(PART 122)


How does one explain the written exhibits that say there were two shells found? There is one by FBI agent Doyle Williams on 11/22/63.

Also, there is an envelope that contains pics of the exhibits shot by DPD for the FBI and it says there were two bullet hulls and one live round of 6.5 ammunition found on the sixth floor. That was made out on the same day.

The next day, Hoover signed a report to Curry which identified two cartridge cases and one live round which were turned over to Drain. No fingerprints were found.

Five days later, on the 27th, a third empty case was allegedly given to Drain. Drain wrote that he got it from Day.

What is notable about this is that the third case was CE 543. Which today, I am convinced not only was not fired in Dealey Plaza, but could not have been fired. Tink Thompson says that this case had been fired previously.

The FBI now went for a three bullet scenario with no Single Bullet Theory.

I am sure that people here are familiar with the photos in the Twyman book which appear to show just two shells and one live round. So it's not just the written reports.

The late Vincent Bugliosi got out of this one by saying Fritz picked up one of the shells for testing. Which is simply goofy. No lab had better testing than the FBI at the time. And he refuses to admit that CE 543 is a dead giveaway as to a frame up.


"Goofy" or not, Captain Fritz did retain one of the 3 shells in his office at the DPD.

Here's exactly what Captain Fritz said in an affidavit dated June 9, 1964:

--Quote On:--

"Three spent rifle hulls were found under the window in the southeast corner of the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building, Dallas, Texas, on the afternoon of November 22, 1963. When the officers called me to this window, I asked them not to move the shells nor touch them until Lt. Day of the Dallas Police Department could make pictures of the hulls showing where they fell after being ejected from the rifle. After the pictures were made, Detective R. M. Sims of the Homicide Bureau, who was assisting in the search of building, brought the three empty hulls to my office. These were delivered to me in my office at the police headquarters. I kept the hulls in an envelope in my possession and later turned them over to C. N. Dhority of the Homicide Bureau and instructed him to take them to Lt. Day of the Identification Bureau. I told Detective Dhority that after these hulls were checked for prints to leave two of them to be delivered to the FBI and to bring one of them to my office to be used for comparison tests here in the office, as we were trying to find where the cartridges had been bought. When Detective Dhority returned from the Identification Bureau, he returned the one empty hull which I kept in my possession. Several days later, I believe on the night of November 27, Vince Drain of the FBI called me at home about one o'clock in the morning and said that the Commission wanted the other empty hull and a notebook that belonged to Oswald [sic; this is an error on Fritz' part, because the "Commission" didn't even exist as of 11/27; Fritz probably meant to say "the FBI" instead of "the Commission"]. I came to the office and delivered these things to the FBI. We have Mr. James P. Hosty's receipt for these items in our report." -- J.W. Fritz; 6/9/64

--End Quote.--

So, Jim, is it your opinion that the above affidavit, which is completely reasonable and sensible in every respect, is nothing but a pack of lies?



Did you read Reclaiming Parkland...?


No, of course I haven't. I wouldn't bring that thing into my house if you paid me.


See, I read Reclaiming History. And I summarized this evidence about the shells, which Barry Krusch did a nice job on, and I stated how Bugliosi replied to it.

I noted that VB said that a shell was kept in Dallas for comparison tests. But comparison to what, if the other two were at the FBI lab?

The other problem is that if Fritz wanted to check to see who sold the ammo, why would you need a sample? You just call the gun shops and ask them about the type of ammo. (DiEugenio, p. 213)

The other point which I think is relevant is this: If you buy the Fritz story, is it just a coincidence that the one shell that was left behind is the tell tale one, CE 543?


You're wrong, Jimmy. The one shell left behind was CE545 --- not CE543. See Lt. J.C. Day's 6/23/64 affidavit here.


This is what I mean abut DVP not reading my book or any other one that disagrees with him or the DPD or the FBI.

As Barry Krusch showed, the shells were not initialed at the scene. And the envelope was not sealed when it was returned to Day that evening at about 10 PM.

On April 23, 1964 Day wrote that one of the shells, CE 543, had only the initials GD on it. Yet when George Doughty was interviewed by Day, he did not recall handling that exhibit. This is an important point.

Where Davey picks up the story is in the rehab mode. On June 23, 1964 Day reversed himself. He said he had initialed CE 543 with Doughty. In Day's original story, that particular shell was not sent to Washington with the others. It was kept by Fritz in his desk drawer. But as Krusch shows, with this new affidavit, the story changed. (DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 94)


That mix-up/discrepancy is fully (and reasonably) explained by Lieutenant J.C. (Carl) Day in his 6/23/64 affidavit. But if you want to think this is all a great-big lie, go ahead. ....

--Quote On:--

"The third hull, commission number 545, was later released directly to the FBI by the Dallas Police Department Homicide Division. At 10:00 P.M. November 22, 1963, Detective C. N. Dhority brought the three hulls in the marked envelope back to Lieutenant Day in the Identification Bureau office to recheck for prints. Dhority retained one hull, commission number 545 and left the other two, commission numbers 543, 544 along with the envelope with me to be sent to the FBI.

Vince Drain, FBI agent, took custody at 11:45 A.M. the same day. When I appeared before the commission April 22, 1964, I could not find my name on one of the hulls, identified as commission number 543, and thought this was the hull that had been retained by Dhority.

On June 8, 1964, the three hulls, commission numbers 543, 544, and 545, were back in Dallas and were examined by Captain G. M. Doughty and myself at the local FBI office.

Close examination with a magnifying glass under a good light disclosed that my name "Day" was on all three hulls, at the small end. Also GD for Captain George Doughty was on two of them. Commission numbers 543 and 544 were the first two sent to Washington on November 22, 1963. They have Doughty's initials where he marked the hulls as they were released to Vince Drain at 11:45 P.M. on November 22, 1963 by Doughty and Day. The third hull, commission number 545, does not have Doughty's mark, but is plainly marked "Day". In Washington, I had numbers 543 and 545 switched because I didn't find my name on number 543.

I can identify commission numbers 543, 544, and 545 from my name on them, as the three hulls found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22, 1963.

As to the time I scratched my name on the hulls, I do not remember whether it was at the window when picked up or at 10:00 P.M. November 22, 1963, when they were returned to me by Dhority in the marked envelope. It had to be one or the other, because this is the only time I had all three hulls in my possession."

--End Lt. Day Quote.--


The shells have been moved, haven't they? ....


No, Steve, the shells have not been moved. In the poor-quality photo we see in CE512, we can barely see two of the shells, and the thing you might be thinking is a "shell" (closest to the cameraman) in CE512 is actually not a shell. It's a piece of paper or debris of some kind.

Here's a higher-quality picture of the three bullet shells from the Dallas Municipal Archives....


I agree that the circles look machine added [in CE512]. The WC probably did that.


Yes, I agree. The dark circles in CE512 are undoubtedly not hand-drawn on the picture. The Warren Commission probably added the darker circles because the original circles were so light and dim, the Commission might have thought they wouldn't even be noticed. Hence, they merely accentuated the hand-drawn circles.

The same thing happened with the two "machine" circles in CE511.

And my guess would be that the only reason they didn't add in three machine-enhanced circles in CE510 is because those original hand-drawn circles are bold and noticeable enough for everybody to easily see. So there was no need to "accentuate" the obvious there.

As for why the WC didn't feel the need to "accentuate" the very dim hand-drawn circles we find in yet another Warren Commission exhibit showing the three bullet shells on the floor—CE716—I haven't the foggiest idea. But from a "dim" standpoint, CE716 needs accentuating more than any of the other exhibits.

David Von Pein
March 24-25, 2018




When you examine the evidence, it's pretty obvious that Blakey is correct on this issue: from the night of the assassination, until Sunday at 11:21, Ruby was stalking Oswald.


I disagree. The things you (and other conspiracy theorists) insist are evidence of Jack Ruby "stalking" Lee Harvey Oswald are actually just normal things for Jack Ruby to have done in the wake of JFK's murder.

If it had been someone other than Ruby engaging in the behavior he engaged in from 11/22/63 to 11/24/63, I might agree with you about the "stalking" angle. But knowing about Ruby's penchant for wanting to be where the action is, then such behavior can very easily be considered normal in every sense of that word—"normal"—for one Jacob Leon Rubenstein.

So, how can somebody's normal and expected behavior be looked upon as "stalking"?


It's normal to disguise yourself as a reporter, with glasses and notepad, and inject yourself into a press conference in that guise?


For Jack Ruby --- Yes! That is just exactly the type of thing that the gregarious and outgoing Mr. Ruby might want to do in order to thrust himself into the middle of a huge story like the one that was unfolding at Dallas City Hall on the night of November 22nd. It was vintage Jack Ruby all the way. Much like his behavior in the DPD hallways that same night when he arranged interviews with D.A. Henry Wade for WNEW's Ike Pappas and for two different reporters at KLIF Radio as well (listen to those KLIF interviews below, including an on-air credit given to Jack Ruby).


If what you are saying is accurate, that it was normal, Ruby would not have done that at all.





BTW, Blakey is now a conspiracy theorist?


Reprise .... Huh?!

You're just pulling my leg now, aren't you? You must be. Because you know that G. Robert Blakey is the biggest "The Mob Did It" conspiracy theorist of all time! Just listen to him---here.


I don't think DVP understands what I am talking about.

If such a thing would have been natural for Ruby, he would not have disguised himself as he did nor interjected himself into the discussion. Thereby drawing attention to himself.


I think you're overstating Jack's "disguise".

Also -- Why didn't Ruby kill Oswald at the midnight press conference on Friday night? He said he had his gun on him at that time. Why wait till Sunday?


As per Robert Blakey, he has always maintained the SBF [Jim's shorthand for "Single Bullet Fantasy"]. And he does to this day.

So you are saying that since he thinks Ruby stalked LHO and killed him for the Mob, that is being a Conspiracy Theorist?


Yes. Of course it is. Without question.

Blakey, in fact, believes in a pretty massive conspiracy surrounding not only the murder of JFK (by the Mob), but the murder of Oswald (by the Mob, via Ruby). If that's not enough to classify Mr. Blakey as a "conspiracy theorist", then what would be enough?



Do you really think that Ruby acted spontaneously, out of sorrow for the Kennedy family?


Whatever Ruby's motive might have been (and it was never proven exactly what that motive might have been), there's no question (in my mind anyway) that Ruby's actions and movements on 11/24/63 were positively "spontaneous" and unplanned. The timing of Karen Carlin's 10:19 AM phone call and the sending of the Western Union telegram at 11:17 AM are two things that indicate the "unplanned" nature of Ruby's murder of Oswald that day....with both of those things occurring AFTER the scheduled (and announced) 10:00 AM transfer of Lee Oswald.

As much as it might LOOK (on the surface) like a "Mob hit" on Oswald in the Dallas police basement, given the details of Jack Ruby's movements and actions and phone calls on the morning of November 24th, I cannot see any way to wedge a pre-planned conspiracy into Ruby's activities that day.


Davey relies on the Carlin call and the WU transfer to say it was a spontaneous action by Ruby. These two excuses are as old as the hills. What was amazing is that Bugliosi relied upon them also. Which is what is wrong with DVP's research.

First, there were four witnesses who saw Ruby at the station that morning at around 9:30. He asked one of them if Oswald had been brought down yet.

Now, one thing that the WC relied upon, as does Bugliosi is this: not making the spatial relationships clear. It only takes about 15-20 minutes to drive from Ruby's apartment to City Hall. Therefore, if the Carlin call came in at about 10:20, then that was fine for time considerations.

Now, to the Carlins. I examined the record on this issue, with the help of Greg Parker, like no one did before. First, Ruby had already given Karen an advance on Saturday night. Therefore, the Commission had to create an excuse for the next morning phone call and the WU wire. With the help of the Secret Service, they did. It turned out to be rent and groceries.

But yet, when the SS talked to the landlord he said there was never any rigid schedule for the rent, and he never presented a demand for payment! In fact, at the first interview the SS never asked him about the rent at all. In examining their testimony it is clear that the FBI and SS harassed them into keeping this phony story straight, to the point that Bruce Carlin lost his job over it! Karen Carlin admitted to the DPD that she had been pre interviewed SEVEN TIMES!

All for a simple rent and groceries story? I don't think so. Which is why the Carlins showed up with a lawyer, something few witnesses did. But still, Karen said that it was Ruby's idea to send the money by WU. The WC tried to talk her out of this, and she said, "I won't say for sure about anything. I'm not sure about nothing anymore." If I had been interrogated seven times, that is what I would say also. In addition to losing his job, Bruce said some of the FBI calls took place in the middle of the night.

But why would Ruby insist on the WU wire that Sunday morning? It goes back to the WC not being clear about the spatial relationships. See, back in the nineties someone sent me a photo taken from the back of City Hall. Looking out that back door, you can clearly see the WU station. In other words, once everything was in place, that is Ruby and Oswald, all that Dean or Croy had to do was wave across the street to Ruby. It takes about 2 minutes and 20 seconds to traverse from the WU station to inside the parking lot.

This is why Dean had to lie to Griffin about that back door. This is why the DPD did not send Lt. Don Flusche to the WC. Flusche had his car parked across the street from the Main Street ramp well in advance since he wanted to see the Oswald transfer. He knew Ruby and he said with utter certitude Ruby was never near that ramp before he shot Oswald. (Reclaiming Parkland, pgs. 225-28)

This one is a real loser for you Davy. Blakey was right about it.


If Ruby had really come in through the side door, instead of the ramp, there would have been no good reason under the sun for him to LIE about it.

And, of course, you have to bring Postal Inspector Harry Holmes into the "conspiracy" plot too. Because if it weren't for Holmes extending the interrogation of Oswald by several minutes on Sunday morning, then Ruby would have never had the chance to plug Oswald at 11:21.

But I always like how CTers add in the extra element of "signalling" to Ruby across the street. This part of their conspiracy fantasy allows them to totally ignore all of the timing issues (e.g., the Carlin phone call, the 11:17 timestamp at Western Union, and the fact that the public was told on Saturday night that Oswald would be moved at 10 AM on Sunday), which are timing issues that indicate one thing to a reasonable person:

Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald on the spur of the moment and could not have been part of some pre-planned conspiracy to rub out Mr. Oswald.

David Von Pein
March 25-26, 2018


The Sixth Floor Museum video below features a fantastic November 2017 interview with one of the lesser-known assassination eyewitnesses and Texas School Book Depository employees, Karen Westbrook, who was an 18-year-old secretary with South-Western Publishing Company on 11/22/63. She was one of the 73 Depository employees interviewed by the FBI in March 1964. Her FBI statement appears on Page 97 of Commission Document No. 706.




(PART 1276)


Physical evidence trumps photos of physical evidence.

Photos can be faked.


Not in this (JFK) case, it doesn't (if you're a conspiracy theorist, that is). Many CTers think it's ALL fake evidence --- both the actual physical evidence is fake/phony/planted/manufactured (per many CTers) and many of the photos are fake/phony (per many CTers) as well.

So if you're a conspiracy theorist in this case, nothing trumps anything (except the CTer's vivid imagination, which seems to trump everything under the sun---even Lee Harvey Oswald's unusual and guilty-like actions on Nov. 21st and 22nd, 1963).


The theory is that you can hit a moving target with a bolt action rifle three times in less than six seconds.

So, they tested that out, and sure enough it can be done. So, the theory is valid.

But is it reliable? Can you consistently prove that theory over multiple tests?

Well, no, you can't.

The theory is valid, but not reliable.

A theory has to be both valid and reliable.


So, you're saying that if it can't be duplicated A LOT OF THE TIME, then we have to say that Oswald couldn't possibly have done the deed on 11/22, is that correct?

(Excuse me if I giggle a little bit here.)

Also --- Do you think your same "Valid But Unreliable" conclusion also applies to the Single-Bullet Theory? I'm thinking of the 2004 Australian test, which essentially showed that the SBT is "valid" (with respect to the basic path that the 2004 test bullet took through two "bodies", with the missile ending up in one unbroken piece).

But until the SBT is duplicated perfectly a total of TEN times (or whatever number you decide on), then the theory is still to be considered "unreliable"? Is that it?

IMO, it sounds to me like you, Steve Thomas, are just looking for excuses to dismiss even a "valid" theory. So you're piling on more and more requirements to keep from having to accept a theory that destroys part of your "conspiracy" stance.

(There's a word for this type of thing, isn't there? It starts with a D, I think.)


Makes me wonder why you put "bodies" in quotes.


Because during the SBT test done in Australia for the Discovery Channel program "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet", they didn't fire a bullet through two real human bodies (quite obviously). They used expensive surrogate torsos (dummies). Hence the reason I put quotation marks around the word "bodies".

(Were you just pulling my chain with that question, Steve?) :)

David Von Pein
March 21, 2018

(PART 1275)


On December 1, 1963 Frazier appeared to change his story about how Oswald got out in front of him on the walk to the TSBD. As Lee Farley wrote...now there was no mention of him gunning his engine to charge his battery after driving to work. Frazier now told Bardwell Odum that he slowed down to gaze at some welders working on the railroad tracks as LHO got out about fifty feet ahead of him.

The idea, of course, is that somehow LHO had to hide that package from Frazier. Whether it's engine charging, or welder watching, that is a part of the story.

Of course, as others have noted, e.g. Sylvia Meagher, no one else saw Oswald with his furtive package.


If one reads back on this thread, Frazier told the SS a modified story about why he walked behind Oswald--welders vs charging the car.

Lee Farley...has also pointed out another instance where that story was modified.


Absolute nonsense, Jim. You're just LOOKING for an excuse--any excuse--to dismiss portions of Buell Frazier's testimony. Frazier always maintained that he walked behind Oswald because OSWALD decided to walk ahead of him by about 50 feet. It wasn't FRAZIER'S decision to walk behind him---it was Oswald's.

And in every interview I've ever seen with Frazier, he's always said that TWO things occurred after he parked his car that morning....

1. He charged his battery.


2. He leisurely strolled into work (behind Oswald) and as he was walking he said (in his Warren Commission testimony)....

"I just walked along and I just like to watch them switch the cars, so eventually he [Lee Oswald] kept getting a little further ahead of me and by that time we got down there pretty close to the Depository Building there, I say, he would be as much as, I would say, roughly 50 feet in front of me, but I didn't try to catch up with him because I knew I had plenty of time, so I just took my time walking up there. .... I was walking along there looking at the railroad cars and watching the men on the diesel switch them cars and I didn't pay too much attention on how he carried the package at all."

Now, it's true that Frazier didn't mention anything about watching any "welders" by the railroad tracks in the above testimony, but each version of his story does contain some "watching" on the part of Frazier. And if you ask me, those two "versions" of Buell Frazier's account of his actions are mighty similar in general content --- i.e., he is slowly walking toward the TSBD and is "watching" some activity by some men in the railroad yards.

Now, Jim, you don't REALLY think those two accounts of Frazier's story are a million miles apart, do you? If so, you are hereby awarded this week's "Nitpickers" trophy.


BTW, referring to the DVP discussion above, I do not recall any mention in Linnie's testimony about hearing anything.

Therefore, it remains a mystery as to why she would look out that window and beyond that, how she could claim to see LHO through the slats, a car and if the car is pointed in the direction the WC says, another car.


There is an FBI report in which Linnie Mae Randle talks about what she heard when she looked out her kitchen door on the morning of 11/22/63. That statement is in Randle's interview of December 1, 1963 [Warren Commission Document No. 7]....

"...she [Mrs. Randle] turned back to the sink after hearing the car door shut."


It's worth noting something else that appears in FBI Agent Bardwell D. Odum's 12/1/63 interview of Buell Wesley Frazier. Quoting from Odum's FBI report [also in Commission Document No. 7]:

"Frazier examined the original [brown paper sack] found by the sixth floor window of the TSBD Building on November 22, 1963, and stated that if that sack was originally the color of the replica sack, it could have been the sack or package which he saw in the possession of Oswald on the morning of November 22, 1963, but that he does not feel he is in a position to definitely state that this original is or is not the sack."

BTW, Linnie Mae Randle said the same thing about the original paper bag (see this page of CD7).

The "original" paper bag, with two of Lee Oswald's fingerprints on it, is 38 inches long.

So much for the bag being only "27 inches" or "2 feet" long.


David, please show us where Linnie Mae said the bag was 38" long.

Note--Not what she is reported to have said by the FBI.


Linnie Mae, of course, never said the bag was exactly 38 inches long. But she did come mighty close to it on one occasion [see later discussion regarding the Bookhout report].

In the two filmed interviews I've heard with Mrs. Randle, she once said (in the 1964 David Wolper film) that Oswald's bag was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long" [see video clip below]....

In the other filmed interview (in 1967 for CBS-TV; at the 11:14 mark in this video), Randle said the bag was "about 27 inches long".

Now, both of those estimates are still quite a bit shorter than 38 inches, of course. But the 12/1/63 FBI interview I spoke of earlier is quite revealing and important, in my opinion, because when Mrs. Randle was shown the "original" paper bag found in the Sniper's Nest (which is, indeed, a 38-inch bag), she did tell Bardwell Odum and one other FBI agent that the "original" bag could have been the same one she saw Oswald carrying. Now, why would she have said something like that to the FBI if the bag she saw on November 22nd had really been almost a foot shorter than the 38-inch "original" bag she was shown by the FBI?

Yes, I know you wouldn't trust the FBI any further than you could hurl them, but just "for the record", there's another FBI report from the day of the assassination itself, in which Mrs. Randle told the FBI's James Bookhout that the bag she saw Oswald carrying was "approximately 3 feet" (36 inches) in length. And that's her very first approximation of the bag's size, which, of course, is by far the best estimate she ever gave as to the length of the package (IMO). And if you want to think Jim Bookhout was just making up tall tales in his 11/22/63 interview with Linnie Mae, then go right ahead and think that. It's a free country. But please don't ask me to follow you down that rabbit hole.


Glad you can't show where she said it. And glad to see that you believe the FBI were shining light of truth.

[Quoting from Commission Document 7; emphasis is Ray Mitcham's:]

“The replica [paper sack] was shortened by folding the open top down to reach the desired length. Then, in accordance with Mrs. Randle's observations, Special Agent McNeely grasped the top of this sack with his hand, much like a right handed batter would pick up a baseball bat when approaching the plate. When the proper length of the sack was reached according to Mrs. Randle's estimate, it was measured and found to be 27 inches long.”


Thanks Ray.

The other part is almost funny. In that FBI document, you will see that Linnie testified to things she could not have seen. To much more of an extent than she told the WC. Davey then excerpted 12 words and cut all the previous stuff that was not possible out. Which then, of course, would make those 12 words quite dubious in themselves.

As Mark Lane once said, when a nation is forced into accepting a series of absurdities, it will result in tragedy.


Reprise (for CTers to ignore again)....


Notice in the last sentence, the two dependent clauses begun with the words "if" and "could".

Thanks for posting that David.


Thanks for totally missing the point, Jim.

That point being:

If the bag that Linnie Mae Randle saw Lee Oswald carrying had REALLY been quite a bit shorter than the "original" bag she was later shown, then there should have been no "ifs" and "coulds" about it in Randle's mind—i.e., the "original" bag (via those conditions) could not possibly have been the bag Linnie Mae saw on Nov. 22, regardless of the bag's COLOR.

But instead of saying to the FBI agents something like this....

Regardless of the color issue, there's no way in the world this "original" bag you are showing me now could be the same one I saw Oswald carrying on Nov. 22nd, because this "original" bag is way too long.

....she, instead, tells the FBI agents that the "original" bag she was being shown is still in the mix of possible bags that Lee Oswald "could have been" carrying on November 22nd.

Do conspiracy theorists think that Mrs. Randle just TOTALLY IGNORED the LENGTH of the "original" bag when she said that the original sack was still a candidate for the one she saw Oswald toting on 11/22? Was she ONLY concerned with the COLOR of the bags at that point in time in her FBI interview? In other words, she knew the original bag was much too long, but she was unable to concentrate on two separate aspects of the bag at the same time (color and length), so she said "could have been" with respect to the color only, all the while totally forgetting that this "original" bag in front of her was entirely too big. Is that what some conspiracists want to contend?

In addition....

There's also the fact that the amount of Oswald's bag that was available to view from Randle's perspective on Nov. 22 was very likely a few inches less than the bag's overall length of 38 inches. It was "folded" in some manner, as Wesley Frazier said in his 11/22/63 affidavit:

"The top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under." -- Buell Wesley Frazier


Frazier actual quote [Mitcham's emphasis]...

"It must have been about 2 feet long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."

Slightly changes the debate when all the info is given.


Well, then, Ray, don't forget to mention the fact that Wesley Frazier said a total of TEN TIMES during his Warren Commission testimony that he wasn't paying much attention to Oswald's paper sack. [Click Here to see all ten "I didn't pay much attention" references.]

But keep pretending that Frazier's "two feet" estimate is a rock-solid fact as far as the actual length of Oswald's bag is concerned. Did Frazier whip out a tape measure the instant he saw the brown bag resting on his back seat?


Cupping a rifle, in a bag, in your hand and protruding in front of your shoulder, would cause it to fall forward. Unless you did a balancing act all the way into the TSBD.


Not if the cupped hand was held out away from the body a little bit, forcing the weighty object in the bag to lean against Oswald's shoulder for the walk into the building. (An arm and a cupped hand CAN be moved and maneuvered, you know.)


It would be very difficult to hold a rifle in a bag held [in] front of your shoulder for any distance. You've obviously never carried a rifle in that way.


Seems to me the object (whether it be a rifle or whatever) would just naturally be resting on your shoulder via such a posture. I don't see what's so difficult about it. ~shrug~


As I said, you've obviously never carried a rifle in that way.

And you certainly would never carry a paper bag containing a broken down rifle in that way.


Dan Rather was able to do it (in the video below, at 12:35)....

Plus, what was keeping Oswald from using his LEFT hand to steady the package as he walked along? (He did have another hand, you know.)


Was Dan Rather holding a paper bag full of rifle bits?


He was holding a dismantled Carcano rifle wrapped in brown paper (just like Oswald did on 11/22/63). And Dan Rather was able to walk away from the CBS camera without having the bag fall out of his hand.


Walking behind Oswald, Frazier would have noticed a package sticking up 12" above his shoulder.


And you can prove he "would have noticed" that, eh Ray? (And you're overstating the amount of the package that would have been protruding above LHO's shoulder.) How do you think you can prove this? Especially since you know that Frazier admits that he didn't pay much attention to Oswald as they walked toward the TSBD.

In your world, does "I didn't pay much attention to the package" somehow translate to "would have noticed" a particular protrusion?


Try cutting a piece of timber to 34.8" long and hold it in your hand and ask somebody to stand behind you to see if it is noticeable.


That's not the point. Such a protrusion above the shoulder probably would have been "noticeable", yes. But just because it COULD have been seen, does that mean Frazier (who, remember, wasn't paying very much attention) WOULD definitely have noticed it? Of course not.


Only in your mind, David. Only in your mind.


I would have thought the difference between the words "noticeable" and "noticed" would be readily apparent to anyone familiar with the English language. But, I guess I was wrong. Ray has no idea that the two words are not the same.

A parting thought for consideration....

"I wonder what the odds are of Lee Oswald having carried a DIFFERENT brown bag into work from the one WITH HIS TWO IDENTIFIABLE PRINTS ON IT that was found by the cops in the Sniper's Nest on the 6th Floor?

Care to guess at what those odds might be? They must be close to "O.J. DNA" type numbers (in favor of the empty brown bag that was found by the police on the 6th Floor of the Book Depository being the very same bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw in Lee Harvey Oswald's hands on the morning of November 22, 1963).

I'm eagerly awaiting the logical and believable conspiracy-slanted explanation that will answer the question of why a 38-inch empty paper bag (which could house Oswald's 34.8-inch disassembled rifle [see the comparison photo here]), which was an empty bag with Oswald's fingerprints on it, was in the place where it was found after the assassination (the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest) and yet still NOT have Lee Oswald present at that sniper's window on 11/22/63.

I, for one, cannot think of a single "Oswald Is Innocent" explanation for that empty paper sack being where it was found after the assassination of John Kennedy....AND with Oswald's fingerprints on it."
-- DVP; October 2007



Couldn't it have been "planted" after the fact?


Then what happened to the bag that Oswald REALLY DID take into the building on November 22? Did it just vanish? And what happened to the contents of Oswald's real bag as well? He certainly didn't leave the building with any large bag (unless he ditched it in a dumpster between 411 Elm and McWatters' bus).

And you, Tommy, surely don't subscribe to the ridiculous "Oswald Had No Large Bag At All On 11/22 & Frazier/Randle Just MADE UP The Bag From Whole Cloth" theory, do you?



David J.,

There weren't "so many different bags around". There were just 2 -- Oswald's original (CE142) and the one "replica" bag (CE364).

CE677 isn't a "bag", of course. It's just a piece of sample paper from the TSBD. So I have no idea why that would be included in your "bags montage".

Anyway, all of the bags that you, David Josephs, think are "different" bags are, in fact, the very same CE142 bag.

And Lt. Carl Day's handwritten message and signature on the CE142 bag pretty much "authenticates" it (as far as I'm concerned). Much the same way that Lt. J.C. Day's name being scratched into the stock of the Carcano rifle will forever authenticate (to my satisfaction) the fact that the CE139 rifle was definitely the one and only rifle found on the 6th floor of the Book Depository.

The chain of possession for the rifle, in fact, pretty much BEGINS and ENDS with Lt. J.C. Day, since that rifle never left his possession up until 11:45 PM CST on 11/22. What more do CTers want as far as "chain of custody" for the rifle? It was a perfect "1 person" chain on 11/22/63. It can't possibly get any better than that from a "minimizing the chain of possession" standpoint.

You, of course, require more "authentication" for everything. Much more. But nothing would ever satisfy your "authentication" needs. Would it, David? You can admit it.

The great thing about my stance as far as ALL of the JFK case evidence is concerned is the fact that I, as a "Lone Nutter", don't require ANY liars within the Dallas Police Department (or the FBI, or the Secret Service, or the Warren Commission, or the HSCA, etc., etc.). Whereas, you, David Josephs, if your various theories about the evidence being tainted are true, require MANY different liars within all of the above-named law enforcement agencies and investigative organizations. You require at least FOUR liars within the DPD with respect to just the "paper bag" issue alone (Studebaker, Day, Montgomery, and Johnson).

But, in my opinion, when a theory requires so many alleged liars and "cover-up" agents, I think it might be time to consider abandoning the Conspiracy ship. But it seems that many CTers adhere to a policy that is just the opposite. They seem to like the motto: The More Liars, The Better. (Go figure.)


Answer one simple question....

When did he [LHO] make the bag and bring it home?


It's just a guess (since Oswald didn't deign to tell us this info before Ruby shot him), but I'd guess he made the bag at the Paine house (in the garage) on Thursday night, Nov. 21. (The light was left on in the garage that night, remember. Or was Ruth Paine lying about that too?)

I would have been interested in searching the Paine trash cans to see if maybe some scraps of brown paper were discarded by Oswald on 11/21. But, AFAIK, there wasn't a search of Ruth Paine's trash containers. (Was there? I don't think there was.)


The closest person to that bag NOT in the DPD is WESLEY [Frazier]... his sister claimed it to be 27.5" long (2 feet 3.5 inches). Why is your star witness telling us this bag could not possibly hold a 34" rifle and metal parts...??


That's exactly the question you need to be asking people like Jim DiEugenio and Ian Griggs, who think Frazier just MADE UP the whole paper bag story from whole cloth. But if that was so, then why on Earth would Frazier (and his sister too, who was also a big fat liar, per DiEugenio) want to claim that his MAKE BELIEVE bag was TOO SHORT to hold the thing that was obviously supposed to go into that bag--LHO's gun? It makes no sense from the POV of the CTers who think the bag was a pure invention.

But from my POV, all I need to believe in is that Buell Frazier was simply mistaken about some things relating to the bag. He didn't scrutinize the bag, he didn't measure it. And he admitted in 1986 that Oswald might have carried the bag in a different (non-armpit) way on 11/22.


I can finally state the question I wanted to ask.

These pics are in the WC volumes....

The FBI took them fairly early in the proceedings.

If one reads the WC testimony of Wesley and his sister, I do not recall one question based on the obvious contradictions the pics make with her story.

Does anyone else?

The obvious question is why?

But beyond that, this is my complaint with the first generation critics: I don't recall any of them asking about this either. They just accepted the testimony of both. And they proceeded to do what Ray [Mitcham] is doing, ask questions about the length of the bag. Instead of the much more serious question: How the heck could Linnie have seen Oswald through the car, the slats, and another car?


Agreed, James. .... Linnie Mae is said to have seen Oswald through the narrow slats shown in the photos, and behind Frazier's car which is almost impossible to discern through the slats. Certainly throws a lot of doubt over her testimony.


But, Ray (and James D.), if the idea promoted by conspiracists is true and the paper bag story is total fiction, then wouldn't you think that Buell Wesley Frazier, in his recent interviews, would be ready to shout from the rooftops: "The Dallas police made me pretend I saw Lee Oswald with a package! But the truth is: there was never any large paper bag at all!" ??

Why, in all the years since the assassination of JFK, has Buell Frazier never once said anything like the simulated quote presented above?

After all, Buell has been quite vocal in his public interviews about his belief that there was NO WAY the package could have contained a rifle. So he's certainly not being "controlled" by any evil forces that would like him to keep spouting the "Lone Assassin Government line". So why is Buell still insisting he saw Oswald with a package if, as many conspiracy theorists advocate, there never was a bag in the first place? Especially in light of Buell's more recent tale about Captain Will Fritz, which is a story I find a little hard to completely accept, particularly the part where Frazier says that Fritz raised a hand to physically strike him. So, given that tale now being told by Mr. Frazier, it's even more difficult to believe that Wesley's actions and words are being controlled by anyone who wants to quell all talk of conspiracy or cover-up.

Do CTers think that Mr. Frazier just cannot allow himself to tell the truth after all these years---even though he, himself, is really (when it comes right down to it, based on a number of things he has said in his interviews over the years) a believer in a conspiracy himself?


Since many CTers think that Buell Wesley Frazier is a great big liar when it comes to the topics of "The Paper Bag" and "The Curtain Rod Story", then I'm wondering what in the world would make him have any desire at all to voluntarily put himself in a position where he would need to lie his ass off whenever the interviewer brings up the subjects of the paper package and those phantom curtain rods?

Do CTers think Buell was paid a whole lot of money to do those interviews and lie like a cheap rug every single time? Or was Buell doing it just because he enjoyed the idea of lying in front of hundreds of people (and on camera for the Internet streams)?

Bottom Line (IMHO & FWIW) --- The conspiracy theorists who keep insisting that Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle saw no large-ish paper bag in the possession of Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63 are just plain nuts.


Leave it to DVP to do a Bugliosi on us.

He does not answer the question I posed: Which is, why did the WC not ask either witness about the contradiction the pics clearly demonstrate? That is a matter of simple spatial relationships. In fact, the obvious thing to have done would have been for the WC to take the witnesses to the location and taken a gander themselves to test it first.

Instead, he does his usual VB style pivot towards the factor of motivation. Which is a matter of human psychology, something that is much more murky and hidden, especially in a case of this magnitude and complexity.


Such a Warren Commission Q&A session with Randle and/or Frazier would have had very little (probably ZERO) impact on a conspiracy theorist of your ilk, James. Because, regardless of what the answers to the WC questions would have been regarding Linnie Mae's ability or inability to see through the slats, you've got your mind made up (based on a variety of your other bogus allegations) that there really was no large brown paper package in Lee Oswald's hands AT ALL on 11/22/63. Nothing, at this point, is going to ever change your mind about that fanciful "No Bag" theory.

Along similar lines, nothing at this point is likely to change your mind regarding your equally-as-silly and nonsensical "The Baker/Oswald Lunchroom Encounter Never Happened" and "Howard Brennan Never Attended A Police Line-up" theories as well. (I'm noticing a trend in recent years among Internet conspiracy theorists—it's the "I'm Going To Pretend This Event Never Happened At All, Even Though Multiple Witnesses Verified It Really Did Happen" syndrome. Quite a curious ailment/syndrome indeed.)

As far as the question you asked ("...why did the WC not ask either witness about the contradiction the pics clearly demonstrate?")....

Since hindsight is, of course, always 20/20, there are a lot of things that now, 54 years later, we can look back on concerning the Warren Commission's investigation and ask ourselves questions about. Such as....

Why didn't they ask him/her this question?


Why wasn't this or that witness called upon to testify?


Why didn't the Commission do a timed re-creation of Victoria Adams' post-shooting movements?

or (one of my pet peeves with the WC):

Why on Earth didn't the Commission perform a third re-creation of Oswald's post-assassination movements, and this time have Oswald's stand-in running from the Sniper's Nest to the second floor, in order to establish the absolute minimum amount of time that was required to travel between those two points in the TSBD, instead of merely doing tests at two different "walking" speeds?

and a thousand other "Why didn't they...?" questions.

And, I guess, the question Jim D. asked above about Linnie Mae Randle and the carport slats would be another of those thousand questions that could be placed on such a "hindsight" list.

I don't know why the Commission didn't ask that exact question when Linnie Mae testified. But, without feeling the burden of assigning a "sinister" motive to the Commission's intent and actions, my guess would be that they just felt it wasn't necessary to grill Linnie Mae about the "slats" topic. She said she saw certain things through the carport, and the Commission accepted those answers as truthful ones. After all, if Linnie Mae really couldn't see anything at all through the slats in her carport, why would she lie to the Commission about something that could so easily be discovered to be a lie?

And this photo definitely shows that there is enough of a gap between the slats in the carport wall for a person to see at least a portion of what is on the other side of the carport. So this whole topic is really a non-issue, IMO.

For the record, here's the Warren Commission testimony of Linnie Mae Randle dealing with the topic of Randle seeing Oswald go to Frazier's car....

Mr. BALL. Did you see him go to the car?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.

Mr. BALL. What did he do?

Mrs. RANDLE. He opened the right back door and I just saw that he was laying the package down, so I closed the door. I didn't recognize him as he walked across my carport and I at that moment I wondered who was fixing to come to my back door, so I opened the door slightly and saw that it--I assumed he was getting in the car, but he didn't, so he come back and stood on the driveway.

Mr. BALL. He put the package in the car.

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I don't know if he put it on the seat or on the floor, but I just know he put it in the back.


Senator COOPER. Did you see Lee Oswald place the package in the automobile?

Mrs. RANDLE. In the automobile. I do not know if he put it on the seat or on the floor.

Senator COOPER. I mean, did you see him throw open the door?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. When he placed the package in there, do you remember whether he used one hand or two?

Mrs. RANDLE. No; because I only opened the door briefly, and what made me establish the door on Wesley's car, it is an old car and that door, the window is broken and everything and it is hard to close, so that cinched in my mind which door it was, too. But it was only briefly that I looked.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, could I ask--how far away were you? You were at the kitchen door and the automobile was in the driveway, what was the distance between yourself and Mr. Oswald?

Mrs. RANDLE. Sir, I don't know. The carport will take care of two cars, and then Wesley's car was on the other side of the carport, so that would be three car lengths plus in-between space.

Mr. JENNER. Car widths?

Mrs. RANDLE. Car widths, excuse me.



The following section of Linnie Mae Randle's WC testimony is quite interesting as well, in that it demonstrates that Linnie Mae was aware of Lee Oswald's curtain rod story as early as Thursday afternoon or evening, November 21st. In other words, if this testimony below is the absolute truth, which I believe it to be (but many conspiracists must think this is just another in a series of lies coming from the mouth of Mrs. Randle), then the "curtain rod" story could not have been a story that was created by Frazier or the Dallas Police after the assassination had occurred....

Mr. BALL. Do you remember anything about curtain rods?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes.

Mr. BALL. What do you remember about that?

Mrs. RANDLE. He had told Wesley--

Mr. BALL. Tell me what Wesley told you.

Mrs. RANDLE. What Wesley told me. That Lee had rode home with him to get some curtain rods from Mrs. Paine to fix up his apartment.

Mr. BALL. When did Wesley tell you that?

Mrs. RANDLE. Well, that afternoon I suppose I would have had to ask him, he wouldn't have just told me.

Mr. BALL. You mean that night?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL. After he came home?

Mrs. RANDLE. I was on my way to the store. So I probably asked him when I got back what he was doing riding home with him on Thursday afternoon.

Mr. BALL. You think that was the time that Wesley told you--

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; after I got back home.

Mr. BALL. That Lee had come home to get some curtain rods?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, I am sure he told me that.
[DVP's emphasis.]


David Von Pein
March 18-20, 2018

(PART 1274)


INDISPUTABLE Evidence for Harvey & Lee -- Oswald was missing a FRONT TOOTH, but his exhumed body was not! NEW EVIDENCE FOUND.

This topic has been debated before. But I have since discovered evidence that proves young Oswald had a prosthetic (artificial) tooth, held in place with a dental bridge. This in spite of the fact that the Oswald killed by Jack Ruby had all natural teeth and no place where a prosthetic tooth could fit. We know this because his body was exhumed in 1981 and we can see in the exhumation photographs that his teeth were all natural and still in place.

It is of no surprise to me that Oswald had a prosthetic tooth. After all, there is plenty of evidence that his front incisor was knocked out in a fist fight when he was in 9th grade. Before presenting the new evidence for the prosthesis, I will summarize the evidence for Oswald's tooth being knocked out....

[Continued HERE.]


What is remarkable about Sandy’s presentation in this thread is the absurdity of the arguments against it that have been presented here by the usual anti-H&L ["Harvey & Lee"], CIA defenders here.

They want us to believe that LEE Oswald and Ed Voebel more than 60 years ago concocted a plot to blacken one of LEE Oswald’s teeth, photograph Oswald showing off the blackened tooth, and that Voebel would years later perjure himself in front of the Warren Commission by saying he thought Oswald lost a tooth.

What’s more, they want us to believe that the clear indication on a Marine Corps dental form that Oswald had a false tooth that failed in 1958 was actually a reference to liquid dental sealant, which absolutely no one defines as a prosthesis. Why?

Because the Norton Report showed that “Lee Harvey Oswald” had no false teeth. Case closed.



I think a somewhat reasonable interpretation of the above photo of Schoolboy Oswald is....

He's "mugging" for the camera with his head tilted slightly backward, as if he's deliberately trying to show off and display his smiling teeth.

Now, if Lee Oswald REALLY had one or more of his FRONT TEETH missing, what are the chances he would have a desire to "mug" and "ham it up" for a camera that he knows is pointed right at him? Was he PROUD of having some front teeth missing? Most people, given that unfortunate dental circumstance, would be trying their darndest to AVOID any cameras....and they'd be keeping their mouth SHUT most of the time to try and hide (as best they can) their dental predicament.

But, here, Lee Oswald is wanting to SHOW OFF his "deformity" (so to speak).

Therefore, I think at least one reasonable take on that picture (and on Oswald's possible, but not proven, seeming lack of front teeth in the photograph) is that Oswald's teeth have been artificially "blacked out" (licorice anyone?) and 15-year-old Lee was just having a little innocent fun in 9th-grade English class that day.

P.S. ....

BTW, as a side note for the people who continue to incorrectly believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was lefthanded....

Please take note of which of Oswald's two hands is holding his pencil in this picture.

BTW #2, here's the complete February 21, 1964, LIFE Magazine article featuring the Schoolboy Oswald picture. It's a fascinating portrait and bio on Oswald's life.


Wow David, I'm surprised by your take on the photo. Because right away I can think of boys from three groups of kids in my 9th grade class who would have proudly shown off a broken tooth or any other kind of significant injury. The "jocks," the "shit kickers," and the "hoods." LEE Oswald would have fit in with the jocks.


So, you're saying a "jock" would be happy and proud and full of glee about having his picture taken to advertise the fact that he, in essence, LOST A FIGHT to another boy and had a couple of teeth knocked clean out of his head by THE OTHER BOY, eh?

Call me Mr. Strange, but that type of attitude seems mighty odd to this writer---even for a "jock".

But, then, what do I know?


A broken tooth was a "badge of honor." It doesn't prove that you lost a fight. Being afraid of showing it is precisely what a tough guy wouldn't do, as that would be showing weakness.


Okay. Whatever you say.

David Von Pein
March 4-5, 2018