JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
How does one explain the written exhibits that say there were two shells found? There is one by FBI agent Doyle Williams on 11/22/63.
Also, there is an envelope that contains pics of the exhibits shot by DPD for the FBI and it says there were two bullet hulls and one live round of 6.5 ammunition found on the sixth floor. That was made out on the same day.
The next day, Hoover signed a report to Curry which identified two cartridge cases and one live round which were turned over to Drain. No fingerprints were found.
Five days later, on the 27th, a third empty case was allegedly given to Drain. Drain wrote that he got it from Day.
What is notable about this is that the third case was CE 543. Which today, I am convinced not only was not fired in Dealey Plaza, but could not have been fired. Tink Thompson says that this case had been fired previously.
The FBI now went for a three bullet scenario with no Single Bullet Theory.
I am sure that people here are familiar with the photos in the Twyman book which appear to show just two shells and one live round. So it's not just the written reports.
The late Vincent Bugliosi got out of this one by saying Fritz picked up one of the shells for testing. Which is simply goofy. No lab had better testing than the FBI at the time. And he refuses to admit that CE 543 is a dead giveaway as to a frame up.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
"Goofy" or not, Captain Fritz did retain one of the 3 shells in his office at the DPD.
Here's exactly what Captain Fritz said in an affidavit dated June 9, 1964:
--Quote On:--
"Three spent rifle hulls were found under the window in the southeast corner of the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, Dallas, Texas, on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. When the officers called me to this window, I asked them not to move the shells nor touch them until Lt. Day of the Dallas Police Department could make pictures of the hulls showing where they fell after being ejected from the rifle. After the pictures were made, Detective R. M. Sims of the Homicide Bureau, who was assisting in the search of building, brought the three empty hulls to my office. These were delivered to me in my office at the police headquarters. I kept the hulls in an envelope in my possession and later turned them over to C. N. Dhority of the Homicide Bureau and instructed him to take them to Lt. Day of the Identification Bureau. I told Detective Dhority that after these hulls were checked for prints to leave two of them to be delivered to the FBI and to bring one of them to my office to be used for comparison tests here in the office, as we were trying to find where the cartridges had been bought. When Detective Dhority returned from the Identification Bureau, he returned the one empty hull which I kept in my possession. Several days later, I believe on the night of November 27, Vince Drain of the FBI called me at home about one o'clock in the morning and said that the Commission wanted the other empty hull and a notebook that belonged to Oswald [sic; this is an error on Fritz' part, because the "Commission" didn't even exist as of 11/27; Fritz probably meant to say "the FBI" instead of "the Commission"]. I came to the office and delivered these things to the FBI. We have Mr. James P. Hosty's receipt for these items in our report." -- J.W. Fritz; 6/9/64
--End Quote.--
So, Jim, is it your opinion that the above affidavit, which is completely reasonable and sensible in every respect, is nothing but a pack of lies?
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey:
Did you read Reclaiming Parkland...?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
No, of course I haven't. I wouldn't bring that thing into my house if you paid me.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
See, I read Reclaiming History. And I summarized this evidence about the shells, which Barry Krusch did a nice job on, and I stated how Bugliosi replied to it.
I noted that VB said that a shell was kept in Dallas for comparison tests. But comparison to what, if the other two were at the FBI lab?
The other problem is that if Fritz wanted to check to see who sold the ammo, why would you need a sample? You just call the gun shops and ask them about the type of ammo. (DiEugenio, p. 213)
The other point which I think is relevant is this: If you buy the Fritz story, is it just a coincidence that the one shell that was left behind is the tell tale one, CE 543?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're wrong, Jimmy. The one shell left behind was CE545 --- not CE543. See Lt. J.C. Day's 6/23/64 affidavit here.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
This is what I mean abut DVP not reading my book or any other one that disagrees with him or the DPD or the FBI.
As Barry Krusch showed, the shells were not initialed at the scene. And the envelope was not sealed when it was returned to Day that evening at about 10 PM.
On April 23, 1964 Day wrote that one of the shells, CE 543, had only the initials GD on it. Yet when George Doughty was interviewed by Day, he did not recall handling that exhibit. This is an important point.
Where Davey picks up the story is in the rehab mode. On June 23, 1964 Day reversed himself. He said he had initialed CE 543 with Doughty. In Day's original story, that particular shell was not sent to Washington with the others. It was kept by Fritz in his desk drawer. But as Krusch shows, with this new affidavit, the story changed. (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 94)
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That mix-up/discrepancy is fully (and reasonably) explained by Lieutenant J.C. (Carl) Day in his 6/23/64 affidavit. But if you want to think this is all a great-big lie, go ahead. ....
--Quote On:--
"The third hull, commission number 545, was later released directly to the FBI by the Dallas Police Department Homicide Division. At 10:00 P.M. November 22, 1963, Detective C. N. Dhority brought the three hulls in the marked envelope back to Lieutenant Day in the Identification Bureau office to recheck for prints. Dhority retained one hull, commission number 545 and left the other two, commission numbers 543, 544 along with the envelope with me to be sent to the FBI.
Vince Drain, FBI agent, took custody at 11:45 A.M. the same day. When I appeared before the commission April 22, 1964, I could not find my name on one of the hulls, identified as commission number 543, and thought this was the hull that had been retained by Dhority.
On June 8, 1964, the three hulls, commission numbers 543, 544, and 545, were back in Dallas and were examined by Captain G. M. Doughty and myself at the local FBI office.
Close examination with a magnifying glass under a good light disclosed that my name "Day" was on all three hulls, at the small end. Also GD for Captain George Doughty was on two of them. Commission numbers 543 and 544 were the first two sent to Washington on November 22, 1963. They have Doughty's initials where he marked the hulls as they were released to Vince Drain at 11:45 P.M. on November 22, 1963 by Doughty and Day. The third hull, commission number 545, does not have Doughty's mark, but is plainly marked "Day". In Washington, I had numbers 543 and 545 switched because I didn't find my name on number 543.
I can identify commission numbers 543, 544, and 545 from my name on them, as the three hulls found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963.
As to the time I scratched my name on the hulls, I do not remember whether it was at the window when picked up or at 10:00 P.M. November 22, 1963, when they were returned to me by Dhority in the marked envelope. It had to be one or the other, because this is the only time I had all three hulls in my possession."
--End Lt. Day Quote.--
STEVE THOMAS SAID:
The shells have been moved, haven't they? ....
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
No, Steve, the shells have not been moved. In the poor-quality photo we see in CE512, we can barely see two of the shells, and the thing you might be thinking is a "shell" (closest to the cameraman) in CE512 is actually not a shell. It's a piece of paper or debris of some kind.
Here's a higher-quality picture of the three bullet shells from the Dallas Municipal Archives....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I agree that the circles look machine added [in CE512]. The WC probably did that.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, I agree. The dark circles in CE512 are undoubtedly not hand-drawn on the picture. The Warren Commission probably added the darker circles because the original circles were so light and dim, the Commission might have thought they wouldn't even be noticed. Hence, they merely accentuated the hand-drawn circles.
The same thing happened with the two "machine" circles in CE511.
And my guess would be that the only reason they didn't add in three machine-enhanced circles in CE510 is because those original hand-drawn circles are bold and noticeable enough for everybody to easily see. So there was no need to "accentuate" the obvious there.
As for why the WC didn't feel the need to "accentuate" the very dim hand-drawn circles we find in yet another Warren Commission exhibit showing the three bullet shells on the floor—CE716—I haven't the foggiest idea. But from a "dim" standpoint, CE716 needs accentuating more than any of the other exhibits.
David Von Pein
March 24-25, 2018
ANOTHER DISCUSSION....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
When you examine the evidence, it's pretty obvious that Blakey is correct on this issue: from the night of the assassination, until Sunday at 11:21, Ruby was stalking Oswald.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I disagree. The things you (and other conspiracy theorists) insist are evidence of Jack Ruby "stalking" Lee Harvey Oswald are actually just normal things for Jack Ruby to have done in the wake of JFK's murder.
If it had been someone other than Ruby engaging in the behavior he engaged in from 11/22/63 to 11/24/63, I might agree with you about the "stalking" angle. But knowing about Ruby's penchant for wanting to be where the action is, then such behavior can very easily be considered normal in every sense of that word—"normal"—for one Jacob Leon Rubenstein.
So, how can somebody's normal and expected behavior be looked upon as "stalking"?
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
It's normal to disguise yourself as a reporter, with glasses and notepad, and inject yourself into a press conference in that guise?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
For Jack Ruby --- Yes! That is just exactly the type of thing that the gregarious and outgoing Mr. Ruby might want to do in order to thrust himself into the middle of a huge story like the one that was unfolding at Dallas City Hall on the night of November 22nd. It was vintage Jack Ruby all the way. Much like his behavior in the DPD hallways that same night when he arranged interviews with D.A. Henry Wade for WNEW's Ike Pappas and for two different reporters at KLIF Radio as well (listen to those KLIF interviews below, including an on-air credit given to Jack Ruby).
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
If what you are saying is accurate, that it was normal, Ruby would not have done that at all.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Huh?!
~shrug~
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
BTW, Blakey is now a conspiracy theorist?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Reprise .... Huh?!
You're just pulling my leg now, aren't you? You must be. Because you know that G. Robert Blakey is the biggest "The Mob Did It" conspiracy theorist of all time! Just listen to him---here.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I don't think DVP understands what I am talking about.
If such a thing would have been natural for Ruby, he would not have disguised himself as he did nor interjected himself into the discussion. Thereby drawing attention to himself.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I think you're overstating Jack's "disguise".
Also -- Why didn't Ruby kill Oswald at the midnight press conference on Friday night? He said he had his gun on him at that time. Why wait till Sunday?
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
As per Robert Blakey, he has always maintained the SBF [Jim's shorthand for "Single Bullet Fantasy"]. And he does to this day.
So you are saying that since he thinks Ruby stalked LHO and killed him for the Mob, that is being a Conspiracy Theorist?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes. Of course it is. Without question.
Blakey, in fact, believes in a pretty massive conspiracy surrounding not only the murder of JFK (by the Mob), but the murder of Oswald (by the Mob, via Ruby). If that's not enough to classify Mr. Blakey as a "conspiracy theorist", then what would be enough?
MICHAEL CLARK SAID:
DVP,
Do you really think that Ruby acted spontaneously, out of sorrow for the Kennedy family?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Whatever Ruby's motive might have been (and it was never proven exactly what that motive might have been), there's no question (in my mind anyway) that Ruby's actions and movements on 11/24/63 were positively "spontaneous" and unplanned. The timing of Karen Carlin's 10:19 AM phone call and the sending of the Western Union telegram at 11:17 AM are two things that indicate the "unplanned" nature of Ruby's murder of Oswald that day....with both of those things occurring AFTER the scheduled (and announced) 10:00 AM transfer of Lee Oswald.
As much as it might LOOK (on the surface) like a "Mob hit" on Oswald in the Dallas police basement, given the details of Jack Ruby's movements and actions and phone calls on the morning of November 24th, I cannot see any way to wedge a pre-planned conspiracy into Ruby's activities that day.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Davey relies on the Carlin call and the WU transfer to say it was a spontaneous action by Ruby. These two excuses are as old as the hills. What was amazing is that Bugliosi relied upon them also. Which is what is wrong with DVP's research.
First, there were four witnesses who saw Ruby at the station that morning at around 9:30. He asked one of them if Oswald had been brought down yet.
Now, one thing that the WC relied upon, as does Bugliosi is this: not making the spatial relationships clear. It only takes about 15-20 minutes to drive from Ruby's apartment to City Hall. Therefore, if the Carlin call came in at about 10:20, then that was fine for time considerations.
Now, to the Carlins. I examined the record on this issue, with the help of Greg Parker, like no one did before. First, Ruby had already given Karen an advance on Saturday night. Therefore, the Commission had to create an excuse for the next morning phone call and the WU wire. With the help of the Secret Service, they did. It turned out to be rent and groceries.
But yet, when the SS talked to the landlord he said there was never any rigid schedule for the rent, and he never presented a demand for payment! In fact, at the first interview the SS never asked him about the rent at all. In examining their testimony it is clear that the FBI and SS harassed them into keeping this phony story straight, to the point that Bruce Carlin lost his job over it! Karen Carlin admitted to the DPD that she had been pre interviewed SEVEN TIMES!
All for a simple rent and groceries story? I don't think so. Which is why the Carlins showed up with a lawyer, something few witnesses did. But still, Karen said that it was Ruby's idea to send the money by WU. The WC tried to talk her out of this, and she said, "I won't say for sure about anything. I'm not sure about nothing anymore." If I had been interrogated seven times, that is what I would say also. In addition to losing his job, Bruce said some of the FBI calls took place in the middle of the night.
But why would Ruby insist on the WU wire that Sunday morning? It goes back to the WC not being clear about the spatial relationships. See, back in the nineties someone sent me a photo taken from the back of City Hall. Looking out that back door, you can clearly see the WU station. In other words, once everything was in place, that is Ruby and Oswald, all that Dean or Croy had to do was wave across the street to Ruby. It takes about 2 minutes and 20 seconds to traverse from the WU station to inside the parking lot.
This is why Dean had to lie to Griffin about that back door. This is why the DPD did not send Lt. Don Flusche to the WC. Flusche had his car parked across the street from the Main Street ramp well in advance since he wanted to see the Oswald transfer. He knew Ruby and he said with utter certitude Ruby was never near that ramp before he shot Oswald. (Reclaiming Parkland, pgs. 225-28)
This one is a real loser for you Davy. Blakey was right about it.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If Ruby had really come in through the side door, instead of the ramp, there would have been no good reason under the sun for him to LIE about it.
And, of course, you have to bring Postal Inspector Harry Holmes into the "conspiracy" plot too. Because if it weren't for Holmes extending the interrogation of Oswald by several minutes on Sunday morning, then Ruby would have never had the chance to plug Oswald at 11:21.
But I always like how CTers add in the extra element of "signalling" to Ruby across the street. This part of their conspiracy fantasy allows them to totally ignore all of the timing issues (e.g., the Carlin phone call, the 11:17 timestamp at Western Union, and the fact that the public was told on Saturday night that Oswald would be moved at 10 AM on Sunday), which are timing issues that indicate one thing to a reasonable person:
Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald on the spur of the moment and could not have been part of some pre-planned conspiracy to rub out Mr. Oswald.
David Von Pein
March 25-26, 2018
