(PART 49)


>>> "I was clearly referring to 1.) Odio and Liebeler and 2.) Warren and his colleague." <<<


You were referring to things that OTHER PEOPLE said about Liebeler and Warren. That's all.

You were referring to "credible sources" such as Sylvia Odio (re: Liebeler's alleged sexual advances); and you were referring to William Davy (re: his story of an alleged "whitewash" comment made by Earl Warren in Sep. 1964).

So, your "credible sources" there are Sylvia Odio and Bill Davy.


Jim, what page number of this 12/5/63 WC executive session supposedly backs up what Davy said Warren said to a colleague in late 1964? Please point out the page number.


Here's an excerpt from "Reclaiming History" (just to provide at least a little bit of balance and "equal time" to counter Jim DiEugenio's onslaught of crackpottery regarding Vincent Bugliosi's excellent 2007 book):

"One of the key pieces of documentary evidence that conspiracy theorists cite as proof that the Warren Commission only had an interest in presenting a case against Oswald, and had no interest in ascertaining whether there was a conspiracy, is a January 11, 1964, “Memorandum for Members of the Commission” from Commission chairman Earl Warren in which he sets forth a “tentative outline” that was prepared, he said, by Warren Commission general counsel J. Lee Rankin to aid in “organizing the evaluation of the investigative materials received by the Commission.”

"Since by January 11, a month and a half after the assassination, it was very obvious that Oswald had killed Kennedy, subdivision II of the memorandum was titled “Lee Harvey Oswald as the Assassin of President Kennedy.” Under this subdivision were subheadings like “Brief Identification of Oswald [Dallas resident, employee of Texas School Book Depository, etc.]”; “Movements [of Oswald] on November 22, 1963, Prior to Assassination”; “Entry into Depository”; “Movements after Assassination until Murder of Tippit”; and so on.

"I respectfully ask, what other way was there for “organizing the evaluation of the investigative materials” when the investigative materials (i.e., evidence) all dealt, of necessity (since the evidence that had already been gathered all pointed to Oswald as the killer of Kennedy), with Oswald? To give Oswald an alias? Or mention some third party who was not identified in the investigative materials as the chief suspect?

"Moreover, the Warren Commission critics don’t mention that Warren, to allow for the fact that the investigation might take the Commission in different directions, wrote, “As the staff reviews the [investigative] materials, the outline will certainly undergo substantial revision.”

"Perhaps most importantly, what the critics usually fail to mention is that subdivision II H reads, “Evidence Implicating Others in Assassination or Suggesting Accomplices.”

"Even if the evidence up to January 11, 1964, the date of the subject memorandum, had not pointed only to Oswald, and even if there was no reference to a possible conspiracy in the tentative outline, the best way to judge the work of the Warren Commission on this point is not by what the Commission wrote or said, but by what it did. (One of my favorite sayings is “Your conduct speaks so loudly I can’t hear a word you are saying.”) And we will see that the Commission’s conduct throughout the investigation clearly shows that its members only had one objective, to discover the truth of what happened." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xxxi of "Reclaiming History"

More "Reclaiming History" Book Excerpts


Jim D., as always, is distorting the facts. He cites a bunch of preliminary things that Earl Warren said he was probably NOT going to need to do....but what did the Warren Commission actually END UP DOING in many of these instances?

Answer: Just the opposite.

Some examples are provided below, to help counteract DiEugenio's pathetic critique of the 12/5/63 Executive Session:

Earl Warren said:

"...our job is essentially one for the evaluation of evidence as distinguished from being one of gathering evidence, and I believe that at the outset at least we can start with the premise that we can rely upon the reports of the...FBI and Secret Service...."

There's nothing wrong with this statement by Earl Warren at all. The Warren Commission's main function WAS to evaluate the evidence that had already (in large part) been collected (plus additional evidence that would still be gathered by the investigative agencies that Chairman Warren had at his disposal).

What's wrong with that? And furthermore, how are the above words spoken by Earl Warren supposed to prove (or even suggest) "conspiracy" and/or "cover-up" in the JFK assassination?

Answer: They don't. Not even close.

Earl Warren said:

"I believe that the development of the evidence in this way should not call for a staff of investigators, I don't see any reason why we should duplicate the facilities of the FBI...."

Nothing wrong with this either. The FBI had vast resources for investigating the case, and since Earl Warren (as of 12/5/63) had no reason to think the FBI would withhold any information from the Commission, this initial/early statement by Warren doesn't seem the least bit odd or unusual.

Earl Warren said:

"I am of the opinion also that we should not conduct our hearings in public; that it is not necessary for us to bring witnesses before us. If it is necessary for us to get the stories of witnesses we can get it through our investigative agencies first, and then if we want to talk to them we can bring them into our conference room and discuss it with them there."

But what did Warren END UP DOING, Jim? THAT'S the important thing! Not what he said he would PROBABLY do on December 5th!


The Commission ended up taking the testimony of 552 witnesses, with many of these witnesses appearing before the Commission itself (and many, many others giving testimony, under oath, in front of Commission counsel members).

So much for not calling witnesses, huh Jim?

Earl Warren said:

"Having that view, I do not believe that it is necessary for us to have the power of subpoena. I believe that the power of subpoena and holding public meetings where witnesses would be brought in would retard rather than help our investigation."

But what did Warren END UP DOING, Jim?


The Commission DID end up having the power to subpoena witnesses, and did so....hundreds of times!

DiEugenio apparently wants to IGNORE the fact that 552 witnesses did give testimony to the WC, and many of them were under order of subpoena by the Commission.

Earl Warren said:

"...we could hold our meetings and take any evidence or any statements that we want in camera, and eventually make our report without any great fanfare throughout the country. I think any report we would make would carry with it a great deal more influence done in that way than if we attempted to have any public hearings."

Way more "conspiracy" spin is being put on the above Warren statement by DiEugenio than it deserves, with DiEugenio obviously wanting to believe that Earl Warren (ON THE RECORD HERE!) is endorsing some kind of a "cover-up" operation from the get-go on 12/5/63.

But such a belief is nothing but CT blather and nonsense. Warren wasn't attempting any kind of a cover-up at all via the above quote. DiEugenio has Conspiracy-itis. And he's had the ailment for years. Poor fellow.

Earl Warren said:

"The President indicated to me that if this commission was set up that in all probability there would be no legislative committees having hearings. I think that would be very helpful, because one investigation should be enough."

Big deal. Once again, Jimbo is spiking the football in his Conspiracy Endzone--even though he fumbled the ball mid-field. Warren's comments above don't spell conspiracy or cover-up at all. He was merely giving his personal opinion that the one BIG Warren Commission would easily suffice, vs. having additional SMALLER investigations taking place at the very same time. And he was right.

Earl Warren said:

"I personally would be very happy if the State of Texas would decide not to hold any such hearings until this commission had an opportunity to survey the situation and make its appraisal, because if there should be some irresponsible witnesses come before that commission and give sensational testimony to the public...we would have the job of allaying the public fears that developed from that kind of testimony."

Sounds reasonable to me, Jim. Earl Warren simply didn't want the investigation into the President's death to become a "three-ring circus" (to borrow J. Edgar Hoover's words, in a conversation with Lyndon Johnson on 11/29/63).

Jim DiEugenio, as usual, is making another mountain out of a non-existent bump in the road.

>>> "Or did your terminal McAdams Disease set in?" <<<

No. But I can easily see that your really bad case of "Conspiracy Overload" is in its highest gear today.

Pathetic, indeed.

>>> "Warren's vision did not completely go through. Why? Because it was upset by how bad Hoover's Dec. 9th report was. That thing was so awful that even people like Rankin knew they couldn't print it or rely on it. (BTW, DVP actually praised that pile of crap on Lancer.)" <<<

The 12/9/63 five-volume FBI Report is, indeed, a pretty good document. There are some mistakes in it, yes. And some other deficiencies. But the bottom-line conclusions are correct. All-in-all, the FBI (in just 17 days' time) did a good job in its initial report dated December 9, 1963. (The full report can be found HERE.)

More on the FBI Report HERE.

>>> "I asked the question in all five, "Did VB keep his pledge made at the beginning to present the critics' arguments as they wanted them presented?" " <<<


Can you please indicate to me where in Vincent Bugliosi's book he specifically makes this "pledge" (as you keep calling it)?

I do, indeed, recall reading something written by Bugliosi in "Reclaiming History" about the "critics' case as they present it" (or something very similar to that).

I've been trying to find that exact "pledge" that Jimbo keeps speaking of, but I cannot find the specific "pledge" in "Reclaiming History".

Maybe such a "pledge" is, indeed, in "RH", but I haven't found it as yet via my search of the book's Introduction chapter (or anywhere else).

Can you give me a page number, Jim? Thanks.

>>> "What DVP is actually saying is this: Warren was justified in accepting Hoover's first report as the last word on the murder of JFK." <<<

I never said any such thing. Stop putting words (and thoughts) in my mouth (and head).

I've said myself that the initial five-volume FBI report of Dec. 9th was not perfect and contained a number of errors. The WC did the right thing in not merely signing-off on that report (although, as I also said, that FBI report gets the bottom-line facts correct--Oswald was guilty and there was likely no conspiracy).

One thing, however, that people like Jim DiEugenio should really ask themselves is this:

If the Warren Commission (and its Chairman, Earl Warren) were really the rotten, low-life, scumballs that DiEugenio wants everybody to think they were....then why in the world DIDN'T they merely sign-off on J. Edgar Hoover's 12/9/63 initial report on the assassination?

After all, Hoover's report said the same thing that DiEugenio believes the Warren Commission was BENT ON FINDING AT ALL COSTS RIGHT FROM DAY #1 OF THE WARREN COMMISSION'S EXISTENCE -- i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby acted alone in their acts of murder in Dallas, Texas, in November 1963.

So why DIDN'T Earl Warren (if he was the scum of the Earth you seem to be implying) simply take the easy way out and rubber-stamp J. Edgar's December 9th "Oswald Alone" findings?

That's a rather difficult question for conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio to answer in a reasonable manner, isn't it?

But, I'm sure we'll be treated to another round of DiEugenio's mish-mash (and conspiracy-flavored mush) in just a few minutes after Jimbo gets through pasting another batch of "Bugliosi Is A Liar And A Fraud" crappola into his next Education Forum message.

Right, James?

>>> "DVP then tops himself. He then asks me to produce the VB quote I have been referring to for days. Davey this is YOUR book! You rated it the last word on the case. And you don't even know the introduction. I have to do the research again. Turn to page xxxix: [Quoting Vincent Bugliosi:] "My only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others. The theorists may not agree with my conclusions, but in this work on the assassination I intend to set forth all of their main arguments, and the way they, not I, want them to be set forth before I seek to demonstrate their invalidity. I will not knowingly omit or distort anything." [End VB Quote.] .... Causing you a lot of grief eh Davey? BTW, in each case I have shown where VB cannot use that qualifier he added about not being aware of something. So please don't try that one on me." <<<

Thank you, Jim. That is, indeed, the quoted passage I was seeking. I was unable to find that exact quote while searching keywords via the book's PDF file. I was using the word "critics" in my search criteria. But that word turns out not to be in the passage you so kindly provided me on Page xxxix.

BTW, I haven't memorized every word in Vince Bugliosi's book. But it appears that Jim DiEugenio has, though.

If you feel like calling Vince Bugliosi a liar, that's your privilege I guess. But the things you think Vince has intentionally left out of "Reclaiming History" (in what you obviously believe was an effort by VB to deliberately distort the truth about the JFK assassination) are obviously things that Mr. Bugliosi did not deem important or critical enough to be placed into the book.

You no doubt get tired of hearing me say this, but I'm going to say it again anyway (because I happen to think it's true) -- You, Jim, like to concentrate on the CHAFF instead of the WHEAT when it comes to the JFK case.

In your world, the chaff always seems to be much more important and critical than the wheat -- with the wheat in this case, of course, being the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the case that proves Lee Harvey Oswald to be a double-murderer, which is physical evidence that TWO GOVERNMENT COMMITTEES had no problem endorsing as LEGITIMATE evidence in the case that had not been altered or faked or manipulated in any way whatsoever.

You disagree with BOTH the Warren Commission's AND the HSCA's conclusions regarding the validity of that physical evidence. Well, so be it. But those TWO Government conclusions are still going to be there nonetheless, regardless of whether you agree with them or not.

>>> "Then you say that well, what Warren was saying was OK. What Warren was saying was that the FBI should do the inquiry and they should ratify what Hoover did." <<<

But, Jim, what you're forgetting here is THE DATE WHEN EARL WARREN MADE THAT STATEMENT -- it was DECEMBER 5, 1963! That was four days BEFORE the FBI had completed its initial report.

For reference, here is my earlier quote (for which I am now being scolded and taken to the woodshed by Jimmy D.):

"Nothing wrong with this either. The FBI had vast resources for investigating the case, and since Earl Warren (as of 12/5/63) had no reason to think the FBI would withhold any information from the Commission, this initial/early statement by Warren doesn't seem the least bit odd or unusual." -- DVP

And to augment my above comments, let me add: At that time (December 5), Earl Warren no doubt thought that the main task of the Warren Commission would, indeed, be merely to read over and examine Hoover's initial report on the assassination.

Heck, LBJ came right out and flatly told Senator Richard B. Russell that that is EXACTLY what the Warren Commission was going to do (via LBJ's phone call with Russell on 11/29/63, the day the Warren Commission was created by President Johnson).

Yes, I realize that probably part of what Johnson was doing with Russell there on Nov. 29th was LBJ's usual strong-arming tactics. Johnson wanted Russell as "his man" on that Commission, so by God, Russell was going to BE his man on that Commission.

And LBJ knew full well from talking with Russell that Russell wanted no part of being on the WC, and (just as importantly) Russell said he didn't want to work with Earl Warren. "I don't like that man" were Senator Russell's exact words to Johnson on 11/29/63.

So, undoubtedly, LBJ was wanting to make the WC job sound as appealing and as easy as possible, so he told Russell that the job would probably not require much work, and that the Commission would merely be there to "evaluate a report" of J. Edgar Hoover's.

And Earl Warren and the rest of the Commission initially thought that was going to be their chief task as well. But, as we all know, it turned out to be a much broader (and lengthier) task than any of the seven Commissioners originally anticipated.

But, in my opinion, the key to the previously-mentioned Earl Warren quote that you, Jim, apparently find so sinister, is the fact that it was uttered by Warren on DECEMBER 5TH, several days BEFORE any WC members had seen what was contained in Hoover's report.

So, there's nothing shady or sinister or "cover-uppish" about Warren's quote in the Dec. 5 Executive Session at all. You, Jim, have PLACED the "sinister" meaning in Warren's words. But, in reality, there's nothing sinister or underhanded about those words whatsoever.

>>> "I asked the question in all five, "Did VB keep his pledge made at the beginning to present the critics' arguments as they wanted them presented?" The 5 major areas were: 1. The Ruby polygraph." <<<

Already discussed. Obviously, by far the most important part of that awful and really weird polygraph exam of Jack Ruby's is the fact that Ruby INSISTED ON TAKING IT.

>>> "2. The true nature and roles of Ruth and Mike Paine." <<<

Already discussed. And it's my opinion that anyone who calls Ruth Paine a "spy" who was in some way connected to the CIA and was somehow manipulating Lee Oswald into the position of "patsy" for JFK's murder is a person who deserves nothing but scorn.

And that person also deserves to be laughed at for thinking such a silly thing about Ruth Paine in the first place. And Michael Paine as well. Michael was, at best, a peripheral part of Lee Oswald's life in the months leading up to the assassination. To think he was molding Oswald for "patsy" status is also ridiculous, IMO. And there's absolutely no firm evidence to indicate that either Ruth or Michael Paine were involved, in any way, with setting up Oswald in 1963.

And Vince Bugliosi undoubtedly feels pretty much the same way I do about the Paines. And if some of the silly rumors concerning the Paines weren't presented by Vince in "Reclaiming History", it's probably because they are so silly and far-fetched that Vince didn't even feel there was any need to discuss such obvious tripe.

>>> "3. The record of corruption and frame ups by the Wade/Fritz regime in Dallas." <<<

This has undoubtedly been used by conspiracists (especially recently since the Watkins info has surfaced) to suggest that Lee Oswald was one of those people who was "framed" by Henry Wade and Will Fritz.

Unfortunately for the conspiracy theorists who attempt to utilize this argument, there is plenty of OTHER evidence on the table in the case which did not pass through the hands of the Dallas Police Department: e.g., the Stretcher Bullet CE399, CE567, CE569, the autopsy report, the autopsy ITSELF, the autopsy photos, and the autopsy X-rays.

None of that stuff was controlled by the DPD. And all of the above items have been deemed valid and legitimate evidence in the JFK case--including CE399--by both the Warren Commission AND the HSCA (as well as the Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission).

So, if Wade and Fritz were "framing" Oswald, they sure must have had a heck of a lot of help from a lot of other people.

And let's face it -- to believe that all of these agencies got together to frame Oswald is just plain silly.

>>> "4. The visit to Sylvia Odio." <<<

Already discussed. Heck, Bugliosi even admits that Oswald was probably at Odio's door in September 1963.

But, oh yes, Jim D. thinks it must have been somebody "impersonating" Oswald who visited Sylvia Odio.

There's nothing wrong with Bugliosi's handling of the Odio incident. You just want to berate Vince for something else--in this instance, you want to rake him over the hot coals for not AGREEING WITH JIM DiEUGENIO'S THEORY regarding the Odio matter.

Well, Jim, that's just tough toenails. So what if Vince doesn't agree with the great and all-knowing James DiEugenio. Heck, I rarely agree with a single thing uttered by Jimbo. How could I? He's a charter member of the super-silly "Anybody But Oswald Society".

>>> "5. The true provenance of CE 399." <<<

The chain of possession for CE399 is just fine. The WC had no problem with that "chain", and obviously neither did the HSCA (because both the WC and HSCA declared THAT EXACT BULLET--Commission Exhibit No. 399--to be THE BULLET that passed through both President Kennedy's and Governor Connally's bodies in Dealey Plaza).

Vince Bugliosi deals with the conspiracy theorists' constant gripes about CE399 in his book. See the endnotes in "Reclaiming History", starting at Page 544.

And, btw, Elmer Todd DID mark that bullet. And CE2011 proves that fact.

Another btw -- John Hunt did not say that he HIMSELF photographed Bullet CE399 at the National Archives while he was searching for Elmer Todd's initials on that bullet. He said he "put together an illustration using photographs of CE-399. I was able to track the entire surface of the bullet using four of NARA's preservation photos."

Many of the markings on CE399 via those preservation photos that Hunt used are very faint and hard to see (and, yes, I did look at them carefully too, via the larger versions of the photos that are available at the Mary Ferrell website).

It's my opinion that Elmer Lee Todd's initials are definitely somewhere on that bullet. They merely are not as noticeable as some of the other FBI agents' initials that are on the missile.

What Jim DiEugenio is left with at the end of the day (like all other days) are merely his SUSPICIONS and SPECULATIONS about Bullet CE399, and the Odio incident, and Ruth Paine, and Michael Paine, and the FBI, and the DPD that he thinks framed Oswald.

When it comes right down to the brass tacks of the case, Jim DiEugenio and other conspiracy theorists like him who (unbelievably) actually believe in Lee Oswald's complete INNOCENCE, have nothing BUT their suspicions and speculation and conjecture.

And trying to build a solid foundation from nothing BUT speculation (and wild suspicions about ALL of the physical evidence being fake in TWO murder cases--John Kennedy's AND J.D. Tippit's) is like trying to build a house out of mush.

David Von Pein
August 25, 2010