PAT SPEER SAID:
David,
Jim [DiEugenio's] problem with the SBT at [Zapruder frame] 224 comes not from Connally's not being hit at this time, but from Kennedy's having been hit almost two seconds earlier.
Now, try as you might, you can't argue he is wrong on this without exposing yourself as a "theorist" at odds with "officialdom".
You see, the HSCA photography panel concluded as much back in the 70's and your friend Vinnie [Bugliosi] pushed as much in his "mock" trial.
Of course, you won't find Vinnie acknowledging as much in his book, now will you? After all, it might hurt his credibility a bit if he let his readers know he'd misled the jury during the mock trial.
Am I wrong?
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I think it's fairly obvious why Vince Bugliosi endorsed the silly Z190 HSCA timing for the SBT at the 1986 TV docu-trial -- it was because the person who testified for the prosecution during that "trial" was a member of the HSCA's photographic panel, Cecil Kirk, and Kirk endorsed the Z190 SBT timing [see video below].
Over a period of time after 1986, while writing his book, Bugliosi quite obviously realized the silliness of the Z190 timing for the Single-Bullet Theory, and Vince adjusted the shot to a later Zapruder Film frame.
Vince, of course, is still 100% wrong about his "new" SBT time (around Z210), but at least he got a lot closer to the correct frame of Z224 when he shifted from Z190 to circa Z210.
Plus, I'll add this -- Even if Bugliosi, in 1986, had completely disagreed with Kirk's Z190 time for the SBT, I'm guessing that Vince wouldn't have made a huge issue out of the discrepancy during Vincent's questioning of Kirk on the witness stand.
Why not?
Because whether the shot occurred at Z190 or Z210 (or whenever), the man Vince had on the witness stand at the '86 TV trial was still testifying to the likelihood of the SBT being true (which, of course, it is, regardless of what EXACT Zapruder Film frame it occurred at).
Footnote -- I do think that Mr. Bugliosi should have explained in his 2007 book ["Reclaiming History"] the reason(s) he was endorsing a completely different SBT Z-Film timeline in 1986 vs. the Z210 timeline that appears in his book.
And if Vince had provided such an explanation in his book (which, as Pat Speer says, I do not think he did), I believe that explanation would be very similar to the one I just laid out above.
David Von Pein
April 14, 2010
