(PART 101)


Vincent Bugliosi: The Whole Story

Vince was Davey's hero.

Go to his site and compare what he wrote about him with what I wrote here. See what he leaves out.

Nothing about that phony Helter Skelter pretense, about which there are two books coming out which will further explode it.

Nothing about his perjury trial.

Nothing about his scandals with the milkman and his girlfriend which detonated his political career, in which he went zero for three.

Nothing about his saying that LAPD did not frame black Americans, in the wake of the horrific Ramparts scandal.

And by the way, I had nothing personal against Vince. I actually liked the guy. But if we are going to be honest about heroes and villains, we have to admit some inconvenient truths. I give Vince some credit here. He did write three good books. But in those cases, he was not the prosecutor.

In the Tate/LaBianca case and the phony JFK London trial, he was the prosecutor. (Or in the latter, he had to make like it was a trial.) This clouded his judgment and temperament. Vince was nothing if not combative.

And it got the better of him.

Anyway, I think this is the best and fullest bio of Vince there is. My publisher cut it out since he thought it would get me sued for Reclaiming Parkland. I said, "You cannot get sued successfully if it's true." That didn't matter to them. Which means the truth didn't matter to them.


So, Jim, do you think Charlie Manson ordered the Tate-LaBianca murders? Or was Manson just a "patsy"?

I want to hear James DiEugenio utter these words....

Charles Manson was completely innocent. He didn't order anybody to be killed.

In light of Susan Atkins CONFESSING to the murders, Jim has already made himself look really silly with this remark from last year....

"In my opinion, there is no way somebody like Susan Atkins should have ever spent the rest of her life in jail. It's very debatable whether she ever killed anybody. I don't think she did." -- Jim DiEugenio; March 6, 2014

I just want to see how far down Absurd Avenue Jim is willing to go in order to smear the late Mr. Bugliosi (and Vince's tireless work that he did on the Manson case) by telling the world he thinks Manson is snow-white innocent.

Are you willing to go that far, Jim? Or have you done so already?



I noted about four things in my queries to you.

And they were all lacking from your hagiography site of Vince. In which you essentially say that no one could ever have been a better choice to write a book about the JFK case, and there is not one single significant error in the mammoth RH ["Reclaiming History"].

Now, did you tell anyone that Vince was on trial for perjury for his conduct of the Tate/LaBianca case?

Did you even know that? Probably not. Because you are not the kind of person who digs into the record on your own. You rely on others.

Did you note his accusations about Mr. Weisel being the true father of his son and his harassment of him?

And if you did not, did you know this about your idol?

Did you know about his physical beating of his girlfriend, and also his lies about what happened in order to disguise what he had done?

Again, if you do not note that, and you do not, did you know about it? If not, why not? Not hard to find with Google.

Did you know about his shabby political campaigns and his lies about Van De Camp which backfired on him and ended with his smashing defeat at the polls? For the third time!

I don't see any of this info on your site. But yet, unlike with say Jim Garrison, this is not mythology, it's true.

Was it your intent to not tell your readers ever about it?

While you spread every piece of disinfo about Garrison you could, for example in your book?

Now, does not that say something about the way you handle evidence? If something or someone favors the WC, you exalt the person with a hagiographic treatment worthy of the Parthenon.

If, like Garrison, they attack the WC, you propagate every piece of BS ever written about the guy and recycle it like a compactor. As you did in your not very successful book?


Not a single solitary bit of DiEugenio's Bugliosi-trashing effort above has anything whatsoever to do with Vince Bugliosi's JFK book "Reclaiming History". Jimbo is just looking for an excuse--any excuse--to bash Vincent T. Bugliosi. And Jim is willing to travel far outside the "JFK Assassination" perimeter to try and somehow smear Vince's 20-year effort regarding the JFK case. I guess the idea is: If Vince wasn't a saint all of his life, that must mean he was all wrong about all of the evidence in the JFK murder case.

But as the late Mr. Bugliosi himself would no doubt quickly point out to Jim --- That's a non sequitur of Olympian proportions there.

But the fact remains that Vince Bugliosi, in his huge tome "Reclaiming History", has proven Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt at least ten times over. The question of whether or not Oswald was involved in ANY type of conspiracy can never, of course, be answered with 100% certainty (and I've said that very thing myself in the past; and if you want my direct quotes, I'll be happy to dig them up). But I agree with Vince when he said....

"In the [John F.] Kennedy case, I believe the absence of a conspiracy can be proved to a virtual certainty." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 973 of "Reclaiming History"


BTW, why aren't you out hawking your book? Do you really think you are going to sell a lot of copies on this site? Why isn't your agent getting you radio spots, cable TV spots, speaking engagements, Internet interviews etc.? I mean to spend so much time here when you have a relatively new book which says that LHO killed Kennedy, and there is no question about it? Well I would think one would want to spread the word far and wide.

So why aren't you?


I've done quite a bit of online promoting of the book via my websites [such as here]. (Not that it's done much good.) But I have never fooled myself into thinking "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" was going to sell well at all. I was hoping it would, of course, but I never expected it to.

And, btw, the publisher ("Strategic Media Books") is a joke. At least they were a joke as far as "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is concerned. Mel Ayton and I can tell multiple horror stories about our dealings with that particular publishing house.

Related conversation.....


David is obviously just out to make a buck, like all those horrible conspiracy authors.


You're nuts. I knew the book wouldn't sell very well at all. And it hasn't. I doubt it's sold 50 copies yet since its release in December 2014. Sales are pathetic, just as I knew they would be.

I got involved in the BRD book project because Mel Ayton asked me to contribute some of my material to his manuscript. And I was honored to be asked to do so. I didn't do it to "make a buck". I haven't seen dollar #1 yet, btw [as of June 7, 2015]. And I'm wondering if I'll ever see even 50 cents.

So you can take your "out to make a buck" garbage and do something unmentionable with it. 10-4?

[End Quote.]


But thanks for mentioning the book again, Jim. Every little bit of advertising helps. :)


Did Oswald order the rifle: almost certainly not.

[More HERE.]



Nothing you have ever said knocks down the case against Lee Oswald murdering both JFK and Officer Tippit. Because in order for Oswald to be innocent of BOTH of those crimes, as you (incredibly) do believe, then we'd have to believe that literally ALL of the many pieces of evidence that incriminate Oswald are fake or fraudulent pieces of evidence. And that notion is, of course, just plain ridiculous.

And now, Jim, you seem to think that after a relatively brief examination into the Manson case, you have discovered things that rip apart the whole "Helter Skelter" case that Vincent Bugliosi worked on for over a year between late 1969 and January of 1971.

Your arrogance is staggering, James.

And as far as the JFK case goes, as I said before (and it's probably even more accurate today, with Jim DiEugenio entertaining the idea of even more conspiracy theories in his head since I wrote this 1.5 years ago)....

"I can add dozens of additional outrageous things to the list [linked below], but I'll stop at those twenty-two items for now. And yet despite [that] laundry list of silliness, James DiEugenio is still held in high esteem by many people when it comes to his evaluation of the evidence and his assessment of the facts concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Unbelievable."
-- David Von Pein; January 4, 2013

The Stupid Things James DiEugenio Believes


One of Davey's constant refrains on the JFK case is this:

If you don't believe the WC, then you must think everything is fake, right?

Well, not really. I mean even if you think it's altered, the Z film as it is is pretty strong evidence of conspiracy, is it not?


No, not at all. Not even close.

You surely aren't still arguing the worn-out "back and to the left" garbage, are you Jim? Click here.


The jacket and shirt are also evidence of conspiracy are they not?


Not at all. Not even close. Click here.


The fact that it's the wrong rifle is pretty good also.


Your bullet points for conspiracy are getting weaker by the minute. The "wrong rifle" crap is just another example of James DiEugenio not having the slightest idea (or desire) how to properly evaluate the JFK evidence.

Jim knows perfectly well what the reasonable answer is for the "36-inch vs. 40-inch" rifle discrepancy, but he just refuses to look at this issue fairly and rationally. Here's the logical answer DiEugenio refuses to accept.


The fact that Todd's initial are not on the bullet--isn't that pretty good?


FBI Agent Elmer Todd most certainly marked Bullet CE399. It's just that the pictures of the bullet don't show the markings very well at all. And even Frazier's and Cunningham's and Killion's initials are very hard to discern. But Commission Document No. 7 proves enough (to me) to indicate that Elmer Todd marked bullet CE399.

But to the CTers like DiEugenio, these words written by Todd on November 22 (see the date in the lower left corner of Todd's FD-302 report) are just more lies---right, Jim?....

"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)

Better start another "This Means Conspiracy" list, Jim. Because that last list of yours really sucks.


RH only proves one thing: That Vince made a mistake and he then doubled down on it twice.

The very fact of its length is testimony to its failure.

VB tries to make an argument by 1) Sheer verbosity and 2.) By switchblade intimidation.

Neither worked. Because a book is long does not mean it's good. It just means it's long.

And if Vince had the intellectual back up to dispel say, Sylvia Meagher and Dave Mantik and Gary Aguilar and John Newman, he would not have needed the invective he employed throughout. Which was very unbecoming of a celebrity attorney and author.

Those 53 "proofs" of Oswald's guilt were well disposed of by Rodger Remington in Biting the Elephant.

I myself then put together a list of 63 things that showed Oswald was innocent.

But then I also showed here that Bugliosi could not be trusted since he said upfront that he would present the critics' arguments as they would want them presented. I then showed this was not at all the case. In other words, Vince was passing gas making that claim. I spend five pages in the intro to Reclaiming Parkland demonstrating how Bugliosi violated his own pledge. Therefore, how could the book be trusted?

Now, go over to Davey's site and see if he notes this false claim in RH. Nope.


In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case "as the critics would present it", Vince would have had to touch base with every single CTer who has ever posted on the Internet (or who has ever written one of the hundreds of books on the case), because almost every CTer has at least a slightly different theory or approach to the evidence in the case.

A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the CTers themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some conspiracy theorist out there who will be able to say (after reading Bugliosi's book) -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a liar! He didn't present THIS part of the case in the exact way I think it should have been presented, and therefore I get to call Vince a cheat and a liar.

It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("present the case as CTers want it presented"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even if he had written 10,000 pages instead of just 2,800. But I, myself, think Vince did just fine in debunking virtually all of the major conspiracy theories connected with the JFK murder case. Many CTers, quite naturally, will vehemently disagree with me. Well, so be it.


One might say the FBI framed him. Very good. But he was served up to the FBI. Question: Who served him up?



What exactly do you mean when you say that Oswald was "served up to the FBI"?

Oswald was never in "FBI custody". He was always in DPD custody.

And one of the big problems CTers have is constructing a reasonable and sensible "Oswald Was Framed" theory since it would by necessity need to involve people from various law enforcement agencies -- the DPD, the FBI, the Sheriff's Department, and the Secret Service. All of those agencies had a hand in gathering and processing at least some of the evidence that incriminates Oswald (e.g., the front-seat bullet fragments were first touched by the SS; the rifles and Sniper's Nest evidence was first handled by the DPD; several Dallas Deputy Sheriffs were on the sixth floor and first discovered all of the TSBD evidence; and we all know the CTers love to blame Hoover for a lot of evidence switching and other assorted tomfoolery with documents, etc., so that puts the FBI in the middle of the alleged frame-up too, or even in the LEAD, even though the FBI didn't actually COLLECT a single bit of the evidence, they just tested it).

And then you've got some witnesses (like Randle and Frazier) whom some CTers claim were also allegedly helping to frame Oswald by telling huge lies about the evidence, even to the point of just making up a paper bag out of whole cloth. (That's how far off the rails of reality many CTers, including Jim DiEugenio, have strayed.)

So if Oswald was truly innocent, we'd have to believe that many individuals were trying their darndest to make it look like Oswald was guilty -- and guilty of TWO murders on November 22 too, not just one killing. The Tippit murder cannot be brushed aside as just an unrelated murder on that same day the President was killed (although some CTers seem to brush it aside anyway).

Given the evidence against him, believing in Oswald's guilt is quite easy to do. In fact, it's impossible, IMO, to believe Oswald could have been innocent of TWO murders with the evidence that exists against him. And believing it's all been manufactured to make an innocent man look guilty is too much to stomach---because there's TOO MUCH evidence to manufacture and get away with such a scheme.

But CTers, particularly on the Internet, seem to lean toward all the evidence being fake anyway, despite the implausible nature of such massive fakery being attempted and--even more unlikely--the evidence fakers being able to get away with every last bit of it.

And then when we add in the implications of Oswald's own actions ON TOP of the large pile of evidence that all points toward LHO (guns, bullets, shells, the paper bag, and fingerprints), it becomes much much more difficult to envision a large-scale "Let's Frame Oswald" plot. For how on Earth did those same evidence planters/manipulators (or even a DIFFERENT group of plotters) manage to get a totally innocent Lee Harvey Oswald to do the unorthodox things he did on both Nov. 21 and Nov. 22?

If the EVIDENCE + OSWALD'S ACTIONS don't add up to a guilty Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63, I'd sure like to know why not.


Because - oh, deaf one - the EVIDENCE IS NOT AUTHENTIC.


Yeah, so I've been told (thousands of times) by CTers. But, to date, I've yet to see a smidgen of something called PROOF to back up the non-stop allegations of evidence fakery that we keep hearing about from conspiracy theorists.

For a change, let's see some PROOF that shows that ALL of the evidence that incriminates Mr. Oswald is fake evidence. Got any PROOF, David? Or should we just rely on CTer instinct and guesswork like we've been doing for the last 51 years?

So, you'll have to pardon me for not hopping on board the "Everything Was Faked To Frame Oswald" gravy train. That train was doomed to derail before it ever left the station.

Many conspiracy theorists will travel to the ends of the Earth to pretend that ALL of the evidence is phony. And it's no wonder that they do. Because if they DON'T, then their patsy is guilty of two murders. And it's really just that simple. And the Internet conspiracy theorists just don't like the idea of a guilty Lee Harvey Oswald at all.


JEH [J. Edgar Hoover] alone controlled all the evidence.



Hoover wasn't "controlling" the evidence when the DPD collected it.

You think everything got switched to "LHO Did It" evidence by Hoover, Tom? Do you really believe that?

And do you think Hoover was "controlling" each of the witnesses who gave statements to the Dallas police or Sheriff's office saying it was Oswald they saw near the Tippit shooting?

I get a big kick out of the idea that J. Edgar Hoover--of all people on the planet!--would have wanted to frame an INNOCENT Lee Harvey Oswald for the two murders in Dallas in November 1963.

In reality, of course, Hoover would have probably been about the LAST person in America who would have wanted to frame Oswald. And everybody should know why that is so.

Just think about it for a couple of minutes and maybe the light bulb will go on. (Or click here.)


In his book, which he co-authored with Mel Ayton, Davey denies any relationship between Oswald and American intelligence.

Which, in my view, is simply a non starter today. Especially after the work of John Newman in Oswald and the CIA.

In her book, [Jean] Davison failed to note the puzzling fact that the CIA did not open a 201 file on Oswald--until a year after he defected.

​When the HSCA interviewed some CIA people on this, they could not explain it, including Helms.

Does Davey?


I'd say the delay in opening Oswald's 201 file was merely bureaucratic red tape and foot-dragging. Nothing more. And certainly nothing sinister. It was opened, as I recall, in December 1960, about a year after Oswald left for Russia (which was in October '59).

But so what? Where do you want to go with the one-year delay, Jim? What is the delay supposed to mean anyway? And how does the one-year delay in opening the 201 file somehow indicate that the subject of that 201 file was working for U.S. Intelligence?

Things in Government sometimes get delayed. Big deal. Is that really a surprise to you, Jim?



You don't know when to keep your mouth shut do you?

As I said, you always lead with your chin.

You know why? Because you never read anything of any value. You did not read Newman's book did you? He explains why it's so strange.

See, when the news came in that Oswald had defected to Russia, the FBI, State, ONI and Navy Dept. all opened files on the case. And the files were all stamped properly and filed properly. And the FBI put out the proper FLASH warning on the file. In other words, everything is handled clearly and routinely.

But not at the CIA.

When they got the news, it went into a Black Hole, undetectable for about a month. It then surfaced in Angleton's super secret SIG counter intel office. Which, as Newman notes, is kind of weird also. Because it should not have been there. It should have been in the Soviet Russia division. In other words, the black hole it went into kept it from going to where it should have gone. On top of that, there is no evidence that the CIA now did a security investigation to see what secrets Oswald could give to the USSR. I mean, as Newman writes, he was a radar operator and involved with the U2. In fact, Oswald was one of the few who knew the U2 was flying over China. But again, John says there is no evidence of any damage assessment inquiry in 1959.

When the HSCA asked Helms about the delay in the opening of the 201 file, Helms replied "I am amazed. Are you sure there wasn't?...I can't explain that." The CIA then lied about where the Oswald CIA docs went to before the 201 was opened. They said they were never filed higher than confidential, and were therefore destroyed. Well, John found them and they were not destroyed; because they were classified as secret. But further, the ones that were classified as confidential were still around also. (Hmm, trying to cover something up there fellas?)

But here is the kicker as far as I am concerned. Although Oswald was so inconsequential as not to merit a 201 file, the most common file in the Agency; somehow he was important enough to be placed on the Watch List for mail interception. Which was one of the rarest programs the CIA had. Literally thousands of people had 201 files. About 300 were on this Watch List. Naturally, it was supervised by Angleton.

And guess what? Oswald was on it when his file was in the Black Hole. (Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, pgs 142-44)


Jimmy, I know this is going to shock you greatly, but I'm going to still choose to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was in no way connected to or employed by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States. And I still favor my previous explanation when it comes to the delay in opening Oswald's 201 file at the CIA -- "bureaucratic red tape and foot-dragging."

Also, do you think that when a person is put on a "Watch List for mail interception" by the CIA, this action is somehow an indication that the person being placed on the Watch List works for the same agency? That seems like a rather odd leap of logic to me.

It would seem to me that the fact Oswald was on a CIA "Watch List" would be a pretty good sign right there that the man being "watched" is NOT a person who is already employed by the CIA. Because if Oswald is with the CIA, then why would there be any need to put him on some kind of a "Watch List"? Or maybe it was merely a "fake" Watch List to throw people off. Is that it, Jimmy?

And let me also add the following excerpts from Vince Bugliosi's book concerning the subject of Lee Oswald's 201 CIA file....

[Quote On:]

“The CIA (specifically, the Special Investigations Group [SIG] of the CIA's counter-intelligence unit) did not open a 201 file (a file kept on an individual, including CIA employees, that brings him into the agency's records system) on Oswald until December 9, 1960, after he had defected to the Soviet Union, and then only after the agency had received a request from the State Department for information on American defectors.

However, the agency, before December 9, was already receiving information on Oswald from other agencies of the government. It had four written communications in 1959 from the State Department pertaining to Oswald's defection to the Soviet Union, the first one dated October 31, 1959, from Moscow, and a fifth communication dated May 25, 1960.

The CIA told the HSCA that there were "no specified criteria for automatically opening a 201 file on an American." And when the HSCA reviewed the 201 files of twenty-nine other defectors, eight of whom had 201 files opened before their defection, they found that for only four of the remaining twenty-one the files were opened because of the defection. The files on the seventeen other defectors were opened from four months to several years after the defection.

The HSCA said that "at the very least, the committee's review indicated that during 1958—1963, the opening of a [201] file years after a defection was not uncommon. [Oswald's defection to the Soviet Union first came to the attention of American officials in Moscow on October 31, 1959. So his 201 file was opened more than thirteen months later.] In many cases, the event was triggered by some event, independent of the defection, that had drawn attention to the individual involved."

The HSCA went on to say that "the existence of a 201 file does not necessarily connote any actual relationship or contact with the CIA." Though not automatic, such a file is normally opened by the CIA when "a person is considered to be of potential intelligence or counterintelligence significance." Oswald's 201 file, the HSCA said, "contained no indication that he had ever had a relationship with the CIA."

[VB Footnote:]

“The reader should realize that many in the conspiracy community would give their right arm if they could prove that Oswald was a CIA agent. If they could do this, it would be the answer to their most wondrous dreams, the solution, at last, to the Kennedy assassination. This is because they are too blind when it comes to the assassination to realize that even if Oswald were a CIA agent, it would only be one step in their quest for the Holy Grail. They'd still have to prove that the reason why the CIA lied about Oswald's relationship with the agency was not because it didn't want the world to know that one of its agents murdered the president (as, on a lesser scale, a religious order would not want it to be known that one of its priests was a child molester), but because number one, the CIA decided to murder Kennedy, and number two, the agency got Oswald to murder Kennedy for it.” -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 1198-1199 of "Reclaiming History"


We need to finally tell DVP that the WC's "original recipe" leaves a bad taste in our mouths. Reheated it's not any better than it was when it was fresh. No need for him to keep repeating it like Chicken Little.

Enjoying watching Jim D show how DVP's mind is extra crispy, and how Jim's making coleslaw out of DVP's arguments. Pointing out how VB decided to double down is just delicious.

Stick a spork in him...he's done. He just doesn't know it...kinda like a chicken with his head cut off.


My, how witty. All those Colonel Sanders references, but nothing about Popcorn Chicken or Mashed Taters or DVP's Secret Blend of 11 Herbs and WC Lies? What the heck is the matter with you, Mark? Get on the ball.


Couldn't find anything good in it ["Beyond Reasonable Doubt"] and didn't see anything you got right.


I'm not surprised, Ken. You can't even figure out who killed J.D. Tippit. (And it doesn't take Basil Rathbone to figure that one out.)

If you ever get something right when it comes to the subject of the JFK assassination, I'll faint dead away from the shock.

My favorite Kenny-ism is this wondrous hunk of brilliance from the keyboard of Mr. Drew....

"There is no proof JFK was shot with a rifle." -- Ken Drew; June 1, 2015

Maybe you should add the above blurb to your signature at The Education Forum, Ken. After all, you obviously don't care how ridiculous you look.


You've had around three months to point out any factual errors in my review and so far you've come up with precisely eff all.


​Can't wait to see when and if Davey replies to this one.


I've responded to Martin Hay's LNer bashfest in the past ----> GO HERE.


[DVP said:] "Yeah, so I've been told (thousands of times) by CTers. But, to date, I've yet to see a smidgen of something called PROOF to back up the non-stop allegations of evidence fakery that we keep hearing about from conspiracy theorists."

​From the WR: "[Hall] said he had visited Mrs. Odio. He was accompanied by Lawrence Howard...and one William Seymour from Arizona. He stated that Seymour is similar in appearance to Lee Harvey Oswald..."

​From Accessores After the Fact: "That FBI report indicates that only two days after the original locating of Loran Eugene Hall on September 16, 1964, an interview with William Seymour...elicited a denial that he was even in Dallas in September 1963 or had ever had any contacts with Sylvia Odio." (p. 387)


Wow! That's the best you can do, Jimmy? One very hazy and indistinct report regarding people who have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the physical evidence in the JFK assassination?

Mighty weak, Jim. In fact, pathetic.

But thanks for illustrating that the BEST the mighty James DiEugenio can do in an effort to PROVE that ANY evidence was faked in the JFK case is a reference to a quote in Sylvia Meagher's 1967 book, which is a blurb involving the Odio incident, which everybody knows (even me) is a great-big huge QUESTION MARK to begin with.

As Jimbo's favorite of all female authors (hehe) said in her 1983 book....

"When these men visited Odio's apartment, Kennedy's trip to Dallas had not even been scheduled, let alone announced. ... No one on earth could have known that Oswald would ultimately land a job in a building that would overlook a Kennedy motorcade. But the frame-up theory's ultimate weakness involves the critics' conception of Lee Harvey Oswald. In every conspiracy book, Oswald is a piece of chaff blown about by powerful, unseen forces -- he's a dumb and compliant puppet with no volition of his own. If the man Odio saw was an impostor, how could the plotters be certain no witnesses would be able to establish Oswald's presence somewhere else that evening -- unless they ordered the unsuspecting patsy to stay out of sight? And if the real Oswald was used, how did the anti-Castro plotters get their Marxist enemy to stand at Odio's door to be introduced as a friend of the Cuban exiles? No one has come up with a plausible scenario that can answer those questions. ... The point to be stressed is this: Sylvia Odio gave testimony of obvious, even crucial importance, and no one could explain what it meant." -- Jean Davison; Pgs. 193-195 of "Oswald's Game"


I love this. You prove he is wrong and he says it does not matter.

The FBI lied, Davey. And the WC bought the lie. OK.

But Davey likes leading with his chin, right?

The following is from Reclaiming Parkland, p. 128

This exchange was on 2/13/96 between counsel Jeremy Gunn and James Humes for the ARRB. Gunn had the X-rays for Humes in front of him.

Q: Do you recall having seen an X ray previously that had fragments corresponding to a small occipital wound?

A: Well I reported that I did, so I must have. But I don't see them now.

Again, I could not find this exchange in Reclaiming History. Yet it is surely one of the most gripping and important revelations of the ARRB. Humes is here denying his own autopsy report and what he himself saw during the autopsy of President Kennedy. When Gunn pressed him ever so slightly on this, Humes became visibly frustrated. Humes had written that a trail of metal fragments connected the low shot at the rear of the skull to the higher region in the head. But yet, today, no such trail exists in the x rays.

What do you think happened to them Davey? Was Humes hallucinating when he wrote about them back in 1963?

Let's get physical.


The X-rays themselves answer your last question, Jim. And this X-ray was proven to be a legit and unaltered X-ray by the HSCA.....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41

Now, tell me again how those 20 experts on the HSCA's Photographic Panel were all rotten liars when they signed off on those words we see printed on page 41 of HSCA Volume 7.

And then you can tell everybody about your fantasy about there being a huge hole in the BACK of Kennedy's head---which, of course, doesn't exist at all in the X-ray pictured above.

More fakery...

More Government liars...

More fake reports...

Right, Jimmy?

Does the fakery ever end in this case (or, I should say, in your colorful imagination)?



But, Ray, the autopsy photos and X-rays are in AGREEMENT with another piece of photographic evidence -- the Zapruder Film. The Z-Film shows that the BACK of President Kennedy's head was not "blown out".

So, along with the autopsy photos, you must also think the Zapruder Film was altered too, right Ray?

Is there ANY point in this case when you feel it's okay to put on the brakes when it comes to this "Massive Fakery Overload" thing you CTers have got going on? (Just wondering.)


It's absolutely a crack-up that you would use the autopsy face sheet. For two reasons. First, that face sheet has caused the official story so much trouble it's not funny. Second, it's not the original one. You probably don't know that since you don't do any original research.


So, Jim, are you therefore implying that if there was a SECOND Face Sheet, that fact means that the wound in JFK's upper back was really located somewhere OTHER than "14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process"?

Which would mean that Dr. Humes must have been part of the grand plot to fake Boswell's face sheet(s) too, because Humes wrote those EXACT MEASUREMENTS on Page 3 of the autopsy report (WR; Page 540), which is a report that was signed by all three autopsy surgeons on 11/24/63.

Your vivid imagination turns legitimate evidence into forged evidence almost every day of the week, doesn't it Jimbo? And you don't even have the decency to blush.


Do I detect a hint of desperation in Davey's posts? Probably not fair of us to gang up on him. Oh well. :)


Desperation? When battling this group of "Anybody But Oswald" and "Pert-Near Everything's Fake" conspiracy clowns that inhabit The Education Forum? Surely you jest, Bobby.

And I love Jimbo's post about the FBI lying about the Seymour/Hall/Odio matter. But it apparently never occurred to Jim that the FBI was evidently ALSO telling the unvarnished TRUTH about the very same Seymour/Hall/Odio matter in another one of the FBI's own reports (or was it the same FBI report, Jim?).

DiEugenio posted this quote from Sylvia Meagher's book....

"That FBI report indicates that only two days after the original locating of Loran Eugene Hall on September 16, 1964, an interview with William Seymour...elicited a denial that he was even in Dallas in September 1963 or had ever had any contacts with Sylvia Odio. " (p. 387)

So, evidently the very same FBI that lied, per James DiEugenio, to the Warren Commission about Loran Hall and William Seymour decided to tell the truth about those men (or at least about Seymour) just two days later.

Go figure that. ~shrug~


Why does DVP rattle cages here?

The answer is simple. His theory is the government's theory.

The government's theory is simple. It appeals to those who prefer simplicity.

To challenge DVP is to challenge the U.S. Government.

Some here believe it's easier to deride DVP than to say the U.S. Government has lied and continues to lie.

DVP is a surrogate. I wonder if he understands his role.


Don't tell me that I'm just a patsy in this thing, and that I'm merely being used (unwittingly) by the wicked United States Government! Please, God, no!! Anything but that!

Maybe you, Jon, can help me better understand my "role" in this confusing and complex swine-filled JFK-related labyrinthine underbelly.

Because I am, you see, nothing but a puppet on the string of an evil Government empire which is built on lies and deceit and treachery.

Can you help me escape this torturous dungeon, Jon?

For if Jon G. Tidd won't help me overcome the Dark Side, who will? Obi-Wan?

Thank you so much, Jon.

In reality, of course, the Government's theory is simple because this case, when boiled down to its basics, is simple --- one man with one gun murdered the President from the murderer's workplace one day in November of 1963.

There's nothing complicated or complex about what Lee Harvey Oswald did that day in Dallas. He smuggled his own rifle to work in a paper bag and got extremely lucky when the perfect opportunity was presented to him at 12:30 PM on the vacant sixth floor of the Book Depository Building.

The above "simple" scenario is what the evidence shows happened, and is what the history books will record as the probable truth for centuries to come.


"Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men." -- President John F. Kennedy; November 16, 1961

"What a sickening irony it is that this man who came through so much should die at the hands of a man worth so little." -- Alex Dreier; ABC News; November 22, 1963



Either you are a surrogate for the U.S. Government. Or you speak the same as the government.



I agree with the Government's conclusions about Oswald's guilt if that's what you mean. But....so what? Millions of people agree with the Government's "Oswald Did It" conclusion. I'm just one of them.

Although, to hear Jim DiEugenio tell it, it would seem as if the "LN" club consisted of just a very few people on the whole planet --- myself, the late Vince Bugliosi, Tom Hanks, and Gerald Posner....and that's about it. But there are a lot of other people in the world who think Oswald killed JFK (and probably did it alone). Those people just don't hang out on JFK Internet forums every day of their lives.


So how about my SBT question that you have been dodging for the last few months, Davey? Care to have a go at that or do you not want to get your hair mussed up?


You've got a very short memory, Bobby. Just thirteen days ago, we had this exchange.


THAT is not an argument, Davey, that is a rant from a little child.


No, it's the truth that you don't want to face.

And you'll just ignore the immense "Two Bullets That Didn't Exit" problem too. Won't you, Bob?

And you'll ignore, as always, the fact that every Government investigation into JFK's death---plus the autopsy doctors too!---concluded that one bullet DID go all the way through Kennedy's body. But what do THEY know, right? After all, the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel was only comprised of NINE very trained pathologists. But we'll just trust Dr. Prudhomme instead of placing an ounce of faith in those NINE medical doctors. Right, Bobby?


I guess it is finally time to rub your nose in the dirt on this topic. Just remember, you asked for it.


Oh, you mean the other 99 times you posted your charts and graphs was just the warm-up? The real ballgame hasn't started yet, eh? Good. I've got time to get a hot dog and a Dr. Pepper (LHO's favorite) before game time then.

Bring it on, Dr. Anatomy. My answer will still be the same. It'll be that "child's rant" I posted here -- which is the absolute truth and you know it.

But waste more bandwidth on 22 more anatomy charts if you want. I'm going to watch the Reds game instead.


I like it that you [Martin Hay] and Von Pein both like to pretend the physical evidence doesn't exist.


Oh yeah. That's right, Cliff. I am always going around pretending the physical evidence doesn't exist, aren't I? Guns, prints, bullets, witnesses, shells. I never mention any of that stuff, do I?

But apparently the ONLY "real evidence" in the whole case is the clothing of JFK. Right? Nothing else matters. It's all about the clothes (as always), according to One-Note Cliff.

Geez Louise, Cliff. You're obsessed with haberdashery. (Is there a doctor who specializes in that? If so, make an appointment---quick!)


I didn't like DVP calling me a clown.


Sometimes the truth hurts.


I know and like original sources. You do not because you do not do any original research.


What a crock.

If by "original", you mean "primary" sources, then, yes, I love those types of sources too -- "primary" ones, like the original investigations and the official Government follow-up investigations [e.g., Dallas Police Department, Warren Commission, HSCA, Clark Panel, Rockefeller Commission] and the "primary" witnesses involved in the case.

But you, Jim, seem to like to THROW AWAY almost all of the "primary" source material. You find a reason (any reason) to toss all of that "primary" (first day) evidence right into the trash can (e.g., the guns, bullets, prints, fibers, paper bag, bullet shells, the autopsy report, the autopsy photos, and lots more).

You don't USE those primary sources and first-day evidence. You MISuse those things. Every last one of them. With Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle being a prime example of how you misuse (and totally mangle) the evidence in this case. You've done everything in your power to take that gun out of the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, and even out of his hands at ANY point in time in the year 1963.

You're so enamored with the silly idea that Oswald never touched Rifle C2766 that you are now even saying that Oswald never even ORDERED that rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods. And Oswald having ordered and paid for a rifle from Klein's is a rock-solid fact that no reasonable and sensible person on the planet who has looked at the evidence can possibly deny. And yet Mr. DiEugenio denies it--and vehemently. What a crock. And what a joke you are.

And that's just one example (among dozens) of how DiEugenio treats the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases. There ought to be some kind of law against it. But I guess freedom of speech (and, in Jim's case, the freedom to look like a horse's ass when he pretends that all of the evidence against Oswald is fake) overrides any hope I ever had of James DiEugenio being able to properly assess any of the evidence in the John F. Kennedy assassination.


How many sit down interviews did you conduct for your book, Davey?


Well, I didn't "sit down" with anyone during the writing of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", but I did "reach out" (which would be the more appropriate term) to a few people for help. (Or doesn't a "reach out" type of conversation count, Jim? Does it have to be a face-to-face "sit down" interview in order to qualify as "research"? ~shrug~)

Anyway, I "reached out" via e-mail several times, as I recall, to two people in particular -- former Secret Service agent Gerald Blaine and Sixth Floor Museum curator Gary Mack. Both of those men were very helpful to me concerning various aspects of research I have done in the last few years. (See pages 65-66 and 414-415 of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".)

And I should point out that this "reaching out" to Blaine and Mack is something I did prior to helping Mel Ayton write the "BRD" book. But I was able to incorporate the information I had previously gathered from Gerald Blaine and Gary Mack into the final manuscript for the book. (Does that still count, Jim? Or am I disqualified on a technicality?)

And there were several additional "reaching out" sessions that I have had with people like Dale Myers, John McAdams, and Jean Davison (three of the best JFK sources you could possibly hope to find, in my opinion) that I desperately wanted to include in the book, but due to space restrictions, there was a whole bunch of my stuff (more than 20,000 words, in fact) that had to be cut out of the manuscript. (Should I try to get "BRD 2" published?) :)


Mel Ayton, the book's primary author, conducted several personal interviews. Each of which is sourced in the Notes & Sources section of the book.

But the reality is that the amount of JFK assassination material is so vast and so detailed via all of the previous investigations and documents and books (and, in particular, Vincent Bugliosi's monumental tome, in which almost any source imaginable can be extracted and cited from Vince's 2800 total pages), that it makes "original" sources (via "sit down" interviews with people) less necessary in the years 2014 and 2015 when compared to many years ago, especially in the pre-"Reclaiming History" years before 2007.

I think it really boils down to this question: How does the author evaluate the existing evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases?

And I think Mel Ayton and myself have properly and fairly evaluated the evidence in those two murder cases (plus the murder of Lee Oswald by Jack Ruby as well).

A conspiracy theorist like Jim DiEugenio will, of course, disagree with my last statement above. Jim thinks all of the evidence (or pretty close to all of it) should be tossed out the window. He thinks it's tainted evidence. I, however, could not disagree more strongly. In fact, I've always felt that the "Everything Is Fake" mindset of many conspiracy theorists is nothing but a cop-out and a convenient way for those CTers to summarily dismiss nearly everything that points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the guilty party--no matter how much evidence they have to toss aside.

Quoting wound ballistics investigator Larry Sturdivan....

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of 'Keystone Kops', with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and 'evil geniuses', with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" (2005)


[Marrion] Baker never saw Oswald [on the second floor of the Book Depository on 11/22/63].


It's fun just making up total crap out of whole cloth, isn't it Jimmy?


Did you ever read either one of my most recent books?

Please, a yes or no answer will suffice for once.

If no--too busy reaching out to Mack and Davison right?--then where do you get the cajones to say something like the above? Especially after what I just did to you on the rifle order? You want some more?

It is you who are making stuff up. The worst part is that you don't even know it.


Let's cut to the chase --- You're full of crap, Jimmy. And the worst part is that you don't even know it. (Or maybe you do, but you can't admit it.)

The bottom line on this is that you said something that was incredibly stupid and I called you on it. And now you don't like it. Well, that's just tough, Jimbo. And you can't walk it back. So you're stuck with that dumb quote from now until doomsday. You said something that is not supported by the facts in any way, shape, or form--and you damn well know it. And the incredibly stupid thing you said was this....

"Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015

The above quote doesn't come close to resembling the facts and the witness testimony of both Marrion L. Baker and Roy S. Truly, and anyone with the ability to read the testimony (and to watch the video below) knows it.

And yet I am being chastised for "making stuff up". The irony is so delicious and thick, we'd need a chainsaw to slice through it.

You, Jimmy D., give new meaning to the words POT, KETTLE, and "MAKING STUFF UP".

You're a joke, Jimmy. And, yes, you're a clown. (There, I said it again. Cry me a river.)


Please note above, Davey never answered my question.

Because he likely did not read either of the books.


Of course I haven't read any of your books. None. Nada. I get enough of your nonsense just reading it on the Internet. Why would I torture myself further by actually buying one of your fantasy books?

And it appears that Jim has already forgotten this short exchange we had just two days ago on this forum:

DiEUGENIO -- "Now if you look through the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, which you will not..."

DVP -- "A double root canal would be preferable to reading that book. I mean, a guy who still props up Garrison in the 21st century? Geesh. Incredible."

BTW, that was a hint that I had NOT read Jim's book.

So, let's continue....

I'm assuming that Jimmy is probably about done spreading his snake oil through the veins of this forum thread (for the moment anyway), so I'll talk again....

Nothing Jim DiEugenio has said in this thread [beginning here] concerning Marrion Baker negates the "second-floor encounter" that Officer Baker had with Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63. That encounter, on the second floor, is even confirmed by Oswald himself in the written report of Dallas Police Homicide Captain J. Will Fritz. Here's what Fritz said on page 2 of his report....

"I asked Oswald where he was when the police officer stopped him. He said he was on the second floor drinking a Coca-Cola when the officer came in."
-- Warren Report; Page 600

And the "second floor" encounter between Baker and Oswald is also mentioned in Fritz' handwritten notes as well, right here.

And if Jim wants to switch gears and talk about the "Coca-Cola" that Fritz said that Oswald said he was drinking at the time of the lunchroom encounter with Officer Baker, I'm prepared for that argument too. Click here.

So, in order for Jim to have a prayer of debunking the second-floor lunchroom encounter between Baker and Oswald, DiEugenio has no choice but to call all three of the following people outright liars when it comes to this particular issue:

Marrion Baker.
Roy Truly.
Lee Harvey Oswald (DiEugenio's resident "patsy" for all 11/22/63 murders).

Now, granted, Mr. Oswald was one heck of a liar. No doubt about that. He practically turned into a lying machine after he was arrested in the Texas Theater on November 22nd. But in this instance we're discussing here, when he was answering Captain Fritz' question about where he was located when the policeman encountered him within the Depository building, he was not lying. And we can know for an absolute fact he was not lying in this instance due to the fact that his "second floor" version of the event is corroborated by TWO other people---Marrion Baker and Roy Truly.

It's kind of a funny switch here, isn't it? The LNer (DVP) is supporting and believing something uttered by Oswald; and the CTer (DiEugenio) has no choice but to think Oswald was lying about this incident.

Or maybe Jim thinks Captain Fritz just put the words "second floor" into Oswald's mouth when Fritz wrote up his report. Either way, we can add one more "liar" to Jim's growing list of liars, can't we, Jim?

Jim DiEugenio is packaging and selling snake oil. He has attempted to dress up his snake oil in a "scholarly" and "well sourced" manner. But it's still snake oil that Jimmy is selling and nothing more.

The initial inconsistencies in Marrion Baker's account of what floor he saw Oswald on do not mean that Baker was lying. He simply mixed up the floor numbers in his rush to race up the stairs in a frantic effort to locate the President's assassin.

The very same kind of early first-day inconsistencies and innocent errors of fact can be found in several other places within the JFK assassination landscape. For instance, there are the initial news reports of FOUR bullet shells being found on the FIFTH floor of the Book Depository. But when the dust had settled, it became obvious that those early news reports were simply erroneous (and non-sinister) in nature, and that, in reality, only three shells had been found in the building--and on the SIXTH floor, not the fifth.

Two more examples that show how people can get things innocently mixed up can be found in the affidavits of two Dealey Plaza witnesses, Ronald Fischer and Robert Edwards. In Fischer's 11/22/63 affidavit, he said he saw a man on the "fifth floor". He later told the Warren Commission that the "white man" he saw was on either the "fifth or sixth floor". And since we know from the picture taken by Tom Dillard that there was no "white man" in any window on the southeast side of the fifth floor, Fischer was simply mistaken when he said "fifth floor" in his initial affidavit.

And Edwards, who was standing next to Fischer during the assassination, made the very same mistake Fischer made when Edwards filled out his affidavit on November 22 too. Edwards said the man was on the "fifth floor". But we can know that he really meant to say "sixth floor", because in the same affidavit Edwards said "there was a stack of boxes around him". And there certainly was not a "stack of boxes" surrounding anyone in the fifth-floor windows that day.

So, as we can see, it's certainly not unusual for witnesses to be mistaken when it comes to the TSBD's floor numbers.

It seems as if a whole new breed of conspiracy theorist is among us. And members of this new breed, in addition to being part of the proverbial "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity, are now also members of the "It Never Happened At All" club too.

I can remember not that long ago when CTers would argue in FAVOR of the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter happening just where all sensible people know it happened--in the second-floor lunchroom of the TSBD. With those CTers using that FACT as "proof" (they would say) of conspiracy, because they'd say that Oswald couldn't possibly have made it down to the second floor in time to see Officer Baker in the lunchroom.

But now we get INHAA [It Never Happened At All] members (like Mr. DiEugenio) who can never use that other "He Couldn't Have Made It There In Time" argument ever again---because DiEugenio is convinced the encounter never happened at all.

And the same with the "paper bag" argument. In past years, that brown paper bag (CE142) that Oswald was seen carrying on the morning of November 22, 1963, was propped up as a "proof of conspiracy" crown jewel by the conspiracy faithful, with the CTers insisting the bag itself was proof that Oswald never carried any rifle into the Depository on November 22 because the bag was way too short.

But now, it's a new ballgame with the bag. And people like Jim DiEugenio can never again utilize the "Too Short" argument. Why? Because Jimmy assures the world that Oswald never had a bag at all on November 22. Go figure.

Kind of funny, isn't it? I think so.


Anyway, thanks Davey, no one leads with his chin like you do. I am already getting emails thanking me for putting you in your place again. Some things never change.


And nobody can sell snake oil and a bunch of made-up, imaginary crap like you can, Jimbo. You just might be the new Babe Ruth of snake oil salesmen, Jimmy. Congratulations on that fine achievement in life.

My favorite bits of Jimbo made-up fantasy from his recent marathon filibuster regarding Marrion Baker and Lee Harvey Oswald are these gut-busters (which should make the "Fantasy Hall-of-Fame" very soon)....

"I believe the incident [i.e., second-floor encounter] was created after the fact. .... I think the guy on the stairway was probably the guy that [James] Worrell saw running out the back of the building. I think the other conspirators got out through the freight elevator after planting the rifle and shells. And I think the odds are that Sean [Murphy] is correct about LHO being outside. Sean brought up some other devastating evidence--including photos--about how the WC aided in putting the whole lunch room encounter together. It took them awhile to get it down and he showed some amazing photos of the dress rehearsal." -- James DiEugenio; July 14, 2015

Only two words need be uttered by me at this point in the proceedings ---

Oh brother!

And please note that Jim D. totally avoids and/or ignores the affidavit of Depository Superintendent Roy Truly. It is, in fact, Mr. Truly who VERIFIED that Baker was pointing his gun at Lee Harvey Oswald in that second-floor lunchroom on 11/22/63.

Mr. Truly is the key to knowing that the man who was seen by Officer Baker on the second floor was, in fact, the one and only Lee H. Oswald --- and that's because Mr. Truly was the man who had hired Oswald at the Depository just one month before the assassination. Ergo, Truly knew Oswald on sight and then Truly cleared Oswald as being just one of the TSBD employees, so Baker let Oswald go on his way (unfortunately for Officer J.D. Tippit).

Roy S. Truly filled out this affidavit in his own words on Saturday, November 23, 1963, just one day after President Kennedy was murdered by Lee Oswald. Let's have a look at what Mr. Truly had to say (which DiEugenio completely ignored during his marathon posting session just a little while ago). The added emphasis is my own....

"The officer and I went through the shipping department to the freight elevator. We then started up the stairway. We hit the second floor landing, the officer stuck his head into the lunch room area where there are Coke and candy machines. Lee Oswald was in there. The officer had his gun on Oswald and asked me if he was an employee. I answered yes." -- Roy Truly; 11/23/63

Therefore, on the day after the assassination, the Depository's Superintendent, Roy Truly, is saying that he and Officer Baker definitely did encounter Lee Oswald (and nobody else) on the second floor of the TSBD right after the shooting of the President.

I guess Jim DiEugenio didn't think that Mr. Truly's affidavit was important at all. Eh, Jim?

Plus, we can also turn to Police Chief Jesse Curry's impromptu press conferences on Saturday (11/23/63) for additional confirmation that an encounter between Lee Harvey Oswald and a Dallas policeman did take place inside the Depository building just minutes after the President was shot.

And keep in mind this conversation with Chief Curry occurred only about 24 hours after JFK was killed. That's not much time for any "cover story" about the Baker/Oswald encounter to have developed and evolved. There is no mention of the "second floor" or "lunchroom" during Curry's interview with reporters, but it's quite clear from Curry's comments that an encounter DID take place inside the TSBD between a Dallas police officer and Lee Harvey Oswald...

REPORTER (BOB CLARK OF ABC) -- "Has he [Oswald] admitted that he was in the building at the time the shots were fired?"

DALLAS POLICE CHIEF JESSE CURRY -- "Yes....well, we know...he couldn't deny that. We have witnesses."


REPORTER (TOM PETTIT OF NBC) -- "Chief Curry, could you detail for us what led you to Oswald?"

CHIEF CURRY -- "Not exactly. Except...when we went to the building, he was observed in the building at the time, but the manager told us that he worked there. And the officers [sic] passed him on up then because the manager said he is an employee."

REPORTER -- "Is that before the shooting or after?"

CHIEF CURRY -- "After the shooting."


REPORTER (TOM PETTIT) -- "Did you say, Chief, that a policeman had seen him in the building, after the shot was fired?"


REPORTER (TOM PETTIT) -- "Why didn't he arrest him then?"

CHIEF CURRY -- "Because the manager of the place told us that he was an employee. He said he's alright, he's an employee."

REPORTER (BOB CLARK) -- "Did he look suspicious to the policeman at this point?"

CHIEF CURRY -- "I imagine the policeman was checking everyone he saw as he went into the building."


REPORTER (TOM PETTIT) -- "And you have the witness who places him there [in the TSBD] after the time of the shooting?"

CHIEF CURRY -- "My police officer can place him there after the time of the shooting."

Also see:




I am still waiting for you to take back what you said about making something out of whole cloth. That was false. And I proved it.


You're going to grow mighty old waiting for that to happen, Jimbo.

Why would I take it back? It's the truth.

You make up stuff from nothing BUT whole cloth (i.e., your vivid imagination) nearly every day. Here are several examples from just this afternoon.

And I also proved via many different avenues (Fritz' report, the Baker 1964 video, the Truly video, the Truly affidavit, and the Curry video) that the following statement by Jim DiEugenio is nothing but a huge pile of manure --- "Baker never saw Oswald."

Let's see if Jimmy is man enough to do the right thing and withdraw the above preposterous hunk of nonsense about Baker never having seen Oswald on Nov. 22. Of course, Jimmy won't retract it. He's got too much invested in promoting that crappy story about Baker lying through his teeth....along with Truly....and Curry....and even OSWALD himself (or Fritz).

I wonder if Jim even realizes how many conspiracy theorists are laughing at him regarding this quote....."Baker never saw Oswald."

I hope you keep trying to defend it, Jimbo. It makes people like you so very easy to combat. I mean, when you have to resort to calling almost EVERYBODY a liar concerning the second-floor encounter, that should send up a red flag. But, to Jim, the more liars there are, the more LOGICAL his theory becomes.

Go figure that logic.


So even though you were proven wrong, and I referenced first day evidence by Baker, in two affidavits, both on the 22nd, which show that he changed his story and it evolved over time, and the man he first referred to could not have been Oswald, you still insist that I made something up.

If anything proves you are in denial, that does. Evidence does not matter to you. Even if it's first day evidence. Uninterfered with and done by his own volition. Even when he saw Oswald sitting there in front of him. And all those photos amassed by Sean Murphy, showing how the WC had to go through the whole dress rehearsal of this incident before they could get it right, you were aware of those also right?

There is denial and there is DENIAL.


So, there was NO WAY IN HADES that Baker's "third or fourth floor" remark in his Day 1 affidavit could have POSSIBLY been just a simple mistake, right Jim? That was impossible, right? He MUST have been lying when he later confirmed it was the second floor? Is that how you see it? Geesh.

And it's clear already from his first-day affidavit that Baker was NOT EXACTLY SURE which floor it was -- "third or fourth". So he doesn't really know even on Day 1. But Jimbo ignores that "third OR fourth" indecision.

In reality, what Jimbo thinks of as a story told by Marrion Baker that "evolved over time" is nothing more than Baker's account becoming more accurate over time (once Baker realized that he saw Oswald in the SECOND-floor lunchroom instead of on the third or fourth floor of the building).

But to Jim, any story that changes must certainly indicate that something is rotten in the state of Denmark (or Texas).

And Jim ignores Roy Truly's 2nd-day affidavit entirely, in which Truly confirms the floor number---the second floor. But Truly can be tossed under the bus because he's just a "right-wing cracker", right Jimmy?

And even if that were true about Truly, you think that automatically means that Truly is going to immediately want to jump on board the "Let's Frame Oswald" train? Oh yeah, that's really believable there, Jim. Try that one in a courtroom and see how it flies.

And just because Oswald was in the same room with Baker at the police station, that is supposed to mean Baker could not possibly have seen LHO in the TSBD?

Time for one of these --- WTF????

Better watch that Curry video, Jim. I dare ya. And it's a video that existed six days before the Warren Commission was even created. So Jim can't say that the Curry video was part of some kind of alleged WC "dress rehearsal". (Thank God for videotape.)


If the "2nd floor encounter" with Baker was all just a ruse to frame Oswald, then why didn't the plotters and patsy-framers try to frame Oswald by having Baker and Truly and Fritz and Curry say that the encounter happened on the SIXTH FLOOR where the shooting actually occurred, instead of making up some crazy story about an encounter between Baker and Oswald on the SECOND FLOOR, four floors away from the Sniper's Nest?

Kooky, huh?


LOL again. :-)

Davey, you did not read my series very well did you?

Take a look at when the affidavit started to evolve.

The DPD did not frame all those people because they were stupid.



More liars....more false statements....more crooked cops....more "right-wing crackers who despised the Kennedys" (Mr. Truly). My, how very convenient for the plotters there, eh? They have a "right-wing cracker who despised the Kennedys" right there as a TSBD boss, so they can use him in the frame-up too.

And, right on cue, Truly gladly hops on board. Gee, what luck!

Did Truly have a hand in killing Tippit and O.J.'s ex-wife too?

I'm loving this, Jim. I'm having a ball. Thanks for being you.


While searching my November 1963 newspaper archive, I found the following excerpt in the 11/23/63 Dallas Morning News....

"Police had encountered him [Oswald] while searching the building shortly after the assassination. They turned him loose when he was identified as an employe..." -- Dallas Morning News, 11/23/63, p.1

Now keep in mind that the DMN newspaper was, of course, a MORNING paper and therefore in order for the above words to appear in that paper on the morning of Saturday, November 23rd, the information in the article would have certainly been obtained no later than the previous evening (November 22).

Therefore, the story about Lee Harvey Oswald having been "encountered" by the "police" while the police were "searching the building shortly after the assassination", and then the police having "turned him loose when he was identified as an employe" (all direct quotes from the DMN front-page article on November 23), was most definitely being reported to the press no later than the evening of Friday, November 22, 1963.

So, it looks like the conspiracy theorists can add the staff of the Dallas Morning News to their list of liars when it comes to this topic of Baker and Oswald and the "second-floor encounter".

Click to enlarge....

David Von Pein
July 9-15, 2015
[Original discussions HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.]