(PART 1093)


Josiah Thompson thought there were two head shots.


And Mr. Thompson, like nearly all conspiracy theorists, arrived at that theory while totally ignoring the best evidence that proves such a "Two Head Shots" theory is outright nonsense -- the autopsy report.


Why do conspiracists feel it's perfectly fine and appropriate (and practically their DUTY) to completely ignore and/or dismiss JFK's autopsy report (which is a report that was signed by THREE different doctors)?

Do CTers like Josiah Thompson REALLY believe that ALL THREE of those autopsy physicians were rotten, evil liars (or just brainless idiots) when they signed their names to JFK's official autopsy report, which is a report that is as clear as day regarding the number of bullets that entered President Kennedy's body on 11/22/63?

And then ALL THREE of those pathologists decided they would tell lie after lie about the President's autopsy for the rest of their lives whenever they discussed the case with reporters or when they gave testimony to a Governmental investigative organization? (Yeah, right.)

I suppose if we were to just toss aside all of the evidence in the case (including the autopsy report and the testimony of all three autopsists), then a case could be made for multiple shooters and two head shots, even though such a silly action on the part of CTers would STILL not create the existence of any bullets, guns, shells, or gunmen that can be used to prop up their make-believe multi-gun conspiracies.

Oh, wait, that's just exactly what conspiracy theorists HAVE done in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases, isn't it? They've decided that NONE of the evidence can be trusted. None of it. Therefore, a totally clean slate must be introduced, after throwing out all of the Oswald-did-it evidence (including all 12 or so witnesses in Oak Cliff).

It's kind of tough, though, to prove anything when you've started from scratch -- with NO guns, NO bullets, NO gunmen, NO trustworthy autopsy report, NO trustworthy FBI reports, and NO trustworthy information at all coming from ANY of the Government committees who were assigned to investigate the assassination (WC, HSCA*, Clark Panel, etc.).

* Except, of course, for the HSCA's Dictabelt garbage, which many CTers still love to embrace, while dismissing all of the Oswald-did-it evidence that the HSCA re-examined.

In short -- conspiracy theorists who endorse the "Two Head Shots" theory (or any other conspiracy theory that ends up with Lee Oswald being declared innocent) have only one thing going for them:

Their imagination.

David Von Pein
July 25, 2011

(PART 1092)


The average ten-year-old child, without a day of medical training, can easily identify which part of a person's head is the back of the head, or the rear of the head, without the slightest possibility of being even slightly mistaken.

You are proposing an absurdity: that adults numbering in the double digits (that would be ten or more) who had years (plural) of medical training, "didn't know" the difference between the back or rear of a person's head, and the side of a person's head, and were all "mistaken" in exactly the same way when they said they saw a hole in the back of JFK's head. And it doesn't require a day of medical training.

I know perfectly well that if I saw a hole in either side of a person's head that the chances are a million to one that I'd confuse that with the rear of the head. Wouldn't you say the same of yourself? Or will you make the astonishing claim that if the hole was on the right or left side of the person's head, you'd confuse that with the back of the head?

I've never seen you make such an absurd claim before, in this newsgroup or on your blog, and I am confident that you will not make it now. Correct?


Hi Caeruleo [John],

I don't know how much plainer I can make my position -- but unless you want to argue that the autopsy pictures AND X-rays are total frauds/fakes, then you really don't have a leg to stand on regarding this "BOH" matter.

And that's because the best evidence (those autopsy pics and X-rays) just simply do not support the Parkland "BOH" witnesses--at all. It's as simple as that. They don't support them.

How anyone can look at the BEST evidence (which are those pictures and X-rays) and then try to make a cogent case for there being a wound here....

....is beyond me. There simply IS NO WOUND where those people have placed their hands. It does not exist, and never did.

Therefore, an alternative explanation for why those people thought they saw what they saw must be available. And, very likely, that explanation is this one (which is the explanation I tend to believe, although I'm still not 100% satisfied with it):

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] 'The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong...that's why we have autopsies, photographs, and X-rays to determine things like this. Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head. But clearly, from the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the observations of the autopsy surgeons, the exit wound and defect was not in the occipital area. There was no defect or wound to the rear of Kennedy's head other than the entrance wound in the upper right part of the head.' " -- Pages 407 and 408 of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)


David, I am sorry, I am trying to be nice, because I respect you a lot, but I am once again disappointed in your reply, and worse, I'm now starting to become annoyed as well. I've seen you do so much better than this on so many other occasions here and on your blog where you have addressed issues substantially and in great detail. I do not understand why you are doing precisely the opposite in your replies to me.


I'm starting to get the impression that you're just blowing me off, refusing to look at anything I've written, anything, after I took all the time and trouble to post those articles.


All you're doing here...is just saying I'm wrong without explaining precisely why I'm wrong. To demonstrate that I'm wrong you have to directly address something I actually said. I am still waiting for you to do that for the first time. My rebuttals to your articles were many times more substantial than yours have been to me. I actually addressed directly, and in great detail, each and every point you raised. Why can't you show me the same courtesy?


Hi again John,

Sorry for being so abrupt and short on previous occasions in this forum thread.

You did, indeed, write up multiple lengthy posts about JFK's head wounds, and I appreciate your efforts in addressing them specifically to me. My responses to you were probably too short and too abrupt. My apologies.

Upon re-reading (slowly) your first post in this thread (dated July 13, 2011), I see that you have made some good points indeed, particularly regarding the "hinged" piece of skull that is quite clear on one of JFK's autopsy X-rays. In fact, I've discussed that particular piece of "loose bone" with Robert Harris on a few occasions in the past.

And I, like you, totally disagree with Mr. Harris' theory about a second shot to JFK's head being the thing that caused that "hinged" piece of skull at the very top of the President's head.

Regardless of how much damage was done to JFK's head on 11/22/63, we can know with 100% certainty (at least I am certain of this fact) that ALL of that damage was caused by one single bullet that came from ABOVE and BEHIND President Kennedy. The evidence of only one bullet hitting JFK in the head is too overwhelming to toss aside in favor of ANY theory that a person might be willing to cling to. There's the autopsy report, the testimony of all three autopsy surgeons, and the autopsy photographs and X-rays. And all of those things corroborate each other with respect to the number of shots that struck JFK in the head. And that answer is "one".


Look again at that lateral x-ray [pictured below]. The lowermost part of the piece of skull is not quite halfway down the back of the head, and the uppermost part of [it] includes a little of the top of the head. Now imagine him lying on his back and that piece falling open, still hanging onto the scalp, but otherwise not attached. And this business of it being in the upper right rear also is corroborated by several witnesses at Parkland, although they used various terminology.


Yes, I suppose you could be right about this. But I'm still having a difficult time envisioning the top-of-the-head skull flap (if it was "open" when JFK was in Trauma Room 1 at Parkland Hospital) causing virtually all of the witnesses to think that the large head wound was in the BACK part of JFK's head. The orientation of WHERE that loose skull flap would have fallen, given those circumstances, just doesn't seem to add up to me.

Here's the best autopsy photo we have to illustrate the exact posture that JFK was in when the Parkland witnesses saw him in Dallas:

Now, it's possible that the President's head wounds didn't look EXACTLY like the picture above when JFK was at Parkland. And I agree with you 100% that it's quite likely that Jackie "closed up" the flap on the upper-right portion of his head, thereby possibly concealing that wound to a large extent from the Parkland observers.

I've speculated about that very thing in the past as well, theorizing that Jackie's handling of JFK's head might very well be the reason why virtually nobody at Parkland mentioned seeing the large right-front exit wound.

But if JFK's head looked anything like the above autopsy photo while he was lying in that exact same position (flat on his back) at Parkland Hospital, I'm then back to my original stance of scratching my head and wondering: How could the Parkland people say that Kennedy's large wound was in the VERY BACK of his head--or UPPER-REAR or LOWER-REAR of his head.

It seems to me that if the top "hinged" part of JFK's head had opened up, then this would have caused the Parkland witnesses to see a huge hole at the VERY TOP of his head--not the REAR of the head (or the right-rear, which is where many witnesses, Dr. McClelland for one, said it was).

So, even if the theory is correct about the top part of JFK's head "opening up" at Parkland, it appears to me that we have a very similar situation regarding the Parkland witnesses that I have brought up before -- i.e., it would seem as though those Parkland witnesses STILL would be wrong about where the actual wound really was.

Because I want to know how a big opening at the VERY TOP of Kennedy's head would equate to the Parkland people seeing a huge hole in the far-right-rear or even HIGH-right-rear portion of his head?

And if the hinged skull flap ITSELF is supposed to be the thing that is confusing the Parkland personnel (instead of the big HOLE that has now been exposed IN THE SKULL of Kennedy via this "hinged flap" theory), I'd have to ask: How did that hinged piece of skull/scalp manage to tuck itself UNDER the head of the President, in order to appear to be at the very BACK (or occipital) part of his head?

I would think that such a loose chunk of skull/scalp from the very top of his head would have fallen on the stretcher, and would not have given the appearance of being a HOLE in the BACK of his head. It would have just been lying there, somewhat flat on the stretcher (it seems to me). But maybe you have other thoughts on what exactly such a piece of loose skull or scalp would have looked like to an observer at Parkland.

But, anyway, via the autopsy photo shown above, I still find it hard to envision a scenario which would have virtually all of the Parkland witnesses somehow seeing what they think is a great-big hole in ANY portion of the VERY BACK of President Kennedy's head. Because, as I've stressed previously (and it's still true today), the autopsy photos and X-rays indicate that there was no hole in the BACK of JFK's head. It is not there. Period. And a hole in the VERY BACK of Kennedy's head IS what the vast majority of Parkland witnesses said they saw. And, I admit, that incongruity is still #1 on my list of things that just do not add up about this murder case (particularly the Bethesda "BOH" witnesses).


There's no way that many medically trained adults could all be "wrong" when they say there was a hole in the back of his head.


Well, I disagree with you here. Because from the hard (and best) evidence that is available, it's fairly obvious to me that all of those Parkland witnesses did, indeed, get it wrong. Because there simply is no great-big hole in JFK's head in the location where those witnesses said there was a big hole.

Now, let me clarify:

I'm not saying that the Parkland witnesses were all a bunch of dumb stumps and I'm not saying that they couldn't tell the front of a person's head from the back of the head.

Although, incredibly, some researchers do seem to want to believe that all of the Parkland witnesses did, somehow, get confused and weren't able to tell the difference between the "back" and "front" and "side", merely due to the fact that JFK was lying flat on his back. Jim Moore seems to be one of those researchers -- Click Here.

But I don't agree at all with some of the things Jim Moore said in his 1990 book, "Conspiracy Of One". I think a much more reasonable answer is that the Parkland witnesses* did not mis-identify the portion of JFK's head that they thought (incorrectly) contained the massive hole, but instead they saw the large amount of blood and brain and gore "pooling" in that exact area of his head (the right-rear-occipital area), and that gore gave the false impression to those witnesses that a big HOLE was located there. When, in fact, it wasn't a deficit or hole at all. It was merely a great-big mess of blood/brain/tissue.

* But I cannot totally reconcile the Bethesda "BOH" witnesses via the above argument, so I have to put them in a different "unsolved" category. I haven't the foggiest idea why people like Custer, Riebe, etc., said they saw a big hole in the right-rear of Kennedy's head. That's a huge head-scatcher for me, that I doubt can ever be fully resolved. But there's no doubt in my mind that Custer, et al, were wrong too, because there simply is no HOLE in the head where those people claimed to have seen one.


There was a hole in the back of his head.


I'll have to (strongly) disagree with you again. There is no "hole" in the BACK (i.e., "occipital") part of JFK's head, which is where those Parkland/Bethesda witnesses said they saw a "hole".

I'll admit that the fractured (or "hinged", as we've been calling it) part of the skull at the TOP of the head does extend into what we could call the BACK (or upper-back) of the head. But as I pointed out to Robert Harris in past posts, that TOP-OF-THE-HEAD wound does not corroborate or substantiate the observations of the Parkland/Bethesda witnesses, even if it was hanging down and hinged open when JFK was at Parkland Hospital. Because that top-of-the-head piece of skull is certainly not anywhere near the "occipital" area of President's Kennedy's head:

So, in the final analysis, I'd say I'm pretty much back to where I was prior to reading your lengthy post of July 13th -- i.e., I'm still of the opinion that the Parkland witnesses were incorrect when they said that President Kennedy had a large-sized hole in the back of his head.

And I still hold that opinion even if your theory is correct about the top-of-the-head skull piece being "hinged open" at Parkland. Either way, the Parkland witnesses did not correctly identify the TRUE LOCATION of the large wound they said they saw in President Kennedy's head on November 22, 1963.

Thank you for your posts, John King. You've given me additional food for "BOH" thought. But even with that additional food in my stomach, I still think the Parkland people got it wrong.

David Von Pein
July 15-16, 2011



NBC PROGRAMS (1951—1963):


(JANUARY 3, 1960):


(OCTOBER 16, 1960):


(JULY 26, 1959):


(SEPTEMBER 24, 1961):


(MARCH 11, 1962):


(APRIL 2, 1961):


(AUGUST 20, 1961):


(SEPTEMBER 17, 1961):


(DECEMBER 24, 1961):


(DECEMBER 16, 1962):


(PART 1091)


I can't change your mind, David...no one on this group has ever changed their mind and said they did so because someone else's arguments convinced them they were wrong.....and I never expected you to be the first.

But look at the first words of what you wrote:

"Nothing you could say..."

Then don't listen to me...pay attention to what the forensic radiologist, Dr. John Fitzpatrick, the forensic pathologist, Dr. Robert Kirschner, and the forensic anthropologist, Dr. Douglas Ubelaker said....which was there was NO, NADA, ZILCHO, VOILA, ZERO, evidence on the x-rays of a bullet wound in the cowlick.

And while you're calling them clowns, liars, or unqualified to say that, you might want to add the esteemed Dr. Joseph Davis to that list. He was the Chief Medical Examiner for Dade County, Florida for decades....and stated on the record there was evidence on the x-rays for an entry near the EOP.

And I'll end this exchange hoping you'll try to come up with an explanation for why on God's green earth your favorite BOH photo shows a bunch of relatively undamaged scalp over the very large top/right/front area where bone AND SCALP were blown into DP [Dealey Plaza] and/or the limo.

Yes, I really wonder if you'll actually try to explain that to yourself? I wouldn't though if I were you because you can't be the first here to change their mind on an important point because of something a few experts said...so don't get a headache trying to explain that.

Take care,


John Canal


Well, John, there are some things relating to the JFK assassination case that I cannot explain (and I probably never will be able to fully explain them to even my own full satisfaction)--and by far the biggest of these problems is this one (which I've wrestled with for years):

How could so many Parkland (and even Bethesda) witnesses see something in JFK's head (a huge hole in the right/rear/occipital area of his head) that we know from THE BEST EVIDENCE in the case could not possibly have existed?

That one is a toughie. And I do not know the complete answer to it.

But let me add this concerning one of those Parkland witnesses--Robert McClelland:

John, how in the world do you think Bob McClelland was actually able to see a great big hole at the FAR-RIGHT-REAR of JFK's head when he admits that he was STARING DOWN at John Kennedy's face while he (McClelland) was standing over the President?

McClelland has stated numerous times that he was looking DOWN into a large wound that he said was at the RIGHT-REAR of Kennedy's head....and yet it would have been physically impossible for him to have done so (given his position and JFK's face-up position on the stretcher at the time McClelland says he was observing such a wound).

Seems to me as though McClelland would have been staring down into the wound at the RIGHT-FRONT of JFK's head. Yes, he would have been in an ideal position (at the head of the stretcher) to have seen, in great clarity, the wound that both you and I know WAS there in the right-front-top portion of JFK's cranium. Right?

And Dr. McClelland's explanation about the pulled-up scalp that he gave to the PBS cameras in 1988 [see the video below] is just as wacky as his other comments about being about to stare down into a huge wound that Kennedy must have actually been lying on. The "pulled up" scalp theory of McClelland's is extremely silly -- because that piece of scalp is INTACT and undamaged. Therefore, how could any Parkland people have seen ANY wound through AN INTACT PORTION OF JFK'S SCALP in the first place. It's physically impossible.

And we all know that Kennedy's scalp had not been "peeled back" or reflected while he was on the stretcher at Parkland. The autopsy surgeons are the ones who peeled back the scalp, with loose pieces of skull then clinging to that scalp. But the Parkland witnesses certainly cannot utilize that reasoning for seeing a right-rear hole in Kennedy's head.

More about the really weird 1988 tales of 4 of the Parkland doctors HERE.

David Von Pein
July 13, 2011

(PART 1090)



Any criminal investigation must explain these facors to seek successful prosecution.

Did LHO have the means? The research into this question clearly proves the lack of coorobative evidence to support that he had the means.

Did he have the motive? Not even close.

Did he have the opportunity? The evidence says he did not.


Tom Wilson is 100% wrong on all three counts. LHO most certainly had the Motive, Means, and Opportunity to kill President Kennedy (particularly the last two--means and opportunity).

Does Tom Wilson really want to deny that Oswald had ready access to his own rifle in November 1963? (Does Tom wish to pretend that Rifle C2766 was planted?)

And does Tom W. also want to deny that Oswald was working in the TSBD Building on 11/22/63, and that LHO even admitted to being INSIDE that building at 12:30 when JFK was being killed? (I wonder how Oswald's prints got on two of the boxes that were located in the exact same very tiny area of the southeast corner of the 6th Floor where an assassin was located on Nov. 22nd? Did the patsy-framers just get LUCKY by choosing two boxes that Oswald just happened to touch on Nov. 21 or 22?)


Yes, I deny that LHO had "his" rifle.


Gee, what a surprise. A conspiracist is ignoring the hard, physical evidence in the JFK murder case. Will wonders never cease?

And Tom Wilson, naturally, will continue to deny that C2766 was Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle, even with Waldman Exhibit No. 7 staring him in the face, plus the order form for the rifle in Oswald's own writing, plus the backyard photos (wherein the characteristics of Rifle #C2766 were identified by the photo panel of the HSCA -- in other words, Oswald is holding the TSBD rifle in those backyard pictures).

All "fake" stuff, eh Tom?



Of course he worked there. So did many others. But you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he fired those shots. You cannot.


That fact was proven on the day the assassination occurred, Tom. I'm surprised you're not aware of that fact. Just listen to D.A. Henry Wade, on the evening of 11/24/63, run down the laundry list of stuff that proves Oswald's guilt. It would make any prosecutor's mouth water:


The rifle did not have his prints on it.


Dead wrong.

There's CE637 (never proven to be planted there); and there are the oft-overlooked trigger guard fingerprints which were positively Oswald's, per print expert Vincent Scalice. He's a liar too?


It [Rifle C2766] could not be matched to the "paper bag." etc, etc, etc, etc.


But that paper bag (with Oswald's own prints on it, of course) was tied to the blanket that we know held that rifle in Ruth Paine's garage. (The fiber experts were liars too, Tom?)


His fingerprints on boxes in the sniper's nest? That is what you want to hang him with? He toted boxes, that was his job. Sad.


I always get a kick out of conspiracy theorists like Tom Wilson here. They'll go to the ends of the Earth, it seems, to avoid the obvious implications of ALL of the Oswald-did-it evidence -- from the rifle, to the paper bag, to the bullet shells by the window, to the two large bullet fragments FIRED FROM OSWALD'S GUN that were found in the President's car, to CE399, to the fibers, to the Tippit evidence (I'm not sure if the Tippit stuff applies to Tom Wilson or not, but it sure applies to a lot of other Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists on the Internet these days), and to the fingerprints on the boxes too.

Just how much evidence is necessary to have a guilty Lee Oswald in this case?

For conspiracy theorists, it would appear the answer to my last inquiry is: There can never be enough. Sad.

And those fingerprints and palmprints of Oswald's on those boxes deep inside that Sniper's Nest should not just be tossed aside (as all CTers want to do), as discussed here.



I suppose it would make you happy, sir, if I were to respond to your ridiculous postings. Then we would be off on a "my dog's bigger than your dog" rant. So let me simply say that you have to take the so-called evidence and weigh it entirely. You chose not to. That is certainly your right.

For 48 years, the American public, in poll after poll, agrees with me. The vast majority of work done in the research of the assassination supports me. You have Bugliosi and Posner.



The work done by the many, many people who actually investigated (in depth) the murders of JFK and Officer Tippit supports me.

You have no choice but to believe that EVERY official investigative team that looked into the JFK assassination totally botched up everything -- from the DPD, to the FBI, to the Warren Commission, to the HSCA, to the Clark Panel, to the Rockefeller panel.

I've got all of the above. You've got Stone, Garrison, Armstrong, Fetzer, Lane, and Lifton.

And pathetic.

And btw, according to the 1,031 people polled by ABC News in Nov. 2003, only 7% of those people think that Oswald did not fire any shots at President Kennedy. Not exactly an overwhelming majority, is it?



I don't know you, so I assume your beliefs are heartfelt. I truly do not mean anything personal.

My original comment concerned Means, Motive, and Opportunity. These are the bars to be reached in any criminal case.

In THIS case, had Oswald lived, there would be, in my opinion, a very hard uphill climb for the prosecution of Oswald based on the evidence purportedly found by the DPD. There is no evidence in that sense.

Once LHO was murdered, the evidence for evidentiary value no longer existed. So here we are, all these many years later, stuck with what ifs, shoulda' beens, and oh darns!

The evidence that points to Oswald is countered, as I'm sure you know, by many other pieces of evidence. Unfortunately it is a parlor dance because it will never see the fluorescent lights of a courtroom. So you and I arguing the viability of evidence that is clearly of debate does no good.

Those who believe the basic story of the WC are OK with me. It's like politics, left and right rarely agree. The actions by those who tear down the adversary is the issue.

I do not desire to change your mind, not at all. What I care about, what I seek, is the truth about who killed my President.


But, Tom, don't Oswald's own incriminating actions lead you down the path to that truth you seek?

You surely must admit that Oswald shot Officer Tippit, right? That fact is even more obvious than his guilt in JFK's murder.

And Oswald's other actions on Nov. 21 and 22 certainly add up to his guilt too (and his planning to commit some kind of illegal act on the 22nd, based on the provable lie he told Buell Frazier about the "curtain rods").

Lee Harvey Oswald, on both Nov. 21 and 22, signed his name to the murders of John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit. Conspiracy theorists are treating this double-murder case as some kind of unknowable, unsolvable game of "Clue". But the evidence is quite clear: It was Oswald with C2766 from the Depository. No other scenario comes close to matching the evidence, coupled with (again) Oswald's own very incriminating actions and movements on both Nov. 21 and 22.

And if Oswald's own actions were somehow "fake", then we might as well be living in some alternate universe where Topsy-Turvy is the norm.

David Von Pein
June 17, 2011

(PART 1089)


He [Lee Harvey Oswald] did not run out of the building. He went into the lunch room and got a Coke...


Very likely because he heard people coming up the stairs to the second floor. So he ducked into the lunchroom. Perfectly consistent with his guilt.

Now, prove he was coming UP from the first floor.


...Stopped to talk to a secretary.


Dead wrong. Oswald never "stopped" to talk to anybody in the second-floor office area. Mrs. Reid TALKED TO HIM. Not the other way around. And he didn't stop:

MRS. REID -- "I kept walking and I looked up and Oswald was coming in the back door of the office. I met him by the time I passed my desk several feet and I told him, I said, "Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe they didn't hit him." He mumbled something to me, I kept walking. He did, too."


...Was confronted by a policeman. All that took time. That is not leaving as fast as he could.


Yes, it is leaving as fast as he could. That is, he left as fast as he could without drawing unneeded attention to himself.

Or maybe you think he should have jumped out of the sixth-floor window after shooting the President. (Oh, yeah, you're in denial about Oswald's guilt. I forgot.)


And again you beg the question, assuming that Oswald was the shooter.


I don't assume he was the shooter. The evidence proves he was the shooter. (Oh, I forgot, all of the evidence is fake, right Tony? Including: the gun, the prints, the bullets, the shells, the paper bag with LHO's prints, and the fibers.)


Like most WC defenders, you call black white and white black.


You've got things backwards again, Anthony. The CTers are the "black is white" experts. You're back on Neptune again today I see.


When we point out that the rifle shoots high and to the right and call that a defect, the true WC defender says no, it is an advantage for the shooter shooting at a moving target down on Elm.


I don't know if it was truly an "advantage" in Oswald's case, but I do think that the "high and to the right" factor was possibly the reason why Oswald's first shot missed the entire automobile.


When someone claims he is innocent, you use that to prove that he is guilty.


You're silly, Tony. The evidence amply proves Oswald was guilty of shooting both Kennedy and Tippit, and you know it. You just like to argue. Simple as that.


You are proud of the cover-up and alteration of Baker's statement in which he originally said that Oswald had a bottle of Coke.


What statement are you talking about? Because if you're referring to the 9/23/64 document with the "Coke" crossed out, you know darn well that that document was NOT written by Marrion Baker. Baker only CORRECTED the incorrect data in that document and then initialed it.

All of that is explained in a common-sense manner here.


You are proud of the perjury. You need perjury to convict someone. If Oswald was in the Domino Room at the time, how would he know EXACTLY when the assassination was and EXACTLY where he was at the moment the shots were fired?


What in the world are you babbling on about now? Whose perjury? Marrion Baker's? Roy Truly's? Neither man perjured himself--ever.

And since Oswald was obviously on the sixth floor at 12:30, the rest of your above comment is worthless.


Yeah, let's just believe all the Dreyfus-did-it evidence, Right? Because the government proved he was guilty. That's your mindset. Saddam must have nuclear weapons because the government says so.


Why not stick to the subject at hand, Tony? Namely: the JFK assassination and Lee Harvey Oswald's involvement.


Why bother having trials at all if you've already convicted the person in the press and killed him?


I didn't kill him, Tony. Jack Ruby did that.

And since there was no trial (due to Ruby's handiwork), does that mean we can never arrive at a reasonable conclusion about who killed President Kennedy?

Or do you want to pretend Oswald is innocent because of the ol' "Innocent Until Proven Guilty In A Court Of Law" excuse?

IOW -- To hell with the evidence. ONLY a jury in a courtroom can declare Oswald guilty. Is that correct, Mr. Marsh?


At least I don't use someone's claim of innocence as proof of guilt the way you do.


I only use Oswald's claim of innocence against him because it was obviously a desperate lie on LHO's part. And the evidence proves he was lying. You know that, Tony.

Or should we just chuck all of that evidence out the nearest window (yet again), just because a bunch of conspiracy theorists have a feeling it was all tampered with?

Surely you jest.


I have always said that Oswald killed Tippit.


And just exactly why did he kill Tippit, Tony?

In other words: If he HADN'T just killed JFK, then what was the burning motive for Oswald to START KILLING PEOPLE just 45 minutes later?

David Von Pein
June 16, 2011

(PART 1088)


You think that there isn't anyone on this Earth who hasn't figured out that you are a WC defender?


You're humorous, Anthony. You think the whole world knows I even exist?

99.999+% of the Earth's population has never heard of DVP, and they've never heard of Tony Marsh either.


Hanging around the TSBD for several minutes [indicates LHO's guilt]?


Oswald left the building as fast as he could. You think three minutes is a long time for LHO to stay in the building after shooting JFK from an upper floor of the Book Depository, and then having to go to the opposite side of the building to get to the stairs, and then crossing the building again to get to the front door?

You're hilarious.


Calm and collected when confronted by Baker [indicates LHO's guilt]?


Yep. That "calm and collected" demeanor is much more indicative of guilt than it is of LHO's innocence at that particular moment in time on November 22nd. And you should know why.


Buying a Coke and drinking it [indicates LHO's guilt]?


He purchased his Coke after his confrontation with Officer Baker. LHO knew he'd just been cleared as a regular employee. His Coke purchase was likely an effort to look "normal" after his murderous deed. He might have also been thinking ahead to a potential alibi that he could use later on, like--say--telling the lie he told to the police about going to the second floor to buy a Coke at just about the same time JFK was being assassinated.

More Coke talk HERE.


A patsy does not need to know that he is being set up as the patsy at the time. Yeah, so only a GUILTY person would say that he didn't shoot anyone. Therefore whenever anyone is arrested and claims to be innocent, to you that PROVES his guilt. Are you sure you are in the right country?


Yeah, let's just scrap all of the LHO-did-it evidence. Right, Tony? None of
that stuff proves a damn thing, does it?

Why even HAVE any evidence at all in a murder case then, if it's just going to be ignored--which is exactly what most conspiracy theorists do with it?

And Tony apparently thinks that most murderers will confess to their crimes no matter how desperately they want to get away with those criminal acts.

After all, a sweet golden person like Lee Harvey Oswald would never tell a lie, would he, Anthony? He would never lie about something so serious as a double-murder charge, would he?

And, naturally, he'd never tell any falsehoods about that curtain rod package either. Would he, Anthony?

Are you sure you're on the right planet, Tony?

David Von Pein
June 15, 2011

(PART 1087)


Hey, I know what we should do....

Since we can't be in 100% agreement about the DETAILS of the conspiracy, let's just join the LNers and PRETEND that Lyin Bastard [Lyndon] Johnson was as pure as the new fallen snow and wouldn't lie, his hand picked "Blue Ribbon Committee" performed an honest investigation and gave us the gospel in The Warren Report.

In other words, let's just tuck our heads in our asses like all LNers.


You still don't get it, do you? It's not the LNers you need to convince. Every one of them believes the same thing: Oswald, alone, in the TSBD, with the Carcano.

You Conspiracy Nuts [CN] think it's LN vs CN. It isn't. It's CN vs CN.

How can you possibly convince an LN if you can't even convince yourselves? You're a stampeding herd, scattering in every direction and trying to convince the drovers to go over the cliffs with you. Total lunacy.

Do you honestly believe that ALL the conspiracy theories are correct, even when they contradict each other?

The first thing you fruitcakes need to do is agree on Oswald: was he a shooter or not? Until you do that, you'll never get anywhere--even if every single living person on the planet should miraculously agree that there was a conspiracy. Get agreement among all CNs on Oswald, whatever that agreement is. Until you do that, you'll just keep spinning your wheels like you have been for the last 46 years.

So far, all you nutcases have been doing is running around the hallways yelling "Fire!" It would be very helpful if you all could agree just where in the asylum that fire is.

LNs: Oswald, alone, in the TSBD, with the Carcano.
CNs: Everyone, everywhere, with everything and everyone else.


Aggie, of course, is 100% correct.

LNers agree on Lee Harvey Oswald murdering JFK from the 6th Floor of the TSBD, by firing exactly 3 shots from LHO's own rifle (Mannlicher-Carcano #C2766, which is a serial number that was UNIQUE TO OSWALD'S RIFLE; and that last statement about the serial number has never been proven to be false, even though many kooks have tried to prove it false).

Conspiracy kooks, on the other hand, can't agree on whether Oswald fired ANY shots at JFK (with nearly all of the conspiracy-loving lunatics who post at any of the various "JFK Forums" on the Internet being part of the minority of humans who believe that Oswald was totally innocent of shooting Kennedy). It seems at times that that entire minority is posting on Internet forums.

CTers also don't agree on the number of shots that were fired. It varies from 4 to 12, and maybe more, depending on which kook you're
talking about at any particular time.

Bob Groden, for instance, likes the idea of up to ten shots being fired in Dealey Plaza--with ZERO of those ten likely coming from the "Oswald window" at all! [See pages 20 through 40 of Groden's "The Killing Of A President" for Bob's complete shooting timeline of hilarity.]

Instead, according to Groden, the goofball plotters who were framing poor patsy Oswald apparently decided it was a good idea to fire from gobs of locations WHERE THEIR PATSY WAS NOT LOCATED, and then the insane plotters just did a "Hail Mary!", throwing up their collective arms, hoping and praying that all of the many bullets penetrating the victims from the many non-Oswald guns wouldn't be noticed by anyone afterwards.

Or: Better still! The goofball conspirators hoped and prayed that the U.S. Government AND the Dallas Police Department would be wanting to FRAME THE EXACT SAME PATSY NAMED OSWALD after the assassination took place! Therefore, all of the "real" evidence in the case would be swept under the carpet and replaced by FAKE and PLANTED evidence to incriminate everyone's favorite patsy for all 11/22/63 murders in Dallas, Texas!

Great plan there, huh?

Those retarded plotters sure got lucky, didn't they, when LBJ and the Warren boys AND the Dallas Police Department AND the Dallas Sheriff's Department all decided to get together and frame the same guy named Oswald that the PRE-assassination plotters (Shaw? Ferrie? Banister? Marcello? Trafficante? Wallace? Others?) were attempting to set up as their lone patsy for Kennedy's death?!

Whew! You don't get lucky like that every day (if you're a goofball plotter, that is, who decides to frame a man for murder and then doesn't even bother, per Groden, to fire a single shot from the place where your patsy is supposed to be shooting from).

Those plotters must be great in Vegas. They can beat ANY odds!

Many CT-Kooks on the Internet also believe Oswald was innocent of killing Officer J.D. Tippit too! Now this boner is one for the books, especially since the kooks' favorite patsy for all November 22nd murders just happened to have the Tippit murder weapon IN HIS HANDS when he was arrested just 35 minutes after Tippit was shot.

But, the conspiracy faithful can always jump into the sack with mega-kook John Judge, who thinks that the Dallas Police took Oswald's revolver into the theater themselves (apparently the cops then shoved the gun into Oswald's hands, and then Oswald, being the obedient patsy that he was, decided to use the planted gun to try and kill some more cops in the theater before being subdued).

In short, the conspiracy-happy kooks who occupy space on the World Wide Web are fond of their unique little club, known as the "Anybody But Oswald" fraternity.

It doesn't cost anything to join that club. The only requirement is that you be in total denial when it comes to the actual evidence associated with the murders of President John F. Kennedy and Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit.

And, sadly, we are walking among many such deniers on a daily basis on the Internet.

David Von Pein
May 2, 2010

(PART 1086)


I was just viewing your JFK Archives [webpage] regarding Oswald's room at 1026 North Beckley [linked below].


Can't help but notice that the room has curtains. Was Oswald planning an extreme makeover?




What ever became of the "curtain rods" that he supposedly carried into the TSBD that morning?


Well, since the curtain rods were a complete invention of LHO's to begin with--obviously no "rods" could have been found anywhere. And they weren't--except if you want to include the wrapped package of curtain rods stored in Ruth Paine's garage, which were still there weeks after November 22nd.


I posed this question to Robert Groden, the Soothsayer of Dealey Plaza, and he stated very matter-of-factly that they were recovered shortly after the shooting but later turned up missing (nod, nod, wink, wink).

What are your thoughts on the missing curtain rods?


See above answer.

Plus: Groden probably wants to twist the facts regarding the rods. He likely wants people to think that Ruth Paine's curtain rods (which I talk about in more depth HERE) were really somehow Oswald's rods.

But you must also realize that Groden is a kook who thinks that up to 11 shots were fired in Dealey Plaza, and he also thinks it's likely that ZERO of those shots came from the window where the conspirators were framing their patsy from. (Talk about a plot designed by morons. I guess they WANTED to get caught.)



I was just reading your Motive section [linked HERE], and I couldn't agree with you more.

It is interesting to note that when Oswald had ample time and opportunity, he was a meticulous planner. He told Priscilla Johnson McMillan that he had planned his defection to the Soviet Union for several years. He may have been embellishing a bit, but he had obviously been saving his money for some long-term goal.

His attempt on Major General Edwin Walker was very carefully planned out, with maps, photos, bus schedules, and detailed instructions for his wife in the event of capture.

Ironic that his carefully planned attempt on Walker failed, while his plan to shoot President Kennedy, which was thrown together hastily at the last possible moment, actually succeeded.

It must have really bothered Oswald that he was unable to retrieve his rifle until the night before the assassination. It had been sitting in that garage for weeks in cold weather, and he had no time to inspect it or test fire it. The fact that he was willing to take a chance like that shows just how desperate he had become by the Fall of 1963.

I have always believed that Oswald played his cards very close to the vest following his arrest because he was looking forward to being the centerpiece of his own international show trial, like the 1951 trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. He once claimed that as a youth skipping school and hanging out on the New York subway, someone handed him a leaflet about the Rosenbergs and that was what first opened his eyes to Marxism.

Based on the massive swarm of reporters who converged upon Dallas and hung on his every word, Oswald must surely have anticipated a huge trial that he would be able to turn into a public forum for his views on social injustice and the evils of capitalism. He must have dreamed of the day when he would get his big close-up and impress the world with his revolutionary vision.

In the end, all he was able to deliver was a weak clenched fist salute as he was being loaded into an ambulance.

The conspiracy buffs who continue to insist that Saint Oswald had no motive to kill the president conveniently overlook the fact that housepainter Richard Lawrence fired at Andrew Jackson because he believed Jackson was somehow preventing him from becoming the King of England or that saloonkeeper John Schrank shot Theodore Roosevelt on orders from William McKinley's ghost or that John Hinckley Jr shot Ronald Reagan in an effort to impress a lesbian. And don't even get me started on Arthur Bremer...

And for those who cling to the belief that Oswald was some kind of super-spy leading a double life in New Orleans and infiltrating rival groups, I refer to the statement of Marina Oswald, who said in essence that Oswald wanted to go to Cuba, and that all the rest was window dressing.

Your website is very thorough and well-researched, and I really enjoy reading it. Thank you for all of the time and effort you have put into it. I'm sure that as a "Lone Nutter" you must sometimes feel like Mr. Douglas on Green Acres. At times I think I'm the only person in Dallas who believes that Oswald was even remotely connected to the crime.



Thank you for your latest e-mail, Mark. Some very good observations in there, indeed.

And I enjoyed your quip about "Mr. Douglas" of Green Acres fame. That's the first time I've ever been linked to Oliver Wendell Douglas, in some fashion. (I always liked him, too. "Lisaaaaa!")

Maybe another analogy on this could be to use Dr. Richard Kimble of
The Fugitive (my all-time favorite drama television series). Of course, it would have to be a reverse analogy in Dr. Kimble's case, because he couldn't convince a jury that he was INNOCENT of murdering his wife. But innocent he was. And Lee Harvey Oswald is just as guilty as Dr. Richard Kimble was innocent.

Yes, Kimble's plight was only depicted on a fictional television program. But there are many times when it seems as though the conspiracy theorists have slipped into the world of total fiction as well. In fact, in my opinion, the conspiracists are immersed in fiction MOST of the time.

Hey, maybe the CTers should consult Dr. Kimble for some tips! Perhaps Kimble could convince Oliver Stone and Mark Lane that there was a one-armed man with a rifle seen running from the Grassy Knoll in Dealey Plaza right after JFK's murder.

Of course, just exactly how a one-armed individual was able to accurately fire a rifle at President Kennedy's head might be a tough scenario for the conspiracists to reconcile. But given their track record for believing in everyone's guilt--except Oswald's, of course--such a "one-armed" problem shouldn't be too difficult to overcome at all. :)

David Von Pein
June 9, 2011

(PART 1085)


Cyril Wecht actually was first to promote this idea [of the Connally "lapel flip"] "officially" to the Rockefeller Commission. He got it from an associate of his.


Yeah, and even when he was armed with this obvious visual sign of a bullet going through John Connally's body at precisely Z224, Dr. Wecht still holds steadfastly to his anti-SBT position, with Wecht insisting that the exiting bullet from JFK's throat could not possibly have gone on to strike Governor Connally.

Of course, it always helps if the conspiracy theorist in question--in this instance Dr. Cyril H. Wecht--decides (on his own, without a shred of evidence to support the notion) to place a mystery gunman in another location in Dealey Plaza, which Wecht has done by inventing a make-believe assassin who was shooting at President Kennedy from a lower floor on the west end of the Book Depository Building.

The funniest part of Dr. Wecht's anti-SBT spiel (which he has repeated numerous times throughout the years) is when he insists that the Warren Commission's test bullet that was fired into a human wrist bone (and ONLY into a wrist bone, without having gone through a simulated JFK neck OR a simulated Connally torso!) should somehow mimic the condition of Warren Commission Exhibit 399.

But what Dr. Wecht never tells his listening audience when he goes into that anti-SBT rant is that the Edgewood Arsenal/WC test bullet was not fired to re-create the Single-Bullet Theory or CE399.

How COULD that test bullet have been designed to reconstruct the SBT, Dr. Wecht? It wasn't fired through ANY other bodies before striking a wrist bone! Therefore, quite obviously, such a test bullet is certainly not going to exhibit the same post-firing characteristics and damage that CE399 possesses.

I'm always amazed when I hear Wecht ramble on and on about how those banged-all-to-hell Warren Commission test bullets are physical PROOF that the Single-Bullet Theory is a big steaming pile of excrement.

Although surely someone has done so in the past (besides me in the Internet posts HERE and HERE), I have never once heard anyone bother to correct Wecht's error regarding this matter, or confront him with it in any of his many interviews.

Not even Vincent Bugliosi set Wecht straight on this important subject about
the comparison between the test bullets and CE399 when Vince was provided
a golden opportunity to do so during his live radio debate with Dr. Wecht in
June 2007.


I was practically screaming at my radio while listening to that debate, trying desperately to get Vincent Bugliosi to say the following words to the esteemed Pittsburgh pathologist:


David Von Pein
April 30, 2010

(PART 1084)


Not all damaging WC [Warren Commission] testimony was changed! What gives?

Here is Mark Lane exposing the changed testimony of witnesses who said the shots came from the grassy knoll.

And yet the WC allowed others to give the same damaging testimony. For example, Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady.

Many believe that these guys lied for the WC. So why didn't they also lie about the origin of the shots?



From my research, I've come to believe that very little testimony was actually changed. There is a tremendous amount of testimony that runs counter to the WC's conclusions. This testimony was not cited in the WR [Warren Report], and was not published in the NY Times' best-selling summary of the witness testimony entitled The Witnesses. It was, however, included in the 26 volumes published months after the publication of the Warren Report, which was published against the wishes of Warren, Dulles, and McCloy, and was only published when the other four members--all elected officials--realized they would risk not being re-elected if they refused to make the testimony from which the public had been barred available for study.

To be clear, then, the WC didn't make much of an attempt to bury the contradictory evidence forever. They just wanted to put out their report without the contradictory evidence being publicly available, both so that Johnson could face re-election in relative peace, and that they could have a two-month head start in winning over the media. This two-month head start lasted about three years, after which the media--spurred on by Lane, Weisberg, Epstein--began clamoring for a new investigation.


Thanks for offering your observations, Pat. You reminded me what I already knew, that there is great deal of testimony in the 26 volumes that contradicts the report.

Clearly some of the published testimony was changed. Apparently those doing the changing didn't do so systematically... just when they saw a clear need for it. I'm not sure, however, why they changed some testimony that didn't make it to the report.


Whose testimony was changed? Can you cite it please?


I discuss the changing of the testimony in chapter 20, David, and cite a few examples.

From chapter 20 at patspeer.com:

"There's no getting around the nightmarish ramifications of the HSCA's questions and answers having been scripted and re-written, with certain substantive statements excised from the record. This means the supposed "historical record" of the hearings most commonly used by historians--the transcripts--are not reliable records of what actually transpired. Still, this problem is partially offset by the fact there are video and audio tapes of much of the testimony, which may one day be widely available. But what about the Warren Commission? Their hearings were not only conducted in secret, they were not recorded in any way, outside the transcripts. Could their transcripts have been changed as well?

Unfortunately, yes. We know, beyond any doubt, that at least some of the transcripts have been doctored. An apparently unedited transcript of Jacqueline Kennedy's testimony, we should recall, revealed that she originally reported that Governor Connally screamed "like a stuck pig" when shot. This reference was deleted from the published transcript. An 8-28-64 memorandum from Commission Counsel Wesley Liebeler, in which he cites an early version of the commission's report, moreover, quotes the testimony of the FBI's fiber expert Paul Stombaugh as follows: "In my mind I feel that these fibers came from this shirt, but I know of no scientific method to prove this, so therefore I am unable to say this." This differs greatly from the same paragraph in the commission's published volumes, where his words were changed to "There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from the [sic; this] shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt." As the former line appears nowhere in the published transcript, and reads much more like human speech, it seems apparent that this line was re-written and that the new line was added into both the transcript and the report in the final days of the Commission's existence, when their sole focus was on the issuance of the report.

When one delves even deeper into the commission's files, this mystery grows even more mysterious. In the commission's Key Persons file on Stombaugh, now available on the National Archives website, there is an 8-4-64 memo from J. Edgar Hoover outlining a number of changes that should be made to Stombaugh's testimony. Hoover notes that these changes are to be made "In accordance with the oral request of Mr. Howard Willens." Now, this is troubling enough. The Warren Commission's staff, while preparing their final report, sent the testimony of the FBI's experts back to the FBI and requested that confusing or otherwise undesirable sections be corrected by the FBI, as opposed to the men who'd actually testified. But there's something even more troubling. The change in Stombaugh's testimony proved by Liebeler's 8-28-64 memo was not among these changes. This, then, suggests that Stombaugh's testimony was sent back yet again, after 8-28-64, and changed yet again, but that no memo was created to reflect these subsequent changes.

This should force us to question what else was changed, when, why, and by whom. It should also make us wonder what guarantees were used to make sure that changes like this one, presumably undertaken to remove the implication of Stombaugh's words--that if there was a scientific method to prove the fibers on the gun came from Oswald's shirt he would have gladly said it had been proven--were the exception, and not the rule, and that greater, more substantive changes were not made as well.

This is a real concern. In 1992, a presumably unaltered transcript of the 4-30-64 testimony of FBI paper expert James Cadigan was released by the National Archives. As reported by Jim Marrs, this transcript revealed that, when asked if he knew why an identification card of Oswald's was damaged by silver nitrate, a chemical used to unveil hidden fingerprints, Cadigan responded "I could only speculate...It may be that there was a very large volume of evidence being examined at the time. Time was of the essence, and this material, I believe, was returned to the Dallas Police within two or three days, and it was merely in my opinion a question of time. We have a very large volume of evidence. There was insufficient time to desilver it. And I think in many instances where latent prints are developed they do not desilver it." Well, one can see how the FBI might find this embarrassing. But this was sworn testimony, supposedly taken to create a permanent record of the murder of a president and its aftermath. How can changing Cadigan's rambling answer to "No, this is a latent fingerprint issue", as was done, possibly be justified?

Particularly when, as Marrs reports, the cover sheet to the transcript reveals "Stenotype Tape, Master Sheets, Carbon and Waste turned over to Commission for destruction"? I mean, how is this even legal? If anonymous FBI officials and political appointees have the right to change the words of people representing the Bureau in sworn testimony, and to destroy the record of what's been changed, who is responsible if the changes amount to perjury? Someone in the Bureau who never appeared in court? Or the man with the lies shoved in his mouth? I mean, don't the accused have the right to face their accuser, and not have their accuser hide in an office and sneak words into the transcripts of others?

That the cornerstone of the judicial process--the taking of sworn testimony under penalty of perjury--was undermined by the very body tasked with protecting the integrity of the judicial process--the FBI--and done so as a matter of routine--should not be readily dismissed.

Perhaps, then, with time, a scholar will undertake the journey of reading through all the available transcripts, and all the versions of the report, and note the changes, and note all the quotes that were changed in the process. Such an undertaking would be of enormous interest to historians, and possibly win the undertaker a prize or two.

Anyone interested?"


Thanks, Pat.

I find it interesting, however, to note that the "change" in Paul Stombaugh's Warren Commission testimony only SOFTENS the testimony and makes Stombaugh look a little LESS certain in his opinion that the fibers came from Oswald's shirt.

If the Warren Commission had been on a dastardly mission to paint Lee Oswald as the lone gunman at all costs, there's no way on this Earth that we would have had this comment....

"In my mind I feel that these fibers came from this shirt..."

....changed to this....

"There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from this shirt..."

If there was, in fact, any "change" made to Paul Stombaugh's above testimony, the final result of what we now see on Page 88 of Warren Commission Volume #4 are altered words that nobody would have wanted to alter if their desire was to make people think that the fibers found on the butt plate of Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766 had come from the shirt worn by Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963.

Some cover-up there.



Your point would seem valid, provided that the quotes were as you claimed. But you cut the first one to change the context. Here again is what Stombaugh said:

"In my mind I feel that these fibers came from this shirt, but I know of no scientific method to prove this, so therefore I am unable to say this."

And here is what it was changed to:

"There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from the [sic; this] shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt."

The key, IMO, is that he'd admitted to bias in his testimony, and that he was willing to go as far as he possibly could go. This is not how the FBI wants to be seen. It wants to be seen as being entirely impartial. In the 90s, of course, the roof caved in and it came out that many FBI experts were routinely testifying way beyond where the science would lead them.

The key issue for me, moreover, is that this change was made by "someone," and that there is no record of who this "someone" was. I'm fairly certain that's not legal. But I know full well it's not ethical.


But my point is still entirely valid.


If the Warren Commission was truly the corrupt and evil Oswald-framing entity that many (most) Internet conspiracy advocates think it was, then Stombaugh's original remark --- "In my mind I feel that these fibers came from this shirt" --- would most certainly have been left intact in WC Volume #4.

Such a change in the wording of expert testimony to a conclusion that makes it LESS likely that Oswald was the guilty party, albeit marginally so, only tends to indicate that the Warren Commission was most certainly not railroading Oswald at all costs--even when, in this instance, they could have made it look as if Oswald was just a tad bit more guilty by merely leaving Stombaugh's original testimony alone.

Is that the way Earl Warren's Commission would have behaved if they were on a dedicated mission to convince the American public of Lee Oswald's guilt?



So, Sandy, you think these two comments (which I did not mention in Post #6, because they weren't necessary to make the point I was making about the Warren Commission) are miles apart in meaning? ....

"...but I know of no scientific method to prove this, so therefore I am unable to say this."


"...There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt."

The two remarks above are virtually identical in meaning. In each statement, Stombaugh is saying he cannot say for certain that the butt-plate fibers positively came from Oswald's shirt.

So, once more, we have CTers making enormous mountains out of things that aren't really even bumps in the road.


I did a little experiment. I read the Before sentence as Pat Speer wrote it, and wrote down in my own words the meaning it conveyed to me. Then I did the same with Pat Speer's After sentences. Afterward I did the same with DVP's versions of the Before and After sentences.

Here is what I got:



There is no way of knowing if these fibers came from this shirt.

These fibers could have come from this shirt.



I believe these fibers came from this shirt.

I'm certain these fibers could have come from this shirt.

The change in Pat Speer's version seems to increase the likelihood of the fibers coming from the shirt.

The change in DVP's version seems to make little difference.

Anyway, the mere fact that changes were made in testimony should be alarming. Not only was it wrong, but surely it was done for a reason. Clearly changes were made to suit the Warren Commission's aims, not to thwart them.


Then you should be wondering how testimony like this ended up in the 26 volumes....

S.M. HOLLAND -- I counted four shots. .... There were definitely four reports.

Mr. STERN -- You have no doubt about that?

Mr. HOLLAND -- I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either.


JEAN HILL --- I have always said there were some four to six shots. There were three shots---one right after the other, and a distinct pause, or just a moment's pause, and then I heard more. .... At that time I didn't realize that the shots were coming from the building. I frankly thought they were coming from the knoll.


Mr. SPECTER -- What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President's neck?

DR. ROBERT SHAW -- I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet.


Mr. BALL -- Where was the direction of the sound?

BILLY LOVELADY -- Right there around that concrete little deal on that knoll.

Mr. BALL -- That's where it sounded to you?

Mr. LOVELADY -- Yes, sir; to my right. I was standing as you are going down the steps, I was standing on the right, sounded like it was in that area.

Mr. BALL -- From the underpass area?

Mr. LOVELADY -- Between the underpass and the building right on that knoll.


Mr. BALL -- You say you heard these three sounds which you later thought were probably shots, you thought it came from a certain direction. Can you tell us from what direction as illustrated on the map? ....

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- It is my true opinion, that is what I thought, it sounded like it came from over there, in the railroad tracks.


I named this thread "Not all damaging WC testimony was changed. What gives?"

What you [wrote] above makes my point exactly.

Nevertheless, let me clarify my statement, which you apparently misunderstood. I said:

"Clearly changes were made to suit the Warren Commission's aims, not to thwart them."

What I meant by that was this:

"Clearly THE changes THAT WERE MADE were made to suit the Warren Commission's aims, not to thwart them."


Your statement above, of course, assumes that the Warren Commission had any "aims" to begin with (such as nailing Oswald to the wall at all costs).

I don't think they had any such "aim".


Well of course they did. The Katzenbach memo spelled it out.


And the Katzenbach memo is yet another thing that conspiracy theorists have been misrepresenting and misinterpreting for decades now.

There is certainly more than one way to interpret the words that Nicholas Katzenbach wrote in his memo to Bill Moyers on 11/25/63, as I discuss HERE and as Mr. Katzenbach himself explains in the HSCA audio excerpt below:


Katzenbach made it perfectly clear that the public should be shown that Oswald was the assassin, even though he hadn't even been tried, let alone convicted. And that there was no conspiracy, even though there had hardly been an investigation to show such a thing. And that all the facts be presented in a way that would convince the public of these things.

And that is exactly what the Warren Commission did.


As I said, it's a matter of interpretation. There's not just one way to interpret what Katzenbach meant in his memo. Play the video I posted above. Listen to Katzenbach explain it himself.

Plus, why on Earth would Katz write such a memo if his objective was a secretive one involving a cover-up and a bunch of lies? In such a situation, you think Katzenbach would commit it to WRITING? That's absurd.


The mere fact that changes were made in testimony should be alarming.


I don't think ANY official testimony should be changed--ever--regardless of whether it's Warren Commission testimony, HSCA testimony, or some other case not related in any way to the JFK assassination.

If Paul Stombaugh said something on the record, it should stay on the record forever--and in print.

As I just demonstrated in the above examples of WC testimony from witnesses who said things that certainly didn't lead down a path of Oswald's sole involvement in the assassination, the Warren Commission obviously had no qualms about eliciting testimony from witnesses whom they had to know before they ever called them to the witness stand were going to testify, on the record, in a manner that would seem to point in the direction of conspiracy. But they didn't shy away from taking testimony from people like S.M. Holland and Jean Hill and Billy Lovelady and a host of others as well.

Regarding Paul Stombaugh....

My guess is that these words attributed to Stombaugh, which appear in WC Volume 4 and are after the so-called "change" was made to his testimony, very likely were actually uttered by Mr. Stombaugh himself at some point in time....

"There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt."

So the end result was probably looked upon by the Warren Commission as a necessary "revision", as opposed to the wicked and underhanded "change" or "alteration" that conspiracy theorists seem to want to label it as being.

However, I do agree with Sandy Larsen on this issue. I think ALL of Stombaugh's testimony ("revised" and otherwise) should be available to read in the WC volumes. Any omission or deletion of testimony from the official record only makes the Warren Commission more of a "suspect" in the eyes of many people who are already not exactly big fans of Earl Warren's investigation.

But let me again repeat this main point I made earlier, which I think is important (especially if you believe the WC was as crooked as they come right from Day #1 of its existence)....

"The final result of what we now see on Page 88 of Warren Commission Volume #4 are altered words that nobody would have wanted to alter if their desire was to make people think that the fibers found on the butt plate of Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766 had come from the shirt worn by Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963."

David Von Pein
January 3-4, 2016