(PART 902)

Subject: Mark Lane
Date: 3/5/2010 8:44:26 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton (Vincent Bugliosi's secretary)


Hi Rosemary,

The link at the bottom of this e-mail message contains a short 10-minute audio interview with conspiracy kook Mark Lane. The interview, which took place on March 4, 2010, is one that I thought Vincent Bugliosi would want to hear. (Maybe you can bookmark the link so you can cue it up for Vince the next time he comes to your house, since he doesn't have a computer to access it himself.)

In this brief interview, among other assorted unflattering and laughable comments he makes about Vince B., Mark Lane says that Vincent Bugliosi--are you sitting down?--"knows nothing about the Kennedy assassination".

And this is a guy (Mark Lane) who threatened to sue Bugliosi a few years ago because of the so-called "lies" that Vince said about Lane in "Reclaiming History". It sounds to me as if Vince might be able to turn the tables on Mr. Lane when it comes to slander and/or libel lawsuits.

Can you just imagine the monster-sized gonads it takes to go on an Internet radio program (in the year 2010, three years after "Reclaiming History" was published!) and make the outrageous claim that Vincent Bugliosi "knows nothing about the Kennedy assassination"? It takes some oversized family jewels to do something like that indeed!

Mr. Bugliosi is a person who worked for over 20 years writing the definitive book on the JFK case, and now, three years after that book was released, we hear it from Mark Lane that Vincent "knows nothing" about the JFK case at all!

There oughta be a law on the books to keep such outright nonsense off of the radio (or anywhere else).

In my opinion, what it boils down to is this -- the conspiracy-happy nuts in America (including Mark Lane) are blowing off steam and are getting hotter under the collar with each passing day due to the fact that Tom Hanks and Company are going forward with their "Reclaiming History" Home Box Office mini-series [which was ultimately reduced to the 2013 feature motion picture, "Parkland"]. And the fact that such an "Oswald Did It Alone" movie project is being worked on is simply driving the conspiracy theorists crazy.

And, you know what? I'm loving it! These JFK conspiracy nuts (like Mr. Lane and many others) have had their undeserved moment in the sun for too long. It's time that these charlatans and evidence manipulators are taken down a peg or two (or 152)!

I say BRAVO to Vincent Bugliosi, Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton, Gary Goetzman, and Home Box Office for bringing the TRUE FACTS of Lee Harvey Oswald's LONE GUILT in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy to the doorsteps of all Americans....which is where that truth should reside--for all time.

And if Mark Lane objects -- that's just tough s**t!

Here's the link to Lane's hilarious and ridiculous (but thankfully brief) Internet radio appearance from March 4th, 2010. [Also available via the embedded audio player below.]

Should Mr. Bugliosi want to make any kind of a reply or statement after listening to the above-linked tripe that was spewed forth by Mark Lane, I would (as always) be happy to relay any such message via the "Internet" airwaves.

Best regards,
David Von Pein


Subject: Mark Lane (Addendum)
Date: 3/5/2010 10:46:42 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


Hi again Rosemary,

Upon listening again to the March 4th Mark Lane radio interview, I noted Lane saying:

"There is nothing in the Bugliosi book which relates to reality."

Again, I hope you were seated when you gazed upon that last Lane quote, because the idiocy within that single statement is enough to knock all reasonable people right off their feet.

Mr. Lane also referred to Tom Hanks as "a horse's ass".

And Lane also embarrassed himself further by saying this about Vincent Bugliosi and Vince's book "Reclaiming History":

"He probably never even wrote the book."

It's that dreaded "ghostwriting" rumor coming back to the surface once again, I see. And this keeps cropping up occasionally, even after you yourself, Rosemary, chopped it down to size [HERE] in July of 2007 when you thoroughly trashed that rumor, which was started by David Lifton in May 2007.

So, it would appear that I haven't been giving Mark Lane nearly enough credit in the past -- because he's a much bigger kook than I had originally thought he was before today.

Congratulations, Mark, on getting the promotion.

Thanks again, Rosemary, for reading my mails.

Yours truly,
David V.P.


Subject: Mark Lane
Date: 3/5/2010 1:34:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


Hi Dave,

Thanks so much for your e-mails. Incredible! I faxed them to Vince and I'm sure he'll see the light about his erroneous slant of the assassination. Perhaps Tom Hanks (aka "a horse's ass") will too.

Regards, Rosemary

P.S. I have more patience with my six-year-old grandson.




It's also very funny to note that apparently Mark Lane's BIGGEST GRIPE (i.e., Bugliosi's BIGGEST ERROR) concerning the very little that Lane read of "Reclaiming History" is when VB got the name of a New York STREET wrong.

Two or three different times on Black Op Radio Mark Lane has brought up that sinful and horrible "STREET NAME" error of Bugliosi's.

Out of all the things related to the complex details surrounding everything in the JFK case, Mark Lane has focused on VB's tiny error about the name of a street and has propped up that mistake as a springboard to disregard a whole bunch of other stuff in Vincent's mammoth book.

Kind of gives you a clue at how deep Mr. Lane had to search to find something FACTUALLY INCORRECT in "Reclaiming History". Of course, Lane thinks the whole "RH" book is factually incorrect (naturally). But virtually everything else (except the silly "street name" error) is stuff that Lane, in his own conspiracy-oriented mind, only THINKS Bugliosi has got all wrong.

But when weighed against the TRUE FACTS of the case, a conspiracy kook's speculation and guesswork (sprinkled with a few lies and half-truths along the way) couldn't possibly matter less in the long run.

David Von Pein
March 5, 2010
March 6, 2010