Bugliosi is a Loathsome Creature
RICLAND
stubbornness, for all your kookiness, for all your refusal to join the
rest of Christendom by condemning the Warren Report, only one of you
consider Vincent Bugliosi a hero.
What we know is this: the best minds in the country now wonder whether
Lee Harvey Oswald was innocent. Some are not convinced he is, but even
those of the meanest intelligence now question the Warren Commission.
Bugliosi, however, is something else again.
Bugliosi doesn't do what people like Ed Cage, cddraftsman, Bud, Ken
Rahn, et al, do. He doesn't use the evidence to support his arguments;
he uses guttersnipe smear tactics. He, in fact, uses the same tactics he
used to convict Charlie Manson -- he demonizes the defendant.
"Oswald was not a manaic!"
-- Vincent Bugliosi
In another post I've provided the testimony of over 30 people who knew
Oswald, who -- whether they liked him or not -- all insisted he never
displayed any neurotic or psychotic behavior they had seen.
In other words, Bugliosi knowingly promotes a lie. He knows there's not
a scintilla of evidence indicating Oswald was mental, yet he continues
to insist he was, and in so doing misinforms and corrupts the body of
evidence we've all worked so hard to collect and interpret.
Do I find schlock lawyers like Bugliosi loathsome? Yes, I most assuredly
do. They have no place in serious reaseach. They bastardize everything
they touch.
Suddenly, the wealth of information serious researchers have
painstakingly assembled about Oswald is dismissed in place of -- "Lee
Harvey Oswald was a nut; that's why he murdered John F. Kennedy."
So, although you fellows have succumbed to every other low and
disgusting device, although you've turned this forum into a cesspool of
despair, you haven't fallen quite as far into the abyss as Vincent
Bugliosi has and for this you should be recognized.
I salute you,
ricland
--
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/2qgodj
eca...@tx.rr.com
Yeah but we have you to thank for telling
us that Oswald was a "witness/patsy" who
was zapped in a mob hit by Ruby".. Sorry
we were so stubborn about not believing
those 2 stinker posts by you and your
nUtTy claims like Beverley Oliver saw a
GK shooter" and "18 Doctors saw the neck
wound as an entry wound.."
Why not get Griffith, or Chico to help
you out?
MR ;~D
eca...@tx.rr.com
Ric I re-read your post..
You are freaking out..
RICLAND
>
> Yeah but we have you to thank for telling
> us that Oswald was a "witness/patsy" who
> was zapped in a mob hit by Ruby".. Sorry
> we were so stubborn about not believing
> those 2 stinker posts by you and your
> nUtTy claims like Beverley Oliver saw a
> GK shooter" and "18 Doctors saw the neck
> wound as an entry wound.."
>
> Why not get Griffith, or Chico to help
> you out?
>
> MR ;~D
Ed, please -- get some new material.
Get Luther to help you. He's as dumb as a bag of nails, but at least his
material is fresh.
Or contact me by email. I'll help you write your posts.
Or make shit up. Who's gonna know? Nobody reads your posts anyway.
I don't care how you do it, Ed, but stop wasting bandwidth -- please!
YoHarvey
In another post I've provided the testimony of over 30 people who
knew
Oswald, who -- whether they liked him or not -- all insisted he
never
displayed any neurotic or psychotic behavior they had seen.
Apparently his four known attempts at homocide
have no bearing on your opinion?
Apparently the fact that he beat up his
wife often has no bearing on your opinion?
Apparently his gun waving in the
Soviet Embassy has no bearing
on your opinion?
Apparently the fact he was a
pathological liar has no bearing
on your opinion?
Apparently the fact Oswald was
a user and abuser of people has no
bearing on your opinion?
Apparently the fact Oswald once
told a friend he wanted to kill the
President of the United States has
no bearing on your opinion?
tomnln
ed-in-a-cage is the guy(?) who Dodged these Lies a Hundred Times>>>
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/officer_m.htm
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1175193004.2...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
David Von Pein
<chuckling ensues here>
The JFK conspiracy kooks (aka "zanies") of the world have mangled and
misrepresented and skewed virtually ALL of the real evidence in the
JFK case.
Vincent Bugliosi will merely be putting that evidence (which has
ALWAYS been there; it hasn't changed one iota) back where it belongs--
i.e., back into its proper context, and far, far away from the
conspiracy mongers who WANT a conspiracy to exist in this case.
Hence, VB will be doing his best to "reclaim history". And I salute
him for that.
Vincent, at the mock LHO trial in 1986, was calling Oswald "nuts" and
"bonkers" and "crazy" in the GENERAL type of way in which every
layperson uses that word almost every day.
He was dumbing things down for the jury, like VB always does when he
prosecutes a case; and he was spoon-feeding the jury at the same time
(like VB also always does during a trial).
But Bugliosi was NOT calling Oswald "LEGALLY INSANE". There's a big
difference to be noted there.
Sure, Oswald was "nuts", in a loose sense. As VB said at the mock
trial: "You have to be bonkers to commit a Presidential murder". And I
agree. Lee Oswald WAS nuts/bonkers. But that doesn't mean Oswald
didn't know right from wrong; and it doesn't mean he was legally
"insane" either.
Vince was just doing his customary and impassioned over-the-top
"prosecuting" of the defendant during that Final Summation to the
jury. But....so what?
Are you (a CT-Kook evidently) actually dumb enough to think that
Vincent B. was basing the following conclusions on JUST the fact that
Vince called Oswald "nuts", "crazy", and "bonkers"?.....
"Based on the evidence in this case, Lee Harvey Oswald is as guilty as
sin, and there's NOTHING that Mr. Spence can do about it. Because
there's not one tiny grain of evidence, not one microscopic speck of
evidence that ANYONE--other than Lee Harvey Oswald--was responsible
for the assassination of John F. Kennedy. .... As surely as I am
standing here, as surely as night follows day, Lee Harvey Oswald--
acting alone--was responsible for the murder of President John F.
Kennedy." -- VB; 1986
>>> "Suddenly, the wealth of information serious researchers have painstakingly assembled..." <<<
<belly-laugh>
...And have skewed beyond recoginition, of course (which, in point of
actual fact, is the ENTIRE REASON that Bugliosi's book has been
written in the first place).....
"Every book that comes out alleges a conspiracy. Someone has got to
debunk these absurd conspiracy theories. .... It might sound corny,
but the truth is I feel an obligation to write this book. I've read
every book that's been published {re. the JFK assassination} since
1964, and 85% of them feel that there's been a conspiracy of some
kind. My book will tell the other side, and I feel I'm equipped to do
it." -- VB; 1988
I guess Ric must think that Vince has been "pulling a Jack Torrance/
(Jack Nicholson)" for lo these last 21 years, and has been assembling
NOT A SCRAP of substantive info and evidence with which to hang
Oswald....but, instead, Ric must think that "Reclaiming History" will
contain 2,800+ pages (including the CD-ROM content) of nothing but
this repeated message on every last page.....
RICLAND
"one tiny grain" of evidence
Is a grain anything but tiny? Is a grain ever more than one?
"microscopic speck"
How about simply "speck"
"As surely as I am standing here, as surely as night follows day..."
Wait a minute. Is 85% of the American population stupid?
85% of the American population is unsure. Arlen Specter is unsure.
President Johnson was unsure. Chief Cutty was unsure. DA Henry Wade was
unsure.
So how did Bugliosi get so sure?
Did Bugliosi get a message from God? If not, how can he be so sure?
It's called "schlock," David. It's what cheap lawyers do -- peddle Schlock.
It's what Three Card Monte and Medicine Show shills do.
In other words, your hero has all the speech patterns and braggadocio of
a functionally illiterate street hustler.
>
>
>>>> "Suddenly, the wealth of information serious researchers have painstakingly assembled..." <<<
>
>
> <belly-laugh>
>
> ...And have skewed beyond recoginition, of course (which, in point of
> actual fact, is the ENTIRE REASON that Bugliosi's book has been
> written in the first place).....
You mean "was written." Stop talking like Bugliosi.
>
> "Every book that comes out alleges a conspiracy. Someone has got to
> debunk these absurd conspiracy theories. .... It might sound corny,
> but the truth is I feel an obligation to write this book. I've read
> every book that's been published {re. the JFK assassination} since
> 1964, and 85% of them feel that there's been a conspiracy of some
> kind. My book will tell the other side, and I feel I'm equipped to do
> it." -- VB; 1988
>
> http://tinypic.com/seaae9.jpg
>
> I guess Ric must think that Vince has been "pulling a Jack Torrance/
> (Jack Nicholson)" for lo these last 21 years, and has been assembling
> NOT A SCRAP of substantive info and evidence with which to hang
> Oswald....but, instead, Ric must think that "Reclaiming History" will
> contain 2,800+ pages (including the CD-ROM content) of nothing but
> this repeated message on every last page.....
You saw this little guttersnipe in action. In the mock trial when he
cross-examined that forensic MD who disagrees with SBT, Bugliosi
wouldn't let the doctor talk. He used every cheap lawyer trick to badger
him and twist his words.
Apparently, that's what Bugliosi calls "debunking" -- badgering and
twisting testimony.
Why didn't he simply let the doctor present his argument, THEN
obliterate it using fact and logic?
Wouldn't that have been a far more enlightened performance? Wouldn't
that have better shown how the conspiracy theory is not credible?
That's what Mark Lane did to E. Howard Hunt in the Liberty Lobby trial.
All of which begs the question how informed can Bugliosi's book be if he
treats opposing opinion like that?
When the doctor tried to explain his position, Bugliosi cut him off
saying, "So you're right and the eight other doctors at Parkland were
wrong?!"
That's not a valid question.
Why can't you grasp this, David?
ricland
--
Who Shot JFK?
http://tinyurl.com/247ybb
David Von Pein
Ric probably never even HEARD of V. Bugliosi before March 16 or 17,
2007. (Just a hunch.)
But I'm almost positive that Ric-Kook hadn't the slightest idea that
VB was involved in the '86 Oswald Docu-Trial before mid-March 2007.
(Any takers on that bet?)
Re. the "trial" --- VB was playing the role of "prosecutor" at the '86
Mock Trial...sure. That's definitely true. So what?
But his 1,632-page book isn't going to be a "trial" setting in front
of a jury. (Unless you wish to consider the reading audience "the
jury", which I suppose could be true in a certain sense.)
Ric doesn't have any idea about Vincent's track record; i.e., VB never
once took a case as LA Deputy D.A. where he felt the defendant was
innocent. Not his style.
And we also have these two quotes from VB for Ric to skew and mangle
(as per what has become his norm). Is all of this merely "schlock"
being "peddled" by a "guttersnipe", Mr. Kook?......
"I agree with all of {Gerald} Posner's conclusions -- that Oswald
killed Kennedy and acted alone -- but I disagree with his methodology.
There's a credibility problem. When he is confronted with a situation
antithetical to the view he's taking, he ignores or distorts it." --
VB
~~~~~~
"If there's one thing I take pride in, it's that I never, ever make a
charge without supporting it. You might not agree with me, but I
invariably offer an enormous amount of support for my position." -- VB
RICLAND
I suppose I have been unduly harsh on Bugliosi but that's because I was
so turned off by his performance in the mock trial.
Could you present excepts from his book on the key assassination issues
so that I can direct my attention to the case, not the man?
David Von Pein
And the Wecht v. Bugliosi fray is worth the price of admission each
and every time it's cued up. .....
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4zIBSqUEP94
Wecht actually holds his own pretty well during that confrontation, I
must admit. But VB gets his main point across...that point being, in
case you missed it.....
"AS FAR AS THE AVAILABLE MEDICAL EVIDENCE IS CONCERNED, PRESIDENT
KENNEDY WAS SHOT FROM BEHIND! NO THEORIES CAN BE POSTULATED TO SUPPORT
THE IDEA THAT SHOTS STRUCK PRESIDENT KENNEDY FROM THE FRONT OR THE
RIGHT-FRONT OF THE LIMOUSINE".*
* = Slightly paraphrased quote of VB's (using my own memory of the
trial). VB, above, was actually reading a verbatim 1974 quote made by
Dr. Wecht himself.
Ric is a disgrace. He tries to impress with his knowledge of the case,
and he doesn't even know enough to call Cyril Wecht by name. Lovely.
And from one short YouTube clip, Ric has determined that Vincent
Bugliosi is all of the following things --- A "guttersnipe", a "cheap
lawyer", a "schlock lawyer", and a person who sounds like a
"functionally illiterate street hustler".
Ric, in short, is a rabid CT-Kook who doesn't have the slightest idea
what the hell he's babbling about with respect to one of the most
respected lawyers in America--Vince T. Bugliosi.
As I said, Ric, you're a disgrace.
~~~~~~~
ANOTHER SALVO FROM V.B.:
"The surgeons who conducted the autopsy on President Kennedy's
body....plus ALL NINE --- even Wecht, even Wecht --- all nine forensic
pathologists who reviewed the photographic evidence and the X-rays of
the President's wounds for the House Select Committee on
Assassinations agreed that the two bullets that struck President
Kennedy were fired from behind....the upper-back wound and the wound
to the rear of the President's head being ENTRANCE wounds." -- VB
David Von Pein
I'll be presenting dozens and dozens of excerpts in my book review for
"Reclaiming History", which is a review that will probably be coming
in late June 2007.
Todd W. Vaughan
LOL, that's not what he said.
>
> That's not a valid question.
>
> Why can't you grasp this, David?
>
> ricland
>
> --
> Who Shot JFK?http://tinyurl.com/247ybb- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
David Von Pein
What Vince actually said was:
"So, of the nine pathologists, Dr. Wecht, you're the only one that had
the honor and the integrity and the professional responsibility to
tell the truth to the American people....is that correct, Doctor?" --
VB
Todd W. Vaughan
That's right.
Hmm, why did RICLAND distort what Vince said?
David Von Pein
It's what CT-Kooks do best. Just look at Walt.
tomnln
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175272848.1...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
> WHY did toad vaughan DISTORT what Witness Lee J Bowers said?
I've never distorted anything Lee Bowers said.
Support your claim, asshole.
>
> http://www.whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1175272848.1...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 11:19 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>> "LOL, that's not what he said." <<<
>
> >> What Vince actually said was:
>
> >> "So, of the nine pathologists, Dr. Wecht, you're the only one that had
> >> the honor and the integrity and the professional responsibility to
> >> tell the truth to the American people....is that correct, Doctor?" --
> >> VB
>
> > That's right.
>
> > Hmm, why did RICLAND distort what Vince said?- Hide quoted text -
tomnln
Your own words Prove you a PAID LIAR.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175279976....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Todd W. Vaughan
> Your LIES ara HERE>>>http://www.whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> Your own words Prove you a PAID LIAR.
Nothing there shows me distorting ANYTHING Bowers said.
You're a liar.
Ellen is too.
>
> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1175279976....@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Mar 30, 2:16 pm, "tomnln" <tom...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> WHY did toad vaughan DISTORT what Witness Lee J Bowers said?
>
> > I've never distorted anything Lee Bowers said.
>
> > Support your claim, asshole.
>
> >>http://www.whokilledjfk.net/todd_vaughan.htm
>
> >> "Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaughan2...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >> messagenews:1175272848.1...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Mar 30, 11:19 am, "David Von Pein" <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>> "LOL, that's not what he said." <<<
>
> >> >> What Vince actually said was:
>
> >> >> "So, of the nine pathologists, Dr. Wecht, you're the only one that had
> >> >> the honor and the integrity and the professional responsibility to
> >> >> tell the truth to the American people....is that correct, Doctor?" --
> >> >> VB
>
> >> > That's right.
>
> >> > Hmm, why did RICLAND distort what Vince said?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
Why so late?
Anthony Marsh
>>>> "You saw this little guttersnipe in action. In the mock trial when he cross-examined that forensic MD who disagrees with SBT, Bugliosi wouldn't let the doctor talk." <<<
>
> And the Wecht v. Bugliosi fray is worth the price of admission each
> and every time it's cued up. .....
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=4zIBSqUEP94
>
> Wecht actually holds his own pretty well during that confrontation, I
> must admit. But VB gets his main point across...that point being, in
> case you missed it.....
>
> "AS FAR AS THE AVAILABLE MEDICAL EVIDENCE IS CONCERNED, PRESIDENT
> KENNEDY WAS SHOT FROM BEHIND! NO THEORIES CAN BE POSTULATED TO SUPPORT
> THE IDEA THAT SHOTS STRUCK PRESIDENT KENNEDY FROM THE FRONT OR THE
> RIGHT-FRONT OF THE LIMOUSINE".*
>
> * = Slightly paraphrased quote of VB's (using my own memory of the
> trial). VB, above, was actually reading a verbatim 1974 quote made by
> Dr. Wecht himself.
>
> Ric is a disgrace. He tries to impress with his knowledge of the case,
> and he doesn't even know enough to call Cyril Wecht by name. Lovely.
>
I know enough to talk to Cyril in person. YOU do not.
Anthony Marsh
You've already given us thousands of reviews.
David Von Pein
Do you think I'm Evelyn Wood?
It's going to take at least 2 to 3 weeks to read it all.
Anthony Marsh
You should be working on it now. Just start the praise and fill in the
blanks later. Again, what is the publication date?
tomnln
Read it & Weep Criminal.
"Todd W. Vaughan" <twvaug...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1175285598.2...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On Mar 29, 2:15 pm, RICLAND <blackwr...@lycos.com> wrote:
>> ecag...@tx.rr.com wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah but we have you to thank for telling
>>> us that Oswald was a "witness/patsy" who
>>> was zapped in a mob hit by Ruby".. Sorry
>>> we were so stubborn about not believing
>>> those 2 stinker posts by you and your
>>> nUtTy claims like Beverley Oliver saw a
>>> GK shooter" and "18 Doctors saw the neck
>>> wound as an entry wound.."
>>> Why not get Griffith, or Chico to help
>>> you out?
>>> MR ;~D
>> Ed, please -- get some new material.
>>
>> Get Luther to help you. He's as dumb as a bag of nails, but at least his
>> material is fresh.
>>
>> Or contact me by email. I'll help you write your posts.
>>
>> Or make shit up. Who's gonna know? Nobody reads your posts anyway.
>>
>> I don't care how you do it, Ed, but stop wasting bandwidth -- please!
>>
>> ricland
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Who Shot JFK?http://tinyurl.com/2qgodj
>
> In another post I've provided the testimony of over 30 people who
> knew
> Oswald, who -- whether they liked him or not -- all insisted he
> never
> displayed any neurotic or psychotic behavior they had seen.
>
>
> Apparently his four known attempts at homocide
> have no bearing on your opinion?
>
Apparently you find nothing neurotic or psychotic about the CIA's 27
attempts at homicide on Castro.
> Apparently the fact that he beat up his
> wife often has no bearing on your opinion?
>
A lot of husbands beat their wives, unfortunately. That does not make
them Presidential assassins. I don't hear you citing the CIA officers
who beat up their wives.
> Apparently his gun waving in the
> Soviet Embassy has no bearing
> on your opinion?
>
There is no proof that happened.
> Apparently the fact he was a
> pathological liar has no bearing
> on your opinion?
>
What is your proof that he was a pathological liar? Lies from the cops
who interviewed him, but did not dare to record the interviews?
> Apparently the fact Oswald was
> a user and abuser of people has no
> bearing on your opinion?
>
What the Hell does that have to do with assassination?
>
> Apparently the fact Oswald once
> told a friend he wanted to kill the
> President of the United States has
> no bearing on your opinion?
>
Nonsense. Prove it.
>
>
>
David Von Pein
May 29, 2007.
But why would you care, Tony? Per your earlier comments about having
already seen page 732 (re. the "gunsmoke" thing), you must have your
copy right now. Right? ~wink/smirk~