There is a debate going on at DPF [Deep Politics ForumHERE] about the late witness to the Tippit killing, namely Jack Tatum.

This is the guy the HSCA discovered and said that Oswald delivered the coup de grace to Tippit by shooting at his head while he was on the ground.

Looking at the map, was not his car at 10th and Denver Street? Was he driving on Denver at the time? Could he have really seen all that from that distance, down to the type of gun?

Or do I have his position wrong?


You've got Tatum's position wrong, Jim. Tatum was on Tenth Street (having turned onto 10th from Denver) when he saw the shooting.

Tatum's brief 1978 HSCA interview can be seen HERE.

Jack Tatum re-created the shooting from his vantage point in his car for the PBS documentary "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" in 1993 (at 22:56 and 24:57 in the video below)....

Tatum was also a witness at the 1986 Bugliosi/Spence mock trial in London, England ["On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"], but unfortunately his segment was completely cut out of the televised version shown on Showtime Cable TV in '86. However, a couple of important excerpts from his testimony are revealed in Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book. [See the image below.]


David Von Pein
May 31, 2018




Some of these articles can be
enlarged by clicking on them....

SEPT. 26, 1963:

SEPT. 26, 1963:

SEPT. 29, 1963:

OCT. 4, 1963:

OCT. 6, 1963:

OCT. 23, 1963:

OCT. 26, 1963:

OCT. 26, 1963:

OCT. 27, 1963:

NOV. 6, 1963:

NOV. 8, 1963:

NOV. 13, 1963:

NOV. 15, 1963:

NOV. 16, 1963:

NOV. 16, 1963:

NOV. 17, 1963:

NOV. 17, 1963:

NOV. 18, 1963:

NOV. 18, 1963:

NOV. 18, 1963:

NOV. 19, 1963:

NOV. 19, 1963:

NOV. 19, 1963:

NOV. 20, 1963:

NOV. 20, 1963:

NOV. 20, 1963:

NOV. 21, 1963:

NOV. 21, 1963:

NOV. 21, 1963:

NOV. 21, 1963:

NOV. 21, 1963:

NOV. 22, 1963:

NOV. 22, 1963:

NOV. 22, 1963:

NOV. 22, 1963:





(PART 126)


Who changed the motorcade route?

I'm deeply interested in this question. Who ordered the dog leg deviation so fatal for JFK? Confirmed it was Cabell? Any news from the latest docs?



In my opinion, the best answer to this is in Vince Palamara's book. From my web site, this is part of my review of Survivor's Guilt which addresses the issue.

The rest of the review is here:


What Vince does here is he shows with multi sources that, as Jim Garrison first stated, the route was altered. People like the shill McAdams, who have said it was not, just did not do any research on the subject. Of course, if he had and discovered this, he would have hushed it up anyway.

Anybody who has ever been to Dealey Plaza, and stood atop the trestle and looked down at the motorcade path, I mean you just shake your head in disgust. I have said it before and I will say it now: it was like the hit team designed the route. What more could you have asked for? The fact that the WC never called anyone on the carpet for this route or pointed out all the problems it posed for protection, that says all you need to know about them.


As late as November 14th, there was no dogleg on the motorcade route.


But since Kenneth O'Donnell didn't officially decide to hold the luncheon at the Trade Mart until that exact day you just mentioned---November 14th [see Warren Report, p.31]---then of course there was no dogleg as of that date. There was no definitive motorcade route at all as of November 14th. The final motorcade route wasn't announced until "the afternoon of November 18th" [WCR; p.32].


Palamara later adds that the final route was not actually decided upon until November 20th.


That's ridiculous, and Vince Palamara has to know it. The Houston-to-Elm dogleg was described in the November 19th Dallas newspapers, which makes perfect sense considering what I just said above about the route being officially announced on Nov. 18. Therefore, the dogleg was part of the motorcade route as of November 18th, otherwise the Dallas Morning News couldn't have printed the route in its paper on the morning of the 19th [as seen in CE1363].

Who does Palamara think he's kidding?

Some conspiracy myths just refuse to die, don't they? And "The Motorcade Route Was Changed" junk is apparently one such myth that I guess will be with us until the end of time.

More HERE.



Let us turn the tables on you.

Were all his witnesses lying who said they were introduced to the route about 24 hours before the motorcade?

This would be Batchelor, Bellah, Jones and Dale. Hmm.

Now, as anyone with any knowledge of the case knows, there was a battle royal over this. On the one hand you had Bruno and the Washington contingent who did not want it at the Trade Mart, while you had Connally, the Secret Service and Harris who pushed for it. And in fact, that battle went on for weeks and different notices were posted.

Any why ignore this during your tantrum: "As the HSCA attorney in charge of the motorcade route inquiry wrote, "Any map of Dallas in 1963 shows that it was easy to reach the Trade Mart on streets that join Main on the West side of the overpass"."

That explains why even if the Connally people had won out, that weird route was not necessary.


I have no idea why anyone would say they were "introduced to the route" only 24 hours prior to the motorcade---because that is kind of crazy given the PROVABLE FACT that the Houston-to-Elm turn was announced IN THE PAPERS on November 19. So the press and the public knew it on Nov. 19---we KNOW that for a fact (unless you want to now claim that the Dallas Morning News and Times Herald papers that appear in the Warren Commission volumes are phony and fake newspapers).

And as far as Assistant Chief of Police Charles Batchelor (specifically) is concerned, we know (via Page 32 of the Warren Report) that he, HIMSELF, was riding along with Secret Service Agents Sorrels and Lawson on the dry run of the motorcade route that was done on November 18. So Batchelor was certainly aware of the "dogleg" route as of that date. Why he would claim otherwise can only elicit a shrug from this writer.


What you quoted from the WC was a letter by Rowley. Hmm.

This is the guy who tried to hide the 11/22/63 press conference with Perry from the WC. He also tried to conceal the drunken escapades of the Secret Service the night before until 4 AM. Lawson is also used. But if you read Palamara, he was in on the last minute decision.

And why you keep on saying that the route was solidified on November 19th because it was in the papers, that does not at all justify itself as an argument.

If it did, then the route pictured on 11/22 on the front page of the Dallas Morning News would not have appeared: it does not show the doglegs, Davey Boy. (Destiny Betrayed, first edition, p. 57)

Now, much more revealing than anything you have offered is a summary of the DMN coverage I did for that book. On November 16th, the motorcade was going down Main Street, no doglegs. On November 19th, the route described included the doglegs. But a day later, the doglegs were eliminated. And on the day of the assassination, the pictured route continued in that vein.



You're just flat-out wrong about the "dogleg" turns onto Houston Street and Elm Street being "eliminated" on Wednesday, November 20, 1963. No such "elimination" of those two turns occurred at all. And I don't see how even you, a dedicated conspiracy theorist, can believe such a thing either---because in order for you to actually believe that those two turns were "eliminated" on Nov. 20th, you'd have to actually believe the motorcade route was changed twice after the Dallas Morning News published its "Houston to Elm" version of the motorcade route on Tuesday morning, November 19th. You'd have to believe the route was then changed on November 20th (with this change taking the cars straight down Main Street), and then you'd have to believe the route was changed back again to the same "Houston to Elm" version of the route that was previously reported in both Dallas papers on November 19th. That's kind of crazy if you ask me.*

* EDIT --- I've now found the November 20th Dallas Morning News online. It's right there in the WC volumes too, in CE1364. [Duh! ~slaps forehead~] And it does say only Main Street. But it also says that the route would go from "Main" to "Stemmons Freeway", and the only proper (and legal) way to get from Main to Stemmons is via Elm Street. So, really, the 11/20 DMN does actually IMPLY the Houston and Elm turns when it says "MAIN" followed immediately by "STEMMONS".

The logical answer as to why the map of the parade route that appeared in this 11/22/63 edition of the Dallas Morning News didn't show the "dogleg" turns onto Houston and Elm Streets is because the map that was printed was fairly small in size, and it would have been a tight squeeze to fit the two short dogleg turns into a map of that size. (Although I suppose CTers can still argue that the two doglegs could still have been squeezed into that map, seeing as how the creators of this particular map did find room for all of the other turns along the motorcade route, e.g., Turtle Creek, Cedar Springs, Harwood, etc.)

But, again, with the Elm Street turn being published in the papers on 11/19/63, I cannot see where the conspiracy believers can go with their argument that the motorcade route was changed around at the "last minute". As I said, the CTers would have to believe the route was changed TWICE after the Nov. 19 papers were published, with the second of these changes exactly mirroring the route that was made public on the 19th. And that's just wacky.

Plus, let me also point out that members of the radio and television media were fully aware of the "Houston to Elm" turn as of at least mid-morning on November 22nd, which is a fact that would certainly tend to undermine the theory that the small map published on the front page of the Dallas Morning News that same morning (November 22) reflected an "elimination" of the Houston-to-Elm turn.

As I discuss in Appendix 1 ("Additional Controversial Issues Surrounding The JFK Assassination") of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" (on pages 421 and 422), both Bob Walker of WFAA-TV and Joe Long of KLIF-Radio narrated extensive live TV and radio coverage from Love Field as JFK arrived in the city of Dallas on Air Force One on 11/22/63 [see the two videos below].

In each of those live broadcasts, Walker and Long give a description of the motorcade route that the President will travel that day. In Walker's description, he says: "...it'll turn on Houston Street to Elm". In Long's KLIF report, he said: "The main route of travel will be west on Main to Houston, then through the Triple Underpass to Stemmons Freeway, and on to the Trade Mart." (And even though the words "Elm Street" were not spoken by Joe Long in that radio coverage, his description of the route implies the Houston-to-Elm turn, of course, because the only way to get "through the Triple Underpass" from "Houston" is by turning left on Elm from Houston.)

GO TO 28:15....

GO TO 4:04....

In addition....

There is also this map of the Dallas motorcade route that was published in the Dallas Times Herald on Thursday evening, November 21, 1963, which clearly shows the Main to Houston and the Houston to Elm turns....


So, in the final analysis (and after looking at all of the various motorcade descriptions and maps that were printed in the two Dallas newspapers starting on Saturday, November 16, 1963), it becomes fairly obvious what the answer to the "map" mystery is:

Some of the maps (as well as the Nov. 16 DMN text description) published in the Dallas papers just simply didn't include all of the streets that President Kennedy was going to travel on during his motorcade through downtown Dallas. Because if that's not the answer, then we'd have to believe that the actual motorcade route was being changed practically every day from November 16th to the 22nd, with the route bouncing around like a tennis ball.


Your continuing tendency to cherry pick evidence...is really a disturbing quality of your postings here. And no matter how many times you get called out on it, that grievous tendency of yours is never eradicated.


Well, Jim, seeing as how I just destroyed the entire argument you were trying to make when you said this a little while ago....

"On November 16th, the motorcade was going down Main Street, no doglegs. On November 19th, the route described included the doglegs. But a day later, the doglegs were eliminated. And on the day of the assassination, the pictured route continued in that vein."

....I think it's a bit disingenuous on your part to claim that I am the one who is doing the "cherry picking" when it comes to this particular topic. With the introduction into the mix of the above motorcade map published in the 11/21/63 edition of the Dallas Times Herald, you are the one who is now going to have to "cherry pick" the various newspapers in order to keep your fantasy alive of the motorcade route ever being changed at all after the complete and finalized route was first printed in the Dallas papers on November 19th. Good luck playing your version of Motorcade Route Hopscotch what with that November 21st Times Herald map now staring you in the face too.**

** And I realize you probably weren't even aware that the 11/21/63 map even existed before today (and I don't think I had ever seen that map prior to finding it online today either), but now that you can see that the Elm Street turn was being fully revealed to the public the day before President Kennedy went to Dallas, I don't see how you can continue to believe that the small scale map seen in the DMN on Nov. 22 is some kind of proof that the "doglegs were eliminated" [your quote] on November 20th.

Can you continue to believe such a thing now, Jim?


The motorcade route doesn't get as much scrutiny as it should. Neocons in our community have attempted to diminish the significance of the change, and of the actual route eventually taken.


But there's no PROOF whatsoever that any "change" actually was made to the motorcade route at all. The "change" resides mainly in the wishful-thinking imaginations of conspiracy advocates.

One thing is a certainty --- the constant back-and-forth "changes" that Jim DiEugenio is talking about (re: the Dallas Morning News reports of November 16-22) are not "changes" in the actual motorcade route at all. And no reasonable person could possibly believe they do reflect "changes".

The "Only On Main Street" reports from the DMN are simply not as detailed regarding the streets JFK was going to travel on. And it's especially silly for Jim to prop up the very first of those DMN reports --- which is this 11/16/63 article --- which only says "Main Street". But that 11/16 report was printed at a time when Jim knows that the final motorcade route had not yet been revealed to anybody. The police and Secret Service didn't finalize the route until two days later, on Nov. 18.

So for Jim to say (as he did yesterday) --- "On November 16th, the motorcade was going down Main Street, no doglegs" --- is just ridiculous, because the DMN could not have possibly even known, as of 11/16, about any possible "doglegs" the motorcade route would encounter on Houston or Elm Streets. And I don't think ANY other street names are mentioned AT ALL in that 11/16 DMN article. So why would Jim make an issue out of the two "dogleg" turns not being printed in that article, when it would appear that no other street names are mentioned at all, except "Main"?

As a side note regarding the "breaches of security" that conspiracy theorists are always contending were rampant in Dealey Plaza on November 22....

I'd be willing to bet that President Kennedy's open-top car was taken down many streets in many U.S. cities in which "hazards" very similar to the Houston-to-Elm hairpin turn were, in fact, negotiated by the driver of Kennedy's limousine. And I know there have been instances during motorcade parades when the President's car actually came to a complete stop in the midst of throngs of spectators. And we need to look no further than Dallas on November 22nd to verify this fact---because on two separate occasions during the Dallas parade, JFK ordered the car to stop so that Kennedy could greet well-wishers, which he did. But since JFK wasn't shot during those two unscheduled motorcade stops, nobody ever says a word about that "breach of security" on the part of the Secret Service.

And the day I find in my large JFK video collection the pre-11/22/63 clip of President Kennedy's heavy SS-100-X Lincoln limousine slowing down to a crawl to navigate a hairpin turn like the one his vehicle encountered at the corner of Elm and Houston Streets in Dallas, I'll be sure to post that video at this forum. But maybe somebody can beat me to it, because video or film footage of such a common occurrence during a Kennedy motorcade must surely be out there in a video vault somewhere.


What a crock of Von Peinian baloney. Here we go again. He gets exposed on his misrepresentations and so now he tries to make stuff up about what the reporters were thinking. As if he knows.

Then he says there was was no real change and it was only about some "confusion".

Note the effort to discount Vince's [Palamara's] book which started this whole thing. Please note the witnesses below and what they say:

Palamara later adds that the final route was not actually decided upon until November 20th. He feels that this change, which included the dogleg, was kept secret after being authorized in Washington by agent Floyd Boring. In a suppressed Commission document the author found, the assistant police chief, Charles Batchelor, revealed that the secrecy about this change in the route made it hard for the local authorities to furnish any help to the Secret Service. (p. 105)

Another witness, Sgt. Sam Bellah, told the author that the police did not know about the route change until the evening of November 21st. Bellah said the original plan did not have the motorcade pass in front of the Texas School Book Depository. Bellah said that his commander, Captain Lawrence, came to his home late on the evening of the 21st. He took him to the triple underpass to show Bellah the new route for the motorcycle advance escort, of which Bellah was a part. (ibid) Bellah said that there was never any explanation as to why the route was changed at the last moment.

Another local policeman, Captain Orville Jones told author Larry Sneed the same thing. That the motorcade route was changed just prior to the 22nd. Jones told the author that many people he knew in the Secret Service did not approve of going through Dealey Plaza at all. There were other routes discussed which avoided the triple underpass. (ibid)

Another witness to this strange alteration was motorcycle officer Bobby Joe Dale. Dale said that there was more than one route discussed and reviewed by the police. In fact, three had been bandied about. Dale said it was not until Kennedy's arrival at Love Field that morning that he was alerted to what the actual route was going to be. (ibid, p. 106)

Also, note the change of tactics. Now he says well, all those people must be lying [a blatant lie on DiEugenio's behalf; I never once accused anybody of "lying" when it comes to this "Motorcade Route" topic].

Yeah Davey, only Rowley, Lawson, and Sorrels were telling the truth.

Oh and I forgot, Gerald Blaine.


The "changed at the last moment [on the evening of November 21]" recollections attributed to Police Officer Sam Bellah are proven wrong by taking just one look at the November 19th Dallas newspapers. There was no "last minute change"——period. And this Dallas Morning News article from 11/19/63 proves it:



[Carl] Freund [of the Dallas Morning News] wrote a story on the sixteenth, which said the motorcade would come down Main Street.

Freund then printed the story above, on the 19th, that included the dogleg.

On the 20th, the DMN changed it to the Main Street only directions.

Then on the 22nd, it printed a map which only included the Main Street route.

Therefore, if you go by the stories...the route was changed after the 19th.


Notice how Jim totally ignored (once again) the Dallas Times Herald November 21st map that I posted yesterday. (Jim likes to rely only on the Dallas Morning News, I guess. The Times Herald doesn't count at all evidently.)

So, when we include the Times Herald of Nov. 21 (which Jim is avoiding at all costs), let's try to follow the Bouncing Motorcade Route from day to day....


November 16 --- Main Street only (DMN).

November 19 --- Elm Street turn (Both Dallas papers---the DMN and DTH).

November 20 --- Main Street only (DMN).

November 21 --- Elm Street turn (DTH).

November 22 --- Back to Main Street only (DMN).

November 22 --- Elm Street turn (via the actual motorcade route taken by JFK that day).


Now, it would require a massive amount of tortured logic to conclude that the above newspaper reports truly indicate that the motorcade route was actually changed back and forth a total of five different times over the course of a six-day period.

The route was never changed, and these two items below--which are identical--prove that fact (IMHO)....

November 19 --- Elm Street turn (Both Dallas papers---the DMN and DTH).

November 22 --- Elm Street turn (via the actual motorcade route taken by JFK that day).


It is not often that I have the time to drop by and see what's doing on the London Forum, but--sitting in a Starbucks on a lovely Memorial Day--I decided to do just that. What immediately caught my attention was the title of this thread..."Who Changed the Motorcade Route?" etc., and these long-winded paragraphs written by James DiEugenio which, not surprisingly, are completely incorrect. It's not my purpose to invest a lot of time debunking a windbag, but let me try to set the record straight.

I'm writing what follows, from memory, because this was an issue that I carefully investigated, decades ago. The Dallas motorcade route was something I pursued, in great detail, in the very year (or two) after I ordered my own set of the 26 Volumes (and after I began ordering documents from the National Archives).

There is plenty of reason to believe that the motorcade route was in fact "contrived," but the notion that it was "changed"--i.e., altered at the last minute to include the Dealey Plaza dog-leg--is completely wrong.

That's not what happened. The real issue is not that, but how the Trade Mart was selected as the luncheon site.

The governing document--listing in great detail the genesis of the Dallas motorcade route--is to be found in Commission Document 3 ("CD 3"),
Appendix A.

CD 3 was one of the earliest documents submitted to the Warren Commission after its creation, and Appendix A lays out, in detail, the chronology of the decision-making process leading to the motorcade route that was actually followed on November 22, 1963.

Historically speaking, CD 3/Appendix A is akin to "best evidence" when it comes to the genesis of the Dallas motorcade route, and anyone who ignores that primary source, is--in short--just "blowing smoke."

The motorcade route was "test driven" on November 14 (or Nov 15th)--by Asst. Dallas Police Chief Batchelor, and SS Field Office Chief Sorrels--as soon as the luncheon site decision was made. (Within 12-24 hours).

The luncheon site decision--i.e., the Trade Mart as the luncheon site, which meant the Trade Mart as the terminus of the Dallas motorcade--was made on either Thursday, 11/14 or 11/15 (I'm writing this from memory). Within 12 hours, as I recall, the two individuals I mentioned--Asst. Dallas Police Chief Batchelor and Forrest Sorrels--did a "test-drive" from Love Field to the Trade Mart, going through Dealey Plaza, and then via Stemmons Freeway, which meant entering Stemmons from Elm, which meant driving through Dealey Plaza exactly as the JFK motorcade drove that route on 11/22/63.

I don't think it matters--at all--what this or that person says he "remembers" years later, even decades later. Go to CD 3/Appendix A, and you will see laid out, in print, the story of how that route was driven on 11/14 or 11/15. That "test drive" occurred within 12 hours of the Dallas luncheon site decision--i.e., the selection of the Trade Mart as the luncheon site.

In other words, the motorcade route, as test driven on 11/14 or 11/15, was designed, from the outset, to pass directly in front of the TSBD, where Oswald had commenced working in mid-October. There was no need to "change it" or to "add" the dog-leg; it was there from the beginning. The notion that the dog-leg was "added" is a totally bogus issue promoted by DiEugenio et al. To borrow the language from the debate concerning evolution, that particular motorcade route (and the "crossed-paths" situation that was created, with LHO's location) was present from the outset (i.e., from 11/15, at the latest) and was a case of "intelligent design."

If one wishes to search for what is (perhaps) suspicious, then that question devolves to the issue of why the Trade Mart was chosen as the luncheon site--and certainly NOT whether the "dog-leg" was added "later."

That is a non-issue.


FYI: The luncheon site decision was made, in Washington, by Kenneth O'Donnell, who was, I am sure, heavily lobbied by LBJ (and, very likely, by Governor Connally). It was that decision that laid the foundation for the motorcade route (that was "selected"; and that "selection" occurred as a consequence of the "test drive" by Sorrels and by DPD Asst. Chief Batchelor).

Furthermore, and for those who want to do serious research in this area, and not spend hours and hours pursuing false leads that lead nowhere, please note the following: when Governor Connally pushed for the Trade Mart as the luncheon site, he had no idea that there would be a motorcade. In fact, and quite to the contrary, Gov. JC was under the impression that there would not be a motorcade. So Gov. JC was simply aggressively lobbying for a particular luncheon site, unaware that it would be the terminus for a slow-moving "political" motorcade. (He learned that there was to be a motorcade in the 24-hour period following the motorcade route "selection", and that led to some very serious conflicts concerning JC and those planning the trip.)

As for the maps published in the Dallas newspapers earlier in the week, my advice would be to ignore the "squiggles" in the map (and theories about any particular squiggle) and look at the text of those stories. As I recall, the text--starting on Tuesday, 11/19, clearly describes the route as including that dog leg turn. Perhaps not every story does--I don't have my file in front of me as I write this--but there were definitely stories published on Tuesday, 11/19 (and the latest, 11/20) that describe the route as it was actually driven on Friday, 11/22/63. So the notion that the dog-leg suddenly materialized as a consequence of a last minute change is flat-out false.

To anyone who wishes to study this further, and not simply push the "Garrison believed...[this or that]" line, I'd also advise getting a copy of Jerry Bruno's book "[The] Advance Man" (co-written by Jeff Greenfield), which was published around 1971. He talks about the alternate luncheon site, the Woman's Building, and how he thought that would be the final decision, and was surprised at what he experienced as a significant reversal.

FYI: I and another researcher talked to Bruno in 1971, when he was on his Los Angeles book tour, and there are unpublished archival documents that are important in that regard.


5/28/2018 - 6:30 PM PDT

South Orange County, California


Thanks, David Lifton, for your post regarding the genesis of the motorcade route.

Here's a link to Commission Document No. 3 (also known as the "Report Of The U.S. Secret Service On The Assassination Of President Kennedy"). To go directly to "Appendix A", which David Lifton specifically mentioned in his above post, Click Here.

I suppose that most hardline conspiracy theorists probably contend that most of the things we find in CD3 are simply lies invented by James Rowley's Secret Service in the days and weeks after the assassination (seeing as how that SS Report is dated December 18, 1963).

Mr. Lifton is correct when he said a "test drive" of the Dallas motorcade route was driven by police and Secret Service officials on November 14th. However, I can't find any mention at all of any specific streets---Elm Street or otherwise---being mentioned on this page of that Secret Service Report (CD3) where it talks about the November 14th "test drive" (as Lifton calls it).

So when David Lifton said this in his last post....

"Asst. Dallas Police Chief Batchelor and Forrest Sorrels did a "test-drive" from Love Field to the Trade Mart, going through Dealey Plaza, and then via Stemmons Freeway, which meant entering Stemmons from Elm, which meant driving through Dealey Plaza exactly as the JFK motorcade drove that route on 11/22/63."

....I'm wondering where within Commission Document No. 3 Mr. Lifton found the information to support the specific "entering Stemmons from Elm" portion of that post?

I, myself, have no doubt that Lawson and Sorrels did, indeed, travel on Elm Street during that Nov. 14 "test drive", but I just can't find a specific reference to the Houston-to-Elm turn in the SS Report. If you can find one, David L., please point me to it.

BTW, on Page 12 of that SS Report, we find this information which totally demolishes the idea put forth by people such as Fletcher Prouty (and others) about how every single building and window should have been checked by law enforcement prior to the Dallas parade. As we can see here in CD3, no such practice was adhered to by the Secret Service in 1963:


I took the time to do a little reading in CD 3/Appendix A to refresh my own memory about what I originally concluded, years ago, when I first obtained this critically important document from the National Archives, and gave it a lot of close study.

My conclusions about how the motorcade route was "selected" was largely based on reading the report in its entirety--and especially Appendix A, which details the decision-making process that led up to the selection of the motorcade route.


Most important: there is (i.e., "was") only one route that was ever "mapped" out, selected, and test driven. There is no discussion of any "other" route--ever--and always that route, the one that was "test driven" or "selected", is the same as the one that was driven on November 22, 1963.


On page 11 of this Secret Service report (again, we are in CD 3, Appendix A) comes a paragraph summarizing the news coverage preceding the Dallas trip, starting on 9/26/63, when the first announcement that there would be such a trip was published.

That paragraph includes this sentence: “The selected route of the motorcade appeared in the November 19 [Dallas] Morning News [Exhibit 6D] and in the November 19 evening edition of the Dallas Times-Herald (Exhibit 6E). This route was released locally in Dallas on the evening of November 18.”

On page 13, it is referred to as “the route selected.”

On page 10, it is stated that on Monday, November 18, SA Lawson and SAIC Sorrels drove the selected route with Asst Chief Batchelor, DPD, and another Dallas police officer.

At no time is it ever indicated that the “selected” route was anything other than the route as driven on November 22, 1963.

Whether its referred to as the “selected” route, the “chosen” route, etc. does not matter. There is (i.e., “was”) no other route under discussion, and that is what is most remarkable (even suspicious) about this situation. Only one route—the “selected” route—was ever "considered" or ever test driven.

So all this fuss about whether the dog-leg was “added” is completely irrelevant, false and misleading. There is no evidence that any such "last minute change" (or "addition") was made; So if that is what DiEugenio is basing his case on, it is pure nonsense.


Thanks, David L., for taking the time to write out all your thoughts on this matter in this Education Forum post.

I, too, had seen all those references to "the selected route" that appear in the Secret Service Report (CD3), but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing some specific reference within CD3 to "Elm Street" or "Houston Street" or "Stemmons Freeway" (relating to the "test drive" of the motorcade route).

I see now that you are utilizing ALL of CD3, in its totality, to arrive at your conclusion that the motorcade route was never changed (and I agree), including the exhibits of the 11/19/63 Dallas newspapers which clearly spell out the motorcade route (in text!), including the Houston-to-Elm turn.


Will someone please knock real hard on DiEugenio’s cranium to see if someone is there; and if so (i.e., if the message is answered), please point out that the Dallas Times Herald of November 19, 1963 (as documented in Exhibit 6E of CD 3) published the motorcade route, and that the text of the story clearly spells out that the motorade will pass through Dealey Plaza, by going from Main (right) onto Houston, and then (left) onto Elm, and then out Stemmons Freeway.


Yes, David. I "knocked real hard" on Jimmy's cranium just three days ago with words that are almost identical to what you just said....

"The Houston-to-Elm dogleg was described in the November 19th Dallas newspapers, which makes perfect sense considering what I just said above about the route being officially announced on Nov. 18. Therefore, the dogleg was part of the motorcade route as of November 18th, otherwise the Dallas Morning News couldn't have printed the route in its paper on the morning of the 19th [as seen in CE1363]. .... Some conspiracy myths just refuse to die, don't they? And "The Motorcade Route Was Changed" junk is apparently one such myth that I guess will be with us until the end of time." -- DVP; May 26, 2018


LHO had no connection to the M/C [Mannlicher-Carcano rifle] after he left New Orleans. He went to Mexico City, and Ruth and Marina drove their belongings back to Irving.


Carcano Rifle C2766 was Lee Harvey Oswald's gun, as of March 20, 1963. There's tons of paperwork to prove that fact, such as the things I talk about here.


A rifle was seen by Marina Oswald in Ruth Paine's garage in Sept. or Oct. of 1963.

That rifle was missing from its known storage location in Paine's garage on 11/22/63.

C2766 was the JFK murder weapon.

C2766 was found on the sixth floor of Oswald's workplace--the TSBD--on November 22nd.

A newborn baby could do this math. But for some reason, it always eludes a conspiracy theorist.


David, you're a jerk. You just like stirring the pot to get everyone all riled-up.


Well, Rich, I think it's a good idea for an LNer (like me) to occasionally remind people of what the ACTUAL EVIDENCE is in the JFK and Tippit cases, and to spell it out in black and white. And that "actual evidence" isn't going anywhere anytime soon. OSWALD'S rifle and the pictures of OSWALD holding the Kennedy murder weapon and OSWALD'S lies and the eyewitness testimony to OSWALD murdering J.D. Tippit are always going to be there. And it's important to remind people about all of that "Oswald" stuff every now and again---so that the CTers don't get the silly idea that their preposterous "Oswald Never Shot Anybody" theories are the only theories on the table when it comes to Internet discussions pertaining to the Kennedy and Tippit murders.


That so-called evidence has already been throughly discredited many times over.


So YOU say. But I certainly don't hold that opinion. Not even close, in fact. And NONE of the official investigative bodies held that opinion about the evidence either. (But, naturally, nothing the Warren Commission or HSCA ever said means a hill of beans to you, does it Jim?)

Of course, CTers have a very different definition of what the word "discredited" means when compared to an LNer. Take Jim DiEugenio's beliefs regarding Linnie Randle, Buell Frazier, and the "large paper bag", for instance. Jim actually thinks that Frazier and Randle just invented the bag. They just made it up (per Jim)! So that ultra-silly belief contributes to his overall belief that the "bag evidence" has been discredited.

To me, though, a true case of something (or somebody) being "discredited" would be Roger D. Craig. If that guy's tales about seeing "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the TSBD rifle haven't been "discredited", then nothing has ever been discredited in any murder case ever.


No turn, no dogleg [in this DMN map]. And it ain't no sketch. It's an illustration of the route. It proves there was a disagreement about the route.


Bull. It shows the motorcade turning directly onto STEMMONS from MAIN. And how does one manage to get from Main to Stemmons?

Answer --- Hop over to Houston and then Elm. That's how. Traffic is not permitted to go directly from MAIN to STEMMONS. Therefore, as I mentioned before, the HOUSTON and ELM turns are, in effect, IMPLIED in the map shown below (which appeared on the front page of the Dallas Morning News on 11/22/63), even though those two turns aren't spelled out specifically on the map....



Don't get too worked up about DVP. Note how he ignored 95 percent of my post. So why do it?

He's a diversion who does not even take himself seriously. Anyone who can read 2,646 pages of RH [sic; the Reclaiming History page count is actually 2,824, including all Source Notes and unnumbered pages] and not find one serious error of fact or statement in it, I mean please. Bugliosi out and out lied right at the beginning of the book and DVP swept it under the rug.


Just like with the word "discredited", CTers also have their own unique definition of the word "lied".

http://jfk-archives/The Way Vincent Bugliosi Presents CTer Arguments

http://jfk-archives/Reclaiming History Errors


The Mauser identification lasted into the evening on Saturday; some 30 hours.


Well, not really. It didn't last even that long. And the proof is in the three videos that I've put on my webpage HERE, in which Dan Rather of CBS News (in the first video), another newsman (in the second video), and Lieutenant J.C. Day of the Dallas Police Department (in the third video) identify the TSBD rifle as an "Italian 6.5 millimeter" weapon.

At precisely 6:16 PM CST on 11/22/63, less than 6 hours after JFK was shot, Lieutenant Day announced to the world that the rifle he was holding over his head for the press to see was (quoting Lt. Day) .... "6.5, apparently made in Italy, in 1940".



DVP has been trying to derail this topic.

David, resurrect any one of the familiar Rifle or Mail Order threads, please. I know, those threads have lots of bad memories for you, but that does not mean you should disrupt other threads.



Please point me to the post where I "derailed" this thread.


Right here with one of your usual Ole Faithful windbag pontifications:

[Quoting DVP:]

"Well, I think it's a good idea for an LNer (like me) to occasionally remind people of what the ACTUAL EVIDENCE is in the JFK and Tippit cases, and to spell it out in black and white. And that "actual evidence" isn't going anywhere anytime soon. OSWALD'S rifle and the pictures of OSWALD holding the Kennedy murder weapon and OSWALD'S lies and the eyewitness testimony to OSWALD murdering J.D. Tippit are always going to be there. And it's important to remind people about all of that "Oswald" stuff every now and again---so that the CTers don't get the silly idea that their preposterous "Oswald Never Shot Anybody" theories are the only theories on the table when it comes to Internet discussions pertaining to the Kennedy and Tippit murders."


And your follow-up windbag-ish post --- THIS ONE HERE --- wasn't the slightest bit "off-topic" and discusses ONLY "The Motorcade Route" and nothing else, right Jimmy?

(But thanks for re-posting my excellent "Ole Faithful windbag pontification" seen above. It's extremely good and should be re-posted as often as possible. Much obliged.)


Let us now get back to the motorcade route so DVP can get beat up some more.


I won that battle years ago. And CE1363 is the proof. (I guess Jim D. just never noticed.)

David Von Pein
May 26—June 9, 2018

(PART 1285)


I think there’s doubt he [Lee Harvey Oswald] ever had the revolver in his possession.


So, Paul, do you therefore think Captain Fritz lied through his teeth when he wrote these things in his report?....

"I asked him [Oswald] where he went to when he left work, and he told me that he had a room on 1026 North Beckley, that he went over there and changed his trousers and got his pistol and went to the picture show. I asked him why he carried his pistol, and he remarked, "You know how boys do when they have a gun, they just carry it." "
-- Warren Report, Page 601 [DVP's emphasis]


Well, seeing as there is no transcript or recording, something I still cannot fathom, the answer is yes I believe Fritz lied. And without transcript or recording, we are left with two possibilities instead of one incontrovertible fact.


Exactly. That's definitely the common sense view instead of believing and assuming (without study) literally everything that is said to have occurred officially. It's challenging digging for the facts and piecing it all together to make sense, a complex mosaic as Bugliosi said (one of my favorite sayings from him actually), the way a complex conspiracy would have to be solved.


OK. Fine.

In addition to accusing just Captain John Will Fritz of the DPD of being a liar when it comes to this topic of "Did Oswald Carry A Pistol On 11/22/63?", here are three more people who said Oswald was carrying a gun that day --- James Hosty of the FBI, James Bookhout of the FBI, and civilian shoe store manager Johnny Brewer. Do you now want to call all three of these people liars too, including the civilian witness (Brewer)?....

"Oswald admitted to carrying a pistol with him..." -- Via this 11/22/63 Hosty/Bookhout FD-302 FBI Report

"...he [Oswald] reached under his shirt and pulled out a revolver." -- Johnny C. Brewer; July 1986 [5:40 in the video below]


Thanks for posting. He [Johnny Brewer] seems believable. Did anyone in Oswald’s life prior to that day ever see him with a revolver?


Yes. Marina Oswald saw Lee's pistol on more than one occasion. Here's what Marina said about the revolver in her Warren Commission testimony (and also take note of her comments about how she took the famous Backyard Photos, plus her remarks about how Lee would go out "practicing" with his rifle, which is something that most conspiracy theorists are always telling me never once happened, despite this testimony given by Marina Oswald)....


MARINA OSWALD -- ...he also had a gun, a revolver.

J. LEE RANKIN -- Do you recall when he first had the pistol, that you remember?

MRS. OSWALD -- He had that on Neely Street, but I think that he acquired the rifle before he acquired the pistol. The pistol I saw twice---once in his room, and the second time when I took these photographs.

MR. RANKIN -- What period of time was there between when he got the rifle and you learned of it, and the time that you first learned about the pistol?

MRS. OSWALD -- I can't say.

MR. RANKIN -- When you testified about his practicing with the rifle, are you describing a period when you were still at Neely Street?


MR. RANKIN -- Do you know where he practiced with the rifle?

MRS. OSWALD -- I don't know where. I don't know the name of the place where this took place. But I think it was somewhere out of town. It seems to me a place called Lopfield.

MR. RANKIN -- Would that be at the airport---Love Field?

MRS. OSWALD -- Love Field.

MR. RANKIN -- So you think he was practicing out in the open and not at a rifle range?


MR. RANKIN -- Do you recall seeing the rifle when the telescopic lens was on it?

MRS. OSWALD -- I hadn't paid any attention initially. I know a rifle was a rifle. I didn't know whether or not it had a telescope attached to it. But the first time I remember seeing it was in New Orleans, where I recognized the telescope. But probably the telescope was on before. I simply hadn't paid attention. I hope you understand. When I saw it, I thought that all rifles have that.

MR. RANKIN -- Did you make any objection to having the rifle around?

MRS. OSWALD -- Of course.

MR. RANKIN -- What did he say to that?

MRS. OSWALD -- That for a man to have a rifle---since I am a woman, I don't understand him, and I shouldn't bother him. A fine life.

MR. RANKIN -- Is that the same rifle that you are referring to that you took the picture of with your husband and when he had the pistol, too?

MRS. OSWALD -- Yes. I asked him then why he had dressed himself up like that, with the rifle and the pistol, and I thought that he had gone crazy, and he said he wanted to send that to a newspaper. This was not my business---it was man's business. If I had known these were such dangerous toys of course---you understand that I thought that Lee had changed in that direction, and I didn't think it was a serious occupation with him, just playing around.

MR. RANKIN -- Do you recall the day that you took the picture of him with the rifle and the pistol?

MRS. OSWALD -- I think that that was towards the end of February, possibly the beginning of March. I can't say exactly. Because I didn't attach any significance to it at the time. That was the only time I took any pictures. I don't know how to take pictures. He gave me a camera and asked me---if someone should ask me how to photograph, I don't know.

MR. RANKIN -- Was it on a day off that you took the picture?

MRS. OSWALD -- It was on a Sunday.

MR. RANKIN -- How did it occur? Did he come to you and ask you to take the picture?

MRS. OSWALD -- I was hanging up diapers, and he came up to me with the rifle and l was even a little scared, and he gave me the camera and asked me to press a certain button.

MR. RANKIN -- And he was dressed up with a pistol at the same time, was he?



Also See:




Davey is up to his old tricks again. He never gets tired of this routine, does he?

The following is from Weisberg's Whitewash 2, Chapter 1. That chapter is largely from the first Secret Service interview with Marina by Charles Kunkel.

The FBI advised her "It would be better for me if I were to help them....If I didn't want to answer they told me that if I wanted to live in this country, I would have to help in his matter...."

"She said that she saw the rifle but she has never seen a pistol on Lee or in his possession or in the house."

Geez Davey, think there is some relationship between the FBI threat and the difference between her first interview and her WC testimony?

Well, gee whitakers, it sure as heck looks like it eh?

And BTW, that rifle she recalled, it did not have a scope. But recall what she said when she was presented with the rifle before the WC, "That is the fateful rifle of Lee Oswald."

Kind of interesting eh? In addition to the threat, let us never forget Tex-Italia Films out in LA.


David - this is the problem. I decided long ago to dismiss Marina’s testimony because there was no way to know what was true and what wasn’t. She was not a reliable witness.



And do you have any idea why Marina still, to this day, is saying she took the backyard pictures (despite the fact that she now thinks Lee was innocent and was framed as the patsy for JFK's murder)? Is she still afraid of being deported?....

"I was very nervous that day when I took the pictures," [Marina told author Gerald Posner]. "I can't remember how many I took, but I know I took them and that is what is important. It would be easier if I said I never took them, but that is not the truth." -- Page 106 of Gerald Posner's "Case Closed"


On November 30, 2000, Marina told author Vincent Bugliosi that she took the backyard photos and she also re-confirmed for Bugliosi that Lee Oswald had taken a shot at General Edwin Walker:

"Although...I did not come to interrogate Marina about the facts of the case, since this had already been done ad nauseam, a few references to factual matters were made. When she insisted on Oswald's innocence, suggesting he would never do such a murderous act, I reminded her that he had, in fact, attempted to murder Major General Edwin Walker, and she readily admitted he had, telling me she knew this because "Lee told me he did." But she hastened to add that the president was different because "Lee liked Kennedy." And [Fort Worth lawyer and friend of Bugliosi's] Jack Duffy, who has studied the assassination for years and leans toward the conspiracy theory, asked Marina if she had taken "the backyard photos" of Oswald holding the Carcano rifle. "Yes," she answered evenly, "I did." "That settles that issue," Duffy said." -- Page 1487 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi


I’ve followed the case for 52 years. I work backwards from the Zapruder film. Knowing that Oswald could not have fired the fatal headshot leads inevitably to conclude conspiracy, and from there all bets are off. All evidence, all witness statements, have to be weighed against that central fact. I appreciate your efforts and contributions.


And so, Paul, would I be correct in assuming then that you do NOT think that President Kennedy's head is moving initially FORWARD at the instant he was struck by the head shot? And would you agree that a movement of the President's head FORWARD at the critical moment of impact would, indeed, tend to indicate that the bullet that caused that forward movement was likely fired from BEHIND the President?

And can I also assume, Paul, based on your last comment quoted above, that you are also of the opinion that the autopsy photo of JFK's head below is a fake and has been altered in some manner (despite the conclusion reached by the HSCA on this matter [at Page 41 of HSCA Vol. 7])?


Who was it that originally pointed out that the head first went forward before snapping back? He has since come to the conclusion that it was an illusion caused by camera movement, and said by looking at the background you can spot the forward movement illusion.


Yeah....anything to avoid the obvious, I guess. (Just like my 2015 discussion with Education Forum members re: the SBT.)


The whole thing about the 1-2 frame forward movement was misrepresented by DVP and Ayton in their book. [DiEugenio is, as usual, dead wrong here. This topic was not "misrepresented" by Mel Ayton or myself in our book at all. Jimmy just doesn't want to believe the ITEK Corporation's findings, that's all.]

[Josiah] Thompson was the first guy to write about it. But he was not the first guy to point it out. That was Ray Marcus, and Thompson would admit that as the case. In other words, it was the critics who first pointed out that almost undetectable forward bob.


Jim is hilarious.

To think that the forward motion of JFK's head at Z313 is only being caused by the "blur" in the film is another example of "Ultimate CTer Denial In Action" --- especially since we know (and can SEE) that the President is being hit in the head WITH A BULLET at that exact moment in time on the Zapruder Film.

And yet, even though we know a high-speed bullet is definitely crashing into his skull at that EXACT instant, I'm supposed to believe that the ONLY thing that is causing the apparent "forward movement" of Kennedy's head is the "blur"???

Jim and Josiah are too funny for words!


Von Pein and Ayton misrepresented this issue in two ways.

First, they tried to insinuate that this bob forward was somehow ignored by the critical community. What a bunch of malarkey. Thompson's book was on the cover of the Saturday Evening Post. It had a large impact and sold well. Second, they ignored Thompson's later discoveries with physicist Art Snyder about the smear on the film. I don't know if Davey is deliberately ignoring this, or if he just does not understand it. I actually think it's both.



Just keep looking at this super-slo-mo clip over and over a few times. And then try to convince yourself that the obvious forward motion of President Kennedy's head that you are seeing is being caused ONLY by a "smear" in the film. Good luck in convincing yourself of that fairy tale.


Davey, is this supposed to be something we have never seen before?

Are you serious? Or is it too late back in Hoosier country and you fell asleep watching Gene Hackman win the championship with Dennis Hopper?


Hey, that's a fine film. (One of my favorites.) And featured on my
Classic Movies Website as well....


You have not countered anything I said, or Thompson has said or Art Snyder said. In fact, I do not even think you understand the arguments. And there is also something else: it's Darrell Weatherly who worked out a mathematical equation about the smear which was in Livingstone's book.

Let me know when you try and counter it.

(Sound of crickets in the night. E mail to McAdams. Nothing. E mail to Davison, "Who is Weatherly?" Email to Reitzes. "Hey man, what is a smear?")


Nah. I don't need to e-mail anybody on this. I like my last post aimed at you much better....

"Just keep looking at this super-slo-mo clip over and over a few times. And then try to convince yourself that the obvious forward motion of President Kennedy's head that you are seeing is being caused ONLY by a "smear" in the film. Good luck in convincing yourself of that fairy tale." -- DVP

Only a "smear"!!??? LOL. What a crock. 

P.S. to Jim --- Please learn how to spell the word it's. Do you ever spell it correctly (using the apostrophe)? I can't count the number of times I've had to add the proper punctuation to your posts when I'm transferring them to my site in order to maintain This Complete Archive Of The Conspiracy-Related Fantasies Of One James DiEugenio Of Los Angeles, California, USA.

Thank you.

David Von Pein
May 25-29, 2018