Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
James DiEugenio

Vincent Bugliosi: The Whole Story

Recommended Posts

MH: You've had around three months to point out any factual errors in my review and so far you've come up with precisely eff all.

Can't wait to see when and if Davey replies to this one.

I've responded to Martin Hay's LNer bashfest in the past. Here's an excerpt from a prior discussion.....

Indeed you have, David. But you didn't manage to point out one single factual error in my review. Not one.

All you did was claim - presumably with a straight face - that 14 cm below the mastoid process is a precise measurement for a wound on the upper back. Which is pure dung.

Here's two pictures that John Hunt found in the JFK files at NARA that show two entirely different locations on the back that are both 14 cm below the mastoid process:

Mastoid%202_zpsqaxdkojv.gifMastoid%201_zpsmnc2ggou.gif

As anyone with an ounce of sense can see, these pictures prove that the autopsy doctors' measurement does not tell us precisely where the back wound was.

As usual, David, you are completely wrong.

Since DVP commonly uses the "anyone with common sense" argument, surely if he has any himself he will recognize that Humes was wrong, and Finck was correct...and the mastoid process IS a movable point, in relation to the thorax.

These two photographs prove it BEYOND A DOUBT.

But apparently if it's not found in the works of the Warren Commission or Vince Bugliosi, it cannot possibly be true, in DVP's world.

And if you believe that, Mr. Von Pein, you've been "had."

IF YOU DOUBT THE RESULTS SHOWN IN THE PHOTOS ABOVE, find a volunteer and CONDUCT YOUR OWN EXPERIMENT to prove it wrong. {i know there's less than zero chance he will perform such a test...because if the photos above are proven to be true, then Humes' credibility goes "poof". He won't risk that. He'll simply say that since we're not measuring JFK's body, the results won't be the same.Or some other similar lame excuse NOT to check for himself.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said the mastoid WASN'T a "movable" part of the body. What I said was it would be FIXED if the body is in the anatomical position, as would ANY other body landmark. Isn't that fact obvious? Same with Dr. Wecht's preference of taking measurements "from the top of the head". But it's still the HEAD, which is MOVABLE. All parts of the human head are movable.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP:

So, Jim, are you therefore implying that if there was a SECOND Face Sheet, that fact means that the wound in JFK's upper back was really located somewhere OTHER than "14 cm. below tip of rt. mastoid process"?

Which would mean that Dr. Humes must have been part of the grand plot to fake Boswell's face sheet(s) too, because Humes wrote those EXACT MEASUREMENTS on Page 3 of the autopsy report (WR; Page 540), which is a report that was signed by all three autopsy surgeons on 11/24/63.

Your vivid imagination turns legitimate evidence into forged evidence almost every day of the week, doesn't it Jimbo? And you don't even have the decency to blush.

Jim D:

I don't have a vivid imagination at all. Like most of what I write, I have the original source. Everything I write is well documented. Look at the footnotes in my VB piece. I went to college for about nine years so I know how to write research papers and a thesis. Because I did it for a long time. What are your academic achievements?

I know and like original sources. You do not because you do not do any original research. How many sit down interviews did you conduct for your book?

Please tell us?

You don't know what in heck you are talking about here. Now do you?

Please just admit it once. And I won't clobber you this time.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MH: You've had around three months to point out any factual errors in my review and so far you've come up with precisely eff all.

Can't wait to see when and if Davey replies to this one.

I've responded to Martin Hay's LNer bashfest in the past. Here's an excerpt from a prior discussion.....

Indeed you have, David. But you didn't manage to point out one single factual error in my review. Not one.

All you did was claim - presumably with a straight face - that 14 cm below the mastoid process is a precise measurement for a wound on the upper back. Which is pure dung.

Here's two pictures that John Hunt found in the JFK files at NARA that show two entirely different locations on the back that are both 14 cm below the mastoid process:

Mastoid%202_zpsqaxdkojv.gifMastoid%201_zpsmnc2ggou.gif

As anyone with an ounce of sense can see, these pictures prove that the autopsy doctors' measurement does not tell us precisely where the back wound was.

As usual, David, you are completely wrong.

Really nice Martin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GUNN: When one is attempting to determine the location of a wound, we'll say, in the thoracic cavity, would it be appropriate to use as a fixed body landmark a mastoid process?

FINCK: No.

GUNN: For purposes of identifying the wound in the back, the thoracic cavity.

FINCK: An immobile body structure is a fixed body landmark.

GUNN: Well, for the identification of the location of the wound in the thoracic cavity--

FINCK: Thoracic cavity.

GUNN: --is a mastoid process a standard and understood fixed body landmark?

FINCK: For the thoracic cavity, no. Because it is part of the head, and the head is moving, could move.

GUNN: So that the mastoid process would not be a standard fixed body landmark for the purposes of identifying the location of a wound in the thoracic region, is that fair to say?

FINCK: Yes. (Finck ARRB deposition, p. 45)

Give it up, David. You've got nothing but hot air.

Again, nice one. When you get their own witnesses cornered and they finally have to admit it.

I miss Jeremy Gunn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GUNN: When one is attempting to determine the location of a wound, we'll say, in the thoracic cavity, would it be appropriate to use as a fixed body landmark a mastoid process?

FINCK: No.

GUNN: For purposes of identifying the wound in the back, the thoracic cavity.

FINCK: An immobile body structure is a fixed body landmark.

GUNN: Well, for the identification of the location of the wound in the thoracic cavity--

FINCK: Thoracic cavity.

GUNN: --is a mastoid process a standard and understood fixed body landmark?

FINCK: For the thoracic cavity, no. Because it is part of the head, and the head is moving, could move.

GUNN: So that the mastoid process would not be a standard fixed body landmark for the purposes of identifying the location of a wound in the thoracic region, is that fair to say?

FINCK: Yes. (Finck ARRB deposition, p. 45)

Give it up, David. You've got nothing but hot air.

Again, nice one. When you get their own witnesses cornered and they finally have to admit it.

I miss Jeremy Gunn.

Left out the money shot:

FINCK: "JFK's spine, a fixed landmark, was the correct and only point of reference to determine the accurate location of this posterior wound."

Burkely;s death certificate -- putting the wound at T3 -- trumps the autopsy report. It was signed off as "verified."

Evidence prepared/recorded/maintained according to proper autopsy protocol always trumps evidence not produced according to proper protocol.

The "mastoid/acromion" measurements on the face sheet were recorded in pen -- a violation of autopsy protocol.

The rest of the face sheet showing the low back wound was filled out and signed off as "verified" in pencil -- according to proper protocol.

Isn't all this easy and obvious?

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The re is no debate here, Cliff; "pseudo" or otherwise.

DVP made a factually incorrect claim and I proved him wrong.

Please don't take this off on the same old tangent.

The tangent is all yours.

You treat the issue of the back wound as if it were in doubt.

You are wrong.

That you refer to the physical evidence in this murder case as "same old tangent" is most telling.

I like it that you and Von Pein both like to pretend the physical evidence doesn't exist.

Oh puh-leaze.

No one was even debating the location of the back wound, Cliff.

The question at hand was whether or not 14 cm below the mastoid process is a precise measurement for a wound on the back. The conversation was restricted solely to that issue until you tried to change it.

This is just another instance of you hijacking a thread with your pet theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know and like original sources. You do not because you do not do any original research.

What a crock.

If by "original", you mean "primary" sources, then, yes, I love those types of sources too -- "primary" ones, like the original investigations and the official Government follow-up investigations [e.g., DPD, WC, HSCA, Clark Panel, Rockefeller Commission] and the "primary" witnesses involved in the case.

But you, Jim, seem to like to THROW AWAY almost all of the "primary" source material. You find a reason (any reason) to toss all of that "primary" (first day) evidence right into the trash can (e.g., the guns, bullets, prints, fibers, paper bag, bullet shells, the autopsy report, the autopsy photos, and lots more).

You don't USE those primary sources and first-day evidence. You MISuse those things. Every last one of them. With Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle being a prime example of how you misuse (and totally mangle) the evidence in this case. You've done everything in your power to take that gun out of the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, and even out of his hands at ANY point in time in the year 1963.

You're so enamored with the silly idea that Oswald never touched Rifle C2766 that you are now even saying that Oswald never even ORDERED that rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods. And Oswald having ordered and paid for a rifle from Klein's is a rock-solid fact that no reasonable and sensible person on the planet who has looked at the evidence can possibly deny. And yet Mr. DiEugenio denies it--and vehemently. What a crock. And what a joke you are.

And that's just one example (among dozens) of how DiEugenio treats the evidence in the JFK and J.D. Tippit murder cases. There ought to be some kind of law against it. But I guess freedom of speech (and, in Jim's case, the freedom to look like a horse's hind quarters when he pretends that all of the evidence against Oswald is fake) overrides any hope I ever had of James DiEugenio being able to properly assess any of the evidence in the John F. Kennedy assassination.

A 22-point reminder (in case anyone missed it)....

The-Stupid-Things-James-DiEugenio-Believes

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a bunch of baloney.

Davey wants us to think he does not know the difference between a primary source and an original source.

So what does he do in order to make his little stage play possible? He eliminates the following sentence: How many sit down interviews did you conduct for your book?

I wonder why he does this little diversion? But I think we know. He does not to answer the question. Because that tells us what kind of researcher he really is. Just recycles discredited WC baloney.

So I will ask the questions again:

How many sit down interviews did you conduct for your book Davey?

Let us see how long it will take to get an answer.

(BTW, I am still holding my cards on the actual face sheet and how I know about it. )

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many sit down interviews did you conduct for your book, Davey?

Well, I didn't "sit down" with anyone during the writing of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt", but I did "reach out" (which would be the more appropriate term) to a few people for help. (Or doesn't a "reach out" type of conversation count, Jim? Does it have to be a face-to-face "sit down" interview in order to qualify as "research"? ~shrug~)

Anyway, I "reached out" via e-mail several times, as I recall, to two people in particular -- former Secret Service agent Gerald Blaine and Sixth Floor Museum curator Gary Mack. Both of those men were very helpful to me concerning various aspects of research I have done in the last few years. (See pages 65-66 and 414-415 of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt".)

And I should point out that this "reaching out" to Blaine and Mack is something I did prior to helping Mel Ayton write the "BRD" book. But I was able to incorporate the information I had previously gathered from Gerald Blaine and Gary Mack into the final manuscript for the book. (Does that still count, Jim? Or am I disqualified on a technicality?)

And there were several additional "reaching out" sessions that I have had with people like Dale Myers, John McAdams, and Jean Davison (three of the best JFK sources you could possibly hope to find, in my opinion) that I desperately wanted to include in the book, but due to space restrictions, there was a whole bunch of my stuff (more than 20,000 words, in fact) that had to be cut out of the manuscript. (Should I try to get "BRD 2" published?) :)

Also....

Mel Ayton, the book's primary author, conducted several personal interviews. Each of which is sourced in the Notes & Sources section of the book.

Also see:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-926.html#BRD-Editing

But the reality is that the amount of JFK assassination material is so vast and so detailed via all of the previous investigations and documents and books (and, in particular, Vincent Bugliosi's monumental tome, in which almost any source imaginable can be extracted and cited from Vince's 2800 total pages), that it makes "original" sources (via "sit down" interviews with people) less necessary in the years 2014 and 2015 when compared to many years ago, especially in the pre-"Reclaiming History" years before 2007.

I think it really boils down to this question: How does the author evaluate the existing evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases?

And I think Mel Ayton and myself have properly and fairly evaluated the evidence in those two murder cases (plus the murder of Lee Oswald by Jack Ruby as well).

A conspiracy theorist like Jim DiEugenio will, of course, disagree with my last statement above. Jim thinks all of the evidence (or pretty close to all of it) should be tossed out the window. He thinks it's tainted evidence. I, however, could not disagree more strongly. In fact, I've always felt that the "Everything Is Fake" mindset of many conspiracy theorists is nothing but a cop-out and a convenient way for those CTers to summarily dismiss nearly everything that points to Lee Harvey Oswald as the guilty party--no matter how much evidence they have to toss aside.

Quoting wound ballistics investigator Larry Sturdivan....

"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert, or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly coordinated whole. This brings to mind the recurrent theme in most conspiracy books. All the officials alternate between the role of 'Keystone Kops', with the inability to recognize the implications of the most elementary evidence, and 'evil geniuses', with superhuman abilities to fake physical evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked evidence." -- Larry Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths" (2005)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reaching out to Blaine, Myers, Mack, McAdams,Davison.

:hotorwot

OK, see in the real world of people who do original research, these are not what one would call "original".

Communication with published authors who you know are going to tell you what you want to hear, that is not original research.

Doing original research is digging through documents for witnesses or information no one has seen before. Or finding information from witnesses who have been talked to before, but had not divulged certain information.

You didn't do any of that. Which is what I thought. :dis

Now if you look through the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, which you will not, you will see that kind of thing a lot. Because, unlike you and Vince, I actually did travel around the country talking to people in their homes, or on their porch, or at the local coffee house. That's because the WC missed a lot of these people, since they conducted a (deliberately) incomplete inquiry.

But since you answered the question, I will now let you know about the face sheet.

The man who actually wrote up the original face sheet was James Jenkins, in consultation with Boswell. It does not look like the one we have today since it is double sided.

It is still around today somewhere. We know that because when HSCA investigator Andy Purdy interviewed Jenkins, he had it with him.

Did you talk to Jenkins, or did you think say, Sturdivan, would tell you something new like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The re is no debate here, Cliff; "pseudo" or otherwise.

DVP made a factually incorrect claim and I proved him wrong.

Please don't take this off on the same old tangent.

The tangent is all yours.

You treat the issue of the back wound as if it were in doubt.

You are wrong.

That you refer to the physical evidence in this murder case as "same old tangent" is most telling.

I like it that you and Von Pein both like to pretend the physical evidence doesn't exist.

Oh puh-leaze.

No one was even debating the location of the back wound, Cliff.

Excuse me?

That's exactly what is under discussion here -- the location of the back wound.

You cite photos showing a purported back wound and you deny the subject matter?

The question at hand was whether or not 14 cm below the mastoid process is a precise measurement for a wound on the back.

And this is a text-book example of fake debate since the location of the back wound is not in question by anyone

familiar with the physical facts of the case.

The conversation was restricted solely to that issue until you tried to change it.

So a conversation about the efficacy of determining the location of the back wound does not involve a discussion of the location of the back wound?

Interesting.

This is just another instance of you hijacking a thread with your pet theory.

I cite the physical evidence -- how is physical evidence any kind of "theory," pet or otherwise?

Mr. Hay, do you grasp the significance of physical evidence in any murder case?

The bullet holes in JFK's clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars, matching the consensus witness testimony and the properly prepared medical documents.

Why do you have such an aversion to the fact that JFK was shot in the back at T3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now if you look through the second edition of Destiny Betrayed, which you will not...

A double root canal would be preferable to reading that book.

I mean, a guy [DiEugenio] who still props up Garrison in the 21st century?

Geesh. Incredible.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that David Von Pein has stipulated to the salient fact of conspiracy in the murder of JFK -- the jacket was bunched up just "a little bit" in the Croft3 photo taken on Elm St.

This puts David Von Pein ahead of Martin Hay in the race to acknowledge the prima facie case for conspiracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cliff,

Why do you still insist that my "little bit" remark means that I now believe in conspiracy OR that the SBT is now totally discredited? It means NEITHER. You are attaching way too much significance to my "little bit" comment.

I don't know how many inches (or centimeters) JFK's clothing was "bunched up" by just looking at the photos of Kennedy taken in Dealey Plaza. And you don't know either. How could ANYONE know such a thing with any precision?

So why not stop pretending that you can measure such unmeasurable things?

And I'm just curious, Cliff....

Can you make one single post without talking about the clothing? Just one? Have you EVER posted about anything other than the jacket and shirt? Ever??

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×