(PART 394)


Two corrections are required by me with respect to one portion of
this 9/30/08 Internet post.

I said this on September 30th:

"...Jim [DiEugenio] talks about the way in which Oswald obtained his rifle by mail order, with DiEugenio apparently thinking (or at least he seems to want other people to think it) that Oswald ordered his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle so that he could SHOOT PRESIDENT KENNEDY WITH IT. Of course, as anyone should easily be able to figure out via just garden-variety common sense (and by looking at a calendar), it's obvious that as of the date when Oswald ordered his rifle in the mail from Klein's Sporting Goods (which was in January 1963), he couldn't possibly have had it in his mind to kill John F. Kennedy IN DALLAS IN NOVEMBER. As of January, Kennedy's trip to Texas wasn't even on the drawing board at all. And it wasn't even in the minds of any of JFK's decision-makers until months later. Oswald obviously purchased his rifle to kill General Edwin Walker. It couldn't be any more obvious that this is true. But many conspiracy theorists want to twist things around, and they want to think that Oswald bought the gun specifically for the purpose of shooting KENNEDY with it TEN MONTHS LATER. This, of course, is utter nonsense."

Upon further reflection about what Mr. DiEugenio said in Part 1 of his review for Vince Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", I realize that Jim is probably not really inferring that Oswald bought the rifle by mail-order specifically to shoot the President. (It's hard to believe that any schooled researcher could possibly believe that; but I've encountered some people who do believe it.)

So, my apologies to James on this one particular issue. I think I was in error.

Plus: I need to correct the "January 1963" dates noted above, too. Those dates should say "March 1963", not January. Oswald ordered his Smith & Wesson revolver in late January 1963 [although it's possible he didn't mail in the order form until early March; but the order form for the revolver was dated "January 27" at any rate]; but he ordered the rifle in March of '63. I mixed up the dates in that September post above.

I must have been suffering a brain cramp when I twice wrote "January" up there. Because I know full well that Oswald sent his money order for $21.45 to Klein's for the rifle on March 12, 1963, and not in January.

Anyway, I didn't want to leave those two errors uncorrected. Hence, this addendum post.

(I sure wish these newsgroups had "edit" capability, so that mistakes like this could be corrected within the body of the original message itself. But, such is life.)

David Von Pein
December 4, 2008

(PART 393)

Subject: JFK Article That Might Interest Vince
Date: 12/2/2008 3:07:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton (Vincent Bugliosi's secretary)


Hi Rosemary,

I'm writing today to send you a lengthy JFK-related article I wrote recently, which debunks many silly pro-conspiracy things that have been spread around the Internet lately on "Black Op Radio" by assassination researcher James DiEugenio.

You probably recognize that guy's name, since Vince mentions James in "RH" ["Reclaiming History"], and, incredibly, Vince was very kind to Jim too. But VB might change his mind about him after reading DiEugenio's multi-part, never-ending anti-RH review that Jim has been writing for months now.

I've debunked and refuted much of DiEugenio's crazy silliness in my Internet articles.

I just thought this might be of interest to both you and Mr. Bugliosi, especially considering the fact that DiEugenio is saying the things he's saying with the intention of undermining and debunking virtually everything Vince has written in "Reclaiming History".

Here's the article:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/DVP Vs. DiEugenio

Thanks for your time.

Best regards always,
David Von Pein


Subject: Re: JFK Article That Might Interest Vince
Date: 12/3/2008 12:23:38 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


Hi Dave,

Thanks for sending the DiEugenio article. I'll be sending this to Vince today. And, yes, I remember all too well his name and also his face which has been on TV often enough.

Sometimes I wonder whether logic and common sense has been flushed down the toilet in our society.

Happy holidays to you. Here's hoping there's some snow around in your neck of the woods! Throw a snowball for me and aim it at ignoramuses!!



David Von Pein
December 3, 2008

(PART 392)


There's an important point that I failed to mention in the article above (which I now want to point out here in this addendum post):

Conspiracist James DiEugenio totally misrepresents the reason why "Reclaiming History" author Vincent Bugliosi placed still photographs of Zapruder Film frames 312 and 313 in the photo section of his book, with DiEugenio (incredibly) claiming in his 11/27/08 "Black Op Radio" appearance that the reason Vince highlights Z312 and Z313 in his book is only due to the "leaning forward" status of JFK's head at the time of both of those frames.

But, of course, President Kennedy's exact "leaning forward" posture at the time he was hit with Lee Harvey Oswald's fatal bullet is not the issue at all. And surely DiEugenio must realize it's not the issue. The real issue is that Z312 and Z313 prove, without doubt, that JFK's head was pushed forward by the impact of the bullet that struck his head within the space of that one-eighteenth of a second between those two Z-frames.

But DiEugenio bypasses that real reason entirely and babbles on with some double-talk about how Bugliosi's real reason for propping up those two Z-Film frames is due only to the forward "lean" (or angle) of Kennedy's head.

It's absolutely hilarious to watch a conspiracy theorist twist and mangle the facts at every turn in the (Elm St.) road. It's aggravating as all get out, too. But hilarious as well.

David Von Pein
December 2, 2008
February 16, 2009

(PART 391)

Incredibly, Patrick Speer seems to think that a wound on Governor
Connally's back that was MORE THAN TWICE THE SIZE (in diameter) than
the bullet that entered his back (approx. 15 mm. vs. 6.5 mm.) should
NOT be deemed a wound that is "elongated" (which is the word I usually
use when describing Connally's back wound), or "elliptical" in nature.

The wound in JFK's upper back measured 7x4 millimeters, much smaller
than Connally's back wound. And Kennedy was certainly hit by the same
bullet that struck Connally. CTer griping notwithstanding (of course).

So even with a mere "1.5 cm." back-wound measurement (instead of the
"3 cm." measurement), it indicates the high likelihood that the bullet
struck something before it hit John Connally. And the only "something"
(of course) that was located between Lee Oswald's rifle and JBC's back
was John F. Kennedy.

As usual, CTers will attempt to jump through an assortment of hoops in
order to avoid the obvious truth of the Single-Bullet Theory.

But at the end of this day (like all others), a CTer must still face the
raw facts about the wounding of Kennedy and Connally on Elm Street--
and the raw facts (bullet-wise, LACK-OF-OTHER-BULLETS-wise, and
common-sense-wise) positively favor the likelihood that the SBT is the
true scenario for this shooting.

This refusal that CTers have for accepting the SBT has always seemed
quite strange to me (when dealing with semi-reasonable CTers, that is,
not the type you're likely to find at these NG asylums). As Vince
Bugliosi has said (and he's 100% right), the SBT is "so obvious that a
child could author it".

Because even with the obviously true SBT in place, the CTers can still
argue their favorite "Oswald Was A Patsy" and "Head Shot From The
Knoll" theories till the cows come home.

"At that angle, no matter WHERE it [the bullet] came from, it HAD TO PASS THROUGH THE PRESIDENT'S BODY FIRST!" -- Albert E. Jenner, Jr.; February 1967

David Von Pein
December 1, 2008

(PART 390)

There are several more idiotic comments that were made by both James DiEugenio and host Len Osanic during their 55-minute get-together on the 11/27/08 "Black Op Radio" program [embedded in the audio player above] that I didn't touch on in my original article concerning that abominable radio broadcast of non-stop distortions and misrepresentations.

So, I'll take this opportunity in this follow-up post to touch on a few of those things now.....

DiEugenio and Osanic think that the Stemmons Freeway sign on Elm Street was removed the day after the assassination.

Now, the main reason I didn't bring this topic up in my main article is because I'm not 100% certain that I am correct about the things I'm going to say now. But I'm pretty sure I am correct here when I say that the Stemmons sign was not removed from Elm Street on 11/23/63. The notion that it was removed I think is just another of the many conspiracy-oriented myths surrounding JFK's murder that have cropped up out of the woodwork since 1963.

There are two main reasons that I don't think the sign was removed:

1.) Since all reasonable people know that the only shots that were fired on 11/22/63 were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald from the Book Depository, and since there is virtually no chance whatsoever that any of Oswald's three shots struck the Stemmons sign on the north side of Elm Street -- there would, therefore, have been absolutely no logical reason for the city of Dallas (or anyone else) to suddenly want to remove or replace that Stemmons Freeway sign on Saturday, November 23, 1963.

But even if the sign was removed and then replaced with another identical sign, such activity would have had nothing whatsoever to do with trying to hide any kind of multi-shooter "plot" or "conspiracy" with respect to the assassination of the President.

2.) I have seen numerous post-November 22 photos and films of Dealey Plaza, and the Stemmons sign is still in place (and it sure looks like the exact same sign AFTER 11/22 as it did on 11/22).

So, do some CTers think that the sign that appears in many post-11/22 pictures and films is a DIFFERENT sign from the one that appears in Abraham Zapruder's home movie?

I've yet to see or hear of any proof at all that the sign was "removed" or "replaced" almost immediately after the assassination.

But many CTers continue to believe the sign was removed or replaced, evidently to hide the fact that the 45 additional shooters in the Plaza were apparently all as blind as bats when their many bullets hit the Stemmons sign instead of going anywhere near their target destination of JFK's body, necessitating the complete removal of the road sign by yet MORE co-conspirators and cover-up operatives.

I guess even the Dallas Department of Highways and Signage was "in" on the cover-up plot too.

Also -- A Stemmons sign is certainly in the exact same place on Elm Street as of the date of the Warren Commission's detailed re-enactment of the crime on May 24th, 1964, six months and two days after the assassination. Is this supposedly a completely different Stemmons sign that we see here in CE893 and CE894?

And apart from the 5/24/64 WC re-creation photos, there is a much earlier indication that the sign was not removed, via a film taken by the U.S. Secret Service on either November 27 or December 5, 1963 (I've heard conflicting accounts regarding the exact date when the film was made; but either of those two dates would still drive the point home about the sign still being exactly where it was on November 22). The sign is easily visible in that 1963 Secret Service film.


20 minutes into the November 27th "Black Op" laughfest, DiEugenio calls Dale Myers "the unnamed ghostwriter" of Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book "Reclaiming History".

I guess James should probably read page 1515 of Vincent's book (in the "Acknowledgments" section), which is where he'll find Dale Myers' name being mentioned at some length, including these words:

"Dale [Myers] helped me in the writing of several sections of [this book, "Reclaiming History"]."

I wonder how the above Dale Myers' "acknowledgment" equates to an "unnamed ghostwriter"? Maybe Jim D. can tell us how that works.


This one should make all LNers roar with laughter.....

Host Len Osanic is so clueless and silly that he actually blurted out something on his 11/27/08 radio show concerning Vince Bugliosi that nobody in their right mind could POSSIBLY even begin to think was true:

Before being corrected by DiEugenio (and I have to give Jim credit here--he actually got something right for a change when he set Len straight on this issue), Osanic actually thought that Vincent Bugliosi was an "agnostic" when it came to the subject of "Zapruder Film alteration".

Which means, in Len's pre-November 27th mindset, that Vince Bugliosi (the same man who Len hates so much for writing his lengthy anti-conspiracy tome--a tome Len has referred to as "bullshit" on numerous occasions) would have been just as likely to BELIEVE in the crazy "Z-Film hoax" nonsense as he would be prone to DISBELIEVE it. Hilarious.

How could anyone who was even semi-familiar with Vince Bugliosi's pro-lone assassin stance possibly believe for even one second that Bugliosi could still (to this day) be an "agnostic" when it came to the idiotic theory of Z-Film alteration/fakery?

Len, you're amazing. But I thank you for all the laughs you and your "Black Op" guests have provided me.

David Von Pein
November 30, 2008
February 16, 2009

(PART 389)


The original issue is why Oswald lied about owning the rifle. .... The reason could be that Oswald had used that rifle to shoot at General Walker, even if he knew nothing about the Kennedy shooting.


Ah, he attempted a previous political assassination with his rifle, and then someone else committed a political assassination with his rifle from his work?


Excellent observation, Bud (as usual).

The "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy kooks of the world never, EVER think this logically.

1.) Lee Oswald, via a fake name, received Rifle C2766 in the mail just a matter of days before General Walker was shot at in 1963. We know this for a fact (CTer denials notwithstanding, of course).

2.) That same rifle, 52 minutes after JFK was shot, was found in the building where Oswald worked and where Oswald WAS LOCATED when Kennedy was shot.

3.) That same rifle was later linked to JFK's shooting via the bullets and bullet shells found in THREE different areas (TSBD, limo, and Parkland).

4.) Oswald admitted to his wife that he took a shot at Walker.

5.) Oswald lied to the DPD and FBI about owning a rifle.

All five of the items above are normally mangled or distorted in some way by rabid conspiracists...or they are all merely tossed out the window by the CT-Kooks. ALL FIVE of them!

But those five items--when viewed in tandem with one another--can only lead a reasonable person to one logical conclusion. And it's certainly not a conclusion that includes the two words that many conspiracy theorists love so much -- "Innocent Patsy".

David Von Pein
November 30, 2008

(PART 388)


Those [Black Op Radio] shows are recorded for posterity.


Yes, I know they are, Mr. Crackpipe [Healy].

And I've saved the pertinent recent ones which include DiEugenio's flagrant deceptions "for posterity" too.

So, years from now, Jim DiEugenio's blatant inaccuracies are going to still be there--saved for posterity--for all time on my computer.

That's one of the few things I like about the Black Op programs -- Len Osanic archives them immediately after they are aired. And each one can be downloaded to your hard drive for eternity [the MP3 versions, that is; the RealPlayer versions will disappear in the future, however].

That's a comforting thing, especially when I want to go back and highlight one of DiEugenio's constant idiotic statements (or one of Mark Lane's or Bob Groden's, et al). It's always nice to be able to provide a CTer's foolish statement in "verbatim" form. And there are plenty of foolish statements to choose from when it comes to the November 27, 2008, archived show starring James DiEugenio.

Here's one more example:

"If you look at Z-frame 160, there's basically, essentially nothing to indicate that any shot has been fired that early." -- James DiEugenio; 11/27/08

Well, duh!

If the shot was fired right at Z160 or very close to that frame (and I think that is correct, and so does Vince Bugliosi), then we're not very likely to see any visual signs of this MISSED SHOT on the Zapruder Film until a few frames AFTER Z160. Right, James?

Of course, Jim D. doesn't mention the best evidence for a shot around Z160, which is the "right turn" of John Connally, which begins at about Z164:

"We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder." -- John B. Connally; 1964 Warren Commission Testimony

David Von Pein
November 30, 2008

(PART 387)


You got spanked, get over it. The entire JFK community now KNOWS.


Yeah, they now "know" that Jim DiEugenio likes to misrepresent and mangle as much stuff about the JFK assassination as he can within the hour-long segments that are afforded him by Mr. Osanic at Black Op Radio.

Here's one more example (excerpted from my 11/29/08 debunking of James DiEugenio):

Jim [DiEugenio] (and Len Osanic too) claimed that John Connally and Nellie Connally (seated in front of the Kennedys in the limo on 11/22/63) were not sprayed with blood and brain matter right after the fatal shot struck JFK in the head.

No kidding. James really said that. Well, to be clear and precise, what Jim actually said (verbatim) was this:

"They [the Connallys] should have been covered in blood."

Time for yet another -- WTF???!!!

The Connallys (both of them) always said--in virtually every interview I ever heard either one of them give--that they were both literally "covered" with brain tissue from the fatal head shot.

I guess, though, that Jim D. thinks the Connallys should have been splattered with more "blood" (specifically) after the head shot hit JFK. But the word "blood" is used in one of the following excerpts of testimony given by the Connallys:

"Immediately I could see on my clothes, my clothing, I could see on the interior of the car which, as I recall, was a pale blue, brain tissue, which I immediately recognized, and I recall very well, on my trousers there was one chunk of brain tissue as big as almost my thumb, thumbnail, and again I did not see the President at any time either after the first, second, or third shots, but I assumed always that it was he who was hit and no one else." -- JOHN B. CONNALLY; 1964 WC TESTIMONY

"Immediately, I could see blood and brain tissue all over the interior of the car and all over our clothes. We were both covered with brain tissue, and there were pieces of brain tissue as big as your little finger. It was something that was unmistakable. There was no question in my mind about what it was." -- JOHN B. CONNALLY; 1978 HSCA TESTIMONY

"The third shot that I heard I felt, it felt like spent buckshot falling all over us, and then, of course, I too could see that it was the matter, brain tissue, or whatever, just human matter, all over the car and both of us." -- NELLIE CONNALLY; 1964 WC TESTIMONY

"Instantly, the shot, the car was covered, it was like buckshot falling all over us." -- NELLIE CONNALLY; 1978 HSCA TESTIMONY

David Von Pein
November 30, 2008

(PART 89)



There were two rulings before the WFAA trial that were interesting. First, Marina [Oswald] was allowed to testify, which would not have happened at a real trial back then. That hurt the defense. But the prosecution made the right call in not allowing the Tippit case to be dragged in. That was important and correct.

See, in 1986, Bugliosi was, for whatever reason, allowed to bring in the Tippit case to court. Spence did not even object to it! And the judge, who slept through most of the proceedings, did not say one word.


I pretty much agree with DiEugenio's comment about Marina Oswald, but the Tippit subject is a different matter. Yes, it is possible that at a real trial (had Lee Harvey Oswald lived to see one) J.D. Tippit's murder might have been excluded (as it was at the mock trial held in Dallas on June 21, 2013, and therefore the jury would not have been allowed to hear any of the evidence that proves Oswald killed Officer Tippit.

On the other hand, it's also quite possible (or even likely) that the Tippit murder would have been allowed at Oswald's real trial, given the obvious potential connection that exists between JFK's murder and Tippit's slaying.

The prosecution could reasonably argue (just as Vince Bugliosi did at the 1986 mock trial) that the murder of Officer Tippit by Oswald showed flight from the scene of the JFK murder. The umbilical cord that exists between the two murders (which were committed just 45 minutes apart) is virtually undeniable. And the court/judge would have certainly taken that into account had Oswald really been on trial for JFK's assassination.

And the following video clip tends to indicate that the Tippit crime could very well have been introduced by the prosecution at a trial in which Oswald was accused of killing President Kennedy. Granted, this clip is also merely from a "mock" trial (Larry Buchanan's "Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald", filmed in 1964), but this same argument could certainly have been made by a real prosecutor at a real trial too:


But then, at the end, Bugliosi used the Tippit murder to prejudice the jury against Oswald in the Kennedy case! He called it Oswald's "signature murder" proving he killed JFK. Yeah Vince, some signature. You cannot even prove he ever had possession of the handgun.


Now, if there was ever one single individual quote by Jim DiEugenio that would tend to prove that he is totally crazy when it comes to things associated with the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit, it's probably the last ridiculous and outrageously wrong sentence in the quote above. Let's look at it again:

"You cannot even prove he ever had possession of the handgun."

Talk about someone being in complete denial of the facts. DiEugenio proves it above. The above quote is nothing but an outright lie.

Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the Texas Theater with the Tippit murder weapon in his own hands (i.e., he was in "possession" of that gun just 35 minutes after Tippit was murdered with that same gun).

And yet DiEugenio, who would do anything it seems to keep from admitting that Oswald killed anybody on 11/22/63, wants to insult everyone's intelligence by suggesting that Oswald was never in possession of the Tippit murder weapon
at all on November 22nd.

DiEugenio couldn't care less about the truth. He wants Lee Harvey Oswald to be innocent of killing both John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit. That fact couldn't be more obvious after taking just one look at DiEugenio's laughable quote above.


Coincidence: I am writing about the 1986 mock trial right now for my Hanks/Bugliosi book. Sat through the whole five hours over two days. In addition to dragging in the Tippit case, Bugliosi called twice as many witnesses as Spence. Both sides ended up calling what are proven liars today. Bugliosi called Guinn and Spence called Tilson.


More preposterous nonsense from the lips of James "I'm Going To Bash Bugliosi No Matter How Silly I Look In Trying To Do So" DiEugenio. And of all the witnesses for DiEugenio to call a liar, he chooses Vincent Guinn? Weird.

Dr. Guinn, of course, didn't tell a single lie at the 1986 mock trial in London, England. He testified to his belief that two (and only two) bullets struck the victims on November 22, 1963. And the totality of OTHER evidence that exists in the JFK murder case most certainly bolsters Dr. Guinn's Neutron Activation Analysis tests (even if those tests are less reliable now than they appeared to be when Guinn did his NAA tests on the bullet evidence in the Kennedy case in 1977 and 1978).

But Jimbo DiEugenio surely could have chosen a bigger "liar" than Dr. Guinn. After all, Jimmy has all of these witnesses to choose from when it comes to picking out alleged "liars" who testified at the '86 mock trial (and Jimbo has, at one time or another in the past, called most of these people liars--either directly or indirectly):

Ruth Paine
Buell Wesley Frazier
Harold Norman
Marrion Baker
Ted Callaway
Charles Petty
Lyndal Shaneyfelt
Eugene Boone
Johnny Brewer
Cecil Kirk
Monty Lutz

And, btw, DiEugenio's allegation that defense witness Tom Tilson lied is wrong too. Tilson didn't "lie". He told the truth as he saw it during his testimony at the docu-trial in July 1986. Now, Tilson was most certainly wrong about what he said he saw. But, in my opinion, he wasn't lying. He thinks he saw Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza at the time JFK was shot. That's provably wrong. But to Tom Tilson, it's the truth. Ergo, Tilson isn't a "liar".


Bugliosi said in his opening statement that Oswald fired a shot from behind that went through JFK's skull, exiting and shattering the front of his head. Spence did not object. I sure would have: Mr. Judge, that is a demonstrable fabrication by the prosecution. Please show us what his grounds are for saying that.

The truth is the opposite of course. It blew out the back of his head. Good going Vince.

The whole thing was a joke, which I am giving a real rip to in my book. I cannot really blame Spence. I mean he had three months to prepare. I mean, three years would have been more like it.


I see Jim DiEugenio has decided to remove himself from reality once again.

But, of course, back here in what we call "reality", any objection that Gerry Spence would have made following Vincent Bugliosi's telling the mock jury in 1986 that President Kennedy was shot in the head from behind (with the exit wound in the head being located to the right-front of the President's head) would have been overruled by the judge. And that's because the fact is:

The only physical evidence that exists regarding JFK's head wounds indicates that Bugliosi's argument to the jury was absolutely 100% correct -- the entry wound in Kennedy's head was in the rear and the large exit wound was located toward the right-front-top area of his head.

There can be no denying these facts, as the autopsy photo and X-ray shown below fully illustrate (plus the Zapruder Film too, which most definitely shows the large wound of exit to be located in the RIGHT-FRONTAL area of JFK's head).

And yet DiEugenio actually thinks that it's Bugliosi who was lying by telling the jury "a demonstrable fabrication" at the '86 docu-trial.

In other words, DiEugenio is, in effect, saying this -- To hell with the evidence! Those autopsy pictures are fakes! The autopsy doctors were liars! The autopsy report is a lie! The Clark Panel was full of liars! And the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel was filled with more liars! In short, the wounds are where I want them to be and that's that!

James DiEugenio, of course, is a nut. And a nut doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

David Von Pein
June 25, 2013

(PART 386)

Here's another example of how unhinged some of the conspiracy
theorists of the world appear to be:

Yesterday (11/29/08), I received the following e-mail from some CTer
named "Billy" (he didn't tell me his last name; I guess I'm supposed
to be able to figure out who the hell he is by way of his "Billy"-only
signature). ~shrug~ .....

Subject: A Message from Jim Di Eugenio
Date: 11/29/2008 7:51:31 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: "Billy"
To: David Von Pein


Hi Mr. Von Pein,

I don't wan't to appear the bringer [LOL; I wonder if "Billy" meant to
say "bearer" here; "bringer" is a valid word, but it sounds kinda
funny] of bad news[,] but Jim Di Eugenio told me to tell you not to
send him anymore [sic] E-Mails!! He won't accept anymore [sic] E-Mails
from you!!!

Perhaps all Warren Commission apologists should re-examine the facts
surrounding the JFK Assassination!!! Remember even the HSCA[,] which
was thoroughly manipulated by the CIA[,] concluded a probable
conspiracy in the death of JFK!!!




Subject: Re: A Message from Jim DiEugenio
Date: 11/29/2008 8:12:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: "Billy"


>>> "Hi Mr. Von Pein, I don't wan't to appear the bringer of bad news but Jim Di Eugenio told me to tell you not to send him anymore E-Mails !! He won't accept anymore E-Mails from you !!!" <<<

That's odd, since I never sent him ANY e-mails in the first place.

Why are you of the opinion I sent Jim any e-mails? I haven't. I don't
even have his e-mail address. I mailed Len Osanic, not DiEugenio. (Is
that supposedly the same thing, since those two conspiracy-happy
theorists are attached at the "Black Op Radio" hip, it would seem?)

>>> "Perhaps all Warren Commission apologists should re examine the facts surrounding the JFK Assassination!!! Remember even the HSCA which was thoroughly manipulated by the CIA concluded a probable conspiracy in the death of JFK!!!" <<<

And the HSCA's "conspiracy" determination has been ripped to shreds
since '79. But it's always good for you conspiracy kooks to pretend
that the discredited Dictabelt nonsense is still upright and valid.

Because if you were to admit the truth about the Dictabelt's total
worthlessness, you'd be right back to having no "official" conspiracy
again. And no CTer wants that, right William?

BTW, Billy Exclamation Point (whoever you are), maybe you ought to
consider stepping outside your conspiracy-tinged world for a few
minutes and actually read what I wrote about Jim's misrepresentations:


You never know, you might actually learn something about your pal
named James. Because right now, it appears you're a lapdog for a
person (Mr. DiEugenio) who actually wants to peddle the notion that
JFK's head ISN'T moving forward here at Z313:

David Von Pein
November 30, 2008


On June 21st, 2013, the State Bar of Texas produced a mock trial of President John F. Kennedy's accused assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. The simulated courtroom trial was streamed live on WFAA.com.

I was only able to see the last 1 hour and 45 minutes of the trial. So I missed the first hour. Evidently, they were attempting to squeeze the entire trial of Oswald into a 2-hour time slot, but they went over the time limit. It started at 2:00 PM CDT [Dallas time] on Friday, June 21st and ended at 4:45 PM CDT [5:45 PM EDT].

A few observations:

The latter portion of this particular 2013 mock trial that I saw, which was staged right there near Dealey Plaza in Dallas, was not very impressive at all. And I think it demonstrates the difficulty in trying to jam the entire JFK murder case into a short timeframe. There just wasn't nearly enough time to flesh out the whole case. There wasn't even time enough to present any closing arguments by the attorneys.

They even created a composite type of "jack of all trades" witness, a fictitious ATF agent named "Benton", who testified to all kinds of different things--such as firearms identification, handwriting analysis, and analysis of the Zapruder Film. I guess they figured it would save time to have this one witness testify to all manner of subjects.

I have no idea how many errors of fact occurred during the first hour of this mock trial, but the last 105 minutes contained several sloppy mistakes:

1.) Nobody even knew the proper location in the Texas School Book Depository where the rifle was found. The lawyers kept saying it was found in the northeast corner of the sixth floor, when, in fact, it was discovered by police in the northwest corner.

2.) It was stated that the Mannlicher-Carcano was a rifle manufactured for the Japanese Navy. (Huh?)

3.) Bill and Gayle Newman will be delighted to hear that one of their two sons has had a sex change operation, with one of their boys suddenly turning into a girl named "Abigail". :-)

4.) Marina Oswald testified for the prosecution, which very likely would not have happened at a real trial, since she was married to the defendant. I suppose we can always assume that Marina insisted on testifying against her husband here. Because I think that's the only way we'd have seen Marina on the witness stand at a real trial. (And does anybody REALLY think Marina would have voluntarily testified? I kind of doubt it.)

The defense had virtually no time to present its case, calling only two witnesses -- Carolyn Arnold and Gayle Newman.

The verdict: A hung jury. 9 votes for Oswald's guilt and three "not guilty" votes.

And the most hilarious part of this trial came as the judge announced the verdict. He originally declared Oswald "Not Guilty" (via the 9-to-3 split vote of the jury). Somebody then quickly corrected the judge, who then said that it was a hung jury and that Oswald would have to be re-tried. So the judge himself (who is a real judge in the state of Texas, Martin Hoffman) didn't even seem to know what a "hung jury" meant. He thought that a 9-to-3 split vote meant acquittal. Hilarious.

And one of the jurors was none other than Gary Mack. I can envision the conspiracy theorists having a field day with that decision to have Mr. Mack sit on that jury. I imagine they'll say it was just another part of the continuing "cover up" in this case to make sure Lee Harvey Oswald never gets a fair trial (even a mock one).*

Another one of the twelve jurors was Dr. Robert McClelland, who was one of the doctors who attempted to save the life of the mortally wounded President Kennedy at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas just after the President was shot on November 22, 1963. McClelland represented one of the three "Not Guilty" votes.

Now, why on Earth Gary Mack and Bob McClelland were asked to serve on that jury is a mystery. There was virtually no chance of getting anything but a hung jury with those two men sitting in the jury box. Given their past history and beliefs concerning the Kennedy murder case, Mack's going to vote the defendant guilty and McClelland is going vote not guilty. So the jury's hung right there.
[I was wrong.*]

All-in-all, a pretty poor "trial" of Lee Harvey Oswald. But maybe the first hour, which I did not see, was more compelling. However, I do feel sorry for anyone who has the task of cramming all the facts surrounding President Kennedy's assassination into just 2 hours and 45 minutes. That's kind of like trying to whittle "War And Peace" down to 26 pages.


* Subject: Mock LHO Trial
Date: 6/22/2013 4:49:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Gary Mack
To: David Von Pein


Dave, I wish you would do research first before coming to a conclusion.

At the beginning (which you missed), the presiding judge instructed all of us to disregard everything we may have learned or heard about the assassination and reach a verdict based solely on the evidence presented by the prosecution and defense....which is what real trials do.

Based on that, I voted Not Guilty. The prosecution showed a very weak case and the defense put up enough reasonable doubt that the decision was easy. It didn't matter that history says every major investigation concluded Oswald killed JFK, the evidence presented to us didn't convince me Oswald was in that window with a rifle.



[End E-Mail from Gary Mack.]


Gee, when the lawyers prosecuting Oswald can't even get Gary Mack to vote Guilty, it must have been a lousy job of prosecuting indeed. And yet even with such a subpar performance by the prosecution team, nine people on the jury still voted to convict Oswald. That's rather interesting, isn't it?

My apologies to Gary Mack for jumping the gun. But knowing what Gary's opinion is concerning Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK murder case, it just never occurred to me for even half a second that Mr. Mack would have been one of the three people who voted Not Guilty at the mock trial in Dallas on 6/21/13. I'm very surprised.

If I had been in Gary's place on that jury, I doubt very much that I would have been able to vote Oswald "Not Guilty" (unless perhaps the prosecutor didn't show up at all). But, then too, with the strong opinion that I hold about Oswald killing President Kennedy, I would have asked to be removed from the jury before the first witness ever opened his mouth.


Addendum #1:

The above list of mistakes is just a short list. I wasn't taking notes, and I could have added about a dozen more things that the witnesses and lawyers got wrong during the mock trial in Dallas. I just can't remember all of them off the top of my head.

One other mistake I do recall is the purported length of Oswald's rifle. One of the lawyers said the rifle was 39 inches. Oswald's Carcano was, of course, 40.2 inches long. Not a major error, no. But something like that is just as easy to get right as it is to get wrong.

Oh, here's another boner -- A witness stated that proof of Oswald's rifle purchase was found among his belongings (either at the Beckley roominghouse or the Paine house, I can't remember which -- but either is dead wrong, since no direct evidence of Oswald's rifle purchase was found in LHO's belongings; the proof of his rifle purchase was found through the Klein's records).

I suppose some people will look at this discussion about the mock trial and say: Oh, you lone-assassin nuts are just being super nitpicky about these details. What difference do those details make?

And I suppose to some extent I can agree with that type of reaction. But to those of us who know a lot of the details about the assassination, seemingly small and insignificant mistakes always stand out like sore thumbs. And if I would have been able to watch the first sixty minutes of the 6/21/13 mock trial, I probably would have noticed several more gaffes.

BTW, the only reference to J.D. Tippit's murder I recall hearing in the last half of the trial was when Oswald himself mentioned the killing of a police officer when LHO's midnight press conference was played for the jury.

Perhaps the Tippit crime was severed from this trial entirely. But if it was, why was the jury allowed to hear Oswald himself talk about the murdered policeman? (Another mistake by the attorneys perhaps?) ~shrug~ **

** "Evidence of Oswald’s same-day murder of Dallas police Officer J.D. Tippit was not allowed to be heard by the mock jury." -- Dale K. Myers

Addendum #2:

The reporter who appears in the video below and who posted this silly "Not Guilty" article [which is no longer available to read] on the WFAA website (Jason Whitely) is not stating the verdict accurately at all. Oswald was not declared "Not Guilty" by the mock jury. It was a hung (or deadlocked) jury, 9-to-3 in favor of Oswald's guilt. Which means it's a mistrial. It certainly wouldn't mean Oswald would just walk out of the courtroom that day a free man. What a farce.

Addendum #3:

At 10:46 PM CDT (11:46 PM EDT) on June 21, 2013, the author of the above-linked WFAA.com article, Jason Whitely, changed the title of the article from "Not Guilty" to "No Verdict", and Jason also removed the "Not Guilty" quote within the body of the article as well. But Jason still has it wrong even with the revised title. Lee Oswald is not "free" after a jury reached "No Verdict", unless we're to actually believe that the prosecutor in the case would be so stupid as to just throw up his hands and decide to NOT retry Oswald a second time on the same murder charge. And how likely is it that that scenario would have occurred in a case where it's the accused killer of the President of the United States who is on trial? Care to try again, Jason? :)

Addendum #4:

As the hilarity mounts, here's version #3 of Jason Whitely's title for his WFAA.com article (this one must be the "illiterate version"):

Addendum #5:

Here's version #4 (this one should be the last--I would think):

For some much better "mock trials" featuring Lee Harvey Oswald as the defendant, check out the three links at the very bottom of this post.

David Von Pein
June 2013







(PART 385)

I decided to e-mail Black Op Radio host Len Osanic the link to my
lengthy 11/29/08 article refuting James DiEugenio's constant

Here's the short e-mail exchange thus far:

Subject: Article Concerning The Nov. 27th Black Op Program
Date: 11/29/2008 1:43:07 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Len Osanic


Hi Len,

I thought you might be interested in reading this article I just
finished writing:



David Von Pein

[Note -- My last name is pronounced Von PINE, not PEEN. Thank you.]


Subject: RE: Article Concerning The Nov. 27th Black Op Program
Date: 11/29/2008 6:31:04 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Len Osanic
To: David Von Pein


Are you kidding me?

Not interested at all.


Subject: Re: DiEugenio / Von Pein
Date: 11/29/2008 2:13:35 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Len Osanic


Gee, how sweet of you.

I just thought you might possibly be interested in seeing how one of
your prime guests each week (Mr. DiEugenio) skews the facts constantly
(as I point out again and again in the article you aren't interested
in at all).

YOU, obviously, haven't a clue as to what a lot of the real evidence
is in the JFK case. I fully realized that fact at one point last year,
when you admitted that you had never even heard of the names Dale
Myers or Charles Givens until about midway through the year 2007.

So, given the fact that you're clueless about many things, I was
trying to fill you in a little bit, especially regarding one of your
frequent guests, Mr. DiEugenio.

You really should read my article, Len. No kidding. You might be in
for a surprise when you learn how utterly wrong Mr. DiEugenio is about
so many different things in this case. And, yes, I have sources for
what I write, too.

Thanks for your time (if you give this message ANY time at all, that is).

David Von Pein
November 29, 2008

(PART 384)


You CAN'T lie this away Dave, there was a hole in the windshield.


At the end of today (like all other days), you and I are left with the same "Who Do I Believe?" question with regard to the "hole in the windshield" debate (and many other JFK debates).

You, Rob, being a conspiracy believer, choose to believe any and all things that you think will help you prop up your insane and obviously incorrect "Anybody But Oswald" theory.

I, on the other hand, being a non-conspiracist, will try to weigh the overall evidence, realizing that discrepancies are a part of life and realizing also that there's no possible chance on this Earth that a police officer named Stavis Ellis actually went up to that limousine and stuck a pencil through a hole in the windshield (even if there HAD been a hole in it); because such a belief is, frankly, just stupid. Why on Earth would ANYONE have a desire to stick a "pencil" through a hole in the windshield?

Can't you see how idiotic that sounds, Rob?

BTW, I'm doubting very much that Ellis said that he actually DID physically put a pencil through the windshield. I think he merely stated that if he'd wanted to, he COULD have stuck a pencil through it (in his [wrong] opinion). Big difference.

But the "non-kook" position on this topic is, of course, the only way to arrive at the truth. And that's because of the testimony of the FBI's Robert Frazier [see
5 H 68-71], plus the photos of the windshield [CE350 and CE351]. Frazier's testimony regarding the windshield always has and always will trump Ellis and all other "there was a hole in the windshield" witnesses -- no matter how many of those witnesses there are.

Also --

We know for a fact that the windshield was ONLY struck by a bullet from BEHIND, because the lead residue was only located on the INSIDE of the windshield's glass (Rob obviously must think that Bob Frazier just made up that stuff about the residue ONLY existing on the INSIDE portion of the glass).

But a conspiracy theorist like Rob Caprio has no choice but to dismiss the BEST evidence every time, on every subject. Because if he didn't dismiss the best evidence totally, then he'd have to admit that his favorite patsy was guilty of two murders in Dallas.

David Von Pein
November 28, 2008

(PART 383)


If Ruby didn't know Oswald, how did he know enough to correct Henry Wade that the group Oswald belonged to was the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee"?


Good Lord, what dopes you kooks are.

By the time of the Midnight Press Conference with Oswald [and later with Wade], the fact that LHO was affiliated with the FPCC had been broadcast numerous times on all of the major TV and radio networks.

In fact, it took me only about three minutes to hunt down and locate proof within my large archive of TV and radio footage that Oswald's connection with the "Fair Play For Cuba Committee" had been broadcast over the air on television only a very short time after Oswald's arrest. Those exact words are uttered by NBC-TV's Frank McGee 49 minutes into this audio file. [And a video version of the NBC excerpt in question can be seen below.]

In that NBC broadcast presented above, McGee mentions the fact that "not a great deal is known about this Oswald", but he then goes on to tell the audience just seconds later that LHO was linked to an organization known as the "Fair Play For Cuba Committee".

NBC-TV aired that info about Oswald and the FPCC at about 4:00 PM CST on November 22nd [5:00 PM EST]. That would have been about 8 or so hours before Ruby saw Oswald and Henry Wade at the DPD that night. And if NBC had that info, you can bet your last dime that all of the other major TV and radio outlets were reporting that same information too.

So Jack Ruby could very easily have heard the words "Fair Play For Cuba Committee" on any number of television and radio stations between midday Friday, November 22 and the Midnight Press Conference several hours later.

Conspiracy theorist Gil Jesus should, of course, have already known this basic information concerning these timeline issues. And perhaps he does know it. But he thinks it's wise to dredge up kooky questions like the one in this thread every now and again--just because, I guess, he's got nothing else to rely on except the potential ignorance of the people that the kook is hoping to reach with his lame-ass inquiries.

I suppose when conspiracists like Gil ask their never-ending series of already thoroughly answered questions, those CTers just hope and pray that somebody won't actually shoot down their nonsense with the raw facts -- like I just provided above.

David Von Pein
November 27, 2008

(PART 382)


[Quoting Dr. James J.] Humes: "Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind."


Oh, man, this is rich! It's hilarious that Ben Holmes thinks Dr. Humes' "from behind / from behind" double-speak is proof of some kind of a large wound being present in the back of JFK's head. It's absolutely hilarious that Holmes would even bring up this obvious misstatement by Humes.

So, I guess, per his Warren Commission testimony, Humes must have ACTUALLY thought (per Ben Holmes The Kook) that BOTH the entry AND the exit holes from the bullet that crashed into JFK's head were located on the BACK of Kennedy's head.

Obviously, that is not what Dr. Humes meant to imply. But, to a kook, if someone makes a slip of the tongue or makes a comment that could easily be misunderstood by someone (like Humes' remark above), there's no reconciling that statement if you're a conspiracy-happy individual, and there's no amending the statement into a coherent one, instead of the somewhat incoherent one that we find in the WC volumes. Right, Ben?

Ben and I hashed out this "from behind/from behind" thing back in 2006, btw. Here's what I said then about the matter (and the common sense that flows from these two 2006 posts still certainly applies 2.5 years later):

"I've seen that quote from Dr. Humes before, Ben. It's not a bolt from heaven. However, Humes' OTHER comments made during his multiple Govt. testimonies obviously indicate that his WC "exited from behind" remark was either a slip of the tongue or (more likely) was simply a misunderstood remark which came on the heels of speaking about WHERE THE GUNMAN WAS LOCATED (i.e., "from behind" the President).

Both of Humes' "from behind" remarks were almost certainly meant to convey strictly THE LOCATION OF THE ASSASSIN. Why? Because of the exact words he used: "From Other Than Behind", which he says verbatim TWICE. He's obviously ONLY talking about THE LOCATION OF THE KILLER in BOTH of his consecutive "from other than behind" remarks.

A CT-kook wants to jump on this statement by Humes as something odd or "conspiratorial" I guess. But, then, that's why we employ kooks here in the first place. What else are they good for, except to bring up all the inconsistencies in EVERY last piece of testimony and evidence that surrounds the JFK & Tippit murders? It's what CT-Kooks do best....i.e., muddy the waters, in order to try to free guilty Presidential assassins."

-- DVP; June 30, 2006


"The more I ponder Dr. Humes' Double-"FROM OTHER THAN BEHIND" verbiage, it's obvious that BOTH comments dovetail into one another and that he was referring SOLELY to the location of the gunman at the time JFK was hit in the back of the head "From Behind".

Paint Humes as a liar if you please (and you do)....it's typical CT-ism. But read that WHOLE statement again and see the verbatim "From Behind" comments via something other than a skewed CT-only context for once....

"Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind." -- Dr. Humes; 2 H 360

He obviously CANNOT mean that a bullet has ENTERED the back of JFK's head AND EXITED from the same place.

With this basic knowledge in place, his statement makes more sense (although it could have been worded better)....but Humes is talking here ONLY about the location of JFK's killer ("from behind" JFK's car)."

-- DVP; June 30, 2006


DVP is one of the more dishonest of the trolls - he's not ignorant of the evidence, as so many others are, so he simply lies about it.


You'll have a very hard time proving that I have "lied" about a single thing I have ever written regarding the JFK murder case. And that's mainly because it's never happened.

David Von Pein
November 27, 2008




It's also very important to evaluate Dr. Humes' "From Behind" remarks based on the context of the question he was being asked to answer at the time, which was this question put to Dr. Humes by Allen Dulles of the Warren Commission:

"Am I correct in assuming from what you have said that this wound is entirely inconsistent with a wound that might have been administered if the shot were fired from in front or the side of the President? It had to be fired from behind the President?"

The above question by Dulles was immediately followed by this response by Dr. James Humes:

"Scientifically, sir, it is impossible for it to have been fired from other than behind. Or to have exited from other than behind."

Therefore, as everyone can easily see, the context of Humes' "From Behind" answer makes it perfectly clear that Humes' response to Dulles' question was an effort on Humes' part to convey the fact that—in Dr. Humes' professional medical opinion—President Kennedy's assassin could only have been located "behind" the President when he was shot on November 22, 1963.

David Von Pein
July 24, 2019

(PART 381)


I never said the photos were altered. If you wish, you might say that the
unaltered photos don't comport with each other. They disagree with each
other mightily, however. In fact, they disagree in a way that makes them
OPPOSITES of each other in the area of the RIGHT FOREHEAD. One conclusion
would be that there was TAMPERING of the evidence. Do you have any other
answer that would explain the opposite evidence presented by the two photos?


Conspiracy theorists think that if every last thing isn't explained to
their perfect satisfaction, it means that something suspicious or
shady was taking place with respect to JFK's body, and his autopsy,
and the wounds, and the bullets, and Oswald, and the guns, and the

But that's an approach to take only if you never want to accept ANY of
the evidence (or very little of it anyway) as being firm proof of any
conclusion in a large double-murder case that has a lot of evidence
attached to it, like the JFK/Tippit case does. Because there are bound
to be discrepancies in the record...and even in some pictures and films.

Take, for example, the "Chaney Isn't In The Right Position" discrepancy
in the Altgens and Zapruder images. Many CT-Kooks like to look sideways
at the Z-Film (or the Altgens picture) because of the anomaly that appears
in the Altgens photo regarding the position of James Chaney's motorcycle,
with some CTers actually favoring the notion that this discrepancy is proof
that the Z-Film is a fake. It's just nonsense, of course. Those kooks fail to
account for the differing angles of the two images. Altgens' perspective is
totally different from that of Zapruder, and we're getting a look at that
different perspective in Altgens' picture, naturally.

But that's just one example of how the CTers of the world willingly
and anxiously jump all over a slight photographic anomaly (or a
seeming discrepancy) and then immediately run to their soapbox to
shout out that a picture or film MUST be a fraud, because they can't
interpret what they're seeing correctly.*

I think much the same thing applies to "awthraw's" argument about
JFK's "missing forehead". Via the autopsy photos, JFK's forehead
appears to be mostly intact and undamaged.

And since we know that both the pictures and the X-rays were taken
during JFK's autopsy...on the same night of 11/22/63...at just about
the same general time (give or take)...and since we know that NONE of
those photographic materials (pictures and X-rays) have been "monkeyed
around with" (i.e., they are unaltered pictures of the dead JFK
himself)...and since we know that all 3 autopsy doctors declared that
JFK was shot by just two bullets, both coming from behind...then what
other conclusion can a reasonable person reach with respect to the
death of President Kennedy, other than to conclude that he was struck
ONLY FROM BEHIND by two and only two bullets in Dealey Plaza?

I have no "official" explanation for the A-P X-ray. But since I know
that NONE of the autopsy pictures or X-rays are phonies or fakes, I
can be quite confident of the fact that SOME reasonable and non-
conspiratorial explanation DOES exist with respect to ANY photographic
discrepancy that might crop up regarding the autopsy photos and X-rays
of John F. Kennedy -- even if I, myself, do not know what that
reasonable explanation is.

* = Along similar lines, I also can't make head nor tail out of the
"F8" autopsy photo (and I've admitted as much several times; that
picture is a mess and is, IMO, totally worthless as definitive evidence).
But I've never once suggested that F8 was a "fake" or that it has been
"altered" in some way (even when kooks like Gil Jesus prop up that very
photo as "proof" that JFK was shot in the head from the front).

I don't think for a minute that ANY of the official evidence is fake
in this case. IMO, that's just a stupid belief. It's merely a crutch
utilized by CTers who have got nothing else to use as ammunition to
combat the mile-high pile of "It Was Only Oswald" evidence in this
double-murder case.

David Von Pein
November 27, 2008

(PART 380)


I was looking over Dr. J. Thornton Boswell's February 1996 ARRB testimony (or deposition), and jotted down these rather interesting remarks made by Dr. Boswell:

DR. BOSWELL -- "The external examination was done first, and as soon
as the body had been examined, the photographer was brought in and
various photographs, external photographs, were taken, at which point
we then backed away and permitted the radiologist to X-ray the entire
body, and then we began further external examination and dissection
while awaiting the development of the X-ray film. Then the wounds of
entry and exit were studied preliminary to an examination of the
abdominal and thoracic cavity."

[DVP -- Sounds to me like the X-rays were likely taken BEFORE any
manipulation of President Kennedy's head was done by the autopsists.]


DR. BOSWELL -- "The bullet came in here, went through and exploded,
and bone was eviscerated, and the upper surface of that side of the
brain was missing."

JEREMY GUNN -- "During your answer you were pointing to parts of your
head, which, of course, wouldn't be reflected on the record. Could you
just describe in a general way--and we'll be more specific with this
later, but when you say that it entered here, you were pointing to--"

DR. BOSWELL -- "The back right side of his skull."

MR. GUNN -- "Near the hairline, would that be fair, or--?"

DR. BOSWELL -- "No. It's up above that. Well, whose hairline?"

MR. GUNN -- "President Kennedy's."

DR. BOSWELL -- "He had hair cut about like mine, and it was right up
here: above his ear and toward the midline. And then the top of his
head was blown off. A 14-centimeter segment of it was blown off. And
it was on the right side of his brain that the brain was missing."

certainly suggest that Boswell is talking about the RED SPOT as the
entry hole in this autopsy photograph.

In fact, those words ("above his ear and toward the midline") fit
perfectly with the "cowlick"/"red spot" entry seen in that picture.
Given those remarks by Boswell about the location of the entry wound,
what other piece of real estate on JFK's head could POSSIBLY be deemed
the "entry" point for a bullet in this photo pictured below?:]


MR. GUNN -- "Dr. Boswell, could you look at the top of page 4 of
Exhibit 3 that I have just handed to you where it says, "Situated in
the posterior scalp approximately 2.5 centimeters laterally to the
right and slightly above the external occipital protuberance is a
lacerated wound measuring 15 by 6 millimeters." Is that an accurate
description of where you understood the entrance wound to be at the
time of the autopsy, 2.5 centimeters to the right and slightly above
the external occipital protuberance?"

DR. BOSWELL -- "Yes."

And confirmed by Dr. J. Thornton Boswell here in his ARRB testimony,
32+ years after he signed the autopsy report which said the very same
thing. Thank you, Doctor.]


MR. GUNN -- "Did you at any point ever change your mind about the
location of the entrance wound in the skull?"

DR. BOSWELL -- "No."

[DVP -- Thank you, again, Doctor. This has to mean that the entry hole
for Lee Harvey Oswald's Carcano bullet was located ABOVE the EOP on
John Kennedy's head--not below it (as some theorists seem to be
indicating, if they want to advance the idea that the white piece of
brain tissue near the hairline of the President is really a bullet hole).]


DR. BOSWELL -- "Photographs were taken at various stages. The scalp
was pulled forward in order to demonstrate the wound of entrance. And
then the scalp was reflected to show the magnitude of the wound and
more or less the direction of the bullet, and then to remove the

[DVP -- Via these words spoken by Dr. Boswell -- "AND THEN TO REMOVE
THE BRAIN" -- it sounds to me as if the brain would have still been
inside JFK's head when this picture was snapped by John Stringer,
contrary to the belief of many conspiracy theorists (and others).]


MR. GUNN -- "Was there any damage to the cerebellum that you noticed
during the time of the autopsy?"

DR. BOSWELL -- "No."

MR. GUNN -- "So both the right and left hemisphere of the cerebellum
were intact?"

DR. BOSWELL -- "Yes."

[DVP -- Shouldn't the above comments by Dr. Boswell about the
cerebellum being completely intact and undamaged put to rest the
theories advanced by some people that portions of the cerebellum were
oozing out of President Kennedy's head at Parkland Memorial Hospital?]

David Von Pein
November 26, 2008


On June 11, 2013, I joined a private group called "Who Shot JFK?" at Facebook [and I've since decided to UNjoin it]. Actually, I wasn't invited to join it, I was merely added to it by the person who started the group at Facebook, which surprised me (and, in a way, kind of irritated me), because I think a Facebook member should have the choice of accepting or declining an invitation to join a particular group. Until this week, I didn't think it was even possible for somebody at Facebook to just "add" a member to a group without first getting permission or approval from the person they are attempting to add. But maybe this is something new at Facebook--the ability to arbitrarily add people to groups. Seems strange to me though.

Anyway, the Facebook group was created on 6/11/13 by Fort Worth, Texas, lawyer/author Jack Duffy, who, surprisingly, is good friends with "Reclaiming History" author Vincent Bugliosi (and Jack is mentioned a few times in Vince's book too). I say "surprisingly" because Mr. Duffy is an avid conspiracy theorist who believes in a lot of crazy things pertaining to the JFK assassination (as you'll see in the posts below). So, as far as JFK's murder is concerned, Jack and Vince are miles apart in their beliefs.

[EDIT: Vince Bugliosi was interviewed by Jack Duffy on Duffy's BlogTalkRadio Internet show on March 27, 2014. That interview can be heard HERE or HERE.]

Within just the first 24 hours of the creation of the "Who Shot JFK?" group, I noticed an interesting thing -- I took note of how several group members were still fully accepting (as true) many of the debunked conspiracy myths that are still circulating to this day about President Kennedy's assassination.

One person after another will make some statement that is just flat-out wrong. And one group member is even crazy enough to think that a set of "real" autopsy photos exists that shows a huge hole in the back of JFK's head. And that same conspiracist also wondered if I had ever watched the Zapruder Film in the past, with this conspiracist trying to tell me that the Z-Film positively shows this: "The whole back AND right side of his head AND part of his face were blown off."

That's the type of misinformation that I still see being uttered (and believed) by conspiracy theorists on the Internet here in the year 2013, almost fifty years after Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed President Kennedy.

My recent experience at Jack Duffy's Facebook group just proves something that I and many other lone-assassin believers have been saying for years, that is: the conspiracy myths in the JFK murder case just refuse to die the death they deserve. And to illustrate that fact, I'm offering up several posts from Duffy's Facebook group below.


If nothing else convinces people that there had to be a conspiracy, then the statistic in the new book "Hit List" should. The odds of 78 key JFK witnesses dying non natural deaths over a 10 year period without a conspiracy are a million trillion trillion according to statisticians who did the calculations. Incredible odds.


Jack, that "million trillion" stat was proven to be inaccurate by the very people who conducted the study years ago. They used the wrong figures to compute those odds. But that never stops a good conspiracy author from quoting the myths--long after they've been debunked.

The other day I still had to argue with some ill-informed person about the "Motorcade Route Was Changed At The Last Minute" myth. He wouldn't believe me even when I cited CE1362 to him. These myths never die--even when a stake is driven squarely through their hearts.


There is a more recent posting of statistical analysis...and the documentation is exhaustive.


The "Hit List" stuff is pure crap. And [Richard] Belzer's theory (based on the Intro I read at Amazon from his other book, "Dead Wrong") is pure junk too. He doesn't even have a good grasp on the case evidence regarding Marrion Baker or the SS re-enactment of LHO's movements. Belzer supports myth after myth, proving what I said before--these myths never die.


Belzer is NOT the most recent analysis.


Ever see Jim Marrs' silly "Mystery Deaths" list? He's got Earl Warren and Marguerite Oswald on it. Those lists are nothing more than crackpottery.


David, you seem very committed to being a staunch defender of the Warren Commission...but debunking some conspiracy theorists doesn't confirm their findings.


For whatever it is worth...the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas even has the statistics posted of that, Many Witnesses/People involved on 11/22/63 dieing [sic] in such a short period of time. As I recall, the stats were done by Lloyd's of London...posted at the place that supports the "Lone Nut Gunman Theory" and the odds were just ridiculously unheard of, according to that plaque that I saw on my first visit to Dallas in 2007. It did not even take into consideration the "strangeness" of many of [the] deaths, as far as them being so violent, odd, suicides (suicided), just how Very Bizarre so Many of them were.


What a great plan those conspirators had, huh? --- They decide to kill JFK in front of 30 cameras and 200+ witnesses. And they frame a patsy named Oswald, per the CTers [Conspiracy Theorists], by firing bullets into Kennedy from the FRONT (where Oswald WASN'T).

And then they have the added burdensome task of eliminating witnesses for many years afterward....even though they could have simply driven JFK from office by exposing his many (supposed) extramarital affairs that he was having. Or, at the least, kill him in a "quieter" fashion, instead of doing it in broad daylight with thirty cameras rolling.

What a brilliant group of plotters indeed. I guess they just liked doing things the hard way.


Well, you are correct that Kennedy had many affairs. So did Lyndon Johnson. In November 1963 Kennedy's chances [of] being re-elected looked quite favorable against Barry Goldwater. I would venture that if Lyndon Johnson could beat Barry Goldwater in a landslide, JFK would have done at least as well...BUT, in November 1963 Lyndon Johnson looked like he would either not be JFK's running mate AND/OR he would be investigated by congress, indicted and convicted of numerous illegalities. But all this is widely known. The problem is not your rehashing of Warren Commission era tropes, but your tone of dismissive certainty.


Larry, I rehash the "Warren Commission era tropes" simply because the evidence is still the evidence--and it decides this case--and it all points to Oswald. Like it or not. And there's nothing you or I can do to change that fact. Do you think it's ALL fake?


I think there was no effort to investigate the facts and great effort to surpress [sic] and ignore information - that as RFK Jr. recently said, the Warren Commission was "a shoddy piece of work" which greatly benefited powerful people who had no motives to find out what really had transpired.


I stand by 22 surgeons. They can't all be wrong.


The autopsy pics prove they were wrong. Case closed.


Right Fantasyland. Why don't you talk to Dr. McClelland yourself. Then you can tell him he is wrong.


So the HSCA was full of liars and cover-uppers too, right Jack? You DO realize the 22 members of the HSCA's photo panel said there was NO FAKERY in the autopsy photos, don't you? More liars??


They are not going to go against the US government.


Vince Bugliosi had two long talks with McClelland (who thinks "The Mob" killed Kennedy btw). Didn't you even read any of Bugliosi's book?


I helped him write it. I am the one who put him in touch with Dr. McClelland.


Good. Then you should know McClelland is full of crap.


Why don't you publish that so he can sue you for libel like Dr. Crenshaw did with JAMA. Put up or....


I'm not defaming McClelland by saying he's full of crap. That's called Freedom of Speech. I'm not calling him a murderer, for Pete sake. He's just wrong. BTW, I've been called a "Kennedy Killer" just this week by some conspiracy kooks. I have the gall to believe Oswald did it, and suddenly I am an accessory. Lovely, huh?


No hard feelings David. I like the debate. We can agree to disagree. .... By the way, the HSCA said there was a conspiracy.


Oh my gosh, Jack. You surely know the ONLY thing the HSCA based their "conspiracy" on was the discredited acoustics tape, right? Nothing else.


Around 65-70% of the nation still believes there was a conspiracy.


Yeah, I read where the newest AP poll has the belief in conspiracy dropping a bit [it's actually down to 59%, per the April 2013 AP poll]. It was 75% in 2003 (per Gallup). Good to hear too. It's about time some logic and reasoned thinking grabbed ahold of more people on this issue. And, given the evidence, the notion of Oswald not even holding a gun on 11/22 is too absurd for words.


You still have to destroy all the evidence of the grassy knoll shooter.

You need to read "Head Shot". Written by a PHD in Physics. He proves through the laws of physics that the fatal shot came from the grassy knoll.


Jack, the "Head Shot" author proved no such thing. Dr. Chambers can't suddenly UNDO the autopsy photos and X-rays. And he cannot UNDO the bullet evidence, all which points to Oswald's C2766 Carcano.

Chambers has a THEORY, nothing more. But the bullets and the photos (and the Z-Film too) debunk the Grassy Knoll theory.

Of course, you can always theorize (as the HSCA did) that a Grassy Knoll shooter fired and MISSED everybody in the Plaza. But since the HSCA's Dictabelt evidence is about as valid as any theory claiming that "aliens shot JFK", I doubt that that theory will get you very far either.


All the Dallas Doctors said he had an exit wound in the BACK of his head. Not to mention the Harper fragment that was found was Occipital bone. Dang Bullet must have made a U turn!


Wrong, Paul. The Harper fragment was parietal, not occipital.

And where's the great-big hole in the back of JFK's head here? I sure
don't see it....


[You're] right on the fragment, but it can be debated. After all, a frangible bullet explodes when entering a human. So it could very well be parietal. That's why they use them to make a bigger hole in the body. What, did Oswald load a frangible bullet just coincidentally on the only shot that hits JFK in the head?

Oswald had a medium velocity rifle and experts say he was shot by a high velocity rifle. And what about the bullet hole in the windshield? But you tell me having seen many gunshot wounds all the Dallas Doctors could be wrong? Explain that away. As well a the Gawlers Mortician Thomas Evan Robinson states Large Gaping wound in back of head. Patched by stretching rubber over it.


Robinson never patched anything at the BACK of JFK's head--and the above X-ray proves it. ALL THE SKULL IS STILL THERE, for Pete sake. There's nothing to "patch".

And you're believing in CT Myth #409 if you think there was a hole in the windshield. There was a crack; no hole. Or is Bob Frazier of the FBI a liar too? And the bullet that struck that windshield came from the REAR, with the lead residue being scraped from the INSIDE of the glass.

And regardless of "velocity" potential of LHO's C2766 Carcano rifle, it WAS the murder weapon. Fragments from that gun were IN THE CAR. How much more proof is needed than that to prove that Oswald's gun WAS firing bullets at JFK on 11/22/63? Am I supposed to believe that the CE567/569 fragments were planted too?


As the Technician Jerrol Custer B.N.H. said in an interview, the x rays in the archives [do] not match the ones he took. Paul O'Conner [sic] said exit wound in back of head B.N.H.

I suppose you think the Autopsy photos are real too.

As for the windshield, look at the testimony. Look at the Altgens photo or any of the eye witnesses said a through and through bullet hole from front to back. A Dallas Policeman said you could stick a pencil through it. William Greer said over the radio to the other secret service agents "Bullets were coming at us from every direction. One even came right through the windshield". Why do you keep evading about what the Dallas Doctors saw--a wound in the Back of his head?

If those are the correct X rays, JFK had a bone head in the back. That white area means dense bone. Also, I didn't know JFK had a metal hook in his ear!


It looks as though Mr. Paul Gorrell is trying to win this year's "I Believe Every JFK Conspiracy Myth That Has Ever Come Down The Pike" award.

Like I said, they never die.


Oh, God, David von Pein [sic], just about all of the autopsy photos that have been circulated have been falsified by the government. A few "real" ones have been published. And those clearly show a massive wound in the back. Did you SEE the Zapruder film? The whole back AND right side of his head AND part of his face were blown off.


Patrice -- You're looking at a different Z-Film than me. Because you couldn't be more dead wrong about where the wound is in the Z-Film--it's positively toward the FRONT-RIGHT-TOP, not in the BACK. In fact, there's not even a HINT of redness (blood) at the back of his head in the Z-Film. Nothing. And ZERO of the published autopsy photos show any big hole in the BACK of the head either. Looks like you're making a lot of stuff up from whole cloth. I wonder why?

Also -- JFK's head moves FORWARD at the moment of impact at Z313 in the Zapruder Film too....a clear indication that the shot came from BEHIND:


David, his head was ALREADY A BIT FORWARD FROM THE FIRST SHOT FROM THE BACK. He brought his arms up, and keeled over a bit from the first shot that went through his damn THROAT. That's why he was already bent forward A BIT. But when he was shot from the GRASSY KNOLL, his head went decidedly back and to the left.

And how the hell big is a human head??? From the naked eye, if his head was hit from the right front, the impact is such that the whole top right side AND back of his [head] was BLOWN TO SMITHERENES [sic]!!!! Get real!

Why do you continue to refer to those CLEARLY doctored photos...in these photos and drawings, government officials and the military totally covered up the head wound and moved the bullet hole up six inches from where it actually penetrated. Why are you so damned duped by what a bunch of government CRIMINALS came up with, headed by one little ugly ambitious snorty little snot-nosed junior senator named Arlen Spector [sic]?


You need a new pair of eyes, Patrice. The back of JFK's head is not blown out in the Zapruder Film. The damage we see in the Z-Film is perfectly consistent with a bullet that entered JFK's head from the rear, pushed his head rapidly forward by about 2 to 3 inches at the exact instant the bullet struck him, with the bullet then exiting at the right-front-top portions of the President's head. THAT'S what the Zapruder Film shows--like it or not.


Or it could be from the limo stop. When his head moves, all people in limo move slightly. Or, it looks like [JFK's] head was driven down when the bullet impacted between eye and temple from in front and above, then the head explodes as it would if a frangible bullet hit. It blows up like a grenade as it impacts the skull. It could have also been shot from the front and the back in synchronized fashion. If you take the Z film as gospel, you'll be going in circles. Like I said, film can be manipulated. It's been altered.


Like I said earlier, Paul is sprinting full-tilt toward that "Myth" trophy. Now he's added "Zapruder Film Alteration" to the list of myths he still endorses.



No...you need a new set of eyes...and you need to open them. And more importantly, you need to discontinue whatever sick, twisted allegiance you have to that collossal piece of GARBAGE coined as the Warren Report. Open your eyes to what THAT monstrosity is all about. It's pure FICTION perpetrated on a one-time, yet thankfully very briefly, innocent, unsuspecting public who until that time couldn't believe that their own elected government officials consorted with other rogue elements to remove a president whose policies they hated.

Thank goodness about 80% of Americans over time have wised up to the sick charade that comprised the WC and the WR.


Patrice, you're wrong. Simple as that. You're saying things about the Zapruder Film that are just flat-out wrong. You shouldn't be doing that.

Nice anti-WC tirade, though.

~another yawn~


No, David. You're the one who's wrong. You don't face facts. And, you dismiss the 80% of Americans who stongly believe that there was a conspiracy, and that the deadly bullet was shot from the front. And I know that these would be two separate polls, as it's two different issues...where did the kill shot come from?, and do you believe the WC?

And about 80% of Americans believe that the kill shot came from the grassy knoll, and about the same percentage KNOW...IN THEIR HEARTS AND/OR THROUGH THEIR RESEARCH that the WR is nothing but GARBAGE. You lack a BIG DOSE of common sense. You think one damn bullet is going to do ALL THE DAMAGE that little Spector [sic] said it did?



And just how many of that "80% of Americans" do you really think know a great deal about the facts and circumstances surrounding JFK's death? (Answer--a very small percentage of that 80%.)

And btw, the latest poll, as discussed earlier at this Facebook group, shows a drop in the number of people who believe in a conspiracy. It's down to 59% now (per the AP poll). That's still a high percentage, yes, but the conspiracy theorists like to exaggerate the poll numbers in their favor. I see that happen all the time at various forums, with some conspiracist claiming that "90 percent of Americans think the Warren Commission was full of shit" (paraphrased).

But, again, most of those people being polled probably wouldn't know who J.D. Tippit, Buell Wesley Frazier, and Earle Cabell were if their lives depended on it. Point being: the vast majority of Americans who participate in news polls are, for the most part, ignorant of the intricate facts about the JFK case. So what does their opinion really mean? I think it means they've watched a few conspiracy-oriented documentaries or movies (particularly Oliver Stone's 1991 fantasy flick, "JFK"), and they've based their opinion on those few things they've seen or heard about the case.

And we all know that Oliver Stone wouldn't present the true facts about JFK's assassination on the big screen if he had a gun pointed at his head. The people who went to see his movie came out of the theater not even knowing that Lee Harvey Oswald carried a bulky paper package into the Book Depository just hours before JFK was murdered. That tells you how anxious Oliver is to tell the whole truth.

David Von Pein
June 2013