BOOK REVIEW -- "Reclaiming History" By Vincent Bugliosi

Skip to first unread message

David Von Pein

Jun 25, 2007, 12:43:12 AM6/25/07


(Selected Excerpts Culled From My Full-Length Book Review)......


"The purpose of this book has been twofold. One, to educate everyday
Americans that Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone. .... And two, to
expose, as never before, the conspiracy theorists and the abject
worthlessness of all their allegations. I believe this book has
achieved both of these goals." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Page 1461 of
"Reclaiming History"


I agree 100% with the above-referenced comments made by Mr. Bugliosi.

I can remember thinking to myself many years ago....if I could choose
just one person on the face of the globe whom I would want to have
write an in-depth book on the JFK assassination, that one person would
be Vincent T. Bugliosi.

Written over the course of nearly a 21-year period by former Los
Angeles Deputy District Attorney Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History: The
Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" was a daunting project
indeed. In 2006, the book's title was changed from "Final Verdict" to
the wholly-appropriate "Reclaiming History".

This massive 1,664-page book (released on May 15, 2007) is accompanied
by a CD-ROM, which contains an additional 958 pages of endnotes and
another 170 pages of source notes. So the total number of pages comes
to just a little under 2,800.

"Staggeringly Comprehensive" would be a very accurate two-word
description for this book, in my opinion. "Reclaiming History"
contains more than 10,000 source citations, including 1,557 in the
first chapter alone, plus another 1,627 in the "Lee Harvey Oswald"

Vince Bugliosi has meticulously researched and scrutinized the entire
JFK assassination case for this book -- from Lee Harvey Oswald, to
Jack Ruby, to J.D. Tippit, to all of the physical and circumstantial
evidence, to the witnesses, to the autopsy, to the Warren Commission,
to the HSCA, to the ARRB, and also to the enormous number of
inaccurate conspiracy theories that have populated the landscape since

And Vince Bugliosi (also referred to as "VB" in this review) has
assessed this massive amount of information with his usual style of
common sense, logic, thoroughness, and fairness....and has reached the
conclusion (which I have fully agreed with for many years) that Lee
Harvey Oswald, alone, shot and killed President Kennedy and Dallas
police officer J.D. Tippit on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dallas,

Bugliosi has done something here that no one else has done prior to
the release of "Reclaiming History" -- he has taken each major
conspiracy theory (and many minor ones too) and has looked beyond just
the surface allegations of conspiracy to dig deeper into them and
reveal the inherent illogic, inconsistencies, and internal
contradictions that exist in EVERY THEORY (without a single
exception). It's a magnificent accomplishment by Bugliosi, in my

I get the sense that VB is having a ball as he works his way from one
unsupportable conspiracy theory to the next in the second half of this
book, thoroughly reducing each and every theory to a pile of dust.
(And in most instances, even the dust doesn't stand a chance, as Vince
blows that away as well.)

When conspiracists go about the formidable task of attempting to
dismantle Mr. Bugliosi's 21 years' worth of lone assassin-favoring
research, I get the feeling that those "CTers" will, in essence, be
trying to put out the Great Chicago Fire with a Dixie cup full of hot
water. Such meager conspiracy-rescuing attempts won't be of much use
at all.

The first chapter in "Reclaiming History" (titled "Four Days In
November") is a spectacular 317-page chronological narrative,
detailing the events of November 22-25, 1963. The whole first chapter
has a very realistic "as it's happening" feel to it.

The 276-page "Lee Harvey Oswald" chapter contains a superbly-written
biography on President Kennedy's assassin. You're not likely to find a
more comprehensive look into Oswald's strange 24-year life than this
"LHO" chapter in Bugliosi's book (although Jean Davison's splendid
1983 book, "Oswald's Game", comes pretty close).

As with all other parts of "Reclaiming History", the microscopic
detail that exists within the Oswald chapter is remarkable, including
a look at Lee's grades in various school subjects, plus a notation
about a KGB report made on Oswald about his activities on May 1, 1960,
wherein the KGB agents following Oswald around in Minsk (USSR)
actually noted the trivial fact that Lee had purchased "200 grams of
vanilla cookies" at a local bakery.

I'm surprised the agents didn't record the brand name of the
confections and the color of the box. ;)

We also find out that when Lee returned to the USA from Russia, he
boarded Delta Airlines flight #821 for the last leg of his excursion,
from New York to Dallas, on June 14, 1962.

In addition to the stellar biographical chapter on Oswald, this book
also has a pretty thorough bio section on Oswald's killer, Jack Ruby,
as well. The 74-page chapter called "Ruby And The Mob" serves the dual
purpose of filling in the blanks of Ruby's life and also dealing in
depth with Jack's purported "Mob connections" (which are allegations
that Bugliosi handily destroys).

Re. the "Single-Bullet Theory" --- Mr. Bugliosi's "SBT" timeline has
me a bit puzzled. He's actually got a variety of different opinions on
the timing of the SBT shot (or so it seems when you read through the
entire book, plus the CD's endnotes).

I, myself, believe beyond all reasonable doubt that the specific SBT
point-of-impact Zapruder Film frame can be established....and that
frame is almost certainly Z224 (and not "somewhere between Z frames
210 and 222", as Mr. Bugliosi says in this book on page 463).

Many things begin to happen to victim John Connally beginning at
Zapruder frame #224 -- TOO many things, in my opinion, to believe that
the SBT bullet passed through both Connally and JFK at any other time.

Oddly, though, Bugliosi says in an endnote that the SBT shot occurs
"at Z223-Z224"; so I'm not quite sure which exact Z-Film frame Vince
totally endorses, if any. (On some radio interviews in May 2007, Vince
has stated that it's his belief that the SBT shot occurred "within a
split-second of Z210".)

Plus, on pages 325 to 327 of the CD's endnotes, Bugliosi acknowledges
the very real possibility (via Dr. John Lattimer's 1994 "lapel bulge"
tests) that a single bullet could have passed through both Kennedy and
Connally at Z224.

Vincent seems to be placing on the table ALL potential "SBT"
possibilities throughout his immense publication. I, however, would
have preferred more consistency in this book with regard to the timing
of the SBT bullet strike. But Bugliosi evidently feels that the
precise "impact" frame cannot be definitively established on the
Zapruder Film for the SBT shot.

But even with a bit of ambiguity in his SBT timeline, at least
Bugliosi knows (as do I) that a SBT frame DOES exist somewhere within
Zapruder's 26-second home movie. And this bottom-line SBT belief
exhibited by VB is due in large part to plain ordinary common
sense....because the sum total of all the evidence in this case makes
the Single-Bullet Theory a virtual certainty.

Or, to use Vincent's own words (from page 482 of this book) -- "The
overwhelming evidence is that whenever Kennedy and Connally were hit,
or first reacted to being hit, they were both struck by the same
bullet." -- VB

And then there are also these comments made by Vince B. on pages 457
and 458:

"We can have all the confidence in the world, by an examination of the
physical evidence and the utilization of common sense, that {a single
bullet struck both JFK and Connally}. When you can establish the
single-bullet theory by reference to evidence other than the
{Zapruder} film, you necessarily know that the film itself cannot, by
definition, show something else. .... Since we KNOW Kennedy and
Connally were not hit by separate bullets, we know, before we even
look at the film, that it CANNOT show otherwise." -- VB

The above Vince Bugliosi quote is brimming over with evidence-based
common sense (with such common-sense observations flowing like water
over Niagara Falls from every page of this book).


thrown in for good measure):

"Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a little
like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." -- VB; Page


"I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively
savaged {Gerald} Posner in their books that they're going to have a
much, much more difficult time with me. As a trial lawyer in front of
a jury and an author of true-crime books, credibility has always meant
everything to me. My only master and my only mistress are the facts
and objectivity. I have no others." -- VB; Pages xxxviii-xxxix


"Not the smallest speck of evidence has ever surfaced that any of the
conspiracy community's favorite groups (CIA, mob, etc.) was involved,
in any way, in the assassination. Not only the Warren Commission, but
the HSCA came to the same conclusion. ....

"But conspiracy theorists, as suspicious as a cat in a new home, find
occurrences and events everywhere that feed their suspicions and their
already strong predilection to believe that the official version is
wrong." -- VB; Page xlii


"The doors to the theater are slammed open as a wedge of officers
bursts into the sunlight {with suspected police killer Lee Harvey
Oswald in handcuffs}. .... The suspect complains that the handcuffs
are too tight. Detective Paul Bentley isn't too sympathetic, thinking
to himself that Oswald was in much better shape than Tippit was. He
reaches back and tightens the cuffs even more." -- VB; Pages 106-107


"{Dallas medical examiner Earl} Rose sees the casket bearing the
president's body being pushed out of Trauma Room One, Mrs. Kennedy at
its side. .... A crush of forty sweating men are clustered around the
wide doorway as curses fly back and forth. One of them looks like he
might belt the medical examiner at any moment. ....

"In a homicide case, it's my duty to order an autopsy," {Theron} Ward
says. .... Ken O'Donnell pleads with him, "Can't you make an exception
for President Kennedy?" Incredibly, Ward tells him, "It's just another
homicide case as far as I'm concerned." O'Donnell's response is
instantaneous. "Go fuck yourself," he yells. "We're leaving!"" -- VB;
Page 110


"{Jack Ruby} called his sister Eileen, in Chicago {on Friday
afternoon, 11/22/63}, and was crying. .... "Maybe I will fly up to be
with you tonight," he suggested, but she reminded him that Eva
{another sister of Jack's}, who had just returned home from the
hospital from abdominal surgery, needed him now more than she did.
"You better stay there," she told her brother." -- VB; Page 172

DVP: The above conversation between Lee Harvey Oswald's eventual
murderer, Jack Ruby, and Ruby's sister is quite illuminating (in a
"non-conspiratorial" sort of way). Because if Jack Ruby had been a
"hit man" for the Mob (or whoever) and had been assigned to "rub out"
Oswald (as many people firmly believe was the case), then why is he
offering to fly to Chicago on the night of the assassination to be
with his sister? It doesn't add up.

And, per page 172 of VB's book, Ruby might very well have gone to
Chicago too, if his sister, over the phone, had not persuaded him not
to make the trip.


DVP: Vincent Bugliosi's incredible attention to the smallest of
seemingly-unknowable details concerning the events of November 1963,
borders on the supernatural.* Such microscopic details are fascinating
to me for some reason. Here's one such example, among literally
hundreds sprinkled throughout this publication:

"On an impulse he {Jack Ruby, at around 10:15 PM on November 22} stops
at Phil's Delicatessen on Oak Lawn Avenue and tells the counterman,
John Frickstad, to cut him ten corned beef sandwiches with mustard.
And ten soft drinks--eight black cherries and two celery tonics. He
chats a bit with the owner, Phil Miller. .... The sandwich bill only
comes to $9.50 plus tax--Frickstad made only eight sandwiches instead
of the ten Jack ordered." -- VB; Pages 174-175

* = Upon doing a little additional research of my own regarding Ruby's
purchase of the sandwiches and drinks on the night of November 22, I
discovered (by way of Mr. Bugliosi's source notes on the CD) that VB
obtained the detailed information about the type of sandwiches and
exact flavors of the cold drinks from Warren Commission Exhibit #2252
(which is linked below).

CE2252 also provides additional information concerning Ruby's late-
night deli order that's not in the book. Quoting from CE2252: "He
{Ruby} also ordered three cups of butter, one-half loaf of bread, and
some extra pickles. Potato salad and pickles were provided with each

That is just one of many examples of the thoroughness of the Warren
Commission's investigation (and, of course, exemplifies the
comprehensive nature of Mr. Bugliosi's research for this book as
well). ....


"The {Warren} Commission {quoting Arlen Specter}..."chose men of
outstanding reputation, like Joe Ball of California, a leader of the
California bar for many years...Similar selections were made...from
New York and Chicago and Des Moines and New Orleans and Philadelphia
and Washington, so that every conceivable pain was taken to select
people who were totally independent, WHICH IS HARDLY THE WAY YOU SET
emphasis.] -- VB; Page 342


"Lest anyone still has any doubt as to the location of the large exit
wound in the head...the Zapruder film itself couldn't possibly provide
better demonstrative evidence. The film proves conclusively, and
beyond all doubt, where the exit wound was.

"Zapruder frame 313 and frame 328 clearly show that the large, gaping
exit wound was to the RIGHT FRONT of the president's head. THE BACK OF
INTACT." [Bugliosi's emphasis.] -- VB; Page 410


"Common sense tells us that seeing only the wound to the front of the
president's neck {and not seeing the corresponding entry wound in
Kennedy's back at any time}, the Parkland doctors would instinctively
have been more inclined to think of it as an entrance wound. Almost
anyone would be so predisposed." -- VB; Page 414


"Though conspiracy theorists are almost unanimous in believing that
the president was shot from the front and his throat wound was an
entrance wound, they are strangely silent as to what happened to this
bullet after it entered the president's throat. .... It would be
virtually impossible for a bullet entering the soft tissue of the neck
at a speed of 2,000 feet per second to stop inside the neck and not
exit the body." -- VB; Page 416


"Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the entrance
wound in the {President's} back was definitely above the exit wound in
the throat appears in one of {the} autopsy photos taken of the left
side of the president's head as he is lying on his back, his head on a
metal headrest.

[Here's the photo Vince is referring to, turned sideways for better

"Only the wound to the throat is visible, not the wound to his upper
right back. However, it couldn't be clearer from this photo that the
wound to the back was definitely ABOVE the exit wound in the throat."
-- VB; Page 424

DVP: Deja vu:


"The {Zapruder Film} alterationists have even claimed that at some
point after the assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey
Plaza were moved to different locations and/or replaced with poles of
different height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet
tooth for silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly
for their palate?" -- VB; Pages 506-507


"It is worth being reminded that on the same day, October 7 {1962},
that General {Edwin} Walker returned to Dallas...Oswald
announced...that he had move to Dallas. .... What Lee had
in mind very likely was his plan to murder General Walker." -- VB;
Pages 673-674


"The evidence is clear and unimpeachable -- Lee Harvey Oswald bought,
owned, and handled the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth
floor. And it was THIS weapon that was used to murder John F.
Kennedy." -- VB; Page 804


"She {Julia Ann Mercer} said, "A man was sitting under the wheel of
the car and slouched over the wheel." (I defy any student of the
English language to explain, from these words, the position the man
was in.) ....

"But why presidential assassins...would deliberately draw attention to
themselves by parking illegally and blocking traffic on a busy street
in the presence of three Dallas police officers as well as lay
witnesses like Miss Mercer is not known. Of course, conspiracy
theorists never let common sense get in the way of their hallucinatory
theories." -- VB; Pages 883-884

DVP: Large-sized "LOL"!


DVP: The very enjoyable CT bashfest continues as Vince takes a look at
the widely-believed, but ultimately "terribly silly" (per VB's
footnote on page 888), "Badge Man" theory. The side-splitting hilarity
in Chapter #12 flows non-stop, as indicated by the following excerpt:

"Apparently, Kennedy's assassin, instead of trying to...escape from
behind the picket fence after shooting Kennedy, had much more
important things to do -- mainly, climb over the fence (at which point
he'd be in plain view of everyone on Elm Street) so he could beat up
on that louse Gordon Arnold and take his film." -- VB; Page 888


"Perhaps the most famous of the "other" assassins are the "three
tramps". The fact that there never was any evidence at all of their
guilt is irrelevant to the conspiracy theorists. To the buffs, there
was one big piece of incriminating evidence against the tramps: THEY
WEREN'T LEE HARVEY OSWALD! And in the balmy and unhinged conspiracy
universe, no evidence of guilt is stronger against someone than that
he isn't Lee Harvey Oswald." -- VB; Page 929


"{Oswald's} attempt, just seven months {before JFK's murder}, to kill
Major General Edwin A. Walker clearly showed his propensity for
murder, at least where his target was political. ....

"Remarkably, many major books on the assassination by Warren
Commission critics and conspiracy theorists don't even mention
Oswald's attempt to murder Walker. Not one word." -- VB; Page 942


"Once you establish and know that Oswald is guilty, as has been done,
then you also NECESSARILY know that there is an answer (whether the
answer is known or not) compatible with this conclusion for the
endless alleged discrepancies, inconsistencies, and questions the
conspiracy theorists have raised through the years about Oswald's
guilt." -- VB; Page 953


"No one knew Oswald as well as his wife, Marina. .... Marina told
{author Priscilla} McMillan that when she visited her husband in jail
on the day after the assassination, she came away knowing he was
guilty. .... She said she knew that had he been innocent, he would
have been screaming to high heaven for his "rights," claiming he had
been mistreated and demanding to see officials at the very highest
levels." -- VB; Page 962


"In a city of more than 700,000 people, what is the probability of one
of them being the owner and possessor of the weapons that murdered
both Kennedy and Tippit, and yet still be innocent of both murders?
Aren't we talking about DNA numbers here, like one out of several
billion or trillion? Is there a mathematician in the house?" -- VB;
Page 964


"In the Kennedy case, I believe the absence of a conspiracy can be
proved to a virtual certainty." -- VB; Page 973


"The dreadful illogic and superficiality of the conspiracy theorists'
modus operandi has inevitably resulted in the following situation:
Though they have dedicated their existence to trying to poke holes in
the Warren Commission's findings, they have failed abysmally to tell
us (if the Warren Commission was wrong) what actually did happen.

"In other words, other than blithely tossing out names, they have
failed to offer any credible evidence of who, if not Oswald, killed
Kennedy. Nor have they offered any credible evidence at all of who the
conspirators behind the assassination were.

"So after more than forty years, if we were to rely on these silly
people, we'd have an assassination without an assassin (since, they
assure us, Oswald didn't kill Kennedy), and a conspiracy without
conspirators. Not a simple achievement." -- VB; Page 982


"The conspiracy community, a potent and formidable body through the
decades, has by sheer force of numbers clearly dominated the debate in
front of a national audience, one which apparently hasn't minded
hearing, for the most part, only one side of the story." -- VB; Page


"Warren Commission counsel Wesley Liebeler says that..."if {Mark Lane}
talks for five minutes, it takes an hour to straighten out the
record"." -- VB; Page 1001


"It is nothing short of incredible that Lane, who finds room in his
book {"Rush To Judgment"} for 353 people who he claimed were connected
in some way to the Kennedy case, couldn't find room for a single
paragraph on people like {Robert} Jackson, {Johnny} Brewer, and
{Police Officer M.N.} McDonald." -- VB; Page 1003


"The vast majority of the witnesses on the various mysterious-death
lists of the conspiracy theorists...weren't connected with the case in
any known way whatsoever. .... But of those who did have a connection
-- such as Roger Craig, Earlene Roberts, Lee Bowers, and Buddy
Walthers -- all of them, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, had already told their
story, most of them on the public record, so what could possibly be
achieved by killing them?" -- VB; Page 1018


"The conspiracy theorists are so unhinged that they believe Oswald's
framers would use an impersonator who looks as much like Oswald as
Danny DeVito does." -- VB; Page 1056

DVP: Here's the guy who evidently was posing as Lee Oswald in Mexico
(according to some conspiracy believers):


"One theory that perhaps "takes the cake" is set forth by conspiracy
author David Lifton in his book "Best Evidence". .... Out of his 747
pages, {Lifton} unbelievably devotes no more than 6 or 7 full pages,
if that, to Oswald." -- VB; Pages 1057-1058


"The notion that LBJ would actually decide to have Kennedy murdered
(or be a party to such a plot by others) is not one that, to my
knowledge, any rational and sensible student of the assassination has
ever entertained for a moment. But conspiracy theorists are not
rational and sensible when it comes to the Kennedy assassination." --
VB; Pages 1274-1275


"In {Oliver} Stone's hands, the thoroughly discredited {Jim} Garrison
became a courageous, Capraesque, American patriot fighting for justice
and to save the country from dark and sinister forces out to subvert
our American way of life." -- VB; Page 1353


"{Oliver Stone} wanted his movie, he wrote with towering arrogance in
the January 1992 edition of "Premiere" {magazine}, to "replace the
Warren Commission Report." Can you imagine that? A Hollywood producer
wants his movie to REPLACE the official and most comprehensive
investigation of a crime in history. .... Arrogance thought it already
had a bad name. That was before it met Oliver Stone." -- VB; Page 1358


KILLED KENNEDY!" [All emphasis Mr. Bugliosi's.]

"So a murder case (the Kennedy assassination) where there is an almost
unprecedented amount of evidence of guilt against the killer (Oswald)
is presented to millions of moviegoers as one where there wasn't one
piece of evidence at all. There oughta be a law against things like
this." -- VB; Page 1386


"If...conspiracy theorists were to accept the truth, not only would
they be invalidating a major part of their past, but many would be
forfeiting their future. That's why talking to them about logic and
common sense is like talking to a man without ears.

"The bottom line is that they WANT there to be a conspiracy and are
constitutionally allergic to anything that points away from it." --
VB; Pages 1437-1438

DVP: Truer words were never spoken, Vince. And the "I Want A
Conspiracy" mindset that some people possess is on full display here:


"Critics have questioned whether Howard Brennan was really the source
of {Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert} Sawyer's detailed description
{of the TSBD assassin} and the dispatcher's subsequent broadcast. ....
The affidavit that Brennan gave at the sheriff's office within an hour
of the shooting includes {a} description of the gunman...nearly
identical in language to Sawyer's {12:44 P.M.} broadcast. .... There
can be little doubt Brennan was, in fact, the source." -- VB; Pages
35-36 of Endnotes


"Hugh Aynesworth...covered the assassination story from ground zero
{and} said that he went out to {Lee Oswald's} rooming house right
after the police had searched Oswald's room on the afternoon of the
assassination and interviewed {housekeeper Earlene} Roberts in depth.
"She never said a word about any police car honking its horn outside
the rooming house around the time Oswald was there earlier in the

"In fact, Aynesworth said he interviewed Roberts at least two more
times thereafter and she never said a word about the alleged incident.
{Jim} Ewell, he said, had also interviewed Roberts separately and she
never mentioned the incident to him either." -- VB; Page 40 of

DVP: It's also worth mentioning here, with respect to Earlene Roberts,
that Roberts told the Warren Commission that it wasn't all that
uncommon for a police car to stop in front of the Beckley Avenue
roominghouse and toot its horn. Roberts claimed that such an event had
occurred on other occasions prior to November 22, 1963.

So, the very fact that police cars had a pre-11/22/63 HABIT of
stopping in front of 1026 North Beckley and honking the car horn
should tell a reasonable person that even if a similar occurrence DID
take place on the day of the assassination, it probably wasn't any
kind of a CONSPIRATORIAL event. Instead, it can be considered a NORMAL
thing to have occurred at that location (assuming Roberts was being
truthful about the pre-November 22 horn-honking incidents).


"The virtual proof that Ruby came down the Main Street ramp is that
within a half hour of his arrest...(long BEFORE {DPD officers} Pierce,
Putnam, Vaughn, and Maxey had been interviewed and given their
statements), Ruby told Dallas police...detectives that he had entered
through the Main Street ramp and had seen Pierce driving out of the

"How could Ruby possibly have known this if he hadn't, in fact, been
at the entrance to the Main Street ramp? I mean, Pierce himself didn't
even receive instructions to drive out of the Main Street ramp until
around 11:15 a.m., just six minutes before Ruby shot Oswald." -- VB;
Pages 108-109 of Endnotes


"How would this "fake 6.5 mm {X-ray} object," as {Dr. David} Mantik
calls it, implicate Oswald? .... What possible advantage would the
conspirators have gained by forging the object onto the X-ray film?
The thought that they would risk getting caught doing this to
implicate Oswald in a case in which he and his rifle were ALREADY

"One should add that if, indeed, Dr. Mantik's conspirators were
willing to do something so extremely risky and completely unnecessary
to frame Oswald, wouldn't they have found some way to bring it to the
attention of the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964?

"Instead, if Dr. Mantik is correct, we have to learn about the
sinister implications of the "cardboard artifact" for the first time
35 years later when he published his findings in the book
"Assassination Science"? Isn't this silly, again, on its face?" -- VB;
Page 222 of Endnotes


"The single most important discovery, and one that establishes with
ABSOLUTE AND IRREFUTABLE CERTAINTY that the autopsy photographs have
not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when
combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. ....

"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the autopsy
photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of
his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." This
fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that
photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the

"It also destroys another prime conspiracy belief--that the eyewitness
descriptions of the president's wounds that were offered by the
Parkland Hospital doctors (and later by some eyewitnesses to the
autopsy) are proof that the autopsy photographs had been altered.

"Obviously, if the autopsy photographs are genuine and unaltered
(which all the experts agree), then eyewitness descriptions of the
president's wounds that contradict those photographs are not proof of
alteration, as some critics claim, but nothing more than examples of
understandable, mistaken recollections, or if not that, then
deliberate and outright falsehoods." -- VB; Pages 223-224 of Endnotes


"A point that conspiracy theorists have raised over and over in their
books is that the entrance holes in the president's coat and shirt
were more than 2 inches lower in the back than the actual entrance
wound in his body. But even if there wasn't an explanation for this,
so what?

"Like virtually all criticisms by...conspiracy theorists, it doesn't
"go anywhere." The typical critic just points out the discrepancy and
then moves on. But the discrepancy would only mean something if one
were able to thereby conclude that the president was shot twice in the
back, once where we know the entrance wound in the back was, and once
below that where the holes in the coat and shirt were.

"But one can't conclude this because there is no evidence of a second
entrance wound to the president's back, and no evidence of any holes
to the back of the president's coat and shirt other than one to the
coat and one to the shirt." -- VB; Page 241 of Endnotes


"What reason would the conspirators have for taking multiple
{backyard} photos? Even if it was to ensure that they at least got one
good photo, after they got their good photo, why wouldn't they destroy
the others?" -- VB; Page 398 of Endnotes

DVP: Indeed. And many CTers even go so far as to say that multiple
backyard pictures were faked even though the conspiracy theorists
purporting such insanity readily acknowledge the fact that Marina
Oswald herself took ONE "REAL" PHOTO of her husband on March 31, 1963!

In other words, an authentic, bona fide backyard photo of Lee Harvey
Oswald existed prior to 11/22/63, but the photo fakers decided to go
ahead and fake additional pictures anyway....i.e., forgeries which

Can the conspiracy-loving silliness GET much crazier than that?


"If we're to believe the {conspiracy} theorists, it apparently never
crossed the minds of the alleged conspirators who killed Kennedy to
simply get rid of the evidence that could convict them. Unlike nearly
all ordinary conspirators, Kennedy's killers intentionally and
knowingly left evidence behind in the archives and the Warren
Commission volumes that could expose them -- evidence that only the
conspiracists are smart and industrious enough to uncover." -- VB;
Page 418 of Endnotes


"The bullet {from the 2004 "SBT" test performed in Australia during
the "Discovery Channel" documentary, "JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet"},
though it directly struck two ribs, weighed 158 grains, meaning it
lost just .6 grain more than Commission Exhibit No. 399...even though
the latter bullet only struck a glancing blow to Connally's right rib.

"Certainly, the relatively intact Adelaide {Australia} bullet showed
that the limited damage to Commission Exhibit No. 399 was not
inconsistent at all with its having caused all of the wounds to
Kennedy and Connally." -- VB; Page 430 of Endnotes

DVP: The "Beyond The Magic Bullet" program (in which Vincent Bugliosi
made an appearance, by the way) is one of the best documentaries in
recent years on the JFK assassination.

The detailed SBT test performed by the Australian researchers proved
that a Carcano/WCC bullet could positively take a very similar path
through two "bodies", do approximately the same damage to the two
"victims", and have that bullet emerge in a totally UNFRAGMENTED
condition. Here's a picture of that test bullet:

I ask: What are the odds that such a test could mimic the Single-
Bullet Theory so closely (not perfectly, granted...but darn close to
it) and yet have that purported ONE-bullet event actually being
performed by two or three different bullets in Dallas on November 22,
1963 (complete with the appropriate number of "vanishing" bullets
after the shooting)?

Any odds-makers nearby?


"The whole issue of what stretcher the bullet {CE399} was found on,
Connally's or some unknown person's, is a giant nonissue. Since we
know that the bullet was fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle, and we
know it wasn't found on Kennedy's stretcher, it had to have been found
on Connally's stretcher." -- VB; Page 431 of Endnotes


"What is the likelihood that a bullet found on CONNALLY'S stretcher,
which we know was fired from Oswald's gun, is not the same bullet that
deposited its missing fragments in Connally's wrist? Next to nothing.

"In other words, when all is said and done, what difference does it
make if it turns out that the NAA tests are completely invalid? But
there is a more important point to be made. Let's not forget that the
NAA conclusions by Guinn...are COMPLETELY CONSISTENT with all the
other evidence showing that Oswald was at the sniper's nest window and
it was his Carcano rifle that fired the only bullets that hit Kennedy.

"This other, independent evidence necessarily increases the likelihood
that Guinn's separate NAA conclusions are accurate." --VB; Pages
436-437 of Endnotes

DVP: In addition, allow me to add my two cents re. this matter .....
What do you think the chances are that a multi-gun conspiracy took
place in Dealey Plaza, with bullets from MORE THAN ONE GUN striking
the victims in JFK's limousine on Elm Street....and yet NOT A SINGLE
BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-C2766 (i.e., Oswald's) gun turned out
to be large enough to be tested in order to positively eliminate Lee
Harvey Oswald's Carcano rifle as the source for ALL of the bullets and
fragments that hit any victims on Elm Street?

In other words: If a multi-gun plot really did end the life of John F.
Kennedy, how is it POSSIBLE that those conspirators got lucky enough
to have none of the non-Oswald bullets (or even fragments thereof)
discovered by anybody?


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

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

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

"Third, and most important on this issue, courts do not have a
practice of allowing into evidence only that for which there is an
ironclad and 100 percent clear chain of custody, and this is why I
believe that 95 percent of the physical evidence in this case would be

"I can tell you from personal experience that excluding evidence at a
trial because the chain of custody is weak is rare, certainly the
exception rather than the rule. The typical situation where the chain
is not particularly strong is for the trial judge to nevertheless
admit the evidence, ruling that the weakness of the chain goes only to
"the weight of the evidence [i.e., how much weight or credence the
jury will give it], not its admissibility"." -- VB; Page 442 of


"Even if we were to assume the total invalidity of the polygraph test
given to Ruby, his willingness--in fact, his insistence--that he be
given one is strong circumstantial evidence of his innocent state of
mind and the truthfulness about everything he said.

"Lay people, including Ruby, for the most part believe that lie
detector tests can detect lies. It is a considerable stretch to
believe that if Ruby were guilty of being involved in a conspiracy, he
would insist on taking a polygraph test, supremely confident he could
conceal his guilt and pass the test." -- VB; Page 645 of Endnotes


"{Joan} Mellen's book {2005's "A Farewell To Justice"} is dreadfully
bad on all counts. All the completely discredited witnesses, even
mental cases, who had made bizarre allegations years ago in the Shaw
case...were actually, per Mellen, telling the truth. ....

"Where Mellen can't find some already well-known nut in the Garrison
case to rely on or tell her what she wants to hear, she comes up with
more obscure nuts. ....

"The Kennedy assassination has already been polluted beyond all
tolerable limits by nuts and quacks and phony stories. Mellen is a
university professor. How dare she publish such misleading material on
so serious a subject." -- VB; Pages 910-911, 915, and 923 of Endnotes



Per the "letter of the law", everyone who is accused of a crime is
considered to be innocent until proven guilty....and this is just as
it should be. However, even lacking the advantage of an official
courtroom trial, Vincent Bugliosi, in my opinion, HAS definitely
proven that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, was guilty beyond all doubt of
the two murders he was charged with in 1963.

And I also feel that any reasonable person who reads this incredible
and comprehensive book will have no choice but to arrive at that very
same "Bugliosi Has Proven Oswald Was JFK's Lone Assassin" conclusion.

Yes, the more rabid of JFK conspiracists are likely to be unimpressed
by Mr. Bugliosi's all-encompassing body of work here. They will likely
still balk and squawk about how Vince hasn't proved a darn thing and
about how you can never prove there WASN'T a conspiracy.

But it won't matter what the "zanies" continue to say. Because to any
level-headed and sensible person, "Reclaiming History: The
Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" represents the equivalent
of Moses bringing the tablets down from the mountain. And each and
every tablet says the same thing: "Oswald's Guilty and No Conspiracy".

Upon finishing this tome, it becomes even more obvious that the title
of this book is, indeed, very appropriate and on target -- because Mr.
Bugliosi, within these pages, has done a more than admirable job of
"reclaiming history" from the JFK assassination conspiracy theorists
of the world.

David Von Pein
May/June 2007




David Von Pein

Jun 26, 2007, 10:33:05 PM6/26/07


"The conspiracy theorists have converted Katzenbach's and Warren's
desire to squelch RUMORS that had no basis in fact into Katzenbach's
and Warren's desire to suppress the FACTS of the assassination.

"But how could Katzenbach and Warren have known way back then that
they had to spell out that ONLY false rumors, rumors without a stitch
of evidence to support them, had to be squelched for the benefit of
the American public?

"How could they have known back then that there would actually be
people like Mark Lane who would accuse men like Warren, Gerald Ford,
John Cooper, and so on...of getting in a room and all deciding to
deliberately suppress, or not even look for, evidence of a conspiracy
to murder the president...or that there would be intelligent,
rational, and sensible people of the considerable stature of Michael
Beschloss and Evan Thomas who would decide to give their good minds a
rest and actually buy into this nonsense?" -- Vince Bugliosi; Pages

David Von Pein

Jun 26, 2007, 10:43:19 PM6/26/07
"Did {Earl} Warren subsequently order the sealing of great numbers of
Warren Commission documents? Not only didn't he do so, but instead he
and his Commission encouraged the release of all the records to the
American people. ....

"No special handling of Warren Commission documents was invoked to
keep the truth about the assassination from the public. The records
were sealed {for a mandatory 75 years} under a general {National
Archives} policy that applied to all federal investigations by the
executive branch of government. ....

"The belief that any alleged conspirators who plotted Kennedy's
assassination would commit to paper anything that expressly,
obliquely, or in any other way referred to the murderous plot is
ridiculous on its face. ....

"If that were the case, these people would simply destroy these
documents, not leave them in any file. If they were immoral enough to
murder Kennedy, or do whatever they could to cover up for those who
did, surely they would eliminate an incriminating document. ....

"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."
-- Vince Bugliosi; Pages 134-137, 140, and 149 of "RH" Endnotes

David Von Pein

Jun 27, 2007, 12:23:48 AM6/27/07
"The reality is that even today, it is highly doubtful that any of the
most modern technological advances available in film and photography
could do what the buffs said was done {to the Zapruder Film} over four
decades ago. It unquestionably could not have been done back
then. ....

"But all of this is irrelevant, since the NPIC {National Photographic
Interpretation Center in Washington, D.C.} was not
duplicate any kind of color motion picture film, which the Zapruder 8-
millimeter home movie was. Over the course of well over 40 years, no
evidence has ever emerged to dispute this fact." -- Vince Bugliosi;
Pages 352 & 355 of the "RH" Endnotes


DVP Addendum: And I'm still waiting for a kooky "Z-Film alterationist"
to tell me (with a straight face) why on this Earth a band of
sophisticated film-fakers decided to alter the Zapruder movie and yet
NOT ALTER the very thing that spells out "conspiracy" to most people
viewing the movie -- i.e., THE REAR HEAD SNAP?

Were the film-alterers simply too pre-occupied with the color of Mary
Moorman's shoes and socks to worry about such trivialities like that
head snap to the rear (which, more than any other single thing, was
probably the prime catalyst that sparked the creation of the HSCA in
the late 1970s)?

Or: Were the film-fakers just freaking idiots?!

Funny, the CTers who favor an "altered" Z-Film never seem to say.


David Von Pein

Jun 27, 2007, 12:44:17 PM6/27/07
Vince B. slices into "Ultimate Sacrifice" authors Waldron's and
Hartmann's "C-Day" absurdities in depth during 8 pages of endnotes to
the Odio chapter. And, once again, reading Mr. Bugliosi's reasoned
arguments is kind of like watching a "Common Sense Machine" in action.
Let's have a look:


"From the {Top Secret U.S.} CONTINGENCY invasion {of Cuba} plan,
conspiracy author Lamar Waldron (with coauthor Thom Hartmann) has
produced one of the most empty, vacuous books ever written about the
assassination {2005's "Ultimate Sacrifice: John And Robert Kennedy,
The Plan For A Coup In Cuba, And The Murder Of JFK"}.

"Although it is well written, it makes incredible assumptions, the
authors untroubled by the lack of support for these assumptions in the
record. ....

"If the reader hasn't figured it out by now, all of this is much to-do
about nothing, which would be a much more apt title for Waldron's
book. Even assuming everything Waldron says is true, SO WHAT? It is
common knowledge that the CIA had multiple plans to overthrow or
assassinate Castro. If C-Day was one we hadn't heard of before Waldron
told us, so what? What's the relevance?

"Listening to Waldron, one might believe that all the other well known
attempts on Castro's life or to overthrow him were subsumed by his C-
Day. But even if this absurdity were true, again, so what?

"Waldron knows he has to show the SO WHAT, and that's what he tries to
do in the other half of his book. In this other half...Waldron makes
one ludicrous assumption after another, never bothering to present a
lick of evidence to support any of the assumptions. .... Waldron's
theory could hardly be more ludicrous.

"One gets the definite sense from Waldron's book that the U.S.
government, RFK, and the CIA were much more interested in protecting
the secrecy of the attempt on Castro's life on December 1 {1963} than
they were in bringing JFK's killers (the mob, per Waldron) to
justice. ....

"Without bothering to present one tiny speck of evidence to support
his allegation, Waldron says in several places in his book that {Mafia
mobsters} "Marcello, Trafficante and Roselli planned the
assassination" of JFK. ....

"The source for all this? You guessed it: Lamar Waldron. You see, he
was present during all these meetings {involving Mafia kingpins as
they planned JFK's demise}...and was nice enough to pass on what he
saw and heard. And apparently no editor of Waldron's book was about to
tell Waldron that his book was supposed to be nonfiction, not fiction,
so he would have to have a source for all of this other than his own
silly mind. ....

"One thing he {Waldron} knows. Oswald was innocent and just a patsy,
Waldron totally ignoring the mountain of evidence against Oswald. ....

"Waldron started his book with nothing to say, added a whole lot of
nothing to it, and ended up with nothing. So why have I wasted my time
and space in this endnote talking about nothing? Because of a few
things. Waldron's book is one of the longest (904 pages) {960 pages in
its re-released 2006 paperback "Updated Edition", which promises
"Dramatic new revelations"} ever written on the assassination the outward appearance of being a scholarly work. ....

"So to expose, as I believe I have, the ridiculous nature of a book
like this demonstrates...the absolutely utter and total bankruptcy of
the conspiracy movement in this country." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi;
Pages 759 and 762-766 of "RH" Endnotes



Jun 27, 2007, 1:32:30 PM6/27/07
Top Post

It really has to be disheartening for the Nutter's, knowing that
Vince's issue is being disassembled, now...

I haven't read one positive review (other than his fanatic idolators).
I do have hope they'll be able to put forth a cogent LN argument in
the near future.

Perhaps .john will start a class next semester titled: The *Immaculate
Resurrection* of the SBT - The .Bug Saga!


Jun 27, 2007, 1:38:04 PM6/27/07
I'm not sure what you mean. There have been lots of terrific review
for Reclaiming History.

The fact that you haven't READ one positive review says more about you
than about the reviews.



Jun 27, 2007, 3:12:33 PM6/27/07
The HSCA Believed Sylvia Odio David.

"David Von Pein" <> wrote in message

David Von Pein

Jun 27, 2007, 3:20:23 PM6/27/07
I tend to believe her too, Nutsack.

So what?


Jun 27, 2007, 3:30:36 PM6/27/07
On Jun 27, 10:38 am, "" <>

Freddy, glad you could make it -- the Lone Nutter's need some new
blood, we're tired of bashing their sorry asses! So what is your
expertise? daBugliosi reviews, or do you have a modicum of knowledge
concerning this case-- fill us in champ? Don't be shy! Or do you just
spend your time smelling Von Pein's jockstrap, that's okay too --
we're well aware he has groupies that do his bidding, but be aware,
this ain't Amazon, Goldilocks!

> fred


Jun 27, 2007, 4:14:26 PM6/27/07
Good for you NUTSACK-SUCKER.

You must be "Crammin Fer FINALS".

btw folks;
It's Sylvia Odio's testimony that David is Agreeing with.

THAT Eliminates the Oswald in Mexico City Bullshit.

THAT means there was conversation about Killing JFK WITH "Anti-Castro
Cubans" in Advance.

SEE it HERE>>>

"David Von Pein" <> wrote in message

David Von Pein

Jun 27, 2007, 4:28:21 PM6/27/07
>>> "It's Sylvia Odio's testimony that David is agreeing with. THAT eliminates the Oswald in Mexico City Bullshit." <<<

It eliminates no such thing. Oswald could have been at Odio's door and
still made his bus connection to Mex. City.

I guess the Oswald "imposter" somehow had LHO's very own handwriting
too, huh Mr. Kook-Sack? Because Oswald signed the hotel register in
Mex. City.

Stop being insane. Oswald was in Mexico in Sep./Oct. '63.


Jun 27, 2007, 4:41:44 PM6/27/07
Just ONE of your fellow Criminals who FORGED things was E. Howard Hunt

"David Von Pein" <> wrote in message


Jun 27, 2007, 4:42:43 PM6/27/07
You Sneakily Avoided THIS Part>>>

THAT means there was conversation about Killing JFK WITH "Anti-Castro
Cubans" in Advance.

"David Von Pein" <> wrote in message

David Von Pein

Jun 27, 2007, 5:02:43 PM6/27/07
>>> "THAT means there was conversation about Killing JFK WITH "Anti-Castro Cubans" in Advance." <<<

Yep. That's what it means.

Now, all you have to do is connect "Leopoldo" and the other Cuban to
the shooting that Oswald (alone) definitely carried out on 11/22/63.

Can you do that?

Do you know for a fact that "Leopoldo" and his Cuban mate planned the
Dallas assassination with Lee Harvey Oswald?

Of course, there's no way on Earth that the details of the
assassination could have possibly been "planned" by Leo (or Oswald or
anybody else) as of the date Leo supposedly called Sylvia Odio
(September 26, 1963), since nobody on Earth knew the details of ANY
Kennedy motorcade through Dallas on that date.

So that's not a good start to "connect" Leo & teammate to Oswald's

Plus: If Leo & mate were "in" on the plot....WHY DID THEY LEAVE OSWALD

Some great teammates Ozzie had there, huh? Damn cowards.

Ben Holmes

Jun 27, 2007, 6:55:13 PM6/27/07
In article <>, says...

>I'm not sure what you mean. There have been lots of terrific review
>for Reclaiming History.

I rather suspect that Aeffects was talking about *knowledgeable* reviewers...
you know, those who've *READ* the 26 volumes.

Have you?

Jun 27, 2007, 7:05:24 PM6/27/07
On Jun 27, 6:55 pm, Ben Holmes <> wrote:
> In article <>,
> says...

> >I'm not sure what you mean. There have been lots of terrific review
> >for Reclaiming History.
> I rather suspect that Aeffects was talking about *knowledgeable* reviewers...
> you know, those who've *READ* the 26 volumes.
> Have you?
> >The fact that you haven't READ one positive review says more about you
> >than about the reviews.
> >fred- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

Healy did Bennie let you out of your cage tonight and tell you it was
ok for you to post?
Bugliosi isn't taking a bashing...he's taking a sack of money to the
The only bashers are people with your intelligence or should I say
lack of...that are afraid there won't be anything left to argue over
when the truth is made into a mini series that is going to blow the
Ct's to pieces. Keep up the good work Healy, your making daddy Bennie
proud with your
uneducated vocabulary that says nothing. Like father like son???


Jun 27, 2007, 7:25:03 PM6/27/07
On Jun 27, 4:05 pm, "" <>

> On Jun 27, 6:55 pm, Ben Holmes <> wrote:
> > In article <>,
> > says...
> > >I'm not sure what you mean. There have been lots of terrific review
> > >for Reclaiming History.
> > I rather suspect that Aeffects was talking about *knowledgeable* reviewers...
> > you know, those who've *READ* the 26 volumes.
> > Have you?
> > >The fact that you haven't READ one positive review says more about you
> > >than about the reviews.
> > >fred- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Healy did Bennie let you out of your cage tonight and tell you it was
> ok for you to post?

c'mon little guy, if your going to play here in the bigs, stop
sounding like a child, we've got bigger fish to fry other than your
puny ass, NOW - have you read those 26 volumes? yea or nay?

> Bugliosi isn't taking a bashing...he's taking a sack of money to the
> bank.

yeah, uh-huh..... you moron, he's already got his (Von Pein, get this
30 day wonder from .john's straightened out, he's an embarrassment to
Nutter tradition)

> The only bashers are people with your intelligence or should I say
> lack of...that are afraid there won't be anything left to argue over
> when the truth is made into a mini series that is going to blow the
> Ct's to pieces.

roflmfao, we're waiting Gloria..... first you gotta get past
development, by then you'll be 22, by the time it gets to a screen
you'll have grandchildren (lord help us all) Surprise us all, serve in
the military do something constructive with your wretched life --
surprise us ALL!

Keep up the good work Healy, your making daddy Bennie
> proud with your
> uneducated vocabulary that says nothing. Like father like son???

I'm here to provide a service snookum's, to show just how stupid you
one Lone Neuter's are. You get caught up in the flood and swept away
be my guest.... there are better ways to find friends, pukster, much
better ways.....

Now what is uneducated vocabulary? Kinda like kiss my weanie? That
make you happy?

> JustmeYou gonna earn three credits this summer you better get your shit together or you'll be redoing the semester this fall.... word to the wise is usually sufficient..

David Von Pein

Jun 27, 2007, 7:42:48 PM6/27/07
DVP: Next up -- The supposed Jack Ruby/Seth Kantor meeting at Parkland

"In any event, even if Ruby was at Parkland, to assume he was there to
plant a bullet on Connally's stretcher to frame Oswald for Kennedy's
murder, making Ruby a part of the conspiracy to murder Kennedy,
is...too ludicrous for words. The philosophy of the zany conspiracy
theorists is that if something is theoretically possible (as most
things are), then it's not only probable, it happened." -- Vince B.;
Endnote; Page 450

DVP: Allow me to add this common-sense observation ..... If Ruby had
been planting a bullet on a stretcher at Parkland, would he have had
any desire whatsoever to draw attention to himself around the very
time he's engaging in this shady, conspiratorial activity by
approaching SOMEBODY WHO KNEW HIM ON SIGHT--Kantor--who could then, in
turn, tell the authorities, "Hey, I saw Jack Ruby out at Parkland
around 1:30 PM on Friday"?!


Jun 27, 2007, 11:01:57 PM6/27/07
You're STILL missing the point David;

It connects Oswald to "ANTI-CASTRO CUBANS".

"David Von Pein" <> wrote in message


Jun 27, 2007, 11:03:06 PM6/27/07
Hey justme;
Did the authorities Alter the Walker back yard photo 3 times?

<> wrote in message


Jun 27, 2007, 11:04:42 PM6/27/07
What it "Proves" david;

Is just ANOTHER LIE by the LN's.

"David Von Pein" <> wrote in message

David Von Pein

Jun 27, 2007, 11:27:07 PM6/27/07
>>> "It connects Oswald to "ANTI-CASTRO CUBANS"." <<<

Dear God! No! Say it ain't so! Anything but that!!

(Of course, we already know he had a "connection" with Mr. Bringuier.
Why doesn't that connection seem to bother you?)


Jun 27, 2007, 11:58:19 PM6/27/07
You must be an Orphan;

Don't you know the difference between a friendly connection
and a Non-Friendly connection?

Wanna try the "Alteration" of the Walker back yard photo 3 times now?>>>

"David Von Pein" <> wrote in message

David Von Pein

Jun 28, 2007, 12:10:22 AM6/28/07
Tom's a lonely sack.


Jun 28, 2007, 1:20:13 AM6/28/07
LN's are most likely the "Lonely Ones".

You represent only 10% of the Country.

"David Von Pein" <> wrote in message
> Tom's a lonely sack.

David Von Pein

Jun 28, 2007, 6:52:39 PM6/28/07
"It is nothing short of incredible that {Mark} Lane, who finds room in
his book {"Rush To Judgment"} for 353 people who he claimed were
connected in some way to the Kennedy case, couldn't find room for a
single paragraph on people like {Robert} Jackson, {Johnny} Brewer, and
{M.N.} McDonald." -- Vince Bugliosi; Page 1003 of "R.H."




Jun 28, 2007, 11:37:31 PM6/28/07

perhaps 40+ years of hindsight, a plethora of Lone Nut gophers gives
daBug a edge in minutae...

Frankly David your dredging the bottom of the barrel with this. I
doubt you or daBugliosi ever opened Rush to Judgement much let-alone
READ it... knock off the grandstanding

David Von Pein

Jul 1, 2007, 5:25:23 PM7/1/07


"{Buell Wesley} Frazier's statements that the rifle was tucked under
Oswald's armpit is hardly as definitive as the critics claim. While
Frazier's description of how Oswald carried the rifle was consistent
in all of his statements to investigators, it was clearly inferable
from his Warren Commission testimony that this was only an assumption
on his part based on his limited view.

"Frazier told the Commission that "the only time" he saw the way
Oswald was carrying the package was from the back, and that all that
was visible was "just a little strip [of the package] running down"
along the inside of Oswald's arm. ....

"Since he could only see this small portion of the package under
Oswald's right arm, and because he didn't notice any part of the
package sticking above his right shoulder...Frazier assumed that it
must have been tucked under his armpit, telling the Commission, "I
don't see how you could have it anywhere other than under your

"Although the critics have been quick to embrace Frazier's conclusion,
it should be repeated that he told the Commission over and over (no
less than five separate times) that he didn't pay much attention to
the package or to the way Oswald carried it. ....

"In other words, and understandably, Frazier was confused. So we don't
even know, for sure, how Oswald was carrying the rifle in front of his
body, which Frazier could not see. At the London trial {in 1986} I
asked Frazier, "So the bag could have been protruding out in front of
his body and you wouldn't have been able to see it?" and he responded,
"That's true."

"The most likely scenario was postulated well by Dan Rather {of CBS
News in June 1967}, who rhetorically told his audience, "You can
decide whether Frazier, walking some fifty feet behind and, in his own
words, not paying much attention, might have missed the few inches of
the narrow end of such a package sticking up past Oswald's shoulder"."
-- Vince Bugliosi; Pages 409-410 of "RH" endnotes


DVP Says:

Re. the 1967 CBS "WR" Special.........

Dan Rather shows the TV audience a brown homemade paper package, which
Rather tells us contains a dismantled Mannlicher-Carcano rifle just
like Lee Oswald's. Mr. Rather confirms the length of the rifle inside
his re-created package as 34.8 inches, the exact length of Oswald's
disassembled Carcano, which was a rifle found by police on the sixth
floor of the Book Depository 52 minutes after JFK's assassination.

It's true that Rather could not put the re-created package under his
armpit while it was also cupped in his hand. But it struck me as
interesting that only a small portion of the bag (only a very few
inches of the top of the bag) was sticking out above Rather's shoulder
when he started to walk away from the CBS camera with the package
cupped in his hand (the same way that witness Buell Wesley Frazier
said Oswald had "cupped" the so-called "curtain rod" package in his
hand back in 1963).

Unless someone was paying very close attention (which Frazier
testified he wasn't), the few inches of that paper package sticking
above the shoulder of the person carrying it could easily have gone
unnoticed by a witness.

Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages