David Von Pein Lies To Defend Bugliosi's Lies. (What Courage!)

[Ben Holmes]

It seems that "David Von Pein" has posted an attempt to defend Bugliosi from
his outright lie about the medical evidence... so I'll deal with it here:

The kooks will accuse me of "swamp posting" - but the truth is that I'm
merely refuting his post, paragraph by paragraph, and sentence by sentence.



> Here's my take on this "ragged" thing that conspiracy theorist Ben Holmes
> just will not let go of:


This kook believes that the facts have changed...

One could equally say "Those nuts just won't let go of their assertion that
the holocaust killed 6 million Jews".

You see, Bugliosi simply lied about a critical piece of medical evidence,
and not a *SINGLE* LNT'er kook can admit it. It's truly amusing to see the
cowardice and dishonesty in play here.

Why would anyone "let go of it" - when it is so devastating to the kooks
who so desperately want to believe the WCR?

I can well understand why the kooks, such as "DVP" here, would prefer that
I say no more about this.


One could equally say: "That 'Lee Harvey Oswald' thing that conspiracy
theorists in the censored forum just will not let go of"


> At one point when discussing the issue of President Kennedy's throat wound
> in his book "Reclaiming History", author Vincent Bugliosi is definitely
> incorrect when he used the word "ragged" while describing what Dr. Charles
> J. Carrico's opinion was of the OUTER (SKIN) WOUND in President Kennedy's
> throat. That error occurs on Page 413, when Vince says this:
>
> "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an
> entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged,"
> virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound,
> which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges."


Now, amazingly enough, in this ENTIRE defense of Bugliosi, "DVP" refuses to
make mention of the fact that Bugliosi was attempting to support the WCR's
theory that the bullet transited, from rear to front, by using this lie
about the description of the original bullet wound.

In other words, Bugliosi MUST HAVE HAD A PRECONCEIVED IDEA - and rooted
around desperately looking for evidence that would support it. But having
spent over 20 years at this task of defending the WCR - IT IS CLEARLY NOT
CONCEIVABLE THAT HE WOULD BE IGNORANT OF THE CORRECT DESCRIPTION OF THIS
WOUND!!!

Surely he knew of the questioning by the WCR to elicit the admission that
the wound could have been an entry OR AN EXIT... such questioning by the
WCR lawyers would have been ENTIRELY unnecessary had there been a "ragged"
wound to JFK's throat.

He surely must have run across all the hoopla the WCR went through to deny
that Perry described the wound as an entry wound during the initial press
conference. (Indeed, it's covered just one page earlier ... pg 412)

He may have even run across Paul Mandel's lie that JFK turned around when
shot in the throat - a lie designed to explain what *looked* like an
entry wound.

So it's simply not conceivable that he didn't know the true description of
the original wound. He knew very well that one of the most damaging medical
facts in this case is that the wound *looked* like an entry. He could not
possibly have failed to run across the arguments that the wound looked like
that because it was 'buttressed' by JFK's collar.

But "DVP" pretends that Bugliosi was unaware of *all* of these facts...

But perhaps truly great men have truly great "senior moments", eh DVP?


> But Bugliosi is not incorrect on Page 60 of his book when he uses the word
> "ragged" in conjunction with Carrico's statements.


Speaking, as you well know, ABOUT AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PART OF JFK'S
ANATOMY!!

So it's not even the topic being discussed.

And although at least one kook tried to pretend that a ragged wound in the
*TRACHEA* could help one determine the direction of the bullet - that kook
quickly ran away, and refused to support his silly claim.


> Because on Page 60, Bugliosi is talking only about the trachea damage,
> and not about the wound on the outer skin of JFK.


Yep... in other words, this isn't relevant *AT ALL*.

Unless, of course, you're stupid enough to try to argue that the trachea
damage described is capable of supporting your theory about which way the
bullet was traveling through the body.

As one kook did: "if the hole in Kennedy's skin was an entrance wound,
AS YOU CLAIM, why would the hole in the trachea be ragged...?"
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/96c8f622cfc5ccdc

I responded: "'Tim' hasn't addressed the obvious fact that you CANNOT
state the direction of the bullet based on the sole fact that the trachea
wound was "ragged".

Yet he must believe it... that *was* the argument that he's claiming that
Bugliosi made... "

So even the most *outlandish* of theories will have their kook supporters.


> BTW, Dr. Malcolm Perry also used the word "ragged" when describing the
> trachea wound. Perry said this in his Warren Commission testimony:
>
> "I noticed a small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior
> lateral right side."


One could legitimately wonder why you keep bringing in irrelevancies...
this isn't relevant *AT ALL* to the topic.

Do you think that if you toss enough garbage in here, that people will get
confused?

For unless you believe, as "Tim" did, that the description of the tracheal
wound as "ragged" means a back to front trajectory, you're guilty of
rather desperately dragging in irrelevancies to support Bugliosi's lie.


> But, just like Carrico, Perry described the outer skin wound in the
> President's throat in a different manner:


You mean, of course, that Perry's description of the original bullet wound
supported Carrico's description, AND BUGLIOSI LIED ABOUT BOTH OF THEM!


> DR. PERRY -- "This was situated in the lower anterior one-third of the
> neck, approximately 5 mm. in diameter. It was exuding blood slowly which
> partially obscured it. Its edges were neither ragged nor were they
> punched out, but rather clean."


In *COMPLETE* contradiction to Bugliosi's claim that Perry had described it
as "ragged" to Dr. Humes (See page 207)

Since Bugliosi cited ARRB MD58 - which gives this same description, he
*KNEW* that he was lying about the description of "ragged". Indeed, on page
16 of this citation, Perry EXPLICITY denies that the wound was "ragged".


> But we must also realize that Dr. Perry also said this:
>
> ARLEN SPECTER -- "Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone, could
> it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?"
>
> DR. PERRY -- "It could have been either."


More irrelevancies.

Whether or not it was an entry or an exit, IT WAS NOT A RAGGED WOUND, as
Bugliosi lied about.

Whether or not it was an entry or an exit, IT LOOKED LIKE AN ENTRY - HAD
EVERY APPEARANCE OF AN ENTRY - and Bugliosi simply lied about this.

Indeed, he was *using* this lie about the appearance of the original bullet
wound in JFK's neck to help support the WCR's theory that this wound was an
exit.


> Interestingly, I found another page in Bugliosi's book where Vince is
> putting the word "ragged" in a doctor's mouth where I do not think it
> belongs. It's on Page 207, when Vince says this about the conversation
> that Dr. Humes had with Dr. Perry on Saturday morning, November 23rd:
>
> "The light flashes on for Humes when Dr. Perry tells him that he performed
> his surgery on an existing wound there, a small, round perforation with
> ragged edges."
>
> There are two possible references given for the above quote from Page 207
> in "Reclaiming History". One of them is ARRB MD58, p.9, and the other is
> Page 257 of HSCA Volume 7. Neither source, however, includes the word
> "ragged" in it anywhere.

You're lying David Von Pein.

YOU'RE LYING!

While it's good of you to admit that this seems to be a pattern with
Bugliosi, ascribing to several people what they *NEVER* said... you've
outright lied that these sources don't include the word "ragged". One
does not - Dr. Humes didn't mention it.

But Perry did.

"The reason is that I didn't clearly identify either an entrance or an exit
wound, and in the press conference I indicated that the neck wound appeared
like an entrance wound. And I based this mainly on its size and the fact
that exit wounds in general tend to be somewhat ragged and somewhat
different from entrance wounds."
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=62526

Now, I don't have any problems whatsoever reading the word "ragged" in that
statement, nor the fact that Perry was EXPLICITLY denying that the wound
was "ragged". So you're a liar, David Von Pein. You read the citation, and
made a claim based on your inability to read, or your ability to lie.


And Bugliosi's other reference for his lie about Perry's statement can be
found here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0134a.htm

Where no reader will be able to find anything that supports Bugliosi's lie
that Perry described the wound as "ragged".


> My opinion is that Vince has somehow confused himself into thinking that
> the "ragged" quotes that definitely did come from both Dr. Carrico and
> Dr. Perry are quotes that he feels confident enough to utilize in his
> book to explain the way the wound in JFK's throat (on the whole) looked
> to each of those doctors (Carrico and Perry).


So your theory is that with over 20 years of study, Bugliosi was completely
unaware of the basic medical facts in this case...

Is this the story you want to hang your hat on?

That Bugliosi was so stupid, (a "senior moment"), that after 20 years of
research, he still did not even understand what the wounds looked like, or
why there was any controversy about why the wounds didn't appear to match
up with the theory put forth by the WCR???

Perhaps you can't really do any better than this... since the alternative
is to admit that he took his preconceived idea, realized that the argument
for 'wound buttressing' wasn't convincing enough, and decided to simply
lie about the evidence to defend the WCR.


> When, in fact, Vince is incorrect when he tries to merge the two wounds.


No... you *really* believe that Bugliosi was so stupid that he failed to
understand the difference between the trachea and a surface wound on the
throat???

Are you thinking that he's *THAT* stupid?

Oh, I forgot... *YOU DO*!!

You refer to it as a "senior moment" - but the *ACTION* is the same, no
matter which descriptive term is used.

You choose to describe it as a "senior moment" - I choose to label it an
outright lie on his part - AND THE ACTUAL ACTION IS PRECISELY THE SAME.

You just don't want to believe that his *motivation* was to support the
Warren Commission Report.

This is important to remember, that the very best (indeed, the only) post
that goes into detail attempting to explain Bugliosi's lie has come up with
only one credible reason for that lie - THAT BUGLIOSI WAS TOO STUPID TO
UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TRACHEA AND THE ORIGINAL BULLET
WOUND ON JFK'S THROAT.

Call it a "senior moment" if you will - but it still amounts to the same
thing. That Bugliosi couldn't understand the difference between the wound
on the skin, and the wound in the trachea - as you yourself admit being
initially confused by.

Indeed, at least one kook tried to argue that the ragged description of
the trachea meant that the bullet must have been exiting the throat... so
Bugliosi isn't alone in his idiocy.


> Because he surely also knows (or he should know by reading the testimony
> of both Dr. Carrico and Dr. Perry) that those doctors were referring to
> two DIFFERENT wounds in the President's throat when they testified and
> when the Parkland Hospital report was written.

Of *course* he knows.

Your explanation that he was too stupid to understand the difference (or
in your words, he was having a "senior moment") is certainly credible.

Bugliosi admits he skipped high school physics because he hated science...
perhaps medical biology was also hated and skipped... it's certainly
considered to be science.

But once you admit that Bugliosi was too stupid to understand the medical
evidence in this case - the question becomes, "Why would anyone be willing
to believe *ANYTHING* he's asserted in his book?" Particularly any of the
medical evidence?

> I must say, though, that I was also confused about the "ragged" remarks
> when I went to the official records to check up on this matter the other
> day. In fact, I had a nice long message ready to post at this forum
> (complete with citations and Warren Commission page numbers, etc.) that
> I was going to use to try and counter Ben Holmes' assertion that Vince
> Bugliosi had "lied" about Carrico's description of Kennedy's throat
> wound.

This isn't unusual... indeed, here's another example of precisely this from
last year:

********************************************************************
> "Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was
> an entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged,"
> virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound,
> which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)
>
> Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually
> *say* this anywhere?

Yah, it took me two minutes to find it. In Carrico`s questioning by
the WC he said... "immediately below the larynx was seen the ragged
tracheal injury".
*********************************************************************

Another kook attempted to defend Bugliosi on the same basis:

*********************************************************************
Say, didn't Bugliosi cite a footnote, number 202, to support his claim
re Carrico?

Why haven't you detailed what that note says if you want to refute
what Bugliosi said re Carrico?

The ball is in your court, I would have thought.
*********************************************************************

Here's the actual source reference from Bugliosi's CD:

202. WR, p.517, Summary of Medical Reports from Doctors at Parkland
Memorial by Dr. Kemp Clark, Director of Neurological Surgery at the
hospital.

And if you'll turn to page 517, you'll discover this sentence:
"Dr. Carrico inserted a cuffed endotracheal tube. While doing so, he
noted a ragged wound of the trachea immediately below the larynx.

Now, just TWO pages later, you'll see Dr. Carrico's *HANDWRITTEN* note,
dated 11/22, at 1620 (just hours after JFK died), where he stated: "Two
external wounds were noted. One small penetrating wound of (the?) neck
in lower 1/3."

So Bugliosi used hearsay, AND KNEW THAT THE HEARSAY REFERRED TO THE
TRACHEA, NOT THE NECK...

Or, in your world, he was too stupid ("senior moment") to understand the
difference between the trachea and the original bullet wound.

So you aren't the only kook who was "confused" about the "ragged" remark,
several others illustrated their ignorance of the medical evidence in this
case.

None of whom spent over 20 years studying this case and writing the longest
book ever published on the topic.

Which makes his "senior moment" all the more incredible to believe...


> But I then looked at more passages of testimony, and I realized that
> Carrico was talking about TWO separate wounds in the President's
> throat/neck. The wound that he definitely did describe as "ragged" was
> the wound of the trachea itself (under the skin, of course, of JFK). But
> the wound that would have been visible to the naked eye on the outer skin
> of Kennedy was described by Carrico as having "no jagged edges or
> stellate lacerations" [6 H 3].


BRILLIANT!!!

You were able to achieve what Bugliosi, with over 20 years of study, was
unable to do!

My guess is that even *YOU* were able to achieve such a breakthrough with
only a few hours of study.

The first hour convinced that I was wrong, of course...

Sadly, this tells far more about your knowledge of the case... since those
who are familiar with the case *ALREADY KNOW* that the neck wound *LOOKED*
like an entry wound.

There's simply too much evidence of that...

We have the actual testimony of the doctors who saw it.

We have the tests conducted by the WCR to attempt to show that entry
wounds and exit wounds look similar. (Anyone remember the goat skins?)
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_850.pdf

We have the repeated attempts by staff attorneys to elicit the testimony
that the wounds *COULD* have been either entry or exit.

We have the denials of the WCR that during the Press conference, Perry
never positively asserted that the neck was an entry wound.

We even have Paul Mandel's dishonest claim:
"But the 8mm [Zapruder] film shows the President turning his body far
around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is
exposed - toward the sniper's nest - just before he clutches it.
[Paul Mandel, "End to Nagging Rumors: The Six Critical Seconds." LIFE,
12-6-63)

So tell us DVP - how could you have *POSSIBLY* been confused about the
attempts by Bugliosi to lie about the description of the original bullet
wound UNLESS YOU ARE JUST AS IGNORANT OF THE EVIDENCE, OR AS DISHONEST
ABOUT IT AS BUGLIOSI?

Indeed, reading Carrico's WC testimony, the term "ragged" appears precisely
three times, once by Spector, and twice used by Carrico... AND EVERY SINGLE
INSTANCE THE WORD 'TRACHEA' IS INCLUDED IN THE SAME SENTENCE.

Do you suppose that Bugliosi was too stupid to check Carrico's testimony
before making the claim about him describing the original throat wound as
"ragged"?


> Ben Holmes, however, was not entirely clear in a thread-starting post that
> he made recently [SEE BELOW], in which he asserted that Mr.
> Bugliosi was a liar and that Dr. Carrico had never once used the word
> "ragged" to describe a wound in JFK's throat. And that declaration, as
> stated by Holmes, just simply is not true.

Here's the post referred to above:
******************************************************************
Then let's take a simple example, and see if you can defend it:

"Although Carrico was unable to determine whether the throat wound was an
entrance or exit wound, he did observe that the wound was "ragged,"
virtually a sure sign of an exit wound as opposed to an entrance wound,
which is usually round and devoid of ragged edges." (Bugliosi, p.413)

Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico actually
*say* this anywhere?

What is the ACTUAL evidence show that neck wound description to be?

Now, you can either find Carrico describing the throat wound as "ragged",
or you can admit that Bugliosi lied, or you can run away...

Which will it be?
*******************************************************************

Now, DVP has made the claim that "Dr. Carrico had never once used the
word "ragged" to describe a wound in JFK's throat."

Now, although this is absolutely true, when referring to the original
bullet wound, as everyone can see from the original quoted post:

I NEVER STATED WHAT DAVID VON PEIN JUST ACCUSED ME OF STATING!!

Nowhere in that post does it say "Dr. Carrico had never once used the
word "ragged" to describe a wound in JFK's throat." - what it *DOES* say
is that "Now, was the wound in the throat actually "ragged"? Did Carrico
actually *say* this anywhere?" - and "Now, you can either find Carrico
describing the throat wound as "ragged", or you can admit that Bugliosi
lied, or you can run away..."

David Von Pein has clearly decided to lie about this topic.

First by claiming that I stated WHAT CANNOT BE FOUND IN THE ABOVE QUOTED
POST.

Then by claiming that Carrico did *indeed* assert that the throat wound
was "ragged" - by the simple expedient of changing what is meant by the
term "throat".

The trachea is certainly part of the throat - but David Von Pein also knows
that the topic is how to determine the direction of a bullet... which
ONLY pertains to the wound on the skin of JFK's neck.

Although there was one kook who tried to support the idea that the "ragged"
nature of the trachea supported that the wound was an exit ("if the hole in
Kennedy's skin was an entrance wound, AS YOU CLAIM, why would the hole in
the trachea be ragged...?") - that kook ran away when challenged, and
couldn't defend such a silly and dishonest lie.

> Holmes should have been more precise about WHICH wound he was referring
> to--the wound in the skin of JFK, or the wound in the underlying trachea.


Again, AN OUTRIGHT LIE ON DAVID VON PEIN'S PART. There's *NO CONFUSION
WHATSOEVER* about which wound is being discussed. As the quote from
Bugliosi makes clear, the *ONLY* wound being discussed is the one that
you can use to determine bullet direction.

I felt no need to clarify what was already quite obvious.

The idea that I *might* have been referring to the trachea wound means
that Bugliosi was so incredibly stupid that he thought you could use such
a wound, with the description we have, to indicate the direction of the
bullet.

So I was *already* as "precise" as I could possibly be. No other *POSSIBLE*
interpretation was reasonable, credible, or believable.

Yet there were kooks who tried to assert that the tracheal damage was
being referred to by Bugliosi.


> In the final analysis of this "ragged" matter -- Vince Bugliosi is
> definitely wrong in at least two places in his book regarding the
> purported testimony of the Parkland doctors concerning the nature of
> JFK's outer-skin throat/neck wound.


"Wrong" is the best you can do?

He *LIED* blatantly about the most obvious medical evidence for a frontal
shooter. He based his lie on hearsay, when direct medical testimony was
available.

Indeed, he *cited* Carrico's testimony earlier his tome, so it's quite
provable that he knew how Carrico described the wound.


> But I also truly believe that these errors are not intentional "lies".


Yet strangely enough - there don't seem to be any "errors" that favor the
CT'er side. All of his "errors" just coincidently favor the Warren
Commission's theory.

Of course, I could be wrong... feel free to list the errors that actually
*DON'T* support his argument.


> Given the fact that there was, indeed, a wound associated with President
> Kennedy's neck/throat injury that was described by more than one doctor
> as being "ragged" in nature, Bugliosi's utilization of the word "ragged"
> could very well be--I'm sorry to say--a bit of a "senior moment" on the
> part of Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi.


It's certainly credible to explain this, not as a lie, but as sheer
ignorance and stupidity about the medical evidence. You can even dress it
up nicely by describing such ignorance as a "senior moment". But the sad
truth is that it's not going to be very credible that he didn't know that
the original bullet wound *LOOKED* like an entry.

There's simply far too much information about exactly *that* topic.

It's not a secret, it's not esoteric knowledge - Bugliosi *PROVED* that
he knew much of the existing evidence that contradicted his lie.

Even the fact that he used *HEARSAY* as the citation, instead of Carrico's
actual testimony - which he clearly cited elsewhere - shows conscienceness
of guilt... an honest man would have been citing CARRICO'S ACTUAL TESTIMONY
OR STATEMENTS to support what he said.


> Why do I say that?


Because you're desperately attempting to come up with a refutation that
Bugliosi lied?

Keep in mind, I well understand the silly speculations and theories that
kooks such as you engage in ... which is why I always specify *CREDIBLE*
when I ask for an explanation.

You believe it's "credible" that he simply forgot one of the major medical
evidential points for a conspiracy.

I don't... nor, do I think, many others will.


> Well, if anyone has ever listened to any of Mr. Bugliosi's several radio
> interviews that he did when he was on his book tour for "Reclaiming
> History" in 2007, then my above "senior moment" comment just might make
> a little more sense and have a bit more credence.


Nah... it would be not too dissimilar from asserting that the shell casings
left behind the Grassy Knoll are proof of a second gunman.


> Because on many occasions, Vince just loses track of his line of thought
> and simply cannot remember a question that was asked a minute earlier.
> (I will say, too, that even I, at age 49, have had many similar "senior"
> moments myself. My memory sucks lately, and it bothers me a lot sometimes.
> It drives me crazy when I can't for the life of me remember the name of a
> particular witness in the JFK case, or what a witness said, etc.)


So if, as you're now arguing, Bugliosi simply doesn't have a good grasp
of the evidence in this case - why should anyone believe him?


> Now, I'm not excusing any "ragged" errors that Vince Bugliosi has made in
> his JFK book, I'm merely attempting to provide a POSSIBLE explanation for
> why those errors appear on Pages 207 and 413 of "Reclaiming History".


Yes, DVP, you *ARE* excusing the blatant lies he told.

Arguing that he was too ignorant of the medical evidence (his "senior
moment") isn't going to get Bugliosi off the hook.


> And I refuse to ever believe that Vincent Bugliosi is (or ever was) an
> outright liar.

*******************************************************************
There are a few nuts around here that like to quote VB... so I thought
perhaps it's time to do some authentic Bugliosi quotes myself:

Asking a judge to take judicial notice (with reference to the overwhelming
concern of Americans about unresolved questions of conspiracy: "They want
to know if there is a pernicious force alive in this land, which is
threatening to destroy our representative form of government by
systematically orchestrating the cutting down of those Presidents or
candidates for President who espouse political philosophies antithetical
to theirs." pg 184

To newsmen at a press conference:
VB: "Gentlemen, the time for us to keep looking for additional bullets in
this case has passed. The time has come for us to start looking for the
members of the firing squad that night."
Q: "Does all this mean that Sirhan is not guilty?"
VB: "No, not at all. Sirhan is as guilty as sin, and his conviction
was a proper one. But just because Sirhan is guilty does not automatically
exclude the possibility that more than one gun was fired at the
assassination scene." pg 191

"I think the court can take judicial notice that the whole tone, the whole
tenor in this country at this particular moment is that there is a
tremendous distrust, there is a tremendous suspicion, there is a tremendous
skepticism about whether or not people like Oswald and Sirhan acted alone,
and many, many people, many substantial people - I am not talking about
conspiracy buffs who see a conspiracy behind every tree - many, many
substantial people feel that Sirhan did not act alone, that he did act in
concert." ...

"No one is going to say that they saw Mr. Owen pull the trigger and shoot
Senator Kennedy. We intend to offer evidence from which a very strong
inference could be drawn that possibly Mr. Owen was a co-conspirator in
this case." ... "I have to say, as a prosecutor for eight years I find it
extremely strange that the LAPD would not want this information [on the
LAPD investigation of Mr. Owen] at this point ot be public. I find it
very strange indeed. If Owen was not involved, as LAPD, I assume, has
concluded, there is no conceivable reason under the moon why they
shouldn't permit us to look at those records." (Despite a court order
to produce them, the LAPD successfully refused to do so) pg 248

Bugliosi, making an "offer of proof to the judge:
"There is some evidence in this case, and we will put the evidence on,
which smacks of a possible cover-up. And I am not using the word cover-up
because it's a word that's fashionable right now, but there are some
strange things that happened in this case, and I will mention just a few
of them to you. The most obvious thing is something that happened in this
very courtroom about thirty minutes ago. An officer from the LAPD took the
witness stand and testified that he could find no records on Jerry Owen
over at the Los Angeles Police Department in response to a subpoena duces
tecum. It is a matter of common knowledge, your Honor, that Jerry Owen was
investigated by the LAPD. If the court will give us time we will present
documentary evidence that he was investigated by the LAPD. A book was
written by the chief detective in this case, I think the name of the book
was Special Unit Senator, in which pages upon pages are devoted to Jerry
Owen. And yet we have an officer from the LAPD taking the witness stand
and searching for the records for an entire day and coming up with nothing
on Jerry Owen. That's the first point.." pg 253-254

VB asserted that it was not necessary to present "a tape recorded
conversation between Owen and Sirhan in which Own is saying, 'I want you
to bump off Kennedy for me.' Conspiracies are proven bit by bit, speck by
speck, brick by brick, until all of a sudden you have a mosaic. They are
proven by circumstantial evidence. Conspiracies are conceived in shadowy
recesses. They are not hatched on television in front of 5,000,000
witnesses." pg 304

VB: "If Owen's story is just a silly Alice in Wonderland concoction to
focus some cheap attention on himself, your Honor, and Powers lied on that
witness stand, how come everyone is in fear in this case? Owen, I believe,
testified that people are making death threats against him, which would be
compatible with the notion that he was a lowly operative in th econspiracy,
and people up above are the ones making the threats." pg 305

"This young lad, Johnny Beckley, flees for his life. Bill Powers has to be
brought into court with a crane. Jonn Christian, no one can find him.
I don't think this is typical. I have handled many murder cases, but I have
never seen a case where so many people are frightened. Are these things all
meaningless? Are these people all cuckoo birds?" pg 305

"Who knows where we might have been able to take this case if things had
been different? But there's one thing I'm absolutely sure of now: this
case [RFK's assassination] has to be reopened and re-examined, from top to
bottom - and not by those law enforcement officials who gave us the
original conclusions either." pg 308

All references are from "The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy - The
Conspiracy and Coverup" by William Turner & Jonn Christian, paperback
edition 2006.
*******************************************************************

Despite DVP's warmingly positive optimism - lawyers lie. That's what
lawyers do.

Indeed, they are *required* to... they may know, based on their interviews
with their client, that the client is as guilty as sin - YET THEY ARE
REQUIRED TO *NOT* REVEAL THIS TO THE COURT - since it falls under
client/attorney privilege.

There's no-one in America, lawyers included, who would be willing to
honestly say that lawyers don't lie.


> I refuse to believe that Vince would be willing to print
> something in one of his books that he KNOWS IS A FLAT-OUT LIE.


Yep... the "stupid" argument again. Or, as you phrase it, the "senior
moment" argument.

It must have been a WHOPPER of a "senior moment" to allow him to forget
testimony, forget the press conference, forget the strange questioning
designed to get the Parkland doctors to sign on to the "exit" theory,
Paul Mandel's article designed to explain away this "ragged" wound...

Indeed, it must have been a "senior moment" indeed to USE WHAT HE *KNEW*
WAS HEARSAY THAT *STILL* DIDN'T SUPPORT HIS CLAIM!!

He couldn't be bothered to read what Carrico said, HE USED *HEARSAY* TO
SUPPORT HIS ASSERTION!!!

Hearsay that DID NOT state what he asserted that it said.

So Bugliosi's "senior moment" must be extended to even *how* to reference
facts... instead of going to the primary source, HE USED HEARSAY!!!


> I will never believe that kind of thing could ever apply to Mr. Vincent
> Bugliosi. Because, in my opinion, Vince is just not cut from that sort
> of devious cloth.


How silly! Any successful lawyer has to know how to lie. How to lie and
stay *within* the law.


> If certain conspiracy theorists want to disagree with my last comment, so
> be it. But I'll always stand by what I just said.


You can stand by the statement that the Moon is made of green cheese...
just don't expect people to believe it.


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com

[timstter]

> different from entrance wounds."http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...

>
> Now, I don't have any problems whatsoever reading the word "ragged" in that
> statement, nor the fact that Perry was EXPLICITLY denying that the wound
> was "ragged". So you're a liar, David Von Pein. You read the citation, and
> made a claim based on your inability to read, or your ability to lie.
>
> And Bugliosi's other reference for his lie about Perry's statement can be

> found here:http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/...

> wounds and exit wounds look similar. (Anyone remember the goat skins?)http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_850.pdf

Blowhardism @ its worst.

No one cares, Holmes.

People simply don't have time to wade through your self important
guff, Yellow Pants.

Unless their name is Healy, of course.

Woof, woof!

Informative Regards,

Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

[Bill Clarke]

In article <jq2ia...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

>
>
>
>It seems that "David Von Pein" has posted an attempt to defend Bugliosi from
>his outright lie about the medical evidence... so I'll deal with it here:

Top Post. Benny, why are you so anal?

Bill Clarke

[Ben Holmes]

In article <jq3fe...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...

>
>In article <jq2ia...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>
>>
>>
>>It seems that "David Von Pein" has posted an attempt to defend Bugliosi from
>>his outright lie about the medical evidence... so I'll deal with it here:
>
>Top Post. Benny, why are you so anal?
>
>Bill Clarke

Too cowardly to debate the facts, eh Billy?

[Samantha Brown]

"Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
news:jq3n9...@drn.newsguy.com...

> In article <jq3fe...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>In article <jq2ia...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It seems that "David Von Pein" has posted an attempt to defend Bugliosi
>>>from
>>>his outright lie about the medical evidence... so I'll deal with it here:
>>
>>Top Post. Benny, why are you so anal?
>>
>>Bill Clarke
>
>
>
> Too cowardly to debate the facts, eh Billy?

I don't see Bill hiding behind a killfilter Chubs. We all can see who the
coward is Yellowpants.

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

>>> "You're lying David Von Pein. YOU'RE LYING! .... You've outright lied that these sources don't include the word "ragged". One does not - Dr. Humes didn't mention it. But Perry did." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're an idiot. And apparently you're an idiot who can't read at all.

The sources I mentioned don't include the word "ragged" anywhere. I
checked them carefully before I ever posted what I wrote last July.

The page you linked to (MD 58; Pg. 15) is irrelevant, because it is
not the same source page I discussed in my July 2011 post on this
subject.

The source note that appears in Bugliosi's book at that point in his
"Four Days" chapter is this one:

1069. ARRB MD 58, Interview of Malcolm Perry by Andy Purdy and
T. M. Flanagan on January 11, 1978, p.9; 7 HSCA 257.

A specific page within MD58 is mentioned by Bugliosi there, and only
ONE specific page, and that is page 9. And nowhere on Page 9 of MD58
does the word "ragged" appear.

Therefore, I am 100% correct in my original July 2011 post regarding
this matter.

And (as always) Ben Holmes is dead wrong.

And I'll repeat once again for those in the cheap seats---

My explanation for Mr. Bugliosi's "ragged" errors in "Reclaiming
History" is almost certainly the correct explanation (and is certainly
the most REASONABLE explanation being offered) when it comes to this
topic of the doctors' utilization of the word "ragged".

And I even provided a very illustrative example of how Mr. Bugliosi's
brain just seems to freeze up (or "cramp") from time to time. See the
hilarious "Garrison/Z-Film" example below:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html

[Bill Clarke]

In article <jq3n9...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

>
>In article <jq3fe...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>>
>>In article <jq2ia...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It seems that "David Von Pein" has posted an attempt to defend Bugliosi from
>>>his outright lie about the medical evidence... so I'll deal with it here:
>>
>>Top Post. Benny, why are you so anal?
>>
>>Bill Clarke
>
>
>
>Too cowardly to debate the facts, eh Billy?

The facts are that you are an anal asshole. What is to debate?

Bill Clarke

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

>>> "It's certainly credible to explain this, not as a lie, but as sheer ignorance and stupidity about the medical evidence. You can even dress it up nicely by describing such ignorance as a "senior moment". But the sad truth is that it's not going to be very credible that he didn't know that the original bullet wound *LOOKED* like an entry." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're nuts.

You're acting as if Bugliosi never ONCE mentions in his book that Dr.
Perry said the throat wound looked like an entry wound.

When, in point of fact, Mr. Bugliosi discusses the "entry vs. exit"
controversy concerning the throat wound in multiple places in his
book, e.g.:

"Perry...thinks the wound in the throat they enlarged for the
tracheotomy was an entrance wound." -- "Reclaiming History"; Page 128

"Dr. Perry testified before the Warren Commission that he did
not know whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound.
However, at a press conference at Parkland Hospital commencing at 3:16
p.m. on the day of the assassination, he told the assembled media that
"the wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the
throat." Confronted with this apparent contradiction when he was
interviewed by the HSCA, he tried to explain his press conference
remarks by saying that "I thought it looked like an entrance wound
because it was small, but I didn't look for any others, and so that
was just a guess"." -- RH; Page 412

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

Footnote---

It's also rather humorous to note that at one point in Holmes' tedious
essay above, he yells at me multiple times ("YOU'RE LYING!")...but
it's about an issue in which I am essentially AGREEING with him --
i.e., I am saying that Bugliosi is wrong (at least with respect to the
precise word "ragged") when Vince cited "MD58, p.9" at one point in
his book. But Holmes, incredibly, decided to call me a liar at that
particular point in his argument--even though I was saying that
Bugliosi was, indeed, wrong about something. Amazing.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html

[Samantha Brown]

"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:2c911b5a-b857-4142...@l5g2000pbo.googlegroups.com...

Holmes is quite clearly an unhinged bully. Evidence of his thuggish and
ridiculous behaviour is scattered all across the net. He's drowning in his
own bullshit, unfortunately he's just not bright enough to realise it's
happening. Great fun to watch though.

[aeffects]

On May 29, 4:58 pm, "Samantha Brown" <samjbrow...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>
> news:jq3n9...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > In article <jq3fe301...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>In article <jq2ia10...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...

>
> >>>It seems that "David Von Pein" has posted an attempt to defend Bugliosi
> >>>from
> >>>his outright lie about the medical evidence... so I'll deal with it here:
>
> >>Top Post.  Benny, why are you so anal?
>
> >>Bill Clarke
>
> > Too cowardly to debate the facts, eh Billy?
>
> I don't see Bill hiding behind a killfilter Chubs. We all can see who the
> coward is Yellowpants.

you wish for notice shiothead, you're simply not qualified to discuss
this case, take your kneepads and get back to fresno, you leathery,
dilapidated, useless, dired up crone you.....

> >>>http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=sear...

>
> >>>Now, I don't have any
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Samantha Brown]

"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:08457c66-0aec-4012...@x6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...

On May 29, 4:58 pm, "Samantha Brown" <samjbrow...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "Ben Holmes" <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote in message
>
> news:jq3n9...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <jq3fe301...@drn.newsguy.com>, Bill Clarke says...
>
> >>In article <jq2ia10...@drn.newsguy.com>, Ben Holmes says...
>
> >>>It seems that "David Von Pein" has posted an attempt to defend Bugliosi
> >>>from
> >>>his outright lie about the medical evidence... so I'll deal with it
> >>>here:
>
> >>Top Post. Benny, why are you so anal?
>
> >>Bill Clarke
>
> > Too cowardly to debate the facts, eh Billy?
>
> I don't see Bill hiding behind a killfilter Chubs. We all can see who the
> coward is Yellowpants.

you wish for notice shiothead, you're simply not qualified to discuss
this case, take your kneepads and get back to fresno, you leathery,
dilapidated, useless, dired up crone you.....

"shiothead" & "dired"???????? Are you drunk already Crackpipe? Rehab is your
friend Turtle.

> read more �

[aeffects]

On May 29, 7:14 pm, "Samantha Brown" <samjbrow...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:2c911b5a-b857-4142...@l5g2000pbo.googlegroups.com...

do you know how to post here, shithead?

[Samantha Brown]

"aeffects" <aeffe...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:6e179412-650b-4093...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

LOL. Ummmm clearly fuckwit. You're not inhaling deeply enough Junkie. Can
you tell us who John "Francis" Kennedy was? Or how about "Howard" Weisberg?
Why don't you sit down before you hurt yourself, there's a good kook.

[Ben Holmes]

In article <6e179412-650b-4093...@pr7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...
>
>On May 29, 7:14=A0pm, "Samantha Brown" <samjbrow...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote in messagenews:2c911b5a-b857=
>-4142-a982-...@l5g2000pbo.googlegroups.com...

>>
>> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>>
>> >>> "It's certainly credible to explain this, not as a lie, but as sheer
>> >>> ignorance and stupidity about the medical evidence. You can even dress
>> >>> it up nicely by describing such ignorance as a "senior moment". But the
>> >>> sad truth is that it's not going to be very credible that he didn't know
>> >>> that the original bullet wound *LOOKED* like an entry." <<<
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> You're nuts.
>>
>> You're acting as if Bugliosi never ONCE mentions in his book that Dr.
>> Perry said the throat wound looked like an entry wound.

I am, in fact, pointing out that it was nearly *impossible* for him to not know
that the description he used was contrary to what he knew.

He *KNEW* that this wound wasn't "ragged".

You have to believe that he got confused, had a "senior moment" - but it's
simply not credible. He based a major argument in his tome on a lie.

>> When, in point of fact, Mr. Bugliosi discusses the "entry vs. exit"
>> controversy concerning the throat wound in multiple places in his
>> book, e.g.:
>>
>> "Perry...thinks the wound in the throat they enlarged for the
>> tracheotomy was an entrance wound." -- "Reclaiming History"; Page 128

All you're doing is putting nails in Bugliosi's coffin. If you *PROVE* that he
knew that the correct description of this wound in no way could possibly include
the term "ragged" - then all you've done is supported forcefully my assertion
that Bugliosi simply lied.

Of course, the *real* question is why you're addressing speculation about what I
might possibly be thinking - and running away from what I SPECIFICALLY SAID.

>> "Dr. Perry testified before the Warren Commission that he did
>> not know whether the throat wound was an entrance or exit wound.
>> However, at a press conference at Parkland Hospital commencing at 3:16
>> p.m. on the day of the assassination, he told the assembled media that
>> "the wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the
>> throat." Confronted with this apparent contradiction when he was
>> interviewed by the HSCA, he tried to explain his press conference
>> remarks by saying that "I thought it looked like an entrance wound
>> because it was small, but I didn't look for any others, and so that
>> was just a guess"." -- RH; Page 412

Previously pointed out...

It's the evidence that *JUST BEFORE* he lied about the wound being ragged, he
knew the evidence that showed it couldn't be.

>> --------------
>>
>> Footnote---
>>
>> It's also rather humorous to note that at one point in Holmes' tedious
>> essay above, he yells at me multiple times ("YOU'RE LYING!")

Strangely enough, you don't include the statements you made just prior to me
pointing it out.

You did, in fact, lie several times.

The fact that you can't defend such lies merely demonstrates it.

>> ...but
>> it's about an issue in which I am essentially AGREEING with him --
>> i.e., I am saying that Bugliosi is wrong (at least with respect to the
>> precise word "ragged")

If you want to "agree" with me, simply admit that Bugliosi lied.

>> when Vince cited "MD58, p.9" at one point in
>> his book. But Holmes, incredibly, decided to call me a liar at that
>> particular point in his argument--even though I was saying that
>> Bugliosi was, indeed, wrong about something. Amazing.

You *were* lying, moron.

You said: "There are two possible references given for the above quote from Page

207 in "Reclaiming History". One of them is ARRB MD58, p.9, and the other is
Page 257 of HSCA Volume 7. Neither source, however, includes the word "ragged"
in it anywhere."

You lied.

For although Bugliosi cited MD58 - and you claimed that it didn't include the
word "ragged" "anywhere" - it does indeed appear... AND PERRY EXPLICITLY STATES
THAT THE WOUND WAS *NOT* RAGGED.

Perhaps that's why you lied... you didn't want folks to know that Bugliosi cited
the very evidence that proved he was lying.

>> http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html
>>
>> Holmes is quite clearly an unhinged bully. Evidence of his thuggish and
>> ridiculous behaviour is scattered all across the net. He's drowning in his
>> own bullshit, unfortunately he's just not bright enough to realise it's
>> happening. Great fun to watch though.
>
>do you know how to post here, shithead?

David Von Pein has clearly refused to defend his website post - it's not
defensible. He did exactly what Bugliosi did - he lied.

[aeffects]

On May 30, 7:35 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:

> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>
> >>> "David Von Pein has clearly refused to defend his website post - it's not defensible. He did exactly what Bugliosi did - he lied." <<<
>

> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
> I didn't lie at all, and Holmes knows it. He's nuts (as usual).
>
> Holmes is just too stupid to figure out that "brain cramp" does not
> equal "lie" -- and it never has.
>
> I wonder if Holmes even bothered to take a look at (and listen to) the
> amazingly silly "brain cramp" of Bugliosi's in Nov. 2007 that I talked
> about earlier (for which I also provided an audio file).
>
> Here's another "VB Brain Cramp" example:
>
> In November 2009, Mr. Bugliosi made a personal appearance someplace,
> and at the end of his presentation he was talking to a bunch of
> conspiracy freaks about various stupid conspiracies that these kooks
> believe in -- and at one point Vince says that a Secret Service agent
> who was riding in the SS follow-up car in Dallas was "left behind" in
> Dealey Plaza.
>
> That was a "brain cramp". It had to be. Because, of course, Vince
> really knows full well that no SS agent from the Queen Mary follow-up
> car was "left behind" in Dealey Plaza. It didn't happen. Vince might
> be confusing Lem Johns with other SS agents in the Queen Mary, but I
> really have no idea what Vince is talking about when he says (below)
> that a SS man from Queen Mary left the car and couldn't catch up to
> JFK's limo and was therefore "left behind" in the Plaza. That, of
> course, did not happen at all.

son, after 20 years of research and this is a brain cramp? Get real
will'ya?

> Watch Bugliosi's brain cramp starting at 1:20 here:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxZA9RY6pzY
>
> So it's quite clear to me that Vincent's memory isn't what it used to
> be, and he forgets things and conflates other things. But he isn't
> "lying" with the "intent to deceive" -- ever.
>
> And nobody will ever get me to believe that Vince has said or written
> anything about the JFK case that is a deliberate "lie" (with the
> intent to deceive someone).
>
> In other words -- When Vince says something (even in a "brain cramp"
> or "senior moment" mode), he truly believes he is telling the truth
> about that subject matter.
>
> He might be wrong, but he's not lying. He's just having a brain cramp.
> And I proved above (and via my earlier "Garrison/Z-Film" example) that
> Vince DOES, indeed, have such memory lapses.
>
> And the "ragged" thing is one such brain cramp that made its way into
> "Reclaiming History"
>
> Another one can be found on Pages 423 and 424 of "RH", when Vince is,
> in essence, saying that JFK's throat wound was located both above AND
> below the wound in Kennedy's upper back:
>
> http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com/#JFK-Wounds-Pages-423-And-424

[David Von Pein]

>>> "After 20 years of research and this is a brain cramp?" <<<

Yes. Most certainly. Just like these other brain cramps that I've
proven Bugliosi had:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html#11-21-07-Radio-Interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxZA9RY6pzY

http://reclaiminghistory.blogspot.com/#JFK-Wounds-Pages-423-And-424

[Ben Holmes]

In article <c17bbb7f-5425-47f6...@oe8g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
aeffects says...

>
>On May 30, 7:35=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> BEN HOLMES SAID:
>>
>> >>> "David Von Pein has clearly refused to defend his website post - it's
> not defensible. He did exactly what Bugliosi did - he lied." <<<
>>
>> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>>
>> I didn't lie at all, and Holmes knows it. He's nuts (as usual).

And yet, I cited and quoted for each of your lies, and you can't refute it by
*claiming* that you didn't lie without anything to support it.

Here, for example, is one of several examples that can be given:

"[referring to me] ... in which he asserted that Mr. Bugliosi was a liar and

that Dr. Carrico had never once used the word "ragged" to describe a wound in
JFK's throat."

Now, it's absolutely true that I've labeled Bugliosi a liar. I then went on to
make the case with quotes and cites.

But I've *NEVER* stated that "Dr. Carrico had never once used the word "ragged"

to describe a wound in JFK's throat."

That's simply a lie on the kook's part.

I *WILL* state that Dr. Carrico has never once used the word "ragged" to
describe the original bullet wound in JFK's throat... that would be an entirely
*different* and completely accurate statement.

But the kook has neither apologized for pretending I'd said what I never said,
nor has he proved himself correct by QUOTING AND CITING WHERE I SAID THAT.

Let's not forget his BLATANT lie that Perry never used the word "ragged"
anywhere in MD58 - where he not only used the word, BUT EXPLICITLY DENIED THAT
THE WOUND WAS RAGGED.


The kook's a liar... and when *I* say it, I back it up. When the kook denies it,
there's nothing to support his denials.

>> Holmes is just too stupid to figure out that "brain cramp" does not
>> equal "lie" -- and it never has.

You've speculated that Bugliosi had a "brain cramp", or a "senior moment" - but
sadly for you, it's just not credible.

To have a "brain cramp" severe enough to *COMPLETELY* misrepresent the evidence
of a frontal shooter might... I say again, MIGHT, be credible if the kook could
give examples of these "senior moments" which hurt his faith.

But the kook can't do it. Every "error" on Bugliosi's part only *HELPED* him.

So the "stupid" one here, is the one who can't figure out that his idol, a
lawyer in a profession *FAMOUS* for their somewhat loose grasp on truth, simply
lied as they often do to advance their case.

For if Bugliosi never lies, then the kook must accept that Bugliosi accepts a
conspiracy in both the JFK and RFK cases... as he actually argued in court.

But that would mean he lied in his book, where it's clear that he *doesn't*
believe in any conspiracies ... at least in the JFK case...

>> I wonder if Holmes even bothered to take a look at (and listen to) the
>> amazingly silly "brain cramp" of Bugliosi's in Nov. 2007 that I talked
>> about earlier (for which I also provided an audio file).

Speech is far easier to make a mistake in than the written word.

The argument was detailed... it wasn't a 'spur of the moment' thing... Bugliosi
simply lied to make his case.


Why can't you find any equivalent "senior moments" that hurt his case, moron?

>> Here's another "VB Brain Cramp" example:
>>
>> In November 2009, Mr. Bugliosi made a personal appearance someplace,
>> and at the end of his presentation he was talking to a bunch of
>> conspiracy freaks about various stupid conspiracies that these kooks
>> believe in -- and at one point Vince says that a Secret Service agent
>> who was riding in the SS follow-up car in Dallas was "left behind" in
>> Dealey Plaza.

Actually true... if only for a *very* short time.

>> That was a "brain cramp". It had to be. Because, of course, Vince
>> really knows full well that no SS agent from the Queen Mary follow-up
>> car was "left behind" in Dealey Plaza. It didn't happen. Vince might
>> be confusing Lem Johns with other SS agents in the Queen Mary, but I
>> really have no idea what Vince is talking about when he says (below)
>> that a SS man from Queen Mary left the car and couldn't catch up to
>> JFK's limo and was therefore "left behind" in the Plaza. That, of
>> course, did not happen at all.

It is, however, a fact that Lem Johns *WAS* left behind... however short the
actual interval may have been.

It wouldn't be possible to study the case for over 20 years without being
familiar with the evidence of someone at least *claiming* to be Secret Service
in Dealey Plaza after JFK, as well as all (or a majority) of the S.S. left...

So such a "brain cramp" is simply true. (Lem Johns)

And might even be *more* truthful than you know.

>son, after 20 years of research and this is a brain cramp? Get real
>will'ya?

The moron is now claiming truthful statements by Bugliosi to be "brain cramps".

Of course, I'm taking his word for what he claims Bugliosi said.

>> Watch Bugliosi's brain cramp starting at 1:20 here:
>>

>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DwxZA9RY6pzY


Wasn't available.

>> So it's quite clear to me that Vincent's memory isn't what it used to
>> be, and he forgets things and conflates other things. But he isn't
>> "lying" with the "intent to deceive" -- ever.

A speculation of yours. And you're certainly entitled to it.

Just as I'm entitled to point out the opposite. And cite for it.

>> And nobody will ever get me to believe that Vince has said or written
>> anything about the JFK case that is a deliberate "lie" (with the
>> intent to deceive someone).

Then if you wanted to convince people, you could provide examples where he had a
"senior moment" that didn't favor his position.

But you've refused to do so thus far...

>> In other words -- When Vince says something (even in a "brain cramp"
>> or "senior moment" mode), he truly believes he is telling the truth
>> about that subject matter.

Nobody familiar with the evidence is going to believe that.

I keep asking for *CREDIBLE* explanations - and I keep getting incredible ones.

>> He might be wrong, but he's not lying. He's just having a brain cramp.
>> And I proved above (and via my earlier "Garrison/Z-Film" example) that
>> Vince DOES, indeed, have such memory lapses.

Then simply show these "memory lapses" in his tome... ones that go against his
theory.

>> And the "ragged" thing is one such brain cramp that made its way into
>> "Reclaiming History"

Sorry kook - you'll have to find really credulous idiots to believe that.

>> Another one can be found on Pages 423 and 424 of "RH", when Vince is,
>> in essence, saying that JFK's throat wound was located both above AND
>> below the wound in Kennedy's upper back:
>>
>> http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com/#JFK-Wounds-Pages-423-And-424

You're a moron.

You think that Bugliosi is moving the wounds, WHEN IN FACT THEY ARE IN EXACTLY
THE SAME PLACE BY HIS OWN ADMISSION.

You rather dishonestly quote: "The...bullet track, which is going downward
through the president's body, is traveling upward anatomically." ... but the
ACTUAL sentence is this:

"But as we elevate the president's head (B-2 and B-3), we see that the *same*
bullet track, which is going downward through the president's body, is traveling
upward anatomically."

So you added "The" and removed the fact that Bugliosi was speaking of the SAME
bullet track, and merely moving the body. There's not even a *HINT* that he's
doing what you claimed.

I won't label this a lie, since it seems rather clear to me that you're simply
too stupid to read this and understand it correctly.

[David Von Pein]

BEN HOLMES SAID:

>>> "David Von Pein has clearly refused to defend his website post - it's not defensible. He did exactly what Bugliosi did - he lied." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I didn't lie at all, and Holmes knows it. He's nuts (as usual).

Holmes is just too stupid to figure out that "brain cramp" does not
equal "lie" -- and it never has.

I wonder if Holmes even bothered to take a look at (and listen to) the
amazingly silly "brain cramp" of Bugliosi's in Nov. 2007 that I talked
about earlier (for which I also provided an audio file).

Here's another "VB Brain Cramp" example:

In November 2009, Mr. Bugliosi made a personal appearance someplace,
and at the end of his presentation he was talking to a bunch of
conspiracy freaks about various stupid conspiracies that these kooks

believe in -- and at one point Vince says that "after the first shot,
one Secret Service agent left the Presidential limo and went back [to
the Secret Service car?]", with that agent being "left behind" in
Dealey Plaza after the assassination. In reality, of course, no Secret
Service agent ever left the President's car at any time in Dealey
Plaza.

That was a "brain cramp". It had to be. Because Vince really knows
full well that no SS agent who was riding in JFK's car (and there were
only two in that car--Bill Greer and Roy Kellerman) vacated the
President's limousine in Dealey Plaza. It didn't happen.

Vince, in the video linked below, might be confusing Lem Johns with
other SS agents in the Queen Mary follow-up car or in JFK's car.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2011/07/reclaiming-history-errors.html#Vincent-Bugliosi-Video

So it's quite clear to me that Vincent's memory isn't what it used to
be, and he forgets things and conflates other things. But he isn't
"lying" with the "intent to deceive" -- ever.

And nobody will ever get me to believe that Vince has said or written
anything about the JFK case that is a deliberate "lie" (with the
intent to deceive someone).

In other words -- When Vince says something (even in a "brain cramp"
or "senior moment" mode), he truly believes he is telling the truth
about that subject matter.

He might be wrong, but he's not lying. He's just having a brain cramp.

And I proved in the video linked above (and via my other "Garrison/Z-

Film" example) that Vince DOES, indeed, have such memory lapses.

And the "ragged" thing is one such brain cramp that made its way into

"Reclaiming History".

Another one can be found on Pages 423 and 424 of "RH", when Vince is,
in essence, saying that JFK's throat wound was located both above AND
below the wound in Kennedy's upper back:

http://ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com/#JFK-Wounds-Pages-423-And-424

Footnote Regarding That 2009 Video Clip ---

The conspiracy kooks talking to Bugliosi in that video don't have the
slightest idea what they're talking about either, with one of the
kooks saying that the Secret Service "standdown" took place just "50
yards" prior to the time JFK was shot. When, of course, the video
footage the kooks are referring to is really the WFAA footage taken at
Love Field, which shows Don Lawton shrugging as he stops running
alongside JFK's limo.

http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/11/secret-service.html



BEN HOLMES SAID:

>>> "It is, however, a fact that Lem Johns WAS left behind." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

But Johns wasn't in the President's car. Nor was he riding in the
Queen Mary SS follow-up car either. I mention the latter point just in
case Bugliosi really was referring to an agent leaving the Secret
Service car in Dealey Plaza, instead of the President's car, because
there is the report of SS Agent John Ready, who was riding on the
right-front running board of the Queen Mary follow-up car. Ready said
this in his SS Report:

"The President's car slowed, someone in the follow-up car stated
he was shot, and I left to run to the President's car. At that time I
was recalled to the follow-up car and took the right front seat aside
of ATSAIC Roberts, and proceeded to a hospital several miles distant."
-- John D. Ready

But, as we can see, Ready was not left behind in Dealey Plaza.

BEN HOLMES SAID:


>>> "So you added "The" and removed the fact that Bugliosi was speaking of the SAME bullet track, and merely moving the body. There's not even a *HINT* that he's doing what you claimed." <<<

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, you think the photo on the left (linked below) shows Kennedy
leaning forward, eh? In other words, if we're to believe the HSCA (and
Page 423 of Bugliosi's book), JFK isn't even close to being in the
"anatomic" or "autopsy" position in the left-hand autopsy picture
here:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6kYzhJGqq2M/TDBDx7IShhI/AAAAAAAAEqQ/HhFdDmgCav4/s1600/JFK-Autopsy-Photos.jpg

Because, according to the HSCA (and according to Bugliosi on Page
423), the ONLY WAY to get the throat wound in a position that is LOWER
than the back wound is by having JFK lean forward 11 to 18 degrees.

But how can the deceased John Kennedy be leaning forward AT ALL in an
autopsy photo which shows him lying flat on his back on a table?

I'd love for an HSCA member to answer that last question (after
looking at the composite autopsy photos linked above).


BEN HOLMES SAID:

>>> "Nice of you to agree with me. It's NOT going to be credible explaining that Bugliosi didn't know the correct description [of JFK's throat wound]." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:


Therefore, Ben, you think Bugliosi would have intentionally put into
his book some things that directly contradict each other. Right?

Why did he do that, Ben? Didn't he know that people like you would
scour his work and bring up the contradictions?

And it would be particularly silly for a person like Bugliosi to do
something underhanded like that, for he is a man who has repeatedly
said: "Credibility means everything to me. If you've lost the
confidence of the jury [or the people reading my book], then you've
lost the case."


A "RAGGED" SUMMARY:

There are no DVP "lies" associated with Ben Holmes' obsessive "ragged"
discussions at all. Holmes can't even read a source note properly. He
thinks "MD58, p.9" is the exact same thing as "MD58, p. 15". Curious.

But, maybe Holmes had a brain cramp. :-)