(PART 3)


In my two April 2010 articles (HERE and HERE), in which I thoroughly
debunk and refute a whole bunch of junk coming from the mouth of
conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio, I forgot to include an important
point which I overlooked previously. DiEugenio said this in his
http://ctka.net/2010/dvp.html article of 4/13/10:

"In his reply [to DVP's August 2009 questions concerning CE399],
Bugliosi also referred to pages 814-815 of 'Reclaiming History' as
proof that CE 399 was not fired elsewhere and then planted at
Parkland. If you look up those pages you will see why Von Pein is Von
Pein. For on those pages, Bugliosi is referring to the Neutron
Activation Analysis test." -- Jim DiEugenio

In response to the above quote from DiEugenio -- yes, Vince Bugliosi
did refer to those two pages of his 2007 book "Reclaiming History".
Here is exactly what Vince wrote to me:

"To the argument that yes, CE 399 was fired from Oswald's
Carcano, but at another time and place, and was planted at Parkland,
see pages 814-815 of "Reclaiming History"." -- Vincent Bugliosi;
Letter to DVP dated August 22, 2009


Now, I probably should have done a re-check of those two pages of
Vincent's book FOR MYSELF, instead of assuming a conspiracy theorist
like Mr. DiEugenio would actually get something completely right for a
change (which, after all, doesn't happen very often), but I did not
take another detailed look at "RH" pages 814 and 815 until this

And what did I find when I looked at those two pages? --- I found that
DiEugenio, as per the norm, was not telling the entire story when he
said that Bugliosi's arguments regarding the so-called "planting" of
Stretcher Bullet CE399 were "referring to the Neutron Activation
Analysis test".

Yes, Vince refers to the NAA tests on the first half of page 814, but
then he starts talking about a lot of OTHER STUFF besides Neutron
Activation Analysis on the rest of page 814 and ALL OF PAGE 815!

In fact, Vince doesn't talk about NAA anywhere at all on page 815 (and
there are a LOT of words on EACH page of "Reclaiming History", as
everyone who has read that book is fully aware of).

Bugliosi's NAA discussion actually begins on page 811 of "RH" (in the
chapter entitled "Identification Of The Murder Weapon") and concludes
on the first one-half of page 814.

So, it appears to me that what Jim DiEugenio has probably done is to
glance at the first half of page 814, where he saw the letters "NAA"
several times, and Jim just assumed that "NAA" was the ONLY thing that
Mr. Bugliosi had to say to buttress his argument about CE399 not being
planted at Parkland Hospital by evil conspirators.

But that is not entirely correct, Jim. And you would have realized it
is not entirely correct if you had CONTINUED READING page 814 and then
all of page 815 (which, to emphasize again, doesn't contain a single
reference to "Neutron Activation Analysis", because Bugliosi had
already finished talking about NAA in that particular chapter on page

Now, yes, Bugliosi does say this on page 814 (which probably was the
only part of the page that DiEugenio read; he saw these words and then
essentially was prepared to declare Bugliosi crazy on the whole
"bullet-planting" discussion):

"His [Dr. Vincent Guinn's] most important conclusion by far,
however, scientifically defeating the notion that the bullet found on
Connally's stretcher had been planted, was that the elemental
composition and concentration of trace elements of the three bullet
fragments removed from Governor Connally's wrist matched those of a
second bullet, the stretcher bullet. The stretcher bullet, then, had
to be the one that struck Connally, which all of the other evidence
had already shown." -- V. Bugliosi

But, in DiEugenio's zeal to discredit the science of NAA and Vincent
Bugliosi's book as a whole, Jim must have missed all of the following
non-NAA excerpts that also appear on pages 814 and 815 of "Reclaiming
History". Let's now take a gander at those excerpts:

"Even without NAA, the idea that conspirators planted a bullet
on the stretcher to frame Oswald makes no sense at all. .... Note that
at the time the conspirators supposedly planted the stretcher bullet
(which, if we're to follow the logic of the conspiracy theorists, must
have been fired from Oswald's rifle at some earlier time in order to
frame him with it), they'd have to assume that at least one of the
real bullets fired at Kennedy would be recovered, either from
Kennedy's body or inside the presidential limousine or elsewhere.

"And since they would know that firearm tests would reveal the
bullet (or bullets) was not fired from Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano,
this would automatically exonerate Oswald as the assassin, when the
whole purpose of the alleged planting was to frame Oswald.

"Moreover, the conspirators would have to know that if the real
bullet (or bullets) was recovered and determined not to have been
fired from Oswald's Carcano, the presence of a planted bullet on
Connally's stretcher that had been fired from Oswald's rifle would
immediately signal to the authorities that a second gun (and hence, a
conspiracy) was involved in the assassination.

"Since we can assume that the conspirators would not want the
existence of a conspiracy to be known, why would they do something
that could only advertise their existence?

"For their plan to plant the stretcher bullet to work, the
conspirators would have to feel extremely confident, at the time they
planted it, that they would be able to retrieve and destroy all of the
real bullets that were fired, even those that, for all they knew,
might still be lodged in Kennedy's body.

"But how could they possibly believe they could do this? Or are
we perhaps to believe that the conspirators' hit man did not fire from
a different rifle, but with the Carcano itself, which was then left
behind on the sixth floor, knowing it would be found and Oswald would
be implicated in the murder?

"But if the hit man for the conspirators fired three shots from
Oswald's rifle and left it on the sixth floor, why would the
conspirators have felt the need to plant a fourth bullet on the
stretcher at Parkland to frame him? Wouldn't the authorities finding
the murder weapon (Oswald's Carcano), as well as three shells from
that weapon, on the sixth floor be enough to frame Oswald? What more
could they possibly hope to achieve by gilding the lily and taking the
additional risk of being caught by planting the fourth bullet at Parkland?

"And if we follow the illogic of this scenario, how in the world
did the conspirators come into possession of Oswald's Carcano in the
first place? Did they break into Ruth Paine's garage sometime before
the assassination, steal the Carcano, take it out and fire a bullet
into some object from which they could recover it, then fire the
Carcano from the sixth-floor window and leave it behind, then plant
the earlier, recovered bullet on a stretcher at Parkland?

"Under that scenario, I guess the conspiracy theorists would
want us to believe that Oswald was really having lunch on the first
floor of the Book Depository Building at the time of the assassination
while some stranger who had stolen his rifle was firing it on the
sixth floor. Nurse, call the doctor. Our fine-feathered conspiracy
friends seem to be hallucinating.

"I hate to reduce myself to talking about such silliness, but if
Oswald wasn't the one who fired his Carcano that day, then after his
arrest when the authorities asked him questions about the Carcano and
showed him a picture of himself holding the murder weapon--the main
piece of evidence, he knew, that connected him to the assassination--
why did he deny holding the rifle, or even owning a rifle, two blatant
lies that showed an unmistakable consciousness of guilt?

"If it wasn't he who fired his Mannlicher-Carcano at the
president, wouldn't the automatic and natural thing for him to say be,
"Yes, that's of course my rifle, but some SOB stole it from me about a
week or so ago. You find the person who stole it from me and you'll
find the person who killed the president."

"Instead, Oswald told one lie after another about his own rifle
because he knew, of course, that it was the murder weapon."

-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 814-815 of "RECLAIMING HISTORY:


So, as we can see, Bugliosi is not ONLY referring to NAA when he talks
about the ludicrous notion put forth by conspiracy promoters regarding
Bullet CE399 being planted into the official record of the JFK murder

And I can add a little more basic common sense and logic to the things
Vince said, too. Right here:





David Von Pein
April 2010