David Von Pein

And if Oswald had really been standing on the steps in front of the Book Depository Building at 12:30 PM, why did he tell Captain Fritz that he was on the first floor eating lunch at just about that same time?.... "I asked him what part of the building he was in at the time the President was shot, and he said that he was having his lunch about that time on the first floor." -- Captain J.W. Fritz; Warren Report; Page 600

Bob, I've discussed that "Inside or Outside?" subject with other people in the past, such as this discussion with J. Raymond Carroll in July 2014.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-741.html RAYMOND CARROLL SAID: Slight problem there, David: No motive, no means, and he was watching from the front steps. But you are correct that he acted alone! DAVID VON PEIN SAID: J. Raymond Carroll is one of the very few conspiracy theorists on the planet who thinks Lee Oswald was totally innocent of everything regarding JFK's death---that is: Lee didn't even have any knowledge at all of the plot to kill the President. Lee was as innocent as Mother Teresa, per J. Raymond. That's how far afield from reality Mr. Carroll has strayed. And I see that Raymond has been gullible enough to fall for the worn-out "Oswald Was Doorway Man" schtick too. Oh, my. Ray is in trouble. I wonder if Ray can explain to us why Oswald HIMSELF lied about his location at the time of the assassination? Or does Raymond think that being on the front steps of the Book Depository is the same thing as being "inside" the building? RAYMOND CARROLL SAID: Lee Oswald was "out with Bill Shelley in front," just as he told Fritz. The front steps are actually "in the building," as you can see for yourself if you go there. The proof is in the Darnell film, discovered by Sean Murphy, and you can see it for yourself in this thread on the Education Forum. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Nobody who was standing on the TSBD steps would ever say they were "in the building". That's nuts. The steps are OUTSIDE the front door, for Pete sake [see photo below]. And it goes to show how desperate CTers like Raymond Carroll truly are to exonerate a double-murderer. RAYMOND CARROLL SAID: He never said he was "inside," he said he was "in the building." Since the steps he was standing on are within the building's structure, he was quite correct in stating he was "out with Bill Shelley in front" yet still "in the building." Actually, we cannot hear the question in the video, and the question may have been "were you in the building TODAY?" Anyway, we don't have to parse what he said. The Darnell film PROVES he was on the front steps. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: The Darnell Film proves no such thing. Your "Prayer Man" could be almost anybody. But you now like the idea that "PM" was Oswald---so, it's Oswald. And we most certainly CAN hear the reporter's question to Oswald. The reporter clearly says: "Were you in the building at the time?" Oswald's answer: "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes sir." And what do you think Oswald thought the reporter meant by "AT THE TIME"? Considering the previous question had been: "Did you shoot the President?", I don't think there's much doubt. [...] Again, only a person hell-bent on finding Oswald innocent for some odd reason could possibly think these steps are located "in the building".... David Von Pein July 2014

It's impossible for me to tell. It's an analysis of pure mush and trying to make it solid. Can't be done with the awful, worthless image we have to deal with there. (IMHO.) One thing is a certainty, however --- "Prayer (Wo)Man" is definitely NOT Lee Harvey Oswald. Even Oswald himself confirmed that fact.... REPORTER -- "Did you shoot the President?" LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "I work in that building." REPORTER -- "Were you in the building at the time?" LEE HARVEY OSWALD -- "Naturally, if I work in that building, yes, sir."

Gee, that sure sounds familiar. Where have I heard stuff like that before? The pot/kettle irony that emanates from CTers nearly every day is unparalleled. Badge Man. Prayer Man. Black Dog Man. Tan Jacket Man. Etc., etc... And just two days ago, conspiracy theorist and nine-year Education Forum veteran Kathleen Collins took the time to send me a private e-mail in order to provide me with this bombshell proof of a gunman she sees in the Nix Film. The assassin in the film apparently decided to fire a rifle at the President while standing right out in the open where everybody could easily see (and film) him. Those Presidential assassins sure were brilliant planners, weren't they?.... Subject: Nix film Date: 9/16/2015 11:58:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: Kathy Collins To: David Von Pein ---------------------------- Dear David, Here is a link to the Nix film that shows a man, leaning on a car, shooting. Whoever put the clip up is pointing to 2 other men. But clearly, the man at the car is shooting. youtube.com/watch?v=gvz6sxhb3PA Kathy Collins

And the N.Y. Times review for "Suddenly" is a good one too. And it, too, was written by veteran film critic Bosley Crowther (ten years before "Seven Days In May" came out).... " 'Suddenly' shapes up as one of the slickest recent items in the minor movie league...a compact study of terror and suspense. .... It moves along so crisply and with such breathless uncertainty all the way that it drags you into the episode and holds you to the end. .... Mr. Sinatra deserves a special chunk of praise for playing the leading gunman with an easy, cold, vicious sort of gleam." -- Bosley Crowther; The New York Times; October 8, 1954 nytimes.com/Full Movie Review

I, too, think "Seven Days In May" is a very good film. And it received some excellent reviews as well, including this one by The New York Times (which many here might appreciate).... "There is a great deal about this 'Seven Days in May' that is rousing and encouraging to a feeling of confidence and pride—and this is in addition to the feelings of tension and excitement it stirs. Considerably more than melodrama and sensationalism are contained in its not too farfetched speculations. There is, in its slick dramatic frame, a solid base of respect for democracy and the capacities of freedom-loving men. .... In some vivid and trenchant dialogue, which Rod Serling has composed in doing the screenplay from the novel, the President sadly notes the cause of such a move toward upheaval is not one man's lust for power but the consequence of a concentration of fear and anxiety. The enemy is not the general, he says, it is the nuclear age. 'It happens to have killed man's faith in his ability to influence what happens to him,' he says. If for no more than this statement, the film is worth its salt. But there is a whole lot more in it. The whole thing achieves a tingling speed and irresistible tension under John Frankenheimer's direction." -- Bosley Crowther; The New York Times; February 20, 1964 nytimes.com/Full Movie Review Classic--Movies.blogspot.com/2011/07/seven-days-in-may.html

And you think staying in a country where you have virtually no friends and cannot speak the language and where many people will hate you because you were the wife of the assassin of their beloved President is a more desirable situation than returning to the country of your birth? Apparently Marina DID find that latter scenario more desirable---but for the life of me, I cannot understand why. Pure myth. Get back on topic now, Ken, before the EF mods beat the crap out of both of us.

Why not? Why would it have been so bad? She lived in Russia. She grew up there. She had family there. She undoubtedly had friends there too. In fact, I would have thought she would have been anxious to go home to the USSR after the assassination. She had very few friends in the USA. She could barely speak any English at all in late 1963. And she would also be looked at (by some people) as merely (and solely) "The wife of President Kennedy's assassin". Not an enviable position for Marina at all. So returning to Russia would not have been so terrible. Not in the least. I'm surprised she wasn't begging to go back there.

Yeah, sure, Ken. As if going back to Russia (her own home country) would be a fate worse than death. Get real.

Is this testimony by Marina just more "hogwash", Ken?.... https://app.box.com/s/hf7yp5ctenxvgjttuq7jwtuuv57eagb7

Also --- Can someone tell me..... Why, after watching the video linked below, are there people who still insist that Oswald's nose shadow is proof the backyard photos are fakes? Do CTers think this 3/31/67 CBS photo is a fake too?* .... dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/oswald-backyard-photos.html * Silly question --- Of course they do.... jfk-assassination-arguments-part-949.html#The-Backyard-Photographs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9wKlkuzN1c jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/backyard-photos-part-2.html

And a lot of JFK's enemies sure got lucky that Lee Oswald chose (on his own) to do their dirty work for them, thereby keeping the hands of all of Kennedy's "enemies" clean. Didn't they, Jon?

The point is, Jon, to refute the many posts and comments I have seen from conspiracy theorists who seem to think that owners of gun stores in Texas in 1963 kept NO RECORDS at all. But that's just not true. Now, I suppose CTers can still claim that Oswald could have used another alias to purchase a gun from a gun shop, which might make the purchase untraceable (if Oswald had also chosen to lie about his address and if no identification was required by the shop owner). But some records were likely kept of the gun transactions. And I don't know why you're saying the FBI "deliberately disposed of" and/or "deliberately failed to produce" certain Klein's records. The FBI produced all of those Klein's documents. And they all were photographed and ended up as Warren Commission exhibits [see Warren Report, page 120]. The original microfilm was likely returned to Klein's. Big deal. It served its purpose, with all of the pertinent information relating to the purchase of the "C2766" rifle being copied and photographed for use in the official investigation. So what's the big beef about the FBI and the Klein's documents? ~big shrug~

There's also this e-mail I received from Gary Mack in 2010.... Date: 8/17/2010 1:57:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein -------------------- Dave, Regarding the purchase of weapons in Texas in the early 60s, Federal regulations required retailers to keep a log of all such sales. For example, Ray's Hardware in Dallas still has their January 19, 1960 log showing the revolver bought by Jack Ruby (but paid for by police detective Joe Cody, one of Ruby's friends). One of the folks at Ray's told me long ago that they must keep such records. Gary

Contrary to the beliefs of many JFK conspiracy theorists (including filmmaker Oliver Stone), there can be no doubt that at least some store owners who sold firearms in 1963 definitely did keep records of their gun sales. The two examples brought up in 2010 by Jean Davison here and here can easily be checked and verified by going to the primary source documents and Warren Commission testimony relating to those two examples — Albert Yeargan's July 21, 1964, affidavit, located at 11 H 207, and Alfred Hodge's Warren Commission testimony, which can be found at 15 H 496. Yeargan said the following in his affidavit: "When I worked for the H.L. Green Company, it had in stock and was offering for sale, a large number of Italian 6.5 mm rifles that were surpluses from World War II. On November 22, 1963, FBI Agents, Secret Service Agents, and I examined all sales records and receipt records concerning Italian 6.5 mm rifles. The records showed that the H.L. Green Company obtained its supply of these Italian 6.5 mm rifles from the Crescent Firearms Company in New York City." - Albert C. Yeargan, Jr. And Hodge told the Warren Commission this on June 26, 1964: "When it came in over the radio that [President Kennedy] had been killed with a 7-millimeter [sic] rifle, my wife and myself--we got our book and started checking to see who we had sold a 7-millimeter rifle to." -- Alfred D. Hodge Hodge also told the WC this [at 15 H 503]: "Captain Fritz' men came by with a shell, a Peters Wad Cutter, and that's this man and woman that got killed a few days ago out here and it has no concern with this case, but anyway, I checked my book and I found where I sold that man a gun and a box of ammunition, and they couldn't find nobody else that had that particular kind of ammunition, they said, so I called Captain Fritz and gave them that information and they went out and called me back in 2 hours and they said, "Boy, you're just as right as rain," and I give them a list of all the .45 automatics I had sold, and so they went out and picked up this bloody uniform and got a confession from him and he admitted everything." -- Alfred D. Hodge David Von Pein September 6, 2015

You shouldn't have stopped at the second paragraph of my "Oswald Is Guilty" page, Kenny.....

I strongly disagree, Pat. (What a surprise there, huh?) Every single thing that Lee Harvey Oswald did on both November 21st and November 22nd is indicative of Oswald working alone to kill the President. Everything.... ....He hitches a ride to Irving with Buell Frazier on Thursday to get the rifle. ....Oswald lies to Frazier about the reason he wants to go to Irving on Thursday. (And if Oswald had had an accomplice with a car--ANY accomplice--then Lee would have avoided having to tell the "curtain rods" lie to Frazier on both Thursday and Friday, because the accomplice would have driven Lee and his rifle--or perhaps a different rifle--to the Depository on the morning of November 22nd. But Lee chose to hitch a ride with Buell Wesley Frazier instead. And nobody in their right mind has ever claimed that Frazier was an accomplice of Oswald's.) ....After shooting JFK, Oswald leaves the Book Depository Building on foot. There's no car with a co-conspirator waiting for him. Lee is on his own. ....After walking several blocks east on Elm Street right after the assassination to put as much distance between himself and the scene of the crime as he could, Lee is then left to utilize public transportation and a taxi to get him to his roominghouse in Oak Cliff, indicating once again his "I'm out here all alone" status between 12:30 and 1:00 PM CST on 11/22/63. ....Lee then grabs his revolver at his roominghouse (which is another risky thing that could have easily been avoided if Oswald had had an accomplice aiding him that day; the accomplice could have already had a gun waiting for Lee in his car). ....After leaving his room, Lee is then on the move again---again on foot. No car. No accomplice. Lee's hoofin' it all alone. There is nobody there to help him escape. Lee is all by himself. Nothing Lee Harvey Oswald did indicates in any way that he was part of a multi-person conspiracy to murder President Kennedy. And the physical evidence Oswald left behind in the wake of the two murders he committed in Dallas on November 22 most certainly does not send out even the vaguest signal of "conspiracy". Oswald's rifle positively was the weapon that killed JFK. And Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver was unquestionably and beyond all doubt the gun that ended the life of policeman J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street. In short, Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK and Tippit murders is no "theory". It's an evidence-based fact. The possibility that Oswald had some measure of help from some unknown and unseen individual can never be eliminated with 100% certainty. But as I just laid out above, if Oswald did have a co-conspirator, then that co-plotter was as useless and worthless to Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63 as a snow shovel on the sun.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1013.html

But you clearly agreed with him. Otherwise, why post Tanenbaum's words? (Duh.) But, of course, that whole point is a moot one---since the SBT was so obviously the correct conclusion for the Warren Commission to reach. Says the man named James who has a bunch of things all "twisted" around himself, such as the following golden gems of fantasy from DiEugenio's archives of the bizarre: "[Marrion] Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015 "I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides [Howard] Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010 "I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 27, 2010 "You cannot even prove he [Lee Harvey Oswald] ever had possession of the handgun." -- James DiEugenio; June 25, 2013 "I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010 "JBC [John B. Connally] does not react until around frame 237." -- James DiEugenio; August 2010 "Kennedy is murdered at 12:30 PM. Oswald is almost undoubtedly on the first floor at the time." -- James DiEugenio; 2008 "A Mauser was the first weapon found and...a Mauser shell was found in Dealey Plaza." -- James DiEugenio; April 3, 2015 "It's like I have always said, the WC was the Troika: Dulles, McCloy and Ford, with Warren for window dressing." -- James DiEugenio; August 1, 2015 "I think that that whole thing about burning the [autopsy] notes...was just a cover story." -- James DiEugenio; December 11, 2008 "I'm not even sure they [the real killers of JFK, not Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally] were on the sixth floor [of the Book Depository]. .... What's the definitive evidence that the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth floor, they could have been at the other [west] end." -- James DiEugenio; February 11, 2010 "Specter and Humes understood that the probe was gonna be a big problem. They thought the photographs would never be declassified. So Specter made up this B.S. story about the strap muscles, never knowing that that story was going to be exposed." -- James DiEugenio; July 16, 2009 "I have minimized the testimony of Linnie Mae [Randle]. I do so because in my view it is highly questionable." -- James DiEugenio; 2008 "I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction." -- James DiEugenio; August 5, 2015 "I just proved that CE 399 was not found at Parkland." -- James DiEugenio; June 4, 2010 "At Bethesda, the military severely curtails the autopsy so that no one will ever know the true circumstances of how Kennedy was killed. Also, the FBI switches the bullet found at Parkland Hospital to fit the second rifle found at the TSBD, a Mannlicher Carcano." -- James DiEugenio; 2008 "I am not calling [Dallas police officer M.N.] McDonald a [L-word], the evidence is doing it." -- James DiEugenio; July 26, 2015 ---------------------- [End Quotes.] Boy, with a record of absurdity like the one presented above (and also HERE), one of the very last individuals on the planet who should be using the words "twisted travesty" when talking about anyone else's conclusions relating to the JFK case is Mr. James DiEugenio. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-complete-series.html

Jim DiEugenio is blowing smoke---yet again. As if the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases amounts to only a mere "theory". Give us all a freakin' break, Jimmy. Apparently to DiEugenio, the guns owned by Oswald, along with the bullets, the shells, the prints, the paper bag, the "LHO Did It" witnesses, Oswald's constant lies, and Oswald's guilty-like actions are things that all add up to just a "theory" with no solid basis in fact whatsoever. All of that stuff was merely manufactured to make Oswald look guilty. Yeah, right, Jim. The entire batch of physical evidence amounts to just an Oswald-did-it "theory". Oh, brother. What a crock. As Jack Nicholson said --- "Sell crazy someplace else."

MARTIN HAY SAID: As is obvious from the title of their book, Ayton and Von Pein want you to believe that there is no "reasonable doubt" about Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the assassination. The authors even treat us to their (very unusual) definition of the term, writing that.... "If the preponderance of evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is not reasonable to say a particular anomalous piece of evidence shows innocence. Even when more than one anomaly arises, as it certainly does with respect to the JFK assassination, it is still not 'reasonable' to assume innocence if the preponderance of evidence shows guilt." (p. 118) Why is this so unusual? Because the above is not the legal definition of the term as used in American criminal courts. The legal definition of beyond reasonable doubt in that venue is that 12 reasonable jurors have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt; they are convinced to a moral certainty that the accused committed the crime. If they do have doubt, they are not reasonable doubts. Which means that, during the deliberations, the one or two people who were reserving judgment had their doubts washed away by the other 10 or 11 jurors' arguments. Another way of explaining it is this: the prosecutor has judiciously, methodically and conclusively closed off all other avenues of possible explication to the defense. The crime could have happened no other way. It is the most stringent standard in American jurisprudence. That is because a man's life or liberty is at stake. The second most stringent standard is, "by clear and convincing evidence." That standard is used in many administrative hearings, such as those by the ABA to disbar an attorney. The standard the authors quote above is actually the lowest standard and is used in most civil courts. It is very hard to believe the writers do not understand the difference. Ayton is from the UK, but Von Pein is an American. Yet, at least the book editor should have pointed out this serious discrepancy which, in and of itself, mitigates the portentousness of the title. This reversal reduces the book to a utilitarian, not a fact finding or judicial inquiry. In other words, because of the Ayton/Von Pein switcheroo, the many serious evidentiary issues repeatedly highlighted by critics over the last fifty years do not amount to reasonable doubt. Needless to say, actual legal experts; lawyers who understand the different standards and why they are used; would feel differently. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Many, many people have had differences of opinion concerning the proper legal definition of the term "reasonable doubt". It can be a confusing issue even among seasoned trial attorneys. Take the O.J. Simpson case as a good example of this. Veteran lawyer Vincent Bugliosi, who I think probably knew a little bit more about the rules that apply in an American courtroom than does Mr. Martin Hay, has expressed his opinion as to the manner in which Simpson's defense team (particularly DNA lawyer Barry Scheck) defined the term "reasonable doubt" to the jury at Simpson's 1995 criminal trial. And Bugliosi had no doubt that the definition of that term that was used by Simpson's defense lawyers was dead wrong and was (to quote Mr. Bugliosi) "not simply the law". Here's what Bugliosi said about the "reasonable doubt" jury instruction in 1999 during a filmed simulation of the final arguments that Vince would have delivered to the jury if he had prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case (and this very same argument would also, of course, have applied at Lee Harvey Oswald's criminal trial, had Oswald lived to be put on trial for the murders of President Kennedy and Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit).... Vincent Bugliosi Defines Reasonable Doubt So, as we can see by watching the above video, it's pretty clear that the following words written on page 118 of the book "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", which are words that were quoted by Martin Hay earlier in this post, are 100% accurate.... "If the preponderance of evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is not reasonable to say a particular anomalous piece of evidence shows innocence. Even when more than one anomaly arises, as it certainly does with respect to the JFK assassination, it is still not 'reasonable' to assume innocence if the preponderance of evidence shows guilt." How could any "reasonable" person argue with the logic that exists within the above paragraph (regardless of whether you're inside or outside the confines of an American courtroom)? And, BTW, since I helped Mel Ayton write the book "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" while we were outside the environment of a United States courtroom (and we also utilized some evidence and testimony to illustrate Lee Oswald's guilt that might not have been allowed to be presented at Oswald's trial, had there been one), the whole notion that an author of a book on the JFK assassination MUST chain himself to—and be forever bound by—the "Rules Of The Courtroom" is a notion that only someone (such as, say, a JFK conspiracy theorist) would think was the only possible way of arriving at the truth concerning the facts surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald and the murder of President John F. Kennedy. In other words, the conspiracy theorists who constantly repeat the refrain "Oswald would never have been convicted in a court of law" are pretty much doing the only thing they CAN do in order to avoid the obviousness of Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt — they're relying on legal technicalities, and hoping that those technicalities would have prevented some (or most) of the incriminating evidence against Oswald from ever seeing the light of day if there had been an actual court trial in the JFK murder case. Because, let's face it, if all of the incriminating evidence that points to Mr. Oswald is legitimate evidence that was not tampered with in any manner, then Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of two murders in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. Quoting from Vince Bugliosi's JFK book (emphasis added by DVP).... "An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law. [...] The first observation I have to make is that I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal technicality. Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine. Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible. I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 442 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes) David Von Pein September 1, 2015

Reprise........ Allow me to stress these words from that cover letter that was sent to the FBI's Alan Belmont: "...the report, of course, had to be accurate."

DAVID VON PEIN SAID: This memorandum written by Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach on Monday, November 25, 1963, says that "ALL THE FACTS" concerning Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of President Kennedy should be MADE KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC. Some "cover-up" memo that was, huh? Another interesting non-conspiratorial portion of the Katzenbach memo is this part: "I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination." Do conspiracy theorists think that Katzenbach was really talking in some kind of secret code or something when he said that a "complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination" should be made public "as soon as possible"? I.E., was Katzenbach REALLY saying that only a "phony" or a "fake" FBI report about Oswald and the assassination should be made public? Because if Katzenbach really knew about Oswald's rumored involvement with the FBI (and CIA), and Katzenbach was "in" on some cover-up operation from the get-go, he certainly wouldn't REALLY want the FBI to release a "complete and thorough" report concerning Oswald, now would he? Vincent Bugliosi puts it this way in his book, "Reclaiming History": "The conspiracy theorists have converted Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to squelch RUMORS that had no basis in fact into Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to suppress the FACTS of the assassination. But how could Katzenbach and Warren have known way back then that they had to spell out that ONLY false rumors, rumors without a stitch of evidence to support them, had to be squelched for the benefit of the American public? How could they have known back then that there would actually be people like Mark Lane who would accuse men like Warren, Gerald Ford, John Cooper, and so on...of getting in a room and all deciding to deliberately suppress, or not even look for, evidence of a conspiracy to murder the president...or that there would be intelligent, rational, and sensible people of the considerable stature of Michael Beschloss and Evan Thomas who would decide to give their good minds a rest and actually buy into this nonsense?" -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 367-368 of "Reclaiming History" The Katzenbach memo: Footnote -- Full credit needs to go to Bud here for emphasizing in his previous posts [in early May 2007, HERE and HERE] the "All the facts" language in the Katzenbach memorandum. An excellent observation, as are all of Bud's conspiracy-smashing observations. Of course, I suppose the conspiracy theorists will shrug off Katzenbach's words as just another ruse of some sort by the people covering up the facts surrounding the assassination. But if Katzenbach's November 25th memo to Bill Moyers had, indeed, truly been "conspiratorial" in some fashion, then the CTers have an even bigger (logical) question to answer: Why on Earth would Nicholas Katzenbach write such a crazy memo in the first place if he was part of some kind of a cover-up operation that was in place right after President Kennedy's assassination? DEX OLSEN SAID: With a following of dimwits, dullards, disturbed and the dishonest, David Von Pein replied [in this post]: "Why would [J. Lee] Rankin admit to something stupid and wholly incorrect like that, Dexter?" See Katzenbach's memo, written while Oswald was still above ground, then kindly point out the differences between it and the WC's conclusions. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Here is a higher-quality version of the complete Katzenbach memo from the Mary Ferrell website: PAGE 1 --- PAGE 2 And here is Nicholas Katzenbach himself explaining the meaning of that memo: Katzenbach was nothing but a rotten [L-word], right Dexter? Also: The following paragraph from page 2 of the memo certainly doesn't sound like Katzenbach is part of any kind of cover-up or conspiracy to me: "I think...that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort." And I completely agree with Vincent Bugliosi's assessment on this topic. That is, when Katzenbach said he wanted to "head off public speculation...of the wrong sort", he was talking only about "heading off" UNWARRANTED speculation and FALSE RUMORS concerning the assassination. That's the "wrong sort" of stuff that Nicholas Katzenbach was talking about there, IMO. In addition, there are the following comments that appear in this 11/25/63 cover letter that was sent to Assistant FBI Director Alan Belmont concerning the Katzenbach memorandum: "It is Katzenbach's feeling that this matter can best be handled by making public the results of the FBI's investigation. He thought time was of the essence, but that the report, of course, had to be accurate." Allow me to stress these words from that cover letter that was sent to the FBI's Alan Belmont: "...the report, of course, had to be accurate." David Von Pein October 27, 2007 July 4-5, 2015