SYLVIA MEAGHER

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

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

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

Interesting how she takes no prisoners about the WC.

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

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

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




[Source for the above interview: OurHiddenHistory.org]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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



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

[Quote On:]

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

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

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

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

[End Quote.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Addendum....

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

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

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

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

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

David Von Pein
September 12, 2017


BLOG SEARCH FOR “SYLVIA MEAGHER”:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 742)

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

She [Sylvia Meagher] then notes that according to two witnesses, Oswald had tried to board the elevator going down and requested the elevator be sent back up. [Quoting Meagher:] "Why, then, should he [Oswald] decline to accompany Givens down at 11:55, and ask him again to send the elevator up as if he had not already asked the same thing ten minutes before? The first request is corroborated by a number of witnesses, but we have only Givens' unsupported account of the second request." (ibid)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That quote from Sylvia Meagher's book is totally ludicrous, Jim.

Meagher has put on her "OSWALD WAS DEFINITELY NOT GUILTY OF SHOOTING JFK AND WAS NOT PLANNING TO SHOOT JFK AT ALL AROUND NOONTIME ON 11/22/63, AND THEREFORE HE WOULD HAVE HAD NO REASON UNDER THE SUN FOR DECLINING TO RIDE DOWN WITH CHARLIE GIVENS IN THE ELEVATOR AT 11:55 AM ON NOVEMBER 22" hat.

You can surely see how utterly dumb that quote is from Ms. Meagher...can't you Jim?

For, if Oswald was planning on shooting the President from that sixth floor in just a few minutes (which he definitely was planning to do at the time he talked with Charlie Givens at around noon on Nov. 22), then why on Earth does Meagher think it would be unusual for Oswald to act the way he did regarding the elevator?

Does Meagher really believe that a person who is planning to murder the President from the sixth floor would actually want to descend to the first floor to eat his lunch at just about the same time the President would be passing the building?

Meagher is looking at this "elevator" episode in the wrong context entirely. She's looking at it through the one-sided "Oswald Must Be Innocent" prism. But she should have been looking at it from the POV of the assassin--Lee Harvey Oswald.

Let me repeat this comment I made the other day--it fits in perfectly here, in light of the unbelievably silly quote that Jim D. just supplied from Sylvia Meagher's "classic" book:


"Oswald's persistence in wanting an elevator sent back up to him makes perfect sense from the point-of-view of OSWALD BEING THE ASSASSIN OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY.

I.E., It makes perfect sense from the POV of a person who would want an elevator to be sent back up to him on the Floor Of Death. As I mentioned previously, Oswald wanted to use that very same elevator as an escape route to get off of that sixth floor very quickly after shooting JFK. What is so hard to believe about that type of mindset?

But, actually Jim, you've fallen on your own sword with the quote I just cited above -- because, you're right about it not making any sense from the standpoint and mindset of an INNOCENT OSWALD who wanted to do nothing more than take that elevator downstairs to eat his lunch with the other boys on the first floor.

Which is why we can know that Oswald had SOMETHING ELSE IN MIND with respect to the elevators on November 22, 1963. He wanted to use the elevator at a LATER time--like, say, just after he had fired some Carcano rifle bullets into the body of the President.

But, as always, since conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio are part of the "Everybody Was A Liar" fraternity, those CTers fail to evaluate things from the POV of the assassin himself.

Obviously, Oswald had more on his mind at 11:55 AM on November 22nd than merely riding the elevator downstairs to eat a cheese sandwich. Which makes Oswald's DOUBLE PLEA for the elevator to be sent back up to him on the sixth floor an action that is in perfect sync and harmony with all of Lee Oswald's other actions and movements on 11/22/63." -- DVP; September 4, 2010

David Von Pein
September 6, 2010

DVP VS. A CONSPIRACY THEORIST (TOPICS: VINCENT BUGLIOSI, "RECLAIMING HISTORY", AND SOME OTHER STUFF TOO)

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I find it most interesting that you were able to read and review this book well before the publication date.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I wasn't and I didn't. And in my very first comment [which is no longer available to read] connected to this Amazon review, I explained the error concerning the date that appears at the top of my review.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

The Warren Commission Report is nearly 900 pages accompanied by 26 volumes of testimony and evidence (but no index).


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Better look again. The Warren Commission Report and its associated volumes actually include MULTIPLE indexes. Let's have a gander (the first one shown below is in the 888-page Warren Report itself, while the last two are in Volume 15; so, yes, you do need to know where to look for these indexes, but once you know where they are, then it's a snap to access them at any time in the future, particularly nowadays when every page of this material is available on the Internet):

WARREN REPORT APPENDIX V (INDEX OF WITNESSES):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0254a.htm

WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF NAMES:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0382a.htm

WARREN COMMISSION INDEX OF EXHIBITS*:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh15/html/WC_Vol15_0406a.htm

How many more indexes do you require?

* The "Exhibits" index linked above only goes up to CE1053, and that's because it's an index that provides information as to what volume number and page number to go to in order to find out when a particular exhibit was mentioned when a witness was on the stand. The other 2,000 "CE" exhibits are not listed in that index, and that index doesn't actually tell the reader where to go in the volumes to locate a picture of the exhibit itself. But, of course, even a second-grader who knows anything about the general structure of the WC volumes would have no difficulty in locating photos of all the Commission exhibits themselves -- just go to Volumes 16-26.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

That is a massive number of pages for something of such poor quality.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're obviously buried in conspiracy quicksand, Garry. The fact is, the Warren Commission Report and volumes are massively comprehensive (certainly comprehensive enough to determine what needed to be determined--i.e., Who Shot JFK and did he do it alone?). Naturally, you totally disagree. Well, what's new there?

The Warren Commission's biggest mistake was not taking a closer look at the autopsy photos and X-rays. Therefore, we had to rely on inaccurate drawings made by Mr. Rydberg.

But the conspiracists who think they can use the Rydberg drawings to discredit the WC's findings are sorely mistaken, and that's because the NEXT investigation (the HSCA) DID examine the autopsy pictures and X-rays in detail (and confirmed their authenticity), and the HSCA/FPP came to the same identical conclusion that the WC came to -- JFK was shot just twice, with both bullets entering his body FROM BEHIND. And the Clark Panel in 1968 and the Rockefeller Commission in 1975 came to the very same identical conclusion as well. Were they ALL liars?


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

You made the same mistake with this review. It's way too long.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's a really long book, so I wrote a really long review to go with it. So sorry you were displeased. I hope you'll forgive me for not meeting the rigid expectations of a conspiracy theorist. I should be hanged from the oak tree in front of the Depository. (Got any rope?)


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

He [Vincent Bugliosi] did very little actual research (almost none in fact) and although the book was 20 years in the making, precious little of that time was used in researching and writing this book.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. Between approximately 2001 and November 2006, Mr. Bugliosi worked 70 to 90 hours per week on "Reclaiming History". And to say he did almost no research for the book is to simply ignore the 10,000 source notes that appear in the book. [Check out this audio clip.]

Get real, Garry. So far you're anything but.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I wasn't aware that Mr. Garrison had been "thoroughly discredited." By whom?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

By anyone with a smidgen of common sense, that's by whom. Just read Vincent's section on that topic in "Reclaiming History" (beginning on Page 1361). Apparently you didn't.

For Pete sake, Jim Garrison's own lead investigator, William Gurvich, resigned in disgust and told the world that Garrison had "no case" whatsoever against the man Garrison was prosecuting--Clay Shaw.

Read more about Garrison's total lack of evidence against Shaw and Gurvich's comments about the case here (and via the image below), which is an excerpt taken from page 1361 of "Reclaiming History".





GARRY PUFFER PUFFED:

Your review suffers from the same faults as "Reclaiming History": It is voluminous but without substance, it contains untruths, and it avoids any ideas that conflict with its conclusions. I'll give your review a D- because there are very few grammatical or spelling errors.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How sweet of you. But at least a D- is better than the F- that you're getting for your review of my review.

The day you come up with one solid piece of credible evidence that undermines the "Oswald Did It" conclusions of both the Warren Commission and the HSCA, please drop me a line. Thus far no conspiracy theorist has been able to do that. But, who knows, maybe Garry Puffer of Riverside, California, will be the first. Good luck.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Any good history book indexes the subjects as well as names.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The Warren Commission Report (WCR) itself is indexed by subject (and very nicely too)--it's called the "Table Of Contents", and it's quite detailed, with tons of sub-topics listed. Each sub-topic is then sourced within each section.

In fact, I've always been very impressed by the WCR's Table of Contents section. Quite useful indeed. I use it often.


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

It is a researcher's nightmare to approach 26 volumes with a topic in mind only to find out there is no way to find anything. Listing three indexes that are fairly useless on their own is typical of the way you argue your points.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're silly. The Warren Commission's indexes are just fine and provide direct "Volume No." info for every single witness and every single name that appears in the WCR and volumes. And as I just mentioned, the WCR's Table of Contents is, essentially, a "subject index". And a very useful one too. You require way too much from the Commission in this "index" regard. And the "List of witnesses" is something that I'll bet a lot of researchers aren't even aware is in the WCR (Appendix V).

That witness index gives instant info as to what Volume No. (and page number) to go to to find that witness' testimony and, in many cases, their affidavits too. It's a very handy Appendix that is just as good as a "Subject Index" for most researchers, and that's because the researcher pretty much already knows what "subject" the individual witness in the "List of Witnesses" is connected to. And for those newbie researchers who don't know Jim Humes from Ruth Paine, they can easily find the material on any specific subject by utilizing the WCR's Table Of Contents, which, as mentioned, is incredibly detailed.

Naturally, all of these things aren't nearly good enough for Mr. Puffer. But they certainly should be good enough for anyone who isn't desperate to dismantle the WCR and its work. (But is there a conspiracy theorist in the world who ISN'T desperate to perform such a task, no matter how silly and nitpicky their complaints are?)


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

I'm insignificant in all this.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How true. And I'm insignificant too. But Oswald still did it alone. And the evidence proves it.


ADDENDUM REGARDING SYLVIA MEAGHER:

Garry Puffer actually did me a bit of a favor when he brought up the subject of a WC index. Because it got me to thinking that I needed to add a couple of things to my online Kennedy Book Catalog, with those items being Sylvia Meagher's two Master Index volumes for the JFK investigations [ONE and TWO].

And while searching Amazon for those Meagher books, I noticed a blurb connected to another one of her books, "Accessories After The Fact", which is a 1967 book that many conspiracy theorists treat as the Holy Grail of JFK assassination books. The blurb at Amazon says:

"Her amazing assertion that Oswald had never actually been charged with Kennedy's murder, despite sworn testimony to the contrary (see Commission Document 5 for the FBI's statement that "such arraignment was not necessary")."

I'm just wondering if Meagher actually contends in her book that Oswald was never arraigned by Justice of the Peace David Johnston at 1:35 AM on 11/23/63?

If Meagher does take that position, it just makes me wonder what other off-the-wall theories she adopted as the truth over the years, because Johnston himself wrote a statement that details the 1:35 AM arraignment of Oswald [Johnston Exhibit No. 1, at 20 H 315].

There is also 11/23/63 television coverage from newsmen (WFAA-TV coverage specifically) who talk about the early-morning arraignment of Oswald, and about how Oswald said "That's ridiculous" following the arraignment procedure.

All lies, Sylvia?

It's true, indeed, that there is an FBI report (Commission Document No. 5; Page 400) that does say that Oswald was not arraigned for JFK's murder. Now, why such an inaccurate statement exists in CD5, I haven't the foggiest idea. But can anyone with any common sense really believe that that one document in CD5 trumps all of the other people (including Justice of the Peace David L. Johnston himself [at 15 H 508]) who said Oswald was arraigned at 1:35 AM?

"In a conference between Captain Fritz, Mr. Wade, and two or three of his assistants and myself, and Chief Curry--it was decided to go ahead and arraign him [Oswald] and that arraignment was held at 1:35 a.m., November 23, 1963, in the identification bureau of the Dallas Police Department, and once again I appraised him of his constitutional rights, read the affidavit, and advised him again that I remanded him to the custody of the sheriff, Dallas County, denying bond as capital offense. He was also told at both of these instances [the Tippit and Kennedy arraignments] that he would be given the right to contact an attorney of his choice." -- David L. Johnston

--------------

In addition to all of the above proof that Lee Harvey Oswald was definitely "charged" and then "arraigned" for the murder of President Kennedy, there is also the following late-night (Nov. 22-23) television interview with Dallas County Justice of the Peace David Johnston, in which Johnston reads every word of the formal complaint charging Oswald with killing John F. Kennedy. About an hour after this TV interview, Johnston read that same document to Oswald during the official arraignment:




JOHN R. KING SAID:

How does a person change the date on an Amazon review?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You can't. The date is fixed for all time by Amazon once it's submitted.

Here's the deal on why my review is dated March 22, 2005 (even though it was written in 2007):

Years ago, Amazon would allow a person to submit multiple reviews for the same product. But in about 2006, they stopped allowing more than one review for an item. And at about that same time, if you were to delete a review and then write a new one for the same product, the date of the first review would still be attached to the new review. (Amazon did this in order to stop people from "bumping" their reviews to the top of the stack; apparently that was a problem at the Amazon.com website a few years ago.)

And that's what happened with my "Reclaiming History" review(s). I did, indeed, write a "pre-release" review for the book in 2005 (which is another thing you can no longer do at Amazon.com; you can't submit any review for a book until the release date; you can write pre-release reviews for all the DVDs you want to, but not for books; seems a bit strange to have that inconsistency, but that's the way it is).

Anyway, when it came time to post my review following the book's release, I deleted my 2005 review and then submitted my 2007 review. But the new rules were in place then (only one review per "product set" and "no bumping allowed"), and therefore my new review still maintained the 2005 date.

But to complicate matters a little bit more, I actually DO have two reviews still on the Amazon site for this book ("Reclaiming History"). And I think the reason for that is because the one I wrote in November 2005 (yes, another "pre-release" one, as I was anticipating what was coming from Mr. Bugliosi, and I was absolutely right too) was written on an Amazon page that had a different ISBN book number for Bugliosi's book, and it was written at a time when Vince's book was still called "Final Verdict" (and the Amazon webpage for "Final Verdict" is still active too, right here).

And even though all 200+ customer reviews have since been merged into the same "product set" for the book called "Reclaiming History", my November 2005 pre-release review was still allowed to exist on the site, even though I have since submitted a second review for the same product.

I've always wondered why my November '05 review didn't disappear after I submitted my final review for "RH" in June of 2007. But for some reason it didn't, because here it is. [Note -- The previous link, which is no longer functioning, was a screenshot of my Amazon review page. The 2005 review in question was finally deleted by Amazon sometime in early 2018. But I was able to save the review as a screenshot (which has now been deleted too; ~sigh~) before the cached version of it completely disappeared from the Web.]

BTW, my 2007 Amazon review isn't nearly my "full" review for Mr. Bugliosi's book. The complete 11-mile-long version is at my "RH" website, here:




GARRY PUFFER SAID:

Hi David,

Are you really so clueless as to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald knew anything about the Mannlicher-Carcano? "His own gun?" Laughable. A bullet fired into cotton wadding and dropped on the wrong stretcher at Parkland? Yeah, great evidence. It is in fact better evidence for a conspiracy than it is for your pathetic theory.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Remarkably, though, CE399 shows just about exactly the amount of weight loss that we would expect to see given the circumstances -- e.g., no bullet lead in JFK's neck/back; no bullet lead in Connally's torso; one tiny fragment in Connally's thigh; and a very small amount of lead in Connally's wrist.

It blends perfectly with the approx. 2.4-grain loss of CE399. Those bullet-planters were amazing, weren't they? They somehow KNEW when they planted that bullet that the amount of metal which would be plucked from the TWO victims would not exceed 2.4 grains. And it most certainly didn't exceed that (no matter how many lies the conspiracy crowd tells about this matter).

http://jfk-archives/The Connally Bullet Fragments


GARRY PUFFER SAID:

And in case you hadn't noticed, there are not many people who agree with what you claim to believe.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's yet another myth that is always propped up by the conspiracy clowns. Percentage-wise, it's true that the sensible "LNers" are in the vast minority. I cannot deny that fact.

But to hear kooks like Jim DiEugenio tell it on Anybody-But-Oswald Radio (hosted by Len Osanic), you'd think that Vince Bugliosi, Gerald Posner, John McAdams, and myself were the only people on the planet who think Oswald shot Kennedy. But such talk is just more over-the-top crappola coming from the CT side of the fence, as is clearly demonstrated by the results to the second question in the 2003 ABC News poll linked here.

By extrapolation, millions of people think Oswald shot Kennedy (and acted alone). So it's not just Bugliosi, Posner, McAdams, and Von Pein.

David Von Pein
October 7-18, 2012
September 5, 2015


THE BATTLE CONTINUES HERE:

BONNIE RAY WILLIAMS AND THE CHICKEN BONES

TONY FRATINI SAID:

BRW [Bonnie Ray Williams] was snacking on his chicken lunch and drinking a soda pop within the SN [Sniper's Nest].


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dead wrong. Why are you making this stuff up about Bonnie Ray?


TONY FRATINI SAID:

How do you think the assassin got BRW to "vacate" the SN?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No need for it, because BRW was never INSIDE the SN at any time on 11/22/63. And there's no testimony to that effect from Bonnie Ray Williams at all. So why did you say it?


COLIN CROW SAID:

The consolidated evidence indicates BRW lied and spent time before vacating the SN leaving his chicken sandwich unfinished.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Beautiful. One more "liar" to add to a CTer's list. What a surprise. Everybody's a liar except Lee Harvey.


COLIN CROW SAID:

Who moved the chicken twice, David? If BRW is truthful it goes from the two wheeler to the SN and back to the two wheeler.

BRW did not vacate his position until just a few minutes before the shots. Why not take his uneaten chicken with him?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I doubt there was ever any chicken bones right AT or IN the Sniper's Nest. Or on the SN boxes. The chicken bones and lunch sack and Dr. Pepper bottle were further WEST, where Bonnie Ray Williams said he ate lunch.

I think Luke Mooney was incorrect [as were some other police officers] about the precise location where the bones were found. There's also confusion over the FIFTH or SIXTH floor for the chicken remnants, as Tom Alyea and Gerald Hill discuss in this 1993 video....




TONY FRATINI SAID:

Here we go - now DVP is moving the chicken lunch sack and the chicken bones! We know that [Gerald] Hill stuck his head out of the correct floor with the lunch sack/piece of chicken in his hand. It was Hill who initially moved the evidence from the boxes behind the SN.

[Quoting Jim Ewell's words as they appear in Larry Sneed's book] "No More Silence"....

"Jerry Hill worked his way up to the sixth floor, leaned out an open window, and he had what was thought to be Oswald’s little fried chicken lunch. It was in a little pop box. Jerry was holding that box and holding up one of the chicken bones exclaiming to everybody that listened to him down on the street that the fried chicken was what he had been eating. About that time there was a commotion around one of the squad cars, and we could hear a radio saying that an officer had been shot in Oak Cliff."


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm not "moving" the chicken bones to the fifth floor. Tom Alyea does that in that 1993 video. He's certain there were bones on the fifth floor. And maybe there were. I'm not sure.

But Bonnie Ray certainly never said he left any bones on any boxes....

Mr. BALL. Where did you put the bones?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I don't remember exactly, but I think I put some of them back in the sack. Just as I was ready to go I threw the sack down.
Mr. BALL. What did you do with the sack?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think I just dropped it there.
Mr. BALL. Anywhere near the two-wheeler?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I think it was.

Also....

From Vince Bugliosi's book....

[Quote On:]

"During a search of the sixth floor after the assassination, a detective for the Crime Scene Search Section of the Dallas Police Department found a lunch bag with chicken bones, a piece of waxed paper, and a little piece of Fritos in it in front of the “third” double-window over from the southeasternmost window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. He also found a Dr. Pepper bottle nearby. (7 H 146, WCT Robert Lee Studebaker; CD 1245, p.84, FBI interview of Robert Studebaker on May 29, 1964)

Since Bonnie Williams had chicken, Fritos, and a Dr. Pepper for lunch at that exact place, that should have been the end of it. Lieutenant J. C. Day dusted the Dr. Pepper bottle for fingerprints, and no prints of Oswald’s were found. When Day later found out the food and drink had belonged to Williams, he decided the lunch bag and Dr. Pepper bottle had no value to the case and threw the sack and bottle away. (CD 1245, p.83)

Not so fast, said conspiracy theorist Sylvia Meagher, who said that since Day “saw no need to check the empty bottle for fingerprints other than Oswald’s, we will never know if fingerprints were on the bottle, or whose they were.” And even though Studebaker, whose job it was to search the sixth floor, saw the food and drink next to the third double-window over, and several other witnesses said they saw them in the same place (e.g., 6 H 330–331, WCT William H. Shelley), and Williams himself said that’s where he ate his lunch, Meagher proceeded to cite other witnesses who said they saw food elsewhere, for example, Luke Mooney (3 H 288–289), who said he saw a piece of chicken on top of the boxes surrounding the sniper’s nest. (Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, pp.39–41)

Other than her and her colleagues’ insatiable passion for pointing out normal (not to them) inconsistencies in the recollections of witnesses, nowhere does Meagher tell her readers what the relevance of these inconsistencies was. Was it her point that Williams was lying, that the chicken eater was the assassin in the sniper’s nest (who wasn’t, Meagher would assure us, Oswald), or Williams was not lying, but the assassin in the sniper’s nest was also eating chicken while he waited to kill the president?

I wish the theorists would tell us the relevance of the many inconsistencies they cite in the Kennedy case instead of feeling that the inconsistencies are an end in themselves and nothing else has to be shown or argued." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 23 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

The physical evidence isn't lying (even though most Internet conspiracy theorists think the evidence against Oswald is telling one lie after another) --- that evidence is telling us who shot President Kennedy. And it wasn't a black man. It was Lee Harvey Oswald.

And when it comes to Bonnie Ray Williams' testimony in front of the Warren Commission, I really can't see why he would feel any need to want to start making up stories and telling lies about his exact whereabouts on 11/22/63 --- because it wasn't Bonnie Ray's rifle that was found in the Book Depository. And Bonnie Ray's prints weren't found all over the interior of the Sniper's Nest and on a certain empty brown paper bag in that same Nest.

And Bonnie Ray is certainly cleared as being a GUNMAN in the assassination, because we know he was photographed on the FIFTH FLOOR by Tom Dillard within seconds of the shots being fired at JFK. So Dillard's photo clears Williams in that respect (as an actual participant as a GUNMAN, that is).



And Bonnie Ray also knows that he's got two "alibi" witnesses -- Harold Norman and James Jarman -- who were both with Williams on the fifth floor at the exact time of the assassination. So why does Bonnie Ray Williams NEED to lie---about anything? IMO, he didn't NEED to lie at all. Hence, it's my opinion he did not lie in his testimony.

And even if Bonnie Ray DID leave a chicken bone on top of one of the boxes that surrounded Oswald's Sniper's Nest, I can't really see why that fact is critical when it comes to trying to solve the Kennedy assassination. I mean, even if Bonnie Ray was walking around the sixth floor and had walked right past Oswald's Sniper's Nest (without going INTO the "Nest", which I do not think he did at any time that day), and if Williams had deposited a chicken bone on top of a box near the Nest --- what would that prove?

We already KNOW that Bonnie Ray was up there on the sixth floor eating his lunch fairly near Oswald's sniper's perch at a point in time that was fairly close to the time of the assassination itself. And we know, via the Dillard picture, that Bonnie Ray was not actually ON THE SIXTH FLOOR at the time of the assassination. He moved down to the fifth floor to join his co-workers Norman and Jarman shortly before shots were fired at the President.

So a leftover chicken bone sitting on top of a box near the assassin's lair is pretty much meaningless in the long run, in my opinion.

I think, once again, that some conspiracy theorists are attempting to make something that is totally insignicant seem vitally important. In this instance, they seem to be creating a six-course chicken dinner out of a single leftover poultry bone.


COLIN CROW SAID:

It is clear you are unaware of the timelines witnesses are describing. This is the simple reason why a black man may not have been observed by Brennan for example. He did not take up position on the wall until about 12:25 or so. By this time, Rowland's attention was elsewhere and the man had likely left.


TONY FRATINI SAID:

I don't care what Vincent [Bugliosi] believes or not - it is undeniable that Rowland saw BRW [Bonnie Ray Williams] IN the SN and he was present on the same floor as the sniper was. The WC completely discredited the man for no reason at all.

BRW left evidence IN the SN that he was indeed present. Vincent is merely paying lip service to the WC - anyone can see that, David.

That FACT [regarding Arnold Rowland saying he saw a black man in the Sniper's Nest prior to 12:15 PM on 11/22/63] is a game changer.

He saw BRW first and then he saw the sniper second on the WEST end of the 6th floor at around 12:15 pm. This makes perfect sense because from that position the sniper can see ALL the way down to the SN. The sniper must [have] been wondering who was in the SN.

I believe that both parties knew of each other's presence on the 6th floor. Fear--absolute fear--gripped BRW. He left quick. But he left late, 5 minutes before the arrival of the POTUS. [It] chimes in perfectly with the movements of Norman and Jarman coming back into the TSBD.

What we have in the "official records" in regards to the movement of Norman, Jarman and Williams is nothing but made-up nonsense.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here's what I think happened with respect to Arnold Rowland's observation about seeing a "black man" on the 6th floor of the Book Depository....

Rowland did what I believe other witnesses on the ground in Dealey Plaza did that day --- he got his floors mixed up. He saw a black man (Harold Norman) in the FIFTH-floor window, directly underneath the Sniper's Nest window, and Arnold thought that the black man (Norman) was on the SIXTH floor. But Norman, of course, was one floor below the assassin.

And I say all of the above even though Rowland said in his Warren Commission testimony that he ALSO saw "two Negro women, I think" in the fifth-floor window. But it's fairly clear that Arnold was a bit mixed up there, and his use of the words "I think" would indicate a certain amount of uncertainty on this point, because we know there were not two "women" visible in the fifth-floor windows on November 22nd. Those "two Negro" individuals were, of course, Harold Norman and Bonnie Ray Williams, neither of whom resemble "women" to me (even from a considerable distance).

I also think Amos Euins made the very same mistake when he said in some of his statements that he saw a black man in the sixth-floor assassin's window. Euins, too, simply got the floor number wrong. He also most likely saw Harold Norman looking out of the fifth-floor corner window and later thought Norman was on the SIXTH floor.

Norman, Williams, and Jarman were SO CLOSE to the actual assassin's window (being just one floor below the gunman when Oswald killed the President from the sixth floor) that, in my opinion, it's very understandable how various witnesses could have been confused and rattled when they attempted to re-create in their minds the precise details regarding the floor numbers.

Plus, I'll ask this question:

How does anything uttered by Arnold Rowland change the physical evidence in the case?

In other words, how does Rowland's testimony make Oswald INNOCENT of shooting John Kennedy?

Please explain that to me.


COLIN CROW SAID:

I find Bugliosi's analysis fatuous and imaginative......as with the previous dismissal of the chicken lunch issue.

As for your suggestion that Rowland saw Norman.....timing again David....they weren't there at the times indicated.....sorry...no cigar.

In fact, a proper analysis of Rowland's WC testimony shows he had an excellent recall of people in the windows that day....much better than that of Brennan. A fact helped no doubt by the longer time frame he was viewing the building and the angle he viewed from compared to Brennan.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Does that mean you think Arnold Rowland DID see "two Negro women" in the fifth-floor windows?


COLIN CROW SAID:

I would not expect every detail to be 100% correct given the circumstances. Just as I don't discount Brennan's observations simply because he said the man was sitting on the window sill or thought he was standing.


TONY FRATINI SAID:

So now - because Rowland didn't get every minute detail correct, you're going to do the same thing as the WC and Vincent did?

Rowland's observation of BRW is backed up - now wait for it - by BRW himself and the leaving of physical evidence by BRW himself.

Colin and I have the same material that you and Vince have, yet our conclusions are in stark contrast to you. Why is that?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I guess there are some conspiracists who must believe that Bonnie Ray Williams was lying through his teeth when he said this to the Warren Commission....

Mr. BALL -- "Where did you eat your lunch?"

Mr. WILLIAMS -- "I ate my lunch--I am not sure about this, but the third or the fourth set of windows, I believe."

Mr. BALL -- "Facing on what street?"

Mr. WILLIAMS -- "Facing Elm Street."

[...]

Mr. DULLES -- "And you were all alone?"

Mr. WILLIAMS -- "Yes, sir."

-----------

So, it's pretty clear from Bonnie Ray's WC testimony quoted above that he did NOT eat his lunch IN THE SNIPER'S NEST on November 22, 1963. And anybody saying he DID eat his lunch in the SN is totally ignoring the BEST witness in this regard---Mr. Bonnie Ray Williams himself.


TONY FRATINI SAID:

If you read [Bonnie Ray Williams'] testimony, you will see that he described initially being in the SN and that he moved on his way out to get to the fifth floor.

Mr. WILLIAMS -- "First of all, I remember there was some boxes behind me. I just kind of leaned back on the boxes first. Then I began to get a little impatient, because there wasn't anyone coming up. So I decided to move to a two-wheeler."


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Absolute nonsense. Williams wasn't describing being in the Sniper's Nest in that testimony. He was talking about leaning back on some of the boxes that we can easily see are stacked up all around the area where Bonnie Ray's Dr. Pepper bottle and the two-wheeler were located. There are boxes everywhere....




COLIN CROW SAID:

Either he [Bonnie Ray Williams] lied,

Or

The assassin had a chicken lunch too that he didn't finish.....that disappeared entirely under the noses of numerous police officers (maybe they were hungry),

Or

The assassin grabbed BRW's lunch after he left......then someone moved it back to the two wheeler,

Or

Feel free to [provide] another possibility, David.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't think anyone lied. Some people were simply mistaken. Like Edwards and Fischer when they said FIFTH floor in their affidavits when they really meant SIXTH floor.

But the theory I'm hearing in this discussion means you guys need to have Bonnie Ray Williams lying his head off, plus various police officers lying, and the Warren Commission too. It's just plain silly (not to mention totally unnecessary on ANYONE'S behalf)....and surely you know it's silly. But you insist on making mountains out of nothingness anyway. It's in a CTer's blood. You can't help it, I guess.

You guys seem to think the ONLY place where BRW could have possibly leaned back on some boxes on the entire sixth floor was INSIDE the Sniper's Nest itself----even though Williams is clear he was NOT that far EAST on the building's sixth floor when he ate his lunch. But you'll ignore the person who is obviously the best witness to say where he ate lunch----Bonnie Ray himself.

Plus, what makes you think Williams couldn't have MOVED the two-wheeler truck just a little bit (one way or the other)? It was a MOVABLE object, you know. Just as a piece of chicken is MOVABLE.

And a piece of chicken that inexplicably goes from one part of the sixth floor to another (and I cannot explain it; I have no idea why there is the conflicting testimony regarding the chicken bones) is not going to suddenly ERASE the physical evidence of Oswald's guilt. Nor will that piece of chicken (or its bones) erase the known incriminating ACTIONS of one Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63.

Oswald's guilt in both the Kennedy and Tippit murders is rock-solid and will survive the avalanche of speculative nonsense coming from conspiracy theorists about chicken bones and the unsupportable allegations about Bonnie Ray Williams being a liar, etc.

Nobody in this discussion has done anything that diminishes Lee Oswald's guilty status----even if the chicken bones WERE moved around on the sixth floor by somebody (anybody!) on November 22nd.


TONY FRATINI SAID:

BONNIE RAY WILLIAMS -- "Well, at the time I couldn't see too much of the sixth floor, because the books at the time were stacked so high. I could see only in the path that I was standing--as I remember, I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building. But just one aisle, the aisle I was standing in I could see just about to the west side of the building. So far as seeing to the east and behind me, I could only see down the aisle behind me and the aisle to the west of me."

Bingo - do you want me to draw you a schematic?

If he was at the two wheeler - he could see all the way to the SN, David.

He couldn't see anything to the EAST because he was at the SOUTHEAST corner.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You actually think a person who is ALREADY AS FAR EAST AS HE COULD POSSIBLY BE on the sixth floor would say something like this?....

"I could not possibly see anything to the east side of the building."

Hilarious!

The above quote by Bonnie Ray Williams quite obviously indicates that the one place on the sixth floor where he definitely WAS NOT located was the Sniper's Nest (i.e., the far southeast corner).

Also....

For Tony....

One of the photos you've been using [this one] comes from the Secret Service re-enactment film. And I believe that film was produced on November 27th, five days after the assassination.

Therefore, what makes you think the box stacks were EXACTLY the same configuration on Nov. 27 as they were when Bonnie Ray Williams was on the sixth floor on Nov. 22? Couldn't they possibly be in a slightly different location five days later?

In addition, the Secret Service agent in that photo (i.e., still frame) is STANDING UP. He's not sitting down or squatting as LHO probably was doing when Bonnie Ray Williams was on the sixth floor on 11/22. And when the SS agent (John Howlett) sits down, he is completely out of sight of anyone else to the west of his Sniper's Nest position on the sixth floor---as Howlett himself demonstrates in the SS film here (about 11 minutes into the film)....




TONY FRATINI SAID:

You cannot place LHO within the SN, like Colin and I have done with BRW using testimony and physical evidence.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Let me pinch myself to see if I really read the above hunk of pure nonsense....

You're actually implying that LNers like myself have NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE at all to tie Oswald to the assassination or to the "Sniper's Nest" on the sixth floor of the Book Depository?

(Let me pinch myself yet again, because such a statement is just ludicrous.)

OSWALD'S rifle.

OSWALD'S shells. (From his gun, I mean.)

OSWALD'S bullet fragments IN THE LIMOUSINE.

OSWALD'S prints all over the Nest where we know THE KILLER WAS SHOOTING FROM.

OSWALD'S prints on the paper bag (CE142). Like it or not, CE142 is an official piece of evidence, seen by multiple policemen in the SN, and it is irrevocably tied to Oswald via his 2 prints. Pretend it's a fake, but LNers will keep reminding CTers it exists all the same.

And there's, of course, Howard Brennan, who supplied "witness identification" evidence of Oswald's guilt. I know CTers hate Brennan's Johnny-come-lately positive IDing of LHO, but that's in the record too. So you'll have to deal with it (and toss it aside), much the same way I have to deal with Luke Mooney's account of seeing the chicken bones on a SN box. So, life ain't always easy, is it? For LNers or CTers. :)

But to imply that you have somehow destroyed the case against Oswald (or even PART of that case) by way of the "Chicken Bones" topic and/or BRW's testimony and/or Arnold Rowland's timeline of events is just laughable, Tony.

~~pinch, pinch~~


TONY FRATINI SAID:

The real issue, as I see it Dave, is that you don't actually believe any response or research from anyone who disputes the findings of the WC. Isn't that correct? You have already prejudged and predetermined people on the basis of their beliefs? So in essence - EVERYONE here who doesn't believe in the WC findings on LHO's guilt on assassinating JFK is automatically wrong and hence must be a "kook"? Right?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Tony,

After looking at the evidence that hangs Oswald 10 times over (or more), I believe that the "CTers" on almost all Internet forums are not evaluating the evidence properly or fairly---because that evidence DOES prove Lee Oswald's guilt in TWO murders (IMO). Therefore, anyone who says they think Oswald didn't shoot anybody on 11/22/63 is just flat-out wrong. (Again, "IMO".)

Five years ago, another LNer at another forum summed things up very succinctly and accurately when he said:

"There is almost as much evidence that Oswald shot Kennedy as there is evidence that Kennedy got shot." -- Bud; July 21, 2010

David Von Pein
March 2015 [This forum link is no longer available.]
April 2015
March 2016 [This forum link is no longer available.]


================================


RELATED DISCUSSION....


STEPHANIE GOLDBERG SAID:

What about the remains of Bonnie Ray Williams' lunch on the 6th floor that were originally assumed to belong to the assassin? That also puts him on the sixth floor shortly before the shooting.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Hi Stephanie,

Yes, you're right about Bonnie Ray Williams being on the sixth floor shortly before 12:30 that day, but we also KNOW he could not possibly have been a "shooter"....because we know that Williams was on the FIFTH floor at the moment of the shooting....and this photograph proves it:




STEPHANIE GOLDBERG SAID:

Yes, I know that he wasn't the shooter.

If I remember correctly, lunch at the Book Depository was 12 noon to 12:45 pm. And we know the window photo places him on the 5th floor at 12:30. My train of thought here is wondering what he did or didn't say about why he ate his lunch up there and didn't see Oswald or anyone else on the 6th floor setting up a sniper's nest.

And then there's the fact that he left the remains of his lunch up there. Was he a slob? Was he in such a hurry to go downstairs that he couldn't pick up his trash? And was it his usual practice to eat alone on the sixth floor?

Just thinking out loud since we're talking about placing people on the sixth floor.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why not just read Bonnie Ray Williams' Warren Commission testimony and find out?

(My favorite part of Bonnie Ray's testimony has always been the "chicken-on-the-bone sandwich" that he had for lunch on 11/22. Mmm! Sounds delicious! A dentist's delight!) 😀


STEPHANIE GOLDBERG SAID:

Thank you for the link. I did read the testimony. I'm not sure that it answered all of my questions, but the Warren Commission testimony always makes for interesting reading.


TONY KROME SAID:

Where do you place Oswald as Williams munches on his chicken bone sandwich?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In the Sniper's Nest, trying to keep as quiet (and as low) as he can while Williams is there on the same sixth floor just a couple of windows west of Oswald's location.

More HERE.


RON BULMAN SAID:

Think Oswald got hungry smelling the fried chicken? Did he eat his cheese sandwich while waiting for JFK, race down the stairs after shooting JFK for a coke to wash it down, and of course throw his wrapping for the sandwich in the trash there as any good Commie would do? Before sauntering out onto the front steps after he met Baker and Truly, where?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You've got several things occurring there, Ron, that are merely speculation on your part. (And I admit, I'm speculating about several things too in my Oswald Timeline. Some things we have to speculate about, if we want to discuss them at all, such as Oswald's whereabouts at various times throughout the day of November 22, 1963).

Your speculation above includes Oswald eating a cheese sandwich. But there's no proof he ever ate anything at all for his lunch that day. We only have his word for that. And I don't think that Oswald's "word" is exactly a highly reliable source to go on if you're looking for the truth connected to either murder that Oswald himself was charged with committing. In short, Lee Harvey Oswald lied about a lot of things after his arrest that day.


TONY KROME SAID:

Is this how you imagine it?




DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, that's about right.

And we know from the re-enactment performed in this 1964 Secret Service film that a person who was sitting or squatting within the Sniper's Nest in the southeast corner of that sixth floor would definitely be hidden from the view of other people who might have been standing to the west of the Sniper's Nest. (Go to 11:33 in that linked video to see the re-enactment.)

Bonnie Ray Williams, in his Warren Commission testimony, said:

"I ate my lunch--I am not sure about this, but the third or the fourth set of windows, I believe."

Now, regardless of which end of the building Williams was referring to as his starting point (East or West) when he said "the third or the fourth set of windows", it likely means that Williams ate his lunch pretty close to the MIDDLE part of the sixth floor (given the fact that there are seven total "sets" of windows comprising the width of the Book Depository Building).

Given the way the book cartons were stacked up around the southeast corner window *, I can easily envision Oswald being able to hide from the view of Bonnie Ray Williams during the brief period of time that Williams was up on the sixth floor on November 22.

* The linked photo (CE726) is, however, probably a "reconstructed" arrangement of the boxes. I'm not positive of that fact, but since the photo in CE723 was taken on November 25, 1963 (per the information found at 17 H xvii), then it's probably safe to assume that the picture seen in CE726 is a reconstructed photo as well.


TONY KROME SAID:

Let's take a look at a small part of [Arnold] Rowland's testimony without concerning ourselves with the remainder:

Mr. SPECTER - Over how long a time span did you observe the Negro man? [Rowland believes 6th floor, so this question relates to that]

Mr. ROWLAND - He was there before I noticed the man with the rifle. [Rowland stated he saw this Rifle man at approx 12:15pm]

At this point, Dave, I'm not interested in the man with the rifle, nor the location of Negro man or Rifle man, only the timestamp.

Rowland places a Negro man on the 6th floor just before 12:15pm and you have have placed Williams on the 6th floor at the same time as per the photo I presented to you.

Do you think it's a sheer fluke that Rowland stated that there was a Negro man on the 6th floor at just before 12:15pm and that it turned out to be a fact?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, the black man Arnold Rowland saw on the sixth floor could very well have been Bonnie Ray Williams. We know from Williams' own testimony that he WAS on the sixth floor at about that time (approx. 12:10 to 12:20 PM).

We can know from Williams' testimony, however, that he was never located in the southeast corner window, even though Rowland places him there at one point during his testimony. But Williams himself tells us that cannot be the case.

So, should we believe Williams or Rowland? I'd choose Williams in this instance, since he would be more aware of where he was on the sixth floor than Rowland would be.

I know where you're going with this line of thought, of course ---- You're wondering how the heck Rowland could have seen Williams BEFORE he saw the gunman STANDING in front of the window on the WEST side of the sixth floor, and yet not have Williams seeing the gunman (Oswald) too.

Well, that's a fair point.

My answer would be----

Arnold Rowland was just a little bit inaccurate with respect to some of the timestamps he put on the things he saw on 11/22/63....which couldn't be more common among witnesses.

Another possibility is that Rowland didn't really see any Negro on the sixth floor that day. Instead, he could have seen Harold Norman "hanging out" of the FIFTH-floor window directly under the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest window.

I think several witnesses made that same "5th or 6th floor?" mistake on November 22nd. They claimed things were happening on the SIXTH floor (in the southeast corner window), but what they very likely were seeing was occurring in the FIFTH-floor window instead. (Check out the affidavits of witnesses Ronald Fischer and Robert Edwards for verification of this phenomenon.)


TONY KROME SAID:

So we have Rowland's eyes directly on the 6th floor at just before 12:15pm where he likely saw Williams.

Now, you place Oswald with a rifle on the 6th floor at 12:15pm and Rowland believes he saw a man with a rifle on the 6th floor at 12:15pm.

Again, forget about the location, but do you see a pattern here? Rowland gets it right again, he believed he saw a rifle man on the 6th floor at 12:15pm, and according to you, this is another fact.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In the past, I've talked about the timing of Arnold Rowland's observations....

http://jfk-archives/Arnold Rowland & The Black Man


TONY KROME SAID:

Yes, I've read that,

But we've moved on from the "black" man. You have Williams as moving to the 5th floor around the 12:15pm mark, so he's gone.

I want to get into more detail, so I was hoping you could address this:

Rowland gets it right again, he believed he saw a rifle man on the 6th floor at 12:15pm, and according to you, it's a fact that a rifle man was on the 6th floor at 12:15pm.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Tony, it's true that I believe that a lone rifleman (named Oswald) was located on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building at 12:15 PM CST on 11/22/63.

And YES, I do believe that Arnold Rowland "got it right" when he said he saw a man holding a rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD before any shooting occurred in Dealey Plaza that day. And that is one of the reasons I disagree with Vincent Bugliosi on this point. He thinks Rowland was making up tall tales. But it's Rowland's testimony about seeing the gunman prior to the motorcade arriving, and telling his wife about it at that time (BEFORE the motorcade arrived) that convinces me that Mr. Rowland was not just making up a story out of whole cloth.

And it's really the testimony (and the 11/22/63 affidavit) of Rowland's wife, Barbara Rowland, that cinches the deal for me on Arnold Rowland's truthfulness. Because she too would have to be making up a lie (or she would have to be willing to just go along with her husband's lie) in order for Arnold's testimony to be false about seeing a man with a gun on the 6th floor before the shooting even started. And I see no reason to believe that Mrs. Barbara Rowland was a liar.


TONY KROME SAID:

Ok, now we bring in the location....

You have Oswald hiding in the Sniper's Nest while Williams is munching on a chicken bone sandwich.

Williams then departs for the 5th floor.

I assume you have Oswald all alone at this point on the 6th floor.

Rowland was quite specific on where he saw the rifle man, and that was the southwest corner, where he drew an arrow to on CE356.

Is there an impossibility, in your mind, that Oswald could not have walked from the Sniper's Nest to the southwest corner, surveyed the area from this viewpoint, and returned to the Sniper's Nest?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think it's quite possible that Oswald did exactly what you just suggested above, Tony. And in my previously-linked "Oswald Timeline" (which I originally wrote at the alt.conspiracy.jfk Usenet newsgroup on April 16, 2007), I theorize about a similar scenario:

"11:55 AM-12:05 PM (estimated) -- Oswald has the whole sixth floor to himself. This is just prior to Bonnie Ray Williams coming back up to the 6th Floor to eat his lunch. It's my belief that Lee Oswald, during this (approx.) 10-minute time period around noon or shortly after, probably went to the west end of the sixth floor (where he had his rifle hidden in the brown bag). Oswald unwraps the rifle at the west end of the sixth floor and assembles the rifle at the west end (hence, Arnold Rowland sees a white man with a rifle at the west end of the building at approx. this time, maybe a little later, 12:15 or so, but keep in mind the approximation of all times). It's quite possible, IMO, that Oswald initially was considering using the WEST-end window as his shooting window. But, for one reason or another, he decided that a window on the EAST end of the sixth floor would better serve his purposes. Perhaps he was mentally factoring in the angles and trajectories in his head, and possibly realized that an east-end perch would be a better one, especially since the Secret Service agents would all have their backs to him when he began firing, if he decided to wait until after the cars had turned the Elm/Houston corner....which, IMO, Oswald definitely had in his mind to do, due to the pre-arranged way the rifle-rest boxes were constructed (i.e., in a "Rifle Always Pointing West/Southwest" manner). It's also possible that, as Oswald mulled over potential shooting locations, he realized that a goodly number of boxes were already down on the east end of the 6th Floor, which would make constructing a makeshift "Nest" all the easier for him."
-- DVP; April 2007

----------------

Let me also add this....

When re-examining the timelines provided by Arnold Rowland and Bonnie Ray Williams, it's very possible, in my opinion, that BOTH Rowland and Williams might very well be correct in their timelines (or pretty close to being accurate anyway).

I said earlier --- "Arnold Rowland was just a little bit inaccurate with respect to some of the timestamps he put on the things he saw."

But when comparing Rowland's timeline with Bonnie Ray's, it could be that Rowland's timing was fairly accurate, because Williams said he got to the sixth floor to eat his lunch at "about 12", and he also said: "I was there from--5, 10, maybe 12 minutes".

That timeline provided by Williams would mean he left the sixth floor no later than 12:12 PM, which would be three minutes before Rowland said he saw the white man with a rifle on the west end of the sixth floor.

So that "merging" of the Rowland/Williams timelines fits very nicely, and it does no harm whatsoever to the "Oswald Did It Alone" scenario that I firmly endorse. And via that "merging" of timelines, Rowland can, indeed, see a Negro (Williams) on the sixth floor BEFORE he sees a white man with a rifle standing on the west side of the same sixth floor. And this can occur without the need of Williams seeing Oswald standing at the west end---because Williams has already left the 6th floor via this scenario.

Then, after Williams departs the 6th floor between approximately 12:05 and 12:12 PM (per Williams' own estimate), Oswald then moves (for some unknown reason that nobody will ever be able to fully figure out) from the Sniper's Nest (where he had been temporarily "hiding" from Williams) to the west side of the building, where (again, for some unknown reason) he decides to make himself and his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle plainly visible to Arnold L. Rowland, as Oswald stands in front of the west-end window while holding his rifle.

David Von Pein
February 27—March 1, 2019 [This forum link is no longer available.]


================================


ANOTHER RELATED DISCUSSION....


JEAN PAUL CEULEMANS SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Since you've touched on the subject of Bonnie Ray Williams and the fact that he decided (for whatever reason) to litter the sixth floor of the Book Depository with the remnants of his lunch on 11/22/63....I hope everyone here won't mind if I indulge in a little bit of comic relief on the topic of Bonnie Ray and his Nov. 22nd lunch feast....

My favorite part of Bonnie Ray Williams' Warren Commission session [seen here] has always been his testimony about the chicken-on-the-bone sandwich that he said he ate for lunch when he was up on the 6th floor on 11/22.

I can't help but chuckle whenever I run across that testimony. And so, just for fun, in the year 2010 (in this Usenet newsgroup posting) and again in 2016 (in this post at The Education Forum), I decided to spread the mirth and merriment concerning Bonnie Ray's hard-to-swallow noontime meal in those two Internet messages linked above (and screen-captured below).

P.S. -- If Bonnie Ray Williams is still with us here on this Earth, I want him to know that I'm not making fun of him. I'm only snickering at his choice of November 22 luncheon entrees, which should have made every dentist in Dallas County jump for joy due to the increased business Bonnie Ray's bone-riddled poultry delicacy surely supplied them.









PAT SPEER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Putting a piece of bone-in chicken between two pieces of bread is ludicrous (in the south or anywhere else). What's the point of even doing that when nobody who isn't insane is going to pick it up and eat it as a "sandwich" anyway? It's just silly.

But, as they say, variety is the spice of life (and sandwiches). :)

BTW, Joseph Ball of the Warren Commission [at 3 H 169] also seemed to think it was a bit strange to eat a sandwich with bones in it.


LARRY HANCOCK SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I love chicken sandwiches. In fact, when I operated my KFC restaurant here in the Hoosier State, I would regularly take one of our center-cut breast pieces (which we referred to as a "keel") and make a sandwich out of it for my lunch. But I'd make sure to debone the bird before putting any of it between the bread. Which is what any sensible person would do, of course. (No offense to the south—or to Mr. Bonnie Ray Williams—intended.) :)


PAT SPEER SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, of course a "sandwich" consists of bread and meat, Pat. No argument there. The ridiculous thing that we've been talking about in this thread is having BONES in a SANDWICH. Because "Bones" and "Sandwich" do not mix. No way, no how.


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

As a side note to all this "chicken" talk, I thought I'd post this newspaper ad that I found recently, which is something that really illustrates in no uncertain terms just how much times have changed since 1963 when it comes to the cost of fast food in North America.

Just take a gander at all the food you could get for only $4.95 at the local KFC outlet in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, in July of 1963! This Picnic Pack seems like a steal of a deal---even for JFK's era. This amount of food would cost over $50 today. Oh, how I wish it were 1963 again! If only to see these prices one more time! ....

CLICK TO ENLARGE:


More shockingly low food prices from the 1950s and 1960s can be found amongst the various KFC ads I've collected and put on this webpage. It's a time warp experience indeed.


DVP ALSO SAID THIS.


JOSEPH McBRIDE SAID THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Nonsense. The widespread inaccurate reporting on radio and television on November 22nd about Oswald eating a chicken dinner while waiting for JFK to enter the kill zone was just another of the innocent and understandable mistakes made by the media in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. It wasn't designed to be "propaganda" at all.

At the time those erroneous "chicken dinner" reports were being broadcast, the media really did think the President's killer was up there on the 6th floor munching on chicken while he waited for Kennedy to arrive in Dealey Plaza. And given the close proximity of the chicken scraps and the soft drink bottle to the assassin's Sniper's Nest in the Depository, a reasonable and understandable conclusion to reach was that JFK's murderer had, indeed, been the one who was dining on chicken just before pulling the trigger.

No intentional "propaganda" there at all. Merely a perfectly logical mistake made by media personnel who were merely trying their best to quickly report to the world all the details they could concerning one of the worst tragedies of the 20th century. Nothing more than that.

David Von Pein
October 2022


================================

ALSO SEE:

DVP vs. DiEUGENIO (PART 133)

W. NIEDERHUT SAID:

After reading James DiEugenio's latest book, along with reviews of the new CHAOS book about Charles Manson, I'm wondering if the English language needs a new verb, in honor of Vincent Bugliosi -- to "bugliose." Here's my suggestion:

bugliose (booly-OSE) verb. : to bamboozle about historical events with lengthy discourses that completely misrepresent the facts.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh Brother (with a huge Capital B)! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!



This ridiculous thread authored by Mr. Niederhut just might take first prize in the "Pot/Kettle" category here in the year 2019. Because the only people who are doing any "bamboozling" and "misrepresenting the facts" regarding the murders of John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit are the conspiracy theorists, not people like the late Vincent T. Bugliosi, that's for sure. (Just think "Mark Lane" and "Jim Garrison" and "Jim Fetzer", for starters. Three of the greatest bamboozlers of all-time.)

And I find it humorous to see how the number of Bugliosi-haters has grown in just the last few years, with the VB-bashers now not content to verbally assault Vince for just his opinions on the JFK case....but now we're getting a whole new wave of 21st-century Vince bashers, who now suddenly have a desire to toss Vince under the bus for his work on the Charles Manson case as well—even though all rational people who have even a slight knowledge of the details surrounding that particular murder case know beyond any doubt that the "Helter Skelter" theory was rooted in fact (based on what Bugliosi was told by other members of Manson's "Family").* But those facts will naturally be totally ignored by the outer-fringe conspiracy theorists of the world. Pathetic.

* DVP EDIT (AUGUST 2022) --- For proof of this, see Page 245 of the 1994 edition of Vince Bugliosi's book "Helter Skelter: The True Story Of The Manson Murders". On just that page alone, three different people—Gregg Jakobson, Paul Watkins, and Brooks Poston—are quoted by Bugliosi regarding their knowledge of Charles Manson's proposed "black vs. white revolution"/"race war" (aka: "Helter Skelter"). But many conspiracy theorists now apparently want to believe that Vincent Bugliosi himself totally invented the "Helter Skelter" motive/theory out of nothing but whole cloth and his own imagination. Such an absurd notion, however, is merely Bugliosi-bashing crap of the first order, as the quotes found on Page 245 (and other pages) of the book "Helter Skelter" amply demonstrate.

If you want to read some of the best "Vince-isms" (as I like to call my favorite VB quotes), go here....

http://jfk-archives/Favorite Bugliosi Quotes

Samples....

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


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


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


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


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Addendum....

And, of course, practically every time an Internet conspiracy theorist opens his mouth, he proves the point that Vince made in this gem....

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


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

LOL, ROTF. Man, is everyone as sick as I am of that pot/kettle diversion?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You might be sick to death of it, Jim, but it's oh so undeniably true.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

What does one make of a lawyer [Vincent Bugliosi] who bases his book on the rifle but DOES NOT TELL THE READER IT'S THE WRONG RIFLE?!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The above comment by James DiEugenio concerning the rifle is just one more example (among hundreds) that illustrates Jim's complete inability to properly evaluate the totality of evidence connected to JFK's assassination.

DiEugenio knows full well that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Lee Harvey Oswald ordered a 36-inch rifle but was shipped a 40-inch model. But Jim won't admit it---ever. And that's because he's totally enamored with the really dumb idea that Lee Harvey Oswald never took possession of Rifle C2766 at all in 1963. Even a picture of Oswald holding that exact rifle doesn't convince Jimmy that LHO ever had that weapon in his hands.

Here is the reasonable explanation regarding the rifle that DiEugenio will continue to pretend is not reasonable at all.


INSTANT REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

What does one make of a lawyer who bases his book on the rifle but DOES NOT TELL THE READER IT'S THE WRONG RIFLE?!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jim has apparently conveniently forgotten about this discussion we had on August 22, 2016....


JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey: Please show us where in VB's 2646-page opus [sic; Bugliosi's book is actually 2,824 pages long, including all endnotes and source notes] he tells the reader that the rifle the Dallas Police offered into evidence is not the same rifle that Oswald allegedly ordered?

DVP SAID:

Okay. Gladly. Here you go....

[Quote On:]

"The Warren Commission overlooked putting the American Rifleman advertisement in its volumes. But conspiracy theorist Sylvia Meagher points out that the advertisement was for a $12.88 Carcano ($19.95 with scope) that was 36 inches long, weighed 5 1⁄2 pounds, and had a catalog number of C20-T750, though we know the $19.95 Carcano that was sent to Oswald was 40 1⁄5 inches long and weighed 8 pounds, which was closer to the 40-inch Carcano weighing 7 pounds advertised in the November 1963 ad in a different magazine, Field and Stream. But Meagher fails to state the significance of this discrepancy.**

In other words, so what? We know Oswald was shipped his Carcano, serial number C2766 (whether or not it was the same weapon he had ordered, and whether or not he was even aware he received a Carcano a little over 4 inches longer and 3 1⁄2 pounds [sic] heavier than he had ordered), we know it was found in the sniper’s nest [sic], and we know it was the murder weapon."

-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 392-393 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" [Also pictured below]

** Sources used by Bugliosi for the above book excerpt:

Sylvia Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, p.48 footnote; fact that Oswald ordered his Carcano from a February 1963 Klein’s advertisement in the American Rifleman magazine: Waldman Exhibit No. 8, 21 H 704; CE 773, 17 H 635;
WR, p.119; 7 H 366, WCT William J. Waldman; advertisement reprinted in “In the Works: Tighter Laws on Gun Sales,” p.4; see also the August 27, 1965, edition of Life magazine [pages 62-65]; Field and Stream ad where yet a different catalog number, C20-750, is used for the Carcano: Holmes Exhibit No. 2, 20 H 174, viii; 7 H 294, WCT Harry D. Holmes; length and weight of Oswald’s Carcano: 3 H 395, WCT Robert A. Frazier.





JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Typical DVP. Which is why I swore him off.

Note where this is located: it's in the end notes. Now if the End Notes were in the book, that is one thing.

In RH, they are not in the book. They are on a CD that goes with the book. In other words, the reader has to take it out, insert it into the computer and then read another thousand or so pages of sources and further material.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, Jim, since I proved in 2016 (via the above Endnotes quotation) that Vincent Bugliosi positively did "tell the reader" about the "36-inch" vs. "40-inch" rifle discrepancy, can we at least agree that you chose your words poorly when you asked the following two questions in 2016 and 2019?....

"Please show us where in VB's 2646-page opus he tells the reader that the rifle the Dallas Police offered into evidence is not the same rifle that Oswald allegedly ordered?" -- Jim D.; August 2016

"What does one make of a lawyer who bases his book on the rifle but DOES NOT TELL THE READER IT'S THE WRONG RIFLE?!" -- Jim D.; August 2019


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

I would like to ask a question: How many people on this forum read all 1518 textual pages of RH?

Now, let me ask this: How many people read all of the CD?

(Sound of crickets in the night.)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, I have certainly read every page of the "Reclaiming History" endnotes. So your crickets in the night have just been forever silenced. 😉

And I continue to reference various parts of Vince Bugliosi's book on a regular basis (both the physical hardcover volume and the 1,000+ pages of CD-ROM endnotes). The book—including the very important endnotes—is an invaluable source of factual information concerning the events of November 22, 1963 (despite the conspiracy theorists' condemnation of it).


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

The obvious question is: why did VB not include this in the text?

I can tell you why since I analyzed the book. Vince did not want to include anything that he thought could give him a serious problem in the text of the book. So he put it on the CD. So he could more easily dismiss it. And this is what he usually did.

But he even got worse with things he knew he could not handle, on those issues he just left it out, e.g. the FBI rigging Ruby's polygraph. This is why it's a dishonest book. He says at the outset he will not do that. He did. And there is no denying that it was deliberate. Because the information was right there in his end notes sources, he just ignored it.

BTW, David Belin knew it was the wrong rifle also. The WR does not bring the issue up.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The Warren Commission undoubtedly didn't feel the need to bring up the 36-inch/40-inch rifle-length discrepancy because they knew beyond all doubt that Klein's had definitely shipped the Kennedy murder weapon to Lee Oswald in March of '63. Waldman Exhibit No. 7 proves that fact for all time. The key to knowing this fact, of course, is the rifle's serial number—C2766—which is a number that appears on both Waldman #7 and the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in the National Archives today.

Plus, when we examine the Klein's Catalog Numbers on the two pertinent rifle-purchasing documents in this case—Waldman #7 and CE773—we can see that the catalog numbers are identical —— C20-T750.

And it's also important to take note of the fact that even after Klein's Sporting Goods changed their magazine ads from the 36-inch rifle to the 40-inch model, the internal Klein's catalog number remained the same for at least a few months after Oswald purchased his gun, with the two Klein's advertisements pictured below proving that fact. Both of these Klein's ads depict a catalog number of C20-T750 for the $19.95 Rifle + Scope package that Oswald ordered in March 1963. The top ad is from the February '63 American Rifleman magazine (which was the source for Oswald's purchase), while the bottom ad (which is advertising a 40-inch Italian carbine) comes from later in 1963....




JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

The surprsing thing about that book [Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"] is this:

There is nearly nothing new in the entire text or end notes.

How you can work on a book for about 20 years, with two assistant writers, and not come up with anything new is amazing. But that shows the paucity of their case.


PAUL BAKER SAID:

Nothing new was required to prove what amounts to an open-and-shut case. All of the salient facts were established many years before, in the aftermath of the assassination.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

LOL

2,700 pages on an Open and Shut case?

ROTF


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The only reason Vince's book is that long is because of the conspiracy theorists that VB was responding to.

(As if Jim didn't know that.)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

BTW, it's actually longer than 2700 pages.

Because the book is oversized. I would say if it was normal sized, it would probably come in at around 3300 pages. All to repeat the WC.

As I showed, the book is a bunch of hot air. It never should have been that long for the simple matter that VB just did not have anything new to say. The book is an argument by length and by invective. Bugliosi was trying to simply say, well geez look how thick this book is. It must be right. And if I add a lot of insults, then hey I really must be right. Which is why the character matters I brought up [in this forum thread] are not at all irrelevant--the man did have a dark side. A friend of Vince's who I met in Dallas told me about this, so I know it was a definite plan of VB's. He was also a lawyer and Vince revealed to him that this was his concept going in, to make an argument by invective and by length. It did not serve him well as the book is a clunker in every way. When you have to lie in your introduction, what does that tell you about the book? And no one except me noted the lie. And then I proved it.

For the life of me, I do not know how you can write a book on the JFK case without going anywhere. As I showed in my critique of Vince's version of Clinton/Jackson, Bugliosi was just utterly ignorant of those two towns. And his dumb comments on that incident were based upon that ignorance. As were Jean Davison's dumb comments.

Neither Vince nor Davison showed any evidence of ever leaving their offices. Does not that tell you something about the authors? They were afraid of what they would find out.


JAMES DiEUGENIO ALSO SAID:

One of the really big problems with the WR [Warren Report] was trying to supply a motivation for Oswald.

Because the indications from both LHO and Marina were that he liked Kennedy.

I never thought I would see a worse try at this than from the WC. It was pretty bad. But Bugliosi's was even worse. It was just complete nonsense. Really embarrassing.

And this is bad because lawyers know that although it's not necessary to prove motive--you only have to prove intent--it is very helpful in a murder case.

So in addition to his pitiful attempt to paper over all the obvious forensic and evidentiary problems in the WR, he also failed at that.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You don't really have to prove "intent" either. The prosecuting lawyer's only burden of proof is to prove that the defendant committed the crime he was charged with committing. And Vincent Bugliosi most certainly met his burden of proof (with plenty of room to spare) when it comes to proving the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald in the 2007 book "Reclaiming History". And only an outer-fringe conspiracy theorist who is hell-bent on pretending Oswald was innocent could possibly argue otherwise.


Q&A WITH VINCENT BUGLIOSI:


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID THIS.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

The military brass at Bethesda refused to let Finck look at the clothing.

They refused to let Humes request a medical examiner from Baltimore to advise them since they were not accustomed to doing trauma type pathologies.

They would not allow a dissection of the back wound.

Something else I just found out. After Malcolm Perry's afternoon conference, either a Secret service guy or FBI guy told him never to repeat the info about an anterior neck wound again.

If you take a look at the time of that conference, this means someone knew within about 90 minutes what the story was going to be.

Need I add that every single video recording of that conference is gone? And the Secret Service lied about not having a transcript.

These are all facts. None of them need to be faked. They are damning in and of themselves.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's only damning in the mind of a rabid conspiracy theorist who will always look at everything with an eye toward a conceived conspiracy. (Know anybody who fits that bill around here?)

And this assertion below by Jim D. should convince him that he's not being at all reasonable or realistic about the topic of Malcolm Perry and the throat wound....

"...someone knew within about 90 minutes what the story was going to be..."

But Jim couldn't care less about a realistic approach to the evidence; he's too invested in promoting conspiracy, no matter how silly he sounds while doing it.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

That is incredible. Davey is saying that both Perry and McClelland were lying.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dead wrong. I've never once said that Dr. Perry or Dr. McClelland were lying. And I'm certainly not saying (or even implying) such a thing now.

Perry was simply wrong about the throat wound being a wound of entry. And McClelland was wrong about some things too. But I've never called either one of those doctors a liar.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

But that is how desperate these loons get. Notice he does not say any of it is wrong. Because it's not.

BTW, in Sylvia Meagher's classic destruction of the WR, where does she say that anything was faked?

Answer: nowhere. You don't need any of that to wreck something that is a mess to begin with.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, since we know that Ms. Meagher was, indeed, in the "Oswald Was Innocent" camp (which we can hear her admit in her own voice in the 1967 interview found here [fast forward to 17:07], where she says that "Oswald was entirely innocent" of not only killing President Kennedy, but she also says she thinks LHO was also innocent of J.D. Tippit's murder and the Walker shooting attempt as well), then by mere implication she pretty much had no choice but to believe that a large amount of the physical evidence against Oswald was faked, manufactured, or manipulated in some manner --- otherwise Oswald is guilty. Simple as that.

David Von Pein
August 1-13, 2019