(PART 991)


[Dale] Myers is a fraud.



But then, what does that make Vincent Bugliosi?


Subject: The Latest Attacks On Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"
Date: 2/27/2010 4:34:09 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton [Vincent Bugliosi's secretary]


Hi Rosemary,

If Mr. Bugliosi ever feels compelled to write a response to some of his critics regarding the JFK case, and would like to post his remarks on the Internet, I (of course) would be more than happy to post such a response in his name on my own websites (blogs) and on the JFK forums that I routinely visit.

Not that any amount of common sense or logic (or evidence!) will ever sway the conspiracy kooks, but if Vince ever feels he wants to get some thoughts off his chest by writing up some kind of a response to people like DiEugenio or this Remington fellow or Jim Fetzer (who hates Vincent's book with a passion as well) or Bob Groden, et al, I will always be ready and willing to post his comments online--and at every JFK forum I have access to.


Best wishes always,
David Von Pein
February 27, 2010


Subject: DiEugenio
Date: 2/27/2010 7:34:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


Hi Dave,

Vince just faxed me the following: "Tell David Von Pein that he can quote me as saying: "I thought Jim DiEugenio was a serious person." "

Regards, Rosemary


Subject: Re: DiEugenio
Date: 2/27/2010 8:08:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


Thank you, Rosemary and Vince.

I will.

David V.P.


5 year old letters from people who had to ask other people to relay his quotes is what you're posting?


That's about the size of it, yeah. I just felt like sharing after reading DiEugenio's latest Bugliosi-bashing post.

(Vince B. had an aversion to computers, you see. So his messages to me had to be relayed through someone else.)


You make many flat statements that this evidence proves O's [Oswald's] guilt, when in fact, by your own provided definition, evidence only serves as being "helpful in forming" a conclusion. In other words, by the use of the word "help", other evidence is necessary to be included.


I'm just curious to know HOW MANY pieces of evidence conspiracy theorists require in order for the SUM TOTAL of those pieces to become the equivalent of "proof"? Does such a number exist? Or could there EVER be enough pieces of evidence against Oswald that would convince a CTer? I truly wonder.

Again, it's by looking at ALL of the stuff that points to Oswald that makes an "Oswald Is Guilty" conclusion mandatory, in my opinion. Not by isolating everything and keeping every single item separated from the whole -- which is precisely what conspiracists very often do, such as when CTers isolate Oswald's unusual Thursday trip to Irving. I've heard some CTers say to me: Well, Dave, just because LHO decided he wanted to visit his wife on a Thursday for a change, that doesn't prove he murdered anybody the next day.

And, yes, that is true. The Thursday trip to Irving--when isolated by itself--doesn't prove a darn thing. But when that unusual Thursday trip to Ruth Paine's house is added to all of the other items of evidence, then that Irving excursion by Oswald takes on a whole new meaning. But it seems as though some conspiracists I've talked to never want to ADD IN anything else after they berate me for having the audacity to suggest that Lee Oswald's visit to Irving on November 21st should be INCLUDED in the list of things that ADD UP to Oswald's guilt.

Another classic example of CTer Isolation involves Oswald's fingerprints and palmprints being found on the boxes that were inside the Sniper's Nest on the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building. I can't remember how many times I've argued with various conspiracy theorists over the last several years about those prints. And I have always admitted that those prints on the TSBD boxes, by themselves, do not PROVE that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy. But when those prints are ADDED to the other pieces of Oswald-incriminating evidence, then those prints rise to a much higher level of importance and significance, IMO.

But the CTers I've talked to about those prints will almost always scold me for even bringing those prints up at all, as if I should just totally ignore them altogether, with those CTers invariably saying something along the following lines --- Well, you know, Davey, that Oswald did work there at the Depository. You know that, right? So why wouldn't his prints be on those boxes? It was just a part of his regular work duties to touch the boxes and move them around. So your arguments about the Sniper's Nest prints mean nothing.

It took me only a few seconds to find just such an argument in my archived discussions on my website (copied below). And there are no doubt a few more in there too....

ROB CAPRIO SAID --- "So what [if LHO's prints are on the boxes in the Sniper's Nest]? He worked there."

DAVID VON PEIN THEN SAID --- "The LHO prints on the SN boxes are not (themselves) conclusive proof of Oswald's guilt, true. But when placing those prints (and the critical, key LOCATIONS of where those prints were found and on WHAT SPECIFIC BOXES) next to all of the other "LHO Was Here" evidence that is piled against the door, those box prints of Oswald's become more significant, in that those prints are CORROBORATIVE OF OTHER "OSWALD" EVIDENCE that was found in the Sniper's Nest. It's beyond me how anyone can completely dismiss those multiple LHO prints (which are prints that were found on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the assassin's Sniper's Nest) with the typical three-word CTer retort of "He worked there". The "he worked there" response that we always hear from conspiracy theorists is a weak retort with respect to the fingerprints on the boxes, IMO, considering WHAT ELSE was also found under that sixth-floor window on November 22nd." -- DVP; November 2007


You too often SAY that some such single piece of evidence proves his guilt.


Where? When?

Hey, almost no one has a perfect memory. I certainly don't. So I suppose you MIGHT be able to find some post written by me where I (foolishly) stated that a SINGLE item of evidence "proves" Oswald's guilt.

I, however, do not think I have ever constructed a post using those exact words before. I certainly cannot recall ever having done so. But if you do find one, I would like to see it--so I can delete it. So please keep hunting for such a post, and if you find one, please let me know. Because I think you're right on this point---not any SINGLE thing "proves" Oswald's guilt in the JFK and Tippit murders. It's always been my belief (which I've stated hundreds of times over the years) that it's the "totality" or "sum total" of evidence that proves Oswald was guilty.

I'll give you a heads-up, Glenn (so you won't have to dig for it), to a post I wrote in January 2006, entitled "THESE TWO THINGS PROVE LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S GUILT BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT". That article was written as a kind of an experiment (based on Vince Bugliosi's claim that "You could throw 80% of the evidence against Oswald out the window and there would still be more than enough left to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"). But even in that article, I'm not singling out just ONE item of evidence. It's two things.


Talk about leading with your chin again.

DVP names the rifle as being ordered by Oswald, and the paper bag as being conclusive proof of Oswald's guilt.


"...and the paper bag as being conclusive proof of Oswald's guilt..."

I'd sure like to see this exact post, Jim.


Jim was referring to the "Two Things" article that I already linked earlier.

The two things being....

1.) Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle was positively the weapon that was used to assassinate President Kennedy and wound Texas Governor John Connally. (With said weapon being found inside the building where Oswald was definitely located at 12:30 PM on November 22, 1963, when both of these men were wounded by rifle fire.)

2.) Oswald was seen carrying a bulky paper package into his place of employment at the Texas School Book Depository Building on the morning of 11/22/63, and Oswald (beyond a reasonable doubt) lied about the contents of this package to a co-worker.


And on, and on, and on, and ON... ad nauseam.


What do you mean, David? I was actually doing something in that "Two Things" article that I never do -- I was "isolating" some of the evidence in order to make a point. As I told Glenn earlier, it was done as an exercise or "experiment" to emphasize and buttress Vince Bugliosi's comment about how you could toss aside "80% of the evidence" and still come away with a guilty Oswald.

But that is something--isolating from the whole--that I can only recall doing in that one instance (for that "Two Things" article in 2006). And I do, indeed, nine years later, still think I'm correct with respect to those "two things" that I isolated in that article. Because those two things, in tandem, in my opinion do add up to a GUILTY LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

What other reason--except for wanting to hide his guilt--would Oswald have had for telling his "curtain rods" lie to Wesley Frazier? (And he lied to Frazier TWICE remember--once on Nov. 21 and then again on the morning of Nov. 22.)

The FACT that the rifle was OSWALD'S (which it was, regardless of anything the CTers say about it--which are desperate and laughable arguments by those CTers in an anemic effort to keep Oswald away from Rifle C2766 at all costs), PLUS the fact Oswald was carrying a large-ish package with him on Nov. 22 (confirmed by TWO different witnesses), which was a package that Oswald LIED about when he told Wesley Frazier it contained curtain rods, are things that add up to only one thing, IMO --- Oswald's guilt. (And that's why LHO had to lie about what was in that paper bag.)


The curtain rods story did not originate with Oswald.

That is pure hearsay through Frazier.


Great tactic, Jim. Make Buell Wesley Frazier the villain, instead of accepting the truth about Oswald's curtain rod lie.

That's exactly the type of argument that only a truly desperate conspiracy theorist would even consider making. A conspiracy theorist like, say, James DiEugenio, who admitted on July 26, 2015, that he considers himself to be "part of the defense team".


Oswald did not order or pick up that rifle.


More pure fantasy on DiEugenio's behalf. Or--to be more accurate--pure wishful thinking.

No reasonable person thinks Oswald never ordered the rifle. And, once again, the preposterous "Oswald Never Ordered The Rifle" myth is precisely the kind of claptrap that you'd expect to come from a person who said --- "It's not my job to say what really happened. I am part of the defense team."

Who's leading with their chin now, Jimmy?


The FBI and the Rifle: the final story:


Note I did not head this "Oswald and the Rifle". Because after this, I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction.

This is the most complete and detailed look at this whole imbroglio you will likely find anywhere.

After all is said and done, the whole transaction as listed in the WC is specious.

I will post the time line on the creation of the money order, which is fascinating.

Here is the time line on that phony money order:



Here's a real doozy of a conspiracy myth/fantasy:

The "Oswald Never Ordered The Rifle" Myth

And also see the video (audio) below....

1964 Rifle Debate (Mark Lane vs. Joe Ball):

The complete 2.5-hour debate can be heard HERE.


LOL, what does a 1964 debate between Lane and Ball have to do with all this new evidence?

Oh, you don't want to deal with new evidence which shows the rifle was never ordered or picked up. Just like Vince [Bugliosi] did not.


Complete garbage. There is no "new" evidence that proves your goofy "No Rifle Was Ordered" theory, Jimmy. Only the CT INTERPRETATION of the Klein's evidence. And it's an interpretation that's about as believable as the moonbat "No Airplanes Hit The World Trade Center" theories. It's THAT ridiculous. You should be thoroughly embarrassed at having written the following words -- "I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction." [J. DiEugenio; 8/5/15]

But evidently no theory is too fringe-like for Mr. DiEugenio. He's proven that fact over and over again ----> 22 Stupid Things James DiEugenio Believes

Joe Ball's 1964 retort to Mark Lane concerning Oswald's rifle purchase is just as true today as it was then. It's a great quote, and completely accurate:

"I've never heard such a major distortion of what is actually a conclusive fact." -- Joseph A. Ball; 12/4/64

David Von Pein
August 4-5, 2015
August 5, 2015