(PART 2)

"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out the tragic shooting all by himself. .... In fact, you could throw eighty percent of the evidence against him out the window and there would still be more than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole role in the crime. .... The Warren Commission looked at a tremendous amount of evidence and concluded that Oswald acted alone. I've studied the evidence, and I agree."

-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; 1986


Damn straight, Vince!

After the official 888-page Warren Commission Report was released in
September 1964, public controversy began to swirl around the
Commission's "Single-Assassin" conclusion, and the controversy
surrounding the Warren Report hasn't let up in the several decades
since its publication.

But, in my view, Chairman Earl Warren's Commission got it right -- Lee
Harvey Oswald fired three shots at John F. Kennedy on 11/22/63, killing
the then-46-year-old U.S. President and critically wounding another
victim (Texas Governor John B. Connally, who survived Oswald's attack).

Most Americans do not agree with this one-assassin assessment
concerning the events of November '63. But, then too, I'd also guess
that a large percentage of those disbelievers have not even bothered
to wade through the Warren Commission's hefty tome.

The Warren Report is actually a very well-done publication. Some errors
do appear in the book, but that, IMO, is to be expected from such a
large piece of detailed work, which involved interviewing hundreds of
assassination-related witnesses and evaluating many hundreds of
individual pieces of evidence connected with the three murders that the
Commission was assigned to investigate (Kennedy's, J.D. Tippit's,
and Oswald's own murder at the hands of Jack Ruby). And all of this
work was done in a fairly short amount of time (9-plus months), and
by a relatively small number of Commission and staff members.

Here are some of my own thoughts regarding certain aspects of the JFK
and J.D. Tippit murders:

Re: The "Single-Bullet Theory" (which nearly all conspiracy theorists
hate with a vicious passion, despite the fact that it is the ONLY
conceivable way the shooting could have possibly occurred, given the
known factors in evidence):

It's my belief that virtually anyone with an ounce of common sense and
a small bit of brain power could have (and would have) ultimately come
up with the "SBT", given the evidence that is on the table surrounding
the events of November 22nd, 1963, in Dallas.

In short, there simply IS no other valid and logical conclusion to the
simultaneous wounding of President Kennedy and Governor John Connally.
None. Donald Duck could have figured it out given the following

1.) Pretty much a straight-line bullet path from Kennedy to Connally.
(Taking into account, of course, the automatic restriction of not being
able to pinpoint to the exact square-inch where JFK was in the
limousine in comparison to Connally's seated position.)

2.) Not a single bullet found in JFK's body.

3.) Not a single bullet found in John Connally's body.

4.) Not a speck of bodily damage done to JFK's innards (neck or back
regions), save the slight bruising of a lung and the pleural cavity (said
to have been caused by the mere passage of the bullet through the
body, but not via a direct strike) and slight damage to the trachea
as the missile exited JFK's throat.

5.) Bullet CE399 is the only bullet found which could be connected to
either man's wounds (and found in the hospital where the victims were
taken, no less).

6.) No damage done to the back seats of the limousine.

7.) No other people wounded in the limousine.

8.) No whole bullets found in the limousine.

I highly recommend that every person interested in the SBT (and the
Kennedy assassination in general) take a good, long look at the
Discovery Channel's re-creation of the SBT performed in Australia in
October 2004 -- "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet".

That re-creation very nearly duplicated the SBT/CE399 path through
TWO bodies (mock-ups of the victims), and came fairly close to
duplicating the way bullet CE399 ended up looking on 11/22/63. Not
a perfect match, true. But the shooting can NEVER be duplicated with
100% accuracy...and it is completely unreasonable to think it ever
could be (especially given the bodily damage within two human victims
that would need to be done to perfection to make an exacting duplication
possible, which is just not feasible).

But within a normal and reasonable percentage of "plus or minus of
probability", that 2004 test proved beyond a reasonable doubt that
the Single-Bullet Theory is (and was) a shooting event that could most
certainly have occurred from a 60-foot-high perch.

If conspiracists cannot see that, then that provides proof beyond a
reasonable doubt, in my view, that such CTers just refuse to be
convinced of the Single-Bullet Theory's possibility no matter what is
demonstrated to them.

And I also find it very revealing that it seems that no conspiracy
promoters have a desire to try to "re-create" the SBT with tests of
their own (sponsored by, say, Robert J. Groden, or Oliver Stone, or
James Fetzer, or Mark Lane, et al), in order to "prove" once and for
all that the SBT is an "impossible" shooting feat.

It's even more interesting to note that all of the SBT tests and
re-creations that have been done (e.g., the 2004 Australian test I
just mentioned, plus the FAA computer simulation test done in the
1980s, and the more-recent computer animations done by Dale K.
Myers) show just exactly the opposite of what CTers seem to believe --
i.e., all of those tests show that the Single-Bullet Theory is a
definite possibility.

And when factoring in all the variables of the shooting -- such as: no
whole bullets found in JFK's body (or in the back seats of the
limousine), the alignment of the victims in the car, and the official
autopsy report which says that one bullet travelled straight through
JFK and exited his neck -- the SBT then comes much closer to an
absolute CERTAINTY, rather than just a mere "theory".


Switching gears now to the murder of Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit
(which was a second murder committed by Lee Oswald on 11/22/63) ---
Many conspiracists seem to actually feel that the overall evidence is
"weak" against Oswald when it comes to this murder in Oak Cliff.
NOTHING could be further from the truth than that false
conspiracy-favoring myth. Because, to put it bluntly -- Anyone who
thinks Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill Officer Tippit is either a total
pro-conspiracy nutcase...or is just flat-out stupid. There is no third
option that I can think of.

After assessing the facts in the Tippit case, any person who can state
the blatant falsehood that the evidence surrounding Oswald's guilt in
the Tippit crime is weak or inconclusive (as many CTers often do claim)
is a person who obviously WANTS to have Oswald innocent of killing
Officer J.D. Tippit (no matter how much evidence exists to say he was

And I'm still stumped (and always will be I guess) when it comes to the
question of why no conspiracy theorist can seemingly manage to evaluate
the assassination "Patsy Plot" from the PRE-November 22nd point-of-view
of the conspirators (who were responsible for JFK's assassination and
supposedly "framed" Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder, according to many
conspiracy theorists).

That is to say, if those same CTers were to put themselves in the
shoes of the "plotters" on the day before the assassination took place,
they would easily be able to see the general mayhem and illogic and
massive stumbling blocks that the ultra-silly (but yet
widely-accepted-as-true) "Oswald Was Just A Patsy" plot would have
created for this array of conspirators, assassins, and evil henchmen.
By performing this little bit of "time travel" in their heads, anyone
can readily detect the lunacy of a "One-Patsy" plot that sports many
different shooters firing at the very same target.

In other words, any assassins who would have needed only Oswald
fingered for the two murders on 11/22/63, must have all (to a man!)
been under the influence of large quantities of hallucinogenic drugs
when they decided to place a variety of different shooters throughout
Dealey Plaza (and on 10th Street for Tippit's killing), as many CTers

And these powerful drugs they must have been on I guess must have
had a crazy type of "Miracles Are Possible" effect on all of the shooters
and behind-the-scenes schemers -- because only a "miracle" could have
rescued such an inane multi-shooter "Patsy" plan from certain failure
on that 22nd day of November back in '63.


Conspiracy theorists should begin to accept the obvious -- with that
"obvious" consisting of the following:

1.) A 24-year-old former defector to Russia named Lee Harvey Oswald got
damn lucky one day in late 1963 when he happened to find himself alone
on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building at just
the right moment in time to get off three shots from his $21
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, with two of those 6.5mm bullets finding
Oswald's target of President Kennedy's body, resulting in the tragic
death of America's thirty-fifth Chief Executive.

2.) Less than one hour after gunning down the President, in obvious
flight from the murder he had just committed in Dealey Plaza, Oswald
shot and killed Dallas patrolman J.D. Tippit (as viewed by a variety of
unwavering eyewitnesses who positively identified Oswald as the one
and only killer of this police officer or as the one and only gun-toting
individual who fled on foot from the Tippit murder scene).

3.) The Single-Bullet Theory is the most logical and valid scenario to
explain the non-fatal wounds sustained by John F. Kennedy and all the
wounds sustained by John B. Connally in Dealey Plaza. And it is the
only possible explanation of the event that stands up to critical
scrutiny, detailed analysis, and common-sense interpretation of the
evidence when the ENTIRE batch of Single-Bullet-favoring evidence is
gathered together in the same place.


In my view, a person who denies or questions the integrity of all the
above-mentioned facts and thinks that Lee Oswald was "set up" to take
the fall for the President's murder in 1963 (and possibly set up to be
the dupe in Tippit's murder as well) is a person who believes in
conspiratorial fairy tales; i.e., never-proven tales that have been
spun with skill by authors of various pro-conspiracy books and
movie-makers ever since John Kennedy's death.

I, myself, would have an extremely difficult time in believing that all
of the physical evidence in this case has been "manipulated" to suit
the needs of a bunch of forever-unidentifiable, unknown conspirators
who were hell-bent on framing a schnook with the initials "LHO". And
this would include "faking" the evidence that has always shown, via the
1963 JFK autopsy report and the autopsy pictures and X-rays, that the
fatal shot that struck the President in the head came from behind
Kennedy's car.

The sheer COMPLETENESS of such mass after-the-assassination "fakery"
is just too unbelievable in scope for me to give serious credence to.
It just simply could not have happened, IMO.

And it's quite obvious that noted and respected JFK expert, author, and
attorney Vincent Bugliosi doesn't believe that such grand-scale
evidence-forgery was carried out with such skilled precision in this
case either. Mr. Bugliosi has studied the JFK case for more than two
decades, and believes, as do I, that the ultimate findings arrived at
in 1964 by the Warren Commission are as sound today as they were back
in '64. .....

"There was no plot, no conspiracy. JFK wasn't murdered by anti-Castro
Cubans, the mob, or rogue CIA agents. In almost 40 years, there has
been one scintilla of proof tying the assassination to anyone but
Oswald. There have been theories, but no evidence. Oswald had the
motive, the opportunity, and the skill to kill President Kennedy."
-- Vince Bugliosi


"I am writing two volumes on the assassination of President John F.
Kennedy. My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee
Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt
that he
acted alone." -- Vince Bugliosi

David Von Pein
April 2006