(PART 1136)


In her article in CAR CRASH CULTURE (Mikita Brottman, ed., New York: Palgrave, 2001), our own Pamela McElwain-Brown claims that Oswald was downstairs watching the motorcade at the time of the assassination:

QUOTE ON -------------------------------------

"Lee Harvey Oswald, after taking a look at the motorcade from the front door of the Texas School Book Depository, ambles casually into the lunchroom to buy a bottle of Coke. He's waiting for a telephone call that never comes." (p. 169)

QUOTE OFF ------------------------------------

Pamela, I notice you don't cite sources for these novel claims in your published article. Would you kindly do so now? I'd hate for anyone to think you just made them up out of thin air.


It's pretty clear that "Pam's" source for her claim that LHO was "taking a look at the motorcade from the front door of the Texas School Book Depository" is the Altgens photograph. (What else could she possibly be relying on for such a statement?)

Of course, as all reasonable researchers know, the "Doorway Man" in the James Altgens photo is not Lee Oswald--it's Billy Lovelady, just as Lovelady HIMSELF told the Warren Commission in 1964, and just as Buell Wesley Frazier confirmed on camera in 1986 [see video below].

The part about Oswald "waiting for a telephone call that never comes" is straight out of Oliver Stone's 1991 fantasy film. So, I have a good idea where "Pam" got that silly and wholly unsupportable idea.


If a source isn't credible enough to be cited, then it's no source at all. And if a source is a work of fiction, well, enough said (except for some possible issues involving copyright infringement, which is not my concern). With fictional sources or no sources at all, Pam's published claims about Oswald and concerning the assassination itself (see my post, "Pamela McElwain-Brown takes the wheel") are nothing more than fiction.

I asked Pam a couple times last year if, when she sold her essay to the editor of the CAR CRASH CULTURE book, she'd represented it as a work of non-fiction. She never answered me. She knows she can't defend her work.


"DVP" is not much of a mind-reader, so as a result creates strawmen.


"Pam's" pot/kettle gene is on full display here. If anyone has created a "strawman" regarding the whereabouts of Lee Harvey Oswald at 12:30 PM CST on 11/22/63, it is "Pamela" Brown.


But then, the mindset of the WC apologist tends to place limits to thinking on one's own, much less following the evidence.


Pot/Kettle #2!

"Pam" has no more "[followed] the evidence" regarding Lee Oswald's whereabouts and movements on 11/22/63 than Oliver Stone or Jim Garrison have.

She merely pretends that Oswald was outside on the front steps of the Depository "watching the motorcade", when there is documentary evidence to indicate Oswald was not on the steps (e.g., the Altgens photo, Buell Wesley Frazier's testimony, and Billy N. Lovelady's testimony).

You're doing great so far, "Pam". (If a .000 batting average is your goal.)


It probably has not occurred to "DVP" that it may have been no coincidence that LHO went to the Texas Theater, and that perhaps he was waiting to be told where to go or what to do.


What was "Pam" saying about creating "strawmen" a second ago?

Pot meets kettle for the third time.


It would also not occur to "DVP" most likely to accept the fact that LHO had nothing to do with the M/C [Mannlicher-Carcano] after his return from Dallas...


Yeah, I guess Oswald went out to Irving for his unusual Thursday-night visit so that he could take a 38-inch-long submarine sandwich to work with him the next day.

What was "Pam" saying a second ago about "following the evidence"? Four pots and kettles so far.

Since "Pam" just said that it's likely LHO had "nothing to do with the M/C after his return from Dallas" [sic; "Pam" no doubt meant to say New Orleans here, instead of Dallas; or maybe "Pam" doesn't know what city Oswald was in at various times in 1963], maybe "Pam" thinks (i.e., pretends) that some evil "Let's Frame Oswald" conspirator broke into Ruth Paine's garage prior to the assassination and stole Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

Perhaps "Pam" would like to tell us just exactly WHO stole Oswald's rifle and WHEN that theft took place.

As an alternative (and wholly unsupportable) conspiracy theory, "Pam" will probably claim that nobody needed to break into Paine's garage to steal the rifle, because the Carcano was never found in the TSBD at all on November 22, a Mauser was found.

And, therefore, "Pam" might just want to pretend that the DALLAS POLICE were the ones who placed Oswald's C2766 rifle into evidence -- even though, according to some researchers who are better at identifying rifles than I am, various frames of Tom Alyea's film prove that the rifle discovered on the sixth floor was a Mannlicher-Carcano and not a German-made Mauser.

So, regarding Oswald's rifle, whichever way "Pamela" chooses to go, she's got to rely on her own vivid imagination and/or a lot of crooked cops who couldn't have cared less about allowing the real killer(s) of the President to get away scot-free.


...and that no unfabricated evidence has ever put him [Oswald] in the SN [Sniper's Nest] during the assassination.


Yeah, come to think about it a little bit more, "Pam" probably likes "The Cops Planted The Carcano" scenario better than the "Rifle Was Stolen From The Paine Garage" tripe.

In other words, when you've got absolutely NOTHING of a physical nature to back up your silly conspiracy theories -- just say that all the evidence has been fabricated/faked/manufactured/planted/manipulated. And then--you're home free.

Great work, "Pam". You're doing a fine job of showing your true "Everything Was Fabricated" colors today.

And, incredibly, per "Pamela", it is the lone-assassin believers who have failed to "follow the evidence" in the JFK case.

Why is it that in the world of a JFK conspiracy theorist, white is ALWAYS black, and up is ALWAYS down, and a guilty person is INEVITABLY an innocent patsy?



So, for those who wish to reason logically, the question then becomes, "where was LHO and what was he doing?"


Looks like it's time for Pot/Kettle #5 here.

If "Pam" really wanted to think and reason logically, she wouldn't be so willing to sweep tons of Oswald-Did-It evidence under the rug and she wouldn't be pretending that ALL of that Oswald-Did-It evidence had been "fabricated" by evil plotters.


But we won't wait with bated breath for "DVP" to research that; it isn't a picture, or a movie, or the WCR, but something he would have to figure out on his own.


The Dallas Police Department figured out who killed John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit on Day 1 -- and that person was definitely Lee Harvey Oswald.

The fact that "Pam" cannot figure out something so incredibly easy to figure out is certainly not my fault. It's hers. (But I still have a feeling that Ollie Stone and Jimbo Garrison might have helped "Pam" to reach her strange conclusions--just a touch. Right, "Pam"?)

I'll close this post by repeating the following excellent common-sense quote from author and ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan, although "Pamela" undoubtedly would qualify these words as coming from a person who possesses no common sense or logic whatsoever:

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of "Keystone Kops", with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and "Evil Geniuses", with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry M. Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" (2005)



"FYI / BTW --- For those who care...the reason that "Pam" and I always place quotation marks around each other's names in our posts is due to the fact that "Pam" has a crazy idea that "DVP" (that's me) probably really isn't the person he says he is. I'm apparently supposed to be a collection of various aliases and unknown persons, posing as this person called "DVP". So...I have decided that "Pamela" deserves the same kind of reciprocal (albeit silly) "quotation mark" treatment." -- DVP; August 3, 2009

David Von Pein
April 30—May 5, 2010

(PART 1135)


Warren Commission Chief Counsel J. Lee Rankin, in a declassified transcript of a January 27, 1964 Executive Session of the Commission, discusses details of the content of "the autopsy report" which are not consistent with the details of the report in evidence today, CE 387, thus confirming that the first signed version contained different conclusions.


This is total nonsense from Doug Horne. It's sheer speculation on his behalf and nothing more. He thinks that Rankin's comment in that January '64 Executive Session--where Rankin speculates about the possibility of a fragment from the head shot causing the throat wound--indicates the existence of a second autopsy report, with Rankin then (per Horne) evidently sweeping that conclusion and the "first signed autopsy report" under the rug, which is utterly ridiculous.

Rankin got the "exiting fragment" speculation from a newspaper account which relied heavily on the inaccurate Sibert/O'Neill FBI report [as Pat Speer briefly discusses here]. Rankin didn't get it from the "autopsy report" at all. Rankin should have said "autopsy doctors" in that Jan. '64 Exec. Meeting, instead of "autopsy report".

Horne, of course, could easily have figured that out himself, but he wanted to promote his off-the-wall conspiracy fairy tale about President Kennedy's wounds being altered by Dr. Humes, which means instead of just accepting that J. Lee Rankin probably made a slight error in his terminology in January of 1964 (using the word "report" instead of "doctors"), Horne is ready and eager to paint Mr. Rankin as one of the key members of a "cover-up".

It's funny, though, that Horne apparently believes that Dr. Humes wrote some things in his "first" autopsy report that evidently prove a conspiracy, so then he (Humes) was forced to write up a "second" report to remove all signs of a conspiracy---even though Humes is the VERY SAME PERSON whom Doug Horne thinks altered JFK's wounds PRIOR to ANY autopsy report ever being written.

How's that for an inconsistent theory?

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Doug Horne's Silliness (Part 1)


I see that Von Pein is the master of the inconsistent theory, with his theory here concerning Douglas Horne's analysis of the available testimonies by Dr Humes.

Von Pein consistently creates his biased interpretation of evidence and testimony in favor with the long debunked Warren Report.

All one need do is read the testimonies of Commander Humes, in his own words, to see that he is lying.


When everything is considered, by far the most consistent document is the Warren Commission Report. It's not even a close call on that score.

And why wouldn't the Warren Report be the most consistent document? All the physical evidence leads to the one person the Warren Commission concluded was a double murderer. It's 2nd grade math.

The WC hit a home run right off the bat. Conspiracists (like Horne) haven't even managed a foul tip. But they keep trying anyway.



Oh, Davy.... I realize you have far too many years invested in believing the WC/FBI cover-up to change horses at this point.... In one of [Willy Whitten's] comments yesterday, however, he perfectly articulated the dilemma all (coherent) believers face, and I respectfully urge you to read it.

Search "eat crow" or "eating crow".



Why should I start believing in theories that make no sense---even from a CTer POV?


The one about Humes creating TWO autopsy reports.

Via a theory that has Humes HIMSELF being part of the conspiracy and cover-up even before JFK got to Bethesda on 11/22, how much sense does it make that he would write down ANYTHING in any report (or in his notes) that would spill the beans about any conspiracy?

And yet that is exactly what Doug Horne thinks Dr. Humes must have done (via the "two autopsy reports" theory).


It is not a theory that Dr. Humes wrote two autopsy reports. He admits such in his own testimony, under oath before the ARRB.

Now this is exactly the way you always get yourself in a fix in these types of debates, Von Pein, by making assertions that are contrary to the facts presented on the very forum you are attending.

You can be as disingenuous as you wish on your own site, where there is no challenge to your bull fudge. It doesn't work in open debate however.


Oh, yes. I know about the "draft" of the ONE AND ONLY autopsy report that was burned by Humes in his fireplace. But that's not the "second" report that Doug Horne thinks STILL EXISTED as of January 27, 1964, and you know it!

Horne thinks that a "second" autopsy report was seen by Rankin in January '64, which is a theory that defies all logic, since Humes HIMSELF, per Horne, was the biggest part of the "autopsy cover-up" at Bethesda. Why on Earth would Humes have written such a "first" AR in the first place? Was he TRYING to blow the plot to pieces on Day 1?

That's why most CTers fail --- it's because none of their theories make any sense--at all.

Just as the "shipping casket" theory fails the laugh and logic tests too. (They put JFK in a cheap pinkish coffin, even though they took his body out of an expensive ornamental casket? Brilliant!)


Von Pein,

It is not empty supposition that a signed Autopsy Report [existed], other than the one now considered the "ORIGINAL" now in evidence at the National Archives. There is a document trail that proves such:

[Quoting Doug Horne:]

"The First Signed Version...

A simple study of the receipt trail for the transmission of the autopsy report reveals that the first signed report is missing as well.

On April 26, 1965 the Secret Service transferred the autopsy photographs and x-rays, and certain vital documents and biological materials to the custody of the Kennedy family at the request of Robert F. Kennedy. That receipt lists, among other things:

"Complete autopsy protocol of President Kennedy (orig, & 7 cc's)-Original signed by Dr. Humes, pathologist."

Evelyn Lincoln, secretary to the late President Kennedy, signed for receipt of all of the items the same day."
-- Douglas Horne



What makes you and Doug Horne so sure that that particular receipt (which says "orig & 7 cc's") is referring to a totally DIFFERENT autopsy report from the one that appears as CE387 in the Warren Report?

And does that mean that you (and Horne) actually think that there are "seven carbon copies" of the "first" bogus autopsy report floating around somewhere too? That's hilarious.

I see nothing in Horne's chronology that would prohibit the one and only "original" autopsy report from being transferred to the custody of the Kennedy family in April 1965 and then turned over to the National Archives in October 1967. Why on Earth would anybody think those two things could not have BOTH occurred?



The "debunkers" on this [Amazon.com] thread have nothing to offer but adolescent gibberish. All that is offered are appeals to authority.


And, of course, the "authorities" who were tasked with actually doing the official investigations into JFK's death wouldn't have anything of value to offer, right Willy? They were all nothing but shills, liars, and cover-up agents. Right?

We should, instead, rely on Internet super sleuths like Ben Holmes, Willy Whitten, James DiEugenio, Anthony Marsh, Sean Murphy, Gil Jesus, Ralph Cinque, William Kelly, Dawn Meredith, Albert Doyle, Donald Willis, and Walt Cakebread (et al) to tell us all the true facts about how President Kennedy died.

The arrogance of conspiracy hobbyists is staggering.


For the most part that is absolutely correct regarding the Warren Commission[.] [T]hey were nothing but shills, liars, and cover-up agents.


Thanks for putting your ultra silliness in print in such concise form. The ridiculousness of your above statement is noted for the record.


In true provocateur style, Von Pain [sic] attempts to mix me up with a cast of characters of which several of I dispute with great vigor.


What's the difference really? You're all wrong about virtually everything you claim regarding the JFK case, so it's "six of one, half-dozen of the rest".

It's almost unbelievable to think that otherwise smart individuals can be so totally wrong about so many things connected to this one (JFK) topic. For example, Mr. DiEugenio.


The differences are blatant[,] Von Pien [sic], we have a great diversity of opinion in the Critic's camp - while you spooks all use the same Official Playbook.


That should tell you something important right there, Willy. Why doesn't it?

You seem to be implying that (somehow) Diversity = Truth, while Consistency In The Evidence Against Oswald = Oswald Must Be An Innocent Patsy.

That's an odd approach, Willy. But thanks for admitting that you think "diversity of opinion" (which means a LOT of those "opinions" have to be wrong) is a key ingredient to solving the murder of an American President.

I'd rather stick with the evidence, though. It's much better (and more telling) than "diversity of opinion".


David, I've repeatedly asked [Willy Whitten] to post evidence from the autopsy that supports his (silly) claim that JFK was hit from shots fired by multiple locations. I haven't seen him post it yet but I may have missed it. Have you seen it?


Nope. Sure haven't.

We never will, of course. Because nothing like that exists in the autopsy report or in any of the subsequent statements and interviews given by any of the three autopsy surgeons. Just the opposite, in fact. All three of those doctors have always stood firm in their opinion that just TWO bullets struck JFK, both coming from behind the President. Which is why, of course, the CTers have to pretend that Dr. Humes and company were nothing but rotten liars.


NSAM 273 was drafted while Kennedy was still alive.


Quite the bold prevarication there[,] Anderson[.] [Y]ou know Kennedy never saw that document, not the one signed by Johnson.


But it was still DRAFTED while Kennedy was alive.

In his book (beginning on page 1411 of the main volume), Vincent Bugliosi goes into great detail on the timing factor of the NSAM documents. And, as always, the CTers have everything wrong. (Nothing new there, of course.)

[Quoting from "Reclaiming History"; emphasis is Mr. Bugliosi's:]

"So [Oliver] Stone wanted his audience to believe that the issue was very clear-cut: Kennedy wanted to withdraw from Vietnam (NSAM 263 spelled out his intentions), he was murdered because of it: and shortly after his murder, LBJ, by NSAM 273, set aside Kennedy's plans. But that doesn't begin to tell the story of what really happened. If Stone had told it, his whole thesis would have crumbled. In the first place, even though NSAM 273 was issued under President Johnson on November 26, 1963, four days after Kennedy's death, the draft, containing the identical language in its relevant clauses, was prepared by McGeorge Bundy, Kennedy's special assistant for national security affairs, on November 21, 1963, while Kennedy was still president. So no inference can be drawn that after Kennedy died, Johnson, by NSAM 273, changed course." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 1411 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (2007)


Von Pien [sic], yours [is] an Argumentum Ad Populum, a common fallacious argument used rhetorically by hacks such as yourself.


Please keep posting your brilliant retorts, Willy, like:

"Diversity of opinion" (which Willy actually thinks is a POSITIVE ATTRIBUTE to JFK research). LOL.


"The Warren Commission...were nothing but shills, liars, and cover-up agents." -- W. Whitten; 5/31/16

After a couple more days of gut-busters like the ones above, it becomes fairly obvious who the "hack" truly is.


It actually shows that we think for ourselves, rather than the 'going along to get along' of such subservient conformists as yourself.

You have naught but, appeals to authority, argumentum ad populum, argumentum verbosium in your tool kit of prevarications. And anyone who is capable of thinking for themselves can see this clearly.


Yeah, that's rich, Whitten. The ol' "thinking outside the box" and "we can think for ourselves" routine. (Where have I heard that before?)

IOW, the bottom line for conspiracy hobbyists like Willy Whitten is that they believe all the evidence against Oswald is fake and anyone who says otherwise is either a liar, a "hack", or a cover-up agent.

Time for a new hobby, Willy. Because you're really lousy at this one, as your laughable posts today clearly illustrate.


Message to Ben Holmes (who I know is reading this forum daily)....

The quotes you attribute to me in this message at your new forum were not written by me at all. They were written by Dale Hayes.

I realize that about all you can do at a new inactive start-up forum is to take posts written elsewhere (like Amazon) and insert them into posts at your forum (so you'll at least have somebody to talk back to), but it would be nice if you could at least attribute the quotes to the correct person who was speaking. (Or are Dale and I supposed to be the same person again this week?)


Wonder if that is covered by Benny's terms and conditions at his new site? :)

I'm half-way tempted to drop by.....must be like being inside a crack house.


I'm looking in at Ben's forum just to observe the "Lonely Ben" factor. Poor guy. He wants so desperately to post here [at Amazon.com], you can smell it. But evidently he can't (I guess he's been banned permanently?), so he copies posts from Amazon and puts them on his new forum, which may or may not ever have much activity (who can tell; Robert Harris' forum did very well for a start-up a few years ago, before Bob decided to pull the plug on it himself).

So, if Ben doesn't abandon his new forum due to loneliness, it'll be fun to see him continue his "So-and-so is a liar" tripe at a new location, as he tries to build his own forum out of the comments being posted at Amazon.

His forum could probably be renamed "Amazon Discussion II". Because that's probably all you're going to see there for a long while.


I know quite a bit about the "Single Bullet", and I find that not only is the assertion preposterous, but that it has in fact been proven conclusively not to have been fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963 or at any other date and time. It is a bullet planted into evidence by the FBI.

The Parkland Bullet and CE399 are distinct and different bullets.


Not a single one of those "facts" are "facts" at all, Willy. Not even close.



If you want to make assertions lacking in any substance, at least identify which facts you dispute. Simply posting a link to your propaganda site is not an adequate response.


You should read the SBT debate I posted, Whitten. It provides a quintessential example of the absurd extremes that Internet CTers will go to in order to deny what is right before their very eyes. A fascinating demonstration of "Total Denial In Action".


Von Pien [sic][,] I have read enough of your pap smears, in fact that very page before.

You do NOT address the argument of the chain of custody in an honest manner. If you will not bring your argument forth, here and now, on this page[,] then buzz off.


The "chain of custody" red herring has been blown up to the normal levels of absurdity by CTers (naturally). The chain could definitely be stronger for CE399, no doubt about it. But CTers want to believe that just because the chain of possession is not as strong as it could be for 399, that must mean the authorities were up to no good with that bullet. To that I say -- tommyrot!

And, IMO, that chain is stronger than most CTers believe. Yes, it could be better. But the envelope that Elmer Todd wrote on, plus Todd's brief written FBI report (CD7), provide good indications that Todd had CE399 in his hands when he turned it over to Bob Frazier the night of November 22.

More HERE.


That is irrelevant[,] Von Pien [sic]. The chain of custody for CE399 would then *BEGIN* with Elmer Tod [sic] in the FBI office in DC, not in Dallas at Parkland Hospital where it is asserted to have originated.


Elmer Todd's writings are not irrelevant at all. They prove that he definitely handled (and MARKED) a bullet on 11/22/63.

You, of course, think Todd was either a liar or that he marked a different bullet. I, however, not being of the opinion that the FBI was running around switching the bullets in the Presidential murder case, believe Todd marked CE399. And the reason John Hunt couldn't see Todd's initials in the NARA photos is because they are simply hard to see on the nose of the bullet. It's very hard to discern ANY of the initials on that bullet.


Let's not forget either that the courts admit evidence all the time that has breaks in the chain of custody.


Sure they do. That's commonplace in the courts.

Plus, CE399 was admitted into a "court of law" (sort of). CTers will totally disregard this, but still....

"The admissibility of CE 399 (along with other items of evidence) was, indeed, dealt with in London by Judge Lucius Bunton at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, and Bunton, a sitting federal judge in Texas at the time, ruled in my favor that CE 399 (not the actual bullet, of course, which we did not have in London) was admissible at the London trial." -- Vincent Bugliosi; August 2009 [Letter to DVP]


Yes "sort of" indeed! It is the operative phrase in this fairytale assertion by the Twinkletoe Twins, Von Pein and Bugliosi.


That's a good boy, Whitten. Just pretend the '86 mock trial contained absolutely no useful testimony whatsoever. And keep pretending that CE399 is a phony bullet, even though BOTH official investigative organizations (WC and HSCA) determined that Commission Exhibit 399 was, in fact, the exact bullet that wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally in Dealey Plaza.

Have you tried fishing? Or basket weaving? You need something else, that's for sure.


There is a fluid that can bring out worn-out initials on even the oldest bullets in evidence. I have a .380 bullet that I marked into the brass casing 7 years ago. It has been sitting out on my desk in the humid environment of southern Indiana this whole time. I can still see the initials plainly.


And if that fluid was applied to CE399, guess whose initials you'd be able to see scratched into the nose? "ELT" or "ET".

Let's see what Elmer Lee Todd had to say within hours of JFK's murder....
Click Here.


David, this guy [Willy Whitten] WANTS a conspiracy - EVERYTHING is filtered through that lens. These people marinate their minds in conspiracy crap for so long, they are incapable of thinking in anything but a conspiratorial manner. The chain of custody being broken AUTOMATICALLY indicates conspiracy - there is no other explanation to these people - just think if they hold their families and other associates to the same standard.


Exactly, Dale. You said that nicely.


We now get to the point that it is being insisted that we relitigate the entire case of CE399. Issues that have already been addressed over and again. I think Police Chief Curry summed it up best:

"We don't have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did. Nobody's yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand." ~Jesse Curry


Chief Curry, for some odd reason unknown to me, became a bit of a conspiracy advocate in the years following the assassination. But on 11/23/63, he sure as heck had no doubt about Oswald's guilt. Listen ----> Click Here.


Without several major players from 1963, like Ruby and de Mohrenschildt to name but two, how can you possibly consider that 1986 mock trial realistic, Davy?

And for the record, are you aware of any US jury trial won by a dead & buried defendant?


I'm not saying a mock trial is AS GOOD as a "real" trial with a living defendant. But a lot of valuable testimony did emerge as a result of the 1986 mock trial in London.

And, for the first time, it permitted a situation where witnesses could be cross-examined on a witness stand. (Although I don't think Gerry Spence did a very good job at examining some of the witnesses. He should have asked better questions. But, in fairness to him, perhaps he DID ask a lot more questions and we just don't know what they are. After all, about 75% of that mock trial ended up on the cutting room floor, with just 5+ hours of the 21-hour trial being used in the cable-TV broadcast.)

BTW, for those who are interested, here's a link to some excerpts from the mock trial of Oswald that took place in Dallas in June of 2013.

Also see ----> JFK-Archives/Oswald Mock Trial (June 21, 2013)


Fine gesture, Davy. Most LNers wouldn't be honest enough to present a link to the 2013 mock trial which resulted in a hung jury.


Yeah, even Gary Mack voted NOT GUILTY at that 2013 mock trial. (Mack was one of the jurors.)

It was an awful trial presentation though--by everybody concerned (IMO).


[DVP said:] "Chief Curry, for some odd reason unknown to me..."

My Gawd, DVP not knowing something... treasure the thought and admission. From a loon nut no-less!


There are lots of things I don't know, Healy. I've never pretended to be a know-it-all.

For instance, I have no idea how long the couch is at your psychiatrist's office. You've been going there to get treatment for 27 years now, and I still have no info on that couch. Nor do I know what your shrink charges you for your 7 visits per week.

So, you see, Healy, I'm still in the dark about a lot of important things.


It was not common practice in 1963 to record interrogations. Oswald told one provable lie after another during those sessions, a clear indication of guilt. You conspiracy freaks should be GLAD it wasn't recorded.


And how would you know that since there was no record of anything Oswald said.


There's a large record of the things Oswald said while in custody, via the recollections of Fritz, Hosty, Bookhout, Kelley, Holmes, and Leavelle (and probably a few others who were present when Oswald was lying his head off at City Hall on November 22nd and 23rd). And most of it can be read in the Warren Report, starting on Page 599. Were all of those people lying about what Oswald allegedly said, Willy?


ANYTHING that is not a verbatim record of Oswald's actual words is lawfully considered 'Hearsay'.


Of course it's hearsay. So what?

But it's hearsay that is corroborated by the multiple people who were taking notes when Oswald was telling his lies to Captain Fritz at City Hall. Do you think they all got together to compare notes before writing up their individual reports?


...fleeing the scene, killing a police officer in flight, and trying to kill another one upon his arrest...


All points that have been successfully rebutted.


Therefore, Willy thinks that Oswald DIDN'T flee the scene in Dealey Plaza....and he DIDN'T kill a policeman....and he DIDN'T try to kill Officer McDonald in the theater either.

Any ONE of those beliefs elicits nothing but roaring laughter, it's so silly. But ALL THREE in tandem? My bladder can't handle such an onslaught!

David Von Pein
May 28—June 1, 2016










(PART 1134)


LNers who used to be CTers?

A lot of people here are probably aware that I used to believe (rather vehemently, as a matter of fact) that JFK was killed by a conspiracy and no longer do.

Who else at this forum has gone this route?


Count [me] in.


I'm about 85 percent there. I still think there could have been a conspiracy, but until/unless something new and BIG comes out, it's looking more like Oswald could have done it alone. There are still things I find hard to believe in both CT and LN versions though.


Rush to Judgment was the first book I read, and I fell for it. Years ago I wrote an article arguing for four shots, based on eyewitness testimony. Fortunately, I wasn't able to get it published. Could that be the biggest difference between LNs and CTs -- the weight given to witness statements?


I'd say that LNs tend to be more impressed by hard evidence and expert testimony, while CTs tend to be persuaded by lay interpretations of forensic evidence, eyewitness testimony, speculation, hearsay, rumor, and innuendo.


For many years I accepted the notion that there was a conspiracy. I started to second-guess the claims for it after the Oliver Stone movie came out and critics did some fact-checking.


How about CTs who used to be LNers? Now that's a small group.

I saw [Oliver Stone's] JFK like everyone else and was intrigued by the idea there was a conspiracy, but not convinced. 10 years or so later I read Case Closed and was 95% convinced there was no conspiracy. I decided, however, to check out some of Posner's claims before firmly committing myself to one position. One thing that particularly bothered me was that the SBT drawings of JFK and Connally in Posner's book distorted their body shapes to make the wounds align. This led me to start reading about Posner's book on the internet. I soon realized there were many other deceptions in his book.

What pushed me to the CT side, however, was Lattimer's SBT drawing. That drawing is the single-most ridiculous and embarrassing exhibit I've ever seen, and yet many--perhaps the majority--of those holding Oswald fired the shots, find it compelling, and argue for its accuracy.


If the Posner and Lattimer diagrams of the bullet path are not to your liking, is there a bullet trajectory that does satisfy you? If so, what is the path of the bullet after it leaves JFK's throat? How does it miss JBC? Does it go left, right, or over JBC? Or is there another possibility?

The problem with trying to diagram the path of the SBT is that you are trying to represent a 3-dimensional event in two dimensions. You are faced with that limitation no matter what perspective you diagram the bullet path from. That is why I have been most impressed with Dale Myers' work. He shows the bullet trajectory in a virtual 3-D world which can be viewed from any perspective. It shows the SBT works.

I will continue to believe in the SBT until someone develops a more credible theory of the path of the bullet that went threw JFK's neck. If it didn't hit Connally, what happened to it? The SBT is the lynchpin of the single assassin theory. Without it, there had to be two shooters. The SBT is as sound today as when it was first developed by the WC. It is the result of rock solid deductive reasoning. The fact that no one in 46 years has been able to develop a reasonable alternative is a testament to that.


After seeing the Zapruder film for the first time, I was convinced the shot came from the front right. My reaction was how could the authorities be so stupid as to not realize this after looking at this film? However, after reading a lot more about the case, I realized it was my ignorance of ballistics that was the problem.


WC defenders try their phony Argument by Authority, but they never produce the evidence, only lies.



The evidence has been on the table since '63. Tony Marsh, like all conspiracy theorists, just refuses to accept it. It's as simple (and silly) as that.

But, naturally, Anthony Marsh and his cohorts in conspiracyville will continue to twist in the wind and invent anti-SBT theories and other unsupportable works of fiction and fantasy to keep from facing the "Oswald Did It By Himself" truth, even though a perfectly good and reasonable "SBT" is already on the table, thanks to the Warren Commission's work.

The HSCA's Z190 timeline is ridiculous, but at least they acknowledged the obvious fact that one bullet--CE399--wounded both JFK and John B. Connally, and that was the most important bottom-line conclusion for the House Select Committee to reach, regardless of the exact timing for that SBT shot.

CTers, of course, want to believe that not only did the Warren Commission get things all fouled up with respect to CE399 and the SBT, but the HSCA (14 years later and with a totally DIFFERENT group of investigators!) ALSO got it all wrong too, because the HSCA also said that that exact bullet--CE399--was THE BULLET that went through the bodies of both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.

How many official investigations would it take to convince any of the conspiracy kooks of the validity of the Single-Bullet Theory and Commission Exhibit No. 399? Four? Five? Six investigations perhaps? I wonder.

More conspiracy believers should really watch the first-day and second-day TV coverage from November 22 and 23, 1963. It blows the various "multi-gun plots" to bits, and strongly suggests (to the point of virtual verification after Day 1) three very crucial things:

1.) Three shots (and only three shots) were fired during the assassination of President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza.

2.) There was only ONE person shooting at JFK.

3.) Lee Harvey Oswald was shooting at JFK.

The math's pretty easy when you've got all three of the above things staring you in the face.

And the six DPD hallway interviews given by Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry (video below) pretty much seal the deal on Oswald's guilt, right down to Curry's November 23rd hallway announcement that the DPD had just received word from the FBI that "the order letter" for the murder weapon (the C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle) was filled out in the handwriting of "our suspect--Oswald".

So, just 24 hours after the assassination, the Dallas Police Department and the FBI had Lee Oswald tied to the President's murder in various highly incriminating ways. Let's take a look at just a few of them:

1.) It was HIS (Oswald's) rifle.

2.) HIS (Oswald's) palmprint was lifted off the gun by Lt. J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Department. (Lt. Day stated to the Warren Commission that he was reasonably certain right from the get-go that the palmprint he lifted off of Rifle C2766 was Oswald's print [see 4 H 262]. That print was later conclusively proven by the FBI to be Oswald's palmprint.)

3.) By the afternoon of November 23, multiple witnesses had already identified HIM (Oswald) as J.D. Tippit's killer.

4.) It was HIS (Oswald's) handwriting on "the order letter" [Curry's 11/23/63 words] that was filled out by LHO and mailed to Klein's
Sporting Goods in March '63.

5.) And it was OSWALD who was fighting like a wild man and pulling a gun on the police in the Texas Theater just 80 minutes after JFK was killed on a street that was just yards away from where HE (Oswald) worked.

6.) Plus: the DPD also knew as of 11/22/63 and 11/23/63 that HE (Oswald) was positively INSIDE THE BUILDING at about 12:32 PM, which was just two minutes after the President was killed from that very same building (the TSBD).

Yes, indeed, more conspiracy theorists should take advantage of these videos which show what was happening in Dallas and at City Hall--live, as it was occurring--on November 22 and 23.

If the cops were "covering up" a bunch of evidence in the murder cases of JFK and J.D. Tippit and were engaging in a plot to frame an innocent patsy named Lee Harvey Oswald THAT QUICKLY on Friday and Saturday (as many conspiracy theorists seem to believe), then they did an outstanding job of "framing" him -- because just about every single thing we see in those videos is spelling out "Oswald's guilty of two murders".

David Von Pein
May 5, 2010

(PART 1133)


They [Arlen Specter and Lyndal Shaneyfelt] gave the illusion the trajectory passed close to the back wound [in Commission Exhibit No. 903], when they both KNEW it passed inches above it.



Some things had to be approximated, and the Warren Commission was forthright about such approximations. And the trajectory the WC ultimately used (which was for the equivalent of Z217.5) is obviously not going to be the EXACT trajectory for the single bullet that struck JFK and Connally--unless, by some incredibly good fortune, the Commission did, indeed, just happen to choose the EXACT half of a Zapruder frame (Z217.5) when the SBT bullet did strike the victims, which is very unlikely. (The SBT actually occurs, of course, at precisely Z224, and there are many reasons why this is so.)

Therefore, Shaneyfelt's and Specter's "approximately" language does come into play...and rightly so.

In fact, that's probably the reason why Specter's rod is above the chalk mark on the JFK stand-in in some of the re-enactment photos taken in the garage near Dealey Plaza. Because, I assume, that the angle being used for all of those photos is identical (17 degrees, 43 minutes, 30 seconds). And since a 17-43-30 angle is only the average angle between Z210 and Z225, then (quite obviously) the REAL angle of descent for the SBT at Z224 (per my opinion about when the bullet struck) is going to be a little less than 17-43-30 because the car has travelled further down Elm Street between Z217.5 and Z224, decreasing the angle from Oswald's window.

But the CE903 reconstruction is so incredibly close to being spot-on perfect (angle-wise and wound location-wise) that only the hardcore conspiracy buffs who refuse to "approximate" anything relating to this case will be unconvinced by it. With those conspiracists also, of course, ignoring the undeniable common sense elements that exist in the 6 points I'm going to talk about below too.

When we factor in the basic garden-variety common sense of the Single-Bullet Theory (coupled with the Warren Commission's May 24, 1964, re-creation of the shooting in Dealey Plaza), the SBT becomes crystal clear as the probable truth:

1.) At Zapruder Film frames 210-225, when looking through the scope of Oswald's rifle from the Sniper's Nest window in the Book Depository, President Kennedy and Governor Connally are lined up--one in front of the other.

2.) JFK was hit in the back by a bullet.

3.) JFK had a bullet hole in his throat.

4.) Governor Connally was hit in the back by a bullet at just about the exact same time that JFK was being struck by a bullet.

5.) No bullets were inside JFK's throat/neck/upper back.

6.) The only physical evidence of any shooter in Dealey Plaza was found on the 6th Floor of the TSBD.

Now, just add up #1 thru #6 above and tell me the Single-Bullet Theory is a load of shit.

Based on just the above basic facts in this case ALONE (and each one is definitely a proven fact, without a speck of a doubt), the SBT is the best explanation for the double-man wounding of John Kennedy and John Connally on November 22, 1963.



The more I think about this topic, the more convinced I am becoming that the U.S. Secret Service (Thomas J. Kelley [at 5 H 132]) merely measured the "inboard" distance of John Connally's jump seat from a different place from that which appears on the official Hess & Eisenhardt body draft of the 1961 Lincoln limousine, just as I speculated the other day when I said this:

"I think BOTH Kelley and the Hess & Eisenhardt schematic are correct. And that's because Kelley's measurement must have been taken from a slightly different place on the car than was the H&E measurement for the jump seat location. Do you really think Kelley just MADE UP his six-inch figure? I don't. I think that measurement must have been different because they were measuring from a different starting point. Or, perhaps the "finishing point" was different than H&E's." -- DVP; April 12, 2012

Now, when we look at the two pictures below, I can easily envision the Secret Service's measurement for the jump seat being calculated from a different starting point on the car to account for the 3.5-inch difference in the measurements when compared to Hess & Eisenhardt.

If the Secret Service measurement also included the area between the arrows in the second picture, it looks to me as though that would add up to just about six inches when the 2.50-inch measurement in the H&E diagram is included too:

Furthermore, the HSCA also used the six-inch [approx. 15 cm.] figure, when it said this:

"Connally...was seated well within the car on the jump seat ahead of Kennedy; a gap of slightly less than 15 centimeters separated this seat from the car door."
-- HSCA Volume 6; Page 49

Moreover, the HSCA's "slightly less than 15 centimeters" figure was obviously NOT being derived solely from Thomas Kelley's testimony, because just after citing the "15 centimeters" measurement at 6 HSCA 49, the HSCA gives a source for the 15-cm. measurement—Figure II-19, at 6 HSCA 50—which is the H&E body draft of the limo, which says the jump seat is 2.50 inches inboard. Which makes me think the HSCA was also using a measurement that included the 2.50-inch measurement we see specified in the H&E body draft PLUS an additional 3.5 inches of space that I've outlined with arrows in my photo above.

I'll also add this:

At one point in the endnotes in his JFK book, when Vincent Bugliosi cited his source for a "six-inch gap" between the jump seat and the limo door, Vince cited the HSCA and not Thomas Kelley's Warren Commission testimony:

"A six-inch gap separated Connally's jump seat from the right door [6 HSCA 49]." -- "Reclaiming History"; Page 344 of Endnotes

Final Thought:

In my opinion, BOTH Thomas Kelley and the Hess & Eisenhardt measurements are accurate. It's just that each of those figures was calculated in a different manner, utilizing a different starting point on the SS-100-X limousine. That's all.

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Dale Myers And The SBT

David Von Pein
April 13, 2012
April 14, 2012

(PART 117)



You better look at what Ed LeDoux just posted in the Lunch Encounter
thread. [Click Here.]

That is your buddy, Roy Truly.



You expect way too much spot-on accuracy from the early reports. Nothing in those newspaper articles debunks the second-floor encounter. Your utter desperation to make Oswald blameless is blatantly obvious.

OSWALD HIMSELF confirmed that the encounter with Officer Baker took place on the SECOND floor, not the fourth or any other floor. Oswald told Fritz it was the "second floor". That's revealed in Captain Will Fritz' notes and in Fritz' written report too (Warren Report; Page 600).

Was Oswald lying too? Or do you want to pretend that Captain Fritz was the person doing the lying on page 600 of the Warren Commission Report?

More HERE.


"Now, granted, Mr. Oswald was one heck of a liar. No doubt about that. He practically turned into a lying machine after he was arrested in the Texas Theater on November 22nd. But in this instance we're discussing here, when he was answering Captain Fritz' question about where he was located when the policeman encountered him within the Depository building, he was not lying. And we can know for an absolute fact he was not lying in this instance due to the fact that his "second floor" version of the event is corroborated by TWO other people---Marrion Baker and Roy Truly. It's kind of a funny switch here, isn't it? The LNer (DVP) is supporting and believing something uttered by Oswald; and the CTer (DiEugenio) has no choice but to think Oswald was lying about this incident [or that Fritz was lying--in both his notes and his typewritten report]." -- DVP; July 2015


In addition, Jim....

What do you do with Mrs. Robert Reid's testimony? She said she saw Oswald, holding a Coke, walking through the offices on the second floor within just a couple of minutes of the assassination.

Reid's testimony is perfectly consistent with the Baker-Truly-Oswald encounter occurring on the second floor, having occurred just seconds before Reid saw Oswald in the second-floor office area. It fits to a tee.

Was Mrs. Reid lying to frame Oswald too, Jim?



That is a good catch and just about seals the deal on the lying, racist police informant, Truly.

Can you please answer Davey's query as to how to explain Reid's testimony about Oswald being on the second floor?

I mean the stuff about what Oswald said in the FBI's notes or Fritz's notes I don't worry about. I mean, does anyone really believe that the DPD could not get a tape recorder if they wanted to? I don't. They didn't want one there. But there is some info that Fritz secretly taped the interrogations. And he never revealed them. Wonder why?

But what about Reid?


Why can't you answer it yourself, Jimmy?


Mrs. Reid, by the way, participated in a reconstruction of her post-assassination movements for the Warren Commission. Here is her testimony concerning that re-creation/re-enactment, beginning at 3 H 274 (emphasis in bold is DVP's):

Mr. DULLES. How long after the third shot did you run into the building?

Mr. BELIN. Mr. Dulles, we did a reconstruction on that time sequence on Friday and I am going to come to that as soon as I get the route first.

Mr. DULLES. Right.

Mr. BELIN. You went into the building in the main lobby?

Mrs. REID. Yes; I did.

Mr. BELIN. Did you take the elevator or the stairs?

Mrs. REID. No; I went up the stairs.

Mr. BELIN. Was this the front stairs or the back stairs?

Mrs. REID. No; the front stairs.

Mr. BELIN. All right. You went up through the stairs and then what did you do?

Mrs. REID. I went into the office.

Mr. BELIN. You went into your office?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. And then what did you do?

Mrs. REID. Well, I kept walking and I looked up and Oswald was coming in the back door of the office. I met him by the time I passed my desk several feet and I told him, I said, "Oh, the President has been shot, but maybe they didn't hit him." He mumbled something to me, I kept walking, he did, too. I didn't pay any attention to what he said because I had no thoughts of anything of him having any connection with it at all because he was very calm. He had gotten a coke and was holding it in his hands and I guess the reason it impressed me seeing him in there, I thought it was a little strange that one of the warehouse boys would be up in the office at the time, not that he had done anything wrong. The only time I had seen him in the office was to come and get change and he already had his coke in his hand, so he didn't come for change and I dismissed him. I didn't think anything else.

Mr. BELIN. When you saw him, I believe you said you first saw him when he was coming through the door?

Mrs. REID. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. Turning to Exhibit 497, what doorway was it where you first saw him?

Mrs. REID. Right here.

Mr. BELIN. You are pointing to the doorway between numbers 27 and 28?

Mrs. REID. That is right.

Mr. BELIN. On Exhibit 497?

Mrs. REID. That is right.

Mr. BELIN. Where were you when you saw him in that doorway?

Mrs. REID. I was coming right through here.

Mr. BELIN. You are pointing to what number there?

Mrs. REID. Well, it is 29.

Mr. BELIN. 29. And then about where were you when you actually passed him or had this exchange?

Mrs. REID. Right along here. I passed my desk.

Mr. BELIN. Why don't you put on Exhibit 496 [Belin really means 497 here, not 496] an "X" as to where you were when you thought you passed him.

Mrs. REID. Here.

Mr. BELIN. I wonder if you would put the initial "R" which we will put for Mrs. Reid.

Mrs. REID. All right.

Mr. BELIN. By the "X" and that is where you were when you passed him. On March 20, you and I met for the first time, didn't we, Mrs. Reid?

Mrs. REID. That is right.

Mr. BELIN. We sat down and I asked you to tell me what happened and you related the story. Did I keep on questioning you or did you tell me what happened?

Mrs. REID. Well, I more or less told you what had happened.

Mr. BELIN. All right. Then we went out on the street, did we not, in front of the building, with a stopwatch, do you remember that?

Mrs. REID. Yes; I surely do. It was kind of cool.

Mr. BELIN. It was kind of cool wasn't it, and a little bit windy.

Mrs. REID. Yes; it was; yes.

Mr. BELIN. And when in Dallas, we started the stopwatch from the time that the last shot was fired, is that correct?

Mrs. REID. That is right.

Mr. BELIN. And then you went through your actions, what you saw, your conversations that you had, and your actions in going back into the building and up to the point that you saw Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. REID. That is right.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember how long by the stopwatch it took you?

Mrs. REID. Approximately 2 minutes.

Mr. DULLES. I didn't hear you.

Mrs. REID. Two minutes.

Mr. BELIN. From the time of the last shot, the time you and Oswald crossed?

Mrs. REID. Yes; I believe that is the way we timed it.

Mr. BELIN. When you--you saw me start the stopwatch and you saw me stop it there, right?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. When you met in the lunchroom--

Mrs. REID. I didn't meet him in the lunchroom.

Mr. BELIN. Pardon me, when you met in the office, which direction were you going, looking toward Exhibit 497, as you look on it, which direction were you going--toward the left or right?

Mrs. REID. You mean as I came in the office? I turned in and turned to my left.

Mr. BELIN. That would be heading in a westerly direction, is that right?

Mrs. REID. Yes.

Mr. BELIN. What direction was Oswald walking?

Mrs. REID. He was going east.

Mr. BELIN. Did you see him actually walk through or coming through the door there?

Mrs. REID. He had just gotten to the door, was stepping in as I glanced up.

Mr. BELIN. He was stepping in as you glanced up?

Mrs. REID. Yes.


Mr. BELIN. How did you know the person you saw was Lee Harvey Oswald on the second floor?

Mrs. REID. Because it looked just like him.

Mr. BELIN. You mean the picture with the name Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mrs. REID. Oh, yes.

Mr. BELIN. But you had seen him in the building?

Mrs. REID. Other than that day, sure.

Mr. BELIN. Do you remember what clothes he had on when you saw him?

Mrs. REID. What he was wearing, he had on a white T-shirt and some kind of wash trousers. What color I couldn't tell you.



I do not presume to know everything about this case. I never have and never will. There are things which I specialize in. But this is not one of them.

And I sure do not think the last word is in the WC volumes. Or with Allen Dulles and David Belin. I mean they did the "questioning" of Baker. Just a coincidence to you, right?

These guys like Bart and Ed have really done some good work on this issue.

So I will ask them about it.


OK. Fair enough, Jim.

But let me add just one additional nail in the coffin of your ridiculous "Baker never saw Oswald" theory....

In addition to the testimony, statements, and/or reports of Mrs. Robert A. Reid and Roy S. Truly and Marrion L. Baker and Dallas Police Captain J.W. Fritz, there is also additional corroboration that Lee Harvey Oswald was seen on the second floor of the Book Depository within about two minutes of JFK's assassination in the form of the November 22, 1963, report filed by FBI agent James W. Bookhout. Here's what Bookhout said in that report, which can be found in the Warren Report on Page 619 (emphasis added by DVP):

"Oswald stated that on November 22, 1963, at the time of the search of the Texas School Book Depository building by Dallas police officers, he was on the second floor of said building, having just purchased a Coca-cola from the soft-drink machine, at which time a police officer came into the room with pistol drawn and asked him if he worked there. Mr. Truly was present and verified that he was an employee and the police officer thereafter left the room and continued through the building. Oswald stated that he took this Coke down to the first floor and stood around and had lunch in the employees' lunch room. He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley, and thereafter went home." -- James W. Bookhout; 11/22/63


Hi Dave,

Mrs. Reid tells a very convincing story, and she is well coached by Mr. Belin as she tells it. However, there is just one small problem with her story.

Where in this wide open one-room office was Mrs. Reid hiding until Geneva Hine spotted her in a group of latecomers?

[More of Prudhomme's post HERE.]


That's mighty weak, Bob. (As the wishy-washy, non-definitive excerpts of Geneva Hine's testimony below certainly indicate.)

And are you actually suggesting Mrs. Reid just lied her ass off in her testimony?

Emphasis is mine....

Mr. BALL -- Mrs. Reid told us she came in alone and when she came in she didn't see anybody there.

Miss HINE -- Well, it could be that she did, sir. I was talking on the phones...so I was busy with the phone.

Mr. BALL -- From the time you walked into the room, you became immediately busy with the phone?

Miss HINE -- Yes, sir; sure was.


Reid recants a story from Ochus Campbell...


Reid also twists the story...


And what is Reid's name doing on the bottom of Truly's handwritten affidavit? Perhaps nothing suspicious, but when taking the many things in account, the least to suspect is to use her as backup of the fake encounter.


Baker and Truly never went in as fast as they claimed they did...


The bigot and ultra conservative Truly lied in his testimony!


Lovelady lied in his testimony...


Shelley lied...


Etc etc etc...


Good! More liars! Lots more!

Have you tallied up the total number of people who lied in the JFK case yet, Bart? Is it up to five digits yet? Or is it still at four figures?

Jesus, how ludicrous.


But Dave, [Mark] Lane was right! Oswald may have been standing in the doorway. He said so himself in his interrogation.


You think Oswald himself told the police he was standing in the doorway during the shooting? Where on Earth did you get that idea? He never said any such thing. He said just the opposite, in fact. He admitted to the press that he was INSIDE the building at the time of the shooting, which is one of the biggest reasons of all for throwing out the "Prayer Man" theory.

And, Sandy, if you're referring to Fritz' "out with Bill Shelley in front" note, that note is referring to a point in time AFTER the shooting. That fact is corroborated by James Bookhout's report. More HERE.


Oswald isn't saying he was inside the building during the shooting.


Yes, he is. Or maybe you think Lee didn't hear these words within the reporter's question....

"...at the time..."



That is not what Oswald is saying there.

There was no question: Where were you at the time of the shooting?

It's too general.


Okay, Jim, let's just have another look.

Now, if Oswald had REALLY been Mr. "Prayer Man" on the steps of the TSBD at the moment JFK was being shot, don't you think he would have offered up that ironclad alibi to the reporter who asked him the question "DID YOU SHOOT THE PRESIDENT?"?

But, instead of saying "Hey, you guys! I couldn't have shot anybody! I was standing in front of the building doing a little praying! Just ask Wesley Frazier! He was standing right next to me!", Oswald's pathetic answer to the question "Did you shoot the President?" was "I work in that building."

Great response there if he's an innocent "patsy", eh?


REPORTER -- "Did you shoot the President?"

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "I work in that building."

REPORTER -- "Were you in the building at the time?"

LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."




He did not even know he had been charged with that crime. And he says that here.

So you expect him to instantly work out a defense in detail amid this chaos? When he does not even have a counsel?

C'mon, geez.


So what? You think the fact he hadn't yet been charged would prohibit him from just simply saying "No, I didn't shoot the President, because I was standing on the front steps"?

You think Oswald's mindset was: Until I'm officially charged with a crime, I just won't say a thing about my foolproof alibi -- even when I'm directly asked if I'm guilty?

That doesn't make sense to me, Jim.



You would have been right at home in the Dallas DA's office.

See the film, The Thin Blue Line.




Oswald's guilt is all too obvious -- with or without all the fancy words spoken by Mr. Mark Lane.

"I can tell the readers of this book that if anyone in the future maintains to them that Oswald was just a patsy and did not kill Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence against Oswald or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 969 of "Reclaiming History"



I am not talking about guilt or innocence. And you know it.

I am talking about representation and rights.

You don't want to talk about that. Understandable.


Well, that's nice, Jim, but I am talking about guilt or innocence.

You don't want to talk about that. Understandable (of course).

But the "guilt or innocence" question is (naturally) the most important thing that needs to be decided when talking about Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of President Kennedy.

Or do you think the most important thing is to keep repeating the "innocent until proven guilty" mantra simply because Oswald's case never went to trial in an American courtroom?

In other words, many conspiracy theorists seem to think that the "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" crutch supersedes the massive amount of evidence that proves Lee Oswald's (double) guilt.

If you want to keep on using that crutch, Jim, that's your choice. But I think it's just a convenient and handy excuse that conspiracists use in order to avoid having to face the obvious truth — which is: the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases proves that Lee Harvey Oswald was a double murderer.



Do you think no one knows your tricks by now?

I deliberately quoted Mark Lane and the intro to his 1964 legal brief for the National Guardian.

I then showed how depriving Oswald of his rights short circuited the evidentiary presentation.


So let me ask: Does Finck's testimony at the Shaw trial bear any resemblance to his testimony before the WC?

Answer: NO!

Why not? Because the rules of procedure were obeyed at Shaw's trial. As Mark Lane noted, there was a real cross examination of the witness.

Finck made a mistake: He told the truth. The medical evidence has never been the same.

You want to avoid that crucial evidence, which would have never surfaced under cover up man Specter, not in 100 years. In fact, Specter never asked any of the doctors why they did not dissect the back wound. Garrison did [sic; it was actually Oser who questioned Finck]. And we saw what happened. But you don't want to address that crucial evidence.




Do you think Dr. Humes was lying through his teeth in this WC testimony?....

DR. HUMES -- "Attempts to probe in the vicinity of this wound were unsuccessful without fear of making a false passage. .... We were unable...to take probes and have them satisfactorily fall through any definite path at this point."


Of course the argument can be made that with the probing of the wound being unsuccessful, this would have been even MORE of a reason for the pathologists to remove the neck organs to dissect the path of the bullet. But this was not done.

Dr. Finck, at the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, said that he was told not to dissect the neck wound, but he could not recall who gave that order. But to think it was an order given by someone who had a desire to "cover up" proof of a frontal gunshot wound is to also suggest that that person giving the order KNEW for a fact at the time of the autopsy that there were multiple gunmen firing at JFK in Dealey Plaza. And that, IMO, is just silly.

The request probably came from somebody up on the 17th floor of Bethesda Naval Hospital. And we all know who occupied the 17th floor that night.


Excerpts from Dr. Pierre Finck's testimony (1969; Shaw Trial)....

QUESTION: Did you have an occasion to dissect the track of that particular bullet in the victim as it lay on the autopsy table?

DR. FINCK: I did not dissect the track in the neck.


DR. FINCK: This leads us into the disclosure of medical records.

MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would like an answer from the Colonel and I would ask the Court so to direct.

THE COURT: That is correct, you should answer, Doctor.

DR. FINCK: We didn't remove the organs of the neck.

QUESTION: Why not, Doctor?

DR. FINCK: For the reason that we were told to examine the head wounds and that the --

QUESTION: Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track?

THE COURT: Let him finish his answer.

DR. FINCK: I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the head and chest, but the prosectors in this autopsy didn't remove the organs of the neck, to my recollection.

QUESTION: You have said they did not, I want to know why didn't you, as an autopsy pathologist, attempt to ascertain the track through the body which you had on the autopsy table in trying to ascertain the cause or causes of death? Why?

DR. FINCK: I had the cause of death.

QUESTION: Why did you not trace the track of the wound?

DR. FINCK: As I recall, I didn't remove these organs from the neck. .... I examined the wounds but I didn't remove the organs of the neck.

QUESTION: You said you didn't do this; I am asking you why you didn't do this as a pathologist?

DR. FINCK: From what I recall, I looked at the trachea, there was a tracheotomy wound, the best I can remember, but I didn't dissect or remove these organs.

MR. OSER: Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my question. .... I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question.

DR. FINCK: As I recall, I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom.

QUESTION: You were told not to, but you don't remember by whom?

DR. FINCK: Right.

QUESTION: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?

DR. FINCK: I don't recall.

QUESTION: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?

DR. FINCK: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck.

QUESTION: You are one of the three autopsy specialists and pathologists at the time, and you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were only interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck, is that what you are telling me?

DR. FINCK: I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path.

QUESTION: But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your testimony?

DR. FINCK: From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.

QUESTION: Did you attempt to probe this wound in the back of the neck?

DR. FINCK: I did.

QUESTION: With what?

DR. FINCK: With an autopsy room probe, and I did not succeed in probing from the entry in the back of the neck in any direction, and I can explain this. This was due to the contraction of muscles preventing the passage of an instrument, and if I had forced the probe through the neck, I may have created a false passage.

QUESTION: Isn't this good enough reason to you as a pathologist to go further and dissect this area in an attempt to ascertain whether or not there is a passageway here as a result of a bullet?

DR. FINCK: I did not consider a dissection of the path.

QUESTION: How far did the probe go into this wound?

DR. FINCK: I couldn't introduce this probe for any extended depth. I tried and I can give explanations why. At times, you cannot probe a path, this is because of the contraction of muscles and different layers. It is not like a pipe, like a channel. It may be extremely difficult to probe a wound through muscle.

QUESTION: Can you give me approximately how far in this probe went?

DR. FINCK: The first fraction of an inch.

QUESTION: If you had dissected this area, Doctor, wouldn't you have been able to ascertain what the track was, as you have described in this courtroom, without dissecting it?

DR. FINCK: I don't know.


You realize, I hope, that Humes' concluding the back wound did not extend into the body is a far bigger problem for the SBT than his failure to dissect the back wound. The failure to dissect the back wound could be written off in the name of expediency--because someone told him not to. Spending a significant amount of time studying and probing the back wound, only to conclude it was but a shallow dent in the back, however, is lethal for the single-bullet theory.


Not at all. The reason for the unsuccessful probing of the back wound was fully explained by two of the three pathologists in their testimony over the years -- Finck in 1969 (which I just quoted above) and Boswell in 1996.

And then there is this testimony, also quoted earlier, by Dr. Finck (emphasis is my own):

"I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the front of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path."


The request probably came from somebody up on the 17th floor of Bethesda Naval Hospital. And we all know who occupied the 17th floor that night.



Recall, this is a murder case in 1963, therefore the standard of evidence is: beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.

The third word above, "probably", is Von Pein's. In other words, it is his assumption.

​He then quotes a long hunk from Finck's testimony, but he does not quote the most revealing part. Finck said that he was not running the autopsy that night. Then this exchange occurred:

Q: Was Dr. Humes running the show?

​A: Well, I heard Dr. Humes stating that--he said--"Who is in charge here?" and I heard an Army General, I don't remember his name, stating "I am." You must understand that in those circumstances, there were law enforcement officials, military people with various ranks, and you have to co-ordinate the operation according to directions.

Somehow, Davey did not find that passage important, probably because it belies his necessary assumption with actual evidence.

​Further belying it, actually wrecking it with finality, is more evidence from the horse's mouth, that is Humes. In my CBS article that Davey said (for good reasons) he only skimmed, Humes told a representative from the network that yes, he was limited from doing a proper autopsy on JFK. He did not want to reveal who gave him those instructions except to say that it was not Bobby Kennedy.


And just exactly how would Dr. Humes have known whether or not such an order (or request) had originally come from the Kennedys on the 17th floor, with that order (request) then being relayed to Humes by way of a high-ranking member of the military (with possibly more people in-between who communicated the Kennedys' request)?

Do you think that if Bobby Kennedy HAD made such a request, that it would have been Bobby himself who would have marched into the autopsy room and told Dr. Humes personally what his request was?



You cannot be serious Davey.

I mean the above shows just what a lousy researcher you are. And also how incredibly biased you are.

The HSCA, a very long time ago, discovered a document which RFK signed that night about the autopsy. RFK left blank the space marked "restrictions" in the permit he signed before the autopsy began. Based upon that, and other interviews, the HSCA concluded that the family did not interfere with the autopsy.

In an affidavit for the HSCA, Burkley stated, "I directed the autopsy surgeon to do a complete autopsy and to take the time necessary for completion."

In an interview with the HSCA, the commander of the Bethesda Medical Center, Galloway, stated that he was present throughout the examination, and no orders were being sent in from outside the autopsy room by phone or person.

Humes told the ARRB that Burkley never told him what to do that night and said it in no uncertain terms, "as far as telling me what to do or how to do it, absolutely, irrevocably, no."

This not only blows you up, but also Dan Rather, who in 1975 told America that yes, the autopsy was botched, but blamed it on RFK through Burkley. This was undoubtedly conveyed to him via that Pentagon suck up Lattimer, who was a consultant on the show.


Isn't it nice of DiEugenio to use something supplied by Dr. Humes when it serves Jimmy's purpose? Most of the time, though, Humes is nothing but a rotten lying SOB. Right, Jimmy?

Emphasis is my own:

"All three of the pathologists know from experience that bullets can do crazy things when they enter the human body and might end up anywhere. The only way to be sure they haven't missed it is to x-ray the entire body. Finck's decision doesn't set well with Admiral Burkley, who can see his idea of a quick recovery of evidence giving way to hour after hour of difficulties and delays. Burkley says that Mrs. Kennedy had only granted permission for a limited autopsy, and questions the feasibility of finding the bullet that entered the president's back without conducting a complete autopsy." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 162 of "Reclaiming History"

Bugliosi's source for the above information about Jackie Kennedy wanting only a "limited autopsy" is ARRB document MD156, which is a memo written by FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill:

"Following arrival at the Naval Medical Center...Admiral Burkley, the President's personal physician, advised that Mrs. Kennedy had granted permission for a limited autopsy and he questioned any feasibility for a complete autopsy to obtain the bullet which had entered the President's back." -- Sibert/O'Neill Internal Memo, dated 11/26/63 (ARRB MD156)

But even if it wasn't Jackie Kennedy or Bobby Kennedy who specifically requested no dissection of JFK's neck, as I said before, the notion that ANYONE would have made such a request solely because they wanted to hide evidence of a conspiracy and a frontal shot to JFK's body is a notion that only a desperate conspiracy theorist could possibly embrace.

But, Jimmy DiEugenio, being a charter member of the Anybody But Oswald and Virtually Everybody In Officialdom Lied Societies, embraces such a notion with open arms.

There's also this....

"Dr. Humes told JAMA in 1992, "I was in charge from start to finish and there was no [military] interference—zero . . . Nobody made any decision in the morgue except me. Nobody . . . influenced me in any way, shape, or form."

Dr. Finck agreed. "I will repeat this. There was no military interference with the autopsy. There were many people in the morgue—all very upset—and this made it difficult for us. But there was no military interference."

Although the military did not interfere with the autopsy, it is clear that the Kennedy family did. FBI agent Francis O'Neill wrote that as he understood it, "Mrs . Jackie Kennedy gave permission for a partial autopsy and Dr. George Burkley, the president's personal physician, reiterated her remarks," and that "there was no question that Burkley was conveying the wishes of the Kennedy family."

The family's request for a "partial autopsy" was not, however, an attempt to circumvent the investigation, as some have claimed. Dr. Humes explained to the HSCA that "initially, Admiral Burkley said that they had caught Oswald and that they needed the bullet to complete the case, and we were told initially that's what we should do, . . . find the bullet." "
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 386 of "Reclaiming History"


Why did you skip the rest of that document?

What clearly happened is that Jackie was grief stricken and wanted to get it over with.

She was then overruled by the others involved that a complete autopsy must be done.

RFK then signed the permit.

As it proceeded, it was the military that then interfered.

Geez, anything goes with you, doesn't it.


You're missing the timing and context, David. The Kennedys initially asked that the autopsy be limited, but RFK granted approval for a complete autopsy when the importance of it was explained to him. As I recall, there is even a signed document from him approving a complete autopsy.

As far as context, I think you're failing to acknowledge that the WC hid behind the Kennedy family, and tried to blame them for their own failure to review the autopsy materials. In the hearings which led to the ARRB, Arlen Specter, a sitting Senator, testified and tried to blame the WC's failure on the Kennedy family, only to have Senator John Glenn (who was no doubt tipped off by a knowledgeable staffer) come back an hour later and ask if the commission did not, in fact, have access to all the materials. To which Specter answered in the affirmative. So the "Kennedys wouldn't let us" excuse was bogus from day one, but was nevertheless pushed by Specter et al in his conversations with Humes etc. Anything but admit that the Chief Justice of the United States had made a reversible error in the most important murder "trial" of his life.



Jim / Pat,

But don't you think that Jackie Kennedy's desire to, as Jim D. said above, "get it over with", and her initial request that a "partial autopsy" be done, just might have played a part in the decision of the pathologists to not dissect President Kennedy's neck/back wound?

In hindsight, it would have been much better, of course, if Dr. Humes and company had, indeed, dissected the neck wound. But, Pat, let me ask you specifically --- do you think the decision to not dissect that wound was made in order to hide a conspiracy from the world? And do you think that whoever it was who made that final decision to not dissect the path of that bullet already KNEW that JFK had been shot from the front by a bullet?



Have you ever read Jeremy Gunn's cross examination of Humes on this point? As to why he did not dissect the back wound.


Oh, yes. I definitely have. I read all of Humes' ARRB testimony when I was arguing a few years ago with John Canal about his unique theories regarding JFK's head wounds. But it's been a while since I read that testimony. I haven't memorized it.

I'll go refresh my memory on it now. Thanks.


Here's what Dr. James J. Humes said in his 1996 ARRB testimony about probing/dissecting the neck wound (emphasis is my own):

QUESTION: Did you ever receive any orders or instructions about limiting the scope of the examination of the brain?

DR. HUMES: Never.

QUESTION: Did you receive any instructions or orders regarding limitations on dissection of the organs of the neck?

DR. HUMES: No. .... My problem is, very simply stated, we had an entrance wound high in the posterior back above the scapula. We didn't know where the exit wound was at that point. I'd be the first one to admit it. We knew in general in the past that we should have been more prescient than we were, I must confess, because when we removed the breast plate and examined the thoracic cavity, we saw a contusion on the upper lobe of the lung. There was no defect in the pleura anyplace. So it's obvious that the missile had gone over that top of the lung. Of course, the more I thought about it, the more I realized it had to go out from the neck. It was the only place it could go, after it was not found anywhere in the X-rays. So early the next morning, I called Parkland Hospital and talked with Malcolm Perry, I guess it was. And he said, Oh, yeah, there was a wound right in the middle of the neck by the tie, and we used that for the tracheotomy. Well, they obliterated, literally obliterated--when we went back to the photographs, we thought we might have seen some indication of the edge of that wound in the gaping skin where the--but it wouldn't make a great deal of sense to go slashing open the neck. What would we learn? Nothing, you know. So I didn't--I don't know if anybody said don't do this or don't do that.
I wouldn't have done it no matter what anybody said. That was not important. I mean, that's--

QUESTION: Do you know what the standard autopsy protocol is for gunshot wounds and autopsy of the neck?

DR. HUMES: Well, no. I haven't seen that in--what you say, standard, I mean, many times if you have a track of a missile, it's helpful to take a long probe and put it in the position. It can tell you a lot of things. If you know where the point of entrance and the point of exit are, it's duck soup. But for me to start probing around in this man's neck, all I would make was false passages. There wouldn't be any track that I could put a probe through or anything of that nature. It just doesn't work that way.


I might buy that the failure to dissect the throat when it could have proven more than one shooter was entirely innocent, but for the fact that they also failed to dissect the brain when it could have proven more than one shooter.

Dissecting the throat on the night of the autopsy was probably the single-most important procedure they could have performed, seeing as the Parkland doctors saw a wound in the throat and a wound on the back of the head, and thought they were connected.

Dissecting the brain at the supplementary autopsy was undoubtedly the single-most important procedure.

And yet neither was performed. This, to me, is highly suspicious. While the doctors may not have known about the throat wound during the autopsy (and I accept that they did not), there's no reason to believe whoever ordered them NOT to dissect the throat was equally in the dark. One would think, in fact, that military men concerned about the outbreak of WWIII would be in constant touch with the outside, and be receiving regular updates from people watching the news. The possibility exists, then, that whoever told them not to dissect the neck knew the establishment of a trajectory connecting the throat wound with the head wound might lead to the conclusion this shot came from in front of the president, and the depository.


OK. Thanks for the reply, Pat.

David Von Pein
May 18-21, 2016
May 18-19, 2016