Vince Bugliosi Quotes...
Ben Holmes
it's time to do some authentic Bugliosi quotes myself:
Asking a judge to take judicial notice (with reference to the overwhelming
concern of Americans about unresolved questions of conspiracy: "They want to
know if there is a pernicious force alive in this land, which is threatening to
destroy our representative form of government by systematically orchestrating
the cutting down of those Presidents or candidates for President who espouse
political philosophies antithetical to theirs." pg 184
To newsmen at a press conference:
VB: "Gentlemen, the time for us to keep looking for additional bullets in this
case has passed. The time has come for us to start looking for the members of
the firing squad that night."
Q: "Does all this mean that Sirhan is not guilty?"
VB: "No, not at all. Sirhan is as guilty as sin, and his conviction was a
proper one. But just because Sirhan is guilty does not automatically exlude the
possibility that more than one gun was fired at the assassination scene." pg 191
"I think the court can take judicial notice that the whole tone, the whole tenor
in this country at this particular moment is that there is a tremendous
distrust, there is a tremendous suspicion, there is a tremendous skepticism
about whether or not people like Oswald and Sirhan acted alone, and many, many
people, many substantial people - I am not talking about conspiracy buffs who
see a conspiracy behind every tree - many, many substantial people feel that
Sirhan did not act alone, that he did act in concert." ...
"No one is going to say that they saw Mr. Owen pull the trigger and shoot
Senator Kennedy. We intend to offer evidence from which a very strong inference
could be drawn that possibly Mr. Owen was a co-conspirator in this case." ... "I
have to say, as a prosecutor for eight years I find it extremely strange that
the LAPD would not want this information [on the LAPD investigation of Mr. Owen]
at this point ot be public. I find it very strange indeed. If Owen was not
involved, as LAPD, I assume, has concluded, there is no conceivable reason under
the moon why they shouldn't permit us to look at those records." (Despite a
court order to produce them, the LAPD successfully refused to do so) pg 248
Bugliosi, making an "offer of proof to the judge:
"There is some evidence in this case, and we will put the evidence on, which
smacks of a possible cover-up. And I am not using the word cover-up because
it's a word that's fashionable right now, but there are some strange things that
happened in this case, and I will mention just a few of them to you. The most
obvious thing is something that happened in this very courtroom about thirty
minutes ago. An officer from the LAPD took the witness stand and testified that
he could find no records on Jerry Owen over at the Los Angeles Police Department
in response to a subpoena duces tecum. It is a matter of common knowledge, your
Honor, that Jerry Owen was investigated by the LAPD. If the court will give us
time we will present documentary evidence that he was investigated by the LAPD.
A book was written by the chief detective in this case, I think the name of the
book was Special Unit Senator, in which pages upon pages are devoted to Jerry
Owen. And yet we have an officer from the LAPD taking the witness stand and
searching for the records for an entire day and coming up with nothing on Jerry
Owen. That's the first point.." pg 253-254
VB asserted that it was not necessary to present "a tape recorded conversation
between Owen and Sirhan in which Own is saying, 'I want you to bump off Kennedy
for me.' Conspiracies are proven bit by bit, speck by speck, brick by brick,
until all of a sudden you have a mosaic. They are proven by circumstantial
evidence. Conspiracies are conceived in shadowy recesses. They are not hatched
on television in front of 5,000,000 witnesses." pg 304
VB: "If Owen's story is just a silly Alice in Wonderland concoction to focus
some cheap attention on himself, your Honor, and Powers lied on that witness
stand, how come everyone is in fear in this case? Owen, I believe, testified
that people are making death threats against him, which would be compatible with
the notion that he was a lowly operative in th econspiracy, and people up above
are the ones making the threats." pg 305
"This young lad, Johnny Beckley, flees for his life. Bill Powers has to be
brought into court with a crane. Jonn Christian, no one can find him. I don't
think this is typical. I have handled many murder cases, but I have never seen
a case where so many people are frightened. Are these things all meaningless?
Are these people all cuckoo birds?" pg 305
"Who knows where we might have been able to take this case if things had been
different? But there's one thing I'm absolutely sure of now: this case [RFK's
assassination] has to be reopened and re-examined, from top to bottom - and not
by those law enforcement officials who gave us the original conclusions either."
pg 308
All references are from "The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy - The Conspiracy
and Coverup" by William Turner & Jonn Christian, paperback edition 2006.
David Von Pein
aeffects
> So?
David...
Do you actually think Vince Bugliosi is going to float a tome
concerning the murder of JFK, then President of the United States, and
case knowledgable folks are going to let it slide on by? This isn't
Helter-Skelter! This isn't 1980... This isn't "The Assassination of
David Von Pein
Clarification for the uninformed "lurker" ---
"Case-Knowledgable Folks" = "Conspiracy-Hungry Kooks".
But, back in the land of "reasonable" people who don't really need to
know what color shoes Mary Moorman was wearing on Nov. 22nd -- VB's
tome will "reclaim history" from the rabid, unreasonable conspiracy
kooks (aka "zanies"). Without much doubt.
And I'm still awaiting your Shot-By-Shot (logical & doable) shooting
scenario that replaces the 3-Shot LHO scenario, David H.
Any chance you might let us mere mortals in on that? I'd like to hear
Ben's scenario (shot-for-shot) too. I've yet to hear/see it. Have you?
After all, those guys WERE wounded, weren't they? Somebody shot 'em.
Why not tell the world WHO....and pull the rug right out from under
daBug?! Give it a shot.
>>> "This isn't Helter-Skelter!" <<<
Bravo. You got one right!
>>> "This isn't 1980." <<<
Make that two.
>>> "This isn't "The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy - The Conspiracy and Coverup"" <<<
Hat trick!
BTW, VB's belief in a possible (but by no means certain) conspiracy in
the RFK case, IMO, should bode well for his GENERAL credibility re.
his JFK book. That is to say--It's fairly obvious that VB is NOT
averse to the word "conspiracy" should he see evidence to support that
word.
Obviously he DID see something in the RFK/Sirhan evidence that took
him down a possible "conspiracy" path, and he said so (although I
don't think he believes in an RFK plot today).
But the JFK murder is a totally-different case...not to be linked in
any way to RFK....and VB has seen nothing substantial to make him
stray from these 1986 words......
"As surely as I am standing here, and surely as night follows day, Lee
Harvey Oswald -- acting alone -- was responsible for the murder of
President John F. Kennedy." -- VB
cdddraftsman
Your exactely right , except you got even less chance of there being a
conspiracy and coverup in the RFK Assassination because of the
proximity of witnesses to the
shooting .....................tl
PS : Suck it up boy ! Your going nowhere fast with that kind of lame
argument .
This is indeed not the 1980's where CTer's can get away with murder by
using opinion as fact and all the other chinanigans their noted for !
aeffects
perhaps Ben can comment.... if he doesn't I surely will....
aeffects
Evidently stumps such as yourself don't see the implications of
Bugliosi's quotes? LMAO!
Lone
minutes before the assassination.
[IMG]http://i9.tinypic.com/2vs2ow4.jpg[/IMG]
There was another CIA guy there: Sanches Morales. Later he claimed:
"I was in Dallas when we got the son of a bitch and I was in L.A. when
we got the little bastard."
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>TOP POST
>
>perhaps Ben can comment.... if he doesn't I surely will....
Be happy to...
>On Feb 21, 9:25 pm, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Do you actually think Vince Bugliosi is going to float a tome concerning
>>the murder of JFK and case-knowledgable folks are going to let it slide on by?"
>><<<
>> Clarification for the uninformed "lurker" ---
Well... first we have to put back *in* what DVP was so dishonest as to snip
out... here's the original post:
>> "Case-Knowledgable Folks" = "Conspiracy-Hungry Kooks".
Considering that most LNT'ers are sadly ignorant of the facts in this case -
this is an interesting assertion you make.
To equate knowledge with "kooks" is something that harks back to the dark ages.
>> But, back in the land of "reasonable" people who don't really need to
>> know what color shoes Mary Moorman was wearing on Nov. 22nd
Nah... it's little tidbits like this that illustrate the coverup. Black doesn't
change to white except in the minds of LNT'ers...
But this doesn't answer what you were forced to snip, does it?
>> -- VB's
>> tome will "reclaim history" from the rabid, unreasonable conspiracy
>> kooks (aka "zanies"). Without much doubt.
Without much doubt he will be forced to lie and misrepresent the evidence in
order to do so... and *YOU* will refuse to support VB when these lies are
pointed out.
But this doesn't explain why you snipped VB's words...
>> And I'm still awaiting your Shot-By-Shot (logical & doable) shooting
>> scenario that replaces the 3-Shot LHO scenario, David H.
I've told you before that you can read Six Seconds in Dallas.
A very good scenario is listed there.
But this doesn't answer what VB said, does it?
>> Any chance you might let us mere mortals in on that? I'd like to hear
>> Ben's scenario (shot-for-shot) too. I've yet to hear/see it. Have you?
Why bother to lie about it? Lurkers can google the fact that I've mentioned
this before.
But this doesn't answer why you snipped what VB said...
>> After all, those guys WERE wounded, weren't they? Somebody shot 'em.
>> Why not tell the world WHO....and pull the rug right out from under
>> daBug?! Give it a shot.
>>
>> >>> "This isn't Helter-Skelter!" <<<
>>
>> Bravo. You got one right!
Yet you *still* snipped the VB quotes... any excuse for that?
>> >>> "This isn't 1980." <<<
>>
>> Make that two.
>>
>>>>> "This isn't "The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy - The Conspiracy and
>>Coverup"" <<<
>>
>> Hat trick!
The "hat trick" was your snipping of the VB quotes.
>> BTW, VB's belief in a possible (but by no means certain) conspiracy in
>> the RFK case, IMO, should bode well for his GENERAL credibility re.
>> his JFK book.
Or his hypocrisy...
>> That is to say--It's fairly obvious that VB is NOT
>> averse to the word "conspiracy" should he see evidence to support that
>> word.
He already *admitted* that reasonable people can reasonably conclude that there
was a conspiracy in both cases...
>> Obviously he DID see something in the RFK/Sirhan evidence that took
>> him down a possible "conspiracy" path, and he said so (although I
>> don't think he believes in an RFK plot today).
Interestingly, he was responsible for some of the eyewitness statements
concerning more than eight bullets...
He *knows* there were more than eight bullets...
>> But the JFK murder is a totally-different case...not to be linked in
>> any way to RFK....and VB has seen nothing substantial to make him
>> stray from these 1986 words......
If he doesn't have anything "substantial", it's because he's lying through his
teeth.
>> "As surely as I am standing here, and surely as night follows day, Lee
>> Harvey Oswald -- acting alone -- was responsible for the murder of
>> President John F. Kennedy." -- VB
He can't support those words...
aeffects
> In article <1172122377.424459.272...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
> says...
>
TOP POST a-new --- thank you, Ben! Want to make sure the Lurkers can
see this for the next 30 minutes, I'm sure there'll be a flurry of new
posts and thread renews moving it to the next page as soon as
possible :)
David Von Pein
Because those quotes have NOTHING specifically to do with VB's beliefs
re. the JFK murder....that's why.
Tell me where VB says he believes in a "JFK" conspiracy via those
quotes.
Ben Holmes
says...
>
>On Feb 22, 6:33 am, Ben Holmes <bnhol...@rain.org> wrote:
>> In article <1172122377.424459.272...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, aeffects
>> says...
>>
>
>TOP POST a-new --- thank you, Ben! Want to make sure the Lurkers can
>see this for the next 30 minutes, I'm sure there'll be a flurry of new
>posts and thread renews moving it to the next page as soon as
>possible :)
Actually, I've killfiled the trolls, so I don't have to wade through a bunch of
garbage to get to the interesting posts.
I do find it funny to see DVP's worship being punctured.