(PART 1262)


Vincent Bugliosi Interviews
and Personal Appearances...


Do you have his [Vince Bugliosi's] lecture from Harvard where I caught him
in a lie?


If you mean Mr. Bugliosi's personal appearance at the Brattle Theater in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on May 22, 2007 — no, I don't have any audio or video of that particular appearance by VB.

I searched for it at Fora.tv's website (because I think it's quite possible that it was filmed by Fora.tv, although I could be mistaken about that), but I had no luck in finding any recording of that program.

But since this subject has come up (and since you, Tony Marsh, were there that night in Cambridge) — Did you by chance see any TV cameras or video cameras in the Brattle Theater that night? (I'm just curious.)


Maybe, but not public access cameras.


OK. Thanks.


Revised, expanded, and tweaked....


How come you don't have his lecture from Cambridge at the Brattle Theater? Remember, the one where I called him a liar to his face?

Ironically, just yesterday my old Communist buddy berated me for even going to that lecture when he had just recently gone to a lecture to heckle the speaker. And he was aghast that I sat behind Priscilla.


I wish I did have it. It apparently wasn't recorded on audio or video. And in wondering if there was any video coverage of that 5/22/07 event, I asked you this on April 22nd of this year (in this very thread)....

"I searched for it at Fora.tv's website (because I think it's quite possible that it was filmed by Fora.tv, although I could be mistaken about that), but I had no luck in finding any recording of that program. But since this subject has come up (and since you, Tony Marsh, were there that night in Cambridge) --- Did you by chance see any TV cameras or video cameras in the Brattle Theater that night? (I'm just curious.)" -- DVP; April 22, 2017


[DVP Said: "It apparently wasn't recorded on audio or video."]

Not that you know of. I was actually there. I saw the small video camera on a tripod. I have been attacked in the newsgroups for calling Bugliosi a liar at that lecture.


Why, then, didn't you provide me with that same answer this past April when I specifically asked you about cameras possibly being at the Brattle Theatre for the Bugliosi appearance? Instead, you answered with this wishy-washy reply:

"Maybe, but not public access cameras." -- T. Marsh; 4/24/17


See, you had to admit that I did answer your silly question. I am not
priveleged [sic] to know who taped it.


But this question and enduring mystery remains....

Why didn't you, W. Anthony Marsh, want to correctly answer my question about the cameras the first time I asked you in April? Here's the exchange from April:

DVP -- "Did you by chance see any TV cameras or video cameras in the Brattle Theater that night?"

ANTHONY MARSH -- "Maybe, but not public access cameras."

---End Quotes---

But that "Maybe" answer was not a completely truthful answer at all, was it Mr. Marsh? We know now that it wasn't truthful because of these remarks uttered five months later by Anthony Marsh of Massachusetts on September 22, 2017:

"I was actually there. I saw the small video
camera on a tripod."

Did you hear that, ladies and gentlemen of the jury?! The defendant in this case, W. Anthony Marsh, just told you that he "SAW THE SMALL VIDEO CAMERA ON A TRIPOD" at the Brattle Theatre on May 22, 2007! He saw a camera there!

Now, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I suppose it's possible that Defendant Marsh held the opinion as of April of this year that I, DVP of the Hoosier State of Indiana, whom Mr. Marsh thinks of as merely a lowly insignificant "WC defender", simply could not handle the truth when it came to the true answer to the question of: Were there any cameras present at Vincent Bugliosi's public appearance held at the Brattle Theatre (located at 40 Brattle Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138) on the night of Tuesday, May the 22nd, 2007?

And therefore, rather than provide me with a completely forthright and truthful answer to the question about the cameras, Defendant Marsh decided it would be better for everybody concerned if he answered my question with these wishy-washy, half-baked words on April the 24th, 2017:

"Maybe, but not public access cameras."

It's now time to let you, the jury, decide the outcome of this "Cameras Or No Cameras?" case. If you believe that Mr. W. Anthony Marsh was being totally forthright, candid, and truthful when he said the word "Maybe" in his Usenet newsgroup post of April 24th, 2017, then by all means you should vote the defendant Not Guilty.

But if you believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Marsh was being deliberately deceptive, slippery, and obfuscatory when he replied with that "Maybe" answer to my question this past April—well, then, the only fair verdict you, as a jury, can possibly reach would be a verdict of GUILTY OF DECEPTION IN THE FIRST DEGREE!

And there can be only one proper penalty for such a heinous crime—Mr. Marsh must be forced to read every single page and every single hilarious word that has been posted on this website:


If that torturous penalty isn't enough to make Mr. Marsh realize the error of his ways, then nothing ever will.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

David Von Pein
April 20—September 24, 2017

(PART 1261)


Interesting that you are absolutely sure there was three shots. Twenty-two men on two different Panels charged with investigating the assassination were never certain that three shots had been fired.


There's very little doubt, in my opinion, that three (and only three) shots were fired---and they all came from the sixth floor of the Depository. If some people have doubts as to the precise number of shots fired in Dealey Plaza, that's fine. People are free to doubt things all they want (and they do). But, IMO, the two facts shown below (when put together) pretty much seal the deal when it comes to the question of "How Many Shots Were Fired?"....

1.) More than 75% of the earwitnesses said they heard exactly THREE shots fired. No more. No less. (And according to John McAdams' 2013 re-evaluation of the witness statistics, the number of "3 Shots" witnesses is even higher---81%.)


2.) THREE spent bullet shells were found under the sixth-floor window.

Yes, we should always be wary of "witness testimony". But when you get THAT many people saying "Three Shots" (more than 100 witnesses were used to comprise McAdams' pie charts), it makes it much easier to accept what they said as the probable truth (and much more likely).

If we had only two or three witnesses who said "3 shots", it would be much easier to dismiss them all as possibly not getting the exact number correct. But 100+ witnesses? Are you going to dismiss 100-plus people who all said exactly the same thing regarding the number of shots? That doesn't seem like a very logical thing to do....does it?

More here:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Dealey Plaza Earwitnesses


"The physical and other evidence examined by the Commission compels the conclusion that at least two shots were fired." -- Warren Commission
Report, page 110

"The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired." -- Warren Commission Report, pages 110111.

"The committee believed that the witnesses' memories and testimony on the number, direction, and timing of the shots may have been substantially influenced by the intervening publicity concerning the events of November 22, 1963." -- HSCA Final Report, page 87.

Within 18 minutes of the shooting, the first report to J. Edgar Hoover was that two shots had been fired. Hoover's written memo stated that at 12:48 p.m. Dallas time, he was notified that, "One witness said a Negro man leaned out a window and made two shots." Half an hour later, Hoover clarified that it was unknown whether the gunman was white or Negro.

To make a blanket statement that the majority of the witnesses heard three shots is taking a very narrow view of the issue and ignores the explanation of two different panels as to why they believed there were fewer shots than what was reported by many witnesses.

A breakdown of witness testimony that does not include their initial statements, that the second shot was the head shot, that the second and "third" shots were so close together that they sounded as one, and that does not separate the eyewitnesses from the earwitnesses, is a narrow and unproductive look at the witnesses and how their statements evolved after hearing the constant press reports of three shots.

The only dismissing that appears to be taking place here is the large number of eyewitnesses who initially reported two shots, then changed to three; the sequence of the wounds; and the shot timing inconsistent with the 2.3 seconds the FBI determined was necessary to cycle the Carcano.

To blindly claim that three shots were fired is to completely dismiss the statements of some of [the] eyewitnesses like Jackie, Nellie, JBC, Clint Hill, Paul Landis, Bill Newman, Brehm, Hargis, Chaney, the Chisms, Jean Newman, Sitzman, Zapruder, Brennan, Bonnie Ray Williams, Jarman, Marilyn Willis, Greer, and Altgens. The people closest to JFK or to the sniper's nest made initial statements contradicting the conclusion that three shots were fired.

The only logical choice available is two shots, given a large majority of eyewitnesses stated that there were two shots, and only a bullet and bullet fragments from two bullets were ever recovered. A number of eyewitnesses told media interviewers that they did not know about a third shot, but the media persisted in reporting that three shots had been fired. Logic also dictates that the six differences between CE543 and the other shells, CE544, CE545, and CE141, and the thirty test shells fired by the FBI and referenced by Josiah Thompson, require an explanation.

A final logic issue is, how could LHO fire two extremely accurate shots and yet completely miss everyone and everything with a third shot, when all of them were fired within seconds of each other? And why was no third bullet ever found? How could so many eyewitnesses clearly hear two shots, yet fail to hear a third one? The sound of the rifle shots was described as very loud in the HSCA Acoustical Analysis Report, so how could a shot fail to even register with so many eyewitnesses?


For what it's worth, the very first CBS bulletin as announced by Walter Cronkite stated that three shots were fired at JFK's motorcade. This of course does not establish as fact that three shots were fired since Cronkite made a number of false reports over the next couple of hours, but this early initial report cannot be dismissed as having been influenced by early news reports. It was the early news report.


Virtually all of the people who were in a position to report the shooting to the world (i.e., the TV and radio media personnel--such as Jay Watson, Merriman Smith, Jack Bell, Pierce Allman, Jerry Haynes, and others) heard THREE shots exactly.

And I don't see how the various "Two Shots" witnesses do any harm to the "Oswald Acted Alone" scenario at all. Any "4 Shots Or More" witnesses might do some damage to the theory of Oswald acting all by himself, but the 2-Shot witnesses (such as Abe Zapruder, Bill Newman, and others) don't hurt the Lone Assassin position a bit.


This memo shows how confused they [the Warren Commission and its staff] really were about the mechanics of the assassination. They seem to understand the cycle time of Oswald’s Carcano but fail to apply it properly to what the witnesses said happened.

The biggest mistake they make is relying on John Connally’s recounting of when he was wounded. He was all over the board about his actions and his estimates. One of the few things he got right was that he heard only two shots. The four witnesses, Jackie, Nellie, Newman, and Hargis, who noted his [Connally's] wounding, all stated that he was hit by the same bullet that struck JFK. They all initially stated that there were only two shots.

The exact location of the first shot is known by the statements of the sidewalk witnesses. It took place just after the limousine passed Jean Newman, before the Chisms, right in front of the TSBD secretaries, and right after JFK turned his head to the right which takes place at Z204.

The idea that these people could stand on the street waiting to see the President and not observe and note what took place in front of them is absurd. To believe that you would have to believe that people cannot recount a movie or any event they had intently just watched.

The Ball/Belin Report from February 1964 shows their only concern in investigating the assassination was to look entirely at the people around the sniper's nest in an attempt to identify the assassin. The conundrum noted by them was the fact that half of the witnesses they were concentrating on said there were only two shots. They were absolutely not interested in the witnesses surrounding the car at that time. How they could discount the statements of people like Clint Hill and Paul Landis, James Chaney and Bobby Hargis, is nonsensical. They did so because these people only heard two shots, and that did not fit with their preconceived notions and opened a can of worms they did not want opened.


Thomas Edison was confused about how to make a working light bulb for the longest time before he finally found the answer. Before then he had lots of failures but he learned something with each failure that eventually led him to the right answer.

People rarely find the answer to complex problems right off the bat. It takes time. Trial and error. I have no doubt the WC and their staff lawyers floated a number of ideas before finding the right answer. What matters is their final conclusion, not what they left in their waste paper basket.

You can construct just about any scenario you want depending on which witnesses you choose to believe. The forensic evidence tells the story. The medical evidence combined with the film record and the reconstruction of the shooting leave little doubt there were three shots, two hits, with one of the hits striking both men.

They [the Warren Commission] had to discount somebody's accounts since they had numerous accounts that were mutually exclusive. The shooting happened only one way but it was described dozens of ways. Lots of the witnesses had to be wrong about some very important details because they could not possibly all be correct.


One of the few things he [Governor Connally] got right was that he heard only two shots.


Governor Connally HEARD two shots but FELT a completely SEPARATE and DIFFERENT additional shot/bullet. His never-wavering testimony about hearing a shot BEFORE he was hit by a bullet is one of the most convincing reasons to know there were three shots fired in Dealey Plaza.

In order for the "2 Shots Only" theory to be correct, we'd have to believe Connally was hit by the first shot, which is a shot Connally could not possibly have been hit by, because he was very clear about the fact he heard that shot a few seconds before he was hit, and he was clear about there being enough time for him to "turn" in his seat and to "think" and to "react" to the sound of that shot before he himself was struck.

So while John B. Connally was positively the worst witness for trying to determine whether the Single-Bullet Theory is correct or not (since JBC never saw JFK at the operative time to determine such a thing), Mr. Connally was one of the best witnesses for trying to determine how many shots were fired. And that number was almost certainly three, not just two.

David Von Pein
September 18-23, 2017



Rare: Sylvia Meagher Interview [below]....

I have never heard an interview with her before. So I think this will be the first time you hear her voice.

Interesting how she takes no prisoners about the WC.

Near the end, did Marina lie about the license plate to cover up Lee's informant status?

Do any [of] our Paine experts have an opinion on her clear implication that Marina could not have recorded the Hosty info in Oswald's notebook?

If not, then it was either Oswald or Ruth Paine, correct?

[Source for the above interview: OurHiddenHistory.org]


I think the answer to the "license plate" controversy/mystery is a very simple one --- Marina Oswald simply walked out to the curb where James Hosty's car was parked and looked at the license plate. She then wrote down the number and later gave it to her husband, Lee. Lee then wrote the license number in his address book [see Commission Exhibit No. 18].

And the scenario I just laid out above is also exactly what Vincent Bugliosi asserts in his 2007 book, "Reclaiming History". Let's have a look at what Bugliosi wrote....

[Quote On:]

"The next day, Tuesday [November 5, 1963], Jim Hosty made another trip to Fort Worth. Since his route took him past Irving and Ruth had told him she would try to get Lee's address in Dallas for him, he decided to stop by to see if she had done so. His partner, Agent Gary S. Wilson, went up to the door with him, and Hosty spoke with Ruth on the doorstep for a few minutes. She had not asked Lee for his address in Dallas, but she had given him Hosty's telephone number and thought he would call.

Ruth mentioned the fact that Lee had told her that weekend that he was a Trotskyite Communist. She found what Lee told her more amusing than anything else, and told Hosty Lee was "an illogical person." Hosty wondered to Ruth whether Lee had mental problems. Ruth responded that she did not understand the thinking of anyone who espoused Marxism, but that was far different from a judgment that Lee was unstable or unable to function in a normal society.

The interview at the front door lasted only a few minutes, and Hosty and Ruth recalled Marina appearing briefly just as the agents were leaving. She had actually been outside while Hosty was talking to Ruth, memorizing the license plate number of Hosty's official FBI car and walking around the car several times to see if she could determine the car's make, which she could not. The two women watched from the front window as the FBI agents drove away from the curb, made a U-turn, and went back the way they had come, heading for the highway to Fort Worth.

Then Marina, in accordance with Lee's instructions and still without Ruth's knowledge, wrote the license plate number down on a piece of paper. Either
she got one number wrong or Lee copied it wrong into his address book, where
it was found, written in his hand, after the assassination."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 777 of "Reclaiming History"

[End Quote.]

Mr. Bugliosi utilized several different sources for the above book excerpts. Here's a complete list of those sources (with links included, where available, plus additional comments made by Bugliosi within two of the source notes):

.... 1 H 48, WCT Marina N. Oswald;

.... 3 H 99, WCT Ruth Hyde Paine;

.... Hosty with Hosty, Assignment: Oswald, p.51 (in Hosty’s testimony before the Warren Commission [4 H 453] he said he didn’t see Marina);

.... McMillan, Marina and Lee, p.498;

.... 9 H 398–400, WCT Ruth Hyde Paine;

.... License plate in address book: CE 18, 16 H 64 (the entry is a few spaces below the date, November 1, and name James P. Hosty; Ruth told Oswald on November 1 about Hosty’s visit earlier in the day; the license number almost assuredly would have been put into his address book after Hosty’s second visit on November 5, when Marina got it for Lee);

.... One digit off on license plate number: 5 H 112, WCT J. Edgar Hoover.


Despite the fact I disagree very strongly with virtually everything Sylvia Meagher said in the January 1967 interview presented above, I still enjoyed listening to the interview very much. It seems quite obvious to me when listening to her speak that Sylvia was a very intelligent and articulate lady. I think she was 100% wrong when she said that the 888-page Warren Commission Report "is a false document", but I still respect Sylvia's savvy and her communication skills (based on this one interview from 1967).

In my opinion, one fairly big mistake that Meagher makes when talking about Lee Harvey Oswald's supposed "Coke alibi" is that Sylvia seems to totally ignore the fact that during the Warren Commission's re-enactment of Oswald's alleged movements just after the assassination (which culminated in Oswald being confronted by Dallas policeman Marrion L. Baker in the Book Depository's lunchroom on the second floor approximately 90 seconds after President Kennedy was shot), the Secret Service agent who performed the re-creation (John Howlett) was only moving at two different "walking" speeds when travelling from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest to the second-floor lunchroom [Warren Report, Page 152].

Oswald, therefore, could very easily have shaved many seconds off of Howlett's fastest re-enactment time of 74 seconds if he (Oswald) had been moving faster than just the "normal walking pace" or the "fast walk" that were employed by Special Agent Howlett during the re-creations of the event.

I think it's quite logical to believe that Oswald was, indeed, very likely moving quite a bit faster than Howlett was moving when Oswald left the Sniper's Nest and headed downstairs on 11/22/63. But judging by the words we hear spoken by Sylvia Meagher in her 1967 radio interview, Mrs. Meagher doesn't seem to allow for even the possibility that Oswald could have arrived in the second-floor lunchroom ANY faster than Agent Howlett's quickest re-created time, which was 1 minute and 14 seconds. [More here.]

Plus, Meagher doesn't allow for other possibilities with respect to the crossed-out "Drinking a Coke" reference found in Marrion Baker's 9/23/64 signed statement. More discussion about "The Coke" can be found in this article.

David Von Pein
September 12, 2017