DVP vs. DiEUGENIO (PART 133)

W. NIEDERHUT SAID:

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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.

* DVP EDIT (AUGUST 2022) --- For proof of this, see Page 245 of the 1994 edition of Vince Bugliosi's book "Helter Skelter: The True Story Of The Manson Murders". On just that page alone, three different people—Gregg Jakobson, Paul Watkins, and Brooks Poston—are quoted by Bugliosi regarding their knowledge of Charles Manson's proposed "black vs. white revolution"/"race war" (aka: "Helter Skelter"). But many conspiracy theorists now apparently want to believe that Vincent Bugliosi himself totally invented the "Helter Skelter" motive/theory out of nothing but whole cloth and his own imagination. Such an absurd notion, however, is merely Bugliosi-bashing crap of the first order, as the quotes found on Page 245 (and other pages) of the book "Helter Skelter" amply demonstrate.

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

Samples....

"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


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

Addendum....

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”


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

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?!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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.


INSTANT REPLAY....
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

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?!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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


JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

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?

DVP SAID:

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.





JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

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.)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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).


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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....




JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

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.


PAUL BAKER SAID:

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.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

LOL

2,700 pages on an Open and Shut case?

ROTF


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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.)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

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.


JAMES DiEUGENIO ALSO SAID:

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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.


Q&A WITH VINCENT BUGLIOSI:


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID THIS.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

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


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

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.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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

DVP vs. DiEUGENIO (PART 23)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

James DiEugenio continues to do the thing that conspiracy-loving kooks
do best. They (and he) keep resurrecting already trashed theories, and
then they (he) apparently hope that nobody remembers that each of these
stupid theories has already been thoroughly explained in non-conspiratorial
ways.

As many conspiracy theorists try to do, DiEugenio also tries to maneuver
and re-work the Zapruder film's head-shot sequence into a "Conspiracy Only"
type of framework.

But what DiEugenio specifically does in his anti-Bugliosi review (and
during his frequent appearances on "Black Op Radio") is pathetic and
reprehensible, IMO.

It's actually kind of a triple-bill of absurdity and distortion on Jim's
part, too. Here's the "triple-bill" I'm referring to:

1.) DiEugenio has the gall to imply that JFK's head is in the
"exact position" in Z-Frame 313 as it was 1/18th of a second earlier
in Z312....which is total rubbish, of course. And DiEugenio has got to
know it's rubbish, too, because we know he's seen the Z-Film
IN MOTION many, many times in his life.

Therefore, since we know Jim's seen the film many times (and
undoubtedly has viewed frames 312 and 313 in super slow-motion,
like all of us have done many, many times, such as the clip provided
below) -- then we know that Jim doesn't have a leg to stand on when
he said to the sparse "Black Op Radio" audience that JFK's head is in
the "exact position" in Z313 as it was in Z312.



Also -- When DiEugenio said those words ["exact position"] on
Black Op Radio on November 27, 2008, he prefaced the remark by
misrepresenting Vince Bugliosi's REASON for putting a picture in his
book of the "high contrast" picture of Z313, with Jim, for some stupid
reason, saying that Vince uses that high-contrast version of Z313 to
show that the President's head is "leaning forward" at the moment of
the head shot.

Of course, as anyone can easily see by reading page 486 of VB's 2007
book, "Reclaiming History" (which is, indeed, the exact page number
cited by DiEugenio when Jim discusses this topic in Part 4 of his "RH"
review on Jim's website), Bugliosi is certainly NOT talking about the
forward lean or tilt of Kennedy's head when VB refers to the high-
contrast photo of Z313.

Vince, instead, utilizes the high-contrast picture to emphasize the
fact that all of the blood and brain tissue is seen to the FRONT of
JFK's head, indicating (of course) the likelihood that the bullet that
just caused that terrible spray of bodily fluid came from BEHIND the
President.

For DiEugenio to totally misrepresent Mr. Bugliosi with regard to this
important matter is, IMO, just about as disingenuous (and sneaky) as
you can get.

And Jim's "exact position" remark is just flat-out dead-wrong too, as
we all know. And even if Jim wanted to come back with the argument
that he was ONLY talking about the degree of "lean" or "tilt" of JFK's
head in both Z312 and Z313, his argument wouldn't go very far either.

Because even THAT argument would be invalid, because when JFK's head
moves forward between 312 and 313, the "forward lean" of his head DOES
change slightly too (i.e., in Z313, Kennedy's head can certainly not be
said to be in the "exact position" it was in in Z312...even from JUST
a "leaning forward" standpoint).

But it was obvious to me that DiEugenio's distortions (and his
misrepresentations of what Bugliosi meant by certain things relating
to Z-frames 312 and 313) are part of a concerted effort on his part to
try and REMOVE (or just DENY) as much of the verified Z-Film evidence
that exists that tells a reasonable person that JFK was shot FROM
BEHIND at the important moment when the bullet struck him at Z313.
And numbers 2 and 3 below go toward meeting that desired goal of
Jim's as well.


2.) DiEugenio's comment about how it looks like only "the front" part
of JFK's head is "being impacted" at Z313 is a real "WTF?" moment.

Jim must think that an ENTRY hole for a bullet is the HUGE hole, vs.
EXIT holes being the large and irregular-shaped ones.

Unbelievable.

And, again, as with Jim's distortions in #1, this #2 item is designed
to re-write the history of this murder, as James tries to impress upon
people something that is just plain dumb -- that is, that the great-big
hole at the right-front of JFK's head was the "impact" (or entry) point
for an incoming bullet fired from the front.

How stupid does Jim think his listeners are? Granted, a lot of conspiracy
kooks are mighty stupid....but geez.


3.) With Black Op host Len Osanic's help (it was Osanic who first
mentioned this #3 item, with DiEugenio, right on cue it would seem,
jumping in with both feet firmly in his mouth to completely agree with
the incredibly wrong thing that Len just uttered), DiEugenio actually
had the additional audacity to suggest that both of the Connallys
(John and Nellie) WEREN'T splattered with debris from the fatal shot
that struck JFK in the head.

Talk about misleading people. This one is a beaut in that regard.

Of course, as virtually all JFK researchers know (without even having
to think about it and without even needing to look up any of Nellie's
or JBC's testimony), both John and Nellie Connally were definitely
"covered" with debris from the fatal gunshot that hit JFK's head. To
quote John Connally himself:

"I could see blood and brain tissue all over the interior of the
car and all over our clothes. We were both covered with brain tissue."
-- JOHN B. CONNALLY; 1978 HSCA TESTIMONY

So, we can see from the above three points that James DiEugenio (like
many other conspiracists) is practically DESPERATE to re-write the history
of this assassination.

And while he's attempting to re-write history, Jim is obviously willing to
just toss the testimony of both John Connally and Nellie Connally out
the nearest window (and I don't believe for one second that DiEugenio
could have possibly gone this long without hearing at least ONE of the
many, many interviews [or WC/HSCA sessions] with the Connallys, where
they each have stated many times that they were splattered and "covered"
with JFK's brains and blood).

When I hear a CTer like Jim DiEugenio make blatantly incorrect remarks
like he has done on multiple recent Black Op Radio shows, I have to ask
the following question:

Since Jim is perfectly willing to totally misrepresent and mangle
certain KNOWN FACTS regarding the assassination of President Kennedy,
then why in the world would anyone take seriously anything else he
might say about a "conspiracy" in the JFK case?

David Von Pein
December 2008


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

A RELATED DISCUSSION, YEARS LATER....

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Here is another instance that [Gerry] Spence let go by [at the 1986 mock Oswald trial]....

If you can believe it, Bugliosi had his photo expert Cecil Kirk testify on a medical matter. He had Kirk testify that because the Z film depicts JFK slightly tilted forward at Z 313, and the head burst appears to go straight up at that point, this means that the bullet entered from behind.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What in the heck are you talking about? Cecil Kirk didn't testify about any "medical matter" at all. He testified only about things relating to photo interpretation. Why Jim DiEugenio is saying otherwise is a mystery.

In addition, Kirk didn't say a single word about JFK's head being "tilted forward" at the time of the head shot. Not a word. And neither did Bugliosi. They did, however, talk about how President Kennedy's head was seen by Kirk and the rest of the HSCA's Photographic Panel to move slightly FORWARD an instant after the bullet struck JFK in the head. Here is that testimony:


VINCENT BUGLIOSI -- "In addition to the spray of brain matter--all to the front--do frames 313 and 314 [of the Zapruder Film] actually show the President's head being pushed forward slightly by the momentum of the bullet?"

CECIL KIRK -- "Yes, it does."


Kirk's testimony at the 1986 mock trial can be seen below. And we can easily see that Kirk is not testifying about any "medical matter" at all. His testimony deals only with photo and film interpretation.* (And, btw, I did, indeed, check every reference to "Cecil Kirk" in my searchable PDF version of Bugliosi's book, "Reclaiming History", because I know there are a lot of excerpts used by Mr. Bugliosi from the over 1,000 pages of the transcript for the '86 mock trial, with many of those excerpts and witness quotes not showing up when the trial was shown on television in 1986 and again in 1988. But I did not find any references in Vince's book to Kirk testifying to any "medical matters" at all. He only talked about matters of photo interpretation.)

* And it would certainly seem as if Cecil Kirk was definitely qualified to interpret the photos and films in the JFK murder case, including the interpretation (from the standpoint of a photographic expert only, not as a "medical" expert) of what it means when we see all that spray of blood and brain tissue coming out the front of the President's head just after Zapruder frame #313.**

Here's what Vince Bugliosi had to say about Cecil Kirk's qualifications as a photographic expert:

"Kirk had been the sergeant who headed the Mobile Crime Lab and Photographic Services Unit for the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. This unit was responsible for the preparation of the photographic exhibits for the HSCA hearings and final report. .... Kirk, considered one of the nation's leading experts in forensic photography and forensic crime-scene technology, and a former lecturer on forensic crime photography at the FBI Academy, was now [in May of 1986] director of the Support Services Bureau for the Scottsdale Police Department." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 485-486 of "Reclaiming History"

** But despite Kirk's qualifications, I strongly disagree with him and the HSCA Photo Panel's conclusion regarding the timing of the "Single-Bullet Theory" gunshot. More on that here.





JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Anyone can read Bugliosi's book on this, which DVP apparently has done.

He and Kirk decided that because the Z film shows Kennedy's head tilted slightly forward at the moment of impact and the spray is slightly forward then the impact came from behind.

It is utter flatulence on Davey's part for him to deny that Bugliosi and Kirk made a big deal of this. Just look in the door stop, i.e. Bugliosi's book, on page 486. He actually compares its visual effect with the Zapruder film head snap!

He then says that "...it shows vivid, graphic evidence that the fatal shot to the head at Z 312-313 was fired from the rear." And he bases this on the head burst. Bugliosi plays this up like Archimedes and his eureka moment. Anyone can read this and the following page for themselves. I am not at all exaggerating. Davey either forgot it or he is trying to discount it, because clearly Kirk and Bugliosi were not informed about DeMaio [sic] and cavitation. In fact, I could not find the word cavitation in the index for RH. And whatever one thinks of the door stop, it has a good index.

That is the reason the head burst appears as it does. Nothing to do with directionality. Bullet comes in the front, same cavitation phenomenon.

Spence could have nailed them both on this.

BTW, I am not done with Kirk. (Has anyone read Reclaiming Parkland? I guess Davey has not. For good reason.)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jim,

Why are you continuing to misrepresent some of the things that Vince Bugliosi has said? As I pointed out to you in December of 2008 [above] and again yesterday [March 9, 2017], NOWHERE within Bugliosi's arguments (either in his book on page 486 or at the 1986 mock trial) does he even mention the fact that JFK's head is "tilted forward". That is NOT part of Vincent's argument at all. Nor was it part of Cecil Kirk's argument either.

In addition....

Let me also add the following pertinent quotes that appear in Vince Bugliosi's book, which include some very important points made by Mr. Bugliosi that should be ADDED TO THE SUM TOTAL of all the other evidence in the case, which is a "sum total" that will inexorably lead a reasonable person to the only possible conclusion he could reach regarding the directionality of the fatal head shot, with that conclusion being: that fatal shot came from BEHIND the President (which is a conclusion that conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio want to stay away from like it was the plague). And keep in mind, these quotes below from Bugliosi's book don't even touch on the VERY BEST evidence we have to prove beyond all possible doubt that the fatal shot to JFK's head came from behind---the autopsy photos and X-rays and the autopsy report. ....


"As can be clearly seen, the terrible spray of blood, shell fragments, and brain matter a millisecond after the president was shot appears to be to the front. .... And indeed, from Governor Connally's wife, we know that the shot to the president's head caused "brain tissue" to land on "both of us" (she and her husband), each of whom was seated in front of the president (4 H 147). .... Not only were the blood, brain tissue, and skull fragments all blown to the front of the president's body, but the five bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine were all to his front. .... Also, the three skull fragments found inside the limousine were all to the president's front. .... The main argument from conspiracy theorists that the "law of physics" requires that an object hit by a projectile has to be pushed in the direction the projectile is traveling, and therefore, the head snap to the rear compels the conclusion of a shot from the front, can easily be used against them. In addition to the fact that the president's head moved forward at the moment of impact, how do the conspiracists explain what would be the ridiculous anomaly of blood, brain tissue, three skull fragments, and five bullet fragments all flying to the front of the president's body at the same precise time they claim Kennedy's head was being propelled backward by a shot from the front? They don't. And can't." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 486 of "Reclaiming History"


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

More baloney.

Davey evidently could not pull back one page. On page 485 is where VB makes his big argument about the head tilted forward and downward.

IN THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH IS WHERE HE INTRODUCES KIRK AND THE PHOTOS!

One paragraph after that is when VB has his eureka moment about his (false) conclusion concerning the directionality of the head shot and bloodburst. And he specifically mentions the position of JFK's head. It's in the last paragraph on that page.

This, of course, is a non sequitur based on the forensic work of DiMaio. And only a layman like Bugliosi and a photo man with no expertise in forensic medicine, but with a matching agenda to his, like Kirk, would go for it.

VB does not reveal on those pages the fact that Kirk worked for the WC. He was only 25 at the time. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 59)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Dead wrong (as usual). There isn't a single thing on page 485 where Bugliosi makes any mention of the President's head being "tilted forward". So why are you making this up, Jim?

You seem to be confusing Bugliosi's argument about JFK's head MOVING FORWARD (or being PUSHED FORWARD by the impact of Oswald's bullet) with your terminology when you repeatedly use the words "TILTED FORWARD".

Do you really mean "pushed" or "moved" when you say "tilted", Jim? If so, you shouldn't be using the word "tilted", because it's not a word used by either Bugliosi or Kirk in their arguments about the direction JFK's head moves at the moment of impact at Z313. "Tilted" does not necessarily imply "Movement".

Plus, you aren't actually going to DENY that JFK's head DOES, indeed, MOVE FORWARD between Z312 and Z313, are you Jimmy?

EDIT -- I realize now, after thinking about it for a few more minutes, that DiEugenio HAS in the past (in 2008) actually denied the obvious forward movement of President Kennedy's head between frames 312 and 313. You can hear him denying this undeniable fact in this radio interview.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

PS Uh Davey, was not most of the blood in the back seat? I mean is that not where the SS man at Parkland was wiping up? According to VB, none of it should have been there.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

How incredibly silly of you to say something so utterly ridiculous. Vincent Bugliosi never said (or even remotely implied) that there shouldn't have been a large amount of blood in the back seat of the limousine. Vince knew that JFK remained inside the car, bleeding profusely, for at least five minutes after being shot. So, of course a lot of blood was going to be present in the back seat of the car.

Vince never suggested that every last drop of blood in Kennedy's whole body should have been propelled forward at the moment of the bullet's impact. So why are you suggesting that Vince DID suggest such a ludicrous thing, Jim?


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey, this is really below even you.

On page 485, Bugliosi spends five paragraphs, and part of some excerpted dialogue from the CBS special explaining the head tilted forward that Tink Thompson talked about way back in 1967.

Right after those five paragraphs--in fact in the next paragraph--he says he drove to see Kirk in Arizona. IN THAT SAME PARAGRAPH HE TALKS ABOUT HIS SHOCK WHEN HE SAW THE PHOTO ON KIRK'S DINING ROOM TABLE!

Do I have to quote the reaction: "Five or so minutes into my necessarily indiscriminate perusal of the photographs, one photograph suddenly stood out, startlingly so."

And that is the pic he is talking about, the high contrast 313. He puts both in his photo section, the regular z film plus the high contrast. And he says that this proves the fatal impact came from the rear. Because of the reasons I stated above. And it's completely false, since cavitation is non directional. Davey, I know this book better than you do. I wrote a 400-page critique of it and I took over 75 pages of notes while doing so.

Now, let me add, Tink Thompson, who is given credit for this discovery--although Ray Marcus found it earlier--does not believe it anymore. Based on the work of Daryl Weatherly, he thinks today that this is part of a smear on the film. And he argued this at the Duquesne seminar in 2013. This will be a big part of his new book, One Second in Dallas. As will be the idea that Z 312-313 was not the final shot.

Let me add: if Tink is right about this, then it's pretty much all over. (For people like me it was over a long time ago, but this will be more dirt on the casket.)

And Bugliosi looks even more like a court jester than I described in my book. Which is kind of sad, since I liked Vince. Until I read the door stop.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I guess I'll just have to get accustomed to Jim DiEugenio meaning "PUSHED FORWARD" whenever he says "TILTED FORWARD" when referring to what Vincent Bugliosi was actually talking about on pages 485 and 486 of "Reclaiming History". ~shrug~

And, quite naturally, as he should have done in his book and at the 1986 mock trial with Cecil Kirk on the witness stand, Vince Bugliosi did, indeed, utilize the very important fact that JFK's head was "PUSHED FORWARD" at the instant of the head shot at Z313.

Because only a fool would argue that the FORWARD MOVEMENT of President Kennedy's head at the moment of impact somehow is indicative of that bullet entering JFK's skull FROM THE FRONT. That type of crazy argument is almost as ludicrous as Jim DiEugenio's laughable comments concerning the position of JFK's head that Jim made on Len Osanic's radio show on November 27, 2008 (45 minutes into the interview), which is when Jimmy actually claims that JFK's head remained in the exact same place between Z312 and Z313.

I guess Jim has just decided to totally ignore this Z-Film clip below, or Jim will just pretend that the obvious forward movement of JFK's head in this clip is merely the result of a "blur" or a "smear". (In case anyone needs the definition of such behavior, it's called Denying The Obvious.)....



And why on Earth DiEugenio seems to want to merge and meld the TWO separate things that Vince Bugliosi talks about on pages 485 and 486 of his book is beyond me.

That is, DiEugenio seems to be saying that Vincent's argument about JFK's head being "PUSHED FORWARD" (or, as Jim D. wants to put it, "TILTED FORWARD") and Bugliosi's separate argument about all of the blood and brain tissue being ejected to the FRONT of Kennedy's head just after the fatal shot are somehow tied together and inseparable.

When, in fact, one argument really has nothing to do with the other. Vince treats each of those things as separate (yet corroborative) arguments. He's not saying that the blood spray has anything to do (physically) with the forward head movement. They are independent of one another, with each separate argument being highly indicative that the head shot came from the rear. (Plus the added facts presented by Bugliosi in his book concerning all of the bullet fragments and skull fragments being found to the FRONT of the President in the car, which apparently are facts that CTers like Jim DiEugenio would rather not discuss at all.)

And it's THAT kind of from-the-rear head shot CORROBORATION that Vince Bugliosi was pleased to present to the jury in London in 1986 and to the readers of his book in 2007.

I'd like to also add the following video clip from Part 2 of the four-part 1967 CBS-TV "Warren Report" special, to help combat DiEugenio's "cavitation is non directional" argument. Quite obviously, not everybody agrees with James DiEugenio or Vincent DiMaio on this topic:




JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Vince [Bugliosi] says on p. 485 that JFK's head was pushed forward and downward. (See fourth full paragraph.)

In the real world, this means it is tilted forward. For some reason you don't like that word, but forward and downward means tilted.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, I can agree with you on the fact that "forward and downward means tilted". But "tilted" does NOT necessarily imply MOVEMENT of the head FORWARD. That was my point. And that is the HUGE point Bugliosi was making in his book when he talks about the positions of JFK's head in Z312 as compared to Z313.

If Vince were to have just used the word "tilted", he would not have conveyed the important point he needed to convey to his readers -- i.e., that JFK's head physically moved forward between frames 312 and 313, which is something I know you, James, do not believe (see, again, the 11/27/08 Black Op Radio broadcast for confirmation of Jim's denial of the forward head movement), but even so, the point Mr. Bugliosi wanted to convey was that Kennedy's head MOVED forward by about 2 inches at the moment of the head shot. And, IMO, the word you keep using ("tilted") does not convey the motion of the head that was absolutely essential for Vince to convey to his readers when he discussed this topic in his book "Reclaiming History".

BTW, Jim didn't use the word "tilted" when he discussed this topic in his radio interview with Len Osanic in November 2008. Instead, he used the words "leaning forward" to describe the positioning of JFK's head at Zapruder Frame #313, which are words that most certainly do not convey the sense of MOTION or MOVEMENT between Z312 and Z313 that Vincent Bugliosi was attempting to convey in his book (and which Vince did, of course, successfully convey to his readers via the language that he used in "Reclaiming History"). And that critical forward motion of JFK's head is something that Jim DiEugenio doesn't even bring up at all in that 2008 radio broadcast. Not once! In fact, as I said, Jim then goes on to DENY that there was any forward movement of JFK's head at all! The way Jim discussed the whole matter on that radio show was extremely misleading and completely misrepresents the things Bugliosi wrote in "Reclaiming History", with the FORWARD MOTION of Kennedy's head being completely ignored--as if Vince never even argued that point in his book. Shameful, Jim.

David Von Pein
March 9-11, 2017

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1013)

MARTIN HAY SAID:

As is obvious from the title of their book, Ayton and Von Pein want you to believe that there is no "reasonable doubt" about Lee Harvey Oswald's sole guilt in the assassination. The authors even treat us to their (very unusual) definition of the term, writing that....

"If the preponderance of evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is not reasonable to say a particular anomalous piece of evidence shows innocence. Even when more than one anomaly arises, as it certainly does with respect to the JFK assassination, it is still not 'reasonable' to assume innocence if the preponderance of evidence shows guilt." (p. 118)

Why is this so unusual? Because the above is not the legal definition of the term as used in American criminal courts. The legal definition of beyond reasonable doubt in that venue is that 12 reasonable jurors have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt; they are convinced to a moral certainty that the accused committed the crime. If they do have doubt, they are not reasonable doubts. Which means that, during the deliberations, the one or two people who were reserving judgment had their doubts washed away by the other 10 or 11 jurors' arguments.

Another way of explaining it is this: the prosecutor has judiciously, methodically and conclusively closed off all other avenues of possible explication to the defense. The crime could have happened no other way. It is the most stringent standard in American jurisprudence. That is because a man's life or liberty is at stake. The second most stringent standard is, "by clear and convincing evidence." That standard is used in many administrative hearings, such as those by the ABA to disbar an attorney.

The standard the authors quote above is actually the lowest standard and is used in most civil courts. It is very hard to believe the writers do not understand the difference. Ayton is from the UK, but Von Pein is an American. Yet, at least the book editor should have pointed out this serious discrepancy which, in and of itself, mitigates the portentousness of the title. This reversal reduces the book to a utilitarian, not a fact finding or judicial inquiry.

In other words, because of the Ayton/Von Pein switcheroo, the many serious evidentiary issues repeatedly highlighted by critics over the last fifty years do not amount to reasonable doubt. Needless to say, actual legal experts--lawyers who understand the different standards and why they are used--would feel differently.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Many, many people have had differences of opinion concerning the proper legal definition of the term "reasonable doubt". It can be a confusing issue even among seasoned trial attorneys. Take the O.J. Simpson case as a good example of this. Veteran lawyer Vincent Bugliosi, who I think probably knew a little bit more about the rules that apply in an American courtroom than does Mr. Martin Hay, has expressed his opinion as to the manner in which Simpson's defense team (particularly DNA lawyer Barry Scheck) defined the term "reasonable doubt" to the jury at Simpson's 1995 criminal trial. And Bugliosi had no doubt that the definition of that term that was used by Simpson's defense lawyers was dead wrong and was (to quote Mr. Bugliosi) "not simply the law".

Here's what Bugliosi said about the "reasonable doubt" jury instruction in 1999 during a filmed simulation of the final arguments that Vince would have delivered to the jury if he had prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case (and this very same argument would also, of course, have applied at Lee Harvey Oswald's criminal trial, had Oswald lived to be put on trial for the murders of President Kennedy and Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit)....



So, as we can see by watching the above video, it's pretty clear that the following words written on page 118 of the book "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", which are words that were quoted by Martin Hay earlier in this post, are 100% accurate....

"If the preponderance of evidence points to the guilt of the accused, it is not reasonable to say a particular anomalous piece of evidence shows innocence. Even when more than one anomaly arises, as it certainly does with respect to the JFK assassination, it is still not 'reasonable' to assume innocence if the preponderance of evidence shows guilt."

How could any "reasonable" person argue with the logic that exists within the above paragraph (regardless of whether you're inside or outside the confines of an American courtroom)?

And, BTW, since I helped Mel Ayton write the book "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" while we were outside the environment of a United States courtroom (and we also utilized some evidence and testimony to illustrate Lee Oswald's guilt that might not have been allowed to be presented at Oswald's trial, had there been one), the whole notion that an author of a book on the JFK assassination MUST chain himself to—and be forever bound by—the "Rules Of The Courtroom" is a notion that only someone (such as, say, a JFK conspiracy theorist) would think was the only possible way of arriving at the truth concerning the facts surrounding Lee Harvey Oswald and the murder of President John F. Kennedy.

In other words, the conspiracy theorists who constantly repeat the refrain "Oswald would never have been convicted in a court of law" are pretty much doing the only thing they CAN do in order to avoid the obviousness of Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt — they're relying on legal technicalities, and hoping that those technicalities would have prevented some (or most) of the incriminating evidence against Oswald from ever seeing the light of day if there had been an actual court trial in the JFK murder case.

Because, let's face it, if all of the incriminating evidence that points to Mr. Oswald is legitimate evidence that was not tampered with in any manner, then Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of two murders in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963.

Quoting from Vince Bugliosi's JFK book (emphasis added by DVP)....

"An argument frequently heard in the conspiracy community is that Oswald could not have been convicted in a court of law because the "chain of custody [or possession]" of the evidence against him was not strong enough to make the evidence admissible in a court of law.

[...]

The first observation I have to make is that I would think conspiracists...would primarily want to know if Oswald killed Kennedy, not whether he could get off on a legal technicality.

Second, there is no problem with the chain of custody of much of the physical evidence against Oswald, such as the rifle and the two large bullet fragments found in the presidential limousine.

Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why 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"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 442 of "Reclaiming History" (Endnotes)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

As one can see, Martin [Hay] was correct. The "preponderance of the evidence" is a civil standard. In no way would that be enough to convict someone of a felony, let alone murder.

And then if you show all the holes a good defense lawyer would blow open in the DPD case against Oswald--I mean forget it. This case screams for alternatives, since the WC scenario is so theory driven.

As Bob Tanenbaum said to me, the last thing you want to argue is a theory in front of a jury.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jim DiEugenio is blowing smoke---yet again.

As if the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases amounts to only a mere "theory". Give us all a freakin' break, Jimmy.

Apparently to DiEugenio, the guns owned by Oswald, along with the bullets, the shells, the prints, the paper bag, the "LHO Did It" witnesses, Oswald's constant lies, and Oswald's guilty-like actions are things that all add up to just a "theory" with no solid basis in fact whatsoever. All of that stuff was merely manufactured to make Oswald look guilty.

Yeah, right, Jim. The entire batch of physical evidence amounts to just an Oswald-did-it "theory".

Oh, brother. What a crock.

As Jack Nicholson said [in this film] --- "Sell crazy someplace else."


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

You are the one blowing smoke.

I did not say that, Tanenbaum did.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But you clearly agreed with him. Otherwise, why post Tanenbaum's words? (Duh.)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

And as anyone who knows JFK 101 understands, the sine qua non of the WR is the Single Bullet Fantasy.

The WC lawyers understood this thoroughly and they wrote words to the effect, that if the SBT is false, it is admitting there was a conspiracy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But, of course, that whole point is a moot one---since the SBT was so obviously the correct conclusion for the Warren Commission to reach.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

The Warren Commission was a twisted travesty of a fact finding panel and a sick perversion of a legal procedure.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Says the man named James who has a bunch of things all "twisted" around himself, such as the following golden gems of fantasy from DiEugenio's archives of the bizarre:

"[Marrion] Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015

"I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides [Howard] Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010

"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 27, 2010

"You cannot even prove he [Lee Harvey Oswald] ever had possession of the handgun." -- James DiEugenio; June 25, 2013

"I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010

"Kennedy is murdered at 12:30 PM. Oswald is almost undoubtedly on the first floor at the time." -- James DiEugenio; 2008

"A Mauser was the first weapon found and...a Mauser shell was found in Dealey Plaza." -- James DiEugenio; April 3, 2015

"It's like I have always said, the WC was the Troika: Dulles, McCloy and Ford, with Warren for window dressing." -- James DiEugenio; August 1, 2015

"I think that that whole thing about burning the [autopsy] notes...was just a cover story." -- James DiEugenio; December 11, 2008

"I'm not even sure they [the real killers of JFK, not Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally] were on the sixth floor [of the Book Depository]. .... What's the definitive evidence that the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth floor, they could have been at the other [west] end." -- James DiEugenio; February 11, 2010

"Specter and Humes understood that the probe was gonna be a big problem. They thought the photographs would never be declassified. So Specter made up this B.S. story about the strap muscles, never knowing that that story was going to be exposed." -- James DiEugenio; July 16, 2009

"I have minimized the testimony of Linnie Mae [Randle]. I do so because in my view it is highly questionable." -- James DiEugenio; 2008

"I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction." -- James DiEugenio; August 5, 2015

"I just proved that CE 399 was not found at Parkland." -- James DiEugenio; June 4, 2010

"At Bethesda, the military severely curtails the autopsy so that no one will ever know the true circumstances of how Kennedy was killed. Also, the FBI switches the bullet found at Parkland Hospital to fit the second rifle found at the TSBD, a Mannlicher Carcano." -- James DiEugenio; 2008

"JBC [John B. Connally] does not react until around frame 237." -- James DiEugenio; August 2010

"I am not calling [Dallas police officer M.N.] McDonald a liar, the evidence is doing it." -- James DiEugenio; July 26, 2015

[End Quotes.]

Boy, with a record of absurdity like the one presented above (and also HERE), one of the very last individuals on the planet who should be using the words "twisted travesty" when talking about anyone else's conclusions relating to the JFK case is Mr. James DiEugenio.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

As we know, Russell, Boggs, Cooper, and LBJ never bought the Single Bullet Fantasy.

Later on, Ford admitted to the president of France, the WC was essentially BS.

And as we also know, through the work of Bill Davy, Warren later told a colleague he would never forgive Johnson for trapping him on the WC.

Which leaves Dulles and McCloy.

Nice company eh?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

More garbage and claptrap from DiEugenio. (He'll swallow almost anything. As long as it's seasoned with "conspiracy" salt.)


RON ECKER SAID:

Why doesn't someone write a book about DVP? Or better yet, make a movie. I think even DVP would admit it could make a good comedy, with some poetic license here and there. Logline: "A Kentucky Fried Chicken manager goes to any lengths to prove that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone-nut assassin of JFK."


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Ron, great idea about a movie about DVP. Unfortunately, the man who should play him passed away long ago: Peter Sellers.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And, unfortunately as well, the best actor to play Jim DiEugenio in the upcoming Warner Brothers screen epic, "Flight Of Fancy: The Anybody But Oswald Story", has also passed away. And his name is Peter too—Peter Finch.

This will be the tagline for Jimbo's bio flick.

BTW, although I love Peter Sellers, I'd have to say that the person to portray me in the movies should probably be Bela Lugosi. (But, here again, Bela is no longer with us. Or is he? The undead, you know.)

Bela and I have a lot in common. We stay up all night. We like eerie castles and thunder and lightning. And we seem to both have a preference for crimson-colored beverages. (And there's that "Lugosi/Bugliosi" name thing too.) :-)




PAT SPEER SAID:

I think you're missing the nuance, David. Of course, there are official facts pointing to Oswald as the assassin. But, even if one should concede those facts, they still don't add up to Oswald acting alone unless one mixes into the broth a whole bunch of theory. And, for many, that theory is hard to swallow.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I strongly disagree, Pat. (What a surprise there, huh?)

Every single thing that Lee Harvey Oswald did on both November 21st and November 22nd is indicative of Oswald working alone to kill the President. Everything....

....He hitches a ride to Irving with Buell Frazier on Thursday to get the rifle.

....Oswald lies to Frazier about the reason he wants to go to Irving on Thursday. (And if Oswald had had an accomplice with a car--ANY accomplice--then Lee would have avoided having to tell the "curtain rods" lie to Frazier on both Thursday and Friday, because the accomplice would have driven Lee and his rifle--or perhaps a different rifle--to the Depository on the morning of November 22nd. But Lee chose to hitch a ride with Buell Wesley Frazier instead. And nobody in their right mind has ever claimed that Frazier was an accomplice of Oswald's.)

....After shooting JFK, Oswald leaves the Book Depository Building on foot. There's no car with a co-conspirator waiting for him. Lee is on his own.

....After walking several blocks east on Elm Street right after the assassination to put as much distance between himself and the scene of the crime as he could, Lee is then left to utilize public transportation and a taxi to get him to his roominghouse in Oak Cliff, indicating once again his "I'm out here all alone" status between 12:30 and 1:00 PM CST on 11/22/63.

....Lee then grabs his revolver at his roominghouse (which is another risky thing that could have easily been avoided if Oswald had had an accomplice aiding him that day; the accomplice could have already had a gun waiting for Lee in his car).

....After leaving his room, Lee is then on the move again---again on foot. No car. No accomplice. Lee's hoofin' it all alone. There is nobody there to help him escape. Lee is all by himself.

Nothing Lee Oswald did indicates in any way that he was part of a multi-person conspiracy to murder President Kennedy. And the physical evidence Oswald left behind in the wake of the two murders he committed in Dallas on November 22 most certainly does not send out even the vaguest signal of "conspiracy" --- Oswald's rifle positively was the weapon that killed JFK. And Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver was unquestionably and beyond all doubt the gun that ended the life of policeman J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street.

In short, Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt in the JFK and Tippit murders is no "theory". It's an evidence-based fact.

The possibility that Oswald had some measure of help from some unknown and unseen individual can never be eliminated with 100% certainty. But as I just laid out above, if Oswald did have a co-conspirator, then that co-plotter was as useless and worthless to Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63 as a snow shovel on the sun.

David Von Pein
September 1-2, 2015

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 701)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

One thing that tells me that Jim DiEugenio is completely wrong when it comes to his anti-Bugliosi obsession is the mere fact that he can seemingly write and write and write some more on the subject of Mr. Bugliosi's so-called errors and distortions and misrepresentations and omissions and lies, etc.

And seeing this kind of absurd "VB Overload" on DiEugenio's part, I have to ask myself this question (which is the same question that all reasonable people should be asking who know anything about the internal character and moral fiber of Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi) -- How could it be physically possible to ACCURATELY berate and verbally smear a book written by Vincent Bugliosi in such extreme and non-stop fashion as Jim DiEugenio is doing in his multi-part book review?

And after pondering the above inquiry, the only logical answer I can arrive at is this answer -- It's not possible.

Which means, in the final analysis, that James DiEugenio cannot possibly be correct in ALL NINE PARTS [later to be ten] of his anti-VB book review.

It is simply not POSSIBLE for Mr. Bugliosi to be incorrect, as James DiEugenio believes he is, concerning all of the various sub-topics (dozens? hundreds?) relating to the assassination of President Kennedy that appear within Bugliosi's massively complete 2007 book, "Reclaiming History".

In other words -- Jim DiEugenio's pro-conspiracy SUBJECTIVISM must certainly be the prime motivation and the driving force behind his interminably lengthy anti-Bugliosi critique. Any other explanation for such wildly overblown and overdone criticism of such a scholarly, well-documented, and well-sourced book like "Reclaiming History" defies all belief.


PAT SPEER SAID:

Your post makes no sense, David. Bugliosi spent 2600 pages talking about the assassination--at least half of this was him arguing against other people's viewpoints. So now DiEugenio spends a hundred or so pages arguing against Bugliosi's viewpoint--and you call this obsessed?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, I do.

As I said previously, DiEugenio is in "VB Overload" mode. And anyone who knows anything at all about Vince Bugliosi--THE MAN himself--would instantly recognize DiEugenio's continual and seemingly never-ending attacks on Bugliosi's magnum opus as being way, way "over the top".

And DiEugenio's nit-picking certainly doesn't win him any CT medals either (and, yes, Jim is nit-picking in many instances in his soon-to-be NINE-PART "review").


PAT SPEER SAID:

And [you, DVP] infer from this that he must be wrong about a lot of it?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, absolutely. I do infer that very thing you just said. Jim's subjectivism is on full display every step of the way in his Everything Bugliosi Says Is Dead Wrong review (especially in the double-length segment on the Garrison case; but since Jim D. is a Garrison-ite personified, I don't think I need to elaborate further on Jim's motives for making that portion of his "review" a double-length diatribe).


PAT SPEER SAID:

Well...ding ding ding--doesn't the same hold true for your hero Bugliosi? Mustn't he be wrong about a lot of stuff, too? If not, why not?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Because Vince has a little thing called THE HARD FACTS on his side. Could that be it, Pat?

On the other hand, people like Mr. DiEugenio do everything within their power to completely ignore (or mangle) those HARD FACTS surrounding President Kennedy's death.

Of course, that type of shameful behavior on the part of Warren Commission critics is nothing new. Just look at Mark Lane and Jim Garrison for two high-profile examples of "evidence manglers". They are/were two of the best in that department (IMO).

You, Pat Speer, are much like DiEugenio, in that you are so firmly entrenched in chasing shadows and make-believe theories that you cannot (or will not) see the Oswald-Did-It forest for the trees. And that Oz-Did-It forest is a HUGE FOREST too....without question.

Although, Pat, I do have to give you more credit on some things than most other conspiracy theorists....because at least you acknowledge the fact that the head shot came from the REAR.

You've got the specifics of that rear head shot all screwed up (naturally), and you know that the ONLY AVAILABLE MEDICAL EVIDENCE does not support your theory about WHERE that bullet entered Kennedy's head....but at least you don't think Jimmy Files did it with a Fireball from behind the picket fence. And for that, I salute you. :)


PAT SPEER SAID:

One should consider that Bugliosi wrote letters to editors claiming even CTs like David Mantik agreed that his book was brilliant. He was thereby quoting Mantik out of context. Mantik, if I recall, said something like Bugliosi's book was a brilliant prosecutor's brief, but a failure as history.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're 100% correct about that, Pat. And I've written some Internet pieces concerning that very subject [two of which are HERE and HERE].

However, I think it's quite possible that Bugliosi (still to this day) hasn't read Dr. Mantik's ENTIRE "Reclaiming History" book review. It's possible that Vince's publisher (W.W. Norton) culled Mantik's "it is a masterpiece" blurb on their own (and they probably did), and then put those out-of-context words on the "RH" website and also in Bugliosi's 2008 JFK paperback book, "Four Days In November". But I'm still wondering if Mr. Bugliosi HIMSELF really knows that that blurb was taken out of context?

But, you're right, that was a dirty trick by the publishers (but not necessarily by Vincent himself), because that Mantik blurb should never have been used to promote Bugliosi's two JFK books ("RH" and "Four Days").

In fact, on June 12th, 2008, I went so far as to send an e-mail to Vincent Bugliosi's secretary about the Mantik blurb. Here's an excerpt from that e-mail:

"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. .... 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." -- DVP; 06/12/08


PAT SPEER SAID:

Anyhow...DiEugenio has as much right to criticize Bugliosi as Bugliosi did to criticize Stone. How can you have a problem with that?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yes, Mr. DiEugenio has every right to write whatever he pleases....about Mr. Bugliosi or anyone else. And he has done so.

But, likewise, I have every right to totally disagree with him (in print). And I do.

David Von Pein
August 31, 2009

DVP vs. DiEUGENIO (PART 127)

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

A very good reason for dismissing EVERY witness who said they heard shots coming from the Grassy Knoll is an often ignored statistic concerning the number of those witnesses who said the shots came from MORE THAN ONE DIRECTION....

http://jfk-archives/Dealey Plaza Earwitnesses

Per John McAdams' latest study, done in 2013, there were a mere THREE earwitnesses (Holland, Millican, and Landis) who reside in the "Shots Came From Two Directions" category.

Here's the witness-by-witness breakdown ----> CLICK HERE.




JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

This is utterly ridiculous.

As Pat Speer has noted, there was never any kind of rigorous and systematic cataloguing of the ear witness testimony. And to say there was is simply balderdash. Pat has gone through the sourcing on this chart and exposed it for the unreliable and ersatz evidence that it is.

If the FBI had ever done a rigorous and systematic catalogue, then obviously the results would have been as the films show. Or [is] DVP going to say, You nutty people: you would believe your lying eyes over John McAdams' chart?


JAMES DiEUGENIO ALSO SAID:

Gary Aguilar wrote that, after the assassination, Secret Service agent Elmer Moore spent a lot of time at Parkland. The Dallas doctors, up until about 12/11, had been talking to the press and they said that the throat wound was an entrance wound. But now Moore set up shop in the place. With the official autopsy report in hand, he began to turn the tide. For example, with Malcolm Perry. He also began to get this story in the local papers, e.g. the DTH [Dallas Times Herald] of December 12th. That story said the throat wound was an exit wound and at a downward angle. (LOL.)

Moore also got some SS agents to alter their testimony to the FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill, in order to discredit their report, which was Specter's agenda also. (Jim DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, pp. 167-68)

When Moore showed up to testify about his perfidy to the Church Committee, he had a lawyer in tow. Why? Because he understood that talking a witness out of his testimony in a criminal case was a felony. As many have written, Moore then became Earl Warren's personal escort through the hearings, and he admitted he talked to him every day.

[...]

Final comment about Moore. He despised Kennedy. Said he was pink, and selling us out to the commies--he actually got scary talking about this issue. (ibid) This is the kind of inquiry that the Warren Commission was.


B.A. COPELAND SAID:

David, we must not forget Agent Elmer Moore and his apparent unfortunate interaction with Dr. Perry.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, B.A., since I don't for an instant believe that ANYBODY (Elmer Moore or anyone else) was involved in any kind of a cover-up in order to conceal a conspiracy in JFK's death, then any conversation that Moore might have had with Dr. Malcolm Perry was, IMO, most certainly not sinister or underhanded in any way at all, and any such conversation was certainly not an attempt by Mr. Moore to cover up the true facts in the JFK case. (And that's because the "true facts" indicate that Oswald was the lone assassin....and, ergo, Dr. Perry was, indeed, mistaken when he initially said the throat wound was a wound of entrance.)

The same thing applies to the FBI's "midnight call" to Darrell Tomlinson as well. The details of the FBI's mindset at the time of that call are not known either. Conspiracy theorists, however, are more than eager to assume that "cover-up" and "conspiracy" must be involved in there someplace when it comes to that telephone call. But that doesn't have to be the case at all. And the same goes for Moore/Perry.

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

Darrell C. Tomlinson [July 25, 1966]: On Friday morning about 12:30 to 1 o'clock--uh, excuse me, that's Saturday morning--after the assassination, the FBI woke me up on the phone and told me to keep my mouth shut.

Raymond Marcus: About the circumstances of your finding the bullet?

Tomlinson: That is (one short word, unintelligible) what I found…

Marcus: I understand exactly what you mean, when they call you, it's pretty authoritative. But the thing is this, did they say - was there any particular thing about what they said or they just didn't want you to talk about it period?

Tomlinson: Just don't talk about it--period.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

This is one of the last bastions of the shameless defenders of the Warren Report.

See, there really was no cover up, by anyone. Even when they admit it, like Moore did. Even when the words came out of their own mouths and a credible witness was there. Even when the guy brings a lawyer to the Church Committee because he knows what he did was a felony.

This is what I mean by the rarified air channel in which DVP exists. It's somewhat similar to the air pressure over the Bermuda Triangle.

As per the FBI not being involved with a cover up, I mean pulease. Even Hale Boggs said such was the case. Recall that quote, "Hoover lied his eyes out to the Commission." (Jim DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p. 233) But nothing is ever enough for DVP or the late Bugliosi.

One of the most mendacious sentences in Bugliosi's tree killer waste of a book was when he said that there was not a scintilla of evidence to support the proposition of an FBI cover up in the JFK case. (ibid, p. 246) I actually thought he meant that in a satiric way; yes, Vince, there is a mountain of evidence to indicate such was the case. But the lawyer was trying to avoid a huge logical problem for himself and his book. If he admitted what Hoover had done, then this made it very unlikely the WC could be correct since the Bureau did by far the largest part of the inquiry. So therefore, he told a huge prevarication about the FBI's performance in this case.

But not only that, he did a pretty drastic make up job on Hoover. Including deodorant. I mean by this time, there had been at least five full-length exposes of just how bad Hoover was. Bugliosi kept the worst from his readers. As do all the WC zealots: DVP, Davison, McAdams etc. They never want to admit just how bad Hoover was, since it would be a natural reflection of what he did in this case.

So I really took Vince to task on this whole issue, since he made it easy for me to do so. I spent 37 pages exposing just how much Bugliosi left out of both his portrait of Hoover and the diddling of the FBI with the evidence in this case. I especially liked it when I could use actual FBI agents who were so sick of what Hoover had done in the JFK case, since they saw that event as the beginning of the end of the Bureau's reputation with the public. So I used witnesses like Bill Turner and Don Adams. But really all one has to do is recall this key fact: The FBI report was so bad that the WC failed to compile it as part of the volumes. And Hoover never swallowed the Magic Bullet. In fact, he literally tried to erase it from history with a patch over the curb to hide the Tague hit. I really had fun with that one. So will everyone, except DVP. (ibid, pp 250-54)


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bullshit, Jim.

J. Edgar Hoover was, let's face it, utterly clueless about many things that he shouldn't have been clueless about as of 11/29/63. But, nonetheless, he was.

Do you, Jim, think Hoover was just feigning his ignorance when he uttered these nonsensical "facts" to President Lyndon Johnson during their telephone conversation on November 29th, 1963?....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/09/fbi-errors.html

J. EDGAR HOOVER -- "He [JFK] was hit by the first and the third [shots]. The second shot hit the Governor. The third shot is a complete bullet, and wasn't shattered; and that rolled out of the President's head, and tore a large part of the President's head off. And in trying to massage his heart at the hospital, they apparently loosened that, and it fell onto the stretcher."

Rolled out of the President's HEAD??? Hoover is completely daffy here! Even SEVEN DAYS after the crime! Incredible ignorance! And yet, per James DiEugenio, this bumbling fool name J. Edgar is supposedly orchestrating the biggest (and most successful) "cover-up" in history. ~LOL~

It's just a good thing Hoover had good [i.e., non-clueless] investigators like Bob Frazier and Sebastian Latona working for him.

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

HOOVER -- "All three [shots were fired] at the President....and we have them."

Hoover, in the above quote, is saying to LBJ that the FBI had in its possession ALL THREE BULLETS that Oswald fired. Again, this is complete ignorance on the part of Mr. Hoover. Not conspiracy. Not cover-up. Just a lack of accurate information concerning the physical evidence in the case.

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

HOOVER -- "Those three shots were fired within three seconds."



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

LBJ -- "If Connally hadn't been in his way..."

HOOVER -- "Oh yes....yes. The President no doubt would have been hit [a third time]."

LBJ -- "He [JFK] would have been hit three times."

HOOVER -- "He would have been hit three times."

Director Clueless outdoes himself with the above gut-buster.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

OMG Davey, that was some pivot by you, worthy of Elgin Baylor.

And it shows you will never admit the deliberate alteration and obfuscation of evidence by the FBI.

I thought I roasted you pretty well, along with Vince [Bugliosi], about how Vince tried to cover up what the HSCA told us about the FBI rigging the polygraph test. If you recall, I pasted you all over this board on that one. But somehow, Davey now seems to forget about that issue and about how Vince deliberately covered it up in his book. That short memory serves you well in your continual denial of the facts of this case and what Hoover did in it.

[...]

Davey actually used to praise the FBI report on the case.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yep. And I still do....

"The 400-page original FBI Report contains quite a bit of detail on the background and the early life of President Kennedy's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, which is information that was obtained relatively quickly by J. Edgar Hoover's Bureau, with this information then written up in the FBI's December Report in a very reader-friendly style. Overall, in my opinion, the FBI's December 1963 Report is a good overview of the tragic events that transpired in Dallas on November 22, 1963. But Mr. Hoover's original Report is certainly not without a few (pretty large) mistakes, such as when the FBI reached the erroneous conclusion that each of the three shots fired by Lee Harvey Oswald struck one of the two victims seated in the Presidential limousine." -- DVP; April 2008


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

...the JFK assassination was not actually investigated in 1963 or 1964.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I hope you don't mind if I fervently disagree with you on this point, Jim.

In fact, I think your above quote is one of the silliest things you've ever uttered. And that's really a major accomplishment, considering the items that are contained within "The DiEugenio 22", which I never get tired of highlighting.

I know this will come as a massive shock to you, James, but I actually agree with Vincent T. Bugliosi on this (please don't faint)....

"In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history. Even leading Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg acknowledges that the Commission "checked into almost every breath [Oswald] drew"." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page xxxii of "Reclaiming History"


DAVID VON PEIN ALSO SAID:

The Warren Commission (and Vince Bugliosi) actually had something that conspiracy theorists can only dream about having ---- that is: HARD EVIDENCE to work with—e.g., Oswald's guns, bullets and fragments and shell casings from Oswald's guns, Oswald's lies, the Tippit murder witnesses, Oswald's unusual actions on both Nov. 21 and Nov. 22, etc.

Whereas CTers have nothing that even comes close to matching the Lone Assassin/Oswald evidence. And the likely reason for that is --- No such hard "conspiracy" evidence exists. And never did.


CLIFF VARNELL SAID:

When confronted with the clothing evidence, Dale K. Myers created animation depicting JFK's jacket collar elevated an inch up into the hairline -- an obvious fiction!


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

The clothing seen in Dale Myers' computer animation is meaningless. The clothes have nothing to do with where the bullet hole is located in KENNEDY'S UPPER BACK in Myers' computer model. Myers added the clothing for cosmetic purposes only. So the amount of "bunching" that Myers places on JFK's jacket does not mean a thing. It's merely to make the animated figures look more realistic.

(See the last paragraph in the image below, which is from this FAQ page on Myers' website.) ....




JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

If anyone wants to see what a shameless water carrier DVP is for Dale Myers, please click this link:

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter12c%3Aanimania

Anyone can see what happened here. Because the illustrations are profuse. It's not just the phony computer illustration about the bundled-up top of JFK's neck with the shirt collar disappearing underneath the jacket. It's the peculiar shape of Kennedy's head and neck and how his head protrudes from his neck at an angle. Just compare that to the JBC model.

For DVP to insert Myers' utterly deceptive denial, and to say in effect, "What do you believe, Myers or your lying eyes?" this is what causes people like Joe McBride to wonder if someone is paying him. I have never done as much, but for DVP to fail to understand why someone with Joe's background would think so in the face of this witless fiasco, that shows an almost astonishing lack of self awareness of himself and his psychology.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

~yawn~

All of DiEugenio's never-ending complaints about Dale K. Myers' computer animation project are tackled by Dale himself in this FAQ....

http://jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/faq_01.htm

If Jim wants to think Dale is merely lying through his teeth in that extensive FAQ session, go ahead Jimmy. We can just add Dale to Jim's mile-long list of liars associated with the JFK murder case (if he's not already on the list, which he no doubt is).


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Should not have done that, Davey.

If there is one person our site has utterly destroyed, it's Dale Myers. And again, the fact that you dismiss all of this, even when it's done with illustrations, shows just how around the bend you are on this issue. Sort of like Nixon still punning Vietnam after he knew the war was lost. Even Ambrose had to admit that he was really unbalanced about Indochina.

https://kennedysandking.com/Dale Myers: An Introduction

I advise everyone to read each of these critiques, since taken as a whole they leave Myers with no leg to stand on.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

~another yawn~

Reprise.....

All of DiEugenio's never-ending complaints about Dale K. Myers' computer animation project are tackled by Dale himself in this FAQ.

Addendum / Basic Observation....

"As I've said a thousand times before -- the luck of those multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza apparently never ran out. Did it? Those assassins were even able to fool Dale Myers' computer overlays and key framing....with those crackerjack killers pummelling JBC & JFK with several bullets (all of the vanishing variety, naturally) in just such a pattern (and with ideal SBT-like timing to boot, per the Z-Film) so that decades later a man at his computer could come up with an animation -- BASED ON AN ACTUAL FILMED RECORD OF THE EVENT! -- that would make this MULTI-shot event look exactly the same as the SBT purported by the WC in 1964. Where's the champagne?! Those ever-efficient, magical assassins deserve an endless supply of it for that magnificent hunk of "public duping". Wouldn't you agree?" -- DVP; May 19, 2007


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

This is a perfect illustration of what a zealot DVP really is.

Of those five articles in that link that destroys Myers, only one is by me. And mine does not deal that much with what Myers is trying to defend himself against in that blog entry. Harris, Speer, and Mili and Kelin can all fend for themselves and anyone can see the distortion of anatomy that Pat uses Myers' own work to decapitate him with. It's right there for anyone to see except a zealot like DVP. Zealots by definition cannot see.

[...]

Myers...was so grateful for that opportunity to break into the mainstream,
that when the producer of the show died a few years ago, Dale thanked him profusely. A bit too profusely. There, he admitted what he had previously
denied. The show did have a focus on Oswald as triggerman from the
beginning. [Click Here.]

If a man cannot be honest about something as basic as that, how can anyone believe him about anything? Except DVP, who with, such things as honesty do not matter.

Which is why he is what he is.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Seeing as how the above claptrap is coming from someone (DiEugenio) who considers the late Jim Garrison to be an honest man of the highest possible integrity (even though Garrison knowingly prosecuted an innocent man on a charge of conspiracy to murder the President), I can only request that some member of this forum lend me their "POT/KETTLE" icon asap! I need it badly here (in addition to multiple "ROFLs").

But, that's why Jim D. is what he is --- a walking Pot Meets Kettle emoji.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Even though I went after Bugliosi's book tooth and nail...there goes DVP using that discredited tree killer as a source.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Bugliosi's book has not been "discredited" in any major way whatsoever. Certainly not with respect to his main bottom-line conclusions, i.e.: 

....Oswald killed Kennedy.

....Oswald killed Tippit.

....Oswald shot at General Walker.

....The Warren Commission conducted a very good investigation and reached a proper conclusion based on the available evidence.

....There is no solid evidence for conspiracy in the JFK case at all.

And just because James DiEugenio wrote a book that claims to have "discredited" virtually every last thing uttered by Vince Bugliosi in his 2007 tome, that most certainly does NOT mean that Vince's book HAS been "discredited".

"Discredited" obviously has a completely different definition to a CTer like DiEugenio than it does to many other people. I mean, let's face the music here....

The guy who just said Bugliosi's tome has been "discredited" is the very same guy who, incredibly, actually believes that Oswald didn't fire a shot at EITHER Kennedy OR Tippit (OR Walker either)!

And there's also this list of fantastic things that Jim believes (or says he does)....

"[Marrion] Baker never saw Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; July 13, 2015

"Kennedy is murdered at 12:30 PM. Oswald is almost undoubtedly on the first floor at the time." -- James DiEugenio; 2008

"A Mauser was the first weapon found and...a Mauser shell was found in Dealey Plaza." -- James DiEugenio; April 3, 2015

"It's like I have always said, the WC was the Troika: Dulles, McCloy and Ford, with Warren for window dressing." -- James DiEugenio; August 1, 2015

"I think that that whole thing about burning the [autopsy] notes...was just a cover story." -- James DiEugenio; December 11, 2008

"I'm not even sure they [the real killers of JFK, not Lee Harvey Oswald, naturally] were on the sixth floor [of the Book Depository]. .... What's the definitive evidence that the hit team was on the sixth floor? .... If they WERE on the sixth floor, they could have been at the other [west] end." -- James DiEugenio; February 11, 2010

"Specter and Humes understood that the probe was gonna be a big problem. They thought the photographs would never be declassified. So Specter made up this B.S. story about the strap muscles, never knowing that that story was going to be exposed." -- James DiEugenio; July 16, 2009

"I have minimized the testimony of Linnie Mae [Randle]. I do so because in my view it is highly questionable." -- James DiEugenio; 2008

"I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction." -- James DiEugenio; August 5, 2015

"I just proved that CE 399 was not found at Parkland." -- James DiEugenio; June 4, 2010

"At Bethesda, the military severely curtails the autopsy so that no one will ever know the true circumstances of how Kennedy was killed. Also, the FBI switches the bullet found at Parkland Hospital to fit the second rifle found at the TSBD, a Mannlicher Carcano." -- James DiEugenio; 2008

"I think Wesley Frazier was pressured into doing what he did, and the Dallas police forced him into doing it because they needed somebody besides [Howard] Brennan to pin the thing on Oswald." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010

"I don't think Brennan was at any lineup. I think that was all manufactured after the fact. I think Brennan is a completely created witness." -- James DiEugenio; May 27, 2010

"You cannot even prove he [Lee Harvey Oswald] ever had possession of the handgun." -- James DiEugenio; June 25, 2013

"I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit." -- James DiEugenio; January 14, 2010

"JBC [John B. Connally] does not react until around frame 237." -- James DiEugenio; August 2010

"I am not calling [Dallas police officer M.N.] McDonald a liar, the evidence is doing it." -- James DiEugenio; July 26, 2015

--------------------------
[End Fantasy Quotes.]
-------------------------

And yet, with beliefs like that laundry list above hanging out there for all to see, I'm supposed to believe that Vincent T. Bugliosi is really the one who has been "discredited", plus every official committee who has ever looked into the JFK murder case. Those committees, via Jim's definition, have also ALL been "discredited" too.

Please, James! Give a reasonable man with a weak bladder a freakin' break for once!


MICHAEL CLARK SAID:

David Von Pein evaded all of this.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You don't actually expect me to fall at the feet of DiEugenio when it comes to ANYTHING he says about the JFK murder case, do you Michael?

Get real. (And take a glance at the litany of things [quoted in my last post] that Jimmy has gotten COMPLETELY WRONG when it comes to evaluating the facts in this case.)

With a laundry list of absurdity like that one (and this one) staring everyone in the face who cares to look, the only question that remains is:

Why would anybody who considers themselves to be a reasonable person ever take James DiEugenio of Los Angeles seriously about ANYTHING relating to the events of November 22, 1963? (Which is not just a smart-ass or smart-alecky remark on my part....it's a truly valid and legitimate question from my point-of-view.)


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Davey,

You ignored each and every item in that bill of indictment for Clay Shaw. Michael is absolutely correct on that.

Every part of that list is made up of evidence that was rolled out by the ARRB.

I did not originate this, it is all in documents and/or testimony. Some of the points I footnoted, some I did not. I could have footnoted them all, but I think I have a reputation on this site for honesty and scholarly discipline. If someone can show I do not, then so be it, go ahead.

You were not able to answer any of it in a coherent way. Why can't you just man up and admit that? You do not know jack about New Orleans. Why is that so hard to admit?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I know enough to know that there was NO SOLID EVIDENCE against the man that Garrison was prosecuting.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

You then doubled down on that by using the fraudulent volume RH ["Reclaiming History"] by the hack Bugliosi. And you get more custard pie on your face. You did not have the barest idea about what happened at Shaw's trial. You then trusted Bugliosi and he ended up being untrustworthy.

You never get tired of falling on your face, do you? And we are supposed to ignore that because you do?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Well, Jim, with a trail of purely laughable quotes like the ones I cited in a previous post --- like "I don't think Oswald had anything to do with the rifle transaction" and "Baker never saw Oswald" and "I don't believe Oswald shot Tippit" --- do you really think that YOU are the one who should be talking about someone ELSE "falling on [their] face"?

And, I say again, with such unbelievably wrong beliefs in your hip pocket (beliefs that are NOT supported by the actual EVIDENCE at all!), why should anyone take seriously ANYTHING you have ever said regarding the JFK case? If you can't even figure out the really easy ones---like Oswald ordering the C2766 rifle and Oswald shooting J.D. Tippit four times---then how can anyone expect you to get ANYTHING right at all? (Seems like a sensible question to me.)

David Von Pein
July 12-15, 2018