(PART 1)


David Von Pein is well-known to students of JFK as a zealous defender of the "lone nut" theory, which has been debunked on virtually every count. Since [Dallas Police Captain J. Will] Fritz' notes show that Oswald told him he was "out with Bill Shelley in front", where Fritz was the homicide detective who was interrogating him, we know that the suggestions we are receiving from other sources are less reliable and highly misleading. .... What becomes important in sorting out what happened to JFK is not the enormous quantity of "proof" that supports the "official account" of the assassination, but the evidence, like Fritz' notes, that undermine it. .... That Pein [sic] is here shows their efforts to subvert the truth endure to this day.


The fact that Jim Fetzer is silly enough to resurrect the long-ago debunked "Oswald Was On The Steps" hogwash should be enough, all by itself, to indicate to any reasonable person that Professor Fetzer will latch onto ANY theory in order to perpetuate the myth that Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent of assassinating President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

And it doesn't seem to matter what theory it is either. Even a theory such as the stale and thoroughly defeated "Oswald Was Doorway Man" theory isn't TOO stale or TOO defeated for the likes of Professor Fetzer. Just as long as Jim can find a way to keep Saint Oswald's skirts clean and tidy, he's willing to do it.

And Mr. Fetzer is apparently silly enough to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald HIMSELF (the innocent "patsy", according to Fetzer) would lie to the press
in the corridors of Dallas City Hall
concerning his exact whereabouts at the time of JFK's murder. Because just a few seconds before uttering his famous
"I'm just a patsy" lie, Oswald told the press that he was INSIDE the Texas School Book Depository Building--not outside on the steps--at the exact time JFK was being murdered on Elm Street:

REPORTER -- "Did you shoot the President?"

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "I work in that building."

REPORTER -- "Were you in the building at the time?"

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."

The above statement made to the press by Lee Oswald ("Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir"), all by itself, pretty much destroys the theory that Oswald was standing on the Depository steps at 12:30 PM on November 22nd.

I guess Jim Fetzer must think that Oswald really meant to say: "No sir, I wasn't inside the building at 12:30; I was standing on the steps in front of the building with a lot of my fellow Depository employees, including Buell Wesley Frazier, when JFK was shot."

Plus, on numerous other occasions on November 22 and 23, Oswald had the perfect opportunity to shout these words to the world -- "I WAS STANDING IN THE DEPOSITORY DOORWAY AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING!"

Several times during that weekend, Oswald had a microphone shoved in his face by the press. He could have shouted out the above words to the waiting world--on live television--if he had wanted to do so, and the Dallas Police couldn't have done anything to stop him.

So the common belief among conspiracy theorists that the Dallas Police Department wasn't being completely truthful about the things Lee Oswald told them behind closed doors won't fly in this particular instance, because Oswald had plenty of chances to shout out anything he wanted to say to the reporters in the hallway that weekend. And yet he never once told the press that he had an ironclad alibi (standing on the TSBD steps) when JFK was being killed.

Maybe Professor Fetzer thinks Oswald was framing HIMSELF for President Kennedy's murder when he remained totally silent about his foolproof "I WAS ON THE STEPS" alibi.

Regarding Will Fritz' Notes:

Jim Fetzer and other conspiracy theorists have attempted to utilize the sketchy notes of DPD Captain J. Will Fritz to suggest that the words "out with Bill Shelley in front", which appear on Page 1 of Captain Fritz' original handwritten notes (see link below), mean that Oswald told Fritz that he was standing on the steps of the Book Depository at the time JFK was being assassinated.

But those notes don't mean any such thing. What the notes very likely mean is that Oswald told Fritz that he (Oswald) went outside AFTER the assassination had already taken place and had seen Bill Shelley "in front" of the building at that time.

How can we know that the above scenario is likely the correct one regarding Fritz' notes? Because of the chronology of the notes themselves. The "out with Bill Shelley in front" note comes AFTER Fritz had already written these other notes:

"claims 2nd floor Coke when off [Officer Marrion Baker] came in" and "to 1st floor had lunch".

And then, the very next thing Fritz wrote is: "out with Bill Shelley in front".

It seems pretty clear that Captain Fritz was generally following a chronological pattern in those notes when it came to the portions of the notes that refer to the time of the assassination itself and the moments just before and just after the assassination. Fritz made a note about Oswald seeing Officer Baker BEFORE he ever mentions anything about "lunch" or "out with Bill Shelley in front".

So, in my opinion, it's reasonable to conclude that the reference in Captain Fritz' notes to "out with Bill Shelley in front" is referring to a point in time AFTER the assassination occurred--not the exact time of the assassination itself.

Fritz' Notes:


Book Depository employee Billy Lovelady must have been a liar, per James Fetzer, because during Lovelady's testimony in front of the Warren Commission on April 7, 1964, Lovelady drew an arrow, pointing to himself, in Commission Exhibit No. 369 (pictured below).*

Therefore, Lovelady himself--the very person who was on the TSBD steps and whom Fetzer wants to believe is really Lee Harvey Oswald--told the world "That's me [Lovelady] on those steps in the James Altgens picture; therefore, it can't be Lee Harvey Oswald."

The above isn't a direct quote from Lovelady's lips, quite obviously, but it might just as well be, because when Lovelady drew an arrow to himself in CE369, he was also, in essence, uttering the words I just put in quotation marks above.

* An "Arrow" Footnote -- In actuality, two different witnesses—Billy Lovelady and Buell Wesley Frazier—drew arrows on Commission Exhibit No. 369, with both of those arrows definitely pointing to the person in the Altgens picture known as "Doorway Man". The one arrow that is visible in the photo, however, was probably placed there by Frazier, not Lovelady. More about that can be found HERE and HERE.

And there is also Buell Wesley Frazier's "testimony" during the 1986 television docu-trial "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald", when Frazier verified that "Doorway Man" was Billy Lovelady, and not Oswald. (Go to 8:25 in the video below.)

Conspiracists like James H. Fetzer, who never met up with a conspiracy theory they didn't fall in love with (especially in the JFK case), are an embarrassment to any serious student of the JFK assassination.

Here's yet another example (among hundreds) to illustrate just how big a kook Professor Fetzer has become when it comes to the JFK case:

Jim Fetzer actually had the gonads to say (without a lick of supporting physical evidence to back this up, of course) that President Kennedy was struck by FOUR separate bullets on 11/22/63 and that Governor Connally was hit by as many as THREE additional different bullets.

That's SEVEN separate bullets that Fetzer thinks hit the two victims in the Presidential limousine on November 22, 1963. Seven!

That's the kind of over-the-top, unsupportable disinformation and pure conjecture that James H. Fetzer wants people to believe is the truth relating to John F. Kennedy's murder.

And those seven bullets don't even take into account the number of shots/bullets that Fetzer thinks totally missed JFK's car. Pretty soon Jim will probably be challenging Robert Groden's 15-shot record.

And, speaking of Mr. Groden, it's very likely that Groden will be able to convince the easily-duped Mr. Fetzer into believing that Oswald was really on the second floor of the Depository, getting money for a Coke, when JFK was being killed (which is apparently a claim that Groden is going to make in his next proposed book, "JFK: Absolute Proof").

But, like Fetzer and other conspiracists, I doubt that Groden has ever even wondered why Oswald never shouted to the world on live television the fact that he was on the second floor, right next to a woman who could have been used as his ironclad alibi, at the time when shots were being fired at John F. Kennedy.

And to think that Mr. Fetzer had the pot-kettle gall to say this to me in 2010:

"None of this is rocket science, but it requires applied intelligence and serious study to work though the "smoke and mirrors" that those like Arlen Specter and Dave Von Pein have been trading in for all of these years. What disturbs me is not that they are willing to place politics before truth but that so many students of JFK continue to be willing to contemplate the possibility of a "magic bullet" or that the backyard photographs are genuine or that the Zapruder film is authentic--even to this very day!" -- James H. Fetzer; November 26, 2010


Jim Fetzer, a person who has simply invented from whole cloth FIVE additional bullets that he claims struck John Kennedy and John Connally (above and beyond the total number of 2 bullets that really did hit those men in Dealey Plaza), is accusing me of utilizing "smoke and mirrors" when I discuss the evidence in the JFK assassination. Incredible.

When reading the tripe penned by Professor James H. Fetzer, I don't know whether to laugh or vomit. It's a tough choice.

David Von Pein
January 29, 2012
June 4, 2012
June 27-29, 2016


Another common-sense reason to know that Lee Oswald is not Doorway Man (besides the fact that Billy Lovelady verified that he, himself, was Doorway Man in Commission Exhibit No. 369) is that we'd have to swallow the following preposterous notion if Oswald really was standing in front of the TSBD in the Altgens photo:

Oswald was watching the motorcade from the steps of the Depository Building....he sees JFK get shot....he sees all the commotion that follows....and then what does he decide to do IMMEDIATELY after seeing this catastrophic event take place right before his very eyes? He decides he wants to go inside the building and get himself a Coca-Cola from the second-floor lunchroom.

And the above scenario would have been unfolding involving a man (Oswald) who certainly was involved in some way in the plot to murder the President. And even most hardline conspiracy theorists will admit to Oswald having been knowingly "involved" in at least some peripheral way in the assassination plot on 11/22/63.

Which would mean (when factoring in my last paragraph) that Oswald, if he was Doorway Man, incredibly, still had that desire to walk back inside the TSBD Building and buy that Coke from the second-floor vending machine immediately after watching the President get killed -- vs. getting the heck out of Dodge and high-tailing it away from the scene of an assassination that he, himself, helped orchestrate.

Anybody here think that tall tale would sway any of the jurors at Mr. Oswald's murder trial?

Footnote #1 --- Yes, it's true that Buell Wesley Frazier did something almost as unbelievable and incredible very shortly after watching JFK get killed from the TSBD steps, with Frazier going back into the building and down to the basement (no less) to eat his lunch. But the key difference between Frazier's actions and Oswald's (via the scenario laid out above) would be: Buell Frazier wasn't a conspirator and had no reason to want to flee the murder scene after JFK was killed.

Footnote #2 --- Of course, the mere fact that Oswald was anywhere near the scene of the assassination if he really wasn't the triggerman is a preposterous thing to believe as well (via the widely-accepted scenario of Oswald being "involved" in some way in the assassination plot beforehand, but not as a gunman). But, quite obviously, many many CTers do believe that Oswald was "involved" in the plot but not as a gunman, but he still (for some unknown reason) needed to be right there at the scene of the murder anyway--even though he really did NOTHING at all to help out his co-conspirators at
12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63.

David Von Pein
May 25, 2012






Excerpt From The Warren Commission Report:

"In evaluating the evidence that [Lee Harvey] Oswald was at the southeast corner window of the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, the Commission has considered the allegation that Oswald was photographed standing in front of the building when the shots were fired.

The picture which gave rise to these allegations was taken by Associated Press Photographer James W. Altgens, who was standing on the south side of Elm Street between the Triple Underpass and the Depository Building.

As the motorcade started its descent down Elm Street, Altgens snapped a picture of the Presidential limousine with the entrance to the Depository Building in the background. Just before snapping the picture Altgens heard a noise which sounded like the popping of a firecracker. Investigation has established that Altgens’ picture was taken approximately 2 seconds after the firing of the shot which entered the back of the President’s neck.

In the background of this picture were several employees watching the parade from the steps of the Depository Building. One of these employees was alleged to resemble Lee Harvey Oswald.

The Commission has determined that the employee was in fact Billy Nolan Lovelady, who identified himself in the picture [see 6 H 338 and 6 H 339]. Standing alongside him were Buell Wesley Frazier and William Shelley, who also identified Lovelady. The Commission is satisfied that Oswald does not appear in this photograph. (See Commission Exhibit No. 900, p. 113.)"

-- Warren Commission Report; Page 147 and Page 149


Excerpt From The HSCA Final Report:

"Lovelady or Oswald? -- It has been alleged that a photograph taken of the President's limousine at the time of the first shot shows Oswald standing in the doorway of the depository. Obviously, if Oswald was the man in the doorway, he could not have been on the sixth floor shooting at the President.

The Warren Commission determined that the man in the doorway was not Oswald, it was Billy Lovelady, another depository employee. Critics have challenged that conclusion, charging that Commission members did not personally question Lovelady to determine if he was in fact the man in the photograph. In addition, they argue that no photograph of Lovelady was published in any of the volumes issued by the Warren Commission.

The committee asked its photographic evidence panel to determine whether the man in the doorway was Oswald, Lovelady or someone else. Forensic anthropologists working with the panel compared the photograph with pictures of Oswald and Lovelady, and a photoanalyst studied the pattern of the shirt worn by the man in the doorway and compared it to the shirts worn by the two men that day.

Based on an assessment of the facial features, the anthropologists determined that the man in the doorway bore a much stronger resemblance to Lovelady than to Oswald. In addition, the photographic analysis of the shirt in the photograph established that it corresponded more closely with the shirt worn that day by Lovelady.

Based on these analyses, the committee concluded that it was highly improbable that the man in the doorway was Oswald and highly probable that he was Lovelady. The committee's belief that the man in the doorway was Lovelady was also supported by an interview with Lovelady in which he affirmed to committee investigators that he was the man in the photograph."

-- House Select Committee on Assassinations Final Report; Page 58