NICK McDONALD AND LEE OSWALD
David Von Pein
RE: POLICE OFFICER NICK McDONALD....LEE HARVEY OSWALD....AND LHO's
REVOLVER:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/browse_thread/thread/f52f87a6e29b809f
The forum thread linked above is from April 2007, and it contains the
following remarks from the lips of a conspiracy kook named Walt:
"[DPD Officer M.N.] McDonald squeezed Oswald's balls and
Oswald's reflexes caused him to strike McDonald. In the ensuing
scuffle McDonald grabbed Oswald's hand while Jerry Hill pulled the
pistol from Oswald's belt."
"Oswald never pulled his pistol."
"You lying bastarrds [sic] always embroider Oswald's arrest, by
saying Oswald pulled his gun and yelled "this is it", but when the
testimonies of the cops who were there are examined it's clear that
nothing of the kind happened."
"We both know that a cop saying "a gun was pulled" is a evasive
way of saying "Oswald pulled a gun". He [DPD Officer Ray Hawkins] knew
damned well that Oswald never pulled a gun, so therefore he [Hawkins]
couldn't be on record as saying "Oswald pulled a gun"...so he IMPLIES
that Oswald pulled the gun by saying...."a gun was pulled". The fact
that you believe it proves that gullible idiots will believe
anything."
==================================
I then offered up this comment in that 2007 discussion:
"Walt evidently thinks that Oswald had his hand on his gun just
in order to push it further down inside his pants. Oz couldn't
possibly have had his hand on his gun for the purpose of pulling it
OUT of his pants and possibly shooting some cops with it, could he?
Oz, after all, wouldn't harm a fly." -- DVP; 04/22/2007
==================================
Now, with Walt's 2007 quotes from above fresh in our minds (wherein he
states his idiotic belief that Lee Oswald never pulled a revolver out
of the waistband of his pants at all on the afternoon of 11/22/63
while in the Texas Theater), I'd like to offer up the following video,
which consists of a segment from a CBS-TV special news program
entitled "The Warren Report" (which aired on the same day the WCR was
released to the public, 9/27/64).
This video features Dallas policeman M.N. (Nick) McDonald re-creating,
for the CBS-TV cameras, his struggle with Oswald inside the movie
theater. The part of Oswald is played by KRLD newsman Eddie Barker for
the purposes of this reconstruction.
And keep in mind that these remarks being made by Officer McDonald in
this video were spoken by McDonald prior to the September 1964 release
of the Warren Commission's Final Report.
So this re-creation being performed by McDonald is just about as close
as you're going to get to the original event itself (calendar-wise).
The date of the assassination was no more than ten months prior to the
filming of this CBS video (and it could have been as little as five
months, per comments made by CBS' Dan Rather regarding the dates when
witnesses were interviewed for the 2-hour "Warren Report" news program
that was aired by CBS on 9/27/64).
The segment with McDonald and Barker in the Texas Theater begins at
the 4:01 mark of this 7-minute video:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h3c8utle7c
After viewing the above video, the question to ask conspiracy
theorists is:
Do you think Nick McDonald was lying his ass off in that CBS news
program?
And do CTers like Walt still really continue to believe that Oswald
never had his gun pointed at McDonald in the theater?
It will be interesting to see just how far down "Everybody Was Lying"
Avenue certain CTers are willing to travel with respect to the gun-
wielding incident that took place inside the Texas Theater on November
22....especially after watching that video linked above.
A "HAIR" OF A FOOTNOTE:
At the very end of the above-linked video, we see Lee Oswald at the
police station shortly after being taken into custody on 11/22/63. And
we can see Oswald's hair pretty clearly in those black-and-white video
clips. And we can also see that Oswald's hair, just after his arrest,
was in a disheveled condition, to be sure.
There has been much talk about how Tippit murder witness Helen Markham
supposedly described Oswald's hair as being "bushy". It's debatable
whether Mrs. Markham ever used that word to describe LHO's hair, but
let's assume she actually did say "bushy" to a reporter shortly after
the Tippit murder.
Perhaps she saw Oswald's hair in much the same condition it was in
after his arrest (as seen in the above video). And while Oswald's hair
isn't exactly long, perhaps it could pass for "bushy" in the eyes of
some people who only saw his hair for a few fleeting moments on Tenth
Street on 11/22/63.
It's possible, of course (and even quite likely, in fact), that
Oswald's hair only achieved its mussed-up status after the wild brawl
with the police in the theater, but it's also interesting to note this
testimony of Helen Markham when she was questioned by WC counsel about
the condition of LHO's hair:
JOE BALL -- "Is it your memory that his hair was bushy?"
MRS. MARKHAM -- "It wasn't so bushy. It was, say, windblown or
something. What I mean, he didn't have a lot of hair."
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_04/OswaldSP_468x447.jpg
Food for "bushy"-haired thought.
Walt
> RE: POLICE OFFICER NICK McDONALD....LEE HARVEY OSWALD....AND LHO's
> REVOLVER:
>
Big Deal..... It doesn't make anu difference if Mc Donald told his
lies on 11/22/63.....There stil lies.
>
> So this re-creation being performed by McDonald is just about as close
> as you're going to get to the original event itself (calendar-wise).
> The date of the assassination was no more than ten months prior to the
> filming of this CBS video (and it could have been as little as five
> months, per comments made by CBS' Dan Rather regarding the dates when
> witnesses were interviewed for the 2-hour "Warren Report" news program
> that was aired by CBS on 9/27/64).
>
> The segment with McDonald and Barker in the Texas Theater begins at
> the 4:01 mark of this 7-minute video:
>
> www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h3c8utle7c
>
> After viewing the above video, the question to ask conspiracy
> theorists is:
>
> Do you think Nick McDonald was lying his ass off in that CBS news
> program?
Since you asked..... Yes, Mc Donald was a liar.
Markham was "waffling" .....She knew that Mark Lane had recorded their
conversation in which she said that Tippit's killer had BUSHY hair.
In this session she was attempting to gloss over her previous
statement,
Walt
> REVOLVER:
>
>
> The forum thread linked above is from April 2007, and it contains the
> following remarks from the lips of a conspiracy kook named Walt:
Hey Von Pea Brain....Yer desperation is showing. When you have to
go back into the archives and drag out old posts. which enable you to
set up a strawman.
Not that I really mind.... I don't mind kickin your ass again with the
facts, and exposing you as the simplton you are. A simple minded fool
who is as gullible and naive as any elementary school kid.
David Von Pein
>>> "Since you asked..... Yes, Mc Donald was a liar." <<<
Thanks, retard. That's all I wanted to hear from you. Much obliged.
David Von Pein
BTW, Walt-Kook --
Did you even bother to watch the segment of this video with McDonald
re-creating exactly what happened in the theater (including the very
detailed part about how McDonald's hand got caught in a portion of
Oz's gun to keep it from fully firing a bullet at him)?.....
Walt
Since you apparently have a problem understanding plain
english......Let me repeat.... Yes, Nick Mc Donald is a liar.
Since I know he lied ....why would I want to give anything he says a
moment of thought.
David Von Pein
>>> "Yes, Nick Mc Donald is a liar. Since I know he lied ....why would I want to give anything he says a moment of thought." <<<
~Yawn~
Idiot.
(I'll bet Roger D. Craig, a blatant liar, is considered a perfect
truth-teller, per Walt The Retard. What do ya bet?)
Walt
$!00,000.... Apparently you're not only stupid....yer a sucker.
Only a fool and a sucker would call for a bet when it's very easy to
google and find out what my feeling about Roger Craig is.
Walt
You lose,stupid.... Here's a copy of a post I posted on September 9
Yes, You're correct .... Craig did say that the shells had come from
a
6.5 Italian CARBINE.
This is a good example of Craig making an inaccurate statement. ALL
6.5mm Italian military weapons used the same cartridge.... Whether
the
weapon was a model 91 long rifle, or a tanker special carbine, or a
paratrooper special carbine, or a model 91/38 short rifle, or a model
41....They ALL used the same cartridge.
Many folks place total trust in Roger Craig and his statements.....
Especially when it comes to his statement about seeing "7.65 Mauser"
stamped on the barrel of the rifle. He could NOT have seen that
stamped on the barrel, because 7.65 Mausers were NOT stamped in this
fashion. Furthermore he said he was only "six to eight inches" from
the rifle when they lifted it from the hole in the boxes. Video film
taken at the time show Roger Craig no closer than about FOUR feet
from the MANNLICHER CARCANO model 91 /38 short rifle.
David Von Pein
>>> "Only a fool and a sucker would call for a bet when it's very easy to google and find out what my feeling about Roger Craig is." <<<
I was merely gambling that you (a Conspiracy-Loving Mega-Kook) would
be in love with every statement uttered by Roger "Big Fat Liar" Craig,
regardless of how unreliable his various lies turned out to be.
This statement of Walt's is a silly one, though (as if Craig's feet
were fixed in cement during the time the rifle was found):
"He [Craig] said he was only "six to eight inches" from the
Walt
Dear Dumass..... The video was shot AT THE TIME the rifle was being
lifted from the cavern of boxes. AT THE TIME the rifle was being
lifted from the cavern, Roger Craig was no where near 6 to 8 inches
from that Model 91 /38 Mannlicher Carcano ( Not a 7.65 Mauser)
Duh!
scott...@aol.com
> RE: POLICE OFFICER NICK McDONALD....LEE HARVEY OSWALD....AND LHO's
> REVOLVER:
>
>
> JOE BALL -- "Is it your memory that his hair was bushy?"
>
> MRS. MARKHAM -- "It wasn't so bushy. It was, say, windblown or
> something. What I mean, he didn't have a lot of hair."
>
> http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_04/OswaldSP_468x447.jpg
>
> Food for "bushy"-haired thought.
It's clear after watching the video that Oswald pulled his gun - no
doubt. Unless like Walt you're prepared to jettison the evidene for
wild conjecture!
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -
So you think that the words of a man who wanted his 15 minutes of fame
are cast in stone do ya?
Mc Donald was a lowly patrolman on the DPD and his livelyhood hinged
on pleasing his superiors.
The hierarchy at the DPD encouraged McDonald to make up a good story
to convince the public that Oswald was a wild man and a killer. You
are very naive if you believe someone with a vested interest in
propagating an illusion.
David Von Pein
>>> "The hierarchy at the DPD encouraged McDonald to make up a good story to convince the public that Oswald was a wild man and a killer." <<<
And then the DPD went to Johnny Brewer and told him they needed his
help in this regard, too....right Walt?
And Brewer, a young lad of only 22 at the time (and fearing the wrath
of the evil DPD if he didn't cooperate with them in their desperate
attempts to frame an innocent Oswald for the murder of not only the
President, but also for the killing of one of their fellow officers,
J.D. Tippit), decided it was wise to go along with the wealth of lies
spun by M.N. McDonald....so Johnny C. Brewer told these lies to the WC
(which perfectly corroborate the testimony and 1964 CBS-TV re-creation
of an officer named Nick McDonald)....right, Walt-Kook?:
Mr. BREWER - Oswald hit McDonald first, and he knocked him to the
seat.
Mr. BELIN - Who knocked who?
Mr. BREWER - He knocked McDonald down. McDonald fell against one of
the seats. And then real quick he was back up. .... McDonald was back
up. He just knocked him down for a second and he was back up. And I
jumped off the stage and was walking toward that, and I saw this gun
come up and----in Oswald's hand, a gun up in the air.
Mr. BELIN - Did you see from where the gun came?
Mr. BREWER - No.
Mr. BELIN - You saw the gun up in the air?
Mr. BREWER - And somebody hollered "He's got a gun." And there were a
couple of officers fighting him and taking the gun away from him, and
they took the gun from him, and he was fighting, still fighting, and I
heard some of the police holler, I don't know who it was, "Kill the
President, will you." And I saw fists flying and they were hitting
him.
Mr. BELIN - Was he fighting back at that time?
Mr. BREWER - Yes; he was fighting back.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm
And not only does Brewer (a non-cop) corroborate McDonald's account of
the theater struggle with Oswald, but other DPD officers also
corroborate McDonald perfectly. (All of those other officers wanted
their "15 minutes of fame" too, right Walter?)
Every time Walt posts his make-believe bullshit, I want to puke. He's
despicable.
>>> "You are very naive if you believe someone with a vested interest in propagating an illusion." <<<
And Johnny Calvin Brewer, whose testimony is easily accessible and
available for the whole world to read 24/7, is also "someone with a
vested interest in propagating an illusion", too? Is that your
position, Mr. Kook?
As any reasonable person can see, Walt is a lover of conspiracy. And
he's also a person who seemingly doesn't possess a lick of garden-
variety common sense. He knows damn well that Johnny Brewer (who
wasn't a policeman) can easily corroborate Officer McDonald's story
about the arrest of Oswald in the Texas Theater.....but, evidently,
Walt hopes that nobody will second-guess his "McDonald Was A Liar"
nonsense, and he also hopes that nobody will take the time to look up
in the official record the testimony of other witnesses (like Brewer)
to see if McDonald's story is backed-up by anybody else (which it is,
of course, several times over).
In short -- Walt's an idiot of the first order, and he's an idiot who
is willing to paint ANYBODY as a "liar" and/or a conspirator in order
to clean the skirts of his prized "patsy" named Oswald.
Utterly repulsive behavior by the likes of Walt. But he doesn't give a
shit....as long as the double-killer can be declared innocent (in the
kook's mind). Right, Cakebread?
Walt
> >>> "The hierarchy at the DPD encouraged McDonald to make up a good story to convince the public that Oswald was a wild man and a killer." <<<
>
> And then the DPD went to Johnny Brewer and told him they needed his
> help in this regard, too....right Walt?
Hey Von Pea Brain....It probably escaped your attention because you
have mostly BS information in your head, but if you knew the facts you
would have spotted Johnny Brewers lie right quick. Brewer was asked
when was the first time he saw Oswald and he replied ----- When he
entered the front of my store right after the assassination. ( not
verbatim)
That's a lie..... Brewer told the Warren Commission that he'd seen
Oswald on some previous occasion when Oswald had visited his shoe
store and bought a pair of shoes.
I have no desire to cast aspersion on Johnny Brewer , I think he's
probably a good and decent man.... However he is human and revels in
his role in history. He thinks he was instrumental in capturing the
murderer of President Kennedy, and is something of a hero for doing
so. He's not going to admit to himself or anybody else that he made
up and embroidered much of his story.
Walt
My goodness.... You seem to be a bit crazy in your attempt to
discredit me. Calm down.... Your attitude isn't going to help you
spread your bullshit and make you more believable.
You and I and the whole wide world knows that simply because someone
with a vested interest in propagating a fairy tale says something
does NOT make their story factual information. That's elementary
Dumbass......
David Von Pein
>>> "He [Johnny Brewer] is not going to admit to himself or anybody else that he made up and embroidered much of his story." <<<
Lookie, kids! Walt's calling somebody else a rotten liar!
Geez, what a kook Walt is. And he just loves playing the role, too.
Amazing.
David Von Pein
>>> "You seem to be a bit crazy in your attempt to discredit me." <<<
A dead aardvark could do that without a bit of trouble.
aeffects
C'mon Keating..... fess-up!
Walt
An ad hominem attack on the messenger...... Is this the best you can
do?
I didn't call J.Brewer a "rotten liar".... I said he was human, and
fabricated and embroidered much of his story about the arrest of
Oswald. A rotten liar is someone who wantonly and willfully tells
bare faced lies when he knows what he is saying is not the truth......
Someone like yourself.
robcap...@netscape.com
Marina lied about a lot of things but you believe her when she said
she took a real photo in the backyard and that LHO told her he shot at
Gen. Walker. How come you have a double standard?
robcap...@netscape.com
> On 17 Sep, 22:07, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> "Yes, Nick Mc Donald is a liar. Since I know he lied ....why would I want to give anything he says a moment of thought." <<<
>
> > ~Yawn~
>
> > Idiot.
>
> > (I'll bet Roger D. Craig, a blatant liar, is considered a perfect
> > truth-teller, per Walt The Retard. What do ya bet?)
>
> You lose,stupid.... Here's a copy of a post I posted on September 9
>
> Yes, You're correct .... Craig did say that the shells had come from
> a
> 6.5 Italian CARBINE.
>
> This is a good example of Craig making an inaccurate statement. ALL
> 6.5mm Italian military weapons used the same cartridge.... Whether
> the
> weapon was a model 91 long rifle, or a tanker special carbine, or a
> paratrooper special carbine, or a model 91/38 short rifle, or a model
> 41....They ALL used the same cartridge.
How do you disprove what he said? IF all the M-C use the same
cartridge he had to be going on something else to make him say this.
Perhaps they they left both rifles (Carbine and 40.2 inch model) but
the authorities picked the wrong one. Who knows, but you have to
prove he did NOT see something, i.e. a Carbine, that made him say this
BEFORE you can call him wrong. Where's your proof?
> Many folks place total trust in Roger Craig and his statements.....
> Especially when it comes to his statement about seeing "7.65 Mauser"
> stamped on the barrel of the rifle. He could NOT have seen that
> stamped on the barrel, because 7.65 Mausers were NOT stamped in this
> fashion. Furthermore he said he was only "six to eight inches" from
> the rifle when they lifted it from the hole in the boxes. Video film
> taken at the time show Roger Craig no closer than about FOUR feet
> from the MANNLICHER CARCANO model 91 /38 short rifle.
So you have viewed every "Mauser" ever made, right? IF this case
teaches any of us one thing, it is there is NOTHING definite about
anything the authorities say. IF Carcanos were stamped why would
"Mausers", or at least some based on country of origin, NOT be? You
have to prove this point first before you can make a blanket statement
like this one - "He could NOT have seen that
stamped on the barrel, because 7.65 Mausers were NOT stamped in this
fashion." There is never any proof for the official claims, they are
just that, claims.
I'm sure the Alyea film and photos were NOT doctored in any way, just
because the extant Z-film probably was, the extant X-rays were, the
extant autopsy photos were, the witness testimony of so many was
altered or deleted, the ballistic evidence was, the fingerprint
evidence, etc... Nah, I'm sure those "crime scene photos and film" are
exactly as it happened. Why were they recreating again all weekend?
Craig was a DECORATED officer, and said things that pointed to
CONSPRIACY, so why would any CTer just disregard him out of the block?
Craig said the time of death for JDT was 1:06 PM and you have said
this is the right time, so why is he so wrong about other things?
Walt
wrote:
> On Sep 18, 5:36 am, Walt <papakochenb...@evertek.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 17 Sep, 22:07, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> "Yes, Nick Mc Donald is a liar. Since I know he lied ....why would I want to give anything he says a moment of thought." <<<
>
> > > ~Yawn~
>
> > > Idiot.
>
> > > (I'll bet Roger D. Craig, a blatant liar, is considered a perfect
> > > truth-teller, per Walt The Retard. What do ya bet?)
>
> > You lose,stupid.... Here's a copy of a post I posted on September 9
>
> > Yes, You're correct .... Craig did say that the shells had come from
> > a
> > 6.5 Italian CARBINE.
>
> > This is a good example of Craig making an inaccurate statement. ALL
> > 6.5mm Italian military weapons used the same cartridge.... Whether
> > the
> > weapon was a model 91 long rifle, or a tanker special carbine, or a
> > paratrooper special carbine, or a model 91/38 short rifle, or a model
> > 41....They ALL used the same cartridge.
>
> How do you disprove what he said? IF all the M-C use the same
> cartridge he had to be going on something else to make him say this.
No he didn't have to be "going on something else".....Stupid. He was
merely "talkin through his hat". ( Talkin without regard to the
accuracy of his words) We all do that...... You are particularly
prone to saying things without thinking about what you're saying.
Craig said that the shells "had come from a 6.5 Italian Carbine." He
made this statement years later......long after it was common
knowledge that a 6.5 Italian rifle had been found UNDERNEATH a stack
of boxes on the sixth floor. So he was thinking of the weapon that
had been found when he made his statement. Since there is virtually NO
WAY to determine if a spent 6.5mm Carcano cartridge has been fired in
a carbine, a short rifle, or a long rifle, Craig was simply talkin
through his hat.
> this is the right time, so why is he so wrong about other things?- Hide quoted text -
robcap...@netscape.com
More "Von Peinism" here, personal attack with NO proof. Why can't
this guy ever prove what he says? You better NOT ask him for proof or
he will "destroy" you like he claims he has done to me. This sounds
like Fascism to me. He makes wild claims and allegations but when
asked for proof he attacks you and tries to "destroy" you. Hmmm.
Why NOT prove he was "talking through his hat" just for fun? Since
you admit you CAN'T prove what type of weapon was used since they all
use the same cartridges, how can you, Walt, determine what rifle or
rifles were found and seen by Craig or not? Where you there too?
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
scott...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
What evidence do you have that McDonald was lying? Is this
speculation because you want to clear Oswald of the murder of Officer
Tippit? I think it's more naive to believe that Oswald was innocent,
and that Brewer, McDonald and many other officers in the theatre were
lying.
Walt
Are you really so damned stupid that you can't comprehend what you
read??
I NEVER said I destroyed you......I said that I thought ( and hoped)
that YOU had destroyed your credibility.
Rob....Seek psychiatric help..... I believe that you can truly benefit
from some time on the couch.
Walt
>
> - Show quoted text -
Read the testimonies and affidavits of ALL of those who were there and
witnessed the arrest of Oswald.
Most of them do not support McDonald's rendition of the arrest.
robcap...@netscape.com
Maybe the typo messed me up. My credibilty is fine for those that want
to look for the truth. IF people want to believe what is NOT provable
so be it, and I would never have challenged you, but you taught me
acceptance was NOT part of this board.
> Rob....Seek psychiatric help..... I believe that you can truly benefit
> from some time on the couch.
This is funny stuff coming from you Walt. I came here a year ago
excited and ready to work with my fellow CTers, but you and Ben
attacked and attacked and treated me like a dog. My views were NOT
allowed without proof, of course you determined what the proof was,
but you could theorize all you wanted. I read too many books, but I
see you mention books and articles all the time. Hmmm. You have
attacked others instead of letting them have their views, and now when
I use all you have taught me "I need psychiatric help." LOL!!!!!!!
You had NO acceptance for others, so I guess it is true, you get what
you give.
scott...@aol.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt
I have taken your advice and read the testimonies and affidavits of
the witnesses. There is certainly some ambiguity in the evidence.
However, I feel that this can be explained by several factors
1) The episode with the gun happened very quickly.
2) Some of the witnesses would not have been in a good position to see
exactly what happened
3) Eyewitness accounts will always differ from each other.
Given these points, the account most likely to be true is Officer
McDonald's as he was actually involved in the struggle. His account
is also supported by several other witness accounts, including Johnny
Brewer's, a civilian witness. There is certainly no indication that
he was lying in his accounts.
However, I can see that if you investigate this episode, beginning
with the premise that Oswald was innocent, then his behaviour in the
theatre has to be explained. If he struck a police officer, pulled a
gun and tried to shoot him, it would clearly infer guilt in the murder
of Officer Tippit. Therefore you would have to make the most of any
ambiguities in witness evidence. Also, several of the points you make
have no support at all in the testimony of witnesses; firstly, that
Officer McDonald grabbed Oswald by the balls; secondly that McDonald
was encouraged by his superiors to lie; thirdly that Johnny Brewer
lied. IMHO these are simply conjecture to support a preordained
conclusion, namely that Oswald was innocent.
Walt
Everyone is entitled to their opinion...... But you're correct about
my bias in believing Oswald was a patsy.
I believe it's pretty obvious that Oswald was just a
patsy......However if a person were to read nothing but the Warren
Report...They certainly wouldn't come to that conclusion. I know it's
a gross over simplification but just the fact that oswald said he was
a patsy somehow indicates that that is exactly what he was. Can you
imagine anybody making that claim if he was guilty??? Think about
it..... If he had blown John Kennedys brains out while JFK was riding
nect to his wife in the car do you really think he could have even
faced reporters?? He did....and he told them that he didn't do it.
True, this isn't evidence of his innocence but he certainly didn't act
like a cold blooded killer.....and I don't believe he
was.