Here are some of my hand-picked favorite quotes and excerpts from the book "RECLAIMING HISTORY", written by Vincent Bugliosi, which was published in May of 2007 and is, in my opinion, the best book ever written about the assassination of President Kennedy. Enjoy and savor....

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi [VB]; Page xliii of “Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy” (W.W. Norton & Co.)(c.2007)


"In addition to Oswald's palm print being found on the underside of the Carcano's barrel, we know that Oswald's fingerprints were found within an inch of the trigger of the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The evidence is clear and unimpeachable—Lee Harvey Oswald bought, owned, and handled the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor. And...it was this weapon that was used to murder John F. Kennedy." -- VB; Page 804


"With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the "single-bullet theory" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is now a proven fact, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- VB; Pages 489-490


"The conspiracy alterationists are so incredibly zany that they have now gone beyond their allegation that key frames of the Zapruder film were altered by the conspirators to support their false story of what took place, to claiming that the conspirators altered all manner of people and objects in Dealey Plaza that couldn't possibly have any bearing on the president's murder. .... The alterationists have even claimed that at some point after the assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey Plaza were moved to different locations and/or replaced with poles of different height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their palate?" -- VB; Pages 506-507


"When one removes the Dictabelt "fourth shot" from the HSCA findings, all that is really left is the HSCA's conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy, and the fact that the committee found no evidence of any person or group having conspired with Oswald, the identical findings of the Warren Commission." -- VB; Page xxii


"Conspiracy theorists have attacked the case against Oswald as being weak because it was "only circumstantial," the implication being that any case based on circumstantial evidence is not solid. .... But nothing could be further from the truth. ....

Not only was there physical circumstantial evidence against Oswald [e.g., guns, bullets, and fingerprints traced to the defendant], but there was an enormous amount of non-physical circumstantial evidence, including the very most powerful in this category: his flight from the murder scene, his resisting arrest, and his telling one provable lie after another upon his apprehension, all showing an unmistakable consciousness of guilt."
-- VB; Page 528 of Endnotes


"There is a simple fact of life that Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists either don't realize or fail to take into consideration, something I learned from my experience as a prosecutor; namely, that in the real world—you know, the world in which when I talk you can hear me, there will be a dawn tomorrow, et cetera—you cannot be innocent and yet still have a prodigious amount of highly incriminating evidence against you. That's just not what happens in life. .... But with Lee Harvey Oswald, everything, everything points towards his guilt." -- VB; Page 952


"Though conspiracy theorists are almost unanimous in believing that the president was shot from the front and his throat wound was an entrance wound, they are strangely silent as to what happened to this bullet after it entered the president's throat. .... It would be virtually impossible for a bullet entering the soft tissue of the neck at a speed of 2,000 feet per second to stop inside the neck and not exit the body." -- VB; Page 416


"The very fact that the Warren Commission, by its noncategorical language ("very persuasive evidence"), did not unequivocally rule out the possibility that Kennedy and Connally were struck by separate bullets (in effect, not ruling out the possibility of a conspiracy) is itself extremely powerful evidence that not only didn't the Commission, or any portion thereof, set out to suppress the truth from the American people, but that its conclusion of no evidence of a conspiracy was not, as conspiracy theorists believe, a predetermined conclusion." -- VB; Page 457


"It couldn't have been more obvious within hours after the assassination that Oswald had murdered Kennedy, and within no more than a day or so thereafter that he had acted alone. And this is precisely the conclusion that virtually all local (Dallas), state (Texas), and federal (FBI and Secret Service) law enforcement agencies came to shortly after the assassination. Nothing has ever changed their conclusion or proved it wrong." -- VB; Page 984


"The single most important discovery, and one that establishes with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images." -- VB; Page 223 of Endnotes


"If conspirators were to use a fake photograph to frame Oswald, why would they take all these [backyard] photos—thereby increasing the risk, by each photo, of their fakery being detected—when just one photo would accomplish their purpose? .... What reason would the conspirators have for taking multiple photos? Even if it was to ensure that they at least got one good photo, after they got their good photo, why wouldn't they destroy the others?" -- VB; Page 398 of Endnotes


"One could safely say that David Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something." -- VB; Page 1066


"Very few people are more critical than I. And I expect incompetence wherever I turn, always pleasantly surprised to find its absence. Competence, of course, is all relative, and I find the Warren Commission operated at an appreciably higher level of competence than any investigative body I know of. It is my firm belief that anyone who feels the Warren Commission did not do a good job investigating the murder of Kennedy has never been a part of a murder investigation." -- VB; Page xxxii


"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core—Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone—into its present form of the most complex murder case, by far, in world history.

Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation.

With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or there to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And that, of course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has done."
-- VB; Page xxvi


"Since Kennedy's motorcade route past the Book Depository Building wasn't selected until November 18, and announced in a paper for the first time on the morning of November 19 in the Dallas Morning News, we not only thereby know that Oswald getting a job at the Book Depository Building on October 15 was unrelated to President Kennedy's trip to Dallas and the assassination, but it would seem that any conspiracy involving Oswald as the hit man would have had to be hatched no earlier than November 19, just three days before Kennedy's death (i.e., unless the argument is made—which I have yet to hear even the daffy conspiracy buffs make—that wherever Kennedy went when he came to Dallas, it was Oswald's job to track him down and kill him).

Surely no person with an ounce of sense could possibly believe that the CIA, mob, and so on, recruited Oswald to kill Kennedy just three days before the assassination."
-- VB; Page 1444


"In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- VB; Page 964


"The [Warren] Commission [quoting Arlen Specter]..."chose men of outstanding reputation, like Joe Ball of California, a leader of the California bar for many years...Similar selections were made...from New York and Chicago and Des Moines and New Orleans and Philadelphia and Washington, so that every conceivable pain was taken to select people who were totally independent, WHICH IS HARDLY THE WAY YOU SET OUT TO ORGANIZE A TRUTH-CONCEALING COMMISSION"." -- VB; Page 342


"The notion that major federal agencies of government (or even one such agency) would decide to murder Kennedy because they didn't agree with certain policies of his is sufficiently demented to be excluded at the portals of any respectable mental institution short of an insane asylum." -- VB; Page 987


"Even if [Jack] Ruby was at Parkland, to assume he was there to plant a bullet on Connally's stretcher to frame Oswald for Kennedy's murder, making Ruby a part of the conspiracy to murder Kennedy, is...too ludicrous for words. The philosophy of the zany conspiracy theorists is that if something is theoretically possible (as most things are), then it's not only probable, it happened." -- VB; Page 450 of Endnotes


"Since it has been established beyond all doubt that Oswald killed Kennedy, the conspiracy theorists who propound the idea of the CIA being behind Oswald's act are necessarily starting out in a very deep hole before they even take their first breath of air. This is so because Oswald was a Marxist, and a Marxist being in league with U.S. intelligence just doesn't ring true." -- VB; Page 1195


"The whole issue of what stretcher the bullet [Commission Exhibit No. 399] was found on, Connally's or some unknown person's, is a giant nonissue. Since we know that the bullet was fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle, and we know it wasn't found on Kennedy's stretcher, it had to have been found on Connally's stretcher." -- VB; Page 431 of Endnotes


"[Mark] Lane...elevated to an art form the technique of quoting part of a witness's testimony to convey a meaning completely opposite to what the whole would convey. A perfect example occurs when he quotes part of Jack Ruby's testimony before the Warren Commission, in which Ruby literally begged Chief Justice Earl Warren to bring him to Washington to give further testimony.

"Ruby made it plain that if the Commission took him from the Dallas County Jail and permitted him to testify in Washington, he could tell more there; it was impossible for him to tell the whole truth so long as he was in jail in Dallas," writes Lane. Lane gives the following excerpt from Ruby's testimony before the Warren Commission:

Ruby: "But you [Warren] are the only one that can save me. I think you can."

Warren: "Yes?"

Ruby: "But by delaying, you lose the chance. And all I want to do is tell the truth, and that is all."

The unmistakable implication that Lane seeks to convey is that if Ruby were questioned in Washington, he would divulge the existence of a conspiracy. Yet the very next words that Ruby uttered after "that is all" were "There was no conspiracy." These four words, which completely rebutted the entire thrust of Lane's contention, were carefully omitted from 'Rush to Judgment'."
-- VB; Page 1004


"[Oswald's] attempt, just seven months [before JFK's murder], to kill Major General Edwin A. Walker clearly showed his propensity for murder, at least where his target was political. .... When we couple his capacity for violence with his deep hostility for people and institutions, there can be little question that Oswald was a ticking time bomb, and it was only a matter of time before something like the Kennedy assassination occurred. .... Remarkably, many major books on the assassination by Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists don't even mention Oswald's attempt to murder Walker. Not one word." -- VB; Page 942


"If, indeed, a fourth shot was fired that day, why did only 6 witnesses hear four shots according to two studies and only 8 witnesses according to another, whereas the vast majority of witnesses heard only three shots? .... If you had to wager your home on who is right, whose opinion would you endorse? Can there really be any question? ....

[And] if a second gunman was firing at the presidential limousine that day from the grassy knoll, why is it that only 4 of [author Josiah] Thompson's 172 witnesses, 4 of the HSCA's 178, and 5 of London Weekend Television's 189 thought they heard bullets being fired from two directions?"
-- VB; Page 849


"One...problem that rises to the dignity of a true mystery .... a man's leather wallet [was supposedly found] near the puddle of blood where [Police Officer J.D.] Tippit's body had lain. The wallet, per [FBI agent James] Hosty, was Oswald's. .... If I had to wager, I'd conclude it was Tippit's wallet, and the reason [WFAA-TV cameraman Ron] Reiland stated...that it was Tippit's wallet is that the police had informed him at the scene that it was. .... It makes no sense to me that the Dallas police and detectives, several of whom were Tippit's friends, would keep from the world that his killer's wallet was found near his body." -- VB; Pages 453 and 456 of Endnotes


"The fact was that Jack Ruby never saw a crowd that he didn't want to be a part of. On that fateful Sunday morning, what he saw at City Hall motivated him to take himself, with his hair-trigger temper, with his desire to right any wrong, with his penchant for taking the law into his own hands, into that basement." -- VB; Page 1120


"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. .... The first observation I have to make is that I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.

Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.

Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible.

I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"."
-- VB; Page 442 of Endnotes


"[Jim] Garrison, of course, smelled a rat in [James] Braden's story and had his investigators pursue the matter. Remarkably and unbelievably for Garrison, he concluded that "after sustained analysis...it was clear that Braden's contribution to the assassination was a large zero." When you can be cleared of conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination by the likes of Jim Garrison, you must be clean." -- VB; Page 823 of Endnotes


"I personally know of no American prosecutor who has ever abused his office's power of subpoena and power to file unwarranted criminal charges against perceived adversaries to the degree that Garrison did in the [Clay] Shaw case." -- VB; Page 1369


"From all the evidence it clearly appears that the Secret Service sightings on the grassy knoll and behind the Book Depository Building after the shooting are entitled to about the same weight as Oswald's statement in Captain Fritz's office about being confronted by a Secret Service agent in front of the Book Depository Building [as Oswald was leaving the building at 12:33 PM on November 22]." -- VB; Page 871


"The conspiracy theorists have tried to convert the FBI's attempt (in destroying Oswald's note to Hosty) to avoid the accusation it could have prevented the assassination, and the CIA's attempt to cover up its misdeeds on another matter (plot to kill Castro), into an attempt by both agencies to cover up their participation in [JFK's] assassination. This is the world of non sequiturs and enormous broad jumps in which the conspiracy theorists dwell and for which they are justifiably famous." -- VB; Page 1346


"Perhaps the most famous...of the "other" assassins are the "three tramps". The fact that there never was any evidence at all of their guilt is irrelevant to the conspiracy theorists. To the buffs, there was one big piece of incriminating evidence against the tramps: they weren't Lee Harvey Oswald! And in the balmy and unhinged conspiracy universe, no evidence of guilt is stronger against someone than that he isn't Lee Harvey Oswald." -- VB; Page 929


"The notion that LBJ would actually decide to have Kennedy murdered (or be a party to such a plot by others) is not one that, to my knowledge, any rational and sensible student of the assassination has ever entertained for a moment. But conspiracy theorists are not rational and sensible when it comes to the Kennedy assassination." -- VB; Pages 1274-1275


"When Oswald got in the cab shortly after getting off the bus for the trip to Oak Cliff, and the cab drove off, the cabdriver [William Whaley], seeing all the police cars crisscrossing everywhere with their sirens screaming, said to Oswald, "I wonder what the hell is the uproar?" The cabdriver said Oswald "never said anything."

Granted, there are people who are very stingy with their words, and this nonresponse by Oswald, by itself, is not conclusive of his guilt. But ask yourself this: If a thousand people were put in Oswald's place in the cab, particularly if they, like Oswald, were at the scene of the assassination in Dealey Plaza and knew what had happened, how many do you suppose wouldn't have said one single word in response to the cabby's question?"
-- VB; Pages 959-960


"The twistboard was the latest gadget Jack [Ruby] was selling, and he was very serious about it. His roommate, George Senator, said that in the last few weeks before the assassination, Ruby had been getting up...earlier than normal to visit department stores in Dallas in an effort to promote the board. Just, of course, what you would expect a big mob hit man to be doing in the weeks and days leading up to the biggest day of his mob career, when he would be "silencing" Oswald for them." -- VB; Page 1096


"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists display an astonishing inability to see the vast forest of evidence proving Oswald's guilt because of their penchant for obsessing over the branches, even the leaves of individual trees. And, because virtually all of them have no background in criminal investigation, they look at each leaf (piece of evidence) by itself, hardly ever in relation to, and in the context of, all the other evidence. .... Within a few hours of the assassination, virtually all of Dallas law enforcement already knew Oswald had murdered Kennedy. Indeed, it was obvious to nearly everyone, not just law enforcement. At 4:45 p.m. on the day of the assassination, NBC network news anchorman Bill Ryan reported that "all circumstantial evidence points to the guilt of the suspect Lee Oswald." Exactly what happened was that obvious within hours of the shooting." -- VB; Pages 952-953


"No evidence plus no common sense equals go home, zipper your mouth up, take a walk, forget about it, get a life. Of course, the hard-core conspiracy theorists, who desperately want to cling to their illusions, are not going to do any of these things. ....

If these conspiracy theorists were to accept the truth, not only would they be invalidating a major part of their past, but many would be forfeiting their future. That's why talking to them about logic and common sense is like talking to a man without ears. The bottom line is that they want there to be a conspiracy and are constitutionally allergic to anything that points away from it."
-- VB; Pages 1437-1438


"[Lamar] Waldron started his book with nothing to say, added a whole lot of nothing to it, and ended up with nothing. .... Waldron's book is one of the longest (904 pages) ever written on the assassination and...gives the outward appearance of being a scholarly work. .... So to expose, as I believe I have, the ridiculous nature of a book like this demonstrates, more than with the average conspiracy book, the absolutely utter and total bankruptcy of the conspiracy movement in this country." -- VB; Page 766 of Endnotes


"Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a little like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." -- VB; Page xiv


"It's always assumed, of course, that the imposter would impersonate Oswald [in Mexico City] without his knowledge, that he would be someone Oswald did not know. But [HSCA investigator Edwin] Lopez raises the possibility—are you seated?—that maybe the impersonator was "one of his [Oswald's] companions" in Mexico City. To think that our tax money went into the preparation of the Lopez Report." -- VB; Page 1053


"The Garrison devotees have apparently never been troubled by the question of why [Clay] Shaw and [David] Ferrie would select Oswald, of all people, as their hit man...or patsy when they had no way of knowing that the president would even come back to New Orleans, where Oswald lived at the time.

Or were they planning to finance Oswald as he traveled, Carcano in his violin case, all around the country stalking Kennedy for a good opportunity to kill him or be the patsy for someone else who would? If the latter, aren't they troubled by the fact that we know, from Oswald's known whereabouts, that he never did travel around the country?"
-- VB; Page 847 of Endnotes


"Conspiracy theorists rank Oswald's second-floor lunchroom encounter with Dallas police officer Marrion L. Baker near the very top of the list of reasons to believe Oswald didn't kill Kennedy. According to the critics, Oswald couldn't possibly have gotten from the sixth-floor sniper's nest to the second-floor lunchroom in the 90-second time frame estimated by the Warren Commission. .... Once again, however, the critics have exaggerated and misrepresented the circumstances surrounding this encounter in their curious zeal to exonerate Oswald of the crime he so obviously committed." -- VB; Page 837


"[Oliver Stone] wanted his movie, he wrote with towering arrogance in the January 1992 edition of 'Premiere' [magazine], to "replace the Warren Commission Report." Can you imagine that? A Hollywood producer wants his movie to replace the official and most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history. .... Arrogance thought it already had a bad name. That was before it met Oliver Stone." -- VB; Page 1358


"Oliver Stone, in his movie 'JFK', never saw fit to present for his audience's consideration one single piece of evidence that Oswald killed Kennedy! So a murder case (the Kennedy assassination) where there is an almost unprecedented amount of evidence of guilt against the killer (Oswald) is presented to millions of moviegoers as one where there wasn't one piece of evidence at all. There oughta be a law against things like this." -- VB; Page 1386


"My God. RFK somehow finds out that Humes and Boswell, as part of an apparent conspiracy to cover up the assassination of his brother, used a brain other than his brother's to conduct their examination. So he [RFK] goes out and finds, seizes, and then gets rid of his brother's substitute brain [instead of taking the proper action to prosecute these criminal autopsists to the fullest extent of the law]. Is there any end to this silliness?" -- VB; Page 443


"With respect to the Kennedy assassination, once you establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done, then you also necessarily know that there is an answer (whether the answer is known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the endless alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the conspiracy theorists have raised through the years about Oswald's guilt." -- VB; Page 953


"One can see why [Perry] Russo needed truth serum and hypnosis to recall hearing three people plot to murder President Kennedy four years earlier. Without truth serum and hypnosis, a plot to murder the president of the United States just wasn't important enough for someone like him to remember." -- VB; Page 1374


"On July 17 [1967]...the pathetic [Dean] Andrews called a press conference and not only confessed again that "Clay Shaw ain't Clay Bertrand," but finally admitted that Clay Bertrand "never existed," saying he made the whole story up to get attention for himself." -- VB; Page 1394


"Although it would not be too easy to have any less credibility than Mrs. [Jean] Hill, conspiracy buffs, in their desperation, have elevated her to an iconic stature, Hill being one of the very brightest stars in the conspiracy theory constellation. .... [Hill's] Dealey Plaza observations are cited and accepted without criticism in virtually all the major conspiracy books on the assassination." -- VB; Page 877


"From the first moment that I heard that [Arlen] Specter had come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it. .... Since [the members of the Warren Commission staff] all knew that the bullet, fired from Kennedy's right rear, had passed through soft tissue in Kennedy's body on a straight line, and that Connally was seated to the president's left front, the bullet, after emerging from Kennedy's body, would have had to go on and hit Connally for the simple reason it had nowhere else to go. How could it be that among many bright lawyers earnestly focusing their minds on this issue, only Specter saw it? ....

When I asked [Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005] if, indeed, Arlen Specter was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously." When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself, Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg"."
-- VB; Pages 302-303 of Endnotes


"The dreadful illogic and superficiality of the conspiracy theorists' modus operandi has inevitably resulted in the following situation: Though they have dedicated their existence to trying to poke holes in the Warren Commission's findings, they have failed abysmally to tell us (if the Warren Commission was wrong) what actually did happen.

In other words, other than blithely tossing out names, they have failed to offer any credible evidence of who, if not Oswald, killed Kennedy. Nor have they offered any credible evidence at all of who the conspirators behind the assassination were.

So after more than forty years, if we were to rely on these silly people, we'd have an assassination without an assassin (since, they assure us, Oswald didn't kill Kennedy), and a conspiracy without conspirators. Not a simple achievement."
-- VB; Page 982


"The vast majority of the witnesses on the various mysterious-death lists of the conspiracy theorists (e.g., Jim Marrs's book 'Crossfire' lists 104 witnesses) weren't connected with the case in any known way whatsoever, and had absolutely nothing of any known value to say about the case. .... But of those who did have a connection—such as Roger Craig, Earlene Roberts, Lee Bowers, and Buddy Walthers—all of them, without exception, had already told their story, most of them on the public record, so what could possibly be achieved by killing them? .... The only thing mysterious is how anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature could possibly buy into such ["Mysterious Deaths"] nonsense." -- VB; Pages 1018 and 1020


"Even if we were to assume the total invalidity of the polygraph test given to Ruby, his willingness—in fact, his insistence—that he be given one is strong circumstantial evidence of his innocent state of mind and the truthfulness about everything he said.

Lay people, including Ruby, for the most part believe that lie detector tests can detect lies. It is a considerable stretch to believe that if Ruby were guilty of being involved in a conspiracy, he would insist on taking a polygraph test, supremely confident he could conceal his guilt and pass the test."
-- VB; Page 645 of Endnotes


"Instead of referring to [Clay] Shaw (or "the defendant") a great number of times as he tried to connect him to the conspiracy and murder, as any prosecutor would do if he believed the person he was prosecuting was guilty, unbelievably Garrison only referred to Shaw once in his entire summation [to the jury], and then not to say that the evidence showed he was guilty. Not once did Garrison tell the jury he had proved Shaw's guilt or that the evidence pointed toward Shaw's guilt. ....

[A] benefit to Garrison of only charging Shaw with conspiracy [instead of both conspiracy and murder itself] is that under Louisiana law...when conspiracy alone is alleged, only 9 out of 12 jurors must concur to render a guilty verdict. So Garrison only needed nine jurors to convict Shaw. He couldn't even get one."
-- VB; Page 1380


"Remarkably, even sensible, intelligent people, such as HSCA chief counsel Robert Blakey, who personally believes [Carlos] Marcello was behind Kennedy's assassination, unthinkingly invoke the buffs' A-B-C reasoning to support their position [i.e., if A knows B and B knows C, then A is meaningfully connected to C, which of course is a non sequitur]. ....

Although common sense alone should tell conspiracy theorists that knowing someone or even being friendly with him is no evidence of a connection to his criminal activity, that you have to show the two were involved with each other in the same enterprise, there is another fascinating phenomenon that the conspiracy theorists must be aware of but seem determined not to acknowledge. I'm referring to the curious but undeniable reality that virtually any two people chosen at random can be connected to each other by the interposition of a very small number of mutual friends or acquaintances. ....

Also, there is no credible evidence that Ferrie was ever a boyhood friend of Oswald's or was with Oswald in the summer of 1963. But even if these assertions were true, so what? They certainly don't add up to a conspiracy to commit murder."
-- VB; Pages 980-982


"She [Julia Mercer] said, "A man was sitting under the wheel of the car and slouched over the wheel." (I defy any student of the English language to explain, from these words, the position the man was in.) .... But why presidential assassins...would deliberately draw attention to themselves by parking illegally and blocking traffic on a busy street in the presence of three Dallas police officers as well as lay witnesses like Miss Mercer is not known. Of course, conspiracy theorists never let common sense get in the way of their hallucinatory theories." -- VB; Pages 883-884


"Apparently, Kennedy's assassin, instead of trying to hide in the trunk of a car in the railroad yard parking lot or trying to escape from behind the picket fence after shooting Kennedy, had much more important things to do—mainly, climb over the fence (at which point he'd be in plain view of everyone on Elm Street) so he could beat up on that louse Gordon Arnold and take his film." -- VB; Page 888


"A favorite theme of conspiracy theorists [is that] documents and photographs [have been] "buried" in the National Archives or in the Warren Commission's 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits. If we're to believe the theorists, it apparently never crossed the minds of the alleged conspirators who killed Kennedy to simply get rid of the evidence that could convict them. Unlike nearly all ordinary conspirators, Kennedy's killers intentionally and knowingly left evidence behind in the archives and the Warren Commission volumes that could expose them — evidence that only the conspiracists are smart and industrious enough to uncover." -- VB; Page 418 of Endnotes


"It is...remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- VB; Page 952


"The bottom line is that evidence of Oswald's innocence in the Kennedy assassination is about as rare as hundred-dollar bills on the floor of a flophouse." -- VB; Page 844


"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." -- VB; Page 969





(PART 1159)




1.) OSWALD took OSWALD'S rifle to work on the day of JFK's visit to Dallas.

2.) OSWALD'S prints were all over the place where the assassin of JFK was located (the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor).

3.) OSWALD was identified by a witness as the person who shot Kennedy.

4.) OSWALD shot and killed Officer Tippit.

5.) OSWALD put up a wild fight in the Texas Theater and punched out a cop while drawing a revolver (the same revolver, of course, that was used to murder Tippit 35 minutes earlier).

6.) Bullets and bullet shells from OSWALD'S two guns turn up everywhere where the killer of Kennedy and the killer of Tippit were known to have been (and in KENNEDY'S CAR even!). And I won't even add "CE399" to this list, because conspiracy theorists hate that bullet so much. But, as can easily be seen, CE399 isn't even really needed to convict OSWALD, because there's so much other stuff besides 399 that convicts him too.

Yeah, that's some innocent and framed "patsy" you've got there. LOL.

Regarding Point #3:

I know you probably think Howard Brennan is worthless as a witness, but shouldn't we also consider the description that Mr. Brennan gave of the assassin in his 11/22 affidavit too? The description in that affidavit, which was written by Brennan within hours of the assassination and months before he ever talked to anybody from the Warren Commission, can, indeed, be considered very "general" in nature, but it also can fit the person who owned the rifle found on the sixth floor, especially when combined with Officer Marrion Baker's description of Oswald. And we KNOW Baker saw OSWALD, not somebody else, on the second floor.

Just look at these two descriptions in these November 22nd affidavits. One of these witnesses (Brennan) is describing the sniper on the sixth floor of the Depository; while the other witness (Baker) is describing a man he himself personally encountered--a person Baker was just inches away from in the second-floor lunchroom just 2 minutes or so after Brennan saw the man he describes in his affidavit. These descriptions are identical in several key respects, right down to each witness thinking the man they were describing was about 30 years old.

Here's a direct comparison (and keep in mind that we KNOW Baker IS describing Lee Harvey Oswald here, not some mystery person whose identity is still unknown):

BRENNAN -- "White man."
BAKER -- "White man."

BRENNAN -- "In his early 30s."
BAKER -- "Approximately 30 years old."

BRENNAN -- "165 to 175 pounds."
BAKER -- "165 pounds."

Those identical descriptions are an interesting "coincidence", huh? Do conspiracy theorists now want to claim that Marrion L. Baker wasn't really describing Lee Oswald at all in his November 22nd affidavit? Or did Marrion decide to just make up those descriptive details out of whole cloth in order to conform perfectly with the only witness in all of Dealey Plaza who actually saw the assassin firing a gun during the shooting of President Kennedy -- right down to the incorrect age and weight estimates?

David Von Pein
April 25, 2013

(PART 1158)


What hard evidence is there that LHO was at [the] 6th [floor window of the TSBD] as JFK passed?



You did not provide the answer at all. Neither did Bugliosi or Posner.

Your huge assumption he was at [the] 6th [floor] as JFK passed is as conspiratorial as any theory out there.

Also, you say Brennan was 1000% on the money when he was unsure at the lineup? Brennan's view from the street is good enough for you to send a man to the electric chair?

Your case for [a] lone nut has less weight than fence shooter. Excellent witnesses to the fence shooter ignored by [Earl] Warren, but you trust Warren?

What a joke.


You think there's AS MUCH evidence for "Fence Shooter" as there is that LHO did it? Oh, my.

OSWALD'S prints in the Sniper's Nest.

OSWALD'S rifle is the murder weapon (which was on the 6th floor).

OSWALD'S prints on the paper bag in the Sniper's Nest. (No, I don't think it was planted there. You probably do, however.)

OSWALD kills Officer J.D. Tippit in flight.

OSWALD lies repeatedly to the cops. (An innocent person lies that much?)

Fence Shooter has that kind of corroborative evidence, eh? I think not.

How anyone can think LHO is innocent is the bigger mystery.

But, to each his own.


Why do you think [Gerald] Ford adjusted the autopsy drawing to [conform] to [the] "magic bullet theory"?

Not suspicious to you?


Because the way it was originally worded was obviously stupid and impossible. Here's why (see "Addendum")...

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Gerald Ford And The SBT


I can't find the answer in all the stuff you told me to read.

Views from the street would never send him to the chair.

FBI lab found no marks on his face.

I do think he was involved at some level, but you have not provided evidence to send him to the chair.


He goes to the chair based on just the Tippit murder alone.

You surely don't deny that he killed Officer Tippit, do you?


Thank you for the reply!

Let's see...you actually acknowlege no evidence at 6th floor (LHO beyond doubt WAS there AS JFK passed)? Holy sh*t! ok.

But you say enough for the chair over Tippitt [sic]? I do not see any hard evidence to say he was the killer BUT (and this is a big step for me) I think he MAY have done the deed because WHO ELSE would leave the ID?

You see, he left the wallet there and the rifle at the bulding TO BE CAUGHT!

That's another book.

But still, although it makes "sense", there's no witnesses! I believe also that the bullets don't fit the barrel of his handgun. The chair as a result? HOW?

Here's my scenario: LHO was some kind of CIA related assassin because he most likely tried to assassinate Walker. He was also "hired" to be a stooge on 11-22-63 because a trained Marine could never make that kill shot; powers that be would never trust him after the Walker "fail".

Not a nice guy. At best, a guy convinced assassinating is ok for the good of the country.

Finally, he goes to trial: is found guilty of being an accessory. I don't know what kind of sentence.

I think my scenario is perfect!

Thanks again for taking your time to reply.



You said: "...you actually acknowlege no evidence at 6th floor...?"

But I never said any such thing. The evidence on the sixth floor of the Depository (plus the eyewitnesses) certainly point to Oswald and HIS RIFLE.

And Oswald's ACTIONS point to him. And Oswald's LIES point to him. Plus the Tippit murder points to him, which was (IMO) unquestionably part of the same murderous transaction that began in Dealey Plaza on November 22.

As Vincent Bugliosi asked....

"In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 964 of "Reclaiming History"

The evidence of Oswald's guilt is clear and spread out over multiple parts of Dallas, Texas --- from Elm Street to 10th Street to Jefferson Boulevard where he was apprehended and right on into City Hall where he lied his head off after his arrest.

To believe in Oswald's innocence requires believing in a lot of things that have been conveniently bent toward "conspiracy" and "evidence fakery". I don't travel down such paths, because they are not reasonable paths to traverse.


Bullets in Tippett [sic] could not have come from LHO pistol.


Dead wrong. Learn the evidence, Phil.

The bullets taken from Tippit's body were perfectly consistent with the type of undersized .38 Special ammunition that Oswald used in his .38 Smith & Wesson revolver.

Plus, there's testimony from the independent firearms expert, Joseph Nicol, which has Nicol concluding that one of the four Tippit bullets positively did come from Oswald's V510210 S&W revolver....

Mr. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Nicol, finally I hand you a group of four bullets marked Commission Exhibits 602, 603, 604, and 605, which I state for the record were recovered from the body of Officer Tippit, and a group of two bullets marked Commission Exhibit 606, which I state for the record were fired by the FBI through the revolver, Commission Exhibit 143. .... Did you examine Exhibits 602 through 605 to determine whether they have been fired from the same weapon as fired 606?"

JOSEPH NICOL -- "Yes; I did."

Mr. EISENBERG -- "What was your conclusion?"

Mr. NICOL -- "Due to mutilation, I was not able to determine whether 605, 604, and 602 were fired in the same weapon. There were similarity of class characteristics--that is to say, there is nothing evident that would exclude the weapon. However, due to mutilation and apparent variance between the size of the barrel and the size of the projectile, the reproduction of individual characteristics was not good, and therefore I was unable to arrive at a conclusion beyond that of saying that the few lines that were found would indicate a modest possibility. But I would not by any means say that I could be positive. However, on specimen 603...I found sufficient individual characteristics to lead me to the conclusion that that projectile was fired in the same weapon that fired the projectiles in 606."

Mr. EISENBERG -- "That is to the exclusion of all other weapons?"

Mr. NICOL -- "Yes, sir."


Two men were seen with Tippett [sic]. But there are no witnesses pointing to LHO as the shooter.


Total nonsense. Click here.

You, Phil, need to learn how to properly evaluate the TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE in the JFK case.

When you've done that, give me a shout.

David Von Pein
June 14—July 26, 2016
(E-mail conversation)

(PART 1157)


Robert Harris said this at The Education Forum on April 19, 2010:

"For years, WC critics have doubted the legitimacy of CE-399. .... Its relatively undamaged condition suggest that it wounded no-one."

Bob Harris, like all conspiracy theorists, either totally ignores or is unaware of Dr. Martin Fackler's ballistics tests in 1992, which had Fackler firing a Carcano bullet just like CE399 into the wrist of a human cadaver at the reduced muzzle velocity of 1100fps (which was probably even a little faster than CE399 was travelling when it struck John Connally's wrist in Dealey Plaza).

And what did Fackler's test bullet look like after it struck that human wrist bone at 1100 feet per second?

Take a look:

"The bullet actually made a slightly greater hole than the one in Governor Connally's wrist. That's because the experiment bullet was actually going a little faster than the 900 feet [per second] that CE399 was travelling. The test bullet was non-deformed. It was not flattened in the least and had nowhere near the damage of CE399." -- Dr. Martin Fackler; August 10, 1992, during Fackler's testimony at the American Bar Association's mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald

And since we know that John Connally's wrist bone was the hardest object that Bullet CE399 struck during its path through both Kennedy's and Connally's bodies, it's fairly obvious (when looking at the Fackler test bullet) that the current condition of CE399 in the National Archives today is not in any way unusual or "impossible", as most conspiracy theorists want to believe, after doing the damage it did to the two victims in Dealey Plaza.



Did the Fackler test use a tumbling bullet?


I'm not positive, but I assume Fackler's bullet was NOT tumbling when it struck the human wrist bone. And that's because other tests with MC/WCC bullets indicate that that type of bullet will not tumble or yaw until it hits something.

But, actually, the fact that Fackler's bullet was probably not tumbling makes the non-deformed nature of that test bullet even MORE impressive, because it shows that even when a Carcano bullet strikes a hard bone head-on at 1100fps, the nose of that bullet still won't be deformed.

What's not to like about that Fackler test? Everything about it buttresses the likelihood that CE399 could most certainly have done what both the Warren Commission and HSCA said CE399 did do on 11/22/63.


There is no indication that this projectile [CE399] had tumbled enough to be significant.


That's not true at all, Mike. CE399 was most certainly tumbling like an acrobat on steroids by the time it hit John Connally's wrist. That's obvious by the fact that the bullet left metal/lead fragments inside Connally's wrist. Therefore, it had to have hit Connally's wrist BACKWARD, with the bottom of the bullet hitting the wrist.

And since Fackler's test simulated ONLY Connally's wrist injury, it's a fair question to ask: Was Fackler's bullet tumbling?

And I just simply don't know if Fackler's bullet was tumbling or not. But, as I mentioned earlier, in my opinion, the bullet's condition after striking the cadaver's wrist is even MORE impressive if the test bullet had NOT tumbled into the wrist bone.


The fact that the bullet [CE399] can be linked to Oswald's gun makes it look all the more like a plant.


Only in the oddball world of conspiracy nuts could a statement like the above be made.

This case is filled with a bunch of "C2766 Carcano" evidence -- e.g., shells, fragments in the car, and the rifle itself being hidden behind boxes on the same floor of the TSBD from where shots were being fired at the President.

And yet Miles Scull thinks that since CE399 can be linked to Oswald's C2766 rifle too (in ADDITION to all of the stuff previously mentioned above), this indicates that CE399 is a "plant".

In other words -- According to Miles Scull: Corroborating evidence indicates "planted" evidence.

But in the real world, corroborating evidence makes it much more likely that CE399 was NOT a "plant", because CE399 blends in with all of that OTHER ballistics evidence tied to Oswald's gun.

Or is ALL of it "planted", Miles?

And if not, then why was there any need to plant CE399, since all of that OTHER STUFF would be linking the proverbial "patsy" to the crime anyway? (Particularly the items that many CTers think were planted by the conspirators on the sixth floor of the Book Depository--the rifle itself and the three shells from Rifle C2766 in the Sniper's Nest.)

Why in the world wouldn't the RIFLE ITSELF and the THREE SHELLS be more than enough to link Patsy Oswald to the crime?

Were the plotters just overactive? Or just plain reckless?


The point needs to be made from two perspectives....

Non-tumbling, the nose of the [Fackler test] bullet would have had a much greater impact percentage than a tumbling bullet. .... So if the bullet tested was tumbling, it proves the point DVP is making.

If the bullet is not tumbling, it proves his point to a higher degree.

This is a 'win win' for the test.


I agree.


Rubbish. You apparently cannot read.


Miles Scull is being an idiot, as usual.

Your silly contention, Miles, is, in fact, that CORROBORATING EVIDENCE equals PLANTED EVIDENCE.

That's exactly what you are saying, in a nutshell. And it's just plain dumb.

If the "plotters" already had the rifle and the shells in the TSBD, there simply would be no need whatsoever to add still more stuff to the "planted" pile. And if you believe that superfluity was necessary, you're crazy.

David Von Pein
May 16, 2010

(PART 1156)


Here is a forwarded question from Jeff Carter:

"[I am] watching same-day TV coverage of the assassination and I am curious when Oswald was first identified by name in the media. The earliest I have found is interesting. .... [The] footage [linked here] originates from ABC's network studio in New York, where news anchor Don Goddard is on camera with network VP and former Eisenhower press man James Hagerty.

Over the course of several segments, Hagerty had been making a case that this has the appearance of a well-planned conspiracy. He is finishing up a discussion of the difficulties of Secret Service protection in large-city motorcades when Goddard says: "Well, this adds one to the case for conspiracy then. And the Dallas Police are apparently trying to add another--they have arrested a 24-year-old man, Lee Oswald, in connection with a slaying of a Dallas policeman and presumably also the slaying of a secret service man in another part of Dallas which happened shortly before the President..."

Hagerty inhales and cuts Goddard off to praise quick reaction by the Secret Service in speeding away from Dealey Plaza. (Based on eyewitness report from ABC reporter Bob Clark, who also interestingly said that the motorcade came to a complete halt, which Hagerty does not mention). (The story of a dead Secret Service man has been attached to the news from Oak Cliff up to this time, but soon is dropped.)

This sequence occurs soon after Zapruder's appearance on the local affiliate (WFAA-TV), which began approx. 2:10 PM CST -- so the Oswald ID as delivered by Goddard happens somewhere between 2:20—2:25 PM CST (certainly before 2:30). Not only that, Goddard appears to read this information from a piece of paper which has been sitting before him since they returned to air immediately following Zapruder.

Interestingly, the local affiliate WFAA follows up about a half hour later with information attributed to DPD captain Pat Gannaway that the "suspect" worked at the TSBD and lived in Russia [again see the link above]. Oswald's name and age are not mentioned.

Would this mean that Oswald's name and age was available to ABC's network office in NYC before it was announced to reporters in Dallas?"


Thanks for this footage, Len.


Don't thank me, thank DVP, who collected and posted all this stuff to YouTube. Annoying as he can be, he has done good service here.


Jeff [Carter], who originally posited the question, has followed up:

"JFK Countercoup published an account of early AP and UPI wire service reports on March 12, 2012. AP sent out wire report mentioning Oswald by name and age at 2:35 PM CST. That is probably what is on the ABC desk in NYC. So the time of the broadcast can be pushed to around 2:40-2:45 CST.

Affiliate WFAA-TV adds the TSBD and Russia angle about a half hour later - attributed to DPD captain Gannaway.

Note: DPD are already at the Paines, and were greeted with "We've been expecting you", although it is clear that there was definitely no way of hearing LHO ID from arrest from the media."


"From the Museum's Zapruder time line

2:20 p.m.
WFAA assistant news director and chief photographer Bert Shipp called Kodak, asking them to process the 8mm color film, since the station had only 16mm black-and-white film equipment.

2:31 p.m.
Zapruder appeared live on ABC and WFAA with WFAA's program director, Jay Watson, while Schwartz stood nearby holding the camera with the film.

2:40 p.m.
Zapruder, Schwartz, and Sorrels, riding in a Dallas police car, arrived at the Kodak lab near Dallas Love Field about the time Air Force One took off for Washington with Kennedy's body.

The Zapruder appearance time is exact, according to tapes and other documentation at The Sixth Floor Museum. The very first media mention of Oswald by name came at 3:46 Dallas time. The ABC clip posted (from Dave Von Pein's site!) aired much later than the Zapruder interview.



A follow-up from Jeff Carter:

"I don't necessarily want to question the knowledge of folks who have spent a lot more time with this footage, but what is available and listed as WFAA-TV (posted on YouTube) has the appearance of being contiguous, even as it fades after the Zapruder interview as the anchor says they are returning to NY.

The reasons for saying this are that a) Jim Hagerty does not appear again after this segment; b) the following sequence after returning to the Dallas station features the host [making] direct reference to Hagerty's comments about the bubble-top; c) they are still referring to a rifle found on the "fifth floor".

None of this is consistent with this segment being done "much later", and a "much later" segment being pasted in is not consistent with how this footage plays out (i.e. it doesn't seem to happen anywhere else).

It may be simply an academic point, but I believe this is strong evidence that Lee Oswald's name first crossed the airwaves here on ABC-TV at around 2:40 PM CST. If so, there is an irony in that Oswald's name is contained in a sentence which also contains the word "conspiracy". ABC was the least watched network that day, but they scored some scoops."



I did make some edits during my WFAA-TV video series. And also keep in mind that all of that WFAA footage comes from a 1983 WFAA retrospective program entitled "The Kennedy Tapes", hosted by Tracy Rowlett.

And that '83 program, while containing a lot of "long form" segments of uncut WFAA footage from November 1963, also has been heavily edited in many areas, with Rowlett filling in gaps along the way with brief narration before moving on to another section of "long form" coverage. As I recall, however, the majority of the extensive editing comes later in the "Kennedy Tapes" program, during the November 23-25 segments.

The "fade out" that was mentioned above (right after Mr. Zapruder's complete 2:31 PM CST interview) is one that I definitely remember putting in myself. That's not an '83 edit done for "The Kennedy Tapes" broadcast. But I cannot recall how much time elapses between the time of the Zapruder fade-out and the place where I pick up the live footage once again.

I have the raw DVD-R discs from which I extracted the video files for online use, and if I should get time in the future, I would be happy to look and see what material I edited out, and how much elapsed time was edited. But offhand I can't remember. It's been about 5 years since I created that WFAA series.



I was incorrect when I said that the edit right after Zapruder's WFAA interview was wholly my own edit. I have checked my raw DVD source for that material, and the only thing I edited out at that point was some of Tracy Rowlett's narration and an intro jingle that was used in 1983 by WFAA for the "Kennedy Tapes" broadcast.

When I wrote my post yesterday on this matter, I had thought there was some footage missing after Zapruder's interview, but there definitely isn't, because after the break that was put into the '83 show, it cuts back to Jay Watson and Abe Zapruder for just a split second before the cut is made to ABC in New York and Jim Hagerty. So I can tell that the '83 show picked up the WFAA coverage again without any edits after the Zapruder interview.

In fact, the split-second of footage which shows Watson and Zapruder AFTER the edit is even included in my YouTube version (fast forward to 1:44:19 in this video, which is also embedded below).

Sorry for my earlier error, and I hope I didn't confuse or mislead anyone on this matter to any great degree.


The ABC network desk in New York ID's Oswald by (likely) 2:30 CST. It can be timed because it immediately follows Abraham Zapruder's appearance on the local affiliate.


"Lee H. Oswald" was first named at 3:46pm CST. The timing comes from the original WFAA and WBAP radio tapes, which means their source was either a local reporter or UPI.



Len is correct (almost) regarding this matter. Because that time of 3:46 CST is positively not accurate (unless the 2:31 PM CST timestamp for the Zapruder interview as shown in the "Zapruder Film Time Line" is incorrect).

I just checked my WFAA-TV footage and found that ABC News in New York is saying the name "Lee Oswald" at approximately 2:40 PM CST. BTW, the ABC anchorman doesn't say "Lee H. Oswald" at that point in time. He just says "Lee Oswald", without including the middle initial.

The 2:40 PM timestamp can be obtained by the timing of the Zapruder interview (as Len Osanic mentioned). And I can only assume that the "2:31 PM" timing for Zapruder's WFAA interview is referring to when that interview STARTED, not when it ended. Not that that would be a huge difference in real time either way, because the whole uncut interview with Zapruder lasted just a shade less than five minutes.

So if the Zapruder interview began at 2:31 PM CST (as it says on the Sixth Floor Museum website), it's easy to time other events that occur just after that interview. Following the Zapruder interview, four minutes elapse before ABC in New York announces that Lee Oswald had been arrested. And there are definitely no breaks or edits in that WFAA coverage after Zapruder's interview up until the time when Oswald's name is mentioned over ABC-TV in New York.

Therefore, we have a 2:31 PM starting point, plus five minutes for the entire Zapruder interview, plus four minutes after the interview....which would equal Oswald's name first being uttered on ABC-TV at about 2:40 PM CST (3:40 PM EST).

Bill, I wonder if someone has confused Central time with Eastern time in that 3:46 PM timestamp you and Gary Mack posted earlier. Because it was, indeed, very close to 3:46 EASTERN time when we hear ABC say the name "Oswald" on the air. That would, of course, be a common and understandable "time zone" error for someone to have made. The same type of one-hour mistake in time occurred in Wayne Hawks' transcript for the Perry/Clark Parkland press conference.

But I really can't see where some of the conspiracy theorists can go with this information concerning the first time Oswald's name was spoken on live TV on November 22. By 2:40 PM CST, Oswald had been in custody for about 50 minutes, and he had been inside City Hall for approximately 40 minutes. So there was certainly ample time there for a crack reporter or two, who would have undoubtedly been hungry for information about this guy the cops just brought into the police station in handcuffs, to dig out the name "Oswald" from somebody at Dallas City Hall.

And, quite obviously (via the WFAA footage that does exist), that is exactly what DID happen (even though there was the initial confusion as to what Oswald's real name was--Oswald or Hidell). Somebody was able to find out from someone at the Dallas Police Department, prior to 2:40 PM CST, that the man who had just been arrested in the Texas Theater was named Lee Oswald. Simple as that.

E-Mail From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
Date: 2/14/2013 1:58:33 PM EST

Hi Dave,

The Kennedy Tapes, as broadcast in 1983, has a few segments out of sequence since the original WFAA tapes were rarely marked with exact times. John Sparks produced that series and we’ve been friends and, for awhile at KXAS years later, coworkers since then. Both John and Tracy Rowlett are still active in local broadcasting.

WFAA donated all its tapes and films to The Sixth Floor Museum in 1998; five years later when we made new digital masters of the original tapes, I confirmed that the station did not record continuously that weekend or even the first day.

Finally, The Sixth Floor Museum’s collections include a copy of the ABC News log of the network’s weekend coverage, and their documentation showed the very first mention of Oswald by name came at 3:48pm Dallas time. It was preceded at 3:43 by a live WFAA report from Ed Hogan and followed at 3:54 by an audio report from Bernard Kaplan in Paris.

Gary Mack

E-Mail From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
Date: 2/14/2013 7:48:12 PM EST

Some of my previous information was incorrect. From The Sixth Floor Museum's index of the original WBAP tapes is this description (written by a former WBAP staffer who digitized them). I have no evidence to contradict his summary:

16. 2:43 pm WBAP's David Daniel interrupts for word from Dallas Police of the arrest of "a 24-year-old man, Lee H. Oswald" in connection with the shooting of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit. He's being questioned to see if he has any connection with JFK assassination. "Oswald was pulled screaming and yelling" from the Texas Theater in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas. After a pistol is taken from him during a scuffle, he's quoted as saying, "It's all over now."

I must have overlooked an EST reference, for which I apologize.

Gary Mack


The WBAP-Radio news report by David Daniel at 2:43 PM CST on 11/22/63, mentioned by Gary Mack in his e-mail above, can be heard here.

E-Mail From: David Von Pein
To: Gary Mack
Date: 2/14/2013 8:24:30 PM EST

Thanks, Gary. I've been expecting to hear from you on this.

So, via the WBAP log, it appears that my 2:40 PM CST timestamp for the ABC-TV "Oswald" announcement (which another person, Jeff Carter, also mentioned in the forum thread) is probably spot-on accurate.

David V.P.

E-Mail From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein
Date: 2/14/2013 9:15:58 PM EST

Must be. But I'm really baffled by some of this. I checked the ABC log this afternoon and I could swear the log said 4:46 was the time, which means 3:46 in Dallas. Just before I sent you and Bill [Kelly] the note tonight, I found that NBC gave Oswald's name at 3:23 Dallas time, but then I found where I sent someone else the WBAP quote months ago. So if I have the time tomorrow, I'll check the ABC log again. Weird.


E-Mail From: David Von Pein
To: Gary Mack
Date: 2/14/2013 9:51:28 PM EST

But isn't it possible that there was an earlier ABC report mentioning Oswald at 2:40 PM CST, along with the 3:46 PM CST report you have mentioned? Maybe somebody merely overlooked the 2:40 report by mistake.



After digging into this matter a little further, I have been able to positively confirm that Lee Oswald's name is first mentioned on the ABC Television Network (and on WFAA-TV in Dallas) at approximately 2:40 PM Dallas time (Central Standard Time).

The way I was able to confirm it is by comparing the WFAA-TV local Dallas coverage with the raw feed from the ABC-TV network footage that I also have in my collection.

They are identical when comparing the timeframe in question, starting with Abraham Zapruder's WFAA interview and continuing for several minutes after that interview concludes. And the timing on the ABC Network raw feed works out to just exactly what I said earlier -- ABC said the name "Lee Oswald" at just about 2:40 PM CST, which was precisely four minutes after Jay Watson of WFAA finished his interview with Abraham Zapruder. For confirmation of this, go to 1:44:35 thru 1:48:35 in this ABC-TV video [also embedded below].

As I mentioned earlier, the 2:40 PM CST timestamp hinges on the Zapruder interview beginning at the time when the Sixth Floor Museum chronology says it began--2:31 PM CST. But I think I can pretty much confirm that timestamp as well, via the two hours of uncut ABC-TV coverage shown above, which begins at approximately 12:51 PM CST.



As for the other two U.S. television networks—CBS and NBC—the first time that the CBS Television Network mentioned Oswald's name on the air came at 2:59 PM Dallas Time (3:59 PM EST) on November 22nd, when anchorman Walter Cronkite said that the man the Dallas police had in custody after a fight in the Texas Theater was named "Leo H. Oswald" [go to 2:29:15 in this CBS video, also viewable below].

Interestingly, Walter Cronkite's error regarding Lee Harvey Oswald's name wouldn't be the last time that Walter mangled Oswald's name on the air that weekend in 1963. In two other separate reports aired on the weekend of the assassination, Cronkite misspoke again when saying LHO's name, telling the TV audience in one of those reports that the alleged assassin's name was "Lee Henry Oswald"; while in another report, Mr. Cronkite said the suspect's name was "Lee Harvey Osburn".

As far as the NBC-TV assassination coverage is concerned, the first time we hear the name Lee Oswald occurs at roughly 3:20 PM Central Time on 11/22/63 [at the 2:30:50 mark in this video, also seen below], when newsman Charles Murphy of NBC's Dallas/Fort Worth affiliate WBAP-TV says this on the network:

"Homicide detective Leavelle told WBAP newsman James Kerr in Dallas a few minutes ago they have little doubt that 24-year-old Lee Oswald of Dallas is the man who shot and killed Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit shortly after President Kennedy was shot to death this afternoon. Oswald was pulled screaming and shouting from the Texas Theater by officers who had gone there on a tip that Oswald was there. He brandished a pistol which officers took away from him after a struggle. Oswald was quoted as saying, "It's all over now." .... The coincidence in the case is that Oswald worked as a stockman at the Texas Book Depository, the building from which the sniper shot President Kennedy. Dallas police have declined to say whether they think Oswald is connected with the assassination."

David Von Pein
February 14-15, 2013
July 18-19, 2016

(PART 121)













(PART 1155)


The webpage linked below contains many of my favorite quotes from Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 JFK book, "Reclaiming History". Enjoy....


Great stuff, David. A great compilation of VB's best. I've always admired how he is able to zero in like a laser beam on the conspiracy hobbyists' myths and completely destroy them. Of course they just pick up the pieces and try to put their Humpty Dumpty theories together again.


You [DVP] picked some excellent excerpts from Bugliosi's book. Those same portions resonated with me when I read the book. I can see they resonated with you, as well. The logic is compelling, to say the least.

It amazes me how anybody can read this book and say something stupid like,
"I still believe Oswald was just a patsy."

I think it's hilarious that the biggest complaint CTs have about the book is that it's so big. I blame THEM for it's thickness since it forced Bugliosi to address all their silliness. And there's LOTS of silliness!


Another common complaint is that Bugliosi is too snarky. That's his style. But it doesn't change the substance! Bugliosi was a very successful prosecutor. He's confident. He highlights ridiculous assertions. Hell, he managed to get Charles Manson locked up for LIFE and Manson neither killed anybody nor was he even present at the crime scene.

If you get a speeding ticket and decide to contest it, if Bugliosi walks in the room, you'll probably end up getting a lethal injection for doing 50 in a 35 mph zone.

"Reclaiming History" is to the CTs as garlic is to vampires.


You [DVP] probably can't remember all my complaints about Bugliosi's book. Google it.


Who cares what your "complaints" are/were? I sure don't.

And of course you've got plenty of complaints about Mr. Bugliosi's outstanding and comprehensive tome. What else would we expect from a CTer---praise for a "Lone Assassin" book? (Duh!)

For heaven's sake, you find lots of things to complain about even when you agree with somebody, Tony. So, naturally, you've attempted at various times to rip "Reclaiming History" to shreds.

But you (and all other CTers) have failed miserably in that endeavor.

Now, back on topic.....

"In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 964 of "RH"


I have complimented some WC defender books sometimes. Maybe they get as much as 2% of the facts right. [LOL.]


Tell us for the millionth time how you rudely called him [Vincent Bugliosi] a liar to his face, Tony. I'm sure he was really flustered by that broadside.


I went to his lecture [at the Brattle Theatre in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 22, 2007] and hand delivered a letter to him pointing out that HIS LIES are a major reason why so many people believe there was a conspiracy. Then when he lied in the lecture, I said, "That's a lie." He WAS flustered.


What did Vince say that you labelled a "lie", Tony? I'd be interested in knowing exactly what it was.


I know you wouldn't, but it was that the police believed that weekend that Oswald acted alone and that there was no conspiracy. The parallel to the other recent shootings is interesting. In Dallas [on July 7, 2016], the police immediately thought it was a conspiracy with multiple shooters because the shooter moved around and used more than one weapon.

One of the better experts on MSNBC even made that comparison. It took them a few hours to figure out that it was a lone shooter. Likewise in the recent shooting in Baton Rouge, the early theory was that there was one shooter and 2 accomplices. BTW, that would make it a conspiracy.


Oh, sure, Tony. The thing you labelled as a "lie" during Vince Bugliosi's 2007 Cambridge appearance must be why we have all kinds of quotes from the weekend of November 22-24, 1963, coming from the likes of Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry and Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade and Homicide Captain Will Fritz, to the effect that it was the opinion of each of those men that OSWALD AND OSWALD ALONE had murdered President Kennedy and Officer Tippit.


JESSE CURRY (11/23/63) -- "I think this is the man [Lee Oswald] that killed the President."

REPORTER -- "Is there any evidence that anyone else may have been linked with Oswald to this shooting?"

CURRY -- "At this time, we don't believe so."


HENRY WADE (11/23/63) -- "There's no one else but him [Oswald], so far."


REPORTER (11/24/63) -- "Are you absolutely sure that Oswald was the assassin of the President?"

WILL FRITZ -- "Yes, sir. No question about it."

REPORTER -- "Are you still convinced he was in this by himself when he shot the President?"

FRITZ -- "Yes, I am. .... I don't think there's anyone else."


David Von Pein
July 14-20, 2016
July 14-16, 2016