JAMES DiEUGENIO VS. VINCENT BUGLIOSI
David Von Pein
>>> "For a proper assessment of Bugliosi's disinformationist book read Jim DiEugenio's review on CTKA Probe website. You should read it too, Mr. Von Pein!!!" <<<
Oh, I have read it. It's linked below:
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_review.html
Mr. DiEugenio's review (Parts 1 and 2 thus far) is just another anti-
LN rant (aimed at Vince B. this time). DiEugenio is one of the many
hardcore JFK conspiracy theorists in the world who have been peddling
the various "plots to kill Kennedy" for years now.
And there is simply no way on this Earth that Jim is suddenly going to
do an about-face and throw all of that pro-conspiracy effort down the
toilet....no matter how comprehensive Bugliosi's book is (and VB's
book IS comprehensive and covers [and destroys] all the major bases
re. "conspiracy", despite the protestations of people like Mr.
DiEugenio).
www.blackopradio.com/black389a.ram
www.blackopradio.com/black389b.ram
As DiEugenio was telling the world (via the "BlackOpRadio" links
provided above) how lousy Mr. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" is and
how Vince skirted around and avoided many of the issues that Jim
thinks prove a conspiracy in the JFK case, I couldn't help but take
note of the "Pot Meets Kettle" irony as Jim D. was speaking.
The examples of "Pot & Kettle-ism" are numerous throughout DiEugenio's
review and his BlackOp appearance....but to highlight just a couple:
The "Mauser vs. Carcano" controversy:
DiEugenio props up the fact that the rifle found on the sixth floor of
the Texas School Book Depository Building was originally reported to
have been a Mauser by some of the police officers who initially saw it
on November 22.
This type of inference is apparently supposed to make the conspiracy-
happy sheep of the world believe that it wasn't really Oswald's gun
that was found on the 6th Floor at all -- but, instead, a German
Mauser.
But what Mr. DiEugenio never tells his listening or reading audience
is the fact that the two officers who initially found the rifle tucked
between boxes on the 6th Floor of the TSBD (Eugene Boone and Seymour
Weitzman), and who both did, indeed, refer to the Carcano as a
"Mauser", BOTH later insisted that their first impressions were
mistaken ones, and both officers later said that the rifle they saw
was NOT a Mauser, but was an Italian Mannlicher-Carcano.
"To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser, which
I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a glance, I
saw the Mauser action....and, I don't know, it just came out as words
it was a German Mauser. Which it wasn't. It's an Italian type gun. But
from a glance, it's hard to describe; and that's all I saw, was at a
glance. I was mistaken. And it was proven that my statement was a
mistake; but it was an honest mistake." -- Seymour Weitzman; In 1967
on CBS-TV
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6b2a00b13bdc81ae
Also -- While he's discussing the rifle, DiEugenio tells a whopper of
a tall tale by spouting the blatant falsehood that Oswald's rifle had
the words "Mannlicher-Carcano" inscribed on it. Jim knows better. But
I guess he figured his listening audience doesn't.
Jim D. also wanted something else to go sailing right over the heads
of his audience members (without them ever feeling the breeze, as Mr.
Bugliosi likes to say) when Jim talks about the way in which Oswald
obtained his rifle by mail order, with DiEugenio apparently thinking
(or at least he seems to want other people to think it) that Oswald
ordered his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle so that he could SHOOT PRESIDENT
KENNEDY WITH IT.
Of course, as anyone should easily be able to figure out via just
garden-variety common sense (and by looking at a calendar), it's
obvious that as of the date when Oswald ordered his rifle in the mail
from Klein's Sporting Goods (which was in January 1963), he couldn't
possibly have had it in his mind to kill John F. Kennedy IN DALLAS IN
NOVEMBER.
As of January, Kennedy's trip to Texas wasn't even on the drawing
board at all. And it wasn't even in the minds of any of JFK's decision-
makers until months later.
Oswald obviously purchased his rifle to kill General Edwin Walker. It
couldn't be any more obvious that this is true. But many conspiracy
theorists want to twist things around, and they want to think that
Oswald bought the gun specifically for the purpose of shooting KENNEDY
with it TEN MONTHS LATER. This, of course, is utter nonsense.
The reason Oswald used his mail-order rifle to shoot JFK in November
is because it was the only weapon available to him at the time of his
virtually last-minute, poorly-planned decision to assassinate the
President. Simple as that.
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c8dda5550323506
#2:
Mr. DiEugenio, for some reason, decides to spend several minutes going
on and on (and on) about the mix-up between the various cameras that
Marina and Lee Oswald owned in 1963.
Now, I suppose this kind of "musical cameras" talk is to create doubt
in the minds of some people about which camera was actually used to
take the infamous "Backyard Photographs" showing Lee Oswald with a
rifle and a pistol in late March of 1963 (which were pictures that
were taken, btw, just days after Oswald received his Carcano rifle in
the mail from Klein's).
DiEugenio seems to be in doubt himself about what camera really was
utilized to take those backyard photos. But there's no mystery to it
at all (except in the fevered minds of certain CTers) -- the backyard
pictures were taken with Lee Oswald's Imperial Reflex camera (a camera
that was in the possession of Lee's brother, Robert, at the time of
JFK's assassination in November; hence, it wasn't found among the
Oswalds' possessions by the police or the FBI; it was later turned
over to the authorities by Ruth Paine, after Robert Oswald gave it to
Ruth).
But the real key to the camera "mystery" is the fact that one of the
backyard pictures was positively linked to Oswald's Imperial Reflex
camera "to the exclusion of every other camera in the world" by way of
comparing the negative from one of the photos to the camera itself. It
was proven that that Imperial camera (which was owned by Lee Oswald)
definitely took one of the backyard photos.
And since all of the other backyard photos are identical in many ways
to the one that was proven to have come from the Imperial Reflex
(things such as: time of day, shadows, sunlight, location, the person
in the picture--Lee Oswald, etc.), then it's not too hard to do the
math from there.
In other words, if ONE picture in this "Backyard" group of photographs
is positively genuine and was taken by Oswald's own camera (which it
definitely was), then why in the world would anyone have any desire to
want to FAKE any additional photos that mirrored a picture that
ALREADY EXISTED in the first place (as some CTers evidently think was
done by some unknown group of braindead conspirators in this case).
It's hilarious to see the lengths that some conspiracists will go in
order to insert the word "plot" into the JFK mix.
Also:
Two other things that DiEugenio seems to be a little mixed up about
are things concerning the 1986 TV Docu-Trial that Mr. Bugliosi
participated in as prosecuting attorney ("On Trial: Lee Harvey
Oswald").
DiEugenio seems to think that the mock trial in London was the same as
a real trial, in the sense that the lawyers could subpoena witnesses
to appear in court (and, hence, Bugliosi and defense lawyer Gerry
Spence could get whatever witness they wanted to get for the simulated
trial).
But this, however, was not the case at all. All 21 witnesses who
appeared at the '86 mock trial took the witness stand voluntarily.
They were not forced to appear via subpoena. Several key witnesses
were invited to appear at the mock trial, but refused to do so. So
Bugliosi and Spence were forced to examine only those witnesses who
were invited to participate and who also WANTED to take the witness
stand.
And DiEugenio, incredibly, actually seems to think that Lee Harvey
Oswald would have taken the witness stand at his own trial (had he not
been killed by Jack Ruby). DiEugenio attempts to undermine the '86
Docu-Trial by saying that "the most important witness" (Lee Oswald)
was "not there".
So, DiEugenio is implying that Oswald would definitely have spoken up
at his trial (had there been a real one) and taken the witness stand,
so that he could be cross-examined by a prosecuting attorney (like
Vincent T. Bugliosi, for example)....which would have, in my view,
been total SUICIDE for Mr. Oswald had he done so.
Had Oswald gotten up on that witness stand, he would have been forced
to tell all of the provable lies that he told the Dallas Police (and
other officials) all over again, in front of the jury. He would have
been cutting his own throat had he done so.
The fact that Oswald lied about never owning or ordering a mail-order
rifle would have surfaced (of course), with these lies being grounded
in the truthful reality of the situation when the prosecutor called
the various witnesses to the stand who would testify to the fact that
Oswald's own handwriting was on the mail-order documents for Rifle
C2766, the very same rifle that was found in the Book Depository on
11/22/63 with Oswald's own palmprint on it, and the very same weapon
that was proven to have been the gun that fired the bullets that
killed President Kennedy.
And Oswald's blatant lie about having never brought any large package
to work with him on the morning of the assassination would also have
surfaced very quickly at his trial (had he testified). This lie would
have been proven when both Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle took
the witness stand to testify that they both saw Oswald with a large
brown paper package on November 22nd.
And on and on....to the point where Oswald's lies, all by themselves,
would have undoubtedly strapped him into the electric chair.
Just like another famous double-murderer (O.J. Simpson) who didn't
dare speak out at his own trial because of the numerous lies that
would have been revealed from the killer's own lips if he had
testified, there is no way that Lee Oswald would have sat in that
witness chair either. He'd have been the biggest fool in the world if
he had done so.
So, as is the case with almost all conspiracy theorists who refuse to
accept what is obvious (based on the physical and circumstantial
evidence that is piled up against the door in the JFK and J.D. Tippit
murder cases, i.e.: Oswald did it and did it alone), James DiEugenio
puts on full display the exact same kind of obfuscation, evidence-
dodging, and dancing between the raindrops that Mr. DiEugenio accuses
Vince Bugliosi of engaging in within VB's book "Reclaiming History".
(And it's a false accusation on Jim's part, in my opinion. Naturally,
all conspiracy promoters will vehemently disagree with me there. But,
that's nothing new--or surprising.)
But apparently it's okay for a conspiracy believer to tell only half
the story when he's talking about the case -- like when DiEugenio was
going on and on about the Imperial Reflex camera, all the while
totally ignoring the fact that his whole argument isn't worth a plug
nickel, because that camera was PROVEN to be the camera that snapped
the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald.
=========================================
More of my thoughts about "Part 1" of James DiEugenio's "RH" review:
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/5561db8d63c885a8
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/516027140effea47
=========================================
lazu...@webtv.net
reactions & all the other lone nut tripe..fine..but, to character
assassinate endlessly those who have far more integrity than he
does..is unforgivable.
BTW-part 3 of DiEugenio's article should be a real A1 humdinger.
David Von Pein
>>> "...but to character assassinate endlessly those who have far more integrity than he does..is unforgivable." <<<
LOL time.
Yeah, people like Fetzer, Garrison, Lane, Armstrong, and Marrs just
ooze "integrity", huh?
>>> "BTW-part 3 of DiEugenio's article should be a real A1 humdinger." <<<
Yeah, that part will probably get into how Bugliosi works for the CIA
and is involved in WC-backing meetings with Arlen Specter in the smoky
back rooms of Washington-area hotels.
A humdinger alright! Yee-ha!
Actually, if Part 2 of Jim's review is any indication, I'll be lucky
to stay awake through all 8-million words of Part 3.
aeffects
you're a naive little boy'o, Davey. Thats why we want you to keep
coming back
Sam McClung
These are also excellent videos for those visually impaired.
Doug Weldon is very well spoken, a complete gentleman, and presents the
truth.
<lazu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29171-48...@storefull-3232.bay.webtv.net...
cdddraftsman
> to stay awake through all 8-million words of Part 3.
He's surely one of the gustiest winddriven blowholes around , no Q
there at all .
Like Marr's you're lucky to encounter one word of truth in one million
words spoken .
tl
cdddraftsman
>
> "To my sorrow, I looked at it and it looked like a Mauser, which
> I said it was. But I said the wrong one; because just at a glance, I
> saw the Mauser action....
Again this shows the dishonesty of ct drivel laden horse manure !
"Mauser action": or 'bolt action' is a generic term for this type of
rifle .
Mauser being the 1st in a long line of bolt action rifles , followed
by
Lee Enfeild , Springfeild , MC , etc. etc.
To accuse someone of lying about Mauser v Carcano is equal to
calling someone a liar because he called the battleship USS New
Jersey a 'Dreadnought' !
There was only one HMS Dreadnought , first all big gunned BB in the
world , but all battleships after her launch were called
'Dreadnoughts' .
"Mauser" is a generic term that classify's a type !
Live with it !
tl
lazu...@webtv.net
Prosecutor, was in fact a fanatical borderline insane lone nutter,
thought everyone would be dumb enough to plunk down 50 bucks for a 1600
page combination of the Warren report-The HSCA coverup, and the bile
directed at conspiracists-Bugliosi slapped LBJ,Howard Hunt, H.L. Hunt,
Murchison, Helms, Angleton,Milteer, Banister, Ferrie, Shaw, Hoover on
the back....Vinny had his chance, but he blew it.
lazu...@webtv.net
Bugs-everybody made out like a bandit that wrote a pro-conspiracy books
etc-only about 3 or 4 did anything-Jim Marrs-Crossfire and the rights to
JFK -Groden-High Treason & The Killing Of A President-chief consultant
to JFK-Lane, Livingstone's first couple, & Lifton's books did well, but
they hardly got wealthy on them. Look in the mirror Bugliosi how much
did you get for Reclaiming History? A helluva lot more than any pro
conspiracy author I'd venture...
Sam McClung
news:15608-48E...@storefull-3231.bay.webtv.net...
bug is like the complete opposite of my cousin vinny,
he's even worse than the judge in the flick,
he's irrational
David Von Pein
>>> "Mr. Von Pein, did you read Mr. DiEugenio's reply to your criticism of his review of Bugliosi's book?" <<<
Yes, I saw it. (The article is linked below.)
www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html
The above article by Mr. DiEugenio is just more of the usual bluster
and obfuscation and non-evidence that I've become accustomed to seeing
being written by conspiracy theorists over the years.
A good example of the "non-evidence" supported by the DiEugenios of
the world is when James D. pulls the following nonsense out of his bag
of conspiracy-created silliness:
"It is doubtful that Klein's stocked a forty inch rifle in
1963." -- James DiEugenio
The above comment is just flat-out idiotic.
Why?
Well, as I've mentioned before, just one look at Waldman Exhibit #7
will tell a reasonable person why:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
That document linked above proves (beyond all possible doubt) that
Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago shipped an Italian 6.5-millimeter
rifle to "A. Hidell" (that's Oswald, of course) in March of 1963.
And that rifle that was shipped to Hidell/Oswald was a rifle that had
the serial number "C2766" stamped on it (that's the exact same serial
number that was stamped on CE139, of course, which is the rifle found
on the sixth floor of the Book Depository at 1:22 PM CST on 11/22/63,
just 52 minutes after JFK was murdered by rifle bullets on the street
in front of the Depository).
And that rifle was shipped by Klein's to P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas,
Texas, USA (that's Oswald's post-office box in Dallas, of course).
And CE139 (i.e., the FORTY-INCH rifle with the serial number "C2766"
stamped on it that was found in the TSBD after the assassination) had
the right-hand palmprint of "guess who?" on it? Yes, indeed -- it was
the palmprint of the man that every CT-Kook wants to make look totally
innocent of shooting the President, for some silly reason -- Lee H.
Oswald.
And I'll remind Mr. DiEugenio once again that (to my knowledge) there
hasn't been one person come forward to prove that a second Mannlicher-
Carcano Model 91/38 rifle ever existed with the exact same C2766
serial number on it.
Out of those "millions" of MC rifles that Mr. DiEugenio talks about in
his anti-VB review, you'd think that somebody, somewhere, would have
come up with just ONE example of another Mannlicher-Carcano Model
91/38 that was stamped with the number "C2766" IF SUCH A SECOND RIFLE
EXISTED.
But even if another one or more guns DID have that exact same serial
number on it....the chances of CE139 (the TSBD rifle) being a
DIFFERENT rifle from the "C2766" rifle that was shipped to Hidell/
Oswald in March of '63 are so incredibly low that those chances could
almost be considered impossible (if you're a reasonable person, that
is).
So, to quote my favorite author once again (and since I'm supposedly
Vincent's "drum majorette", according to James Di., I might as well
put that title to good use some more):
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, within minutes of the
assassination, a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano rifle -- serial
number C dash 2766 -- was found on the sixth floor of the Book
Depository Building. Oswald ordered the rifle under the name 'A.
Hidell' -- we KNOW that.
"We know from the testimony of Monty Lutz, the firearms expert,
that the two large bullet fragments found inside the Presidential
limousine were parts of a bullet fired from Oswald's rifle to the
exclusion of all other weapons.
"We also know from the firearms people that the three expended
cartridge casings found on the floor, right beneath that sixth-floor
window -- undoubtedly the same casings that Mr. [Harold] Norman heard
fall from above -- were fired in, and ejected from, Oswald's rifle to
the exclusion of all other weapons.
"So we KNOW, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, we know beyond
ALL doubt that OSWALD'S RIFLE WAS THE MURDER WEAPON!!" -- VINCENT T.
BUGLIOSI; DURING T.V. DOCU-TRIAL IN LONDON; JULY 1986
www.google.com/group/reclaiming-history/browse_thread/thread/2d1eebb7e8de66a0
Two more examples of Mr. DiEugenio playing fast and loose with the
facts of the case with respect to the "rifle/serial number" issue are
illustrated below:
1.) DiEugenio states in his "Von Pein: Still Cheerleading" article:
"Tom Purvis has proved there was at least one of those [36-inch
Model 38 Carcanos] stamped with that serial number [C2766]." -- James
D.
Of course, Purvis The Kook "proved" no such thing at all. Not even
close to it, in fact. Jim just THINKS that Purvis has "proved" the
existence of such a second "C2766" Carcano.
Mr. Purvis apparently has a friend or acquaintance who owns (or owned)
a Carcano Model 91/38 rifle with a serial number that began with
"C5XXX" (I can't recall the exact number, but the first number after
the "C" was a "5", which is the important part).
And therefore, per Purvis' way of assessing the situation, this has to
mean (undeniably) that a rifle with "C2766" on it must have also been
produced at that exact Carcano factory (wherever it was, I can't
recall, but it doesn't matter) at some point prior to his friend's
"C5XXX" being manufactured, given the presumed progressive numbering
system for such things.
But Purvis hasn't proven that these various Carcano plants that were
manufacturing the MC rifles many years ago didn't have some kind of
inventory system in place that would ensure that no two rifles of the
same make and model would end up with the same identical serial
number.
I happen to believe that some kind of inventory system for serial
numbers WAS probably being used at those various Carcano factories
(even years ago, before the computer age and more efficient inventory
systems being in place, etc.).
Because the whole point of stamping an item with a SERIAL NUMBER is to
make that item UNIQUE when compared to all others. Right? Of course
it's right. And it stands to reason that the Carcano plants of the
world were adhering to that basic type of "unique" policy with respect
to serial numbers on their products, even back in the early 1900s.
Yes, I suppose it's possible that a second rifle with the number C2766
on it might have slipped through the cracks at one of the plants who
made those weapons years ago. I can't deny that possibility.
But to believe, as Mr. Purvis seems to believe, that as many as "40 to
50" MC 91/38 rifles could have been stamped with that same C2766
number is, IMO, just simply ludicrous.
Plus: To repeat, where is the proof that ANY other MC 91/38 rifle
(besides CE139) was ever stamped with the number "C2766"? To date, no
such proof exists (even via the late Dr. John K. Lattimer; see the
following comments on that).
2.) Jim DiEugenio also said this:
"As I reported, Dr. [John] Lattimer had one [Carcano rifle] of
the 40 inch variety with the C 2766 serial number." -- James D.
Jim evidently hasn't seen the following comments made by Dr. Lattimer
himself (in 2004) regarding the confusing matter that appears in
Lattimer's 1980 book "Kennedy And Lincoln", in which he stated that he
did, indeed, own a Carcano 91/38 rifle with the number C2766 stamped
on it.
But, when we do a little leg work regarding this Lattimer rifle (as
John Canal did, by writing to Lattimer himself), the mystery of Dr.
Lattimer's duplicate "C2766" rifle is cleared up in just a few
words....these words:
"I can't recall who asked me to check with Dr. Lattimer re. the
notation in his book that the serial # of the Mannlicher-Carcano he
used for his tests was C-2766 (the same [serial number] as the
Mannlicher-Carcano found in the TSBD), but I asked him about it and
today I received a letter from him with the answer. It's simple. It
was [an] error: "...the book was printed before we noticed the error
and it was too late to correct it"." -- John Canal; April 30, 2004
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/637657ce54aca476
To re-emphasize Dr. Lattimer's quote within John Canal's post above:
"The book [Kennedy And Lincoln] was printed before we noticed
the error and it was too late to correct it." -- Dr. John K. Lattimer;
April 2004
Sorry, Jim. There's another C2766 theory down the drain.
So, we're still left at the end of this day (like all other days since
November 22, 1963) with no proof whatsoever that any other Mannlicher-
Carcano Model 91/38 rifle (other than CE139) was ever stamped with the
specific serial number C2766.
REPRISE:
>>> "Mr. Von Pein, did you read Mr. Di Eugenio's reply to your criticism of his review of Bugliosi's book?" <<<
Of course, DiEugenio is going to be critical of my criticism of his
anti-VB, anti-LN stance.
You don't think he's going to let those 16-million words that he's
written in a lame attempt to debunk Bugliosi's ironclad pro-LN case go
swirling down the drain without a fight, do you?
Duh.
>>> "Very amusing that he calls you Bugliosi's cheerleader!!" <<<
That's certainly a lot better than being any kind of a
"CTer" [conspiracy theorist], that's for dang sure.
But what I find more amusing is the fact that someone like Mr.
DiEugenio would go to so much trouble to try and smear Mr. Bugliosi's
work (which is work that is based on the hard, verifiable evidence in
the JFK case...vs. the paper-thin foundation of rumor, speculation,
and lots of idiotic reasoning that is employed by most conspiracy
promoters of the Earth).
Am I "Bugliosi's cheerleader"? You might say that (if you want to).
But, then too, there's a very good reason for cheering for VB -- i.e.,
his "Oswald Did It" book, "Reclaiming History", is filled with facts,
verified evidence, logic, 10,000+ sources, and (most of all) basic
common sense:
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/5561db8d63c885a8
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fec9f644df43a791
David Von Pein
RE: JIM DiEUGENIO'S ANTI-BUGLIOSI CAMPAIGN (Continued)......
www.blackopradio.com/black395a.ram
On October 9th, 2008, conspiracy theorist and Vince Bugliosi-basher
James DiEugenio once again appeared on Len Osanic's BlackOpRadio
program (linked above), to continue his bashing of Mr. Bugliosi's
first-rate 2007 book, "Reclaiming History".
During the first portions of that BlackOp program, Jim tries to debunk
my comments that I made in the top two articles linked below (which
are responses to some of DiEugenio's recent anti-VB criticisms):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/dc1d90f0571b73f0
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fec9f644df43a791
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1745f5a6ed26ebaa
www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html
First off, I'll say (and readily admit) that I didn't respond to a
whole lot of the unsupportable pro-conspiracy stuff that Mr. DiEugenio
wrote in his lengthy Parts 1 and 2 of his review for Bugliosi's book
(those review segments are linked below)....
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_review.html
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_2_review.html
I elected to respond to just a few of the issues relating to Jim's
very long anti-VB review, with one of those items being a response to
the "Rifle"/"C2766" issue -- which, as DiEugenio correctly points out,
is one of the main pieces of evidence that Vincent Bugliosi heavily
relies upon in his book to prove Lee Harvey Oswald's guilt.
Although, as a footnote to the above paragraph, I will also point out
that Rifle #C2766 certainly isn't the only thing that leads any
reasonable person to the conclusion that Oswald was guilty of the two
murders he committed in Dallas on 11/22/63; because, as Vince B.
points out in his book chapter entitled "Summary Of Oswald's Guilt",
VB goes on and on for many pages detailing the "53 pieces of
evidence" (both physical and circumstantial) that all lead toward the
GUILT of Lee H. Oswald.*
* = And the only one of those 53 pieces of evidence that I, myself,
think doesn't really belong there is item #41, where Vince talks about
the positive paraffin test to LHO's hands. In my opinion, that item
shouldn't be included in a list like that, because Vince himself (in
the very same book) talks about the unreliability of paraffin tests. I
talk more about my disagreement with VB on this paraffin issue (and a
couple of other instances of disagreement as well) within my own
review for "Reclaiming History", here:
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
Now, when speaking about Rifle C2766 (or "Commission Exhibit 139") on
the October 9th BlackOp radio program, Jim DiEugenio tries to weaken
the value of the CE139 rifle as strong evidence in the JFK murder case
by talking about how different people over the years (via various
independent investigations) have been able to chip away at the
ballistics evidence in this case, to the point where DiEugenio
actually had the immense balls to say that CE139 is pretty much
worthless altogether as evidence in this case.
And the reasons given by DiEugenio for the rifle being virtually
nothing but a useless prop are:
1.) The recent NAA studies -- which are studies that have convinced
many conspiracists that by merely concluding that the NAA tests
performed on the JFK bullet evidence by Dr. Vincent P. Guinn in the
1970s are not as conclusive as first thought, this somehow
automatically indicates that more than just the two bullets fired from
Oswald's rifle struck the two victims in the limo on November 22,
1963. But, of course, the recent NAA studies prove no such thing. Not
even close to it.
In fact, just ordinary common sense ALONE tells any reasonable person
that NAA analysis isn't really even required here in order to arrive
at the logical solution of: Only Oswald's bullets hit JFK and John
Connally.
Why?
Simple math -- Since we know that 40% of the bullet specimens (2 out
of 5) examined by Dr. Guinn came from TWO DISTINCTLY SEPARATE BULLETS
that were definitely fired from Lee Oswald's Carcano rifle....and
since we also know that there wasn't even ONE other piece of a bullet
(other than CE567, CE569, and CE399 from LHO's gun) connected to this
murder case that was large enough to be tested by regular, non-NAA
ballistics means....then I ask: what are the chances that ANY of the
remaining 3 very small bullet specimens examined by Guinn in 1978 came
from bullets that were fired by guns other than Lee Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano?
Just plain ordinary common sense and logic will tell a reasonable
person that the answer to the above question is -- The chances are
very (VERY) slim that any of the 5 specimens examined by Dr. Guinn
originated from any non-Oswald (non-CE139) ammunition.
2.) And the only other thing that DiEugenio mentions in his radio
interview that he says destroys the notion that Oswald's rifle was the
murder weapon is the fact that the people who first observed Bullet
CE399 later said they could not make a positive identification of that
specific bullet as the one they saw on 11/22/63 at Parkland Hospital.
(And that is indeed true. I don't deny this fact. None of those bullet
witnesses made an ironclad, positive identification of 399.)
But DiEugenio seems to have missed an important point regarding the
discussion of the "stretcher bullet". And nearly all other CTers miss
this important point too -- the CTers, that is, who love to prop up
the silly theory that Bullet 399 was a planted bullet, or was a bullet
that was a "substitute" for a different "pointy-nosed" bullet that
CTers think was really found on a Parkland stretcher by Darrell
Tomlinson---
The important point being this one:
Even if we were to assume, for the sake of argument, that Darrell
Tomlinson and O.P. Wright and Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen
DIDN'T really see Bullet CE399 at Parkland on 11/22/63, and instead
saw a different bullet entirely (that was fired from a non-Oswald
gun), those men STILL SAW A COMPLETELY-INTACT BULLET THAT CAME OFF A
STRETCHER IN THE HALL WHERE JOHN CONNALLY'S STRETCHER WAS LOCATED ON
NOVEMBER 22.
And if a DIFFERENT non-399 bullet was actually part of this murder
case (and caused all of John Connally's wounds--and there is no
indication that Governor Connally was hit by more than just ONE bullet
in Dealey Plaza), then that would be totally contrary to the beliefs
of virtually every conspiracy believer I've ever spoken with over the
years -- to wit: no matter WHAT bullet smashed into the back and ribs
and wrist of John B. Connally Jr. on November 22nd, most CTers are of
the opinion that a bullet (ANY bullet) could not possibly have ended
up in a near-pristine condition, similar to the condition of CE399.
So where, then, does this argument about the musical bullets go for
the CTers?
Do the conspiracy promoters now want to suddenly start believing that
a bullet COULD, indeed, have smashed into Connally, causing his bony
damage, and emerged in a complete and unfragmented condition--and with
its POINTY NOSE still "pointy" at the end of the day as well?! (Which
is what some CTers apparently believe.)
Or: Do CTers want to invent some more unsupported theories, and go
down another avenue (one that wouldn't be contradictory to their long-
held belief that NO BULLET could have come out near-perfect after
hitting Connally) and contend that a whole, unfragmented, "pointy-
nosed" bullet was "planted" by some evil plotters on a stretcher at
Parkland....and then, later, that pointy bullet was REPLACED by yet
ANOTHER "planted" bullet that played no part in the actual shooting in
Dealey Plaza either -- Bullet CE399? (Just how stupid and bumbling
were these so-called bullet-planting plotters anyway?)
I can't think of a third option. Can anyone? Can Jim DiEugenio?
Other than, of course, to rely on some more sheer speculation (which
is completely unsupported by the known evidence in the case) about
John Connally being hit by more than one bullet, with this "second"
bullet being a pointy-nosed one that ended up on his stretcher at the
hospital.
But, then too, that last option probably won't fly with most CTers
either, because almost all conspiracy-loving kooks believe that the
stretcher bullet (no matter what bullet it was) didn't really come off
of Connally's stretcher at all. Most theorists maintain that it really
came off of a stretcher that was last occupied by a young boy (Ronald
Fuller), which was situated next to Connally's in the Parkland
corridor that November day.
Any way you slice it, it seems like a pretty big problem for the
"CE399 IS A FRAUD" crowd.
But, YMMV.
DiEugenio, after magically sweeping away CE399 and the NAA evidence
ONLY, and nothing more, also had the gonads to say this in his October
9th BlackOp appearance (I'm not kidding; he really said this; no
fooling):
"All you have left connecting Oswald to the crime is the rifle.
If you take away the rifle, what is there? There really is almost
nothing. He [Oswald] was in that building. That's it. That's about it.
There's no ballistics evidence that connects him to the crime
now. .... So this is why I think Von Pein has really taken umbrage at
this; so he's gone after me on more than one occasion here." -- James
DiEugenio; 10/09/08
After hearing the above nonsensical words, I could only stare at my
computer screen, mouth agape.
"Almost nothing" else to connect Lee Oswald to the crime, Jim?
Has Jim's mind been taken over by James Fetzer perhaps? Has he no
memory at all of the mountain of OTHER stuff (including more bullet
evidence) that irrevocably ties Lee Harvey Oswald to the murder of the
President?
As mentioned, DiEugenio stripped away only the NAA stuff and Bullet
CE399 before making the above "almost nothing" comment. But, Jim,
apparently forgot about CE567 and CE569, the two bullet fragments from
OSWALD'S RIFLE that were found right inside the LIMOUSINE itself.
And then there are the three bullet cartridge casings (shells),
positively from Oswald's gun, that were found beneath the Sniper's-
Nest window in the Book Depository.
And as an extra bonus, the rifle in question--CE139--just happens to
have Lee Oswald's right palmprint on it, plus some other prints near
the triggerguard that are almost certainly Oswald's too, as determined
in later in-depth fingerprint studies conducted by Vincent Scalice:
www.jfk-online.com/prints.html
And then there's the fact that a witness (Howard Brennan) actually saw
Lee Oswald, with a rifle, firing shots at JFK's car from the sixth
floor of the Book Depository on November 22nd. (And no matter how much
CTers despise Mr. Brennan, and they all do, his testimony is still
going to be there--in the official record of this case--like it or
not.)
And then there are Lee Oswald's many, MANY outright, provable lies
that he told to the police after his arrest. And those lies center
mainly on the rifle and LHO's revolver and other substantive issues
about the assassination and its aftermath that Oswald desperately
wanted to DISTANCE HIMSELF FROM.
And WHY would he want to do this if he was nothing but an innocent
"patsy", as so many conspiracists firmly believe?
And, of course, there is also the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit, which
occurred just 45 minutes (approx.) after JFK was killed. And no
reasonable person examining this whole case could possibly buy the
theory that Oswald was made to be a "patsy" in the Tippit slaying
too....could they? (Right, Jim?)
The evidence is about 8 miles high supporting Oswald's guilt in the
Tippit murder on Tenth Street. If LHO had gone to trial for only
shooting Tippit, the jury wouldn't have even needed a coffee break --
he would have been convicted in half a heartbeat.
And since every reasonable person who has looked at this case knows
(beyond all possible doubt) that Oswald murdered J.D. Tippit less than
one hour after JFK was shot -- the reasonable inference here is that
the Tippit killing was "connected" in some way to the murder of
Kennedy....especially so when we consider the fact that the murder of
Kennedy occurred right in front of a building where Tippit's killer--
Lee Harvey Oswald--was located when JFK was being gunned down.
Only a blind person who WANTS Lee Oswald innocent of both November
22nd murders could fail to see the significance of my last paragraph
above.
=============
OTHER MISC. COMMENTS ABOUT JIM DiEUGENIO'S OCTOBER 9 BLACK OP RADIO
APPEARANCE:
I noted that Jim stopped short of making the same blatantly-incorrect
mistake he made the last time he was on the BlackOp show -- In Jim's
previous interview there, he stated that Oswald's rifle had the words
"Mannlicher-Carcano" printed (or stamped) right on the weapon itself
for all the policemen to see, which is not true at all.
But in the October 9th show, Jim gets it right, saying that only "6.5
Caliber [CAL.]" is stamped on the gun. He didn't really correct his
"MC" error from last time, though.
Jim says that the Warren Commission had "a problem" with Oswald's
rifle -- i.e., Jim is hinting (without any verification of this at
all, beyond his own gut feeling) that the WC knew that the C2766 rifle
found in the TSBD just might not have been the exact same rifle that
was shipped by Klein's in March and, therefore, it just might not have
been possessed at any time by Lee Harvey Oswald.
But Jim's speculation about the WC's "problem" is nothing but that --
sheer speculation...and, frankly, it's total poppycock.
The Warren Commissioners and their staff members thoroughly looked
into the information surrounding Rifle #C2766, and after examining the
numerous documents concerning the ordering, handling, processing, and
shipping of that weapon, there can't be but one series of logical and
reasonable conclusions to reach with respect to that rifle....this
series:
1.) Lee Harvey Oswald ordered a 36-inch rifle from Chicago's Klein's
Sporting goods in January 1963 via a mail-order magazine coupon.
2.) Klein's shipped a 40-inch Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifle
with the serial number C2766 on it to Oswald/"A. Hidell" at Oswald's
known mailing address in Dallas, Texas, on March 20, 1963.
3.) Lee Oswald picked up that 40-inch MC rifle at his Dallas P.O. box
one day in late March '63.
4.) Oswald took that same rifle that was shipped to him by Klein's to
work with him on 11/22/63; and LHO shot the President with it from his
sixth-floor sniper's perch, stashing the weapon behind some boxes near
the stairwell as he was exiting the sixth floor.
5.) The same rifle Klein's shipped to Oswald was found in the TSBD by
police 52 minutes after JFK was shot.
Any alternate conclusions that are reached about the rifle Oswald
purchased in 1963 are conclusions that can only be considered very
weak ones when compared with the ones spelled out above.
And it doesn't really matter at all whether Oswald specifically
ordered a "36-inch" rifle (like it said in the magazine ad). Because
the key point here is the fact that the serial numbers MATCH -- i.e.,
Klein's internal paperwork from March 1963 (seen in Waldman Exhibit
No. 7, linked below) shows that the rifle that was shipped to Oswald/
Hidell had the SAME IDENTICAL SERIAL NUMBER ("C2766") as the rifle
that was ultimately discovered by police on the Depository's sixth
floor at 1:22 PM on November 22nd.
WALDMAN EXHIBIT 7:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0364a.htm
And since there hasn't been a single person on this planet (that I am
aware of) who has been able to prove that there was another Carcano
91/38 rifle (or ANY other "Carcano" rifle, period), besides the 40-
inch rifle that Klein's sent to LHO, which had serial number "C2766"
on it, how could any reasonable person with a working brain in their
cranium possibly conclude anything other than what the Warren
Commission concluded in 1964 -- which was: The rifle Klein's sent to
Oswald/Hidell in March and the rifle found in the TSBD in November
were the very same weapon.
=============
WEITZMAN AND BOONE (AND THE "MAUSER V. CARCANO" DEBATE):
Mr. DiEugenio said in his interview that Seymour Weitzman (one of the
officers who first saw the rifle on the 6th Floor) was not interviewed
by "the Warren Commission".
But Weitzman, like many other witnesses who gave testimony to the WC
or its lawyers, was properly questioned by WC counsel member Joseph
Ball, in Dallas, on April 1, 1964.
Why DiEugenio doesn't consider this April 1st questioning of Weitzman
by Ball to be good enough is a mystery to me? Especially when Ball
elicited the following information about the "Mauser" controversy from
Weitzman's own lips:
MR. BALL -- "In the statement that you made to the Dallas Police
Department that afternoon [11/22/63], you referred to the rifle as a
7.65 Mauser bolt action?"
MR. WEITZMAN -- "In a glance, that's what it looked like."
MR. BALL -- "That's what it looked like, did you say that or someone
else say that?"
MR. WEITZMAN -- "No, I said that. I thought it was one."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/weitzman.htm
Joe Ball, btw, is the same person who questioned Eugene Boone as well,
with Ball asking Boone questions like this concerning the rifle he saw
in the TSBD on 11/22/63 (proving that the WC certainly wasn't hiding
anything with regard to the fact that some officers initially thought
that Oswald's Carcano looked like a "Mauser" when they first saw it in
the Depository):
MR. BALL -- "Did you hear anybody refer to this rifle as a Mauser that
day?"
MR. BOONE -- "Yes, I did. And at first, not knowing what it was, I
thought it was [a] 7.65 Mauser."
MR. BALL -- "Who referred to it as a Mauser that day?"
MR. BOONE -- "I believe Captain Fritz. He had knelt down there to look
at it, and before he removed it, not knowing what it was, he said that
is what it looks like. This is when Lieutenant Day, I believe his name
is, the ID man was getting ready to photograph it. We were just
discussing it back and forth. And he said it looks like a 7.65
Mauser."
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boone.htm
=============
CAMERAS:
I took issue with Mr. DiEugenio in an earlier response to his Bugliosi
review concerning the matter of the various cameras belonging to Lee
Oswald that were discovered and confiscated by the police after the
assassination.
I want to now correct a mistake that I made in an earlier post
regarding the chronology of how the Imperial-Reflex camera finally
made it into the hands of law enforcement officials. (The famous
Backyard Photos of Lee Oswald were taken with the Imperial-Reflex
camera.)
In my earlier post, I think I was incorrect when I said that the
Imperial camera "was later turned over to the authorities by Ruth
Paine, after Robert Oswald gave it to Ruth".
When looking at Ruth Paine's testimony just now, I find that it was
probably Robert Oswald who turned over the Imperial camera to the
police at some point in time well after the assassination (and
DiEugenio has said the same thing, so I stand corrected on this
point).
Ruth Paine said this to the WC --- "I have heard from the police that
it [a box containing some of the Oswalds' belongings] also included an
old camera which they had to chase later and went up to Robert
Oswald's to find it."
But, regardless of who it was who eventually turned the Imperial
camera over to the police, the fact still remains that that camera (as
determined by the WC's tests on this matter) was proven beyond all
doubt to have been the camera that positively snapped the Backyard
Photos showing LHO with his guns in the Neely St. backyard.
DiEugenio says he doesn't have a problem with the fact that the
Imperial did, in fact, take those pictures. But he thinks it's
suspicious that the camera wasn't initially confiscated by the police
during their multiple searches of Ruth Paine's residence in Irving,
Texas.
Well, all I can say regarding that suspicion is -- If the theory being
hinted at here is that there was a group of plotters who were trying
to frame Oswald with the Backyard Photos, then what possible purpose
would be served by holding back the Imperial camera from the
authorities for XX number of weeks (however many it was)?
It seems to me, if anything, the plotters doing this supposed frame-up
job on Oswald would want to get that camera into the hands of the
police much sooner--not later--than they did.
Again, what reason would anyone have to hide this evidence from the
police for an extended period following November 22....even from the
point-of-view of conspiracy theorists who want to think that Oswald
was being set up as the fall guy?
It makes no sense....because we know that the Backyard Photos were
discovered and in the hands of the police BEFORE Oswald was killed on
November 24 (at least one of the pictures was anyway). And Oswald
himself even saw one of the pictures by no later than November 23,
with LHO claiming it was a fake (even though the photo was later
determined to have been taken with Oswald's very own camera).
=============
DALE MYERS:
DiEugenio does a nice job of misinterpreting Dale Myers' excellent
computer animation of the JFK assassination ("Secrets Of A Homicide":
www.jfkfiles.com). As is usually the case when conspiracists attempt
to discuss the inner workings of Mr. Myers' intricate computer work,
they undoubtedly don't have the slightest idea what they're talking
about.
Now, I'll readily admit, I'm not an expert on computer animation
myself--so I guess I'm leaving myself open to a "Pot Meets Kettle"
response on this issue from DiEugenio and other CTers who hate Myers'
work about as much as the Devil hates holy water--but I do know this:
Dale K. Myers has worked in the field of computer animation (and
photogrammetry) for many years now.
Therefore, I think I'm probably a little more inclined to believe what
Mr. Myers says about his detailed animation work on the Kennedy
assassination, vs. placing my faith in a bunch of "Myers Got It Wrong,
Because I Say So!" cry babies like Mr. DiEugenio and the other anti-
Myers kooks that populate this JFK Forum.
If people want to call me gullible....feel free. But another thing I
know is this -- Dale Myers' intricate computer simulation of JFK's
murder was KEY FRAMED to the Zapruder Film itself.
Or do CTers really think Myers is just lying through his teeth when he
says that all of the pertinent frames of the Z-Film have been LOCKED
IN to his computer model, i.e., "Key Framed" to the model?
I'm sure that Anthony Marsh does, indeed, think Dale is a liar in this
"key" regard, but then again, I doubt that Mr. Marsh would trust his
mother to go get the mail in the morning.
Anyway, this KEY FRAMING has locked the actual Zapruder movie onto
Myers' computer model (regardless of what the kooks believe), and what
we then find via the MEASURABLE things in Myers' animation is rather
remarkable, in that everything in the model tends to confirm the WC's
conclusion of the shots coming from the Book Depository -- e.g., the
angles through the two victims at a point in time when Bullet 399 was
crashing through both of them (Z223-Z224) is just perfect for the SBT
to work. (Which is absolutely incredible, actually, if the SBT is to
be considered "impossible", as most conspiracy theorists seem to want
to believe.)
And the angle from Kennedy's back wound to the TSBD Sniper's Nest is
just perfect at Z223-Z224 (17 to 20 degrees, depending upon if you
want to account for the approx. 3-degree street grade on Elm Street).
Also -- the reactions seen on the two victims is just perfect for the
SBT in Myers' model....which, again, is LOCKED into the Z-Film
itself....so Myers' model cannot (by definition) show something that
is NOT also present in Abraham Zapruder's home movie.
All of these things add up to one inescapable conclusion (even to a
person who knows virtually nothing at all about computer animation) --
The SBT is almost certainly the correct scenario for the way JFK and
JBC were wounded around frame Z223-224.
Any other non-SBT solution to the double-man wounding of Kennedy and
Connally has to (somehow) mirror, almost to the LETTER, the various
aspects of the Single-Bullet Theory, right down to the angles of the
wounds through the TWO victims and the angles that lead, inexorably,
back to the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.
Also:
DiEugenio seems to think that by looking at ONE specific frame of
Zapruder's film (Z224**), a researcher can totally demolish the
workability of the SBT. Since, per DiEugenio, JFK is reacting to a
bullet wound in this one frame in question (Z224**), and Connally
isn't physically reacting as of that frame, DiEugenio thinks that this
proves the SBT is a bunch of hooey.
** = But maybe Jim really meant to say Z225; because using Z224 for
his anti-SBT example is just too silly for words, since JFK is barely
visible at all in that frame. Only a tiny portion of Kennedy's body is
viewable in Z224, and none of his face at all, as we can see here (and
his hands haven't even begun their journey northward toward his throat
as of Z224 either):
www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z224.jpg
So, Jim probably meant to say Z225, which is the Z-frame when we can
first see the pained and startled expression on JFK's face. But James
D. said 224 on the radio. ~shrug~
But, regardless of the exact frame that any CTer wants to use to try
and debunk the SBT, utilizing a STILL frame to try and prove that the
SBT is bunk is just stupid on its face. You need to watch the MOVING
images of Zapruder's film. Not just a still image culled from the
film.
And when watching the moving images of the Z-Film in real time (or in
slow motion), it couldn't be any more obvious that both Kennedy and
Connally are reacting to an external stimulus (i.e., Oswald's Bullet
#CE399) at the very same point in time....within literally one or two
frames of each other:
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/225-226%20Full.gif
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/3086.jpg
http://users.skynet.be/mar/SBT/Images2/222-262%20full-small.gif
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/88cd14ec6de230eb
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0eb129f6cf7c098a
=============
NAME-MANGLING:
I must commend Jim DiEugenio for pronouncing my last name correctly on
at least a couple of occasions during his BlackOp session. My name is
usually mangled, however, so I'm used to that happening. And it's
mangled by DiEugenio a few times too, but Jim also can't seem to ever
pronounce Vince Bugliosi's last name correctly either (a lot of people
have a hard time with that name), so I guess I'm in good company
there.
Bugliosi's "G" is silent, and my name is pronounced "Von PINE", btw.
Maybe Vince and I should change our names to Smith or Jones, just to
make things easier. But, then too, it appears that my name is actually
Dave Reitzes, according to the rumor that Len Osanic at BlackOp seems
to believe (per his October 9th comments). So, I guess it doesn't
really matter what an LNer's real name is -- because some CTer will
pretend it is something else entirely. ;)
=============
THE BOTTOM LINE:
The end result of all of the CT vs. LN wrangling and "Mauser vs.
Carcano" and "CE399" controversy is still the same end result that has
existed since 1963 --- Conspiracy theorists have NO physical evidence
in this case to solidify their notions and various theories that a
conspiracy took the life of President John F. Kennedy.
The fact remains (and no doubt always will remain) that the only
physical evidence that exists in the official record with respect to
the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases is evidence that leads straight
to the guilt of one single person -- Lee Harvey Oswald. And anyone who
insists otherwise is simply living in a dream world filled with
shadowy, never-proven conspiracy theories that are helmed by never-
seen conspirators.
It's as simple as that.
David Von Pein
October 11, 2008
David Von Pein
>>> "Hi Mr. Von Pein, Did you read Mr. Di Eugenio's reply to you on CTKA Probe? He also has a long review on Dale Myers! All very interesting!! My Best, Billy" <<<
Hi Billy,
Yes, I've seen both of those articles by Mr. DiEugenio at CTKA [linked
below]. (Jim is almost as long-winded as I am at times, isn't he?)
<chuckle>
www.ctka.net/2008/von_pein.html
www.ctka.net/2008/bugliosi_myers.html
To be perfectly blunt with you, Billy -- Jim DiEugenio is living in a
world of total fantasy and speculation regarding the JFK
assassination. Not a shred of what he says can be proven....and he
knows it (or he certainly should know it by now).
Jim loves to point out things that he thinks are strange or
mysterious, and things that he apparently believes lead down a path
that results in eventual "conspiracy" in the JFK and J.D. Tippit
murder cases (i.e., "thread ends", for lack of a better term). Jim
then speculates that those loose threads mean something significant
with respect to Lee Oswald, or JFK, or the CIA, or the assassination
in general.
Here's a great example of what I mean -- The other night (October 9),
DiEugenio appeared on Len Osanic's "BlackOpRadio" program (you can
hear the whole 1.5-hour show at that link below; the last half is as
dry as the Sahara, however)....
www.blackopradio.com/black395a.ram
....and at one point during the program he went on and on for several
minutes about how Marguerite Oswald supposedly knew that her son, Lee
Harvey, wanted to defect to the Soviet Union many weeks (or months)
before Lee actually did travel to Russia in late 1959.
This knowledge that was supposedly gained by Marguerite is supposed to
LEAD SOMEWHERE (I assume) in Mr. DiEugenio's "conspiratorial" world.
But Jim never tells us WHERE this knowledge of Marguerite's is
supposed to go.
In other words, HOW does Marguerite's possibly knowing about Lee
wanting to defect to Russia (in advance of him actually doing so)
somehow MATTER in the least little bit when considering whether or not
Lee Oswald shot JFK four years later?
And how can such knowledge by Marguerite be utilized as a springboard
for any conspiracy theorists with respect to whether Lee Harvey Oswald
was or wasn't employed by the CIA?
It almost sounds as if DiEugenio wants to believe that MARGUERITE
OSWALD was a "plotter" or "conspirator" of some sort....and that her
"pre-knowledge" of Lee's intentions to go to Russia is some kind of a
major signal that Lee was employed by the CIA (or some other entity of
the Government).
But, in reality, that kind of stuff just flat-out goes NOWHERE for a
conspiracist like Mr. DiEugenio. Absolutely nowhere. And he has to
know it doesn't go anywhere, but Jim just likes to point out and
highlight these "loose threads" that can never, ever be tied to any
kind of workable, believable, and cohesive "plot" behind Lee Harvey
Oswald and the assassination of John Kennedy.
Here's another example of the type of "It Goes Nowhere" junk that Mr.
DiEugenio loves to talk about (as my own brand of long-windedness
takes over here for a moment longer; albeit a different type of long-
windedness, because my brand contains an abundance of CS&L attached to
it ["Common Sense & Logic", that is]).....
In his review of Vincent Bugliosi's book and during a segment of one
of his recent BlackOpRadio appearances, DiEugenio talks about the fact
that Lee Oswald's Imperial-Reflex camera (the camera which took the
infamous "Backyard Photographs" of LHO holding the rifle he used to
kill the President) wasn't turned over to the police by Robert Oswald
until many weeks after the assassination.*
* = And this was no doubt due to a simple oversight. You see, that
camera was apparently stored in a closed box in a closet inside Ruth
Paine's house at the time of the assassination in November. Most
likely, Ruth just simply forgot that some of the Oswalds' belongings
were in that closet in that box, with the Imperial camera being one of
the items that was in there.
The box later was given by Ruth to LHO's brother, Robert Oswald, who
then gave it to the police many weeks after the assassination.
Now, to Mr. DiEugenio, this oversight regarding the Imperial camera is
"suspicious". He thinks it's odd that the police never found that
camera during their multiple searches of Paine's home in November.
But DiEugenio just STOPS right there....with his "suspicious" remark.
He never ties it up; he never says WHY this delay in finding the
camera is to be considered "suspicious". He never explains WHY either
Ruth Paine or Robert Oswald (or anyone else) would want to
deliberately hide the camera from the police or the FBI.
And, moreover, Jim never tells us HOW this delay in turning the camera
over to the authorities would, in any way whatsoever, BENEFIT or AID
any type of so-called "Patsy" plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald.
If somebody was trying to frame Oswald (as DiEugenio undoubtedly wants
to believe), then why on Earth would they be wanting to HIDE evidence
that could be used to further the "patsy" plot along?
DiEugenio knows (and readily acknowledges) that the Imperial camera
did take at least one of the Backyard Photos (there was only one of
the pics that was definitively linked to the camera, because only one
picture's negative was recovered). And Jim knows that Lee Oswald
himself was shown one of the Backyard Photos by the Dallas police as
early as November 23rd, the day after the assassination.
Therefore, Jim isn't arguing that the pictures are "fakes". We know
the photos were taken months before November 22nd, and were taken by
the Imperial camera owned by Oswald.
Given these undeniable facts, what possible purpose would be served by
any "plotters" hiding the camera from police view for an extended
period....the very same camera that can prove the legitimacy of the
Backyard Photos?
Jim doesn't say. He just says it's "suspicious".
But the only thing that's really suspicious here is WHY Jim D. thinks
this completely-innocuous event regarding the Imperial-Reflex camera
is "suspicious" in the first place.
If you listen to DiEugenio's BlackOp interviews (any of them), you'll
find numerous additional examples of this same type of conspiracy-
oriented policy that has been adopted by many conspiracists over the
years. And it's a policy that could aptly be labeled --- "THIS STUPID
SHIT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT NEXT REALLY GOES NOWHERE, BUT I'M GOING
TO POINT IT OUT ANYWAY, AS IF IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TOWARD SOLVING
THIS CASE".
Thanks for writing.
Best Regards,
David Von Pein
www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/10311d20ec887eac
aeffects
> >>> "Hi Mr. Von Pein, Did you read Mr. Di Eugenio's reply to you on CTKA Probe? He also has a long review on Dale Myers! All very interesting!! My Best, Billy" <<<
>
> Hi Billy,
>
> Yes, I've seen both of those articles by Mr. DiEugenio at CTKA [linked
> below]. (Jim is almost as long-winded as I am at times, isn't he?)
> <chuckle>
<snip the remaining Lone Nut nonsense>
ahh.... DVP -- Steve Keating in drag, no less carry on troll! We
aren't fooled
lazu...@webtv.net
David Von Pein
>>> "DVP -- Steve Keating in drag, no less carry on troll! We aren't fooled." <<<
Then you'd better e-mail Len Osanic (again?) and tell him you've
changed your mind about who DVP really is. Because Lenny got an e-mail
telling him I was Dave Reitzes.*
* = And I kind of figured it was Healy The Crackpipe who wrote that e-
mail to Osanic, since Healy is the only person in this asylum (or
anywhere else on the planet) who has ever really thought that I was
Mr. Reitzes. But I'll admit, the e-mail could have been sent by
another kook who believed Healy's story without batting an eyelid.
David Von Pein
RE: JAMES DiEUGENIO.......
www.blackopradio.com/black398a.ram
www.blackopradio.com/black398b.ram
JFK conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio made a return appearance on
Len Osanic's "BlackOpRadio" show on October 30, 2008 (linked above),
with DiEugenio spouting more of the usual anti-LN and pro-conspiracy
junk that we've heard a million times before.
DiEugenio's 10/30/08 BlackOp appearance features a portion of his
lengthy review of Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book "Reclaiming History",
with James verbally assaulting as much of VB's excellent book as he
can within the 105-minute radio show.
DiEugenio also gets in a few more jabs at me near the beginning of the
broadcast, mainly with respect to the topic of Lee Harvey Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (although Jim thinks I might very well be
Dave Reitzes, which always makes me smile when I hear that).
James D. continues to insist, incorrectly, that "PROOF" exists that
additional Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles (besides just LHO's
rifle; CE139) were stamped with serial number "C2766".
Jim actually thinks that since a conspiracy kook named Thomas H.
Purvis said that he knew a guy who owned a Carcano rifle with a HIGHER
serial number than C2766 (C5-something), this therefore somehow, in
effect, "proves" that a second Carcano Model 91/38 existed with the
same number on it as CE139 ("C2766").
But, of course, Purvis' nonsense regarding the higher serial number
"proves" no such thing. Purvis never saw a second Carcano 91/38 with
"C2766" stamped on it. He just assumes that since his friend's rifle
had a "C5XXX" number, it must mean that a second 91/38 rifle (other
than CE139, that is) must have been produced with the number "C2766"
on it at that particular Carcano manufacturing plant (wherever it
might have been).
Crazy.
DiEugenio then goes on to repeat the incorrect information about how
Dr. John K. Lattimer once owned a rifle with the number C2766 on it.
But if DiEugenio had bothered to read a few of my recent Internet
posts regarding this matter (and I'm pretty sure that James has looked
at some of my recent posts, based on his comments about me on BlackOp
on both October 9 and October 30), he would have found the 10/6/08
post linked below, wherein I repeat the information re. Lattimer,
which is information that was posted in 2004 by John Canal. The Purvis/
Carcano matter is tackled in this same post, btw:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1745f5a6ed26ebaa
"The book [Kennedy And Lincoln] was printed before we noticed
the error [re. the C2766 serial number] and it was too late to correct
it." -- Dr. John K. Lattimer; April 2004
But even if James D. never saw the above post, I wonder if Jim ever
asked himself the following question---
What are the odds of Dr. Lattimer being able to actually get ahold of
a rifle exactly like Oswald's that was stamped with the EXACT SAME
SERIAL NUMBER?
Apparently, Jim must think that such an incredible occurrence is
routine and not remarkable in the least.
Crazy.
Footnote -- Of course, even if a second Carcano 91/38 rifle were to
suddenly drop from the heavens into a conspiracy theorist's waiting
lap, it wouldn't go very far toward debunking any of the lone-assassin-
favoring evidence that exists in the JFK murder case.
Such a heaven-sent C2766 Carcano would only go to show that at least
one other gun like Oswald's was stamped with the same serial number
that CE139 possesses.
In other words -- So what?
The likelihood of Klein's shipping OSWALD a rifle with that serial
number on it in March of 1963 (which we know that Klein's did, without
question; Waldman Exhibit No. 7 proves that fact beyond every speck of
a doubt)....and then having a DIFFERENT rifle with that exact same
serial number on it being found in the Depository after the
assassination with OSWALD'S palmprint on it (and proven by ballistics
tests to have been the rifle that fired the bullets that killed
President Kennedy)....is so remote, that even the hardline CTers of
the world should be too embarrassed to even consider it.
But, of course, they're not embarrassed at all. I guess they think
that such an incredible "Double C2766" occurrence could have easily
happened in November 1963 (or whenever). Just ask people like Thomas
H. Purvis and James DiEugenio.
MORE LAUGHABLE DiEUGENIO STUFF:
Now, I know that some people reading this are probably going to think
that I just made up the following hilarious remarks made by Jim
DiEugenio on 10/30/08 -- but, hand over my heart, I'm not fabricating
this stuff from whole cloth. Honest. ....
DiEugenio actually thinks that Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq. (or any
lawyer who would have prosecuted Lee Oswald in a court of law, had
JFK's murderer [Oswald, of course] lived to stand trial) would have
had a very difficult time getting Oswald's rifle (CE139) introduced
into evidence at a real trial.
Of course, as we know, the rifle (CE139) and the Stretcher Bullet
(CE399) WERE, in fact, introduced into evidence at a court proceeding
in 1986 in London, during the TV mock trial that Bugliosi was involved
in. ....
"ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD":
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3455512-post.html
Now, yes, it's true that the '86 mock trial wasn't a "real" trial.
There's no denying that fact. But, as far as I am aware, REAL RULES OF
LAW were adhered to during the course of that simulated trial, and
that would certainly include (or it should!) the court rules that
pertain to the "admissibility of evidence".
Which, if true, means that both the rifle (CE139) and the Stretcher
Bullet (CE399) would not have had any trouble getting introduced into
evidence during a real trial. Because those two items (CE139 & CE399)
were mentioned countless times by numerous witnesses during the TV
trial in London in '86.
But even apart from the above reference re. that evidence being
accepted at a "mock" trial, DiEugenio's comments about Oswald's rifle
being inadmissible as evidence at a REAL trial is really, really
kooky. In fact, this type of crazy shit borders on sheer insanity.
DiEugenio thinks that due to the fact that Parkland Hospital's O.P.
Wright was not able to positively identify the Stretcher Bullet as the
bullet he was later shown (CE399), this fact ALONE(!) means that
Oswald's rifle could never be introduced into evidence at LHO's trial.
I'm not kidding....Jimmy D. actually said that.
Of course, Jim decides to STOP right there with the Wright/CE399
thing, instead of telling the radio audience (i.e., the 2 people
listening who weren't already asleep by that time; and, believe me,
the October 30 BlackOp program is a real snooze-fest, to be sure)
about all of the OTHER stuff besides CE399 that connects Rifle CE139
to John Kennedy's murder.
Things like:
1.) The two large bullet fragments found IN THE PRESIDENT'S LIMOUSINE,
which are fragments that positively came FROM THE VERY SAME RIFLE that
Mr. DiEugenio thinks could never be introduced into evidence at a real
trial.
2.) The three empty bullet shells found in the Book Depository's
Sniper's Nest, which are shells that positively came from Rifle CE139
as well.
3.) The mere fact that Oswald's rifle (CE139) was found inside the
building from where gunshots were fired at the President (regardless
of any bullets or shells being linked to it or not)! And not just
found in the same building from where shots were fired at JFK...but
the rifle was found on the very same FLOOR of that building from where
a gunman (identified by one witness as Lee H. Oswald) fired shots at
Kennedy's car!
4.) Oswald's palmprint being found on Rifle CE139. This isn't
ballistics evidence, but it certainly ties the man who would have been
on trial (the same man IDed as the TSBD gunman by one witness) to the
rifle that was also found on that very same floor of the building
(again, regardless of ballistics/bullet evidence being introduced
separately).
In summary:
For Jim DiEugenio (or anyone) to suggest that Lee Harvey Oswald's
rifle was essentially worthless as evidence, in light of all the stuff
I just outlined above, is just flat-out idiotic.
And the list above doesn't even include Stretcher Bullet CE399, which
(of course) was definitely a bullet fired from Oswald's Carcano "to
the exclusion", and it was certainly the very same bullet that was
inside the bodies of both John Kennedy and John Connally on 11/22/63,
before it was found on Connally's stretcher at a time (prior to 2:00
PM CST) when it would have been simply stupid beyond all belief for
any plotters to even WANT to start "planting" bullets on stretchers at
Parkland, due to the lack of knowledge re. the whereabouts of ALL the
other bullets and fragments connected to the shooting at the time of
the alleged planting.
James DiEugenio, like many other CTers, believes that a "pointy-
tipped" bullet was really found on the Parkland stretcher by Darrell
Tomlinson.
Which, of course, creates a bit of a problem for most conspiracy
theorists. Because by claiming that a "pointy"-tipped bullet was
recovered at Parkland (instead of the bullet from Oswald's rifle that
was really found there, CE399), those CTers are admitting one of three
things (none of which is very appetizing to a conspiracy theorist's
palate, I'm quite sure):
1.) Either this alleged "pointy" bullet really did cause all the
damage to John Connally's body on November 22nd (and there's no
evidence of a SECOND bullet striking Governor Connally at all; so the
CTers who want to pretend he was hit by more than one bullet are only
speculating, as usual).
Or:
2.) This "pointy" bullet that CTers think existed was planted on the
stretcher by somebody prior to 2:00 PM, Dallas time, on 11/22/63.
Or:
3.) The bullet found by Tomlinson on a stretcher wasn't connected in
ANY way to the shooting of JFK & JBC on November 22nd. And is this
option a likely or reasonable alternative, especially when considering
the fact that the only other stretcher in the Parkland corridor that
the bullet could have come off of was last occupied by a young boy
(Ronnie Fuller) who was not the victim of any gunshot wounds that day?
As I said, all of the above alternative options are quite weak and
unsatisfying for almost all conspiracists.
Because, if the CT-Kooks choose #1, they are forced to admit that one
bullet COULD, indeed, have caused all of John Connally's bony injuries
and still have emerged in one piece -- and with the nose of the bullet
still "pointy", no less!! And this is something that most CTers have
always said couldn't happen in the real world in a thousand lifetimes.
(I guess the CTers who go with this option will have no choice but to
resurrect the unprovable and unsupportable "Connally Was Hit By At
Least Two Bullets" scenario.)
And if the CTers choose #2, they are forced to admit, in essence, that
the people who were "framing" Lee Harvey Oswald were so incredibly
stupid that they planted a bullet that could never be connected to the
"patsy's" rifle. And if the unknown "they" weren't really trying to
"frame" LHO, then what's the purpose of planting ANY bullet at all
inside Parkland? Just for the sport of it?
And #3 is pretty unbelievable on the face of it. Although, this highly-
unlikely option could possibly be a CTer's best bet, considering their
only other two options on the table here.
So, CTers really don't have a leg to stand on regarding their silly
theories and unprovable plots surrounding Bullet CE399. And, as I just
explained, they really already should know why that is the case. (But
they'll never admit it to anybody.)
Thanks, Mr. DiEugenio, for today's BlackOpRadio laughs. The part about
Oswald's rifle being a hunk of metal that can be thrown right into the
trash can from any kind of "evidentiary" standpoint was certainly the
highlight of tonight's hilarity.
David Von Pein
(not Dave Reitzes; sorry to disappoint you, Jim and Len)
October 30, 2008
www.blackopradio.com/black395a.ram
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/10311d20ec887eac
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/aab389dd01f6057c
David Von Pein
James DiEugenio is amazed that Vince Bugliosi didn't rely a lot more
on the ARRB (and the associated documents examined in the 1990s by the
ARRB) in VB's book, "Reclaiming History".
Vincent sums things up fairly well in this endnote from "RH":
"Three things are very clear: First, after an unprecedented and
historic four-year scavenger hunt by the ARRB for all documents
"reasonably related" to the assassination, no smoking gun or even a
smoldering ember of conspiracy was found. The reason is that no such
smoking gun or ember ever existed.
"Second, if it did exist, it would never have been left in any
file for discovery. And finally, assassination researchers and
conspiracy theorists will never be satisfied, not even when the cows
come home." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Via an endnote in "RECLAIMING
HISTORY" (c.2007)