David Von Pein

??? what??? Glenn, I've talked to some Internet CTers who have actually suggested that Oswald was totally unarmed in the theater. They say LHO had NO GUN at all, and the cops planted the S&W revolver on him. That's why I asked Greg Parker that question. And Greg certainly seems to be entertaining the "No Gun" idea when he said this.... "I'm not ashamed to be skeptical about any official story put out by proven rogues and benders of the laws." -- G. Parker Pretty soon we'll probably have CTers denying the assassination occurred in Dallas.

BTW/FYI, Glenn, your signature is incomplete. You haven't attributed DiEugenio's "defense team" quote to Jimbo. And apparently you think that quote is something that enhances Jimmy's reputation, right? Incredible.

That's about the size of it, yeah. I just felt like sharing after reading DiEugenio's latest Bugliosi-bashing post. (Vince B. had an aversion to computers, you see. So his messages to me had to be relayed through someone else.)

So, Jon, do you consider all of the bullets, guns, shells, fingerprints in the JFK case to be "hearsay"?

Why on Earth would you be appalled, Jon? Vince's statement about the evidence proving Oswald's guilt is perfectly acceptable---and 100% accurate. The only way such a statement is wrong is if all the "evidence" had been fake. And such an over-the-top assertion is "appalling", IMO. Jon, why are you constantly insisting the EVIDENCE (i.e., the items collected by the police at the scenes of the Dallas crimes) is not really EVIDENCE? Don't you agree that this definition of "evidence" is an accurate one?..... "A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment."

Subject: The Latest Attacks On Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" Date: 2/27/2010 4:34:09 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Rosemary Newton [Vincent Bugliosi's secretary] ------------------------------ Hi Rosemary, If Mr. Bugliosi ever feels compelled to write a response to some of his critics regarding the JFK case, and would like to post his remarks on the Internet, I (of course) would be more than happy to post such a response in his name on my own websites (blogs) and on the JFK forums that I routinely visit. Not that any amount of common sense or logic (or evidence!) will ever sway the conspiracy kooks, but if Vince ever feels he wants to get some thoughts off his chest by writing up some kind of a response to people like DiEugenio or this Remington fellow or Jim Fetzer (who hates Vincent's book with a passion as well) or Bob Groden, et al, I will always be ready and willing to post his comments online--and at every JFK forum I have access to. Thanks. Best wishes always, David Von Pein Feb. 27, 2010 ============================================== Subject: DiEugenio Date: 2/27/2010 7:34:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: Rosemary Newton To: David Von Pein ------------------------------ Hi Dave, Vince just faxed me the following: "Tell David Von Pein that he can quote me as saying: "I thought Jim DiEugenio was a serious person." " Regards, Rosemary ============================================== Subject: Re: DiEugenio Date: 2/27/2010 8:08:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time From: David Von Pein To: Rosemary Newton ------------------------------ Thank you, Rosemary and Vince. I will. David V.P. ============================================== More Correspondence With Vince B.

VINCE BUGLIOSI, DALE MYERS, 3-D DIAGRAMS, AND THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY DALE MYERS' COMPUTER ANIMATION AND THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY (PART 1) DALE MYERS' COMPUTER ANIMATION AND THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY (PART 2)

The Australian SBT test simulated Connally's wrist, for Pete sake. They just didn't do it with a real human arm. They created a block with human bones inside of it. Not nearly good enough, right? Of course not. As I've said a million times, nothing will satisfy CT hounds. Nothing.

Jon, I mean that Oswald's provable "actions" and movements, in general, certainly point more toward his GUILT than they do his INNOCENCE. Wouldn't you agree? E.G., ...He leaves the TSBD within minutes of the assassination. ...He dashes in and out of his rented room to get a gun. ...He acts "funny" and "scared" in Johnny Brewer's shoe store entrance. ...He pulls a gun on the police in the theater and fights with them. (And if this isn't a sure sign that Mr. Oswald had done SOMETHING against the law that day, then what would be?) ...He lied to Buell Frazier about the "curtain rods". ...He carried a long paper package into the Depository on the day of the President's assassination (and lied about the contents of that package). If you want to dispute each and every item above, feel free to do so. But those are FACTS, in my opinion. They are facts that have been established by a variety of witnesses. Am I to believe they all got together and lied--Roberts, Brewer, McDonald, Frazier, Randle? And I didn't even mention the Tippit witnesses. I think the various online dictionaries give a very good definition of what I mean when I use the word "evidence". Let's have a look at some of those definitions.... EVIDENCE (noun) -- 1. A thing or set of things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. 2. Something indicative; an indication or set of indications. 3. [in Law] -- The means by which an allegation may be proven, such as oral testimony, documents, or physical objects. EVIDENCE (noun) -- 1. The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. EVIDENCE (noun) -- 1. That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2. Something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign. EVIDENCE (noun) -- 1. Something which shows that something else exists or is true. 2. A visible sign of something. 3. Material that is presented to a court of law to help find the truth about something. EVIDENCE (noun) -- 1. Something that gives proof or leads to a conclusion. EVIDENCE (noun) -- 1. Ground for belief or disbelief; data on which to base proof or to establish truth or falsehood. 2. A mark or sign that makes evident; indication. Here's what Vince Bugliosi said in his book (emphasis on the word "evidence" is DVP's): "The evidence against Oswald proves his guilt not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond all doubt, or, as they say in the movies, beyond a shadow of a doubt. In other words, not just one or two or three pieces of evidence point toward Oswald's guilt, but more than fifty pieces point irresistibly to his guilt. And not only does all of the physical, scientific evidence point solely and exclusively to Oswald's guilt, but virtually everything he said and did points unerringly to his guilt. Prosecutors like to argue in their final summation to the jury that "looking at the evidence as a whole" (or "the totality of the evidence," or "all the evidence") makes it clear the defendant is guilty. But in the case against Oswald, one doesn't have to look at all or even most of the evidence to reach the conclusion he is guilty. Indeed, there are many individual things he did, like immediately fleeing the Book Depository Building after the shooting, killing Officer Tippit, et cetera, which by themselves point clearly to his guilt." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 952 of "Reclaiming History" [End Quote.] I guess Vince must have been using the following definition of the word "evidence", which is, of course, a definition that all sensible and reasonable people use when they talk about "evidence".... "The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." Also see: Vincent-Bugliosi.blogspot.com [Dozens Of VB Interviews]

It's irrelevant in THIS (JFK) case. Oswald's actions pretty much convict him. And the DPD couldn't possibly have controlled those actions. Plus, the US Secret Service would have had to also be in bed with the evil DPD in order for Oswald to be innocent (realistically), since the DPD never even touched CE399 or the two front-seat bullet fragments, all three of which were fired in Oswald's rifle. So, how did the DPD get the SS (and the FBI too) to jump on board the LET'S FRAME OSWALD gravy train?

Total bull, Pat. They fired a 6.5mm. Carcano bullet through two mock bodies, with that bullet taking a general path very similar to the SBT/399 bullet. And the bullet ended up in pretty good shape. A very good SBT re-creation. CTers just look for excuses to dismiss it. And they refuse to acknowledge the remarkable "SBT-like" similarities. Amazing, isn't it, how ANY re-creation could come THAT close to mimicking an event (the SBT) that CTers think was a complete fabrication on the part of the WC? Incredible indeed.

Yeah, you're right, Jim. The Australian team should have sacrificed two real humans to serve their testing purposes. Nothing less will suffice, right? Keep pretending that a perfect "SBT" re-creation is even possible (it isn't, of course, since any test has to SIMULATE the human nuances of John F. Kennedy and John B. Connally). And keep pretending that the 2004 Australian test didn't come anywhere close to simulating the Single-Bullet Theory (even though it did). 52 years---and 52,000 excuses. That's the lasting legacy of conspiracy theorists.

You don't even think Oswald had a gun in the theater, do you Greg? Admit it---you think he was unarmed, don't you?

Total B.S. Your nonsense is laughable. Oswald whipped out a gun and tried to shoot McDonald with it. Stop pretending otherwise. The CTers' continual attempts at twisting the truth regarding the McDonald/Oswald theater encounter are sickening. Even Oswald himself admitted that he fought with the police in the theater.... "Oswald admitted to carrying a pistol with him to this movie, stating he did this because he felt like it, giving no other reason. Oswald further admitted attempting to fight the Dallas police officers who arrested him in this movie theater when he received a cut and a bump." -- 11/22/63 FBI Report by James Hosty and James Bookhout; Warren Report, p.613 But Greg Parker thinks Oswald slugged Officer McDonald in the face and pulled out a gun merely in "self-defense", which is pure tommyrot. McDonald hadn't even drawn his gun when he approached Oswald. So where does any "self defense" argument come into play? Did Oswald think McDonald was going to strangle him with his bare hands? Self defense? Hilarious. And typical CTer desperation. Nice job, Greg. Your recent posts further illustrate just how pathetic and paper-thin all conspiracy arguments truly are. Please keep it up.

What a bunch of nitpicking there, Greg. You're actually trying to impeach McDonald by using Bentley's "he fought like a wild man" quote?? Geez. Well, AFTER McDonald approached Oswald--and AFTER Oswald had exhibited his "cool and calm" demeanor--Oswald DID fight like a wild man--even McDonald said that. So, where's the discrepancy? I see none. You're just trying desperately to find something you can hitch your CT wagon to (as per usual). And that Robertson testimony is hardly proof that Reiland actually filmed the McDonald/Oswald fight.... Mr. GRIFFIN. How close was your photographer to you? Mr. ROBERTSON. I don't have any idea. He was there someplace shooting his pictures. Yeah, that sounds really definitive there, Greg. If Reiland HAD filmed the actual fight in the theater, I'm guessing that that footage (even if it was pitch dark) would have been shown on WFAA-TV on 11/22/63. After all, WFAA televised the really crappy-looking and very dark snippet of Reiland's film showing Oswald being led out of the theater, which is virtually worthless footage because it's so dark. So why wouldn't they show another really dark portion of the film--featuring the actual fight--if Reiland had filmed it? I think they would have. Then, too, perhaps a portion of the pitch-blackness we see in the Reiland film IS the theater fight between Oswald and the police. It's impossible to tell.

Right on cue, Healy. Good job. Keep on ignoring these two test bullets. Just pretend they never existed. Okay, dude?....

And you just take the word of the person who was charged with two murders, is that it? You think, therefore, that the DPD was more likely to lie than was the person who was trying to kill members of the DPD in the Texas Theater? You ought not do that. (IMO.) You mean this one?.... "He was cool and calm up until the time that he made that jump for me." -- Officer M.N. McDonald; 11/23/63 Are you suggesting that there was something sinister going on with Ron Reiland's film? And, btw, how would Reiland's film have told us "for sure" if there was a fight in the theater even if Reiland had used the correct filter on his camera? He only filmed a brief snippet of Oswald after the police had already handcuffed him and were leading him out of the theater. Are you saying that Reiland actually filmed the fight between McDonald and Oswald? I don't think he did. Here is Reiland's film (narrated by Reiland himself): dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com/2009/12/reiland-film-november-22-1963.html

Yes, Mark, I agree with everything you said in Post #12.

Okay, Mark, fair enough.

Not at all. But it is absurd to ignore the indicators of a frame when you are dealing with a man who claimed to be framed by a police force and DA's now infamous for the number of innocent people they locked up with planted evidence, falsified statements,what is known here as "police verbals", rigged juries, terrified defense counsels and crooked judges. How did that evil DPD force get Oswald to act so guilty and to tell so many lies? Or did the DPD coerce Oswald to be part of his own frame-up? (Boy, they were good, weren't they?) And you're not going to sit there and tell me you DON'T think Oswald acted "guilty" in the movie theater, are you Greg?

And what makes you think I've done anything of the kind? Do you think I woke up one morning and out of a clear blue sky said to myself -- Even though I haven't studied one bit of evidence in the JFK case, I think I'll start up a bunch of Internet blogs saying that Oswald was guilty. ?? Is that how you think I arrived at my opinion about LHO's guilt, Mr. Knight?

It's "absurd" to follow the evidence to where it leads, Jon? Your highbrow legalistic posts are getting more "absurd" and bizarre and hard to follow by the day. And, considering the amount of evidence that exists against Mr. Oswald, this statement by Jon G. Tidd is downright hysterical.... "A certain poster here assumes, absurdly, Oswald's guilt." In other words, Jon thinks it's "absurd" to actually rely on the evidence, because, according to Jon, it's not REALLY "evidence" at all because it was never introduced into a courtroom. So, I guess we have to call it something else, or we should just ignore it altogether until it finds its way into a courtroom, which Jon knows can never happen because the defendant is dead. Wow. Thanks for that lesson in logic, Jon.

WTF? It's my "job" and "responsibility" to "monitor" Pat Speer's posts (i.e., "behavior")? Why did you decide to just make up such crap out of whole cloth, Glenn? Any particular reason? Or is it just part of your growing obsession with "all things DVP", which you now wear on your sleeve on a daily basis?

Australian SBT test ("Beyond The Magic Bullet"); October 2004.... Now we'll hear all the lame arguments about how the above test bullet didn't even come CLOSE to mimicking CE399. It's much more deformed. It bounced off the mock thigh, etc. But that test bullet is COMPLETELY INTACT after taking a course through TWO mock-up torsos that was very similar to the path purportedly taken by CE399. And Don Jeffries surely knows it. And yet we are still constantly hearing comments like this one from the anti-SBT camp.... "Please produce another bullet anywhere that caused seven wounds, including the shattering of a human wrist (one of the thickest bones in the body), and came out looking like this bullet did." -- Don Jeffries Apparently the only thing that will satisfy CTers is to dig up JFK and Governor Connally and put them back in the limousine on Elm Street and shoot them again with CE399. Even Dr. Fackler's ABSOLUTELY PRISTINE bullet doesn't faze or wrinkle the brow of any SBT critic one tiny bit. And this bullet here broke a human wrist in 1992, yet looks like an unfired missile....

I am "spreading the news", Jim. The news about Lee Harvey Oswald's obvious guilt.... http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com And, yes, Jean Davison thinks his guilt is "obvious" too.... "In my opinion, Oswald was not only guilty, he was obviously guilty, but I wouldn't tell anyone, "One can only avoid that conclusion by refusing to look at the evidence." If you don't see it, you don't see it. I don't interpret the evidence the same way you [Pat Speer] do. When you end up with a large number of people "lying" for no apparent reason, that's a red flag, imo." -- Jean Davison; December 8, 2014