(PART 1237)


Here's my take on this "ragged" thing that conspiracy theorist Ben Holmes just will not let go of -----> CLICK HERE.


You're lying, David Von Pein. YOU'RE LYING! .... You've outright lied that these sources don't include the word "ragged". One does not - Dr. Humes didn't mention it. But Perry did.


You're an idiot. And apparently you're an idiot who can't read at all.

The sources I mentioned don't include the word "ragged" anywhere. I checked them carefully before I ever posted what I wrote last July.

The page you linked to (MD 58; Pg. 15) is irrelevant, because it is not the same source page I discussed in my July 2011 post on this subject.

The source note that appears in Bugliosi's book at that point in his "Four Days" chapter is this one:

1069. ARRB MD 58, Interview of Malcolm Perry by Andy Purdy and T. M. Flanagan on January 11, 1978, p.9; 7 HSCA 257.

A specific page within MD58 is mentioned by Bugliosi there, and only ONE specific page, and that is page 9. And nowhere on Page 9 of MD58 does the word "ragged" appear.

Therefore, I am 100% correct in my original July 2011 post regarding this matter.

And (as always) Ben Holmes is dead wrong.


It's certainly credible to explain this, not as a lie, but as sheer ignorance and stupidity about the medical evidence. You can even dress it up nicely by describing such ignorance as a "senior moment". But the sad truth is that it's not going to be very credible that he didn't know that the original bullet wound *LOOKED* like an entry.


You're nuts.

You're acting as if Bugliosi never ONCE mentions in his book that Dr. Perry said the throat wound looked like an entry wound.

When, in point of fact, Mr. Bugliosi discusses the "entry vs. exit" controversy concerning the throat wound in multiple places in his book, e.g.:

"Perry...thinks the wound in the throat they enlarged for the tracheotomy was an entrance wound." -- "Reclaiming History"; Page 128

"Dr. Perry testified before the Warren Commission that he did not know whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound. However, at a press conference at Parkland Hospital commencing at 3:16 p.m. on the day of the assassination, he told the assembled media that "the wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat." Confronted with this apparent contradiction when he was interviewed by the HSCA, he tried to explain his press conference remarks by saying that "I thought it looked like an entrance wound because it was small, but I didn't look for any others, and so that was just a guess"." -- "Reclaiming History"; Page 412

It's also rather humorous to note that at one point in Holmes' tedious essay, he yells at me multiple times ("YOU'RE LYING!")...but it's about an issue in which I am essentially AGREEING with him -- i.e., I am saying that Bugliosi is wrong (at least with respect to the precise word "ragged") when Vince cited "MD58, p.9" at one point in his book. But Holmes, incredibly, decided to call me a liar at that particular point in his argument--even though I was saying that Bugliosi was, indeed, wrong about something. Amazing.


David Von Pein has clearly refused to defend his website post - it's not defensible. He did exactly what Bugliosi did - he lied.


I didn't lie at all, and Holmes knows it. He's nuts (as usual).

Holmes is just too stupid to figure out that "brain cramp" does not equal "lie" -- and it never has.

I wonder if Holmes even bothered to take a look at (and listen to) the amazingly silly "brain cramp" of Bugliosi's in Nov. 2007 that I talked about earlier (for which I also provided an audio file [the one linked below]).

Here's another "VB Brain Cramp" example:

In November 2009, Mr. Bugliosi made a personal appearance someplace, and at the end of his presentation he was talking to a bunch of conspiracy freaks about various stupid conspiracies that these kooks believe in [see the video below] -- and at one point Vince says that "after the first shot, one Secret Service agent left the Presidential limo and went back [to the Secret Service car?]", with that agent being "left behind" in Dealey Plaza after the assassination. In reality, of course, no Secret Service agent ever left the President's car at any time in Dealey Plaza.

That was a "brain cramp". It had to be. Because Vince really knows full well that no SS agent who was riding in JFK's car (and there were only two in that car--Bill Greer and Roy Kellerman) vacated the President's limousine in Dealey Plaza. It didn't happen.

Vince, in the video below, might be confusing Lem Johns with other SS agents in the Queen Mary follow-up car or in JFK's car.

So it's quite clear to me that Vincent's memory isn't what it used to be, and he forgets things and conflates other things. But he isn't "lying" with the "intent to deceive" -- ever.

And nobody will ever get me to believe that Vince has said or written anything about the JFK case that is a deliberate "lie" (with the intent to deceive someone).

In other words -- When Vince says something (even in a "brain cramp" or "senior moment" mode), he truly believes he is telling the truth about that subject matter. He might be wrong, but he's not lying. He's just having a brain cramp. And I proved in the video above (and via my other "Garrison/Z-Film" example) that Vince DOES, indeed, have such memory lapses.

And the "ragged" thing is one such brain cramp that made its way into "Reclaiming History".

Another one can be found on Pages 423 and 424 of "RH", when Vince is, in essence, saying that JFK's throat wound was located both above AND below the wound in Kennedy's upper back.

Footnote Regarding That 2009 Video Clip ---

The conspiracy kooks talking to Bugliosi in that video don't have the slightest idea what they're talking about either, with one of the kooks saying that the Secret Service "standdown" took place just "50 yards" prior to the time JFK was shot. When, of course, the video footage the kooks are referring to is really the WFAA footage taken at Love Field, which shows Don Lawton shrugging as he stops running alongside JFK's limo.


It is, however, a fact that Lem Johns WAS left behind.


But Johns wasn't in the President's car. Nor was he riding in the Queen Mary SS follow-up car either. I mention the latter point just in case Bugliosi really was referring to an agent leaving the Secret Service car in Dealey Plaza, instead of the President's car, because there is the report of SS Agent John Ready, who was riding on the right-front running board of the Queen Mary follow-up car. Ready said this in his SS Report:

"The President's car slowed, someone in the follow-up car stated he was shot, and I left to run to the President's car. At that time I was recalled to the follow-up car and took the right front seat aside of ATSAIC Roberts, and proceeded to a hospital several miles distant." -- John D. Ready

But, as we can see, Ready was not left behind in Dealey Plaza.


So you added "The" and removed the fact that Bugliosi was speaking of the SAME bullet track, and merely moving the body. There's not even a *HINT* that he's doing what you claimed.


So, you think the photo on the left (below) shows Kennedy leaning forward, eh? In other words, if we're to believe the HSCA (and Page 423 of Bugliosi's book), JFK isn't even close to being in the "anatomic" or "autopsy" position in the left-hand autopsy picture here:

Because, according to the HSCA (and according to Bugliosi on Page 423), the ONLY WAY to get the throat wound in a position that is LOWER than the back wound is by having JFK lean forward 11 to 18 degrees.

But how can the deceased John Kennedy be leaning forward AT ALL in an autopsy photo which shows him lying flat on his back on a table?

I'd love for an HSCA member to answer that last question (after looking at the two autopsy photos above).


Nice of you to agree with me. It's NOT going to be credible explaining that Bugliosi didn't know the correct description [of JFK's throat wound].


Therefore, Ben, you think Bugliosi would have intentionally put into his book some things that directly contradict each other. Right?

Why did he do that, Ben? Didn't he know that people like you would scour his work and bring up the contradictions?

And it would be particularly silly for a person like Bugliosi to do something underhanded like that, for he is a man who has repeatedly said: "Credibility means everything to me. If you've lost the confidence of the jury [or the people reading my book], then you've lost the case."

There are no DVP "lies" associated with Ben Holmes' obsessive "ragged" discussions at all. Holmes can't even read a source note properly. He thinks "MD58, p.9" is the exact same thing as "MD58, p.15". Curious.

But, maybe Holmes had a brain cramp. :-)

David Von Pein
July 14-15, 2011
May 29-31, 2012