(PART 566)


I noticed that recently, some of the LN types have been trying to eliminate the problems associated with the Tague wound by trying to claim that it had nothing to do with the shooting.

I just wonder how those of you who are promoting this concept deal with the fact that Tague clearly remembered being hit by the debris, but did not immediately connect it with the attack.

Please explain. If it had nothing to do with any of the gunshots, then what was it he felt?


I don't recall any LN saying it had nothing to do with the shooting. I offered that as a possibility. We really can't say for sure what caused this any more than we can definitively say where the missed shot went. Possibly they are associated and possibly they are not.

Tague could have been hit by a bullet fragment from the head shot. It's a guessing game. If you want to play that, fine. I would prefer to focus on the things we have solid evidence for. Tague is a side issue and not a very important one.


First Bob, I'm not trying to "eliminate" any problems relating to Tague. Works fine either way to me.

The issue is not "what he felt" but rather one of credibility.

Why don't YOU take up the task of providing verification of Tague's claims that he had a "cut" and some "blood" on his face?

I'd like to see what you come up with.

(Please don't provide any citations from websites, trade books, etc., or anything from Tague himself)


It doesn't work fine at all John, because there is no remotely plausible explanation for the Tague wound that doesn't require an extra gunshot.


Why exactly would Tague make up a story about something like that? And his tiny wound is totally consistent with the fact that a fresh smear of lead was on the curbing a short distance from him.

Arbitrarily calling everyone who contradicts your theory a liar is just not a good plan, John. At the very least, YOU need to give us a good reason to doubt James Tague.


Oh, this is starting to be lots of fun.

Just produce Walthers' testimony regarding Tague, ok?

And after you do that, we'll conclusively show that Tague's credibility is less than it should be.


I'll be the first to admit that it's tough to be on the wrong end of an argument. In this instance and after further review of the matter, it appears John [Fiorentino] is correct. There simply is no strong support for Tague's claim regarding his cut and blood on his cheek. Chalk it under Live and Learn.

It's not John's problem to give a good reason for doubt. If there is no support, then there is no support.

This is a good one. At least for me. I truly believe Tague got hit by something that day and that there was a small facial cut and some blood on his cheek. But sad to say, I for one am falling short on the support part.


I agree with everything you said above, Glenn.

When I first read John Fiorentino's post regarding the "cut" and the "blood" on James Tague's cheek, I raced to my bookmark labelled "WC Testimony" (via John McAdams' handy alphabetical listing for all testimony), and I immediately went to the link for Buddy Walthers' Warren Commission session.

I was fully expecting to find SOME reference in Walthers' testimony about seeing "blood" on the face of James Tague shortly after the shooting in Dealey Plaza. But, alas, I found no such reference in Walthers' testimony.

Deputy Sheriff Walthers tells the Warren Commission that he (Walthers) was told by Tague himself that "something struck me on the face", with Walthers also adding this supposed quote from Tague's lips: "It didn't make any scratch or cut and it just was a sting". [7 H 546]

But according to Tague's Warren Commission testimony [at 7 H 553]:

"And he [Deputy Walthers] looked up and he said, 'Yes, you have blood there on your cheek.' And I reached up and there was a couple of drops of blood." -- James T. Tague; July 23, 1964

So it would appear that the only source for a "cut" and/or "blood" on Tague's cheek is James Thomas Tague himself, although I believe that Tague almost certainly WAS slightly cut on his face by either a bullet fragment or a piece of the Main Street curbing.

One thing that certainly does gel together when comparing Walthers' and Tague's Warren Commission sessions (which both took place on the same day, btw, on 7/23/64) is the fact it would appear that Tague did tell Walthers that something did "sting" him on the face during the shooting. The word "sting" can be found in each man's WC testimony.

It's quite possible (and probable) that Deputy Sheriff Walthers did see some blood on Tague's face on 11/22/63, but (as John Fiorentino stated in his prior posts) that fact cannot be corroborated definitively by anyone else other than James Tague (at least as far as each man's Warren Commission testimony is concerned).

It's possible that Walthers gave some private interviews after the assassination where he stated he physically saw the blood on Tague's face, but as of this writing I am not aware of any such interviews.

Another thing that gels perfectly between Tague's and Walthers' testimony is the Main Street curb damage that both Tague and Walthers noticed on November 22, 1963. Both men told the Warren Commission that the mark they remember seeing that day was a "fresh" mark on the curb near the Triple Underpass.

So, regardless of whether or not Tague actually suffered any minor cut on his face, it's pretty clear that there certainly WAS a "fresh" mark on the curb on Main Street on 11/22/63, which was a mark that was deemed to have been the result of a bullet or a bullet fragment striking that curb during the assassination of President Kennedy. And, of course, traces of lead (deemed to be bullet lead) were also later found on that same curbstone.

Although, to tell you the truth, upon looking at the very small nick (or mark) on the curbstone (as seen in the photo below), something that has always somewhat amazed me is the fact that anybody was able to spot this teeny-tiny mark on the curb as quickly as they did on November 22nd. But, then too, Tague and Walthers were searching for possible bullet markings near where Tague was standing, so I guess it wasn't a miracle that they were able to see this mark. It is mighty small, though:


I must admit, I certainly misread both Walthers' statement and testimony and have to agree that Walthers never stated that he actually saw the wound or any blood.


That's true, but if James Tague was telling a false tale, then he sure was a fast thinker...because (as I noted in my earlier post) Buddy Walthers confirmed in his 1964 WC testimony that Tague said to him AT THE TIME (i.e., within minutes of the shooting) that he (Tague) had been struck in the face by something during the shooting.

Now, yes, Walthers was relying on only what Tague himself had said, but the key factor, IMO, is WHEN Tague told Walthers that something had hit him in the face -- and the "When" was within minutes of JFK's assassination.

So, it's not a situation similar to Beverly Oliver or Gordon Arnold, who were supposedly "witnesses" to the assassination who came forward years later to tell their stories. But with Tague, WITHIN MINUTES OF THE SHOOTING, we know he told somebody (Walthers) that he had been struck in the face by something as the assassination was occurring. That time factor shouldn't be overlooked, IMO.

Here's a portion of Deputy Walthers' '64 Warren Commission testimony:

MR. WALTHERS -- "His [James Tague's] car was just partially sticking out parked there and he came up to me and asked me, he said, "Are you looking to see where some bullets may have struck?" And I said, "Yes." He says, "I was standing over by the bank here, right there where my car is parked when those shots happened," and he said, "I don't know where they came from, or if they were shots, but something struck me on the face," and he said, "It didn't make any scratch or cut and it just was a sting," and so I had him show me right where he was standing and I started to search in that immediate area and found a place on the curb there in the Main Street lane there close to the underpass where a projectile had struck that curb."

David Von Pein
May 30, 2009
May 31, 2009