(PART 338)



>>> "Mr. Von Pein, did you read Mr. DiEugenio's reply to your criticism of his review of Bugliosi's book?" <<<


Yes, I saw it. (The article is linked below.)


The above article by Mr. DiEugenio is just more of the usual bluster
and obfuscation and non-evidence that I've become accustomed to seeing
being written by conspiracy theorists over the years.

A good example of the "non-evidence" supported by the DiEugenios of
the world is when James D. pulls the following nonsense out of his bag
of conspiracy-created silliness:

"It is doubtful that Klein's stocked a forty inch rifle in 1963." -- James DiEugenio

The above comment is just flat-out idiotic.


Well, as I've mentioned before, just one look at Waldman Exhibit #7
will tell a reasonable person why:

That document above proves (beyond all possible doubt) that
Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago shipped an Italian 6.5-millimeter
rifle to "A. Hidell" (that's Oswald, of course) in March of 1963.

And that rifle that was shipped to Hidell/Oswald was a rifle that had
the serial number "C2766" stamped on it (that's the exact same serial
number that was stamped on CE139, of course, which is the rifle found
on the sixth floor of the Book Depository at 1:22 PM CST on 11/22/63,
just 52 minutes after JFK was murdered by rifle bullets on the street
in front of the Depository).

And that rifle was shipped by Klein's to P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas,
Texas, USA (that's Oswald's post-office box in Dallas, of course).

And CE139 (i.e., the FORTY-INCH rifle with the serial number "C2766"
stamped on it that was found in the TSBD after the assassination) had
the right-hand palmprint of "guess who?" on it? Yes, indeed -- it was
the palmprint of the man that every CT-Kook wants to make look totally
innocent of shooting the President, for some silly reason -- Lee H.

And I'll remind Mr. DiEugenio once again that (to my knowledge) there
hasn't been one person come forward to prove that a second Mannlicher-
Carcano Model 91/38 rifle ever existed with the exact same C2766
serial number on it.

Out of those "millions" of MC rifles that Mr. DiEugenio talks about in
his anti-VB review, you'd think that somebody, somewhere, would have
come up with just ONE example of another Mannlicher-Carcano Model
91/38 that was stamped with the number "C2766" IF SUCH A SECOND RIFLE

But even if another one or more guns DID have that exact same serial
number on it....the chances of CE139 (the TSBD rifle) being a
DIFFERENT rifle from the "C2766" rifle that was shipped to Hidell/
Oswald in March of '63 are so incredibly low that those chances could
almost be considered impossible (if you're a reasonable person, that

So, to quote my favorite author once again (and since I'm supposedly
Vincent's "drum majorette", according to James Di., I might as well
put that title to good use some more):

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, within minutes of the assassination, a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher Carcano rifle -- serial number C dash 2766 -- was found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. Oswald ordered the rifle under the name 'A. Hidell' -- we KNOW that. We know from the testimony of Monty Lutz, the firearms expert, that the two large bullet fragments found inside the Presidential limousine were parts of a bullet fired from Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. We also know from the firearms people that the three expended cartridge casings found on the floor, right beneath that sixth-floor window -- undoubtedly the same casings that Mr. [Harold] Norman heard fall from above -- were fired in, and ejected from, Oswald's rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons. So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond ALL doubt that OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!!" -- VINCENT BUGLIOSI; T.V. DOCU-TRIAL IN LONDON; JULY 1986

Two more examples of Mr. DiEugenio playing fast and loose with the
facts of the case with respect to the "rifle/serial number" issue are
illustrated below:

1.) DiEugenio states in his "Von Pein: Still Cheerleading" article:

"Tom Purvis has proved there was at least one of those [36-inch Model 38 Carcanos] stamped with that serial number [C2766]." -- James D.

Of course, Purvis The Kook "proved" no such thing at all. Not even
close to it, in fact. Jim just THINKS that Purvis has "proved" the
existence of such a second "C2766" Carcano.

Mr. Purvis apparently has a friend or acquaintance who owns (or owned)
a Carcano Model 91/38 rifle with a serial number that began with
"C5XXX" (I can't recall the exact number, but the first number after
the "C" was a "5", which is the important part).

And therefore, per Purvis' way of assessing the situation, this has to
mean (undeniably) that a rifle with "C2766" on it must have also been
produced at that exact Carcano factory (wherever it was, I can't
recall, but it doesn't matter) at some point prior to his friend's
"C5XXX" being manufactured, given the presumed progressive numbering
system for such things.

But Purvis hasn't proven that these various Carcano plants that were
manufacturing the MC rifles many years ago didn't have some kind of
inventory system in place that would ensure that no two rifles of the
same make and model would end up with the same identical serial

I happen to believe that some kind of inventory system for serial
numbers WAS probably being used at those various Carcano factories
(even years ago, before the computer age and more efficient inventory
systems being in place, etc.).

Because the whole point of stamping an item with a SERIAL NUMBER is to
make that item UNIQUE when compared to all others. Right? Of course
it's right. And it stands to reason that the Carcano plants of the
world were adhering to that basic type of "unique" policy with respect
to serial numbers on their products, even back in the early 1900s.

Yes, I suppose it's possible that a second rifle with the number C2766
on it might have slipped through the cracks at one of the plants who
made those weapons years ago. I can't deny that possibility.

But to believe, as Mr. Purvis seems to believe, that as many as "40 to
50" MC 91/38 rifles could have been stamped with that same C2766
number is, IMO, just simply ludicrous.

Plus: To repeat, where is the proof that ANY other MC 91/38 rifle
(besides CE139) was ever stamped with the number "C2766"? To date, no
such proof exists (even via the late Dr. John K. Lattimer; see the
following comments on that).

2.) Jim DiEugenio also said this:

"As I reported, Dr. [John] Lattimer had one [Carcano rifle] of the 40 inch variety with the C 2766 serial number." -- James D.

Jim evidently hasn't seen the following comments made by Dr. Lattimer
himself (in 2004) regarding the confusing matter that appears in
Lattimer's 1980 book "Kennedy And Lincoln", in which he stated that he
did, indeed, own a Carcano 91/38 rifle with the number C2766 stamped
on it.

But, when we do a little leg work regarding this Lattimer rifle (as
John Canal did, by writing to Lattimer himself), the mystery of Dr.
Lattimer's duplicate "C2766" rifle is cleared up in just a few
words....these words:

"I can't recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer re. the
notation in his book that the serial # of the Mannlicher-Carcano he
used for his tests was C-2766 (the same [serial number] as the
Mannlicher-Carcano found in the TSBD), but I asked him about it and
today I received a letter from him with the answer. It's simple. It
was [an] error: "...the book was printed before we noticed the error
and it was too late to correct it"
-- John Canal; April 30, 2004

To re-emphasize Dr. Lattimer's quote within John Canal's post above:

"The book [Kennedy And Lincoln] was printed before we noticed the error and it was too late to correct it." -- Dr. John K. Lattimer; April 2004

Sorry, Jim. There's another C2766 theory down the drain.

So, we're still left at the end of this day (like all other days since
November 22, 1963) with no proof whatsoever that any other Mannlicher-
Carcano Model 91/38 rifle (other than CE139) was ever stamped with the
specific serial number C2766.


>>> "Mr. Von Pein, did you read Mr. DiEugenio's reply to your criticism of his review of Bugliosi's book?" <<<

Of course, DiEugenio is going to be critical of my criticism of his
anti-VB, anti-LN stance.

You don't think he's going to let those 16-million words that he's
written in a lame attempt to debunk Bugliosi's ironclad pro-LN case go
swirling down the drain without a fight, do you?


>>> "Very amusing that he calls you Bugliosi's cheerleader!!" <<<

That's certainly a lot better than being any kind of a
"CTer" [conspiracy theorist], that's for dang sure.

But what I find more amusing is the fact that someone like Mr.
DiEugenio would go to so much trouble to try and smear Mr. Bugliosi's
work (which is work that is based on the hard, verifiable evidence in
the JFK case...vs. the paper-thin foundation of rumor, speculation,
and lots of idiotic reasoning that is employed by most conspiracy
promoters of the Earth).

Am I "Bugliosi's cheerleader"? You might say that (if you want to).
But, then too, there's a very good reason for cheering for VB -- i.e.,
his "Oswald Did It" book, "Reclaiming History", is filled with facts,
verified evidence, logic, 10,000+ sources, and (most of all) basic
common sense.

David Von Pein
October 6, 2008