David Von Pein

So, Jon, does that mean that you think that anyone who believes Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone killer of John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit should just shut their mouth entirely and not speak up in favor of "The Truth" as that LNer sees it? The LNer should just point to the Warren Report and be done with it? And are you also suggesting that LNers should not be free to attempt to tear down the many conspiracy "myths" that have surfaced since the Warren Commission disbanded? (A "lurker" sure as heck can't go to the Warren Report for any kind of post-1964 "myth-busting".) Sounds to me as though you are advocating (from a "CTer" POV) a "Get lost, LNer, you're not welcome (or needed) here at all" attitude. Which would be kind of strange coming from you, Jon. Because in many of your past posts, you have welcomed the presence of opposing viewpoints at this forum. Haven't you?

Well, Bruce, will you answer this question for me please if you would?..... Do you think shots were fired from the "Sniper's Nest" window on the TSBD's 6th floor on 11/22/63? Thanks.

Because Weisberg said it in the '80s. And as you can see by all the goofy comments from CTers in this thread, the "No Shots Came From The Nest" BS is something that seems to still have some fans here in 2015. (Incredible, isn't it?) In addition, I'm constantly hearing CTers quoting stuff from the books of first-generation researchers like Weisberg and Thompson and Meagher. Do you object to that, Bruce? Those quotes go all the way back to the 1960s. And I could utilize your "80s" comment and turn the tables on you and ask.... Why are you dredging up the JFK case now? After all, it happened in the '60s.

That thought never crossed my mind, Ken. To think that a major publisher like W.W. Norton would even consider (for a second) using a review blurb written by some nobody in Indiana named David V.P. is laughable. I can just envision somebody picking up VB's "Four Days" book in a book store and seeing a blurb written by me on the back cover.... "Who in the wide, wide world of sports is David Von Pein? And why is a review by this nobody attached to a major book like Bugliosi's?" You say such a thing because you have proven yourself on this forum to be a person who doesn't have the slightest idea what the words "Hard Facts" mean. Try reading the complete series. You'll get the general idea after about 15 pages or so.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/dvp-vs-dieugenio-the-complete-series

More at these links: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-246.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/09/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-255.html jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-701.html

When does your (twice) previously promised "I'm going to ignore DVP" policy take effect, Glenn? I'm just curious. I'm not trying to start another battle.

As an addendum to Vince Palamara's thread-starter, here's some more audio featuring Richard Lipsey, including his complete HSCA interview from 1978, plus an interview with him on November 22, 2013. Total running time is a little more than 2 hours: jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/richard-lipsey-interviews

Greg, Do you think a "through the rifle scope" film (or photo) exists of the actual assassination of President Kennedy? Because THAT was the whole point of the WC's May '64 re-enactment. And how can the investigators acquire that type of "TSBD POV" information by looking at just the Zapruder Film? Mr. Zapruder wasn't filming from Oswald's sniper's perch. I don't think you've thoroughly thought out your last post, Greg.

Can anybody spot the "tape" that was put on the SS car in these 5/24/64 images? I don't see it in any of these photos.... kennedy-photos.blogspot.com/2012/11/kennedy-gallery-268.html

Yes, Mark. After reading your earlier post, I recalled seeing some testimony about a mark being placed on the car itself. I couldn't remember who testified about it. But I now I see it was Bob Frazier. Thanks for that. But in Lyndal Shaneyfelt's WC testimony, we get some further explanation about the chalk mark on the stand-in's back. And it's fairly clear to me that the chalk mark on the BACK of the JFK stand-in ALWAYS was representing the BACK wound and not the head wound, even after the 10-inch height difference between the Queen Mary and SS-100-X is accounted for, as Shaneyfelt explains here.... --------------- Mr. SPECTER. Was there any difference between the position of President Kennedy's stand-in and the position of President Kennedy on the day of the assassination by virtue of any difference in the automobiles in which each rode? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; because of the difference in the automobiles there was a variation of 10 inches, a vertical distance of 10 inches that had to be considered. The stand-in for President Kennedy was sitting 10 inches higher and the stand-in for Governor Connally was sitting 10 inches higher than the President and Governor Connally were sitting and we took this into account in our calculations. Mr. SPECTER. Was any allowance then made in the photographing of the first point or rather last point at which the spot was visible on the back of the coat of President Kennedy's stand-in before passing under the oak tree? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was. After establishing this position, represented by frame 161, where the chalk mark was about to disappear under the tree, we established a point 10 inches below that as the actual point where President Kennedy would have had a chalk mark on his back or where the wound would have been if the car was 10 inches lower. And we rolled the car then sufficiently forward to reestablish the position that the chalk mark would be in at its last clear shot before going under the tree, based on this 10 inches, and this gave us frame 166 of the Zapruder film. [...] Mr. SPECTER. Was there any adjustment made for the difference in the height of the automobiles on the location where the back of the President's stand-in was visible through the tree? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; there was an adjustment made for the 10 inch differential in the heights because of the different cars, and this was established as frame 186. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh5/html/WC_Vol5_0079b.htm

Here's Thomas Kelley (Secret Service) at 5 H 133.... ARLEN SPECTER -- "What marking, if any, was placed on the back of...the stand-in for President Kennedy?" THOMAS J. KELLEY -- "There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area here." MR. SPECTER -- "And what did that chalk mark represent?" MR. KELLEY -- "That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded the President." MR. SPECTER -- "And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined?" MR. KELLEY -- "That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians...and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time."

David Josephs offers up more convenient excuses so he can ignore what the evidence truly indicates. In light of all the "Sixth Floor" evidence and witness testimony, why you think any reasonable person would (or even could) buy into the absurd notion that NO SHOTS AT ALL came from that floor is the bigger mystery. Nighty night.

@David Josephs.... So, let me get this straight.... You are actually saying I should totally DISREGARD and DISBELIEVE anything uttered by TSBD fifth-floor witnesses Harold Norman, Bonnie Ray Williams, and James Jarman Jr. concerning their belief that shots were being fired from directly over their heads? Is that correct? And you think Norman was telling nothing but a pack of lies throughout the video below, in which he talks at length about how he thought there was somebody firing a rifle over his head from the sixth floor? Is that correct, DJ?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID: According to Robert Harris' theory about the extreme loudness of a Carcano gunshot, it would stand to reason that anyone who was actually firing shots from a Carcano rifle should be rendered nearly deaf by firing those shots (if the shooter wasn't wearing any ear protection, that is). But that is nonsense, as demonstrated on film by CBS-TV in June of 1967, when we see several people firing a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle without any ear protection being used whatsoever (certainly no visible earmuffs or other ear-protecting devices being worn by any of these shooters, at any rate). [see Part 1; 37:00.] In addition, there's this video [below] of a man firing a series of shots using a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle similar to Lee Oswald's (with very accurate results, BTW, at more than SIX TIMES the distance of Oswald's longest Dealey Plaza shot). And while the gunman in that video is, indeed, wearing ear-protection gear, the microphone (situated very close to the muzzle of the rifle) is picking up the sound of each shot very clearly, and the shots don't sound extremely ear-piercing to me (even when standing right next to the gun, which is where the cameraman is standing). So, as usual, Robert Harris' subjective theories fall flat, especially when weighed against the BEST PHYSICAL EVIDENCE in the JFK case -- i.e., THREE spent bullet shells FROM OSWALD'S MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE being found in the TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY (not in the Dal-Tex Building), coupled with the important corroborating "THREE SHOTS" fact that more than NINETY PERCENT of the earwitnesses heard THREE SHOTS OR FEWER during the assassination in Dallas' Dealey Plaza. David Von Pein November 30, 2009

No, of course he didn't. That's Conspiracy Myth No. 1,121. BTW, Ray, is it your opinion that anyone who has ever fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle without ear protection would be rendered totally deaf after firing three shots from their MC rifles?

WTF? Why on Earth would anyone think Norman's ears had to be "ringing" from the shots? Is that a new theory by some CT Denialist? If that were the case, Oswald would have been deaf by the time he reached DPD Headquarters on 11/22. You sound like Robert "Z285" Harris now. Harris thinks the entire crowd in Dealey Plaza would have been "jumping out of their skins" (a Harris quote) if Oswald had been firing his Carcano from the sixth floor. Almost SIXTY FEET up, and Harris thinks people would have had no choice but to be jumping out of their skins with fright and "startle reactions", which, of course, we don't see ANY of in the Zapruder Film at all. And because of this lack of "startle reactions", Harris has decided there were no audible shots fired at all prior to Z285 of the Z-Film. (Yes, he really said that---thousands of times at aaj and MacRae's place.) You probably concur with such junk too, eh David J.? And keep denying the obvious, David. Just keep on denying it. After all, it's what CTers do best. (Just ask Kenneth Drew....or the late Harold Weisberg.) And I've always loved the "Shells all pointing the same way and only an inch apart" claptrap. Better than a barrel full of monkeys. What we have here, then, is the tidiest team of Patsy Framers known to man. They wanted to make SURE to advertise the fact that the shells were planted there, so they took the time to make sure the shells were in a nice neat row, all pointing the same way. The plotters should have been presented with the 1963 Good Housekeeping Award for such neatness and efficiency. (And yet David Josephs believes it.)

....Euins said, at various times, the sixth-floor sniper was a BLACK man and a WHITE man. (He, of course, saw a white man--OSWALD--with the gun on the sixth floor. And he likely saw either Norman or Williams on the fifth floor below Oswald too. Several witnesses seemed to "merge" the fifth-floor and sixth-floor windows. Understandable, since there were men in all of those windows of the building.) ....Brennan also said he couldn't tell whether the sixth-floor rifle had a SCOPE on it. The same thing must have happened to Euins. From that distance, and seeing the gun for only a few fleeting seconds, it's not surprising that the scope wasn't noticed by those witnesses. Big deal. They missed seeing the scope. But they saw a RIFLE being pointed out of the sixth-floor SN window --- the same window where other incriminating evidence of a sniper was found...like CE510, those 3 shells. (Now, tell me, David J., you think those three shells were planted, right? Tell me you KNOW they were "planted". I love hearing that fantasy theory/myth over and over again---year after year after year. And, of course, if you don't believe those shells were planted, then it's impossible to believe the fairy tale about NO shots at all emanating from that sixth-floor window. So, naturally, you HAVE to think they were planted there. Correct?) ....Many, many witnesses HEARD SHOTS coming from the Book Depository and NO OTHER PLACE. Now, David, tell me how those MANY "TSBD" earwitnesses are not relevant to determining if there were actually shots fired from that TSBD Building. ....So there's Euins, Brennan, Jackson, Couch (plus Mrs. Cabell and James Worrell, whom I did not mention before, but also go into the "I Saw A Rifle Or A "Projection" In An Upper-Story TSBD Window" category. .... Plus those many witnesses who heard shots coming from the TSBD Building. .... Plus Norman, who heard shots coming from over his head and heard three shells hitting the floor above him. .... Plus the 3 bullet shells on the floor. .... Plus Rifle C2766 being found on the same SIXTH FLOOR. And yet all of the above, in aggregate form, somehow means I should start believing Harold "The Original Mr. Denial" Weisberg when he uttered these words 30 years ago?..... "I have no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth floor." No thanks, Harold. I'd prefer to remain among the sane.

Jon, What the "formidable" David Josephs presents above is nothing but pure out-and-out garbage (i.e., DENIAL of the evidence). It seems as if David Josephs, like the late Mr. Weisberg, is actually also suggesting that NO SHOTS AT ALL were fired from the sixth floor. Even though Josephs KNOWS that there are four witnesses who ALL put a RIFLE in that sixth-floor window. And yet, still, we get crackpottery like the total junk spewed by David Josephs above. It's beyond belief the lengths CTers will go to clean Oswald's skirts. Mind-boggling, in fact. Some of the CTers on the Internet these days must take daily lessons in "How To Avoid The Obvious". And let me ask you directly, Jon Tidd.... Do you think any shots at all were fired from the sixth floor Sniper's Nest? Or anywhere else on the sixth floor?

HAROLD WEISBERG: TOP-NOTCH RESEARCHER? OR JUST ANOTHER "ANYBODY BUT OSWALD" CONSPIRACY THEORIST? The audio clip linked below was taken from a radio interview in the 1980s featuring famous JFK assassination researcher Harold Weisberg. And it's a clip that should make any reasonable person have serious doubts about the accuracy of anything else Mr. Weisberg had to say concerning the assassination of President Kennedy, because it's a clip that has Weisberg saying something so incredibly silly and provably incorrect that you'd almost have to ask yourself this question after hearing Weisberg make such a stupid claim: Is Weisberg really talking about the JFK case here, or is he referring to some other case entirely?.... HAROLD WEISBERG AUDIO CLIP Here's what Harold Weisberg said in the above radio interview: "I'm inclined to think that Oswald did no shooting at all, and I have no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth floor. All of the evidence that tends to indicate that is corrupted in one way or another." --------------------- Now I know that the late Mr. Weisberg is considered by many JFK conspiracy theorists to be one of the "deans" among the first generation of Warren Commission critics, with many people propping up Weisberg as the very best of all assassination researchers -- but when a critic makes statements like the ones I just quoted above, I have to scratch my head and wonder why on Earth ANYONE would place any faith in this guy whatsoever and prop him up as some kind of "God" among researchers? The part about Weisberg actually believing that NO SHOTS AT ALL were fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository on 11/22/63 is so far out and so provably wrong that I have to wonder whether all of Mr. Weisberg's marbles were present and accounted for when he made such a patently crazy statement in the 1980s. For, the evidence that proves that multiple gunshots were fired from the southeast corner window on the sixth floor of the Depository is not just beyond any reasonable doubt, the evidence to prove that fact has unquestionably been established beyond all possible doubt. And even most conspiracy theorists will acknowledge that some shots were, indeed, fired from the sixth floor. Only a person who wants to ignore or deliberately mangle and misrepresent ALL of the following physical evidence and eyewitnesses can possibly believe that no shots at all came from the sixth floor of the TSBD: 1.) The first-day (11/22/63) interviews and affidavits and statements from several eyewitnesses, in which various witnesses told their story about having seen a gunman (or a gun) in the southeast window on the sixth floor of the Book Depository. These witnesses include: Howard Brennan, Amos Euins, Robert Jackson, and Mal Couch (and a couple of others). And most (if not all) of these people told their eyewitness accounts within literally hours of the shooting (or even less), either via written affidavits that they filled out at the Dallas Sheriff's Department, or by way of live radio interviews, such as WFAA-TV cameraman Mal Couch's live report that was broadcast on WFAA-Radio very shortly after the assassination on 11/22/63 (which can be heard below). The above Mal Couch interview, all by itself, totally destroys Weisberg's fantasy (or anyone else's similar fantasy theory) about NO SHOTS coming from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. Couch's statement on live Dallas radio on the very day of the assassination has Couch confirming (for all time) that he actually saw a rifle being pulled in from an upper floor of the TSBD. Couch said it was the "fifth or sixth floor" of the Depository, and he also said this: "There were people underneath the rifle, who looked up to see where the shots had come from." And that can mean only one thing: Mal Couch had to have seen the rifle protruding from the SIXTH floor of the building, because the people he saw "underneath the rifle" were on the fifth floor, a fact that is confirmed by Tom Dillard's photograph. Therefore, in order to believe (as Weisberg believed) that no shots were fired from the sixth floor at all, you'd have to believe in one of these two things (both of which stretch reasonable thinking to the breaking point): Mal Couch was either a xxxx or was mistaken when he said that he saw a rifle being pulled back into the sixth-floor window. Or: The person who was sticking a rifle out of the sixth-floor window was not really using his rifle as an assassination weapon that day -- the gunman was merely pointing it out the window as a prop or just for "show", but he didn't really fire any shots with that rifle. Both of the options above, of course, are just plain silly. 2.) Three spent shells from Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle were found underneath the sixth-floor window -- i.e., underneath the very same window that eyewitnesses said they saw a rifle protruding from. 3.) Oswald's very own Carcano rifle was also found on the same sixth floor. And it was proven that that exact Carcano rifle of Oswald's was the weapon that fired bullets at JFK, via the fact (among other things) that bullet fragments from that exact gun were found in the front seat of the limousine. (Did Mr. Weisberg really think that bullet fragments CE567 and CE569 were planted in the President's car in order to frame Oswald?) 4.) Witnesses on the fifth floor of the TSBD, Harold Norman in particular, heard a rifle being fired directly over their heads as the shooting was occurring, with Norman even hearing three cartridge cases hitting the plywood floor above him. (Is Harold Norman a xxxx too?) In the face of all of this evidence, Harold Weisberg (who knew this case like the back of his hand) actually had the nerve to utter this statement on a San Francisco radio station: "I'm inclined to think that Oswald did no shooting at all, and I have no reason to believe that any of the shooting came from the sixth floor. All of the evidence that tends to indicate that is corrupted in one way or another." There's only one additional thing that needs to be said here: Un-be-liev-able. David Von Pein October 6, 2011

Pat, Tell me again (in case you never have).... Do you believe Buell Frazier saw ANY large-ish bag in Oswald's hands on 11/22/63? And if you answer "Yes", please explain where I went haywire when I wrote this six years ago.... --------------------------- "Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle were obviously "mistaken" as to the precise length of Oswald's paper bag. To believe otherwise is to believe that the brown paper bag Frazier and Randle saw Oswald carrying on 11/22/63 was a different brown paper bag from the EMPTY brown paper bag that was found in the TSBD which had OSWALD'S PRINTS ON IT. Is a reasonable and sensible person supposed to actually believe that Oswald took a large-ish bag with him into work on November 22 that was 27 inches long, with that bag then disappearing without a trace between 8:00 AM and early- to mid-afternoon on the same day (November 22)? And then are we supposed to believe that a similar-looking BROWN PAPER BAG (EMPTY!) turned up in the exact place from which a gunman fired shots at JFK, with this coincidence occurring (incredibly) on the very same day that Oswald carried a 27-inch BROWN PAPER BAG into the very same building where a 38-inch BROWN PAPER BAG was discovered WITH OSWALD'S PALMPRINT AND FINGERPRINT on it? A reasonable person can arrive at only one reasonable conclusion here: The bag that Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle saw Lee Harvey Oswald carrying on the morning of the assassination was the very same paper bag that was seen lying (empty!) in the Sniper's Nest by Lt. Carl Day and Robert Studebaker of the DPD on November 22, 1963. Accepting any other scenario other than the scenario I just mentioned in the above paragraph is to accept a scenario that lacks all fundamental logic and common sense. Plus, any alternate "two bags" scenario raises more questions than it answers, e.g.: 1.) Where did this so-called 27-inch brown paper bag disappear to? Where is it? If Oswald really took some innocuous, innocent object(s) into the Book Depository that Friday, then why wasn't this innocuous item (curtain rods?) ever discovered by anybody after the assassination? (And if some conspiracists want to speculate that the DPD or the FBI deep-sixed the curtain rods, it would be nice to see some proof to back up such a vile allegation. To date, no such evidence has emerged from the speculation-ridden CT brigade.) 2.) How did Lee Harvey Oswald's palmprint and fingerprint manage to get on the 38-inch paper bag that is now in evidence in the National Archives (CE142)? Are we really to believe that the DPD "planted" two of Oswald's prints on that paper bag sometime after the assassination? (That's an extraordinary accusation that requires an equally extraordinary amount of proof to substantiate it, don't you agree?) 3.) If the bag that Oswald carried into the building had really merely contained curtain rods (or some other item that wasn't a gun), then why did Oswald deny ever taking such an innocent item into work on November 22nd? Did Oswald think that CURTAIN RODS could be considered a suspicious or dangerous item? Maybe he thought that the cops would accuse him of plotting to kill the President by the odd method of stabbing him to death with his curtain rods, eh? Of course, conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio has decided to create a different scenario altogether (although this silly theory has probably been postulated by other CTers in the past as well, but I personally don't know of anyone else besides Jim D. who has gone on record as being this idiotic and paranoid): DiEugenio has decided that Lee Oswald carried NO LARGE-ISH BAG INTO THE DEPOSITORY AT ALL on November 22nd. No bag at all!* * DiEugenio might have suggested in the past that Oswald had a small lunch sack with him that Friday, but Jim is now pretty sure that Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Randle were part of Jim's almost-endless list of scheming liars and cover-up operatives who were attempting to frame and railroad poor schnook Oswald in November of '63, because DiEugenio thinks that Oswald carried NO BIG BAG into work at all on the morning of the President's murder. So, Jim D. thinks that these two ordinary Irving, Texas, citizens (housewife Linnie Mae Randle and 19-year-old stock boy Buell Wesley Frazier) were lying when they each repeatedly claimed that Lee Oswald was carrying a large-ish brown bag with him on November 22. Mr. DiEugenio evidently has never asked himself the following logical question regarding these two supposed liars: If Frazier and Randle were really telling lies about Oswald having a large bag, then why on Earth did those two liars contend that the bag that each of them just MADE UP FROM WHOLE CLOTH was too short to hold Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle?! If Frazier and Randle were liars (as Jim DiEugenio now claims), they were pretty crappy liars, weren't they? Because if they were really telling falsehoods about LHO carrying a large bag, then those two liars would certainly have wanted to continue the deception by saying to the authorities that the bag they created out of thin air was big enough to hold the weapon that was obviously supposed to be inside that make-believe paper bag. So many (stupid) conspiracy theories. So little (common) sense do any of them make." David Von Pein October 16, 2009

Beats me. It's your fantasy theory. You figure it out. But, then too, if the whole idea of a fake bag was to frame Oswald with it and to put Oswald's rifle inside that fake bag (and what possible other reason could there have been for anybody to want to fake such a piece of evidence like the paper bag?), then wouldn't it have been useful for Frazier to at least have a good idea of how long to make his pretend bag so the frame-up of Mr. Oswald could have a chance of succeeding? Why would he do that? What the hell for? To frame the man he said he liked? And if you think as Jim DiEugenio does that it was the Dallas Police Department who really put the "Fake Bag" idea into the head of Wes Frazier, then how come the DPD didn't feed Frazier the proper dimensions for the invented bag (so the fake bag could hold the patsy's rifle)? More boobs at the DPD, I guess. Why not? People change their minds all the time.

When can I expect the "knocking down" to start, Ray? It certainly hasn't happened as yet. And if you think you've advanced the super silly "Frazier Lied; There Was No Paper Bag At All" theory, you're dreaming. And please explain why Frazier made it impossible for Oswald's rifle to fit inside a bag he (or the police) merely "invented" from whole cloth? You never did tell us why Mr. Frazier would have done something so incredibly stupid and contradictory. The "No Bag At All" theory goes sliding down the toilet (where it belongs) based on that contradiction alone.

Yeah, sure Ray. All of Oswald's known LIES are really TRUTHS, right? And all of Buell Frazier's TRUTHS are really big fat LIES (and the same with his sister, Linnie Mae). As usual, a CTer has everything backward and has no idea how to properly assess the JFK evidence. Just another day at the office for CTers. All speculation, but not a single non-LHO bullet or non-LHO gunman.

Ray, As I've said before, everybody cherry picks. I do it. You do it. All God's children do it. We wouldn't be human if we didn't. And the JFK case is no different. But as I said to Thomas Graves at this very forum just two months ago.... "In fact, the term "cherry-picking" (at least as far as my own "LN" beliefs are concerned) could probably be better defined as: "Harvesting the wheat and discarding the chaff"." -- DVP; April 17, 2015

I guess you have a problem reading, eh Ray? Replay..... "I, on the other hand, don't have to call Frazier a "xxxx" even once. I don't think he LIED when he said the paper bag was only around 24 to 27 inches long. I merely think he was WRONG. He miscalculated the length of the bag. Nothing more than that. (And, yes, so did Linnie Mae Randle in some of her bag estimates.) But I don't think either of them were liars." -- DVP