(PART 456)


>>> "Hey, Reitzes, how much do they pay you for switching teams?" <<<


You're off to a great start, Kook Robert. You seem to think you're
talking to David A. Reitzes. But, of course, you're not.

Strike 1 (of several dozen "strikes" to come, no doubt). Robby hasn't
collected a base hit since joining the Anybody-But-Oswald team of acj
retards in October 2007. And yet, he thinks he's the star player on
the team. Go figure that.

>>> "NO moron, that is in the WC's own words when they described their evidence and how it was received! Much of it came from another wierd [sic] method, ACTUALLY INTERVIEWING ALL THE WITNESSES TO THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE CRIME!" <<<

I'll leave it to other kooks (similar to Rob) to try and decipher the
above seemingly contradictory statement.


>>> "Why NOT share the chain of custody with us so the lurkers can see for themselves?" <<<

And if I can't show you a specific "chain of custody" for EVERY last
piece of evidence connected to both the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder
investigations, then that means that you (a conspiracy-loving retard)
are therefore free to believe that "almost all the evidence" (your
quote) has a lousy chain of custody associated with it.

Right, Mr. Retard?

For example:

I cannot type in on my keyboard the PRECISE, EXACT "chain of
possession" for the two limo bullet fragments (CE567/CE569). So, I
guess this means that I should be automatically suspicious of what the
exact chain of possession (or "chain of custody") was for CE567 and

Right, Mr. Retard?

Well, here's a blast of news for Robby The Automatically Suspicious
-- I'm not the LEAST bit "suspicious" when it comes to the
exact chain of custody for CE567/569.

And that's because I have absolutely no reason to be suspicious of it.
And I also have no reason whatsoever to be suspicious of the "chain"
for ANY of the other hundreds of pieces of evidence connected to the
JFK case, which is evidence that you--a retard--incredibly think is
"almost all" tainted in some fashion when it comes to the chain of
custody for all this evidence.

That's one of the big differences between a rabid conspiracist and a
reasonable person who looks at the evidence in this case -- i.e., you
(being a fool and a retard when it comes to ANYTHING associated with
the date 11/22/63) are more than willing to accept the EXTRAORDINARY
explanations for things (such as "almost all the evidence" having a
lousy chain of possession).

But I, OTOH, being a reasonable person and a non-kook when it comes to
looking at the evidence in the Kennedy case, can easily figure out
that the ORDINARY (i.e., NON-CONSPIRATORIAL) explanation for things is
usually the correct explanation; with the EXTRAORDINARY (i.e.,
CONSPIRATORIAL) version of events (which the Robs of the world will
ALWAYS favor instead of the routine, ordinary answers) normally being
dismissed....mainly because it's so EXTRAORDINARY (i.e., downright
stupid-sounding) most of the time.

>>> "Actually two bullets [the kook really means bullet SHELLS here, not "bullets"] were there when the nest was "discovered"." <<<

Oh, good! Rob's starting to invent the evidence (again).

Name ONE Dallas police officer or sheriff's deputy who claimed that
only two shells (instead of the correct and accurate number--three)
were found in the Sniper's Nest. You can't do it.

Plus: Your belief that only two shells were discovered really puts you
between a rock and a hard place when it comes to accepting one of the
bald-faced lies told by one of your heroes -- Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig.

Because Liar Craig later claimed that when the shells were first
discovered in the Nest, the THREE shells were lying on the floor "no
more than an inch apart".

(LOL break needed here.)

Would you like to now jettison Liar Craig from your list of reliable

But surely you don't want to jettison Roger, do you Rob? Because he's
the liar who makes your theories sound so good a lot of the time.
You'd better keep him, and then pretend that he really saw only "two"
bullet shells in the Sniper's Nest, instead of the three that he said
he saw.

>>> "Where is your PROOF LHO ordered a 40" Carcano again?" <<<

Lee Oswald didn't order a 40-inch gun, Mr. Retard. That's obvious from
the order form he sent in to Klein's. He ordered a 36-inch carbine.

And, btw, to those CT-Kooks who love to keep insisting that the
40-inch version of the rifle that appeared in one of the two
different Klein's ads in 1963 was not a "carbine" at all, I'd like to
offer up the following photograph of the Klein's ad that features
the 40-inch model of the gun. This is an ad that says, plain as day,

So much for the 40-inch variant not being termed a "carbine". At least
Klein's thinks the 40-incher was a "carbine".

Anyway, back to Oswald's purchase -- It doesn't make a damn bit of
difference what Oswald ORDERED. The key is: WHAT KLEIN'S SHIPPED TO
OSWALD/(HIDELL). And the rifle that Klein's shipped was a "40-inch
carbine" (just like in the alternate 1963 Klein's ad shown above).

And I doubt very seriously if Oswald got out a tape measure after
picking up his 40-inch Carcano at the post office in late March of
'63, in an effort on his part to verify the weapon's overall length.

He ordered a 36-inch rifle....Klein's shipped him a nearly identical
model (which was 4 inches longer). Simple as that.

But, naturally, to the Anybody-But-Oswald kooks of the world, this
4-inch discrepancy between what Oswald ordered and what he received
in the mail is a HUGE deal...and it must mean that there's another rifle
floating around someplace associated with Oswald's Klein's rifle order
from March 1963.

But to a reasonable person who examines this slight discrepancy, the
answer couldn't be more obvious....as explained above.

>>> "But this revolver COULD NOT be matched to the bullets INSIDE JDT [J.D. Tippit], now could they?" <<<

We've been over this well-worn ground before, of course. Joe Nicol DID
say that one of the four bullets taken from J.D. Tippit's body could be
linked to LHO's revolver.

Naturally, Nicol must be a liar. Right?

Anyway, even without Nicol's testimony in this "bullet" regard,
Oswald's guilt is still proven BALLISTICALLY beyond ALL doubt in the
Tippit murder -- via the four bullet shells that littered the ground
in the yard of Virginia and Barbara Davis.

Naturally, though, the CT-Kooks like Rob don't trust ANY of those four
shells either....not even the two NON-POE shells!

Go figure kooks.

>>> "Absolutely [no] chain of custody [for CE567 & CE569] since the Limosuine [sic] was spirited off to D.C. before the local police, who had jurisdiction at that time, could examine it. Thus anything found in it is contaminated." <<<

See my earlier remarks about chain of custody (in general).

But that's a nice (in general) type of excuse you've got there, Robby.
Since the limo was moved from Dallas to Washington, you therefore have
an open door to believe a bunch of crazy crap regarding the bullets
found in that limousine.

Think a jury would buy this argument, Rob? Really and truly, do you
think any jury besides the "OJ 12" would buy this argument?:

"[Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, there is] absolutely [no] chain of custody [for bullet fragments CE567 and CE569] since the [President's] limousine was spirited off to D.C. before the local police [in Dallas], who had jurisdiction at that time, could examine it. Thus anything found in it is contaminated."

Good luck with that argument Robby. You'll need it. (Unless, as I
said, you get lucky and the O.J. Twelve are seated in the jury box.)

>>> "There is NO link to LHO for CE-139 anyway, so even if you could link them [the very small bullet fragments found in the limo] to the rifle, so what?" <<<

You're nuts (of course). Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (CE139) is
linked and tied to LHO in many different ways. You just wish to ignore
those things (as always).

It's so nice being an evidence-ignorer and evidence-mangler, isn't it
Robcap? The freedom to be a kook that such evidence-mangling provides
must be exhilarating indeed.

>>> "They [the bullet fragments removed from John Connally's wrist] EQUALED GREATER WEIGHT than was missing from your claimed CE-399, right? How does that happen?" <<<

It doesn't happen. And it never did.

Dr. Charles Gregory removed (per his WC testimony) "2 or 3" very tiny
metal fragments from Connally's right wrist. The total weight of those
fragments, as far as I am aware, is not known with 100% accuracy. But
the weight was said to have been "very small" (direct 1964 quote from
Dr. Gregory):

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Did you observe any foreign objects identifiable as
bits of fragments or portions of a bullet missile?"

DR. CHARLES F. GREGORY -- "A preliminary X-ray had indicated that
there were metallic fragments or at least metallic fragments which
cast metallic shadows in the soft tissues around the wounded forearm.
Two or three of these were identified and were recovered and were
observed to be metallic in consistency. These were turned over to
appropriate authorities for further disposition."

MR. SPECTER -- "Approximately how large were those fragments, Dr.

DR. GREGORY -- "I would judge that they were...flat, rather thin, and
that their greatest dimension would probably not exceed one-eighth of
an inch. They were very small."

(The above March 23, 1964, testimony can be found in Warren Commission
Volume 6, Page 98, linked HERE.)

In summary -- The total amount of metal recovered from John Connally's
wrist was a tiny amount of metal, weighing very little. To say that
these "very small" fragments taken from Connally exceeded the total
weight lost from Bullet CE399 (which was a total lost weight in the
neighborhood of 2.4 grains) is just plain silly, and is an argument
made by conspiracy theorists that just does not agree with the records
in this case--specifically the WC testimony of the Parkland doctor
(Gregory) who REMOVED and SAW those "2 or 3" fragments from Governor
Connally's wrist.

>>> "All this NAA stuff is junk[,] as [the] whole practice has been recently shown to be worthless." <<<

But a CTer still cannot fight the following logic with respect to Dr.
Vincent P. Guinn's NAA analysis (and the bullet evidence that exists
in the JFK case, in general):

"Even via 1970s-era NAA technology, what are the odds that Guinn's data would end up revealing the likelihood that ONLY BULLETS FROM OSWALD'S RIFLE STRUCK ANY VICTIMS ON 11/22/63? My guess is this -- The odds of that type of scientific evidence favoring the likelihood that only Oswald's gun was involved in the assassination, and somehow having that data being totally FALSE, must be fairly low indeed. In addition (and probably even more important on the "common sense" and "sheer luck" scales):

What do you think the chances are that a multi-gun conspiracy took place in Dealey Plaza, with bullets from MORE THAN ONE GUN striking the victims in JFK's limousine on Elm Street....and yet, after the bullets stopped flying and the missiles and fragments were examined, NOT A SINGLE BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-C2766 gun turned out to be large enough to be tested in order to positively eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the source for ALL of the bullets and fragments that hit any victims on Elm Street?

Would anybody be willing to take those incredibly low odds to Vegas?"
-- DVP; June 2007

>>> "CE-399 has NO chain of custody anyway and there is more fragment weight in JBC's wrist than what was missing from CE-399[,] so you have a very WORTHLESS bullet there." <<<

"a very WORTHLESS bullet".

Rob needs a padded cell.

I have no doubt at all that if CE399 had a 100% perfect, to-the-letter
"chain of possession" (from even the POV of a conspiracy idiot like
Robert Caprio)....it still wouldn't matter to the Anybody-But-Oswald
nuts of the world.

Because via such a "100% perfect" scenario, the CT-Kooks would
unquestionably still find a way to sweep Bullet CE399 into the gutter
as "a very WORTHLESS bullet" as it relates to the JFK assassination

Does anyone have ANY doubt as to the accuracy of my last statement
above? (I sure don't.)

>>> "Which ones [autopsy photos of JFK]? The real ones or the faked ones?" <<<

There are no "fake" autopsy photographs or X-rays of President Kennedy.
You just made that shit up....because you think you HAVE to (I guess).

>>> "After the ORIGINAL notes [of Dr. Humes] were burned following LHO's death!" <<<

Rob The Kook must think, therefore, that Dr. James Humes' original
autopsy notes (which Humes burned in his home fireplace on 11/24/63
because they had the blood of the President on them) must have had
something written in them that proved the conspiracy that Robby so
desperately seeks. Right, Rob?

Otherwise, what's your point here?

I think Vincent Bugliosi summed up this "note-burning" episode quite
well when he wrote the following in his 2007 JFK book:

"Conspiracy theorists often refer to the missing “draft notes” that Dr. Humes burned in his fireplace in the early morning hours of November 24 after he handwrote a draft of the autopsy report. Critics see this act as highly suspicious, and consequently conspiracy books cite the burning of the draft notes as evidence of some cover-up.

For example, Mark Lane calls Humes’s act a “destruction of hard evidence” (Lane, Rush to Judgment, p.62). Josiah Thompson writes, “It is unclear just what this earlier [burned] draft contained. One distinguished member of the [Warren] Commission’s staff [later identified as Wesley Liebeler] told Life [magazine] that he was ‘certain’ Humes burned the original draft because it reflected a finding contrary to the official report,” Thompson adding that this opinion of a Warren Commission staff member, though not appearing in Life magazine, was seen by him in a report by a Life representative (Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, pp.201, 214 note 8; identification of Liebeler: Lifton, Best Evidence, p.348 footnote).

It apparently has not entered the minds of the conspiracy theorists (nor did it, allegedly, enter the mind of Liebeler--who did not, by the way, believe there was a conspiracy behind the assassination) that since we’re dealing with the same person, Humes, if one believes that Humes was willing to lie on his autopsy report (his draft notes reflecting the true and different situation), why wouldn’t he likewise have been willing to lie on his notes, thereby obviating the need to destroy them?

Did those behind the assassination come to Humes after he wrote the first draft and convince him, for the first time, to join the conspiracy, he agreed, and then they told him what they wanted his autopsy report to say? But what about Drs. Boswell and Finck? Did they join the conspiracy too? Because if they didn’t, how is it that their conclusions just happened to coincide with Humes’s new, conspiratorial conclusion?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 276-277 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

>>> "Which paper bag? Can you show us a picture of it in situ? Can you show it listed on your DPD inventory lists? The way in which the prints were located makes it highly unlikely LHO could have put them there while carrying them [sic; "them"?]." <<<

Huh? What's this shit you're making up now?

Two of Lee Oswald's positively-IDed prints were on that brown paper
bag that was found underneath the killer's window. And even if there's
no official picture of the bag underneath the window, that fact does

Apparently many conspiracy theorists think that the bag (CE142) should
be tossed out the window and should not be considered "evidence" in
this murder case at all--merely due to the fact that no official
photograph of it exists when it was first discovered by the police on
November 22, 1963.

Of course, via such a silly notion as the one I mentioned above, we'd
also have to throw out Bullet CE399 too....because 399 was never
officially photographed in the precise place where Darrell Tomlinson
found it within Parkland Memorial Hospital on 11/22/63.

And, we'd also have to toss ALL of the limousine bullet fragments into
the trash can too, due to the fact that no official pictures were
taken of those fragments when they were first discovered by the

And on and on to absurdity in this regard.

FACT: Lee Oswald's prints were on an object (the brown paper bag known
as CE142) that was said by the police to be found beneath the window
from where the assassin fired a rifle at JFK.

And it's an object (an EMPTY homemade paper bag) that has no
reasonable and/or INNOCENT reason to have been located where it was
found (under the assassin's window) on the day of JFK's assassination.

Do CTers think Oswald just happened to unwrap his so-called "curtain
rods" at the exact same spot on the sixth floor of the TSBD where an
assassin would also soon be taking shots at the President? (Silly question
to ask of CTers here, I know....because these rabid ABO kooks, of course,
think that the empty paper sack was "manufactured" and "planted" by the
evil and dastardly DPD and/or FBI.)

I wonder how the cops managed to plant two of LHO's prints on the darn
thing though? CTers never say. They just think the bag, like all other
evidence that leads directly to their prized patsy, is "suspicious" in
some manner.

>>> "Why were NO other [TSBD] employees prints ID'd [on the SN boxes] when we know they would have touched them in the normal handling process of their jobs (or moving them to lay down the new floor)?" <<<

That's not a bad question, I must admit. But you still cannot get
around the FACT that Lee Oswald's prints were, indeed, on two of the
boxes that were DEEP INSIDE the Sniper's Nest.

That's a very important and usually-overlooked point too....because
we're talking about Oswald's own prints being located on two of the
boxes inside the Sniper's Nest that were undoubtedly touched at some
point in time on November 22nd by THE PERSON WHO TOOK SHOTS AT

>>> "You mean the jacket that was a medium when LHO wore a small?" <<<

And a person who usually wears "small"-sized clothes couldn't POSSIBLY
have wedged himself into a piece of clothing that was LARGER than what
he usually wore....right Mr. Retard?

You're goofy.

>>> "The ONLY paper trail I have ever seen shows he [LHO] would have ordered a 36" Carbine, if any at all..." <<<

See my earlier "36-inch vs. 40-inch" rifle comments.

>>> "...but there is NO paper trail for him [LHO] receiving it [Rifle C2766] from the Post Office. How did he receive the rifle Dave?" <<<

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald (aka "A. Hidell") fills out a Klein's order
coupon for a rifle [CE773 & CE785].

2.) Oswald then purchases a money order on 3/12/63 for the exact
amount it will cost him to obtain the rifle from Klein's ($21.45) [CE788].

3.) Oswald then mails the order form and the money order to Klein's
Sporting Goods Company in Chicago, Illinois, USA.

4.) Klein's processes the "Hidell" order and creates the proper
paperwork for the transaction (as Waldman Exhibit No. 7, seen below,
verifies beyond all possible doubt):

5.) The U.S. Postal Service then delivers the rifle package to
Oswald's ("Hidell's") P.O. box in Dallas.

Footnote --- And whether or not the proper "firearms" paperwork and
forms were attached to this rifle package that was delivered to
"Hidell" at P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas is not germane to this "How Did
LHO Receive The Rifle?" discussion. And that's because it's not the
fault of the POST OFFICE if Klein's failed to process the order
properly with the correct paperwork. The Post Office merely delivers
the mail; they aren't responsible for any negligence that might apply
to the sender of that mail.

6.) Oswald finds a paper notice ("a regular card", per the testimony
of U.S. Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes) in his P.O. box one day in
late March of 1963, which indicates that an oversized package has been
delivered to P.O. Box 2915.

7.) Oswald takes the paper card from his P.O. box to a clerk at a
window (or at the counter) inside the Post Office building.

8.) The clerk inside the Post Office building then retrieves the
package and gives it to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Footnote --- It is assumed by the clerk that the person who has
WITH THAT CARD. This information comes directly from the Warren
Commission testimony of Harry Holmes, shown below:

WESLEY LIEBELER -- "The package would have come in addressed to Hidell
at Post Office Box 2915, and a notice would have been put in the post
office box without regard to who was authorized to receive mail from

HARRY D. HOLMES -- "Actually, the window where you get the box is all
the way around the corner and a different place from the box, and the
people that box the mail, and in theory---I am surmising now, because
nobody knows. I have questioned everybody, and they have no
recollection. The man would take this card out. There is nothing on
this card. There is no name on it, not even a box number on it. He
comes around and says, "I got this out of my box." And he says, "What
box?" "Box number so and so." They look in a bin where they have this
by box numbers, and whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him,
he just hands him the package, and that is all there is to it."

LIEBELER -- "Ordinarily, they won't even request any identification
because they would assume if he got the notice out of the box, he was
entitled to it?"

HOLMES -- "Yes, sir."

LIEBELER -- "It is very possible that that in fact is what happened in
[this] case?"

HOLMES -- "That is in theory. I would assume that is what happened."

LIEBELER -- "On the other hand, it is also possible that Oswald had
actually authorized Hidell to receive mail through the box?"

HOLMES -- "Could have been. And on the other hand, he had this
identification card of Hidell's in his billfold, which he could have
produced and showed the window clerk. Either way, he got it."

>>> "What was the EXACT time they discovered the "A. Hidell" card on LHO on 11/22/63?" <<<

The kook thinks the DPD "logged in" the time when they discovered the
Hidell card(s) in Oswald's wallet in the police car on the way
downtown. Hilarious.

Anyway, the "Hidell" identification was discovered at approximately
1:55 PM CST on Friday, 11/22/63 (i.e., minutes after Oswald was

>>> "You have a bunch of worthless evidence in the sense NONE of what you listed would have either shown the claim to be true, or would have been allowed in court anyway." <<<

And yet Judge Lucius Bunton of the state of Texas, in July 1986,
allowed virtually ALL of this evidence to come in at the Lee Harvey
Oswald televised Docu-Trial in London -- even Stretcher Bullet CE399!

Yes, that TV trial was only a "mock" court trial, that's true enough,
but it was also a trial that was bound by the RULES OF COURT PROCEDURE

Are you suggesting that Judge Bunton of Texas was part of the "cover-
up" in the JFK case too, Rob? Because that Texas judge allowed CE399
to be talked about again and again at that TV Docu-Trial in 1986.

And the front-seat limo fragments (CE567 and CE569) were talked about
at that trial too. And so were the backyard photos (which you no doubt
think are fake). And so was the paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest.
And so was Oswald's Carcano rifle (CE139). And so were the three
bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest.

All of that stuff was ALLOWED TO BE PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE at the '86
mock trial.

But if NONE of that evidence "would have been allowed in court", then
NONE of those pieces of evidence I just mentioned could have been
brought up EVEN ONCE by attorneys Vincent Bugliosi and Gerry Spence
in front of the jury at the TV mock trial in England. And yet...those
things WERE brought up, over and over again.

Was it a "Docu-Trial Conspiracy And Cover-Up", Rob? Or was Judge
Bunton just totally incompetent (i.e., he didn't know that ALL of this
evidence should have really been excluded at the mock trial, due to
some legal technicality or a "chain of custody" irregularity of some

In Summary --- Rob doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking
about when he boldly proclaimed -- "You have a bunch of worthless
evidence in the sense NONE of what you listed would have either shown
the claim to be true, or would have been allowed in court anyway."


From Vince Bugliosi's book:

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

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

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

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

I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Via a footnote on page 442 of the endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

>>> "Show me the chain of custody for the CE-399 Dave!" <<<

From Tomlinson...to Wright...to Johnsen...to Rowley...to Todd...to

>>> "The FBI did it BEFORE they had jurisdicition, thus they VIOLATED the chain of custody for everything they touched!" <<<

You're an idiot. (Obviously.)

>>> "What "LHO-did-it" evidence is there?" <<<

You're still a (very big) idiot. (Quite obviously.)

>>> "Why did LHO have NO representation before his death and after, except for the limited things Mr. Lane could do?" <<<

He had no legal representation before his death because HE REFUSED THE

H. LOUIS NICHOLS -- "He [LHO] said: 'Either Mr. Abt or someone who is
a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, and if I can find a
lawyer here who believes in anything I believe in, and believes as I
believe, and believes in my innocence...I might let him represent me'.
I said, 'What I am interested in knowing is right now, do you want me
or the Dallas Bar Association to try to get you a lawyer?' He said,
'No, not now'."

>>> "IF LHO was guilty, why was the WC soooo afraid of allowing him representation?" <<<

They weren't. And they did allow him representation.

You, Rob, are an idiot.

>>> "Why did a Commission "searching for the truth" have CLOSED SESSIONS?" <<<

Probably to keep goofballs like you from constantly interrupting the
sessions with the stupid shit you constantly enjoy bringing up.

(That's as good a reason as any for having "closed" WC sessions, IMO.)

>>> "We, CTers, don't even really need to argue the "fake" card UNLESS we want to as the evidence the WC presented does NOT show the claims they made to be true all by themselves! And that is being generous in the sense of allowing them to present their evidence in full, since we KNOW most, possibly all, would have been disbarred due to discovery, processing and custody issues." <<<

The net draws ever nearer to the Rob-ster. And so does the funny farm.

>>> "Keep your WORTHLESS evidence Dave, it does NOT show LHO to be guilty in the slightest." <<<

Time for bed, isn't it Robby? The ghost of your hero, Jim Garrison, is
waiting for you there. Garrison, too, was silly enough to constantly
embarrass himself in public by saying that there was no evidence at
all to show that Oswald shot anybody on 11/22/63.

I consider Jimbo Garrison to be the "Original Super Kook" with respect
to the JFK assassination. You, Rob, should be proud to continue in the
tradition of your kooky mentor.

>>> "Claims are EASY to make, but VERY HARD to prove..." <<<

Yeah, just ask any CTer about that. (Like, say, Lifton or Garrison or
Fetzer or Armstrong or Mellen or Lane. None of them has ever proven
their CT "claims".)

David Von Pein
March 16, 2009

(PART 455)


Well, after I replied to you earlier, I became curious regarding any reviews that were written for [William] Law's book ["In The Eye Of History: Disclosures In The JFK Assassination Medical Evidence" (c.2004)]. Holy cow--I wonder if your review is longer than his book?


I really wouldn't know. I never read the book. I never purchased it, and never will.

Many of my pre-2007 JFK-related Amazon reviews are merely excuses to plop down a lot of my general anti-conspiracy thoughts and essays about the JFK assassination.

Yes, that's unethical, I know. But I really feel that this particular subject (the JFK assassination) could use some "general" anti-conspiracy balance (and basic common sense) in the reviews posted at a place like Amazon, which features reviews that heavily favor (in general) the pro-conspiracy stance when it comes to the way JFK died in 1963. And that's really a shame, too....especially considering the average "star" ratings that some of the outright crap has received at Amazon.*

* = Here are just a few examples (for the record):

1.) James H. Fetzer's 2003 book of 100% fantasy and dreck, "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax: Deceit And Deception In The Death Of JFK", has garnered an average Amazon rating of 3 Stars (on a 5-Star rating scale), as of this writing on 3/16/09. And that's absolutely beyond belief, considering the laughable content contained within Prof. Fetzer's 480 pages of sheer "Hoax" idiocy.

And, no, I've never laid eyes on any of Fetzer's ridiculous books, including "Hoax". But my "review" linked above is 100% accurate just the same. YMMV.

2.) Joan Mellen's pile of Garrison-loving excrement, "A Farewell To Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK's Assassination, And The Case That Should Have Changed History", has earned an average rating at Amazon that's far too high -- 3.5 Stars.

How anyone could have enough guts (in 2005!) to write a 608-page book that attempts to prop up a fraud like Jim Garrison just defies all logic and common sense (and defies all belief). But, I guess there was still a little cash to be squeezed out of the man who ruined Clay Shaw's life in 1969. So, Joan decided to squeeze. Pathetic.

No, I've never touched Mellen's book. Only a torture chamber, with a deranged Vincent Price as the torturer, could induce me to read a single word of that publication.

3.) David Lifton's "Best Evidence: Disguise And Deception In The Assassination Of John F. Kennedy" (1980) has gotten an average of 4 Stars from its 42 Amazon reviewers (to date), which is outrageous, of course, given the foolish and impossible theory espoused within that 747-page volume.

Incredibly, though, even in the 21st century, Lifton's book of nonsense is still attracting several 4-Star and 5-Star reviews. Amazingly silly indeed.

"Best Evidence" is one of the few pro-conspiracy books I've actually read, so I've got two reviews for it at Amazon currently [ONE -- TWO].

4.) And possibly the most outlandish example of all -- the DVD for the absolutely abominable and vomit-inducing so-called "documentary" entitled "JFK II: The Bush Connection" has received an average Amazon rating of 4 Stars, as of March 16, 2009.

That piece of pure trash known as "JFK II" deserves a NEGATIVE star ranking! It's positively one of the most distasteful, dishonest, and disgusting hunks of crap I've ever seen.

And, yes, I have indeed seen this pro-conspiracy item (much to my chagrin). I didn't purchase the DVD, but I saw the whole film a few years ago via the Internet. I certainly wouldn't have spent a nickel to buy the DVD, of course.


Since March 2006, I've been archiving all of my JFK essays, articles, and comments online at the Usenet forums and at my own JFK Blog, so that I rarely feel the need to spread the general "anti-conspiracy" word at Amazon.com anymore.

But, in my (partial) defense here, I certainly know enough about the evidence in the John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit and Lee Harvey Oswald murder cases to know one thing for certain -- ALL pro-conspiracy books are dead wrong when it comes to their bottom-line conclusions regarding "conspiracy" and "cover-up" in the death of President Kennedy.

And the above paragraph is true whether I've read every (or any) pro-conspiracy book on the subject or not.

YMMV. So be it.


David, why don't you set aside the BOH wound controversy and focus on the entry location issue (which is easier to settle)...keeping your mind open to the reasoning that, if Fisher et. al. were wrong about the entry, then they could have been wrong about there being no BOH wound.


There's virtually no chance at all that they were wrong about there being no BOH wound in Kennedy's head. And the X-ray shown below proves beyond all reasonable doubt that there was no "BOH wound" in JFK's cranium.

Yes, I know you're sick of seeing me post this X-ray over and over again. But that's just too bad, because it's an official X-ray of the President's head that's here, and it's here to stay. And it's an official "unaltered" X-ray that proves that Mr. John Canal is simply incorrect. Period.


You asked me a good question not too long ago -- "If the entry was near the EOP, why then is there so much hair/scalp between the red spot and the hair line?"


John, I'm nearly positive that you've got me mixed up with somebody else on this forum -- because I cannot recall asking you that question in the past at all.

It's a good question though. It's just that I don't remember asking it. Maybe I asked a similar question, and you've re-worded it. Is that possible? If you can provide a link to my specific post which contains that inquiry, I'd appreciate it. (Just to satisfy my own curiosity about it.)

And, as an addendum question (which I'm sure I did ask you in the past, with your answer being one that was not satisfactory at all, in my opinion) --- How on Earth can the back of JFK's head (his scalp in particular) look as pristine and undamaged as it does in the autopsy photograph below and yet have your own pet theory about a large-ish BOH wound still be viable and accurate?

You really don't need to answer my last question, John. I just felt like asking it....yet again. Just for my own files/blog....yet again. ;)

David Von Pein
March 16, 2009

(PART 454)


CE 903 depicts a bullet path on the TOP of the shoulder and NOT six inches lower, where the...

...autopsy report said it was

...face sheet said it was

...autopsy photos show it was.


CE903 perfectly illustrates the SBT bullet path. Absolutely perfectly.

If Arlen Specter's pointer (in CE903) were to be repositioned a little to his left (which, of course, is a location that Specter didn't have the luxury of placing the simulated bullet hole, because Arlen didn't feel like murdering the person standing in for John Kennedy), it would place the "wound" in the UPPER BACK of the JFK stand-in....just as the inimitable Jean Davison pointed out in January 2007:

"To my knowledge, [nobody] has ever explained how moving the back wound up to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving the entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT trajectory, not strengthen it. Again I'll refer you to CE 903. Although Specter didn't drill a hole in the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it, had he done so, the entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck. There's a string on the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about 18 degrees -- that's the approximate angle measured by a surveyor during the re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT. If the rod is moved up to the neck, the bullet will exit well above the exit wound under JFK's Adam's apple. Or take a look at this photo of JFK. Try drawing a line of c.18 degrees backward from the knot in JFK's tie. Where does it come out? Upper back, right? The claim that Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not true. If I haven't made my point by now, I give up."
-- Jean Davison; January 2, 2007

David Von Pein
March 14, 2009

(PART 453)


I do believe the person Mrs. Reid saw had a full bottle of Coke...


Yep. Oswald did have a Coke in his hands when Reid saw him on 11/22/63.


...and that the boys had a habit of coming up there and asking for change for the machine.


Which Oswald did not do at around 12:30 PM on November 22nd.


You would think they wouldn't climb all those stairs as a habit for a coke on the first floor, or in the case of Oswald if he had one on the first floor, why he would want to come up to the second floor with it?


He didn't climb any stairs to buy his Coke, idiot. He DESCENDED four flights--from the 6th Floor to the 2nd Floor--and then bought it after his encounter with Baker and Truly.

Anyway, you seem to be reiterating part of my point from my earlier post -- i.e., if Oswald's favorite soft drink (Dr. Pepper) was available on the first floor (which it definitely was), and he was already on the first floor (which he claimed he was when the shooting occurred)....then why go UP one floor to get a drink?

Oswald lied. Simple as that.


Anyway, look down about 3/4's of the way down on the link [referring to CE741]. Looks like a soda machine to me on the second floor.


CE741 isn't showing a soda machine. It's showing a candy machine.

Here's the 2nd-Floor lunchroom Coke machine (with the candy machine also visible).


Also looks like Oswald's shirt looks more like the guy in the doorway than Lovelady's shirt, don't it?


Who cares? Since it was positively Lovelady in the doorway in the Altgens picture, then your comment above is a moot one, isn't it?

Or would you like to resurrect the "Oswald Was In The Doorway After All" nonsense yet again, Mr. Conspiracy?

David Von Pein
March 11, 2009

(PART 452)


You say that the Sixth Floor Museum paid the $16M for the Zapruder film? I thought it was the US government that paid the $16M.


The U.S. Government forked over the cash to the Zapruder family. But then the Zapruder family donated the official copyright of the film to the Sixth Floor Museum in 1999.

Quoting from the Sixth Floor website:

"After being compensated by the U.S. government, the [Zapruder] family donated copies of the film and color transparencies of each frame, as well as the film's copyright, to The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza in 1999."


Upon further reflection on this.....Since the Sixth Floor Museum obtained the official copyright for the Z-Film a few years ago, perhaps that enters into the equation for why PBS won't show it on its "Frontline" website in the LHO documentary. The Sixth Floor is very protective of its copyrighted material.

Of course, the Z-Film is floating around many, many other Internet websites. So whether the Sixth Floor copyright has anything to do with it or not, I really haven't the foggiest. I'm just guessing.


Protective? To the point of cover-up?


No. Protective to the point of protecting their copyrighted material. Why is that such a shock to you?

David Von Pein
March 6, 2009

(PART 451)

Subject: Oswald and the Russian Language
Date: 3/4/2009 9:08:07 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: A.R.
To: David Von Pein


Dear David Von Pein:

My name is [A.R.]. You have never heard of me. But don't worry. I mean you no harm. I am not going to be a nuisance. This is a JFK e-mail. I am a subscriber to Walt Brown's Deep Politics and to the British Dealey Plaza Echo.

I saw on the internet---you came up on a Google search---that late last year you were in correspondence with Walt Brown on how Oswald learnt Russian. This is a topic in which I have a great interest.

In last November's Echo I had published a 3,800 word article entitled "Evidence That Oswald was a Natural Russian Speaker". This article was an abbreviation of a 9,500 word article (listed under this e-mail attachment as "The Fuller Version").

My intention is to expand this Fuller Version into a 20,000 word investigation into Oswald and the Russian language, containing as wide a range of viewpoints as possible.

I must point out that my views---at the moment---are strongly on Walt Brown's side, but I am very amenable to persuasion by facts and argument. .... What do you think?

Yours, A.R.


Subject: Re: Oswald And The Russian Language
Date: 3/4/2009 11:00:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: A.R.



Thanks for your mail. I'll try and make the time to read the attached article you sent me.

My "In-a-Nutshell" stance on Oswald being able to speak Russian fairly fluently is this---

The whole issue is a rather moot point, in my opinion. And that's because it's obvious that the New Orleans-born individual known as Lee Harvey Oswald absolutely, positively WAS able to read, write, and speak the Russian language (and, no, I don't believe for even one second that there was an "Oswald Imposter" floating around Texas in 1963).

If I recall Walt Brown's opinion correctly on this from late last year, Walt is of the opinion that the "LHO" who gave the short "Midnight Press Conference" on 11/22/63 could not possibly in a million years have learned to speak Russian with any fluency or proficiency whatsoever.

That opinion, IMO, is just flat-out silly, based on the rock-solid FACT that LHO did, indeed, speak (and write) Russian fairly well.

Inventing a "second" Oswald to fit some ill-conceived conspiracy theory and to explain the gaps in logic that virtually all conspiracy theories contain is, in my view, a cop-out.

Bottom Line -- Lee Harvey Oswald spoke Russian pretty well, and he was not a native Russian citizen. He was an American who lived most of his 24 years in Texas, Louisiana, and New York.

Therefore, regardless of anyone's subjective answer to this question that Walt Brown was asking in late 2008: "How Could Oswald Have Learned Russian When He Couldn't Even Pronounce The Word 'Ask' Correctly?" -- the fact is: Lee Harvey Oswald DID learn the Russian language (despite his dyslexia).

Best Regards,
David Von Pein
March 4, 2009

(PART 450)


As Oswald is shot in the stomach, he lurches TOWARDS shooter Jack Ruby, then jumps completely off the ground, both feet leaving the floor, before he topples to the floor.


That's incredible, Steve (and Raymond). You're 100% right.

I never once had noticed that fact before (until just a minute ago, while rewatching the KRLD-TV footage of the shooting in the video below to confirm it). But Oswald's feet do, indeed, appear to actually leave the ground after the bullet hits him in the gut. Amazing.


It's funny how sometimes certain small things are never noticed in some of the films and pictures (by me anyway) until they are pointed out by somebody else. Things that are actually VISIBLE, that is. I'm not talking about hidden assassins behind the fence on the Knoll that certain CTers firmly believe can be "seen" in some of the assassination photos. I'm referring to REAL things that can be seen by anyone, such as this "Oswald's Feet Leave The Ground" topic and, in another example, the fact that JFK's head moves forward (not backward) at the moment of impact at Z313 of the Zapruder Film (which is something that most conspiracy theorists still seem not to notice at all when watching the Z-Film in slow motion; at least it's never mentioned by most CTers).

I guess perhaps I failed to notice Oswald's feet leaving the ground because I'm never really paying much attention to Oswald's FEET when I watch that incredible footage of LHO being murdered. I'm usually paying attention to Ruby moving toward his prey (or, at other times, I'm watching Will Fritz' reaction, which I always have thought was quite humorous, for some reason). :)

Plus, there's the fact that Oswald's feet are only visible in the videotaped footage for such a brief, fleeting instant. If you blink, you'll miss it entirely.

I was originally planning on writing a post saying: "Steve must be crazy! I've never seen Oswald's feet leaving the basement floor after he was shot!"

But, instead, after viewing the footage again and looking at LHO's feet, I had to completely change my tune about it.

Thanks, Steve and Raymond.

BTW, Raymond, was that Steve Barber who e-mailed you that information by any chance? [I never got a reply from Raymond concerning this question.]

Mr. Barber does, indeed, seem to have a knack of noticing things that other people never notice -- such as the Bill Decker statement on the Dictabelt and something I'd never noticed at the end of Walter Cronkite's first bulletin on
CBS-TV until Steve brought it up recently (when a person in the background informs Cronkite that Connally had been hit by the gunfire in Dallas too).

David Von Pein
March 2, 2009

(PART 449)


Where did the police get the description of Oswald? Inspector Sawyer did not remember speaking to Brennan.


But he [Sawyer] didn't remember getting the description from anybody else, did he? And we know what the description was. If there was another witness who produced a description virtually identical to that of Brennan, it hardly impeaches the case against Oswald.


You're quite correct there, John. ....

"Another theory that CTers seem to like quite a bit is the one that claims it wasn't really [Howard] Brennan who gave the first description of the Depository sniper to the police just a few minutes after the shooting. Conspiracists want to believe, evidently, that either the police simply made up out of thin air the description of the assailant in the TSBD .... or .... that it was some other (unknown and never identified) person who gave DPD Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer the description of the killer....which was a description that almost perfectly matched the one Brennan gave in his 11/22 affidavit.

I don't deny that there was/is some confusion regarding who exactly it was who gave the first description of the assassin to the police (which was the basis for the initial APB broadcast by the DPD at 12:44 PM on 11/22/63). But to believe that it was someone other than Brennan who gave Inspector Sawyer the description of the killer is to also believe that two strange things occurred in relation to this "other" witness (with #2 belonging in a separate "Very Odd And Amazingly Coincidental" category):

1.) It was a witness who was never identified (and never bothered to come forward to be identified), even though he is providing some of the most important info in history.

2.) This unknown witness' physical description of the assassin just happens to perfectly coincide with the info that Brennan supplied the police and the Secret Service and (later) the Warren Commission.

Also -- If there WAS, in fact, yet ANOTHER witness who saw the exact same thing that Brennan saw, this would tend to buttress (even more) the notion that Oswald, or someone who looked very similar to Oswald, was firing from just where Brennan said the man was firing from in the Book Depository Building."

-- DVP; February 2006


Oswald's supervisor at the TSBD, Roy Truly, gave a description to the police, when Oswald failed to return to his department. Truly had seen Oswald earlier in the lunchroom, so LHO was conspicuous by his absence.


That was well after the initial 12:44 PM ABP DPD broadcast. Truly could not possibly have been the source of the description of the sixth-floor shooter at 12:44. Besides, Truly didn't see the sixth-floor gunman anyway.



Good point, but Truly knew LHO had reason to be on the 6th floor where the rifle was found and he was the only one unaccounted for. He had seen Oswald only a few minutes earlier in the lunchroom, so Truly gave a description of LHO based on this suspicious behavior. Does anyone know the description he gave the police and did they use it? I'm wondering how close it matched Brennan's description?


How the sniper's height was known is another mystery.


Why is that a "mystery"? That info was supplied by Howard Brennan too (quite obviously). And Brennan estimated the gunman's height to be 5'10" from having observed the killer (Oswald, of course) in the sniper's window before, during, and after the shooting.

Do you think the police just MADE UP the "5-feet-10" part of the 12:44 APB description? Or is your question more along these lines instead:

How could Brennan (or anyone) have possibly known what the height of the gunman was when the gunman was partially hidden behind a dirty window?

My answer to that last question would be:

Brennan merely guessed. (And he was off by just one inch.)

David Von Pein
February 28, 2009

(PART 448)


I see your point, David, but I assure you that the [2003 ABC News poll] question is deceptive.


Well, your "assurance" doesn't mean much.


If asked, point blank, "Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy?" -- do you REALLY believe 83% of those asked would say "yes"?


Yes. Absolutely.

But you don't need my opinion on that matter, because we have the results of just such a "Do You Think LHO Shot JFK?" inquiry in black-and-white via the ABC News poll from 2003:


The "gunman" question in that ABC poll couldn't be any clearer, with ABC asking those 1,031 people if they thought Oswald was the "ONLY GUNMAN" or if there was "ANOTHER GUNMAN IN ADDITION TO OSWALD" or if Oswald was "NOT INVOLVED IN THE ASSASSINATION AT ALL".

I think you're probably confusing the answer you'd get from kooks at Internet forums with the answer you'd get to that question from the vast majority of Americans who don't frequent pro-conspiracy Internet boards.

The Anybody-But-Oswald nuts that are abundant online certainly do not reflect the thinking of the majority of America.

Probably 85% of the kooks online think Oswald never fired a shot. But, as the ABC poll demonstrates, the majority of people in the mainstream who have an opinion on the subject believe Oswald was firing a gun at JFK.

That doesn't mean, however, that that same mainstream doesn't believe in a conspiracy, as these numbers from the exact same 2003 ABC News poll readily suggest:

"Do you feel the Kennedy assassination was the work of one man, or was it part of a broader plot?":

One Man -- 22%
Broader Plot -- 70%
No Opinion -- 8%

Also, let me add this:

You, Pat Speer, seem to think the ABC poll's "gunman" question is deceptive and misleading. But let me ask you this:

If the 83% of people who comprise the first two categories of that "gunman" question really DIDN'T believe that Oswald was a "gunman" at all, then why on Earth would they have responded the way they did to that poll's question (which, as I said, couldn't be any clearer with respect to the first two segments of that inquiry, with the word "gunman" appearing in both segments)?

Why would 83% say that LHO was a gunman if a certain percentage of those respondents really DIDN'T believe such a thing?

I'll leave you to sort out my last question in your own mind.

David Von Pein
February 25, 2009

(PART 447)


Miles [Scull],

If you don't mind, could you address the fact that you can't even tell if that is a male or a female in that picture that you're saying is a dead ringer for Oswald?

Could you also address the fact that you still haven't showed me proof of Oswald, or even a look alike, getting into the Rambler on Elm Street?

And could you explain to me what difference it makes as to who took the picture when what really matters is what the picture shows, or doesn't show in this case?


All very well-stated by Bill Brown above. Miles has shown none of these things, and yet we're supposed to bow down and accept that "Harvey" was making his way toward a Rambler, based on something very blurry and indistinct in the background of a photograph [shown below]. (And, btw, where's the "Rambler" in the Allen picture you love so much?)

It also doesn't bother conspiracy theorists like Miles Scull (in the least) that there's ironclad proof of Lee Oswald being on a bus at the time when Miles wants to put him (or is it the make-believe "Harvey"?) on Elm Street.

There's the bus transfer found in Oswald's shirt pocket (with Cecil McWatters' unique punch mark on it), plus Mary Bledsoe's testimony, plus the fact that Oswald himself told the police he got on a bus after leaving the TSBD and then switched to a cab when the bus wouldn't move because of the traffic jam.

And Oswald didn't lie all of the time after his arrest. Just most of the time. Whenever the subject matter turned to the assassination or his weapons, he'd lie like a cheap rug. But in the "bus" instance, he had no reason to lie about that. Being on a bus doesn't really harm him or incriminate him in any way at all, which is really another reason why I fail to see why so many conspiracy theorists make such a huge effort to take Oswald off of that bus.

If you want to see just how big a liar Lee Oswald was, check out these three articles:


Back to the bus topic:

Mary Bledsoe is yet another of the many witnesses that Miles and his ilk are forced to either ignore or call a liar when it comes to positive identification of Lee Oswald at various locations on November 22nd.

Bledsoe knew Lee Harvey Oswald on sight from having rented a room to him just one month earlier. And Bledsoe positively identified LHO as being on McWatters' bus shortly after the assassination.

Plus: An intriguing part of Bledsoe's testimony that I always find interesting (and unique) is when she talks about deliberately trying to avoid looking at Oswald on the bus. She didn't want him to see her either, because she didn't like him (based on his one-week stay at her roominghouse in October 1963):

Mr. BALL - Well, did you look at him as he got off the bus?

Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; I sure didn't. I didn't want to know him.

Mr. BALL - Well, you think you got enough of a glimpse of him to be able to recognize him?

Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oh, yes.

Mr. BALL - You think you might be mistaken?

Mrs. BLEDSOE - Oh, no.

Mr. BALL - You didn't look very carefully, did you?

Mrs. BLEDSOE - No; I just glanced at him, and then looked the other way and I hoped he didn't see me.


Now, a question I'd have for conspiracy believers would be this --- If it really wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald that Mary E. Bledsoe saw on Cecil McWatters' bus on 11/22/63, then why in the world would Mrs. Bledsoe have had a specific desire to want to deliberately avoid him on the bus?

It's obvious from her testimony that Bledsoe saw Oswald on the bus, recognized him as the same person she had (in effect) kicked out of her roominghouse a month earlier, and she didn't want to have anything to do with him after seeing him on the bus.

Now, would Bledsoe have had those feelings if a total stranger to her had boarded the bus, instead of Oswald?

Food for thought.

David Von Pein
February 24, 2009
[Edited and revised November 4, 2013]

(PART 446)


[Robert] Frazier [of the FBI] testfied that the bullet had no blood or tissue on it. How can this be if it was the real bullet? Also, there was no fabric threads on the bullet. Why was this?


Nobody knows for certain if there was any blood or tissue or fabric on bullet CE399 when Darrell Tomlinson picked it up off of Connally's stretcher, because (per Bob Frazier's WC testimony) the bullet was never tested for blood or bodily tissue.

Plus, we also know that the stretcher bullet was placed into the pockets of at least two of the men who initially handled it at Parkland Hospital (O.P. Wright and Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen). We can never know, therefore, how much bodily residue or fabric was wiped off of the bullet as a result of that type of shoddy handling.

Via Bob Frazier's Warren Commission testimony:

MEL EISENBERG -- "Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way."

EISENBERG -- "There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?"

FRAZIER -- "Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet."



"One can only wonder why Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not have any blood residuum on it. My only guess is that the blood traces that must have been on it were removed by someone...almost as a matter of course. In all the evidence bullets I handled in court in murder cases during my prosecutorial career, none had any visible blood on them. .... Interestingly, Frazier testified that with respect to the two main bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine [CE567 & CE569], "there was a very slight residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the bullet for examination"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 425 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

David Von Pein
February 24, 2009