JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 131)

>>> "I would like to correct something that I posted to this forum last July, about Tippit shooting witness Domingo Benavides. I said then that Domingo Benavides' brother Lee Roy Benavides died a homicide victim in 1964. But I have found no evidence that Lee Roy died then, and some evidence that he was still living in Texas in 1996. Anyone who would like to repeat the claim that Domingo Benavides' brother was murdered to coerce Domingo to identify Oswald to the Warren Commission as Tippit's killer is welcome to supply primary evidence (not from conspiracy literature) of the brother's name, and of his place, date and cause of death." <<<

"Lee Roy" isn't the person who died suddenly in 1964. It was Domingo's
brother Edward (Eddy) who died as a result of being shot in early
1964.

Here's a quote regarding Edward Benavides from Vincent Bugliosi's
book:

"The [conspiracy] buffs are so silly that in addition to
President Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit, they even have people like
Abraham Zapruder (heart attack, 1970), J. Edgar Hoover (heart attack,
1972), Lyndon Baines Johnson (heart attack, 1973), and Earl Warren
(heart attack, 1974) on their mysterious-death lists. .... So silly
that when Edward Benavides, who the buffs say resembled his brother,
Warren Commission witness Domingo Benavides, was shot to death in a
Dallas bar in February 1964, they allege that it was a case of
mistaken identity, Domingo probably being "the intended victim," and
list Edward's homicide as "mysterious" and, by implication, unsolved.
Actually, he was shot by a drinking companion, who confessed to the
killing and served twenty months for manslaughter. It should be
recalled that Domingo Benavides, who saw Officer Tippit being
murdered, never identified Oswald as the killer. He only said Oswald
"resembled" the man and refused to make a positive identification
[DVP: until 1967 on CBS-TV, that is]." -- Page 1018 of "Reclaiming
History"

Bugliosi has one source note for the above excerpt regarding Edward
Benavides' death. The source is this one:

"Roberts, Truth about the Assassination, p.96."

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/reclaiming-history.html

aeffects

unread,

Apr 1, 2010, 4:56:21 PM4/1/10

to

On Apr 1, 1:19 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

nothing left.... lmfao!

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 1, 2010, 5:04:09 PM4/1/10

to

>>> "nothing left." <<<

Only every bullet, every gun, every shell, and the lone killer of JFK
and JDT.

That's all.

I guess conspiracy kooks think that HAVING ALL THE EVIDENCE equates to
having "nothing left" to solve the case.

~shrug~

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 1, 2010, 9:05:04 PM4/1/10

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/20ef97351d7f03ef/59d59ea7f42d3bf5?#59d59ea7f42d3bf5

So, Yeuhd, according to your information, Domingo had no brother named
Edward at all, eh?

Interesting.

I know conspiracy theorists are fond of inventing stories out of thin
air, but it's hard for me to believe that "Eddy" didn't exist at all.

Quoting David Welsh in the November 1966 edition of "Ramparts"
magazine:

"Domingo Benevides [sic], a dark, slim auto mechanic, was a
witness to the murder of Officer Tippit who testified that he "really
got a good view" of the slayer. He was not asked to see the police
lineup in which Oswald appeared. Although he later said the killer
resembled newspaper pictures of Oswald, he described the man
differently: "I remember the back of his head seemed like his hairline
sort of went square instead of tapered off...it kind of went down and
squared off and made his head look flat in back." Domingo reports that
he has been repeatedly threatened by police, and advised not to talk
about what he saw.

"In mid-February 1964 his brother Eddy, who resembled him, was
fatally shot in the back of the head in a beer joint on Second Avenue
in Dallas. Police said it was a pistol shot, wrote up a cursory report
and marked the case "unsolved."

"Domingo's father-in-law, J.W. Jackson, was so unimpressed with
the police investigation of Eddy's death that he launched a little
inquiry of his own. Two weeks later Jackson was shot at in his home.
The assailant secreted himself in the carport, fired once into the
house, and when Jackson ran outside, fired one more time, just missing
his head.

"As the gunman clambered into an automobile in a nearby
driveway, Jackson saw a police car coming down the block. The officer
made no attempt to follow the gunman's speeding car; instead, he
stopped at Jackson's home and spent a long time inquiring what had
happened. Later a police lieutenant advised Jackson, "You'd better lay
off of this business. Don't go around asking question [sic]; that's
our job." Jackson and Domingo are both convinced that Eddy's murder
was a case of mistaken identity and that Domingo, the Tippit witness,
was the intended victim."

Source (FWIW):
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbenavides.htm

Bud

unread,

Apr 1, 2010, 10:24:34 PM4/1/10

to

On Apr 1, 9:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

Check out this article, David...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,843014-2,00.html

Bud

unread,

Apr 1, 2010, 10:38:23 PM4/1/10

to

Heres another source, from McAdams site (see death #1)...

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/crs.htm

Funny thing, I`ve had a few kooks (Ben and dw, if I remember
correctly) bring this Benavides` brother stuff up like it was proven
fact. It seems to be just junk that conspiracy kooks repeat and repeat
that has no real substance, or at least the lies outweigh any accurate
information it might contain.

And Spartacus is a worthless source that just parrots
misinformation, run by the guy that runs the Education Forum, Simpkin
(or something like that). There are a half dozen bits of
misinformation on the Richard Carr page, which were pointed out to
him, and which he made no effort to clean up. Wikipedia stopped
linking to Spartacus because of the inaccurate information it
contains.

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 2, 2010, 12:11:11 PM4/2/10

to

>>> "And Spartacus is a worthless source..." <<<

Hence the reason I said this about the Simkin source I cited:

"Source (FWIW): ..."

:)

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 2, 2010, 8:26:47 PM4/2/10

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/20ef97351d7f03ef

http://iw.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/HistArchive?p_theme=ahnpdoc&p_action=doc&p_product=EANX&p_nbid=B56F58TTMTI3MDI1NDAwOC44MjgyMzU6MTo1OjExNzY1&f_docref=image/v2:0F99DDB671832188@EANX-0FF3DDFAC6CCD769-0FF3DDFAFB8211E0-0FF3DDFCA1CE8E86&p_docref=image/v2:0F99DDB671832188@EANX-0FF3DDFAC6CCD769-0FF3DDFAFB8211E0-0FF3DDFCA1CE8E86&p_docnum=-1

Now all we need to do is prove that Edward Benavidez was really the
brother of Domingo Benavides. Has anyone ever confirmed that he was?

According to the "sibling" list provided by Yeuhd earlier in this
thread, Domingo did not have a brother named Edward (or a brother with
an "E" as an initial either, or a brother who would have been 29 years
old in February 1965, as Edward Benavidez was):

1. Lee Roy Benavides (b. 1 July 1933, Falls County, Texas)
2. T.J. Benavidez (sic) (male) (b. 5 March 1944, Dallas County, Texas)
3. Shelby Ann Benavides (b. 11 May 1945, Dallas County, Texas)

You don't suppose the conspiracy kooks like Jim Marrs (et al) have
given Domingo a brother that he never really had, do you? That
wouldn't really surprise me too much if the kooks had done that. But,
as I said in an earlier post, it would surprise me to hear that the
conspiracy theorists have literally CREATED a person out of thin air
who never actually existed at all, which we can now confirm they did
not do in the case of Edward Benavidez/Benavides, thanks to Jean
Davison's fine research--yet again.

Of course, when thinking about this "Mystery Death" silliness a little
more, it becomes quite obvious that even if a conspiracy plot did
exist to kill JFK, the conspirators would have had no reason under the
moon for wanting to knock off Domingo Benavides.

Benavides was a pretty good "LN" type of witness, overall. He didn't
positively I.D. Oswald as Tippit's killer until 1967 on CBS-TV, that's
true; but AFAIK he never ever said that Tippit's killer was positively
NOT Lee Oswald. Domingo said that the killer "resembled the
guy" (Oswald).

So there is no logical reason (or need) for any plotters to want to
rub out Mr. Benavides. It's just silly. The same way it's totally
silly for any conspirators to have wanted to rub out cab driver
William Whaley. For Pete sake, Whaley positively identified Oswald in
a police lineup! And yet Whaley is listed on Jim Marrs' "Mystery
Death" list. It's ridiculous! (Even for Jim Marrs.)

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

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 3, 2010, 1:36:40 PM4/3/10

to

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ngarchive/Benavidez.gif

Thank you, .John, for the Google-friendly version of the above
February 1965 death notice concerning Edward H. Benavidez.

FWIW, here are my thoughts on this (after looking at that death/
funeral notice):

Edward H. Benavidez of Garland, Texas, was certainly the brother of
Tippit murder witness Domingo Benavides, and the above-linked
newspaper clip pretty much confirms that fact. And the confirmation,
IMO, is the fact that the death notice lists Edward Benavidez' father
as "Mr. DOMINGO Benavidez".

And Yeuhd's research on this matter indicates this:

"Their parents were Domingo Benavides (Sr.) and Elvis Clark
(yes, her first name was Elvis)." -- "Yeuhd"; 04/01/2010

Plus, there's the fact that one of Edward's surviving sisters is named
"Shelby", which aligns perfectly with the information that Yeuhd
supplied earlier about Domingo's siblings.

The brothers of Edward don't align themselves perfectly with Yeuhd's
data, however, with the newspaper clipping saying that Edward had a
brother named "Thomas P. Benavidez"; whereas, Yeuhd's data shows a
"T.J. Benavidez". But, perhaps that is merely an error with the middle
initial only that was made in one of those two documents. The "T" and
"Thomas" would certainly line up, however.

And there's no third brother (Lee Roy) listed in the newspaper death
notice. And Yeuhd had earlier mentioned that Domingo definitely had a
brother named Lee Roy, and that Lee Roy was still alive as recently as
1996.

~shrug~

So, there's still some rough edges around this whole "Eddy/Domingo"
thing, but that death notice that appeared in a Dallas paper in
February 1965 has enough "Benavidez" information in it to convince me
that Edward and Domingo Jr. were indeed brothers. (Despite the
different spellings of their last names, which is undoubtedly quite
common for a name such as that.)

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f256cf9917bf49f7

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 3, 2010, 6:24:52 PM4/3/10

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/20ef97351d7f03ef/7d44d8cc17b906df?#7d44d8cc17b906df

>>> "...you confuse newspaper ads with primary documents." <<<

You, Anthony Marsh, think the Benavides(z) family had to PAY for that
death notice in the Dallas Morning News on 2/18/65? I've never heard
of such a thing.

Why in the world do you consider a newspaper death notice to be an
"ad"? That's crazy.

A death announcement like that one is definitely a PRIMARY source,
without doubt, in my view.

In fact, I'd consider an announcement like that one to contain about
as good and solidly FACTUAL information as anything I can think of.

It's certainly much better than anything you'd see second-hand in a
conspiracy book (or an LN book). It amounts to an OFFICIAL notice of a
person's death, with supplemental information contained therein
regarding the dead person's family, etc.

Other than the death certificate itself, I don't see how anything
could be considered more factual (or "primary") than a newspaper's
death notice.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 3, 2010, 8:05:26 PM4/3/10

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/20ef97351d7f03ef/d1c5a206c2b27acc?#d1c5a206c2b27acc

>>> "It [the 2/18/65 death notice of Edward H. Benavidez in the DMN] is not an official document. It is ONLY a paid ad from the funeral home. So, your position is that it is 100% accurate and every family member is named Benavidez with a "z"? Which family member in that ad is spelled with an "s"? None of them. Everyone is spelled with a "z" including Domingo. So this can't be our guy." <<<

Sure it can. The information supplied by the funeral home (which, of
course, obviously would have been information that came directly from
the dead man's family) shows that the dead man's last name was spelled
"Benavidez" (with a Z).

So, quite naturally, the other family members who have the same last
name are going to be spelled the EXACT SAME WAY in that 2/18/65 DMN
death notice (even though it's quite possible that some of those
family members spelled their last name with an S, instead of a Z).

I think it's logical to assume that neither the newspaper nor the
funeral home would have asked the family the following question --- Do
all of the Benavidez family members spell their last names the exact
same way?

Why on Earth would the Dallas Morning News have asked such a question?
And, for that matter, why would the funeral home ask such a thing of
the family either?

But, Tony, when you say "this can't be our guy", you are totally
ignoring the fact that the death notice shows Edward's father to be
named "DOMINGO", and the fact that one of Edward's sisters was named
"SHELBY" -- which perfectly match the names of Domingo Benavides'
father and sister.

Just a coincidence I suppose, huh Tony?

>>> "So when Domingo Benavides testified before the Warren Commission he lied about his name because it was really spelled Benavidez?" <<<

Domingo didn't SPELL OUT his last name, letter-by-letter, when he gave
his Warren Commission testimony. Perhaps everybody has been
misspelling Domingo's last name for 46 years. Maybe he really did
spell it with a Z. Who knows? Did anybody ever ask him? Or has anybody
ever seen a signed document in Domingo's handwriting to confirm how he
spelled his last name? I sure haven't.

Although I will say that it would surprise me if the Warren Commission
misspelled his name. It's quite likely that somebody connected with
the Commission confirmed via Domingo the correct spelling of his name
prior to the printing of the 26 volumes of testimony and exhibits. As
far as I have been able to tell, the Commission did a very good job
when it came to spelling the names of people accurately.

>>> "What death notice? What was uploaded is not a legal document. It is an ad from the funeral home. You can't tell an ad from a primary document? That explains a lot." <<<

LOL.

Here we are treated to another example of Tony Marsh electing to argue
with someone about a subject which couldn't be any clearer -- i.e.,
Edward H. Benavidez was the brother of Tippit murder witness Domingo
Benavides, and Edward was shot and killed in February 1965 (not 1964).

Let me predict what the "new wave" of Benavides arguments will be from
the Jim Marrs-like researchers in the future:

The conspiracy kooks who recognize the rock-solid FACT (thanks to the
Dallas Morning News clippings provided by Jean Davison and John
McAdams this week) that Eddy Benavidez died in 1965 and not 1964 will
now start claiming that Eddy's death is still to be considered
"suspicious", and that Eddy's death was the motivating factor that
prompted Domingo to POSITIVELY identify Lee Oswald as J.D. Tippit's
killer two years later during a 1967 CBS-TV documentary.

After all, Jim Marrs wouldn't want to have to scratch Eddy's name off
of his "Mystery Deaths" list, would he? (I doubt it.)

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/deaths.html

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 4, 2010, 5:51:25 PM4/4/10

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1b86d0991fc2f4a1

>>> "I guess you are trying to quote me [a conspiracy kook named W. Anthony Marsh], but some people would not know that because you refuse to follow standard Usenet practice in quoting messages." <<<

And I never will. I'll always do it my own preferred way, like above.
If you disapprove--tough toenails.

>>> "Show me his [Domingo Jr.'s] birth certificate spell with a "z." Or his work record. Anything from his childhood with a "z." Record of baptism?" <<<

I can't show you anything of his spelled with an "S" either.

So, it's a wash.

And a newspaper death notice is certainly a PRIMARY source to confirm
a person has DIED. To believe it isn't, you've got to be a fool.

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 5, 2010, 2:40:05 AM4/5/10

to

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/20ef97351d7f03ef/3eae5d1cdc0fe035?#3eae5d1cdc0fe035

>>> "The bone of contention is not that he [Edward H. Benavidez] died. Obviously he died." <<<

But why would you (of all people) be willing to jump to that wholly
unwarranted assumption, Mr. W. Anthony Marsh?

According to your own beliefs, you haven't seen anything that remotely
resembles a "primary" document to confirm Edward Benavidez' death. So
how do you know Eddy died at all, since you're unwilling to accept the
2/18/65 Dallas Morning News death notice as "primary" documentation?

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 13, 2010, 7:35:17 AM4/13/10

to

http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2223.0.html

MARTIN DRUMMOND SAID (INCREDIBLY):

>>> "This conversation (thread) is going to be between the few who can accept some obvioius facts. 1. The shot hit him [JFK] in his left back of the head exiting the rt temple. .... Everyone else will be ignored. I'm just simply not willing to waste my time arguing with anyone who can't see from the Zapruder film that [number] 1 is true." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Martin Drummond seems to think the Zapruder Film shows an ENTRY hole
in the LEFT BACK of Kennedy's head.

That silliness is almost as crazy as the kook who recently suggested
to me via e-mail that he could prove that JFK was struck in the head
from the Knoll simply because Bill Newman said that JFK was hit "in
the temple". The implication by the kook being: Newman could see
precisely where the bullet ENTERED as he saw the right-front part of
the President's head explode.

Of course, as anyone with any common sense can easily determine, when
William E. Newman said to Jay Watson of WFAA-TV at about 12:50 PM CST
on Nov. 22 that Kennedy was hit "in the side of the temple", Newman
was obviously referring to the location on President Kennedy's head
where all of the blood was located (which was the right-front-temple
area, of course).

But for CTers to think that Newman could determine the precise ENTRY
point of the bullet is simply ludicrous.

But, then again, most conspiracy theorists exhibit ludicrous behavior
on a daily basis anyway, so I would expect nothing less from them.

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

BONUS VIDEOS:

INTERVIEWS WITH BILL & GAYLE NEWMAN (FROM 1963 AND 2003):

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/02/interviews-with-bill-and-gayle-newman.html

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

David Von Pein

unread,

Apr 16, 2010, 1:23:19 AM4/16/10

to

http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1842.msg39304.html#msg39304

>>> "Now, you know all the issues regarding the autopsy -- I ask again: are you completely satisfied with the autopsy and its findings?" <<<

Yes. I am.

That's not to say the autopsy was perfect. Hardly.

The biggest and most stupid mistake, IMO, made at the autopsy was when
Dr. Humes refused to call Parkland Hospital in Dallas WHILE JFK WAS
STILL IN THE MORGUE. Instead, even though he says he suspected the
trach masked a bullet hole, he waited until 10 AM the next morning to
call Dr. Perry at Parkland. (I guess Humes was worried he would
interrupt Perry's slumber or something by calling late on Friday
night. Just silly.)

But the final autopsy results are positively accurate.

How can we be absolutely sure of this?

Easy.

Because the photographs and X-rays that were taken of President
Kennedy's body at his autopsy "had not been altered in any manner" [at
7 HSCA 41].

7 HSCA 41:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm

And a major reason the HSCA's photographic panel was able to arrive at
that definitive "HAD NOT BEEN ALTERED" conclusion was because the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were authenticated via the use of
"stereo pairing" of the pictures. And all experts agree: it would be
virtually impossible for anyone to fake a series of photographs that
currently corroborate EACH OTHER by way of stereoscopic pairing.

Therefore, even if some autopsy pictures (or X-rays) are, indeed,
missing from the current inventory of photos, the "stereo" pairing of
the pictures we currently DO have prove for all time that any
"missing" photos cannot possibly show something completely DIFFERENT
than the current stereo pairs show. It's simply impossible for that to
happen.

And what do these stereo pairs of autopsy photos tell us?:

Answer: They tell us that President Kennedy was shot TWO times and
only two times, with both shots coming from ABOVE AND BEHIND the
President.

Period.

We, of course, could argue from now until the 100th anniversary of
JFK's death about the validity of the Single-Bullet Theory. I have
presented scads of common-sense views regarding my thoughts on that
controversial subject. In my view, the SBT is a rock-solid, provable
fact. All conspiracy theorists disagree, and likely always will. So be
it.

But I'd like an anti-SBT theorist to answer this logical question for
me:

If the SBT is a total crock of feces, how likely then do you suppose
it would be for BOTH President Kennedy AND Governor Connally to have
been shot with rifle bullets in their UPPER BACKS at just about the
exact same point in time in Dealey Plaza (as they, of course, were),
and then to have NO BULLETS WHATSOEVER show up in their respective
bodies right after this shooting event?

And if we're to believe James Fetzer's line of insanity, there are at
least FOUR bullets that go completely AWOL right after the
assassination (and possibly even FIVE, because Fetzer has postulated
that Connally was hit at least TWICE and perhaps by as many as THREE
bullets), with ALL of these bullets magically vanishing off the Earth
immediately. (And keep in mind that Connally couldn't be whisked away
from the hospital by evil forces for a "covert" autopsy someplace,
because Connally did not die from his wounds. So he stayed in the care
of the doctors at Parkland Hospital.)

Arlen Specter was right, and he utilized a good deal of ordinary
common sense when considering this matter too, when he once said that
the main thing (above all others) that convinced him, in the end, that
the Single-Bullet Theory was true was the LACK OF BULLETS being found
in JFK's body. Hence, the bullet that struck Kennedy in the back
travelled completely through him and then it went on to hit the only
thing it could have possibly hit (given the seating arrangement of the
SS-100-X limousine) -- it hit the upper back of Governor John B.
Connally Jr.

It's so simple it's almost embarrassing to have to point out the
obviousness of this stuff, year after year.

http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

aeffects

unread,

Apr 16, 2010, 3:21:56 AM4/16/10

to

On Apr 15, 10:23 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

no advertising troll!

Gil Jesus

unread,

Apr 16, 2010, 5:58:10 AM4/16/10

to

On Apr 16, 1:23�am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

> In my view, the SBT is a rock-solid, provable fact.

Find evidence that a probe was entered into the back wound and came
out the throat wound, yet ?

mucher1

unread,

Apr 16, 2010, 6:56:45 AM4/16/10

to

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/medical.htm

Key Concept: Probing a wound. Conspiracy books place great emphasis on
the fact that the autopsists were unable to probe the wound in
Kennedy’s back more than a inch or so into the body. They believe that
this proves that the bullet didn’t penetrate more then an inch or so.
Forensic pathologists don’t accept this idea. The following is a quote
from the Forensic Pathology Panel of the House Select Committee on
Assassinations:

(430) The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes,
Finck, and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through
the bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from
their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into
the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis
may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled
reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the
missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to
determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce
false tracks and misinformation.

Ben Holmes

unread,

Apr 16, 2010, 10:07:45 AM4/16/10

to

In article <6fa67fd3-35c0-4759...@k33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Gil Jesus says...

Since transit is a theory created *AFTER* the autopsy, and not based on a
primary examination of the body - the "SBT" has a huge hurdle to overcome.
Without transit, there cannot be any "SBT."

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

mucher1

unread,

Apr 16, 2010, 10:11:53 AM4/16/10

to

On 16 Apr., 16:07, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> In article <6fa67fd3-35c0-4759-9337-00511940e...@k33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,

> Gil Jesus says...
>
> >On Apr 16, 1:23=EF=BF=BDam, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >> In my view, the SBT is a rock-solid, provable fact.
>
> >Find evidence that a probe was entered into the back wound and came
> >out the throat wound, yet ?
>
> Since transit is a theory created *AFTER* the autopsy, and not based on a
> primary examination of the body - the "SBT" has a huge hurdle to overcome.
> Without transit, there cannot be any "SBT."

When was your "lady in yellow pants" theory created?