THOMAS MALLON'S REVIEW OF VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S "RECLAIMING HISTORY"
David Von Pein
"RECLAIMING HISTORY";
APPEARING IN "THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY" (June 2007 Issue);
REVIEW WRITTEN BY:
THOMAS MALLON (Author of "Mrs. Paine's Garage")
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200706/mallon-JFK
===================================
"The most exhaustive book yet written about the Kennedy assassination
should lay the conspiracy theories to rest once and for all-but it
won't."
===================================
"Vincent Bugliosi, the assistant district attorney who put Charles
Manson away and later produced the most merciless book on O.J. Simpson
('Outrage'), has in one way or another been working on 'Reclaiming
History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy' for 21 years,
ever since he acted as the prosecutor in an elaborate mock trial of
Oswald that was filmed in London and included Ruth Paine among its
"witnesses." Bugliosi got a conviction and never really left the case.
The result is a text far larger and heavier than any that Oswald may
have handled in the hours before he pointed his gun out a sixth-floor
window of the book depository. Indeed, 'Reclaiming History', whose
first draft was handwritten on legal pads, is longer than the Warren
Report, William Manchester's 'The Death of a President', and Gerald
Posner's 'Case Closed'-combined.
After putting the book's two sets of footnotes (which run 1,128 pages)
onto a CD-ROM, the publisher, W. W. Norton, managed to get the
principal 1,664 densely typeset pages into a single volume, no doubt
by calling on the same compressive binding skills that allow the
company to produce its massive well-known literary anthologies.
'Reclaiming History' is a magnificent and, in many ways, appalling
achievement, a work that, for all the author's liveliness and
pugnacity, is destined to be more referenced than read. Bugliosi
insists that, in the face of America's widespread and misplaced belief
in the existence of a conspiracy against JFK's life, "overkill in this
book is historically necessary."
This undue elaboration includes, one supposes, the work's primer on
the civil-rights movement (as context for Kennedy's own activity in
that realm); its long history of the Mafia that Jack Ruby was not part
of; nine pages on the Bay of Pigs invasion that did not motivate Fidel
Castro to kill Kennedy; and four paragraphs on the oil-depletion
allowance, whose reduction, unsought by Kennedy, did not drive the
Texas oilman H. L. Hunt to murder the president.
If there was no second gunman, there was, Bugliosi proves, a second
soda machine in the book depository, which undermines Oswald's claim
of having gone, minutes after the assassination, from the first floor
to the second in search of a bottle of pop. (Moreover, his preferred
brand, Dr. Pepper, was in the first-floor machine, not the second.)
Bugliosi also corrects one account claiming that in 1969, it took a
New Orleans jury only 45 minutes to acquit Clay Shaw, the man Jim
Garrison framed for Kennedy's murder. (It took the jury 54 minutes.)
And Bugliosi writes that my own book {"Mrs. Paine's Garage"}, while
correctly assessing a piece of his strategy in the London mock trial,
has him "beaming with delight" over Paine's testimony, whereas in fact
he responded with only "a measured smile."
Bugliosi has a confidence that makes Schwarzenegger, or Popeye, seem
diffident. He finds that "plain incompetence ... from the highest levels
on down, is endemic in our society," and he takes up arms against the
"pure myth" that one cannot prove a negative. "I am never elliptical
and always state the obvious," he declares, not without charm.
He has great hopes for "the stature of this book," which would derive
chiefly from its ability "to turn the percentages around in the
debate," a reversal that would leave 75 percent of Americans believing
Oswald acted on his own and only 19 percent thinking there was a
conspiracy to kill Kennedy. "My only master and my only mistress are
the facts and objectivity," Bugliosi declares, as if once more being
sworn in at the DA's office in Los Angeles.
In at least one way, he's up against both sides, CT and LN,
simultaneously. When Gerald Posner published 'Case Closed' in 1993-two
years after belief in a Kennedy-assassination conspiracy had its
widest and wildest dissemination with the release of Oliver Stone's
'JFK'-the book received a tremendously positive response, at least in
the mainstream media.
It may not have shifted those percentages, but its argument that
Oswald acted alone-of which the author became convinced only midway
through his labors-had a kind of weird freshness, given that the
Warren Report, for most of the 30 years since its appearance, had
attracted fewer defenders than the tax code. So, isn't Bugliosi
writing 'Case Still Closed', however many steroids he may have pumped
into the original orthodoxy?
Not at all, he argues. For starters, one needs a law-enforcement
background, not just Posner's lawyerly one, to make sense of
everything. Posner may have accomplished a few things-such as helping
to knock down the actuarially risible belief that there have been a
hundred or so "mysterious deaths" among people who supposedly knew too
much-but by Bugliosi's lights, Posner's methods are sometimes as
slippery as the CTs'. He accuses his LN predecessor of distortion and
credit-grabbing, especially when it comes to rehabilitating the single-
bullet theory (Bugliosi prefers calling it a "fact").
In a passage that reads like a memo to his own publisher, arguing for
the novelty of what he's doing, Bugliosi writes that his is "the first
anti-conspiracy 'book'," since all Posner's does is take an "anti-
conspiracy 'position'," devoting a mere "8 percent" of its measly 607
pages to knocking down conspiracist notions.
There's no question that Bugliosi succeeds in scorching the CT terrain
with ferocious, even definitive, plausibility. He also, by the time
his admirable 2,792 pages are through, drowns himself in a kind of
ghastly historical irony.
Before he can begin dispatching the CTs' frauds and follies, Bugliosi
must deal with Lee Harvey Oswald himself, who remains a ghost in even
the more fantastic machines of the conspiracists. Across 275 pages of
biography, and another 316 of narrative devoted to the climactic "Four
Days in November," Bugliosi's Oswald, for all his deprivations and
dyslexia, emerges as an intelligent, ill-humored, and remarkably
strong-willed young man, one who lapped up ideology and had delusions
of attaining power but was otherwise lacking in ordinary appetites "or
any of the myriad personal characteristics or eccentricities that are
so very human."
Oswald spent his childhood tagging along on the aggrieved
peregrinations of his mother, Marguerite, who would one day take
offense when her son was denied burial in Arlington National Cemetery.
But Bugliosi's sympathies, which can be surprisingly tender and
thoughtful, extend even to her and to the attempts she made to provide
for her sons in a world she believed was dead set against her.
Marguerite can, in fact, be viewed as the mother not only of Oswald
but of CTs everywhere.
The author gives proper centrality both to Oswald's near-success in
killing the far-right-wing General Edwin Walker in the spring of 1963-
an assault much more carefully planned than Oswald's strike against
Kennedy-and to his humiliating rebuff, that September in Mexico City,
by the Soviet Embassy and the Cuban consulate, when he tried to secure
a visa for travel to Havana. In the weeks before the assassination, he
was a man running out of flamboyant gestures.
Bugliosi says that he doesn't read fiction, but he favors what might
be called a novelist's view of Oswald over any unified prosecutorial
theory of the case and perpetrator.
The same Oswald who played with his children and Paine's after
rewrapping his rifle the night before the assassination would 18 hours
later fire an extra shot into the head of Officer Tippit, who had
already fallen helpless to the pavement; the same Oswald who killed
the leader of the free world could complain a day later about the
denial of his "hygienic rights" (he wanted a shower).
These were the "personal characteristics or eccentricities" that made
him "so very human," and Bugliosi, to his credit, is never rattled or
deterred by their violent juxtaposition.
Bugliosi notes that incompetence is "so very common in life," so it's
not surprising that he finds some "investigative sloppiness" to have
occurred even in an inquiry headed by a chief justice of the United
States. But occasional clumsiness-amid far more exhaustiveness and
skill-does not equal cover-up (the usual CT charge) by the Warren
Commission, whose august members shrank from fighting back when their
report came under attack.
Bugliosi also analyzes Kennedy's much-flawed autopsy and finds that
its "main conclusion" still stands. He even praises the Dallas police
who, but for the matter of allowing Oswald to be killed, succeeded in
swiftly compiling a mass of evidence against him. Captain Will Fritz,
who'd once helped hunt down Bonnie and Clyde and who conducted much of
Oswald's interrogation, emerges as a kind of low-key hero.
Toward the assassination's host of investigators, Bugliosi displays a
forbearance of human frailty and simple mistakes. What he doesn't
abide are lapses in logic, against which he displays a prosecutor's
natural preference for cross-examination over direct.
Once or twice his own logic flags, and he explains away some
exculpatory-seeming fact as part of Oswald's attempt to construct an
alibi; but much more typically, for dozens-no, hundreds-of pages at a
time, he exhilarates the reader with rat-a-tat annihilations of
others' false premises and shaky inferences.
He makes clear, for instance, that Kennedy's Parkland doctors, whose
memories of their work on the president are much loved by many CTs,
are bad witnesses; on November 22, 1963, they were making a futile
attempt to resuscitate the president, not to do ballistic analysis.
(What's more, they were largely young and inexperienced, because most
of their senior colleagues were in Galveston at a medical conference.)
Similarly, and with all due respect, Governor Connally, who never
believed the single-bullet theory, was hardly in a position to be a
careful observer while that bullet was working its way through him.
And to take one more example: On Sunday morning, November 24, Oswald
helped delay his own transfer from the Dallas city lockup to the
county jail by requesting a different shirt, thereby giving Ruby time
to arrive at the police station and kill him-an unwitting consequence,
Bugliosi reasons, "unless Oswald was a party to the conspiracy to
murder himself."
Worse than gaps in reasoning, however, are instances of bad faith,
which make Bugliosi livid. He will toss the bones of compliments to
any number of CTs-Walt Brown has a "good mind," Harold Weisberg is a
"decent rascal," and Penn Jones Jr. was "motivated by patriotism"-but
Lord help those he finds manipulating quotations, telling outright
lies, or depending on portions of the Warren Report when they're
otherwise trashing it.
Oliver Stone, always the ne plus ultra of disingenuousness, is by
Bugliosi's reckoning guilty of a "cultural crime" committed through a
thousand manipulations, among them the use of a smoke machine to
generate a puff of rifle smoke from the Grassy Knoll that 'JFK'
presents as being visible to people in Dealey Plaza.
In the course of all his refutations, Bugliosi frequently writes as if
he were delivering the world's longest jury summation. He asks the
"folks" who are reading to "please get this," or to sit tight and
"wait awhile" for an important point he's making.
He eventually runs out of sarcastic formulations for what he's up
against-the "room temperature" IQs required to believe stuff that's as
crazy as the idea that "alligators can do the polka"-but in the end it
is the weight of Bugliosi's analysis, not his rhetoric, that crushes a
long list of libels and suppositions: the sightings of a "Second
Oswald"; the "acoustic evidence" (from a police Dictabelt) that some
believe recorded four shots instead of the Warren Report's three; the
CT assertion that Kennedy's head immediately moved backward (it
didn't) when he was fatally shot from the front (he wasn't).
These last matters are at least potentially fundamental. And yet, in
order to make this "the first anti-conspiracy 'book'," Bugliosi-who
writes that "any denial of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious
discussion"-spends a vast acreage of print debunking the fringiest and
most lunatic theories, marshaling facts to prove that Kennedy's corpse
wasn't altered ("the conspirators would have needed at least three
separate teams of plastic surgeons waiting in hiding"); that the
Zapruder film wasn't tampered with; that the president wasn't
accidentally shot from behind by a Secret Service agent; and that the
shiny "Badge Man," who in one photograph appears to be perched on the
Grassy Knoll, is probably a Coke bottle. (Not Dr. Pepper?)
All this disputation may add heft, but it's not likely to give
'Reclaiming History' the "stature" that Bugliosi seeks for it. Its
effect, peculiarly, is to magnify much of the nonsense on this subject
that has cluttered the public mind for more than 40 years.
The writing and preservation of history is no less replete with
paradox than history itself. James L. Swanson, author of the recent
book Manhunt, about the search for Lincoln's assassin, nicely argues
that the restored Ford's Theatre is ultimately more a monument to John
Wilkes Booth than to Abraham Lincoln. Similarly, in knocking down the
conspiracists' shantytown of constructs, Bugliosi has had to save the
village in order to destroy it, and his book, if it has the longevity
it deserves, will be a kind of eternal flame running on the very gases
it thought it had capped."
=============
[END REVIEW.]
=============
A very nice review by Mr. Mallon, IMO. The two portions I like the
best are:
1.) The information that Bugliosi reveals about there being a soda
machine (with Dr. Pepper availability) on the FIRST floor of the Book
Depository on the day of the assassination. This is something I had no
knowledge of whatsoever. I had thought that the ONLY soda machine in
the TSBD was on the second floor.
And I have no doubt that Vince has checked his facts regarding this
first-floor soda machine (and the fact that the first-floor machine--
not the one on the 2nd Floor--offered Oswald's preferred drink, Dr.
Pepper).
One of the main reasons I have no qualms about believing this
information is this motto of VB's:
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
VINCENT BUGLIOSI
2.) [Mallon On] -- "But Lord help those he {VB} finds manipulating
quotations, telling outright lies, or depending on portions of the
Warren Report when they're otherwise trashing it. Oliver Stone, always
the ne plus ultra of disingenuousness, is by Bugliosi's reckoning
guilty of a "cultural crime" committed through a thousand
manipulations, among them the use of a smoke machine to generate a
puff of rifle smoke from the Grassy Knoll that JFK presents as being
visible to people in Dealey Plaza." -- [/Mallon Off]
Hooray for Vincent T. Bugliosi here! That's just exactly the type of
Stone-bashing I was hoping for in "Reclaiming History". ....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2fa93b6e293e5e96
I'm looking forward to reading the entire Stone-wrecking chapter,
which should have me smiling from ear to ear for days (or weeks).
Thank you, Mr. Mallon, for an excellent and well-written (and
objective) review of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of
President John F. Kennedy".
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0bcdfcf65f6cb26f
David Von Pein
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200705u/kennedy-assassination
YoHarvey
No wonder the kooks are nervous :-)
lazu...@webtv.net
Cters,mistake their opinion for fact. He says " the single bullet theory
is a fact" Well...the 2 FBI agents at the Autopsy were adamant the SBT
didn't happen-is Bugliosi's opinion better? O'Conner, Custer, Jenkins
never believed it-Audrey Bell doesn'tbelieve it & the Parkland
DoctorsWHO WERE EXCELLENT WITNESSESS-I don't think any of them bought it
either...let's see a review from a non- lone nutter..
RICLAND
> ===================================
>
> "Vincent Bugliosi, the assistant district attorney who put Charles
> Manson away and later produced the most merciless book on O.J. Simpson
> ('Outrage'), has in one way or another been working on 'Reclaiming
> History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy' for 21 years,
> ever since he acted as the prosecutor in an elaborate mock trial of
> Oswald that was filmed in London and included Ruth Paine among its
> "witnesses." Bugliosi got a conviction and never really left the case.
>
>
> [END REVIEW.]
>
> =============
>
> A very nice review by Mr. Mallon, IMO. The two portions I like the
> best are:
>
We're happy you're pleased with this review, David, but assure you
Bugliosi isn't. And that's because we're sure Bugliosi can read between
the lines, something you clearly can't do.
What the author is saying plainly enough is that the book is a massive
failure. In fact, he says precisely what Publishers Weekly said -- it's
a mess.
Get this through your pudding head, David: We're going to have a field
day with the book. It's going to give we CTs comic material we'll be
milking for the next 30 years.
You think we shredded the Warren Report? Wait till you see what we do to
the sequel.
ricland
--
Ricland:
Reclaiming History ...???
The Rebuttal to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com
David Von Pein
Yes. Much, much, much better.
And here's why (in a {lone} nutshell, coming from an autopsy doctor
himself, Boswell):
ARRB QUESTION -- "So would it be fair to say that although Sibert and
O'Neill's statement that the doctors believed that there may have been
an entrance wound in the back and the bullet worked itself out during
the course of treatment, that although that may have been speculation
at one point during the autopsy, that was abandoned by the conclusion
of the autopsy?"
DR. BOSWELL -- "True. That's true."
QUESTION -- "So this would be almost as if the agents were present at
one point, they left the room, and that that was their conclusion
based upon something that had occurred partway through the autopsy?"
BOSWELL -- "Yes. They were reporting this stuff by telephone at the
time we were talking."
>>> "Let's see a review from a non-lone nutter." <<<
Okay. ....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/662810b32524ab39
Happy now?
David Von Pein
That must be why Mallon writes stuff like this, huh?.....
"But much more typically, for dozens-no, hundreds-of pages at a time,
he exhilarates the reader with rat-a-tat annihilations of others'
false premises and shaky inferences. ....
"In the end it is the weight of Bugliosi's analysis, not his rhetoric,
that crushes a long list of libels and suppositions: the sightings of
a "Second Oswald"; the "acoustic evidence" (from a police Dictabelt)
that some believe recorded four shots instead of the Warren Report's
three; the CT assertion that Kennedy's head immediately moved backward
(it didn't) when he was fatally shot from the front (he wasn't). ...
"In knocking down the conspiracists' shantytown of constructs,
Bugliosi has had to save the village in order to destroy it, and his
book, if it has the longevity it deserves, will be a kind of eternal
flame running on the very gases it thought it had capped."
~~~~~
That's called a POSITIVE ENDORSEMENT, tempered with objectivity and
reason.
Mr. Mallon doesn't think the book is perfect...and he says so. But
it's fairly obvious (to everyone except a Mega CT Kook possibly) that
Mallon does not think "RH" is "a mess".
You, Ric, continue to show your "kook" colors (mixed with ample
ignorance re. "all things JFK"). And those colors shine brighter with
each stupid post you pen. Congrats.
>>> "We're going to have a field day with the book. It's going to give we CTs comic material we'll be milking for the next 30 years. You think we shredded the Warren Report? Wait till you see what we do to the sequel." <<<
You couldn't shred already-shredded wheat.
You, my silly CT know-nothing friend, are the very least of an LNer's
worries. And the idea that you really seem to think you ARE a force to
be reckoned with (when placed up against the likes of Vincent T.
Bugliosi) is possibly the biggest laugh of them all.
BTW, it has never once occurred to you that Mr. Bugliosi (and I) might
be RIGHT re. the assassination....has it?
If not, why not?
aeffects
let them enjoy their knee-jerk circle-jerk, they have nothing else...
David Von Pein
Yeah, nothing except every last gun and bullet and fragment and spent
shell in the whole case. Plus a dozen "Oswald Committed At Least One
Murder On 11/22/63" witnesses. Plus, there's also the 95%+ of the
witnesses who heard less than 4 shots.
The CT side has...let's see...Badge Man, Umbrella Man, no bullets, no
fragments, no shells, no guns, no identifiable assassins, and no
witnesses who saw anyone but Oswald shooting anybody with a gun on
November 22nd.
Great case for a multi-gun conspiracy there. If you're a "zany/kook",
that is.
aeffects
> >>> "What the author is saying plainly enough is that the book is a massive failure." <<<
>
> That must be why Mallon writes stuff like this, huh?.....
who is Mallon? Another latter-day historian/author asleep at the
wheel? A dime-a-fucking dozen... We need someone like AJ Weberman to
do a in-depth review
> "But much more typically, for dozens-no, hundreds-of pages at a time,
> he exhilarates the reader with rat-a-tat annihilations of others'
> false premises and shaky inferences. ....
>
> "In the end it is the weight of Bugliosi's analysis, not his rhetoric,
> that crushes a long list of libels and suppositions: the sightings of
> a "Second Oswald"; the "acoustic evidence" (from a police Dictabelt)
> that some believe recorded four shots instead of the Warren Report's
> three; the CT assertion that Kennedy's head immediately moved backward
> (it didn't) when he was fatally shot from the front (he wasn't). ...
>
> "In knocking down the conspiracists' shantytown of constructs,
> Bugliosi has had to save the village in order to destroy it, and his
> book, if it has the longevity it deserves, will be a kind of eternal
> flame running on the very gases it thought it had capped."
what prose... he's talking about daBugliosi? How much was this Mellon
freak paid? Same publisher as daBugliosi?
> ~~~~~
>
> That's called a POSITIVE ENDORSEMENT, tempered with objectivity and
> reason.
>
> Mr. Mallon doesn't think the book is perfect...and he says so. But
> it's fairly obvious (to everyone except a Mega CT Kook possibly) that
> Mallon does not think "RH" is "a mess".
mighty kind of Mr. Mellon, say, did he remove the seeds?
> You, Ric, continue to show your "kook" colors (mixed with ample
> ignorance re. "all things JFK"). And those colors shine brighter with
> each stupid post you pen. Congrats.
>
> >>> "We're going to have a field day with the book. It's going to give we CTs comic material we'll be milking for the next 30 years. You think we shredded the Warren Report? Wait till you see what we do to the sequel." <<<
>
> You couldn't shred already-shredded wheat.
>
> You, my silly CT know-nothing friend, are the very least of an LNer's
> worries. And the idea that you really seem to think you ARE a force to
> be reckoned with (when placed up against the likes of Vincent T.
> Bugliosi) is possibly the biggest laugh of them all.
uphill at the very least, tell you what, I'll spot you ten converts
per every thousand pre-release books sold.
> BTW, it has never once occurred to you that Mr. Bugliosi (and I) might
> be RIGHT re. the assassination....has it?
>
> If not, why not?
tell Mr. Bugliosi David, I have 10 journalistic type questions
concerning the assassination. If he can gird up his loins, get in-
touch with me, answer those questions, I'll give his book a good read
-- till then, just more of the same bullshit, different cover.... you
post a review from the author of Mrs. Paines Garage? You're becoming a
self adoring *farce* David...
Bugliosi's motove for writing this tome is what:
a. going after CT's
b. rewriting the WCR
c. maitinaing the status quo
which of the three or combination thereof
So, lets forget about writing the *truth*, that's bullshit when it
comes to the Lone Nutter's and the JFK case. The last LN lackey was
Posner... We're talking legalese -- conviction: pure and simple .....
Whatcha gonna if the Z-film is fraud?
Mrs Paines Garage...... BWAHAHAHAHAHA..... LMFAO!
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178075270.0...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
aeffects
No snookum's we got the Zapruder film.... that's all we need! You can
have the WCR/daBugliosi/Mallon (read: 6o'clock news fiction/6o'clock
news highlights/6o'clock fantasy sports camp) Whole lot of fiction
happening, David...
David Von Pein
Who's that? Let me guess....a "CTer" possibly?
Or -- maybe you can dig up Garrison and get him to review the book.
>>> "How much was this Mellon [sic] freak paid?" <<<
I guess, then, you must disagree with Ricland's "It's a mess"
assessment of Mr. Mallon's review (seeing as how you're calling Thomas
a "freak" just because he endorses VB's book), huh?
Didn't take long for you to mangle Mallon's name too. Nice job.
>>> "...Mr. Mellon, say, did he remove the seeds?" <<<
It's "Mallon", kook.
>>> "Tell Mr. Bugliosi I have 10 journalistic type questions concerning the assassination." <<<
How many of those Qs begin with.....
"IF THE Z-FILM ISN'T FAKE, WHY IS IT THAT...?"
Kook.
>>> "You post a review from the author of Mrs. Paines [sic] Garage?" <<<
So?
Your point?
>>> "You're becoming a self-adoring *farce* David." <<<
Well, you know what they say.....How can I learn to love others, if I
don't first learn to love myself?
~awaits the hand-job retort that will inevitably follow~
>>> "Bugliosi's motove [sic; yawn] for writing this tome is what: a. going after CT's b. rewriting the WCR c. maitinaing [sic] the status quo." <<<
d. To "reclaim history" from you CT-Kooks.
Gee, I would have thought the TITLE of the publication might have
given that info away.
>>> "So, lets [sic] forget about writing the *truth*..." <<<
Good idea. That's the norm for you kooks anyway.
>>> "The last LN lackey was Posner..." <<<
Bugliosi evidently bashes Posner pretty hard (per Mallon's review).
~awaiting Healy's next say-nothing POS message~
David Von Pein
Beats me. I don't know anybody named "Tippet", Mr. Illiterate.
tomnln
Until now I didn't think you were TOO Stupid to know we were talking about J
D Tippit.
When are you gonna address the Repeated request to address the Walker back
yard photo
being Altered by the authorities 3 times?
Does evry one of these issues FRIGHTEN you????
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178077966.2...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On May 1, 8:07 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "Let them enjoy their knee-jerk circle-jerk, they have nothing else." <<<
>>
>> Yeah, nothing except every last gun and bullet and fragment and spent
>> shell in the whole case. Plus a dozen "Oswald Committed At Least One
>> Murder On 11/22/63" witnesses. Plus, there's also the 95%+ of the
>> witnesses who heard less than 4 shots.
>>
>> The CT side has...let's see...Badge Man, Umbrella Man, no bullets, no
>> fragments, no shells, no guns, no identifiable assassins, and no
>> witnesses who saw anyone but Oswald shooting anybody with a gun on
>> November 22nd.
>>
>> Great case for a multi-gun conspiracy
Yep... it was Vincent Bugliosi who first *proved* that there was a multi-gun
conspiracy. He collected the eyewitness reports...
Of course, that was RFK. I wonder if his new book will tell us about the
*known* conspiracy in the RFK case that *he* proved?
>> there. If you're a "zany/kook",
>> that is.
>
>No snookum's we got the Zapruder film.... that's all we need! You can
>have the WCR/daBugliosi/Mallon (read: 6o'clock news fiction/6o'clock
>news highlights/6o'clock fantasy sports camp) Whole lot of fiction
>happening, David...
It would surprise me not at all if the *real* Zapruder film gets released to
wide viewing someday. Rumors have always abounded about a few who've seen it,
so I don't think that it's been destroyed.
David Von Pein
~belly laugh~ (Yet again.)
Yes, it was the RFK case. (And VB didn't "prove a conspiracy" in that
case at all, despite your assertions he did.)
So...let me ask once again...what does "RFK's" murder have to do with
"JFK's"?
Maybe some day Ben The Kook will tell us.
The next thing I expect to hear out of this kook's mouth is --- VB
argued in favor of a conspiracy in the Manson case....so that must
mean a conspiracy existed in JFK's murder too.
Geez, what a Monster-Kook Ben is. He should be GLAD that VB's book is
finally surfacing....for it'll mean that Ben can go back to
concentrating on martial arts and forget about a JFK conspiracy that
never existed except in his head. He oughta be THANKING Vince B.,
instead of attempting to trash him.
Some gratitude. Go figure kooks.
>>> "It would surprise me not at all if the *real* Zapruder film gets released to wide viewing someday. Rumors have always abounded about a few who've seen it, so I don't think that it's been destroyed." <<<
Holy mackerel....what a kook.
David Von Pein
Was anyone here aware of the existence of a Dr. Pepper soda machine in
the Depository's first-floor lunch ("Domino") room on 11/22/63?
David Von Pein
I'll go ahead and confirm/answer my own above-asked question re. a
first-floor soda machine in the TSBD.
Vince Bugliosi, as usual, is 100% correct. A Dr. Pepper machine was
located on the first floor. A Coke machine was in the 2nd-Floor
lunchroom. So there were definitely TWO soda machines in the TSBD on
11/22/63.
I don't think I've ever heard the common-sense argument made by Vince
Bugliosi being made by anyone else. I certainly didn't think of it.
I.E., Oswald's preferred beverage was available on the first floor;
therefore, why the need to go UPSTAIRS to the 2nd Floor to get a soft
drink there (which is what he told police at one point after his
arrest)?
And the Dr. Pepper machine was positively in working order on 11/22,
too. How do we know? Because Bonnie Ray Williams testified he bought a
Dr. Pepper from the "Dr. Pepper machine" just before he went up to the
sixth floor to eat his lunch. (The empty Dr. Pepper bottle was left on
the 6th Floor by Williams as well.)
I think some of the confusion surrounding the soda-pop machines comes
from the witness testimony given by the TSBD employees. Virtually all
of them testified that they went "up to the second floor" to buy their
soft drinks ("Cokes") on 11/22. Billy Lovelady said that he did
that...and he said he came back down to the first floor after getting
his "Coke".
Wesley Frazier testified in some detail about "soft drinks". But his
testimony, too, is rather murky about there being ANY pop machine on
the FIRST floor at all. In fact, to hear Frazier tell it, the
employees had to go to the SECOND-floor lunchroom to get "different
kinds of soft drinks".
But when searching through the witness testimony, I hit soda-pop
paydirt with the testimony of James Jarman. Jarman's WC testimony
verifies, beyond all doubt, that a "Dr. Pepper machine" was located on
the FIRST FLOOR of the Book Depository on the day of President
Kennedy's assassination. Let's have a look.....
Mr. BALL - You say you wandered around, you mean on the first floor?
Mr. JARMAN - On the first floor.
Mr. BALL - Were you with anybody when you were at the window? Did you
talk to anybody?
Mr. JARMAN - No; I did not.
Mr. BALL - Were you with anybody when you were walking around
finishing your sandwich?
Mr. JARMAN - No; I wasn't, I was trying to get through so I could get
out on the street.
Mr. BALL - Did you see Lee Oswald?
Mr. JARMAN - No; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - After his arrest, he stated to a police officer that he had
had lunch with you. Did you have lunch with him?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - When you finished your sandwich and your bottle of pop,
what did you do?
Mr. JARMAN - I throwed the paper that I had the sandwich in in the box
over close to the telephone and I took the pop bottle and put it in
the case over by the Dr. Pepper machine.
aeffects
research community that being, how many ounces did Oswald's soda
contain.... Now if daBugliosi can't answer that, your fucked! What
nonsense you post!
KUTGW, btw! LMFAO!
aeffects
> >>> "We need someone like AJ Weberman to do a [sic] in-depth review." <<<
>
> Who's that? Let me guess....a "CTer" possibly?
shit you'd prefer the POZ , right? But all this begs the question, why
c an't you find a 'legit' Lone Nutter to write a review of this
monstrous work? Three weeks to release and nothing so far?
Come ON, already!
> Or -- maybe you can dig up Garrison and get him to review the book.
hell if it was possible you'd be on bended knee beggin g Garrison for
a review, good or BAD he's sell 50,000 copies. Bugliosi could finally
move out of Watts, think of it!
> >>> "How much was this Mellon [sic] freak paid?" <<<
>
> I guess, then, you must disagree with Ricland's "It's a mess"
> assessment of Mr. Mallon's review (seeing as how you're calling Thomas
> a "freak" just because he endorses VB's book), huh?
of course its a mess: if a professional reviewing group can't
understand it, there's nothing to buy... I could careless what a
historical fiction writer has to say. I'd give more credence to a un-
tenured Media Relations College instructor review of the book...
Historical Fiction writer, he's a farce.... just like the entire topic
of Bugliosi.... rewriting WCR and reclaiming a history that fraught
with lies --- what a epitaph he'll have...
> Didn't take long for you to mangle Mallon's name too. Nice job.
you noticed I gave your reviewer a little send-off, did you.... :)
> >>> "...Mr. Mellon, say, did he remove the seeds?" <<<
>
> It's "Mallon", kook.
I prefer "Mellon," snookums. Sweet and Juicy!
> >>> "Tell Mr. Bugliosi I have 10 journalistic type questions concerning the assassination." <<<
>
> How many of those Qs begin with.....
>
> "IF THE Z-FILM ISN'T FAKE, WHY IS IT THAT...?"
David, if the Z-film is fake, most JFK assassination related books
since 1967 are in the shitter... its over! Some will be looking for
windows to exit by.... GAME.....SET.....MATCH!
> Kook.
he-he-he, Investigative/Photo Journalism scare you that much, David?
The industry has been at it for a long, long, longtime... we know the
game[s]. We created the game!
> >>> "You post a review from the author of Mrs. Paines [sic] Garage?" <<<
>
> So?
>
> Your point?
Shit Tomlin would carry more *umph* writing the review.... so who the
hell is Mallon? A historical fiction writer? GREAT! Way out of his
league. Hasn't Josiah Thompson, Cyril, GMack, Posner, retired WC
hacks, GERALDO for Chrissakes to review the book? Shit, Thomas Naguchi
L.A.'s corner would gladly write a review, he reviews just about every
book concerning a murder controversy.... Jesus, whose doing the PR for
daBug publisher, YOU?
> >>> "You're becoming a self-adoring *farce* David." <<<
>
> Well, you know what they say.....How can I learn to love others, if I
> don't first learn to love myself?
>
> ~awaits the hand-job retort that will inevitably follow~
what you do while your on the computer is your business, just keep
both hands on the keyboard :)
> >>> "Bugliosi's motove [sic; yawn] for writing this tome is what: a. going after CT's b. rewriting the WCR c. maitinaing [sic] the status quo." <<<
motove --maitinaing, seems fine for me, can't you read? As I say: I
hire 'em writers and I'ah fire 'em...but I ain't one!
> d. To "reclaim history" [sic; yawn] from you CT-Kooks.
>
> Gee, I would have thought the TITLE of the publication might have
> given that info away.
great answer, does pose another question; how can you reclaim
something [a theory] you can't own nor prove? Un-adultrated
bullshit..... So deceiving, you old Lone Nut rattlesnake you...
> >>> "So, lets [sic] forget about writing the *truth*..." <<<
>
> Good idea. That's the norm for you kooks anyway.
nah, the 'truth' is your battle cry -- a ridiculous feint in this
case, actually -- 43 years to late, no one will believe you and for
good reason! The Lone Nutter track record, starting with the SBT .
> >>> "The last LN lackey was Posner..." <<<
>
> Bugliosi evidently bashes Posner pretty hard (per Mallon's review).
of course he does, Posner is out of the fight, his credibility is shot
who needs a historical fiction writer to tell us that...... called
piling on, David Geeeesh!
> ~awaiting Healy's next say-nothing POS message~
admit it champ, your flumoxed! why? We're not impressed, in the
least...
David Von Pein
I'm not saying the "soda pop" thing is DEFINITIVE proof of Oswald's
guilt. It's just one additional small piece of the "mosaic" (per VB's
oft-used parlance) surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt.
Sure, Oswald might have had a craving for a "Coca-Cola" on November
22...even though his drink of preference (per his acquaintances) was
Dr. Pepper.
Buell Wesley Frazier testified to the fact that he had observed Oswald
(in days prior to November 22) purchase drinks out of the "Dr. Pepper"
machine. So we know for a fact, via that Frazier testimony, that
Oswald was certainly aware of the Dr. Pepper machine being on the
first floor. (So CTers certainly can't use some silly theory about LHO
possibly not knowing the machine was even there.)
"I never have seen him {LHO} eat lunch. I have seen him go to the
Doctor Pepper machine by the refrigerator and get a Doctor Pepper." --
Wes Frazier
So, if Oswald were innocent of shooting at JFK on 11/22/63, a common-
sense question that needs to be asked is -- Why does Oswald (per his
alibi given to the DPD after his arrest) choose the EXACT MINUTES THE
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS DRIVING BY THE FRONT DOOR OF THE
BUILDING to go from the first floor to the second floor to purchase a
soft drink from the Coke machine....even though a working soft-drink
machine is right there on the first floor for him to use (and one that
has his apparently-favorite drink available, Dr. Pepper)?
He's not the slightest bit interested in watching the President drive
by the front door of his workplace. Anybody wonder why? And this
disinterest is AFTER he garners information from fellow employees
earlier in the day regarding the President's motorcade. So we know
that Lee, even if innocent of the shooting, KNEW of the President's
impending parade.
Another question I've also wondered about recently is this --- Why
would Oswald buy his soft drink at the time he did (approx. 12:32 PM)?
That is to say, why wouldn't he have ALREADY purchased his beverage
BEFORE he began eating his lunch?
If we're to believe certain CTers (who, in turn, treat Carolyn
Arnold's "I Saw Oswald" account as the Gospel), then Oswald had been
seated in the lunchroom at about 12:15 PM. (And I think that'd be on
the SECOND floor, not the first, which differs with Oswald's own
account given to police.)
So, if LHO is sitting down eating his lunch (on the first or the
second floor, take your pick) at around 12:15, it seems logical he
would have bought his drink well before 12:32. Who eats lunch
dry...then buys a soft drink for dessert?*
* = Yes, I realize that Oswald could have possibly bought a SECOND
drink that day. And since there's no witnesses to verify the number of
beverages Oswald bought on Nov. 22nd, it's a stalemate on this point.
I guess I could add here that Oswald was a super-tightwad, and perhaps
he wouldn't want to spend another whole dime on a second beverage.
(Remember, a whopping 5-cent tip was given by LHO to cab driver Whaley
that same day. Yes, Oz-man was a thrifty SOB.) ~wink~
But the key points re. the "soft drink" business are:
1.) If he's innocent, Oswald waits until a very strange time indeed to
go get a Coke....the precise moments when JFK is passing the
building.
2.) And Oswald, if innocent, bypasses the first-floor Dr. Pepper
machine to go up one flight and buy a Coke.
aeffects
you've been out in the cold way too long, David! It's starting to
show....
David Von Pein
Bullshit. You hang on every word I type. Otherwise I'd be on "ignore",
and you wouldn't bother with flotsam like me.
Hypocrite.
And....
Kook.
Nice combination.
David Von Pein
....Why did the film-fakers decide to leave the rear head snap in the
final "phony" version of the Zapruder Film?
Did the boobs who faked the film WANT people to say just what they
have been saying since March 1975 -- i.e., "LOOK! HE WAS SHOT FROM THE
FRONT!"?
Did the fakers just not notice that violent rear head movement....or
were they just fucking idiots?
And if they figured the film would never be seen by the general
public...why the need to fake a film that'll never be scrutinized by
anybody?
Were they just looking for something to do....or were they just
fucking idiots?
RICLAND
The interviewer is a lone nutter and even he admits the book is flawed.
He's clearly doubtful: "if it has the longevity it deserves."
"If" it has the longevity it deserves?
"If"???
That's not a guy saying the book is sure-fire winner; that's a guy
hedging his bets.
And assuming he's read the book the most compelling rebut he pulls out
is (1)"the sighting of a second Oswald" and (2) "acoustical evidence
from a police Dicatabelt"...???
Huh...?
We put both of those points to bed years ago. The second Oswald sighting
is documented by none less than Hoover. There's a tape of Hoover telling
Johnson, "the man in Mexico City using Oswald's name was not Oswald" or
words to that affect. There's no way of rebutting that.
And the Dictabelt DOES show more than three shots. The confusion about
this after the House Select Committee was thought to have got it wrong
has since been cleared up.
In other words, who the hell did Vinny write the book for? People living
in a cave with no access to the internet?
Honestly, these are the two most compelling rebuts the book makes?
And then there's how Bugliosi loses control. The reviewer is quite clear
about this when he points out how Bugliosi's narrative voice is not
tight, that at one point it's reading like a fictional account of
Oswald's life. Major flaw, that, especially in a book of such length.
That's an author losing his focus, wasting the reader's time. If we want
fiction we'll read Hemingway, not Bugliosi.
Uneven, over-long, rhetoric-filled, not a sure-fire winner.
And you missed all this?
Why am I not surprised?
David Von Pein
and filled with tons of good and valuable information and, in VB's
case, tons of "LHO IS GUILTY" facts?
I guess I'll have to repeat these points made by reviewer Mallon
(again), for the Ric-ster...whose attention span seems to be just this
side of a 2-year-old......
David Von Pein
one). Where have you been, Ric-Kook, in a cave?
The so-called "Second Oswald" was this man....
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LHO25.jpg
....and it was a simple mistake when he was initially IDed as LHO.
Question: If the middle-aged guy in that picture was supposed to
really be "posing" as the 5'9", 150-pound, 23-YEAR-OLD (!!) Lee Harvey
Oswald, were the "plotters" who installed that "Second Oswald" just
blind (i.e., they had no idea what LHO looked like or how old he was
in order to get a reasonable-looking look-alike to pose as Lee)...or
were the plotters just fucking idiots?
Martin Shackelford
each other on the back, and believe that a statement by another Lone Nutter
"validates" their beliefs.
Martin
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178064428....@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> EXCERPTS OF A PRE-RELEASE REVIEW FOR VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S JFK BOOK,
> "RECLAIMING HISTORY";
>
> APPEARING IN "THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY" (June 2007 Issue);
>
> REVIEW WRITTEN BY:
> THOMAS MALLON (Author of "Mrs. Paine's Garage")
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200706/mallon-JFK
>
> ===================================
>
> "The most exhaustive book yet written about the Kennedy assassination
> should lay the conspiracy theories to rest once and for all-but it
> won't."
>
> ===================================
>
> "Vincent Bugliosi, the assistant district attorney who put Charles
> Manson away and later produced the most merciless book on O.J. Simpson
> ('Outrage'), has in one way or another been working on 'Reclaiming
> History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy' for 21 years,
> ever since he acted as the prosecutor in an elaborate mock trial of
> Oswald that was filmed in London and included Ruth Paine among its
> "witnesses." Bugliosi got a conviction and never really left the case.
>
> The result is a text far larger and heavier than any that Oswald may
> have handled in the hours before he pointed his gun out a sixth-floor
> window of the book depository. Indeed, 'Reclaiming History', whose
> first draft was handwritten on legal pads, is longer than the Warren
> Report, William Manchester's 'The Death of a President', and Gerald
> Posner's 'Case Closed'-combined.
>
> After putting the book's two sets of footnotes (which run 1,128 pages)
> onto a CD-ROM, the publisher, W. W. Norton, managed to get the
> principal 1,664 densely typeset pages into a single volume, no doubt
> by calling on the same compressive binding skills that allow the
> company to produce its massive well-known literary anthologies.
>
> 'Reclaiming History' is a magnificent and, in many ways, appalling
> achievement, a work that, for all the author's liveliness and
> pugnacity, is destined to be more referenced than read. Bugliosi
> insists that, in the face of America's widespread and misplaced belief
> in the existence of a conspiracy against JFK's life, "overkill in this
> book is historically necessary."
>
> This undue elaboration includes, one supposes, the work's primer on
> the civil-rights movement (as context for Kennedy's own activity in
> that realm); its long history of the Mafia that Jack Ruby was not part
> of; nine pages on the Bay of Pigs invasion that did not motivate Fidel
> Castro to kill Kennedy; and four paragraphs on the oil-depletion
> allowance, whose reduction, unsought by Kennedy, did not drive the
> Texas oilman H. L. Hunt to murder the president.
>
> If there was no second gunman, there was, Bugliosi proves, a second
> soda machine in the book depository, which undermines Oswald's claim
> of having gone, minutes after the assassination, from the first floor
> to the second in search of a bottle of pop. (Moreover, his preferred
> brand, Dr. Pepper, was in the first-floor machine, not the second.)
>
> Bugliosi also corrects one account claiming that in 1969, it took a
> New Orleans jury only 45 minutes to acquit Clay Shaw, the man Jim
> Garrison framed for Kennedy's murder. (It took the jury 54 minutes.)
> And Bugliosi writes that my own book {"Mrs. Paine's Garage"}, while
> correctly assessing a piece of his strategy in the London mock trial,
> has him "beaming with delight" over Paine's testimony, whereas in fact
> he responded with only "a measured smile."
>
> Bugliosi has a confidence that makes Schwarzenegger, or Popeye, seem
> diffident. He finds that "plain incompetence ... from the highest levels
> on down, is endemic in our society," and he takes up arms against the
> "pure myth" that one cannot prove a negative. "I am never elliptical
> and always state the obvious," he declares, not without charm.
>
> He has great hopes for "the stature of this book," which would derive
> chiefly from its ability "to turn the percentages around in the
> debate," a reversal that would leave 75 percent of Americans believing
> Oswald acted on his own and only 19 percent thinking there was a
> conspiracy to kill Kennedy. "My only master and my only mistress are
> the facts and objectivity," Bugliosi declares, as if once more being
> sworn in at the DA's office in Los Angeles.
>
> In at least one way, he's up against both sides, CT and LN,
> simultaneously. When Gerald Posner published 'Case Closed' in 1993-two
> years after belief in a Kennedy-assassination conspiracy had its
> widest and wildest dissemination with the release of Oliver Stone's
> 'JFK'-the book received a tremendously positive response, at least in
> the mainstream media.
>
> It may not have shifted those percentages, but its argument that
> Oswald acted alone-of which the author became convinced only midway
> through his labors-had a kind of weird freshness, given that the
> Warren Report, for most of the 30 years since its appearance, had
> attracted fewer defenders than the tax code. So, isn't Bugliosi
> writing 'Case Still Closed', however many steroids he may have pumped
> into the original orthodoxy?
>
> Not at all, he argues. For starters, one needs a law-enforcement
> background, not just Posner's lawyerly one, to make sense of
> everything. Posner may have accomplished a few things-such as helping
> to knock down the actuarially risible belief that there have been a
> hundred or so "mysterious deaths" among people who supposedly knew too
> much-but by Bugliosi's lights, Posner's methods are sometimes as
> slippery as the CTs'. He accuses his LN predecessor of distortion and
> credit-grabbing, especially when it comes to rehabilitating the single-
> bullet theory (Bugliosi prefers calling it a "fact").
>
> In a passage that reads like a memo to his own publisher, arguing for
> the novelty of what he's doing, Bugliosi writes that his is "the first
> anti-conspiracy 'book'," since all Posner's does is take an "anti-
> conspiracy 'position'," devoting a mere "8 percent" of its measly 607
> pages to knocking down conspiracist notions.
>
> There's no question that Bugliosi succeeds in scorching the CT terrain
> with ferocious, even definitive, plausibility. He also, by the time
> his admirable 2,792 pages are through, drowns himself in a kind of
> ghastly historical irony.
>
> Before he can begin dispatching the CTs' frauds and follies, Bugliosi
> must deal with Lee Harvey Oswald himself, who remains a ghost in even
> the more fantastic machines of the conspiracists. Across 275 pages of
> biography, and another 316 of narrative devoted to the climactic "Four
> Days in November," Bugliosi's Oswald, for all his deprivations and
> dyslexia, emerges as an intelligent, ill-humored, and remarkably
> strong-willed young man, one who lapped up ideology and had delusions
> of attaining power but was otherwise lacking in ordinary appetites "or
> any of the myriad personal characteristics or eccentricities that are
> so very human."
>
> Oswald spent his childhood tagging along on the aggrieved
> peregrinations of his mother, Marguerite, who would one day take
> offense when her son was denied burial in Arlington National Cemetery.
> But Bugliosi's sympathies, which can be surprisingly tender and
> thoughtful, extend even to her and to the attempts she made to provide
> for her sons in a world she believed was dead set against her.
> Marguerite can, in fact, be viewed as the mother not only of Oswald
> but of CTs everywhere.
>
> The author gives proper centrality both to Oswald's near-success in
> killing the far-right-wing General Edwin Walker in the spring of 1963-
> an assault much more carefully planned than Oswald's strike against
> Kennedy-and to his humiliating rebuff, that September in Mexico City,
> by the Soviet Embassy and the Cuban consulate, when he tried to secure
> a visa for travel to Havana. In the weeks before the assassination, he
> was a man running out of flamboyant gestures.
>
> Bugliosi says that he doesn't read fiction, but he favors what might
> be called a novelist's view of Oswald over any unified prosecutorial
> theory of the case and perpetrator.
>
> The same Oswald who played with his children and Paine's after
> rewrapping his rifle the night before the assassination would 18 hours
> later fire an extra shot into the head of Officer Tippit, who had
> already fallen helpless to the pavement; the same Oswald who killed
> the leader of the free world could complain a day later about the
> denial of his "hygienic rights" (he wanted a shower).
>
> These were the "personal characteristics or eccentricities" that made
> him "so very human," and Bugliosi, to his credit, is never rattled or
> deterred by their violent juxtaposition.
>
> Bugliosi notes that incompetence is "so very common in life," so it's
> not surprising that he finds some "investigative sloppiness" to have
> occurred even in an inquiry headed by a chief justice of the United
> States. But occasional clumsiness-amid far more exhaustiveness and
> skill-does not equal cover-up (the usual CT charge) by the Warren
> Commission, whose august members shrank from fighting back when their
> report came under attack.
>
> Bugliosi also analyzes Kennedy's much-flawed autopsy and finds that
> its "main conclusion" still stands. He even praises the Dallas police
> who, but for the matter of allowing Oswald to be killed, succeeded in
> swiftly compiling a mass of evidence against him. Captain Will Fritz,
> who'd once helped hunt down Bonnie and Clyde and who conducted much of
> Oswald's interrogation, emerges as a kind of low-key hero.
>
> Toward the assassination's host of investigators, Bugliosi displays a
> forbearance of human frailty and simple mistakes. What he doesn't
> abide are lapses in logic, against which he displays a prosecutor's
> natural preference for cross-examination over direct.
>
> Once or twice his own logic flags, and he explains away some
> exculpatory-seeming fact as part of Oswald's attempt to construct an
> alibi; but much more typically, for dozens-no, hundreds-of pages at a
> time, he exhilarates the reader with rat-a-tat annihilations of
> others' false premises and shaky inferences.
>
> He makes clear, for instance, that Kennedy's Parkland doctors, whose
> memories of their work on the president are much loved by many CTs,
> are bad witnesses; on November 22, 1963, they were making a futile
> attempt to resuscitate the president, not to do ballistic analysis.
> (What's more, they were largely young and inexperienced, because most
> of their senior colleagues were in Galveston at a medical conference.)
>
> Similarly, and with all due respect, Governor Connally, who never
> believed the single-bullet theory, was hardly in a position to be a
> careful observer while that bullet was working its way through him.
>
> And to take one more example: On Sunday morning, November 24, Oswald
> helped delay his own transfer from the Dallas city lockup to the
> county jail by requesting a different shirt, thereby giving Ruby time
> to arrive at the police station and kill him-an unwitting consequence,
> Bugliosi reasons, "unless Oswald was a party to the conspiracy to
> murder himself."
>
> Worse than gaps in reasoning, however, are instances of bad faith,
> which make Bugliosi livid. He will toss the bones of compliments to
> any number of CTs-Walt Brown has a "good mind," Harold Weisberg is a
> "decent rascal," and Penn Jones Jr. was "motivated by patriotism"-but
> Lord help those he finds manipulating quotations, telling outright
> lies, or depending on portions of the Warren Report when they're
> otherwise trashing it.
>
> Oliver Stone, always the ne plus ultra of disingenuousness, is by
> Bugliosi's reckoning guilty of a "cultural crime" committed through a
> thousand manipulations, among them the use of a smoke machine to
> generate a puff of rifle smoke from the Grassy Knoll that 'JFK'
> presents as being visible to people in Dealey Plaza.
>
> In the course of all his refutations, Bugliosi frequently writes as if
> he were delivering the world's longest jury summation. He asks the
> "folks" who are reading to "please get this," or to sit tight and
> "wait awhile" for an important point he's making.
>
> He eventually runs out of sarcastic formulations for what he's up
> against-the "room temperature" IQs required to believe stuff that's as
> crazy as the idea that "alligators can do the polka"-but in the end it
> is the weight of Bugliosi's analysis, not his rhetoric, that crushes a
> long list of libels and suppositions: the sightings of a "Second
> Oswald"; the "acoustic evidence" (from a police Dictabelt) that some
> believe recorded four shots instead of the Warren Report's three; the
> CT assertion that Kennedy's head immediately moved backward (it
> didn't) when he was fatally shot from the front (he wasn't).
>
> These last matters are at least potentially fundamental. And yet, in
> order to make this "the first anti-conspiracy 'book'," Bugliosi-who
> writes that "any denial of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious
> discussion"-spends a vast acreage of print debunking the fringiest and
> most lunatic theories, marshaling facts to prove that Kennedy's corpse
> wasn't altered ("the conspirators would have needed at least three
> separate teams of plastic surgeons waiting in hiding"); that the
> Zapruder film wasn't tampered with; that the president wasn't
> accidentally shot from behind by a Secret Service agent; and that the
> shiny "Badge Man," who in one photograph appears to be perched on the
> Grassy Knoll, is probably a Coke bottle. (Not Dr. Pepper?)
>
> All this disputation may add heft, but it's not likely to give
> 'Reclaiming History' the "stature" that Bugliosi seeks for it. Its
> effect, peculiarly, is to magnify much of the nonsense on this subject
> that has cluttered the public mind for more than 40 years.
>
> The writing and preservation of history is no less replete with
> paradox than history itself. James L. Swanson, author of the recent
> book Manhunt, about the search for Lincoln's assassin, nicely argues
> that the restored Ford's Theatre is ultimately more a monument to John
> Wilkes Booth than to Abraham Lincoln. Similarly, in knocking down the
> conspiracists' shantytown of constructs, Bugliosi has had to save the
> village in order to destroy it, and his book, if it has the longevity
> it deserves, will be a kind of eternal flame running on the very gases
> it thought it had capped."
>
> =============
>
> [END REVIEW.]
>
> =============
>
> A very nice review by Mr. Mallon, IMO. The two portions I like the
> best are:
>
> 1.) The information that Bugliosi reveals about there being a soda
> machine (with Dr. Pepper availability) on the FIRST floor of the Book
> Depository on the day of the assassination. This is something I had no
> knowledge of whatsoever. I had thought that the ONLY soda machine in
> the TSBD was on the second floor.
>
> And I have no doubt that Vince has checked his facts regarding this
> first-floor soda machine (and the fact that the first-floor machine--
> not the one on the 2nd Floor--offered Oswald's preferred drink, Dr.
> Pepper).
>
> One of the main reasons I have no qualms about believing this
> information is this motto of VB's:
>
> "If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
> charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
> invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." --
> VINCENT BUGLIOSI
>
> 2.) [Mallon On] -- "But Lord help those he {VB} finds manipulating
> quotations, telling outright lies, or depending on portions of the
> Warren Report when they're otherwise trashing it. Oliver Stone, always
> the ne plus ultra of disingenuousness, is by Bugliosi's reckoning
> guilty of a "cultural crime" committed through a thousand
> manipulations, among them the use of a smoke machine to generate a
> puff of rifle smoke from the Grassy Knoll that JFK presents as being
> visible to people in Dealey Plaza." -- [/Mallon Off]
>
> Hooray for Vincent T. Bugliosi here! That's just exactly the type of
> Stone-bashing I was hoping for in "Reclaiming History". ....
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2fa93b6e293e5e96
>
> I'm looking forward to reading the entire Stone-wrecking chapter,
> which should have me smiling from ear to ear for days (or weeks).
>
> Thank you, Mr. Mallon, for an excellent and well-written (and
> objective) review of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of
> President John F. Kennedy".
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0bcdfcf65f6cb26f
>
Martin Shackelford
the Single Bullet Theory.
John Connally, Nellie Connally, and other witnesses didn't find it credible,
nor did the Dallas doctors.
Martin
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:6434-4637...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...
Martin Shackelford
pans with rare exceptions.
I've been getting bored waiting for Bugliosi's book to come out already.
He's the Lone Nut version of Lifton--plenty of promises, and no book. At
least Bugliosi's is finally coming out, apparently.
Martin
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178070623.8...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> No wonder the kooks are nervous :-)
>
Martin Shackelford
over-confidence, and stuffing the book with less-than-relevant padding of
various kinds. Bugliosi, it sounds like, will also be subject to severe
roasting for his dismissal of the Parkland doctors' accounts on the grounds
that they were ALL "young and inexperienced." That won't wash. Like Posner,
whom he apparently denigrates, Bugliosi may have written yet another
"prosecutor's brief." I would prefer the solid, measured work of a
well-informed historian (not the sort who have blindly accepted Posner as
"the final answer" without knowing the evidence).
Mallon notes that Bugliosi makes some logic errors by narrowing his focus
too much.
As for David's comments--he (and Bugliosi--and Mallon) seem to have
overlooked the possiblity that the first floor soda machine may have been
out of whatever it was Oswald had a taste for that day--and Howard Roffman
clearly established that Oswald entered the second-floor lunchroom from the
office area, not from the stairway. There is much other evidence placing
Oswald on the lower floors. The trio also seems to assume that Oswald ALWAYS
drank Dr. Pepper.
One can sense David's enthusiasm for anything which attacks Oliver Stone.
His objectivity is unmistakable.
Martin
"RICLAND" <black...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:5tOdnSdV4ubQb6rb...@comcast.com...
> David Von Pein wrote:
>
>> ===================================
>>
>> "Vincent Bugliosi, the assistant district attorney who put Charles
>> Manson away and later produced the most merciless book on O.J. Simpson
>> ('Outrage'), has in one way or another been working on 'Reclaiming
>> History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy' for 21 years,
>> ever since he acted as the prosecutor in an elaborate mock trial of
>> Oswald that was filmed in London and included Ruth Paine among its
>> "witnesses." Bugliosi got a conviction and never really left the case.
>>
>> [END REVIEW.]
>>
>> =============
>>
>> A very nice review by Mr. Mallon, IMO. The two portions I like the
>> best are:
>>
>
>
> We're happy you're pleased with this review, David, but assure you
> Bugliosi isn't. And that's because we're sure Bugliosi can read between
> the lines, something you clearly can't do.
>
> What the author is saying plainly enough is that the book is a massive
> failure. In fact, he says precisely what Publishers Weekly said -- it's a
> mess.
>
> Get this through your pudding head, David: We're going to have a field day
> with the book. It's going to give we CTs comic material we'll be milking
> for the next 30 years.
>
> You think we shredded the Warren Report? Wait till you see what we do to
> the sequel.
>
> ricland
David Von Pein
Yes, that's a possibility. I cannot deny that. And I even mentioned
previously that Oswald might have had a craving for a "Coca-Cola" that
day, instead of something else.
But, no matter the flavor, we're still left with Oswald (per his own
account) wanting to go to the 2nd Floor for a drink at the EXACT
MOMENT the President is passing by the front door.
IMO....that's just kinda odd right there. YMMV.
>>> "One can sense David's enthusiasm for anything which attacks Oliver Stone. His objectivity is unmistakable." <<<
LOL. Stone's nonsensical film deserves no mercy...from VB or from any
LNer with any common sense.
David Von Pein
Vince Bugliosi's JFK book, go to the following two "Black Op Radio"
links:
http://www.blackopradio.com/black319a.ram
http://www.blackopradio.com/black319b.ram
Interestingly, CTer Pat Valentino reads off the proposed Chapter List
for VB's book, which evidently he got from my posts here (although Pat
says he got the list from David Lifton). But what's odd is that he
even mentions the precise chapter numbers, verbatim from my tentative
list below (which are numbers that do not appear on the Library Of
Congress site where I garnered that list...and is a listing on that
site that still assumed the book was a 2-volume set of publications;
so, maybe Mr. Lifton checks out this asylum from time to time;
~shrugs~).....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/79aad61f970de446
Anyway, the above two kook-filled radio installments are hard to make
it through without doing one of two things -- vomiting or just falling
asleep. But I was interested in the first installment because of that
Chapter List that Pat read off.
The Black Op host declares VB's book "a piece of shit" (sight unseen
of course). Nice, huh?
These kooks sound like total morons (in general) when it comes to the
JFK assassination case. It's quite amusing at times. Incredibly, as of
6 days ago, Fetzer had no idea that Bugliosi's book was even coming
out.
RICLAND
As I wrote, I presumed the "Second Oswald" and "acoustic evidence" were
cited by the reviewer because they are they best examples of Bugliosi's
wizardry to be found in the book. I hope for your sake they're not, for
if they are, it's going to be tough sailing for you around here for the
next couple of years, and this is to say that if Bugliosi doesn't
present a ton of new evidence, his so-called brilliant career is dead in
the water too.
I mean, let's stop playing games, David. Do you really think there's
going to be anything in the book that hasn't already been discussed
here? There isn't, and if he tries one of his lawyer tricks like getting
Seth Kantor on the stand and asking, "Well, Mr. Kantor, you claim you
saw Jack Ruby at Parkland Hospital. Now can you tell the court what
color socks was he wearing?" that ain't going to fly, either; at least
not on my watch.
Bottom line, Bugliosi is a Three-Card Monte man, not a serious
researcher. And the reviewer was clearly hinting at the flaws the book
has, but you've got Bugliosi-on-the-brain so bad, you can't see it.
In other words, what the reviewer was saying can be summed-up in three
words:
"No slam dunk."
RICLAND
Calm down.
Here's the scoop on the Mexico City Oswald. The Dictabelt thing is not
your favor either as someone will show shortly.
ricland
FBI Director Hoover informed LBJ by phone that there was something wrong
with the tape: "We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man
who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald's name," Hoover told LBJ,
continuing: "That picture, and the tape, do not correspond to this man's
voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a
second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there."
tomnln
Instead of playing your Stupid Games of He Said, She Said;
WHY don't you address evidence/testimony?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
OR, try this one>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
You have been DODGING them for Years.
Please Hurry, I have DOZENS More.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178102930.6...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
>>> "I have never seen a Dr. Pepper machine in the TSBD." <<<
DVP NOW SAYS:
And I'm actually rather embarrassed that I, myself, couldn't figure
out something so EASY to figure out via the witness testimony of James
Jarman.
Jarman's testimony is crystal-clear regarding what floor the "Dr.
Pepper" machine (not "Coke") was on -- it was the FIRST FLOOR. (Unless
we want to believe the silly notion that Jarman ate his sandwich and
drank his soda pop on the FIRST floor (while "walking around" on that
floor)...then he went upstairs to the second floor to toss away his
trash and place the empty bottle in a case next to the soft-drink
machine that Jarman refers to specifically as a "Dr. Pepper machine".
That scenario, of course, is just goofy. Jarman was on the first floor
the whole time. Reviewing that testimony again proves it......
aeffects
sorry, Gloria can't, I don't use a newsreader ----- and I'm hardly
hanging on anyones word, unlike quite a few Neuter's I know
hereabouts. You do INDEED float nicely, though. C'mon only 20 more
years of this, can you handle it champ?
David Von Pein
You might want to pass along the following info (re. the soft-drink
machines) to your friends at The Education Forum.
And I'll readily admit I hadn't figured this out myself at all (even
though ANYONE sifting through the witness testimony could have easily
done so). It's just the first of what I'm certain will be many "WHY
DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT?" moments that will be abundant within Mr.
Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" (and which I'll be pointing out in my
888-page review in June/July 2007). ~wink~
A forum poster ("J. Raymond") at The Education (JFK) Forum wrote this
(after pasting in my post re. Mallon's book review into his post there
at Edu.)......
"Bugliosi has surpassed even the great Jim Moore (CONSPIRACY OF ONE)
with the Dr. Pepper theory. I will have to buy the book to confirm
that Bugliosi found a living witness to testify that a/ there was in
fact a soda machine on the first floor and b/ that the machine was in
working order and was in fact stocked with Dr. Pepper at 12.30 P.M. on
November 22nd, 1963."
~~~~~~
Both "A" and "B" above can be answered to a reasonable degree of
certainty via the WC testimony of the TSBD employees. When searching
through the testimony, I hit soda-pop paydirt with James Jarman's
account. Jarman verified, beyond all doubt, that a "Dr. Pepper
machine" was located on the FIRST FLOOR of the Book Depository on Nov.
22nd.....
Mr. BALL - You say you wandered around, you mean on the first floor?
Mr. JARMAN - On the first floor.
Mr. BALL - Were you with anybody when you were at the window? Did you
talk to anybody?
Mr. JARMAN - No; I did not.
Mr. BALL - Were you with anybody when you were walking around
finishing your sandwich?
Mr. JARMAN - No; I wasn't, I was trying to get through so I could get
out on the street.
Mr. BALL - Did you see Lee Oswald?
Mr. JARMAN - No; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - After his arrest, he stated to a police officer that he had
had lunch with you. Did you have lunch with him?
Mr. JARMAN - No, sir; I didn't.
Mr. BALL - When you finished your sandwich and your bottle of pop,
what did you do?
Mr. JARMAN - I throwed the paper that I had the sandwich in in the box
over close to the telephone and I took the pop bottle and put it in
the case over by the Dr. Pepper machine.
~~~~~~
The Dr. Pepper machine was positively in working order on 11/22, too.
How do we know? Because Bonnie Ray Williams testified he bought a Dr.
Pepper from the "Dr. Pepper machine" just before he went up to the
sixth floor to eat his lunch. (The empty Dr. Pepper bottle was left on
the 6th Floor by Williams as well.)
Now, a CTer can next theorize that Bonnie Ray got the very LAST Dr.
Pepper that was available in the machine that day. But that's a bit of
a stretch. Although, yes, it's possible.
But the main facts are clear via B.R. Williams' testimony and Jarman's
testimony....there WAS a Dr. Pepper machine positively on the FIRST
floor (Jarman); and that machine was in working order on 11/22/63
(Williams).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dd17c3781819b6d5
aeffects
> EXCERPTS OF A PRE-RELEASE REVIEW FOR VINCENT BUGLIOSI'S JFK BOOK,
> "RECLAIMING HISTORY";
>
> APPEARING IN "THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY" (June 2007 Issue);
>
> REVIEW WRITTEN BY:
> THOMAS MALLON (Author of "Mrs. Paine's Garage")
>
> http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200706/mallon-JFK
[...]
I present Mr. Mallon, and a review of his historical-fiction work of
art Mrs. Paines Garage......er, claim to JFK Lone Nutter fame, judge
for yourself. Reviewed by none other than Bill Kelly, whom I doubt
many here know...
THE ANNOTATED GARAGE - Bill Kelly's Review of Thomas Mallon's "Mrs.
Paine's Garage."
There's Ghosts in the Attic, Skeletons in the Closet and Here's the
Best of What's Left Out of Thomas Mallon's Mrs. Paine's Garage and the
Assassination of President Kennedy.(Pantheon Books - Random House,
2001)
The answers to the most outstanding questions concerning the crime of
the last century aren't in Thomas Mallon's book, Mrs. Paine's Garage
and the Assassination of President Kennedy, though they say that at
one time the primary evidence and the main suspect were once lodged in
her house, where there's still ghosts in the attic and skeletons in
the closet.
The first question that comes to mind is why Ruth and Michael Paine -
the patrons and sponsors of the family of the man accused of killing
President Kennedy, - how come they weren't primary witnesses before
the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) or the
Assassinations Records Review Board (ARRB)?
Certainly their testimony under oath should be on the public record,
and history shouldn't be left with their lame Warren Commission
testimony and now this book by a would-be novelist on a foundation
scholarship who got his facts right but the story wrong.
Mallon wanted to write this book as a fictional novel, and while some
literature often comes closer to the truth than the most factually
detailed history, this isn't one of them. It is to Mrs. Paine's credit
that in order to obtain her cooperation she insisted he write non-
fiction, but somebody should have explained to Mallon that in writing
such a thing he should use footnotes, document his sources and include
an index.
While Mallon is more comfortable writing fiction, this case is not
myth or legend, nor even history yet, as in the lifetime of living
contemporaries it remains an unsolved murder, and the contents of the
Paine's garage are not historical artifacts but are legally considered
to be evidence in a homicide.
What became of the evidence and the contents of the garage is
interesting and that the major questions still go unasked, let alone
unanswered, is typical of the perverted view exhibited by Mallon, who
divides the world into two camps - the Conspiracy Theorists (CTs) and
the Lone Nuts (LNs). Mallon is a LN, along with Ruth and Michael
Paine, so he has sympathy with their plight, a situation mitigated by
the general belief that there was a conspiracy and they were involved.
That the ratio of those who realize there was a conspiracy to those
who believe in the Lone Nut thesis is 80% - 20% in favor of conspiracy
doesn't make this truth a democratic decision. Mallon's book may be
comforting to the LNs who want to believe Lee Harvey Oswald killed
Kennedy on a "spur of the moment decision," as Mrs. Paine puts it, but
the evidence is supportive not only of the understanding of most
rational people that there was a conspiracy, but that the
assassination was a more specifically defined, well planned and
successfully executed coup d'etat.
Alas, the world is not so simple as to be divided into just two camps,
as there is also a third group that includes those who keep an open
mind about such things as who is responsible for shooting the
President of the United States in the head, and they try to approach
the case as a homicide detective would. As with the assassination of
civil rights activist Medger Evers, whose killer was convicted over
thirty years after the crime, and the Birmingham bombings, the
Mississippi Freedom Rider murders, the York, Pennsylvania race riot
killings and other political crimes of the 1960s, the murder of
President Kennedy will eventually receive belated but necessary
justice.
When the authorities came to her house with a search warrant, Mrs.
Paine did what every red blooded American housewife would have done,
she went shopping while the cops rooted through her garage and
bedroom.
If Mrs. Paine was subjected to the same justice that the Military
Tribunal dished out to those who assisted John W. Booth in his flight
from Ford's Theater after shooting President Lincoln, she would have
been hanged whether she was part of the conspiracy or not. Indeed, as
Philadelphia attorney Vincent Salandria has said, if there was true
justice in this case, Ruth and Michael Paine would be indicted rather
than treated as victims, and truth, if not justice, will be better
served.
In the pursuit of justice, Mallon's book adds little other than what
it doesn't tell us, which if examined closely, leads us closer to the
truth for those that want to go there. Hopefully, justice will
eventually follow. While most of the facts in "Mrs. Paine's Garage"
are correct, the best parts are left out, and the Big Lie is the Big
Picture that portrays the alleged assassin's family being taken care
of by the generosity of Ruth Paine the Quaker, whose role as a Good
Samaritan to the mad killer's family was a coincidental accident of
history.
The lie is laid out clearly in the dusk jacket notes: "Nearly forty
years have passed since Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine, a Quaker housewife in
suburban Dallas, offered shelter and assistance to a young man named
Lee Harvey Oswald and his Russian wife Marina....Mrs. Paine's Garage is
the tragic story of a well-intentioned women who found Oswald the job
that put him six floors above Dealey Plaza - into which, on November
22, he fired a rifle he kept inside Mrs. Paine's house. But this is
also a tale of survival and resiliency: the story of a devote, open-
hearted women who weathered a whirlwind of investigation, suspicion,
and betrayal, and who refused to allow her enmeshment in the calamity
of that November to crush her own life. Thomas Mallon gives us a
disturbing account of generosity and secrets, of suppressed memories
and tragic might-have-beens, of coincidences more errie than
conspiracy theory..."
The entire premise of this book rests on the assumption that Lee
Harvey Oswald is the assassin of the President. But what if it can be
convincingly demonstrated that Oswald didn't shoot anybody that day,
and the alleged murder weapon was purposely left at the scene to
implicate him in the crime? It doesn't make any sense for him, as many
LNs contend, that he killed the President to make a name for himself
in history, but then deny the deed. When the evidence is looked at
more closely than Mallon sees it, it is more than likely that Oswald
was framed for the crime and was exactly what he claimed to be - "a
patsy."
But rather than take away the importance of Mrs. Paine's role in the
affair, "The Patsy's Garage" makes its contents even more significant,
as only your friends can set you up and frame you for a crime you
didn't commit. Which brings us back to Michael and Ruth Paine, at
whose home the accused assassin spent the night before the murder, and
where the rifle said have been used in the crime was kept in the
garage, even though no one has yet admitted to ever actually seeing it
there.
Although George Lardner of the Washington Post said in his review of
Mallon's book that the Paines weren't questioned by the HSCA and ARRB
because everyone was "satisfied with their Warren Commission
testimony," literally dozens of major issues remain unresolved, and
the most frequent question the public asks Judge John Tunheim, the
former chairman of the defunct Assassination Records Review Board is
why the Paines weren't deposed and questioned under oath. Both Tunheim
and Mallon try to answer this question, Tunheim's being that the ARRB,
like the HSCA, just didn't have the time, while the real answer is
that the government doesn't have the institutional willingness to ask
the questions that it doesn't want answered.
That doesn't prevent us from asking them however, and the list of
questionable issues regarding the Paines is long, but one day they may
be answered.
For beginners, to believe the Lone Nut thesis, you must assume that
Oswald killed the President by himself for his own perverted
psychological reasons, that Oswald and his Russian wife met the Paines
quite coincidently at a social party, that the Paines agreed to let
Oswald's family move into the Paine home and obtain room and board and
driving lessons in exchange for Russian language lessons, that Ruth
and Michael Paine never knew anything about a rifle even though Ruth
transported the gun in her car from Texas to New Orleans and back
again and Michael packed and unpacked the car on both occasions, and
that Oswald got the job at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD)
quite innocently through Mrs. Paine's morning neighborhood coffee
klatch.
Of course the entire Lone Nut scenario falls apart if any one of these
"coincidences" can be shown not to be so coincidental, and in fact all
of them can be proven to be contrived. In order to address the most
important issues I've set them up as Serials and placed them in the
chronological order in which they occurred so we can better understand
what is at stake, which is the bare bones, basic nature of democracy,
truth and justice in America.
You would think that the first question would be how the Oswalds met
the Paines [Serial #1], which was at a February, 1962 party first
suggested by George DeMohrnschildts to Volkmar Schmidt [Neither of
whom appear in "Mrs. Paine's Garage"]. They thought that it would be
interesting for Lee Harvey Oswald to meet Michael Paine, both of whom
were interested in discussing "ideology."
DeMohrnschildt, Oswald's friend, and Schmidt, were both oil geologists
with an interest in politics and psychology. Schmidt worked for
Magnolia Oil Co., as did most of those who attended the party at
Schmidt's house, which he shared with Everett Glover and two other men
- son of a director of Radio Free Europe Norman Fredricksen and
Richard Pierce, both of whom worked for Magnolia Oil and are also
missing from Mallon's "Garage." [Nor would Mallon be expected to know
the interesting tidbit that the widow of the founder of Magnolia Oil
married Jim Braden's best friend and Braden would be taken into
custody as a suspicious person at Dealey Plaza at the time of the
assassination].
The odd thing about the party is that the host, Schmidt, and one of
the guests of honor, Michael Paine, were no-shows, but Ruth Paine met
Marina Oswald and they enjoyed talking together in Russian, setting up
their relationship.
But there are two instances on record suggesting that there was a
connection between Ruth Hyde Paine and Oswald before they met at this
party, the first being Ohio police reports of Oswald attempting to
enroll at Ruth Paine's alma mater Antioch College in Yellow Springs,
Ohio [Serial #2- Antioch], before he had a high school diploma and
before he joined the Marines. Yellow Springs is where Ruth Paine's
brother, a doctor, still lives, yet unquestioned about these things.
The second instance is the Russian pen pal program that Ruth
participated in [Serial #3 - Pen Pal], a program that was monitored by
the intelligence agencies and is said to have included others
participants that knew of Oswald's defection to Russia after he was
discharged from the Marines.
But it really isn't Mrs. Paine we should be interested in, it's her
husband Michael, who owned the house and garage and is the principle
character worth writing a book about.
Since Michael Paine didn't meet Oswald at the previously arranged
party, Ruth set up a dinner engagement for them to get acquainted, and
since Oswald didn't have a car, Michael drove from Irving to the
Oswald's apartment in Oak Cliff, Dallas, to pick them up. Although he
didn't mention it to the Warren Commission, a major bone of
contention, Michael Paine did admit on a CBS TV special and to Mallon
that he knew about the rifle from the first day he met Oswald because
Oswald showed him the famous photo [Serial #4 Back Yard Photo] - later
found in the Paine garage, of Oswald with the rifle, pistol and two
communist publications, one The Worker, the official publication of
the Trotskite Socialist Workers Party.
Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of the Bolshevick revolution and the
Communist Party in Russia, was exiled to Mexico City and executed
there by Soviet trained assassin Ramon Mercader.
When Oswald and Michael Paine discussed this "Trotskite" publication,
Paine quoted Oswald as saying, "You have to read between the lines to
understand what they want you do." Well you have to read between the
lines of Mallon's book too, if you want to learn the truth, as I will
try to fill in the blanks he leaves out.
That Michael Paine and Lee Oswald would talk about communist ideology
is a given, yet, it is inconceivable to me, that while talking about
such "ideology," as George DeMohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt
expected them to do, [Serial #5 - Lyman Paine] Paine didn't bother to
tell Oswald, the self-proclaimed "Trotskite," that his father - Lyman
Paine was the founder of the Trotskite political party in the United
States.
Both DeMohrenschiltd and Volkmar Schmidt, who met Oswald at another
Magnolia Oil party, and Michael Paine, talked to Oswald [Serial #6 -
Walker Shooting] about shooting General Walker, Schmidt before and
DeMohrenschildt and Paine shortly after someone - ostensibly Oswald,
took a pot shot and barely missed killing Walker.
After that incident Oswald decided to relocate back to his hometown
New Orleans. When Mrs. Paine drove the family to the Dallas bus
station, Mrs. Paine suddenly suggested that Marina and the baby stay
with her until Oswald got settled with an apartment and a job and then
she would drive them there, which was quickly agreed upon. [Serial #6
- Rifle Movement] Because Oswald didn't take the rifle on the bus with
him, Mrs. Paine must have drove the rifle to New Orleans, and then
back again the following October, when she drove Marina, the baby and
the belongings, including the rifle to Texas, while Oswald went to
Mexico City.
Michael Paine packed the car for the trip to New Orleans and unpacked
it when they returned, yet testified he didn't know there was a rifle
among the effects, saying that he suspected the gun wrapped in a
blanket was "camping equipment," which was kept stored in the garage.
Mallon's book has one photo - on the dust cover jacket - of Mrs.
Paine, Marina Oswald and her two children and Oswald's mother
Margarete in the Paine kitchen, while a non-published photo of the
Paine garage shows how cluttered it was. One of the Paine's three
cars, a 1956 Chevy station wagon with a luggage rack on the roof, was
kept parked in the driveway in front of the garage. [Serial #7-
Oswald's Driving]. Although it is often claimed Oswald didn't drive,
Mrs. Paine's Warren Commission testimony is quite clear on this - she
gave him lessons, he knew how to drive, he knew where she kept the
keys to the car and he did drive, much to Mrs. Paine horror, sans
insurance.
Among the other evidence found in the garage was [Serial #8 Blanket]
the blanket that that rifle was supposedly kept wrapped in, another
photo of Oswald with the guns and magazines, and [Serial #9 - Minox
Cameras] a Minox camera, which Michael Paine later claimed as his own.
In the house were other items of evidence, including a [Serial #10]
typewriter that Oswald used to write a letter to the Soviet Embassy, a
book that contained [Serial #11 - Letter] a letter Oswald wrote to
Marina with instructions on what to do if he was caught after the
Walker shooting incident, and one of three of [Serial #12 - Wallets]
Oswald's wallets.
Then there's what Mallon appropriately calls "The Limbo Hour," between
the time of the assassination and the apprehension of Oswald, shortly
after which Michael Paine is overheard talking on the telephone with
either his father or his wife, and someone says that they know Oswald
didn't do it and know who is REALLY responsible, but we are left in
the dark as to who that responsible party is.
In a review of the evidence against Oswald, it's apparent that it
comes down to the rifle.
Although no one has said that they actually saw the rifle in the
garage, the blanket the gun was supposedly wrapped in was mentioned by
Michael Paine, Ruth Paine and Marina, but for some reason that should
catch the attention of homicide investigators, the well oiled and
greased gun that was wrapped in the blanket not only didn't have any
clear fingerprints, but it didn't have any microscopic fibers from the
blanket, a practical impossibility.
If you read the Warren Report on the fiber evidence, they found ONE
single fiber on the stock of the rifle that DID NOT match the blanket,
even in color, but the FBI forensic lab specialist testified COULD
HAVE come from the shirt Oswald had on at the time of his arrest. It's
just a shame he changed his shirt after the shooting so that wasn't
the shirt that he had on when JFK was shot. To me, that's a plant, as
the FBI didn't know
Oswald changed his shirt at the time.
While the photo of Oswald, the rifle, blanket, photos and Oswald
letters to Marina and the Soviet Embassy are discussed in Mallon's
book, the Minox cameras, multiple wallets and other questionable
points are ignored completely.
Nor does Mallon bring out the full character in the slew of
interesting characters that populate this story, beginning with Ruth
and Michael Paine, Michael Paine's father Lyman Paine and mother -
Ruth Forbes Paine Young, her friend and traveling companion Mary
Bancroft, Michael's main mentor, step-father and Bell Helicopter
inventor Arthur Young, Marina's biographer Priscilla Johnson McMillan,
and their joint association with the World Federalists, whose founder
Cord Meyer, Jr., was head of the CIA's domestic contacts division and
later International Organizations Division chief under Alan Dulles.
The bottom line is that if JFK was killed by a lone, deranged nut
case, then the President's death would be an accidental, unconnected
anomaly and unrelated to the policies, politics and character of the
man or the office of the Presidency. We have such killers in our
history - such as Howard Unruh, who snapped and killed 13 neighbors in
a killing spree, but Oswald isn't one of those type of killers, as
Ruth and Michael Paine and practically everyone who knew him has
acknowledged.
If the accused assassin is Lee Harvey Oswald - the former Civil Air
Patrol cadet, USMC radar operator, trained in electronics,
interrogation techniques and the Russian language, owned a Minox
camera, the guy who defected to Soviet Russia, lived there for two
years and returned with a Russian wife, went to Mexico City and knew
exposed covert operators like David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, George
DeMohrenschildt, Volkmar Schmidt, Ruth and Michael Paine and took a
pot shot at General Walker, all before he was 24 years old, then the
assassination MO - modus operandi was that of a clear and clean cut
covert operation conducted by an state controlled intelligence
network. If Oswald had anything at all to do with the assassination,
he fits the Operational Profile and could not and did not commit the
assassination on his own, as all intelligence analysists knew from the
moment they knew his background.
As Ruth Paine herself briefly suspected, as she testified to the
Warren Commission that Oswald didn't "live" on Neeley Street, but
that, like an agent, he was "operating from a base at 214 Neeley
Street," and posed the question herself: "I may say, also, I wondered,
as I had already indicated to the Commission, I had wondered, from
time to time, whether this (Lee Harvey Oswald) was a man who was
working as a spy or in any way (was) a threat to the nation, and this
thought,...I am interested to know if this is a real thing or something
unreal. And I waited to see if I would learn anymore about it. But
this thought crossed my mind."
I too am interested to know if this is a real thing or something
unreal, and would like to learn more about it, as this same thought
has crossed my mind, and I look forward to having Michael and Ruth
Paine help answer the important outstanding questions when properly
questioned under oath. But since the answers aren't in Mallon's book,
we'll have to look for the truth somewhere else.
Bill Kelly
bkj...@yahoo.com
lazu...@webtv.net
YoHarvey
> There's nothing left of Mallon's book after Kelly's review.
The entire premise of this book rests on the assumption that Lee
Harvey Oswald is the assassin of the President. But what if it can be
convincingly demonstrated that Oswald didn't shoot anybody that day,
and the alleged murder weapon was purposely left at the scene to
implicate him in the crime? It doesn't make any sense for him, as
many
LNs contend, that he killed the President to make a name for himself
in history, but then deny the deed. When the evidence is looked at
more closely than Mallon sees it, it is more than likely that Oswald
was framed for the crime and was exactly what he claimed to be - "a
patsy."
I had the opportunity to ask Robert Oswald why Lee did
not confess to the crime. His answer was simple and direct:
"Lee wanted a trial. He wanted the world to know his name".
tomnln
Robert hadn't been in touch with Lee since Thanksgiving of 1962.
Robert hasn't tried to contact Marins, June Or, Rachael since November of
1963.
WHO is Yo(Momma)Harvey?>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/baileynme.htm
Just another Criminal who Needs several Aliases.
WHAT does Yo(Momma)Harvey FEAR?
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/spy.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/danrather.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/horne__report.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/RACE%20TO%20TSBD.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Walker.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/tippit.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Rifle.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/single_bullet.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/media_page.htm
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/Lattimer.htm
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178161140....@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Come now, my good man. Of course I'm not saying any such thing.
I'm saying just EXACTLY what Vince Bugliosi will undoubtedly be saying
in his book....to wit:
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald was on the 6th Floor at 12:30 PM and he shot and
killed JFK (alone) from the Sniper's Nest in the southeast corner of
the building.
2.) Oswald then scurried down the back stairs after stashing his rifle
in the northwest corner (while wiping off as many fingerprints as he
could with his brown shirt, a shirt he likely was not wearing when he
pulled the trigger; and that's how the fairly-"fresh" brownish shirt
fibers could have embedded themselves onto the rifle, while Oswald was
wiping off prints as he went from the SN to the stairs).*
3.) Oswald peels off the stairs at Floor #2, and ducks into the
lunchroom. (It's possible he heard Baker & Truly coming up the stairs
from the first floor.)
4.) Baker & Truly encounter Oswald (with NO soft drink at all) in the
lunchroom. Baker's gun is shoved almost right up against LHO's belly
("almost touching" Oswald's body, per Roy Truly). Oswald says not a
word (which, if he's innocent, is mighty strange, IMO).
5.) Oswald, after his encounter with B&T, purchases a Coke from the
Coca-Cola machine on the second floor, and then works his way through
the 2nd-Floor offices. He mumbles something to Mrs. Robert A. Reid
after Reid says to LHO "the President's been shot". And again, there's
no surprised reaction at all by LHO. He doesn't ask, "What the heck
happened do you think? How could this have happened?".
He's totally unconcerned...and that's because he doesn't NEED to ask
questions, because HE himself knows what happened to JFK, because he
himself was responsible for causing it.
6.) Oswald, after his arrest, tells police (on at least one occasion)
that he had lunch with "Junior" on the first floor of the Depository
when the President was killed. And in elaborating on this "first-
floor" alibi, he says he went up to the second floor to get a Coke,
and then he encountered Baker & Truly (which he did not deny, and
obviously he knew he couldn't deny that meeting).
* = The "shirt" theory is mine, but I have a feeling VB might possibly
say something along those same lines as well; hence the reason why
witnesses saw Oswald in "light" clothing (in his white T-shirt only).
The brown shirt was probably by his feet in the Sniper's Nest when
Oswald was seen by witnesses. Baker testified that Oswald's brown
"jacket" (he thought the shirt resembled a "jacket") was "hanging
out"...i.e., untucked.
MARRION BAKER -- "I assume it was a jacket, it was hanging out. Now, I
was looking at his face and I wasn't really paying any attention.
After Mr. Truly said he knew him, so I didn't pay any attention to
him, so I just turned and went on."
Now, since Jarman's and Williams' WC testimony verifies beyond any
doubt that there was a Dr. Pepper machine (in working order on 11/22)
on the FIRST floor, it begs the obvious question re. Oswald's alibi --
Why does he need to travel to the 2nd Floor for a soft drink when a
pop machine was right there on the first floor, which is where he said
he was when JFK was shot at 12:30?
I also have a feeling that Mr. Bugliosi has probably doubled (and
maybe tripled) his verification of the existence of that first-floor
soda machine too.
IOW, he hasn't JUST relied (as I have done) on the WC testimony of the
TSBD witnesses, esp. Jarman. Vince has probably talked with some of
those TSBD employees himself and asked them point-blank: Was there a
second soda machine in the TSBD when you worked there in Nov. 1963?
aeffects
> >>> "Are you saying Oswald was on the first floor getting his "drink" before the Baker/Truly encounter?" <<<
>
> Come now, my good man. Of course I'm not saying any such thing.
>
another review concerning Mallon's *Pain*
MRS. PAINE'S GARAGE: A WORK OF DECEPTION FROM BEGINNING TO END
James H. Fetzer
The DULUTH NEWS TRIBUNE (10 March 2002), p. 6F, has published a review
of a book by one Thomas Mallon, Mrs. Paine's Garage (Pantheon Books,
2002), written by George Bennett of Cox News Service. Bennett's
fawning praise provides conclusive proof that he knows no more about
the assassination of John F. Kennedy than does Mallon himself. Most
Americans today, alas!, the majority of whom were not even alive at
the time of his death, are sufficiently ignorant about the history of
this case to be easily deceived. Those who know more will recognize it
as a work of deception from beginning to end.
Interest in this slender volume implicitly emanates from the
proposition that Ruth H. Paine assisted Lee Oswald, the alleged
assassin, obtain a position at the Texas School Book Depository PRIOR
TO public knowledge that the President was coming to Dallas. Since the
extraordinarily vague affidavit she submitted on 22 November 1963,
with which this book begins, implies this occurred in mid-October,
while announcements of the trip appeared NO LATER than 13 September,
such a contention is simply false.
Once recognizing that there was ample time to bring the patsy to the
President, the entire Paine affair begins to assume an ominous visage.
Interest in Paine's garage, for example, derives from Oswald having
stored his Mannlicher-Carcano, wrapped in a blanket, in that place.
But no remnants of having been wrapped in a blanket were ever
discovered on the alleged assassination weapon--not the least hairs or
fibers--which is very curious, indeed, had the weapon actually been
stored there.
The alleged instrument, a cheap, mass-produced World War II Italian
carbine, has a muzzle velocity of around 2,000 fps, which means that
it is not a high-velocity weapon. Since the President's death
certificates (1963), The Warren Report (1964), and even more recent
articles in The Journal of the American Medical Association (1992)
report that JFK was killed by high velocity bullets, it follows that
he was not killed by Oswald's weapon, thereby greatly reducing
interest in Mrs. Paine's garage.
Indeed, though it may come as news to the author, many other students
of the case, including Harold Weisberg, Whitewash (1965), Peter Model
and Robert Groden, JFK: The Case for Conspiracy (1976), and Robert
Groden and Harrison Livingstone, High Treason (1989), have also made
the same observation. These are not books cited in this study,
however, which raises rather serious questions as to why someone whose
knowledge of the assassination appears to be so meager would write a
book about it.
He does not know that Oswald had a history with American intelligence;
that Oswald was being "sheep dipped" in New Orleans; that Oswald was
an informant for the FBI; that the "paper bag" story is a fabrication;
that Oswald was in the lunch room on the second floor having a coke
during the shooting; that Oswald passed a paraffin test; and on and
on. A weightly body of evidence substantiates all of these
discoveries, but none of them is even mentioned, much less disputed,
by the author of this book.
The sources he does cite, moreover, are far from reassuring. His
Acknowledgements, for example, lists six persons, including Mrs. Paine
and her former husband, Michael, Priscilla Johnson McMillan and John
McAdams. McAdams has gained a certain degree of notoriety for his one-
sided defense of the "lone nut" hypothesis, which disregards
overwhelming contradictory evidence, including proof that the "magic
bullet" theory is not only false but anatomically impossible (http://
www.assassinationscience.com).
Priscilla Johnson McMillan, however, is the most intriguing name on
this list. It was she who "interviewed" Oswald on the occasion of his
pseudo-defection to the Soviet Union; it was she who was selected by
the United States government to accompany Stalin's daughter,
Sevetlana, when she defected to the United States; and it was she who
was chosen to "baby sit" Marina during those turbulent times in the
aftermath of the assassination. Her CIA connections virtually qualify
as "common knowledge".
As Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason (1997), has observed, the Paines were
introduced to the Oswalds by George de Mohrenschildt, a member of the
Dallas Petrolium Club, a friend of H.L. Hunt, an ex-Nazi spy, and a
CIA operative who would commit suicide when he was about to be
interviewed for the HSCA reinvestigation in 1977-78. The connections
between de Mohrenschildt and George Herbert Walker Bush have been
extensively explored by Bruce Campbell Adamson, Oswald's Closest
Friend (1996). Any other author might have wanted to follow these
leads, but not Thomas Mallon.
The book abounds with faulty comparisons and incomplete reports.
Mallon remarks that Lee and Ruth were alike because they both had
fathers in insurance, but does not observe that, unlike Lee, she did
not have an uncle, Charles "Dutz" Murret, who worked for a Mafia
chieftain, Carlos Marcello. And he belittles Marina's conclusion that
Lee was framed, which diverged from her original position, without
admitting she now knows vastly more about the assassination than was
available to her then.
The skimpy information this book purports to provide that might be
relevant to the assassination tends to exonerate Oswald. When Marina
tells him in Russian that the President is coming, for example, he
responds "with no more than an uninflected 'Da', a sort of verbal
shrug most accurately translated as 'Uh, yeah.'" Taken at face value,
that his hardly the type of response that one would expect from an
ideologue whose strong beliefs would lead him to commit assassination.
Mallon reports that, on 21 November 1963, Lee tried to convince Marina
that she should move back with him as early as tomorrow. That he
should have worried about such things at this late date--the evening
before the assassination!-does not harmonize with a man intent upon a
capital crime from which he was most unlikely to emerge alive. And the
very idea that he should have formulated the intention to commit such
a monstrous deed on his way to work defies credulity!
The book to which it bears closest comparison appears to be Oswald's
Tale (1995) Norman Mailer's unfortunate descent into psychobabble.
Following Mailer's lead, Mallon takes massive liberties with
conjectured reconstructions of the thoughts of Ruth, Marina, and even
Lee, even when they were never expressed in English or in Russian.
Mallon may have received Rockefeller and Guggenheim fellowships in the
past, but--if there is any justice in academia!--that should never
happen again.
Mallon predictably makes a point of introducing the alleged "backyard
photographs" of Lee with his trusty Mannlicher-Carcano in one hand and
Communist newspapers in the other, wearing the revolver with which he
is alleged to have shot J.D. Tippit. Robert Groden, The Search for Lee
Harvey Oswald (1995), pp. 90-95, offers a nice review of evidence that
those photographs were faked, which has been confirmed in a study by
Jack White. Using the known dimensions of the newspapers, White has
proven the person shown in the photographs is too short to have been
Oswald.
The book endorses the idea that Oswald was responsible for an alleged
attempt on the life of Major General Edwin Walker that occurred on 10
April 1963. But there are many reasons to doubt it. The situations
were very different: a high-powered 30.06 rifle versus a medium-to-low
powered 6.5 mm carbine; a stationary versus moving target; a miss
versus two hits out of three. It is difficult to imagine how their
varied circumstances could have been less suggestive of a common
shooter!
Unless, of course, their politics were similar--but Walker was a right-
wing general, while Kennedy was a left-wing president. Kennedy had
even relieved Walker of his command in Germany! It doesn't take a
rocket scientist to conclude that these shootings were not performed
by the same shooter. It does provide an opportunity for Thomas Mallon
to compose another book. If Lee also had a 30.06, then he had to have
stored it somewhere. We can now look forward to a sequel, Mrs. Paine's
Attic.
Mallon also asserts that, "Oswald took a bus and taxi back to his
rooming house in Oak Cliffs, where he picked up the pistol that he
used minutes later to kill the patrolman, J. D. Tippit, who stopped
him at the corner of Tenth and Patton". If he were correct about this--
Mallon offers no reason for thinking so!--then Oswald must have been
the only assassin in history to make his escape by public
transportation. He also ignores evidence that Tippit was shot with
automatic(s) when Oswald was packing a revolver.
Readers may have difficulty reconciling how an author of a book
published in 2002 could be so abysmally ignorant of the current state
of knowledge about this case as published, for example, in
Assassination Science (1998) and in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000),
both of which bring together the work of leading experts on various
aspects of this case. Indeed, the evidence that the author was not
dedicated to the search for truth becomes nowhere more evident than in
trashing current research.
Surprisingly, the book contains so much filler that can only be
properly described as complete drivel as to raise questions about the
author's motivation. Examples abound, including Ruth Paine's extended
prayer early on, which ends with her entreaty, "Dear God. Guide me.
Oh, guide me.", to which the only appropriate response must be, "Dear
God. Spare me. Oh, spare me!" Which causes a serious student of the
case to speculate as to precisely what Mallon thought he was doing.
He concludes his work by attempting to ridicule presentations at JFK
Lancer's NID 2000 Conference, which featured many of the contributors
to these books. Mallon's attacks on this conference, which I co-
chaired, are so selective, so biased and unfair that they remove any
lingering shreds of credibility that this work might still retain.
They establish conclusive evidence that his book abounds with
deceptive falsehoods and that its true purpose appears to have been to
assassinate assassination research.
Mallon even tries to discredit eyewitness Jean Hill, to whose memory
this meeting was dedicated, by observing that, in addition to
reporting sensing a shot from the grassy knoll, she claimed to have
seen "a little dog" in the backseat with Jackie and Jack. Mallon
implies that she is not credible, no doubt ignorant of the fact that
photos have shown that Jackie had a small stuffed dog that was given
her by a spectator!
He attacks Ian Griggs, Executive Secretary of the Dealey Plaza/United
Kingdom Society, even though his report--that Oswald had stayed at an
expensive hotel en route to the Soviet Union, a very odd aspect of the
government's story--provides another small piece to a puzzle that
suggests the alleged assassin was working as an intelligence operative
for the United States at the time. Mallon displays arrogance in
passing such judgments given his own extremely modest knowledge.
He belittles other contributors to the conference--including, for
example, Anna Marie-Walko, Larry Hancock, and Craig Roberts-but tells
his readers nothing about the quality of their findings or other
contributions, including that Roberts has authored an important book
about the assassination, Kill Zone (1994), based upon knowledge he
acquired as a military sniper, which led him to conclude that the
official account could not be correct. This is a book that Mallon
ought to read.
The author does not even describe the most important symposia held at
this meeting, involving some of the leading experts on the
assassination. He does not mention the contributions from Peter Dale
Scott, David W. Mantik, Noel Twyman, Jim Marrs, and Stewart Galanor,
among others. He thereby deceives his readers, who would not know of
these omissions unless they had been there. This is a familiar fallacy
that is known as special pleading, which serious scholars are taught
to avoid. But not Thomas Mallon.
Stewart Galanor, for example, discussed several of the paradoxes of
the assassination, among which is that, since there exists extensive
evidence of a shot to the throat from in front, yet the official
inquiry concluded all the shots had been fired from behind, how could
JFK have been shot from in front from behind? Moreover, since the head
shot trajectory advanced by the Warren Commission, when properly
oriented to correspond to the position of his head at the time of the
shot as the Zapruder film displays, has an upward direction, how could
JFK have been shot from below from above? Galanor has elaborated these
points in his book, Cover-Up (1998), which Mallon also ought to read.
David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., presented evidence that the official
account of a shot that passed through the back of the President's neck
and exited his throat without hitting any bony structures before
impacting Governor Connally and inflicting several wounds is not
merely provably false but actually anatomically impossible. When the
path it would have had to have taken is tracked from the official
point of entry to official point of exit on a scan of a neck with the
President's dimensions, any such bullet would have had to impact
cervical verteba. This explains why Arlen Specter did not simply ask
the physicians their observations of the wounds but hypothetical
questions that implied the official trajectory.
Another symposium with Mantik, with Noel Twyman, author of Bloody
Treason (1997), and with Peter Dale Scott, Ph.D., author of Deep
Politics and the Death of JFK (1993) and of Cocaine Politics (1998),
among his many books, discussed the difficulty of conveying
discoveries about this event to the American people, especially via
the mass media. This appears to be due to media reluctance to come to
grips with the case and the influence of illusion and denial in
presenting evidence that the American government played a role in the
death of the 35th President of the United States, a difficulty
compounded by "the silence of the historians". Mallon's book is a
stellar example.
This theme was also apparent in a symposium that included Jim Marrs,
author of Crossfire (1989), a principal source for the movie, "JFK",
and Charles Drago, who is often called "the conscience of the research
community". Drago rightly asserted that anyone sincerely interested in
this case who does not conclude that JFK was killed as the result of a
conspiracy is either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively
impaired.
Mallon might be excused for not knowing that the autopsy X-rays have
been fabricated to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head
caused by a shot from in front, that other X-rays have been altered by
the addition of a 6.5 mm metallic object in an effort to implicate a
6.5 mm weapon, or that the brain shown in diagrams and photos at the
National Archives is not the brain of JFK, as previous studies have
established.
If he has never read Bloody Treason (1997) Cover-Up (1998),
Assassination Science (1998), or Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), that
reinforces his lack of qualifications as an expert on the death of
JFK. But how can he feign ignorance of the important discoveries
presented at the Lancer Conference he attended and pretends to
critique? His selective and distorted discussion of this meeting
proves that Mallon has produced a work as deceptive about
assassination research as it is about the alleged assassin.
Mantik's demonstration that the "magic bullet" theory is anatomically
impossible arguably qualifies as the most important presentation at
this conference. At a single stroke, it pulls the rug out from under
The Warren Report (1964), The HSCA Report (1979), and Case Closed
(1993), which are based upon it. Yet Mallon does not even mention this
development in reviewing the very conference where it was presented!
That would have contradicted his depiction of assassination research
as a sham.
It must have been ironic for Mallon to sit in the audience and listen
to leading experts on the assassination discussing the difficulties of
disseminating what we know about the death of JFK, when he himself was
engaged in composing a book with the objective of publishing false and
misleading information, not only about Oswald but about the conference
itself. This was not supposed to be a novel, but it is a work of
fiction.
Mallon himself has to be either incompetent or corrupt. If he did not
know the current state of research on the assassination, then he was
unqualified to write this book. And if he wrote it in knowledge of the
current state of research on the assassination, then he is complicit
in perpetuating a fraud on the American people. And we know by his own
words that he was present for Lancer 2000. Thomas Mallon has to have
known better.
The author has discredited himself with this spiteful, misleading, and
disgraceful book, which should never have been published. Every one
who wants justice for JFK has to expose charlatans of this caliber and
the myths that they perpetuate. Mallon now joins the ranks of other
authors, such as Norman Mailer and Gerald Posner, who have also
written disreputable books about JFK that are destined for the trash
bin of history.
James H. Fetzer, McKnight Professor of Philosophy at the University of
Minnesota, Duluth, is the editor of Assassination Science (1998) and
of Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000). His academic web site may be found
at http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/.
David Von Pein
Are you kidding?? Of course I indicated why the "drink" thing was of
concern to me. I indicated that in my very first post on the matter in
fact (and in others since). ....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/1c48b1ff9fc98381
"Vince Bugliosi, as usual, is 100% correct. A Dr. Pepper machine was
located on the first floor. A Coke machine was in the 2nd-Floor
lunchroom.
So there were definitely TWO soda machines in the TSBD on
11/22/63. ...
Oswald's preferred beverage was available on the first floor;
therefore,
why the need to go UPSTAIRS to the 2nd Floor to get a soft drink there
(which is what he told police at one point after his arrest)?" -- DVP;
05/02/2007
>>> "All accounts prior to September 1964, indicate Oswald has a "drink" during the Baker/Truly encounter..." <<<
Dead wrong. Neither Truly nor Baker told the WC that Oswald had a
drink in
his hands during the lunchroom encounter. Why you continue to state
otherwise is a mystery.
Martin Shackelford
bottle in his hand.
Martin
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178257097.5...@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
Which was handwritten by someone other than Marrion L. Baker, as can
easily be determined. Baker corrected the errors (which were written
by someone else, almost certainly FBI Agent Burnett). ....
aeffects
So David, is Bugliosi gonna fill all these holes? Let's get this
straight. You're saying, an eyewitness account was written by someone
other than the eyewitness, it was incorrect, corrected by the
eyewitness then RE-written by someone other than the eyewitness,
right?
How much time passed between Bakers *written* version of the event?
Did Baker know how read and write?
Papa Andy
do you think the reviewer actually read the book
or did he listen to the abridged 12 CD version
opinions please
A
tomnln
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1178267749....@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
PROOF of Baker's LIES.
"aeffects" <aeff...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178287044....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
> Mallon does take quite a few jabs at Bugliosi, including an accusation of
> over-confidence, and stuffing the book with less-than-relevant padding of
> various kinds. Bugliosi, it sounds like, will also be subject to severe
> roasting for his dismissal of the Parkland doctors' accounts on the grounds
> that they were ALL "young and inexperienced." That won't wash. Like Posner,
> whom he apparently denigrates, Bugliosi may have written yet another
> "prosecutor's brief." I would prefer the solid, measured work of a
> well-informed historian (not the sort who have blindly accepted Posner as
> "the final answer" without knowing the evidence).
> Mallon notes that Bugliosi makes some logic errors by narrowing his focus
> too much.
> As for David's comments--he (and Bugliosi--and Mallon) seem to have
> overlooked the possiblity that the first floor soda machine may have been
> out of whatever it was Oswald had a taste for that day--and Howard Roffman
> clearly established that Oswald entered the second-floor lunchroom from the
> office area, not from the stairway.
And both he and you, Martin, overlooked(ed) the possibility that LHO
descended from the 6th floor to the 2nd, heard the footsteps of
someone (Baker and Truly) coming up the stairs from the 1st floor to
the 2nd, quickly ducked into the second-floor vestibule, took a few
steps down the hall, and then doubled back and entered the second-
floor lunchroom.
>There is much other evidence placing
> Oswald on the lower floors. The trio also seems to assume that Oswald ALWAYS
> drank Dr. Pepper.
> One can sense David's enthusiasm for anything which attacks Oliver Stone.
> His objectivity is unmistakable.
>
> Martin
>
> "RICLAND" <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote in message
> >http://jfkhit.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tomnln
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178301551.7...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
> MORE SPECULATION.
>
MORE SPECULATION.
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1178301551.7...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> >http://jfkhit.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
David Von Pein
Where does the "re-written" part come in? Why are you saying that? If
it had been "re-written" after the Baker corrections, the scratch-outs
would not exist. Or are you saying there's yet another meaningless,
redundant FBI (Burnett) document around...of the "corrected" variety?
I don't know all the specifics re. that document...nor do you. But,
yes, the WRITTEN WORDS "drinking a Coke" were positively NOT written
by Marrion L. Baker. That's blatantly obvious. Somebody else (probably
Burnett) wrote down those words, and Baker corrected them.
I haven't the slightest freaking idea why the FBI needed that useless,
redundant document re. Baker seeing Oswald in the TSBD in the first
place. His WC testimony was already in the record by that time, saying
precisely the same thing. Such a document, with scratch-outs, only
serves to fuel the fire of the CT-Kooks of the world it would appear.
(And, of course, it does that very nicely.)
But the END RESULT of that 9/23/64 document is exactly the same as
Baker's WC testimony -- i.e., "I saw LHO in the 2nd-Floor lunchroom
shortly after the shooting without a drink in his hands".
If you kooks want to read mysterious, unprovable inferences into the
Sep. 23rd document (and you do, naturally)....go ahead. Knock
yourselves out.
But I fail to see where it erases Oswald's sole guilt in the murder of
President John Kennedy. Obviously...it doesn't.
David Von Pein
I think he read the book.
And btw, per the revised data that I have found, it's up to a 15-Disc
Audio-CD version now. (Poor Edward's throat.) ;) .....
David Von Pein
No.
>>> "Was it done by the FBI, SS or Postal Inspectors who do official examinations of this type or by an outside agency?" <<<
I haven't the foggiest. I can't even see any logical reason as to why
the FBI would need such a document...one day prior to the WCR being
released. Weird, I'll readily admit. But conspiratorial? How? Somebody
will need to explain that part...especially since that 9/23/64
document obviously wasn't going to be a part of the "official Warren
Report" record at all.
>>> "When was this done and why?" <<<
The handwriting evaluation, you mean?
My answer -- ~shrug~. Beats me.
What makes you think there even WAS any official "handwriting
evaluation" done concerning this document? There probably wasn't.
>>> "Your comments over at the nuthouse indicate that the author of the document is in question and it was written by Burnett...{DVP wrote}
'Which it so obviously was (the handwriting indicates that, without
doubt).' {/DVP Off} ... Why is it so obvious?" <<<
I've slightly revised my opinion on "It Was Obviously Burnett's
Writing". I still think it is probably Burnett's...but I can't prove
that 100%. But it's positively NOT Marrion L. Baker's handwriting.
THAT is obvious. It is to me anyway...unless Baker was good at
possessing two entirely-different writing styles. .....
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/images/altgen9.jpg
>>> "Why would Burnett even mention a coke if it was not what Baker had said?" <<<
Like I said in an earlier post..."merged" evidence that shouldn't be
merged at all. By the time that document was written (09/23/64), it
was surely common knowledge at the Dallas FBI offices that Lee Oswald
was carrying a Coke bottle in the TSBD at some point just after
President Kennedy's assassination.
Perhaps Burnett, like other people who I think have done the same bit
of incorrect "merging", thought that Baker did see LHO with a Coke,
and wrote it down as such (and he got the floor number wrong too
remember...strange, indeed, if Baker was sitting right there beside
him...and stranger still is the question of WHY Baker couldn't pick up
a pen and write the whole damn thing himself if he was right there).
>>> "Who or what is his source for this {"Coke" thing} if not Baker?" <<<
"Merging". (IMHO.)
>>> "If the consideration of having a "coke" is not part of the official record, why would Burnett add a false consideration to the encounter?" <<<
Again -- "Merging".
>>> "Burnett would not write out the encounter on his own, it would not be Baker's statement if he did." <<<
Yeah, the whole thing is just odd, I admit. I have no firm answer for
it. Maybe Vince B. will. Maybe Agent Burnett is still alive and has
talked with Bugliosi to clear it up. Or maybe Officer Bobby Hargis can
clear it up. Hargis is listed as a witness on the document. And his
name is signed by the same person who wrote the whole thing and who
also signed Burnett's name too...probably Burnett, IMO.
>>> "Why was this September 23, 1964 document even needed if Baker had already testified and made his official statements?" <<<
Indeed. I've asked that very same question myself....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/e25665403174ce0a
>>> "Is there another Baker document that mentions Oswald with a "coke" or a drink of some sort?" <<<
Not that I know of.
A DVP "COKE" ADDENDUM.....
Even if LHO had a Coke in his hands during his encounter with B&T, it
in no way exonerates Mr. Oswald of killing the President. It only
tightens the already-tight "lunchroom timeline" a little more.
Oswald could have bought that drink after running down the stairs from
the 6th Floor and then encountered B&T. I don't think he did buy the
Coke before the meeting (and the WC evidence backs up that
belief)....all I'm saying is that it's possible he could have bought
the Coke earlier.
It wouldn't have taken more than 10-15 extra seconds to buy that
drink. And all the timelines are only "best estimates" anyway.
Plus -- We don't have the slightest idea how fast (or slow) Oswald was
coming down those back stairs. No one knows that but Lee Harvey
Oswald. And Oswald, unfortunately, wasn't kind enough to tell us those
details.
The Coke/Dr. Pepper thing isn't definitive in any way, as I've said
previously as well. But the proof-positive (via Vincent Bugliosi's
undoubtedly-thorough research and the testimony of James Jarman, which
I confirmed the other day) of a "Dr. Pepper machine" on the very same
floor that Oswald used as a 12:30 alibi only tends to make Lee
Oswald's alibi about travelling to the 2nd Floor to buy a soft drink
just that much more suspicious and specious.
Martin Shackelford
back in 1975. In your version, the timing would be even less workable.
Martin
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178301551.7...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
> I didn't "overlook" the possibility, Todd. Roffman knocked that myth out
> back in 1975. In your version, the timing would be even less workable.
Martin,
Roffman did no such thing. His diagram that purports to do so is self
servingly flawed. Intentionally I suspect. Not surprising though,
since Roffman also misrepresented the Couch film, claiming it did not
show Officer Baker when in fact it clearly does. Want to take up a
perch oput on that limb, Martin?
In my version, the timing is not "less workable", rather, it is spot
on.
What, you think LHO on the 2nd floor landing wouldn't have heard Truly
and Bakers footsteps as they were coming up the stairs?
Start thinking in 3 dimensions.
Todd
>
> Martin
>
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1178301551.7...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> >http://jfkhit.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
Baker.
Baker went on to name TWO more places that Oswald was in when seen by Baker.
Baker's a LIAR. http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178485070.8...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
> MORE SPECULATION.
You bet, Tommy boy, and I never claimed otherwise, did I?
There was also some "MORE SPECULATION" some years back that Truly and
Baker encountered Oswald with a dirty rotten whore in the lunchroom.
She supposedly was on her knees, if you know what I mean. The story
goes that this has something to do with Baker crossing out the word
"coke" in his statement (apparently the word "coke" was a temporary
substitute for the word "c$#k"). Turns out the whore was more or less
servicing all of the TSBD male employees at one time or another. This
is why Oswald never came clean with his alibi when questioned (what
would Marina think)? Anyway, the whore apparently slipped out of the
TSBD after the assassination.
>
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1178301551.7...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 6:11 am, "Martin Shackelford" <msha...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Mallon does take quite a few jabs at Bugliosi, including an accusation of
> >> over-confidence, and stuffing the book with less-than-relevant padding of
> >> various kinds. Bugliosi, it sounds like, will also be subject to severe
> >> roasting for his dismissal of the Parkland doctors' accounts on the
> >> grounds
> >> that they were ALL "young and inexperienced." That won't wash. Like
> >> Posner,
> >> whom he apparently denigrates, Bugliosi may have written yet another
> >> "prosecutor's brief." I would prefer the solid, measured work of a
> >> well-informed historian (not the sort who have blindly accepted Posner as
> >> "the final answer" without knowing the evidence).
> >> Mallon notes that Bugliosi makes some logic errors by narrowing his focus
> >> too much.
> >> As for David's comments--he (and Bugliosi--and Mallon) seem to have
> >> overlooked the possiblity that the first floor soda machine may have been
> >> out of whatever it was Oswald had a taste for that day--and Howard
> >> Roffman
> >> clearly established that Oswald entered the second-floor lunchroom from
> >> the
> >> office area, not from the stairway.
>
> > And both he and you, Martin, overlooked(ed) the possibility that LHO
> > descended from the 6th floor to the 2nd, heard the footsteps of
> > someone (Baker and Truly) coming up the stairs from the 1st floor to
> > the 2nd, quickly ducked into the second-floorvestibule, took a few
> >> >http://jfkhit.com-Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
aeffects
> On May 4, 4:50 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > MORE SPECULATION.
>
> You bet, Tommy boy, and I never claimed otherwise, did I?
>
> There was also some "MORE SPECULATION" some years back that Truly and
> Baker encountered Oswald with a dirty rotten whore in the lunchroom.
> She supposedly was on her knees, if you know what I mean. The story
> goes that this has something to do with Baker crossing out the word
> "coke" in his statement (apparently the word "coke" was a temporary
> substitute for the word "c$#k"). Turns out the whore was more or less
> servicing all of the TSBD male employees at one time or another. This
> is why Oswald never came clean with his alibi when questioned (what
> would Marina think)? Anyway, the whore apparently slipped out of the
> TSBD after the assassination.
now THIS is worthy of Lone Neuter's -- way to go Todd, I knew you had
it in ya!
> > >> >http://jfkhit.com-Hidequoted text -
Todd W. Vaughan
> On May 6, 2:57 pm, "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 4:50 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > MORE SPECULATION.
>
> > You bet, Tommy boy, and I never claimed otherwise, did I?
>
> > There was also some "MORE SPECULATION" some years back that Truly and
> > Baker encountered Oswald with a dirty rotten whore in the lunchroom.
> > She supposedly was on her knees, if you know what I mean. The story
> > goes that this has something to do with Baker crossing out the word
> > "coke" in his statement (apparently the word "coke" was a temporary
> > substitute for the word "c$#k"). Turns out the whore was more or less
> > servicing all of the TSBD male employees at one time or another. This
> > is why Oswald never came clean with his alibi when questioned (what
> > would Marina think)? Anyway, the whore apparently slipped out of the
> > TSBD after the assassination.
>
> now THIS is worthy of Lone Neuter's -- way to go Todd, I knew you had
> it in ya!
>
Ah, you lika the smut, eh, David? (wink, wink)
Many moons back I'd spend a Sunday evening like this watching Clint
Howard or Kurt Russell on the Wonderful World of Disney.
With the advent of 100 billion channels and nothing worthwile to
watch, now I'm left doing crap like this.
Enjoy.
> > > >> >http://jfkhit.com-Hidequotedtext -
Todd W. Vaughan
> The 2nd floor landing is the FIRST Baker report that Oswald was seen by
> Baker.
>
> Baker went on to name TWO more places that Oswald was in when seen by Baker.
Hoked on fonics worked for me!
>
> Baker's a LIAR. http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
>
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1178485070.8...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> >http://jfkhit.com-Hidequoted text -
tomnln
http://whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178489303.9...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
tomnln
Wanna discuss your Other Bullshit LIES?>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
Its that scenario you just made up reminescent of your assignment to the
I-80?
Make any Other Cartoons lately?
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1178488634.5...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
been directed to the forgotten-about Dr. Pepper machine on the 1st
Floor of the TSBD. Sure enough a picture exists of it, and Vince found
it...after he talked to Wes Frazier in 2004 to confirm from Wesley
that there was, indeed, a soft-drink machine on Floor #1, in the
northwest corner, near the back stairway.
Vince's book and source note led me to "Warren Commission Document
#CD496; Photo 7" (which apparently nobody has EVER looked at before; I
certainly hadn't). It's absolutely incredible how many different
documents and pictures there are connected to this case that I'm
guessing very few people have ever seen. Mary Ferrell's site has every
one of them available online too.
The CD496 document comes from a kind of a "booklet/album" of FBI
photos of the TSBD. Fascinating, rarely-seen stuff in there too (like
this Dr. Pepper "find"). It's akin to "CE875", which is a similar type
of "album", only CE875 is one put together by the Secret Service.
Here's a direct link to "CD496 (7)":
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10896&relPageId=12
Walt
> >>> "Ed: It was a simple question asked to help understand DVP's concern over where Oswald purchased the "drink". He does not indicate in any of his comments to that point, on why this issue is any concern." <<<
>
> Are you kidding?? Of course I indicated why the "drink" thing was of
> concern to me. I indicated that in my very first post on the matter in
> fact (and in others since). ....
>
>
> "Vince Bugliosi, as usual, is 100% correct. A Dr. Pepper machine was
> located on the first floor. A Coke machine was in the 2nd-Floor
> lunchroom.
> So there were definitely TWO soda machines in the TSBD on
> 11/22/63. ...
> Oswald's preferred beverage was available on the first floor;
> therefore,
> why the need to go UPSTAIRS to the 2nd Floor to get a soft drink there
> (which is what he told police at one point after his arrest)?" -- DVP;
> 05/02/2007
>
> >>> "All accounts prior to September 1964, indicate Oswald has a "drink" during the Baker/Truly encounter..." <<<
>
> Dead wrong. Neither Truly nor Baker told the WC that Oswald had a
> drink in
> his hands during the lunchroom encounter. Why you continue to state
> otherwise is a mystery.
You can bet that there is a record of Baker saying Oswald was drinking
a coke when baker and Truely saw him in the lunchroom. If there isn't
a record then there would be no need to expunge that from the record
by first writing into "Baker's affidavit" and then crossing it out but
leaving it legible.
The very motive for FBI agent Burnett's writing that that "affidavit"
was to expunge any previous mention by Baker that he had seen Oswald
drinking a coke. It's so blatantly transparent that only a gullible
LNer wouldn't be able to see through the subterfuge. The only two
cross out on the fake affidavit are the "drinking a coke" entry and
the "clarification" about which floor the lunchroom was located on.
Walt
Walt
> >>> "You're saying an eyewitness account was written by someone other than the eyewitness, it was incorrect, corrected by the eyewitness then RE-written by someone other than the eyewitness, right?" <<<
>
> Where does the "re-written" part come in? Why are you saying that? If
> it had been "re-written" after the Baker corrections, the scratch-outs
> would not exist.
EXACTLY RIGHT!!!!..... Those scratch outs are the very reason for the
existance of the fake "affidivit".
Walt
RICLAND
> By way of Vince Bugliosi's masterpiece, "Reclaiming History", I've
> been directed to the forgotten-about Dr. Pepper machine on the 1st
> Floor of the TSBD. Sure enough a picture exists of it, and Vince found
> it...after he talked to Wes Frazier in 2004 to confirm from Wesley
> that there was, indeed, a soft-drink machine on Floor #1, in the
> northwest corner, near the back stairway.
>
> Vince's book and source note led me to "Warren Commission Document
> #CD496; Photo 7" (which apparently nobody has EVER looked at before; I
> certainly hadn't). It's absolutely incredible how many different
> documents and pictures there are connected to this case that I'm
> of them available online too.
>
> The CD496 document comes from a kind of a "booklet/album" of FBI
> photos of the TSBD. Fascinating, rarely-seen stuff in there too (like
> this Dr. Pepper "find"). It's akin to "CE875", which is a similar type
>
> Here's a direct link to "CD496 (7)":
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10896&relPageId=12
>
Others have made the point the book's ridiculous length of 1600 could
have been paired down to 500 pages and it would have been a greatly
improved book. My sense is that Vinny was padding -- including
everything he could to divert readers from the parts he knew to be weak.
This is a tactic prosecutors often use in court meant to confuse jurors.
But, as we see in this newsgroup, few CTs were fooled. We honed right
in on the book's weak parts. We knew the chaff from the wheat.
And I'm sure Bugliosi is stunned by this. Surely, he's read the reviews
by now and seen how ordinary readers are horning in on his bullshit.
ricland
--
Reclaiming History -- The Rebuttals
The Rebuttals to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com
Walt
Yes it does...and the W.C. lawyers recognized that fact..... They knew
that if Oswald had just bought a coke from the coke machine he could
NOT have been the sixth floor shooter, because there simply was not
enough time for Oswald to have got from the SE corner of the sixth
floor to the lunchroom and bought a coke and opened it before Baker
saw him there just 87 seconds after the FIRST shot was fired.
It only
> tightens the already-tight "lunchroom timeline" a little more.
NO! it doesn't merely tighten the "lunchroom time" .... It makes it
IMPOSSIBLE.
>
> Oswald could have bought that drink after running down the stairs from
> the 6th Floor and then encountered B&T. I don't think he did buy the
> Coke before the meeting (and the WC evidence backs up that
> belief)....all I'm saying is that it's possible he could have bought
> the Coke earlier.
Bought the coke earlier???.... Utter nonsense, only a damned fool liar
would attempt that statagem.
>
> It wouldn't have taken more than 10-15 extra seconds to buy that
> drink. And all the timelines are only "best estimates" anyway.
I believe that W.C. "duplicated" purchasing a coke and found that it
took about 30 seconds for a man to fish the change from his pocket,
put it in the machine, retrieve the coke, and open it. They knew
that Baker had said Oswald had a coke when he encountered him, and
they knew that that FACT exonerated Oswald. That's the reason they had
Hoover have his henchman create a fake affidavit expunging Baker's
statement of "drinking a coke" from the record. There's no doubt
about a coke being present at the time Baker saw Oswald because Fritz
scribbled it down in his hand written notes.
Walt