(PART 3)


After further review of the matter, it appears John [Fiorentino] is correct. There simply is no strong support for [James] Tague's claim regarding his cut and blood on his cheek. Chalk it under Live and Learn.

It's not John's problem to give a good reason for doubt. If there is no support, then there is no support. This is a good one. At least for me. I truly believe Tague got hit by something that day and that there was a small facial cut and some blood on his cheek. But sad to say, I for one am falling short on the support part.


I agree with everything you said above, Glenn.

When I first read John Fiorentino's post regarding the "cut" and the "blood" on James Tague's cheek, I raced to my bookmark labelled "WC Testimony" (via John McAdams' handy alphabetical listing for all testimony), and I immediately went to the link for Buddy Walthers' Warren Commission session.

I was fully expecting to find SOME reference in Walthers' testimony about seeing "blood" on the face of James Tague shortly after the shooting in Dealey Plaza. But, alas, I found no such reference in Walthers' testimony.

Deputy Sheriff Walthers tells the Warren Commission that he (Walthers) was told by Tague himself that "something struck me on the face", with Walthers also adding this supposed quote from Tague's lips: "It didn't make any scratch or cut and it just was a sting". [7 H 546]

But according to Tague's Warren Commission testimony [at 7 H 553]:

"And he [Deputy Walthers] looked up and he said, 'Yes, you have blood there on your cheek.' And I reached up and there was a couple of drops of blood." -- James T. Tague; July 23, 1964

So it would appear that the only source for a "cut" and/or "blood" on Tague's cheek is James Thomas Tague himself, although I believe that Tague almost certainly WAS slightly cut on his face by either a bullet fragment or a piece of the Main Street curbing.

One thing that certainly does gel together when comparing Walthers' and Tague's WC sessions (which both took place on the same day, btw, on 7/23/64) is the fact it would appear that Tague did tell Walthers that something did "sting" him on the face during the shooting. The word "sting" can be found in each man's WC testimony.

It's quite possible (and probable) that Deputy Sheriff Walthers did see some blood on Tague's face on 11/22/63, but (as John Fiorentino stated in his prior posts [see this forum thread]) that fact cannot be corroborated definitively by anyone else other than James T. Tague (at least as far as each man's Warren Commission testimony is concerned; it's possible that Walthers gave some private interviews after the assassination where he stated he physically saw the blood on Tague's face, but as of this writing I am not aware of any such interviews).

Another thing that gels perfectly between Tague's and Walthers' testimony is the Main Street curb damage that both Tague and Walthers noticed on November 22, 1963. Both men told the Warren Commission that the mark they remember seeing that day was a "fresh" mark on the curb near the Triple Underpass.

So, regardless of whether or not Tague actually suffered any minor cut on his face, it's pretty clear that there certainly WAS a "fresh" mark on the curb on Main Street on 11/22/63, which was a mark that was deemed to have been the result of a bullet or a bullet fragment striking that curb during the assassination of President Kennedy. And, of course, traces of lead (deemed to be bullet lead) were also later found on that same curbstone.

Although, to tell you the truth, upon looking at the very small nick (or mark) on the curbstone (as seen in the photo below), something that has always somewhat amazed me is the fact that anybody was able to spot this teeny-tiny mark on the curb as quickly as they did on November 22nd. But, then too, Tague and Walthers were searching for possible bullet markings near where Tague was standing, so I guess it wasn't a miracle that they were able to see this mark. It is mighty small, though:

David Von Pein
May 30, 2009





Could it be Tague lied about being struck?



I don't think there's any doubt that Tague was struck by something during the shooting. Within minutes of the shooting, Tague told Walthers he was "stung" by something.

If Tague was making up tall tales, he sure was fast.


Yes, I was just reading Tague's WC testimony, and he did say he mentioned being stung BEFORE Walthers saw the blood (according to Tague).

It just seems odd Walthers never acknowledged seeing it or mentioned seeing it himself in any testimony.

I suppose this could be reconciled as being overlooked and just one of those loose ends.


I think the key, though, Jim, is looking at WALTHERS' testimony on this issue---not Tague's testimony. And it's clear that Tague definitely DID tell Walthers within minutes of 12:30 PM on November 22nd that he had been struck by something.

And there's the curb damage near Tague too. That fact, in my opinion, is corroborative physical evidence to back up Tague's claim.

Surely nobody thinks Tague dug out a small gouge in the curb to support a lie within minutes of the shooting. Do they?



I have serious doubts about Tague's claims. There is no question he was there and there was contact between him and Walthers. The "blood on the face" claim is in question.



The BLOOD on his face might be in question, but how can you doubt he was hit by something during the shooting---with or without the blood? Walthers and the curb gouge pretty much seal the deal, IMO.



The curb damage, noted by Walthers, was only a "mark". KRLD's Jim Underwood heard about that bullet mark from a deputy. He got hold of Dallas photographer Tom Dillard on Saturday the 23rd and took pictures. Dillard stated it was a mark, not a gouge, chip or crack.....only a mark.

When FBI agents went out in June or July 1964, they brought along Dillard and could not even notice the mark. So there was no concrete flying off hitting Tague. Now that gets into bullet fragments hitting Tague.


Steve, this is more than just a "mark". Granted, it's very small, but this a small gouge (with concrete missing), not just a "mark". Plus, there's lead on it too.


I haven't reviewed the curb analysis when it was jack-hammered out, but I understand it had lead detected.

So what is the possibility that this was all a big misunderstanding and that mark on the curb was nothing more than an old tire lead balance weight hitting the top of the curb?


Sure looks like an indentation (gouge) to me, Steve. Is the photo lying?


No, I'm going by this document that Dillard explains no gouge, chip or break in the concrete.

Additionally, FBI agents Lee and Barrett could not find a gouge, chipped concrete along that curb.


Thanks for the link, Steve. I guess the photo must be totally misleading then, since the report (on Page 3) does, indeed, clearly say there was "no nick or break in the concrete".


Another FBI report (this one) confirms the presence of lead on the Main Street curbstone that was removed from Dealey Plaza for analysis on August 5, 1964.


FWIW, Commission Document No. 205 includes an FBI report summarizing an interview the FBI had with James Tague on December 14, 1963, three weeks after the assassination. In that interview, Tague mentions being struck by something during the shooting, which "caused about two drops of blood to flow". Tague also said the curb had "a chip missing".

And Tague also confirmed in the 12/14/63 FBI interview that he was struck on the "right cheek" (as opposed to his left cheek).

In addition....

There's also some corroboration for Tague's story in the DPD radio tapes. Just seven minutes after the shooting, at 12:37 PM, we hear this over the Dallas Police radio --- "I have one guy that was possibly hit by a richochet from the bullet off the concrete."

Also see the September 1, 1964, Warren Commission testimony of FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt concerning the curb damage, beginning at 15 H 697, plus Shaneyfelt Exhibits 29 thru 35, showing photographs taken of the curb, beginning at 21 H 478.

Again, this sure looks like a gouged-out area of concrete to me, even though Shaneyfelt specifically said in his WC testimony at 15 H 700 that "It is not a chip. There is no indication of any of the curbing having been removed, but rather it is a deposit of lead on the surface of the curbing that has given the appearance of a mark."

So I guess I'll continue to shrug my shoulders some more as I look again at Shaneyfelt Exhibit No. 29....


Here's an excerpt from Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History", concerning James Tague and the Main Street curb damage:


David Von Pein
June 18-22, 2016