JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1312)


RICH POPE SAID:

Call me naive but...I knew JFK was disliked by a lot of people. But after reading some of Farewell America last night, I learned he was hated by everyone. He was hated by poor blacks, blue collar workers, almost everyone in government, the military, almost everyone in business, academia, women...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oh sure. That's why the following two facts existed after JFK's death---because "everyone" hated him so much.... ~eyeroll~

"In a large-sample national poll in March of 1964...an astonishing 53 percent of those interviewed said they had wept when they heard the news of Kennedy's death (New York Times, March 7, 1964, p.11). This percentage is remarkable by itself, and becomes even more so when you factor in the number of people who, though grieving as much, cannot bring tears to their eyes."

[...]

"With respect to President Kennedy's grave site, in 1962, the year before Kennedy was assassinated, one million people visited Arlington National Cemetery. During the six months following the assassination, NINE million came."

-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 142 and 1504 of "Reclaiming History"



David Von Pein
February 27, 2019


================================


RICH POPE SAID:

Ok. So, if LHO didn't shoot JFK from the 6th floor "sniper's nest" of the TSBD, can we for sure put a shooter other than Oswald there? Or was that a staged sniper's nest?


PAUL JOLLIFFE SAID:

There is no credible evidence that "Oswald" was up in that sniper's nest at 12:30, shooting with that Mannlicher-Carcano. There is considerable evidence that two people were up there for several minutes before 12:30, and some evidence that at least one of them was still at the nest for 90 seconds or so, rearranging boxes. (Which dovetails nicely, by the way, with the "escape through the floorboards to the passenger elevator shaft" theory.)

It seems almost certain that someone was at that window, menacing the parade with a firearm, and possibly even fired some shots, but whether any of those shots struck home is uncertain.

(That other shots struck various points in Dealey Plaza is highly likely. The evidence for those shots was promptly ignored by the Warren Commission, predictably. Note the various nicks mentioned in the article below.)

Beyond that, I'm not certain we can say anything "for sure"....

http://jfk.hood.edu/Weisberg Subject Index Files/Item 098.pdf


STEPHANIE GOLDBERG SAID:

What about the remains of Bonnie Ray Williams' lunch on the 6th floor that were originally assumed to belong to the assassin? That also puts him on the sixth floor shortly before the shooting. (Unless, of course, that's long since been debunked.)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Hi Stephanie,

Yes, you're right about Bonnie Ray Williams being on the sixth floor shortly before 12:30 that day, but we also KNOW he could not possibly have been a "shooter"....because we know that Williams was on the FIFTH floor at the moment of the shooting....and this photograph proves it:




STEPHANIE GOLDBERG SAID:

Yes, I know that he wasn't the shooter.

If I remember correctly, lunch at the Book Depository was 12 noon to 12:45 pm. And we know the window photo places him on the 5th floor at 12:30. My train of thought here is wondering what he did or didn't say about why he ate his lunch up there and didn't see Oswald or anyone else on the 6th floor setting up a sniper's nest.

And then there's the fact that he left the remains of his lunch up there. Was he a slob? Was he in such a hurry to go downstairs that he couldn't pick up his trash? And was it his usual practice to eat alone on the sixth floor?

Just thinking out loud since we're talking about placing people on the sixth floor.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Why not just read Bonnie Ray Williams' Warren Commission testimony and find out?

(My favorite part of Bonnie Ray's testimony has always been the "chicken-on-the-bone sandwich" that he had for lunch on 11/22. Mmm! Sounds delicious! A dentist's delight!) :)


STEPHANIE GOLDBERG SAID:

Thank you for the link. I did read the testimony. I'm not sure that it answered all of my questions, but the Warren Commission testimony always makes for interesting reading.


TONY KROME SAID:

Where do you place Oswald as Williams munches on his chicken bone sandwich?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In the Sniper's Nest, trying to keep as quiet (and as low) as he can while Williams is there on the same sixth floor just a couple of windows west of Oswald's location.

More HERE.


RON BULMAN SAID:

Think Oswald got hungry smelling the fried chicken? Did he eat his cheese sandwich while waiting for JFK, race down the stairs after shooting JFK for a coke to wash it down, and of course throw his wrapping for the sandwich in the trash there as any good Commie would do? Before sauntering out onto the front steps after he met Baker and Truly, where?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You've got several things occurring there, Ron, that are merely speculation on your part. (And I admit, I'm speculating about several things too in my Oswald Timeline. Some things we have to speculate about, if we want to discuss them at all, such as Oswald's whereabouts at various times throughout the day of November 22, 1963).

Your speculation above includes Oswald eating a cheese sandwich. But there's no proof he ever ate anything at all for his lunch that day. We only have his word for that. And I don't think that Oswald's "word" is exactly a highly reliable source to go on if you're looking for the truth connected to either murder that Oswald himself was charged with committing. In short, Lee Harvey Oswald lied about a lot of things after his arrest that day.


TONY KROME SAID:

Is this how you imagine it?




DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, that's about right.

And we know from the re-enactment performed in this 1964 Secret Service film that a person who was sitting or squatting within the Sniper's Nest in the southeast corner of that sixth floor would definitely be hidden from the view of other people who might have been standing to the west of the Sniper's Nest. (Go to 11:33 in that linked video to see the re-enactment.)

Bonnie Ray Williams, in his Warren Commission testimony, said:

"I ate my lunch--I am not sure about this, but the third or the fourth set of windows, I believe."

Now, regardless of which end of the building Williams was referring to as his starting point (East or West) when he said "the third or the fourth set of windows", it likely means that Williams ate his lunch pretty close to the MIDDLE part of the sixth floor (given the fact that there are seven total "sets" of windows comprising the width of the Book Depository Building).

Given the way the book cartons were stacked up around the southeast corner window *, I can easily envision Oswald being able to hide from the view of Bonnie Ray Williams during the brief period of time that Williams was up on the sixth floor on November 22.

* The linked photo (CE726) is, however, probably a "reconstructed" arrangement of the boxes. I'm not positive of that fact, but since the photo in CE723 was taken on November 25, 1963 (per the information found at 17 H xvii), then it's probably safe to assume that the picture seen in CE726 is a reconstructed photo as well.


TONY KROME SAID:

Let's take a look at a small part of Rowland's testimony without concerning ourselves with the remainder:

Mr. SPECTER - Over how long a time span did you observe the Negro man? [Rowland believes 6th floor, so this question relates to that]

Mr. ROWLAND - He was there before I noticed the man with the rifle. [Rowland stated he saw this Rifle man at approx 12:15pm]

At this point, Dave, I'm not interested in the man with the rifle, nor the location of Negro man or Rifle man, only the timestamp.

Rowland places a Negro man on the 6th floor just before 12:15pm and you have have placed Williams on the 6th floor at the same time as per the photo I presented to you.

Do you think it's a sheer fluke that Rowland stated that there was a Negro man on the 6th floor at just before 12:15pm and that it turned out to be a fact?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, the black man Arnold Rowland saw on the sixth floor could very well have been Bonnie Ray Williams. We know from Williams' own testimony that he WAS on the sixth floor at about that time (approx. 12:10 to 12:20 PM).

We can know from Williams' testimony, however, that he was never located in the southeast corner window, even though Rowland places him there at one point during his testimony. But Williams himself tells us that cannot be the case.

So, should we believe Williams or Rowland? I'd choose Williams in this instance, since he would be more aware of where he was on the sixth floor than Rowland would be.

I know where you're going with this line of thought, of course ---- You're wondering how the heck Rowland could have seen Williams BEFORE he saw the gunman STANDING in front of the window on the WEST side of the sixth floor, and yet not have Williams seeing the gunman (Oswald) too.

Well, that's a fair point.

My answer would be----

Arnold Rowland was just a little bit inaccurate with respect to some of the timestamps he put on the things he saw on 11/22/63....which couldn't be more common among witnesses.

Another possibility is that Rowland didn't really see any Negro on the sixth floor that day. Instead, he could have seen Harold Norman "hanging out" of the FIFTH-floor window directly under the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest window.

I think several witnesses made that same "5th or 6th floor?" mistake on November 22nd. They claimed things were happening on the SIXTH floor (in the southeast corner window), but what they very likely were seeing was occurring in the FIFTH-floor window instead. (Check out the affidavits of witnesses Ronald Fischer and Robert Edwards for verification of this phenomenon.)


TONY KROME SAID:

So we have Rowland's eyes directly on the 6th floor at just before 12:15pm where he likely saw Williams.

Now, you place Oswald with a rifle on the 6th floor at 12:15pm and Rowland believes he saw a man with a rifle on the 6th floor at 12:15pm.

Again, forget about the location, but do you see a pattern here? Rowland gets it right again, he believed he saw a rifle man on the 6th floor at 12:15pm, and according to you, this is another fact.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

In the past, I've talked about the timing of Arnold Rowland's observations....

http://jfk-archives/Arnold Rowland & The Black Man


TONY KROME SAID:

Yes, I've read that,

But we've moved on from the "black" man. You have Williams as moving to the 5th floor around the 12:15pm mark, so he's gone.

I want to get into more detail, so I was hoping you could address this:

Rowland gets it right again, he believed he saw a rifle man on the 6th floor at 12:15pm, and according to you, it's a fact that a rifle man was on the 6th floor at 12:15pm.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Tony, it's true that I believe that a lone rifleman (named Oswald) was located on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building at 12:15 PM CST on 11/22/63.

And YES, I do believe that Arnold Rowland "got it right" when he said he saw a man holding a rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD before any shooting occurred in Dealey Plaza that day. And that is one of the reasons I disagree with Vincent Bugliosi on this point. He thinks Rowland was making up tall tales. But it's Rowland's testimony about seeing the gunman prior to the motorcade arriving, and telling his wife about it at that time (BEFORE the motorcade arrived) that convinces me that Mr. Rowland was not just making up a story out of whole cloth.

And it's really the testimony (and the 11/22/63 affidavit) of Rowland's wife, Barbara Rowland, that cinches the deal for me on Arnold Rowland's truthfulness. Because she too would have to be making up a lie (or she would have to be willing to just go along with her husband's lie) in order for Arnold's testimony to be false about seeing a man with a gun on the 6th floor before the shooting even started. And I see no reason to believe that Mrs. Barbara Rowland was a liar.


TONY KROME SAID:

Ok, now we bring in the location....

You have Oswald hiding in the Sniper's Nest while Williams is munching on a chicken bone sandwich.

Williams then departs for the 5th floor.

I assume you have Oswald all alone at this point on the 6th floor.

Rowland was quite specific on where he saw the rifle man, and that was the southwest corner, where he drew an arrow to on CE356.

Is there an impossibility, in your mind, that Oswald could not have walked from the Sniper's Nest to the southwest corner, surveyed the area from this viewpoint, and returned to the Sniper's Nest?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think it's quite possible that Oswald did exactly what you just suggested above, Tony. And in my previously-linked "Oswald Timeline" (which I originally wrote at the alt.conspiracy.jfk Usenet newsgroup on April 16, 2007), I theorize about a similar scenario:

"11:55 AM-12:05 PM (estimated) -- Oswald has the whole sixth floor to himself. This is just prior to Bonnie Ray Williams coming back up to the 6th Floor to eat his lunch. It's my belief that Lee Oswald, during this (approx.) 10-minute time period around noon or shortly after, probably went to the west end of the sixth floor (where he had his rifle hidden in the brown bag). Oswald unwraps the rifle at the west end of the sixth floor and assembles the rifle at the west end (hence, Arnold Rowland sees a white man with a rifle at the west end of the building at approx. this time, maybe a little later, 12:15 or so, but keep in mind the approximation of all times). It's quite possible, IMO, that Oswald initially was considering using the WEST-end window as his shooting window. But, for one reason or another, he decided that a window on the EAST end of the sixth floor would better serve his purposes. Perhaps he was mentally factoring in the angles and trajectories in his head, and possibly realized that an east-end perch would be a better one, especially since the Secret Service agents would all have their backs to him when he began firing, if he decided to wait until after the cars had turned the Elm/Houston corner....which, IMO, Oswald definitely had in his mind to do, due to the pre-arranged way the rifle-rest boxes were constructed (i.e., in a "Rifle Always Pointing West/Southwest" manner). It's also possible that, as Oswald mulled over potential shooting locations, he realized that a goodly number of boxes were already down on the east end of the 6th Floor, which would make constructing a makeshift "Nest" all the easier for him."
-- DVP; April 2007

----------------

Let me also add this....

When re-examining the timelines provided by Arnold Rowland and Bonnie Ray Williams, it's very possible, in my opinion, that BOTH Rowland and Williams might very well be correct in their timelines (or pretty close to being accurate anyway).

I said earlier --- "Arnold Rowland was just a little bit inaccurate with respect to some of the timestamps he put on the things he saw."

But when comparing Rowland's timeline with Bonnie Ray's, it could be that Rowland's timing was fairly accurate, because Williams said he got to the sixth floor to eat his lunch at "about 12", and he also said: "I was there from--5, 10, maybe 12 minutes".

That timeline provided by Williams would mean he left the sixth floor no later than 12:12 PM, which would be three minutes before Rowland said he saw the white man with a rifle on the west end of the sixth floor.

So that "merging" of the Rowland/Williams timelines fits very nicely, and it does no harm whatsoever to the "Oswald Did It Alone" scenario that I firmly endorse. And via that "merging" of timelines, Rowland can, indeed, see a Negro (Williams) on the sixth floor BEFORE he sees a white man with a rifle standing on the west side of the same sixth floor. And this can occur without the need of Williams seeing Oswald standing at the west end---because Williams has already left the 6th floor via this scenario.

Then, after Williams departs the 6th floor between approximately 12:05 and 12:12 PM (per Williams' own estimate), Oswald then moves (for some unknown reason that nobody will ever be able to fully figure out) from the Sniper's Nest (where he had been temporarily "hiding" from Williams) to the west side of the building, where (again, for some unknown reason) he decides to make himself and his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle plainly visible to Arnold L. Rowland, as Oswald stands in front of the west-end window while holding his rifle.

David Von Pein
February 27—March 1, 2019 [This forum link is no longer available.]









JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1311)


TERRY ADAMS SAID:

Should FBI Agent James Hosty be solely blamed for the murder of John F. Kennedy?

The fact that Hosty did not take his job seriously enough to, at least, verify where Oswald was on November 22, 1963 says that it is possible to place the blame for the assassination squarely at his feet!


TERRY ADAMS ALSO SAID:

“I told the FBI what I had heard [two shots from behind the grassy knoll fence], but they said it couldn’t have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn’t want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family.”

-- Kennedy aide Kenneth O’Donnell, quoted by House Speaker Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill Jr. in “Man of the House,” p. 178. O’Donnell was riding in the Secret Service follow-up car with Dave Powers, who was present and told O’Neill he had the same recollection.

(This is a post made by Goban Saor on the 'Reopen the Kennedy Case' forum.)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So it's really Tip O'Neill's quote, right? O'Neill quoting O'Donnell?

I'd love to have heard that quote coming straight from O'Donnell's mouth, to see how it might have differed from "The O'Neill Version".

Think there might be a tad bit of difference?


PAUL JOLLIFFE SAID:

Well David,

More folks than Tip O'Neill claimed to have heard directly from Dave Powers and Kenny O'Donnell that those two men heard and witnessed shots from the Grassy Knoll, but then, for various reasons, were willing to go along with the government narrative.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

What did Oswald have to do with the shooting of JFK?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, all of this stuff is 100% fake and should be completely ignored and tossed out the window, right?


TERRY ADAMS SAID:

To what extent Oswald was involved cannot be fully known, but had he been watched, or better yet, brought in for questioning, we could very well have had a different outcome on that day. As everyone here knows, the feelings on Oswald's involvement cover the whole spectrum, from patsy to shooter. I do not think that we can patently say that he had nothing to do with the assassination.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Regarding the alleged quote from Kenneth O'Donnell....

FWIW....

Quoting from this Usenet Newsgroup post....

---Quote On:---

"O'Donnell vehemently denied ever telling O'Neill that.

"The story is an absolute lie…whoever gave that story is lying. It’s an absolute, outright lie." -- Kenneth O’Donnell, Chicago Tribune, June 15, 1975.

But I guess he lied about lying? To help cover up the murder of the president and his close friend?

The number of people that you conspiracists are willing to accuse of crimes is stunning. Not just ordinary people but JFK's closest friends."


-- Steve M. Galbraith


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Another "FWIW' re: Tip O'Neill....

http://WashingtonPost.com/archive/Tip Told A Whopper About Us

David Von Pein
February 25-26, 2019









JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1310)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I received this Private Message from Education Forum Administrator/Moderator James Gordon this morning (February 24, 2019), with James informing me that he "insists" that I offer up a "public apology" for a remark I made on Facebook on February 18, 2019 [see the image below].

And James told me that if I do not offer up this public apology within less than 48 hours, my posting rights will be revoked. Here are James' exact words:

"I insist that you give me a public apology. I insist that by the end on Monday you create a new thread within which you formally apologise to me for what you have said and done. If that is not carried out by the end of Monday I will remove your posting rights." -- James R. Gordon; February 24, 2019 [Emphasis in original message.]

Here's the remark I made at Facebook that "came as a complete shock" to James and, incredibly, left him "speechless":





And after reviewing this forum's rules, I can now see that I was, in fact, in violation of the rule entitled "Abuse of the Education Forum and/or its Members", which states....

"Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership—either from within the forum or outside the forum—may lose their posting privileges or indeed be banned."

Prior to today [2/24/19], I was not aware of that rule at all. And I'm pretty sure that this forum would probably resemble a ghost town if that rule were to be applied in every single instance where a current EF member "cast aspersions" on another member of this forum while posting at some other forum. That situation probably occurs on a regular basis at other Internet locations when this forum's members make critical or harsh remarks about other EF members.

In my opinion, that particular rule should not exist at this forum (or any other forum). I can understand having such a rule in place to keep this forum's members from "casting aspersions" on their fellow members within the posts that they make at this forum. But this forum is where that rule should begin and end. Dictating what people can say at other Internet locations is wrong, in my opinion. Some people might even argue it's a violation of their "Freedom of Speech" rights. After all, I didn't use that word -- "incompetent" -- at this forum when speaking about Mr. James R. Gordon. Therefore, what business is it of Gordon's (or anyone else) what I say at other forums (i.e., at forums that are not moderated or owned by the owners of The Education Forum)?

It's a very silly (and unfair) rule, IMHO. Are the Education Forum moderators really that sensitive that they feel they have to restrict what members can say at other Internet locations? I don't think it's fair at all. Nor do I think it's a reasonable rule for people to have to follow. You might as well call it the "Walking On Eggshells No Matter Where You Are Posting On The Internet In Order To Avoid Offending Any Other EF Member" rule.

But, since it is a rule that's currently on the books at this forum, I have to admit that I was, indeed, in violation of this forum's current rules when I posted that comment about James Gordon at Facebook.com last week. (And, for the record, I removed the harsh language in that post this morning, and changed the wording to something much softer and less offensive. Maybe Bart Kamp, who seems to like to follow me around Facebook lately, can take a look to verify that I did change it today.) :)

So, James R. Gordon, I do hereby officially apologize for breaking that rule (and the other "Posting By Proxy" rule too---which, as you can see in my Facebook posting, is something that I said would not happen again).

I look forward to that particular "Casting Aspersions" rule being completely eliminated in the near future. I'm not sure if other forums have adopted such a rule or not. But I'm guessing that I'm not alone when I advocate for its elimination.

Because, quite frankly, I'm of the opinion that the things that I or anyone else have to say at other Internet sites that are outside the confines and authority of this forum are none of The Education Forum's business.

And I'll bet that most of the current population of The Education Forum agrees with me on that statement.

Respectfully,
David Von Pein


BART KAMP SAID:

How can I follow you when I do not have access to the groups you post in and therefore cannot see what you post?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That's what I was wondering two weeks ago when you posted this message (which shows a post I made on a CLOSED Facebook group which I don't think you're a member of).

But as far as this other Facebook post that has James Gordon "shocked" and "speechless", that post was posted at my own JFK Facebook group, which is a "Public" group, which can be accessed and read by everybody, with no signing up or "membership" required at all to see all the posts there.


BART KAMP SAID:

Also, I am too busy to follow you, so don't get ahead of yourself. And that is all I am going to say about this, as it is possible you inserted that remark to me to goad me.

This is all you are going to get from me.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Promise?!


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

David,

You have complied with my instruction - and indeed an instruction it was.

I see you have not commented that I informed you that I had “discussed” with other members that they will not insult or disrespect you on this forum. Indeed, I have effectively removed one member from this forum for treating you in this fashion. And you are well aware when fellow members treat you this way because you have often commented about whether the moderators will respond to the insult.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And I appreciate that, James. Thank you.

But note your language there --- "they will not insult or disrespect you on this forum."

Don't you think that should be where YOUR responsibility begins and ends ---- "THIS forum"?


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

You appear to believe that this kind of disparagement is acceptable and ought not to be criticised. As you comment, “In my opinion, that particular rule [ to be courteous to fellow members ] should not exist at this forum.”

Well, the rule does exist, and will do, so long as I am the owner of this forum. And when I am aware it has been breached, I will deal with the member. If you are unable to debate and converse with fellow members in a respectful fashion, then action will be taken against you.

James Gordon.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

James,

As I said, I can certainly understand having the "Be Courteous" rule here at THIS FORUM, and that it must apply to the posts written by Education Forum members at THIS FORUM. That's totally understandable that such a rule would be in place at a forum like this one. All forums have such rules in place, I'm quite sure. But I was talking about your forum rule which is, essentially, telling everyone they have to play nice-nice at ALL OTHER Internet locations whenever talking about an EF forum member. That, IMO, should not be a rule at this forum---or any forum.


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

When that rule was put in place it was in response to ROKC [Re-Open Kennedy Case forum].

What I find curious is that you want the rule removed - and it could be because its reason of origin no longer exists.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The ROKC forum still exists. Why you're saying it doesn't is a mystery to me.

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

Where I might well have agreed to remove the rule, I have no intention of doing so, so you can feel free to disparage fellow members - as and how you like - when outside this forum. It is clear that what you really think of fellow members is not described on the EF, but instead displayed by you when outside this forum.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, most of the time that's certainly a true statement alright. But that admission I just made can't possibly come as a surprise to you, can it? If it does come as a shock to you, you must be the most naive person on the planet. (But, come to think of it, based on that over-the-top Private Message I received from you early this morning, you do seem to "shock" pretty easily.)

Also, you aren't really so incredibly naive (are you James?) that you think that every conspiracy theorist who posts at The Education Forum actually displays their true feelings for "LNers" like me and Francois Carlier and Tracy Parnell when CTers post their messages here at the EF, right? The CTers, due to having to walk on the same "moderated" eggshells that I must walk on as well when I post here, never show their true opinions of the LNers that they are conversing with....and everybody here knows it. So there's no sense pretending otherwise, is there?

And are you so naive that you think that no Education Forum CTer has ever trashed the hell out of me (or Francois or other EF LNers) at other forums around the Internet? Get real. It's happening practically every day. I've become immune to it. And I have never felt compelled to try and have any of those CTers banned from this forum as a result of their behavior on other forums. Although, as I said earlier, I really had no idea that the silly "Other Forums" rule we're discussing here was even in existence at EF until just today. But now that I know it does exist, I can guarantee you that I will never ever attempt to use that "rule" to promote the idea that a CTer at this forum should be expelled or punished in some fashion. That's an incredibly silly idea. And I've certainly got plenty of "other forum" LN-bashing ammunition that I could use if I wanted to use it, that's for sure.

Just go to that ROKC link and take a look at a few recent LN-trashing examples. (If you can stand the stench that that place emits, that is.)

Or, you can take a quick look at any of the hundreds of intense battles that I have had with several EF members, most of which I have archived at my website/blog. Such as the 130+ dogfights that I've had with James DiEugenio since 2008. (And we're not exactly patting each other on the back in any of those frays, I can tell you that.)


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

You want the rule removed so that you have the freedom not to be constrained by such rules of this forum when visiting other forums and therefore be able to describe them as you really feel about them.

If for no other reason than that admission - that rule will remain.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

James,

Make sure to remember your above words the next time you read some of the vile LNer-bashing comments that have been posted by current EF members at ROKC and DPF and Facebook and Amazon (or any other Internet locality). Okay?


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Based on James R. Gordon's comments above and his remarks and actions in this 2015 discussion, I think it's time for James to purchase a thicker skin. (Do they sell those at Amazon? I'll go check.)


LAWRENCE SCHNAPF SAID:

I hate to say this, but I agree with David that the obligation to be courteous should be limited to this forum. People should be free to express their opinions on other internet platforms so long as those comments comply with the rules of that particular group.

Why should a conversation or even screaming match elsewhere be a concern to the administrator of this group so long as the conversation in EF remains civil?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bingo!

Thank you, Lawrence.


DENIS MORISSETTE SAID:

If you guys were moderators here and one member here was saying somewhere else that you are a [**blank**] and a [**blank**], would you not ban him?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I certainly wouldn't. What people say at OTHER forums should not concern the owners/moderators of THIS forum (as long as the members of this forum abide by the rules while they are posting at THIS forum).

Such restrictions on free speech OUTSIDE of these forum walls is downright ridiculous. And I think everybody here really knows---deep down---that it's "ridiculous".


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

I am totally in understanding with Mr. Gordon here.

This is why very few, if any, ROKCers are here today. The only one I can think of is Vanessa Loney.

Secondly, it's one thing to argue with someone on this forum about certain pieces of evidence. But there are rules one has to uphold in that arguing.

When one goes elsewhere, the rules are usually not being upheld. So one is free to vent at will--while still being a member here.

And I also agree with the proxy rule. It's one thing to quote from a book or an essay. It's quite another to use yourself as a funnel to someone who has been banned. We just had this issue come up a rather short time ago when the same person was using Jim Hargrove.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jim DiEugenio, deep down, has got to know that I'm right about this "Posting At Other Forums" matter, but I guess he feels obligated to stick up for the EF owner anyway because DiEugenio apparently doesn't possess the gonads to speak up for what everybody knows is right concerning this situation, which is --- this forum has no right to dictate what I (or anyone else, including you, James DiEugenio) have to say at any other forum or website.

If you, Jim Di., want to rip me a new anal cavity at the Deep Politics Forum (which you have done on occasion, and I have the links to prove it), then you have every right to do that without having to walk on the eggshells created by a silly rule that exists at a different forum.

And I'm not sure if such a rule is even constitutionally legal. It might not be legal. (Any lawyers present?) But even if such a rule is constitutionally legal, it is still an unfair, petty, and downright childish rule to have on the books of any Internet forum. And even James Gordon himself realizes that it is a rule that probably doesn't belong in the "Terms Of Forum Use" at the EF site, otherwise he would not have said this to me yesterday:

"Where I might well have agreed to remove the rule, I have no intention of doing so. .... You want the rule removed so that you have the freedom not to be constrained by such rules of this forum when visiting other forums and therefore be able to describe them as you really feel about them. If for no other reason than that admission - that rule will remain." -- James R. Gordon; February 24, 2019

So, as we can easily see, Mr. Gordon has come right out and admitted that pretty much the only reason he's keeping the "Do Not Cast Aspersions At Other Forums" rule on his Rules page is to simply spite me.

What a sweet guy!




MICAH MILETO SAID:

Anybody who wants to ban anybody is ugly on the inside. As long as it's not spam or advertisement, free speech is more important than hurt feelings. People will just find more ways to insult each other's intelligence, ad hominem is a lot easier to spot than most [of] the other common discussion-sabotaging tactics.

And anybody who isn't living under a rock understands that freedom of speech is a hot button issue on the internet. Some see online censorship for what it is, some don't care about anybody but themselves.


ANDREJ STANCAK SAID:

I find it incomprehensible that someone would issue some very derogatory statements about the administrators of this forum on some other platforms. If an administrator is at low esteem in a member's eyes, that member should consider leaving the Forum. While differences in views among two members of the Forum can be heated at times, none of the members should go to a different forum and write derogatory evaluations about the other member there, administrator or not.

Such rule protects this forum and it can be required from any EF member. I see no problem saying "We differ with XY in this and that point" on Facebook or some other forum, but I find it unacceptable to see statements portraying another member of this Forum as a coward, liar, fraud, dishonest, incompetent, you name it.

My comment does not strip anyone from the freedom of speech because it is possible to express differences of views without questioning the character or abilities of any of the forum's members.

I should also add that an administrator does not need to be an expert in a particular aspect of the case, and administrators seldom take part in actual exchanges in threads. They are here to moderate, to check that we abide by the rules. Admins are arbiters in the matter of conduct on this forum.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks for your opinion on this matter, Andrej. I will respectfully disagree with you, however. The rule that is in place here [below] restricts freedom of speech at other Internet locations, and this forum's owners do not (or at least should not) have a right to place such restrictions on anyone outside the purview of The Education Forum (IMO)....

"Any current member who casts aspersions about the Forum and/or its membership – either from within the forum or outside the forum – may lose their posting privileges or indeed be banned."

And just "for the record"....

James R. Gordon has posted 935 times [as of this moment on 2/25/2019 AM] since he registered here on August 1, 2004.


KATHY BECKET SAID:

I don't understand why anyone would say things about someone who allows you to post here. Posting is a privilege, not a right. And for many months James paid for this forum by himself so folks could post here. I wouldn't think anyone would talk about him and continue to post here. Why would you stay if you thought he was ignorant?

David, you said James is continuing the rule because of you. It looks to me like from your FB post the only reason you are staying here [is] because of your posts you've made in the past. We don't delete posts. That was done a few years ago under different admins., so that's done, and you can relax about it.

Also, I found some free websites where folks could start their own forums, if need be. Who would want to stay in a place where the owner is not liked and the admins are ugly on the inside?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Greetings Kathy Becket,

Yes, James Gordon explained to me in his 2/24/19 Private Message that even when EF members get banned, their past forum messages will stay put in the forum's archives---and I was very glad to hear that because it wasn't like that at all under John Simkin's pre-2013 ownership.

And I'm not staying and posting here merely because I want my previous posts to remain available here at this site (I archive almost all of my EF discussions at my own website anyway)....but I'd like to stay here because I want to continue to add future discussions to my website archives too. I've been able to add several interesting new Education Forum discussions to my site in just the last two months. And I wouldn't have been able to do it without the participation of this forum's members (both CTers and LNers alike).

So, in short, I like this forum. I disagree with nearly everything that's uttered by the "CTers" in this place. (And I'm sure that comes as no big shock to you.) But, just the same, I like being able to post here and share my views. And the EF site has good functionality too. It's simple to navigate and I like the look of the design and the pages. So that's another "plus".

Also --- Even though I've had a couple of heated disagreements in the last four years with this forum's owner, James Gordon, he is a person I haven't really had all that much contact with. And he doesn't really post too many messages, which makes any contact somewhat minimal anyway. Most of my discussions here have been with people other than James. So I really can't see why my problems with Mr. Gordon should make me want to quit the forum entirely. That doesn't make sense to me. I've been able to archive many good EF discussions (covering several different JFK sub-topics), and 99% of those discussions haven't included a single post by James R. Gordon at all.

Plus, I think you missed my main point, Kathy. Which was (again) --- I don't think The Education Forum should have a right to, in effect, tell its members what they can or cannot say at other Internet sites. That's not fair, in my view. And I do think it's an infringement on the Freedom of Speech rights of this forum's members. And my opinion in this regard has got nothing to do with my disagreements with Mr. Gordon as far as the Single-Bullet Theory or any of the other evidence in the JFK case.


JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

I am sorry, I am not going to budge on this point. You are free to commend and praise whatever EF member you wish on whatever forum you wish to choose. The rule does not prohibit you doing that in any way whatsoever.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Duh!!

I wonder why there wouldn't be a forum rule saying: "Forum members are prohibited from saying really nice things about other EF forum members and its admins. on other Internet forums."




JAMES R. GORDON SAID:

However, I am gaining the opinion that you want this rule removed in order that you are free to criticise members as and whenever you wish. You want me to remove this rule in order you can freely express what you really feel about this forum and its members. I will not agree to that.

It appears you are followed quite widely, so I understand that if on another forum you abuse this forum and its members, I will quickly hear about it, and you have been advised what will happen were I to hear such reports.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I can only sit here and shake my head in disbelief that someone who owns and moderates an Internet forum in the year 2019 AD could possibly utter the words that James R. Gordon just uttered above. Absolutely incredible (and pathetic).


DEREK THIBEAULT SAID:

Although not sure I agree with the rule that you can't criticize the forum at other sites, I don't understand why if you like being part of the site and the debates you would want to go trash the site elsewhere. I am part of the FP for JFK FB page and do not love everything that gets posted over there, but I don't rip that page here. I don't see a point in it. If I don't like something then I should debate it. Seems like a lot of wasted time and stress to go and bash a site you like. IMO


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're missing the basic point (and principle) too, Derek. I'm not saying I have a burning desire to go all around the Internet saying rotten things about The Education Forum and its members. That's not the case at all. But the EF forum should have no right to dictate what I can say at non-EF localities. And I shouldn't have to make a special effort to always "watch what I say" at other sites whenever the topic of an EF member comes up. I should be able to say what I think. But that's not currently possible (if I want to stay an active EF member, that is)---especially after today, because Kamp's spies will now be on the constant lookout for any "anti-EF" remark that I might make anywhere on the Internet.

But I guess I'll just have to accept this ridiculous situation if I want to be able to continue to post here (which, I'll admit, I do).


DAVID G. HEALY SAID:

Pleeeeeeze, Your one and only goal in life, based on my witness of your posting actions over the past few decades, is to support the conclusions of the 1964 WCR, PERIOD! Whenever, wherever that takes you. Of course you'll post and adhere to ridiculous situation(al) *required* demands. It's your job!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bzzzzz!! Forum Violation Alert!!

Looks like Healy is not aware of this forum rule:

[Quote On...]

"Accusations of Member Credibility: Members that post and/or imply that a fellow member of this forum is using an alias on this forum or an alias elsewhere designed to deceive members at [this] forum or any other forum, and/or that he/she may be paid to post on this forum. Such behaviour may lead to a suspension or ban from the forum."

[Quote Off.]

David G. Healy,

Please very carefully read all of these Forum Rules before you ever again attempt to speak to me via the pages of this forum, lest the Wrath Of Gordon befall you.


CORY SANTOS SAID ALL THIS.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What a bunch of ridiculous hoops to have to jump through....just in order to avoid violating a forum rule that shouldn't be on the books in the first place.

Geez Louise.


DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:

FYI ---

On the afternoon of February 25, 2019, James Gordon decided he had had enough criticism hurled his way, so he decided to lock this EF thread (and he closed one other related thread too at about the same time) so that no more posts could be made to those discussions.

Gee, what a surprise.

David Von Pein
February 24-25, 2019


[2/27/2019 DVP ADDENDUM -- This additional thought occurred to me a few days after the above bizarre situation took place....

You would think that after writing his crybaby-ish Private Message to me at
The Education Forum website, James Gordon would have been satisfied with a private apology from me.

And if Gordon would have handled the matter in that "private" manner, then that would have been the end of it and no one would have had to know about this minor skirmish except James Gordon and myself.

But nooooo!

A private resolution wasn't nearly good enough for Mr. Gordon. Instead, in heavy-handed and petty fashion, Gordon decided he wanted to construct a public mountain out of a private molehill, with Gordon "insisting" that I not only give him a "public apology", but he also "insisted" that I "create a new thread" at the forum in order to showcase in even more dramatic and unnecessary fashion how I was grovelling at his dictatorial feet.

Nice, huh?

The more I think about this event and the way Gordon handled it, the more burned up I get.

So, I think I'll stop thinking about it now.

Anyway, thanks for reading my comments about this goofy situation. If you've actually had the desire to read all the way to the bottom of this webpage, I commend you for your stamina. 😁]









JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS
(PART 1309)


SANDY LARSEN SAID:

As I understand it, in 1998 the Zapruder family had a high resolution digital copy of the Zapruder film made. This first-generation copy was given to the National Archives according to the JFK Act, and copies of the frames were donated to the Sixth Floor museum.

At some point in time, researchers Sydney Wilkinson and Tom Whitehead had purchased third-generation copies of the film in order to look for signs of alteration. They did find anomalies, an obvious one being that the back of Kennedy's head had been blackened.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I guess that means ol' Abe must have been part of the conspiracy and cover-up too, huh? Either that, or the conspirators and film-alterers just got mighty lucky when Mr. Zapruder went on TV at WFAA's studios in Dallas just 2 hours after the assassination and demonstrated with this hand motion (below) where he saw President Kennedy's head "practically open up", which just happens to perfectly match the location of the large exit wound in JFK's head when viewing what many conspiracy theorists insist is an ALTERED version of the Zapruder Film. This is a rather remarkable coincidence, in my opinion, IF the large exit wound in JFK's head was really in the back of his head (as CTers think it was).


ABRAHAM ZAPRUDER (RIGHT) ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963:






And I guess Gayle Newman was part of the cover-up too....


GAYLE NEWMAN ON 11/22/63:



Those plotters and cover-up operatives sure worked fast when it came to coercing and strong-arming the witnesses, didn't they? Or did the bad guys truly just GET LUCKY when the two witnesses above (who were two of the closest witnesses to the President when he was shot) said nothing at all about the BACK of JFK's head being blasted out by the fatal bullet?





MICAH MILETO SAID:

Do occipital-blowout people think the right skull flap didn't exist?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Based on many of my conversations with the "occipital blowout people", I have gotten the distinct impression that, yes, they seem to think the large wound at the right-front of JFK's head just didn't exist at all. They sure don't mention it very much (if at all). It's always occipital, occipital, occipital and fake autopsy photos whenever CTers discuss where they think the exit wound was located.

Good question though, Micah.

BTW, do you think the right-frontal wound existed, Micah?


MICAH MILETO SAID:

Yeah, I bet someone could replicate the Parkland-Bethesda head wound paradox using zombie special effects. If they tilted their head a certain way while laying on the table, maybe a wound above the ear would appear to be more behind the ear. Now the chest tubes, that's a real paradox between Parkland and Bethesda.

A Coup In Camelot argued that the right skull flap was created by the shooting, along with the occipital blowout, but was quickly pushed back in by Jackie. In that case, the Dealey Plaza witnesses would recall the right skull flap in that moment, and then it could be temporarily secured back from dried blood or hair.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Re: Jackie Kennedy's actions in the car on the way to Parkland Hospital....

http://jfk-archives/jackie-kennedy-testimony

http://jfk-archives/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1092


Also See:




David Von Pein
February 20, 2019









DVP's CORRESPONDENCE
WITH VINCENT BUGLIOSI
AND VINCE'S SECRETARY,
ROSEMARY NEWTON


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Reprinted below are many of the letters and e-mails I have exchanged with Vincent Bugliosi and his secretary, Rosemary Newton, beginning in July 2007, which was shortly after Mr. Bugliosi's book on the JFK assassination ("Reclaiming History") was published....

==============================================

Subject: Bugliosi Fan
Date: 7/5/2007 9:21:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Thank you for your wonderful e-mail. I just spoke to Vince and he asked me to get your mailing address, if this is okay with you. He seems to think he met you at the museum in Dallas some time ago.

Working for Vince has been an extended education for me. His capacity for logic and common sense is extraordinary. He is, like I said in my response to (what's his name?) oh, yes, David Lifton, that he is a perfectionist and, I might add, deplores incompetence, and does not suffer fools.

I find it unbelievable since I posted (or I should say John McAdams did for me, since I'm a novice at blogging or posting responses) the incredible stupidity regarding this subject. Some of these people really sound psychotic about the Kennedy assassination and they all have different groups doing the horrible act.

Again, thank you, and any help you can give me to respond to these crazies will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Rosemary Newton

==============================================

Subject: DVP Links
Date: 7/13/2007 12:38:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

I received your e-mail yesterday. Thank you so much! You really do a remarkable job on this subject. I sent Vince some of the pages which, of course, he appreciated.

Keep up your superb discourse.

Regards,
Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: A Sincere Thanks
Date: 7/18/2007 9:57:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

I called Vince today and told him that you received his book which he was happy to hear. Having an inscription written by Vince in a book he authored is, I think, very special. In fact, he came to my house last night to bring work for me and inscribed my book. My grandson will be the inheritor of several of Vince's books which he has inscribed for me.

[...]

He [Vince] did ask me to relay that he would be most appreciative if you continue your excellent work on the internet effectively responding (through common sense, as well as facts) to the JFK conspiracy community. And also to keep him informed of any developments in which you feel would be of interest to him.

Dave, keep up the good work; I am really in awe of the work you did on this subject on the internet.

Best regards,
Rosemary

==============================================

EDIT / INTERJECTION....

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Here's the inscription, written by Vincent Bugliosi, that Rosemary spoke of in her July 18, 2007, e-mail to me:

[Quote On:]

To David Von Pein,

Thank you so very much for being in the forefront of defending this book, 'Reclaiming History', from the assaults by all the conspiracy kooks out there. Your articulations in the defense of my book have been brilliant. Keep up the good work.

Thank you also for being such a fan of my work. I hope I never do anything that lets you down.

My very best and warmest personal wishes in all the years ahead.

Vince Bugliosi


[End Quote.]

[Photo of inscription HERE (and below)]



==============================================

Subject: Help!
Date: 7/19/2007
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Vince called me this afternoon after being told by a friend of his in Arizona that he had seen many "conspiracy" postings on the internet regarding the charge of his using ghostwriters in the making of Reclaiming History. It's the same old story. Vince asked him if he had seen the responses from Pat Lambert, Dale Myers, and his secretary, and he said he had not.

Knowing that you are a whiz when it comes to the internet putting responses where it counts, would you be able to put the 3 replies from Pat, Dale, and myself somewhere you think necessary. I wish I had your capability in doing this.

Also, would John McAdams be able to help with this? Let me know what you think.

Regards again, your e-mail pal,
Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: David Lifton's Craziness
Date: 7/20/2007
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

I have just now re-posted to the McAdams JFK Google Forum all of the information that you requested be posted (plus some of my own comments re: the matter as well). [Here's the link.]

[...]

I also placed a link on Amazon.com that goes directly to the Google post I linked above. The full Amazon.com discussion starts HERE.

I haven't heard any further nonsense from Lifton on the stupid "ghostwriting" charge. Maybe your excellent letter shut him up. Hope so.

If I can be of further help, please let me know. These silly allegations from Lifton boil my blood too. And the thing that REALLY burns my toast is when Lifton had the gall to say this about V. Bugliosi:

"If he [Bugliosi] wants to write about the JFK case, he should stick to the facts." -- D. Lifton

I responded to the above absurdity with this comment (which is included within the link I provided above):

"Can David Lifton REALLY not see the astounding hypocrisy that resides within the above statement. Mr. Lifton has no more been able to "stick to the facts" in his book "Best Evidence" than a snowflake could survive in Death Valley in
August. Absolutely incredible. (But hilarious.)"
-- DVP

Hopefully everyone who reads about Mr. Lifton's silly "ghostwriting" charges re: Vincent's book will step back and realize that such comments are coming from a kook who actually believes that JFK's body was stolen off of Air Force One.

If there is anyone with less credibility when it comes to a particular assassination theory than David S. Lifton, I'm not aware of who it might be (although a few other kooks do come close, I'll grant you).

Even Mr. Bugliosi has singled out Lifton's body-altering nonsense as the one JFK theory that truly "takes the cake". I agree completely. And I've said so (even before Vince did)....RIGHT HERE.

Regards,
David V.P.

==============================================

Subject: Re: Help!
Date: 7/20/2007
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

A follow-up to my last mail.......

If Vince ever wants to respond directly to the silly ghostwriting allegations, I'd be more than happy to post Vince's words on the Internet.

You could get a verbatim response directly from Vince; then you could write out that response in an e-mail to me....I can then easily copy-&-paste Vince's words from your e-mail directly into any post I make on the Internet (at McAdams' website or at Amazon or elsewhere).

Anyway, that's just a thought....and it didn't hit me until after I already sent my last mail to you.

In any event, if you or Vince ever need any more help in battling the crazy conspiracy theorists of the world, I shall be very glad to assist you.

Thanks.

DVP

==============================================

Subject: Thank you!
Date: 7/22/2007
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Sorry I didn't [get] back to you sooner, but I took a "fun day" off. Again, Vince really appreciates your help. Not having a computer, and not being interested in owning one, he really doesn't understand (although he sure is learning) how discussions with opposing views take place on the internet. Admittedly, I never indulged in this myself until Lifton's allegation was brought to my attention by Pat Lambert and I was angry enough to respond.

I'm sure the conspiracy community will never "die out" regarding the JFK assassination. But fortunately, there are those like yourself (but it appears not as articulate) who at least voice reason, common sense, and above all, facts. I'm sure there are those who believe that Booth didn't shoot Lincoln, and the earth is flat.

I mentioned to Vince your suggestion about responding himself and with your help posting it on the net. He said no, and again, I wasn't surprised. Even if he was video-taped showing him for the last 20 years writing with his #2 pencil on a yellow pad and dictating the numerous tapes to be transcribed, these morons still wouldn't believe what they saw and heard. You know, "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up."

In any event, Dave, keep up your excellent work and please keep in touch with me.

Regard,
Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: Reclaiming History Website
Date: 6/12/2008
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi again Rosemary,

A thought just jumped into my cranium that I had previously wanted to mention to you and Vince Bugliosi, but I forgot to tell you in my other mails:

I know this is none of my business at all, but IMO somebody should consider removing the David Mantik review snippet that is currently on the ReclaimingHistory.com website. And that's because Mantik does NOT endorse VB's "RH" book--at all.

In fact, Mantik hates the book for the most part and rips it (and Vince) to shreds--or attempts to--in his full review [linked below].

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1mantik.pdf

I'm actually kind of embarrassed for Vince when I see those two brief review blurbs of Mantik's showing up online at the RH site, because they are also taken totally out of context. Mantik is actually bashing the book and its author--not praising it/him.

And what's worse is that the same out-of-context blurbs appear in VB's "Four Days In November" paperback now too--which is absurd. I have a feeling that W.W. Norton put those blurbs in the "4 Days" book and on the RH site (and possibly without Vince B. even knowing what Mantik's FULL opinion was of "Reclaiming History").

Anyway, I just thought I'd point this out....because apparently nobody has seemed to notice that a person who actually has a severely negative opinion about "RH" (David Mantik) is showing up with seemingly glowing remarks about it on the RH site.

But if you'll read Mantik's entire review, you'll see I'm 100% right, and that Mantik's "It is a masterpiece" remark is really NOT a compliment at all. Because the next words out of Mantik's mouth after "masterpiece" are "—a truly brilliant prosecutorial brief".

And we both know that Vince does not intend for his Magnum Opus to be looked upon as only a "prosecutorial brief".

Also:

I doubt that Mr. Bugliosi knows about this following hunk of info either (regarding Vince Palamara, who recently switched from being a conspiracy-lover to a lone-assassin believer--or so he says--and who has a review posted at the RH website and in the book "4 Days" as well):

Months after going on record as having said that VB's JFK book completely changed his mind about a conspiracy in Kennedy's murder, Mr. Palamara continues to write 5-Star reviews for pro-conspiracy books. The latest example being his 5-Star Amazon review for Jim Douglass' latest piece of pro-conspiracy fiction.

Mr. Palamara, to put it bluntly, has a huge ego to feed...and, in my own opinion, he saw a perfect opportunity to do so by embracing VB's "Reclaiming History".

Palamara loves to see his name in print. I fear he doesn't really know what side of the JFK fence he's really on. As long as his ego is fed, he's happy. That's sad, but I think it's true. And just one look at his Amazon reviews will tend to bear me out on that.

[...]

As I said, these matters are really none of my business...and Vince Bugliosi (and you) have every right to tell me to go jump in the lake....but I really wanted Vince B. to know about these things (which I truly don't think he's aware of at all) -- especially the Mantik review blurbs, which, as mentioned, are just flat-out embarrassing after reading Mantik's WHOLE review.

It makes it look as if the publisher (Norton) is so desperate for ANY kind of praise from the pro-conspiracy crowd that they are willing to bend the context of Mantik's words to suit their own pro-RH purposes. And that's not a good thing at all, in my view.

Regards,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: JFK Article That Might Interest Vince
Date: 12/2/2008 3:07:26 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

I'm writing today to send you a lengthy JFK-related article I wrote recently, which debunks many silly pro-conspiracy things that have been spread around the Internet lately on "Black Op Radio" by assassination researcher James DiEugenio.

You probably recognize that guy's name, since Vince mentions James in "Reclaiming History", and, incredibly, Vince was very kind to Jim too. But VB might change his mind about him after reading DiEugenio's multi-part, never-ending anti-RH review that Jim has been writing for months now.

I've debunked and refuted much of DiEugenio's crazy silliness in my Internet articles.

I just thought this might be of interest to both you and Mr. Bugliosi, especially considering the fact that DiEugenio is saying the things he's saying with the intention of undermining and debunking virtually everything Vince has written in "Reclaiming History".

Here's the article:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/DVP Vs. DiEugenio

Thanks for your time.

Best regards always,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: Re: JFK Article That Might Interest Vince
Date: 12/3/2008 12:23:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Thanks for sending the DiEugenio article. I'll be sending this to Vince today. And, yes, I remember all too well his name and also his face which has been on TV often enough.

Sometimes I wonder whether logic and common sense has been flushed down the toilet in our society.

Happy holidays to you. Here's hoping there's some snow around in your neck of the woods! Throw a snowball for me and aim it at ignoramuses!!

Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: Another Article That Vince Bugliosi Might Want To See
Date: 12/14/2008 3:53:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi again RN,

Yes, I'm afraid it's time once again for another installment in my "Battling A Conspiracy Nut Named DiEugenio" series.

~sigh~

This guy DiEugenio has more anti-Bugliosi hot air in him than a stadium full of Gerry Spences. He never stops. His latest batch of anti-"Reclaiming History" crap is his most long-winded yet.

I doubt very much that Vince will want to take the six days necessary to wade through all of DiEugenio's nonsense that exists in "Part 4" of his RH review, but I'll provide a link to it here anyway:

http://ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_4_review.html

My rebuttal to Jim's latest rant isn't a direct response to the above review itself. My article below is in response to another of DiEugenio's constant anti-VB appearances on Internet Radio (from December 11th this time). I thought perhaps either you or Vince might want to see it. Here it is:

DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Part 14)

Thanks.

And Merry Christmas!

Sincerely,
David V.P.

==============================================

Subject: Re: Another Article That Vince Bugliosi Might Want To See
Date: 12/16/2008 1:47:01 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the "Von Pein vs. DiEugenio" saga. I'll give Vince his copy when I see him. Here's an idea--a cable TV show called "The JFK Assassination" hosted by David Von Pein who is ready, willing and able to take on any and all conspiracy nuts. Sound good?

Have a great Christmas and a very Happy New Year!

Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: Vincent Bugliosi And JFK's Head Wounds
Date: 4/19/2009 2:27:19 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton

------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

It's been a few months since I've contacted you. I hope you are doing well (and Vince B. too).

Over the course of the last couple of years, a JFK researcher (who is also the author of the 2000 book "Silencing The Lone Assassin") named John Canal and I have occasionally become involved in a debate concerning JFK's head wounds. And apparently John has been in touch with Vince Bugliosi about the "head wounds" subject too.

On April 18, 2009, John "challenged" me to try and find out whether Vince was going to "re-investigate" and possibly "modify his position" with respect to the topic of President Kennedy's head wounds.

So, I thought I would accept his "challenge" and write this e-mail to you and ask you that question. (Plus, it also provides me with a good excuse to write and say "Hi", too.)

My stance on the "head wounds" subject has been made clear to Mr. Canal via our many Internet forum discussions, with my position being that Mr. Bugliosi doesn't need to "modify" anything he has written in his 2007 book ("Reclaiming History"), nor SHOULD he modify anything he has already placed in that comprehensive publication.

The subject of the head wounds is thoroughly and logically laid out in very good detail in Mr. Bugliosi's book, in my opinion. But Mr. Canal has latched on to a couple of very odd theories concerning JFK's head wounds, with one of his theories being that the autopsy doctors at Bethesda hesitated to be totally forthright and truthful about the extent of damage that really existed in the back ("occipital") area of JFK's head as a result of the bullet that came out of Lee Harvey Oswald's gun.

But as I've suggested to Mr. Canal on multiple occasions in our Internet exchanges, his theory about the three autopsists simply crumbles into a pile of dust (in my own opinion) when we examine the theory in a reasonable and logical manner, such as in this excerpt of an Internet post I wrote in 2007:

"Since the autopsy report and doctors are so vivid and ultra-clear in the description of the ONE AND ONLY ENTRY HOLE in Kennedy's head (with that hole being positively consistent with the "Oswald Did This Alone" scenario, regardless of exactly WHERE the resulting exit wound were to reside on the President's head)....why would the doctors feel there was the slightest NEED to obfuscate and/or fudge in their descriptions of any "BOH" [Back Of Head] wound (large or small)?

"You [John Canal] said that the [autopsy] doctors feared that by revealing a large BOH wound they would be opening up the door to rumors and speculations that JFK had been shot from the front.

"But...why would the doctors necessarily feel this way? They've described the ONLY entry hole in the head as being at the rear of the head, proving without doubt that the only bullet that hit JFK's head came from the rear, from the direction where Oswald was firing a gun.

"There was no other ENTRY hole in the front of the head. None. So even WITH a larger-sized "BOH" wound present on the head, I cannot adhere to any such potential "conspiratorial" concerns about such a larger BOH hole.

"Such a large BOH hole, if it did exist as a result of ONLY ONE bullet striking JFK's head from the rear...could obviously have been easily explained by the same doctors as merely the extensive fragmentation of an already-weakened skull by the ONE bullet which entered the back of the head and then fragmented badly after entering the skull." -- David Von Pein; April 22, 2007 (which was, by the way, one month before I ever laid eyes on Vincent Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History")

Source Link

If Vince is interested in more of my long-winded opinions concerning Mr. Canal's strange theories about JFK's head wounds, I've provided a link below to an Internet post where I am responding to an earlier message written by John Canal. This post pretty much sums up my whole position regarding this matter:

[CLICK HERE]

Perhaps Mr. Bugliosi will have a different opinion on the matter after digesting John Canal's theories. But in my view, Mr. Canal is grasping for straws in order to try and reconcile (in his own mind) the discrepancies regarding JFK's head wounds.

There are, indeed, discrepancies when it comes to the topic of JFK's head wounds. There's no doubt about that. I just don't think Mr. Canal has the definitive answer to resolve those discrepancies.

And furthermore, the motive that Canal has attached to the three autopsy doctors for their wanting to hide the full truth about the condition of the back of President Kennedy's head is--in my own considered opinion--simply laughable.

Thank you for your time, Rosemary.

Best regards,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: Re: Vincent Bugliosi And JFK's Head Wounds
Date: 4/19/2009 8:41:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton

------------------------------

Hi again Rosemary,

Sorry to bother you again, but I wanted to include a short (but important) "Common Sense Addendum" to my last e-mail that I sent you (regarding the specific subject of the location of the entry wound on the back of President Kennedy's head).

Researcher John Canal thinks that JFK's scalp is being "stretched" three or more inches in this autopsy picture [shown] below (thus distorting and skewing the true location of the entry wound in Kennedy's head):



Regarding this particular point, I wrote this message in an Internet post in early April of 2009 (and these are two very important questions too, relating to Mr. Canal's "scalp-stretching" theory):

"Why would the [autopsy] doctors have had a desire to document the TRUE location of the entry wound on the back of JFK's head by STRETCHING his scalp in such an extreme manner (per John Canal's theory) that the doctors and photographer John Stringer certainly must have KNOWN on 11/22/63 that such a photograph would NOT be depicting the TRUE and ACCURATE location of the entry wound?

"Were the autopsy doctors deliberately TRYING to hide the true location of the entry hole by "stretching" the scalp in absurd ways before having a picture taken of the wound (i.e., a picture that was taken for the specific reason of showing WHERE on Kennedy's head the entry wound was located)?

"Come now, John [Canal]....let's be reasonable about this." -- DVP; April 4, 2009

Thank you for allowing me to bother you (and Vince) again.

Regards,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: Re: Addendum To My Last E-Mail
Date: 4/19/2009 5:41:27 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein

------------------------------

Hi David,

It was great hearing from you again. It has been a long time. I faxed Vince your e-mails and got a reply quickly. First off, Vince asked that I tell you how much he appreciates your continuing support. Here is his reply:

"In response to his e-mail you can quote me as saying: John Canal's theory suggests there was a cover-up by the autopsy doctors in the Kennedy assassination. If there is anyone who has read my book and still believes this, there obviously is nothing I can say to him or her to infuse their mind with common sense.

"However, in the spirit of scholarship that guided me while writing 'Reclaiming History', if it comes out in a second edition, I will examine and address myself to any responsible new theory, including Mr. Canal's, that came out subsequent to the publication of the book."
[-- Vincent Bugliosi; April 19, 2009]

There you have it! I'll be checking on the internet.

Take care & stay cool,
Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: Re: VB And JFK's Head Wounds
Date: 4/19/2009 10:13:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton

------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

Thanks for the quick reply...and my thanks to Vince too for his very fast reply as well.

Best Regards,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: Re: The "Reclaiming History" HBO Series
Date: 7/26/2009 5:36:30 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

I faxed your e-mail to Vince and he just called to tell me that he is giving the scriptwriter for the HBO special your e-mail address. Hey, Dave, you may be listed on the credits!

Also, Vince told me to thank you for your feedback on the JFK subject.

You mentioned reading an article featuring Bill Paxton. Could you give me the link to this so I can send it on to Vince. I read one online about a year ago that he wrote. It may be the same one you saw. Anyway...thanks again.

Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: Re: Straightening Out James DiEugenio's Nonsense (Again)
Date: 8/5/2009 12:25:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Sorry I didn't answer you sooner, but I spent several days in Las Vegas. It's not as enjoyable as it was in the seventies. .... Anyway, thanks for the "boxing match" between you and DiEugenio. I'll see that Vince gets it.

Stay cool, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: A Couple Of Questions About CE399
Date: 8/8/2009 7:05:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton (And Vincent Bugliosi)


------------------------------

Greetings Rosemary!

I was wondering if you could possibly ask Vince Bugliosi a couple of questions for me regarding the "stretcher bullet" in the JFK case (Commission Exhibit 399).

If you're too busy, I certainly understand; but these questions are ones I've wanted to ask Vince for a while, and I don't recall finding the answers to these in his book "Reclaiming History". And I certainly can't think of a better person to ask when it comes to these matters than a seasoned lawyer like Mr. Bugliosi.

Here are my questions:

1.) Do you, Mr. Bugliosi, think that Bullet CE399 would have been admissible as evidence at Lee Harvey Oswald's court trial (had Oswald lived to stand trial)?

You, Vince, said this on page 442 of the endnotes in "Reclaiming History":

"I believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be admissible. I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to "the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the jury will give it], not its admissibility"."

[End quote.]

But I don't recall your ever specifically talking about the admissibility vs. inadmissibility of stretcher bullet CE399.

Conspiracists, of course, love to harp on the "lack of a chain of possession" for CE399. But, in your opinion Vince, was the "chain" so weak in the case of CE399 that the weakened chain would have resulted in a judge not allowing 399 to be admitted into evidence at all at a real trial of Oswald?

2.) At the 1986 TV docu-trial ("On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"), Bullet CE399 is mentioned by you (Vincent Bugliosi) during your examination of witness Dr. Vincent P. Guinn. (And CE399 is possibly mentioned in other portions of the trial as well.)

Now, doesn't this necessarily mean that Judge Bunton DID, indeed, consider Bullet CE399 to be an ADMISSIBLE piece of evidence at the docu-trial?

Because I would think that if Judge Bunton had deemed CE399 to be inadmissible, we wouldn't have had prosecutor Vince Bugliosi saying the words "stretcher bullet" and "CE399" during his interrogation of witness Guinn at the mock trial.

That type of questioning regarding CE399 would not have been permitted for a piece of evidence that had been EXCLUDED from being admitted at the trial, would it?

I guess my #2 question actually boils down to this general type of question for conspiracy theorists: Since Bullet CE399 was allowed to be admitted as a valid piece of evidence during the 1986 television docu-trial, then why do conspiracy theorists think that that very same bullet WOULDN'T have had a snowball's chance in hell of being admitted into evidence at Oswald's real trial (had there been one)?

The "Rules Of Evidence" were still basically the same at the mock trial in '86 as they would be at any "real" trial elsewhere, weren't they?

Thank you very much for your time on this, Vince (and Rosemary).

Best regards always,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: CE399
Date: 8/10/2009 12:06:46 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Vince called me yesterday and asked that I let you know that he'll get to your questions in a couple of weeks. He's doing several TV shows (including Larry King) and is going to Canada for a few days for the documentary they're doing on his last book ["The Prosecution Of George W. Bush For Murder"].

I'll be in touch with you to give you the information you wanted. In the meantime, stay cool.

Regards, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: Re: Bugliosi Letter
Date: 8/22/2009 10:06:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Vincent Bugliosi (Via Rosemary Newton)
To: David Von Pein

------------------------------

August 22, 2009

Dear David,

Please forgive this belated reply to your e-mail to Rosemary on August 8, 2009, as well as the abbreviated nature of this response, but I've been extremely busy the past two weeks doing, among other things, perhaps 30-35 radio, TV and print interviews on the 40th anniversary of the Manson murders, racing across town to Santa Monica to spend many hours editing the documentary on the Bush book, plus working on my book of essays.

About the issue in your e-mail, the whole purpose behind the chain of possession requirement is to insure that the item being offered into evidence by the prosecution or defense is what they claim it to be. It is particularly important when there is no other evidence that the item is what it is purported to be. We don't have that situation here.

In addition to CE 399 being admissible because of the general practice during trials that I mention on page 442 of the endnotes, there is other evidence that is extremely compelling that CE 399 (even if, let's assume, it wasn't found on Connally's stretcher, but on Kennedy's stretcher or even on the floor) was, in fact, what it is purported to be--a bullet that passed through Kennedy's and Connally's bodies.

What is that evidence? Mainly that we know that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons (3 H 428-429). This alone and all by itself (and certainly in conjunction with all the other evidence I set forth in "Reclaiming History" such as the orientation of Connally's body vis-a-vis Kennedy's, the ovoid configuration of the entrance wound to Connally's back, etc.), is highly persuasive evidence that CE 399 not only hit Kennedy but went on to hit and exit Connally's body.

Additionally, see the footnote on page 814 of "Reclaiming History".

The above makes the chain of possession or custody requirement even less restrictive than I point out, on page 442, it already is.

To the argument that yes, CE 399 was fired from Oswald's Carcano, but at another time and place, and was planted at Parkland, see pages 814-815 of "Reclaiming History".

The admissibility of CE 399 (along with other items of evidence) was, indeed, dealt with in London by Judge Lucius Bunton at a pre-trial evidentiary hearing, and Bunton, a sitting federal judge in Texas at the time, ruled in my favor that CE 399 (not the actual bullet, of course, which we did not have in London) was admissible at the London trial.

I'm sure there is more I could say on this issue if I had the time but I am still very busy and hope you understand.

David, I can't thank you enough for all the tremendous support you have given me and my book. You have become very valuable in helping to make sure that the truth catches up to all the lies and distortions told about the assassination, and I hope we get to meet some day so I can thank you in person.

Your friend and colleague,
Vince Bugliosi

P.S. In terms of condensing the 1-and-a-half million words of "Reclaiming History", there's no way for any rational and objective person to get around pages 951-969 and 1437-1461 of "Reclaiming History". If the person agrees with the conclusions set forth on these pages, as he must if, again, he is a rational and objective person, then pages 953-954 of the book take over from there and there is no need for further discussion.

==============================================

Subject: JFK Articles
Date: 12/2/2009 3:37:28 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

How are you, my friend?

I'm writing today in order to provide you links to a couple of recent online articles I've written concerning the never-ending battle with the conspiracy kooks concerning JFK's murder.

These are articles that I thought Vince Bugliosi (and you) might enjoy reading (as I attempt to destroy a particular conspiracy theorist's crazy theories; the theorist's name is Robert Harris, who has been posting conspiracy-oriented junk online for many years).

In one of the articles I mention Vincent Palamara's name. It seems that Palamara has now decided to stab Mr. Bugliosi in the gut (so to speak) via his admission that he still believes in a conspiracy in the JFK case (despite his apparent total switch to "LNism" in 2007 after reading Mr. Bugliosi's book).

To tell you the truth, Rosemary, I always knew that Palamara wasn't really ever completely "converted" into a lone-assassin believer. This became obvious to me when I saw that Palamara was continuing to write 5-star reviews at Amazon.com for pro-conspiracy books many months after he went on record endorsing Bugliosi's book (such as Palamara's glowing review in 2008 of Jim Douglass' book).

It's just a shame that Mr. Bugliosi placed so much faith in Palamara's supposed "turnaround" into an LNer. I winced when I saw Palamara's positive review for "Reclaiming History" appear in VB's 2008 follow up volume, "Four Days In November". Because now, as of late 2009, that pro-LN blurb for "RH" appears to be totally phony.

I've known for several years now that Palamara (in my own opinion) appears to be a person who seemingly doesn't know which side of the JFK fence he wants to reside on. His #1 goal, it seems, is to have his name show up in as many JFK books as possible. And I fear that was his main motivation for vigorously supporting Mr. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" in 2007. That's kind of sad, but probably true.

Again, that's just my own personal opinion about Mr. Palamara's possible motivations. I admit, I could be 100% wrong about that. But that's the feeling I get from reading his non-stop self-promoting articles and blurbs that appear at many Internet locations.

Anyway, I just wanted to share these articles with you and Vince B. (as I recall, you told me a couple of years ago that Vince B. wanted me to "keep him informed" on anything new that might come up on the JFK-related Internet forums, so I'm doing that now).

Thanks. And Happy Holidays to both you and Mr. B.

Here are the links:

ONE

TWO

Best wishes,
David Von Pein

P.S. -- One more link....this is a blog I recently created, devoted exclusively to Vincent Bugliosi's June 2007 radio debate with Dr. Cyril Wecht:



==============================================

Subject: JFK
Date: 12/2/2009 4:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

It was great hearing from you again. I faxed Vince your e-mail which I'm sure he'll find interesting. Vince, as you may know has been busy with the documentary that has been made of his latest book. It's due out sometime in February. I'm sure there'll be a great debate, pro and con, regarding the subject matter.

Please keep in touch and have a great holiday season (even though the mood of the country seems to be Bah Humbug).

Regards, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: Doug Horne's Silliness
Date: 12/20/2009 1:20 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

Just thought you and Vince might like to see my latest conspiracy-bashing article.

Doug "Two Brains" Horne is the person I'm battling in this article. Horne just released his 5-volume book of nonsense, entitled "Inside The Assassination Records Review Board".

And it seems that no theory is too outlandish for Mr. Horne to accept as the gospel.

Here's a link:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/doug-horne-part-1.html

Happy Holidays,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: Re: Doug Horne's Silliness
Date: 12/22/2009 4:46 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Great hearing from you! I'll be giving Vince the latest you sent when I see him this week. I know he appreciates your current news on the internet concerning conspiracies.

Have a wonderful and safe holiday season.

Warmest wishes, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: JFK Article
Date: 1/5/2010 9:51 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

Here's another JFK article you might like. I think this one is pretty good. Just thought I'd share (once again):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-29

Thanks.

David V.P.

==============================================

Subject: JFK Research
Date: 2/18/2010 4:57 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

I came across something today that I think Vince Bugliosi might be interested in seeing. Here's the link:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-876

Thanks.

David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: Re: JFK Research
Date: 2/18/2010 12:21 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Thanks so much for your e-mail. It was great hearing from you. I'll be faxing this to Vince and know it will be appreciated. Also, have a great 2010 (even though there's only about 10 months left.)

Regards, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: The Latest Attacks On Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"
Date: 2/27/2010 3:34:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

I thought Vince Bugliosi might like to know that another author has written a book attacking "Reclaiming History". It's a book of about 500 pages that was published in December 2009 by Rodger Remington, who is an author I don't think Vince is aware of (because his name is not in the index of "Reclaiming History", nor in the "RH" bibliography).

Remington is an older gentleman, and has actually written four books on the JFK case, dating back to about 2000, with his latest work being titled "BITING THE ELEPHANT: THE WARREN REPORT" (put out by Trafford Publishing Co.).

I've heard it through the grapevine (Jim DiEugenio to be precise) that in that book, which I myself have not read, Remington attempts to knock down all of Vince's "53 pieces of evidence" against Oswald.

And, naturally, the kook named DiEugenio thinks that Remington has done an outstanding job of discrediting virtually all of those 53 items that Vince lays out in "Reclaiming History".

So, I just thought Vince might want to get that book to see what kind of horse manure is being slung by this fellow Remington. And Remington must be pretty high on some kind of fumes in order to be able to totally ignore--or distort--Vincent's ironclad case against Oswald.

Of course, Mr. DiEugenio likes to mangle the evidence too, as we all know. And DiEugenio now has NINE sections to his own anti-Bugliosi review of "RH". All nine parts of DiEugenio's crap can be found here, by the way.

I've done a lot of debunking of some of DiEugenio's anti-VB nonsense, at the link below (I add to this collection of links regularly as well):



And here is the link to Remington's "Elephant" book.

Also:

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.

Thanks.

Best wishes always,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: Re: The Latest Attacks On Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"
Date: 2/27/2010 5:03:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Once again, I am enlightened (as I'm sure Vince will be). We should all question that Booth assassinated Lincoln, Guiteau assassinated Garfield, and Czolgosz assassinated McKinley. And, of course, that Oswald assassinated Kennedy. All these silly books written on famous assassinations should be burned and new ones like "Biting the Elephant" taught in schools so that future generations will know the truth. History should be accurate, right? Let's all go into the light and get our logical, thinking heads out of the sand (or is it into the sand?).

Regards, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: DiEugenio
Date: 2/27/2010 6:34:32 P.M. Eastern Standard 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 7:08:56 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Thank you, Rosemary and Vince.

I will.

David V.P.

==============================================

Subject: Mark Lane
Date: 3/5/2010 8:44:26 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

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 later downsized to the 2013 feature film, "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 shit!

Here's the link to Lane's hilarious and ridiculous (but thankfully brief) Internet radio appearance from March 4th, 2010.

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 A.M. 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 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 P.M. 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.

==============================================

Subject: O.J. Simpson Trial Observations
Date: 4/8/2010 2:32:41 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

I've recently been editing together this lengthy series of videos for my #2 YouTube channel regarding the closing arguments at the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial.

And while rewatching the TV trial footage (which I recorded on videotape back in '95), I thought of something that I think is quite interesting concerning the defense's allegations that were made during the trial.

I'm not sure if Vince Bugliosi, in his outstanding book "Outrage", touched on this observation or not. Perhaps he did, but I'm not positive.

Anyway, I just thought you might show this article of mine to Vince, just to see if he had any thoughts about it. Thank you. Here's the article.

Best regards always,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: Re: O.J. Simpson Trial Observations
Date: 4/8/2010 6:58:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your article regarding Simpson. I'll give Vince a copy of your e-mail attachments when I see him this weekend. He still isn't a computer person but I'll give him the hard copy. Right now there's a rush on his latest book which should be coming out in a couple of months.

As usual, Dave, you're on your toes and very good with the written word. Have you thought about writing a book yourself?

Thanks again,
Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: Re: O.J. Simpson Trial Observations
Date: 4/8/2010 7:07:54 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Thank you, Rosemary.

I'd love to write a book sometime [and eventually I did co-author this one], but you know the problem I would have? Since my interests are almost perfectly parallel to those of Vince Bugliosi, any book I would attempt to write on the JFK case or the O.J. case would always fall into the shadows of VB's two books on those subjects (and for good reason).

Anyway, the article I sent you about O.J. was something I don't recall anyone ever talking about specifically (not even Vince, as far as I can remember).

So I thought I'd get VB's take on the angle of: "WEREN'T THE LAPD CONSPIRATORS EXTREMELY LUCKY WHEN THE CRIME LAB CONTAMINATED THE BLOOD TO MAKE IT ALL SIMPSON'S BLOOD AT THE SAME TIME THE LAPD WAS ATTEMPTING TO FRAME THE SAME PERSON NAMED ORENTHAL?"

~grin~

As always, I appreciate your timely response to my Internet ramblings.

Many regards,
DVP

==============================================

Subject: My Reply To Jim DiEugenio's Article
Date: 4/13/2010 3:24:42 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

Yes, it's that pest from Indiana bothering you again! :)

The conspiracy nut named James DiEugenio posted this article on his website this morning that was all about lil' ol' me (for some reason), so naturally I had to reply in kind. And I just finished my response, which I think is pretty doggone good, if I do say so myself.

And since DiEugenio decided to attack Mr. Bugliosi--yet again--in his article about me, I thought I'd send this link along, just in case Vince or you might want to have a look at how far gone DiEugenio is regarding the JFK case.

Here's the link to my rebuttal post.

Thanks, as always, for allowing me to bug you incessantly.

My best,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: Re: My Reply To Jim DiEugenio's Article
Date: 4/17/2010 1:42:04 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Don't worry about bothering me incessantly. I enjoy your e-mails.

What can I say? Again, as the old saying goes, "Don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up."

Again, I'll reiterate, mysteries, conspiracies, who dunnits, are one hell of a lot more interesting than actual facts sometimes.

Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: Re: My Reply To Jim DiEugenio's Article
Date: 4/18/2010 12:44:55 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi again Rosemary (and thank you).

I wasn't going to "bother" you with the following article (which is a follow-up rebuttal to DiEugenio's never-ending tomfoolery), but since you say you enjoy these conspiracy-bashing e-mails, I think I'll send it to you now anyway.

Fasten your seat beat, Rosemary, because some of this stuff coming from Jim D. is enough to make you drop right out of your chair (from the laughter, that is):

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Part 2)

Thanks.

David V.P.

==============================================

Subject: Possibly Something Illegal Going On Here Re: "Reclaiming History"
Date: 4/21/2010 1:13:43 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

I'm not sending you an article of mine this time. This mail is to inform you and Vince Bugliosi about a link on the Internet that Gary Mack sent me this morning.

It's called a "Bit Torrent" link for downloading Vince's entire book "Reclaiming History" for free.

Now, I'm quite sure that Vince wouldn't approve of people being able to get his ENTIRE book for free on the Internet, so I thought I'd jot you this FYI mail.

What the "torrent" thing means is that different people on different computers can access small snatches or "bits" of the file (in this case, VB's whole book) and then save those files to their computers for free. Eventually, all of the "bits" add up to the entire book.

Here's the link:

XXXXXX [Link deleted.]

Just wanted you and Vince to know.

DVP

==============================================

Subject: Re: Possibly Something Illegal Going On Here Re: "Reclaiming History"
Date: 4/22/2010 7:07:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

I sent a copy of your e-mail to Vince regarding the above subject; I was asked by Vince to send a copy to the publisher which I did today. Does this mean any book can be put on the internet for free? Are there any guidelines?

Regards, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: Re: Possibly Something Illegal Going On Here Re: "Reclaiming History"
Date: 4/22/2010 7:12:05 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

I really have no idea, Rosemary.

Some publishers and authors have possibly given permission for their complete books to be put on the Internet, but I don't have any information on that.

DVP

==============================================

Subject: What Most People Are Saying About "Reclaiming History"
Date: 4/29/2010 6:29:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

I thought you and Vince B. might like to know what the majority of regular people (not counting the silly conspiracy kooks who occupy Internet forums) are saying about "Reclaiming History":

JFKAssassinationForum.com/index.php/topic,2344.0.html

[Note --- The above link doesn't work any longer, due to the complete crash of Duncan MacRae's "JFK Assassination Forum" in early January of 2018. Sorry.]

Regards,
David V.P.

==============================================

Subject: Re: What Most People Are Saying About "Reclaiming History"
Date: 4/30/2010 12:44:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Thanks so much!

Regards, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: Critiquing Another JFK Conspiracy Kook
Date: 6/26/2010 12:47:15 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hello Rosemary!

I just completed the article linked below, which is all about one of the latest silly conspiracy books to be published, and I thought you and/or Vince might like to have a look at it. It's not really a book review, but instead it's a review of some of the author's ridiculous theories, which he talked about during a radio interview this week.

This article is contained within a new "JFK Archives" blog I recently started up. I'm moving most of my older JFK articles to this new "Archives" blog. They look a lot nicer in there, with the ability to add hyperlinks and pictures and videos in each post, etc.

Here's the newest article, about a certain conspiracy author named Orlando Martin (perhaps Vince has heard of him):

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/orlando-martin.html

Thanks for allowing me to bother you (and Vince) once again. I always enjoy dashing off an e-mail to you.

And if anyone needs any help of any sort on the HBO mini-series, I'm always eager to lend a hand, or an article, or a video or audio clip, or anything. I'd very much enjoy being part of that landmark Tom Hanks' HBO project--even in the smallest of "Internet" ways.

Best Regards Always,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: Re: Critiquing Another JFK Conspiracy Kook
Date: 6/27/2010 12:51:21 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

It was good hearing from you again. I printed your article for Vince (which I know he'll appreciate) and will give it to him tomorrow.

I guess the "conspiracy" theory regarding JFK's death will go on ad infinitum. True (?) crime books sell. In reality, people, such as yourself, deprive others of making money who write "fictional" true crime books. (Logic be hanged) Enough said!

As I've said before, Dave, keep up the good work!

Regards, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: Another Attack Against "Reclaiming History"
Date: 8/24/2010 4:25:12 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

I recently re-joined a JFK group on the Internet at The Education Forum, and so did conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio, with DiEugenio continuing his non-stop attack against Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History".

I thought Mr. Bugliosi might want to see these attacks against his work, plus my replies. I've responded to some of the attacks, but not nearly all of them, as DiEugenio's crackpottery and list of complaints about Vince's book seem to be pretty much never-ending.

So, if there was any way to present to Mr. Bugliosi the forum thread linked below in its entirety (so he can read all of it), I thought it might be a good idea.

And if Vince has any kind of a formal reply to make to DiEugenio regarding his criticism of "Reclaiming History", I would be more than happy to place such a reply on the Internet.

As can be seen at the link below, the conspiracy nuts just never seem to give up. Sadly, their zest and zeal to find a conspiracy in the JFK case is just as strong as ever. And just to remind you and Vince -- DiEugenio is one of those silly people who actually believes Lee Harvey Oswald was completely innocent of shooting BOTH John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.

So, whether Mr. Bugliosi feels it's even worth responding to such an "Anybody But Oswald" type of conspiracy theorist, I cannot say. However, in an abbreviated form in his book, Vince has, in effect, responded to DiEugenio already, with these very appropriate words:

"I can tell the readers of this book that if anyone in the future maintains to them that Oswald was just a patsy and did not kill Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the evidence against Oswald or simply a very silly person. ... Any denial of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 969 of "Reclaiming History"

But, Rosemary, I thought I'd send along this Education Forum link anyway, because in 2007 you did tell me that Vince wanted to be kept informed of the latest stuff that's being written on the Internet. So here it is:

http://EducationForum.com/topic=16450

My best regards,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: "The Saga Of Anti-Reclaiming History"
Date: 8/25/2010 2:28:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Again, what can I say? You either get it (logic) or you don't. My feeling is still that belief in a conspiracy in his death is still more exciting than "just the plain old facts". I sincerely doubt that in the generations to come schools will be teaching the "conspiracy theory" regarding the assassination. They may briefly mention (with a smile on their face) that there were people who believed there was a conspiracy.

Dave, it was good hearing from you again. I'll be giving Vince copies when I see him later this week. Again, please keep in touch and stay cool.

Regards, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: The Latest From Delusional DiEugenio
Date: 10/11/2010 4:41:32 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi again Rosemary,

I just wanted to share with you (and Vince Bugliosi) my latest battle with kooky conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio, who says he's going to finally be wrapping up his 2-year-long, 11-part review of "Reclaiming History" sometime in the near future.

Once again, Rosemary, I want to reiterate this: If Mr. Bugliosi ever wants to put pencil to paper and write out a reply to some of DiEugenio's crap, I shall be more than happy to act as Vincent's online messenger and post any message he writes on the Internet.

Here's the latest link (it's not very long; not nearly as long as the last multi-page fray I sent you; this one is just a short battle with the conspiracy kook).

Thanks. And take care.

Regards,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: Re: The Latest From Delusional DiEugenio
Date: 10/11/2010 9:31:06 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Thanks so much for your e-mail which I have faxed to Vince.

I always enjoy hearing from you regarding the "others" from the planet "Silliness." I still believe that there are many people (even those with high IQ's) who subscribe to the "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up" theory. Maybe it's just pure stubbornness - you know, "like a mule."

Anyway, Dave, keep a stiff upper lip and your blood pressure down. And continue to keep in touch!

Regards, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: The Secret Service And "Four Days In November"
Date: 10/25/2010 3:45:20 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi Rosemary and Vince,

I hope you don't mind another e-mail from your favorite pest in the Hoosier state, but I have a question (and a little info) for Vince Bugliosi.

I ran across a video on YouTube the other day in which Vince was being surrounded by a bunch of scary-looking conspiracy kooks following one of Vince's personal appearances in November of 2009, and the kooks were talking to Vince about the so-called "Secret Service standdown" that many conspiracy theorists think took place in Dallas on 11/22/63. [HERE'S the video in question.]

Vince didn't seem to be aware of what the kooks were talking about, but the "standdown" crap is nothing more than another in a long line of conspiracy-flavored myths that have sprouted legs since JFK's death.

The kooks were referring to an incident that occurred at Love Field just as JFK's motorcade was getting underway. A Secret Service agent was running alongside JFK's limousine for a short time just as the car started to move at Love Field, and then the agent was called back away from the car by Emory Roberts, who was seated in the SS follow-up car.

The SS agent then throws his hands out to his side in apparent bewilderment and shrugs his shoulders as the motorcade leaves him behind [see the photo below]. This was all caught on videotape by WFAA-TV [full video here].



Many conspiracy theorists want to believe that the "shrugging agent" incident at Love Field is proof that Secret Service agents were ordered to "stand down" just before the assassination. But when assessing the incident more carefully, such an accusation of Secret Service complicity is just total nonsense.

For one thing, we know that even if the agent in question had remained with the motorcade after the cars left Love Field, there's no way in the world he would have been running alongside Kennedy's limo throughout the entire lengthy trip through Dallas.

Plus there's the fact that JFK's motorcade in Dallas was really no different whatsoever from many other pre-November 22 Kennedy motorcades from the standpoint of Secret Service protection for the President.

Many times on the Internet, I have posted photos of pre-Nov. 22 motorcades which show no SS agents on the bumpers of Kennedy's car at all; and in some of the pictures I've seen, there are no police motorcycles anywhere in sight at all! And yet the conspiracy kooks think the Dallas motorcade was totally unique as far as Secret Service protection goes. But that's just another lie the theorists like to tell.

For more information about the Secret Service incident at Love Field, go to the links HERE, HERE, and HERE.

My question for Mr. Bugliosi is this:

Has Vince ever seen the outstanding 1964 documentary film made by famed producer David L. Wolper, entitled "Four Days In November"? (Ironically, the movie has the exact same title as the first chapter in Vince's book "Reclaiming History" and the same title as Vince's stand-alone paperback volume that came out in 2008.)

If Vince has not seen that movie, I think he would enjoy it very much, because the Wolper film is a perfect video companion piece to "Reclaiming History".

The movie fully supports the Warren Commission's "lone assassin" conclusions, and it does so in great style (and by relying on the actual evidence in the case, instead of using shadowy conjecture and myths that are employed by most conspiracy theorists).

The film also includes exemplary narration by actor Richard Basehart and an unbeatable music score by the great Elmer Bernstein.

One of the reasons I think Vince likely has never seen Wolper's "Four Days" film is because the movie is not mentioned in "Reclaiming History" at all. And that surprised me (just a little), mainly because of the re-creation scenes that Wolper did with some of the key witnesses connected with the assassination, which really serve as extra "testimony" (in a sense) that Vince could have utilized to buttress some of his arguments in his book.

Wolper did re-enactment scenes and conducted brief interviews with Buell Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae Randle, William Whaley, and Johnny Brewer. And these re-creations were filmed BEFORE the Warren Commission had even finished its work, because the film (remarkably) made its premiere in theaters just a few days after LBJ was handed the completed Warren Report.

Anyway, I was just curious if Mr. Bugliosi was aware of the existence of that David Wolper movie, which, by the way, is the best documentary, by far, I have ever seen regarding JFK's assassination.

The entire 2-hour film can be viewed at my blog that I created especially for that motion picture. Here's the link:



I know that Vince doesn't use a computer very often, so he likely won't have much use for the above blog link, but I can also easily mail him a DVD of the film if he would like me to do so. I'd be very happy to supply him with a DVD copy.

BTW, the WFAA-TV footage showing the shrugging Secret Service agent at Love Field is included, in uncut form, in the "Four Days" film.

I'm done now. Thanks for reading another lengthy e-mail of mine. And take care--both of you.

Best regards,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: Re: The Secret Service And "Four Days In November"
Date: 10/29/2010 2:36:36 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Vince called me today and told me he'll respond to your e-mail regarding "The Secret Service & Four Days in November" shortly. He's presently tied up with his latest book and publishers, but continue sending any info regarding "Four Days in November."

Hope all is well with you.

Regards, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: Re: The Secret Service And "Four Days In November"
Date: 10/30/2010 9:44:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Attached is a note to you from Vince.

Regards, Rosemary

[Quoting from the note written by Vincent Bugliosi:]

October 30, 2010

Dear Dave,

The reason for my late response to your e-mail of October 25, 2010, is that, per usual, I am extremely busy, presently working on the completion of my book on agnosticism, and am weeks behind in answering my correspondence.

This “standdown” issue is something I’ve never heard of before and don’t recall its ever being referred to in any book on the assassination I’ve read, even, if I recall correctly, Vince Palamara’s book on the Secret Service.

About David Wolper’s documentary, I am well aware of it (David himself told me about it at a time when he wanted to make a documentary out of the yet-untitled book I was writing on the assassination) as well as its good reputation. My guess is that I have it among the hundreds of videos on the assassination I have that are not in any order of any kind. If I do a second edition of Reclaiming History, I’ll look for it, and if I don’t have it I’ll take you up on your offer to send me a copy.

Till then, keep up the great work, Dave, in keeping the flame of truth in the assassination alive. I can’t thank you enough for all you’re doing, and continue to look forward to meeting you some day.

Your friend,
Vince Bugliosi



==============================================

Subject: Re: Last Letter From Vince To DVP
Date: 11/1/2010 3:29:34 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Thank you, Rosemary. I appreciate your typing out Vince's letter in your last e-mail [which was this e-mail sent on October 31, 2010]. Apparently my computer cannot properly open some of the document files you have mailed me. The same thing happened last year when you had to twice send me a document file containing a letter from Vincent. Sorry about the trouble.

Even though Vince's last letter to me didn't have anything to do with Jim DiEugenio's continuing onslaught of criticism regarding "Reclaiming History", I want to stress once again that I would be more than eager to post on the Internet anything Vince has to say to DiEugenio. (And, of course, I myself would also like to hear what Vince has to say, should he choose to respond in any kind of fashion to DiEugenio's attacks. But I understand that Vince is always very busy.)

Footnote -- Has Vince got TWO more books coming out soon? I know he's been working on a "book of essays" (to quote Vince from his 2007 radio interviews). And he said in his last letter that he's working on a book about agnosticism. Or is the latter a part of the "essays" book? Just curious.

Thank you again, Rosemary, for your e-mails. I always enjoy seeing a "Rosemary" letter in my inbox. :)

Best regards always,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: Essay Book
Date: 11/2/2010 11:43:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

To answer your question about Vince's book of essays, "agnosticism" will be a book by itself. I know that I, personally, learned more about religion and the bible while working on his book. It's extremely interesting and well-researched.

Apropos to "religion & godliness", I'll be leaving in a couple of days for sin city (Las Vegas) to visit my brother. And, of course, I won't gamble. (Ha)

Regards, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: Mark Lane
Date: 11/26/2010 8:23:56 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi Rosemary and Vince,

I was just now listening to JFK conspiracy theorist Mark Lane on the Internet radio show "Black Op Radio" (linked at the bottom of this e-mail), and Lane was talking about a new documentary that he has just completed that will be coming out soon ("A Rush To Judgment"), plus he also took the opportunity to drag Vince Bugliosi and "Reclaiming History" through the mud again (he now does that on all radio shows he appears on).

Lane, of course, was telling the Black Op audience how horrible Vincent's book is and about how Vince "knows nothing about the Kennedy assassination" (which is actually a Lane quote from earlier in 2010, but yes, he actually had the gonads to utter those silly words on the air).

And there was also another statement made by Mark Lane on November 25, 2010, that I thought Mr. Bugliosi might like to be made aware of (and I want to also say that it's not the first time that Lane has said this; I recall Lane saying this on at least one or two occasions prior to his recent Nov. 25th radio appearance too):

Lane said, in effect, that Bugliosi was a liar when it comes to EVERY SINGLE QUOTE that Vince attributes to Dr. Cyril H. Wecht on pages 861-864 of "Reclaiming History" (in the chapter entited "A Conversation With Dr. Cyril Wecht").

Lane said that he had spoken with Dr. Wecht since "Reclaiming History" was published in 2007, and Lane said that Wecht told him that the ONLY part of that chapter of Vince's book that is accurate is the part where Vince says he talked with Wecht by telephone on December 14, 1999, and again on January 5, 2000. Everything else in that chapter (as far as the direct quotes that Vince attributes to Dr. Wecht) is 100% incorrect and a lie, according to what Wecht told Mark Lane.

I, of course, wouldn't believe much of anything that Mark Lane said about the Kennedy case (even if I had a shotgun pointed at my head and was being forced to swallow his "CIA Killed Kennedy" bullshit). Therefore, I do not place one ounce of credence in Lane's comments about Mr. Bugliosi's chapter on Dr. Wecht.

But, nevertheless, I thought that Vince might want to be made aware of some of the nonsense that people like Mark Lane are spreading around the Internet about him.

And my offer still stands to post any response that Vincent Bugliosi might have to any of the negative things that have been said about him on the Internet by any of the various conspiracy kooks (including Mark Lane, Jim DiEugenio, and Robert Groden).

I would be more than happy to print any rebuttal that Vince might choose to make to combat these nutcases who are attempting to besmirch him and his book "Reclaiming History".

Thank you.

HERE is the 11/25/10 "Black Op Radio" segment with Mark Lane.

My best regards,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: Re: Mark Lane
Date: 11/28/2010 1:35:45 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

I hope you had a good holiday. Personally, I can't wait until January 2nd when they're over.

Regarding your e-mail, I faxed this to Vince. All I can say is that, hopefully, future generations will be able to discern between the facts of the assassination or the theories that are just downright silly, unsubstantiated, and maybe(?) wishful thinking.

If Lincoln had been shot in the 20th century under the same circumstances, there would still be those who would question (even with enough evidence) the "facts" of who shot him. Sherlock Holmes they are not!!

Regards, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: Question About "Reclaiming History" Website
Date: 3/2/2011 2:37:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

How are you, my friend?

I had a question about the website for Vince's book "Reclaiming History":

All of the videos on that website are now dead [and the entire website is now gone too; here is a snapshot of what the site looked like in 2009]. The embed code for the videos has changed recently and the old embedded videos will no longer play.

I've had the same problem with those videos at my own websites too, and I have used other means to put them on my sites and keep them functioning.

But I have a feeling that whoever is in charge of maintaining the "Reclaiming History" website probably doesn't check in with that site very much any more since the book came out almost 4 years ago.

My question is: Do you have any idea who the person (or company) is that runs and maintains that "RH" website? Is it, by chance, W.W. Norton themselves?

I just wanted to inform whoever is in charge of the site that they've got dead videos on there, and I could easily provide the embed codes from FORA.tv for the newer embed versions that would make those videos play again. (Of course, anyone else can also grab the codes at the FORA.tv site.)

Thank you for your time. And take care.

Regards,
David Von Pein

P.S. -- I recently gave my main #1 JFK website a brand-new look and a facelift, which includes tons and tons of links to JFK material, plus a good-sized "Vincent Bugliosi" section too (which was on the old version of the site as well, but now it's all included on the site's main page).

So, if you know some people who might be interested, maybe you could give them this link. I'm always trying to build up a larger audience for my sites/blogs, so I thought I'd send you this link to my revised site:

http://DavidVonPein.blogspot.com

==============================================

Subject: Reclaiming History
Date: 3/3/2011 12:37:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

It was good hearing from you again. I was out most of the day yesterday and sent Vince your e-mail this morning regarding videos on the website for "Reclaiming History."

As to your question, I have no idea who runs the website. My guess is everything runs its course. I wish I was as computer literate as you are where you mentioned FORA.tv. If I get any information regarding this, I'll let you know. I hope all is well with you.

Regards, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: Reclaiming History
Date: 3/5/2011 2:26:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

Vince's editor at Norton isn't sure who keeps up the web site for "Reclaiming History." He said he'll check and get back to Vince (which I'll let you know). Vince also said he appreciates what you're doing. Again, thanks for your input and information.

Regards, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: Reclaiming History
Date: 3/14/2011 7:53:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

In response to your e-mail of March 2 regarding the website for "Reclaiming History," Vince asked me to tell you that it's a W.W. Norton website and is typical they don't keep it up after a few years. However, Star Lawrence told him they will almost undoubtedly reactivate it at the time of Tom Hanks' documentary. I'm really looking forward to this series as I'm sure you are also. In the meantime, keep in touch and also the great work regarding this subject.

Regards, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: More Silliness From JFK Conspiracists
Date: 3/27/2011 2:22:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

I wanted to share this latest article I posted, in response to the lunatic theories about Oswald's revolver espoused by conspiracy theorist Jim DiEugenio. I thought you and Vince might get a chuckle or two out of it. I certainly did:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/DVP Vs. DiEugenio (Part 66)

David V.P.

==============================================

Subject: HBO Mini-Series
Date: 11/6/2011 9:31 P.M. Eastern Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

It's been a while since we talked. I hope everything is okay with you (and Vince).

I have a question about the proposed "Reclaiming History" HBO mini-series:

Do you or Mr. Bugliosi have any updated information on the progress of the Tom Hanks HBO program to be based on Vincent's JFK book?

Earlier this year, Mr. Hanks himself said: "I can't say we're definitely doing it."

And someone on an Internet radio program this week claimed to have received info from a TV industry "insider" who said that the Hanks program had been removed from the Playtone production schedule.

So, I was wondering if you had any more details on it?

Even if it doesn't get made by 2013, I still hope that Tom Hanks, Bill Paxton, & Company will keep "Reclaiming History" in mind for possible future production.

Thank you, as always, for your time.

Best regards,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: Request From JFK Researcher
Date: 12/2/2012 8:27:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi Rosemary,

How are you?

I'm writing today on behalf of a French JFK researcher, Francois Carlier, who wants to interview Vince Bugliosi for an upcoming JFK documentary he is making. He tried writing, but received no response. So he asked me if I would give it a try.

If you could forward the request to Vince, Francois would appreciate it.

Thank you.

Regards,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: Re: Request From JFK Researcher
Date: 12/5/2012 6:28:34 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

It's been quite a while since we e-mailed each other. It was good hearing from you. I faxed your e-mail to Vince yesterday and spoke to him this morning. He said to give you his regards.

Anyway, he suggested that you contact his agent, Peter Miller, telephone number is XXX-XXX-XXXX. You may want to check him out on the internet. I was in contact with him for a couple of Vince's books awhile back and I hope something materializes out of this contact.

Anyway, keep in touch.

Regards, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: Re: Follow-Up From DVP In Indiana
Date: 12/5/2012 10:13:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hi again Rosemary,

Thanks for your latest mail. I'll pass the info along to the French researcher who was seeking the information.

My best regards right back to Vince B. too. I continue to reference and re-read portions of "Reclaiming History" on a regular basis. It will stand forever, in my opinion, as the quintessential book on the JFK case.

I heard rumors early this year that Vince was in bad health. Is that correct? I'm hoping it's not true and that Vince is okay.

BTW, I myself am in the process of helping a JFK researcher (Mel Ayton) co-author a revised version of his 2002 book on the JFK assassination. I'm not 100% sure it will get published, but since Mel's first edition was published in the U.K., I have high hopes for this new edition finding a publisher in the USA. Hopefully, I can have the publisher send copies to both you and Vince once (or if) it does get released.

Happy Holidays to you. (And to Vince and family as well.)

Best regards always,
David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: Greetings From DVP In Indiana
Date: 11/1/2013 12:24:51 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hello Rosemary (and Vince),

It's been a long time between "Hellos", so I thought I'd shoot you an e-mail today, prompted mainly by my discovery of two new Vince Bugliosi interviews that I found on the Web recently -- one done by KCAL and this radio interview Vince did with Tavis Smiley on October 16.

I was so pleased to see Vince is well enough (considering his health problems) to do interviews again. That's great to see. And, as you might know, I am always wanting to archive all of Vincent's interviews on my own websites [e.g., at Vincent-Bugliosi.blogspot.com], so I was glad to see some being done for the approaching 50th anniversary of the assassination (and to promote the film "Parkland").

If you have a list of any additional appearances by Vince on radio or TV, perhaps you can drop me a line to let me know the stations and dates of where and when he will be appearing. I'd like to archive them all if possible. My Internet Google searches for such things usually produce some good results (like with the Tavis Smiley program, for example), but if I can get a list directly from you or Vince---that's even better. Thank you.

My best to you and Vince, as always.

David Von Pein

==============================================

Subject: Re: Greetings From DVP In Indiana
Date: 11/5/2013 3:03:02 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: Rosemary Newton
To: David Von Pein


------------------------------

Hi Dave,

It's been awhile since we corresponded. Hope everything is great with you.

This past year I have rarely seen Vince (mostly mailings back and forth). I sent him your request and will get back to you with the info as soon as I receive it.

It was good hearing from you.

Regards, Rosemary

==============================================

Subject: New JFK Book By DVP
Date: 2/5/2015 12:40:11 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: David Von Pein
To: Rosemary Newton


------------------------------

Hello Rosemary,

I haven't written to you or Vince for quite some time, and now seems like a good time to drop you a note --- and this time to plug my own book on the JFK assassination. (How 'bout that?!)

For the past two years, I've been helping British author Mel Ayton write the book "Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Warren Report And Lee Harvey Oswald's Guilt And Motive 50 Years On".

It was supposed to come out in September 2014, to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the release of the Warren Commission Report, but we had some unexpected snafus and delays, which pushed it back a few months. It finally was released in mid-December 2014 and can now be purchased online at Amazon and Barnes & Noble. An e-book is coming soon, too.

So, I just wanted to let you and Vincent know that I have now proudly joined Vince as an author of an "Oswald Did It" publication. It's not nearly as detailed as "Reclaiming History" (no book could possibly be), but Mel and I want our new book to be looked upon as a kind of "condensed" lone-assassin volume that can complement and augment Vincent's massive work. We speak very highly of "Reclaiming History" in this new book too (of course).

Here's a link all about the book on my website. I hope you (and maybe Mr. Bugliosi too) can have a look....

JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/"Beyond Reasonable Doubt" Book Page

And here's the Amazon link.

I hope everything's going good for you in California.

My very best,
David Von Pein


[NOTE -- I last tried to contact Rosemary (and Vince) on May 10, 2015, when I sent Rosemary this e-mail, in which I repeated my message from February 5, 2015. I never received a response to either of those two e-mails. Mr. Bugliosi passed away on June 6, 2015.]


==========================


RELATED VIDEO FROM
NOVEMBER 4, 2007:








==========================


RELATED LINKS: