Request for Mr. Von Pein:

Date: Feb. 21, 2011

Hello Mr. Von Pein,

I'm a 34 year old business owner and screenwriter. I'm currently doing research for my current screenplay that centers around the world of conspiracy buffs, kooks, authors and debunkers. My protaganist is a debunker (much like you) who bumps into many conspiracy theorists along his travels.

As my main character is a man much like yourself, I think I could learn a great deal in regards to character profile/research from what your thoughts are on a number of things. Mainly, your disposition on the JFK CTers in particular. I recently phone interviewed Professor John McAdams who was very nice and generous with his time. He gave me an interesting point of view and it really helped me. I've been researching online and your fine website and blogs keep coming up.

I'm a former CTer (as a youngster) who now knows that Oswald was guilty as hell. I do not have the special outlook that folks like you and Prof. McAdams have towards dealing with prominent CTers.

I wanted to politely ask if perhaps I could ask you a few questions/interview you anytime that you would find convenient. I see how busy you must be and I certainly do not take offense if you are unable. I'm seeking a brief background, your spark of interest in the JFK case and your dealings with strong CTers.

I'm in Chicago and can provide references to prove who I am via my company website. I only offer that as some I've requested interviews with have been afraid that I'm a kook.

I really enjoy your JFK website and have gotten much needed info from it - thanks!

Please respond if you have a moment and I will look forward to hearing from you.

Mike Picardi



Hi Mike,

I'd be happy to answer your questions. I'd rather do it via e-mail/written correspondence. I find that I can articulate my thoughts better in print.

I can answer one of your questions right now.....

You asked:

What provided my "spark of interest" in the JFK case?

That occurred for me in 1981 when I bought and read David Lifton's fairy tale book of nonsense entitled "Best Evidence".

I know that the review contained within the link above isn't as in-depth as some who have written reviews for David Lifton's book, but it cuts to the chase regarding just how absurd Lifton's thesis really is. And he is still postulating that same basic "body alteration" theory 30 years later too. You can find some of Lifton's more recent interviews HERE (near the bottom of the page).

Fortunately, I wasn't persuaded by Lifton's book, but I did find it fascinating reading nonetheless.

And from that point on, my interest in JFK (and particularly his assassination) grew and grew.

I really haven't read all that many physical books on the JFK case, although I have read most of the "lone assassin" books, plus a few conspiracy ones too, with most of my recent information about the case coming mainly from online sources. Mary Ferrell's website and History Matters are invaluable resources when it comes to finding documents of all kinds relating to the assassination.

And, of course, I have gathered a lot of (false) information from talking and arguing with the "CTers" (as we LNers call them) on the Internet.

I'm sure if you've looked through some of my blogs (where I like to archive just about everything I write online), you can tell just exactly what kind of nutjobs and conspiracy kooks I've dealt with the last few years. Some of these people are just unbelievable in the things they believe.

Do you realize that a prominent CTer (Jim DiEugenio) actually believes that witnesses Buell Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle just MADE UP their story about Oswald carrying a large bag on the morning of 11/22/63? That is how desperate some of these people are to exonerate Mr. Oswald. It's crazy.

In short, it's my belief after conversing with several of the kookier conspiracy theorists on Internet forums that those type of "outer fringe" CTers can never be swayed to let go of their theories, particularly their notion that double-killer Lee Oswald was merely an innocent "patsy" and never shot anyone (not even J.D. Tippit!) on November 22, 1963.

That type of "Anybody But Oswald" theorist WANTS a conspiracy to exist so badly that they are willing to call EVERYONE "liars" or "cover-up agents" who block their path toward their "patsy" goal.

A great example of this is the previously-mentioned James DiEugenio, who is a very smart and articulate individual who possesses an immense amount of knowledge about all of the 1960s assassinations (JFK, RFK, & MLK) -- and, btw, not surprisingly, he thinks that all of those murders were conspiracies.

I've argued with him many times since 2008, and have noticed that there doesn't seem to be ANY limit to the number of plotters and co-conspirators and after-the-fact cover-uppers that he believes were involved in wrong-doing re JFK's death. He keeps adding more and more plotters and liars with each passing month and year.

I've noticed that there is something inherent about the JFK murder case that makes ordinarily very smart and sensible and rational people somehow want to turn off the "common sense" switch in their brain, so that they are now open and willing to accept almost any implausible theory that comes down the pike.

David Lifton is another good example. He's certainly a very smart person. I don't deny that for a minute. But he got involved in this (JFK) case back in 1966, and somehow all of his normal logic and common sense was thrown down the toilet after he talked with some witnesses who told him some things that he should have realized COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED.

It was physically impossible for the things Lifton theorizes about in his book to have actually happened, but Mr. Lifton thinks they definitely DID happen nonetheless -- e.g., body alteration, casket-switching, JFK's body spirited off of Air Force One in full view of many witnesses who HAD to have been there, and--get this--his belief that ALL of the gunshots in Dealey Plaza came from the FRONT! ALL of them! This, despite the BACK WOUNDS being suffered by both Kennedy and John Connally. Can it GET any sillier than this? And yet we have a very smart person like David S. Lifton writing about such silliness, year after year.

It's almost as if there's a built-in mental barricade that prevents such conspiracy theorists from being able to step back and say to themselves -- 'Hey, this is kinda crazy, isn't it?'

But they never ask themselves that logical question. Instead, they throw away all garden-variety common sense when it comes to so many aspects of the JFK assassination (as you have no doubt seen, if you've looked at some of the discussions I've had with people like DiEugenio and the total nutcases I've battled at the Usenet newsgroups).

If you have additional questions, I'd be glad to answer your inquiries.

And you picked a good man to interview previously too -- Professor John McAdams. He's a man who knows far more about the case than I do, and always approaches things with common sense and logic at the forefront. He has a new book coming this year which I look forward to seeing -- all about the way "CTers" think. It should be enlightening.

For more insight into Mr. McAdams' JFK thinking, I can direct you to yet another webpage of mine that I created that includes many hours of radio debates on the JFK assassination that John participated in. Those audio files are located HERE.

Thanks for writing, and thank you also for your kind words about my sites and blogs. I'm just glad to know that at least a few people out there are getting some use out of them.

Best regards,
David Von Pein
[February 2011]



Do you believe it's possible that CTers (the otherwise intelligent ones) ever "wake up" and make a decision to keep the CT stuff going out of pride, books, money? What do you believe a guy like DiEugenio would do if he figured it all out today? Would he admit it?



Hi again Mike,

I think it's quite possible (or even likely) that most life-long (and long-time) conspiracy theorists do, indeed, "keep the CT stuff going" due to the combination of things you just suggested. And particularly "pride".

It certainly isn't an easy thing to do to admit you were wrong about something that you have studied for many years (such as the JFK assassination), especially if that person has written millions of words, articles, and books about the topic of conspiracy in the case.

So, I really cannot envision a person like Robert Groden, who practically lives in Dealey Plaza on the weekends trying to sell his completely-wrong conspiracy-slanted books and videos, ever being able to wake up one day and say to himself--or anyone else--"I was wrong; Oswald did it after all". He has too much to lose if he ever did that.

Now, that same type scenario can easily be applied to LNers such as myself and Professor John McAdams, too. I.E., if we were to ever become convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a conspiracy DID exist in the JFK case, would we be able to swallow our pride and throw away years of research and blog posts and articles, etc., and admit to the world that we were wrong and we have now joined the ranks of the conspiracists?

I'll be very frank with you, Mike -- when studying upon that question, I truly cannot give you an answer one way or the other (as for me personally).

I can't answer such a question, because I have never reached that point regarding my belief in any kind of a believable conspiracy (although there are JFK researchers, like Anthony Marsh for one, who have accused me of actually believing in a conspiracy--deep down--but I simply won't come out and admit it--because I'm a "propaganda" machine, per some CTers I've talked to).

But I'd like to BELIEVE that I would have the integrity to admit I was wrong if the day ever arrived when I was confronted with evidence that I truly thought WAS credible evidence of a conspiracy (and not just simply another "theory" spouted by the next in a long line of CTers with a book and a theory to sell). If that day ever comes, I guess I'll find out.

But thus far, I haven't been convinced of any large-scale conspiracy and cover-up, despite the efforts of people like Jim DiEugenio, Mark Lane, Oliver Stone, and Bob Groden.

Those people haven't come close to proving beyond a reasonable doubt that ALL of the vast amount of evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald was faked, planted, or otherwise tainted. And to believe in THAT kind of "It's All Fake" theory is, quite frankly, to believe in miracles of the first order. And miracles don't happen very often.



One more follow-up question to that - I believe that you can NOT change a CTer's mind using the facts of the case at all. You must trick them into engaging into a lesson on how to think critically without their knowledge, of course, and maybe with that newfound talent, they will look at the case and their claims again with a different viewpoint. Do you agree? I would love your thoughts on this if you do not mind.



That's an interesting line of thought, Mike. "Tricking" the conspiracy theorists into thinking in a reasonable and logical manner.

To tell you the truth, I had never thought about approaching the conspiracy theorists in such a manner. But it does sound like a good technique to use. But I'm a little dubious about having any success at "tricking" any of the hardened and hard-boiled CTers on the Internet into thinking in a totally different manner about a murder case that many of them have practically spent a lifetime studying.

From my experience with online CTers, I've learned that the thought processes of many of the conspiracy theorists about THIS particular subject (the JFK assassination) are just not the same as their thought processes when it comes to other topics.

As I said in my first message to you, it seems as if THIS CASE is a one-of-a-kind subject that I have never seen duplicated (although, lately, I think the subject of "9/11" might come close, what with the various nutty kooks who now want to believe that NO PLANES AT ALL hit the World Trade Center or the Pentagon).

But something weird seems to happen to certain people when the JFK assassination topic comes up. A person who would probably, under different circumstances, not be so willing to toss in the trash EVERY LAST PIECE OF EVIDENCE against the defendant (Oswald in this case), is more than happy (even eager) to accept the notion that ALL of the evidence pointing to Oswald is somehow corrupt.

To me, that type of thought process is just nutty, and particularly when we're talking about TWO murders that Oswald was charged with--and not just one. Because a lot of these conspiracy kooks (the otherwise intelligent DiEugenio included) also want to pretend that ALL of the evidence that exists against Oswald in the Tippit murder is also phony and intentionally tainted -- including every one of the many eyewitnesses who positively identified Lee Oswald as either the one and only killer of Officer J.D. Tippit or the one and only person seen running away from the vicinity of Tippit's murder.

Crazy conspiracy talk, huh? Yes, IMO, it is.



I did NOT know that DiEugenio made those claims about Frazier and the curtain rods - it's almost sad to me (still a bit funny). Does he guess as to why they lied about it?



Yes, DiEugenio at least tries to explain his very flimsy reasons for why both Buell Wesley Frazier AND Linnie Mae Randle lied about seeing Oswald with a large paper bag -- with Jim D. claiming (without a SPECK of evidence to support this silly claim, mind you) that the Dallas Police forced Frazier to tell that whopper of a lie about the bag (and the cops apparently forced Randle to tell a similar lie).

Below is a direct quote from DiEugenio on the subject (which is contained within a quoted passage that I wrote in an Internet post last year):

"[Jim DiEugenio] said on Black Op Radio that Buell Wesley Frazier had been "pressured into doing what he did" by the Dallas Police Department. And the "doing what he did" portion of that quote is referring to DiEugenio's belief (at least as of January 2010) that Frazier had been "forced" (DiEugenio's word) into telling a lie about seeing Lee Oswald carrying a bag into the Book Depository on November 22, 1963. Quoting DiEugenio (which can be heard at the 5:42 mark in [the video embedded below]): "I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides [Howard] Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010"

http://JFK-Archives/DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Part 46)



Again, I thank you for helping me out and I hit your website almost every night - really great stuff. I especially like the pages where you take on CTers' claims, one by one.



Thank you very much, Mike. I've enjoyed talking with you. Write anytime.

Best Regards,
David Von Pein



Hi Mr. Von Pein,

Very interesting answers to all of my questions and I really appreciate the time you spent responding to me.

First off, you may certainly use any and all of our messages for anything you like. You can use my name, etc. I'm very glad that you enjoyed the discussion that much.

I think it's worth sharing that I used to be a CTer. My own conversion story relates to some of what you wrote in regards to 9/11 truthers.

I was a CTer because, as a kid, I read all of the conspiracy books. I would always skip over the books that were pro Oswald - after all, I wanted to learn about the conspiracy as that is what interested me. After years of reading and interest, I was still NOT aware of facts of the case but I sure knew most of the different conspiracy theories.

I left the subject alone for years, then 9/11 happened and so did "truthers". I was disgusted at what I saw and read, but something sounded familiar - the same "passion for the truth" and the same acceptance of nearly or totally impossible things, and it was the same stuff I had read in the JFK CT books.

I decided to look at the facts of the case this time and it was a matter of days when I realized what happened that day - Oswald did it. There are things we will never know...Oswald still did it. Some FBI, Dallas Cops, Secret Service, etc. could of done a better job - Oswald STILL did it.

I give myself a break for believing in the conspiracy as I was young. I also had the integrity to admit how wrong I was.

One point that I've formulated on my own is this - (talking to a CTer) Let's say for a minute that Oswald DID do it and it pretty much happened the way the WC said (giving a break for the human factor and imperfections), then how do you think the evidence WOULD look? Wouldn't it look JUST like it does? What would you expect it to look like if Oswald DID do it?

The above worked really well on a CTer at my work and he often cites it as a spark of his conversion to a LNer. So, I just wanted to share it with you.

This strange phenom of an otherwise intelligent person (like DiEugenio) suspending logic in this case alone is something that fascinates me to dig into. I actually don't mean to pick on Jim DiEugenio at all, as I only cite him as I heard him on a debate and he seemed very smart and well informed to me.

I can't thank you enough for all your time and I will certainly send you some more questions as I write this screenplay.

Chicago Lone Nutter - Mike Picardi



Thanks for your latest message, Mike. I appreciate it.

And good luck with your screenplay.

And remember to have your main character in your screenplay ask the following question when confronted with every conspiracy theorist he meets who thinks that President Kennedy was struck with bullets that came from the FRONT of his limousine and who also believes that Lee Harvey Oswald was merely an innocent patsy. That very logical question is this one:

If the conspirators who orchestrated the murder of President John F. Kennedy wanted to frame a lone person named Oswald for the murder, then why on Earth would those plotters/conspirators have even CONSIDERED for a single moment the idea of shooting at JFK from the Grassy Knoll in Dealey Plaza?

Such a multi-gun plot that ALSO involved framing Lee Oswald (who was located in the Book Depository at the time of the shooting) is one of the most ludicrous and bound-to-fail assassination schemes I have ever heard of.

But many, many conspiracy theorists (including the likes of Oliver Stone, Jim Garrison, Mark Lane, James DiEugenio, and Robert Groden) actually believe that such a plot was planned IN ADVANCE of November 22, 1963.

That is just one example (among many others) of conspiracy theorists trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole. And it doesn't matter how utterly illogical or outright stupid such a plot might be from the get-go, the conspiracy mongers who actually support such nonsense will pretend it is the truth from now until doomsday (with Oliver Stone actually making a multi-million-dollar motion picture that depicts just such an idiotic multi-gun, one-patsy assassination scenario).

I'm always amazed by the number of people who fail to see the built-in illogic that exists within such a "multi-gun, solo-patsy" plot. More conspiracists who think Oswald was an innocent patsy and who also think JFK was hit by frontal gunshots in Dealey Plaza should ask themselves the question I posed above. If they asked that question more often, maybe some garden-variety common sense would begin to seep into their skewed thinking.

David Von Pein
February 2011

(PART 21)


>>> "Don't buy DVP's propoganda [sic]. For all you know he is a CIA disinformation agent..." <<<


No. An FBI agent. Get it right, kook.

>>> "The JFK assassination was hardly the first LIVE radio event. Come on, DVP. R u dumn [sic] or something?" <<<

And when did I ever say it was?



>>> "I admit it was the first big TV news event. But since the assassination was not recorded on TV live, since the press bus was out of sight, it made no difference." <<<

Classic idiocy here.

Per this kook, apparently since the press bus was near the end of the
motorcade line, it must have meant that a dozen gunmen could have been
popping away with 35 to 50 bullets in Dealey Plaza and it would have
(per the above kook) "made no difference".

I guess all of those additional shots (anything above the number "3")
would have somehow been inaudible to the many news reporters and
cameramen in the three camera cars (and elsewhere in Dealey Plaza) who
immediately reported what they heard to the world on live television and

Gosh, these kooks are crazy. Too funny.

>>> "The JFK assassination was the result of a plot, at least 4 shots were fired." <<<

Oh, come on. You can go way higher than 4. Go for 14, or 24.
(Remember, that "press bus" is the key to NOBODY EVER GETTING WORD OF

>>> "Kennedy and Connaly [sic] were hit by seperate [sic] bullets." <<<

Yes, they were. But CE399 hit them both.

>>> "Kennedy was hit in the head twice, one from the front entered his right temple, and one from behind hit him slightly above the occitpial [sic] external protuberance." <<<

Why wasn't the LEFT side of JFK's head damaged at all then, Mr. Kook?

>>> "Kennedy was hit in the back, slight[ly] to the right of the spinal cord, and this bullet did not exit." <<<

What stopped this bullet from exiting? And where did the bullet go? If
it "did not exit", it would have certainly been found after the shooting.

>>> "Kennedy was also hit in the front of the throat. This bullet did not exit as well." <<<

What stopped this bullet from exiting? And where did the bullet go? If
it "did not exit", it would have certainly been found after the shooting.

BTW, you're a Super-Kook for believing that THREE separate bullets
could have possibly had a sliver of a chance of mirroring a perfect
SINGLE-bullet event.

And then, per you kooks, ALL THREE BULLETS DISAPPEAR.

Do any rabid CT-Kooks have ANY common sense? Any at all?

But, I guess there's a positive side to being a conspiracy-loving
idiot -- because by being one of those, you don't have to worry about

The kooks can simply use their "Everything Was Faked" motto and then
they can make something up (like a three-bullet substitute to the SBT,
with all bullets magically vanishing off the planet), and all kooks in
Kookville are happy and contented.

Must be nice to be a conspiracy-spouting kook, huh?



"Our own view on the evidence is that it is difficult to believe the Single-Bullet Theory. But, to believe the other theories is even MORE difficult. If the Governor's wounds were caused by a separate bullet, then we must believe that a bullet passed through the President's neck, emerged at high velocity on a course that was taking it directly into the middle of the automobile, and then vanished without a trace.

"Or, we can complicate matters even further--as some do--by adding a second assassin, who fires almost simultaneously with Oswald and whose bullet travels miraculously a trajectory identical with Oswald's and that second assassin, too, vanishes without a trace.

"Difficult to believe as the Single-Bullet Theory may be, it seems to be the LEAST difficult of all those that are available.

"In the end, like the Commission, we are persuaded that a single bullet wounded both President Kennedy and Governor Connally."


David Von Pein
October 27, 2007

(PART 20)


>>> "This guy [Vincent Bugliosi] smokes as much stuff as you do." <<<


That's curious....I thought I *WAS* him. (My identity crisis has reach
its zenith.)

~head swirling~

>>> "How was the gun linked to LHO?" <<<

You mean BESIDES the paper trail leading to LHO's P.O. Box in Dallas
and the palmprint and the backyard photos and the Walker shooting
(which involved a bullet that almost certainly came from C2766, and Oz
admitted he shot at Walker [via Marina's testimony]...and I kinda doubt
he used a spitwad-thrower to do the job on the retired General)?

Besides those little piddly items, I guess there's nothing. So, I
guess you're right. Oswald is in the clear.

>>> "It is claimed he ordered it via mail order." <<<

He did. But you, being in the "ABO" (Anybody But Oswald) Club, have to
reject that verified evidence. It MUST mean that some schnook named
"A.J. Hidell" (who happens to have Lee Harvey Oswald's exact same
handwriting) really ordered the rifle and shipped it to LHO's P.O. Box.

It's obvious, you dolt! Hidell did it!

>>> "No one ever saw him with the gun at anytime, period." <<<

It sure gets tiresome having to correct your stupid errors every day.
(Maybe Rob-Kook is a "CT Plant", placed here to make even the likes of
Walt [Cakebread] and Ben [Holmes] look good.)

Fact is -- Marina saw LHO dry-firing his rifle during the calendar
year of 1963. He covered the rifle with a raincoat, and would then sit
on the porch and practice working the bolt and dry-firing in the darkness
of night.

It's a wonder that Marina didn't take the baby and run for the hills
after putting up with some of the shit this kook named Lee did,
including, of course, several wife-beating sessions.

What a great guy.

>>> "The photos of him holding the gun have been proven by Scotland Yard to be fake." <<<


Scotland Yard is in the mix now, eh? Where did that fairy tale come
from? Care to show us?

>>> "The brother and sister tag team don't matter as they are the only two to see LHO with a package that day." <<<

Oh, I see. The fact that Wesley and Linnie Mae were "brother and
sister" somehow disqualifies them as reliable witnesses with respect
to being able to say for certainty whether or not they saw LHO with a
bulky package on November 22, 1963.

Nice made-up kook rule you've got there, I must say.

So, I guess if Donny & Marie had each seen Lee with the package,
they'd be disqualified too, huh?

It's also good to know that Linnie's and Wesley's testimony is
worthless...because that means I can now toss out their testimony
about the length of the bag. (Or is THAT part of their observations
still valid, Mr. Kook, because it supports your ABO position?)

>>> "How were the bullets linked to LHO?" <<<

Through Rifle #C2766 which fired them (a rifle owned by LHO).

Time for a "Duh" here.

>>> "They [the bullets] weren't, as they were linked to a gun that was never linked to LHO." <<<


>>> "You ever hear the term "frame up"? " <<<

When it comes to the JFK assassination case, that's the only term you
kooks have EVER heard of---

LHO was "framed" for the Walker shooting.
LHO was "framed" for the JFK shooting.
LHO was "framed" for the Tippit shooting.

Care to go for one more? Maybe Oz shot Medgar Evers too.

>>> "Why would LHO need a gun in the first place if he had one to shoot at General Walker?" <<<

Same gun, you stupid fool.

>>> "LNers can't have it both ways. If he [the Saint named Oswald] shot at Walker with a Springfield 30.6, where was that gun on 11/22/63?" <<<

Walker wasn't shot with a 30.06, you kook. The bullet taken out of
Walker's wall was a 6.5mm Carcano bullet, just like Oswald's

>>> "Secondly, he [Sweet LHO] could have purchased a gun at hundreds of places in Texas with cash and left no record." <<<

Shame on Lee for not living up to the standard "He Should Have Done It
This Way" requirements that the kooks demand.

Lee should have been shot for such stupidity. (Oh, yeah, he was.)

>>> "[Vince Bugliosi] forgets to tell the sucker, er, the reader that no fingerprints of LHO's were on the gun or bag he supposedly carried the gun into the TSBD with." <<<

You can't possibly be this ignorant of the basic facts, can you? Oswald's verified prints were located on BOTH the gun and the paper bag.

Two prints were on the bag, with one of them (a RIGHT-hand palmprint)
perfectly corroborating Wesley Frazier's testimony of how LHO carried
the bag (cupped in his RIGHT hand).

Next idiotic point please?.....

>>> "How does that happen?" <<<

It didn't. See above.

>>> "Flight from the murder scene? I love this one. He [the "patsy" for all Texas murders, circa 1963: Lee Harvey Oswald] could have simply left for the day. Like work was going to continue anyway." <<<

Yeah, who gives a damn about all of that chaotic activity going on
outside your workplace's front door at 12:33 when Oswald decides (on
his own) that there won't be any more work done that day, just three
measly MINUTES after the shooting that YOU say Lee Oswald knew nothing


>>> "Unprovable lies after he was arrested. How do you know this?" <<<

You meant to say "provable" lies, idiot.

And many of LHO's lies can easily be proven. But, being an ABO nutjob,
you couldn't see a Boeing 747 if it had just crashed through your

>>> "How does VB [Vincent Bugliosi] know this?" <<<

Mainly due to the fact he's not a conspiracy kook.

>>> "Neither one of you was there." <<<

And you were, of course.

>>> "I have laid out what happened." <<<

Stop the presses!! A kook has it all "laid out"!!

Only one problem with it -- you haven't a speck of evidence to support
a single thing you assert.

But that never stopped a kook, did it?

Embarrassment doesn't run in your family I see.

>>> "Show how we know the gun is his [Patsy Extraordinaire Oswald's]." <<<

He ordered it.
He paid for it.
His prints are on it. (And on the triggerguard too. But conspiracy nuts
like to ignore those prints, of course.)

>>> "A card with an alias that was the name used to order it. Please, a good lawyer would shred this." <<<

Even though it was in Oswald's handwriting, huh?

Did "Hidell" just happen to write exactly like Lee Oswald? Is that the
"Magic Coincidental Handwriting Theory"?

But, being a kook, I guess the testimony of the handwriting experts
who said that the order form for the rifle was written in Lee Oswald's
own handwriting is just another of the many pieces of official
evidence you kooks can simply ignore. Right?

>>> "Especially when he could subpeona the FBI/CIA for their employee records regarding LHO." <<<

No such records exist, Mr. Kook.

>>> "Wasn't he [Vince Bugliosi] part of the prosecution team in the RFK case?" <<<

No. Vincent got involved in the RFK thing in the mid-1970s. He
investigated the possibility that more than just Sirhan's gun was
involved in RFK's murder. (Based primarily, I think, on the number of
bullet holes in the doors and walls of the hotel's kitchen pantry.)

But I believe that Vince is now content with the idea that Sirhan
Sirhan acted alone.

Steve Barber, who first discovered the "crosstalk" on the Dictabelt
tape that the HSCA claimed proved a JFK conspiracy, has also done
extensive work on the RFK acoustics evidence too. And Steve's work has
established the fact that only one gun was used to murder Senator
Robert Kennedy in June 1968.

>>> "Like there was a doubt Manson would go to jail. Come on, he scared the shit out [of] every juror--it was a slam dunk." <<<

How can you call it a "slam dunk" when Manson himself never killed
anyone in August 1969? Seems to me that would be a very rough road to
hoe for Vince Bugliosi (or any prosecutor).

Sure, Manson scared some people with his crazy, whacked-out looks and
actions in the courtroom. But that's a far cry of PROVING he ordered

Vince did a brilliant job in that case. Of course, I'll admit, if it hadn't
been for Linda Kasabian making a deal with the L.A. DA's office, it might
have been a different story. Linda ratted out the killers (and Manson).

Plus: Just because Vince got convictions against the Tate-LaBianca
killers (Atkins, Van Houten, and Krenwinkel), that didn't mean the
jury had to ALSO convict Charles Manson of murder as well.

If the jury had any reasonable doubt about Manson ordering the
murders, they could have let Charlie off the hook, and he might still be
among the free to this day. But Bugliosi, thank goodness, was able to
convince the jury that Charlie was the Grand Master behind the killings.


>>> "He [Lee Oswald] didn't kill anyone either. Why doesn't VB use his experience in convicting Manson for conspiracy to commit murder in the LHO case?" <<<

Well...uh...maybe it has something to do with this little fact shown
below (in VB's own words):

"There was no plot, no conspiracy. JFK wasn't murdered by anti-Castro Cubans, the mob, or rogue CIA agents. In almost 40 years, there has not been one scintilla of proof tying the assassination to anyone but Oswald. There have been theories, but no evidence. Oswald had the motive, the opportunity, and the skill to kill President Kennedy. .... My conclusion is that I believe beyond ALL doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy, and beyond all REASONABLE doubt that he acted alone." -- Vincent Bugliosi; circa 2001


"Though there are some notable exceptions, for the most part the persistent rantings of the Warren Commission critics remind me of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights." -- Vincent Bugliosi; 1986

>>> "...Because there is more money in defending the crazy official theory." <<<

There is? Is that why the number of pro-conspiracy books outnumbers
the pro-"LN" books by about a 10-to-1 margin (maybe more than that
even)? Because there's "more money in defending the crazy official

Sounds like "conspiracy" sells the most books to me.

David Von Pein
October 2007


(PART 19)


>>> "It was all circumstantial." <<<


Quoting from Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book, "Reclaiming History":

"Conspiracy theorists have attacked the case against Oswald as being weak because it was "only circumstantial," the implication being that any case based on circumstantial evidence is not solid. .... But nothing could be further from the truth. ....

"Not only was there PHYSICAL circumstantial evidence against Oswald [e.g., guns, bullets, and fingerprints traced to the defendant], but there was an enormous amount of non-physical circumstantial evidence, including the very most powerful in this category: his flight from the murder scene, his resisting arrest, and his telling one provable lie after another upon his apprehension, all showing an unmistakable consciousness of guilt."
-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 528 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)


>>> "You can't link him [Lee Oswald] to anything involved in
the case." <<<

I'm unable to utter a sound after reading the above 10 words penned by a nuthatch named Robert Caprio.

Only a super-duper mega-kook would dare write the above ten words.

>>> "What did he [Vince Bugliosi] win besides Sirhan Sirhan..." <<<

Huh? What are you babbling about now? Vince didn't "win" anything regarding the RFK case. In fact, I think Vince now believes he was wrong about his original thoughts of conspiracy in Robert Kennedy's assassination.

>>> "If he [Bugliosi] couldn't put a real kook like Manson away then he should have retired." <<<

Another idiotic statement from an obvious idiot who immediately types out every loony thought that enters his head.

But, of course, the truth is that Charles Manson DIDN'T KILL ANY OF THE SEVEN TATE-LaBIANCA VICTIMS.

Therefore, Vince Bugliosi had to prove that Manson orchestrated and ordered those seven murders. And VB did prove that. And Vince got the jury to convict Manson of both murder and conspiracy to commit murder, even though Manson himself never murdered any of the victims.

Maybe I'm nuts, but I wouldn't have wanted to be in Vince's shoes during that trial, i.e., trying to convince a jury that a man who didn't kill any of the victims was actually the MAIN MURDERER (in a sense) in the whole case.

Not exactly an open-and-shut case. But, in hindsight, it looks like an open-and-shut one because of Mr. Bugliosi's work on that case.

So, Rob, you can stuff your anti-Vincent Bugliosi rhetoric up your kooky ass. (Forgive my French. But it seemed like an appropriate place for it there.)

David Von Pein
October 26, 2007

(PART 18)


You're allowed to wonder "what if", but we [conspiracists] are kooks if we [do it], right? It is fun to show how lame bugman [Vincent Bugliosi] is.


Rob seems to actually think that Vincent Bugliosi wrote this simulated Q&A himself. (LOL.)

But, of course, Vince had nothing to do with it. He didn't write it. I did.
I merely used Vincent's name as the "prosecutor" in my mock courtroom
setting. (No better prosecutor to use, too, IMO.)

Oh, that's right....DVP is supposed to actually BE Vince B. this week.
I almost forgot who I was for a minute. Next week, I'll be Dale Myers.
That's kinda fun, too.

Anyway, back to my (DVP's) simulation --- the answers that Oswald
provides in my mock courtroom questioning are NOT based on
conjecture or speculation at all. Those answers are based on the lies
he positively told to the police after his arrest in November '63. Which
was pretty much the whole point for writing up my little "mock LHO
testimony" post in the first place (i.e., to place Oswald's many lies
into a "courtroom" setting, with a lawyer pounding away at him and
getting him to state such lies in front of a jury).

And those lies of Oswald's almost certainly WOULD have been told by
LHO at a real trial too (if Oz was stupid enough to actually take the
witness stand). Because, if he suddenly ADMITS on the witness stand
that he DOES own the rifle and that he DID take a bulky package into
work, and that he DID talk about 'curtain rods' to Wes Frazier, etc.,
then he's going to be found out to STILL be a liar, because of the
contradictory things he told the cops earlier, when he said just the
OPPOSITE and said he DIDN'T own a rifle and DIDN'T say anything about
'curtain rods', etc.

So, my "Oswald" answers to Bugliosi's simulated questions are not really
guesses at all. They are based on things that Oswald said to people (like
Buell Wesley Frazier and various police officers) in November of 1963.

David Von Pein
October 2007


(PART 17)


>>> "Let's give the autopsy doctors a break..." <<<


Yes, let's. So, why won't you do so?

>>> "...They had no choice if they wanted to keep their careers intact. I can only try to imagine the stress they were under, especially given the fact they had no forensic experience." <<<

Pierre Finck had plenty of experience with gunshot victims. Why do you
ignore his presence at the autopsy? In fact, he was called in by
Humes and Boswell for pretty much that very reason...because of his
experience in that field.

BTW, was Dr. Boswell lying through his teeth when he said this at his
ARRB session in late February of 1996?.....

QUESTION -- "Are you aware of any person connected with the autopsy
who received any orders not to discuss any matters relating to the

DR. BOSWELL -- "No, because they blabbed from day one. Some of those
corpsmen did. And they made some terrible mistakes and statements."

>>> "People lie for all reasons, not all of them terrible. I don't think Nellie [Connally] saw much that day. I can't say I would either with bullets whizzing by my face. I think she was perhaps told what happened and it became reality for her. I'm not saying she was a rotten liar, just human." <<<

I think you're mixing up your terms (or definitions)'re
confusing "lies" with "mistakes". They're certainly not the same
thing. But it seems as though many CTers want every single innocent
"mistake" to equal a "lie" when it comes to the JFK case. And that's
just silly.

And you're right, Nellie (like us all) was "human". And she merely
was mistaken (innocently so) when she said she thought her husband
and JFK were struck by different bullets.

If you'll examine the Zapruder Film closely (and the stabilized version
embedded below is the best copy of the film I have ever come across,
including the 1998 MPI Home Video digital version), and keep an eye on
Nellie Connally, you'll note that she wasn't even looking at JFK at the
critical bullet-striking moments in question.*

* = Disclaimer -- Granted, Nellie is partially screened out during
some of the key frames, but, IMO, it doesn't appear that Nellie is even
looking anywhere near JFK's direction at the critical moments in order
to definitely say that Kennedy was hit by a different bullet from the
one she thinks later hit her husband, Governor John Connally:

>>> "I don't need Nellie for this, as JBC said to the day he died he was hit with a separate bullet than JFK." <<<

Rob, you need to get some of the "Connally Facts" straight. John Connally
always maintained that he NEVER EVEN SAW KENNEDY after the
shooting began.

So how on Earth could he be certain of WHEN the President was hit by
the bullet that struck JFK in the back? In's impossible.
JBC was one of THE WORST EYEwitnesses in Dealey Plaza, because he
readily admitted (on many different occasions) that he never saw the
murder victim (JFK) during the whole shooting timeline. (His bedside
"he slumped" remark notwithstanding.)

But even in that bedside interview with Martin Agronsky, Connally
didn't specifically say that he, himself, SAW Kennedy "slump".
He had to have gotten that info from his wife, based on EVERY
interview the Governor ever gave after he got out of the hospital.


>>> "I just think it would be humanly impossible to hold a hat when your wrist is broken." <<<

Don't believe every conspiracy kookbook you read concerning this matter.
Connally's RIGHT arm/hand goes flying skyward just after being hit by
Oswald's bullet #399 (as can be seen over and over again in the toggling
Zapruder Film clip provided below):

And as can be seen, the hand that goes flying up and down in the
space of just a very few Z-Film frames is the same RIGHT hand that
is holding Governor Connally's white Stetson hat.

The hat is still in Connally's RIGHT hand (the same one that has just
been hit by a bullet) several frames later on the Z-Film. And Nellie stated
that John C. held that hat in his hand all the way to Parkland Hospital. (And
I kind of doubt that he SWITCHED hat-holding hands after he was shot.)

The "He Couldn't Have Held His Hat" argument brought up continuously
by CTers is just another of the many pieces of piecemeal chaff that
conspiracists love to toss up against the wall in the desperate hope that
some of these things will stick and (somehow) prove the conspiracy they
so desperately want to prove. Unfortunately for those conspiracists, none
of that chaff seems to stick to the "CT wall" at all.

>>> "I know not to believe you, Posner, Bugman/you and Specter. That is a good start." <<<

Yeah. Why dine on wheat, when a buffet of half-baked chaff is
available in the conspiracy dining room?

(Please don't ever ask me to eat dinner over at your house, Rob. I
hate my food half-baked.)

David Von Pein
October 2007