DOUGLAS P. HORNE SAID:
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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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 12/9/63 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)
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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.
DEX OLSEN SAID:
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".
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Dex,
Why should I start believing in theories that make no sense---even from a CTer POV?
E.G.,
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).
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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!)
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
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
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Willy,
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?
~shrug~
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
The "debunkers" on this [Amazon.com] thread have nothing to offer but adolescent gibberish. All that is offered are appeals to authority.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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.
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
For the most part that is absolutely correct regarding the Warren Commission[.] [T]hey were nothing but shills, liars, and cover-up agents.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Thanks for putting your ultra silliness in print in such concise form. The ridiculousness of your above statement is noted for the record.
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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.
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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".
"DEBUNKER" SAID:
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?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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.
R. ANDERSON SAID:
NSAM 273 was drafted while Kennedy was still alive.
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
Quite the bold prevarication there[,] Anderson[.] [Y]ou know Kennedy never saw that document, not the one signed by Johnson.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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)
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
Von Pien [sic], yours [is] an Argumentum Ad Populum, a common fallacious argument used rhetorically by hacks such as yourself.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Please keep posting your brilliant retorts, Willy, like:
"Diversity of opinion" (which Willy actually thinks is a POSITIVE ATTRIBUTE to JFK research). LOL.
And:
"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.
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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.
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
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?)
R. ANDERSON SAID:
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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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.
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Not a single one of those "facts" are "facts" at all, Willy. Not even close.
Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com/Debating-The-SBT
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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".
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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.
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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.
[2022 DVP EDIT -- Todd's initials have been found on the bullet. Click Here.]
R. ANDERSON SAID:
Let's not forget either that the courts admit evidence all the time that has breaks in the chain of custody.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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]
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
Yes "sort of" indeed! It is the operative phrase in this fairytale assertion by the Twinkletoe Twins, Von Pein and Bugliosi.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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.
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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.
DALE H. HAYES, JR. SAID:
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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Exactly, Dale. You said that nicely.
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
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
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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.
DEX OLSEN SAID:
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?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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)
DEX OLSEN SAID:
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.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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).
DAVID G. HEALY SAID:
[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!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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.
DALE H. HAYES, JR. SAID:
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.
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
And how would you know that since there was no record of anything Oswald said.
DAVID VON PEIN 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?
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
ANYTHING that is not a verbatim record of Oswald's actual words is lawfully considered 'Hearsay'.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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?
R. ANDERSON SAID:
...fleeing the scene, killing a police officer in flight, and trying to kill another one upon his arrest...
WILLY WHITTEN SAID:
All points that have been successfully rebutted.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
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 [This forum link is no longer available.]
