(PART 56)


>>> "Your adamant refusal to consider the alternative perspectives
of sources other than your one "bible" [i.e., Vincent Bugliosi's
"Reclaiming History"]..." <<<


Oh, I've considered several other "sources". And they all pale by comparison to Bugliosi's tome; or to Gerald Posner's; or to Larry Sturdivan's excellent book,
"The JFK Myths"; or to Dale Myers' equally-as-compelling "With Malice".

All of these publications I've mentioned are rooted in one very important thing -- the REAL EVIDENCE in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases. And the 888-page Warren Commission Report is rooted firmly on that same turf. Like it or not.


>>> "...relegates you to the realm of the jesters who see only black or white about what happened that day in Dallas--whether a conspiracy or the SBT--and flaunt their feathers like peacocks in heat at anyone who dares to consider the potential for a gray area." <<<


Nice prose. But it's not changing the fact that every scrap of evidence leads to one wife-beating Marxist loner named "Lee".

And to believe that all (or ANY) of the evidence on the table has been covertly "planted" or manufactured is an extraordinary belief that requires some equally extraordinary proof. (Wouldn't you agree?)

And that proof is.....?

(I won't hold my breath waiting for it.)


>>> "To say that the WCR is rife with fiction is not to wholly endorse the theories of the so-called conspiracy crowd; it is merely to open your eyes, and this report is worthless as a credible explanation of the events of 11/22/63." <<<


Come up with anything else that's more credible (and, just as important, more reasonable). To date, not a thing has come even remotely close.

In fact, the silly unsupportable theories being spewed 24/7 by the conspiracy theorists of the world have made the "Lone Nut" conclusion seem all the more valid, reasonable, doable, and plausible....due to the sheer absurdity of nearly all of the "plots" that have been tossed up against the wall (including Oliver Stone's and Jim Garrison's "3-Gun, 1-Patsy" laughfest).

The only conspiracy plot that's even remotely possible (given the evidence) is one that has Lee Harvey Oswald as a lone gunman in Dealey Plaza (and on Tenth Street for Tippit's murder) and an unseen, non-shooting "plotter(s)" that we currently have no knowledge of (and never will after 44 years, that's pretty much a certainty).

But even that kind of smaller "Oswald And One Other Guy Who Never Fired A Shot" conspiracy scenario is very unlikely, given the type of person Lee Oswald was. He was very much a loner. He shot at General Walker by himself, with no outside conspirators aiding him. And he very likely did the same on November 22nd, 1963.

Plus: If Oswald had had help from a friend, then where the heck was this friend when Lee Harvey needed him the most -- at 12:33 PM on 11/22/63 when Oswald was leaving the Book Depository after having just shot the President?

In that type of hypothetical smaller plot, are we to believe that the other plotter(s) just simply got cold feet and abandoned their pal named Lee when the big moment arrived on November 22nd? That's possible, I suppose....but I'd rather stick with the facts. And those facts (including Oswald's own post-assassination actions, which reek with guilt) undeniably spell out "OSWALD'S ON HIS OWN".

David Von Pein
November 2007


(PART 55)


>>> "Good riddance!" [Referring to David Belin's sudden and accidental death in January 1999.] <<<


How sweet of you.

Do you like to visit local hospitals in order to wax the steps and to
take all the bolts off the wheelchairs too?

>>> "I know he [Belin] is dead, you are the one who brought him and his lame book up, the party scene would have been in 1973/74 after the lame book was released." <<<

Oh, I see. That must be why you used the "present tense" instead of
the "past tense" in your wholly unfunny anecdote involving Mr. Belin.

>>> "Dave, you are dissappointing me." <<<

I'm crushed. Truly.

~~hari-kari commencing~~

I was hoping to never disappoint a CT-Kook. (Imagine THAT ever
occurring. What are the odds?!) ;)

>>> "Their [the Warren Commission's] track record is in the long-winded 26 volumes they left us. Since I know I wasn't reading the report when it came out, it is a track record now and has been for 44 years." <<<

As if Rob's not reading the Warren Report "when it came out" has
anything to do with the price of Carcano bullets in Texas.

I see Rob needs to look up the term "Track Record". .....

"TRACK RECORD" --- "A record of past performance often taken
as an indicator of likely future performance."

I wonder what "past performances" the Warren Commission contributed
to the world that would make anyone want to compose the following

"Anyone with a trace of common sense wouldn't believe a word the
WCR said due to their track record."
-- Rob C.


Just semantics, you say?

Well, maybe. But it appears to be just one more time when Robkook has
skewed something.

>>> "I like zanies better." <<<

"Kook", though, is much better, and more audibly pleasing. ;)

>>> "I prefer Official Theory Buffs for you guys [i.e., people who have some semblance of common sense and who can properly evaluate evidence and testimony]. Playing lawyer with your set of inaccurate data, left by a bunch of old geezers who didn't give a crap about a dead president." <<<

And that extends to the many, many DIFFERENT "old geezers" who
comprised the HSCA too. Right, kook? And the several more "geezers"
who made up the Rockefeller Commission. Right, K-man? And the
four additional (and non-Govt.) Clark Panel "geezers", too. Right?
That's a lot of people "WHO DIDN'T GIVE A CRAP ABOUT A DEAD
PRESIDENT", don't ya think?

>>> "You should keep your wacky thoughts to yourself. Remember, there could be kids reading this stuff." <<<

Oh, yes....those imaginary "lurkers" in three-cornered pants again, eh?

Sorry for speaking the truth, kids. How silly of me.

But, of course, when a conspiracy-happy kook says something like
"Good riddance" when responding to a post informing the kook that
a certain Warren Commission counsel member is dead, I guess the
kook doesn't care about that type of insensitive prose ("Good riddance")
being read by those "kids" who are lurking behind the curtain here at
Google Groups.

Right, Robby?

David Von Pein
November 2007


(PART 54)


>>> "The lack of chain of custody in almost all the evidence makes it very easy to show or suggest very firmly that there was tampering and planting of evidence." <<<


Now, suddenly, "ALMOST ALL THE EVIDENCE" has a lousy chain of custody?

Where did you scrape that crap up from? Is that in another of your
favorite conspiracy books?

I love it! The kooks aren't satisfied with complaining about the
backyard pictures...or CE399...or the two "Poe" shells on 10th Street.
No, no. Suddenly, "ALMOST ALL THE EVIDENCE" has a bad chain of
possession connected to it.

And that would also include (in addition to Bullet CE399, the Backyard
Photographs, and the two bullet cartridge cases that were handed over
to Officer J.M. Poe by witness Domingo Benavides).....

The non-Poe bullet shells on 10th Street.

The three bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest in the TSBD.

The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Serial # C2766).

The Smith & Wesson .38 revolver that Oswald had ON HIM when arrested.

The two front-seat bullet fragments found in the Presidential limousine.

The smaller bullet fragments found in the limousine (which were not
EXCLUDED as having come from Rifle C2766; i.e., they were consistent
with having come from that rifle).

The bullet fragments removed from John Connally's wrist (which, again,
were consistent with WCC/MC bullet lead).

The bullet fragments plucked from JFK's head (which were also consistent
with Mannlicher-Carcano bullet lead).

The bullet lead removed from the inside surface of the limousine's
windshield (which was lead that was found to be "similar in
composition" [Robert Frazier's words] to both Bullet CE399 and the
front-seat bullet fragments).

The bullets plucked from Officer Tippit's body (one of which was said
to be positively from Oswald's gun, per Joseph Nicol).

The autopsy photographs of President Kennedy.

The autopsy X-rays of President Kennedy.

The official autopsy report (which was signed and confirmed by all
three autopsists).

The paper bag in the Sniper's Nest (with LHO's prints on it).

The multiple LHO prints on the boxes in the Sniper's Nest.

The fibers found in the empty paper bag.

The fibers found wedged into the rifle.

The jacket that was found at the Texaco gas station.

The Zapruder Film (which many conspiracy-loving kooks actually think
has been altered in some way, with some of those CT nuts going so
far as to imply that the film has been--get this!--"wholly
fabricated" [verbatim verbiage from the back cover of Jim Fetzer's
book of insanity, "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax"]).

The paper trail of documents that shows that Lee Harvey Oswald
positively ordered and paid for Rifle C2766 and the S&W revolver.*

* = I'm not sure if the kooks really consider these documents "weak"
on the "chain of custody" level. But many kooks certainly do think
that all of the various "A.J. Hidell" documents, in Oswald's own
handwriting, are not to be trusted. It's just one more sign of
"Anybody But Oswald" disease, of course.


Now, for context, after listing the above pieces of physical evidence
that all lead down the "Oswald Did It" path, let me now repeat
Rob's earlier hunk of hilarity (it's even funnier now, after seeing
my list above):

"The lack of chain of custody in almost all the evidence makes
it very easy to show or suggest very firmly that there was tampering
and planting of evidence."

Robby....a net awaits you.

David Von Pein
November 2007
July 2011


(PART 53)


>>> "You can't really prove it based on the "evidence" the WR [Warren Report] left you." <<<


There's nothing wrong with the evidence in the JFK case. Not a thing.

The problem is with you conspiracy kooks. You're the only thing
"tainted" about this case.

But the evidence and Oswald's obvious double-guilt are just
fine....and always were.

BTW, Mr. Goofball, the "WR" didn't "leave" me with the evidence. You
act as if the Warren Commission was responsible for collecting and
cataloguing the bullets, the shells, the guns, the prints, etc. The DPD
and FBI did that stuff.

The WC merely evaluated that evidence in order to reach a "Who Did
It?" conclusion. And they reached the only POSSIBLE conclusion they
could arrive at.

But, you kooks (for some reason known only to other kooks I guess)
think that the WC should have rejected all of the LHO-did-it evidence
out of hand.

I can just see the "CONCLUSION" section of the Warren Report if a band
of conspiracy nuts had been assigned to author it:

"We, the Commission and its Counsel members, have been shown a
wide variety of evidence that seems to point in the direction of one
man (L.H. Oswald of Dallas, Texas) as having been the killer of John
Kennedy and J.D. Tippit. But our final conclusion is this ..... None
of the vast array of evidence that points in the direction of L.H.
Oswald can be trusted. We, the Commission and Counsel, believe that
that evidence (ALL of it) has been cleverly manufactured to implicate
the man known as L.H. Oswald of Dallas.

"Neither the Commission nor its Counsel and staff members can
provide a shred of proof that such "manufacturing" of the evidence
against Mr. Oswald actually did take place, but we feel it is our duty
and obligation to seriously consider (and ultimately believe and
accept as an ironclad fact) the possibility that every piece of
evidence leading toward the guilt of L.H. Oswald in the two murders he
was charged with committing on 11/22/63 has been altered, planted,
faked, or otherwise manipulated in some fashion.

"In other words, FUCK THE EVIDENCE! We, the Commission and its
Counsel filled with brain-dead morons, believe the evidence is
fake....and that's that! See?!!" -- Signed, The "I Don't Give A Shit
About The Evidence" Commission

Yeah, if the above declaration of idiocy and non-evidence had appeared
within the Warren Report, it would have been MUCH better than these
silly (but truthful) words below, which can be found on page 195 of
the current version of the Report. Right, CT-Kooks?.....

"The Commission has found that Lee Harvey Oswald (1) owned and
possessed the rifle used to kill President Kennedy and wound Governor
Connally, (2) brought this rifle into the Depository Building on the
morning of the assassination, (3) was present, at the time of the
assassination, at the window from which the shots were fired (4)
killed Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit in an apparent attempt to
escape, (5) resisted arrest by drawing a fully loaded pistol and
attempting to shoot another police officer, (6) lied to the police
after his arrest concerning important substantive matters, (7)
attempted, in April 1963, to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, and (8)
possessed the capability with a rifle which would have enabled him to
commit the assassination. On the basis of these findings the
Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of
President Kennedy." -- Warren Commission Report; Page 195

David Von Pein
November 2007



WBAP-TV in Fort Worth/Dallas produced and aired this special half-hour documentary program in late November of 1963, a few days after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Some rare film footage of JFK's tragic two-day trip to Texas is included in this WBAP broadcast, including a very rare interview with Dr. Malcolm Perry, one of the doctors who attempted to save the life of the mortally wounded President Kennedy at Parkland Hospital in Dallas.





(PART 16)


>>> "That this many witnesses were merely "mistaken" all in the same way is most definitely not plausible. I will once again make the most potent statement of all regarding why rejecting these witnesses cannot be considered in any reasonable assessment of this issue, and I would like you to comment on this statement very specifically, please, if you post any reply at all to this article, that this statement be given high priority: The average ten-year-old child, without a day of medical training, will know which part of a person's head is the "back" or "rear" of the head, without the slightest possibility of being even slightly mistaken. David, is this statement true or false? You do realize that if you were to say "false" that most people would find that to be quite an astonishing answer, correct? Now let's try it in a slightly different form: The average person, without a day of medical training, will know which part of a person's head is the "back" or "rear" of the head, without the slightest possibility of being even slightly mistaken. True or false? Rather obviously, an answer of "false" given in seriousness by an adult would naturally elicit a reaction of amazement among most other adults present, and from many older children as well. Correct?" <<<


True. True. And correct.

But my theory about the Parkland witnesses has NEVER been that any of them somehow mislabelled the area of JFK's head where they said they saw the wound. I have a feeling that you still think I'm in the "Jim Moore camp" with respect to this issue. But I'm certainly not.

But have you read Jim Moore's theory on this? He thinks all the Parkland witnesses DID mis-identify the part of JFK's head that contained the large exit wound, simply because Kennedy was lying on his back in the emergency room.

Here's what Moore said in his book:

"The explanation for this [head wound] discrepancy is so simple few will subscribe to it. The Parkland doctors all saw President Kennedy in only one position--face up. An exit wound across his forehead might have been labeled 'at the front of the skull', but a wound on the right side? Doctors would have seen the missing area 'at the rear of the skull', of course." -- Jim Moore; Page 180 of "Conspiracy Of One"

And, incredibly, even Vincent Bugliosi (in "Reclaiming History") gives partial credence to Moore's absurd theory that I just quoted above.

But I hope that you don't think that **I** myself subscribe to Jim Moore's theory about the Parkland witnesses, because I do not. And I blasted Moore's theory quite vigorously in my review of his book, here:

But the explanation of the blood, brain, and gore "pooling" to the right-rear part of JFK's head at Parkland DOES make a good deal of sense to me -- particularly since we know (via the Zapruder Film footage alone) that the large exit wound for Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet WAS, indeed, on the RIGHT side of the President's head. It is therefore quite logical, in my opinion, to believe that the Parkland personnel would have seen a large amount of blood and tissue collecting (or "pooling") at the RIGHT-REAR-OCCIPITAL area of President Kennedy's head in Trauma Room 1.

And I think this "pooling" theory is still valid (and on the table for serious consideration) even when we consider the fact that Jacqueline Kennedy had most likely "closed up" the flap of skull/scalp prior to JFK arriving at Parkland. (In fact, the "Jackie Closed Up The Wound" theory makes the "pooling blood" theory even MORE valid, in my view. See the end of this post for the reason why I say that.)

Jackie might have "closed" up the flap, but she certainly wasn't capable of stopping the blood from flowing from the margins of that wound she had closed up. So a lot of blood is still coming from that wound on the RIGHT side of his head. And we know that JFK's heart WAS still beating, and pumping some blood through his veins, for several minutes after he was wheeled into Trauma Room 1.

And with JFK lying flat on his back (face up) on the stretcher, the blood coming from his right-frontal head wound would have had nowhere else to go but toward the RIGHT-REAR-OCCIPITAL portion of his head (since we know that gravity was still in effect on 11/22/63 at Parkland Memorial Hospital).

I assume you think that both Michael Baden of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel AND author Vincent Bugliosi of "Reclaiming History" fame are BOTH totally out of their minds for believing in the "pooling" theory I just outlined, correct? Because here is what Mr. Bugliosi and Dr. Baden had to say on this issue:

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I [Vince Bugliosi] believe to be the answer, one whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong," [Baden] told me. "That's why we have autopsies, photographs, and X-rays to determine things like this. Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head. But clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of his head." [End Baden quote]." -- Pages 407-408 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

As I stated in an earlier post, you could possibly be correct about your theory concerning the "hinged" skull at the (mostly) top of JFK's head springing "open" while he was lying on his back at Parkland Hospital. I fully admit it: You could be correct. But I certainly think that the "pooling" theory could very well be the correct answer to this 48-year-old mystery about the Parkland doctors too (but not necessarily the answer to why some of the BETHESDA witnesses said they saw the same "occipital" wound in Kennedy's head at the autopsy).

But your theory needs the hinged skull flap to MASQUERADE AS AN OCCIPITAL WOUND for several minutes at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963.

Can the top-of-the-head "hinged flap" actually make its way to the OCCIPITAL part of President Kennedy's head, in order to fool many witnesses into thinking that a large HOLE was really residing in the right-rear-occipital part of Kennedy's head? I'm not so sure it can. (But, maybe you are correct, and maybe that flap COULD have seemed to be a large hole in the occipital to several witnesses. But I'm still a bit dubious about that.)


Is there any verification in the existing literature or doctors' testimony that would indicate for certain that the fractured top portion of JFK's head was, in fact, in such a condition that it could conceivably have "sprung open" like a hinge on a door?

There might very well be testimony of that nature in Humes', Finck's, or Boswell's various testimony sessions over the years, but right now I cannot specifically recall such testimony.

In other words, are we just GUESSING about whether it's even POSSIBLE for the top part of JFK's damaged skull to have behaved in the "swinging door"-like method which your theory certainly requires?

Also: Even if the "door hinge" theory is correct, how can we be certain WHICH DIRECTION the skull flap would have "swung"? I can't really tell from the X-ray below where any such "hinge" would be attached. Can you?....

What I mean is: If there is anything at all that still attached the FRONTAL MOST (nearest Kennedy's face) portion of that top-of-the-head skull/scalp piece to JFK's head, then such an attachment, of course, would negate your "hinged door" theory altogether, because there's no way (via those conditions) that the top skull flap could have been flopping around on his head to begin with.

Plus: Your theory most definitely requires the top skull flap to somehow seem to be a major deficit (a hole) in a specific part of JFK's head to many of the Parkland witnesses -- i.e., the OCCIPITAL area of the head (although, yes, some of the witnesses place the wound a little higher and more "central" on the back of the head).

So, it seems to me that your theory requires the top-of-the-head "flap" or "hinge" to somehow ADHERE itself to the right-rear (occipital) part of JFK's cranium. And I just don't see how that flap can do that.

But in the "pooling blood" theory, the right-rear-occipital part of Mr. Kennedy's head would most CERTAINLY be the portion of his head where the blood/brain/tissue/whatever would definitely have been heading straight toward (or "pooling" at).

And I would think that such streaming blood would have a tendency to STICK or ADHERE to the occipital area of the head too, as it followed the natural curved contour and shape of JFK's head.

Whereas, via your theory, you've got a hanging piece of skull bone flapping around that wouldn't have ADHERED itself to any particular one spot on the President's head.

So, while I do think you've raised some good points about the "hinged flap" theory, I think your theory is still a bit weak in some areas.

And here's another weak area (that I don't think you addressed in your previous posts):

What about the "cerebellum" comments made by some of the Parkland witnesses?

You surely aren't suggesting that there really WAS a large-sized (or even small) "hole" in the "occipital" area of JFK's head--are you?

Your "hinged flap" is located at the top of the head (and, yes, it certainly extends toward the BACK of the head too--I admit that fact). But it certainly is a long way from the "occipital" bone.

So I'm wondering how the doctors at Parkland could be correct when some of them said they saw "cerebellum" oozing from the wound in the back of Mr. Kennedy's head? Dr. Paul Peters and Dr. Pepper Jenkins have, of course, totally reversed themselves on this "cerebellum" topic. In 1988 on PBS-TV, they each said that it wasn't cerebellum they saw, and that they must have been mistaken about that issue.

Of course, I must also say, that I really don't put very much faith in what ANY of those doctors had to say during that NOVA PBS special in 1988. Because their comments about the wounds in that program are totally crazy and contradictory to their 1963 observations, IMO. Here's why.

>>> "You still seem to be misunderstanding exactly where this piece of bone is in the skull, and thus where the Parkland "hole" in the upper right posterior of the head was." <<<

So, right there, you're admitting that several Parkland people did get it wrong. You're claiming that the "hole" that was seen at Parkland was in the "upper right posterior" portion of JFK's head. But "upper right" does not match the "occipital". Occipital is very low on the head:

So, some (or even many) witnesses must certainly have been wrong, even via your theory. Or have I totally misunderstood you (again)?

>>> "Ok, once again, I ask you one of the most important questions of all. Please do not reply to my article without answering this very specifically. It is crucial that you answer this, because without this answer you cannot present a plausible argument: IF THE HOLE IN HIS HEAD WASN'T WHERE THEY SAID IT WAS, THEN WHERE ON HIS HEAD WAS THE HOLE THEY SAW? Unless you're going to dismiss these witnesses even further and claim that not only were they mistaken about where the hole was, they were mistaken about there being ANY hole (in which case I'll never take you seriously again), you realize that you or anyone else doubting what they said absolutely MUST answer this question plausibly to produce an even remotely plausible argument." <<<

Well, since there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever (via the best evidence in the case, which is the autopsy photos and X-rays, plus the autopsy report and the testimony of Humes, Boswell, and Finck) that the major wound of exit in President John F. Kennedy's head was NOT in the "occipital" (right-rear) region of his head, there's no way that I can legitimately think that the majority of Parkland witnesses REALLY DID see a wound in the occipital area of his head.

And, yes, I realize that Humes' autopsy report does say that the large wound in JFK's head extended "somewhat" into the "occipital" region of his head. But that "somewhat" is a far cry from placing the major portion of that wound in a place where virtually everyone at Parkland placed it.

Via your "hinged flap" theory, I would think that more people at Parkland would have placed the wound nearer the TOP of JFK's head, vs. the BACK of the head. (But maybe I'm "misunderstanding" things again.) :-)

This leaves the REAL wound of exit in Mr. Kennedy's head for the Parkland witnesses to ACTUALLY see, quite obviously.

But, since I've already stated that it's my belief that it is highly likely that the REAL wound of exit (or at least the major portion of that wound) in the right-front of the head was "closed up" by Jackie Kennedy during the high-speed drive to Parkland Hospital, I'm going to actually have to suggest to you a theory that is probably going to cause you to lose all respect for me entirely and, hence, you will never take me seriously again (as you just said):

I'm going to suggest to you, via the previously discussed "pooling" theory, that the Parkland witnesses actually saw NO PART of the major exit wound that existed in John F. Kennedy's head on 11/22/63.

I had never really thought about this issue from this particular point-of-view prior to today, but that theory I just laid on the table is also almost CERTAINLY the exact theory that people like Dr. Michael Baden and Vincent Bugliosi must believe as well.

Otherwise, we would have Baden and Bugliosi "pulling a Jim Moore" on us and suggesting that the Parkland witnesses actually DID see the one and only large right-frontal wound in John Kennedy's head, but (somehow) they all became disoriented as to the real location of that wound, due to Kennedy's supine posture while in the emergency room.

But Baden and Bugliosi are NOT suggesting such a ludicrous thing at all. Instead, they are saying what I have said in the past as well -- that the Parkland people DID know JFK's "front" from his "back", but they interpreted a lot of blood and brain tissue adhering to the right-rear of Kennedy's head as being an actual/physical WOUND residing in the location of all that blood and tissue.

But since we know that a large wound was NOT located in that right-rear-occipital area (and Baden and Bugliosi don't think ANY sort of wound resided in that location either), this must, therefore, indicate that both Baden and Bugliosi must legitimately believe that most of the Parkland witnesses saw NO REAL WOUND in President Kennedy's head.

And, stopping to think about this scenario a tad longer, that theory of the Parkland people seeing no large wound at all DOES make some sense indeed, due to the fact that Jackie Kennedy, in effect, CONCEALED that large exit wound from the view of the Parkland witnesses before JFK's limousine reached the hospital. So, what "real" wound WOULD there have been to see at Parkland under these conditions (and via the "pooling blood" theory I've spoken of)?

But we must also realize that the Parkland people were not there to perform an autopsy on President Kennedy's body. They were there to try and save his life if they could. They did not closely inspect or examine ANY of the President's wounds. Nor was it their job to do any such extensive examination. Once the President was pronounced dead, Trauma Room 1 cleared out quickly, and very few people even saw the President's body after that point at Parkland.

So, while it might be hard to believe that the massive wound in JFK's head could go completely unnoticed by many, many trained doctors and nurses at a major U.S. hospital, given the circumstances and conditions outlined above concerning Mrs. Kennedy's probable handling of her husband's head before the car got to Parkland (and even you, yourself, say that you believe it's true that Jackie most certainly DID close up the open flaps on JFK's head), such a theory about the Parkland personnel not being able to see any of the actual wounds in the President's head seems quite possible and palatable, in my opinion.

>>> "Where do you think on JFK's head the hole was that they saw? Do you see any hole in his head in that...autopsy photo with him laying on his back? I sure don't. And in that photo the area where they said there WAS a hole is completely covered by his hair." <<<

You have just confirmed the point I made above.


You just admitted (inadvertently) that a situation could, indeed, exist whereby the head of President Kennedy (after he had been shot) could appear to a witness to have NO HOLES IN IT WHATSOEVER (via the autopsy picture you mentioned).

So, via the "pooling blood" theory that I still maintain is likely the correct theory (even though I cannot reconcile that theory with ALL of the Parkland/Bethesda witnesses, and probably will never be able to do that), why would it be considered so outlandish to postulate that the Parkland witnesses saw the President's body in approximately the same condition in which it appears in this autopsy photo?:

Hence, those Parkland witnesses could have seen NO HOLES in his head, and erroneously thought the pooling blood/brain at the right-rear was the only physical "hole" in his head.

David Von Pein
July 17, 2011

(PART 2)

Here's my take on this "ragged" thing that conspiracy theorist Ben Holmes just will not let go of:

At one point when discussing the issue of President Kennedy's throat wound in his book "Reclaiming History", author Vincent Bugliosi is definitely incorrect when he used the word "ragged" while describing what Dr. Charles J. Carrico's opinion was of the OUTER (SKIN) WOUND in President Kennedy's throat. That error occurs on Page 413, when Vince says this:

"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged," virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound, which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges."

But Bugliosi is not incorrect on Page 60 of his book when he uses the word "ragged" in conjunction with Carrico's statements. Because on Page 60, Bugliosi is talking only about the trachea damage, and not about the wound on the outer skin of JFK.

BTW, Dr. Malcolm Perry also used the word "ragged" when describing the trachea wound. Perry said this in his Warren Commission testimony:

"I noticed a small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side."

But, just like Carrico, Perry described the outer skin wound in the President's throat in a different manner:

DR. PERRY -- "This was situated in the lower anterior one-third of the neck, approximately 5 mm. in diameter. It was exuding blood slowly which partially obscured it. Its edges were neither ragged nor were they punched out, but rather clean."

But we must also realize that Dr. Perry also said this:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?"

DR. PERRY -- "It could have been either."

Interestingly, I found another page in Bugliosi's book where Vince is putting the word "ragged" in a doctor's mouth where I do not think it belongs. It's on Page 207, when Vince says this about the conversation that Dr. Humes had with Dr. Perry on Saturday morning, November 23rd:

"The light flashes on for Humes when Dr. Perry tells him that he performed his surgery on an existing wound there, a small, round perforation with ragged edges."

There are two possible references given for the above quote from Page 207 in "Reclaiming History". One of them is ARRB MD58, p.9, and the other is Page 257 of HSCA Volume 7. Neither source, however, includes the word "ragged" in it anywhere.

My opinion is that Vince has somehow confused himself into thinking that the "ragged" quotes that definitely did come from both Dr. Carrico and Dr. Perry are quotes that he feels confident enough to utilize in his book to explain the way the wound in JFK's throat (on the whole) looked to each of those doctors (Carrico and Perry).

When, in fact, Vince is incorrect when he tries to merge the two wounds. Because he surely also knows (or he should know by reading the testimony of both Dr. Carrico and Dr. Perry) that those doctors were referring to two DIFFERENT wounds in the President's throat when they testified and when the Parkland Hospital report was written.

I must say, though, that I was also confused about the "ragged" remarks when I went to the official records to check up on this matter the other day. In fact, I had a nice long message ready to post at this forum (complete with citations and Warren Commission page numbers, etc.) that I was going to use to try and counter Ben Holmes' assertion that Vince Bugliosi had "lied" about Carrico's description of Kennedy's throat wound.

But I then looked at more passages of testimony, and I realized that Carrico was talking about TWO separate wounds in the President's throat/neck. The wound that he definitely did describe as "ragged" was the wound of the trachea itself (under the skin, of course, of JFK). But the wound that would have been visible to the naked eye on the outer skin of Kennedy was described by Carrico as having "no jagged edges or stellate lacerations" [6 H 3].

Ben Holmes, however, was not entirely clear in a thread-starting post that he made recently [this Internet post], in which he asserted that Mr. Bugliosi was a liar and that Dr. Carrico had never once used the word "ragged" to describe a wound in JFK's throat. And that declaration, as stated by Holmes, just simply is not true.

Holmes should have been more precise about WHICH wound he was referring to--the wound in the skin of JFK, or the wound in the underlying trachea.

In the final analysis of this "ragged" matter -- Vince Bugliosi is definitely wrong in at least two places in his book regarding the purported testimony of the Parkland doctors concerning the nature of JFK's outer-skin throat/neck wound.

But I also truly believe that these errors are not intentional "lies". Given the fact that there was, indeed, a wound associated with President Kennedy's neck/throat injury that was described by more than one doctor as being "ragged" in nature [and also see the Addendum at the bottom of this article concerning the testimony of another Parkland doctor], Bugliosi's utilization of the word "ragged" as it relates to the comments made by Drs. Perry and Carrico could very well be--I'm sorry to say--a bit of a "senior moment" on the part of Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi.

Why do I say that?

Well, if anyone has ever listened to any of Mr. Bugliosi's several radio interviews that he did when he was on his book tour for "Reclaiming History" in 2007, then my above "senior moment" comment just might make a little more sense and have a bit more credence.

Because on many occasions, Vince just loses track of his line of thought and simply cannot remember a question that was asked a minute earlier. (I will say, too, that even I, at age 49, have had many similar "senior" moments myself. My memory sucks lately, and it bothers me a lot sometimes. It drives me crazy when I can't for the life of me remember the name of a particular witness in the JFK case, or what a witness said, etc.)

Now, I'm not excusing any "ragged" errors that Vince Bugliosi has made in his JFK book, I'm merely attempting to provide a POSSIBLE explanation for why those errors appear on Pages 207 and 413 of "Reclaiming History".

And I refuse to ever believe that Vincent Bugliosi is (or ever was) an outright liar. I refuse to believe that Vince would be willing to print something in one of his books that he KNOWS IS A FLAT-OUT LIE. I will never believe that kind of thing could ever apply to Mr. Vincent Bugliosi. Because, in my opinion, Vince is just not cut from that sort of devious cloth.

If certain conspiracy theorists want to disagree with my last comment, so be it. But I'll always stand by what I just said.


I can point to multiple additional errors in Vincent's JFK book that could (conceivably) be the result of simply a failing memory, or (quite possibly) a result of the way in which I know Vince wrote "Reclaiming History", which is a book that was written over the course of 20 years and was written so that large chunks of "yellow page inserts" (as Vince calls them) had to be included into almost every chapter of the book after a period of time had elapsed since the chapter was initially written.

That type of "inserting" of additional material could very well be the reason we find a few inconsistencies and incongruities within the huge tome known as "Reclaiming History".

Yes, such errors should have been caught in the proofreading process before the book went to print. But, people being what they are (human, and not robots or machines), mistakes can occur. And Mr. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" is no exception.


As an illustration of a possible "senior moment" involving author and lawyer Vincent Bugliosi, I can point to something that Bugliosi said during a radio interview in 2007. And this one is a real doozy, too, but it's obviously not an illustration of a "lie" or of Bugliosi's ignorance of the subject matter; it's more of a temporary "brain cramp", for lack of a better term:

On November 21, 2007, on a program called "Culture Shocks", radio host Barry Lynn asked Vince a question about New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison. The question was: "How did Garrison get into this?"

And Vince Bugliosi's answer, incredibly, was this:

Vince said that Jim Garrison, like millions of other Americans, had seen the Zapruder Film being shown on Geraldo Rivera's ABC-TV late-night talk show, "Good Night America", in 1975, and after seeing the violent rearward movement of President Kennedy's head in the Zapruder home movie, Garrison then went off "half-cocked" about conspiracy in the JFK case, with Garrison ultimately prosecuting an innocent man (Clay Shaw) on the charge of conspiracy to murder the President of the United States.

Now, quite obviously, if Vince had thought about his answer for a few more seconds before responding to the interviewer's question, Vince would have realized that his answer was totally crazy -- because the Clay Shaw trial had taken place more than six years before the Zapruder Film was broadcast on Geraldo Rivera's 1975 TV show. The Shaw trial ended in early 1969.

The 11/21/2007 radio program that I've been talking about can be heard below:

That was an embarrassing moment for Vincent Bugliosi. But, however, it probably wasn't too embarrassing for Vince, because his answer about Garrison first getting involved in the JFK case in 1975 sailed right over the head of the interviewer, Barry Lynn. I have no idea how many listeners picked up on Vincent's obvious gaffe about Garrison, but it's something I noticed right after he said it.

But, again, that tends to illustrate how even a person who knows a topic's details inside and out can sometimes say something that's very bizarre and inaccurate concerning that particular topic. But it certainly cannot be labelled a deliberate "lie" that was designed to deceive anyone who was listening to Bugliosi. It was merely an inexplicable brain cramp. Because there can be no doubt that Vince Bugliosi knows that the Clay Shaw trial actually occurred six years prior to America first being shown the Zapruder Film on television in 1975. We know that Vince knows the date of the Shaw trial, because he has a long chapter on that trial and Oliver Stone's movie in his book, including this passage on Page 1375:

"The all-male jury returned its verdict of not guilty at one in the morning on March 1, 1969, two years to the day after Shaw had been arrested in the case."

And I'm thinking that Vincent's use of the word "ragged" in a couple of places in his JFK book could also be placed in the "brain cramp" category as well.

David Von Pein
July 14, 2011
July 15, 2011



In early July 2014, Brock T. George e-mailed me and provided some additional information concerning the testimony of another Parkland Hospital physician, Dr. Gene Akin.

Quoting from two separate e-mails I received from Brock George on July 5th, 2014:

"I was just trying to solve the mystery of VB's [Vincent Bugliosi's] ragged throat wound comments when I see that not only has he put those words in Perry and Carrico's mouth, but also a Dr. Gene Akin on page 414 [of "Reclaiming History"]. This time he gives 216 as a reference.

Well I can't find "216" but I did find the Page 414 Endnotes reference to 6 H 71. When I went to History Matters, I couldn't find that per se, but searching for Gene Akin showed his testimony to Arlen Specter [to] be in Volume VI of the HSCA Volumes
[DVP Interjection: Brock really meant to say "Warren Commission Volumes" here, not HSCA]. The relevant..."ragged around the edges" comment occurs on page 65 thereof.

So it can be seen that a Parkland doctor can indeed be quoted as describing the "wound" in precisely that manner even though he only saw it partially after the trach incision had been made. (This also supports the same observations of the Clark and HSCA Panels who saw remnants of the wound that the 3 autopsists had missed.) Check it out for yourself.


IMO, that testimony makes the case tighter that VB merely had a senior moment/brain burp. Because in fact he HAD seen a Parkland doctor use that very term about the wound and not just the trachea. Thus it is an easy "brain burp" to merge that statement by Akin with the "ragged trachea" comments made by Carrico and Perry and start putting "ragged neck wound" in the mouths of the wrong Parkland doctors."
-- Brock T. George

[End E-Mail Quotes.]

Yes, indeed. Brock George is absolutely correct. Dr. Gene C. Akin did, indeed, say "slightly ragged" when describing the OUTER throat wound (in the skin, not the trachea) of President Kennedy.

I just checked Mr. Bugliosi's book for the passage quoting Dr. Akin (and it is on page 414 of VB's book, just as Mr. George said). And the "216" source note checks out perfectly too, leading the reader to page 65 of Warren Commission Volume 6, which is Dr. Gene Akin's testimony.

Here is exactly what Vince Bugliosi says on page 414 of his book:

"Dr. Gene Akin: "[The wound] was slightly ragged around the edges . . . The thought flashed through my mind that this might have been an entrance wound. I immediately thought it could also have been an exit wound."" -- Page 414 of "Reclaiming History"

The Warren Commission source used by Bugliosi -----> 6 H 65.

Here is an extension of Dr. Akin's above comments to the Warren Commission about the throat wound:

ARLEN SPECTER - And as to the neck wound, did you have occasion to observe whether there was a smooth, jagged, or what was the nature of the portion of the neck wound which had not been cut by the tracheotomy?

Dr. GENE AKIN - It was slightly ragged around the edges.

Mr. SPECTER - And when you said that--

Dr. AKIN - No powder burns; I didn't notice any powder burns.

Mr. SPECTER - What was the dimension of the punctate wound, without regards to the tracheotomy which was being started?

Dr. AKIN - It looked--it was as you said, it was a puncture wound. It was roughly circular, about, I would judge, 1.5 centimeters in diameter.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you mean when you just made your reference to the academic aspect with the wound, Dr. Akin?

Dr. AKIN - Well, naturally, the thought flashed through my mind that this might have been an entrance wound. I immediately thought it could also have been an exit wound, depending upon the nature of the missile that made the wound.

Mr. SPECTER - What would be the circumstances on which it might be one or the other?

Dr. AKIN - Well, if the President had been shot with a low velocity missile, such as fire[d] from a pistol, it was more likely to have been an entrance wound, is that what you mean?

Mr. SPECTER - Yes.

Dr. AKIN - If, however, he had been shot with a high velocity military type of rifle, for example, it could be either an entrance wound or an exit wound.


Thank you, Brock George, for providing this extra piece of testimony from Dr. Gene Akin regarding this "ragged" throat wound topic. I had not been aware that yet another Parkland doctor (Akin) had used that very same word ("ragged") when discussing the nature of President Kennedy's throat wound. So I appreciate this added information very much.

David Von Pein
July 5, 2014





(PART 1)

(PART 3)



(PART 15)


>>> "I'd like to know if you can see [in this picture] (near where the red line from the ruler leads to...also in the blow-up) what appears to be a somewhat circular shaped feature/defect/whatever?? <<<


Hi, John.

To answer your question -- Yes, of course. I do, indeed, see a circular shape there.


>>> "Here's what you said (actually what you asked me) that put me on the right track after I was not seeing, for about seven or eight years, the "forest for the trees" (like everyone else over the past four decades who was trying to resolve these issues): You asked me (paraphrasing now) to explain why the entry in the BOH photo was several (5-6?) inches above JFK's hairline when one's EOP is typically only about 2-2.5 inches above one's hairline? I doubt you'll recall, but unlike me, I didn't respond for quite a while....because I was taken aback by your great question...which is one a whole lot of others trying to resolve these conflicts should have been asking and/or addressing literally decades ago. I was actually disappointed in myself that I didn't see, for myself, the problem with the arguments of the low-entry advocates that you were so observant about and happy to point out." <<<


The above question that you said I asked you some years ago is one that I cannot seem to find in my multi-part "BOH" series that I have archived on one of my websites. If you could locate and post the original question that I asked, I'd very much like to see it.

However, that question does, indeed, sound very familiar and similar to something I mentioned in one of our discussions, which I did locate in Part 6 of our "BOH" series on April 1, 2009. Here's what I said at that time:

"Amazingly, John Canal must actually think that in some crazy and magical way, the so-called "stretching" of John Kennedy's scalp (which John insists is taking place to the scalp in the [autopsy] picture [showing the red spot on the back of JFK's head]) somehow resulted in an EOP entry hole FALSELY APPEARING TO MERGE WITH THE COWLICK (and the cowlick, of course, is located HIGH on a person's head). David Copperfield would be proud. Because even HE probably couldn't pull off that incredible feat of having an EOP entry hole climb up the back of a person's cranium and somehow look as though that bullet hole was PENETRATING THE COWLICK AREA of a person's head." -- DVP




>>> "What happened on 11-22-63 at Bethesda...is that they needed to stretch the rear scalp to cover the large top/right/front area where the scalp and bone had been blown out from...IN PREPARATION FOR AN OPEN CASKET FUNERAL...and that's exactly what they did. There was nothing sinister about this....it wasn't part of any cover-up." <<<


So you think they would have wanted to stretch President Kennedy's scalp to the Nth degree, instead of using some kind of plaster and/or fake hair/scalp that morticians undoubtedly utilize all the time to "repair" damage to a dead person's head? Correct?

But, then too, it seems to me that that kind of extended stretching of the scalp would have produced a final result of having JFK appearing to have a cowlick at the very TIP-TOP part of his head. Wouldn't that have looked much sillier than having some kind of fake hair and scalp being put over the large wound in the skull?

I'm not sure exactly what the head would have looked like to an observer during an open-casket funeral under the "stretched scalp" conditions that you describe, John, but in my mind, I think JFK would have looked awfully goofy with a "cowlick" being stretched way up to the top-right-front part of his head.

Plus: You've got a serious problem with your theory from this additional point-of-view:

After the initial scare of "World War 3" had died down (which is a "scare" that many people believe was the cause for some degree of cover-up regarding the evidence in the JFK case), why in the world wouldn't the autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, and Finck) have eventually COME CLEAN with the whole truth concerning this "stretched scalp" business that you think occurred at Bethesda?

Humes, Boswell, and Finck all testified at various times in front of the Warren Commission and the HSCA and the ARRB (and Finck also testified at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969), and in all of that testimony--which is testimony that occurred well AFTER anyone would have been scared to death about bombs being dropped on their homes by the Soviet Union--there isn't a single thing mentioned by ANY of those three autopsy surgeons about the scalp being stretched (particularly Dr. Humes, who we know assisted Tom Robinson in preparing JFK's body following completion of the autopsy).

So, John, were those THREE autopsy physicians so amazingly UNIFIED in their desire to keep silent about the stretched scalp that they were all willing to take such a secret to their graves?

Or do you even think Drs. Boswell and Finck knew about the stretching of JFK's scalp at all?

Let me also add these tidbits for additional consideration:

On March 12, 1978, the HSCA tape recorded an interview with Dr. Pierre Finck. And during that interview, Dr. Baden of the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel talks about how the "cowlick" location of the bullet entry wound in JFK's head "lays right over" the entry hole in Kennedy's skull as seen on an X-ray of the President's head [the interview can be heard below, and also HERE].

Now, after being confronted by Dr. Baden about these discrepancies concerning the location of the entry wound, wouldn't you think that Dr. Finck would have spoken up at that point and explained to Baden and company about the fact that the scalp had been stretched? Or, to ask again, are you of the opinion that Dr. Finck was completely ignorant of the "stretching" procedure? He never even learned about it from Humes? Was he kept completely in the dark about this so-called "stretching" of the scalp?

And why was Dr. Humes so willing to stay quiet about the stretching--even when he was, in effect, being attacked and skewered when he testified in front of both the HSCA and the ARRB?

And then there are the Parkland witnesses:

You're claiming, John, that there was only a small "tear" in the right-rear (occipital) portion of JFK's scalp, which is a tear that you say was stitched up before the red-spot picture was taken, and (amazingly) not a HINT of this "stitching" is evident in the photograph.

But I beg to differ with you on this point, because according to the Parkland witnesses, there was actually a HUGE HOLE in the right-rear of Kennedy's head when he was in Trauma Room 1 at Parkland Hospital. It wasn't just a small "tear", according to the vast majority of Parkland witnesses.

I, of course, firmly believe that the Parkland witnesses (and, yes, some of the Bethesda witnesses too) were wrong. They did not and could not have seen a great-big hole in the right-rear of JFK's head on November 22nd, because the SCALP of the President is completely INTACT in the photographs. And the X-rays fully corroborate the photos as well. There was NO LARGE DEFICIT at the right-rear of President Kennedy's head.

And, in my view, those photos and X-rays (in tandem) are, indeed, by far the best evidence when it comes to trying to resolve this issue concerning the President's head wounds.

And let me also ask you this final question, John:

If JFK's scalp is being stretched by up to four inches, then why doesn't Kennedy's head (on the whole) look distorted in some manner in this "red spot" BOH picture below?:


Via your "stretched scalp" theory, wouldn't it stand to reason that the parts of President Kennedy's head that AREN'T being stretched would look sort of out of place when compared to just the portion of his scalp which is being seriously manipulated by up to four whole inches in that picture?

But when I look at that red-spot picture, it looks to me as though every part of JFK's head is in proper harmony (and "in-sync") with the other portions of his head. The cowlick is where it should be. The right ear is where it should be, etc.

And, btw, John, where IS the actual "cowlick" area of the President's head in that picture via your stretched-scalp theory? Did the cowlick just VANISH off of his head when that photo was snapped? Because, per your theory, the bullet hole (the red spot) is really at EOP level. So this must mean that the cowlick is some four inches HIGHER than the red spot in the picture. But where is the cowlick in the picture? Is the cowlick just not visible at all in the photo, via your interpretation of things?

Anyway, that's just some more food for additional BOH thought.

Thanks, John.

David Von Pein
July 12, 2011

(PART 68)



>>> "You do know you are wrong and that no one buys your act here. But you persist anyway. Which really makes me question about what goes on in your brain." <<<


Oh, I realize that changing the mind of an "Online Hardline Conspiracy Theorist" regarding the known and true facts of Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK assassination is a tougher job than building another set of pyramids over in Egypt.

But I like to post here anyway, for (#1) my archives that I keep on my own websites, and (#2) I also happen to know that there are, indeed, many reasonable lone-assassin believers who visit (or lurk) this forum to read stuff every day.

I know this is a fact because I've had e-mails from some people who lurk here (but do not post) and they have told me that they appreciate my comments on this forum. And those particular people have also told me that they think you, Jimbo, are full of crap. (Which becomes more obvious with each post you make here.)

As far as your latest laundry list of conspiracy-flavored tripe -- every item on that list has been explained in reasonable non-conspiratorial ways. Every one. And you, Jimbo, have to know this. But you will accept the most extraordinary explanation for everything -- every time.

For example:

Darrell Tomlinson: This man Tomlinson told the Warren Commission over
and over again (by my count, I think it was up to SIX separate times) that he simply was "NOT SURE" which of the two stretchers he had taken off of the elevator [see 6 H 133]. But you, Jimbo, refuse to accept this testimony. You apparently think that the WC people had a gun to Tomlinson's head when he testified that he was "not sure". Is that it?

Another example:

The timing of the trip from Oswald's Beckley address to the site of Tippit's murder:

In the years since 1964, that particular excursion has been accomplished in less that 12 minutes. Therefore, we KNOW beyond all doubt that it can be done in less than twelve minutes, regardless of how long it took the Warren Commission.

And, btw, when David Belin retraced the journey from Beckley Avenue to Patton Avenue, he took "the long way around route" (to quote Belin's words directly), which is obviously why it took him over 17 minutes to get to Patton. And Belin wasn't even hurrying in the slightest during that reconstruction. He was moving at an "average walking pace", per Belin's own version of the event (which appears at 6 H 434, during William Whaley's testimony; see below):

DAVID W. BELIN -- "Let the record further show that after visiting the rooming house at 1026 North Beckley--that is what I call the "long way around route"--was walked from 1026 North Beckley to the scene of the Tippit shooting, which took 17 minutes and 45 seconds at an average walking pace, and this route would be to take Beckley to 10th Street and then turn on 10th Street toward Patton, and this is not the most direct route. Rather, the most direct route would be to take Beckley to Davis Street and then turn left or east on Davis, walking a short block to Crawford, and taking Crawford to 10th, and then 10th east to Patton, or taking Davis Street directly to Patton, and taking Patton down to East 10th, and that the more direct nature of the later route appears from the map which I believe is Commission's Exhibit No. 371, which is the Dallas street map."

JFK-Archives/William W. Whaley

As any reasonable person could deduce, if Oswald didn't take the "long way around route" and had been moving at a brisker clip than merely an "average walking pace", he would have arrived at Tenth and Patton much quicker than did David Belin.

In other words, the Warren Commission took into account the fact that Belin wasn't running or jogging or even walking FAST. And they took into account that Belin was bending over backward for Oswald (in a way) by taking the "long way around" to get from Beckley to Patton.

What the Warren Commission should have done during their various re-enactments of Oswald's movements, especially the reconstruction done by Secret Service agent John Howlett from the Sniper's Nest to the TSBD's second floor, is to insist that Howlett (et al) move at the fastest pace possible, in order to prove whether Oswald could physically have gone from Point A to Point B or not. Having Howlett, for example, move at merely two "walking" speeds doesn't prove whether Oswald could have done it quicker.

But even with Howlett moving at a snail's pace to the second floor, we STILL know that the trip from the sixth floor to the second floor was possible to accomplish in less than 80 seconds (Howlett did it, while WALKING, not running, in just 78 seconds and then 74 seconds).

DiEugenio, naturally, will totally ignore the 74-second WALKING re-creation done by Agent Howlett.

And DiEugenio will totally ignore the fact that David Belin (for some reason) decided to take a very lengthy route from Beckley to Patton (thereby pretty much making such a reconstruction worthless). Why they didn't do a "shortest route" reconstruction is anybody's guess. But as far as I am aware, no such "shortest route" test was done by the Warren Commission.

In any event, everyone should always take everything James DiEugenio says with a large-sized grain of Morton's salt by their side. Because there is always a reasonable non-conspiratorial explanation for everything Jimbo utters. (There has to be, of course, because Oswald was as guilty as Hitler. And I think even Jim D., deep down, knows that is true.)

David Von Pein
July 3, 2011


Three assistant counsel members of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy (Joseph Ball, Wesley Liebeler, and Albert Jenner) participated in the radio call-in program that can be heard below.

This broadcast was first aired on San Francisco's KCBS-Radio on November 7, 1966, which was a little more than two years after the Warren Commission published its final report on the assassination.

The program's content is, in my opinion, a huge breath of fresh air amid a sea of conspiracy-flavored speculation concerning the murder of John F. Kennedy.

Liebeler, Ball, and Jenner provide hard facts, raw evidence, and a whole lot of ordinary common sense, which are, of course, the very things that led their Commission to the conclusion that it ultimately reached in late 1964 -- namely that Lee Harvey Oswald (alone) shot and killed President Kennedy on November 22, 1963.

It's also rather interesting to take note of the various conspiracy theories that are discussed in this 1966 radio broadcast, and to also note that many of those same unsupported theories are still being embraced as the truth by many conspiracy theorists today.

The host of this KCBS radio show is Harv Morgan.

Pat Valentino and Black Op Radio