(PART 12)

Assassination researcher and loyal conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio
made another of his regular appearances on Len Osanic's weekly "Black
Op Radio" talk show on Thanksgiving Day (Thursday, November 27, 2008).
The program can be heard below:

Listed below are some of the many silly things that Mr. DiEugenio said
during his 55-minute BlackOp appearance (which was designed mainly as
another in a series of DiEugenio's lengthy "anti-Vincent Bugliosi"
bitching and moaning sessions):


Jim DiEugenio wonders why the recent 11/16/08 Discovery Channel
assassination documentary ("JFK: Inside The Target Car") didn't
explore the nature of President Kennedy's upper-back and throat

James doesn't seem to realize that the "Target Car" program wasn't
produced to try and simulate (or even deal with at all) the earlier
shots that were fired in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963. The
"Target Car" documentary was produced to solely focus its attention on
the HEAD SHOT that killed President Kennedy.

So, it certainly wasn't surprising to me in the least that the 2008
Discovery Channel program didn't delve into any matters dealing with
the SBT shot or JFK's back and throat wounds. They had ALREADY
done that, in an earlier Discovery Channel program made in 2004,
"JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet".


Are you ready for a strange admission from a CTer now? Okay, listen to
these comments made by Mr. DiEugenio regarding the alignment of JFK
and John Connally in the Presidential limousine from a sniper's POV on
the 6th Floor of the TSBD:

"Of course, it's gonna be a straight line--roughly a straight
line. Because the street is right in front of the window. You've got
Kennedy in the back seat of the car. You have Connally in the jump
seat of the car. So, yeah, it's gonna line up--into a straight line."
-- James DiEugenio; 11/27/08

Thanks, Jim, for admitting that Kennedy and Connally WERE, indeed,
seated in a "straight line" in the limousine from the point-of-view of
a gunman in the Sniper's-Nest window on the sixth floor of the Book
Depository at the time when the SBT occurred.

I agree with you 100%. And so do these visual aids:

Warren Commission Exhibit No. 895

Most conspiracy theorists like Jim, however, like to balk and complain
about how the two victims were NOT aligned properly (in a "straight
line") from Oswald's 6th-Floor perspective.

It's good to know that a devoted conspiracy advocate will once in a
while let loose with a remark that (unintentionally) confirms that
even HE (a rabid anti-SBT CTer) can easily see that the two victims
were lined up in a "straight line" from the point-of-view of the
Sniper's Nest when President Kennedy and Governor Connally were first
injured by a rifle bullet on Elm Street in Dallas.

Based on Jim's candid "straight line" remarks, it would mean that a
single bullet slicing through both men at the same time would
certainly be feasible if a bullet had exited JFK's throat and was
heading forward and downward toward the person who was sitting in
front of Kennedy in a "straight line". Right, Jim?

Of course, I know that Jim DiEugenio didn't intend for his "it's gonna
line up into a straight line" remark to indicate that Jim favors the
likelihood of the Single-Bullet Theory being correct. Of course that
was not his intention, because no CTer alive would be caught dead
believing in the obviously-true SBT.

But his "straight line" admission is rather interesting....coming as
it does from a fervent anti-SBT conspiracist.


Get ready for a really, REALLY funny comment made by James Di. Let's

"If you ask me, I think [Senator Richard] Russell was probably--
of those seven [Warren Commission] guys--he was probably the best guy
on the whole Commission, which is why he didn't go to very many of the
meetings or the hearings. Because by very early, he decided that the
fix was in." -- James DiEugenio; 11/27/08

Translation -- In order to be the "best guy" on a U.S. Government
committee which exists specifically to investigate the death of the
President of the United States, make sure you shirk your duties as
much as humanly possible and attend as few meetings and witness
hearings as you can get away with....because you're convinced that the
commission you are a part of is corrupt (i.e., "the fix was in").

Somebody break out the "LOL" icons! I need a boatload of them right

Of all the people to prop up as "the best guy" on the Warren
Commission, Mr. DiEugenio picks positively the WORST possible
candidate for such lofty praise -- Richard B. Russell.


By the way, here's what Vincent Bugliosi had to say about Senator
Russell in "Reclaiming History":

"What [Richard] Russell essentially said [in a 1970 interview]
is that there were too many things he had questions about, and because
of these unanswered questions, instead of concluding he didn't know
what happened, he tended to believe there was a conspiracy.

"Maybe if Russell had acted like a responsible public official,
he would have learned the answers to his questions. But he did
not. .... His attendance at the hearings where 94 witnesses testified
before the Commission was nothing short of disgraceful, Russell only
attending the testimony of 6 witnesses. And if Russell had a little
more common sense, that would have also helped.

"Russell is the same person who on October 22, 1962, right in
the middle of the Cuban missile crisis...actually urged war rather
than a peaceful resolution to the crisis. ....

"Can you imagine that? To Russell, possession of nuclear weapons
wasn't a deterrent to war but a golden opportunity to blow up the
planet. I must confess: when a mental giant like Russell says he
believes there may have been a conspiracy in the Kennedy
assassination, I listen." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 297-298 of
"RH" Endnotes

I couldn't agree more, Vince.


DiEugenio claims that Bugliosi's time for the SBT shot was Zapruder
frame 224, which is not correct at all. Vince believes that John
Connally was already showing distress from being hit by Lee Oswald's
bullet at Z222 (based on the HSCA's photographic analysis, with the
HSCA claiming that JBC's upper body had "stiffened", indicating he had
probably already been hit by that time, which I disagree with
completely; the SBT came at Z224, IMO).

Bugliosi does display some ambiguity regarding his SBT timing
throughout various portions of his JFK book, as I discuss in more
depth in my "RH" book review.

But from comments made by Bugliosi on radio shows in 2007 (and the
bulk of his remarks in his book), it's quite clear that Vince thinks
the SBT occurred at approximately Z-frame 210.

So, Jim DiEugenio is just plain wrong when he said that VB advocates a
"Z-frame 224" SBT timeline.

Here's a sketch from Bugliosi's book:


Mr. DiEugenio talked about the "ovoid" bullet wound that was located
in the upper-right back of Texas Governor John Connally. And while
discussing Connally's back wound, James D. said that Connally's
doctors supposedly had made later statements to the effect that the
bullet that hit Connally in the upper back positively struck nothing
else before it hit the Governor.

My immediate reaction upon hearing this garbage from DiEugenio was
(and is):


Where on Earth did he get that from, I pondered?

Firstly, I don't think that Connally's doctors (Robert Shaw and
Charles Gregory) made any such ridiculous statement(s).

Secondly, how could Connally's doctors possibly have known for certain
if the bullet had hit anything prior to hitting Connally?

And thirdly, given the type of elongated wound that Connally suffered
to his upper back, such a silly statement coming from JBC's very own
doctors would fly in the face of logic and reason in the first place,
because the wound in Connally's back (ovoid/elliptical in shape) was
certainly the type of wound where a doctor could not possibly have
been of the opinion that such an elongated wound positively was the
result of a bullet that hit NOTHING before entering Connally. That's
just nuts.

Such an ovoid or oval-shaped wound is the type of wound that would
lead to speculation that the bullet causing it probably DID hit
something before striking the victim. Not the other way around.


"If you look at Z-frame 160, there's basically, essentially
nothing to indicate that any shot has been fired that early." -- James
DiEugenio; 11/27/08

Well, duh!

If the shot was fired right AT Z160 or very close to that frame (and I
think that is correct, and so does Vince Bugliosi), then we're not
very likely to see any visual signs of this MISSED SHOT on the Z-Film
until a few frames AFTER Z160. Right, James?

Of course, Jim D. doesn't mention the best evidence for a shot around
Z160, which is the "right turn" of John Connally, which begins at
about Z164:

"We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought
was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle
shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to
come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my
right shoulder." -- John B. Connally; 1964 Warren Commission Testimony


"Now, if this is the first shot [at Z160], and it didn't hit
anybody, then obviously that shot had to be the shot that ricocheted
off the curb and hit bystander James Tague." -- James DiEugenio;

Well, not really, Jim. The Warren Commission wasn't boxing itself in
to meet that rigid scenario. The WC, on page 117 of its final report,
allowed for the possibility that the curb on Main Street (and, hence,
James Tague) could have been struck by a fragment of the bullet that
hit JFK in the head.

That same page of the Warren Report also permanently destroys the
forever-repeated conspiracy-tinged myth about how the WC was committed
to a "5.6-second" shooting timeline. But this is not true at all,
because the Commission allowed for a longer period of time for the
three shots to be fired, specifically stating on page 117 that "the
three shots were fired in a time period ranging from approximately 4.8
to in excess of 7 seconds".

And Mr. Bugliosi, like the Warren Commission, also allows for some
flexibility in his thinking with respect to Tague's wounding as well,
as we can see in the book excerpt below:

"With respect to the bullet or bullet fragment that struck the
concrete skirt surrounding the sewer cover and ricocheted through the
nearby turf, continued on to the south curb of Main Street, and
ricocheted again, causing minor wounds to Tague's cheek, from the Book
Depository Building the sewer cover is not on line with the mark on
the curb on Main Street (CD 1518, p.46). None of this is evidence of a
fourth bullet, only evidence of what may have happened to Oswald's
first missed shot or to a fragment of the bullet that struck the
president in the head." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 311 of "RH"

I, myself, believe that Tague was wounded by a fragment of the first
(missed) shot, and not by a fragment from the third (head) shot. But
I've always left open the distinct possibility that Tague could have
been hit by a head-shot fragment, instead of by the first shot that
Oswald fired.




Mr. DiEugenio makes a big deal out of the four "missing" (damaged)
frames of the Zapruder Film, stating that years ago he had the
opportunity to view a complete version of the Z-Film which contained
those four missing frames (Z208-Z211), and as a result of that
personal viewing (on a "really big screen"), DiEugenio is absolutely
positive that President Kennedy was hit by a bullet at "around Z-Frame
number 195 or so" [DiEugenio quote; 11/27/08], which comes close to
matching the HSCA's erroneous timing for the SBT shot (which was

And Jim's belief of an approx. Z195 JFK hit is solidified in concrete
by merely looking at "missing" frames Z208 through Z211 in motion on
an unspliced version of the Zapruder Film.

Jim thinks JFK's head "buckles" during these four missing Z-frames,
which is proof to Jim D. that Kennedy was hit by a bullet just a few
frames earlier.

It's interesting to note, however, that the four frames in question
(Z208-Z211) show only the very top of JFK's head as Kennedy goes
behind the Stemmons Freeway sign (and these frames aren't very clear
at all). The majority of Kennedy's whole body (and even a good part of
his "buckling" head) are completely obscured by the street sign:

To think that the above 4 "missing" frames of the Zapruder Film prove
that JFK was reacting to a gunshot wound is just incredibly far-
fetched and speculative, IMO.

But, the little sliver of JFK's blurry head in Z208 through Z211 was
apparently enough ironclad PROOF for Mr. DiEugenio to state as he
did state on the November 27th BlackOp program -- "That's it" (i.e.,
that's all I need to see, folks; those four frames of the Z-Film, with
Kennedy almost totally hidden by the street sign this whole time, are
enough proof for me that JFK was hit by a bullet before he disappeared
behind the signage).

All together now ----

Are you cuckoo, Jim???
Has your train completely left its rails??

Plus, we have this "Pot Meets Kettle" argument from Jim too (unless
DiEugenio believes in the ultra-silly theory that has JFK being hit by
separate bullets in the upper back and throat):

At one point on the 11/27 BlackOp show, Jim berates Vince Bugliosi and
the Warren Commission for postulating a "delayed reaction" by Governor
Connally after he was shot in his upper-right back.*

But then we have DiEugenio, just a few minutes later, telling the
BlackOp audience (consisting of myself and one other guy in Helena,
Montana, who was half asleep on the couch after consuming his heavy
Thanksgiving feast) that JFK was absolutely, positively hit with a
bullet at about Z195 (based on those critically-important 4 missing
blurry Z-Frames that show JFK's "buckling" head).

But what Jim doesn't tell his audience of two is that HE, too, must
certainly believe in some type of a physical "delayed reaction" on the
part of one of the two shooting victims (JFK in this instance),
because we know that Kennedy doesn't start raising his arms up to his
mouth and neck areas until Z-Frame 226, which is almost TWO SECONDS
after Jim DiEugenio insists that JFK was struck by a bullet back at
approximately Z195.

So, Jim must believe that JFK's arm-raising reaction was, indeed,
significantly "delayed". But when it comes to anyone else's theories
about a delayed reaction on the part of the other victim in the
limousine (Connally), Jim can't seem to control his laughter. Go
figure the irony of that little two-faced argument there.

But, as mentioned above, I suppose it's possible that Jim believes
that Kennedy's arm-raising, which begins at Z226, is due to JFK being
hit by a different bullet from the one that Jim says struck him at
about Z195.

I'm not sure what Jim's exact shot-by-shot theory is. But maybe he
thinks Kennedy was hit at Z195, then again just before Z225, then
again at Z313, and then again at Z898 as Bill Greer pulled into the
Parkland emergency entrance (via the "real and unaltered" version of
the Z-Film).

(Just kidding about that Parkland gunshot. But you never know what a
CTer is going to invent next, so maybe I should keep an open mind
about a conspiracy theorist postulating a "Z898" shot.)

* = I, however, don't believe the "delayed reaction" theory myself,
because I'm quite confident that both victims were hit by Lee Oswald's
SBT bullet at precisely Z-Frame 224, with each man's reactions to this
Z224 hit being perfectly "in sync" with one another and perfectly
corresponding to the bullet striking each victim at exactly Z224, as
demonstrated here:



DiEugenio also claims that Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers picked up
a bullet out of the grass in Dealey Plaza. Of course, Walthers never
said he picked up any bullet or bullet shell in Dealey Plaza [see
Commission Document 1245; Page 41]. There's not a speck of hard
evidence to support such an allegation. But the conspiracy nuts keep
harping on this myth for years on end anyway. Pathetic, isn't it?

"Though [Buddy] Walthers couldn't have been clearer that he
found no bullet in the turf, many conspiracy theorists to this day
maintain he did." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Footnote on Page 310 of "RH"


Now, are you ready for an example of blatant and outright
misrepresentation on the part of James DiEugenio? Well, ready or not,
I've got a beaut for everybody here.....

During his 11/27/08 BlackOp appearance, DiEugenio had the gall to argue
that President Kennedy's head is in the "exact position" (quoting DiEugenio)
in Zapruder frame 312 as it is in Z313 when looking at those two Z-Film
frames in separate still photographs (such as the ones presented by
Bugliosi in "Reclaiming History"; Vince has placed Z312 right on top of
Z313 on the same page in the book).

Jim D. seems to travel deeper and deeper into the Twilight Zone with
each passing Black Op Radio interview.

Now, I will readily admit, that it is very difficult to discern the small
2-inch (approx.) forward movement of Kennedy's head between Z312
and Z313 when looking at just two static still images printed in a book.
The forward motion of JFK's head is, indeed, hard to positively determine
using just this method.

But for DiEugenio to try and put the false idea in the mind of anyone
by suggesting that just maybe JFK's head DIDN'T rock forward a couple
of inches at the very important moment when his head was being hit
with a bullet can only be deemed flagrant and outright deception and
misrepresentation on DiEugenio's part.

Because even if the forward movement of Kennedy's head is hard to make
out in the two pictures printed in Mr. Bugliosi's book, DiEugenio
certainly knows full well (or he should) that when we watch the
Zapruder Film IN MOTION, Kennedy's head does move forward at the
critical "impact" point between frames 312 and 313. There can be no
denying that rock-solid fact, as illustrated in the Z-Film clip below:

The very fact that DiEugenio would even think about bringing up such a
silly argument regarding the Z-Film frames that appear in Bugliosi's
book, and suggest to anyone listening to him that perhaps JFK's head
didn't move forward between Z312 and Z313 (which most certainly HAD to
be the desired end result of James bringing this subject up in the
first place--what else could he possibly have had in mind by doing
it?) vividly illustrates the depths to which a conspiracy theorist
will sink when attempting to argue his never-ending case for
"conspiracy" in the JFK assassination.

A couple of addendums to this "Z312/313" discussion and Bugliosi's book:

It would have been ideal if Bugliosi could have placed the super-slow-
motion image of the key head-shot sequence (shown above) somewhere
in his JFK book. It would have served as a very nice visual aid in
"Reclaiming History".

Vince could, in fact, have placed a weblink to the above Z-Film clip
on the "RH" CD-ROM filled with endnotes and source notes if he had
chosen to do so, because he DID put a few random weblinks on that CD,
which are mainly links to various pages of John McAdams' excellent

One mistake made by Bugliosi that DiEugenio could definitely have
raked Vince over the hot coals for is Vincent's continual error that
he made during many of his book-promoting radio interviews in 2007.
That error being when Vincent stated in several interviews that
"Reclaiming History" is the "only book" ever published on the JFK
assassination to include Zapruder frames 312 and 313.

That declaration by VB is not only wrong -- it's very, very wrong. My
current collection of JFK books is not huge by any means, but in my
library alone I found five books that have those two Z-frames in them
(not counting VB's book) -- "Kennedy And Lincoln" by Dr. John Lattimer
(1980); "Conspiracy Of One" by Jim Moore (1990); "The Killing Of A
President" by Robert Groden (1993); "National Nightmare On Six Feet Of
Film" by Richard Trask (2005); and "A Simple Act Of Murder" by Mark
Fuhrman (2006).

That's just a small mistake on Mr. Bugliosi's part, of course, and it
doesn't really hurt or undercut his well-researched and comprehensive
book in any way whatsoever.

But it does seem strange to me that Vince would repeatedly make that
same mistake when he discusses his book, especially since he should
certainly already have known that the above-mentioned books (and no
doubt many, many others not mentioned as well) have Z-frames 312 and
313 in them, since Vincent uses every one of the books I referenced
above as source material in several locations within his own book. So,
he no doubt has read and is familiar with each of those books in

So, I suppose this means that my last observation about VB and the
Z-frames will spark some CTer (like Mr. DiEugenio perhaps) to claim
that that is additional verification that Vincent's book was "ghostwritten"
by other authors, seeing as how the CTer could make the argument that
Vince didn't even read the books that he uses as sources in "RH".

But I, of course, would hasten to argue against such a potential
theory, mainly because I think it's just plain stupid to think such a
thing about Vincent T. Bugliosi in the first place.

I think it's likely that Vince (whose memory isn't as good as it once
was, and he's admitted that same thing himself) just simply can't
recall seeing those Z-frames in those other books that he has most
certainly read. It could also be that when Vince goes to read a book,
he doesn't pay too much attention to the pictures in each of the
publications he's reading.

To be perfectly fair to Vincent on this "Z312/Z313" issue, I do know
that on more than one radio program, Vince has put a verbal "footnote"
beside his usual comment about there being "no other book out there on
the assassination" that includes those Z-frames. With that verbal
footnote being: "There could be other books out there with these
frames, but I'm not aware of them".


DiEugenio also takes a little time to try and tear down the "neuromuscular
reaction" and "jet effect" theories with respect to JFK's head movement.

But, in reality, of course, since we know beyond any shred of a doubt
that JFK was shot in the head only ONCE -- and that one bullet entered
Kennedy's cranium from BEHIND (a CTer's whining and constant denials
notwithstanding) -- it truly makes NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER how the
President's head behaved after he was shot.

His head could have spun around like a top and bounced off the rear
seat like a basketball 20 times before coming to rest--and that
activity still wouldn't change the irrevocable and immutable fact that
he was struck in the head by just that single bullet FROM BEHIND. The
autopsy report and the photos and X-rays prove that fact beyond all
possible doubt.

So, the slight forward movement of JFK's head between frames 312 and
313 on the Zapruder Film is not really needed at all in order to
arrive at the truth with respect to John Kennedy's head wounds.

Yes, it's nice having that additional piece of evidence (the Z-Film)
to help bolster and solidify the truth about the head wounds, but the
film certainly isn't a necessary ingredient here.

And I must say that I disagree very strongly with Vince Bugliosi when
he said on various radio shows in 2007 that the jury at the 1986 mock
trial in London ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald") would probably have
acquitted Oswald if Bugliosi had not been able to negate and overcome
the defense argument concerning the violent "back and to the left"
movement of Kennedy's head seen in the Zapruder Film.

I disagree with Vince there because, as I've said, the motion of JFK's
head after the head shot is really not very important in the long run.
In fact, as we all know, the "head snap" isn't even mentioned at all
in the Warren Commission volumes. It's totally ignored. And that's
mainly because the Warren Commission had much BETTER evidence to rely
on when it came to the subject of Kennedy's head wounds.

And since the Commission knew for a fact that Kennedy was not hit in
the head from the front, there was no real reason to bring up the head
snap seen in the Z-Film. Mainly because that violent head snap proves
NOTHING with respect to JFK's head injuries.

Given Mr. Bugliosi's vast talents as a prosecutor and his attention to
detail and the way he will hammer home the raw, physical facts
associated with any case he's involved in -- Vince would have easily,
IMO, been able to convince that London jury that JFK was hit in the
head from BEHIND only, even if the forward movement of the President's
head was never even brought up at the mock trial.

Because Bugliosi, of course, would have had ample ammunition to work
with -- e.g., the autopsy photos, the X-rays, Dr. Petty's testimony,
and the autopsy report.

If "back and to the left" somehow trumps all of those things I just
mentioned -- then it's a crazy, mixed-up world we're living in, folks.



More about JFK's head wounds:

DiEugenio stated this about Z-Frame #313 (the moment that JFK was
struck in the head) -- "The only part of the head that looks like it's
being impacted is the front."

I can only shake my own head in disbelief and (again) utter:


At Z313, a large exit wound has just been created at the right-front
of President Kennedy's head....and this is where we see all the blood
and brain tissue (naturally), since the only place we could really
expect to see any of this bodily material is at the location of the

But Jim D. evidently thinks that this massive blow-out of blood and
brains at the front of JFK's head represents the ENTRY hole made by an
INCOMING projectile.

Go figure Jim's cockeyed reasoning here. I certainly cannot.


DiEugenio also said something else really bizarre (as if that last
item about Z313 wasn't bizarre enough already) ---

Jim (and Len Osanic too) claimed that John Connally and Nellie
Connally (seated in front of the Kennedys in the limo on 11/22/63)
were not sprayed with blood and brain matter right after the fatal
shot struck JFK in the head.

No kidding. James really said that. Well, to be clear and precise,
what Jim actually said (verbatim) was this:

"They [the Connallys] should have been covered in blood."

Time for yet another -- WTF???!!!

The Connallys (both of them) always said--in virtually every interview
I ever heard either one of them give--that they were both literally
"covered" with brain tissue from the fatal head shot.

I guess, though, that Jim D. thinks the Connallys should have been
splattered with more "blood" (specifically) after the head shot hit
JFK. But the word "blood" is used in one of the following excerpts of
testimony given by the Connallys:

"Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see
on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain
tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my
trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my
thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time
either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always
that it was he who was hit and no one else." -- JOHN B. CONNALLY; 1964

"Immediately, I could see blood and brain tissue all over the
interior of the car and all over our clothes. We were both covered
with brain tissue, and there were pieces of brain tissue as big as
your little finger. It was something that was unmistakable. There was
no question in my mind about what it was." -- JOHN B. CONNALLY; 1978

"The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot
falling all over us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was
the matter, brain tissue, or whatever, just human matter, all over the
car and both of us." -- NELLIE CONNALLY; 1964 WC TESTIMONY

"Instantly, the shot, the car was covered, it was like buckshot
falling all over us." -- NELLIE CONNALLY; 1978 HSCA TESTIMONY


As a side note ---

Apparently Len and James are now pretty much convinced that I am,
in fact, Dave Reitzes in disguise. Since his October 30th radio program
featuring Mr. DiEugenio, Osanic received some additional e-mails
(probably from one or two of our CT friends at the alt.conspiracy.jfk
asylum), restating the allegation that DVP and Reitzes occupy the
same body. And I guess that's enough proof for Lenny and James.

DiEugenio also said on the November 27th radio show that he's "not
gonna talk about this guy [me] anymore", because Jim thinks that I am
"so suspicious now" that I don't deserve "any more comment on that
particular issue" [although what exactly "that particular issue" is
supposed to be, I cannot say for sure; but Jim's probably talking
about my earlier remarks relating to Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle
(#C2766), even though that topic never came up at all during the
November 27th radio show].

Translation -- If Person A starts a false rumor about Person B, make
sure to accept the rumor as being true (without doing anything to
confirm the rumor yourself), and then ignore Person B altogether and
label him "suspicious" from that point forward.

Great policy, Jim.

And Len Osanic made these silly and incorrect remarks about me as

"I think a while ago that I reported that this Dave Von Pein guy was
actually Dave Reitzes. .... A couple of people wrote in about that, and
we mentioned that and we haven't heard anything from the guy since."

I guess Len never visits any of the Internet forums. Because if he had
visited them (or my JFK Blog), he would easily have been able to see
that I have certainly not remained silent when it comes to voicing my
opinion on the Internet about Mr. DiEugenio's lengthy anti-Bugliosi and
anti-DVP critiques.

I wonder what Len expects anyway? Does he think I should have booked a
spot on Brian Williams' NBC Nightly News to talk about the way Mr.
DiEugenio and Mr. Osanic have mangled the facts in the JFK case?



After listening to some of James DiEugenio's odd remarks on the radio
on November 27th, I had to ask myself -- is Jim talking about the JOHN
F. KENNEDY assassination? Or is he talking about some OTHER person's
murder? Because he sure seems totally ignorant of a lot of basic facts
with respect to JFK's murder. Absolutely unbelievable.

And evidently, per DiEugenio, Vincent Bugliosi doesn't know what he's
talking about at all when it comes to anything of substance in the JFK
murder case.

I guess maybe Jim thinks Vince spent the 21 years from 1986 to 2007
merely watching the grass grow in front of Gerald Posner's house or
something, and then he hired a team of several "ghostwriters" to come
in and write most of the lengthy chapters for his JFK book.

Maybe Mr. DiEugenio should have stopped after writing Part 3 of his
anti-Bugliosi review. Because the more he talks, the more he continues
to embarrass himself.

David Von Pein
November 2008