(PART 13)


>>> "With all due respect, please don't post your own blog as "proof" [Mark] Lane is incompetent, kooky, whatever." <<<


With all due respect, Richard, I'll post whatever I want to. At any
time. So keep your CT ruler in the drawer and quit attempting to slap
my wrists with it.

>>> "He [Mark Lane] claimed attorney-client privilege, which is done all the time. He was hired by Marguerite Oswald to represent LHO before the Warren Commission." <<<

Which, of course, is THE major reason he wanted to bend over backwards
so much to clear a double-murderer named Lee Harvey. (I would have
thought that much would be quite obvious to everyone...even a
conspiracy-loving individual.)

Plus: My previously linked article really had very little to do with Lane's
lame attempt to try and keep the WC from hearing his appalling phone
call to Helen Markham. The essay was written to focus on the arm-
twisting tactics Lane utilized with Mrs. Markham in 1964.

But it's nice to see where you fully stand on Mr. Lane. You'll defend
him even though you surely must know about his underhanded tactics
regarding Mrs. Markham.

You'd be better advised to stick with Jim Marrs or Oliver Stone. At
least they're not on tape attempting to shove some "Bushy" words down
a scared witness' throat.

>>> "And the WC report is exactly why I am a CTer. It is an indictment against LHO, a prosecutor's brief, plain and simple." <<<

And it's 100% accurate in its bottom-line "LHO Did It Alone"
conclusion too. So, what's really your point here? In essence, you
have no point. Because the Warren Commission got it right. Plain
and simple.

And I'd advise you to read (or re-read) David Belin's excellent 1973
book "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury". Either Mr. Belin was an
top-notch liar, or he WANTED TO FIND A CONSPIRACY in the Kennedy
murder case when he entered into it.

Was he talking through his hat throughout that 500-plus-page book,
Richard, when he said he desperately WANTED to uncover some type of
conspiracy but came up with just Oswald?

>>> "LHO was tried and convicted without representation." <<<

Gerry Spence got around to "representing" him in 1986 in London. And
Vince Bugliosi tore Spence's flimsy and poorly presented "case" to

Spence's heart wasn't in that mock trial at all, I'll grant you that
much; because even Spence told the TV audience following the trial,
"There was no conspiracy". So Spence knew from the get-go that he was
defending a guilty killer.

Would Mark Lane have done any better? Answer -- Not a chance. Because
all Vince Bugliosi (or any prosecutor) would have needed to do was to
present to the jury details of Mr. Lane's unscrupulous actions regarding
Markham and the Warren Commission, just like I laid out in my mock
questioning of Markham here.

Once the jury heard any of that stuff regarding Lane, his reputation in
the jury's eyes would be completely shot. And rightly so.

>>> "Mark Lane has debunked numerous pieces of "evidence" produced by the Warren Commission." <<<

Maybe he thinks he has "debunked" things. But he hasn't. That's a
common tactic employed by CTers, too -- i.e., let's pretend we've
"debunked" some piece of evidence and present it to the masses as
"debunked" or worthless or suspicious or what-have-you -- even though,
in reality, no such discrediting of the evidence has really been
accomplished at all.

CE399 being a prime example of this tactic. CTers love to claim that
that bullet couldn't have done this and couldn't have done that....but
nothing about that missile has been "debunked" by the conspiracy
community. Nothing. It's still THE ONLY WHOLE BULLET in the official
record of the JFK murder case and always will be. And it's positively
a bullet that was fired from the rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Conspiracists think they've destroyed the authenticity of CE399 and
the logicality of the Single-Bullet Theory. But they haven't come close.
Not even close. Common sense ALONE tells a reasonable person that
the SBT is the correct solution. And when all the OTHER evidence and
parameters are added to that common sense...it's Katie, bar the door.
The SBT is fact.

(Sorry, my mind wandered to the SBT.)

>>> "And I will pose this question to you again: why do you believe those who do not believe the WC report HAVE to prove something?" <<<

Perhaps it's because the WC is (still as we speak) the OFFICIAL
CONCLUSION of how John F. Kennedy was killed in Dallas. And unless
conspiracy theorists can come up with something better than what
the Warren Commission has placed on the table, then the WC's
conclusions are still the best and most reasonable scenario concerning
the JFK murder case.

A CTer's mileage will, of course, vary wildly when it comes to that
last paragraph. But, what's new about that?

The WC wasn't a court proceeding, that's quite true enough. It was a
fact-finding committee, to try and determine who killed the President
and (if possible) why that person or persons did so. And, IMO, the WC
did those things quite well, and in a fairly-short period of time (all
things considered; they had to investigate a lot of things, multiplied
by THREE separate murders, too).

You hate the Warren Commission. Okay, fine. I, however, do not. And
neither does Vincent T. Bugliosi.....

"In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be
considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history.
Even leading Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg acknowledges
that the Commission "checked into almost every breath [Oswald] drew"."

-- Vince Bugliosi; Via his 2007 book "Reclaiming History"

>>> "What I am looking for is the release of all the evidence, all the sealed files." <<<

And you expect to find the proverbial "smoldering gun" within the
approx. 0.05% of the still-classified and unreleased documents
connected to the JFK case, is that it?

Virtually all documents HAVE been released. And, as Bugliosi points
out in his book, even the small % of stuff not available to the public
HAS BEEN EXAMINED by the ARRB in the 1990s. And, guess what? No
smoking gun. Nothing even close to it.

>>> "But we still don't know LHO's motive, and the only one posited by the wacky Bugliosi is LHO had dilusions [sic] of grandeur and LHO was a wacko of limited intelligence." <<<

Sounds like you're misrepresenting Vince's assessment of Oswald's
intellect. VB says in his book that he definitely thinks that Lee
Oswald was "intellectually inclined" (i.e., not the dope that some
people make him out to be).

In any event, Bugliosi doesn't really need to show motive. Nobody
does. Oswald signed his name to 2 murders in Dallas in 1963. All of
the evidence says that's true....regardless of the "Why Did He Do It?"
question having an ironclad answer.

Potential lack of a motive can't trump bullets, prints, guns, and
OSWALD'S OWN INCRIMINATING ACTIONS following the assassination.

>>> "What about the 7.65 shell found in the plaza that was marked into evidence, then destroyed?" <<<

"Marked into evidence, then destroyed", you say??? That's quite a
charge there. Care to substantiate any of that?

Of course, you cannot substantiate that bullet-shell allegation,
because no such 7.65mm. shell ever existed that was in any way
connected to the murder of JFK.

Also: Within the type of Oliver Stone-like "Patsy" plot that many,
many CTers believe in....why on Earth would anyone be firing "7.65
mm." ammunition at JFK that day, when the "patsy" owned a 6.5mm.
weapon? It's just so silly as to be utterly cartoonish in nature (via
such a "patsy" plot mindset).

>>> "What about the new NAA done that shows different bullets?" <<<

The "new" NAA stuff isn't really new at all and everybody knows it. The
NAA analysis was never 100% certain, and even Vincent Guinn wasn't
ready to say it was in front of the HSCA in 1978.

And these new NAA tests most certainly do NOT, in any fashion, debunk
the notion that ONLY Oswald's bullets from rifle C2766 did all the
damage to President Kennedy and Governor Connally on 11/22/63.

In no way do the newer test results indicate that "different
bullets" (other than Oswald's Carcano bullets) were positively
involved in the shooting. These newer tests only indicate that the
previous NAA tests might not be as reliable at separating the various
batches of bullet lead as Dr. Guinn (et al) had originally thought.

But even after all of these newer NAA tests, Oswald's bullets are
definitely STILL IN THE BULLET MIX. There's no question about that

And a whole lot of other evidence proves Oswald's guilt and proves his
gun shot JFK and JBC, apart from NAA. NAA is merely corroborative. And
it always was.

>>> "I, along with two others, have shown that Marrion Baker was in the doorway of the TSBD 22 seconds after the head shot. Is that conclusive proof? No. However, it supports his 75-second recreation, not his 90. And if 75 is substantiated, then LHO is innocent." <<<

Oh, for Pete sake. Get a grip. What you just said is total nonsense.

All of the reconstructed times for the Baker and Oswald run-throughs

I happen to think the Warren Commission's re-creations were pretty
close to what actually happened, and here's why (in detail).

But to claim that a 75-second timeline by Officer Marrion L. Baker
positively means "LHO is innocent" is just utter nonsense of the
first order.

Firstly, we don't have the slightest idea how fast or slow Oswald was
moving down those stairs (or across that sixth floor of the TSBD) just
after he shot JFK.

If he was moving substantially faster than John Howlett of the Secret
Service was moving during Howlett's re-creations of the event months
later, then THERE'S your answer right there....i.e., Oswald could easily
have made it to the 2nd-Floor lunchroom prior to Officer Marrion Baker.

Secondly, by Baker's own admission, the WC re-creations he performed
did not include every last thing that Baker did on 11/22/63. The
reconstructions didn't take into account his having to wade through
the crowd in front of the Depository before he entered; and it also
wasn't known during the re-creations exactly how long Baker and Roy
Truly were standing on the first floor waiting for one of the two freight
elevators to come down to them prior to the pair rushing up the back

Baker specifically stated:

"We simulated the shots and by the time we got there, we did
everything that I did that day, and this would be the minimum, because
I am sure that I, you know, it took me a little longer."
-- Marrion Baker

In other words, it probably took Baker LONGER on November 22nd to do
what he did during his March 1964 re-creations of the events.

>>> "LHO told Fritz he was on the first floor having lunch and went to the second floor and purchased a Coke, which Baker corroborated THEN CHANGED MONTHS LATER, only when they found that if LHO had the Coke in his hands, it really threw off their timing." <<<

Baker changed nothing, and you can't prove he did. You, of course, are referring to this document -- CE3076 -- dated September 23, 1964, which is a document that was NOT written by Marrion L. Baker. It was quite obviously (via the handwriting seen in the document) written by someone other than Baker, probably FBI Agent Richard Burnett.

Baker merely CORRECTED and initialed Burnett's errors within that
written document. That's obvious from just one look at the document in

Also: BOTH Marrion Baker and Roy Truly told the WC that they each
thought Oswald had "nothing" in either one of his hands during the
brief lunchroom encounter. Are they both rotten liars in this regard?
Or were Baker and Truly both "coerced" by the evil Warren Commission
and its shady lawyers? Which is it?


>>> "Even Dale Myers knows there is a problem here. Read his article written with Todd Vaughan. They posit that LHO wandered down the hall, then turned around and went into the lunchroom." <<<

Yes, I saw that Myers' article. And it's a good theory too. And it makes
sense. Oswald could have possibly turned toward the office area, saw
someone in there (probably Mrs. Reid), and then did an about-face and
went back into the lunchroom.

Nobody can prove that scenario to be correct, that's true. But it's a
reasonable interpretation of Oswald's movements given THE SUM TOTAL OF

>>> "And, to answer your question about CE 3131, I believe this answers your question -- If this print is unidentified, then CE 3131 is in error." <<<

And if one or more of the prints that are in the National Archives (which
were initially labeled "unidentified") have, in fact, since been identified
as belonging to officials of the Dallas Police Department (as CE3131 fully
indicates), then you are in error.

David Von Pein
August 2007