If You Admit Bugliosi is a Sc--bag Lawyer, I'll quit.
RICLAND
writing posts about him.
ricland
--
Max Holland on Bugliosi:
"He is absolutely certain even when he is not necessarily right."
-- Max Holland
---
Reclaiming History -- Bugliosi's Blunders
The Rebuttals to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Book
http://jfkhit.com
bigdog
On the contrary, Bugliosi is an outstanding trial lawyer. If I was on
trial he would be one of the last people I would want to see at the
other table.
RICLAND
And you base this on what?
Chad Zimmerman
Why do you keep acting like you haven't seen his numbers before?
Chad
"RICLAND" <black...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:ELqdnSa7ktQflOPb...@comcast.com...
David Von Pein
prior to mid-March 2007 (when he joined the Google forum).
I'm quite certain he never knew of VB's involvement in the JFK murder case
prior to then. He never answered me when I asked him that in April 2007.
That silence told me a lot more than a lengthy reply would have.
Ric seems to be a member of the now-vast "I Need/Want A Conspiracy" club.
Somebody ought to do a scientific study on the phenomenon surrounding this
"I Want A Conspiracy No Matter What" mindset. That could be interesting.
The person doing such a study need not look further than the acj newsgroup
for ample examples of the phenomenon.
It's really quite a remarkable phenomenon indeed. Especially so in light
of Bugliosi's complete, comprehensive dismantling and thorough trashing of
all conspiracies that have been previously touted by so many CTers as
being "ironclad PROOF of a plot".
Naturally, these CTers must now attack Mr. Bugliosi, instead of attacking
the problem at its root source....i.e., themselves and their own
individual mindset concerning things like: "Unprovable Conspiracy Theories
That Never Existed Nor Would Have EVER Been Planned The Way I Believe They
Were Planned".
The bigger overall question that still remains unanswered after lo these
many post-11/22/63 years is --- Why is common sense tossed out the nearest
window by so many otherwise very smart people when the subject of this
assassination enters their heads?
Okan Avni
VB has become the object of much personal vilification from Ricland in
this Google Group. He has been called a liar, a scientific and
technological illiterate and now a sc-bag lawyer. However we have not
heard much in the way of any arguments. VB is obviously a man who does
not mince his words. He has a colourful way of putting things and he
has annoyed Ricland and other CTers by saying they are "addicted to
silliness". However there are two things that he clearly has the
experience and the ability to do well.
1. Assess the credibility of evidence in a criminal case.
2. Draw inferences from the credible evidence.
If there was a conspiracy to murder JFK then he would be the best
person to find the tell-tale signs of that conspiracy. In his book he
has exhaustively (I know except for the ones made last week!) analysed
all the allegations of conspiracy and found them all to be without
substance. You have to read the book to see his incredible attention
to detail. One can see why he is one of the leading prosecuting
lawyers in the US, and yet Ricland would have us believe that this man
has been hoodwinked by the conspirators or perhaps he will allege he
is part of the conspiracy itself!
Why has he written this book? For money? I can't really see a 1600
page book becoming a bestseller, and it has taken him over 20 years to
write it. Not exactly a quick buck! He has fame already, so what's in
it for him? Dare I suggest that it's because he cares about historical
truth? Let's be fair to the CTers, they have done a fabulous job of
convincing Joe Public that there was a conspiracy, Oswald was a patsy,
there was a grass knoll gunman, and the Warren Commission was a cover-
up. Polls consistently show that around 75% of the public believe in
conspiracy. The vast majority of people have not had the opportunity
to examine the evidence and listen to both sides of the argument. In
the one instance where 12 ordinary people had that opportunity (I'm
referring of course to the mock LWT trial in 1986) they came back with
a verdict of guilty on LHO. So VB is using his considerable skills to
redress the balance and to get a fair hearing for the Warren
Commission's conclusion.
It is difficult to get CTers to actually come up with a credible
alternative scenario to one put forward by the WC. Namely, Oswald and
Oswald alone fired three shots at the President. One passed through
JFK and the Governor and one hit JFK in the back of the head and
killed him. A lot of CTers seem to imply - it's sometimes difficult to
tell since they never seem to come outright and say it - that Oswald
did not fire any shots. He did not bring his rifle into the building
and moreover his rifle was not even used. So where does this lead us?
A question that never bothers CTers because as VB says once they come
up with any evidence that points away from Oswald's guilt they "give
their brains a rest". In order to believe this you must also believe
the following:
1. By an incredible coincidence Oswald went to see his wife on
Thursday evening at the house where his rifle is located and then
brought in a long package to work that day that did not contain the
rifle.
2. Oswald took it upon himself not be in the presence of anyone while
the Presidential motorcade was passing by.
3. All bullets and fragments of bullets fired from non-Oswald rifles
mysteriously disappeared. For this to happen one must assume that the
members of the Dallas PD who scoured Dealey Plaza, the Secret Service
agents who examined the limousine, and all the doctors who treated JFK
and JCB at Parkland Hospital and all the doctors who performed the
autopsy were in on the conspiracy. Incidentally you would have to
include all those who could have done these things not just those who
actually did e.g. the autopsy could have taken place in Dallas or at
Walter Reed.
4. The stretcher bullet and the two fragments found in the limousine
that are linked to Oswald's rifle were planted.
5. If you also want to include in your package a Grassy Knoll shooter
that hit the President then you must also believe, as per David
Lifton, that the conspirators arranged to steal the body and alter the
wounds so perfectly that it could fool some of the world's leading
pathologists. Alternatively you could espouse the idea propounded by
Anthony Marsh that actually all these leading pathologists (20 or
more) are wrong that the wound in the back of the head is an entry
wound.
6. If you want to believe in a Grassy Knoll shooter that missed
because you cannot stomach a "wounds alteration" scenario then you
have to accept that the conspirators got exceedingly lucky that their
Grassy Knoll shooter missed!!
If you want to believe such things then go ahead it's a free country.
Incidentally many CTers in this group set themselves up as "experts"
and contradict the findings of people with actual qualifications,
expertise and experience who worked for the WC or HSCA. When
confronted with their lack of any qualifications they will invariably
say that the experts have made some mistakes, which is true because
human beings are not infallible. Usually the mistakes are of a minor
nature and do not detract from the essential conclusions. After
pointing out such a mistake they then pretend that their own opinion
carries as much weight as the experts. Surely all this proves is that
if experts can make mistakes then people with no expertise will make
even bigger ones!
There are a smaller group of CTers who admit Oswald was part of it.
These CTers don't quite seem to know how much he was involved. They
keep it deliberately vague. Was he part of the plot but didn't do any
shooting? Did he shoot his rifle in addition to others shooting at the
President? It's not a good idea to pin it down because immediately one
has to ask "where does it lead?" Some of the above points would also
apply to these scenarios, especially if the Oswald rifle is not used
and there are multiple shooters.
The only bolthole left for CTers who have actually thought through
these possibilities is to say that Oswald did it alone on the day but
others put him up to it. At least there is no dispute with the
physical evidence and no need for armies of people to go around
gathering up the genuine evidence and planting fake evidence. VB
spends the second part of his book looking thoroughly at the evidence
that may point in this direction. He does an excellent job in my view
of analysing the Odio incident. This is also a point in his favour for
being objective and assessing carefully the credibility of a witness.
Sylvia Odio's story only came to light through the intervention of a
friend. Part of her story is corroborated by her sisters, her
conversation with her psychiatrist, and the reply of her father to her
letter. Her story has stayed consistent over the years and she has not
sought to profit from it. In addition her story is against the better
interests of her anti-Castro Cuban community because it would seem to
implicate them in JFK's murder. She was also very convincing before
the WC in her identification of Oswald. I think Posner made a mistake
in his otherwise excellent book by misrepresenting the evidence of
Odio and then trying to discredit her because she was seeing a
psychiatrist. If we are to believe Odio's story and her identification
of Oswald as the man referred to as "Leon Oswald" then where does that
lead? It is not in itself a proof of conspiracy as CTers have alleged.
It is quite conceivable that Oswald was trying to infiltrate the anti-
Castro community to gather intelligence that he could take to Castro's
people. He was after all just about to embark on a trip to Mexico City
in an attempt to get a Cuban visa. There is also a well-documented
incident where he attempted the same thing with Carlos Bringuer. He
even gave him his Marine manual to convince him about how he could use
his military knowledge to aid in the overthrow of Castro. To brag to
these anti-Castro Cubans that he was a good shot and that if they had
had the guts they should have assassinated JFK after the Bay of Pigs
was just the sort of ploy you can imagine Oswald using. Apart from the
Odio incident there is just nothing else the CTers have to offer that
stands up to scrutiny. VB demolishes every one of their pet theories.
What amazes me is how one CTer can easily see all the flaws in a rival
CT but he/she is never able to see the failings of their own! I think
the only conclusion can be that they are all wrong.
I do not expect the hard core of CTers to be convinced by VB. His
intention is not to convince them but the ordinary, moderate people
who make up the vast majority of the 75% of the public that believe in
conspiracy. I hope he has some success. It is unlikely that many will
read the book but maybe the publicity that he receives will allow
people to get exposed to some of the vast mountain of evidence that
points to Oswald's sole guilt. Also in the long term there is the
judgement of future historians. VB' s book will give them an
alternative view to the incessant stream of conspiracy literature.
For me it's the end of a long road that started in 1973 at the age of
fifteen when I read Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgement". That convinced me
of conspiracy. Unfortunately I read more conspiracy books and never
got properly exposed to the evidence on which the WC based their
conclusions. The CTers seemed to have it all pat. The Oswald rifle was
unusable. Almost everyone ran up the Grassy Knoll. There was a puff of
smoke on the GK. A photo showed a man standing behind the fence.
Oswald could not have fired the shots in the time. He was a lousy
shot. The paraffin test proved Oswald's innocence. There were Oswald
impostors going around to frame him. And so it went on and on. Finally
I read the WC report in the late eighties and realised that all these
things that CTers had brought up had been investigated, and debunked
already. I'd made the same mistake as all those lawyers in VB's book
who had failed to read the Warren Report! I have resolved that this is
the last book I'll read on the assassination. Sure it's good to be
sceptical and examine the evidence for yourself, but at some point
you've got to reach the end of the road. I think Robert Oswald put it
well when he said "you take a second look, and the third and the
fortieth, and the fiftieth - hey enough's enough. It's there. Put it
to rest." I'm going to take his advice.
For the dedicated CTer who believes he has access to a higher truth I
guess even Robert Oswald is part of the conspiracy to frame his kid
brother. VB has a great story at the end of the book. The CTers are in
heaven lined up before God and they want to know the truth. "Who
Killed Kennedy?" they ask the Almighty. God replies "Listen carefully
I shall say this only once. Oswald did it and he did it alone" The
CTers look wide-eyed at each other and one says, "Boy, this is bigger
than we thought!"
Okan
Anthony Marsh
> On Jun 23, 11:55 pm, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> If you lone nutters admit Bugliosi is a sc--bag lawyer, I'll quit
>> writing posts about him.
>>
>> ricland
>> --
>>
>> Max Holland on Bugliosi:
>>
>> "He is absolutely certain even when he is not necessarily right."
>> -- Max Holland
>> ---
>> Reclaiming History -- Bugliosi's Blunders
>> The Rebuttals to Bugliosi's JFK Assassination Bookhttp://jfkhit.com
>
> VB has become the object of much personal vilification from Ricland in
> this Google Group. He has been called a liar, a scientific and
> technological illiterate and now a sc-bag lawyer. However we have not
> heard much in the way of any arguments. VB is obviously a man who does
> not mince his words. He has a colourful way of putting things and he
> has annoyed Ricland and other CTers by saying they are "addicted to
> silliness". However there are two things that he clearly has the
> experience and the ability to do well.
>
> 1. Assess the credibility of evidence in a criminal case.
> 2. Draw inferences from the credible evidence.
>
> If there was a conspiracy to murder JFK then he would be the best
> person to find the tell-tale signs of that conspiracy. In his book he
Fallacious argument. He was paid to NOT find a conspiracy.
> has exhaustively (I know except for the ones made last week!) analysed
> all the allegations of conspiracy and found them all to be without
He set up strawman arguments. Sure, he proved that UFOs were not
involved, as if disproving the kookiest arguments destroys all arguments.
> substance. You have to read the book to see his incredible attention
> to detail. One can see why he is one of the leading prosecuting
> lawyers in the US, and yet Ricland would have us believe that this man
And who said that he IS still one of the leading prosecuting lawyers?
With a case like Manson, someone would have to be an idiot to lose that
case. That would be like losing the OJ Simpson case, a slam dunk.
> has been hoodwinked by the conspirators or perhaps he will allege he
> is part of the conspiracy itself!
>
You fail to separate the cover-up from the conspiracy itself.
> Why has he written this book? For money? I can't really see a 1600
> page book becoming a bestseller, and it has taken him over 20 years to
It doesn't have to be a bestseller. He's made his 5.5 million dollars.
His stated reason for writing the book is vanity, so that it will be a
book for the ages.
> write it. Not exactly a quick buck! He has fame already, so what's in
> it for him? Dare I suggest that it's because he cares about historical
> truth? Let's be fair to the CTers, they have done a fabulous job of
Wrong.
> convincing Joe Public that there was a conspiracy, Oswald was a patsy,
> there was a grass knoll gunman, and the Warren Commission was a cover-
> up. Polls consistently show that around 75% of the public believe in
> conspiracy. The vast majority of people have not had the opportunity
> to examine the evidence and listen to both sides of the argument. In
Wrong.
> the one instance where 12 ordinary people had that opportunity (I'm
> referring of course to the mock LWT trial in 1986) they came back with
> a verdict of guilty on LHO. So VB is using his considerable skills to
Sure, but also that there was also a conspiracy. I don't know how to
break this to you, but it is theoretically possible that Oswald was
guilty AND it was a conspiracy.
> redress the balance and to get a fair hearing for the Warren
> Commission's conclusion.
>
> It is difficult to get CTers to actually come up with a credible
> alternative scenario to one put forward by the WC. Namely, Oswald and
> Oswald alone fired three shots at the President. One passed through
> JFK and the Governor and one hit JFK in the back of the head and
The SBT is dead. Time for you to come up with an alternative.
> killed him. A lot of CTers seem to imply - it's sometimes difficult to
> tell since they never seem to come outright and say it - that Oswald
> did not fire any shots. He did not bring his rifle into the building
This one CTer leaves open the possibility that Oswald was involved. Many
CTers believe Oswald was one of the shooters.
> and moreover his rifle was not even used. So where does this lead us?
Maybe only one theorist claims that his rifle was not used. The guy who
says that all the shots came from the front.
> A question that never bothers CTers because as VB says once they come
> up with any evidence that points away from Oswald's guilt they "give
> their brains a rest". In order to believe this you must also believe
> the following:
>
> 1. By an incredible coincidence Oswald went to see his wife on
> Thursday evening at the house where his rifle is located and then
> brought in a long package to work that day that did not contain the
> rifle.
> 2. Oswald took it upon himself not be in the presence of anyone while
> the Presidential motorcade was passing by.
Several other people watched the motorcade alone. Does that make them
assassins?
> 3. All bullets and fragments of bullets fired from non-Oswald rifles
> mysteriously disappeared. For this to happen one must assume that the
> members of the Dallas PD who scoured Dealey Plaza, the Secret Service
What did the man pick up from the grass and put in his pocket?
> agents who examined the limousine, and all the doctors who treated JFK
> and JCB at Parkland Hospital and all the doctors who performed the
> autopsy were in on the conspiracy. Incidentally you would have to
> include all those who could have done these things not just those who
> actually did e.g. the autopsy could have taken place in Dallas or at
> Walter Reed.
If the autopsy had been done in Dallas we might not be here discussing this.
> 4. The stretcher bullet and the two fragments found in the limousine
> that are linked to Oswald's rifle were planted.
There is no reason to suggest planting the two large fragments. They
account for the damage to the limo.
> 5. If you also want to include in your package a Grassy Knoll shooter
> that hit the President then you must also believe, as per David
> Lifton, that the conspirators arranged to steal the body and alter the
> wounds so perfectly that it could fool some of the world's leading
> pathologists. Alternatively you could espouse the idea propounded by
> Anthony Marsh that actually all these leading pathologists (20 or
> more) are wrong that the wound in the back of the head is an entry
> wound.
No, the actual wounds, not the ones in your imagination, indicate a shot
from the grassy knoll.
> 6. If you want to believe in a Grassy Knoll shooter that missed
> because you cannot stomach a "wounds alteration" scenario then you
> have to accept that the conspirators got exceedingly lucky that their
> Grassy Knoll shooter missed!!
>
There is no need for wound alteration.
> If you want to believe such things then go ahead it's a free country.
> Incidentally many CTers in this group set themselves up as "experts"
> and contradict the findings of people with actual qualifications,
> expertise and experience who worked for the WC or HSCA. When
> confronted with their lack of any qualifications they will invariably
> say that the experts have made some mistakes, which is true because
> human beings are not infallible. Usually the mistakes are of a minor
> nature and do not detract from the essential conclusions. After
> pointing out such a mistake they then pretend that their own opinion
> carries as much weight as the experts. Surely all this proves is that
> if experts can make mistakes then people with no expertise will make
> even bigger ones!
>
Sure, minor such as the head wound being moved up 4 inches. Yeah, that's
minor all right!
> There are a smaller group of CTers who admit Oswald was part of it.
> These CTers don't quite seem to know how much he was involved. They
> keep it deliberately vague. Was he part of the plot but didn't do any
Maybe that's because you guys have covered up so much of the evidence.
> shooting? Did he shoot his rifle in addition to others shooting at the
> President? It's not a good idea to pin it down because immediately one
> has to ask "where does it lead?" Some of the above points would also
> apply to these scenarios, especially if the Oswald rifle is not used
> and there are multiple shooters.
>
> The only bolthole left for CTers who have actually thought through
> these possibilities is to say that Oswald did it alone on the day but
> others put him up to it. At least there is no dispute with the
Most of the WC defenders believe that Oswald did it alone, but was put
up to it by Castro.
How do arrive at a distinction between the hard core of CTers and the
vast majority of the public who believe it was a conspiracy? You fail to
understand that the hardcore of CTers are much more familiar with the
evidence in this case than the vast majority of the public.
> read the book but maybe the publicity that he receives will allow
> people to get exposed to some of the vast mountain of evidence that
> points to Oswald's sole guilt. Also in the long term there is the
> judgement of future historians. VB' s book will give them an
> alternative view to the incessant stream of conspiracy literature.
>
> For me it's the end of a long road that started in 1973 at the age of
> fifteen when I read Mark Lane's "Rush to Judgement". That convinced me
"Rush to Judgment." No extra "e." You can't even get the title right.
> of conspiracy. Unfortunately I read more conspiracy books and never
> got properly exposed to the evidence on which the WC based their
> conclusions. The CTers seemed to have it all pat. The Oswald rifle was
> unusable. Almost everyone ran up the Grassy Knoll. There was a puff of
> smoke on the GK. A photo showed a man standing behind the fence.
> Oswald could not have fired the shots in the time. He was a lousy
> shot. The paraffin test proved Oswald's innocence. There were Oswald
> impostors going around to frame him. And so it went on and on. Finally
> I read the WC report in the late eighties and realised that all these
> things that CTers had brought up had been investigated, and debunked
> already. I'd made the same mistake as all those lawyers in VB's book
> who had failed to read the Warren Report! I have resolved that this is
> the last book I'll read on the assassination. Sure it's good to be
> sceptical and examine the evidence for yourself, but at some point
> you've got to reach the end of the road. I think Robert Oswald put it
> well when he said "you take a second look, and the third and the
> fortieth, and the fiftieth - hey enough's enough. It's there. Put it
> to rest." I'm going to take his advice.
>
> For the dedicated CTer who believes he has access to a higher truth I
> guess even Robert Oswald is part of the conspiracy to frame his kid
> brother. VB has a great story at the end of the book. The CTers are in
Robert is simply biased and echoing the government line.
> heaven lined up before God and they want to know the truth. "Who
> Killed Kennedy?" they ask the Almighty. God replies "Listen carefully
> I shall say this only once. Oswald did it and he did it alone" The
> CTers look wide-eyed at each other and one says, "Boy, this is bigger
> than we thought!"
> Okan
>
>
So, John McAdams goes to Heaven and asks The Almighty who killed
Kennedy. God replies "The CIA did it." And McAdams mumbles under his
breath, "Oh no, not another kook!"
Gerry Simone (O)
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182750105....@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Gerry Simone (O)
"Okan Avni" <o...@stpaulsschool.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1182854834.3...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Okan Avni
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm familiar with your usual putdown "strawman argument". It's
reassuring that you use it again for Bugliosi's vast book.
It's rather tiresome that no Cter can ever come up with any credible
scenario or any credible evidence.
I'll look at this Google Group one more time in a few days and see if
you can tell me the following:
1. What do you think actually happened i.e. what Oswald's role is,
what he did on the day, who was behind it all?
2. What credible evidence supports your view.
Cheers
Okan
Anthony Marsh
I'm rather familiar with your tiresome usual putdown hollow challenge that
no CTer can ever come up with any credible scenario or credible evidence.
Please Stay Asleep. Keep your head in the sand.
It is not a strawman argument to simply point out that you are against
looking for new evidence and refuse to consider anything I say. You are a
dedicated WC defender.
> I'll look at this Google Group one more time in a few days and see if
> you can tell me the following:
>
Google Group? You don't even know where the Hell you are.
Okan Avni
As I thought - no scenario, no evidence. As VB says it's time to fold
up your tents!
Goodbye
Okan