Bugliosi's Stupid Pet Tricks
RICLAND
profession. His performance was an example of lawyering at its worst.
The mock trial was supposed to be a learning experience. He turned it
into The Lawyer from Hell does Dallas.
During trial, lawyers do things -- unsavory things -- to save their
client's life or to earn their paycheck. These things include badgering
witnesses, bullying, character assassination, harrying, harassment and a
host of other tactics meant to intimidate and disorient witnesses whose
testimony is unfavorable to the lawyer's case.
Bugliosi's cross-examination of Conspiracy Theorist Cyril Wecht, MD,
illustrates what I'm talking about. This is from the YouTube "Grassy
Knoll Hoax --Part 2" except from "The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald."
Now, I would have loved to have seen Bugliosi obliterate Dr. Wecht's
testimony, not because I ascribe to the Lone Gunman theory, but because
I love a great battle of the wits. But that's not what Bugliosi gave us.
His cross-examination wasn't skillful, it was rude. He'd ask a
question and before Wecht could answer, he'd cut him off. He'd say
things like "So you're right, Dr. Wecht, and everybody else is wrong."
In short, he did not cross examine Dr. Wect about the medical evidence,
rather, he prevented any discussion about the medical evidence, just
shut it out.
Were I a member of the jury I'd have found this insulting to my
intelligence. Were I a member of the jury I'd have seen Bugliosi's
antics for exactly what they were -- tactics meant to keep key
information from my ears.
This was not brilliant lawyering. If you want an example of brilliant
lawyering read how Mark Lane obliterated E. Howard Hunt during Hunt's
defamation suit against Liberty Lobby's Spotlight Magazine. No
grandstanding. No histrionics. No bullying. Lane just gave Hunt enough
rope until the man hung himself.
Reading that was a tremendous learning experience. Watching Bugliosi's
stupid pet tricks was an exercise in disgust.
ricland
--
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/247ybb
David Von Pein
What a goof you are.
Oswald had a lawyer at the Mock Trial (Spence). It wasn't Bugliosi's
job to put on Spence's case, for Pete sake. Spence did that.
The Spence/Wecht portions aren't on the YouTube clips, but Spence DID
examine Wecht. Wecht, in fact, was SPENCE'S defense witness, for
heaven sake...so Spence got a crack at him first; VB was in "cross-
examination mode" in those video clips.
No information was kept from the jury's ears....because Spence brought
out all of Wecht's pro-conspiracy shit on DIRECT EXAMINATION....prior
to Bugliosi getting to Cyril. In fact, when VB could have objected
(when Wecht was, in essence, giving a "summation" to the jury, against
court rules), Vince didn't object...instead, VB let Wecht ramble on
and on.
VB quote as Wecht was rambling on:
"I waive my objection, Your Honor; even though he's giving a summation
to the jury, which is totally improper, I won't object. Let Cyril
enjoy himself." -- VB
aeffects
> >>> "Were I a member of the jury I'd have found this insulting to my intelligence. Were I a member of the jury I'd have seen Bugliosi's antics for exactly what they were -- tactics meant to keep key information from my ears." <<<
>
> What a goof you are.
>
> Oswald had a lawyer at the Mock Trial (Spence). It wasn't Bugliosi's
> job to put on Spence's case, for Pete sake. Spence did that.
>
> The Spence/Wecht portions aren't on the YouTube clips, but Spence DID
> examine Wecht. Wecht, in fact, was SPENCE'S defense witness, for
> heaven sake...so Spence got a crack at him first; VB was in "cross-
> examination mode" in those video clips.
>
> No information was kept from the jury's ears....because Spence brought
> out all of Wecht's pro-conspiracy shit on DIRECT EXAMINATION....prior
> to Bugliosi getting to Cyril. In fact, when VB could have objected
> (when Wecht was, in essence, giving a "summation" to the jury, against
> court rules), Vince didn't object...instead, VB let Wecht ramble on
> and on.
Spence and Geraldo were made for each other; the GREAT Wind[s]!
RICLAND
>>>> "Were I a member of the jury I'd have found this insulting to my intelligence. Were I a member of the jury I'd have seen Bugliosi's antics for exactly what they were -- tactics meant to keep key
> information from my ears." <<<
>
>
> Oswald had a lawyer at the Mock Trial (Spence). It wasn't Bugliosi's
> job to put on Spence's case, for Pete sake. Spence did that.
>
> The Spence/Wecht portions aren't on the YouTube clips, but Spence DID
> examine Wecht. Wecht, in fact, was SPENCE'S defense witness, for
> heaven sake...so Spence got a crack at him first; VB was in "cross-
> examination mode" in those video clips.
>
> No information was kept from the jury's ears....because Spence brought
> out all of Wecht's pro-conspiracy shit on DIRECT EXAMINATION....prior
> to Bugliosi getting to Cyril. In fact, when VB could have objected
> (when Wecht was, in essence, giving a "summation" to the jury, against
> court rules), Vince didn't object...instead, VB let Wecht ramble on
> and on.
>
>
> "I waive my objection, Your Honor; even though he's giving a summation
> to the jury, which is totally improper, I won't object. Let Cyril
> enjoy himself." -- VB
>
You seem to be having a conversation with yourself, David.
Who's winning?
eca...@tx.rr.com
the same Zip Code of any courtroom
activity.. Do you have any idea how
many pixels give their lives so that
you can post more steWpiT courtroom
comments?
Cast yer peepers on this one I just
posted on Ricland Courtroom Savvy"
----------
Ric methinks thou art a complete
moron..
You're beginning to make even
Photo retouching expert" Davie
Boy Healy look good..
EARTH to RICLAND:
Even the infamous Jack Ruby
photo would not have done the trick
when ISOLATED as you wish to do..
It's the evidence *pattern*
that provides clear and convincing
persuasion Ric.
In a nutshell as you demand:
**********
We have an evidence
*pattern*
You don't.
And that's the
DIFFERENCE.
**********
Shall I demonstrate even further by asking
you to present the strongest evidence you
have that supports this absurd hypothesis
from the master of completely unresearched,
unsupported, downright steWpiT premises?
RIC ON:----------
The more I study this case, the more I
discover there's not one clean piece of
evidence indicating Lee Harvey Oswald is
the lone assassin."
RIC OFF----------
Just one Ric.
Make it your strongest.
Let's make or break this case on that.
Ric, which one is it, please?
Hopefully you now understand Ric.. One
isolated piece of evidence will almost
never make or break a case.. An exception
might be an extraordinary circumstance
whereby a suspect accused of a murder was
able to demonstrate he was in prison at
the time.. But even that prison date,
like the Ruby photo, would have to then be
authenticated. But you do get credit for
recycling possibly the oldest stewpiT
line of questioning in JFK research..
My God Ric..
Where have you been? This sophomoric line
of dumb (Your "best 1 piece of evidence")
questioning has been regurgitated over and
over and over.. The "isolate ONE" gadget
doesn't fly as a premise to convince anyone
of any point..
Think *pattern* Ric.
Carry on Mr "Out-of-the-Box" thinker..
MR ;~D 0718Mar3107
> Who Shot JFK?http://tinyurl.com/247ybb- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
tomnln
<eca...@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1175345556.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...