Part 1384 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of January 1—31, 2025. To read the entire forum discussion from which my own comments have been extracted, click on the "Full Discussion" logo at the bottom of each individual segment.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I recently came across this Associated Press newspaper article, published on November 24, 1964, exactly one year after Lee Harvey Oswald was murdered by Jack Ruby. Click for a slightly bigger view:
David Von Pein
January 1, 2025
================================
MARK ULRIK SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's not true at all. Buell Wesley Frazier never needed to say a word to anyone about Lee Oswald looking for a job.
Oswald would have gotten hired by Roy Truly even if Frazier hadn't talked to Bill Shelley at all. And that's because the whole chain of events that led up to Oswald being hired at the Depository started with the coffee klatch at Dorothy Roberts' house in Irving on October 14th, 1963. When the subject of LHO's looking for work came up, it was Linnie Mae Randle who mentioned that her brother, Buell, had recently been hired at the TSBD and that there might be another job available there (but she didn't know for sure that they were hiring at that time).
And then it was Marina who pressed Ruth Paine to call the Depository on that very same day (Oct. 14) to inquire about a possible job opening. Ruth, of course, did make that call to Roy Truly, and Truly told Ruth to have Lee come on in and apply for a job. When Lee called the Paine house that night, Marina told Lee about the situation and Lee, of course, did indeed go to the Book Depository the next day (Oct. 15) and was hired by Mr. Truly.
And all of that would most certainly still have occurred even if Buell Frazier hadn't talked to William Shelley. In fact, now that I think about the timing of these events more closely, I can't see how Buell could have possibly played any role at all in helping Lee Oswald get his TSBD job. The coffee klatch was on Oct. 14 (when Buell was, I would assume, already at work at the Depository). Ruth made her phone call to Truly sometime later that day (Oct. 14). Lee was told later that same night about Ruth's call to the TSBD. Lee then goes to the TSBD the very next day (morning?) and is hired by Roy Truly.
So where is there any time at all for any intervention by Buell Frazier in this tight chronology? I sure don't see any. All of this activity is happening within about a short 24-hour period, between the morning of Monday, October 14th and when Oswald was actually hired on Tuesday, October 15th. And I assume that Ruth Paine's call to Roy Truly had already occurred by the time Buell Frazier ever even heard anything at all about Lee Oswald needing a job.
The fact that Buell Frazier was already employed at the TSBD was, however, the thing that got the ball rolling toward LHO's Depository job. No doubt about that. Because if Buell had not already had his Depository job on October 14th, then the location of the "Texas School Book Depository" as a possible place for Lee Oswald to gain employment would have never surfaced during the coffee klatch at Dorothy Roberts' house on 10/14/63.
But, given the tight "October 14 and 15 only" timeline for these events, I sure don't see any way at all for Buell Frazier to have been influential in Roy Truly's decision to hire Lee Oswald at the Depository.
MARK ULRIK SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, I'll admit that is certainly a possibility. Linnie Mae Randle's Warren Commission testimony is a bit vague as to whether she ever talked to Buell about LHO's lack of employment prior to October 14th. But Linnie Mae did say this in her testimony:
MR. BALL -- "Was there some conversation at that time about her husband Lee Oswald?"
MRS. RANDLE -- "Well...it was just general knowledge in the neighborhood that he didn't have a job and she was expecting a baby."
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
FWIW, I'll also add this relatively meaningless fact into the "Randle/Frazier/Oswald/TSBD Job" mix:
As of October 14th, 1963, the Oswalds had only been back in Dallas for a short time. The pregnant Marina returned to Irving with Mrs. Paine on September 24th, and Lee came back to the Dallas area on October 3rd after his sojourn to Mexico City.
So, if in fact there was any "general knowledge in the neighborhood" on 5th Street in Irving regarding Lee Oswald's unemployment status, it was knowledge that had to have been gleaned by the "neighborhood" within 20 days (or less) of the Oswalds returning to the Dallas area.
And if such "general knowledge" had been obtained only after Lee Oswald returned to Dallas/Irving, then it would have been info that was only 11 days old (at most), as of Oct. 14.
Not impossible, no. But that seems pretty fast to me. But YMMV. Nosy neighbors perhaps? I don't know. Could be. But it could also be that when Linnie Mae Randle said there was "general knowledge in the neighborhood" concerning the two complete strangers who were seen (at times) at Ruth Paine's address, Mrs. Randle really meant to convey that such "general knowledge" was confined to just three houses on the block—Dorothy Roberts', Ruth's, and Linnie Mae's.
~shrug~
------------------------------------
"Any reasonable person can obviously see how utterly impossible it is to "connect" all of these unconnected threads of SHEER HAPPENSTANCE regarding [Ruth] Paine, [Roy] Truly, [Buell] Frazier, and [Linnie] Randle in order to weave the magical type of "Oswald Was Planted In The TSBD" plot that conspiracists imagine took place. But just because nobody has yet been able to come close to weaving that magic carpet of conspiracy involving all of those innocent people (like Frazier, Paine, and Truly), it won't stop conspiracy theorists from pretending that a massive pre-assassination "plot" involving those very people really did occur in 1963." -- DVP; July 1, 2008
http://DVP's JFK Archives/Was Oswald Planted In The TSBD?
David Von Pein
January 1, 2025
================================
GIL JESUS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And that's because....
"When [Howard] Brennan's initial description of the assassin is coupled with his later positive identification of Lee Oswald as the gunman -- and then is added to the very large batch of additional physical and circumstantial evidence which shows Oswald to be guilty of killing President Kennedy (and policeman J.D. Tippit too) -- it becomes quite clear that the man who owned that rifle found on the Depository's 6th Floor (a Mr. Lee H. Oswald) was the same man who was shooting at President Kennedy on 11/22/63. Given all the evidence in the case that corroborates Brennan's being RIGHT when he identified Oswald as the TSBD sniper, the odds that Brennan actually saw someone OTHER than Lee Harvey Oswald in that window are extremely remote to virtually nonexistent." -- DVP; August 2006
JOHNNY CAIRNS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's only "circular reasoning" if you STOP at the incorrect premise you just cited and ignore this part of my last post above....
"...the very large batch of additional physical and circumstantial evidence which shows Oswald to be guilty of killing President Kennedy (and policeman J.D. Tippit too)..."
Why did you ignore that portion of my argument, Johnny?
JOHNNY CAIRNS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Okay. Try this evidence on for size. Am I really supposed to swallow the absurd notion that all of this stuff was manufactured by plotters in order to frame a man named Oswald? I think not....
JOHNNY CAIRNS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
OK. I'll start with the two very important things mentioned below, which are things that I think any reasonable and sensible person would readily admit can undoubtedly be linked together to form a solid initial and foundational argument in favor of Lee Harvey Oswald being guilty of murdering President John F. Kennedy:
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John Connally.
2.) 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 lied about the contents of this package to a co-worker.
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID ALL THIS.
JOHNNY CAIRNS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But you no doubt know that such paraffin tests are not very reliable. The FBI tested Oswald's rifle and the agent immediately tested negative on both his cheek and his hands after firing it three times.
Plus, in Oswald's "negative cheek" test, it's quite possible (or probable) that Oswald washed his face (or at least wiped off any gunshot residue with his clothing) between 12:30 and the time the paraffin test was administered. There was ample time and opportunity for him to have cleaned his face/cheek. Particularly within the Texas Theater restroom. Nobody can possibly prove that Oswald didn't use that bathroom to wash up just prior to his arrest.
So the "Negative Paraffin Test" argument that conspiracy theorists seem to love so much is pretty much worthless.
With regard to whether or not Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was "mechanically sound and capable of firing the fatal shots", as I've already stated, bullets from Rifle C2766 WERE definitely fired into the President's limousine on 11/22. We KNOW they were because those fragments were recovered and linked to C2766. (And not everyone in the world believes that CE567 and CE569 are fake and planted pieces of evidence.)
So, quite obviously, the rifle was "mechanically sound" enough to fire bullets into the vehicle where the target was located.
Why fight that undeniable reality?
And those limo fragments are almost certainly from the fatal bullet that hit JFK in the head. There is no other reasonable explanation for how those two large bullet fragments got into the front seat and mangled like they were. [A discussion on that topic HERE.]
Why fight that reality too?
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
DiEugenio and his make-believe jury can giggle all they want to, but at the end of the day, the end result is still going to be the same regarding bullet fragments CE567 and CE569....with that end result being:
Multiple firearms identification experts concluded that those two fragments positively came out of Lee Harvey Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
JOHNNY CAIRNS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
One of the big problems with "conspiracy theorists" (esp. JFK CTers) is that they never seem to want to add things up in order to arrive at a logical (and very likely correct) conclusion regarding various matters surrounding the JFK and Tippit murder cases.
Here's what I said in August 2008 about what "links" the front-seat bullet fragments to JFK's head wound....
"The front-seat fragments [CE567/569] had NO CHOICE but to have come from the bullet that struck JFK in the head. There is no other alternative given the ballistics evidence in this case (coupled with common sense and a grip on reality):
1.) John Connally was hit by just ONE bullet.
2.) The bullet that hit Connally was CE399 (beyond all reasonable doubt).
3.) Since #1 and #2 are certainly true, it means that the front-seat bullet fragments never touched the body of John B. Connally Jr.
4.) The bullet that split into fragments 567 & 569 hit something FIRST before ending up in the front seat of the limo (this is unquestionably true, because if Oswald's bullet had hit the windshield or chrome strip at full velocity, that bullet would have gone clear through the windshield glass and/or the chrome strip -- per Robert Frazier of the FBI).
5.) The limousine was completely undamaged, except for the crack in the windshield and the dent in the chrome strip.
6.) No limo occupants other than JFK and John Connally were hit by bullets during the shooting in Dealey Plaza.
7.) There were no obstructions (e.g., trees) between the muzzle of Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle and the back of John F. Kennedy's head at the time when JFK was struck in the back of his head by the fatal bullet at Zapruder Frame #313.
8.) Since #3 through #7 above are true, then the only possible source for the fragmentation of the bullet from Rifle #C2766 that produced fragments #567 and #569 was the head of President Kennedy."
GIL JESUS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Which would very likely place Robert A. Frazier of the FBI on the CTer's Liars List (as if he wasn't on that list already), because Frazier testified [at 3 H 435] that he received the CE567/569 front-seat fragments at 11:50 PM (EST) on 11/22/63, which was 10:50 PM in Dallas, which was a time when the C2766 rifle was positively located in DALLAS, not WASHINGTON, D.C.
So, how did the FBI and Secret Service in Washington manage that little trick of (prior to midnight) firing one or more fake patsy-framing bullets from a rifle that was either still in Dallas or in flight toward Washington until well past midnight?
Or do some CTers believe that the various "patsy-framing bullets" were fired by the plotters/conspirators through the C2766 rifle (aka Oswald's rifle) at some point prior to Nov. 22nd? And if that's supposed to be the case, then when (and how) did the conspirators manage to get ahold of that rifle. Did they steal it out of Ruth Paine's garage without anyone noticing? (Yes, yes, I know that most CTers don't think the rifle was ever in Ruth's garage at all. But that's yet another topic.)
Most CTers, though, probably believe the front-seat bullet fragments were "switched" after the C2766 rifle arrived in Washington from Dallas. There's not a shred of proof that any sinister bullet-switching was going on at all, of course. But that won't stop some conspiracy theorists from saying it definitely happened.
How many liars, deceivers, and evidence manipulators/planters do conspiracy theorists think were involved in this alleged "rifle/bullet deception" portion of the alleged plot to frame Lee Oswald for JFK's murder?
David Von Pein
January 6-9, 2025
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
In January 2025, researcher Tom Gram found numerous FBI documents at the Mary Ferrell website that provide the probable explanation for why Bardwell Odum of the FBI (and others) did not write up the usual FD-302 reports for the interviews that are associated with Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2011.
The key document uncovered by Gram is the one seen below [and also available to view HERE], which specifically has the FBI's Dallas SAC (Special Agent in Charge) writing these words in an Airtel message sent to the FBI Director on June 27, 1964:
"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]."
Now, I suppose there are some conspiracy theorists out there who will still insist--even after reading the document above--that the individual interviews found within CE2011 are phony.
Some CTers might still cry foul and insist that FD-302 reports should still have been written by the individual agents who conducted the interviews, because the above FBI Airtel merely states that the information in CE2011 "will not be set forth in a subsequent report" (singular).
Since that Airtel doesn't specifically say that "No FD-302 reports (plural) will be required", that will probably leave the door open just enough for some CTers to continue their skepticism concerning the validity of CE2011.
Plus, there's this March 19, 1964, FBI Airtel message, which adds more fuel to the "FD-302" controversy. On Page 3 of that document, we find this:
"The investigative results which normally would have been prepared on FD-302s, but which were not so prepared in view of their incorporation in a Letterhead Memorandum, should now be retyped on a FD-302 where appropriate."
But the words highlighted by the blue box in this document are certainly words that are giving me the impression that the report-writing procedure that the FBI was using for the interviews it conducted for the Warren Commission's Exhibit 2011 was, at the very least, a little bit different than the standard procedure normally followed by the Bureau.
And as a result of this different course of action, the lack of any FD-302 reports associated with CE2011 is something that doesn't seem particularly suspicious or sinister to me at all.
[Related "CE2011" discussions can be found HERE and HERE and HERE.]
David Von Pein
January 15-18, 2025
================================
T. WEIER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Are there really people out there who truly believe there is anything in those precious unreleased "JFK files" that will definitively turn President Kennedy's assassination into a provable conspiracy and also (possibly) exonerate Lee Harvey Oswald?
Talk about "Dreamers".
GIL JESUS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I heartily agree. All the files should be released. I'm all for that, and I've said so in the past as well.
But the most reasonable conclusion and end result is still going to be the same (with or without a "full" release of all documents), with that end result continuing to be (based on all the evidence that's on the table): Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, killed JFK.
Plus, the HSCA and ARRB have already seen every single unredacted document in their entirety, with both of those panels declaring: There's no smoking gun there.
I suppose some people still say that the HSCA & ARRB really didn't see and examine 100% of all the documents. But Vincent Bugliosi was told by both Robert Blakey and John Tunheim that all of the documents, without redactions, were indeed examined by the HSCA and the ARRB:
David Von Pein
January 21-26, 2025
