(PART 719)


I wonder what a person like Robert "15 Shots" Groden thinks about the live television and radio reports that were being broadcast to America within 15 minutes of the assassination?

Nearly all of those first bulletins reported "three shots" being fired (and from a variety of witnesses too, as I discuss here; it wasn't just Merriman Smith's UPI bulletin at 12:34 PM that was being relied on).

And to make matters worse for conspiracists like Bob Groden and Oliver Stone, in the first bulletin put on the air by NBC-TV at 12:45:03 PM [below], Don Pardo tells America that "it was believed TWO shots were fired".

So, according to the conspiracy believers, we've got anywhere from 4 to 15 gunshots that somehow were whittled down to TWO shots by the time of Don Pardo's above bulletin just fifteen minutes after the gunfired ceased. Boy, what fortunate assassins.


Tell us David - when I soon begin my 53 refutations of Bugliosi, will you defend what he said?


Vince doesn't need my help, Ben. And I'm quite confident that any so-called "refutations of Bugliosi" that a clown named Ben Holmes comes up with will be just as accurate and rib-tickling as the 297 times he has uttered the words "You're lying again, David".

In other words, "refutations" from someone of Ben's "Anybody But Oswald" ilk are worth about as much to me as an eleven-dollar bill.

But I will say this about Vince Bugliosi's "53 items of evidence" against Oswald:

Two of those items are things that should not be on the list at all, in my opinion. Those two things being ---

Item #23 (about Oswald changing his pants, which certainly doesn't prove anything one way or the other; and, in fact, I don't think Oswald changed his pants at Beckley at all on 11/22/63).


Item #41 (about the paraffin test, since such tests are very unreliable, and even Mr. Bugliosi knows they are unreliable, so he shouldn't be using such a test as proof of anything).

Also see:
"Reclaiming History" Errors (Part 1)
"Reclaiming History" Errors (Part 2)


Quite a few more than those two [don't belong on Bugliosi's list], Davy.


I disagree. Most of the things on Mr. Bugliosi's 53-item list are very solid and worthy of such a list of Oswald-incriminating material. And some of them fall into the "Why Didn't I Ever Think Of That?" category too. (At least for me they do.)

Such as:

Vincent's 19th item, which is a great point Vince makes about Oswald's total silence while in William Whaley's taxicab just after the assassination. Even though Oswald was right there at the scene of the crime just minutes earlier....and even though Oswald has been told by Mrs. Robert Reid that the President has been shot (so even the CTers who think LHO didn't pull the trigger have to admit that Oswald still was made aware of the President being shot by Mrs. Reid)....Lee Oswald still doesn't utter a word to Whaley after Whaley says "I wonder what the hell is the uproar?"

Such silence in that particular situation and at that particular moment in time (and knowing what Oswald definitely did know) is, IMO, highly indicative of "consciousness of guilt" on Lee Harvey Oswald's behalf. Such silence most certainly cannot be utilized to point to Oswald's innocence, can it Ben?


And you're demonstrating your cowardice.

Don't worry, I'll be posting this series at a few places online - and I'll be sure to mention that you refuse to defend Bugliosi.


Anything, no matter how thorough and comprehensive, can be criticized by people, Ben. The Warren Commission and its very good report being a great example of that. And even LNers such as myself have criticized the Commission for certain things [see my quote below for the biggest mistake made by the WC].

And I have criticized a few parts of Vince Bugliosi's book too. The biggest (and weirdest) mistake in the book is probably this one.

But what conspiracy advocates should be doing, instead of constantly bashing Mr. Bugliosi's excellent book to death with meaningless nitpicky things that don't amount to a hill of beans in the long run, is to try and assemble a reasonable and coherent conspiracy plot and shooting scenario that they (the CTers) think really did occur in Dallas to combat the vast array of hard facts and physical evidence that Vincent Bugliosi has placed on the table via his book "Reclaiming History".

The conspiracy theorists can nitpick Vince all they want (and they do), but the overall case of Lee Oswald's guilt is still going to exist within the many pages of "Reclaiming History"---regardless of what any nitpicking CTer has to say about that evidence.


My biggest gripe about the Warren Commission.....

"Commission Exhibit No. 385 is an approximation of the wounds and of the body structures of JFK. It's a DRAWING, for Pete sake. And it's not 100% accurate, and anybody can tell that it's not spot-on accurate by the angle of the bullet path in the drawing, which is not steep enough. But it's FAIRLY close.

And therein lies a big problem with the Warren Commission and its incredibly STUPID, DUMB, and IDIOTIC decision to not fully and extensively utilize the autopsy photos and X-rays during its investigation and during the testimony of witnesses like Dr. Humes.

Instead of relying on the BEST evidence available in the whole case for the medical testimony--which would be, of course, the autopsy pictures and X-rays--Earl Warren decides he cannot possibly bend his rule regarding the autopsy pictures even when Dr. Humes is on the stand, with Warren insisting that EVERY exhibit HAD to be made available to the public, and therefore he would not even make an exception with the autopsy pictures.

And Warren stuck to that ridiculous decision even though a very reasonable explanation could have quite easily been written into the final Warren Report to the public, stating that the Commission and the pertinent witnesses HAD seen and made proper use of the autopsy photographs and X-rays, but for reasons of good taste [and out of deference to the Kennedy family too], we, the Commission, are not publishing the gory autopsy pictures in these 26 volumes.

Why the above type of explanation could not have been written is a huge mystery to me, but Chief Justice Warren wouldn't hear of such a thing evidently, so we're left with those crappy Rydberg drawings, which have done much more harm than good to the finders of fact and truth in the JFK assassination than just about anything else I can think of, creating huge controversy over the wound locations where none would likely have existed at all if only the autopsy pictures would have been utilized by the Commission and by Dr. Humes during his testimony."
-- DVP; May 29, 2014


Your claim of Oswald's (possible) silence in Whaley's cab [isn't] a hands-down sign of his guilt.


And I never said it was. I said that in my opinion it was "highly indicative of consciousness of guilt". And given the circumstances I outlined, I think that is a reasonable interpretation of Oswald's silence while in Mr. Whaley's vehicle.


And if you and Bugliosi think otherwise, it's more of an indication of your desperateness of throwing everything INCLUDING the kitchen sink at a guy who didn't have a defense council.


Come now. A CTer accusing an LNer of the "kitchen sink" technique is more than just a bit humorous indeed in a Pot/Kettle fashion. CTers love the "kitchen sink" method of "solving" this case. Just ask Oliver Stone.


No wonder the Bug wasted all those trees for the paper required for his book. Me thinks he doth protested too much for such an open and shut case according to loon nutters.


But when writing a "book for the ages" (i.e., a book to be used for reference purposes for all time), the killing of a lot of trees is necessary. Therefore, your last comment above is not a logical one.


And *conscious[ness of] guilt* because he had other things on his mind? Oh, like maybe Marrion Baker sticking a gun in his ribs from a few feet away less than 10 minutes before he entered Whaley's cab? How about Oswald suddenly realizing he was set up and the only thing he was thinking about at that moment was getting his revolver?


How about something else that fits ALL of the evidence much better than your "set up" fantasy? Like, say, having just shot the President and trying to avoid detection, and thus he didn't want to say a word to William Whaley about the crime the he himself had just committed 15 minutes earlier.


And it isn't as if you haven't also thought about that; you're too bright NOT to have. It's *pretending* this is a brand spanking new concept that makes you appear disingenuous.


Yes, of course I am aware of the silly version of events put forth by conspiracy theorists. But you miss a large point --- I don't accept the silly idea that Oswald was "set up" and/or framed for JFK's murder. Ergo, when I spoke of how Oswald's silence in Whaley's cab is indicative of guilt more than his innocence, it's (of course) being based on my belief that Oswald was, in fact, guilty (which the evidence does show).

If you want to present the alternate "Oswald realized he was being set up and didn't feel like talking to Whaley" version of that event, have at it. But don't expect me to accept such claptrap.


Fear not, Davy, I understand it's only facade.


Thank goodness my cover has been blown! The pressure of being a CIA undercover agent for all these years has been almost unbearable.


Let's read what Bugliosi said:

"Has the evidence in this case proved Oswald's guilt to the point where we know that there must be an innocent explanation, one that in no way disturbs the conclusion of Oswald's guilt, to whatever question a Warren Commission critic or conspiracy theorist has about the case? Yes, unquestionably so. In very abbreviated and summary form, let's look at most of that evidence."

So Vincent Bugliosi states that this is "evidence" which 'proves Oswald's guilt'.

And Bugliosi DOES say that this is proof of Oswald's guilt. Bugliosi DOES believe that Oswald's silence [in the cab] indicts him. So are you going to add #19 to the list of the 53 items that you don't believe?


Ben has put on his "Thick Head" hat today. How nice.

So, Ben will pretend that Vince is saying that each item on his 53-item list--individually!--spells out definitive GUILT against Lee Harvey Oswald. When, of course, Vince isn't suggesting that at all---and Ben knows that full well. But Ben-boy is going to pretend that each individual item isn't part of the TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE that comprises the fabric of Oswald's guilt.

Each item--by itself--doesn't necessarily add up to LHO's obvious guilt. But when added together, the items on Vince's list (with a couple of exceptions, IMO) positively do paint a clear picture of a guilty Lee H. Oswald.

But instead of evaluating the SUM TOTAL of all fifty-three items on VB's list, Ben Holmes will nitpick to death each item separately in an attempt to isolate things and tear down Vincent's clearly-established "mosaic of guilt" (as Vince likes to say).

But I'd expect nothing less from an Anybody-But-Oz CTer like Ben Holmes. I've yet to encounter a single CT clown who possessed the ability to properly evaluate a "sum total" of evidence like that exhibited by Vincent T. Bugliosi in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter in "Reclaiming History".

But go ahead and play your little "refutation" game with Bugliosi's 53 items. And then I can always refer to this post I'm writing now to combat a person named Holmes who couldn't evaluate evidence in the JFK case properly if his life hung in the balance.


It's the SUM TOTAL of those fifty-three items that proves Oswald's guilt. That's what Vince is saying in his "Summary" chapter.

Why on Earth does this obvious stuff need to be explained to you, Ben?

Let's now take a look at the stuff Mr. Bugliosi said in his "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt" chapter that Ben didn't want to share.....

"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence. .... Within a few hours of the assassination, virtually all of Dallas law enforcement already knew Oswald had murdered Kennedy. Indeed, it was obvious to nearly everyone, not just law enforcement. At 4:45 p.m. on the day of the assassination, NBC network news anchorman Bill Ryan reported that "all circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the suspect Lee Oswald." Exactly what happened was THAT obvious within hours of the shooting." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 952-953 of "Reclaiming History"


Yep... and there it is folks!!!

PROOF of what I've already claimed... that you *START* with the presumption of guilt, then take any and all actions or inactions of your presumed murderer to indict him.

Were you to admit the possibility of his innocence - YOU WOULDN'T FIND ANYTHING AT ALL UNUSUAL ABOUT SOMEONE NOT TALKING IN A CAB. Not, of course, that I'd expect you to admit this... but it's true, nonetheless.


Ben's inability to see that forest for the trees is reaching staggering proportions.

So, according to Ben, I should indeed ISOLATE each piece of evidence and separate it from the sum total (or the "whole"), such as the Oswald-in-the-cab example. And apparently I should NEVER ever be allowed to ADD UP the various pieces of evidence (including Oswald's actions and movements on November 22) in order to arrive at some kind of conclusion based on EVERYTHING, not just isolated pieces.

Brilliant strategy to exonerate your patsy, Ben. By isolating and separating every single thing Oswald did or said on 11/22/63, OF COURSE you can pretend he is squeaky clean of the two murders he committed. Because, yes, all by itself Oswald's silence in the taxicab dioesn't PROVE he murdered John F. Kennedy. But when we take that one single thing and add it into the sum total of everything else, that cab incident can take on a new meaning.

But according to Ben, I'm not allowed to add up the various pieces of evidence in order to form a "sum total" or a "whole". I must ALWAYS keep the cab incident isolated and separate.

It looks like the text I just quoted above from Mr. Bugliosi was spot-on correct when talking about Ben Holmes' methods of solving the case. A partial reprise....

"The conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the leaves of individual trees. .... They look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence." -- Vincent Bugliosi


Tell us Davy, if you're unwilling to support your website posts in a public forum, what good are they?


Tell us, Benji, if you're unwilling (i.e., incapable) of evaluating and assessing the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases in any kind of a meaningful and logical manner (which you obviously are incapable of doing, as virtually all of your Internet posts firmly suggest), then what good are you?


Oswald definitely did own Rifle C2766. Any attempts to deny that fact only make the CT crowd look more desperate than usual. But apparently it's "in vogue" now to say that Oswald never ordered the rifle, never paid for it, and never even touched it at all. Silliness amongst CTers seems to have sprung anew in the last few years on that score.


Then just go over the evidence for this.

But you won't.


Oh good. Benji is now going to play that ever-so-popular "Oswald Never Owned Rifle C2766" game. I like that one. I don't know why Ben likes to play it though. He loses every time.

If only he'd blush.

Related audio (featuring Mark Lane playing the same silly "Oswald Never Owned The Rifle" game):



Since you can't point to even *ONE* time where you supported such claims, why bother lying, Davy?

People are only going to wonder why you can't just 'cut & paste' your previous posts where you detailed this evidence.

Why the cowardice Davy?

Can't you produce this evidence???


Oh goodie! Another fine treat from Ben "Obviously No Relation To Sherlock" Holmes! He's now going to pretend I've never provided any evidence in any post I've ever written to back up the notion that LHO ordered and took possession of Mannlicher-Carcano rifle No. C2766. (As we have all seen, Ben does a lot of pretending.)

A link Ben will ignore:

Of course, WHY any conspiracist wants to run away from the rock-solid fact that Oswald (the CTers' favorite patsy) was the owner of Rifle C2766 is anyone's guess. I never have been able to figure the logic of that maneuver by the CT clowns. Because it's much much better for the CT clowns if C2766 WAS, indeed, Oswald's own rifle. The CTers' make-believe plotters could then have framed Sweet Lee with his own rifle that Oswald himself bought and paid for.

Instead, the conspiracy clowns have unknown plotters jumping through a variety of hoops--faking Klein's records and faking Oswald's signature and then faking backyard photos--in order to create from whole cloth a paper trail and a photo trail leading to Patsy Lee Harvey.

(Silly plotters. They should have found a way to transfer Thomas Vallee to Dallas for Patsy Plot #2 in November 1963. At least Mr. Vallee owned a bunch of guns they could easily frame him with. Or were all of Vallee's guns "planted" too?)

David Von Pein
June 2014