(PART 133)


After reading James DiEugenio's latest book, along with reviews of the new CHAOS book about Charles Manson, I'm wondering if the English language needs a new verb, in honor of Vincent Bugliosi -- to "bugliose." Here's my suggestion:

bugliose (booly-OSE) verb. : to bamboozle about historical events with lengthy discourses that completely misrepresent the facts.


Oh Brother (with a huge Capital B)! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

This ridiculous thread authored by Mr. Niederhut just might take first prize in the "Pot/Kettle" category here in the year 2019. Because the only people who are doing any "bamboozling" and "misrepresenting the facts" regarding the murders of John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit are the conspiracy theorists, not people like the late Vincent T. Bugliosi, that's for sure. (Just think "Mark Lane" and "Jim Garrison" and "Jim Fetzer", for starters. Three of the greatest bamboozlers of all-time.)

And I find it humorous to see how the number of Bugliosi-haters has grown in just the last few years, with the VB-bashers now not content to verbally assault Vince for just his opinions on the JFK case....but now we're getting a whole new wave of 21st-century Vince bashers, who now suddenly have a desire to toss Vince under the bus for his work on the Charles Manson case as well—even though all rational people who have even a slight knowledge of the details surrounding that particular murder case know beyond any doubt that the "Helter Skelter" theory was rooted in fact (based on what Bugliosi was told by other members of Manson's "Family"). But those facts will naturally be totally ignored by the outer-fringe conspiracy theorists of the world. Pathetic.

If you want to read some of the best "Vince-isms" (as I like to call my favorite VB quotes), go here....

http://jfk-archives/Favorite Bugliosi Quotes


"It is...remarkable that these conspiracy theorists aren't troubled in the least by their inability to present any evidence that Oswald was set up and framed. For them, the mere belief or speculation that he was is a more-than-adequate substitute for evidence." -- Vincent Bugliosi

"The conspiracy alterationists are so incredibly zany that they have now gone beyond their allegation that key frames of the Zapruder film were altered by the conspirators to support their false story of what took place, to claiming that the conspirators altered all manner of people and objects in Dealey Plaza that couldn't possibly have any bearing on the president's murder. .... The alterationists have even claimed that at some point after the assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey Plaza were moved to different locations and/or replaced with poles of different height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their palate?" -- Vincent Bugliosi

"There is a simple fact of life that Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists either don't realize or fail to take into consideration, something I learned from my experience as a prosecutor; namely, that in the real world—you know, the world in which when I talk you can hear me, there will be a dawn tomorrow, et cetera—you cannot be innocent and yet still have a prodigious amount of highly incriminating evidence against you. That's just not what happens in life. .... But with Lee Harvey Oswald, everything, everything points towards his guilt." -- Vincent Bugliosi

"In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one of them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered both Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders? Aren't we talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several billion or trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- Vincent Bugliosi



And, of course, practically every time an Internet conspiracy theorist opens his mouth, he proves the point that Vince made in this gem....

"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xliii of “Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy”


LOL, ROTF. Man, is everyone as sick as I am of that pot/kettle diversion?


You might be sick to death of it, Jim, but it's oh so undeniably true.


What does one make of a lawyer [Vincent Bugliosi] who bases his book on the rifle but DOES NOT TELL THE READER IT'S THE WRONG RIFLE?!


The above comment by James DiEugenio concerning the rifle is just one more example (among hundreds) that illustrates Jim's complete inability to properly evaluate the totality of evidence connected to JFK's assassination.

DiEugenio knows full well that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why Lee Harvey Oswald ordered a 36-inch rifle but was shipped a 40-inch model. But Jim won't admit it---ever. And that's because he's totally enamored with the really dumb idea that Lee Harvey Oswald never took possession of Rifle C2766 at all in 1963. Even a picture of Oswald holding that exact rifle doesn't convince Jimmy that LHO ever had that weapon in his hands.

Here is the reasonable explanation regarding the rifle that DiEugenio will continue to pretend is not reasonable at all.


What does one make of a lawyer who bases his book on the rifle but DOES NOT TELL THE READER IT'S THE WRONG RIFLE?!


Jim has apparently conveniently forgotten about this discussion we had on August 22, 2016....


Davey: Please show us where in VB's 2646-page opus [sic; Bugliosi's book is actually 2,824 pages long, including all endnotes and source notes] he tells the reader that the rifle the Dallas Police offered into evidence is not the same rifle that Oswald allegedly ordered?


Okay. Gladly. Here you go....

[Quote On:]

"The Warren Commission overlooked putting the American Rifleman advertisement in its volumes. But conspiracy theorist Sylvia Meagher points out that the advertisement was for a $12.88 Carcano ($19.95 with scope) that was 36 inches long, weighed 5 1⁄2 pounds, and had a catalog number of C20-T750, though we know the $19.95 Carcano that was sent to Oswald was 40 1⁄5 inches long and weighed 8 pounds, which was closer to the 40-inch Carcano weighing 7 pounds advertised in the November 1963 ad in a different magazine, Field and Stream. But Meagher fails to state the significance of this discrepancy.*

In other words, so what? We know Oswald was shipped his Carcano, serial number C2766 (whether or not it was the same weapon he had ordered, and whether or not he was even aware he received a Carcano a little over 4 inches longer and 3 1⁄2 pounds [sic] heavier than he had ordered), we know it was found in the sniper’s nest [sic], and we know it was the murder weapon."

-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 392-393 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History" [Also pictured below]

* Sources used by Bugliosi for the above book excerpt:

Sylvia Meagher, Accessories after the Fact, p.48 footnote; fact that Oswald ordered his Carcano from a February 1963 Klein’s advertisement in the American Rifleman magazine: Waldman Exhibit No. 8, 21 H 704; CE 773, 17 H 635;
WR, p.119; 7 H 366, WCT William J. Waldman; advertisement reprinted in “In the Works: Tighter Laws on Gun Sales,” p.4; see also the August 27, 1965, edition of Life magazine [pages 62-65]; Field and Stream ad where yet a different catalog number, C20-750, is used for the Carcano: Holmes Exhibit No. 2, 20 H 174, viii; 7 H 294, WCT Harry D. Holmes; length and weight of Oswald’s Carcano: 3 H 395, WCT Robert A. Frazier.


Typical DVP. Which is why I swore him off.

Note where this is located: it's in the end notes. Now if the End Notes were in the book, that is one thing.

In RH, they are not in the book. They are on a CD that goes with the book. In other words, the reader has to take it out, insert it into the computer and then read another thousand or so pages of sources and further material.


So, Jim, since I proved in 2016 (via the above Endnotes quotation) that Vincent Bugliosi positively did "tell the reader" about the "36-inch" vs. "40-inch" rifle discrepancy, can we at least agree that you chose your words poorly when you asked the following two questions in 2016 and 2019?....

"Please show us where in VB's 2646-page opus he tells the reader that the rifle the Dallas Police offered into evidence is not the same rifle that Oswald allegedly ordered?" -- Jim D.; August 2016

"What does one make of a lawyer who bases his book on the rifle but DOES NOT TELL THE READER IT'S THE WRONG RIFLE?!" -- Jim D.; August 2019


I would like to ask a question: How many people on this forum read all 1518 textual pages of RH?

Now, let me ask this: How many people read all of the CD?

(Sound of crickets in the night.)


Well, I have certainly read every page of the "Reclaiming History" endnotes. So your crickets in the night have just been forever silenced. 😉

And I continue to reference various parts of Vince Bugliosi's book on a regular basis (both the physical hardcover volume and the 1,000+ pages of CD-ROM endnotes). The book—including the very important endnotes—is an invaluable source of factual information concerning the events of November 22, 1963 (despite the conspiracy theorists' condemnation of it).


The obvious question is: why did VB not include this in the text?

I can tell you why since I analyzed the book. Vince did not want to include anything that he thought could give him a serious problem in the text of the book. So he put it on the CD. So he could more easily dismiss it. And this is what he usually did.

But he even got worse with things he knew he could not handle, on those issues he just left it out, e.g. the FBI rigging Ruby's polygraph. This is why it's a dishonest book. He says at the outset he will not do that. He did. And there is no denying that it was deliberate. Because the information was right there in his end notes sources, he just ignored it.

BTW, David Belin knew it was the wrong rifle also. The WR does not bring the issue up.


The Warren Commission undoubtedly didn't feel the need to bring up the 36-inch/40-inch rifle-length discrepancy because they knew beyond all doubt that Klein's had definitely shipped the Kennedy murder weapon to Lee Oswald in March of '63. Waldman Exhibit No. 7 proves that fact for all time. The key to knowing this fact, of course, is the rifle's serial number—C2766—which is a number that appears on both Waldman #7 and the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in the National Archives today.

Plus, when we examine the Klein's Catalog Numbers on the two pertinent rifle-purchasing documents in this case—Waldman #7 and CE773—we can see that the catalog numbers are identical —— C20-T750.

And it's also important to take note of the fact that even after Klein's Sporting Goods changed their magazine ads from the 36-inch rifle to the 40-inch model, the internal Klein's catalog number remained the same for at least a few months after Oswald purchased his gun, with the two Klein's advertisements pictured below proving that fact. Both of these Klein's ads depict a catalog number of C20-T750 for the $19.95 Rifle + Scope package that Oswald ordered in March 1963. The top ad is from the February '63 American Rifleman magazine (which was the source for Oswald's purchase), while the bottom ad (which is advertising a 40-inch Italian carbine) comes from later in 1963....


The surprsing thing about that book [Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History"] is this:

There is nearly nothing new in the entire text or end notes.

How you can work on a book for about 20 years, with two assistant writers, and not come up with anything new is amazing. But that shows the paucity of their case.


Nothing new was required to prove what amounts to an open-and-shut case. All of the salient facts were established many years before, in the aftermath of the assassination.



2,700 pages on an Open and Shut case?



The only reason Vince's book is that long is because of the conspiracy theorists that VB was responding to.

(As if Jim didn't know that.)


BTW, it's actually longer than 2700 pages.

Because the book is oversized. I would say if it was normal sized, it would probably come in at around 3300 pages. All to repeat the WC.

As I showed, the book is a bunch of hot air. It never should have been that long for the simple matter that VB just did not have anything new to say. The book is an argument by length and by invective. Bugliosi was trying to simply say, well geez look how thick this book is. It must be right. And if I add a lot of insults, then hey I really must be right. Which is why the character matters I brought up [in this forum thread] are not at all irrelevant--the man did have a dark side. A friend of Vince's who I met in Dallas told me about this, so I know it was a definite plan of VB's. He was also a lawyer and Vince revealed to him that this was his concept going in, to make an argument by invective and by length. It did not serve him well as the book is a clunker in every way. When you have to lie in your introduction, what does that tell you about the book? And no one except me noted the lie. And then I proved it.

For the life of me, I do not know how you can write a book on the JFK case without going anywhere. As I showed in my critique of Vince's version of Clinton/Jackson, Bugliosi was just utterly ignorant of those two towns. And his dumb comments on that incident were based upon that ignorance. As were Jean Davison's dumb comments.

Neither Vince nor Davison showed any evidence of ever leaving their offices. Does not that tell you something about the authors? They were afraid of what they would find out.


One of the really big problems with the WR [Warren Report] was trying to supply a motivation for Oswald.

Because the indications from both LHO and Marina were that he liked Kennedy.

I never thought I would see a worse try at this than from the WC. It was pretty bad. But Bugliosi's was even worse. It was just complete nonsense. Really embarrassing.

And this is bad because lawyers know that although it's not necessary to prove motive--you only have to prove intent--it is very helpful in a murder case.

So in addition to his pitiful attempt to paper over all the obvious forensic and evidentiary problems in the WR, he also failed at that.


You don't really have to prove "intent" either. The prosecuting lawyer's only burden of proof is to prove that the defendant committed the crime he was charged with committing. And Vincent Bugliosi most certainly met his burden of proof (with plenty of room to spare) when it comes to proving the guilt of Lee Harvey Oswald in the 2007 book "Reclaiming History". And only an outer-fringe conspiracy theorist who is hell-bent on pretending Oswald was innocent could possibly argue otherwise.




The military brass at Bethesda refused to let Finck look at the clothing.

They refused to let Humes request a medical examiner from Baltimore to advise them since they were not accustomed to doing trauma type pathologies.

They would not allow a dissection of the back wound.

Something else I just found out. After Malcolm Perry's afternoon conference, either a Secret service guy or FBI guy told him never to repeat the info about an anterior neck wound again.

If you take a look at the time of that conference, this means someone knew within about 90 minutes what the story was going to be.

Need I add that every single video recording of that conference is gone? And the Secret Service lied about not having a transcript.

These are all facts. None of them need to be faked. They are damning in and of themselves.


It's only damning in the mind of a rabid conspiracy theorist who will always look at everything with an eye toward a conceived conspiracy. (Know anybody who fits that bill around here?)

And this assertion below by Jim D. should convince him that he's not being at all reasonable or realistic about the topic of Malcolm Perry and the throat wound....

"...someone knew within about 90 minutes what the story was going to be..."

But Jim couldn't care less about a realistic approach to the evidence; he's too invested in promoting conspiracy, no matter how silly he sounds while doing it.


That is incredible. Davey is saying that both Perry and McClelland were lying.


Dead wrong. I've never once said that Dr. Perry or Dr. McClelland were lying. And I'm certainly not saying (or even implying) such a thing now.

Perry was simply wrong about the throat wound being a wound of entry. And McClelland was wrong about some things too. But I've never called either one of those doctors a liar.


But that is how desperate these loons get. Notice he does not say any of it is wrong. Because it's not.

BTW, in Sylvia Meagher's classic destruction of the WR, where does she say that anything was faked?

Answer: nowhere. You don't need any of that to wreck something that is a mess to begin with.


Well, since we know that Ms. Meagher was, indeed, in the "Oswald Was Innocent" camp (which we can hear her admit in her own voice in the 1967 interview found here [fast forward to 17:07], where she says that "Oswald was entirely innocent" of not only killing President Kennedy, but she also says she thinks LHO was also innocent of J.D. Tippit's murder and the Walker shooting attempt as well), then by mere implication she pretty much had no choice but to believe that a large amount of the physical evidence against Oswald was faked, manufactured, or manipulated in some manner --- otherwise Oswald is guilty. Simple as that.

David Von Pein
August 1-13, 2019