DVP vs. DiEUGENIO
RE: JIM DiEUGENIO'S ANTI-BUGLIOSI CAMPAIGN (Continued)......
On October 9th, 2008, conspiracy theorist and Vince Bugliosi-basher
James DiEugenio once again appeared on Len Osanic's BlackOpRadio
program (embedded above), to continue his bashing of Mr. Bugliosi's
first-rate 2007 book, "Reclaiming History".
During the first portions of that BlackOp program, Jim tries to debunk
my comments that I made in the top two articles linked below (which
are responses to some of DiEugenio's recent anti-VB criticisms):
First off, I'll say (and readily admit) that I didn't respond to a
whole lot of the unsupportable pro-conspiracy stuff that Mr. DiEugenio
wrote in his lengthy Parts 1 and 2 of his review for Bugliosi's book
(those review segments are linked below)....
I elected to respond to just a few of the issues relating to Jim's
very long anti-VB review, with one of those items being a response to
the "Rifle"/"C2766" issue -- which, as DiEugenio correctly points out,
is one of the main pieces of evidence that Vincent Bugliosi heavily
relies upon in his book to prove Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt.
Although, as a footnote to the above paragraph, I will also point out
that Rifle #C2766 certainly isn't the only thing that leads any
reasonable person to the conclusion that Oswald was guilty of the two
murders he committed in Dallas on 11/22/63; because, as Vince B.
points out in his book chapter entitled "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt",
VB goes on and on for many pages detailing the "53 pieces of
evidence" (both physical and circumstantial) that all lead toward the
GUILT of Lee H. Oswald.
And the only one of those 53 pieces of evidence that I, myself, think
doesn't really belong there is item #41*, where Vince talks about
the positive paraffin test to LHO's hands. In my opinion, that item
shouldn't be included in a list like that, because Vince himself (in
the very same book) talks about the unreliability of paraffin tests.
I talk more about my disagreement with VB on this paraffin issue
(and a couple of other instances of disagreement as well) within
my own review for "Reclaiming History", HERE.
[* = 6/16/10 EDIT: #23 on Vincent's list, about Oswald changing
his trousers after the assassination, doesn't really belong on Bugliosi's
53-item list either, IMO.]
Now, when speaking about Rifle C2766 (or "Commission Exhibit 139") on
the October 9th BlackOp radio program, Jim DiEugenio tries to weaken
the value of the CE139 rifle as strong evidence in the JFK murder case
by talking about how different people over the years (via various
independent investigations) have been able to chip away at the
ballistics evidence in this case, to the point where DiEugenio
actually had the immense balls to say that CE139 is pretty much
worthless altogether as evidence in this case.
And the reasons given by DiEugenio for the rifle being virtually
nothing but a useless prop are:
1.) The recent NAA studies -- which are studies that have convinced
many conspiracists that by merely concluding that the NAA tests
performed on the JFK bullet evidence by Dr. Vincent P. Guinn in the
1970s are not as conclusive as first thought, this somehow
automatically indicates that more than just the two bullets fired from
Oswald's rifle struck the two victims in the limo on November 22,
1963. But, of course, the recent NAA studies prove no such thing. Not
even close to it.
In fact, just ordinary common sense ALONE tells any reasonable person
that NAA analysis isn't really even required here in order to arrive
at the logical solution of: Only Oswald's bullets hit JFK and John
Simple math -- Since we know that 40% of the bullet specimens (2 out
of 5) examined by Dr. Guinn came from TWO DISTINCTLY SEPARATE BULLETS
that were definitely fired from Lee Oswald's Carcano rifle....and
since we also know that there wasn't even ONE other piece of a bullet
(other than CE567, CE569, and CE399 from LHO's gun) connected to this
murder case that was large enough to be tested by regular, non-NAA
ballistics means....then I ask: what are the chances that ANY of the
remaining 3 very small bullet specimens examined by Guinn in 1978 came
from bullets that were fired by guns other than Lee Oswald's
Just plain ordinary common sense and logic will tell a reasonable
person that the answer to the above question is -- The chances are
very (VERY) slim that any of the 5 specimens examined by Dr. Guinn
originated from any non-Oswald (non-CE139) ammunition.
2.) And the only other thing that DiEugenio mentions in his radio
interview that he says destroys the notion that Oswald's rifle was the
murder weapon is the fact that the people who first observed Bullet
CE399 later said they could not make a positive identification of that
specific bullet as the one they saw on 11/22/63 at Parkland Hospital.
(And that is indeed true. I don't deny this fact. None of those bullet
witnesses made an ironclad, positive identification of 399.)
But DiEugenio seems to have missed an important point regarding the
discussion of the "stretcher bullet". And nearly all other CTers miss
this important point too -- the CTers, that is, who love to prop up
the silly theory that Bullet 399 was a planted bullet, or was a bullet
that was a "substitute" for a different "pointy-nosed" bullet that
CTers think was really found on a Parkland stretcher by Darrell
The important point being this one:
Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that Darrell
Tomlinson and O.P. Wright and Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen
DIDN'T really see Bullet CE399 at Parkland on 11/22/63, and instead
saw a different bullet entirely (that was fired from a non-Oswald
gun), those men STILL SAW A COMPLETELY-INTACT BULLET THAT CAME OFF A
STRETCHER IN THE HALL WHERE JOHN CONNALLY'S STRETCHER WAS LOCATED ON
And if a DIFFERENT non-399 bullet was actually part of this murder
case (and caused all of John Connally's wounds--and there is no
indication that Governor Connally was hit by more than just ONE bullet
in Dealey Plaza), then that would be totally contrary to the beliefs
of virtually every conspiracy believer I've ever spoken with over the
years -- to wit: no matter WHAT bullet smashed into the back and ribs
and wrist of John B. Connally Jr. on November 22nd, most CTers are of
the opinion that a bullet (ANY bullet) could not possibly have ended
up in a near-pristine condition, similar to the condition of CE399.
So where, then, does this argument about the musical bullets go for
Do the conspiracy promoters now want to suddenly start believing that
a bullet COULD, indeed, have smashed into Connally, causing his bony
damage, and emerged in a complete and unfragmented condition--and with
its POINTY NOSE still "pointy" at the end of the day as well?! (Which
is what some CTers apparently believe.)
Or: Do CTers want to invent some more unsupported theories, and go
down another avenue (one that wouldn't be contradictory to their long-
held belief that NO BULLET could have come out near-perfect after
hitting Connally) and contend that a whole, unfragmented, "pointy-
nosed" bullet was "planted" by some evil plotters on a stretcher at
Parkland....and then, later, that pointy bullet was REPLACED by yet
ANOTHER "planted" bullet that played no part in the actual shooting in
Dealey Plaza either -- Bullet CE399? (Just how stupid and bumbling
were these so-called bullet-planting plotters anyway?)
I can't think of a third option. Can anyone? Can Jim DiEugenio?
Other than, of course, to rely on some more sheer speculation (which
is completely unsupported by the known evidence in the case) about
John Connally being hit by more than one bullet, with this "second"
bullet being a pointy-nosed one that ended up on his stretcher at the
But, then too, that last option probably won't fly with most CTers
either, because almost all conspiracy-loving kooks believe that the
stretcher bullet (no matter what bullet it was) didn't really come off
of Connally's stretcher at all. Most theorists maintain that it really
came off of a stretcher that was last occupied by a young boy (Ronald
Fuller), which was situated next to Connally's in the Parkland
corridor that November day.
Any way you slice it, it seems like a pretty big problem for the
"CE399 IS A FRAUD" crowd.
DiEugenio, after magically sweeping away CE399 and the NAA evidence
ONLY, and nothing more, also had the gonads to say this in his October
9th BlackOp appearance (I'm not kidding; he really said this; no
"All you have left connecting Oswald to the crime is the rifle.
If you take away the rifle, what is there? There really is almost
nothing. He [Oswald] was in that building. That's it. That's about it.
There's no ballistics evidence that connects him to the crime
now. .... So this is why I think Von Pein has really taken umbrage at
this; so he's gone after me on more than one occasion here." -- James
After hearing the above nonsensical words, I could only stare at my
computer screen, mouth agape.
"Almost nothing" else to connect Lee Oswald to the crime, Jim?
Has Jim's mind been taken over by James Fetzer perhaps? Has he no
memory at all of the mountain of OTHER stuff (including more bullet
evidence) that irrevocably ties Lee Harvey Oswald to the murder of the
As mentioned, DiEugenio stripped away only the NAA stuff and Bullet
CE399 before making the above "almost nothing" comment. But, Jim,
apparently forgot about CE567 and CE569, the two bullet fragments from
OSWALD'S RIFLE that were found right inside the LIMOUSINE itself.
And then there are the three bullet cartridge casings (shells),
positively from Oswald's gun, that were found beneath the Sniper's-
Nest window in the Book Depository.
And as an extra bonus, the rifle in question--CE139--just happens to
have Lee Oswald's right palmprint on it, plus some other prints near
the triggerguard that are almost certainly Oswald's too, as determined
in later in-depth fingerprint studies conducted by Vincent Scalice:
And then there's the fact that a witness (Howard Brennan) actually saw
Lee Oswald, with a rifle, firing shots at JFK's car from the sixth
floor of the Book Depository on November 22nd. (And no matter how much
CTers despise Mr. Brennan, and they all do, his testimony is still
going to be there--in the official record of this case--like it or
And then there are Lee Oswald's many, MANY outright, provable lies
that he told to the police after his arrest. And those lies center
mainly on the rifle and LHO's revolver and other substantive issues
about the assassination and its aftermath that Oswald desperately
wanted to DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM.
And WHY would he want to do this if he was nothing but an innocent
"patsy", as so many conspiracists firmly believe?
And, of course, there is also the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit, which
occurred just 45 minutes (approx.) after JFK was killed. And no
reasonable person examining this whole case could possibly buy the
theory that Oswald was made to be a "patsy" in the Tippit slaying
too....could they? (Right, Jim?)
The evidence is about 8 miles high supporting Oswald's guilt in the
Tippit murder on Tenth Street. If LHO had gone to trial for only
shooting Tippit, the jury wouldn't have even needed a coffee break --
he would have been convicted in half a heartbeat.
And since every reasonable person who has looked at this case knows
(beyond all possible doubt) that Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit less than
one hour after JFK was shot -- the reasonable inference here is that
the Tippit killing was "connected" in some way to the murder of
Kennedy....especially so when we consider the fact that the murder of
Kennedy occurred right in front of a building where Tippit's killer--
Lee Harvey Oswald--was located when JFK was being gunned down.
Only a blind person who WANTS Lee Oswald innocent of both November
22nd murders could fail to see the significance of my last paragraph
OTHER MISC. COMMENTS ABOUT JIM DiEUGENIO'S 10/9/08
"BLACK OP RADIO" APPEARANCE:
Jim says that the Warren Commission had "a problem" with Oswald's
rifle -- i.e., Jim is hinting (without any verification of this at
all, beyond his own gut feeling) that the WC knew that the C2766 rifle
found in the TSBD just might not have been the exact same rifle that
was shipped by Klein's in March and, therefore, it just might not have
been possessed at any time by Lee Harvey Oswald.
But Jim's speculation about the WC's "problem" is nothing but that --
sheer speculation...and, frankly, it's total poppycock.
The Warren Commissioners and their staff members thoroughly looked
into the information surrounding Rifle #C2766, and after examining the
numerous documents concerning the ordering, handling, processing, and
shipping of that weapon, there can't be but one series of logical and
reasonable conclusions to reach with respect to that rifle....this
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald ordered a 36-inch rifle from Chicago's Klein's
Sporting goods in March 1963 via a mail-order magazine coupon.
2.) Klein's shipped a 40-inch Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifle
with the serial number C2766 on it to Oswald/"A. Hidell" at Oswald's
known mailing address in Dallas, Texas, on March 20, 1963.
3.) Lee Oswald picked up that 40-inch MC rifle at his Dallas P.O. box
one day in late March '63.
4.) Oswald took that same rifle that was shipped to him by Klein's to
work with him on 11/22/63; and LHO shot the President with it from his
sixth-floor sniper's perch, stashing the weapon behind some boxes near
the stairwell as he was exiting the sixth floor.
5.) The same rifle Klein's shipped to Oswald was found in the TSBD by
police 52 minutes after JFK was shot.
Any alternate conclusions that are reached about the rifle Oswald
purchased in 1963 are conclusions that can only be considered very
weak ones when compared with the ones spelled out above.
And it doesn't really matter at all whether Oswald specifically
ordered a "36-inch" rifle (like it said in the magazine ad). Because
the key point here is the fact that the serial numbers MATCH -- i.e.,
Klein's internal paperwork from March 1963 (seen in Waldman Exhibit
No. 7, linked below) shows that the rifle that was shipped to Oswald/
Hidell had the SAME IDENTICAL SERIAL NUMBER ("C2766") as the rifle
that was ultimately discovered by police on the Depository's sixth
floor at 1:22 PM on November 22nd.
WALDMAN EXHIBIT 7:
And since there hasn't been a single person on this planet (that I am
aware of) who has been able to prove that there was another Carcano
91/38 rifle (or ANY other "Carcano" rifle, period), besides the 40-
inch rifle that Klein's sent to LHO, which had serial number "C2766"
on it, how could any reasonable person with a working brain in their
cranium possibly conclude anything other than what the Warren
Commission concluded in 1964 -- which was: The rifle Klein's sent to
Oswald/Hidell in March and the rifle found in the TSBD in November
were the very same weapon.
WEITZMAN AND BOONE (AND THE "MAUSER V. CARCANO" DEBATE):
Mr. DiEugenio said in his interview that Seymour Weitzman (one of the
officers who first saw the rifle on the 6th Floor) was not interviewed
by "the Warren Commission".
But Weitzman, like many other witnesses who gave testimony to the WC
or its lawyers, was properly questioned by WC counsel member Joseph
Ball, in Dallas, on April 1, 1964.
Why DiEugenio doesn't consider this April 1st questioning of Weitzman
by Ball to be good enough is a mystery to me? Especially when Ball
elicited the following information about the "Mauser" controversy from
Weitzman's own lips:
MR. BALL -- "In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police
Department that afternoon [11/22/63], you referred to the rifle as a
7.65 Mauser bolt action?"
MR. WEITZMAN -- "In a glance, that's what it looked like."
MR. BALL -- "That's what it looked like, did you say that or someone
else say that?"
MR. WEITZMAN -- "No, I said that. I thought it was one."
Joe Ball, btw, is the same person who questioned Eugene Boone as well,
with Ball asking Boone questions like this concerning the rifle he saw
in the TSBD on 11/22/63 (proving that the WC certainly wasn't hiding
anything with regard to the fact that some officers initially thought
that Oswald's Carcano looked like a "Mauser" when they first saw it in
MR. BALL -- "Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that
MR. BOONE -- "Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I
thought it was [a] 7.65 Mauser."
MR. BALL -- "Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?"
MR. BOONE -- "I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look
at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that
is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name
is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it. We were just
discussing it back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65
I took issue with Mr. DiEugenio in an earlier response to his Bugliosi
review concerning the matter of the various cameras belonging to Lee
Oswald that were discovered and confiscated by the police after the
I want to now correct a mistake that I made in an earlier post
regarding the chronology of how the Imperial-Reflex camera finally
made it into the hands of law enforcement officials. (The famous
Backyard Photos of Lee Oswald were taken with the Imperial-Reflex
In my earlier post, I think I was incorrect when I said that the
Imperial camera "was later turned over to the authorities by Ruth
Paine, after Robert Oswald gave it to Ruth".
When looking at Ruth Paine's testimony just now, I find that it was
probably Robert Oswald who turned over the Imperial camera to the
police at some point in time well after the assassination (and
DiEugenio has said the same thing, so I stand corrected on this
Ruth Paine said this to the WC --- "I have heard from the police that
it [a box containing some of the Oswalds' belongings] also included an
old camera which they had to chase later and went up to Robert
Oswald's to find it."
But, regardless of who it was who eventually turned the Imperial
camera over to the police, the fact still remains that that camera (as
determined by the WC's tests on this matter) was proven beyond all
doubt to have been the camera that positively snapped the Backyard
Photos showing LHO with his guns in the Neely St. backyard.
DiEugenio says he doesn't have a problem with the fact that the
Imperial did, in fact, take those pictures. But he thinks it's
suspicious that the camera wasn't initially confiscated by the police
during their multiple searches of Ruth Paine's residence in Irving,
Well, all I can say regarding that suspicion is -- If the theory being
hinted at here is that there was a group of plotters who were trying
to frame Oswald with the Backyard Photos, then what possible purpose
would be served by holding back the Imperial camera from the
authorities for XX number of weeks (however many it was)?
It seems to me, if anything, the plotters doing this supposed frame-up
job on Oswald would want to get that camera into the hands of the
police much sooner--not later--than they did.
Again, what reason would anyone have to hide this evidence from the
police for an extended period following November 22....even from the
point-of-view of conspiracy theorists who want to think that Oswald
was being set up as the fall guy?
It makes no sense....because we know that the Backyard Photos were
discovered and in the hands of the police BEFORE Oswald was killed on
November 24 (at least one of the pictures was anyway). And Oswald
himself even saw one of the pictures by no later than November 23,
with LHO claiming it was a fake (even though the photo was later
determined to have been taken with Oswald's very own camera).
DiEugenio does a nice job of misinterpreting Dale Myers' excellent
computer animation of the JFK assassination ("Secrets Of A Homicide":
www.jfkfiles.com). As is usually the case when conspiracists attempt
to discuss the inner workings of Mr. Myers' intricate computer work,
they undoubtedly don't have the slightest idea what they're talking
Now, I'll readily admit, I'm not an expert on computer animation
myself--so I guess I'm leaving myself open to a "Pot Meets Kettle"
response on this issue from DiEugenio and other CTers who hate Myers'
work about as much as the Devil hates holy water--but I do know this:
Dale K. Myers has worked in the field of computer animation (and
photogrammetry) for many years now.
Therefore, I think I'm probably a little more inclined to believe what
Mr. Myers says about his detailed animation work on the Kennedy
assassination, vs. placing my faith in a bunch of "Myers Got It Wrong,
Because I Say So!" cry babies like Mr. DiEugenio and the other anti-
Myers kooks that populate this JFK Forum.
If people want to call me gullible....feel free. But another thing I
know is this -- Dale Myers' intricate computer simulation of JFK's
murder was KEY FRAMED to the Zapruder Film itself.
Or do CTers really think Myers is just lying through his teeth when he
says that all of the pertinent frames of the Z-Film have been LOCKED
IN to his computer model, i.e., "Key Framed" to the model?
I'm sure that Anthony Marsh does, indeed, think Dale is a liar in this
"key" regard, but then again, I doubt that Mr. Marsh would trust his
mother to go get the mail in the morning.
Anyway, this KEY FRAMING has locked the actual Zapruder movie onto
Myers' computer model (regardless of what the kooks believe), and what
we then find via the MEASURABLE things in Myers' animation is rather
remarkable, in that everything in the model tends to confirm the WC's
conclusion of the shots coming from the Book Depository -- e.g., the
angles through the two victims at a point in time when Bullet 399 was
crashing through both of them (Z223-Z224) is just perfect for the SBT
to work. (Which is absolutely incredible, actually, if the SBT is to
be considered "impossible", as most conspiracy theorists seem to want
And the angle from Kennedy's back wound to the TSBD Sniper's Nest is
just perfect at Z223-Z224 (17 to 20 degrees, depending upon if you
want to account for the approx. 3-degree street grade on Elm Street).
Also -- the reactions seen on the two victims is just perfect for the
SBT in Myers' model....which, again, is LOCKED into the Z-Film
itself....so Myers' model cannot (by definition) show something that
is NOT also present in Abraham Zapruder's home movie.
All of these things add up to one inescapable conclusion (even to a
person who knows virtually nothing at all about computer animation) --
The SBT is almost certainly the correct scenario for the way JFK and
JBC were wounded around frame Z223-224.
Any other non-SBT solution to the double-man wounding of Kennedy and
Connally has to (somehow) mirror, almost to the LETTER, the various
aspects of the Single-Bullet Theory, right down to the angles of the
wounds through the TWO victims and the angles that lead, inexorably,
back to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
DiEugenio seems to think that by looking at ONE specific frame of
Zapruder's film (Z224**), a researcher can totally demolish the
workability of the SBT. Since, per DiEugenio, JFK is reacting to a
bullet wound in this one frame in question (Z224**), and Connally
isn't physically reacting as of that frame, DiEugenio thinks that this
proves the SBT is a bunch of hooey.
** = But maybe Jim really meant to say Z225; because using Z224 for
his anti-SBT example is just too silly for words, since JFK is barely
visible at all in that frame. Only a tiny portion of Kennedy's body is
viewable in Z224, and none of his face at all, as we can see here (and
his hands haven't even begun their journey northward toward his throat
as of Z224 either):
So, Jim probably meant to say Z225, which is the Z-frame when we can
first see the pained and startled expression on JFK's face. But James
D. said 224 on the radio. ~shrug~
But, regardless of the exact frame that any CTer wants to use to try
and debunk the SBT, utilizing a STILL frame to try and prove that the
SBT is bunk is just stupid on its face. You need to watch the MOVING
images of Zapruder's film. Not just a still image culled from the
And when watching the moving images of the Z-Film in real time (or in
slow motion), it couldn't be any more obvious that both Kennedy and
Connally are reacting to an external stimulus (i.e., Oswald's Bullet
#CE399) at the very same point in time....within literally one or two
frames of each other:
I must commend Jim DiEugenio for pronouncing my last name correctly on
at least a couple of occasions during his Black Op session. My name is
usually mangled, however, so I'm used to that happening. And it's
mangled by DiEugenio a few times too, but Jim also can't seem to ever
pronounce Vince Bugliosi's last name correctly either (a lot of people
have a hard time with that name), so I guess I'm in good company
Bugliosi's "G" is silent, and my name is pronounced "Von PINE", btw.
Maybe Vince and I should change our names to Smith or Jones, just to
make things easier. But, then too, it appears that my name is actually
Dave Reitzes, according to the rumor that Len Osanic at Black Op seems
to believe (per his October 9th comments). So, I guess it doesn't
really matter what an LNer's real name is -- because some CTer will
pretend it is something else entirely. ;)
THE BOTTOM LINE:
The end result of all of the CT vs. LN wrangling and "Mauser vs.
Carcano" and "CE399" controversy is still the same end result that has
existed since 1963 --- Conspiracy theorists have NO physical evidence
in this case to solidify their notions and various theories that a
conspiracy took the life of President John F. Kennedy.
The fact remains (and no doubt always will remain) that the only
physical evidence that exists in the official record with respect to
the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases is evidence that leads straight
to the guilt of one single person -- Lee Harvey Oswald. And anyone who
insists otherwise is simply living in a dream world filled with
shadowy, never-proven conspiracy theories that are helmed by never-
It's as simple as that.
David Von Pein
October 11, 2008
Posted By: David Von Pein