(PART 258)


I have studied the photo and offered an argument--a comparison photo matched to the bag in the evidence photos--to show that the bag removed from the [TSBD] building was much more than 8 inches wide. The burden is now on YOU or anyone else claiming that the bag IS just a bit over 8 inches wide in the photo to show us how this could be.


Here we have example #798 of a conspiracy theorist looking sideways at
a piece of verified evidence and claiming that something just doesn't
look quite right, and then demanding that a person from the LN side of
the fence explain things to meet the conspiracy theorist's stiff

And if the LNer's explanation isn't good enough for the CTer in
question (which it can never ever be, of course, since the CTer has
his mind made up to believe in some type of kooky shit with respect to
the particular piece of evidence in question), then the CTer gets to
claim a victory and spike the ball in his "It Was Faked All Along,
Just Like I Said"

But, as Vincent Bugliosi is wont to say in front of a jury (when
confronted with conjecture-based silliness of this nature) -- "It's
not quite that easy!"

Patrick Speer has decided that the following pictures show two
completely different paper bags:

Pat, like many CTers try to do (and always fail), is attempting to
micro-manage the measurements of objects by merely looking at two-
dimensional photographs. Such an exercise is 100% futile and always
has been, as pointed out by esteemed JFK researcher and "With Malice"
author Dale Myers:

"Photogrammetry describes how three-dimensional spatial
relationships can be extracted from two-dimensional photographs or
images. Without taking into account these relationships, accurate
interpretations of two-dimensional images are impossible. In short,
you cannot simply draw or overlay lines on a two-dimensional image (as
[Jack] White and the subject theorist [Bill Miller] have claimed) and
extract three-dimensional information."
-- Dale K. Myers

And Dale told Pat Speer pretty much that very same thing in May 2008
(in this article) when Pat was attempting to undermine and
debunk Myers' placement of John Connally's limousine jump seat in a
2004 TV documentary that Dale appeared in.

Pat, did you apply "photogrammetry" techniques when you attempted to
measure the width of the paper bag in the various photos you examined?
(I'm doubting you did.)

Pat, though, seems to think he can, indeed, come up with exacting
measurements for the width of the paper bag being held by L.D.
Montgomery of the DPD in one of the above photos.

But such exactitude regarding specific measurements of objects while
relying exclusively on two-dimensional photos for those measurements
is just not possible, as Dale Myers has pointed out.

The very same type of argument has been made by conspiracy theorists
in the past with regard to the rifle being held by Lee Harvey Oswald in the
various "backyard photos" that were taken of LHO on March 31, 1963.

I've heard some CTers claim that the rifle that Oswald is seen holding in the
picture below cannot possibly be the same Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that
was labelled CE139 by the Warren Commission:

Many CTers think that some of the specific dimensions of the rifle
seen in the backyard photos don't match the dimensions of CE139. Those
CTers, therefore, think they can extract perfect TO-THE-INCH and/or TO-
THE-MILLIMETER measurements from a two-dimensional photograph (like
the backyard picture shown above) when they compare the picture to
other photos of the gun that were taken from different angles (like
the one below, which has Lt. Carl Day of the DPD holding the rifle
above his head as the picture is snapped):

A 2-D photo comparison might get you pretty close to the exact
measurements, but since so much depends on the precise angles at which
a photo is taken and the distance from the camera, etc., I doubt if an
exact measurement comparison could ever be made.

At best, such measurements based on merely comparing various two-
dimensional images would just be guesswork to a large degree.



Linnie Mae Randle (at 2 H 249) is on the WC record as saying that the
width of the paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (CE142) was about
the same width as the bag she saw Oswald carrying on the morning of

JOSEPH BALL -- "There is another package here. You remember this was
shown you. It is a discolored bag, which is Exhibit No. 142, and
remember you were asked by the Federal Bureau of Investigation agents
if this looked like the package. Do you remember?"

LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "Yes, sir."

MR BALL -- "Now, first of all with color, you told them the bag was
not the color?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "Yes."

MR. BALL -- "But they showed you a part of the bag that had not been
discolored, didn't they?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "Yes, sir."

MR. BALL -- "Looking at this part of the bag which has not been
discolored--does that appear similar to the color of the bag you saw
Lee carrying that morning?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "Yes, it is a heavy type of wrapping paper."

MR. BALL -- "Now, with reference to the width of this bag, does that
look about the width of the bag that he [Lee Oswald] was carrying?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "I would say so; yes, sir."


There's also the following WCR passage concerning Linnie Randle's
estimates of the length and width of the paper bag she saw LHO
carrying on the morning of November 22nd:

"Mrs. Randle estimated that the package was approximately 28
inches long and about 8 inches wide." -- WARREN REPORT; PAGE 133*

* Source Note #150 is attached to the above passage from the WCR,
with Note 150 leading to "2 H 249-250 (Randle [testimony])".



Vincent Bugliosi weighs in on the "paper bag" topic in various places
within his 2007 magnum opus, "Reclaiming History". Here's a relevant
excerpt, culled from the CD-ROM's endnotes:

"Both [Buell Wesley] Frazier and his sister [Linnie Mae Randle],
although saying the package found in the sniper’s nest was “similar”
in color to the one they saw Oswald carrying on the morning of the
assassination (2 H 240, WCT Buell Wesley Frazier; 2 H 249, WCT Linnie
Mae Randle), described the package they had seen Oswald carrying as
being shorter than what would have been needed for the disassembled
rifle--a fact that conspiracy critic Sylvia Meagher called “the
central weakness of the Commission’s thesis” that Oswald carried the
murder weapon into the Depository the day of the assassination.

"Linnie Mae Randle, who first saw Oswald with the package from
her kitchen window and then from her kitchen door on the morning of
the assassination, described the package as a “heavy brown bag,
heavier than a grocery bag” that was “more bulky” toward the bottom
(where the butt of the rifle would be) than it was on the top. She
also thought the bag might have been about 27 to 28 inches long--the
bag found in the Depository was actually 38 inches in length, while
the 40-1/5-inch rifle, disassembled, measured 34-4/5 inches.

"When shown the bag found beneath the sixth-floor window, Randle
recalled that the bag she saw Oswald with was around the same width.
(2 H 248–250, WCT Linnie Mae Randle; CE 2008, 24 H 407–408; 34-4/5
inches: 3 H 395, WCT Robert A. Frazier; Meagher, Accessories after the
Fact, p.54–57)

"Wesley Frazier, who first saw the package lying on the backseat
of his car and later in Oswald’s hand as he carried it into the
Depository, recalled the package as being about 2 feet long, “give and
take a few inches” (2 H 226). He showed agents of the FBI how much
space on the backseat of his car the package occupied, and they
measured the length at 27 inches. He also thought Oswald’s package
might have been an inch or two narrower than the dimensions of the
actual bag found on the sixth floor. (CE 2009, 24 H 408–410)

"However, he added that the bag “could have been the sack or
package” he saw in Oswald’s possession but he did not feel he was “in
a position to definitely state” it was. The Warren Commission
concluded that Frazier and Randle probably erred in their
recollections of the length of the bag (WR, p.134), and it was
understandable the two had done so.

"Neither Frazier nor his sister, the only two people who saw
Oswald with the package, suspected that it was of any significance.
They therefore had no reason to note its dimensions for later recall.
Frazier caught only a glimpse of the package on the backseat as he got
behind the wheel of his car.

"After arriving at the Depository, Oswald got out first and
remained ahead of Frazier by from twelve to ultimately fifty feet (by
the time Oswald reached the Book Depository Building) as they walked
toward the building (the first time, he said, that Oswald had ever
walked in front of him into the building)."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 408 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)(c.2007)

David Von Pein
June 23, 2008


http://C-SpanVideo.org/Clint Hill Video Clip

(PART 257)


>>> "Oh, by the way David, he [John J. Howlett of the Secret Service during his 1964 re-creations of Lee Harvey Oswald's probable movements] also didn't stay at the window, like Howard Brennan said he [Oswald] did [on November 22, 1963]." <<<


Once again, the exact timing of Oswald's post-assassination movements
will never be known for sure. We can only guess. But if you want to
tack on an extra 8 or 10 seconds to Howlett's time, feel free.

But while doing that, keep in mind that Oswald almost certainly was
moving FASTER than Agent Howlett was moving during those
reconstructions that were done several months later.

BTW, here's the Mal Couch film, which shows Officer Marrion Baker
heading toward the Book Depository front entrance:


>>> "What about the Dillard photo of the east window that shows a figure in the window, shot 30 SECONDS after the head shot." <<<

Tom Dillard's photo shows no such "figure". That's your overactive
CTer imagination at work there. I've seen the "enhanced" blow-ups. I
see no human figure.

It's funny you didn't mention the WEST-end window, too. Because many
CTers, including Robert Groden (the photo "expert" who was ripped to
shreds at the O.J. Simpson civil trial), think there's a guy (with a
HUGE head evidently) visible at the WEST-end window on the sixth floor
of the Book Depository about 30 seconds after the shooting.

But, yes, I've also seen the colored-in enhancements done of the EAST-
end (Oswald's) window too, with some CTers believing there's a person
visible at the east end as well.

When a person starts coloring in all sorts of stuff in black-and-white
photographs, sure, you can probably see a "man" in almost any photo
you want to see one in.

Take this ridiculously overdrawn "Badge Man" photo for instance
(below). I see Elvis wearing big glasses and holding a microphone in
this picture too. But nobody else does. I wonder why?

>>> "What about Lillian Mooneyham's testimony that she saw a person in the east window 3 minutes after the head shot?" <<<

That's a perfect example of how human beings fail to estimate TIME
very well. Let's take witness J.C. Price as another example. He
thought the gunshots were--get this--possibly as much as FIVE MINUTES
apart! (See what I mean?)

Plus: What kind of idiot/boob plotters and assassins were in Dealey
Plaza on November 22 anyhow? They shoot JFK from different guns and
different directions in the Plaza (per most CT accounts of the event),
even though their single "patsy" is supposed to be in the Depository
ONLY (obviously).

And now, per Mooneyham, a gunman (or surely somebody who was part of
the "plot") decides he'll hang around the "window of death", in full
view of witnesses, for THREE minutes after the shooting???

How can a reasonable person think that Mooneyham actually saw an
ASSASSIN (or even an assassin's helper) in any window three full
minutes after the assassination (assuming her time estimate is spot-on
accurate, that is)?

In a few words -- No reasonable person could possibly believe such a
crazy thing.

>>> "Sorry, David. Oswald WAS coming from the first floor, and that's the only way Baker could have seen him coming through the vestibule." <<<

Bull. You've utilized your own selective pro-conspiracy interpretation
of these things to arrive at your ONE AND ONLY way it could have
happened, while completely ignoring the best evidence and ignoring
common sense.

In short, you cannot micro-analyze the movements of two men whose
EXACT, TO-THE-SECOND timelines can never be known. Period. And yet you
still insist that you can do this with ultra precision. I can only
scratch my cabeza and wonder....why?

>>> "You have a timing issue, David. And it favors Oswald's innocence and you offer no counter." <<<

I only have a "timing issue" if I choose to totally ignore the VERY
BEST EVIDENCE (the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence, that is) which tells
any reasonable person that Lee Harvey Oswald was, indeed, the lone
assassin of President Kennedy.

Allow me to quote from Mr. Bugliosi's book (yet again). He said it in
fine fashion when he wrote these words on page #953 of "Reclaiming

"Once you establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done,
then you also NECESSARILY know that there is an answer (whether the
answer is known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the
endless alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the
conspiracy theorists have raised through the years about Oswald's
-- Vincent T. Bugliosi

David Von Pein
August 28, 2007

(PART 256)


To Vince Palamara,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply of June 18, 2008.


I DO have an ego (so what? Millions do...and don't tell me the great Mr. Bugliosi, who I majorly respect, does not; LOL).


LOL indeed, Vince P.

Good point. And a point well taken.

I, in fact, have even pointed that out in some posts about Mr. Bugliosi that I've written on the Internet:

"Yes, Vince [Bugliosi] has a decent-sized ego. I readily admit that. I think he does indeed. But I also think that that ego is a DESERVED ONE. He's EARNED the right to have that ego re. certain books he has had published." -- DVP; June 3, 2007

Mr. Palamara, like everyone else, has a right to his own opinions, and he has a right to post any kind of reviews he chooses to post at Amazon.com, or here, or wherever. It's a free country and the Internet, as Vince P. pointed out, is a great tool with which to get a particular point across (and for free).

But when I see Mr. Palamara posting comments like the one quoted below, it just makes me wonder what Mr. Palamara's current beliefs truly are with respect to many of the specific issues brought up in Vincent Bugliosi's mega-tome on the JFK assassination ("Reclaiming History"), including the Single-Bullet Theory?

The quote below is currently attached to one of Vince Palamara's June 2008 YouTube videos, which means this was posted by Vince P. MANY MONTHS after he had already gone on record as fully supporting and endorsing Mr. Bugliosi's book; which, in effect, also means he had gone on record, by necessity, as fully supporting and endorsing THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY.

Mr. Palamara says this in the area at YouTube.com reserved for a video's description:

"This ultra-rare classic from the vast Vince Palamara archives (trust me, it's humongous!) finds Dr. Robert Shaw, Governor John Connally's chief surgeon, in a Parkland Hospital press conference (WFAA/ ABC tv), telling the amassed news media (and millions in tv land) that "the bullet is in the leg: it hasn't been removed...it will be removed...left thigh...before he goes to the recovery room [note the time sequence!]" ...what?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Single Bullet Theory..." -- Vince Palamara; June 17, 2008


Now, to anyone viewing that video of Dr. Shaw (which is a rarely-seen clip, I'll admit....thankfully, I too have it in my own WFAA video archives as well), and to anyone also reading Mr. Palamara's descriptive blurb he provides to accompany the video at the above webpage, it would certainly seem that Vince P. is hinting that the SBT is quite possibly just what most long-time conspiracy theorists think it is -- a theory which is untrue and has no basis in FACT.

But if Vince Palamara were to have added a few more words to his descriptive passage there at YouTube, he could have explained that Dr. Robert Shaw was one of only THREE different doctors who were responsible for treating injured Texas Governor John Connally at Parkland Hospital.

Dr. Shaw, in point of fact, was in charge of caring for Connally's chest wounds, not the wounds the Governor sustained to his wrist or thigh. Dr. Charles Gregory and Dr. Tom Shires were the Parkland physicians who treated Connally's wrist and thigh wounds, respectively. Not Shaw.

And Vince P. could have added the following quote from Dr. Gregory with respect to any bullet being lodged in Governor Connally's thigh [emphasis added by DVP]:

DR. GREGORY -- "I think again that bullet, Exhibit 399, could very well have struck the thigh in a reverse fashion and have shed a bit of its lead core into the fascia immediately beneath the skin, yet never have penetrated the thigh sufficiently so that it eventually was dislodged and was found in the clothing. I would like to add to that we were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all. Here was our patient with three discernible wounds, and no missile within him of sufficient magnitude to account for them, and we suggested that someone ought to search his belongings and other
areas where he had been to see if it could be identified or found, rather."


In addition, Mr. Palamara might have also wanted to mention the following comments made to the Warren Commission by Dr. George Thomas Shires, who was in charge of treating Connally's leg/thigh injury:

DR. SHIRES -- "The X-rays of the left leg showed only a very small 1-millimeter bullet fragment imbedded in the femur of the left leg. .... So, it appeared, therefore, that the skin wound was either a tangential wound or that a larger fragment had penetrated or stopped in the skin and had subsequently fallen out of the entrance wound."

ARLEN SPECTER -- "What size fragment was there in the Governor's leg at that time?"

DR. SHIRES -- "We recovered none. The small one that was seen was on X-ray and it was still in the femur and being that small, with no tissue damage after the debridement, it was thought inadvisable to remove this small fragment."


Yes, Dr. Shaw DID, indeed, think that a bullet was probably still lodged in John Connally's left thigh at the time of his Parkland press conference on the afternoon of November 22, 1963.

But he would discover very soon afterward that NO SUCH BULLET EXISTED in the Governor's body at all. The bullet fell out of the wound instead of becoming lodged in the leg. And Dr. Shaw NEVER SAW ANY BULLET in the thigh of Governor Connally. And Shaw's Warren Commission testimony bears out that fact:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Dr. Shaw, what wounds, if any, did the Governor sustain on his left thigh?"

DR. SHAW -- "He sustained a small puncture-type wound on the medial aspect of the left thigh."

MR. SPECTER -- "Did you have an opportunity to examine that closely?"

DR. SHAW -- "No."

MR. SPECTER -- "Did you have an opportunity to examine it sufficiently to ascertain its location on the left thigh?"

DR. SHAW -- "No, I didn't examine it that closely, except for its general location. .... I didn't examine the wound of the thigh so I can't testify as to that. Dr. Gregory, I think, was there at the time that the debris was carried out and he may have more knowledge than I have."


MR. SPECTER -- "Now, as to the wound on the thigh, could that bullet have gone into the Governor's thigh without causing any more damage than appears on the face of that bullet [CE399]?"

DR. SHAW -- "If it was a spent bullet, yes. As far as the bullet is concerned, it could have caused the Governor's thigh wound as a spent missile."

MR. SPECTER -- "Why do you say it is a spent missile, would you elaborate on what your thinking is on that issue?"

DR. SHAW -- "Only from what I have been told by Dr. Shires and Dr. Gregory, that the depth of the wound was only into the subcutaneous tissue, not actually into the muscle of the leg, so it meant that missile had penetrated for a very short period. Am I quoting you correctly, Dr. Gregory?"

MR. SPECTER -- "May the record show Dr. Gregory is present during this testimony."

DR. GREGORY -- "I will say yes."


Does Vince Palamara want people watching his YouTube video to get the impression that Vince P. does NOT believe that the Single-Bullet Theory is an ironclad FACT? (And virtually all "LNers" who endorse Mr. Bugliosi's book, like Vince P.*, certainly are of the opinion that the SBT is, indeed, an ironclad fact. Right? I am definitely of that opinion.)

[* 2012 EDIT -- Mr. Palamara, shortly after going on record endorsing Vince Bugliosi's JFK book, changed his stripes and went back to take up residence in the kooky world of the conspiracy theorists once again. And he has now, in 2012, descended even deeper into the pit of conspiracy-oriented absurdity by fully endorsing Judyth Vary Baker's book, "Me & Lee", via a 5-star review. Amazingly silly, Vince.]


Baseball Addendum:

Hey Vince P.,

Since you are a big Pittsburgh sports fan, I wonder if you have an archived video copy of portions of Game 5 of the 1972 baseball playoffs (the NLCS) between your Pirates and my Cincinnati Reds? (That's probably a silly question, since your Bucs lost that series in five games. You probably hate that year's NLCS with a passion. But Game 5 was a classic finale anyway.)

"Back goes Clemente! At...the...fence!! She's gone!!!" -- Al Michaels; October 11, 1972

David Von Pein
June 18, 2008


I wish I did [have the 5th game of the '72 NLCS on video]...why, do you? :)

That game was amazing: Clemente's final game, the bitter ending to arguably the greatest Pirates team ever (even though they won the World Series the previous year, many pundits agree that the '72 team was slightly better).

And Bob Moose, who threw the bizarre wild pitch, would meet his end on his 29th birthday, 10/9/76, in Martin's Ferry, Ohio, in a car with 2 women who weren't his wives (they survived)...the very next day, Joe Turkey Jones of the Cleveland Browns pile-drove Steelers QB Terry Bradshaw into the ground, handicapping arguably the greatest STEELERS team ever: the 1976 Steelers (even though they didn't win the SB that year, again, many pundits feel this team was the best).

So, to sum up: OHIO WAS A BAD PLACE TO BE BETWEEN 1972-1976!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

P.S. I confess: the Shaw video description was a tease...it is compelling, though.



On September 23, 2012, I sent an e-mail to former Secret Service agent Gerald Blaine, co-author of the 2010 book "The Kennedy Detail". I sent the same exact e-mail message to former Secret Service agent Clint Hill as well (by way of Lisa McCubbin, who also co-authored "The Kennedy Detail"; I didn't have an e-mail address for Mr. Hill, so I asked Lisa if she could possibly forward my message to him).

The following text includes my original e-mail message, plus all answers I received and any follow-up correspondence and comments concerning the issues raised:


Subject: Question About 1963 Secret Service Policy
Date: 9/23/2012 (11:30:14 P.M. EDT)
From: David Von Pein
To: Gerald Blaine


Hi Jerry,

My name is David Von Pein. I've been interested in the JFK assassination for several decades and have written extensively on the subject on the Internet for the last few years.

I'm writing today to ask you a couple of questions. As you no doubt know, many JFK conspiracy theorists think that the stretcher bullet (CE399) found at Parkland Hospital after President Kennedy was killed is a "fake" or "planted" bullet. And part of the reason the theorists believe that it's a fake is because neither of the Secret Service representatives who handled the stretcher bullet on 11/22/63 marked it in any way.

While you were an active Secret Service agent, did you ever mark a piece of physical evidence that was connected to a criminal investigation? And what was the normal policy of the Secret Service in 1963 when it came to Secret Service agents marking pieces of evidence in criminal cases? Did they normally mark evidence themselves, or was evidence only marked by FBI agents and local police authorities? And do you have any knowledge as to whether any of your fellow Secret Service agents had ever marked any evidence in any criminal investigations?


If it was the policy of the Secret Service to mark evidence that went through their hands, then what would your explanation be for why SS agent Richard Johnsen and SS Chief James Rowley failed to mark CE399 when each man handled that bullet on 11/22/63?

Thanks very much for any information you can provide regarding these matters.

As a footnote to the above inquiries, I want to stress that I am definitely NOT a "conspiracy theorist". Quite to the contrary, in fact. I am a firm believer that President Kennedy was killed by one lone gunman (Lee Harvey Oswald). But the above questions suddenly popped into my head recently, so I decided to try to find out for myself if I could get an answer from somebody who would probably know. Hence the reason for this e-mail.

Best regards,
David Von Pein


Subject: Re: Question About 1963 Secret Service Policy
Date: 9/27/2012 (11:09:25 A.M. EDT)
From: Gerald Blaine
To: David Von Pein



Sorry I was late on this but my wife and I were in Europe for a couple of weeks.

1. The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence. The bullet was later identified as the bullet that went through Governor Connally. Jim Rowley observed the bullet but did not have it in his possession. In 1963 the Secret Service or any federal agent who found evidence marked it so that there was a clean trail. The evidence went to the FBI after Dick [Johnsen] handed it over to them.

Hope that this helps.




Subject: Re: Bullet CE399
Date: 9/27/2012 (8:14:23 P.M. EDT)
From: David Von Pein
To: Gerald Blaine


Dear Mr. Blaine,

Thank you very much for your reply to my e-mail of September 23, 2012, regarding the stretcher bullet and Secret Service policy concerning marking items of evidence.

If I can impose upon you once more, I would certainly appreciate your time in answering this follow-up inquiry concerning stretcher bullet CE399, because your last reply contains some information that is completely contradictory to what we find in the official records of the Warren Commission and the FBI:

You told me that Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen actually "marked" the stretcher bullet (CE399). But the Warren Commission record is pretty clear that Johnsen did not mark the bullet, because we find these words in a July 1964 FBI report which appears as CE2011 in Warren Commission Volume 24:

"On June 24, 1964, Special Agent Richard E. Johnsen, United States Secret Service, Washington, D.C., was shown [FBI] Exhibit C1 [CE399], a rifle bullet, by Special Agent Elmer Lee Todd, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Johnsen advised he could not identify this bullet as the one he obtained from O.P. Wright, Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas, and gave to James Rowley, Chief, United States Secret Service, Washington, D.C., on November 22, 1963." -- Commission Exhibit No. 2011 (page 2)

Jerry, you also said that Secret Service Chief James Rowley "did not have" the bullet "in his possession" prior to the bullet being turned over to the FBI. And you said that it was Johnsen (not Rowley) who "handed it over" to the FBI on 11/22/63.

But those two statements you made are also contradicted by the official records, which clearly indicate that Rowley did take possession of CE399 and that it was Rowley himself who handed it over to the FBI on the night of the assassination. In CE2011, we find this:

"On June 24, 1964, James Rowley, Chief, United States Secret Service, Washington, D.C., was shown Exhibit C1 [CE399], a rifle bullet, by Special Agent Elmer Lee Todd. Rowley advised he could not identify this bullet as the one he received from Special Agent Richard E. Johnsen and gave to Special Agent Todd on November 22, 1963." -- CE2011 (pages 2 and 3)

In addition to CE2011, there is also Commission Document No. 7, which includes an FD-302 report filed by Elmer Todd of the FBI on the night of November 22, 1963. That report reads as follows:

"At 8:50 p.m. [on 11/22/63], Mr. JAMES ROWLEY, Chief, United States Secret Service, gave to SA ELMER LEE TODD an envelope containing a bullet. This envelope and its contents were taken directly to the FBI Laboratory and delivered to SA ROBERT A. FRAZIER. The envelope was opened and initials of both SA TODD and FRAZIER were etched on the nose of the bullet for identification purposes." -- CD7 (page 288)

Given the facts presented in the above documents, I'm wondering where you obtained your information concerning Special Agent Johnsen physically marking Bullet CE399 and the information about Chief Rowley never being in physical possession of the bullet?

Any additional information or documentation you can provide on these matters would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

David R. Von Pein



I'm just wondering what significance (if any) the envelope that is mentioned in Commission Document No. 7 might have with respect to the chain of custody of Bullet CE399?

Is it possible that the Secret Service men (Johnsen and Rowley) could have conceivably marked the envelope that CD7 says contained the bullet that was turned over to the FBI by Rowley on 11/22/63?

Such an explanation would, of course, explain why the initials of Johnsen and Rowley are not present on the bullet itself--it would be because they marked the envelope instead of the actual bullet.

But such an explanation doesn't really iron out any problems that exist in CE2011 though, because it's hard for me to believe that if SS agent Johnsen (and/or Chief Rowley) had, indeed, marked an envelope which held CE399, that such important chain-of-possession information would not have made its way into the FBI report we find in CE2011.

If the envelope had been marked by Johnsen/Rowley, we surely would find words to this effect in CE2011:

Secret Service agent Richard E. Johnsen and Chief James Rowley said they could not positively identify the bullet itself as the one they each handled on November 22, 1963, but each of those men have said they each marked an envelope with their initials on 11/22/63, and that inside this envelope was a bullet that was handed over to the FBI by Chief Rowley on the night of November 22.

Surely something similar to the above paragraph would have been supplied in CE2011 if Johnsen or Rowley had marked an evidence envelope.

A photograph of the envelope in question is pictured below. It contains the initials of three of the FBI agents who ultimately handled and examined CE399, and it has the signature and written words of FBI agent Elmer Todd at the very bottom (which really, in effect, is tantamount to having Rowley's initials on the envelope as well, since Todd is telling us on that very envelope that he received that exact envelope from Chief James Rowley on 11/22/63).

Plus, since there are obviously two sides to this envelope, how do the conspiracy theorists know if Johnsen and Rowley marked the other side of it or not?

Researcher John Hunt went to the National Archives and examined this envelope for himself on July 30, 2004. But from his investigation, there's nothing that would indicate that Johnsen and/or Rowley couldn't have put their initials or names on the other side of the envelope (the side that Hunt did not photograph).

Although, I'll readily admit, common sense would dictate that Mr. Hunt would have certainly examined both sides of this envelope while he had it in his very own hands at the National Archives in 2004, even if he didn't take pictures of both sides of it. And I have no reason to think that John Hunt is a person who would deliberately hide important evidence of the initials of the two Secret Service agents who handled CE399.

On the other hand, I suppose it is possible that Hunt overlooked some initials that might have been written on the other side of this evidence envelope, with Hunt's main focus with respect to the chain of custody of the stretcher bullet being a diligent search for initials on Bullet CE399 itself, and not necessarily on this envelope:

Anyway, the "envelope" theory was just a thought that entered my head as I re-read Commission Document No. 7. It's certainly not a very likely theory, in light of the words we find in CE2011, but it's more food for CE399 thought anyway.

As I await a (hopeful) second reply from Gerald Blaine regarding the contradictions I found in his first e-mail message to me, it would certainly appear to me that Mr. Blaine is very much ill-informed about some of the crucial evidence concerning the chain of custody of Bullet CE399.

And it would certainly appear, although I could be totally wrong here, that Mr. Blaine was making an effort in his 9/27/12 e-mail message to me to provide an airtight and firm chain of possession for the Parkland Hospital stretcher bullet by suggesting to me that the bullet did not go through the hands of Secret Service Chief James Rowley at all, and that the only SS representative who would have even needed to mark the bullet was Richard Johnsen, with Mr. Blaine stating that it was Johnsen and not Rowley who physically handed the bullet to the FBI on the night of November 22nd (which is a statement that is, by all official accounts, 100% dead wrong).

David Von Pein
September 27, 2012

[In a rather eerie coincidence, I received the e-mail below from Jerry Blaine within just minutes of my having written most of the above comments about the envelope.]


Subject: Re: Bullet CE399
Date: 9/27/2012 (10:08:14 P.M. EDT)
From: Gerald Blaine
To: David Von Pein



Clint Hill talked to Dick [Johnsen] a month or two before he passed away and Clint told me that Dick had marked the evidence. Sounds like he must have put it in an envelope rather that initialing it [the bullet itself], so I apologize if I deceived you and I will recheck with Clint what he remembers.

It is very unusual for WHD [White House Detail] agents to get involved in investigative work, but Dick went to Cal and studied Criminal Justice so he should have known the rules of evidence.

James Rowley once worked for the FBI and he too should have understood the rules. I have no doubt that it was the bullet that came from the stretcher.



Subject: Re: Bullet CE399
Date: 9/27/2012 (11:26:29 P.M. EDT)
From: David Von Pein
To: Gerald Blaine


Hi again Jerry,

Thanks for your latest reply.

There was, indeed, an envelope involved with the transfer of Bullet CE399 as it went from the possession of the Secret Service to the FBI lab in Washington on 11/22/63. That "envelope" fact is confirmed in Commission Document No. 7 (which I linked in an earlier mail I sent you).

So, if Richard Johnsen marked the envelope, rather than the bullet itself, it would certainly explain why he said he could not "positively identify" the bullet that was later shown to him by Elmer Todd of the FBI in June of 1964. Because in such a circumstance, Johnsen wouldn't have placed his initials on the bullet itself, but instead would have marked only the container (envelope) that Johnsen put the bullet into.

However, if Dick Johnsen (and possibly James Rowley too) had marked the evidence envelope containing the bullet, I'm wondering why the FBI (in CE2011) didn't mention something about Johnsen and/or Rowley marking that envelope in the text of the report we find in CE2011?

Do you think Johnsen and Rowley, in the intervening sevens months between November 1963 and June 1964, had just forgotten about marking the envelope? And therefore they never even mentioned it in June when the FBI showed them the bullet? Or is it possible that they did mention marking the envelope, but the FBI just failed to note that important fact in CE2011?

From the way it stands in the official record of CE2011, we are unquestionably left with the impression (to the delight of many conspiracy theorists around the globe) that neither Johnsen nor Rowley could complete any kind of chain of possession or chain of custody for Bullet CE399 at all. Is that the way it appears to you by reading CE2011, Jerry?

In addition, do you have any more information you can supply me regarding your previous statement about Richard Johnsen himself being the person who handed the bullet over to the FBI on 11/22/63 (instead of it being James Rowley)?

The official documents clearly indicate that it was Rowley, and not Johnsen, who gave the bullet (and envelope) to FBI agent Elmer Todd on the night of the assassination.

If you acquire any additional information about this matter, please drop me a line.

I thank you very much, Jerry, for the answers you have given me today. I greatly appreciate it.

And, by the way, I completely agree with you that the bullet which was turned over to the FBI by the Secret Service on November 22 was positively Bullet CE399. I have absolutely no doubt about that fact (for a variety of reasons), as I have said in many articles and posts on the Internet in the past several years.

David Von Pein



In addition to the envelope, there is also an often-overlooked document pertaining to the chain of custody of the Parkland stretcher bullet that appears on Page 800 of Warren Commission Volume 18. It's a copy of a typewritten note from Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen. In the note, Johnsen says the following:

"The attached expended bullet was received by me about 5 min. prior to Mrs. Kennedy's departure from the hospital. It was found on one of the stretchers located in the emergency ward of the hospital."

The note is not signed with a handwritten signature, but is "signed" in typewritten form in this manner:

"Richard E. Johnsen
Special Agent
7:30 p.m.
Nov. 22, 1963"

The original note, typed on White House stationery, was photographed at the National Archives by John Hunt in 2004 (pictured below).

Logic and common sense would therefore indicate that the note written by Agent Johnsen concerning the Parkland bullet was physically attached to the previously discussed envelope which contained stretcher bullet CE399. Hence the words "the attached expended bullet" at the beginning of the note. And take note of the staple hole at the top of Johnsen's original note, which would indicate it was stapled to something when it left the White House on 11/22/63, which fits in nicely with the staple holes (or possibly the staples themselves) which are seen in the envelope as photographed by John Hunt in 2004.

And since that very same envelope is telling us, via the handwritten words of FBI agent Elmer Todd, that James Rowley was most certainly in possession of that envelope (with or without Rowley's own initials being present on the envelope), it would indicate that there is documentation in the official records of this case that shows a complete chain of custody of the stretcher bullet -- from Tomlinson/Wright....to Johnsen....to Rowley....to Todd....to Frazier.

Conspiracy theorists will, of course, argue that my "chain" shown above is still extremely weak and that it doesn't constitute a "chain" of custody at all--particularly since the Johnsen typewritten note is not signed with his handwritten signature or initials and is not still physically attached to the envelope that contains Todd's remarks about receiving the bullet from Rowley.

So, yes, maybe this issue about the chain of possession of the bullet will always provide fertile ground for continued debate and argument. It seems quite obvious that it will. (No issue in this case seems to ever go unchallenged by conspiracists, even the ones that have been thoroughly debunked by lone-assassin proponents over the years.)

But if a person digs into the records deep enough, that person can and will find documentation to support the idea, which is totally foreign to most conspiracy theorists, that Bullet CE399 was the bullet that made its way from Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas to the FBI laboratory in Washington on November 22, 1963.

David Von Pein
September 28, 2012



Marking an envelope supposedly containing evidence DOES NOT AUTHENTICATE THAT EVIDENCE, it only authenticates the envelope.



Bullshit. Marking the envelope is tantamount to marking the piece of evidence itself.

By your standard of evidence identification, then, anything that is too small to be physically marked can never be authenticated in any way whatsoever -- such as the tiny fragment(s) from Connally's wrist in CE842, in which the ENVELOPE holding the evidence was marked and not the tiny pieces of metal.

Do you want to call Jim Leavelle a liar too, David? .....

"[J.M.] Poe did not mark them [the Tippit bullet shells]. There was no reason to mark them. There is an evidence bag that is marked with the offense number along with your initials. The evidence goes to the crime lab where it is checked and returned to the bag and kept there until trial. I have run hundreds through that way with no trouble and have never been contested on it." -- James R. Leavelle (In the book "With Malice" by Dale K. Myers; Pp. 263 and 265)

Furthermore, the photo that exists of the Q1/CE399 envelope (taken by John Hunt in 2004), although it doesn't show Jim Rowley's initials (maybe those initials are on the other side of the envelope, along with Richard Johnsen's--who knows), is confirming that Rowley had this envelope on Nov. 22, with the "Q1/CE399" bullet in it, and Rowley gave it to Todd. The writing we find on this envelope written by Elmer Todd is exactly the same as having ROWLEY'S own mark on it too. And anyone saying otherwise is just plain goofy:



David, I cannot believe the liberties you take with statements by witnesses who are no longer alive and able to correct your endless embellishments. This is what Blaine told you that Johnson [sic] said: "The bullet found on the stretcher was retrieved and marked by SA Richard Johnsen and submitted as evidence."




Bob [Harris] apparently didn't read (or comprehend) anything beyond just Mr. Blaine's first e-mail to me.

It's quite obvious, however, that Gerald Blaine wasn't exactly sure WHAT item was "marked" by SA Richard Johnsen (the bullet itself or a container that the bullet was put into), because after I reminded Blaine that CE2011 says that Johnsen couldn't positively I.D. the bullet, Mr. Blaine said this to me:

"Clint Hill talked to Dick [Johnsen] a month or two before he passed away and Clint told me that Dick had marked the evidence. Sounds like he must have put it in an envelope rather that initialing it [the bullet itself], so I apologize if I deceived you and I will recheck with Clint what he remembers."

And if Secret Service agent Johnsen had "marked" an envelope in some manner (or if, as I suggested previously, in lieu of marking the envelope itself, he had attached a note to the Q1/CE399 evidence envelope, which he almost certainly DID do, as I pretty much proved previously via this picture and CE1024), that is tantamount to marking the bullet itself, in my view. And I think any reasonable person, who isn't prone to screaming "it was fake" at the drop of a hat, would agree with me on that.


Subject: Re: Bullet CE399
Date: 10/9/2012 (11:19:06 A.M. EDT)
From: David Von Pein
To: Gerald Blaine


Hi again Jerry,

Anything new to add regarding Richard Johnsen and the stretcher bullet? Did you get a chance to re-check some things with Clint Hill?


David Von Pein


Subject: Re: Bullet CE399
Date: 10/9/2012 1:05:33 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time]
From: Gerald Blaine
To: David Von Pein


Dick [Johnsen] told Clint [Hill] the evidence was marked. Since I was not in Dallas and did not talk to Dick, I have no idea. All I know is that President Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Jerry Blaine


Subject: Re: Bullet CE399
Date: 10/9/2012 (1:09:45 P.M. EDT)
From: David Von Pein
To: Gerald Blaine


Thanks, Jerry.



The memo seen below was written by Secret Service Chief James Rowley on December 19, 1963. I found it in Warren Commission Document No. 320 today.

It could be of some use (at least in a small way) to firm up the chain of possession a little bit for Stretcher Bullet CE399, via Rowley's written confirmation that the bullet went from O.P Wright at Parkland to Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen and then to FBI agent Elmer Todd (apparently with Rowley himself handling the bullet between Johnsen and Todd, although Rowley doesn't mention that fact in this memorandum, but Elmer Todd definitely confirms it via Todd's written remarks on the envelope).

This memo is the first piece of evidence I think I've ever seen that was written by James Rowley himself concerning the handling of the stretcher bullet:

David Von Pein
June 27, 2014




Do you really think Rowley was telling the truth when he said the bullet "was found amongst the clothes on one of the stretchers"?


You're just nitpicking here, Tony, and you know it.

James Rowley's memo in CD320 corroborates the chain of custody of ONE bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland Memorial Hospital --- from Wright....to Johnsen....to Rowley/Todd (although, as I mentioned before, Rowley never says in CD320 that he HIMSELF [Rowley] ever took possession of the bullet, but Todd confirmed that fact in other documents).

But Tony Marsh would rather nitpick Rowley's use of the word "clothes" rather than admit that Commission Document No. 320 does a nice job (at least in printed/document form) of shoring up the chain of custody for the Parkland Stretcher Bullet.


One candidate is Ronnie Fuller, whose clothes had been left on his stretcher.


Got a source link for that claim regarding Fuller's clothes being left on a stretcher, Tony? Never heard that one before.

In fact, come to think of it, I don't think I've ever seen any official documents that prove that the stretcher occupied by the young boy named Ronald Fuller was actually in the same corridor of Parkland Hospital with that of Connally's stretcher.

As far as I am aware, it has never been confirmed or proven that it was young Mr. Fuller's stretcher that was in the Parkland first-floor corridor on November 22, 1963. And "Reclaiming History" author Vince Bugliosi doesn't think such a thing has been proven either.

Quoting Mr. Bugliosi....

"Author Josiah Thompson wrote in his 1967 book 'Six Seconds in Dallas' that the bullet was “very likely found on a stretcher used for a cut and bleeding two-and-one-half-year-old child” (Thompson, 'Six Seconds in Dallas', p.161), a reference to Ronald Fuller, who was admitted to Parkland’s emergency room fourteen minutes after the president and governor.

Fuller, who was bleeding profusely from a fall, was treated briefly on a stretcher in a hallway near the nurses’ station before being carried into Major Medicine for further attention.

Whether Fuller’s bloodied stretcher was then rolled thirty feet into the elevator corridor, where Tomlinson might have encountered it, is unknown. Thompson, who three pages earlier considers the act “very likely,” is forced to acknowledge, “We do not know for certain that it was Ronnie Fuller’s stretcher on which CE399 subsequently was found. . . As with most aspects of this case, final certainty again eludes us” (Thompson, 'Six Seconds in Dallas', p.164).

Thompson doesn’t address the issue of why a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano bullet, the exact type used to kill Kennedy and injure Connally, would have any conceivable reason for ending up not on Kennedy’s or Connally’s stretcher, but the stretcher of an infant.

Indeed, he doesn’t ask himself why any kind of bullet would end up on the child’s stretcher when the child wasn’t shot, unless, that is, Thompson wants us to believe that the sophisticated framers of Oswald goofed on a rather mundane duty, planting the bullet on the wrong stretcher."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 431 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"


But I think that all of that doesn't matter, because the Magic Bullet wasn't found on any stretcher. It was found on the floor, not on a stretcher.


Dead wrong. The bullet never fell to the floor. That fact was confirmed when Darrell Tomlinson was asked that exact question ("The bullet didn't actually fall to the floor, did it?") by Raymond Marcus on July 25, 1966 (see Page 2 of the Marcus/Tomlinson transcript linked HERE).

And Nathan Pool's story doesn't debunk or override Tomlinson's version of events.

David Von Pein
July 5, 2014




(PART 255)




Vincent Palamara doesn't seem to know which side of the fence he's on.

Many months after fully endorsing Vincent Bugliosi's lone-assassin book, "Reclaiming History", we're treated to this strange 5-Star review written by Mr. Palamara for Jim Douglass' conspiracy-flavored book.

It's perfectly fine to ride the JFK fence forever -- Jerry Dealey at the JFK Lancer forum does that very nicely, in fact. And I've enjoyed talking with Jerry on several occasions in the past.

But Vince Palamara seems to be in a different category. And to be perfectly honest, I'm not entirely sure WHAT category of "JFK researcher" Mr. Palamara currently resides in. But he seems to be trying his darndest to play the entire field and to have it both ways. By reading some of his reviews for both anti-conspiracy and pro-conspiracy material, it would appear that Mr. Palamara believes in a unique "No Conspiracy Conspiracy" with respect to the death of John F. Kennedy.


To quote Mr. Palamara directly, he claims that Vincent Bugliosi's book ... "is a devastating knock-out blow to those who, like me, once believed there was a conspiracy in the death of JFK. .... It is time to get a life, America: Oswald did indeed kill Kennedy, acting alone. Vince Bugliosi has done what I once thought was the impossible: he has convinced me of this notion."

And yet, months later, Vince P. continues to write positive reviews for pro-conspiracy publications (probably because Mr. Palamara's name is in the index of most or all of these conspiracy-favoring books).

Strange behavior, IMO. But, YMMV.


I recently sent Vincent Bugliosi's secretary (Rosemary Newton) the following e-mail, mainly to highlight a matter concerning David Mantik's review for Bugliosi's JFK book. Rosemary, as she has done previously with e-mails I've sent her, faxed the mail to Mr. Bugliosi. "I know he'll be interested," Rosemary told me via a follow-up e-mail message. .....


Subject: Reclaiming History Website
Date: 6/12/2008
To: Rosemary Newton


Hi again Rosemary,

A thought just jumped into my cranium that I had previously wanted to mention to you and Vince Bugliosi, but I forgot to tell you in my other mails:

I know this is none of my business at all, but IMO somebody should consider removing the David Mantik review snippet that is currently on the ReclaimingHistory.com website [which is a website that no longer exists; it has been removed from the Internet since this e-mail was written in June 2008]. And that's because Mantik does NOT endorse VB's "RH" book--at all.

In fact, Mantik hates the book for the most part and rips it (and Vince) to shreds--or attempts to--in his full review [linked below].


I'm actually kind of embarrassed for Vince when I see those two brief review blurbs of Mantik's showing up online at the RH site, because they are also taken totally out of context. Mantik is actually bashing the book and its author--not praising it/him.

And what's worse is that the same out-of-context blurbs appear in VB's "Four Days In November" paperback now too--which is absurd. I have a feeling that W.W. Norton put those blurbs in the "4 Days" book and on the RH site (and possibly without Vince B. even knowing what Mantik's FULL opinion was of "Reclaiming History").

Anyway, I just thought I'd point this out....because apparently nobody has seemed to notice that a person who actually has a severely negative opinion about "RH" (David Mantik) is showing up with seemingly-glowing remarks about it on the RH site.

But if you'll read Mantik's entire review, you'll see I'm 100% right, and that Mantik's "It is a masterpiece" remark is really NOT a compliment at all. Because the next words out of Mantik's mouth after "masterpiece" are "—a truly brilliant prosecutorial brief".

And we both know that Vince does not intend for his Magnum Opus to be looked upon as only a "prosecutorial brief".


I doubt that Mr. Bugliosi knows about this following hunk of info either (regarding Vince Palamara, who recently switched from being a conspiracy-lover to a lone-assassin believer--or so he says--and who has a review posted at the RH website and in the book "4 Days" as well):

Months after going on record as having said that VB's JFK book completely changed his mind about a conspiracy in Kennedy's murder, Mr. Palamara continues to write 5-Star reviews for pro-conspiracy books. The latest example being his 5-Star Amazon review for Jim Douglass' latest piece of pro-conspiracy fiction.

Mr. Palamara, to put it bluntly, has a huge ego to feed...and, in my own opinion, he saw a perfect opportunity to do so by embracing VB's "Reclaiming History".

Palamara loves to see his name in print. I fear he doesn't really know what side of the JFK fence he's really on. As long as his ego is fed, he's happy. That's sad, but I think it's true. And just one look at his Amazon reviews will tend to bear me out on that. Or by watching this YouTube video by Mr. Palamara [linked below], which is filled with non-stop self-promotion. [The video, like the "ReclaimingHistory.com" website, is now no longer there.]


As I said, these matters are really none of my business...and Vince Bugliosi (and you) have every right to tell me to go jump in the lake....but I really wanted Vince B. to know about these things (which I truly don't think he's aware of at all) -- especially the Mantik review blurbs, which, as mentioned, are just flat-out embarrassing after reading Mantik's WHOLE review.

It makes it look as if the publisher (Norton) is so desperate for ANY kind of praise from the pro-conspiracy crowd that they are willing to bend the context of Mantik's words to suit their own pro-RH purposes. And that's not a good thing at all, in my view.

David Von Pein


David Von Pein
June 17, 2008

(PART 254)


>>> "During the past 10 years nearly every piece of evidence the WC unearthed is questioned." <<<


And every single question brought up by the conspiracy-happy kooks
of the world with respect to that WC evidence (which is, of course,
really evidence that was "unearthed" mostly by the DPD and/or FBI, not
the WC itself) has had a satisfactory non-conspiratorial answer.

But conspiracy-thirsty people don't like those non-shady answers, so
they keep looking for conspiracy-filled answers to their questions
instead. And they'll always be able to find a CT-based "answer" too--
in their own minds, that is.

But CTers who "question" the raw LHO-DID-IT evidence in the JFK and
Tippit murders couldn't possibly matter less. Because that raw evidence
isn't going anywhere, and it certainly isn't going to suddenly CHANGE into
conspiracy-tinged evidence after 45 years, for Pete sake.

My question still is this --- When will a CTer come up with a solid
piece of PHYSICAL EVIDENCE to support their kooky conspiratorial
cause? When?

And the 2007 Spiegelman NAA report won't cut it for the CT crowd
either. That report is nothing more than a re-hash (for the most part)
of the earlier Randich/Grant study....and neither NAA study does
anything to prove that any of the 5 bullet specimens examined by
Vincent Guinn in 1978 came from bullets other than those fired from
Lee Oswald's rifle.

Anyone saying that the Spiegelman and/or Grant studies do accomplish
the much-sought-after proof that more than just Oswald's Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle was involved in JFK's murder are merely fooling
themselves into believing such an unsupportable thing.


The conspiracy theorists of Planet Earth, like they have been doing
for nearly 45 years now, are forced to believe in extraordinary
scenarios to account for WHY there is nothing but "Oswald Was Here"
evidence in this entire case (including J.D. Tippit's slaying)....with
those CTers creating their own theories from whole cloth, theories
that inexorably lead down the road marked: "The Evidence Has Been
Faked & Planted".

And make no mistake about it -- that particular "Lots Of Evidence Has
Been Faked" belief that many conspiracy theorists swear by IS, indeed,
an "extraordinary" one (not to mention extraordinarily silly, to boot).

Larry Sturdivan said it very well.....

"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....with superhuman abilities to fake physical
evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked
-- Larry M. Sturdivan; Page #246 of "The JFK Myths"

David Von Pein
June 17, 2008

(MAY 12, 1962)


(PART 253)


>>> "[Bonnie Ray Williams, Harold Norman, and James Jarman] Acted 
as if no one were above them. Williams even testified that they didn't 
give the supposed shooter above them a second [thought]--check 
his testimony!" <<<


Here we have more typical Kook Logic -- i.e., a conspiracy-happy idiot
gets to decide for himself what the witnesses should or should not
have "thought" in association with the assassination and its

And if the thoughts and/or actions of the witnesses don't meet the
CTer's expectations*, which they rarely do of course, then the CT-Kook
gets to make up his own "Why Didn't The Witness Do This?" rules and
berate the innocent witness for not meeting the expectations of the
idiot asking the silly question.

* = Which, of course, are all expectations that are teeming with
"Monday-morning quarterbacking" hindsight. A similar situation has
played itself out with another conspiracy-giddy halfwit (Rob Caprio) in
this discussion regarding the testimony of Mary Bledsoe and Ruth Paine:

Rob thinks that Ruth should have behaved differently toward Marina and
Lee Oswald in the weeks and months before the assassination of
President Kennedy.

Robby thinks there's a reason to suspect that Mrs. Paine and Mrs.
Bledsoe were telling one lie after another to the Warren Commission.
The only thing Rob the Idiot has to go on, of course, is a gut feeling
that something's not quite right in the testimony of Bledsoe and
Paine. And, for Rob, this "gut feeling", naturally, is more than
enough of a reason to call the two ladies bald-face liars here on the
World Wide Web.

IOW -- To hell with the actual under-oath testimony. The CTers will
merely insert their own suspicions and treat the words of the witnesses
as something totally irrelevant.

Such is the mindset of people like Donald Willis and Robby C.

I have a mental picture of Don Willis poring over the testimony and
affidavits and FBI statements of the TSBD witnesses, in the hopes of
finding something--ANYTHING--that he can latch onto as an
inconsistency or a supposed inaccuracy of some kind. Day and night,
night and day, Willis will never stop until he can place innocent
witnesses like Bonnie Ray Williams, James Jarman Jr., Harold Norman,
and Danny Arce in the gas chamber (figuratively speaking).

As another LNer has said in past posts (and it's damn good advice too,
IMO) -- Kooks like Donny and Robby should seek out new hobbies.
Because the one they are currently engaged in involving the JFK
assassination reeks with silliness (not to mention defamation of
character with respect to the scads of innocent people they have no
hesitation in calling "liars", "gunmen", "murderers", and/or

I hear coin-collecting can be rewarding. (Although Donald and Rob
would probably find some way to screw up that hobby too....probably by
over-examining an original '64 Kennedy half-dollar and insisting the
coin had been counterfeited by David Ferrie.)

David Von Pein
June 16, 2008

(PART 252)


>>> "What reason would there be for Ruth Paine to write a phone number in her book regarding LHO?" <<<


If you would just take some time to actually read some of the facts (and testimony) regarding the matters you continually mangle beyond all recognition, you might find out.

But, since you apparently have no desire to do that, I'll have to:

In this particular instance, Lee Oswald phoned Ruth Paine in early October of '63 to give Ruth and Marina the phone number of the roominghouse at which he had rented a room from Mrs. Mary Bledsoe at 621 North Marsalis Street in Dallas....and probably the biggest reason for Oswald making that call to Ruth Paine was because LHO wanted Ruth or Marina to be able to quickly get in touch with him due to the fact that Marina was about to go into labor with the birth of the Oswalds' second child at any time. (The baby was born on October 20th.)

Just read the damned transcript, Rob. You'd be amazed at how much MORE stupid your theories turn out to be (if that's even possible at this stage of your silly kook game) after doing that little bit of reading.

Perhaps Robby will next theorize that the baby (Rachel Oswald) was "planted" in Marina's womb by evil conspirators in some manner too, for the purpose of enacting this meaningless charade carried out by Ruth Paine regarding the telephone number of Mary Bledsoe. (Wouldn't surprise me a bit...after all, this kook named Rob can't even figure out the fact that his precious patsy really did kill J.D. Tippit. With ignorance like that festering in his brain, anything that follows is possible.)

Anyway, here's the relevant testimony from Ruth Paine regarding telephone number WH2-1985:

Mr. JENNER - Yes; now, give it as chronologically as you can; how you came by that telephone number, the circumstances under which it was given to you.

Mrs. PAINE - He [LHO] said this is the telephone number.

Mr. JENNER - Was Marina present?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes. He said of the room where he was staying, renting a room, and I could reach him here if she went into labor.

Mr. JENNER - I see, the coming of the baby was imminent?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - When was the baby expected?

Mrs. PAINE - Any time after the first week in October. Any time, in other words.

>>> "I see no reason for this woman [Ruth Paine] to be SO involved in their lives [LHO's and Marina's]." <<<

Classic Kook Logic here. Rob decides FOR RUTH PAINE what Ruth Paine should be "involved" in.

Don't ya love it when conspiracy-happy kooks try to think logically--and always fail in those attempts?

>>> "We know Ruth Paine is a liar as her actions speak volumes on this topic." <<<

What "actions" are you talking about, you freaking moron?

Ruth Paine has done NOTHING that would make any "reasonable" person suspicious of any of her hours and hours worth of Warren Commission testimony.

As usual, we've got an idiot (in this case Robert Caprio) calling a person an outright "liar" without a single shred of proof to back it up. Just meaningless accusations instead.

When looking up the word "disgrace" (the noun) in the dictionary, you'll probably find an 8x10 picture of Rob staring back at you.

>>> "Bledsoe was a scared, older lady, who did what she was told
to do." <<<

Rob wants to paint both Ruth Paine and Mary Bledsoe as "liars". Both of them. Rob thinks Paine lied (under oath) when she said that LHO called her and gave her his WH2-1985 phone number. And Robby goes further and insinuates that Bledsoe is also a liar when she said (under oath) that she knew Lee Harvey Oswald prior to 11/22/63 and that she had rented a room to him in October for $7 a week.

BTW, let's have a look at a few of the things that Robby is ready to call bald-faced "lies" with respect to Mary E. Bledsoe's Warren Commission testimony. Wasn't Mary nice to fill in these extra details about Lee Oswald and the circumstances surrounding her first coming into contact with him? These are all LIES, remember, according to Super-Moron Caprio:

MRS. BLEDSOE -- "The first time I ever saw him or heard of him [Lee Oswald], I was in the backyard doing a lot of yardwork. I come around the house and he was standing on the porch, and he said, "Do you have a room for rent?" I had a "for rent" sign out. I said, "Yes"; and he said, "May I see it?"; "Yes"; and then I was trying to size him up to get in that room...and I said, "Are you married?" And he said, "Yes, I am married. I just want this for a short time. My wife lives at Irving." And then we got inside the house and he had a thing where this--pictures of his wife and baby--and he said he was in the Marine Corps, and I tried to be nice to him, and so, he paid me $7."

Perhaps Robby should take a full look at Mary Bledsoe's testimony linked above too. But, then too, it wouldn't matter. Rob's mind is already made up (based on ZERO pieces of evidence--only based on his kook mindset about this case) that Mary Bledsoe is a liar. So reading her WC testimony would matter little, I surmise.

As stated previously (and it's still as true as ever) -- Robby is an LNer's dream come to (kooky) life. And he demonstrates this to be true every time he goes to the keyboard.

David Von Pein
June 15, 2008

(PART 251)


Let's watch Rob The Idiot try to wangle out of this one now. My guess is, the kook will resort to calling Ruth Paine a rotten liar too, i.e., Paine probably wrote [Mary Bledsoe's] number in her address book at a later date, in yet another effort, no matter how meaningless and needless, to frame the proverbial patsy named Lee Harvey. Don't disappoint me, Robby. Please call Mrs. Ruth Paine a rotten liar too. Because today's laugh is overdue.


>>> "She [Ruth Paine] could have written the number in after the assassination or she could have written [it] in to frame him." <<<

Thanks for making my prediction about you a reality, Robby-boy. (Not that I ever doubted my prediction for an instant.)

And thank you for not disappointing me. As I've said before, but it's worth repeating -- You, Robby, are an LNer's dream come true.

So deeply entrenched in "Patsy-ism" is Rob, that ANYONE who comes between Robby and his notion that Lee Oswald was set up and framed for two Dallas murders (Ruth Paine and Mary Bledsoe to name just two examples) is to be looked at sideways and is to be considered MORE of a "suspect" than the person to whom ALL of the evidence in the JFK case leads (LHO).

That's called "SUPREME C.T. PARANOIA". And Rob's got an advanced case of it.

>>> "It is a shame LHO wasn't there to give his side of the story [when Ruth Paine was telling the Warren Commission that she herself had been told by LHO that he was living at a residence where the phone number was WH2-1985]." <<<

And if that had happened, Oswald wouldn't have hesitated in the slightest degree to admit that he gave Bledsoe's phone number to Mrs. Paine (which he so obviously did do).


Because admitting that fact doesn't harm him in the slightest way with respect to whether or not he shot two people on November 22, 1963. His having lived on Marsalis St. under Bledsoe's roof is meaningless. Therefore, Oswald would have told the truth.

Ozzie only lied when it was about important stuff -- i.e., the stuff he HAD to lie about to distance himself from the physical evidence and the 2 guns he used to murder 2 men in Dallas.

Heck, he even lied about where he bought the gun he used to kill Tippit with. Even though he was caught red-handed with the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM in the theater, he still wanted to distance himself as much as humanly possible from that gun, sending the police on a wild goose chase by saying he had purchased the revolver in Fort Worth (instead of where we know he obtained it--via a Los Angeles mail-order company).

>>> "You have an address book that was given to the FBI and the WC,
so they could have added anything they wanted, likewise Paine writing
it afterward. This is proof of nothing. You need to learn the definition of proof. It is funny you mentioned the 'writing-[it]-in-later' part, as this
is probably what happened. This number is hardly proof LHO stayed
at Bledsoe's house and a good defense attorney would have shown
this." <<<

Rob doesn't give a shit about getting at the truth. He just wants to add more "suspects" to the growing list of people he thinks were lying their asses off after the assassination.

Robby just wants to add more cloudy, murky obfuscation and "question marks" to the mix. That's all. He now wants to believe that BOTH Mary Bledsoe and Ruth Paine (and maybe the FBI and WC too) are dirty, rotten liars, so that Rob (an Anybody-But-Oswald mega-kook, keep in mind) can then believe that Lee Oswald never rented a room from Mary E. Bledsoe in early October of 1963.

To use a single word to describe Rob's ultra-stupid beliefs --- Pathetic!

But if Robby actually had a desire to get at the real truth, he would be able to apply some degree of common sense to this matter regarding Bledsoe's phone number, and he'd then be able to see how silly it is to suggest that Ruth Paine wrote the number "WH2-1985" (Mary Bledsoe's home number) in her address book at some point after November 22 in order to try and "frame" Lee Oswald.

And Robby would be able to provide some proof that Ruth Paine lied under oath when she said that she wrote the number in her address book after being told the number by Lee Oswald HIMSELF in October 1963.

But Robby thinks that the defense (at LHO's trial, had it taken place) would actually WIN this particular argument regarding Bledsoe's phone number.

Rob thinks that Oswald's defense lawyers, by merely suggesting to the jury that either the FBI or Mrs. Paine COULD have conceivably written that phone number in that address book at some point in time after the assassination, would emerge victorious on this issue at Oswald's trial.

I.E., Rob is suggesting that the mere ALLEGATION of the frame-up itself somehow becomes the TRUTH, and that the allegation becomes BETTER EVIDENCE than Paine's under-oath testimony, which had her stating that she wrote down the telephone number (and later scratched out that same number when Oswald moved to Beckley Avenue) when she talked to Oswald on the phone and Oswald HIMSELF told her what the number was.

That's some screwy court of law you're placing your faith in there, Rob. It must be the CTers' favorite courtroom....you know the one, the "CHAFF TRUMPS WHEAT AND SPECULATION TRUMPS HARD EVIDENCE EVERY TIME" court of law.

Rob and his ilk live inside that courtroom each and every day of their lives, it would seem. And today is no exception I see.

>>> "Don't need to call her [Ruth Paine] that [a "rotten liar"], as her actions of those days speak for themself [sic]. We all know (the ones honest with ourselves) what she was." <<<

I sure do know what Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine was -- she was (and is) a very honest and intelligent woman who told the unvarnished truth every minute she was giving testimony to the Warren Commission (testimony which covers a whole bunch of pages in the WC volumes).

You, Rob, however (being the "inconceivable kook" that you are), have no qualms or hesitation at all in painting Mrs. Paine as something other than a truth-teller and an honest person. And you, like other conspiracy theorists as well, have no hesitation in doing this without a STITCH OF PROOF to back up any such vile allegation against her.

As stated before -- Pathetic.


For more information and commentary about the person that Rob The Idiot is attempting to unjustly smear for no good reason whatsoever (and certainly without a shred of proof to back up his insane ideas about her), this webpage about Mrs. Ruth Paine might prove to be interesting reading.

I know I learned quite a lot about Ruth (and LHO and Marina and others too) by reading through all of Mrs. Paine's extensive Warren Commission sessions (and commenting on some of that testimony at the Internet site linked above).

And not ONCE in her testimony does Mrs. Paine, in my view, come across as disingenuous or a liar or as someone who was trying to hide any of the truth with respect to what she knew about Lee Harvey Oswald and the circumstances surrounding JFK's death.

David Von Pein
June 14, 2008