Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton


      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

David Von Pein

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by David Von Pein

  1. When did the Coke Appear?

    Oh, so you think Oswald told somebody that he was on the "THIRD OR FOURTH FLOOR" when Officer Baker stopped him, eh? Please point me to THAT interesting statement made by Oswald. No such statement by LHO exists, of course, since we all know---via Page 600 of the Warren Report---that Oswald told Captain Fritz that he was on the "second floor" when the officer came into the room. But you think Fritz just MADE UP the "second floor" part, don't you?
  2. How the FBI lost the rifle's fingerprints

    And since Oswald wasn't seen by anyone running down the stairs, you think that means it was IMPOSSIBLE for him to have done so? Did Adams and Styles see Baker and Truly coming up the same stairs they were on? Answer: No. Does that mean that Baker & Truly never went up those stairs? Answer: No. So I assume the above comment, Steve, means that you now believe that Howard Brennan never even attended a lineup at the Dallas Police Department at all, is that right? If so, you must think this testimony is just a bunch of made-up crap invented by Mr. Brennan, correct?.... DAVID BELIN -- "Now, taking you down to the Dallas Police Station, I believe you said you talked to Captain Fritz. And then what happened?" HOWARD BRENNAN -- "Well, I was just more or less introduced to him in Mr. Sorrels' room, and they told me they were going to conduct a lineup and wanted me to view it, which I did." Yes, indeed, his prints most certainly were found in various places on the sixth floor---on two different boxes which were located DEEP INSIDE the assassin's Sniper's Nest. Plus, two LHO prints on the 38-inch brown paper bag that several police officers said they saw in the corner of the Nest before it was picked up. And, of course, Oswald's prints were, as already mentioned, on the Carcano rifle that Oswald ditched between some boxes in the northwest corner of the sixth floor. And, IMO, the reason there weren't more of LHO's prints on the rifle is because he very likely utilized his brown shirt as a fingerprint-wiping rag right after the assassination, wiping as many prints from the rifle as he could as he ran across the sixth floor. He then ditched the rifle near the stairwell and then put the brown shirt back on as he ran down the stairs, leaving it untucked and unbuttoned (hence the reason Marrion Baker thought the brown SHIRT resembled a JACKET). All that stuff I just mentioned is my own opinion, and needs to be identified as just that--my OPINION--but it fits very nicely with some of the physical evidence in the case, and it fits fairly well with some of the witnesses who said the shooter was wearing only a "light-colored" or a "white" shirt (which would have been Oswald's white T-shirt, of course). He probably had the brown shirt resting on the floor (or on a box) as he pulled the trigger at 12:30. Plus, my "Used The Shirt To Wipe Fingerprints" theory fits nicely with the evidence of similar shirt fibers being wedged in the butt plate of the rifle. As he was wiping off prints, fibers from the shirt could have easily found their way under the butt plate. Check out Commission Exhibit No. 637 (which is Oswald's palmprint, taken off the rifle by Lt. J.C. Day on 11/22/63). Also see this important (often overlooked) document. Now, if you were referring to the FINGERprints on the trigger guard of the rifle....well, those prints were definitely photographed and were examined in detail by many fingerprint experts---one of whom (Vincent Scalice) said: "We're able for the first time to actually say that these are definitely the fingerprints of Lee Harvey Oswald, and that they are on the rifle. There is no doubt about it." -- Vincent J. Scalice; 1993 [See the first video on this page.] And although I myself have never seen the photos of the trigger guard fingerprints, some of the pictures of those prints are shown on camera in the 1993 PBS program "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" (during the Scalice segment linked above).
  3. How the FBI lost the rifle's fingerprints

    Hogwash! There's tons of evidence to show that Lee Harvey Oswald (and nobody else!) was the shooter: ...OSWALD'S rifle was the murder weapon without doubt -- with CE567 & CE569, the front-seat bullet fragments, providing the proof that Oswald's C2766 rifle was definitely being used by SOMEONE to fire bullets at Kennedy's car on November 22. No reasonable person can possibly deny this fact. Plus, there are the three spent bullet shells (which were tied to Oswald's rifle as well) lying on the floor below the assassin's window, providing additional proof that OSWALD'S RIFLE was being used to shoot at President Kennedy on 11/22/63. And as I've asked conspiracy theorists in the past --- Who is MORE likely to use Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle on any day of the week (11/22/63 or any other day)---the rifle's owner himself or someone else? That simple and basic observation, all by itself, makes OSWALD much more likely to be JFK's murderer than any other person on the planet. ...OSWALD'S prints are on various things in the exact same tiny area where we know JFK's killer was located--in the Sniper's Nest. ...OSWALD is identified as the assassin by a witness. (Yes, CTers despise Howard L. Brennan, but his testimony is still part of the official record in this case and it always will be, despite the persistent and noisy protests from the conspiracy crowd--and despite that famous quote from Jesse Curry, which is a quote that is just flat-out wrong, to boot.) ...OSWALD is the only Book Depository employee who fits into this very incriminating category --- He was the only employee who is known to have been INSIDE the TSBD Building at the time of the assassination who left the building immediately after the shooting and did not return. ...OSWALD kills J.D. Tippit, which is a crime that is irrevocably linked to the JFK murder, with Oswald killing Tippit while in full flight from his Dealey Plaza murder. All reasonable people realize that the last sentence I just wrote is 100% accurate and sensible. ...OSWALD lies repeatedly to the police after his arrest. ...And, despite what Steve Thomas said above, OSWALD'S prints were most definitely found on the C2766 Carcano rifle. More on that here. ...And why you, Steve, are saying that Oswald has "an alibi by being seen on the second floor within 90 seconds of the shooting" is a real mystery to me --- because you surely have got to know that anybody who wasn't walking on crutches could easily descend those Depository stairs and travel from the sixth floor to the second floor in under 90 seconds. The Secret Service man who performed such a test (twice) for the Warren Commission managed to travel that distance--at merely a "NORMAL WALKING PACE"--in just 78 seconds [Warren Report, p.152]. So to say that a "90-second" timeline provides Oswald with an "alibi" is just not accurate at all. More about Oswald's very doable journey from the Sniper's Nest to the 2nd-floor lunchroom can be found here. ...And the reason why "nobody saw him [Oswald] coming down the stairs" isn't very difficult to figure out at all (whether you're referring to Victoria Adams, Sandra Styles, Dorothy Garner, Jack Dougherty, or all four of those people). More about that here. And so much more here.... http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com Twelve jurors who would acquit Oswald must also be related (mentally) to all 12 O.J. jurors.
  4. When did the Coke Appear?

    A statement (or trial testimony) from the accused can be very important, yes. I don't deny that. In many cases, it can exonerate the accused person (if the statement can be corroborated via other evidence). But in many cases, of course, a statement from a defendant can hang him. And I think Oswald's statements (aka: his lies) in THIS (JFK) case help to do just that—hang him. That's mainly what I meant when I said earlier — "And you actually think that anyone is going to believe the word of the alleged assassin? You must be kidding!" — i.e., given the evidence that built up against Oswald IN THIS CASE, and given the number of times Oswald PROVABLY LIED to the police about substantive issues connected to the investigation, there's no way a jury is going to suddenly start BELIEVING Oswald if he were to have denied that he came down the stairs from the sixth floor—even via the make-believe scenario I talked about earlier, which had Baker and Truly just inventing a "better" story, with each of them saying they saw LHO on the stairs near the sixth floor. Even in that kind of "pretend" situation, given all of Oswald's other lies, I kind of doubt a juror would be saying this to himself — Hmmm, maybe I should believe Oswald about THIS particular part of his statement, even though it was proven by various other witnesses and evidence that he lied his butt off many other times during this trial.
  5. When did the Coke Appear?

    [Deleted duplicate post. Sorry.]
  6. When did the Coke Appear?

    Oh, brother. What a big load of craptrap that was. As we can all see, Greg R. Parker has a very active imagination.
  7. When did the Coke Appear?

    And you actually think that anyone is going to believe the word of the alleged assassin? You must be kidding! This same kind of "Would Oswald Lie?" argument has cropped up when talking about some of Oswald's other statements that he made while in custody -- such as Oswald claiming he never owned a rifle, and his lie about not knowing anything about the alias "Hidell", and his lie about having never been in Mexico City, and his whopper of a lie when he said "I didn't shoot anybody". Many conspiracy believers seem to think Oswald was being TRUTHFUL in every one of those statements. Naturally, I disagree. Oswald was a Lying Machine on November 22nd and 23rd of 1963. He never stopped lying. Therefore, WHY on Earth would anyone (a jury or anybody else) start BELIEVING this lying machine named Oswald even if he denied something that WAS, indeed, just made up from whole cloth (like the alternate scenario I proposed earlier about Truly and Baker making up a BETTER lie by saying they had seen Oswald on or near the SIXTH floor, vs. the second floor)? So what? Once again (like point #1 above), who cares what the ALLEGED ASSASSIN says? Even in the "Let's Pretend" scenarios that I've been talking about in this discussion, who is going to take ANYTHING uttered by the assassin (or the "alleged" assassin) seriously. An assassin is going to LIE a whole lot of the time. And, as all reasonable people know, Oswald (the Real Assassin) DID lie constantly while he was in custody. Once again --- Who cares what Oswald said?! If all you're going to do is use OSWALD'S own statements in your arguments, then you've already lost. Because the desperate statements made by the guy charged with the murder aren't going to carry much weight with a jury (or anybody). But if Marrion Baker was the rotten evil l-i-a-r that you think he was, then (via my alternate scenario) he would have NEVER said he saw anybody on the 3rd or 4th floor at all. He would have said ALL ALONG that he saw Oswald nearer to the sixth floor. But I guess it depends on exactly WHEN you think Marrion Baker decided to start telling lies. You think he was being completely truthful in his 11/22/63 affidavit, right? It was only LATER that he was strong-armed into telling the "lie" about seeing Oswald on the 2nd floor, correct? And that's always a nice comfy cop-out for conspiracy theorists to use when they're stuck for something better --- just say the person was "coerced" into changing his or her story. In other words, it couldn't POSSIBLY have been an honest and simple MISTAKE that Marrion L. Baker made in his 11/22/63 affidavit when he said he encountered the man (Oswald) or the "third or fourth floor", instead of saying the correct floor (the second), right? (Even though it couldn't be more obvious that Baker WAS, indeed, unsure as to which floor it was---because he mentioned TWO different floor numbers in his original affidavit. And, quite obviously, he wasn't implying he had an encounter on BOTH of those floors. So at least one of them HAD to be incorrect in the first place.) Why can't conspiracists accept Marrion Baker's "third or fourth floor" statement for what it so clearly is --- a simple and honest mistake made by a police officer who was in a chaotic and frantic situation within minutes of the President having just been shot, and who was not paying close attention at all to what floor he was standing on when he pointed his gun at Lee Harvey Oswald's stomach in the lunchroom on November 22, 1963?
  8. When did the Coke Appear?

    I don't think that's the way an affidavit works. (I never thought it was anyway.) The way I have always thought an "affidavit" worked is ---- The person giving the affidavit is given a piece of paper and he writes down his own account (statement) of what happened--in his or her own words (without being grilled or interviewed by anybody)--and then that handwritten version is typed up by a DPD or Sheriff's Department clerk to create the final neat typewritten version. And then it gets notarized by a notary public (e.g., Mary Rattan, et al). (It's possible that the handwritten version gets notarized as well, but I'm not positive about that.) Yes, Marvin Johnson said he "took" Baker's affidavit at City Hall, but I'm not sure that means that Johnson was questioning Baker at all. It could be that Johnson was just THERE when Baker was filling out his written statement, and then Johnson possibly physically took the affidavit into his physical possession and then it made its way into Mary Rattan's hands (the notary public). I really don't know what the word "took" means in this case. But here are the three HANDWRITTEN pages of Baker's affidavit (below). Can anybody confirm whose handwriting this is? Is it Baker's or Johnson's? The "B" in "M.L. Baker" at the top of page 1 looks somewhat like Baker's own signature that we find on this 9/23/64 statement that Baker initialled and signed, but I'm not 100% sure. Any handwriting experts out there?.... http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0135-001.gif http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0135-002.gif http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/01/0135-003.gif
  9. When did the Coke Appear?

    Baker/Johnson Addendum.... Dallas Police Department Detective Marvin Johnson's undated multi-page statement concerning how he was present at Dallas City Hall when Marrion Baker filled out his affidavit can be found HERE and HERE. And I don't see any inconsistencies or "alterations" in Baker's statements at all when comparing those two pages from Johnson's statement to this affidavit authored by Marrion Baker. Johnson's report merely ADDS some additional information that Baker did not choose to include in his 11/22/63 affidavit---that information being the following statement that Johnson said Baker made while both Baker and Johnson were together in the Homicide Bureau of the Dallas Police Department: "When Patrolman M.L. Baker identified Lee Harvey Oswald as the man that he stopped in the Texas School Book Depository Building, Patrolman Baker was in the Homicide Bureau giving an affidavit and Oswald was brought into the room to talk to some Secret Service men. When Baker saw Oswald he stated, "That is the man I stopped on the 4th floor of the School Book Depository"." -- M. Johnson So, given this portion of the statement made by Marvin Johnson.... "While in the office from 3:00 pm [November 22nd] until 2:00 am [November 23rd] I answered the phone and took an affidavit from Patrolman M.L. Baker." ....it's fairly clear that Detective Johnson himself heard Officer Baker utter the words "That is the man I stopped on the 4th floor of the School Book Depository". And that's why Johnson wrote it down in his own report later on. Johnson HEARD Baker identify Oswald, but Baker chose not to write down that information in his own affidavit. Simple as that. But when a dedicated conspiracy theorist like James DiEugenio gets ahold of this very easy-to-figure-out situation regarding Johnson and Baker, it gets turned into a nefarious and devious scenario where Marvin Johnson "lied when he changed Baker's first day affidavit", even though nothing like that occurred at all.
  10. When did the Coke Appear?

    Liars, liars, everywhere!! (Per James DiEugenio).... Johnson, Baker, Truly, Fritz, Paine, Norman, Frazier, Randle, The whole WC, plus dozens of others. It's hilarious! There's no other word BUT "hilarious" to describe the constant "L-i-a-r" refrain. But Jimmy doesn't care. The more liars, the better. And Johnson "altered" nothing! He knew that Baker HAD, indeed, encountered the one & only Lee Harvey Oswald. Everybody at the DPD knew it after a short period of time following the assassination.[Also see my "Baker/Johnson Addendum" in my later post below.] You, Jimmy, are just doing what you always do----quick to label someone as a "l-i-a-r" or a conspirator. NO OTHER EXPLANATION is even possible in your world. Isn't that right, James D.?
  11. If Oswald was 5'11" why show him 5'7" ??

    Any idea, Jim, as to WHY the people involved in the "Dual Oswalds" scheme/charade decided to use a guy for their duplicate Oswald who was TWO INCHES TALLER than the real Lee Oswald? Was it stupidity? Or were BOTH "Oswalds" really only 5-feet-9 when the ruse began---and then one of them grew another 2 inches later on? (Was he still a growing boy?)
  12. When did the Coke Appear?

    @Bart Kamp: And all of that subterfuge and lying was done just so they could---what was it now?---oh, yes....just so they could falsely place Oswald on the SECOND FLOOR instead of the FIRST FLOOR (which is where most CTers say he was in the first place). Hardly seems worth it, does it? Because the SECOND FLOOR isn't the SIXTH FLOOR, is it? You'd think the crafters of this Baker/Oswald ruse would have had Baker and Truly (both rotten liars, according to CTers) say they saw Oswald dashing down the stairs between the SIXTH and FIFTH floors. Such a fabricated tale would have been infinitely better for the "Let's Frame Oswald" team of plotters. But no! They only wanted to say they saw him on the SECOND floor. As if THAT story somehow nails the resident "patsy" to the cross more efficiently. (Hilarious!) Please explain for me, Bart, why the plotters and patsy-framers didn't make up a better lie regarding WHERE Baker and Truly saw Oswald. After all, most Internet CTers think BOTH of those men (Marrion Baker AND Roy Truly) were evil rotten liars anyway. So why not have them say they saw Oswald either ON the sixth floor or coming down the stairs nearer to the sixth floor? The fact that the "Lunchroom Encounter" makes ZERO sense if it were, in fact, just made up from whole cloth is one of the reasons to know that it really did happen the way Officer Baker and Roy S. Truly always said it happened.
  13. When did the Coke Appear?

    Johnson didn't "change" Baker's affidavit. Why did you word it that way? Anybody telling the story of the "Baker/Oswald encounter" AFTER THE FACT (such as Marvin Johnson) very likely had to have known that the person Baker saw in the TSBD was definitely Lee Harvey Oswald. Roy Truly VERIFIED that fact for all time, and all reasonable people examining this case know it. But, being a charter member of the popular Anybody But Oswald club, Jim DiEugenio has no capacity for properly assessing and evaluating the evidence in a reasonable manner. That particular argument brought forth constantly by Internet conspiracy theorists has always made me laugh. Why CTers think that Officer Baker had a strict obligation to add these words to his affidavit is beyond me.... Oh, btw, the guy I saw in the TSBD is in the same room with me right now as I'm writing this affidavit. But, IMO, the above information isn't the kind of info that someone would necessarily feel they needed to include in their written statement. I don't think I would have included such information either. Now, maybe some people would have included such information (had they actually seen Lee Oswald in the same room with them when they wrote their statement), but others likely would not include it. #1. I don't think Gerry Spence knew a whole lot of the minutiae pertaining to the JFK murder case. #2. Even if he did know every last detail of the case, Spence knew that his opponent at the mock trial—Vincent Bugliosi—would be able to rip to shreds the defense notion that Oswald really wasn't encountered by Officer Baker in the lunchroom. How could Bugliosi do this? Two words: Roy Truly. So, yes, Spence could have brought up the incredibly stupid "There Was No Lunchroom Encounter At All" theory at the 1986 TV docu-trial, but if he had brought it up, Spence would have ended up looking very silly after Vince came back with the true facts. And at a real trial (instead of just a mock trial where no subpoenas were issued for any of the witnesses), Roy Truly would, of course, have been called to the stand by Bugliosi, versus what happened at the mock trial, when Baker had to tell us what Truly said about OSWALD being the person encountered in the lunchroom (which is testimony that probably wouldn't have been allowed at a real trial in the first place, because it's hearsay).* * And that part of Bugliosi's questioning of Officer Baker wasn't entirely accurate, and should have elicited an objection from Mr. Spence, but it did not. The inaccuracy occurs when Baker tells Bugliosi that Roy Truly told Baker during the lunchroom encounter that the man Baker had just stopped at gunpoint was named "Lee Oswald". In actuality, of course, Baker didn't learn Oswald's name until much later. But I'm guessing that the questioning was done that way merely to save time at the televised mock trial. Many technically inappropriate questions were put forth to the witnesses at that docu-trial in London. At a real trial, of course, we would have seen many more objections and sidebar conferences, etc. But because of the strict time limitations for the TV trial, many things were overlooked by Judge Bunton at the London mock trial in 1986.
  14. When did the Coke Appear?

    No, but joking about what CTers think happened sure is.
  15. When did the Coke Appear?

    He was murdered by the Assassination Goon Squad. (What else?) :-)
  16. When did the Coke Appear?

    Then you'll admit it would have been a very odd thing for Baker to have done (to go on TV voluntarily 23 years later) if he knew he was going to have to tell one lie after another to the American public....right? But going on TV in order to tell the TRUTH (and to get a free trip to London, England) doesn't sound very odd at all. Wouldn't you agree, Sandy?
  17. When did the Coke Appear?

    And that must mean you think that Marrion Baker thought that "prevent[ing] WW3, or some other national security nonsense" was STILL a valid reason for him to voluntarily appear on television and lie his butt off in the year 1986, twenty-three years after the assassination. Correct? And weren't the conspirators/plotters super-lucky to have a "CIA asset" named Roy Truly employed as the Superintendent of the Book Depository on the day JFK was shot? Was Truly "planted" in the building as a TSBD employee by his CIA handlers? If so, those plotters sure had great foresight, because Truly had worked for the Depository for 29 years as of 11/22/63: MR. TRULY -- "I went to work for the Texas School Book Depository in July 1934."
  18. When did the Coke Appear?

    Sandy, If the lunchroom encounter never occurred at all, then can you provide an explanation for WHY both Marrion Baker and Roy Truly would have a desire to go on national TV in September of 1964 and tell lie after lie regarding their encounter with Lee Oswald on 11/22/63? Those two men weren't being FORCED to go on television and repeat their alleged lies....so why do you think EITHER man would want to say the things they said in this 1964 video? Did they do it just for kicks---even though, according to you and many other conspiracy believers, they KNEW they would have to lie their asses off every second they were on camera with CBS News? And the same question applies to Marrion Baker and his VOLUNTARY appearance at the 1986 Bugliosi/Spence docu-trial. Baker wasn't issued a subpoena forcing him to appear at that mock trial. So why did he want to (again) go on national TV and lie his butt off? Who would do a thing like that--over and over again--if he didn't HAVE to?
  19. When did the Coke Appear?

    And the one person DiEugenio completely ignored just now is Roy S. Truly, who is the person who verified the "encounter" took place on the SECOND FLOOR in the LUNCHROOM with OSWALD. But I guess Roy Truly was just one more lying S.O.B. who wanted to frame poor Lee Harvey, right Jim? (Jimmy's stand-up gig in Vegas awaits.) --------------------------------------------------- 1964 interview with Baker & Truly: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOVXZ4WkFnSDVWdzA/view
  20. When did the Coke Appear?

    Marrion Baker describes the encounter in his original affidavit. He just didn't specifically say the encounter occurred in the "lunchroom". Given the frantic circumstances just after the assassination, I think it's quite possible that Baker might not have had the slightest idea he had encountered Oswald in a "lunchroom" at all. The brief encounter took just a matter of seconds, and Baker was certainly not concentrating his attention on the TYPE of room he was in at the time he shoved his gun up against Oswald's mid-section. And Baker, of course, wasn't familiar with the layout of the building at all on November 22. So he might have only later learned that the encounter took place in the Depository's lunchroom. Yes, Baker got the floor number wrong in his Nov. 22 affidavit. But the absolute proof that the "Oswald/Baker Lunchroom Encounter" took place is Roy Truly's presence there in the lunchroom when Baker saw Oswald. Truly confirmed it happened on the SECOND FLOOR and in the LUNCHROOM. And Truly confirmed it was OSWALD who had been stopped by Baker. Do conspiracy believers really want to drag Roy S. Truly through the mud by labelling him a l-i-a-r or a "conspirator"? Come on. That's just silly. Also --- I'm wondering if the skeptics would be more willing to accept the lunchroom encounter if Officer Baker had said "second or third floor" in his original affidavit, instead of "third or fourth floor"? I doubt they would. But it's quite clear to me that Baker wasn't sure at all which floor he was on when he saw Oswald. Hence his writing "third or fourth floor". In addition --- OSWALD HIMSELF confirmed that the encounter with Baker took place on the SECOND floor, not on any other floor. Oswald told Captain Fritz it was the "second floor". That's in Fritz' notes and Fritz' written report too (WR; p.600). Was Oswald lying too? Was LHO in cahoots with Truly and Baker....and Fritz? Or was Fritz lying too? More on the Lunchroom Encounter here: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html
  21. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert.html
  22. Re: the trach incision --- Here's something I pointed out in 2013.... "I loved the [Nov. 2013] Posner/Waldron radio debate [which can be heard here]. .... And here's a piece of advice for Gerald Posner --- The next time some conspiracy buff brings up the "gaping" nature of JFK's trach wound, show them the video on this webpage of Dr. Robert McClelland saying on PBS-TV in 1988 that the trach incision in the autopsy pictures looks "exactly the same size and the same configuration" as it was when he saw it at Parkland. Maybe that will make Waldron flinch a little bit. And even though I think Dr. McClelland is as kooky as a 9-dollar bill with regard to his comments concerning the location of JFK's large head wound, I certainly don't have any reason to think he's kooky about his comments regarding the trach wound -- and that's because I don't believe for a single second that anybody "altered" any of JFK's wounds between Parkland and Bethesda." -- DVP; November 2013
  23. When did the Coke Appear?

    And Oswald would never lie.....right Jim? http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/Oswald, Baker, Truly, And The Coke
  24. DVP's New Master Video/Audio Index