(PART 124)


I thought the Tippit case merited a new look [see link below] considering the appearance of the McBride book, which has not gotten enough attention I think.

And also some work by other people like Armstrong and Simpich and Mike Griffith, who is also relatively ignored. In my view, the Tippit case has been taken to a new plateau.

How anyone can read Croy's story and keep a straight face is beyond me. Due to the work of these writers, the Tippit case looks very suspicious today.

KennedysAndKing.com/The Tippit Case In The New Millennium


I kind of felt that the stuff in McBride's book had gone unrecognized by the research community. I really do think that his book is by far the best compendium of research on that case that we now have. And...it was time to reassess that case.

A few things that struck me were:

1. The press interview that [Dallas Police Department Sergeant Gerald L.] Hill did late in the afternoon where he pretty much smears the heck out of Oswald before any of the forensic tests are in. I mean, where did he get that stuff? He said he got it from Westbrook.

[DVP Note -- Click here and here for two interviews with Gerald Hill on 11/22/63.]

2. Hill also said that Westbrook told him to add Oswald as the suspect in the JFK case as well as the Tippit case. And I could not find anyone who ever asked either guy: Why the heck would you do that so early? This was even before Hill went on the air.

3. The Holan testimony, and the corroboration. That is important. And thanks to David Josephs for drawing that map of it and Jim Hargrove for letting me use it. That shows you how she could see what she did so well. Also, how close she and Higgins were.

4. How can anyone believe anything that Croy said? I was not kidding when I drew that map of Dealey Plaza and said underneath, if Croy was not lying this belongs on a SNL skit. And that pile of baloney gives him and Westbrook a large amount of unaccounted-for time.

5. No one ever saw the Oswald wallet on the ground. Croy was the first guy on the scene and he gave it to Westbrook.

We have come a long way in the Tippit case. Thanks to the people in the article, especially McBride.


Anyone who really wants to understand the Tippit case needs to read McBride's book. It is really a fountain of information on that case.

It's really incredible to think that no one talked to Tippit's father before Joe [McBride] did.

Plus the background work that McBride did on Tippit went rocket miles above what the WC [Warren Commission] did.

What his book shows is that, on a smaller scale, the WC did just as bad a job on the Tippit case as they did on the Kennedy shooting.

BTW, when you read the article, the webmaster made the sources clickable. There is so much good and new information in there that you really should read some of them. As I said, the calculus on the Tippit case has truly been altered with this new work. Led by McBride's book.


That anyone in the 21st century can have even a shred of a doubt about Lee Harvey Oswald's painfully obvious guilt in the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit is beyond me. (But I'm certainly not surprised that another Oswald Didn't Do It thread would pop up here at EF Conspiracy Central.)

In short, we have the BEST possible COMBINATION of evidence that hangs Oswald in the Tippit case---

1. Physical (ballistics) evidence left behind at the murder scene by the one and only gunman. (With the murderer---Oswald---being kind enough to HANG ONTO that gun after the crime, instead of chucking it in a dumpster in the alley behind Jefferson Boulevard someplace. Thank you for that, Lee.)


2. A multiplicity of witnesses who positively identified Lee Oswald as the one and only person who shot Officer Tippit or fled the scene (gun in hand) immediately after the shooting.*

* And the people, like Mark Lane, who don't even consider William Scoggins to be a good witness to the murder itself are highly delusional (and they should know why without me even mentioning the reasons).


"Just having Lee Oswald in the general area of the crime, with a gun, and acting "funny" and obviously avoiding the police is a good hunk of circumstantial evidence leading to his guilt right there. Where does the road of common sense take a reasonable person when JUST the above after-the-shooting activity of Lee Harvey Oswald is examined objectively? It sure doesn't lead to total innocence, I'll tell ya that right now. (Especially when the stuff that went on inside the movie theater is factored in as well.) In a nutshell, this murder boils down to the following concrete fact (based on the overall weight of the evidence that surrounds the crime): If Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill J.D. Tippit -- then J.D. Tippit wasn't killed at all. Maybe it was all some kind of "Bobby Was In The Shower" type of dream or something instead." -- David Von Pein; October 2006


Evidence Galore.....


JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/Oliver Stone & J.D. Tippit



Hill was the policeman who first reported from the Tippit scene that the shells fired there were from an automatic.


The delay in getting the shells on the inventory list and the failure to send all the ammunition exhibits promptly to the FBI has led some to suspect that the police fiddled with the evidence—to the extent that it suggests that the original weapon perhaps really was an automatic.


But regardless of anything that was ever said by DPD Sergeant Jerry Hill, and regardless of any "delay" in sending any bullet shells to the FBI, when we examine what the multiple eyewitnesses at 10th & Patton said about the gunman DUMPING SHELLS out of his gun as he fled the scene of the crime, and when we think about WHERE the four bullet shells were actually found (which was many yards away from where the murder actually occurred, with the murder occurring right next to Tippit's police car, which is a location where NO bullet shells were recovered), then the idea of the Tippit murder weapon really being an "automatic" becomes a virtual impossibility.

And I don't think even any hardened conspiracy theorist has enough gall to call ALL of the various witnesses liars who verified the aspects of the Tippit case I just talked about---i.e., the "Shell Dumping" witnesses (Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, Sam Guinyard) and the "Shells Were Found Near The Corner Of Tenth & Patton" witnesses (Domingo Benavides, Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis).


The following is a fact: There is simply no proof that Oswald ever picked up that .38 Smith and Wesson modified Victory model at REA.


Doesn't matter one bit. Oswald had that exact gun in his hands just 35 minutes after Tippit was shot with that gun. And the constant protests from the conspiracy crowd couldn't possibly matter less when compared to the fact I just mentioned.

Meaning: It's impossible (in the real world) for Lee Harvey Oswald to be innocent of shooting Officer J.D. Tippit.


And as McBride points out in his book after a long seven page analysis, the ballistics evidence is an absolute mess.


Total BS. The two non-Poe bullet shells recovered at the scene of Tippit's murder have a clear and distinct chain of possession --- From Davis to Doughty for one of them. And from Davis to Dhority for the other one. And that's a fact too.


This is your problem Davey. And it makes your denial syndrome even more ingrained. You come over here and you start preaching to all of us like we are all stupid, or ignorant or liars. You just now said that there is a clear line in the two shells not attributed to Poe. And you therefore call me a BSer.

Because you think you are above us all, you did not even read my article. Because I show with a reference to a footnote that the Davis sisters could not verify the shells when the FBI contacted them and showed them the exhibits.

But beyond that, the shells were not even entered on the inventory until six days later. Plus they were not sent to the FBI for how long?

You either knew about this and chose to ignore it, or you did not know about it. If the former, you are not being honest. If the latter, then are not a researcher. But then, if the latter, then you will say, well I am not really a researcher. Then why do you pontificate to the rest of us like you are?

You have never been able to confront or even acknowledge this personal conundrum in your personality.


Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis, of course, could not "VERIFY" with 100% certainty that the shells they were shown were the EXACT same shells they each recovered --- and that's because neither of those witnesses MARKED those shells. So how could either Davis girl possibly know for sure they were the exact same shells? They couldn't. But the markings of the police officers (George M. Doughty and C.N. Dhority) are the markings that provide the rock-solid chain of custody for those two non-Poe bullet shells.

In June 1964, both Doughty and Dhority positively identified their initials on the shells in question (see CE2011, Page 7 and Page 8; also see Dale Myers' book, "With Malice", Pages 266-269). And those shells positively came out of Revolver V510210 (i.e., Oswald's gun) [see 3 H 466].

And this same type of thing occurred with the witnesses surrounding Stretcher Bullet CE399 too. Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright didn't put their initials on that bullet, so (obviously) all they could reasonably say is that the bullet shown to them later "looked like" the bullet they saw on 11/22 --- which each of them DID say on 6/12/64.

I can't really see what the purpose is of the FBI even bothering to show a civilian witness a piece of evidence that the FBI has to know was never marked/initialled by the witness they're showing it to. The FBI has got to know that the witness isn't going to be able to positively I.D. such an item. But the FBI keeps showing witnesses evidence anyway. I guess it's just so they can get the "It Looks Generally Like It" response from the witness. Which, of course, is better for the prosecutors than getting a "No, This Is Definitely Not The Same One" response from a witness.


If you have not read it, this is Joe [McBride's] reply to [Dale] Myers, who thinks he owns the Tippit case.


I'll provide Dale Myers with a bit of "equal time" here:







Why does he [Dale Myers] deserve equal time? He's a fiction writer for operation mockingbird. I thought we were looking for the Truth on this site.


That's a cheap shot, Ron. If there are any "fiction" writers on the subject of the events of 11/22/63, it's most certainly not Dale K. Myers.

Here are the things I'd label as "fiction" (and some of those things are downright fantasy).


Let me post my reasons for not finding Dale Myers credible, one more time:


As usual, your "evidence" is no evidence whatsoever - it's merely your conclusion and click bait for a cheesy website. YOU ARE NOT A SOURCE. YOUR OPINION IS NOT EVIDENCE. Let the evidence speak for itself and save us your pre-determined CIA-is-in-control-of-the-world "reference" that cites as "evidence" other conspiracy theorists. Please.


Your "reference" is nothing but a daisy chain of conspiracy theorists citing other conspiracy theorists in an absurd echo chamber where primary sources are nowhere in sight. You cite yourself, Gary Aguilar, Tink Thompson, et al., as if the conclusions of conspiracy theorists in a feedback loop are evidence.

Naming those who think Dale Myers lacks credibility is of no bearing on the credibility of Dale Myers.

Can I politely ask you to pause your enmity for me personally and consider a point in abstract? Because I am not one of your disciples and because I choose to engage Paul Trejo, I know your imperative is always to attack me...but...would you accept the opinion of Gerald Ford or Richard Helms or Gerald Posner as credible if their evidence was nothing but the opinions of Gerald Ford or Richard Helms or Gerald Posner?

Opinions and conclusions are not evidence.


Yes, indeed, an FBI document says that Todd's initials are on the bullet, which is the extent of the primary sources you offer.


Here's another primary source regarding Elmer Todd scratching his initials into Bullet CE399 that you'll very rarely see cited by any conspiracy theorist....

"At 8:50 p.m. [on 11/22/63], Mr. JAMES ROWLEY, Chief, United States Secret Service, gave to SA ELMER LEE TODD an envelope containing a bullet. This envelope and its contents were taken directly to the FBI Laboratory and delivered to SA ROBERT A. FRAZIER. The envelope was opened and initials of both SA TODD and FRAZIER were etched on the nose of the bullet for identification purposes." -- Elmer L. Todd (Via Commission Document No. 7; page 288)


Ward has inspired DVP to new heights of utter absurdity.

See, if you read Hunt's essay, there are no Todd initials on CE 399. And by the way, that fact has driven people like [Jean] Davison and DVP to the outreaches of the netherworld. Davison has said they are "oxidized" off. DVP said he was going to NARA to show us Hunt was a fibber. (He always denies he said this. Since he never did.)

That lack of initials renders Hoover a liar. Which is really a milder vice for him. But as Boggs said before he died, Hoover lied his eyes out to the WC about just about everything.

But to be in denial about the JFK case, as these guys are, you not only have to whitewash the CIA, you have to do the same to Hoover. Which is literally impossible today I think.

But with DVP, a sick ogre like Hoover now becomes a crackerjack investigator in the JFK case.

Considering the way Hoover felt about the Kennedys, DVP should be in kindergarten telling fairy tales to kids waiting for the sand man.


According to DiEugenio, pretty much everything we find in Commission Exhibit No. 2011 concerning Darrell Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, and Bardwell Odum is a lie. Therefore, I'm wondering why J. Edgar Hoover and his scheming FBI boys didn't go WHOLE HOG and lie some more by saying that Tomlinson and Wright COULD positively identify CE399?

Hoover only goes PART way with the lie. Why doesn't he make it CONCLUSIVE by saying in his CE2011 "lie" that the hospital employees made a positive identification of Bullet CE399?

It seems to me you've got Hoover being a rotten liar---but not ENOUGH of a liar.

Lots more here:



[FBI Agent Robert] Frazier had the stretcher bullet before Todd gave it to him.

That in itself says that either there were four bullets or one was substituted.


Or that somebody made a simple error in writing down the time. (But, of course, such a "simple error" is not even on the radar screen of possibility if you're an Anybody But Oswald conspiracy theorist like James DiEugenio of Los Angeles, California, USA.)


DVP said he was going to NARA...


Still telling that bald-faced lie, eh Jim?

I never once said I was going to travel to the National Archives to personally inspect CE399. DiEugenio just decided to make that story up from whole cloth. And no matter how many times I tell him it's a lie, he still keeps on repeating it. Pathetic.


Ok, to give DVP the benefit of the doubt, since he once did me a favor...


I can only scratch my head and wonder (all night) what that favor might have been.



Why does he not go to the Archives and show us how Hunt was wrong then?

I think the answer to that is clear.


If you want to pay for the airline ticket and my motel room (and any other expenses), then maybe I'll consider it. (Although it's rather humorous to think that the NARA would just let me waltz in there and permit me---a total NOBODY who they've never heard of before---to personally handle and examine the Stretcher Bullet. Too funny.)

But I want you to link to any post I made in the past which gave you the idea that I had implied that I definitely was planning to go to NARA. Good luck finding such a post, because it doesn't exist and never did.


In the article I linked to in order to show what a hack Myers is, there are 22 footnotes to make my case of 15 major evidentiary points.


And yet the name "Dale Myers" doesn't appear even ONCE in that article. Strange, huh?


Oswald and Tippit were both patsy's [sic]. Once again, have you read Joseph McBride's "Into the Nightmare" and are thus qualified to discuss its contents and implications?


No, I haven't read that book.

But I certainly know enough about the evidence in the Tippit murder case—such as all the stuff I talk about in these articles—to know one thing for certain....

Anyone who attempts to defend Lee Harvey Oswald for the cold-blooded murder of Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit is attempting to defend a proven killer.

"Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Officer J.D. Tippit. The Dallas cops believed it. The newspapers reported it. The Warren Commission made it official and the House Select Committee on Assassinations reaffirmed it." -- Dale K. Myers; Page 17 of "With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald And The Murder Of Officer J.D. Tippit" (1998)


Gee whiz. I'm a red blooded patriotic U.S. citizen. I don't want to defend a proven cold blooded cop killer. But I'm not. Nothing was ever argued over much less proven in a court of law. Time and the work of others than I have proven to me at least that Tippit was a victim. Of a Conspiracy.


But given the COMBINATION of both BALLISTICS evidence and MULTIPLE EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION evidence in the Tippit case, plus just the basic garden-variety fact that has Lee Harvey Oswald being very near the scene of the crime WITH A GUN and FIGHTING WITH THE POLICE within 35 minutes of Officer Tippit being shot....I'm just wondering how it's possible to reconcile all that stuff into a scenario that has Oswald completely innocent of shooting Officer Tippit?

IOW --- How much evidence (and how many witnesses) does it take to make an Internet conspiracist begin to think of Lee Oswald as something other than an Innocent Patsy?

Is all the evidence against Oswald fake and phony? And all of the "It Was Oswald" witnesses were liars or just wrong? Is that it?


Who do you think murdered J.D. Tippit---if not Lee H. Oswald? Any idea at all?


...anyone who really wants to understand the Tippit case needs to read McBride's book. It is really a fountain of information on that case.


And make sure to read the parts of that "Nightmare" book that Dale Myers talks about in this 2013 article written by Myers regarding the way McBride tries to deceive his readers about some of the things Henry Wade told the Warren Commission. It reminds me of Mark Lane's slimy tactics.


With DVP, carrying a handgun in Texas is incriminating.

But, oh yes, not paying for a movie can get you indicted for two murders.


The above post by James DiEugenio is, of course, pure crap. Jim knows as well as I do that the fact that Oswald didn't pay for his cheap movie theater ticket had absolutely nothing to do with his eventual arrest. And as far as I am aware, there hasn't been a single "Lone Nutter" in the 54-year history of Lone Nutterism (including myself) who has ever once put forth the idea that Oswald's failure to pay for a movie ticket was the key factor in his eventual apprehension at the Texas Theater. That ridiculous myth has been sponsored solely by the conspiracy theorists and nobody else.

The fact is, of course, that the testimony of Julia Postal below is the key factor that prompted the Dallas Police to quickly respond to the Texas Theater, and it always has been the key factor, regardless of the "Didn't Buy A Ticket" smokescreen erected by conspiracy theorists (emphasis by DVP)....

"I called the police, and he wanted to know why I thought it was their man, and I said, "Well, I didn't know," and he said, "Well, it fits the description," and I have not---I said I hadn't heard the description. All I know is, "This man is running from them for some reason." And he wanted to know why, and told him because every time the sirens go by, he would duck." -- Julia Postal


Did the wallet taken from Oswald in the car by Bentley, did that have a Hidell card in it?

I mean did it really?


Jim, the best way to address this question is in three parts---

The first part is whether you think the wallet in evidence that was supposedly found by Bentley is the same one we see in Westbrook's hand at the Tippit murder scene.

There are good arguments that they are the same and that they are different - photo evidence is shaky, as usual - one thing that can't be denied is that they are similar.

I don't think it matters either way - the similarity illustrates that we are looking at an operation, a plan - especially with Oswald's wallet at Tippit's murder scene, and never reported by Westbrook or any police reports as found on the scene!

The second part is whether you think that Oswald made the Hidell card - there is evidence in the record that it was created at JCS [Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall], where Oswald worked with various machines that had various printing and photographic capabilities - I think he did [it] as an experiment - as a calling card - to show what he could do. He self-identified as a "photographer". It's not very good - you can see partially erased typing all over it - I think it was an experimental calling card that he kept in his possessions. He certainly didn't use it to buy beer. Somebody knew about it before 11/22, and figured out a way to get possession of it.

The third part is that Oswald didn't leave his wallet at the Tippit shooting scene - just like he didn't empty the revolver and scatter the hulls on the ground like the Tippit shooter did in the moments after Tippit was murdered. Both of those events were done to frame Oswald. Oswald was going to the theatre to meet his connection to find out what he should do next in the wake of the President's shooting. He was vulnerable - he knew he was the only Soviet defector to be in the vicinity of the President's shooting. I can't imagine Oswald - or anyone else - would bring a fake ID with him in his wallet on his way to the theater. That ID was to link him to the paper trail of the alleged assassination rifle - ordered in the name of Hidell - and would have millions of people convinced that the Dallas police had got their man.

The Hidell ID was reported by Westbrook to Barrett to be inside the wallet that was found at the Tippit murder scene. Barrett is still alive and discusses seeing
it -- you can see his video [here], and the similarity between the Tippit murder wallet and the wallet in evidence.

Paul Bentley is the officer that supposedly found Oswald's wallet in his pocket and found the Hidell card in the wallet as Jerry Hill drove a full team of five arresting officers to the station. Bentley said to author Larry Sneed that the names went over the radio...no record of that. Officer Walker also claimed he removed wallet from Oswald's pants pocket in interrogation room. No Dallas reports by Bentley or any of the five arresting officers mention this Hidell card. Bentley's story is not credible, on any level. Can you believe that Bentley was Dallas' chief polygraph examiner?


So, the Dallas cops supposedly find Oswald's wallet at the scene of Tippit's murder, and then those same cops decide not to say a single word about finding that wallet --- even though such a piece of evidence is virtual proof that Oswald was at the Tippit murder scene. And, remember, according to many CTers, Oswald is the same guy these same cops were supposedly FRAMING for Tippit's murder all along.

Is that about the size of this insane situation?

That's about the most ridiculous reasoning I've ever heard. 

The virtual proof that the wallet was definitely NOT Lee Oswald's is the fact that no police officer said a word about it right after Tippit's murder. 

So how can anybody -- even a conspiracy believer -- possibly believe this wallet belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald?.... 

Also See:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/Oswald's Wallets (Part 1)

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/Solving The Wallet Mystery

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/The Tippit Murder 45 Years Later


This is what I believe on this matter....

I do not think that the two wallets are the same. And I think someone from the DPD, maybe Croy, brought the wallet to the Tippit scene. To me that seems to fit the evidence the best. Because as both Simpich and Armstrong have written, no one saw a wallet on the street pavement. And unlike the unreliable Bugliosi BS, it was not Tippit's wallet. To me, those factors would seem to indicate that it was not on the ground.

Also, I do not believe that anyone carries three wallets.


Quoting from Vincent Bugliosi's book:

"One thing we can be reasonably certain about: the wallet was not Oswald’s. [Dale] Myers closely compared a close-up photo of Oswald’s arrest wallet with the wallet found at the murder scene and found definite physical differences, causing him to conclude that “the Oswald arrest wallet is not the same billfold seen in the WFAA newsfilm” (Myers, 'With Malice', pp.298–299).

Furthermore, a Dallas police officer had just been slain. It is inconceivable that members of the Dallas Police Department like Captains Westbrook and Doughty and Sergeant Hill would suppress and keep secret the fact that Tippit’s killer had left his calling card at the murder scene. That simply would not, could not, have happened.

If Oswald’s wallet had been found at the murder scene, it is inconceivable that nowhere in the testimony or the reports of Westbrook, Hill, Doughty, Poe, and so on, would they bother to mention this extremely important fact.


If I had to wager, I’d conclude it was Tippit’s wallet, and the reason [Ron] Reiland stated, on WFAA film, that it was Tippit’s wallet is that the police had informed him at the scene that it was. Quite apart from Barrett, it makes no sense to me that the Dallas police and detectives, several of whom were Tippit’s friends, would keep from the world that his killer’s wallet was found near his body."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 454 and 456 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)


Quoting Dale K. Myers:

"Everyone I spoke with—police, witnesses, and ambulance attendants—said that no wallet was found near Tippit's patrol car. [Police Officer Kenneth] Croy said he was handed a wallet by an unknown individual but didn't know where it was found. All of this is discussed at length in 'With Malice'." -- Dale Myers; March 6, 2014



You all need to get this book! This is an updated version of his [Jim DiEugenio's] RECLAIMING PARKLAND, arguably my favorite book on the case.


Thanks so much Vince.

I have already done a spot on RT with Sean Stone, and I did a spot on Coast to Coast with Richard Syrett.

I have about four other interviews upcoming to try and help promote the book.


Excellent! I have 2864 friends on Facebook and several people said they are getting it!


Thanks for that Vince. I appreciate it.

I have to add something about this....

This was really Oliver Stone's idea. He is a big fan of that book. In fact, his three favorite books on the JFK case are JFK and the Unspeakable, the second edition of Destiny Betrayed and this one. So he managed to push through the revised and expanded edition. But he also insisted on new art work and a new title.

I had planned on doing a new version when all the documents were declassified. Well, Oliver thought that was kind of wrong headed. When he heard that from my publisher, he called me and said, "Jim, I thought you were a smart guy. Do you really think that Trump and the CIA are going to let go of all that stuff on April 26th?"

Well, he was right about that. So that is why the book is being released at this time.


I guarantee you will learn something from my book.

It's divided into three main parts....

Part One is on Bugliosi and the Mock Trial in London. It's really odd because in two of the three interviews I have done, both hosts brought up that part of the book. It's where I go into the whole Tate LaBianca case. I had never read Helter Skelter before I wrote this book. But I thought man, if Bugliosi was this bad on the JFK case, maybe I should read that one. So I did.

I was really kind of shocked. Today, I believe that Bugliosi covered up the real facts of that case in order to make a big name for himself. This is why the publisher did not print a large part of that section in the first edition. He was worried Bugliosi would sue. I said, go ahead let him sue, it's all true and he will lose and we will gain publicity. No go.

The second part is a minute expose of RH [Reclaiming History]. I came to the conclusion that his book is largely an argument made by length and invective. There is hardly anything new in the entire book. I really do not think Vince left his den while writing it. This kind of angers me since many real researchers do a lot of expeditions to find new information. Not Vince. I also came to the conclusion that Vince was not honest in his opening intro where he said he would make his arguments as the critics would make them before invalidating.

Vince played Pinocchio on that one. He did not do that at all. And I prove it over and over.

The last part is about the New Hollywood and the JFK case. I go after Tom Hanks at length and to a lesser extent Spielberg. Hanks is the worst amateur historian ever. I went over in detail what he did in three films on key subjects, Charlie Wilson's War, Parkland and The Post. My review of the last is about twenty pages long, much longer than my written critique.

Hanks' view of history is dangerous. For us all. It ratifies false narratives and makes false heroes out of people who are in no way heroes at all.


Wow, Jim -- I am just starting to read your excellent book (I have the original edition) and I am relieved to know I am not losing my mind haha! I am currently reading the part about the Helter Skelter book and I kept saying to myself "wait- I don't remember that!" I thought only the JFK sections were updated. Glad to know I was wrong. :)


As many people know, back in early 2007, I briefly left my senses and became a very reluctant Oswald-did-it guy because of Bugliosi's book [I believed there were multiple conspiracies to kill Kennedy...but Oswald beat them to the punch. Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it, too LOL!]

In any event, in this regard, I corresponded with and spoke to Vince Bugliosi several times. I was an admirer of his work (other books, as well) and his speaking style (his OJ book is still fantastic with me!). Vince received evidence of my warped sense of humor:

He phoned me once and, knowing it was him from the caller I.D., I actually answered the phone "Tex Watson here!" He laughed out loud and really got a kick out of that!


I have a question for Vince Palamara (and I promise not to "derail" this Jim DiEugenio Lovefest Thread after this one question)....


Can you give me just one single example of something that Lee Harvey Oswald did or said on either November 21st or November 22nd, 1963, that would indicate (even in a very small way) that he was involved in any kind of a conspiracy with any other person (or persons) with respect to the assassination of JFK or the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit?

Thank you.



I actually remember that recantation of yours. It was sort of like Galileo denouncing his discoveries in physics. But I am glad you recovered.

This is what I mean. Bugliosi's book was an argument by length. I would be willing to wager that maybe ten people in the country read the whole thing. The only way you can read it is by sitting at a computer screen with the CD plugged in and then having the book open on the desk. Because when the publisher would not let him publish three volumes--which is what he wanted to do--he just threw a lot of the material onto the CD. Like about 900 pages. Plus it's an oversized book. Who was going to go through all the stuff?

Well, I decided to. I was really kind of stunned when I got through at how derivative, and how full of cheap invective and insult it was. And how barren of new material considering its length.

But when I looked at the critiques from our side, no one read the whole thing. So I did. I cannot say I am a better person for that. But I just felt someone had to do it.


Excuse me while I turn my head and upchuck after reading DiEugenio's anti-Bugliosi slop. ~yack~

With respect to the 1969 Tate-LaBianca murders which Vince Bugliosi prosecuted in Los Angeles, CLICK HERE for a brief glimpse at some of the preposterous things that Mr. DiEugenio endorses concerning that murder case.

Replaying some previous Internet discussions concerning Vincent T. Bugliosi....


I...showed...that Bugliosi could not be trusted since he said upfront that he would present the critics' arguments as they would want them presented. I then showed this was not at all the case. In other words, Vince was passing gas making that claim. I spend five pages in the intro to Reclaiming Parkland demonstrating how Bugliosi violated his own pledge. Therefore, how could the book be trusted?

Now, go over to Davey's site and see if he notes this false claim in RH. Nope.


In order for Vince to completely live up to his claim that he would present the case "as the critics would present it", Vince would have had to touch base with every single CTer who has ever posted on the Internet (or who has ever written one of the hundreds of books on the case), because almost every CTer has at least a slightly different theory or approach to the evidence in the case.

A statement like Vince made ("I'll present things as the conspiracy theorists themselves would present them") is a No Win situation for Vince, because there is always going to be some CTer out there who will be able to say (after reading Bugliosi's book) -- See, I told you so. Bugliosi's nothing but a liar! He didn't present THIS part of the case in the exact way I think it should have been presented, and therefore I get to call Vince a cheat and a liar.

It's impossible to please a JFK CTer. And by setting the bar so high with those words Vince used ("present the case as conspiracists want it presented"), it became a hurdle that would have been just about impossible for Vince to overcome even if he had written 10,000 pages instead of just 2,800. But I, myself, think Vince did just fine in debunking virtually all of the major conspiracy theories connected with the JFK murder case. Many CTers, quite naturally, will vehemently disagree with me. Well, so be it.


DVP SAID (ON JULY 10, 2015):

The fact remains that Vince Bugliosi, in his huge tome "Reclaiming History", has proven Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt at least ten times over. The question of whether or not Oswald was involved in ANY type of conspiracy can never, of course, be answered with 100% certainty (and I've said that very thing myself in the past; and if you want my direct quotes, I'll be happy to dig them up). But I agree with Vince when he said....

"In the [John F.] Kennedy case, I believe the absence of a conspiracy can be proved to a virtual certainty." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 973 of "Reclaiming History"


Why did he [Vincent Bugliosi] say it in the first place then?


I don't have the slightest idea. But, as I said, such a "pledge" (as you like to call it) by Vince Bugliosi is really a No-Win proposition for Vince, for the reason I stated previously. Because there's always going to be a potential CTer popping up out of the woodwork in the future who could say that Vince didn't honor his "pledge".

For example, let's say that the loony Brian David Andersen (the author of the "JFK Faked His Own Death" theory) pops up tomorrow and complains about Vince not thoroughly debunking his crazy theory about JFK exploding a pyrotechnics device on his head. Any number of insane theories (and maybe even some that aren't quite as insane as Andersen's fantasy) could have been added to Bugliosi's long book. But Vince (and his publisher) knew his book had to come to an end sometime. Not every nutty conspiracy theory could be explored in-depth and debunked individually to the satisfaction of CTers. (What could ever "satisfy" a CTer anyway? I know of nothing that could accomplish that task.)

Another example of how a CTer's outer-fringe theory doesn't really even deserve to be included in a book like Reclaiming History (and I don't think it was included by Vince in his book, come to think of it) is a theory that you, Jim D., put your full support behind and have for years --- the theory of how Wesley Frazier and Linnie Randle (with the help of the evil DPD) just MADE UP the story about seeing Lee Oswald carrying any kind of a long-ish brown paper bag on the morning of 11/22/63.

Now if you truly think that THAT "No Bag At All" theory is one that Vincent Bugliosi should have attempted to debunk in any fashion in his book, then you've gone off the deep end. Because that kind of crackpot fringe theory---along with the equally-as-nonsensical "Marrion Baker Never Really Encountered Lee Harvey Oswald In The Lunchroom At All" theory---only deserves to be laughed at (IMO).

David Von Pein
May 1-7, 2018
May 9-10, 2018