(PART 7)



Below is a corrected version of the 10/1/08 post linked above [which is
a post that is dated 9/30/08 during months when Eastern Standard Time

I'm either getting really old (although my birth certificate says I'm only 46,
which I'm pretty certain is an accurate document and has not been "faked"
by a band of JFK conspirators), or I must have been half asleep when I
wrote the original 10/1/08 post linked above....because I've discovered
numerous mistakes that I made in that post while re-reading that article
today (12/4/08).

And I'm really, really pissed-off at MYSELF for having made such
sloppy errors in a post that I wrote. I apologize. I cannot stand
errors in my posts. And the multiple mistakes that I made in that
post are absolutely ridiculous on my part--and I fully admit it.

So, since I cannot stand having obviously wrong info authored by
myself stay uncorrected, I'm offering up the following "corrected"
version of that October 1st message/post:


http://Amazon.com/David Von Pein/Forum Post/September 30, 2008

>>> "For a proper assessment of Bugliosi's disinformationist book read Jim DiEugenio's review on CTKA Probe website. You should read it too, Mr. Von Pein!!!" <<<

Oh, I have read it. It's linked below:


Mr. DiEugenio's review (Parts 1 and 2 thus far) is just another anti-
LN rant (aimed at Vince B. this time). DiEugenio is one of the many
hardcore JFK conspiracy theorists in the world who have been peddling
the various "plots to kill Kennedy" for years now.

And there is simply no way on this Earth that Jim is suddenly going to
do an about-face and throw all of that pro-conspiracy effort down the
toilet....no matter how comprehensive Bugliosi's book is (and VB's
book IS comprehensive and covers [and destroys] all the major bases
re. "conspiracy", despite the protestations of people like Mr.

As DiEugenio was telling the world (via "Black Op Radio") how lousy
Mr. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" is and how Vince skirted around and
avoided many of the issues that Jim thinks prove a conspiracy in the
JFK case, I couldn't help but take note of the "Pot Meets Kettle" irony
as Jim D. was speaking.

Such as:

The "Mauser vs. Carcano" controversy:

DiEugenio props up the fact that the rifle found on the sixth floor of
the Texas School Book Depository Building was originally reported to
have been a Mauser by some of the police officers who initially saw it
on November 22.

This type of inference is apparently supposed to make the conspiracy-
happy sheep of the world believe that it wasn't really Oswald's gun
that was found on the 6th Floor at all -- but, instead, a German

But what Mr. DiEugenio never tells his listening or reading audience
is the fact that the two officers who initially found the rifle tucked
between boxes on the 6th Floor of the TSBD (Eugene Boone and Seymour
Weitzman), and who both did, indeed, refer to the Carcano as a
"Mauser", BOTH later insisted that their first impressions were
mistaken ones, and both officers later said that the rifle they saw
was NOT a Mauser, but was an Italian Mannlicher-Carcano.

"To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser, which
I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a glance, I
saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came out as words
it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian type gun. But
from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I saw, was at a
glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my statement was a
mistake; but it was an honest mistake." -- Seymour Weitzman; In 1967

RE: The ongoing question of "Why did Oswald order a mail-order rifle
with such a lengthy and obvious paper trail?":

In my opinion, the reason Oswald used his mail-order rifle to shoot
JFK in November is because it was the only weapon available to him at
the time of his virtually last-minute, poorly-planned decision to
assassinate the President. Simple as that.


Mr. DiEugenio, for some reason, decides to spend several minutes going
on and on (and on) about the mix-up between the various cameras that
Marina and Lee Oswald owned in 1963.

Now, I suppose this kind of "musical cameras" talk is to create doubt
in the minds of some people about which camera was actually used to
take the infamous "Backyard Photographs" showing Lee Oswald with a
rifle and a pistol in late March of 1963 (which were pictures that
were taken, btw, just days after Oswald received his Carcano rifle in
the mail from Klein's).

DiEugenio seems to think it's "suspicious" that Lee Oswald's Imperial-
Reflex camera was not discovered by the police on the weekend of the
assassination in November 1963. But there's no mystery to it at all
(except in the fevered minds of certain CTers).

The camera was simply overlooked by the police, probably because they
were never directed to it by Ruth Paine at Paine's home in Irving on
the weekend of the assassination. Ruth simply forgot that some of the
Oswalds' possessions were in one of her closets (or elsewhere within
her home) when the police searched her premises in November. And among
these forgotten items was the Imperial-Reflex camera (which is the
camera that took the famous Backyard Photos of Lee Oswald).

DiEugenio says he doesn't dispute that the Imperial camera was,
indeed, used to take the Backyard Photographs, he just thinks it's a
bit "suspicious" that the camera took many weeks (or months) to
finally get into the hands of the police.

But I'd say that this "suspicion" is just another conspiracist making
a large mountain out of nothing more than an anthill.

Were the police supposed to tear Ruth Paine's home apart, and turn it
upside-down, searching for every small possession and artifact of Lee
Harvey Oswald's?

Yes, they seized quite a few items from the Paine home, but the police
weren't going to just start grabbing things at random and haphazardly
from Paine's house without a good reason to do so -- namely by asking
Ruth: "Is this your property? Or is this Oswald's?"

The camera was merely one of a few overlooked items belonging to the
Oswalds that remained in Ruth Paine's possession for a few extra weeks
after JFK's murder. It's as simple as that, in my view.


Two other things that DiEugenio seems to be a little mixed up about
are things concerning the 1986 TV Docu-Trial that Mr. Bugliosi
participated in as prosecuting attorney ("On Trial: Lee Harvey

DiEugenio seems to think that the mock trial in London was the same as
a real trial, in the sense that the lawyers could subpoena witnesses
to appear in court (and, hence, Bugliosi and defense lawyer Gerry
Spence could get whatever witness they wanted to get for the simulated

But this, however, was not the case at all. All 21 witnesses who
appeared at the '86 mock trial took the witness stand voluntarily.
They were not forced to appear via subpoena. Several key witnesses
were invited to appear at the mock trial, but refused to do so. So
Bugliosi and Spence were forced to examine only those witnesses who
were invited to participate and who also WANTED to take the witness

And DiEugenio, incredibly, actually seems to think that Lee Harvey
Oswald would have taken the witness stand at his own trial (had he not
been killed by Jack Ruby). DiEugenio attempts to undermine the '86
Docu-Trial by saying that "the most important witness" (Lee Oswald)
was "not there".

So, DiEugenio is implying that Oswald would definitely have spoken up
at his trial (had there been a real one) and taken the witness stand,
so that he could be cross-examined by a prosecuting attorney (like
Vincent T. Bugliosi, for example)....which would have, in my view,
been total SUICIDE for Mr. Oswald had he done so.

Had Oswald gotten up on that witness stand, he would have been forced
to tell all of the provable lies that he told the Dallas Police (and
other officials) all over again, in front of the jury. He would have
been cutting his own throat had he done so.

The fact that Oswald lied about never owning or ordering a mail-order
rifle would have surfaced (of course), with these lies being grounded
in the truthful reality of the situation when the prosecutor called
the various witnesses to the stand who would testify to the fact that
Oswald's own handwriting was on the mail-order documents for Rifle
C2766, the very same rifle that was found in the Book Depository on
11/22/63 with Oswald's own palmprint on it, and the very same weapon
that was proven to have been the gun that fired the bullets that
killed President Kennedy.

And Oswald's blatant lie about having never brought any large package
to work with him on the morning of the assassination would also have
surfaced very quickly at his trial (had he testified). This lie would
have been proven when both Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle took
the witness stand to testify that they both saw Oswald with a large
brown paper package on November 22nd.

And on and on....to the point where Oswald's lies, all by themselves,
would have undoubtedly strapped him into the electric chair.

Of course, all of Oswald's lies would have certainly surfaced at his
trial anyway, even if Lee had never taken the witness stand. These
lies would have easily worked their way into the trial record by way
of other witnesses, of course -- such as Wesley Frazier, Linnie
Randle, Will Fritz, and various other people.

Just like another famous double-murderer (O.J. Simpson) who didn't
dare speak out at his own trial because of the numerous lies that
would have been revealed from the killer's own lips if he had
testified, there is no way that Lee Oswald would have sat in that
witness chair either. He'd have been the biggest fool in the world if
he had done so.

So, as is the case with almost all conspiracy theorists who refuse to
accept what is obvious (based on the physical and circumstantial
evidence that is piled up against the door in the JFK and J.D. Tippit
murder cases, i.e.: Oswald did it and did it alone), James DiEugenio
puts on full display the exact same kind of obfuscation, evidence-
dodging, and dancing between the raindrops that Mr. DiEugenio accuses
Vince Bugliosi of engaging in within VB's book "Reclaiming History".
(And it's a false accusation on Jim's part, in my opinion. Naturally,
all conspiracy promoters will vehemently disagree with me there. But,
that's nothing new--or surprising.)

David Von Pein
December 2008



Two additional corrections are required by me [~sigh~] with respect to
one portion of this Internet post.

I said this on October 1, 2008:

"...Jim [DiEugenio] talks about the way in which Oswald obtained
his rifle by mail order, with DiEugenio apparently thinking (or at
least he seems to want other people to think it) that Oswald ordered
his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle so that he could SHOOT PRESIDENT KENNEDY
WITH IT. Of course, as anyone should easily be able to figure out via
just garden-variety common sense (and by looking at a calendar), it's
obvious that as of the date when Oswald ordered his rifle in the mail
from Klein's Sporting Goods (which was in January 1963), he couldn't
possibly have had it in his mind to kill John F. Kennedy IN DALLAS IN
NOVEMBER. As of January, Kennedy's trip to Texas wasn't even on the
drawing board at all. And it wasn't even in the minds of any of JFK's
decision-makers until months later. Oswald obviously purchased his
rifle to kill General Edwin Walker. It couldn't be any more obvious
that this is true. But many conspiracy theorists want to twist things
around, and they want to think that Oswald bought the gun specifically
for the purpose of shooting KENNEDY with it TEN MONTHS LATER. This, of
course, is utter nonsense."

Upon further reflection about what Mr. DiEugenio said in Part 1 of his
review for Vince Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", I realize that
Jim is probably not really inferring that Oswald bought the rifle by
mail-order specifically to shoot the President. (It's hard to believe
that any schooled researcher could possibly believe that; but I've
encountered some people who do believe it.)

So, my apologies to James on this one particular issue. I think I was
in error.

Plus: I need to correct the "January 1963" dates noted above, too.
Those dates should say "March 1963", not January. Oswald ordered his
Smith & Wesson revolver in late January 1963; but he ordered the rifle
in March of '63. I mixed up the dates in that September post above.

I must have been suffering a brain cramp when I twice wrote "January"
up there. Because I know full well that Oswald sent his money order
for $21.45 to Klein's for the rifle on March 12, 1963, and not in

Anyway, I didn't want to leave those two errors uncorrected. Hence,
this addendum post.

(I sure wish these [Google] newsgroups had "edit" capability, so that
mistakes like this could be corrected within the body of the original
message itself. But, such is life.)

David Von Pein
December 2008