Part 1404 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of September 1—October 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.
RAY MITCHAM SAID:
Givens said nothing about seeing Oswald in his affidavit on the 22nd. .... He changed his story later to say he went upstairs for his cigarettes, and saw Oswald. How convenient.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Just because Charles Givens didn't mention seeing Oswald in his affidavit, you think that automatically means he lied in his later statements and during his testimony in front of the Warren Commission?
Silly.
Givens merely didn't mention his brief encounter with Oswald when Givens wrote his affidavit. Such an omission certainly doesn't mean that Givens' sixth-floor encounter with Lee Oswald never happened. Only a conspiracy theorist would possibly believe such a thing.
Plus, we know that there's no good reason for the authorities to start putting words into Givens' mouth about seeing Oswald on the sixth floor, because even WITHOUT Givens' account of seeing LHO on the sixth floor at approximately 11:55 AM, there is still ample witness testimony from other Depository employees who said they saw (and heard) Oswald on an UPPER FLOOR (either the fifth or sixth floor) shortly before noon. Those other employees are Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray Williams, and Danny Arce. And even Givens HIMSELF, in the FBI report Ray Mitcham quoted above, talks about hearing Oswald shout down the elevator shaft.
There is some confusion surrounding some of Charles Givens' statements with respect to Oswald asking to have the elevator sent back upstairs to him, which I talk about in this article.
But even if conspiracists wish to toss Charlie Givens under the bus and deem him a totally worthless liar (which many CTers have done), what do they do with Lovelady and Williams and Arce with respect to their individual observations about seeing (and hearing) Lee Oswald on an upper floor of the TSBD shortly before 12:00 noon on 11/22/63?
With those three witnesses saying what they each said, why would the FBI or the Warren Commission (or anyone else) have felt the need to coerce Charlie Givens to tell some wild tale about seeing Oswald in just about the VERY SAME PLACE at just about the VERY SAME TIME that those three other men saw him?
Many CTers think the FBI (and later the Warren Commission) desperately needed a witness on the inside of the TSBD building to place Oswald on the sixth floor to firm up the FBI's and WC's framing of poor innocent Lee Harvey Oswald. Therefore, per CTers, they got the easily-coerced Givens to add a lie to his story about going back up to the sixth floor to get his cigarettes and then seeing Oswald up there.
But if the goal of the FBI and Warren Commission was to shore up their "case" against Oswald, why wouldn't they have made Givens' lies even BETTER? They could have gotten Givens to say he saw Oswald moving boxes in the southeast corner of the sixth floor. Or they could have gotten Givens to say he actually saw Oswald with a long brown package too.
But instead, Givens' "cigarettes and jacket" story pretty much amounts to nothing more than the testimony given by Lovelady, Arce, and Williams -- i.e., Givens sees Oswald on an upper floor without a package, and without a gun. The biggest difference would be that Givens did place a definitive floor number on Oswald's whereabouts--the sixth floor (the Floor Of Death), whereas some of the other witnesses I mentioned were not quite sure whether Oswald was shouting down his request for an elevator from the FIFTH floor or the SIXTH Floor.
But if Givens' "going to get cigarettes" story was nothing but a fabrication invented by the authorities, it amounted to very little more than what other witnesses were also providing (or would very soon be providing to the Warren Commission).
In addition, I'll also add that Charles Givens' 11/22/63 affidavit is one that is very brief. It's a very short statement made voluntarily by Givens within hours of the assassination. Givens uses short, to-the-point sentences, not elaborating on anything at all--not even the shooting. He merely says "I think I heard three shots".
So it's fairly obvious to me when looking at Givens' 11/22/63 affidavit that it wasn't Givens' purpose at that time to go into very much detail about anything that happened on November 22. He was obviously making it as short as he could. And just because he did not mention his encounter with Oswald on the sixth floor in that very brief statement, that certainly does not mean such an encounter never took place.
Givens' statement given to the FBI on November 22nd is another matter for discussion. It's true that Givens didn't say anything about going back up to the sixth floor to get his jacket and cigarettes in that November 22nd interview with two FBI agents. But Givens did mention hearing Oswald shout down to have the elevator sent back up "so that he (Lee) could have the elevator returned to the SIXTH FLOOR" (DVP's emphasis).
So it's fairly clear from that FBI statement that Givens was saying he thought Oswald was on the SIXTH FLOOR and wanted an elevator to be sent back up to the SIXTH floor.
With such detail coming from Charles Givens himself about Oswald being on the SIXTH FLOOR shortly before noon on the day of the assassination, why on Earth would the FBI (or anyone else) feel the need to then coerce Givens to add an additional layer of lies to his story, which would be a fabricated layer of lies that essentially ADDS NOTHING NEW to the story Charlie Givens had already told the two FBI agents who interviewed him on November 22, 1963?
Also....
The conspiracy theorists who think Charles Givens just MADE UP his sixth-floor encounter with Lee Oswald due to the fact that Givens said nothing about such an encounter in his original November 22nd affidavit are going to have to accuse Billy Lovelady of pretty much the very same thing (i.e., leaving out important
"I heard Oswald shout down the elevator shaft from an upper floor around noontime" information in his affidavit), because in Lovelady's 11/22/63 affidavit, he never says a thing about that occurrence.
David Von Pein
July 1, 2014
Re-posted September 5, 2026
================================
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The photo of Lee Oswald below certainly indicates to me that Oswald was in need of a haircut (at least in the back, near his hairline).
And if the jacket that LHO was wearing when he shot J.D. Tippit had been riding up the back of his neck just a little bit when witness Domingo Benavides observed Oswald on Tenth Street on November 22nd, then LHO's hairline could possibly have looked somewhat "squared off" from Benavides' point-of-view.
Food for "hairline" thought anyway. And, in my opinion, Mr. Benavides was certainly correct about Tippit's killer being overdue for a trip to the barber shop.
"I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline was sort of--looked like his hairline sort of went square instead of tapered off. And he looked like he needed a haircut for about 2 weeks, but his hair didn't taper off, it kind of went down and squared off and made his head look flat in back." -- Domingo Benavides; Warren Commission Testimony [6 H 451]
Click to enlarge:
Photo Credit: The Portal To Texas History.
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But you and all other conspiracy believers also have to realize (like it or not) that the physical (bullet) evidence indicates beyond all reasonable doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person on the planet who could have conceivably killed Officer J.D. Tippit ..... unless: you choose to believe that all of the bullet shells that littered Tenth Street were planted and/or switched by the authorities, or unless:
There is no third option for people who want to continue to believe (i.e., pretend) that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of shooting Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit on November 22, 1963.
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Greg,
Your theory about the "intentional disappearances" of the "Ross-Lamar" revolver and what you claim are the actual Tippit crime scene shell casings from said Ross-Lamar weapon is nothing but raw, unsupportable speculation.
Moreover, it's a wild guess that flies in the face of the overall evidence that strongly indicates that Lee Oswald shot J.D. Tippit (including the various witnesses who positively identified Oswald as the killer or as the man fleeing the crime scene with a gun in his hand, plus Lee Oswald's very own extremely guilty-like actions in the theater just 35 minutes after Tippit was shot, which are actions that included Oswald pulling a revolver on the arresting police officer).
In my opinion, there is no reason whatsoever to doubt the authenticity or the origin of any of the CE594 Tippit murder scene shell casings. And, as I've stressed many times in the past, if those shell casings weren't planted or switched or placed into the evidence pile in some fraudulent fashion by law enforcement people (or by somebody), then Lee Harvey Oswald cannot possibly be innocent of killing J.D. Tippit.
-----------------------------------------------------
Warren Commission Testimony:
MELVIN A. EISENBERG (WARREN COMMISSION ASSISTANT
COUNSEL) -- Now, I handed you earlier four cartridge cases in a plastic envelope marked Q-74, Q-75, Q-76, and Q-77, also marked C47-C50. Are you familiar with these cartridge cases?
CORTLANDT CUNNINGHAM (FBI FIREARMS IDENTIFICATION
EXPERT) -- I am. I have previously looked at them.
MR. EISENBERG -- Do they have your mark on them?
MR. CUNNINGHAM -- They do. Right on the side of each one, right there.
MR. EISENBERG -- When did you receive these cartridge cases?
MR. CUNNINGHAM -- These cartridge cases were received from the Dallas office of the FBI on November 30, 1963.
MR. EISENBERG -- For the record, I would like to state that these cartridge cases were found in the immediate proximity of the site at which Officer Tippit was killed. They were found on the ground near the street where Officer Tippit was killed on November 22. .... Mr. Chairman, I would like to have these four cartridge cases introduced into evidence as 594.
REP. GERALD FORD -- They may be admitted.
(The articles referred to were marked Commission Exhibit No. 594, and received in evidence.)
[...]
MR. EISENBERG -- Did you examine the cartridge cases in Exhibit 594 in an attempt to determine whether they had been fired in Exhibit 143, the revolver, to the exclusion of all other revolvers?
MR. CUNNINGHAM -- I did.
MR. EISENBERG -- Can you tell us your conclusion?
MR. CUNNINGHAM -- As a result of my examination, it is my opinion that those four cartridge eases, Commission Exhibit 594, were fired in the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143, to the exclusion of all other weapons.
MR. EISENBERG -- When did you perform this examination, Mr. Cunningham?
MR. CUNNINGHAM -- On November 30, 1963.
-----------------------------------------------------
Vincent Bugliosi said:
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But that same thing is probably true for a lot of the evidence in the JFK/Tippit case. What I mean is: You could claim (and some people do claim this) that virtually ALL of the evidence against Oswald was tampered with or switched or manufactured in some fashion in order to frame LHO. Because I doubt I'd be able to find (and verify) the existence of "supporting known document[s] or firsthand testimony" for every single piece of evidence connected with the JFK/Tippit cases.
After all, even when we do have supporting documents and/or testimony, there are still many researchers who insist that all (or most) of the JFK/Tippit evidence has, indeed, been faked or planted or tampered with. It's a never-ending merry-go-round of suspicion, it seems.
As for "supporting documents" that support the idea that the 4 Tippit bullet shells are legitimate, not-switched pieces of evidence, there's the statements found in Warren Commission Exhibit No. 2011 by the DPD's Dhority and Doughty, which you, Greg, don't seem to trust or rely on much at all.
But despite your distrust of CE2011, the statements of those police officers are still going to be there in the official Warren Commission volumes nevertheless, and each of those officers (per CE2011) definitely did say that they had identified their own individual markings on the shell that each of those officers marked. And each officer also stated that the marked shell they each saw on 6/12/64 was the "same" shell that each officer had received from one of the Davis girls on November 22.
And, too, there's always the argument that I like to bring up whenever the subject of law enforcement malfeasance in the Tippit murder case is dredged up ..... because I always wonder how much sense it makes to believe that any member of the Dallas Police Department would actually want to falsify any of the evidence associated with the murder of one of their own brother police officers so that the real killer is able to escape while an innocent "patsy" is arrested instead, which is precisely the fantasy that many people seem to believe in when it comes to Lee Oswald and the Tippit murder. But if you ask me, such a theory is just downright silly, especially when considering all the evidence that exists that proves such a theory is dead wrong.
But, based on your previous remarks, I'm guessing that you, Greg Doudna, don't place any of the blame for switching the Tippit bullet shells on anyone inside the DPD. You think all of the "switching shells" blame falls into the FBI's lap, right? Which (I guess) means you must think that Officers Dhority and Doughty really must have put their initials on those two Oswald-revolver shells at some point in time after 11/22/63, right? Perhaps on June 12, 1964, the date mentioned in CE2011? But if that timeline is to be believed, then both Dhority and Doughty must have been liars.
Or maybe you think a large part of the FBI document known as CE2011 is nothing but one big lie. A lot of people (aka "CTers") do, indeed, think that CE2011 is full of lies and distortions invented by Mr. Hoover's dastardly FBI.
I, however, refuse to believe such unprovable hokum.
When it comes right down to the brass tacks of the J.D. Tippit murder, Lee Harvey Oswald practically convicted himself on Nov. 22nd. The fact that he was in the general Oak Cliff vicinity of the Tippit killing while in the possession of a revolver (which even Oswald himself said was true) at just about the same time when Tippit was shot, and then pulled that gun on a policeman inside the Texas Theater (or at least he started to pull the gun out of his waistband), and shouted out one and maybe two very incriminating statements during his scuffle with the police ("This is it" and "It's all over now"), adds up to pretty strong indications that Mr. Oswald had recently committed a fairly serious crime (or two), even without taking into account the best evidence that proves his guilt (the bullet shells and all those "It Was Oswald" eyewitnesses).
GREG DOUDNA SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Greg, you could very well be correct when you said in your above post that you don't think Oswald drew his revolver during his confrontation with the police in the Texas Theater. I believe there is some conflicting testimony on this point about whether Oswald actually fully "pulled the gun" on Officer McDonald, or whether Oswald had just started to pull out the gun but perhaps had not yet completed that action when he was swarmed by the police officers.*
* NOTE -- I have edited my previous post in order to add the words: "...or at least he started to pull the gun out of his waistband...".
To emphasize the fact that there certainly is at least some disagreement among the Texas Theater witnesses concerning the question of whether or not Oswald actually "pulled out" his gun in the theater, I offer up the following two videos. The first one is from the Oswald mock trial in 1986 and it features Johnny Brewer saying that Oswald "reached under his shirt and pulled out a revolver", which conflicts just a little bit with what arresting police officer M.N. McDonald had to say on 11/23/63 (the 2nd video):
David Von Pein
October 4-7, 2026
================================
