(PART 1107)


During the Nov. 22 [2009] "Coast to Coast AM" broadcast, two guests on the show, Jim Marrs and John Barbour, who believe there was a conspiracy, pointed to a few problems with the Warren Commission's conclusions that I thought you might address----

1.) The parafin [sic] test on Oswald's face as taken by the Dallas police revealed no powder burns or nitrates, suggesting that he was not in the classic rifleman's position he would have needed to assume when the shots were fired.


This is yet another attempt by conspiracy theorists to exonerate JFK's killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, with the conspiracy quacks insisting that because Oswald didn't have nitrates on his cheek he could not possibly have fired a rifle on November 22nd.

But such a conclusion is total nonsense, and surely people like Marrs and Barbour know it's nonsense too, because the FBI performed a test on Oswald's rifle, with an FBI agent firing shots with Rifle C2766. The end result of this test was that the FBI agent (after firing shots from LHO's Carcano) had NO NITRATES on either his hands or his cheek, proving that the LACK of nitrates on a person's cheek after a paraffin test is not conclusive evidence that the person did NOT fire a rifle.

End of story there (except for conspiracy kooks who want to totally ignore that FBI test).


2.) Three shell casings were found on the sixth floor windowsill in the Book Depository Bldg., inches apart from one another, when, according to these guests, the casings would have flown over Oswald's right shoulder if he was firing the shots with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.



Yet another conspiracy myth that continues to surface, year after year. (Sickening, isn't it?)

The "inches apart from one another" crap comes from Deputy Sheriff Roger D. Craig (a known and proven liar regarding several aspects of the JFK case).

The bullet shells most certainly were not lying on the floor "only inches apart" from one another. That's ridiculous on its face, because such a configuration of the shells would certainly scream out "FRAUDULENT EVIDENCE" to anyone who would see the shells in such an obviously rigged condition.

This official DPD photo shows the shells as they were when police officers discovered the Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63, and the shells are scattered and are not just "inches apart" and they are not "pointing in the same direction" as Big Fat Liar Roger Craig said years later:


3.) Before the Warren Commission could see the Dallas police files, the FBI took possession of them, and could've altered them in any number of ways before the Commission had a chance to review them.


Could have, schmood have!

This is just more speculation and accusations of FBI misconduct coming from the mouths of conspiracists who are more than eager to label anyone "official" who was connected with the JFK case as a "liar" or a "crook", etc.

But, in reality, the unfounded and never-proven allegations spouted endlessly by conspiracy-happy individuals like Jim Marrs and John Barbour couldn't possibly matter less in the long run.

Whenever a conspiracy nut comes up against a piece of evidence he doesn't like (e.g., just about ANYTHING that points to Sweet Patsy Lee Oswald), the conspiracy nut will almost always resort to attacking the credibility of the authorities (such as the FBI, the DPD, the Warren Commission, LBJ, the HSCA, etc., etc. to infinity). It's pathetic.


4.) The results of a surveyor's report on Dealey Plaza showed that there was no clear line of fire from the sixth floor of the Depository Building, but this and other findings were changed before the Warren Commission could see them. The guests said this rules out any computer analyses made since that time about the trajectory of the shots.


~Bigger Sigh~

I guess Marrs and Barbour want to conveniently forget (or totally dismiss as junk) the detailed re-creation of the assassination that was conducted BY THE WARREN COMMISSION ITSELF (with help from the FBI and the Secret Service) on May 24, 1964.

That May '64 re-creation clearly indicates that not only was there a "clear line of fire" from Oswald's sixth-floor perch in the Texas School Book Depository (as can be seen in CE895 and CE896)....but the May '64 re-creation done by the Commission also demonstrates the workability and feasibility of the Single-Bullet Theory as well.

Just read the June 4, 1964, Warren Commission testimony of FBI agent Robert Frazier to gather the intricate, step-by-step details of the Dealey Plaza re-creation [beginning at 5 H 165].


5.) LBJ was worried that Atty. General Robert Kennedy was about to uncover revelations that could've sent him to prison.


More speculative nonsense.

Final Thought:

Jim Marrs and John Barbour should get a new hobby. Because the one they are currently engaged in (i.e., attempting to find a hidden conspiracy connected to the murder of President Kennedy) is embarrassing the hell out of them.

David Von Pein
November 24, 2009

(PART 1106)


...a flurry of police officers arrives at the Texas Theater because someone didn't pay for a ticket...


This is nothing but total B.S. invented by conspiracy theorists who are desperate to keep Lee Oswald blameless for all November 22 crimes.

The reason the police swarmed the Texas Theater was certainly NOT because Oswald had entered without buying a ticket. The reason, instead, was a perfectly logical and sensible one, all explained by the person who called the police, Julia Postal, in her Warren Commission testimony (the key sentence in Postal's testimony emphasized in bold text by DVP below).

I don't think the police even knew that Oswald had not bought a movie ticket when the police went to the theater.* There's nothing in Mrs. Postal's testimony that would indicate she told the police on the phone that the man who just entered the theater had not purchased a ticket. It's possible that she told the DPD that information, but she certainly doesn't indicate it here....

JULIA POSTAL -- "I told Johnny [Brewer] about the fact that the President had been assassinated. "I don't know if this is the man they want," I said, "in there, but he is running from them for some reason," and I said "I am going to call the police, and you and Butch [Burroughs] go get on each of the exit doors and stay there." So, well, I called the police, and he wanted to know why I thought it was their man, and I said, "Well, I didn't know," and he said, "Well, it fits the description," and I have not---I said I hadn't heard the description. All I know is, "This man is running from them for some reason." And he wanted to know why, and told him because every time the sirens go by he would duck and he wanted to know----well, if he fits the description is what he says. I said, "Let me tell you what he looks like and you take it from there." And explained that he had on this brown sports shirt and I couldn't tell you what design it was, and medium height, ruddy looking to me, and he said, "Thank you," and I called the operator and asked him to look through the little hole and see if he could see anything and told him I had called the police, and what was happening, and he wanted to know if I wanted him to cut the picture off, and I says, "No, let's wait until they get here." So, seemed like I hung up the intercom phone when here all of a sudden, police cars, policemen, plainclothesmen, I never saw so many people in my life. And they raced in, and the next thing I knew, they were carrying----well, that is when I first heard Officer Tippit had been shot because some officer came in the box office and used the phone, said, "I think we have got our man on both accounts." "What two accounts?" And said, "Well, Officer Tippit's," shocked me, because Officer Tippit used to work part time for us years ago. I didn't know him personally."

Complete Testimony Of Julia Postal

* EDIT -- After looking at Mrs. Postal's 12/4/63 affidavit, I see I was incorrect about the "ticket" information. Postal, in her affidavit, says that she definitely DID inform the police that the suspect in the theater had not purchased a ticket (after the policeman on the phone asked her if he had bought a ticket). So I stand corrected on that point.


Police cars swarmed in as though they had a positive identification on Oswald, when all they really had was a report of suspicious activity by some guy.


A policeman had just been gunned down in the general area of the theater in Oak Cliff, and the police get a call very shortly after that shooting from a citizen who told them that a person in the theater (who generally matches the description of Officer Tippit's killer) is "running from them for some reason" and is also ducking the sirens....

And you think the police should have dispatched just--what?--one patrol car to investigate?

That's funny, Sandy.

And, btw, Sandy....do you still think Scott was correct when he repeated this conspiracy myth earlier?....

"...a flurry of police officers arrives at the Texas Theater because someone didn't pay for a ticket."


The movie theater is a mile from where Tippit was shot. Not exactly nearby.


I would expect the police to send two squad cars with four officers to check it out. One car for out front and the other for out back.

Certainly NOT 15 squad cars and 26 officers! How ridiculous!


So, Sandy, are you actually suggesting that those "26 officers" were part of some plot to frame Oswald as of 1:45 PM CST on November 22nd? Is that what you're saying?

To use your own words --- How ridiculous!

IMO / FWIW....

The Dallas Police Department, of course, was certainly not privy to any advanced information as to the whereabouts of Lee Harvey Oswald in the Texas Theater on November 22, 1963. That notion is a tremendously ludicrous one, in my view.

But as far as the mindset of the Dallas Police at the time when many police cars were dispatched to the Texas Theater in Oak Cliff on that Friday in 1963, I think it's quite likely that many of those police officers did make a possible connection in their minds (even if they didn't want to admit it later on) between President Kennedy's assassination and the murder of the policeman.

After all, the police knew the President had been shot just 45 minutes before a police officer was also shot and killed. And the two shootings occurred just a few miles apart. And the DPD also knew that the description they had of the suspect in the Presidential shooting was "similar" to the description they had of the suspect who had just shot the policeman. Here's one of the radio transmissions that was made over the DPD radio system at 1:28 PM Dallas time on November 22:

Dispatcher -- "Notify 1 that officer involved in this shooting, Officer J.D. Tippit, we believe, was pronounced DOA at Methodist. 1:28 p.m."

Deputy Chief of Police N.T. Fisher -- "Is there any indication that it has any connection with this other shooting?"

Dispatcher -- "Well, the descriptions on the suspect are similar and it is possible."


Given these circumstances, Sandy, what would YOU have done if you had been the Dallas Police Department's dispatcher on 11/22/63?


Since when has it become a crime to run? That's it! I'm walking everywhere I go now!


Let me get this straight (from your point-of-view), Scott....

You don't think there was anything at all suspicious or strange about the way Lee Oswald was behaving shortly after the Tippit murder?

For example:

You don't think it was strange for him to be lurking in the entrance to Johnny Brewer's shoe store, with his back to the street as police cars were roaring by on Jefferson Boulevard?

You don't think it was strange for LHO to duck into the theater without buying the cheap ticket (even though he had more than $13 in his pocket at the time)?

You don't think it was odd (or a sign of guilt) for Oswald to be brandishing a revolver when the police approached him in the movie theater?

You don't think it was odd (or a sign of guilt) for Oswald to shout out "This is it!" when he was seized by Officer McDonald?

All of that stuff was just normal everyday activity in the life of Lee Harvey Oswald? Is that it, Scott?



What exactly did Postal see of Oswald running?


Julia Postal herself never saw Oswald "running" at all. That's true enough. And Johnny Brewer never saw Oswald in the act of physically "running" either. That's true too.

When Postal used the word "running" in her call to police, she wasn't using that word to describe a person who was exhibiting an all-out sprinting or "running" action. She only meant that the person who went into the theater was attempting to evade the police.


Why did LHO, after supposedly killing the President of the United States and a Dallas Police Officer, decide to take in a movie (and not pay for the movie ticket)?

I think his CIA handler told him to go [to] the Texas Theater and then the handler (probably DAP [David Atlee Phillips]) told Dulles where the killer / patsy was located and to have the police arrest him.

Working with Dulles was Charles Cabell (Dulles and Cabell were both fired by JFK for the Bay of Pigs fiasco), whose brother [was] Earle Cabell, the then Mayor of Dallas. It was Earle who told the Dallas Chief of Police to go get the killer -- he is in the theatre.


Good job, Chuck. You have managed to completely ignore the manner in which the police actually became aware of Lee Harvey Oswald's whereabouts in the Texas Theater, and instead you've decided it would be a good idea to just invent a bunch of crap about Dulles, Cabell, and that omnipresent "CIA handler".

Fantasy is a lot more intriguing than Julia Postal and Johnny Brewer, isn't it?

David Von Pein
February 26-27, 2016


(PART 1105)


And when will you be up for talking about Wade, Nolan, Stinson and Bell?


#1 (Wade) -- District Attorney Henry Wade never saw a WHOLE BULLET at the hospital, and you know it, Bob. He was talking about FRAGMENTS. If the word "bullet" was used to describe the fragments, it's exactly the same type of semantics error that was made by Sibert & O'Neill in their FBI report concerning the supposed "missile" that they saw during JFK's autopsy. But Sibert later admitted that "No large bullet of any kind...was found" during the President's autopsy. (That's a verbatim quote from James Sibert on June 30, 2005; listen to him say it here. And yes, I know I changed the subject a bit there, but only to demonstrate how easily that SAME type of "bullet"/"fragment" mistake can occur, and DID occur elsewhere in the very same murder investigation.)

#2 (Nolan) -- Bobby Nolan, like Wade, never saw any WHOLE BULLET at Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63. And even HE admitted that very fact to YOU, didn't he, Bob (in a telephone interview you had with him)? Correct me if I'm wrong about that, but didn't Nolan say he NEVER OPENED THE ENVELOPE that he took to the DPD and gave to Will Fritz? Therefore, how can he know for certain WHAT was inside that envelope (CE842)?

#3 (Stinson) -- I'm going to need a refresher on Stinson's observations concerning this supposed "extra bullet" matter, Bob. Frankly, I just plain forgot what his role is in this. Did Stinson supposedly see an extra whole bullet too?

#4 (Bell) -- Nurse Audrey Bell is ON TAPE telling the world that the handwriting we see on the envelope in CE842 (which is clearly and plainly marked "Bullet fragments" from Connally's "Right arm") is Audrey Bell's own handwriting. She said she positively recognized her own writing on that foreign body envelope. And I think she also stated that she did not handle (and write on) more than ONE such envelope on 11/22/63. So your theory about Bell is moribund on that basis alone. Naturally, you have other ideas. But, as usual, you can't PROVE that any hanky-panky was going on with any "erased" initials on CE842. And I think Mike Williams did a fairly decent job of debunking your "erased initials" theory many months ago at another forum.

Sum total --- Bob Harris cannot prove that ANYONE actually SAW an extra "whole bullet" at Parkland Memorial Hospital on November 22, 1963.

And, of course, the only "official" evidence in the case indicates that the only whole "bullet" that was found at Parkland that day that was in any way connected to the wounding of JFK and/or John B.Connally was CE399. And nobody has been able to PROVE that that bullet was planted or used as a substitute for any other bullet. CTers can pretend that they've "proven" that CE399 is a fraudulent bullet, but even Bob Harris knows that nobody has truly PROVEN that 399 is phony. Let's face it -- the CTers of the world just flat-out WANT CE399 to be fraudulent. Therefore, in their eyes, it is.

But the chain of possession of a WHOLE BULLET going from the hands of Tomlinson, to Wright, to Johnsen, to Rowley, to Todd, to Frazier IS INTACT -- and it always has been intact. None of those men ever said anything that breaks that consistent chain. Each man received a whole bullet from the previous man in the chain. That establishes a CHAIN OF POSSESSION for the stretcher bullet.

Yes, most conspiracists think that the lack of Johnsen's and Rowley's initials on CE399 constitutes a break in the chain. But, as John McAdams has pointed out numerous times in the past, that just simply is not so. The chain isn't broken due to a lack of marking the evidence. There are other ways to establish the chain of possession, and that's been done by the FBI, in asking each man in the "chain" if they did, in fact, receive a bullet from the previous person in the chain. And that chain is, indeed, intact. Whether the conspiracy theorists like it or not.

And Elmer Todd DID mark Bullet CE399. We know he marked it, because there's FBI documentation that tells us he marked it [see CD7 and CE2011]. And, no, I'm not willing to concede that the FBI was playing fast and loose with the words we find in CE2011. And my recent battles with Jim DiEugenio regarding Darrell Tomlinson and his role in CE2011 [HERE and HERE] should prove something to at least a few CTers -- that being: the FBI did not lie about Tomlinson when the FBI said in CE2011 that Tomlinson said that CE399 resembled the stretcher bullet. And even Robert Harris has now acknowledged the fact that the FBI did not lie about that.

Therefore, why should anyone really think that CE2011 contains ANY lies at all (including the section in that document which reveals that Elmer Todd positively identified his own initials on Bullet CE399)?

The initials that are visible on CE399 (even via the NARA's high-quality color photos) are very difficult to discern (IMO). I can hardly make out anyone's initials on that bullet. I can see some faint markings, but they ARE hard to see. That's a fact. So why is it so hard to believe that perhaps Todd put his mark on the bullet in such a way where his initials are even MORE difficult to find than are Bob Frazier's or Cunningham's or Killion's? Perhaps Todd didn't mark it as deeply into the surface of the bullet as those other men did. Who can know for sure?

But one thing I do know (because this fact exists in the written record of this case) -- On June 24, 1964, Elmer Todd said he SAW HIS OWN INITIALS on CE399. And before you're willing to claim that the "Todd" portion of CE2011 is a complete lie, Bob, you might want to think about what you were forced to admit on December 9, 2011 -- you admitted on that date that the FBI actually told the TRUTH about Darrell Tomlinson. That admission should make you pause at least for a few extra seconds before you make any further claims of FBI misconduct concerning that SAME document known as Commission Exhibit #2011.

David Von Pein
December 11, 2011

(PART 1104)


David, this is insane. I have never seen a more illogical and misinformed set of arguments.


That's because you reside in Conspiracy Fantasy Land with respect to everything connected with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

Your eagerness to promote your various crackpot JFK conspiracy theories has blinded you to even the possibility that the things you deem "conspiratorial" could have a simple non-sinister answer.

And let's face facts, Bob, most things in life are NOT "conspiratorial". And most people are NOT willing to engage in deliberate frauds or cover-ups when it comes to the assassination of United States Presidents.

In short, every single thing that you think leads down "Conspiracy Avenue" can just as easily be explained in ordinary, non-conspiratorial ways. And I think that even you know this is true. And so do most other conspiracy theorists. They just can't admit it to themselves, mainly because they've invested so much time and effort in chasing down shadows and unprovable gunshots at "Z285" and non-existent bullets that nurses supposedly picked up and put in their pockets, etc.


David, there is not a speck of evidence supporting that assertion by the FBI [that O.P. Wright said CE399 looked like the bullet he saw on 11/22/63]. And Wright was very specific, that the two bullets were not similar.


OK, Bob. Thanks for doing what I knew you would do regarding CE2011. You now are convinced (via the Ray Marcus transcript of the 7/25/66 interview with Darrell Tomlinson) that the FBI did not lie in CE2011 with respect to Tomlinson. But you are more than willing to still think that the FBI did lie with respect to O.P. Wright, who told the FBI agent on 6/12/64 (according to CE2011) that CE399 looked pretty much like the bullet Wright had seen on November 22nd.

And it's also very likely that you still think the FBI lied through its collective teeth about Elmer Todd having identified CE399 (also via CE2011). Correct?

I'm wondering, though, why the FBI didn't simply lie about Rowley and Johnsen of the Secret Service too? Why didn't the FBI utilize the exact same verbiage in CE2011 with Rowley's and Johnsen's observations of CE399? Why didn't they do the same thing that you think they did with O.P. Wright -- i.e., why didn't they put a BALD-FACED LIE into the mouths of both James Rowley and Richard Johnsen and say that those two Secret Service men said that CE399 "looks like the slug" or "appears to be the same one" that each of those SS men handled on 11/22/63?

Why did they stop their lies with O.P. Wright and Elmer Todd, Bob? Why not go whole hog with their evil deception in CE2011? What would a couple more blatant falsehoods matter to the FBI anyway, right?

Bob Harris thinks he gets to tell everybody just exactly HOW and WHEN and WITH WHICH WITNESSES the Federal Bureau of Investigation "lied" when it comes to the words we see printed in Commission Exhibit 2011.

But as we have already seen in this forum thread [which is no longer available to read because John Simkin, former owner of The Education Forum decided to delete the thread in its entirety in approx. 2012], Robert Harris was forced to say something about the FBI and CE2011 that he probably thought he would never have to utter in his lifetime:

"The FBI did not lie about what he [Tomlinson] said." -- Robert Harris; 12/5/11

So Bob has acknowledged that at least a portion of the words we see printed in CE2011 are true and are not lies being told by the FBI.

But according to Bob, we are still supposed to believe that SOME of the things we find in CE2011 are, indeed, blatant lies being forced on the unsuspecting public by the rotten and corrupt FBI.

Bob thinks that because of what O.P. Wright told Josiah Thompson in 1966 (that the stretcher bullet had a pointier nose than does CE399), this must therefore mean that Wright did NOT tell the FBI in June of '64 that CE399 looked like the slug Wright saw on 11/22.

Robert Harris, however, is wrong. Those two things CAN co-exist. And, in fact, they DO co-exist in this case, even though the two statements are not totally compatible with each other.

But the record is clear, even if the CONTRADICTORY MEANING of O.P. Wright's words are not -- he (Wright) definitely told the FBI in 1964 that CE399 looked generally the same as the bullet he handled at Parkland Hospital on the day of the assassination; and Wright also told Josiah Thompson something that would seem to totally contradict what he told the FBI two years earlier.

But as we all know, witness observations can be all over the place, and memories of an event can, indeed, change. Jean Davison posted some good stuff on the Internet recently about the subject of "changing memory". If you go to the webpage below (and search more of Jean's posts), you'll find some interesting things about it:

"There's nothing "delusional" about it. MEMORIES CHANGE. If you doubt that, please do some basic research." -- Jean Davison; November 2, 2011


Of course CE399 came from Oswald's rifle -- the same rifle they had at their labs. But its condition and the total absence of blood and tissue strongly suggests that it was fired into cotton wadding or water. And yes David, I know that in carefully contrived tests, nutters have produced bullets in similar condition. But try Googling a bit for photos of spent bullets, that wounded a person or animal. You won't find one in a hundred in that condition.


Then maybe you can answer the following question for me (derived from just ordinary common sense):

If a bullet couldn't possibly have caused the damage that CE399 is claimed to have caused to JFK and Connally and come out in the condition that 399 is currently in -- then why did the people who allegedly faked the bullet want to place in the official record a bullet so clean and so undamaged and so NICE-looking?

Were the cover-up agents bumbling idiots? Or maybe they just didn't give a damn if their ruse would be discovered by crack CTers in the future?


David, the bullets recovered from the limo may or may not have come from Oswald's rifle.


Why on Earth are you pretending that there's some doubt about whether CE567 and CE569 (the two largest limo fragments in the front seat) came from Oswald's C2766 rifle? Those fragments definitely DID come from that rifle. There is no ambiguity at all about that, as the various firearms experts testified to. (They all lied too, Bob?)


Guinn's analysis has been totally discredited, even by an expert from the FBI.


But Dr. Guinn's NAA analysis has got NOTHING to do with the conclusion that the two largest bullet fragments (CE567 & 569) were fired in Oswald's Carcano.

Guinn doesn't even need to come into a discussion about CE567 and 569, because we don't need Dr. Guinn to verify that Oswald's gun fired those two limo fragments (which was verified via ordinary ballistics/striation firearms tests, and not Neutron Activation Analysis).

And it wasn't JUST Hoover's FBI boys who verified that the front-seat limo fragments came from Oswald's rifle, there was also the independent firearms expert, Joseph Nicol of Illinois, who said the same thing as the FBI's firearms experts:

MR. NICOL -- "It is my opinion that the same weapon that fired Commission's Exhibit 572 also fired the projectiles in Commission's Exhibits 569, 567, and 399."

MR. EISENBERG -- "That would be to the exclusion of all other weapons?"

MR. NICOL -- "Correct."


Dr. Guinn's NAA studies are not totally irrelevant and immaterial (even in this "new era" of Randich, Grant, Tobin, and Spiegelman, et al). Common sense alone makes Dr. Guinn's NAA analysis far from obsolete or worthless. Here's why.


But if he [Lee Oswald] did fire that shot [which resulted in the limo fragments], he didn't have time to fire the other shots that were closely bunched with the one at [Zapruder frame] 312. And he certainly didn't fire the shot at [Z]223. If he had, the limo passengers would have been even more startled than they were at 285 and 312.



Do we really need to go around the mulberry bush one more time with your make-believe gunshot at Z285? I'm just about to eat. Have some pity on my poor stomach.

And I don't know why you're claiming that the limo fragments (CE567 and CE569) had to necessarily be the result of a SEPARATE shot from the three shots that Lee Harvey Oswald fired. Why are you even suggesting such a thing, Bob? Just to be contrary?

You know darn well that the best and most reasonable scenario to explain Oswald's bullet fragments being found in the front seat of the limousine is that they were fragments from the Z313 head shot. The slowed fragments coming from JFK's head--moving FORWARD toward the front of the car--then struck the TWO objects that showed damage at the front of the limousine -- the chrome topping and the windshield.

That scenario fits to a tee -- right down to the "Two & Two" match on the number of fragments recovered from the front seat (2) and the number of damaged areas in that same general area of the car (2).

As for your theory that some of the shots were "bunched" together:

Yes, several witnesses did say that the last two shots were bunched close together. But I will also remind Mr. Harris of the several witnesses who said that the THREE shots they heard were "evenly spaced", and not "bunched" together---CLICK HERE.


More bad reasoning David. The Alyea film proves that the MC [Mannlicher-Carcano] was there, but it certainly doesn't prove that it was the only rifle that was found.


And so it's your contention that a group of unknown conspirators who wanted to frame Lee Oswald as a LONE PATSY (correct me if I'm wrong about that "lone" part) would be stupid enough to leave behind evidence in the same TSBD building that would expose the conspiracy and, hence, totally ruin their "lone patsy" plot?

Were those bumbling conspirators just hoping and praying that the evil DPD and the corrupt FBI would also have a desire to frame ONLY the patsy named Oswald and, therefore, the cops would want to sweep all of the "other" rifles that were found in the building under the carpet?

If so, then those pre-assassination henchmen sure got lucky when they found out that the police wanted to become an active part of their "Patsy" plot and frame only Oswald, huh?

You don't get the authorities to cooperate with murderers like that very often. November 22nd must have been their lucky day.


David, you actually cannot prove that even one bullet was fired that day from Oswald's rifle. Your pretense that you have all this evidence is just silly.


After reading Bob's comment above, I'm not sure if I should laugh or vomit. It's a toss-up there.

So, via Bob's above remark, we can assume that Bob Harris must think that CE567 and CE569 were "planted", or are phony in some manner. Because if those two front-seat bullet fragments were, indeed, fired from Oswald's rifle (which they were, as I just proved above via Joe Nicol's testimony), then it has to mean one of these three things:

1.) A gunman using Rifle C2766 (i.e., Oswald's rifle) fired at least one bullet from that gun into JFK's car during the time when the President was being assassinated on Elm Street in Dallas on November 22, 1963.


2.) Someone at some later time, who wanted to make it look like Rifle C2766 had fired a bullet or bullets into Kennedy's car, gained possession of Oswald's rifle, fired a bullet from that gun and made sure the bullet fragments were mutilated pretty badly (but not TOO badly to prohibit a definitive "to the exclusion" match to Rifle C2766), and then either planted those two bullet fragments in the front seat of the limousine prior to the Secret Service's initial examination of the car early on 11/23/63, or the bullet-manipulators just PRETENDED that the Secret Service had recovered the two fragments from the front seat of President Kennedy's SS-100-X limousine.


3.) Incredibly, a couple of bullet fragments from Rifle C2766 just happened to already be in the front seat of the limo PRIOR to the assassination.

Can you think of a fourth option, Robert?

And among the three choices listed above, which one is the most likely to be true?

I'll answer that one for you:

It ain't #2 or #3.


The FBI had to get at least a few people at Parkland to support their deception and Gregory was one of them. He's the one who, when asked about who Bell gave CE842 to, could only say that he "was advised" that it was Bell [sic; Harris really meant to say "Nolan" here, of course]. But he worked with Bell in the emergency room daily. It is preposterous to think that she didn't tell him about it.


Oh, brother. And so now Dr. Charles Gregory is part of the official "cover-up", eh Bob? Geez Louise, what a bunch of hogwash.

And for people who might not know, CE842 clearly states on the envelope that it contains "Bullet Fragments" from John Connally's "Right Arm". It does not say anything whatsoever about the envelope containing a whole bullet that dropped out of Connally's leg. And Nurse Bell has HERSELF stated that the writing we see in CE842 is her own handwriting.

Yes, I know that Bob Harris still thinks there's something phony about Commission Exhibit No. 842. He thinks that some of the writing has been erased, and other things written in at a later time (to support the never-ending "cover-up" in this case, of course).

But that's just one in a long list of Mr. Harris' off-the-wall assumptions and theories about the JFK case. And in the final analysis, the theories spouted by just one more conspiracy theorist who thinks a bunch of stuff in the Kennedy case looks "fishy" or "forged" or "doctored" or "erased" mean very little.

In fact, the continued protestations of conspiracy theorists couldn't possibly matter less when they are stacked up against the expert testimony and the overall "Oswald Is Guilty" conclusions that were reached by TWO separate U.S. Government investigations -- the Warren Commission and the HSCA. (Not to mention the smaller investigations, like the Clark Panel and the Rockefeller Commission.)

And speaking of CE842 -- CLICK HERE.


David, Nellie was given that cufflink on the FIRST FLOOR. Do your homework. The nurse recovered the bullet on the SECOND FLOOR, as he was being transferred from his gurney.


I think you MIGHT have been able to get the drift of my "cuff link" comment that I made earlier, Bob (even though you're pretending not to get that drift now).

Main point being:

A cuff link hitting the floor COULD have possibly sounded very similar to a BULLET hitting the same floor. Right, Bob?

And since we know that Nellie Connally WAS, in fact, given one of her husband's gold cuff links in the hospital, by a nurse, I'm suggesting that the "metal object" that Governor Connally heard falling to the floor could possibly have been one of his two gold cuff links -- one of which he never saw again. Maybe it was the missing cuff link that the nurse put in her pocket, and it just never found its way back into the possession of the Connallys. Who can know for sure? Nobody can.

And John Connally definitely did NOT see a "bullet" in the operating room. There is no corroboration for that at all. Not even from John Connally himself, including Page 18 of his book. He never said he actually SAW a bullet. And some people have claimed that Connally's co-writer on that book (Mickey Herskowitz) is responsible for some of the narrative credited to Connally in the book. (I have no opinion on that theory one way or the other, however.)

We do have John Connally's Warren Commission testimony to help clear up this "bullet" matter, though. Connally told the WC this in 1964:

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing as you were placed on the emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?"


Now, Bob, if your theory is correct, and if Governor Connally had REALLY seen a bullet that had fallen from his body onto the floor at Parkland Hospital on 11/22/63, don't you think that Arlen Specter's above question would have elicited a slightly different response from Connally?

Now, yes, it's true that Specter's question related to the time when Connally was first being placed ONTO THE STRETCHER at Parkland. But I think it's a pretty big stretch to think that these words from Specter wouldn't have prompted Connally to say something to Specter about a bullet that had fallen from his body and onto the Operating Room floor (if such a thing had actually occurred):

"Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing...?"

Wouldn't you agree, Robert?


It is ridiculous to say he [John Connally] never saw the bullet [that a nurse allegedly picked up off the floor at Parkland Hospital and allegedly put in her pocket on 11/22/63]. .... Of course Connally saw the bullet. That's how he knew what it was.

David, do you think there is any remote possibility that after picking it up, the nurse might have held it up for a split second, to look at it???


See my previous comments above.


Your arguments are preposterous and beyond desperate.


I'm torn between that "Laugh or Vomit?" choice again.

But, with the above quote coming as it does from someone who is positive a gunshot occurred at precisely Z285 of the Zapruder Film, and who thinks Dr. Gregory was a part of a cover-up, I think I'll opt for the "LOL" option. It's a lot more fun that way. (And less messy too.)

David Von Pein
December 7, 2011

(PART 1103)


John Armstrong does a masterful job, IMO, of poking holes in the U.S. Government's story about Oswald's buying the rifle.

So much so, based on documents not mere opinions, that he undermines the entire U.S. Government version of the assassination.

Think about it. Armstrong argues convincingly that the FBI fabricated various reports. Furthermore, the facts that the FBI "lost" the Klein's microfilm and the PMO defy belief.


Also, where is the stub?

​You know, the one that Mr. Holmes said he found?


The original Klein's microfilm, after being photographed by the authorities, could very well have been returned to Klein's. It probably contained a lot of other information about the various orders Klein's had processed at the same time they processed Oswald's rifle order, and therefore the whole microfilm was likely returned to the possession of its owner--Klein's Sporting Goods. It had served its purpose. The FBI and/or Warren Commission had taken photos of all documents that were on the microfilm which pertained to Oswald and the JFK case. So what purpose would be served by retaining the entire roll of microfilm?


How do we really KNOW for a fact that these "missing" items are truly MISSING from the National Archives? We all know it's like pulling teeth from a grizzly bear to get permission to see any of the "original" items that are in the National Archives. So I'm just wondering if (just perhaps) some of those "missing" items (like the original money order and the stub) could still be buried somewhere in one of the N.A. buildings someplace (or elsewhere). How can we KNOW for sure they're really missing? ~shrug~


The first paragraph is an assumption. Which is what Davey specializes in.

The second is the same. But it's even worse.

If something has not turned up in over fifty years, then it's a safe bet to say it's not there. Especially when certain people--not Davey, who has never been there in his life--have been to NARA and asked for it.

Maybe we should wait another fifty years for it to show up?

Which means we will all be dead and Davey will have won his argument.



I want to believe you are honest.

I know about advocates.

You are an advocate.

Based on what you see, and I mean see clearly, do you believe beyond a reasonable doubt LHO killed JFK? If so, why?


Absolutely. Oswald killed Kennedy. And Tippit too. And he shot at Walker too. Without doubt---IMO.

I think, Jon, that if you examine just Oswald's own actions on the dates of Nov. 21 and Nov. 22, without even venturing into the area of the "physical evidence" or the eyewitnesses, a good case can be made for Oswald's guilt in both the JFK and Tippit murders.

And when you then ADD IN all the physical evidence (plus the eyewitnesses on both Elm Street and 10th Street), a definite pattern emerges quite clearly.

You can speculate that all of that physical evidence was fake or forged to frame LHO, but how can you fake someone's own actions and movements?

Oswald, in essence, signed his name to the murders of Kennedy and Tippit by acting so incredibly guilty. And we don't need ANY "authorities" (FBI, DPD, Warren Commission, etc.) to know without a doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald was acting guilty on 11/22/63.

Don't you agree with that last sentence, Jon?

David Von Pein
February 21, 2016

(PART 1102)


There is plenty of evidence at the National Archives incriminating “Lee Harvey Oswald,” and all of it is phony.


...the FBI altered their statements.


...FBI report falsifications.


...the FBI and/or Warren Commission merely had to alter his testimony.


...documents were fabricated.


...I don't trust ANY report.


When you have to resort to such massive allegations of constant "alteration" and "falsification" and "fabricated" stuff, it's a good sign that you've reached a level of deep desperation from which you can likely never escape.

In other words....since you've got no evidence of your own to prove any conspiracy, you have no choice but to try and invalidate the real evidence in the case. (The Hidell money order and CE399 being two prime examples, among dozens of others.)

When I see words like "all of it is phony", it's a sure sign that the CTer who wrote such nonsense has a very weak case for "conspiracy". So he's got to attack the legitimacy of ALL of the evidence. A very tiresome (and predictable) way to approach any murder case.


I call this DVP land, which is similar to the territory that Rod Serling inhabited in his TV days.


For a solid week, up until about the 29th, the entire media, which included literally hundreds of reporters, maybe thousands, somehow missed the fact that the rifle the DPD had was equipped with a scope!

Were they all blind? And this included the local newspapers.


Utter nonsense, Jim. The media was reporting that the murder weapon had a SCOPE on it as early as just a few hours after the assassination. There are even several FILMS (broadcast to the public on television on November 22) that show the scope attached to the rifle -- such as Tom Alyea's film, which was shown in its "wet" form (i.e., totally unedited) on WFAA-TV on the afternoon of the 22nd, with the film being narrated at various times by Bob Clark and Bert Shipp and Bob Walker, with the newsmen even pointing out the obvious fact that the rifle had a SCOPE on it.

And Walter Cronkite, on Nov. 22 and 23, talked about the rifle's "sniper scope attachment". And Dan Rather, at about 7:00 PM on Nov. 22, narrated a film showing Lt. Carl Day walking through the DPD corridor carrying the rifle, with Rather telling the CBS audience that the rifle "has a four-power telescopic sight on it" (with the scope easily visible in the film as well; see video below)....

And the newspapers were reporting about the "telescopic sight" on the rifle as early as Day 1 on November 22 as well. Here's an example from a Portland, Oregon, paper.

Here's another newspaper (also dated 11/22/63), showing the same information about the "telescopic sight" on the rifle.

And yet another here.

Those newspapers were reporting the early erroneous info about the rifle being a "7.65 Mauser". But each paper also mentioned the fact that the assassination rifle was equipped with a "telescopic sight". That Oxnard paper was even correctly reporting, as early as November 22 (the date on the paper), that the rifle was an "Italian" gun.

So, as all these examples illustrate, Jim DiEugenio doesn't know what he's talking about.

I guess Jim thinks that just because the media was reporting the $12.78 price for the assassination weapon for a few days beyond November 22, that means that "the entire media...somehow missed the fact that the rifle the DPD had was equipped with a scope".

But if that's Jimmy's belief, he looks awfully silly, because I just provided a bunch of examples showing that the media WAS reporting on the "scope" within hours of the assassination.


I love it when Davey goes into one of his tantrums. As he did above. It shows you how exacerbated this issue gets him.

See, that is not what I meant. Let me explain:

If DVP is saying that the 12.78 price which was widely circulated was a mistake, because they did not realize the scope was a part of the purchase, then all they had to do was look at the rifle and see it had a scope. Which as he shows, many outlets did. OK, what is the price of the scope?

But if he is saying that they knew it had a scope, then why did so many outlets still get it wrong?

It's that simple. DVP wants to have it both ways.


The media kept getting it wrong because they simply kept repeating the main $12.78 price for the rifle (without the scope) that was originally reported by Chief Curry on TV on 11/23/63 [see video clip below]. Nobody in the media took the time in those first few days to seek out what the price was WITH the scope included. Big deal.

There's no cover-up there. Just a lack of details regarding the "With Scope" price.

Again....big deal. It's only a "big deal" to rabid conspiracy theorists like you, Jim.



Curry of the police said that the FBI reported that price [$12.78]. For a rifle with scope.


But keep in mind that when Curry told the press about the $12.78 price for the rifle, the complete information concerning the $21.45 money order had not been revealed to Chief Curry yet. I believe Curry provided the $12.78 info at about 7 PM Dallas time on 11/23, while the money order was recovered at 9:35 PM EST (8:35 PM Dallas time) on 11/23. The Secret Service and FBI knew a little earlier than that, of course, that they were looking for a money order in the amount of $21.45 (see Commission Document No. 87), but the DPD wouldn't necessarily have been privy to the $21.45 price until much later (assuming they were ever provided that figure by the SS or FBI, which perhaps they weren't, I don't really know).

So the press people went with the info they had available as of Curry's makeshift conference at DPD at 7:00 on Nov. 23 --- i.e., Oswald's handwriting was traced to the Klein's "order letter" (not the money order), with Curry telling the reporters this....

"I believe the gun was supposed to cost twelve dollars and seventy-eight cents, I believe. I believe it was advertised in some magazine for that."



LOL, this is crazy! The FBI was initially going to go with the March 20 $21.95 money order purchase. Then later changed their minds and decided to fabricate their own money order!

DVP, how do you explain the fact that the FBI got the wrong order from the microfilm? I mean, are they so inept that they thought they saw serial number C2766 on that order when in fact it wasn't there? Remember, this was not just one FBI agent... it was three! So all three hallucinated the C2766 serial number???

This is yet another smoking gun, Jim. But can DVP convincingly explain it away?? I'll be sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for a reply!



The FBI didn't get the "wrong order" from the microfilm. There WAS NO ORDER FOR $21.95 for the C2766 rifle. That was merely a slipped digit. And Harry Holmes talks about that mistake in his testimony too. That was one of the reasons it took a little longer to find the $21.45 Hidell money order --- because they were searching (in vain) for the wrong amount ($21.95).

Once they realized what the correct figure was--$21.45--they found it very quickly.

Do you think Waldman No. 7 is a fake document, Sandy? It clearly says $21.45 on it. And it also says C2766. And A. Hidell. And Italian Carbine. And William Waldman testified in detail about that order form. Was he a plotter too?


What a bunch of Von Peinian baloney.

And by God in heaven, to use Holmes as your witness. As a famous lawyer said to Joe McCarthy, "Have you no shame sir?"

Well, we know the answer to that don't we? In both cases.

How anyone can write the above knowing they were looking for the serial number, not the price, is simply beyond the realm of normal thinking. He still has not read John's essay.

But that is why Davey is Davey.



When it came time to look for the money order, they were most certainly looking for the AMOUNT, not the serial number. (The serial number wasn't on the M.O.)

And this sentence written by John Armstrong....

"They did, however, find documentation that showed Klein's sold a $21.95 rifle that was paid for with a postal money order issued on March 20, 1963."

....is just a flat-out distortion of the facts, because the FBI most certainly did NOT find any $21.95 Klein's order form for the C2766 rifle. They found the Waldman Exhibit No. 7 document, which is the ONLY document that has BOTH a price and the C2766 serial number on it--and Armstrong knows it. He's merely trying to turn an innocent error regarding the exact amount of the purchase ($21.95 vs. $21.45) into a mountain of conspiracy and cover-up. Silly beyond belief.


What specifically is the "order" anyway? Is it the coupon cut out from the magazine? The money order? Both?


The "order letter" that Chief Jesse Curry refers to in his hallway press conference on the night of Nov. 23 is CE773, which is the microfilm of the order form clipped by Oswald out of the Feb. '63 American Rifleman magazine. That's the microfilmed document that was the basis for the FBI's findings that the "order letter" had Oswald's writing on it. That order form, of course, doesn't have the $21.45 figure on it either. Nor does it have $12.78 on it. It has $19.95 on it. (Shall we dance some more over those three figures?)


David, can you write a quick summary for me so that I can understand what happened. I'll write one up right now to give you an idea of what I want:

1. The FBI has the serial number, C2766. (I'm not sure how they got that, but I'll try to understand that later.)

2. The FBI guys search the Klein's microfilm for seven hours and find what they THINK they are looking for... an order with C2766 printed on it. (Even though it wasn't.)

3. The order is dated March 20 (now we're talking about the money order, right?) for $21.95.

4. The FBI authenticated Oswald's handwriting.

5. They discover they had the wrong order. (But then how did they authenticate Oswald's handwriting??)

David, I don't know how to fix the above with your solution to the problem. You say they were searching for an order with the wrong price. But I thought they were searching for an order with a given serial number, C2766, not with a given price.


1. The FBI did, indeed, have the serial number. (They had the rifle in their possession at 11:45 PM CST on Friday, you know. So why would you be surprised they knew the serial number? And even if they didn't have the rifle themselves, the FBI could have simply telephoned the DPD and gotten the number from them at any time on Nov. 22....couldn't they?)

2. The FBI discovers from a gun dealer in Dallas that Italian surplus WW2 rifles were being distributed by Crescent Firearms in New York City. This leads the FBI to Klein's in Chicago after finding out that Crescent had sold the "C2766" rifle to Klein's.

3. The Klein's records are searched and the "C2766" invoice is found (via what would soon become "Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7"), which provides all the pertinent information about the sale of Italian rifle No. C2766 for $21.45 to one A. Hidell of Dallas, Texas (via "M.O." [Money Order]) on March 20, 1963 (which is the date the FBI goes with, instead of the date stamped at the very top of Waldman No. 7--March 13, 1963--which was the date Klein's put the Hidell order through their cash register, as William Waldman explained in his Warren Commission testimony; the March 20 date was, of course, the date the rifle was shipped to Hidell/Oswald).

4. Somebody connected with the discovery of the "Waldman No. 7" invoice must have transmitted the wrong purchase price to other FBI personnel ($21.95 instead of $21.45), which led to confusion when the FBI and Secret Service began searching for the money order that was used to pay for the rifle.

5. In addition to the internal Klein's invoice (Waldman No. 7), the FBI also found the "order letter" (as Curry called it), which is CE773. They quickly determined that the writing on the order form was that of Lee Harvey Oswald.

In short, there was no "wrong order". Somebody just wrote down or transmitted to somebody the wrong purchase price after the discovery of Waldman No. 7.
But even though some officials had the wrong price, there were others who knew the correct price of $21.45 for the Hidell rifle order, because we find the correct figure being written in two separate reports (connected with the discovery of the money order) authored by both the FBI and the Secret Service on November 23 -- CD75 and CD87.

David Von Pein
February 17-20, 2016

(PART 1101)


You...have made a career out of calling witnesses and researchers "liars".


Bob, please point me to any post I have made in the past where I've called any witnesses "liars" (other than Jean Hill and Roger Craig, who I have, indeed, called liars, because they were).


Why is it that you...are so eager to accept this guy's uncorroborated claim without a recorded interview or even a transcript of his alleged conversation [referring to Ray Marcus' 7/25/66 telephone interview with Darrell Tomlinson]?


For one very good reason -- Jean Davison -- which I alluded to at the top of my original post regarding this matter at the Education Forum, when I said this:

"And, yes, I certainly trust Ms. Davison and her research. In fact, I'm more inclined to accept anything that Jean says as the absolute truth regarding pretty much anything concerning the JFK murder case than I am to accept any other researcher's information." -- DVP; November 30, 2011

Along these same lines, I talked to Gary Mack of the Sixth Floor Museum via e-mail on December 1, 2011, and I said this to him:

"Have you seen the Marcus HSCA document that I've been discussing at the Edu. Forum? [In a return e-mail, Gary told me that he does not remember ever seeing the document in question.] I have not seen it myself, but as I said in my Edu. post, I trust Jean Davison immensely, and I am absolutely 100% confident that Jean would never have said the things she said on the Internet about the contents of that 1966 Marcus/Tomlinson interview if she had not confirmed them beforehand. And that's why I was confident enough to start that Edu. Forum discussion in the first place. I'm sure there are some people who would say that I'm not being forthright regarding this matter--i.e., I should have viewed the Marcus transcript MYSELF before shooting off my mouth on the Internet. And normally, yes, I would agree with such an opinion. But since I have a source to fall back on whom I deem to be first-rate and honest and one of the best researchers in the history of JFK research (Jean Davison), I almost feel as if I have, indeed, read that transcript myself. That's how much I respect Jean. Plus, of course, I wanted to drive Jim DiEugenio a little nuts too. That's always worth doing (as you probably know)." -- DVP; 12/1/2011


I thought you were a fan of Posner's edict that we must take the earliest statements of a witness to be the most accurate. I guess that's only true when you like the early statements better, eh David?


But, Robert, in the 1966 Marcus interview, it would certainly appear as if Tomlinson WAS talking about his earliest statement concerning CE399 looking the same as the stretcher bullet. Jean Davison made that fairly clear in her post of November 22nd, 2011, here:

"Tomlinson told researcher Ray Marcus that the FBI showed him the bullet and that it looked like the one he found. Marcus provided a transcript to the HSCA that can be ordered from the National Archives. Marcus is a conspiracy theorist, not a 'WC defender'. Do you think he just made that up?"
-- Jean Davison; 11/22/2011

Jean also said this in her post of July 16, 2011:

"Tomlinson told WC critic Raymond Marcus that he and Wright were shown the bullet by Shanklin and that it looked like the same one to him. Whether it was really Shanklin or not, I don't know, but you might want to order a transcript of his 7/25/66 interview from the Archives, because Tomlinson also told Marcus that he believed the bullet came off the elevator stretcher. (IMO, Tomlinson never was sure which stretcher it was, and he wavered back and forth.) The transcript is HSCA document 180-10088-10206. I don't know the RIF but it can be found with the NA's JFK search engine. It's not online anywhere that I know of."
-- Jean Davison; 7/16/2011

Bob, do you think that Tomlinson was talking about some OTHER time that we was shown CE399 by an "FBI agent" (other than June 12, 1964, that is, which is the date we find for the FBI's visit to Parkland in CE2011)?

And even though Jean doesn't mention the specific date of the FBI agent's visit to see Tomlinson, it's pretty clear that Tomlinson certainly DID make a statement to Raymond Marcus on July 25th, 1966, that CE399 looked the same as the bullet he found on a stretcher. And Tomlinson was talking about what he had ALREADY TOLD the FBI at some earlier time (i.e., earlier than the July 1966 interview with Marcus).

And the whole point of my bringing this issue up at the Education Forum was to re-emphasize Jean Davison's earlier points about Tomlinson's remarks. Because many CTers don't think ANY agent from the FBI visited Tomlinson to show him CE399 in 1964 at all. And the 1966 Marcus interview verifies that that just is not correct.

Now, I'm not suggesting that Tomlinson didn't change his story over the years. He most certainly did change his story about the stretchers. And I have talked about his flip-flopping in my forum posts, such as in this post from July of this year:

"Darrell Tomlinson has gone through various changes in his story--from 1964 to 1988:

1964 --- He told the Warren Commission (no less than six separate times) that he was "not sure" which of the two stretchers he had taken off of the elevator.

1967 --- He told CBS News that he was absolutely positive that the stretcher on which he found the bullet was the stretcher that had come off of the elevator.

1988 --- Tomlinson now completely contradicts his 1967 statement by telling PBS-TV that he is certain that the bullet he found came off of a stretcher that definitely HAD NOT been taken by him off of the elevator.

IMO, Tomlinson's first (1964) statements are the best and carry the most weight. In other words, he simply was "not sure" at all which of those two stretchers had come off of that elevator on Nov. 22."
-- DVP; July 19, 2011


David's tactic is to look at an article with a large quantity of solid evidence and testimony and seek out something which he thinks gives the appearance of uncertainty or doubt, and then dwell on only that issue.


No, but you've just described the tactics of conspiracy theorists to a tee.

The CTers of the world never concentrate on the "whole" or the "sum total". Take Robert Harris' "Z285" theory for example. The "sum total" of the evidence (when taking into account the varied witness statements AND the ballistics evidence in the case and WHERE that evidence was located) indicates that only THREE shots were fired at JFK's limousine, with those three shots all coming from the southeast corner of the TSBD's 6th floor.

But if a person (like Robert Harris) wanted to isolate only certain "bunched shots" witnesses, then he, of course, can build himself a pretty nice-looking theory around those witnesses. Who couldn't?

But I will then counter with a few witnesses who disagree with Bob Harris' theory about "bunched up" shots. Am I then engaging in "witness selectivity"? Well, yes, of course I am. But it's to illustrate that there ARE other witnesses who don't think that some of the shots were "bunched" together. Here's that list (and there are probably a few more I could add to this list of witnesses who thought that the gunshots were evenly spaced).


Hi David,

If you'll send me your snail address I will mail you a copy. Would it be possible for you (or anyone else here) to put the whole thing online? I'm not able to do that myself. The document is apparently Marcus's own typewritten transcript, 8 1/2 pages double-spaced. If you can't put it online I could still mail you a copy.


Thanks, Jean. I've e-mailed you my address.

I'll try to put it online after you send it to me.


I certainly trust Ms. Davison and her research. In fact, I'm more inclined to accept anything that Jean says as the absolute truth regarding pretty much anything concerning the JFK murder case than I am to accept any other researcher's information.


And why in holy hell would you make such an assertion?

First of all, Jean is light years from being infallible. I have confirmed that myself in numerous exchanges with her.

David, your ONLY test for whether someone is honest and reliable is whether or not they support the LN theory. Do you think anyone here doesn't realize that?


Of course I'm not infallible, but could you remind me how you've confirmed that "in numerous exchanges"? Give me examples, please, because I don't know what you're referring to.


And even if she was this paragon of infallibility, it wasn't her who talked to Tomlinson. It was some guy you've apparently never met or heard of before. You and Jean just like what he said.


Raymond Marcus was an early WC critic who wrote "The Bastard Bullet," praised here by Jim DiEugenio. And here.

IOW, he's "one of yours".


We both know what Tomlinson's ORIGINAL recollection was. Why does it matter that he later gave in to pressure from the feds??


Tomlinson's ORIGINAL statements were to the FBI and Secret Service. I've never read them, have you? The first time he's on record saying he wasn't sure was in response to Specter's question....

"Now, Mr. Tomlinson, are you sure that it was stretcher "A" that you took out of the elevator and not stretcher "B"?"

Is that the "pressure from the feds" you're talking about?


And are you still standing by your theory that Connally, Wade, Stinson, Nolan and Bell were all delusional???


As you know, I've never called anyone delusional. You don't have a statement from Connally, Robert. You have a statement from a ghostwriter who isn't a reliable source (unless you think Secret Service agents left the motorcade to rush to the TSBD, etc.).

On the other hand, Connally himself said.....


Mr. SPECTER. Do you know whether there was any bullet, or bullet fragments, that remained in your body or in your clothing as you were placed on the emergency stretcher at Parkland Hospital?

Governor CONNALLY. No.


Yes, I know you think he lied -- because it doesn't fit your theory.


It's just silly to expect anyone to buy this third hand claim about an interview that you can't even prove took place.


Jean's going to mail me the transcript. (But maybe she "faked" all 9 pages of the interview just to have something to do, huh Bob?)

Plus: The page from the National Archives pictured here proves the interview took place. Or maybe Bob thinks the NARA is part of the plot too.


I didn't say that, and you need to stop distorting my statements.

I was referring to your demand that your readers are supposed to contact the archives themselves in order to see the transcript, and to your expectation that everyone would buy a third hand, undocumented assertion, without even being permitted to read the actual statements at issue.

I'm sorry if you're offended at being asked to support your claims, but you don't seem too offended when you are demanding the same from researchers you don't agree with.

And I'm still waiting for you to explain why you would put more weight on a 1966 statement than Tomlinson's original, sworn testimony, especially since he was pressured by the feds to change his story.


I did support my claims, Bob. And the support was in the form of the three posts made by Jean Davison, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

Jean didn't provide a verbatim quote from the Marcus transcript (which is something I definitely intend to do once I get the copy of the transcript from Jean in the mail), but she provided enough information (to my satisfaction at least) to allow me to determine the following three things (which are three things that many conspiracy theorists on the Internet think never happened at all):

1.) Darrell Tomlinson did talk to an FBI agent who showed Tomlinson CE399. (And the FBI's visit to see Tomlinson AND O.P. Wright was almost certainly the same one mentioned in CE2011, which occurred on 6/12/64. Only the agent's name is different. Everything else fits perfectly.)

2.) Tomlinson told the FBI agent that CE399 looked the same as the bullet he had found on a Parkland stretcher on Nov. 22.

3.) Tomlinson told Raymond Marcus that the stretcher that had the bullet on it was a stretcher that he had taken off of an elevator.

And my source for all of the above three items is Jean Davison -- the best damn source anyone could ever hope to have when it comes to JFK assassination research.

So, as I said, my claims HAVE been supported -- via Jean's research.

Footnote ---

I have a suspicion that this "Marcus/Tomlinson" thing is just eating up Robert Harris and James DiEugenio (et al). Because they certainly don't relish the idea that a document (written by one of their fellow conspiracy advocates, no less) exists in the Archives that destroys a whole series of their conspiracy-tinged arguments concerning the stretchers and Bullet 399.

Or, at the very least, the Marcus transcript certainly puts a substantial dent in the CTers' crackpot idea that the FBI was lying through its teeth about showing Tomlinson and Wright the bullet in June of '64.

But I'm loving it. And I thank Jean Davison for writing those three posts I linked above. I'm glad I decided to dig them up again, since the ones from July 2011 were virtually ignored by everyone.

And I hope to post some verbatim quotes from Ray Marcus' transcript shortly. Stay tuned.


I found an old thread in which I quoted parts verbatim, so here it is. I'll still send you the whole thing.


Thank you, Jean. That saves me a lot of typing. And you really don't need to go to the trouble of mailing the transcript to me now. You've posted the relevant portions of the interview I was interested in.

And I also had a feeling that this topic had probably come up before on these forums (or some other forum somewhere). You've probably had that transcript for years, but things tend to get buried in a sea of thousands of other posts over time.

Thanks again for posting those verbatim parts of the Marcus/Tomlinson interview.


Oops, too late. I mailed it this afternoon. But that's okay, there are other things you may find interesting, who knows?


Thanks for the Marcus transcript, Jean. I received it in the mail on Sat., Dec. 10th [2011].

David Von Pein
December 3-13, 2011

(PART 1100)


He [Jack Ruby] jumped in front of all the reporters to shoot Oswald on Sunday. That was his LAST CHANCE to complete his mission.


Why is that?

Didn't he know any Deputy Sheriffs at the County Jail? Surely he could have also maneuvered his way into the County Jail, via his sandwich runs and back-slapping and "free drink" offers, to plug Oswald sometime after November 24.

But all of the talk about a pre-arranged "hit" on Oswald on November 24th at City Hall is totally destroyed (and always will be) when we examine the details of HOW Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald.

After studying the details of the "Ruby Shoots LHO" scenario, there is simply no way that a REASONABLE person can believe the murder was anything but spontaneous and spur-of-the-moment on Sunday morning.

That's not to say that perhaps Ruby didn't think about plugging Oswald at some earlier time--on Friday night or maybe Saturday too. But the way things unfolded on SUNDAY just scream "happenstance"--not "conspiracy".


Sure, Ruby was in the building several times but not in the hallway when they were moving Oswald around. He didn't camp out waiting for them to move Oswald.

He said that he knew that they were going to transfer Oswald on Sunday morning at 10 AM. That is when he chose to be in the basement, his last chance to get Oswald.

There is no way that you can look at Ruby milling around waiting for Oswald to come down minutes before the shooting and claim that it was just luck that Ruby got there at the last second.

He said that he planned to shoot Oswald Friday night. That is not a last minute chance meeting.


If he really wanted to kill Oswald on Friday night, he could have easily done it in the crowded hallway of the DPD.


He wasn't in the crowded hallway. He was in the back of the room pretending to be a reporter. There were too many reporters in the way for him to get off a clear shot.


But he was in the crowded hallway.

Video footage shows him there, and multiple witnesses reported him there.


He was all over the place. He was trying to find somebody from KLIF, and get the studio line.


Yes, and also on Friday night, Ruby even helped Ike Pappas get an interview with D.A. Henry Wade for Pappas' WNEW radio station in New York.

During Wade's November 24 news conference (after Oswald had been killed), Pappas and Wade even discuss the fact that Ruby was hanging around City Hall. In fact, Ike Pappas even uses the words "he seemed to be all over this place". You can hear Pappas' remarks here.


Gee, you don't think Ruby and his handlers might have wanted you to think it was happenstance? You know, make it look like a spur of the moment thing to keep the heat off. Gullible people will fall for stuff like that.


Which means, of course, that 20-year-old stripper Karen Carlin was one of the KEY plotters, since it was her phone call that put Ruby in a position to make it "look" like the shooting of Oswald was "happenstance".

And I imagine the Western Union employees were probably part of the plot too. And maybe even there were some plotters who were controlling the traffic signals that Ruby had to encounter between his apartment and downtown Dallas. If the lights had stayed red for just a few seconds longer (each), or if Ruby had driven downtown just a tad slower, or if Ruby hadn't made that illegal turn that he said he made to park in front of Western Union (which evidently trimmed a few seconds off the time needed to get into the WU office) -- then Jack would have missed Oswald altogether.

IOW -- Even when it's obvious that something was HAPPENSTANCE instead of CONSPIRACY, the conspiracy theorists will still bitch and moan, and come up with a "PRE-ARRANGED TO LOOK LIKE HAPPENSTANCE" plot (involving 20-year-old strippers, and having Ruby take a shower before he leaves to shoot Oswald, and making sure to place Sheba in the car, etc.).


Impossible. But beautiful.


He [Ruby] said that he knew that they were going to transfer Oswald on Sunday morning at 10 AM. That is when he chose to be in the basement, his last chance to get Oswald.


Then why wasn't Ruby in the basement at 10 AM?

You surely aren't going to suggest that Ruby WAS in the basement at 10:00, are you?


I'll ask again -- Why did Sunday morning in the basement necessarily represent Ruby's "last chance" to plug Oswald?

Given Ruby's "I Know Everybody In Town" status, why couldn't he have gained easy access into Sheriff Decker's County Jail building in order to complete his nefarious "mission" on poor Patsy Lee? Especially in light of the fact that so many conspiracy theorists believe that virtually ALL of Dallas law enforcement was "in" on some kind of plot. Surely, Decker's boys would have more than happy to put out the "Come In & Shoot Oswald" welcome mat for ol' Jack.


There is no way that you can look at Ruby milling around waiting for Oswald to come down minutes before the shooting and claim that it was just luck that Ruby got there at the last second.


You're making stuff up out of thin air. Ruby wasn't "milling around" waiting for Oswald on Sunday morning in the basement. There's ample proof that he could not possibly have arrived in that basement until (at most) one minute prior to Oswald coming out.

"Milling around" indeed. Where the heck are you getting that from?


Traffic signals? What you been smoking? Ruby got to the Western Union in plenty of time. Then he WALKED across the street. Are you claiming that Ruby would never Jay Walk because he was such a law abiding citizen?


Oh, good God. ~sigh~

I wasn't talking about traffic lights when Ruby was walking the half-block from WU to DPD.

I was talking about the various traffic lights Ruby undoubtedly encountered on his DRIVE (in his CAR) from his apartment to downtown, which I CLEARLY indicated in the post of mine that you just mangled.



David Von Pein
November 27-29, 2011
December 4, 2011