SOMEONE NAMED BILLY SAID:
Hi Mr. Von Pein,
Did you read Mr. Di Eugenio's reply to you on CTKA Probe? He also has a long review on Dale Myers! All very interesting!!
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yes, I've seen both of those articles by Mr. DiEugenio at CTKA [one of which is linked below; the article about Dale Myers is no longer available at the CTKA site, as of March 2013]. (Jim is almost as long-winded as I am at times, isn't he?)
To be perfectly blunt with you, Billy -- Jim DiEugenio is living in a world of total fantasy and speculation regarding the JFK assassination. Not a shred of what he says can be proven....and he knows it (or he certainly should know it by now).
Jim loves to point out things that he thinks are strange or mysterious, and things that he apparently believes lead down a path that results in eventual "conspiracy" in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases (i.e., "thread ends", for lack of a better term). Jim then speculates that those loose threads mean something significant with respect to Lee Oswald, or JFK, or the CIA, or the assassination in general.
Here's a great example of what I mean -- The other night (October 9, 2008), DiEugenio appeared on Len Osanic's Black Op Radio program, and at one point during the show he went on and on for several minutes about how Marguerite Oswald supposedly knew that her son, Lee Harvey, wanted to defect to the Soviet Union many weeks (or months) before Lee actually did travel to Russia in late 1959.
This knowledge that was supposedly gained by Marguerite is supposed to LEAD SOMEWHERE (I assume) in Mr. DiEugenio's "conspiratorial" world. But Jim never tells us WHERE this knowledge of Marguerite's is supposed to go.
In other words, HOW does Marguerite's possibly knowing about Lee wanting to defect to Russia (in advance of him actually doing so) somehow MATTER in the least little bit when considering whether or not Lee Oswald shot JFK four years later?
And how can such knowledge by Marguerite be utilized as a springboard for any conspiracy theorists with respect to whether Lee Harvey Oswald was or wasn't employed by the CIA?
It almost sounds as if DiEugenio wants to believe that MARGUERITE OSWALD was a "plotter" or "conspirator" of some sort....and that her "pre-knowledge" of Lee's intentions to go to Russia is some kind of a major signal that Lee was employed by the CIA (or some other entity of the Government).
But, in reality, that kind of stuff just flat-out goes NOWHERE for a conspiracist like Mr. DiEugenio. Absolutely nowhere. And he has to know it doesn't go anywhere, but Jim just likes to point out and highlight these "loose threads" that can never, ever be tied to any kind of workable, believable, and cohesive "plot" behind Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of John Kennedy.
Here's another example of the type of "It Goes Nowhere" junk that Mr. DiEugenio loves to talk about (as my own brand of long-windedness takes over here for a moment longer; albeit a different type of long-windedness, because my brand contains an abundance of CS&L attached to it ["Common Sense & Logic", that is]).....
In his review of Vincent Bugliosi's book and during a segment of one of his recent Black Op Radio appearances, DiEugenio talks about the fact that Lee Oswald's Imperial-Reflex camera (the camera which took the infamous Backyard Photographs of LHO holding the rifle he used to kill the President) wasn't turned over to the police by Robert Oswald until many weeks after the assassination.*
* = And this was no doubt due to a simple oversight. You see, that camera was apparently stored in a closed box in a closet inside Ruth Paine's house at the time of the assassination in November. Most likely, Ruth just simply forgot that some of the Oswalds' belongings were in that closet in that box, with the Imperial camera being one of the items that was in there. The box later was given by Ruth to LHO's brother, Robert Oswald, who then gave it to the police many weeks after the assassination.
Now, to Mr. DiEugenio, this oversight regarding the Imperial camera is "suspicious". He thinks it's odd that the police never found that camera during their multiple searches of Paine's home in November.
But DiEugenio just STOPS right there....with his "suspicious" remark. He never ties it up. He never says WHY this delay in finding the camera is to be considered "suspicious". He never explains WHY either Ruth Paine or Robert Oswald (or anyone else) would want to deliberately hide the camera from the police or the FBI.
And, moreover, Jim never tells us HOW this delay in turning the camera over to the authorities would, in any way whatsoever, BENEFIT or AID any type of so-called "Patsy" plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald.
If somebody was trying to frame Oswald (as DiEugenio undoubtedly wants to believe), then why on Earth would they be wanting to HIDE evidence that could be used to further the "patsy" plot along?
DiEugenio knows (and readily acknowledges) that the Imperial camera did take at least one of the backyard photos (there was only one of the pics that was definitively linked to the camera, because only one picture's negative was recovered). And Jim knows that Lee Oswald himself was shown one of the backyard pictures by the Dallas police as early as November 23rd, the day after the assassination.
Therefore, Jim isn't arguing that the pictures are fakes. We know the photos were taken months before November 22nd, and were taken by the Imperial camera owned by Oswald.
Given these undeniable facts, what possible purpose would be served by any conspirators hiding the camera from police view for an extended period....the very same camera that can prove the legitimacy of the backyard photographs?
Jim doesn't say. He just says it's "suspicious".
But the only thing that's really suspicious here is WHY Jim D. thinks this completely innocuous event regarding the Imperial-Reflex camera is "suspicious" in the first place.
If you listen to DiEugenio's Black Op interviews (any of them), you'll find numerous additional examples of this same type of conspiracy-oriented policy that has been adopted by many conspiracists over the years. And it's a policy that could aptly be labeled --- THIS STUPID SHIT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT NEXT REALLY GOES NOWHERE, BUT I'M GOING TO POINT IT OUT ANYWAY, AS IF IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TOWARD SOLVING THIS CASE.
David Von Pein
October 12, 2008