John McAdams wrote to me, informing me that this post was unacceptable because at various times I called David Von Pein a "fried chicken vendor" (which he is) and a "Peinhead" (which he also is).
So, I edited the post, removing those offensive but true references. And here it is, spic and span. I'm posting it again here, even though I already posted the surly one, because I rewrote it to some extent, and frankly, it's good.
David Von Pein put up these two reasons why Oswald must be guilty:
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John Connally. (With said weapon being found inside the building where Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when both of these men were wounded by rifle fire.)
2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents of this package to a co-worker.
1) Oswald did not own a rifle:
But, let's say we didn't have that video by John Armstrong. We certainly have the fact that Oswald denied owning any rifle, and David Von Pein must know that Oswald denied owning any rifle. Therefore, the idea that it's "Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle" can't be stated categorically as a given. It's not a card that David Von Pein is holding in his hand. He is just assuming something that is very much in dispute. What Von Pein said was fundamentally dishonest. He should have at least acknowledged that some people dispute that Oswald owned any rifle at all.
And where Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM was the doorway of the TSBD, where he can be seen in the Altgens photo.
That's definitive proof- something David Von Pein knows nothing about.
2) What Oswald carried into work that day is also very much in dispute. He claimed that all he brought to work was his lunch, and it was something that Police could easily have confirmed by finding his discarded bag in the trash and the remnants of his lunch- or not finding it. You say it wasn't there? Then fine; that would have proven that he was lying. So, why didn't they do that? But, we didn't hear a word about them going through the trash in the Domino room and finding, or not finding, anything. It was an easy deduction to make (to look for the remnants of what he said he brought), so why didn't they? But then again, who's to say they didn't? Perhaps they did look for and find the remnants of his lunch- and destroy it.
And, Oswald denied saying anything to Frazier about curtain rods. Why does David Von Pein think he can just dismiss what Oswald said? If Oswald were alive, he would get to defend himself, right? Had he lived, he would have gotten to defend himself at trial, right? Well, don't we, his modern defenders, get to defend him? Don't we get to give him voice? It's all very much in dispute, David. You don't get to presume your own conclusions.
And, contradicting the claims of Buell Frazier and his ditzy sister are all the other employees of the TSBD who didn't see Oswald with a large paper bag that morning as he was walking around the building. How many were asked if they saw Oswald that morning? We don't know. But, don't you think, it's possible, even likely, that if somebody said, "I saw Oswald at 8:10, and I can tell you for certain that he did not have any large paper bag" that that person's testimony would have been conveniently omitted? We are lucky that there is the testimony of Jack Dougherty who said that he saw Oswald when he first entered the building, and he had nothing in his hands.
Mr. BALL - Did you see Oswald come to work that morning?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes---when he first come into the door.
Mr. BALL - When he came in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.
Mr. BALL - Did you see him come in the door?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; I saw him when he first come in the door--yes.
Mr. BALL - Did he have anything in his hands or arms?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, not that I could see of.
Mr. BALL - About what time of day was that?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - That was 8 o'clock.
Mr. BALL - That was about 8 o'clock?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.
Mr. BALL - What door did he come in?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, he came in the back door.
Mr. BALL - Where were you then?
Mr. DOUGHERTY - I was---sitting on top of the wrapping table.
Alright, so you've got Buell Frazier and his ditzy sister making one claim and Jack Dougherty contradicting them. That sounds like a real dog fight to me. Doesn't it to you? So, it's just as accurate to say that Oswald was NOT seen carrying a bulky bag as he entered the building that morning as to say that he was seen with one. And since we're only talking about what was seen at his place of work, it's really just 1 against 1, Frazier vs. Dougherty, since the ditzy sister wasn't there. So, what gives Von Pein the right to make his blanket statement the way he did? Nothing! He had no right.
Von Pein said, matter-of-factly, that Oswald lied to a co-worker, but why couldn't it be the co-worker who lied and is lying? The co-worker is still here, but Oswald's voice got silenced. But, what do you think Oswald would be saying today if he were here? You know very well what he would be saying, and that's why we have to say it for him.
The case against Lee Harvey Oswald is a joke. It is an embarrassment to jurisprudence. And speaking of jokes, that is what David Von Pein's case against Oswald is, for sure. You'd lose in court, David. Reasonable doubt is not only present but screaming its head off.