JFK Assassination Forum Archives -- Misc. Topics Of Interest (Part 116)

Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

Nov 30, 2009, 4:49:37 AM11/30/09




NOVEMBER 22, 2009:














Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

Dec 2, 2009, 2:44:50 AM12/2/09

In an e-mail message to DVP dated 12/1/2009 @ 8:50:30 PM Eastern
Standard Time, "Steve D." wrote:

>>> "You have not come up with a single point which undermines [Howard] Donahue's theory [in the book "Mortal Error"]. If you can undermine his work on the bullet trajectories then I will listen to you. In the meantime, if you are going to review books and put your reviews online you should at least have the integrity to represent the key points in those books accurately." <<<

I never even read the book "MORTAL ERROR: THE SHOT THAT KILLED JFK". I
posted my "review" at Amazon.com in order to merely point out how
utterly stupid Donahue's bullshit is (just from the POV of someone who
knows what the actual evidence is in the JFK case).


There's no need to read a book propounding such an obviously-insane
theory as the one concocted by Howard Donahue in Bonar Menninger's
book. Just as it is totally unnecessary to read Brian David Andersen's
book to know that it is filled with BS. (Andersen, btw, thinks that
JFK faked his own death; per Kook Andersen, President Kennedy was
wearing an exploding "pyrotechnics device" on his head on November 22
in Dealey Plaza. Obviously, anyone buying that book should be locked
up in an asylum.)

JFK aide David Powers, all by himself, completely destroys Donahue's
theory about Secret Service agent George Hickey accidentally firing
the fatal shot. And all sensible people know this, of course.

The JFK case has caused ordinarily-sensible people to go off the deep
end and has caused them to start believing in all sorts of crazy
theories. I see it every day on the Internet. It's hilarious. (Sad,
but hilarious.)

David Von Pein


Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

Dec 2, 2009, 9:46:49 AM12/2/09



>>> "The FBI used 3 degrees, The Warren Commission used 3 degrees, and Dale K. Myers used 3 degrees. Your [sic] the only one I know of using 3.9 [for the slope of Elm Street]." <<<

I was incorrect previously. The downward grade of Elm Street as of May
24, 1964, was 3-degrees, 9-minutes (which translates to 3.15 degrees).
So, the Elm St. grade wasn't almost 4 degrees, but it certainly was
more than 3.0 degrees as of 5/24/64.

Lyndal Shaneyfelt's 6/4/64 Warren Commission testimony actually is a
bit confusing on this issue, because at one point Shaneyfelt says the
street grade is "3.9...almost 4 [degrees]", but then quickly corrects
himself (at 5 H 160):

ARLEN SPECTER -- "When you say approximately is that because the
adjustment is somewhat greater than 3 degrees?"


SPECTER -- "How much is it exactly, if you know?"

SHANEYFELT -- "It is 3.9. It is almost 4."

SPECTER -- "Three degrees, nine minutes?"

SHANEYFELT -- "Three degrees, nine minutes. I am sorry."



Vincent Bugliosi, the author of the JFK Bible ("Reclaiming History"),
has also made the same mistake I made earlier in this forum thread
regarding the angle of declination on Elm Street in Dallas, Texas,
with Bugliosi saying the following on page 460 of his book (in
addition to saying the same thing during several of his radio
appearances while promoting his book in 2007):

"For years, books and assassination researchers have loosely
said 3 degrees, and I was guilty of this myself [at the 1986 TV docu-
trial, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"]. But actually, the degree of
declination [of Elm Street] was found to be 3.9 degrees (WR, p.106),
which is almost 4 degrees." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 460 of
"Reclaiming History" (footnote)(c.2007)

Mr. Bugliosi, in the above book excerpt, cites page 106 of the Warren
Commission Report for his determination that Elm Street was sloped at
an angle of "3.9 degrees". But when we turn to page 106 of the WCR, we
see the proper measurement of 3°9′.


Vince B., just like I have done in the past as well, has
misinterpreted the 3°9′ notation in the Warren Report to mean 3-and-9-
tenths degrees. But 3°9′ (i.e., 3 degrees, 9 minutes) actually equals
3.15 degrees (there are 60 minutes in 1 degree), which, of course, is
much closer to 3.0 degrees than it is 4.0 degrees.

So, as can be seen, even the author of The Bible isn't immune from
making an error now and then. In fact, there are several errors in Mr.
Bugliosi's massive book, but Vincent's occasional mistakes certainly
by no means negate his "Oswald Did It Alone" final conclusion, which
is a conclusion that is built on a solid foundation of irrefutable
facts and evidence in the Kennedy and Tippit murder cases.


>>> "David, you obviously don't know math, nor do you read well. The broken 5th rib the Governor suffered was on the FRONT of his body at the exit point." <<<

So what?

The main point I was making in an earlier post is that the angle of
Bullet CE399 through Governor John B. Connally's body was 25 degrees,
which is a measurement that was determined by one of Connally's
doctors (Dr. Shaw) during Connally's 1964 Warren Commission session:

"During Governor Connally's appearance before the Warren
Commission, Dr. Robert Shaw measured the angle of declination between
the entrance and exit wounds in the governor's chest and concluded
that the bullet that struck the governor proceeded on a downward angle
of 25 degrees." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 448 of "Reclaiming History"


Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

Dec 2, 2009, 9:59:58 AM12/2/09

>>> "Dear Dave, Thank you for your unexpected reply. .... It is total intellectual bankruptcy and cowardice to slag off a book without reading it. Donahue's book ["MORTAL ERROR"] is the most sober book I have ever read on the Kennedy assassination and I have read dozens. You cannot possibly put it in the same category as the lunatic stuff you refer to in your email. Donahue was a ballisitics expert who testified in thousands of criminal cases. He was not a nut. He painstakingly tracked the trajectories of the bullets back to where they could have been fired from. This is the core of his argument. Defeat that and you have defeated his argument. He has no axe to grind and did not speculate whatsoever on conspiracy theories. All he tried to do was prove where the bullets came from. He does not deny that shots were fired from the book depository or that there may have been other shooters involved. However, he provides extremely convincing evidence that a bullet came from Hickey's rifle by accident and that bullet penetrated the President's skull. I am sorry you do not like his conclusions. I was very surprised myself. But the EVIDENCE he marshalls is overwhelming. It has never been rejected or defeated by anyone so far as I am aware. However, I will check out what Powers has to say. Read Donahue's book yourself and THEN slag it off!! I look forward to hearing from you after you have assessed what he has to say." <<<

As I said, David Powers ALONE defeats Donahue's theory. (Unless you
want to believe that Powers was a liar.)

And Ken O'Donnell's testimony defeats Donahue as well. And even Hickey
himself defeats Donahue.

Were they ALL liars?

Also -- There were THREE shells found in the TSBD's Sniper's
Nest....one for each shot fired by Oswald. Not two. But three. That
includes the head-shot bullet FROM OSWALD'S GUN.

Plus -- CE567/569 were bullet fragments FROM OSWALD'S GUN found in the
limo. Donahue undoubtedly finds a reason for those fragments to have
come from a different bullet other than the one that struck JFK in the

But upon further examination of the evidence (and the possibilities of
which shot could have caused those fragments to land in the front seat
of the car the way they did), it becomes very clear that the ONLY
THING that could have caused such fragmentation of Oswald's Carcano
bullet was the HEAD OF JOHN KENNEDY.

In summary -- Howard Donahue's theory IS nuts (your opinions of him
and his craziness notwithstanding).

David R. Von Pein



David Von Pein

Dec 3, 2009, 1:45:57 AM12/3/09





AFAIK, CE567/569 were never tested for blood, fibers, or tissue.

And the argument about the head shot and the SBT bullets behaving
differently (i.e., one of them smashed and the other nearly pristine)
meaning they couldn't both have been fired during the assassination is
totally incorrect.

Tests were performed by Olivier/Edgewood and by Dr. Lattimer in the
70s, and those tests conclusively prove that a MC bullet like CE399,
after hitting a skull HEAD-ON without hitting something else first
will fragment into pieces just like CE567/569. Lattimer's tests and
Edgewood's prove this beyond all doubt.

Plus: Dr. Martin Fackler did a test to simulate the condition of
CE399, by firing a WCC/MC bullet through a human wrist at a reduced
muzzle velocity from a MC gun (1100fps). Here is the bullet from that
test after breaking a human wrist (it's in better shape than 399):



It's very simple to determine that. There's nothing else except JFK's
head that could have possibly caused the fragmentation of 567 & 569.

More details about that are included in my "review" of "Mortal Error":




Excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book "Reclaiming History",
concerning the book "Mortal Error":

"The search for any assassin of President Kennedy other than Lee
Harvey Oswald has been so intense and persistent that it has even
trespassed beyond the margins of conventional irrationality into the
allegation--are you ready for this one?--that Kennedy was killed
accidentally by a Secret Service agent. ....

"This approaches (but does not rival, since no one can rival)
David Lifton's lunacy in theorizing that Kennedy's body was stolen
before the autopsy and new bullet wounds were created to make it look
like he was shot from behind. ....

"Also, if one bought into Lifton's madcap theory, the
reputations of many innocent people would be destroyed, whereas in the
accidental assassination theory, no one's is.

"In 'Mortal Error', author Bonar Menninger chronicles the
odyssey of one Howard Donahue, a firearms expert who flew thirty-five
combat missions over Europe in the Second World War and was one of
eleven marksmen employed by CBS in 1967 to see if they could duplicate
what Oswald did firing at a moving target.

"Donahue not only matched Oswald, he beat Oswald, firing three
shots with a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle within 5 .2 seconds, all of
which hit the bull's-eye. This triggered Donahue's interest in the
assassination and ultimately led to an obsession in which he said he
gave "twenty-five years of my life" to his search for the solution to
Kennedy's murder.

"Donahue clearly is no kook, and when one reads the first fifty
or so pages of his book, one is impressed with the fastidiousness of
his research and the commonsense inferences he draws therefrom. But
then Donahue and Menninger (basically, his friendly biographer) ask
the reader to swallow a story unfit for human consumption.

"Donahue believes that three shots were fired in Dealey Plaza.
However, Oswald only fired two, one that missed and the other that
struck Kennedy and Connally. The third, the fatal shot to the head,
was accidentally fired by George Hickey, a Secret Service agent seated
in the left rear seat of the presidential follow-up car.

"The weapon, he says, that killed Kennedy was an AR-15, an
automatic rifle that is the civilian version of the M-16 rifle, the
primary American infantry weapon used in Vietnam.

"This is how Donahue (through Menninger) says Kennedy was shot:
"Oswald fires again [the second and last shot from Oswald, Donahue
believes]. So Hickey reaches down and grabs the AR-15 off the floor,
flips off the safety and stands up on the seat, preparing to return
fire. But his footing is precarious. The follow-up car [the one Hickey
is in] hits the brakes or speeds up. Hickey begins to swing the gun
around to draw a bead on Oswald, but he loses his balance. He begins
to fall. And the barrel happens to be pointing towards Kennedy's head.
And the gun happens to go off," hitting Kennedy in the head and
killing him. In other words, per Donahue, "the gun accidentally

"Even assuming for the sake of argument that the AR-15 was
fired, Donahue's assumption that with the possibility of the shot
ending up in thousands of other places in Dealey Plaza (or Hickey's
own car or the air above), it just happened to hit Kennedy in the back
of his head is more than hard to believe.

"But to compound the problem, after a quarter of a century of
research, Donahue is unable to come up with any evidence at all that
the AR-15 was even fired that day. There were nine other people riding
in or on the running
boards of the presidential follow-up car, each of whom testified
before the Warren Commission or gave a statement, and not one of them,
including Agent Glen Bennett, who was seated within a foot or two of
Hickey, said the AR-15 rifle or any other weapon was fired in the car
around the time of the assassination.

"How is it possible that none of them heard the rifle being
fired right next to them if it had indeed been fired? As Kennedy aide
Dave Powers, who was in Hickey's car, put it, "Someone a foot away
from me or two feet away from me couldn 't fire the gun without me
hearing it."

"And among the several hundred or so people in Dealey Plaza that
day, not one said they saw or heard any weapon being fired inside the
subject vehicle, or anywhere close to it. Indeed, Dealey Plaza witness
Hugh Betzner Jr., in a November 14, 1967, letter to assassination
researcher Richard E. Sprague, specifically said that he saw the rifle
in Hickey's hands and "it was not fired."


"The only reference to Hickey having fired the gun was really no
reference at all. When Secret Service agent Winston G. Lawson, riding
in the lead car (directly in front of the presidential limousine),
heard three shots coming from his rear, he turned around and saw
Hickey standing up with the AR-15 in his hand. He testified, "The
first thing that flashed through my mind...was that he had fired
because this was the only weapon I had seen up to that time" (4 H

[End Footnote.]

"In Hickey's own November 30, 1963, Secret Service report, he
said he heard three shots that day. "At the end of the last report I
reached to the bottom of the car and picked up the AR-15 rifle, cocked
and loaded it, and turned to the rear. At this point the cars were
passing under the overpass and as a result we had left the scene of
the shooting. I kept the AR-15 rifle ready as we proceeded at a high
rate of speed to the hospital."

"To support his contention that the reason Hickey's rifle
accidentally went off was that he lost his balance and while falling
backward the rifle fired accidentally, Donahue relies exclusively on
Dealey Plaza witness S.M. Holland, who told Richard Warren Lewis and
Lawrence Schiller in 1967, "I actually thought when they started up,
he [Hickey] was shot, too, because he fell backwards...It jerked him
down when they started off."

"But neither Hickey nor Bennett nor anyone else said that Hickey
lost his balance and fell backward. Only Holland said this. And
Holland's questionable perceptive abilities have been discussed
earlier in this book ["Reclaiming History"].

"Donahue's other-world conclusion is a textbook example of the
fact that if you start out with an erroneous premise, the conclusion
based thereon may be logical, but it's wrong. A few, among several,
illustrations: Donahue said that since Oswald was located to Kennedy's
right rear, a bullet "coming in at a 6% angle from right to
left...should have exited through the president's face...yet the
actual exit wound was in the upper right portion of the skull"--in
other words, too far to the right. Hence, the only geometric sense for
such an exit wound would be if the bullet were fired from where Hickey
was, slightly to the president's left rear.

"But that's because Donahue, a firearms expert but not a
photographic one, asserted that at the time of impact, Kennedy 's head
was tilted 15 degrees to the left. The reality, however, per the HSCA
photographic panel of experts, was that Kennedy's head was tilted 25
degrees, not 15 degrees to the left, at the time he was struck in the
head. With that orientation of the head, the trajectory that the HSCA
(and Warren Commission) concluded the fatal bullet took now makes
perfect sense.

"Donahue also finds it incomprehensible that both the back
bullet and the head bullet were fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle,
because if that were the case the two bullets would not "have behaved
so differently"--the back bullet having relatively little damage to it
but the head bullet fragmenting into many pieces.

"Of course, as discussed elsewhere in this book, the back bullet
passed through soft tissue in Kennedy's body and then, after having
slowed down, only struck a glancing blow to Connally's right fifth rib
and then struck the small wrist bone, whereas the head bullet,
striking Kennedy's skull head-on, could be expected to fragment the
way it did.

"Donahue also questions how a 6.5-millimeter bullet (Carcano
round) could create a 6-millimeter hole in the back of Kennedy's head.
(The AR-15 round, Donahue points out, is 5 .6 millimeters in
diameter.) But very frequently the measured wound is slightly smaller
than the caliber of the missile that created it because of the
subsequent recoil of the tissues of the skin.

"We know from the firearms examinations conducted by the Warren
Commission and HSCA firearms experts, and the neutron activation test
conducted by the HSCA, that all the Winchester Western bullets and
bullet fragments in this case matched up with each other. No fragment
from any other bullet (the AR-15 bullet is manufactured by Remington
Arms, not Winchester Western) was ever found. And the stretcher bullet
and two
large fragments (Commission Exhibit Nos. 567 and 569) found in the
presidential limousine were determined to have been fired from
Oswald's Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

"For Donahue' s theory to work, in addition to all of the above
problems with it, Oswald would have had to fire (as Donahue contends)
only two bullets. But we know that three expended shell casings were
found beneath the sixth-floor sniper's nest window where Oswald was.

"One of the three cartridge shells found on the floor beneath
the sixth-floor window, Commission Exhibit No. 543, had a dent on the
mouth of it. Donahue says that "the dent in the empty shell found in
the depository...would have precluded a third shot from that location.

"Donahue's source? Josiah Thompson, a professor of philosophy,
not a firearms expert, who says in his book, 'Six Seconds in Dallas',
that because of the dent, the cartridge case "could not have been
fired in any rifle--its lip will not receive a
projectile." Thompson goes on to speculate that the dent occurred
before November 22, and therefore the cartridge was not fired that

"One possibility he failed to consider was what obviously
happened. The dent occurred on November 22 when the cartridge shell
was being ejected from the Carcano. Not only firearms experts from the
Warren Commission, but those from the HSCA concluded that Commission
Exhibit No. 543 was fired in and ejected from Oswald's rifle. When
asked if the dent could have occurred "during the loading process" of
the cartridge into the breach of the Carcano, Donald Champagne, one of
the HSCA's five firearms experts, testified, "No sir."
"Question: "Could it have during the ejection process?"
"Answer: "Yes."
"Champagne went on to say that Monty Lutz of the firearms panel
(my firearms expert in London [during the 1986 television docu-trial,
"On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"] who was a past president of the
Association of Firearm and Tool Mark Examiners) test-fired four
cartridges from the Carcano, one of which had a "similar deformation
of the mouth of the cartridge case."
"Question: "Are you saying then when your panel test-fired
CE-139, out of four fired cartridges, one was ejected with a dented
"Answer: "Yes sir, that occurred during the ejection process in
firing the weapon."

"Dedicated and sincerely convinced he was correct, Donahue
attempted to interview Secret Service agent Hickey himself, but Hickey
did not respond. I imagine his position was that Donahue's claim was
so absurd it wasn't worth responding to.

"Donahue also made every effort to testify before the HSCA, even
enlisting the support of his congressional representative in the
Baltimore area, where he lived. Donahue was interviewed by HSCA
investigators but that's as far as it got, the HSCA refusing to allow
him to testify and clutter up the official record with such sublime

"Though Hickey did not respond to Donahue, some other Secret
Service agents did not remain mute. For example, when he called Agent
Winston Lawson, Lawson said, "That's about the biggest bunch of bull
[shit] I have ever heard in my life. That's absolutely ridiculous.
That's all I've got to say. Thank you for calling. Goodbye."

"Agent Richard Johnson [sic] said, "That's way out. My God,
that's way out. That's too far out to even think about."

"Donahue was led so far astray by his obsession that Menninger
writes, "The more he [Donahue] thought about it, the more he was
inclined to believe the government had probably made the right
decision in keeping the truth from the American public in 1963...There
could have been no way of knowing how the American people would have
reacted to news that Kennedy had been killed accidentally."

"In other words, even before the Warren Commission, the U.S.
government knew Hickey had killed Kennedy and suppressed this fact
from the American people. My, my.

"The back cover of 'Mortal Error' reads, "On November 22, 1963,
two men shot the President of the United States. They had never met or
heard of each other. They did not work for the same people. They knew
nothing of each other's existence. One of them meant to kill the
President. The other actually did...The Warren Commission was wrong.
The conspiracy theories about the CIA and the Mafia are wrong. 'JFK',
the movie, is wrong. Here is the hard evidence pointing to the bullet,
the gun and the man who killed John Kennedy. And the real reason
behind the cover-up."

"Fortunately, 'Mortal Error' has not been mortal in its impact.
Other than Howard Donahue and his biographer Bonar Menninger, I know
of no serious student of the assassination who takes the book or its
contents seriously." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 925-929 of "Reclaiming
History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (c.2007)



Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

Dec 3, 2009, 8:39:00 AM12/3/09

>>> "The absolutely critical point is the bullet's trajectory. If it was a shallow, flat or rising trajectory then the bullet penetrating the skull simply could NOT have been fired by Oswald. There is also testimony that people saw [Secret Service agent George] Hickey with the AR-15 in his hand before the head shot. There is also testimony that people thought Hickey had let off a shot. Hickey has NEVER reacted to the allegations by saying he did not shoot. Also if you look at the testimony of each person in the follow-up vehicle, their beliefs and impressions are so at odds with each other it is incredible -- to say each had a definitive unimpeachable view as to what happened is untenable." <<<

Hi again Steve,

It appears to me that one of your main problems regarding Mr.
Donahue's and Mr. Menninger's "Hickey Shot The President" theory is
your heavy reliance on trajectory analysis, while ignoring all common
sense regarding the many, many things that indicate it was virtually
impossible for George W. Hickey Jr. to have fired the fatal shot into
JFK's cranium.

A bullet can (and often will) CHANGE TRAJECTORY after striking a hard
object (like a human head). Dale Myers recognized that fact while
putting together his 3D computer model, with Myers admitting that it
was quite possible that Lee Harvey Oswald's bullet changed course
after initially striking the cowlick area in the back of President
Kennedy's head.

That is why Mr. Myers came to this conclusion:

"A headshot trajectory cannot be calculated from the available
evidence, due to the possibility that the bullet fragmented, creating
more than one exit wound, and the likelihood that the course of the
bullet changed after striking the skull." -- Dale K. Myers (via
webpage linked below)


David V.P.







David Von Pein

Dec 5, 2009, 5:14:57 PM12/5/09


>>> "The bag was 40 inches long. The longest part of the broken down MC was 38 inches. It fit the bag." <<<

That's not quite right, bigdog. The paper bag was 38 inches long, and
the lengthiest part of Oswald's C2766 MC rifle was 34.8 inches [WR;
Pg. 133].



Conspiracy theorists must hate the above picture, because it
demonstrably illustrates that Lee Oswald's rifle (when broken down)
was certainly capable of fitting inside the brown paper bag that was
found on the sixth floor of the Depository.

Which is probably why the Anybody-But-Oswald CTers (such as James
DiEugenio) have to try so hard to pretend that the paper bag in
evidence [CE142] is a fake bag, with DiEugenio coming up with a new
twist on that theory recently, as Jim D. now apparently wants to
pretend that Oswald didn't carry ANY BAG AT ALL into the TSBD on

The lengths to which conspiracy theorists will go in order to avoid
the evidence (and the facts) are simply amazing.



Dec 5, 2009, 6:37:10 PM12/5/09
On Dec 5, 2:14 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip the lone nut lunacy>

AND.... no advertising shithead


Dec 5, 2009, 6:38:39 PM12/5/09
On Dec 2, 10:45 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip the lone nut lunacy>

sorry to fuck up your parade shithead.... but we did say NO
advertising... why do you insist on beinging so damn dumb, ya moron?

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

Dec 6, 2009, 1:12:32 PM12/6/09


Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman said he heard a "flurry of SHELLS"
coming "into the car". That "flurry" was most certainly CE567 and
CE569 striking the limousine's interior.

The reason I'm so sure of this is -- IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE (based on
the evidence that POSITIVELY EXISTS in the case, vs. evidence that
only exists in the minds of conspiracy theorists who are desperate to
increase the number of shots fired in Dealey Plaza to a number above


>>> "That's utter nonsense." <<<

It's not nonsense at all, Robert [Harris]. In fact, as I pointed out,
it's the one single explanation that makes THE MOST SENSE when taking
into account the totality of all the evidence in this case.


1.) Lee Oswald fired 3 shots from his Sniper's Nest in the Book

2.) 90%+ of the earwitnesses heard 3 shots or fewer.

3.) 3 spent bullet shells were found in the TSBD's Sniper's Nest.

4.) Oswald was the only shooter seen on November 22 (which is
remarkable if the Oliver Stone-like theory of THREE gunmen is supposed
to be believed, with one of those shooters standing practically right
out in the open on the Grassy Knoll).

5.) Every single bullet or bullet fragment that was discovered and
placed into evidence following the assassination was either positively
linked to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle or was consistent with
having come from that gun (which would have been the miracle of the
ages if bullets from a variety of weapons had struck the two victims
in the limousine).

In short -- The sum total of evidence indicates that Lee Harvey Oswald
was the only person firing any bullets at the President's car in
Dealey Plaza on November the 22nd, 1963.*

* = A conspiracy theorist's desire for a conspiracy notwithstanding,
of course.



Message has been deleted


Dec 6, 2009, 1:29:49 PM12/6/09
Your OWN official records state that ONLY 2 shells were found in the TSBD !
! !

SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/only_2_shells_found.htm

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message

Message has been deleted


Dec 6, 2009, 1:41:01 PM12/6/09
On 6 Dec., 19:29, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> Your OWN official records state that ONLY 2 shells were found in the TSBD !
> ! !


> SEE>>>  http://whokilledjfk.net/only_2_shells_found.htm
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:3f662f88-c6e5-478a...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
> >http://www.JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,1464.msg20197.ht...

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

Dec 6, 2009, 2:34:09 PM12/6/09


>>> "I seriously doubt that any fragments would make a sound audible over the surrounding noise of the motorcade…even a bullet making a direct hit on the metal body of the car would not have come even close to the description of a sonic boom. .... [And:] .... The only way to “link” a fired bullet to any firearm is to match the marks on the bullet (from the lands and grooves of the rifling) to the rifling on the barrel of the weapon…and saying fragments were “consistent with having come from that gun” means nothing at all. I’d guess that the manufacturer of the ammunition was Norma...they made sporting/hunting loads for most all WWII rifles, and were about the only ones who did. So a fragment being “consistent” with the type of bullet that a 6.5 Italian rifle would fire would also be consistent to ANY Norma made Bullet…even one for a 30-06, a 8m/m, a 7.7 etc...the actual caliber would not even matter." <<<

The fact still remains, Gary Holt, that there isn't ONE bullet or
bullet fragment in this case that can be said to have positively NOT
come from Oswald's rifle. Period. All bullets and fragments in this
case either definitely came from MC rifle #C2766 or were consistent
with having come from that gun.

And the FBI's firearms expert Robert Frazier did, indeed, testify that
the smaller bullet fragments in evidence in this case were "consistent
with" bullets that are known to have come from the Carcano rifle owned
by Lee Harvey Oswald. Here's just one example of such testimony from
Frazier (at 5 H 72):

ARLEN SPECTER -- "Now, referring to a fragment heretofore marked as Q9
for FBI record purposes, and now marked as Commission Exhibit No. 842
[a metal fragment removed from the wrist of Governor Connally], will
you describe that fragment for us, please?"

ROBERT A. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; this is a small fragment of metal
which weighed one-half a grain when I first examined it in the
laboratory. It is a piece of lead, and could have been a part of a
bullet or a core of a bullet. However, it lacks any physical
characteristics which would permit stating whether or not it actually
originated from a bullet."

MR. SPECTER -- "Are its physical characteristics consistent with
having come from Commission Exhibit 399?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; it could have."

MR. SPECTER -- "Are they consistent with that fragment identified as
Commission Exhibit No. 842, as having come from fragment identified as
Commission Exhibit 567 [one of the front-seat bullet fragments fired
from Oswald's rifle]?" ....

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir; it could have."

MR. SPECTER -- "Were the characteristics of the fragment identified as
Commission Exhibit 842 consistent with having come from the fragment
heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 569 [the other front-seat
bullet fragment fired from Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle]?"

MR. FRAZIER -- "Yes, sir."


So, we can see via the above expert testimony from Bob Frazier that
the largest Connally wrist fragment was considered to be "consistent
with" other bullets and fragments that were positively fired from Lee
Oswald's rifle.

And just how likely would it be for fragments from OTHER (i.e., non-
Oswald) guns to have shown up in the evidence pile in this murder
case, and yet have ONLY TINY FRAGMENTS from those "other" guns show up
(vs. any fragments that were large enough to be compared with test
bullets from LHO's gun in order to positively eliminate Oswald's rifle
as a candidate for having fired all of the bullets that struck any of
the limo occupants in Dealey Plaza)?

What do you suppose the odds were of those "other" assassins getting


Don't conspiracy theorists find the following terminology utilized by
Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman interesting? Doesn't this testimony
sound a lot like the explanation I was talking about earlier
concerning Kellerman hearing the CE567 and CE569 bullet fragments from
the head shot striking the limo's interior?:

"A flurry of shells come [sic] into the car."

Yes, it's true that Kellerman only used the term "flurry of shells"
one time during his Warren Commission testimony (vs. "flurry of shots"
on other occasions during his testimony).

But when you come to think of it, those two words ("shells" vs.
"shots") are certainly not consistent with each other. A "shell"
coming "into the car" is not the same thing as hearing a "flurry of

Yes, you can attack me for possibly nit-picking this issue to death
regarding "shells" vs. "shots", but Mr. Kellerman's precise words are
quite interesting, IMO, in the sense that it would seem as though Mr.
Kellerman actually HEARD the physical "shells" (i.e., bullet
fragments) coming "INTO THE CAR" (which were his exact words).

And what OTHER "shells" (bullet fragments) could he possibly have been
talking about if not CE567 and CE569 (the two bullet fragments from
Oswald's gun that were found very near Kellerman's seat in the

YMMV. But for my money (and considering the SUM TOTAL of all the
evidence), Roy H. Kellerman heard CE567/569 striking the limousine
when he said "a flurry of shells come into the car".


>>> "Bullet fragments are normally called shrapnel and a shell/hull is where the bullet came from. Do you think his [Roy Kellerman's] recalling of the event is a bit flippant, as he was a seasoned pro. Would this sentence ["A flurry of shells come into the car"] be accepted in a court of law? No, and he knew it was no court." <<<

Quite obviously, when Kellerman used the word "shells", he was talking
about "bullets". (And to be more specific, he was obviously actually
talking about "bullet fragments".)


Message has been deleted


Dec 6, 2009, 6:07:33 PM12/6/09
On Dec 6, 3:05 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip the lone nut lunacy>

AND.... no advertising shithead

Message has been deleted


Dec 6, 2009, 6:24:26 PM12/6/09
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

Dec 6, 2009, 6:52:14 PM12/6/09


>>> "You are a complete and utter prick!" <<<

I guess this means that my hopes and dreams of receiving a very
expensive Christmas gift from you this year have now totally vanished,

(A conspiracy kook called me a "prick". How can I possibly face
another day? Hari-kari MUST now ensue.)

~sniff, sniff~

>>> "You may be 9 years older, but you write like a child, are clearly obsessed with official versions of events, are swayed by 'facts' presented by official bodies as opposed to those presented by others (and which actually make more sense) and are without doubt the most stubborn and pathetic individual I've had the displeasure to encounter." <<<

Yep, that holiday gift is definitely down the drain now. I can tell.

>>> "The fact that you haven't even fired a rifle speaks volumes..." <<<

So, if I HAD fired a rifle in the past, I would then feel free to
completely disregard all of the Warren Commission's and HSCA's
conclusions about Lee Harvey Oswald being THE ONLY GUNMAN in Dallas to
have struck any victims with any bullets on November 22, 1963?

Is that about the size of the situation, Mr. Retard?

>>> "...And I would strongly recommend, nay urge you to shut the fuck up for a few weeks, put your opinions on the shelf and actually read Jim Marrs' book Crossfire." <<<

If somebody gave me that particular book free of charge I doubt that
I'd read it.

Perhaps you, Mr. Kook, should take a good look at the ACTUAL EVIDENCE
in the JFK case (for once), instead of relying on Jim Marrs (and other
assorted crackpot conspiracists who want to peddle a book or movie) to
solve the case for you.

Here's a pretty decent place to start (yes, this blog was written by
that "prick" named DVP, but hey, nobody's perfect):


>>> "The Zapruder film was clearly altered; anyone can see it...oh except you of course." <<<

You're hilarious, Mr./Mrs. "Sproggle".

Fact is, the only people on this planet who truly believe that the
Zapruder Film has been "altered" are crackpots and retarded people
(e.g., James H. Fetzer).

Case closed on that issue.

>>> "Until you digest Jim Marrs' book (Crossfire) and step out of this ridiculous, contrived world you quite clearly live in, then you are not worth communicating with." <<<

I'm beginning to get the feeling that a Christmas gift from you in
2010 is out of the question too. Damn!

>>> "Go read that book you immature, blinkered little tosser! (Redneck for you, that is.)" <<<

Why the fixation on Jim Marrs? That's really bizarre. Especially
since every reasoned-thinking person knows that Marrs is a kook and a


BTW, I haven't the slightest idea what YouTube message this moron
"Sproggledaddy" is responding to here. I vaguely recall arguing with
some conspiracy nut by that username a while back, but I can't
remember at the present moment what the discussion was all about.

But one thing's for sure: I'm taking back the Yuletide gift that I
purchased for Sproggledaddy -- an autographed framed picture of Arlen
Specter and Earl Warren.

Happy Conspiracy Hunting, Mr./Mrs. Sproggledaddy (whoever the hell you

And Happy Holidays to both you and your father, David Lifton. (Or is
Jim Marrs your daddy, Sproggle?)





Dec 6, 2009, 8:03:58 PM12/6/09

Gil Jesus

Dec 6, 2009, 8:07:40 PM12/6/09
On Dec 6, 6:52�pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:


roflmao...what an a**hole.

David Von Pein

Dec 6, 2009, 8:10:03 PM12/6/09

The 64K question this month:

Will David G. Healy receive a brain for Christmas? Or will he have to
go another whole year without one?


Dec 6, 2009, 10:36:09 PM12/6/09
HAHAHAHAHAHA You Citie a WCR SHILL as being "Official"???

Here ya go mucher>>> SEE>>>

THOSE are "Official".

"mucher1" <muc...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

Dec 7, 2009, 8:32:45 PM12/7/09

>>> "Dave Von Pein has all the VB [Vincent Bugliosi] appearances except the TSBD speech." <<<

Oh, I've most certainly saved the TSBD speech, too, obelisk. Right
here (it's the last video presented on this page):


And besides my embedded video version of VB's 5/24/07 Depository
appearance, there's a webpage for it at Book TV (C-Span2), too. Right


And lots more VB stuff at these three blogs:




(The conspiracy kooks are really going to be convinced that I'm a
"paid VB shill" now, aren't they? Well, let 'em think that. In fact, I
love it when they do think such silly and unfounded things.) ;)


Dec 7, 2009, 9:11:36 PM12/7/09

David Von Pein

Dec 8, 2009, 5:09:21 PM12/8/09



>>> "This last statement [in the bottom post linked above] makes no sense. On one hand the LNs have always said that one of the reasons Oswald must have acted alone is that no one else has ever stepped up and taken credit for it." <<<

I don't recall having ever utilized that line of thinking before.

But it would be nice if some CTer (somewhere) could place a little bit
of solid evidence on the table to back up their notions that other
bullets besides Oswald's penetrated the victims.

Don't you agree?

>>> "There had been no deathbed confession (although there was, they just wouldn't accept it)." <<<

Of course not. Because no "confession" has ever been backed up by any
kind of solid support or evidence. Might as well have had my
grandmother confess before she passed on. Her confession would have
been just as valid as any we've seen to date, including Jimmy Files'
laughable story (although, granted, Files didn't concoct his bald-
faced lies while on his "deathbed").

>>> "By the way, if you had a little fire and brimstone here and there in this diatribe, you would sound a whole lot like Oba[m]a's exminister." <<<

I've got some ordered from "F&B.com". It should be arriving shortly.
(I got a good holiday deal on the brimstone, too. 2-for-1 sale.)


David Von Pein

Jan 8, 2010, 11:48:44 PM1/8/10



>>> "Another point to consider. Neither Ruth Paine nor Marina Oswald were in the garage the evening of 11/21, yet when they arose on 11/22, the garage light was on. The only other adult in the house on 11/21 was Lee. Not surprising the light was on. No doubt Lee was in a hurry to obtain his MC and get out of the garage as quickly as possible. Once again, common sense." <<<


That's not quite accurate, Paul.

Ruth Paine noticed the light on in the garage at approximately 9:00 PM
on Thursday, November 21 -- not on Friday morning after she got up.

Ruth went into the garage at about 9:00 PM on Thursday to paint
(lacquer) some toy blocks for her kids. And it was at that time on
Thursday that she noticed somebody had left the light on. Ruth was
pretty certain that it was not Marina who had left the light burning:

"I doubt seriously it could have been Marina. She was very good
at turning out the lights if she ever went in there; and then I could
hear her moving about, I knew where she was during the evening. So as
I walked into the garage and found the light on, it was my clear
impression that [Lee] Oswald had been there and left it on,
carelessly." -- Ruth Paine; July 1986; "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"


David Von Pein

Jan 9, 2010, 12:06:49 PM1/9/10



>>> "Oswald only talked like a commie. Every relevant thing he actually did, was fanatically anticommunist." <<<


LOL. Yeah, right Bob.

Like the following examples:

1.) Lee Oswald decides he wants to LIVE IN RUSSIA FOR THREE YEARS

2.) Lee Oswald decides to join the Fair Play For Cuba Committee, which
(naturally) strongly supports Fidel Castro, who is in bed with Nikita
Khrushchev (a COMMUNIST).

3.) Lee Oswald decides to take a potshot at General Edwin A. Walker,
who is a person who hates COMMUNISTS.

4.) Lee Oswald decides to go on radio (twice) in New Orleans in August
of 1963 to preach the virtues of Castro, who (as mentioned) is in bed
with Khrushchev, a COMMUNIST.


Why do the ABO (Anybody But Oswald) conspiracy theorists insist upon
misrepresenting every single thing associated with LHO and JFK's

Do CTers consider it a birthright or something? Or is it merely a
hobby that they developed as a youth?


Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

Jan 11, 2010, 3:31:00 PM1/11/10


We know for a fact that there were chicken bones found on the 6th
Floor, and we know they belonged to TSBD worker Bonnie Ray Williams:

Mr. WILLIAMS. I had a chicken sandwich.
Mr. BALL. Describe the sandwich. What did it have in it besides
Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, it just had chicken in it. Chicken on the bone.
Mr. BALL. Chicken on the bone?
Mr. BALL. The chicken was not boned?
Mr. WILLIAMS. It was just chicken on the bone. Just plain old chicken.
Mr. BALL. Did it have bread around it?
Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, it did.
Mr. BALL. Before you went upstairs, did you get anything to drink?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I got a small bottle of Dr. Pepper from the Dr. Pepper
Mr. BALL. Did you have anything else in your lunch besides chicken?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I had a bag of Fritos, I believe it was.
Mr. BALL. Anything else?
Mr. WILLIAMS. No; I believe that was all.
Mr. BALL. You say you went back upstairs. Where did you go?
Mr. WILLIAMS. I went back up to the sixth floor.

I've always been amazed that Bonnie Ray Williams was still alive to
give his testimony to the Warren Commission in 1964. By rights, he
should have died on 11/22/63.

Cause of death: choking on a "chicken on the bone" sandwich.



Jan 11, 2010, 3:43:33 PM1/11/10
On Jan 11, 12:31 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

<snip the nutter lunacy>

no advertising ya drip!

p.s. being locked in your brothers bedroom for the last 5 years is
effecting those 3 remaining brain cells of yours -- best to find some
fresh air, son! SOON!

David Von Pein

Jan 11, 2010, 3:52:19 PM1/11/10



Jan 11, 2010, 4:01:26 PM1/11/10
On Jan 11, 12:52 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> ~yawn~

alright, those TWO remaining brain cells... don't you have that 65th
blog of yours to christen today?

David Von Pein

Jan 11, 2010, 4:13:22 PM1/11/10

>>> "don't you have that 65th blog of yours to christen today?" <<<

That's a funny coincidence you mentioned that, Mr. Crackpipe. I just
spent 14 hours working on a new one today and last night. But it's not
a JFK-related site (incredibly enough).

In-between hits on his crackpipe, perhaps Healy has been looking at
some tea leaves. I'm impressed.


David Von Pein

Jan 11, 2010, 8:39:42 PM1/11/10


>>> "[You] always have an excuse, no matter how absurd it sounds." <<<

What's more absurd (by far) is to believe in Oswald's innocence in the
Tippit murder, even though all of the following things are true (save
the latter portions of #5):

1.) The two non-Poe shells on 10th St. are linked conclusively to
Oswald's revolver (and we don't even need the Poe shells to convict
Oswald, because the two shells recovered by the Davis girls certainly
have a chain of custody that not even most CT-Kooks challenge). And
TENTH STREET....do the math.

2.) Oswald is IDed by approx. 12 witnesses as the killer or the ONLY
PERSON fleeing from the crime scene.

3.) Oswald whips out a pistol and tries to kill some cops with it in
the Texas Theater 35 minutes after Tippit is killed. (And the pistol
Oswald whipped out just happens to be the exact same revolver that is
tied to those two non-Poe shells on 10th Street. CTers probably think
that incredible fact I just cited is just a mere coincidence. Jack
Ruby probably planted the gun on poor unsuspecting Oswald while Lee
was sleeping during the movie.)

4.) Oswald lied about where he purchased the gun he had on him when
arrested. He said he bought it in Fort Worth. Just one of dozens of
lies he told after he was apprehended. I suppose the conspiracy
theorists think that the reason LHO lied repeatedly is because he was
TOTALLY INNOCENT of any wrong-doing on Nov. 22nd.

5.) Just like with JFK's murder, Oswald just happens to have NO ALIBI
at all that could save his hide when it comes to the Tippit murder
either. Probably just bad luck on innocent LHO's part. Of course,
there's always Bob Groden's bombshell witness [Geneva Hine], who said
she and LHO were having hot, steamy sex in the Domino Room when the
shooting occurred. At exactly 12:30 PM, as Geneva and Lee were engaged
in intercourse, they both heard the gunshots, interrupting their
sexual encounter, which made Lee Harvey so angry, he went on a wild
rampage. He left the building almost immediately [after buying a cool,
refreshing beverage from the Coca-Cola machine], went home and armed
himself, raced over to 10th Street and shot the first cop he saw. His
rage continued inside the movie theater, as he turned his gun on more
of Dallas' finest. You see, this wasn't the first time Lee was
interrupted during a steamy sexual escapade -- it happened three other
times with Judyth Vary Baker too. That Goddamned Clay Shaw kept
breaking in on Lee and Judyth at Alba's Garage before Lee could finish
his business. So is it any wonder Lee was peeved on Nov. 22nd?

In summary -- Attempting to exonerate Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder
of Dallas Policeman J.D. Tippit is like trying to find snow in Arizona
in August. In short, it cannot be done.


Jan 12, 2010, 5:24:06 AM1/12/10
"You always have an excuse no matter how absurd it sounds" somebody just
nailed Peiny to the wall...

David Von Pein

Jan 12, 2010, 2:42:54 PM1/12/10

>>> ""You always have an excuse no matter how absurd it sounds"....somebody just nailed Peiny to the wall." <<<

If you had bothered to read the "source" link for that post above
(from D. MacRae's forum), you would know that the CT-Kook whom I was
quoting wasn't talking to me:


But I'm sure you still think I was "nailed to the wall" anyway, even
if the kook wasn't talking to me directly (and despite the many things
that prove Oz's guilt in the Tippit murder), right Lazy?

David Von Pein

Jan 12, 2010, 3:26:19 PM1/12/10


>>> "Think folks will bite you if you use your real name, Whiskey Joe?" <<<

Joe has made his full real name (Joe Elliott) available for everybody
here to see. It's right here in his profile, just one easy click away:


So, Joe's not hiding his identity. But even if he did want to hide it,
so what? Some LNers hesitate to post using their real names (esp. at
the acj asylum). Bud is one such example. He thinks it's much wiser to
use an alias, because he never can tell what the "kooks" will do. And
I can certainly appreciate and understand that point-of-view (even if
I don't practice it myself).


Jan 12, 2010, 3:57:55 PM1/12/10
On Jan 12, 12:26 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/th...

> >>> "Think folks will bite you if you use your real name, Whiskey Joe?" <<<
> Joe has made his full real name (Joe Elliott) available for everybody
> here to see. It's right here in his profile, just one easy click away:


> So, Joe's not hiding his identity. But even if he did want to hide it,
> so what? Some LNers hesitate to post using their real names (esp. at
> the acj asylum).


you dementedtroll, you've been hiding under mcmadman's skirt for years
now -- grow up, get a job and move out of your mother's house.
Further, if you stopped posting to this board, shithead you'd end up
in an Indy emergency room suffering *severe* withdrawals. Who are you
trying to kid! ROTFLMFAO!

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

Jan 12, 2010, 8:02:01 PM1/12/10


>>> "You [JEAN DAVISON] now claim that [MARRION] Baker never uttered the word Coke in his life [OF COURSE, JEAN NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE KIND] and that Burnett thought it would be fun to add it to Baker's story. That's perjury. You approve of perjury. Especially by law enforcement." <<<

I see that Anthony Marsh has not lost his amazing ability to
completely mangle and misrepresent the things that another person has

>>> "You [JEAN DAVISON] are trying to think up excuses for misconduct. Why am I not surprised that a leading WC defender would try to cover-up official misconduct?" <<<

Jean Davison never even hinted at any kind of "misconduct" on the part
of FBI Special Agent Richard J. Burnett. That's your own
interpretation only, Tony.

Jean merely said that Burnett had possibly heard some incorrect
through-the-grapevine information about Oswald's "Coke", and he
(Burnett) incorporated that incorrect information into the statement
he wrote up for Officer Marrion L. Baker to sign on September 23,

Please tell us, Anthony, how an innocent MISTAKE can somehow equal
"perjury" (especially when the mistake was fully CORRECTED prior to
the document being signed by M.L. Baker)?

Or can you, Tony Marsh, prove that Burnett's "Coke" notation in CE3076
was a deliberate attempt to deceive and/or alter the official record
in the JFK murder case? But even if that were so, it evidently didn't
work--because Baker crossed out the "Coke" reference and initialed the

>>> "All of your fancy arguments are only nonsense, because all Burnett did was write down WHAT HE HEARD. He did not make up anything from his own memory." <<<


Are you saying that Marrion Baker was, indeed, right there in the room
with FBI Agent Richard Burnett on 9/23/64 when Burnett (or at least
somebody other than Baker) wrote down the words we see in this


But if Burnett merely wrote down "WHAT HE HEARD" Baker saying on the
same day the statement was written, then why wouldn't Baker have
simply written the document HIMSELF?

But it's obvious by looking at the document that it is not in Baker's
handwriting (except for his initials and signature).

Or -- Are you saying, Tony, that Burnett "HEARD" the rumor about
Oswald possibly having a Coke in his hands in the TSBD lunchroom (and
Burnett heard this rumor many days, weeks, or even months prior to
9/23/64), but somehow that doesn't constitute something that has come
from Burnett's "OWN MEMORY"?

I can't see a third alternative that could explain your "WHAT HE
HEARD" comment. But I'm guessing that Tony probably does have a third
alternative in his own mind, because the above two choices make no
sense at all.

Anyway, I'm enjoying the following bit of "like-mindedness" that
exists between Jean Davison and myself:

"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. ....

"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)."
-- DVP; May 4, 2007



"Hi David, Good point. If Baker was there, why didn't *he* write
out the statement? Without a doubt, the document is in the FBI agent's
handwriting. ....

"The agent imo included the Coke not because Baker said it, but
because it was "established myth" by 9/64 and the agent included it as
part of the narrative. He probably didn't give it a second thought and
neither did Baker when he crossed it out. It wasn't important to
them." -- Jean Davison; January 10, 2010




After reading Jean Davison's 1/10/10 post regarding this matter, I
decided to dig into it a little further, with the thought in my mind
that there is probably a "cover letter" from the FBI associated with
those Baker and Truly affidavits from September of 1964.

And, sure enough, there is. I found the cover letter in question at
the Mary Ferrell website. It's located in Warren Commission Document
#1526 [linked below]:


CD1526 includes a letter that was sent from FBI Director J. Edgar
Hoover to J. Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission (dated September 25,

"Reference is made to a telephone conversation between Mr.
Alfred Goldberg of your [Warren Commission] staff and Mr. J. R. Malley
of this Bureau [FBI] on September 23, 1964. During this conversation
Mr. Goldberg requested that signed statements be obtained from Mr. Roy
S. Truly and Officer Marrion L. Baker of the Dallas Police Department.
Enclosed are the original signed statements obtained from these
individuals and a Xerox of each. Sincerely yours, /s/ J. Edgar Hoover"


So, it appears that Jean Davison could very well be correct when she
said this in an earlier Internet message:

"[Marrion] Baker's affidavit of Sept 23,1964 and a similar one
from Truly were dated only one day before the Warren Report was
officially released, and both their statements were, unlike all the
other FBI documents I'm aware of, *handwritten*. IOW, they were
prepared in a big hurry. Their statements are footnoted to a WR
paragraph on the "rumor" that there was someone else in the lunchroom
when Baker confronted Oswald. (Neither Baker or Truly had been
specifically asked this in their testimony. Their 9/64 affidavits
supplied the explicit answer: no one else was in the lunchroom.) I
surmise that someone at the WC realized at the last minute that they
needed a "cite" for this statement." -- Jean Davison; 01/10/10

The 9/25/64 letter from Hoover to Rankin doesn't mention anything
about the specific reason(s) as to WHY Goldberg and the Warren
Commission wanted the additional statements from Baker and Truly, but
Hoover's letter certainly DOES tell us that the Baker/Truly statements
were taken because of a direct request by the Warren Commission

But Jean is definitely correct about these three things:

1.) Both of the 9/23/64 statements mention the fact that Oswald was
ALONE in the second-floor lunchroom when Baker and Truly saw LHO on

2.) The 9/23/64 statements obtained from Baker and Truly "were
prepared in a big hurry" [Jean Davison; 1/10/10]. This is fairly
obvious because of the date of the telephone call from Alfred Goldberg
to the FBI--September 23, 1964--the exact same date when the
statements were signed by both Marrion Baker and Roy Truly.

3.) "Their [Baker's & Truly's] statements are footnoted to a WR
paragraph on the "rumor" that there was someone else in the lunchroom
when Baker confronted Oswald" [Jean Davison; 1/10/10]. Jean, once
again, is 100% correct. In Appendix XII of the Warren Commission
Report (entitled "Speculations and Rumors"), the following text can be
found on page 648:

"Speculation. -- There were other people present in the
lunchroom at the time that Baker and Truly saw Oswald there.
"Commission finding. -- Baker and Truly have both stated that
there was no one in the lunchroom other than Oswald at the time that
they entered. No other witness to this incident has been found."

WR; PAGE 648:

In my opinion, the most amazing thing about the above text from page
648 of the WR is the information that is found in the source note that
is connected to it. The source note is Note #42, which leads to page
857, which cites "CE 3035, 3076".

WR; PAGE 857:

The "amazing" part isn't Commission Exhibits 3035 and 3076 themselves
(which I've linked at the end of this post). What's amazing to me is
the fact that references to those two exhibits could have possibly
been included in the Warren Report at all, because the two FBI
documents that comprise those WC exhibits didn't even exist prior to
September 23, 1964!

And it stands to reason that the Warren Report surely must have gone
to press many days (maybe even weeks) prior to its release to the
general public at 6:30 PM EDT on Sunday, September 27, 1964 (which was
three days after President Johnson was given a copy by Chief Justice
Earl Warren; plus, some members of the news media also had advance
copies provided to them on that same day, 9/24/64).

So, it seems somewhat remarkable to me to have references to documents
that were dated 9/23/64 contained within a Government report that was
released to the President on 9/24/64 and to the general public just
three days after that.

Anyway, regardless of how it happened, I think Jean Davison hit the
nail on the head when she said that the Baker/Truly FBI statements
"were prepared in a big hurry".


It's easy to see that both of those statements were written by the
same person (probably FBI Special Agent Richard J. Burnett). The
writing is identical on both statements (including Truly's statement,
which I didn't even realize existed until Jean pointed out that info
the other day; I then did some additional digging and found CD1526,
which has good-quality copies of both the Baker and Truly FBI
documents, linked below):




The versions of Baker's and Truly's 9/64 statements that appear as
"Commission Exhibits" in the Warren Commission volumes are not nearly
as pristine or readable as the versions in CD1526, but here they are
anyway (for reference):







Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages