David Von Pein

I think the answer to the "license plate" controversy/mystery is a very simple one --- Marina Oswald simply walked out to the curb where James Hosty's car was parked and looked at the license plate. She then wrote down the number and later gave it to her husband, Lee. Lee then wrote the license number in his address book [see Commission Exhibit No. 18].



And the scenario I just laid out above is also exactly what Vincent Bugliosi asserts in his 2007 book, "Reclaiming History". Let's have a look at what Bugliosi wrote....

(Quote On:)

"The next day, Tuesday [November 5, 1963], Jim Hosty made another trip to Fort Worth. Since his route took him past Irving and Ruth had told him she would try to get Lee's address in Dallas for him, he decided to stop by to see if she had done so. His partner, Agent Gary S. Wilson, went up to the door with him, and Hosty spoke with Ruth on the doorstep for a few minutes. She had not asked Lee for his address in Dallas, but she had given him Hosty's telephone number and thought he would call.

Ruth mentioned the fact that Lee had told her that weekend that he was a Trotskyite Communist. She found what Lee told her more amusing than anything else, and told Hosty Lee was "an illogical person." Hosty wondered to Ruth whether Lee had mental problems. Ruth responded that she did not understand the thinking of anyone who espoused Marxism, but that was far different from a judgment that Lee was unstable or unable to function in a normal society.

The interview at the front door lasted only a few minutes, and Hosty and Ruth recalled Marina appearing briefly just as the agents were leaving. She had actually been outside while Hosty was talking to Ruth, memorizing the license plate number of Hosty's official FBI car and walking around the car several times to see if she could determine the car's make, which she could not. The two women watched from the front window as the FBI agents drove away from the curb, made a U-turn, and went back the way they had come, heading for the highway to Fort Worth.

Then Marina, in accordance with Lee's instructions and still without Ruth's knowledge, wrote the license plate number down on a piece of paper. Either she got one number wrong or Lee copied it wrong into his address book, where it was found, written in his hand, after the assassination." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 777 of "Reclaiming History"

(End Quote.)

Mr. Bugliosi utilized several different sources for the above book excerpts. Here's a complete list of those sources (with links included, where available, plus additional comments made by Bugliosi within two of the source notes):

.... 1 H 48, WCT Marina N. Oswald;

.... 3 H 99, WCT Ruth Hyde Paine;

.... Hosty with Hosty, Assignment: Oswald, p.51 (in Hosty’s testimony before the Warren Commission [4 H 453] he said he didn’t see Marina);

.... McMillan, Marina and Lee, p.498;

.... 9 H 398–400, WCT Ruth Hyde Paine;

.... License plate in address book: CE 18, 16 H 64 (the entry is a few spaces below the date, November 1, and name James P. Hosty; Ruth told Oswald on November 1 about Hosty’s visit earlier in the day; the license number almost assuredly would have been put into his address book after Hosty’s second visit on November 5, when Marina got it for Lee);

.... One digit off on license plate number: 5 H 112, WCT J. Edgar Hoover.


Addendum....

Despite the fact I disagree very strongly with virtually everything Sylvia Meagher said in the January 1967 interview presented above, I still enjoyed listening to the interview very much. It seems quite obvious to me when listening to her speak that Sylvia was a very intelligent and articulate lady. I think she was 100% wrong when she said that the 888-page Warren Commission Report "is a false document", but I still respect Sylvia's savvy and her communication skills.

In my opinion, one fairly big mistake that Meagher makes when talking about Lee Harvey Oswald's supposed "Coke alibi" is that Sylvia seems to totally ignore the fact that during the Warren Commission's re-enactment of Oswald's alleged movements just after the assassination (which culminated in Oswald being confronted by Dallas policeman Marrion L. Baker in the Book Depository's lunchroom on the second floor approximately 90 seconds after President Kennedy was shot), the Secret Service agent who performed the re-creation (John Howlett) was only moving at two different "walking" speeds when travelling from the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest to the second-floor lunchroom [Warren Report, Page 152].

Oswald, therefore, could very easily have shaved many seconds off of Howlett's fastest re-enactment time of 74 seconds if he (Oswald) had been moving faster than just the "normal walking pace" or the "fast walk" that were employed by Special Agent Howlett during the re-creations of the event.

I think it's quite logical to believe that Oswald was, indeed, very likely moving quite a bit faster than Howlett was moving when Oswald left the Sniper's Nest and headed downstairs on 11/22/63. But judging by the words we hear spoken by Sylvia Meagher in her 1967 radio interview, Mrs. Meagher doesn't seem to allow for even the possibility that Oswald could have arrived in the second-floor lunchroom ANY faster than Agent Howlett's quickest re-created time, which was 1 minute and 14 seconds. [More here.]

Plus, Meagher doesn't allow for other possibilities with respect to the crossed-out "Drinking a Coke" reference found in Marrion Baker's 9/23/64 signed statement. More discussion about "The Coke" can be found in this article.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/09/sylvia-meagher.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-last-speeches-of-john-f-kennedy.html

All of JFK's news conferences....


 

Revised website....

 

James DiEugenio said:

It later turned out that once i joined, DVP begged John Simkin to let him back on and had to agree to certain behavior modifications to be allowed back on.  But there was another problem to their  scheming.  Len Osanic had challenged them to debate me on BOR and they both, along with Gary Mack, had said no.  So they felt that they had to make up an excuse as to why they would confront me here, but not directly in open debate.  They came up with something really silly.  They both said they would debate me if  a contribution to a charitable cause of their was made.  And it was no small amount either.  It was in the four figures.

Jim,

WTF??? Are you actually implying that I was part of that "charitable cause" business? From your post above, it sure sounds like you're saying you think I was involved in that "charity" stipulation. And if you are suggesting that, you are dead wrong. I never EVER said any such thing regarding any "charitable cause". Maybe some other LNer said that, but I certainly wasn't any part of it.

And regarding this comment from your "acquaintance"....

"Sorry Jim. It's long gone. I've upgraded computer/hard drives twice since then."

....It sounds as if you must be talking about some private conversation that I supposedly had with McAdams and Reitzes, which I certainly do not recall at all. Was it supposedly a 3-way e-mail discussion of some kind that your "acquaintance" got ahold of and then it was lost when he changed hard drives? Because if your source was talking about ANY conversation I have had with McAdams on the INTERNET, well, that type of discussion would never be "long gone" at all. It would still be there on the Web via McAdams' aaj forum (which is the only place I've ever talked with McAdams, except for a few brief e-mails). All aaj newsgroup posts are archived FOREVER. All it takes is a search of this aaj site and you'll find stuff going back to 1994. So if that's what your source means, then it's not long gone at all. It's still there.

I'll admit, my memory is not as good as it used to be, but I have absolutely NO memory at all of any of the conversations you are saying I engaged in. If you can dig up the Internet discussions to prove me wrong, please do. I'd love to see them. But I sure don't recall them. And you definitely have me confused with another LNer regarding that "charitable cause" thing, because that is something I would never have said or done in the first place.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Hey David,

I was responding to Paul Baker's derogatory remark against Jim D. regarding NAA. Somebody has to respond to something like that. My response was 100% correct and truthful, so there was no need for you to respond to my post.

True. I guess there was technically no "need" to respond, but I felt the response was appropriate after your post, in order to provide the "common sense" aspect of the argument concerning the bullets and fragments that exist in the JFK case.

2 hours ago, Robert Harris said:

David, it is a FACT that Lt. Alexander never put this thing into evidence. If he had it would have been listed in the DPD archives. Have you searched yet? I gave you a link.

Yes, I went directly to the Dallas Municipal Archives website several days ago (before you ever provided a link) and searched all the boxes. I searched the Mary Ferrell site as well. I couldn't find a thing. But the FACT remains that Gary Murr (bless him) dug up that hospital memo (dated "Nov. 22, 1963" in what appears to be Audrey Bell's own writing) in the NATIONAL ARCHIVES. It was at NARA among a lot of other JFK "evidence" and documents. And despite your pretending to know who handled that document (and when), you really have no idea who saw that memo or why it was located where Gary Murr found it at NARA in the 1990s. And, of course, I don't have any answers to those Who?, When?, or Why? questions either. So you and I are in the same boat as far as that matter goes.

But just look at the B in Bob Nolan in the memo/receipt. And then compare it to Nolan's "BMN" initials in CE842....

----

But, Bob Harris, even after you admit that the Bs are identical in writing style (and the Ns are very close too), are you the type of conspiracy believer who agrees with many other CTers here at the Edu. Forum, who have said to me: Well, Dave, we all know it's very easy to forge somebody else's signature? If you do hold such an opinion, Bob (and I'm not saying you do; I'm just speculating that you MIGHT hold such a view), then what difference would it make at all if I were to "verify" Nolan's and Bell's signatures on the hospital memo? Many CTers totally disregard and toss in the toilet the testimony of the several "experts" who have stated that all the rifle and revolver documents were definitely written BY LEE OSWALD. And I imagine those same CTers would also not accept the same determination regarding the Bell & Nolan writing on the hospital receipt (had there been such an "expert" determination).

Just now, Michael Clark said:

LoL, boy did you get right Jim. DVP went and did exactly what you said he would do. That is perfect!

I merely stated the facts. What's wrong with that?

Was I the first person to write a post in this thread devoted to "NAA"?

Answer: No.

Who was?

Answer: Sandy Larsen.

And who was the first person to mention "NAA" in this thread?

Answer: Jimmy DiEugenio.

2 hours ago, Mathias Baumann said:

What are the odds that two groups of leading acoustics experts would find 3 shots from the Book Depository and one from the grassy knoll if what they were working with was really nothing but random noise?

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/jfk-acoustics-charles-rader-interview.html

11 hours ago, Robert Harris said:

Being in a box buried out of sight for decades does not count as being put into evidence.

~heavy sigh~

It was found in the National Archives files. And it's got the signatures of Bell and Nolan on it. That's not good at all for your theory....especially since we've got the DPD inventory list in CE2003 to corroborate the hospital memo that you think is "bogus".

When putting those two CORROBORATING documents together, we can safely label Bob Harris' "Audrey Bell Never Gave Anything To Officer Bobby Nolan" theory with this word ---- DEBUNKED!

ON AUGUST 21, 2009, TOM ROSSLEY ASKED:

Does anyone know where I can get an audio copy of the debate between Greg Burnham & John McAdams?

JOHN McADAMS REPLIED:

I'm afraid the buff who broadcast that edited it sharply before posting it. You probably will find it impossible to get the original, unedited version.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/Xs7MI7e9rmk/XyowEI0xtAQJ

51 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

So you, he, and Reitzes never talked about an appearance on Anton Batey's radio show for a debate?

Never.

Here's what I said in 2011....

Quote

"I'm guessing that Jim DiEugenio probably thinks that Anton Batey, John McAdams, and myself are long-time friends and buddies. And Jimbo likely also thinks that the three of us get together on a regular basis to "plot" against the conspiracy theorists of the world.

That is the same mindset that DiEugenio possesses with respect to any connection that I have to LNers like McAdams, Dave Reitzes, and Francois Carlier too. And nothing could be further from the truth. But I'll bet that DiEugenio would be more than willing to call me a [L-word] if I told him that my "connection" to Mr. Anton Batey is virtually non-existent.

I cannot speak for Professor McAdams and his contact with Mr. Batey, of course, but as far as myself personally, I have shared a very few e-mails with Mr. Batey (the last of which had nothing to do with the JFK assassination at all), and in 2009 I talked with him a few times at the IMDB JFK forum." -- DVP; February 2011

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Reitzes+McAdams+Anton+Batey+Debate

 

49 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Will someone please tell the Carnival Barker [DVP] that this thread is about John McAdams, his harassment of Cheryl Abbate, his dismissal at Marquette by two administrative hearings, and his recent court case which ruled against him[.]

I would not want to comment on that either if I was him because it shows the kinds of people he cavorts with.

I haven't closely followed any of the controversy surrounding John McAdams and his Marquette problems. I don't care about it at all.

As for my "cavorting" with Professor McAdams, you Jimmy don't have any idea what you're talking about. You think that just because I agree with McAdams about the JFK case, that must mean I know him very well and am "cavorting" with him on a regular basis. Is that it? Well, think again Jimbo. I've never met the man and I've never "cavorted" with him. And I rarely speak with him directly on the Internet either. I've had a few conversations with him over the years on his aaj forum, but nothing more than that. And, in fact, there was a little bit of friction between us a few months ago [see forum excerpt below]. So if you're under the impression that I'm buddy-buddy with Prof. McAdams, you're way off the beam (as usual).

From May 2017....

JOHN McADAMS SAID:

I frankly could say I'm not too sympathetic to her [Ruth Paine], since she was a mush-minded liberal. She thought learning Russian was a step toward world peace. As though Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War. Then, later in the 60s, she seemed to move left, like other fifties liberals.

Why does everything always seem to have to come down to "Right vs. Left" with you, John? It's ridiculous, IMO. And when did Ruth Paine ever even *HINT* at the idea that "Americans not knowing Russian was the cause of the Cold War"?

I'll answer that last question myself --- Never!

I can't believe you said such a ludicrous thing, John.

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

Complete Discussion:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/cmr70eNfq9c/vPuuklIdAwAJ

James DiEugenio said:

[Regarding] DVP's latest carnival barking, please give us all a break[,] will you?

Reprise....

Wooooosh!!!

Woooooosh! My "What Are The Odds?" observation goes sailing right over the head of Jimmy D.! (What a surprise.)

"Of course, all CTers enjoy trashing Dr. [Vincent] Guinn's analysis and his HSCA
testimony, as the conspiracists consider Guinn's 1978 analysis to be
completely outdated. But what I'd like to know is this:

Just exactly how likely (odds-wise) is it that Dr. Vincent P. Guinn
would testify to the effect that TWO specific bullets (that both very
likely came from the barrel of Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, via
Guinn's NAA results) were the only two bullets that can be linked to
any of the ballistics samples in the John Kennedy murder case....and
yet still NOT have Oswald's Carcano doing all of the damage to the
victims on November 22nd, 1963?

Even via 1970s-era NAA technology, what are the odds that Guinn's data
would end up revealing the likelihood that ONLY BULLETS FROM OSWALD'S
RIFLE STRUCK ANY VICTIMS ON 11/22/63?

My guess is this -- The odds of that type of scientific evidence
favoring the likelihood that only Oswald's gun was involved in the
assassination, and somehow having that data being totally FALSE, must
be fairly low indeed.

In addition (and probably even more important on the "common sense"
and "sheer luck" scales):

What do you think the chances are that a multi-gun conspiracy took
place in Dealey Plaza, with bullets from MORE THAN ONE GUN striking
the victims in JFK's limousine on Elm Street....and yet, after the
bullets stopped flying and the missiles and fragments were examined,
NOT A SINGLE BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-C2766 gun turned out to
be large enough to be tested in order to positively eliminate Lee
Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the source for ALL of the
bullets and fragments that hit any victims on Elm Street?

Would anybody be willing to take those incredibly low odds to Vegas?" -- DVP; Circa 2006

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-guinn-and-naa.html

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

What Bob is saying is that this record did not follow that chain.

Bob doesn't have the slightest idea what kind of "chain" that document followed. He just has a desire to call it a fake document---and that's because he's got a pet theory to push. And if that document is NOT a fake, then Bob's decades-long "Audrey Bell Never Gave Anything To Bobby Nolan" theory is toast. And I know Bob Harris doesn't like that idea at all.

1 hour ago, Robert Harris said:

You just keep blurting out things you couldn't prove to save your life.

Quote

And the officer it was allegedly sent to never put it into evidence...

Why do you keep saying this? It was found in the NATIONAL ARCHIVES by Gary Murr, among lots of other "JFK evidence". Doesn't that count as being "put into evidence"??

Robert Harris said:

Nolan in fact, never said he signed a receipt.

But we know now that Nolan definitely DID sign a receipt. Gary Murr found it. You want to believe it's yet another piece of "bogus" evidence connected with this case. You are free to go down that path if you desire, but no reasonable person is likely to think that the FBI or DPD faked a document with the handwriting of three different people on it. (And Bobby Nolan's distinct "B" is telling me a lot, even if it tells you nothing.)

Face it, Robert Harris, your theory is wrong. Audrey Bell DID give an envelope to Bobby Nolan, and that envelope contained only FRAGMENTS of a bullet, not a whole bullet. And there's now TWO documents that corroborate that event---the hospital memorandum and CE2003.

Robert Harris said:

Wade stated that in an interview in 1993. Are you going to claim that those men suffered identical delusions due to age? How did they manage to both come up with the bullet coming from Connally's "gurney" - exactly where Connally said it came from?

As I speculated earlier, I think it's merely a matter of conflating things. 1993 was thirty years after these events occurred. I think when Henry Wade said what he said about Connally's "gurney", he had thoughts in his mind of the CE399 "stretcher bullet". Wade knew that a whole bullet was, indeed, found on Connally's stretcher (or "gurney") at Parkland. And he also had in his mind an event at Parkland which involved a nurse and an envelope which contained some bullet fragments that were recovered from Governor Connally's body. Those two events, in my opinion, could very likely have become merged in Wade's head, so when Wade talked about the events of 11/22/63 in later years, he merged and conflated Stretcher Bullet 399 with a nurse holding an envelope which contained only bullet fragments.

If you want to accuse me of merely inventing a convenient excuse in order to dismiss Henry Wade's 1993 story, well, go ahead. But, nevertheless, "conflation" is what I think probably happened.

11 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

It was probably on his site, never to be seen again! Lol

I've collected several of Connally's interviews and press conferences on my sites, but he doesn't mention anything about hearing the "falling bullet" in any of them....

http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/john-and-nellie-connally.html

5 minutes ago, Robert Harris said:

1. An unverified receipt that the officer who received it, refused to put into evidence, and which contradicted everything those two people told us.

2. Third hand statements by people who never in their lives, heard Bell or Nolan confirm that she passed an envelope to him.

Somebody PLEASE get the Comma Police out here to help Bob. All those needless commas are making me dizzy (yet again).

49 minutes ago, Robert Harris said:

Cut the crap, David.

There is NOTHING in the DPD archives that even remotely describes the receipt we are talking about. Alexander obviously, refused to send it to Fritz, who would have catalogued it along with all the other evidence.

Huh?? Why on Earth would you think the RECEIPT ITSELF would need to be "catalogued" and therefore show up in an "INVENTORY OF EVIDENCE" list like the one we find in CE2003? (Is that what you meant?) Do you think the HOSPITAL MEMO itself should have been mentioned on the DPD's inventory sheet? ~shrug~

Quote

And yes, the "description", AKA third hand statements that Bell passed a "fragment" to Nolan was certainly in the files, but not a single person outside of the FBI, claimed that Bell told them that. Strange, isn't it that she told NO ONE about this except the FBI, who at the very least, lied about the quantity that Bell processed, then lied about what Nolan and Stinson told them?

Nobody lied about this incident at all. Nobody. Audrey Bell was simply mistaken about the person to whom she gave the envelope containing the Connally bullet fragments. And via your own interview of Bobby Nolan, we know that Nolan himself didn't actually SEE what was inside the envelope. He had no idea what was in there. And Henry Wade's memory of the event must have also faded quite a bit too. He very likely conflated information concerning the "stretcher bullet" (CE399) with information about the envelope which contained only FRAGMENTS from Governor Connally's wrist. (What year did Wade say what he said about the "bullet" and the "gurney", Bob? I'm not sure when it was. Can you please inform me.)

Quote

 Bell told us exactly what happened and who she gave her fragments to - FIRST HAND.

And she was obviously wrong. And the hospital memo plus CE2003, both of which existed in November of 1963, provide the PROOF she was wrong/mistaken.