Vincent Bugliosi's Tour Appearances And Interviews (Plus Some Book Reviews)

On Jun 28, 7:44 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> VINCENT BUGLIOSI INTERVIEWS, AUDIO/VIDEO CLIPS, AND BOOK REVIEWS:
>
> =======================================================
>

my goodness, where's my review? :)

This isn't PR David, panic comes top mind...

eca...@tx.rr.com

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 2:21:39 AM6/29/07

to

> http://wrko.podzinger.com/viewMedia.jsp?feed=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.wrko....

>
> --------------------
>
> Video interview with Vince Bugliosi (CrimeLibrary.com)(3 segments)(15
> minutes total):
>

> http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/assassins/jfk/bugliosi_v...

>
> --------------------
>
> Short TV interview with VB (FOX Television)(May 24, 2007):
>

> http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/InsideFox/Detail?contentId=329973...

>
> --------------------
>
> Audio interview with VB (TheBookcast.com)(May 25, 2007):
>
> http://www.thebookcast.com/bc/bc052507.mp3
>
> --------------------
>
> Vince Bugliosi on "Hardball With Chris Matthews" (May 29, 2007)(2
> segments):
>

> http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm??f=00&g=c313fbd8-2d8b-40f1-...
>
> http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm??f=00&g=cce97f68-b243-4aae-...

>
> --------------------
>
> VB on KFAN-Radio (Minneapolis)(May 29, 2007)(27 minutes):
>

> http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.co...

>
> --------------------
>
> VB radio interview on WJR (Detroit)(May 30, 2007):
>
> http://www.wjr.com/Article.asp?id=414739&spid=6521
>
> --------------------
>
> Condensed TV interview with Vince on MSNBC (May 2007)(6.5 minutes):
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=sh0hbU6kfD4
>
> --------------------
>
> Radio interview; WBZ in Boston:
>
> http://podcast.wbz.com/wbz/500290.mp3
>
> --------------------
>
> Vince on Dallas' KLIF-Radio (3 segments):
>
> http://cumuluspodcasting.com/media/KLIF/KLIF230/JFK%20INT%20PT1.MP3
>
> http://cumuluspodcasting.com/media/KLIF/KLIF230/JFK%20INT%20PT2.MP3
>
> http://cumuluspodcasting.com/media/KLIF/KLIF230/JFK%20INT%20PT3.MP3
>
> --------------------
>
> Vince on "Radio Parallax" (May 31, 2007)(2 segments):
>
> http://radioparallax.com/File/053107B.mp3
>
> http://radioparallax.com/File/053107C.mp3
>
> --------------------
>
> June 11, 2007, radio interview with Bugliosi (WIND-AM; Chicago)(35
> minutes):
>

> http://560wind.townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=...

>
> --------------------
>
> VB on Comedy Central (June 21, 2007)(5.5 minutes):
>
> http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/index.jhtml?ml_video=89003
>
> --------------------
>
> 3-part Vince Bugliosi interview (KFOX Radio):
>

> http://web.mac.com/fredforyourhead/iWeb/Fredforyourhead/Podcasts/E187...
>
> http://web.mac.com/fredforyourhead/iWeb/Fredforyourhead/Podcasts/99DF...
>
> http://web.mac.com/fredforyourhead/iWeb/Fredforyourhead/Podcasts/508B...

>
> --------------------
>
> Here are a couple of links to a very interesting (and lengthy) two-
> part radio interview with Vincent T. Bugliosi on WOR-Radio (June 22,
> 2007):
>
> http://podcast.wor710.com/wor/535269.mp3
>
> http://podcast.wor710.com/wor/535272.mp3
>
> --------------------
>
> "RECLAIMING HISTORY" BOOK REVIEWS:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/3a8754d36b13d2d8
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4d0e813277d5baa0
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/10df225078b3a032
>
> http://www.crimerant.com/?p=801
>

> http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070516/NEWS...
>
> http://www.guidelive.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/052207glbuglio...
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/24/AR200...
>
> http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2007/05/28/the_jfk_files/
>
> =======================================================

Thanks again David..
How do you round up all this stuff?
Anyway, it's appreciated.
Ed
0121Jun2907

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Jun 29, 2007, 2:31:55 AM6/29/07

to

When is Mr. know it all gonna debate?

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 1, 2007, 6:36:40 PM7/1/07

to

Radio interview with author Vince B. (KLSX; 97.1; Los Angeles)(June
27, 2007):

http://podcast.971freefm.com/klsx1/543515.mp3

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 1, 2007, 7:30:10 PM7/1/07

to

7-minute video interview with Vince Bugliosi (May 22, 2007)(via
boston.com / The Boston Globe):

http://www.boston.com/partners/worldnow/necn.html?catID=83462&clipid=1455725

Message has been deleted

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 3, 2007, 2:25:05 PM7/3/07

to

A 25-minute interview segment with Vince Bugliosi from June 4th, 2007
(via WBZ-Radio in Boston):

http://podcast.wbz.com/wbz/506744.MP3

The above-linked radio interview is a real howl in some ways, too. And
CTers will be able to thrash Vince Bugliosi (aka: The Devil Come To
Life, per many CT-Kooks), because Vince is a real asshole during a
portion of that program, hosted by a fill-in interviewer at the Boston
station named Dan Rea.

And some CTers have, indeed, strung VB up by the nearest Internet
tree, right here......

http://www.radio-info.com/smf/index.php/topic,73195.msg530262.html#msg530262

Vince jumped Dan's case for asking a question that was, per VB,
"incredibly and unbelievably insignificant". (LOL time.)

I love VB's candor and "Get On With It" type of manner in these book-
tour interviews, which, btw, are almost all identical, word-for-word,
except when the host takes phone calls from assorted conspiracy
kooks....then the show really gets good, because Vince is then forced
outside his pre-arranged text/spiel.

Don't get me wrong....the VB "LHO Did It Alone" spiel is quite good,
solid, and based on the evidence....even the 59th time I heard it;
it's great. But the interviews really get good when a kook calls to
say something like this (which occurred during VB's interview on
Seattle's KIRO-Radio on July 1, 2007):

"Your book is superficial....the fatal shot came from the front;
EVERYTHING points to this; policemen were sprayed with blood from the
frontal shot." (Paraphrased comments from a rude and clueless caller.)

Vince laughed (naturally), and said: "Superficial?!! I worked 20 years
on it! It's almost 2,800 pages. I guess I should have written another
thousand pages. That caller {named Dick} is obviously allergic to the
truth. I get kinda ticked off when someone calls my book
'superficial'. That's nonsense."*

* = Those are paraphrased VB quotes via DVP's memory from listening to
the program, which hasn't shown up in a podcast version as yet,
otherwise I'd be linking to it here.

The next two CTers who called to debate Vince on KIRO were even worse.
One arrogant lady wanted Vince to explain why Jackie Kennedy used the
word "they" a couple of times (both DURING the shooting and afterward,
as if she could POSSIBLY have known that a conspiracy was afoot at
that time), when Jackie said "What are they doing to you?" during the
shooting itself and (later) "I want them to see what they have done".

And that same lady caller thought that it was odd that the bubbletop
was taken off the car for the Dallas motorcade (even though the
weather was perfectly clear when the parade began).

Given questions like those, it's no wonder that Vince loses his cool
at times on these radio call-in programs.

Vince never wants to waste any precious minutes of a fairly-short
interview on minor, trivial stuff; he wants to hit on all the big-
ticket items re. the assassination and Oswald. So when somebody asks
about the Junior Jarman/Lee Oswald talk on the morning of 11/22 on the
1st Floor of the TSBD or when someone wants to know why J.D. Tippit
was on 10th St. at 1:15....well, VB tries to re-direct the
conversation to more important matters....and sometimes with very
funny results, because Vince gets irked very easily and quickly by
conspiracy-loving people.

BTW, in the second half of the hour-long interview linked above, Vince
evidently apologized for jumping all over the host (Dan). But, for
some reason, only the first segment of the program was given a podcast
link by WBZ; so the second part is unavailable. (I can't find it
anyway.)

If the hilarious KIRO interview ever shows up via an archived weblink,
I'll post it in this thread. It could serve nicely as a small
microcosm of what some CTers think is really important when they have
a very rare opportunity to confront Vincent T. Bugliosi (the author of
the most-comprehensive JFK book ever penned) with HARD-HITTING
questions with respect to the John F. Kennedy murder case.

WhiskyJoe

unread,

Jul 4, 2007, 3:59:18 AM7/4/07

to

I think the best part of Bugliosi recent talks, is his relating what
happened in the 1986 mock trial in England, where Dr. Wecht used an
obviously false diagram to show the Single Bullet Theory was
impossible because the bullet would have had to zigzag in the air.

Using a bogus diagram like that can work very well if there is no
rebuttal. Like in a book. Or at a lecture, where one has control of
the only projector. Or in a movie, as was done five years later in
"JFK". But in a courtroom setting? Against Vincent Bugliosi when he
has had six months to prepare?

What was Wecht thinking? "Well, it's always worked in the past for me.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Naturally Bugliosi is going to use
photographs to show that the diagram with big zigzags is bogus.

And then, when asked where Wecht had gotten this diagram, this diagram
he had used for years to disprove the Single Bullet Theory, Wecht said
he couldn't remember. He couldn't remember?

What happened? Did Dr. Wecht go to Frisco and wake up with a new
tattoo and the diagram? Was the tattoo itself the master used to make
the diagram? How could one use a diagram for years to disprove the
Single Bullet Theory, presented the same diagram to the HSCA, but not
know where the diagram came from? It's ludicrous.

******************************

On the subject of Anti-SBT diagrams, here are a couple of good ones:

; diagram from the book "High Treason":
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm

; diagram from the movie "JFK",
; the larger diagram on the right,
; the "stronger part of the screen":
http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100sbt.html

; By the way, the purpose of the
; diagram on the left, is to allow
; defenders to say that Stone made
; use of a diagram showing Connally
; inboard of JFK. But since this
; diagram is smaller and to the left,
; the weaker side of the screen,
; it is designed to not be noticed
; by the casual viewer.

Diagrams like these, like the one in the movie "JFK", are a master of
Twentieth Century propaganda. I believe these diagrams will go down in
history as one of the top ten propaganda posters of all time.

I suspect these diagrams were not the work of some evil genius, but
the end result of Darwinian evolution. By trial and error, lectures
learned which diagrams worked best.

The reasons why these diagrams work best are:

A. The Large Margin the Bullet misses Connally by

The large margin it shows a bullet would miss Connally by, not just
miss Connally's wound location, the right arm pit, but miss Connally
altogether. There are two advantages to this.

A1. Large Margin Explains Why Connally Should Not be Wounded at All by
the Bullet that Wounded JFK

To a casual viewer, it does not bring up the problem "Well, why didn't
the bullet that wounded JFK go on to wound Connally somewhere?" Of
course, even a bogus drawing like this does not solved this problem.
Even if this diagram was true, the bullet should continue on to wound
the driver. Or hit somewhere in the limousine, although I guess they
could say the Secret Service covered this up.

A2. Large Margin uses the "Big Lie" Technique

The principle reason though, I think, is it uses a "Big Lie" technique
of telling a lie. As children, we learn to how to lie. We learn that
small lies have the best chance of succeeding. When lying, we almost
instinctively use small lies.

And we also learn how to spot lies. We almost instinctively get
suspicious of information that is just good enough.

A "Small Lie" version of the Anti SBT technique would show a diagram
where the path of the bullet would miss Connally's wound location by,
maybe, four inches. This would match photographs better and would not
be so easily proved to be a lie. But it would also trigger instinctive
suspicion. The subconscious mind would figure out that if one was
going lie and make a case against the SBT, the "Small Lie" is the
obvious strategy. Just tweak the separation of JFK and Connally a
little bit, just tweak the angle the bullet comes in and one can have
the bullet miss the wound location by a few inches.

But when one sees a "Big Lie" diagram, instinctively we think it must
be true. Who would make an large lie that is so easily proved to be a
lie? A clever person, that's who.

Using the "Big Lie" technique is rather tricky. One has to be careful
on when to use. And so, in real life, we don't run into very often.
And when we do encounter the rare well done "Big Lie", it can be very
persuasive.

B. Angled bullet

"Big Lie" Anti-SBT diagrams typically show the bullet coming in at a
large angle from the rear, like 25 to 40 degrees. The real angle was
10 degrees. The large angle moves the bullet many inches to the left,
missing Connally completely. This simple technique "moves" the bullet
to the left more than any other technique.

C. Connally Directly in Front of Kennedy

The most convincing Anti-SBT diagrams always show Connally directly in
front of Kennedy, when in fact, Connally was six inches further to the
left, further inboard, than Kennedy. This is easily seen in many
pictures of the two men sitting in the limousine.

Since this is so, why not have Connally offset a bit, by a couple of
inches? That way, many of the pictures can be explained away, since
from most pictures it's not possible to tell how much farther Connally
is inboard.

I don't know. I suspect the answer is psychological. If one shows
Connally more inboard of Kennedy, but not enough to allow a straight
line bullet to hit Kennedy and Connally at there wound locations, I
think this may trigger a suspicious response in the subconscious
brain. If any offset is shown, the mind will instinctively wonder if
the artist was not being honest and did not put Connally far enough
inboard for the SBT to work.

To prevent this subconscious reaction from occurring, I believe it is
necessary to show Kennedy and Connally directly in line, so that the
possibility that Connally could be offset enough to allow the SBT to
work, does not even enter the subconscious mind.

******************************

Certainly, a history of the Anti SBT diagrams would be a fascinating
study, I think. But, of course, those who know the most about the
subject, the various trials and errors, the people who made and used
these diagrams, would not cooperate with this study. But a set of Anti-
SBT diagrams that have been used and how they evolved over time would
be interesting.

WhiskyJoe

unread,

Jul 4, 2007, 4:03:55 AM7/4/07

to

David

These are excellent links to Bugliosi interviews.

Question:

Do you know of a link that shows a picture of the diagram that Dr.
Wecht used with the HSCA and the 1986 mock trial?

Question:

Do you know of any link that discusses the evolution of Anti-SBT
diagrams? How they may have evolved from the "Small Lie" diagrams (SBT
being off by 4 inches) into the more convincing, but more easily
proved false, "Big Lie" diagrams (SBT being off by 18+ inches, enough
to miss Connally totally)?

lazu...@webtv.net

unread,

Jul 4, 2007, 5:25:00 AM7/4/07

to

Again, when is Mr. Know It All Gonna Debate ...we know it will never
happen in an environment he can't control...doesn't say much for him,
his book and the lone nut position does it?

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 4, 2007, 3:48:55 PM7/4/07

to

>>> "Question: Do you know of a link that shows a picture of the diagram that Dr. Wecht used with the HSCA and the 1986 mock trial?" <<<

I've searched high & low for such a link, and I've never found it.
It's not in any book I currently have either.

But it's certainly a crazily-skewed graph that has the R-to-L angle
wildly off as well.

>>> "Question: Do you know of any link that discusses the evolution of Anti-SBT diagrams?" <<<

I wouldn't have the slightest idea. Maybe we could ask Mr. Groden or
Mr. Marrs. ;)

David Von Pein

unread,

Jul 6, 2007, 1:56:45 AM7/6/07

to

VINCE BUGLIOSI
VS.
DR. CYRIL WECHT:

=============

Radio Debate;

Date: June 14th, 2007;

Via: WPTT-Radio (Pittsburgh, PA.)......

=============

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/260403d21ac1e084