(PART 10)


Hi Mr. Von Pein,

Did you read Mr. DiEugenio's reply to you on CTKA?

He also has a long review on Dale Myers! All very interesting!!

My Best, Billy


Hi Billy,

Yes, I've seen both of those articles by Mr. DiEugenio at CTKA [linked
below]. (Jim is almost as long-winded as I am at times, isn't he?)



To be perfectly blunt with you, Billy -- Jim DiEugenio is living in a
world of total fantasy and speculation regarding the JFK
assassination. Not a shred of what he says can be proven....and he
knows it (or he certainly should know it by now).

Jim loves to point out things that he thinks are strange or
mysterious, and things that he apparently believes lead down a path
that results in eventual "conspiracy" in the JFK and J.D. Tippit
murder cases (i.e., "thread ends", for lack of a better term). Jim
then speculates that those loose threads mean something significant
with respect to Lee Oswald, or JFK, or the CIA, or the assassination
in general.

Here's a great example of what I mean -- The other night (October 9),
DiEugenio appeared on Len Osanic's "BlackOpRadio" program (you can
hear the whole 1.5-hour show HERE; the last half is as dry as the Sahara, however).

At one point during the program he went on and on for several minutes
about how Marguerite Oswald supposedly knew that her son, Lee Harvey,
wanted to defect to the Soviet Union many weeks (or months) before
Lee actually did travel to Russia in late 1959.

This knowledge that was supposedly gained by Marguerite is supposed to
LEAD SOMEWHERE (I assume) in Mr. DiEugenio's "conspiratorial" world.
But Jim never tells us WHERE this knowledge of Marguerite's is
supposed to go.

In other words, HOW does Marguerite's possibly knowing about Lee
wanting to defect to Russia (in advance of him actually doing so)
somehow MATTER in the least little bit when considering whether or not
Lee Oswald shot JFK four years later?

And how can such knowledge by Marguerite be utilized as a springboard
for any conspiracy theorists with respect to whether Lee Harvey Oswald
was or wasn't employed by the CIA?

It almost sounds as if DiEugenio wants to believe that MARGUERITE
OSWALD was a "plotter" or "conspirator" of some sort....and that her
"pre-knowledge" of Lee's intentions to go to Russia is some kind of a
major signal that Lee was employed by the CIA (or some other entity of
the Government).

But, in reality, that kind of stuff just flat-out goes NOWHERE for a
conspiracist like Mr. DiEugenio. Absolutely nowhere. And he has to
know it doesn't go anywhere, but Jim just likes to point out and
highlight these "loose threads" that can never, ever be tied to any
kind of workable, believable, and cohesive "plot" behind Lee Harvey
Oswald and the assassination of John Kennedy.

Here's another example of the type of "It Goes Nowhere" junk that Mr.
DiEugenio loves to talk about (as my own brand of long-windedness
takes over here for a moment longer; albeit a different type of long-
windedness, because my brand contains an abundance of CS&L attached to
it ["Common Sense & Logic", that is]).....

In his review of Vincent Bugliosi's book and during a segment of one
of his recent BlackOpRadio appearances, DiEugenio talks about the fact
that Lee Oswald's Imperial-Reflex camera (the camera which took the
infamous "Backyard Photographs" of LHO holding the rifle he used to
kill the President) wasn't turned over to the police by Robert Oswald
until many weeks after the assassination.*

* = And this was no doubt due to a simple oversight. You see, that
camera was apparently stored in a closed box in a closet inside Ruth
Paine's house at the time of the assassination in November. Most
likely, Ruth just simply forgot that some of the Oswalds' belongings
were in that closet in that box, with the Imperial camera being one of
the items that was in there.

The box later was given by Ruth to LHO's brother, Robert Oswald, who
then gave it to the police many weeks after the assassination.

Now, to Mr. DiEugenio, this oversight regarding the Imperial camera is
"suspicious". He thinks it's odd that the police never found that
camera during their multiple searches of Paine's home in November.

But DiEugenio just STOPS right there....with his "suspicious" remark.
He never ties it up; he never says WHY this delay in finding the
camera is to be considered "suspicious". He never explains WHY either
Ruth Paine or Robert Oswald (or anyone else) would want to
deliberately hide the camera from the police or the FBI.

And, moreover, Jim never tells us HOW this delay in turning the camera
over to the authorities would, in any way whatsoever, BENEFIT or AID
any type of so-called "Patsy" plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald.

If somebody was trying to frame Oswald (as DiEugenio undoubtedly wants
to believe), then why on Earth would they be wanting to HIDE evidence
that could be used to further the "patsy" plot along?

DiEugenio knows (and readily acknowledges) that the Imperial camera
did take at least one of the Backyard Photos (there was only one of
the pics that was definitively linked to the camera, because only one
picture's negative was recovered). And Jim knows that Lee Oswald
himself was shown one of the Backyard Photos by the Dallas police as
early as November 23rd, the day after the assassination.

Therefore, Jim isn't arguing that the pictures are "fakes". We know
the photos were taken months before November 22nd, and were taken by
the Imperial camera owned by Oswald.

Given these undeniable facts, what possible purpose would be served by
any "plotters" hiding the camera from police view for an extended
period....the very same camera that can prove the legitimacy of the
Backyard Photos?

Jim doesn't say. He just says it's "suspicious".

But the only thing that's really suspicious here is WHY Jim D. thinks
this completely-innocuous event regarding the Imperial-Reflex camera
is "suspicious" in the first place.

If you listen to DiEugenio's Black Op Radio interviews (any of them),
you'll find numerous additional examples of this same type of conspiracy-
oriented policy that has been adopted by many conspiracists over the
years. And it's a policy that could aptly be labeled as follows:


David Von Pein
October 2008