(PART 166)


>>> "I looked at CTKA and didn't see any mention of [Mark Lane's review of Vincent Bugliosi's JFK book]?" <<<


It's on Mark Lane's website [as of March 2008 anyway; as of March 2012, however, Lane's "It Is Round" review of VB's book is gone from Lane's site]. It was written by Lane several months ago.

Mark Lane, in his 42-page anti-Bugliosi rant, actually has the huge (and hilarious) gonads to say that Bugliosi makes "wild accusations" (Lane's exact words) when it comes to the evidence in the JFK case.

I wonder if that includes all the times that Vince follows the actual evidence where it actually leads--to Lee Harvey Oswald and only him--instead of following the fantasy-filled yellow brick road toward conspiracy? Mr. Lane didn't say. He just thinks that Vince offers up "wild accusations, instead of facts". It's definitely pot/kettle time here, folks.

Another humorous portion of Mr. Lane's anti-VB outburst is when he criticizes Bugliosi for not researching the JFK case any sooner than he did (which was 1986, when Vince got involved in the Mock Trial of Oswald for London Weekend Television), with Lane suggesting that the only reason Vince ultimately wrote "Reclaiming History" was to make a buck (even though, of course, it took 21 years to write and research the book, and Vince certainly knows that if you want to make a bunch of money off of a book project, you don't take 21 years to write an encyclopedic-style tome and charge $49.95 retail for it; and Vince has said this very thing since the book came out in May 2007).

But can't the same type of arguments be made when talking about a whole bunch of "johnny-come-lately" (so to speak) authors who didn't come along with their so-called case-breaking books until decades after the assassination? And they certainly wanted to make a few bucks off of their books too, didn't they?

I guess perhaps people like Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann and John Armstrong and Brian "JFK WASN'T SHOT IN THE HEAD AT ALL!" Andersen are exempt from the same rules that Vince Bugliosi must adhere to (per Mr. Lane).

Go figure.

If you really want to see some "wild accusations" (circa 1967 anyway), just get ahold of a video copy of Mr. Lane's film "Rush To Judgment". A lot of wholly untrue and unfounded "accusations" and theories can be located within that film.

As for Mr. Bugliosi's excellent publication, the truth rests within it (and the actual evidence against Oswald also resides within it, of course)....and the majority of readers who are taking the time to write reviews for VB's "Reclaiming History" at Amazon.com are in complete agreement with me about the book as well, with well over half of the reviews (to date) reflecting a perfect "5-Star" rating. .....

Amazon Customer Reviews for "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (through March 9, 2008):

149 Total Reviews:*

5-star: 85 (57%)
4-star: 11 (7%)
3-star: 12 (8%)
2-star: 9 (6%)
1-star: 32 (21%)

* = These stats include my own personal 5-Star review as well.

An excerpt from a recent "RH" review:

"Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, assassinated President Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, and Bugliosi makes this clear to anyone who is interested in the truth. Unfortunately, many people choose to believe in a conspiracy and will not be swayed by any amount of facts or logic, but if you have an open mind and are willing to devote the time and effort to reading this book, then Reclaiming History will surely convince you once and for all of Oswald's guilt." -- Thomas R. Higgerson; March 9th, 2008

David Von Pein
March 2008



At 2:16 PM, Central Standard Time, on Friday afternoon, November 22, 1963, which was just one hour and sixteen minutes after President Kennedy was pronounced dead, Dr. Malcolm Perry and Dr. Kemp Clark commenced a press conference at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas.

The complete transcript of the press conference given by Drs. Perry and Clark at Parkland Hospital is reprinted below.

Note -- The time of the conference that appears in the Wayne Hawks transcript [ARRB Medical Document 41] is positively incorrect. The Hawks document lists the conference as beginning at "3:16 PM CST", but it really began one hour earlier than that, at 2:16 PM CST (which would, however, be 3:16 PM EST on the east coast of the United States).

I have confirmed via my collection of 11/22/63 CBS-TV news coverage that the 2:16 PM CST time is the accurate time for the start of the press conference, because at exactly 3:40 PM EST (2:40 PM in Dallas), CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite reads a report that contains various quotes that Dr. Perry had made just minutes earlier during his hectic news conference at Parkland Hospital.

Therefore, since Walter Cronkite is reading news reports about Perry's comments at 2:40 PM Central Standard Time, then Perry's news conference could not possibly have begun at 3:16 PM Central Time.

Oddly, even though I myself possess a large amount of the original television and radio news coverage from the day of President Kennedy's assassination, I have been unable to locate the Perry/Clark news conference in my own vast archives of audio and video material.

The conference, however, must have been transcribed by someone, because the detailed, word-for-word transcript that is copied below could not possibly exist otherwise. It would appear that a stenographer was on hand at Parkland when the news conference began at 2:16 (the man seated in this photo).



WAYNE HAWKS (WHITE HOUSE AIDE) -- "Let me have your attention, please. You wanted to talk to some of the attending physicians. I have two of them here, Dr. Malcolm Perry, an attending surgeon here at Parkland Memorial Hospital. He will talk to you first, and then Dr. Kemp Clark, the chief neurosurgeon here at the hospital. He will tell you what he knows about it. Dr. Perry."

QUESTION -- "Were you in attendance when the President died?"

REPORTER -- "Let him tell his story."

DR. MALCOLM O. PERRY -- "I was summoned to the emergency room shortly after the President was brought in, on an emergency basis, immediately after the President’s arrival. Upon reaching his side, I noted that he was in critical condition from a wound of the neck and of the head. Immediate resuscitative measures---"

QUESTION -- "Would you go slower?"

DR. PERRY -- "I noted he was in critical condition from the wound in the neck and the head."

QUESTION -- "Could that be done by one shot?"

DR. PERRY -- "I cannot conjecture. I don’t know."

QUESTION -- "A wound of the neck and of the---"

DR. PERRY -- "---of the head. Immediate resuscitative measures were undertaken, and Dr. Kemp Clark, Professor of Neurosurgery, was summoned, along with several other members of the surgical and medical staff. They arrived immediately, but at this point the President’s condition did not allow complete resuscitation."

QUESTION -- "What do you mean by "complete resuscitation"?"

DR. PERRY -- "He was critically ill and moribund at the time these measures were begun."

QUESTION -- "Completely ill and what?"

DR. PERRY -- "Moribund."

QUESTION -- "What does that mean?"

DR. PERRY -- "Near death."

QUESTION -- "What was the word you used?"

DR. PERRY -- "Moribund. Dr. Clark arrived thereafter, immediately."

QUESTION -- "Could you tell us what resuscitative measures were attempted?"

DR. PERRY -- "Assisted respiration."

QUESTION -- "What is that?"

QUESTION -- "With what?"

DR. PERRY -- "Assisted respiration with oxygen and an anesthesia machine, passage of an endotracheal tube."

QUESTION -- "Does that mean you stick it in?"

DR. PERRY -- "Yes, place it in the trachea."

REPORTER -- "Spell it for us, please."

DR. PERRY -- "E-n-d-o-t-r-a-c-h-e-a-l. A tracheostomy."

QUESTION -- "Did they perform a tracheostomy?"

DR. PERRY -- "Yes."

QUESTION -- "Would you spell it?"

DR. PERRY -- "T-r-a-c-h-e-o-s-t-o-m-y."

QUESTION -- "Was there a priest in the room at this time, Doctor?"

MR. HAWKS -- "The doctor is just telling you about the operation."

DR. PERRY -- "Blood and fluids were also given, and an electrocardiograph monitor was attached to record any heart beat that might be present. At this point, Dr. Clark was also in attendance."

QUESTION -- "What is his name?"

DR. PERRY -- "Dr. Kemp Clark. And Dr. Charles Baxter."

DR. WILLIAM KEMP CLARK -- "I was called by Dr. Perry because the President---"

QUESTION -- "You are Dr. Clark?"

DR. CLARK -- "I am Dr. Clark. ---because the President had sustained a brain wound. On my arrival, the resuscitative efforts, the tracheostomy, the administration of chest tubes to relieve any possible---"

QUESTION -- "Could you slow down a little bit, Doctor, please?"

DR. CLARK -- "---to relieve any possibility of air being in the pleural space, the electrocardiogram had been hooked up, blood and fluids were being administered by Dr. Perry and Dr. Baxter. It was apparent that the President had sustained a lethal wound. A missile had gone in or out of the back of his head, causing extensive lacerations and loss of brain tissue. Shortly after I arrived, the patient, the President, lost his heart action by the electrocardiogram, his heart action had stopped. We attempted resuscitative measures of his heart, including closed chest cardiac massage, but to no avail."

QUESTION -- "Was that closed chest?"

DR. CLARK -- "Yes."

QUESTION -- "Does that mean external, Doctor, closed?"

DR. CLARK -- "Yes. We were able to obtain palpable pulses by this method, but, again, to no avail."

QUESTION -- "What is palpable?"

MR. HAWKS -- "What did you ask?"

QUESTION -- "Palpable?"

DR. CLARK -- "Palpable."

QUESTION -- "Palpable what?"

DR. CLARK -- "Pulses."

QUESTION -- "Doctor, how many doctors were in attendance at the time of the President’s death?"

QUESTION -- "Doctor, can you tell us how long after he arrived on the emergency table before he expired? In other words, how long was he living while in the hospital?"

DR. CLARK -- "40 minutes, perhaps."

DR. PERRY -- "I was far too busy to tell. I didn’t even look at my watch."

DR. CLARK -- "I would guess about 40 minutes."

QUESTION -- "Doctor, can you describe the course of the wound through the head?"

DR. CLARK -- "We were too busy to be absolutely sure of the track, but the back of his head---"

QUESTION -- "And through the neck?"

DR. CLARK -- "Principally on his right side, towards the right side."

QUESTION -- "What was the exact time of death, Doctor?"

DR. CLARK -- "That is very difficult to say. We were very busy, and in answer to someone else’s question, we had a lot of people in attendance. We elected to make this at 1300 [1:00 PM]."

QUESTION -- "You elected---?"

QUESTION -- "What, sir?"

DR. CLARK -- "We pronounced him at 1300 hours."

QUESTION -- "Thirteen of---?"

MR. HAWKS -- "1:00 o’clock."

QUESTION -- "Can you describe his neck wound?"

DR. CLARK -- "I was busy with his head wound. I would like to ask the people who took care of that part to describe that to you."

QUESTION -- "What was the question?"

DR. PERRY -- "The neck wound, as visible on the patient, revealed a bullet hole almost in the mid line."

QUESTION -- "What was that?"

DR. PERRY -- "A bullet hole almost in the mid line."

QUESTION -- "Would you demonstrate?"

DR. PERRY -- "In the lower portion of the neck, in front."

QUESTION -- "Can you demonstrate, Doctor, on your own neck?"

DR. PERRY -- "Approximately here (indicating)."

QUESTION -- "Below the Adam’s apple?"

DR. PERRY -- "Below the Adam’s apple."

QUESTION -- "Doctor, is it the assumption that it went through the head?"

DR. PERRY -- "That would be on conjecture on my part. There are two wounds, as Dr. Clark noted, one of the neck and one of the head. Whether they are directly related or related to two bullets, I cannot say."

QUESTION -- "Where was the entrance wound?"

DR. PERRY -- "There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say."

QUESTION -- "Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?"

DR. PERRY -- "It appeared to be coming at him."

QUESTION -- "And the one behind?"

DR. PERRY -- "The nature of the wound defies the ability to describe whether it went through it from either side. I cannot tell you that. Can you, Dr. Clark?"

DR. CLARK -- "The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue."

QUESTION -- "That was the immediate cause of death--the head wound?"

DR. CLARK -- "I assume so, yes."

REPORTER -- "There is a rumor that Lyndon Johnson had a heart attack, and I would like to check that out."

DR. CLARK -- "I have no information."

MR. HAWKS -- "I don’t believe these gentlemen were in attendance with the Vice President."

QUESTION -- "Where was he when this was going on?"

MR. HAWKS -- "That is not a question you should put to this doctor."

QUESTION -- "Can you tell us where he is?"

MR. HAWKS -- "I can’t now, but Mr. [Malcolm] Kilduff will be available later and we will take those details then."

REPORTER -- "We can’t hear you."

MR. HAWKS -- "They were asking where the Vice President was, but I don’t know at the moment. That is not the proper question to put to these gentlemen. They were busy with the President at the time."

QUESTION -- "Where was Mrs. Kennedy?"

MR. HAWKS -- "I don’t know that detail either. As you might suspect, we were all busy around here."

QUESTION -- "Can’t we clear this up just a little more? In your estimation, was there one or two wounds? Just give us something."

DR. PERRY -- "I don’t know. From the injury, it is conceivable that it could have been caused by one wound, but there could have been two just as well if the second bullet struck the head in addition to striking the neck, and I cannot tell you that due to the nature of the wound. There is no way for me to tell."

QUESTION -- "Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in the throat?"

DR. PERRY -- "The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don’t know. It could have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head. There was not time to determine this at the particular instant."

QUESTION -- "Would the bullet have to travel up from the neck wound to exit through the back?"

DR. PERRY -- "Unless it was deviated from its course by striking bone or some other object."

QUESTION -- "Doctor, can you give us your ages, please?"

DR. PERRY -- "I am 34."

QUESTION -- "You are Doctor who?"

DR. PERRY -- "Perry."

MR. HAWKS -- "This is Dr. Malcolm Perry, attending surgeon, and this is Dr. Kemp Clark, chief of neurosurgery at this hospital."

QUESTION -- "How old are you, sir?"

DR. CLARK -- "38."

QUESTION -- "Is that C-l-a-r-k?"

DR. CLARK -- "Yes."

QUESTION -- "Can you tell us whether the autopsy will be performed here or elsewhere?"

DR. PERRY -- "I do not have that information."

MR. HAWKS -- "I don’t know either."

QUESTION -- "Will there be one?"

MR. HAWKS -- "I don’t know that."

QUESTION -- "Where is the President’s body?"

MR. HAWKS -- "I couldn’t tell you."

QUESTION -- "Was the President ever conscious after the bullet struck him?"

DR. PERRY -- "No, not while I was in attendance."

QUESTION -- "How much blood was used?"

DR. PERRY -- "I don’t know. There was considerable bleeding."

QUESTION -- "How soon did you see him after he got in?"

QUESTION -- "Did you have to send for blood?"

DR. PERRY -- "Blood was sent for and obtained, yes."

QUESTION -- "Where?"

DR. PERRY -- "From our blood bank."

QUESTION -- "Here in the hospital?"

DR. PERRY -- "Here in the hospital."

QUESTION -- "How much was used?"

DR. PERRY -- "I don’t know."

QUESTION -- "Doctor, were the last rites performed in the emergency room?"

DR. PERRY -- "Yes."

QUESTION -- "Yes, they were?"

MR. HAWKS -- "Yes, they said they were. Kilduff told you, too."

QUESTION -- "Which room was this? What is the room like?"

DR. PERRY -- "Emergency Operating Room No. 1."

QUESTION -- "How far from the door is that, and which way?"

DR. CLARK -- "Straight in from the Emergency Room entrance, at the back of the hospital, approximately 40 feet."

QUESTION -- "Approximately what?"

MR. HAWKS -- "40 feet from the emergency entrance."

QUESTION -- "The first floor?"

DR. CLARK -- "The ground floor."

QUESTION -- "How many doctors and nurses were in attendance at the time of death?"

DR. PERRY -- "There were at least eight or ten physicians at that time."

QUESTION -- "At least eight or ten physicians?"

DR. PERRY -- "Yes."

QUESTION -- "Did you think him mortally wounded at the time you first examined him, or did you think there was no possibility of saving his life at that point?"

DR. PERRY -- "No, I did not."

DR. CLARK -- "No, sir."

QUESTION -- "Did you say there were eight or ten doctors or doctors and nurses?"

DR. CLARK -- "Eight or ten doctors."

QUESTION -- "Can we get that straight, Doctor? Did you say you did not think there was any possibility of saving his life when you first looked at him?"

DR. CLARK -- "That is what I said, yes."

QUESTION -- "How long had he been in before you saw him, sir?"

DR. CLARK -- "This I don’t know because I was not looking at my watch."

QUESTION -- "Who was the first doctor who saw him, and how long before he got there?"

DR. CLARK -- "Just a matter of a few seconds."

DR. PERRY -- "I arrived there shortly after his admission. I can’t tell you the exact time because I went immediately and he had just been admitted and I walked in the room. I don’t know the exact time. I was in quite a hurry."

QUESTION -- "Were there any members of the family or others in the room besides the doctors, in the emergency room?"

DR. PERRY -- "I am afraid I was not aware of that. I was quite too busy to notice."

MR. HAWKS -- "We will have to get those details from Mac [Malcolm Kilduff]."

QUESTION -- "Do you have any new details about our plans, what you are going to do?"

MR. HAWKS -- "I can’t until I get a reading from you fellows. For instance, you have a new President."

QUESTION -- "Do we? Was he sworn in?"

MR. HAWKS -- "Well, he went somewhere to get sworn in. I assume he is sworn in at this time, but I wasn’t in attendance. Obviously, you are going to have a new President. Let’s put it that way."

QUESTION -- "Where is he going to be?"

MR. HAWKS -- "That is what I am trying to find out. Mac is with him, trying to get the details, and he will call me or come in here. We will try to find out."

DR. PERRY -- "Can we go now?"

THE PRESS -- "Thank you, Doctors."

MR. HAWKS -- "Your plans, what do you want to do?"

QUESTION -- "First, is there any more about Mrs. Kennedy?"

MR. HAWKS -- "Let’s do some "supposing" because we need some planning for your press plane."

QUESTION -- "How about Mrs. Kennedy? Has she gone back to Washington, or is she going?"

MR. HAWKS -- "That is what Mac is trying to find out now. This takes a lot of doing."

QUESTION -- "Can we stay here with the new President?"

MR. HAWKS -- "If you want to stay here with the new President, if he stays here. I don’t know that he is going to stay here. That is why I want to "suppose" here for a minute."

REPORTER -- "Let’s put it on the basis of what the new President does. If he stays, we stay; and if he goes, we go."

MR. HAWKS -- "Suppose the body goes back and the new President stays? Do some of you want to stay, or go?"

REPORTER -- "Stay with the new President."

MR. HAWKS -- "All right, that is what I wanted to find out. You know, there are buses and planes and things like that."

QUESTION -- "I know I won’t be going back in any case. Can I get my luggage back here? How do we get luggage on the press plane off of there?"

MR. HAWKS -- "If we decide to spend the night here, we will get the luggage here. Don’t worry about it."

REPORTER -- "We have luggage in the wire car, but God knows where it is."

QUESTION -- "Where will the next briefing be, here or where?"

MR. HAWKS -- "Right here, so far as I know. This is where Mac said he could come back to."





(PART 165)


>>> "I very clearly wrote that the Croft photo is NOT a fake....HOWEVER IT HAS BEEN TAMPERED WITH." <<<


OIC. It's not a "fake" image, it's only "been tampered with".

The kook has decided to kill me with semantics today. Nice.

>>> "Anybody with one good eye can see that a black felt tipped pen has been used to black out an area above and to the rear of JFK's head. Thanks to your posting of this link to the colored photo..." <<<

The kook can't even manage to link a photo without screwing it up. So
I'll do it for the kook. Here's the full-color Croft picture:

Walt thinks that some idiot plotter took a "felt-tipped pen" and
created a big ol' black splotch on the Croft photo behind JFK's head.

The next question, of course, to ask the kook (other than the
proverbial one, "Can you prove it?") is: Why?

What does Walt think the "non-altered" Croft picture is showing in the
blotched-out area? It certainly can't be anything relating to the
fatal head shot. It's still quite a few seconds until the head shot

Does Walt think that the "blotch" is hiding a BULLET IN MID-FLIGHT (or
something equally as impossible)?


Maybe the idiot photo-fakers just wanted to deliberately mark up and
"tamper" with one of the 11/22 photos IN THE MOST CRUDE AND OBVIOUSLY
DETECTABLE WAY IMAGINABLE (by using a "felt-tipped pen" on the
image)...just for the fun of it. Eh, Walt-Kook?

Oh, btw, the black "splotch" is, of course, also FULLY VISIBLE in the
B&W version of the photograph as well...as anyone can easily see in
the photo below. And the picture below is the B&W version that Walt
insists shows proof of conspiracy and shows the piece of shirt flying
off JFK's back.

It's kind of odd, isn't it, that the stupid photo-fakers decided to
"tamper" with the picture by drawing in some kind of "black blotch"
with a pen, but they decided to LEAVE IN the "piece of shirt" on the
B&W version that Walt touts as proof that JFK was being shot from the
front at this instant?:

This kind of reminds me of the "Z-Film Fakery" theory -- i.e., the
fakers/alterers decide to go to great, elaborate lengths to alter the
film in a variety of ways (most of them being totally meaningless and
useless when it comes to determining where the shots came from, of
course, per the CT-Kooks)....but then these same film-fakers decided
to LEAVE IN the rear head snap of JFK's head just after the fatal

Go try to figure out the mindset of those film-faking idiots. (I sure

In reality, of course, the "black splotch" seen in the Robert Croft
photograph looks to me to be the merging together of a combination of
dark things visible within the photo, including the dark dress being
worn by the woman on the right side of the dark "blotch", plus the
dark handbag of the woman who is on the left side of the "blotch" (or
some other type of dark package that she seems to be holding by her
left arm, probably on a strap over her left shoulder).


If you look at other portions of the photo, you can see MANY other
"dark splotches" in the picture, including a similar blotch of blackness
directly above John Connally's head (under the left hand of the waving
woman in the blue dress).

Is the dark blotch above Connally's head also a blotch that's been
colored-in with a felt-tipped pen, Mr. Walt-Kook?

Just curious.

Final Analysis:

Walt, as always, sees something conspiratorial and/or shady in
virtually EVERYTHING connected with the record of the JFK

And, as always, he can never prove a single one of the moronic things
he believes and theorizes in his patented idiotic, kneejerk style.

And, as always, Walt makes a total fool out of himself in front of the
Internet audience.

IOW -- Just another day at the "CT" office for a kook named Walt.

David Von Pein
March 2008


(PART 164)

Subject: The Single-Bullet Fact
Date: 3/7/2008 5:15:42 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: David S. Lifton
To: David Von Pein


Von Pein:

I'm sorry there's no time-machine to send you on a journey back to a point where you could huff and puff and exercise your thoroughly misplaced sense of certainty on propositions that were considered "acceptable" and "true" at that time.

If there was, I'd take up a collection for a one-way ticket to send you back to the time people thought the earth was flat. I'm sure you'd be most comfortable there, arguing against those who were getting a glimpse of simple shadow data, much less other astronomical data that, at first, seemed to suggest a geocentric universe, and, much later, one that was heliocentric. Undoubtedly, you'd be wearing your rags, carrying a club, walking on the beach or from village to village and exercising what limited brain power you apparently have while arguing that the earth was flat.

Lottsa luck. Bon voyage.



Subject: Re: The Single-Bullet Fact
Date: 3/7/2008 8:16:36 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: David S. Lifton


I really have to wonder what the above Lifton rant has to do with the JFK case or the obvious logicality of the Single-Bullet Theory? Anybody got any idea? I sure don't. Maybe Mr. Lifton can enlighten an unenlightened rag-clad, club-carrying heathen like myself. Eh, Dave?

I'd sooner believe this Earth of ours WAS, indeed, flat than to believe a single conspiracy theory spouted by a certain Mr. David S. Lifton.

Incidentally, David L., are you still of the opinion that Vincent Bugliosi's JFK book was "ghostwritten"? (Just curious.)

For those who aren't aware of one of Dave Lifton's latest hunks of unsupportable nonsense/crap, Mr. Lifton (on May 24, 2007) decided he would appear on an Internet radio program and give his wholly unsupported (and unsupportable) opinion about Mr. Bugliosi's excellent 2007 book, "Reclaiming History", being the work of a series of "ghostwriters".

Lifton even had the gall to name one of the authors he was almost certain had (ghost) written a goodly portion of Chapter #33 of Mr. Bugliosi's book (the chapter entitled "Jim Garrison's Prosecution Of Clay Shaw And Oliver Stone's Movie JFK").

The author named by Lifton was Patricia Lambert, who wrote the 1999 book "False Witness: The Real Story Of Jim Garrison's Investigation And Oliver Stone's Film, JFK".

Here is a portion of what Pat Lambert had to say about Lifton's silly "ghostwriting" charges:

"For the record: I did not write one single word of Vince Bugliosi's book, not even a footnote. I never saw Vince Bugliosi's manuscript. I never saw any portion of Vince Bugliosi's manuscript. I didn't even get a peek at the galleys. No comma, colon, semi-colon, parenthesis, hyphen, apostrophe or period is my doing, to say nothing of sentences, paragraphs and a whole chapter. ....

"I cannot imagine what prompted Lifton to make such a stunningly false allegation about me. But false it is. I am not a ghostwriter. I have never been a ghostwriter. I have no intention of being a ghostwriter.

"Since I know unequivocally that Lifton is wrong about the role he assigned to me, I see no reason to believe he is correct about the other unidentified writers on whom he has bestowed the credit for having written Vince Bugliosi's book.

"David Lifton owes me an apology. David Lifton owes Vince Bugliosi an apology.

/s/ Patricia Lambert"

To go Ms. Lambert one better, I think perhaps David S. Lifton owes the general book-buying public at-large a big apology too.

Because anyone who has their name at the bottom of a book like "Best Evidence: Disguise And Deception In The Assassination Of John F. Kennedy" (a book that suggests to the world that the dead body of President Kennedy was somehow stolen by evil conspirators, with the wounds on that body being hastily rearranged before JFK's autopsy) is a person who should probably drop to his knees and beg the forgiveness of the many people who actually dug into their pockets and forked over the cash to purchase such a conjecture-filled publication.*

* = And I am one of those persons. Mr. Lifton's book, in fact, was the very first book on the JFK case I ever bought or read, in early 1981. And it remains unchallenged, to this day, as the most absurd book on the subject I have ever read as well.

David R. Von Pein



"One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 1066 of "Reclaiming History"


"The coffin was never unattended. Lifton's story is the biggest pack of malarkey I ever heard in my life. I never had my hands or eyes off of it during the period he says it was unattended, and when Jackie got up to go to her stateroom where Lyndon Johnson was, Kenny O'Donnell went with her, but we stayed right there with the coffin and never let go of it. In fact several of us were with it through the whole trip, all the way to Bethesda Naval Hospital. It couldn't have happened the way that fellow said. Not even thirty seconds. I never left it." -- David F. Powers; June 1987


"About two years after 'Best Evidence' was published, I in fact realized there was a much more significant moment in time for getting the body out of the coffin, and that was the brief period when the coffin was already aboard the plane, and the entire Kennedy party was down on the tarmac. And today, that is when I think that event actually occurred. How they got the body off the plane is another matter." -- David S. Lifton; November 15, 1997

[DVP INTERJECTION --- In other words, if one stupid-sounding theory that includes things that never could have happened in a million years poops out, just move on to the next silly-sounding conspiracy theory of your choosing. Surely one of these idiotic body-stealing theories has GOT to be the correct one....right David L.?]




In Dr. David W. Mantik's pre-recorded appearance for the March 22, 2012, "Black Op Radio" program (embedded above), Mantik devoted the whole program to attacking John McAdams' 2011 book, "JFK Assassination Logic: How To Think About Claims Of Conspiracy".

Naturally, since Dr. Mantik is a devoted conspiracy theorist when it comes to the topic of President Kennedy's assassination, it's no surprise that he can find no worthwhile or redeeming features in Professor McAdams' book whatsoever. So that's no real shocker. [Mantik's complete review of the book is here.]

I jotted down a few notes while listening to Dr. Mantik's radio appearance, and here are a few observations that I think should be made:

1.) Mantik's comparison between McAdams' hypothetical 20 conspirators in the JFK case and the real-life 19 conspirators who hijacked the four jetliners that were used as flying bombs on 9/11 is not a valid comparison at all.

McAdams' hypothetical example involving "20 conspirators" in the Kennedy case was obviously referring to the likelihood of any of those 20 plotters spilling the beans AFTER the assassination had taken place.

Whereas in the 9/11 instance, it's quite obvious to everybody on the planet (except perhaps James Fetzer) that the 19 hijackers had no intention or desire to "hide" their conspiracy from the world after the four planes struck their targets in Washington and New York.

Since there were FOUR planes being used as terrorist bombs on 9/11, does Dr. Mantik think that the hijackers themselves could have kept their plot secret from the world after the planes reached their targets (even though each hijacker would be silenced for all time when they each died in their respective crashes)?

Mantik's "9/11 vs. JFK" comparison is simply laughable.

2.) Mantik berates McAdams for supposedly ignoring all of the so-called "new" evidence of conspiracy in the JFK case that has surfaced since the Warren Report came out in 1964.

But I want to know what "new" physical evidence Dr. Mantik or any conspiracy theorist has unearthed since '64 that would undermine the conclusion that Oswald acted alone? I have yet to see any hard, physical evidence that would prove the Warren Commission got it wrong.

And the reason we haven't seen any such "conspiracy" evidence (of a physical nature) is because no such evidence exists--and it never did. It didn't exist at the time of the Warren Commission's investigation and it doesn't exist now.

All Dr. Mantik has are his suspicions and his theories about conspiracy. But in the final analysis, the physical evidence hangs Lee Harvey Oswald. That evidence proved Oswald was guilty of killing JFK and Tippit in 1963; and that same evidence proves he was guilty today.

The evidence against Oswald hasn't suddenly VANISHED in the intervening 49 years, even though many conspiracy theorists seem to believe there's no hard evidence against their prized patsy whatsoever--in EITHER the JFK case or the Tippit case.

So if somebody wants to say that I, too, am "stuck in the 1960s" regarding my views on this case, I don't really mind. Because being stuck in the 1960s when it comes to the JFK assassination is being stuck in the place where all the real evidence is.

David Von Pein
March 22, 2012

(PART 2)


I think this [the Sylvia Odio incident] is just another Oswald sighting.

Lots of perfectly sincere and honest witnesses believed they had seen Oswald. The vast majority had to be mistaken.


I've been looking at this again, John, and it occurs to me that the argument
that Oswald was in New Orleans until September 25th hinges entirely on
this statement about what time of day his unemployment check was mailed
from Austin.

If the check actually went out on the noon train to New Orleans, Oswald would have received it on the 24th (which would mean that he could've been at Odio's, after all).

Is there anything other than [Jack] Burcham's statement that places Oswald in New Orleans on the 25th? IMO, the rest of the evidence strongly suggests that he left N.O. on the 24th. (Unless I've forgotten something.)


So you are saying that if the check made the earlier dispatch, it could have gotten to Oswald on the 24th. I think that's true.

I'm not aware of anything other than Burcham's statement supporting that the dispatch was on the later train. But Burcham seems pretty sure, as though he has precise records. Which it's reasonable to believe he does.


Seems to me that if Burcham had any records, he should've produced them. Also, he was asked about this six months after it happened.


OK, but bureaucratic routines tend to be pretty set. If the checks always made the late afternoon pickup, he would know that.

But I'm not convinced that the FBI would have asked for the records, as opposed to writing down as authoritative what he told them. The language implies a high degree of certainty, while FBI reports often say a witness "thought" it happened this way, or "believed" it happened that way.

I understand that Oswald's whereabouts on the evening of the 24th is unknown.

Eric Rogers saw him leave his apartment on the "night" of the 24th (although it was "kind of light"). [See 11 H 463, Warren Commission testimony of Eric Rogers on 7/21/64; Rogers' exact quote was: "It was kind of daylight. You could see. You know what I mean?"]


True, but he also said that when Oswald left he had "goggles" on [11 H 462] (suggesting he might've been wearing sunglasses), so maybe he was wrong about the time.


OK, but the theory I see you proposing below suggests that it doesn't matter.


Marina said that Oswald always got his Texas unemployment checks on Tuesdays. According to the Warren Report, he'd cashed his check the previous week on Tuesday the 17th (no footnote, unfortunately). Marina also said that he'd told her he planned to leave town the very next day after she left with Ruth on the 23rd.


Good point about Ruth Paine.


After he left his apartment, Oswald wasn't seen again until around 6AM on the 26th, on a bus near the Mexican border. That's about a day and a half that's unaccounted for. The FBI couldn't find anyone who'd seen him on a bus from New Orleans to Houston, even though it found witnesses who'd seen him on every other leg of his trip to Mexico City and back to Dallas.


I think the Twiford evidence is iron-clad.

Thus to get him at Odio's, we need a "Twiford plus Odio" scenario.

What would you propose?


I'm thinking that Oswald may've phoned the Twifords on the 24th.


OK, so your scenario is "call to the Twifords on the 24th, visit with Odio on the 25th." Do I understand that correctly?


The Continental bus Oswald was supposedly on didn't arrive in Houston until 10:50 PM on the 25th, and Mrs. Twiford seemed sure that the call had been earlier than that, between 7 and 9 or 10. [See 11 H 180]

Besides, she said that Oswald told her he "had hoped to discuss ideas" with
her husband (a fellow leftist) "for a few hours" before he left for Mexico.
[See 11 H 179]

Why try to start a lengthy conversation with a stranger at that time of night? It seems more likely to me that he called earlier the night before. (The Twifords couldn't recall the exact date.)


But was Oswald in New Orleans wanting to converse for "a few hours" over the phone? Did the Oswalds even have a phone at their Magazine Street apartment? He ran out on the rent, so he might have been planning to run out on the phone bill. But that would be relevant only if he had a phone.

Making extended long distance calls simply wasn't Oswald's habit.


Warren Commission staff lawyer Liebeler pointed out that there was a bus from Dallas to Alice, Texas, that connected with the bus that left Houston in the wee hours of the 26th, which might explain why no one recalled seeing LHO on the Houston bus until a few hours later.

I may be wrong, but I think it's certainly possible that Oswald could have been at Odio's on the 25th. All these pieces seem to fit together fairly well.


OK, but if I understand your theory correctly, most of this is moot. If he called from New Orleans to the Twifords on the 24th, he could have picked up the check on the 25th.

Also, if he was palling around with two other guys in Dallas, they could have driven him to Houston to get on the bus.

I read the Twiford testimony [as] being pretty clear that Oswald was in Houston and wanted to come over -- even at a late hour.

I think the key thing about judging this issue is how one views Oswald "sightings." There are a huge number of them. Some even in Wisconsin!

Not only were there a huge number of sightings, there was a large element of suggestion in the mind of Odio. Before she blacked out -- and before she had seen any pictures of Oswald -- she had it in her mind that the "loco" guy at the door shot Kennedy.

Which is why I think this was merely another sighting.


True, she had problems. On the other hand, she claimed one of her visitors in Dallas had talked about killing JFK and two months later he was killed in Dallas. Anybody might've been spooked by that, imo.

You may well be right [about the Odio incident being "merely another sighting"]. However, I don't know of any other sighting that coincided with a long gap in Oswald's known whereabouts.


To Jean Davison and John McAdams:

Hi Jean and John,

I have enjoyed reading your Internet exchange regarding the Sylvia Odio situation. You both have made some excellent points, and it's obvious from your posts concerning this matter that a pretty good case can be made for both of your positions -- with Jean Davison favoring the likelihood that Lee Harvey Oswald was (or at least could have been) at Sylvia Odio's door in late September of 1963; while John McAdams thinks it's likely that the Odio incident was just another one of the many false Oswald "sightings".

I want to thank both of you for your input. I, for one, appreciate it.


I've extracted an interesting section of audio from a 1966 KCBS radio program that features former Warren Commission counsel members Wesley Liebeler, Joseph Ball, and Albert Jenner. The topic of the audio excerpt is "Did Lee Harvey Oswald Really Visit Sylvia Odio In September 1963?" --- CLICK HERE.

To listen to the complete 107-minute radio program with Liebeler, Ball, and Jenner, go HERE or HERE.


Thanks very much, David, for that very interesting audio. Liebeler presented good arguments against Oswald's being at Odio's, and he may very well be right. I just wish it were possible to pin this down with certainty.

Thanks for putting all this information online.











To those JFK conspiracy theorists who seem to favor the Oliver
Stone-like or Robert Groden-promoted assassination scenarios (that
feature a minimum of three gunmen and anywhere from 6 to 15 gunshots
being fired at President Kennedy in Dallas' Dealey Plaza on November
22, 1963) -- I always suggest to them that they ought to dig up some of
the originally-aired "As It Is Happening" live TV or radio broadcasts
from that dark Friday in American history.

After performing that exercise of watching a few hours of the November
22 television coverage of the assassination (in real time), or
listening to some of the radio broadcasts in real time (which works
just as well) -- I challenge anyone to then arrive at the same
conclusion that was slapped up on the big theater screen in 1991 via
Director Oliver Stone's blockbuster, conspiracy-laden motion picture

Watching the day's events unfold "live" in front of you (or listening
to them unfold on the radio as it was happening) should, in my opinion,
provide everyone with a good general idea of how utterly impossible a
task it would have been to have "faked" so much stuff that was being
IMMEDIATELY reported to the world on live television and radio within
minutes and hours of the President's assassination (and within a very
short space of time following Police Officer J.D. Tippit's murder as

Via those original live TV/Radio broadcasts, you're not going to hear a
SINGLE report that resembles anything close to the Oliver Stone/Jim
Garrison-endorsed nonsense of:

"Three gunmen fired six shots at President Kennedy's motorcade today
here in Dallas!!"

What you will hear, instead, is live coverage, as it happened, of a
ONE-GUNMAN assassination taking place from where the majority of
witnesses said it took place (the Texas School Book Depository
Building), with no more than three shots having been fired by the
single shooter, which is a shot count that over 91% of the witnesses
concur with -- including the small percentage of witnesses who heard
only one or two shots, who are witnesses that certainly don't do Mr.
Stone's "6-shot ambush" theory any favors.


Upon evaluating virtually all of the TV networks' live assassination
footage from November 22nd, 1963, there is no possible way that a
reasonable person could arrive at a conclusion that JFK was shot by
three assassins, firing from both front and rear. Let alone arriving at
an even more-cockeyed conclusion, as purported by Mr. Groden and some
other CTers, which is an outlandish conspiracy-flavored scenario that
has John Kennedy and John Connally being shot by way more than just the
two Warren Commission-backed Mannlicher-Carcano bullets from Lee Harvey
Oswald's rifle.

Very nearly all of the information being reported on TV and radio that
November day favored a "Lone Assassin" shooting scenario (including the
info concerning the Tippit murder in Oak Cliff), with very little
evidence and information to support any type of a "conspiracy"

This is quite a telling "One Killer" fact. Because, in my view, if a
vast conspiracy and subsequent "cover-up" had been in place on November
22nd (given the immense amount of TV and radio coverage, with reporters
scrutinizing everything coming across their desks and digging hard for
any type of case-solving clues during those first hours and days after
JFK and J.D. Tippit were killed), I think that at least SOME pieces of
the conspiracy would have leaked through to the sweeping television and
radio coverage surrounding the two Dallas murders.

And I'm guessing that every reporter and newsman in the country would
have loved to dig up some "conspiracy"-oriented angle during that
weekend in November of '63. Being the person who uncovered such a huge
story would certainly be a feather in that reporter's cap, to be sure.
But, as it turned out, nothing of that nature occurred....and has yet
to occur all these many years later.

To think (as many theorists do) that these conspirators were so smart
and so quick to have had the capabilities to immediately eliminate
virtually every last scrap of information leading to a conspiracy plot
of some kind, making sure that none of the "multi-gunmen shooting
event" details seeped through to the media (multiplied by TWO separate
murders as well, counting Tippit's!), is to think that any such
evil-doers had powers similar to "Superman".

For example -- Almost every one of the initial reports concerning the
number of gunshots heard by witnesses stated "3 shots". And while it's
true that the very first report of the shooting from UPI's Merriman
Smith (which was broadcast over all the television networks) stated
"Three shots were fired...", it's also worth noting that Smith's
initial bulletin was not the ONLY "three-shots" account that was
reported during those early hours just after the shooting.

For instance, Jay Watson of ABC affiliate WFAA-TV in Dallas (who
happened to be in Dealey Plaza during the shooting and nervously
reported the first bulletins to the unaware Dallas TV audience) is
heard multiple times on November 22 saying he heard "3 shots" fired.

Plus, several other members of the media are also on record stating
their own PERSONAL beliefs that exactly three shots were fired by the
assassin, including Robert MacNeil, Jack Bell, Bob Clark, Jerry Haynes,
and Pierce Allman, among still others.

Could these ultra-clever conspirators have somehow managed to
"manipulate" several reporters who were relaying the news live to the
world immediately after the event, and have them ALL report on hearing
just "three shots" (or, in a few cases, hearing just TWO shots, which
is a number that certainly does not favor a "Multi-Shooter Conspiracy

Or did the plotters just happen to get really, really LUCKY when
virtually all of the news reports favored the "Three Shots Fired"
conclusion? With this 3-shot scenario matching the precise number of
bullet shells that were found on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository
after the shooting; and also perfectly matching the exact number of
shots heard by TSBD witness Harold Norman, and also perfectly matching
the precise number of bullet shells (3) that Norman heard hitting the
plywood floor directly above his 5th-Floor location within the

Which, per Oliver Stone's movie, would mean that a full 50% of the
ACTUAL number of gunshots were somehow inaudible to the enormous
majority (91%+) of the earwitnesses! And, remember, Oliver has NONE of
the shots within his movie's six-shot assassination ambush being
"synchronized" in order to merge together with the sound of some of the
other shots.

And yet, per Mr. Stone, we're supposed to actually believe that
approximately 9 out of every 10 witnesses somehow missed hearing HALF
of the gunshots fired that day! A reasonable thing to believe....or
not? I ask you.

Were these so-called conspiratorial shooters so good that they could
make 4 to 10 shots sound like only three to the vast majority of
witnesses scattered all throughout Dealey Plaza? Highly doubtful, to
say the least.

Again....watch the live TV footage....or listen to some of the
surviving 11/22/63 radio tapes....and then try to find a multi-gunmen
conspiracy lurking within any of those original broadcasts.

This link offers up a great "Live" example of what I'm talking about. It
contains over an hour's worth of footage from Dallas radio station KLIF,
beginning at 12:35 PM (Dallas time) on the afternoon of Friday,
November 22, 1963.

I challenge anyone to try and locate even a hint of a multi-gun conspiracy
within that radio footage. Do conspiracy buffs think that all of these KLIF
news reporters were "in" on some kind of massive conspiracy plot and an IMMEDIATELY-IN-PLACE "cover-up" operation too? That would be a good
question for conspiracists to ask themselves as they listen to that live radio

David Von Pein
December 2006
June 2010


William and Gayle Newman, who were both 22 years old on November 22, 1963, were probably the closest witnesses to President John F. Kennedy when he was assassinated by rifle fire in Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas.

The Newmans and their two young boys were standing at the curb on the north side of Elm Street when they became witnesses to one of the most horrific and most-talked-about events in world history--the murder of President Kennedy.

Immediately after the assassination, the Newman family was driven to Dallas television station WFAA-TV to be interviewed on live TV. At approximately 12:50 PM CST on 11/22/63, which was only about twenty minutes after the President had been slain, Bill and Gayle Newman were telling their story on live television to WFAA program director Jay Watson.

The WFAA-TV interviews with the Newmans can be seen in the video below:

In the second of his two WFAA interviews on November 22, Bill Newman said he heard only two shots fired during the assassination. And in his 11/22/63 affidavit, Newman said that the "shot" (singular) had come from "directly behind me"....which, of course, is NOT the picket fence area of the famous grassy knoll.

As the Charles Bronson photograph shown below illustrates, "directly behind" Bill Newman would have put a shooter a little to the LEFT of Abraham Zapruder in the pergola area. And nobody I've ever encountered thinks any shots came from there:

Obviously, Bill Newman was confused and was wrong about two major things: The number of shots that were fired and the location of the gunman who was firing those shots that he heard.

In addition, both Bill and Gayle Newman are very good witnesses when it comes to supporting the truth about the location of where the large exit wound was located on President Kennedy's head. And as far as I am aware, Bill and Gayle Newman are the only witnesses who ever provided this much first-hand detail about the key issue of WHERE on JFK's head the large wound was located.

[NOTE / EDIT --- Abraham Zapruder was another witness who, on the day of the assassination, clearly indicated that the President had a big hole in the right SIDE portion of his head, and not the right REAR part of his head.]

Both Bill and Gayle stated on live WFAA-TV on 11/22/63 (within literally minutes of the assassination) that they both saw blood coming from the RIGHT SIDE of JFK's head, with Gayle Newman providing even more graphic details during the second of her two interviews with WFAA's Jay Watson:

"President Kennedy reached up and grabbed--looked like grabbed his ear--and blood just started gushing out." -- Gayle Newman; 11/22/63

Now, via the above graphic description [and accompanying photo from Gayle Newman's November 22 WFAA-TV appearance] of blood "gushing out" of JFK's head, I think it's fairly obvious that Mrs. Newman was NOT seeing blood gushing from the BACK of President Kennedy's head. She saw blood gushing from the RIGHT SIDE of his head, near his "ear", as Mrs. Newman said. And that is just exactly what we see in Abraham Zapruder's film of the assassination:

Bill Newman stated that a bullet had hit the President "in the side of the temple" (with Bill pointing to his own left temple when he said those words). But that erroneous statement is perfectly natural and acceptable under the circumstances.

At the time he made his "in the side of the temple" remark on WFAA-TV, Bill Newman was making the incorrect assumption that the place where he saw the large amount of blood on JFK's head was the same location where the bullet must have ENTERED the President's head.

But, as any doctor or pathologist will tell you, just the opposite is the truth in most cases of gunshot wounds, with the EXIT hole being the large, bloody wound, while the entry hole is most often very small and fairly clean and blood-free.

In the final analysis, Mr. and Mrs. William E. Newman are actually very solid witnesses in support of the official lone-assassin version of the assassination of President Kennedy.

David Von Pein
November 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!


What part of JFK's head did Gayle Newman say blood was "gushing" from, Mr. Fetzer?

Here's a visual hint:

Here's another hint:

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/Newman Interviews

And here's a third hint (via the film that Prof. Fetzer thinks has been "altered", with a red "blob" being added to the film, which just happens to perfectly coincide with the exact place on JFK's head where Gayle Newman, within ONE HOUR of the assassination, said she saw blood "gushing" from; yes, I know that Gayle also said that it looked to her as if JFK had "grabbed his ear", which he never did; but her observation about WHERE on JFK's head she saw the gushing blood is the key point here, which is in perfect harmony with what we see in the Zapruder Film, a film that a super-kook named Fetzer thinks has been "wholly fabricated").




It seems to me that, when it comes to the Newmans, DVP is just a flat out liar. (Would you not agree?)

FYI: In November, 1971, I was in Dallas and spent an evening with the Newmans--both of them. I had a SONY tape recorder. There was no question in their minds that the shots came from "above and behind" them--and by that they were talking about the area directly behind where they were standing, just as they indicated in their original interviews.

Guys like DVP are committed to a false reality, and will bend the English language to support their misconception.

I really do believe he's just a garden variety liar.




I take offense at being labelled a "garden variety liar" by you. When it comes to people who are "committed to a false reality" in the JFK case, it's certainly not me who falls into that category. It's you.

As for the Newmans, just take a look at the Bronson slide. At the time of the head shot, what location is "directly behind" the Newman family?

Answer: the pergola/peristyle area -- NOT the famous Grassy Knoll/picket fence shooting location that you conspiracy kooks love so well.

William Newman is on record (within 25 minutes of the assassination) saying that he thought there were TWO shots, with both of those shots coming from "behind" him from the direction of the "garden" behind him, which is not the picket fence area (like it or not).

And Newman is even more specific in his 11/22/63 affidavit, when he said that the "shot" had come from "directly behind me". And there's no doubt that his "directly behind me" remark was referring to the HEAD SHOT, and Mr. Newman even confirms that fact in his 2003 interview at the Sixth Floor Museum.

And during that 2003 interview, Newman goes into even more detail about his observations (Part 2, linked below, at the 6:20 mark), when Bill Newman says that his opinion about the direction from which the head shot came was derived more from the "visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise".

Newman saw the right side of JFK's head explode, and he immediately interpreted that VISUAL experience (incorrectly) as a bullet that struck the President in the right-front (temple) area of his head. And Newman explicitly says that very thing in this 2003 interview:

So, Mr. Lifton, is Bill Newman lying in the above video when he states that it was more what he SAW than what he HEARD which caused him to believe that the head shot had come from "behind" him?






You shock me, DVP. In your laundry list of Newman statements, you left out his testimony in the 86 mock trial, in which he marked a map of Dealey showing the area from which he assumed the shots had been fired.



You mean you actually want to BELIEVE something that somebody said at that mock trial in '86, a trial that virtually all CTers think was nothing but a "sham" and a "farce"? You shock me, Pat. :)

I'm also a little confused about your post in another sense, Pat -- Was your post about Newman's 1986 map supposed to be a "dig" at me? I.E., did you think you were actually supporting a "Grassy Knoll" gunman in your Newman post?

Because if that is what you were attempting to do, you'd better go back and look at Newman's map again -- because Newman marked that map in a place where NO conspiracy theorist believes any shots came from. He marked it in an area that is to the EAST of the pergola that was behind him when the shooting occurred.

He certainly didn't mark the traditional "picket fence" or "Grassy Knoll" areas of the Plaza. Not even close. Here is where Newman marked the map, which is a point in the Plaza that would have been located to the LEFT-rear (or northeast) of William Newman:

When all of Bill Newman's testimony and interviews over the years is assessed, it's pretty obvious that Newman is NOT a really good "conspiracy" or "Grassy Knoll" witness at all. He heard TWO shots, both from "directly behind me" (per his 11/22/63 affidavit), and he admitted in his Oral History interview in Dallas in 2003 that he was basing his determination about a gunman being "behind" him more on a VISUAL sense rather than the SOUND of the gunshot(s).

And then we have him marking a map in 1986 that would have a shooter located near the Elm Street service road at the FAR-EAST side of the pergola, which isn't even close to the popular Grassy Knoll area.

Conspiracy theorists, of course, love to distort things. And it appears to me that they've done just that when it comes to the comments made by William E. Newman. (And Lee Bowers too.)

David Von Pein
July 18, 2011



ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963: