David Von Pein

It'll take seven, Jimmy Boy. (To match the number of famous "filing cabinets" that you insist are important.)

Jimmy D. ACTUALLY thinks the work of Grant, Randich, and Hunt has totally destroyed the SBT. I love it!

Hear, hear! That's what I said four years ago.... "Naturally, no conspiracy theorist can think of ANY other solution to ANYTHING relating to the JFK case OTHER than "it's a conspiracy". No non-sinister explanation would even be entertained by the likes of a conspiracy monger. .... So, Ruth Paine is automatically guilty of--something. The conspiracy-happy kooks aren't sure just WHAT she's "guilty" of. But she's got to be guilty of SOMETHING, that much the conspiracy buffs know for sure. The conspiracy nuts who want to hang Ruth Paine are sickening. I only wish she could sue the pants off of at least one of the idiots who has slandered her name since 1963. She couldn't lose." -- DVP; July 10, 2013

You're a little late with the welcome, Paul. I posted in this thread on Page 1.

Yeah, Paul, there's always some "very interesting revelation" lurking just around the corner, according to Jim DiEugenio. Just like early last year, when James made this bold assertion with respect to the debate about Oswald's Postal Money Order.... "Armstrong is coming. Guns blazing." -- Jimmy D.; January 8, 2016 The end result of the above "blazing guns" of Armstrong was ..... absolutely nothing (AFAIK). And David Lifton's "Final Charade" is supposedly going to be the next big "bombshell" book on the JFK case, hammering the final nails in the Warren Commission coffin. As if every last piece of evidence favoring Oswald's guilt is going to suddenly go sliding down the drain because of Mr. Lifton's persistent efforts. If he can manage that trick, then he's a miracle worker.

My last two attempts to contact Rosemary via e-mail about various matters (once in 2013 and once in 2015) went unanswered --- which is very unusual for Rosemary. (She always answered me prior to that time.) So she either got tired of talking to me by e-mail, or she changed her e-mail address sometime in 2013 and never gave me the new address. I hate to even consider the third possibility.

Stuff relating to the mock trial.... Text excerpts from the '86 docu-trial: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/03/on-trial-lee-harvey-oswald-text-excerpts.html And.... 1986 interviews with Vincent Bugliosi, Gerry Spence, Alan Dershowitz, and more: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B66zFAvTgxxISVl2Uzc0T0pvdWs/view

Judge Bunton at the '86 mock trial cut the lawyers a lot of slack as far as "leading questions" were concerned. And I think it's fairly obvious WHY that slack was given -- it was because of the severe time constraints that existed during the "TV trial" they were filming.

Yes, I can agree with you on the fact that "forward and downward means tilted". But "tilted" does NOT necessarily imply MOVEMENT of the head FORWARD. That was my point. And that is the HUGE point Bugliosi was making in his book when he talks about the positions of JFK's head in Z312 as compared to Z313. If Vince were to have just used the word "tilted", he would not have conveyed the important point he needed to convey to his readers -- i.e., that JFK's head physically moved forward between frames 312 and 313, which is something I know you, James, do not believe (see, again, the 11/27/08 Black Op broadcast for confirmation of Jim's denial of the forward head movement*), but even so, the point Mr. Bugliosi wanted to convey was that Kennedy's head MOVED forward by about 2 inches at the moment of the head shot. And, IMO, the word you keep using ("tilted") does not convey the motion of the head that was absolutely essential for Vince to convey to his readers when he discussed this topic in his book "Reclaiming History". * BTW, Jim didn't use the word "tilted" when he discussed this topic in his radio interview with Len Osanic in November 2008. Instead, he used the words "leaning forward" to describe the positioning of JFK's head at Zapruder Frame #313, which are words that most certainly do not convey the sense of MOTION or MOVEMENT between Z312 and Z313 that Vincent Bugliosi was attempting to convey in his book (and which Vince did, of course, successfully convey to his readers via the language that he used in "Reclaiming History"). And that critical forward motion of JFK's head is something that Jim DiEugenio doesn't even bring up at all in that 2008 radio broadcast. Not once! In fact, as I said, Jim then goes on to DENY that there was any forward movement of JFK's head at all! The way Jim discussed the whole matter on that radio show was extremely misleading and completely misrepresents the things Bugliosi wrote in "Reclaiming History", with the FORWARD MOTION of Kennedy's head being completely ignored--as if Vince never even argued that point in his book. Shameful, Jim.

I guess I'll just have to get accustomed to Jim DiEugenio meaning "PUSHED FORWARD" whenever he says "TILTED FORWARD" when referring to what Vincent Bugliosi was actually talking about on pages 485 and 486 of "Reclaiming History". ~shrug~ And, quite naturally, as he should have done in his book and at the 1986 mock trial with Cecil Kirk on the witness stand, Vince Bugliosi did, indeed, utilize the very important fact that JFK's head was "PUSHED FORWARD" at the instant of the head shot at Z313. Because only a fool would argue that the FORWARD MOVEMENT of President Kennedy's head at the moment of impact somehow is indicative of that bullet entering JFK's skull FROM THE FRONT. That type of crazy argument is almost as ludicrous as Jim DiEugenio's laughable comments concerning the position of JFK's head that Jim made on Len Osanic's radio show on November 27, 2008 (45 minutes into the interview), which is when Jimmy actually claims that JFK's head remained in the exact same place between Z312 and Z313. I guess Jim has just decided to totally ignore this Z-Film clip below, or Jim will just pretend that the obvious forward movement of JFK's head in this clip is merely the result of a "blur" or a "smear". (In case anyone needs the definition of such behavior, it's called Denying The Obvious.).... And why on Earth DiEugenio seems to want to merge and meld the TWO separate things that Vince Bugliosi talks about on pages 485 and 486 of his book is beyond me. That is, DiEugenio seems to be saying that Vincent's argument about JFK's head being "PUSHED FORWARD" (or, as Jim D. wants to put it, "TILTED FORWARD") and Bugliosi's separate argument about all of the blood and brain tissue being ejected to the FRONT of Kennedy's head just after the fatal shot are somehow tied together and inseparable. When, in fact, one argument really has nothing to do with the other. Vince treats each of those things as separate (yet corroborative) arguments. He's not saying that the blood spray has anything to do (physically) with the forward head movement. They are independent of one another, with each separate argument being highly indicative that the head shot came from the rear. (Plus the added facts presented by Bugliosi in his book concerning all of the bullet fragments and skull fragments being found to the FRONT of the President in the car, which apparently are facts that CTers like Jim DiEugenio would rather not discuss at all.) And it's THAT kind of from-the-rear head shot CORROBORATION that Vince Bugliosi was pleased to present to the jury in London in 1986 and to the readers of his book in 2007. I'd like to also add the following video clip from Part 2 of the four-part 1967 CBS-TV "Warren Report" special, to help combat DiEugenio's "cavitation is non directional" argument. Quite obviously, not everybody agrees with James DiEugenio or Vincent DiMaio on this topic: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B66zFAvTgxxINEhfTTJCNEEwNms/view

Dead wrong (as usual). There isn't a single thing on page 485 where Bugliosi makes any mention of the President's head being "tilted forward". So why are you making this up, Jim? You seem to be confusing Bugliosi's argument about JFK's head MOVING FORWARD (or being PUSHED FORWARD by the impact of Oswald's bullet) with your terminology when you repeatedly use the words "TILTED FORWARD". Do you really mean "pushed" or "moved" when you say "tilted", Jim? If so, you shouldn't be using the word "tilted", because it's not a word used by either Bugliosi or Kirk in their arguments about the direction JFK's head moves at the moment of impact at Z313. "Tilted" does not necessarily imply "Movement". Plus, you aren't actually going to DENY that JFK's head DOES, indeed, MOVE FORWARD between Z312 and Z313, are you? EDIT -- I realize now, after thinking about it for a few more minutes, that Jimmy HAS in the past (in 2008) actually denied the obvious forward movement of President Kennedy's head between frames 312 and 313. You can hear him denying this undeniable fact by accessing this webpage: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-23.html How incredibly silly of you to say something so utterly ridiculous. Vincent Bugliosi never said (or even remotely implied) that there shouldn't have been a large amount of blood in the back seat of the limousine. Vince knew that JFK remained inside the car, bleeding profusely, for at least five minutes after being shot. So, of course a lot of blood was going to be present in the back seat of the car. Vince never suggested that every last drop of blood in Kennedy's whole body should have been propelled forward at the moment of the bullet's impact. So why are you suggesting that Vince DID suggest such a ludicrous thing, Jim?

Jim, Why are you continuing to misrepresent some of the things that Vince Bugliosi has said? As I pointed out to you in December of 2008 and again yesterday, NOWHERE within Bugliosi's arguments (either in his book on page 486 or at the 1986 mock trial) does he even mention the fact that JFK's head is "tilted forward". That is NOT part of Vincent's argument at all. Nor was it part of Cecil Kirk's argument either. Here's what I said to Jim DiEugenio the first time I battled him on this very same issue in 2008: "DiEugenio has the gall to imply that JFK's head is in the "exact position" in Z-Frame 313 as it was 1/18th of a second earlier in Z312, which is total rubbish, of course. And DiEugenio has got to know it's rubbish, too, because we know he's seen the Z-Film IN MOTION many, many times in his life. Therefore...we know that Jim doesn't have a leg to stand on. [...] Also -- When DiEugenio said those words ["exact position"] on Black Op Radio on November 27, 2008, he prefaced the remark by misrepresenting Vince Bugliosi's REASON for putting a picture in his book of the "high contrast" picture of Z313, with Jim, for some stupid reason, saying that Vince uses that high-contrast version of Z313 to show that the President's head is "leaning forward" at the moment of the head shot. Of course, as anyone can easily see by reading page 486 of VB's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History" (which is, indeed, the exact page number cited by DiEugenio when Jim discusses this topic in Part 4 of his "RH" review on Jim's website), Bugliosi is certainly NOT talking about the forward lean or tilt of Kennedy's head when VB refers to the high-contrast photo of Z313. Vince, instead, utilizes the high-contrast picture to emphasize the fact that all of the blood and brain tissue is seen to the FRONT of JFK's head, indicating (of course) the likelihood that the bullet that just caused that terrible spray of bodily fluid came from BEHIND the President. For DiEugenio to totally misrepresent Mr. Bugliosi with regard to this important matter is, IMO, just about as disingenuous (and sneaky) as you can get. And Jim's "exact position" remark is just flat-out dead-wrong too, as we all know. And even if Jim wanted to come back with the argument that he was ONLY talking about the degree of "lean" or "tilt" of JFK's head in both Z312 and Z313, his argument wouldn't go very far either. Because even THAT argument would be invalid, because when JFK's head moves forward between 312 and 313, the "forward lean" of his head DOES change slightly too (i.e., in Z313, Kennedy's head can certainly not be said to be in the "exact position" it was in in Z312...even from JUST a "leaning forward" standpoint). But it was obvious to me that DiEugenio's distortions (and his misrepresentations of what Bugliosi meant by certain things relating to Z-frames 312 and 313) are part of a concerted effort on his part to try and REMOVE (or just DENY) as much of the verified Z-Film evidence that exists that tells a reasonable person that JFK was shot FROM BEHIND at the important moment when the bullet struck him at Z313." -- DVP; December 21, 2008 ~~~~~~~~~~~~ In addition.... Let me also add the following pertinent quotes that appear in Vince Bugliosi's book, which include some very important points made by Mr. Bugliosi that should be ADDED TO THE SUM TOTAL of all the other evidence in the case, which is a "sum total" that will inexorably lead a reasonable person to the only possible conclusion he could reach regarding the directionality of the fatal head shot, with that conclusion being: that fatal shot came from BEHIND the President (which is a conclusion that conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio want to stay away from like it was the plague). And keep in mind, these quotes below from Bugliosi's book don't even touch on the VERY BEST evidence we have to prove beyond all possible doubt that the fatal shot to JFK's head came from behind---the autopsy photos and X-rays and the autopsy report. .... "As can be clearly seen, the terrible spray of blood, shell fragments, and brain matter a millisecond after the president was shot appears to be to the front. .... And indeed, from Governor Connally's wife, we know that the shot to the president's head caused "brain tissue" to land on "both of us" (she and her husband), each of whom was seated in front of the president (4 H 147). .... Not only were the blood, brain tissue, and skull fragments all blown to the front of the president's body, but the five bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine were all to his front. .... Also, the three skull fragments found inside the limousine were all to the president's front. .... The main argument from conspiracy theorists that the "law of physics" requires that an object hit by a projectile has to be pushed in the direction the projectile is traveling, and therefore, the head snap to the rear compels the conclusion of a shot from the front, can easily be used against them. In addition to the fact that the president's head moved forward at the moment of impact, how do the conspiracists explain what would be the ridiculous anomaly of blood, brain tissue, three skull fragments, and five bullet fragments all flying to the front of the president's body at the same precise time they claim Kennedy's head was being propelled backward by a shot from the front? They don't. And can't." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 486 of "Reclaiming History"

Joe, The weight of JFK's brain is shown in the very first sentence on Page 1 of the Supplementary Report.... "Following formalin fixation the brain weighs 1500 gms." http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284b.htm And that's why the brain weighed so much --- because it was only weighed "FOLLOWING formalin fixation", not BEFORE. Also.... The material being ejected from JFK's head at Z313 isn't MOSTLY his brains. It's mostly blood and other ejecta from the cranium. And I discount Paul O'Connor mainly because I know he can't be correct about his "No Brain" observation. And the reason I know he can't be correct is contained in the page of the WCR I linked above.

Therefore, you don't believe a single word of this Supplementary Autopsy Report regarding the examination made of the brain you (and Mr. O'Connor) say was blown completely out of JFK's cranium, right? http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0284b.htm

Joe, Nearly all of JFK's brain was inside his head at his autopsy. You surely don't buy Paul O'Connor's tale, do you? Related discussion (from March 2015).... RALPH YATES SAID: He [DVP] is also flagrantly dodging the 1500 gram weight presented in his own Commission evidence. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: And can you explain just exactly WHY the Warren Commission, if they were the rotten cover-up operatives you obviously think they were, would want to put something in their own report that they knew would PROVE to people like Ralph Yates that a conspiracy existed? Was the Commission doing the CTers a big favor by deliberately throwing them a bread crumb that proves conspiracy? Or were all of the Warren Commission members just incredibly stupid and reckless? Also.... Even though what I said in a prior post is certainly true enough -- "Fantasy doesn't require debunking" -- I'll provide the following passages from Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" anyway. The book excerpts presented below will, of course, be totally ignored by Mr. Yates and most other conspiracy theorists of the world, but to a reasonable person looking for reasonable and logical answers, instead of searching "Two Brains Fantasy Land" for the answers, Mr. Bugliosi has got the "brain" subject covered nicely here.... ---quote on:--- "How much of the president’s brain was missing? From the autopsy report, we know that the left hemisphere of Kennedy’s brain was “intact” (CE 391, 16 H 987). But in addition to lab technician Paul O’Connor’s demonstrably incorrect statement that virtually the whole brain was “missing,” there were others who have said that most of the right hemisphere was missing. FBI agent Francis O’Neill said that “[well] more than half [of] the brain was missing” (ARRB Transcript of Proceedings, Deposition of Francis X. O’Neill, September 12, 1997, pp.115–117, 164–166). And too many to quote have argued that since a considerable part of the right hemisphere of the president’s brain was missing, how could the brain, per the autopsy report, have weighed “1,500 grams”? Since the average brain, they argue, weighs around 1,400 grams (at 450 grams per pound, about 3 pounds), how could the president’s brain, after losing so much brain matter, weigh more than the average brain? The answer is that the president’s brain did NOT lose much brain matter. “Contrary to the myth,” Dr. Michael Baden told me, people who have said that the president lost a good part of his brain “are absolutely wrong.” Baden says he saw the photographs taken of the president’s brain at the time of the autopsy, and under his direction the HSCA’s medical illustrator, Ida Dox, drew a diagram of the brain viewed from the top. (See sketch in photo section of book.) As Baden said in his testimony before the HSCA, the diagram “represents [the] extensive damage and injury to the right top of the brain” (1 HSCA 304). (“It’s an exact depiction,” he told me.) Note the words “damage and injury” as opposed to saying a large part of the brain was “missing.” And, indeed, the autopsy report says nothing about any significant part of the brain being missing, merely saying, “The right cerebral hemisphere is found to be markedly disrupted”. “Basically, the president’s whole brain was still there,” Baden said. “The right hemisphere was severely damaged and torn, but less than an ounce or two of his brain was actually missing from the cranial cavity. If you squash a tomato, some would look at it and loosely say that most of the tomato was missing, but actually it’s still all there, only it’s mashed. That’s the only explanation I can give you for how some people have said that a big part of the brain was missing. But they are wrong.” However, since Baden conceded that the president had indeed lost at least an ounce or two of his brain (there are 28 grams to an ounce), I asked him how he explained that the president’s brain, which weighed 1,500 grams, ended up weighing as much as it did, more than the average brain of around 1,400 grams? Was it simply that he had a larger brain? “When the brain is injured,” Baden said, “this causes edema fluids to leak out of the blood vessels into the surrounding brain tissue, causing the brain to be swollen and increasing its weight. The increased weight to the president’s brain is from the swelling.” (Telephone interview of Dr. Michael Baden by author [Vincent Bugliosi] on March 29, 2002) But in response to Dr. Gary Aguilar telling Dr. Boswell about the “1,500 grams” of “brain weight,” Dr. Boswell told Aguilar, “I suspect that weight was probably the formalin-fixed brain” (Transcript of taped telephone interview of Dr. Boswell by Dr. Gary Aguilar on March 8, 1994, p.2, submitted to author [Bugliosi] in letter from Aguilar of August 29, 2000). And Dr. Baden said that completely independent of edema, “Once a brain is put in formalin, it sometimes can gain or lose up to 100 grams dependent upon the concentration of the formalin solution. If the formalin fluid is more concentrated, then it will remove fluid from the brain and make the brain slightly lighter than it was on removal from the cranium. If the formalin fluid is less concentrated, then the brain can gain fluid by absorbing water from the formalin and getting slightly heavier. I don’t know which was the case here, but usually the brain is weighed before it is put in formalin. Here it was weighed after” (Telephone interview of Dr. Michael Baden by author [Bugliosi] on April 11, 2004). It should be added that it is only an assumption that President Kennedy’s brain weighed around 1,400 grams before the assassination. We don’t know that, it being mere speculation. Actually, the average weight of the brain for someone the president’s age (it varies with age, not the size of the person) is 1,366 grams, and the range is from 1,069 to 1,605 grams. And the average weight increase after formalin soaking is 8.8 percent, the range being from 3.3 to 19.2 percent. (Ludwig, Current Methods of Autopsy Practice [2nd Edition; 1979], p.666; see also Blinkov and Glezer, [The] Human Brain in Figures and Tables [A Quantitative Handbook; 1968], pp.3–4, 277, for discussion and tables on the increase in brain weight when there is formalin fixation by immersion, which we had in the case of JFK’s brain, as opposed to perfusion or injection of the formalin through the blood vessels. The latter technique results in less weight increase than the immersion technique. Also, the concentration of the formalin, as Dr. Baden says, affects the weight, and there appears to be no record of what the concentration was in this case.)" -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 283-285 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-912.html

What in the heck are you talking about? Cecil Kirk didn't testify about any "medical matter" at all. He testified only about things relating to photo interpretation. Why Jim DiEugenio is saying otherwise is a mystery. In addition, Kirk didn't say a single word about JFK's head being "tilted forward" at the time of the head shot. Not a word. And neither did Bugliosi. They did, however, talk about how President Kennedy's head was seen by Kirk and the rest of the HSCA's Photographic Panel to move slightly FORWARD an instant after the bullet struck JFK in the head. Here is that testimony: VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "In addition to the spray of brain matter--all to the front--do frames 313 and 314 [of the Zapruder Film] actually show the President's head being pushed forward slightly by the momentum of the bullet?" CECIL KIRK -- "Yes, it does." Kirk's testimony at the 1986 mock trial can be seen below. And we can easily see that Kirk is not testifying about any "medical matter" at all. His testimony deals only with photo and film interpretation.* (And, btw, I did, indeed, check every reference to "Cecil Kirk" in my searchable PDF version of Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History", because I know there are a lot of excerpts used by Mr. Bugliosi from the over 1,000 pages of the transcript for the '86 mock trial, with many of those excerpts and witness quotes not showing up when the trial was shown on television in 1986 and again in 1988. But I did not find any references in Vince's book to Kirk testifying to any "medical matters" at all. He only talked about matters of photo interpretation.) * And it would certainly seem as if Cecil Kirk was definitely qualified to interpret the photos and films in the JFK murder case, including the interpretation (from the standpoint of a photographic expert only, not as a "medical" expert) of what it means when we see all that spray of blood and brain tissue coming out the front of the President's head just after Zapruder frame #313.** Here's what Vince Bugliosi had to say about Cecil Kirk's qualifications as a photographic expert: "Kirk had been the sergeant who headed the Mobile Crime Lab and Photographic Services Unit for the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. This unit was responsible for the preparation of the photographic exhibits for the HSCA hearings and final report. .... Kirk, considered one of the nation's leading experts in forensic photography and forensic crime-scene technology, and a former lecturer on forensic crime photography at the FBI Academy, was now [in May of 1986] director of the Support Services Bureau for the Scottsdale Police Department." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 485-486 of "Reclaiming History" ** But despite Kirk's qualifications, I strongly disagree with him and the HSCA Photo Panel's conclusion regarding the timing of the SBT gunshot. Cecil Kirk's '86 Testimony: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-bEyazi8WAuYUZqLXZVS2FlQTA/view More of DiEugenio's errors and misrepresentations are corrected here: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-23.html

From Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy"....

Addendum.... Article about the 1967 Yale University Mock Oswald Trial: http://nebula.wsimg.com/f923c35a4ca9448335dc47e72b56dc62

1964 (Theatrical Film): http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/trial-of-lee-harvey-oswald-1964.html 1977 (TV Movie): http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/trial-of-lee-harvey-oswald-1977.html 1986: http://On-Trial-LHO.blogspot.com http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2016/12/dvp-audio-video-master-index.html#On-Trial-Lee-Harvey-Oswald 1992: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzWAr91aL-BEZlZyb1NKS3YzMXc/view 2013: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzWAr91aL-BEY01nZEdIdFE1Y0E/view

HANDY ADDITION TO MY MASTER VIDEO INDEX.... Category Breakdown (with anchor links now available for instant access to various specific sub-topics within the Master Index)....

Well, Jim, as I asked you in December of 2011 --- Have you seen EVERY FD-302 for the dozens of interviews represented in CE2011? And if you haven't, are you going to assume those interviews that appear in CE2011 are fraudulent interviews? Or will you assume those interviews never took place at all?

Very sad news about Bill Paxton's passing. God bless him. Here's a 2009 interview with Bill (talking about his "JFK Connection").... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOaUhmQnFQMWw0X0U/view

Replay.... JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID (IN 2011): So here is the key point, which DVP is trying hard to avoid: If this happened, why is there no FBI memo on it? DAVID VON PEIN SAID (IN 2011): What do you think THIS is, Jim? A figment of everybody's imagination perhaps? What I just linked there is Page 1 of the multi-page FBI report known as CE2011. It's a report issued by J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI to the Warren Commission, dated July 7, 1964. And it's a report that has the official FBI logo and letterhead plainly marked on Page 1. Now, it's true that CE2011 is not an "FD-302" report, which are the individual reports filed by the FBI field agents. But CE2011 IS an official FBI report. To say it isn't would be just silly. You, Jim, think there should be FD-302s for each and every interview we see in CE2011 (and there are a bunch of them too--probably dozens). Now, have you seen the FD-302s for EACH of the many FBI interviews that are included in CE2011? Of course you haven't. Nor have I. So, does this mean that EVERY FBI interview we find printed up in CE2011 is a "fraud" and a "lie"? Is that what you want to suggest, Jim? I suggested in another post that perhaps (in this particular instance) CE2011 actually serves as the "FD-302" reports for those many interviews. Do I know that for a fact? No, I don't. But it seems like a reasonable hypothesis, especially when factoring in Darrell Tomlinson's interview with Mr. Marcus. But you go right ahead and think that CE2011 is a "fraud", Jimbo. Or is it JUST the "Tomlinson" and "Wright" and "Todd" portions of that document that are fraudulent, Jim? And are the remainder of the dozens of FBI interviews that appear in that same document true and accurate (which are dozens of interviews that you've ALSO never seen any "FD-302" reports for)? Just curious. So, in a nutshell, this is what Jim DiEugenio is saying: Since nobody has been able to find an official FD-302 form for the interview that CE2011 says occurred between Bardwell Odum and Darrell Tomlinson, this has to mean that the interview could not possibly have taken place at all (even though an official FBI document [the 7/7/64 report from Hoover to the WC; aka CE2011] DOES exist that says the interview DID take place. This, it seems to me, is akin to the kind of oddball logic that conspiracy theorists like DiEugenio have been utilizing when talking about Lee Oswald's revolver and the murder of Officer Tippit. I.E., Jim has suggested that since we don't have the proper documents to verify when and where Oswald picked up the revolver that he ordered via mail-order in March of 1963, and since we also don't know where and when Oswald purchased his bullets to go in that gun, this therefore has to mean that Lee Oswald could not POSSIBLY have taken possession of the revolver that Seaport Traders mailed to his Post Office box in March of '63. But such bizarre thinking is just flat-out ludicrous and ridiculous. There is ample documentation to show that Lee Harvey Oswald ordered and took possession of Revolver V510210 (the Tippit murder weapon). And, likewise, there is ample documentation to show that an FBI agent did visit Parkland Hospital in June 1964 and did talk with Darrell Tomlinson, with Tomlinson telling the FBI agent that CE399 did look like the stretcher bullet. (With the Marcus transcript being the thing that seals the deal on that one.) http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-76.html

Actually, your "Grocery Store" analogy doesn't make much sense. But, oh well...

The only thing that is "preposterous" is the notion that the release of the ARRB files has totally discredited every last thing the Warren Commission ever said or did. THAT'S really preposterous. The ARRB files do no such thing and never did. Jimmy D., as usual, is dreaming his wistful conspiracy dreams in his world filled with more alleged liars than you can shake a stick at. The autopsy photos trump the witnesses. And not a single autopsy photo shows a big hole in the back of JFK's head. Nor does the Zapruder Film. Simple as that. Mark VII. Oh, good! More liars! (Jimmy never runs out of those, as we can see.) Jim thinks the 37-year-old memory of Bardwell Odum trumps the 1964 FBI report which verifies and documents all the details of Odum's 6/12/64 visit to Parkland Hospital to show CE399 to Tomlinson and Wright. Odum's memory of the event was obviously pretty bad in 2001 or 2002. I wonder if Bardwell Odum actually said something like this to Aguilar and Thompson: That FBI report with my name in it in many places is a complete fraud and a forgery. Think Odum ever said that? More: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-74.html This item isn't even all that important for Lone Assassin believers. As has been mentioned many times over the years, the NAA analysis was simply a corroborative type thing in the first place. It is completely unnecessary in any effort to support the Single-Bullet Theory. Yes, it would be nice if Dr. Guinn's NAA tests turned out to be more definitive. But even without any NAA analysis on the bullet fragments, the SBT is still alive and well for so many OTHER obvious reasons. Given ALL the evidence surrounding the wounding of Connally and Kennedy on Elm Street, it would almost be impossible for the SBT NOT to be true. [Let the ridicule of DVP begin in earnest.] http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/vincent-guinn-and-naa.html Did you ever consider the possibility that the Mainstream Media just simply figured out that all the conspiracy theories about JFK's death are worthless and void of any FACTUAL basis for consideration? You've got to admit, Jim, that it would sure be nice (for your side) if you had something besides speculation, liars, and disappearing bullets to rest your case on. Unfortunately for the conspiracists, they don't possess anything else.