(PART 935)


David, given [author John] Armstrong's proving the broken chain of custody of the rifle, from order to shipment, you honestly believe somehow it still ended up with LHO?


Do you believe this document below is really a fake document? Because if you don't, then Klein's positively shipped Rifle C2766 to Oswald/"Hidell" on 3/20/63 (regardless of the fact Oswald had actually ordered from a coupon advertising a 36-inch gun)....

Waldman No. 7 pictured above sinks every conspiracist who has ever uttered these words:

"Lee Harvey Oswald never ordered any rifle from Klein's and was never shipped any rifle by Klein's."


Funny thing....

The name Lee Harvey Oswald does not appear on this order [Waldman #7].

A C20-T750, a 36" carbine with a scope did not exist at Klein's. That order was never shipped.

Where is the evidence that the $1.50 in postage was ever sent in?

What happened to the C2766 rifle Feldscott [sic] says was shipped to Klein's in June 1962 right after the ads for a C20-T750 had been running a couple of months and they needed rifles to fulfill C20-T750 orders thru Feb 1963?

Why is there no federal banking stamp on the back of the MO?

Why was it found in VA and not KS?

How, if there is no specific evidence of what Rupp took out of Harborside to send to Klein's, can you connect a rifle from Rupp thru Klein's and to Oswald when all the orders from that time period are gone?

Why is there no proof that Oswald or Hidell ever got the rifle from the Post Office or that it ever arrived at a post office?

Why won't the FBI or Klein's let us see another order for C20-T750 to see what was shipped?

Why has not a single person EVER come forward claiming to have ordered a C20-T750 36" scoped carbine and say they got the same rifle Oswald used? That would be pretty exciting and there should be tens if not a hundred of these floating around...?

What about the rest of the inventory from that shipment... did the FBI ever check the remaining stock to see if the other 99 rifles were also 40" FC rifles and not TS and/or where they were shipped?

When the rifle is supposedly in New Orleans on Sept 23, 1963 with the rest of the Oswald belongings and Ruth takes Marina and children back to Irving, they see the loading and unloading of her car and repeatedly tells us that she does not see that rifle until shown to her at the DPD. Did he take it with him to Mexico? To Odio? Was it ever seen at the Paine house? No.

So what happened to it? How did it get from Magazine [Street in New Orleans] to Irving?

When he arrived at the TSBD - where do you say he put the rifle to retrieve it later?

You might want to read thru this. If he had a plan, THIS is the plan he had to follow.

When did he have time to disassemble the rifle?

Make the paper bag?

Get the bag home - (he only asks Wesley [Frazier] for a ride Thursday afternoon).

Get the rifle into the bag before going to sleep at 9pm?

Get the rifle and bag in the morning?

Get a 34" piece of rifle into a 27" bag with clip, bullets, and trigger mechanism - and still not leave a trace inside said bag?

Mr. Pein [sic], your attempts at offering WCR evidence and WCR conclusions with the same tired old fraudulent evidence from 50 years ago is terribly lame for someone with your skills.

Fashion a paper as I did at that link that illustrates the PLAN your Lone Nut had to employ to accomplish this amazing feat. PROVE he did it, since he is INNOCENT until proven guilty.

No one including you have been able to offer a convincing argument supported by facts which is not destroyed just by looking at the Evidence of the Conspiracy left behind.

Posting a single doc [Waldman #7] and proclaiming King of the Hill is premature Dave... even you can follow that. Post an argument that isn't so easily pulled apart... you have all the evidence - same as I do...

If you're going to waste our time and offer an argument - can you at least make it worth looking at?


Therefore, David Josephs, you think KLEIN'S SPORTING GOODS of Chicago, Illinois, played a large part in the "plot" to frame Lee Oswald. Is that correct?

You do realize how goofy that accusation is, don't you David?

And why would anybody think it strange that the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" doesn't appear on Waldman 7 when Oswald used his alias Hidell to order the rifle? Should Klein's have shipped the gun to "Oswald" even though the name on the order form said "Hidell"?

Video concerning Klein's and the rifle:



But, B.A., do you really think Klein's is a co-conspirator in this thing? Really?

If so....for what possible purpose? Coerced by the FBI to do so?

Or don't you consider that a valid question for me to ask?


Questions about the order form:

[1] Were such blank forms intended to be filled out, at least in part, by the purchaser?

[2][a] Was the form in question, Waldman 7, filled out in part by an individual employed by Klein's? [b] If so, what part(s)?

[3] If the answer to [2][a] is yes, who was that individual, and was he or she interviewed by the Warren Commission?



Waldman #7 is an internal Klein's form. The customer never sees that form at all. It's generated by Klein's after they receive the order form in the mail from the customer.

From 7 H 366...

DAVID BELIN -- "Now, I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 and ask you to state if you know what this is."

WILLIAM J. WALDMAN -- "This is a copy made from our microfilm reader-printer of an order received by Klein's from a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box No. 2915, in Dallas, Texas. I want to clarify that this is not the order, itself, received from Mr. Hidell, but it's a form created by us internally from an order received from Mr. Hidell on a small coupon taken from an advertisement of ours in a magazine."


I do wonder why William Waldman refers to Hidell as "Mister"? The order coupon that Oswald mailed to Klein's says simply "A. Hidell", which could be a female ordering the gun for all Klein's knew at the time in March 1963. (Although I suppose it might be a bit unusual for a woman to be ordering firearms from Klein's Sporting Goods; but it certainly could happen.)

Obviously, though, Mr. Waldman would have later become aware that "A. Hidell" was, in fact, Lee Harvey Oswald, who was, of course, a "Mister". But I just wanted to put that out there before a conspiracist jumps all over Waldman for improperly addressing Hidell as "Mr. A. Hidell".

Perhaps some CTers think that the "Mister" indicates William Waldman had advanced knowledge of who "Hidell" was prior to Waldman's Warren Commission session and, therefore, Waldman was part of the alleged "plot" to frame "Mr. Hidell". I've never heard that theory before---but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it resides in some CTer's mind right now.


An open letter to Gary Mack and DVP:

Are you going to now try and say that the HIDELL ORDER was the only one in which a rifle serial # and VC # were written? That Klein's would not keep track of who bought what, when and where? As they did on the HIDELL ORDER?

Are you claiming that you've NEVER SEEN ANOTHER KLEIN'S order…EVER?


Why on Earth would the FBI care about other orders in the Klein's files other than the paperwork connected with the purchase of one particular rifle with the serial number C2766 on it (which was purchased by Oswald, of course)?

That's the only gun purchase the FBI was looking for -- the one with C2766 attached to it. And that's because they knew that the JFK murder weapon was a gun with "C2766" on it. Any other Klein's order was useless and immaterial to the FBI's investigation. Isn't this obvious?

You, David Josephs, are merely concentrating on all the wrong things (again), in order to make Oswald blameless.

Of course there were many other order forms in the Klein's files that looked similar to Waldman #7. But none of those other orders had the serial number "C2766" written on them, and therefore none of those many other Klein's orders had any bearing whatsoever on the JFK murder case.

So why in the world would those other forms for non-Oswald gun purchases be propped up in any FBI report, or the Warren Report, or anyplace else (outside a forum like this one [The Education Forum], which is filled with people who look for excuses 24/7 to exonerate a guilty double-murderer)?

David Von Pein
August 6, 2012
April 27-28, 2015

(PART 934)


History shows that the Warren Commision [sic] ultimately did not convince the majority of the US public (and world) that there was not a conspiracy. This was it's [sic] prime objective...


Oh, goodie, that old canard again.

Any chance you can prove that the "prime objective" of the Warren Commission was to whitewash things? Any chance of that at all?

A conspiracy theorist believing that somebody (or some group) was up to no good is meaningless. What the CTers need is some kind of proof that people were conspiring with each other to do the following:

1.) Kill JFK.

2.) Make Oswald the patsy.

3.) Whitewash ALL of the various post-assassination investigations so that everybody would think Oswald (and Ruby) did it alone -- including the Dallas Police Department's initial investigation on the weekend of November 22-24, 1963, plus the Warren Commission's investigation, plus the HSCA's probe into the murder.

And to believe that ALL THREE of those individual investigations into President Kennedy's murder were "whitewash" jobs is just too ridiculous a thought to consider for more than two seconds.

And yet, a goodly number of conspiracy theorists think that ALL THREE of those investigative agencies were, indeed, part of a "cover-up". Such thinking is silly beyond all tolerance.

To date, none of the above three things has been proven by the conspiracy believers of the world. And they never will be proven, because none of the extraordinary things that conspiracists think happened in this case really happened. Nor could they have happened in the real world in which we live.

David Von Pein
January 13, 2010

(PART 933)


[John] Simkin is pretty mellow; I would think you would have had to really cross a line to actually get kicked out of there [The Education Forum].


Oh, come now, Pam. Let's be reasonable. No LNer lasts very long there. Ask Brendan Slattery.

And, AFAIK, there isn't a single LNer posting there as of this date [1/13/2010]. At least not any regular posters that I have seen. Not one.

To be perfectly clear (and fair) here:

I was ejected from Simkin's forum in July of 2006 (after posting for four days), and "officially" the reason I was given for my dismissal was because I had not added a photograph of myself to my profile. (John Simkin has a rule where every member who posts at the Education Forum must have a photo of himself/herself; it "personalizes" the experience for other readers, per Mr. Simkin. And that's fine. I didn't/don't particularly like that rule; but, after all, it is Simkin's house of kooks, so he can decide on the rules and regulations.)

However, several other long-time members as of that time (in July 2006) were not complying with the "photo" rule, which I pointed out to Mr. Simkin, which made John crack down on the rule immediately after I pointed out to him that other members didn't have personal pics either. He had evidently been lax in enforcing the rule up to that time.

I was e-mailing John back and forth a couple of times, trying to work out a compromise of some kind regarding the "personal photo" rule, because I did not have a photo of myself that I could use at all. (And I still don't have one to this day.) [EDIT: But I did later find a super-tiny picture of myself to use as a profile photo at the Education Forum when I re-joined that forum as a member in August of 2010. Amazingly, unlike last time, I wasn't booted out the door after just a few days either.]

If I recall correctly, John seemed to be willing to compromise on the picture rule for a certain period of time, allowing me to possibly use a "filler" picture until I could obtain and upload a decent picture of myself (which ain't easy with a mug like mine). ;)

So, I continued to post for about two more days or so (posting lots of actual evidence and citations from the witnesses and common sense, etc.), when suddenly I was banned from the forum via a very short and terse e-mail from Mr. Simkin.

So, make of that explanation what you will. But, IMO, the brevity of my stay at The Education Forum was based more on the "Lone Assassin" content of my posts than it was the silly "photo" rule.



How anyone can objectively examine all the information we have about the Zapruder films and not ask questions is beyond me.


"Films"? As in "more than one"?


Well, Pamela, you and all other people who even BEGIN to suspect that Abraham Zapruder's home movie might have been "faked" or "tampered with" SHOULD be asking yourself the $64,000 question (to which there is no logical and reasonable and SANE answer whatsoever if the film was faked to ELIMINATE ALL SIGNS OF A CONSPIRACY; and what other possible reason could there be for anybody to want to fake the film other than that?), and that $64K question is this one:


I await a logical, reasonable, and BELIEVABLE answer to the above inquiry.

To date, I've yet to hear such an answer.

David Von Pein
January 13, 2010

(PART 93)


















(PART 932)




A classic crime of opportunity.

You could add to your list the selection of the Trade Mart for the luncheon, which played a factor in #3. Since any motorcade would likely have been routed through downtown, any luncheon site would probably have resulted in the motorcade going through Dealey Plaza, but the selection of the Trade Mart resulted in the jog over to Elm St. from Main St., making Oswald's shot much easier. He may not have even attempted a shot at JFK if he was on Main.

Another luncheon site might have resulted in the motorcade going through downtown in the reverse direction that it did. The motorcade might have been routed from Love Field, past Parkland to southbound Stemmons to Dealey Plaza. In that case, it might have even ended up on Commerce and jogged over to Main on Houston.

"For of all sad words of tongue or pen,
The saddest are these: 'It might have been!' "
-- John Greenleaf


Great analysis, DVP. I would add:

As an ex-Marine, Oswald possessed the marksmanship expertise required to hit a moving target at that distance and the knowledge of the indispensable requirement to first zero the firearm using the windage and elevation screws on the scope.


Well, in fact the motorcade was not scheduled to pass the TSBD at NOON.


Just for the sake of clarification, I did not say in my "Six Things" article that JFK's motorcade was due to arrive in Dealey Plaza "at NOON". I said "RIGHT AT LUNCHTIME", "at noontime", and "lunch period". I didn't put an exacting "12:00 noon" timestamp on it. I merely said "lunchtime" and "noontime" and "lunch period", which is perfectly accurate.


President Kennedy's written itinerary for 11/22/63 shows these two entries:

"11:45 am -- Motorcade through Dallas"

"12:30 pm -- Arrive Trade Mart for Luncheon"

[Source for the above picture --- Screen capture from the 2013 National Geographic documentary "JFK: The Final Hours".]

Now, given those times shown above, Anthony Marsh surely can't argue with me about this part of my "Six Things" post repeated below. Can you, Tony?....

"Not only did Kennedy's visit to Dallas occur on a workday for Oswald (a Friday), but the parade route took JFK's limo past the Book Depository Building RIGHT AT LUNCHTIME as well, which meant that most TSBD employees were on their normal lunch breaks at that hour of the day. .... This meant fewer people staying on the upper Depository floors...with those employees going down to the first-floor "Domino/Lunch Room" or the second-floor lunch room (or going outside the building to watch the President pass by) during the exact time when Lee Oswald would require a VACANT sixth floor in his preparations for shooting the President during this Friday lunch period."


I would take aim at your first salvo:

1.) He (Oswald) hated America and its Government's representatives.

Clearly, it's the most important one in your view, as you listed it first. And you included the hot-button word "hated" to underscore the emotional content you're trying to convey.

This premise is unproven. Absent a fervent belief that LHO killed JFK on his own, there is a lack of evidence that bolsters the argument.

I will stipulate LHO wrote a letter to his brother containing damning phraseology regarding Americans. Further, he was willing to jettison his citizenship at one point.

I will remind you that he was a teenager when he did that. He was swept up in an immature view of the world that was supported and intensified every time he faced a difficulty in his life. That's how he was. He looked for external explanations for every personal woe.

Let's not forget he also joined the Marines at a very young age, gave himself physically and mentally to that punishing regimen in support of America. He trained and operated under the aegis of the most pro-America, gung-ho, overtly patriotic organization on the face of the earth.

His writings indicated a passionate belief that America could be better. That its global practices were unfair. That it had rejected socially progressive policies in favor of jingoistic chest-thumping. He wasn't wrong.

That's not hating America. That's wanting it to be better and to live up to its promise. Not saying he was a super patriot. But teeing up your list like that isn't scholarship, it's propaganda.


The key is Oswald's hatred of America's "representatives", which Oswald tells us about in CE25 (at 16 H 120).

But there is also some evidence that Lee Oswald did, indeed, "hate America". New Orleans Police Lieutenant Francis Martello's memorandum concerning his interview with Oswald in August of 1963 was read into the record by the Warren Commission [at 10 H 56]:

"When Martello asked why he [Oswald] did not allow members of his family to learn English, Lee said that he hated America and didn't want them to become "Americanized" and that he planned to return to Russia." -- Page 724 of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"

Yes, Lt. Martello's statements about the things Oswald said to him at the New Orleans jail are hearsay, but they are in the record nonetheless. And Martello's memo definitely says that Oswald said he "hated America".


I would weigh Martello's hearsay evidence against the undisputed fact that LHO joined the Marines and gave himself mentally and physically to the brutal training he underwent in defense of America.


Oh, come now, Mark. We all know why Lee went into the Marines. He did it in order to get away from that very strange mother of his. He didn't join the military because of his desire to fight for America and its principles.


It would be hard to deny that the Oswald brothers had a strong motivation to leave that household.

But let's stipulate that. I never said he joined the Marines because he was patriotic.

But he went through one of the toughest, most demanding boot camps on the face of the earth. All along the way, recruits are indoctrinated in the ethos of defending America. It seems virtually impossible to survive even one week of that grueling beating without an underlying motive.

Tell me one person you've ever met in your entire life who would suffer such rigorous physical and mental torture just because he wanted to get away from his momma.

No. He trained to defend American airspace. He studied to defend American principles.

He was a political animal, no doubt. He wanted America to be better than it was.

That, in no way, shape or form translates into he "hated" America. That is your bias.



Oswald had four years to start hating America between the time he was discharged from the Marines and the time he told Martello that he "hated America" in August of 1963.

Tell me, Mark, do you think Francis Martello just MADE UP the "HATED AMERICA" dialogue that he attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald? If so, what for?

Conversely, if Oswald DID say what Martello said he said, do you think Oswald was LYING to Martello? Did Lee really love his country of birth, but told Martello he hated it?

And what kind of person voluntarily leaves a country he loves in order to defect to a nation like Russia? That move ALONE shows Oswald's dissatisfaction with American life. Wouldn't you agree, Mark?

Or do you think Oswald was a "fake defector"?

In other words, is ANYTHING surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald what it seems to be? Or was Oswald's entire life pretty much nothing but smoke and mirrors?



His [Lee Oswald's] visit to Russia (in which he did not legally defect as I recall), even in its simplest form, reflects more curiosity than hostility. It's not like he contacted Soviet agents in the US or spied for them while in the Marines or performed sabotage or anything of that sort.

And if you read his draft manuscript after his return, if anything he was more dissatisfied with Russian dominance and manipulation of the Communist and Socialist agenda than stating any fundamental hatred of the US. DeMohrenschildt described him as a proto hippie, socialist and liberal and progressive. And he turned to the romance of the Cuban revolution over Russian bureaucracy.

Finally, take a look at his final speech in which he expresses his real concern that the US might be threatened by a military coup. If anything, he suffered from an excess of idealism and a tendency to be annoying and disdainful about the American establishment....then again, so did a lot of us in the 60's. Some of us even enlisted in the military despite that...sort of like Lee Oswald.


Hi Larry,

You're correct, Oswald didn't "legally defect" to Russia. But he sure as heck wanted to in October of '59. But then, like with other things in his life, he became dissatisfied with life in the USSR too, so back he comes to America. He was pretty much dissatisfied with everything in his life. Drifting from one lowly job to another, drifting from one American city to the next, and even drifting from one country to another (while trying desperately to get to a third---Cuba).

If some people want to think that all that adds up to a young man who loves the United States (despite telling a policeman in New Orleans the exact opposite), well, okay. Everybody's entitled to their views. But given Oswald's last attempt to ditch America for yet another hostile nation--Castro's Cuba--via LHO's Mexico excursion in September '63, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that Mr. Oswald was in love with the good ol' USA.


He didn't have to want to dry hump the Grand Canyon in order to not "hate" the US as you claimed. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.


I agree. But I think in Oswald's case, the truth rests more with Oswald wanting to GET OUT of the United States and abandon American life than it does with him wanting to sing the Star Spangled Banner every day.

He wants to go to Russia (of all places)!

He wants to go to Cuba (again--of all places)!

And you think THAT'S a man who is deeply fond of the USA?



I've gathered from your writings that you base your theory of the case on a number of beliefs. One being that Oswald owned a rifle. Another being that Oswald used the rifle to shoot at Edwin Walker. A third being that Oswald wanted to kill JFK, and so on.

Question: Does any trickle of doubt ever occur to you as to any of the beliefs on which your theory is predicated? Or are you rock-solid certain as to these beliefs?


Not a trickle of doubt exists in my own mind about those CORE beliefs (aka: "facts", IMO) regarding things like....

>> Oswald's ownership of both the JFK and Tippit murder weapons (the paperwork is a mile deep that proves LHO ordered and was shipped BOTH guns).

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Mannlicher-Carcano

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Oswald's Revolver

>> Oswald's attempted murder of General Walker.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Edwin Walker And Oswald

>> Oswald's guilt in President Kennedy's murder.


>> Oswald's guilt in Tippit's murder.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Murder Of J.D. Tippit

All of the above things are proven facts, in my opinion. And they've been proven in a number of different ways too, which all have to be added together to provide the full picture --- e.g., ballistics evidence, eyewitness testimony and statements, Oswald's own incriminating actions, and documents written in Oswald's own handwriting.

I mean, when a guy is caught with his hands on the very same gun that was used to kill a police officer just 35 minutes earlier, how much more proof is needed to prove he committed at least THAT murder on 11/22/63? Even if we were to debate the Tippit case for another 200 years, the fact remains (given the evidence) that Lee Harvey Oswald couldn't possibly be innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit. Only in the outer reaches of the world of speculation and fantasy could anyone believe that Oswald didn't kill Officer Tippit. But, amazingly, many Internet CTers reside in just such a world.

In short, I'm not an "Everything Was Faked" believer. Therefore, to me, Lee Oswald's status as a proven double-murderer couldn't be any clearer.


But DVP,

I ask for your orientation.

Do you believe Marina's husband killed JFK and work backward from that belief?

Or do you start from the fact JFK was killed and work forward?


Via either method, one irrevocable conclusion becomes very plain --- Marina's husband killed two people on November 22nd.

The only way to avoid that conclusion is to just ignore all the evidence. (IMHO.)

David Von Pein
April 25-26, 2015
April 26, 2015

(PART 931)


Lee Harvey Oswald was a CIA asset...

Three years before the Kennedy assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald was being investigated by the CIA's Special Investigations Group (SIG), a branch of the agency's Counter-Intelligence (CI) division, headed by James Angleton between 1954 and 1974. This was confirmed in the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) questioning of Ann Egerter, a member of Angleton's staff who opened the CIA file on Lee Harvey Oswald (a "201 file" in US intel lingo) in December of 1960.

The kicker is that the CI/SIG division is only tasked with investigating current CIA agents who are potential security risks. Egerter said her office was known within the CIA as "the office that spied on spies." She further elaborated on SIG as the entity that undertook "investigations of agency employees where there was an indication of espionage."

Because CIA agents are forbidden to disclose the identity of any other agents, Oswald's true occupation could only be discerned through indirect questions directed at Egerter. One HSCA interviewer asked her what the purpose of the CI/SIG was within the agency. Through this line of questioning, it can be discerned that Lee Harvey Oswald was seen in 1960 as a security risk, making him easy to burn, for example, as a patsy in the Kennedy assassination.

Interviewer: "Please correct me if I'm wrong ... it seems that the purpose of CI/SIG was very limited and that limited purpose was to investigate agency employees who for some reason were under suspicion."

Egerter: "That is correct."

Interviewer: "When a 201 file is opened, does that mean that whoever opens the file has either an intelligence interest in the individual, or, if not an intelligence interest, he thinks that the individual may present a counterintelligence risk?"

Egerter: "Well, in general, I would say that would be correct."

Interviewer: "Would there be any other reason for opening up a file?"

Egerter: "No, I can't think of one."


In 1978, ex-CIA Director Richard Helms claimed that a "201 File" is nothing more than a "personality" file on a person. And why would anyone---even a conspiracy theorist---think it was unusual for the CIA to open up such a personality file on Oswald (who tried to defect to Russia and then came back to the USA)? Sounds like SOP to me.

MR. GOLDSMITH -- "Mr. Helms, what is a 201 file?"

RICHARD HELMS -- "I believe the 201 file, if memory serves, is simply the number given to a type of file at the Agency in which personality information is placed. In other words, if you open a 201 file on the chairman of this committee, for example, it would simply be information that had come into the Agency which involved that gentleman."


MR. DODD -- "There is some confusion I think in the committee's mind as to how that file was opened. What kind of file is it? What is a 201 file?"

MR. HELMS -- "It is nothing but a personality file. We might open a file--we get pieces of paper like this and if they refer to Christopher Dodd, we would open a file on Christopher Dodd. They just happened to be called a 201 file...there is no arcane significance at all. It is just a number."


[End Helms Quotes.]

And if the CIA were trying to hide ANY association with Oswald, then why wouldn't they have destroyed his 201 file? Obviously they would have destroyed that file if it was the kind of file that proved Oswald worked for them or was associated with the Agency in any meaningful way.

However, it's probably a good idea to take anything uttered by Dick Helms with a huge grain of salt, since he's quite plainly in a CYA mode for a lot of this testimony....


David Von Pein
April 25, 2015

(PART 930)


Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly not bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?


Conspiracy theorists love to harp on the supposed "incomplete autopsy" or the "botched autopsy" performed by Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Finck. But there's really nowhere the conspiracists can go with that type of argument, and that's because the IMPORTANT/PERTINENT ISSUES at JFK's autopsy were positively and satisfactorily arrived at, such as: the cause of death and the details about where the bullets entered and exited John F. Kennedy's body.

All other criticisms regarding the autopsy take a back seat and are relatively unimportant when compared with the points mentioned above.

Conspiracists, naturally, will always ask:

But what about the throat wound that nobody knew was a bullet hole during the autopsy?

Well, okay. But where does that line of inquiry really go? And more importantly, where did the bullet go that entered JFK's throat (if conspiracy believers want to suggest that a bullet entered JFK's neck from the front, as almost all CTers do seem to believe)?

And, just as importantly, where then did the SECOND bullet go that would have had to enter President Kennedy's back and ALSO not exit his body?

Is a reasonable person supposed to believe that TWO bullets went AWOL after entering the President's neck and back, with neither bullet exiting the body? TWO of them?!

What are the odds that NEITHER of those bullets that entered Kennedy but DIDN'T EXIT would not be found? A million to one? A billion to one?

Plus: Where's the substantial damage to JFK's innards as a result of those two bullets that CTers say entered but never went out the other side of his body? Answer: there is none. Everything suggests that ONE bullet went through John F. Kennedy from back to front. Conspiracists merely wish to ignore the obvious, with the CTers, instead, choosing to believe that the autopsy results were totally wrong as a result of foul play on the part of ___________ (fill in the blank).

The people who constantly whine about how the autopsy was being "controlled" by the evil military in order to hide the true facts about President Kennedy's wounds (or some equivalent theory just as silly) are people who apparently want to completely ignore the fact that the autopsy performed on 11/22/63 provided the most important information about how JFK died -- i.e., he was shot twice and only twice, with both bullets entering the President from behind.

Everything else is just a parlor game. And it's a parlor game that goes absolutely noplace--except back to these same autopsy results that we find on page 543 of the Warren Report:

"It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased."

David Von Pein
January 11, 2010

(PART 929)

(PART 3)


"Reclaiming History" author Vincent Bugliosi has, in my opinion, written a very factual book, with only a very few mistakes cropping up here and there (that I noticed).

That doesn't mean I always agree with everything Vince Bugliosi [VB] says in his JFK book. Because that's not the case at all. In fact, I disagree with him on several different issues re. the Kennedy case....e.g., the timing of when the "Single-Bullet Theory" bullet struck the victims; the specifics of what happened to the bullet from Lee Harvey Oswald's first (missed) shot; the very strange flip-flop that Vince seems to do on pages 423-424 regarding the HSCA's insane "upward" trajectory of the SBT bullet path through JFK's body; and VB's criticism of Gerald Posner in a couple of places (particularly with respect to a John Connally bullet-fragment issue).

But even with my own above-mentioned criticisms, Vince has still written the best book ever penned on the JFK assassination. And when placed next to Dale Myers' comprehensive book on the J.D. Tippit murder ("With Malice"), a researcher doesn't need to buy any other books dealing with the events of November 22, 1963, in order to know the full truth about what occurred that day in Dallas. (IMHO, that is.)


There are very, very few misspelled words within this mass of text, which I found impressive all by itself. There are some misspellings, though...."bullet" comes out "bulled" on page 480, and "Dealey" is missing its second "e" in at least two places in the book, but the total number of such spelling mistakes is extremely small for a publication of this length.

There are, however, a few small factual errors within the tonnage of information supplied to the reader on these many pages. But none of the errors in the book, in my opinion, are major enough to discredit (in any way) Bugliosi's bottom-line "Oswald Acted Alone" conclusion.

On this webpage, I discuss what I believe are some errors made by Vince B. relating to the bullet fragments removed from Governor Connally's body by Dr. Gregory.

I've catalogued a few more minor mistakes in "Reclaiming History" below. I did this for no particular reason; perhaps just to illustrate that not even the "King of Common Sense and Logical Thinking" (who is, IMO, Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi) is totally immune to making a mistake every now and then.

Here's my short "Errors" list:

1.) Vince tells us that the Secret Service follow-up car that was used in the Presidential motorcade on 11/22/63 was a "1955" Cadillac. (It was really a 1956 Caddy. In fact, Vince twice errs on the model year of that vehicle, at one point labeling it a "1958" car.)

2.) VB has Eddie Barker located at Parkland Hospital when JFK's death was announced. (Barker was really at the Dallas Trade Mart at that time.)

3.) Patton Avenue is called "Patton Street" and Beckley Avenue is referred to as "Beckley Street" at various points throughout the book. But, to be fair, VB also mentions Beckley "Avenue" correctly, on page 765. (I'm really nitpicking now, huh?)

4.) In footnotes on pages 118 and 1475, Vince three times identifies the man who shot Ronald Reagan on March 30, 1981, as "William Hinckley". (He should have said "John Hinckley". Vince, though, correctly calls Hinckley "John" on several other pages in the book.)

5.) This one has me scratching my head a little bit (although it's only a very small issue and doesn't mean much at all) -- In Chapter One (on page 37), Mr. Bugliosi includes a very strange version of Nellie Connally's last words spoken to JFK that I had never heard before.

Just prior to the shooting in Dealey Plaza, Nellie turned and said to the President, "You can't say that Dallas doesn't love you, Mr. President". But Bugliosi's version of this quote is quite different. In fact, it's not even close to the quote I just mentioned. I could be wrong I suppose, but I don't think VB's variant is an accurate one.

6.) Vince has the date of Elvis Presley's death listed incorrectly on page 872. VB has it as August 17, 1977 (it was actually August 16th of that year).

7.) Page 897 contains an error with respect to Secret Service agent George Hickey. On that page, Bugliosi claims that Hickey was in the "vice president's car" during the motorcade. Hickey, however, was one of eight SS agents riding in the Secret Service follow-up car immediately behind JFK's limousine.

VB repeats this same oddball error on page 925. Oddly, though, Vince gets it right on the very next page (page 926) as he correctly says that Hickey was riding in JFK's Secret Service follow-up car.

8.) In a lengthy and excellent footnote on page 953, Vince makes a slip of the tongue when he says that Bullet CE399 caused the President's head wounds. Obviously, he didn't mean to say "Commission Exhibit No. 399" caused JFK's head wounds. It was an honest mistake.

But I'm guessing there are some rabid conspiracists out there somewhere who will contend that this error negates every argument in the ENTIRE book and, therefore, Bugliosi cannot be trusted.

9.) Vince gets his DPD officers mixed up on page 938 of the CD's endnotes, when he claims that is was "Officer McDonald" who stopped Oswald in the 2nd-Floor lunchroom. (It was actually Officer Baker.)

Mr. Bugliosi, of course, knows full well that it was Marrion Baker in the lunchroom, because of the many other times in the book when VB gets Baker's name right when referring to the lunchroom encounter with Oswald.

10.) Another confusion about names crops up on page 942 of the endnotes, when VB says that Ralph Paul (a close friend of Jack Ruby's) had several telephone conversations with "Oswald" over the weekend of the assassination. Vince, of course, meant to say that Paul was speaking to Ruby, not Oswald.

(Note -- I noticed that the number and frequency of small mistakes like this increases during the last several pages of endnotes on the CD-ROM. I don't know if this indicates a lack of proofreading these pages in the days just before the book went to press or not; but I suppose that's one potential explanation for it.)

11.) Vincent B. tells us multiple times in the book that Lee Oswald started out the day on November 22, 1963, with "$13.87" in his pockets. But this has to be incorrect. Why? Because the $13.87 figure is the exact total that Oswald had on his person when he was arrested on that day. And we know that he spent $1.23 on bus and cab rides PRIOR to being arrested. So, Lee had to have started the day with at least $15.10 on him.

It was probably even a little more than $15.10, because LHO also bought that Coke, remember, from the TSBD soda machine (and I can only assume he didn't break into the machine and pilfer the beverage).

But even the Warren Commission must have forgotten about the Coke purchase, because it's not reflected in the WC's microscopic examination of Oswald's finances that is furnished in the Warren Report, but the odd amount of precisely "$1.23" is mentioned for Oswald's bus and taxi fares on 11/22/63.

12.) Page 25 contains what I think is an error regarding President Kennedy's 1961 Lincoln Continental limousine. I could be wrong about labelling this item as an "error", but I don't think I am. On page #25, Mr. Bugliosi says that JFK's limousine weighed "about seventy-five hundred pounds with its special build and heavy armor".

I think the comment about "heavy armor" is incorrect, because I don't think the limo was equipped with any "armor" until after the assassination of JFK.

Furthermore, according to the two source notes that Bugliosi provides on page 25 that relate directly to the "armor" issue ["2 H 66, WCT Roy H. Kellerman; 2 H 129, WCT William Robert Greer"], the word "armor" does not appear on either of those two pages of Warren Commission testimony.

13.) An error pops up on page 5 when Vince claims that Wesley Frazier's car was parked "in the carport" on the morning of 11/22/63. But, to be technical, Frazier's car was actually parked outside the carport that morning, as is illustrated in Warren Commission Exhibit No. 447.

14.) Another trivial mistake concerning Wesley Frazier's automobile crops up on page 6 of "Reclaiming History", when Bugliosi says that Frazier owned a "beat-up '59 Chevy four-door". But Wesley actually owned a 1953 or 1954 Chevrolet. I'm not exactly sure which year is correct. But it was either a '53 or '54 Chevy. It was definitely not a '59 vehicle.

15.) At least twice in the endnotes of the book (on pages 340 and 393), Bugliosi incorrectly states that Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was found "in the sniper’s nest". But Vince, of course, knew full well when he was writing his book that the gun was found on the other side of the sixth floor of the Book Depository, not in the "sniper's nest".

16.) On page 277, when talking about the aftermath of the murder of Lee Oswald by Jack Ruby in the DPD basement, Vince makes an error when he says:

"Pettit manages to corner Captain Fritz next. "Do you
have the man who fired the shot?"
"We have a man, yes," Fritz replies tersely."

But the person to whom NBC reporter Tom Pettit was talking was not Captain J.W. Fritz at all. It was another Dallas police officer. Bugliosi, however, is not entirely to blame for this "Fritz" gaffe. The blame goes primarily to TV Guide Magazine and its January 1964 article entitled “America’s Long Vigil”. It is within that lengthy TV Guide article, which is the source used by Mr. Bugliosi for the above quotes which appear in "Reclaiming History", where that mistake about Pettit speaking to Fritz occurs.

17.) On page 117 of endnotes, we find this rather embarrassing error [see the highlighted text in the image below]....

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, however, died on May 2, 1972, some three years prior to the writing of the FBI memo mentioned by Vincent Bugliosi in the book excerpt seen above. Clarence M. Kelley was the FBI Director in 1975, not Hoover.

18.) On page 669 of the main text of the book, Vince transposes a couple of numbers when talking about Lee Oswald's Dallas post office box number. He mistakenly says that Oswald's P.O. Box number was "2195", instead of the correct number of 2915.


The "Jean/Joan" Davison error by Bugliosi was discussed here in May 2007.

Plus, I recently took note of another very tiny, insignificant misspelling of a person's name in a couple of places in VB's book, when he sometimes spells Ted Sorensen's last name "Sorenson". (A very common slip. I think it's really spelled "...sen"; at least it's spelled that way on the covers of the books that Ted has authored; and that's a pretty good place to go for spelling verification.)

Detailed "Reclaiming History" review HERE.



On page 63 of his ridiculous book, "Pretense To History," lame brain Bugliosi tells us, "the smell of diesel exhaust" permeated the floorboards of the bus. No footnote.

Why does he think he knows this? Are there holes in the bus's "floorboards?" Does a bus even have floorboards? What is this garbage? This is fiction without even pretense to fact.

You'd expect this sort of thing from Bill O'Reilly's ghost writer, but we're supposed to take Bugliosi seriously, aren't we? He's written this 1500-page [sic] book...and he leaves in his stupid speculation about "floorboards"?

Has Bugliosi ever ridden a bus, I wonder? Why would there be holes in the floor of a Texas bus? Maybe in the northeast, the road salt would rot them out, but even a 50-year-old bus should have an intact floor in Texas. Was Texas buying 20-year-old buses from the MBTA?

This stupid hack Bugliosi is just making up stuff. That is not history.


Here we have a classic example of a thirsty conspiracy theorist who is just looking for (and dying to find!) some little nitpicky meaningless thing to complain about in Vincent Bugliosi's masterpiece of a book.

And, of course, the thirsty conspiracy theorist found some nitpicky meaningless things to complain about too. The conspiracy theorist was bound to find a few things to gripe about in a huge tome like "Reclaiming History". How could the thirsty CTer possibly not find a few meaningless nitpicky things to gripe about in a book of that immense size?---especially when the first chapter of more than 300 pages was written in a "narrative" style that is usually reserved for writers of fictional novels which normally include quite a bit of "literary license".

I too, in fact, have found several errors and inaccuracies in Mr. Bugliosi's excellent JFK book (see my list above). But, just like the nitpicky meaningless things discovered by the thirsty conspiracy theorist, the errors and mistakes in my list don't add up to a hill of beans when placed beside the enormous number of documented (and sourced) facts that reside within the pages of "Reclaiming History".


Lacking any citation from a witness connected with the JFK case (which I haven't been able to find), it's my guess that Bugliosi did, indeed, employ some "literary license" [coupled with a "reasonable inference"] when talking about the diesel fumes coming from Cecil McWatters' bus. And I would guess further that Vince's justification for including such a passage in his book was this picture of McWatters' old city bus (also shown below), which looks to me like a bus that just might have had "the smell of diesel exhaust permeating the floorboards"....

David Von Pein
June 2007
September 2007
August 2016
April 2017
March 2018
March 2019
May 2020

(PART 928)



Below is a still frame from the 2013 program "JFK: THE FINAL HOURS", which shows President Kennedy's limousine in downtown San Antonio, Texas, on November 21, 1963. And the motorcade configuration is identical to the Dallas parade the next day. In fact, if somebody didn't know any better, they could easily think this San Antonio photo below was taken in Dallas. No agents on the bumpers and two motorcycles flanking each side of the President's car. Just exactly like in Dealey Plaza at 12:30 PM on November 22nd.

And also take note of where the busses are located in the San Antonio caravan---far back in the motorcade---just exactly like in Dallas the next day. But many conspiracy theorists cry foul about those busses being so far back in Dallas. But do those same conspiracists think there was something sinister about the press busses being this far back in San Antonio on November 21? And I can only assume those are PRESS busses in this picture:



CLICK HERE to see many more examples of how the Dallas motorcade was absolutely no different whatsoever from various pre-November 22nd parades.


Nice resource. I've got some material about the supposed "security stripping" on this page.

You've done an admirable job of rounding up a lot of material, all showing that the "security stripping" theory is nonsense.


Thanks, John.

It seems like every time I turn around I'm finding more pre-November 22 motorcade photos or films that show the precise same security configuration around JFK's car that we see in Dealey Plaza. There are dozens (if not hundreds) of pictures that disprove the "stripping" hogwash.

David Von Pein
April 20, 2015


(PART 100)


It's nice to see there are more people with obvious common sense and logical deductive abilities that are interested in getting past the BS and uncovering the truth. Once you have warmed yourself up by reading BRD ["Beyond Reasonable Doubt"], take on Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi, if you haven't done so already. The combination of these two sources puts anything the conspiracy authors, and Anybody But Oswald crowd, have to say to shame.



Before spending time with Bugliosi, read Reclaiming Parkland.

You will see that Bugliosi ignored the following:

1. John Hunt's work on CE 399
2. The fact that the rifle in evidence is not the rifle the FBI says Oswald ordered.
3. Stringer's testimony denying he took the photos of the brain at NARA.
4. How the FBI rigged the polygraph for Ruby.

Therefore, the above indicates that the WC...

Had the wrong bullet.

Had the wrong rifle.

Had the wrong photos of the brain.

Fell for a rigged polygraph in which Ruby lied his head off.

Some case eh? The WC was a provable joke, which the ARRB revealed in excelsis. And Bugliosi had to ignore all this and then deceive the reader about what he did.

Keep it up you guys, this is good batting practice.


Those are four incredibly weak points by DiEugenio. All of which have been thoroughly explained over the years, although I agree with Jimbo that Jack Ruby's polygraph exam was a joke. That was one weird lie detector test, no doubt about it, with even Ruby HIMSELF seemingly having an input as to the questions he would be asked.

But DiEugenio will always sidestep the key issue with regard to Ruby's polygraph---i.e., the fact Ruby BEGGED the Warren Commission to give him the test. And does anybody really believe the only reason Ruby begged Earl Warren to give him the test is because Ruby knew it was going to be "rigged"? That's stretching things a bit--even for rabid conspiracy-happy clowns like James DiEugenio.

But all of the other three things mentioned above by DiEugenio are quite weak arguments. That's the best Jimbo's got? Geesh. And Jimmy knows that John Hunt DID NOT examine the actual CE399 bullet at NARA. Hunt only examined the 4 color photos. And the initials of ALL of the agents' names on that bullet in those pictures are very hard to discern---even when you know where to look.

But Commission Document No. 7 provides the proof that Elmer L. Todd did place his initials on Bullet 399. I guess Jimbo must think Todd lied through his teeth here (or that Todd did initial a bullet, but it wasn't CE399). But since DiEugenio is 0-for-22, we can't expect him to swing the lumber like Wade Boggs or Ted Williams at this late date, can we?....

"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)

As for the assassination rifle being the "wrong rifle", as Jimmy likes to constantly say, DiEugenio knows perfectly well what the reasonable answer to that "36-inch vs. 40-inch" discrepancy is. I've pointed it out to him on several occasions in the past. But since he likes the idea of Oswald having never touched Carcano Rifle #C2766, Jim will forever ignore the logical answer to the "wrong rifle" topic.

But, of course, that's why we have had professional investigators and real detectives looking into these matters over the years, instead of relying on clowns like Jim DiEugenio to try and solve a Presidential assassination. If James had been in charge, Oswald would probably have posthumously been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize instead of being officially labelled what he was---a double murderer.

Re: the rifle....

"Regardless of exactly what it said in the American Rifleman magazine from which Lee Oswald ordered his rifle via mail-order (i.e., "36 inches" vs. "40 inches"; and "Carbine" vs. anything else), Klein's shipped a rifle with serial number C2766 to "A. Hidell" on March 20, 1963. The internal paperwork generated AT THE TIME in March of '63 (see Waldman Exhibit No. 7) confirms that Oswald/"Hidell" was shipped an Italian 6.5mm rifle with that exact serial number on it ("C2766")." -- DVP; September 21, 2008

Re: John Stringer and the autopsy pictures....

"When I spoke to Stringer [on September 21, 2000], he said there was "no question" in his mind that the "large exit wound in the president's head was to the right side of his head, above the right ear." And in an ARRB interview on April 8, 1996, Stringer said, "There was a fist-sized hole in the right side of his head above his ear." Though...Stringer's recollection of matters is questionable, he said he remembers this very clearly. When I asked him if there was any large defect to the rear of the president's head, he said, "No. All there was was a small entrance wound to the back of the president's head." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 410 of "Reclaiming History"

And to see Bugliosi's very good analysis of the "second brain" claptrap that was invented by Doug Horne (with references to John Stringer as well), go to "Reclaiming History", starting at page 438.


Oh this is rich.

Wrong bullet = no matter.

Wrong rifle = no matter.

Wrong photos of the brain = no matter.

Rigged polygraph = might matter a little, but since Ruby requested it, that is OK.


Now imagine if DVP or Ayton stood up at the end of trial, where all these things had been proven--and then said, well, Oswald still did it, beyond a reasonable doubt.

I mean, that would not happen because the judge would have thrown out the case already. On the simple grounds the prosecution was consistently using fraudulent evidence.

See, that is the real world. But as Gary Cornwell told the HSCA, in the JFK case, Reality is irrelevant. Well, so is this book.


Not a single one of those things has been "PROVEN". Perhaps DiEugenio should buy a dictionary and look up the word "Proven". Because he obviously hasn't the foggiest idea what the word means.

Looks like Jimbo's 0-for-23 at the plate now. I wonder if he will ever manage to even foul off a pitch? He hasn't yet. And yet he thinks he hits a grand-slam with every silly post he makes. Jim's middle initial must surely be J. For Joke.


DiEugenio is deranged. Anybody who does not know that is somebody whose opinion you should not care about.


Amen to that, John.


The plug of skull, scalp, and hair Clint Hill saw in the back seat matches the missing section of the McClelland wound perfectly. I hope people notice that David Von Pein is big on trolling when it comes to evidence like this but absent on credible response to technical evidence.


You apparently haven't bothered to search my site, Ralph. Because I've got plenty of "credible response" to all kinds of "technical evidence" put forth by CTers (and Parkland doctors).

Such as the three webpages below regarding Dr. Robert McClelland's incredibly dumb story about the "flap of scalp"....

JFK Archives/Parkland Doctors On PBS-TV

JFK Archives/Head Wounds/McClelland

JFK Archives/BOH (Part 17)


David Von Pein's "technical arguments" are not his own. In fact, he has admitted often that he is not a researcher. What he does is collect information, like John McAdams, from others.


What's wrong with that? Everybody does that. You certainly do it too, Jimbo. How many times have we seen DiEugenio sing the praises of all the glorious conspiracy researchers of the '60s -- Meagher, Thompson, Lane, Salandria, etc.? Not to mention other conspiracy authors like Armstrong, Mellen, Newman, Douglass, Summers, and others. Jimbo "collects" information from all of those people and recycles it into his own work constantly.

But I guess it's okay for Jimmy to use the work of Meagher and Thompson and others, but I'm not supposed to utilize the talents of Bugliosi, Posner, Davison, Myers, Sturdivan, et al. Is that is, Jim? (Hypocrite.)

Yes, I "collect information". (Doesn't everybody who is interested in the JFK murder?) But the big difference between myself and James DiEugenio is that I am able to properly evaluate and assess that "information" that I have collected. Whereas, Jim D. is buried so deep in his conspiracy abyss, he won't even admit that Lee Oswald carried a large bag into the Book Depository Building on the morning of President Kennedy's death. (And I'd sure hate to be buried THAT deep in conspiracy excrement.)



The above proves that DVP does not read anything except the WC boilerplate.

There is a lot of original research in my books--but Davey has not read them! Just like he did not read Remington.

Further, if you look over at EF [Education Forum], you will see his latest troll post which shows that this is what he does.

He quoted the first poll that came out in 2013 as saying that 59 percent of the public doubted the WC. He then says that this is significantly lower and our side is losing steam.

What he does not say is that particular poll was an outlier. There were three other polls that came out in 2013 which all pegged the number at 75 percent. This culminated in the very much respected Peter Hart poll. This one was devastating to his cause. Not only did it peg the number at 75 per cent, it also said that the respondents said that something had gone seriously wrong with America after the JFK murder, that Kennedy rated higher in stature than any president since 1952, and that his murder changed America and sent it into a deep depression after which optimism seemed to evaporate.

Larry Sabato noted that the 75 percent figure was the same as what Peter Jennings did in 2003. Therefore, in reality, our side has lost no ground. Only in DVP's solipsistic universe has that happened. (Sabato, The Kennedy Half Century, p. 417)

What makes that amazing is that for the last 12 years, almost all the public has gotten is a one sided version of the JFK case. Through fruits and hacks like Gary Mack and Robert Erickson, they have been pummeled with phony documentaries in which Mack actually makes up stuff and creates visuals to block the truth of a frontal shot. (See Ryan Siebenthaler's site to which there is [a] link at CTKA.)


What a crock.

I guess DiEugenio, therefore, must also think the Gallup Poll in 2013 was an "outlier" too. And so was ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Is that what you believe, Jimbo? Because the 2013 Gallup Poll shows a sharp decline (14 per cent) in the number of people who think that there were "Others Involved" in the JFK assassination when compared to the Gallup results from ten years earlier in 2003:

Gallup Poll (Nov. 7-10, 2013) (1,039 adults nationwide participating) (Margin of error: ± 4%):

"Do you think that one man was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy, or do you think that others were involved in a conspiracy?"

One man:
2013 -- 30%
2003 -- 19%
2001 -- 13%
1993 -- 15%

Others involved:
2013 -- 61%
2003 -- 75%
2001 -- 81%
1993 -- 75%

2013 -- 10%
2003 -- 6%
2001 -- 6%
1993 -- 10%


And the poll conducted jointly by ABC News and the Washington Post in November 2013 shows an 8% drop in the number of respondents in the "Broader Plot" category:

ABC News/Washington Post Poll (Nov. 14-17, 2013) (1,006 adults nationwide participating) (Margin of error: ± 3.5%):

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

One man:
2013 -- 29%
2003 -- 22%

Broader plot:
2013 -- 62%
2003 -- 70%

2013 -- 8%
2003 -- 8%




[Mel] Ayton made a mistake picking DVP. His reputation is so notorious that everyone knows how imbalanced and rabid he is. Why expose oneself to more of this crap and also pay for the treatment?


I guess this means all of my hopes are now dashed when it comes to that expensive Christmas present that I was expecting to receive from you this year, eh Jim? Damn! And I was so looking forward to getting that life-sized marble statue of Jim Garrison. Well, maybe next year.


DVP's hero, Bugliosi, not only had his book bomb, so did the terrible movie made from it. And as you can see from the Amazon rating here, so is this book.


Let's have a look at the figures as of this precise moment (at 11:30 AM EDT on Wednesday, April 29, 2015).....

"BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT" by Mel Ayton with David Von Pein:
Amazon Best Sellers Rank -- #165,447

Amazon Best Sellers Rank -- #336,689

"DESTINY BETRAYED" (Second Edition) by James DiEugenio:
Amazon Best Sellers Rank -- #469,190


Now, I will readily admit that the above Amazon sales rank for "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" isn't usually that good. Just yesterday, in fact, the ranking was about 880,000. But on certain days the sales ranking for BRD gets much better and zooms upward, like today (4/29/2015).

And, of course, DiEugenio's books also go through the same rollercoaster ride of ups and downs when it comes to "sales rank". But what with DiEugenio's little anti-Von Pein tirade that he treated us to above, it was awfully nice of the BRD ranking to increase substantially today, because it gives me the perfect opportunity to rub Jimmy's nose in the above figures (at least for a few hours anyway, until the sales figures completely change in the other direction, which they will do very soon, of course).


In his quoting of polls, note how DVP cherry picks the aspect of the poll.


Huh? What the heck does that mean? ~shrug~

I was merely providing info on TWO other major USA polls done in 2013 that were consistent with the AP "59 percent" poll --- i.e., the idea of a conspiracy in the JFK case is not as widely believed in 2013 as it was in 2003.

You, Jim, said there were three other polls done in 2013 that still showed "75%" in favor of conspiracy. That's fine. I don't deny that. But then I showed two more polls--including GALLUP (a pretty big name in the "polling" biz, wouldn't you say?)--which indicated the number of CTers is sliding downward.

So, if I wanted to, I could just as easily say that you, Jimmy, were "cherry picking" your polls too. Can you possibly deny that you WERE doing just that, in order to meet your CT agenda? Of course you were cherry picking them. But, as I've mentioned previously, everybody cherry picks stuff to a certain degree. It can't be helped. It's as natural as breathing. DiEugenio does it. Von Pein does it. Bugliosi does it. And so does every other JFK author on the face of the planet. And that fact cannot possibly be denied.

And the beat goes on.

David Von Pein
April 20, 2015
April 23, 2015
April 28, 2015
April 29, 2015
May 1, 2015

(PART 927)


I wanted to tell you this.....

I was on the road this week.....Monday [April 13, 2015] to Chicago and back.....yesterday [4/16/15] to Albuquerque and back. Anyway, 6 total flights. The Albuquerque flight had 2 layovers in Dallas. I had BRD ["Beyond Reasonable Doubt"] with me....and I am ashamed to say I have not finished it yet----but I took it with me with the express purpose to just talk--if anyone was inclined. It generally takes me awhile to read a book. I tend to check things out which leads to more research, which slows down my reading.

Out of 6 different people that I sat beside, 3 saw me reading the book and made some sort of comment....which then sets me off. Had some great discussions. As you know, the average person knows just enough that they can be swayed easily if someone conducting the discussion makes sense. Which hopefully I did. My impression is most reasonable people just need a fair explanation with answers to their questions. I explained much and different things to all 3. I told them to go get BRD for a great sort of overview of the actual facts---and presented in a way that makes sense and they would understand. So, hopefully they will.

I guess the bottom line is.....out of 3 total strangers....not 1 of them was any sort of conspiracy theorist---just the average person looking for a fair explanation of what they really don't understand. I love to present them with my "cop" perspective, based on knowledge of criminals, physical evidence, forensics, autopsies, and general criminal investigations---all of which I have experience first hand.

Well, I don't want to get too verbose here. I just hope I can contribute in some small way. And I hope all 3 get their copy of BRD!

Take care,



Thanks for sharing your "in flight" story. I very much appreciate the support for the "lone assassin" position and for the book.


There is only one thing I wanted to ask you about---this bone fragment that "Walthers" supposedly found? This I have never heard before.

Other than that, I think it [the "BRD" book] is superb so far---for many reasons.


This assertion about Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers....

"Walthers was in fact retrieving a piece of the President’s skull from the scene of the crime." ["Beyond Reasonable Doubt", page 108]

....is something that apparently Walthers himself said at some point in time after the assassination. Those words (above) that appear in "BRD" were written by Mel Ayton and not by me, and there's no source listed for that specific claim concerning Walthers. So I'm not sure exactly where Mel got that info.

I have just now looked for a source document that would verify Walthers saying he found a bone fragment in Dealey Plaza, but I could not locate anything. (The conspiracy theorists, as you probably know, have claimed for years that Walthers can be seen in a photo picking up a BULLET in Dealey Plaza just ten minutes after the assassination. I, however, can find no documents or testimony of Walthers saying any such thing.)

But I will add the following person's quote as a "source" for the "bone fragment" assertion (and as far as I am personally concerned, this person is THE very best source you could possibly find with respect to anything relating to President Kennedy's assassination) -- Jean Davison. Jean said this at Jefferson Morley's "JFK Facts" site in February of last year:

"Dallas police detective Buddy Walthers said that he picked up a bone fragment at a location not far from the one Harper marked, i.e., forward of the limo at Z313." -- Jean Davison; February 10, 2014

Jean didn't cite a specific source for the above quote about Walthers [but I later clicked on the link Jean provided in her "JFK Facts" post and did find the source; see my follow-up posts below], but I've learned in the last several years that Jean Davison does not make claims that she cannot back up with some type of source material. If she says something, you can take it to the bank. (At least I feel that way about her.)


After doing a little more searching on the Internet, I came up with this source for Jean's "bone fragment" quote relating to Buddy Walthers.....

[Quoting Jean:]

"Somewhere I have a Baton Rouge newspaper article in which Walthers is quoted as saying that it wasn't a bullet he picked up (as Garrison had charged) but a piece of bone. You may've seen the photos in Gary Shaw's "Cover-Up" showing what appears to be Walthers' hand picking up an irregular-shaped object -- one of a series of photos [seen below] taken on the south side of the street. Looks more like a bone fragment than a bullet to me. If that's what it was, I think he may've failed to mention it in his testimony out of embarrassment, for how would he explain whatever he did with a piece of the President's skull?" -- Jean Davison; July 29, 2001



And after still more Internet searches, I found the paydirt post written by Jean in 1997 concerning this topic about Buddy Walthers.....

"On December 13, 1967, he [Buddy Walthers] told a reporter "that the object was not a bullet but a piece of the President's skull" (quoting the Baton Rouge Sunday Advocate, March 17, 1968)."
-- Jean Davison; December 13, 1997

Thank you, Jean Davison --- as always. :-)


If I remember correctly, I actually read Walthers' statement in a New Orleans newspaper that quoted the Baton Rouge article, but I don't have access to either of those newspaper archives now.


Here [in The Waco News-Tribune on December 14, 1967], Walthers says that "if it was anything, it was a piece of bone." [sic; Walthers actually used the word "skull", not "bone".]


Thanks, Jean and John.

To expand on John's comment about Walthers' remarks that appeared in the Waco newspaper on 12/14/67, here are additional excerpts from that article:

[Quote On:]

"DALLAS (UPI) —— A deputy sheriff who appears in a picture which New Orleans Dist. Atty. Jim Garrison claims shows a federal agent picking up a bullet near the Kennedy assassination site said Wednesday [12/13/67] he doubted the object was anything of the kind.

"It was nothing significant," said Dallas deputy Buddy Walthers. "If it had been a bullet, it would have been significant."

Walthers appears, standing alongside a uniformed Dallas policeman and watching another man in civilian clothes picking something up from the grass near the assassination site.

Garrison produced the picture on a television program in Dallas last week, along with another showing the unidentified man holding something in his hand and walking away. The New Orleans district attorney said the man was picking up a 45-caliber bullet.


"This city officer and I were standing by watching this man pick up something," Walthers said. "It was what appeared to be blood. You've seen blood that has hit grass. If it was anything it was a piece of skull. It was nothing significant. If it had been a bullet, it would have been significant."

Walthers said the photograph was taken about 10 minutes after the assassination. At the time, he was not sure anybody had been wounded though the blood indicated somebody had been.

Immediately after the three shots and the President's car had roared off, Walthers started looking for whoever fired the shots. It occurred to him that a man who had just shot at the President would not walk around carrying a rifle, so he started looking for evidence.

"If he (man in the photograph) had found a bullet, he certainly would have yelled, 'Look, a bullet!' or something like that," Walthers said. "Because a bullet was what we were looking for.""

[End 12/14/67 Newspaper Quotes.]

So, unless there are other interviews with Buddy Walthers that indicate otherwise, it would appear that it's not a correct assumption to say that Walthers HIMSELF ever picked up a bone fragment in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. Because Walthers is quite clear in that Waco newspaper article when he said this -- "This city officer and I were standing by watching this man pick up something."

So I'm wondering where the story came from which suggests that Walthers himself actually picked up the bone fragment? ~shrug~

But that inaccuracy (re: Walthers himself handling the object that was picked up) is not nearly as important when compared to what Walthers revealed about the object that was apparently picked up by somebody else in Dealey Plaza. It's clear from Walthers' 1967 statements that the object was surrounded by BLOOD, which would indicate the likelihood that the object being retrieved was a skull (bone) fragment from President Kennedy's head rather than being a bullet of any kind.

But I'm a little puzzled as to why Deputy Walthers would think that finding a chunk of the President's head on the ground could be classified as being "nothing significant". It would seem to me that finding a portion of JFK's head lying in the grass would rise to the level of at least "somewhat significant", wouldn't you think?

But I suppose when compared to finding a BULLET in the grass right after a Presidential assassination attempt, perhaps the discovery of merely finding a piece of skull in the Plaza could be looked upon as being of LESS significance to the police officers who were searching for ballistics type evidence at that time. ~shrug~

Now, the question remains: What happened to that skull fragment? And why wasn't it handed over to somebody for further examination and testing after it was found in Dealey Plaza? Those questions remain unanswered, and can probably never be answered. But from Buddy Walthers' statements that we find in the above Waco article [which is also pictured below], I'm satisfied that if an object was recovered from the grass in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, that object was very likely NOT a "45-caliber bullet", as suggested by Jim Garrison. (And I wonder how Garrison could possibly know exactly what caliber the bullet was? He must have some great eyes.)



Hi Dave,

On 12/13/67, and published in the Dallas Morning News the next day, Buddy Walthers flat-out denied that they found a bullet:




Thanks very much, Gary.

"I never saw any bullet." -- Buddy Walthers; 12/13/67


Also See:


"Walthers...stated he never looked for a fourth bullet, nor did he find a fourth bullet." -- CD1245


And also see Buddy Walthers' Warren Commission testimony [at 7 H 550]:

Mr. LIEBELER -- There has also been a story, some sort of story that you were supposed to have found a spent bullet.

Mr. WALTHERS -- Yes; that's what the story was in this book, and man, I've never made a statement about finding a spent bullet.

Mr. LIEBELER -- And you never found any spent bullet?

Mr. WALTHERS -- No; me and Allan Sweatt 2 or 3 days after the assassination did go back down there and make a pretty diligent search in there all up where that bullet might have hit, thinking that maybe the bullet hit the cement and laid down on some of them beams but we looked all up there and everywhere and I never did find one. I never did in all of my life tell anybody I found a bullet other than where it hit.


Related book excerpt....

“Though [Buddy] Walthers couldn’t have been clearer that he found no bullet in the turf, many conspiracy theorists to this day maintain he did. In the book "Brush with History", author Eric R. Tagg writes that “Buddy Walthers told his partner Alvin Maddox, Jr., Deputy Roger Craig, his wife Dorothy, Inspector Sawyer, and some reporters that a .45 caliber slug was found at that time . . . After a lecture from Sheriff Bill Decker, Walthers later denied to the Warren Commission that a bullet was found” (Tagg, "Brush with History", pp.10–11).

So Walthers told a considerable number of people, but Decker got him to lie and change his story. On its face this is a preposterous story, with people as prominent as Sheriff Decker and Inspector J. Herbert Sawyer of the Dallas Police Department in a conspiracy to cover up the facts of the assassination.

And there is no corroboration of Tagg’s assertion, for which he offers no citations. Both Craig and Sawyer testified before the Warren Commission, and neither indicated any knowledge of a fourth bullet being found. Craig merely said that ten or twelve minutes after the shooting “Lemmy Lewis or Buddy Walthers” told him in Dealey Plaza “that one of the bullets had ricocheted off the south curb of Elm Street,” not that any bullet was found. (6 H 265, WCT Roger D. Craig) And this was way before Sheriff Bill Decker would have had any chance to tell Walthers to say he hadn’t found a bullet.”
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 310 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

David Von Pein
April 17, 2015
April 19, 2015
April 3, 2017
April 28, 2019