>>> "Good to see you laughing while you are making a total ass out of yourself." <<<


The above words were spoken by a person who thinks that the autopsy
doctors decided to deliberately underplay (or under-represent) the
wounds to JFK's head for no good reason whatsoever.

I guess they all decided it would be wise to start misrepresenting the wounds
of the dead U.S. Chief Executive, just for the hell of it. ALL THREE of them!

Crazy, huh?

Now let's tackle John Canal's list of silliness. This should be fun (yet again):

>>> "1. The trail of opacities that Dr. Joe Davis told [Dr. Michael] Baden, on the record, was evidence of a low hit." <<<

And yet we have Dr. Davis agreeing to just go along with Dr. Baden and
the remaining FPP members with respect to the "cowlick"
determination....right John?

Or is this another one of Baden's lies?:

DR. MICHAEL BADEN -- "This is a drawing [JFK Exhibit F-48] made from photographs taken at the time of the autopsy showing the back of the President's head and showing a ruler adjacent to an area of discoloration in the cowlick area of the back of the head of the scalp, which the panel determined was an entrance perforation, an entrance bullet perforation." ....

MR. KLEIN -- "Doctor, does this drawing fairly and accurately represent the location of the wound in the back of the President's head?"

DR. BADEN -- "Yes, it does, in the unanimous opinion of all of the panel members."

>>> "2. The lack of any such trail (which represents the pieces of bone that were beveled out from the inner skull table around the entry) at the proposed high sight." <<<

The ONLY "trail" that can be positively said to be a "trail" in the X-
ray is the "bullet fragment trail" that is HIGH in the head of
JFK...not "low" in the head.

John Canal admits he's never even seen the original X-ray at the
National Archives that shows this supposed "bone trail", and yet he's
convinced that there's a "trail of [bone] opacities" low in the head
on the lateral X-ray.

And, of course, any such "trail of opacities" (i.e., bone fragments),
even if they do exist, couldn't POSSIBLY have been as a result of
something OTHER than an EOP entry wound. Right, John?

BTW, John C. is living in a fantasy world all his own when it comes to
the topic of JFK's head wounds.

>>> "3. The fact that [Dale K.] Myers' computer analysis revealed the cowlick entry trajectory pointed back 124 feet above the roofline of the Dal-Tex building." <<<

Why you're dragging this nonsense out of your stale closet is anyone's
guess. I've discussed this with you previously, and I even included
citations from Dale Myers himself and links to his website where he
talks about this issue (and Myers' explanation is an entirely
reasonable one, and is one that still supports the "cowlick" entry
location for JFK's head wound).

Here's what I said on this matter on April 1, 2009:

"You [John Canal] should have quoted the remainder of what Dale Myers concluded with respect to the trajectory of the shot that struck JFK in the head:

[Quoting Dale K. Myers:]

"Since the position of JFK's head used in the computer recreation ["Secrets Of A Homicide: JFK Assassination"] closely matches Zapruder frame 312...and a trajectory line based on the HSCA's outshoot wound tracks to an impossible firing source located 124 feet above the roofline of the Dal-Tex Building, it is concluded that the OUTSHOOT WOUND [DVP's emphasis] used by the HSCA to calculate a trajectory path was NOT the result of a straight line trajectory (i.e., the bullet was deflected after making contact with the skull). ....

"In conclusion, a headshot trajectory cannot be calculated from the available evidence, due to the possibility that the bullet fragmented, creating more than one exit wound, and the likelihood that the course of the bullet changed after striking the skull."

[/End Myers' Quotes.]

"I'll also add the following observation here -- Dale Myers fully supports the HIGH ON THE HEAD (cowlick) entry location. And the animated photo on the webpage linked above verifies that fact (the second picture from the bottom).

"So Dale is saying, in essence, that the House Select Committee GOT IT RIGHT when it comes to the high location of the entry wound in JFK's head. He further states (via his computer animation study of the trajectories involved) that a definitive declaration regarding the exact trajectory the head-shot bullet took "cannot be calculated".

"But based on Myers' website and his sample computer images, he certainly does NOT believe the entry wound in Kennedy's head was located "low" on the head near the EOP. He thinks it was very HIGH on the head, as his sample images illustrate fully." -- DVP; 04/01/09

>>> "4. The fact that a channel-like laceration began at the tip of the occipital lobe far from the parietal lobe where a bullet entering in the cowlick would have been." <<<

I have no idea what you're babbling about here. Are you talking about
JFK's brain here?

>>> "5. The fact that a bullet entering in the cowlick and exiting at the official exit site cannot be reconciled with the windshield damage." <<<

This one's really silly, John.

As Dale Myers stated (and I completely agree), the bullet could have
easily changed course after striking JFK's head. And it probably did
change course. Common sense would tell a reasonable person that
Oswald's bullet, after striking the hard skull of JFK at full muzzle
velocity [2,100+ fps], would likely have changed direction somewhat
before exiting the head.

>>> "6. The fact that F8, the Clark Panel's report, F8, the autopsy report, and the autopsy descriptive sheet all prove that the area of skull where the high entry was supposed to be was fragmented....while the HSCA claimed part of the entry was in intact bone." <<<

That must be why the Clark Panel said this in 1968, huh John?:

"On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed."

Is the above paragraph another "lie", John?

And you're placing way too much faith in F8, IMO. F8 is essentially
useless for determining anything.

Do you deny that many very SMART people have major disagreements about
what F8 depicts?

>>> "7. The fact that one of the HSCA's own radiologists reported that evidence for a high entry on the x-rays was inconclusive." <<<

Big deal.

All NINE of the HSCA's FPP members, including Dr. Joseph Davis (unless
you want to call Dr. Baden a "liar" yet again), were unanimous in their
conclusions about the entry hole in Jack Kennedy's head being HIGH on
his head near the cowlick.

Quoting Dr. Baden:

"We, as the panel members, do feel after close examination of the negatives and photographs under magnification of that higher perforation, that it is unquestionably a perforation of entrance; and we feel very strongly, and this is unanimous, all nine members, that X-rays clearly show the entrance perforation in the skull to be immediately beneath this perforation in the upper scalp skin.

"And further, although the original examination of the brain was not complete, photographs of the brain were examined by the panel members, and do show the injury to the brain itself is on the top portion of the brain. The bottom portion or undersurface of the brain, which would have had to have been injured if the bullet perforated in the lower area as indicated in the autopsy report, was intact.

"If a bullet entered in this lower area, the cerebellum portion of the brain would have had to be injured and it was not injured. So that is the basis for what remains a disagreement between our panel and the original autopsy doctors. ....

"It is the firm conclusion of the panel members...that beyond all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel that there is no bullet perforation of entrance beneath that brain tissue [near JFK's hairline]...and we find no evidence to support anything but a single gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head." -- DR. MICHAEL BADEN


John Canal's explanation for why Dr. Michael Baden wanted to go in
front of the HSCA (on the official record) and tell one lie after
another regarding the entry wound to JFK's head is just downright

For anyone who is unaware of John Canal's insane theory about Dr.
Baden, I'll summarize it -- John C. thinks that Baden would have lied
his ass off ("several times", per Canal) in order to have the HSCA's
conclusions match those of the Clark Panel from ten years earlier,
particularly the observations of Dr. Russell S. Fisher of the Clark
Panel, with respect to the "cowlick" location for the entry wound in
JFK's head (which is a wound that the Clark Panel said was "100
millimeters [4 inches] above the EOP").

Canal thinks that Baden would be willing to lie about the true entry
location of JFK's head wound in order to avoid having yet another
contradiction in the official records relating to President Kennedy's

And, evidently, Dr. Baden was (according to Mr. Canal) such an
intimidating fellow that he was able to convince his other eight
comrades on the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel to jettison their
moral fiber and go along with Baden's "cowlick" lies for the sake of
the HSCA's investigation. Apparently ALL EIGHT of the other FPP
members were willing to do this at the evil Dr. Baden's request.

The "Baden Lied Because He Didn't Want To Rock The Boat Again" theory
of John Canal's is nearly as stupid and inane as John's other "Cover-
Up" theory regarding JFK's three autopsy surgeons. Those three guys
(all of them) decided to not tell the whole truth about the condition
of President Kennedy's head wounds because (per John C.) those doctors
feared World War 3, or they feared that if they revealed information
about ANY "back of the head" damage to JFK's cranium, some people
might think that a bullet hit JFK's head from the front. And that
would never do (per John C.).

That theory, too, is insane, because the irrevocable and immutable
FACT (based on the President's inshoot and outshoot head wounds
discovered at the autopsy on 11/22/63) is that John F. Kennedy was
shot in the head only ONE time, and the bullet came FROM BEHIND the
President....which is a conclusion that apparently John A. Canal
thinks the three autopsists would have been incapable of reasonably
conveying to the world if there had been ANY type of secondary or
collateral damage at all to the rear portions of JFK's head as a
result of only Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet striking Kennedy's head.

John Canal, as you might already have suspected by this time, is a
real piece of work indeed.

>>> "8. The fact that another one of the HSCA's own radiologists stated that the entry was in the right occipital bone." <<<

I guess Baden was lying (yet again) when he said this in 1978, right

"We were in agreement, as were all of the radiologists that we consulted with--Dr. Davis, Dr. Seaman, Dr. Chase--that that is the point of entrance in the right upper back skull with radiating fractures." -- DR. MICHAEL BADEN

>>> "9. The fact that the HSCA's own witness, NASA's Dr. Thomas Canning, had to fudge JFK's forward lean by more than half, just to get the cowlick entry trajectory pointed back even close to the SN." <<<

Again, the answer to this is pretty simple -- The bullet probably
changed direction after entering Kennedy's head.

And allow me to repeat the following common-sense observation by Mr.
Myers yet again:

"A headshot trajectory cannot be calculated from the available evidence, due to the possibility that the bullet fragmented, creating more than one exit wound, and the likelihood that the course of the bullet changed after striking the skull." -- DALE K. MYERS

>>> "10. The fact that four researchers and/or JFK authors have independently replicated the photo of the wound in the SKULL and have all concluded, scientifically, that Humes' entry was near the EOP." <<<

Oh, good, that crappy, miserable, indistinct F8 picture again. Wonderful.

BTW, John Canal needs all four members of the 1968 Clark Panel to be
total boobs (or liars) too, if we're to believe that the entry hole in
JFK's head was 4 inches below the cowlick....because the four Clark
Panel doctors said this back in '68:

"There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the scalp situated near the midline and high above the hairline. The position of this wound corresponds to the hole in the skull seen in the lateral X-ray film #2. .... On one of the lateral films [X-rays] of the skull (#2), a hole measuring approximately 8 mm. in diameter on the outer surface of the skull and as much as 20 mm. on the internal surface can be seen in profile approximately 100 mm. above the external occipital protuberance. The bone of the lower edge of the hole is depressed."

David Von Pein
May 17, 2009

(PART 2)


To support that three evenly-spaced shots were fired by a bolt-action rifle,
he [DVP] uses Warren Commission testimony taken 4 months or more after the assassination, after the witnesses had been told by the media and their government that Oswald had acted alone. He avoids the earliest statements of the witnesses like the plague. .... This is not chaff, by any means. A competent and committed defense attorney could establish reasonable doubt on this fact alone.


When thinking some more about witness Harold Norman and his comments made after President Kennedy's assassination, this thought struck me:

The argument about the SPACING between the gunshots that Norman heard is really kind of an irrelevant and unimportant argument.


Because regardless of the exact number of seconds that passed between the three shots, ALL THREE OF THOSE SHOTS CAME FROM THE SAME RIFLE ABOVE NORMAN'S HEAD.

And surely no conspiracy theorist wants to propose a theory that has TWO gunmen and TWO different rifles being fired from the Sniper's Nest window on the 6th Floor directly above Mr. Norman's they?

Therefore, no matter what the precise spacing was between the shots, per Norman's never-wavering "I HEARD THREE SHOTS FROM ABOVE ME" account of the shooting, it HAS to mean that the ONE gunman WAS able to fire those three shots from the gunman's ONE rifle in the allotted time to get off three such shots from his bolt-action weapon.

The same argument I just made regarding Norman could also be made when it comes to many of the other Dealey Plaza witnesses, i.e., the witnesses who fall into the following category:


That is to say: What major difference does it really make what the precise SPACING was between these three shots, which were ALL shots (per those witnesses in the category just mentioned) that VERY LIKELY CAME FROM THE VERY SAME GUN?

So, given these parameters that many witnesses DO agree on (i.e., exactly THREE shots fired and all coming from ONE rear location at or very near the Texas School Book Depository Building), the "spacing" issue is largely a moot point altogether.

David Von Pein
October 2007





(PART 1)

"Just after the President passed by, I heard a shot and several seconds later I heard two more shots. I knew that the shots had come from directly above me, and I could hear the expended cartridges fall to the floor. I also could here the bolt action of the rifle. I saw some dust fall from the ceiling of the fifth floor and I felt sure that whoever had fired the shots was directly above me."

-- Harold Norman; December 4, 1963


When President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963, 25-year-old Harold Norman was located on the fifth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. He was situated directly underneath the sixth-floor "Sniper's Nest" window when rifle shots were being fired at JFK from that sixth-floor window.

Does anyone truly think that Norman was making up a false story when he claimed to hear a rifle's bolt being worked directly over his head?

And do conspiracy theorists also think that Norman lied when he said he heard exactly "three" shots being fired over his head?

And did he also lie when he said he heard "three" bullet shells (or "hulls") hitting the floor above him?

Harold Norman's testimony in each of the above "three shots" regards provides an additional (and, IMO, very important) layer of evidence leading toward Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the murder of President Kennedy (coupled with all the other ballistics, witness, fingerprint, and fiber evidence that back up LHO's guilt as well).

Because if Norman was dead wrong about everything he heard going on directly above his 5th-Floor location within the Book Depository, it would certainly be an incredible coincidence that he would be WRONG, but in such a "THREE SHOTS WERE FIRED FROM THE SIXTH FLOOR" fashion....which is a scenario that is backed up by lots of other evidence (and witnesses), besides just Mr. Norman.

And if conspiracists want to paint Norman as yet another in a series of "liars" or "Warren Commission shills" after the assassination, it only adds one more ludicrous and unproven "He Was Lying" allegation to the already silly length of such a list that has been created by some conspiracy theorists over the years since 1963.

And it's interesting to note in the Warren Report, that all seven Warren Commissioners (via three separate re-creations of bullet shells hitting the floor above Norman's position on the Depository's fifth floor) were each easily able to hear the cartridge cases hitting the floor.

"All seven of the Commissioners clearly heard the shells drop to the floor." -- Warren Report; Page 71

In addition, there's also the test that was conducted by Warren Commission counsel member David W. Belin. To quote Belin directly on this matter:

"We scheduled the testimony of Harold Norman on March 24, 1964. Before he testified, we wanted to interview him on the fifth floor of the TSBD Building and check whether these sounds [of the rifle shells hitting the floor and of the rifle's bolt being worked by the gunman] could be heard.

"We had with us the equipment necessary to make the test. A Secret Service agent with the bolt action rifle stood with Joe Ball in the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the TSBD Building. I stayed with Harold Norman on the fifth floor directly below.

"Before giving the signal to conduct the experiment, I waited until a train passed on the nearby railroad overpass so there would be plenty of street noise. In addition, at that time, several large trucks were moving down Elm Street. I then yelled to have the test begin.

"I smiled, for I really did not expect to hear anything. Then, with remarkable clarity, I could hear the thump as a cartridge case hit the floor. There were two more thumps as the two other cartridge cases hit the floor above me.

"The Secret Service agent then worked the bolt of the rifle back and forth, and this too could be heard with clarity.

"When we re-assembled after the re-enactment, I said to my colleague, 'Joe, if I had not heard it myself, I would never have believed it'."

-- David Belin; Pages 139-140 of Belin's 1973 book "November 22, 1963: You Are The Jury"


Now, either Harold Norman was an amazing liar, or somebody fired three shots from just above Norman's 5th-Floor Depository position on 11/22/63 (with three shells hitting the floor too).

And Norman confirmed he did hear precisely THREE shells/("hulls") hitting the plywood floor directly above him during the shooting. He confirmed this fact in 1986 when he was being questioned about the matter by lawyer Vincent Bugliosi during the television docu-trial "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald".

Here is some of the verbatim testimony given by Harold Norman at that mock trial in 1986 (which can also be seen in the video presented below):

VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "So you heard a total of three shots?"

HAROLD NORMAN -- "Yes sir."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Did it sound to you like a rifle was being fired directly above you?"

MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Was there any OTHER reason, in addition to the sound of the rifle, any other reason why you believed the shots were coming from directly above you?"

MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And what is that?"

MR. NORMAN -- "Because I could hear the empty hulls--that's what I call them--hit the floor; and I could hear the bolt action of the rifle being pushed back and forward."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "You're familiar with a bolt-action rifle?"

MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "And by 'hulls', you mean cartridge casings?"

MR. NORMAN -- "Cartridges."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "How many did you hear falling to the floor?"

MR. NORMAN -- "Three."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "Is the sound of that bolt action, and the ejection of the cartridge casings, and their falling to the floor something that you're going to remember for the rest of your life?"

MR. NORMAN -- "Yes sir."

MR. BUGLIOSI -- "One more any time on the morning of the assassination did you see any stranger or strangers in the Book Depository Building?"

MR. NORMAN -- "No sir."


Many conspiracy believers think the three shells were "planted" in the Sniper's Nest after the shooting. But Norman heard the shells dropping to the floor DURING THE SHOOTING, not several seconds AFTER the gunfire ceased.

Do some CTers think that the plotters had a guy standing in the Sniper's Nest dropping shells to the floor IN REAL TIME during the actual eight seconds when the assassination was taking place on November 22nd?

"Real Time, As-It's-Happening Shell Planting"!

Now THAT'S Patsy-Framing organization and efficiency, for damn sure! :)

So, if Norman's not a liar (and there's absolutely no reason to think he is), then three shots WERE definitely fired from that southeast corner window of the Book Depository's sixth floor. Period. Which is something that very few conspiracy theorists I've ever talked to actually believe occurred that day.

And Harold Norman's testimony, all by itself, makes conspiracy theorist Robert Groden's crazy "No Shots Were Likely Fired From The SN Window At All" theory look even more ludicrous than it already is. (And it's pretty ludicrous to begin with.)

David Von Pein
July 28, 2006
January 1, 2007
July 30, 2010





The more one looks over the Warren Commission testimony of assassination witness Lee E. Bowers, Jr. (plus his 11/22/63 affidavit), the less and less "pro-conspiracy" and "pro-multiple shooters" Mr. Bowers becomes (despite the fact that conspiracy theorists for years have loved to prop Bowers up as a sterling and rock-solid "conspiracy" witness).

Lee Bowers' testimony is quite interesting in the "Where Did The Shots Come From?" regard. Upon looking at his April 2, 1964, Warren Commission testimony, we can certainly see how, indeed, the conspiracists have gently turned Bowers into a "conspiracy" witness, when he actually doesn't really belong in that category at all.

Bowers is one of the many assassination witnesses who heard exactly three shots fired on 11/22/63 in Dallas' Dealey Plaza, and he said the shots came from either the area of the Texas School Book Depository Building OR the Triple Underpass area. But he did not hear shots coming from BOTH of those locations. It was one or the other, but not both.

Conspiracy theorists, however, have turned Mr. Bowers into a conspiracy-favoring witness who (to hear the CTers tell it) positively saw PROOF of a second gunman atop the Grassy Knoll. But when you look more deeply at his testimony, it can be seen that he's not actually a witness with which to promote conspiracy or a Knoll shooter at all.

Bowers didn't see a gunman on the Grassy Knoll or behind the picket fence behind the Knoll. He didn't see any rifle or other weapons. He merely saw some "milling around". Let's look at Mr. Bowers' exact words to the Warren Commission:

"I just am unable to describe rather than it was something out of the ordinary, a sort of milling around, but something occurred in this particular spot which was out of the ordinary, which attracted my eye for some reason, which I could not identify." -- Lee E. Bowers, Jr.; April 2, 1964 [6 H 288]

The conspiracy buffs, in true-to-form "Make Mountains Out Of Molehills" style, have thus turned Mr. Bowers' "out of the ordinary", "milling around", "I just am unable to describe", and "I could not identify" remarks into apparent "proof" that a killer had just shot JFK from behind a fence atop the Grassy Knoll....even though Bowers saw NO WEAPONS OF ANY KIND in the hands of anyone he observed that day. And he specifically said he "could not identify" what it was that caught his eye in the area of the fence.

The testimony of Bowers also provides some idea as to the type of reverberating sounds that can be produced in Dealey Plaza. And while earwitness testimony is useful to a degree, it is at the same time, as lawyer Vincent Bugliosi has said repeatedly throughout his career, "notoriously problematic".

Mr. Bugliosi made the following remarks to a jury in London, England, in July of 1986, during a television docu-trial ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"):

"With respect to whether or not any shots were fired from the Grassy Knoll, I want to make the following observations -- firstly, it is perfectly understandable that the witnesses were confused as to the origin of fire. Not only does Dealey Plaza resound with echoes, but here you have a situation of completely-unexpected shots over just a matter of a few moments.

"When you compound all of that with the fact that the witnesses were focusing their attention on the President of the United States driving by, a mesmerizing event for many of them....and the chaos, the hysteria, the bedlam that engulfed the assassination's remarkable that there was any coherence at all to what they thought they saw and heard.

"Human observation, notoriously unreliable under even the most optimum situation, HAS to give way to hard, scientific evidence. And we do have indisputable, scientific evidence in this case that the bullets which struck President Kennedy came from his rear, not his front."

-- Vincent Bugliosi; 1986



"There's a strong reason to believe that what Bowers said is not credible. .... [In Bowers' 11/22/63 affidavit] he said absolutely nothing at all about the commotion and unusual activity behind the picket fence that attracted his attention."

-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 898 of "Reclaiming History"


"If Bowers hadn't August of 1966, it probably would have been just a matter of time before he had Jack Ruby with a machine gun on the grassy knoll."

-- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 899 of "Reclaiming History"


The above comment that Bugliosi made about Lee Bowers' affidavit is a very good point. In his original 11/22/63 affidavit, which was written by Bowers on the day the shooting occurred (when things were certainly fresher in his mind than they were at any other time after the assassination, including his filmed interview with Mark Lane in 1966), Bowers doesn't mention a single word about having seen any men near the picket fence.

In fact, practically the entire affidavit contains Bowers' observations about the three cars that circled the parking lot just prior to the assassination, with the shooting itself seemingly being a mere afterthought in Bowers' mind. The only reference to the actual shooting comes in the last two sentences of Bowers' affidavit, when he says:

"About 8 or 10 minutes after he left [i.e., the last of the three cars that toured the lot] I heard at least 3 shots very close together. Just after the shots the area became crowded with people coming from Elm Street and the slope just north of Elm."

Therefore, any men that Bowers may have seen behind the picket fence on November 22, 1963, were so UNIMPORTANT to him on the day of the assassination itself that he didn't even bother to mention seeing those men in his voluntary statement that was written within hours of President Kennedy's assassination.

But, as previously noted, Bowers did spend ample time in his affidavit explaining all about the three cars that circled the parking lot before the shooting. Obviously, THAT activity concerning the vehicles was much more important and significant to Mr. Bowers when it came to relating any pertinent details about the events of that day than were any of the men whom he might have seen hanging around the picket fence.

Conspiracy theorists who think Lee Bowers holds the key to unlocking the mystery that surrounds JFK's murder just might be wise to ask themselves why, in Mr. Bowers' mind on November 22, the information about CARS CIRCLING THE PARKING LOT trumped and superceded (in importance) A MAN SHOOTING AT THE PRESIDENT WITH A GUN NEAR THE PICKET FENCE?

Food for thought....isn't it?

David Von Pein
December 9, 2007
January 5, 2008




Is Lee Bowers a liar?


Lee Bowers is one of those witnesses who has been turned into a (supposedly) excellent "conspiracy" witness by conspiracy authors, but he's really not much of a "conspiracy" witness at all. It's CTers (like Mark Lane) who want everyone to believe Bowers saw some killers on the Grassy Knoll. But Bowers never ever said any such thing.


Witnesses always got "better," conspiracy-wise, in the hands of Mark Lane, didn't they? Despite the heavy editing and convenient cuts for which Lane is famous, insofar as Cory's assertions are concerned, he said nothing different from what he had said at the WC.


Except that in the interview with Mark Lane [available to view below], Bowers added a comment about possibly seeing "a flash of light" or "smoke" near the Grassy Knoll. He never said anything about "flashes of light" or "smoke" in his Warren Commission testimony. (I just looked.) So that makes me wonder what influence Mr. Lane had on Mr. Bowers prior to that 1966 interview.

David Von Pein
December 11-14, 2018




On Friday, November 22, 1963 (the day of President Kennedy's
assassination), a group of Texas School Book Depository employees
(who were working on the sixth floor of that Dallas textbook warehouse
before lunchtime) "raced" the two freight elevators to the first floor
shortly before noon, with 24-year-old Lee Harvey Oswald being the only
employee who decided not to join his co-workers downstairs for lunch.

Oswald, instead, stayed on the sixth floor when the other employees
took the elevators downstairs. Oswald even asked for one of the two
elevators to be sent back up to him.

I can't quite figure out, however (via the witness testimony), if an
elevator actually WAS sent back up to Oswald or not. Charles Givens'
testimony doesn't say one way or the other; and Bonnie Ray Williams'
Warren Commission testimony verifies that Oswald yelled for one of
the boys (Williams says he probably yelled at Givens specifically) to
send an elevator back up to him by closing the gate when the elevator
reached the first floor, but Williams never verified whether an elevator
did, in fact, go back up after the boys raced them both to the bottom

But if an elevator was sent back up, Oswald probably left the gate
open after it was sent back up to him; by doing this, the elevator
would have been stuck on the sixth floor.

The overall evidence indicates that no employees (other than Oswald)
were on the sixth floor at the exact time of the President's
assassination (12:30 PM).

Depository employee Bonnie Ray Williams was on the 6th Floor for a
short time just after 12:00, eating his chicken-sandwich lunch (with
Oswald more than likely hiding in his "Nest" the whole time, without
Williams realizing he was there).

Before he joined James Jarman and Harold Norman on the 5th Floor
around 12:15, Williams left his empty lunch sack and Dr. Pepper soda
bottle near a hand cart ("two-wheeler truck") in the middle of the sixth

Here's Warren Commission Exhibit No. 484, showing the cart/truck
and soda bottle:

The picture below shows another view of the Dr. Pepper bottle on the
sixth floor, taken from a different angle. A portion of the "two-wheeler
truck", as Bonnie Ray Williams called it, can be seen in the upper
left-hand part of the photograph:

Early news reports just after the assassination erroneously were
reporting that the assassin had been "snacking on a chicken lunch"
just before shooting President Kennedy, with some reporters going so
far as assuming the assassin had been camped out for "several days"
in the Sniper's Nest prior to performing the evil deed on November 22.
(That one always makes me laugh a tad bit.)


How both elevators came to be stuck on the FIFTH floor
just after the

Bonnie Ray Williams, after eating his lunch on the 6th Floor, took the
east elevator down one floor to the 5th Floor to join Jarman and Norman
(although when he started down, Williams said he didn't know if anyone
was on that floor or not, but he thought there might have been, because
he heard someone "walking" around and the windows were "moving or
something" [3 H 171]).

Harold Norman testified that he and James Jarman took the west elevator
to the fifth floor (from the first floor) a short time before the motorcade
arrived in Dealey Plaza.

This is perfectly consistent with Depository Superintendent Roy Truly's
testimony....when Truly said that both freight elevators were on the fifth
floor when he and police officer Marrion Baker were trying to retrieve one
of them around 12:31 to 12:32.

Those stuck elevators on the fifth floor were indirectly responsible
for Oswald almost getting caught coming down the stairs. Because if
one of the elevators had been available to Truly and Baker, they would
not have needed to take the stairs and would have, instead, gone
straight to the seventh floor by elevator (seeing as how Baker thought
the shots had come from the roof of the building...via the pigeons
flying off the roof).

Final analysis:

When all available evidence is weighed and considered, it can be
reasonably determined that nobody (except Lee Harvey Oswald) occupied
the sixth floor of the Book Depository at the exact time of JFK's murder.



By all accounts, it appears that Lee Oswald's request for an elevator
to be sent back up to him on the 6th Floor of the TSBD around 12:00
Noon on November 22nd was not granted.

Several TSBD employees raced the Book Depository's two freight elevators
from the 6th Floor to the 1st Floor at noontime on 11/22/63, with Lee
Oswald being the lone employee up on the sixth floor to not join this
group of four.

The employees were: Billy Lovelady, Charles Givens, Bonnie Ray Williams,
and Danny Arce.

Three of those four employees--Lovelady, Williams, and Arce--acknowledged
the fact that Oswald yelled down to the boys for an elevator to be sent
back up, but none of the employees actually verified that an elevator
WAS sent back up to Oswald.

Williams, in his Warren Commission testimony, said "I don't know what
happened after that", indicating that he didn't know if an elevator was
sent back up or not.

And this testimony from Charles Givens leads to the conclusion that an
elevator was never sent back up to Oswald:

CHARLES GIVENS -- "I was getting ready on the elevator, and I say, 'Boy, are you going downstairs?'"

DAVID BELIN -- "What did he say to you?"

GIVENS -- "I say, 'It's near lunch time'. He said, 'No, sir. When you get downstairs, close the gate to the elevator'. That meant the elevator on the west side, you can pull both gates down and it will come up by itself."

BELIN -- "What else did he say?"

GIVENS -- "That is all."

BELIN -- "What did you say to that? Did you say you would close the elevator gate, or not say anything?"

GIVENS -- "I said, 'Okay', and got on the elevator."

BELIN -- "Do you know whether or not when you got down to the first floor, the west elevator was there?"

GIVENS -- "No, sir, it wasn't; because I looked over there to close the gate and it wasn't there."

BELIN -- "It wasn't there when you got down to the first floor?"

GIVENS -- "No, sir; it wasn't."

BELIN -- "Do you know where it was?"

GIVENS -- "No, sir; I don't."


What is interesting about Givens' testimony shown above (in a
"confusing" fashion) is that Givens says all of the above occurred
only AFTER Givens went back up to the sixth floor to retrieve his
jacket and cigarettes (which he had forgotten on his first trip
downstairs on the elevators with the other employees).

So, either Oswald TWICE asked Givens (or the other employees) to
send an elevator back up to him (which is certainly quite possible) --
or Givens is mistaken about exactly when Oswald made his elevator

But, either way, it would seem that Oswald never did get that elevator
sent back up to elevator that Oswald probably wanted to
freeze on his sixth floor so that he'd have a quick escape route off
of the Death Floor just after shooting at the President.

But, instead, Lee was forced to take the stairs, because he obviously
wasn't going to just wait around for an elevator to arrive on his floor
just after he had fired a series of bullets at the President of the
United States from that very same sixth floor.

But I always had the impression that an elevator WAS sent back up to
Oswald. (However, perhaps this is merely an "impression", similar to
many of the "conspiracy myths" that have been foisted upon the public
since 1963.)

Interestingly, however, the excellent 1964 David L. Wolper-produced
documentary film on the JFK assassination ("Four Days In November")
implies that an elevator was sent back up to Oswald on the sixth

The exact words spoken in the movie by narrator Richard Basehart
are .... "As other employees go downstairs to see the President,
Oswald stays on the sixth floor. He asks a fellow worker to arrange
to send the
elevator back up." [See the video below, at the 9:15 mark.]

Although, to be perfectly technical, that verbiage from the "Four Days"
film doesn't really verify that an elevator WAS, in fact, sent back up.
Those words merely indicate that Oswald took measures to "arrange"
for a fellow worker to send an elevator back up to him. Whether that
"arrangement" materialized or not, the film stops short of saying.

I put a lot of trust in a Wolper documentary for accuracy. Mr. Wolper's
films are normally well-researched and historically accurate (at least
the ones I have seen). And "Four Days In November" is very accurate
and factual, in my opinion. I've watched the film countless times (and
have yet to tire of it), and I think I have found only one factual error,
and it was a very minor one.

Another very good film that was made the same year as "Four Days" (1964)
is Wolper's haunting and poignant documentary on Marilyn Monroe,
"The Legend Of Marilyn Monroe".

I recommend those two David Wolper films highly. Excellent music scores
accompany each of those motion pictures as well.

David Von Pein
March 2007
July 2010




>>> "David, you're going down with the ship on this one, and making a big splash. The effect of Givens' lie was not to put Oswald on the sixth floor, it was to put Oswald on the sixth floor AFTER Shelley and Piper had seen him on the first floor." <<<


Nonsense, Pat.

Charles Givens' trip back up to the sixth floor doesn't put Oswald on
the sixth floor AFTER Eddie Piper's timeline at all. Piper said he
last saw Oswald "just at 12 o'clock" [6 H 383].

Givens said he last saw Oswald "about 5 minutes to 12" [6 H 351]. (I'm
guessing that CTers want to make David Belin out to be a liar and a
schemer by the fact that he seems to cut off Givens right after Givens
says "5 minutes to 12". I'm sure that some conspiracists think Belin
was stopping Givens from saying something like this: "...because it
was right before I saw Malcolm Wallace in the building; Wallace had a
rifle and some spent shells in his hand; as I was going back down in
the elevator, he told me that he needed to get back up to the sixth
floor to start planting a bunch of stuff; I really didn't understand
what Mac was talking about though, Mr. Belin, so I just came on back
down and ate my lunch."

Bill Shelley said he last saw Oswald on November 22 on the first floor
"10 or 15 minutes before 12" [7 H 390].

But the Warren Commission and its counsel were smart enough to know
that ALL of these times for the various "Last Sightings Of Oswald" are
only approximate times. They are, of course, just guesses on the part
of the people who supplied the information -- from Givens, to Shelley,
to Piper, and all the other TSBD witnesses too.

At the time of their "I Saw Oswald" observations on November 22nd,
none of these people had any reason at all to take notice of the EXACT
time they saw another employee walking around the building. They were
later asked to reconstruct (as best they could) the timing of certain

And the timing of seeing Oswald in the building is an event that was
undoubtedly so completely insignificant and unimportant to each one of
those witnesses at the time it was occurring that they had no way to
reconstruct with precision the times at which they saw Oswald.

It was, however, around lunchtime for these employees (around
noontime). So that fact ("lunch") helps out when it comes to the
times. But as some of the witnesses also said--they apparently broke
for lunch a little earlier than their normal time on November 22 (to
see the President).

But, overall, the "timing" issue is far from being exact. And, as I
said, the Warren Commission knew that this was the case in the first
place. They HAD to know it. They were asking a group of people to
search their memories for the time of an event (seeing Lee Harvey
Oswald) that meant absolutely NOTHING to each one of those people at
the time when it occurred.

And while Charles Givens' cigarette trip back up to the sixth floor
does, indeed, put Oswald on the sixth floor after Bill Shelley's
stated time of having last seen Oswald that day--we're still only
talking about a matter of about five minutes (in approximated time).

Givens could easily have been off in his time by 5 or 10 minutes.
Maybe more. We can never know for certain. And the same thing applies
to Eddie Piper and William Shelley and Bonnie Ray Williams and all the
rest of the TSBD witnesses.

But to think that a bunch of random estimated times supplied by the
Depository employees is enough to exonerate Lee Oswald for shooting
JFK is just not a reasonable position to take.

The bottom line is this -- We know that Lee Harvey Oswald was on an
upper floor of the TSBD at some point in time that was shortly before
12:00 noon on 11/22/63, because the four men in the elevator race
(Williams, Givens, Arce, and Lovelady) all corroborate that single
event -- Oswald being on an upper floor of the building at the time
when those four men were descending to the first floor FOR THEIR

David Von Pein
September 7, 2010



>>> "Here's an explanation. Givens DID see Oswald on the sixth floor before going down for lunch, and was later convinced to say this happened after going down for lunch." <<<


That's ridiculous, since we're only talking about a very few minutes
in real time here (probably less than 3 minutes in actual time).

Plus, Givens' account of seeing Oswald on the sixth floor at about 11:55
doesn't put LHO on the sixth floor (or inside the Sniper's Nest) when the
shooting occurred at 12:30. It only puts him on the sixth floor of the
building at about 11:55.

And here's a very important point that I think conspiracy theorists
overlook [which I talked about earlier in this post]:

Charlie Givens is not even needed when it comes to putting Oswald on
an upper floor of the TSBD at about lunchtime on 11/22/63. And that's
because there were multiple OTHER employees who testified that Oswald
yelled down the elevator shaft (from either the fifth or sixth floor)
when the other employees raced the elevators downstairs.

So Givens making up a lie about seeing Oswald is not even needed to
put Oswald on an upper floor of the Book Depository about 45 minutes
before the assassination.

And surely there aren't too many conspiracists who want to call all
three of the following TSBD employees liars when it comes to their
testimony about hearing Lee Oswald shout down the elevator shaft from
an upper floor shortly before noon on November 22 --- Bonnie Ray
Williams, Billy Lovelady, and Danny Arce.

All three of the above employees testified they heard Oswald's voice
coming from an upper (fifth or sixth) floor. Therefore, why would
Charles Givens lie about anything relating to Lee Harvey Oswald's
whereabouts around noontime on November 22, 1963?

I suppose the conspiracy theorists will insist that the police and FBI
desperately HAD to have a witness say that he physically saw Lee
Oswald on the SIXTH floor shortly before the assassination (vs. the
inconclusive testimony of Arce, Williams, and Lovelady concerning the
exact floor that Oswald was on when he yelled down the elevator

But that type of speculation regarding the authorities in this case
(although it's speculation that has become commonplace and routine
among CTers, of course) is something I do not buy at all, particularly
when there are so many other people who could (and did) testify to the
fact that Oswald was, indeed, on an upper TSBD floor around lunchtime.
(Plus there's Howard Brennan as well, who saw Oswald actually murder JFK.)

David Von Pein
February 10, 2012





BOTH [Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle] confirmed that the bag found on the sixth floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on 11/22/63.


A patent lie, David. So now we're resorting to a complete lie to make the case? Typical. They said the package was no more than two feet in length and carried with a cupped hand under the armpit.


In the 1964 motion picture "Four Days In November", Linnie Mae Randle said the package was "approximately two-and-a-half feet long" [audio file embedded below]. That's 30 inches, just a mere 8 inches shorter than the actual length of the package.

Plus -- There's the fact that both the top and the bottom ends of the bag were quite possibly "folded" in some manner as Oswald carried the bag. At least the top of the bag was "folded", per Frazier. (See later discussion in this post regarding Wesley Frazier's November 22nd affidavit, which involves information concerning the bag's "folds".)

Also -- Randle, in her Warren Commission testimony, said that the bag she saw Oswald carrying was about "27 inches" long. And 27 inches is, of course (just like her "2-and-a-half feet" estimate from the movie "Four Days"), more than two feet, which makes your above statement of "no more than two feet in length" incorrect (with respect to the estimates of the bag's length made by Linnie Randle).

Also from Randle's Warren Commission session:

JOE BALL -- "You figure about 2 feet long, is that right?"

LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "A little bit more."


You might also be interested in the FBI Report filed by James Bookhout on 11/23/63, which states that Linnie Mae saw Oswald put "a long brown package, approximately 3 feet by 6 inches, in the back seat area" of her brother's Chevrolet sedan.

"3 feet" = 36 inches. The sixth-floor bag was 38 inches long. (And the lengthiest section of Lee Oswald's Italian-made Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was 34.8 inches long when it was broken down.)

So, who's telling lies now, Richard Van Noord? Or don't you even know what these witnesses said?

Wesley Frazier told the Warren Commission:

"I just roughly estimate and that would be around two feet, give and take [sic] a few inches."

Via Frazier's 11/22/63 affidavit, we find something interesting regarding the bag's length too:

"Before I got in the car, I glanced in the back seat, and saw a big sack. It must have been about 2 feet long, and the top of the sack was sort of folded up, and the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under. I asked Lee what was in the sack, and he said "curtain rods", and I remembered that he had told me the day before that he was going to bring some curtain rods."

The intriguing part of the above affidavit, IMO, is:

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

Therefore, Frazier is saying via his affidavit comments made on the very same day he saw Oswald with the paper bag that the "2-foot"-long bag had at least one of its ends "folded" in some fashion, which would certainly make the overall length of the bag longer when the bag is completely unfolded.

Frazier's other "folded" remark in his affidavit is a bit more ambiguous and hard to figure out.....

"And the rest of the sack had been kind of folded under."

The "folded under" comment could indicate the bottom being "folded under", I suppose. But it would seem he's referring to the bulk of the LENGTH of the bag in that "folded under" comment. I'm not quite sure.

But that could also explain why Frazier said that the full width of the bag looked too wide when he was shown the unfolded bag by the Warren Commission. If the WHOLE bag, for the most part, had been "folded under" itself in some fashion, then when Frazier saw Oswald with the bag on November 22, the bag would obviously have looked NOT AS WIDE in Frazier's eyes.

The above "folded" comments in Wes Frazier's November 22nd affidavit seem to have been overlooked by many conspiracy theorists who are bent on clearing dear, sweet Lee Harvey of the Presidential murder he so obviously committed with the object that was stuffed inside that paper bag (with multiple "folds") that he put in Frazier's car on the morning of November 22, 1963.

BTW, a man who is 5'9" tall can't fit a 27-inch object (or a 24-inch object) under his armpit while also cupping it in his hand (unless he's got monkeys for close relatives). So, the Randle/Frazier estimates as to the length of the package they saw are almost certainly wrong--even from a "conspiracy" POV.

In other words, Frazier can't possibly be exactly correct about BOTH things -- i.e., "under the armpit and cupped in his right hand" AND "roughly about two feet long" (via his WC testimony).*

Both of those things cannot be 100% true. But CTers like to think that Frazier's and Randle's bag-length estimates ARE, indeed, spot-on accurate.


For the record....

Allow me to correct what I said earlier about a 5-foot-9 man not being able to wedge a 2-foot object under his armpit while cupping it in his hand at the same time. I'm just under 5-9, and I can ALMOST do it. It comes out to 23 inches on me. Ray Mitcham [on The Education Forum] said he's 5-9 and it came out to 24 inches on him (which I can, indeed, accept).

But a 27-inch object? No way.

So even staunch CTers should admit that BOTH the famous "27-inch" measurement given by Linnie Randle AND the famous "armpit & cupped in the hand" scenario painted by Buell Frazier cannot BOTH be exactly accurate.

And I'm fully willing to eat some crow and say "I was wrong" when it comes to my earlier remark (from 2007), when I said a 24-inch object could not be wedged in the armpit by a 5-foot-9 man. That was, indeed, an incorrect statement (based on Ray Mitcham's test that he performed today [March 19, 2018]).

However, on a "27 inch" object, I stand firm. That couldn't have been done by the 5-foot-9 Oswald.

[End 2018 Interjection.]

And isn't it funny that the empty 6th-Floor bag just happened to have the RIGHT PALMPRINT of Lee Oswald on it....perfectly matching the way Wes Frazier said Oswald carried the bag "cupped in his right hand".

The "under the armpit" observation of Frazier's was obviously a mistake....and he said so, under oath:

VINCENT BUGLIOSI (during the 1986 Docu-Trial in London) -- "Did you recall how he [LHO] was carrying the bag?"

BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. He was carrying it parallel to his body."

BUGLIOSI -- "Okay, so he carried the bag right next to his body....on the right side?"

FRAZIER -- "Yes sir. On the right side."

BUGLIOSI -- "Was it cupped in his hand and under his armpit? I think you've said that in the past."

FRAZIER -- "Yes sir."

BUGLIOSI -- "Mr. Frazier, is it true that you paid hardly any attention to this bag?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."

BUGLIOSI -- "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body, and you wouldn't have been able to see it, is that correct?"

FRAZIER -- "That is true."


And now a passage from Vince Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History":

"Frazier's statements that the rifle was tucked under Oswald's armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent in all of his statements to investigators, it was clearly inferable from his Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption on his part based on his limited view.

"Frazier told the Commission that "the only time" he saw the way Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that was visible was "just a little strip [of the package] running down" along the inside of Oswald's arm. ....

"Since he could only see this small portion of the package under Oswald's right arm, and because he didn't notice any part of the package sticking above his right shoulder...Frazier assumed that it must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, "I don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your armpit."

"Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's conclusion, it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and over (no less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much attention to the package or to the way Oswald carried it. ....

"In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused. So we don't even know, for sure, how Oswald was carrying the rifle in front of his body, which Frazier could not see. At the London trial [in 1986] I asked Frazier, "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of his body and you wouldn't have been able to see it?" and he responded, "That's true."

"The most likely scenario was postulated well by Dan Rather [of CBS News in 1967], who rhetorically told his audience, "You can decide whether Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in his own words, not paying much attention, might have missed the few inches of the narrow end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 409-410 of "Reclaiming History" (Via the Endnotes on CD-ROM)(c.2007)


Anyway, my earlier comment, which was.....

"And BOTH [Randle/Frazier] confirmed that the bag found on the 6th Floor after the assassination generally looked like the bag they saw Oz carrying on 11/22."

.....wasn't referring to the exact LENGTH of the sixth-floor bag (quite obviously). I was referring to the TYPE and GENERAL LOOK of the brown paper bag (CE142) that was shown to Frazier and Randle by the Warren Commission.

Frazier, in his usual confused, odd, and hard-to-understand way of expressing himself, told the WC that the color of the bag Oswald carried closely matched the color of the replica bag made by the FBI for general identification purposes (CE364).

And Frazier said that the untreated and lighter portion of CE142 (the actual Sniper's-Nest bag) "could have been, and it couldn't have been" similar to the color of the bag he saw in the back seat of his car on the morning of November 22nd.

So, once again, we're forced to try and figure out some of Wesley Frazier's rather odd phraseology. But the words "could have been" are certainly in there. So use your proverbial grain of salt here, as we should do with all of Frazier's testimony to a certain extent, especially when he starts to talk in strange ways, which he often did in front of the Warren Commission.


Now, with respect to Linnie Mae Randle's testimony regarding the general look and color of the paper bag [at 2 H 249]:

JOE BALL -- "Looking at this part of the bag which has not been discolored, does that appear similar to the color of the bag you saw Lee carrying that morning?"

LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "Yes; it is a heavy type of wrapping paper."


I'll offer up this common-sense question once again, because it's worth repeating numerous times:

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

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

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

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

David Von Pein
October 2007
March 2018



Oswald, His Rifle, And The Paper Bag

Linnie Mae, Essie Mae, & Oswald



1.) LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S RIFLE was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building on 11/22/63.

2.) An EMPTY 38-INCH-LONG PAPER BAG with two of Oswald's prints on it was found under the same window from where OSWALD'S RIFLE positively fired three bullets at President Kennedy.

3.) The lengthiest part of OSWALD'S RIFLE, when broken down, was 34.8 inches. So it could definitely fit inside the 38-inch PAPER BAG found near the sniper's window.

4.) Oswald carried a long and bulky PAPER BAG into the TSBD on 11/22/63.

5.) Oswald lied about the contents of that PAPER BAG to fellow worker Buell Wesley Frazier.

6.) Oswald also lied when he told the police he did not carry any kind of a large PAPER BAG into the Depository Building on November 22nd.

7.) Oswald also lied when he told the police that he had not recently said anything at all to fellow worker Buell Wesley Frazier about "curtain rods".

8.) Following the President's assassination, no curtain rods were discovered in the Book Depository [see Commission Exhibit 2640].

9.) OSWALD'S RIFLE was not found in its known storage location (Ruth Paine's garage in Irving, Texas) on the afternoon of November 22nd. Lee Oswald, of course, spent the previous night (Nov. 21) at the Paine house, and had easy access to the garage where he knew his rifle was being stored.

10.) Ruth Paine discovered that someone had left the light on in the garage at some point prior to approximately 9:00 PM CST on Thursday, November 21st. Ruth was certain that she, herself, had not left the light on, and Ruth was also fairly certain that Marina Oswald had not left the light on either. It was Ruth's belief that the person who had been in her garage prior to 9:00 PM on Nov. 21 and had not turned out the light upon exiting the garage was Lee Harvey Oswald.

When a reasonable and sensible person adds up #1 through #10 above, the answer becomes quite obvious. In fact, the answer couldn't be more obvious -- Lee Oswald wrapped his own rifle in a handmade 38-inch brown paper bag and carried that paper package containing his rifle out of the Paine residence on the morning of November 22, 1963.

Lee H. Oswald then took that rifle package into his workplace at the TSBD, unwrapped the rifle in private at some point prior to 12:30 PM, assembled his rifle (which is reasonable to assume he knew how to do without much difficulty or painstaking effort), secreted himself as best he could in the southeast corner of the sixth floor (aided by the shield of book cartons that Oswald himself had fashioned that same morning), and shot and killed JFK when he drove down Elm Street at 12:30 PM.

For goodness sake, this is second-grade math we're dealing with here concerning the rifle and the bag. ANY other explanation regarding those two objects is laughable when compared to the scenario I just laid out above.

Any alternate scenario must explain away many different things -- things that all FIT TOGETHER like a well-fitting glove via the 10-point scenario I talked about above -- such as:

1.) The need to explain away the FACT that Oswald's rifle was missing from its known storage location on the same day the President was killed via rifle fire that came from the same building where Lee Oswald worked and from where three bullets from OSWALD'S RIFLE were fired (via the three spent shells from OSWALD'S RIFLE found under the sniper's window [CE510]).

2.) If Lee Harvey Oswald didn't take his rifle to work in that large-ish paper bag on 11/22/63, then when did he (or somebody else) take Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 into the Book Depository?

Prior to November 21, the last time Oswald was at Ruth Paine's house was the weekend of November 8-11, 1963, which was more than one full week before the President's motorcade route through Dallas was even finalized or announced in the Dallas papers.

The earliest that Oswald could have known for sure that his workplace would be a good and viable location for attempting to assassinate President Kennedy was Tuesday morning, November 19th, when the details of the motorcade route (including the Houston-to-Elm turn that would take JFK's limousine directly in front of the TSBD) were printed in the Dallas Morning News [see CE1363].

It stands to reason, therefore, that Oswald probably did not remove his rifle from Ruth Paine's garage prior to 11/19/63. And the only possible dates after November 19th that he could have conceivably retrieved his rifle from that location in Irving, Texas, were November 21 and 22.

3.) Conspiracy theorists also need to somehow explain away the devastatingly incriminating evidence against Lee Oswald known as CE142 (the EMPTY paper bag that was found in the Sniper's Nest with two of Oswald's prints on it).

Most conspiracists like to cry foul when discussing that brown paper sack, claiming that the police were up to no good and created a fake bag in order to frame Oswald with it. But such arguments fall short in the "proof it happened" department. Way short.

But it's obvious why CTers feel the need to distance themselves from the reality of that paper bag. Because if those conspiracy believers were to actually face the stubborn reality concerning the bag (with that reality being: It was Oswald's homemade bag and Oswald took his rifle to work in that bag), then those CTers would be forced to admit that their precious "patsy" had probably taken that gun to work in order to shoot somebody with it on the day when JFK came to town.

What other reasonable and logical conclusion could anyone (CTer or otherwise) come to after they've admitted to themselves the obvious truth: That Lee Oswald did, in fact, walk into the Book Depository on November 22, 1963, with a rifle wrapped in brown paper?

4.) Another pesky item that conspiracists need to "explain away" is the "curtain rod" lie that was told by Lee Harvey Oswald. And it couldn't be more obvious (to a reasonable and rational person, that is) that Oswald DID, indeed, lie to Wesley Frazier (and later to the police after he was arrested) concerning the curtain rods. Oswald never had any curtain rods, of course.

And why on Earth would Oswald want to lie about the contents of that brown paper package? Again, the answer couldn't be more obvious: He wanted to DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM THE MURDER WEAPON.

5.) And two other pieces of evidence that conspiracy advocates must avoid or twist or mangle are the fingerprint and the palmprint of Oswald's that were found on the paper bag.


That's a question that no conspiracy theorist has ever been able to reconcile with anything close to a believable or satisfactory answer since 1963. And yet we've got certain conspiracists like James DiEugenio who now want to say that Oswald didn't carry ANY large bag into the TSBD on November 22. None at all!

Well, Jim, I've got a really good one-word response to such lunacy -- Hogwash!!

In Summary ---

All conspiracy theorists who love to argue about whether Lee Harvey Oswald took his rifle into the TSBD on the morning of the assassination certainly have to realize (deep down) that the above 10-item scenario is 100% accurate and based on the actual evidence in the JFK case (not to mention being based on a whole lot of ordinary common sense as well).

But it seems that conspiracy promoters just love to argue....even when they must certainly know in their own guts that their arguments are filled with mush when compared with the actual truth.

Vincent Bugliosi said it quite well (as usual) when he said this to the jury in London, England, in 1986 during the televised docu-trial, "ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD":

"We...know from the firearms people that the three expended cartridge casings found on the floor, right beneath that sixth-floor window--undoubtedly the same casings that Mr. [Harold] Norman heard fall from above--were fired in, and ejected from, Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

"So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL doubt that OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON....that caused that terrible, terrible spray of brain matter to the front! The worst sight that I have ever seen in my entire life!

"And it's obvious that Oswald carried that rifle into the building that day in that large brown paper bag. It couldn't be more obvious. As far as Mr. [Wesley] Frazier's testimony about Oswald carrying the bag under his armpit, he conceded he never paid close attention to just how Oswald was carrying that bag. He didn't have any reason to.

"At this point if we had nothing else....nothing else! much do you need?!....if we had NOTHING else!....this would be enough to prove Oswald's guilt beyond all REASONABLE doubt. But there's so much more." -- Vincent Bugliosi; July 1986

David Von Pein
December 10, 2009



There are many reasons to conclude that the bag held by L.D. Montgomery in these pictures is NOT a "fake" or "DPD manufactured" bag:

1.) Multiple officers (Studebaker, Day, Montgomery, and Johnson) said they saw a long bag in the Sniper's Nest prior to it being picked up off of the floor.

2.) DPD Lieutenant J.C. Day wrote his name and the date on the bag shortly after it was found.

3.) Two of Lee Harvey Oswald's prints are on the paper bag in evidence today at the National Archives (Commission Exhibit No. 142). How and when did the cops manage to "plant" those prints of LHO's on the bag? The conspiracy theorists never tell us this, of course. They merely ASSUME the evil cops planted the fingerprint and palmprint on the bag.

4.) At the time when Montgomery was photographed carrying the bag out of the Book Depository (below), which was sometime during the afternoon of 11/22/63, the Dallas Police Department very likely didn't even have a clue that a long brown paper bag could be associated in any way with the evidence surrounding President Kennedy's assassination. Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle were the only two people on the planet who could have supplied the information to the DPD about Oswald carrying a long brown bag that morning.

Now that's some really fast work being done by the DPD with that bag (if we're to believe what Pat Speer and others seem to believe). The cops would have had to create that bag very quickly on the afternoon of the assassination. And they probably would have needed to do that PRIOR to ever confirming from Frazier or Randle that Oswald had a bag with him that day.

There are conspiracy clowns (such as Jim DiEugenio) who conveniently maneuver around that last sticky little timeline problem by making the preposterous claim that both Wes Frazier and Linnie Randle just MADE UP the paper bag story from whole cloth (after being forced to do so by the evil DPD). Of course, such nutty allegations belong in a fantasy book, not in a reasonable discussion about the evidence in this case.

Photographic Anomalies? .....

Pat Speer and other conspiracists think the bag seen in Detective Montgomery's hands in the pictures above does not match the dimensions and other characteristics (such as the "wrinkling" and "crinkling") of CE142, which is the bag that is in evidence today that is said to have been the exact same paper bag being held by L.D. Montgomery above.

But many times when examining photographs and films, lots of things don't "look quite right". This same argument has been made by conspiracy theorists about the backyard photos of Oswald. And JFK's autopsy pictures. And the Zapruder Film. And Mary Moorman's photo. And on and on.

But, as Dale Myers has said many times in the past (such as in this article), attempting to extract precise (and three-dimensional) information by looking at two-dimensional photographs is a fool's errand. It simply cannot be done with 100% accuracy and precision.

Given the built-in obstacles and limitations when it comes to the task of attempting to "match up" 2D pictures with one another, plus the list of items I mentioned above, to say that the Dallas police created a fake paper bag in order to try and frame Lee Harvey Oswald for President John F. Kennedy's murder is, in my opinion, not a reasonable (or logical) conclusion to reach.

David Von Pein
January 11, 2015


Lots of additional discussion and debate concerning "The Brown Paper Bag"
can be found HERE, HERE, HERE,







Multiple Dallas Police Department and Sheriff officials provided
evidence (via their Warren Commission testimony and the official
DPD photographs) that proves the conspiracy theorists are wrong
when they accuse the DPD and Dallas Sheriff's Department of all
kinds of lies and conspiracy-favoring activity with respect to the
"box" evidence found inside the "Sniper's Nest" on the 6th Floor
of the Texas School Book Depository Building shortly after John
F. Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963.

Luke Mooney, Carl Day, and Robert Studebaker all provided such
evidence and testimony. Are they all liars? And are BOTH sets of DPD
photos (taken by Day and Studebaker) to be considered "faked"?

Mooney testified (plain as day) that there was a box "tilted" (on the
windowsill) when he first saw the box arrangement in the Sniper's

A portion of Mooney's Warren Commission testimony regarding this
matter is shown below [3 H 285]:

JOE BALL -- "Is that the way the boxes looked?"

(Ball is referring to CE509.)

LUKE MOONEY -- "That is [sic] the three boxes, but one of them was tilted off just a little, laying down on the edge, I believe, to my knowledge."

BALL -- "Are they arranged as they were when you saw them?"

MOONEY -- "I am not positive. As I remember right, there was one box tilted off."

BALL -- "Do I understand that you say that it appeared to you that the top box was tilted?"

MOONEY -- "The end of it was laying this way."

BALL -- "Now, in this same picture, [Commission Exhibit No.] 511, you see a box in the window. Does that seem to be about the angle?"

MOONEY -- "Yes; that box was tilted."

BALL -- "That was tilted in that way?"

MOONEY -- "Yes, sir."


By the way, CE511 depicts the exact same thing that is also shown in
"Studebaker Exhibit B", and is also the same as CE715 (with CE715
lacking the circles around the two bullet shells that are visible in
the photo shown in 511; the reason that all three shells aren't seen
is due to the angle of the picture; the third shell is out of sight in
that photograph).

There's also this testimony from Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Luke

MOONEY -- "So I stood guard to see that no one disturbed anything until Captain Will Fritz approached with his group of officers."

Footnote -- Why on Earth Joe Ball didn't utilize either CE1301 or
Studebaker Exhibit J (the latter being a "re-creation" done by
Studebaker himself of the original box configuration in the SN window)
when questioning Luke Mooney is a mystery to me.

Either one of the two exhibits depicted above would have been much
better to use than CE509 or CE511. CE509, btw, was verified by Robert
Studebaker as being a picture taken (by Studebaker) AFTER the boxes
had already been moved and dusted for prints by the DPD.

So using CE509 when questioning Mooney about the "original box
configuration" is just plain silly. It makes me wonder if Mr. Ball of
the Warren Commission staff was deliberately trying to "trip up"
Mooney in some fashion (i.e., trying to find out if a member of Dallas
law enforcement would be willing to lie under oath to the WC about
some of the evidence).

A pretty good trick, I think, if that was what Ball had in mind. But,
of course, Mr. Mooney was not tripped up in any way when he was
asked if CE509 depicted the Sniper's Nest boxes before they had
been moved.

I guess it's possible that Ball, himself, didn't realize that CE509 was
not the actual configuration of the boxes before they had been moved
by the police. But it seems mighty strange to me that Ball would not
have known that fact before questioning Mooney.

In any event, Mooney's answers were perfectly consistent with an
ABOVE-BOARD AND TRUTHFUL Dallas Sheriff's Department with respect
to the box evidence found in the Sniper's Nest on 11/22/63.

There's also the evidence provided by the photo taken by news
photographer Tom Dillard within seconds of the last shot being fired
at President Kennedy (pictured below).

Dillard's photo verifies that there WAS, indeed, a box positioned in
the southeast 6th-Floor window in the general manner described by
Mooney, with a corner of the box clearly visible in Dillard's photo,
indicating that the box was angled in such a way during the shooting
as described by multiple DPD and Dallas Sheriff's officers (i.e., angled
in a fashion where the box configuration would serve nicely as a
"rifle rest" for a gunman who was firing a weapon in a southwesterly

That 6th-Floor gunman was later positively identified as Lee Harvey
Oswald....with Oswald's very own Mannlicher-Carcano rifle being found
tucked between boxes on the northwest side of that very same sixth
floor of the Book Depository (and with bullet shells from that same
gun being found near the assassin's window as well).

In addition, there is also the testimony given by Lt. J.C. Day of the
DPD (which is testimony that indicates the "tilted" box on the window
ledge was there ORIGINALLY...before any of the boxes inside the
Sniper's Nest were moved).

Day also acknowledges the fact, via his WC testimony, that the three
spent bullet shells ("hulls") discovered inside the Sniper's Nest were
photographed PRIOR to any of the shells being moved by any DPD
officer(s) [4 H 250-251]:

DAVID BELIN -- "Do you know whether or not Exhibit 716 and Exhibit 715 were taken before these hulls were moved?"

J.C. DAY -- "They were taken before anything was moved, to the best of my knowledge. I was advised when I got there nothing had been moved."


BELIN -- "I notice boxes throughout the picture [referring to CE715], including the box in the window. To the best of your knowledge, had any of those boxes been moved prior to the time the picture, Exhibit 715, was taken?"

DAY -- "No, sir; they had not."


BELIN -- "Now, as you face the picture [referring to CE482] -- the box to the right, which would be to the east, has a corner sticking out, or just a corner of the box shows. Is that the same box that appears to be resting on the window ledge in Exhibit 715?"

DAY -- "In my opinion, it is."


That brings us to the photos and testimony of Robert L. Studebaker of
the Dallas Police Department [7 H 140]:

JOE BALL -- "Were there any boxes on the ledge of this window?"


BALL -- "Did you take some pictures showing those boxes?"


BALL -- "Was that before any of them were moved?"

STUDEBAKER -- "That picture right there is the one that shows them, and the other pictures show them before they were moved."

BALL -- "You mean Exhibit A and B?"

STUDEBAKER -- "A and B." [Studebaker Exhibit A and Studebaker Exhibit B.]

BALL -- "Do you have a picture that shows the boxes themselves, just shot of those boxes in the window?"

STUDEBAKER -- "This one, Exhibit A, shows that--this is the exact--now this print here isn't too good, but you can see the indentation in this box right here. This is before it was ever moved. .... If I had known what you wanted, I would have brought you a better print--picked out a better print."

BALL -- "Now, you say on Exhibit A it shows a box in the window?"

STUDEBAKER -- "These boxes [indicating], yes, sir."

BALL -- "Is that the way they were piled up?"

STUDEBAKER -- "Yes, just exactly like that."


The boxes were moved, of course, at some point after being initially
photographed....and they were then photographed again, for some
reason, by Studebaker, after the boxes had been moved.

The additional photo of the SN boxes after those cartons had obviously
been moved will (naturally) lead the conspiracy freaks to reach the
unprovable conclusion that the DPD was up to no good on November 22nd
by moving a box from the windowsill to the top of another box.

However, Robert Studebaker unambiguously explained in his WC testimony
that CE509 (which is the very same picture that appears in Studebaker
Exhibit D
) depicts a photograph of the SN boxes AFTER those boxes had
been moved and dusted for fingerprints [7 H 141]:

BALL -- "Now, I will show you another picture which we will mark as Exhibit D. Was that taken by you?"


BALL -- "Does that show the position of the boxes before or after they were moved?"

STUDEBAKER -- "That's after they were dusted--there's fingerprint dust on every box."

BALL -- "And they were not in that position then when you first saw them?"



As an aside -- There's also this testimony (below) given by Mr.
Studebaker (regarding the empty paper bag that was found in the
southeast corner of the TSBD's sixth floor, which was never
photographed prior to being picked up by Studebaker....which is
something that invariably causes CTers to scream "It Was Fake!").

But is it truly reasonable to believe that Robert Studebaker is lying
through his teeth here? If anyone thinks that is a reasonable thing to
believe, please tell us why it's reasonable [7 H 143-144]:

BALL -- "Now, did you at any time see any paper sack around there?"

STUDEBAKER -- "Yes, sir."

BALL -- "Where?"

STUDEBAKER -- "Storage room there--in the southeast corner of the building--folded." ....

BALL -- "Where was it with respect to the three boxes of which the top two were Rolling Readers?"

STUDEBAKER -- "Directly east. .... I drew a diagram in there for the FBI...he wanted an approximate location of where the paper was found." ....

BALL -- "Where you have the dotted lines [on Commission Exhibit No. 1302]?"


BALL -- "Now, there is something that looks like steam pipes or water pipes in the corner there?"


BALL -- "Where was that with reference to those pipes--the paper wrapping?"

STUDEBAKER -- "Laying right beside it--right here."

BALL -- "Was it folded over?"

STUDEBAKER -- "It was doubled--it was a piece of paper about this long and it was doubled over."

BALL -- "How long was it, approximately?"

STUDEBAKER -- "I don't know. I picked it up and dusted it, and they took it down there and sent it to Washington and that's the last I have seen of it, and I don't know."

[Note -- Studebaker later did provide a size estimate for the paper bag.]

BALL -- "Did you take a picture of it before you picked it up?"


BALL -- "Does that sack show in any of the pictures you took?"

STUDEBAKER -- "No, it doesn't show in any of the pictures."

BALL -- "Was it near the window?"

STUDEBAKER -- "Yes, sir."

BALL -- "Which way from the window?"

STUDEBAKER -- "It was east of the window."

BALL -- "Over in the corner?"

STUDEBAKER -- "Over in the corner--in the southeast corner of the building, in the far southeast corner, as far as you can get is where it was."

[Later testimony; 7 H 149...]

BALL -- "Now, how big was this paper that you saw? You saw the wrapper--tell me about how big that paper bag was--how long was it?"

STUDEBAKER -- "It was about, I would say, 3-and-a-half to 4 feet long."

[The bag was 38 inches long, which makes Studebaker's estimate a fairly
good one. Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle, which was found on the sixth floor
at 1:22 PM on 11/22/63, measured 34.8 inches when it was disassembled.]


So, when all the dust has settled after examining the official Warren
Commission documents and the police officers' testimony, who should
I now trust?

Should I believe the officials of the DPD and the Dallas Sheriff's Office
who said that the box was IN THE WINDOW when they got to the sixth
floor on November 22, 1963?

And should I believe Robert Studebaker and J.C. Day of the Dallas Police
Department when they said they saw a paper bag on the floor of the
Sniper's Nest?

Or should I believe the persistent rantings of rabid conspiracists who
desperately WANT some kind of conspiracy to exist in the JFK murder
case, despite the total lack of direct support to prop up such
unprovable rantings?

Not a real tough call to make, now is it?

David Von Pein
February 2007
July 2010