Why is Bugliosi a Great Lawyer?
RICLAND
Harvey Oswald" I just didn't see it. In fact, I thought his performance
was one of the worst schlock lawyer acts I've ever seen.
His cross-examination of forensics expert Dr. Cyril Wecht was terrible.
Rather than address the science he resorted to weasel lawyer tactics
like, "You mean all the doctors at Parkland Hospital were wrong, and
you're right, Dr. Wecht?"
That's not how a skilled lawyer discredits an expert's testimony. That's
how my father used to harass me every time I said something he disagreed
with.
And then there's Bugliosi's summation. The operative word was "nuts."
Oswald killed Kennedy and Tippit because he was bat shit crazy as ...
well, as Charlie Manson, or so it seemed Bugliosi wanted the jury to
believe.
But isn't that circular reasoning? Doesn't that mean Bugliosi wouldn't
have a leg to stand on had Oswald been in the witness box handling
himself in that articulate, confidant way he did in public?
And what about the fact that no one who knew Oswald ever hinted he was
bat shit crazy? Wouldn't that make Bugliosi's "nuts" summation worthless?
Finally, can anyone tell us about one important case Bugliosi won? As
far as I can tell, there's only one, the Charlie Manson Case. But wasn't
the Manson case all but impossible to lose? Isn't it the kind of case
even the character Joe Pesci portrays in "My Cousin Vinny" could have
won standing on his head?
And we know that after the Manson case, Bugliosi cherry-picked all his
other cases because by then he had become a hot-shot celebrity lawyer
who could tell his bosses to kiss his ass.
That's when Mr. Hot Shot Celebrity Lawyer begin padding his resume with
easy wins the way a pro-boxer with a glass chin only fights people who
punch like his sister.
How many of Bugliosi's other 128 felony wins were shoplifters and DWIs
who copped a plea rather than face Mr. Hot Shot Celebrity Lawyer with a
court-appointed lawyer who was peeing in his pants at the mere mention
of Buglisosi?
Mind you, I'm not trying to be funny, all I'm saying is that if Bugliosi
is so great there should be a list of great cases he won that somebody
can tell us about.
That makes sense, doesn't it?
ricland
--
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/247ybb
aeffects
of course it makes sense -- just as much sense as to why David Von
Pein has been running up the Bugliosi flag here for the past 6 months.
Call it, taking Conspiracy Theorists temperature. Bugliosi knows his
forthcoming issue will be a really tough sell (if not a impossible
sell) in certain quarters. He's looking for CT talking points he can
fit-in/rehearse prior to the book *tour* talk-show circuit....
I can visualize the goodies PR package Bugliosi's publisher AND Agent
will be sending out to Talk Show Cable/Over-the-Air Programming
Producers (and their booking agents) So slick, snot will run off it
like water... for the small segment of interested folks, it's gonna be
a show alright -- and ole David Von Pein is here testing the water...
We'll be seeing *huge* not to mention verbose threads.... As if anyone
will read them... Vin will recieve reports, "...we Lone Nutter's got
you covered on the internet, Mr. Bugliosi, will you autograph my copy
now, Sir? Dr. John's will reflect the rubber-stamp brigade, well! No
action-competition there.
> ricland
>
> --
> Who Shot JFK?http://tinyurl.com/247ybb
David Von Pein
Of course, in reality, Ricland is full of kookshit.l (As per the
norm.)
Mr. Ric, for some reason, has taken VB's "performance"* in a couple of
"ON TRIAL" video clips and has now suddenly envisioned Mr. Bugliosi as
the worst "schlock" lawyer since Mark Lane...er...uh...sorry, that
just slipped out there.
Ricland's anti-VB abuse is totally uncalled for and just flat-out
stupid.
Vince B. is/was a highly-respected lawyer, with peer review like
practically no other in his profession.
So, a CT-Kook can attempt to smear Vince's 105-1 LA DA court trial
record if he wants to. But Ric is doing nothing but playing the part
of TOTAL FOOL in the eyes of anyone here who knows what Vince Bugliosi
is all about.
* = Footnote re "performance" --- I don't deny that VB's role in "On
Trial: LHO" was, in part, just that, a "performance". He was playing
the part of a no-nonsense prosecutor (himself!), trying his best to
put away a double-murderer in front of a jury...a jury that needs to
be SPOON-FED, which VB always does...at EVERY trial...every one.
>>> "David Von Pein has been running up the Bugliosi flag here for the past 6 months." <<<
You can't count either I see. It's been a lot longer than just six
months, Mr. CT-Goof. My Vincent-endorsing check stubs go back to
2003. ;)
>>> "Call it, taking Conspiracy Theorists temperature." <<<
As if Vince Bugliosi gives a rat's ass what kooks in this asylum think
about the JFK case. (And as if, if he DID give a damn about what you
kooks think, he couldn't get a computer and CHECK FOR HIMSELF what is
going on in here. Why would he need outside "spies" for something like
that? In such a situation, he'd much rather see for himself what was
being said, instead of having some spy give him second-hand reports.)
<large-sized belly-laugh>
>>> "Bugliosi knows his forthcoming issue..." <<<
I love that "issue" thing that Healy's got going on with regard to
VB's "book". An "issue", it is. Yeah...that sounds nice. :)
>>> "...Will be a really tough sell (if not a impossible sell) in certain quarters." <<<
But, per your quirky insight into this, VB will ATTEMPT TO DO THE
IMPOSSIBLE and sell his "issue" to you kooks anyway. Right?
<chuckle>
>>> "He's looking for CT talking points he can fit-in/rehearse prior to the book *tour* talk-show circuit." <<<
And Walt's kooky theory about Brennan is just made to order, right?
This made-up dreck is getting better with each passing Healy-invented
keystroke....
Next?....
>>> "I can visualize the goodies PR package Bugliosi's publisher AND Agent will be sending out to Talk Show Cable/Over-the-Air Programming Producers (and their booking agents). So slick, snot will run off it like water...for the small segment of interested folks, it's gonna be a show alright -- and ole David Von Pein is here testing the water." <<<
<additional chuckles ensue>
The "snot" thing was a really nice touch, Davey.
<rolleyes>
>>> "We'll be seeing *huge*, not to mention verbose, threads." <<<
The "verbose" thing was nice too, DH. I had to add the proper
punctuation, of course (and as usual).
>>> "As if anyone will read them..." <<<
Your nose is stuck to my window like a Garfield suction-cup toy. Has
been for months, if not years. So you'll certainly read the
"verbosity", that's for sure.
>>> "Vin will recieve reports..." <<<
Yep. I send 3 or 4 daily. Here's my latest.....
"Hey, Vince. This is Daily Report 23-B. Walt is still on his "Brennan
Really Saw A West-End Killer" kick here at the outhouse (you know,
that McAdams forum nobody gives a shit about). Yeah, so you'd better
revise Chapter 13. You know, the chapter about "The Zanies Having
Their Say". Yeah, that's the one. Check. .... And Healy said something
today about...wait, Vince...I've got it here somewhere...gee, I
THOUGHT Healy said something of semi-substance in a kooky way today,
but I can't seem to find it in my notes...guess I was wrong...he
must've just been spouting his normal say-nothing
drivel...sorry...false alarm. Anyway, I'll check back in at 2300 hours
with another Kook Report. 10-4. Wilco. And out."
NEXT UP ON THE KOOK CHANNEL --- HEALY DOES CARD TRICKS AND BAKES A
BUNDT CAKE!!
aeffects
LMAO, does the above mean I hit the nail on the head, David?
RICLAND
>>>> "Of course it makes sense..." <<<
>
> Of course, in reality, Ricland is full of kookshit.l (As per the
> norm.)
>
> Mr. Ric, for some reason, has taken VB's "performance"* in a couple of
> "ON TRIAL" video clips and has now suddenly envisioned Mr. Bugliosi as
> the worst "schlock" lawyer since Mark Lane...er...uh...sorry, that
> just slipped out there.
>
> Ricland's anti-VB abuse is totally uncalled for and just flat-out
> stupid.
>
> Vince B. is/was a highly-respected lawyer, with peer review like
> practically no other in his profession.
[...]
Well, good.
Tell us how he rates on peer review. Tell us something. I asked why you
think he's a great lawyer. You respond by attacking me for asking the
question.
I pointed out that the man's record is padded, that his 120 felony wins
are mostly plea deals made for indigent felons with crummy
court-appointed lawyers.
You know, David, prosecutors are not considered the creme of the crop in
the lawyer business. Most of them spend 90% of their times cutting deals
with indigent pond scum.
The good ones get snapped up as judges or go into private practice.
But the bottom line here, is if you're going to keep sticking this guy
in our face, at least you can tell us why you think he's so great.
Tell us about the great cases he's won.
Tell us something, dude.
David Von Pein
It's kinda hard to tell with you though, of course, since you never
post anything of any substance about....anything. You just rally
'round Holmes and some kook named Walt recently, re. his latest hunk
of unsupportable nonsense.
But, oh well. I guess I can't berate a CTer about their residing in
another CTer's ass, though....since I have my whole body up VB's anal
region (except my Nike's, of course). ;)
That'd be a pot/kettle thing just waiting to be hurled my way. Right?
Right.
RICLAND
>
> of course it makes sense -- just as much sense as to why David Von
> Pein has been running up the Bugliosi flag here for the past 6 months.
> Call it, taking Conspiracy Theorists temperature. Bugliosi knows his
> forthcoming issue will be a really tough sell (if not a impossible
> sell) in certain quarters. He's looking for CT talking points he can
> fit-in/rehearse prior to the book *tour* talk-show circuit....
>
> I can visualize the goodies PR package Bugliosi's publisher AND Agent
> will be sending out to Talk Show Cable/Over-the-Air Programming
> Producers (and their booking agents) So slick, snot will run off it
> like water... for the small segment of interested folks, it's gonna be
> a show alright -- and ole David Von Pein is here testing the water...
>
> We'll be seeing *huge* not to mention verbose threads.... As if anyone
> will read them... Vin will recieve reports, "...we Lone Nutter's got
> you covered on the internet, Mr. Bugliosi, will you autograph my copy
> now, Sir? Dr. John's will reflect the rubber-stamp brigade, well! No
The bottom line is anybody who at this late date writes a book defending
the WC is out of touch. it's like someone writing a book defending
Nixon, the Vietnam War, Segregation.
A person who writes any of these books is a person frozen in time. He's
a person defending a status quo that no longer exists.
And when you listen to Bugliosi's language you can hear what a antique
he is:
"Oswald is as guilty as sin."
"As night follows day, Lee Harvey Oswald murdered John F. Kennedy."
"Oswald is a nut, because only a nut would kill the president.
It's clear Bugliosi never stopped being a 70s prosecutor and this makes
his "scholarship" useless. The methods research scholars use and
prosecutors use are entirely different. The prosecutor gathers
information to convict with; the research scholar gathers information to
learn the truth of thing by.
Take either out of this realm and he's not effective.
Therefore, Bugliosi's book will be a brief on how he would convict Lee
Harvey Oswald for the murder of John F. Kennedy.
For example, it will take the testimony of Aquila Clemons and try to
discredit it. It will do this by perhaps revealing information not
publicly known before -- that she was once arrested for public
drunkenness, that she abandoned a illegitimate child when she was 14,
that once stabbed her common-law husband with a meat cleaver, those
kinds of things. (I made up all of them).
He'll take the 50 people who saw/heard something from the grassy knoll
and similarly discredit each of them: Jones was a dead-beat dad. Smith
has a dishonorable discharged from the Army. Johnson was once arrested
for smoking pot, ergo, their testimony must be dismissed out of hand.
In other words we should expect that what Bugliosi will be doing in his
new book is trying to discredit each piece of testimony at odds with the
near-50 year old Warren Commission Report.
Which is to say again he'll be doing what a prosecutor does -- make the
government's case that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin, a case
even the government no longer supports.
ricland
The Assassination controversy rages on because the Warren Commission did
a lousy job, what other explanation makes sense? It's not because
Conspiracy Theorists are "kooks," or because people who question the WC
conclusions haven't read its 26 volumes, it's because the WC did a
crummy job.
> action-competition there.
>
>
>> ricland
>>
>> --
>> Who Shot JFK?http://tinyurl.com/247ybb
>
>
David Von Pein
As I've said previously, I doubt you had ever heard of VB before March
2007. (Tell me, had you? Truthfully.)
You sure as heck didn't know he was involved in any way with the JFK
case before a few weeks ago; of that I'm nearly certain (not positive,
mind you, but I've got a strong inkling on that.)
But, IMO, Vincent Bugliosi's brilliance lies between his ears. His
mind. His common sense. His ability to discern the truth of a
particular matter using logic and REASONED THINKING (something CTers
are incapable of doing, it seems).
Those VB qualities can be easily discerned by just reading any of his
books. Or by watching his 12-hour video series that he made in 1999 (a
video follow-up to his 1996 book "Outrage", about the O.J. Simpson
case).....
It doesn't matter what exact "cases" Vince tried in court. And I'm
very doubtful that you have the SLIGHTEST idea what VB's "case log"
consisted of during Vincent's 8 years in the LA DA's office, from
approx. 1964-1972.
Heck, I couldn't tell you what cases he tried in court either. I
haven't the foggiest...except for the cases that were made into books/
films -- Manson, Stockton, and the Palmyra case. But it doesn't really
matter to a great extent. Because his record of 105-1 in the courtroom
is clear (21-0 in murder trials, btw), and so is his peer-honored
reputation as an honest, decent, fair, and good attorney from
Minnesota.
And, as I said, those qualities emerge in large quantities in anything
VB's ever written. (And I doubt you've ever read a single word ever
written by him either; have you, Ric? Any chance you'll answer that
question? You keep ignoring every simple question I've asked you. Why
is that?)
But Vince doesn't need me to defend him. His record and reputation and
his written words on paper do that all by themselves.
So, Mr. "Ricland", you can take your kneejerk, unsupportable,
vitriolic anti-Vince spiel and shove it straight up your hind
quarters.
Okay?
Okay.
aeffects
> >>> "If you're going to keep sticking this guy {Vince B.} in our face, at least you can tell us why you think he's so great. Tell us about the great cases he's won. Tell us something, dude." <<<
>
> As I've said previously, I doubt you had ever heard of VB before March
> 2007. (Tell me, had you? Truthfully.)
>
> You sure as heck didn't know he was involved in any way with the JFK
> case before a few weeks ago; of that I'm nearly certain (not positive,
> mind you, but I've got a strong inkling on that.)
>
> But, IMO, Vincent Bugliosi's brilliance lies between his ears. His
> mind. His common sense. His ability to discern the truth of a
> particular matter using logic and REASONED THINKING (something CTers
> are incapable of doing, it seems).
>
> Those VB qualities can be easily discerned by just reading any of his
> books. Or by watching his 12-hour video series that he made in 1999 (a
> video follow-up to his 1996 book "Outrage", about the O.J. Simpson
> case).....
>
>
> It doesn't matter what exact "cases" Vince tried in court. And I'm
> very doubtful that you have the SLIGHTEST idea what VB's "case log"
> consisted of during Vincent's 8 years in the LA DA's office, from
> approx. 1964-1972.
>
> Heck, I couldn't tell you what cases he tried in court either. I
> haven't the foggiest...except for the cases that were made into books/
> films -- Manson, Stockton, and the Palmyra case. But it doesn't really
> matter to a great extent. Because his record of 105-1 in the courtroom
> is clear (21-0 in murder trials, btw), and so is his peer-honored
> reputation as an honest, decent, fair, and good attorney from
> Minnesota.
>
> And, as I said, those qualities emerge in large quantities in anything
> VB's ever written. (And I doubt you've ever read a single word ever
> written by him either; have you, Ric? Any chance you'll answer that
> question? You keep ignoring every simple question I've asked you. Why
> is that?)
>
> But Vince doesn't need me to defend him. His record and reputation and
> his written words on paper do that all by themselves.
I believe we just witnessed a incarnation...
aeffects
okay, a coronation....fucking details
David Von Pein
<laughing, as usual, at ricland>
<second laugh, for good measure>
And a very good case Vince has (in the "Lone Assassin" department),
considering the hard evidence in the case that CTers love to skew --
i.e., evidence that all leads in one direction, and toward only one
particular individual -- and it ain't Carlos Marcello, Jimmy "Bite The
Bullet" Files, Danny Arce, or Jack Dougherty. ~wink~
And here are a few other things I fully expect to read in Vincent
Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" (things that nobody else has ever done
in any JFK publication to date, that I am aware of anyway).....
1.) Vince will possibly present his readers with an old buried "case
file" (or two, or three) somewhere in the files of the LA DA's office
(or from another city's case files), in which it was PROVEN that a
bullet can, indeed, do a significant amount of bony damage to a
shooting victim and emerge almost completely intact (i.e.,
unfragmented, just like Bullet CE399 in the Kennedy case).
Why this type of visual, PROVEABLE "in the case files of history"
demonstration hasn't been accomplished (or even attempted) heretofore
is kind of a mystery to me. Maybe no cases like this exist. That's
possible, I suppose. But with Vince no doubt having easy access to a
lot of old case files, I think something like I described above could
possibly pop up in "R.H.".
2.) Similar to #1, Vince might (possibly) search old cases and come up
with a court case (100% verified by experts as well) which featured a
bullet that had positively rested inside a gunshot victim's body (or,
better yet, a bullet that had verifiably travelled through TWO
different bodies, to mirror the SBT scenario), with that bullet
emerging from the victim(s) without a sign of blood, tissue, or fibers
adhering to it.
3.) Vince will place emphasis on the fact that trained medical doctors
can be fooled, and HAVE been fooled, into thinking that more than one
bullet must have caused the seven wounds in the two victims that were
really all created by Bullet CE399 in the Kennedy case.
The "and HAVE been fooled" portion of my above comment can be easily
proven by just watching the 2004 Discovery Channel documentary (which
Vince B. appeared on, by the way), "JFK: BEYOND THE MAGIC BULLET".
At the end of that program, a Los Angeles doctor was asked to review
the X-rays of the two mock torsos that were created for the program's
SBT re-construction and which were then shot with the "single bullet"
from a simulated 60-foot-high perch.
The doctor was of the opinion that the wounds seen in the X-rays had
probably been caused by more than just one bullet. He, of course, was
100% wrong in this opinion. Just as other doctors and medical
professionals have been wrong when they insist that CE399 could not
have caused all seven of JFK's and Connally's wounds in 1963.
4.) And Vince will probably have several other LN-supporting surprises
in his book as well. Just a hunch. But I'd be willing to bet my next
CIA/VB Disinformation check (which ain't nothing to sneeze at, my
friends) that I'm right in this "surprise" regard. ;)
RICLAND
>>>> "If you're going to keep sticking this guy {Vince B.} in our face, at least you can tell us why you think he's so great. Tell us about the great cases he's won. Tell us something, dude." <<<
>
>
> As I've said previously, I doubt you had ever heard of VB before March
> 2007. (Tell me, had you? Truthfully.)
>
> You sure as heck didn't know he was involved in any way with the JFK
> case before a few weeks ago; of that I'm nearly certain (not positive,
> mind you, but I've got a strong inkling on that.)
>
> But, IMO, Vincent Bugliosi's brilliance lies between his ears. His
> mind. His common sense. His ability to discern the truth of a
> particular matter using logic and REASONED THINKING (something CTers
> are incapable of doing, it seems).
If he "discerns truth" how did he discern Oswald was a nut? Point me to
the part in Oswald's bio that indicates he's a nut. Show me one
ex-friend, co-worker, relative, Marine buddy, military shrink, anyone --
anything written anywhere that says Oswald had psychological issues.
I've asked you to do this before and you've yet to reply.
Bugliosi was misleading the jury. The jury obviously didn't know
anything about Oswald so they believed Bugliosi when he said Oswald was
a nut. And the reason Bugliosi said he was a nut should be no mystery
either -- there was no other motivation Bugliosi could come up with so
he turned Oswald into another Chuck Manson.
Now let's take it a step further. Let's explore why this is wrong, why a
prosecutor should never tell this kind of lie in a capital case.
Suppose you were a member of the jury that sent Oswald to the electric
then years later found out the prosecutor lied, that by all accounts,
Oswald wasn't a nut, that the the motivation the prosecutor gave you was
a fabrication.
How would you feel?
Mind you, prosecutors should do their job. Prosecutors should put
murderers in the electric chair -- but they shouldn't misrepresentation
of fact to do it and that's what Bugliosi was doing in that mock trial.
In the most generous definition of "nut" you can think of, Oswald
doesn't even come close. Not even close.
And that's what I mean by "Schlock Lawyering." If you don't have
motivation, make it up. If you don't have opportunity, make it up. If
the DNA shows the defendant couldn't have been the rapist, ignore the DNA.
Schlock Lawyering, that's what our hero Vincent Bugliosi excels in, Dave.
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "Of course it makes sense..." <<<
>
> Of course, in reality, Ricland is full of kookshit.l (As per the
> norm.)
>
> Mr. Ric, for some reason, has taken VB's "performance"* in a couple of
> "ON TRIAL" video clips and has now suddenly envisioned Mr. Bugliosi as
> the worst "schlock" lawyer since Mark Lane...er...uh...sorry, that
> just slipped out there.
>
> Ricland's anti-VB abuse is totally uncalled for and just flat-out
> stupid.
>
Oh my, we can't have anyone criticizing your hero Bugliosi now, can we?
The fact is that Bugliosi may be a highly-respected lawyer, but with the
JFK case he is out of his depth, just like Robert Blakey was, seduced by
the CIA and official denials.
RICLAND
And all of the above is what lawyers call "speculation" and speculation
is not worth two dead flies in a courtroom.
None of it is evidence. None of it rebuts the evidence.
Rebutting evidence is showing it was impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to
be at the Tippit crime scene at the time allotted.
Rebutting evidence is showing the testimony of the two officers first at
the Tippit crime scene. They thought the shells were from an automatic
.38. They even marked the shells with their initials, but these weren't
the shells that later appeared at the Warren Commission. Those shells
were from a .38 revolver and were unmarked.
Of course if Bugliosi can pull case from the files where automatic
shells magically turned into revolver shells, his book might be a lot
better than I thought.
ricland
cdddraftsman
Waggle a check for book contract in front of his nose and he'll
forget everything he's learned in 35 years as a pathologist !
Oh my ! The Original Clueless in Dalllas !
He writes for the brain dead = Ricland , likes his conspiracy's
medium well done . Hope the bars are spaced far enough apart , he's
going to have diffuculty's doing autopsy's when he's behind
bars .................tl
On Mar 31, 8:46 am, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
RICLAND
> Dr. Wacht ? All purpose Schlock Assassination Con Artist ?
> Waggle a check for book contract in front of his nose and he'll
> forget everything he's learned in 35 years as a pathologist !
> Oh my ! The Original Clueless in Dalllas !
> He writes for the brain dead = Ricland , likes his conspiracy's
> medium well done . Hope the bars are spaced far enough apart , he's
> going to have diffuculty's doing autopsy's when he's behind
> bars .................tl
One question, cddraftsman:
That scribbling you do all day -- you get paid for it?
ricland
--
"Prof Rahn's site is brilliant.
It only took me 10 visits before I was
able to navigate it just fine."
--cddraftsman