Which "Crazy CT Kook" said this?
mnhay27
assassination?
“Conspiracies are proven bit by bit, speck by speck, brick by brick;
until all of the 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.”
“Gentlemen, the time for us to keep on 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.”
“There’s more than a semantic distinction involved here. In fact
there’s all the difference in the world between no evidence of a
second gun and a flat out statement that there was no second gun! It
would be like my walking down the street and saying I saw no avocados
on the street. That doesn’t mean there weren’t any avocados, only that
I didn’t see any avocados!”
“If there is a conspiracy here it would involve people in the highest
levels of our government, or people out of the government who had
substantial political interests inimicable to Senator Kennedy. And if
it was a conspiracy it most likely was a conspiracy of considerable
magnitude.”
“we are talking about a conspiracy to commit murder, a conspiracy to
assassinate someone who was a major candidate for the presidency of
the United States, a conspiracy the prodigious dimensions of which
would make Watergate look like a one-roach marijuana case.”
“[Americans] 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.”
A. Vincent Bugliosi
Yep, that's right; Vincent "I'm right because I say I'm right and my
saying so proves it" Bugliosi.
Bud
Nobody would confuse what a lawyer says on behalf of his client with
a search for truth, would they?
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On Apr 30, 6:10=EF=BF=BDpm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
>> =EF=BF=BD Nobody would confuse what a lawyer says on behalf of his client=
> with
>> a search for truth, would they?-
>
>Bugliosi was a prosecutor, not a defense attorney.
>
>He never had a "client" in the RFK case.
>
>IDIOT
Actually, he did.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
Learn to Make Money with a Website - http://www.burningknife.com
Gil Jesus
> In article <1ac83eb6-66ee-40ac-a5c1-04a6f7164...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Then I stand corrected.
Ben Holmes
Gil Jesus says...
>
>On Apr 30, 9:20=EF=BF=BDpm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
>> In article <1ac83eb6-66ee-40ac-a5c1-04a6f7164...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups=
>.com>,
>> Gil Jesus says...
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Apr 30, 6:10=3DEF=3DBF=3DBDpm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >> Nobody would confuse what a lawyer says on behalf of his client
>>
>>
>> >He never had a "client" in the RFK case.
>>
>> >IDIOT
>>
>> Actually, he did.
>
Of course, the troll wants to imply that a lawyer will lie for his client, but
tell nothing but the truth when he writes "Reclaiming History".
The problem, of course, is that Bugliosi was the one who documented more shots
than could have been fired by Sirhan Sirhan... so Bugliosi DEMONSTRATED that a
conspiracy existed.
All the troll is arguing is that Bugliosi is a liar.
I must confess... I agree with the troll...
David Von Pein
>>> "Of course, the troll wants to imply that a lawyer will lie for his client, but tell nothing but the truth when he writes "Reclaiming History". The problem, of course, is that Bugliosi was the one who documented more shots than could have been fired by Sirhan Sirhan...so Bugliosi DEMONSTRATED that a conspiracy existed. All the troll is arguing is that Bugliosi is a liar. I must confess...I agree with the troll." <<<
Ben Holmes, as usual, likes to pretend that the "RFK case" and the
"JFK case" are exactly the same thing.
Somehow, to a kook like Ben, since Bugliosi at one point in time
believed there was a conspiracy in the RFK case, this MUST mean that
Bugliosi had no choice but to believe that a conspiracy also existed
in the JFK case.
Go figure retarded kooks like Ben.
aeffects
more tortured Lone Nut DVP-Kookster logic.... you Paul May's cousin,
dipshit?
David Von Pein
What's "tortured" about my last post, Mr. Healy?
aeffects
> What's "tortured" about my last post, Mr. Healy?
hon... when anyone mentions Bugliosi's name you swoon, when the
comment in negative you sound like a teenage stuck pig -- THAT, hon is
torture..... anything further I can help you out with? There is 45
questions lurking about.... copy&paste them to VinnieB., see if he can
nad-up for a change.
David Von Pein
Thanks, Mister Crackpipe. That's what I expected from you -- an
incoherent answer from a retard. You never disappoint.
aeffects
> Thanks, Mister Crackpipe. That's what I expected from you -- an
> incoherent answer from a retard. You never disappoint.
Here to serve you overblown, undersexed, lone nut kooksters,
shithead.....Say, have your balls dropped enough to take on Tomlin in
a radio debate?
Bud
> In article <8001d7d3-1a58-4839-a489-af5c12982...@b7g2000pre.googlegroups.com>,
> Gil Jesus says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Apr 30, 9:20=EF=BF=BDpm, Ben Holmes <ad...@burningknife.com> wrote:
> >> In article <1ac83eb6-66ee-40ac-a5c1-04a6f7164...@d25g2000prn.googlegroups=
> >.com>,
> >> Gil Jesus says...
>
> >> >On Apr 30, 6:10=3DEF=3DBF=3DBDpm, Bud <sirsl...@fast.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> Nobody would confuse what a lawyer says on behalf of his client
> >> >> with a search for truth, would they?
>
> >> >Bugliosi was a prosecutor, not a defense attorney.
>
> >> >He never had a "client" in the RFK case.
>
> >> >IDIOT
>
> >> Actually, he did.
>
> >Then I stand corrected.
>
> Of course, the troll wants to imply that a lawyer will lie for his client,
Would it help you if I came right out and said that? It is true, you
know.
>but
> tell nothing but the truth when he writes "Reclaiming History".
Different hats, kook. A lawyer working on behalf of a client is
expected to say things that aren`t true, an author writing a non-
fiction book isn`t.
> The problem, of course, is that Bugliosi was the one who documented more shots
> than could have been fired by Sirhan Sirhan... so Bugliosi DEMONSTRATED that a
> conspiracy existed.
You mean while working in the capacity of a lawyer, he tried to
raise doubt about his client`s guilt? Get out of town!
> All the troll is arguing is that Bugliosi is a liar.
I thought it was well known that he is a lawyer.
> I must confess... I agree with the troll...
Even when you come to the right conclusions, it is for the wrong
reasons.
mnhay27
Hey David,
What makes you so sure that Bugliosi no longer believes there was a
conspiracy in the RFK assassination? To the best of my knowledge, he's
never publicly stated that he changed his mind.
mnhay27
Bud
You do realise that Bugliosi was harping on about the RFK case long
after that lawsuit was over, don't you? In fact it was a big issue in
his campaign for DA. He promised to form a blue ribbon scientific task
force to investigate the evidence and assemble a group of prosecuters
and investigators from the DA's office to open the LAPD's files. When
the LA Times suggested that Bugliosi was making the RFK case an
emotional issue to use for political purposes he responded:
"For you [the LA Times] to insinuate that my personal commitment to
help resolve this controversy is selfish and politically motivated is
an affront to my professional integrity...it is truly unfortunate that
on the Robert F. Kennedy assassination, the editors of the Times are
apparently out of touch with this community's attitude about this
issue, and totally unaware of the concerned mood of the entire
country."
Ben Holmes
mnhay27 says...
>
>On May 1, 5:42=A0am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>> "Of course, the troll wants to imply that a lawyer will lie for his
>client, but tell nothing but the truth when he writes "Reclaiming History".
>The problem, of course, is that Bugliosi was the one who documented more
>shots than could have been fired by Sirhan Sirhan...so Bugliosi DEMONSTRATED
>that a conspiracy existed. All the troll is arguing is that Bugliosi is a
>liar. I must confess...I agree with the troll."
>>
>> Ben Holmes, as usual, likes to pretend that the "RFK case" and the
>> "JFK case" are exactly the same thing.
Of course, when you produce a strawman, you get to beat up on it quite
convincingly.
The point you can't address is that Bugliosi *MUST HAVE LIED*. You can soft
pedal it as 'protecting a client', or 'defending a client', or any other way you
care to put it. But it's *STILL* a lie... it has to be. For clearly, Vincent
Bugliosi *CANNOT* believe that these two murders, JFK & RFK; were conspiracies.
>> Somehow, to a kook like Ben, since Bugliosi at one point in time
>> believed there was a conspiracy in the RFK case, this MUST mean that
>> Bugliosi had no choice but to believe that a conspiracy also existed
>> in the JFK case.
Why not look at what the man actually said? I know that a lying troll such as
yourself has seen this before, but perhaps some lurkers out there haven't seen
these quotes before:
******************************************************************
There are a few nuts around here that like to quote VB... so I thought perhaps
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 exclude
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 to 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 the conspiracy, 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.
******************************************************************
>> Go figure retarded kooks like Ben.
Sadly... the lying troll never actually responded to my *ACTUAL* comment...
wonder why?
>Hey David,
>
>What makes you so sure that Bugliosi no longer believes there was a
>conspiracy in the RFK assassination? To the best of my knowledge, he's
>never publicly stated that he changed his mind.
Trolls lie, that's what trolls do. Bugliosi is a paid liar. I suspect that DVP
is envious of that paid status.
aeffects
> In article <6bfd6713-531d-44f9-98a0-f48633b34...@e23g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
when it comes to Reclaiming History ole David Von Pein [sic], he's
furious that Dale Myers collected ALL those Franklin's.....
tims...@gmail.com
Hey Toots,
Why don't you get your mate, Benny *Yellow Pants* Holmes, to nad up,
as you put it, and support his claim that the presence of *A Lady In
Yellow Pants* in the Nix film indicates Zapruder film alteration.
He's been running from this discussion for more than a year now. Why
won't Benny *nad up* on this matter, Ol' Toots-E-Roll? Can't you help
him, since you are David *aeffects* Healy, published author on Z film
alteration?
Cut & paste and send to *Yellow Pants*, Toots! Tell him it's time to
*nad up* and support his nonsense.
Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia
*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*
Bud
You realize that much (if not all) of your Bugliosi quotes were
things he said in a legal proceeding in front of a judge on behalf of
a client, don`t you? You represented these quotes to be expressions of
his opinion, when in fact they were not.
> In fact it was a big issue in
> his campaign for DA. He promised to form a blue ribbon scientific task
> force to investigate the evidence and assemble a group of prosecuters
> and investigators from the DA's office to open the LAPD's files. When
> the LA Times suggested that Bugliosi was making the RFK case an
> emotional issue to use for political purposes he responded:
>
> "For you [the LA Times] to insinuate that my personal commitment to
> help resolve this controversy is selfish and politically motivated is
> an affront to my professional integrity...it is truly unfortunate that
> on the Robert F. Kennedy assassination, the editors of the Times are
> apparently out of touch with this community's attitude about this
> issue, and totally unaware of the concerned mood of the entire
> country."
I see him endorsing an effort to resolve the controversy. I don`t
see him offering an opinion on it here.
David Von Pein
>>> "What makes you so sure that Bugliosi no longer believes there was a conspiracy in the RFK assassination?" <<<
I'm not 100% sure. And I've said that very thing in past posts. But I
think that VB has possibly changed his mind about a conspiracy in the
RFK murder since the 1970s. I could be wrong, however. I'll readily
admit that possibility.
David Von Pein
>>> "The point you can't address is that Bugliosi *MUST HAVE LIED*." <<<
Why do you say that, Ben?
No "lies" need to have escaped Bugliosi's lips at all, you idiot.
Vince almost certainly DID believe in a conspiracy in the RFK case as
of the 1970s...and he promoted such a possible conspiracy in court.
Since that time, it's quite possible that newer information has made
VB do an about-face on the issue of an RFK conspiracy.
But to Ben Holmes, the above "about-face" scenario (which is a quite
reasonable one, of course) indicates that Bugliosi "MUST HAVE LIED" in
court in the '70s.
Or was the kook named Ben implying that Bugliosi "MUST HAVE LIED" with
respect to VB's beliefs in the JFK case? The kook named Ben also
thinks, incredibly, that if VB believed in an RFK conspiracy, then VB
has NO CHOICE but to believe in a JFK conspiracy too.
Such is evidently the "all or nothing" CT mindset of a retarded
conspiracy-happy kook like Benjamin Holmes.
~huge shrug~
mnhay27
LOL There is none so blind as he who will not see. I'll let you look
up those quotes for yourself so that you can see that they were not
all said "in a legal proceeding in front of a judge on behalf of a
client." In fact, his own opinions about extra bullets in the RFK
case were well known and he expressed them after the lawsuit and after
his bid for DA (I believe) in an interview with Penthouse.
Bud
I knew right away what I was looking at. A typically dishonest
presentation of information by a CTer.
> I'll let you look
> up those quotes for yourself so that you can see that they were not
> all said "in a legal proceeding in front of a judge on behalf of a
> client."
It`s likely you don`t know what context they were spoken in, and
only lifted the content from some other source. Ben Holmes posted some
of those quotes here before, but he at least gave the context they
were presented in (search this group for "Vince Bugliosi quotes... Ben
Holmes).
> In fact, his own opinions about extra bullets in the RFK
> case were well known and he expressed them after the lawsuit and after
> his bid for DA (I believe) in an interview with Penthouse.
Then you should have quoted those, and not instances where he was
working in the capacity of a lawyer.
mnhay27
Ah, the typical behaviour of a LNer, ignore what was actually said
(that not all the comments were made in court) and assert that the
information presented has been taken out of context without making any
attempt to check for oneself and then place it in the "correct"
context - just in case the "typically dishonest" CTer happens to be
right.
I have no inclination to mislead nor do I intend to get dragged into a
pointless argument that, true to LNer form, would no doubt dissolve
into childish name-calling. And so, armed with the knowledge that I
have behaved hohnestly and respectably, I shall bid you farewell.
But you can still feel free to check those comments for yourself.
Bud
You think it`s my job to correct and supply context to the
information you supply? You should have known that a lawyer
representing a client would be not necessarily presenting their
personal opinions. That you opted to include *any* quotes Bugs made
before a judge shows you to be a typical CTer who misrepresents
information.
> I have no inclination to mislead nor do I intend to get dragged into a
> pointless argument that, true to LNer form, would no doubt dissolve
> into childish name-calling.
You started this post, which contained quotes you represented as
Bugliosi expressing his opinions. At least some of the quotes were
Bugliosi working in the capacity of a lawyer representing a client,
not Bugliosi presenting his personal opinions. You can claim the moral
high ground, but you haven`t earned it with this post.
> And so, armed with the knowledge that I
> have behaved hohnestly and respectably, I shall bid you farewell.
Not only do you lie to us, you lie to yourself as well.
> But you can still feel free to check those comments for yourself.
I checked enough to know that you presented the information
dishonestly.