(PART 116)


http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Jack Ray Tatum







(PART 1115)




All sixty common-sense-filled volumes have now been electronically packaged in one space-saving Mega-Set (below).

This series touches on virtually all of the various assassination sub-topics -- from the SBT...to the WC...to the HSCA...to the TSBD...to the BOH...to "I'm just a patsy"...to Badge Man...to Umbrella Man...to the Tippit murder...to Oswald's many lies...to Dr. Humes...to Wesley Frazier...to the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorists...and, of course, to Vincent "Reclaiming History" Bugliosi.....

All of that "LN vs. CT" wrangling and squabbling, and lots more, can be found (somewhere) within this 60-volume Super-Set!

So sit back, select a volume of your choice, and watch with joy as you observe one conspiracy theory after another crumble into dust via "DEBATING THE JFK CASE: THE COMPLETE SERIES BOXED SET"! .....


I have to applaud all the work that must have gone into those volumes. .... [But] if the full volume set is like the 'part 78' of arguments, I wouldn't want to go through a complete set while constantly finding bad arguments. It interrupts my reading.


Well, Chris, I guess you won't ever have a desire to read any of Vincent Bugliosi's book then -- because Vince uses the exact same argument that I have utilized to explain the "BOH" Parkland witnesses. Here's what Vince said in his 2007 book:

"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," [Baden] told me. "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 his head." [End Baden quote]." -- Pages 407-408 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent T. Bugliosi


Therefore, Chris now is forced to say that both Vincent Bugliosi and Michael Baden have come up with "bad arguments" when it comes to trying to explain why the Parkland personnel said they saw something that we know they could have never seen on 11/22/63 (i.e., a great-big hole in the occipital portion of John F. Kennedy's cranium).

BTW, Chris, when focusing on the Parkland witnesses, you might want to try and evaluate the unbelievable and ridiculous comments made by the doctor who had the best view of JFK's head among all the people who saw the President at Parkland Hospital -- Dr. Robert McClellend.

I've recently posted some of my thoughts about McClelland's 11/22/63 observations, including the excerpt below:

"[Dr.] McClelland has obviously never even once thought about how silly and impossible his theory is. Because if he ever stopped to think about it for any length of time at all, he could never even begin to believe that a bullet could have created a massive blown-out exit wound in the occipital area of a human skull and yet leave the scalp in that same occipital area totally free of any injury. And yet that is EXACTLY what Dr. McClelland said he believes happened."
-- David Von Pein; December 31, 2011

More on McClelland's goofiness here and here.

David Von Pein
January 25, 2012

(PART 1114)


It's quite possible (or even likely, IMO) that Oswald purchased the money order before he went to work on 3/12/63. The main post office building at 400 N. Ervay Street could possibly have opened at 7:00 or 7:30 AM in 1963.


Quite possible? Likely? Could possibly have opened? .... I'm not looking for opinions.


But instead of always jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon and believing that every document associated with Oswald is fake, you should be looking for some possible "ordinary" way for Oswald to have done the things that the evidence says he did -- such as: buying a money order at the Main Post Office on 3/12/63 and mailing it to Chicago on that same day.

And there ARE ways for those two things to have occurred without the words "fake documents" coming into the discussion. And one of those ways is the one I mentioned earlier -- if the Ervay St. Post Office opened early and thus allowed Oswald to go there prior to going to work at Jaggars. If that is true, then this whole "Oswald Couldn't Have Possibly Bought The Money Order On March 12" theory that CTers have fallen in love with goes sliding right down the drain.

Gil, don't you think it might be a good idea to eliminate the "Post Office Opened Early" theory before you embrace the most extraordinary theory of all, which is the one that has some plotter (or a group of plotters) faking a bunch of documents connected to the rifle purchase?

Other ordinary, non-sinister possibilities have been mentioned by Gary Mack:

"Oswald could have left JCS [Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall] at any time between 8am and 10:30 IF there was no work for him to do. Oswald was given simple tasks as they came in, so if no orders were waiting, all he could do was sit and wait.....and get paid for doing so. I assume he'd have to check with his supervisor about taking a few minutes to go to the post office, but his time card certainly does not confirm that he was on the job every single minute. It merely shows that he was at the office and "on the clock" all day. And maybe, just maybe, he went over there on JCS business? Or perhaps a co-worker — his supervisor? — also needed something from the PO so Oswald went and took advantage of the opportunity? In short, there are many reasons Oswald's PO visit was entirely legitimate." -- Gary Mack; March 12, 2011


"The Ervay PO is the one that was just a few blocks from J-C-S which was located at 522 Browder. According to Google maps, the two are only 8 blocks, or ½ mile, apart. Oswald could have walked or run, or probably ridden the bus, since Ervay was a main north-south street. For that matter, he could have bummed a ride from a co-worker. In short, I don’t see anything that prevents Oswald from getting to the post office, then buying and sending his money order to Klein’s. As to why the envelope is postmarked in a different zone, I have no clue, but there’s no evidence such a practice was out of the ordinary."
-- Gary Mack; March 17, 2011


David Von Pein
January 21, 2012

(PART 1113)


Name ONE piece of evidence that you think is "rock solid" as evidence that Lee [Oswald] murdered JD Tippit. Let's examine it and see how solid it is.


I'll name fifteen:

1.) The bullet shell found by Barbara Davis in her side yard (which has a chain of custody that even most conspiracy kooks don't gripe about).

2.) The bullet shell found by Virginia Davis in her side yard (which has a chain of custody that even most conspiracy kooks don't gripe about).

3.) Commission Exhibit No. 603, which is one of the four bullets removed from J.D. Tippit's body. According to Illinois firearms expert Joseph D. Nicol, that particular bullet (CE603) positively came out of Lee Harvey Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver.

Quoting Nicol --- "On specimen...[CE] 603...I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606."

4.) William Scoggins positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the one and only gunman he saw leaving the scene of Officer Tippit's murder.

5.) Ted Callaway positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the gunman he saw leaving the scene of Officer Tippit's murder.

6.) Sam Guinyard positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the gunman he saw leaving the scene of Officer Tippit's murder.

7.) Barbara Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the gunman she saw dumping bullet shells out of a gun as he cut across her yard immediately after Tippit was shot.

8.) Virginia Davis positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the gunman she saw leaving the scene of Tippit's murder on 11/22/63. Virginia Davis, just like Barbara Davis, witnessed Oswald emptying shells out of his gun as he cut through her yard at the corner of Tenth Street and Patton Avenue.

9.) B.M. Patterson positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the gunman he saw leaving the scene of Officer Tippit's murder.

10.) Helen Markham positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the one and only gunman she saw shoot J.D. Tippit on 11/22/63.

(If needed, I can also add a few more witnesses to this list who positively identified Oswald as he fled the general area of the Tippit murder.)

11.) When arrested in the Texas Theater just 35 minutes after Tippit was killed, Lee Harvey Oswald exhibited behavior that can only be interpreted as the behavior of a person who was guilty of some type of crime. This behavior included pulling a gun on the arresting officer, striking the arresting officer in the face, and uttering one or two verbal statements that reek with guilt. Those statements being "This is it" and/or "It's all over now".

12.) At approximately 1:36 PM CST on 11/22/63, which was approximately 20 to 22 minutes after Officer Tippit had been shot, Lee Harvey Oswald was seen by Johnny Brewer in front of the Hardy's Shoe Store on Jefferson Boulevard, a short distance from the scene of Tippit's murder. Brewer, in his 12/6/63 sworn affidavit, said that Oswald "acted as if he was scared" as he stood in front of the shoe store.

13.) After he was apprehended, Oswald lied to the police when he told them that he had purchased his revolver in Fort Worth, Texas. The police would later learn that Oswald had actually obtained the gun from a Los Angeles, California, mail-order company.

This 13th item, Oswald's blatant and easily provable lie about where he bought the gun, is very powerful "consciousness of guilt" circumstantial evidence. If LHO had been innocent of shooting anyone with that particular Smith & Wesson revolver, then logically he would have had no reason whatsoever to lie to the police about where he purchased that gun.

Oswald, quite obviously, was attempting to distance himself as much as he could from the Tippit murder weapon--even though he knew that he was caught with that murder weapon in his own hands when he was arrested.

I'll end my list with two items that don't prove Lee Oswald shot Officer Tippit, but these things certainly do lead in that direction:

14.) Both shortly before and shortly after J.D. Tippit was shot on Tenth Street in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff, Lee Harvey Oswald was seen (on foot) in Oak Cliff. Oswald, shortly before Tippit was murdered, was seen by Earlene Roberts as he quickly left his roominghouse at 1026 North Beckley Avenue. And he was seen (again on foot) by Johnny Brewer on Jefferson Boulevard less than 25 minutes after Tippit was killed.

Brewer told the Warren Commission that Oswald "looked funny to me". Brewer also said that Oswald's "hair was sort of messed up and [he] looked like he had been running, and he looked scared." (7 H 4)

Lee Harvey Oswald just being in the general area of the Tippit murder both shortly BEFORE and just AFTER Tippit was shot is evidence that deserves to be considered very heavily. And the fact that Oswald was carrying a gun during this same period also must be factored into the overall weighing of the evidence too.

Add to this the fact that the gun Oswald was carrying in Oak Cliff on November 22, 1963, was determined by firearms experts to positively be the gun that ended the life of Officer J.D. Tippit. That fact, all by itself, pretty much seals the deal. Oswald shot Tippit. There's no doubt about it.

15.) It is also known that Lee Harvey Oswald went into the Texas Theater without buying a movie ticket. That fact, of course, does not prove LHO shot anybody, but it certainly indicates that Oswald was very anxious to get inside that darkened movie theater just a half-hour after a policeman was killed nearby.

For, if he had not just done something that required him to get off the street very quickly, then why wouldn't he pay for his movie ticket at the box office? He had more than $13 in his pocket, so we know he could have paid for a ticket if he had wanted to do so.

This act of ducking into the theater without purchasing a ticket is another circumstantial piece of evidence that must be considered and weighed when trying to determine whether or not Oswald shot Officer Tippit. And such an act on Oswald's part, occurring less than half-an-hour after Tippit was slain, is certainly an act that leads more toward guilt than it does innocence (especially when weighed in conjunction with items 1 through 14 above).

David Von Pein
January 10, 2012

(PART 1112)


DVP, your web sites are the best and most accurate on the planet. However, LHO did not fire "three bullets at President Kennedy." He used the first shot for the indispensable requirement of zeroing his reassembled rifle. That's why the first shot missed; it wasn't aimed at the limo. That's also why the first shot was fired much earlier than Z160. It was fired exactly where the FBI spliced those seven frames from the Tina Towner film to hide her camera jiggle reaction to that early first shot.


You know you can't possibly PROVE what you just said, Ed. Any more than I can "prove" beyond all doubt that you are wrong.

You could be 100% right, yes. But you could also be 100% wrong.

I'm wondering, though, Ed, if Oswald would have wanted to deliberately waste (in a sense) his very first shot for merely "zeroing-in" purposes?

Why couldn't that first shot have served double duty -- i.e., a shot aimed AT the President AND also serving (if need be) a "zeroing-in" purpose as well? Why isn't that scenario possible?

That way, LHO would have the best of both worlds. He could have done some zeroing-in while at the same time possibly hitting (and maybe killing) the President with his first shot when everyone in the Plaza was taken by complete surprise -- as opposed to waiting for the 2nd shot to aim at JFK, when potentially more people would be alerted to the fact that a gunman was on the sixth floor.

Your theory is intriguing. No doubt about it. But I have a hard time accepting the notion that Mr. Oswald would have had a desire to draw attention to himself and his shooting perch by firing a shot that served only the function of zeroing-in his weapon.


Have you heard about the "Only 2 Shots Were Fired" theory (as proposed by Mike Majerus in his book "Phantom Shot")? That's discussed a little bit here.


David, thank you for your reply.

You say "merely," I say "indispensable requirement." See my blog post where 17 gun manufacturers and firearms experts weigh in on the need to re-zero a reassembled firearm.

The first shot could not have served double duty, David, because it was imperative that Oswald see exactly where it hit relative to the crosshairs... where it would kick up some dust... where nobody was watching... say, the south curb of Main Street near the triple underpass.

Also, to have the time to adjust the windage and elevation screws before the second shot, that first shot had to be fired very early.

Oswald assumed that no one would react for ten brief seconds. He was correct. In fact, as you well know, David, SA Clint Hill did not react until after the second shot. That was 9.5 seconds later.


Thanks, Ed.

But all of that "zeroing-in" would be unnecessary if Oswald had possessed the following mindset on November 22, 1963:

I'll use the 4-power telescope for my first shot to be fired at President Kennedy (even though I should probably zero-in the scope first), but if that shot misses the target, I'll quickly switch to the iron sights for my remaining shots.

And as Jim Hess (at Facebook) pointed out recently (via the photo below), switching quickly from using the telescopic sight to the iron sights while firing a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is not a difficult or cumbersome task at all:

David Von Pein
March 22-24, 2016

(PART 1111)


From Vincent Salandria:

"Arlen Specter, Esq., stated that Senator Ralph W. Yarborough said he smelled gunpowder at the assassination site. Mr. Specter dismissed this as the function of "an overly active olfactory sense." He admitted that a Dallas police officer was reported to have smelled gunpowder 350 to 400 feet from the Depository Building immediately following the assassination shots. Mr. Specter did not comment on this. If the smell of gunpowder was detectable at street level immediately after the assassination, then this would indicate a source of shots other than the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building."

[End Salandria Quote.]

"An overly active olfactory sense." You can't make this stuff up, ladies and gentlemen. The smell of gunpowder at street level was reported by several people, and that alone is enough to conclude that shots were fired that did not come from the TSBD. The Nutters will have no explanation for this that is any better than "an overly active olfactory sense."


Now tell me why the smell of Oswald's gunpowder couldn't have drifted down to street level after just a few seconds? Any reason why conspiracy theorists totally disregard that possibility altogether?


Dealey Plaza is a very small place. I can easily envision Oswald's gun producing odors that would be noticeable within the entire Plaza a few seconds after the shots were fired from the sixth floor. Has such a thing ever been disproved? I think not.


I think some witnesses did smell gunpowder. But a gun was being fired in the small Plaza that day. So, in my opinion, the gunpowder they smelled was from the ONE GUN that was KNOWN to have been fired that day---i.e., Oswald's Carcano from the sixth floor. I see nothing so impossible about people smelling OSWALD'S gunpowder. And Yarborough was certainly not ON THE GRASSY KNOLL when he smelled the gunpowder. He was in a car in the middle of Elm Street.


BTW / FWIW....

"I heard three shots and no more. All seemed to
come from my right rear."
-- Ralph W. Yarborough; July 1964


I guess the smell must have gone straight out the sixth floor window, over the heads of everyone close to the building, and then began to settle to the ground only after reaching the Grassy Knoll area.


And why would that be totally impossible, Garry?

Please, Oh Great Puffer, set this Internet Troll straight with respect to your vast expertise on the flight patterns of gunpowder odors in a swirling Texas breeze.


Where do you think the hot gases and powder residue go when a rifle is fired, Garry Puffer? Do they linger around the muzzle, descend the floor below, or do they go downrange?


According to DVP, they travel *against* the wind and settle in EXACTLY one spot.

Then, according to mcadams, anyone who smells it was actually smelling car exhaust.

Your move.


Did Yarborough (or others) pinpoint "one exact spot" where they smelled the gunpowder?


Yet just a few posts ago you cited Yarborough as an extended argument for your claim that the gunpowder came from the TSBD.

Now you're saying he can't pinpoint "one exact spot" where it came from.



And yet you love the idea that WHEREVER Yarborough smelled the gunpowder, it MUST absolutely positively mean the gunfire came from the Knoll and not the Depository.

Embarrassing indeed.


Here's what Vincent Bugliosi had to say about the "Witnesses Smelled Gunpowder" topic:

[Quote On:]

"To bolster his case that George Hickey fired his weapon, Howard Donahue points out that several people smelled gunpowder at the time of the shots. If Oswald was sixty feet above the street, how, Donahue asked, could people on the street smell gunpowder? (Menninger, 'Mortal Error', pp.89–90)

One person he cites is Senator Ralph Yarborough, who was in the car behind Hickey’s car. His source is William Manchester’s book 'The Death of a President', where Manchester writes, “Yarborough thought he smelled gunpowder” (Manchester, 'Death of a President', p.156). Manchester cites no source for this, and in Yarborough’s only statement to the Warren Commission, an affidavit on July 10, 1964 (7 H 439–440), he makes no reference to this.

However, a few people in Dealey Plaza did testify they smelled gunpowder: Mrs. Earle Cabell (7 H 486–487), Tom Dillard (6 H 165), and Mrs. Donald Baker
(7 H 512).

Donahue’s statement that if people on the street smelled gunpowder it could not have emanated from sixty feet above is an assumption for which he provides no support. There was a strong wind at the time of the shooting, and it could have carried the smell downward since wind doesn’t travel only laterally, as anyone who has watched a tennis match at any of the big stadiums, such as Arthur Ashe Stadium in New York City, well knows. (Even though the court is at the very bottom of the stadium, completely protected on all sides, on a windy day, the wind passing high above the stadium invariably reaches the court, making play difficult.)

One also has to wonder if there was any smell of gunpowder at all, a few people perhaps only imagining they smelled it. After all, only a small handful of the hundreds of people in the plaza reported smelling gunpowder. I mean, how in the world would Dallas police officer Earle Brown, standing atop the bridge over the Stemmons Freeway (not the Triple Overpass on Elm), well over a hundred yards away from the shooting, smell gunpowder? But he claims he did (6 H 233)."

-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 516-517 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"

[End Quote.]

Let's have a look at what Tom Dillard said about the gunpowder he smelled:

JOSEPH BALL -- "Do you have any idea or an impression as to the source of the explosions--what direction it was coming from?"

TOM DILLARD -- "Yes, I felt that, at the time, I felt like it was coming from a north area and quite close, and I might qualify I have a great deal of experience. I am a gun nut and have a great number of high-powered rifles at home, so I know a little bit about guns."

MR. BALL -- "You have had experience with rifles?"

MR. DILLARD -- "Yes, I have shot a great deal, so I am familiar with the noise they made in that area. We were getting sort of reverberation which made it difficult to pinpoint the actual direction, but my feeling was that it was coming into my face and, in that I was facing north toward the School Depository, I might add that I very definitely smelled gunpowder when the car moved up at the corner."

MR. BALL -- "You did?"

MR. DILLARD -- "I very definitely smelled it."

MR. BALL -- "By that, you mean when you moved up to the corner of Elm and Houston?"

MR. DILLARD -- "Yes. Now, there developed a very brisk north wind."

MR. BALL -- "That was in front of the Texas School Book Depository?"

MR. DILLARD -- "Yes, it was very close -- the corner is rather close. I mentioned it, I believe, that it was rather surprising to me."


So, as we can see, Tom Dillard said he smelled the odor of gunpowder while he was right "at the corner" of Elm and Houston Streets during the time the assassination was occurring or very shortly after the shots were fired.

David Von Pein
March 22-23, 2016

(PART 1110)


The evidence that Oswald murdered Tippit is unconvincing.


You're not likely to find a sillier statement than the one quoted above. And that's because the evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit is rock-solid and conclusive. Any prosecutor could have phoned in his case against Oswald.

And what makes Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder EXTRA convincing (vs. "unconvincing") is the fact that there are multiple types of evidence to convict him -- including direct (eyewitness) testimony which corroborates and buttresses the physical evidence left behind by Oswald at the scene of the crime (i.e., the eyewitnesses fingered OSWALD -- and the bullet shells found at the crime scene were fired in OSWALD'S revolver -- and OSWALD himself had the murder weapon in his own hands just 35 minutes after Tippit was killed, with OSWALD himself acting like a very guilty man in the theater).

The melding together of that much eyewitness testimony, circumstantial evidence, and physical evidence (the bullet shells on Tenth Street) doesn't occur in a great number of murder cases. But in the Tippit case, it did occur. And Oswald was nice enough to KEEP THE MURDER WEAPON IN HIS POSSESSION right after the crime too, which is a huge asset when it comes to solving the murder of Officer Tippit.

The only possible way for Oswald to be innocent of Tippit's murder is if LHO's identical twin had actually shot Tippit with LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S gun, and then the identical twin (or exact look-alike) was somehow able to get Oswald himself to take possession of Revolver V510210 prior to his arrest in the Texas Theater.

And even that ridiculous scenario wouldn't really explain why Oswald, just thirty-five minutes after J.D. Tippit had been shot with LHO's Smith & Wesson revolver, was behaving like a very guilty person when the police approached him inside the Texas Theater on November 22, 1963.

Conspiracy theorists are experts at making up excuses to EXPLAIN AWAY all the evidence that exists against Lee Harvey Oswald in both the JFK and Tippit murder cases. But unless the CTers really want to believe that all of the eyewitnesses who identified Oswald were totally wrong AND that all of the physical evidence in the Tippit case was manufactured by the authorities to frame Oswald, then the conspiracy theorists really have nowhere to go with their persistent arguments that Oswald was innocent of killing J.D. Tippit.*

* Unless the conspiracists actually want to accept the tongue-in-cheek theory proposed above about LHO's look-alike shoving the murder weapon into Oswald's hands immediately after the crime was committed. And I doubt even the wackiest of conspiracy buffs would have a desire to sink THAT deep into their bin of conspiracy nonsense. (Would they?)

David Von Pein
January 10, 2012

(PART 1109)


If I were a LNer, I too would flee from confronting the full implications of Sgt. [Gerald] Hill's admission that he did send the "auto .38" transmission. It doesn't just discredit his Commission-testimony denial re sending it; it discredits the testimony of Benavides, Poe, & Hill himself re the supposed throwing down of hulls by the shooter. Obviously, the hulls were found on the ground because the latter's gun ejected them *automatically*, as per Hill's DPD-radio transmission.


So, apparently Don Willis thinks that J.D. Tippit's murderer was firing bullets from the corner of 10th & Patton, even though we know that Tippit himself was found lying in the street beside his patrol car, which was many yards down the road from the corner.

Would Willis now like to pretend that Tippit was really shot at the corner, but after being shot four times at point-blank range, he managed to stagger down the street before he finally crumpled to his death?

Awaiting Donald's brilliant explanation regarding his theory that a gunman fired an automatic at Tippit FROM THE CORNER of Tenth and Patton.

It appears to me as if Donald Willis has really boxed himself into a tricky and untenable corner when he said this---

"Obviously, the hulls were found on the ground because the latter's gun ejected them automatically."

Via the above silly theory, Willis has no choice but to discount and disregard the observations of ALL of the witnesses who saw the shooting occur on Tenth Street. Willis has to now believe that Tippit's real killer was shooting from a location where absolutely ZERO witnesses claim to have seen a gunman firing shots.

Via Willis' loony theory, the real killer would have been located practically right next to William Scoggins, who was sitting in his taxicab at the corner of 10th & Patton. Yet Scoggins testified that the shooting occurred many yards up Tenth Street, not right at the corner.

And the other witnesses (Markham and Benavides) also confirm that Tippit's one and only killer shot Tippit from the sidewalk on 10th Street, with the shooter firing from across the hood of Tippit's police car.

Or maybe Willis would like to add a new wrinkle to his theory -- maybe he would like to now claim that Tippit's body and his police car were later MOVED to a location further up Tenth Street, which is where Car No. 10 was later photographed.

If a gunman had really fired at Tippit from the corner where two of the bullet shells were found, here's how far away from Tippit that gunman would have been -- via CE523.


Don Willis' theory has yet another insurmountable problem if he wants to pretend that an "automatic" pistol was really used to kill Officer Tippit and that problem is the fact that two of the bullet shells that were later found near the scene of J.D. Tippit's murder were found by Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis in the SIDE YARD of their apartment building--on PATTON AVENUE, not on Tenth Street. (See page 266 of Dale Myers' book "With Malice" for an illustration that shows exactly where those two shells were found.)

Which would mean that if the shells were really being fired by an automatic weapon, then the gunman was either running around the corner as he was firing the gun, or he was somehow able to shoot Tippit from the SIDE YARD of the Davises' residence, which would mean the killer would have to shoot THROUGH THE APARTMENT BUILDING in order to hit Tippit.

Obviously what happened is this: Lee Harvey Oswald shot J.D. Tippit with Smith & Wesson revolver #V510210, and after firing four (or perhaps five) bullets at Tippit, Oswald ran (or walked briskly) toward the corner of Tenth & Patton. When he reached the corner, Oswald began to unload the empty shells from his revolver, with two of the shells falling to the ground on Tenth Street (very near the corner itself), with the other two shells coming out of the gun after Oswald had reached the side yard of the Davis apartment building (again see page 266 of "With Malice").

The above scenario of Oswald's shell-dumping is also perfectly consistent with the known characteristics of Lee Oswald's V510210 revolver, which is a gun that would result in bulged (or slightly expanded) cartridge cases after bullets were fired through the rechambered revolver. Which means the shells would have a tendency to stick in the chamber, resulting in additional effort being required by any gunman attempting to manually remove the shells from the weapon (see page 258 of "With Malice").

This "sticky shells" situation was almost certainly the case with Oswald's revolver on November 22, 1963, at 10th & Patton, with the shells being a bit difficult for Oswald to remove from the gun all at once. Hence, there were two shells found near the corner on Tenth Street, while the other two shells were found around the corner in the Davises' side yard.

It's also quite possible that the "sticky" nature of Oswald's bullet shells could be the reason that only four shells were recovered at the Tippit murder scene (with the possibility existing that Oswald actually fired five bullets at Officer Tippit, with one bullet missing the target).

If Oswald did, indeed, fire five shots at Tippit (which can never be proven, of course), instead of just four shots, then it's possible that the fifth bullet shell was simply lost to history, never having been recovered by anyone after the shooting.

The above scenario is somewhat buttressed by the testimony of eyewitness Sam Guinyard, who watched Oswald flee the scene of Tippit's murder from Ted Callaway's car lot.

Guinyard told the Warren Commission that he saw Oswald "knocking empty shells out of his pistol", although it's a little unclear exactly where Oswald was located when Guinyard saw him removing the shells. It's possible Guinyard was only referring to Oswald kicking out shells near the corner of 10th & Patton. But it's also possible that Guinyard saw Oswald still in the process of dumping shells out of the gun when Oswald was much further down Patton Avenue.

And if the latter situation is true, then it's quite conceivable that Oswald could have removed at least one bullet shell from his revolver when he was near the corner of Patton and Jefferson Boulevard. And we know that no bullet shells were recovered that far away from where J.D. Tippit was killed.


Good to see that LNs are (properly) confused by the witnessing of falling shells, by the Davises, Benavides, and Guinyard.

Start with Benavides: "[The gunman] catty-cornered across the yard.... He didn't go all the way on the sidewalk. He cut across the yard.... He turned & went down the sidewalk to, well, until he got in front of the corner house.... He had just got back to the sidewalk when he threw the first [shell] & when he threw the second one, he had already cut back into the yard. He just sort of cut across." (v6p450)

Dale Myers' diagram of these actions accurately shows the path Benavides describes the gunman taking, across the yard, nowhere near the 10th & Patton intersection (p76). Meanwhile, the Davises testified that--from their front porch--they saw the man simply emptying shells from the gun into his "left hand" (Barbara v3pp343-44; Virginia v6p460).

For some reason, Benavides didn't see the gunman palming any shells, and the Davises didn't see the man dropping any shells, although they were supposedly looking at the same scene. And, contrary to DVP, above, the shells which the Davises said that they found on the side yard did NOT "come out of the gun" after the man "had reached the side yard". Both said that they came out and were palmed in their FRONT yard. If the two shells were still in the gun when the man went around the house to the side yard, then the Davises would have seen NO shells, either falling or being palmed.

DVP is haplessly trying to reconcile the testimonies of Benavides, the Davises, and Markham, who, famously, testified that the gunman went down the 10th St. sidewalk, right to the intersection. Her testimony contradicts that of Benavides & the Davises, who have him cutting across the latter's lawn (as seen in the Myers diagram).

Markham undercuts Benavides who, in turn, undercuts the Davises. The four cannot be reconciled. Shells apparently got into the grass, but we'll never know exactly how--the witnesses can't agree. One begins to wonder if they saw anything.

Interesting that DVP here overrides the Davises' testimony, which posits a different reason for the delay in getting the shells to the ground! I do agree that their testimony SHOULD be overridden, for other reasons.


I wonder if Donald Willis can split his hairs any thinner as he tries to fine-tune the shell-dropping at 10th & Patton to a microscopic level that even he has surely got to know is simply impossible (not to mention downright ludicrous).

To a reasonable person, the testimonies of Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, and Domingo Benavides (the 3 people who ultimately picked up the 4 bullet shells) are perfectly consistent with each other. The KEY "consistent" factor being this one:

Those three witnesses each saw ONE gunman dumping shells out of just ONE gun near the corner of Tenth Street and Patton Avenue in the Dallas suburb of Oak Cliff on Friday, November 22nd, 1963 AD!

ONE GUNMAN was seen dumping shells from ONE SINGLE GUN.

Perhaps the above sentence should be placed on a magnet on Don Willis' refrigerator door. Because I think he needs to be constantly reminded of that important fact.


Don't you feel pretty silly contradicting the testimonies of the Davises? Your own "fine-tuning" eliminates them as believable witnesses!


The things I've said about the shell-dropping do not contradict the Davis girls at all. Why on Earth do you think that ALL of the bullet shells in Oswald's revolver had to behave in the exact same manner on November 22nd? Why couldn't just ONE or TWO of the shells have been the "sticky" ones? Maybe four of the shells slid out fairly easily and quickly, while one or two others stuck in the chamber and required further effort (and time) by Oswald to extract them.

Tell me, Don, why you think my above hypothesis is a totally impossible one.


Doesn't work. Benavides said that he saw the guy DROP two shells on the ground in front. The Davises said that he put two shells IN HIS HAND, but did not drop them where they saw him extract them. They were later (supposedly) found in the side yard. Maybe the guy had sticky HANDS!

Try again. I hate to force you to be so ingenious....

I think you have to go with either sticky shells or the Davises, but not both.


As I explained earlier, a situation could very well have existed in which there could have possibly been one or two "sticky" shells in Lee Oswald's revolver and at the same time still have the Davis girls plus Domingo Benavides seeing exactly what they each said they saw with respect to Oswald's shell-dumping. And why anyone would think those things could not co-exist in this case is a real mystery to me, because it's obvious from my 4-point timeline listed below that all of those things could have very easily co-existed in Oak Cliff on November 22, 1963, and with Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone gunman:

1.) Oswald is able to extract two of the spent bullet shells in or near the front yard of the apartment where the two Davis girls lived (near the corner of Tenth & Patton). These are the two shells that witness Domingo Benavides saw the gunman throw on the ground and which were later recovered by Benavides himself.

2.) As Oswald continues to move through the shrubbery as he cuts across the corner of 10th and Patton, he manages to extract two more bullet shells from his gun (and is seen by the Davis girls with those shells in his hand just a few seconds before Oswald drops them on the ground in the side yard of the Davises' apartment house).

3.) If Oswald fired more than four shots at Officer Tippit (which is quite possible, especially considering the "five pistol shots" testimony provided by witness Ted Callaway, plus the "Remington vs. Winchester" mismatch that exists when comparing the bullets taken from Tippit's body to the types of cartridge cases that littered the murder scene near 10th & Patton), then it would mean that at least one or two bullet shells (plus one or two bullets as well) were never recovered after Tippit's murder, which would have to mean that....

4.) Lee Harvey Oswald, at some unknown and undetermined point after leaving the immediate area of Tippit's murder, extracted one or two additional bullet shells from his Smith & Wesson V510210 revolver and discarded them somewhere between Patton Avenue and the Texas Theater prior to being apprehended by the Dallas Police Department.

Donald Willis' protestations notwithstanding, the scenario outlined above is a perfectly reasonable and sensible one in light of all the evidence that exists in the J.D. Tippit murder case --- especially when factoring in the sticky shells situation which we know can easily occur after bullets are fired through Oswald's revolver.



Once again, Donald Willis is attempting to fine-tune the witness testimony to absurd levels.

And I really don't know where Don is trying to go with his microscopic analysis of the Davis and Benavides statements. Because with or without Don Willis' absurd "fine-tuning", the fact will still remain that both Davis girls positively identified the ONE AND ONLY shell-dumper as LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

It's looking more and more like Donald is merely playing a useless parlor game with the witness statements.

David Von Pein
January 7, 2012
October 9-14, 2019

(PART 115)


http://drive.google.com/JFK Assassination/CBS-TV Coverage

http://drive.google.com/The Kennedy Assassination: Beyond Conspiracy

http://drive.google.com/NBC Radio Coverage (11/24/63)
http://drive.google.com/Lee Harvey Oswald Is Shot

http://drive.google.com/JFK Interview/CBS-TV/9-2-63
http://drive.google.com/JFK Interview/NBC-TV/9-9-63

http://jfklibrary.org/Audio/JFK Speech On June 9, 1962

http://maryferrell.org/Commission Document No. 320








(PART 1108)


The WC [Warren Commission] clearly didn't want to provide proof that a Thursday visit to Irving was not unique -- for their theory needed a unique visit on a Thursday to pick up a rifle. They simply lied in order to do so.


Contrary to what Kook Holmes believes, the Warren Commission didn't need to "lie" in order to show that Lee Oswald went to Irving on Thursday, November 21 to get his rifle. Oswald's LIES are the ones Holmes should be focusing on -- because it is OSWALD'S LIES about the "curtain rods" that he told to Buell Frazier than indicate Oswald was wanting to hide something with respect to his visit to the Paine home on 11/21/63.

And the cashier, Mrs. Tarrants, of the Atlantic & Pacific store in Irving wasn't exactly sure of the date when Oswald went to that store to cash his unemployment check. CE1165 has these words associated with Mrs. Tarrants' recollections concerning the date the check was cashed: "As best as she recalls" it was on Thursday night, October 31st when Oswald came into the store to cash the check. It certainly could have been the next evening, however--Fri., Nov. 1st.

And it was on April 13, 1964, when Mrs. Tarrants was asked to recall the incident--more than five months after Oswald cashed the check. To think that she would have been able to nail down the date with absolute certainty seems to be asking a little much of the woman's memory. And, as far as I know, in this instance there is no definitive way of knowing the exact date the check was cashed.

Re: Oswald Going To Irving On Weekdays....

I know there was one time when Lee Harvey Oswald went to Irving on a Monday night, which was October 21st, the day after his daughter Rachel was born.

But as far as I know, and as far as the witness testimony indicates, that trip to Irving on Monday, Oct. 21 was the only time LHO went to Irving on a weekday other than his trip to get his rifle on Thursday, November 21.

And Ruth Paine's Warren Commission testimony clearly indicates that Lee Oswald's trip to the Paine home on Thursday, Nov. 21 was quite unusual (and for multiple reasons, not just the day of the week). Let's look at what Ruth had to say about that:

Mr. JENNER -- "Let's proceed with the 21st [of Nov. 1963]. Did anything occur on the 21st with respect to Lee Harvey Oswald, that is a Thursday?"

Mrs. PAINE -- "I arrived home from grocery shopping around 5:30, and he was on the front lawn. I was surprised to see him."

Mr. JENNER -- "You had no advance notice?"

Mrs. PAINE -- "I had no advance notice and he had never before come without asking whether he could."

Mr. JENNER -- "Never before had he come to your home in that form without asking your permission to come?"

Mrs. PAINE -- "Without asking permission; that is right."




And I never said you did say that.

Note the portion of my quote that Kook Holmes deliberately omitted --- "to get his rifle".

And Holmes is definitely saying that the WC needed to "lie" in order for Oswald to GET HIS RIFLE in Irving on a Thursday.

Here's Benji's exact quote in that regard:

"The WC clearly didn't want to provide proof that a Thursday visit to Irving was not unique - for their theory needed a unique visit on a Thursday to pick up a rifle. They simply lied in order to do so." -- B. Holmes

But Mr. Piecemeal Holmes apparently thought I wouldn't notice that he left out the most important words in that quote that he says I lied about -- "to get his rifle". And that IS the most crucial aspect to Oswald's Thursday-night visit to Irving on Nov. 21, of course -- whether or not he went there to get his rifle.

And there is a lot of evidence that proves Oswald DID pick up his rifle and take it to work with him on Nov. 22....such as Oswald's lies about the curtain rods; the fact that both Frazier and Randle saw LHO with a large package on 11/22; and the fact that LHO's rifle turned up missing from its known storage location in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/22.

Ben, though, wants to argue that the above things have no bearing at all on THIS particular subject of whether Oswald ever went to Irving on previous Thursdays. But I say those things DO have a bearing on what Holmes says are "lies" told by the WC and Vince Bugliosi. [See footnote regarding Bugliosi below, proving that Vince certainly did not ignore this issue at all in his 2007 book.]

Because Holmes wants to believe that the WC needed to lie about the "Thursday" thing. But I say that such a notion is crazy -- and that's because there was NO NEED TO LIE about any "Thursday" pattern when it comes to the most important question the WC needed to answer in a satisfactory way -- Did Lee Oswald go to Irving on Thursday, 11/21 to get his rifle?

And that question can easily be answered "Yes", and without ever needing to "lie" about a damn thing.

The WC obviously arrived at the conclusion that Oswald was not in Irving on Thursday, Oct. 31, and they said so in the WCR. They felt that Mrs. Tarrants at the grocery store was incorrect (and by only a single day) when she said LHO cashed his check on a Thursday. But the more reliable evidence (in this instance the testimony of Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine) indicates that Tarrants was very likely mistaken as to the exact date.


WESLEY LIEBELER -- "After Rachel was born and after Lee had been there on Monday [10/21/63] to see you, did he come back to Irving at any time during the week except the night before the assassination?"

MARINA OSWALD -- "No. He came to Irving only the weekends--only on weekends."


Here's another interesting piece of testimony that comes from the lips of Marina Oswald (taken from Marina's testimony at the 1969 Clay Shaw trial): *

QUESTION -- "Did you see Lee at any time the night of the 21st [of November 1963] go into the Paine garage?"

MARINA OSWALD -- "Yes, he went a few times."

QUESTION -- "You saw him actually go into the garage?"




In his book "Reclaiming History", author Vincent Bugliosi doesn't "ignore" the possibility of Lee Oswald going to Irving on a Thursday prior to 11/21/63. In fact, Vince deals with the "Tarrants" matter in a decent-sized endnote in his book. So, once again, Ben Holmes is dead wrong when he said this:

"Bugliosi...simply lied. He KNEW that there was evidence of visits on other days of the week, and simply ignored them." -- B. Holmes

Below is the text from Bugliosi's endnote that deals with this "Thursday night" topic. I guess this constitutes "ignoring" the issue completely, per a kook named Holmes. And, btw, I found this relevant passage in Bugliosi's book only AFTER I had written my initial post in this thread, which is a post that includes these remarks (which directly mirror some of Mr. Bugliosi's comments on the matter):

"It was on April 13, 1964, when Mrs. Tarrants was asked to recall the incident--more than five months after Oswald cashed the check. To think that she would have been able to nail down the date with absolute certainty seems to be asking a little much of the woman's memory. And, AFAIK, in this instance there is no definitive way of knowing the exact date the check was cashed."
-- DVP; 12/31/2011


"Warren Commission critic Sylvia Meagher says, “Oswald’s visit to Irving on Thursday night, November 21, may not have been unprecedented” (Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, p.37), but there is no credible evidence to support this.

Troy Erwin, the manager of the Atlantic & Pacific supermarket in Irving, told the FBI that check G493187, a Texas Unemployment Commission check for $33.00 payable to Lee Harvey Oswald, was cashed at his store on either Thursday, October 31, 1963, or Friday, November 1, 1963.

On April 13, 1964, the cashier at the store, Mrs. Georgia Tarrants, told the FBI that as best she recalls, Oswald cashed the check on Thursday night (CE 1165, 22 H 224–225). But it seems inconceivable that Mrs. Tarrants, almost five months after the assassination, would be able to look back and recall whether Oswald cashed the check on Thursday as opposed to Friday night, especially since at that time she would have no reason to make note of what night Oswald was at the store.

But Marina Oswald, Ruth Paine, and Wesley Frazier would have every reason to remember that Oswald had never, before November 21, come to Irving on a Thursday night. Moreover, Oswald had been instructed NOT to come on any Thursday night, and Friday night made more sense since he could stay for the weekend."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 529 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"


Regarding this quote of Mr. Bugliosi's --- "Oswald had been instructed NOT to come on any Thursday night..." ....

I have no idea what the source is for the above conclusion reached by Bugliosi. It's not sourced in the endnote on Page 529 of Vincent's book, and I have looked through the complete testimony of Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, and Marina Oswald, and I found nothing that would indicate that any of those people had told Lee Oswald never to come to the Paine home on a Thursday. So I haven't the foggiest notion from whom Vince got that idea. But I also have little doubt that Vince DID get that idea from somebody. I just don't know the source. But I certainly don't think Mr. Bugliosi just made it up out of thin air.

In any event, as can be seen in the above-quoted section of "Reclaiming History", Vincent Bugliosi did not "ignore" the possibility of Lee Oswald taking a trip to Irving on Thursday, October 31, 1963.

Additional Footnote For Ben Holmes:

Please go back to ignoring me. I like it much better that way. Then I won't need to straighten out your lies and misrepresentations when it comes to examining the TOTALITY of the evidence in the JFK case.

Because, as we all know, when it comes to logically and reasonably evaluating and assessing the TOTALITY or SUM TOTAL of the evidence in the JFK assassination, conspiracy mongers like Benjamin Holmes always end up looking like the desperate chaff-loving clowns they are. And this "Thursday night" thread is no exception. It's nothing but another one of the hundreds of examples of how a conspiracy kook will slice off a piece of totally unimportant chaff connected with the Kennedy assassination and blow it up out of all reasonable proportion.

Because even if Oswald had gone to Irving on Thursday, Oct. 31, that fact would not eliminate the other evidence (and LHO's own lies) that tells all reasonable people that Oswald did, in fact, pick up his rifle on Thursday, Nov. 21st. And the Warren Commission knew that, too. Therefore, as mentioned previously, there would have been absolutely no logical reason for the Commission to want to deliberately lie about any possible Oswald visits to Irving on previous occasions.


* Addendum About Marina Oswald Saying That LHO Was In The Paine Garage On 11/21/63:

Before the CTers jump on my case for not calling attention to Marina Oswald's inconsistent testimony regarding Lee being in the garage, let me quote from Marina's Warren Commission testimony, where she totally contradicts her later 1969 Shaw Trial testimony:

MARINA OSWALD (1964) -- "Ruth [Paine] told me that in the evening she had worked in the garage and she knows that she had put out the light but that the light was on later--that the light was on in the morning. And she guessed that Lee was in the garage. But I didn't see it."


And there's also this HSCA testimony from Marina in 1978, which totally conflicts with her earlier 1969 remarks:

QUESTION -- "On the night of the 21st, did you see Lee go into the garage?"



The lady's supervisor, in the SAME document, advises the check was cashed sometime between Thursday afternoon and COB [Close Of Business] on Friday. In other words, it's simply MORE proof that Oswald arrived in Irving on Friday night.


Indeed. You are correct.

The "Friday, November 1" reference is on page 5 of CE1165, HERE.

The person who said that Oswald's unemployment check could have been cashed on Friday, November 1st was Troy Erwin, the manager of the A&P store in Irving where Oswald definitely did cash the check. And Erwin said the check positively had to have been cashed on one of those two dates (Oct. 31 or Nov. 1), which is perfectly consistent with Oswald having gone to Irving after work on Fri., Nov. 1 (with Buell Frazier), and then very likely he cashed the check at the grocery store before it closed on Friday night.

Of course, Erwin wasn't the person who actually cashed the check, and he wasn't the person who saw LHO in the store. But Erwin's interview with the FBI on 4/13/64 does confirm, beyond all doubt, that the check COULD have been cashed at his store on Friday, November 1st.

And given Oswald's general habit of going to Irving on Fridays with Buell Wesley Frazier, coupled with Troy Erwin's confirmation that the check definitely could have been cashed on Friday, Nov. 1st, the Warren Commission concluded the same thing that almost any reasonable person would conclude -- and that is: the cashier, Mrs. Tarrants, was simply mistaken when she said Oswald probably cashed the check on Thursday. And she was only mistaken by a mere 24 hours. And she was attempting, more than five months later, to recall something very innocuous and ordinary (the cashing of one particular check).

But this is just the kind of bottom-of-the-barrel nonsense that conspiracists like Ben Holmes love to prop up as meaningful and conclusive "evidence" in their efforts to try and prove that the Warren Commission lied about something.

But when we look deeper into the record (as Tim Brennan did regarding this check-cashing topic), we can easily see that there is always--invariably--a reasonable, non-sinister, and non-conspiratorial explanation to virtually every barrel-scraping effort made by the conspiracy theorists when it comes to the JFK assassination.

Thanks, Tim, for pointing out the "November 1" portion of CE1165.

David Von Pein
December 31, 2011—January 7, 2012