers and authors....and it's the theory about how Oswald only fired three shots at JFK because he had a fascination with the number "three".

As a matter of fact, author Mel Ayton had originally wanted to include that "Lee loved the number three" theory in the book that I helped Mel write (which, btw, should be going to print any day now--God willing).

But I was very persistent in voicing my extreme displeasure with the idea of including such utter silliness and conjecture in a book with my name attached. And so Mel did give in to my wishes and the "number three" thing won't be appearing in "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". Thank goodness. (I can just hear the conspiracy theorists jumping all over Mel and myself for putting that theory in our book.) :-)


MICHAEL GIAMPAOLO SAID:

That is some goofy speculation. Especially since he brought four bullets. I think if that was included, certain people would tell you to never bang on Jim Garrison ever again.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Exactly, Michael.

However, I think the "fascination for three" thing did make it into the defective/botched version of the book that was printed in error in late July [2014]. And that makes just one more reason (among many) for the botched version to be recalled. (Which it was.)

I'm going to go check my copies of the tainted version and see if I'm right about that "three" crap being included.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Yep, the "three" thing is in the first (messed up) printing of BRD, on pages 91-92. (Only a few copies of that awful version got through to anyone, fortunately.)

I will add here, though, that Mel Ayton didn't just pull that "three" business out of thin air on his own. He got it from Priscilla McMillan, who put it her book "Marina And Lee" in 1977. And McMillan got it straight from Marina Oswald. McMillan wrote on page 458 of her book....

"Marina knew that her husband attributed an altogether magical significance to the number 3 and was obsessed by it."

So Mel has a good source for the "number three" theory (McMillan through Marina), but I don't think it's worth emphasizing at all in our book. It's way too far out in left field, in my opinion.


MICHAEL GIAMPAOLO SAID:

I was wondering why Mel would include that and also where it came from. You cleared that up. I have that book but haven't read it yet. The fascination with the number three thing may be true in Marina's eyes, but why the leap to connect it to only three shots? Is that just Mel?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Just a second, Michael, let me check my "botched" version of BRD again for more info on that.

But let me add this before I check the book again....

One thing that (IMO) would certainly lead AWAY from the idea that Lee's affinity for the number "three" was a contributing factor to him firing only three shots at JFK (apart from the fact that he had FOUR bullets in his rifle prior to the first shot being fired, which is something you, Michael, also properly pointed out)....is the fact that we know Oswald shot Officer Tippit FOUR times, and might have even fired a FIFTH shot at Tippit on Tenth Street.

Plus, we know that Lee had many additional bullets in his revolver and in his pockets when he was arrested. So if he was fixated with only firing exactly "three" shots at people on 11/22/63, then why would he have taken so many extra bullets for his pistol on Nov. 22nd?

And that reasoning, again, goes back to what Michael said previously about how Oswald did have FOUR bullets with him prior to shooting at President Kennedy. Seems to me that the same basic reasoning could be applied to the Tippit shooting as well.

Of course, this whole "three" topic is kind of crazy to begin with, but I just wanted to voice my opinion on it here--just "for the record".


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Follow-Up to Michael's question about the "three" topic....

No, Michael, Mel doesn't have any specific quotes or source from Marina or Priscilla McMillan's book that would indicate that Lee's alleged love affair with the number three would have applied to number of gunshots Lee would ever fire at a target.

And I don't have McMillan's book. But if you do have it, go to page 458 (which is the page I mentioned earlier). I would think that the whole "fascination for three" topic would be right on or near that page in "Marina And Lee". Maybe McMillan elaborates a little more on it in her book.


MICHAEL GIAMPAOLO SAID:

Page 458-459 [of Priscilla Johnson McMillan's book, "Marina And Lee"] talks about how Lee loved to bet on the horse race at an amusement park at Lake Pontchartrain. He would take Marina and June there and when he won, which was often, he would spend the winning on hamburgers for his girls. Despite the fact (he hated pennies) he was a professional penny pincher. He would starve himself to save money, to the point his ribs would be showing, and Marina would give him gas about it. He did this because he was saving up for his trip to Mexico around this time.

No mention of a fixation on the number three on those pages. I have the hard cover, copyright 1977.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I find that difficult to believe, Michael. Perhaps, though, Mel's source ("page 458") of McMillan's book is referring to a paperback version. Maybe that's why there's a difference in the page numbers. I know Mel isn't referring to the updated 2013 version of "Marina And Lee", because I have on my computer an early draft of our book ("Beyond Reasonable Doubt") in which the "page 458" source is mentioned; and that's a draft dated May of 2013. And the revised version of McMillan's book wasn't published until August of 2013.

Anyway, Mel quotes several other passages from McMillan's book. Here's an extension of the quote I previously cited....

“Marina knew that her husband attributed an altogether magical significance to the number 3 and was obsessed by it. She remembered that one year earlier, on November 11th, 1962, when the De Mohrenschildts took her away from Lee because of his violence toward her, then, too, had begged her three times not to leave him, but after the third time gave up. And on the bottom right-hand corner of the Fair Play For Cuba Committee card on which he had asked her to forge the name 'A.J. Hidell' the previous summer, he had written the number '33' to signify he was the 33rd member of his fictitious chapter - still another sign of the power he attached to the number 3." (Marina And Lee, page 458)


MICHAEL GIAMPAOLO SAID:

That's not what's on pg. 458 of the hardcover '77 book. He must have the paperback, as you pointed out.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Michael, if you check on about page 420 (or so) of the hardcover "Marina And Lee" book, I'll bet you'll find the passages Mel cites.

The hardcover has 527 pages (per the Amazon stats), while the paperback, which came out a year later, has 689 pages. So something on page 458 of the paperback would probably be on approx. page 420 to 425 of the hardcover first edition. (I'm just guessing as to the page number equivalent, but that sounds about right to me.) Anyway, thanks for looking.


MICHAEL GIAMPAOLO SAID:

Well, that isn't right either. The fact the page number on his source for the silly number three theory is wrong is just another reason it's smart to leave it out.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I doubt very much that Mel's page number is wrong. It's just that he's sourcing it from a different version of McMillan's book--almost certainly the 1978 paperback version.

I guess that can, indeed, be quite a difficult thing for authors to do when citing book sources. Because there are so many different versions of a particular book, how is the reader supposed to know for sure which "version" is being cited--is it the first edition hardback, or the later paperback, or a later "limited edition"?

That type of thing is almost never specifically cited in any book's "Sources & Notes" section. I know, for example, that Vincent Bugliosi doesn't point out in any of his sources whether he is citing "Case Closed, page 209, 1993 hardcover edition" versus "Case Closed, page 196, 1994 paperback edition".

So how is anybody to know for sure? They can't. It's just something the reader has to sort out for themselves, I guess.

In the case of McMillan's book, however, the "number three" sub-topic might be listed in the index of the book, if Priscilla has the book's index divided into sub-sections under the name "Oswald, Lee Harvey". (Just a thought.)

David Von Pein
November 21, 2014