David Von Pein

I know I shouldn't be the least bit surprised anymore when I see Internet conspiracy fantasists travelling to the ends of the Earth digging up things to try and justify their bizarre beliefs (like their super-nutty fantasy about the second-floor Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter never occurring at all), but the level of denial about certain things relating to President Kennedy's assassination that exists within some quarters of the "JFK Conspiracy Community" on the World Wide Web has just about reached levels of unparallelled proportions in the last few years (IMO). And, frankly, it's just plain crazy. ~~~~~~~~~~~ “If the whole Baker/Truly "encounter" was nothing but a lie in the first place, then why in hell didn't the Twins Of Deception (Baker and Truly) make their lie a much better one by saying they had encountered Oswald on the SIXTH FLOOR? For Pete sake, even Oswald HIMSELF confirmed the second-floor encounter (Warren Report; Pages 600 and 619). But I guess both Fritz and Bookhout were liars too, huh?” -- DVP; December 25, 2015 ~~~~~~~~~~~ Lots more CTer craziness here: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-973.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1080.html

Why on Earth are you claiming the bullet "does not exist until Rowley hands it to Todd"? The stretcher bullet has a very definite, clear, and distinct chain (with respect to each man in the "chain" being able to confirm that he received a single whole bullet from the previous man in the chain), beginning with Darrell Tomlinson finding the bullet at Parkland Hospital around 1:30 PM CST on 11/22/63. Tomlinson gives the bullet to O.P. Wright, with Wright then giving it to Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen, who carries it from Dallas to Washington on Air Force One. SA Johnsen then writes this memo after getting back to the White House on the night of November 22, confirming that he received the bullet he carried to Washington from O.P. Wright at Parkland Hospital. Johnsen must have then stapled that memo to this envelope, which is the envelope that Johnsen put the bullet into before giving it to Secret Service chief James Rowley. (Note the staple hole in the memo [but not a staple itself], and the metal staples which still seem to be attached to the envelope.) Per Elmer Todd's writing on the envelope, Rowley then passes the envelope (containing the stretcher bullet) on to Todd of the FBI, with Todd then taking the envelope containing the bullet to the FBI laboratory in Washington and giving it to Robert A. Frazier. Todd and Frazier then both scratch their initials into the nose of the bullet. The documentation for this last part of the bullet's journey and the etching of Todd's and Frazier's initials into the bullet is Elmer Todd's FD-302 report in Commission Document No. 7. Throughout this process of handing off the bullet from one man to the next on November 22nd, there is no indication that more than just one single bullet is being handled. None of these men (Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen, Rowley, Todd, and Frazier) ever said, as far as I know, that they had handled two different whole bullets in connection with the JFK case. Which means, if we're to believe some of the conspiracy theorists, that one or more of those men told some lies after the assassination. I guess you, David Josephs, think the bullet that Tomlinson found on a stretcher at Parkland was not CE399, but instead was a different bullet entirely. Right? Well, if you want to believe that, fine. You're not alone if you believe that, of course. Nearly all Internet conspiracists think there's something fishy about CE399. But since I've been totally convinced of Lee Harvey Oswald's lone guilt for quite a number of years now (based on a whole bunch of evidence, and not just CE399), I have chosen not to travel down the "Bullet Was Planted Or Substituted" road. Call me naive if you so desire. But I choose not to go down the rocky road of evidence tampering. Related quote.... "Conspiracy theorists will, of course, argue that the "chain" shown above is still extremely weak and that it doesn't constitute a "chain" of custody at all--particularly since the Johnsen typewritten note is not signed with his handwritten signature or initials and is not still physically attached to the envelope that contains Todd's remarks about receiving the bullet from Rowley. So, yes, maybe this issue about the chain of possession of the bullet will always provide fertile ground for continued debate and argument. It seems quite obvious that it will. No issue in this case seems to ever go unchallenged by conspiracists, even the ones that have been thoroughly debunked by lone-assassin proponents over the years. But if a person digs into the records deep enough, that person can and will find documentation to support the idea, which is totally foreign to most conspiracy theorists, that Bullet CE399 was the bullet that made its way from Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas to the FBI laboratory in Washington on November 22, 1963." -- DVP; Pages 419-420 of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Warren Report And Lee Harvey Oswald's Guilt And Motive 50 Years On" Okay, there's a time conflict. But where do conspiracists want to go with this conflict? Are CTers saying that the "real" (non-CE399) stretcher bullet was being passed from one person to another at one of those two times (either 7:30 PM or 8:50 PM on 11/22/63, Washington time)? And that the bullet from Lee Oswald's rifle which became "CE399" was transferred from one person to another at the other of the two times in question? But if the "CE399" bullet was actually a bullet involved in either a 7:30 PM transfer or an 8:50 PM transfer, and if CE399 wasn't really the bullet that Richard Johnsen carried to Washington on Air Force One and was merely used as a "substitute" bullet to replace the "real" bullet that Darrell Tomlinson found on a stretcher (as many conspiracists believe was the case), then how did the FBI (or the Secret Service) manage to get that bullet to Washington by either of those two times? Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano C2766 rifle, which we know is the rifle that fired Bullet CE399 since it is the only gun in the world capable of firing that bullet, was still in Dallas at 7:30 EST and 8:50 EST. The gun wasn't taken out of Dallas until about 11:45 PM CST on November 22. So did the Government just happen to have a bullet from Lee Oswald's rifle in their possession several hours before the gun ever departed Dallas, Texas? Or do conspiracy believers think that two other (non-CE399) whole bullets, which were both somehow involved with the wounding of President Kennedy and Governor Connally, were being handled by various people in Washington, D.C., at 7:30 and 8:50? Which would mean, of course, that somebody would have had to transport those two additional whole bullets from Dallas to Washington on November 22. And then, sometime later, the evil Government deep-sixed both of those non-CE399 bullets and replaced them with only Commission Exhibit No. 399 in order to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as the lone assassin. It's an utterly ridiculous scenario. But I guess some (or maybe most) CTers must, indeed, believe such unsupportable nonsense about multiple non-CE399 bullets being handled by authorities in Washington on 11/22/63. Otherwise, what's the point of even bringing up the 7:30 vs. 8:50 time discrepancy? So why don't conspiracy theorists just admit that the "7:30/8:50" time discrepancy was merely an innocent clerical error or mix-up of some kind? Because that is quite obviously what it was. Related discussion from 2010.... JIM DiEUGENIO SAID: [Robert] Frazier composed a document entitled "History of Evidence". On the top line he wrote that he received the bullet from [Elmer] Todd at 7:30 PM. And Frazier wrote another document. It was called "Laboratory Work Sheet". This also certifies that he got the bullet from Todd at 7:30. It describes it as "Bullet from Stretcher". .... Todd wrote down the time as 8:50 PM. Question for the Prosecutor: How could Todd have given CE 399 to Frazier before he got it from Rowley? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: A big problem here with DiEugenio's theory about the stretcher bullet is this: The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle which fired Bullet CE399 was not yet in the possession of the FBI in Washington as of EITHER ONE of the two times noted in the official reports (7:30 PM EST or 8:50 PM EST). [...] So, does Jim DiEugenio think the FBI in Washington had possession of Oswald's C2766 Carcano rifle at some time PRIOR to 11:45 PM CST on Friday? Because if they didn't have possession of that gun at an earlier time, then how could Robert Frazier have taken possession (and marked with his initials) a "fake" or "substitute" bullet that was fired BY THE FBI in that exact rifle PRIOR to 11:45 PM on Friday? Or, as an alternative, I suppose DiEugenio could always say that the FBI's Robert Frazier was [lying], with Frazier only pretending to receive (and mark) CE399 at a time that was much earlier than when the FBI gained possession of Oswald's rifle. But if Frazier and the FBI as a whole were liars about the entire CE399 affair -- then why didn't they merely fudge the paperwork to eliminate the time discrepancy regarding the stretcher bullet? Silly plotters indeed. But Jim DiEugenio is even sillier to believe the cloak-and-dagger nonsense he says he believes concerning the FBI and Warren Commission Exhibit No. 399. Also See: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/The Secret Service & CE399

I could spend all day debunking all the conspiracy myths presented above by Mr. David Josephs. But right now, I'll just deal with the following three items.... "Why doesn't the shot thru the back [in the 2004 documentary "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet"] exit the mannequin's throat as opposed to his pectoral muscle?" Well, for one thing, the bullet entered the JFK mock torso too low. So, naturally, it's going to exit "too low" as well, and it did. But nobody is ever going to be able to duplicate the SBT shot with 100% pinpoint accuracy. We'd need to dig up both John Kennedy and John Connally in order to do that. But I think the Discovery Channel people in Australia did a pretty good job of simulating the general path of Bullet CE399 in their 2004 documentary program. All CTers disagree (naturally). But there's nothing new about that. CTers probably wouldn't be satisfied if JFK and Connally WERE dug up and used for a re-creation of the SBT. More: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jfk-beyond-magic-bullet.html -------------------------- "Why does [Gerald] Ford insist on moving the entry to a point where there is no medical evidence offered to corroborate that change?" Jean Davison came up with a very logical and reasonable explanation for why Gerald Ford performed his on-paper "move": "I doubt that Ford, for one, knew the exact location of the back/neck wound. I think he recognized that the sentence as written couldn't possibly be right since there's nothing "in the back slightly above the shoulders." By definition, above the shoulders is "neck." Ford tried to correct it and made matters worse. One thing I feel certain of is that there was no rational motive for anyone to "raise" the back wound. Moving it to the neck doesn't support the SBT, no matter what suspicion may tell you. An entry in the neck would destroy the SBT trajectory. .... Imo, it often seems that CTs don't allow for human error or Murphy's law or Hanlon's razor ("Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity [or incompetence].")" -- Jean Davison; December 5, 2014 Also see: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt.html -------------------------- "The fragments left in [John Connally] add up to more lead missing from ce399." The above statement made by David Josephs is just simply not correct. Here's why: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/connally-bullet-fragments.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/07/George Bush In Dallas?

Just For The Record.... Buell Wesley Frazier told Gary Mack in 2002 that the second-floor "Coke" machine had a variety of different drinks in it. Not just Coke.... https://app.box.com/s/kni180yusnkr2or26qlpr1y70ae066rr And.... FWIW -- Captain Fritz wrote the word "Coca-Cola" (not just simply "Coke") in his report when discussing the drink that Oswald had with him when he was stopped by Officer Baker in the lunchroom (WR, p.600).... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0312b.htm And at one point in James Bookhout's 11/22/63 FBI report, he too uses the word "Coca-Cola" when describing the soft drink that Oswald said he had purchased on the second floor (WR, p.619).... http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0322a.htm Related Discussion: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/dr-pepper-talk.html

Let's see what John Connally was saying in 1966.... JOHN B. CONNALLY (NOV. 23, 1966) -- "I want to make it very clear, however, that simply because I disagree with the Warren Commission on this one detail [the SBT] does not mean that I disagree with the substance of their overall findings. I think the Commission did an outstanding job under very difficult circumstances." REPORTER -- "Are you satisfied beyond any shadow of a doubt that there was one and only one assassin?" JOHN CONNALLY -- "I have no reason to question it whatsoever. I'm satisfied beyond any doubt that there was only one. .... We should turn our attention to doing a little research on, and evaluation of, the credentials of the self-appointed experts, who, with no evidence, no new facts, nevertheless use distortion, inference, innuendo, in order to cast doubts and create confusion." https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOak9yQlQ2MWliMGs/view

It would appear by the above wholly inaccurate statement that you, Michael, have never bothered to properly examine Zapruder frames 224 through 230. John Connally does plenty of "reacting" prior to the "seconds later" interpretation you falsely place on the event.... But Governor Connally, in 1967, DID concede that the SBT was possible. But, naturally, no conspiracy theorist on Planet Earth would ever want to post this video of Connally saying the SBT is "possible".... https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0KFei3W7bGOWi1leGJ3WkFKX3c/view

"BEYOND 'JFK': THE QUESTION OF CONSPIRACY" (1992 DOCUMENTARY): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bytf0sAEvLamaW5fRlVNSUNabGM/view

JFK'S INAUGURATION: http://dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/jfk-inauguration-day-1961.html

You think the only way this can be explained is via fakery of some kind? The man's head has just been blown open by a rifle bullet. You don't think what we see in the Z-Film could have been naturally caused by such an event? Why not?

IN APRIL 2016.... SANDY LARSEN SAID: [Marrion] Baker had no intention of running into the TSBD when he began his mad dash, and didn't enter till later. As you will see, this is yet one more nail in the coffin of the Baker-Oswald second-floor lunchroom encounter myth. The key to following the path taken by Baker is to follow his footsteps. As obvious as that sounds, it has surprisingly never been done. At least not seriously. [...] Marrion Baker was not headed for the TSBD. Not to go inside. No way. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: The utter desperation of conspiracy theorists is astounding, as Sandy Larsen's ludicrous claim regarding Police Officer Marrion L. Baker in this forum thread clearly demonstrates. Sandy thinks Baker told one lie after another FOR DECADES ON END after the assassination. Now, all Sandy needs to do is to logically and reasonably tell us Why Marrion Baker would want to tell a bunch of lies about his movements on November 22, 1963. Was he paid very handsomely for lying so much, Sandy? Or did the FBI threaten Baker's life if he didn't go along with the "LN" story? Here's the proof that Sandy Larsen is dead wrong: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-rcjDGNFEH_eGtobmZGdmthcW8/view SANDY LARSEN SAID: David, have you no eyes to see? The photographic evidence is irrefutable. Unless, of course, you believe the Darnell video has been altered. I believe Marrion Baker initially told the truth, and after that was convinced by powerful people to be a Patriot and protect the nation from America's "enemies." And thus his lies -- as hard as they were for him to keep straight -- were justified. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Oh, for Pete sake. Get real, Sandy. The Darnell film doesn't come close to providing "irrefutable" evidence that Baker bypassed the Book Depository and was headed for the Dal-Tex Building instead. The film clip stops short of showing Baker actually reaching the Depository's front steps. So your "irrefutable" evidence is nothing but pure speculation and amateur photographic (film) interpretation on your part. I, on the other hand, have Marrion Baker's own words and testimony, which make it clear that he immediately ran into the Book Depository after the shooting. And Baker's own signed affidavit, which he filled out on the day of the assassination itself, also bears out the fact that he went straight to the Depository after jumping off of his police motorcycle: "I decided the shots had come from the building on the northwest corner of Elm and Houston. This building is used by the Board of Education for book storage. I jumped off my motor and ran inside the building." -- Marrion L. Baker; November 22, 1963 Lots more: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2016/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1123.html

DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Something for conspiracy theorists to ponder.... Howard Brennan's initial description of the gunman is remarkably similar to policeman Marrion Baker's description of the man he encountered on the 2nd floor just a couple of minutes after the shooting. And the man Baker encountered was undeniably Lee Harvey Oswald (although, incredibly, some CTers on the outer fringe of reality are now pretending that the Baker/Truly/Oswald encounter on the 2nd floor never even happened AT ALL, which is pure tommyrot, of course). [Later....] GREG PARKER SAID: Up until 2001 or 02, the only criticism of the second floor lunch story was about how long it would take Oswald to get down there from 6. No one suggested that meant there was no encounter on the second floor. If anyone HAD suggested it, I believe the famous scene in Stone's movie would have looked quite different. No one gave the affidavit a second look. In fact, few in any, gave it a FIRST look. So Don [Jeffries] and anyone else claiming they questioned if the second floor lunchroom story ever actually happened are just conflating their questioning of ASPECTS of the story with questioning the whole damn story. DON JEFFRIES SAID: You [Greg Parker] won't win any prizes for it, but if it makes you feel better, keep claiming credit for being the first to doubt Baker encountered Oswald. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: This is hilarity at its finest. It's kind of like wanting to take credit for being the person who designed The Edsel. David Von Pein July 12-27, 2015

OK, Paul. Point taken. But I'll stand by my point too -- i.e., the TOP of the Triple Underpass is certainly NOT the same area where nearly all conspiracy theorists think shots came from.

That's incorrect. Curry didn't send anybody to the Grassy Knoll at all. He sent them to the top of the Triple Underpass. Here's what he said over the DPD Radio at exactly 12:30 PM.... "Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there." http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/ Doesn't sound like Curry thinks any shots came from the "Grassy Knoll" to me. Unless (somehow) you think the "top of that triple underpass" means the same thing as the Grassy Knoll?

In other words, per some (or many) of the conspiracy promoters, it was The World vs. The Patsy in November 1963. Incredible. And I wonder how David Lifton explains the sudden about-face done by Chief Curry in circa 1969 when Curry's book came out that said things the CTers just love to quote 24/7? I guess Curry must have decided to abandon the cover-up and start telling the whole truth in '69. But here's what Jesse Curry was saying on 11/23/63: "I think this is the man [Oswald] that killed the President." https://app.box.com/s/u8hlumq4mya5lylmgqn5

Yeah, that must be why I was arguing with him about his theory in 2015: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1051.html I agree with Paul about Ruth Paine (as all reasonable people do); but I disagree strongly with him on his Walker theory. So, are we still a match made in heaven, Jimmy?

And if the theory could have at least a few facts (i.e., some solid evidence) on its side, that would certainly help it out quite a bit too. Wouldn't you agree?

IN 2015, PAUL TREJO SAID: A segment of the Dallas Police killed JFK, and they were led by General Walker. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Boy, that Edwin A. Walker was sure one lucky SOB, wasn't he? He was plotting to set up Oswald as a patsy back in April '63 (per Mr. Trejo), and LHO just happens to get the TSBD job on Oct. 15 (with the help of someone who cannot possibly be looked upon as a "co-conspirator", Mrs. Linnie Mae Randle of Irving). And then, on top of all that, Lee Harvey Oswald decides he's going to act like a very guilty person on 11/22/63 shortly after 12:30 PM. You've got to admit, Paul, good fortune like that doesn't come along every day of the week. General Walker must have had TWO crystal balls working for him in the summer and fall of 1963. Maybe three. Tell me, Paul, what makes YOUR theory re: Walker any more FACTUAL and any LESS SPECULATIVE than any OTHER theory offered up by any other conspiracy theorist? Have you got any hard evidence---as opposed to just outright speculation and guesswork? I certainly didn't see anything besides speculation and conjecture in your post here. And General Walker's papers hardly qualify as proof he had JFK killed. Thank you. David Von Pein October 16-18, 2015 Also See: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1051.html

Hi Paul, I haven't read Caufield's book, but knowing the physical evidence and Lee Oswald's own actions like I do (and I know those things pretty well), I have a very difficult time believing in ANY conspiracy plot relating to the murder of President Kennedy. Oswald's movements and actions on both November 21st and 22nd spell out a practically last-minute, one-man "plot" that was very likely (IMO) hastily arranged by only one individual---Lee Harvey Oswald himself. I see no room for any of General Walker's handiwork, or anyone else's. And I think author Jeffrey Caufield is off base by quite a large margin when he (or his publisher) asserts on the back cover of his book (pictured below) that Lee Oswald was merely "an unwitting pawn in one of our country's greatest historical mysteries". The key word in that blurb being "unwitting". Given the things he did and the lies he told to Wesley Frazier on Nov. 21 and 22, I can't see how the word "unwitting" could ever be applied to Oswald. Others are free to disagree, of course. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/everything-oswald-did-says-guilt.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/12/edwin-walker-and-lee-harvey-oswald.html

Brad, My thoughts are.... The whole notion that Altgens 6 was faked with lightning speed via a mobile lab disguised as a laundry truck is just one more fantasy theory dreamed up by desperate conspiracists. Nothing more than that. It's ridiculous. Four years ago, I was arguing about this same topic with a super-kook named Ralph Cinque (who now thinks Oswald was shot by FBI agent James Bookhout instead of by Jack Ruby; that's how far off the deep end that guy has become). Here's part of that 2013 discussion.... RALPH CINQUE SAID: And look at the copy [of the Altgens 6 picture] that they showed [on the CBS Television Network at 6:31 PM Eastern Standard Time]. It was horrible; about the worst I have ever seen. .... I think they deliberately used a low resolution image. They wanted you to see what they wanted you to see, and they certainly didn't want the doorway area standing out. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: More snake oil being peddled by Dr. Cinque. Ralph thinks that a copy of a picture that was retrieved off of an Associated Press wireservice machine is going to look as clear and sharp as the original picture. Hilarious. Re: the fakery that Cinque thinks was done to the Altgens "Doorway Man" picture: I'm sure this has been asked before by several people who have made the futile attempt to engage Ralph Cinque in intelligent conversation, but I'll ask it again anyway: Why didn't the photo fakers simply REMOVE Oswald from Jim Altgens' photograph entirely (versus performing all of this incredibly complicated copy-and-paste type of fakery that you say they did perform)? And even WITH the fakery Ralph claims was done, we're still left with a man in the doorway who looks somewhat like the person the plotters are trying to frame for President Kennedy's murder--Lee Harvey Oswald. How dumb is that? It stands to reason that since Billy Lovelady did resemble Oswald, then Lovelady would have been one of the LAST individuals on the planet the photo fakers would have wanted to falsely insert into the Altgens picture. Why not just leave a blank space where Doorway Man is really standing? After all, the area behind Doorway Man is very dark in the first place, so removing the Oswald/Lovelady person entirely would probably have been quite easy to do (even in 1963). The fake blank/black space would have merely blended in with the blackness behind Doorway Man in the TSBD's entranceway. Or, alternatively, why not insert the fake picture of a black woman? Or someone who at least didn't look like the person you're trying to convince people WASN'T in the doorway? IOW -- Do you have any idea, Ralph, why your plotters and photo manipulators were so incredibly stupid? Full discussion: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/R2Wwcn1M3Ds/SprHkZYn3AcJ

FYI.... CBS aired Altgens 6 at 5:31 PM CST on Nov. 22.... http://jfk-archives/2015/12/Altgens-Photo-Shown-On-CBS-TV-11-22-63

Citation/link please. I have "checked" the NARA color photos that are online at the Mary Ferrell site to see if I could find Todd's initials [see link below]. But I have never once said I was planning to travel to Washington to look at the bullet. So please stop saying I did say that. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-107.html

Any chance you're ever going to stop spreading this lie about me "going to Washington", Jimmy? I never said any such thing--ever--because I have never had any intention of ever going to the National Archives in Washington. (As if anybody would just allow me to walk into NARA and start examining the actual bullet in the first place. Yeah, right.) And Jim's constant moaning about "the wrong rifle" is also something he should finally pull the plug on too. Because Jimbo knows full well what the reasonable explanation is to that "mystery". We've discussed it numerous times, like here: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-99.html Do ANY of the debunked conspiracy myths ever go stale in your mind, Jimmy? I guess not, huh?

As Paul Harvey used to say.... And here's the rest of the story.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-926.html http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/04/beyond-reasonable-doubt.html

And then give this one a try too .... https://www.amazon.com/book/Beyond Reasonable Doubt