It is often said that television truly came of age with its coverage of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I think that can be a bit overstated, but there's no question that, almost 50 years later, the "As It Happened" coverage, coming as it did like a lightning bolt out of the blue of an ordinary Friday afternoon in November, remains absolutely riveting.

Until the advent of YouTube, access to this video coverage, which tells you the story in a way totally unlike the history book or the newspaper, was relatively hard to come by, limited mostly to video traders and online dealers. Today, however, anyone can call up hours of footage, not only from the three networks but also from local television and radio.

Of the various sites devoted to the JFK assassination, few come with the video treasure that can be found on the sites run by David Von Pein. An outspoken believer (as am I) that Lee Harvey Oswald was the one and only assassin of Kennedy, Von Pein has amassed an incredible amount of video history on JFK -- not just the assassination, but various tributes, documentaries and movies, not to mention rarely seen clips from Kennedy's 1960 presidential campaign. As someone who has spent more than a few hours with my own JFK collection, I thought David would be an outstanding choice for the inaugural "It's About TV" interview.


David, thanks first of all for your time. We're going to be talking about collecting old television shows on DVD, because you have an amazing collection, not just of the JFK assassination, but all kinds of TV series and movies. Do your friends and family think you’re kind of, uh, nuts for doing this? Because I know some of the looks I get, I have to go into this long academic discussion about how this is all historical research, in order to justify what is probably really a guilty pleasure.


No, I don't think my family thinks I'm TOTALLY crazy. Just a LITTLE bit. ~wink~


So tell me - how did you first get interested in the Kennedy assassination? Was this a contemporary event for you, something you'd always been interested in, or is this a case of a young man looking back at a particular point in time?


I was born on December 27, 1961 (when JFK was President, coincidentally), so I don't remember the assassination (or JFK as a President) at all. I just know that (for me) there's something about Mr. Kennedy, his Presidency, his family, and his assassination that are endlessly fascinating.

I first got deeply interested in President Kennedy's assassination in 1981, when I read David Lifton's book, Best Evidence [book review here].


Yeah, I remember reading that book as well. Seemed plausible to me at the time. Maybe I just wanted to believe it was something exotic.


Back at that time, I really wasn't a conspiracy theorist, nor can I remember really being a "lone assassin" believer either. I guess I must have been somewhere in-between, but, frankly, I just cannot remember having a strong opinion about the matter one way or the other back then--even after reading Lifton's book.

I'm just glad I didn't place too much faith in Mr. Lifton's nutty theories about casket-switching and body alteration. But even though I didn't really buy into any of Lifton's outlandish theories, I do recall that his book got me much more interested in the JFK murder case.


So here's the $64,000 question: who did it?


I think Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby acted on their own in November 1963, which is a position that places me in the distinct minority when it comes to that subject. As of late 2003, a Gallup Poll indicated that 75% of Americans believe that some kind of a conspiracy existed to murder the President in Dallas.

The hard physical evidence, however, just simply does not support conspiracy in the JFK case, and the majority of circumstantial evidence doesn't support the beliefs of that 75% of Americans either. And I think I provide a good deal of support to back up my "Lone Nut" opinions on my various JFK websites.

I've talked with many conspiracy theorists in the last several years, and it's quite remarkable to me that so many of these theorists--on the Internet anyway--are not just believers in a conspiracy (per se), but many of the online "CTers" (as conspiracists are often called on Internet forums and websites) also believe that Lee Oswald was completely innocent of BOTH President Kennedy's murder and the murder of Police Officer J.D. Tippit as well.

But given the evidence that conclusively proves for all time that Oswald was most certainly guilty of Tippit's slaying, such an "Oswald Is Innocent" stance is just flat-out nutty. Simple as that.


As your interest increased, did you ever think there would be such a treasure trove of video material to review?


No, I never did think I'd be able to collect such a vast amount of video and audio material associated with JFK's assassination. But over a period of time, I've been able to amass quite a library of videos, as well as many audio programs, connected to John F. Kennedy, his Presidency, and his untimely death, along with a large number of photographs as well.

I am grateful to many people for supplying me with a lot of these materials, some of which I have obtained from other private collectors like myself, while other material, such as the photos that I have put in my large Kennedy Photo Album, has been collected through the means of this great tool known as the Internet and the World Wide Web.

The number of pictures that were taken of JFK and his family is simply staggering. I will occasionally add photos to my above-linked Kennedy Album, and each time I search for more photos, I seem to find a dozen new ones that I had never seen before. It's amazing.


Your YouTube channel on the JFK assassination is just incredible. You have hours of continuous footage from all three of the broadcast networks, not just from November 22 itself, but from all of the four days. It’s much more comprehensive than the highlights you see on commemorative shows, and it really puts things in a proper context. How did you first start collecting the JFK videos? Was there something in particular that interested you, or that you were looking for? Or did one thing lead to another?


My interest in JFK and the assassination prompted my interest in the video-collecting thing. As you know, President Kennedy's murder was the first huge news story of the television age that was covered as it was happening. Oswald's murder on live TV is still a one-of-a-kind event (as far as I know). The footage from the Dallas police basement is still amazing--even 40+ years later.


Why are people still fascinated by this, after almost fifty years? I mean, besides your site there are hundreds of JFK assassination videos posted to YouTube - what's the attraction? Is it our fascination with the Kennedys, is it the "history as it happened" aspect of the coverage, is it the sense of horror and shock that still resonates when you watch the coverage unfold, a sense of nostalgia for an era since gone, or is there something else?


Well, I can't really know for sure what other people's thoughts are about this issue, but as far as I am concerned, there's just something about JFK and his era (the early 1960s) that is endlessly appealing and interesting. It's just "there". At least for me it is, and perhaps other people feel the same way.

And that feeling extends to President Kennedy's tragic murder too. It's just "there", something deep down that makes the case fascinating and intriguing (even though I, myself, firmly believe that nobody else was involved in the President's murder other than Oswald).

But the way things unfolded that weekend (even with Oswald guilty alone) is perpetually interesting .... including, of course, the unbelievable drama that was played out in the police basement two days later, with Jack Ruby killing Oswald on live TV and in front of 70 policemen.

Anyway, I can't know the answer to your last very good question, Mitchell, but for ME the JFK murder case will never go away, even though I do think it was "solved" virtually the day it occurred in November 1963.


So looking back on it after almost fifty years, what's your opinion of the television coverage, and which networks do you think did the best and the worst jobs?


That's a tough question. I think that it might be a tie for best network coverage of the assassination--between NBC and CBS, with ABC definitely ranking third, in my opinion, although I think the ABC News team did a good job too, but their facilities seemed to be a few notches below the other two major TV networks. (Have you seen the footage from the ABC studios in New York from 11/22/63? It literally looks like they were broadcasting from an unfinished basement. It's hilarious. But I think Mr. Cochran and company did the very best they could.)


The local coverage from Dallas was quite good, especially the ABC affiliate, on whose coverage the network relied heavily.


That would be WFAA-TV, with Jay Watson anchoring much of the coverage from November 22nd. And I completely agree with you about WFAA's excellent coverage. They did a very good job, even though they were a bit disorganized and rattled in the first hour or two, with Watson not being able to decide whether to broadcast from the studio or the newsroom. But that kind of disorganization is fun to watch. It gives a true sense of being there "live" during a crisis as it is happening.

And WFAA was able to provide some very interesting interviews with some of the eyewitnesses within literally minutes of the shooting (Bill and Gayle Newman). And Watson interviewed Abraham Zapruder just two hours after Abe took his famous 26-second home movie of the assassination.

All of that stuff is archived on my websites as well. I've even provided separate videos that show only the interviews of various witnesses, such as the Newmans and Mr. Zapruder.


One thing that’s changed since 1963, of course, is the advent of the all-news network. I mean, here you had the president of the United States shot, perhaps fatally, and because the networks don’t have cameras warmed up yet they can’t switch to the studio, so they just do voiceovers where they’re reading the wire service copy, and then they return to regular programming and commercials!


Yes, it is indeed surreal to look at the first bulletins now and try to imagine anyone being the slightest bit interested in a Nescafe coffee ad or an episode of Father Knows Best after hearing those initial tragic bulletins.


The ABC affiliate in New York, I think it is, is showing a rerun of Father Knows Best when the first bulletins come in, where Bud is apparently trying to make himself look older for a date he has with an older woman. We have the interruption for an update on the shooting, and then when we go back to regular programming he's saying goodbye to the girl on the steps of her house, and in that moment between those two scenes it's almost as if the world has completely changed. What was a pressing problem for Bud pre-bulletin now seems to be almost a nostalgic look back at the past, a world that we might never see again. Perhaps it's just our contemporary perspective, looking back on it after all these years and knowing the tumult that's to come, but I find that moment in retrospect to be so naive, actually extremely moving.


BTW, I now have that complete episode of FKB on DVD--from the third season of that series. It's an episode called "Man About Town", and I always think of the ABC bulletins whenever I watch that show, halfway expecting an "ABC Bulletin" slide to appear on the screen after the girl says "Go on, Bud, it sounds exciting."


That's ironic, the timing of the bulletin, isn't it? A little too exciting, sadly. So, if all-news networks had existed back then, would the coverage have been better or worse? I know that's kind of a loaded question, but when I think back to Congresswoman Giffords' shooting, and all the misinformation that followed, I wonder if today's coverage would have been any better than it was in '63. But, having said that, do you think there's any chance the conspiracy theories would have been as prevalent if today's technology had existed? Or are the conspiracies after 9/11 proof that it wouldn't have mattered?


I think your comment about 9/11 is on-target. If people can actually be goofy enough to think that NO AIRPLANES AT ALL struck the Pentagon and the World Trade Center (even with VIDEO FOOTAGE of the planes striking both WTC towers!), then I have no doubt that if the JFK murder had occurred in the 21st century, there would probably be just as many ridiculous conspiracy theories as there are today about the JFK case. Possibly even more.

And there are now conspiracy theories about Osama Bin Laden's recent death. People just love conspiracies and plots and secrets--even when they make no sense at all (such as with 9/11).


Out of the mountain of footage, what are the moments that stand out for you as being the most memorable from the four days?


That's another toughie. I'm not sure I can narrow it down to just one single memorable moment. So, I'll list my top 4 (off the top of my head):

1.) Walter Cronkite's emotional announcement of the President's death on CBS-TV. Oddly enough, I think Walter's emotions have become just as famous as the bulletin itself. For the record, Mr. Cronkite displayed his inner feelings on the air at least one other time that weekend. Walter broke up a little bit on Saturday, November 23 when he was reading a story about President Kennedy's son, John Jr.

2.) Lee Harvey Oswald being shot and killed by Jack Ruby on live TV.

3.) This one is a pre-assassination moment --- before JFK gave his last speech in Fort Worth, there's a point in the TV coverage when the announcer starts talking (in some detail) about the 1901 assassination of President McKinley. In light of what happened in Dallas just three hours later, those remarks about McKinley's murder are quite chilling and poignant.

4.) Another eerie pre-assassination moment is when KRLD-Radio reporter Bob Huffaker is providing live reports from Main Street in Dallas as JFK's motorcade passes by his position.

After the President's car goes by, Huffaker continues to broadcast live on KRLD-Radio for several more minutes. Bob was telling the radio audience how smoothly everything went with the motorcade, and how there were no anti-Kennedy demonstrations, etc. Huffaker was literally on the air live as JFK was being shot just a short distance down the street in Dealey Plaza.

If Huffaker had been located closer to Elm and Houston Streets, his open microphone would have likely picked up the sound of Lee Oswald's three rifle shots from the Texas School Book Depository Building in Dealey Plaza.

The FBI, in fact, did a detailed analysis of Huffaker's recording to see if any gunshots were audible on the audio tape. Unfortunately, none could be heard, as Huffaker was located too far east of the shooting scene. Here is Huffaker's recording.


Speaking of Cronkite, it’s interesting how he’s become shorthand for the assassination coverage – whenever a period movie or show wants to depict it, they always use the CBS clips, even though we know from contemporary accounts that more people watched NBC and Huntley-Brinkley than CBS and ABC together. Is that because CBS already had the tape rolling whereas the other networks didn’t, or is it because Cronkite’s stature has grown even more in the years since?


I think Walter Cronkite's bulletin would still be the most famous -- even if NBC had rolled tape sooner. I don't think that delay had much to do with anything in the long run.

I just hate hearing people now bad-mouthing Mr. Cronkite (following his death a year or two ago). Some conspiracy people were calling Walter a traitor and a liar and a CIA stooge, etc. Just ridiculous. It makes me sick.


Is there a "Holy Grail" for Kennedy assassination video collectors and researchers? Anything you'd like to see but haven't seen yet?


Oh, there are lots of things I'd like to have in my collection that I currently do not possess -- such as more of the live "as it's happening" type of TV and radio coverage from any number of U.S. stations and markets, such as the Chicago coverage (WLS and WGN), and Los Angeles, and San Francisco, and Miami, and many other cities.

In 2008, I was lucky enough to obtain almost 40 hours of November 1963 audio material from radio station WLW in Cincinnati, and it got me to thinking about all of those other major cities which were covering the JFK assassination for hundreds of other radio and television stations across the country, very little of which has ever been heard or seen since 1963.

But it seems to me that if WLW had nearly 40 hours of footage archived somewhere in its vaults for over 40 years, it stands to reason that many other TV and radio outlets might have saved their audio and video from those four dark days too.

I'd also like to see (or hear) the Parkland Hospital press conference that was given by Dr. Malcolm Perry and Dr. Kemp Clark on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. As far as I know, however, that conference has never surfaced in either an audio or video form.


My wife would say this discussion is getting exceedingly morbid, so let me close with some questions about classic television. What's your favorite show of all time?


Another tough inquiry from you, Mitch. I'm going to have to do a "list" of favorites (again), because I cannot narrow it down to just one single show. That's impossible. So, I'll give you my Top 6:

Leave It To Beaver
The Dick Van Dyke Show
The Fugitive
The Andy Griffith Show
The Mary Tyler Moore Show
Father Knows Best (especially Season 3)


What do you think is the most underrated show, from that era?


I can tell you one particular TV series that I, myself, severely underrated before buying the first four seasons on DVD in the last few years -- and that's Father Knows Best.

After watching the episodes of FKB on DVD, I began to realize what a truly outstanding show it was (and still is). I don't know if other people "underrated" FKB, but I know I sure did.


Do you think TV was better back then than it is now?


Oh, yes, I think TV was much better "back then" (i.e., in the "Golden Age" of the 1950s and 1960s, and even through the 1970s too).


Why is that, do you think? I’m always concerned it’s because I’ve just become an old fuddy-duddy, even though I’m not that old.


I really can't pinpoint the exact reasons for my opinion, but I certainly watch a lot more of the "oldies" on TV (and via DVD) than I do current offerings on the boob tube.

I think part of the reason is that the performers, writers, and producers of the older TV shows put a lot more of their heart and soul (and talent, of course) into making the older shows the best they could possibly be.

It's not that the TV people of today don't put a lot of effort and sweat into their current shows too. I didn't mean to suggest that. But the quality of the older shows (like my "Top 6" list above) cannot be denied.

And as far as I am concerned, there hasn't been another drama series like The Fugitive come along since David Janssen's iconic series ended in 1967. And as for comedy--it's hard to beat Mary Tyler Moore and Dick Van Dyke...and even "The Beaver"...for genuine, realistic laughs and situations.


Lastly (for now), what are the best retro TV sites on the web?


Here are a few sites about individual television series (or performers) that I really like:

The David Janssen Archive
The Fugitive [This one's my own.] :-)
Leave It To Beaver

And before my current advertising campaign ceases (grin), allow me to steer you to my newest website -- Classic TV On DVD.

Of course that oft-used word "classic" is a very subjective term, as we all know. But if you look at my movies site, I think you'll agree that I've included a lot of truly great all-time classics in there. I think my photo galleries for those films are very worthwhile too, as well as my Kennedy photo album, which I recently revamped and expanded.


Thanks so much for your time and insight, David. We'll be sharing some unique footage of the JFK assassination coverage over the next few days.

June 2011
Original Article





It's April 28, 2017, and I'd like to take this opportunity to say "Hello" to Mary Ann Moorman Krahmer (on Facebook). It's a pleasure to talk to you. I have saved several of your original interviews from 11/22/63 on my websites, plus the in-depth interview you did in May 2011 as well. They are valuable portions of my archives.

Question for Mary Moorman ----

Could you inform us as to the circumstances that brought you and Jean Hill to Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963? I realize you went there to see the Presidential motorcade (naturally), but I'm wondering if you and Jean went downtown on the spur of the moment that day, or did the two of you pre-plan the trip a day or two ahead of time? Just curious.

Thank you.



Jean and I had planned several days before the President came to Dallas. We were enthused to get to see Jackie. My son was in school that day and I did tell him I would take a picture of the President for him, and in order to do that I had to take the camera which I wasn't even used to using. Jean Hill had wanted me to take a picture of her friend who was following the limo, but after the tragedy that didn't happen.

I lost my friendship with Jean Hill for many years due to the fact that she told what she thought was "sensational" and would put her in the limelight. She did like to be the center of attention! I am thankful that I was able to renew our friendship shortly before she passed away.

I truly believe my God had a plan for me as to where we stood and the instant I snapped the photo. At 84 years of age now, He still has a purpose for me being here!


Thank you very much for your reply, Mary.

Also, Mary, what is your own opinion as to the precise timing of your famous Polaroid photograph? That is, do you think you snapped your shutter just BEFORE or just AFTER the President was struck in the head by the fatal bullet? Or do you think it was literally at the exact same instant when you heard the head shot being fired?

I know that most people seem to think you took the picture an instant AFTER the head shot, but it looks to me like you snapped your shutter just an instant PRIOR to the fatal shot.

If it had been taken after the fatal blow, I would think we'd see at least a little bit of the head spray in the picture. (Even though I fully realize that a Polaroid image isn't exactly "hi def" when it comes to clarity and photo perfection.)



The shot was as I snapped the photo. On the second and third sounds, I did see what I thought at first, his hair "jump" and like "smoke" or "mist" at the same time. It wasn't his hair, it was his head!

I certainly wasn't into taking pictures and hearing the noise which I thought was firecrackers, I sensed people crouching on the ground I realized something terrible was happening. I did tell Jean to get down and we both crouched down for a few seconds before the limo sped away.


Thank you, Mary.

Another question for Mary (I hope you don't mind) ---

Do you have any idea who it was who messed up your original Polaroid print (the one I posted above) with that ugly fingerprint? I heard it was an FBI man. Do you know if that's true?



It was a week or so that the FBI, and who knows what other agency, used it and at one point the fingerprint was on the original. I'm sure it has been known, as those agencies would have all workers fingerprinted before hiring. No one ever owned up to what happened and I was ready to put the photo away.


Have you ever been back to Dealey Plaza to look around since that tragic day (other than the one time I know you and Jean went back there to film an on-site interview with CBS News in 1964 [see the video below])? But since '64, have you stood on the spot on Elm Street where you took your picture?


Several times for interviews. The last was on the 50th Anniversary and that's more than likely my last.


OK, Mary.

Thanks for answering my questions so thoroughly. I appreciate it. It's been a pleasure to chat with you.

David Von Pein
April 28, 2017
April 30, 2017




I wanted to ask Mary more questions. But the ones I did ask her on 4/28/17 were ones I rattled off in very short order that evening, and I didn't want her to think I was "pumping" or "grilling" her with one question right after another. So I begged off after a few questions.


FYI / FWIW....

Listed below are a few additional questions I asked Mary Moorman via Facebook's Private Message service on May 4, 2017. It's been almost a week now, and I haven't received any reply from Mary. So, either she doesn't check her Facebook account very often, or she's sick and tired of my questions already. :-)

Anyway, listed below are my extra inquiries, most of which, btw, have already been answered by Mary during this long interview she did in May of 2011.

The only question on my list below that Mary did not address in that 2011 interview is my last question. But when I asked Mary these things at Facebook on May 4, I had not listened to her 2011 interview for a few years, and I couldn't remember if she had specifically addressed all these things or not.

I should have re-listened to the 2011 program before bothering Mary with this stuff, most of which she's already answered in the past. That was stupid of me. But....nobody's perfect. Not even a silly LNer like DVP. :-) ....

[DVP Quote On:]

Hi again, Mary.

I hope I'm not being a pest, but would you mind if I asked you just a few more questions about the things you observed in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63? (After all, it isn't every day of the week that I have the opportunity to speak to a witness who was just 10 to 15 feet away from President Kennedy when he was shot.)

.... How many gunshots did you hear? And how were the shots spaced? Were some of them close together (in a "bang-bang" fashion)? Or were all the shots rather evenly spaced? (If you can recall.)

.... Where do you think the shots came from? Did they all seem to come from the exact same place? Or could they have originated from more than just one location?

.... Did you notice the President's limousine slow down significantly right around the time of the head shot? And do you think the car came to a complete STOP or not?

.... Based on everything you saw and heard that day in Dealey Plaza, do you think that Lee Harvey Oswald (firing from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building) could have possibly been the lone assassin of President Kennedy?

Thank you very much for your time.

Best Regards,
David Von Pein
May 4, 2017






This page contains some pieces of interesting information pertaining to President Kennedy's life and his assassination. Perhaps at least a little bit of this info will be useful to some of the people who stumble upon this page in the future.


What was the first network radio or television media outlet to provide a bulletin concerning the shooting of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963? And what was the name of the reporter whose voice we hear in that first bulletin?


The very first media bulletin about the assassination from a national network was from the ABC Radio Network at 12:36 PM (CST) on 11/22/63. The announcer was ABC newsman Don Gardiner. That first bulletin can be heard here:


Exactly how many days did John F. Kennedy serve as President of the United States?


1,037 days, including the two partial days JFK was President, on January 20, 1961 (Inauguration Day) and November 22, 1963 (the day of his assassination).

Check out JFK's "White House Diary" by clicking on the image below to see what President Kennedy was doing on each of those 1,037 days he spent in office as the 35th U.S. President:


How many gunshots did Dealey Plaza eyewitness William Newman say he heard when he was interviewed by Jay Watson on WFAA-TV in Dallas very shortly after the assassination?


Bill Newman said he heard two shots. Go to the 11:40 mark in this video.


What was the name of President Kennedy's private yacht?


JFK's yacht was called the "Honey Fitz". Here are some photos.


What was the license plate number of Jack Ruby's 1960 Oldsmobile on the day he shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald on November 24, 1963?


Ruby's license plate number on 11/24/63 was PD-768.


Exactly how much money did Jack Ruby owe the IRS in back taxes as of December 9, 1963?


$44,413.86. (See Warren Commission Exhibit No. 1731.)


Where was John F. Kennedy born (street and city)?


JFK was born at 83 Beals Street in Brookline, Massachusetts. His birth date was Tuesday, May 29, 1917.


How many frames are there in the famous 26-second home movie taken by assassination eyewitness Abraham Zapruder?


486 individual frames. (Click here.)


Where was JFK's estate "Wexford" located?


Atoka, Virginia. (Film footage.)


How many press conferences did John Kennedy participate in during his nearly three years as President?


JFK gave 64 press conferences as President, averaging almost two per month. 62 of the conferences were held in Washington, D.C., one in Paris, France, and one in Bonn, Germany.

All 64 conferences can be heard at my website below:


How old was Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit when he was murdered by Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63?


Patrolman Tippit was 39 years old when he was killed. He was born in Texas on September 18, 1924. (More info on Officer Tippit here.)


On July 24, 1963, President Kennedy shook hands at the White House with what future U.S. President?


Bill Clinton. (Click here.)


When did JFK marry Jacqueline Bouvier?


Saturday, September 12, 1953, in Newport, Rhode Island.


When was the detailed street-by-street route for President Kennedy's 11/22/63 motorcade through Dallas first made available to the public (including Lee Harvey Oswald)?


Tuesday morning, November 19, 1963. (Click here.)


How many speeches did JFK make on the last day of his life?


Two. Both in Fort Worth, Texas, on the morning of Friday, November 22, 1963. Each of those speeches can be heard here.


When attempting to re-create Lee Harvey Oswald's post-assassination movements for the Warren Commission, how long did it take Secret Service agent John Howlett to travel from Oswald's Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository to the lunchroom located on the second floor of that same building?


It took Howlett 78 seconds in the first re-enactment, and 74 seconds in his second re-enactment. (See Warren Report, Page 152.)


Despite the fact that conspiracy theorists have knowledge of Agent Howlett's reconstruction times of 78 seconds and 74 seconds, how many times have conspiracy believers nevertheless asserted (incorrectly) that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't have enough time to make the journey from the sixth floor to the second floor of the Book Depository in order to encounter Dallas policeman Marrion L. Baker in the lunchroom approximately 90 seconds after the assassination of President Kennedy?


Too many times to count. (Go here, here, and here.)


On what date was President Kennedy's new 1961 Lincoln Continental limousine (the "SS-100-X") delivered to the White House?


Thursday, June 15, 1961.

"A new Presidential limousine arrived at the White House, complete with a rear seat that can be raised for parades and three interchangeable tops for different kinds of weather." -- The New York Times; June 1961

(See photos of the car just after it arrived at the White House here.)


What are the names of the two newsmen who reported on the arrival of President Kennedy at Love Field Airport in Dallas, Texas, on the morning of November 22, 1963? One of these reporters covered JFK's Love Field arrival for the local Dallas television audience; the other newsman covered the event on radio.


The TV reporter: Bob Walker of WFAA-TV. (Watch the TV coverage here.)

The radio reporter: Joe Long of KLIF-Radio. (Listen to the radio coverage here.)


During the Warren Commission's investigation of JFK's death, a re-enactment of the assassination was staged at the scene of the crime in Dallas' Dealey Plaza. What was the date of that re-enactment?


Sunday, May 24, 1964. (Click here.)


David L. Wolper's outstanding feature motion picture "Four Days In November", which was nominated for an Academy Award, premiered in New York City on what date?


Wednesday, October 7, 1964, which was (remarkably) just 13 days after the Warren Report was officially released to President Lyndon Johnson.

David Von Pein
April 2017
April 2017


(PART 130)



(PART 1244)


JFK was shot in the back at T3 -- the round didn't exit and no round was found there during the autopsy.

He was shot in the throat from the front -- the round didn't exit and no round was found there during the autopsy.

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

James DiEugenio could apparently care less, so obsessed with the patsy as he is.


I haven't encountered a conspiracy theorist yet who gives a damn about the question of "WHERE DID THOSE TWO BULLETS GO?" They just don't care, and I usually get raked over hot coals for even having the gall to ASK such an obviously pertinent question. What I usually get from the clueless CTers is: Well, Davey, what happened to the third bullet that you say missed the whole limousine? -- as if that's even remotely similar to asking about TWO separate bullets that the silly CTers insist went into JFK's body but never exited and yet were never to be seen again.

The "Two Bullets Never Exited And Yet They BOTH Disappeared Off The Face Of The Earth" fantasy is reason enough--all by itself!--to accept the SBT. But no conspiracist on the planet (that I have encountered) will even entertain the idea of the SBT, despite the implausibilities that reside within their own "Two Bullets Never Exited" hogwash. (Go figure.)



C'mon, I've read plenty of theories about what happened to the throat bullet and to the back bullet. Are you kidding? There are so many.

One says the back bullet fell out during heart massage at Parkland Hospital, and was even reported, but the FBI hushed it up.

Another says the throat wound was made by a frangible bullet. Another says it was made by a missle other than a bullet. Another says an ice bullet.

There are so many.


And every one of them is too silly to consider for more than two seconds.


I haven't yet encountered an LNer who gives a damn about the question, "HOW DID THE MAGIC BULLET PASS THROUGH THE KNOT OF THE TIE WITHOUT MAKING A HOLE?" They just don't care.

(And BTW Davey, we do indeed care where those bullets went and have discussed the possibilities in great detail. So what you said about CTers is just plain wrong.)


Well, Sandy, my memory isn't as good as it once was (I'll admit that), so maybe I have encountered a few CTers over the years who are willing to put on the table their theory(ies) about where the two bullets went. But I normally just get the usual CT runaround and dodging of the question.

I have heard of the theories Paul Trejo mentioned earlier, but the CTers I have argued with in the past usually prefer to scold me for even asking the question, rather than be embarrassed by placing their absurd "ice bullet" or "low-powered bullet" theories on the table for consideration.

"The assassins choose bullets that inflict non-lethal, 1-inch-deep wounds? Instead of feeding JFK to lions, they decided to nibble him to death by ducks?" -- Bud; April 1, 2006


One of the great aspects of the mystery behind the back wound is, if it was as shallow as perceived during the autopsy, it could've just naturally fallen out of the body.


Sure. But then we'd have to believe that that bullet just GOT LOST somehow, plus yet ANOTHER bullet GETS LOST too, don't forget. What are the odds? A billion to one against?

Isn't it time for conspiracy advocates to just accept the obvious truth? I.E., one bullet went clear through the man named John F. Kennedy and then went on to hit the man who was sitting in front of him (who was a man who also just happened to be wounded in the UPPER BACK by a bullet during the shooting that day).

And then there's the Zapruder Film evidence of the two victims reacting at precisely the same instant in time.

When all these factors are added together and assessed reasonably, what other logical conclusion can a sensible person come to other than: The SBT Is Correct?

I, for one, can't think of a single other "logical conclusion". Can you?


I haven't yet encountered an LNer who gives a damn about the question, "HOW DID THE MAGIC BULLET PASS THROUGH THE KNOT OF THE TIE WITHOUT MAKING A HOLE?"


But don't you have the exact same problem if the bullet ENTERED the throat (versus it EXITING the throat)?

Don't the CTers who think JFK's throat wound was an ENTRANCE wound still have to ask themselves the very same question you just asked me? I.E.,


How does the belief that the throat wound was a wound of entry make the above question go away for the conspiracy theorists? Do they think if the bullet entered the Adam's Apple area of JFK's throat, it somehow was able to miss the tie knot area entirely? But if it exited there, it had no choice but go through the tie knot and create a hole? Is that it?


And "for the record"....

Although Sandy is correct when he says there was no "hole" in President Kennedy's necktie, there was, in fact, some damage done to that tie by the passage of Lee Harvey Oswald's "SBT" bullet #CE399. That damage was in the form of a "nick" on the left side of the President's tie, which the FBI's Robert Frazier said was caused by some kind of a "projectile". (See the passages below from Page 92 of the Warren Report and Robert Frazier's testimony [at 5 H 62].)

"When the President's clothing was removed at Parkland Hospital, his tie was cut off by severing the loop immediately to the wearer's left of the knot, leaving the knot in its original condition. The tie had a nick on the left side of the knot. The nick was elongated horizontally, indicating that the tear was made by some object moving horizontally, but the fibers were not affected in a manner which would shed light on the direction or the nature of the missile." -- Warren Report; Page 92


ARLEN SPECTER -- What did you note, if anything, with respect to the tie, Mr. Frazier?

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- When the tie was examined by me in the laboratory, I noted that the neck portion had been cut from one side of the knot. However, the knot remained in apparently its original condition. The only damage to the tie other than the fact that it had been cut, was a crease or nick in the left side of the tie when you consider the tie as being worn on a body. As you view the front of the tie, it would be on the right side. This nick would be located in a corresponding area to the area in the shirt collar just below the button.


MR. SPECTER -- Does the nick in the tie provide any indication of the direction of the missile?

MR. FRAZIER -- The nick is elongated horizontally, indicating a possible horizontal direction, but it does not indicate that the projectile which caused it was exiting or entering at that point. The fibers were not disturbed in a characteristic manner which would permit any conclusion in that connection.

MR. SPECTER -- Is the nick consistent with an exiting path?

MR. FRAZIER -- Oh, yes.

MR. SPECTER -- Is there any indication from the nature of the nick as to the nature of the projectile itself?

MR. FRAZIER -- No, sir.

MR. SPECTER -- Is the nick consistent with a 6.5 millimeter bullet having caused the nick?

MR. FRAZIER -- Yes. Any projectile could have caused the nick. In this connection, there was no metallic residue found on the tie, and for that matter there was no metallic residue found on the shirt at the holes in the front. However, there was in the back.



Yes, that problem does exist for both the SBT and an entrance bullet.

And I think you are probably right that most CTers ignore or avoid this inescapable fact.

However, there is one possibility that can explain the fact that the tie knot wasn't destroyed. And it's not that WC nonsense that somehow the bullet sneaked by the knot and only nicked it. The knot would have had to be pulled way to the side for that to happen. (Funny side note... The Zapruder film shows Kennedy's tie and knot to be in their normal positions early on before the shots. But they both disappear just before the shot that made the throat wound! Check it out some time.)

The only answer to this problem is that the throat wound was 1) one of exit; and 2) the kinetic energy of the exiting projectile was nearly exhausted upon exiting the wound. So exhausted that it became fully depleted upon hitting the back of the knot and pulling it away from the neck.

I challenge anyone to offer any other feasible possibility.

(Note: What I've said here is based on the holes through the shirt, near the collar, being true bullet or projectile holes. The physical evidence indicates that to be the case.)



Sounds like a reasonable hypothesis to me, Sandy. Thank you.

Also keep in mind that Oswald's SBT bullet was moving in a slightly right-to-left direction as it sliced through President Kennedy's upper back and neck. Thusly, it makes sense to me that the bullet could have conceivably "nicked" only the LEFT portion of the tie knot as it made its exit through JFK's throat. And it was, indeed, the left side of the tie knot that was damaged (or "nicked") during the shooting (from the tie wearer's POV).

BTW, I was just now looking through some of the very good NARA color photos of JFK's clothing at the Mary Ferrell website (including Kennedy's necktie), and I noticed this close-up picture of the tie (also shown below). And after I asked myself: Isn't that a HOLE in the tie?, I then did a little more refreshing of my memory by looking up this topic in Vincent Bugliosi's book, and I had my complete answer -- it's only a "tear" in the cloth, not a thru-and-thru "hole" (see the excerpt from "Reclaiming History" underneath the photo):

“Dr. Finck reported that the tie worn by Kennedy showed "a tear of the cloth to the left side of the knot and corresponding to the two anterior holes in the shirt. The tie knot was not perforated but GLANCED by the bullet, which is indicated by the fact that the white padding of the tie is visible and . . . the blue cloth on the internal aspect of the knot is intact, which indicates a tangential path of the left side in relation to the knot." (AFIP Record 205-10001-10002, Memorandum, Finck to Blumberg, p.7; also ARRB MD 28)

The tear to the tie was described by the FBI laboratory as a "small elongated nick" on the "left side of the knot of the tie" (CD 205, p.154; 5 H 62, WCT Robert A. Frazier; 7 HSCA 89).

An FBI examination found no metallic residue on this nick in the tie, and unlike the shirt, the FBI could not find any characteristic disturbance in the fabric around the tie hole "that would permit any conclusion" as to the direction of the missile (5 H 62, WCT Robert A. Frazier; 7 HSCA 8990; FBI Record 124-10024-10173; Gallagher Exhibit No. 1, 20 H 2).”
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 401 of "Reclaiming History" (footnote)


David Von Pein quoted:

"An FBI examination found no metallic residue on this nick in the tie, and unlike the shirt, the FBI could not find any characteristic disturbance in the fabric around the tie hole "that would permit any conclusion" as to the direction of the missile." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 401 of "Reclaiming History" (footnote)

I had not been aware that Bugliosi had made that comment. All credit to him, the usual description is a through-and-through hole. However, it does raise a problem that I would like you to address, David.

The slit in the shirt - which I understand is the exit point for the bullet - is actually behind the tie. It is just slightly to the right of the shirt's top button when the shirt is buttoned up - as JFK's top shirt button was at the time of impact. (I am referring to JFK's right.)

My point is that this slit is behind the knot in the tie. And so, if there is no through-and-through hole in the tie (as you have reported Vincent Bugliosi stating), then how can this bullet continue its exit path after the tear in the shirt if it does not continue its path through the knot in the tie?

I can see no means for it to do that.


I have a feeling that the mystery could be cleared up quickly if we could (somehow) see the configuration of the tie damage while the tie was still in a knot, rather than only being able to examine the tie in an unknotted condition, like in this NARA photograph. The picture of the tie in Commission Exhibit No. 395, however, isn't very clear and doesn't really help to clear up this "mystery" very much.

In a quote I presented earlier, Dr. Pierre Finck said that the tie was only "GLANCED by the bullet", and that a "tangential path" was taken by the bullet in order to cause that kind of damage, rather than going straight through the fabric of the necktie.

I think that Dr. Finck's explanation makes sense when we view this composite photo I created today (also seen below), which helps us to envision such a "nick" (or maybe "grazing" would be an even better word to use) on the far left side of the knot in President Kennedy's tie while JFK is wearing that tie (blue circle). When the tie is in a tied and knotted configuration, I can now easily envision the type of non-penetrating "nick" (or "grazing") damage being done to the tie that the FBI's Robert Frazier testified about.

Note --- When looking at the area within the blue circle in the picture below, I don't want anyone to jump to the conclusion that I am saying that I know for certain that the tie damage was located in that exact area of the tie knot. I cannot possibly know that for sure. But I do think that the area I have circled is very close to the damaged area we can see in the NARA color photo on the right side of this composite photograph:




From what I can see, your blue circle is way out. As I remember it, the cut is on the button side of the shirt - not the button hole side. Your circle - if anything - should be on the other side.


That's not correct, James. It's very clear from the testimony and statements made by Dr. Finck and Robert Frazier (the ones I previously posted) that the "nick" in the tie was positively on the LEFT SIDE of the knot in the tie, from the perspective of the person wearing the tie. So my blue circle is in the perfect position, based on the testimony of Finck and Frazier (repeated below, with emphasis added by me).

And also don't forget about the slight (but important) RIGHT-to-LEFT trajectory of Oswald's bullet, which he fired into Kennedy's body from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building:

DR. PIERRE A. FINCK -- "...a tear of the cloth to the left side of the knot and corresponding to the two anterior holes in the shirt...indicates a tangential path of the left side in relation to the knot."

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "The only damage to the tie other than the fact that it had been cut, was a crease or nick in the left side of the tie when you consider the tie as being worn on a body. As you view the front of the tie, it would be on the right side."

David Von Pein
April 22-24, 2017

(PART 1243)


There's testimony of *TWO* unidentified men walking down the stairs [of the Texas School Book Depository].


Point me to that testimony.



PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE that you have no idea whatsoever about two unknown men coming down the stairs, and found in testimony, and I'll cite it for you.

An honest man would have no problem with that... I suspect that you'll refuse to publicly admit that you don't know this... because you probably already do.

Which begs the question of why you're asking...

And why you snipped virtually the entire post.


Boy, what a bunch of E.G. Marshall dramatics we have here! (LOL break.) You sure do love to play games, don't you Ben? You're hilarious. Do I need to take an oath or sign any official Dallas Sheriff's Department affidavits before I "PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE" my ignorance on this topic? (I want this to be "official", after all.)


For the record, Your Honor and ladies and gentlemen of the jury and defense counsel Ben Holmes (aka Mr. Prick)....

I do hereby "PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE" that I, David Robert Von Pein of the USA (North America, Milky Way) have no memory of reading any testimony regarding the two (alleged) men who were (allegedly) seen by someone coming down the back stairs in the northwest corner of the Texas School Book Depository Building located at 411 Elm Street in Dallas, Texas, USA, North America, Earth, Milky Way, at approximately 12:30 to 12:31 PM Central Standard Time on Friday, November 22nd, 1963 AD.

Signed (under oath),
David R. Von Pein
Sworn on this date of April 20th, the year of our Lord 2017 AD.

(Member FDIC.)
(Warning: May contain peanuts and milk products.)


Yep... I want your ignorance publicly asserted. Now I'll be happy to provide the citation.

Usually, believers pretend not to know something to avoid debate... and refuse to admit that they don't know it... but as you've asserted that you didn't know this, then I'm happy to cite for it.

It's amusing that David tries to turn his ignorance into a joke... but here's the cite that's been waiting for him:

Simply read til you find his description of two unidentified men coming down the stairs. Page 284 should be your first stop... (I know how much you hate to read the testimony.)

And when you come back - you can PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE that this statement of mine was just as accurate as all the other statements that you refused to respond to.

Or show your cowardice again... who cares?


LOL. Holmes cited a police officer's testimony (Luke Mooney), who, several minutes after the shooting, saw "some other officers coming down, plainclothes, and I believe they were deputy sheriffs". Keep in mind that Mooney by that time had already engaged in a search outside the building down by the railroad yards before he ever entered the Depository. So there was ample time for several policemen to have entered the TSBD before Mooney.

I thought Holmes was going to enlighten us with a "bombshell" witness who saw people on the stairs within a minute or two of the assassination who could conceivably have been "assassins".

I should have known Holmes' claims would turn out to be as bogus as he is.


Yep... two UNIDENTIFIED men - you can't put names to them, and neither can anyone else. Mooney thought that they were police officers, but other than haircut & demeanor, HE HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO GO ON. He didn't know them, he didn't recognize them - he HAD NO CLUE AT ALL other than haircut & demeanor.

It was merely his opinion... and as such, with no corroborative evidence, is nothing more than his opinion. Given more information than he had, it's easy to see that these can very well be the two men seen on the 6th floor by multiple eyewitnesses.

He [Luke Mooney] was *IN* the building before the sniper's nest was discovered. That puts him in the building fairly early on.

Waiting until the police were in the building is a gutsy, but fairly safe way for two men with a police background (or perhaps even active duty) to escape the building.

The timing could be as soon as 5 or 6 minutes after the assassination.

The question *YOU* need to answer is why were "police" *LEAVING THE BUILDING* before the sniper's nest was found?

So yes, it's likely indeed that these two unidentified men were the assassins. There's **NOTHING** you can point to that contradicts that possibility... NOTHING AT ALL. (If there were, surely you'd have spoken up, right David?)

I should have known that you'd refuse to publicly acknowledge THAT MY STATEMENT WAS ABSOLUTELY 100% CORRECT AND NOT MISLEADING IN **ANY** WAY.

And indeed, YOU'RE A LIAR - because there's nothing "bogus" about my statement **AT ALL**. Nor were you able to point out anything "bogus" about it. YOU'RE SIMPLY LYING, DAVID VON PEIN... IF MY STATEMENT WERE "BOGUS" - YOU'D BE ABLE TO QUOTE WHAT WAS "BOGUS" - AND CITE THE EVIDENCE.

But you can't.

But it's interesting to note for the record what David refuses to refute.

David refuses to show that the rifle was in the Paines' garage.

David refuses to show the legitimacy of the paper bag, and ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to address the paper bag that was mailed to Oswald.

David refused to address the issue of identifiable prints on the rifle.

David refused to correct the OUTRIGHT LIE that someone (other than Oswald) set up the sniper's nest without leaving fingerprints.

David refused to correct the BLATANT LIE that no-one was seen coming down the stairs after the assassination.

Tell us David - did you ask for any help from John McAdams? You seem to be slipping...

If a failure to refute is your way of accepting all of these issues, you're well on your way to becoming a critic.

Keep up the good work!


I think you're silly, Ben.

I do lots of "refuting" HERE.


The question *YOU* need to answer is why were "police" *LEAVING THE BUILDING* before the sniper's nest was found?


What makes you think they were "LEAVING THE BUILDING"? Mooney saw them coming down the northwest staircase at some point between the second floor (which is where Mooney got on the stairs in the first place after taking the elevator to the 2nd floor) and the sixth floor.

But there's nothing in Mooney's testimony to indicate on EXACTLY WHAT FLOOR he saw those men. He might have seen them between floors five and six for all we know, with those men (whom Mooney thought were deputy sheriffs) then stopping to search the fifth floor.

So when Ben Holmes says that the men Luke Mooney saw on the stairs shortly after the shooting were "LEAVING THE BUILDING", Holmes is doing what all conspiracy theorists always do 24/7 --- he's SPECULATING heavily.

The men Mooney saw were almost certainly just exactly what he thought they were, they were police officers who went into the building for the same purpose Mooney did. And those officers very likely were not "leaving the building" at the time Mooney saw them. They were merely walking from one of the Depository floors to another in order to search for the assassin or to search for evidence (just like Luke Mooney was doing that day).

Is my last paragraph "speculation" too? You bet it is, because we don't know for sure who the men were that were seen on the stairs by Mooney that day. But it's very reasonable speculation, IMO, given the sum total of the evidence in this case which indicates that Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person who was shooting at President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.


There's testimony of *TWO* unidentified men walking down the stairs.



Luke Mooney never once specified the exact number of people that he saw coming down the back staircase in the TSBD. Mooney merely said that he "met some other officers coming down". He never said he specifically saw "TWO" men on the stairs. It could have been only two men he encountered, yes. But it could have been three or four too. We just don't know, because Mooney never provided that detailed information in his Warren Commission testimony.

So when Ben Holmes attempts to place a definitive number ("TWO") on this incident, Ben is not telling the truth. Because Mooney did not say "two" at all. This is a relatively small and insignificant point, yes. But it helps to illustrate the sloppiness and recklessness of a conspiracy theorist named Ben Holmes.

REPLAY #3....

Waiting until the police were in the building is a gutsy, but fairly safe way for two men with a police background (or perhaps even active duty) to escape the building.


Not a bad point for a conspiracy theorist to make, I must admit. But to assume that the multiple people (not necessarily just "two", as Ben incorrectly asserts) seen by Luke Mooney on the stairs shortly after the assassination "likely indeed...were the assassins" is, in my opinion, simply a case of very wishful thinking being engaged in by CTer Ben Holmes, especially since we know that the Book Depository was definitely crawling with POLICEMEN within a very few minutes of the shots being fired in Dealey Plaza. And we also know that some of those police officers were, indeed, moving UP and then DOWN those back stairs shortly after the shooting in their attempt to locate an assassin or the physical evidence of an assassin having been in that building.

Therefore, it's much more likely that the multiple individuals seen on the staircase by Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney on 11/22/63 were just what Mooney thought they were -- police officers.

Another possibility is that the men Mooney saw on the stairs could have been reporter Kent Biffle and WFAA-TV cameraman Tom Alyea, who entered the TSBD building within a very few minutes of the assassination (and before the police had a chance to seal off the building at approximately 12:37 PM).


What makes you think that Oswald was leaving the building? .... A believer such as yourself HAS NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER describing Oswald as leaving the building when he was heading downstairs. Why would you object to unknown men in the building being described THE SAME WAY **YOU'D** DESCRIBE OSWALD?


Are you REALLY crazy enough to ask that question, Ben? (I guess you are since you just asked it.)

How do you think Lee Oswald got to his roominghouse in Oak Cliff by approximately 1:00 PM if he did not, in fact, leave the Depository building very shortly after he was last seen inside the TSBD Building by Mrs. Robert Reid at about 12:32 PM?

So there's the (obvious) difference, Ben. In Oswald's case, we KNOW via other evidence and other information (e.g., the bus ride, the cab ride, and Earlene Roberts having seen Oswald rush into his roominghouse) that Lee Harvey Oswald positively DID "leave the building" right after he was seen by Mrs. Reid.

But in the instance of the "unidentified men" seen by Luke Mooney somewhere within the Book Depository Building shortly after the assassination, we have no clue as to the specific identities of those men, so therefore we can't possibly KNOW for certain where they went after being seen by Mooney that day.*

* Was it REALLY necessary to explain something so incredibly obvious? Jiminy Christmas.


They [the unidentified men seen by Luke Mooney on the TSBD staircase] went OUT OF THE BUILDING. That's a fact.


It's not a "fact" at all. You're just making up a theory that the men had to be "LEAVING THE BUILDING". There's no evidence for that at all---except your silly theories about those men being "the assassins".


You wish to pretend, with no evidence whatsoever, that they were merely bypassing the 6th floor to begin searching the 2nd... or whatever floor you imagine.


You cannot show otherwise.


We don't even know who they were. You don't. I don't. Mooney didn't. So what you just said—"THEY DISAPPEARED"—is nothing but more speculation on the part of a rabid CTer. Nothing more.


And since we don't know who they are, THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY BE UNKNOWN ASSASSINS... the two who were seen at the 6th floor by multiple eyewitnesses... right David?


See how easy this speculation game is?


You expect Mooney to be familiar with every cop and detective in Dallas, do you?

Ben = Loopy.


Was it REALLY necessary to school you on such simple logic, David?


You fail the "simple logic" test every time, Ben. This discussion was no different.

David Von Pein
April 20-23, 2017


MAY 15, 2007:

MAY 24, 2007:

MAY 25, 2007:

JUNE 7, 2007:

JUNE 22, 2007:

JULY 24, 2007:

DECEMBER 12, 2009:

NOVEMBER 21, 2013:

MARCH 27, 2014:

(50+ VIDEOS):



(PART 1242)



The bus schedules indicate the bus stopped at [Helen Markham's] stop
around 1:26:


Vincent Bugliosi, following Helen Markham's testimony, puts the bus at 1:15.

Bugliosi even argues that he knows of the 1:12 time, and DOESN'T BELIEVE that Helen Markham would say 1:15 for a 1:12 bus. (Of course, honest readers can easily disagree with such a silly assertion.)

Vincent Bugliosi would dismiss **even more strongly** a 1:26 bus time... if Bugliosi thought three minutes was enough to dismiss the 1:12 time, HE'D BE TELLING YOU THAT YOU'RE A FOOL FOR ACCEPTING AN 11-MINUTE DIFFERENCE.

(Which, by the way, most folks would refer to as a 1:25 time...)

So who's telling the lie?

Clearly - Bugliosi must be lying if "Bud" is telling the truth.

So tell us "Bud," why do you think Bugliosi was lying?


Let's see what Mr. Bugliosi actually said about the "bus schedule" topic.....

--- Quote On: ---

"Although an FBI report (CD 630[h]) says that Helen Markham’s bus, per the Dallas Transit System, came by each day “at about 1:12 p.m.,” not 1:15 p.m., I tend to doubt the 1:12 time for two reasons. Number one, the FBI never nailed down which of two separate buses Markham could have taken at Jefferson and Patton, not asking her what corner at the intersection she got on her bus.

Apparently, only one of the buses was scheduled to come by at 1:12, and the FBI never even alluded to the existence of another bus that stopped at a different corner of the intersection and would also have taken Markham downtown by a more indirect route (Myers, 'With Malice', p.597 footnote 154; CD 1128, p.3). Much more importantly, Markham, when asked by Warren Commission counsel, “You know what time you usually get your bus, don’t you?” she answered “1:15” (3 H 306).

And in an earlier FBI interview she said the bus came by at 1:15 p.m. (CD 630[c], p.1). Why in the world would she say 1:15 if it was 1:12? We know that Markham was not a bright woman, but she was smart enough to hold down a job as a waitress, where one has to deal with numbers on a customer’s bill, and smart enough to get to work every day.

It requires NO intelligence to read a watch or clock, and though the Dallas Transit System advised the FBI that the bus was scheduled to come at 1:12, I find it very hard to believe it routinely came by at that time. If it did, with Markham thinking it came by at 1:15, I wonder how she didn’t miss the bus a lot and was able to keep her job."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 44 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)


So clearly, you agree that "Bud" has labeled Vincent Bugliosi a liar.

"Bud" is desperately arguing that the bus came at 1:26.

Either "Bud" or Bugliosi is lying...

Who is it, David?

Who's lying?


Perhaps he [Vince Bugliosi] wasn't aware of the bus schedule.


Where on any of these bus schedules does it say "1:26", Bud? I can't seem to find that time shown anywhere.


It doesn't say, it indicates. This post provides the support.


Ten-Four. Thanks.


Yep... one liar covering up for another.

Tell us David, why do you believe that "Bud" can label Bugliosi a liar and get away with it?


I have no idea why you, Ben Holmes, think anyone has to label Bugliosi a "liar" in this "bus schedule" regard. It seems to me that Vince pretty much AGREES with Bud's analysis on this thing --- i.e., both Bud and Vince B. agree that Helen Markham must not have actually been trying to catch a "1:12" bus. Both Bud and Vince think she caught her usual bus LATER than 1:12.

Why are you so anxious to hang a "liar" label on Vincent Bugliosi at every turn in the road? He didn't "LIE" at all about this bus schedule thing. He was giving his OPINION about Markham's testimony and FBI statements. And those opinions make a lot of sense to me. Why doesn't this VB logic make sense to you, Ben?....

"It requires NO intelligence to read a watch or clock, and though the Dallas Transit System advised the FBI that the bus was scheduled to come at 1:12, I find it very hard to believe it routinely came by at that time. If it did, with Markham thinking it came by at 1:15, I wonder how she didn’t miss the bus a lot and was able to keep her job." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi


You're a GUTLESS liar...

If Bugliosi doesn't agree with Helen Markham on a THREE MINUTE DIFFERENCE, there's no possible way that he'd agree with a difference almost FOUR TIMES LARGER.

Tell us David - why would you pretend that Bugliosi would accept an Eleven minute difference when he refused to accept a three minute difference?


If presented with the analysis that Bud provided HERE, Vince Bugliosi would very likely have been able to accept the "1:26" timing for Markham's bus arrival.

The reason why Bugliosi had trouble accepting the 1:12 time is because if that time were ACTUALLY CORRECT, it would mean that Mrs. Markham would have missed her bus most of the time (if we're to also accept as fact that she caught her bus at 1:15 PM each day). And how likely is it that she was constantly missing the 1:12 bus because she just refused to get there in time? Not very likely, is it?

So, of course, Vince could very easily accept a wider differential in time, because it would mean Markham wouldn't be missing her bus every single day.

Makes sense, doesn't it Holmes? Or would you rather continue your daily habit of being an obnoxious prick by calling me a "GUTLESS liar" one or two more times before this day is done?


Yep... liars are capable of justifying ANYTHING.

Bugliosi made it quite clear what his reasoning was...

You're simply too dishonest to acknowledge it.

Bugliosi would be ashamed of you...


You're nuts. Bugliosi's reasoning in rejecting the 1:12 time is just as he stated in his book....

"I find it very hard to believe it routinely came by at that [1:12 PM] time. If it did, with Markham thinking it came by at 1:15, I wonder how she didn’t miss the bus a lot and was able to keep her job." -- VB

Now, who would routinely get to a bus stop at 1:15 to try and catch a 1:12 bus? That's why Bugliosi had doubts about the "1:12" time.

My guess is that Helen Markham very likely timed it so that she would be at the Jefferson & Patton bus stop at approximately 1:15 every day, and she would (of course) then catch the next bus to come by that was going downtown (whenever that was, at 1:22, or 1:26, whenever). That way, she would be a little early to catch the next bus. Makes sense to me anyway. And the FBI report in CD630 clearly indicates that "the bus is scheduled to pass this point [at Patton and Jefferson] at about 1:12 PM and every ten minutes thereafter".

So it's fairly clear that if Mrs. Markham didn't catch the 1:12 bus, she could have caught another bus at about 1:22 or 1:32. And since she didn't have to be at work until 2:30 PM, there was plenty of time to spare, even if she had to take one of those later busses.

But it makes no sense for her to regularly get to the bus stop at 1:15 if she was really trying to catch a 1:12 bus. That's crazy.


David, I think you are making a mistake relying on that "a bus every 10 minutes" information. Nowhere will you find buses running every 10 minutes during non-peak service. Here in Philly the buses run about 20-25 minutes during peak morning and evening service, and 40-45 minutes during non-peak times.

Think about it, that would be 4 buses running northbound into downtown Dallas and 4 buses running southbound during non-peak service. 8 drivers and eight buses in transit during non-peak service on a single route, the system would be bankrupt.

The Lancaster 55 bus schedule showing a bus every hour off-peak is much more reasonable, and it explains why Markham left so early. The next bus came around an hour later, and would likely drop her off near her work after 2:30.


Yes, Bud, I've got to admit that what you just said makes a lot of sense. But if you are correct, then somebody needs to go and yell at the FBI or the Dallas Transit System, because one or the other got something very fouled up in Commission Document No. 630, which clearly indicates that FBI agent Robert M. Barrett, on March 16, 1964, was informed by the Dallas Transit System that a bus could be boarded at Patton & Jefferson "about every ten minutes...during the afternoon hours of every weekday".

Should we ask for Bob Barrett's resignation? :-)


The evidence *against* the theory that Oswald shot Tippit is quite extensive.


In actuality, the "EVIDENCE" to show that Oswald was innocent of shooting Officer Tippit is NON-EXISTENT.

The actual "evidence" (as opposed to the "evidence" that only exists in a CTer's imagination) is providing the conclusive PROOF that Lee Oswald--and only Lee Oswald--was the killer of J.D. Tippit.

Only a freakish conspiracy theorist bent on mangling the true facts could possibly even begin to believe otherwise.

~Mark VII~
~Hammer stroke~


You knew that the time [for the Tippit murder] specified by the Warren Commission was 1:16.

They could easily have stated 1:14, or 1:15... but they didn't. They had reasons for their decision to select 1:16.

And you know that reason, don't you?


Yes. The Warren Commission incorrectly thought that it was Domingo Benavides who had made the citizen's call at 1:17 or 1:18 on Tippit's police radio. [See Warren Report, Page 166.] But it was really T.F. Bowley, of course, who made that radio call, which was done only AFTER Benavides had been pumping the mike for about 90 seconds. And that mike-pumping began at 1:16 PM.

The Warren Commission was apparently relying only on the truncated transcript of the Dallas Police radio tapes that appears on Page 52 of CE1974, which is a transcript that has several radio transmissions omitted, as well as having a "long pause" of 15 seconds omitted (as we can see when comparing CE1974 with this more complete version of the DPD radio tapes).

The Commission, therefore, failed to take into account the extra 90 seconds of microphone clicking and pumping that was done by Benavides, which I don't think was even discovered until the 1990s when Dale Myers talked about it in his 1998 book.

Ergo, the actual shooting time had to be sometime BEFORE 1:16, because Benavides' "pumping" begins at exactly 1:16. But the WC wasn't accounting for the extra time required for Benavides' mike pumping (because the Commission wasn't even aware of it in 1964).

Dale Myers Quote On:

"Beginning at 1:16 p.m., a microphone is keyed a number of times on channel one of the Dallas police tapes, as if someone were 'pumping' the microphone button of a police radio. This continues for a little over 90 seconds, right up until the time passing motorist T.F. Bowley successfully contacts the dispatcher. .... Considering the timing of the sounds heard in the Dallas police radio recordings, and the corroborating accounts of three witnesses, the murder of Tippit probably occurred about 90 seconds prior to Benavides' bungled attempt to notify the dispatcher. Therefore, there is good reason to believe that J.D. Tippit was shot at approximately 1:14:30 p.m." -- Dale K. Myers; Pages 86-87 of "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald And The Murder Of Officer J.D. Tippit"




I put it a minute or so later. I think the time was a lot closer to 1:18 than 1:16.


I don't think that's possible, Bud. Domingo Benavides was already inside Tippit's patrol car "clicking" the mike on the radio by 1:16. And Bowley's radio call was at approximately 1:17:45 to 1:18, so Bowley TOO was using the radio by 1:18 (and only AFTER Benavides' bungled attempt to use that same radio).

So the murder had to have occurred prior to 1:16. Exactly how long before 1:16 is the hard thing to figure out. Benavides wasn't timing his every move that day, so we can never know for sure exactly how long it took him to get inside Tippit's car after the murder occurred, but Benavides did tell the Warren Commission that he stayed in his truck for "a few minutes" after the shooting took place....

"I set [sic] there for just a few minutes to kind of, I thought he went in back of the house or something. At the time, I thought maybe he might have lived in there and I didn't want to get out and rush right up. He might start shooting again." -- Domingo Benavides; April 2, 1964

There is also Benavides' 1967 interview with CBS News [below], in which he says about the same thing that he told the Warren Commission three years earlier. In the 1967 interview, Domingo said he remained in his truck long enough for Oswald "to get around the house" on the corner of Tenth & Patton, and then Domingo said he sat in his truck "for maybe a second or two" after he saw the gunman (Oswald) go around the corner....

And there is the Dallas Police radio log, which indicates that Benavides started pumping (or clicking) the microphone on Tippit's radio at "1:16 p.m." (according to Dale Myers' extensive research on this topic [see the quote from Myers I cited earlier]; and I respect Dale's research abilities very much). So, if that is indeed the case, then J.D. Tippit was most certainly shot PRIOR to 1:16 PM.

I would, however, be very interested, Bud, to hear your account of the precise timing of J.D. Tippit's murder. How did you arrive at this conclusion, Bud?....

"I think the time was a lot closer to 1:18 than 1:16."

Over the years, I have grown to value your opinion, Bud, every bit as much as I value the opinions of some of my other favorite "LNers" (such as Mr. Myers, Vince Bugliosi, and Jean Davison, among others). So I'd be very interested in your "Tippit Timing" theory. Thank you.


You could be right, I was going by the dialog. I was unaware of the clicking, I was going by the transcripts only. Sounds reasonable [to say that Tippit was shot prior to 1:16 PM].

These kinds of statements show why you should be distrustful of witness time estimates. Oswald moved quick, not quite running across the Davis's lawn, probably only took less than 30 seconds to cut across and out of sight.

Like I said, I was going by the transcripts of when the first contact with the police dispatcher was made. The time given earlier was 1:16, but that doesn't mean that the time didn't change to 1:17 one second after the 1:16 time was given. As far as I know there are no tones or anything to establish passing minutes, only the dispatcher updates, which could [be] at the beginning, middle or end of the minute. I was using this source....and you can see where the 1:16 time is given. Then there are quite a lot of exchanges. Then it says there is a 15-second pause before the call comes in from the Tippit scene.

But like I said, I was unaware of the clicking on the radio, I was going by when the transcript had the call come in.

I was looking at [William] Scoggins' testimony and he said he called in the shooting to the cab driver dispatcher as soon as it occurred. They probably keep pretty good time, that was a missed opportunity to get information. Of course I wish they would have interviewed the bus driver of Markham's bus so he could say when his bus reached Markham's stop also.


Thanks for providing your explanation, Bud.

And, yes, it would have been nice to have some additional testimony (or affidavits) from some of the bus drivers in Dallas who drove the Jefferson/Patton bus route. Any one of those drivers could likely have confirmed or refuted the FBI report by Bob Barrett in which he claims that a bus would stop at Jefferson & Patton every ten minutes.

But, then too, there's always going to be something that slips between the cracks and doesn't get done in a large-scale massive case like the JFK/Tippit/Oswald murder investigations.

Another really big "missed opportunity", IMO, was when the Warren Commission had Jackie Kennedy on the witness stand in June of 1964. She could have provided so much detailed information about the precise LOCATION of President Kennedy's head wounds (since she was literally "trying to hold his head on" during the frantic drive to Parkland Hospital). But, unfortunately, such a golden opportunity went down the drain.

Hindsight is always perfect, though, isn't it?


FYI / FWIW / BTW....

I was just now looking at bus driver Cecil McWatters' Warren Commission testimony, and I took note of a funny thing that occurs over and over again (it's actually meaningless, but humorous)....

During the course of McWatters' testimony, the term "in other words" is spoken an incredible total of 189 times! (And mostly by McWatters himself.)

Holy cow! I'll bet the WC members who were there probably felt like slapping Cecil silly after the first 99 times he said "in other words"! (LOL)

It's kind of like those people who constantly have to say "ya know" every five seconds while they're talking. Annoying as heck.

McWatters also was able to work in two useless "in other words" comments during his very short 1964 interview with CBS News [below]....


PROVEN FACT --- Lee Harvey Oswald Murdered J.D. Tippit.


You're lying again, David.

No such thing has *EVER* been "proven."

The fact that you and the Warren Commission consistently lie about the time of the murder shows that you realize just how weak your case actually is.

Indeed, there's a number of inconsistencies that show that your theory just doesn't fit.


Allow me to restate the obvious once again....

"Even with some anomalies and discrepancies in the timelines and the "Remington" vs. "Winchester" bullet shells, the totality of evidence hangs Oswald for Tippit's murder and always has. And anyone saying otherwise just flat-out does not want to face the reality that exists within that "totality" of evidence."
-- DVP; June 2013


Allow me to restate the obvious for *anyone* reading...


There was never a trial for the Tippit murder, there was *NEVER* any cross examination of the evidence, there's MASSIVE problems in both the evidence and the chain of custody for the evidence.


The fact that you're lying is also demonstrated by your unwillingness to engage in debate on this topic.

Such AMAZING cowardice!!!

And anyone claiming that it's a "proven fact" that Oswald murdered Tippit is lying so blatantly that it's amazing that you aren't struck by lightning.

Tell us David, how do you hope to convince anyone with blatant lies?


You really shouldn't be looking into the Kennedy and Tippit cases, Ben. You're totally incapable of properly assessing the evidence in either case. That couldn't be more obvious to everyone.

I hear toy boats make a nice hobby.

David Von Pein
April 14, 2017
April 15-16, 2017
April 17, 2017
April 17, 2017




Your logic goes something like this:

We know Oswald shot Tippit because he was caught with the revolver in his hand at the Theater, and if we know he shot Tippit then we know he shot him between 1:14-1:15 because any sooner and he wouldn't have been humanly able to get there, and we know he got there because we know he shot him, and if we know he shot him then we know that Helen Markham's regular bus didn't take her to work every day at 1:12pm.


You are full of crap, Davey.


You are the one who is "full of crap", Lee Farley.

Mrs. Helen Markham wasn't due at work at her job at the "Eat Well Restaurant" until 2:30 PM on 11/22/63.

2:30 PM, Lee. That gave her plenty of time to get to work on time even if she missed the bus at 1:12. The busses left every ten minutes along that route on Jefferson Boulevard. So she could have easily gotten on the 1:22 bus and had ample time to get to her job before 2:30 (even if she normally did want to make the 1:12 bus each day).

And I'd be willing to bet you my next disinfo check that Mrs. Markham didn't always make the 1:12 bus every day.

Why do I say that?

Because the fact is -- She simply didn't NEED to make the specific 1:12 bus in order to get to work by 2:30.

I'd wager that there were many days when she had to settle for the 1:22 bus, or the 1:32....which would still give her plenty of time to get to work by 2:30 (even if the bus was practically crawling every step of the way).


HELEN MARKHAM -- "Eat Well Restaurant, 1404 Main Street, Dallas, Tex."

JOE BALL -- "Were you working there on November 22, 1963?"

MARKHAM -- "I was."

BALL -- "What hours did you work?"

MARKHAM -- "I was due at work from 2:30 in the evening until 10:30 at night."

* Mrs. Markham really meant to say "2:30 in the afternoon", of course, since 2:30 PM is far from being "in the evening". But I would imagine that some conspiracy theorists want to bite her head off for making that simple error.



Let me say this reeeeeeeeal sloooooow for you.

Markham had a regular bus. The regular bus was 1:12. She said (UNDER OATH) that she left at her regular time so she could catch her regular bus. Got that? What is it that you fail to grasp on this point?

I don't give a flying rat's ass what you believe about whether she could have gotten a later bus. Keep what you believe to yourself.


It'd be nice if you would follow that same advice. Because the things you believe should, indeed, be kept to yourself (due to their built-in silliness).


How do you know she [Markham] didn't mean to say she was due at work at 1:30 in the afternoon? Do you have the Dobb's timekeeping records under your pillow? But don't worry. It's irrelevant. She told us what time she left for work. A little after 1:00pm.


And "a little after 1:00" perfectly fits with Markham witnessing Oswald killing Tippit at 1:14-1:15.

And if she really meant "1:30", then her "in the evening" comment is even more absurd, because 1:30 is even further away from "evening" than is 2:30. (Maybe Farley didn't think of that angle, though.)

It's interesting that it doesn't bother CTers like Lee Farley that Markham's positive IDing of LHO is corroborated by the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (the bullet shells from LHO's gun, which are shells that prove LHO was the killer, since he still had that same gun on him 35 minutes later).

So, what do the conspiracy clowns do (as always) -- they'll blame the DPD, and say they switched the shells. And they'll even go so far down Patsy Avenue as to pretend that the cops PLANTED Revolver V510210 on Oswald (or just entered that gun into the evidence chain later on).

That's how far off the rails a person needs to go in order to buy into the notion that Lee Oswald was innocent of killing Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit.

But Lee Farley is perfectly willing to go that far off the rails. And he has. (What a surprise.)


You'll always be haunted by the fact that Helen Markham left her house between 1:04-1:07pm and T.F. Bowley's watch will, for the rest of time, be at 1:10pm when he looked at it.

Which means Tippit was killed between 1:07pm and 1:09pm. And that being the case, Oswald didn't do it and your stinking and so-called best evidence is shown up for what it truly is -- fraudulent.


It doesn't mean anything of the sort, Lee.

Since ALL of the times associated with Oswald's movements after he fled the Book Depository are merely ESTIMATES (and, undeniably, they ARE only estimates and approximations), we cannot say with 100% certainty that Earlene Roberts' timing of how long Oswald stayed inside his Beckley Avenue room is spot-on perfect.

In fact, common sense, coupled with some of Mrs. Roberts' own testimony, would indicate that Oswald was only in his room for a very few seconds--one minute at most. Here's why I say that.

So, even if Tippit was killed at 1:07 or 1:09 (or whatever time close to 1:00 you want to come up with), we're really only talking about a very few minutes in real time here. Oswald might very well have left his roominghouse BEFORE 1:00 PM, which would have placed him at Tenth and Patton earlier than 1:14-1:15.

My own opinion (coupled with the excellent and detailed research done on the Tippit murder by author Dale K. Myers) is that Tippit was probably killed at 1:14 to 1:15 PM. But it could conceivably have been earlier, because (as noted) the timing of Lee Harvey Oswald's movements after 12:30 PM is not firmly fixed in stone. And it never was. We can only guess as to the EXACT times.

But, in the final analysis of J.D. Tippit's murder, the hard physical evidence simply HAS to trump all other evidence.

And just because conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio and Lee Farley want to believe that the physical evidence in the Tippit case is "fraudulent" (to use Farley's own term), that doesn't mean that everybody is required to accept such far-fetched notions.

And it's a particularly far-fetched notion in the Tippit case, due to the fact that a DPD officer had been slain. Therefore, according to the theories of people like DiEugenio and Farley, apparently a bunch of cops in charge of investigating the murder of their fellow officer, decided to just IGNORE the real evidence at the scene and, instead, they decided they were going to frame an innocent schnook named Lee Oswald.

Do you realize how silly that proposition is?

I wonder if James DiEugenio or Lee Farley (or any other conspiracist) really do realize how silly that theory truly is. And it certainly is just a "theory". Because no CTer on the planet has proven that ANY evidence that exists against Lee Harvey Oswald in either the JFK or Tippit murder cases is "fraudulent".


Come now, David. What you propose is contrary to the official version of events. The Warren Commission had to use every trick in the book to get Oswald to Beckley by 1:00 p.m. To the point of getting William Whaley to make a liar out of himself on his second appearance. I don't care how long he was in his room.


But it could be very important, because the Warren Commission's estimated times were being based on Earlene Roberts being RIGHT when she said that Oswald was in his room for "3 or 4 minutes".

But just look at what ELSE Earlene Roberts said:

JOSEPH BALL -- "How long did he [Oswald] stay in the room?"

EARLENE ROBERTS -- "Oh, maybe not over 3 or 4 minutes. Just long enough, I guess, to go in there and get a jacket and put it on and he went out zipping it." (Emphasis added by DVP.)


So, from Mrs. Roberts' OWN MOUTH, we have her saying that Lee Oswald likely wasn't in his room any longer than it would take "to go in there and get a jacket and put it on".

Also take note of the words "maybe" and "I guess" in Roberts' Warren Commission testimony there.

In other words, she was GUESSING. That's all. She wasn't timing Oswald with a stopwatch.

And I kinda doubt that it would take 3-4 minutes to just get a jacket. In fact, via the re-enactment done in the 1978 television movie "Ruby & Oswald" (see video below, at the 1:55 mark), it took the actor playing Oswald a mere 22 seconds to do all the things that we're fairly certain Oswald did while he was in his room on 11/22/63 -- e.g., grab his gun and put his jacket on.

But even if the Warren Commission's estimates are correct (with LHO leaving 1026 Beckley at precisely 1:03), there was still time enough for Oswald to get to the Tippit murder site by 1:14 or 1:15 (which is the best estimate for when Tippit's murder took place, being based primarily on the Dallas Police radio tapes, which indicate that T.F. Bowley's call to the DPD occurred at 1:18, which followed about 90 seconds of microphone "pumping" by Domingo Benavides prior to Bowley taking the mike).

We know that the trip from 1026 Beckley to 10th & Patton can be done in about 11 minutes. Several people have done it in just that amount of time. (Plus, we can't possibly know how fast Oswald was walking, or exactly what route he took to get there.)

Let me ask you this, Lee:

Do you think it's reasonable to believe that Benavides waited for NINE MINUTES to grab Tippit's radio and start pumping the mike?

And via the most commonly believed scenario among CTers of Tippit being killed at 1:06, you've got Benavides waiting for about TEN FULL MINUTES to get on that radio.

Frankly, Lee, that's goofy. Benavides didn't wait any nine or ten minutes before grabbing that microphone. And you know he didn't.

Hence, via the DPD tapes (and common sense, plus Domingo Benavides' testimony), Tippit was likely shot at about 1:14 or 1:15.


You said you can still get him [Oswald] there for 1:06-1:09. Show me.



Earlene Roberts was very likely wrong about her "3 or 4 minutes" estimate. Oswald, just like Frederic Forrest in the 1978 movie scene I linked to, probably was in his cubbyhole of a room for about 30 seconds, and not anywhere near three or four minutes.

David Belin & Co. walked the distance from Neely & Beckley to 1026 Beckley in 5 minutes & 45 seconds.

If Oswald had moved considerably faster than Belin's "walking" pace, he could have shaved some time off of Belin's re-creation time and could have likely been inside his room by about 12:57.

He's in his room for 30 seconds, then heads for Tenth Street.

He can positively get to Tenth & Patton in about 11 minutes (that's been done by Dave Perry and others in past reconstructions).

That puts him beside Tippit's patrol car at precisely 1:09. Which, as mentioned, would also have to mean that Domingo Benavides stood beside Tippit's police car picking lint out of his belly button for SEVEN MINUTES before using the police radio. And that is not a reasonable thing to believe, IMO.


Why did Ted Callaway have to ask Domingo Benavides which way the killer went if he saw him and spoke to him?


That's an easy one, Lee:

Since Callaway didn't actually SEE THE MURDER take place, Callaway was merely confirming that the person he saw with a gun on Patton Avenue was, indeed, the ONE AND ONLY KILLER of Officer Tippit.

Callaway, at the time, had no way of knowing if there were one, two, or more killers. So it doesn't seem strange that he would want to confirm (in his own mind) that "THE KILLER" escaped down Patton. And he did confirm that via Benavides.

I achieved my goal though -- Because I just knew beyond all doubt that one or more of you conspiracy theorists here at the "Education Forum" would try to paint Ted Callaway as a bald-faced liar. And I was 100% correct. You actually think Callaway DIDN'T see anyone run past him on Patton on 11/22/63. Beautiful.

And I see that DiEugenio decided to wait until Farley posted his inane remarks about Callaway before he chimed in with his confirmation that he, too, disbelieves Callaway.

Two conspiracy mongers for the price of one. Not a bad day's work.

Now, let's move on to William Scoggins (another witness who verifies the presence of Lee Harvey Oswald on Tenth Street during the Tippit murder):

Just exactly how are you guys going to attempt to discredit Mr. Scoggins in order to pretend that your #1 Patsy for all Nov. 22 murders was totally innocent?

I can't wait to hear the CT brilliance.


Do [CTers] think both Ted Callaway and Sam Guinyard were liars? They really WEREN'T together when Oswald passed by?

And actually, come to think of it, Guinyard is a good witness for the proposition that Oswald was still, indeed, "kicking out shells" out of his gun all the way down Patton, which means that a FIFTH shell might very well have been ejected farther down the street from the corner of 10th & Patton, which would be consistent with Oswald firing five shots (as Callaway always maintained), with one of the shells never being recovered.

I've never heard of anybody hunting for shells far down Patton Avenue. Have you? It's quite possible that a shell was dropped there by Oswald and never found.


Even if – and it is a HUGE "if" – any shells and/or bullets can be conclusively tied to that revolver, which they cannot, the ONLY reason to suppose that the gun "was obviously in perfect working order at approx. 1:14-1:15 PM" is because Oswald can't have gotten to 10th & Patton much sooner than that.

The fact of the matter is that the shooting took place several minutes earlier than that, at approximately 1:08. If you work your way backwards from the 1:16 citizen radio call (unquestionably – and now officially – by Temple F. "Tom" Bowley), including that by the time Bowley got there, a "crowd" had already formed after the shooting, it cannot have happened as late as some would like to believe it did.


There's so much proof that Oswald murdered Tippit, it's mind-boggling. And it's the BEST kind of evidence too -- ballistics (and yes, the bullet shells are irrevocably tied to LHO's gun, and why you're saying otherwise is a huge mystery; but you couldn't be more wrong on that point, as confirmed by Nicol, Frazier, Killion, and Cunningham....and others from the HSCA too) .... plus the fact that Oswald still had the murder weapon in his OWN HANDS just 35 minutes after the murder .... plus MULTIPLE eyewitnesses who said it was OSWALD, not somebody else, who either killed Tippit or fled the scene immediately afterward.

Just stay in fantasy land on this, Duke. That's where you apparently feel most comfortable.




All of that stuff you just mentioned is merely the normal (and expected) smoke and mirrors that a defense lawyer would naturally try to use at a trial in which they absolutely have to know the defendant is guilty. (Just like at the O.J. Simpson trial.)

The defense team would have to convince a jury that this portion of your above scenario actually happened:

"The only pistol at the TT [Texas Theater] was one that the police were trying to force upon him."

Tell me, Greg, just exactly WHY would a reasonable jury even BEGIN to believe such a thing occurred?


Would a reasonable jury truly believe that the Dallas Police (within MINUTES of Tippit's murder) would have had a desire to "force" a pistol into the hands of a man who was in no way involved in J.D. Tippit's murder?

Which would mean, of course, if the jury did buy into the above preposterous notion, that the jury would also have to believe that the DPD would have deliberately allowed the killer of their fellow officer to just get off scot-free, while they framed the innocent man who was arrested in the Texas Theater.

Hogwash. All of it.


BOTH the Warren Commission AND the HSCA were satisfied that Oswald ordered, paid for, and took possession of Revolver V510210 and Rifle C2766.

Do [conspiracy theorists] really want to think that BOTH the WC and the HSCA (14 years apart, with a different group of investigators and committee members and lawyers) didn't know what the hell they were talking about when they concluded that Lee Oswald bought and possessed both of those weapons?

Do conspiracy theorists REALLY believe that?

Amazing if they do.


As I have often said, the sale of the handgun and the rifle were things that were pretty much accepted by the first generation of critics. They should not have been. They are simply too full of holes for any rational person to accept at face value.


But you, Jimbo, as a "Patsy" believer, really should be accepting the undeniable fact that Oswald ordered and took possession of both the rifle and the revolver (and it is a conclusive fact that those two items were ordered and possessed by LHO, despite the weird protestations of the conspiracists like Jim DiEugenio.).

Why should you believe that?

Because, as I mentioned to you previously (and this is only garden-variety common sense of the first order) -- It makes much more logical sense in a frame-up (or "Patsy") theory to have your make-believe conspirators running around attempting to frame Oswald with HIS OWN GUNS, versus the incredibly complicated and laughable cloak-and-dagger version of events surrounding the gun purchases that you want to believe is true.

Don't you agree, James?

So why don't you stop pretending Oswald never even had C2766 or V510210 in his hands at all in the year 1963....because there's ample proof you are dead wrong, including photos showing him holding the Carcano (yes, I know you want to pretend those pics are frauds too), and the little fact that Oswald was caught with the revolver in his hands in the theater.

Seems to me you'd be wise to go back to siding with those first-generation critics and just admit what is obviously the truth -- Oswald owned the two guns.

And then your make-believe Patsy plot is easier to swallow too.

Of course, there are still many bumps in the Patsy road even if you accept the guns as being Oswald's -- e.g.: You'd still have to totally ignore all the lies told by your patsy on Nov. 21 and 22. And you'd still have to totally ignore Oswald's own incriminating actions on Nov. 22.

But I'm sure you're up to that easy task of ignoring (or mangling) all of that unimportant stuff, right Jimmy?

David Von Pein
November 25—December 16, 2011