NOV. 24, 1963:

NOV. 27, 1963:

JUNE 22, 1964:


NOV. 23, 1966:






On four straight nights in late June of 1967, the CBS Television Network aired a special program entitled "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report", which was an extensive study and re-investigation of the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

During the four-hour probe, CBS interviewed witnesses and evaluated the evidence in the case. CBS even went beyond what the Warren Commission did three years earlier by more accurately re-creating the shooting by firing rifle shots at a moving target from a specially-built 60-foot-high tower (to simulate the height from which assassin Lee Harvey Oswald fired his three shots at JFK from the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas on November 22, 1963).

This CBS "Warren Report" special is a very impressive and well-made program, which dives in-depth into the questions and real evidence surrounding the murders of both John F. Kennedy and Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit.

The entire four-hour documentary program can be viewed below (and HERE). Also included are the original commercials from those four 1967 CBS broadcasts. The "Marlboro Man" ads are fun to see. They will instantly transport you back to the 1960s again.







With respect to the brown paper package that Lee Harvey Oswald was said to have carried into the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of President Kennedy's assassination (November 22, 1963), CBS-TV reporter Dan Rather performed a very interesting re-enactment for the CBS viewing audience during the first segment of the four-hour CBS special.

Mr. Rather shows the TV audience a brown homemade paper package, which Rather tells us contains a dismantled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle just like Lee Oswald's. Mr. Rather confirms the length of the rifle inside his re-created package as 34.8 inches, the exact length of Oswald's disassembled Carcano, which was a rifle found by police on the sixth floor of the Book Depository 52 minutes after JFK's assassination.

It's true that Rather could not put the re-created package under his armpit while it was also cupped in his hand. But it struck me as interesting that only a small portion of the bag (only a very few inches of the top of the bag) was sticking out above Rather's shoulder when he started to walk away from the CBS camera with the package cupped in his hand (the same way that witness Buell Wesley Frazier said Oswald had cupped the so-called "curtain rod" package in his hand back in 1963).

Unless someone was paying very close attention (which Frazier testified he wasn't), the few inches of that paper package sticking above the shoulder of the person carrying it could easily have gone unnoticed by a witness.


Concerning the initial "Mauser" rifle identification made by the Dallas police in 1963, Dallas Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman offers up the following verbatim comments for the CBS cameras:

SEYMOUR WEITZMAN -- "Mr. Boone was climbing on top and I was down on my knees looking. And I moved a box and he moved a carton, and there it was. And he, in turn, hollered we had found the rifle."

EDDIE BARKER (CBS NEWS) -- "What kind of gun did you think it was?"

WEITZMAN -- "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser, which I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a glance, I saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came out as words it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian type gun. But from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I saw, was at a glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my statement was a mistake; but it was an honest mistake."


At the end of Part 1 of the four-part series, Walter Cronkite summarizes for the viewing audience the conclusions of CBS News with respect to the key questions being explored in Part 1:

CRONKITE -- "We have shown, by carefully-controlled experiments, that a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle CAN be fired more rapidly and accurately than the [Warren] Commission believed.

"Now these points strengthen the Warren Report's basic finding. They make it MORE likely that Oswald shot the President. They significantly weaken a central contention of the critics....their contention that Oswald could NOT have done it because he did not have enough time to fire.

"It is now reasonable to assume that the first shot, fired through a tree, missed its mark....and that it was this shot that Governor Connally heard. The Governor has insisted all along that he was not struck by the first shot. It now appears he was correct. Now we can answer all our secondary questions ---

"Did Oswald own a rifle? .... He did.

"Did Oswald take a rifle to the Book Depository Building? .... He did.

"Where was Oswald when the shots were fired? .... In the building, on the sixth floor.

"Was Oswald's rifle fired from the building? .... It was.

"How many shots were fired? .... Three.

"How fast could Oswald's rifle be fired? .... Fast enough.

"What was the time span of the shots? .... Seven or eight seconds.

"Did Lee Harvey Oswald shoot President Kennedy? .... CBS News concludes that he did."


In Part 2 of the CBS "Warren Report" broadcast, famed amateur filmmaker
Abraham Zapruder was interviewed from Dealey Plaza. Mr. Zapruder offered up these comments:

ZAPRUDER -- "I'm not a ballistic expert, but I believe if there were shots that were coming by my right ear, I would hear a different sound. I heard shots coming from--I wouldn't know which direction to say--but it was proven from the Texas Book Depository. And they all sounded alike; there was no different sound at all."


Dr. Cyril Wecht is also interviewed during Part 2, and somewhat surprisingly provides these remarks regarding President Kennedy's head movement after the fatal shot struck JFK:

DR. WECHT -- "I have seen too many biological and physical variations occur in forensic pathology to say that it would have been impossible. I say that it is quite unlikely; I say that it is difficult for me to accept....but I would have to admit that it is a possibility that his body could have moved in that direction after having been struck by a bullet that hit him in the back of the head."


In his first interview since his 1964 Warren Commission testimony, JFK's primary autopsy physician, Dr. James J. Humes, vividly describes President Kennedy's head wounds to Dan Rather and the CBS audience:

DAN RATHER -- "About the head wound....there was only one?"

DR. HUMES -- "There was only one entrance wound in the head; yes, sir."

RATHER -- "And that was where?"

DR. HUMES -- "That was posterior, about two-and-a-half centimeters to the right of the mid-line posteriorly."

RATHER -- "And the exit wound?"

DR. HUMES -- "And the exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head."

RATHER -- "Now can you be absolutely certain that the wound you describe as the entry wound was in FACT that?"

DR. HUMES -- "Yes, indeed, we can. Very precisely and incontrovertibly. The missile traversed the skin and then traversed the bony skull....and as it passed through the skull it produced a characteristic coning or bevelling effect on the inner aspect of the skull. Which is scientific evidence that the wound was made from behind and passed forward through the President's skull."

RATHER -- "This is very important....you say there's scientific evidence....is it conclusive scientific evidence?"

DR. HUMES -- "Yes, sir; it is."

RATHER -- "Is there any doubt that the wound at the back of the President's head was the entry wound?"

DR. HUMES -- "There is absolutely no doubt, sir."


Regarding the controversial Single-Bullet Theory, Walter Cronkite provides these words of logic and common sense:

CRONKITE -- "If all three shots hit, then one of them would have had to pass through the President's neck, emerge at 1,800 feet per second, headed on a downward path toward the midst of the Presidential car and the six people in it, and vanish in mid-air, hitting nothing, and leaving no mark. Well, this was more than the Commission could stomach. Despite its own words, the Single-Bullet Theory IS essential to its findings. ....

"Our own view on the evidence is that it is difficult to believe the Single-Bullet Theory. But, to believe the other theories is even MORE difficult. If the Governor's wounds were caused by a separate bullet, then we must believe that a bullet passed through the President's neck, emerged at high velocity on a course that was taking it directly into the middle of the automobile, and then vanished without a trace.

"Or, we can complicate matters even further--as some do--by adding a second assassin, who fires almost simultaneously with Oswald and whose bullet travels miraculously a trajectory identical with Oswald's and that second assassin, too, vanishes without a trace.

"Difficult to believe as the Single-Bullet Theory may be, it seems to be the LEAST difficult of all those that are available. In the end, like the Commission, we are persuaded that a single bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally."


The man who first discovered the "Stretcher Bullet" at Parkland Memorial Hospital (Warren Commission Exhibit 399), Darrell Tomlinson, was interviewed by CBS. Tomlinson said the following:

QUESTION -- "As you think back, is there any doubt in your mind today that the stretcher on which you found that bullet was the stretcher that came off of the elevator?"

DARRELL C. TOMLINSON -- "Well, I know that. THAT I know. I just don't know who was on that stretcher."

QUESTION -- "But the stretcher WAS on the elevator?"

TOMLINSON -- "Right."

QUESTION -- "And this was the elevator that Governor Connally would have been placed on to go to the operating room?"

TOMLINSON -- "Yes, sir; that's the one he went up on."


Governor John Connally was interviewed by Eddie Barker about the events in Dallas:

GOVERNOR CONNALLY -- "The only way that I could ever reconcile my memory of what happened and what occurred, with respect to the One-Bullet Theory is....it HAD to be the SECOND bullet that might have hit us both."

EDDIE BARKER -- "Do you believe, Governor Connally, that the first bullet could have missed, the second one hit both of you, and the third one hit President Kennedy?"

CONNALLY -- "That's possible. That's possible."


With respect to the 11/22/63 murder of policeman J.D. Tippit in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff, witness Domingo Benavides was interviewed by Eddie Barker at the Tippit murder site on Tenth Street during Part 3 of the CBS broadcast. Benavides, in this 1967 interview, now seemed absolutely certain that Lee Harvey Oswald was Tippit's killer:

EDDIE BARKER -- "Is there any doubt in your mind that Oswald was the man you had seen shoot Tippit?"

DOMINGO BENAVIDES -- "No, sir; there was no doubt at all. Period. I could even tell you how he combed his hair and the clothes he wore and what-have-you and the details....and if he'd had a scar on his face, I could have probably told you about it. You don't forget things like that."


In the 4th and final segment of "The Warren Report", we're treated to these delightful comments by Walter Cronkite concerning lawyer and "Rush To Judgment" author Mark Lane (which are remarks that always make me smile, as Walter tells it like it is):

CRONKITE -- "Well, Mr. Lane, who accuses the [Warren] Commission of playing fast and loose with the evidence does not always allow facts to get in the way of his own theories. In 'Rush To Judgment', for example, he writes, 'The statements of eyewitnesses close to the President tended to confirm the likelihood that the shot came from the right and not from the rear'.

"Well, Lane then quotes Associated Press photographer James Altgens and another eyewitness, Charles Brehm, as giving testimony that would support the idea of a killer on the Grassy Knoll.

"Yet Mr. Altgens, as we saw Monday night, is entirely certain that all the shots came from behind, a fact that Mr. Lane does not mention. As for Mr. Brehm, Eddie Barker discovered that he holds no brief either for the Grassy Knoll theory or for the use of his words by Mark Lane." ....

CHARLES BREHM -- "Mark Lane takes very great liberties with adding to my quotation. I never said that any shot came from here [pointing toward the Grassy Knoll] like I was quoted by Mr. Lane. Mr. Lane would like me to have positively identified what I saw fly over here as skull....although I told him I could not [identify it]....I did not examine [it]....I thought it was....but I could not. So, he has added his interpretations to what I said, and consequently that's where the story comes from that I said that a shot come [sic] from up there [pointing toward the Knoll again]. No shot came from up there [the Knoll] at any time during the whole fiasco that afternoon."


Eric Sevareid of CBS News provided a very interesting and insightful commentary near the end of Part 4 of "The Warren Report" documentary:

ERIC SEVAREID -- "What fed the conspiracy notion about the Kennedy assassination among many Americans was the sheer incongruity of the affair. All that power and majesty wiped out in an instant by one skinny, weak-chinned little character. It was like believing that the Queen Mary had sunk without a trace because of a log floating somewhere in the Atlantic. Or that AT&T stock had fallen to zero because a drunk somewhere tore out his telephone wires. ....

"And so, three-and-a-half years later, there are people who still think some group of men are living somewhere carrying in their breasts the most explosive secret conceivable....knowledge of a plot to kill Mr. Kennedy.

"These imagined men supposedly go about their lives under iron self-discipline, never falling out with each other, never giving out a hint of suspicion to anyone else.

"And nearly three years after the Warren inquiry finished its painful and onerous work, there are not only the serious critics who point to the various mistakes of commission or omission....mistakes of a consequence one can only guess at, and of a kind that have probably plagued every lengthy, voluminous official investigation ever staged. There are also people who think the Commission itself was a conspiracy to cover up something.

"In the first place, it would be utterly impossible in the American arena of the fierce and free press and politics to conceal a conspiracy among so many individuals who live in the public eye.

"In the second place, the deepest allegiance of men like Chief Justice Warren, or of John McCloy, does not lie with any president, political party, or current cause. It lies with history....their name and place in history. That is all they live for in their later years.

"If they knowingly suppressed or distorted decisive evidence about such an event as a Presidential murder, their descendants would bear accursed names forever. The notion that they would do such a thing is idiotic."

Well said, Mr. Sevareid. Very well said.





Below is a radio interview with Dr. Robert Nelson McClelland, who was one of several physicians who attempted to save the life of President John F. Kennedy at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, Texas, after the President was shot by an assassin's bullets in downtown Dallas on November 22, 1963.

This interview with Dr. McClelland, which was conducted in late 2009 by Canadian broadcaster Brent Holland, I believe is one of the very best and most revealing interviews that has ever been recorded with any of the Parkland Hospital doctors who were involved in treating the gravely wounded President Kennedy on that terrible day in Dallas in 1963.

Many interesting and rarely-heard tidbits of information are revealed by Dr. McClelland during this insightful 1-hour, 20-minute interview.

I disagree with everything Dr. McClelland has to say regarding his belief in a conspiracy surrounding President Kennedy's assassination, but this interview is still a fascinating glimpse into the thoughts of one of the few people in the world who had a first-hand look at JFK immediately after he was gunned down on Elm Street in Dallas.

Here's the complete interview:





Here is a lively debate about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The debate features well-known conspiracy theorist Mark Lane going head-to-head against three defenders of the official Warren Commission Report, including Warren Commission assistant counsel member Joseph A. Ball.

This audio-only program runs for more than 2 hours and took place at Beverly Hills High School in California on December 4, 1964, which was just 10 weeks after the Warren Report was released to the public.

I totally disagree with virtually everything Mark Lane has to say about his beliefs in a conspiracy to kill JFK, and I vehemently disagree with Lane's comment about the Warren Commission Report being a "fraud from the first page to the last page", but I will say that I thoroughly enjoyed listening to this 1964 debate.
Mr. Lane can, indeed, put on a good show. And he does here.

At the conclusion of the program, some of the audience members are interviewed and give their opinions about the debate they had just witnessed.

Ray Marcus, Len Osanic, and Black Op Radio.


Excerpt from Mark Lane's 12/4/64
debate against Joseph Ball:

Just take note of the despicable deception that Mark Lane attempts to get away with in the above audio excerpt. Two prime examples:

1.) Lane doesn't consider William Scoggins to be an adequate eyewitness to J.D. Tippit's murder at all. He doesn't even count Scoggins as a "Tippit Murder Witness" because of the fact there was a bush between Scoggins and Tippit's murderer (Oswald). Joe Ball nicely corrects Lane's deception and tries to exhibit some common sense when evaluating Scoggins' testimony.

2.) Re: Oswald's rifle purchase: Lane totally ignores Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which verifies that Rifle C2766 was sent to Oswald's PO Box in Dallas. Ball again sets Liar Lane straight.

Why is it that many conspiracy theorists refuse to exhibit the slightest bit of ordinary, average common sense when evaluating this very simple murder case (both the JFK killing and Tippit's too)?

As most conspiracists do, Mark Lane harps on the fact that the assassination rifle wasn't the exact model ordered by Oswald...which is, indeed, a fact. But Lane then totally ignores (or discounts as "fake" evidently) the crucial document unearthed by Klein's Sporting Goods within just hours of the assassination--Waldman #7, which proves that on March 13, 1963, Klein's processed an order they received from "A. Hidell" of Dallas, Texas; with Waldman 7 further proving for all eternity that Klein's then shipped the eventual assassination weapon (Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766) to Hidell/Oswald on March 20th.

Waldman #7, in effect, renders Lane's argument about Klein's sending the wrong model to Oswald totally meaningless and moot. For, why does it matter what model Oswald actually ordered? The key is: What rifle did Oswald/"Hidell" ultimately end up receiving from Klein's? And the answer to that rests in Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which the "Anybody But Oswald" nuts like Mark Lane have no choice but to pretend is a fake and fraudulent document (sans a speck of evidence to prove such a charge).

David Von Pein
September 20, 2012




(PART 52)


>>> "He [David Belin] must get a big laugh out of this in private
times!" <<<


He's dead, you kook. He died in 1999.

But before he passed away, he wrote a darn good 521-page Warren
Commission extension entitled "NOVEMBER 22, 1963: YOU ARE THE JURY".

>>> "Anyone with a trace of common sense wouldn't believe a word
the WCR said, due to their track record." <<<

Spoken by a clueless kook who seems to be implying that there WAS a
"WC Track Record" BEFORE the WC.

Gotta love that one. At least its novel in its kookiness.

>>> "You probably don't even know the origin of the word
FUCK, do you?" <<<

I'm satisfied just using it in posts to you occasionally. Fuck its
origin. ;)

>>> "VB uses kook all the time." <<<

Well, no, he really doesn't. Vince prefers "zanies", I think. But his
term "zanies" in his book chapter using that exact word actually
applies not to kooks like Robcap, Walt, Ben, and the assorted Internet
nuts and CT convention attendees....but refers, instead, to people
like Jean Hill and Ed Hoffman and Gordon Arnold.

But when it comes to kooks like the people on useless Internet Forums
like this one (and Debra Conway's tripe-filled Lancer site), Vince normally
opts for the more benign and softer terms "Warren Commission critics"
and "conspiracy theorists".

Bugliosi rarely calls you kooks "kooks", though. He leaves that to Bud
and me. ;) ;) ;) ;)

>>> "...But no one ever said LNers could think for themselves." <<<

And no one ever said rabid conspiracy-thirsty kooks could....think.

>>> "As the Chinese proverb said, "The first step of the journey is always the hardest." " <<<

Another Chinese proverb goes like this....

"Foolish man gives wife Grand Piano,
Wise man gives wife Upright Organ."

And here's one that I just penned this minute:

"Some men see things as they are and say 'Why?';
Conspiracy kooks dream things that never were and say 'It was planted'."

David Von Pein
November 2007


(PART 51)


Truth hurts, doesn't it?


It doesn't hurt me. But it makes you conspiracy clowns turn all
colors. (Mostly yellow.)


I personally think the photos were faked.


Despite the HSCA's detailed examination of the autopsy photos, the
autopsy X-rays, and the "backyard" photos, which has the HSCA giving
ALL of that stuff a clean bill of "UNALTERED" health. Right, kook?

That must mean a SECOND Government body (the HSCA) was full of nothing
but liars and WC shills too. Right, kook? .....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that
they had not been altered in any manner."
-- HSCA; Volume VII

"The backyard photographs [CE 133-A and B] are authentic. ....
The rifle in the backyard photographs is probably the rifle found in
the Texas School Book Depository."
-- HSCA; Volume VI




There is a core to this case...


You bet there is. And that "core" is this:

Lee Harvey Oswald (a non-patsy) shot and killed two men, all by
himself and with his own weapons, in November 1963. .....

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the most complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history. Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation."
-- Vincent Bugliosi


...And then there are outside issues as well.


Sure, in a kook's mind, there are "outside" issues. But that's where
those "outside" issues begin and that's, of course, where they end.
They certainly don't belong in the box marked "reality".


If he [Saint Oswald] was guilty in the shootings, I would point a finger...


No you wouldn't. Because you love the "He Was An Innocent Patsy" idea
too much.

And it's obvious you won't ever point a finger at a guilty Oswald, because
that's exactly what we've had (a guilty Oswald) for 44 years now.


...But he [LHO The Great] didn't shoot anyone, and you have no real proof he did.


I've got so much proof that Oswald killed two human beings on 11/22/63,
it would (as I've said previously) make a prosecutor's mouth water.

There's so much stuff on the table against LHO, the prosecutor at that
trial (had there been one) could have PHONED IN his case against your
beloved patsy and still gotten a conviction. The defense would have
been embarrassed to show up at the courthouse (unless the lead
attorney was the late Johnnie Cochran).

A lawyer like Cochran, of course, would probably have been telling the
jury, without a granule of proof mind you, that four or five different
Mausers had been found in the Book Depository and that Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano had merely been "planted" there by evil, unnamed

And, just like most conspiracy nuts tend to do, the Cochran-like
attorney would have, as Vince Bugliosi has said, "[leaped] from the
most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions".

David Von Pein
November 2007


(PART 50)


>>> "What if it is someone you love or is a friend next time? No proof, just shoot them." <<<


In what post did I endorse Ruby shooting Oswald? I must have missed
the post where I endorsed that murder. Can you point it out to me, Mr.

>>> "It isn't evidence in the true sense until it withstands a cross-[examination], so he [LHO] was as innocent as you." <<<

Try telling that to J.D. Tippit's widow and J.D.'s three kids. (Their
names, btw, are Charles Allen, Brenda Kay, and Curtis Glenn. Your
hero named Lee, who can never be declared "Guilty" according to your
insane kookbook, killed their father.)

>>> "The fact that he [John Wilkes Booth] was seen shooting Lincoln makes the two not even remotely the same thing. .... He was seen doing the deed and seen jumping to the stage. No one saw LHO do anything." <<<

Nobody saw Lee Oswald do anything on November 22nd....except:

Murder JFK (Brennan).

Murder Tippit (Markham, Scoggins, Benavides, Tatum).

Flee the scene of Tippit's murder (Callaway, Davis, Davis, Reynolds,
Patterson, Russell, Lewis, Brock).

And attempt to shoot more policemen in the Texas Theater (Brewer,
McDonald, Hill, Walker, and many other DPD officers).

Sinking ever deeper into the CT abyss is Robcap. The following
ridiculous/ludicrous statements from his e-lips (culled from JUST his
last post) prove that fact about the abyss-sinking without too much

"It is faked and the WC pointed out itself how fake it is with
their lame claims. Most of them make no sense."
--- (The kook
thinks the WC was being too hard on his double-murdering pal named
Lee Harvey. Or was "Lee Harvey" really "Harvey" on November 22nd?
Only their hairdressers and handlers know for sure. And a kook named
Rob too, of course.)

"The bullets in this case are the craziest in history." --- (The
kook, for some idiotic reason, thinks that the Mannlicher-Carcano
bullet that penetrated John Kennedy's skull at full speed was obliged
to STAY ON THE EXACT SAME TRAJECTORY LINE after hitting the hard bones
of JFK's skull. Go figure.)

"We don't just arrest people and then shoot them with no trial
in America."
--- (Spoken by the kook as if Ruby was part of the "We"
in that statement, instead of Ruby being the type of person he
actually was, i.e., exactly the type of person who might want to take
justice into his own hands, as well as being the type of person who
could have easily wormed his way into the DPD basement on Sunday
morning, without being frisked by his police friends, to perform his
deed at 11:21 AM that day.)

"No one saw LHO do anything." --- (This quote is the prize in
Rob's package of kookshit from his last hilarious post.)

"No one saw LHO do anything." --- (Deserving of an instant
replay, due to its hilarity...and its blatant incorrectness.)

David Von Pein
November 14, 2007

(PART 49)


>>> "Roger Craig testified that LHO mentioned the station wagon (they said car) belonged to Ruth Paine..." <<<


You'd better go back to school and read Roger Craig's Warren
Commission testimony, wherein he told the Commission on April 1st,
1964, that it was CAPTAIN FRITZ (not Oswald) who FIRST MENTIONED THE
WORDS "STATION WAGON". This contradicts the story Craig would be
telling later, such as in the "Two Men In Dallas" video program. .....

DAVID BELIN -- "What did Captain Fritz say and what did you say and
what did the suspect [Lee Oswald] say?"

ROGER D. CRAIG -- "Captain Fritz then asked him about the---uh---he
said, "What about this station wagon?" And the suspect interrupted him
and said, "That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine"---I believe is
what he said. "Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do
with it." And--uh--Captain Fritz then told him, as close as I can
remember, that, "All we're trying to do is find out what happened, and
this man saw you leave from the scene." And the suspect again
interrupted Captain Fritz and said, "I told you people I did." And--
uh--yeah--then, he said--then he continued and he said, "Everybody
will know who I am now."


I will admit that the above section of Roger Craig's 1964 WC testimony
is virtually identical (in most respects) to Craig's later accounts of
what allegedly took place in Captain Fritz' office on 11/22/63....all
EXCEPT the "station wagon" remarks. Craig told the WC that it was,
indeed, Fritz who FIRST brought up the subject of the station wagon,
and not Oswald.

And if Deputy Craig's Warren Commission testimony is accurate (and it
was testimony being given just a little over four months after the
assassination itself), Fritz allegedly (per Craig) used the words
"station wagon" and not merely "car" during the interrogation session
with Oswald. That's not what Craig would be saying years later however.

BTW, here's a portion of the June 1964 affidavit that was filled out
by Will Fritz (wherein he mentions the fact that he doesn't "remember
anything about Lee Harvey Oswald jumping up or making any remarks or
gestures to this man [Craig] or to me at this time, and had I brought
this officer into my inner office I feel sure that I would remember

"I don't remember the name Roger Craig, but I do remember a man
coming into my outer office and I remember one of my officers calling
me outside the door of my private office. I talked to this man for a
minute or two, and he started telling me a story about seeing Oswald
leaving the building.

"I don't remember all the things that this man said, but I
turned him over to Lt. Baker who talked to him. Lee Harvey Oswald was
in my office at this time. I don't remember anything about Lee Harvey
Oswald jumping up or making any remarks or gestures to this man or to
me at this time, and had I brought this officer into my inner office I
feel sure that I would remember it.

"There were other officers in [my] inner office at the time, and
I have found no one who knows about the remarks that you have asked
-- Signed, J.W. Fritz (June 9, 1964)


A related note about Craig and Oswald:

I find this statement attributed to Oswald by Craig to be completely
out of character with what Oswald was saying to the press and to the
live television audience on the VERY SAME DAY (per Roger Craig) ---
"Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."

That's a very interesting "admission", of sorts, by Lee Oswald. (If
we're to believe that LHO ever said it in the first place, that is.)

It's an "admission" in the sense that Oswald certainly seemed to know,
via that alleged comment, why he was sitting in Captain Fritz' office,
which is totally at odds with ALL of Oswald's first-day (November 22)
comments that he made in front of the TV cameras.

All the way up through the Midnight Press Conference on Friday
night, the calm and cool Oswald continued to say "I DON'T KNOW WHAT

And yet, per Roger Craig, Oswald (at some point PRIOR to that midnight
press gathering) certainly seems to know what the situation is all
about, via the words "this" and "it" in these two sentences ---
"Don't try to tie her into this. She had nothing to do with it."

I can't prove that the above words were never spoken by Lee Oswald.
And I'll admit I can't prove that Roger Craig was never in Fritz'
office. (I've admitted in previous posts, in fact, that Craig might
very well have been in that office with Oswald.)

But one thing is a rock-solid certainty (with or without Oswald's
statements allegedly made in Fritz' office in the alleged presence of
Roger Craig) --- Lee H. Oswald was a liar and a double-murderer. And
no conspiracy theorist alive can ever change those two basic facts.

>>> "Come on Dave, there is no evidence that points to LHO, other than the stuff that was obviously "manufactured" to make him look guilty." <<<

Which would encompass, of course, EVERY LAST PIECE OF PHYSICAL
EVIDENCE IN THE CASE....e.g., all the bullets, all the bullet shells,
all the guns (the MC rifle and the S&W revolver), the empty paper bag
with Oswald's prints on it, the other prints of LHO's that indicate he
handled both the Carcano AND the boxes that were used to construct the
Sniper's Nest, the fibers in the paper bag, and the fibers stuck in
the Carcano's butt plate.

Every bit of that stuff was "manufactured", eh?

If you believe that all of that evidence is fake, I've got a "K" word
that's just itching to be re-typed on my keyboard.

>>> "The death certificate, autopsy report and the WC said he [JFK] died "from high velocity bullets" and we all know the M-C is a low velocity carbine." <<<

Technically-speaking, the "low-velocity" statement is true. And the
FBI's Robert Frazier even acknowledged that very fact in his Warren
Commission testimony. But he also acknowledged something else,
which is just as important (if not more important):

"This [Carcano] has a low velocity, but has very adequate
killing power with reference to humans, because it is an established
military weapon."
-- Robert A. Frazier; FBI Firearms Expert


>>> "There is a poor chain of custody. .... The defense team would have ripped all of this [LHO-Did-It evidence] to shreds. .... Look at all the "evidence" they had on LHO and all of it could be shown to be planted with very good certainty for the jury." <<<

This is complete bullshit.

Only in the "courtroom" of your own conspiracy-infested mind could
such a thing happen, or even be suggested as having actually happened.
Because a jury that includes some people with a few brains in their
heads (the O.J. jury is excluded because of this prerequisite) knows
that it takes a LITTLE more than just some nutcase defense lawyer (or
a conspiracy-loving kook typing continuous strands of unsupportable
bullshit into his computer) to "prove" that evidence in a murder case
has been mishandled.

Moreover, it's going to take a whole lot more than what CTers have
offered up to date as proof of evidence-planting to convince a
reasonable jury that evidence WAS, in fact, planted at the various
MULTIPLE crime scenes associated with John F. Kennedy's murder.

Such extraordinary allegations suggesting such highly unlikely covert
activity require equally EXTRAORDINARY PROOF to support the notion
that such planting actually did occur in the JFK case.

A kook who has a feeling or an inkling that something's not quite
right with a huge amount of evidence in a particular case is not going
to get very far with a good and reasonable jury.

At some point in time, the kook who is spouting "It's all planted and
fake!" is going to have to (as Vince Bugliosi likes to say) pay the
piper. At some point, the kook is going to have to step up to the

And, thus far, the CTers in the "Everything Was Planted" club haven't
PROVED that a single piece of evidence in the JFK case was planted.
The kooks only have their suspicions and inklings.

Is an inkling equal to proof? Last time I checked, those two words
are not even close to being synonymous. But to certain CTers, the two
words are apparently identical in meaning.

And, btw, "mishandling" evidence is a long, long way from "planting"
it. Perhaps certain conspiracy theorists in the "Everything Was
Planted" club should learn the significant difference between those
two words as well.

David Von Pein
November 2007


(PART 48)


>>> "But the ID of the gun was done by Weitzman and Fritz, not Craig, so he was simply repeating what he was told - that they found a Mauser before they located the MC!!" <<<


Please quote Weitzman or Fritz saying that they saw the words "7.65
Mauser" stamped on the rifle.

The only person who ever said that was your hero--the wonderful, ever-
truthful Roger Dean Craig.

And there was never a SECOND rifle found on the sixth floor (or the
fifth floor), Mr. Kook.

>>> "Others have stated a Mauser was found also, it was obviously being hidden from us." <<<

Yeah, either that or maybe the officers who offered up the kneejerk
initial comments about the Carcano being a Mauser were incorrect in
that kneejerk initial reaction AND SAID SO LATER ON (which they
did....except for your pal Mr. Craig, of course). But, I guess Roger
was the only truthful one in the bunch, huh?

>>> "How about all the lies the WC told or the lies they made witnesses tell." <<<

How about you proving to the masses that the Warren Commission
"lied" and proving that the WC made witnesses lie. Can you do that?
Should I hold my breath waiting for your proof to support both of
those idiotic contentions?

>>> "What did he [Oswald] lie about?" <<<

Good God. How can anyone be this stupid?

Here's a Starter List of 39 Oswald lies (there are plenty more too).

>>> "That is because he [LHO] was innocent..." <<<

And nuns can fly too.

It's nice believing in fantasies, ain't it?

>>> "Wouldn't you deny killing two people?" <<<

Sure I would. Because I didn't kill two people in Dallas in 1963.
Lee Harvey Oswald, on the other hand, did kill two people. And
denying guilt after a killer has been caught is certainly not
uncommon. In fact, it's expected.

>>> "That is why the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he did these crimes, and based on what I have read, they didn't stand a chance." <<<

That's because you are buried in pro-conspiracy books and theories and
you cannot evaluate and assess information properly.

And then there's the fact that you're an Anybody-But-Oswald kook too.
That doesn't exactly help your case either.

>>> "There are no positives in this case Dave, period." <<<

I'm positive you're a Mega-Kook. (Does that count?)

>>> "Two witnesses beyond Craig said he [Rambler Man] looked like LHO's twin. Sounds suspicious to me." <<<

Not to a reasonable non-kook who can assess information properly
(and chronologically). Oswald was proven to be ELSEWHERE at the
time when Craig places him in a Rambler at 12:40. Maybe Elizabeth
Montgomery and her mother, Endora, whipped up a second Oswald
at just the right moment, huh? Why not try that "Bewitched" theory.
It should work as well as all your other kooky ones have.

>>> "Why did LHO reference Ruth's car? What made him mention that?" <<<

There's no corroboration whatsoever (beyond your hero named Roger)
that Oswald said any such thing in Captain Fritz' office.

Plus, as has been pointed out to you several times now, the station
wagons don't mesh -- i.e., Craig is sure he saw a "Nash Rambler"; Mrs.
Paine owned a different model station wagon.

So if you want to believe Craig AND Oswald in this "station wagon"
regard, how is it that Oswald was able to get into a "Rambler" owned
by Ruth Paine when Paine didn't own a Rambler at all?

>>> "The testimony of the cab driver is shaky..." <<<


William W. Whaley positively placed Lee Oswald in his cab.

Why not try reading some of the things these witnesses ACTUALLY SAID,
instead of trying to place this huge cloud of DOUBT and MYSTERY over
the whole case?

And believing that every witness who gave incriminating testimony
against LHO was being coerced or forced into so doing is just plain
stupid. But, being a kook, you probably believe that William Whaley
was telling a lie in his testimony shown below, right Mr. K?.....

Mr. BELIN. Was the man in connection with the Ruby matter with the two
detectives, did it have his name in the paper as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Was his name in the paper then when you saw his picture?

Mr. WHALEY. Well, I don't think they had it that way. I think they
just had it Oswald. I am not sure what they had under it. I am not for
sure, but I did see the picture.

Mr. BELIN. Was that the same man you carried in your cab on Friday?

Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Was that the man you identified at the police station?

Mr. WHALEY. Yes, sir.


>>> "And except for a bus pass there is nothing tying LHO to the bus either." <<<

Bullshit (again).

Mary E. Bledsoe (do you know who she was?) ..... she KNEW OSWALD ON
SIGHT, and she was on the same bus Oswald boarded at about 12:40 on
11/22/63. Bledsoe had rented a room to Oswald just one month prior to
the assassination, and after one week she, in effect, kicked him out,
because she didn't like him. So she HAD A REASON TO NOTICE WHO HE WAS

Is Mary telling tales out of school here too, Robby? (These are
excerpts from Bledsoe's 11/23/63 official affidavit.).....

"Last Friday, November 22, 1963, I went downtown to see the
President. .... I walked over to Elm Street and caught a bus to go
home. The bus traveled West on Elm Street to about Murphy Street and
made a stop and that is when I saw Lee Oswald get on the bus. .... Due
to the heavy traffic, Oswald got off the bus and I didn't see him
again. I know this man was Lee Oswald because he lived in my home from
October 7, 1963 to October 14, 1963."

Mrs. Mary E. Bledsoe


>>> "Now, it may have happened as Harvey needed to leave and couldn't drive..." <<<

Harvey Korman from "The Carol Burnett Show"? I love him! He's
hilarious. (But not nearly as funny as a kook named Robert Caprio,

>>> "Lee could have gotten into the Rambler." <<<

Oh goodie! An Armstrong-like, made-up-from-bullshit "Double Oswald"
007 plot! I love these!

>>> "Lee was the violent one according to the researchers who have studied this." <<<

And "Harvey" was just a....rabbit....right? He'd never even hurt Jimmy
Stewart, right? (Correct me if I've got it wrong. I'd hate to spoil a
kook's fantasy by getting something askew here.)

>>> "The problem with bus transfers is they can be planted..." <<<

Of course. And so can guns, and shells, and fingerprints, and
stretcher bullets, and paper bags, and everything else east of the
Rockies in order to frame poor innocent Lee. Or is it "Harvey" being
framed today? I forget.

Or maybe we're back to Korman again. Or perhaps Jerry Lewis and Keenan
Wynn, two of the stars of this fine feature flick (which would have
been an ideal motion-picture vehicle for Patsy Oswald too).

>>> "Anyone could have bought that transfer and linked it to LHO, just like the gun and the alias card." <<<

And the shells in the Sniper's Nest [SN], and the shells on 10th Street,
and the revolver in Oswald's pocket, and CE399 in Parkland Hospital,
and the two large bullet fragments found in the front seat of the limo
(which, like CE399, were linked to LHO's MC rifle to the exclusion of every
other weapon ever made), and the LHO prints on the two boxes in the
SN, and the LHO palmprint on the MC rifle, and the order form for the
MC rifle (which was in LHO's handwriting), and the money order for the
MC rifle (which was in LHO's handwriting)....


The clothing fibers wedged in the butt plate of the MC rifle (which
matched LHO's arrest shirt), and the paper bag found in the SN, and
the two LHO prints on the paper bag found in the SN, and the fibers
found inside the paper bag which matched the blanket in Paine's
garage, and the jacket that Oswald shed on Nov. 22 (if the Texaco
jacket wasn't his, whose was it and where did LHO's jacket disappear
to at the very same time?), and the backyard photographs (which Marina
admitted to taking, one of which turned up among George
DeMohrenschildt's possessions in 1977 with LHO's signature on the
back, which was proven to be the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald)....


Oswald's own guilty-like actions were probably just a clever "ruse"
too. LHO was probably given some kind of "I FEEL LIKE ACTING LIKE A
GUILTY PERSON" drug by the plotters before noon on November 22nd, so
that he would go around Dallas acting like a guilty person after the
President's murder....


All of the witnesses could have been "coerced" or "bribed" or
"drugged" to tell one "IT WAS OSWALD" lie after another....witnesses
such as Howard Brennan, Helen Markham, Jack Tatum, William Scoggins,
Ted Callaway, Virginia Davis, Barbara Davis, Warren Reynolds, Mary
Brock, Johnny Brewer, Domingo Benavides, and many others.

Whew! That's a lot of Patsy-framing going on there.

Good luck proving all of that stuff above was just a "Patsy-Framing

David Von Pein
November 12, 2007

(PART 47)


>>> "No, it's not idiotic [the "1-Patsy, 3-Gun" assassination plot]. Under the circumstances, it was perfectly understandable." <<<


Oh, come now, my good man.

Such a "1-Patsy" plot that involves THREE gunmen shooting up the joint like a John Wayne Western is just plain retarded! Again...it was a retarded and impossible-to-pull-off type of "plot" in 1963; in 1973; and in 2007.

What in the world does the YEAR have to do with the built-in insanity connected with such an easy-to-figure-out thing?

Answer: Nothing.

A 5-year-old could figure out that such a plot never stood a chance of being successful. And yet, incredibly, Oliver Stone (to quote a line in the movie "JFK") "sold this lemon to the American public".

>>> "As the self-professed reformed conspiracy theorist that
you are..." <<<

I'm going to stop you right there, because I was never a "conspiracy theorist". Never. And I've never once said (in any of my posts or reviews on the Internet) that I was a "reformed conspiracy theorist".

So, I don't know where you got that incorrect information.

To tell you the truth, I wasn't really ANYTHING ("CTer" or "LNer") up to approx. 1986 (which is when I saw Vincent Bugliosi "prosecute" Oswald on TV in London during the "mock" trial on the Showtime cable network).

Even while reading the first JFK book I ever read in 1981 (David S. Lifton's fairy tale, "Best Evidence"), I don't have an independent recollection of really being on the "LN" side vs. the "CT" side at all. I guess I was stuck on the fence; I truly can't remember. But that book got me much more interested in the case than I had been, I know that.

I thank the Maker, though, that I didn't fall into Mr. Lifton's quicksand of "body-altering"/"casket-switching" absurdities.

I'm currently reading William Manchester's book, "The Death Of A President". I was able to find a First Edition copy at Amazon recently. I'd never read the book before. It's really good too. Amazing detail.

>>> "What was your position in 1973?" <<<

I had no "position" at all on the JFK murder in 1973. I was 11 years old. I was much more interested in the Cincinnati Reds' drive toward the N.L. West championship than I was John Fitzgerald Kennedy. (And I still think that the Mets' win over my Reds in the '73 NLCS was a "conspiracy". The Big Red Machine was a much better team than Yogi's Mets that year. But, that's another kettle of fish.)

BTW -- Did you know that the Boston Red Sox (JFK's home territory) had a second baseman named John Kennedy play for them in the 1970s? [See the 1973 Topps baseball card of Kennedy below.]

And get this -- the baseball-playing John Kennedy was born on the exact same day of the year (May 29th) as President Kennedy.

The ballplayer was also the exact same height as the President (6'-0"), and the baseball Kennedy made his big-league debut with...are ya ready?...the Washington Senators (where JFK presided over the country); and his major-league debut occurred in 1962, when JFK was in office on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Kinda reminds you of the "Lincoln-Kennedy coincidences" topic, huh?

If the ballplaying Kennedy's middle name was Frank or Fred, I'd have another amazing co-inky to share. But, he was one letter off for a middle initial--E (Edward). But, of course, JFK's famous brother is named Edward. So, there ya go. (The "May 29" birthdate thing still amazes me. Only a 1 in 365.25 chance of that happening.)

David Von Pein
November 2007