Part 1403 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of August 1—31, 2026. 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.
CLIFF VARNELL SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Why anyone would prefer to rely on the hand-drawn "dot" on the autopsy
Face Sheet instead of the exacting "14 cm..." measurements on that same
Face Sheet is something I fail to understand. ~shrug~
CLIFF VARNELL SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
How can you tell that some of the Face Sheet markings were made with a pen and others with a pencil? All of the markings on the Face Sheet look pretty much the same to me (as far as being able to discern pen from pencil markings, that is).
I've heard other conspiracy theorists say the same thing about the "ink vs. pencil" thing, but I've always wondered --- How do they know for sure?
CLIFF VARNELL SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But you have no real proof that anything Dr. Boswell wrote on the Face Sheet was written in pen. It's just a guess on your part. Right?
But this "protocol" thing regarding the "pen vs. pencil" topic is nothing but a red herring anyway. Because even if the measurements were written in "pen", that fact wouldn't suddenly make the "14 centimeters" measurements a complete lie. And I think it's rather silly to believe it would.
Also....
I talked about the "Mastoid" topic at another forum in 2015. Here's an excerpt:
-----------------
"The truth is, of course, that ANY "body landmark" is going to be FIXED (i.e., immobile) during a post-mortem examination---because wounds are being located from landmarks while the body is in the anatomic ("autopsy") position---rigid and straight. And that's true for the mastoid process or any other body landmark.
Do you, Martin [Hay], think that President Kennedy's mastoid process was moving all over the place while it was being used as a measuring landmark while JFK was lying flat on a table in an anatomic position? (And I have no reason to believe that the autopsy doctors were so stupid that they chose to measure distances on JFK's body while his body was in some position OTHER than the standard "autopsy" position. If the doctors started measuring distances while Kennedy's body was in some contorted or "bent over" position, then those doctors would, of course, deserve all the criticism I could blast them with. But I have no reason to believe they were THAT idiotic. Do you, Martin?)
While most pathologists might very well have measured the wounds from different body landmarks than those utilized by Dr. Humes in November 1963, it makes very little difference, because we DO have a SPECIFIC and PRECISE measurement for the back wound as it relates to a known body landmark on John F. Kennedy's body. You know it. I know it. The HSCA knew it.
So, once again, a huge useless mountain is being made out of total nothingness by a conspiracy theorist. And Martin Hay is dead wrong when he said this:
"The autopsy doctors did not record the precise location of the back wound. That is, was, and always will be a FACT no matter what David Von Pein says."
The above statement is a blatant falsehood and always will be for as long as Hay continues to spout such tommyrot. The precise location of JFK's back wound was most certainly located."
CLIFF VARNELL SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, it looks like you've misquoted an autopsy doctor yet again, Cliff. First, it was Dr. Boswell. Now, it's Dr. Finck. The quote you attributed to Dr. Pierre A. Finck was never uttered at all during Finck's 1996 ARRB session. (Another mistake by an A.I. robot, I presume?)
However, Dr. Finck did say this in his ARRB testimony:
QUESTION -- "When one is attempting to determine the location of a wound, we'll say, in the thoracic cavity; would it be appropriate to use as a fixed body landmark a mastoid process?"
DR. FINCK -- "No, ...because it is part of the head, and the head is moving, could move."
-------------------
But during that very same ARRB questioning session, Dr. Finck also answered "Yes" to this question:
QUESTION -- "Were the measurements that were recorded during the autopsy of President Kennedy measurements that conformed to standard autopsy procedures in the 1960s?"
DR. FINCK -- "Yes."
http://jfk-assassination.net/ARRB Testimony/Dr. Finck
-------------------
Dr. Finck also evidently must have disagreed with Dr. Cyril Wecht about utilizing the head as a landmark while conducting an autopsy. Click to enlarge:
CLIFF VARNELL SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Not really. And my interpretation of the two different landmarks mentioned by Dr. Wecht in my prior post indicates to me that he didn't think the "top of the head" was untenable as a north/south landmark either. And "the top of the head" is just as "movable" a landmark as the mastoid process.
I agree, though, that the Humes/Boswell team did use some odd landmarks that other doctors probably have never used -- e.g., the mastoid process and the acromion process and the EOP (when Wecht's preferred "top of the head" would seem like a much better and simpler choice).
But heck, I'm not a pathologist. So my opinion matters little. But I think my thoughts earlier regarding the "mastoid and the anatomical position" make sense.
CLIFF VARNELL SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I have done no such thing. Why you think I have is the mystery. You need to re-read the last three paragraphs of this post, in which I was merely pointing out an absolute fact -- i.e., that both of those landmark options ("Mastoid Process" and "The Top Of The Head") are movable parts of the human body, which is the thing that conspiracy theorists are always complaining about.
And yet I've never heard anyone critcize the late Dr. Wecht when he suggested that the "top of the head" should be routinely utilized as one of the landmarks for pinpointing the location of wounds in human bodies.
And if Dr. Wecht had been the pathologist responsible for JFK's autopsy in 1963, and given the things I've quoted from Dr. Wecht in the post I linked above, I don't think there's much doubt about which two landmarks he would have chosen to use to document the bullet wound in President Kennedy's upper back. He would have used the two human landmarks I mentioned in that linked post -- "the mid-point of the body" (for the east-west measurement) and "from the top of the head" (for the north-south measurement).
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID THIS.
JAMES WILKINSON SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
James,
I think you're missing the very simple and basic fact that JFK and Governor Connally, in the Z-Film clips I provided earlier, are certainly reacting to an external stimulus (bullet wounds perhaps??) at the exact same moment in time.
Here's another clip, just for good measure:
CLIFF VARNELL SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
No, I don't deny the fact that Dr. George Burkley wrote the words "about the level of the third thoracic vertebra" on page 2 of the White House version of JFK's Death Certificate.
But another fact remains.....the fact that Dr. Burkley was only estimating where he thought the wound was on JFK's back. And that estimate doesn't align with the ACTUAL PHYSICAL MEASUREMENTS that were done at the autopsy itself by the actual autopsy physicians.
And another key fact is the existence of this autopsy photo (authenticated as "not altered" by the House Select Committee at 7 HSCA 41), which certainly does not show the back wound as low as T3. So why would you deny what your eyes can see?
Let me guess --- You think this picture is a fake, despite Page 41 of HSCA Volume 7 staring you in the face every day. Right, Cliff? ....
David Von Pein
August 3-5, 2026
================================
ALEX HARRIS SAID THIS.
GERRY DOWN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Along that same line of thought....
Linked below is the full list of the 552 people whose testimony was presented to the Warren Commission in some fashion. And there are many names on this list that I am unfamiliar with (probably numbering well into triple digits if I were to count them all up).
And I'd be willing to bet that I'm not alone when I admit such a thing. Just peruse this incredibly long list of witnesses and see for yourself. I'd wager the ol' homestead that there's not a person alive who has heard of all 552:
https://history-matters.com/WCR/Appendix V/List Of Witnesses
David Von Pein
August 5, 2026
================================
BRIAN DOYLE SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Geesh, that's quite a fantasy you've manufactured there, Brian. Has anybody purchased the movie rights yet? After all, make-believe wild fantasies like the one you've spun in your above post are sometimes big box-office hits. Good luck.
BRIAN DOYLE SAID:
As you can see, although everything written there is traceable to the known evidence, Mr Von Pein is not able to offer any substantial refutation of any of the main facts.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
On my webpage linked below, I discuss some of the various errors and misconceptions that some people have concerning Oswald's movements on 11/22/63, including the theory that Oswald was stopped by a policeman in a "storage room on the first floor" (instead of the actual location of the encounter, which was, of course, the second-floor lunchroom).
There were even some newspapers reporting the erroneous "storage room" story, such as the Dallas Morning News on 11/23/63:
JOHN CORBETT SAID:
I've often wondered how so many erroneous stories originate. I know you have a lot of the early TV coverage on your website but I don't want to spend hours going through it all, but going from memory, I think at various times, Walter Cronkite reported the rifle was a Winchester, an Enfield, and a Japanese rifle before the rifle had been found. Also, a Secret Service agent had been killed, and a young couple had been arrested.
I only took one year of journalism studies in college, but they always stressed it was more important to get the story right than to get it out first. We were told, if your mother says she loves you, get confirmation.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, there were a number of errors made by the news media in the immediate hours following JFK's death (see the video below). But even though many mistakes and erroneous reports did make it to the national airwaves on Nov. 22, I still think that overall the radio and television networks did a very good job during the assassination weekend, which is why I placed the following comment at the very end of my video below:
"In creating the video, it was not my intention to cast a negative light on the people who reported the events associated with JFK's tragic murder. On the contrary, I believe the radio and TV reporters did an outstanding job of broadcasting the news coming out of Dallas during that weekend in 1963. And for the most part, they reported it very accurately. But some mistakes and erroneous initial reports were inevitable. And most of these early errors were even corrected on the air later in the weekend. On the whole, I salute and admire the high level of professional (and accurate) journalism that was exhibited by the many people who had the tough and very unexpected duty of reporting these terrible events to the world in November 1963." -- David V.P.
FOOTNOTE....
I also invite you to visit my "Media Errors" webpage HERE, which includes some discussion about many of the on-the-air mistakes made by the media right after JFK was shot (some of which are downright hilarious).
David Von Pein
August 6-8, 2026
================================
GERRY DOWN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
On Page 3 of the HSCA's Final Report (and again on Page 41, which you, Gerry Down, already pointed out in your 2023 post to which I am replying), we can deduce by process of elimination that the HSCA is saying that the FIRST shot fired by Lee Oswald was the shot that missed (since the Report says that Oswald "fired three shots" and the "second and third shots fired struck the President").
I, too, can't seem to find any "discussion" about the missed shot in the HSCA materials. Perhaps such discussion is tucked away in the 12 supporting volumes someplace. ~shrug~
GERRY DOWN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, that's right. And I've always admired the Warren Commission's decision to not lock themselves into endorsing any particular theory regarding the missed shot. The Commission pretty much knew that one shot did miss the entire limousine, but they didn't have enough definitive evidence to say for certain just which of Oswald's three shots it was. Which led to the text we find on Page 117 of the WCR, which is pictured below. And Page #117, for a variety of conspiracy-debunking reasons, is my favorite page of the entire Warren Report:
But, given the overall evidence (which certainly indicates that three shots and only three shots were fired during the assassination, with all three of those shots coming from Oswald's Sniper's Nest in the TSBD and from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, with two of those three bullets striking the victims in the limousine), I think the best guess concerning the one missed shot is that Lee Oswald's first shot hit the oak tree (which is a tree that was located to the RIGHT of Oswald at the time he fired that shot at approx. Z160, which fits in pretty well with a misaligned scope that might very well have been aiming "HIGH AND TO THE RIGHT" during the shooting, although that's another thing we'll never know for sure; it's quite possible that the scope became misaligned when Oswald dropped the gun amongst the boxes after the assassination).
More "Missed Shot" Discussion HERE.
DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID THIS.
JOHNNY CAIRNS SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
CE510 (above) is pretty good evidence of "Three Shots" being fired from the TSBD Sniper's Nest.
And, officially, all three of those shells were ejected out of Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle.
And contrary to the popular CTer belief, Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Dallas Police definitely did put his mark on all three of those bullet shells, including CE543.
In his June 1964 affidavit, Lt. Day told us he positively marked ALL THREE shells currently in evidence (CE543, 544, and 545). And the only reason that Day filled out that affidavit was to straighten out some of his Warren Commission testimony from April '64. In fact, the very first words in that affidavit confirm that fact:
"The following affidavit is made to clear up confusion regarding the three spent 6.5 hulls, commission numbers 543, 544, and 545, found by the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963."
Lt. Day then goes on to say this in the same affidavit:
"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." -- Lt. J.C. Day; 06/23/64
David Von Pein
August 7-8, 2026
================================
JASON WARD SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I contend that's it's logical to conclude (after reading Harry Holmes' testimony on the matter) that the only section of the multi-part post office application that needed to be retained (for 2 years) was the part which had the most pertinent info about the applicant on it (name, address, date, signature, etc.).
Why would they need to save a useless section of the application that told them who could receive mail---particularly since the box was now closed and they knew that nobody related to the applicant could ever get mail at that P.O. Box ever again anyway? Makes sense to me that Part 3 would, indeed, be discarded, because it was useless after a box had been closed.
Re: Commission Exhibit No. 2585....
"Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an 'A. Hidell,' would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963." -- Via FBI Report of 6/3/64 [CE2585]
But we know from all the available (and unavailable) evidence associated with the topic of Lee Harvey Oswald's P.O. Box applications that the FBI did not actually see and examine Part 3 of the application Oswald filled out for Box #2915 in Dallas, because that portion of the application simply does not exist. So, how could the FBI, in November 1963 or June 1964, have seen something that was thrown away in May 1963?
Therefore, when the FBI came to the conclusion cited above on Page 4 of its report dated June 3, 1964, the FBI was relying on information OTHER than Part 3 of Oswald's application for P.O. Box 2915.
And I'm wondering if possibly the FBI made the same mistake that some other people I've talked to have definitely made: they mixed up the two P.O. Box applications for boxes 2915 and 6225. Part 3 of the 6225 box application was saved, but Part 3 of Box 2915 was not.
Maybe the FBI made the same error conspiracy theorists make when those CTers try and prop up Cadigan Exhibit No. 13 as proof that Oswald didn't list A. Hidell as a person entitled to receive mail at Box 2915.
In any event, even if it was an error on the part of the FBI, the error most certainly cannot be considered to be a sinister lie. Not even conspiracy theorists could consider such an error to be conspiratorial or sinister.
Why?
Because J. Edgar Hoover's FBI is almost always thought to be one of the major forces behind a "cover-up" in the JFK assassination investigation by conspiracy promoters. And this possible mistake about the P.O. Box application of Oswald's is a mistake that makes it appear LESS likely that Oswald could have received the assassination weapon through the mail.
So, if Hoover's boys were making up stories, then they would have lied in the OTHER direction and would have claimed that Oswald definitely HAD listed A. Hidell as a person who could receive mail at P.O. Box 2915. Instead, the FBI concluded that he definitely had NOT listed Hidell on the application.
JASON WARD SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, sure Jason. That must be why Harry Holmes said this in 1964 to the Warren Commission. (And yes, I know you and many other CTers enjoy tossing Mr. Holmes under the bus and accuse him of all kinds of conspiratorial acts, but please don't expect everybody--including me--to buy into your fantasy regarding Mr. Holmes and the JFK Assassination)....
HARRY D. HOLMES -- "They pull this out and endorse it so the box has been closed, and the date and they tear off [Part] 3 and throw it away. It has no more purpose. That is what happened on box 2915."
WESLEY J. LIEBELER -- "They have thrown part 3 away?"
MR. HOLMES -- "Yes. As it so happens, even though they closed the box in New Orleans, they still had part 3 and it showed that the mail for Marina Oswald and A.J. Hidell was good in the box. They hadn't complied with regulations. They still had it there."
MR. LIEBELER -- "It was a lucky thing."
MR. HOLMES -- "We wish they had here."
MR. LIEBELER -- "Now is this regulation that says section 3 should be torn off and thrown away, is that a general regulation of the Post Office Department?"
MR. HOLMES -- "It is in the Post Office Manual Instructions to employees; yes, sir."
MR. LIEBELER -- "So there is no way, as I understand it, to tell from the records maintained, as far as you know anyway, who was authorized to receive mail at Post Office Box 2915 that Oswald had while he was here in Dallas before he went to New Orleans in April of 1963; is that correct?"
MR. HOLMES -- "Other than Oswald himself and his name on the application."
[Source for the above Warren Commission testimony: 7 H 527.]
All lies....right Jason? 🙄
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The U.S. Postal Regulation in question [pictured below] doesn't specify whether PART THREE of the P.O. Box application should be specifically saved for two years. It states that the "Box rental applications and control cards showing payment" should be saved. And Oswald's "box rental application" (the portion with Oswald's name and signature) WAS saved. It is shown in CE791 and CE792. Click for a bigger view:
It looks to me like Ralph R. Rea, the man who wrote that 1966 letter to Stewart Galanor, has added some information about "Part Three" that doesn't necessarily have to apply to Postal Regulation 846.53h. Rea said this to Galanor on May 3, 1966:
"Section 846.53h, of the Postal Manual, provides that the third portion of box rental applications, identifying persons other than the applicant authorized to receive mail, must be retained for two years after the box is closed."
But as we can easily see above, nowhere in regulation 846.53h does it SPECIFY that the "third portion" of a P.O. Box application should be retained for two years.
It looks as if Rea was merely assuming that ALL PARTS of the application had
to be saved via that postal regulation. And I'm not so sure he's right about that at all. And we've got Harry D. Holmes' testimony too, wherein Holmes said that
Part 3 of P.O. Box applications are routinely thrown away after a box is closed.
Yes, the postal regulation states that "Box rental applications and control cards showing payment" were to be retained for two years, and I suppose it's not unreasonable to assume that such a regulation means that the ENTIRE three-part application should be retained*, but I still think it is very disingenuous and deceptive to place the words "Part 3 of the box rental application...must be retained for 2 years after the box is closed" in quotation marks when citing that regulation, which is exactly what we find in this 2012 Dealey Plaza Echo publication.
* But, after reading Harry Holmes' Warren Commission testimony concerning this matter, it becomes quite reasonable to assume that all three parts of a rental application were NOT required to be saved:
HARRY HOLMES -- "They pull this out and endorse it so the box has been closed, and the date and they tear off [Part] 3 and throw it away. It has no more purpose. That is what happened on box 2915."
Also See:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/post-office-applications
David Von Pein
August 9-10, 2026
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Time for a Comedy Break....
Today I noticed that when I loaded my computer's home page (Google.com) there was a new "Create Images" A.I. option featured on the Google webpage that I had never noticed before (so I'm assuming it's fairly new), so I decided to play around with it a little bit by asking it to create some JFK-related images. And when I typed in "JFK Assassination In Dealey Plaza November 22, 1963", take a look at the hilarious photo that Google A.I. came up with (click to enlarge):
We've all heard of the "Two Oswalds" theory and even the "Two Marguerites" theory, but I've never heard of a theory that has two John F. Kennedys riding in the Presidential limousine in Dallas! But that's what Google A.I. came up with in their above photo. And they've even got one of the JFKs sitting right up front with the Secret Service driver! LOL!
A discussion of all the things that are wrong with that picture above would probably take the rest of the day, since virtually nothing in that A.I. image is accurate at all. I'm still trying to figure out who the man is sitting next to Jackie in the back seat. I guess it's supposed to be John Connally, but Google didn't do a very good job of making it look anything like him.
And when I asked for another A.I. image using slightly different search terms, Google came up with the picture below, which this time seems to feature two Jackie Kennedys in the limousine! 😁 (But perhaps we're to assume that the second "Jackie" is Nellie Connally???) Plus, there's a Secret Service agent climbing all over the front of the car, instead of the trunk. Also take note of the flag that's already at half-mast on top of the Book Depository, and the limo isn't even out of Dealey Plaza yet! Man, that's fast flag action from the TSBD personnel!
Click to enlarge:
P.S. -- I hope no one thinks I'm being disrespectful to President Kennedy or making light of the tragedy that occurred in Dallas. Because that was certainly not my intention.
David Von Pein
August 10, 2026
================================
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Greg,
It's not quite true to say that your "November 11th" theory/theories "never get discussed or mentioned". I discussed portions of your theory with you in late 2023 [archived HERE].
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
If Lee Oswald had not obtained permission from Michael Paine to use that car on Nov. 11th (and there's no evidence he did obtain such permission), I don't think your theory is believable. And I doubt Michael would have allowed Lee to drive around town without having a driver's license (which, of course, LHO did not have). And I think it's likely that Ruth Paine would have stopped Lee from using Michael's car too [if at all possible]. She certainly knew that Lee's talents behind the wheel weren't exactly stellar.
It sounds as if you're suggesting that Lee practically stole that car on Nov. 11th. Because there is certainly no evidence at all that anybody at the Paine residence said to Lee: "Sure Lee, you can use that car today, even though we know you have no driver's license."
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I'm not 100% certain, Greg. You could, indeed, be correct about certain parts of your "November 11" theory. Maybe Lee did take his family to the Furniture Mart, and maybe Lee did "borrow" Michael Paine's Oldsmobile on 11/11/63, although, even after I have now read your entire "Furniture Mart" article in which you discuss this matter, I'm still wondering how Lee knew where the keys to that vehicle were located within Ruth Paine's house in Irving (and I assume you don't think Lee hotwired the car to get it started).
Did Lee just start opening all the drawers and cabinets in the house in order to find the keys? Or do you think Ruth and/or Michael said something within earshot of LHO prior to Nov. 11 that informed Lee that the keys were in a certain location? ~shrug~
But, Greg, even though I disagree with nearly all of your various theories that you've presented in the last few years, you certainly have earned an A+ for your research skills. A good example being the confirmation of precisely the time of day when Ruth Paine was away from her home on Nov. 11. I looked through Ruth's Warren Commission testimony myself and confirmed that Ruth did leave her house and did not return for several hours on November 11, 1963. Ruth told the WC this:
RUTH PAINE -- "There is an entry on November 11, Veterans Day. I have already referred to the fact that I was away from 9 or so in the morning until about 2 in the afternoon and this was a day that Lee was...at my home."
[Later....]
QUESTION -- "Is it your opinion, based on your recollection of all of the association of Lee Oswald with you and at your home, that it could not have been possible for him to have taken a weapon, such as the rifle involved here, to any range, shooting range, sportsdome, gun range, or otherwise, on any occasion when he was in Irving, Tex. residing or staying as a guest in your home?"
RUTH PAINE -- "The only time when he was there and I was away long enough for him to have gone somewhere and come back, and I now know that I can recall, was Monday, the 11th of November. I have described my presence at the home on the 9th and 10th. And to the best of my recollection, there was no long period of time that I was away from the home when he was there. I may also say that there is no way of getting from my home unless you walk or have someone drive you."
-------------------
FWIW....
In this affidavit, dated June 24, 1964, Ruth Paine made the following statements:
"At no time after Marina and I and our children arrived in Irving, Texas, on September 24, 1963, from New Orleans, Louisiana, did I ever take Lee Oswald or Marina Oswald to the Irving Sports Shop, which is located at 221 East Irving Boulevard, Irving, Texas. I was quite aware during all of this period of Marina's activities and where she was. I know of no occasion when either she or Lee Oswald visited either the Furniture Mart or the Irving Sports Shop."
[...]
"I was not present in my home for part of the day on November 11, 1963. As I testified, I made a trip that day, which was Armistice Day and a holiday, to Dallas, Texas. I was gone from approximately 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM. Not wishing to burden Lee and Marina with my children, I had them stay at my neighbors, the Craigs. Marina and Lee Oswald and their children were in my home when I left and were there when I returned. Based upon my conversation with Marina and Lee Oswald and my understanding of their plans for the day, it is my clear opinion that all of them remained in my home during my trip to and from Dallas." -- Ruth Hyde Paine; June 24th, 1964 [11 H 153-155]
TONY KROME SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's true, Tony. But the testimony spoken by Michael Paine that you just cited certainly implies that the "second key" to Michael's Oldmobile was very likely inside Ruth Paine's house, because Lee Oswald never visited Michael Paine at his other residence (where a second key might be located), correct?
So it seems to me that the way that testimony by Mr. Paine is worded (emphasis added by me) -- "I DON'T BELIEVE he knew where my second key was" -- indicates that a car key could very well have been located in a place that Oswald had access to in Ruth's house (where else?).
If Michael had kept the spare key to the Oldsmobile somewhere other than Ruth's house, I doubt that Michael would have used the words "I don't believe" in the above sentence, because Michael would then have been certain that Oswald couldn't have known where such a key was kept.
Plus, it also makes sense for a spare key to have been available at Ruth's house in case she ever needed to drive it. After all, that's where the car was evidently being parked each day.
But even if Lee did take the family into downtown Irving on Veterans Day 1963, that doesn't change any of the 11/22/63 evidence surrounding JFK's assassination. And that's because I don't believe for one second the portion of Greg's theory that has some other person taking possession of Lee Harvey Oswald's Carcano rifle sometime after November 11th. Because, IMO, even if Greg Doudna's theory is correct and Lee Oswald took his rifle to the Irving Sports Shop for some kind of repairs prior to Nov. 22nd, my main reaction would be: So what?
Even if such a trip to the Sports Shop and the Furniture Mart was accomplished by LHO, my opinion would be that Oswald then took his repaired rifle with him back to Ruth Paine's house and returned it to the blanket in the garage where it had been stored since late September of '63.
Because the overall weight of the evidence in the JFK murder case is very strongly telling me that it was Lee Oswald himself who took Carcano Rifle No. C2766 into the Book Depository Building on November 22nd and it was also Lee Oswald himself who used that weapon to kill President Kennedy.
David Von Pein
August 13-19, 2026
