(PART 22)

Subject: Jim DiEugenio, Vince Bugliosi, Dave Von Pein, & Assorted Miscellany
Date: 8/29/2009 11:11:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio



Hmm. Talk about a distinction without a difference. In your first review yes, you did point out some errors in RH ["Reclaiming History"]. BUT NONE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE JFK ANGLE! They were essentially trivia. Things like birthdays. Not one thing about the main focus of the book: which takes up about 2500 pages.


Nonsense, Jim. I have talked about what I perceive to be Vincent's
errors with respect to several different things of a substantive

I quote now from my September 2007 Internet article:

""Reclaiming History" author Vincent Bugliosi has, in my
opinion, written a very factual book, with only a very few mistakes
cropping up here and there (that I noticed). That doesn't mean I
always agree with everything VB says in his JFK book. Because that's
not the case at all. In fact, I disagree with him on several different
issues re. the Kennedy case....e.g., the timing of when the SBT bullet
struck the victims; the specifics of what happened to the bullet from
Oswald's first (missed) shot; the very strange flip-flop that Vince
seems to do on pages 423-424 re. the HSCA's insane "upward" trajectory
of the SBT bullet path through JFK's body; and VB's criticism of
Gerald Posner in a couple of places (particularly with respect to a
JBC bullet-fragment issue)." -- DVP; September 8, 2007


...You were trying to intimidate people on Lancer [www.JFKLancerforum.com] with how Bugliosi was going to magically erase all the doubts about the WC [Warren Commission], even though he worked from the same knowledge base we all did. You then amended this to VB making an error about his book containing certain Z film frames. Again, it's trivial. And then you loudly proclaimed how this did not touch on VB's book's credibility.


If you're talking about Mr. Bugliosi's obvious error when he said
(over and over again in 2007) that his book was the first book to ever
print Z-frames 312 and 313, then I'll emphatically say -- Such an
error certainly does not affect Vince's credibility regarding his
bottom-line "lone assassin" conclusion.

Are you, James, actually trying to say that that error of Bugliosi's
regarding the publishing of Z312 and Z313 affects his credibility when
it comes to the big-ticket question of whether Oswald alone killed

Surely you jest.


Davey: Why not talk about VB's four Magic Bullets. Huh?


You took the word right out of my own mouth, Jim. And that word is:

"Four magic bullets"? What the hell are you talking about? The only
people who have ANY "magic bullets" are the conspiracists. They've got
up to 4 of those--to replace the SBT alone! And all of those "magic"
bullets disappeared without a trace. Even you should realize how
stupid that type of anti-SBT theory sounds.


Or two within six seconds.


It appears to be time for another "HUH?" here. You think Vince has two
"magic bullets" within "six seconds"? WTF?

Vince, just like me, thinks the total time for the shooting was 8.4
seconds (8.36 seconds to be more precise) -- from Z160 to Z313.

As I've said several times on the Internet, Vincent's SBT timeline is
wrong, IMO (but that doesn't affect VB's overall time of 8.4 seconds
for all three of Lee Oswald's gunshots).

Vince thinks the SBT shot occurred at Z210 (or "within a split-second
of Z210"), which is obviously too early. The SBT occurs at exactly
Z224, IMO.

But even with a Z210 SBT shot, there is still ample time for Oswald to
fire that shot (after his first shot misses the car at Z160). The
difference between Z160 and Z210 is 2.73 seconds, which is more than
enough time when using Oswald's Carcano.

And the time between shots 2 and 3 (per Bugliosi's timeline) is 5.63
seconds. In my opinion, the time between those two shots was 4.86
seconds. But either timeline affords Oswald sufficient time to get the
job done.


Or his [Bugliosi's] displaying of the altered Dox drawing of the back of JFK's skull and proclaiming it the "entrance wound".


It would have been better if Mr. Bugliosi had simply provided the
actual autopsy photos in his book (vs. merely relying on the Ida Dox

I think that was another mistake made by VB. The autopsy pictures
should definitely have been included in such a "book for the
ages" (which "Reclaiming History" undoubtedly is).

It was a mistake not to include the autopsy pictures, and it was a
mistake for Vince not to include a lot more photographs, too. And he
certainly could have done so, even if only on the CD-ROM. That kind of
"reference" book about the JFK case should have more photos in it than
"Reclaiming History" contains, IMO.

But I don't know why you have such a problem with the Dox drawing of
the back of JFK's head. Dox has the entry wound placed properly in her
HSCA drawing.

Why you think otherwise is a bigger mystery. And I assume you're
talking about this Dox drawing below [HSCA JFK Exhibit F-48], right
Jim? Ida Dox made this drawing, btw, by TRACING directly over the top
of the actual autopsy picture of JFK's head:

Ida Dox's other drawings that depict the entry wound in Kennedy's
head look very accurate too, IMO, with the entry wound being HIGH on
JFK's head, near the cowlick, which is, of course, just exactly where
EVERY SINGLE PATHOLOGIST who has examined the official autopsy photos
and X-rays since 1963 has said the wound is located.

Naturally, though, being a firm believer in the make-believe "Grassy
Knoll Killer", you (James DiEugenio) are forced to disagree with the
more than ONE DOZEN doctors who examined the autopsy photographs for
THREE separate U.S. Government panels and committees since the
assassination -- The Clark Panel in 1968, the Rockefeller Commission
in 1975, and the HSCA/FPP in 1978.


Or his [Bugliosi's] error on the spacing of the jump seat inward?


There's definitely some confusion and contradiction in the record
regarding the distance between the car door and Governor Connally's
jump seat. The Hess & Eisenhardt schematic definitely shows the
distance to be just "2.50 inches", whereas Thomas Kelley's Warren
Commission testimony indicates a 6-inch gap.

In May of 2008, I had THIS online discussion with Pat Speer regarding
this "Connally Jump Seat" topic.

As with all things that conspiracy theorists prop up as meaningful and
substantial, the "Jump Seat Measurement" issue is a great-big "TO-DO
ABOUT VIRTUALLY NOTHING", as I fully demonstrate via ample doses of
common sense and logic in the above-linked Internet article.


Maybe because those would undermine the book's credibility? Which you vouched for two years before the book was published, and called it by the wrong title?


I didn't refer to Vincent Bugliosi's book by the "wrong title" at any
time, Jim. Maybe you should (once again) look before your mouth leaps
into action.

The book went through three different titles, with "Reclaiming
History" finally winning out as the book's published title (it was
Vincent's wife, Gail, btw, who came up with that title).

Prior to the title being changed to "Reclaiming History" in 2006, the
book's moniker was "Final Verdict" (which I'm positive you are fully
aware of, Jim, since you even mention that early title in Part 1 of
your never-ending anti-VB review/tome).

The two (full) titles that were used at one time or another for Mr.
Bugliosi's masterwork prior to its 2007 release were these:

1.) "Final Verdict: The True Account Of The Murder Of John F. Kennedy"

2.) "Final Verdict: The Simple Truth In The Killing Of JFK"


For ITC ["JFK: Inside The Target Car"], you did the same. You did your usual press release, then you amended it when so many others found so many errors in it--which somehow you managed to miss. But here, you only go as far as the positioning of Jackie. And again, you say it does not really touch on its credibility.


It doesn't.

Please tell me, Jim, how JACKIE'S position in the limousine IN ANY WAY
nullifies the rifle tests that were done in California by Michael

I'll answer that question myself -- It doesn't nullify or undermine
those test shots.


How about the wrong exit spot on the head, Davey? Does that mean anything in a trajectory analysis? Or the bullet not fragmenting to leave a large fragment behind, as Mack's HSCA x-rays said happened? And Mack was using the HSCA analysis for his comparison.


As I've stated in my articles online regarding the "Target Car" rifle
tests -- I really don't care too much about anything in that
particular Discovery Channel program except the two simulated "From
The Grassy Knoll" tests that were performed by Michael Yardley in

Those two "Knoll" test shots (using two different types of rifles--a
Winchester and a Mannlicher-Carcano) prove beyond ALL POSSIBLE DOUBT
that President Kennedy could not possibly have been shot in the head
by a gunshot coming from the front or right-front (which is a shooting
scenario that a vast majority of conspiracy theorists firmly believe
to this day, including Mr. James DiEugenio).

Naturally, those two "Knoll" rifle tests are WORTHLESS to a hardened
CTer like you, Jim. And that's because you've invested way too much
time and too many words on promoting the make-believe "Grassy Knoll
gunman" theory.

You don't care that Yardley's shot from a Winchester rifle completely
blew the simulated JFK head clean off its neck!

And you also don't give a damn that Yardley's second "Knoll" shot,
using a Carcano rifle, created undeniable damage to the LEFT side of
the surrogate JFK head (i.e., damage that even all conspiracists admit
DID NOT EXIST with respect to the head of the real John F. Kennedy at
his autopsy in 1963)!

So, as all conspiracy theorists have to do, you will find ways to
discredit and undermine the importance of those two "Knoll" shots that
were fired by Mr. Yardley for the "Inside The Target Car" documentary

I'll repeat the following comment that I first made in late 2008,
because it seems fitting here:

"The more scientific and ballistics tests that are done (like
the Discovery Channel's tests and Dale Myers' excellent computer
animation projects relating to both the Single-Bullet Theory and the
acoustic/Dictabelt evidence), the further and further away from a
multi-gun conspiracy we get in the JFK case. Shouldn't that make even
the staunchest conspiracy theorist pause and ask -- I wonder how this
can be...if JFK was really hit from the front and rear, like Oliver
Stone, Jim Garrison, et al, insist he was?" -- David Von Pein;
November 1, 2008


Why not debate me so we can address these and many, many other issues.

/s/ JD [Jim DiEugenio]


You never can tell, maybe I will feel like doing just that at some point
in the future.

Of course, in a very real sense, I already have "debated" you on many
key issues relating to JFK's assassination....on the Internet (and in
my 6-part [now 8-part] video series).

David Von Pein


Subject: The Strap Muscles (Again)
Date: 8/29/2009 11:11:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: James DiEugenio



I don't know who sent you that quote but it was not me. I was on the road to Santa [B]arbara for vacation with my sister. Davey, you did say this in one of your early versions of your counterattack on my VB review, which is driving you batty. .... Humes and Specter were specifically talking about the strap muscles. When they both knew the bullet came in the back. In other words they were deliberately covering up its real location--which they both knew of--in order to make the SBT viable. Which it is not.



I guess I'm going to have to go around the "strap muscles" mulberry
bush with you for the 12th time. Apparently the previous 11 times I
proved you were dead-wrong on this issue weren't enough for you.

Anyway, you need to listen to the Black Op Radio broadcast of
July 16, 2009, wherein you said that I had earlier quoted "Specter
examining Humes" (your verbatim quote from 7/16/09) regarding
the "probing" issue as it relates to the strap muscles:

But, quite obviously, I never quoted Specter or Humes talking about
any such thing relating to the "probing" topic. How could I have quoted
AT ALL. It does not exist. You INVENTED it, Jim, for your own "CT"
purposes. And you surely MUST realize that by this time.

You must also believe that Arlen Specter was somehow able to wave his
"magic coercion wand" and miraculously was able to get Dr. Humes to
follow him down "Strap Muscles B.S. Avenue", because it's HUMES who
said the strap muscles WERE, in fact, "bruised" by the passage of the
bullet...not Specter!

So, how did Specter get Humes, on the record, to LIE HIS ASS OFF in
front of the Warren Commission, Jim? You never did state how that neat
little trick was accomplished.

BTW, I also must assume that you really DON'T think the strap muscles
of JFK were "bruised" by the passage of the bullet through his body,

Because if you DO think that the strap muscles were bruised (and, of
course, they definitely were, because Dr. Humes was very clear on that
point in his WC testimony), then your whole argument about how Specter
made up the "B.S. story" (your direct quote) concerning the strap
muscles is a totally-moot and useless argument altogether.

Better luck next time, James. You've lost this round.