JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 816)

TONY FRATINI SAID:

There's been some bitter soul searching going on in Dallas County, as one man after another is being released from prison after being convicted, years ago, of crimes they did not commit. .... So far, 17 men have been cleared in Dallas - that's more than most states. All were put on trial by prosecutors who worked for the legendary District Attorney Henry Wade.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Henry Wade didn't collect a single piece of evidence in the JFK or Tippit cases.

I know he didn't "collect" any of the evidence in the overturned cases that CTers love to now highlight (so they can call Wade a corrupt asshole), but Wade would have merely used the evidence collected by OTHERS to prosecute Oswald.

Now, is a rational person supposed to believe that all of this evidence is phony?

If not---Oswald's probably guilty.

And in the Oswald case, the defendant didn't even live to stand trial, so Henry Wade had no chance to be a corrupt prosecutor even if he had wanted to be one! (Isn't this obvious?)

So whether Henry Wade was a rotten and corrupt District Attorney has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Lee Harvey Oswald killed John Kennedy and/or J.D. Tippit.

OTHER people besides Henry Wade evaluated the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases. Wade did NOTHING. So why is Wade's record as an alleged corrupt D.A. of Dallas County even brought up in a case when the defendant never even stepped into a Dallas courtroom? It's silly.

What's next on the "Excuses" list for the conspiracy theorists in order to try and set free a double killer named Oswald?

The inventive conspiracy crowd has already pretended that all of the evidence is tainted (sans a speck of proof that ANY of it was).

And they've gone down the "Wade Is Corrupt" path. But, as pointed out above, that's meaningless since he had nothing whatsoever to do with gathering any of the evidence against Oswald and since Oswald never even went to trial to be prosecuted by Mr. Wade. (Duh!)

And the CTers love to claim that Hoover, LBJ, the Warren Commission, the HSCA, and the CIA "covered up" everything. Which, again, is a crappy argument because none of those persons or entities collected a single piece of the evidence which hangs Oswald. Nor did they (or the Dallas Police Department either, for that matter) make Oswald behave like a very guilty person between 12:33 and 1:50 PM CST on November 22, 1963. (Did Hoover or LBJ force Oswald to pull a gun on the cops in the theater? And did they force him to leave the scene of JFK's murder at 12:33?)

And the CTers have pretended that "Oswald Lookalikes" were doing things to frame the "real" Oswald. (Sans any proof at all, naturally.)


TONY FRATINI SAID:

In regards to WADE - how many times on National TV did he, and others, state that LHO was guilty? You know that the evidence was paraded in front of the national media like it was a circus. How exactly was LHO going to get a fair hearing anywhere?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Irrelevant.

Why?

Because Henry Wade never got a CHANCE to be CORRUPT in a court of law in the case of "The State Of Texas Vs. Lee Harvey Oswald".

And AFTER Oswald's demise, there have been MULTIPLE organizations and committees that have concluded that Oswald was, in fact, GUILTY as charged (times two murders).

So why in the world, in THIS case, would anybody be silly enough to lay a bunch of blame at Henry Wade's doorstep? Wade did NOTHING to "prosecute" Oswald. Nothing. He made a few statements in the DPD hallways to suggest that Oswald was, in fact, guilty, yes.

I'm not saying it was wise for Police Chief Jesse Curry or Captain Will Fritz or Mr. Wade to make such "Oswald did it" statements in front of the potential jury pool when Oswald was still alive. It was pretty reckless, IMO. But the fact remains that essentially Henry Wade did nothing in this case. The work was done by other people.

And the evidence was independently evaluated by the Warren Commission and the HSCA and the Rockefeller Commission. And Henry Wade played no part whatsoever in the overall evaluation of the evidence that was performed by the above-named entities. And we know what the conclusions of those entities were, don't we? (Were they ALL corrupt too? Prob'ly so, huh?)

David Von Pein
October 15, 2014 [This forum link is no longer available.]

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 918)

RONALD WIECK SAID:

I just received a copy of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". Having read the first fifty pages, I can state that book promises to become the One-Stop Shop for everyone tired of the incessant yammering of agenda-driven conspiracy peddlers.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you, Ronald, very much.


TRACY RIDDLE SAID:

A detailed critique of the book by Martin Hay:

http://ctka.net/"Beyond Reasonable Doubt" Book Review


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What a surprise --- a conspiracy theorist (Martin Hay) disagrees with LNers.

~yawn~

And it's no surprise to see Martin Hay doing what all Internet CTers do every day---trying to explain away all the evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald.

Martin believes all the evidence is fake and phony. If he didn't believe that, then Oswald's guilty. And Martin doesn't like that idea at all. So, the evidence is ALL fraudulent---from the rifle to the paper bag to Howard Brennan and everything in-between.

And I'm wondering why Mr. Hay is telling this false tale in his BRD book review at CTKA?.....

"Although the precise location of the back wound was not recorded by Kennedy's pathologists..." -- Martin Hay

Hay is dead wrong about that statement. The autopsy Face Sheet records the exact location of the upper-back wound. It's the precise location of the throat wound which wasn't recorded by Humes, Boswell, and Finck. Maybe Hay meant to say "throat wound" instead of "back wound" above. ~shrug~

But, in any event, Martin knows full well that no bullets were found inside JFK's body, and there was very little damage inside Kennedy's upper back and neck that could have stopped a rifle bullet, let alone stopping TWO such bullets, which is the number of missiles (two) that Hay needs to disappear into thin air if he thinks the bullet that struck JFK's back did not transit the President's body.

But common sense was never a strong suit of JFK conspiracy theorists. Their constant refusal to accept the truth of the Single-Bullet Theory has been proving that fact for fifty years.


TRACY RIDDLE SAID:

That's it, David? You found a typo error? You can't refute anything else he wrote? No, all we get is more bold assertions and hyperbole.

Howard Brennan? Most LNers on the internet gave up using Brennan a long time ago.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Tracy,

I've seen all of the silly excuses for ignoring all of the Oswald-Did-It evidence before. Nothing Martin Hay had to say in his review surprised me. I expected it. Hay's review is merely the most recent excuse for conspiracists like him to raise their Internet voices so they can (once again) pretend that Oswald never ordered the rifle and never took the rifle into the TSBD and never shot at General Walker, etc., etc. to absurdity.

If you want to see each foolish claim made by CTers debunked, I've got pages on my websites that accomplish that task fairly well (IMO). But I'm not going to type out 5,000 words on these [Amazon.com] forums to refute Hay's fairy tale beliefs. That's why I've archived everything at my own sites, so I don't have to type it all out again every time these things come up (which they constantly do).

Regarding Howard Brennan....

Do you think LNers like myself (and Mel Ayton) should just completely IGNORE Mr. Brennan, is that it? We should just toss Howard under the wheels of SS-100-X and pretend he never told the Warren Commission that the man he saw shoot JFK was, in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald? Is that it?

And do you think the whole case against Oswald rests on the shoulders of only Howard Brennan? Why would anyone think that? Even without Brennan, Oswald is still guilty as ever. And the evidence proves it. Brennan's testimony merely corroborates and buttresses what all reasonable people can already figure out for themselves based on the physical evidence and Oswald's own actions---i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy.


TRACY RIDDLE SAID:

Truth is not determined by opinion poll, especially since most people have never studied this case in depth (and that includes your average supporter of the Warren Commission, as well as many conspiracy believers, such as Alex Jones, who just makes up stuff).


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I agree with Tracy on this point about "polls". Most people who are polled probably have no idea who J.D. Tippit was. And while it's true that I have brought up the fact (with some delight) that the public opinion polls have shown that the number of conspiracy believers in the JFK case is dwindling in recent years, I have heard many CTers prop up the type of statement simulated below. In fact, I'm confronted with this very argument all the time on the Internet....

"David, the majority of Americans think there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. Do you really think that 85% or 90% or 95% [and the CTer will ALWAYS inflate the percentage to a figure that has never really been that high] of the public is wrong or are liars?"

But, as Tracy suggested, it's very likely that the vast majority of that "80 to 90%" has no detailed knowledge of the evidence in the case at all. They've watched Oliver Stone's movie or saw something online or watched a documentary for the 50th anniversary, and drew their conclusions based on just those few things.

Yes, there are a lot of conspiracy authors telling Americans not to believe anything in the Warren Report. But I have found over the last few years that whenever I have decided to check out some "conspiracy claim" in some detail, that pro-conspiracy story invariably turns out to be bogus and nothing but a long-believed myth with no basis in actual fact. One conspiracy author from the "early days" (the 1960s) says something and that story (i.e., myth) gets passed on from one author to the next and to the next. I see that thing occurring on a regular basis when discussing the JFK case.

A very good example of this is something that author and LNer Jean Davison pointed out in an online post in 2011 concerning whether or not Oswald's rifle and revolver purchases should have required certain paperwork. As it turns out, the CTers who insist on repeating this myth are the ones who are very likely incorrect (as usual) --- CLICK HERE.

And a year before Jean's post linked above, I was arguing with CTers about the postal regulations too. And as I prove HERE, Mark Lane is probably one of the very last people on this planet you should trust when it comes to this matter.


TRACY RIDDLE SAID:

No other county in America -- and almost no state, for that matter -- has freed more innocent people from prison in recent years than Dallas County, where [Henry] Wade was DA from 1951 through 1986.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The "Henry Wade's convictions are being overturned in record numbers" excuse that conspiracy theorists now commonly utilize in order to pretend all the evidence against Oswald was fake and planted is just another convenient cop-out. Henry Wade didn't collect any of the evidence that proves Oswald's guilt. He would have merely presented that evidence at Oswald's trial (had LHO not been killed).

Now yes, it's also true that Wade HIMSELF very likely didn't initially collect any of the evidence in those cases where guilty verdicts were overturned. But the JFK case is not at all similar to those "other" cases, and that's because in THIS case (the JFK case), we---the public---could practically watch the evidence unfold before our very eyes as the events were playing themselves out on live television and radio on 11/22/63.

Do the conspiracy theorists really think that Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade was pulling the strings of all those DPD officers, along with the strings of Captain Fritz and Chief Curry, during those early hours immediately after the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit?

Do the CTers think Henry Wade HIMSELF was somehow able to manipulate all of the first-day evidence so that it all would point to a so-called "patsy" named Lee Oswald? (Not counting the "Mauser" mistake made by some of the officers. But with respect to the "Mauser" error -- do CTers think Henry Wade was somehow responsible for turning the "Mauser" into a Carcano? And did Henry Wade himself somehow alter the Alyea Film, which is a film that many rifle experts have said definitely shows a CARCANO---not a MAUSER---being picked up off of the sixth floor of the TSBD by DPD Lieutenant J.C. Day?)

In short, the CTers who like to accuse Henry Wade of sinister and underhanded activity in the JFK murder case are just as silly as the CTers who engage in that same type of tortured reasoning when it comes to the Warren Commission too. Many CTers falsely claim that the JFK evidence is the "Warren Commission's evidence" -- as if the WC collected and processed and tested all the evidence THEMSELVES. They didn't do anything of the kind, of course. The WC merely evaluated and assessed the evidence that had been gathered long before the Commission was ever created. The evidence existed in this case many days before the WC was even born. And it existed prior to Henry Wade ever becoming aware of that evidence too.

And I wonder how the "Wade Haters" can deal with Lee Oswald's VERY OWN ACTIONS on both November 21 and 22? Will the Wade haters simply pretend that Oswald's actions on those two days are actions that lead more toward Oswald's complete INNOCENCE rather than his guilt? (How could any rational person possibly go down that rocky road? And why would they even want to?)

Most juries get it right. If they convict a defendant, I'd wager to say that 99% of the time that person who is on trial is guilty. Otherwise the defendant wouldn't have been charged with the crime in the first place, because there would have been no EVIDENCE to suggest to the authorities that that person had committed the crime.

But CTers will pick out and highlight the 1% of criminal cases where it's been shown that a jury reached the wrong verdict, with those CTers ignoring the fact that 99% of the time the juries in the United States reach the proper verdict.

Of course, there is a high-profile example of a jury reaching the incorrect verdict---the O.J. Simpson trial. But Tracy Riddle should at least be happy that that wasn't a case where an innocent person was wrongly convicted. In O.J.'s case, it was just the opposite---an obviously guilty man was set free.


MARTIN HAY SAID:

The autopsy doctors absolutely did not record the precise location of the back wound. You know it, I know it, and so does every first-year student of the assassination. This is a fact for which the pathologists were specifically criticized by the HSCA forensic pathology panel. In its report to the committee, the panel noted that "The measures essential to a thorough medicolegal autopsy that the pathologists failed to take" included "Recording precisely the locations of the wounds according to anatomical landmarks routinely used in forensic pathology. The medical panel of the committee stated that the reference points used to document the location of the wound in the upper back--the mastoid process and the acromion--are moveable points and should not have been used." (7HSCA17)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, sure, Martin. I guess this Face Sheet is just a figment of my imagination. And so is this writing on that Face Sheet --- "14 cm. below tip of rt. mastoid process".

But apparently Martin Hay doesn't think that that particular measurement is precise enough to even come anywhere close to denoting the true location of JFK's upper-back wound. Is that correct, Martin? Therefore, Martin will only accept a DIFFERENT exacting measurement and totally disregard the "mastoid" and "acromion" measurements, even though Dr. Humes specifically said this to the ARRB in 1996:

QUESTION -- When you recorded it as being from the right mastoid process, was it your understanding that the right mastoid process was a fixed body landmark?

DR. JAMES J. HUMES -- Oh, sure. It doesn't move around in most people. You're really in trouble if it does.

QUESTION -- Well, is it a fixed landmark, fixed body landmark with respect to the thoracic cavity?

DR. HUMES -- It's fixed with regard to respect anything you want it respected to.


MARTIN HAY SAID:

Nowhere in my review do I state or even suggest that "all the evidence is fake and phony". .... I never suggested that there was anything "fraudulent" about the rifle.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good. Then Oswald is guilty. He has to be guilty if the evidence is not "fake" or "phony" or "fraudulent". Right? Because how could he possibly be innocent if the evidence is truly legitimate?

So, it's good to have that cleared up. You've just admitted that Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766 is not "fraudulent". And you've admitted that you DON'T think "all the evidence is fake and phony". Which I assume would indicate that you think at least SOME of the evidence is real and legitimate and worthy of being utilized to try and solve the JFK murder case. Correct?

At this rate, you'll be an LNer before you know it, Martin. Because there are very few Internet conspiracists who are willing to stipulate that ANY of the evidence against Oswald is legit.


MARTIN HAY SAID:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: You, David Von Pein, are living proof that Mark Twain was correct when he said that common sense is something uneducated people attribute to themselves.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I've said it before and I'll say it again....

Internet conspiracy theorists are unquestionably the very last people on the face of the globe who should be looking into the assassination of America's 35th President. If they suddenly become capable of properly evaluating anything relating to JFK's demise, please notify CNN at once! Because that will surely be worthy of a "Breaking News" bulletin!


MARTIN HAY SAID:

Jesus, David. I've never seen anybody talk so much without actually saying anything. You have a skill. Of sorts.

Anyway, I'll skip all the tripe and go straight to the only significant part of your post, which is your laughable attempt to pass off "14 cm below tip of rt. mastoid process" as a precise measurement for a wound in the back. Firstly, I'll just say I find it very interesting that you cut off your quote from Humes's ARRB deposition where you did. Here's the rest of that discussion:

GUNN: Well, if your head turns to the right or the left, does the mastoid process distance vary with relationship to--

HUMES: Well, maybe a millimeter or two. Not significantly. Are we getting into a big debate as to whether I did anything properly here or not? It's not a debate I want to get involved in. (p. 140)

Humes was certainly getting defensive there, wasn't he? Why is that? It must be because Jeremy Gunn was pointing out what all sensible people know to be true: The mastoid process is NOT a fixed anatomic landmark for a wound in the thoracic cavity.

For those who don't know, the mastoid process is the small, bony bump behind the ear. Depending on the position of the head, 14 cm below that bump could be in any number of locations. If the head is tilted forward it could be on the neck. If the head is pulled back, it could be well below the shoulders. This is precisely why the nine highly experienced forensic pathologists on the HSCA panel criticized Humes for using that measurement, saying that it "should not have been used."

Even Dr. Pierre Finck, Humes's colleague at the autopsy (and the only member of the autopsy team who was actually considered an expert in gunshot wounds), said it was not appropriate to use the mastoid process to identify the location of a back wound:

GUNN: 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?

FINCK: No.

GUNN: For purposes of identifying the wound in the back, the thoracic cavity.

FINCK: An immobile body structure is a fixed body landmark.

GUNN: Well, for the identification of the location of the wound in the thoracic cavity--

FINCK: Thoracic cavity.

GUNN: --is a mastoid process a standard and understood fixed body landmark?

FINCK: For the thoracic cavity, no. Because it is part of the head, and the head is moving, could move.

GUNN: So that the mastoid process would not be a standard fixed body landmark for the purposes of identifying the location of a wound in the thoracic region, is that fair to say?

FINCK: Yes. (Finck ARRB deposition, p. 45)

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're funny, Martin. 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, 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 and all sensible people know it.


MARTIN HAY SAID:

You're hilarious, David.

You want everyone to buy the notion that somehow you know better than the 10 forensic pathologists I cited, despite the fact that you don't even know that the "anatomic position" is a standing position! ROFL Brilliant.

You're like the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail who has his arms and legs chopped off but still won't admit he's been defeated. But you've been proven wrong whether you want to admit it or not. The wound's precise location on the back cannot be determined by its distance from the mastoid process. That's a cold, hard fact. The HSCA knew it. Finck knew it. Humes knew it. And you know it.

Keep on trollin', David.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dr. Cyril Wecht has always maintained that measurements at an autopsy should be taken from "the mid-point of the body" and "from the top of the head".

OK, that sounds totally reasonable to me. But given those standards, it would still elicit the same basic concerns that a measurement from the "mastoid" would elicit. Why? Because the head is a movable part of the body. Therefore, the "TOP of the head" can be moved. It's not really "fixed", is it?

So the same concerns about the starting point for measurements can still easily be debated even when utilizing Dr. Wecht's "from the top of the head" recommendation. Unless, that is, the body is placed in a standard position, such as the autopsy or "anatomical" position. And the last time I checked, it's not possible for a dead body to STAND UP, and yet we still hear about the "anatomical position" being described in relation to autopsies on human bodies. (Go figure.)

And if the body is in the anatomical (autopsy) position, then a measurement from the mastoid process is probably just as reliable and accurate as measuring downward "from the top of the head".


MARTIN HAY SAID:

Yawn...

Is the Black Knight still babbling?

This argument ended ages ago. All the information the reader needs in order to prove Von Pein wrong is contained in my previous posts. To know precisely where the back wound was located on the thoracic cavity one needs to know where it was in relation to the thoracic vertebrae. Knowing it was 14 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process does not tell us that. This fact is proven by the ARRB depositions of the three autopsy doctors. When Jeremy Gunn asked them each where the wound was located in relation to the thoracic vertebrae, Humes and Finck refused to be pinned down and Boswell (apparently trying to be a little more helpful) had to ESTIMATE that it was around T2. He had to ESTIMATE its location on the back. That tells you everything you need to know about the measurement they used.

As detailed above, forensic pathologists - including one of those who conducted Kennedy's post mortem - agree that the mastoid process is NOT a suitable body landmark for identifying the location of a wound in the back. One can either believe those pathologists who between them have conducted many thousands of autopsies, or they can believe KFC employee David Von Pein.

Not exactly a difficult choice, is it?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Or they can do something even simpler----they can look at the photo showing where the back wound is located:




MARTIN HAY SAID:

Indeed they can, whilst bearing in mind that this very photo was used by the HSCA forensic pathology panel who still reported that the failure of the autopsy doctors to localize the wound according to correct body landmarks precluded "reconstruction of the exact entrance point." (7HSCA87)

And with the photos and X-rays in hand, the panel still admitted that "Neither the autopsy surgeons nor the panel, at this time, can determine the exact pathway and angle of this missile track in the President..." (Ibid, 80)

More real facts about the SBT here.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This game of ping-pong featuring HSCA quotations is fun. A conspiracy theorist gets to post a quote from the House Select Committee that he likes. Then I get to post one that I like even better. (Which only goes to prove that once you start playing ping-pong with virtually ANYTHING relating to quotes and conclusions reached by ANYBODY---whether it be the Warren Commission, the HSCA, or anybody else---you can probably find support for your own position somewhere within the text of those official reports.)

My turn....

"The forensic pathology panel concluded that President Kennedy was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each of which entered from the rear. The panel further concluded that the President was struck by one bullet that entered in the upper right of the back and exited from the front of the throat, and one bullet that entered in the right rear of the head near the cowlick area and exited from the right side of the head, toward the front. .... There is no medical evidence that the President was struck by a bullet entering the front of the head, and the possibility that a bullet could have struck the President and yet left no evidence is extremely remote. .... Based on the evidence available to it, the panel concluded that a single bullet passing through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally would support a fundamental conclusion that the President was struck by two, and only two, bullets, each fired from behind. Thus, the forensic pathology panel's conclusions were consistent with the so-called single bullet theory advanced by the Warren Commission." -- HSCA Final Report; Pages 43-44

-----------

And a bonus quote (for good measure):

"Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President." -- HSCA Final Report; Page 3

Your turn, Martin.

Your next one should be the HSCA's ridiculous conclusion [at 7 HSCA 100 and
1 HSCA 377 and 6 HSCA 43] that JFK's throat wound was anatomically HIGHER than the upper-back wound, despite the Clark Panel's specific measurements to the contrary, with the Clark Panel determining that the throat wound was located approximately 3.5 centimeters LOWER than the bullet hole in President Kennedy's upper back.


Related "SBT" stuff for conspiracy theorists to completely ignore:






MARTIN HAY SAID:

My turn for what, David?

I'm not interested in playing games with you.

This exchange began when you falsely claimed that the autopsy doctors had precisely located the back wound. I proved you wrong. Nothing you've written since has changed that in any way.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The autopsy doctors did locate it precisely---the wound was "precisely" 14 centimeters below the tip of the right mastoid process. You (and others) don't think that's nearly "precise" enough. Okay, that's fine. But I think it's rather silly to take that position, particularly in light of these comments that I made on the subject on April 14, 2015:

"Dr. Cyril Wecht has always maintained that measurements at an autopsy should be taken from "the mid-point of the body" and "from the top of the head". .... But given those standards, it would still elicit the same basic concerns that a measurement from the "mastoid" would elicit. Why? Because the head is a movable part of the body. Therefore, the "TOP of the head" can be moved. It's not really "fixed", is it? .... And if the body is in the anatomical (autopsy) position, then a measurement from the mastoid process is probably just as reliable and accurate as measuring downward "from the top of the head"." -- DVP

And while it's true that I'm certainly no forensic pathologist and it's also true that I've performed ZERO autopsies in my lifetime, I can't see how anyone (even the nine members of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel) could possibly argue with the logic of my remarks above.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

LOL

This is hysterical. Von Pein is swimming, rather drowning, in his own BS.

He won't even admit that there was a long, long--years long--debate about the location of the back wound in JFK. For the central reason that the WC said it was in one place, but much other evidence, like the face sheet made up by Boswell, said it was in another place.

Therefore, someone was lying. Creating a fraud actually.

I advise everyone to read Martin's review. It really shows what a joke
this book is.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh, good. Another crock of a post by DiEugenio. Nothing he just said above is pertinent to the discussion I was having with Martin Hay.

Martin and I haven't been talking about the decades-long controversy about whether the wound was in the "neck" or in the "back", nor have we been discussing Gerald Ford's alleged "moving" of the wound, nor have we been discussing the "dot" on Boswell's Face Sheet.

Instead, we've been talking ONLY about whether a measurement taken from the mastoid process is a "precise" enough measurement. Martin and the HSCA don't think it is. But as I have already pointed out multiple times now, even if we go by Cyril Wecht's recommendation of utilizing "the top of the head" as a starting point for all of the wounds in JFK's body, the very same debate and controversy is going to exist. And I know a lot of CTers just love Dr. Cyril H. Wecht. They take his word for about everything. But the "top of the head" is essentially the same as measuring from the mastoid---because they both involve a movable object---the human head.

Why not go back to the Deep Politics Forum and whine about me some more over there, Jimbo? You'll get a much more receptive audience if you do. No "LNers" can get within sixty miles of DPF's front stoop.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

More baloney. Because if the wound had been located properly, there would be little debate about it at all. Jeremy Gunn pointed this out with Humes. The mastoid process is not a good marker at all, as it varies with the position of the head. And when Gunn pointed this out, Humes got antsy. Just like he did when Gunn pointed out the lack of the particle fragment path in the skull where he mentioned it in his autopsy report.

Secondly, to show again how untrustworthy DVP is, he actually says that if there is no debate about the rifle in evidence, then Oswald did it!

LOL, ROTF.

Why is that funny? Because the rifle in evidence is not the rifle that the WC says Oswald ordered. That is a proven fact. And DVP knows that!!!

Therefore, that rifle is not incriminating at all. It's exculpatory. Because there is no explanation in the WC volumes as to why there is [a] discrepancy. But further, there is evidence that David Belin knew it was the wrong rifle and wanted to keep that fact out of the record. That is a fraud on the record that was created by the WC.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt eh? Only at DVP's blog.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The above comment by DiEugenio concerning the rifle is just one more example (among hundreds) that illustrates DiEugenio's complete inability to properly evaluate the totality of evidence connected to John F. Kennedy's assassination. If there's ever been a person who has gotten more things wrong about the JFK case than Jim DiEugenio has, I'd love to know who that person is.

DiEugenio knows full well that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Lee Harvey Oswald ordered a 36-inch rifle but was shipped a 40-inch model. But Jimbo will never acknowledge the existence of that reasonable explanation, and that's because of his complete inability to properly (and fairly) evaluate the evidence in this case. He just can't (or won't) do it. Why? I have no idea.

HERE'S the reasonable explanation regarding the rifle that conspiracy clown DiEugenio will pretend is not reasonable at all.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Pure and unmitigated DVP.

First, he says that I got it wrong.

Then he admits it's the wrong rifle!! In other words, I was right.

LOL (BTW, why use the click link? Bring your argument out here in the open. Please sir.)

Then he tries to explain it away! Just like he tries to explain away the other hundred or so pieces of evidence that do not fit his case. Like it being the wrong bullet also, as John Hunt has proved.

Wrong rifle, wrong bullet, wrong standard of proof...doesn't mean a lick to Ayton and DVP.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt? Nothing but doubt.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jimbo loves proving me right with every silly post he writes. JD isn't the slightest bit embarrassed when he places on full display his nonexistent skill of being able to reasonably assess the sum total of the JFK evidence. And the "wrong rifle" red herring is just one such gut-busting example.

As I said before, DiEugenio knows very well what the sensible explanation is regarding the "wrong rifle" topic. But he won't admit it---ever. And that's because he's totally enamored with the really dumb idea that Lee Harvey Oswald never took possession of Rifle C2766 in 1963. Even a picture of Oswald holding that exact rifle doesn't convince Jimmy that LHO ever had that weapon in his hands.....

"A comparison of the relative lengths of parts of the alleged assassination rifle that is in the National Archives with corresponding parts of what purports to be that rifle as shown in various photographs taken in 1963 indicates that the dimensions of the rifle(s) depicted are entirely consistent. .... A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs." -- 6 HSCA 66

But the above words mean zilch to a conspiracy clown like Jimmy D.

David Von Pein
March 19, 2015
April 2-9, 2015
April 13-17, 2015

INTERVIEWS WITH HENRY WADE THAT WERE ARRANGED BY JACK RUBY

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

RELATED DISCUSSION:


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's remarkable how much "JFK-related stuff" out there gets lost or buried under a mountain of other things. A good case in point (at least for me personally) cropped up today [July 22, 2014] as I decided to scour some of my older MP3 CDs containing the JFK coverage from various radio stations. I have had this 11/23/63 KLIF material [see the video embedded above] for several years and yet I never used it on my video sites until today.

It's a video I put together which contains two interviews with Dallas D.A. Henry Wade that were aired on KLIF-Radio in Dallas on the morning of November 23, 1963. And both of these interviews were arranged, amazingly, by Jack Ruby, who would thrust himself into the spotlight the very next day by murdering Lee Harvey Oswald.

And Ruby even gets his name mentioned on the air by Russ "The Weird Beard" Knight. Amazing.

The fact that these two interviews with a very important person (the Dallas District Attorney) were both, in large measure, engineered and arranged by Jack Ruby, tends to show just how much Jack liked to be where the action was happening after a big news event.

I'll also add that Ruby really was responsible for THREE separate interviews with Henry Wade being conducted on radio stations during the first 12 hours after JFK was shot, with the third one being Ruby's partial involvement in helping to arrange the WNEW-Radio interview for Ike Pappas at City Hall.

And as if all of the above stuff wasn't impressive enough, Ruby was also apparently responsible for prompting Russ Knight to ask Wade the question about whether or not Wade thought accused Presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was sane or insane. If not for Ruby, it's very likely that Knight wouldn't have asked Henry Wade the Sane or Insane? question. That information was brought out at Ruby's murder trial during the testimony of KLIF's Glenn Duncan [see Duncan Exhibit No. 2 in Warren Commission Volume 19, at 19 H 634].

All in all, a very productive day for self-appointed "reporter" Jacob Leon Rubenstein (aka Jack Ruby).


MICHAEL GIAMPAOLO SAID:

I remember reading about Ruby's role in [Vincent Bugliosi's book] Four Days in November. It's really cool to hear the interview for the first time. Thanks David.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Right, Michael. Vince Bugliosi does an incredible job of relaying all the information about Jack Ruby's movements and activities on Friday night/Saturday morning (November 22/23), right down to telling the reader the flavors of the soda pop Jack purchased at Phil's Deli -- eight black cherries and two celery tonics. (Celery tonic soft drinks? Sounds terrible, but two people at KLIF ended up drinking them that night.)

Ruby getting mentioned on the radio is also part of the 1978 TV movie "Ruby And Oswald", in which there's a scene that has Ruby hearing his name mentioned on the radio while he's driving in his car.

I had always wondered, after watching that '78 film, whether the part about Ruby's name being spoken on the air by a KLIF announcer was really true or not. And as it turns out, I had the proof in my very own audio collection for years and either just totally forgot about it or I had somehow overlooked or missed the part where Russ Knight says "on a tip from Jack Ruby" on the KLIF tapes.

Anyway, I'm glad I decided to dig into my KLIF archives again today, because I think the Ruby/Wade stuff is fascinating.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

Warren Commission Document 1342 also proves that Ruby's name was mentioned on KLIF too. But these "Commission Documents" are like needles in haystacks. Who the heck even knows they're there? I was able to dig this one up [CD1342] after doing a search for "Glenn Duncan" at the fabulous Mary Ferrell site.


IKE PAPPAS SAID (TO THE WARREN COMMISSION):

The sandwiches were there when I arrived [at the KLIF radio station]. I had not eaten. And I was very happy to have a sandwich. It was quite good, also. And I had a bottle of pop, and I said, "This is terrific, where did you get all this?" And the person I spoke to said, "Oh, some guy brought them up." And I said, "Great."





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


RELATED DOCUMENTS
AND LINKS:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 483)

BUD SAID:

There is a New Zealand newspaper available online (Christchurch). It relied on the information being put out from Dallas, and it is rife with error. It has Tippit being killed in the Texas Theater, for instance. I have actual Philadelphia newspapers, from the day of the assassination, and the day Oswald was shot. Even two days later, when Oswald was shot, the paper is still printing erroneous information about the assassination. Newspapers printed tons of erroneous information, and the information taken from them cannot be considered reliable unless it can be corroborated with information outside of newspapers.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Indeed. And not just newspapers were still reporting erroneous information as of the evening of Sunday, November 24th. For example, there's the press conference that was conducted by Dallas D.A. Henry Wade on the night of 11/24/63 (shortly after Oswald was killed by Ruby).

In that press conference (which can be seen on this webpage and in the video below), Wade laid out the evidence that had been gathered against Oswald up to that point in time on November 24, and several incorrect pieces of information were stated by Wade.



Much of that erroneous information was minor, but (in hindsight) some other pieces of false data that Wade was relaying to the public could be deemed a bit more significant in nature....such as when Wade incorrectly tells the press and the live television audience that Oswald's roominghouse on Beckley Avenue in Oak Cliff was located just "a block or two" from the site of J.D. Tippit's murder. In truth, of course, the distance was almost a mile (0.85 of a mile to be exact, per CE1119-A).

Another fairly big error (in hindsight) in Wade's 11/24 conference was when he said that Oswald was the man on Cecil McWatters' bus who told McWatters and the bus passengers that JFK had just been shot and then Oswald supposedly "laughed very loud" (per Wade). But it was later determined that a young boy by the name of Milton Jones was really the person who was laughing on McWatters' bus.

Another error was when Wade said that Oswald deliberately placed his revolver up against Officer McDonald's head during the fight that ensued between Oswald and police in the Texas Theater. That never happened, of course. McDonald was cut across the left side of his face by Oswald's gun, that's true enough. But there's no evidence that Oswald was deliberately pointing the gun at McDonald's head.



Another mistake was when Wade said that Officer Tippit was shot "three times". Oswald, of course, shot Tippit a total of four times.

However, even though the above-mentioned mistakes were made by Mr. Wade, that doesn't take away from the many BASIC, CORE things that Wade and the Dallas Police Department got RIGHT with respect to the evidence against Lee Oswald (as of the evening of November 24)....

E.g., conclusively tying Oswald to both the JFK and Tippit murders within just a few hours of both crimes; tying the bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest to Oswald's rifle very quickly; positively identifying the palmprint on one of the Sniper's-Nest boxes as being LHO's print; and also tying the rifle to LHO via the Klein's records in less than 24 hours.

David Von Pein
April 24, 2009

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1267)

DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

In Warren Commission Document 442, we find a telegram from Mexico City to Sec. of State Rusk stating the records show on October 3, 1963, a Lee HENRY Oswald left Mexico by automobile.


MICHAEL WALTON SAID:

I recall seeing on the live CBS broadcast Harry Reasoner saying something like "The suspect is Lee Henry Oswald..."

Does this throw anything above out of whack?


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Guess that depends on whether you're remembering correctly or not...

I doubt very highly anyone outside of Mexico used the name HENRY.


MICHAEL WALTON SAID:

DJ,

Watch "4 Days in November" [1988 CBS-TV documentary with Dan Rather]. DVP confirmed "Henry" was used by the talking head. You're wrong about it being some top-secret code name or whatever you think it was. It was just a mistake; and yes, secret agents DO make mistakes.


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Then explain this....

If the name HENRY gets to CBS, the source had to have known something about this file... not a mistake... just the trail of who got what info from where.


MICHAEL WALTON SAID:

The most I can say is maybe it's similar to what Bill Simpich said in State Secret - how back when LHO defected, the legend they created for him and Webster was inter-changeable. And then, 15 minutes after the shooting on 11/22, the first broadcast that goes out is "5-10 165...", that same legend created 3 years before.

I don't know. I'm speculating here of course. But I DO know Henry was used on CBS. And DVP also said that he heard Cronkite also call LHO "Leo." Pat Speer goes into great detail about the misinformation and BS coming out by the media during the hours after the murder.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

To hear Walter Cronkite's "Leo" remark, go to the 2:29:15 mark in the video below. That "Leo" reference, btw, is the first time LHO was mentioned on CBS-TV after the assassination. I haven't been able to locate Cronkite's "Lee Henry" reference, but it's definitely located somewhere within the CBS Nov. 22-25 coverage....




RICHARD PRICE SAID:

I'm not sure, but I think the "Lee Henry" remark is the one made by DA Henry Wade to reporters in a video I saw some time ago. Whether or not Cronkite repeated it, I don't know.


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Wade... ex FBI. Wonder if he got it from Hosty, who got it 10/18 from Woosley... who got it from Win Scott...

Should an I&NS agent be relaying CIA memo to FBI? Marked card gives that away....


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I finally found the CBS footage showing Cronkite saying "Lee Henry Oswald". It's at the 25:35 mark in my video below, and it occurred on Monday, November 25th (after JFK's funeral)....




DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Thanks Dave....

What significance do you attach to this - if any?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Absolutely none (of course). Cronkite merely got LHO's middle name wrong in that one instance on 11/25/63. And, as I previously said in July 2016, Walter messed up LHO's name on other occasions that weekend too—first calling him "Leo H. Oswald", and one other time calling him "Lee Harvey Osburn".

So, should I now attach some kind of conspiratorial "significance" to those two other incorrect monikers too (Leo and Osburn)?

And should I also think there was something fishy about the fact that KRLD reporter Bob Huffaker kept calling Oswald "Lee HAROLD Oswald" on November 24th? (Huffaker, btw, said he got the "Harold" name from Glen King of the Dallas Police Department.)


DAVID JOSEPHS SAID:

Of course not.... I can chalk it up to a simple mistake as well.... and a mighty coincidence that this 201 file would be opened with HENRY and used to describe the Mr. Oswald in the cables.

We do agree, though, that Angleton and Egerter could have had a reason for entering HENRY on the 201...

I also understand that most 201 files have a secret counterpart which contains files not allowed in the "public" one... "Public" to other CIA personnel, that is.

News tended to get fact-checked... So I do find it somewhat strange.... the word "Henry" appears on his cards or prompter? IDK

Yes, people make mistakes.... people also plan covert assassination...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

David J.,

All of the various botched versions of Lee Harvey Oswald's name that we heard coming out of the mouths of different reporters during the weekend of JFK's assassination—which included, btw, ALL THREE of LHO's names (his first, middle, and last), and not just his middle name—can, in my opinion, be categorized as plain ordinary non-sinister errors.

And you'll notice that each time somebody got LHO's name wrong, they managed to get the first letter correct in the botched version of his name, e.g., Leo H. Oswald and Lee Henry Oswald and Lee Harold Oswald and Lee Harvey Osburn. So each reporter seemed to know the correct three initials (L, H, and O), but at various times just couldn't recall the exact name.

David Von Pein
November 30—December 1, 2017

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 801)

A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:

I was reading the Wikipedia article about Jack ruby and something bothers me a lot.

From Wikipedia:

"District Attorney Henry Wade briefed reporters at the press conference telling them that Lee Oswald was a member of the anti-Castro Free Cuba Committee [sic; actually, Wade's exact words were "Free Cuba Movement"]. Ruby was one of several people there who spoke up to correct Wade, saying: "Henry, that's the Fair Play for Cuba Committee," a pro-Castro organization."

Since both groups were active at that time, how did Ruby know the correct group Oswald was a member of?


JOHN CORBETT SAID:

The correct name had been brought up earlier when Ruby was present.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

See the links HERE and HERE.

Also keep in mind that other people (reporters) besides just Jack Ruby shouted out the name "Fair Play For Cuba" at the same time Ruby did during Henry Wade's press conference [which can be seen HERE].

So why don't conspiracy theorists ask "Where did those OTHER people get their FPCC info?"


JOHN CORBETT SAID:

We have overwhelming evidence Oswald was guilty. You don't need to frame a guilty man. We have no credible evidence Oswald and Ruby knew each other prior to the assassination. Got any? We do have credible evidence that the correct name of the organization Oswald belonged to had been brought up earlier.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

Of course you need to frame a guilty man. Where ya been? Every cop knew instantly that OJ Simpson killed his wife. But they had no evidence, so they had to plant blood evidence to help convict him.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And just exactly WHY did those cops know Simpson was guilty? Was it just a gut feeling they all had?

And you actually believe the cops would start planting evidence (i.e., the bloody glove) on Simpson's estate at a time when they could not possibly know if he had a foolproof alibi?

What if it turned out Simpson was in another state at the time of the murders? That would have been a nice sticky wicket for Fuhrman and Company, wouldn't it?

To segue this into a "JFK" topic, I like to ask CTers this question occasionally (which no CTer can reasonably answer without resorting to the old "The Cops Were Crooked" standby).....

Did the Dallas Police normally have a habit of officially charging suspects with TWO murders if they had no solid evidence against that suspect at all? (And many CTers seem to think the police had NO REAL EVIDENCE at all against Oswald--let alone the huge pile of stuff that all reasonable people know the DPD actually did have against LHO.)

But when we get away from the goofy conspiracists who think everything was planted to frame Lee Oswald, a fairly decent argument can be made for Oswald's probable guilt based on just the fact that the police officially charged him with TWO murders within 12 hours of the crimes being committed. That fact alone is strong circumstantial evidence of Oswald's guilt.

In other words--the police had enough evidence within half-a-day to be confident enough to charge Oswald with double-murder. Shouldn't that important fact mean just a little something to the conspiracy theorists of the world?


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

I don't know anyone who claims that EVERYTHING was planted.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then you haven't looked very hard. Because virtually ALL Internet conspiracy believers that I have encountered think that every single scrap of evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald is suspicious in some manner, including each of the following items:

1. All three bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest.

2. All four bullet shells found at the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder.

3. Commission Exhibit No. 399.

4. The paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (with Oswald's prints on it--and those prints are phony too, per most CTers).

5. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

6. The two bullet fragments found in the front seat of JFK's limousine.

7. Each and every witness who fingered Lee Oswald for either JFK's murder or J.D. Tippit's slaying or identified LHO as the man they saw leaving the scene of the Tippit crime with gun in hand -- from Howard Brennan, to Helen Markham, to Barbara Davis, to Virginia Davis, to Ted Callaway, to William Scoggins, etc., etc.

8. The backyard photos showing Oswald holding the rifle that killed President Kennedy.

9. All of the paperwork that shows Lee Oswald purchased Rifle #C2766 from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago.

10. All of the paperwork that indicates Lee Oswald purchased Revolver #V510210 from Seaport Traders in Los Angeles.

11. The Walker bullet (CE573).

12. And even the five unfired revolver bullets that Oswald had in his pocket after he was arrested. Those unfired bullets, per some conspiracists, are phony too. Some CTers say the cops PLANTED those five bullets on Oswald to add to the frame-up against him. That's how far down "Crazy Boulevard" some conspiracy mongers have travelled in their efforts to exonerate a guilty double-murderer.

About the only thing I can think of that the conspiracy theorists MIGHT say hasn't been faked or manufactured to frame Patsy Oswald are the fingerprints and palmprints of LHO's that were located on the boxes inside the Sniper's Nest.

But, naturally, the Anybody-But-Oswald CTers would never in a million years think that those prints could be used to incriminate poor Lee Harvey. After all, he worked there. So, quite naturally, THREE of his prints are very likely going to show up on TWO of the boxes that the PRESIDENTIAL ASSASSIN ALSO MUST HAVE HANDLED (and I guess the "real" Presidential assassin must have been wearing gloves when he touched those boxes on November 22, 1963).

And just because shells from OSWALD'S gun were found right there in the Sniper's Nest too, why should the conspiracy theorists consider--for even a brief moment--the idea of linking the two things together (OSWALD'S shells + OSWALD'S prints)? What rational person would ever consider doing something silly like tying those two items together? Right? After all, all good conspiracy advocates always insist that those bullet shells were planted in the Book Depository too.

Ergo, nothing can be trusted. And why? Because the conspiracy hounds have said so. And when we get right down to the brass tacks of the matter, that's pretty much the ONLY reason.


ANTHONY MARSH SAID:

No. Because officials have a habit of tampering with evidence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And there's the ever-so-convenient escape hatch used by almost all conspiracy theorists. The fact that "tampering with evidence" COULD have possibly been done is enough to convince those CTers (particularly "Internet CTers") that ALL of the evidence that incriminates Oswald WAS, in fact, tampered with.

Via such a wide-sweeping claim, however, NO defendant who was on trial for any crime could ever be convicted---because all the sneaky defense attorneys need to do is to convince the jury that the evidence COULD have conceivably been tampered with.

And how can the jury possibly KNOW with 100% certainty if any (or all) of the evidence really had or had not been tampered with? They can't possibly KNOW such a thing--even with a rock-solid chain of possession for every last piece of evidence in the whole case. Because why couldn't a "chain of custody" trail be faked too? Obviously, it COULD be faked.

Ergo, every defendant could potentially walk free out of every courtroom due to the mere possibility of such underhanded shenanigans on the part of the authorities.

For an indication of what I just implied above being the absolute truth, all one has to do is to look to the O.J. Simpson sham of a trial.

But the ALLEGATION of evidence-tampering is a far cry from PROVING that the evidence really was tampered with. Isn't it, Tony?

And what PROOF does any conspiracy theorist who has ever walked this Earth (including the all-knowing W. Anthony Marsh) possess that would verify and prove that even ONE piece of evidence in the JFK murder case was, in fact, "tampered with" by any of the authorities?

I'll answer my last question with the only possible answer there is --- There is no such PROOF. And there never has been.

David Von Pein
September 2014

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 638)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I recently added the picture below to my Kennedy Photo Gallery. It's a rarely-seen view of Lee Harvey Oswald being escorted through the Dallas police basement on 11/24/63:




JOHN KORNFEIND SAID:

Wow! It would appear that Oswald is looking right at Ruby and wondering what the hell he was doing there.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, John. Oswald has turned his head just a second or so before Ruby lunged forward. Oswald does indeed appear to be looking right at Ruby. He's probably detected Ruby's initial movement forward, which drew his attention to his left.

It's too bad that Detectives Leavelle and Graves weren't as observant as Oswald (although James Leavelle has always said he DID see Ruby approaching, with gun at his side; but it's quite obvious that Leavelle is not looking toward Ruby at all in the above photograph; so Leavelle must have only seen Ruby via his peripheral vision).

If Leavelle's and Graves' heads were turned in the same manner as Oswald's in the above picture, you never know, a murder might have been averted.


JOHN KORNFEIND SAID:

My point is he [Oswald] very much knew who Ruby was. Beverly Oliver is on camera saying Ruby introduced Oswald to her.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Wrong again, John. Oswald didn't know Jack Ruby from Adam.


JOHN KORNFEIND SAID:

B.S. You are calling her a liar. Oswald's Uncle was mob connected and so was Ruby. Ruby knew Oswald from [when] he was just a kid.


CHRIS SIMONDET SAID:

Hey -- if it helps, Beverly Oliver is very clearly a liar, so there's that.


MARK ANTHONY WRIGHT SAID:

Leavelle is looking towards the car they were to put LHO in, but was not in place. Ruby came at LHO slightly more to the left of LHO; do not think he is looking at Ruby, but looking towards reporters yelling questions to him.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But Ruby is right in the MIDDLE of that pack of reporters, Mark. So Oswald must have seen Ruby approaching. He couldn't have missed him.


MARK ANTHONY WRIGHT SAID:

David, I agree. I do also think he would have seen him approaching. Just to make myself clear... I do not think LHO was looking at Ruby because he knew him or looking and thinking "Hey, there's my buddy Jack".


JOHN KORNFEIND SAID:

Ruby's lie about sparing Jackie having to testify at Oswald's trial is so lame. What could she have added concerning Oswald or any shooter?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Ruby produced a variety of motives for shooting Oswald. Nobody can know which one was the truth. Could be that a combination of ALL of them was the truth.

But, in reality, since we can KNOW for a fact that Ruby did not go downtown on Sunday with the thought in mind of murdering Lee Oswald (there's ample proof--"timeline-wise"--to prove that fact beyond all possible reasonable doubt), then the "motive" question is a moot one.

Ruby killed Oswald on the spur of the moment, and that certainly eliminates a PRE-PLANNED conspiratorial "rub-out" of Lee H. Oswald.


JOHN KORNFEIND SAID:

None of you small-minded people has the guts to read Crossfire. Page after page of witnesses said they knew each other.


CHRIS SIMONDET SAID:

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that you and I are not the only ones here who have read Crossfire. In fact, that was the first JFK book I ever read.

Just because someone writes something down and gets it published does not make it true. If you go and look at the evidence for yourself, NOT through the eyes of Jim Marrs, you will have a much stronger understanding of the case.


HOWARD D. ARNOLD SAID:

Oswald never saw Ruby because Ruby was basically hiding behind news reporters.

If Oswald HAD seen Ruby and DID know him, Oswald would have kept his eyes on him and/or called out to him.


COLIN COBB SAID:

All that Oswald does right there is glance at the reporter, Ike Pappas, in the trench coat. Ike has just gotten Oswald's attention by asking him a question and is clearly seen sticking his mic towards Oswald to get Oswald's answer. By looking back straight ahead within a second, it doesn't appear that Oswald had any intentions of answering him.

I believe there is video footage from the side Ruby was standing on and you can see Oswald's head turns too early to be looking at Ruby and is looking at the reporter.




JOHN KORNFEIND SAID:

Oswald never looked at reporters accusatorily.


COLIN COBB SAID:

Regardless of his look, it's just a straight-faced glance which any person in his circumstance would pull. His head turn is too early to be looking at Ruby. I'm sure David Von Pein will dig out the video.


JOHN KORNFEIND SAID:

It is a rather intense look.


COLIN COBB SAID:

So is your profile picture, John. :)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oswald's "look" in this picture appears about the same as it was throughout the entire time he was in custody. I see no difference.

Here's a good view of Oswald's head turn just as Ruby lurches forward. Ruby appears to be "clear" of the reporters and Oswald's head is still turned to the left, looking in the direction of Mr. Ruby. Not that this really matters much, but here is the super-slo-mo video from CBS-TV:




JOHN KORNFEIND SAID:

Another thing -- somebody incorrectly named the group Oswald was passing out the leaflets for. At the police station. Jack Ruby is there and on film correcting him.

It proves he knew Oswald or how else would he know about the Fair Play for Cuba and what Oswald had been doing? Hardly anyone in the country had ever heard of it. Ruby did.

How would a nightclub owner in Dallas know what Oswald was doing in New Orleans?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

John, you need to shed some of those myths you seem to like to talk about. Ruby could very easily have learned about the "Fair Play For Cuba Committee" during the afternoon and evening of November 22, hours before he (among others!) corrected Henry Wade at about midnight.

I can dig up the video (if you want it) of NBC's Frank McGee saying that Oswald belonged to the FPCC many hours before Wade's midnight press gathering. And if McGee was saying it, you can bet all the other TV and radio outlets had the same info regarding the FPCC.


FOLLOW-UP ON THE F.P.C.C. TOPIC ---

Jack Ruby could have possibly even read about Oswald's affiliation with the FPCC in the newspaper on Friday afternoon or Friday evening, November 22.

We know from Bob Schieffer's interviews that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram was churning out several "EXTRA" editions of the paper throughout the day on Friday. And I would guess that the other Dallas area papers were also coming out with Extras too.

And I can confirm that the words "FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE" positively were appearing in some U.S. newspapers before midnight on Friday. Here's one such example--the Santa Barbara News-Press (dated 11/22/63). Check the third column under the headline "Suspect Is Seized" [click to enlarge]:




JOHN KORNFEIND SAID:

From where? Why was he [Ruby] ever allowed into the basement with newsmen? He was in the police station so many times. The authorities didn't even know. That's my proof. It's no myth. The police barely knew if he was Oswald or Hidell. What ordinary loser has false papers anyhow?

You people just stick your heads in the sand and ignore all the obvious. Oswald also had a Minox spy camera. He buys a 12-dollar gun and owns an expensive camera? Doesn't that sound strange?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Notice how John subtly changes the subject from "HOW COULD JACK RUBY HAVE POSSIBLY KNOWN ABOUT THE FAIR PLAY FOR CUBA COMMITTEE AS EARLY AS FRIDAY NIGHT?" ... to ... "WHY WAS RUBY ALLOWED IN THE BASEMENT WITH NEWSMEN?" and "OSWALD OWNED A MINOX CAMERA".

Nice dodge, John. But if you've ever listened to interviews with many of the reporters who were covering the story at City Hall that November weekend, you'd easily be able to tell that the security around City Hall (DPD) wasn't very tight at all on Friday.

And since Ruby personally knew a lot of Dallas policemen, it would probably be pretty easy for him to get into the building and be able to stay there for Henry Wade's midnight news conference. Plus, Ruby was posing as a reporter (complete with notebook and pencil).


STEVE ROE SAID:

Also, regarding the FPCC info that Ruby spouted out:

In addition to what DVP posted, it was on KLIF or KBOX radio in late afternoon or early evening of the 22nd. I actually researched that very question for another CT researcher a few months ago. If requested, I can dig that up again where the radio commentator clearly states Oswald was a member of FPCC.

[...]

From DVP's radio archive: WBAP (Bulletins Video) .... Paul Harvey at the 12:00 minute mark, states Oswald was in the FPCC.

Important thing to remember, this info was on the radio before Henry Wade's press conference where Ruby corrects Wade with the FPCC. So naturally the info of Oswald being a "communist" and a supporter of Fidel Castro was of great interest to the American people.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, Steve. I very likely have several more examples of the FPCC being revealed on 11/22 on radio and TV in my collection somewhere.

BTW, here's the Paul Harvey clip Steve Roe referred to earlier (at about 2:25):




JOSH BUMA SAID:

John, what do you feel was umbrella man's relevance to the case?


JOHN KORNFEIND SAID:

Signaller -- but the strange twist is they claimed he was Louis Witt and my cousin from the Dallas area married a Witt.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

As if the shooters needed to be "signalled" before unleashing their assault on Kennedy. Hilarity at its peak there.

Much like Jim DiEugenio's theory about the two "horn honks" in the basement being "signals" to Jack Ruby. You see, Jack was too dumb to know when to fire. He needed a guy to toot his horn first. (Oh, my bladder.)


JOHN KORNFEIND SAID:

They weren't signals to Ruby. They were signals to the cops that Ruby was in place. Bring him on!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

John doesn't even know the chronology of the basement horn honks. The last of the honks was one second before Ruby shot LHO. And John thinks THAT honk was a signal to the COPS to lead Oswald out to the basement. LOL.


JOHN KORNFEIND SAID:

That's dumb. When was the FIRST honk?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The first of the two honks was just AFTER Oswald and Leavelle stepped into the basement from the jail office. So it obviously was TOO LATE to be a "signal" to start marching Oswald out. Just watch:




JOHN KORNFEIND SAID:

The truth is that no honest police department would have kept letting the press be all over Oswald. They were responsible for letting Ruby in among the newsmen that had no business being there.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I agree with you John that the DPD blew it in the basement on 11/24/63 (big time). But hindsight is always 20/20, isn't it? Just like the Secret Service blew it by letting JFK drive through Dealey Plaza in an open car.

But it usually takes a tragedy to make people stop doing things that ordinarily cause no harm to anyone -- such as a President riding in countless motorcades in an open-top convertible prior to November 22 without being shot. After Dallas, that's never happened again.


JOHN KORNFEIND SAID:

Why honk the horn if nobody is in the way?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's just it, John. I think some people WERE probably "in the way" of the car honking its horn. Because the horn-honking vehicle was probably the same car that was being BACKED UP into position (with its bumper actually touching Ruby's leg during the shooting).

I don't think there was another police car IN MOTION at that exact time other than the car being backed up to take Oswald to the County Jail. I've always thought that it was that car that probably was honking at some reporters or camera people to get out of its way.

It's possible that the scenario I just laid out about the horn-honking police car is even confirmed somewhere in the Warren Commission testimony of some of the policemen or reporters who were in the basement at the time of the shooting. I don't know for sure if there is such testimony, but I wouldn't be surprised if I found something like that in the official records somewhere.


JOHN KORNFEIND SAID:

No, the newsmen were all lined up on the side.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Most of the newsmen were, indeed, lined up on the Main Street side of the basement, but as we can see in the KRLD-TV raw video embedded below, there were certainly some people on the Commerce Street side of the basement too, which is the side of the basement from where the police car was backing up in order to get into position to take Oswald away.

In fact, at the 3:13 mark in the below video, we can even see Captain Fritz shoving a man aside to clear the area. So there were definitely at least a few people on that Commerce St. side of the basement, and the police car was probably honking its horn at those people to keep from hitting them as it backed up:




David Von Pein
February 18, 2014
February 20, 2014

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 383)

GIL JESUS SAID:

If Ruby didn't know Oswald, how did he know enough to correct Henry Wade that the group Oswald belonged to was the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee"?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

By the time of the Midnight Press Conference with Oswald [and later with Wade], the fact that LHO was affiliated with the FPCC had been broadcast numerous times on all of the major TV and radio networks.

In fact, it took me only about three minutes to hunt down and locate proof within my large archive of TV and radio footage that Oswald's connection with the "Fair Play For Cuba Committee" had been broadcast over the air on television only a very short time after Oswald's arrest. Those exact words are uttered by NBC-TV's Frank McGee 49 minutes into this audio file. [And a video version of the NBC excerpt in question can be seen below.]



In that NBC broadcast presented above, McGee mentions the fact that "not a great deal is known about this Oswald", but he then goes on to tell the audience just seconds later that LHO was linked to an organization known as the "Fair Play For Cuba Committee".

NBC-TV aired that info about Oswald and the FPCC at about 4:00 PM CST on November 22nd [5:00 PM EST]. That would have been about 8 or so hours before Ruby saw Oswald and Henry Wade at the DPD that night. And if NBC had that info, you can bet your last dime that all of the other major TV and radio outlets were reporting that same information too.

So Jack Ruby could very easily have heard the words "Fair Play For Cuba Committee" on any number of television and radio stations between midday Friday, November 22 and the Midnight Press Conference several hours later.

Conspiracy theorist Gil Jesus should, of course, have already known this basic information concerning these timeline issues. And perhaps he does know it. But he thinks it's wise to dredge up kooky questions like the one in this thread every now and again--just because, I guess, he's got nothing else to rely on except the potential ignorance of the people that Gil is hoping to reach with his lame-ass inquiries.

I suppose when conspiracists like Gil ask their never-ending series of already thoroughly answered questions, those CTers just hope and pray that somebody won't actually shoot down their nonsense with the raw facts -- like I just provided above.

David Von Pein
November 27, 2008