(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