For DVP
Robert Harris
<ab2ebfdd-05b7-4c9d...@n2g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
David Von Pein <davev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>> "David, if what I am stating was really nonsense..." <<<
>
> It is.
>
> I'll re-post (below) most of the 8/22/09 letter I received from Vince
> Bugliosi (which deals with the topic of CE399's admissibility in a
> court of law). I'm sure Robert Harris, though, will have no problem in
> totally dismissing these words that come from a lawyer who has no
> doubt spent more time in a courtroom than all of the members of this
> forum--combined:
David - you and Bugliosi suffer from the same problem. You can ONLY deal
with the old school arguments which originated back in the 60's.
You have a set of canned rebuttals that you draw from whenever you are
challenged, and which are probably sufficient 90 percent of the time.
But David, I rejected most of those arguments too - probably not as long
ago as Bugliosi did, but a long time ago.
I wrote an article supporting the SBT back in 1995, which Mcadams posted
at his website, at the same time that I was discovering conclusive
evidence of multiple snipers. And I have written many times, that I
think Oswald was guilty as hell.
THIS is what you need to resolve David. I will challenge you to present
THIS to Mr. Bugliosi and ask him to write a rebuttal which specifically
addresses the issues I raise.
http://jfkhistory.com/ce399a/ce399a.mov
If you are right, then there is NO QUESTION that you should be afraid
of. But address the actual arguments I raise - don't pretend that I
pitched a softball from the Garrison era.
Watch that video David, and force yourself to understand what I am
saying, so that you can debate with me, intelligently.
See if Bugliosi has the courage to do the same and can reply with
something more than lame, sweeping generalizations.
Robert Harris
>
> ======================================================
>
> Subject: Re: Bugliosi Letter
> Date: 8/22/2009 10:06:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time
> From: Rosemary Newton (And Vincent Bugliosi)
> To: David Von Pein
>
> ---------------------------------
>
> August 22, 2009
>
> Dear David,
>
> Please forgive this belated reply to your e-mail to Rosemary on August
> 8, 2009, as well as the abbreviated nature of this response. ....
>
> About the issue in your e-mail, the whole purpose behind the chain of
> possession requirement is to insure that the item being offered into
> evidence by the prosecution or defense is what they claim it to be. It
> is particularly important when there is no other evidence that the
> item is what it is purported to be. We don't have that situation here.
>
> In addition to CE 399 being admissible because of the general practice
> during trials that I mention on page 442 of the endnotes, there is
> other evidence that is extremely compelling that CE 399 (even if,
> let's assume, it wasn't found on Connally's stretcher, but on
> Kennedy's stretcher or even on the floor) was, in fact, what it is
> purported to be--a bullet that passed through Kennedy's and Connally's
> bodies.
>
> What is that evidence? Mainly that we know that CE 399 was fired from
> Oswald's Carcano rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons (3 H
> 428-429). This alone and all by itself (and certainly in conjunction
> with all the other evidence I set forth in "Reclaiming History" such
> as the orientation of Connally's body vis-a-vis Kennedy's, the ovoid
> configuration of the entrance wound to Connally's back, etc.), is
> highly persuasive evidence that CE 399 not only hit Kennedy but went
> on to hit and exit Connally's body.
>
> Additionally, see the footnote on page 814 of "Reclaiming History".
> The above makes the chain of possession or custody requirement even
> less restrictive than I point out, on page 442, it already is.
>
> To the argument that yes, CE 399 was fired from Oswald's Carcano, but
> at another time and place, and was planted at Parkland, see pages
> 814-815 of "Reclaiming History".
>
> The admissibility of CE 399 (along with other items of evidence) was,
> indeed, dealt with in London by Judge Lucius Bunton at a pre-trial
> evidentiary hearing, and Bunton, a sitting federal judge in Texas at
> the time, ruled in my favor that CE 399 (not the actual bullet, of
> course, which we did not have in London) was admissible at the London
> trial.
>
> I'm sure there is more I could say on this issue if I had the time but
> I am still very busy and hope you understand.
>
> David, I can't thank you enough for all the tremendous support you
> have given me and my book. You have become very valuable in helping to
> make sure that the truth catches up to all the lies and distortions
> told about the assassination, and I hope we get to meet some day so I
> can thank you in person.
>
> Your friend and colleague,
> Vince Bugliosi
>
> P.S. In terms of condensing the 1-and-a-half million words of
> "Reclaiming History", there's no way for any rational and objective
> person to get around pages 951-969 and 1437-1461 of "Reclaiming
> History". If the person agrees with the conclusions set forth on these
> pages, as he must if, again, he is a rational and objective person,
> then pages 953-954 of the book take over from there and there is no
> need for further discussion.
>
> ===================================================
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4a366cdfbdd66e3b
David Von Pein
Bob Harris,
You start out in a great-big hole right off the bat when you insist
that Darrell Tomlinson positively found the bullet on a stretcher
other than Connally's.
Tomlinson's 1964 Warren Commission testimony shows just how confused
and uncertain he was about the stretchers. There can be no doubt about
the fact that Tomlinson, during his WC session (which is testimony
that he provided within just a few months of the assassination), just
flat-out couldn't remember which stretcher was Connally's. Did his
memory improve drastically 25 years later for the 1988 PBS-TV
program?:
ARLEN SPECTER -- "What did you tell the Secret Service man about which
stretcher you took off of the elevator?"
DARRELL TOMLINSON -- "I told him that I was not sure, and I am not--
I'm not sure of it, but as I said, I would be going against the oath
which I took a while ago, because I am definitely not sure."
MR. SPECTER -- "Do you remember if you told the Secret Service man
which stretcher you thought you took off of the elevator?"
MR. TOMLINSON -- "Well, we talked about taking a stretcher off of the
elevator, but then when it comes down on an oath, I wouldn't say for
sure, I really don't remember." ....
MR. SPECTER -- "You say you can't really take an oath today to be sure
whether it was stretcher A or stretcher B that you took off the
elevator?"
MR. TOMLINSON -- "Well, today or any other day, I'm just not sure of
it, whether it was A or B that I took off."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/tomlinso.htm
=================================
AN INSTANT REPLAY (JUST FOR EMPHASIS):
"I am definitely not sure." -- Darrell Tomlinson; 1964
"I really don't remember." -- Darrell Tomlinson; 1964
"I'm just not sure of it." -- Darrell Tomlinson; 1964
=================================
TO SUMMARIZE:
The people who want to believe that CE399 never touched JFK or
Governor Connally are living in a dream world. Simple as that.
And those same people like to ignore multiple things that very much
favor the likelihood of CE399 being the "real" stretcher bullet that
went through both victims. Such as:
1.) This Mannlicher-Carcano test bullet (pictured below), which was
fired through a human wrist bone at a reduced muzzle velocity of
1,100fps, ended up in near-perfect condition:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bullet1.jpg
Source page:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm
2.) CE399 was positively fired in Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle (CE139), which is a fact that makes it MUCH more likely
that the conspiracy theorists are wrong when they contend that CE399
is a fraud, because of the fact that 399 is a bullet that aligns with
and corroborates OTHER ballistics evidence in the JFK case that ALSO
is tied irrevocably to that SAME Carcano rifle -- e.g., the three
bullet shells found in the TSBD Sniper's Nest and the two bullet
fragments found in the limousine.
3.) Despite the constant incorrect claims made by CTers in this
regard, CE399 just happens to have just about the right amount of lead
missing from its total unfired weight (of approx. 160 to 161 grains)
to account very nicely for the very small bullet fragments that were
deposited in Governor John Connally's body.
And I can make a very good case for there probably having been less
than 1.0 TOTAL grains of lead deposited in the two victims by CE399 on
11/22/63. And I make that case in the following article:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7bf79593cce78406
Plus: Via the testimony of Dr. Charles Gregory (and by taking a good
look at all of the X-rays of Governor Connally's wrist, chest, and
thigh), I can also make a very good case for there having been very,
very few metallic fragments left inside Connally's body on the day
they buried him in 1993 (possibly as few as two tiny fragments).
4.) If Darrell Tomlinson had really found a "pointy-tipped" bullet on
a Parkland stretcher, then this must mean that the bullet that struck
Connally did a lot of damage to his body and then emerged on a
stretcher with its POINTY tip still POINTY! And if that can happen,
then why can't CE399 have a similar "near pristine" look to it after
doing the same damage to Connally?
And surely the CTers don't want to think that some plotters planted a
POINTY bullet on a stretcher at Parkland in order to frame ONLY
OSWALD....right?
But it seems that Bob Harris, incredibly, DOES advocate such a loony
theory -- i.e., some conspirator planted a bullet that was obviously
NOT from Oswald's Carcano rifle on the WRONG STRETCHER at Parkland
Hospital!
Talk about incompetent plotters! This takes the prize (and the cake)!
5.) Governor Connally didn't SEE any bullet fall to the floor in the
operating room on November 22nd. He said he heard the sound of
something made of metal hitting the floor. That's all.
How could Connally know for certain that what he heard was a "bullet"?
Answer: He couldn't. It could have been any number of "metallic"
things that hit the floor at that particular moment in time when JBC
was in the operating room.
But in light of all the evidence that indicates that Connally was hit
by just ONE single bullet on 11/22/63--with that one bullet being
stretcher bullet CE399--it becomes quite clear that the metal object
that Connally heard falling to the floor that day could not possibly
have been the bullet that struck him in Dealey Plaza.
6.) Both the Warren Commission and the HSCA determined to their
overall satisfaction that Bullet CE399 WAS, indeed, the exact bullet
that struck both President Kennedy and Governor Connally.
Now, I ask this -- Since BOTH of those official Government bodies came
to the same conclusion regarding this key piece of evidence (and the
WC and HSCA were, after all, responsible for officially investigating
this case--not Robert Harris or other anti-399 conspiracists) -- then
why do so many people still want to claim that CE399 didn't get within
a country mile of JFK or JBC on November 22, 1963?
Is it merely a distrust of all "U.S. Government" agencies perhaps?
Probably so, huh? After all, the Government ALWAYS lies to its people,
doesn't it? Even TOTALLY-DIFFERENT Government entities who
investigated JFK's murder some 14 to 15 years apart.
In my opinion, however, that type of argument is just a cop-out.
Simple as that.
I'd advise Robert Harris to take another look at the TOTALITY of
evidence surrounding Warren Commission Exhibit 399....and then add a
little common sense to that totality, as I have tried to do in my list
above (and at my SBT Blog linked below).
www.Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com
davidemerling
> David (Von Pein) - you and Bugliosi suffer from the same problem. You can ONLY deal
> with the old school arguments which originated back in the 60's.
That's because the truth does not morph throughout the years. It is
today what it was in the 60's. That's the essence of the truth!
2+2=4 today, just like it did a million years ago. How long do we have
to wait for 2+2 to equal 5, do you think?
And even THAT is not totally true because there are many more details
we know today that were not known in the 60's, or even in the 70's
during the HSCA hearings. And all those revelations have only served
to BOLSTER the single gunman conclusion. For instance, is there really
anybody out there still making the argument that one of the three
tramps was E. Howard Hunt or Charles Harrelson? And, if so, is there
anybody who actually buys into that malarkey anymore?
Sadly, the same cannot be said about the conspiracy world. They keep
coming up with new and innovative conspiracy theories (usually to sell
another book) and are having to continually change (or abandon) many
of their previous positions. They keep pounding away at that square
peg trying to make it fit into that round hole.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 9, 9:53 am, Robert Harris<reharr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> David (Von Pein) - you and Bugliosi suffer from the same problem. You can ONLY deal
>> with the old school arguments which originated back in the 60's.
>
> That's because the truth does not morph throughout the years. It is
> today what it was in the 60's. That's the essence of the truth!
>
So you still think the Earth is flat because the Catholic Church said so
400 years ago. The truth changes as we learn.
> 2+2=4 today, just like it did a million years ago. How long do we have
> to wait for 2+2 to equal 5, do you think?
>
It's the WC which tries to tell us that 2+2=5.
> And even THAT is not totally true because there are many more details
> we know today that were not known in the 60's, or even in the 70's
> during the HSCA hearings. And all those revelations have only served
> to BOLSTER the single gunman conclusion. For instance, is there really
Wrong. Only in your mind. In case you weren't around at the time, the
HSCA concluded conspiracy.
> anybody out there still making the argument that one of the three
> tramps was E. Howard Hunt or Charles Harrelson? And, if so, is there
> anybody who actually buys into that malarkey anymore?
>
Yes, there are. There are kooks who still say that Oswald is seen in the
Altgens photo standing in front of the TSBD and that the Zapruder film
shows the driver shooting the President. We even have a kook who says
that Hickey shot the President with his AR-15. I don't see you
correcting HIM.
> Sadly, the same cannot be said about the conspiracy world. They keep
> coming up with new and innovative conspiracy theories (usually to sell
> another book) and are having to continually change (or abandon) many
> of their previous positions. They keep pounding away at that square
> peg trying to make it fit into that round hole.
>
You WC defenders keep coming up with a new SBT every day. You can't even
agree on a frame number.
Can you tell me what book I am selling. I'd like to see some profit from
it to offset the thousands of dollars I've spent on documents.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
davidemerling
> > And even THAT is not totally true because there are many more details
> > we know today that were not known in the 60's, or even in the 70's
> > during the HSCA hearings. And all those revelations have only served
> > to BOLSTER the single gunman conclusion. For instance, is there really
>
> Wrong. Only in your mind. In case you weren't around at the time, the
> HSCA concluded conspiracy.
C'mon Tony! You're far too intelligent to make that silly point.
When you say something like that, are you prepared to take the NEXT
step?
1. Do you agree with the HSCA that the conspiracy probably involved
organized crime?
2. Do you agree with the foundation of the shot from the grassy knoll
- the acoustic "evidence"?
3. Do you agree with the HSCA conclusion that Oswald was the assassin?
4. Do you agree with the HSCA conclusion that this shot from the
grassy knoll *missed*?
5. Do you agree with the HSCA conclusion that the Single Bullet Theory
is correct?
6. Do you agree with the HSCA conclusion that Kennedy was only hit by
shots that were fired from BEHIND?
7. Do you agree with the HSCA that all the backyard photos and all
autopsy material (photos/x-rays) are genuine and unaltered?
Comments like you just made resonate with people who know very little
about this case. They might even say, "Really? There was a government
investigation that concluded that there was a conspiracy? Oh - I
didn't know that."
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
davidemerling
> You WC defenders keep coming up with a new SBT every day. You can't even
> agree on a frame number.
That's because the validity of the theory is not critically dependent
on the exact frame number as long as we're talking a reasonable window
of time. We're just talking about a few frames. I don't think I've
heard much of anything before Z-190 or anything after Z-224, less than
a 2-second differential. There was a sign in the way, you know. The
single gunman advocates didn't place the Stemmons Freeway sign there.
I wish it wasn't there - but it is. I wish Zapruder was in a different
location - but he wasn't. I wish Orville Nix would have kept his
camera running instead of stopping it at a critical juncture - but he
didn't.
I wouldn't go there if I were you because it's the CTers who are all
over the place with not only frame numbers, but the number of shots,
the origins of the shots, the number of shooters, the identification
of the shooters, and the orchestrators of the conspiracy/cover-up,
etc... Something regarding "glass houses" comes to mind. A CTer
claiming that LNers are inconsistent is laughable.
If the bullet that entered high on Kennedy's back came from the 6th
floor sniper's nest and exited his throat - then WHERE ELSE could that
bullet have gone - whether it hit Kennedy at Z-190, Z-210, or Z-224?
Personally, I thing the BEST evidence is with Z-224, but if I'm wrong,
that would not invalidate the SBT.
> Can you tell me what book I am selling. I'd like to see some profit from
> it to offset the thousands of dollars I've spent on documents.
At least I understand the motivation of people like Mark Lane and
Robert Groden. People like you - quite frankly ... baffle me.
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 12, 8:30 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> You WC defenders keep coming up with a new SBT every day. You can't even
>> agree on a frame number.
>
> That's because the validity of the theory is not critically dependent
> on the exact frame number as long as we're talking a reasonable window
> of time. We're just talking about a few frames. I don't think I've
Yeah, as I said before you guys can't agree on a frame. Because you
don't care about specifics.
> heard much of anything before Z-190 or anything after Z-224, less than
> a 2-second differential. There was a sign in the way, you know. The
The sign was not in the way of a shot. Only in the way of a view from
Zapruder's camera.
> single gunman advocates didn't place the Stemmons Freeway sign there.
> I wish it wasn't there - but it is. I wish Zapruder was in a different
> location - but he wasn't. I wish Orville Nix would have kept his
> camera running instead of stopping it at a critical juncture - but he
> didn't.
There were other films and photos. We do not have to rely on just one.
But I seriously doubt that any film or photo proves the exactly instant
that the men were hit in the torso.
>
> I wouldn't go there if I were you because it's the CTers who are all
> over the place with not only frame numbers, but the number of shots,
> the origins of the shots, the number of shooters, the identification
> of the shooters, and the orchestrators of the conspiracy/cover-up,
> etc... Something regarding "glass houses" comes to mind. A CTer
> claiming that LNers are inconsistent is laughable.
>
Oh, I'll go there all I want. And point out that the WC had three
different shooting sequences and couldn't prove which was correct. No
will any WC defender dare to say where his missed shot went.
> If the bullet that entered high on Kennedy's back came from the 6th
> floor sniper's nest and exited his throat - then WHERE ELSE could that
> bullet have gone - whether it hit Kennedy at Z-190, Z-210, or Z-224?
> Personally, I thing the BEST evidence is with Z-224, but if I'm wrong,
> that would not invalidate the SBT.
>
Well, it might have hit Connally, but that does not prove the WC's SBT.
It might have gone over Connally and hit the limousine, or gone over
Connally and traveled a 1/4 mile down the road.
>> Can you tell me what book I am selling. I'd like to see some profit from
>> it to offset the thousands of dollars I've spent on documents.
>
> At least I understand the motivation of people like Mark Lane and
> Robert Groden. People like you - quite frankly ... baffle me.
>
No, you don't. You are so pumped up with CIA propaganda that you can't
understand that some people actually care about history.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 12, 8:30 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> And even THAT is not totally true because there are many more details
>>> we know today that were not known in the 60's, or even in the 70's
>>> during the HSCA hearings. And all those revelations have only served
>>> to BOLSTER the single gunman conclusion. For instance, is there really
>> Wrong. Only in your mind. In case you weren't around at the time, the
>> HSCA concluded conspiracy.
>
> C'mon Tony! You're far too intelligent to make that silly point.
>
> When you say something like that, are you prepared to take the NEXT
> step?
>
You are being silly again. Maybe you forget that I was one of the people
lobbying for the HSCA, but was critical of it when it disbanded.
> 1. Do you agree with the HSCA that the conspiracy probably involved
> organized crime?
No, of course not. How silly can you get?
> 2. Do you agree with the foundation of the shot from the grassy knoll
> - the acoustic "evidence"?
Not just agree with, but proved correct.
> 3. Do you agree with the HSCA conclusion that Oswald was the assassin?
Not sure. And he was not just THE assassin and there was more than one
person involved according to their conclusion.
> 4. Do you agree with the HSCA conclusion that this shot from the
> grassy knoll *missed*?
No. I agree with the scientists who said it hit.
> 5. Do you agree with the HSCA conclusion that the Single Bullet Theory
> is correct?
Never, that's stupid.
> 6. Do you agree with the HSCA conclusion that Kennedy was only hit by
> shots that were fired from BEHIND?
No, obviously.
> 7. Do you agree with the HSCA that all the backyard photos and all
> autopsy material (photos/x-rays) are genuine and unaltered?
>
Even more than that, I am the guy who proved that the Zapruder film
authentic.
> Comments like you just made resonate with people who know very little
> about this case. They might even say, "Really? There was a government
> investigation that concluded that there was a conspiracy? Oh - I
> didn't know that."
>
Well, you keep pretending that you don't know it.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>
pamela
The WC, HSCA and Posner all have a different SB scenario. Each has
its own problems. Are you even aware of that?
davidemerling
I think that was rather honest and open-minded of them - don't you think?
You guys keep saying how the WC was trying to force things down
everybody's throat and then you point out how, when they were not
absolutely sure of something, they SAID so!
They had strong evidence that two bullets hit their mark.
They had strong evidence that three shots were fired.
It stands to reason that one shot must have missed.
So what did they do, they picked the WORST case scenario. This is what
made all the attempts at recreations of the shooting so difficult. This
gave the shooters less than 6 seconds to get off all the shots.
Geometry/distance-wise, the shots were a piece of cake. The DIFFICULT part
was the rapidity of firing.
But over the years, we have found out so much more about the shooting. The
BEST EVIDENCE is that the *first* shot missed. That gives Oswald over
8-seconds! That changes EVERYTHING! A recreation of the shooting, giving
the marksmen over 8-seconds, would be incredibly easy. This was no
fantastic firing feat by Oswald, after all. Any average shooter could have
done it, not to mention an individual with Marine Corps training who
qualified as both a Sharpshooter and Marksman.
Excuse my ignorance of your views, Tony. I don't hang out her on a regular
basis like many of you guys do. I have found myself with a little free
time lately so I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring for a week or two.
But is it your opinion that the evidence suggests that Oswald was
completely innocent of the shooting?
David Emerling
Memphis, TN
tomnln
Three NRA "Masters" could NOT duplicate what the WCR attributed to LHO.
An NRA "Master is one who is Qualified for Olympic Competition.
They're names were Staley, Hendrix & Miller.
See Volume III pages 446-447.
Is this why you won't answer my invitation to debate me on the radio?
"davidemerling" <davide...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:03d1141e-1333-4ed3...@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
AT LEAST 2, not just 2.
> They had strong evidence that three shots were fired.
>
Circumstantial.
> It stands to reason that one shot must have missed.
>
No, it isn't, which is why the FBI did not figure that out and why the
WC was preparing to issue its report with three shots, three hits.
> So what did they do, they picked the WORST case scenario. This is what
> made all the attempts at recreations of the shooting so difficult. This
> gave the shooters less than 6 seconds to get off all the shots.
> Geometry/distance-wise, the shots were a piece of cake. The DIFFICULT part
> was the rapidity of firing.
>
Six seconds is not the problem. They were never sure which shot missed.
The problem was that they thought Kennedy could not be hit before Z-190
and Connally could not be hit after Z-240. That gave them only 30 frames
for two shots. That's why the timing was so important. That's what
prompted their Single Bullet Theory.
> But over the years, we have found out so much more about the shooting. The
> BEST EVIDENCE is that the *first* shot missed. That gives Oswald over
> 8-seconds! That changes EVERYTHING! A recreation of the shooting, giving
Maybe, but as I keep saying you guys keep changing the theory every day
so we are never quite sure what you are going to come up with.
> the marksmen over 8-seconds, would be incredibly easy. This was no
> fantastic firing feat by Oswald, after all. Any average shooter could have
> done it, not to mention an individual with Marine Corps training who
> qualified as both a Sharpshooter and Marksman.
>
I would bet that even you could miss the target with two shots out of
three in 10 seconds.
> Excuse my ignorance of your views, Tony. I don't hang out her on a regular
> basis like many of you guys do. I have found myself with a little free
> time lately so I thought I'd throw my hat in the ring for a week or two.
> But is it your opinion that the evidence suggests that Oswald was
> completely innocent of the shooting?
>
I have never said completely innocent. I doubt that he was a shooter.
> David Emerling
> Memphis, TN
>