(PART 501)


Challenge for DVP --

You seem to have good rapport with Vincent Bugliosi's secretary, right? Yes, of course you do...so here's the challenge: Ask her to ask VB whether or not he intends on re-investigating (when he finishes chasing after Bush) the medical evidence himself to see if he needs to modify his position re. the head wounds.

Of course you won't do that....for the same reason you won't try to figure out F8 -- because you're afraid that what you find out won't please you. But the challenge stands anyway.


Challenge accepted....and completed (via the e-mail [shown below] that I sent to Vincent Bugliosi's secretary, Rosemary Newton, on the morning of Sunday, April 19th, 2009):

Subject: Vincent Bugliosi And JFK's Head Wounds
Date: 4/19/2009 2:27:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


Hi Rosemary,

It's been a few months since I've contacted you. I hope you are doing well (and Vince B. too).

Over the course of the last couple of years, a JFK researcher (who is also the author of the 2000 book "Silencing The Lone Assassin"*) named John Canal and I have occasionally become involved in a debate concerning JFK's head wounds. And apparently John has been in touch with Vince Bugliosi about the "head wounds" subject too.

* = At this point, my e-mail included the following hyperlink:


On April 18, 2009, John "challenged"** me to try and find out whether Vince was going to "re-investigate" and possibly "modify his position" with respect to the topic of President Kennedy's head wounds.

** = At this point, my e-mail included the following hyperlink:


So, I thought I would accept his "challenge" and write this e-mail to you and ask you that question. (Plus, it also provides me with a good excuse to write and say "Hi", too.)

My stance on the "head wounds" subject has been made clear to Mr. Canal via our many Internet forum discussions, with my position being that Mr. Bugliosi doesn't need to "modify" anything he has written in his 2007 book ("Reclaiming History"), nor SHOULD he modify anything he has already placed in that comprehensive publication.

The subject of the head wounds is thoroughly and logically laid out in very good detail in Mr. Bugliosi's book, in my opinion. But Mr. Canal has latched on to a couple of very odd theories concerning JFK's head wounds, with one of his theories being that the autopsy doctors at Bethesda hesitated to be totally forthright and truthful about the extent of damage that really existed in the back ("occipital") area of JFK's head as a result of the bullet that came out of Lee Harvey Oswald's gun.

But as I've suggested to Mr. Canal on multiple occasions in our Internet exchanges, his theory about the three autopsists simply crumbles into a pile of dust (in my own opinion) when we examine the theory in a reasonable and logical manner, such as in this excerpt of an Internet post I wrote in 2007:

"Since the autopsy report and doctors are so vivid and ultra-clear in the description of the ONE AND ONLY ENTRY HOLE in Kennedy's head (with that hole being positively consistent with the "Oswald Did This Alone" scenario, regardless of exactly WHERE the resulting exit wound were to reside on the President's head)....why would the doctors feel there was the slightest NEED to obfuscate and/or fudge in their descriptions of any "BOH" [Back Of Head] wound (large or small)?

You [John Canal] said that the [autopsy] doctors feared that by revealing a large BOH wound they would be opening up the door to rumors and speculations that JFK had been shot from the front.

But...why would the doctors necessarily feel this way? They've described the ONLY entry hole in the head as being at the rear of the head, proving without doubt that the only bullet that hit JFK's head came from the rear, from the direction where Oswald was firing a gun.

There was no other ENTRY hole in the front of the head. None. So even WITH a larger-sized "BOH" wound present on the head, I cannot adhere to any such potential "conspiratorial" concerns about such a larger BOH hole.

Such a large BOH hole, if it did exist as a result of ONLY ONE bullet striking JFK's head from the rear...could obviously have been easily explained by the same doctors as merely the extensive fragmentation of an already-weakened skull by the ONE bullet which entered the back of the head and then fragmented badly after entering the skull."
-- David Von Pein; April 22, 2007 (which was, by the way, one month before I ever laid eyes on Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History")

Source Link:

If Vince is interested in more of my long-winded opinions concerning Mr. Canal's strange theories about JFK's head wounds, I've provided a link below to an Internet post where I am responding to an earlier message written by John Canal. This post pretty much sums up my whole position regarding this matter:


Perhaps Mr. Bugliosi will have a different opinion on the matter after digesting John Canal's theories. But in my view, Mr. Canal is grasping for straws in order to try and reconcile (in his own mind) the discrepancies regarding JFK's head wounds.

There are, indeed, discrepancies when it comes to the topic of JFK's head wounds. There's no doubt about that. I just don't think Mr. Canal has the definitive answer to resolve those discrepancies.

And furthermore, the motive that Canal has attached to the three autopsy doctors for their wanting to hide the full truth about the condition of the back of President Kennedy's head is--in my own considered opinion--simply laughable.

Thank you for your time, Rosemary.

Best regards,
David Von Pein


Subject: Re: Vincent Bugliosi And JFK's Head Wounds
Date: 4/19/2009 8:41:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


Hi again Rosemary,

Sorry to bother you again, but I wanted to include a short (but important) "Common Sense Addendum" to my last e-mail that I sent you (regarding the specific subject of the location of the entry wound on the back of President Kennedy's head).

Researcher John Canal thinks that JFK's scalp is being "stretched" three or more inches in this autopsy picture below (thus distorting and skewing the true location of the entry wound in Kennedy's head):

Regarding this particular point, I wrote this message in an Internet post in early April of 2009 (and these are two very important questions too, relating to Mr. Canal's "scalp-stretching" theory):

"Why would the [autopsy] doctors have had a desire to document the TRUE location of the entry wound on the back of JFK's head by STRETCHING his scalp in such an extreme manner (per John Canal's theory) that the doctors and photographer John Stringer certainly must have KNOWN on 11/22/63 that such a photograph would NOT be depicting the TRUE and ACCURATE location of the entry wound?

Were the autopsy doctors deliberately TRYING to hide the true location of the entry hole by "stretching" the scalp in absurd ways before having a picture taken of the wound (i.e., a picture that was taken for the specific reason of showing WHERE on Kennedy's head the entry wound was located)?

Come now, John [Canal]....let's be reasonable about this."
-- DVP; April 4, 2009

Source Link:

Thank you for allowing me to bother you (and Vince) again.

David Von Pein


Subject: Re: Addendum To My Last E-Mail
Date: 4/19/2009 5:41:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


Hi David,

It was great hearing from you again. It has been a long time. I faxed Vince your e-mails and got a reply quickly. First off, Vince asked that I tell you how much he appreciates your continuing support. Here is his reply:

"In response to his e-mail you can quote me as saying: John Canal's theory suggests there was a cover-up by the autopsy doctors in the Kennedy assassination. If there is anyone who has read my book and still believes this, there obviously is nothing I can say to him or her to infuse their mind with common sense. However, in the spirit of scholarship that guided me while writing Reclaiming History, if it comes out in a second edition, I will examine and address myself to any responsible new theory, including Mr. Canal's, that came out subsequent to the publication of the book." [-- Vincent Bugliosi; April 19, 2009]

There you have it! I'll be checking on the internet.

Take care & stay cool,


Subject: Re: VB And JFK's Head Wounds
Date: 4/19/2009 10:13:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


Hi Rosemary,

Thanks for the quick reply...and my thanks to Vince too for his very fast reply as well.

Best Regards,
David Von Pein
April 19, 2009



Kudos! It works wonders when you call the bluff. More people should do it.

I did it with Aguilar and blew apart the Spiegelman, et al paper, so it always pays to stick to your guns.


DVP hopes like hell VB doesn't examine Canal's theory.


On the contrary....I hope Vince does examine your theories (plural; both the "Stretched Scalp/EOP" theory and your impossible-to-believe "There Was A Large-ish BOH Hole" theory).

Because in the final analysis, after examining those two theories, Mr. Bugliosi will undoubtedly be doing two things:

1.) Laughing himself silly.


2.) Wondering why in the world he even wasted time "examining" such incredible foolishness like those two theories of John Canal's.

You do realize, don't you John C., that if Vincent endorses your "Stretched Scalp/Wound Is At The EOP" theory, then Vince will have no choice but to call EVERY SINGLE PATHOLOGIST who examined the original autopsy photos and X-rays for the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Commission, and the House Select Committee either outright LIARS and/or COVER-UP OPERATIVES of some kind (which I kind of doubt Mr. Bugliosi is going to do)....

....Or: Vince B. will have to say, in essence, that all of those pathologists who said the entry wound was located 10 centimeters above the EOP (numbering more than a dozen doctors in total) were totally incompetent and/or that EVERY ONE OF THEM blew it big-time when they said what they said in their various reports for THREE different Government investigations.

In other words, Vincent T. Bugliosi would have to actually come out and say (in essence) that John Canal is right and over a dozen trained medical professionals who examined the autopsy photographs and X-rays are dead wrong.

Likely? Or not?

And as far as the "BOH" theory of yours is concerned....you, John C., don't have a leg to stand on there either, largely due to the fact that your whole theory explodes in your face when we take a look at the main REASON that you think we don't today know the whole truth regarding the "BOH" situation -- i.e., your impossible-to-prove theory about how the autopsy doctors (and Dr. Burkley too; might as well throw him into the pot too) were afraid to reveal to the world that there was ANY kind of a large-ish wound in the back of JFK's head for fears that any type of large BOH wound would make people think "conspiracy".

I guess Dr. Humes blew it, though, when you say that he DID tell us that there WAS a (large-ish) hole in the back of Kennedy's head in BOTH the autopsy report and in front of the Warren Commission.

Oops! Looks like John's theory just suffered another blow in the "logic" department.

Plus there's the fact that you possess absolutely no photographic evidence to support your "BOH" theory whatsoever. In fact, ALL of the photographic evidence (the autopsy photos, the X-rays, and the Zapruder Film) are proving that your theory is complete bunk.

But John, amazingly, thinks that ALL of those photographic items are NOT TELLING US THE REAL STORY ABOUT JOHN KENNEDY'S HEAD WOUNDS. All of them! And IN UNISON they are not telling the whole story about the head wounds! That's called "wishful thinking", folks. No two ways around it.

So, I'd then ask -- Why even HAVE any photos or X-rays taken at all?! They apparently are showing us exactly the OPPOSITE of the truth (per John Canal). So why even bother with them at all? The pictures and X-rays (and the Z-Film too, to a certain extent) are merely clouding the truth (per John Canal).

Right, John?

Anyway, I look forward to VB ripping John Canal's theories (plural) to shreds. But I doubt that will ever happen (in print form), however. Because I doubt that a "Second Edition" of "Reclaiming History" will ever see the light of day.

I hope I'm wrong about that last statement. Because I'd like for a few of the small errors that appear in the current First Edition of "RH" to some day be corrected in a future version of the book.

But even if a Second Edition is never published, Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" will probably always remain the most comprehensive and (overall) accurate book ever released concerning the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

David Von Pein
April 22, 2009