>>> "This evidence is almost impossible to impugn since it is made up of primary documents in the writing and typing of FBI and Secret Service agents. Plus the NARA photos. Plus the fact that Hunt actually went to the Archives and arranged for Steve Tilley to give this stuff to him after extensive negotiations. Hunt then brought magnifying glasses and a computer scanner to visually inspect the documents, the bullet, and the photos at very close range and under magnification. Does anyone truly believe that he could not locate Todd's initials under those circumstances?" <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, I do.

ALL of the markings that John Hunt found on Bullet CE399 from the NARA
photos are very faint and quite difficult to see and discern (as
illustrated by the NARA photo below). I can easily envision Todd's
faint mark on that bullet being overlooked.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/CE399.jpg

But the fact is that Elmer Todd HIMSELF saw his own initials on CE399.
He saw them on the bullet.

Naturally, Jim DiEugenio believes that either Todd HIMSELF is a big
fat liar...or Jim believes that top FBI man J. Edgar Hoover is the
liar with respect to the verbiage we find in black-and-white in
Commission Exhibit No. 2011.

I, myself, don't think either man lied concerning this issue. Todd's
initials are there, somewhere, on Bullet CE399.

And, btw, for the fourth or fifth time I'll point out this fact:

http://JFKLancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm

In John Hunt's 2006 article linked above, Hunt specifically tells us
the method by which he attempted to determine whether or not Elmer
Todd's initials are on CE399. Hunt said:

"The question for me became, is Todd's mark on the CE-399
bullet? To answer that question, I put together an illustration using
photographs of CE-399. I was able to track the entire surface of the
bullet using four of NARA's preservation photos."

http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom_files/image003.jpg

Now, via the above verbiage, it's pretty clear (to me anyway) that
Hunt did not use the ACTUAL BULLET ITSELF to perform his "Checking For
Todd's Initials" examination. Instead, Hunt utilized four PHOTOS from
the National Archives to perform that task. (All those photos can be
found in full-sized versions at Mary Ferrell's website, at the link
below.)

http://MaryFerrell.org/wiki/index.php/Photos_-_NARA_Evidence_-_Magic_Bullet

And I see that Jim DiEugenio still has this falsehood in print in Part
7 of his Vincent Bugliosi book review on the CTKA.net website:

"He [John Hunt] photographed the bullet in sequential rotation."

Hunt didn't take those NARA pictures himself. They were taken in 1985.

And BTW, I don't believe for a second that J. Edgar Hoover lied when
he said (via CE2011) that FBI agent Bardwell D. Odum went to Parkland
and showed CE399 to both Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright.

When Odum was asked about the incident in 2001 by Aguilar and
Thompson, Odum's memory had obviously faded to the point where he just
simply could not recall showing the bullet to the two men.

But CE2011 exists, and it always will, as an official document
connected to the assassination of a U.S. President. And within that
document, on Page 412 of WC Volume 24, we find these words:

"On June 12, 1964, Darrell C . Tomlinson...was shown Exhibit C1
[CE399], a rifle slug, by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum, Federal
Bureau of Investigation. Tomlinson stated it appears to be the same
one he found on a hospital carriage at Parkland Hospital on November
22, 1963, but he cannot positively identify the bullet as the one he
found and showed to Mr. O.P. Wright."

"On June 12, 1964, O. P. Wright...advised Special Agent Bardwell
D. Odum that Exhibit C1 [CE399], a rifle slug, shown to him at the
time of the interview, looks like the slug found at Parkland Hospital
on November 22, 1963, which he gave to Richard Johnsen, Special Agent
of the Secret Service. .... He advised he could not positively
identify C1 as being the same bullet which was found as November 22,
1963."

24 H 412:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm

COMMISSION DOCUMENT NO. 1258 [THE SAME AS CE2011]:
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=11653&relPageId=3

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

AN ADDENDUM REGARDING ELMER TODD'S INITIALS AND COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO.
399:

Many (or most) conspiracy theorists think that FBI agent Elmer L.
Todd's initials are not on Bullet CE399.

But, surely the conspiracists don't think J. Edgar Hoover's post-
assassination mindset was something akin to this (do they?):

[Simulated J. Edgar quote on:]

Well, yeah, sure, my FBI boys planted Bullet CE399 into the
official record of the JFK murder investigation, and we got rid of a
lot of other evidence in the case that didn't implicate our patsy
named Lee Harvey Oswald, but even I (J. Edgar) have a line that I
won't cross when it comes to carving a man's initials into that FAKE
BULLET. That type of behavior is just going TOO far, and I won't be a
party to it. A man's initials, after all, are sacred and should never
be planted. Yes, I'll allow several of my FBI agents to tell the
Warren Commission lie after rotten lie about CE399 and a bunch of
other faked evidence connected to JFK's murder -- but even I have some
principles. And putting some letters on a bullet that my agency
PLANTED INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORD IN THE FIRST PLACE is just something
that I won't do. God bless me.

[/Edgar Off.]

So, my question is: why didn't J. Edgar (or somebody on the "Let's
Frame Oswald And Make Sure We Cross Every T So We Won't Get Caught
Framing Him" conspiracy team) engrave Elmer Lee Todd's initials into
CE399?

Plus, let me add this footnote to this CE399/Elmer Todd discussion:

Jim DiEugenio in the past has suggested that FBI Agent Todd DID,
indeed, carve his initials into a bullet. But Jim insists it wasn't
CE399. It was a different bullet (presumably the pointy-nosed missile
that Jim D. thinks was really found by Darrell Tomlinson at Parkland
Hospital). But then this "real" stretcher bullet, per DiEugenio, was
"deep-sixed" by Hoover and his boys at the FBI.

But it seems to me as though Jim has got a bit of a timing problem
with that particular conspiracy theory -- because Elmer Todd
identified his own initials on a bullet (which was, in reality, of
course, Commission Exhibit 399) on June 24, 1964, which was more than
SEVEN MONTHS after the assassination. [See CE2011, below.]

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh24/html/WH_Vol24_0215b.htm

Therefore, if we're to believe Jim D., apparently the FBI retained the
"real" stretcher bullet for over half-a-year AFTER they had inserted
CE399 into the official record to REPLACE the "real" stretcher bullet.
They must have waited until sometime after June 24th to "deep-six"
that bullet which has Elmer Todd's initials on it.

Did Hoover keep the "real" stretcher bullet in his office as a
souvenir for over seven months before "deep-sixing" it? That's just
plain silly.

Or, to provide Jim with an alternative made-up-from-whole-cloth cover-
up theory regarding this matter: Does Jim DiEugenio think that the
"June 24, 1964" date that appears in CE2011 is a lie too?

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com

http://The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 28, 2010, 12:04:22 AM8/28/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=210&p=203841&#entry203841

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "So let me ask you, if [FBI Agent Elmer L.] Todd's marks were on the bullet, would John [Hunt] not have been able to see them and arrow them as easily as he did the others? Right?" <<<

DAVID V.P. SAID:

No, not necessarily. Perhaps Todd's initials are fainter than the
other FBI agents' marks. And maybe Todd marked a different portion of
the bullet. Maybe his mark is not on the nose section. I don't know.
But you don't either.

What we DO know is this:

CE2011 verifies for all time that Elmer L. Todd SAW HIS OWN INITIALS
on Commission Exhibit 399 (or "C1", which is what the FBI called the
bullet in June 1964, via CE2011).

And just because Bardwell Odum said he WOULD NOT HAVE FORGOTTEN
something from THIRTY-SEVEN YEARS EARLIER, doesn't mean diddly.

An older person who might be having memories problems (was he? I don't
know) might think he would recall an incident from 37 years in the
past...but it doesn't mean he really would recall it. Your propping up
Odum's 2001 comment about how he would have absolutely remembered the
incident is rather funny, IMO.

Another silly part of the CTers' beliefs re: Odum, Tomlinson, and
Wright is this:

According to DiEugenio, pretty much everything we find in CE2011
concerning those three guys is a lie. Therefore, I'm wondering why
Hoover and his scheming FBI boys didn't go WHOLE HOG and lie some more
by saying that Tomlinson & Wright COULD positively I.D. CE399?

Hoover only goes PART way with the lie. Why doesn't he make it
CONCLUSIVE by saying in his CE2011 "lie" that the hospital employees
made a positive identification of Bullet CE399/C1?

It seems to me you've got Hoover being a rotten liar---but not ENOUGH
of a liar.

Bottom-Line Facts:

1.) Elmer Todd identified his initials on CE399. (And I'm in the
process now of looking at the good-quality Mary Ferrell NARA color
pictures of CE399, and turning them every which way imaginable to try
and find Todd's mark; I haven't given up trying yet.)

2.) CE399 was fired from MC Rifle #C2766, which was positively ordered
by, paid for, and possessed by Lee Harvey Oswald.

3.) Rifle C2766 was the weapon that was used to murder John Kennedy
and injure John Connally.

4.) James DiEugenio has no PROOF that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation faked or planted ANY evidence connected with the JFK or
J.D. Tippit murder cases.

5.) Jim DiEugenio's "ALL THE EVIDENCE WAS FAKED TO IMPLICATE OSWALD"
imagination has been running on high gear since approximately the year
2007. (Maybe longer; but I use the 2007 date to gauge Jimbo's highest
state of "Everything Was Fake" mentality regarding virtually ALL of
the evidence connected with the case, because it was in 2007 that Jim
became a regular guest on Len Osanic's Anybody But Oswald Radio
Network.)

6.) Lee Harvey Oswald, based on the sum total of evidence in the case,
shot and killed both JFK and J.D. Tippit.

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 28, 2010, 1:03:57 AM8/28/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=210&p=203843&#entry203843

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Another silly part of the CTers' beliefs re: Odum, Tomlinson, and
Wright is this:

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Are you serious Davey? Because that would have made it obvious the FBI committed perjury and fraud! You don't understand that? Talk about silly." <<<

LOL. But Jimbo thinks the FBI didn't have any hesitation committing
the felony of placing a phony bullet (CE399) into the evidence
connected with the murder of a President of the United States, and
then disposing of the "real" stretcher bullet. Which, btw, would have
been a totally superfluous act of "planting/substituting" in the first
place. Why? Because the FBI knew that they had a WHOLE GOB OF OTHER
STUFF that linked Lee Oswald to the assassination. (But, oh yes, Jim
D. thinks ALL of that other stuff is fake too. LOL.)

The FBI, therefore, didn't need CE399 at all. Even without it,
Oswald's guilt is sealed tight, via ALL THE OTHER STUFF that connects
LHO to the two murders he committed in Dallas on 11/22/63. So, why on
Earth would the FBI feel the need to plant CE399 into the works too?

Why not just "deep-six" the pointy-tipped bullet that Jimbo thinks was
really found on the stretcher and leave it at that? Or: just simply
TELL THE TRUTH and reveal to the public that the POINTY bullet found
at Parkland HAD NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH THE JFK CASE--which is, in
fact, what Jim D. MUST believe IS the truth. Because Jimbo thinks that
POINTY bullet was found on Ronnie Fuller's stretcher!

Therefore, per Jim, it's a bullet that could not possibly have been a
part of the "JFK case" at all. Unless some of Jimbo's dopey bullet-
planters decided it was a good idea to start planting POINTY bullets
(i.e., NON-OSWALD bullets) on the WRONG STRETCHER at Parkland
Hospital.

Back to the FBI's attitudes:

They (the Feds) didn't care about possibly being discovered when it
came to placing a PHONY BULLET into the records of the JFK murder
case. Right, Jim? That tiny little hunk of illegal behavior just
rolled off their collective backs, didn't it? Your imagination is
really something.

So, apparently the big, bad FBI only cared about getting caught with
their hands in the cookie jar when it came to SOME of their "cover-up"
activities connected to the JFK assassination (and there were a whole
BUNCH of illegal things that they did in this case too, per JD).
Right, James?

Talk about silly(ier).

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 28, 2010, 3:23:10 AM8/28/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=225&p=203846&#entry203846

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Davey boy, the whole point is that you try not to leave the evidence that such a thing was done with premeditation. This is why Wright was avoided by Specter. Duh. Need more proof? Go ahead and read CE 2011 and look at the words Hoover used in the document as to what Tomlinson and Wright said. They are weasel words like: "appears to be", "but he cannot positively identify the bullet" , "looks like". That is called CYA." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, Jim. That's called TELLING THE TRUTH.

>>> "Who exactly subbed CE 399 can never be known since the WC did not want to challenge Hoover on this. That it was switched is a proven fact." <<<

Jim, only in the fevered world of the conspiracy theorists'
imaginations has such a bullet "switch" been "proven" as a "fact".

>>> "Now, I have been very patient in answering your silly questions." <<<

And I've appreciated your generosity so much, Jimbo. You've just been
wonderful to a lowlife liar like myself. I think I'm gonna puddle up
right here and now. (Excuse me.) [Big hug.]

>>> "Please answer any of the following questions for me: 1. CE 399 begins its magical journey at Parkland Hospital. A bullet rolls out from under a mat and lodges against the side of the gurney. (Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, p. 79) Question: How did it get under the mat Davey?" <<<

I've offered up a possible solution to that "problem" in the past,
Jim.

Imagine this scenario in your mind, James (if you can push aside the
millions of conspiracy-tinged thoughts that are embedded in your
cranium for just a minute or two):

1.) John Connally is placed on a stretcher at the Parkland emergency
entrance (and CE399 is still either inside his left thigh or is
snagged in his pants leg).

2.) While on the stretcher inside the hospital, the bullet falls out
of Connally (or his clothing) and onto the stretcher (with Connally
still on the stretcher, of course).

3.) During the emergency procedures in Trauma Room No. 2 at Parkland,
Connally's body moves to a position on the stretcher so where the
rubber mat that is underneath the large 6-foot-4 Governor of Texas is
inadvertently LIFTED UP slightly on one side of the stretcher,
permitting something to roll under the slightly-lifted-up mat (an
object like, say, a bullet that has just worked its way out of the
Governor's thigh/clothing).

4.) Connally is then lifted off of the stretcher in the operating room
on the second floor. As the large Governor is removed from the
stretcher, the rubber mat then again is free to FALL FLAT against the
metal of the stretcher, thereby trapping the bullet temporarily
underneath the rubber mat.

5.) While being moved from the second-floor operating room to the
first floor, the stretcher is jostled and shoved up against a wall on
the first floor, thereby causing the bullet to pop out from under the
mat.

Your witness, Mr. Mason/DiEugenio.

>>> "2. Even VB admits that the stretcher it originated from is under serious question. In fact, the weight of the evidence says that the gurney it was found on belonged to neither JFK or JBC. (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, pgs. 174-176; Tink Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, pgs. 154-64) It would be a physical impossibility for the bullet to somehow jump from Ron Fuller's stretcher to someone else's. How did it know to jump onto JBC's stretcher Davey?" <<<

You're being silly (again), Mr. Jimbo.

You know full well that Darrell C. Tomlinson told the Warren
Commission more than HALF-A-DOZEN times that he "was not sure" which
of the two stretchers in question he took off of the elevator at
Parkland Memorial Hospital on that fateful Friday afternoon of
November the twenty-second.

But, just ignore Tomlinson's continual "I'M NOT SURE" testimony. It's
better for your silly theories if you do.

>>> "3. When hospital attendant Darrell Tomlinson notices it, the bullet has no blood or tissue on it. (Meagher, p. 173) Yet the WC will say that this bullet went through two men and caused seven wounds. How is that possible Davey?" <<<

That bullet might very well have had some blood and tissue on it when
it was first found. Do you actually think that Darrell Tomlinson was
examining every groove of the bullet for blood and tissue when he
found it on November 22?

Also -- the bullet was being carried around in the pockets of multiple
persons prior to being examined in Washington by Robert A. Frazier of
the FBI.

O.P. Wright had it in his pocket, and I believe I'm correct in saying
that Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen put it in his pocket too.
(Correct me if I'm wrong here.)

Plus, as far as I know, there was never any tests done at all to
determine whether CE399 had any blood, tissue, or fibers on it. None.
So your whole argument here is moot to begin with. The bullet probably
DID have some human material on it. But we'll never know now whether
it did or not.

I'll also offer up this quote from Jimbo's all-time favorite ex-Deputy
D.A.:

"One can only wonder why Commission Exhibit No. 399 did not have
any blood residuum on it. My only guess is that the blood traces that
must have been on it were removed by someone early on...almost as a
matter of course. In all the evidence bullets I handled in court in
murder cases during my prosecutorial career, none had any visible
blood on them. .... Interestingly, [the FBI's Robert] Frazier
testified that with respect to the two main bullet fragments found in
the presidential limousine [CE567 and CE569], "there was a very slight
residue of blood or some other material adhering, but it did not
interfere with the examination. It was wiped off to clean up the
bullet for examination"." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 425 of
"Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)

>>> "4. But yet, it's even worse than that. Why? Because the WC will eventually say that the last resting place of this bullet was in the thigh of JBC. How could 1.) The bullet reverse trajectory and work its way out?" <<<

You're being REALLY silly here, Jim.

For heaven sake, you act like the bullet was lodged a mile deep into
Connally's leg. The bullet, in fact, caused a very small superficial
wound to the left thigh of Governor Connally, with the bullet not even
reaching the femur bone under the skin.

It's not a tremendous feat for a bullet that barely entered JBC's leg
to work its way out of this shallow wound--either in the limousine or
in the emergency room after Connally was wheeled into the hospital.

Why is this the miracle of the ages for you, Jim?

>>> "2.) How could it emerge out of a wound it already made? Most pathologists tell you entry wounds slightly shrink afterwards." <<<

More silliness here. See my last answer for complete details.

>>> "3.) But then how could it have no blood or tissue on it if it traversed backwards?" <<<

See my earlier answer.

>>> "5. Tomlinson picks up the bullet and takes it to security man O. P. Wright. Wright is very familiar with firearms since he was with the sheriff's office previously. Wright gets a good look at the bullet, he notes it as a lead colored, pointed nosed, hunting round. (Thompson, p. 175) How could that be Davey?" <<<

Mr. O.P. Wright was wrong. Simple as that. The bullet he saw on
November 22 was certainly not a "pointed nose" bullet.

And what I want to know is this: IF a "pointy" bullet had really been
found on a stretcher....and IF if was really inside John Connally's
body and caused a lot of bony damage to his right wrist....then WHY
WAS THE BULLET STILL "POINTY" WHEN WRIGHT SAW THE BULLET ON NOVEMBER
22?

Most CTers think it would have been impossible for ANY rifle bullet to
emerge in really good shape after doing the damage to Connally it did
do. And yet a pointy-nosed bullet that (per some CTers) possibly
caused Connally's injuries remained POINTY at the end of this journey
through Connally?

Kind of makes you want to re-think the theory put forth by conspiracy
believers concerning CE399's near-"pristine" state after making that
very same trip through Connally, doesn't it?

>>> "6. At the White House, Rowley turns a bullet over to FBI agent Todd. They sign a receipt. The time of the transfer is 8:50 PM on the 22nd. Yet as John Hunt shows, agent Frazier enters the stretcher bullet into his notes at 7:30! How can that happen Davey?" <<<

Clerical error. Couldn't be more common.

Back at ya:

Why didn't Hoover's non-stop lies cover this crucial timing error,
Jim?

These guys at the FBI can frame Oswald and plant evidence and coerce
witnesses and get rid of other evidence at the drop of a hat (and NOT
GET CAUGHT doing any of it!)....and yet these boobs can't see to it
that a few times on a report of theirs are coordinated and "corrected"
to reflect only ONE time for CE399's arrival at the Washington crime
lab?

The FBI: Brilliant one minute, and total brain-dead morons the next.

Go figure.

>>> "7.. Why did neither Tomlinson nor Wright recognize CE 399 as the bullet they turned over? And why did neither of the SS agents do so either?" <<<

One WHOLE bullet (without very much damage) looks pretty much like any
other.

Next hunk of silliness please....

>>> "8. When Wright composes his affidavit for the WC, he incredibly leaves out his co-discovery of the bullet and his giving it to the Secret Service. (ibid) Even though Johnsen recorded this and it's in the volumes. (Thompson, p. 155) Why would a former law enforcement officer do that?" <<<

You tell me, Jimbo. (And please be sure to include in your explanation
AS MANY FBI LIES as you can. It's always better for your unprovable
tales of FBI misconduct if you do that. Ten-Four?) :)

>>> "9. When it comes time to write the WR, Wright's name is not in it. And there is no evidence Arlen Specter interviewed him. Why did Specter avoid him Davey?" <<<

Probably because the Commission knew they already had Darrell
Tomlinson to tell the story about how the bullet was found at Parkland
Hospital. They obviously didn't think it was necessary to call O.P.
Wright to testify as well.

Nathan Pool, who supposedly was also nearby in the Parkland corridor
when the stretcher bullet was found, didn't appear in front of the
Warren Commission either, Jim. Is his omission from the report part of
the "cover-up" too?

The same thing pretty much happened with autopsy doctor J. Thornton
Boswell too. The only WC testimony elicited from Boswell was to have
him confirm (for the record) that he attended the autopsy and that he
agreed with all of the testimony provided by Dr. Humes.

In retrospect, yes, it would have been nice to have more (or any)
testimony from people like O.P. Wright and Dr. Boswell (particularly
Boswell).

But the Warren Commission obviously could not possibly have dreamed in
their wildest dreams that there would actually be people in the world
who would be second-guessing every single move the WC made during its
nine-month probe into JFK's death.

And those same WC members undoubtedly also couldn't have dreamed that
there would be people like James DiEugenio in the world who be
suggesting in the year 2010, despite all the evidence that proves
Jimbo to be 100% wrong, that Lee Harvey Oswald was COMPLETELY INNOCENT
of murdering EITHER of the two victims LHO killed in 1963.

That type of mindset is reserved for people whose home is Rod
Serling's Twilight Zone.

If only you'd BLUSH occasionally, Jimbo. That might help a little
anyway.

>>> "10. Do you think he avoided him [Wright] because he knew what he would say? As he did with Thompson when he rejected CE 399 as the bullet he gave Johnsen." <<<

No. He was likely not called by the Commission for the reason I gave
above. I cannot KNOW for certain, of course, why Mr. Wright was not
called to testify. But I'm certainly not going to take a trip down
"Everything Was Fake" Avenue with Jim DiEugenio and suggest that the
WC "avoided" O.P. Wright because he wouldn't be able to identify CE399
as the stretcher bullet.

After all, Darrell Tomlinson didn't positively identify it either. And
Tomlinson testified in front of the Commission.

>>> "See, all this other evidence corroborates what [John] Hunt did. If you cannot answer any of these in any credible way--without smoke--I am going to move onto another topic about VB and RH and his broken pledge. Because your counter arguments have been silly and tiresome." <<<

Yeah, conspiracy theorists very often find logic and common sense (and
the REAL EVIDENCE in the JFK case) difficult to fathom. That's because
the real evidence in this case proves beyond all doubt that the CTers'
prized patsy named Oswald was guilty of double-murder.

And to a conspiracy theorist like Jim DiEugenio, those two words --
OSWALD'S GUILTY -- are the dirtiest and most obscene words in the
English language. (Except for perhaps "BUGLIOSI IS RIGHT".)

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 28, 2010, 11:15:37 PM8/28/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=240&p=203925&#entry203925

PAT SPEER SAID:

>>> "CE 399 was not under any mat. It was found on the edge of the mat along a metal rail, after Tomlinson heard a clink sound." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Very good point, Pat. I should have talked about that fact in my other
post re: the stretcher and the mat and the bullet.

You are 100% right about that point--Tomlinson said he heard the
clinking of metal on the stretcher after he pushed it up against the
wall, and he then saw the bullet lying between the raised edge of the
stretcher and the mat (or "pad", as Vincent Bugliosi calls it in his
book, "Reclaiming History"):

"There is barely enough room in front of the elevator doors as
it is, so Tomlinson pushes the gurney back. As it bumps the wall,
Tomlinson hears a "clink" of metal on metal. He walks over and sees a
bullet lying between the pad and the rim of the gurney." -- "RH"; Page
84

Darrell Tomlinson's Warren Commission testimony must be the place
where Jim DiEugenio thinks it has been proven that the bullet was
positively underneath the stretcher mat prior to Tomlinson finding the
bullet on November 22. But when we look at the words Tomlinson used,
any alleged "under the mat" fact that conspiracy theorists wish to
endorse becomes nothing but speculation, via the word "apparently"
here:

"I bumped the wall and a spent cartridge or bullet rolled out
that apparently had been lodged under the edge of the mat." -- Darrell
C. Tomlinson; 1964 WC Testimony

But if, in fact, the bullet had been "lodged under the edge of the
mat", as Tomlinson speculated, then I think my earlier explanation
about how it possibly got under that mat makes perfect sense.
Naturally, though, most conspiracy theorists will strongly disagree.
But, there's nothing new or unique about that, is there? :)

Thank you, Pat. Even though I disagree with you about most things
connected with the JFK assassination, your observations and research
concerning many areas of the case have, IMO, been quite useful, such
as your last post about Tomlinson and the stretcher mat.

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 29, 2010, 12:50:57 AM8/29/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=240&p=203943&#entry203943

JAMES "EVERYTHING WAS FAKE" DiEUGENIO UTTERED:

>>> "The bullet in evidence today [Commission Exhibit No. Three-Niner-Niner] is not the one found by Wright and Tomlinson. How many ways do you want me to prove that?" <<<

DAVID "LHO IS GUILTY" VON PEIN SAID:

You haven't managed to prove it yet, Jim. Not even close.

Let's do another quick "Fact Check":

Fact #1 -- CE399 is a bullet fired from Oswald's rifle. (Which is a
fact, all by itself, that leads toward the high likelihood of CE399
being a genuine bullet connected with the JFK case, since we know that
that exact rifle of Oswald's was unquestionably the rifle that fired
the shots that struck down Kennedy and Connally. And Fact #2 below
proves it.)

Fact #2 -- Oswald's rifle is the weapon that was used to murder JFK
(with CE567 and CE569 PROVING that fact beyond ALL doubt). How do you
think those two badly-damaged bullet fragments managed to get into the
limo on Nov. 22, Jim, if Lee Harvey Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano
rifle wasn't being fired during the assassination? Wait...don't answer
that. I fear the "P" word [planted] is going to be uttered again.

Fact #3 -- The chain of possession for CE399 is perfectly intact, in
that we know that every person in the chain agrees and has said they
received a bullet from the previous person in that chain -- Tomlinson
to Wright to Johnsen to Rowley to Todd to Frazier. That's called an
INTACT CHAIN OF POSSESSION. Not from every single person's INITIALS
being scratched onto the bullet, that's true. But the chain of custody
is still fully intact by way of the people who handled the bullet
SAYING that they received a SINGLE WHOLE BULLET (not two bullets or
three bullets--but ONE bullet) from the previous person in the chain
of possession.

Fact #4 -- Jim DiEugenio cannot prove that Bullet CE399 was
"substituted" for another bullet. He THINKS he has proven it. But he
hasn't even come close to proving it.

Fact #5 -- BOTH the Warren Commission AND the House Select Committee
on Assassinations had no problem with accepting Bullet CE399 as THE
BULLET that went through both President Kennedy and John Connally in
Dealey Plaza.

The #5 fact above is an item that should be drilled into Jim
DiEugenio's head on a daily basis from now till doomsday (although it
still would do no good, because he resides in his own unique little
"Anybody But Oswald" and "All The Evidence Against Oswald Was Fake And
Planted" dream world of fantasy).

But it doesn't matter to DiEugenio that even the HSCA (14 years after
the WC disbanded!) accepted Bullet CE399 as THE SBT BULLET in the John
Kennedy murder case. To Jimbo, that FACT means squat. One can only
wonder why.

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

CE399 ADDENDUM FROM VINCENT BUGLIOSI:

Subject: Re: Bugliosi Letter
Date: 8/22/2009 10:06:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton (And Vincent Bugliosi)
To: David Von Pein

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

August 22, 2009

Dear David,

Please forgive this belated reply to your e-mail to Rosemary on August
8, 2009, as well as the abbreviated nature of this response, but I've
been extremely busy the past two weeks doing, among other things,
perhaps 30-35 radio, TV and print interviews on the 40th anniversary
of the Manson murders, racing across town to Santa Monica to spend
many hours editing the documentary on the Bush book, plus working on
my book of essays.

About the issue in your e-mail, the whole purpose behind the chain of
possession requirement is to insure that the item being offered into
evidence by the prosecution or defense is what they claim it to be. It
is particularly important when there is no other evidence that the
item is what it is purported to be. We don't have that situation here.

In addition to CE 399 being admissible because of the general practice
during trials that I mention on page 442 of the endnotes, there is
other evidence that is extremely compelling that CE 399 (even if,
let's assume, it wasn't found on Connally's stretcher, but on
Kennedy's stretcher or even on the floor) was, in fact, what it is
purported to be--a bullet that passed through Kennedy's and Connally's
bodies.

What is that evidence? Mainly that we know that CE 399 was fired from
Oswald's Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons (3 H
428-429). This alone and all by itself (and certainly in conjunction
with all the other evidence I set forth in "Reclaiming History" such
as the orientation of Connally's body vis-a-vis Kennedy's, the ovoid
configuration of the entrance wound to Connally's back, etc.), is
highly persuasive evidence that CE 399 not only hit Kennedy but went
on to hit and exit Connally's body.

Additionally, see the footnote on page 814 of "Reclaiming History".

The above makes the chain of possession or custody requirement even
less restrictive than I point out, on page 442, it already is.

To the argument that yes, CE 399 was fired from Oswald's Carcano, but
at another time and place, and was planted at Parkland, see pages
814-815 of "Reclaiming History".

The admissibility of CE 399 (along with other items of evidence) was,
indeed, dealt with in London by Judge Lucius Bunton at a pre-trial
evidentiary hearing, and Bunton, a sitting federal judge in Texas at
the time, ruled in my favor that CE 399 (not the actual bullet, of
course, which we did not have in London) was admissible at the London
trial.

I'm sure there is more I could say on this issue if I had the time but
I am still very busy and hope you understand.

David, I can't thank you enough for all the tremendous support you
have given me and my book. You have become very valuable in helping to
make sure that the truth catches up to all the lies and distortions
told about the assassination, and I hope we get to meet some day so I
can thank you in person.

Your friend and colleague,
Vince Bugliosi

P.S. In terms of condensing the 1-and-a-half million words of
"Reclaiming History", there's no way for any rational and objective
person to get around pages 951-969 and 1437-1461 of "Reclaiming
History". If the person agrees with the conclusions set forth on these
pages, as he must if, again, he is a rational and objective person,
then pages 953-954 of the book take over from there and there is no
need for further discussion.

http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/browse_thread/thread/0cb3e452a9b80933

http://groups.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/browse_thread/thread/863ee417ecb1633f

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 29, 2010, 11:38:04 PM8/29/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=285&p=204033&#entry204033

>>> "Questioning physicians as he did, Specter or any competent attorney could offer assumptions and hypotheticals that could ony lead to the conclusion that Kennedy shot himself. He could never get away with that in a real court, i.e., assuming facts that are not in evidence." <<<

Sure, but so what?

I always get a kick out of the argument that is regularly served up by
conspiracy theorists on this "court of law" topic.

But Arlen Specter knew he wasn't "in a real court" when he questioned
the various witnesses in 1964. He was questioning witnesses as part of
a FACT-FINDING BODY FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT. It was not a courtroom.
Therefore, the "rules" of the courtroom do not apply. And Specter and
his colleagues on the Warren Commission, of course, were well aware of
that fact every single time they asked a witness a leading question or
when they asked a witness to assume something that was not "in
evidence".

Again--so what? Specter was merely trying to get at the truth. And he
knew that the SBT was, indeed, the TRUTH when it came to a major part
of the wounding of JFK & JBC.

And to those people who still cling to the notion that Arlen Specter
ALL BY HIMSELF came up with the single-bullet hypothesis, allow me to
share the following quotation:

"From the first moment that I heard that [Arlen] Specter had
come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me
since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it. ....

"Since [the members of the WC staff] all knew that the bullet,
fired from Kennedy's right rear, had passed through soft tissue in
Kennedy's body on a straight line, and that Connally was seated to the
president's left front, the bullet, after emerging from Kennedy's
body, would have had to go on and hit Connally for the simple reason
it had nowhere else to go. How could it be that among many bright
lawyers earnestly focusing their minds on this issue, only Specter saw
it? ....

"When I asked [Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005] if, indeed,
Arlen Specter was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his
exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself,
Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg." ....

"I don't know about you folks, but I'm inclined to take what
Redlich told me to the bank. My sense is that Redlich, who by almost
all accounts worked harder on the case than anyone else, was a team
player only interested in doing his job well. ....

"If I have done a disservice to Specter in what I have written
above, I apologize to him. But I did give him an opportunity to
respond to this issue [via a letter sent to Specter on June 24, 2005],
and he declined." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 302-304 of "Reclaiming
History" (Endnotes)

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

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 29, 2010, 11:55:15 PM8/29/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=285&p=204044&#entry204044

JIM DiEUGENIO GUSHED:

>>> "If you read the whole section here, you will see that Griffin was stunned that Redlich talked to Bugliosi. Because he talks to almost no one. Why? Because Liebeler exposed him to Epstein in Inquest as one of the guys who made the WR even worse than the junior counsels wanted it to be. And because VB ignores this fact, he can get away with this baloney that somehow the Commission was a unified whole on the major issues, when this simply was not true." <<<

DVP SAID:

Bugliosi never said that at all in the quote I provided re the SBT
above. VB never said that the WC was "a unified whole" on even the
SBT. He merely was pointing out (via his 2005 conversation with
Redlich) that the SBT was NOT something that Specter authored all by
himself. That's all.

And you can stop shouting anytime now, Jimbo. We all know that you
think you're God's gift to the JFK assassination debate. But you don't
have to shout. We can all hear you. In fact, every moose up in Canada
can probably hear your constant anti-WC, anti-FBI, anti-SBT, anti-DPD,
anti-VB, anti-DVP, anti-HSCA, and assorted Anybody-But-Oswald
ramblings.

(I like Archie Bunker, don't you? That "moose" line was from Archie.)

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/all-in-family.html

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 30, 2010, 5:01:54 AM8/30/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=315&p=204093&#entry204093

>>> "It's almost as if Humes never admitted to not seeing a wound in the throat, not dissecting the back wound, and burning the first draft of his autopsy report as well as the notes on which it was based. You've just entered the Twilight Zone." <<<

Dr. Humes, et al, had something almost all CTers lack -- common sense.

Humes knew after talking with Dr. Perry on 11/23 that the bullet had
obviously passed clean through JFK's body. Hence, he said so in his
autopsy report of 11/24.

That's called: PUTTING THE PIECES TOGETHER IN A LOGICAL WAY.

The anti-SBT conspiracy goofs are, of course, incapable of putting
together ANYTHING in a logical and cohesive manner. That's why they've
been chasing their tails (and invisible Knoll killers) for the last 47
years.

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 30, 2010, 6:28:14 AM8/30/10

FYI --

To illustrate the warped condition that "conspiracy research" is in:

""Marguerite Oswald" was a paid actress employed by the CIA to
play the part of Harvey's mother.
See Harvey & Lee by Armstrong." -- Jack White; August 28, 2010

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16339&st=105&p=203885&#entry203885

David Von Pein

unread,

Aug 30, 2010, 11:07:31 PM8/30/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16485&st=45&p=204231&#entry204231

JIM "OSWALD NEVER SHOT ANYONE" DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "Davey Boy: Oswald never bought the ammo because he never owned that rifle." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

A conspiracy kook and nutjob like Jim DiEugenio could wake up one
winter morning and see a foot of snow outside his front door (if he
ever moved from Los Angeles to a colder climate, that is)....but he
would then scratch his head and say to himself: "Gee, I wonder how all
that white stuff got on my porch? I didn't see it falling from the
sky."

Hence, DiEugenio would have no choice but to conclude that it didn't
snow at all the previous night.

He's got the same really strange mindset regarding the two weapons
(and the bullets that were placed into them) that Lee Harvey Oswald
ORDERED [CE785 & CE790], PAID FOR [CE789 & CE790], and POSSESSED
[CE637] in 1963.

And, incredibly, Jimbo even utilizes the same oddball reasoning when
it comes to the topic of Oswald having POSSESSION of Revolver V510210
too....even though Oswald was caught red-handed with V510210 IN HIS
HANDS in the Texas Theater on November 22, 1963!

In short -- If it really took all of the things that the silly JFK
conspiracy lunatics say are required to be proven in order to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that someone committed a crime, then no
crime could ever possibly be solved.

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 1, 2010, 3:11:13 AM9/1/10

>>> "Dave, this is perhaps the most embarrassing thread you've ever started. You add words like "kook" into your Ed Forum posts when presented to this newsgroup, so you can make it appear you're a BIG MAN over on the Forum, speaking truth to lunacy." <<<

Yes, Pat Speer, I've added the dreaded K word here.

You see, I don't dare say that word in front of Simkin. He'll delete
it immediately. He already has censored me once, but it wasn't re the
K word, which I promised I would not use there, and I've kept that
promise), it was when I called DiEugenio an "idiot" for calling Jean
Davison a "lousy researcher".

Simkin, within one hour, edited out that comment--and, btw, gave me my
first "warning" about how I wasn't supposed to "abuse" the other
members (although I think many of Lee Farley's derogatory comments
toward me are still in full view of the Edu. Forum population to see).

Here's the mail I got from Simkin:

"David Von Pein,

John Simkin has sent you a new personal conversation entitled
"Warning".

John Simkin said:

You will be placed on moderation if you continue to abuse other
members.

John Simkin"

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 2, 2010, 3:32:56 AM9/2/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16495&st=45&p=204457&#entry204457

JOSIAH THOMPSON SAID:

>>> "The vitriol spewed on Gary Mack and Dave Perry is unjustified. I fail to understand why in historical research it is important to have someone to dump on. The shrillness of the attacks seems to me to reveal some depth of anger I don't understand. As a museum, the 6th Floor Museum does not exist in a vacuum. It is a city institution and has to live in the opinion atmosphere of that city. Given that fact, to expect the Museum to do otherwise is simply a mistake." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

IMO, the above "opinion atmosphere" comment made by Josiah Thompson is
a very odd one.

While I suppose Josiah's comment is LITERALLY true, I don't see why
the Sixth Floor Museum's content and exhibits would necessarily have
to be dictated by "the opinion atmosphere" of Dallas, Texas.

For one thing, a large number of visitors to Gary Mack's Sixth Floor
Museum come from outside the city of Dallas each year. I'm not sure of
what the percentages are, but I would imagine that well over 60% of
the visitors to the Museum each year are from outside of Dallas. And
probably more. It only stands to reason that most of the Museum's
visitors are likely tourists from out of town.

Also: Is Josiah Thompson actually suggesting that the vast majority of
Dallas citizens endorse the "lone assassin" scenario in the JFK case?
I'd beg to differ. I don't know the exact figures on that stat either,
but I'd be willing to bet that Dallas is about the same as most other
U.S. cities -- which means that about 75% of the Dallas population
thinks there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy.

Anyway, I'm pretty certain that Gary Mack must be doing a lot of
things right at the Sixth Floor Museum At Dealey Plaza, and that's
because the conspiracists seem to hate his guts (and his Museum) with
a passion. Therefore, Gary's GOT to be doing something right. :)

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "I think what Tink [Josiah Thompson] is referring to is not the ordinary lunch pail guy and his wife. I think he is referring to the heavy hitters who put the museum together and sit on its board of directors. They could fire Gary if they wanted to. And he does not want to be out on the grass with Groden. He likes getting his ticket punched inside and making that extra money doing those Discovery Channel propaganda pieces." <<<

DVP HEAVED:

~sigh~

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 3, 2010, 8:32:14 AM9/3/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=405&p=204558&#entry204558

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "As [Rodger] Remington noted in [Remington's 2009 book] 'Biting the Elephant', much of RH ["Reclaiming History"] is difficult to decipher as to both footnotes and emphasis. For instance, this long paragraph [on Page 957 of "RH"] has three footnotes and the most important sentence, which I quoted above, is not referenced." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Wrong. That sentence you mentioned on Page 957 of "Reclaiming History"
is most certainly sourced (which is what I assume you mean when you
say "referenced"). Source Note #36 on Page 957 is the note that VB
uses to source everything between Source Note #35 and Source Note #36
(quite obviously). He doesn't need to put a citation in for every
single sentence, since this citation below covers everything between
Source Notes 35 and 36:

"36. WR, p.636; 7 H 302, WCT Harry D. Holmes."

>>> "Further, it is difficult to decipher who is supplying the italics in many cases [in Vince Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History"]." <<<

No, it isn't, Jim. Vince Bugliosi's use of italics is fully explained
by Vince very early in the Introduction chapter of "RH" when Bugliosi
says this on Page xvi:

"Note: Throughout this book emphasis by italics in quotations
has been added by the author unless otherwise indicated." -- Page xvi
of "Reclaiming History"

And in the italicized passage on Page 957 of "RH" that you were
talking about earlier, I don't see how there could be any confusion
whatsoever about WHO it is who is "supplying the italics", because
that particular passage of "RH" is not even a quotation of any sort.
It's merely Bugliosi paraphrasing Harry Holmes' 11/24/63 interview of
Lee Oswald.

Therefore, since Bugliosi isn't directly quoting anyone there, it's
obvious as to WHO is supplying the italics (i.e., emphasis) -- it's
got to be the AUTHOR of the book, Vincent Bugliosi.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/c18defa9685c7fc2

>>> "It becomes clear that the FBI informant [DiEugenio is referring to Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes here] is embroidering his story to jibe with the evolving tale of the infamous Charles Givens. For the whole thing about "You go on down and send the elevator back up..." is there in Holmes' summary. This whole Givens flip-flopping charade was exposed by Sylvia Meagher back in 1971 in the Texas Observer. (8/13/71) On the day of the assassination, the TSBD worker said he had seen Oswald around 11:50 in the so-called domino room on the first floor. Ten days later, on December 2nd, he changed his story for the Secret Service. He now said he saw Oswald upstairs with a clipboard on the sixth floor at around 11:45. As Givens left, Oswald told him to send an elevator back up for him. After that, he never saw Oswald again. Both stories cannot be true. But clearly, Holmes heard about the second story through his FBI grapevine. And he is now trying to create posthumous corroboration by Oswald, which again, no one else heard. Yet Bugliosi uses this obvious concoction as evidence against Oswald." <<<

Charles Givens' account of seeing Oswald on an upper floor of the Book
Depository and Oswald saying that he wanted an elevator to be sent
back up to him is not an "obvious concoction" at all.

If you believe it was a "concoction", Jim, then you're going to have
to call several other TSBD workers liars, too. Because Givens' story
(for the most part) is corroborated by other TSBD employees -- e.g.,
Bonnie Ray Williams, Billy Lovelady, and Danny Arce.

Each one of those TSBD employees testified that they had "raced" the
two freight elevators down from the sixth floor on 11/22/63, and each
one of those employees also testified that they heard Lee Harvey
Oswald yelling down the elevator shaft for an elevator to be sent back
up to him.

Williams -- 3 H 168:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0088b.htm

Lovelady -- 6 H 337:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0174a.htm

Arce -- 6 H 364-365:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0187b.htm

There is a little bit of confusion amongst the Warren Commission
testimony of the above-named witnesses as to exactly which floor Lee
Oswald was on when he hollered to his fellow workers about wanting an
elevator sent back up to him.

Williams said he couldn't tell which floor Oswald was on. Here are
Bonnie Ray's exact words to the Warren Commission:

BONNIE RAY WILLIAMS -- "On the way down I heard Oswald--and I am not
sure whether he was on the fifth or the sixth floor. But on the way
down Oswald hollered "Guys, how about an elevator?" I don't know
whether those are his exact words. But he said something about the
elevator. And Charles said, "Come on, boy," just like that. And he
said, "Close the gate on the elevator and send the elevator back up."
I don't know what happened after that."

GERALD FORD -- "Had the elevator gone down below the floor from which
he yelled?"

BONNIE RAY WILLIAMS -- "Yes, I believe it was. I assume it was the
fifth or the sixth. The reason I could not tell whether it was the
sixth or the fifth is because I was on the opposite elevator, and if
you are not thinking about it it is kind of hard to judge which floor,
if you started moving."

[...]

ALLEN DULLES -- "Did he ask the gate be closed on the elevator?"

BONNIE RAY WILLIAMS -- "I think he asked Charles Givens--I think he
said, "Close the gate on the elevator, or send one of the elevators
back up." I think that is what he said."

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

And Depository employee Danny Arce said the same thing as Williams,
with Arce saying he wasn't sure whether Oswald had yelled down from
the fifth or the sixth floor [see 6 H 365].

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh6/html/WC_Vol6_0188a.htm

There is also the following statement made by Danny Arce on the day of
the assassination itself, which (again) corroborates the testimony of
the other TSBD employees with respect to Oswald being seen on an upper
floor of the Depository (and not the FIRST floor) shortly before 12:00
noon on November 22nd:

"There was another employee that I saw named Lee Oswald. He was
on the first floor of the building when I saw him at 8:00 am. He is
the same man I saw the police bring into the Homicide Bureau about
2:00 pm. I also saw him on the 5th floor as we were leaving for lunch
at 11:50 am." -- Danny G. Arce; 11/22/63 Affidavit

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/arce1.htm

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

It's true that no other employee can corroborate Charles Givens'
account of speaking to Oswald AFTER Givens went back up to the sixth
floor to retrieve his cigarettes following the elevator race down to
the first floor.

But to claim that Postal Inspector Harry Holmes was a part of an
"obvious concoction" concerning Charles Givens' November 22nd
observations is just more speculation and wishful thinking on the part
of conspiracy theorists who have made it their full-time job (it
seems) to try and absolve Lee Harvey Oswald of all guilt in the
assassination of John F. Kennedy.

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 5, 2010, 12:44:36 AM9/5/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=450&p=204764&#entry204764

A CONSPIRACY KOOK NAMED LEE FARLEY SAID:

>>> "I'm 100% convinced that there are saner people than you [the kook means me, DVP] locked away." <<<

DVP SAID:

I guess that must mean that I share a padded cell with Vincent
Bugliosi, Dale Myers, John McAdams, Gerald Posner, Dave Reitzes, Larry
Sturdivan, Jean Davison, Jim Moore, the Warren Commission, the HSCA,
and many other "LNers" who hold the same opinion I hold about Lee
Harvey Oswald's guilt in JFK's murder. Right, Lee?

Boy, it sure is crowded here at the insane asylum.

>>> "Will you please "prove" the speculation in the points I have made?" <<<

Every single one of the points you made is nothing BUT speculation [as
Farley attempts to "connect" the assassination of JFK in Dallas to the
Chicago incident involving Thomas Vallee in early November of 1963].

Let's review your points:

>>> "Point 1. The first connection is that there was a plot to assassinate the president. Pretty basic connection you've missed there." <<<

No. It's not a "pretty basic connection" at all. And that's because
you haven't proven that "Oswald/Dallas" was a "conspiracy" plot at all
(i.e., a plot involving more than just Lee Harvey Oswald).

That's your first big mistake right there. You THINK that a conspiracy
has been PROVEN in the Oswald/Dallas case. But it hasn't. Not even
close, in fact. To this day, there is still not one SOLID piece of
evidence that connects the assassination of JFK to anyone but Lee H.
Oswald.

And that's because Oswald acted on his own on 11/22/63, and every
single piece of physical evidence indicates that "LN" fact, plus every
single thing Oswald did and said (and lied about!) on Nov. 21 and Nov.
22 indicates that "LN" fact as well.

>>> "Point 2. The second connection is it was covered up. The American public didn't hear much about it. Probably wasn't that important eh, Dave?" <<<

The President's life is threatened on a regular basis. And JFK was no
different. There are unquestionably many, many threats made against
various Presidents that the public is never made aware of.

The Chicago threat by Thomas Vallee was a bit different (and certainly
more serious) due to the fact that Vallee was caught with a large
amount of weapons and ammunition in his car and in his apartment on
the very day that JFK was scheduled to visit Chicago (November 2,
1963). This resulted in the President's trip being cancelled, because
the Secret Service and other authorities had no way of knowing whether
Vallee might have had any accomplices.

>>> "Point 3. Thomas Arthur Vallee was stationed at Atsugi. Big CIA recruitment centre from what I hear. Have you heard?" <<<

You're now implying that Thomas Vallee was connected to the "CIA" via
Atsugi, which is more pure speculation, of course.

>>> "Point 4. The plot was designed to patsify TAV [Thomas Arthur Vallee] while the assassination was going to be executed by others unknown. Get it?" <<<

More pure speculation, of course. You have absolutely no PROOF of
anything you've said in Point 4.

And your next hunk of speculation is....

>>> "Point 5. No one knows what happened to the men who were arrested. Do you?" <<<

Hilarious, Lee. Something that "no one knows" about is considered
PROOF of a tie-in between Chicago and Dallas.

You're a speculation-filled howl, Mr. Farley.

>>> "Point 6. Abraham Bolden's life was ruined in the most disgusting manner for attempting to speak out. Sound familiar?" <<<

No. Not really.

Who else had their lives "ruined" by attempting to speak out about
conspiracy regarding the JFK assassination? Are you referring to
people like S.M. Holland?

Or Jean Hill? Was Jean's life "ruined" by her book deal in 1992 and
her association with Oliver Stone?

Or maybe you mean Jim Garrison. Was Jim's life "ruined" after he
prosecuted an innocent man for conspiracy to kill JFK? Hardly.

The life of Garrison's "patsy", Clay Shaw, was certainly ruined,
however. That's for sure. But Garrison was re-elected as New Orleans
District Attorney by the largest margin ever. And Jim then went on to
be elected twice as a judge.

Or maybe you're referring to Lee Bowers, who was killed in a car crash
in August of 1966, AFTER he had already spilled his guts to Mark Lane
ON CAMERA for Lane's film "Rush To Judgment".

So, it's just like I said, Lee -- You've got nothing BUT speculation
on your pathetic list of half-a-dozen items above. And the very first
item on your list pretty much makes all five of the other points
completely moot right off the bat--because you can't even prove the
case for conspiracy in the Dallas/Oswald shooting.

Well, I'll go back to my insane asylum now. I've got a date to play
checkers with Bugliosi through the bars of our adjoining padded cells.

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 6, 2010, 3:51:17 AM9/6/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=465&p=204823&#entry204823

Attempting to resurrect that fraud of a New Orleans prosecutor named
Earling C. Garrison (with respect to the JFK assassination case and
Garrison's bogus prosecution of Clay Shaw) is enough to make anybody
laugh so hard, they are likely to bust wide open.

But Jim DiEugenio seems to enjoy endorsing an obvious fraud (Garrison)
who decided to prosecute his own "patsy" named Clay Shaw on a charge
of conspiracy to murder the President of the United States--despite
the fact that the fraud named Garrison had zero pieces of evidence to
prove Shaw's complicity in the crime he was being charged with.

To show just how much of a fraud Garrison was, when Garrison boldly
announced to the world on February 24, 1967, that he and his staff had
"solved" the JFK case, Garrison's "star" witness, Perry Russo, had not
even come forward to tell his tale of lies to Garrison and his
prosecution team.

Quoting from "Reclaiming History":

"On February 24 [1967]...Garrison...announced that "my staff and
I solved the case weeks ago. I wouldn't say this if I didn't have
evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt. We know the key individuals, the
cities involved, and how it was done . . . There were several
plots . . . The only way they are going to get away from us is to kill
themselves . . . It's a case we will not lose, and anybody that wants
to bet against us is invited to, but they will be disappointed."
Garrison said, "There is no doubt that the entire thing [alleged plot
to kill Kennedy] was planned in New Orleans."

"For good measure, Garrison told the press, "I have no reason to
believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed anybody in Dallas on November
22, 1963.'' Garrison said that "the key to the whole case is through
the looking glass. Black is white. White is black. I don't want to be
cryptic, but that's the way it is."

"Of course, Garrison was just bluffing. In fact, Perry Russo,
Garrison's star witness and the one around whom he virtually built his
entire case, hadn't even been interviewed by Garrison's staff yet.
That took place the following day, February 25, when they spoke to him
for the very first time.

"Not one scrap of evidence has ever emerged that on February 24,
the day Garrison announced that he and his staff had "solved the
case," he had any evidence connecting anyone, in any way, with the
assassination. If there were nothing else at all, this alone, by
definition, would be enough to prove beyond all doubt that Garrison
had no personal credibility with respect to this case.

"No assassination theory, many originating with the Dealey Plaza
Irregulars and bought by Garrison, was too wild or far-out for
Garrison's taste. .... It is said that no other people love fantasy
more than the people of New Orleans, and their elected DA intended to
give them as much as their girths could hold.

"Before he finally settled in on elements of the CIA and anti-
Castro Cubans working for "war-oriented elements of the American power
structure" as being behind the plot to kill Kennedy, the fertile-
minded Orleans Parish DA saw many other different villains behind the
plot and had screwy visions of how it was pulled off.

"In her book about Garrison and the Shaw trial, 'False Witness',
the best book on the case, Patricia Lambert chronicles, with
citations, Garrison's progression of fantastic and bizarre theories,
all of which he shared with the media." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages
1365-1366 of "Reclaiming History"

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

To hear a quick overview of the kind of "fantastic and bizarre
theories" that Vince Bugliosi was referring to in the above book
quote, check out Jim Garrison's January 31, 1968, interview with
Johnny Carson on "The Tonight Show".

At the link provided below, Carson provides the audience with a
rundown of some of the various theories that the Jolly Green Crackpot
named Garrison had placed on the table within just the previous eleven
months prior to his 1/31/68 appearance on Carson's late-night NBC-TV
program.

http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/11/garrison-vs-carson.html

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 6, 2010, 4:49:21 PM9/6/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=480&p=204877&#entry204877

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

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

DVP THEN SAID:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/tsbd-workers-and-elevators.html

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 6, 2010, 5:26:31 PM9/6/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=480&p=204886&#entry204886

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

>>> "He [DVP] is trying to confuse Oswald's real request with [Charles] Givens' imagined request." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's very likely Oswald made TWO requests for an elevator to be sent
back up. One of them was when he shouted down the elevator shaft at
several employees. And the second one was when he encountered Charles
Givens on the sixth floor after Givens went back up to the sixth floor
for his cigarettes.

And I'll repeat this quote again--just for further emphasis:

"It's true that no other employee can corroborate Charles
Givens' account of speaking to Oswald AFTER Givens went back up to the
sixth floor to retrieve his cigarettes following the elevator race

down to the first floor." -- DVP; 9/3/10

Logical Question ---

Why would the Warren Commission (or anyone else) feel that it was
absolutely critical and necessary to have Charlie Givens make up a
false story about seeing Oswald on the sixth floor at about 11:55,
when they (the WC) already knew that other employees had testified to
HEARING OSWALD SHOUT FOR AN ELEVATOR FROM AN UPPER FLOOR (either the
5th or the 6th floor) very shortly before noon on November 22, 1963?

Via the other employees' testimony, the Warren Commission already knew
they could place Oswald on an UPPER FLOOR of the building shortly
before 12:00 Noon.

Why the need to twist Givens' arm by making him pretty much say the
VERY SAME THING that the other employees had said?

And I can only assume, Jim, that you must think it was the Warren
Commission (mainly David Belin, right?) who were the ones responsible
for Charles Givens' cigarette trip up to the sixth floor. Correct?

But, why? Why the need for such a lie? They didn't need it at all
(even if we were to assume, like you do, that the WC wanted to paint
Oswald as the lone assassin, at all costs, from Day 1 of the WC's
existence).

Plus, Charles Givens testified LAST (among the TSBD "elevator"
witnesses).

Bonnie Ray Williams testified on March 24.
Billy Lovelady testified on April 7.
Danny Arce testified on April 7.
Charles Givens testified on April 8.

So the WC already had the testimony of the previous witnesses
(Williams, Lovelady, and Arce) even before Givens was called to
testify.

So, the Warren Commission wanting to put words into Givens' mouth
about going back up to the sixth floor to get his cigarettes is
totally unnecessary. It's not needed at all in order to place Oswald
on (or near) the assassination floor at just about noon on the day of
the murder.

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Sep 6, 2010, 5:32:14 PM9/6/10

Von Pain, you're piling it mighty high. Aren't you ready yet to go into
the fertilizer business?----Old Laz, who can tell by the smell that you
ain't feelin' well.

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Sep 6, 2010, 7:26:24 PM9/6/10

http://EducationForum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16450&st=480&p=204893&#entry204893

RE: CHARLES D. GIVENS:

TSBD worker Charles Givens told the FBI on the day of the
assassination that he had seen Lee Oswald on the first floor reading a
newspaper in the Domino Room at "about 11:50 AM" on 11/22/63. [CD 5;
Page 329]

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=329092

That sighting of Oswald by Givens, however, cannot possibly be
accurate.

How do we know it can't be accurate?

Because THREE OTHER EMPLOYEES who rode down in the elevators with
Givens at almost that exact same time (shortly before 12:00) confirm
beyond all doubt that Lee Oswald was located on an upper floor of the
TSBD, shouting down at them for an elevator to be sent back up to him.

So how in the world could Givens have actually seen LHO on the first
floor reading a paper at 11:50?

Answer -- he couldn't. And Williams, Arce, and Lovelady verify that he
couldn't.

Undoubtedly, the testimony of those other TSBD witnesses who were all
on the elevators and who ALL heard Lee Oswald's voice as LHO was
shouting down at them from an UPPER FLOOR of the building was a very
key and important factor in the Warren Commission's final conclusion
as to which version of Charles Givens' story to believe.

The WC chose not to believe the "11:50 in the Domino Room" sighting of
Oswald by Givens, because it's pretty clear from the elevator
witnesses that Oswald could not possibly have been in the Domino Room
reading a newspaper at that time.

And even if we were to throw Charles Givens' ENTIRE Warren Commission
testimony in the garbage can (which is where CTers feel it belongs
anyway), there's still no question whatsoever as to where Lee Harvey
Oswald was located just shortly before 12:00 Noon on Friday, 11/22/63
-- he was located on an UPPER FLOOR of the Book Depository Building
(not the first or second floor).

And Oswald's rifle (with his prints on it) was located on an upper
floor of that same building on November 22nd, too.

0 new messages