(PART 976)


Authors David Kaiser ["Road To Dallas"], Gus Russo ["Live By The Sword" & "Brothers In Arms"], and Mark Fuhrman ["A Simple Act Of Murder"], though all books were funamentally flawed and had some severe problems, they all had some good, important stuff in there that is incompatible with the pathetic Oswald-did-it-alone crap.

But, lone nutters can't learn anything new, they have all the answers, and these books were ignored or ridiculed by the McAdams gang, which shows they have no integrity, honesty, or anything resembling fairness, becuse if they did, they would have some questions.


As far as Mark Fuhrman's JFK book is concerned, I did ask some questions. In my review of his 2006 book ("A Simple Act Of Murder"), I asked some questions about Fuhrman's strange anti-SBT stance, such as these questions:

"Why on Earth would that bullet, travelling downward at 24 degrees (given Fuhrman's early Z186 timing for this JFK hit, which, of course, is also just pretty much a wild guess) suddenly veer upward after hitting nothing but soft tissue in JFK's neck? Is that scenario at all possible? I suppose the answer to that is, indeed, 'yes'. But given the physical evidence in the case (i.e., the total lack of damage in JFK's neck region that could account for such a major bullet deflection), is that scenario "probable"?" -- DVP

"If [Governor John] Connally wasn't hit until circa Z231, how can all of the above be accounted for in a "He Hasn't Been Shot Yet" manner?" -- DVP [See my
full review for the complete list of items that Mark Fuhrman totally ignores in his book.]

"Why are JFK's hands where they are at Zapruder Frame #225 if he had been hit by a bullet some 2.13 seconds earlier (or 39 Z-Frames earlier, at Z186) [as Fuhrman contends]? .... Would his reaction of jerking his arms up toward his throat REALLY have been delayed by more than two full seconds if he'd been hit at Z186?" -- DVP

"Given Mr. Fuhrman's "One Killer Named Oswald" scenario, WHY on Earth would the Warren Commission feel there was any NEED to start "inventing" theories (like the SBT) in the first place? Was that done to supposedly paint the already-guilty assassin as MORE guilty than he already was?" -- DVP

"If the Warren Commission really thought the "3 shots & 3 hits" theory was the accurate one [as Fuhrman believes] -- why wouldn't they just say so, instead of inventing the SBT?" -- DVP

"In other words -- why would the Commission think that the public would accept the Single-Bullet Theory MORE than the 3-hit scenario, if such a 3-hit theory IS really the way things occurred?" -- DVP

"If the [Warren] Commission's main goal and desire had, indeed, been to "squelch rumors about a possible conspiracy" [which is a direct quote from Page 5 of Fuhrman's JFK book] -- then why wouldn't the WC have simply signed-off on and rubber-stamped as "true and factual" the initial 5-volume FBI report concerning the assassination that came out on December 9, 1963?" -- DVP


I cannot comment specifically on two of the other books that were mentioned -- Gus Russo's "Live By The Sword" and David Kaiser's "The Road To Dallas" -- but I did read Russo's 2008 book, "Brothers In Arms", which was co-authored by Stephen Molton, and I compiled a list of questions concerning that particular publication as well.

The three main questions I raised about the Cuba-based plot to kill JFK that Russo thinks existed in 1963 are questions that I initially asked Dale Myers in 2008, shortly before I myself had read the book.

Those three inquiries are these:

"1.) How do the "Brothers In Arms" authors explain the fact that Ruth Paine and Linnie Mae Randle were so heavily influential in getting Lee Harvey Oswald his job at the TSBD just one month before the assassination? In other words, how in the world can any outside "Cuban involvement" possibly play a part in this very important sub-topic surrounding Oswald's employment in the building from where Kennedy was murdered and the very innocuous and innocent manner in which LHO obtained that job?

2.) Why on Earth would Oswald have used his own rifle to kill the President if he was "involved" with other "higher up" people (Cuban or otherwise)? Do Russo and Molton think Oswald was duped? Or was Lee Harvey just plain stupid (i.e., perfectly willing to shoot the President with his own gun and from his own workplace, even though he certainly would [or should!] have been given some other weapon to do the job that could never be traced via a paper trail back to him)?

This #2 item has always been a major snafu and a big question mark, IMO, whenever somebody comes forth with a theory saying, in effect, "Oswald killed JFK on behalf of a larger group of people, but he just went ahead and used his own cheap rifle anyway".

Yes, I know that Oswald did, indeed, use his own gun to kill the President. That's as obvious as can be. But it only makes sense, IMO, from the standpoint of Oswald doing it ALONE, sans any outside influence...and, most importantly, sans any outside OPPORTUNITY that would have been afforded him (via his co-plotters in crime) to obtain a better assassination weapon that wouldn't have a popcorn trail a mile long leading straight back to him.

In other words -- Oswald (the lone killer, who probably didn't plan to shoot the President more than two or three days ahead of time--if that long) pretty much had no choice -- he used the only gun that was available to him...his own Carcano rifle.

But in a pre-arranged scenario, there is simply no way that Oswald would be willing to use his own rifle, IMO, given the obvious choices that would undoubtedly have been afforded him via such a multi-person plan. I don't think Oswald was THAT stupid. .... Were these Cubans so incredibly cheap that they couldn't afford a better rifle for their killer to use on the President of the United States?

3.) Why was LHO hung out to dry following the assassination if he was really involved with other people in a plan to murder Kennedy? Where the heck was his getaway driver via such a pre-arranged assassination scheme?


Yes, perhaps the rug was pulled out from under Oswald's feet at the last minute. I guess that's always a possibility. Maybe the high-up Cuban forces that were "in" on the plot with Oswald decided to make him their solo "patsy", as it were.

But even if that were true, there's still that pesky #2 question above about his rifle. How could ANYONE possibly talk Oswald (or any shooter) into using his own rifle to kill the President within the context of the kind of pre-arranged-well-in-advance multi-person plot that Mr. Russo and Mr. Molton are obviously advocating in their 2008 publication?


Plus: In such a scenario, why would anyone involved in a plot with Oswald even WANT him to use such a cheap and old weapon for such a big "hit" like this one? Maybe I'm just naive as all get out, but that just makes no sense to me whatsoever."
-- DVP; October 28, 2008


After reading "Brothers In Arms", I found that those same three questions are still very valid ones, and remain unanswered in any kind of a satisfactory and reasonable manner.

David Von Pein
June 17, 2010