(PART 16)


Lee Bowers died in a one-car accident in 8/66. Just one of many
strange deaths in this case.


Yeah, he was supposedly murdered by the "Mystery Death Squad" AFTER he
had already talked to Mark Lane ON FILM.

Great tactic there....let the witness live for years after the
assassination (so he has ample time to talk; and Bowers did
talk)...and THEN rub him out after his story is not only in print in
Mark Lane's book, but also is ON FILM for Mr. Lane's upcoming movie.

A brilliant move by the ever-efficient brain-dead plotters indeed.

"The vast majority of the witnesses on the various mysterious-
death lists of the conspiracy theorists (e.g., Jim Marrs's book
"Crossfire" lists 104 witnesses) weren't connected with the case in
any known way whatsoever, and had absolutely nothing of any known
value to say about the case. ....

"But of those who did have a connection -- such as Roger Craig,
Earlene Roberts, Lee Bowers, and Buddy Walthers -- all of them,
WITHOUT EXCEPTION, had already told their story, most of them on the
public record, so what could possibly be achieved by killing them?"
Vince Bugliosi; Page 1018 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)



None of the trained ballistic forensic doctors/nurses at Parkland
would agree with this. I'll take their word over doctors who have
never worked with gun deaths before.


Again your ignorance shows. Dr. Finck was called in, and he had plenty
of experience with gunshot wounds. And he also signed that revised
autopsy report, didn't he?



...They altered the photos and X-rays.


Oh, naturally. And that, of course, means that the many photo experts
for the HSCA were all liars/cover-uppers too (because those HSCA guys
said the photos and X-rays were not altered in any way whatsoever).

So, you're willing to completely ignore ALL of the autopsy doctors,
plus the autopsy report, plus the WC people, plus the entire HSCA
photographic panel. And, instead, you'll believe that the X-rays and
pics are "altered".

Can you say: "Mega-Kook"??


Dr. Humes probed this wound you are denying.


He probed the ONE and ONLY back wound, yes. So what?

There was no SECOND back wound at all. You invented that to meet your
silly CT requirements for some reason.

Humes' pinky probe possibly messed up the true path of Bullet CE399,
and even Humes himself admitted something similar to that when he

"Attempts to probe in the vicinity of this wound were unsuccessful
without fear of making a false passage."
-- JAMES J. HUMES; 1964

JFK's muscles had stiffened after death. The path of the bullet
through the tissue had, in effect, "closed" itself up.

Why you think there was a second wound in JFK's upper-back region is
anybody's guess...because nobody ever even hinted at such a thing.


You are violating the rights of a deceased citizen. Don't you know
you are innocent until proven guilty in this country? That means in a
court of law by your peers, not by a presidential commission that was
not interested in investigat[ing] what really happened.


Some soft violin music might help here, to accompany your pathetic
attempts at getting an obviously guilty double-murderer off the hook.

Obviously there can be no "trial". Does that mean that Oswald's guilt
can never be proven? Hardly. Many times (or most) a guilty killer
never takes the witness stand at his trial anyway.

So, we probably would never have heard a peep out of Saint Oswald at
his trial anyway (had he lived to face trial). Therefore, if the
murdering bastard had gone to trial, the only thing the jury would
have heard from the defense lawyers would be the same type of defense
that was placed on the table in 1995 at O.J. Simpson's trial -- i.e.,
a defense filled with murkiness and unsupportable charges that all of
the evidence in the case had been "tainted" or "mishandled" or was
"fake" or was "planted" or was "altered" in some fashion, etc., etc.

That's THE ONLY type of defense that was offered up at Simpson's trial
(plus the "Race Card" defense too, which should have never been
allowed in by Judge Ito, but it was anyway).

Yes, the pathetic jury voted Simpson Not Guilty, but my point still
stands regarding his defense and the tactics used by his Scheme Team
of shameless attorneys.

And Simpson, of course (being the guilty double-murderer he was),
didn't take the stand either. Just as Oswald (being the guilty double-
murderer he was in '63) wouldn't have dared take the stand had he gone
to trial either.

Here's a simulated sample of what very likely would have happened if
Oswald had taken the witness stand at his own murder trial (with Vince
Bugliosi serving as the prosecutor):

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit number 139,
which is a bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, serial number C2766.
Police officers who testified at this trial have verified the fact
that this exact rifle was found on the sixth floor of your workplace,
the Texas School Book Depository, just 52 minutes after President
Kennedy was shot and killed from right in front of that building on
November the 22nd, 1963. A palmprint of yours was located on this
exact weapon. .... I ask you now, Mr. Oswald, have you ever seen this
rifle before?"

OSWALD -- "No, sir. I have not."

BUGLIOSI -- "Did you, Mr. Oswald, ever send in a mail-order coupon to
Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, a coupon for a 6.5-millimeter
carbine rifle, during the first half of the year 1963?"

OSWALD -- "No, sir. I didn't order any rifle through the mail."

BUGLIOSI -- "Have you ever owned a rifle in your lifetime, Mr.
Oswald....a privately-owned rifle, that is, since you got out of the
Marine Corps in late 1959?"

OSWALD -- "No, sir. I have never owned a rifle in my life."

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now show you Commission Exhibit number 134,
a photograph of a man who looks exactly like you--Lee Harvey Oswald.
This man in the photo, who looks like you, is holding a rifle, has a
handgun in a holster around his waist, and is also holding up two
Russian newspapers, dated March 11th and March 24th of 1963. .... I
ask you now, Mr. Oswald, are you the man depicted in this photograph?"

OSWALD -- "No, sir. That picture must be a fake or something. I never
posed for any picture like that in my life."

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, I now direct your attention to the date of
President Kennedy's assassination--November the 22nd, 1963--and I ask
you now, Mr. Oswald, if you know a young man by the name of Buell
Wesley Frazier?"

OSWALD -- "Yes, I worked with him at the book store....the Depository,
I mean."

BUGLIOSI -- "And did Mr. Frazier give you a ride to work on the
morning of President Kennedy's visit to Dallas--that is the morning of
Friday, November the 22nd, 1963?"

OSWALD -- "Yes....I believe I did ride to work with him that morning."

BUGLIOSI -- "Okay. And did you bring any type of paper package with
you to work on that particular morning?"

OSWALD -- "I brought my lunch. That's all."

BUGLIOSI -- "You brought ONLY a lunch sack with you to work on
November 22nd, is that correct?"

OSWALD -- "Yes, sir. I had my lunch with me."

BUGLIOSI -- "Did you have any OTHER paper package with you that
morning at all? Anything larger than a small lunch bag?"

OSWALD -- "No, I had nothing else with me that day."

BUGLIOSI -- "Wesley Frazier, just this morning, told this court and
this jury that he observed you carrying a much-larger paper bag on the
morning of November the 22nd. Mr. Frazier said that you told him you
had some curtain rods in that larger paper package. Did you tell
Wesley Frazier anything like that on the morning of November 22nd?"

OSWALD -- "No, sir! Absolutely not! I don't know why he'd say a thing
like that. I never told him anything like that."

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Oswald, another witness--Mr. Frazier's sister, Linnie
Mae Randle--also testified during this trial that she also observed
you carrying a bulky-type brown paper bag as you walked toward her
house in Irving, Texas, around 7:10 AM on the morning of November
22nd, 1963. Was she mistaken, Mr. Oswald? Did she ONLY see your small
paper lunch sack?"

OSWALD -- "Well...er...I...uh...I really can't speak for what another
witness might or might not have said. I can only tell you that she's
wrong if she said I had a big bag with me that day. I just carried my
lunch to work, like I usually do on work days."

BUGLIOSI -- "Thank you, Mr. Oswald....no further questions at this


The above questioning of Oswald would have been, of course, preceded
by a parade of witnesses who would have confirmed (without a shred of
a doubt) that Lee Oswald DID purchase Rifle #C2766 by mail-order in
March 1963, and WAS photographed (by his own wife) while holding that
weapon on 3/31/63, and DID take a bulky paper package into the Book
Depository on 11/22/63.

Who do you think the jury is going to believe? The accused murderer?
Or the succession of several different witnesses who all paint Oswald
as the liar he obviously was when he told Mr. Bugliosi (via my
simulated courtroom proceeding above): "I have never owned a rifle in
my life"

The jury wouldn't even break a sweat on that decision.

In short, Lee Harvey Oswald's many, many LIES would have done almost
as much to convict the bastard as would the wealth of physical and
circumstantial evidence in the JFK case (which also convicts him ten
times over, of course).


I guess you like claiming people are guilty without a trial.


Only if I have a carload of evidence to show the person committed the
crime(s).....which I do have in the LHO instance (for both the JFK and
Tippit murders).

I guess you, however, enjoy trying to exonerate guilty murderers
posthumously. Just one of the many curious hobbies you kooks engage
in daily.


Not just dried blood according to Siebert [sic]/O'Neill report, supported
by Dr. Humes.


This is nothing but a lie. Humes never, ever supported the notion of
TWO separate holes in JFK's back. You're nuts if you think he did.

In fact, the O'Neill/Sibert report doesn't support the idea of
multiple back wounds either. Why you think it does support two such
bullet holes is another of the many mysteries associated with your
Kook Disease.


They didn't miss it, Dave. Dr. Humes assumed the bullet found at
Parkland came out of this hole.


Humes thought initially that it was possible that the bullet had
fallen out of the ONE and ONLY upper-back bullet hole, yes. I don't
deny that Humes thought that. He said so.

But when BETTER and MORE COMPLETE information came his way (from
Perry) the next morning, the scenario changed, and everything made
sense to Humes then (particularly the parts about NO DAMAGE IN


CE399 came from this small indentation, not from JBC's stretcher.


Why are you deliberately telling falsehoods about the KNOWN FACTS
regarding Bullet CE399?

That bullet could not have POSSIBLY come off of Kennedy's stretcher,
because JFK's stretcher was never rolled down the hall to the place
where Tomlinson found that bullet.


Face it, the SBT is a farce that was dreamed up by a lawyer of all people.


It wasn't ONLY Mr. Specter who originally thought the SBT was the
accurate solution to the JFK/JBC double-man wounding. Several other WC
members came to the same conclusion, at the same time. .....

"When I asked [Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005] if, indeed,
Arlen Specter was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his
exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself,
Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg." ....

"I don't know about you folks, but I'm inclined to take what
Redlich told me to the bank. My sense is that Redlich, who by almost
all accounts worked harder on the case than anyone else, was a team
player only interested in doing his job well."
-- Vince Bugliosi;
Pages 302-304 of "RH" Endnotes (c.2007)


And you know they are not bullet holes because you were there? You
were part of the autopsy? Didn't think so. You are making judgements
just like you accuse everyone else of doing.


And you WERE at the autopsy and saw these extra bullet holes in JFK's
back, eh? That's funny, I didn't think you were there. Guess I was wrong.

So, being an Anybody-But-Oswald kook, you think it gives you free reign
to dismiss gobs of official stuff (like the autopsy report and the pictures)
in order for you to believe in an extra bullet hole in JFK that has never once
been documented by ANYBODY (not even Sibert and O'Neill). Right, kook?



The bullet that entered the front come out above the back of the
collar (shirt/jacket).


Oh, I see. How convenient. I wonder how a bullet EXITING from the spot
of blood seen underneath the one real wound in this picture below
managed to NOT go through either JFK's shirt or coat jacket? (Another
crazy zig-zagging bullet I guess, huh?).....

Oh, that's right! That picture is a "fake". I forgot that!

I wonder, then, why this same kook named Robert said this just

"Check out numerous sources, including the autopsy photos.
You'll see a small entry wound in JFK's right back area."

But now, today, the same kook said this:

"They altered the photos and X-rays."

Nice and contradictory, huh? So, one day the kook is RELYING on the
autopsy photos to prove his assertion of a second hole in JFK's back,
but 24 hours later the kook is claiming the photos are "altered".

Tomorrow, the kook will say: "Well, uh, only SOME of the pictures were
altered. I didn't mean ALL of them were faked/altered. The ones that I
think prove conspiracy were not altered."

You make this too easy, Rob. You DO realize that, right?


Learn the facts!


That's kinda like saying this to Babe Ruth:

"Learn to hit some home runs, you slob!"


It is still an extra wound. Where did it come from Davy? You are not
addressing that because you can't.


Rob The Kook has taken the words "back" and "neck" and has created a
"second wound" on the back of John Kennedy's body.

Hint to Rob: Those words were used interchangeably by many people when
describing where on JFK's body the ONE bullet hole resided. But nobody,
at ANY time, ever hinted that there was more than ONE bullet hole in the
back/neck of President Kennedy (again, not even Sibert or O'Neill).

You, however, being a Mega-Kook, can't evaluate this "back" vs. "neck"
terminology correctly. You want to think these people were talking
about one "back" wound and a separate "neck" bullet hole.

Of course, as can easily be determined in ANY of the documents and the
testimony of witnesses/doctors and the various reports (including the
AUTOPSY REPORT), these people who used the two words in tandem ("back"
and "neck") were talking only about ONE SINGLE BULLET HOLE in John F.
Kennedy's upper-back region.

The confusion only exists because of exactly WHERE Kennedy was hit by
Bullet CE399 -- i.e., very near the top of the shoulders, near the
junction of where the upper "back" meets the lower "neck" area
(roughly anyway).

It would have been better if everybody had referred to the wound
location as the "upper back", instead of some referring to the location
as the "neck" or "back of the neck", etc.

But, humans being what they are (i.e., "human"), sometimes things
aren't always laid out in perfect uniform apple-pie order.

David Von Pein
October 2007