(PART 1145)


Look, bird brain, you don't throw testimony out because other testimony contradicts it.


Therefore, via this lovely "Never Throw Out Testimony" declaration (which equates to: ALL testimony MUST be equal in Ric's world, evidently), we could never solve any murder case that includes wildly varying testimony and discrepancies in the evidential record.


So we're destined to remain stuck in neutral FOREVER, due to the fact I am being FORCED to accept Audrey Bell's testimony regarding the Connally bullet fragments (and her testimony about JFK's neck wound being a wound of entrance too, don't forget...you didn't mention that earlier; probably because you didn't know about it)...and I'm forced to also accept Dr. Gregory's "postage stamp" size fragment testimony right alongside Bell's words.

So...where do we go from here? Do we twiddle our thumbs and let the case grow weeds under our feet as we accept BOTH versions as the truth (somehow)?

Or: Should we use these testimonies and weigh them and balance them against the SUM TOTAL of evidence in the whole case to determine which person has the most credible testimony?

The latter, of course, should be done....with Gregory winning that particular battle for the reasons already given. Gregory removed the fragments himself and saw the Governor's X-rays, and testified in detail in front of the Warren Commission under oath. Bell did not.

True, it wasn't her fault she never appeared before a Government inquiry panel. She was never called. Which will also send CTers to their computers to type out more "sinister" meanings behind that move by the WC re: Bell.


When in doubt call names, huh?


Oh, no. I can do that when I'm not in doubt about anything...like now. And
my last post. ~wink~


Posting what? Your own posts as sources? No, don't bother doing that again. No one took them serious when you posted them a year ago, why do you think anyone take[s] them serious now?


The truth and some CS&L always go further than a CTer's doubts and lack of common sense. And my posts always contain an abundance of CS&L (Common Sense & Logic). About that fact I don't think I need to be overly modest.

Did you bother to take note that WITHIN my own posts that I link I have included OFFICIAL SOURCE MATERIAL? (I.E., links to WC testimony and official WC exhibits for reference.)

Like right here (which I linked previously as well).


Oswald leaves the house at 1:03 or 1:04. Helen Markham arrives at the bus stop at 1:06 and sees Tippit get shot. The distance is 0.85 miles.


ALL TIMES ARE ONLY APPROXIMATIONS, which the Warren Commission firmly states in CE1119-A.

BTW, Ric, here are Helen Markham's exact words concerning the "1:06" timeline that CTers love so much. Just have a look:

Mr. BALL. You think it was a little after 1?

Mrs. MARKHAM. I wouldn't be afraid to bet it
wasn't 6 or 7 minutes after 1.

An odd hunk of phrasing by Markham actually. I know what she meant there. But the word "wasn't" seems slightly out of place. But, anyway, please note that no CTer ever uses the LATER time of 1:07 when speaking of Markham's testimony. Granted, it's only 60 seconds difference...but if you give a CTer a choice...guess which exact minute they'll pick from Mrs. Markham's choice of two?

In any event, Markham wasn't wasn't looking at any watch or clock when she arrived at the corner and saw Oswald shoot Tippit. She was GUESSING regarding the time. And she was pretty close actually. Because the BEST GUESS would have been about 1:14 (per Dale Myers' detailed study of the shooting, which includes studying the DPD Radio tapes and Bowley's/Benavides' initial "keying" of Tippit's microphone).

So Markham's only off by about 7 or 8 minutes. That's all. And the conspiracy fanatics think that those 7 or 8 minutes trump everything else that says Oswald killed a man on Tenth Street.

And that's just flat-out stupid.


A component of the scientific method is challenging your hypothesis by attempting to disprove it. This means the last thing you do is throw out evidence.


Thanks for finally admitting throwing out contradictory evidence is what you do. We've been saying this all along about you, but it's amusing hearing you admit it.


"All along"? You mean for the whopping 1.5 months you've been gracing us with your presence thus far at The Asylum [alt.conspiracy.jfk]? Or have you been operating under a different username prior to mid-March 2007?

In the final analysis, when confronted with contradictory witness testimony, a person must ultimately decide WHO IS RIGHT and WHO IS NOT RIGHT when they are talking about the VERY SAME incident in history. Like, say, the murder of a policeman on 10th Street in Oak Cliff.

Obviously, not all the witnesses can be 100% right about all the things they said...now can they?

But to hear Ric tell it, we have no choice but to accept as true all of the contradictory evidence!

How idiotic is that? As I said earlier, if this were required when evaluating evidence, no case could ever get "solved"...because every case would be bogged down by its own inconsistencies and contradictions forever....because Ric Landers says we can't ever throw ANY of it aside.

Lovely policy there. I guess Charlie Manson, Jeff Dahmer, and Ted Bundy were innocent after all, huh?


I'd be vomiting too right about now were I you.


Yep. I am.

Looks like a red-letter day for the makers of TUMS. I definitely need some more after talking with you every time.

David Von Pein
April 29, 2007

(PART 1144)


Laugh Of The Month:

"The only problem is that the "weapon", the .38 standard being discussed by Nicol, was not in Oswald's possession until it was planted on him in the Texas Theater." -- Willy Whitten; June 22, 2016

[End Hilarious Quote.]

The "planting" in this case is endless (per the conspiracy clowns).

IOW -- If they can't explain it, they'll just pretend it was planted.

Works every time.

Right, Willy?


Yes, planting evidence in this case is quite ubiquitous (WC clown). It has been proven time and again.


Did Captain Fritz lie when he said that Oswald ADMITTED to taking a gun into the theater, Willy? (WCR, p.601)

"You know how boys do when they have a gun, they just carry it."

And did Johnny Brewer lie when he said he saw Oswald pull a pistol from his pants in the theater?

Or do you think Lee Oswald did have a gun in the theater, but it wasn't the V510210 Tippit murder weapon?

But if so, then the cops wouldn't have needed to "plant" any gun on Oswald in the theater, which is the fairy tale you tried to peddle in an earlier Amazon post. In such a case, the cops would have done the ol' "switcheroo" of evidence with the pistols, right? (Just like CTers think the FBI did with CE399.)

In short, JFK conspiracy theorists continue to live in a fantasy world all their own.


In a word, YES [Fritz lied].

As anyone knows, there were no recordings nor stenographic record of the almost 12-hour interrogation of Oswald. Fritz is then free to make up anything he wanted about what Oswald said.


And does that mean you think FBI agents James Hosty and James Bookhout lied too? ....

"Oswald admitted to carrying a pistol with him to this movie, stating he did this because he felt like it." -- 11/22/63 Hosty/Bookhout Report; WCR, p.613


Everyone who was allowed in the interrogation were part of the plot to frame Oswald...you bet your asp they lied. As well as Harry Holmes, one of the deep operatives in the actual plot to kill Kennedy.


"Everyone", Willy?

You're hilarious.

David Von Pein
June 22, 2016

(PART 1143)


I have added a few new entries to my "Kennedy Catalog", including a book written by Richard Belzer and David Wayne, entitled "Dead Wrong: Straight Facts On The Country's Most Controversial Cover-Ups" [Skyhorse Publishing; 336 pages].

You can read some sections of "Dead Wrong" at Amazon.com for free HERE, including [in the Kindle edition] Mr. Belzer's very weak argument behind this bold claim (which Belzer puts in all capital letters in the book's Intro):


The main reason, Belzer says, to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald could not have physically murdered JFK is because the reconstructions of the alleged movements of Oswald and the known movements of Dallas policeman Marrion Baker were "rigged" by the Warren Commission, permitting Baker to arrive in the second-floor lunchroom of the Depository at just about the same time that Oswald would have arrived there.

But what Belzer never mentions in his book's brief Introduction is the fact that the man performing the Oswald portion of the reconstruction (Secret Service agent John Howlett) did not run or trot at all in any of the tests. He merely walked at two different speeds (normal and a fast walk) when attempting to duplicate Oswald's movements from the sixth floor to the lunchroom [see Warren Report; Page 152].

Quite obviously, therefore, if Oswald had been moving any faster than Agent Howlett (and he probably was moving faster), it means that Oswald could have easily gotten down to the second-floor lunchroom sooner than Howlett did in the Warren Commission re-creations.

Plus, there's the fact that Baker told the Warren Commission that it likely took him LONGER on 11/22/63 to do the things that he was re-creating for the Commission in March '64. And Belzer thinks Baker's re-creation test was rigged to intentionally slow him down, and yet Officer Baker said that the re-creations were done too QUICKLY. Go figure.

In addition, Belzer points to Commission Exhibit 3076, which is the statement signed by Officer Baker in September of 1964 with the famous "drinking a Coke" portion of the statement crossed out and initialed by Baker.

Belzer, like almost all other conspiracy theorists, wants to believe that BAKER HIMSELF wrote the words "drinking a Coke" on that document we see in CE3076, when, in fact, it's clear from the handwriting that Baker only initialed and signed that document. He did not write anything else in it.

Somebody else (probably an FBI man) wrote the statement, and then Baker corrected the incorrect things in the document--such as "drinking a Coke". And Baker was quite clear in his WC testimony (as was Roy Truly) that he did not see anything in Lee Oswald's hands when Baker encountered him on 11/22/63.

Yeah, that's some great proof you've got there for Oswald's total innocence, Mr. Belzer -- a set of reconstructions done by Baker and Howlett (as you ignore the important points about Howlett moving at a snail's pace during those tests and about how Officer Baker himself said the tests resulted in the "minimum" amount of time needed to re-create his movements, not the maximum) and a document [CE3076] which was obviously not even written by Marrion L. Baker at all.

If the rest of the book is anything like that weak-sister Intro I read on Amazon's website, then I have a feeling that the title of Mr. Belzer's book would more aptly apply to his own conclusions (when it comes to the JFK assassination anyway) -- "Dead Wrong".


I don't know why a person would spend the time writing 549 reviews on Amazon.com, but the aptly named Mr. Von Pein shows us here how it is done. You don't bother to read the book you review. You just read the introduction.

If you're just looking for errors, I can do Von Pein one better. In the case of Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster, Wayne and Belzer write on page 221 that the autopsy doctor said that there was no exit wound. Actually, Dr. James Beyer drew a picture of a gaping exit wound about the size of a half dollar.

But the authors have chosen to examine 10 cases in which anyone challenging the government conclusions works in an environment where the margin for error is extremely large. What strikes you in case after case is that the evidence against the government and its lackeys in the mainstream press is simply massive and overwhelming.

I take a back seat to no one when it comes to knowledge of the Foster case, the ninth one that they examine, and I can say without equivocation that the authors show quite well that the man was murdered and did not commit suicide. As for that exit wound, the autopsy doctor was about the only person who said that there was one. The autopsy report was clearly fraudulent, as was much else in this case and the nine others that the authors examine.

If you're looking for an excuse not to believe the uncomfortable truths revealed in this volume, then listen to this reviewer [DVP]. But I'm putting the book on my Christmas gift list for friends who need some education.


Nice of you to totally ignore the factual things I pointed out in my review, DC Dave. Why did you do that?

My comments were based on a narrow and limited area, that's true. But I think it's an important "limited" area. Because we can know for certain that Belzer is 100% wrong in his intro when he blasts in all caps "IT WAS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR OSWALD TO HAVE SHOT PRESIDENT KENNEDY". And I prove in my review why he's wrong. It wasn't "IMPOSSIBLE" at all. In fact, per the evidence and Oswald's own actions (which are always ignored or twisted by conspiracy theorists), Oswald certainly did kill two men in Dallas in 1963.

Along with the book you'll be giving your friends for the Christmas holiday, maybe you'd also like to pass along the info I provided in my mini-review above. Your friends deserve that "education" as well....don't they?


Nice of you to ignore 99.9% of what is in the book and call it a review.


If the authors can be so blatantly wrong about something so incredibly easy to research (the Baker/Howlett/Oswald timelines and reconstructions), and they are wrong, then I hate to think what other myths have been turned into proven "facts" by the co-authors of this book.

And if Belzer can't be trusted to tell the truth even in his INTRODUCTION to the book (and it's obvious he can't), I have no reason to suspect that the innards of the book are any better.

In fact, I'd be willing to wager that the inaccurate conspiracy nonsense gets MUCH, much worse as the book progresses, with one already-debunked myth being spouted after another. That's almost certainly true. I'd bet my next CIA Disinfo check on it.


You are wasting your intellectual capital on attack[ing] Richard Belzer? My God, man, he's just some damn comedian. That's like asking us to take Dick Gregory seriously. Our whole table at the conference openly laughed at him when he started waving around the Nixon-Ruby memo. No one takes these comedians seriously. It is a straw man argument for you to be attacking a comedian. What next, your book denouncing the UFO theories?


You [Tony Marsh] criticized Von Pein for being critical of a book written by a comedian. Yet, look how this discussion is going. Those who probably claim to be legitimate researchers are probably making the same arguments that Belzer made in his book. If people subscribe to Belzer's points, then it is irrelevant whether Belzer was a comedian, circus clown, or full-time JFK assassination researcher with a PhD. It is the POINTS that are under attack, not Belzer.


Oh, yes, you're absolutely right about that, David. I didn't mean to suggest that Richard Belzer's nonsense about the Baker/Howlett re-creations was anything "new". Not at all. It's the same old tired junk that CTers have tried to prop up to "prove" Oswald's innocence for decades.

It's just that Belzer's all-caps "IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE" bunk in his book caught my eye, so I decided to write a post about it.

BTW, that book ("Dead Wrong") is still selling amazingly well. As of this writing [on August 23, 2012], it's #46 at Amazon among all books sold there. That's incredible, IMO.

And just think how many more people will gobble up Belzer's "OSWALD COULDN'T HAVE DONE IT" malarkey, without even knowing about the little tidbits concerning Howlett's snail-pace movements during his part of the reconstruction.*

* = To be fair, I really have no idea whether Belzer (or co-writer Wayne) have put anything in the book about Howlett's speed during the '64 re-creations, because I have only read a small portion of the introduction (for free) at Amazon. So it's possible that Belzer talks about the stuff I mentioned earlier concerning Howlett's movements, but I would kind of doubt that he does, because if he does, it would pretty much destroy Belzer's "OSWALD HAS TO BE INNOCENT" intro piece.

David Von Pein
August 15-23, 2012
September 7—October 30, 2012

(PART 1142)


There was no "roll-call" that resulted in a single missing employee. It's a shame that not all believers can instantly state this for the record.


I've never been sure whether there was or wasn't an actual "roll call" of the TSBD warehouse employees, but in an interview conducted by Gary Mack in June of 2002, Buell Wesley Frazier said there definitely WAS a roll call of the Depository's warehouse employees shortly after the assassination, with names being READ OFF by someone. Here's what Frazier said in 2002:

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Mr. Shelley got us together—he and Mr. Truly—and we had a roll call."

GARY MACK -- "And where did this take place?"

FRAZIER -- "Outside Mr. Shelley's office."

MACK -- "Did they actually read off names? Or did they just ask you guys, 'anybody missing'?"

FRAZIER -- "No, they read names off and you had to answer."

MACK -- "Okay. And who was missing?"

FRAZIER -- "The only person missing was Lee Oswald."


To hear the audio of the above 6/21/2002 interview excerpt, CLICK HERE.


The complete two-hour interview with Buell Frazier is here:


I'm not going to bicker about Buell's incorrect memory, Davy, but if Oswald was there at the roll call would that make him any less guilty or innocent?



I tend to think Buell Wesley Frazier's memory was, indeed, "incorrect" about a few of the things he discussed with Gary Mack in that 2002 interview -- particularly Buell's recollection of having seen Lee Oswald walking down Houston Street five to ten minutes after the assassination had taken place. That observation is totally at odds with what Frazier said in his 11/22/63 affidavit.

So, yes, I think it's a good idea to take some of Buell's 39-year-old remembrances with a grain of salt. But, with that caveat in mind, he still did say there definitely was a "roll call" of the TSBD warehouse workers.

Whether Frazier was relying on something that was said by someone else regarding there being an official "roll call", or whether he (in June of 2002) had a firm independent recollection of his own of there being a roll call of the employees, is something I guess we could debate until the cows come home.

We'll probably never really know for sure, because a 39-year-old memory can result in some hazy and strange recollections -- like seeing Oswald out on the street at 12:35 or 12:40 on November 22nd, even though Frazier specifically said this in his first-day affidavit: "I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today."

But you'll have to admit that this quote below is rather interesting, don't you think? ....

"They read names off and you had to answer." -- Buell Frazier; 6/21/02

Those words should make at least a few conspiracy theorists stop and wonder: Well, gee, I wonder if there perhaps was a roll call after all.

I know I'm wondering.

But at the same time that "grain of salt" rule must, as I said, be applied to Buell Frazier's memory, because we know that when Frazier said "The only person missing was Lee Oswald", his memory must not be 100% accurate, due to the fact that if such a roll call had occurred on 11/22/63 inside the Depository (during which the warehouse workers "had to answer" after their names were called), another warehouse employee besides just Lee Harvey Oswald would have turned up missing, with that employee being Charles Givens, who would not have had the opportunity to attend any such roll call inside the Depository because he was unable to get back into the building following the assassination.


I unsuccessfully looked for a list of TSBD workers missing after the shooting. Several were not at that roll call and a few others didn't show up for work that day.

Don't you have that list in your well-organized collection, Davy?


Here is Warren Commission Document No. 706, which includes statements from 73 Book Depository employees concerning their whereabouts on November 22, 1963, and what they did right after the shooting....


Here are some relevant passages from Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History", concerning the topics of the "roll call" and the "missing TSBD employees":

“At the Texas School Book Depository, police officers are conducting a roll call outside of Supervisor Bill Shelley's office, and collecting the names and addresses of the building's employees. Superintendent Roy Truly notices that Oswald isn't among the dozen or so stockroom boys talking to the police. In fact, Truly hasn't seen Oswald since he and Officer Baker ran into him in the second-floor lunchroom right after the shots. That encounter may be the only reason Truly is thinking of him now.

"Have you seen Lee Oswald around lately?" Truly asks Shelley.

"No," Shelley replies.

Truly approaches O.V. Campbell, the Book Depository vice president.

"I have a boy over here missing," Truly says. "I don' t know whether to report it or not."

Truly thinks that another one or two boys are also missing,* but the only one who sticks in his mind is Oswald, if for no other reason than that he had seen Oswald on the second floor of the building (when almost all of his other employees were out on the street) just an hour or so earlier.

Truly calls down to the warehouse personnel office to get Oswald's telephone number, home address, and description from his employment application. He jots it all down, and hangs up. Deputy Chief Lumpkin is a few feet away.

"I've got a boy missing over here," Truly tells him, instinctively focusing in, again, only on Oswald. "I don't know whether it amounts to anything or not."

"Let's go up and tell Captain Fritz," Lumpkin says as the two head upstairs. They find Captain Fritz on the sixth floor at the top of the stairs, standing with a group of officers and reporters. Lumpkin pulls Fritz aside to listen to Truly, who repeats his story and gives him Oswald's address and general description: age twenty-three (he was now twenty-four), five foot nine, about a hundred fifty pounds, light brown hair.

* Actually, only one other of the boys was missing: Charles Douglas Givens
(CE 705, 17 H 419; CE 1974, 23 H 873), who went to the corner of Main and Record (two blocks from the Depository) to watch the motorcade. When he returned to the Depository sometime after 12:40 p.m., police wouldn't let him back inside (7 H 382, 385-386, WCT Roy Sansom Truly; 6 H 355, WCT Charles Douglas Givens).

Givens, who had a prior police record for narcotics violations, was spotted in the crowd an hour later by Dallas police lieutenant Jack Revill, who recognized Givens from his past dealings with him. Givens was subsequently taken to police headquarters, where he was questioned and gave a statement (5 H 35-36, WCT Jack Revill; 6 H 355, WCT Charles Douglas Givens; CE 2003, 24 H 210).


“After the shooting in Dealey Plaza, nearly all of the sixteen warehousemen who worked in the Depository Building returned to the building and were present at a roll call of employees. Only Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Givens were not present; Givens was located shortly thereafter. So only Oswald left the building and was unaccounted for. Dallas Morning News reporter Kent Biffle, who was inside the Depository Building, wrote in his journal that day, "I listened as the building superintendent [Roy Truly] told detectives about Lee Oswald failing to show up at a roll call. My impression is that there was an earlier roll call that had been inconclusive because several employees were missing. This time, however, all were accounted for but Oswald."**

** For years, conspiracy theorists have attempted to explain away Oswald's fleeing the Book Depository Building by saying he probably "sensed" that he was being set up as a patsy. But when you ask them what evidence they have to support their speculation, or even what evidence they are aware of that may have caused Oswald to believe this, the silence is deafening. A typical example of this defense of Oswald comes from conspiracy theorist Susan Sloate, who writes that "anyone, realizing the President had been shot and that he himself might be blamed for it, would be frightened and insecure," justifying, per Sloate, Oswald "leaving the scene of the crime at the first opportunity and going home to get a revolver, his only means of protecting himself" ("Fourth Decade", January 1995, p.22).

But Ms. Sloate doesn't bother to say why she believes Oswald had this realization. She is apparently opposed to even trying to support her fantasy with some evidence.

In the book "High Treason", the authors nakedly speculate that Oswald "knew he had been set up as the patsy, and so went home," not being nice enough to their readers to say what basis they had for their speculation (Groden and Livingstone, "High Treason", p.153).”


“At the London trial, Wesley Frazier testified that "everyone was present [at the roll call] except Mr. Oswald." (Transcript of "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald", July 23, 1986, p.38).

Billy Lovelady told the media back in 1964 that "a roll call was taken of the dozen or so men in my work gang. Only Oswald was missing" (New York Herald Tribune, May 24, 1964, p.10).”

-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 93-94, 958-959, and Page 57 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"


Additional sources used by Mr. Bugliosi for the above book excerpts:

3 H 230, WCT Roy Sansom Truly.

Sims Exhibit A, 21 H 512.

3 H 183, WCT Bonnie Ray Williams.

3 H 208, WCT James Jarman Jr.

7 H 59, WCT Gerald Lynn Hill.

12 H 31, WCT Jesse E. Curry.

CD 1245, p.183.

“Sixteen employees, including Oswald”: CE 3131, 26 H 802.

Kent Biffle, “Reporter Recalls the Day Camelot Died in Texas,” Dallas Morning News, April 5, 1981, pp.1AA, 3AA.


As an addendum, I will also print out the following testimony provided on May 14, 1964, by Book Depository Superintendent Roy S. Truly during his second appearance before the Commission (beginning at 7 H 382). This testimony certainly gives the indication that there was no official "roll call" at the Depository on 11/22/63. However, this testimony by Mr. Truly doesn't completely eliminate the possibility that a roll call could have been conducted by William Shelley at some point in time on November 22nd, although you'd think if that had been the case, Truly would have at least been aware of it. ~shrug~ ....

JOSEPH A. BALL -- Now, you recall that in your testimony before the Commission you told them that at some time after the shooting, you advised Captain Fritz of the name of Lee Oswald and his address in Irving?

ROY S. TRULY -- Yes, I did.

MR. BALL -- And in order to place the time of it, was it before or after the rifle had been found on the sixth floor?

MR. TRULY -- I wouldn't know. I think it must have been around the time the rifle was found, because I was not on the sixth floor at that time, but when told--let's go back a few minutes--pardon me--I told Chief Lumpkin a good many minutes after we came down from the roof and he went ahead and gave some orders to two or three policemen surrounding him and then said, "Let's go up and tell Captain Fritz."

MR. BALL -- Now, what did you tell Chief Lumpkin when you came down from the roof of the building?

MR. TRULY -- When I noticed this boy was missing, I told Chief Lumpkin that "We have a man here that's missing." I said, "It may not mean anything, but he isn't here." I first called down to the other warehouse and had Mr. Akin pull the application of the boy so I could get--quickly get his address in Irving and his general description, so I could be more accurate than I would be.

MR. BALL -- Was he the only man missing?

MR. TRULY -- The only one I noticed at that time. Now, I think there was one or two more, possibly Charles Givens, but I had seen him out in front walking up the street just before the firing of the gun.

MR. BALL -- But walking which way?

MR. TRULY -- The last time I saw him, he was walking across Houston Street, east on Elm.

MR. BALL -- Did you make a check of your employees afterwards?

MR. TRULY -- No, no; not complete. No, I just saw the group of the employees over there on the floor and I noticed this boy wasn't with them. With no thought in my mind except that I had seen him a short time before in the building, I noticed he wasn't there.

MR. BALL -- What do you mean "a short time before"?

MR. TRULY -- I would say 10 or 12 minutes.

MR. BALL -- You mean that's when you saw him in the lunchroom?

MR. TRULY -- In the lunchroom.

MR. BALL -- And you noticed he wasn't over there?

MR. TRULY -- Well, I asked Bill Shelley if he had seen him around and he said "No."

MR. BALL -- Now, you told Chief Lumpkin that there was a man missing?

MR. TRULY -- Yes; and he said, "Let's go tell Captain Fritz."


MR. BALL -- Now, you say that you knew that Givens was not there afterwards?

MR. TRULY -- I knew he wasn't there at the time of the shooting because I had seen him walk across the street--up the street.


MR. BALL -- Where is the last place you saw Givens?

MR. TRULY -- The last place I remember seeing Givens was in the middle of the crossing, in the middle of Houston Street.


MR. BALL -- Now, did Givens come back to the building later?

MR. TRULY -- I didn't see him--later on he did.


Also see the Warren Commission testimony of Depository employee Eddie Piper (at 7 H 389), in which Piper talks about a "lineup" of TSBD employees....

JOSEPH A. BALL -- Did you at any time after the shooting miss Lee Oswald—did you notice he wasn't around?

EDDIE PIPER -- No, sir; I didn't notice it until the lineup. You know, I just figured all the people was there.

MR. BALL -- You did notice it at the lineup, did you?

MR. PIPER -- Yes.

MR. BALL -- Tell us about that.

MR. PIPER -- I did notice it in the lineup.

MR. BALL -- What do you mean by the lineup?

MR. PIPER -- I mean, when they lined us all up and told us to give our name and address and just to go home.

MR. BALL -- You say "they"; who do you mean?

MR. PIPER -- The detective—whoever it was.

MR. BALL -- The police?

MR. PIPER -- Yes; they had the building all surrounded. They went to locking the doors back and front and told us to all come up and then go home, and I told him, I says, "I've got to go down in the basement and get my clothes," and he said, "You can go down and get your clothes and come on back up here, but give me your identification and your name and tell us where you are staying," and everybody heard me say that, I guess, and he let us out of the building, one by one, and I went on out the front door.


In the above testimony, however, Eddie Piper was talking about the POLICE conducting that "lineup", not Roy Truly or Bill Shelley of the TSBD staff.

But after reading Piper's testimony, it makes me wonder if perhaps the "lineup" that Piper talked about could be the "roll call" that Frazier and Lovelady remembered. ? ? ?

In any event, that makes THREE separate Depository employees—Frazier, Lovelady, and Piper (plus reporter Kent Biffle)—who each has made reference to some type of "roll call" or "lineup" being conducted in the Book Depository Building before the employees were sent home on 11/22/63.


And here is one last snippet of testimony from Roy Truly (at 3 H 230), which I think is pretty interesting. The conspiracy theorists who think Mr. Truly was part of a plot to frame and railroad Lee Harvey Oswald for JFK's murder must also think Roy was telling one whopper of a lie when he said these words to the Warren Commission: "I don't want to say anything about a boy I don't know anything about. This is a terrible thing." ....

MR. TRULY -- So Captain Fritz left the men he was with and walked over about 8 or 10 feet and said, "What is it, Mr. Truly?," or words to that effect. And I told him about this boy missing and gave him his address and telephone number and general description. And he says, "Thank you, Mr. Truly. We will take care of it." And I went back downstairs in a few minutes. There was a reporter followed me away from that spot, and asked me who Oswald was. I told the reporter, "You must have ears like a bird, or something. I don't want to say anything about a boy I don't know anything about. This is a terrible thing." Or words to that effect. I said, "Don't bother me. Don't mention the name. Let's find something out." So I went back downstairs with Chief Lumpkin.

David Von Pein
June 17-18, 2016
June 18-19, 2016
July 7-8, 2018

(PART 1141)


That you and Mr. Mack believe history was accurately and fully recorded by the Warren Commission does not make it so. It published a history that was both incomplete, and at times, misleading.


You conspiracists just can't get it through your heads that Mr. Mack is NOT an "LNer". He thinks there WAS a conspiracy. Why do you guys always totally ignore that fact when it comes to discussing Gary Mack of the Sixth Floor Museum?

As for the Warren Commission's investigation being "incomplete", let's face reality here -- for a conspiracy theorist like yourself, Greg, no history of this case could ever possibly hope to be "complete", because you keep piling on more and more stuff (aka: chaff) that only serves to muddy the waters when it comes to the basic bottom-line facts concerning Lee Oswald's guilt.

A great example of such muddying activity can be found in your posts in this thread. You've got enough six degrees of separation junk to cover a dozen murder cases. Does it ever end? And do you really think that stuff like the stuff quoted below (quoting you, Greg Parker) is relevant to who murdered JFK? Does any of this really change the physical evidence in the case--which is evidence that conclusively proves LHO's guilt in TWO murders in 1963?:

"At the same time young Lee lived with him, John Pic worked in the intelligence branch of the Coast Guard (The Port Security Unit) alongside the FBI and ONI chasing commie subversives out of the ports.

Lee's truancy commenced when he turned 13 and ended at the same time Pic left the PSU.

While all this was going on, research was being done into the Korean POWs and what made some "turn".

A Harvard graduate was inside the consulate office with the former Harvard CIA spotter when Oswald attempted to defect. His name was Ed Keenan. He was an expert in Soviet and Russian history, language and society. The same year that Oswald left the USSR, Keenan was kicked
out as a spy. His name is missing from your "history" and he is not mentioned anywhere in the 26 volumes. Why is that?"

[End Parker Quotes.]

Oh, brother, what a bunch of nothin'.

The single biggest thing that has made the JFK murder case seem so endlessly complicated (even though it's really a very simple crime to solve) is the fact that so many conspiracy theorists like Greg Parker, James Fetzer, Mark Lane, James DiEugenio, and John Armstrong (et al) have spent thousands of hours heaping more and more "suspects" and "connections" and minutiae and unsupportable theories onto the conspiracy table, making it absolutely impossible to make the record "complete".

As Vincent Bugliosi has said many times (and he's right): The JFK case is endless; there is no bottom to the pile.

And the only reason it's endless is because of the conspiracy theorists' never-ending quest to be right about some element of their perpetual conspiracy theories in the John F. Kennedy case.

But when an LNer on the other side takes time to examine some of these theories and "connections" more closely, the theory always turns out to be bogus.

Here are just a few examples:

1.) The subject of this very discussion -- the postmark on Oswald's envelope (CE773). There's now good reason to conclude that the "12" on that Dallas postmark doesn't have anything to do with any postal zone within the city of Dallas at all.

2.) The death of Domingo Benavides' brother, Eddy. For years, outer-fringe CTers were saying that Eddy Benavides was murdered as part of some continuing conspiracy plot in the JFK assassination (i.e., to send a message to Domingo prior to his giving his Warren Commission testimony). But recently it's been learned (via Dallas newspaper clippings) that Eddy Benavides didn't die in 1964, he died in 1965, a full year AFTER Domingo gave his WC testimony.

3.) The three tramps, whose arrest records were discovered years later (by a pair of conspiracy theorists, of all people), with the tramps turning out to be nothing but...real tramps.

4.) The "backyard photos are fake" theory, which, amazingly, many CTers still embrace to this day, even though we now know (as of 1977) that Lee Oswald himself personally signed one of the photos and gave it to George DeMohrenschildt.

5.) The people who scream that "The Single-Bullet Theory is physically impossible" should now be hiding their faces in shame and embarrassment here in the 21st century, due to the fine work done by people like Dale Myers, Failure Analysis, and the Discovery Channel -- all of whom have pretty much verified that the SBT is a workable and reasonable conclusion (especially when considering what the silly multi-gun anti-SBT alternatives have got to be if the SBT is untrue).

Give me a few more minutes and I could come up with lots more theories that have deservedly been flushed down the toilet since 1963.

I'll close with a few relevant and astute quotes from the great Jean Davison:

"The conspiracists' methods produce a surreal world. Every discrepancy is interpreted as a crack in the official stone wall through which one may glimpse the ugly truth of what happened. Behind the wall are disconnected scenes, each with its own set of conspirators. On close examination, many of these scenes evaporate." -- Jean Davison; Page 277 of "Oswald's Game"


"The reader [of pro-conspiracy books] will understand the difficulty these writers have sidestepped if he or she tries to invent a story that explains why an INNOCENT Oswald went to Irving for 'curtain rods', left his wedding ring behind the next morning, brought a package into the Depository, and so on. Because the evidence against Oswald is strong, any detailed reconstruction that argues a frame-up will inevitably sound less plausible than one that argues his guilt."
-- Jean Davison; Page 276 of "Oswald's Game"


"Instead of focusing on the important issue -- that Oswald in fact ordered the weapon that was delivered to his P.O. Box, the CTs focus on the "capillaries," nitpicking the P.O.'s faulty record-keeping." -- Jean Davison; January 17, 2006


"The assassination of John Kennedy was neither an act of random violence nor a conspiracy. It was carried out as a result of Oswald's character and background interacting with circumstance." -- Jean Davison; Page 297 of "Oswald's Game"

David Von Pein
August 7, 2012

(PART 1140)


I think it is silly at this late date to theorize over which bullets went where, that were fired by Oswald, because Oswald has never been proven to have been firing any shots in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. In fact, it is shown beyond reasonable doubt that the Carcano claimed to be Oswald's weapon was never fired either.

I have broken down that argument previously in showing that the Parkland Bullet is certainly not CE399, and that the ONLY place CE399 could originate from is the FBI itself. CE399 has all the hallmarks of a bullet fired into cotton wadding. It certainly did not strike any bone.


So this Carcano bullet [the "Fackler Bullet"] (which broke a human wrist bone) is a fake too, eh?....


No, it certainly appears to be a Carcano bullet. BUT it wasn't fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63 either. Was it, Mr Von Pein?


So what? The point is --- the CTers are dead wrong when they constantly claim that a Carcano bullet couldn't possibly have come out in decent shape after striking a wrist bone of a human being.

The key, of course, is the SPEED of the bullet at the moment it hit the hard bone. CTers will always ignore the "speed" issue. Cyril Wecht constantly ignores the key issues surrounding the condition of CE399. As do all other CTers.


Cyril Wecht is a forensic pathologist. And YOU, Von Pein, are qualified in exactly WHAT?

You certainly aren't qualified in debate. You certainly do not make the grade in critical reasoning. What is it that you are good at, Von Pein? Can you bake a cherry pie?


Good boy, Willy. Just keep pretending that Dr. Wecht has treated the CE399 topic fairly and properly, even though we all know he has done no such thing. But as long as Wecht tries to discredit the perfectly true Single-Bullet Theory, you're happy and content. Good boy.


I read the details of the Fackler experiments, Von Pein. [Click Here. The document is also embedded below.] That bullet was NOT fired with a full charge of powder that a standard Carcano uses.

He reduced the charges in increments to slow the bullet down to the speed it would have been traveling had it gone through Kennedy's neck, then through Connally's armpit, shattering a rib, and then exiting Connally's chest and striking the wrist.

In other words, Von Pein, that bullet didn't do a fraction of the work that CE399 is claimed to have accomplished.

Fackler's experiment was simply ill-conceived.


Of course the Fackler bullet was fired with a reduced powder charge. Hence, it was only going 1100 feet per second when it struck the cadaver's wrist. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE EXPERIMENT! It was meant to slow down the bullet to simulate the speed of the bullet when it struck Connally's wrist after it had departed Kennedy's neck AND Connally's chest.

And, of course, an even better experiment was done in Australia in 2004, which all desperate conspiracy hobbyists attempt to trash with zeal. But they fail at trashing it, as usual.

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet


The whole point of the experiment fails because Fackler's bullet did NOT do all the work attributed to CE399. It only hit one bone, it did not pass through tough dermis, clothing, shatter a rib, before striking the cadaver's wrist.

If you do not grasp how this disqualifies the experiment, as it does NOT match the conditions CE399 is proposed to have been through, then you are again showing your lack of critical reasoning skills.


Then you can't possibly promote Wecht's persistent hollering about the Warren Commission's experiments either, because we all know that those WC test bullets that Dr. Wecht loves to promote as PROOF that the SBT is baloney also "did NOT do all the work attributed to CE399". Not even close. They didn't even use a reduced powder charge for the "wrist" bullet test. So, why would Wecht (or anyone) claim that that test bullet could be used to discredit CE399 and the SBT? That test bullet does no such thing, and Wecht has to know why. Ergo, my whole point is now revisited regarding Dr. Wecht....

"Good boy, Willy. Just keep pretending that Dr. Wecht has treated the CE399 topic fairly and properly, even though we all know he has done no such thing."
-- DVP; 6/14/16

I love it when a CTer falls unwittingly into a pot and the neighboring kettle.


Dr. Fackler's experiment wasn't designed to perform everything that CE399 did. You know that, of course. But you won't be happy until two human beings are sacrificed to re-create the SBT. (And I'm sure even that wouldn't satisfy CTers either. The person playing Connally would be disqualified because one of his toenails was a millimeter longer than the real John Connally's.)


"Dr. Fackler's experiment wasn't designed to perform everything that
CE399 did."
-- Von Pein

That is right, and that is why it didn't prove what it set out to prove.


Dead wrong. Martin Fackler's (limited) experiment did prove what it set out to prove --- i.e., it proved that a Carcano bullet, when fired into a human wrist at a reduced velocity, CAN and WILL emerge in very good condition, similar to CE399. That's obviously what Dr. Fackler was attempting to demonstrate when he did that bullet experiment for the ABA mock trial of Oswald in San Francisco in 1992.


The clearest indication is that the rifle [and] the bullets were stage props, and the "sniper's nest" was a staged scene.

The evidence goes beyond merely an argument of a broken chain of custody from Parkland to FBI DC headquarters, it is evidence of intent to deceive, and criminal malfeasance; evidence of a criminal conspiracy.


And the several witnesses (Brennan, Euins, Couch, and Jackson) who saw A GUN in that window were all liars, is that it?


Someone had to have set up the scene. But do I think Brennan was a liar. Arnold Rowland and Amos Euins gave descriptions that were more precise than Brennan's, but which did not match Oswald's appearance. Bob Jackson and Malcolm Couch saw a rifle barrel being withdrawn from the window.

You've got some runny diarrhea for proof there, Von Pein.



But the goofy plotters never thought to plant a really good "IT WAS OSWALD" witness in Dealey Plaza. They only cared about people saying they saw the RIFLE, not the KILLER himself. (Hilarious.)

The CT excuses couldn't be any more inane if the CTers tried.


Yet the 7 witnesses (we know about) claiming they saw a rifle protruding from that window, none of them said they noticed the rather obvious telescopic sight on the M-C found there.

Got a link explaining that, Davy?


Brilliant, Dex. Four witnesses (are they ALL plants?) say they see a quick glance of a rifle, but we're supposed to dismiss them all, per CTers, because they failed to note the scope on the weapon.

Is it any wonder CTers are chasing their tails (and tales)...and shadows?

David Von Pein
June 14, 2016

(PART 1139)


James Tague was NOT nicked.


James Tague was almost certainly nicked by something during the shooting of President Kennedy.

It's either that--or believe that Tague was one heck of a quick liar. Because Tague, within literally MINUTES of the shooting, said this to Dallas Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers:

"I recall something sting me on the face while I was standing down there." [WC Testimony of James T. Tague; at 7 H 553.]

And Tague's story about telling Walthers about being struck in the face is confirmed by Walthers:

"He [Tague] said, "Are you looking to see where some bullets may have struck?" And I said, "Yes." He says..."something struck me on the face."" [WC Testimony of Eddy (Buddy) Walthers; at 7 H 546.]

Plus: there was a "fresh" mark (with lead on it) on the curb near Tague's position on Main Street, which is corroborating evidence for Tague's "I was stung" story.

Whether or not Tague had blood or a cut on his face is largely irrelevant. Who cares? The fact he was hit in the face by something during the shooting is the most important thing.

And Tague was stung on the RIGHT cheek, btw, which means that the photo of Tague showing a mark on his LEFT cheek is not related to his 11/22/63 cheek injury at all.

I'm not positive, but I think Tague might even say he was stung on his "RIGHT CHEEK" during his April 21, 2005, interview on Black Op Radio, here.

EDIT -- Also see Tague's own e-mails to Mike Williams, reprinted below. (Thanks, Mike. And thanks to Jim Tague too.) ....

“I have had an ongoing problem with people getting it right. I had a small scratch almost healed on my left cheek that had nothing to do with the shooting, a photographer took a picture that day of that scratch and author after author used that photo without consulting me. Only 2 authors took the time to interview me and get it right, Harold Weisberg and Jim Bishop. I was peppered in the right cheek by debris hard enough to break the skin and bring 3 or 4 drops of blood.
I have stated the above time after time for 47 years.”
-- James Tague; May 12, 2010


In the interest of being thorough, I asked JT [James Tague] about the scuttlebutt saying that he claimed he cut himself shaving that day. His reply is as follows:

“Nicked myself shaving is a new one on me. Never heard that before. Something stung me during the shooting, moments later Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers pointed out that I had blood on my face, Dallas Morning News photographer Tom Dillard took pictures of where a bullet hit the curb, the removed curbstone is in the National Archives, the FBI lab confirmed traces of lead and antimony, 11 witnesses have testified they saw the debris fly up when the bullet hit the street. Please do your research and get the facts correct. I was not standing there shaving.” -- James Tague; May 12, 2010


James Tague, btw, was born in the small town of Plainfield, Indiana. And Plainfield is just 7 miles from where I'm typing this message right now. Small world.

David Von Pein
May 12, 2010

(PART 1138)


Maybe you didn't even read Videotoaster. Maybe you weren't even aware of it. Or maybe you were embarrassed by it. [Dale] Myers was featured to show off Lightwave software. The editors accidentally selected a frame from his video which shows Connally too far to his right. So far that any bullet hitting JFK's back and exiting his throat could not possibly hit Connally's right armpit and would have to hit the middle of his back.


I scanned in the cover of the Videotoaster magazine which shows one frame from the Dale Myers video of the limousine driving through Dealey Plaza. Then I placed a white dot on where Connally's entrance wound was on his coat. .... Myers accidentally reveals that there was plenty of room for a bullet to pass over JFK's right shoulder and hit Connally's right armpit, just as Specter accidentally did with CE 903. .... Connally is too far to the right.


You're funny, Tony.

This "Video Toaster" view of the victims isn't the same as Lee Harvey Oswald's Sniper's-Nest point-of-view at all:

The car isn't even on Elm Street yet in the above photo. What makes you think Dale Myers has got it all wrong when the above picture doesn't even purport the "Sniper's View" of the victims from the TSBD? Oswald didn't shoot from Main & Houston; he shot from Elm & Houston, six floors up.

Here's what Oswald was seeing at the time of the SBT:

If JFK's killer had been located at Main & Houston, you might have a point, Tony. But Kennedy wasn't shot from that location. So your constant "Myers Is A Liar" whining is totally meaningless and moot (as usual). Just as I knew it would be before I ever clicked on your Video Toaster photo.


My point is that it just illustrates that what I said is true. Connally was too far to the right to be hit by a SBT bullet and there was plenty of room for a bullet to hit him directly without having to go through JFK first. Certain deadheads here are not able to visualize that, so the Myers cartoon SHOWS how it is possible.


If JFK had been shot in the upper back near the Main & Houston intersection, and also from a position just exactly where the "virtual camera" was located in the Video Toaster animated photo--then, yes, you might have a point.

But, to reiterate this vital fact, the Video Toaster image proves none of what you claim it proves--because the Toaster picture shows the car on HOUSTON STREET, not on ELM STREET.

In addition, the Video Toaster image certainly is not showing nearly the correct angle to match the angle that Oswald was shooting from, which was 60 feet up in the Depository. And there's also the 3-degree slope of Elm Street that would have to be factored in, too. There's no 3-degree slant on Houston Street that I am aware of.

So why, Tony, are you even pretending that the Video Toaster image is identical to the view and shooting angles that Oswald was faced with as he fired his SBT bullet into the President's upper back from the sixth floor of the Book Depository? They are two completely different angles entirely.

You've proved nothing, because you're comparing plums with apricots (or, in this instance, Houston Street angles with Elm Street angles).


I never pretended that the cover frame is identical to the view from the sniper's nest.


Yes, in essence, that's pretty much exactly what you claimed. Because if you admit the angles are totally different, then what the hell's your point in the first place?

In reality, you have no point--because the angles are obviously different due to the fact JFK wasn't shot at a low angle from the corner of Main & Houston. (Duh.)


They are two completely different angles. That is the point.


You're making my argument for me. Thanks.


Myers screwed up and accidentally showed how Connally was too far to the right for a SBT to work.


But only if Kennedy and Connally had been shot at the corner of Houston and Main Streets by a gunman who was situated at a much lower location than was Oswald in the Depository. That's the point you keep missing or deliberately sidestepping with more Tony Talk©.

David Von Pein
June 19-24, 2012
June 23, 2012

(PART 1137)


[Buell Wesley] Frazier testified that Lovelady was "SITTING on the steps of the doorway".


Rossley actually thinks that Billy Lovelady would have been SITTING on the steps at exactly 12:30 PM when JFK drove by the Book Depository Building.

Which would mean that he would have likely had his view blocked (or substantially so) by the other people who were STANDING in front of him.

Maybe Lovelady (and others) WERE "sitting" on the steps at some point PRIOR to 12:30. But at 12:30, Lovelady was standing on the steps. And the Altgens photo proves it:

BTW, I just now looked through Wesley Frazier's Warren Commission testimony and his Clay Shaw Trial testimony, and there is no reference at all to Frazier saying that Lovelady was "sitting" on the steps. In fact, there's testimony to the contrary, with Frazier specifically using the word "standing" in his Shaw Trial testimony when referring to Lovelady:

"Right down in front of me at the bottom of the steps my foreman Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady were standing there." -- Buell Wesley Frazier; 2/13/69


In case some people might not realize this fact, I'll point it out:

Warren Commission Exhibit No. 369 (which is a picture of James Altgens' photograph showing Doorway Man) was actually marked with TWO different arrows pointing toward Lovelady (aka Doorway Man).

CE369 was first marked with an arrow by Buell Wesley Frazier on March 11, 1964, at 2 H 242.

And that same exhibit was then marked with another arrow by Billy Lovelady himself on April 7, 1964 (at 6 H 338).

When looking at the picture of CE369, I cannot see the second arrow that was drawn in. I see only one dark arrow to the left (west) of Lovelady. But the testimony is very clear -- TWO arrows were drawn on CE369, the first one by Wesley Frazier when the exhibit was first introduced into evidence by the Warren Commission on March 11th; and a second arrow marked on the same picture by Billy Lovelady on April 7th.

Now, from the testimony, it's a bit unclear as to which witness (Frazier or Lovelady) drew in the dark arrow that is easily visible in CE369. But that visible arrow might very well have been drawn by Frazier and not Lovelady. But I'm not entirely sure of that.

But Joseph Ball's instructions to Lovelady might give a clue. Ball said this to Lovelady:

"Take a pen or pencil and mark an arrow where you are. .... Draw an arrow down to that; do it in the dark. You got an arrow in the dark and one in the white pointing toward you." [6 H 338]

So, via the above testimony, it's possible that Lovelady's arrow is "in the dark" and cannot be easily seen.

I suppose this confusion about who drew the dark arrow pointing to Doorway Man in CE369 will spark some additional controversy concerning the true identity of the man in the TSBD doorway, with some conspiracy theorists possibly wanting to now claim that Billy Lovelady didn't really mark CE369 at all with an arrow in 1964.

But it's quite clear to me from the Warren Commission records that BOTH Wesley Frazier AND Billy Lovelady drew separate arrows pointing to the SAME PERSON (Doorway Man) in Commission Exhibit No. 369.

And, of course, as I've pointed out in previous posts, there's also Wesley Frazier's testimony at the 1986 mock trial in London, where Frazier identified Doorway Man as Lovelady.

David Von Pein
June 4, 2012

(PART 119)