(PART 1041)


I already explained why it should be footnoted. Like most other things you don't like, you ignore it.


It is sourced, as I already told you twice. Source Note #36 covers that quote on Page 957 of "Reclaiming History" that you have been referring to. You, for some oddball reason, think every sentence needs to be sourced separately. You're nuts, Jimmy.


Davey, did you miss all the stuff on Chicago?


No, I looked at your silliness regarding the Chicago plot--which is a plot by Vallee that has NO CONNECTION whatsoever to Dallas.

But since you've got Garrison Disease, you think that Vallee/Chicago is directly connected to Oswald/Dallas. Of course, there is no connection--except in the minds of outer-fringe conspiracy nuts like you.


It's incredible to me how with you guys, it's not enough to prove a lie...


When can I expect you to actually PROVE one of the "lies" you think you've proved, Jim? In the year 2025 perhaps?

There's no proof that Bonnie Ray Williams lied. And there's no proof Charles Givens lied.

Something that WASN'T said in an affidavit which WAS said to the Warren Commission does not prove that someone lied.

You simply cannot evaluate evidence properly, Jimbo. And that fact couldn't BE more obvious by the way you treat the "paper bag" testimony of Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle. To believe BOTH of those witnesses just MADE UP the bag is something that only a paranoid Garrison supporter would even begin to think.

Congrats, Jimbo, you are that paranoid Garrison supporter.


He [Lee Oswald] wanted to go down on that elevator...he was going to eat lunch at that time, and...HE ASKED THEM TO SEND IT BACK UP.


You're hilarious, Jimbo.

Of COURSE he himself (LHO) asked for the elevator to be sent back up. So what? He obviously was preparing the attempted assassination in his mind at that time around 11:50-11:55 AM CST on Friday.

He undoubtedly wanted the elevator sent back up for two reasons--

1.) He wanted to be able to lock the elevator on the 6th Floor so that nobody else could use it. I.E., it was one less elevator that anyone could use to surprise him on the sixth floor while LHO was in the act of murdering the Chief Executive.

And (even more importantly in LHO's mind, IMO):

2.) Oswald wanted to freeze the elevator on the sixth floor so that he, himself, could use it for his escape after shooting JFK.

Unfortunately for Oswald, nobody sent the elevator back up. Although it's likely that even if an employee had sent it back up, it wouldn't have remained locked and frozen on the sixth floor for very long...because Bonnie Ray Williams would have likely used that elevator to go from the 6th to the 5th floor after eating his lunch.

So, Oswald's "freezing the elevator" plan probably wouldn't have materialized the way he wanted anyway. But Lee Harvey didn't count on Williams eating his lunch on Floor #6.

It's just too bad Williams didn't hang around to watch the motorcade from the sixth floor. If he had done so, President Kennedy would very likely not have been killed in Dealey Plaza.

Also see:


Givens' BS story makes no sense in light of their testimony. Why would LHO ask Givens to send the elevator back up if he was waiting for it even before Givens came up to get his cigarettes?

You know why? Because it didn't happen.


More hilarity from Jimbo "Everybody Lied" DiEugenio here.

Oswald's persistence in wanting an elevator sent back up to him makes perfect sense from the point-of-view of OSWALD BEING THE ASSASSIN OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY.

I.E., It makes perfect sense from the POV of a person who would want an elevator to be sent back up to him on the Floor Of Death. As I mentioned previously, Oswald wanted to use that very same elevator as an escape route to get off of that sixth floor very quickly after shooting JFK.

What is so hard to believe about that type of mindset?

But, actually Jim, you've fallen on your own sword with the quote I just cited above -- because, you're right about it not making any sense from the standpoint and mindset of an INNOCENT OSWALD who wanted to do nothing more than take that elevator downstairs to eat his lunch with the other boys on the first floor.

Which is why we can know that Oswald had SOMETHING ELSE IN MIND with respect to the elevators on November 22, 1963. He wanted to use the elevator at a LATER time--like, say, just after he had fired some Carcano rifle bullets into the body of the President.

But, as always, since conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio are part of the "Everybody Was A Liar" fraternity, those CTers fail to evaluate things from the POV of the assassin himself.

Obviously, Oswald had more on his mind at 11:55 AM on November 22nd than merely riding the elevator downstairs to eat a cheese sandwich. Which makes Oswald's DOUBLE PLEA for the elevator to be sent back up to him on the sixth floor an action that is in perfect sync and harmony with all of Lee Oswald's other actions and movements on 11/22/63.

David Von Pein
September 4, 2010

(PART 1040)


Were the prosectors prevented from examining JFK's clothing?


Only because the clothing wasn't available at Bethesda (as far as I recall).

How could they examine something that wasn't in their possession, Ben?


I believe you are wrong, David. The prosectors asked to see the clothing and were told they didn't need to see it.

Even if the clothing was not in Bethesda when they asked, it could have (and should have) been provided. They flew in a piece of bone, for heaven's sake, they certainly could have flown in the clothing.


Okay, Garry. You might be correct on this point about the clothing. I'm just not sure at the moment. (I'm relying on my memory right now.) And that's also why I added "as far as I recall" in my last post on that topic.

But, yes, the autopsy doctors should have been able to inspect JFK's clothing.


"Opinions" given that have never had *ANYTHING* citable as a source, and that contradict the KNOWN facts... are lies -- no matter *how* you want to spin it.


I love how the strange mind of the "JFK CTer" works....

Virtually EVERY mistake (tiny or big) is a "lie" in Ben Holmes' world.

He actually thinks I deliberately "lied" (with intent to deceive, I would surmise; right, Ben?) when I said this a little while ago....

"Only because the clothing wasn't available at Bethesda (as far as I recall). How could they examine something that wasn't in their possession, Ben?" -- DVP

I made the above remark based on my memory of the events at Bethesda, and because I had thought the clothing of JFK was NOT available to the autopsists during the autopsy on the night of 11/22/63. I thought it was still in Dallas, where his clothes had been cut off him by the doctors at Parkland.

Therefore, if I later am reminded that the clothing WAS available to Humes and Company on the night of 11/22/63, I was merely mistaken (i.e., wrong about something).

But according to Holmes, it can't be anything OTHER than a deliberate lie---with intent to DECEIVE somebody.

The conspiracy theorist's mind is a remarkable thing. But I'm glad I don't have one in my head. (Yuck. Who'd want one of those?)


Re: The Clothing....

From Dr. Humes' 1996 ARRB testimony....

QUESTION -- Dr. Humes, did you request at any time during the autopsy to see the clothing which President Kennedy had been wearing at the time of the assassination?

DR. HUMES -- No, I didn't. I should have, probably, but didn't.

QUESTION -- Do you know where the clothing was during the--

DR. HUMES -- No, I don't. I did see the clothing ultimately in the Archives, but I didn't know where it was.


And here's what Dr. Boswell told the ARRB....

QUESTION -- Did you hear anyone at any point during the autopsy request to examine the clothing that President Kennedy was wearing at the time he was shot?

DR. BOSWELL -- We all discussed the clothing. It was made--I guess we asked where the clothing was--certainly remember Pierre [Finck] asking about the clothing. But we didn't know where the--we knew that he had been in the hospital. He had arrived in our hospital in sheets, so we assumed that either the clothing was down there or was in transit, and we were not concerned about it at that point. But the clothing became available to us; it may have been several days or weeks later.


QUESTION -- Do you recall Dr. Finck asking to examine the clothing during the autopsy?

DR. BOSWELL -- Not specifically.

QUESTION -- So as best you recall, there was a discussion of the clothing, but not a request to see the clothing. Would that be fair?

DR. BOSWELL -- Right.


And Dr. Finck....

QUESTION -- During the course of the autopsy of President Kennedy, did you examine the clothing that he was wearing at the time that he was shot?

DR. FINCK -- No.

QUESTION -- During the course of the autopsy, did you or any other doctor ask to see the clothing President Kennedy was wearing?

DR. FINCK -- I asked to see the clothing.

QUESTION -- What were you told?

DR. FINCK -- That it was not available.

QUESTION -- Were you told why it was not available?

DR. FINCK -- No.

QUESTION -- Do you know where the clothing was?

DR. FINCK -- No.


So, did [Secret Service agent] William Greer [who testified that he was the person who took physical possession of JFK's clothing at Parkland Hospital in Dallas; see 2 H 125] have the clothing with him at Bethesda? He doesn't say in his Warren Commission testimony.

But there's certainly nothing in the above testimony of any of the three autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, or Finck) that would indicate JFK's clothing was available for inspection and examination during the autopsy at Bethesda on the night of November 22nd.

So, I'm wondering if this post I made earlier just might be a true statement after all:

"Only because the clothing wasn't available at Bethesda (as far as I recall). How could they examine something that wasn't in their possession, Ben?" -- DVP


I see you've decided to try to mislead people again... But of course, you're lying.


Tell us Davey ... at what point did Greer stash the clothes he had?


Nothing they [the autopsy doctors] said implies that the clothing was not there, only that they were not allowed to examine it.


The available evidence shows that Greer had the clothing, HE WAS PHYSICALLY PRESENT AT BETHESDA, therefore the clothing was as well.


I'm just trying to find out what the three autopsy doctors were aware of. Their testimony (all three of them) seems to suggest that they thought the clothing was NOT right there on the premises at Bethesda (and that they were TOLD it was "not available").

It could have just been a lack of good communication. Greer was RIGHT THERE, but did HE hear Finck (or the other doctors) ask about the clothing? If not, then that could be the answer---lack of communication.

Plus, do you think Greer was part of some plot to PREVENT the doctors from examining the clothes? If so, tell us why, Ben?


You avoided explaining this quote from Dr. Finck: "One officer who outranked me told me that my request [to examine the President's clothing] was only of academic interest."

Dr. Finck asks to see the clothes and is told he can't, with the above quote as an explanation, and you claim that this was all due to a lack of good communication?


Why not a lack of communication, Garry? That's impossible, is it? But why?

And why would anybody NOT want the doctors to look at the clothes anyway? We've all seen the clothing now, and there's certainly nothing to indicate any "conspiracy" in the clothes. One hole in the coat, one in the shirt, and the cuts in the tie. All consistent with ONE bullet entering from behind and exiting the throat.


They were refused permission to examine the clothing.



Prove it.


Tell us Davey -- if you *KNOW* you've not read the relevant evidence, why would you claim it's "nonsense"?


Because it makes no sense for the autopsists to be "denied" access to the clothes.

Does it make sense to you for that to have happened? If so, what for?


Ben, is this the Finck memo you referred to (ARRB MD28)?

If so, I couldn't find the passage you quoted in there regarding the clothes. Which of the 24 pages is it on? Thanks.


Here it is. [I found it myself.] Page 22....



How long does it take you to read it and realize you lied when you labeled it "nonsense"?

When are you going to retract your lie?


Oh, I didn't have much doubt that Colonel Finck said what you said he said, Ben. (You wouldn't be so bold and daring as to put quote marks around a supposed Finck quote if he had never uttered a word of it---would you, Ben?)

Or maybe.....


Anyway, I never much doubted Finck SAID it. But, yes, it's still "nonsense". It makes no sense to deny Finck access to something that was right there in the morgue (if it was in the morgue).

But, as usual, this is a total non-issue that CTers can go nowhere with --- because we know what the clothes show.

Can you turn the clothes of JFK into some kind of proof of "conspiracy", Ben? I'd like to see you try.

It's also interesting to note that if the autopsy surgeons HAD examined the President's clothing on the night of November 22, they very likely would have discovered virtual proof that the wound in JFK's throat was the EXIT wound for the bullet that entered the President's upper back (via the fibers in the front of JFK's shirt, which were pointing OUTWARD). Here's what Vince Bugliosi says about it in his book....

"In an effort to resolve where the bullet went, Dr. Finck asked to examine the president's clothing to correlate it with the wounds and found it "most unfortunate" that the clothing was not available. It had been taken into custody at Parkland Hospital by the Secret Service. Asked in 1996 if it would be standard practice to have the clothing available for inspection, Dr. Boswell stated, "Well, under normal circumstances, but these were not normal circumstances."

Not seen by the three pathologists until they testified to the Warren Commission in 1964, the president's clothing would have confirmed that the bullet had exited at the throat. In a 1965 memorandum describing his examination of the clothing, Finck wrote that "immediately below the upper button of the front [of the president's shirt] is a bullet hole perforating both flaps of the shirt, right and left. There is dry blood on the margins of both holes. The innermost hole reveals fibers directed outward, which indicates an exit perforation. The outermost hole also shows this outward orientation of the bloody shirt fibers, but to a lesser extent."

In the FBI's laboratory examination of the hole in the shirt shortly after the assassination, investigators too found that the "fibers of the cloth" were "protruding outward, "characteristic of an exit hole for a projectile, but did not find any bullet metal in the fabric surrounding the hole.

Unfortunately, the autopsy pathologists wouldn't learn of all the facts about the clothing until after the autopsy had been completed."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 400-401 of "Reclaiming History"


Now tell everyone why you claim something you've never read is "nonsense".


As I said, I never doubted Finck said what he said. I'm saying the whole NOTION of "denying" the autopsy doctors access to the clothing is "nonsense". And I think it is nonsense. And I doubt it ever happened (the "denying access" part, I mean, regardless of what Dr. Finck said in his 1965 memo).

If you want to call me a liar for feeling this way, then be my guest. You haven't yet reached triple digits in your "You're a liar, Davey" posts today, Ben, so why not add one more right now. Okay?


It's also interesting to note that if the autopsy surgeons HAD been given permission to examine the clothing on the night of November 22, they very likely would have discovered virtual proof that the wound in JFK's back was a fradulent one, since there was no hole in the jacket or shirt.

See how easy that was, Davey?

I DEFY you to refute it.


And yet I am called a liar continuously by this man named Holmes. Amazing.

The shirt has a bullet hole of entry in it. And the jacket has a bullet hole of entry in it. And yet Holmes wants to pretend those holes were NEVER THERE at all at the time of the autopsy.

Let me repeat this silliness for the upper deck patrons again (just for the laughs)....

"It's also interesting to note that if the autopsy surgeons HAD been given permission to examine the clothing on the night of November 22, they very likely would have discovered virtual proof that the wound in JFK's back was a fradulent one, since there was no hole in the jacket or shirt." -- B. Holmes

No, folks, you're not dreaming----Holmes actually said that.

Somebody call the Fantasy Police!

Such fantasies full of utter tommyrot refute themselves, Holmes. I don't need to refute it. That would be akin to wasting my time trying to refute that I was born.

But to take this detour into goofiness just a little further....

Is it your contention that Drs. Humes, Finck, or Boswell fired a bullet into the dead corpse of JFK at the autopsy? Is that how the bullet hole got in his upper back? Or maybe somebody just "drew in" a bullet hole on the back-wound photo to make it look like Kennedy was shot in the back? Is that it?

Dazzle me with your brilliant theory about the back wound, Ben. We're all hanging on every word.


How many people knew Greer had brought the clothes to Bethesda? Not many... But it's clear in the evidence.


What makes you so sure that William Greer took the clothes to Bethesda with him?

Why couldn't Greer have given the clothing to someone else (another Secret Service agent perhaps?) while aboard Air Force One on the flight from Dallas to Washington?

Also --- We know that Greer himself was the driver of the gray Navy ambulance that transported JFK's body from Andrews Air Force Base to Bethesda on November 22. And I've got all the live TV footage that shows the whole scene at Andrews, and I sure don't see Greer with any bags of clothing. Do you? What do you think he did with those bags of clothing before we see him get into the driver's seat of the Navy ambulance in this television footage, Ben?....


Therefore, I suggest that it's quite possible (even probable) that Bill Greer gave the clothing to someone else on Air Force One....or possibly gave the clothes to someone else before leaving Parkland Hospital....and, therefore, Greer might not have transported JFK's clothing to Bethesda Naval Hospital on 11/22/63.

I can't prove it, no. But after looking again at the TV footage, which clearly shows Greer with nothing in his hands as he enters the Navy ambulance (although it's a bit difficult to tell, because Greer is blocked partially from view during some of the TV coverage, but it's fairly clear to me that Greer isn't carrying anything of any substantial size in his hands, such as some paper bags filled with JFK's clothing), I think it's possible the clothes did not make it to Bethesda in the possession of Secret Service agent William R. Greer.


You *STILL* haven't read Greer's testimony???


Sure I've read Greer's testimony, Ben. He says he took possession of the clothing at Parkland Hospital in Dallas. The clothes were placed in "two shopping bags" (per Greer's testimony). But Greer says nothing about transporting those "two shopping bags" full of clothes to BETHESDA that night.

And, as we can see in the CBS-TV coverage, Greer certainly isn't carrying "two shopping bags" in his hands when he gets into that ambulance at Andrews AFB. So he must have (at the very least) given the clothes to somebody ELSE to transport to either Bethesda or elsewhere. Or, as I suggested, he handed the clothes off to somebody on the airplane--or possibly even at Parkland before he drove to Love Field.


You wouldn't be lying about Greer's possession of the clothing if you *had* read Greer's testimony.


Okay, Ben, show me where in Greer's Warren Commission testimony he says he took the "two shopping bags" of clothing into the Bethesda Naval Center in Maryland on the night of November 22, 1963. Here again is Greer's testimony page. Have at it....




It's not *MY* responsibility to prove *YOUR* claims.

That's *YOUR* problem.

Getting desperate, aren't you?


Just as I thought. Holmes cannot find anywhere in Greer's testimony where Greer said he physically carried JFK's clothes into Bethesda on November 22.

And, as I said before, it's pretty clear that Greer did not HIMSELF have the clothes WITH HIM in the ambulance on the way to Bethesda. That fact is clear from the TV footage (which Holmes apparently totally ignored).

I'm now back to believing (with about 90% certainty) that the clothing of JFK was never in the Bethesda morgue on 11/22/63.

Yes, I could definitely be wrong about that belief. But after probing into this "clothing" matter today and yesterday, I can't find any proof that the clothing was actually inside the Bethesda Naval Hospital during the time when President Kennedy's autopsy was taking place.

If anyone has some information or testimony to indicate the clothes DID make it to Bethesda, please chime in.


A quick online search reveals the statement [from] an existing tape recording of Greer where he claimed he was "in the OPERATING ROOM at Parkland" [emphasis added] and stated that JFK's clothing "were in my custody from Parkland to Washington".


But we absolutely KNOW that Greer does not have the clothing in his own possession when he enters the Navy ambulance at Andrews AFB.

Plus, the only logical reason for the clothing to make a trip to Bethesda in the first place would be to make the clothes available to the autopsy doctors. Why ELSE take them out to Bethesda? Just to sit in a drawer someplace while the autopsy was going on?

I suppose an argument could be made that Greer would want to take the clothes to Bethesda (or WHEREVER he went) in order to minimize the chain of custody for the clothing. But he certainly must have handed them off to somebody else at Andrews AFB, because he does not have them in his possession as he DRIVES THE AMBULANCE to Bethesda (and then he drives the ambulance to the White House at 4:30 AM too).

So, Ben, to whom did Bill Greer give the clothes at Andrews AFB? Any idea?

I also find it a bit humorous to note that the "online search" that Ben Holmes talked about above turned up this article written by conspiracy theorist Vince Palamara, in which Palamara was highlighting some statements made by William Greer in an audio recording.

And it's pretty clear from the article that Palamara's highlighted quotes from Greer are mostly things that Palamara himself thinks are inaccurate statements made by Greer, which is why Palamara emphasized the words "operating room" in one of Greer's quotes. Palamara was highlighting the fact that Greer was WRONG when he said "operating room at Parkland", because Greer had actually taken possession of JFK's clothing in the "Trauma Room" (or "Emergency Room") of Parkland Memorial Hospital.

So perhaps even CTer Vincent Palamara is in doubt about whether President Kennedy's clothing was "in my [William Greer's] custody from Parkland to Washington". ~shrug~


How silly can you get, David? You are saying that even though the clothes were in Washington and the prosectors asked for them, it would have been impossible to call someone and have the clothes brought to the autopsy?

Pardon me, but that is just stupid. Plus not accounting for the "academic interest" comment.

Plus totally ignoring the order to not dissect the throat wound.

The autopsy WAS interfered with, and James Humes lied about it. Why you insist that there was no interference is a puzzle to me.


So, not having the clothes there at the morgue equals "interference"??

Silly. And untrue.

JFK's autopsy was not a "normal" autopsy. I think we can all agree on that. Things that normally WOULD (or at least, might) have been done at a "normal" autopsy were not done at the Kennedy autopsy.

And it's my understanding and belief that the request not to dissect/(mutilate) JFK's neck came directly from the Kennedy family---and not some sinister "military" figure who was barking orders, which is what we see portrayed in Oliver Stone's fictional film.

The Kennedy REQUEST that the neck not be dissected (i.e., torn open) might very well be classified as "interference" by many people (and I couldn't argue with that terminology either), but it evidently was NOT considered to be "interference" in the eyes of Dr. Humes (per his 1991 JAMA interview).

If you want to call Humes a liar---go ahead. But I'll hold back just a touch before I use the dreaded L-word when it comes to James Joseph Humes. (YMMV.)


Why are you RUNNING as fast as you can from the EARLIEST evidence on this matter? Both the Blumberg memo and Greer's testimony make it pretty clear that the clothing was there, and that they were *ORDERED* not to examine it.


*HE* [William Greer] says he kept the clothing -- *HE* says they were in his possession from Parkland to Washington.

You're calling a Secret Service Agent a liar. Why are you doing that, Davey?


Greer's testimony most definitely does NOT indicate that he took the clothing to Bethesda. No way does it make that clear--at all. And I pointed that out to you at least once (maybe twice) yesterday, but you still make the same claim now. Why, Ben?

Read Greer's testimony again and paste in the part where he confirms he took the "two shopping bags" of clothing to BETHESDA. Where does it say that?

Ben apparently thinks the following Greer testimony is the PROOF....

"I had this, his clothing, I kept it in my hand at all times, all the time."
-- William R. Greer

But it's obvious that Greer did not LITERALLY keep the clothes in his "hand at all times" all the way to Bethesda. Right, Ben?

So it's really Ben, not me, who wants to call Bill Greer a liar. Don't you, Ben? (Remember that CBS footage---Greer's hands are empty.)

Try again, Benji. Maybe Palamara can help you out by smearing Greer some more.


What constitutes "interference" is that they were ORDERED not to examine the clothing...


Total bull. That's merely your interpretation of these words written by Dr. Pierre Finck -- "I was denied the opportunity to examine the clothing of Kennedy".

And those words do NOT mean the same thing as being "ORDERED not to examine the clothing". That's YOUR own conspiracy-slanted interpretation of Finck's words and nothing more than that.

As for the officer who told Finck the clothes were only of "academic interest" -- that comment was simply the OPINION of that particular officer. But that comment in no way indicates that the clothes were right there FOR Colonel Finck to examine at Bethesda on the night of the autopsy. Again, you're adding a layer of interpretation to those words that does not necessarily apply at all.

Another interpretation (which is more reasonable and believable than the sinister and conspiratorial one offered up by the super-clown named Ben Holmes) is this one:

The officer who said those things to Colonel Finck meant that if the clothing HAD been available to examine at Bethesda, the information gleaned from the clothes would have been merely "academic" in nature.

Colonel Finck's opinion as to the importance of examining the clothing might very well have been a different one, however. (And no doubt was a different one.)

But that officer certainly was NOT "ordering" Finck not to examine the clothes. That's a conspiracy myth. And it's just one of dozens (maybe hundreds) of such unfounded myths that litter the landscape of the JFK case.


Yep... open his chest and pull out all his guts... open his head and remove his brain... but don't... DON'T dissect the actual bullet wound.

Yep... it all makes sense...



Then go blame Jackie and RFK. It was their order. Nobody else's. And you cannot possibly prove otherwise, Benny.


I'll add the following information regarding the clothing. Whether it's a confirmed fact or not, I really do not know (I can't find any link to the "HSCA summary" mentioned below), but Ron Ecker, who is a conspiracy believer, said this in a post at The Education Forum in 2006:

"SS agent William Greer was given JFK's clothes in two shopping bags at Parkland. According to an HSCA summary of an interview of Greer, he directed [Secret Service agent Henry] Rybka at Andrews Air Force Base to put "the shopping bag" containing JFK's clothes in his locker at the White House."
-- Ron Ecker; June 11, 2006


Another "Clothing" Addendum....

This time we have a 2005 Internet post written by John Canal. John is addressing Cliff Varnell, a rabid conspiracy theorist, in this post:

"Cliff, help me out here. Can you tell me the source of your info, re. Greer turning over the clothing to the FBI, "upon his return to Washington"? ....[A]ccording to my notes Greer did not turn over the clothes to anyone "upon his return to DC"...at least right away. Anyway, he [Greer] told the HSCA, upon his arrival in Washington, he directed agent Rybka to put the shopping bag with JFK's clothing and effects in his locker at the White House.

That's consistent with his story that about 8:00 AM on the 23rd the White House called (woke him up) asking for JFK's St. Christopher medal. He went on to say that he dressed and went to the WH and gave the medal and wallet to Ken O'Donnell. (Doc # 1870-10099-10491)

Evidently later on Saturday, according to RIF# 180-100090-10263 (an 11-23-63 document), Greer supposedly turned over the clothing and effects to SAIC Robert Bouck.

If all that's correct, then my weird theory still would be alive. Again, maybe the source you have for Greer giving the FBI the clothing trumps the above sources which tell a different story, i.e. that he had control of the clothing during the autopsy."
-- John A. Canal; October 13, 2005


So, now we have at least SOME info re: an "HSCA summary" which indicates Greer gave the clothes to SS agent Rybka at Andrews, which conforms perfectly to what I've been saying (or speculating on) for days --- William Greer did not carry JFK's clothes to Bethesda on 11/22/63.

David Von Pein
September 28-30, 2015

(PART 108)















(PART 1039)


Linked above is an interesting excerpt from a video on the LBJ Library YouTube channel.

Robert Morrow of Austin, Texas, asked this question during a Q&A panel discussion on September 16, 2015, which featured six panel members, including some former members of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA):

"Do any of you believe that Lyndon Johnson or the CIA murdered John Kennedy?"

Here is the answer Morrow received from one of the panel participants:

"Let me be very direct. It's total fiction. It has no element of accuracy or fact at all."

Below is the complete video (re: the CIA's release of the President's Daily Briefs):

David Von Pein
September 27, 2015

(PART 1038)


DVPoo should be embarrassed about posting garbage like this in praise of his book ["Beyond Reasonable Doubt"].


Yeah, I probably should try to promote a book that I co-wrote by posting all the crappy 1-Star reviews, instead of posting and propping up (as ANY author would do, of course) the GOOD reviews.

Right, Garry-Puffpoo?



The point I was trying to make was that your GOOD reviews were miserably written and poorly thought out. Good God, you even included one where the guy admitted not reading the book!

Of course you're not going to include one star reviews. No one would expect you to. But at least you should have tried to get ONE well-written review that actually told the reader something about the book.

Not one of the reviews you posted gave any evidence of having read it. To post such garbage reeks of desperation. Better to have posted none at all.


Nonsense. Every single one of the "good" BRD book reviews is very well-written and thought out.

And how on Earth can you suggest that the following two reviewers never even looked at the book at all? These reviews provide a great deal of detail about the book's contents....



So, Garry, why did you decide to lie when you ignorantly said this?....

"Not one of the reviews you posted gave any evidence of having read it."
-- Garry Puffer

And then I'm treated to this remark from Puffer, which turns out to be another good "pot/kettle" example after the things I just said above about those two reviewers who obviously had read the book before posting their Amazon reviews....

"To post such garbage reeks of desperation." -- G. Puffer

What really reeks of desperation is Puffer's desire to smear me at any cost.


If I had "reviews" like that, I'd be embarrassed.


If you had reviews like that, it'd be a miracle.


Even Chief Curry *IMMEDIATELY* sent men, not to the TSBD, but to the Grassy Knoll (or, more accurately, in that direction...)


Sure. Many people were simply fooled by the sounds that were, in actuality, coming from the TSBD, but those people thought (incorrectly) they were coming from a place FURTHER WEST in the Plaza.

A 5-year-old could figure this out. Therefore, Ben Holmes can't. (I guess he's not five yet.)

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Dealey Plaza Earwitnesses


In 26 months, more classified material is scheduled for release...and I can't imagine how ANY OF IT will support a lone gunman scenario.


And I can't imagine how ANY OF IT will be even REMOTELY related to the events in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 either. All of the "secret" documents will be peripheral stuff (at best).....and totally irrelevant and useless as far as the assassination itself is concerned (at worst--for CTers).


If what you're suggesting was correct, why on earth would "peripheral stuff (at best).....and totally irrelevant and useless as far as the assassination itself is concerned" have remained classified all these years?

Part of Ruth Paine's HSCA testimony remains classified, for example. Don't you think her statements were relative to "events in Dealey Plaza"?

Will you at least be honest enough to admit classified material released during the ARRB hearings shed considerable light on 11.22.63?


Somewhat (I guess). But I still want to know what BOMBSHELL documents were released by the ARRB that somehow prove a conspiracy (which is what Jim DiEugenio keeps assuring the world; he thinks the ARRB stuff cements the "conspiracy" in granite). But WHAT DOCUMENTS, Jimbo? Which ones? I haven't seen a ONE that proves the conspiracy that DiEugenio so fervently advocates. PLEASE LINK TO THOSE SMOKING-GUN DOCUMENTS!

DiEugenio seems to think a lot of "Garrison"-related documents released by the ARRB help to prove a conspiracy. But try telling that to Anna K. Nelson of the ARRB....

Interview With Anna K. Nelson (October 1998)


Here's a start, four depositions. All of which contradict the WC in significant ways:

Saundra Spencer:

Dino Brugioni:

John Stringer:

Francis X. O'Neill, Jr.:

My prediction is that DVPoo will merely claim I have failed because none of these disproves EVERYTHING the WC wrote in its report.


None of that stuff disproves ANYTHING the Warren Commission put on the table.

All of that material is covered in ample depth in Vincent Bugliosi's book---from Stringer to O'Neill to Spencer.

But according to Garry Puffer, Bugliosi is not to be trusted, so Puffer gets to completely ignore every word in Vince's book. Right, Puff?

The newest CT tactic/shortcut --- simply claim the LNer is guilty of a "logical fallacy" and then move on to the next hunk of speculation or the next discrepancy which has already been fully explained in non-conspiratorial ways (which they all have been).

E.G., Saundra Kay Spencer.....

Check the endnote starting on Page 264 (of the Endnotes CD-ROM) in Bugliosi's book. Vince spends several pages delving into Spencer's account of the autopsy photos.


"Like many others where eyewitnesses are confronted with hard documentary or physical evidence, Saundra Spencer's memory is no match for the facts. We know she's wrong when she says the photographs she saw show a "blownout chunk" in the center of the back of the president's head. Why? Because apart from the observations of all three autopsy surgeons, the official autopsy photographs and X-rays conclusively, and without question, depict the body of President Kennedy at the time of the autopsy and show none of what Spencer described." -- V. Bugliosi; Via "Reclaiming History"


Davy, I checked your link to Anna K. Nelson's remark:

"In truth, Jim Garrison, and hence the Oliver Stone movie, has been discredited by these documents [released by the ARRB]. If you read them, you see he did not have a case. He had nothing to build it on. .... He simply didn't have a case. And for that reason, I think you can discard that conspiracy." -- Anna K. Nelson

Good job, Davy... you've just perpetrated the greatest half-truth in the history of JFK threads! Are you truly that desperate?


So, Dex, enlighten us all.....

What part of that statement made by Anna Nelson is incorrect or untrue or a "half-truth"?

IOW, what evidence is there that a conspiracy existed in New Orleans in 1963?

And I'm still waiting for that bombshell Garrison (ARRB) document. Any chance you could provide me with such a document, Mr. Olsen? Thanks.


Davey is going to be forced to accept the fact that the prosectors (and the Autopsy Report) very clearly place the large head wound in the back of the head.


The autopsy doctors, of course, did no such thing and every reasonable person knows it. And the autopsy report most certainly does NOT place the large wound in the BACK of the head. Holmes doesn't know what he's talking about (as usual).

And Dr. James Humes, on CBS-TV in 1967 [see the video below], placed the large exit wound toward the FRONT of the head and on the RIGHT SIDE (not the rear at all).


And, even more importantly (on a PHOTOGRAPHIC basis), the X-ray of JFK's head positively proves where the large wound was --- and it wasn't in the occipital, because ALL occipital bone is STILL THERE in this X-ray....

So conspiracy fanatic Ben Holmes has no choice but to pretend the above X-ray is a total fake/fraud.

More here:


Conspiracists need to have all three of the following photographic items placed in the "fake" category in order for there to have really been a huge hole in the back/"occipital" of JFK's head....

1.) The Zapruder Film (which shows no such back-of-head [BOH] wound at all).

2.) The autopsy photos (which do not show a blown-out BOH).

3.) The autopsy X-rays (which do not show a blasted-out BOH either).

Is it reasonable to believe ALL THREE of the above things (which includes MULTIPLE X-rays and photos, not just one of each) were faked in this case?

If that's a reasonable or sensible thing to believe, please let me know why.

Yes, I've got to live with "Somewhat into the occipital". But CTers have got to live those THREE photographic items which all corroborate EACH OTHER in that they show the same thing---a wound above the right ear and not in the occipital.

Life's tough sometimes, ain't it? (TRIPLE tough if you're a conspiracy theorist who belongs to the "Big Hole In The Occipital" club.)


So is the BOH photo genuine, or is the autopsy report in error? Or vice-versa. They cannot both be genuine.

Don't try to drag other questions into this. For the moment it's just the report vs the BOH photo.


I predict that Davey will run like the coward he is. He *CANNOT* admit any conflict between the two.


Sure there's a conflict. As I said, life's tough and rough sometimes.

But does this conflict automatically indicate somebody's lying or that something is FAKE? Are there no other possibilities other than "lies" and "fakery"?



Sorry about that, Garry. It's the best I could do, since Humes (et al) were too stupid to write down how many centimeters above the EOP the wound really was. So all we get is "slightly above". Oops!

But, as I said, life can be a pain in the butt sometimes (and so can autopsies).


And for you, "slightly above" means "the top of the skull"?

You know, David, when one of us critics takes issue with an expert, we are jumped on because we are not experts ourselves. So I find it totally outrageous the number of times in that last blog you linked to that you declare that a doctor was mistaken. It got kind of silly, as a matter of fact.


Where do you see a bullet hole in the photo shown below, Garry? Where is the hole located---high on the head or low on the head or somewhere in-between? Or, you could always pull a Pat Speer and claim the red spot isn't really a bullet hole at all. It's just dried blood that took the shape of a bullet hole. (Gee, what a coincidence -- and what a fantastic break for Pat Speer!)

And do you think I (or you) need to be an "expert" in order to come to a reasonable conclusion as to the GENERAL LOCATION (high vs. low) on President Kennedy's head where the bullet hole is located in this autopsy picture?....


To contradict doctors I think you either need to be an expert in the field or have absolute proof that the doctor is wrong. Are you now arguing that an interpretation of a photo takes precedence over an actual observer's testimony? That's a slippery slope, you know.

As for the photo, it is NOT clear. Much room for doubt, especially as it contradicts the original autopsy findings, and I thought you believed in the autopsy report. That location is NOT slightly above the EOP.

What else in the report is wrong, David? Do we get to pick and choose also?

Do you not see any problem with a wound that keeps changing location?


Yeah, I know, Garry. It's tough being an LNer sometimes. They ARE some discrepancies regarding the autopsy. But what am I supposed to do about it?

One thing, however, is pretty clear.....

Regardless of the exact square inch of real estate the entry wound occupied on the back side of JFK's head, there was ONLY ONE wound of entrance in the President's head. Let's listen....

Do you think Dr. Humes was lying in the audio clip above, Garry?

There is also this statement made by Dr. James Humes in 1991....

"In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics and it is foolproof--absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The conspiracy buffs have totally ignored this central scientific fact, and everything else is hogwash. There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings." -- Dr. James J. Humes; October 1991


James Humes lied many times for what I'm sure he regarded as the "good of the country."

For example, in the quote above: "There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings."

Surely you are familiar enough with the evidence to recognize these as blatant lies.


It's remarkable how quickly a CTer is willing to label something as a "lie" and a person as a "liar". At the drop of a hat practically.



I note that David completely avoided the topic of the wandering wound, something that makes no sense if everything is aboveboard.


What am I supposed to do about "the wandering wound", Garry? Am I supposed to somehow magically make everything perfect again?

You act as if I have totally ignored the "wandering wound"? But if you'd look at the many arguments I've had with John Canal in my "BOH" series, you'll see I certainly haven't ignored it at all.

But I'd really like to know what a person like myself (who believes in Oswald's lone guilt for a wide variety of reasons---apart from JUST the [admittedly] rather sloppy autopsy) is supposed to do re: the weird "low vs. high" head wound controversy?

What CAN any LNer do--except try to evaluate the discrepancy with some measure of logic and try to resolve it the best we can. Now, should that type of "resolving" lead down the path of "fakery"? I can't see why. Because EITHER entry location on JFK's head is STILL in the BACK of the head, consistent with a shot from BEHIND and from Oswald's Sniper's Nest.


The X-ray clearly shows where it is [the location of the large exit wound in JFK's head].


Yep, it sure does, Kevin. There is NO MISSING OCCIPITAL BONE in the X-ray. All bone is there. And ALL occipital SCALP is there in the BOH pic too.

Ergo, when the autopsy report said that "in this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone", the autopsy surgeons cannot be referring to OCCIPITAL scalp and bone specifically there. They MUST be only referring to TWO of the other areas that were also "in this region"---the temporal and parietal regions.

But trying to explain this to a CTer is an arduous and uphill chore. Especially since everything is treated ONLY as a "lie" or a hunk of "fakery" in the world of CTers. How can we hope to fight that kind of disease? (And yet I still try, don't I? Silly me.) :-)


Just imagine the plotters deciding to frame Oswald from the rear and shoot the POTUS from the front and THEN realizing the gargantuan lengths they would have to go to to cover up their crime - it is preposterous and incredible - just like the conspiracy freaks in this [Amazon.com] forum. They are well read imbeciles, educating themselves into abject stupidity.


That's a good quote above.

Time to update my "Quoting Common Sense" blog.

Thanks, Dale.

"JFK VAN 1963" SAID:

It's ironic that Von Pein is a lone nutter full of disinformation, but at the same time he posts so many good videos that give you a much better sense of this obvious conspiracy.

Keep em coming VP, it really helps the common sense folks.


Of course, exactly the opposite is true. But that's typical of an Internet conspiracy theorist -- everything's always backwards and upside-down.

Truth is, when viewing/listening to the many hours of November '63 television and radio coverage, it couldn't be more obvious that there was only ONE gunman, THREE shots fired, and NO conspiracy.


David, I agree absolutely.

Thanks for your channel, your vids (love this one) and your common sense. We need more people like you on YouTube. Cheers! :)



Indeed. I was raised (not by my folks but by a culture) to believe this was not only a conspiracy, but THE conspiracy. I outgrew the child-like, but understandable desire for there to be greater meaning and motive for this killing.

You can't get 2 people who saw the assassination in Dealy [sic] Plaza to agree on how many bullets or where they were fired from, and you can't get 2 people watching the Zapruder film at the same time to agree on what they see - there is no evidence whatsoever to prove there was a second gunman.

I'm so glad to find out the person running this channel isn't swept up by all this stuff.


Thank you, "SainterSan" and Mark.

David Von Pein
September 26-28, 2015
March 11, 2015

(PART 1037)



David, it's not that we don't appreciate the self-promotional aggrandizement of linking to your blog as proof Oswald did it, but just a tip? What I scrolled through remains some of the laziest and cliched crap to date. Virtually all of it is speculation, and the rest has long since been disproven. No other bullets found anywhere, really? The SBT has not been proven an impossibility, really? Marina Oswald testifies "[Oswald] just shot Walker". No dear, the correct quote should be "[Oswald] just shot AT Walker". And even that would be incorrect.


Thanks, NickName, for the mini-critique.

And although Marina Oswald, in her HSCA testimony, did use the words "...and he said that "I just shot General Walker" " (versus "I just shot AT Walker"), for the sake of accuracy (since Walker was not actually "shot"), I have changed that quote on my website to Marina's quote from her Warren Commission testimony, which was --- "He only told me that he had shot at General Walker."

So thanks for pointing out that quote. (Although it really wasn't inaccurate as previously worded.)

Your other criticism is, of course, pure bunk. The Single-Bullet Theory is just as true (and logical) today as it ever was. And none of the items on my site have been "disproven" in any way at all. That's just wishful thinking and the usual CTer bloviating that we all have come to expect from rabid Internet conspiracists.

But thanks for pointing out the Marina quote. I like the updated quote better too (with the word "at" in there), because it is more accurate (since Oswald actually missed Walker instead of hitting him).


David, thanks for changing the quote. Still, it's problematic to me that you had it there in the first place, since you've always known Walker was only shot AT, but not shot. You may have simply been quoting Marina directly, but if you've always known the veracity of that quote to be wrong, then putting it in your blog was, in my humble opinion, meant to mislead.


I, too, am now wondering exactly where I got the original Marina quoted passage that I previously had on my blog. That part of the blog was originally written in July of 2003 at Debra Conway's JFK Lancer forum (HERE). And I certainly didn't include it to "mislead" anybody. I don't know of anyone who thinks General Walker really was shot.

And since I used the " ... " method of quoting Marina there, I think I must have been quoting directly from a source that had it written out in just that way (with the dots [ellipsis] in there). But it's not from the Warren Report and it's not from Gerald Posner's book (I checked). And it can't be from Vincent Bugliosi's book either, because his JFK book was still four years away from being published. So I don't know exactly where that came from. But it's not really inaccurate at all, because, as I said before, Marina did use the words "I just shot General Walker" in her HSCA testimony. But having the "AT" in there is better. So thanks again.


You state the majority of Dealey Plaza witnesses said shots came from behind the President, in the direction of the School Book Depository Building. There are a couple of problems with this. First of all, where were these people standing? Were they at the coveted Elm perspective, or were they halfway up Houston closer to Main Street? This makes a BIG difference.

Secondly, you cite the McAdams pie charts to show 53.8% of witnesses heard shots from TSBD. That's fine, because there probably WERE shots fired from there, so how that number looks on a pie chart is also misleading. The fact is, the chart also says 33.7% heard shots from the Knoll as well, which is no small percentage regardless of the number of spectators we say were in DP that day.

I'm only citing the numbers on the first pie chart; there are four pie charts in total, from four different sources, but look what they all have in common: a substantial number believe shots came from both the TSBD and the GK [Grassy Knoll].


That's not correct at all, Nick. You are misinterpreting the pie charts. In fact, the extremely small percentage of "Two Directions" witnesses is THE most important part about those pie charts, as I talk about on my "Earwitnesses" webpage.

And as we can see from any of the charts shown on that webpage (even the charts endorsed by some of the conspiracy authors), there was definitely NOT a "substantial number" of witnesses who heard shots coming from BOTH the Depository AND the Grassy Knoll. Almost all of the witnesses said they heard ALL of the shots coming from just ONE location—either the TSBD or the Knoll (not BOTH the Depository AND the Knoll)....

And here's something else concerning the Dealey Plaza earwitnesses....

I was recently reading through every single one of the 73 statements made by the TSBD employees in CD706, and I noticed something rather remarkable----

Nearly every person who had an opinion as to the number of shots they heard said they heard exactly THREE shots fired---no more, no less.

And also very interesting, I noted, was that almost every TSBD employee who was standing near the front entrance to the building said they thought ALL of the shots had come from down around the Knoll or the Triple Underpass. And since we KNOW that SOME shots came from that very building they were standing in front of (the Book Depository), it means those "doorway" witnesses were certainly being fooled by the acoustics in Dealey Plaza when it comes to locating the source of (at least) the multiple shots that verifiably were fired from the TSBD's sixth floor.

So, that's interesting, IMO. Several witnesses—almost unanimously—said they thought all shots emanated from further WEST than the Depository (and if you find any "doorway" witness who said shots came from directly above them, let me know; I don't think there were any). Which means, like many other "ALL SHOTS CAME FROM THE KNOLL" witnesses, we know they were not 100% accurate—because some shots DID come from the Depository.


CE-399 was not found on Connally's stretcher, rather the stretcher NEXT to his. There was also no chain of custody on this bullet. You do know this, I trust?


There's no way that bullet was found on a stretcher OTHER than Governor Connally's. And you surely know that Darrell Tomlinson was flip-flopping on the stretcher topic. He was all over the place—first saying one thing, then another. More on that here.

As for the chain of custody for Bullet CE399, see pages 413-420 of the book I co-authored, "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".

Or you can go here.


The SBT is the LNer's mirage in the desert.


Then it must also (somehow) be a mirage in the Zapruder Film too.

Why do I say that?

Because only a person in complete "SBT denial" could possibly look at the GIF clips I have assembled on my "Single-Bullet Theory" website (below) and say to themselves, "There's no way Kennedy and Connally are reacting at the same time here. It's not even close." ....


The problem with the Zapruder film is it contradicts the testimony of all witnesses who heard a rapid, almost overlapping succession of gunshots (which alone is problematic, since the MC [Mannlicher-Carcano] cannot fire this way). The only way there can be a rapid succession of shots AND the Zapruder film be accurate at the same time is if Kennedy was hit in the back with the first shot and the second shot struck Tague, which would have had to have happened just before 313 (maybe around 307 or so).


The many witnesses who said the last two shots were fired in "rapid succession" (in "bang-bang" fashion) are a bit difficult for an "LNer" like myself to explain. In fact, I can't really explain why so many witnesses said they thought the last two shots occurred practically on top of one another. (And I can't utilize the "echoes" argument when it comes to most of those witnesses, because most of them said they only heard THREE total shots. But if they had really been hearing a combination of actual GUNSHOTS plus some ECHOES, then I would think those witnesses would have said they heard more than just THREE shots.)

But I will add this.....

There are several witnesses who said the shots were "evenly spaced" (that is, NOT bunched together at all). I cite each of those witnesses here.



I have spoken to Mike Majerus about the witness perception of the shots because it has always puzzled me that if a shot has two loud composite elements - sound barrier and muzzle blast, why did not more people say they heard four or six shots - as in an even number?

His take on this is that shot 1 caught people by surprise and that it registered as a firecracker or shot ....."count 1".....then as people were alerted and more focused, they then heard the two elements of the second shot and counted it as two making a total of three...in their minds when in fact it was only two.

I am not convinced, but I think it is possible. I tend to favour an early missed shot because we have the "sparks" and we have the Tague nick.......but Mike Majerus is very persuasive over the JFK Back shot being the first shot in examining witness testimony.

Tina Towner contradicts him though as she said she heard the first shot right "after the turn".....I wonder how much time is "after the turn"......I think Phil Willis also stated he took one of his photos as a result of a shot which also came right after the turn onto Elm.

It is simply not possible to determine the exact sequence of events in respect of these shots. One has to consider the "missed shot" and the rather odd notion that an assassin would hit with shots 1 and 3 and miss the car completely with shot 2. This I believe is compelling that if there was a missed shot it was fired early and missed because it struck a tree branch.

I also think we cannot dismiss out of hand that a missed shot could have been fired after the fatal shot as Charles Brehm seemed to think, but on balance I would personally consider that to be remote - but what do I know...I was not there.


Hi Patrick,

I suppose it's possible that Mike Majerus could be correct regarding his "2 Shots" theory, but I think it is an extremely remote and highly UNlikely possibility.

A "three shots fired" scenario seems to be compelling on all fronts---including the massive number of "3 Shots" earwitnesses, which, as I mentioned in a previous post, includes the nearly unanimous statements supplied mostly in March of 1964 in Commission Document No. 706 by all 73 Book Depository employees (and it might actually BE completely unanimous among those who gave a firm opinion as to the number of shots they heard).

And with exactly three shells littering the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor, coupled with this pie chart below, it's hard to imagine just TWO shots actually being fired in Dealey Plaza. (But I would certainly never say with 100% certainty that Mike Majerus, author of "Phantom Shot", is positively wrong. Maybe he's right. But I tend to doubt it.)

Another reason I tend to doubt the "2 Shots Were Fired" theory is a pretty big reason too --- John Connally's unwavering testimony and statements about hearing the first shot, which he took to be "a rifle shot", but not being hit by that bullet, and then Connally being hit by Shot #2 (the SBT bullet, of course), and then the Texas Governor saying he was definitely NOT struck by bullet #3 (the head shot that killed President Kennedy).

John Connally's testimony concerning the shooting sequence and timing of the shots would certainly NOT favor Mr. Majerus' theory of there being only two shots fired overall.



That is quite interesting [referring to these remarks made earlier by DVP]. It certainly adds weight to the take of all shots from the TSBD and none to from the Knoll.

I would want to be overly confident of the source being correct as to what was accurately recorded of the interviews and that the recording of the interviews can be given a high weight as to reliability of being correct.

I say this because this is the first I've heard of this information and I think I should have. One reason for not hearing this is I just haven't seen enough of any of this to have come across it. Another reason could be this source has been discredited.

The reason I think I should have heard this information is because of the possible high value both sides would give it. For those who want to show a very good solid example of how witnesses could get it wrong that day about where those shots were fired from, it isn't going to get much better than this example.


What I would like to see is a re-enactment which places a few people in the doorway/entrance area of the Book Depository and then have somebody fire a Carcano rifle three times out of the sixth-floor window directly above those doorway witnesses. And then we'd ask those witnesses: Where did those shots come from?

I'd be willing to bet that nearly all of them (just like the many real witnesses we find in the statements in CD706) would say they thought the shots came from down around the Triple Underpass.




Beats me. Since no shots came from the Knoll, we'll never know.

But that would make for another good "re-enactment".

Have you read all 73 statements in CD706, Ben? Not all of them gave an opinion as to the direction of the shots, but, as I said before, it's virtually unanimous when it comes to the witnesses who were standing in the TSBD front entrance who gave an opinion as to the location of the gunman --- those witnesses thought (incorrectly, of course) that ALL of the shots came from the Knoll/Underpass/Railroad Yard area.

Now, Ben, how would you evaluate and analyze those "Doorway" witnesses? Would you conclude they were correct and that ALL shots really did come from the Knoll/Underpass area?

Or would you use a tiny bit of common sense (and other evidence) and conclude those witnesses were fooled by the Dealey Plaza acoustics and that those three shots* that were heard by those "doorway" witnesses had very likely all originated from right above their heads--from the Sniper's Nest window on the sixth floor of the Depository (which is where we know, via other evidence and eyewitnesses, a gunman was firing a rifle at the President)?

* And I believe I'm also correct in saying that every one of those witnesses who gave an opinion as to the number of shots they heard said they heard precisely THREE shots fired. See Commission Document No. 706 to verify.

David Von Pein
September 24-26, 2015

(PART 1036)


Some general observations and commentary....

The fact that the Tippit murder weapon was taken out of Lee Harvey Oswald's hands in the Texas Theater as he tried to plug more officers with it doesn't faze the conspiracy kooks in the least.

The kooks will just pretend that somebody else killed Tippit, with one kook in particular (John Judge) actually suggesting--get this--that the Dallas Police Department framed Oswald for Tippit's murder by taking LHO's revolver into the theater THEMSELVES and (evidently) shoving it into Oswald's hands (or they all lied and just SAID that Oswald had a pistol in the theater).

That latter option means that John Judge has to bring Johnny Brewer and Oswald HIMSELF into the plot to frame LHO, since Brewer said he saw Oswald with the revolver, and Oswald admitted to taking the gun into the theater.


I find that I have less and less patience with conspiracy nuts. And that applies particularly to the idiots who want to pretend that Oswald was innocent of J.D. Tippit's murder too.

Another thought occurred to me very recently regarding JFK's murder, and that thought is:

The fact that we know beyond all doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald's old, 1940, manual, semi-crappy, bolt-action Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was being used in an assassination attempt against the 35th President of the United States is, IMO, very good circumstantial evidence that there was NO CONSPIRACY involved in President Kennedy's assassination in Dallas.

Why is that?

Because if there had been anyone else involved in the murder attempt against the President, does anybody REALLY believe that this group of conspirators (which would have consisted of, presumably and logically, expert marksmen) would have utilized Lee Oswald's MANUAL BOLT-ACTION RIFLE to try and kill John Kennedy?

A "professional" hit on the President (circa 1963) would certainly have involved weaponry far better than Oswald's admittedly less-than-outstanding bolt-action rifle. If there's any room for logic here, then automatic weapons would probably have been used by the assassins to kill the President.

But there is absolutely no indication that JFK was being shot at in Dealey Plaza with any weapon OTHER THAN LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S SEMI-CRAPPY MANNLICHER-CARCANO BOLT-ACTION RIFLE!

That last paragraph--all by itself--is a fairly decent indication that NOBODY EXCEPT THE OWNER OF THAT MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE was involved in President Kennedy's murder.

And if some conspiracy theorists want to argue with the above garden-variety logic regarding this matter and speculate that Oswald's rifle was "planted" in the TSBD to frame him, they're going to have to distort a whole bunch of ballistics evidence in the case in order to accomplish that "planted rifle" task.

What it boils down to is that when ordinary logic and common sense are applied to virtually every aspect of the JFK murder case, the end result is invariably a conclusion of: OSWALD DID IT ALONE.

In order to defeat those last four words, a conspiracy theorist has no choice but to pretend that every piece of physical evidence in both the JFK and Tippit murders is tainted in some way, which is a belief that no conspiracist can possibly prove in a million lifetimes.

David Von Pein
March 8, 2010