(PART 78)

On July 2, 2009, conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio challenged four lone-assassin believers to debate him on the subject of the JFK assassination.
I was one of the four people that DiEugenio was willing to debate. The other three being John McAdams, Gary Mack, and Dave Reitzes. (And a fifth LNer, Vincent Bugliosi, was later added to the list of people that DiEugenio said he would be willing to debate.)

A radio debate did, indeed, take place in September and October of 2009,
with John McAdams battling CTer DiEugenio on "Black Op Radio". I have archived the entire two-part, four-hour debate on this website/blog, and it can be
found HERE and HERE.

I did not participate in the 2009 radio debate, but it certainly wasn't due to a lack of evidence on my "LN" side of the fence, because all of the evidence leads toward Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the murders of both JFK and Officer J.D. Tippit, and there's nothing that Jim DiEugenio or any other conspiracy theorist can do to change that basic evidentiary fact.

After the 2009 debate between McAdams and DiEugenio, I started gathering a list of questions that I would want to ask Mr. DiEugenio should the occasion ever arise in the future for another radio debate between DiEugenio and another LNer (namely myself). After compiling quite a lengthy list of questions and comments regarding the JFK murder case, I sent the following e-mail to Jim DiEugenio on May 8, 2010:

Subject: Attn.: James DiEugenio (Re: Debate With DVP)
Date: 5/8/2010 1:31:55 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio



Hi Jim,

If you are still willing to debate me about the JFK assassination, I am now ready and eager to participate in such a radio debate with you.

The most convenient times in the near future for me to engage in such a debate would be anytime between the dates of June 1 and June 15, 2010.

As for the format of any such radio debate (which I assume would take place on the Black Op Radio program, with Len Osanic serving as moderator/host), I have an idea that I think should probably appeal to you as well:

Instead of taking questions from third parties (such as from "Black Op" listeners who write in questions via e-mail, etc.), I'd prefer a format where each of the two debaters (you and I) present various questions to the other person.

That way, you can put together several questions that you would like an LNer like me to answer, and I can ask you various questions that I'd like to hear you answer.

Each of us would ask the other party the same number of questions, to keep things fair from a "numerical" standpoint.

To give you a heads-up on the number of questions I would like to present at any such debate, I have already put together a total of 23 questions [it later grew to a number much larger than 23] regarding the JFK case (plus a couple of follow-up questions) that I would like to ask you.

Therefore, for the sake of fairness and "equal time", you would get to ask me the same number of questions.

If Len Osanic (or others) wanted to add a few questions too, I think that would be okay as well. But for the bulk of the debate, I would much prefer the format I just outlined--with you and I deciding what questions we want the other person to answer.

I don't favor the idea of the parties being shown the questions in advance, however. That would dilute the debate severely, in my opinion. I won't know what questions you'll be asking me; and, conversely, you won't know what questions are going to be coming from my side of the fence either.

Sound fair to you?

If you have other ideas on the debate format, let me know. We can probably work out something. But I feel that the format I just outlined should appeal to both of us, inasmuch as it would keep the "softball" type questions from being asked in the first place.

Let me know if you are agreeable to this proposition.

Thank you.

David Von Pein

[End 5/8/10 e-mail message.]


It's now March of 2012, and it looks as though any radio debate between myself and Mr. DiEugenio is not very likely to happen.

You see, Jim didn't like the format suggestions that I proposed in 2010. He thought I was trying to pull a fast one by suggesting that he and I submit our own questions, instead of having other people or the moderator of the debate submit the questions.

Jim thinks that I would be able to "make stuff up" [Jim's exact words on July 4, 2010] if my suggested format had been used in an actual radio debate.

I, of course, have no idea what Jimbo was talking about there, and his objection to my suggested format is just plain silly, particularly since he, too, would be permitted to ask me any questions he wanted to ask--and without my seeing the questions ahead of time either. A fair and balanced arrangement, if you ask me. But Jim balked. So--no debate.

Anyway, since I have a ton of questions and various comments that I wanted to shower DiEugenio with in a proposed debate that will never occur, I didn't want to just waste this great list of conspiracy-defeating questions, so I'm creating this book-length post in order to archive this material on my websites.

So, let's begin:



Right off the bat, I think it's important to remind everyone of a few facts pertaining to James DiEugenio----

DiEugenio is a person who believes in each of the following four things:

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald did not fire any shots at President Kennedy.

2.) Oswald did not fire any shots at J.D. Tippit.

3.) Oswald did not shoot at General Edwin Walker on April 10, 1963.

4.) Oswald did not carry any large paper bag into the Texas School Book Depository on 11/22/63. (Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle were coerced by the Dallas Police into making up a story about seeing LHO with a large bag, according to Delusional DiEugenio.)

So, perhaps the above four items of total insanity should be weighed and considered carefully before deciding whether or not to take seriously anything that comes out of the mouth (or the keyboard) of a certain James DiEugenio of Los Angeles, California.

To James DiEugenio,

You say that Lee Harvey Oswald is innocent of shooting BOTH President John F. Kennedy and Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit on November 22, 1963.

It's beyond my comprehension how someone with a vast knowledge of the JFK murder case (as you obviously possess, Jim) can possibly claim that Lee Oswald was innocent of BOTH of those murders (and particularly Tippit's, where we have a dozen or so eyewitnesses, plus the Tippit murder weapon in LHO's hands when he was arrested).

In order for a person to arrive at a conclusion that has Oswald innocent of shooting BOTH Kennedy and Tippit, that person has to toss aside (or deem "fake" or "fraudulent") so much evidence of Oswald's guilt it's not even funny. And, more importantly, it's just not realistic to think all of the evidence in both of those murder investigations has been faked or manufactured.



Can I get you to admit, Jim, that if even a SMALL PORTION of the physical evidence in the JFK and Tippit murder cases has not been tampered with or planted or faked in some manner, then it's very likely that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of shooting and killing President Kennedy and/or Officer Tippit?

With the above question in mind, let me segue into the following two evidentiary areas associated with the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit:

Regarding the two large bullet fragments (CE567 and CE569) that were found by the Secret Service in the front seat of the President's limousine on the night of the assassination, which were fragments that were positively linked to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle "to the exclusion of all other rifles" [see the Warren Commission testimony of FBI firearms expert Robert A. Frazier, at 3 H 435]....

Were those two bullet fragments from Oswald's rifle also planted, Jim? I don't think I've ever heard a conspiracy theorist claim that those fragments (CE567 & CE569) were faked or planted.

Do you think that those bullet fragments found in the front of the limo represent legitimate, unfabricated evidence in this murder case, Jim?

And if you answer "No" to the above question, what proof do you have that those bullet fragments were "planted" or added to the official record of the JFK case by someone after 11/22/63?

I can ask a similar question regarding some of the ballistics evidence that was found near the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder, with this inquiry concerning the bullet shell casings that were found near the corner of Tenth Street and Patton Avenue.

Even if we were to discard the two bullet shells that were initially handed over to Dallas Police Officer J.M. Poe by witness Domingo Benavides, where does a person like Jim DiEugenio (who wants to exonerate Oswald for the Tippit murder too) go with the OTHER two shells that were left at the scene of the Tippit murder (i.e., the two "Davis" shells)?

Those two bullet shells, recovered by civilian witnesses Barbara and Virginia Davis, have an ironclad chain of possession, and those are two bullet shells that positively were fired in Oswald's Smith & Wesson .38 revolver, serial number V510210, the very same gun that was in the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald when he was apprehended inside the Texas Theater [see Warren Commission testimony of Joseph D. Nicol, at 3 H 511].

Do you, Jim DiEugenio, believe that those two shells seen in Commission Exhibit No. 594 (i.e., the two cartridge cases picked up at 10th & Patton by the two Davis girls on the afternoon of November 22, 1963) are phony or fake bullet shells?

Plus: what about the fact that the shells at the Tippit scene were picked up NOT by the police originally, but by THREE separate civilian witnesses--Virginia Davis, Barbara Davis, and Domingo Benavides?

And there's the additional very important fact that each of those four shells was picked up by those three civilian witnesses MANY YARDS away from Officer Tippit's police car.

In other words -- the shells, which you and other CTers have claimed were likely fired from an AUTOMATIC gun, were not found WHERE THE MURDERER WAS MURDERING TIPPIT (which is where they WOULD have been ejected AUTOMATICALLY if an "automatic" weapon had been used in the crime), but instead the shells were picked up near the corner of 10th and Patton, many yards away from where the killer was pulling the trigger.

How is this explained away by conspiracists, Jim?

As lawyer and author Vincent Bugliosi has said: "If you're innocent of a crime, chances are there's not going to be any evidence pointing toward your guilt. Why? Because you're innocent."

Another author, Larry Sturdivan, said it well in his 2005 book when he said this:

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of 'Keystone Kops,' with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and 'evil geniuses,' with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry M. Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths"



Jim, since you believe that Lee Oswald was being set up and framed as the "patsy" for JFK's murder, then do you think it was a wise decision on the part of the "real killers" (whoever they might have been) to have shot at President Kennedy from a variety of different locations throughout Dealey Plaza, both in the rear and in the front?

How could these crazy assassins possibly think they could accomplish their goal of framing poor schnook Oswald if they shoot up Dealey Plaza like they were on the movie set of a John Wayne western?

Isn't the very fact that you believe that JFK was shot from MULTIPLE DIRECTIONS in Dealey Plaza enough to convince you that the type of "Let's Frame Oswald As The Lone Patsy" plot that is endorsed by people like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone couldn't possibly have taken place in Dallas on November 22nd?

If not--why not?

Plus: you have stated in the past, Jim, that you believe in the following two things:

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald was set up as the patsy in JFK's murder.

2.) Oswald was on the first floor of the Book Depository Building at the time JFK was being assassinated.

Quoting Jim DiEugenio directly on this #2 belief --- "Kennedy is murdered at 12:30 PM. Oswald is almost undoubtedly on the first floor at the time." -- Via Part 5b of DiEugenio's review of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"

[Note -- I would have provided a direct link to Part 5b of DiEugenio's enormous review of Mr. Bugliosi's JFK book, but most of that review has been removed from Jim's CTKA.net website, so unfortunately I can't link to it any longer.]

Now, since you believe in the above two things, in tandem, please tell the world why on Earth the goofy "patsy" framers decided to NOT GIVE A DAMN where their one and only patsy was located at exactly 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63 when the President was being shot and killed?

For all the plotters knew, their patsy could have established a foolproof alibi for himself by merely being with a bunch of other Depository employees at 12:30.

Were these patsy-framers just the reckless type of conspirators? Or were they just plain stupid?

I see no third option here. Do you, Jim?



Wasn't it extremely lucky for the people who set up Oswald in the weeks and months PRIOR to the assassination to then have all kinds of DIFFERENT people and DIFFERENT organizations (like the Dallas Police Department, the Dallas Sheriff's Department, the Secret Service, the Warren Commission, President Lyndon Johnson, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations) who wanted to frame the VERY SAME PATSY named Lee Harvey Oswald AFTER the assassination too?

You must admit, Jim, that your average, everyday patsy-framers don't get lucky like this every day of the week.

Do you have any explanation as to how those two TOTALLY SEPARATE "frame-ups" were able to be pulled off so successfully and seamlessly by separate groups of people?

And I can only assume you, Jim, aren't silly enough to say that groups like the DPD and the Warren Commission (which wasn't even formed until 11/29/63) were actually in cahoots with the ragtag group of assassins and patsy-framers that you think were involved in setting up Oswald in New Orleans many weeks BEFORE November 22nd (e.g., Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Guy Banister).

Right, James?


Repeating a portion of my July 31, 2009, Internet message (which really applies not only to Jim DiEugenio's "New Orleans plot" theory, but it also applies to many other unprovable conspiracy theories in general as well):

"Even if we were to make the assumption (just for the sake of this particular discussion, although I'm not conceding this to be a true fact at all) that Lee Oswald WAS acquainted with the various "New Orleans" characters that Jim DiEugenio thinks LHO was acquainted with in the summer of 1963 (e.g., Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and Guy Banister).....that would still be a million miles away from proving that ANY of those New Orleans characters had ANY INVOLVEMENT, IN ANY WAY, WITH THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY IN DALLAS ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963.

"And the reason the above paragraph is the truth is because (once Perry Russo's lie is tossed aside, as it must be) there isn't a shred of evidence that CONNECTS any of those New Orleans individuals to the planning and/or carrying out of the murder of John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. No evidence whatsoever.

"Everything Lee Harvey Oswald did on 11/21/63 and 11/22/63 indicates that he was a LONE ASSASSIN in Dallas. And that fact would still be true even IF Oswald had been pals with ALL of the three previously-named New Orleans-based people (Shaw, Ferrie, and Banister).

"In other words -- Where is Jim DiEugenio's (or anyone's) BRIDGE and/or UMBILICAL CORD that allows conspiracy theorists to make the grand leap from this --- LEE HARVEY OSWALD KNEW CLAY SHAW, DAVID FERRIE, AND GUY BANISTER --- to this --- SHAW, FERRIE, AND BANISTER WERE CO-CONSPIRATORS IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY?

"Given the physical and circumstantial evidence that exists of ONLY OSWALD'S GUILT in the assassination of JFK, such a monumental leap of faith like the one suggested above is, to put it bluntly, monumentally ridiculous."
-- DVP; 07/31/09

Jim, how does an "Anybody But Oswald" CTer like you reconcile Lee Oswald's very "guilty"-like actions on the afternoon of 11/22/63?

IOW, how on this Earth did the people/plotters who were supposedly framing and setting up Oswald as the one and only patsy in this assassination of JFK get their INNOCENT patsy to act like the GUILTIEST PERSON IN DALLAS, TEXAS, JUST AFTER KENNEDY WAS SHOT RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING WHERE OSWALD WORKED AND WAS LOCATED AT 12:30 PM ON 11/22/63?

Did Oswald AID in his own frame-up when he did things both before and after 12:30 on November 22 that can only be looked upon as being INCRIMINATING in nature?

Things such as:

1.) Going to Irving on a Thursday for the first time, and lying to Wesley Frazier at least twice about the contents of that paper bag (which, incredibly, you, Jim, have now decided--on your own, with no evidence to support this allegation--NEVER EXISTED AT ALL).

2.) Leaving the building within three minutes of the assassination and lying some more about why he left. He lied to the police and said he felt that since there was so much commotion going on around the building, that no more work would likely be done that day, so he just went home.

Now, given the fact that Oswald would have been making that "no more work" determination within about THREE measly minutes of the assassination taking place, I think it's reasonable to assume that Mr. Oswald was, indeed, telling a great-big fib when he told Captain Fritz of the Dallas Police that he left work on November 22 because he assumed, by 12:33 PM, that no more work was going to be done at the Depository for the rest of the day. That excuse for leaving the building just reeks of desperation, in my view.

3.) Going to his roominghouse in Oak Cliff (in a big hurry, according to Earlene Roberts' testimony), grabbing his revolver, and then rushing out of the house. (I guess he figured he needed the gun just to go see Van Heflin at the movies. Perhaps Butch Burroughs at the candy counter would need to be overpowered by way of force or something.)

4.) Shooting and killing a policeman on 10th Street. You say Oswald is innocent of this murder too, but you're on a very shaky limb with such a silly belief, Jim, and I think--deep down inside--you know it's a silly belief. You aren't THAT stupid to believe the cops forged all the Tippit evidence too, are you? You cannot possibly believe that the cops shoved the Tippit murder weapon into Oswald's hands in the theater, can you (which is similar to a theory implicating the DPD that has been advanced by mega-kook John Judge)?

5.) And Oswald tells the police a whole bunch of additional lies after his arrest about very important things, such as (paraphrasing): "I never owned a rifle"; "I never said anything to Wes Frazier about any curtain rods"; "I only brought my lunch sack to work with me"; "I bought my revolver in Fort Worth"; "I've never heard the name Hidell before"; "That backyard picture is a fake! It has my face superimposed on somebody else's body!"

Does a truly INNOCENT person need to lie this much, Jim?

Plus: If Oswald had just realized he's been set up as the fall guy for Shaw, Ferrie, Banister (or whoever else you want to pretend was involved in a plot to kill JFK), then why didn't Oswald start spilling some beans in front of the LIVE TELEVISION CAMERAS AND MICROPHONES on November 22nd and November 23rd?

He surely had ample opportunity to do just that--spill some beans--if he had wanted to. And the DPD couldn't have stopped him, because he was being trotted right out in the open in the DPD corridors--several times!

But Oswald didn't say a word, other than his famous "I'm just a patsy" four-word mantra, which, btw, has been totally taken out of context by the conspiracy theorists. (And I assume you too, Jim, have misrepresented the meaning of Oswald's "I'm just a patsy" declaration over the years.)

Oswald's "patsy" statement was actually being directed at the DALLAS POLICE DEPARTMENT, not any unknown/unseen behind-the-scenes co-conspirators who framed LHO in advance for the President's murder.

That fact is obvious when listening to the complete "patsy" statement, which can be heard here.

"They've taken me in because of the fact that I lived in the Soviet Union. I'm just a patsy." -- Lee Harvey Oswald

And WHO was it who took Oswald in? Was it Dave Ferrie or Clay Shaw or Guy Banister or Malcolm Wallace or James Files or Johnny Roselli, et al?

No, it was none of the above. It was, instead, the Dallas Police Department who took Oswald in.

So, when evaluating the "patsy" statement in its full and proper context, it's fairly obvious that Oswald was lying like a dog throughout the WHOLE STATEMENT -- because it's pretty clear as to WHY Oswald was "taken in" by the DPD, and it wasn't due to Oswald's previous Russian address. It was because he was suspected of killing a cop and because he struck another officer in the theater and had TRIED TO SHOOT THAT OFFICER while inside the theater.

6.) Oswald's actions inside the Texas Theater certainly spell out "consciousness of guilt" if nothing else in this whole case does! He pulls a gun on Officer McDonald and tries to pull the trigger, while shouting one (or maybe even two) very incriminating statements -- "It's all over now!" and/or "This is it!"

And according to one of the arresting officers, the late Paul Bentley (who injured his ankle in the altercation with Oswald; and he injured it so badly that he was seen walking around on crutches the following day, November 23rd), Oswald made BOTH of those statements in the theater.

And EITHER of those statements by Oswald is, in and of itself, very incriminating. For, what else did Oswald mean when he said "IT'S ALL OVER NOW", if he wasn't talking about something that had just occurred very shortly before he made that statement? Like, say, an incident on Elm Street involving the shooting of the President (which just happened to take place right in front of Oswald's very own working establishment)?

Or, maybe, the incident on Tenth Street involving the shooting of a police officer (an incident which just happened to have a dozen witnesses making a positive identification of Lee Oswald as either the man who killed the officer or the man who was seen fleeing the murder scene, on foot, while dumping shells out of his gun)?

I'd like for you, Jim, to tell me what the "IT" was in Oswald's "It's all over now" statement. What does he mean there? Are those the words of a totally innocent PATSY?

And Oswald's "THIS IS IT" statement is just as incriminating. Can you, Jim, tell us what Oswald meant when he blurted out "THIS IS IT" just before he popped Officer McDonald in the face with his fist?

Are those the words of an innocent PATSY who committed no crimes at all on Friday, November 22nd, 1963?

Another incriminating statement spoken by Oswald in the police car on his way to Dallas Police Headquarters is this one:


[Quoting C.T. Walker of the DPD:]

"Oswald said, 'What is this all about?'. .... He said, 'I know my rights'. And we told him that he was under arrest because he was suspected in the murder of a police officer. And he said, 'Police officer been killed?'; and nobody said nothing. He said, 'I hear they burn for murder'. And I said, 'You might find out'. And he said, 'Well, they say it just takes a second to die'." -- DPD Officer C.T. Walker; April 3, 1964

Now, what do you think a reasonable person should make out of Oswald's comment -- "They say it just takes a second to die"? Would an innocent person have selected those words: "it just takes a second to die"? That statement reeks with guilt and Oswald's guilty state-of-mind just after he was taken into custody.



Jim DiEugenio has stated in the fairly recent past on some of the "Black Op Radio" broadcasts that he now believes that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't carry ANY large paper bag into the TSBD on 11/22/63.

Jim has said that he believes Buell Wesley Frazier was "forced" [DiEugenio's own word; 1/14/2010] by the Dallas Police Department into making up the story about seeing Oswald carrying such a paper bag on the morning of JFK's assassination. And I can only assume that Jim also thinks that Frazier's sister, Linnie Mae Randle, was also "forced" into telling the same lie, since Linnie said things similar to Frazier about the paper bag.

But surely, Jim, you realize that by making such a bold and outlandish statement about Frazier and Randle and the bag you are forced to now throw away one of the theories that almost all CTers have loved propping up for decades -- the theory about the paper bag being too short to hold Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

But if there's NO BAG at all, as you now contend, you must jettison such an argument, of course. For, if the bag was simply a MAKE-BELIEVE bag, then obviously any dimensions attributed to such a bag are ALSO MAKE-BELIEVE.

Plus: Your "No Bag At All" theory suffers from a very big built-in problem -- this one:

If Frazier and Randle had simply MADE UP the paper bag out of thin air (whether they were strong-armed by the DPD to do so or not), why in the heck didn't EITHER of these two liars (Frazier and Randle) make sure to say that the length of this make-believe bag was BIG ENOUGH SO THAT THE PATSY'S (Oswald's) RIFLE COULD FIT INTO IT?!

Instead, even though they COULD have easily said the bag was "3-and-a-half feet" or "about 4 feet", both of these liars claimed that the bag (a bag that never existed at all, per DiEugenio's theory) was about 27 or 28 inches long--too small to hold Oswald's rifle, the longest part of which measured 34.8 inches when it was disassembled.

Plus: I'm wondering, too, if Jim's "No Bag" theory is correct, why Wesley Frazier didn't gild the lily even MORE regarding the bag and the rifle by simply saying something like this:

"Yes, I saw the rifle sticking out of one end of the bag. I guess Lee didn't tape down the top of the bag very well, because I could see a portion of the gun's barrel protruding from the top of the bag as Lee was walking toward the Depository."

Any idea why liar Frazier didn't continue his lie by saying something similar to the above comments, Jim? Because something like the above statement coming from the man who drove Lee Harvey to work on the morning of the assassination would certainly have gone a long way toward convicting the "patsy", wouldn't it?

And who could have possibly proved Frazier to be a liar? Nobody else was there with Frazier and Oswald in that parking lot behind the Book Depository Building at about 8:00 AM CST on November 22, 1963. It would be Frazier's word against the word of the accused Presidential assassin. And in just two more days after the assassination, it would have been Frazier's word against a dead man's.



Obviously Lee Harvey Oswald ordered that bolt-action Carcano rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods on March 12, 1963. All of the documents are in Oswald's very own handwriting. How anyone can believe he did not order that weapon HIMSELF is beyond my imagination. [See Commission Exhibits 773, 788, and 789.]

And the same goes for the Smith & Wesson revolver that Oswald also ordered in early 1963. That order form, too, was filled out in Oswald's handwriting, without doubt [CE790].

And, btw, as a side note here -- I don't believe there is any proof that Oswald MAILED that order form for the revolver in January. He filled out the order form itself with a late January date, but that doesn't mean he put it in the mail in January.

Given the fact that both the rifle and the revolver were shipped from the two mail-order firms on the same day--March 20--it seems reasonable to me to think that Oswald might very well have mailed both order forms--for the rifle and the revolver--at the same time in March of '63.

In any event, all of the paperwork in evidence proves that Lee Harvey Oswald (aka: A.J. Hidell) ordered and paid for the two murder weapons -- both the rifle and the revolver.

And one of the best documents that proves Oswald ordered Carcano Rifle C2766 is Waldman Exhibit No. 7.

The C2766 serial number, btw, is a serial number that nobody in the world has ever seen duplicated on any other Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, even though Jim DiEugenio thinks that Thomas H. Purvis and Dr. John K. Lattimer have owned Carcanos with that exact same serial number on them. But Jim is wrong about that.

Lattimer told researcher John A. Canal in April 2004 that the "C2766" number that appears in Lattimer's 1980 book "Kennedy And Lincoln" was an error. And the error couldn't be corrected before the book went to press.

And Tom Purvis hasn't produced any other "C2766" Carcano either. Purvis is a total nutcase (even though he does believe that Oswald was a lone assassin).

So, Jim, were Klein's Sporting Goods and all of the various handwriting experts for both the Warren Commission and the HSCA part of an elaborate post-assassination cover-up too?

Plus -- There's William Waldman's Warren Commission testimony, wherein he confirmed that on the evening of 11/22/63, Klein's had been contacted by the FBI about Klein's searching through its records for information about the C2766 rifle. The FBI had obtained information from the rifle wholesaler (Crescent Firearms of New York City) that C2766 had been included in a bulk shipment of Carcano rifles that was originally received by Klein's Sporting Goods in February 1963:

"We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which
the rifle had been received, and they also had a record of when it had been shipped, so we knew the approximate date of receipt by us, and...we examined our microfilm records which show orders from mail order customers and
related papers, and from this determined to whom the gun had been shipped
by us."
-- William J. Waldman; Vice President of Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc. [at
7 H 364-365]

There is a discrepancy as to the exact date when Klein's received this shipment of guns from Crescent. Louis Feldsott, the President of Crescent Firearms, signed an affidavit [at 11 H 205] saying that the rifles were shipped on June 18, 1962, which conflicts with the paperwork that can be seen in Waldman Exhibit No. 5. But keep in mind that Waldman Exhibit 5 is a document that was generated by CRESCENT FIREARMS, not Klein's.

So, the paper trail is complete -- from Crescent Firearms, to Klein's, to Hidell/Oswald. And it's not reasonable to believe that all of this detailed paperwork regarding the disposition and sale of Rifle C2766 has (or could have been) faked or manufactured, particularly in such a lightning-quick fashion within hours of the assassination, and also involving more than one company (Crescent and Klein's).

Plus: The whole idea of a SERIAL NUMBER is to provide a SINGULARLY UNIQUE number for a SINGLE item--such as a rifle, or an electronic appliance, or an automobile, or whatever the product might be.

And to believe, as some theorists actually do (such as Thomas H. Purvis) that there are up to "40 or 50" (Purvis' quote) Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles with the EXACT same serial number on them of C2766 is a belief that defies all logic--and it defies the literal definition and PURPOSE of a "serial number" in the first place. Such a belief is nuts. And particularly with respect to FIREARMS, which are items that are frequently used in crimes, which means that law enforcement agencies often need to trace specific serial numbers to specific alleged criminals.

And, as I said, as of this date, not a single person on the planet has produced for public inspection a single additional Mannlicher-Carcano 91/38 rifle with the serial number C2766 affixed to it. And I doubt anybody ever will--because, IMO, no other such rifle exists or was ever manufactured to begin with.

And there's something else that nobody has ever been able to do, and that is to produce two Mannlicher-Carcano rifles with the same serial number--period. Not necessarily C2766. But ANY number.

Can anyone produce two MC rifles that have the same number on them--let's say serial number G1519? Any number would do, as long as we could see two MC rifles bearing the exact same number. That at least would prove that the factories making the Carcanos did, indeed, produce multiple rifles with the same number. But that has never been proven either, as far as I know.

But even if someone does eventually come forward and show the world two MC rifles with the very same serial number, it really wouldn't mean very much at all.


Because there's only ONE Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in the whole world, regardless of serial number, that killed John F. Kennedy, and that weapon was the one found inside the Book Depository Building on 11/22/63.

So even if someone produces 25 more Carcanos with the serial number C2766 on them, it wouldn't suddenly make the C2766 rifle found in the Depository CEASE being the Kennedy murder weapon. Nothing can ever do that. Not even a thousand more "C2766" rifles.



Stretcher Bullet CE399 was deemed by BOTH of the official Government investigations (the Warren Commission and the HSCA) to be THE EXACT BULLET that caused the non-head injuries to JFK and all of the injuries to Governor John B. Connally.

And BOTH the WC and the HSCA concluded that the "Single-Bullet Theory" was, in fact, true. Although, the WC did use softer language while concluding the likelihood that the SBT was correct, with the WC saying that "the same bullet probably passed through both men" [Warren Report, Page 105].

The HSCA's language was more definitive (on Page 47 of the HSCA's Final Report). The House Select Committee said -- "Taken together with other evidence, the photographic and acoustical evidence led the committee to conclude that President Kennedy and Governor Connally were struck by one bullet."

So we've got TWO separate investigative bodies (the WC and HSCA), which existed some 14 years apart, and included TOTALLY DIFFERENT individuals, coming to the conclusion that ONE bullet did, indeed, inflict all of the non-fatal wounds to both victims, and that CE399 was THE EXACT BULLET that caused those injuries to both men.

Are you, Jim, MORE of an expert regarding these matters than ALL of the various experts employed by BOTH the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations? Come now, Jim? I know you know a whole lot about this case--but let's not lose sight of the fact that those Governmental bodies were the people who were assigned the task of investigating President Kennedy's murder. You were not assigned such a task in 1963 or 1978. Those men who comprised the Warren Commission and the HSCA were assigned that task.

And please tell me, logically, what are the odds of BOTH of those investigative organizations being totally wrong about Oswald's guilt in TWO murders that you, Jim, insist Lee Harvey Oswald did not commit? Especially the HSCA, a committee which, let's face it, wanted desperately to find a conspiracy in the assassination.

And, of course, they DID "find" one, in the form of the since-totally-discredited "4th Shot On The Police Dictabelt" evidence.

So why in the world would the HSCA, of all groups, declare Lee Oswald guilty of killing both President Kennedy AND Officer Tippit if, in fact, LHO had not committed either of those murders?

The idea that the HSCA, fourteen years after Earl Warren's commission disbanded, continued a cover-up regarding JFK's assassination (as you evidently think they did, Jim) is just simply too silly a notion to contemplate for more than two seconds.

Also (re: CE399):

There was a very impressive test done in 1992 by Dr. Martin Fackler, President of the International Wound Ballistics Association, in which Fackler fired a Carcano bullet just like CE399 into a human wrist bone at a reduced muzzle velocity of 1,100fps.

Fackler's bullet broke the wrist bone and emerged in absolutely perfect condition--even better condition than CE399. Here is Fackler's test bullet after it had broken a wrist bone:

Quoting Dr. Fackler himself concerning his test:

"The bullet actually made a slightly greater hole than the one in Governor Connally's wrist. That's because the experiment bullet was actually going a little faster than the 900 feet [per second] that CE399 was travelling. The test bullet was non-deformed. It was not flattened in the least and had nowhere near the damage of CE399."

Fackler made those statements about his bullet test on August 10, 1992, during the American Bar Association's mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald.

So, Jim, do you think that Fackler's test is a fake too (since almost all conspiracists think it would be absolutely impossible for ANY bullet at all to come out looking anything like CE399 after breaking the two bones that 399 allegedly broke in the body of John Connally)?

And since we know that Governor Connally's wrist bone was the hardest object that Bullet CE399 struck during its path through both JFK's and Connally's bodies, it's fairly obvious (when looking at the Fackler test bullet above) that the current condition of CE399 in the National Archives today [see photo of the bullet below] is not in any way unusual or "impossible", as most conspiracy theorists want to believe, after doing the damage it did to the two victims in Dealey Plaza in 1963.

As far as whether CE399 would have been admitted into a court of law or not, I'm of the opinion that it most certainly would have been admitted. And the #1 reason for this is because it's a bullet that corroborates and meshes together with so much OTHER evidence in this case that is tied to Oswald's Carcano rifle -- such as the three bullet shells from the Sniper's Nest, the two large bullet fragments in the front of the limousine, and the rifle itself (which we know was found on the sixth floor of the building from where shots were fired).

Vincent Bugliosi, who knows a little something about court trials and evidentiary hearings and the like, said this in his book "Reclaiming History":

"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 T. Bugliosi; Page 442 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

So, CE399 almost certainly would have been admitted at any real trial of Lee Harvey Oswald. The lawyers would then have fought it out in court (by calling various witnesses to the stand) as to whether the chain of possession was strong enough to warrant the jury giving this piece of evidence a lot (or very little) weight during their deliberations.



Just for the record -- None of the civilian witnesses marked any of the ballistics evidence in this case -- such as: CE399 or the four bullet shells that littered the Tippit murder scene. And it was those civilians who BEGAN the "chain" of possession (so to speak) for those five pieces of ballistics evidence, not anyone in an official law-enforcement capacity.

So please tell me what the big difference is between Secret Service men Richard Johnsen and James Rowley not marking bullet CE399 and people like Darrell Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, Virginia Davis, Barbara Davis, and Domingo Benavides not marking the evidence?

I realize that Rowley and Johnsen were part of law enforcement (USSS), but I just wanted to get your opinion about the various CIVILIANS involved in this matter. You, Jim, apparently don't consider the chain of possession or custody broken by the fact that the VERY FIRST PEOPLE who did see and handle various pieces of important evidence in this case did not officially "mark" that evidence, correct?


John McAdams has some interesting articles on his website concerning this "chain of custody" topic. McAdams said this:

"Bullets and other physical evidence need not be marked to be admissible in trials."

McAdams goes on to say that information that was brought out at O.J. Simpson's civil trial makes this clear.

And from one of the links at John's site, we find this:

"To establish a proper chain of custody for the physical evidence at issue, rendering that evidence (and the various tests thereon) admissible, [Fred] Goldman need only "show to the satisfaction of the trial court that, taking all the circumstances into account including the ease or difficulty with which the particular evidence could have been altered, it is reasonably certain that there was no alteration." People v. Riser (1956). Where there is only "the barest speculation that there was tampering, it is proper to admit the evidence and let what doubt remains go to its weight." Id. at 581; accord People v. Lozano (1976)."



Where do you want to go with the idea that a "pointy-tipped" bullet was really found on a Parkland stretcher that WASN'T Governor Connally's?

Seems to me you have just two options here (since you want to believe that the bullet was plucked off of the stretcher of young Ronald Fuller):

Either that pointy bullet wasn't connected with the JFK shooting at all.


That pointy bullet, for some idiotic reason known only to the goofball plotters who did such a silly thing as this, was PLANTED on Fuller's stretcher by somebody involved in the proverbial "Let's Frame Oswald" plot.

But that second option, as alluded to, is just dumb. For, why would the plotters be wanting to PLANT a non-Oswald bullet on ANY stretcher at Parkland? It makes no sense.

But what other options do you have, Jim? I see none.

Of course, when one examines the "CE399" situation with logic and reason, it's obvious that CE399 (from Oswald's rifle) was, in fact, the actual bullet that was found by Parkland engineer Darrell C. Tomlinson.

Tomlinson was simply confused about which stretcher he found the bullet on. In fact, it couldn't be more clear that Tomlinson simply WAS NOT SURE which specific stretcher he took off of the elevator, as this Warren Commission testimony of Tomlinson's vividly illustrates:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "What did you tell the Secret Service man about which stretcher you took off of the elevator?"

DARRELL TOMLINSON -- "I told him that I was not sure, and I am not--I'm not sure of it, but as I said, I would be going against the oath which I took a while ago, because I am definitely not sure."

SPECTER -- "Do you remember if you told the Secret Service man which stretcher you thought you took off of the elevator?"

TOMLINSON -- "Well, we talked about taking a stretcher off of the elevator, but then when it comes down on an oath, I wouldn't say for sure, I really don't remember." ....

SPECTER -- "You say you can't really take an oath today to be sure whether it was stretcher A or stretcher B that you took off the elevator?"

TOMLINSON -- "Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of it, whether it was A or B that I took off."

[The above testimony is located at 6 H 132.]

[More about Darrell Tomlinson can be found HERE.]



FBI agent Elmer L. Todd's initials could very well be on CE399. In fact, I'd be willing to bet they are on the bullet. They could be faded or very faint, to the point that we simply can't make them out on the bullet. In fact, on June 24, 1964, Todd HIMSELF said he saw his own initials on the bullet [see CE2011;
at 24 H 412].

Here's a good example of how something like a person's initials can easily be overlooked:

In September 2009, conspiracy theorist Robert Harris was claiming that the initials of Texas Highway Patrolman Bobby Nolan were nowhere to be found on CE842, which is the "foreign body" envelope that held the bullet fragments that were removed from Governor Connally's wrist. A nurse at Parkland Hospital, Audrey Bell, gave Nolan the envelope on November 22nd.

But Bob Harris couldn't find Nolan's initials anywhere on that envelope, even though Nolan said he had initialed the envelope.

Then, just one day later (on September 9, 2009), a person with a very sharp eye posted a message on a JFK forum saying he had found Nolan's initials by merely turning CE842 upside-down. And, sure enough, there are Nolan's initials, big as life ("BMN"). And Bob Harris then had to admit that he was wrong and that Nolan's initials are, indeed, on that envelope, just as Nolan said they were.

Harris then decided to look at other parts of that same envelope, and since he could no longer claim that Nolan's markings weren't on the envelope, Harris decided to start claiming that Nurse Audrey Bell's initials had been planted on the envelope instead.

In other words: when one conspiracy theory collapses, just invent another one and see if anyone will be gullible enough to believe your revised evidence-tampering theory.

But, unfortunately for Mr. Harris, on the morning of May 16, 2010, I turned CE842 upside-down once again and discovered that the initials that Harris thinks are Audrey Bell's are actually the initials of Dallas Police Captain J. Will Fritz ("JWF"):

So, I guess Bob Harris will once again need to revise his conspiracy theory. And in the next revision, he'll probably make the allegation that Captain Fritz' initials were planted or forged on the envelope as part of a conspiracy or cover-up.

Anyway, that's a good example of how initials can easily be missed, even when somebody (like Harris) is specifically searching for them. And in the Harris example, Nolan's initials were written in fairly large print on an object which is easy to see and read. But in the case of CE399, I would contend that finding initials on that object might be a bit more difficult.

In fact, when we look at Bullet CE399 from various angles (via John Hunt's study), I have a very difficult time making out any of the initials which appear on that bullet:



Is it just a coincidence, Jim, that a bunch of "Oswald Was Here" evidence turned up virtually everywhere where the killer of JFK and the killer of J.D. Tippit were located on 11/22/63?

Do you really believe that ALL of the "Oswald Did It" evidence connected to the JFK and Tippit murder cases was fabricated or planted or faked in some manner to implicate poor Mr. Oswald?

And keep in mind that this evidence against Oswald was found in FOUR separate locations, counting the Tippit murder scene -- the TSBD, the limousine, Parkland Hospital, and 10th Street in Oak Cliff. And that number could really be increased to five locations, counting the Texas Theater, which is where the Tippit murder weapon was found--in the hands of Oswald, of course.

And the physical evidence was initially handled by THREE separate law-enforcement agencies too -- the Dallas Police Department, the Dallas County Sheriff's Department, and the U.S. Secret Service.

So, to believe in the kind of blanket and all-encompassing cover-up and frame-up that many conspiracy theorists seem to place their faith in, we would have to believe that all of those various law-enforcement agencies (plus the FBI too, don't forget) got together and decided to hide all of the non-Oswald evidence in the case, and replace it with only Oswald-incriminating evidence, like the things I'm going to talk about below.


1.) Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle being found in the TSBD at 1:22 PM on 11/22/63, just 52 minutes after JFK was shot by rifle fire from that same building. And Tom Alyea's WFAA-TV news film has established the likelihood that the rifle being handled by Lt. Carl Day of the DPD (pictured below) is, indeed, a Carcano rifle, not a Mauser. How do CTers explain these photos from the Alyea film, Jim? Still think this ISN'T Lee Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano being held by J.C. Day?:

And speaking of Alyea -- Can you explain why the DPD, if they were up on the sixth floor planting evidence (as some people have suggested), didn't kick cameraman Tom Alyea off of the sixth floor? Or, at the very LEAST, make him STOP FILMING THE CRIMINAL ACTIVITY that some conspiracy theorists think was going on up on that sixth floor at just about that time?

Does it make any sense (to anyone) to believe the cops were up on the sixth floor playing around with the evidence, and yet they let this cameraman, Alyea, FILM what was happening up there? That's crazy.

The very fact that a TV newsman was allowed to film a lot of the activity on that sixth floor just after the assassination is practically proof enough ALL BY ITSELF that the Dallas police were not planting and/or manipulating any of the evidence on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on 11/22/63.

2.) The three bullet shells found right underneath the Sniper's Nest window on the 6th Floor of the TSBD. And the notion that ALL THREE shells were conveniently "planted" there by evil conspirators (or even the DPD) due to the fact that one of the shells had a dented lip won't fly very far.

Because even if it were true that the one dented shell couldn't have been fired in Oswald's rifle on the day of the assassination (which is not true at all, of course, as later tests with Carcano rifles have demonstrated), what about THE OTHER TWO UNDENTED SHELLS, which were ALSO fired in Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other rifles on the planet?

This is the same weak-ass type of conspiracy argument that is made about the Tippit bullet shells. Even if two of them don't have a clear-cut chain of possession, what do the conspiracy kooks do about the other two shells that also were littering the yard of Barbara and Virginia Davis? Those two non-Poe shells came from Oswald's revolver too.

3.) The brown paper bag WITH TWO OF OSWALD'S OWN PRINTS on it. All of this was faked too, right Jim? Yes, I know you think the bag itself never existed, but what about those PRINTS of Oswald's on bag #CE142? Were those magically planted on that paper sack by the evil authorities too?

Obviously, you must think the two Oswald prints were, indeed, planted on that paper bag--because you think that Oswald never handled any such large bag on November 22 at all.

You DO realize how utterly silly and insane your "No Bag" theory truly is, don't you James?

4.) The bullet shells from Oswald's revolver found at the Tippit murder scene (discussed earlier).

5.) The many eyewitnesses who said they saw Oswald shoot Tippit or run from the scene just after the murder. Did ALL of these people make a wrong positive identification of Oswald?

And then there's also the one eyewitness who later positively identified Oswald as JFK's killer too -- Howard Leslie Brennan. I know you think you can rip Mr. Brennan's positive identification of Oswald to shreds (since Brennan did not make that identification until well after 11/22/63), but his positive identification is still going to be there in the official Warren Commission volumes nonetheless, regardless of whether you believe him or not.

And you should also consider the fact that Brennan is very likely the man who gave the DPD the initial early description of the sixth-floor assassin (at approximately 12:40 PM CST on November 22), and that description put out on the DPD radio at 12:44 PM is very similar to the description Brennan gave of the killer in his November 22nd affidavit and is also very similar to the description he gave of the sniper in his 1964 testimony in front of the Warren Commission
[at 3 H 144].

Brennan saw a slender white male in his early 30s, about 5-feet-10, weighing 165-175 pounds firing a rifle from the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the Depository Building. That description isn't a spot-on match for Oswald, no. But it's a pretty decent rough-sketch description of the man who owned the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that was found on that same sixth floor where Brennan saw the assassin.

Conspiracy theorists often overlook Howard Brennan's very early descriptions of the 6th-Floor assassin, such as this affidavit that Brennan filled out within hours of the assassination:

6.) The fibers wedged in the Carcano rifle, which were FRESH fibers that were consistent with Oswald's arrest shirt. Were these fibers planted too?

7.) A viscose fiber found inside the Sniper's Nest paper bag that matched fibers from the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage (the very same blanket, of course, that was used to store Oswald's rifle at the Paine home). Yet another planted piece of evidence?

8.) The two bullet fragments (CE567 & CE569), positively fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle, that were found in the front seat of JFK's limousine (also discussed earlier in this post).

9.) All of the paper documentation that proves that Lee H. Oswald (alias: A. Hidell) ordered and paid for the two murder weapons -- i.e., the C2766 Carcano shipped by Klein's to Oswald/Hidell on 3/20/63 and the Smith & Wesson .38 revolver shipped to Oswald/Hidell, also (coincidentally) on 3/20/63.

All of that paperwork is fake, Jim? How on Earth would that be possible? Even in your silly "Everything Was Faked" world of conspiracy? Even Waldman Exhibit No. 7 is a fake, Jim? Surely SOMETHING is legit. Or would you like to now say that Klein's Sporting Goods Co. of Chicago was somehow "in" on the plot to frame poor schnook Oswald? But I'd then ask: WHAT THE HELL FOR? What possible motive would KLEIN'S have had to want to frame this guy named Oswald?

Here's a picture of Waldman Exhibit 7. This is no fake document. And anyone saying it is a fake needs to do a novel thing--PROVE IT:

Footnote -- It's amazing how almost all conspiracy theorists of James DiEugenio's ilk (i.e., the kooks in the "Anybody But Oswald" club) want to pretend that so much evidence is faked, or even COULD have been faked so perfectly and seamlessly in this case in order to frame the hapless patsy named Lee Oswald.

But just because it couldn't have possibly happened (in the real world in which all of us live, that is), that doesn't stop conspiracists like DiEugenio from saying (i.e., pretending) that all of the above evidence (and many other items that I didn't mention above) was faked and/or planted anyway.

Another thing for conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio to ponder---

If just one of the crucial pieces of evidence that irrevocably link Lee Harvey Oswald to the assassination of JFK and the murder of Officer Tippit is legitimate from the point-of-view of Mr. DiEugenio, et al, and has not been tainted or planted or manufactured, how can DiEugenio and the other members of the "Anybody But Oswald" society explain away such legitimate evidence if they want to continue believing Oswald was nothing more than an innocent dupe/patsy?

I'd like to also add this point -- The willy-nilly and nearly-last-minute effort to kill JFK on Oswald's part (plus Oswald's less-than-ideal escape plan) is pretty good circumstantial evidence, in and of itself, that no pre-planned conspiracy existed in this case at all.

Naturally, all CTers want to believe otherwise, with the various theorists electing to pretend that Oswald was framed and apparently ALL of the items that make up the mountain of physical evidence against him were planted.

In the topsy-turvy world of conspiracy promoters, many theorists actually have the guts and the gall to argue that since all of the evidence points toward Lee Harvey Oswald, this therefore means exactly the OPPOSITE and that Oswald is completely innocent.

Normally, however, CORROBORATION equals CONFIRMATION. But in the world of JFK conspiracy theorists, apparently CORROBORATION equals MANUFACTURED EVIDENCE.

Talk about turning logic upside-down. Conspiracists have a patent on doing that.



How can you possibly explain away all of the various things that prove to any reasonable and sensible person examining this topic that all of the backyard pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald are legitimate, unaltered photographs that were taken by Marina Oswald (as she, herself, has always admitted) in the Neely Street backyard on or near the date of March 31, 1963?

Besides Marina always saying that she took the photos, with one of her latest admissions in this regard coming on November 30, 2000, when she told author Vincent Bugliosi that she took them [see page 1487 of "Reclaiming History"], there's also the fact that we know the pictures were taken with Oswald's very own Imperial-Reflex camera. A negative to one of the photos still exists and was tested by the Warren Commission and HSCA, and that negative matched Lee Oswald's Reflex camera to the exclusion of all other cameras in the world.

And since ALL of the other backyard pictures depict an almost identical scene (with Lee Oswald, dressed in black, standing in the yard holding a rifle and two newspapers, with a revolver strapped to his waist), what are the chances that ANY of those nearly-identical photos are fakes, since we know beyond all doubt that one of them is legit (via the negative)?

Plus: We know that LHO signed a backyard photo that was found 14 years later in George DeMohrenschildt's possessions.

Surely, Jim, even you can see the illogic of continuing the charade of pretending those backyard photographs are fakes. Right?



You also think Lee Oswald was innocent of firing a rifle shot at General Edwin A. Walker on the night of April 10th, 1963, right Jim?

If so, what about the fact that LHO told his wife, Marina, that he had shot at Walker? Doesn't that little piece of evidence carry any weight at all with you, Jim?

And, btw, Marina repeated that fact for Vincent Bugliosi on November 30, 2000, when Vince interviewed Marina in Dallas. Marina told Bugliosi that she knew her husband had tried to shoot General Walker, because "Lee told me he did" ["Reclaiming History'; Page 1487].

And what about the incriminating note that Lee left behind for Marina on the night of the Walker shooting? Is that a fake too, even though it was written in Oswald's handwriting, in Russian? [See Commission Exhibit No. 1.]

Plus -- It wasn't until 11/30/63 that the FBI requested further information from the DPD concerning the Walker shooting, with the FBI only at that time--in late November, several days AFTER Oswald had been killed by Jack Ruby--thinking there might be a connection between Oswald and the Walker incident.

So why on Earth would the authorities have wanted to frame Oswald for yet ANOTHER crime (the Walker murder attempt) AFTER OSWALD WAS ALREADY DEAD, and after these same authorities (according to you) had already done such a spectacular job of framing Oswald for both the JFK and Tippit murders?


Robert Frazier of the FBI told the Warren Commission: "Some individuals commonly refer to rifle bullets as steel-jacketed bullets, when they actually in fact just have a copper alloy jacket" [3 H 439].

Plus: If the authorities had wanted to frame Oswald for the Walker shooting, then the rotten, scheming liars and evidence-planters would certainly have made sure that the fake bullet they entered into evidence would be able to be linked to the patsy's rifle. Instead, we're left with CE573, which is a bullet that is so badly mutilated that none of the firearms experts were able to say it could be linked definitively to Oswald's Carcano. Stupid plotters there for sure.

The Walker shooting is often ignored (or distorted) by conspiracy theorists, probably because it proves something very, very important -- it proves that Lee Oswald had it WITHIN HIMSELF to take a rifle and try to kill a human being with it.

This crucial incident (the Walker assassination attempt) cannot be overlooked or downplayed, in my opinion. It's a very key link to the potential motive that Oswald had for killing President Kennedy seven months later.

For, if Oswald was willing to take a potshot at one political figure in April 1963, then why would anyone consider it a wild stretch of the imagination to think he would be willing to take another shot at an even more prominent and important political figure (who, like Walker, held strong anti-Communist and anti-Castro beliefs) seven months later in Dealey Plaza?

I'm sorry, Jim, but the "Nothing Is What It Seems To Be" rule that many conspiracy theorists seem to live by when it comes to the subject of Lee Harvey Oswald is wearing mighty thin as far as I'm concerned. In fact, it's just plain ridiculous. And it always has been.



You think Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico City in September and October of 1963, don't you Jim? And you don't believe Oswald was really in Mexico City at all at that time, do you?

Well, if that's the case, how do you explain the many things that prove conclusively that Oswald WAS, in fact, in Mexico at the time in question?

There's the hotel guest register at the Hotel Del Comercio, which has LHO's signature--in Oswald's verified handwriting--on it. And regardless of where the "comma" is, this is STILL Lee Harvey Oswald's signature in Commission Exhibit 2480 (line 18)--like it or not.

And then there's the Cuban visa application with Oswald's signature AND picture on it [CE2564].

And there's Silvia Duran, who said to the HSCA that she gave Oswald her name and the telephone number of the Cuban Consulate:

TIRADO/DURAN -- "But what I remember is that Oswald has my telephone number and my name and perhaps he show to the doorman."
CORNWELL -- "When did you give him the telephone number and name?"
TIRADO/DURAN -- "In the second visit, perhaps."

And we know that Duran's name and phone number appear in Oswald's address book [CE18; at 16 H 54]. And the name "Sylvia Duran" and the number "11-28-47" were positively written in Oswald's own handwriting.

Plus: There is Commission Exhibit 15, a letter to the Soviet Embassy in Washington, dated 11/9/63, signed by Lee Oswald, wherein Oswald talks about [quote] "my meetings with comrade Kostin [sic] in the Embassy of the Soviet Union, Mexico City, Mexico" [unquote]. Oswald got the name wrong there, of course; he obviously meant Kostikov.

And there are also the multiple eyewitnesses who saw Oswald on the busses that he took to and from Mexico.

How can ALL of this varied evidence be explained away, Jim?

In three words -- It can't be. The real Lee Harvey Oswald was in Mexico City in September/October of 1963. Live with that obvious and true fact or continue to try and support the unsupportable "He Was Never In Mexico" theory. Your choice.



I know you think the SBT is nothing but a great-big pile of steaming horseshit, but let me ask you a question:

Can I get you to admit that if there is enough evidence seen in the Zapruder Film that indicates that Governor Connally is physically reacting to a bullet hitting him around Z-frame #224, would you acknowledge at least the possibility that both JFK (who can clearly be seen reacting to a bullet hitting him at Z225 and the following frames) and John Connally were struck by the same bullet (whether that bullet was CE399 or not)?

I think I can show, via the Z-Film, that Connally was, indeed, hit by a bullet at precisely Z224.

My arguments in favor of the SBT occurring at Z224 are outlined in detail HERE.



Do you admit, Jim, that when JFK is struck in the head at Zapruder frame 313, his head initially moves FORWARD, not backward?

Surely you cannot deny this obvious FORWARD movement of Kennedy's head at the very critical MOMENT OF IMPACT at exactly Z313:

What do YOU think this forward motion of JFK's head indicates at the very same instant the bullet obviously is hitting him in the skull?

Also: Since we have documentary evidence of only ONE bullet hitting JFK's head, coming from the REAR--via the autopsy report, the autopsy X-rays, and the autopsy photographs--what reasonable argument can you possibly continue to make to buttress your theory that JFK was hit in the head at least once from the Grassy Knoll area in Dealey Plaza?

You have no autopsy photos or X-rays to support such a frontal head shot. And you certainly have nothing in the autopsy report to support such a theory. The autopsy report (signed by all three of JFK's autopsists, Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck) clearly says the following:

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased. .... The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance."

The above verbiage that can be found on page 6 of JFK's official autopsy report [CE387; Warren Report Page 543 and at 16 H 983] couldn't be clearer as to the direction the head shot came from -- it came from BEHIND the President. And there was NO SECOND WOUND OF ENTRANCE in the President's head.

Apart from the boatload of stuff that you think was manufactured and manipulated by the DPD in order to frame that hapless sap named Lee Oswald, are we actually supposed to believe that a whole bunch of OTHER stuff has also been faked by a band of evil conspirators in this case, Jim? Such as JFK's autopsy report and the autopsy photographs and X-rays?

And one X-ray, in particular, vividly demonstrates that the CTers who continue to believe that the BACK of Kennedy's head was destroyed and blown away don't have a leg to stand on. It's the X-ray depicted below, which shows the back of JFK's head to have NO BONE MISSING WHATSOEVER. None. There's a radiating fracture line visible at the right-rear of Kennedy's head, but there is NO MISSING SKULL BONE. Period. Let's have a look:

Is the above X-ray a fake too, Jim? (Let me guess, you think Dr. David Mantik has proven that a "white blob" has been inserted into that X-ray photo, right?)

Well, John McAdams recently posted some very interesting messages on the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup that CTers ought to look at. McAdams said that Mantik's copy of the X-ray that the good doctor is sure is a fake is not showing the same thing as the X-ray utilized by the HSCA in the late 1970s. The HSCA examined the original X-ray, and there is no "blob" at the right rear of Kennedy's skull. It is not there.

I don't know what the explanation is for this X-ray discrepancy between Dr. Mantik's version and the original X-ray examined by the House Select Committee's Forensic Pathology Panel. But I am confident of this fact: JFK was not (and could not have been) shot in the head from the Grassy Knoll. The totality of evidence, including the Zapruder Film, prohibits a frontal shot from striking the President in Dealey Plaza.

In fact, the Zapruder Film all by itself is very good evidence to utilize in order to prove that JFK was NOT struck in the head from the front (or right-front) of his limousine.

On the Z-Film, not only is there the aforementioned crucial evidence of the President's head moving FORWARD at the moment-of-impact frame at Z313, but there's also the blood spray after impact, which is all toward the FRONT of JFK's head, indicating a shot coming from the rear.

Plus, there are the Connallys, who were seated in front of JFK in the limousine. Both John and Nellie Connally always said, in the many interviews they granted after the assassination, that they were both "covered with blood and brain tissue" (paraphrasing) after the head shot, which certainly would indicate a shot coming from BEHIND the President, from the direction of the Texas School Book Depository Building where Lee Harvey Oswald and his Carcano rifle were located at the time of the shooting.

And then there's this autopsy photo below, which has been deemed authentic and "not...altered in any manner" by the House Select Committee on Assassinations [7 HSCA 41], and this photo shows a single bullet wound of entry high on the head (in the cowlick area), and no damage whatever to the right-rear portion of JFK's head/scalp:

Is that picture supposedly a fake too, Jim (despite the HSCA's declaration that I just quoted above from HSCA Volume #7)?

Here's the more complete passage from the HSCA regarding the autopsy X-rays and photographs:

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA Volume 7; Page 41

How many things is a reasonable and rational human being supposed to believe were fake, phony, and maufactured in this case before that person puts on the brakes and regains enough sanity to say: "Hold it! This is too much!"?

Is the limit 25 pieces of fake evidence? Or maybe 50 pieces? How about 75?

How many is TOO many for you, Jim? Or is there any limit at all to the number of things you'll say are fake and phony?

And is there a limit to the number of people you'll say are responsible for all of this fake evidence? Is the number of cover-up artists also unlimited in your strange "Everything Is Fake" world of conspiracy?



Are Ruby's actions and movements on 11/24/63 (and in the days and weeks that preceded the killing of Oswald) really the actions of a person who was employed by the Mob (or anyone else) to "silence" Lee Oswald?

Answer: Very, very unlikely.

Ruby, we know, received a call at 10:19 AM CST on 11/24/63 from Karen Carlin, one of Ruby's strippers at the Carousel Club [see CE2298]. Carlin asked Jack for $25 so she could pay her rent.

Ruby, after getting Carlin's phone call, then took a shower and drove downtown to the Western Union office to send Carlin a $25 money order.

Does Jim want to believe that Carlin's call was pre-arranged by someone? Is 20-year-old nightclub stripper Karen Carlin a part of the plot to silence Oswald too?

These, in fact, are the actions of a man (Ruby) who decided to shoot Lee Oswald at practically the VERY LAST MINUTE. It was a spur-of-the-moment killing. That is obvious when we look at Jack Ruby's movements on the morning of November 24th.

Ruby, by all indications, was even aware that the Dallas police had planned to move Oswald to the County Jail by about 10:00 AM on Sunday, November 24. But Carlin's call didn't reach Ruby at Ruby's apartment until 10:19 AM. So for all Ruby knew as of 10:19, Oswald had already been transferred to the County Jail.

In fact, Ruby said as much in his Warren Commission testimony. Now, I'll admit, it certainly isn't always a very wise thing to do to accept at face value the words being uttered by the murderer himself--in this case, Jack Ruby--but these were his words nonetheless--take them with a large grain of salt if you wish, which probably would be a good idea, for both CTers and LNers alike:

[Quoting from Jack Ruby's Warren Commission testimony:]

"No one else requested me to do anything. I never spoke to anyone about attempting to do anything. No subversive organization gave me any idea. No underworld person made any effort to contact me. It all happened that Sunday morning. The last thing I read was that Mrs. Kennedy may have to come back to Dallas for trial for Lee Harvey Oswald, and I don't know what bug got ahold of me, I don't know what it is, but I am going to tell the truth, word-for-word."

[Then, a little later in Ruby's testimony, we find this:]

"Suddenly...the emotional feeling came within me that someone owed this debt to our beloved President to save her [Jackie Kennedy] the ordeal of coming back. I don't know why that came through my mind. And I drove past Main Street, past the County Building, and there was a crowd already gathered there. And I guess I thought I knew he was going to be moved at 10 o'clock, I don't know. .... And I took it for granted he had already been moved." -- Jack Ruby; 1964 Warren Commission Testimony

There's also the important part that U.S. Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes played in this Ruby/Oswald saga on 11/24/63.

Holmes went downtown on his own (after dropping his wife off at church) in order to see if he could help Captain Fritz in any further interrogation of Oswald at City Hall.

And it was Holmes' additional questioning of Oswald which certainly resulted in a delay in the transfer. Without Holmes' presence there that morning, it is very likely that Oswald would have been on his way to the County Jail several minutes before Jack Ruby ever arrived downtown at the Western Union office.

Is Harry Holmes supposed to be a "plotter" now, Jim? Surely you can't believe that he was involved in a pre-planned plot to rub out Oswald. Can you?

Plus: We know that Oswald changed an article of clothing just before he was led out to the DPD basement on Nov. 24. He put on a black sweater. Now, whether this change of clothing was Oswald's own idea or not is a somewhat muddled point. But surely no sensible person can believe that Oswald would want to deliberately delay his transfer so that Jack Ruby could get into position in the basement to murder him.

On page 267 of Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", there's a quote and a citation that indicates that it was DPD Captain Will Fritz who had initially asked Oswald: "Do you want something to put over your T-shirt?" Oswald then answered: "Yes."

But even with Fritz asking the question, it didn't mean Oswald was forced to answer "Yes". If he had refused the clothing change, he possibly would have been in the basement a minute or so earlier and therefore Ruby would have missed any opportunity to shoot him.

On page 1073 of his book, Vince Bugliosi tells the flip-side to this clothing story, with Oswald being the one who requests the wardrobe adjustment, instead of Captain Fritz. In an endnote, Bugliosi acknowledges the ambiguity of the situation with the following remarks:

"The recollections of those present are in conflict as to whether Oswald was asked if he wanted to put something on over his T-shirt or whether Oswald himself made the request." -- Page 104 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

Plus: In the weeks before Oswald's murder, we know that Jack Ruby was getting up early in the morning to go to local department stores in order to advertise his exercise gadget that he called a "twistboard".

[See Commission Document 106, Page 89; FBI interview with Ruby's roommate, George Senator, on December 19, 1963.]

Now, do Mob hit men normally have to do things like promote an exercise gadget at department stores in order to supplement their income just prior to the biggest "hit" of their lives?

Plus: Ruby owed the Internal Revenue Service $44,413.86 in back taxes as of December 9, 1963. [See CE1731.]

If Jack Ruby was the big-time "hit man" for the Mafia that many conspiracy theorists believe he was, would he have had such a large debt in back taxes on the books at the time he plugged Oswald? Didn't a big-wheel mobster like Ruby get paid anything at all for his Mafia work? Or did Jack merely squander all of his Mob earnings?

A Ruby summary:

A series of events (which any reasonable person looking at the sum total of evidence can only classify as pure happenstance) took place on the morning of November 24th, 1963, that led to the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald. None of these events were pre-arranged by anyone. Nor COULD these events have been pre-planned by anyone, given the way these things unfolded on November 24.

And another very important thing to mention here is the NORMAL AND ROUTINE fact that Jack Ruby usually carried a gun in his pocket. He did so for protection, due to the fact he carried around a lot of money from his nightclubs. In fact, he had thousands of dollars on his person and in the trunk of his car when he shot Oswald.


An interesting discussion between myself and Gary Mack about how Ruby entered the police basement can be found HERE.


I will say that I agree with Jim DiEugenio about one thing -- the polygraph (or lie detector) test that was given to Jack Ruby by Mr. Bell Herndon of the FBI should probably be tossed out the window. It was conducted in such a strange and unorthodox manner that it has virtually no value, IMO.

It even seemed as if Ruby HIMSELF was controlling, to some extent, the way some of the questions were going to be phrased during the polygraph test. Unbelievable!

But the key point regarding the polygraph subject, in my opinion, is this: RUBY WANTED TO TAKE THE LIE DETECTOR TEST.

In fact, he practically BEGGED the Warren Commission to let him take the test. And that fact certainly should be considered and weighed when we look at the whole topic of Jack Ruby and potential conspiracy.



Lee Oswald was living in a very small room at 1026 North Beckley Avenue in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff in the weeks prior to JFK's assassination. The room on Beckley (shown in the picture below) was no bigger than a large closet. As the old saying goes -- you could barely swing a cat in it:

Do CIA operatives have to live in virtual poverty in $7 and $8-a-week roominghouses, while their families are forced to live elsewhere, for free, at the home of friends?

I'd suggest to anyone who believes Lee Oswald was employed by the CIA (or any other branch of the U.S. Government) to take a look at Oswald's poor living conditions and his meager finances for the 1.5-year period before the assassination.

The Warren Commission examined Oswald's finances very closely (almost dollar-by-dollar) for the period of June 1962 through the date of the assassination in November 1963. That information can be found in Appendix XIV of the Warren Report.

Oswald had $183.87 to his name on the morning of 11/22/63, and he left $170 of that total on a dresser at Ruth Paine's house before he left for work on November 22. He also left behind his wedding ring that same morning.

So, if Oswald was an agent for the CIA (or FBI, or any other Government organization), he sure wasn't being paid very well. Or do some conspiracy theorists want to believe that Oswald WAS paid a lot of money by the CIA (or whoever), and Oswald either spent all of that cash or maybe buried it in his backyard, where it rests to this day?

Or would the CTers like to pretend that the above-linked Appendix #14 of the Warren Report is nothing but one big lie and whitewash job? That's likely what some CTers think, because the Warren boys would NEVER tell the truth about anything connected with Oswald...would they?

To that type of allegation, I say: Horseshit!



An interesting poll was conducted by ABC News in November 2003, in which 1,031 people were asked the following question:

"Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all?"

Here are the results of that polling question:

ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32%
ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51%
NO OPINION ------------- 10%

http://PollingReport.com/The Kennedy Assassination

So, according to that ABC News poll (and, granted, it is only one polling source), it would certainly seem as if Jim DiEugenio's belief about Oswald being an innocent patsy who never fired a shot at JFK is not a belief that is shared by very many people in the mainstream of America.

On Internet forums, however, it seems as though the outer-fringe "Anybody But Oswald" theorists are the norm, rather than the exception. But as for the majority of Americans, it would appear as if they believe Oswald was, indeed, firing shots at President Kennedy in Dallas (regardless of whether they also believe in a conspiracy or not) -- based on that ABC poll anyway.



Jim D., you've probably seen Commission Exhibit No. 903 before. Here it is below (the caption was written by me):

CE903 is a picture that was taken by the FBI's Lyndal Shaneyfelt in Dallas on May 24, 1964, on the same day of the Warren Commission's re-creation of the assassination in Dealey Plaza.

As we can all see, CE903, all by itself, disproves one of the biggest myths created by the conspiracy theorists: the myth about how Gerald Ford and the Warren Commission desperately needed to "move" the upper-back wound of President Kennedy up into the neck of JFK in order to support the trajectory of the Single-Bullet Theory.

But CE903 vividly illustrates the fact that the wound on the back of John Kennedy certainly did not need to be situated in the NECK of the President at all.

In fact, if that wound were to be moved up into neck of JFK, such a move would actually completely ruin the SBT's trajectory, because any such move upward into the President's neck would mean that the exit wound at the front of JFK's throat would have to be moved up too (in order to maintain the accurate 17.72-degree downward angle through Kennedy's body), and the bullet would have then exited around the chin of JFK, instead of where we know the bullet exited--at the tie knot.

And as for the argument (which I've heard brought up several times) that CE903 is bogus and worthless because the men aren't sitting in JFK's actual limousine, I always refer those critics to Lyndal Shaneyfelt's WC testimony, as well as Page 97 of the Warren Report, which indicates that even though the Kennedy limousine was not available to use during the Commission's re-creation in May of '64 (with the Secret Service follow-up car being used for the tests instead--which was a Cadillac), page 97 of the Warren Report clearly states that "ANY DIFFERENCES WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT" between the two vehicles.



You, Jim DiEugenio, have said in the past that you believe that Sergeant Patrick T. Dean of the Dallas Police Department played a key role in allowing Jack Ruby to get into the DPD basement to shoot Oswald.

Patrick Dean, however, appeared on live TV within literally minutes of the shooting and Dean admitted, right on camera with the world watching, that he knew Jack Ruby (see the video below). Don't you think that was a strange (and silly) thing for Dean to do right after Ruby plugged Oswald if Pat Dean was part of some kind of plot to allow Ruby to get into the police basement?

Here's a guy (Dean) who you say might very well have been part of a plot to kill Oswald, but then (immediately after Ruby commits the murder that Dean, in effect, orchestrated and allowed to happen) Dean is willing to appear on live television and tell the world that he was acquainted with the man he just allowed to enter the basement.

That's just crazy, Jim.

Bottom line: If Patrick Dean had deliberately allowed Jack Ruby to enter the DPD basement for the purpose of shooting Lee Harvey Oswald dead (or even if Dean had only allowed Ruby into the basement for the purpose of simply letting Ruby watch the transfer of Oswald, without Dean realizing that Ruby was about to kill LHO), then the VERY LAST THING we would have heard come out of Dean's mouth would have been these words, which Dean uttered within minutes of Oswald being shot: "Yes, sir, I do know him [Ruby]."



On the night of Thursday, November 21st, Lee Oswald asked his wife, Marina, to move back to Dallas with him. According to Marina's WC testimony, LHO said he would go look for an apartment in Dallas "tomorrow" (meaning Friday, Nov. 22nd--the day JFK was assassinated).

This is a rather important point, in my opinion, because it suggests that Oswald's plan to kill President Kennedy might not have been set in stone as late as the previous night (11/21/63).

LHO's conversations with Marina on the night of November 21st certainly suggest that if Marina had agreed to go back to Dallas with her husband right away, then it's likely LHO would not have shot JFK on Nov. 22.

Are those the words and the actions of a man who is part of some kind of pre-arranged plot to murder the President of the United States THE VERY NEXT DAY? I think not.

Do conspiracy theorists think that Marina just MADE UP the conversation she had with her husband regarding LHO wanting to look for an apartment "tomorrow"? [See Marina Oswald's Warren Commission testimony from 2/5/64, beginning
at 1 H 65.]

This topic brings up another interesting possibility for conspiracy kooks to consider:

What if Marina had said "Yes" to Lee's November 21st proposal? And what if Lee had decided to skip work the following day and go look for an apartment instead?

What would that have done to the conspirators' plan to frame Oswald for Kennedy's assassination? It would have been a little difficult to frame a man for murder who wasn't even at the scene of the crime when the murder occurred, wouldn't it?

I doubt that even Jim DiEugenio's batch of Kreskin-like plotters, who apparently had the unique and amazing ability to change all of the real evidence in this case into only "Oswald Did It" evidence almost instantly after the shots were fired, could manage to frame Oswald from the Depository if Lee Harvey had really been somewhere in Oak Cliff or Irving looking for an apartment at 12:30 PM on November 22nd.

Food for thought, isn't it?



It should also be noted that not only did the Warren Commission and the HSCA come to the same conclusions regarding JFK's bullet wounds (with those conclusions being, of course, that President Kennedy was struck by only two bullets, both having been fired from behind the President), but that also the four members of the 1968 Clark Panel and the five experts who each independently examined the evidence for the Rockefeller Commission in 1975 came to the SAME IDENTICAL CONCLUSIONS -- John F. Kennedy was hit by two bullets and only two bullets--with both bullets coming from above and behind the President.

Many people seem to ignore or gloss over the conclusions reached by those other two panels -- the Clark and Rockefeller panels. But, in fact, those two panels are very important, because they each corroborated the conclusions reached by the Warren Commission.

Quoting from the Clark Panel's final report:

"Examination of the clothing and of the photographs and X-rays taken at autopsy reveal that President Kennedy was struck by two bullets fired from above and behind him, one of which traversed the base of the neck on the right side without striking bone and the other of which entered the skull from behind and exploded its right side."

And now quoting from Page 262 of the Rockefeller Commission report:

"The Panel members separately submitted their respective conclusions. They were unanimous in finding that the President was struck by only two bullets, both of which were fired from the rear, and that there is no medical evidence to support a contention that the President was struck by any bullet coming from any other direction. They were also unanimous in finding that the violent backward and leftward motion of the President’s upper body following the head shot was not caused by the impact of a bullet coming from the front or right front."

The Rockefeller Commission also interviewed Dr. E. Forrest Chapman, who was one of the very few people in the world (up to that time in 1975) who had studied the autopsy photographs and X-rays.

And on Page 264 of the Rockefeller Commission report, we find this passage:

"Dr. Chapman declared that if there were any assassins firing at the President from the grassy knoll, [quoting Chapman:] “they must have been very poor shots because they didn’t hit anything.”"

So, in addition to the WC and HSCA, the conspiracy theorists have two more Government committees to disagree with--Clark and Rockefeller. Were all of those experts wrong or liars too?

In other words, is there any limit to the number of different people who the CTers will say got it all wrong when it comes to their conclusions about the way John Kennedy died?



A general type of observation regarding Mrs. Ruth Paine:

If Ruth had been a conspirator of some sort in the assassination of JFK, as many conspiracy promoters firmly believe, I kind of doubt that she would have made herself available so much--voluntarily--to the press after the assassination. She gave several interviews and was never really shy about answering any and all questions about her activities as they related to Marina and Lee Oswald.

But, then too, perhaps Jim thinks that this was merely part of the "Grand Plan or Plot", to have Ruth Paine be a "public spokesperson" of sorts, so that she could continue telling her supposed lies, year after year, all the way up to her fairly recent interview with KDFW (formerly KRLD) in 2003 [which can be seen HERE].

Perhaps Jim is of the opinion that Ruth was a little quicker on her feet and a much better liar than some of her fellow CIA-sponsored conspirators that Jim thinks were involved in the plot to murder the President.

And the same type of common-sense thinking that I was just referring to concerning witnesses making themselves available for public interviews can be applied to other witnesses who were connected fairly closely to the events in Dallas too -- for instance, Wesley Frazier, who is a person that Jim D. has
now labelled a liar with regard to the paper bag story. But Wesley has given a few interviews over the years, including, in fact, a detailed, two-hour-long
"Oral History" interview with Gary Mack of the Sixth Floor Museum, on June 21, 2002.

And in that 2002 interview, Frazier repeated the same story he has always told about seeing Oswald carrying a large paper bag into the Book Depository on November 22.

But, I guess once you tell the same lie so many times--you're stuck with it for life. Right, Jim?



Why did JFK's lead autopsy physician, Dr. James Humes, admit to burning his original autopsy notes and a first draft of the autopsy report?

The very fact that Dr. Humes ADMITTED to the Warren Commission (and later to the HSCA and ARRB as well) that he had burned (and hence destroyed) some of the original autopsy materials in his home fireplace is virtual proof right there that Humes was not involved in some kind of conspiracy or cover-up following JFK's death.

And the funny part about this topic from Jim DiEugenio's point-of-view is that Jim has said that he now believes that Humes DIDN'T burn any autopsy materials in his home fireplace at all!

In other words, according to DiEugenio, Humes was involved in a cover-up regarding Kennedy's assassination, but he went ahead and said he did something that could only be looked upon as being suspicious and sinister if he had been part of a cover-up (such as burning stuff in his fireplace), but he LIED about doing this, because (according to Jim D.) Humes really DIDN'T burn anything in his fireplace at all.

That is beyond silly. It's insane behavior on the part of Dr. Humes, if we're to believe DiEugenio's cockeyed version of events.

In point of fact, the reason Humes burned his autopsy notes in his fireplace is because they were stained with the President's blood, and Humes stated that fact to the HSCA in 1978. Humes then copied his original notes, word-for-word, on fresh paper.

The reason Humes burned a first draft of the autopsy report isn't quite as clear, because that document wasn't stained with JFK's blood. But Humes stated that he burned that draft because it contained some errors of some kind. Therefore, Humes rewrote the draft and burned the inaccurate copy.

But the bottom line is this: Dr. James J. Humes had a CLEAR CONSCIENCE in 1964 and in 1978 and again in 1996 when he told three Government committees that he burned and destroyed some autopsy materials.

One of the very last things a person involved in a cover-up is going to do is to say that he destroyed some of the original documents connected to the assassination when he certainly didn't have to admit any such thing.

And to say he did burn them--when he really DIDN'T--which is Jim's theory--is even sillier. It's downright stupid.

As any reasonable person examining Dr. Humes' actions can see, Jim DiEugenio's imagination is very fertile when it comes to the activities of Dr. J.J. Humes in November 1963.



Many conspiracy theorists (Jim DiEugenio among them) think that J. Edgar Hoover was one of the key people who contributed to a cover-up after JFK's death.

But when we think about that allegation logically and from a different point-of-view, I think a good argument can be made for just exactly the opposite likely to have taken place when it comes to Hoover and his FBI.

IOW -- Why on Earth would Hoover have wanted to frame an INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK, when such a frame-up would only end up making Hoover and his FBI boys look extremely bad in the long run?

And they would look really bad in the eyes of the public (and they do look bad, from the perspective of some people) because the FBI knew of Oswald's presence in Dallas in the weeks before the assassination.

So, if anything, Mr. Hoover would have had much more of a reason and a motive to want to EXONERATE Lee Oswald of any wrongdoing than he would have to want to frame the very man who the FBI should have kept a better eye on before November 22nd.

By all accounts, I think we can agree that J. Edgar Hoover was a man who lived and breathed "The Bureau" 24/7, and would certainly not want to have an enduring black eye attached to his FBI for all time because of shoddy surveillance on a Presidential assassin in the weeks before JFK was killed.

So, to think that J. Edgar Hoover, of all people, would have been actively attempting to frame Lee Harvey Oswald and cover up the truth of JFK's assassination, is a notion that I simply cannot wrap my head around in the slightest way. That theory, in my opinion, is just plain nuts.



1.) The fact that Lee Harvey Oswald's Imperial-Reflex camera was not immediately confiscated by the DPD on November 22 or November 23.

But where does this type argument go, Jim? Anywhere?

If somebody was wanting to frame LHO, why would they want to HIDE such evidence of the Reflex camera, which, after all, is the camera that positively took the incriminating backyard photos of Lee Oswald? It makes no sense.

2.) Jim suggests that there was something sinister going on with respect to the fact that Marguerite Oswald apparently (per Jim) knew about LHO's planned trip to Russia days or weeks prior to him actually making the trip.

Again--where does this stuff go? Where does it lead?

Is Jim suggesting that Marguerite was somehow part of some plot to kill JFK in 1963, FOUR YEARS LATER, or that Marguerite was trying to frame her own son for some crime in 1959?

It makes NO sense?

But Jim will dangle these meaningless threads out there, in the hope (I guess) that they will eventually lead down the path of conspiracy relating to JFK's murder--somehow.


3.) There's the really absurd and ridiculous one that Jim D. has advanced that suggests that DPD Captain J. Will Fritz was up to no good on 11/24/63 during the attempted transfer of Lee Oswald from the City Jail to the County Jail.

DiEugenio suggests that since Fritz wasn't looking right at Lee Oswald or Jack Ruby at the very instant Ruby shot Oswald, this somehow is supposed to mean that Fritz knew what was going to happen in the DPD basement, and therefore Fritz wasn't surprised or even curious enough to turn around and watch the unfolding murder.

This whole line of reasoning, of course, is just plain silly. Captain Fritz was walking in front of Oswald (i.e., he was leading Oswald out to the waiting car) when Oswald was shot by Ruby. So, of course, Fritz wasn't looking in the direction of Oswald or Ruby when the shooting took place.

I timed Fritz' reactions via the KRLD-TV video shown below, and within TWO SECONDS of hearing Ruby's gunshot go off, a startled look comes across Fritz' face, and he turns around to see what was happening. Again, to emphasize this fact, it took Fritz no more than TWO SECONDS to react in the manner I just described.

So, there's nothing unusual or sinister (in the slightest degree) with the way Captain Fritz behaved or reacted during those few seconds just before and just after Lee Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby.

And Jim DiEugenio has also suggested that the two "horn honks" we hear shortly before Oswald was shot are apparently supposed to be considered sinister too.

Evidently, per the crazy conspiracists, the two honks were "signals" of some kind, to remind Ruby to get into position and then shoot Oswald in the gut.

I guess Ruby was such an inept and retarded Mob hit man that he needed TWO separate car horns to go off nearby in order to send him a series of "Get Into Position" and "Shoot Oswald Now" signals. [LOL]

Only in the minds of paranoid and loony conspiracy theorists (like James DiEugenio) would silly garbage like this even be dredged up.

Here is the complete, uncut KRLD-TV raw videotape footage of Lee Harvey Oswald's murder (complete with the two horn honks):



A good thing for JFK researchers to do once in a while is to watch or listen to some of the original live as-it-happened television and radio coverage from the weekend of November 22-25, 1963 (such as the material that can be found here and here).

When you do that, it tends to illustrate how weak the arguments of many of the conspiracy theorists really are -- particularly the theories coming from people like Jim Garrison, Oliver Stone, and Robert Groden, because those individuals have always believed in a massive, grandiose conspiracy plot that involves a minimum of three gunmen and a minimum of six gunshots.

But if you listen to ANY of the various TV and radio reports that were being broadcast live during the assassination weekend, you'll quickly find that the theories of Garrison, Stone, and Groden (and many other conspiracists) totally vaporize into nothingness.

And that's because the early television and radio reports were essentially confirming a LONE-ASSASSIN, THREE-SHOT assassination scenario right from the get-go on the afternoon of November 22nd.

For instance, the reporters and media personnel who were in a position to immediately report the shooting to the world via radio, TV, and the newswire services virtually all heard exactly THREE SHOTS being fired in Dealey Plaza -- e.g., Jay Watson and Jerry Haynes of WFAA-TV, Merriman Smith of UPI, Bob Clark of ABC, Jack Bell of AP, Robert MacNeil of NBC, Pierce Allman of WFAA-Radio, and Mal Couch of WFAA-TV (among a few other newspaper and radio/TV correspondents who were in Dealey Plaza when the assassination occurred).

In addition to those newsmen, the vast majority of all the other witnesses throughout Dealey Plaza heard three shots or fewer and thought that all of the shots had come from just ONE SINGLE DIRECTION (be it the front or the rear). That is important too, since even all conspiracy theorists (with the possible exception of David Lifton) know beyond all doubt that SOME shots positively did come FROM BEHIND the President's limousine.

Therefore, the several people who claimed that they heard ALL of the shots coming from the direction of the Grassy Knoll have got to be wrong. It's as simple as that.

Or are we to believe that almost all of those "Grassy Knoll" witnesses (and I'll admit, there are quite a few of them) somehow managed to hear ALL of the shots that came from the Knoll, but they missed hearing all of the multiple shots that came from the rear?

More on the witness stats HERE.



1.) Regarding my JFK-Lancer forum "career" --- You are wrong, Jim, about your "263 posts in his first 12 days" assessment [in DiEugenio's 2010 article about me]. It wasn't me (DVP) to whom Gene Stump of Debra Conway's JFK Lancer forum was referring in his July 28, 2005, Internet message. It was another person entirely--a man named Nick Kendrick, who posted at Lancer for just "12 days".

You would have known that fact if you had bothered to investigate Stump's 2005 Lancer post more thoroughly.

The key words in Stump's post that should have indicated to you that Stump wasn't talking about me at all in his 2005 post are the words "his first 12 days". I, however, joined the Lancer forum initially back in 2002 or early 2003. Not in 2005.

2.) You are wrong when you continually have said (i.e., lied) that I wrote a review at Amazon.com for Rodger Remington's 2009 book, "Biting The Elephant".

But no such review of mine ever existed at Amazon (or anyplace else either). It doesn't exist now, and it never existed at any time in the past. And that's because I never wrote any such review for Remington's book. And I have no idea why you (or anyone else) would think I ever did.

3.) Then there's the falsehood about how I supposedly [quoting Jim D.] "[issue] what is essentially a press release within hours of the air date...[of] almost every other Discovery Channel debacle to come down the turnpike." [That quote comes from DiEugenio's April 13, 2010, CTKA article.]

In actuality, as of this date [in 2010], I have reviewed or commented on only two of the Discovery Channel "JFK" documentaries. Those two being: "Beyond The Magic Bullet" (from 2004) and "Inside The Target Car" (from 2008).

And I think the Discovery Channel has produced and aired a total of six different programs in recent years centering on JFK's assassination. So, 2 out of 6 is not exactly "almost every" one of the documentaries.

I could be mistaken as to the exact number of Discovery programs, but I know for a fact it's at least six, including the two that aired in 2009: "Did the Mob Kill JFK?" and "JFK: The Ruby Connection", neither of which I have even watched.

4.) Jim is wrong when he said that pages 814 and 815 of Vince Bugliosi's book are referring ONLY to "Neutron Activation Analysis" in Bugliosi's attempt to debunk the bullet-planting issue.

In reality, Vince talks about a lot of OTHER stuff, besides NAA, on those pages of "Reclaiming History". In fact, NAA isn't even mentioned AT ALL on page 815. Bugliosi does talk about NAA on page 814, yes. That's true enough. But he's already finished talking about NAA by the time we get to page 815.

5.) Jim made this ridiculous statement on Black Op Radio on April 15, 2010 -- "The only person who believed it ["Reclaiming History"] was Tom Hanks." -- James DiEugenio; 4/15/10

But that comment by Jim is just flat-out absurd, and we can easily verify it's not accurate at all by taking a look at the statistics at Amazon.com for Bugliosi's book.

As of March 9, 2012, the book has received 213 customer reviews, including
my own.

And 111 of those reviews are 5-Star reviews (the maximum number of stars allowed at Amazon); and another 19 people have given the book a very good 4-Star rating.

Therefore, 52.1% of the current batch of reviewers have given the book a perfect 5-Star rating. So it seems as though Tom Hanks isn't "the only person who believed it" after all.

6.) Another thing I'd like to clear up that Mr. DiEugenio is mixed up about is this -- John McAdams does not "control" me or anyone else at the alt.conspiracy.jfk Internet newsgroup. McAdams, in fact, hardly ever even posts at that particular newsgroup at all.

And it's utterly laughable to think that Professor McAdams is totally in "control" of all the lone-assassin believers and their posts at that Usenet newsgroup (which is what Jim has alleged).

John has never once controlled a single thing I have ever written at that Internet location. And he never will.



Jim DiEugenio said this in February of 2010:


So, once again, a conspiracy theorist has decided to turn white into black and day into night and reality into fantasy by totally ignoring the evidence in the JFK murder case.

DiEugenio has decided to completely ignore the mountain of physical evidence and eyewitness testimony that exists in this case that conclusively proves beyond any and all doubt that President Kennedy's assassin was shooting from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963.

And DiEugenio, without a speck of evidence or proof of any kind, has decided to place a gunman in a building other than the Depository -- that being: the Dal-Tex Building.

According to Jim, the witnesses who were all wrong (or were liars) when it came to seeing a rifle protruding from the southeast corner window on the SIXTH FLOOR of the Depository at the exact time when JFK was being murdered include the following people -- Howard Brennan, Mal Couch, Amos Euins, Robert Jackson, and James Worrell.

Worrell's Warren Commission testimony isn't quite as definitive as the other witnesses regarding the precise floor where the rifle was located, but that's understandable considering where Worrell was standing when he saw the rifle sticking out of an upper-story window. But Worrell did narrow it down to the fifth or sixth floor:

"I am not too sure, but I told the FBI it [the rifle] was either in the fifth or the sixth floor on the far corner, on the east side." -- James R. Worrell, Jr.; 1964 WC Testimony

So, it couldn't be any more obvious that SOMEBODY was firing a rifle out of a sixth-floor window of the TSBD during the assassination. But, somehow, Jim DiEugenio seems to have some doubts about whether ANYBODY AT ALL was really shooting from that floor!

Jim, you're unbelievable.

But, perhaps Jimbo was just trying to imitate one of his mentors, the late Harold Weisberg. Weisberg, incredibly, said something very similar in a radio interview many years ago---

"I have no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth floor." -- Harold Weisberg

Harold, you're unbelievable too.



In my opinion, more conspiracy believers should take a good long look at that test bullet fired into a human wrist by Dr. Martin Fackler in 1992; and the CTers should also look at the firearms tests that were done in 1974 and 1975 by Dr. John K. Lattimer (author of "Kennedy And Lincoln").

Every single one of Lattimer's tests, that I am aware of, tends to support and buttress the single-assassin conclusions of the Warren Commission: from the SBT, to the accuracy of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, plus the stability of the Carcano ammunition (that is, the fact that Carcano bullets do not tend to yaw or tumble in flight until they hit an object), and also to the head-shot tests done by Lattimer, which had Lattimer's test bullets behaving remarkably similar to the bullet that struck JFK in the head, with two large chunks of bullet being left behind after test skulls were struck from behind by a Carcano/Western Cartridge bullet, which is also perfectly consistent with the 1964 tests done for the Warren Commission at Edgewood Arsenal by Dr. Alfred Olivier.

Another book that conspiracy theorists should probably read is Jean Davison's magnificent "Oswald's Game", which came out in 1983. It is a great book for showing the inner workings of Lee Harvey Oswald.

I defy anyone, after finishing Jean Davison's book, to say to themselves: "There's no way that Lee Oswald had it in him to shoot President Kennedy."

Davison's book will make you think exactly the opposite -- i.e., the politically-charged Oswald positively DID have it WITHIN HIMSELF to fire those shots at JFK in 1963. And that, in my opinion, is a very important point when it comes to researching the JFK murder case.



Jim DiEugenio, since you've decided to become one of the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorists of the world, you therefore have no choice but to ignore (or distort) all of the evidence in the entire case--and it's really TWO murder cases too (JFK's and Tippit's).

You have essentially thrown all the evidence out the window connected with those two murder cases and have gone through a series of contortions and mental gymnastics in order to embrace the wholly implausible notion that all of the evidence that currently exists against Lee Oswald is phony or fake in some manner.

And, at the same time, you've got no OTHER evidence to put in the place of the current crop of "Oswald Did It" evidence. So you are, in essence, admitting you can't possibly solve the case, because there is no evidence to solve it with--because you've decided to throw it all away.

And all reasonable people know that neither you nor any other conspiracy promoter has come within a country mile of being able to support your silly beliefs about all of the evidence against Oswald being faked or planted or manipulated. You're dreaming if you think that particular notion has been proven.

In short, you began with your suspicions and you have ended up in the very same place--with your suspicions. And nothing more. And that's a journey that hasn't taken you very far, Jim. In fact, it's taken you noplace--except maybe around in futile circles a few times.

And among your unprovable suspicions are your despicable allegations against a whole host of innocent people who you think were involved in a cover-up after the assassination (such as the Dallas Police Department and the Warren Commission, to name just two organizations).

But suspicions don't solve murder cases--evidence does. And your evidence of people OTHER than Lee Harvey Oswald shooting at JFK and J.D. Tippit is--to put it bluntly--nonexistent.

David Von Pein
June 2010
March 2012