David Von Pein

BTW, Robin, the Photo Gallery link in your signature doesn't work. Here's the new working link: http://www.jfkassassinationgallery.com

FYI: The Lemons' film is certainly not the ONLY color footage of the Warren Commission's 5/24/64 re-enactment. The WC/FBI themselves filmed the re-enactment in color, portions of which were shown in the 1999 documentary "The Murder Of JFK: A Revisionist History". And I have some color clips from the '64 re-enactment on my sites too (linked below). The color is admittedly very crappy-looking here, but it is in color: http://DVP-Potpourri.blogspot.com/2010/01/jfk-assassination-reenactment-film.html

Good point. Same with Groden too. But, of course, neither White nor Groden was part of the 20-member Photographic Panel which concluded that the Backyard Photos and the autopsy pictures were genuine.

Some cites would be nice, Greg. Just look at virtually any post he's ever made on the Internet. That should be a good enough reason to not count Mr. White. Such as this one: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=12420 And this one: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/100957f8ad8bb9ed

Name one esteemed "expert" in the field of photo analysis who has gone out on a limb and said the Backyard Photos are fakes? (Jack White, of course, doesn't count.) And while you're at it, do the same thing for the autopsy photos and X-rays.

Mark Knight, like hundreds of conspiracists before him, has decided to quote Chief Curry after Mr. Curry apparently became enamoured with the "conspiracy kook" crowd. But here's what Curry was saying on November 23, 1963: BOB CLARK (ABC NEWS): "Is there any doubt in your mind, Chief, that Oswald is the man who killed the President?" CHIEF CURRY -- "I think this is the man that killed the President." http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLAA712DECA2E71AC9&feature=player_embedded&v=htgn-ZH1_oQ#t=162s I guess Curry didn't start telling the truth until 1969, when he had a conspiracy book to peddle, eh Mark?

Come on. Get real. Marina saw a LONG GUN in that blanket. Admit it. And there's no evidence whatsoever that Lee Oswald owned any rifle, or long gun, other than Carcano #C2766 in the calendar year of 1963. So you're trying to assert that the gun Marina saw in the blanket was a DIFFERENT gun from C2766. But that, as anyone can see, is merely a desperate attempt by a conspiracy theorist to avoid the obvious -- with that obvious being: Marina Oswald, in late September or early October of 1963, laid her eyes on the weapon that ultimately killed JFK. The "4th Shot" acoustics evidence is totally discredited now, Greg. You, of course, know this. So this item is yet another attempt by a conspiracist to avoid the obvious, with the "obvious" this time being -- The Dictabelt tape does not in any way indicate the number of gunshots that were fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/63. And, in fact, the Dictabelt recording very likely (per the NAS) wasn't even recorded in Dealey Plaza at all. So why do you still want to cling to worn-out and proven-false data, Greg? Any particular reason you think the debunked acoustics evidence is still valid here in the year 2012? http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/debunking-hsca-acoustics-evidence.html As far as I am aware, the Dallas authorities did not lie to the media regarding the paraffin test done on Oswald's cheek. Please show me a report or article where somebody in officialdom stated that the cheek test on Oswald was positive. I've never seen such a report. Such a report or statement might very well exist. I don't know. I just don't recall seeing it. But here's a prediction: If such a statement does exist in some media article someplace concerning Oswald's cheek test, it was very likely an error on the part of the "media" in reporting the results of the paraffin tests, with the "media" representative possibly confusing the "cheek" test, which was certainly negative, with the "hands" test on Oswald, which was definitely positive. In fact, there are live TV reports with Jesse Curry in which the paraffin tests are discussed, and when Curry was asked specifically about the results of the paraffin test done on Oswald's "face", Curry declined to answer one way or the other. He said that he didn't have any results on that test yet. Curry did overstate the meaning of a "positive" paraffin result, however, when he told the media, point-blank, that the positive paraffin result on Oswald's hands definitely meant that Oswald had "fired a gun", which, as we all know, is not an accurate statement at all. Paraffin tests are wholly unreliable in many instances, with other things potentially being the cause of a positive result other than just gunpowder residue. And surely Curry knew that fact too. But he made this statement -- "It only shows that he fired a gun" -- to the press on live television on November 23 anyway. So, if you want to burn Chief Curry at the stake for making that mistake--feel free. DVP's Video & Audio Archive / Interviews With Jesse Curry

Greg, You're making a great big mountain out of an "arraignment" molehill. In my opinion, the Dallas authorities were merely being extra cautious with their prisoner named Oswald, and they wanted to make sure all the legal aspects were adhered to (re: reading the charges of murder in a formal way to Oswald; informing him of his rights; and informing him that he could not be released on bail; etc.). It's quite possible that Oswald had not been OFFICIALLY read his "rights" prior to either "arraignment" hearing at City Hall. But, so what? The so-called "arraignments" served that purpose, even if nobody else had informed him of his rights. But we must also consider the fact that it wasn't until the time (or near the time) of Oswald's two arraignments with Justice of the Peace Johnston that Oswald was OFFICIALLY charged with the murders and formally notified as to those charges. So, logically, that would also be a point in time when his rights would be read to him. It seems to me to be a confusion in terminology. And even Henry Wade, during his WC session, was trying to sort out the meaning of an official "arraignment" for the WC counsel. According to online dictionaries, "arraign" means: 1. (Law) to bring (a prisoner) before a court to answer an indictment. But a second definition in the same dictionary says only this (lacking the "Law" and "answer an indictment" portions): 2. to call to account; complain about; accuse. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/arraign http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arraign It's fairly clear from the testimony of DA Wade that it was Wade's own idea to have Johnston "arraign" Oswald. Wade probably was merely wanting to make sure all legal steps were followed with regards to formally charging Oswald with the two murders and formally advising Oswald of those charges. So, that's what Johnston did (at Wade's request): Mr. WADE -- "At that time, I don't believe he had been brought before the magistrate, because I told David Johnston as we left there, I said, "You ought to go up before the jail and have him brought before you and advise him of his rights and his right to counsel and this and that," which, so far as I know, he did." --------------- Of course, none of this talk about "mock arraignments" changes the physical evidence that exists against Lee Oswald. And it in no way changes the guilty way in which Oswald behaved in the Texas Theater, just 35 minutes after Officer Tippit was killed and just 80 minutes after JFK was killed in front of the building where Oswald worked. All the conspiracy theorists can really argue here is semantics. Because that's what it boils down to -- i.e., were Oswald's two arraignments at City Hall really "arraignments" after all, or were they merely formal proceedings with a Justice of the Peace to officially inform the prisoner of the charges and of his rights? In the final analysis, the best answer I can come up with to answer that last question I just asked is -- Who cares?

I think Oswald's arraignments at City Hall at 7:10 PM (for Tippit) and 1:35 AM (for JFK) were merely to formally inform Oswald of the official charges against him. As far as I am aware, Justice of the Peace David Johnston never asked Oswald this question which is normally asked of a defendant at a formal arraignment -- How do you plead, guilty or not guilty? I, myself, have wondered about the lack of a "plea" given by Oswald at either of his arraignments. (Oswald wasn't asked that question, was he Greg?) Therefore, if Oswald had lived beyond Nov. 24, it seems obvious that a SECOND official arraignment (in court) would have had to take place in order to hear Oswald's own plea. Unless Justice Johnston utilized Oswald's unsolicited comments of "That's ridiculous" and "I don't know what you are talking about" at the Kennedy arraignment to indicate an official "Not Guilty" plea. But somehow I doubt that was the case. So an additional court arraignment on both charges would almost certainly have taken place prior to Oswald going to trial on either murder charge. http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0167b.htm http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0168a.htm -------------------------- RELATED WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY BY HENRY WADE AND JESSE CURRY: Mr. RANKIN. Under your practice, what do you mean by file on him? Is that something different than an arraignment? HENRY WADE. Well, of course, it is according to the terminology and what you mean by arraignment. In Texas the only arraignment is when you get ready to try him. Like we arraigned Ruby just before we started putting on evidence. That is the only arraignment we have, actually. Mr. RANKIN. I see. You don't bring him before a magistrate? Mr. WADE. Well, that is called--you can have an examining trial before the magistrate to see whether it is a bailable matter. At that time, I don't believe he had been brought before the magistrate, because I told David Johnston as we left there, I said, "You ought to go up before the jail and have him brought before you and advise him of his rights and his right to counsel and this and that," which, so far as I know, he did. ================================================= Mr. RANKIN - Will you just describe for the Commission what happened during the arraignment for the assassination, who was present, what you saw. [...] JESSE CURRY - As I recall it, he [David Johnston] read to him the fact that he was being charged with the assassination of the President of the United States, John Kennedy, on such and such day at such and such time. Mr. RANKIN - Did he say anything about his right to plead? Mr. CURRY - I don't recall, sir. Mr. RANKIN - Did he say anything about counsel? Mr. CURRY - I don't recall whether he did or not. Mr. RANKIN - What else happened at that time that you recall? Mr. CURRY - That is about all. After it was read to him, he was taken back to his cell.

Dead wrong. Marina saw the rifle inside the blanket while it was being stored in Ruth Paine's garage. Is she supposedly lying here? Or do you want to believe that the rifle Marina saw in the garage was some OTHER rifle besides Carcano #C2766?: J. LEE RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket? MARINA OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle. Mr. RANKIN. When was that? Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans. Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock. 1 H 52-53 How many more centuries will this myth persist? Why on Earth do you doubt the following determinations made by the HSCA's Photographic Panel?: "The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard picture materials." [6 HSCA 146] "A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs." [6 HSCA 66] More lies from the evil Government, Greg? Come on. What sensible person could possibly believe that the House Select Committee, fourteen years after the Warren Commission disbanded, would have had any reason whatsoever to want tell one lie after another about the murder of President Kennedy (such as the above conclusions concerning Oswald's rifle)? And it's particularly silly to believe that the HSCA was involved in some kind of whitewash or cover-up, since that Committee DID conclude that a conspiracy probably did exist in JFK's murder. You must be joking about this one, Greg. And the reason you must be joking is because CE567 and CE569 exist in the evidence pile connected to JFK's assassination. Do you really think the authorities fired a bullet through Oswald's Carcano rifle, making sure the bullet was banged up pretty badly (but not badly enough to prohibit a positive ballistics match to Oswald's rifle), and then they pretended that they found two large fragments from that manufactured missile in the front seat of the Presidential limousine? You surely realize how utterly ridiculous the above argument sounds. Sure, a conspiracy theorist can ramble on and on about "planted" or "fraudulent" evidence. But is it truly reasonable to believe in the kind of mass manufacturing of "Oswald Did It" evidence in this case (covering TWO separate murders [including Tippit's] and covering multiple law enforcement agencies--Dallas Police, FBI, and Secret Service)? Or do you think just ONE of those agencies managed to manufacture all of the stuff that screams "Oswald's Guilty" in this particular case? If you're referring to Oswald's arraignment by Judge David Johnston at 1:35 AM on 11/23/63, then I can add this (see linked article): http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/10/reclaiming-history-talk.html#Oswald's-Arraignment

Right, Greg. That fact was proven in 1963-1964, via the handwriting of Oswald's on the various documents. I thought you would have realized that by this time. It's only a "fiasco" for the conspiracy theorists (and mainly because of the conspiracy theorists). It was really a very good investigation, with the authorities acquiring all the major facts within hours of Oswald's arrest, proving Oswald committed two murders before anybody's head hit the pillow on the night of November 22nd. The investigators didn't need to investigate utter silliness like the "12" on Oswald's envelope. That's a game played only by conspiracy-happy clowns (the ones who most certainly have an "ax to grind"). And look how far it got them. Noplace. Just as it had to be, because other facts tell us that Oswald did order, pay for, and receive Rifle C2766, with or without that "12" on that envelope.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID: A related topic for USPS manager Jimmy Orr (regarding the application forms filled out by Lee Harvey Oswald for Dallas Post Office Box No. 2915): Any thoughts, Jimmy O., about the controversy discussed in the article linked below? .... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/post-office-applications.html =============================================== JIMMY ORR SAID: The subject of whether Hidell was on the application or not is irrelevant. Post Office Window Clerks do not reference applications when delivering parcels across the counter. Not even by today's security standards. If Oswald was required to sign for the delivery, he simply produced a DD-217 bearing the name ALEK JAMES HIDELL. We are talking about a moment in time when there was no such thing as a picture ID, and a driver's license was little more than an engraved metal dog tag. My first law enforcement credentials in South Carolina during the mid 1970's did not bear a photograph. The handwriting analysis performed is sufficient alone to indicate him as to the box rental and the order of the rifle. Also, the interpretation of Postal Regulation varies from office to office. There is generally no prescribed enforcement, not then, and not now.

JIMMY ORR SAID: I regret that I disappoint you, David. But when you try to ascertain who mailed their boss a letter bomb or a sack of xxxx via USPS you might understand the frustration. I worked in local law enforcement for eight years prior to my postal career. It is no small wonder to me that the mystery of the 'anthrax' letters has never been solved, nor the ricin incident at my own facility in Greenville and at the White House. Terms such as Cancellation, Processing, Origin, and Delivery are as different as night and day in the postal world. It is a complex network. I certainly believe that Oswald bought the money order at the Dallas Terminal Annex Facility. I firmly believe that he mailed the envelope there and that the same was cancelled there perhaps by an antiquated flyer given the mystic number 12. Conspiracy's argument that a delivery zone designation constitutes a point of origin makes no goddamned sense to me. The Zip Code was implemented in 1963 as a delivery device. While in modern perspective it is used in conjunction with indicia to indicate origin, I have as yet to find such to be the case in a historical perspective. In short, they either printed the goddamned town or station name on the cancellation die or not . . . . Hence, what does Dallas, Tex mean to you ? ========================================= DAVID VON PEIN SAID: When did I ever give you the impression that I am "disappointed" in you regarding this matter, Jimmy? Quite the contrary. I greatly appreciate the time you've taken to explain a lot of this USPS stuff. Each post you've made concerning this topic has been quite valuable. In point of fact, though, all of this talk about the "12" on Oswald's envelope is relatively unimportant in the larger scheme of things relating to the JFK assassination, because the physical evidence proves, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Lee Harvey Oswald positively did mail that money order and rifle coupon to Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago on 3/12/63. And the evidence further proves, beyond all doubt, that Klein's received that exact envelope in the mail by March 13, 1963. But the loony conspiracy theorists aren't satisfied at all with PHYSICAL evidence all over the place that proves, for all time, that Oswald ordered, paid for, and was shipped Carcano rifle #C2766. The conspiracists want to pretend that ALL of the documents associated with that rifle purchase are phony and fraudulent. That's how bad it is in the JFK "research community". Pretty soon, I imagine they'll have Jack Ruby actually ordering the gun instead of "Hidell"/Oswald, and they'll have Ruby planting it on the sixth floor too. I'll ask this question again, since you might have missed it the first time: Jimmy Orr, in your experience, in general, how long does it take an air mail letter to go from Dallas, Texas, to Chicago, Illinois (provided the letter was mailed no later than 10:30 AM local Dallas time)? Thanks.

JIMMY ORR SAID: David, to cut to the chase . . . it IS my professional opinion that the letter was cancelled at the Dallas Main Post Office. The number 12 merely indicates a Model G flyer (much like a Singer sewing machine) or a Mark II unit at the Main Office. I cannot tell you where it was dropped into a mail slot, could have been downtown or might have been in Oak Cliff. Delivery zones are for delivery, there is no such designation for collections. Few living souls actually realize what 100,000 letters look like, much less how the tooth-fairy sorts them all out. Dallas City was by 1963 shipping everything to the SCF. It would not have been practical, nor plausable to run a cancellation unit in every nook and cranny of the city and suburbs. ================================ DAVID VON PEIN SAID: There is no doubt (per Dallas Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes' Warren Commission testimony) that Oswald purchased the $21.45 money order for his mail-order rifle at the Main Post Office in Dallas. That's evidently an ironclad fact. Therefore, it stands to reason that he dropped it in the mail while he was right there inside the post office on March 12, 1963 (which is the date on the money order and on the postmark). The two main "Post Office"-related arguments that conspiracy theorists have made over the years relating to this particular envelope and mail-order transaction are: 1.) If the "12" on the envelope represents postal zone #12 for the city of Dallas, which apparently was located miles from the Main Post Office, then why did Oswald walk miles out of his way to mail the letter when he could have mailed it right there at the Main Post Office? But this argument is pretty much debunked by these words written by Jimmy Orr: "I cannot tell you where it was dropped into a mail slot, could have been downtown or might have been in Oak Cliff. Delivery zones are for delivery, there is no such designation for collections." 2.) How did Oswald's letter get all the way to Chicago in just 24 hours? It was stamped with a "10:30 AM" postmark on 3/12/63, and Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago received it and processed the order for the mail-order rifle the very next day (per Waldman Exhibit No. 7, which plainly shows a stamped date of "Mar. 13, '63" at the top of that internal Klein's invoice). You, Jimmy, being in the postal industry for so many years, can probably also provide some good information concerning that second argument made by the conspiracy theorists. I have no doubt whatsoever in my own mind that Oswald's letter did, in fact, reach Chicago from Dallas in just one day--departing Dallas on the morning of March 12, and arriving in Klein's hands in Chicago sometime on March 13. Every scrap of evidence indicates it DID happen that way. We must also consider the fact that Oswald mailed the letter via Air Mail too. Wouldn't that have sped things up quite a bit (circa 1963)? Jimmy, in your experience, in general, how long does it take an air mail letter to go from Dallas, Texas, to Chicago, Illinois (provided the letter was mailed no later than 10:30 AM local Dallas time)?

FYI: More Follow-Ups: USPS MANAGER JIMMY ORR SAID: David, True that I have managed a USPS cancellation unit for more years now than I care to remember and it is true that my remarks were made in good faith. In the very beginning I was accustomed to the exact equipment that would have been used in Dallas in 1963, and I had folks in my unit who were 'veterans' of that postal era. None of the above precludes the possibility that my reasoning might be erroneous. I firmly believe that I am right, but I will do a little investigating of my own now and get back to you as soon as possible. Just a further note: My hometown of Greenville [south Carolina] has zip codes that were established when zip first came into existence in the 1960's. The codes denote sub-stations in Greenville. Station A, Station B, Parkplace, Federal Station, Berea Branch, etc. When the carriers assigned to each of these stations return in the afternoon, everything is consolidated and trucked to the Sectional Center Facility, or SCF, as it was known for most of my years and those previous to my tenure. In this facility (such as in downtown Dallas) the whole was 'cancelled' in one large workfloor space and trayed for manual or machine distribution. It is extremely unlikely to me that this particular mailpiece could have ever been traced back to a certain municipal or surburban area of Dallas once it was dropped in the mailbox. By contrast, as much as things have changed, I think they still tend to stay the same; somewhat. I have four automated advanced facer canceller machines running to date in Greenville, and by the postal indicia stamp killer bars, I cannot tell you where in Greenville the piece was mailed from, but I can tell you which one of my machines cancelled the stamp. It is my professional opinion that the number 12 designates either a mechanized flyer or perhaps even the more advanced mechanical canceller, the Mark II. There is nothing logical to me that would assign the number to a point of origination or to a particular postal operator. It just doesn't make any sense to me. However, as I said, we are onto something here, and I will investigate it further, for my own peace of mind.

DAVID VON PEIN ADDED: Hi again Jimmy [Orr], I'd like to get a clarification if I could about this statement you made earlier. You said: "There would have been absolutely NO local zone classification for cancellations in 1963. ... I have been with USPS for 29 years now. Nothing on a postmark other than city, state, and zip code has EVER indicated an origination." I'm curious to know how you know for a fact that "there would have been absolutely NO local zone classification for cancellations in 1963"? Since you started working for the USPS in 1983, which was years after Zip Codes came into existence, it's obvious that you would have never seen any postmark with a "Postal Zone" code attached to it in these last 29 years. I'll also point you to the following quote from a Mr. A.J. Savakis of the "Machine Cancel Society": "It [the "12" on Oswald's envelope] could be a postal zone OR a machine number OR a dial given to a specific postal worker to work a machine OR represents a special tour of processing mail at a special point OR any other representation decided by the Dallas postal authorities. I can't rule it out." So, Mr. Savakis seems to think that the "12" in the 1963 Dallas postmark could be a postal zone after all. I'm just trying to pin down a definitive answer on this matter, if that's possible to do. But, as you can see, there are some disagreements--even among people who belong to organizations specializing in all things relating to postmarks. Any further observations or information you can provide would be, as always, appreciated. Thanks. DVP

On October 15, 2012, while attempting to acquire still more information about the "12" in the postmark on Oswald's envelope, I sought the opinion of a man with whom I recently became "friends" at Facebook, Jimmy Orr, who not only has a great interest in the JFK assassination, but who is also, coincidentally, a supervisor for the United States Postal Service. Here is my conversation with Mr. Orr: Hi Jimmy, I just noticed that you are a Manager/Supervisor at the U.S. Postal Service, which is an occupation that comes in mighty handy when discussing the topic at the link provided in this post. And since you're also interested in the JFK assassination, you would be the perfect person to add your USPS expertise to this topic. I've had several people from the "Post Mark Collectors Club" and the "Machine Cancel Society" chime in with their views, but there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer (yet). Here's the discussion: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html David Von Pein October 15, 2012 ================================ JIMMY ORR SAID: At first glance, David . . . the postmark seems to be of a Model G flyer, of which we still use one in Greenville [south Carolina] to this day. An electric machine, it probably dates to the 1930's, but is still useful to cancel heavy, non-automation pieces. There would have been absolutely NO local zone classification for cancellations in 1963, as there are absolutely none to date on this equipment. The number 12, most assuredly, would have indicated a machine number at the processing plant in Dallas. Nothing more, nothing less. I have been with USPS for 29 years now. Nothing on a postmark other than city, state, and zip code has EVER indicated an origination. [The] MPO [Main Post Office] in Dallas would have typically had a large workroom area with multiple flyer machines in 1963. It is also quite probable that they had as many as twelve mechanized Mark II cancellation machines. The dies would be nearly identical and would merely indicate the machine number. I believe, firmly, that no conclusion can be drawn about the origin of the letter within the Dallas community by observing the postmark. Also David, the time of 10:30 [which is also stamped on Commission Exhibit 773] would indicate the 'clearance' time for delivery. Anything before 10:30 would constitute next day service. That which was received later would not. There would have been ABSOLUTELY no changing of the dies to reflect what time the letter was received . . . with the letter volume of 1963 as compared to today's internet generation . . . the notion is ludicrous . . . cancellations in Dallas at the time were probably upwards of 300,000 letters per day. ============================== DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thank you very much, Jimmy. The information you have provided is very helpful indeed. And doubly so, considering it comes from a 29-year veteran of the United States Postal Service. I very much appreciate your valuable assistance on this matter.

Connally's chest X-rays (CE681 and 682): http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0182b.htm http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0183a.htm

Lee, Why are you harping on the Price Exhibit when you've got WRIGHT ON FILM telling you what happened?? You really think Wright was lying his ass off to CBS-TV in '67? And we've got Darrell Tomlinson telling us (via Ray Marcus) that he (Darrell) gave the bullet to Wright. And we've got Richard Johnsen's report in CE1024, verifying he got a bullet from WRIGHT. Given the above three things that PROVE forever that OP Wright handled a bullet on Nov. 22, I couldn't care less about what Wright wrote in the Price document. And that's because we don't NEED the Price Exhibit to answer this question (which is an inquiry that only one person on the planet thinks is up in the air): Did O.P. Wright handle a bullet at Parkland on 11/22/63? Are you done with your silliness on this Wright subject now, Farley? Or do you want to make yourself look more foolish than you already have (if that's possible)?

My latest response to James "LHO Didn't Fire A Shot At Anybody" DiEugenio can be found at the link below: DVP VS. DiEUGENIO (PART 79)

And why don't you try evaluating the sum total of the evidence--just for once. Richard Johnsen told us (via CE1024) that he got a bullet from O.P. Wright. And Darrell Tomlinson told Raymond Marcus in 1966 that he gave a bullet to O.P. Wright [page 3 of transcript of telephone call between Marcus & Tomlinson, July 25, 1966; seen below). Given these facts (provided by TWO OTHER PEOPLE), anyone who suggests that O.P. Wright never saw ANY bullet at Parkland on Nov. 22 is just plain cuckoo. Complete Transcript: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/marcus-tomlinson-interview-7-25-66.html

For Pete sake, Lee, where on Earth can you possibly go with the theory that has O.P. Wright never even handling (or seeing) any bullet at all at Parkland on 11/22/63? Geez, didn't Wright TELL Josiah Thompson in 1966 about seeing a bullet?* Wright said it was a "pointy" missile (of course, as we all know, he was wrong about that part), but you really want to purport that Wright saw NO BULLET at all at Parkland? Good grief, how silly. You're as bad as Jimmy "Buell & Linnie Mae Made Up The Paper Bag Story" DiEugenio. Also: O.P. Wright's 1966 remark to Josiah Thompson (about the stretcher bullet being a "pointed" bullet) is one of the conspiracy-proving lynchpins in the whole case for most theorists, which means that if Wright never really saw ANY bullet at all on 11/22/63, it means that there's one less CTer (Lee Farley) who can now utilize the "pointy bullet" argument in defense of the theory that the stretcher bullets were switched. Because Farley now wants to say that Wright never saw ANY bullet at all--"pointy" or otherwise. Which would mean, of course, that Wright was lying through his teeth during his interview with Tink Thompson in 1966.* It's very odd that a CTer would want to travel down that road. But Lee Farley has just done it. * It also means that O.P. Wright was lying through his teeth some more--on national television--when he was interviewed by CBS News in 1967 for the CBS special "A CBS News Inquiry: The Warren Report". Sixteen minutes into Part 4 of that four-part program, Wright discusses at some length about how he saw and took possession of the stretcher bullet on Nov. 22. Wright even says he "picked up the bullet and put it in my pocket". I've reached an interesting conclusion recently.... Time is the worst thing in the world when it comes to the outrageous theories concocted by JFK conspiracy theorists. What I mean by that is: Give a JFK conspiracy theorist enough time, and then just sit back and watch the additional theories start to flow like a river from their computers, sans a stitch of supportable evidence to back them up. Two good examples of this type of behavior have been exhibited just today in this very thread: 1.) David Josephs accused James Rowley of possibly playing fast and loose with the bullets at the White House on the night of the assassination. (Up until today, I had never once heard any CTer accuse Rowley HIMSELF of being part of any conspiracy plot or cover-up.) 2.) Lee Farley now seems to like the silly idea of O.P. Wright never having seen (or handled) ANY BULLET AT ALL at Parkland Hospital on Nov. 22nd. What will more time bring? One can only imagine.

Richard Johnsen TOLD US that he got the bullet from O.P. Wright at Parkland, via Johnsen's typewritten note that he wrote at the White House on 11/22:

In your "switched bullet" scenario which has Chief Rowley being the main criminal, please tell me just exactly how and when the United States Secret Service gained possession of Lee Harvey Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in order to perpetrate this grand fraud and switcheroo of the bullets? Did James Rowley just happen to have an expended bullet from Oswald's gun sitting in a cabinet drawer in his office in Washington prior to 9:00 PM EST on the evening of 11/22/63? The fact is.... The silly cloak-and-dagger scenario that has the FBI or Secret Service performing a convenient "switch" of the bullets on November 22 has always been a flimsy and wholly unprovable tale served up by desperate conspiracists in their persistent efforts to paint Oswald as an innocent patsy. We know that Oswald's rifle remained in Dallas until approx. 11:45 PM CST on the night of JFK's assassination. And we also know that the stretcher bullet was transported from Dallas to Washington aboard Air Force One by SS agent Richard E. Johnsen, with that AF1 flight departing Dallas Love Field at 2:47 PM CST. So what I want to know is how it was even remotely possible for the FBI (or, as David Josephs suggested above, the Secret Service, led by Chief Jim Rowley) to have even had any opportunity to "switch" any bullets prior to midnight on 11/22/63? Obviously, there was no such bullet-switching opportunity, because Oswald's rifle wasn't even in Washington until (at the earliest) about 3:30 or 4:00 AM EST on November 23rd. Therefore, nobody in Washington could have had a chance to fire any bullets through Rifle C2766 (in order to start framing Lee Oswald with them) until early in the morning of 11/23/63. David J. will probably now simply say that CE399 was obtained by the FBI at a LATER time and then inserted into the official record of the case. But that's not what Mr. Josephs claimed above, because above he speculated that Rowley of the SS was possibly "perpetrating a crime by replacing THAT BULLET with what becomes CE399". Ergo, Rowley, who was in Washington, would have had to have had access to Oswald's Carcano rifle prior to 9:00 PM EST on November 22 (when we know the gun was still in Dallas).