THE JFK ASSASSINATION:
WITNESS AFFIDAVITS


Following are links to many of the original 1963-1964 affidavits that were written by witnesses and law enforcement officers
which pertain in a variety of ways to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy
in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963.

Additional affidavits and other records relating to the JFK assassination can be found at the Dallas Municipal Archives, which can be accessed by clicking the logo below:







INDIVIDUAL AFFIDAVITS:


GEORGE APPLIN

DANNY ARCE

MARRION BAKER

HUGH BETZNER

MARY BLEDSOE

LEE BOWERS

T.F. BOWLEY

JIM BRADEN

HOWARD BRENNAN

JOHNNY BREWER

TED CALLAWAY

JOHN CHISM

BARBARA DAVIS

VIRGINIA DAVIS

J.C. DAY

JACK DOUGHERTY

ROBERT EDWARDS

AMOS EUINS

RONALD FISCHER

LARRY FLORER

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER

J.W. FRITZ

CHARLES GIVENS

SAM GUINYARD

CHARLES HESTER

JEAN HILL

S.M. HOLLAND

EMMETT HUDSON

JAMES JARMAN

BILLY LOVELADY

HELEN MARKHAM

CECIL McWATTERS

JULIA MERCER

AUSTIN MILLER

MARY MOORMAN

GAYLE NEWMAN

WILLIAM NEWMAN

MARINA OSWALD

MICHAEL PAINE

RUTH PAINE

JULIA POSTAL

J.C. PRICE

LINNIE MAE RANDLE

MRS. ROBERT A. REID

WARREN REYNOLDS

ARNOLD ROWLAND

BARBARA ROWLAND

WILLIAM SCOGGINS

GEORGE SENATOR

WILLIAM SHELLEY

ROYCE SKELTON

ROY TRULY

SEYMOUR WEITZMAN

WILLIAM WHALEY

BONNIE RAY WILLIAMS

JAMES WORRELL



==============================





==============================


ALSO SEE:




==============================


RELATED VIDEOS:



JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 112)


PETER FOKES SAID:

>>> "Why can LNs not agree among themselves? .... No unity among LNs on many issues." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

There's unity among lone-assassin believers on virtually everything of any substantive nature as far as I can detect.

E.G.:

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK.

2.) LHO shot J.D. Tippit.

3.) The SBT is so obviously true.

4.) LHO fired 3 shots at JFK.

5.) LHO's first shot missed the limo.

6.) Shot #2 was the SBT shot.

7.) Jack Ruby shot Oswald on his own. Ruby was not controlled by the "mob" or anyone else.

8.) LHO was a "lying machine" after his arrest.

9.) LHO took a shot at General Walker in April with his newly-purchased Mannlicher-Carcano.

10.) It's very likely there was no conspiracy at all behind Lee Oswald.

11.) The Warren Commission was not composed of crooks and cover-up agents.

12.) The Warren Commission came to the correct bottom-line "lone assassin" conclusion.

13.) The HSCA was wrong about its "4th Shot" conclusion. The Dictabelt evidence has since been totally destroyed via other evidence.

=================

As far as LNers disagreeing with each other --- Yes, on some smaller
points, some disagreements have emerged. That's only natural between a
group of human beings (who do not share the very same brain).

But if you were to compare any of the negligible LNer disputes with
the canyon-sized gap that exists between the theories and conflicts of
many of the conspiracy theorists of the world, then you'd see there
really is no comparison at all....because CTers are all over the map
with their pro-conspiracy beliefs. Whereas LNers, by comparison, are
in near-perfect "IT WAS OSWALD" harmony.

And how anyone can say otherwise via such an obviously-absurd
statement/question as this one by Peter is beyond me --- "Why can LNs
not agree among themselves?"

I, myself, have several minor disagreements with the man who wrote the
best and most comprehensive book that will ever be written on the JFK
case, Vince Bugliosi. And I've made those conflicts known in various
posts I've written too (including conflicts about the exact path taken
by Oswald's first shot; VB's opinion about a portion of Dr. Gregory's
testimony as it relates to the bullet fragments removed from Governor
Connally; the SBT timeline; and the very strange "have it both ways"
tale that Vince tells on pages 423 and 424 of his JFK book regarding
the precise location of JFK's back & throat wounds).

Reclaiming History Errors (Part 1)

Reclaiming History Errors (Part 2)

But when it comes down to the "In The Final Analysis" stuff, I agree with
Vincent Bugliosi 100% -- and that's because he's 100% correct (based on
the evidence....and based on common sense too).

David Von Pein
January 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (JANUARY 6, 2008)


=================================


RANDOM PHOTO FROM
THE KENNEDY GALLERY:




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 111)


GIL JESUS SAID:

>>> "[A] photo [of the limo] shows Connally's jump seat DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF KENNEDY'S SEAT, exactly where CTers have been saying it was for the last 44 years. Unless Connally was sitting off of the jump seat (unlikely), there is NO WAY he could have been seated inboard of President Kennedy as the LNers have imagined." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Gil is wrong (as per usual). The jump seats of SS-100-X were a few
inches inboard of the back seats. Dale Myers obtained the original
body draft from Hess & Eisenhardt prior to Dale's exacting computer
reconstruction of the shooting, and an animated picture of the limo
(based on the body draft) can be found on this webpage (showing the
inboard nature of the two jump seats).

And this photo taken of the motorcade on 11/22/63 definitely shows
Connally seated inboard of JFK's position:





Plus, there's the Warren Commission testimony of Thomas J. Kelley of
the Secret Service regarding the limousine's seating arrangement (WC
Volume 5; Page 132):


ARLEN SPECTER -- "On the President's car itself, what is the distance on the right edge of the right jump seat, that is to say from the right edge of the right jump seat to the door on the right side?"

THOMAS J. KELLEY -- "There is 6 inches of clearance between the jump seat and the door."

SPECTER -- "And what is the relative position of the jump seat to the rear seat on the Presidential automobile?"

KELLEY -- "There is 8-and-a-half inches between the back of the jump seat and the front of the back seat of the President's car, the rear seat."

SPECTER -- "And what is the relative height of the jump seat and the rear seat?"

KELLEY -- "The jump seat is 3 inches lower than the back seat in its bottom position. That is, the back seat of the President's car had a mechanism which would raise it 10-and-a-half inches. But at the time of the assassination, the seat was in its lowest position."

[RELATED DISCUSSION ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE LIMO'S JUMP SEATS]

I guess Gil wants to believe that Thomas Kelley of the USSS was a
rotten liar too, just like the hundreds of other people who got
together to tell one dirty lie after another in wake of the
President's murder.

Plus, Gilbert's silly theory about a "bullet hole in rear seat" of the
limo is pure bullshit too (as proven by the WC testimony below):

ROBERT A. FRAZIER (FBI) -- "We examined the [limo's] rugs carefully for holes, for bullet furroughs, for fragments. We examined the nap of the rug, in the actual nap of the rug, for fragments and bullet holes. We pulled the rug back as far as we could turn it back and even tore the glue or adhesive material loose around the cracks at the edges of the rug so we could observe the cracks to see whether they had been enlarged, and we examined all of the upholstery covering, on the back of the front seat, on the doors, and in the rear seat compartment, the jump seats, the actual rear seat, the back of the rear seat, and we examined the front seat in a similar manner, and we found no bullet holes or other bullet impact areas, other than the one on the inside of the windshield and the dent inside the windshield chrome."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazr2.htm


What's next from the "Anybody But Oswald" crowd? I can't wait. My
daily laugh is overdue.

David Von Pein
January 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (JANUARY 6, 2008)




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 110)


ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "You are so off base it is not funny. I already addressed all of that and more in my "LHO is innocent at last" posts. All of it is easily refuted. There is no real prosecutorial case against LHO, that is why he was gunned down." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And since we have the tablets brought down from Mount Kook by Rob Heston [Caprio] via his "LHO Is Innocent" thread, the LNers can close up shop and go home whimpering....is that it?

Somebody get a net for this kook. He'll be escaping soon if we don't.


>>> "At least we read things newer than 1963/64..." <<<

Yeah, like John Armstrong, right? And Fetzer. And Groden. And Stone/Garrison. And Mellen, who's attempting to resurrect Garrison yet again with yet another book on that Mega-Kook (a full bio on his life). You CTers build your foundation of CTism on quicksand, and then you keeping adding more kookshit from more kook authors with no solid evidence at all, and yet you still expect to remain afloat. Go figure.


>>> "...And even though lame people you read (Posner, Bugman, Myers, etc) use the same lame stuff." <<<

Yeah, such as the only evidence that has ever existed in this whole case (which all points toward your secret lover--L.H.O.).

Imagine my actually having the gall to use the evidence against Oswald as a reason to think Oswald shot some people. *I* should be shot too!

Time for an additional Reality Jolt from VB.......

"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. ....

"The first observation I have to make is that I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.

"Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.

"Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible.

"I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Via his book "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy"

David Von Pein
November 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (NOVEMBER 12, 2007)


=================================


RANDOM PHOTO FROM
THE KENNEDY GALLERY:




THE SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM
AT DEALEY PLAZA



PRESIDENT KENNEDY
IN FORT WORTH, TEXAS,
ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963
(HIS LAST 2 SPEECHES)


video



















JFK ARRIVES IN DALLAS, TEXAS,
ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963






video





















"MAN IN THE STREET" INTERVIEWS
FOLLOWING JFK'S ASSASSINATION
(NOVEMBER 22-24, 1963)







LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S
RADIO APPEARANCES











SENATOR JOHN F. KENNEDY
ON "MEET THE PRESS"
(OCTOBER 1960)


video




"THE MAKING OF THE PRESIDENT 1960"
(1963 DAVID L. WOLPER FILM)











JOHN F. KENNEDY
TELEPHONE CALLS
AND AUDIO RECORDINGS


video


video


video


video


video


video


video


video


================================


MANY MORE AUDIO RECORDINGS:







JIM GARRISON VS. JOHNNY CARSON
(JANUARY 31, 1968)





video

"THE LIFE AND TIMES OF
JOHN F. KENNEDY"

(1964 DOCUMENTARY)







"THE END OF CAMELOT"
(1993 DOCUMENTARY)







JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 109)


CONSPIRACY THEORIST BEN HOLMES SAID:

>>> "[Vincent] Bugliosi *NEVER* specifically addressed the 16 Smoking Guns, and even when he tangentially covered one of them, didn't refute any of them." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Reasonable people who aren't bogged down in the conspiracy-infested
world of minutiae will realize that Ben's statement above is complete
bullshit. Mr. Bugliosi addressed every item on Fetzer's silly list.

Ben, as I knew would be the case, simply doesn't like the refutations
that Bugliosi provides. Gee, what a surprise....a kook thinks
something hasn't been addressed or dealt with fully enough to meet
his "kook requirements" (which can never be done in the first place if
you're a nutcase named Ben, which is something I've also said
previously as well).

BTW, there are many more "Reclaiming History" cites for most of those
specific "smoking" topics that I could have used as well. It's sometimes
difficult to locate every single thing about a specific sub-topic in VB's book,
because he repeats many things in various chapters, plus the 1,100+
pages of endnotes.

But, as anyone can plainly see, I proved Ben to be a liar via just the
Bugliosi quotes I culled in this post.

Ben was proven a liar in my post linked above because of what Ben said
on Aug. 22, 2007 --- "Bugliosi did *NOT* address the 16 smoking guns,
so there's no page number *to* cite."


Here's the funniest part of Ben's mindset as it relates to Vincent
Bugliosi's massive JFK book:

Mr. Holmes, for some reason, actually thinks that the meticulous and
ultra-thorough Vince Bugliosi took 20+ years to write his "magnum
opus" on the JFK asssassination (from an "LN" POV), and yet (oops!)
apparently he just FORGOT TO ADDRESS AND KNOCK DOWN SEVERAL
MAJOR PRO-CONSPIRACY ISSUES that are part of James H. Fetzer's
"16 Smoking Guns".

[LOL time.]

Now, that's not to say that some of Fetzer's "Guns" are really worthy
of very much attention at all....because a few of them are just downright
stupid, silly, and idiotic at first blush, and could be "knocked down" by
just blowing on them. Such as these items, which are laughable from
every POV (if you've studied this case for more than just one day, that is):


"Smoking Gun #3: The weapon, which was not even a rifle, could
not have fired the bullets that killed the president."

"Smoking Gun #8: Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National
Archives are of the brain of someone other than JFK."

"Smoking Gun #13: The motorcade route was changed at the last
minute and yet the assassination occurred on the part that had been
changed."



But Mr. Bugliosi DOES deal with every one of those items in
"Reclaiming History"....even the ridiculous ones that were disproved
and discredited long ago. That's what makes "RH" Vincent's "magnum
opus". It's as complete a book as you could possibly get when it comes
to the JFK assassination and its many conspiracy theories surrounding
the case.

But to hear Ben Holmes tell it, Bugliosi might as well have released a
book with 2,800 blank pages in it (or at least 2,700 blank ones at any
rate)....because Kook Ben doesn't seem to believe that VB has refuted
ANY of Fetzer's nonsense. NONE of it!

Then, too, what more could we expect from a mega-kook who "finds" a
JFK conspiracy everywhere he looks?


>>> "Indeed, simple denial was [Bugliosi's] most common theme." <<<

And many times a simple denial is more than enough to debunk some of
the bullshit being purported by you conspiracy-loving clowns.

Again, just because Ben doesn't like (or approve of) the way Vince
addressed the conspiracy claims doesn't mean that VB didn't address
them or refute them.

I think all reasonable people will agree that the things a rabid
conspiracy-happy kook demands and the things that a "reasonable"
person demands are two entirely different propositions.


>>> "Lurkers may think otherwise." <<<

I think most "reasonable" lurkers will be able to spot an empty vessel
(named Ben) when they see one.

Happy sailing (in your empty vessel).

David Von Pein
January 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (JANUARY 2, 2008)



JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 108)


CONSPIRACIST:

>>> "There is no evidence worth a damn any bullet exited JFK's throat. When you have every single witness at Parkland saying "it appeared to be an entrance". How the hell do you get an exit out of that?" <<<


DAVID V.P.:

Simple -- There was no bullet(s) LEFT IN KENNEDY'S BODY. Period. And
there was certainly no damage inside JFK's neck/upper back that would
account for a bullet to have simply stopped inside the President's
body (let alone the TWO stopped bullets that anti-SBT kooks require in
this regard, including the upper-back wound).

Plus.....

"Common sense tells us that seeing only the wound to the front of the president's neck [and not seeing the corresponding entry wound in JFK's back at any time], the Parkland doctors would instinctively have been more inclined to think of it as an entrance wound. Almost anyone would be so predisposed." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 414 of "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)

Plus.....

If that throat wound wasn't an exit wound, the $64,000 question is ---
WHERE IS THE DAMN BULLET?

And the next question is -- WHERE IS THE OTHER BULLET THAT WENT INTO KENNEDY'S BACK BUT ALSO NEVER EXITED THE OTHER SIDE?

Another "plus" from VB.....

"Though conspiracy theorists are almost unanimous in believing that the president was shot from the front and his throat wound was an entrance wound, they are strangely silent as to what happened to this bullet after it entered the president's throat. .... It would be virtually impossible for a bullet entering the soft tissue of the neck at a speed of 2,000 feet per second to stop inside the neck and not exit the body." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 416 of "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)


>>> "Besides, the wound was half the size of the back entrance." <<<

Nobody measured the throat wound with any precision, idiot.

Plus.....

"These experiments [involving the firing of MC/WCC bullets at a simulated JFK upper back and neck] confirmed beyond all of my doubts that the smallness of the exit hole in the front of Kennedy's neck was due to the fact that the skin was supported by a firm collar band, which restrained it from bulging and bursting open ahead of the exiting bullet. .... If the bullet had not exited from the President's neck just AT the collar band, the exit wound might have been much larger." -- Dr. John K. Lattimer; Page 239 of "KENNEDY & LINCOLN" (c.1980)


So, I guess the conspiracy kooks should go back to the drawing board
and think up some new stupid-sounding pro-CT arguments to berate the
perfectly logical Single-Bullet Theory.

In short --

The SBT fits every last piece of evidence connected with the wounding of JFK & JBC.

The SBT works perfectly.

The SBT makes sense.

The SBT is correct.

David Von Pein
December 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (DECEMBER 30, 2007)




JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 107)


GIL JESUS SAID:

>>> "The Conspirators selected the luncheon site / motorcade
route." <<<



DAVID VON PEIN:

Which means, according to the conspiracy theorist named Gilbert who
wrote the nonsense quoted above, that Kenneth O'Donnell (President
Kennedy's very good friend and personal aide) was one of the MAIN
"conspirators", because it was Mr. O'Donnell, like it or not, who put the
final stamp of approval on the Trade Mart as the site for the November 22
Dallas luncheon (Warren Report, Page 31).

Governor Connally would also have to be considered pretty high up on
the "conspirator" list too, if Gil The Kook is to be believed, because
Connally was pushing hard for the Trade Mart as the luncheon location
in the weeks leading up to 11/22/63.

Does Gil really want to call both O'Donnell and Connally "conspirators"
in a plot to kill JFK in Dallas?

If not, did the real "conspirators" who, according to Gil, "selected
the luncheon site" (and, hence, in an indirect way would have selected
the motorcade route as well) just get extremely lucky when both John
Connally (a shooting victim himself on 11/22) and Ken O'Donnell just
happened to also want the luncheon to be held at the same place where
these unknown, unnamed "conspirators" wanted it to be held, so that
JFK would drive right in front of the building where the proverbial
"patsy" was located?

Anyway, I think it's fairly obvious that Gil is an idiot when it comes
to this completely unsupportable statement that he uttered --- "The
Conspirators selected the luncheon site / motorcade route."



>>> "The Conspirators removed the President's protection." <<<

I wonder if we can still include O'Donnell and Connally amongst "The
Conspirators" when it comes to this second goofball statement on Gil's
list of unsupportable feces?

Fact is, of course, that no "protection" was removed in Dallas. The
security measures taken by the DPD, in fact, were considered by many
people to be unprecedented in size and scope, with virtually every DPD
officer being on duty in some capacity in Dallas on November 22.

Henry Rybka's* "What's Up?" shoulder-shrugging incident at Love Field
has been propped up by some CTers as proof that JFK's motorcade was
lacking in essential security measures on 11/22.

This, of course, is ridiculous, because the Queen Mary SS follow-up
car was stuffed full with Secret Service agents even AFTER the arm-
flailing Rybka was left abandoned at the airport when the parade
commenced.

Do CTers really think Rybka was planning on running alongside the car
for the entire drive to the Trade Mart? Or that he was planning on
riding the rear bumper of the limo during the Stemmons Freeway portion
of the drive to the Mart (which would surely involve speeds that would
make it undesirable to have agents riding on those back steps of the
car at such times)?

Point being -- It's my belief that Rybka was never assigned to the
FULL MOTORCADE at all. I think he was probably an extra agent who was
at Love Field for the purpose of providing additional SS security at
the airport ONLY, but not for the motorcade drive through Dallas.

This guess of mine becomes even more obvious when we take note of the
fact that the SS car that drove behind 100-X, even without Rybka's
presence there, was jam-packed with the maximum number of agents (8)
that would fit inside that car, including the maximum of 4 agents on
the running boards.

Unless CTers now want to say that Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell
were really not supposed to be riding in that SS car, and that there
really should have been ten SS agents in the Queen Mary on 11/22/63,
instead of only eight. Do CTers want to travel down that path now?

* = DECEMBER 2011 EDIT: The Secret Service agent doing the
shoulder-shrugging at Love Field is very likely Donald Lawton, not
Henry Rybka. More on that HERE.


>>> "The Conspirators arrested the patsy." <<<

So, now the kook has expanded the "conspirators" list considerably
from where it was after just Gil's first hunk of idiocy above, which
is an item that deals with the motorcade route and the luncheon site,
which are things that the DPD certainly wasn't directly responsible
for selecting at all.

But this "arrested the patsy" item certainly means that Gil wants to
point an accusing finger of conspiratorial guilt at the Dallas Police
Department directly, because it was the DPD, after all, who arrested
Lee Harvey Oswald in the Texas Theater.

Let's see how many hundreds more "conspirators" Gil will include in
the mix before he poops out. Should be amusing.


>>> "The Conspirators manufactured the "evidence"." <<<

With this item above, it would seem that the "conspirator" team that
Gil The Mega-Kook imagines existed in November 1963 now includes the
following individuals and organizations:

Ken O'Donnell, John Connally, the DPD, the Dallas Sheriff's Department,
the Secret Service, the FBI, the United States Postal Service (Harry D. Holmes
specifically), Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois (William J.
Waldman specifically), Seaport-Traders, Inc. of Los Angeles, California
(Heinz W. Michaelis specifically), plus many other people who would have
had a hand in the "evidence" which currently exists in the official record
connected to the murder cases of both John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.

To repeat the obvious -- Gil is an idiot.


>>> "The Conspirators killed the patsy." <<<

Goodie, another addition to the list of "Conspirators" -- we get to add
Jack Ruby's name to the ever-growing list of plotters/henchmen. Lovely.

Plus: you can bet your last greenback that Gilbert is implying here that
"The Mob" was directly behind the death of Oswald on 11/24/63. (Gil
wouldn't be worth a damn as an "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy-loving
kook if he left the Mafia off of his list of plotters.)

So, with the Mob added into the mix too, we've now got still more
people involved in the assassination plot in '63. As Vince Bugliosi
once said: "Where did all of these conspirators get together to plot
the assassination -- Madison Square Garden?"


Pretty soon Gil will need the old Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum to
house all of his "Conspirators". (The Coliseum can currently seat
92,516 people, so it MIGHT be barely large enough to hold all of Gil's
plotters....but I wouldn't bet on it.)


>>> "The Conspirators destroyed evidence." <<<

Since Gil The Nutcase won't actually NAME any of the "Conspirators" he
imagines existed in '63, I'll just have to do some surmising regarding
their identities.

This "destroyed evidence" item, at least in part (from Gil's screwy
POV, that is) probably refers to Dallas FBI agent James Hosty and
JFK's leading autopsy doctor, James Humes.

Hosty did, indeed, destroy a note that was apparently written by Lee
Oswald a few weeks prior to JFK's assassination....and Dr. Humes
definitely burned some of the original autopsy materials in his own
home fireplace (and he ADMITTED to having done so, which is a very
strange thing to do IF HE WAS ACTUALLY TRYING TO "COVER UP"
SOMETHING CONSPIRATORIAL IN NATURE).

But, of course, the context in which Hosty and Humes destroyed those
items has been mangled and skewed (as usual) by the conspiracy
theorists.

Hosty flushed Oswald's note down the toilet because he was ordered to
do so by his boss, Gordon Shanklin. And I think it's fairly obvious
that Shanklin's concerns at that time were to try to salvage some of
the Bureau's waning credibility, seeing as how the Dallas Bureau
(Hosty in particular) knew of Oswald's existence in Dallas prior to
the assassination.

In hindsight, destroying the Hosty note was a stupid and needless
thing to do. But it was done anyway. (Partly because Shanklin probably
didn't want the note to come to the attention of his hotheaded boss
named J. Edgar as well.)

Per CTers, the Hosty note probably contained some kind of message
connected with the upcoming assassination of the President. But
there's certainly no proof of that allegation whatsoever. CTers don't
care about the fact they have no proof about something though.

Conspiracy promoters will continue to believe that the note said
something about a plot to kill Kennedy, even though, per Hosty, the
note contained no such information. It was merely a message by Oswald
to Hosty personally, telling Hosty to keep away from Marina and to
stop badgering her (and him). [See video below.]


video


Humes burned the original draft of the autopsy report in his fireplace
simply because it was inaccurate in some respects.

In addition, Humes burned his original notes that he made during the
Bethesda autopsy itself. According to Dr. Humes, those notes were
stained with President Kennedy's blood. So for reasons of taste, Humes
elected to re-copy those notes on fresh paper and destroy the bloody
papers.

Via Humes' HSCA testimony:

MR. CORNWELL -- "The notes are no longer in existence; is that correct?"

DR. HUMES -- "The original notes which were stained with the blood of our late President, I felt, were inappropriate to retain to turn in to anyone in that condition. I felt that people with some peculiar ideas about the value of that type of material, they might fall into their hands. I sat down and word for word copied what I had on fresh paper."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/m_j_russ/hscahume.htm


Via Humes' Warren Commission testimony:

DR. HUMES -- "In privacy of my own home, early in the morning of Sunday, November 24th, I made a draft of this report which I later revised, and of which this represents the revision. That draft I personally burned in the fireplace of my recreation room."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm


To play the "in hindsight" game once again, it probably would have
been wise for Humes to have not burned anything in his fireplace that
November weekend. But, then too, Dr. Humes probably couldn't have
imagined in a thousand lifetimes that there would be kooks like
Gilbert Jesus (et al) who would actually be accusing Humes himself of
deliberately altering the official autopsy report of a deceased U.S.
President, and accusing the good doctor of telling one despicable lie
after another whenever he spoke of JFK's autopsy in the years that
followed 1963.

Unfortunately, however, conspiracy nuts like Gil Jesus do exist. So, we
can either ignore their idiotic ramblings or we can ridicule them and
make as much fun out of them as humanly possible. Most of the time
I choose the former option, but the latter choice is much more pleasant
and rewarding.

Of course, as we all know, Gil's "destroyed evidence" item goes way,
way beyond just Hosty and Humes (in Gil's mind, that is). Gil thinks
a whole bunch of additional stuff was also "destroyed" by his imagined
"Conspiracy Team" of thousands in a massive cover-up plot to keep the
real truth about the events of November '63 from being revealed.

But coming up with proof that ANYTHING was "destroyed" as part of a
conspiracy to cover up the true facts and circumstances surrounding
the murders of JFK and Officer Tippit is another matter altogether.
Because Gil-Kook can't supply us with a single stitch of that kind of
PROOF in order to back up his allegation that "The Conspirators
destroyed evidence".

But that won't stop Gil from believing it happened just the same.


>>> "The Conspirators altered testimony.
The Conspirators falsified investigative reports.
The Conspirators threatened witnesses.
The Conspirators obstructed justice.
The Conspirators ignored witnesses." <<<


The above items on Gil's "Imagined List Of Conspiratorial Fantasy"
would indicate that still MORE people (lots more) would have to be
added to the previously-mentioned laundry list of plotters and post-
November 22 cover-up operatives -- chiefly, of course, the entire
Warren Commission panel and the associated counsel and staff members
who worked in conjunction with the Commission.

So, let's now do a "Conspirators" update and see how long the list of
plotters is at this point (per Gil J. Jesus):

1.) Kenneth P. O'Donnell
2.) John B. Connally
3.) The Dallas Police Department
4.) The Dallas County Sheriff's Department
5.) The Secret Service
6.) The FBI
7.) Jack Ruby
8.) The Mob (Mafia)
9.) Harry Holmes
10.) William Waldman
11.) Heinz Michaelis
12.) James Humes
13.) Earl Warren
14.) Hale Boggs
15.) Gerald Ford
16.) John McCloy
17.) Allen Dulles
18.) Richard Russell
19.) John Cooper
20.) J. Lee Rankin
21.) David Belin
22.) Arlen Specter
23.) Joseph Ball
24.) Mel Eisenberg
25.) Burt Griffin
26.) Wesley Liebeler
27.) William Coleman
28.) Albert Jenner
29.) Norman Redlich
30.) W. David Slawson
31.) Leon Hubert
32.) Howard Willens
33.) Francis Adams
34.) Samuel Stern

Plus: Various additional Warren Commission staff members too.

In addition, I'm sure I could add the names of J. Thornton Boswell and
Pierre A. Finck to the above list of plotters too. There's no sense in
letting those two autopsists off the hook....right Gilbert?

Plus: I'm pretty sure that I could also add the names of many
different members of the HSCA to Gil's list of likely "Conspirators"
too; plus some ARRB members as well. Plus the four doctors who served
on the Clark Panel.

I'm guessing that Gil feels that NOBODY is to be considered "off limits"
or excluded when it comes to potential underhanded evil-doers with
respect to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Looks like maybe it'll be "Standing Room Only" at the L.A. Coliseum
after all.


>>> "The result? 26 volumes of LIES paid for by the American
taxpayer." <<<


And the result of Gil Jesus' wholly-unsupportable "The Conspirators
Did This And Did That" forum post? ---

Gil Jesus is an idiot.

That's about the only definitive result I can think of after reading
through Gilbert's speculation-filled post anyway.

David Von Pein
January 2008

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (JANUARY 2, 2008)


=================================


RANDOM PHOTO FROM
THE KENNEDY GALLERY:




WARREN COMMISSION EXHIBIT 903
(PART 3)


PAT SPEER SAID:

The FBI took a series of photos showing the trajectory rod in comparison to the back wound location. NONE of these were published by the commission or entered into evidence. Now, why do you think that was, Dave? Because they supported the SBT? Well, how could that be, when the photo that became CE903, with the rod INCHES above the back wound location in the FBI's photos, also supports the SBT?

Do you dispute that the trajectory works in CE 903? Do you dispute that the rod in this trajectory passes inches above the back wound location shown in the other photos? Then how can you claim the SBT works in both photos?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The other (opposite angle) pictures WERE taken and DO exist, granted. But we can't know for what exact purpose those photos were taken. But CE903 is the official photo that appears in the Warren Commission's volumes. And that picture definitely does not require a wound to be placed up in the neck of JFK.




Lyndal Shaneyfelt testified that the angle of the string on the wall behind Specter in CE903 is 17 degrees, 43 minutes, 30 seconds [hereafter 17-43-30]. But that particular measurement, keep in mind, is only an AVERAGE angle from the Depository's sixth floor to the chalk mark on the back of the JFK stand-in. It's the average angle between Zapruder Film frames 210 and 225, as testified to by Shaneyfelt.

If you split the difference between Z210 and Z225, the 17-43-30 angle would actually equate to the SBT shot striking at Z217.5. But it's very unlikely and improbable that the Warren Commission managed to hit the SBT Z-frame squarely on the (half-frame) head at Z217.5. The bullet, in my own opinion, is obviously striking the victims a little later than that--at Z224.

Therefore, what we see in Commission Exhibit 903 really isn't the EXACT angle of the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally. And I'll admit that.

So a tiny little bit of slack and margin-of-error needs to be given to Mr. Specter and the Warren Commission concerning the angle of trajectory depicted in CE903. Because, let's face it, if Kennedy and Connally weren't hit at exactly Z217.5 (and they very likely were not hit at that precise moment in time), then the angle and other measurements are going to be just slightly off.

Based on the obvious truth about the angles that I just mentioned above, is there any chance that Pat Speer (or any other conspiracy theorist) would be willing to cut Arlen Specter and the Warren Commission just a tiny bit of slack when it comes to the Single-Bullet Theory?

But the end result of the reconstruction we see being done in CE903 certainly demonstrates that the rod (angled at 17+ degrees) would pass through both victims and end up in the exact bullet hole in Connally's coat that really was struck by a bullet on Nov. 22....and without any zig-zagging or bending of Specter's pointer either.

Let me ask this of the CTers:

Do you REALLY think that the Warren Commission has skewed the angles and the measurements and the wound locations that are depicted in CE903 so badly that the SBT is a total impossibility?

If you do believe such a thing, I think you need to re-examine CE903 and the testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt and Robert Frazier.

And while you're at it, re-examine Dale Myers' "Secrets Of A Homicide" animation project again too. Because there's no way in the world that Dale's computer model, which fixes the SBT bullet striking at Z223, is so far out of whack that anyone looking at it can say this: "Myers is nuts! His model isn't even close! The wounds are miles off! And the trajectory isn't even close either!"

If anyone says anything like that about Myers' model, they're loony-bin crazy.

In any event, CE903 is the Warren Commission's trajectory for the SBT, and it does not require a wound way up in the NECK of Kennedy (which is what most CTers seem to want to believe; i.e., those CTers seem to believe that the WC's own trajectory for the SBT requires the back wound to be "moved" way up into the neck; but that is just a flat-out myth and a lie, as CE903 vividly demonstrates).

I'll also ask this question:

If CE903 is such a "con", as Pat Speer said earlier, then I'm wondering why on Earth the evil Warren boys ever allowed photos like this one to ever get released to the public? Why weren't those pictures destroyed?

Also:

Even though it's true that we can't actually see the chalk mark on the stand-in's back in CE903, does anybody really think that the wound placement on the back of the JFK stand-in (which would be in the UPPER BACK, without question, if we were to move Specter's metal rod just a little to his left) is so far off as to totally discredit the Single-Bullet Theory completely?

And even if the trajectory angle seen in this reverse angle picture is exactly 17-43-30 (which I am not sure of, since that picture is not an official photo and does not appear in the Warren Commission volumes), the rod in Specter's hand in that reverse angle photo is a very short distance above that chalk mark. Very short indeed.

And, as mentioned earlier, the "17-43-30" measurement is just an "average" between Z210 and Z225. So there would be a little bit of leeway on the precise angles. That is, if JFK had been shot as early as Z210, the angle would have been slightly steeper than the 17-43-30 angle, since the limo was closer to the muzzle of Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle in the Texas School Book Depository at Z210.

But if the bullet really struck at Z225 (or Z224, just one frame away from 225), then the true angle to Kennedy's back wound would have been less (or shallower) than the 17-43-30 figure.

Shaneyfelt said the exact measurement at Z225 was 20 degrees, 11 minutes (which includes the 3.15-degree street grade; without the slope of the street, the angle would, of course, have been approx. 16 or so degrees downward).

The main point being -- A little "margin of error" must come into play when examining the 17-43-30 angle and when examining Commission Exhibit No. 903.

And when factoring in any small "margin of error" that must be included when discussing this topic of the angles and CE903, it seems fairly obvious to me that even the opposite-angle photograph below does not demonstrate the total impossibility of the Single-Bullet Theory.

In fact, based on my own personal belief about when the SBT occurred (which is at Z224), this photo below is just about spot-on perfect, in that the angle being depicted (if it is exactly the same 17-43-30 angle that we see depicted in CE903) would be TOO STEEP of an angle for any shot at precisely Z224. The angle in the photo below would, therefore, have to be lessened slightly to accommodate a shot going through both victims at exactly Z224.

And if you lessened the angle slightly, then where would Specter's pointer be located? It would very likely then be located a little below the place he's got it in this picture--which would place the pointer smack-dab over the top of the chalk mark on John F. Kennedy's stand-in (click the picture for a larger view):



Plus, there's also this testimony about the coat of JFK to be considered
[at 5 H 133]:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "What marking, if any, was placed on the back of...the stand-in for President Kennedy?"

THOMAS J. KELLEY -- "There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area here."

MR. SPECTER -- "And what did that chalk mark represent?"

MR. KELLEY -- "That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded the President."

MR. SPECTER -- "And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?"

MR. KELLEY -- "That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians...and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time."


Therefore, it would seem as if the chalk mark was also based (at least in part) on the hole in JFK's jacket, which IMO is just totally ridiculous, since we know that the hole in the coat is located well BELOW the hole in JFK's skin (due to the fact that Kennedy's coat was bunched up higher than normal when the shooting occurred).

Which means that if the jacket on the JFK stand-in in the photo above were to be "bunched up" a little bit (and we can see it isn't bunched up at all in that photograph), it would make the chalk mark rise a little higher on the back of the stand-in, which would mean it would almost perfectly line up with where Arlen Specter is holding the metal rod in that picture.

That "bunching up" of the jacket could very well be the answer as to why the chalk mark is located below the level of Specter's pointer. If we bunch up the jacket a little bit (like JFK's coat was bunched, per the Croft photo), it's a perfect alignment.

David Von Pein
December 22, 2011
May 17, 2013
December 9, 2014







"JFK IN IRELAND"
(1993 DOCUMENTARY)







"THE KENNEDY MYSTIQUE:
CREATING CAMELOT"

(2004 DOCUMENTARY)







TWO TV INTERVIEWS WITH JFK
(SEPTEMBER 1963)


CBS-TV
(SEPTEMBER 2, 1963):









===============================


NBC-TV
(SEPTEMBER 9, 1963):


video


video


video


video