JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "The bullet in evidence today [Warren Commission Exhibit 399] is not the one found by Wright and Tomlinson. How many ways do you want me to prove that?" <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You haven't managed to prove it yet, Jim. Not even close.
Let's do a quick "Fact Check":
Fact #1 -- Commission Exhibit No. 399 is a bullet fired from Oswald's rifle. (Which is a fact, all by itself, that leads toward the high likelihood of CE399 being a genuine bullet connected with the JFK case, since we know that that exact rifle of Oswald's was unquestionably the rifle that fired the shots that struck down Kennedy and Connally. And Fact #2 below proves it.)
Fact #2 -- Oswald's rifle is the weapon that was used to murder JFK (with CE567 and CE569 proving that fact beyond all doubt). How do you think those two badly-damaged bullet fragments managed to get into the limo on Nov. 22, Jim, if Lee Harvey Oswald's C2766 Mannlicher-Carcano rifle wasn't being fired during the assassination? Wait...don't answer that. I fear the "P" word [planted] is going to be uttered again.
Fact #3 -- The chain of possession for CE399 is perfectly intact, in that we know that every person in the chain agrees and has said they received a bullet from the previous person in that chain -- Tomlinson to Wright to Johnsen to Rowley to Todd to Frazier. That's called an INTACT CHAIN OF POSSESSION. Not from every single person's INITIALS being scratched onto the bullet, that's true. But the chain of custody is still fully intact by way of the people who handled the bullet SAYING that they received a SINGLE WHOLE BULLET (not two bullets or three bullets--but ONE bullet) from the previous person in the chain of possession.
Fact #4 -- Jim DiEugenio cannot prove that Bullet CE399 was "substituted" for another bullet. He THINKS he has proven it. But he hasn't even come close to proving it.
Fact #5 -- BOTH the Warren Commission AND the House Select Committee on Assassinations had no problem with accepting Bullet CE399 as THE BULLET that went through both President Kennedy and John Connally in Dealey Plaza.
The #5 fact above is an item that should be drilled into Jim DiEugenio's head on a daily basis from now till doomsday (although it still would do no good, because he resides in his own unique little "Anybody But Oswald" and "All The Evidence Against Oswald Was Fake And Planted" dream world of fantasy).
But it doesn't matter to DiEugenio that even the HSCA (14 years after the Warren Commission disbanded!) accepted Bullet CE399 as THE SBT BULLET in the John Kennedy murder case. To Jimbo, that FACT means squat. One can only wonder why.
David Von Pein
August 29, 2010
==============================================
CE399 ADDENDUM:
Subject: Re: Bugliosi Letter
Date: 8/22/2009 10:06:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton (And Vincent Bugliosi)
To: David Von Pein
----------------------------------
August 22, 2009
Dear David,
Please forgive this belated reply to your e-mail to Rosemary on August 8, 2009, as well as the abbreviated nature of this response, but I've been extremely busy the past two weeks doing, among other things, perhaps 30-35 radio, TV and print interviews on the 40th anniversary of the Manson murders, racing across town to Santa Monica to spend many hours editing the documentary on the Bush book, plus working on my book of essays.
About the issue in your e-mail, the whole purpose behind the chain of possession requirement is to insure that the item being offered into evidence by the prosecution or defense is what they claim it to be. It is particularly important when there is no other evidence that the item is what it is purported to be. We don't have that situation here.
In addition to CE 399 being admissible because of the general practice during trials that I mention on page 442 of the endnotes, there is other evidence that is extremely compelling that CE 399 (even if, let's assume, it wasn't found on Connally's stretcher, but on Kennedy's stretcher or even on the floor) was, in fact, what it is purported to be--a bullet that passed through Kennedy's and Connally's bodies.
What is that evidence? Mainly that we know that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons (3 H 428-429). This alone and all by itself (and certainly in conjunction with all the other evidence I set forth in "Reclaiming History" such as the orientation of Connally's body vis-a-vis Kennedy's, the ovoid configuration of the entrance wound to Connally's back, etc.), is highly persuasive evidence that CE 399 not only hit Kennedy but went on to hit and exit Connally's body.
Additionally, see the footnote on page 814 of "Reclaiming History".
The above makes the chain of possession or custody requirement even less restrictive than I point out, on page 442, it already is.
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".
The admissibility of CE 399 (along with other items of evidence) was, indeed, dealt with in London by Judge Lucius Bunton at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, and Bunton, a sitting federal judge in Texas at the time, ruled in my favor that CE 399 (not the actual bullet, of course, which we did not have in London) was admissible at the London trial.
I'm sure there is more I could say on this issue if I had the time but I am still very busy and hope you understand.
David, I can't thank you enough for all the tremendous support you have given me and my book. You have become very valuable in helping to make sure that the truth catches up to all the lies and distortions told about the assassination, and I hope we get to meet some day so I can thank you in person.
Your friend and colleague,
Vince Bugliosi
P.S. In terms of condensing the 1-and-a-half million words of "Reclaiming History", there's no way for any rational and objective person to get around pages 951-969 and 1437-1461 of "Reclaiming History". If the person agrees with the conclusions set forth on these pages, as he must if, again, he is a rational and objective person, then pages 953-954 of the book take over from there and there is no need for further discussion.
